Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 30.07.2012, 16:16
NotAllThere's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Baselland
Posts: 12,973
Groaned at 206 Times in 183 Posts
Thanked 18,806 Times in 7,663 Posts
NotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond repute
Re: World's largest hydropower project goes fully operational ( China )

Quote:
View Post
...I do not think that we are ready to handle the dangers and risk of nuclear energy and we should be able to survive without it till we evolve into more conscious beings.
The power of ad hominem arguments is sometimes so ...hard... to...resist... .
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank NotAllThere for this useful post:
  #42  
Old 30.07.2012, 16:17
Dark Blue's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Thalwil
Posts: 379
Groaned at 18 Times in 17 Posts
Thanked 411 Times in 242 Posts
Dark Blue has earned the respect of manyDark Blue has earned the respect of manyDark Blue has earned the respect of many
Re: World's largest hydropower project goes fully operational ( China )

Quote:
View Post
you don't get it because your assumption that nuclear waste is 'dumped' is not correct. nuclear waste is probably the most carefully managed waste of any power generation method.
You call burying the waste into land "management", I call it dumping.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html

According to this link it takes 1000 years for the waste to decay to its original radioactivity level and 100000 years to fully decay.

How can you ensure that 700-800 years later, people will not try to dig it with the aim of finding something interesting. Aren't we trying to dig every archeological field today?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 30.07.2012, 16:20
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 11,072
Groaned at 240 Times in 203 Posts
Thanked 23,248 Times in 9,883 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: World's largest hydropower project goes fully operational ( China )

Quote:
View Post
Fukushima is just one incident. We have witnessed Three Mile Island, Chernobyl disasters as well. I think we have right to "panic".
Why is it that when a frog and three lizards are killed by a radioactive leak that it's okay to panic, but when thosands of coal miners are killed in China or millions of children suffer asthma from pollution, that is just an inconvenience?

There have been no deaths from Fukushima save a guy who fell off the roof. The number of deaths in the other incidents have also been far lower than initially predicted. Meanwhile deaths from pollution, global warming etc are swept under the carpet as much as possible to avoid anybody tarnishing the greenwash.

Quote:
View Post
P.S: as per definition all nuclear power plants need to be located next to water resource. This can be a river, a lake,sea or ocean. Other wise, it will not be possible to cool the reactors, also generate the steam used for the turbines.
True, but not every river or lake can support a tsunami. Of course with global warming there will soon be more water from which tsunamis can start.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 30.07.2012, 16:23
Dark Blue's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Thalwil
Posts: 379
Groaned at 18 Times in 17 Posts
Thanked 411 Times in 242 Posts
Dark Blue has earned the respect of manyDark Blue has earned the respect of manyDark Blue has earned the respect of many
Re: World's largest hydropower project goes fully operational ( China )

Quote:
View Post
Everyone's heard of these, because of the "panic", but how many people died, and how many were severely impacted by the radiation fallout? It's not actually that many.
Great! so we have to wait for people to die first? Is that what it is going to take for us to consider the effects seriously? When your shoe legs are lose, do you wait till you fall?

Additionally, the rate of cancer incidents has dramatically increased in northern Turkey after Chernobyl. So you need to consider the indirect effects of those disasters.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 30.07.2012, 16:28
Dark Blue's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Thalwil
Posts: 379
Groaned at 18 Times in 17 Posts
Thanked 411 Times in 242 Posts
Dark Blue has earned the respect of manyDark Blue has earned the respect of manyDark Blue has earned the respect of many
Re: World's largest hydropower project goes fully operational ( China )

Quote:
View Post
Why is it that when a frog and three lizards are killed by a radioactive leak that it's okay to panic, but when thosands of coal miners are killed in China or millions of children suffer asthma from pollution, that is just an inconvenience?

There have been no deaths from Fukushima save a guy who fell off the roof. The number of deaths in the other incidents have also been far lower than initially predicted. Meanwhile deaths from pollution, global warming etc are swept under the carpet as much as possible to avoid anybody tarnishing the greenwash.



