Recent comments in /f/Maine

pinetreesgreen t1_jdb9hxb wrote

Reply to comment by jparadis87 in Chevy Trax AWD in Maine by [deleted]

I had studded snow tires on several sub compact cars in my youth, and they would get stuck several times a winter. Once the snow starts scraping the belly of a sub compact car, its over. They get hung up on everything, I guess bc they are so light. That was my experience in deeper snow you find outside of southern Maine. My old Volvo was better, but still not as good as awd.

1

TransparentCMP t1_jdb8s62 wrote

They will honor the contracts. The referendum says……

  1. Existing obligations. All existing agreements, obligations and contracts, including but not limited to long-term contract obligations and net energy billing agreements of an investor- owned transmission and distribution utility, must be transferred to the company and any counterparty to an agreement, obligation or contract shall accept the assignment of the investor-owned transmission and distribution utility to the company.
3

Lady-Kat1969 t1_jdb7iw1 wrote

Heading up the coast from the south:

Damariscotta: The downtown is mall enough to walk around but has a lot of interesting places to see/shop. It's also quite pretty and has a lot of scenic areas within a reasonable drive.

Camden (in the off-season): Bigger but still walkable, also pretty with some good drives nearby, and one of my favorite buildings in the state is there. (Norumbega)

Northport: I love driving Shore Rd and wandering through the old Victorian summer colony.

Belfast: I love the Co-op and the whole downtown area. I haven't been able to walk the footbridge but I love that they have one.

Bucksport: Hate the bridge, love Fort Knox and the downtown. Especially Friars.

Castine: Beautiful, walkable, historic.

Southwest Harbor: Bar Harbor has its points despite the tourists, but when it comes down to it, I like SW Harbor better.

Machias: Okay, I've only been through a couple of times, but there's some good views and a few neat shops here.

Lubec: Only got here once and it was pissing down, but I would like to return and explore it properly. I liked what I saw.

2

saigonk t1_jdb2z4r wrote

Reply to comment by Arsenault185 in Maine's Energy future by mainething

No worries, underground would be amazing everywhere, but all the money, upkeep, etc. can be astronomical.

Even the ground above the pipes should be kept clear of vegetation so that roots don’t penetrate or shift conduits, now another added cost.

I get the idea the OP is trying to spin, but it just isn’t feasible.

3

Fireonpoopdick t1_jdb2byg wrote

Reply to comment by p6one6 in Maine's Energy future by mainething

Once again it is the old and ignorant that keep the young and bright from making the world better, from even trying, they are so old and afraid of everything they don't want to fund the next generation to build the future, they just want to build their little castles and hold onto what little wealth they have for dear life.

It just seems like if we had invested in manufacturing of renewables a decade or two ago we could be the worlds leader again as a country, not that we did a great job last time but we did make some progress, I just don't get why everyone who's older is now so afraid to move forward and build a future their children, it has felt like my whole life the older generations gave up in like the 70s and then just ran off 50s nostalgia since the 80s, and now it's just nothing but fear and confusion.

1

SkiingAway t1_jdazaav wrote

Because it's a pretty terrible idea when you've got a fuckton of empty land to work with, and virtually nowhere does it make sense unless you wanted to build a canopy anyway.

You're introducing large additional costs and complexity for no reason.

  • An overhead structure is a lot of additional....structure, that you didn't need vs just....putting the things on/near the ground.

  • $ to build.

  • $ to maintain - structure has to be maintained, crews working on the structure or panels now need to care about fall protection, traffic, access, you'll have lots of lane closures for structure work, and so on.

  • Increased safety risks

  • Your overhead structure has to be supported. Which means support posts. Line the interstate with phone poles every 50ft and you'll have a lot more crash deaths. (small) road signs + light posts are designed to breakaway because they're not supporting anything - can't do that with a structure.

  • Increased damage/failure rates

  • now you've got car crashes regularly damaging sections of your overhead structure. You see how fucked up guardrails get, imagine if each one of those crashes took out some big overhead structure that collapsed on top of the roadway and cars.

  • Road debris and pollution will collect on the panels and reduce efficiency.

  • If you're doing it anywhere populated, now any taller buildings/new development going up in the future are likely going to slash output on nearby sections of panels.

Etc.


If you want economically efficient power, it should look like this: Luz del Norte. Anything else is wasting money and efficiency for no reason. Especially not in a world where we can't produce enough solar panels to meet demand - which means they should be getting installed in the most optimal sites with the highest production efficiency first.

Or watch the video of construction (spanish but you don't really need the words): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e9jj0d43w0

And compare the low complexity of doing that vs the complexity of trying to build vast overhead structures over roadways.

8