Let's do this.
-
Let's do this.
@TechConnectify As an European, thank you so much for the second part of your video!
-
@TechConnectify *looks at the total time* OK, 3× speed it is…
@adlerweb @TechConnectify 3x speed works for the first 2/3.
-
Let's do this.
@TechConnectify
look, I'm just a limey watching in horror at what's going on over there.
I wish was I there to give you all a hug. you'll get through this and when the time comes I hope there's repercussions for those involved.
I'm sorry that you're going through it though. -
@BalooUriza
If your question is "where is the device that guarantees the inverter cuts off if it loses connection to the grid", it's internal to the inverter. All grid tie inverters should have this function.I don't know the detailed German spec for these things but the British one is Engineering Recommendation G98.
https://dcode.org.uk/assets/250307ena-erec-g98-issue-2-(2025).pdf
@sheddi @BalooUriza @pfriedma @f4grx Yes the Inverters we use have this feature too.
-
Let's do this.
@TechConnectify
I don't know if you saw, but ProPublica wrote up the story of how oil companies bought up a local Ohio newspaper and used it to print lies about solar: https://www.propublica.org/article/ohio-mount-vernon-frasier-solar-fossil-fuel-metric-media
In case anyone needs further proof of how dirty the fight has been. -
@adlerweb @techindepth27 the only “sustainable” peertube instance is (unfortunately?) the one you self host…
@janeq
Or pay for, to bring in communitymedia.video ?
@adlerweb @techindepth27 -
Let's do this.
@TechConnectify an amazing piece.
Thank you for all your words and work. -
Let's do this.
@TechConnectify
Wow, thank you so much for this video! You could have just continued doing your usual "techy" videos and not loose a significant amount of subscribers but you decided to speak up instead. It is just admirable.
-
Let's do this.
@TechConnectify from an worried and angry Canadian, thank you. For both clarifying the costs of renewable energy and especially for speaking out.
-
Let's do this.
@TechConnectify as an anarchist, i'll obviously disagree about the effectiveness of just voting blue.. but damn it's good to hear the truth about the republican regime being spoken loud, clear, and angry.
-
@pfriedma Yeah, the system my neighbor used was similar but the back feed generator interconnect was to select the locally generated solar and wind resources, fall back to the grid power as a source, or use grid power as a sink, and that was *mostly* automatic, and using contactors. Knowing how that system worked is why I'm looking at this plugin PV and thinking the only saving grace in terms of fire safety is that it's 5A.
@BalooUriza @pfriedma The term to look for is "anti-islanding", which is a feature where the inverter detects that the grid is down and shuts off. Grid-tie inverters are required to do this, and should do it whether they're plugged into an outlet or hardwired into an electrical panel.
There are different schemes to detect this, usually they watch the voltage and frequency. You don't want it energizing a dead line, but you also don't want it to think someone else's generator is the 'grid'.
-
@BalooUriza @pfriedma The term to look for is "anti-islanding", which is a feature where the inverter detects that the grid is down and shuts off. Grid-tie inverters are required to do this, and should do it whether they're plugged into an outlet or hardwired into an electrical panel.
There are different schemes to detect this, usually they watch the voltage and frequency. You don't want it energizing a dead line, but you also don't want it to think someone else's generator is the 'grid'.
@BalooUriza @pfriedma The thing that worries me is that, with solar plugged in, you now have say a 15 A circuit, with the appropriate breaker, and another source downstream of that. So you potentially have extra fault current that can be dumped in from somewhere there wouldn't normally be a source.
In other words, your circuit with wire sized for 15 A could now possibly source that plus whatever the solar is kicking in.
-
Let's do this.
@TechConnectify
Fantastic writing and delivery.
I hope your passion spreads through the country. -
Let's do this.
@TechConnectify US #solarpanel prices are absurd:
A palette of 36 no-name panels is 5.600 USD or 4.724,16 EUR in the United States.
You get a similar palette of 36 500 Wp panels in Germany for 2.423,90 USD or 2.044 EUR that’s half the price! 
-
Let's do this.
@TechConnectify : Gosh dang this was superb. Thank you.
-
Let's do this.
