461
submitted 7 months ago by ZeroCool@slrpnk.net to c/memes@slrpnk.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] dudinax@programming.dev 17 points 7 months ago

He didn't write GWH, he just said GW. For all we know, assuming this number relates to reality at all, that's just smear across the whole eclipse and no single watt was lost for more than a few minutes.

If we lost "30GW", I'd bet we lost barely one GWH.

[-] melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee 13 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I think a safer assumption is that he made it all up, because truth is dead.

We lost some amount. Did he bother to google how much? Why would he?

[-] derpgon@programming.dev 4 points 7 months ago

If it really was GW, then just multiply the 30 with time the sun was covered, and boom, you have GWH. I don't think it was even close to an hour.

[-] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 months ago

I was in the penumbra, and around here I would say the entire event took an hour and a half, from "any of the sun at all is covered" to "none of the sun at all is covered." I'm sure our local solar panels did dip in output, probably to the point of producing no useful power for several minutes as it got noticeably darker.

[-] derpgon@programming.dev 3 points 7 months ago

I see, given the worst case scenario of 1.5h coverage, with the average of 50% coverage, gives about 30*1.5=22.5 GWH.

this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
461 points (95.6% liked)

solarpunk memes

2792 readers
10 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS