Germany Votes To Abandon Most Green Energy Subsidies

[jc456]

Which has nothing to do with the design or construction of wind turbines. How much power do you get out of a natural gas power plant that has no natural gas?

Do you think countries, states, cities, whatever, that purchase wind turbine power systems are unaware that they need wind to make power?

I'm sure they do and use fossil fuels for steady electricity. Not backup, but main power.

 

[Skull Pilot]

17% of advertised capacity? Bullshit. There is a performance gap but, in "real life" it is closer to 1-3% of advertised capacity than whatever nonsense you think you know. Find us a turbine maker who guarantees output with no wind.

http://www.ewea.org/events/workshops/wp-content/uploads/proceedings/Analysis_of_Operating_Wind_farms/EWEA Workshop Lyon - 5-2 Michael Brower AWS Truepower.pdf

Germany's wind power chaos should be a warning to the UK

They are taken in by the wind industry’s trick of vastly exaggerating the usefulness of wind farms by talking in terms of their “capacity”, hiding the fact that their actual output will waver between 100 per cent of capacity and zero. In Britain it averages around 25 per cent; in Germany it is lower, just 17 per cent.

As I said no power source that only produces 17% of its rated capacity is worth investing in

 

[Old Rocks]

Because it's irrelevant. How come you never talk about the true cost of power systems that have emitted gigatons of carbon compounds into our atmosphere?

Of course it's relevant

If you factor in the fact that actual performance is one fifth or less of rated capacity then actual cost is more than 5 times those stated.

and the energy I would promote emits nothing and works at near 90% capacity all day every day

Really? Emits nothing? Then why don't you just go in and take some pictures of the cores at Fukushima? The Japanese would very much appreciate knowing what is going on with those cores. Seems that 'nothing' being emitted there is too hot even for robot survival.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Because it's irrelevant. How come you never talk about the true cost of power systems that have emitted gigatons of carbon compounds into our atmosphere?

Of course it's relevant

If you factor in the fact that actual performance is one fifth or less of rated capacity then actual cost is more than 5 times those stated.

and the energy I would promote emits nothing and works at near 90% capacity all day every day

Really? Emits nothing? Then why don't you just go in and take some pictures of the cores at Fukushima? The Japanese would very much appreciate knowing what is going on with those cores. Seems that 'nothing' being emitted there is too hot even for robot survival.

Funny for a guy who says he's all pro science you really like to ignore the new tech being researched don't you?

 

[Old Rocks]

I assume you mean nuclear power. I also like nuclear power, but it has a very high capital cost, it is not cheap to operate and there are restrictions on where it can be built. The same is true of hydroelectricity, geothermal, wave, tide and OTEC power systems.

These days, the term "alternative energy" means an alternative to fossil fuel. That goes beyond just wind and solar.

Only if you use today's obsolete reactors as a model.

New tech promises to be safer and cheaper than our current outdated reactors

New tech promises, as nuclear fusion has been promised for three generations now. In the meantime, there is a very large problem with the emission of GHGs from fossil fuel plants.

 

[Crick]

Claiming you have a cure for future Fukushimas doesn't alter the fact that Fukushima happened. Every reactor that has failed catastrophically was built as safe as then current technology would allow. Didn't help much, did it.

 

[Old Rocks]

I agree, but not cheaper than many of the alternatives.

And, of course, you will have to overcome the memories of Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

And the memories of previous promises by that industry. Power so cheap that it need not be monitered, absolutely failsafe, and cheap to build.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I assume you mean nuclear power. I also like nuclear power, but it has a very high capital cost, it is not cheap to operate and there are restrictions on where it can be built. The same is true of hydroelectricity, geothermal, wave, tide and OTEC power systems.

These days, the term "alternative energy" means an alternative to fossil fuel. That goes beyond just wind and solar.

Only if you use today's obsolete reactors as a model.

New tech promises to be safer and cheaper than our current outdated reactors

New tech promises, as nuclear fusion has been promised for three generations now. In the meantime, there is a very large problem with the emission of GHGs from fossil fuel plants.

And the best way to quickly curb those fossil fuel emissions is nuclear power

Wind and solar cannot replace fossil fuel power plants as quickly and efficiently as next generation nuclear power can

 

[Skull Pilot]

Claiming you have a cure for future Fukushimas doesn't alter the fact that Fukushima happened. And you know the folks that built Fukushima told the Japanese people that it was as safe as safe could be. Trouble is, no one has PROOF.

Nuclear power while the accidents are very newsworthy in reality has a very good safety record

 

[Old Rocks]

Because it's irrelevant. How come you never talk about the true cost of power systems that have emitted gigatons of carbon compounds into our atmosphere?

Of course it's relevant

If you factor in the fact that actual performance is one fifth or less of rated capacity then actual cost is more than 5 times those stated.

and the energy I would promote emits nothing and works at near 90% capacity all day every day

Really? Emits nothing? Then why don't you just go in and take some pictures of the cores at Fukushima? The Japanese would very much appreciate knowing what is going on with those cores. Seems that 'nothing' being emitted there is too hot even for robot survival.

Funny for a guy who says he's all pro science you really like to ignore the new tech being researched don't you?