Technology Connections To talk about the technical part only, I would be curious to hear your position on nuclear power, because when it comes to “building once and then extracting energy at low cost for a long time” that’s where it comes in. It takes up less space (so we might as well use the corn land for forests and nature reserves, it would be better than solar farms, even if solar farms are better than that corn), requires even fewer materials to be extracted, has a much longer lifespan, causes less pollution, fewer direct and indirect deaths, places fewer constraints on the grid (we keep the same format of a few powerful centralized plants that distribute energy to the whole country), no storage problems (batteries are better than burning oil, but not needing them in gigantic quantities at the grid scale is even better, and we can use the materials elsewhere, or extracting even less of them), very small amounts of waste that are relatively easy to manage (much more so than fossil fuels; for renewables, we’ll have to see, but even when it comes to recycling, limiting the amount of things to recycle and the frequency of recycling is still beneficial), allowing for significant fuel recycling (even if this is not done today, it is feasible and would transform a few centuries of reserves into millennia—admittedly, it cannot be said to be renewable, but when we see the progress made in two centuries, it still leaves room to find other solutions, whether it be the improvement of renewables to the point where they catch up with the advantages of actual nuclear power, or nuclear fusion).
In short, superior in almost every respect, except for complexity (but complexity that can be managed, it already is, and in terms of safety, nuclear power is to energy what aviation is to transportation: high dangers, but low risks thanks to controls and quality, and even lower risks than anything else right now).
(and I already agree that solar and wind energy are pretty good replacements for oil and gas, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t use them. Just that they aren’t the best we can do in the 21st century to produce electricity, from what I know, so why not do even better thing when we can)
-
Let's do this.
@TechConnectify Democrats just voted to continue funding DHS. Democrats have demonatrated they don't care about Palestinians and nor do they care about you.
and yes, the lithium only has to be mined once, but where is the mine? not your back yard! it will come from further colonial expansion.
-
Nope.
1. The tree is 4% efficient at best, compared to 25% for cheap solar.
2a. Yes you can. See chemistry.
2b. Aluminium is made with electricity.
2c. Arc furnaces exist.
3. Irrelevant imported argument
4. More than one problem can exist at the same time.D-
see me after class. -
Technology Connections To talk about the technical part only, I would be curious to hear your position on nuclear power, because when it comes to “building once and then extracting energy at low cost for a long time” that’s where it comes in. It takes up less space (so we might as well use the corn land for forests and nature reserves, it would be better than solar farms, even if solar farms are better than that corn), requires even fewer materials to be extracted, has a much longer lifespan, causes less pollution, fewer direct and indirect deaths, places fewer constraints on the grid (we keep the same format of a few powerful centralized plants that distribute energy to the whole country), no storage problems (batteries are better than burning oil, but not needing them in gigantic quantities at the grid scale is even better, and we can use the materials elsewhere, or extracting even less of them), very small amounts of waste that are relatively easy to manage (much more so than fossil fuels; for renewables, we’ll have to see, but even when it comes to recycling, limiting the amount of things to recycle and the frequency of recycling is still beneficial), allowing for significant fuel recycling (even if this is not done today, it is feasible and would transform a few centuries of reserves into millennia—admittedly, it cannot be said to be renewable, but when we see the progress made in two centuries, it still leaves room to find other solutions, whether it be the improvement of renewables to the point where they catch up with the advantages of actual nuclear power, or nuclear fusion).
In short, superior in almost every respect, except for complexity (but complexity that can be managed, it already is, and in terms of safety, nuclear power is to energy what aviation is to transportation: high dangers, but low risks thanks to controls and quality, and even lower risks than anything else right now).
(and I already agree that solar and wind energy are pretty good replacements for oil and gas, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t use them. Just that they aren’t the best we can do in the 21st century to produce electricity, from what I know, so why not do even better thing when we can)
@breizh @TechConnectify uranium is neither renewable nor free to harvest at low operating costs. nuclear power is an uniquely insane upfront investment & constant operating expenses and a lot of societal operating expenses to safely store the nuclear waste. until such time it can be safely transmuted. That is also a huge investment to develop and scale that technology.
the last time nuclear power was built it was only possible because the cold war needed the technology to be dual use otherwise it would have just been building nukes to collect dust somewhere.
-
Let's do this.
Good man.
