If wind power has a capacity factor of 50% then the rest has to be made up with load following natural gas turbines for a constant output. Perhaps you should really try to grasp what a CF is.
If my shiny wind turbine has a CF of 50%, it does not prevent it to stay at zero production for several days if there is no wind. Likewise it could as well produce 200% of its capacity when the wind speed is 30% above the rated speed for days or weeks.
CFs are not used for what you think they are used, actually they are not "used at all", only in countries like the USA, each power plant is required to report its CF at the end of the year. In Germany there is AFAIK no such requirement, as that is a trade secret of the power plant owner. Why the funk would I report the CF of my most expensive coal plant to give my opponent an opportunity to outsmart me at the market?
Wind is cheap because wind is not reliable. Nuclear power can demand a higher price because it is reliable. Adding storage, load following power sources, arranging for shedding of load, or importing and exporting with nations with such load management, costs money. If the nuclear power plant was so "expensive" they why did anyone agree to this price guarantee? The answer is because it's more expensive to have to rely on "cheap" wind power.
This is complete nonsense. You buy energy at the european stock exchange. You pay per kWh. (More precisely MWh) You most of the time only see the price, you don't know where the power comes from and there are no "price guarantees" from anyone. The only exception is: you don't sell wind/solar via the stock market, but are happy with the guaranteed feed in tariff. Only renewables have guaranteed feed in tariffs, payed by the grid operator where you feed in. What he does is his business, probably selling the power at the stock exchange, probably having a consumer already.
No one who is planning a nuke is getting a guaranteed price from anywhere. Unless he makes a private contract with a consumer.
And in the grand schema wind and solar are cheaper than coal and nukes, no idea why you are resistant to the truth. Must be kind of bad childhood or something.
Germany's electric prices have gone up significantly since they started adding solar and wind, and there is no debate about the cause. And they are dropping since 5 - 10 years again... you seem to be out of the loop.
E.g. you want to buy "a band" of 2MW of electricity today, delivered tomorrow between 12:00 till 18:00 (hint: that are 6h * 2MW aka 12MWh)
Now you can make a wild guess from what plant the power will come if you have an idea about your counterpart. However in general you have no clue who is delivering the power.
And the more you are approaching peak hours or more precisely, hours were power demand is raising rapidly: the less a nuke can earn, because it is already running at max capacity, minus a few percent.
I'm so tired to repeat to idiots like you always the same truth abut electric power production.
If there is a power surge: nukes are maxed out. Coal or gas can increase but has costs. Solar and or wind might have a surplus and can deliver, at no cost. So: solar and wind win at the stock market. Always.
Keep in mind Germany is exporting nearly 30% of its production (we have overcapacity of 50%)
The only way to integrate a new nuke hypothetically into the german grid would be to make it as quickly load following as a modern coal plant. However some of the "new coal plants" build during the last 10 years, or planned to be build are already switched off again or construction is canceled: because wind and solar is cheaper.
In ten years all nukes will be replaced mainly by wind. And in 30 years the coal plants will be gone, too.
Then we can look back and see which country had the more sound approach.
That's only a surprise to anyone that hasn't figured out that wind and solar power are just proxies for natural gas. Germany has no Gas plants, besides gas turbines for load balancing and reserve energy.
I would suggest you either spent a few years learning about the german energy infrastructure, or stick to the american one. No one cares that you have no clue about both. But it goes on my nerves that you constantly lie about Germany. Are you parents, grand parents hurt bad by the Nazis? That was 70 years ago, get a perspective.
Nuclear power is reliable, low CO2, and cheaper than solar power. If that so in the US, than build new nukes. In Germany it is not the case, as everyone told you 100 times. So bugger off.
I guess in future I end every answer to you with: Exercise more, go off the couch! Don't drink that diet coke!! Eat healthy and don't overeat, and don't have 6 snacks during afternoon!
Oh, you are not even overweight... no you see how silly your posts are.
Most C02 cuts per capita in both countries were due to efficiency improvements, and not all is tied to electrical generation. The topic here is improvements in electrical generation emissions. Germany's per KWH generated CO2 emissions have not improved since they started adding solar and wind. In US, per KWh improvement have been mostly due to replacing coal generation with natural gas. How retarded are you? Since when does solar or wind produce CO2? How should it be remotely possible not to drop in CO2 production when you shift from coal to solar and wind?
