| Science/Technology
|
[
Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
5421 |
|
|
Date: November 09, 2014 at 21:33:56
From: BJ, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Germany to Build Twenty Three New Coal-Fired Power Plants |
|
|
Green energy thing not working out as planned?
"It is amazing how biased the international media is when it comes to reporting on energy generation, specifically electricity.
In mid-August, Germany opened a new 2200MW coal-fired power station near Cologne, and virtually not a word has been said about it. This dearth of reporting is even more surprising when one considers that Germany has said building new coal plants is necessary because electricity produced by wind and solar has turned out to be unaffordably expensive and unreliable.
In a deteriorating economic situation, Germany’s new environment minister, Peter Altmaier, who is as politically close to Chancellor Angela Merkel as it gets, has underlined time and again the importance of not further harming Europe’s – and Germany’s – economy by increasing the cost of electricity.
He is also worried that his country could become dependent on foreign imports of electricity, the mainstay of its industrial sector. To avoid that risk, Altmaier has given the green light to build twenty-three new coal-fired plants, which are currently under construction.
Yes, you read that correctly, twenty three-new coal-fired power plants are under construction in Germany, because Germany is worried about the increasing cost of electricity, and because they can’t afford to be in the strategic position of importing too much electricity.
Just recently, German figures were released on the actual productivity of the country’s wind power over the last ten years. The figure is 16.3 percent!
Due to the inherent intermittent nature of wind, their wind power system was designed for an assumed 30% load factor in the first place. That means that they hoped to get a mere 30% of the installed capacity – versus some 85-90% for coal, natural gas, nuclear and hydroelectric facilities. That means that, when they build 3,000MW of wind power, they expect to actually get merely 900MW, because the wind does not always blow at the required speeds.
But in reality, after ten years, they have discovered that they are actually getting only half of what they had optimistically, and irrationally, hoped for: a measly 16.3 percent.
Even worse, after spending billions of Euros on subsidies, Germany’s total combined solar facilities have contributed a miserly, imperceptible 0.084% of Germany’s electricity over the last 22 years. That is not even one-tenth of one percent.
Moreover, the actual cost of Germany’s wind and solar electricity is far and away higher than its cost of coal and nuclear power. So much for “free” solar and wind. So much for all the German jobs that depend on reliable access to plentiful and affordable electricity.
As to natural gas produced via hydraulic fracturing, that too is prohibited, even if it is required to back up undependable wind and solar facilities. No wonder Germany’s natural gas and electricity prices are practically unaffordable.
Meantime the extreme greens continue to preach about the wonders of life based on solar and wind power. They also talk constantly about “sustainable living,” a “sustainable future,” and an otherwise hydrocarbon-free and “decarbonized” tomorrow. Be warned! What these vacuous exhortations mean is that people must not enjoy the lifestyles and living standards of a modern world.
They mean the First World must cut back significantly on its living standards, and the developing world must give up its aspirations for achieving the lifestyle of the First World.
Believe me, African small-scale farmers all dream of becoming like the large commercial-scale farmers they see next door. They do not wish to plough their fields with oxen, when their neighbours have tractors and automated grain handling machines. The same is true of small-scale commercial and industrial operations in which an affordable and reliable supply of electricity is essential. It is likewise true of virtually every office, shop, hospital, school and family on the entire African continent.
Meanwhile, in South Africa, an organisation calling itself “Green Truth” has distributed a notice about a newly released movie titled simply “Fuel.” Here is part of the promotional notice:
“FUEL is a comprehensive and entertaining look at energy: A history of where we have been, our present predicament, and a solution to our dependence on foreign oil. Rousing and reactionary, FUEL is an amazing, in-depth, personal journey by eco-evangelist Josh Tickell, of oil use and abuse, as it examines wide-ranging energy solutions other than oil; the faltering US auto and petroleum industries; and the latest stirrings toward alternative energy.
“The film includes interviews with a wide range of policy makers, educators and activists such as Woody Harrelson, Neil Young and Willie Nelson. Tickell knew he just couldn’t idly stand by any longer. He decided to make a film, focusing on the knowledge and insight he discovered, but also giving hope that solutions are at reach. A ‘regular guy’ who felt he could make a difference, he spent 11 years making this movie, showing himself – and others – that an individual can indeed make a difference. Stirring, radical and multi-award winning energy documentary! FUEL features experts and eco-celebrities such as: Sheryl Crow, Larry David, Richard Branson and Robert Kennedy, Jr.”
The notice frequently emphasizes “sustainable living” and “a hopeful future.” And the singers, actors, activists and other energy “experts” featured in the film are all extremely wealthy, and not at all likely to adopt the “sustainable” lifestyle that they and Tickell advocate so passionately.
Does this film have anything to do with “truth” about energy? Or is it simply a propaganda film for the producers’ and activists’ version of “sustainable lives,” for others, though not for themselves? It takes but a fleeting moment to realize that it is just like Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” – leagues removed from truth, and laden with scientific errors, personal biases, and the hypocrisies of affluent partisans who own big houses and fly private jets to events where they tell other people how to live “more sustainably.”
Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2012/08/germany-to-build-twenty-three-new-coal-fired-power-plants/#ixzz3IdmUclb3
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5428] [5425] [5426] [5432] [5436] [5434] [5435] [5433] [5427] |
|
5428 |
|
|
Date: November 10, 2014 at 10:10:52
From: blindhog, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Germany to Build Twenty Three New Coal-Fired Power Plants |
|
|
I'm sure that Japan would give anything to go back in time and have the Fukasima nuclear facility be a coal fired facility.