True, but not every river or lake can support a tsunami. Of course with global warming there will soon be more water from which tsunamis can start.
I am going to quote my self

"Anyways, I am not saying that coal is the answer. what I am saying is that I do not think that we are ready to handle the dangers and risk of nuclear energy and we should be able to survive without it till we evolve into more conscious beings. "
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 30.07.2012, 16:35
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 11,072
Groaned at 240 Times in 203 Posts
Thanked 23,248 Times in 9,883 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: World's largest hydropower project goes fully operational ( China )

Quote:
View Post
You call burying the waste into land "management", I call it dumping.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html

According to this link it takes 1000 years for the waste to decay to its original radioactivity level and 100000 years to fully decay.

How can you ensure that 700-800 years later, people will not try to dig it with the aim of finding something interesting. Aren't we trying to dig every archeological field today?
the vast bulk of radioactive waste is actually mildly radioactive or even non-radioactive but just being disposed that way due to safety culture, for example overalls worn in nuclear plants, bits of equipment from plants that are no longer needed and that may or may not at some point have been in contact with something radioactive. There is also nuclear waste that is not from power plants, for example from hospitals, from research, from the military. So even without nuclear power, there would still be facilities for taking care of nuclear waste. And a lot of that waste is being taken care of precisely because nobody is taking any risk, not because every single item is dangerous. Then you have to distinguish between levels of radiocativity. Isotopes with high levels of radiation are decaying quickly, otherwise the levels of radiataion wouldn't be so high. It is the isotopes with low levels that will still be radioactive thousands of years from now. And then a lot of things are mildly radioactive. depending on where you live, the soil may be radioactive and a lot of food is radioactive. If you go to a spa and the water is coming from some deep fissure then its probably radioactive and you're actually paying for the pleasure in sitting in it without any protection and the staff who work there aren't being monitored in the same way that nuclear plant staff are. I previously had a neighbour who worked as a nuclear inspector and he told me some resort spas have levels of radioactivity that would get a power plant closed immediately.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 30.07.2012, 16:38
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 11,072
Groaned at 240 Times in 203 Posts
Thanked 23,248 Times in 9,883 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: World's largest hydropower project goes fully operational ( China )

Quote:
View Post
I am going to quote my self

"Anyways, I am not saying that coal is the answer...
And I am saying, that no matter how many pretty windmills the governments and the various anti-nuclear organisations are printing on their glossy broschures, they know that the real bulk of power required to replace existing nuclear will come from fossil fuels. Maybe we will develop a higher level of consciousness at some point in the future, but what good will it do us if we have wrecked the global eco-system by then with our global warming and pollution? This is a real problem with real damage, and its happening here and now. I am very much in favour of windmills and other alternative sources myself, but we're not yet ready to cover all our needs with them and the best bet until we get there is the best thing we have available to us here and now and that is the responsible use of nuclear.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #48  
Old 30.07.2012, 16:40
NotAllThere's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Baselland
Posts: 12,973
Groaned at 206 Times in 183 Posts
Thanked 18,806 Times in 7,663 Posts
NotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond repute
Re: World's largest hydropower project goes fully operational ( China )

I think the evidence is clear: nuclear power, so far as deaths through accidents and damage to the environemnt is concerned, is better than coal and HEP. So it seems pretty obvious that we are capable of handling the " the dangers and risk of nuclear energy".

Nuclear energy, ironically, is safer than other power generation precisely because (in comparison) it is carefully controlled due to the irrational fears of the general population and politicians.

The notion that nuclear power plants will cause nuclear winter is daft. Nuclear power plants don't produce nuclear explosions - it's physically not possible. Of about the same order of "not possible" as that of a coal powered station suddenly turninging it's entire stock to diamonds.

To make a nuclear explosion you have to first machine fissionable material to the correct shape, then get the components really close together, all the same time. It requires precision explosives to do this.