Last year we produced 38% from renewables and another 20% from nukes. This year we already have a world record spring and summer with current production of electricity 50% by renewables, and a bit less than 20% (15%?) from nukes due to hot summer and water temperature problems.
France has by far the lowest per KWh CO2 emissions due to high percentage of nuclear. They also have the lowest per capita CO2 emissions. Wrong, they are more or less on the same level as Germany. Per capita they are worse due to lower car standards and insulation standards.
In what club do you go that you are so missfed with "facts"? I like to avoid it.
Wow, that is funny. Because about that style I stumbled yesterday. I saw a movie with Tsutomu Nakahodo on FB. First time since a few weeks that I have visited FB, and there was movie linked with him, an interview and some training snippets. I first thought it was Goju Ryu. The training methods looked similar (practice sometimes Goyu Ryu, but on a very low level, one of my Aikido friends is Ni DAN Goju Ryu), I only know some basic Kata as I original come from Shotokan (there nearly exists nothing else in Germany, a bit Wado Ryu, and perhaps 10 Goju Ryu dojo in whole country) Anyway, as they did not mention the style, I googled his name, and stumbled over your style. After wards I thought: heck, I would not wonder if that/. guy is doing Uechi Ryu.
Rather, the two styles are separate Okinawan interpretations of a southern Chinese martial art. Yes, so much I already have learned. But I have to look up the Kanji:P to memorize them.
You are wrong because you mix up energy with impulse, and because you fail to add 50 plus 50 to 100... Comparing the energies is only interesting if you want to know how much the crumble zone is warming up...
Because they're identical, each car absorbs half of this, so each car has to absorb m * (50mph)^2/2. That is irrelevant. Each car will "feel" a crash of E = m * (50mph)^2 * 2, in other words the passengers will be decelerated accordingly. You are right that the Energy is consumed up to a half by each car.
Then again: the energy is not what is relevant. Momentum is. And again: two cars crashing into each other with 50mph transfer the same amount of momentum like a car crashing into a wall with 100mph:P For the passengers both crashes feel exactly the same, even for the crumble zones included.
For example, I know that I pay a lot less than most Germans. Then you know wrong. https://www.check24.de/strom-g... The pictures are self explaining, enter your number of people in your household, enter a zip code (Postleitzahl), use mine 76137. Then click "vergleichen"/compare and get a list with cheap offers, sort it by "Preis - niedrigster Preis" by the cheapest. E.g. 3 person house hold on average uses 4250kWh, where the cheapest offers are 850,- per year. That is $988.
Mind that is for three persons. Now tell me you pay less than roughly $1000 in electricity at your place, and I move house:D
Where America is missing is we still have LOADS of old homes from pre WWII, which Europe does not. You mix up Europe with Germany. Germany was bombed into smitheren, the rest of Europe was not.
Perhaps you want to visit Europe once, especially Portugal, Spain, Italy, France are nice... obviously meanwhile every country is nice. And basically all have their nice little old towns.
Why we don't need much AC is because all the houses in those hot regions are build with stone, about 2 feet thick granite walls. Shade your window, and open it late night when it is cold outside and your house is perfect.
Yes and no. The low consumption mostly is do lots of investment into energy saving. E.g. insulation, better windows, shades, and mandatory classification of consumer goods into energy saving levels.
A large portion (1) of the United States is located in places where air conditioning is necessary. Germany, less so. (2) That is a double misconception. 1) No, wrong. At those places nearly no one lives. And with better housebuilding AC could mostly completely be avoided. 2) Wrong again. In summer there is not much of a difference of the heat in Germany or the heat in USA.
Finally: AC is only a small part of the energy bill. The US were once famous for the energy hungry fridges... lights, basically every appliance. You know, they always come up with: "here is everything bigger!".
I guess it is a culture thing, too. You remember the movie "9 1/2 weeks"? There is a scene were a couple is sitting in front of an open fridge. It gets like 10 or 20 minutes. At that time parts of Europe, notably Germany was already on the energy saving trip. If I had kept the fridge open longer than 30 seconds my father would have slapped me. Seeing them sitting there caused a kind of fringe in the audience... the scene was supposed to be romantic, we found it ridiculous.
