On 28/03/2024 13:24, Colin Bignell wrote:
> On 28/03/2024 12:15, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 28/03/2024 12:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 28/03/2024 12:03, GB wrote:
>>>> I don't know about costs, but a pivot system could have two uses:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Keep the panels at 90 degrees to the sun throughout the day, to
>>>> absorb maximum energy.
>>>> 2) Rotate the panels so they are horizontal with the glass downwards
>>>> when storms are expected, in order to prevent hail damage.
>>>
>>> The great thing about 'free' solar and wind energy is how much it
>>> costs and how much more it costs to make it reliable.
>>>
>>> I've never heard of nuclear power plants needing batteries, massive
>>> grid interconnectors, mechanisms to protect against hail, backup
>>> power stations
>>
>> The irony is that the Fukushima disasters was precisely because backup
>> systems didn't work.
>>
> It was a failure of prediction of conditions

The prediction was that in a 30 year life-span there was a 30%
likelihood of a catastrophic disaster.

, rather than one of the
> systems themselves. The first backup, diesel generators, only failed
> because the fuel tanks floated away on water that was about a meter
> higher than anticipated. The second backup, the batteries, worked fine
> for the eight hours it had been predicted it would take to restore a
> connection to the grid.

I thought the issue was over the switch gear? The generators had already
been moved up the hill.

On 28/03/2024 15:58, Fredxx wrote:
> On 28/03/2024 13:24, Colin Bignell wrote:
>> On 28/03/2024 12:15, Fredxx wrote:
>>> On 28/03/2024 12:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 28/03/2024 12:03, GB wrote:
>>>>> I don't know about costs, but a pivot system could have two uses:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Keep the panels at 90 degrees to the sun throughout the day, to
>>>>> absorb maximum energy.
>>>>> 2) Rotate the panels so they are horizontal with the glass
>>>>> downwards when storms are expected, in order to prevent hail damage.
>>>>
>>>> The great thing about 'free' solar and wind energy is how much it
>>>> costs and how much more it costs to make it reliable.
>>>>
>>>> I've never heard of nuclear power plants needing batteries, massive
>>>> grid interconnectors, mechanisms to protect against hail, backup
>>>> power stations
>>>
>>> The irony is that the Fukushima disasters was precisely because
>>> backup systems didn't work.
>>>
>> It was a failure of prediction of conditions
>
> The prediction was that in a 30 year life-span there was a 30%
> likelihood of a catastrophic disaster.
>
> , rather than one of the
>> systems themselves. The first backup, diesel generators, only failed
>> because the fuel tanks floated away on water that was about a meter
>> higher than anticipated. The second backup, the batteries, worked fine
>> for the eight hours it had been predicted it would take to restore a
>> connection to the grid.
>
> I thought the issue was over the switch gear? The generators had already
> been moved up the hill.

AIUI, nothing that could not have been sorted before the batteries ran
out, if there had been fuel to run the generators. Whether they could
have been kept supplied for days on end, long enough to reconnect to the
grid, is a different question.

--
Colin Bignell

On 28 Mar 2024 at 15:58:40 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:

> On 28/03/2024 13:24, Colin Bignell wrote:
>> On 28/03/2024 12:15, Fredxx wrote:
>>> On 28/03/2024 12:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 28/03/2024 12:03, GB wrote:
>>>>> I don't know about costs, but a pivot system could have two uses:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Keep the panels at 90 degrees to the sun throughout the day, to
>>>>> absorb maximum energy.
>>>>> 2) Rotate the panels so they are horizontal with the glass downwards
>>>>> when storms are expected, in order to prevent hail damage.
>>>>
>>>> The great thing about 'free' solar and wind energy is how much it
>>>> costs and how much more it costs to make it reliable.
>>>>
>>>> I've never heard of nuclear power plants needing batteries, massive
>>>> grid interconnectors, mechanisms to protect against hail, backup
>>>> power stations
>>>
>>> The irony is that the Fukushima disasters was precisely because backup
>>> systems didn't work.
>>>
>> It was a failure of prediction of conditions
>
> The prediction was that in a 30 year life-span there was a 30%
> likelihood of a catastrophic disaster.
>
> , rather than one of the
>> systems themselves. The first backup, diesel generators, only failed
>> because the fuel tanks floated away on water that was about a meter
>> higher than anticipated. The second backup, the batteries, worked fine
>> for the eight hours it had been predicted it would take to restore a
>> connection to the grid.
>
> I thought the issue was over the switch gear? The generators had already
> been moved up the hill.