It seems that the real barrier is lack of "consciousness" - an inability to think rationally, clearly and logically - resulting in stupendous ignorance and fear of the only real solution to the power requirements of humanity.
__________________
Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank NotAllThere for this useful post:
  #49  
Old 30.07.2012, 16:57
Dark Blue's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Thalwil
Posts: 379
Groaned at 18 Times in 17 Posts
Thanked 411 Times in 242 Posts
Dark Blue has earned the respect of manyDark Blue has earned the respect of manyDark Blue has earned the respect of many
Re: World's largest hydropower project goes fully operational ( China )

Quote:
View Post
I think the evidence is clear: nuclear power, so far as deaths through accidents and damage to the environemnt is concerned, is better than coal and HEP. So it seems pretty obvious that we are capable of handling the " the dangers and risk of nuclear energy".
I can not believe you guys. You really are saying that since there isn't any death so far the nuclear power plants are safe.

Quote:
View Post
Nuclear energy, ironically, is safer than other power generation precisely because (in comparison) it is carefully controlled due to the irrational fears of the general population and politicians.
Controlled using what metrics actually. How can you be prepared for a danger that you don't know it exists. The Fukushima power plant was protected against tsunamis with 10m high walls, but the tsunami hit the plant was 14 meters high. So which level of risk management are we talking about here.

Quote:
View Post
It seems that the real barrier is lack of "consciousness" - an inability to think rationally, clearly and logically - resulting in stupendous ignorance and fear of the only real solution to the power requirements of humanity.
I see that you see great level of rationalism in your thoughts, well so do I. i believe there are much safer and cleaner ways to produce energy than the nuclear power plants. I believe there is still much more room to increase efficiency in energy transfer and usage.

Edit: just final note, Germany has produced 25% of its electricity from renewable resource in the first half of 2012. They aim 35% in the near future.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8IQIA720120726

Yes it is still not 100%, but I would say it is a pretty good start.

Last edited by Dark Blue; 30.07.2012 at 17:20.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 30.07.2012, 17:31
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 11,072
Groaned at 240 Times in 203 Posts
Thanked 23,248 Times in 9,883 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: World's largest hydropower project goes fully operational ( China )

Quote:
View Post
Edit: just final note, Germany has produced 25% of its electricity from renewable resource in the first half of 2012. They aim 35% in the near future.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8IQIA720120726
With this type of statement, the essence is often not in what is said but in what is not said.

The article says, the amount of electricity produced was, when measured and expressed as a kWh figure (a measure of energy that is in itself an insult in the age of SI), 25% of the amount of energy they consumed in that period. That is not at all the same as saying that 25% of consumption was from renewable sources. Power generation companies have to match supply with demand on a minute by minute level, and the fact that there was quite a lot of wind earlier in the day is of little use when 10 million Germans switch on their TV sets to watch Sportschau.

And then, even if magically, German TV would syncronise their sports coverage with the wind, it's still only 25%. So in a world without nuclear, guess where the other 75% are coming from. Cough cough see that radiation settling in your garden?
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 30.07.2012, 17:35
Carlos R's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Roundn'about Basel
Posts: 7,238
Groaned at 105 Times in 95 Posts
Thanked 9,934 Times in 4,178 Posts
Carlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond repute
Re: World's largest hydropower project goes fully operational ( China )

Quote:
View Post
...the fact that there was quite a lot of wind earlier in the day is of little use when 10 million Germans switch on their TV sets to watch Sportschau.

Haha. I've just thought of a way of getting everyone off their backsides and doing rather than watching sports...

On that note, touch rugby in Basel: tonight - 19:00-21:00 hrs @ Pruntrutermatte Sports Ground.

I'm outta here.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 30.07.2012, 17:39
NotAllThere's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Baselland
Posts: 12,973
Groaned at 206 Times in 183 Posts
Thanked 18,806 Times in 7,663 Posts
NotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond repute
Re: World's largest hydropower project goes fully operational ( China )

Quote:
View Post
I can not believe you guys. You really are saying that since there isn't any death so far the nuclear power plants are safe....
Your logic is... bizarre.