There is no reason that the US people can not drop their energy consumption to the level of a German, and below, without any loss of comfort.
That is wrong. Two cars colliding frontal with 50 mph each, is equivalent to one car hitting a standing car (wall) with 100mph. Can't be so hard to grasp.
Hae? What nonsense do you talk now again? Germanies CO2 emmisions have improved greatly in comparison to the US. And energy/electricity prices have not skyrocked. They are higher per kwh than in the US, but that is compensated by the low consumption. An average German household pays less for electricity than an American. As always: you have no c!ue, to sad.
Nuclear has produced, and continues to produce more energy than wind or solar. Not in Germany.
Energy prices depend on taxes on energy. They have nothing to do with the source.
In fact, no other scalable non CO2 emitting source has produced anything close to the production that nuclear has. I doubt that. It will be hard to find numbers, though.
For the current situation that is irrelevant anyway. Building solar and wind plants is cheaper and faster than building coal or nuclear plants.
In civilized countries the city would be connected to a grid... just saying. And hail storms that destroy the solar infrastructure are so rare, I can assure you: you will have much server problems than lack of solar power in winter if that happens to your city.
There are as many kins of Vodka as there are kinds of Whiskey... And they have a similar far spectrum of taste and flavour (made from different grains or potato).
I always thought Vodka was invented by the Finns... never mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Up to you ...
If wind power has a capacity factor of 50% then the rest has to be made up with load following natural gas turbines for a constant output.
Perhaps you should really try to grasp what a CF is.
If my shiny wind turbine has a CF of 50%, it does not prevent it to stay at zero production for several days if there is no wind.
Likewise it could as well produce 200% of its capacity when the wind speed is 30% above the rated speed for days or weeks.
CFs are not used for what you think they are used, actually they are not "used at all", only in countries like the USA, each power plant is required to report its CF at the end of the year. In Germany there is AFAIK no such requirement, as that is a trade secret of the power plant owner. Why the funk would I report the CF of my most expensive coal plant to give my opponent an opportunity to outsmart me at the market?
Wind is cheap because wind is not reliable. Nuclear power can demand a higher price because it is reliable. Adding storage, load following power sources, arranging for shedding of load, or importing and exporting with nations with such load management, costs money. If the nuclear power plant was so "expensive" they why did anyone agree to this price guarantee? The answer is because it's more expensive to have to rely on "cheap" wind power.
This is complete nonsense.
You buy energy at the european stock exchange.
You pay per kWh. (More precisely MWh)
You most of the time only see the price, you don't know where the power comes from and there are no "price guarantees" from anyone.
The only exception is: you don't sell wind/solar via the stock market, but are happy with the guaranteed feed in tariff.
Only renewables have guaranteed feed in tariffs, payed by the grid operator where you feed in. What he does is his business, probably selling the power at the stock exchange, probably having a consumer already.
No one who is planning a nuke is getting a guaranteed price from anywhere. Unless he makes a private contract with a consumer.
And in the grand schema wind and solar are cheaper than coal and nukes, no idea why you are resistant to the truth. Must be kind of bad childhood or something.
Germany's electric prices have gone up significantly since they started adding solar and wind, and there is no debate about the cause. ... you seem to be out of the loop.
And they are dropping since 5 - 10 years again
Nuclear can demand a higher price because of its relaibility.
No they can't.
Energy is traded at the https://www.eex.com/en/ It is not traded by "reliability".
E.g. you want to buy "a band" of 2MW of electricity today, delivered tomorrow between 12:00 till 18:00 (hint: that are 6h * 2MW aka 12MWh)
Now you can make a wild guess from what plant the power will come if you have an idea about your counterpart. However in general you have no clue who is delivering the power.
And the more you are approaching peak hours or more precisely, hours were power demand is raising rapidly: the less a nuke can earn, because it is already running at max capacity, minus a few percent.
I'm so tired to repeat to idiots like you always the same truth abut electric power production.
If there is a power surge: nukes are maxed out. Coal or gas can increase but has costs. Solar and or wind might have a surplus and can deliver, at no cost. So: solar and wind win at the stock market. Always.
