|
welcome to the internet, everything is terrible and you should feel unhappy all the time
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 09:32 |
|
|
Phanatic posted:That's not the same thing as flying empty planes. That's flying circular routes rather than point-to-point. It sucks for the pax because they're on the plane for a lot longer but there are pax. If you read the section I quoted, it pointed out how the airlines were flying the routes even though they knew they wouldn't be profitable, which is the exact kind of behavior I was discussing, flying around a bunch of basically empty planes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 01:01
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If you read the section I quoted, it pointed out how the airlines were flying the routes even though they knew they wouldn't be profitable, which is the exact kind of behavior I was discussing, flying around a bunch of basically empty planes. I assume they are expected to be at some of these places to then board passengers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 01:31
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I assume they are expected to be at some of these places to then board passengers. More like passenger singular. Hardly anyone is onboard. Basically the US is paying airlines to fly empty planes, and it's forcing flight attendants to take huge risks in the process. The US should simply be paying people their salaries, but Republicans are afraid of doing anything that popular.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 01:44
|
|
|
Kaal posted:More like passenger singular. Hardly anyone is onboard. Basically the US is paying airlines to fly empty planes, and it's forcing flight attendants to take huge risks in the process. The US should simply be paying people their salaries, but Republicans are afraid of doing anything that popular. By the same logic transit agencies shouldn’t be running any routes. Sometimes people need to travel - the service requirement is meant to ensure that smaller airports aren’t suddenly cut off from the network. (Especially since if they’re cut off now, they probably stay cutoff once meaningful travel resumes because they weren’t very profitable to begin with.) I’m not convinced it’s the right choice but there’s more to it than just “pay em to fly empty planes.”
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 02:02
|
|
|
The US was subsidizing airlines to fly unprofitable routes BEFORE COVID19 via the Essential Air Service program.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 02:09
|
|
|
Kalman posted:By the same logic transit agencies shouldn’t be running any routes. Sometimes people need to travel - the service requirement is meant to ensure that smaller airports aren’t suddenly cut off from the network. (Especially since if they’re cut off now, they probably stay cutoff once meaningful travel resumes because they weren’t very profitable to begin with.) Well for one thing, transit is a whole lot safer than airplanes in terms of this pandemic. The drivers have no contact with the passengers, and are generally running with their entire car empty. They're also a lot cheaper to run, and much better for the environment. Beyond all that, we've got a long ways to go before anyone needs to start worrying that travel will be impossible. Check your local airport - most of the flights are still running, even the hourly commuter flights to nearby cities that are no more than a few hours away. Yet TSA estimates that passenger numbers are down 95%. There's nothing right about that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 03:34
|
|
|
Kaal posted:even the hourly commuter flights to nearby cities that are no more than a few hours away. Yet TSA estimates that passenger numbers are down 95%. There's nothing right about that. I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. The circular routes being flown is because they're trying to not lose money. They have to make *some* flights to the cities they serve, so instead of flying out to City B from City A and back, they're going from City B, picking up the small amount of pax, then flying to Cities C and D before they go back to A. That's an effort to get as many people on that plane as they can, rather than just fly it empty. And as for the flights being there, you're dead 100% wrong. Most, more than half, the majority, of all passenger aircraft have been grounded and are sitting in storage. On January 20, there were 114,000 passenger flights worldwide. On April 20, there were 27,000. Lufthansa is grounding 700 of its 800 jets. Southwest cut 60% of its schedule, and is going to cut more in May. American has cut a shitload of capacity and will be deepening that cut to 80% in May (90% for international). My partner is a flight attendant. You are dead wrong when you say the flights are still there. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Apr 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 03:47
|
|
|
How are renewables holding up throughout all of this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 06:05
|
|
|
it doesn't matter if in reality 50 - 90% of all flights are canceled and planes grounded, what matters is an anecdote in AN ARTICLE I READ because it perfectly fits my favorite narratives and its TECHNICALLY CORRECT* * the best kind ofc
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 06:10
|
|
|
If we don't fly those empty planes how will our weather models predict when the next hurricane razes the Bahamas
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 07:43
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Check your local airport - most of the flights are still running, even the hourly commuter flights to nearby cities that are no more than a few hours away. Yet TSA estimates that passenger numbers are down 95%. There's nothing right about that. I just checked. I live in DC and used to take the US Air/AA Boston shuttle regularly for work so I am extremely familiar with its schedule. Instead of the normal 16 flights per day (which were mostly pretty full) they’re offering 1-3. Domestic flights are down 60-80%, so a 95% passenger reduction combined with maintaining service seems about right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 08:05
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:If we don't fly those empty planes how will our weather models predict when the next hurricane razes the Bahamas Big weather needs us to keep flying 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 13:58
|
|
|
oh look an entire 10 seconds spent googling and thats from march
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 14:50