There have been fewer deaths, per amount of energy generated, in the past 50 years of nuclear power operation than from any significant source. It seems not unreasonable to me, therefore to say that, per MW, nuclear power plants are indeed safer than coal or hydroelectric or gas.

Nuclear power plants produce, per MW, less toxic waste than coal plants - even those with scrubbers.

Nuclear power plants produce, per MW, less radioactive waste than coal plants - even those with scrubbers.

To take these facts and still conclude that nuclear power is more dangerous than coal/HEP, and worse for the environment does seem to indicate a refusal to accept clear evidence - and that, to me, is irrational. That compounded with woolly thoughs about "conciousness" and you've lost all credibility.

Your accusation of me as irrational seems to follow the argument. "You say nuclear power is safe, I know it isn't, therefore you are irrational". Do you have any actual quantified evidence that nuclear power is more dangerous than hydroelectric power, in terms of danger per MW, which seems to me to be the only meaningful measure, since we are talking in terms of risk? Or is it just a vague uncomfortable uneasiness, which equally could be due to that dodgy mackeral you had for dinner.

Anyway, my argument is not against investing in efficiency and, indeed alternatives. But we need the efficiency, the alternative AND nuclear power. The first two alone won't cut the mustard.
__________________
Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 30.07.2012, 17:42
Dark Blue's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Thalwil
Posts: 379
Groaned at 18 Times in 17 Posts
Thanked 411 Times in 242 Posts
Dark Blue has earned the respect of manyDark Blue has earned the respect of manyDark Blue has earned the respect of many
Re: World's largest hydropower project goes fully operational ( China )

Quote:
View Post
With this type of statement, the essence is often not in what is said but in what is not said.

The article says, the amount of electricity produced was, when measured and expressed as a kWh figure (a measure of energy that is in itself an insult in the age of SI), 25% of the amount of energy they consumed in that period. That is not at all the same as saying that 25% of consumption was from renewable sources. Power generation companies have to match supply with demand on a minute by minute level, and the fact that there was quite a lot of wind earlier in the day is of little use when 10 million Germans switch on their TV sets to watch Sportschau.

And then, even if magically, German TV would syncronise their sports coverage with the wind, it's still only 25%. So in a world without nuclear, guess where the other 75% are coming from. Cough cough see that radiation settling in your garden?
My apologies but what is the difference betwen those two.

Please check your electricity bill, you will see that you are still charged by the kwh you used. Kwh hour is sgil used as the main energy usage and pricing unit.

I understand that you are knowledged enough to know that the majority of the energy is not used by the households, so our discussion should focus on the overall consumption.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 30.07.2012, 17:44
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 11,072
Groaned at 240 Times in 203 Posts
Thanked 23,248 Times in 9,883 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: World's largest hydropower project goes fully operational ( China )

Quote:
View Post
Controlled using what metrics actually. How can you be prepared for a danger that you don't know it exists. The Fukushima power plant was protected against tsunamis with 10m high walls, but the tsunami hit the plant was 14 meters high. So which level of risk management are we talking about here.
It's called fail-safe design. Things are designed so that if they do fail, they fail in a safe state. Fukushima was one of thze oldest plants still in operation. There was another nuclear plant hit by the same tsunami just a short way from Fukushima that went down in perfect safety. Only we don't hear very much about that, or about how we can learn from it.

Nuclear plants can cause a lot of damage in a worst case scenario, and even then it is mostly local. Global warming causes a lot of damage in every scenario and that is pretty global. The fear of nuclear is really very much fuelled by people not understanding the statistics of risk.

Last edited by amogles; 30.07.2012 at 18:09.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 30.07.2012, 17:54
Dark Blue's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Thalwil
Posts: 379
Groaned at 18 Times in 17 Posts
Thanked 411 Times in 242 Posts
Dark Blue has earned the respect of manyDark Blue has earned the respect of manyDark Blue has earned the respect of many
Re: World's largest hydropower project goes fully operational ( China )

Quote:
View Post
Your logic is... bizarre.