Keep in mind Germany is exporting nearly 30% of its production (we have overcapacity of 50%)
The only way to integrate a new nuke hypothetically into the german grid would be to make it as quickly load following as a modern coal plant. However some of the "new coal plants" build during the last 10 years, or planned to be build are already switched off again or construction is canceled: because wind and solar is cheaper.
In ten years all nukes will be replaced mainly by wind. And in 30 years the coal plants will be gone, too.
Then we can look back and see which country had the more sound approach.
That's only a surprise to anyone that hasn't figured out that wind and solar power are just proxies for natural gas.
Germany has no Gas plants, besides gas turbines for load balancing and reserve energy.
I would suggest you either spent a few years learning about the german energy infrastructure, or stick to the american one. No one cares that you have no clue about both. But it goes on my nerves that you constantly lie about Germany. Are you parents, grand parents hurt bad by the Nazis? That was 70 years ago, get a perspective.
Nuclear power is reliable, low CO2, and cheaper than solar power.
If that so in the US, than build new nukes.
In Germany it is not the case, as everyone told you 100 times. So bugger off.
I guess in future I end every answer to you with:
Exercise more, go off the couch!
Don't drink that diet coke!!
Eat healthy and don't overeat, and don't have 6 snacks during afternoon!
Oh, you are not even overweight ... no you see how silly your posts are.
No worries,
I don't need to drink if I'm convinced a guy needs to be taken out of the gene pool. However I'm not easy to convince in regards to that :P
Now, for the last 7 years,
They have not, no idea why people come up with such claims.
The rate we reduce it is flat perhaps.
Most C02 cuts per capita in both countries were due to efficiency improvements, and not all is tied to electrical generation. The topic here is improvements in electrical generation emissions. Germany's per KWH generated CO2 emissions have not improved since they started adding solar and wind. In US, per KWh improvement have been mostly due to replacing coal generation with natural gas.
How retarded are you?
Since when does solar or wind produce CO2? How should it be remotely possible not to drop in CO2 production when you shift from coal to solar and wind?
Last year we produced 38% from renewables and another 20% from nukes.
This year we already have a world record spring and summer with current production of electricity 50% by renewables, and a bit less than 20% (15%?) from nukes due to hot summer and water temperature problems.
France has by far the lowest per KWh CO2 emissions due to high percentage of nuclear. They also have the lowest per capita CO2 emissions.
Wrong, they are more or less on the same level as Germany. Per capita they are worse due to lower car standards and insulation standards.
In what club do you go that you are so missfed with "facts"? I like to avoid it.
Germany is the world leader in CO2 emission reductions.
Idiot.
Followed by USA 2% or 3% behind.
Wow, that is funny. /. guy is doing Uechi Ryu.
Because about that style I stumbled yesterday. I saw a movie with Tsutomu Nakahodo on FB. First time since a few weeks that I have visited FB, and there was movie linked with him, an interview and some training snippets. I first thought it was Goju Ryu. The training methods looked similar (practice sometimes Goyu Ryu, but on a very low level, one of my Aikido friends is Ni DAN Goju Ryu), I only know some basic Kata as I original come from Shotokan (there nearly exists nothing else in Germany, a bit Wado Ryu, and perhaps 10 Goju Ryu dojo in whole country)
Anyway, as they did not mention the style, I googled his name, and stumbled over your style.
After wards I thought: heck, I would not wonder if that
Rather, the two styles are separate Okinawan interpretations of a southern Chinese martial art. :P to memorize them.
Yes, so much I already have learned. But I have to look up the Kanji
You are wrong because you mix up energy with impulse, and because you fail to add 50 plus 50 to 100 ... ...
Comparing the energies is only interesting if you want to know how much the crumble zone is warming up
Ah, next time I write the formulas out.
Because they're identical, each car absorbs half of this, so each car has to absorb m * (50mph)^2 /2.
That is irrelevant.
Each car will "feel" a crash of E = m * (50mph)^2 * 2, in other words the passengers will be decelerated accordingly. You are right that the Energy is consumed up to a half by each car.
