2011-03-24, 04:12 | Link #12681 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2011-03-24, 04:30 | Link #12682 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
|
Germany is already pretty low on consumption, with only about half the per capita consumption of the US.
Especially the solar subsidies are just a waste of money - and they cost billions every year. But we might have to wait a few decades before we see who proves to be correct - Germany or the rest of the world. We also shouldn't forget that the same people who want to shut down the nuclear (and coal) power in Germany also want to switch to electric cars rendering any attempts to lower the consumption futile. I don't think it will play out for Germany. |
2011-03-24, 05:18 | Link #12683 |
temporary safeguard
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Germany
|
Thanks to switching off the oldest nuclear plants for now, yesterday (a sunny day) the overall solar energy production in Germany exeeded the total amount of the remaining nuclear plants with 12GW.
The thing is, it's not always sunny around here. There are certainly better places in the world for building solar power. But we can't move the country... |
2011-03-24, 07:32 | Link #12685 |
Rawrrr!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: CH aka Chocaholic Heaven
Age: 40
|
Not only that, the czars considered themselves the very prolongation of the Empire: Moscow being the Third Roma, not only trough the continuation of an Imperial autority, but also as the new center of the Orthodox Church, and even trough the continuation of the Byzantine Empire bloodline (IIRC, a niece of the last byzantine Basileus married into the czar's family).
__________________
|
2011-03-24, 14:02 | Link #12686 |
books-eater youkai
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
|
Gaza rockets strike deeper inside Israel
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...72N48A20110324
__________________
|
2011-03-24, 14:56 | Link #12687 | |
Um-Shmum
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at GNR, bringing you the truth, no matter how bad it hurts
Age: 39
|
Quote:
time to start airing out the Uniform
__________________
|
|
2011-03-24, 14:58 | Link #12688 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Weird. In our mock UN convention in the early 90s we figured out having Palestine as two split territories was a bad idea. West Bank only. Gaza needs to go, either to Israel or Egypt.
__________________
|
2011-03-24, 16:15 | Link #12690 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
|
Quote:
But this is also why renewable sources are not yet a plausible answer for an entire centralized grid. Running everything efficiently off of baseload is impossible...at least, as long as demand-side control is politically unfeasible... |
|
2011-03-24, 16:28 | Link #12691 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
|
Which renewable sources are you talking about?
At least solar energy and wind power are not baseload. Quote:
|
|
2011-03-24, 16:34 | Link #12692 | ||
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
|
Quote:
Quote:
Baseload just means the plant operators would want the plant to be operating at full power all the time (because the cost was sunk into construction). Laws in Europe basically make all renewables de facto baseload plants, and they are sold as such. The Wiki classification is very generalized. Edit: I cede that you can argue the point as what the term means is subject to interpretation, but the fact remains that the grid is balanced even when renewables produce more energy than expected. |
||
2011-03-24, 17:29 | Link #12693 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
|
Quote:
I get what you are trying to say, but you are making up your very own definition of baseload here. And yes, the power won't go out if we produce more energy than we use, but if the sun shines and the wind blows that doesn't mean we can just save the corresponding amount of coal, just a fraction. So even graphs showing that wind or solar energy fed this or that percentage of electricity into our grids are highly misleading. |
|
2011-03-24, 17:32 | Link #12694 | |
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 43
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2011-03-24, 17:43 | Link #12695 | |||
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
|
Quote:
I'm not sure where I said anything that is along the lines of "we should replace coal with renewables", merely that there is a balancing mechanism... As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that I stated it is currently not feasible to run an efficient grid on pure renewables... Edit: First Google result I got Quote:
Edit 2: So I read further down on the Wiki article, and it does say how designation is determined. Quote:
Last edited by NameGoesHere; 2011-03-24 at 18:10. |
|||
2011-03-24, 18:20 | Link #12696 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2011-03-24, 18:23 | Link #12697 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
|
Quote:
From your quote: Quote:
|
||
2011-03-24, 18:43 | Link #12698 |
Rawrrr!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: CH aka Chocaholic Heaven
Age: 40
|
The whole point is that solar and windmill, because they by no means can qualify for peak, are treated as baseload.
Maybe they should have created a new category especially for them: erratic. The not so funny thing, is that to ensure a baseline supply from windmills, supplementary coal (=> baseline), and gas (=>peak) power plants have to be built. So, in the end, you get to build (and pay for) twice the virtual capacity you need (and anyway, you'll never get that double effective capacity).
__________________
|
2011-03-24, 18:46 | Link #12699 | |||||
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by NameGoesHere; 2011-03-24 at 19:04. |
|||||
2011-03-24, 19:02 | Link #12700 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
|
Sorry, I cannot agree.
The baseload article clearly defines baseload plants as plants that "produce energy at a constant rate", not as plants that always run at full power. You won't find the word "baseload" in the "Feed-in tariff" article a single time. Those two are unrelated. And the costs for the wind and solar are high. That's why they need to be subsidized to compete. Not the other way round. |
Tags |
current affairs, discussion, international |
Thread Tools | |
|
|