There have been fewer deaths, per amount of energy generated, in the past 50 years of nuclear power operation than from any significant source. It seems not unreasonable to me, therefore to say that, per MW, nuclear power plants are indeed safer than coal or hydroelectric or gas.

Nuclear power plants produce, per MW, less toxic waste than coal plants - even those with scrubbers.

Nuclear power plants produce, per MW, less radioactive waste than coal plants - even those with scrubbers.

To take these facts and still conclude that nuclear power is more dangerous than coal/HEP, and worse for the environment does seem to indicate a refusal to accept clear evidence
- and that, to me, is irrational. That compounded with woolly thoughs about "conciousness" and you've lost all credibility.

Your accusation of me as irrational seems to follow the argument. "You say nuclear power is safe, I know it isn't, therefore you are irrational". Do you have any actual quantified evidence that nuclear power is more dangerous than hydroelectric power, in terms of danger per MW, which seems to me to be the only meaningful measure, since we are talking in terms of risk? Or is it just a vague uncomfortable uneasiness, which equally could be due to that dodgy mackeral you had for dinner.

Anyway, my argument is not against investing in efficiency and, indeed alternatives. But
we need the efficiency, the alternative AND nuclear power. The first two alone won't cut the mustard.
I didnt mean to say you are irrational, I said you see clear evidence in your argument and I see clarity in mine..no need to be offended
Yes may there hasnt been so many death so far.but it does not reduce potential of it.my arguement is that todays technology prone to great risk and therefor we should invest in other safer resources.let me repeat again, i am not saying coal is the answer, but there are better ways, why not use them in the most effective way.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 30.07.2012, 18:00
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 14,296
Groaned at 276 Times in 182 Posts
Thanked 17,699 Times in 7,471 Posts
Phil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: World's largest hydropower project goes fully operational ( China )

Quote:
View Post
I didnt mean to say you are irrational, I said you see clear evidence in your argument and I see clarity in mine..no need to be offended
Yes may there hasnt been so many death so far.but it does not reduce potential of it.my arguement is that todays technology prone to great risk and therefor we should invest in other safer resources.let me repeat again, i am not saying coal is the answer, but there are better ways, why not use them in the most effective way.
but do you agree that nuclear is the safest? we can measure that based on deaths right now. you only speculate that there might be a big bad nuclear bogeyman in the future that kills lots of people, but history doesn't seem to bear out that fear - and the same argument could be applied to any other kind of power generation.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 30.07.2012, 18:05
Dark Blue's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Thalwil
Posts: 379
Groaned at 18 Times in 17 Posts
Thanked 411 Times in 242 Posts
Dark Blue has earned the respect of manyDark Blue has earned the respect of manyDark Blue has earned the respect of many
Re: World's largest hydropower project goes fully operational ( China )

Quote:
View Post
It's called fail-safe design. Things are designed so that if they do fail, they fail in a safe state. Fukushima was one of thze oldest plants still in operation. There was another nuclear plant hit by the same tsunami just a short way from Fukushima that went down in perfect. Only we don't hear very much about that, or about how we can learn from it.

Nuclear plants can cause a lot of damage in a worst case scenario, and even then it is mostly local. Global warming causes a lot of damage in every scenario and that is pretty global. The fear of nuclear is really very much fuelled by people not understanding the statistics of risk.
Let me tell you what I know about statistics.The walls of fukushima were 10meters high due to the estimations done by black-scholes risk modelling,which takes the most plausible scenario in most simplistic ways. Additionally, even though fukushima was designed with a fail safe functionality,this system did not work due to the effects of earthquake and the saltwater within the cooling systems.
Your argument of fukushima was an old plant is yhe exact same thing what people from 30 years in the future will say about our new technologies today.
You can not be prepared for the dangers that you dont know they exist.

My apologies for the typos.i am in the train and it is damn hard typing from my mobile..

