Military Review

Green revolution in Europe: a lie from the first to the last word

654
Green revolution in Europe: a lie from the first to the last word



Nobody tried to put together the numbers and statistics on the European "alternative" energy? Recommend. Very fascinating sight. After half an hour of enthusiastic digging on the Internet, I realized: everything that is written about the energy alternative is a lie. And a lie from the first to the last word.

I propose to calculate the cost of "green" electricity produced in Europe. To calculate and make sure that NEVER, or under any circumstances, it can compare with the traditional one, and that everything that is written about it today is a deception from the first to the last word.

I will make a reservation right away: you cannot indiscriminately reject any idea Wind generation with the confluence of certain circumstances can be economically beneficial. She has even a very local, but future. True, in Europe it is just the last thing. In general, it is very likely that all this beautiful tale of green energy arose only as a result of the energy war being waged by Washington against the USSR for more than a decade. And the Europeans themselves, who believed in this fairy tale, suffer. Tale from the first to the last word.

Smooth was on paper

As we have seen past materialThe most effective and most promising form of "green" electric power is wind power. The remaining methods of producing electricity are much more expensive, and therefore lower, so as not to waste time, we will not consider them.

By the way, you did not pay attention, how do supporters of the “green energy industry” explain their advantages? I took an interest and found out that 80-90% of the numbers in the articles have been moving for the second decade from material to material, and nobody really cares that these data are outdated for a long time, and some are simply fictitious. On the other hand, the Greens talk a lot about their achievements. And every year new figures come out, showing how quickly the “green energy” is catching up with the traditionalists. And they really do not like to go into details. Why? But just this I understood only after I plunged into them myself and found out that the king was naked. And he will be naked all the time, no matter how developed technical progress.

For example, in recent publications, the figure of the cost of commissioning 1 kW of installed power for wind generation in the amount of approximately US $ 1000 appears everywhere. The parameter is very important, because the final figure of the cost of electricity produced by “windmills” largely depends on it.

But, as the documentation of real projects shows, this is the cost of only one turbine. It is all the same if we estimated the cost of nuclear power plants based on the cost of the reactor plus the turbine hall. But these are albeit important, but far from complete figures.

At the same time, this figure is not applicable to all equipment, but only to the weakest segment (turbine power is of the order of 100 kW). But such generators themselves are inefficient due to their structural limitations, the most powerful ones are already much more expensive. For example, the cost of building one of the most powerful modern wind turbines Enercon E-126 with a power of 7,58 MW is 11 million euros. And this is today 1,5-1,7 thousand dollars (depending on the cross exchange rate of currencies). Plus you need more money to connect it to the power grid.

In this case, we are still considering options for land wind farms. But in Europe it is very difficult to find a place so that on the one hand it is cheap to build, and on the other - that sufficient winds blow there. That is why now the main wind farm projects are being built at sea. But completely different numbers are already working here.



An example of the latest projects. The most powerful offshore wind farm (300 MW) Thanet Wind Farm, Kent (England). Cost - 1,4 billion dollars, or 4,67 thousand dollars per 1 kW of installed capacity.

Agree that there is a difference between 1,0 thousand. $ And 4,67 thousand. $.

But even if we consider the cheapest American WECs, we still will not get the stated figure. According to According to for 2016 a year, the average unit capital cost in the USA for 1 kW of installed capacity for this type of station was US $ 1590 with the average cost of the turbines themselves even slightly lower than US $ NNXX. Moreover, the analysis of investment projects on 1000 year shows that no reduction of this figure this year is foreseen !!!

Why not foreseen? About this below, but for now let's think about this.

It is not enough to build a station. Ultimately, it can be built and not work a single day. In this case, we get a net loss, no matter how much it costs us. In the energy sector there is such a parameter as the utilization factor of the installed power (ICUM). Moreover, unlike the efficiency, it can be higher than one, that is, 100%. For example, in modern nuclear power plants today it averages about 75-80%. But this is in the context of the year, and if the unit did not stop for a month for repairs, the capacity factor of it may be 105% and even slightly higher.



Due to what? Just initially the unit was designed for some TVELs. But technology does not stand still not only in wind power. But also for nuclear scientists. New assemblies are being developed, which have improved characteristics and make it possible to obtain a greater amount of heat in the same reactor and, therefore, electricity. That is why the power plant utilization capacity of NPPs today sometimes reaches 95-98% during the fuel session, even taking into account the necessary technological downtime associated with the replacement of part of the fuel and spare parts that have worked their life. In general, the figure is consistently higher than 80% in the industry as a whole is attainable today, and this is not the limit.

And what do we have with the capacity factor for wind generation? The most efficient windmills are in America. For example, in the USA, this parameter rarely drops below 25%. Now China has 15%. AT Germany, as shown by long-term measurements (from 2002 of the year), from 15 to 20% in total. And there has not yet been any progress.



And this is just explainable. In terms of wind generation, the USA has some of the best conditions in the world. There are many places where constant and strong winds blow. China and Germany have fewer of them. And it is also obvious that the farther, the less places will remain with similar conditions. Here you can either put up with the constant fall of the capacity factor and compensate for its height of raising the turbine, or build at sea, which, as we saw above, has its drawbacks. The price of such a power plant is multiplying, as well as maintenance.

So at the expense of what today we are seeing a decrease in the cost of electricity production at wind farms? Everything is very simple. There is no technical secret or know-how here. The theory was developed in 1950-x, and it says that the efficiency of such units can be increased by raising them as high as possible and increasing the size of the bearing blades.

Actually, that is why today all the developers of “wind turbines” have chased the power of the generators. If even 10 years ago, turbines with a power of 100-300 kW were mounted with might and main, today we already have megawatts. They are large, but, despite the high cost, more cost-effective than low-power units.

But such growth cannot be infinite. Even today, the most powerful generators are 120 meter towers with a height of the upper edge of the blades up to 180 meters.



It is impossible to increase these dimensions to infinity, as it is impossible to increase the average wind speed on the ground. At some stage, the further increase in the cost of such an aggregate will begin to exceed the increase in its efficiency. And "technical progress" will stop at this as expected, as it began 20 years ago.

With this question, I think everything is clear. And now the fun part. Is there a chance for a wind farm, even in theory, to become competitors, for example, a nuclear power plant? Well, at least at the cost of electricity produced.

About the stability of the energy supply, of course, in this case it is simply incorrect to speak.

So, we calculate the cost of electricity for modern American wind farms. Capital costs 1600 US dollars per 1 kW, equipment life 25 years (equipment life time specified by the manufacturer), power factor 0,25. The price of electricity at 2,9 cents capital costs.

RememberWhat numbers did we get for the Belarusian NPP under construction:

Capital expenditures, taking into account the construction of the town of nuclear industry with its entire 0,93 infrastructure of eurocents per 1 kWh, or 1,1-1,3 US cent. Apart from the related infrastructure (for correctness), we have 0,62 eurocents or 0,8-0,9 US cents per 1 kWh of electricity generated.

Perhaps overhead costs put everything in its place? We have already obtained the operational costs of NPPs from these environmentalists (that is, our opponents). This is roughly 1,1 US cent per 1 kWh. It was difficult to find data on WEC, but I found it in the brochure of Russian sellers of this equipment. They claim that this amount is no more than 1 rubles per 1 kWh. That is, at the current rate of approximately 1,7 cent. Let 1,5.

Moreover, I focus attention, the figures are taken for the WPPs the most favorable, that is, those that the developer and the seller of equipment insist on, and for the NPP, on the contrary, the numbers are taken from the reports of opponents.

Total, taking into account the cost of operating the plant, US wind farms that were commissioned in 2016 year, on average, will have the cost of electricity production at the level of 4,5 cent per 1 kW * h.

At the NPP, this parameter is obtained 2,8-3 cent per 1 kWh. In order to reach the same efficiency figures as nuclear power engineers, American wind defenders need to cut their specific capital construction costs at least twice. Or less, but then you also need to achieve and reduce operating costs. Which in many respects constitute the SPTA and ZP of the attendants, and here you won’t save much.

But, I repeat, this is the case of the United States, that is, the most ideal case. In Europe, you guessed it, everything is much worse.

We take the real (and not theoretical) project of the Thanet Wind Farm wind power plant that we have already reviewed above.

It is easy to calculate that at the cost of capital expenditures in the area of ​​4 670 US dollars for 1 kW * h and CFC 17% (on average in Europe), the cost of such electricity will increase to 15 cents for 1 kW h.

And even if this parameter will ever be reduced threefold (which is unrealistic in theory), even then such wind generation will be at least twice as expensive as today's NPP indicators.

Someone else has questions about why I consider the European “green energy” to be a great profanation and the greatest deception? In my opinion, everything is so clear.
Author:
654 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Shurale
    Shurale 11 December 2017 06: 53 New
    16
    The biggest problem is that the bulk of the world's power plants are coal. In coal, there is a large proportion of radioactive materials, when burning coal with ash, these materials are released into the atmosphere in horrific amounts, they try to ignore this part of the problem. Now you understand why many developed countries are struggling to get away from coal stations even in unprofitable ways. Wind, tidal, hydro, solar panels, in France, in my opinion, in general, only atomic ones remained. Any - just not coal. So I think it’s not entirely correct to criticize wind generators ...

    The author did not open the topic.
    "Kreotif guano - aftir mudag" ... (C)
    1. Chertt
      Chertt 11 December 2017 07: 04 New
      33
      Quote: Shurale
      In coal, there is a large proportion of radioactive materials, when burning coal with ash, these materials are released into the atmosphere in simply terrifying quantities

      I read a lot of publications on this topic. So, this is at least not proven, but as for me, it’s just a lie and a juggling of facts. It’s like with mobile phones that destroy the brain, if you want to believe it or not. "research" supposedly confirming or refuting opposing points of view is full, choose what you like
      1. Shurale
        Shurale 11 December 2017 07: 22 New
        19
        Alas, I didn’t post it because I read it somewhere in the newspaper, I work in the nuclear industry, and I am familiar with these data as I work.
        1. Chertt
          Chertt 11 December 2017 07: 29 New
          12
          Quote: Shurale
          I work in the nuclear industry

          I served in conscripts in the Strategic Missile Forces in Zeleny, and just like you in nuclear power, so I in rocket engines did not understand anything
          1. Shurale
            Shurale 11 December 2017 07: 38 New
            10
            Normal statement)))))
            Do you really think you have proven your opinion? I do not work in the nuclear industry as a worker throwing a uranium with a shovel. I’m an engineer and just by the specifics of my work I know something that you don’t know.
            1. Chertt
              Chertt 11 December 2017 07: 49 New
              +8
              Before you began to refer to your place of work, I expressed the thesis that there are no objective studies about the special harmfulness of radioactive contamination when burning coal. (well, apart from the obvious spray effect) More precisely, there are studies et pro con
              1. Shurale
                Shurale 11 December 2017 07: 55 New
                +6
                I will advise you to read the methods for extracting atomic raw materials, where and how what is mined from what is mined, and what percentage of this good is in the layers of coal deposits. Read - talk.
                1. psiho117
                  psiho117 12 December 2017 05: 45 New
                  13
                  Quote: Shurale
                  I will advise you to read the methods of extracting atomic raw materials, where and how what is mined from what is mined, and what percentage of this good is in the layers of coal deposits

                  The "problem" of the allegedly increased radioactivity of the environment is simply fucking up. For centuries, we have been living and working in Donetsk among coal mines, in my cellar the radon content is 17 times higher than the permissible norm (the grandfather was the chief engineer at the mine, he specially measured it in his youth).
                  And you know what? all alive healthy, no two-headed calves, no early baldness, no problems with potency wassat
                  Even, they say there was such a joke: the Japanese, somehow we wanted to build waste recycling, but when the radiation was measured, the engineers refused to go. they have in Hiroshima, at the epicenter MUCH cleaner.
                  So do not be compared to those American housewives and students - who, when polled in the USA, call radiation and nuclear energy the most dangerous factor from year to year, although in terms of the total number of deaths, it is in the penultimate, 19th place.
                  1. rtutaloe
                    rtutaloe 16 December 2017 13: 47 New
                    +2
                    We drown with coal all our lives. Grandfather miner - died at 83. Apparently from radiation. ))) He also drowned coal at home all his life. Oh no no no. ))) I guess this also threatens me. Does a stroke in 83 from radiation happen? )
                    1. Vasilenko Vladimir
                      Vasilenko Vladimir 16 December 2017 16: 01 New
                      +1
                      Quote: rtutaloe
                      83 stroke from radiation happens? )
                      no, only at 94
            2. Winnie76
              Winnie76 11 December 2017 09: 18 New
              12
              Quote: Shurale
              I’m an engineer and just by the specifics of my work I know something that you don’t know.

              “We have such devices, but we won’t tell you about them” laughing Throw a link? Sometimes I go to coal-fired boiler rooms, it turns out I need lead shorts.
              1. Shurale
                Shurale 11 December 2017 09: 45 New
                +5
                I also love Mango Mango songs, especially about crane operators. And at the expense of links ... How will I give you links to documents that I read at work? This is not Wikipedia ... And at the expense of boiler houses, you can’t worry, we are talking about millions of tons of emissions from power plants.
              2. Andvigor
                Andvigor 11 December 2017 15: 28 New
                +3
                If you want to be a father - wrap lead eggs !!! :)))
              3. sharp-lad
                sharp-lad 13 December 2017 00: 41 New
                0
                Lead pants are not needed, but those working in these boiler rooms need dust masks, of course, not only because of the low content of radioactive elements in the ash (sometimes many times higher than the natural level), but also to prevent pneumoconiosis.
            3. Fast_mutant
              Fast_mutant 11 December 2017 21: 12 New
              +2
              Quote: Shurale
              I’m an engineer and I just know something by the specifics of the work that you don’t know

              And detail? Well, it's interesting what they hide from us! ))) Seriously!
              1. oops
                oops 12 December 2017 10: 00 New
                +1
                No one is hiding anything! This has been written about dozens of years ago. It is written, for example, that one large coal-fired power plant emits more radioactive substances into the atmosphere with ash and smoke than ALL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS OF THE WORLD!
                By the way. Charcoal cups are emitted into the atmosphere and an eerie amount of mercury, heavy metals and carcinogenic soot.
                Are you interested in something? So at least read Wikipedia, and we already have **** to educate all kinds of Winnie76, and completely insane Chert'ov. The main thing is that it is already impossible to bring their brains to a sane state!
                1. user
                  user 12 December 2017 21: 49 New
                  +2
                  It is written, for example, that one large coal-fired power plant emits more radioactive substances into the atmosphere with ash and smoke than ALL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS OF THE WORLD!


                  When such a definition was found long ago in the technical literature "the main volume of the residues of the combustion process falls out at a distance of 11 times the height of the boiler pipe", but in fact it is not the pipe height, but gas purification and the concentration and power of such objects. For example, in Germany you will not find more than two cases of aluminum production, and given the fact that the capacity of their electrolytic cells is almost two times less than ours - 225 KA, and in Bratsk we have 24 buildings with a capacity of 2 times more and the number of electrolyzers is natural also larger and the yield of aluminum is also natural - in short, the economy. So, pheasants walk near the borders of the industrial zone in Germany, and in Bratsk the forest is dry in the district, and because of the excess fluoride in the ground near the cows, the bones become fragile, almost glass, they eat grass from this land. So the latest successes in gas cleaning have reached such a level that these problems are a thing of the past. But it costs money to implement them - the economy again I explained all this with the example of aluminum production because emissions and side effects there are much more problematic than just those that occur when burning coal.
                  1. oops
                    oops 13 December 2017 03: 39 New
                    0
                    Chimneys do not produce harmful substances. They only throw muck on a larger or smaller area. Cleanliness in German industrial zones is not due to the success of gas purification, but because of the removal of hazardous industries to third world countries.
                    Actually, energy is being discussed here and not all other industry.
                2. Captain Nemo
                  Captain Nemo 13 December 2017 01: 00 New
                  +1
                  I work in Dubna. This nonsense is very similar to the letters of protests that came to different authorities against the construction of the NUCL Nuclotron
                  1. oops
                    oops 13 December 2017 04: 15 New
                    +5
                    The biggest nonsense was after the publication of an article by a Swedish rural doctor who managed to catch a correlation with many nuclear tests conducted thousands of kilometers from Sweden from a dozen cases of cancer in a Swedish village. He immediately gave birth to the theory of the "thresholdlessness" of the harm of radiation. What a squeal in "civilized" Europe immediately began! And a whole Committee of anxious European housewives immediately created! Since this Committee had real MONEY, then immediately the Russian and Belarusian "ecologists" with great enthusiasm got involved. Especially zealous is the member of the political council of the Yabloko party "ecologist" Yablokov .. I have not met a more ugly and corrupt "scientist".
                3. woron333444
                  woron333444 14 December 2017 14: 57 New
                  +3
                  And I think why the Finns refuse gas and switch to coal. Probably they want to die faster. To date, Kuzbas sends all coal for export. I waited two weeks to buy coal home.
          2. nickd55
            nickd55 11 December 2017 19: 01 New
            +1
            And I served in the Green as an officer. :)
            1. no matter
              no matter 11 December 2017 20: 26 New
              +3
              And I’m the daughter of an officer and everything is not so clear here.
      2. victorsh
        victorsh 11 December 2017 07: 42 New
        +5
        Look at one of the Galileo programs. They put an egg between the two phones. And they called. After 30, the egg was boiled. I agree on the "expensive" way to cook the egg.
        1. Chertt
          Chertt 11 December 2017 07: 53 New
          13
          Quote: victorsh
          After 30 minutes, the egg was boiled.

          Well on such a "button accordion" to be conducted ...... I am puzzled ... Are you a supporter of bulk?
          1. victorsh
            victorsh 11 December 2017 08: 08 New
            17
            And where does LeXa come from? I served in RTV for more than 20 years. And the young people arrived in practice showed what the radar was. They caught an ermine, tied to a pole and turned on the radar at 100 meters at 50% power. 10 sec. and it’s cooked. Fiercely towards an animal? BUT IT IS EXPLICIT to guys.
            1. Shurale
              Shurale 11 December 2017 08: 15 New
              +3
              My father served on the radar near Klyuchevskaya Sopka, they tracked missile launches. So, they had a state of emergency once, the antenna changed the tilt during work, who managed to dive for cover, and one guy was slow, half-hearted.
              1. Mestny
                Mestny 11 December 2017 09: 57 New
                +7
                Do you understand the difference in radar power and mobile phone?
                Mobile radiation power of about 1 watts. Is it possible to boil an egg with such power and for how long?
                1. Shurale
                  Shurale 11 December 2017 10: 48 New
                  +2
                  Did I say that this is possible?
                2. b-volh
                  b-volh 11 December 2017 21: 11 New
                  0
                  100 micro watts per cm square is considered to be already harmful harmful radiation and employees must be paid for harmful working conditions and shortened working hours
                  1. oops
                    oops 12 December 2017 10: 55 New
                    0
                    And how did you manage to measure the electromagnetic radiation power in the operator’s cabins?
                    Radar operators were harmed not by electromagnetic radiation, but by X-ray radiation from electron beam monitors. Old household televisions with picture tubes also gave x-rays
                    1. 73petia
                      73petia 13 December 2017 00: 56 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Oops
                      Old household televisions with picture tubes also gave x-rays


                      A noticeable soft x-ray was from color tube televisions. Especially at the very first, in which stood the high-voltage kenotron GP-5. Here they (these televisions) strongly "fonil". At first, this kenotron was closed with a steel screen with a wall thickness of 5 millimeters. Then they began to save metal.
                3. Fast_mutant
                  Fast_mutant 11 December 2017 21: 23 New
                  0
                  Quote: Mestny
                  Is it possible to boil an egg with such power and for how long?

                  You can cook ... but for a long time))
                  For "very young children" © ...
                  If you estimate that an electric kettle with a capacity of 2 kW boils a glass of water in about a couple of minutes (we don’t need more water to boil one egg), and the egg is boiled, let’s, 7 minutes ... total about 10 minutes ... It turns out about 330 watts /hour.
                  Or so: 330 hours (at 1 watt), which is almost 2 weeks.
                  Well, if it does not fade before! )))
                  1. oops
                    oops 12 December 2017 10: 19 New
                    0
                    I don’t know about the egg, but I myself saw a video of how students made popcorn using three or four cell phones. Pretty quick they did it - like in the microwave!
                    1. oops
                      oops 12 December 2017 10: 41 New
                      0
                      Moderator, why on earth did you delete the comment? What didn’t your tender soul like?
                      And will you delete it? Why are you so angry?
                      1. oops
                        oops 12 December 2017 11: 00 New
                        0
                        The comment is back. Wonders...
                        Thank you moderator!
                4. 73petia
                  73petia 13 December 2017 00: 19 New
                  0
                  At the first moment of a call, when the phone is looking for a base station, the power of some models can reach 2 watts.
                5. 73petia
                  73petia 13 December 2017 00: 23 New
                  0
                  Quote: Mestny
                  Mobile radiation power of about 1 watts. Is it possible to boil an egg with such power and for how long?


                  At the first moment of a call, when the phone is looking for a base station, the power of some models can reach 2 watts.
            2. Skay
              Skay 11 December 2017 09: 32 New
              +1
              And I have a familiar signalman in the north in the beam warmed the stew. Maybe he’s lying of course ...
              1. victorsh
                victorsh 11 December 2017 09: 50 New
                +4
                I lied. There are signalmen in the "north" of the diesel engine. It’s safer to heat it up.
            3. AID.S
              AID.S 11 December 2017 10: 40 New
              +8
              Quote: victorsh
              Caught ermine

              “Comrade Major, they’ll bring spirits today!”
              - Catch the ermine!
              1. victorsh
                victorsh 11 December 2017 11: 13 New
                +2
                It’s enviable! I had a chief P-35-oh. An excellent chief of the station. His daughter walked in an ermine vest.
            4. vlanis
              vlanis 11 December 2017 17: 06 New
              +8
              The next button accordion, I also served and worked all my life on the radar, and we also checked this bike, hung in the bag of a ridiculous cat directly on the radar antenna irradiator, noted the time, twisted it for half an hour, then took pity - took it off, the cat rushed to eat. after that, he "served" on the locator for another five years. Especially killed - a distance of 100 meters.
              1. AID.S
                AID.S 11 December 2017 18: 56 New
                +3
                Quote: vlanis
                Another button accordion

                Quote: vlanis
                Especially killed - a distance of 100 meters

                "Birds do not sing there, trees do not grow ..."
                During my service at the RLC, I didn’t observe such horrors, TB was naturally observed, no one crawled out of the KUNG unnecessarily under "high", and cat accidents occurred solely on household grounds. laughing
              2. 73petia
                73petia 13 December 2017 01: 09 New
                0
                Quote: vlanis
                they hung up in a bag of a ridiculous cat right on the radar antenna irradiator, noted the time, twisted it for half an hour, then took pity - removed it, the cat rushed to eat. after that, he "served" on the locator for another five years.


                Well I do not know. Maybe they hung this cat on the wrong side of the irradiator? We have one man under high hit, blinded. Belma in both eyes. And something else with vessels or something. Just like your cat lived five years after that. A man in a little over fifty was.
              3. Cossack 471
                Cossack 471 14 December 2017 20: 00 New
                0
                I was working at the starting position of the S-75 air defense system. and then PRV-13 starts bowing in my direction (power 2.7 kW in continuous mode) so the ringing was in my head. impossible to work. and before him was 300 meters
            5. Captain Nemo
              Captain Nemo 13 December 2017 01: 03 New
              0
              Well, you compared the power of the radar and the transmitter power of a mobile phone. MW and W. If anything, VUS 441002 and a civil diploma physicist
          2. Shurale
            Shurale 11 December 2017 08: 10 New
            +6
            Are you a supporter of Putin?
            (Could not resist laughing it painfully reminds me of this scream - are you against the leading role of the party ?! Directly Michurinovschina some ...)
            1. victorsh
              victorsh 11 December 2017 08: 27 New
              +1
              And here, whose supporter am I? We are discussing an article. A man doubted the information. I have a dzh. children (when they were little) knew why the grid was in front of DOS. And they don’t get sick on the cell.
              1. Shurale
                Shurale 11 December 2017 09: 18 New
                0
                Sorry, the question about Putin was not for you, I wanted to ask him to someone who started a conversation about Navalny, missed the button ...
        2. sharp-lad
          sharp-lad 13 December 2017 00: 52 New
          0
          It will not be possible to boil an egg with the help of mobile phones, but the madness of pure water can stroll in front of a powerful radar! Itself built an early warning radar type "Daryal", next to the construction site was the previous station (I don’t remember which one), so a couple de .... in a walk in front of it, they commissioned right away.
        3. Deckofficer
          Deckofficer 15 December 2017 16: 56 New
          0
          I do not believe. disa.
      3. EvilLion
        EvilLion 11 December 2017 09: 06 New
        +6
        If you spray millions of tons of material, then it will somehow have something radioactive in it.
      4. CONTROL
        CONTROL 11 December 2017 10: 15 New
        18
        Quote: Chertt
        Quote: Shurale
        In coal, there is a large proportion of radioactive materials, when burning coal with ash, these materials are released into the atmosphere in simply terrifying quantities

        I read a lot of publications on this topic. So, this is at least not proven, but as for me, it’s just a lie and a juggling of facts.