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:and concrete/construction materials. In my experience you just get repeatedly chain-probated by mods/admins who don't like hearing that their lifestyles and proposed "solutions"  are inherently violent to the developing world and will cause untold suffering and death there, and then they play your rap sheet up so you look like a militant racist to justify themselves.Grouchio posted:How are renewables holding up throughout all of this? Layoffs at the top, nothing on the ground yet. Construction projects delayed a few months, but due to the logistics of large gross workforces working long hours in close quarters without sanitation rather than financing, nothing cancelled yet (at least in Canada). I expect this may change drastically by the end of the summer if the economy continues making GBS threads itself and dying however.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 14:01
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:How are renewables holding up throughout all of this? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 14:24
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:"Ah yes, well if we've known about an issue for a while but somehow industry manages to silence criticism it must not be too bad" they said while the planet burns. QuarkJets posted:Nevermind that this article (that momjeans clearly just skimmed) is also citing peer-reviewed publications from the last few years Kaal posted:Rolling Stone definitely has an entirely serious and legitimate hard news unit led by Matt Taibbi and Michael Hastings. They focus on in-depth feature reporting, and have broken a lot of important stories. They're an award-winning news organization. Anyone who is doubting that should immediately rethink their media source diet. Sorry, I forgot about this thread. Is this thread still as autistic as ever? Do we think renewables are going to skyrocket during a depression? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2020 06:32
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:Sorry, I forgot about this thread. Is this thread still as autistic as ever? It is now that you're here, yeah
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2020 07:25
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:Sorry, I forgot about this thread. Is this thread still as autistic as ever? Do we think renewables are going to skyrocket during a depression? It is doing surprisingly well - O&G investment money (which needs multi billion dollar projects to get them out of bed) is for some reason not excited about O&G as much it was only last year and wants to move into different energy so things like; https://www.boilingcold.com.au/pilbara-wind-solar-farm-gets-environmental-tick/ ($22 billion AUD wind and solar to supply NW Australia and Indo) are getting a lot more interest than used to be the case. Rime posted that projects he is with are still trucking and Australian projects have not stopped.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2020 07:33
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:Sorry, I forgot about this thread. Is this thread still as autistic as ever? Do we think renewables are going to skyrocket during a depression? There have been quite a lot of talk in europe about focusing the massive stimulus money after this crisis towards making the economies more in line with the Paris agreement. Which would likely involve more investment in renewables and less in oil and gas. Though so far the details about the post corona stimulus is far from decided.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2020 08:40
|
|
|
Yeah I clocked 126 hours last week over 9 straight days, I doubt many O&G workers can claim the same. It's uncertain I'll even get a day off request approved before September the way projects are piling up. I have no delusions that this is going to remain the case if the economy continues to break down however, and if GE declares bankruptcy and can't deliver Haliades for the Orsted contract in New Jersey that's going to have a huge mega impact on the perception of renewables viability moving forwards. Finally, Suncor has pushed almost a gigawatt of Wind install in Alberta out to 2022 due to the oil sands catering their finances. Remember that renewables first and foremost exist as a carbon write-off for O&G companies, not as a power source, and sustained pain there will significantly contract the market in the medium term. Rime fucked around with this message at 16:32 on May 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2020 13:31
|
|
|
We're still just seeing the beginnings of the effect of the rona on the economy. Currently, it doesn't seem like the US is inclined to any New Deal kind of jobs programs, and unfortunately the dems decided to redo 2016 and run the weakest possible candidate against Trump. I actually just read a report this morning on clean energy job losses that was commissioned by a clean energy group . The article discussing it is behind a paywall, but this link should work even if you don't subscribe to Energywire. Here's an interesting clip of the article discussing how clean energy job losses hit red states too:  But since every sector of the economy is being hit, who knows if someone like McConnell would focus on clean energy jobs vs anything else. *edit* from a different article, but interesting point about the massive drop in solar installations in Europe vs projected growth in the US 
MomJeans420 fucked around with this message at 17:01 on May 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2020 16:56
|
|
|
Hot energy news: almost every new install project slated for 2020 / 2021 which is not already underway or would cost too much contractually to be delayed, has been delayed. Either 2022 or indefinitely. I dunno, cursory glace at our map implies like 3GW worth in NA is iced. Who knows if that GE offshore project will even happen, now. This is going to be a repeat of what 2008 did to the renewables market: 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2020 22:40
|
|
|
Sounds like Votgle 3 at least is good to go, don't know about Votgle 4.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2020 22:48
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:if you don't subscribe to Energywire. Energy Wire or https://www.eenews.net is freaking good if not great. If you subscribe to their articles it's mostly free and I highly recommend it. The news encompasses everything relating to energy from fossil fuels, energy politics, alternative energy to even climate change. Extremely good stuff, highly recommended.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2020 23:28
|
|
|
Hey guys I'm seriously considering putting a solar array on my house and I'm wondering if this is the right thread to discuss it? Is there a solar power for home owners thread somewhere?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 13:49
|
|
|
