Forum: Author Hangout

We looked at them back when we first put the system in. Our area and environment is not copacetic for that design.

Winds are unpredictable in these parts. Not to mention rain and debris. The Savonius style is subject to problems with fouling, icing, and high winds. It's an excellent design for some areas, not so much for others.

If you have enough land with a creek or stream cutting across it, you could try small scale hydro.

We have a creek with an 1800's era mill house on it already. The permits and environmental study required to get that into service were over the top imo. I'd rather the damn thing burn down than play the dog in the dog and pony show the government wanted me to play in to get it operational.

We have a creek with an 1800's era mill house on it already.

I was thinking something smaller just hooked up to an electric generator.

small scale hydro.

Here's the website of a Chilean guy who built his own micro-hypro system for his self-built off-grid home, including making the transformers for his own HV transmission system

ETA: I found that site a few years ago searching for 'control loop stability', looking for if there was an accessible copy of artie's story of that name still around; this is ironic, since I found artie's stories and SOL when searching for 'control loop stability' looking for hints on removing oscillations from a PSU feedback loop over a decade ago.

They are not bullet proof. The test model we had failed. Specifically after a storm. The bladed model did not as it automatically feathered when the wind topped 60mph. When we took it apart, it was iced up as well as full of debris. The shaft was also slightly bent which was what killed it.

ETA: had to dig out my notes from our trial run. Between balance issues and the magnus effect, the high winds turned out to be the primary cause of failure.

And at the local level in the USA the aims of those policies is to stop people from being able to operate off the grid as a lot of the power delivery at the local level is from the same policy making organisations.

Which again is the point of this thread. We go out of our way to be self sustainable, but the asshats apparently don't want green if they can't control it. Which puts to lie their bullshit arguments.

Try upgrading to 100%. You'll find out just what a pain in the ass it is.

It will only rise in cost with time. I would encourage anyone considering it, to pull the trigger on it sooner than later. Between equipment cost and regulations, it's unlikely to ever be any cheaper than it is now.

It's not that whoever you are fighting in your state is trying to stop you being green, it's that they are trying to take a cut?

What do you think? Of course it's about taking a cut. Here the government is desperately trying to come up with schemes to tax electric cars since the tax received from gasoline will drop to zero eventually. Wait for it and they manage to tax the sun light you receive because that generates 'free' power. Next will be taxing the air you breath because you produce CO2. You think that's a joke? Just wait and see.

Next will be taxing the air you breath because you produce CO2. You think that's a joke? Just wait and see.

No reason to wait. Carbon taxes have long since been a thing in some places. It's called something else to keep the bitching to a dull roar.

No reason to wait. Carbon taxes have long since been a thing in some places. It's called something else to keep the bitching to a dull roar.

Yep, that's already a thing with sales of CO2 certificates for businesses. What I was pointing at was personal taxes specifically on air you breath. The crooks will find a way to tax it.

The crooks will find a way to tax it.

They can't be crooks, they make and enforce the laws. The ones if you violate you become a crook.

"crook
/kro͝ok/

noun
1.
the hooked staff of a shepherd.
"seizing his crook from behind the door, he set off to call his dogs"
2.
INFORMAL
a person who is dishonest or a criminal.
"the man's a crook, he's not to be trusted"
Similar:
criminal
lawbreaker
offender
villain
black hat
delinquent
malefactor
culprit
wrongdoer
transgressor
sinner
young offender
juvenile delinquent
felon
thief
robber
armed robber
burglar
housebreaker
shoplifter
mugger
fraudster
confidence trickster
swindler
racketeer
gunman
gangster
outlaw
bandit
terrorist
rapist
yakuza
holdupper
con
jailbird
(old) lag
lifer
baddie
shark
con man
con artist
hustler
crim
yardbird
yegg
lighty
thief
tea leaf
cracksman
malfeasant
misfeasor
infractor
miscreant
trespasser
trusty
transport
peculator
defalcator
Opposite:
law-abiding citizen
verb
bend (something, especially a finger as a signal).
"he crooked a finger for the waitress"
Similar:
cock
flex
bend
curve
curl
angle
hook
bow
adjectiveINFORMAL•AUSTRALIAN
(especially of a situation) bad, unpleasant, or unsatisfactory.
"it was pretty crook on the land in the early 1970s"
Definitions from Oxford Languages"

Wait for it and they manage to tax the sun light

Window area of city housing was taxed in medieval times in several European cities. I don't know how widespread it was or how long it persisted but there's architecture monuments attesting the fact.

Window area of city housing was taxed in medieval times in several European cities. I don't know how widespread it was or how long it persisted but there's architecture monuments attesting the fact.

That has been yes. I was more leaning towards taxing the amount of solar power you produce for yourself with your own solar panels. Never gonna happen in my home. I now live in an apartment building without the possibility for solar panels but when I move I will have them and buy them without subsidies and without a connection to the grid. Tough one who's gonna tax me on that besides the VAT on the panels themselves.

You need to be connected to the grid. You need a fall-back when you don't generate enough kilowatts because of the weather or other reasons.

This is not true. We haven't needed a grid connection here since 2008. What could be said as needed is storage. Our home is highly efficient and can run off of storage for two plus days if needed.

Anyone who needs a grid connection is in someone else's property or has an abode with poor efficiency, and no storage.

You need to be connected to the grid. You need a fall-back when you don't generate enough kilowatts because of the weather or other reasons.

Nope, not true. My idea is to start with solar separated from the grid, mainly to power air conditioning in the summer and a few other appliances when excess power is available. Then build from there until I don't need the grid at all. Solar connected to the grid is partially useless because it fails when the grid fails. Basically it's very simple, the biggest problem is the current cost of storage, i.e. batteries.

Solar connected to the grid is partially useless because it fails when the grid fails.

That depends on the system. With a decent charge controller, ATS switch, and battery set, it does not fail.

That depends on the system. With a decent charge controller, ATS switch, and battery set, it does not fail.

What Remus said, if the system is configured with an automatic grid disconnect, then it won't die when the grid dies. Just most solar installers won't bother with that because it increases cost, many people don't know to ask, and the typical use case for that is people who use battery back up options as well. (grid going dark when the sun isn't shining = no juice for the solar install, so the use case for "dark grid, but solar available" is somewhat limited in many markets.

I'd likely consider a mix of solar and battery install options myself going forward, and the main use of the battery would be to "time-shift" my load demand without actually changing my behaviors.. And move to the local power companies time of day rate cycle.

IE bulk charge the battery at night when rates are low; then use the cheap "night power" + solar over the course of the day. Not a viable plan where I'm at presently as I wouldn't be around long enough to see the payout after initial costs were recovered.

