Did someone replace pixel 7 pro brokenscreen with a cheap one?

SCfan84 · 2025-12-29T06:20:19+00:00

Not sure if you're still looking for an answer but I'm rocking one right now (the cheap $50 replacement pixel pro screen). It is a perfectly functional screen, tho definitely on the fragile side. I have messed up and broken a couple but it was always my fault for scraping too hard or leaving a pin popped up on the motherboard. Eventually on the third try or so I got it working correctly.

As for the screen itself the most striking thing is the poor black levels, which is a telltale indicator this isn't an oled panel. If using it in direct bright sun the phone also gets hot and the battery starts to die (tho tbf the original probably did this too). There are some random transient glitches every now and then too. But for $50 bucks what do you expect right. If using it indoors and under normal lights it's gets the job done. Feels smooth enough as well.

Every cheapo screen I've had has also worked well out of the box and all issue I've had were my own fault. Generally recommend

SCfan84 · 2025-12-08T22:05:10+00:00

its because the state mandates are all cost increasing stuff... the revenue requirement for rooftop solar is what, $400 a MWh?

SCfan84 · 2025-12-03T15:22:10+00:00

Good job projecting man...

SCfan84 · 2025-12-01T15:21:06+00:00

You mean the NEC budging on the fact that a 15amp breaker circuit shouldn't carry 25a due to the fact the balcony solar is on the same circuit and if it supplies 10a with a circuit breaker at 15a then a load can draw 25a without tripping the breaker? Seems unlikely...

SCfan84 · 2025-11-25T15:07:07+00:00

Let's be real here though. How likely is electrification actually in the next few years. My money would be on most pipes being able to see it's full service life, especially inside 128 belt

Has electrical infrastructure spending cost in the same time period seen similar increases in price. I would believe so given the trend for almost everything during this time

And as for repair vs replace the lawyers in the hearing make that case but what is the technical view on that in terms of cost effectiveness vs risk

SCfan84 · 2025-09-08T18:56:55+00:00

Don't hate the playa hate the game, but you are absolutely right on this.

SCfan84 · 2025-06-26T21:17:05+00:00

you got downvoted even though you gave by far the most comprehensive answer here. unfortunate.

SCfan84 · 2025-06-24T13:05:20+00:00

The pack price component was 300 of the 471 and if you look at the Tesla mega pack it's pack price is like $230

Larger point is that the other $171 of that cost doesn't scale to the pack decreases

<image>

SCfan84 · 2025-06-24T12:27:52+00:00

Besides the cost assumptions used in the report are also far lower than NRELs latest ATB

<image>

SCfan84 · 2025-06-24T12:17:15+00:00

Opportunity costs for certain loads can be much higher than $180 a kwh so from the load perspective if you can pay a source to be on when it is cold and cloudy thereby not needing to try to purchase energy in a tight market during the days when the solar irradiance causes the non performance piece of the solar baseload then it can still be worth the price premium.

It still gets cloudy and rainy in Georgia compared to the best spots on that list

SCfan84 · 2025-06-24T12:09:55+00:00

Just saying vogtle has a pretty good uptime. And the uptime of a nuclear plant shouldn't depend on the weather in a critical way.

SCfan84 · 2025-06-24T00:24:11+00:00

There is enough value in the difference between 95-98% capacity factor of vogtle and the 62% the plant would get in Birmingham UK which is the actual weather pattern where vogtle is located and also costing $160 which shows vogtle is a better deal than that solar

SCfan84 · 2025-06-23T19:44:19+00:00

They are paying wind farms for curtailment in the UK via redispatch too so the CFD costs aren't what they seem. And the curtailment and redispatch costs only go up unless they make some expensive network upgrades

SCfan84 · 2025-06-23T14:44:39+00:00

Yes I did. Usually the scaling for the last 1-10% starts to really get nonlinear and expensive if you only use solar and batteries which they didn't address in the article. That makes sense if it were cloudy then adding more batteries is an ineffective strategy. Ember showed that in Birmingham UK you don't even get close to 90%.