Lou Takki posted:Hey guys I'm seriously considering putting a solar array on my house and I'm wondering if this is the right thread to discuss it? Is there a solar power for home owners thread somewhere? This is a fine place to talk about it. What questions do you have? I have solar on my house and it is the bees knees.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 15:07
|
|
|
The solar sales guy wants to sell me silfab monocrystal panels with enphase iq7 microinverters. Seems like an awesome system but I'm trying to learn more about Enphase products in general if anyone has had experience with them. I think the microinverter concept seems like a great idea, easy to expand output down the road if I want to as well. Panels are Silfab 330 with Enphase IQ7 micro inverters running on a Enphase Envoy IQ controller. Enphase also sells battery solutions so I'm hoping I can add that down the road a few years. Any thoughts/advice? What questions am I not asking?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 18:12
|
|
|
Is payback important to you or not, and did they provide a ROI projection? How will the panels be attached and if to your roof, how old is your roof?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 18:18
|
|
|
Lou Takki posted:The solar sales guy wants to sell me silfab monocrystal panels with enphase iq7 microinverters. Seems like an awesome system but I'm trying to learn more about Enphase products in general if anyone has had experience with them. Enphase gear is great. I don't know anything about the panels seem fine at 18-20% . It depends on cost, system size, roof type, age, how long you plan on being at that location. If you're staying put, and the RoI is decent, it likely is worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 18:53
|
|
|
Roof is about 6 years old and basically in perfect shape. Payback is not important to me as is the concept of helping move our society to a cleaner energy future. They did absolutely do ROIs and projections, they are convinced my house and energy usage makes me a very good candidate combined with the geometry and azimuth of my roof makes it a pretty good setup. Last 12 month period my house consumed 6400 KWh and they predict (conservatively) this system will produce roughly 4700 KWh per year. It's a 10 panel system at 330/panel for 3.3 KW max production. I don't have the precise details on how they plan to attach the panels to the roof, the site survey is tomorrow so I'll dig into that more. What's the best method?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
Enphase iq7 are top-of-the-line inverters, definitely good products, and high-performance in basically all conditions. Silfab 330 modules are medium-end. They'll last, and they'll hit the benchmarks the manufacturer promises, and they're a reputable company. They're definitely price effective, which is the main thing worth talking about; the electricity that they produce is the same regardless. A 3.3kW system that doesn't offset 100% of your usage is on the small side, IMO, unless your house doesn't have enough roof space for a larger array. Microinverters are technically expandable, but you'll run into some problems with compatibility and account merging with future technology, and there will likely be regulatory hassles if you try it. You'll be able to do it if you want, but it will be less smooth than the original system process (at least this has been the case every time I've added more modules to an existing a system). If you think you want more production or want an electric car, and can afford it, you're better off getting the size you want right now.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 19:20
|
|
|
I agree on the size. If you can fit more, do it up front. Same for storage.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
Okay cool I'm gonna price out adding two more panels then, seems like a good idea. The storage solution is more money than I can spend right now, plus I'm hoping batteries get a little cheaper in the next 3-6 years
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 19:30
|
|
|
As long as you can afford it (and they fit on the roof), I would add 2 kW to that system.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 19:33
|
|
|
Wibla posted:As long as you can afford it (and they fit on the roof), I would add 2 kW to that system. I've got plenty of perfect roof, could honestly probably fit 20-26 panels easily but that's crazy talk. I guess my power company has a rule that I can't go over 100% solar production ratio based on some kind of calculator, I think another 2KW would put me way over that. Seems like bullshit to me, but I don't know anything. Power companies suck I guess? They are saying 3.3KW of production will net me on average 4680KWh/year so that comes out to 468KWh per year per panel. I just asked my rep to quote me a 12 and 14 panel system which would be approx 3.96KW / 5616KWh for 12 and 4.62KW / 6552KWh for 14. My annual usage is 6400KWh so I think 12 panels might be the max number of panels I can run?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 21:19
|
|
|
 Of course they're imposing limits like that, gotta protect their precious decaying grid from having to upgrade it (and spend money!), after all. Go for the largest they allow, at any rate.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 21:38
|
|
|
They are also likely "buying back" energy at the same rate they're selling it. If they bought it the same way they buy bulk power, your ROI would go to complete poo poo. The way my POCO deals with net metered accounts is to let you build credit every month if you generate more than you consume, and that credit resets annually. So you can install at much capacity as you want, but they'll only offset your annual usage. Being in the South with electricity generally used for heating and cooling, it's rarely an issue as usage is high in the summer months running AC, and production is low in the winter months which will burn though saved credits. It would take a larger an average install, and a very efficient home to run into an annual overproduction.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 23:06
|
|
|
Yeah they don't want me to go above 99% which isn't really a big deal I suppose. Total cost is about$3.10 per watt after federal incentives, seems reasonable to me?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 09:32 |
|
|
I have a 6kw system with Enphase microinverters. It works very well but the microinverters hugely increased the cost and they were only necessary because my roof gets a lot of shade. The microinverters allow each panel to operate independently so that if one is affected by shade it doesn’t reduce the efficiency of the whole system. But without the shade problem they would have been unnecessary and it would all have been much cheaper.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2020 23:45
|
|