this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
143 points (95.0% liked)

Green Energy

2198 readers
329 users here now

Everything about energy production and storage.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Uranium is $128.30/kg

After enrichment, conversion and fabrication that's $3400/kg for 4.95% fuel.

At 36-45MWd/kg and a net thermal efficiency of 25% or $12.5/MWh up front.

With a 90 month lead time (72 month fuel cycle and 18 months inventory) at 3% this is $16.2/MWh

Which some solar projects are now matching

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

That sure was a lot of words for "I haven't looked at Alberta lately".

Also the agrivoltaic cost pearl clutching is deranged. "What if it costs a third as much as what I'm proposing like already built projects at the same latitude with worse solar resource."

[–] m3m3lord@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

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.

[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

https://smractionplan.ca/content/alberta

Are you being bad faith or are to too stupid to use a search engine?

[–] m3m3lord@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No. They are not.

They are using the suggestion that they might to delay decarbonization.

Glad you finally figured it out.

[–] m3m3lord@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Again, this is missing the point. Alberta does not care at all to decarbonize and signing this could help them build off grid SMRs down the road in remote areas to power oil and gas machinery. PEI signed it because it may be a one and done solution for them to decarbonize. These are not concrete plans but they are also not signing it without some reason it could benefit them.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)