The reactor was scrammed the moment the earthquake was detected. The issue
after that was cooling the reactor in the short term. Normally there would be
power from offsite to do that, but in this case IIRC, this was not going to be
available. In that case you have diesel gennies to provide backup power to run
the pumps. But the anti-tsunami barrier was overtopped as it wasn't (quite)
high enough. So seawater overtopped it. Unfortunately the gennies were in the
basement so they got flooded. This meant the cooling failed and the reactors
started heating up. They eventually melted, but as we saw at TMI, this is not
as bad as the stupid China Syndrome film tried to make out.

What was more unfortunate is that hydrogen started to be produced. This was
because the reactor temp got above 600C or so. The fuel rods are coated in
zirconium, which don't react with steam until 600C, higher than which they do
nicely and you get zirconium oxide and hydrogen. Mix the hydrogen with air and
you get a nice explosive mixture. The power company asked for permission to
vent this off, and the fool Japanese politicians refused, as they feared a
radiation leak. so once the hydrogen met an ignition source, KA-BOOM, and off
goes the roof. So they got a small radiation leak anyway, although with the
secondary containment holding in the melted uranium, it was not significant.

What issue were you referring to?

--
The truth of the matter is that we Scots have always been more divided amongst ourselves than pitted against the English. Scottish history before the Union of Parliaments is a gloomy, violent tale of murders, feuds, and tribal revenge. Only after the Act of Union did Highlanders and Lowlanders, Picts and Celts, begin to recognise one another as fellow citizens.

Tam Dalyell

On 28/03/2024 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2024 at 15:58:40 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 28/03/2024 13:24, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>> On 28/03/2024 12:15, Fredxx wrote:
>>>> On 28/03/2024 12:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 28/03/2024 12:03, GB wrote:
>>>>>> I don't know about costs, but a pivot system could have two uses:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Keep the panels at 90 degrees to the sun throughout the day, to
>>>>>> absorb maximum energy.
>>>>>> 2) Rotate the panels so they are horizontal with the glass downwards
>>>>>> when storms are expected, in order to prevent hail damage.
>>>>>
>>>>> The great thing about 'free' solar and wind energy is how much it
>>>>> costs and how much more it costs to make it reliable.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've never heard of nuclear power plants needing batteries, massive
>>>>> grid interconnectors, mechanisms to protect against hail, backup
>>>>> power stations
>>>>
>>>> The irony is that the Fukushima disasters was precisely because backup
>>>> systems didn't work.
>>>>
>>> It was a failure of prediction of conditions
>>
>> The prediction was that in a 30 year life-span there was a 30%
>> likelihood of a catastrophic disaster.
>>
>> , rather than one of the
>>> systems themselves. The first backup, diesel generators, only failed
>>> because the fuel tanks floated away on water that was about a meter
>>> higher than anticipated. The second backup, the batteries, worked fine
>>> for the eight hours it had been predicted it would take to restore a
>>> connection to the grid.
>>
>> I thought the issue was over the switch gear? The generators had already
>> been moved up the hill.
>
> The reactor was scrammed the moment the earthquake was detected. The issue
> after that was cooling the reactor in the short term. Normally there would be
> power from offsite to do that, but in this case IIRC, this was not going to be
> available. In that case you have diesel gennies to provide backup power to run
> the pumps. But the anti-tsunami barrier was overtopped as it wasn't (quite)
> high enough. So seawater overtopped it. Unfortunately the gennies were in the
> basement so they got flooded. This meant the cooling failed and the reactors
> started heating up. They eventually melted, but as we saw at TMI, this is not
> as bad as the stupid China Syndrome film tried to make out.
>
> What was more unfortunate is that hydrogen started to be produced. This was
> because the reactor temp got above 600C or so. The fuel rods are coated in
> zirconium, which don't react with steam until 600C, higher than which they do
> nicely and you get zirconium oxide and hydrogen. Mix the hydrogen with air and
> you get a nice explosive mixture. The power company asked for permission to
> vent this off, and the fool Japanese politicians refused, as they feared a
> radiation leak. so once the hydrogen met an ignition source, KA-BOOM, and off
> goes the roof. So they got a small radiation leak anyway, although with the
> secondary containment holding in the melted uranium, it was not significant.
>
> What issue were you referring to?