Amorphous cells can trickle charge even at night. Standard cells go dead when the light fails. We had a small stand alone generac system installed. Their system beat the powerwall hands down when we used the Panasonic batteries.

There is nothing that prevents the use of storage with a grid connection. In fact, that configuration has some benifits if you can't install all in one go. Build up the battery reserve first. If the grid power drops on you, you still have power. Later, solar and wind can be back fitted until it's strong enough to take the full service load. The batteries don't know and don't care where the charge comes from.

Something many people don't consider when contracting a solar installer. The racks used to mount the panels are usually aluminum extrusions. The specifications for them are often overlooked. Especially the heat treatment. Specifically any that involves solution treatment. If they are not properly cleaned after the fact, the residue can interact with atmospheric contaminates. That in turn can cause failure of those racks.

If you're in or near a big city or saltwater environment, this is especially concerning. Lacking certified mill test reports (CMTR), there is no convenient way to assure your racks are clean except for one. If your racks are anodized, the anodization process will assure they are clean. Anodized aluminum that has not been properly cleaned is usually obvious even to a layman. Therefore I suggest insisting on anodized rack extrusions instead of just taking whatever they give you.

Mills have a nasty habit of fosting off their crap on companies that only want the cheapest products. This is another case of getting what you pay for. You can of course go with a CMTR product, but in my mind, there is no need to pay the extra squeeze when anodization removes the primary concern as a happy medium in cost.

http://defects.qualanod.net/9.html

That btw applies to things like window frames etc as well.

That depends on the system. With a decent charge controller, ATS switch, and battery set, it does not fail.

I didn't know that, I will have to do some research.

Does anyone use a reservoir as off grid storage?

Taking it further, El Hierro in the Canary Islands uses surplus wind power to pump water to storage tanks up hill. When, on calm days, it lets the water flow down to storage tanks at the bottom, turning turbines and generating power. The reservoir is a closed system.

Does anyone use a reservoir as off grid storage?

There are limited scenarios where that makes sense. A reasonably steady source of wind being on of them. I've been to the Canary Islands and one thing they don't lack is wind. So it makes sense there. Especially to carry the load in the evening when the wind dies down.

It still gets back to government approval. Don't be surprised if your local government doesn't come up with some bullshit reason to shut such a system down.

It's called "Pumped Storage Hydro". but you can not make a closed system of it.

I don't think that's what samsonjas meant by closed system.

I'm pretty sure the he just meant that the water loop was closed.

Use surplus wind power to pump water from the low tank to the high tank.

When wind is not producing power, release water from the high tank to flow through turbines to the low tank.

The system operates with a fixed amount of water in a closed loop. Under normal operations, no new water is added and no water is discharged from the system.

The system operates with a fixed amount of water in a closed loop. Under normal operations, no new water is added and no water is discharged from the system.

The only way that would work is with storage tanks at both ends. There would be some inevitable water loss from a storage system exposed to the atmosphere.
The storage tank construction for a true closed system would definitely blow the budget nine ways to hell and back.

The only way that would work is with storage tanks at both ends.

That was exactly what samsonjas was describing. Note: he wasn't suggesting it for a family trying to get off grid.

El Hierro in the Canary Islands uses surplus wind power to pump water to storage tanks up hill. When, on calm days, it lets the water flow down to storage tanks at the bottom, turning turbines and generating power. The reservoir is a closed system.

https://youtu.be/eG4Q4kXal_U

It's not tanks that are used, but ponds. It will lose water if for no other reason than evaporation.

ETA: That project is heavily subsidized by the E.U. The average person or even community could not build it and run it on their own. The original question for context.

Does anyone use a reservoir as off grid storage?

It's not tanks that are used, but ponds.

Fine, but tanks is the way samsonjas described it.

Fine, but tanks is the way samsonjas described it.

Agreed, it was described that way. Incorrectly though. There are pumped storage systems built around the world, not just El Hierro. They are more typically used for peak storage of energy.

Here is a link for one TVA developed (read US government).
https://www.tva.com/Energy/Our-Power-System/Hydroelectric/Raccoon-Mountain

There's one in Wales Dinorwig Power Station.
More info on Wiki.
Time from zero to 1800MW is impressive at around 16 seconds.

It takes more power to pump water up than you get from releasing it down.

Irrelevant as he wasn't suggesting it was closed on an energy basis.

It helps, but is not "closed", as that simply would not work.

If you are referring to a system with a closed water loop, it might be prohibitively expensive(as suggested by Remus2) but you've done nothing but hand wave it away as physically impossible.

You haven't even come close to a valid reason why a pumped hydro storage system with a fully enclosed water loop would be physically impossible.

Although the radiators allegedly need bleeding once a year or so.

That's because of the temperature differences. If the temperature was consistently the same there would be much less of that problem.

In theory, a closed system is possible. As defined by sealed pipe and storage tanks. A PWR (pressure water reactor) uses a sealed system for the primary water. A PWR heats highly pressurized water (pressure forces it to remain a liquid) in the primary loop. That water passes through a steam generator. The secondary water floods around the primary tubes. The secondary water flash boils as it's not under pressure. That in turn is sent to the turbine to produce power. If a closed system were impossible, such a design would also be impossible. What you see coming out of a cooling tower is secondary clean water (read non-radioactive).

It's not physically impossible to have a completely sealed hydro power system. It is however, prohibitively expensive.

I think you're conflating the first and third laws of thermodynamics. It may be a good idea to review them.

"... who's gonna tax me on that besides the VAT on the panels themselves."

Same folks who tax your property now. They look at a satellite photo and see the solar cells, add 'em to your tax bill.

They look at a satellite photo and see the solar cells

That's how they determine how much to bill me for the rainwater that gets from the roofs and other sealed areas (e.g. paved driveways) into the sewer.

HM.

Same folks who tax your property now. They look at a satellite photo and see the solar cells, add 'em to your tax bill.

Nope, not gonna happen. They might have something to say if I used the subsidies to buy them but if I don't it's just a thing I bought. If they try to tax that it will turn into a revolution.

Window area of city housing was taxed in medieval times in several European cities. I don't know how widespread it was or how long it persisted but there's architecture monuments attesting the fact.

It was done in England in 1696.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/towncountry/towns/tyne-and-wear-case-study/about-the-group/housing/window-tax/

For a more humorous take:
https://reason.com/video/2021/05/07/great-moments-in-unintended-consequences-vol-3/

By the way, 1696 is at least 200 years too recent to be considered medieval.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Middle-Ages

By the way, 1696 is at least 200 years too recent to be considered medieval.