On the contrary, research it, for sure. Then build a prototype, and let me see the cost, then have the dangers assessed by real scientists not working for the industry. When you dealing with a machine that when it fails, can make thousands of square miles uninhabitable, you had best have all your ducks in a row.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Because it's irrelevant. How come you never talk about the true cost of power systems that have emitted gigatons of carbon compounds into our atmosphere?

Of course it's relevant

If you factor in the fact that actual performance is one fifth or less of rated capacity then actual cost is more than 5 times those stated.

and the energy I would promote emits nothing and works at near 90% capacity all day every day

Really? Emits nothing? Then why don't you just go in and take some pictures of the cores at Fukushima? The Japanese would very much appreciate knowing what is going on with those cores. Seems that 'nothing' being emitted there is too hot even for robot survival.

Funny for a guy who says he's all pro science you really like to ignore the new tech being researched don't you?

On the contrary, research it, for sure. Then build a prototype, and let me see the cost, then have the dangers assessed by real scientists not working for the industry. When you dealing with a machine that when it fails, can make thousands of square miles uninhabitable, you had best have all your ducks in a row.

We built an integral fast reactor that was proven to be self limiting and recycled its own spent fuel to the point of burning over 90% of its fissile material

But a bunch of idiots who watched a bad Jane Fonda movie and confused reality with fiction pulled the plug

There are already molten salt reactors being tested

But we here in the US are as usual ruled by emotion and shortsightedness.

We refuse to entertain any research on nuclear power and we refuse to implement any recycling of partially spent nuclear fuel

Instead we waste money on pie in the sky wind farms that just do not deliver

 

[Crick]

Skull, I disagree with your prior comment. Historically, nuclear power plants have taken decades to bring online. Even with improved regulatory environment, they are not as fast to put up as wind and solar and still dramatically more expensive.

Be that as it may, I repeat I still support nuclear power and think they should be built where it is safe to do so.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Skull, I disagree with your prior comment. Historically, nuclear power plants have taken decades to bring online. Even with improved regulatory environment, they are not as fast to put up as wind and solar and still dramatically more expensive.

Be that as it may, I repeat I still support nuclear power and think they should be built where it is safe to do so.

Because we have stuck with an inefficient design

and it's not the construction costs that are the hampering factor in speed it's the regulatory burdens.

I don't know how many ways I can say it. MS reactors do not need large tracts of land or huge concrete containment domes, they operate at atmosphere and self limiting and will burn the stockpiles of partially spent fuel we already have.

They can easily be plugged into existing power grids and can form a system of redundant point of use power generation

As I said we had a IF reactor on line that was proven to be safer and more efficient than any other reactor in this country and we pulled the plug because of a stupid movie

And in reality we could build wind farms non stop for a decade and not even come close to the emissions reductions that are said to be needed

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Claiming you have a cure for future Fukushimas doesn't alter the fact that Fukushima happened. Every reactor that has failed catastrophically was built as safe as then current technology would allow. Didn't help much, did it.

Every reactor that has failed catastrophically was built as safe as then current technology would allow.

Chernobyl was built as safe as it could be? LOL!

 

[Crick]

From the Russian point of view, yes. Do you actually believe that a new reactor will be perfectly safe? That it can not fail?

 

[Skull Pilot]

From the Russian point of view, yes. Do you actually believe that a new reactor will be perfectly safe? That it can not fail?

So you don't do anything unless there is a 0% chance of something going wrong?

You must never get out of bed because you are far more likely to die from an accident in your own home than from a nuclear plant disaster

And several designs have been proven to be self limiting since all the major nuclear accidents have happened because of failures in cooling systems it seems to me that these proven self limiting reactors should improve the already good safety record of nuclear power

 

[Weatherman2020]

From the Russian point of view, yes. Do you actually believe that a new reactor will be perfectly safe? That it can not fail?

Moonbat thinks there is technology that is 100% safe.

 

[Weatherman2020]

From the Russian point of view, yes. Do you actually believe that a new reactor will be perfectly safe? That it can not fail?

So you don't do anything unless there is a 0% chance of something going wrong?

You must never get out of bed because you are far more likely to die from an accident in your own home than from a nuclear plant disaster

And several designs have been proven to be self limiting since all the major nuclear accidents have happened because of failures in cooling systems it seems to me that these proven self limiting reactors should improve the already good safety record of nuclear power

Catch 22. Bed bugs in his bed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

From the Russian point of view, yes. Do you actually believe that a new reactor will be perfectly safe? That it can not fail?

From the Russian point of view, yes.

From the Russian point of view, graphite moderator and no containment structure
was the safest they could build?

You can't be serious.

Do you actually believe that a new reactor will be perfectly safe?

New designs that self scram and don't need electric coolant pumps sound pretty safe to me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Cheap" wind still needs fossil fuel backups. I guess it's not as cheap as you claim.
As shown by German electricity rates nearly 4 times ours.

Let's see, Two countries, A and B, were just formed out of the empty wilderness. Country A has built from scratch a 100% fossil fuel energy grid. Country B, of an identical size, population and total power consumption, has built a grid powered 50% by fossil fuel and 50% by wind. Which country then spends more per year for their energy? Why does the ZERO FUEL COST parameter just seem to go in one denier ear and out the other?

You never answered, how much nat gas backup do you need for the 50% wind portion of the grid?
How long does it take for wind to pay for itself?