My bad, I thought the diesel generators had been moved, there were
certainly plans to move them but feet (and knuckles) were being dragged:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident.aspx
>

On 28/03/2024 12:51, GB wrote:
> On 28/03/2024 12:40, SteveW wrote:
>> On 28/03/2024 12:15, Fredxx wrote:
>>> On 28/03/2024 12:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 28/03/2024 12:03, GB wrote:
>>>>> I don't know about costs, but a pivot system could have two uses:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Keep the panels at 90 degrees to the sun throughout the day, to
>>>>> absorb maximum energy.
>>>>> 2) Rotate the panels so they are horizontal with the glass
>>>>> downwards when storms are expected, in order to prevent hail damage.
>>>>
>>>> The great thing about 'free' solar and wind energy is how much it
>>>> costs and how much more it costs to make it reliable.
>>>>
>>>> I've never heard of nuclear power plants needing batteries, massive
>>>> grid interconnectors, mechanisms to protect against hail, backup
>>>> power stations
>>>
>>> The irony is that the Fukushima disasters was precisely because
>>> backup systems didn't work.
>>
>> But modern reactor designs don't need those backup systems. Older
>> designs had to keep the pumps running, newer ones can be shut-down
>> with no active cooling.
>>
>
> Why weren't these 'modern' designs implemented in the first place?

Because it has taken decades to develop them.

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 20:45:46 +1100, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:

> On 27/03/2024 16:48, John Rumm wrote:
>> On 27/03/2024 15:41, Fredxx wrote:
>>> On 27/03/2024 15:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 27/03/2024 14:51, GB wrote:
>>>>> On 27/03/2024 12:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1772466901345599716
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's left of a Texas solar farm after a hailstorm...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/utility-scale/texas-hailstorm-damages-thousands-of-solar-panels-at-350-mw-farm/
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to be a well-known issue, to which there's a well-known
>>>>> solution:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.pv-tech.org/how-stowing-can-reduce-hail-damage-to-solar-modules/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> All I see is blurred text. Did you actually read it?
>>>
>>> There are numerous techniques to use multiple images to improve
>>> overall resolution.
>> How good is your latin? Since if you did manage to remove the blur
>> from that "text" you would see it is just "Lorem Ipsum" placeholder
>> text.
>> Having said that, the site authors seem to have made a good job making
>> it hard to dodge the paywall, but I would doc them points for also
>> including a second full copy of the articles text in the html source,
>> in English, in addition to the blurred latin copy :-)
>> tl;dr - they describe a hail "early warning system" used to trigger
>> panel rotators *ON ALL THE PANELS*, that would rotate them out of
>> direct path of the hail storm. Does not sound like something that will
>> be particularly cost effective on an array spanning 1000s of acres.
>>
> Probably only practical on arrays that already have steering mechanisms
> to track the sun. I would, however, have thought that hailstone guards
> would be possible. I am think either of fixed mesh guards, which
> admittedly slightly would reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the
> panels, or a solid guard that hinges up over the panels when hailstones
> are detected or expected. Although costly, they might be cheaper than
> replacing thousands of acres of arrays so, even if the owners don't want
> them, their insurers might.

