• dudinax@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    8 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      8 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 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.