I can't imagine that any damage from a tsunami damaged coal facility would cause even 1/1,000,000th the damage that the destroyed nuclear faciltiy caused Japan and the whole of the earth.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
5425 |
|
|
Date: November 10, 2014 at 08:22:19
From: Steve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Germany to Build Twenty Three New Coal-Fired Power Plants |
|
|
They are smart to avoid nuclear power plants which costs a fortune to deconstruct and are also targets. A dozen Fukushimas would wreck Germany.
I'm sure the Germans will do it right and not just make air pollution plants like the Chinese.
Japan could easily go green with massive coastline and tidal and wave power. I heard they are working on it.
Much of USA could do that too. Nuke plants are war and terror targets are not safe on any day. Chernobyl is still burning, no permanent solution is known.
One company that installed solar panels for electricity added fuel cells that they say are far more efficient than solar.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5426] [5432] [5436] [5434] [5435] [5433] [5427] |
|
5426 |
|
|
Date: November 10, 2014 at 08:58:25
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Germany to Build Twenty Three New Coal-Fired Power Plants |
|
|
Hi Steve,
> I'm sure the Germans will do it right and not just make air pollution plants like the Chinese.
I agree that the Germans won't burn coal cheap and dirty as China does. They will scrub particulate matter... but they will still emit huge quantities of CO2.
> Japan could easily go green with massive coastline and tidal and wave power.
I wouldn't say easily. There are advances in Tide Power Generation but Japan has huge power needs and this technology isn't currently able to power an entire country. There are also environmental concerns to ringing coastlines with tide power generation. But it's still a promising technology.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5432] [5436] [5434] [5435] [5433] [5427] |
|
5432 |
|
|
Date: November 11, 2014 at 09:40:44
From: blindhog, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Germany to Build Twenty Three New Coal-Fired Power Plants |
|
|
|
I agree about the wave power, but there is another power that in my naive mind I think might work, that being magnetic power. It takes a lot of energy to hold two big magnets either together or apart, depending on the polarity. Is it possible there is an viable homebased energy creating future there?
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5436] [5434] [5435] [5433] |
|
5436 |
|
|
Date: November 11, 2014 at 14:01:39
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Germany to Build Twenty Three New Coal-Fired Power Plants |
|
|
"It takes a lot of energy to hold two big magnets either together or apart..."
This is a technical nitpick, but recall from your high school physics that there is a difference between "energy" and "work". There may be "potential energy" between the magnets but to convert it to work ("kinetic energy") requires that the magnets be allowed to move. Once the magnets are touching (or have pushed each other apart), you have converted the potential energy to kinetic, and there is now no more potential energy in the system.
Sure, push the magnets back together (or pull them apart), but it takes energy to perform that work. Therefore any potential energy now in the system is merely the energy you put into it to place the system into that state. All you've done is 'recharge the battery' by putting in energy that you took from somewhere else.
This is the 'law' of Conservation of Energy. Energy can neither be created or destroyed. Only it's form can be changed.
Now, here's a thought to ponder that might well twist your noodle: The total net sum of the energy in all forms of the entire universe is most likely zero.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
5434 |
|
|
Date: November 11, 2014 at 12:55:15
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Germany to Build Twenty Three New Coal-Fired Power Plants |
|
|
Hi blindhog,
Magnets have been part of power generation since the very first generators. Many motors and generators actually use magnets.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5435] |
|
5435 |
|
|
Date: November 11, 2014 at 13:28:55
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Germany to Build Twenty Three New Coal-Fired Power Plants |
|
|
To clarify Jim's statement a bit, _ALL_ electric motors and electricity generators have magnets. They won't work without them.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
5433 |
|
|
Date: November 11, 2014 at 11:27:01
From: BJ, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Germany to Build Twenty Three New Coal-Fired Power Plants |
|
|
|
very perceptive. Quite a few are working on this issue. Lots of non-polluting energy will be available.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
5427 |
|
|
Date: November 10, 2014 at 09:40:24
From: BJ, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Germany to Build Twenty Three New Coal-Fired Power Plants |
URL: LINK |
|
Just build better scrubbers
"Around half of our CO2 emissions aren't from big power plants, or even small power plants, according to researchers from the University of Calgary. They're from diffuse sources, like car exhaust, home heating and airplanes, which can't be easily sucked up at the source. Led by climate scientist David Keith, the Calgary group is working on technology that could soak those "diffuse emissions" right out of the air.
Their system is a kind of air scrubbing tower, which takes air and reacts the CO2 out of it by exposing it, in this case, to sodium hydroxide. Then the stuff goes through a few chemical intermediaries eventually leaving separated CO2 that can be piped away, and more hydroxide to feed back into the scrubber.
Other air-scrubbers have been developed and researched, notably at Columbia University, also with good results. But the real achievement for the Calgary group seems to be in taking the reacted CO2 and hydroxide, and separating them back out from each other—an important step to making the process whole.
With their current design, according to the university, they can capture around a ton of carbon dioxide for less than 100 kilowatt-hours of electricity. At that rate, for every bit of electricity used to run the scrubber, you're actually capturing ten times as much CO2 as was released to create that electricity in the first place. That means that in terms of emissions, it is efficient… but financially, not-so-much-so. As far as the researchers have reported, the technology is expensive, and not near ready for large-scale development yet. But, it could potentially fill a unique role, taking on that 50 percent of diffuse CO2 emissions that no smokestack extractors will ever be able to keep out of the skies.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ] |