EU is trying to ban Diesel and petrol cars

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Motor_Boater
To collect such gases from grazing animals would be tricky. First, you would have to apply a sort of gas mask and a sensor which would detect the arrival of a burp. Between then, you would have to supply the grazing animal with oxygen. Simultaneous to that, the animal would have to graze. Nobody in their right mind would attempt doing it that way.


Well why on earth did you bring a spray about livestock flatulence, a tax that doesn't exist, and collecting it to the table then ?

Originally Posted By: Motor_Boater
Coal could burn much cleaner, if it was pulverized to dust. But, to pulverize it would require amounts of energy which would call into question of it being feasable to even do so


What ?

That is Exactly how coal (and lignite in Germany) is used...that's been clay burning since the 50s.

So what are you playing here ?

What do you mean by cleaner ?

Probably better disengaging myself at this point, because you are talking nonsense....

 

[Silk]

That's a pretty old article, not really relivant. NZ has plenty of methane, we used to run cars on it, then we turned it into petrol, now we just sell to other countries. We run our thermal power stations on it too - I can see one from here, less then a kilometre away.

 

[Motor_Boater]

Quote:
...That is Exactly how coal (and lignite in Germany) is used...
Who cares about what Germany does? That doesen't count anymore, for all practicle purposes. I know that they pulverize their coal, blowing the dust together with recirculated exhaust gas into the combustion chamber. They're moving away from coal burning and have started concentrating on wind- and solar power. So, who cares? That they effeciently burn coal doesen't necessarily mean that other countries follow suit, to that extent. What matters is the inefficiency of plants in developing countries where reliance on coal is more prevalent and plants numerous in comparison. The sophistication or lack of it of what they have to work with and the competence of their workforce is questionable. All that's known about them is that their efficiency is not up to par with Germany's obsolescence-planned plants. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were even shoveling coal into the ovens and I don't really care. We shouldn't be buying slipshod junk from them, in the first place. Nothing to see here

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Motor_Boater
Coal could burn much cleaner, if it was pulverized to dust. But, to pulverize it would require amounts of energy which would call into question of it being feasable to even do so


Originally Posted By: Motor_Boater
Who cares about what Germany does? That doesen't count anymore, for all practicle purposes. I know that they pulverize their coal


I know I shouldn't be engaging....BUT YOU BOUGHT IT UP...!!!

The vast majority of coal fired electricity is pulverised...everywhere.

One minute you say if only it COULD be pulverised, but huge energy and not practical, then you say that you know it is pulverised but that's immaterial.

So what's your first point again ?

Whatever they just legalised over there, they better stop...Your arguments aren't rational (or even educated).

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Motor_Boater
Quote:
...That is Exactly how coal (and lignite in Germany) is used...
Who cares about what Germany does? That doesen't count anymore, for all practicle purposes. I know that they pulverize their coal, blowing the dust together with recirculated exhaust gas into the combustion chamber. They're moving away from coal burning and have started concentrating on wind- and solar power. So, who cares? That they effeciently burn coal doesen't necessarily mean that other countries follow suit, to that extent. What matters is the inefficiency of plants in developing countries where reliance on coal is more prevalent and plants numerous in comparison. The sophistication or lack of it of what they have to work with and the competence of their workforce is questionable. All that's known about them is that their efficiency is not up to par with Germany's obsolescence-planned plants. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were even shoveling coal into the ovens and I don't really care. We shouldn't be buying slipshod junk from them, in the first place. Nothing to see here


Germany produces a very significantly portion of their power from coal, and considering they produce quite a bit of power, that's entirely relevant. Particularly given that as Shannow has pointed out, you brought it up in the first place...

