It is great to criticize someone like Pierre for all of the corruption he is part of, lies he confidently says, and plans he proposes that don’t solve anything. But why make fun of how he looks? It doesn’t speak at all to their moral character and it propagates the idea that it is somehow wrong to look the way you do.

Your article states the “For agrivoltaic systems installed at a high distance from the ground, which is necessary to let the agricultural machinery operate under the solar panels, the costs are even higher compared to conventional solar plants.”

This was my entire point regarding agrivoltaic systems. This additional cost needs to be compared to the benefit of installing the system. This could also depend on many other factors such as the price of land and water availability. I have not seen a cost comparison and I am doubtful it will actually benefit the systems widespread use at this time.

You say that for €800, 1m² - 6m² of may be saved. In Germany, where this is being done, the price of farmland in the most expensive region is €63/m² with other regions being much cheaper. If you are able to understand basic arithmetic, you can clearly see that even in the best case scenario, this is not a good value proposition for farmers at the moment. This could change and it could become more valuable if the cost of land and electricity increase, and if the agrivoltaic system costs decrease, but not now.

This is not a plan for any nuclear builds, this is just them signing on that maybe they will build some SMRs. Would you also suggest PEI is seriously planing a nuclear build?

Alberta has no nuclear and no plans for nuclear. If they cancelled any wind projects it only speaks to how deep their oil sand dreams are. Your mention of Alberta is completely irrelevant.

What kind of word spaghetti is “agrivoltaic pearl clutching”? You also quoted something that I didn’t even say. Are you ok my friend? As I have said, the idea of it is fine and can work at smaller scales. However, a typical farm requires the use tractors which need clearance. So if the plan is to build solar above, they must be raised high and spread apart to not interfere with the tractor. This can certainly be done but it requires engineering and has additional construction costs when compared to conventional solar farms. In this way it can certainly be debated if the benefit of using solar with farming is outweighed but the additional costs to the solar installation and operational costs of maneuvering the tractor around the supports.

Did you really tell me to learn to read when you clearly did not read that I am not sure what grid penetration is. Funny. The reason I do not know is because the term is used differently depending on the context so unless you explain what you mean, there is no way for me to know for sure, unlike capacity factor which is used more widely.

I’m sure there are agrivoltaic projects and I am sure they are great. My point is that they will have many challenges to be widely adopted because it will add significant costs to either the farming or the solar installation which is certainly a downside that shouldn’t be overlooked.

Canada isn’t delaying wind because of nuclear. The cancellation of wind projects in Ontario was long before there were any new-nuclear plans, many of which were announced very recently. It had more to do with the limited value and high cost of the wind projects at the time. I do believe that now it is much more suitable and Ontario should invest more into wind and solar projects because they offer tremendous value. However they are. Not the only solution to the ongoing energy crisis. Also, as an aside, other than decarbonization initiatives, Canada does control the energy market on a federal level but at a provincial level.

In a place like Saudi Arabia, solar is fantastic and should make up a sizable portion of installed capacity. However, it should still be backed by a mix to improve grid reliability and this is true for many other places also. The prospect of advanced nuclear reactors should not and as far as I know does not hold back the advancement of renewables.

Did you use chat gpt or something because almost all of what you said made no sense in the context of this discussion. I, like most people, don’t have a solar panel on my roof and nor is it practical to have one. If large cities are to have enough electricity for all of their energy needs, massive solar farms will be needed. I live in Ontario, Canada, a large area with a relatively small population. In a study looking at what is needed to meet future electricity demand, if we only used renewables, around 2-5% of the area would need to be covered by solar or wind. This sounds small but it is a huge amount of land and would be extremely resource intensive. Much of it would need to be far away from where the demand actually is leading to losses in transmission. Farming under solar panels is also laughable because it would render the farming itself impractical or the solar itself much more expensive because it would need to be on a massive raised platform. I am not sure what you are referring to with mines but Canada has one of the largest uranium reserves located in somewhat remote locations. This does not lead to transmission losses, only costs to transport the uranium ore.

Canadian CANDU reactor units can be online for more than a year thanks to their online refueling capabilities. Intermittent is still intermittent which is why solar needs a way to either store energy or it cannot be the only solution (it isn’t).

I am not sure what you mean by grid penetration but CANDU reactors have an average capacity factor of more than 80% which is significantly higher than the less than 25% for solar.

Also, Ontario is currently generating more than 50% of its electricity from nuclear so it can certainly meet more than 10% of the demand if it is suitable for the region.

Where are they delaying decarbonization for the sake of waiting for nuclear? As far as I know, many places are building wind and solar and nothing is stopping them. I am not trying to argue that solar is bad or worse than nuclear. I just think it should be realistically considered alongside of nuclear and any other carbon neutral energy source.

How is it that only one works? Nuclear seems more expensive based on this but does it take into account the cost of land, the fact that solar is intermittent, or that electricity from huge solar farms will need to be brought to where the demand is (cities) while nuclear can be much closer to limit losses. Both nuclear and solar have their place and are vital tools in the fight against climate change. The comparison is for the local utilities to decide and trying to compare directly and saying one is always better than the other is ignorant at best.