Last edited by Dark Blue; 30.07.2012 at 19:40. Reason: fixed typos
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 30.07.2012, 18:06
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 11,072
Groaned at 240 Times in 203 Posts
Thanked 23,248 Times in 9,883 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: World's largest hydropower project goes fully operational ( China )

Quote:
View Post
My apologies but what is the difference betwen those two.
There are worlds of difference. Power companies have to schedule production. At different times of day there are different levels of consumption and the power companies meet that by a mixture of planning ahead and short-term response. That means that in some cases entire power plants will start up and shut down in the course of the day. Other power plants will reduce or increase output during the course of the day. Some power plants are slow to start and to shut down so they need to be scheduled well ahead. There are also short-term reserves, as no forecast is totally accurate so these are extra power sources that can come on at very short notice. All this requires reserves that are up and running and staffed without necessarily being productive.

But then the customer (that is you) doesn't just want reliability of supply but also doesn't want to pay through the nose for it so schedulers have to make sure the cheaper power plants take the brunt of the load. That is nuclear plants, which are extremely slow to start up or switch down take the base load. That means they are virtually always on and produce the really insanely cheap electricity and hence the big profits that allow the same companies to build loss-making windmills. Now wind and solar is not schedulable. So when the wind suddenly starts blowing, there is another plant that has to go down quickly, and has to come back up quickly when it stops blowing. That is typically a gas plant, a type of plant that can react extremely quickly but is rather expensive. As installed wind capacity increases, installed gas is increasing too as all this standy power is helping stabilise the supply. But there is one thing that is more insanely costly than a gas plant that's working, and that's a gas plant that's on standby or low power not producing much output but staffed and equipped as one that is. So every second that the windmills are turning, that's insane backup costs churning away in the background. So basically you have two complete trains of power generation working to do the work of one.

But that's not enough. Because they can't afford to fully match the wind generation with gas, they don't. So when the wind is blowing full power they don't have enough gas plants to power down and the excess power from the wind is going to waste. But because the power from the windmills was actually available, it does count towards national production. The difference is being made up through energy imports, most probably nuclear from France which can suddenly be sold as clean wind power because, after all, what is generated is being consumed, right?. Hence they take care to say, "we generated x amount of kWh which is 25% of our production" and don't say "we covered 25% of our needs with renewables", a totally different statement, but one that is intentionally meant to confuse.

Quote:
View Post
Please check your electricity bill, you will see that you are still charged by the kwh you used. Kwh hour is sgil used as the main energy usage and pricing unit.
But my bill was written by accountants, not by scientists.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 30.07.2012, 18:09
Dark Blue's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Thalwil
Posts: 379
Groaned at 18 Times in 17 Posts
Thanked 411 Times in 242 Posts
Dark Blue has earned the respect of manyDark Blue has earned the respect of manyDark Blue has earned the respect of many
Re: World's largest hydropower project goes fully operational ( China )

Quote:
View Post
but do you agree that nuclear is the safest? we can measure that based on deaths right now. you only speculate that there might be a big bad nuclear bogeyman in the future that kills lots of people, but history doesn't seem to bear out that fear - and the same argument could be applied to any other kind of power generation.
No,my definition of safety is based on the managable risk and nuclear ppower plants falls behind compared to the other alternatives.by the way , does anybody know how many peolle have dided so far frum solar and windpower?
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 30.07.2012, 18:13
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 11,072
Groaned at 240 Times in 203 Posts
Thanked 23,248 Times in 9,883 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: World's largest hydropower project goes fully operational ( China )

Quote:
View Post
No,my definition of safety is based on the managable risk and nuclear ppower plants falls behind compared to the other alternatives.by the way , does anybody know how many peolle have dided so far frum solar and windpower?
There is a statistic somewhere and the figure is considerably higher per unit of energy than nuclear.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Misery Bear goes to the World Cup olygirl Jokes/funnies 7 19.06.2010 20:28
World's largest miniature train jrspet General off-topic 7 24.12.2009 10:49


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:58.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0