        ...chemical industry!
        Harmful? Yes! Environmentally hazardous? Yes!!! And we all know that ... - with numbers, facts and statistics!
        But then a group of British people come to our country and our company to work (under a contract!) - no, don’t be alarmed! not "scientists ... - just chemical design engineers! however, among them was still one Korean ... hesitated, you know!
        So - in conversations with them (in the “worn in a smoking room” format) we began to learn incredible things: how useful this very “chemistry” is for our health (which, as we have been taught all our life, we considered harmful!), How it promotes increase vitality, potency (!!! -Well, how could we do without it !!! when even potato chips raise it now incredibly!) and finally everything! ... And where, we ask, did you get all this, so informative? And from official sources, sources - studies of "British scientists", scientific literature ... and, of course, official statistics!
        -----------------------------
        ... such speeches made you think deeply! And we are still thinking about it ... (about "research" - and for whom and by whom they are conducted ..., about "scientific literature" - and for whom it is written ..., and - at the same time - about " official statistics "... - especially about the" potency "excited some ...
        It was at the beginning of the 90s ... Draw conclusions about the dangers and benefits of this and that, the effect of all this breach "on potency" ... and mainly on the fact that it is much more important - on the brain !!! We need to think for ourselves, and not vaguely stated by the "scientific and statistical data" of some coolly interested "scientists" to be added!
        -------------------------
        In Africa, a tribe of blacks living in the area of ​​uranium tar deposits was discovered quite a long time ago; radiation level - well, completely unacceptable! Lived for centuries, tall and physically strong and healthy, even among the surrounding tribes; live to a very old age, all teeth are whole, and - most importantly - intelligence is significantly higher than that of people from neighboring tribes; their women - like brides - like hot cakes!, dear ransom-kalym-bakshish pay for them! ...
        ... or is it a fake? Well, in the 60s, even fakes were not in fashion - they haven’t been invented yet ...
        1. Yeti
          Yeti 11 December 2017 21: 16 New
          +3
          ))))))))))))) This is not a fake. Because of the greens, they even ceased to mention that without radiation at least 20 microns people would die. Below immunity dies with all that it implies. And the leaves after rain with radiation do not fade, but only become greener. Wither from chemistry (sulfur compounds, etc.).
          1. Tda tar
            Tda tar 12 December 2017 15: 35 New
            0
            That's for sure. As my ship's doctor said: "the effect of low doses of radiation on humans is not understood." On my own, I personally can say - while I worked among uranium and plutonium for a dozen years - I was absolutely healthy - like an astronaut (examined annually with an addiction). when he went ashore - three years later he went to hospital with severe anemia and a bunch of accompanying sores on three sheets of description.
    2. DanSabaka
      DanSabaka 11 December 2017 07: 09 New
      37
      is there something unsolved? good article ....
      and from myself I’ll add a bit of humor, a little black ....
      1. Waltasar
        Waltasar 11 December 2017 07: 53 New
        15
        Coal - dirty, gas - dependent on the bloody Putin regime, there are few hydroelectric power stations, nuclear power plants are fukushimo dangerous, Santaclaus windmills cut ...
        Everywhere there are cons. Here the question of choice is what to put up with and what to overpay for.
        1. CONTROL
          CONTROL 11 December 2017 10: 21 New
          +5
          Quote: Waltasar
          Coal - dirty, gas - dependent on the bloody Putin regime, there are few hydroelectric power stations, nuclear power plants are fukushimo dangerous, Santaclaus windmills cut ...
          Everywhere there are cons. Here the question of choice is what to put up with and what to overpay for.

          Felix Krivin had such a parable (about the essence of technological progress): What is the difference between the TV, which our contemporaries spend their free time on, from the bonfire, on which our ancestors spent the evenings in caves?
          So the fire is much better - it shines and warms! And the TV only shines, and even then only on one side ...
          (C)
          1. sxfRipper
            sxfRipper 11 December 2017 13: 39 New
            +2
            EMNIP, this is from Savchenko. Discovery of oneself.
            1. CONTROL
              CONTROL 11 December 2017 15: 02 New
              +1
              Quote: sxfRipper
              EMNIP, this is from Savchenko. Discovery of oneself.

              ??
              ... not, after all, Krivin ... It seems, "Hyacinth Islands", or "In the land of things"? ... If My Memory serves Me ...
              ... and if - "changes"? Then yes, Vladimir Savchenko, "Opening Yourself" ...
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 11 December 2017 09: 07 New
        +5
        This is not humor, but reality. Windmills are poorly compatible with birds.
        1. nickd55
          nickd55 11 December 2017 19: 06 New
          0
          Are you generally interested in the speed of rotation of industrial windmills? :)
          Even my household for 5 years at a speed of up to 300 revolutions per minute, not a single living creature was killed. :) And for large ones - 15-20 rpm. :)
        2. stalkerwalker
          stalkerwalker 11 December 2017 19: 37 New
          +7
          Quote: EvilLion
          and reality, windmills with birds are poorly compatible.

          Quote: nickd55
          my household for 5 years at a speed of up to 300 rpm did not kill a single living creature. :)

          With an increase in the size of the blades of the windmills, an infrasound effect occurs that adversely affects the flora and fauna. As a rule, no living creatures live near modern (and powerful) wind farms.
          1. evil partisan
            evil partisan 11 December 2017 20: 06 New
            +2
            Quote: stalkerwalker
            As a rule, no living creatures live near modern (and powerful) wind farms.

            Breshet. yes In Tatarstan (or in Bashkiria), the cafe stands next to the enti shaitan propellers. Good food good . not like on a ship tongue . Hi Ilyich! drinks
            1. stalkerwalker
              stalkerwalker 11 December 2017 20: 25 New
              +4
              Quote: wicked partisan
              Breshet. In Tatarstan (or in Bashkiria), the cafe stands next to the enti shaitan propellers.

              Hi, Yuri!
              hi
              Not. Do not shout. It is a fact.
              1. evil partisan
                evil partisan 11 December 2017 21: 42 New
                +2
                Quote: stalkerwalker
                Not. Do not shout. It is a fact.

                Well I do not know... what How many times did I eat there and nothing request , and nothing, and nothing, and nothing, IR, and nothing, and nothing ....
                1. stalkerwalker
                  stalkerwalker 11 December 2017 22: 29 New
                  +3
                  Quote: wicked partisan
                  How many times did I eat there and nothing

                  If you had lived there for half a year, we would have lost you .....
                  wassat
            2. nickd55
              nickd55 11 December 2017 20: 55 New
              0
              And the big ones there are “shaitan propellers”? :)
          2. nickd55
            nickd55 11 December 2017 20: 42 New
            +2
            Right under my windmill, moles dig their holes and worms in the ground - darkness. :)
            I repeat, infrasound can accompany only large windmills, but it is not a fact that all living creatures scatter there. In my opinion, even for large windmills, such a danger is exaggerated. And the point here is not the size of the blades, but the frequency of their rotation.
            1. stalkerwalker
              stalkerwalker 11 December 2017 22: 31 New
              +3
              Quote: nickd55
              And the point here is not the size of the blades, but the frequency of their rotation.

              Well yes....
              The desktop fan, like a helicopter, has rotating blades .... laughing
          3. glasha3032
            glasha3032 13 December 2017 01: 47 New
            0
            Even in Germany, local residents complain of constant drafts from the operation of windmills.
      3. cockatoo
        cockatoo 11 December 2017 16: 41 New
        0
        laugh the little devil
      4. sharp-lad
        sharp-lad 13 December 2017 00: 56 New
        0
        Well that reminded! We need to put a windmill before the holidays! lol
      5. chicken
        chicken 9696 15 December 2017 10: 54 New
        0
        Exactly! laughing This is the maximum than a windmill can do. And if the nuclear power plant smells, the picture is more terrible and will be for a long time! In addition, there is no waste from the windmill, but the NPP, we still have to think about where to store the waste ... In general, the NPP is clearly cheaper, but the fact that windmills are a divorce! Stupidity. The author did not take into account a lot of things.
        Z.Y. I wonder when the windmill paid for itself ?.
        1. Vasilenko Vladimir
          Vasilenko Vladimir 15 December 2017 11: 49 New
          +1
          Quote: kip9696
          In addition, there is no waste from the windmill

          Yes?!!!
          and who told you that ?!
          1. chicken
            chicken 9696 15 December 2017 14: 41 New
            0
            Well, the waste wind has not harmed anyone! wink
    3. siberalt
      siberalt 11 December 2017 07: 40 New
      +7
      So, horse-drawn transport will be cheaper in terms of gasoline / oats, but you can’t get far. lol
      1. DanSabaka
        DanSabaka 11 December 2017 07: 56 New
        +5
        cheaper gas / oats

        will not .... if in terms of l / s - the ruble ....
    4. FID
      FID 11 December 2017 08: 48 New
      +7
      Quote: Shurale
      "Kreotif guano - aftir mudag" ... (C)

      Well, well .... We are cultured people, don’t do it right away!
      1. Shurale
        Shurale 11 December 2017 09: 25 New
        +4
        Someone else has questions about why I consider the European “green energy” to be a great profanation and the greatest deception? In my opinion, everything is so clear.
        Posted by Yuri Podolyaka (Yurasumy)

        Peremptory statements of the author clearly do not belong to the culture ...
        1. Chertt
          Chertt 11 December 2017 10: 29 New
          11
          Quote: Shurale
          Peremptory statements of the author are clearly not culturally ..

          You do not get angry, but your most peremptory judgments. And if to summarize all the comments, it should be concluded that there is no single solution in the energy sector. All its forms have their pros and cons, which are easily rigged by interested groups.
    5. To be or not to be
      To be or not to be 11 December 2017 09: 26 New
      18
      Academician Petr Leonidovich Kapitsa has long opened this topic.
      "On October 8, 1975, at a scientific session dedicated to the 250th anniversary of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Academician Pyotr Kapitsa, who was awarded three years later the Nobel Prize in Physics, made a conceptual report in which, based on basic physical principles, he essentially buried everything types of "alternative energy", with the exception of controlled thermonuclear fusion. ""
      https://alex-leshy.livejournal.com/1032365.html
      1. Chertt
        Chertt 11 December 2017 10: 33 New
        +3
        Quote: To be or not to be
        "October 8, 1975 at a scientific session dedicated to the 250th anniversary of the USSR Academy of Sciences,

        Well, you waved (with all due respect to Pyotr Leonidovich Kapitsa) you would have brought the treatise of the monk Bertold Schwartz as a proof
        1. Waltasar
          Waltasar 11 December 2017 11: 24 New
          11
          Have you read that document?
          Do you think that over 40 years the density of solar energy has changed, the winds began to blow harder? Or crop yields increased at times?
          Yes, the efficiency of modern systems has become higher, but not so much that the report is considered obsolete.
        2. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 11 December 2017 21: 26 New
          +4
          Quote: Chertt
          Well, you waved (with all due respect to Pyotr Leonidovich Kapitsa) you would have brought the treatise of the monk Bertold Schwartz as a proof

          And I googled. Interestingly, everywhere they write the number 250. One was mistaken, the rest are reprinted. wink
          1. Ren
            Ren 12 December 2017 06: 27 New
            +2
            Quote: mordvin xnumx
            And I googled. Interestingly, everywhere they write the number 250. One was mistaken, the rest are reprinted.

            The Academy was founded on January 28 (February 8), 1724 in St. Petersburg by decree of Peter I.
            October 8, 1975 at a scientific session dedicated to the 250th anniversary of the USSR Academy of Sciences

            1724 years have passed since 250, this is a fact (1975-1724). hi
            Learn diligent and do not forget the queen of sciences (at least its basics) lol
            1. Mordvin 3
              Mordvin 3 12 December 2017 18: 17 New
              +4
              Quote: Ren
              Learn diligent and do not forget the queen of sciences (at least its basics)

              Why not 251? recourse The Academy of Sciences of the USSR was founded in the 1925 year, if I am not mistaken.
    6. andj61
      andj61 11 December 2017 11: 53 New
      11
      Quote: Shurale
      The biggest problem is that the bulk of the world's power plants are coal. In coal, there is a large proportion of radioactive materials, when burning coal with ash, these materials are released into the atmosphere in horrific amounts, they try to ignore this part of the problem. Now you understand why many developed countries are struggling to get away from coal stations even in unprofitable ways. Wind, tidal, hydro, solar panels, in France, in my opinion, in general, only atomic ones remained. Any - just not coal. So I think it’s not entirely correct to criticize wind generators ...

      The author did not open the topic.
      "Kreotif guano - aftir mudag" ... (C)

      What was the topic? In my opinion, nuclear power plants and wind farms were compared. Nothing was said about coal TPPs and TPPs, no comparisons were made. Moreover, the author did not mention and did not take into account in the article a number of problems of wind farm, which even more economically show the failure of this energy. There are difficulties in pairing electricity from different wind farm generators in the network - there are special filters there both with the frequency of the problem and with the voltage. Traditional power plants have no such problems. Moreover, here the economy does not steer, but banal subsidizing. In EU countries, not only wind energy is subsidized and exempted from taxes, but money is paid to the owners of the land on which the wind farm is installed from the state. And this is done at the expense of taxpayers - here economic comparisons should not be done at all - the wind farm generally has no part of the costs - and this is established at the legislative level.
      Regarding the radiation of coal stations - I agree with comrades.
      Quote: Chertt
      I read a lot of publications on this topic. So, this is at least not proven, but as for me, it’s just a lie and a juggling of facts. It’s like with mobile phones that destroy the brain, if you want to believe it or not. "research" supposedly confirming or refuting opposing points of view is full, choose what you like

      Modern coal plants with modern filters are quite effective. True, their economy is worse than that of gas or nuclear. But there is much more coal, it is rather cheap, and its amount is practically inexhaustible. It is worth noting that in Kemerovo at the outbreak of the USSR, an underground gasification technology for poor and depleted coal seams was developed. There, methane was produced directly from coal in the mine - then it was collected and used. The cost turned out to be no cheaper than the cost of gas produced somewhere on the Yamal Peninsula. A technology was also developed for hydro-mining coal - with high-pressure water jets, the coal seam was destroyed, coal was crushed, waste was separated, and coal was directly supplied with water to the furnaces of power plants or cement and lime rotary kilns. The problem was with their ignition, but after ignition even water decomposed into its components and only contributed to the complete combustion of coal. We have forgotten these technologies, they have forgotten, but sooner or later they will have to return to them anyway.
      Now, in terms of price-quality-ecology, gas stations, then nuclear ones, come first. Wind farms are significantly inferior to them, even in ecology - the noise from the wind farm is very significant, and the birds often fall under the blades. In many European countries, noise was legally limited to 45 dB, and even less at night. This also contributes to higher economic performance of US wind farms.
      So the author is right - there is no revolution in Europe, especially in wind energy.
      But wind farms are quite efficient to use - in hard-to-reach areas where power lines to stretch are either very expensive or impossible. And as an alternative to diesel or gasoline generators. In this case, and state subsidies or benefits - and for production, and for repairs, and for the operation of wind farms will be quite appropriate. Or a subsidy directly to the user. hi
      1. dubovitskiy.1947
        dubovitskiy.1947 17 December 2017 19: 38 New
        0
        Quote: andj61
        Quote: Shurale
        The biggest problem is that the bulk of the world's power plants are coal. In coal, there is a large proportion of radioactive materials, when burning coal with ash, these materials are released into the atmosphere in horrific amounts, they try to ignore this part of the problem. Now you understand why many developed countries are struggling to get away from coal stations even in unprofitable ways. Wind, tidal, hydro, solar panels, in France, in my opinion, in general, only atomic ones remained. Any - just not coal. So I think it’s not entirely correct to criticize wind generators ...

        The author did not open the topic.
        "Kreotif guano - aftir mudag" ... (C)

        What was the topic? In my opinion, nuclear power plants and wind farms were compared. Nothing was said about coal TPPs and TPPs, no comparisons were made. Moreover, the author did not mention and did not take into account in the article a number of problems of wind farm, which even more economically show the failure of this energy. There are difficulties in pairing electricity from different wind farm generators in the network - there are special filters there both with the frequency of the problem and with the voltage. Traditional power plants have no such problems. Moreover, here the economy does not steer, but banal subsidizing. In EU countries, not only wind energy is subsidized and exempted from taxes, but money is paid to the owners of the land on which the wind farm is installed from the state. And this is done at the expense of taxpayers - here economic comparisons should not be done at all - the wind farm generally has no part of the costs - and this is established at the legislative level.
        Regarding the radiation of coal stations - I agree with comrades.
        Quote: Chertt
        I read a lot of publications on this topic. So, this is at least not proven, but as for me, it’s just a lie and a juggling of facts. It’s like with mobile phones that destroy the brain, if you want to believe it or not. "research" supposedly confirming or refuting opposing points of view is full, choose what you like

        Modern coal plants with modern filters are quite effective. True, their economy is worse than that of gas or nuclear. But there is much more coal, it is rather cheap, and its amount is practically inexhaustible. It is worth noting that in Kemerovo at the outbreak of the USSR, an underground gasification technology for poor and depleted coal seams was developed. There, methane was produced directly from coal in the mine - then it was collected and used. The cost turned out to be no cheaper than the cost of gas produced somewhere on the Yamal Peninsula. A technology was also developed for hydro-mining coal - with high-pressure water jets, the coal seam was destroyed, coal was crushed, waste was separated, and coal was directly supplied with water to the furnaces of power plants or cement and lime rotary kilns. The problem was with their ignition, but after ignition even water decomposed into its components and only contributed to the complete combustion of coal. We have forgotten these technologies, they have forgotten, but sooner or later they will have to return to them anyway.
        Now, in terms of price-quality-ecology, gas stations, then nuclear ones, come first. Wind farms are significantly inferior to them, even in ecology - the noise from the wind farm is very significant, and the birds often fall under the blades. In many European countries, noise was legally limited to 45 dB, and even less at night. This also contributes to higher economic performance of US wind farms.
        So the author is right - there is no revolution in Europe, especially in wind energy.
        But wind farms are quite efficient to use - in hard-to-reach areas where power lines to stretch are either very expensive or impossible. And as an alternative to diesel or gasoline generators. In this case, and state subsidies or benefits - and for production, and for repairs, and for the operation of wind farms will be quite appropriate. Or a subsidy directly to the user. hi

        You are not accurate. Underground gasification of coal is a completely different song. An attempt to get methane from coal seams did not come out of laboratory research and public relations of Aman Tuleyev, the governor of the Kemerovo region. This gasification was carried out (now not in the know) at the world's only mine in the city of Kiselevsk, Kemerovo region. It is impossible to think of a more barbaric destruction of nature. After coal mining, laying ventilation openings, coal was burnt in the seams, and it burned with little air, emitting tar, carbon monoxide, any creosote and the entire periodic table, which they tried to catch and send to the storage tanks for processing . The scent from this affair spread dozens of kilometers around, the water in streams, wells and in the BURNES (!!!) became brown, wrapped in oily film, and bitter. Dips on the surface from the vacated area of ​​the burnt formation could appear anywhere and at any time. Perestroika, the only thing that did the positive, it ruined this way of dough extraction. The mines, many were closed, this one closed too.
        Next.
        Hydro production was and is being produced. Coal in the form of pulp (mixture with water) is fed by coal suction pumps (such there are devices) to the surface, and fed to processing plants. Coal in any mining technology is DISCOVERED. (mining term is clogged) by breed. In factories, it is enriched. Usually, it is ground with ball mills along with the extracted rock, to the state of the powder. Coal is lighter, has a specific gravity of 1,6 tons per cubic meter, the rock is heavier - 2,3 tons per cubic meter. The mixture is poured into baths with a solution, heavy salt is dissolved in water, bringing the specific gravity to 1,8 tons per cubic meter. Emulsifier (analogue of liquid soap). Bottom air is supplied. When bubbling, the foam floats upward, the rock sinks. From above, they are collected, dried and burned at power plants by blowing nozzles into the furnace.
    7. groks
      groks 11 December 2017 12: 31 New
      +4
      In coal, there is a large proportion of radioactive materials, when burning coal with ash, these materials are released into the atmosphere in simply terrifying quantities

      As for the "terrifying" - an exaggeration. I lived in a small village, where both the production and heating of the village itself was provided by a coal thermal power station. Some excesses in the area of ​​the wind track were, but not horror, horror, horror (s). With the general background elevated in Primorye, this can be ignored.
      1. Shurale
        Shurale 12 December 2017 06: 29 New
        0
        Horrific - here was meant the total amount of this dirt in the world, since the number of coal-fired power plants is overwhelming.
        1. groks
          groks 12 December 2017 08: 08 New
          0
          If there are no terrifying ones right near the stations, then where are they on a global scale?
      2. Valery Saitov
        Valery Saitov 12 December 2017 12: 47 New
        0
        In China, because of coal-fired thermal power plants, I was constantly able to go in masks in cities, so they want to transfer everything to gas. We will help them soon.
    8. vlad_vlad
      vlad_vlad 11 December 2017 13: 09 New
      +3
      The author is a clear fan of nuclear energy. has the right, but why not "keep silent" the facts?

      the cost of nuclear energy is killed when you start to include the cost of disposing of radioactive waste here. This was one of the main reasons in Germany when the state said - "and now USE!" Those. a private company should pay for the plant’s expenditures for the atomic station and expenses for 100500 years for disposal.

      UTB in Russia, the atom of the station is a state. And it is not private business that pays out of profits for disposal, but the state (i.e. you are from your taxes).

      I'm not a fan of windmills, but I think that with each year their cost will be lower and they have the right to have some market share :-)

      for reference - in Germany 20 years ago the share of energy from renewable sources (wind turbines, etc.) was 3%. Last year already 30%.

      Greetings to Gazprom, Arabs and other gas and oil-gas atoms :-)
      1. Vasilenko Vladimir
        Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 17: 08 New
        +7
        Quote: vlad_vlad
        for reference - in Germany 20 years ago the share of energy from renewable sources (wind turbines, etc.) was 3%. Last year already 30%.
        Greetings to Gazprom, Arabs and other gas and oil-gas atoms :-)

        actually this is cunning
        first, what share in these 30% is taken by the washed enterprises
        second, how much energy is spent on PRODUCING equipment for generating "green" energy
        third, by how much you need to increase energy production capacities if we take into account heating, hot water supply, as well as the transition to electric transport
        when you answer all these questions you will send greetings to Gazprom
        1. vlad_vlad
          vlad_vlad 11 December 2017 17: 42 New
          +1
          You with the Russian language are somehow worse than mine ...
          I do not understand what you are talking about. What does all your items have to do with it?

          More times Russian in white:
          30% of all electricity produced in Germany was made on the basis of green energy. The remaining 70% is gas, coal, oil, atom ...
          20 years ago - 3% of green energy, the remaining 97% - gas, coal, oil, atom.

          in both cases it turns out the sum = 100% (this happens). the more electricity is produced by green energy, the less gas, oil, coal, etc. are needed.
          Electricity - ETA is such crap in wires. etu crap is not visible but it is.

          so intelligibly?
          1. Vasilenko Vladimir
            Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 19: 54 New
            +1
            Quote: vlad_vlad
            You with the Russian language are somehow worse than mine ...

            wrote "on the run"
            Quote: vlad_vlad
            30% of all electricity produced in Germany was made on the basis of green energy.

            you again move away from the answer, one thing is the “point” energy for households and completely different powerful consumers who need not smeared kW, but MW concentrated in one place
            Quote: vlad_vlad
            20 years ago - 3% of green energy, the remaining 97% - gas, coal, oil, atom.

            once again you subsidize households for the transition to green technologies, you can saturate this market, but can you translate the Ruhr into "windmills"?
            Quote: vlad_vlad
            the more electricity is produced by green energy, the less gas, oil, coal, etc. are needed.

            nope, you don’t think how much “coal” should be burned for reproduction of “green” generators
            Quote: vlad_vlad
            Electricity - ETA is such crap in wires. etu crap is not visible but it is.
            so intelligibly?