Was just too lazy to do research, and the exact building in Riga old town I had in mind looked medieval enough in my visual memory. It dates to 15th century so might be said to be a little too young too, despite being the oldest residential building still standing in the city (founded in 1201).

Ah, and they obviously taxed window area, not numbers here. Thus a row of tiny windows where a larger one probably would made sense. Then, glass was available only in small tiles back then anyway, so there's synergy.

Was just too lazy to do research, and the exact building in Riga old town I had in mind looked medieval enough in my visual memory.

That the building was medieval doesn't mean the window tax was.

When it was done in England, to reduce their taxes, building owners bricked up windows on older buildings.

It's not that whoever you are fighting in your state is trying to stop you being green, it's that they are trying to take a cut?

That about sums it up. The idiots are figuring out green will cut into their tax base.

Somewhere their's an idiot with the idea to damn up a creek that would lead to environmental damage.

There are ways to set up small scale hyrdo power without a dam. I've seen setups with a small 6 foot water wheel set up over a creek so the water flowing through the creek turns the wheel from the bottom.

This shows building a floating water wheel to put in a larger river.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMaSEyfd19Y

Then there's this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ieFZI4-6K8

There are ways to set up small scale hydro power without a dam. I've seen setups with a small 6 foot water wheel set up over a creek so the water flowing through the creek turns the wheel from the bottom.

Agreed. But you still have to account for the lower side of the IQ scale.

Charlotte NC is only 2nd to Atlanta in the SE for the liberal population. I'm surprised they let such regulations come to pass there.

Charlotte NC is only 2nd to Atlanta in the SE for the liberal population. I'm surprised they let such regulations come to pass there.

Votes determine who wins the election. Campaign contributions determine who can afford to run and the winners loyalties.

It's not just about being taxed, it's the hypocrisy of it, and circus show of permits expected.

They can KMA is my final determination. I'll be installing the extra capacity today with or without their blessing. I have the panels for 9kw (including spares for repairs) so it all goes in today.
What bothers me the most is, how a simple inquiry trying to do the right thing turned into a pissing match. The petty bureaucrat that stirred up all this shit has no idea what capacity we had to start with.

Mine are all pole mounted racks. Nothing on my shop or home.

As for nuclear power, I'm OK with it, it's less about money or being green as it is about independence for me.

Spend tens of thousands to put them in and tens of thousands to get rid of them if you decide to move.

Why not let them there?

HM.

The buyers won't buy the house with them installed. A short life span for the product and they will have to be removed when the roof is replaced.

At least here, they have to put that into the contract when purchasing the house, otherwise they're considered a fixture and an actual part of the structure.

He may not have even gotten that far.

He may have had potential buyers saying "we won't even make an offer unless you agree to have the solar panels removed."

The UK government is surreptitiously moving towards making it impossible to sell your house unless you have all sorts of 'green' crap installed. Even though some of the crap may have a payback time of over a century.

I'd be curious what some of those things are as there is a distinct probability they will migrate to this side of the pond.
I've no intention of ever selling this place. If anything, I'll be buying adjacent properties if they become available.

This appears to be the policy document they are working off.
It calls for destruction of heavy industry, end of the internal combustion engine,restrictions on travel, end of mains based heating, etc. all of which are ongoing.
https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/299414/REP_Absolute_Zero_V3_20200505.pdf

Most of that document is tantamount to wishful thinking with no consideration to accepted physics. They can mandate everyone to ride unicorns and fart only in rainbow colors, but it doesn't mean it can actually happen.

but they've admitted the targets they've legally committed to need several major scientific and technological breakthroughs.

In the executive summary of that document:

We can't wait for breakthrough technologies to deliver net-zero emissions by 2050. Instead, we can plan to respond to climate change using today's technologies with incremental change. This will reveal many opportunities for growth but requires a public discussion about future lifestyles.

That doesn't read like they have any interest in waiting for those scientific or technological breakthroughs. I predict that the following winter after they cut off the gas, a lot of people are going to die via hypothermia. The electrical infrastructure is not going to be ready to take up the load in their time frame, much less the people being ready.
We are back to unicorns and rainbow farts after that.

rainbow farts

"What is a rainbow fart?
🌈 RAINBOW FART

Rainbow Fart is a literal translation word from Chinese, which means giving somebody exaggerated compliment that even seems a little fake. It is not connected to any specific group or individuals.May 20, 2021"

all the possible economic self-castration measures in the world will make only small differences to carbon emissions

Probably fighting and extinguishing the thousands of existing coal-seam fires, peat fires and natural gas fires would be better. Increasing the sentences for arson would perhaps reduce human induced wildfires.
Those actions wont damage the economy.

HM.

our woke agitators insist we must be seen to be doing something

How about helping Australia, Canada, India and South Africa to extinguish their coal-seam fires?

HM.

Being effective is never as satisfying as telling the peasants to eat cake.

drastic population control measures.

Look into the miscarriage rate amongst pregant women taking the experimental gene therapy for SARS Cov2. Proteins involved effect the formation of the placenta, per a former pfizer research boss.

RAF is looking for electric aircraft as part of their zero emissions compliance.
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/light-attack-advanced-training/uk-defense-ministry-issues-rfi-electric-trainers

Apparently war fighting is going to become civilized jousting. I expect explosives and thermobarics will have to be banned world wide as they start fires.

Roll Royce has a proposal for Small Modular Reactors which might provide the needed electricity.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54703204
Of course it isn't funded and the Greens are already opposed. I've no clue if there is enough mineable lithium to provide the needed batteries for electric vehicles.

The design from the 50's was a poorly developed and implemented one. There has been a lot of advancements since then.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-small-modular-reactors-smrs

I am pro nuclear but not pro monolithic nuclear. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) is definitely the way to go imo. The older massive systems are too problematic. Then again, any power plant is only needed for support of cities.

There are sizeable deposits in Afghanistan

https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2021/mcs2021-lithium.pdf

The US has significant reserves of lithium, but with environmental regulations, mining it in the US is not cost competitive against foreign sources.

There are sizable deposits in many countries of the world, including the US. Not all of them are economically or environmentally viable to mine.
Lithium and rare earth deposits in the Kashmir region. India, China, and Pakistan claim them. I suspect life will get 'energetic' in the region in the near future as a result.

That's actually irrelevant.

It's not at all irrelevant if your house has a feature that buyers don't want.

An in ground pool is another "feature" that can make a house harder to sell. A lot of buyers don't want them because they are huge liability issues and make a house much more expensive to insure.