 

[Motor_Boater]

It's phasing out is on the political agenda and those other modern energy sources are receiving investment for their proliferation. That's why I write off uselessly dragging Germany into a discussion of which they will eventually become irrelavent. It's a waste of time and as it is, Germany hasn't an effective government, at present, and it looks like they are likely to hold a re-election in April, if they don't stop disagreeing on a coalition platform, by then, which could put off debate on a timetable to start shutting down coal plants as they have done concerning nuclear power plants even further. The government's essentially on auto-pilot.
Of course, coal plants of which those burning brown coal in particular are precision instruments and have strict timetables as to adhering to warm-ip times of which can take almost an entire day with brown burners and a constant eye has to be kept on temperature, so that it doesen't overheat and so on. I've seen enough patching up and sloppy maintenance done at nuke plants to cast a shadow of doubt as to how certain countries' ethics and capabilities of running these plants as they should are supposed to be implemented

 

[Motor_Boater]

Ran out of time to edit
Quote:
...Whatever they just legalised over there, they better stop...
What should they supposedly be stopping and why?
Quote:
...Your arguments...
Who's arguing? You're the one continually calling everything into question. What are you trying to prove? I'm not chasing you around the board. If anything, it's the other way around. I just do my own thing and don't really care about what you do here
Quote:
...aren't rational (or even educated...
So, you're the one who's educated and rational? Let's put that to a forum poll. I doubt that you would wish that to happen. If you're so enlightened, why do I have to keep explaining you things and putting up evidence about subjects some of which should be common knowledge for any Australian? In particular, the levying of an agricultural tariff on a neighboring country's livestock, previously mentioned and repeatedly called into debate by yours truly, for example. Why didn't you know that? If I knew from half way around the planet, there shouldn't be any excuse whatsoever for your ignorance pertaining to especially this matter.
All you ever do here is to make a nuisance of yourself, calling everything into question, without you yourself being able to prove any capability of enlightening any discussion.
Supposedly it's only the POMmies who are the ones to winge about and not you?

 

[Shannow]

Yep, that's me...the Van Helsing of imbeciles...

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Motor_Boater

All you ever do here is to make a nuisance of yourself, calling everything into question, without you yourself being able to prove any capability of enlightening any discussion.
Supposedly it's only the POMmies who are the ones to winge about and not you?


That sounds like a comment more likely to be made somebody who has been here a lot longer than a few weeks....

I'm guessing you've been on here before? And perhaps interacted with Shannow before?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Motor_Boater
It's phasing out is on the political agenda and those other modern energy sources are receiving investment for their proliferation. That's why I write off uselessly dragging Germany into a discussion of which they will eventually become irrelavent. It's a waste of time


I disagree. This plan has, thus far, resulted in Germany having the 2nd highest electricity rates in Europe, only eclipsed by Denmark. You guys literally pay 3x what we pay for the luxury of your elaborate wind and solar experiment, which we have emulated here in Ontario with similar results in terms of skyrocketing energy prices. On top of that, the plan to phase out Nuclear has resulted in increased reliance on coal, which is why it still makes up such a considerable component of your supply mix.

Looking at France, with their majority of power derived from Nuclear, they have no such problem.

Look at the chart, you guys have been building wind farms for what, two decades now? Yet have achieved only 12.3% of your supply mix in that timeframe. You still produce more power by the "being phased out" nuclear than you do by wind. You produce twice that via brown coal. Biomass is still a carbon source and as far as I know, you lack the amount of moving and falling water necessary to achieve any sort of real penetration for Hydro-Electric.

We've had a similar situation here in Ontario with ambitious plans by our Liberal government over the last 14 years or so with massive subsidies levied for wind and solar. You can see the results of that effort in the chart. Their plan too was to move away from and shutter Nuclear, however, they've had to back away from that commitment. We did however successfully stamp out coal, but it was not a major component of our supply mix, as Nuclear was picked as the winner over coal back in the 1960's. We've had to re-commit to Nuclear, making our existing plants our key generation source until the 2060's, at which point they will be around 100 years old and viable replacements should already be in place. We, like the UK and the USA, have started investing in SMR technology, particularly MSR's, which are believed to be the next generation in Nuclear, enabling it to be placed close to demand and will be a key component in the move to the electrification of transportation, providing reliable low-cost power for that sector.