            It’s clear, I talked with those who do not distinguish the operating current from the starting current
          2. psiho117
            psiho117 12 December 2017 06: 05 New
            0
            Quote: vlad_vlad
            30% of all electricity produced in Germany was made on the basis of green energy. The remaining 70% is gas, coal, oil, atom ...
            20 years ago - 3% of green energy, the remaining 97% - gas, coal, oil, atom.
            in both cases the result is = 100%
            so intelligibly

            But nifiga. The fact that increased production of "wind" electricity does not mean that the rest was produced less.
            On the contrary, over 20 years, consumption has grown significantly, and if earlier
            (figures at random), they consumed 1 kW / h, of which “clean" 000 kW / h, now, after 000 years, consumption has grown to 30 kW / h, of which 000 kW / h.
            so intelligibly? bully
            1. nickd55
              nickd55 12 December 2017 11: 22 New
              0
              Is it in Germany for 20 years that consumption has grown significantly? :) Can you confirm with something? :)
            2. Valery Saitov
              Valery Saitov 12 December 2017 12: 58 New
              +1
              At times, it doesn’t work out. According to the IEA, from 1990 to 2008, the average energy consumption per capita increased by 10%, while the world's population increased by 27%. Regional energy consumption also increased from 1990 to 2008: in the Middle East - by 170%, in China - by 146%, in India - by 91%, in Africa - by 70%, in Latin America - by 66%, in the USA - by 20%, in the EU-27 - by 7%, and throughout the world - by 39%.
              1. sharp-lad
                sharp-lad 13 December 2017 01: 07 New
                0
                After the rejection of tube TVs, there was a continuous energy saving. smile
                1. dubovitskiy.1947
                  dubovitskiy.1947 17 December 2017 21: 05 New
                  0
                  Quote: sharp-lad
                  After the rejection of tube TVs, there was a continuous energy saving. smile

                  You think so in vain. Though as a joke.
                  Good savings came when they abandoned the planned production of unnecessary. They began to smelter less and as much as needed, under orders (before, 3 times more than the USA smelted), they plowed less land (it was more profitable to raise productivity), they stopped building BAM. etc.
                  1. sharp-lad
                    sharp-lad 17 December 2017 21: 46 New
                    0
                    Remember how much the first tube color TVs consumed, and now my 42 x inch eats only 140 watts. With the same lighting, I changed the lamps to LED, I do not save on lighting and pay half as much for electricity at least. Also with street lighting, when switching to LED devices, consumption drops by a third with a simultaneous increase in illumination. About the savings in the offices (offices) in general I am silent. And this is nationwide!
                    Good savings came when they abandoned the planned production of unnecessary.
                    Not a planned economy is bad, but bad-looking planners! They plan at any enterprise.
                    They began to smelter less and as much as needed, under orders, (before, the United States smelted 3 times more)
                    As far as I remember, they began to smelter less, produce less various goods and at the same time began to buy more (at times) abroad. If you consider this an achievement, then I consider this situation in the industry to be DECLINE !!!
                    less plowing of land (it is more profitable to raise productivity)
                    And you can’t argue, but it does not have a big impact on electricity consumption (in terms of interest).
                    Build BAM have ceased.
                    There are hopes for the construction of a Mega BAM called the Silk Road.
                    Sincerely.
                    1. dubovitskiy.1947
                      dubovitskiy.1947 17 December 2017 22: 36 New
                      +1
                      Quote: sharp-lad
                      Remember how much the first tube color TVs consumed, and now my 42 x inch eats only 140 watts. With the same lighting, I changed the lamps to LED, I do not save on lighting and pay half as much for electricity at least. Also with street lighting, when switching to LED devices, consumption drops by a third with a simultaneous increase in illumination. About the savings in the offices (offices) in general I am silent. And this is nationwide!
                      Good savings came when they abandoned the planned production of unnecessary.
                      Not a planned economy is bad, but bad-looking planners! They plan at any enterprise.
                      They began to smelter less and as much as needed, under orders, (before, the United States smelted 3 times more)
                      As far as I remember, they began to smelter less, produce less various goods and at the same time began to buy more (at times) abroad. If you consider this an achievement, then I consider this situation in the industry to be DECLINE !!!
                      less plowing of land (it is more profitable to raise productivity)
                      And you can’t argue, but it does not have a big impact on electricity consumption (in terms of interest).
                      Build BAM have ceased.
                      There are hopes for the construction of a Mega BAM called the Silk Road.
                      Sincerely.

                      The planners were wonderful. Ready to bet.
                      M.S. Gorbachev, in his time, blurted out from the TV screen that, they say, the metallurgists did well, they made an obligation to cook steel on order. So, all this time, in the USSR, they cooked what would turn out. That is Comrade. Kosygin, not trusting either the State Planning Commission or the Gossnab, PERSONALLY distributed the metal to the ministries. My factory declared electrical steel 400 tons per year, we were allocated 200 tons. And we coped with the plans completely. Tell HOW to PLAN in the conditions of total lies, listing needs and fulfillment and concealment of opportunities? You flew Aeroflot planes, traveled by trains, stayed in hotels in those golden times? I didn’t get tickets, but the trains were half empty, I couldn’t get into hotels, but the rooms were empty, I couldn’t BUY anything, but REACH is quite possible.
                      1. sharp-lad
                        sharp-lad 17 December 2017 23: 01 New
                        0
                        Partially agree, but much depended on local leadership! Where I lived in Soviet times, there were problems with food (everyone had everything, but had to stand in line), motor vehicles (who had funds for cars didn’t walk on cars), furniture (ordered through a store and waited three or four months), mopeds stood in the store almost without disappearing, IL brand motorcycles were delivered monthly, Java motorcycle, who wanted to wait and buy, who did not want to wait, could buy IL, and so on! The city authorities really worked and therefore in my city there was no total deficit. City of Gulbene, LSSR.
                        P.S. The number of citizens did not reach 10 people ..
                  2. Vasilenko Vladimir
                    Vasilenko Vladimir 17 December 2017 22: 29 New
                    0
                    Quote: dubovitskiy.1947
                    less plowing of land (it is more profitable to raise productivity)

                    and how much did they raise ?!
                    1. dubovitskiy.1947
                      dubovitskiy.1947 17 December 2017 22: 41 New
                      0
                      Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                      Quote: dubovitskiy.1947
                      less plowing of land (it is more profitable to raise productivity)

                      and how much did they raise ?!

                      THEN sang about stopudovo (record) harvest. But it is 16 centners per hectare.
                      In the past (2016) in Dagestan, the yield was 54 centners per hectare, the sowing material was Russian. Not elite.
                      1. Vasilenko Vladimir
                        Vasilenko Vladimir 18 December 2017 08: 16 New
                        0
                        Quote: dubovitskiy.1947
                        In the past (2016) in Dagestan, the yield was 54 centners per hectare, the sowing material was Russian. Not elite.

                        game with numbers
                        firstly, Dagestan is not quite an exact figure
                        secondly, if you take the data, there are no special changes by region, but there was a record but not many times, and this record is not kept at the same time, if you take on average the figure will be 26, 8
                        the union gave an average of 15, but again this average figure because the Kazakh SSR, due to its characteristics, gave lower yields
          3. sharp-lad
            sharp-lad 13 December 2017 01: 04 New
            +1
            And this crap is painfully fighting! crying
      2. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker 11 December 2017 19: 45 New
        +7
        Quote: vlad_vlad
        Greetings to Gazprom, Arabs and other gas and oil-gas atoms :-)

        Well, let's say, this is for you Germans, who will soon have to learn Farsi as a "second" state lol
        The problem with the disposal takes place, no doubt .... But who is to blame for the fact that you have no place in Western Europe for the disposal of radioactive waste? But there were many places for the "newly-minted" Germans from Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, Libya ... And now the question is - which is more dangerous .... wassat
        And yet yes ... Hello G. Schroeder! laughing
      3. andj61
        andj61 12 December 2017 09: 02 New
        +2
        Quote: vlad_vlad
        The author is a clear fan of nuclear energy. has the right, but why not "keep silent" the facts?

        the cost of nuclear energy is killed when you start to include the cost of disposing of radioactive waste here. This was one of the main reasons in Germany when the state said - "and now USE!" Those. a private company should pay for the plant’s expenditures for the atomic station and expenses for 100500 years for disposal.

        UTB in Russia, the atom of the station is a state. And it is not private business that pays out of profits for disposal, but the state (i.e. you are from your taxes).

        I'm not a fan of windmills, but I think that with each year their cost will be lower and they have the right to have some market share :-)

        for reference - in Germany 20 years ago the share of energy from renewable sources (wind turbines, etc.) was 3%. Last year already 30%.

        Greetings to Gazprom, Arabs and other gas and oil-gas atoms :-)

        Last year, a total of 32% of electricity was generated using renewable energy sources (RES) in Germany. But only with a significant increase in installed capacity of renewable energy sources, there was no significant increase in electricity in Germany in 2016 for these types, and even decreased in the wind. The difference in seasons is even more significant. In winter, when energy is most in demand, renewable energy sources are not able to cover 5% of Germany's electricity needs. Here is a link to a very interesting article on this subject. Http: //renen.ru/elektroenergetika-germa
        nii-osnovnye-itogi-2016 /
      4. dubovitskiy.1947
        dubovitskiy.1947 17 December 2017 20: 57 New
        0
        Quote: vlad_vlad
        The author is a clear fan of nuclear energy. has the right, but why not "keep silent" the facts?

        the cost of nuclear energy is killed when you start to include the cost of disposing of radioactive waste here. This was one of the main reasons in Germany when the state said - "and now USE!" Those. a private company should pay for the plant’s expenditures for the atomic station and expenses for 100500 years for disposal.

        UTB in Russia, the atom of the station is a state. And it is not private business that pays out of profits for disposal, but the state (i.e. you are from your taxes).

        I'm not a fan of windmills, but I think that with each year their cost will be lower and they have the right to have some market share :-)

        for reference - in Germany 20 years ago the share of energy from renewable sources (wind turbines, etc.) was 3%. Last year already 30%.

        Greetings to Gazprom, Arabs and other gas and oil-gas atoms :-)

        You think in vain. The wind will NEVER become cheaper than the same coal. That is, coal over the centuries will die in general, then it will be possible to think of something about it. You can not raise the power of the wind generator to lawlessness. The wind will never blow with other, completely different than now, parameters. You can not raise the wind generator up to lawlessness. So, the efficiency limit of this type of generation is already very close.
        Further. Efficiency is such a thing that appears in any form of ownership. Although it’s public, it’s even private. And in general, there is no difference, it will be effective even in Germany, even in Russia, and you need to fight for it.
    9. vadimtt
      vadimtt 11 December 2017 13: 29 New
      +4
      Do not demonize modern coal-fired TPPs; their environment is not bad at all, well, maybe a little worse than gas ones. Take an interest in the Internet how they are arranged or search for the keyword "fluidized bed burning".
    10. Sirocco
      Sirocco 11 December 2017 14: 04 New
      +5
      Quote: Shurale
      In coal, there is a large proportion of radioactive materials,

      What to say? I will tell you in your words.
      Quote: Shurale
      "Kreotif guano - aftir mudag"

      Why is that? everything is simple, unlike you, I came across this "radioactive radiation of coal", and with a friend who works in the boiler room, he voiced a similar legend to me, I took a dosimeter, and checked their boiler room, which has been in operation for more than 25 years, no radiation, there is not even a background increase, both in the hall, in boilers, and in a coal pit. Maybe coal is wrong?)))))
      Now on the topic, if memory serves me, a friend put a couple of solar panels, 150 watts each, with all the pribludy attached, this miracle cost him about 150 tyrov, well, what do you think of the price tag. Well, a person has money, he can install this device for himself, God bless him, I think that such costs are not worth such an investment, it is about 10 years of payment for electricity.
      1. vlanis
        vlanis 11 December 2017 17: 28 New
        0
        Just look at https://smartsystems21.ru/products/hevel-hvl-105-
        ispolnenie-3
    11. Victor N
      Victor N 11 December 2017 14: 22 New
      +2
      I met calculations that wind farms do not generate energy for the life of the energy, which reimburses the costs of its creation, a coefficient of 0,9 - 0,95.
      1. Krabik
        Krabik 11 December 2017 15: 36 New
        +1
        If they do not produce, then in Germany there will be a collapse with energy.

        It remains to wait a bit ....
        1. stalkerwalker
          stalkerwalker 11 December 2017 19: 47 New
          +4
          Quote: Krabik
          If they do not produce, then in Germany there will be a collapse with energy.
          It remains to wait a bit ....

          Banal "divorce" people on the "green" grandmother ... lol
          1. evil partisan
            evil partisan 11 December 2017 20: 13 New
            +5
            Quote: stalkerwalker
            Banal "divorce" people on the "green" grandmother.

            no Let me disagree with you, Colleague! hi Divorce is just not trivial, but very scientific, even high-tech. The people love this. yes
            1. stalkerwalker
              stalkerwalker 11 December 2017 20: 28 New
              +5
              Quote: wicked partisan
              Divorce is just not trivial, but very scientific, even high-tech. The people love this.

              From then!
              The same "divorce" as in the case of electric cars .....
              I can understand this in the case of passenger cars. But the main tractors clearly do not fit into this number. It’s easier to launch freight trolleybuses with trams.
              1. evil partisan
                evil partisan 11 December 2017 21: 34 New
                +1
                Quote: stalkerwalker
                freight tram trolleybuses

                In the 70s, city buses / trolleybuses with flywheels were actively tested. I remember exactly what they were doing in Lviv in the early 70s. What is the situation with this now? Not aware of Ilyich incident?
                1. stalkerwalker
                  stalkerwalker 11 December 2017 22: 36 New
                  +2
                  Quote: wicked partisan
                  What is the situation with this now?

                  I remember such an interesting program "This is you can" .... And there this topic was sucked up. Mass and overall characteristics did not fit into the requirements.
                  1. evil partisan
                    evil partisan 11 December 2017 22: 56 New
                    +1
                    Quote: stalkerwalker
                    I remember such an interesting program "That you can"

                    Yes, there, and at a higher level, they dealt with this problem at the youth level (it was like that, although I don’t remember ...) KB of the Lviv Bus Plant. It seems like a couple of pieces went around Lviv. they had several inventions on this subject. Faced in Ukraine in the early 90's with one of the residents of Lviv in a hotel in Krivoy Rog. He buzzed all my ears about the flywheels ...
                2. vadimtt
                  vadimtt 12 December 2017 09: 58 New
                  +3
                  In transport, this is not the case due to the same gyroscopic effect. In the stationary version, everything is simpler, although at megawatt capacities it is necessary to take care of compensating for the precession of the earth's axis. And so there are industrial UPSs on this effect, they work normally, the resource and reliability are much higher than the battery analogues. Yes, even at nuclear power plants there is a power supply mode of the MCC due to turbine run-out during an accident, also flywheels are peculiar.
                  1. evil partisan
                    evil partisan 12 December 2017 20: 41 New
                    +1
                    Quote: vadimtt
                    too, because the flywheels are peculiar.

                    Well, not even peculiar, but the real flywheels yes
                3. Grigory_78
                  Grigory_78 12 December 2017 16: 59 New
                  0
                  You are not talking about this for an hour?
                  https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/101472/
              2. Grigory_78
                Grigory_78 12 December 2017 17: 05 New
                0
                In the case of city buses is also good. The main thing is that there is enough charge for the whole day. Rides during the day, charges at night ...
                1. evil partisan
                  evil partisan 12 December 2017 20: 47 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Gregory_78
                  Rides during the day, charges at night

                  There, it was exclusively about using flywheels to ensure that the vehicle begins to move after a stop. Or am I misunderstanding something? what I'm sorry then! request Old, drunk, sick ... recourse
            2. ydjin
              ydjin 13 December 2017 10: 56 New
              +2
              Quote: wicked partisan
              Quote: stalkerwalker
              Banal "divorce" people on the "green" grandmother.

              no Let me disagree with you, Colleague! hi Divorce is just not trivial, but very scientific, even high-tech. The people love this. yes

              As well as solar panels with batteries from Ilon Mask, as a result, the life cycle of these pribludy goes more expensive per kilowatt of energy, plus an even more expensive disposal of batteries after the end of their service life. Green energy is profanity with the aim of taking the market from competitors and making a profit due to suckers of consumers.
    12. Vasilenko Vladimir
      Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 16: 03 New
      +1
      Quote: Shurale
      The biggest problem is that the bulk of the world's power plants are coal. In coal, there is a large proportion of radioactive materials, when burning coal with ash, these materials are released into the atmosphere in simply terrifying quantities

      in physics there is no such appalling “horrifying number”
    13. Shaska
      Shaska 11 December 2017 17: 18 New
      0
      Calling creative shit, even if that is so, is not correct. This is just creatiFFcheg (in your opinion). You, mil pardon, to begin the topic of disclosure, continue ... And, after that, DISCUSSION will come ...)))
    14. Dedall
      Dedall 11 December 2017 20: 32 New
      +1
      I totally agree! In Novocherkassk, we have at our side both nuclear power plants and thermal power plants. From one, the most noticeable is the sudden yellowing of the leaves of chestnuts in the very beginning of summer after rains. As for people, I’m on duty at the hospital and it is during the wind from the nuclear power plant that there is an increase in all kinds of crises and other things. And the work of the Novocherkassk station, which is now working at an incomprehensible angle, is noticeable in the snow, which turns gray in 2-3 days. That's why I am for wind farms.
    15. Qwazar Qwazar
      Qwazar Qwazar 11 December 2017 20: 39 New
      +2
      coal-water slurry brings coal-fired TPPs in terms of environmental efficiency to the level of TPPs supplied with fuel oil, alteration of fuel supply equipment, and for injectors - cheap (in the sense of a very small :)) - this is first ...
      - Nobody has ever argued about the inefficiency of wind and solar power plants - this is a stupid cut in the budget - nothing more, so many corporations feed on this ...
      1. Valery Saitov
        Valery Saitov 12 December 2017 13: 16 New
        0
        In the framework of the program of research and development of clean coal technologies, called “CO02-poor TPPs” in Germany, there is a good opportunity to significantly increase efficiency. In this case, three strategies are considered:
        1. The development of effective technologies. These include the union of aspirations:
        • to high temperature gas turbines;
        • burning of low-emission coal;
        • testing of new heat-resistant materials for both steam and gas turbines, and for steam generators.
        2. New research on coal TPP technologies:
        • combustion of coal dust under pressure in combination with vocational schools;
        • burning exclusively dried brown coal;
        • integrated coal gasification, in combination with CCGT;
        • combustion in ICS with preliminary partial gasification of coal;
        3. Development of a set of measures, such as, for example, a sufficiently broad test of new working fluids with supercritical parameters of steam.
    16. KaPToC
      KaPToC 11 December 2017 20: 55 New
      +1
      Quote: Shurale
      So I think it’s not entirely correct to criticize wind generators ...

      A high price means that these same wind generators spent a lot of resources, including coal. The problem is that green energy is not self-sufficient, the same coal is spent on its functioning, as a result, not reducing emissions, but increasing.
    17. Yeti
      Yeti 11 December 2017 21: 06 New
      +3
      I can’t say anything globally, but my village in the north was heated exclusively with coal. Six large boiler houses. By spring, everything was black. I worked at OMYAGP (Experimental Methodical Nuclear Geophysical Party). This is such an accelerator the size of a 3-storey residential building. The container with the rock is irradiated with hard gamma radiation and emits itself for about 8-9 seconds. Spectroanalysis shows the content of mainly heavy metals. So here I am for what. No matter how much the radiation level was measured in the spring in the village, there was always a norm. There was a slight excess on the arsenopyrite device. But in the village covered with coal dust there is no.
    18. Awaz
      Awaz 11 December 2017 21: 24 New
      +1
      in Europe alone, half of the households are heated by coal. Electricity from Coal makes up one-third of everything ... There isn’t enough gas for everyone, and show-offs and anti-Russian hysteria do not add anything positive to Europe. The author correctly noted that windmills are only income for producers. For consumers, these are big problems.
    19. drags33
      drags33 12 December 2017 00: 00 New
      +2
      On October 8, 1975, the famous scientist academician Pyotr Kapitsa made a report on the topic “Energy and Physics” (easily searched at the Institute) at a scientific session dedicated to the 250th anniversary of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Based on the basic concepts of physics, he proved that existing sources of alternative energy (with the exception of nuclear energy) cannot fundamentally replace industrial energy generation.
      P.L.Kapitsa notes that, whatever the source of energy can be considered, it can be characterized by two parameters: the density of energy - that is, its amount per unit volume - and the speed of its transmission (propagation). The product of these quantities is the maximum power that can be obtained from a unit surface using energy of this type.
      Further, analyzing the types of alternative energy, he showed that all of them (with the exception of nuclear) are fundamentally not promising for industrial generation energy and can matter only on a small scale, for example, for domestic needs. With this report, P.L.Kapitsa, in fact, "buried" alternative energy in 1975.
      Currently, the conceptual conclusions of P.L.Kapitsa have already been comprehended by many in relation to the current state of alternative energy. The projection of the fundamental conclusions of P.L. Kapitsa on various types of modern alternative energy, such as wind energy, hydrogen energy, bioenergy, etc., also leads to the conclusion that their prospects are limited for industrial generation.
      The general conclusion is that alternative energy can be applied only on a small scale, as an addition (and even in small proportions) to industrial generation, for example, for domestic needs in remote areas.
      It would be good for us all to understand this more quickly, so as not to throw away "money down the drain" (in the literal and figurative sense of the word).
      One cannot disagree with the author of this article, especially since he confirmed his opinion with figures that are hard to argue with ...
    20. Jingibi
      Jingibi 12 December 2017 04: 23 New
      0
      I heard that coal combustion products are radioactive. The Japanese even offered to process open landfills near Vladivostok
    21. The comment was deleted.
    22. dubovitskiy.1947
      dubovitskiy.1947 17 December 2017 14: 43 New
      0
      Quote: Shurale
      The biggest problem is that the bulk of the world's power plants are coal. In coal, there is a large proportion of radioactive materials, when burning coal with ash, these materials are released into the atmosphere in horrific amounts, they try to ignore this part of the problem. Now you understand why many developed countries are struggling to get away from coal stations even in unprofitable ways. Wind, tidal, hydro, solar panels, in France, in my opinion, in general, only atomic ones remained. Any - just not coal. So I think it’s not entirely correct to criticize wind generators ...

      The author did not open the topic.
      "Kreotif guano - aftir mudag" ... (C)

      Any mining operations are pulled to the surface of the ore, and the finished product having increased radioactivity. Shudder, salt. And if small fractions fly out into the atmosphere after smoke exhausters at the station, a small fraction fall into your lungs from a small fraction, then in borsch you completely consume what you dug from great depths. A gas stove leaves radionuclides not available when turned off. In the cement of brickwork, in the wood of the table ..... In the spoon with which you stir the tea. Knowledge adds sorrow. Very happy are those who do not have higher education. It is harmful, especially for neurasthenic natures. That is why miners, of whom there are more than one million in our country, do not die of radiation at all.
  2. Basil50
    Basil50 11 December 2017 06: 54 New
    +9
    Anyone familiar with physics understands that development is impossible without nuclear power. All these * green * and other zealots of nature require a lot of things, but they are not ready to give up the conveniences of civilization, it seems: - * Suddenly a magician will fly in a blue helicopter ... *.
    The simplicity of views is attractive for * ordinary * inhabitants *, not burdened with knowledge, and of course for those who use these * simple * citizens.
    1. Chertt
      Chertt 11 December 2017 07: 08 New
      +4
      Quote: Vasily50
      Anyone familiar with physics understands that development is impossible without nuclear energy

      I am familiar with physics, I think that development is possible without nuclear energy, development is possible without a wheel, but why
    2. alstr
      alstr 11 December 2017 10: 56 New
      +7
      I would clarify a bit. Industrial development is not possible.
      Those. for industry, all "green energy" is useless because it is expensive.
      But for home consumption, namely for individual houses - an alternative is quite suitable. Moreover, the most stable in this regard is the system when the thermocouple effect is used to produce electricity (there is only one restriction to dig the earth).
      And windmills and solar panels are more dependent on the weather.
      That is, based on existing technologies, depending on the location, you can always get a completely non-volatile house without the use of internal combustion engines.

