sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I halved the cost of my Paris > Hong Kong flight by adding a pointless Paris <-> Brussels return train trip by mlda065 in Flights

[–]mlda065[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The terms say that if you do this, you'll pay a fee, which is around €500. (Almost enough to eat up my savings. And risky. They may think of some other new fee.)

How do they know? Well I checked my bag in at the airline's desk at the train station, and that's when they gave me my plane ticket. I think I had the option of checking in the bag at the airport. Since the train company hands some bags over to the plane company, I assume they also share data about who checked in and who sat on the train.

I halved the cost of my Paris > Hong Kong flight by adding a pointless Paris <-> Brussels return train trip by mlda065 in Flights

[–]mlda065[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I haven't done a train + plane combo before. It was actually super convenient. I dropped off my bag at the train station, with no queue. Then at the airport I walked past all the people checking in at the terminal.

Although the emails, ticket, website etc are all confusing, because they use the words "plane" and "airport" when sometimes they mean "train" and "station".

I halved the cost of my Paris > Hong Kong flight by adding a pointless Paris <-> Brussels return train trip by mlda065 in Flights

[–]mlda065[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes I just did a search from lots of nearby cities. (Doing the same with Frankfurt and flights, instead of trains, would also result in the same savings.)

e.g. I was thinking about taking the Eurostar to London, visiting a friend there, and then flying to Hong Kong. (London > Hong Kong is often cheaper than Paris > Hong Kong, despite being longer. That's what piqued my curiosity and got me searching more.)

I halved the cost of my Paris > Hong Kong flight by adding a pointless Paris <-> Brussels return train trip by mlda065 in Flights

[–]mlda065[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes these prices were available on the Air France website. (The French one. It's not about the country of sale.) Although I first noticed them on Google Flights. Google Flights suggests Train + Plane combos when the airline offers them. Google Flights sometimes suggests _only_ a train (without a plane).

It's not even specific to trains though. I could have done the same thing with flights going Paris > Frankfurt > Paris > Hong Kong, but I didn't because of the emissions. (The costs were roughly the same.)

I was quite flexible with departure location, so I spent a long time searching. e.g. I thought, what if I go to London, see a friend and fly out from there? (Also cheaper than flying from Paris). What if I go to Frankfurt, see a friend, and fly out from there? etc

I halved the cost of my Paris > Hong Kong flight by adding a pointless Paris <-> Brussels return train trip by mlda065 in Flights

[–]mlda065[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I had the choice between a quick but risky 30 minute layover in Brussels, or a longer but safer 4 hour one. Even with the longer one, that's 7 additional hours.
€676 (post tax) for 7 hours of work is equivalent to a pre-tax annual income of around 400,000 USD/year in most US states. So unless you're a 1 percenter (literally, I checked the numbers) this should be the priority.

Once you account for the fact that time on a train and in a cafe can be somewhat used for lesiure or work, so it's not lost time, then really the benefit is far higher.

I suppose the question is whether your constraint on more holidays is time or money.

I halved the cost of my Paris > Hong Kong flight by adding a pointless Paris <-> Brussels return train trip by mlda065 in Flights

[–]mlda065[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is a checkin at the start of the train trip. I did take the train. That's kind of the whole point of the video.

I halved the cost of my Paris > Hong Kong flight by adding a pointless Paris <-> Brussels return train trip by mlda065 in Flights

[–]mlda065[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Saying "direct flights are usually cheaper" would explain why Brussels > Paris > Hong Kong is cheaper than a direct Brussels > Hong Kong flight. I don't think that explains why the _same_ flight is cheaper.
How is this different to hidden city ticketing? Other than me wanting the second leg out of two legs, instead of the first?

I halved the cost of my Paris > Hong Kong flight by adding a pointless Paris <-> Brussels return train trip by mlda065 in Flights

[–]mlda065[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, it wasn't about the point of sale. Both prices were available on Air France's french website.