That sounds like an issue between buyer and buyers agent - why is he/she showing you a house with unwanted features?

Carl has the right of it here. Bottom line is the contract. As a seller, they are within their rights to specify "As Is" which is usually the case.
The only influence your argument has is in negotiations for the price of said properties.
As for people not wanting an in ground pool, dirt and a backhoe solves that problem.

I'm not saying you are wrong on the legalities once there is an actual offer.

You are missing my point.

If a seller gets no offers and can't sell his house because his house has a "feature" the available pool of buyers doesn't want, I fail to see how that's irrelevant.

If a seller gets no offers

Pretty much impossible in the current market. Here it's so bad that you can have a pink house with purple skulls painted on them that's valued at 280.000, you put it up for sale for 300.000 and still get bids over that, probably up to 320.000. No-one is gonna argue about solar panels, if you do there's 50 others that don't.

Pretty much impossible in the current market.

It's not the same everywhere.

It's not the same everywhere.

Is that so? Why don't you tell us specifically where it is different?

Is that so? Why don't you tell us specifically where it is different?

Real estate laws and market conditions in the US vary from state to state.

Just looking at median home prices will tell you that market conditions are different.

https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/research/average-house-price-state/

The state with the highest median price has a median price 6 times higher than the state with the lowest median price.

You really want a good look a the difference in real estate market conditions, look at home prices by square foot. That gets you away from differences in average home sizes.

https://www.discover.com/home-loans/articles/how-expensive-is-your-state/

Home prices per square foot in California are more than double what they are where I live (Wisconsin).

Hawaii is 4 times as expensive as where I live per square foot.

So are you saying Hawaii, and Wisconsin are two specific areas that are different or are you throwing out guesses? Are no homes getting offers in those places?

So are you saying Hawaii, and Wisconsin are two specific areas that are different or are you throwing out guesses?

I'm saying every state is is different from every other state. And I provided data to back that up.

Are no homes getting offers in those places?

That's beside the point to what I said above. Nowhere did I say anything about no homes getting offers.

I talked about the possibility that a particular home that had a particular* "feature" that is unpopular in the local market might not get any offers because of it.

*It doesn't matter what the feature is, just that it is unpopular in the local market. In my state solar panels are unpopular and rare. So are swimming pools.

I've heard local real estate agents say that an swimming pool can cut the resale value of a home by as much as half and above ground pools aren't much better than in ground.

Here you can only use a pool a few months a year, and it's a major maintenance expense and a huge liability risk.

Nowhere did I say anything about no homes getting offers.

No, but you did say this?

It's not the same everywhere.

Taking statements out of context doesn't make your point (if any).
Homes are selling everywhere. The contracts for them are part of that context. That is the same everywhere.

Homes are selling everywhere. The contracts for them are part of that context. That is the same everywhere.

You are the one taking things out of context.

Again, I was talking about a particular home possibly not selling in a particular area due to a particular feature that buyers in that area might not like.

To say that homes generally are selling everywhere is no response at all to my point about a particular home not selling due to a particular unwanted feature.

And what I was responding to with the comment that market isn't the same everywhere was a comment that no one anywhere would refuse to buy a home due to solar.

Part of this is due to not enough new home construction during the last ten years. As a nation, we have a shortage of approximately five million homes. This has been exacerbated at this time with artificial constraints upon the market - eviction moratoriums and low interest rates, to name two factors.

And none of that renders it impossible for a particular home to become undesirable due to factors particular to that home and the particular local market.

And none of that renders it impossible for a particular home to become undesirable due to factors particular to that home and the particular local market.

Which is true "everywhere." There will always be undesirable homes in every market. With that truism, it makes your earlier statement bullshit.

There will always be undesirable homes in every market.

Perhaps, that doesn't mean the reasons why they are undesirable are the same in every market.

For shits and giggles, let's assume a pool makes the home undesirable to everyone looking at it. Then comes negotiations on price. Usually an undesirable feature is the basis to offer less, or stipulate the pool be filled in contractually.
A smart buyer would not fill it in as there is much that can be done with an in ground pool other that filling it in. Down the road, there may be someone that wants the pool. The same can be said for solar. Especially for solar given the high probability of green mandates in the future.

The same can be said for solar. Especially for solar given the high probability of green mandates in the future.

As a generality perhaps, but not all solar systems are created equal.

I have had more than 2 feet of snow on my roof some winters. I had close to 2 feet of snow on my roof last winter.

If I were in the market for a new house in my area, I would walk away from any home with rooftop solar panels.

If I were in the market for a new house in my area, I would walk away from any home with rooftop solar panels.

Which would be your choice. Rooftop panels can be cleared of snow fairly easily with proper engineering, or better yet, installed in a backyard. All of mine are in a field where I can get to them as we have regular snows at this elevation. I can swivel them vertical with a push of a button. They also have pull down covers in case of hail etc. All of which are my own design and install.

You may walk away, but that doesn't mean everyone would. I will not be the least bit surprised when federal mandates for them come to past.

Which would be your choice.

Solar, particularly roof top is very rare in my area, so I don't think I'd be alone in making that choice.

Maybe not, but don't you think it a bit presumptive to be speaking for everyone there?

Maybe not, but don't you think it a bit presumptive to be speaking for everyone there?

More presumptive than Keet speaking for everyone in the US saying no one would object to solar? No, I don't think so.

More presumptive than Keet speaking for everyone in the US saying no one would object to solar? No, I don't think so.

Exactly where did I state that no one in the US would object to solar? I never said anything about anyone anywhere possibly objecting to solar.
On the contrary, I KNOW there is a percentage of people against solar, just as there are people against, wind, nuclear, coal, or fossil fuels for different reasons.

Exactly where did I state that no one in the US would object to solar?

This thread at
8/10/2021, 4:48:24 PM

No-one is gonna argue about solar panels

Exactly where did I state that no one in the US would object to solar?

This thread at
8/10/2021, 4:48:24 PM

No-one is gonna argue about solar panels

I think my example made it clear that is the situation where I live, not the US. Besides that, 'arguing' is not the same as 'objecting to'.

Maybe not, but don't you think it a bit presumptive to be speaking for everyone there?

Oh, and I'm not speaking for everyone here. I'm not really speaking for anyone. I'm making an observation and drawing a logical conclusion.

Solar systems are available here.
Fewer than 1% of homes have solar. Even if you limit it to very expensive homes that still holds true.
Ergo The majority of people here don't want solar.

People up there many want solar, it's simply not cost effective on a residential scale because you're too damned far north, and your existing home construction can't handle it.