      As for production, so far only nuclear power and hydro power. taxis. It is possible that something based on a thermocouple will work if one end is dipped in magma and the other end is in ice.
      1. vlanis
        vlanis 11 December 2017 17: 31 New
        0
        "when the thermocouple effect is used to produce electricity" Can you read more? interested.
        1. alstr
          alstr 11 December 2017 17: 47 New
          +1
          Everything is very simple. We take specially selected plates of metals. We heat one plate, cool the other. The result is email. current. The larger the difference, the greater the current.
          This type of food was described back in the 30s of the last century in the book “The Secret of Two Oceans”, where the Soviet submarine used this effect to charge batteries.
    3. 34 region
      34 region 11 December 2017 11: 53 New
      +3
      Vasily50, 06:54. *** Anyone familiar with physics understands that development is impossible without nuclear energy. All these * green * and other zealots of nature require a lot of things, but they are not ready to give up the conveniences of civilization, it seems: - * A wizard suddenly arrives in a blue helicopter ... *.
      The simplicity of views is attractive for * ordinary * inhabitants *, not burdened with knowledge, and of course for those who use these * simple * citizens. *** Not everything is so simple in this world. Not everything is so effective in the world of capital. Capitalism is a great illusionist deceiver. Capitalism has been well trained in managing consciousness through advertising. Conservationists are kind of good. But! Who needs it from the world of capital, if the main thing is 300% ??? Who believes that capital will sponsor its grave digger? But it looks like a multi-path. Declare everything sucks. Offer your product. Make a profit. But the protection of nature !? What did we have with the oil platform? Enviroment protection? Is this platform the only one in the world? There is still a bloody Putin regime! And what will happen if this regime does not supply carbon ?! And there will be a Miracle! Carbon will supply the most democratic regime in the world !!! And where not to deliver, there to give loans and control! But windmills must be done, not mined! Need to do! And you can plant them, if not extract. But what is interesting! Green technology, green technology! But! Shale gas is produced, shale oil is produced and even extracted from bitumen sands! The question is. Haha goat button accordion, if there is green energy ?! hi
    4. Shaska
      Shaska 11 December 2017 17: 30 New
      0
      Well, the wizard “IN THE HOLIDAY HELICOPTER” has been there for a long time ... People (namely PEOPLE), not elephants, Hypopotamus-hippos-monkeys-sperm whales ... a populated parrot ...
      BASIL 50! How can these, others be convinced that they are LEARNING ?! !!!
      That pre-educated stupid people put their heads in the jaws of a crocodile (who studied on the training of the ancestors of the pre-educated) ... ???
    5. nickd55
      nickd55 11 December 2017 19: 10 New
      0
      I have been living in my own house for the sixth year in conditions of absolute autonomy. I do not use a gas generator. Facilities - not deprived.
      1. Vasilenko Vladimir
        Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 20: 16 New
        0
        What is the source of energy?
        type, power, price ?!
        1. nickd55
          nickd55 11 December 2017 20: 45 New
          0
          http://www.сам-себе-электростанция.рф/ Это - мой личный сайт, там все это написано.
          But I emphasize - since then prices have changed for everything, and simply copying someone else's system may not lead to the expected result.
          1. Vasilenko Vladimir
            Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 20: 50 New
            0
            you forgive your biography I am not interested in how much it costs to install a 15 kW windmill? !!!
            1. nickd55
              nickd55 12 December 2017 21: 28 New
              0
              Minimum 20% of the cost
              1. Vasilenko Vladimir
                Vasilenko Vladimir 12 December 2017 21: 53 New
                0
                you are a demagogue
                I understand correctly that you will come and put a 15 kW windmill for 4 pieces of bucks? !!!
                1. nickd55
                  nickd55 13 December 2017 09: 30 New
                  0
                  What specific windmill? Where and in what conditions? You, as NOT a demagogue, generally understand that it is generally impossible to speak seriously about the cost of installation in absentia? Therefore, I wrote - at least 20% of the cost of equipment. And in the place there are always some moments that can affect the complexity in one direction or another.
                  1. Vasilenko Vladimir
                    Vasilenko Vladimir 13 December 2017 13: 58 New
                    0
                    Quote: nickd55
                    Therefore, I wrote - at least 20% of the cost of equipment.

                    what do you mean cheaper from the cost of equipment, do you steal? !!!
                    put a question on another Kaliningrad region Pravdinsky district
                    15 kW windmill
                    1. nickd55
                      nickd55 13 December 2017 21: 45 New
                      0
                      Are you feeling well? :)
                      If a wind generator from the manufacturer in a complete set (with a mast) costs, for example, 400 thousand rubles, then installation and commissioning will cost at least 20% of this amount or 80 thousand rubles. :)
                      I will repeat it for the third time - windmills are very different and I am not a sorcerer in order to evaluate the time-consuming complexity of installing an unknown instance to me.
                      In addition, you will need to hire equipment for lifting and installing elements (this is also the cost of the customer).
                      As for travel expenses - this is generally a separate song. :)
                      1. Vasilenko Vladimir
                        Vasilenko Vladimir 14 December 2017 08: 32 New
                        0
                        that's what I wrote about, you vparivat people chukhni obviously unprofitable but promise awesome benefits
                        your name is not fox alice ?!
            2. nickd55
              nickd55 12 December 2017 21: 30 New
              0
              And I did not offer you to read my biography. And to type on many pages the text that I wrote a long time ago - I don’t see the point.
              1. Vasilenko Vladimir
                Vasilenko Vladimir 12 December 2017 21: 53 New
                0
                Yes, you write nonsense, I'm sorry, and I looked at your interview exactly to the point of stupidity about the kettle and conder
                1. nickd55
                  nickd55 13 December 2017 09: 33 New
                  0
                  If you are not an empty balabol and are able to answer for your words - then please, specifically, what did I say something about at the "ravings" level? :)
                  If you do not answer this question, then you are just a balabol.
                  1. Vasilenko Vladimir
                    Vasilenko Vladimir 13 December 2017 14: 08 New
                    0
                    Quote: nickd55
                    - then please bring specifically what I said something at the level of "nonsense"? :)

                    nonsense in what you say specifically, everything is streamlined, you do not give price and payback parameters even to your own home system, you are stupidly trying to push the trade in green bullshit proving that it is profitable only on the ground that during the accident everyone was without light and you with the light

                    can prove by numbers the benefits of YOUR OFFERS
                    invested - X rubles
                    received - Y kW
                    saved - Z
                    1. nickd55
                      nickd55 13 December 2017 22: 04 New
                      0
                      Actually, all this has been described for a long time on my site (I have already copied a significant part here twice for the lazy), but you don’t want to read anything. :)
                      My system paid off immediately and repeatedly, as our valiant power engineers painted 6-7 million scars for my neighbors 1,5-2 years ago for electrifying private houses. And I just wondered about why on earth would I sponsor the development of slow and greedy networks? As a result, he took and made his own system, having spent 4-5 times less on this and for the sixth year now I’m not paying anyone. :) Not to mention other pluses and unique useful experience.
                      For the gifted, I repeat - I'm not a store. :) This can be convenient and useful not only during accidents, but already for purely economic reasons (I will not repeat it).
                      By numbers I have ALREADY proved here (and not only). Do you even know how to read? :) About 3,5 rubles / kWh is the result that I can provide in a hybrid SES in the south of the country now, which is generally several times cheaper than tariffs for small businesses. The full alignment of all costs for 25 years of operation, I already gave in the whole article.
                      And bullshit, in my opinion, is sitting somewhere in your head. :) It seems that you are just freaking out, not knowing what else to suck from your finger. :)
                      If all this is bullshit - why don't you just pass quietly by? :)
  3. sa-ag
    sa-ag 11 December 2017 07: 37 New
    +7
    such an impression. that this is an advertisement from Rosatomprom :-)
    1. MadCat
      MadCat 11 December 2017 08: 13 New
      +4
      Quote: sa-ag
      such an impression. that this is an advertisement from Rosatomprom :-)

      Of course, the electorate needs to be reassured, otherwise the patriot will wake up and find out that Russia is no longer an energy superpower and supplies in the same volumes are not needed in "completely dependent Europe" ...
      1. NordUral
        NordUral 11 December 2017 22: 29 New
        0
        And you look. already woke up and shit on the blades bring down.
    2. NordUral
      NordUral 11 December 2017 10: 49 New
      +3
      May be. But, most likely, cruel reality. Itself is a bit of a topic, though in micro-wind energy (up to 10 kW), here it has a place to be, where the wind allows. And this is because the greed of “our” Russian oligarchs from the energy sector is off scale and the connection costs a lot of money. Or where it’s not possible at all. Here for this, there are good and environmentally (and simply) safe solutions.
      Here is an interesting option for a private house in an area with an average annual wind speed of about 3-5 m / s.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TspdI4Sd1o
      Naturally, if we still apply a reasonable simplification of the design, which is quite possible, as our craftsmen and firms from around the world prove.
      1. 34 region
        34 region 11 December 2017 12: 01 New
        +1
        NordU, 10:49 a.m. Probably for a private house or cottage, a windmill, what you need! A wind turbine for a summer residence can also be made from a generator. To increase the speed, put the gearbox from the gearbox. Then, through the converter, transfer to AC 220.
        1. NordUral
          NordUral 11 December 2017 14: 29 New
          +2
          Everything is possible, but transmission reduces efficiency. The design in the photo allows the use of an ultra-quiet generator for low wind flow.
        2. Konstantin Yu
          Konstantin Yu 11 December 2017 16: 04 New
          +2
          Quote: 34 region
          To increase the speed, put the gearbox from the gearbox. Then, through the converter, transfer to AC 220.

          Oh, how simple and cheap, you can store the surplus in a bag and in a shed, and if you blow it yourself .. Where there is no way out, I agree: we do not stand for price, and when there is, competition with cost, then the environment rests .. China fat walked up, now you can think about the environment ...
        3. nickd55
          nickd55 11 December 2017 19: 15 New
          +1
          A self-made windmill will fly away on the first hurricane. In each particular place its own system of individual configuration is rational. In the southern regions of the country, if there is a network, it makes no sense to communicate with windmills in general, a hybrid SES can even provide a zero annual balance of consumption from the network (taking into account the micro-generation program, which will begin to work next year).
          1. NordUral
            NordUral 11 December 2017 22: 25 New
            0
            It depends on what. Here is such that in the photo, it will not fly away at 30-40 m / s.
            1. nickd55
              nickd55 12 December 2017 21: 34 New
              0
              Self-made - will fly away in any performance. Windmill is a fairly high-tech product, if only because it requires high accuracy in the manufacture and balancing of all mechanics, as well as a competent and multi-level protection system.
  4. Wildfox
    Wildfox 11 December 2017 07: 42 New
    +4
    The author is not quite right; his reasoning is valid only for industry. With the delivery of electricity to the final consumer, the figure changes. Let’s say in the Far East and other not densely populated areas (farms, tractor brigades, small villages) it’s more profitable to build wind farms, because permanent repair of networks is also not cheap.
    The result in the civilian sector and small enterprises of the wind farm is more profitable hi
    1. Yurasumy
      11 December 2017 09: 04 New
      +1
      Windmills are beneficial in the United States. There are conditions. Especially in those mountainous areas where they stand. But for Europe it is a utopia.
      1. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker 11 December 2017 19: 49 New
        +2
        Quote: yurasumy
        But for Europe it is a utopia.

        Nah ... lol These are jobs. Both in Europe and in China ..... fellow
      2. sa-ag
        sa-ag 12 December 2017 12: 01 New
        0
        Quote: yurasumy
        But for Europe it is a utopia.

        Well, the fact that the Netherlands periodically dumps surplus electricity generated by windmills to Germany is an objective reality, in my opinion, you even have to pay to get it, such a negative tariff
        1. stalkerwalker
          stalkerwalker 12 December 2017 18: 34 New
          +3
          Quote: sa-ag
          Well, the Netherlands periodically dump surplus electricity generated by windmills to Germany

          "... Notice - I didn’t say that ..."
          Instability the magnitude of the total flow of e / energy - this is the Achilles heel of windmills. Today is empty, tomorrow is thick.
          The world navy in the 70-80 of the last century survived the euphoria of the possible use of sails as the main mover of naval vessels. And abandoned this venture. to trust in the forces of nature is a delusion. But a very lucrative business.
    2. Max otto
      Max otto 11 December 2017 09: 12 New
      +4
      And the author did not understand a little the essence of all this action with windmills. But the essence there is not cost, and they are not built because they are supposedly cheaper. They are built because theoretically they are more environmentally friendly and do not pollute the environment. Cost in these projects is secondary.
      Well, at the expense of environmental friendliness - this is the topic of another article.
      1. NordUral
        NordUral 11 December 2017 10: 53 New
        +2
        As for the environmental friendliness of large wind farms - there is still a big question.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 11 December 2017 12: 33 New
        +5
        Quote: Max Otto
        But the essence there is not cost, and they are not built because they are supposedly cheaper. They are built because theoretically they are more environmentally friendly and do not pollute the environment. Cost in these projects is secondary.

        More precisely, they are more environmentally friendly at the installation site. At the same time, the environmental friendliness of the production of wind farms themselves is usually out of the question.
    3. nickd55
      nickd55 11 December 2017 19: 15 New
      +1
      Absolutely.
  5. Cat Marquis
    Cat Marquis 11 December 2017 07: 43 New
    10
    Windmills allegedly work "effectively, only in developed countries that subsidize this type of energy. In countries of the" third "world, windmills either work where it is impossible to build another type of power station or .... do not work. Most recently I was in the Brazilian city of Fortaleza, where several such wind farms have been installed. These wind turbines are standing and are not used. It turned out that the cost of operating wind farms is very high because of the rapid failure of the bearings of the loaded parts due to the horizontal (rather than vertical) arrangement of the rotating shafts. additional line from hydroelectric power station
  6. andrej-shironov
    andrej-shironov 11 December 2017 07: 50 New
    +4
    Ah, it's Yuri again! The author, no one ever said that green energy is more economically profitable than traditional! I have not seen a single such message on the VO. And by the way, following the logic of the author, I’ll ask: how can the author evaluate the environmental safety of operation, I emphasize for some, namely operation, green technologies, and why the author is firmly convinced that technologies do not develop in green technologies. There are a couple of questions, but I will save time.
    1. Yurasumy
      11 December 2017 09: 06 New
      +2
      The author just writes about what "technology" and how to develop in the "green" energy. This development was theoretically justified and proved back in the 1950's. But he has his own dead end.
      1. andrej-shironov
        andrej-shironov 11 December 2017 15: 19 New
        0
        I re-read the article again. There is not a word about any modern technologies in green energy. The power of modern windmills is not modern technology. And why are only windmills and batteries considered? And where is hydropower, PES, etc.? It really creates the feeling that the author is on a salary from Gazprom, Rosneft and Rosatom. But with his articles of this kind, he is just seeking the opposite.
  7. NordOst16
    NordOst16 11 December 2017 07: 54 New
    +2
    It seems to me or the author did not understand the meaning of KIUM? If you ask Google to kindly provide us with a service, we will see that the KIUM is equal to the ratio of the arithmetic mean power to the installed capacity of the electrical installation for a certain period of time. Those. actual / maximum - and for some reason I don’t see any options for increasing KIUM except magically from the air (it sounds twofold against the background of wind turbines). If you touch on nuclear power plants, you should not forget that the builders of nuclear power plants like to disrupt the construction time of blocks (which leads to the cost of the project) and only Koreans in the UAE build their own nuclear power plants according to the plan. Also, do not forget about a very long payback period, which also affects the cost of the loan for the block. Potentially great harm during an accident, of course, modern nuclear power plants are extremely well thought out in terms of protection and the risks are all calculated, the probability of an accident is low. But engineers, like generals, are preparing for past accidents and you do not always know what a peaceful atom can throw out. The problem has not been resolved, not only that of the disposal of radioactive waste, but also simply processing (for most of the spent fuel elements from domestic reactors are located in temporary storage).
    Well, for dessert - one of the divisions of Rosatom is engaged in windproof energy.
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 11 December 2017 08: 39 New
      +1
      everything should be
      and the wind is also
      Norway will soon (?) drive for export electric \ n if only not from the Russian Federation. wind and others are possible and will become effective.
      and we need such on the ebbs and solar panels.
      fsya our effectiveness --- from poverty.
      30 years ago, gas + coal or fuel oil was in large boiler plants (and + factory settlement)
      now a modular gas or some other and no second fuel-- just go to other housing in the event of an accident
    2. Yurasumy
      11 December 2017 09: 07 New
      0
      Apparently, you did not understand the meaning of KIUM. There are statistics on the operation of nuclear power plants (it is known) and wind farm (also known). Why produce speculation ???
      1. NordOst16
        NordOst16 11 December 2017 13: 06 New
        0
        And where am I wrong in the meaning of KIUM? Or did you write a comment from the bulldozer?
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion 11 December 2017 09: 11 New
      0
      And the construction of windmills is not disrupted.

      They have been engaged in wind energy in various kinds of remote places for a long time, but not exclusively from a good life. As well as solar panels, which, by the way, are more stable. There are simply places where either the wind is constant or the sun, and building hundreds of kilometers of power lines, or carrying extra fuel is unattractive.
      1. NordOst16
        NordOst16 11 December 2017 13: 09 New
        0
        Disruptions in the construction of windmills and gas turbines are not frequent and, due to the relatively low price (compared to nuclear power plants) and less time-consuming construction, the losses are much less. Also, the construction of such types of power plants does not meet any obstacles among residents and the government
  8. idr
    idr 11 December 2017 07: 56 New
    11
    It turns out, as always. All the idiots, (America, Europe, China) and the Russians are smart .... Strange, somehow, and not logical.
    It is somehow strange to compare the cost of electricity in Russia and America. And on this basis to draw some far-reaching conclusions.
    Well, now to the point. The cost of generation, in fact, is only one of many rooms the cost of electricity to the consumer. And so what, but in the West they know how to count money. So let's calculate the FAVORABLE to do it there or not profitable.
    For example, in developed Western countries the cost of maintaining networks is more than 50% of the cost of electricity from the consumer, i.e. if in Australia 1 kWh costs about 30 cents, then more than 15 cents goes for the maintenance of networks. The installation cost of solar panels for the home is $ 3899 for the 6.4 KW system
    http://skysolarenergy.com.au/solar/?gclid=CjwKCAi
    A07PRBRBJEiwAS20SIBdHbX8QyRSIDwtgWAfqWEZ25PwOOHdu
    ZHEO_IDWeSmm-2n0G55qhhoCuLIQAvD_BwE
    which will generate about 25 kWh per day or 25x0.3 = 7.5 dollars per day, the payback time will be 3899 / 7.5 = 519 days. Or about 1.4 of the year Even if we assume that the cost of generating electric power = 0, due to the fact that the cost of delivering it to the consumer will be NOT lower than 15 cents for 1 kWh, then the payback period will be only 2.8 of the year ... i.e. having invested 3899 dollars today, through 1.4 years, the average Australian will receive energy for FREE. That's all arithmetic. I'm not talking about the fact that the autonomy and survivability of such a system is ORDERED higher ... Remember how entire cities and regions in Russia freeze during accidents at thermal power plants. During the war, it’s even hard to imagine what will happen in winter. But all you have to do is let the adversary bang on all the little-significant power generators or network facilities ... Having a distributed and very autonomous energy supply system, the task of destroying it will be almost impossible to fulfill ... You think about it ...
    1. Yurasumy
      11 December 2017 09: 07 New
      +1
      USA? Did I write like that? Specify a quote? The United States is just great, forcing Europe to build windmills.
      1. idr
        idr 11 December 2017 09: 51 New
        +2
        1. I re-read my post but didn’t find the glory of the USA ...
        2. In the West, NO ONE WILL FORCE. Only life can be forced, or rather the desire to earn or make a profit. And nothing more.
        3. It all depends on the place. As Chukotka will accept, where Abramovich put the windmills paired with diesel generators. ALL NEEDS TO BE READ.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 11 December 2017 09: 18 New
      +2
      Man, doesn’t it occur to you that you also need to make power lines from wind generators? Moreover, if they are at sea, then this is a separate song.

      Remember how whole cities and regions in Russia freeze during accidents at a thermal power plant


      It’s freezing in your country 404, but in Russia I don’t remember something like that for a long time, especially since an accident at a thermal power plant that would completely cut down the generation needs to be remembered when it happened, and the unified power grids with multiple sources are fine experiencing one-time emergency.

      Australia in itself is a country where “forward 500, back 500” and not a single living soul, it’s nice to put windmills there, and pulling power lines at such distances costs a lot of money, but civilized areas will not survive on windmills.
      1. idr
        idr 11 December 2017 09: 58 New
        +2
        1. We are not familiar with you ... so I ask you not to poke.
        2. I did not write about windmills. You are probably confusing ... This is the author wrote.
        3. I also did not write about completely cut down generation ... But the fact that strict centralization of energy supply is BAD You think you will not dispute.
        4. In Australia, wind turbines in the overall balance are units of percent. So, there is nothing to do with power lines.
        Best regards
        1. Ramzai
          Ramzai 11 December 2017 11: 42 New
          0
          Quote: iDr
          . But the fact that tight centralization of energy supply

          In general, in Russia, a distributed power supply system is called the UNEG.
          1. idr
            idr 11 December 2017 12: 34 New
            0
            Of course distributed. There are many generating capacities throughout Russia. but in cities and for 3, 5 and even 10 and more CHPs I work ... But what percentage of housing / production has a FULLY autonomous power supply? 0.00 ... 1%. Maybe even less
            1. Ramzai
              Ramzai 11 December 2017 15: 47 New
              0
              Quote: iDr
              Of course distributed. There are many generating capacities throughout Russia. but in cities and for 3, 5 and even 10 and more CHPs I work ... But what percentage of housing / production has a FULLY autonomous power supply? 0.00 ... 1%. Maybe even less

              You reason like that because you do not understand the principles of building an energy system in Russia. There is no such thing as autonomous power supply. All consumers are divided into 3 categories. Enterprises almost always belong to the 1st category and must have at least 2 guaranteed sources of power supply. This is usually its own TPP or GTTES, or at least two inputs from different power sources. Housing belongs to consumers of the 3rd category, i.e. non-responsible consumers. It follows that we cannot have “autonomous consumers”.
            2. nickd55
              nickd55 11 December 2017 19: 20 New
              0
              Probably the only one I am and now (with my help) is a whole series of private houses. :)
          2. vlanis
            vlanis 11 December 2017 18: 09 New
            0
            Quote: CONTROL
            Since then, I have been reluctant to use microwaves - I was convinced of the destruction of proteins ...