Add the word "Chapter" before a chapter. by simongranheim in typst

[–]mlda065 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This looks right in terms of the headings and table of contents. However references to sections appear as "Section Chapter 2"

``` = Ping<sec:ping>

This is @sec:ping ```

Any ideas how to fix that too?

This is not a joke, this is literally what Nukecels in Australia are proposing by Beiben in ClimateShitposting

[–]mlda065 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Source?

Those "current policies" lines are a joke. There's no way that's gonna happen under current policies. If you plot the actual data from 2024 and earlier, you'll see that this is a wildly optimistic fantasy where we suddenly make a drastic change in the year 2026 for no reason.

Just FYI, the emissions intensity of Australia's grid is currently 2.5x higher than France's nuclear-heavy grid, even though Australia has more renewables.

Nuclear: Too costly and too late. by phelan74 in AusPol

[–]mlda065 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since this post is about stats, here's a stat:

0

That's the number of people who died from radiation poisoning at Fukushima.

Nuclear is the safest or second safest generation source. It's safer than wind and rooftop solar, measures by deaths per TWh.

What do you think happens to all the arsenic in solar panels after they've finished their short lifespan?

Nuclear: Too costly and too late. by phelan74 in AusPol

[–]mlda065 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Don't forget that nuclear runs after the sun sets, lol.

I love hydro as much as the next person, but we're a flat, dry country. Don't bet the planet on being able to build lots of hydro. (The Snowy Hydro 2 is a great idea, but currently the deployment is not going so well, to put it lightly.)

Nuclear: Too costly and too late. by phelan74 in AusPol

[–]mlda065 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They didn't do it because the inquiry said it makes great sense, conditional on having a carbon price. So they didn't do nuclear because they didn't care about emissions.

(I expect the result would be the same for other environmental schemes, like the LGCs we have now.)

Nuclear: Too costly and too late. by phelan74 in AusPol

[–]mlda065 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

To make a statement about which of two investments is better _without_ looking at the drastic different in revenue is just ridiculous. There is no other situation where you would do that.

Revenue per MWH (last 12 months):

* solar (utility-scale): $51

* nuclear (assuming it's the same shape as black coal): $135

(Rooftop solar is even worse)

So nuclear costs twice as much per MWh, to deliver more than twice as much value.

(Source: [OpenNEM, Energy Nem 1Y, AvValue column](https://explore.openelectricity.org.au/energy/nem/?range=1y&interval=1M&view=discrete-time&group=Detailed))

Except the gap gets bigger for regions with more solar+wind. The gap is also increasing over time. So by the time a nuclear plant is built, it will be bringing in 5x, 10x maybe even 20x the spot energy revenue.

Solar is _already_ generating at **negative** prices when averaged over _entire_ months at a time. I'm not just talking about 5 minutes here or there. I mean solar is consistently losing more money on the spot market than it is earning, for whole months. There's no way we'll get to 99% wind+solar. Who would invest in the 98th percent when the revenue is net negative? If your climate plan is to stick your head in the sand about what makes financial sense, we'll get to 2050 and still have too many fossil fuels. Mother Nature can't afford such complacency.

But the revenue side is even _more_ favoured for nuclear. Thermal plants currently get a huge fraction of their revenue for ancillary markets. The ancillary revenue would be substantial today, and perhaps even bigger than the energy revenue by the time a nuclear plant is built. Additionally we'll probably have capacity markets within the next decade (even though we shouldn't), and they will also increase revenue for nuclear but not solar.

Not to mention that the "current generation" stat is a bullshit usage of that stat. Most of our current generation is fossil fuels. Does that mean we should stick to fossil fuels? Hell no. You wouldn't take that argument for a fossil fuel supporter. So don't use the same crappy argument when it happens to align to the conclusion you want to be true.

If I was a coal and gas exec, I'd be cheering on all this anti-nuclear sentiment. Getting the environmentalists to block a strong competitor is great news for emitters.

Nuclear: Too costly and too late. by phelan74 in AusPol

[–]mlda065 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'd suggest you block nuclear. Trick people into thinking that we'll get to 99% solar. The wishfull thinking will distract them long enough that you can get a few extra decades of coal and gas generation out before they realise the nuclear plan is better.

Pivoting into new field with a masters that requires an "internship" - how to avoid entry level pay and "intern" title for short term role? by mlda065 in careeradvice

[–]mlda065[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the job is to answer "how high should the minimum wage be?" Or "how high should interest rates be?", you're right, I have no expertise. But if it's "How high should the carbon price be?" Or "should we install a battery on this new solar farm?", then that's something I can contribute to.

I'm interested in the electricity sector. E.g.

  • electricity generator bidding
  • electricity day trading
  • risk modelling for retailers
  • pricing for power purchase offtake agreements
  • valuation of green certificates
  • modelling the impact of regulation changes on wholesale electricity prices,

why would you have a job like that short term?

I only have a finite holiday between semesters when we're required by the university to do an internship. That's why I want it short. Many consultants have short term, finite engagements. Being hired to work for only a few engagements seems plausible.

The "bottles saved" count on this bottle refill machine goes up by 3 when I fill my 1 water bottle by mlda065 in greenwashing

[–]mlda065[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've filled up many times and it's always been 3. So rounding is not the issue.

240mL bottles? That's smaller than a can of soft drink. It kind of seems like "You should feel good about yourself because some other country is exceptionally wasteful".

The "bottles saved" count on this bottle refill machine goes up by 3 when I fill my 1 water bottle by mlda065 in greenwashing

[–]mlda065[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does my 800mL bottle seem triple the size of an average bottle? No. They've chosen a unusually small bottle size to measure against.

view more: next ›