You can see Quebec's massive investment in Hydro-Electric has paid serious dividends. Not only is it 95% of their generation mix, but they have the cheapest power in Canada with retail rates of less than 5 cents per kWh (ours are more than double that) and an industry that makes serious money via exports to neighbouring provinces and states.

I am however curious about this comment:

Originally Posted By: Motor_Boater
I've seen enough patching up and sloppy maintenance done at nuke plants to cast a shadow of doubt as to how certain countries' ethics and capabilities of running these plants as they should are supposed to be implemented


As it would imply that you work in power generation, would it not? An immediate example of the above I think should be Tepco's management of Fukushima. Not relocating the backup generators or increasing the height of the sea wall, both of which were recommended by the Nuclear Safety Commission more than a decade before the disaster.

 

[OVERKILL]

Oh, and to keep this going, we might as well talk about the elephant in the room, China. This is their 2015 Generation mix:

 

[Motor_Boater]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
...I disagree. This plan has, thus far, resulted in Germany having the 2nd highest electricity rates in Europe, only eclipsed by Denmark...

...On top of that, the plan to phase out Nuclear has resulted in increased reliance on coal, which is why it still makes up such a considerable component of your supply mix...


The shifting over from nuclear dependence to that of coal was intended as an emergency measure. Coal burning plants are to end up as back-ups, in times of energy shortages created by factors which cannot be controlled, being that solar power is most dependable in a desert and wind power in areas where it's likely to be most windy on average: http://www.dw.com/en/the-end-of-lignite-coal-for-power-in-germany/a-18806081

Quote:
...The plants are to be turned off but maintained in running order in case of power shortages over the next four years. Eventually, the lignite-fired power plants will be taken off the grid entirely...


___________________

Quote:
...Looking at France, with their majority of power derived from Nuclear, they have no such problem...
...yet. There have been frequent problems, at their oldest plant in Fessenheim. Spokespersons of that nationalized network have been accused of covering up information from the press.
The oldest Swiss plant, not far from where I reside, has had to shut down for several weeks, due to suspected metalurgical failures. The plant is again up and running. But, I'd rather have a Swiss nuclear plant, in my neighborhood, than a French one


Quote:
I am however curious about this comment:

Originally Posted By: Motor_Boater
I've seen enough patching up and sloppy maintenance done at nuke plants to cast a shadow of doubt as to how certain countries' ethics and capabilities of running these plants as they should are supposed to be implemented


As it would imply that you work in power generation, would it not?

Quote:
...An immediate example of the above I think should be Tepco's management of Fukushima. Not relocating the backup generators or increasing the height of the sea wall, both of which were recommended by the Nuclear Safety Commission more than a decade before the disaster...
As I recall, there were also other factors involved which emulated 3rd World type hanky panky, such as one wouldn't expect from the only 1st World country in Asia.
The plants I was referring to are located in Europe. One in "Belgium" and the rest in Eastern Europe which are identically designed of the first generation Soviet type of which the Chernobyl plant was built. The plant in Bulgaria probably being the most worrisome of all

Quote:
That sounds like a comment more likely to be made somebody who has been here a lot longer than a few weeks....

I'm guessing you've been on here before? And perhaps interacted with Shannow before?
Not here, in particular. Likely, at other forums, though. These types show up almost everywhere. They have a peculiar way of getting their kicks. I guess, you could call it "virtual chicken-choking"
_________________________

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Motor_Boater

The shifting over from nuclear dependence to that of coal was intended as an emergency measure. Coal burning plants are to end up as back-ups, in times of energy shortages created by factors which cannot be controlled, being that solar power is most dependable in a desert and wind power in areas where it's likely to be most windy on average: http://www.dw.com/en/the-end-of-lignite-coal-for-power-in-germany/a-18806081

Quote:
...The plants are to be turned off but maintained in running order in case of power shortages over the next four years. Eventually, the lignite-fired power plants will be taken off the grid entirely...


That article states:

Quote:
Economics minister Sigmar Gabriel of the Social Democrats and energy companies RWE, Vattenfall and Mibrag have agreed that starting in October 2016, a capacity of 2.7 gigawatts of power output from lignite coal plants will be shifted into a power reserve in case of emergency.