            Share the analysis method.
    3. faiver
      faiver 11 December 2017 09: 51 New
      0
      remind us about frozen cities and areas in a country with specifics ....
      1. idr
        idr 11 December 2017 10: 44 New
        +1
        No problem.
        Accidents at TPPs and boiler houses in the Russian Federation, leading to major interruptions in heat supply. Dossier
        More on TASS:
        http://tass.ru/info/3977533
        1. faiver
          faiver 11 December 2017 11: 32 New
          0
          looked, accidents are listed, but there are no frozen cities on the list
          1. idr
            idr 11 December 2017 12: 37 New
            0
            You were just lucky not to be in such a city once in your life ... Lucky ... But I had such an experience ... God forbid ...
            1. faiver
              faiver 11 December 2017 13: 11 New
              0
              I live in Yakutsk - a little more than a month ago, an accident at a power plant, and in December 2002, an accident at a power plant, so .... hi
          2. nickd55
            nickd55 11 December 2017 19: 22 New
            0
            Several years ago, half of Krasnodar and all suburban villages plunged into darkness for 5 days and many began to freeze, and I watched TV in my warm house about it. "Freezing rain" is called.
            1. Vasilenko Vladimir
              Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 20: 18 New
              0
              Quote: nickd55
              A few years ago, half of Krasnodar and all suburban villages plunged into darkness for 5 days

              once again what do you have (not in the sense) power, type ?!
              1. nickd55
                nickd55 11 December 2017 20: 48 New
                0
                "At the request of the workers," everything has long been described on my website: http: //www.sam-sebe-electric power station.rf/inzhener-vs
                em-rebjatam-primer / sistema-jelektrosnabzhenija /
                1. Vasilenko Vladimir
                  Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 20: 52 New
                  0
                  Are you from the liberals? !!
                  answer a simple question is very strange
                  how much does what you have installed and how much power? !!
                  everything is simple and specific, two "numbers"
                  1. nickd55
                    nickd55 12 December 2017 21: 38 New
                    0
                    I repeat again - two digits can not do here. I personally copied it twice for you from where you didn’t want to read it. The third time I will not do this, I'm sorry.
                    1. Vasilenko Vladimir
                      Vasilenko Vladimir 12 December 2017 21: 55 New
                      0
                      enough listen
                      exactly two digits output power and price, ALL
                      you don’t have any data what you are trying to get involved with a smart look it is not clear what on your site
                      1. nickd55
                        nickd55 13 December 2017 09: 58 New
                        0
                        If for some reason you do not know how to read, then I inform you - I do not "push in" anything to anyone.
                        I’m not a store (I NEED to sell more quickly exactly what is here and now in the warehouse, and not what the customer needs), I don’t have and will not have any “price list” (you can don’t look!). But I know and know how to better than these stores to solve the problems of their own energy supply in any situation, since I literally and long LIVE IN THIS. I maintain direct contacts with a number of equipment manufacturers. In addition, I deeply own the topic of energy-efficient construction, based on 15 years of experience. Everyone who turns to me CAM gets a calculation of individual systems optimized for specific goals and objectives, a list of the right equipment with optimal logistics for procurement from manufacturers, and a method for proper installation. In necessary cases, people also attract me to do work. I’m not interested in taking and selling anything at all costs, I like to SOLVE PROBLEMS, this is the essence and difference.
                        And still a lot of time it takes me to train and simply inform people on those issues in the field of energy-efficient solutions that are not covered much in the media.
                        That's it.
    4. kuznec
      kuznec 11 December 2017 10: 59 New
      +2
      Now count the controllers and batteries (with a peak power of approx. 5 kW - for an electric kettle, iron, vacuum cleaner, etc., I’ll keep silent about heating and electric stove) with a replacement every couple of years for such a “home” windmill, annual revision of the windmill (from a few days to weeks), legislative restrictions on the construction of high-rise buildings (mast of a windmill) and infrasound, which is harmful to health - and now, the miracle evaporated.
      The cost of electricity increased by 2–3 times, the windmill needs to be moved outside the village, so the network still needs to be serviced,. And the mast with the stretch marks will take a few hundred parts, at least (this is for a 5-kW windmill). So add to the cost of equipment and zemlyatse.
      And in Russia there are few places with stable strong winds, the average annual wind speed in the Russian Federation is 4 m / s.
      So in our country, wind and solar panels need to be installed only where other methods of generating electric power are even more expensive - for example, a geodetic post somewhere on the island, or a distant capture in the taiga (if the owners can afford it).
      1. nickd55
        nickd55 11 December 2017 19: 33 New
        0
        Probably more than I know on this topic, no one can tell me. Yes, any windmill is a mechanic that needs attention, therefore, where there is a network, it is possible to use only solar stations of a hybrid type - with a minimum of battery, taking into account the statistics of accidents in networks. The microgeneration program, which I initiated almost 2 years ago, will increase the attractiveness of such solutions next year.
        Height restrictions for household windmills do not play any role, since there is no need to put such windmills at 30-40 meters. With a standard speed of rotation of such windmills of hundreds of revolutions per minute, no infrasound can exist in principle.
        In the south of the country now the cost of solar electricity can be much cheaper than from a wall outlet.
        1. Vasilenko Vladimir
          Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 20: 46 New
          0
          Quote: nickd55
          In the south of the country now the cost of solar electricity can be much cheaper than from a wall outlet.

          Yes?!!!
          can you name the power and price of such a miracle ?!
          1. nickd55
            nickd55 12 December 2017 21: 47 New
            0
            There is no "miracle" here, there is simply a lack of necessary information and persistent prejudice among many.
            If you still do not understand this, then my own system is autonomous, and above I wrote about hybrid-type solar stations - with a minimum of batteries, which can produce energy cheaper than from an outlet. Here is my article from where you don’t want to read anything (written back in March, and since then, solar panels have become even cheaper):
            23.03.2017
            Inspired by correspondence with skeptics ...
            Thoughts aloud about the "payback" of a solar power plant.
            Inspired by correspondence with skeptics ...

            To begin with, the term “payback period” itself, I think is not very correct to apply to this topic, it is much more reasonable to talk about economic feasibility in relation to a specific technical solution in a particular place for specific goals and objectives.
            In fact, after all, none of us thinks to consider the payback period for a personal car or a washing machine? If you take into account that you can ride a bus or bicycle (or even walk on foot), and wash it in the old-fashioned way on a washboard, then these technical devices familiar to us will never pay off.

            And now, let's move on:
            It is advisable to plan and design a non-volatile house / farm / store initially in such a way as to immediately take into account a number of technical solutions that can reduce the cost of operation in the future (which few people are thinking about now). But it is the latter that already plays an increasing role in the total cost of ownership of any object!
            Even the land itself is desirable to choose, taking into account a number of factors:
            - natural and climatic conditions inherent in this place,
            - local materials and resources, a rational choice that will be important for future use,
            - effective architectural solutions, optimal layout of the functional areas of the site itself, buildings, structures and premises inside,
            - the possibility of a reasonable turn around the world and adjusting the size of the openings in order to reduce heat loss,
            - Logistics of all future movements, so that later you will spend precious time not on a meaningless downtime in traffic jams, since time is also a resource that should be treasured.
            The use of energy-efficient solutions in a future autonomous or partially connected building / structure to networks will allow expanding the choice of plots or even maximizing the freedom of such a choice, reducing the cost of a plot of land at times, and sometimes even by an order of magnitude compared to those options where there are all communications. Naturally, this difference in costs can be invested in providing one's own energy to gain a reasonable level of independence.
            It is possible to significantly reduce or completely eliminate the expense item for the maintenance and operation of reserve and other gas and diesel generators, which are used in countless numbers throughout the south of the country. Then the passive reserve system can turn into an active one, which without energy costs constantly produces energy itself. And in the North of Russia, diesel generators are still the main source of power supply in many remote areas.
            Since any stick is always about two ends, that is why it is always necessary to start with the optimization of the consumption system - both in the form of modernization of the equipment used, and through the rationalization of consumption regimes. There is no economic point in wasting resources to compensate for unreasonable needs!
            If you have a network, it often makes no sense to plan full autonomy, it’s more reasonable to design a hybrid system with a small number of batteries (or without them at low network failure), which will provide a reserve in case of an accident (instead of a gas generator), and can increase available power (if there are restrictions), and it will automatically give priority to the consumption of solar energy, reducing consumption from the network, without losing a single watt (after making the expected decisions on micro-generation at the level of the Government and federal legislators).
            Solar energy, for example, in the Kuban in many places may now be cheaper than the grid, especially after the introduction of the so-called "social norms" this year.
            Consider this in the example below.
            All costs for a hybrid system, in which 5 kW of the total rated power of solar panels, now amount to about half a million rubles with a tendency to a gradual decrease in cost.
            During the estimated time of its service (25 years), it will generate about 7000 x 25 years = 175000 kWh of electricity.
            Let's make important corrections here:
            - Suppose, during this time, you have to change three times that small amount of gel batteries that will only work in the event of an accident in the network - this is about 100 thousand rubles. Instead of gel, it will be possible to immediately use shell or lithium, then there is a high probability that the former in the buffer mode will last for up to 15-20 years, and the latter for all 25 years.
            - also suppose that some more amount will be spent on the repair of some equipment. From many years of practice working with one well-known Russian manufacturer, it can be assumed that there will be relatively few cases of equipment breakdown, and the repair itself will be inexpensive (usually within 5-6 thousand rubles), then here you can lay with a margin for all 25 years, say, another 50000 rubles (just in case).
            Total, we have all the costs of about 650000 rubles for a system that will produce at least 175000 kWh (it can actually produce more, since the factory panels will continue to work further, however, with lower productivity).
            And now we take and divide the total costs by the amount of energy produced and get the estimated cost of one kWh = 3,7 rubles (!).
            On the other hand, the cost of mains electricity will inevitably increase during this time, and, of course, quite seriously.
            It can be assumed that after 25 years - to a level of at least 10-12 rubles / kWh or even more, that is, the average value of the cost of kWh from the network over these 25 years can be estimated at about 7 rubles for most regions of the European part of Russia.
            And now, compare these two figures - the average 7 rubles / kWh from the network and the average 3,7 rubles / kWh from the sun now (with the prospect of an inevitable increase in the first figure and a further decrease in the second).
            For reference:
            - already now in the cities of the Krasnodar Territory the tariff for the population is 4,38 rubles, and for those living in the SNT - about 5,5 rubles (including losses),
            - from July 1, all tariffs will rise again, and if the “social norm” is exceeded and the benefits are not provided, the tariff will already reach almost 7 rubles.
            - Commercial tariffs for small and medium-sized businesses in the Kuban are now already at the level of 7,5 to 9 rubles.
            Therefore, for the entire South of the country, the prospect of early achievement of the calculated average annual level for the estimated 25 years of operation of the system looks VERY real, to say the least.
            It should also be noted that your own power plant with the help of renewable energy will allow:
            - forget like a nightmare all the standard bustle and “dancing with a tambourine” around gas generators and reduce the cost of such a decision to provide a reserve,
            - free up a significant amount of time for the reason stated above,
            - clean the air from the exhaust gases of gas generators.
            Separately, I mention the problem of failure of complex household appliances and equipment due to poor-quality network power supply (here, it is also possible to reduce costs and waste precious time).
            I draw your attention to the fact that the calculations above did not take into account the figures for the costs of the gas generators themselves and operating costs (which could only improve the result of the calculations). For now, we will proceed from the worst case for assessing the economy of the issue.
            In my opinion, such a method of assessing the economic component is much more correct than a simple and very controversial division of the current cost of an SES (solar power plant) by the current network tariff, which does not take into account the many critical costs for the estimated life of the unit.

            Now everyone can think and calculate their money. :)
        2. kuznec
          kuznec 12 December 2017 05: 08 New
          +2
          Quote: nickd55
          Probably more than I know on this topic, no one can tell me.

          It seems that Zhukovsky, Sabinin and Proskura are resting)).
          Let me remind you, colleague, that with an average annual wind speed of 4 m / s, to obtain the same amount of energy, the swept area and the installation height of the wind wheel tragically increase relative to the wind speed of 9 -10 m / s, for which the rated power of most wind generators is calculated. I hope that for you, as a prominent theorist (and maybe practice), it’s not news that in this case the main dependence for us is, namely, the cost of the entire installation in the complex, is non-linear here. Those. at the same power, the complex windmill-panel-controllers-accumulators for an average annual speed of 4 m / s will be more expensive than a windmill for a speed of 8-9 m / s more than 2 times - this can be 3, 4, and 5 times.
          Once again, hear my message: Russia is a continental country, relatively stable winds are concentrated mainly on the coasts, and for most of the territory of the cap. investing in green power is unprofitable.
          A simple calculation for my household: a 10 kW peak wind generator. to get at least half of the output in my area:
          https://tiu.ru/p193919735-vetrogenerator-kvt-cond
          or; all.html
          this requires the purchase of 20 batteries of 150 a / h, which is very expensive, plus the installation of a tower of 12 meters (obviously you need permission, this is a 4-storey house in height + the departure of a wind wheel), several hundred under stretch marks. As a result, about 1.5 million rubles. This is only one-time. Without annual add. infusions.
          We divide 1500000 into 2 (cost of 1 kW-hour from 1.5 (social norm) to 2.5 rubles, average 2) - 750 thousand kW / h. And in a month I burn in the summer of 250-300, in the winter - up to 400 kW hours. We take the average monthly consumption of 350.
          Total: 178 years using electricity. Even if inflation eats even half, 90 years will remain. And you still need to change the windmill in 10-15 years. We have 90 years against 15. So while the cost of the entire "green" complex is not reduced by 6 times, "by wire" is still cheaper. Well, why then fence the garden?
          1. nickd55
            nickd55 12 December 2017 11: 35 New
            0
            1. I repeat - for the sixth year I have been living in conditions of complete autonomy without the need to use a gas generator. Perhaps this in itself is already talking about something?
            2. I know perfectly well both in theory and in practice the relationship between wind speed and wind turbine productivity.
            3. In the Kuban (where I live) - there are many zones with an average annual wind speed of significantly more than 4 m / s. This is the coast (Taman, Anapa, Novorossiysk, Yeysk, Primorsko-Akhtarsk), and the continental part (Armavir and Kropotkin).
            4. I repeat - in the south of the country now it is already possible to ensure the cost of, for example, solar kWh much lower than from a power outlet. I didn’t consider it in the wind, therefore I can’t judge it and I think that a wind generator for a private house in most cases with a network is not needed at all.
            Do you understand this message of mine? :)
            A wind generator Condor manufactured in Omsk is not an example for calculation at all, because I know what shit they produce there. :)
            I can do the calculation of the OPTIMAL system myself, and, as a rule, it is much more accurate than many (taking into account rich practice).
            1. kuznec
              kuznec 12 December 2017 12: 50 New
              +2
              1.
              Quote: nickd55
              Perhaps this in itself is already talking about something?

              Does not speak. In the summer, I also try to do without networks at the dacha, but consumption is minimal. Therefore, enough for lighting with LEDs, TV, etc. triples of small windmills. Sound the annual energy consumption and estimate, please.
              2.
              Quote: nickd55
              I know perfectly well both in theory and in practice the relationship between wind speed and wind turbine performance.

              I was not talking about the performance of a windmill, but about the financial costs of it. Believe me, there are such scientific works too. Read my post carefully.
              3. I was not talking about the blessed Kuban, but about Russia. Read carefully again. If it was exclusively about the Kuban - there would be another alignment.
              4.
              Quote: nickd55
              In the wind - I didn’t count, so I can’t judge

              But judge! And the wind is a more energy-intensive source of green power than sunlight / panels.

              I took into account the windmill, which first fell in the distribution of Yandex. Better, IMHO, will be even more expensive. You have not given a single number. Where are the arguments besides "I"?
              1. nickd55
                nickd55 12 December 2017 20: 32 New
                0
                Estimate for what? :) To my whole house, to the heating system, to the electricity supply system, to the water supply system, to the sewage system? :) For my own expenses made almost 6 years ago? Everything about my house is described in detail on my personal site, but here all the links are deleted.
                Please, here is an excerpt on the power supply system (answer to question No. 6):
                6. Equipment costs?

                Many doubt the reality of my expenses.
                To begin with, I’ll inform you that the figure of 350 thousand rubles applies to all the equipment of the autonomous power supply system (except, of course, for the completely regular expenses for internal wiring in the house). This figure also does not include the costs of my “gravitap” - a supporting metal structure with a shed on the first level. This is already my personal “whim”, because the panels could be placed on the roof of the house, and the windmills on standard or “self-made” mast-extensions, which would entail much lower costs for the placement of these devices. For example, one of those who copied my system at home, found second-hand thick-walled pipes from oil industry workers for nothing and welded both structures (for panels and windmills). It turned out for him about 7-8 thousand rubles per circle with the foundation.

                In order to dispel all doubts about the costs, I will give here the names and the CURRENT retail price of all components as of the beginning of the summer of 2014, which I installed:

                - inverter MAP "Energy" for 6 kW - 51900 rubles.

                - solar panels - 6 pcs each at 150 W at a price of 7200 rubles / pcs and 4 panels at 230 W at a price of 11000 rubles / pc. Total all panels - for a total of 87200 rubles.

                - two wind turbines of 1,5 kW each with a face value of 42000 rubles, a total of 84000 rubles.

                - solar controller - about 10000 rubles.

                - two windmill controllers of 11000 rubles each - only 22000 rubles.

                - Battery Troyan 105 RE series - 8 pieces of 10500 rubles, a total of 84000 rubles.

                Only 339100 rubles (three hundred thirty-nine thousand one hundred rubles).

                The rest went to small things - cables, lugs and transportation costs.
                If we take the same type of panels of 200 W each (9 pieces to gain about the same power as mine), then it will cost not 87200 rubles, but 8100x9 = 72900 rubles, that is, even less by almost 15000 rubles.

                So there is NO rumors in the figure of 350 thousand rubles - NO.
                Additions:
                1 - so far I have systematically changed the configuration of my system (as I had originally expected) - added solar panels and left one wind generator. Thus, now I have a total of 3,8 kW of panels and a 1,5 kW wind generator that I am launching for the winter.
                2 - as of 2017, I can report that for the amount of about 350 thousand rubles it is possible to create a sufficiently powerful hybrid solar system with a minimum of batteries (or network, generally without the latter), which will cover a significant share of the needs of an average house. For autonomous solutions, the total amount of expenses for the equipment of the power supply system of such a house will start from about 400-500 thousand rubles.
              2. nickd55
                nickd55 12 December 2017 20: 34 New
                0
                Here is my excerpt from my news from this spring:
                Energy efficient home with hybrid power system
                for areas of the Kuban without network gas

                Typical project:
                (removed link)

                Living space
                102,3 m²
                Built-up area
                123,0 m²
                Cubature
                271,1 m³
                Height
                6,36 m
                Roof pitch
                35 °
                Roof area
                200 sqm
                Floor height: 2,8m

                Foundation: tape with a monolithic reinforced concrete slab
                Bearing walls - cladding brick 250mm, insulation 150mm (ecowool or stone wool)
                Partitions - cladding brick 120mm
                Exterior finish: 120mm facing brick (Slavic brick factory), hemming roof eaves, gutter system
                Floor: monolithic reinforced concrete
                Roofing: metal tile, insulation 200mm
                Distribution of engineering networks: electricity, sewage, heating, water supply.
                Internal finishing - floor with screed and insulation 50mm, plaster
                Own power supply - a hybrid SES (solar power plant) with a nominal power of 6 kW (maximum 9 kW and peak 13 kW) with solar panels with a total capacity of 8 kW and an annual output of 10500 kWh.
                Heating and hot water supply - an air-to-water heat pump with a 6kW Japanese compressor, water heated floors or radiators.
                Cooking - electric stove.
                The estimated annual demand for network electricity is less than 1500 kWh.

                Advantages:
                the minimum OPERATION COST of the house, which becomes the most important factor against the background of a constant increase in utility bills,
                outstanding energy efficiency with minimal heat loss, the walls of the house serve as a heat accumulator, which reduces the costs of both heating in winter and cooling in summer,
                reliable energy supply system based on domestic equipment, for most of the year the house will be able to provide itself with energy, and the need for mains electricity will mainly arise in the winter, when more than a day is cloudy with low and dense clouds,
                taking into account the expected decisions of the Government in terms of its own generation, the resulting excess of electricity can be sold to the network or offset, which will allow not to waste a single watt of energy and pay off costs much faster,
                now in many regions of the Kuban the cost of “solar” kWh (about 3,5 rubles / kWh for hybrid systems) is much lower than the network tariff,
                the complete absence of dependence on the so-called “social norms” of electricity consumption introduced in the territory of the Krasnodar Territory.

                Estimated cost - not more than 3 million 990 thousand rubles.
            2. Vasilenko Vladimir
              Vasilenko Vladimir 12 December 2017 21: 05 New
              0
              Mr. Driga of one of your statements that when they turn on the Conder they don’t use the kettle, it’s clear that you are a real “kettle” in matters of energy supply
              1. nickd55
                nickd55 13 December 2017 10: 36 New
                0
                What? :) Where and when exactly did I say that when the air conditioner turns on, you can’t use the kettle? :) You're not a balabol? Confirm Please. :)
                If you do not know how to listen, watch and read, then I will personally inform you - it was somewhere in my speech that we could talk about taking into account the parameters of the inverter used in each system as applied to the total power of the most powerful consumers that are simultaneously turned on, which is understandable. :) And yes - my own inverter fully allows the simultaneous operation of both the air conditioner, the kettle, and a number of standard consumers. And nothing prevents any consumer from installing an inverter with at least a triple power margin, but WHY? :) For example, if in a hybrid system with peak consumption up to 15-20 kW (which is not often the case), the most powerful consumers turn on rarely - WHY put an inverter of such high power? It is enough to ensure the work of all key consumers, and these rare and powerful ones - let them always work only from the network. Thus, the user can divide the power supply system of his house into two parts - redundant in the event of an accident in the network and not redundant, and also - reduce the not entirely justified costs of excess power inverter. Probably, if I were "sucking in" something, then I would try to persuade such a consumer to buy an inverter with a capacity of more than 20 kW, rather than try to optimize its costs. :)
                1. Vasilenko Vladimir
                  Vasilenko Vladimir 13 December 2017 11: 12 New
                  0
                  Quote: nickd55
                  What? :) Where and when exactly did I say that when the air conditioner turns on, you can’t use the kettle? :) You're not a balabol? Confirm Please. :)

                  1. nickd55
                    nickd55 13 December 2017 22: 21 New
                    0
                    So what? :)) You amuse me ...
                    Julianne asked me if I can simultaneously turn on a vacuum cleaner, kettle and hairdryer in my system? I replied positively, but added that, for example, in the summer, when the air conditioning also works, I and many people hardly need a kettle at all, because at this time there is heat and I want something cold. :)) What's wrong? It is interesting to know - what made you so overexcited in these words? :)
      2. Vasilenko Vladimir
        Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 20: 19 New
        0
        Quote: kuznec
        with peak power approx. 5 kW

        sorry but this is not power, private home ownership at the peak can take 15-20 kW
        1. kuznec
          kuznec 12 December 2017 04: 36 New
          +1
          Vladimir, my post is just an answer to the comment above on the thread. Power is indicated by a colleague nickd55.
          1. kuznec
            kuznec 12 December 2017 05: 14 New
            +2
            Or maybe not indicated. Excess covers the installation controller with batteries.
          2. nickd55
            nickd55 12 December 2017 11: 41 New
            0
            What is it all about? Where exactly did I mean some kind of power? :)
            1. kuznec
              kuznec 12 December 2017 12: 56 New
              +1
              I apologize. You have not specifically designated.
              Quote: kuznec
              Or maybe not indicated.
    5. andj61
      andj61 11 December 2017 12: 20 New
      +2
      Quote: iDr
      .those. having invested $ 3899 today, in 1.4 years the average Australian will receive energy for FREE. That's all arithmetic. I'm not talking about the fact that the autonomy and survivability of such a system is ORDERED higher ... Remember how entire cities and regions in Russia freeze during accidents at thermal power plants. During the war, it’s even hard to imagine what will happen in winter. But all you have to do is let the adversary bang on all the little-significant power generators or network facilities ... Having a distributed and very autonomous power supply system, the task of destroying it will be practically impossible ... You think about it ...

      Everything is correct - but the solar battery in Siberia, where villages have accidents (very often there is no centralized power supply, but old coal-fired boiler houses or diesel power plants - take care of them normally, reserve them a little - and there will be no problems!) Freeze out, putting it is useless - the effect is completely different than in Australia. Yes, and 6,4 kW of installed power is the maximum in theory - but we will take into account precisely this figure) there will not be enough solar battery for a house even in Australia - in my house in the evening, if you count, even more is consumed - a fridge-freezer -a pair of televisions and computers-washing machine- electric stove with oven. Well, light bulbs are a trifle ... And if you start a couple of air conditioners in the summer, then all the generated electricity will not be enough for them ...
      It should be noted: electricity is used mainly in the evening-morning, when it is not produced. This means that capacious batteries will be required - this also increases the cost of energy supply and payback. Moreover, the battery life is short. This is all good for increasing energy independence along with other sources of energy supply, especially with state benefits and subsidies for this business. hi
      1. nickd55
        nickd55 11 December 2017 19: 36 New
        0
        In the solar system, there may not be any batteries at all (if the network breakdown is low), and the Government’s micro-generation program will automatically sell the daily surplus to the networks, they will be required to redeem it and will not be taxed.
        1. Vasilenko Vladimir
          Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 20: 41 New
          0
          Quote: nickd55
          There may not be any batteries in the solar system

          belay
          1. nickd55
            nickd55 12 December 2017 21: 49 New
            0
            If you still did not know this, then let this be news for you. :)
            Network inverters have long been widely used around the world.
            1. Vasilenko Vladimir
              Vasilenko Vladimir 13 December 2017 10: 32 New
              0
              firstly, we are talking about independent sources, secondly, the inverter is not worth a little money plus any other
              1. nickd55
                nickd55 14 December 2017 13: 01 New
                0
                Sorry, you are talking about something of your own, but I'm talking about what is most effective for the vast majority of consumers.
                The issues of autonomous energy supply are each time a special case and the point in their consideration arises in the absence of physical networks.
                It makes no sense to disconnect from an existing network, but its joint use with renewable energy sources is the most reasonable solution in such cases (of which the overwhelming majority, I repeat!).
                Only a splinter costs nothing, a little more expensive - a candle. :)
                Why then do you even shake the air, if everything is so expensive? :)
                Always walk, wash your underpants in the river - this is the cheapest. :)
        2. GAF
          GAF 11 December 2017 22: 48 New
          0
          Quote: nickd55
          daily excess to sell to networks, they will be obliged to redeem it and will not tax it.

