torrentialgrain @ torrentialgrain @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

231

Joined

5 mo. ago

The plane was in takeoff config: https://imgur.com/a/JzS3ro9

According to type rated pilots the 787 doesn’t allow you to retract flaps immediately in critical flight after takeoff.

I don’t think so.

Dude the plane is 13 years old. If there was a mechanical problem with the plane its on Air India, and I say that as a certified Airbus fanboy.

Slats are 100% deployed, you can see that in the videos, indicating the plane was in Takeoff Config. Now, the flaps themselves are hard to make out in the grainy videos and they don’t extend much on takeoff. Edit: https://imgur.com/a/JzS3ro9

Much more important is the lack of engine noise. We can also see the rat turbine was automatically deployed, indicating a complete loss of power only seconds after they rotated. Which is also why the landing gear did not retract.

I don’t know what could’ve caused a dual engine failure, simultaneously, immediately after takeoff but that seems to be where everything is pointing to. Possibly problems with the fuel?

Your last paragraph is true for pretty much any piece of critical infrastructure.

There’s frames in the multiple videos where you can see the slats in Takeoff Config - flaps are hard to see on a 787 because they don’t deploy that much on takeoff.

There’s literally a video of the entire "flight", no it did most certainly not break up mid-air.

Lol

That’s weird, I haven’t mentioned solar at all.

This is legit some of the most braindead shit I have read in my entire life.

From the start of this thread I’ve been saying that nuclear has no substantial benefit over renewable energy while being more expensive, more rigid and excruciatingly slower to build.

The difference in 2gCO2/kwh is meaningless and even then nuclear is still getting undercut by wind. Cope harder.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints/

All of these points are true for nuclear as well, plus it’s more expensive.

Nuclear being less efficient and more expensive than renewables is not an opinion.

Ah yes "common sense", the go to argument from everyone ranging from people who want to throw out migrants to nuclear shills.

After all, why wouldn’t we burn billions on a technology that is less efficient per kw/h, takes decades longer to build, doesn’t scale, has a worse LCOE than renewables and leaves us with toxic forever waste? It’s just common sense bro.

Still (way) more expensive than just building cheap renewables.

Lemmy seems 100% astroturfed by pro-nuclear lobbyists.

We need to modernize and further integrate the European grid anyway.

The LCOE for nuclear is substantially higher than wind and solar. It’s not just upfront costs.

Can someone fill me in on why this website is so insanely pro nuclear energy?

Like, I’m not even fundamentally against it but I don’t understand why we should invest billions in a tech that has essentially been leapfrogged already, would take a decade to become relevant again and is more expensive per KW/h than both renewables and fossil fuels.

Yet every comment criticizing nuclear on Lemmy always (literally every time) gets buried in downvotes. It’s super weird.