I disagree with this. Not wanting solar because it's not cost effective in your area is still not wanting solar.

You have to design roofs for heavy snow loads. Under your building codes, you may not be able to put that much extra weight onto your roofs.

I haven't investigated it, but I would imagine you just have to make sure the roof is engineered for the weight of the solar system plus expected snow load.

There are a few solar systems around, just not a lot. So I don't think it's against code.

The difference between solar and a pool is that rooftop solar panels will have to be removed to replace the roof when it needs to be reshingled. That will at least double to cost of the new roof, not counting probable damage to the solar panels during removal and reinstallation.

The difference between solar and a pool is that rooftop solar panels will have to be removed to replace the roof when it needs to be reshingled. That will at least double to cost of the new roof, not counting probable damage to the solar panels during removal and reinstallation.

If the initial install of the solar panels was done right it was combined with new shingles with a longer lifetime specifically to avoid that problem.

If the initial install of the solar panels was done right it was combined with new shingles with a longer lifetime specifically to avoid that problem.

That doesn't avoid the problem at all, it just kicks the problem further down the road. The roof will still have to be re-done eventually.

That doesn't avoid the problem at all, it just kicks the problem further down the road. The roof will still have to be re-done eventually.

Of course but by that time the solar panels are due to be replaced too. We're talking 25-35 years and by then solar has evolved so far you're better of putting up new ones.

New construction here is now putting incredible pitches and roof heights on single story homes, to avoid trapping heat in the attic, and to also reduce hail damage.

I can understand the heat trap angle, but the increased pitch for hail mitigation? Does your area have the ability to long range forecast the incident angle of the incoming hail?

hail

"Hail, Hail, the Gang's All Here
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other uses, see The Gang's All Here (disambiguation).
Hail, Hail, the Gang's All Here is an American popular song first published in 1917. The lyrics were written by D. A. Esrom (pseudonym of Theodora Morse) to a tune originally written by Arthur Sullivan[1] for the 1879 comic opera The Pirates of Penzance. The tune occurs in Act II as part of "With Cat-Like Tread" and echoes the Anvil Chorus from Giuseppe Verdi's opera Il Trovatore.[2][3]

Hail, hail, the gang's all here
What the heck do we care
What the heck do we care
Hail, hail, the gang's all here
What the heck do we care now
(Original lyrics by W. S. Gilbert)

Come, friends, who plough the sea
Truce to navigation
Take another station
Let's vary piracy
With a little burglary
It appears that the lyric "Hail, hail, the gang's all here" had unofficially been added to Sullivan's melody many years before 1917. It was referenced in American newspapers as a familiar song as early as 1898, sung at political and other gatherings.[4][5] A Philadelphia Inquirer news item from April 1, 1898, for example, stated that during a raucous meeting, members of the Philadelphia Common Council loudly sang, "Hail, hail, the gang's all here, what the h--- do we care! What the h--- do we care!"[6][7] Likewise, a Delaware state legislature session in March 1901 was disrupted when Democratic members loudly sang the song.[8][9] The title line of the song is also quoted in the closing measures of the 1915 song "Alabama Jubilee".[10] Also in 1915, the Ohio State University fight song Across the Field incorporated the title phrase as the penultimate lyric.[11]

The song is referred to in Kurt Vonnegut's book, Slaughterhouse-Five: "The door was flung open from inside. Light leaped out through the door, escaped from prison at 186,000 miles per second. Out marched fifty middle-aged Englishmen. They were singing "Hail, Hail, the Gang's All Here" from the Pirates of Penzance."[12]

By the 1950s, the chorus of the song (with revised lyrics) had become popular in Irish and Scottish communities as being part of "The Celtic Song", sung by the fans of Glasgow Celtic in Scotland and later other teams. Glen Daly recorded an "official version" of "The Celtic Song" that is commonly played at Celtic Park prior to matches.[13]

External resources
Sheet music with both verse and chorus
Lyrics with MIDI on nih.gov"

So Hail can be expected when the gang is all here.

Alright, who let the grinning dick have regular coffee?

Here's what happens when baseball sized hail hits. This was this past April.

Have you ever been in a car in the middle of a hail storm with baseball sized hail?

I have.

A rental Dodge Durango. The windshield started to crack. I panicked because I though the windshield was going to end up in my lap.

I sounds like the hail stones are exploding on impact.

Have you ever been in a car in the middle of a hail storm with baseball sized hail?

Yes, it totalled my Silverado.

Oklahoma

"Oklahoma
Rodgers and Hammerstein
Rogers And Hammerstein
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma, where the wind comes sweeping down the plain.
Where the waving wheat can sure smell sweet
When the wind comes right behind the rain.
Oklahoma, every night my honey-lamb and I
Sit alone and talk, and watch a hawk making lazy
Circles in the sky.
We know we belong to the land
And the land we belong to is grand
And when we say Ay yippy yi ki yea.
We're only saying You're doin' fine Oklahoma
Oklahoma your ok.
...l-a-h-o-m-a. Oklahoma.
Source: Musixmatch
Songwriters: Oscar Hammerstein Ii / R. Rodgers
Oklahoma lyrics © Williamson Music"

Somehow "the wind coming right behind the rain" doesn't mention the hail.

The Grinning Dick: TCO*

*Total Caffeine Overdose.

I'm surprised it wasn't totalled. My run in with it was up in Parsons Kansas. If it were baseball sized, you couldn't have been traveling with very much speed?

That makes more sense. I was traveling at 70mph when it hit without any warning.

Naw, don't need to see it. I've done enough work in the region to get the idea.

You ought to check out some of the cars owned by storm chasers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E54snBCmp2Q

0 (straight down) to about 15 degrees. Softball sized chunk of hail hitting a high pitch roof will be a glancing blow, and may still cause shingle damage. Same thing hitting a low pitch roof punches a hole right through roof.

Angle is wind dependent. Even a softball sized chunk can be deflected by 60mph or better winds. Regardless of angle, it doesn't remove the energy in the object. Angle of impingement only determines the angle of deflection which is typically equal to and opposite the angle of impingement. In order to deflect, said roof is still going to take a hit in energy transfer, so is there something else different about these roofs?

https://yourneighborhoodadjuster.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/hail-damage-roof-slope-examples.jpg
I did find that image on an insurance adjuster website. It makes more sense to me.

The difference between solar and a pool is that rooftop solar panels will have to be removed to replace the roof when it needs to be reshingled. That will at least double to cost of the new roof, not counting probable damage to the solar panels during removal and reinstallation.