          Dear what are you talking about? Buckets will be the network to redeem whether an excess of electricity. To accept the excess, it must be synchronized with the network in phase and strictly! at a frequency of 50 Hz.
          1. nickd55
            nickd55 12 December 2017 21: 53 New
            0
            I’m talking about exactly what I personally initiated about two years ago, about which I made a report at the Analytical Center of the Government, and what will now be implemented next year. All necessary orders were given by the Government, work is underway to change the entire regulatory framework. Learn the materiel, please.
    6. Awaz
      Awaz 11 December 2017 21: 30 New
      +1
      we saw how entire cities in the USA were cut down not even in accidents, but stupidly from a malfunction of the electronics ... We also set up a weak tower with a fan nearby, we wanted to disconnect from Chubais and live on our own. However, nothing came of it. Loot there only producers receive. Other serious problems
      1. nickd55
        nickd55 12 December 2017 21: 55 New
        0
        They say that with a fool, even in the temple, you can break your forehead. :)
  9. Gardamir
    Gardamir 11 December 2017 08: 05 New
    +6
    to the author for the words
    NEVER AND NOT AT ANYTHING
    baAlshoy minus.
    Firstly I remember a telecast of the mid 80s. Chernobyl had not yet happened. And most scientists voted for nuclear power. But he got up alone and said that if the money that was invested in the atom was invested in the solar, it is not known what would be more profitable.
    Secondly, optionally, I was interested in how to "replace Chubais" for myself. It turns out that gas production systems from household waste have been created. Further, not only in China, but also in Russia, solar panels are produced where you can connect the house autonomously, watch TV, operate a refrigerator, charge a smartphone.
    The only global problem for the entire energy sector is the accumulation and conservation of electricity.
    1. idr
      idr 11 December 2017 08: 10 New
      +3
      I totally agree. As soon as they develop cheap batteries, all of the traditional energy will fall ...
      1. Yurasumy
        11 December 2017 09: 09 New
        0
        Have you read the article? A cheap battery only helps the stability of generation. SHE DO NOT ADD KIUM. Apparently you just did not understand anything in the physics of the process.
      2. Ramzai
        Ramzai 11 December 2017 11: 36 New
        0
        Quote: iDr
        I totally agree. As soon as they develop cheap batteries, all of the traditional energy will fall ...

        And these cheap batteries will be produced at enterprises that operate from traditional energy sources and it will be required to charge such cheap batteries from the same traditional energy sources. The conclusion suggests itself: traditional energy will not go anywhere. This is the basic industry, alternative sources can only complement it, but not replace it.
      3. dubovitsckij.viktor
        dubovitsckij.viktor 26 December 2017 20: 55 New
        +1
        Quote: iDr
        I totally agree. As soon as they develop cheap batteries, all of the traditional energy will fall ...

        Batteries should not only be cheap, but free. Only then, perhaps.
        You do not take into account that the DIRECT use of energy and conversion into heat, light, movement is a one-time conversion, and the accumulation in the battery (it is not a source!) Of energy and conversion into an acceptable form for you is a multiple conversion. Which dramatically reduces the overall efficiency of the system. And, of course, reliability.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 11 December 2017 09: 32 New
      +5
      I’ll tell you one clever thing, just don’t be offended, but you won’t raise the intensity of solar radiation in any way. On 1 sq meter. something falls about 1 KW. 1 Million kW will be 1 Million sq. m. Or 1 square. km At 50% efficiency of the panel, we get. 2 sq. km at 1000 MW. In practice, it is good if 20% Efficiency, i.e., 5 sq. km at 1000 MW. Only on the panel. I have EMNIP city on 240 population, 20 km square. occupies, the industrial zone is even larger, but the 2 CHPPs in it are somehow even lost.

      But your “scientist” did not understand what he was carrying.

      Further, not only in China, but also in Russia, solar panels are produced where you can connect the house autonomously, watch TV, operate a refrigerator, charge a smartphone.


      Well, with a smartphone and a refrigerator, consciousness is limited, only to make a banal aluminum spoon you need a monstrous amount of energy to get the aluminum itself, and this metal became cheap only thanks to the cascades of the hydroelectric power station. Compared the penis with a finger, the house with the industry.

      However, there is nothing worse in terms of the high cost of communications than endless private development. In the city, you will have a maximum of a couple of hundred square meters of roof space on 3 dozen apartments.
      1. igordok
        igordok 11 December 2017 09: 49 New
        +1
        I will post a video of wind turbine crashes. Pretty pretty.
        1. Professor
          Professor 11 December 2017 11: 51 New
          +3
          Quote: igordok
          I will post a video of wind turbine crashes. Pretty pretty.

          Compare?
          1. andrej-shironov
            andrej-shironov 11 December 2017 15: 26 New
            0
            good Professor Bravo!
          2. kuznec
            kuznec 12 December 2017 05: 21 New
            +2
            Then be consistent:

            Fukushima.
      2. Gardamir
        Gardamir 11 December 2017 12: 50 New
        0
        no offense,
        Yes, never, I'm interested in energy. and everything you wrote is correct, but ... re-read my last sentence. no matter what kind of energy, when there are surges in consumption, in the morning more than at night, in winter more than in summer. Nuclear power plants are not profitable to adjust, and TPPs are also not a fountain. So the main accumulation of energy.
        As for the alternative. More than a hundred years ago, electric cars began to be developed, but gasoline appeared. Or at first there were steam locomotives on coal, then electric locomotives, who knows, maybe they will soon be on solar traction .. So far your kW per meter is correct, but the possibilities of science are unknown.
        1. Ramzai
          Ramzai 11 December 2017 14: 59 New
          0
          I read it at a wonder. You heard about load graphs, or about the static power reserve of generators. All load fluctuations are calculated and predicted. For this, there are dispatch centers for managing the energy system of Russia. For nuclear power plants and thermal power plants, although thermal power plants will be more correct, there are daily load schedules that take into account load fluctuations during the day, therefore, morning and night load fluctuations are up to the bulb.
          1. nickd55
            nickd55 12 December 2017 23: 31 New
            +1
            And to compensate for these fluctuations in load, huge capacities at power plants are constantly "in pairs" (so that it is "to the bulb"). Although (you will laugh), but quite recently, on the sidelines of a talk show on one television channel, a representative of a large energy company seriously complained that LED bulbs impeded their work. :)
            1. sharp-lad
              sharp-lad 13 December 2017 01: 55 New
              0
              So consumption is falling, and the power is idle, but asked "to eat."
              1. nickd55
                nickd55 13 December 2017 10: 39 New
                0
                So.
            2. Ramzai
              Ramzai 13 December 2017 09: 21 New
              0
              To be up to the bulb, all the generators included in the network have a power margin. The stock of static stability is called, due to it, any daily load fluctuations are compensated. Keeping huge capacities under steam makes no sense. What you write about is called a hot reserve. It is put into operation in the event of an emergency shutdown of the generator.
              1. nickd55
                nickd55 13 December 2017 10: 44 New
                0
                The concept of "huge" - with respect to the whole country.
                For example, in the Kuban, in addition to daytime fluctuations, there is a large seasonal bias in peak consumption (especially when vacationers come in the summer) and there is still a shortage of capacities in a number of places.
                1. Ramzai
                  Ramzai 13 December 2017 14: 05 New
                  +1
                  Quote: nickd55
                  For example, in the Kuban, in addition to daytime fluctuations, there is a large seasonal bias in peak consumption (especially when vacationers come in the summer) and there is still a shortage of capacities in a number of places.

                  I know the power system of the Kuban as a native Rostov. Do not write about what you are poorly versed in. All the same, the site is called VO, not Energetik.
                  1. nickd55
                    nickd55 13 December 2017 22: 08 New
                    0
                    So - there is absolutely no seasonal bias in consumption in the region? And there is no capacity shortage?
        2. bk316
          bk316 11 December 2017 23: 42 New
          +2
          may soon be on a solar traction ..

          will not, the laws of physics can not be fooled.
          You can blindly believe in communism - this is normal, but to believe in devices that violate the fundamental laws of physics is stupid.
          Regarding the use of solar energy in the "farm" he was especially interested, the only thing that is justified is the heating of water on the roof, it really saves a lot
      3. dubovitsckij.viktor
        dubovitsckij.viktor 27 December 2017 01: 34 New
        +1
        Quote: EvilLion
        I’ll tell you one clever thing, just don’t be offended, but you won’t raise the intensity of solar radiation in any way. On 1 sq meter. something falls about 1 KW. 1 Million kW will be 1 Million sq. m. Or 1 square. km At 50% efficiency of the panel, we get. 2 sq. km at 1000 MW. In practice, it is good if 20% Efficiency, i.e., 5 sq. km at 1000 MW. Only on the panel. I have EMNIP city on 240 population, 20 km square. occupies, the industrial zone is even larger, but the 2 CHPPs in it are somehow even lost.

        But your “scientist” did not understand what he was carrying.

        Further, not only in China, but also in Russia, solar panels are produced where you can connect the house autonomously, watch TV, operate a refrigerator, charge a smartphone.


        Well, with a smartphone and a refrigerator, consciousness is limited, only to make a banal aluminum spoon you need a monstrous amount of energy to get the aluminum itself, and this metal became cheap only thanks to the cascades of the hydroelectric power station. Compared the penis with a finger, the house with the industry.

        However, there is nothing worse in terms of the high cost of communications than endless private development. In the city, you will have a maximum of a couple of hundred square meters of roof space on 3 dozen apartments.

        And I give you a second clever idea. Record and remember.
        In the middle lane, in the summer, at noon, 1 kW from 1 square. m. With perpendicular illumination of the panel. The efficiency of the panel cannot be higher than 27%. Will explain. Each semiconductor layer of the panel clearly sees one color, and the other almost none. The first panels were sensitive to a single red color, and therefore had an efficiency of about 2%. Then they learned to make MULTI-LAYERED, transparent, but each layer was sensitive to its spectrum. Now they are doing a convoluted 25 ply. Further building up is pointless, since layers cannot be made completely transparent — they, since they are completely transparent, do not react at all to light. Light freely passes through them without giving up energy. And a little opaque, in sum make all layers together highly opaque. Hence, again, a decrease in efficiency.
        Further. Roofs do not turn after the sun.
        Do you remember geometry? The angle of incidence of light on the panel during the day varies greatly. Moreover, immediately in two planes. Hence the sharp decrease in energy removed by the evening. Besides. Light at noon occurs on the shortest path through the atmosphere. But in the evening, the path through the atmosphere becomes many times longer. And ..... Such a trifle as clouds, could, and more ....

        Aggressive supporters of green energy do not understand that wind farms, solar stations for network use in industry are being made giant areas, megawatt capacities are concentrated and centralized in the sense of flow control. Miserable attempts to make his garden a source of energy for use by the state does not cause a grin, pity as to a patient.
    3. nickd55
      nickd55 11 December 2017 19: 37 New
      +1
      The problem of energy storage will be solved sooner or later by scientists and it is important for us not to oversleep this moment, or better yet, to lead research on this issue.
    4. dubovitsckij.viktor
      dubovitsckij.viktor 26 December 2017 21: 04 New
      +2
      Quote: Gardamir
      to the author for the words
      NEVER AND NOT AT ANYTHING
      baAlshoy minus.
      Firstly I remember a telecast of the mid 80s. Chernobyl had not yet happened. And most scientists voted for nuclear power. But he got up alone and said that if the money that was invested in the atom was invested in the solar, it is not known what would be more profitable.
      Secondly, optionally, I was interested in how to "replace Chubais" for myself. It turns out that gas production systems from household waste have been created. Further, not only in China, but also in Russia, solar panels are produced where you can connect the house autonomously, watch TV, operate a refrigerator, charge a smartphone.
      The only global problem for the entire energy sector is the accumulation and conservation of electricity.

      All cyclic forms of energy generation (solar - only during the day, tidal - only twice a day, wind - only when the wind blows, which is even more unpredictable), makes the traditional more expensive, because the tradition cannot be turned off for a day. Thermal, hydroelectric power station, and, moreover, nuclear.
      Therefore, during the work of the "green" generation, the traditional will give an excess.
      only, and only, the worldwide electrical network can solve the problem. Not accumulators - accumulators that only increase the price, production from pollutes the environment, but energy transfer along the Earth's rotation. The sun illuminates the earth all the time. Tides are everywhere and at different times, the wind must blow somewhere ...
      1. Gardamir
        Gardamir 26 December 2017 22: 06 New
        0
        worldwide electrical network
        good idea too.
        1. dubovitsckij.viktor
          dubovitsckij.viktor 27 December 2017 01: 42 New
          +1
          Quote: Gardamir
          worldwide electrical network
          good idea too.

          Believe me, it is as impossible as achievable as the manufacture of terawatt storage devices.
          We can never agree.
  10. AndreyM
    AndreyM 11 December 2017 08: 11 New
    +4
    Guys, let's live together (c).

    First, Shurale, remember the basic physical law of nature - the law of conservation of mass. When coal is burned, new, additional radioactive isotopes are not formed - they simply move from the earth to the atmosphere. The radioactive isotopes contained in coal belong to the "natural background" - the radiation dose that we are used to from conception and which does not harm the body.

    Secondly, the extracted natural uranium raw materials and the enriched uranium used in the fuel elements of nuclear power plants are two big differences. Enriched uranium is not mined - it is produced at special enrichment plants.

    Thirdly, although they really try to get rid of TPPs, but the reasons for this are completely different, they have nothing to do with radioactivity:
    1. Emissions of carbon dioxide and soot
    2. The limited reserves of coal in nature
    3. The complexity and danger of coal mining in a closed way.
    1. Shurale
      Shurale 11 December 2017 09: 14 New
      0
      You are right, the particles emitted by coal-fired power plants are not activated, but this does not change my attitude to the article, the article does not reveal the problem.
      1. bk316
        bk316 11 December 2017 23: 32 New
        +2
        particles are not activated

        Particles what?
        Do not tell me dear
        1. What engineer do you work in atomprom? there for example there are engineers specializing in sewer networks ....
        2. What does the atomomprom have to do with emissions from coal stations?

        but I forgot to say I am a supporter of Putin, judging by your comments, you are going to use this somehow in your answers .....
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 11 December 2017 09: 35 New
      0
      If in the corner they lay at a depth of 1 km, then they definitely did not belong to the background.

      Coal in the world just before a fig and more. Emissions of combustion products are no better than radiation, but they are simply used to them, and radiation is afraid. After all, people for the most part have not yet left the unwashed village.
    3. Humpty
      Humpty 11 December 2017 09: 57 New
      +1
      Quote: AndreyM
      The radioactive isotopes contained in coal belong to the "natural background" - the radiation dose that we are used to from conception and which does not harm the body.

      Perhaps at the expense of the radioactive substances released into the air during coal combustion, paints are thickened, but these substances, in particular uranium compounds, are poisonous, like other heavy metals. In our town, where uranium was enriched, the tailing dump is adjacent to the private development sector. You won’t find a ward in an oncological hospital without people from there. This is the flip side of nuclear power.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. bk316
        bk316 11 December 2017 23: 34 New
        +4
        And I know where you come from. hi
        You can’t imagine how much rubbish is thrown into nature in the manufacture of solar panels.
  11. M. Michelson
    M. Michelson 11 December 2017 08: 36 New
    0
    Well, seeing with what persistence the “green” energy is moving forward, one can ask the sacramental-cosyrological question: exactly, what are the global economies on a market basis? belay
  12. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 11 December 2017 08: 39 New
    +1
    Industrial enterprises cannot depend on wind power. Should they be closed in calm?
    Alternative energy can only complement the traditional. Yes, the trouble is, traditional is cheaper. But what should they call black white? If they are ready to buy American liquefied gas, just not to use the Russian pipeline ...
    1. nickd55
      nickd55 11 December 2017 19: 40 New
      0
      Yes, renewable energy can only complement traditional energy (until capacious, durable and cheap energy storage devices appear). And now it is far from always traditional - cheaper than renewable energy sources.
  13. prior
    prior 11 December 2017 08: 41 New
    +2
    The conclusion from the article suggests itself - do not rush to sell your homeland, in the sense of gas, oil, coal, wood ....
    - the time will come in itself fit.
    1. CONTROL
      CONTROL 11 December 2017 10: 29 New
      +1
      Quote: prior
      The conclusion from the article suggests itself - do not rush to sell your homeland, in the sense of gas, oil, coal, wood ....
      - the time will come in itself fit.

      ... especially the forest! From it, coffins get along well ... bigger!
      And gas, oil and coal - with you, to the next world - to the grave, to the coffin of a suitable size!
    2. NordUral
      NordUral 11 December 2017 11: 01 New
      +2
      To the point, prior! And then screams of joy are rushing from all sides, that "our" oligarchs are selling more and more gas.
      And energy needs to be developed differently, only with the mind, in relation to a specific task and place.
    3. dubovitsckij.viktor
      dubovitsckij.viktor 27 December 2017 01: 47 New
      +1
      Quote: prior
      The conclusion from the article suggests itself - do not rush to sell your homeland, in the sense of gas, oil, coal, wood ....
      - the time will come in itself fit.

      Who is stopping you from going to a university, getting a rare education and generating not only ideas, but also working projects for your homeland?
  14. Engineer
    Engineer 11 December 2017 08: 57 New
    0
    After half an hour of enthusiastic digging on the Internet

    Well, Wikipedia experts just turned my mind about the energy of Europe.
    1. Yurasumy
      11 December 2017 09: 10 New
      +1
      Wikipedia? You draw everything from there. I've looked at the statistics.)))
      1. dubovitsckij.viktor
        dubovitsckij.viktor 27 December 2017 01: 56 New
        +1
        Quote: yurasumy
        Wikipedia? You draw everything from there. I've looked at the statistics.)))

        What did they see there?
  15. Old26
    Old26 11 December 2017 09: 11 New
    +5
    You know, guys, I’m already reading the second article by Yuri at VO on this topic and I can’t understand the main message of the author. The emphasis in both the first and second articles is on the fact that for the "green" energy of the West we are given fake figures. Or that the construction of the same wind farms is an expensive pleasure. Well, to be honest, I don’t care much what kind of noodles are being hanged up by Westerners about the "green" energy. What interests me the most is why the same wind energy is not used here. I understand that not every region is suitable for such construction, but there are some that are suitable. Watching on TV the “forest” of windmills in some Holland, which may even be slightly smaller in size from some of the regions of the region, you begin to ask yourself such questions. And why do not we have this? In our region, a number of cities are located, for example, in the zone where there are a very large number of sunny days. Why not there, 10-15 years ago, to begin to develop the same solar energy as additional means of generation. Turkey, which we never considered highly developed, is already making massive use of this gratuitous resource. And ....
    Or, again, as an example, our own Stavropol Territory. Some areas of the region in the wind are quite suitable. Yes, and the city itself, the capital of the region, too. City guests are usually surprised by the almost constant winds. But there is no smog. True, I must say thanks to Alexander Vasilievich Suvorov and the builder of the fortress, General Jacobi, who built the fortified city in such a place. Today, we have an unusually quiet morning for this time of year. The wind speed is small. only 15 meters / sec. Why not use this resource? Without going into these figures at the cost of such energy in the West? What is difficult to calculate, profitable to build them (wind farms) in the Stavropol Territory? It was clearly calculated, since it was stated that in the course of several years 9 such wind farms would be erected in the territory of the region. For the edge, additional energy I think will not hurt. The author makes all the emphasis in the article on the cost of kW * hours. It can of course and must be considered, but not always the cheapest may be the best and vice versa

    I agree with comrade Shurale about coal stations. The fact that in the area of ​​their operation there is an increased radioactive background was heard another 10 years before Chernobyl. And not at the level of rumors of OBS, but from people involved in the operation of such state district power plants, as well as those who, according to their duties, had to monitor such a situation as an increase in the radioactive background. The increase of course is almost imperceptible, sometimes by 5-10% compared with the natural background, but nonetheless. And they coal were "dirty" not even because of radioactivity.
    In his youth, he liked to walk with a backpack, rafting on the river in an emergency aircraft raft, and sit with a fishing rod by the river. So, when in the morning I went with my friends on the first train, the sky was just starting to change color and turn gray ... I’m not visible (it’s 8-9 km from the city - I lived in Novocherkassk then), but the “tail” of that muck ejected from the pipes (despite the filters) against the background of a gray sky clearly showed where the station is. And how many tens and hundreds of tons of all kinds of rubbish fell on the city a year was often written in the local “Brekhalovka”.
    Maybe not all coal stations had an increased background. Surely such a "theory" expressed by the comrade Shurale there are both supporters and opponents, but you should not simply discard this problem. as is the problem with brain diseases due to the use of cell phones. Also, one should not simply dismiss this problem. Something in reality, such a diagnosis more often appears - a brain tumor. And when in the same period of time there appears the only device that has become almost mandatory for everyone - a cell phone, you inevitably start asking yourself questions about the relationship ...

    Sorry for some messy post .....
    1. Conductor
      Conductor 11 December 2017 09: 38 New
      0
      To do this, they invented.))
    2. SPLV
      SPLV 11 December 2017 10: 19 New
      +1
      I agree, windmills are suitable for some regions. But nationwide? It is enough to study the recommendations for the design of windmills (5m / s average annual) and SNiP Climatology and geophysics - in the territory of not even the Russian Federation, but the USSR, there are only a few places where the windmills will be really effective. And this is significantly less than 10% of the territory
    3. GIN
      GIN 11 December 2017 11: 35 New
      +1
      They chewed you that it is not profitable; you go there again
    4. sharp-lad
      sharp-lad 13 December 2017 02: 04 New
      0
      While all green energy is supported by subsidies, the exception is solar collectors for heating water.
      P.S. Subsidies can be different, but they appear only from the pockets of users. sad
  16. Humpty
    Humpty 11 December 2017 09: 30 New
    0
    For work, I’m in various dumps where it blows either hard or just blows. We use gasoline generators, despite the fact that a liter of gasoline with delivery costs about 1.6 dollars. There is a familiar fanatic of installing wind generators, he offered the services of our organization and others similar. So far, unsuccessfully. The payback period of the toy is too long.
    The feasibility of small and medium-sized hydroelectric power stations is not in particular disputed.
    Worst of all, by the combination of side factors, perhaps, coal-fired thermal plants. Because
    Quote: Shurale
    In coal, there is a large proportion of radioactive materials, when burning coal with ash, these materials are released into the atmosphere in horrific amounts, they try to ignore this part of the problem. Now you understand why many developed countries are struggling to get away from coal stations even in unprofitable ways.
  17. Conductor
    Conductor 11 December 2017 09: 37 New
    +2
    Note that the green ones aren’t particularly fond of cars, and against airplanes, as well as against trains and other vehicles. And here where the Russian Federation is ahead of everyone, then everything is bad here. That on the rivers forbid to put hydroelectric power stations, they prevent fish from swimming, and they themselves are heated by a tree (by the way, too, a lot of trees are expensive and sorry) So why drown it? Right stream of consciousness from the green.
    1. Mestny
      Mestny 11 December 2017 10: 15 New
      +1
      And suddenly, under the drum roll in the arena, the theory of the "golden billion" appears.
      And suddenly it turns out that indeed, modern capitalism does not need all these billions of people who need to be fed, heated and the like. And you need comfortable living on a clean planet of a relatively small group of "elite" and their staff. Moreover, in energy-intensive areas only by the shift method, which is not such a big problem with the development of communications.
      And here is the conclusion - all these “green” technologies are for the comfortable stay of “clean” ones, those who are worthy.
      And all other methods, especially nuclear energy - they are for everyone, for the maximum possible number of people, cheaper and more.
      1. andrej-shironov
        andrej-shironov 11 December 2017 15: 29 New
        0
        Local sorry, but it is far-fetched.
        1. Mestny
          Mestny 12 December 2017 04: 57 New
          -1
          Yes, of course you are right.
          It was like a joke.
          At the moment, the efficiency and capacity of alternative sources is extremely low, and the cost of their production and operation is vice versa. In other words, with the available parameters of such devices, there will definitely not be enough for all of humanity with its industry.
          What is the conclusion? Either hammer on this solar-wind energy, and develop other methods, or ... reduce the costs of humanity. It is possible through a catastrophic population decline.
          1. andrej-shironov
            andrej-shironov 12 December 2017 08: 39 New
            0
            Dear Local! You are right in this and no one will argue with this here. But this does not mean at all that alternative energy is not necessary. On the contrary, it is necessary! Technology is being improved. We have all of the alternatives: sun, wind, fast rivers, coastal strip, thermal springs, etc. Imagine how many “parasites” -dealers fall off if your home is autonomous in this regard!
        2. dubovitsckij.viktor
          dubovitsckij.viktor 27 December 2017 02: 10 New
          +1
          Quote: andrej-shironov
          Local sorry, but it is far-fetched.