There is a reason that very few have any of that.

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 23:03:31 +1100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:

> On 28/03/2024 09:45, Colin Bignell wrote:
>> On 27/03/2024 16:48, John Rumm wrote:
>>> On 27/03/2024 15:41, Fredxx wrote:
>>>> On 27/03/2024 15:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 27/03/2024 14:51, GB wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/03/2024 12:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1772466901345599716
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's left of a Texas solar farm after a hailstorm...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/utility-scale/texas-hailstorm-damages-thousands-of-solar-panels-at-350-mw-farm/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems to be a well-known issue, to which there's a well-known
>>>>>> solution:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.pv-tech.org/how-stowing-can-reduce-hail-damage-to-solar-modules/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> All I see is blurred text. Did you actually read it?
>>>>
>>>> There are numerous techniques to use multiple images to improve
>>>> overall resolution.
>>>
>>> How good is your latin? Since if you did manage to remove the blur
>>> from that "text" you would see it is just "Lorem Ipsum" placeholder
>>> text.
>>>
>>> Having said that, the site authors seem to have made a good job making
>>> it hard to dodge the paywall, but I would doc them points for also
>>> including a second full copy of the articles text in the html source,
>>> in English, in addition to the blurred latin copy :-)
>>>
>>> tl;dr - they describe a hail "early warning system" used to trigger
>>> panel rotators *ON ALL THE PANELS*, that would rotate them out of
>>> direct path of the hail storm. Does not sound like something that will
>>> be particularly cost effective on an array spanning 1000s of acres.
>>>
>>>
>> Probably only practical on arrays that already have steering mechanisms
>> to track the sun. I would, however, have thought that hailstone guards
>> would be possible. I am think either of fixed mesh guards, which
>> admittedly slightly would reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the
>> panels, or a solid guard that hinges up over the panels when hailstones
>> are detected or expected. Although costly, they might be cheaper than
>> replacing thousands of acres of arrays so, even if the owners don't
>> want them, their insurers might.
>
> I don't know about costs, but a pivot system could have two uses:
>
> 1) Keep the panels at 90 degrees to the sun throughout the day, to
> absorb maximum energy.
> 2) Rotate the panels so they are horizontal with the glass downwards
> when storms are expected, in order to prevent hail damage.

The problem is that that is MUCH more expensive than the fixed
panel approach which is why hardly anyone does it like that.

On 28/03/2024 13:06, Fredxx wrote:
> On 28/03/2024 12:40, SteveW wrote:
>> On 28/03/2024 12:15, Fredxx wrote:
>>> On 28/03/2024 12:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 28/03/2024 12:03, GB wrote:
>>>>> I don't know about costs, but a pivot system could have two uses:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Keep the panels at 90 degrees to the sun throughout the day, to
>>>>> absorb maximum energy.
>>>>> 2) Rotate the panels so they are horizontal with the glass
>>>>> downwards when storms are expected, in order to prevent hail damage.
>>>>
>>>> The great thing about 'free' solar and wind energy is how much it
>>>> costs and how much more it costs to make it reliable.
>>>>
>>>> I've never heard of nuclear power plants needing batteries, massive
>>>> grid interconnectors, mechanisms to protect against hail, backup
>>>> power stations
>>>
>>> The irony is that the Fukushima disasters was precisely because
>>> backup systems didn't work.
>>
>> But modern reactor designs don't need those backup systems. Older
>> designs had to keep the pumps running, newer ones can be shut-down
>> with no active cooling.
>
> There are various forms of passive safety measures. Three Mile Island
> was meant to have a passive safety system.

Many nuclear safety systems are passive - it is always the preferred
method. Three Mile Island had many design faults - it was the event that
triggered many changes in nuclear safety.