That assumes asphalt shingles for roofing materials. It also assumes poor planning. The amorphous panels I own are stronger than shingles (most brands are), in theory, they could be used in lieu of shingles with proper planning and engineering. Of course, that idea got sidelined with the advent of solar shingles. The roofing shingles themselves are photovoltaic cells. No need for panels at all.

Then there are tin/aluminum roofing materials.

Pretty much impossible in the current market.

Very punny.

:)

No. You can specify anything you want in the contract. You can require a fixture to be removed, a wall be removed, an addition built. Just have to come to that agreement with the other party.
That's what contracts are for.

In the NYC area prices have stabilized and everything indicates they're going to start going down.

From what I can find, prices in that area have been long overdue for a correction.

Is this a problem nationwide, or just where you live?

That's what I'm trying to find out. Early results say yes. I've been going state to state checking regulations online as well as federal. Some of the comments here pointed me in the right direction to look.

My interpretation of the results are it's more about establishing control on the part of the bureaucrats than it is about safety or the environment, with a side of taxation frenzy.. " oh oh... something new to tax!!"

Worse, many solar panels come with a lease, which the new buyer has to take over. Probably at a high price.

Then there's the maintenance, which in many places can only be done by licen$ed companie$, and the warranty is probably worthless, since solar companies tend to disappear before things start to break.

I own my panels, there is no lease.
As for maintenance, specifically electrical, my wife is licensed and an electrical engineer. Speaking to mechanical maintenance, I am a mechanical engineer, with a P.E. I've designed and built the entire mechanical side. To include the wind towers etc.

For us, it makes sense. It may not for others. As for snow, my racks have linear actuators and pivot points that allow me to dump the snow with a push of a button. Every concern you listed can be addressed except for the manufacturer warranty of the panels. If it got down to brass tacks, we could run on wind alone.

If a person can't do it on their own, then finding a competent company becomes critical. A bunch of freshly minted engineers with slick software does not equal competent. If they come in with a bunch of flashy presentations and graphs, walk away fast.

As for snow, my racks have linear actuators and pivot points that allow me to dump the snow with a push of a button

That works for snow, how about ice? Freezing rain or worse freezing fog.

It isn't fun when you get up to go to work and discover a quarter inch thick coating of glass smooth ice over your entire car. The windshield is a solid sheet of ice, the doors all frozen shut.

That works for snow, how about ice? Freezing rain or worse freezing fog.

The panels are amorphous and will still charge as long as the ice is not opaque. If any serious weather as you described was happening or predicted, they can be covered until it passes. Tilt them vertical on one acuator and drop them into cover with the other. If all else fails, they are mounted in a field I can access. If it gets to much for the auto parts of the design, we can cover them manually. We don't really need the automation, but it's a good testbed for a design we may later sale for profit.

Tilt them vertical on one acuator and drop them into cover with the other. If all else fails, they are mounted in a field I can access.

With the freezing fog, the actuators will themselves be covered in ice.

And a cover won't do it unless the cover is close to air tight all the way around.

The fog will get into any little gap and freeze up on any surface. With my car that one time, not only was there ice over the surface of the doors and in the locks, there was ice in the door jambs.

I was in my mid twenties at the time, and before that incident, I had no idea that freezing fog was a thing.

Fortunately that was the only time I every had to deal with it.

Nope, they won't get frozen up here. We had a freezing fog here last winter, no problems at all. Can't never did anything worthwhile. You'll be hard put to find an argument I can't find a solution for. Heat trace lines would cure any freezing problem you can think of.

I own my panels, there is no lease.

As for maintenance, specifically electrical, my wife is licensed and an electrical engineer. Speaking to mechanical maintenance, I am a mechanical engineer, with a P.E. I've designed and built the entire mechanical side. To include the wind towers etc.

For us, it makes sense. It may not for others. As for snow, my racks have linear actuators and pivot points that allow me to dump the snow with a push of a button. Every concern you listed can be addressed except for the manufacturer warranty of the panels. If it got down to brass tacks, we could run on wind alone.

If a person can't do it on their own, then finding a competent company becomes critical. ...

Well put, and that's exactly why, as I stated, that many people are reluctant to buy a home with a solar installation.

They aren't all licensed electricians or mechanical engineers and they don't know how to find a competent company or want to pay for that service.

Those are the valid concerns which aren't addressed.

they don't know how to find a competent company or want to pay for that service.

They can start by relying on central certification programs. Licensed personnel in other words. It's not a pancea for competence, but it's a starting point. Second, with the internet, education of oneself on the subject is important. Whatever that person tells them, go look it up after the fact. Any pressure for an immediate decision should be grounds for suspicion and moving on from that person or company. Multiple bids should be part of the process regardless of recommendations from friends and family. People might find themselves surprised at the information that is forthcoming if they simply balance what one tells them against the other.

Special attention should be given to the professionalism of each group. If they lack professionalism upfront, don't expect them to develop it while they install your equipment.

As for not wanting to pay for it, going cheap is asking for trouble. Cheap mechanic, plumber, electrician, etc, you usually get what you pay for.

It sounds like you are conflating two different groups of people. Actually, three. The mystical "far left", the "greens", and the entrenched bureaucracy.

Yep, I'm definitely conflating them, and deliberately so. At this point in time, it's the same gene pool for most of them.

The "far left" wants you to do really radical shit, like get the COVID vaccine so you don't kill your friends and family.

1st, my family got that when it first became available.
2nd, you're really stretching to fit the vaccine topic in with solar power.
3rd, the want statement is bullshit. They are more demanding than wanting. Especially when they use rhetorical statements like you just used. If you have to use guilt trips to emphasize your point, you have no point to begin with. As for the ongoing debates regarding the vaccine, you must think me foolish enough to jump in the middle of that shitshow.

If you have something to add to the topic, then please do. If you wish to debate the vaccine, then start a thread for it.

Seriously, though, doing it wrong can burn your house down, which would be a minor irritant to them. But it can also put power onto lines that are not supposed to have power on them, which represents a danger to their workers. (Just like using copper water pipes for "grounding" household circuits sounds great to the electrician, but sounds deadly to the water company.)

That's one of the primary purposes for the ATS switches (to prevent that).
One of the inquiries I made was how to discontinue any grid services. They were not at all happy about that. I've broken down and hired a lawyer to chase down why that is. I doubt many people realize the various government entities track power usage. There has been cases where an abrupt increase in usage was used to support a search warrant. The theory behind that being the change could be due to grow lights for marijuana. So what happens when super-fed shows up on your property determined to find said plants? Historically that usually goes bad for the property owner. The power usage fluctuations are a real concern for us. I do a lot of welding in my shop, but typically only in cycles. The last thing we need is for that to randomly match up to one of their flagged profiles.