          And you did not feel. Dock idea. Definitely.
          All dirty technologies are brought to Africa and to the periphery of Europe, China. They do not need superpower for super-energy enterprises. The territory of the golden elect is being built. We are most likely not included in this number.
    2. nickd55
      nickd55 11 December 2017 19: 43 New
      +1
      Sawdust can be processed into pellets. :)
      1. sharp-lad
        sharp-lad 13 December 2017 02: 09 New
        0
        And you can burn in a "fluidized" layer. hi But process control is more complicated. smile
  18. SPLV
    SPLV 11 December 2017 09: 56 New
    0
    An interesting review. But how tired of reading revolutionary mathematicians! At school, in elementary grades, they teach that the numbers are only 10 (ten)! Where do others come from? Where did the numbers 1000 and others come from? For the beauty of the text, it is better to draw flowers. Or is the article addressed to people with an education that broke off after first grade? Total graphomania ... "About times, about morals ..."
    1. Vasilenko Vladimir
      Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 11: 17 New
      0
      Quote: SPLV
      Or is the article addressed to people with an education that broke off after first grade? Total graphomania ... "About times, about morals ..."

      are you about yourself?
      when they propose to verify "numbers" this does not mean that they compare "8" and "4"
    2. GIN
      GIN 11 December 2017 11: 38 New
      0
      Digit 10 order they have different
  19. Alexey Sobolev
    Alexey Sobolev 11 December 2017 10: 04 New
    0
    I read, I read .. already in the middle I got confused, spat, stopped reading .. You really are not angry. But as if simpler is all ..
    1. Vasilenko Vladimir
      Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 11: 16 New
      0
      Quote: Alexey Sobolev
      But as simple as that all

      EXPENSIVE
  20. Bashibuzuk
    Bashibuzuk 11 December 2017 10: 12 New
    +1
    Thank you very much to Yuri for the educational program on wind energy.
    And also "green", blue, blue, what else is there. It was interesting to read.
    BUT!
    The accounting approach may be correct. More precisely, it is always correct when it is necessary to count what a thread.
    Only now, in addition to arithmetic, there is nothing to expect from such an approach. Such a life - they invested here, they wrote it off.
    But in reality, humanity (and not accountants) thinks little about depreciation periods, percent of annual depreciation and payback period. If anything is enough, it is property taxes.
    For example, any such wind stand can be sold. For instance. Or arrange tours of it - and you can come up with any reason - well, say, the most powerful, or the deadest, or concrete in the foundation of the P500 brand. It depends on the imagination under which sauce the nonsense to steam.
    Space technology, and for example - ballistic missiles - are generally unbearable, in principle. KIUM goes to the deepest disadvantages, if we take it into account. Efficiency - the same minus 200 percent. For it is unclear whether we will shoot or not. And keep the rocket town, and change the methylhydrazine, and carry out maintenance and repair work.
    How much joy do we bring American tourists into space? What is the return on such excursions? I would be glad that at least the reputation grows - but no, we carry them, and they give us the IOC.
    Still, research continues, rockets are being built, space is being gradually mastered.
    So it is with this wind energy.
    Yes, the business is designed so that it is NECESSARY to do something!
    Established the construction of risers, good. Let's now pump water under the ground, we will tear the layers. Nakoy, the question is? So wanted an exclusive gas? No, just a dvizhuha.
    Simply. It is necessary. Something. Do.
    Business does not tolerate downtime.
    And all business.
    ....
    And about baldness in the radar beam and cooking ermines wassat tongue laughing In some way, I’ve been able to work many times with working civilian radars Don, Donets, and Ocean, right in the beam. But how, for example, is it easier to check if there is a beam or not after scraping ice from the antenna? We take a gas-filled light bulb, and we bring it to light.
    About the lateral rays I will not specifically speak. But, a certain part of the male body works flawlessly until now, at 59 years old.
    It was not possible to climb into the radar of combat missions, firstly there was no need, secondly, from the beginning, it was not good for health. And the tale of raven cats, dogs, boiling in the beam during the study-service heard enough. And I would like to look at the commander of the calculation of such a radar, which would allow anyone to cook anyone in the beam of the radar.
    And finally - you catch the Ermine FIRST! Brew it yourself. Without any rays.
    Clean tales. Clean. But, enticing.
    1. CONTROL
      CONTROL 11 December 2017 14: 30 New
      +1
      Quote: Bashibuzuk
      cooking ermines ...
      ... I couldn’t climb into the beam of a combat radar ... ... a tale about cat-dog-raven, welding in a beam even during study-service I heard a lot.
      ... you catch FIRST ermine! Brew it yourself. Without any rays.
      Clean tales. Clean. But, enticing.

      Ermine is a bust!
      But the chicken - plucked and gutted - yes! (stolen, alas ...); the microwave ...
      Since then, I have been reluctant to use microwaves - I was convinced of the destruction of proteins ... To eat this - only with great hunger! although - progress ... quality of life ...
  21. faiver
    faiver 11 December 2017 10: 21 New
    0
    rummaged in the internet, looked at the prices of wind generators and solar panels and I got the following - a hundred square meters need to put a wind generator and solar panels in our conditions, the minimum price of a set of equipment with half a million installation and payback for fifteen years, this is taking into account the fact that the equipment it will last so much, and without maintenance costs, but the batteries will still have to be changed this time, and maintenance will need one fig, respectively, the payback period grows to twenty years under ideal conditions - asks what for goat accordion ...
    1. Vasilenko Vladimir
      Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 11: 10 New
      0
      Quote: faiver
      the price of a set of equipment with the installation of half a million

      something cheap, what kind of power did you take?
      1. faiver
        faiver 11 December 2017 11: 34 New
        0
        this is the minimum price, i.e. accordingly, the question of product quality raises some doubts
        1. Vasilenko Vladimir
          Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 15: 22 New
          0
          as I considered the costs within $ 20 thousand
          1. faiver
            faiver 11 December 2017 15: 30 New
            0
            waved well hi
            1. Vasilenko Vladimir
              Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 17: 16 New
              0
              Quote: faiver
              waved well
              15-20 kW
    2. nickd55
      nickd55 11 December 2017 19: 49 New
      0
      And WHY, if there is a network, to set a goal to ensure FULL autonomy? :) Depending on the region, different solutions may be effective. Including - without batteries at all or with their very minimum. In the southern regions, you can do without windmills, only SES of some capacity with the possibility of selling surplus to the network, which will allow you to abandon the emergency gas generator (and the costs associated with this), and also in the current mode will save energy from the network (up to zero annual balance of consumption from the network, if appropriate). :)
      1. Vasilenko Vladimir
        Vasilenko Vladimir 12 December 2017 08: 16 New
        0
        Quote: nickd55
        And WHY, if there is a network, to set a goal to ensure FULL autonomy?
        and what do you think makes sense in connecting panels or a windmill
        1. nickd55
          nickd55 12 December 2017 11: 50 New
          0
          For private home ownership:
          1. Emergency power supply at home with the complete exception of the cost of acquiring a gas generator and its operation.
          2. Compensation of current consumption from the network in the desired amount, up to a zero or positive annual balance.
          3. A dramatic decrease in dependence on centralized communications when choosing a land plot.
          For example, in the southern regions of the country it is also possible to ensure a zero balance of consumption from the network, even when a private house is heated with a heat pump. However, at the same time, this house itself should be originally built using energy-saving technologies (which I am doing).
          Is it really bad to live in your own house and not pay anything to anyone at the end of the year?
    3. nickd55
      nickd55 12 December 2017 22: 06 New
      0
      A house per 100 m2 of consumers can be many times more than a house of 300 m2.
      In addition, the issue of energy saving should be resolved in the house BEFORE deciding on the installation of a solar power station (and this will be useful without the use of SES), since otherwise it will be necessary to compensate for the indefatigable appetite of ancient consumers and block it with additional bills.
  22. pytar
    pytar 11 December 2017 11: 02 New
    +4
    Green energy is not a panacea, but it has its advantages! She can not replace the traditional, but can successfully complement it. Digged sources of energy (oil, gas, coal, uranium, etc.) will end sooner or later. They also greatly pollute nature. At that time, for example, solar energy is endless and has enormous potential. On Earth, there are huge areas that are unsuitable for economic use, but are ideal for solar power plants. Technology is developing very fast! The most promising source of energy is controlled thermonuclear fusion. In all developed countries, they have been working in this field for many years. There are certain difficulties, but sooner or later all technological problems will be resolved. This cannot be doubted.
    1. Vasilenko Vladimir
      Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 11: 09 New
      0
      Quote: pytar
      They also greatly pollute nature.

      and you didn’t think what pollution is needed for the production of windmills and panels
      1. pytar
        pytar 11 December 2017 20: 32 New
        +2
        Counted. Whenever machines / equipment are created at the first level, energy is consumed and there is pollution by nature. If this machine / equipment is designed to produce clean, waste-free energy, then the overall level of pollution decreases over time. As much as pure energy, the table is less polluted subsequent production of material products. There is such a fundamental principle in energy production. Hierarchical - I will say so. The extraction of eregy from renewable sources is the future of mankind. Sit all the time on oil, gas, coal, uranium, etc. impossible. They are not endless. This is not acceptable for the future. The planet is bathed in solar energy. It is a million times larger than all the energy in hydrocarbon reserves. It's crazy to burn and smoke, something that we can’t restore. The planet does not withstand such a load.
        1. Vasilenko Vladimir
          Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 20: 54 New
          0
          Quote: pytar
          Whenever machines / equipment are created at the first level, energy is consumed and there is pollution by nature

          far from it
          1. pytar
            pytar 11 December 2017 22: 47 New
            +2
            far from it

            But as?
    2. nickd55
      nickd55 11 December 2017 19: 49 New
      0
      That's right!
  23. Vasilenko Vladimir
    Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 11: 08 New
    0
    Nobody tried to put together the numbers and statistics on the European "alternative" energy? Recommend. Very fascinating sight. After half an hour of enthusiastic digging on the Internet, I realized: everything that is written about the energy alternative is a lie. And a lie from the first to the last word.

    for this, half an hour is not necessary, just look at the cost of windmills and panels
    it is beneficial only in one case if there is no real opportunity to draw a line
    1. nickd55
      nickd55 12 December 2017 22: 08 New
      0
      No, I repeat, already now in a number of regions of the south of the country in hybrid SES the cost of solar kWh can be much cheaper than from the network.
      1. Vasilenko Vladimir
        Vasilenko Vladimir 13 December 2017 10: 23 New
        0
        Quote: nickd55
        can be much cheaper

        touches
        significantly, huge - one, two, many
        do you know how to communicate normally ?!
        significantly, by how much, what are the primary costs, payback time? !!!!
        1. nickd55
          nickd55 14 December 2017 13: 20 New
          0
          For noodles on the ears, contact the solar stores, there you immediately (without even delving into the essence and without making any calculations) will say some "exact" numbers. :)
          And I don’t know how. I repeat for you every fifth (if not more) - for an individual calculation of the economic feasibility of using renewable energy in a particular place, a number of initial data are required, on the basis of which you can then make this calculation and then - give the exact result - which system and under what it is the conditions of exploitation that can be effective in a given specific place and whether it can be at all. :) Again it is not clear? :)
          In the conditions of the Kuban, if a farmer or a small businessman pays electricity for 8-9 rubles, a solution for renewable energy in a hybrid system for him there is one that will provide him with 2,5 times cheaper cost of kWh (about 3,2-3,5 rub) and at the same time reduce the cost of maintaining an emergency gas generator.
          Even in conditions of complete autonomy, it is already possible to ensure the cost of kW * h cheaper than the commercial tariff - at about 6-7 rubles / kW * h.
          But disconnecting from the network, if it already exists, makes no sense. :))
          If this time you don’t understand anything either, then excuse me, but I'm not a doctor. :)
  24. Professor
    Professor 11 December 2017 11: 26 New
    +2
    Read. Looked at the numbers. At the current price of electricity, our windmills are very profitable. Thanks to the author. I convinced you. good
    1. Vasilenko Vladimir
      Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 15: 25 New
      0
      Quote: Professor
      At the current price of electricity, our windmills are very profitable. Thanks to the author. I convinced you.

      where do you have it ?!
      with us, with this money I can buy 333 thousand kW, which is about 1000 kW per month, 25 years
      1. Professor
        Professor 11 December 2017 18: 46 New
        +3
        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
        where do you have it ?!

        On the Promised Land. 1KW costs 14 US cents. Therefore, "0,8-0,9 American cents for 1 kWh of electricity generated" is a song. I'm building a windmill. good I will not pull the nuclear power plant. However, the author does not want to describe such trifles as the ability of an individual or a small company to build a power plant. He easily built nuclear power plants. request
        1. nickd55
          nickd55 11 December 2017 19: 51 New
          0
          Depending on the region, the most rational solution may be individual. And you can have it and not a windmill (or not only a windmill). :)
    2. pytar
      pytar 11 December 2017 20: 35 New
      +2
      And not only with you. And not only windmills. Technology is developing very fast! The fact that yesterday was unprofitable, now or tomorrow there will already be no competition.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 11 December 2017 22: 46 New
        0
        We are waiting for thermonuclear energy.
  25. Curious
    Curious 11 December 2017 11: 54 New
    +2
    It’s always the case when a person who knows little about the issue is taken to analyze the issue. Rummaged on the Internet and immediately exposed all the swindlers from renewable energy resources.
    The “green” revolution in Europe: a lie from the first to the last word.
    And what, in fact, is a lie? Is using renewable energy sources less harmful than spending non-renewable ones?
    And how did the author calculate the impact of the development of programs for generating electricity from renewable sources on the cost of electricity by country? And it’s hard even to comment on the sufferings of Europeans who believed in a fairy tale and wind energy as an element of an energy war against the USSR.
    Maybe for starters the author should have searched the Internet for material on the history of wind energy.
    By the way, the most expensive electric energy in the Solomon Islands is about 90 cents per kW. Next are Tonga (47,00 cents), Jamaica (45), New Caledonia (44), Cook Islands (42).
    So the inhabitants of these islands. due to the fact that they do not read the articles of our author, they made a terrible mistake.
    Aruba, Cape Verde, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Denmark, Fiji, Tokelau, Niue, Saint Lucia, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Vanuatu plan to completely decarbonize national power systems over the next decades and receive electricity exclusively from renewable sources. They deceived the poor Papuans.
    1. Vasilenko Vladimir
      Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 15: 25 New
      0
      Quote: Curious
      The “green” revolution in Europe: a lie from the first to the last word.
      And what, in fact, is a lie? Is using renewable energy sources less harmful than spending non-renewable ones?

      by the way and this is the same
      1. Curious
        Curious 11 December 2017 16: 15 New
        0
        And what is the main harm?
        1. Vasilenko Vladimir
          Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 18: 15 New
          0
          Quote: Curious
          And what is the main harm?


          and the fact that the sources of "green" energy do not multiply by budding and do not grow on trees, in order to create them you need to burn, dig and clog a lot of things
          1. Curious
            Curious 11 December 2017 19: 43 New
            0
            Correctly! And hydroelectric power plants, nuclear power plants, thermal power plants - they appear by simple division from a parallel world.
            For their construction, it is not necessary to violate the hydrology of rivers, nor to produce equipment. A coal to mine. so generally no harm. Therefore, before writing, it is recommended to think.
            1. Vasilenko Vladimir
              Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 20: 55 New
              0
              Quote: Curious
              For their construction, it is not necessary to violate the hydrology of rivers, nor to produce equipment. A coal to mine. so generally no harm. Therefore, before writing, it is recommended to think.

              Think about it, it’s very useful, or maybe everything just selling green energy is profitable
              1. Curious
                Curious 11 December 2017 21: 17 New
                0
                No matter how much I think, instead of you, I cannot. So you yourself will be tensed up.
                1. Vasilenko Vladimir
                  Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 22: 12 New
                  0
                  tensed for a long time and counted
  26. Cxnumx
    Cxnumx 11 December 2017 12: 36 New
    0
    and hydroelectric power plants are not green? something not a word about them. or are there very few of them in the EU?
    1. Professor
      Professor 11 December 2017 13: 09 New
      +1
      Quote: K0
      and hydroelectric power plants are not green? something not a word about them. or are there very few of them in the EU?

      Ecological harm from hydroelectric power plants is even worse than nuclear damage.
      1. Vasilenko Vladimir
        Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 18: 16 New
        +3
        Quote: Professor
        even worse than nuclear.

        you’ll laugh, but atomic ones are just one of the most environmentally friendly
        1. Professor
          Professor 11 December 2017 18: 46 New
          +2
          Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
          Quote: Professor
          even worse than nuclear.

          you’ll laugh, but atomic ones are just one of the most environmentally friendly

          Chernobyl and Fukushima are an example of this.
          1. Vasilenko Vladimir
            Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 20: 13 New
            0
            you just didn’t live near the coal
  27. Forever so
    Forever so 11 December 2017 12: 38 New
    +1
    For a long time he was engaged in the development of technologies and technological lines for alternative energy, through the processing of solid waste, of course, articles in magazines were printed and I was in the know about any research in this area. so back in the first decade in the journal by alternative sources, there were studies of Americans who clearly showed that by 2050 all this wind and other turbidity on a global scale would shrink to tenths of a percent. the main thing will be nuclear power plants, and other sources based on the splitting or synthesis of matter. Speaking about alternative sources, first of all, it is necessary to understand that this is BUSINESS ON FUCKERS. manufacturers of all these windmills raise very good money. That's all. like with gas. The main profit was made by equipment manufacturers. as with pederasts, the main profit is made by manufacturers of clothes, anal oil and so on. Business, nothing personal. The problems of the Indians are not interested in the American sheriff.
    1. andrej-shironov
      andrej-shironov 11 December 2017 15: 35 New
      +1
      So any business, or rather marketing, is built on suckers! Green energy is no exception. However, this is not a reason to block a bunch of nuclear power plants, thermal power plants, etc. in the country.
  28. San Sanych
    San Sanych 11 December 2017 13: 24 New
    0
    the author raves laughing
  29. Altona
    Altona 11 December 2017 13: 39 New
    0
    Quote: Shurale
    I do not work in the nuclear industry as a worker throwing a uranium with a shovel. I’m an engineer and just by the specifics of my work I know something that you don’t know.

    -------------------------
    Well, it's good that you work. But this does not mean that you can calculate the real cost of energy generated by nuclear power plants. And its cost is really much lower than "environmental" and has a tendency to decrease.
    By the way, about liquefied and natural piped gas. Pipeline gas is much more convenient. We used liquefied gas right up to 2004. That is, the gas carrier fills the gas at the beginning of the month, after half a month the burners burn weakly. So the United States can show off LNG as much as it wants, it only worsens the energy security of Europe.
    1. Town Hall
      Town Hall 11 December 2017 13: 43 New
      +3
      Quote: Altona
      We used liquefied gas right up to 2004. That is, the gas carrier fills the gas at the beginning of the month, after half a month the burners burn weakly. So the United States can show off LNG as much as it wants, it only worsens the energy security of Europe.



      Are you sure that you understand what you are talking about from a technical point of view?
  30. mister-red
    mister-red 11 December 2017 13: 58 New
    0
    As I understood from the discussion, no one really argues about the high cost of green energy. And this, after all, is the main idea of ​​the article, as I understand it.
    As for ecology, it all depends on what to dance. In Europe, there is no oil and gas, so their main fuel is coal. I will not climb and look for numbers, but it seems that in Germany still about half of the electricity is generated by burning it. Switching to gas is probably not cheap, so the fact that alternative energy is developing there is quite natural.
    But if you burn gas, then even without calculations it is clear that thinking about green energy is stupid. In the European part of Russia, gas is mainly burned, coal in Siberia and the Far East. We draw conclusions ourselves.
    As for Holland and the "forests of windmills" - we remember the Dutch disease because of what happened? Maybe they are glad to burn gas, so it ended a long time ago ... Well, not quite of course, but not enough for the country.
    1. nickd55
      nickd55 11 December 2017 18: 46 New
      0
      "As I understood from the discussion, no one really argues about the high cost of green energy." - I argue. :) And I have very good reasons for this. :)
      Tariffs in the Kuban:
      - rural - 3,1-3,5 rubles / kWh
      - city - 4,44 rubles
      - for living in SNT - about 5,5 rubles
      - commercial - 8-9 rubles (and even more)
      After the introduction of "social norms" next year, for a considerable number of citizens, the city tariff will turn into 6,22 rubles (and up to 6,94 rubles in the worst case scenario).
      And now the question - 3,5 rubles per kWh of self-energy against this background - is it very expensive?
      1. faiver
        faiver 11 December 2017 19: 15 New
        0
        expensive or cheap depends on your individual electricity consumption ...
        1. nickd55
          nickd55 11 December 2017 20: 53 New
          0
          No, it depends on the natural conditions of the region and network tariffs. Individual consumption is relatively small in this case (especially taking into account the microgeneration program).
      2. Vasilenko Vladimir
        Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 20: 48 New
        0
        Quote: nickd55
        And now the question - 3,5 rubles per kWh of self-energy against this background - is it very expensive?

        not expensive, the question is how much should you pay at a time for this miracle
        1. nickd55
          nickd55 12 December 2017 22: 14 New
          0
          This is no miracle.
          And why do you pay several times a lot of money for a personal car, if you can move the body on a bus / tram or on a bike, or even on foot? Moreover, such a car will never pay off at all. :)
          1. Vasilenko Vladimir
            Vasilenko Vladimir 13 December 2017 10: 26 New
            0
            Quote: nickd55
            You pay several times a lot of money for a personal car, if you can move the body on the bus

            I can’t, I have a bus passing by the house THREE times a day and then I don’t go where I need to, but the nearest store is 4 km away
            when I lived in a city I used a car only for trips out of town, as in the city I got tired of standing in traffic jams, and the car was needed for work
            Quote: nickd55
            Moreover, such a car will never pay off at all. :)

            mdaaaa ....
            1. nickd55
              nickd55 14 December 2017 13: 24 New
              0
              Buy a bike or jog - it's useful! :) And then you can get rid of the never recoupable costs of a personal car. :)
              And also - sell a washing machine and a dishwasher and other household appliances, they will also never pay for themselves. :))
  31. Livonetc
    Livonetc 11 December 2017 14: 23 New
    0
    Vigorous and once again vigorous.
    The other is just weak, and in Russia there are already full-fledged closed-cycle technologies for using nuclear fuel in stock.
    Twist the propellers of the gentlemen, catch the wave and sun bunnies.
    Envy, so envy silently.
    1. Anyone
      Anyone 11 December 2017 14: 44 New
      0
      For the average monthly salary, our citizens can afford to purchase ~ 10 thousand kWh. About the same as in Denmark, the UK and most countries in Europe. That's only in tariffs in the EU includes up to 25% (as, for example, in Germany) of fees for green energy. That is, for the construction of those same windmills, etc. And with us, obviously, 25% of the tariffs go directly to the pocket of the members of the board of RAO UES and network companies such as PJSC Mosenergosbyt.
  32. Altona
    Altona 11 December 2017 14: 37 New
    0
    Quote: Town Hall
    Are you sure that you understand what you are talking about from a technical point of view?

    -------------------------------
    I say that liquefied gas is inconvenient from all points of view. I’m talking about my city. For a good example, I see how best.
    1. Town Hall
      Town Hall 11 December 2017 14: 50 New
      +1
      Quote: Altona
      Quote: Town Hall
      Are you sure that you understand what you are talking about from a technical point of view?

      -------------------------------
      I say that liquefied gas is inconvenient from all points of view. I’m talking about my city. For a good example, I see how best.


