They should be worried about hot hail instead.
this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
68 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5243 readers
186 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
...and that is why I no longer mount any solar panels horizontally. Not a chance in hell of withstanding that, and one of such storms hit within 150 kilometers last year. Within 30 years, I bet I'll experience this effect.
Meanwhile, vertical panels can be up-armored (e.g. wooden beam running on top) to withstand such events.
A lot of utility-scale installations have one-axis rotation, which means they can be tilted to vertical as a storm approaches.
Just in time to catch the high winds!
True, but toppling over can leave them intact. One of my foolish neigbours didn't anchor his panel carriers properly and thought a thick fir hedge would protect them enough. A storm from unexpected direction threw four panel carriers (9 panels each) face down and severed the cables, so everything had to be disconnected and there was a safety risk (but not during night). I helped with the recovery work and not a single panel was broken.
Ooh, mount some turbines on them as well!
It’s interesting that they don’t talk about seeding the clouds at all.
Where I live they (the insurance companies pay for it) seed the clouds with silver iodide to create more nucleation points for the hail. This will increase the amount of hail, but decreases to total possible size.
It is unclear if seeding actually has a large enough impact on hail formation.
Insurance companies aren’t known to just spend money for no reason, it’s adding nucleation points, with less nucleation points the hail can build up larger before it break out of the storm cloud.
Sure they can’t prove it’s doing anything, but more nucleation points can’t make things worse and they know more nucleation points mean smaller potential hail.
It’s usually politics at play or environmentalists screaming about chemicals in the clouds that are the hurdles for something like this.
One of the biggest problems in research is that there is no control: We don't know what would have happend without the seeding. So we can only compare random storms that are seeded and not. Here the differences are very small (i.e. statistically insignificant). But that doesn't mean it has no effect.
Also I think we should be careful when using such things at large scale, as we just don't know the outcome. In small quantities it is however no hazard at all.
Probably because if you do that, you're on the hook for damage to properties your company didn't underwrite policies for.
Works here, I think all the insurance agencies pay into the program.
But what would you sue them for? The storm was happening and it also doesn’t always work, it mitigates their potential payouts for claims that are already going to happen.
Think golf ball sized instead of baseball, stuff is still getting damaged.
Oh. I know Ian.