But as we can see from the 2016 install mix graph, 150TWh of power is generated via Lignite in Germany, which, assuming their output is presently somewhat similar to a nuke at ~7.6GWh per MW of installed capacity, means they have roughly 19,700MW or 19.7GW of installed Lignite capacity, so they are only taking 14% of the Lignite capacity off the grid or roughly 21TWh of annual output.

So the headline seems disingenuous.


Originally Posted By: Motor_Boater
There have been frequent problems, at their oldest plant in Fessenheim. Spokespersons of that nationalized network have been accused of covering up information from the press.
The oldest Swiss plant, not far from where I reside, has had to shut down for several weeks, due to suspected metalurgical failures. The plant is again up and running. But, I'd rather have a Swiss nuclear plant, in my neighborhood, than a French one


Yeah, I'd rather have a CANDU, but I'm a tad biased

I know France is actively working on that new "Euro" reactor, which is supposed to be operational to coincide with them taking at least one of their oldest plants offline.

Originally Posted By: Motor_Boater

Figured

Originally Posted By: Motor_Boater
As I recall, there were also other factors involved which emulated 3rd World type hanky panky, such as one wouldn't expect from the only 1st World country in Asia.


Yes, there was/is a variety of nonsense going at with Tepco, which seems to be endemic unfortunately. I do however, believe the two issues I mentioned were the ones key in the disaster playing out as it did.

Originally Posted By: Motor_Boater
The plants I was referring to are located in Europe. One in "Belgium" and the rest in Eastern Europe which are identically designed of the first generation Soviet type of which the Chernobyl plant was built. The plant in Bulgaria probably being the most worrisome of all


Yes, I could see, given your location, that those would be rather worrisome. What are your thoughts on what's been built and being built in China? I believe they have seven plants in the works presently, a number of them being based on the Canadian CANDU design.

 

[Motor_Boater]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
...they are only taking 14% of the Lignite capacity off the grid or roughly 21TWh of annual output.

So the headline seems disingenuous...
It just goes to show you that Germans aren't as correct as perceived. Look who funds Deutsche Welle. After that debacle in Fukoshima, Germans have become conscious of the dangers of nuclear powerplant mismanagement. As long as public pressure continues to be applied, we can be assured that the dirty technology plants are continually headed for eventual closure

Quote:
...What are your thoughts on what's been built and being built in China? I believe they have seven plants in the works presently, a number of them being based on the Canadian CANDU design.
They seem to be reliable with the technology. I worry more about China gaining a technological military edge and then heading over here with it, to collect unpaid debt. If our politicians have not sold our labor out to, among others, China, China wouldn't have needed to increase their energy production to the extend it now has.
I find it shameful for the U.S. that China is setting an example with alternative energy investment

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Motor_Boater
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
...they are only taking 14% of the Lignite capacity off the grid or roughly 21TWh of annual output.

So the headline seems disingenuous...
It just goes to show you that Germans aren't as correct as perceived. Look who funds Deutsche Welle. After that debacle in Fukoshima, Germans have become conscious of the dangers of nuclear powerplant mismanagement. As long as public pressure continues to be applied, we can be assured that the dirty technology plants are continually headed for eventual closure


Yes, I just don't think it is at the pace at which many seem to think it is, as I believe my examples have illustrated.

I really find it bizarre that Germany has backed away from Nuclear, particularly given the fact that location-wise, they could never replicate the scenario that panned out in Japan

Originally Posted By: Motor_Boater
Quote:
...What are your thoughts on what's been built and being built in China? I believe they have seven plants in the works presently, a number of them being based on the Canadian CANDU design.
They seem to be reliable with the technology. I worry more about China gaining a technological military edge and then heading over here with it, to collect unpaid debt. If our politicians have not sold our labor out to, among others, China, China wouldn't have needed to increase their energy production to the extend it now has.
I find it shameful for the U.S. that China is setting an example with alternative energy investment


Yes, but China is still massively committed to coal, far more than the US is. So while China may be investing in alternatives, they have an absolutely obscene amount of coal to displace, that's why I provided the chart earlier, as it demonstrates that despite China's investment, the amount of coal they need to retire could power Germany almost 7x.