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 23:15:28 +1100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:

> On 28/03/2024 12:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 28/03/2024 12:03, GB wrote:
>>> I don't know about costs, but a pivot system could have two uses:
>>>
>>> 1) Keep the panels at 90 degrees to the sun throughout the day, to
>>> absorb maximum energy.
>>> 2) Rotate the panels so they are horizontal with the glass downwards
>>> when storms are expected, in order to prevent hail damage.
>> The great thing about 'free' solar and wind energy is how much it
>> costs and how much more it costs to make it reliable.
>> I've never heard of nuclear power plants needing batteries, massive
>> grid interconnectors, mechanisms to protect against hail, backup power
>> stations
>
> The irony is that the Fukushima disasters was precisely because backup
> systems didn't work.

Only because the design of the backup system was completely
fucked on something as basic as the physical location of it.

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 23:51:02 +1100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:

> On 28/03/2024 12:40, SteveW wrote:
>> On 28/03/2024 12:15, Fredxx wrote:
>>> On 28/03/2024 12:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 28/03/2024 12:03, GB wrote:
>>>>> I don't know about costs, but a pivot system could have two uses:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Keep the panels at 90 degrees to the sun throughout the day, to
>>>>> absorb maximum energy.
>>>>> 2) Rotate the panels so they are horizontal with the glass downwards
>>>>> when storms are expected, in order to prevent hail damage.
>>>>
>>>> The great thing about 'free' solar and wind energy is how much it
>>>> costs and how much more it costs to make it reliable.
>>>>
>>>> I've never heard of nuclear power plants needing batteries, massive
>>>> grid interconnectors, mechanisms to protect against hail, backup
>>>> power stations
>>>
>>> The irony is that the Fukushima disasters was precisely because backup
>>> systems didn't work.
>> But modern reactor designs don't need those backup systems. Older
>> designs had to keep the pumps running, newer ones can be shut-down with
>> no active cooling.
>>
>
> Why weren't these 'modern' designs implemented in the first place?

It took a while to work out how to do it like that reliably.

On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:01:56 +1100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> On 28/03/2024 12:27, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 27/03/2024 14:51, GB wrote:
>>> On 27/03/2024 12:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1772466901345599716
>>>>
>>>> What's left of a Texas solar farm after a hailstorm...
>>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/utility-scale/texas-hailstorm-damages-thousands-of-solar-panels-at-350-mw-farm/
>>>
>>> It seems to be a well-known issue, to which there's a well-known
>>> solution:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.pv-tech.org/how-stowing-can-reduce-hail-damage-to-solar-modules/
>> One wonders if a cost benefit analysis was made on the probability
>> that one or more panels would be damaged by hail? If it only occurs
>> every 3 or more years then I doubt protection is warranted.
>>
>
> And how reliable is the prediction of hail?

The records of hail big enough to damage solar panels is excellent.

On 28/03/2024 17:46, SteveW wrote:
> On 28/03/2024 12:51, GB wrote:
>> On 28/03/2024 12:40, SteveW wrote:
>>> On 28/03/2024 12:15, Fredxx wrote:
>>>> On 28/03/2024 12:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 28/03/2024 12:03, GB wrote:
>>>>>> I don't know about costs, but a pivot system could have two uses:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Keep the panels at 90 degrees to the sun throughout the day, to
>>>>>> absorb maximum energy.
>>>>>> 2) Rotate the panels so they are horizontal with the glass
>>>>>> downwards when storms are expected, in order to prevent hail damage.
>>>>>
>>>>> The great thing about 'free' solar and wind energy is how much it
>>>>> costs and how much more it costs to make it reliable.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've never heard of nuclear power plants needing batteries, massive
>>>>> grid interconnectors, mechanisms to protect against hail, backup
>>>>> power stations
>>>>
>>>> The irony is that the Fukushima disasters was precisely because
>>>> backup systems didn't work.
>>>
>>> But modern reactor designs don't need those backup systems. Older
>>> designs had to keep the pumps running, newer ones can be shut-down
>>> with no active cooling.
>>>
>>
>> Why weren't these 'modern' designs implemented in the first place?
>
> Because it has taken decades to develop them.