Are there any old homesteads in your area that have never been put on the grid and are available for sale?

Buying one might be the simplest way to escape the grid.

There are, but it's not an option. The infrastructure cost for this location was high. We could not afford to do that again.

One thing that interests me is the possibility of rural houses capturing and storing energy to cope with differences in energy needs and production across the seasons. So solar produces lots of energy in summer, wind power can be plentiful but unpredictable in winter, but hydrogen, say, can smooth things out. I saw an article about this in an English paper, but I can't lay my hands on it now!

Sounds like an option that could go explosively wrong at a consumer level, and would require a little more work.

Basically wind and solar power generation, probably a "normal" battery system in the mix as well. And then an "overflow" which runs an Electrolysis process to make hydrogen from water, at which point you need to do hydrogen capture, and store it until needed, at which time it is run through a fuel cell.

The electrolysis process becomes the first problem as you're (kind of) boiling water, which means if they're not using ultra-pure water, there will be deposits which would need regular cleaning. The handling of the hydrogen itself also becomes problematic as the quantity involved increases. Also in many parts of the world/country water scarcity can become a concern.

Although I guess there is some potential to operate a mostly-closed loop after initial setup--since hydrogen fuel cells "emit" water as a waste by-product; which should be pure enough to be fed back into the Electrolysis process, after you get it to phase change back to being liquid.

I'd go for synthesising hydrocarbon fuel from CO2 and Hydrogen (from electrolysing water); optimising the catalysts is a hot research topic at present. The research seems to aim at commercial scale production, hopefully it will swing into production before all the ready-made distribution infrastructure has been dismantled, giving a reprieve to our cars and giving a viable option for ships, trains and aircraft. If Remus2 can get/make a small-scale plant, I'm sure he has a generator which could be used to fill in his peak needs without adding any more solar/wind capacity. It's a lot easier and safer to store and transport petrol than hydrogen.

hydrogen, say, can smooth things out.

Hydrogen is not economically viable, nor is it safe. The production of it is by chemical or electrolysis means. The former can't produce the volume necessary, the latter requires electricity and expensive metals to produce in volume. Then there is storing it. Liquid hydrogen is the only way to store in volume. The cryogenic temperatures for the liquid presents it's own issues for the tank materials and construction.
Hydrogen gas pipelines are not going to happen due to explosion risk.

Hydrogen looks good on first glance, but the details have serious drawbacks.

Then there is storing it.

How about converting it to methane? (microbiological methanation or Sabatier reaction)
Would reduce carbon dioxide too.
Storage and transportation of SNG is no problem, because existing facilities can be used.
Methane can then be used in fuel cells to directly produce electricity or in gas turbines to drive generators or in car motors or for heating and cooking.

I didn't find any information about energy conversion efficiency and financial costs of these systems.

HM.

Storage and transportation of SNG is no problem, because existing facilities can be used.

SNG - synthesized natural gas
CNG - compressed natural gas
LNG - liquefied natural gas
You're assuming LNG facilities and equipment would be used. That would be an incorrect assumption. CNG doesn't work either.
The whole point of the liquefied gases is storage efficiency. Reducing the volume of a gas by liquefaction is an economic and logistical requirement.
In real terms, LNG is a 600x reduction in volume as compared to natural gas in its gaseous form. SNG has to be comparative to that for any real benifits. It is comparative. The problems arrive when they are mixed. To utilize existing LNG tanks, they would have to be emptied. That's a huge no no when it comes to LNG storage tanks. Once they are chilled they cannot be allowed to warm up without risking their integrity. Cryogenic temperatures do odd things to the grain structure of the tanks metal, which is typically 9% nickel plates with high nickel weld fillers. China has started a program to purpose build LSNG tanks which removes those concerns. Only China is doing that. Their SNG is produced with coal. Coal is a four letter dirty word to the rest of the world.

Last I heard, the production capacity for 9% nickel plate is sold out for the next ten years. The same applies for other cryogenic service related materials and equipment. The capacity for LNG storage is likewise sold out for at least a decade. That's before we get to the bottleneck of LNG shipping. Those ships cannot be produced fast enough to catch up with existing onshore storage facilities, much less future growth.

Then there is the supply of nickel. Commodity markets can toy with the price all they want, but it won't make the nickel come out of the ground any faster.

You're assuming LNG facilities and equipment would be used.

No. I just didn't know how different the situation is around the world. In Europe it's a pipeline network with access to nearly every dwelling even in smaller towns. The English Wikipedia has a description of how it's in Australia, here in Germany its similar:

In Australia, natural gas is transported from gas processing facilities to regulator stations via Transmission pipelines. Gas is then regulated down to distributed pressures and the gas is distributed around a gas network via gas mains. Small branches from the network, called services, connect individual domestic dwellings, or multi-dwelling buildings to the network. The networks typically range in pressures from 7kPa (low pressure) to 515kPa (high pressure). Gas is then regulated down to 1.1kPa or 2.75kPa, before being metered and passed to the consumer for domestic use. Natural gas mains are made from a variety of materials: historically cast iron, though more modern mains are made from steel or polyethylene.

In Western Europe, the gas pipeline network is already dense.

If you are interested, here is a link to the German Wikipedia with info about the German natural gas pipeline nets.
So for Australia and most parts of western Europe you really can use the existing infrastructure for natural gas.
BTW, this is already done for upgraded biogas.

HM.

At some point in the supply chain, the natural gas used anywhere in the world will have been in a liquefied state. It is that end of it where the problem arises. In gaseous form, the pipeline doesn't care if it's SNG or CNG.

ETA: Bulk storage of gases has been the realm of liquefaction for decades now. That cannot be gotten around. It's a simple matter of volume. One square meter of LNG equals ~600 square meters of storage at room temperature. That's an extreme difference in space required. There is no feasible means of shipping overseas otherwise.
Even

It's a simple matter of volume. One square meter of LNG equals ~600 square meters of storage at room temperature.

Square meters is area not volume. I think you meant to say cubic meters.

At some point in the supply chain, the natural gas used anywhere in the world will have been in a liquefied state.

Not true.
The Russian natural gas transported to western Europe via pipelines was never liquefied. The northern pipeline (Nord Stream) alone has a total annual capacity of 55 billion m3 (1.9 trillion cu ft) of gas, and the addition of Nord Stream 2 is expected to double this capacity to a total of 110 billion m3 (3.9 trillion cu ft). Nord Stream 1 and 2 each have two parallel lines and a working pressure of 220 bar (22 MPa; 3,200 psi).