The US power generation mix breaks down thusly (as per the eia):

Total generated is 4,100TWh, or the same as what China generates via coal. The US, with only 30% of their power generated via that means, burns roughly 1/4 of the amount of coal for power generation that China does. The big difference seems to be the investment in massive-scale hydro-electric, which is the 2nd biggest source of generation in China at 19% of their generation mix. Wind, at 3%, is less than the US's installed capacity at 5.6%. Solar is roughly on-par, and the US is ahead on biomass.

 

[Motor_Boater]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
...while China may be investing in alternatives, they have an absolutely obscene amount of coal to displace, that's why I provided the chart earlier, as it demonstrates that despite China's investment, the amount of coal they need to retire could power Germany almost 7x...


Since Germany's coal has proved too expensive to mine and subsidies are planned to end next year, it shouldn't be surprising, if Germany will eventually replenish domestic demands with Chinese coal which should undercut the price of all other coal that is mined in market economy countries

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Motor_Boater
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
...while China may be investing in alternatives, they have an absolutely obscene amount of coal to displace, that's why I provided the chart earlier, as it demonstrates that despite China's investment, the amount of coal they need to retire could power Germany almost 7x...


Since Germany's coal has proved too expensive to mine and subsidies are planned to end next year, it shouldn't be surprising, if Germany will eventually replenish domestic demands with Chinese coal which should undercut the price of all other coal that is mined in market economy countries


That's just tragic

 

[Shannow]

OVERKILL,
I saw some presentations decades ago that Germany's lignite mines were getting so deep that it was taking more and more energy to extract that it was becoming thermodynamically inefficient to extract it.

As to German imports, the bituminous coal is already mostly imported.

The balance of Germany's coal use, and twice as much as the bituminous coal is lignite...they are always located close to the mines, as the "coal" is>0% moisture, and has woeful energy density. they are located pit-top, as you use 3 times as many tonnes as bituminous.

The milling (converting into a fine powder) systems are vastly different...so I don't see any lignite stations being converted to run black coal any time soon.

edit to add...
https://euracoal.eu/coal/why-is-there-no-lignite-market/

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
OVERKILL,
I saw some presentations decades ago that Germany's lignite mines were getting so deep that it was taking more and more energy to extract that it was becoming thermodynamically inefficient to extract it.

As to German imports, the bituminous coal is already mostly imported.

The balance of Germany's coal use, and twice as much as the bituminous coal is lignite...they are always located close to the mines, as the "coal" is>0% moisture, and has woeful energy density. they are located pit-top, as you use 3 times as many tonnes as bituminous.

The milling (converting into a fine powder) systems are vastly different...so I don't see any lignite stations being converted to run black coal any time soon.

edit to add...
https://euracoal.eu/coal/why-is-there-no-lignite-market/


Well that puts them in a bit of a pickle does it not, if lignite doesn't make sense to import and a rather large portion of their generation mix is lignite?

 

[Motor_Boater]

Past German governments attempted cutting subsidies for mining German coal, until miners took to the streets, fearing for their jobs. German miners, like French farmers, are one of the only non-political (in the sense where they aren't representing any political party on such social issues like "Politicalcorrectness" or massive immigration stoppage) groups who have ballz enough to take their issue to the streets in a not so peaceful manner. It's too bad that intertest groups with valid claims don't do likewise. By the projected deadline set for industrial redundance, most of those miners will either be retired or dead, anyway. That's probably what politicians were figuring out, so that constituents wouldn't notice their backing out of their embarassing surrender with their tails stuck between their legs.
Another hidden expense of German mining history is the collapsing of mines which the stoppage consisted of filling the spaces back up again. If you visit Nijmegen, Netherlands, you'll notice abandoned property and that which is for sale just near the border with Germany. I've never cared for visiting the German side. But, I imagine that property damage- and devaluation has also taken place there