How is it a lobby group? Do you have any sources to back up your claim or is it simply based on your bias because you do not agree with the data they put together? Again, even if you discount their data, there are plenty of other studdies that corroborate the fact that nuclear is not the most expensive method of producing electricity, are all of them somehow wrong? What you need to understand is that there are different factors that can be included which can dramatically change whether one way of producing electricity is better or worse. Nuclear has a high up front capital cost but a very low operating cost per MW. Solar and wind are cheap initially but require replacement every 10 years or more and also generally need a way to store energy if they make up a bulk of the grid. If you factor in the lifecycle and energy storage costs, they are comparable to well designed nuclear plants. I am from ontario, and nuclear has been an incredible benefit to the province.

The graph on the global studies page does seem to indicate that. However, if you actually read the data and how the graph was prepared, it uses one dataset for renewables and a different dataset for nuclear and coal. Additionally, these numbers significanly differ from the IEA data which shows that nuclear is one of the least expensive. As I said in a comment below, there are other, more localized studies that show nuclear is one of the cheaper ways to produce electricity. I would hesitate to say that nuclear is the cheapest option since there are different studies with different results, but to claim that it is the most expensive would be just as misguided for the same reasons. At the end of the day, more electricity is needed as countries look to decarbonize there energy needs. Hydro, wind, and solar are effective and renewable but a stable, carbon-free solution is needed where there is insufficient hydro or geothermal and I believe nuclear fits that bill perfectly.

It kind of does tell you the state of the grid, which is mostly nuclear in France.

How so? I am in the industry and everyone I work with take them seriously.

Edit:

Even if you refute predictions made by the IAE, nuclear is still not as expensive as other sources of electricity. For a more specific example, the University of Waterloo released this report analyzing the Ontario grid in 2017.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.ivey.uwo.ca/media/3776559/april-2017-the-economic-cost-of-electricity-generation-in-ontario.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiAsoXhvdCAAxWtHjQIHZNIDoE4ChAWegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw0mYlKPP07OaJlpY4uBmqZg

If you look at Table 1, you will find that nuclear costs between hydro and wind while gas and solar cost more. This is one example but it does illustrate that nuclear is not necessarily the most expensive. Things have improved for renewables since then but I believe they have for nuclear also.

Firstly, there is no reason to say shut up. Being wrong doesn’t mean you should also be rude.

Just because you didn’t consider feeder lanes does not mean they were not or should not be considered. Highway 7 is not really ever visible from the 401. When it is close, it connects to the largest airport in the country, which is why there are so many interchnages there. An express transit system that could bring people to and from the airport from surrounding regions would be a significant improvement, but this is not the situation for the majority of the 401, which connects larger and smaller cities from Quebec to Windsor. An express train following a similar path could really benefit 6 the current system is not as bad as you claim. I live in the Durham region and if I want to, I can go to Burlington by train for like $10 and around 2 hours which is certainly reasonable. What did you print out and what printer did you use?

"In December 2020 IEA and OECD NEA published a joint Projected Costs of Generating Electricity study which looks at a very broad range of electricity generating technologies based on 243 power plants in 24 countries. The primary finding was that “low-carbon generation is overall becoming increasingly cost competitive” and “new nuclear power will remain the dispatchable low-carbon technology with the lowest expected costs in 2025”. The report calculated LCOE with assumed 7% discount rate and adjusted for systemic costs of generation.[79] "

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

It depends on where you count from. If you count near the bottom, there are 11 lanes across in one direction, meaning a total of 22 lanes which matches the 26 in the other comment if you include and exit and enter lane on either sided. The 401 has 3 lanes in the collector’s and 3 lanes in the express meaning 12 lanes total for both directions you could add 4 lanes which go to/from the collector and express for 16 lanes total. Is this similar to the 14 lanes you claim? Sure. But the 401 and 400 highways do not get nearly as wide as the one in the image at its widest.

From my count it is more than 20 lanes, maybe you considered the collectors to be on/off ramps (they are not). I based the 26 lanes on this comment.

"After widening was completed in 2008, a portion of the highway west of Houston is now also believed to be the widest in the world, at 26 lanes when including feeders. - (Wikipedia)

WTF"

Even if you include feeders on the largest highways going through Toronto, it is not close to 26 lanes.

Better solutions move the problem elsewhere? I’m moving the goalpost and delaying the inevitable? I have no idea what you are talking about.

Staw-man involves making claims that something is ssying something it isn’t. Many of the posts I have seen and comments I have read suggest that the mere existence of cars is a problem. This is what I have a problem with because some people in rural areas, for example, need cars. I am not claiming that anti-car communities attack people in rural areas, rather, it can seem that way for those people.

Not at all. The 401 at most has 14 lanes across and not the 26 in this photo (at least based on a comment). That being said, the toronto subway system would benefit from an overhaul instead of the proposed highway 413. Additionally, mandating a max price somehow on the 407 could help to significantly reduce traffic on other highways. As much as people like to complain about Toronto, I do find the bus system to be better than most.

This is true. Commuting in an urban or suburban environment should be significantly easier than it currently is. Public infrastructure needs to improve and become less car-centric. That being said, if you live in a rural area or a small town where there is very little traffic, or if you need to pick up groceries for your family of 4+, cars are needed. People in anti-car communities do not like to hear this, but I do not think cars should be criticized for merely existing. Current infrastructure should be criticized for only considering them. I think that while holding on to the idea that car=bad is fun, it also sours people who genuinely rely on cars to the movement and limits what actual progress could be made by these communities to make walkable cities a reality. Thank you for listening to my ted talk.

Doesn’t this directly contradict this post? https://lemmy.world/post/2461957 Something seems to be off.