I rather think it was more a response to the regulatory climate. Back in
the day you could knock up a boiling water reactor for not much more
than a coal plant.
Today regulation has quintupled the cost.
The only way to reduce that cost is to have a type approved factory
built unit.
To have a unit that you can stick on a lorry and move to its site limits
how big it can be, as does going for passive cooling

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 28/03/2024 18:00, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:01:56 +1100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>> And how reliable is the prediction of hail?
>
> The records of hail big enough to damage solar panels is excellent.

Knowing that there was hail in the past doesn't mean that it can be
predicted in a timely manner in the future so that the panels can be
protected.

Would the panels need to be protected in every heavy rain storm just in
case that the rain turns to hail within a period of seconds/minutes?

In this case if it had been predicted then would have all those people
have deliberately left their motor vehicles in the open to get damaged?

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On 28/03/2024 18:00, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:01:56 +1100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> And how reliable is the prediction of hail?
>>
>> The records of hail big enough to damage solar panels is excellent.
>
> Knowing that there was hail in the past doesn't mean that it can be
> predicted in a timely manner in the future so that the panels can be
> protected.
>
> Would the panels need to be protected in every heavy rain storm just in
> case that the rain turns to hail within a period of seconds/minutes?
>
> In this case if it had been predicted then would have all those people
> have deliberately left their motor vehicles in the open to get damaged?
>

The predictability probably depends on the local climate. I remember decades ago in Brittany we were having a beautiful August day on the beach, clear blue sky, hot sun, calm sea. Then all of sudden all the little boats out on the bay started coming in, some of them really motoring. What the hell? we thought. Then the sky went black and everybody started racing to the car park. We just got into the car when the hail started. Literally the size of golf balls. Our camper van with its near-vertical windscreen was OK, but at least a dozen of the more sporty cars with the sloped-back style of windscreens had them smashed.

alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote

>>> And how reliable is the prediction of hail?

>> The records of hail big enough to damage solar panels is excellent.

> Knowing that there was hail in the past doesn't mean that it can be
> predicted in a timely manner in the future so that the panels can be
> protected.

You don't do that by prediction.

You decide from the historical records if hail
that can damage the solar panels is likely
enough to warrant protecting the panels, and
then turn the protection on if that involves active
protection when a thunderstorm shows up.

> Would the panels need to be protected in every heavy rain storm justin
> case that the rain turns to hail within a period of seconds/minutes?

Does no harm to do that given that the panels won't
be doing anything useful electricity generation wise
when the heavy rain storm shows up.

> In this case if it had been predicted then would have all those people
> have deliberately left their motor vehicles in the open to get damaged?

Plenty don't have any choice and plenty won't
have been warned about the possibility of hail
and plenty will just let the insurance cover it
with such a rare event.

On 28/03/2024 12:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> The great thing about 'free' solar and wind energy is how much it costs
> and how much more it costs to make it reliable.
>
> I've never heard of nuclear power plants needing batteries, massive grid
> interconnectors, mechanisms to protect against hail, backup power
> stations for when the sun don't shine, or, indeed, replacing every 15
> years...with the waste disposal at the public's expense...
>
> You cant make a silk purse out of a sow's ear...

+1 :-)

On 29/03/2024 08:02, Handsome Jack wrote:
> The predictability probably depends on the local climate. I remember
> decades ago in Brittany we were having a beautiful August day on the
> beach, clear blue sky, hot sun, calm sea. Then all of sudden all the
> little boats out on the bay started coming in, some of them really
> motoring. What the hell? we thought. Then the sky went black and
> everybody started racing to the car park. We just got into the car when
> the hail started. Literally the size of golf balls. Our camper van with
> its near-vertical windscreen was OK, but at least a dozen of the more
> sporty cars with the sloped-back style of windscreens had them smashed.

Back in the day the joke was to never buy a car with a vinyl roof in
Jo'burg, because that was how you 'fixed' one that had its paint
stripped off by hail.

--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.