Then again: the energy is not what is relevant. Momentum is. And again: two cars crashing into each other with 50mph transfer the same amount of momentum like a car crashing into a wall with 100mph :P
For the passengers both crashes feel exactly the same, even for the crumble zones included.
Most European housings are a few hundred years old, no idea what you want to prove with your silly links.
Are you intentionally cross talking?
For example, I know that I pay a lot less than most Germans.
Then you know wrong.
https://www.check24.de/strom-g...
The pictures are self explaining, enter your number of people in your household, enter a zip code (Postleitzahl), use mine 76137. Then click "vergleichen"/compare and get a list with cheap offers, sort it by "Preis - niedrigster Preis" by the cheapest. E.g. 3 person house hold on average uses 4250kWh, where the cheapest offers are 850,- per year. That is $988.
Mind that is for three persons. Now tell me you pay less than roughly $1000 in electricity at your place, and I move house :D
Where America is missing is we still have LOADS of old homes from pre WWII, which Europe does not.
You mix up Europe with Germany. Germany was bombed into smitheren, the rest of Europe was not.
Perhaps you want to visit Europe once, especially Portugal, Spain, Italy, France are nice ... obviously meanwhile every country is nice. And basically all have their nice little old towns.
Why we don't need much AC is because all the houses in those hot regions are build with stone, about 2 feet thick granite walls. Shade your window, and open it late night when it is cold outside and your house is perfect.
Yes and no.
The low consumption mostly is do lots of investment into energy saving. E.g. insulation, better windows, shades, and mandatory classification of consumer goods into energy saving levels.
A large portion (1) of the United States is located in places where air conditioning is necessary. Germany, less so. (2)
That is a double misconception.
1) No, wrong. At those places nearly no one lives. And with better housebuilding AC could mostly completely be avoided.
2) Wrong again. In summer there is not much of a difference of the heat in Germany or the heat in USA.
Finally: AC is only a small part of the energy bill. The US were once famous for the energy hungry fridges ... lights, basically every appliance. You know, they always come up with: "here is everything bigger!".
I guess it is a culture thing, too. You remember the movie "9 1/2 weeks"? There is a scene were a couple is sitting in front of an open fridge. It gets like 10 or 20 minutes. At that time parts of Europe, notably Germany was already on the energy saving trip. If I had kept the fridge open longer than 30 seconds my father would have slapped me. ... the scene was supposed to be romantic, we found it ridiculous.
Seeing them sitting there caused a kind of fringe in the audience
There is no reason that the US people can not drop their energy consumption to the level of a German, and below, without any loss of comfort.
That is wrong.
Two cars colliding frontal with 50 mph each, is equivalent to one car hitting a standing car (wall) with 100mph.
Can't be so hard to grasp.
However they have a crumheling zone, and that makes a huge difference.
No idea anout what you are arguing.
. Next year I'm testing for 3rd in an obscure style nobody has heard of.
What style is it?
Hae?
What nonsense do you talk now again?
Germanies CO2 emmisions have improved greatly in comparison to the US.
And energy/electricity prices have not skyrocked. They are higher per kwh than in the US, but that is compensated by the low consumption. An average German household pays less for electricity than an American.
As always: you have no c!ue, to sad.
Nuclear has produced, and continues to produce more energy than wind or solar.
Not in Germany.
Energy prices depend on taxes on energy.
They have nothing to do with the source.
In fact, no other scalable non CO2 emitting source has produced anything close to the production that nuclear has.
I doubt that. It will be hard to find numbers, though.
For the current situation that is irrelevant anyway. Building solar and wind plants is cheaper and faster than building coal or nuclear plants.
In civilized countries the city would be connected to a grid ... just saying.
And hail storms that destroy the solar infrastructure are so rare, I can assure you: you will have much server problems than lack of solar power in winter if that happens to your city.
Most Marijuana smokers mix it with tobacco.
So the number is likely very high, no idea why you ask such nonsense.
There are as many kins of Vodka as there are kinds of Whiskey ...
And they have a similar far spectrum of taste and flavour (made from different grains or potato).
I always thought Vodka was invented by the Finns ... never mind.
Well, on this planet assassin is connected to hashish. It literally means hashish smoker. No idea from which planet you are, though.
But first: you have to figure his IP!