      And how is liquefied gas "inconvenient" for a simple consumer? What are the difficulties with him? .. isn’t that burning?
      1. Vasilenko Vladimir
        Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 18: 18 New
        0
        Quote: Town Hall
        not burning like that?

        By the way, yes
  33. Korolev
    Korolev 11 December 2017 14: 47 New
    0
    What a hysterical article.
    Here hysteria, do not hysteria. And the countries of the West, and not only they unequivocally keep a course on avoiding coal and other oil. Now the condition is only in its infancy, although there are countries like Germany. But clearly they all plan to have not only momentary benefits, but are building some long-term plans, even if alternative energy is currently more expensive.
    And here, as in any new business, whoever got up first broke the bank. As a result, in 10-20-30 years we may find ourselves sitting on a pipe with oil that nobody needs, and it will be too late to catch up.
    1. faiver
      faiver 11 December 2017 19: 18 New
      0
      and through 30 and through 50 everything will remain as it is now, unless there is a thread of scientific breakthrough in terms of energy extraction
      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 16 December 2017 10: 47 New
      0
      As a result, in 10-20-30 years we may find ourselves sitting on a pipe with oil that nobody needs, and it will be too late to catch up.
      In 10-20-30 years, our pipe will become much more in demand in Europe. Even if there is a sudden breakthrough in thermonuclear energy and all the countries of the Euro, having stretched themselves in a Stakhanov style, will cover Europe during this time with a network of power plants for fusion reactions.
      Bo hydrocarbons are not only valuable fur ... that is, not only energy generation, but also the most valuable raw materials for the chemical industry. Hydrocarbon consumption in Europe is growing steadily despite any crises. And nothing indicates a decline in consumption in the foreseeable future. They will burn less, recycle more.
  34. Andvigor
    Andvigor 11 December 2017 15: 33 New
    0
    Quote: Waltasar
    Have you read that document?
    Do you think that over 40 years the density of solar energy has changed, the winds began to blow harder? Or crop yields increased at times?
    Yes, the efficiency of modern systems has become higher, but not so much that the report is considered obsolete.

    Here's another question for the "knowledgeable." No one knows by chance how much of these reactive windmills work ?! Cosine fi mount necessary!
  35. tivivlat
    tivivlat 11 December 2017 16: 28 New
    0
    Yes, wind turbines at current speeds of air flow and air density are not profitable!, but it’s reckless to judge ALL green energy. It has been proved that 98% of the solar energy entering the Earth is reflected back into space and only 2% of this energy is absorbed by the ocean and plants! and again, BUT, not a single scientific shobla under the klikuha-Academy will not allow the manufacture of a mechanism that processes 98% of the unused solar energy into electrical energy, and there is only one reason "AND WHERE DO YOU NEED THIS SCHOOL?"
    1. Shaska
      Shaska 11 December 2017 17: 39 New
      0
      Do not be clever ... FOR SHOOT lol
    2. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 16 December 2017 10: 50 New
      0
      BUT, not a single scientific shobla under the clique-academy, will allow making a mechanism that processes 98% of unused solar energy into electrical energy, and there is only one reason
      There is only one reason - such a concept as efficiency and losses ...
      Give me an example, a mechanical or electrical device that, when processing one type of energy into another, has an efficiency of 98%.
      1. tivivlat
        tivivlat 16 December 2017 14: 04 New
        0
        HEAT PUMP KE = 700% !!!
        1. nickd55
          nickd55 16 December 2017 20: 35 New
          0
          In general, it is true, but the heat pump has a COP coefficient, not an efficiency factor. :)
  36. A. Privalov
    A. Privalov 11 December 2017 16: 48 New
    +5
    Is it an analyst? This is a kind of bulletproof vest for 5000 dollars - this is bad because the cartridge costs only 70 cents!
    Yes, wind energy is expensive and expensive, but it will never catch up with the "usual". However, if she takes at least some part of herself, even with subsidies, it will allow to clean the atmosphere and preserve the health of people who, even for a small fraction, will stop breathing smoke from power stations on fuel oil and coal.
    1. Vasilenko Vladimir
      Vasilenko Vladimir 11 December 2017 18: 21 New
      +1
      Quote: A. Privalov
      if she takes away at least some part, even with donations, this will help to clean the atmosphere and preserve people's health

      and who the thread when the thread counted how much what needs to be burned to make one windmill or one element of the SB
    2. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 16 December 2017 10: 58 New
      0
      However, if it takes away at least some part, even with subsidies, this will help to clean the atmosphere and preserve the health of people who, at least for a little bit, will stop breathing smoke from power plants in fuel oil and coal.
      That is why the United States and China spat at one time on the Kyoto Protocol and categorically refuse to reduce not only gross national emissions, but even the growth dynamics of atmospheric emissions.
      Like, you all tighten your belts here and increase the cost of the economy due to the increase in the cost of energy. And we will spoil the whole planet. We need to develop.
  37. Vitaly Bezkutsky
    Vitaly Bezkutsky 11 December 2017 16: 56 New
    0
    When I read at the very beginning of the article that all the information about green energy is a 100% deliberate lie of Europeans, which they do as propaganda and misinformation precisely because of the US energy war against Russia ...., I finished reading .
  38. The comment was deleted.
  39. vlanis
    vlanis 11 December 2017 18: 22 New
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    Ecological harm from hydroelectric power plants is even worse than nuclear damage.

    Exactly. On the Ob, one hydroelectric station near Novosibirsk brought down 0 sturgeon. all fish processing plants closed just a couple of years after the launch of this hydroelectric station, which even Novosibirsk itself lacks.
  40. nickd55
    nickd55 11 December 2017 18: 38 New
    +1
    And I would not so categorically judge all RES. Moreover, even without "green tariffs" we can develop the topic for the benefit of the country.
    I live for the sixth year in my own autonomous house, I solve energy supply problems for people in difficult conditions, I build energy-efficient private houses, and now I dare say that now in the Kuban (for example) in a hybrid solar power supply system the cost of kWh can be significantly lower, than from the outlet (taking into account all operating costs per 25 years of operation - 3,2-3,5 rubles). You can talk for an arbitrarily long time that renewable energy sources are entirely one falsification, but if you "look at the root" (as the unforgettable Kozma Prutkov bequeathed), then it becomes noticeable that the very structure of world energy began to change actively, Siemens and General Electric in thousands reduce staff involved in the production of gas generating stations, nuclear scientists also sound the alarm about reducing demand. At the same time, the cost of traditional generation does not tend to fall, but with the help of renewable energy sources it is constantly decreasing. And the main thing for us here is not to oversleep the development of technologies, so I consider it extremely important to participate in the development of alternative energy. In addition, I do not understand why there is still not a single wind farm and a single powerful solar power station in the sunny Kuban, although up to now (and this lasts for decades!) There is a lack of capacities in the networks, a terrible accident rate and low quality of electricity. And no government is able to solve this problem. And the bias in consumption, which occurs in the summer with an influx of holidaymakers, could be largely leveled by solar power plants, which have exactly the highest output at this time of year.
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 16 December 2017 11: 27 New
      +1
      You can talk for as long as you like about the fact that renewable energy sources are just one falsification,
      At first, none of the serious experts, and not environmental politicians or populists, say that RES is a scam. Everyone says that because of their shortcomings, which are different from other types of energy generation, these are purely niche technologies.
      SecondlyDo not confuse the cost of energy in the outlet and the cost of its generation. The prime cost of renewable energy (in the popular sense now) is several times higher than in traditional large energy. Whether you want it or not. Well, the price for the consumer under capitalism is determined only by the degree of greed of the energy monopolist and the degree of consumer interest in receiving energy, despite its cost to him. The justified niche of solar and wind generation is individual or medium-sized collective households with low power consumption and MANDATORY sustainability support from the central network. Otherwise, albeit rarely, but w ... happen. For example, if it is calm and cloudy for several days in a row, you will not have enough batteries. And this is even for home ownership. What to say about production ... Or the same centralized water supply to the city from water pumping stations.
      Thirdly, hydropower is in fact ALL (and not just small and micro-hydro) is RES. What they prefer to modestly keep silent about all interested "greenback" grant-eaters. This is so, note.
      And the bias in consumption, which occurs in the summer with an influx of holidaymakers, could be largely leveled by solar power plants, which have exactly the highest output at this time of year.
      Fourthly, the RES problem (the thunder of large hydroelectric power plants): 1) the inability to provide peak power on demand, 2) a poorly predictable change in the generated power (a cloud came in, gusts of wind), which requires a lot of effort to smooth out these surges, 3) a very weak power output - you calculate how many solar panels it takes to power at least one production line in medium-capacity production (and taking into account all the surges in power generation), or a city trolleybus network, or a railway line ...
      1. nickd55
        nickd55 16 December 2017 20: 59 New
        0
        "Secondly, do not confuse the cost of energy in the outlet and the cost of generating it. The cost of renewable energy (in the popular sense now) is several times higher than in traditional large energy." - in a number of countries this is, to put it mildly, not so.
        "Well, the price for the consumer is determined under capitalism only by the degree of greed of the energy monopolist and the degree of consumer interest in receiving energy, despite its cost to him." - Under capitalism, there is usually competition and a virtual absence of monopolism. The latter is especially pronounced with us.
        "The justified niche of solar and wind generation is individual or medium-sized collective households with low power consumption and MANDATORY sustainability support from the central network." - in general - I agree, but I will add that with the development of energy storage and storage systems, the situation will change.
        "Otherwise, it’s rare, but w ... pa will happen. For example, if it is calm and cloudy for several days in a row, you will not have enough batteries. And this is even for home ownership." - and it depends on where. My personal example clearly indicates the opposite.
        But this is not the point here, it is just the joint work of the network and the SES that is the most rational solution and there is no economic sense to refuse the network if it exists. And in a number of regions it is possible to build such a hybrid energy supply system in such a way that the annual balance of consumption from the network will be zero or even positive.
        "Thirdly, hydropower is in fact ALL (and not just small and micro-hydro) is RES." - I have no doubt about that.
        "Fourth, the problem of renewable energy (the thunder of large hydroelectric power plants): 1) the inability to provide peak power on demand, 2) a poorly predictable schedule for changes in the generated power (a cloud came in, gusts of wind), which requires considerable efforts to smooth out these surges," - I repeat , drive development is able to completely solve all these problems.
        "3) a very weak power return - you count how many solar panels you need ..." - I'm sorry, but sometimes "power return" may not depend on the number of solar panels at all. :) For example, in a system with batteries, its value depends only on the power of the inverter (s) and partly on the capacity of the batteries (which will determine the operating time at this power).
        Even for powerful consumers, the joint operation of the network and the SES can make economic sense in a number of regions of our country right now.
    2. rtutaloe
      rtutaloe 16 December 2017 13: 55 New
      +1
      Stations - this is the last thing in the modern energy market. Everywhere there is a shortage of networks. And it is he, and not the shortage of production capacities, that determines the low quality of electricity in a particular household consumer. All these alternative energies have long been calculated and can only be an economical supplement to traditional energy. No more.
      1. nickd55
        nickd55 16 December 2017 21: 05 New
        0
        In the whole country, there is a surplus of capacities. But in the southern regions - yes, there is a chronic deficit on which seasonal factors are superimposed, plus a large amount of new construction. But in the coming years, the country will have to decommission a significant amount of old, still Soviet, capacities, and the Government is racking its brains on how to ensure the construction of new ones.
  41. Penzyac
    Penzyac 11 December 2017 20: 27 New
    0
    Quote: iDr
    ... In the West, NO ONE WILL FORCOME ANYTHING. Only life can make ...

    The USA is quite able (when they have such a desire) to arrange for some a life that will make ...
  42. Abram
    Abram 11 December 2017 20: 48 New
    +1
    For a long time he worked in the energy sector, at the institute for saving energy. In different countries / it wasn’t very soon / they did research and found that during their life solar panels receive less energy from that
    expended for their production.
  43. Mark9103
    Mark9103 11 December 2017 21: 05 New
    +2
    About 3 years ago when I read Topvar, it was a non-politicized publication that published articles about our and the global armed forces and their achievements. Now, not a word about the army, just bile and hatred of everything Western, mostly not backed by real facts. It's a shame, it used to be interesting to read, but now it's the same as on all other news portals. no
  44. gurg777
    gurg777 11 December 2017 21: 11 New
    0
    And it’s nothing that uranium remains with Gulkin’s nose (see video with nuclear physicist Ostretsov) and coal will inevitably kill living things?
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 11 December 2017 22: 53 New
      0
      Uranium will end - they will switch to weapons-grade Uranus 235 and plutonium, and there Thorium and thermonuclear energy will appear.
    2. rtutaloe
      rtutaloe 16 December 2017 13: 58 New
      0
      Yeah, coal will kill. ))) I'll tell you a secret - sooner or later we will die. But the animal world and man usually easily adapt to any conditions when there is something to eat.
  45. The comment was deleted.
  46. Yeti
    Yeti 11 December 2017 21: 23 New
    +2
    Alternative energy has only one plus. If necessary, there is complete autonomy. Everything else is not recouped and hemorrhoidal. When windmills and solar panels give 25 years, they do not really mention the reduction in productivity by half. And most importantly, these are batteries. Service life of less than 10 years. And they cost more.
    1. nickd55
      nickd55 12 December 2017 11: 55 New
      0
      Windmill 25 is unlikely to work, but good factory solar panels in 25 years will have a decrease in productivity of up to 20% (not in half).
      I repeat - there may not be any batteries in the system at all, but, taking into account the terrible accident in the networks, it is better to have a minimum of correct batteries (not the ones that are usually used in stores, they don’t last 5 years), which can serve much more in a hybrid system 10 years.
      Taking into account all operating costs per 25 years of service, now in the south of the country it is possible to ensure the cost of solar kWh at the level of 3,2-3,5 rubles. That's all. :)
      1. rtutaloe
        rtutaloe 16 December 2017 14: 01 New
        0
        There can be no batteries only under one condition - the use of traditional energy. And in power supply systems it is: every alternative watt is duplicated by a traditional watt. And when the alternative does not fry due to natural causes, the dispatchers transfer the production of electricity to traditional.
        1. nickd55
          nickd55 16 December 2017 21: 07 New
          0
          That's right, that's what I’m talking about.
  47. drags33
    drags33 11 December 2017 23: 41 New
    +1
    On October 8, 1975, the famous scientist academician Pyotr Kapitsa made a report on the topic “Energy and Physics” (easily searched at the Institute) at a scientific session dedicated to the 250th anniversary of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Based on the basic concepts of physics, he proved that existing sources of alternative energy (with the exception of nuclear energy) cannot fundamentally replace industrial energy generation.
    P.L.Kapitsa notes that, whatever the source of energy can be considered, it can be characterized by two parameters: the density of energy - that is, its amount per unit volume - and the speed of its transmission (propagation). The product of these quantities is the maximum power that can be obtained from a unit surface using energy of this type.
    Further, analyzing the types of alternative energy, he showed that all of them (with the exception of atomic energy) are fundamentally not promising for industrial energy generation and can only matter on a small scale, for example, for domestic needs. With this report, P.L.Kapitsa, in fact, "buried" alternative energy in 1975.
    Currently, the conceptual conclusions of P.L.Kapitsa have already been comprehended by many in relation to the current state of alternative energy. The projection of the fundamental conclusions of P.L. Kapitsa on various types of modern alternative energy, such as wind energy, hydrogen energy, bioenergy, etc., also leads to the conclusion that their prospects are limited for industrial generation.
    The general conclusion is that alternative energy can be applied only on a small scale, as an addition (and even in small proportions) to industrial generation, for example, for domestic needs in remote areas.
    It would be good for us all to understand this more quickly, so as not to throw away "money down the drain" (in the literal and figurative sense of the word).
    1. opus
      opus 12 December 2017 00: 47 New
      0
      Quote: drags33
      With this report, P.L. Kapitsa, in fact, "buried" alternative energy in 1975 year.

      Did you read the report yourself?
      Quote: Kapitsa
      Now the main interest is attracted by those methods of generating energy that do not depend on the amount of energy stored in the past in various types of fuel. Here, the main of them is considered the direct transformation of solar energy into electrical and mechanical, of course, on a large scale. Again, the practical implementation of this process for high-power energy is associated with a limited amount of energy flux density.


      Annual average = 341 W / m²,average over the whole earth
      1975 G. Efficiency of solar cells at Kapitsa?
      2017 = up to 35,9%.
      A team of engineers from the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the Swiss Center for Electronics and Microtechnology (CSEM) and the Federal Polytechnic School of Lausanne (EPFL) developed solar modules with a multi-junction structure and record levels of efficiency (up to 35,9%.).


      the price of Chinese photocells fell from $ 4,5 per watt in 2006 to $ 1 per watt in 2011
      Pay attention to the deserts, all kinds of sugars there



      Quote: drags33
      The general conclusion is that alternative energy can be applied only on a small scale, as an addition (and even in small proportions) to industrial generation, for example, for domestic needs in remote areas


      Yes Yes Yes.
      Quote: Kapitsa
      Now there is also a discussion on the use of geothermal energy. As you know, in some places of the world on the earth’s surface, where there is volcanic activity, this is successfully carried out, true on a small scale.

      Sergey Petrovich lived in an era when gasoline cost 1,5 okpeiki, the same amount of energy and communal services was 3 rubles for an 3 room apartment all in

      Iceland does not have its own oil and gas deposits. At the same time, 80% of energy is generated from renewable sources.


      2012 POWER OF ICELAND PLAN TO EXPORT ELECTRIC POWER TO EUROPE BY UNDERWATER CABLE.
      in my opinion already paved?


      Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE traditional annual brochure Power Generation in Germany

      On December 12 2016 at three o'clock in the afternoon the sun and wind provided a total of 2,1 GW of power, with demand for 69 GW.

      it seems a penny? but

      2012 (I do not have other data) Germany with electricity sold at EXPORT in the amount of 65,4 billion kWh. = second exporter in the world

      2012 Russian Federation is located on the eighth ranked by major electricity exporters, exporting more 23 billion kWh.

      It's cool that in 2016 (for the first time) the development of solar power plants decreased by 3%, in wind energy - by 1,5%.

      So it’s cotton and this hedgehog is clear:
      Oil Prices Gas, End 2014,2015,2016 = BELOW PLINTH

      gas generation in German energy traditionally plays a minor role, the vast majority of gas imported by the Germans is used to generate heat.



      Quote: drags33
      It would be good for us all to understand this more quickly, so as not to throw away "money down the drain" (in the literal and figurative sense of the word).


      We will see
      In accordance with the German Law on Renewable Energy (EEG), the current version of which was approved in July last year, by 2050, at least 80% of German electricity should be produced on the basis of RES

  48. opus
    opus 11 December 2017 23: 45 New
    +1
    Quote: Author: Yuri Podolyaka (Yurasumy)
    Someone else has questions about why I consider the European "green energy" a great profanity and the greatest deception?

    Yes there is.
    1. A wind farm is a renewable source (eternal), no nuclear power plant
    / and Europe, there are practically no reserves of "uranium" fuel, the United States is the same. Wind in bulk.
    2.
    Quote: Author: Yuri Podolyaka (Yurasumy)
    Perhaps overhead will put everything in its place? We have already obtained the operating costs of nuclear power plants from the data of environmentalists (that is, opponents). This is approximately 1,1 US cent per 1 kWh.

    To put it mildly, some kind of crap (1,1 sent / kWh)
    look


    in xnumx costs
    capital = 12,1
    Quote: Author: Yuri Podolyaka (Yurasumy)
    American cent for 1 kWh. [/ b]

    fuel = 6,4
    (there are “centimes” in the display, but this is a clumsy translation) Well, or “the costs of generating electricity
    4,8
    Quote: Author: Yuri Podolyaka (Yurasumy)
    American cent for 1 kWh. [/ b]

    1985 year Karl = 1985 ..
    And 2017
    I don’t know how many times $ dollar

    accordingly figure
    This is approximately 1,1 US cent per 1 kWh

    fool
    3.
    Quote: Author: Yuri Podolyaka (Yurasumy)
    New assemblies are being developed that have improved characteristics and allow the same reactor. get more heat, and therefore, electricity.

    belay
    Come on? And not fuck ... oh. Wouldn’t it happen like this lady?

    If the reactor is designed for fuel elements: cooler consumption, pressure, degradation, etc.
    as well as must not apply fuel elements with more heat (with less actually too)
    in Magnox you will not load (the same number) AGR fuel rods and vice versa.
    Although they are brothers.

    as if yes ... TVSA-PLUS (104%) but the whole devil is in the details, right?
    that's the essence of innovation

    Quote: Author: Yuri Podolyaka (Yurasumy)
    But technology does not stand still not only in wind power. But also for nuclear scientists.


    4. And recycling .... In tse moroka.
    In the nuclear power plant everything is flouted: buildings, machinery, the ground under it, a cooler, testing, personnel, clothing, gloves, etc., and so on.
    everything needs to be buried



    in wind power stations - nothing, everything will be recycled and will go
    5.
    Quote: Author: Yuri Podolyaka (Yurasumy)
    It is impossible to increase these dimensions to infinity, as it is impossible to increase the average wind speed on the ground. .

    Right. Yes, and not necessary. I still remember:
    The GPS chip cost 130 $ / piece, in 2015: 1,3-1,5. It's a bit cents (I’ll soon be implanting in dogs,
    so with installations of WPPs - CHEAP and significantly,
    Efficiency is growing
    6.
    Quote: Author: Yuri Podolyaka (Yurasumy)
    But in Europe it is very difficult to find a place

    Oh, come on.

    But in Russia it is a fig.
    7.
    Quote: Author: Yuri Podolyaka (Yurasumy)
    In general, it is very likely that all this beautiful tale of green energy arose only as a result of the energy war being waged by Washington against the USSR for more than a decade.

    Well, why lie to something?
    Quote: Author: Yuri Podolyaka (Yurasumy)
    lie from the first to the last word

    After Chernobyl, everything started

    The first government program to support wind power called “100 MW wind” appeared in Germany in the 1989 year. Tangible growth in wind power began with the adoption of the Electricity Grid Feed Act in 1991 year. In 2000, a new version of the Act was adopted, and already in 2002, the total capacity of the German wind power reached 10 000 MW.


    =================================================
    ==
    State corporation Rosatom in 2017 comes out to the wind power market. According to Rosatom experts, by the year 2024 its volume can be 3,6 GW, the annual turnover is 1,6 billion US dollars. This guarantees the demand for the production of wind turbines and entire wind farms, the necessary infrastructure for them and technical support services. Collectively, this is estimated at 6,3 billion dollars.

    wink

    http://www.rosatom.ru/production/vetroenergetika/

    In 2016, a subsidiary of ROSATOM, VetroOGK JSC won the competitive selection of renewable energy projects conducted by the NP Market Council Association. According to the plans, the company plans to build wind generation facilities with an aggregate capacity of 610 MW. The capacity supply of the said facilities is planned to be carried out under capacity supply contracts (CSAs) on the wholesale market for electrical energy and capacity.


    At the same time, Rosatom does not plan to stop production of installations with a capacity of 610 MW (that is, 244 installations of Lagerwey design). The plans of ROSATOM include the production of wind turbines in the amount of 1,6 GW in the next 6-7 years (about 600 installations).
  49. Vladimir SHajkin
    Vladimir SHajkin 12 December 2017 00: 07 New
    0
    Nice article. But one thing has been clear for a long time, if wind power was profitable, then they would have switched to these mills long ago, because the generator itself doesn’t know where it is spinning, but so far why the wind has not surpassed another force.
    1. Makhony
      Makhony 12 December 2017 02: 52 New
      0
      No one has switched completely to wind power simply because wind is a free resource. You can’t make money on it because of oil or coal))
      Everything is simple. It's not about the power of energy))
  50. Makhony
    Makhony 12 December 2017 02: 49 New
    +1
    1. It is simply amazing how the author ignores the cost of resources for the operation of the same nuclear power plant comparing the cost of construction.
    2. It is amazing how the author ignores the construction period - nuclear power plants are put into operation for 10 years, and the construction of a wind generator for several months.
    3. Surprisingly, the author does not know that nuclear power plants consume thousands of tons of non-renewable resources - radioactive materials and water. A wind generator consumes wind)
    4. And finally, ecology. At some point, the author apparently decided that radioactive water and fuel elements are not dangerous, and the cost of their disposal is a penny))
    For reference, the disposal of nuclear waste, the maintenance and protection of landfills - a separate article in the costs of nuclear power plants.

    In general, an unprofessional article. For the sake of collecting comments, apparently.
    I liked the video