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.
- 0 Posts
- 16 Comments
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.
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.
Key word is can be. If transportation planners are lazy enough to only build more lanes on the major highway, who’s to say they can build an efficient rail system. The major issue is a misallocation and a general lack of funding for transportation projects.
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.
2·11 months agoDoesn’t this directly contradict this post? https://lemmy.world/post/2461957 Something seems to be off.
Bikes can have horns though. Honk Honk
Uranium and thorium mines are just as clean as the rare earth metal mines needed for PV cells. This is kind of a moot point. We need carbon free energy now and solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear are all part of the mix of solutions needed. There are many considerations currently being made to determine which technologies should be used in what locations.