Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
That's a neat tool. But it's giving me a slightly confusing result. I have a solar installation and I've plugged in the details so far as I know them, just to see if I'm producing about what I "should" be. The peak production month is about right, but the minimal production month is only estimated to be like 25% less than that. My system has more like 50-60% drop, and some quick googling suggests that's about normal.
Any thoughts on why this tool suggests a much smaller drop?
No idea. The 'typical meterological year' is likely smooth some extremes - that will likely have less variance than any actual year. Maybe the geographical resolution is poor leading to more averaging. But that sounds a bit large of a difference to be just that. Was the total annual production way out?
Check some other tools , maybe a local one - another one might have better data on some things. Some consensus of several estimates might be better than relying on one calculator only.