• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    11 year ago

    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.

    • @schroedingershatOP
      link
      0
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.”

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • @schroedingershatOP
          link
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The premium you’re placing on avoiding covering 1m^2 with a solar panel that produces a time-averaged 40W at $20/W is about $800

          An overhead agrivoltaic system costs about $800k/ha at ~30% coverage (about double the price per watt of single axis or 3x fixed tilt) or $80/m^2 and increases yields by 10-300% if used on crops that benefit or in situations where water is scarce ir heatwaves are likely (hmm, wonder if that will be relevant). Cover 10m and you’ve saved 1m^2 ti 6m^2 of farmland for $800

          So if it’s worth spending public money to avoid the former, then it’s worth doing the latter even without the electricity.

          It also produces >2x as much electricity.

          So which is it. Are you too stupid to comprehend basic arithmetic, or do you not actually care about land use, cost and enguneering challenges?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            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?

            • @schroedingershatOP
              link
              11 year ago

              No. They are not.

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

              Glad you finally figured it out.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                11 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.