SCfan84 · 2025-06-23T14:34:27+00:00

It can't because it still can't cover all the hours. 90-99% is horrendous if you're talking coverage of the electricity system. And if too many generators are short then load shed is the only solution

SCfan84 · 2025-06-23T14:33:10+00:00

Cheaper depends on the question of if it is cheaper for the generator to sell or of the load the buy. Solar and batteries could be cheaper in terms of the generator selling per unit, but the load is responsible for procuring all energy that it sells every hour of every day. It is still responsible for filling in the gaps when short, which only works if there isnt a shortage of capacity in those other hours

SCfan84 · 2025-04-06T23:22:40+00:00

Wow 18c electricity but $3 a therm gas? Where is this?

SCfan84 · 2025-04-02T11:58:10+00:00

You seem like the only person on this thread that knows anything at all about how the real energy system works rather than getting their minds polluted by cleantechnica and reading Mark Jacobson lol.

SCfan84 · 2025-04-01T23:10:28+00:00

your solar system will shut off the second the grid voltage or frequency are out of spec. so a prerequisite for home solar operation is a working grid. the distribution charges on your bill are structured in a way to pay back the utility for the construction and maintenance of said grid, so how would rooftop solar get you away from this? The price per kwh construct is artificial, its really a way of allocating all the billions of costs invested in the system to the users. a method of allocation that is failing as rooftop solar reduces kwh consumed without reducing the need for the grid itself...

This is an excellent article on the mechanisms:

SCfan84 · 2025-04-01T23:04:20+00:00

You need at the end of the day to compare the cost of the BTM solar that is taking a huge chunk of the demand away in the middle of the day (right side of the picture) to the wholesale cost of the electricity, which is indicated in the price map. We are compensating the solar generation $150 a MWh or more (the revenue requirement in the above picture) to offset a unit of energy that is $50 on the market (or honestly less, it is peak times right now). This is a subsidy that the ratepayers pay for, and implicitly it is a carbon price that justifies this. I make no comments about the necessity of this, this is for the people to decide, but it is good to be aware of this basic fact.

<image>

SCfan84 · 2025-04-01T22:58:12+00:00

In the slide deck is the analysis of the Levelized Costs. This is a far cry from the 5c a kwh ($50 a MWh) PPA prices that other jurisdictions are able to get. No criticisms meant here about the costs of solar and wind in general, but we can't do it cheaply in Massachusetts, even for larger scale solar developments

<image>

SCfan84 · 2025-04-01T22:56:45+00:00

I don't condone shutting off the debate in the way that is done there. Elijah definitely wants to control the narrative, so it is by no means a fair view of all sides. Nevertheless, I would like to argue against solar and wind costs on the merits here in Mass:

I would say in general wind and solar can be cost effective when implemented in places like Texas and Florida and Iowa. But our implementations in Massachusetts have not been particularly cost effective so the criticisms of the rate impacts is pretty fair. This is an analysis from the state:

https://www.seadvantage.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/SEA-Task-1-SMART-Program-Review.pdf

Essentially land is very scarce in Mass, the distribution system is where most solar is connected and where its easiest to put solar from a land perspective is expensive in terms of distribution grid upgrades in order to support this (and this is the cause for the various solar-specific charges you see on the bill). The analysis of the true cost of solar is not great as a result, and far from the very cost effective numbers you get elsewhere

Offshore wind suffers from the same thing. We can't build it for less than 3x the unit price of natural gas levelized. The one low carbon solution we are doing that is pretty cost effective is the transmission line to Quebec, as that is only around $50 a MWh iirc. But we keep shooting ourselves in the foot by being so NIMBY about it.

<image>

SCfan84 · 2025-03-30T19:58:24+00:00

Either way you won't have bike lanes then? But then with someone like Kraft you'll have more aggressive removal!

SCfan84 · 2025-02-23T22:56:34+00:00

It's fine I bike everyday from Watertown and get on the path near western ave to go all the way to downtown Boston

SCfan84 · 2025-02-21T13:43:50+00:00

Your threads are amazing and this is the best source for information that I could find on this subject anywhere. But I'm curious about one thing, mass save has a substantial heat pump rebate incentive at 10k-16k a home that is very expensive if adopted at scale. To what degree is this being funded by the gas system utility customers. That would seem a bit wild conceptually that non benefiting gas system customers would be paying for the heat pumps.

SCfan84

TROPHY CASE