Gazprom has also bought an abandoned mine (Hinrichshagen Structure) in Waren, which it plans to convert into the largest underground gas storage in Europe with capacity of 5 billion m3 (180 billion cu ft).

BTW, Germany doesn't even have a LNG terminal, but some LNG terminal projects are currently discussed.
If we actually would need LNG it would have to be shipped to Rotterdam, NL and from there as gas through pipelines into the German pipeline nets.

HM.

Gazprom has multiple LNG facilities. I suggest you look into that.
https://neftegazru.com/news/companies/409174-linde-lands-mid-scale-russia-lng-project/

Gazprom has multiple LNG facilities. I suggest you look into that.
https://neftegazru.com/news/companies/409174-linde-lands-mid-scale-russia-lng-project/

True as far as it goes.
But it doesn't contradict my statement:

The Russian natural gas transported to western Europe via pipelines was never liquefied

As stated on the linked page:

The plant will liquefy natural gas from Gazprom's Portovaya compressor station, supplied through the Nord Stream pipeline.

Gazprom opened the compressor station, part of the Gryazovets-Vyborg gas trunkline, in 2010.

The Portovaya compressor station increases compression for the part of the pipeline through the Baltic Sea to Germany to 220 bar.
It's a logical decision to build a LNG facility near the coastline of the Baltic Sea for shipping LNG during spring, summer and autumn to countries or areas not connected to the pipeline nets, e.g. middle and northern Finland, Ireland.... The UK is connected to the European Pipeline net and gets some natural gas via underwater pipeline through the North Sea but also imports LNG.

HM.

https://www.pwc.ru/en/publications/russian-lng-projects.html
Russia has long since decided to go the lng route. As has China, and many other parts of the world.

Bulk storage of gases has been the realm of liquefaction for decades now. That cannot be gotten around.

In Germany we use underground reservoirs, not LNG. (depleted gas reservoirs and salt cavern reservoirs) and – locally – gasholders. (Wikipedia states gasholders are perhaps most used in the UK and Germany.)

HM.

We are comparing apples and oranges here. Your speaking of the end user in the supply chain, while I'm referring to the entire chain with a focus on the head of the chain. I personally believe it's a serious mistake for western Europe to rely so heavily on Russia for their needs. The geopolitical concerns are a hot mess when it gets to that. Depending on a former KGB agent to keep what amounts to an organized crime syndicate in line is not rational thinking.

You're absolutely right, but it's mostly gradual incremental renovations/expansions/replacements of long established legacy systems. Don't make it politically wise, but there's also not that many viable alternatives, not fast/easy or price competitive at least. And as we all know, short term thinking prevails in politics.

The whole North Stream project is pure Russian aggression in its core since inception. The most immediate goal for it (although it had been in some planning before) was to exclude the infrastructure left in Ukraine that facilitated most of exports towards Europe. That transit was significant income for Ukrainian government.

They excluded our underground gas storage facilities in Latvia for political reasons explicitly too, also with intent to delay their inclusion in pan-European distribution networks. We have one long operational (yes, Soviet Union build to pump gas back to large parts of Russia including in winter) but never utilized to full capacity (as far I know) and another possible explored that could potentially be MUCH larger.

There was a private commercial proposal to build a LNG port near the Riga gulf coast in some twenty-ish kilometers from the storage facility, so that gas could be re-gasified on unloading and pumped there directly, without any onshore facilities needed at all (and thus minimally impacting the unofficial nudist beach the pipeline would cross) but it was vetoed by concerned local citizens citing, you guessed it, environmental concerns.

While the rest of the world is apparently in nappy time, Russia is ramping up their nickel production through Norilsk Nickel. Norilisk (city of) is an environmental disaster of epic proportions. It's also why Russia is currently number 3 in world for production of nickel. They are developing other locations as well. As it stands, manipulation of the nickel supply chain by them plays a large role in the shortages of 9% nickel plate and cryogenic service equipment.
Some day, the world will hopefully extract its head out of its arse and realize the end game they are playing. Looking around the world, they are heavily invested in nickel production in other countries with high reserves of the metal.
Combine that with their natural gas and push for more LNG facilities, and it spells massive trouble in the future, especially for western Europe.

and it spells massive trouble in the future, especially for western Europe.

It's a weird situation in W.Europe. While we have an extensive and very good gas network (capable of re-purposing for hydrogen) in the Netherlands, the new policy is to step away from gas to reach CO2 reduction goals. The first houses without a gas connection are currently build. At the same time just over the border in Germany they are constructing new gas networks for the same reason. It's totally stupid. From all fossil fuels natural gas produces just about the least pollution compared to other sources like coal. Eventually even gas will be abandoned but not yet, at least not outside the Netherlands. The problem we have is that we already are low on pollution because we already use gas, so to even lower from that level we have to abandon gas and try even 'greener' alternatives. Another point here is that we had (have) a lot of gas in our own country but the mining has started to cause earthquakes so they closed it down to almost nothing. Still stopping the usage of gas is good for the exact reason you mentioned: dependency on Russia. Russia has proven more than once to be a very unreliable 'partner'.

It's a weird situation in W.Europe. While we have an extensive and very good gas network (capable of re-purposing for hydrogen) in the Netherlands, the new policy is to step away from gas to reach CO2 reduction goals.

No gas system is capable of that kind of repurposing. But if they've convinced one, they've convinced others. I suspose it will take a smoking crater in the ground to get that out of their heads.
Mercaptan, a sulfur-containing compound, is whats added to natural gas to allow leak detection via smell. Note the word "compound." No compound or even other gases other than maybe helium, can get through the same leak path hydrogen can. Therefore no warning. There are numerous metallurgical concerns as well. When there are barbecued body parts photographed in the aforementioned smoking hole, there will be hell to pay for the idiots who claimed it could be done.

As for Co2, household Co2 scrubbers would be much more economical than the huge outlay that would be required to safely convert to hydrogen.

No gas system is capable of that kind of repurposing. But if they've convinced one, they've convinced others. I suspose it will take a smoking crater in the ground to get that out of their heads.

There are several test project currently running in the Netherlands. All with different purposes. No definite results yet, the first are expected sometime next year. What they agree on so far is that for individual house heating it's not viable yet but for block/neighborhood heating it is. Most useful usage is for industrial purposes.
It's already proven that conversion of our gas network is possible, it's just a question yet if it's economically viable compared to converting to all-electrical (for in-home usage).
This will NOT work in any other country. We have a very unique gas network. Very solid, very well maintained, and connected to virtually every house in the country. The reason is historical: we have our own huge gas deposits which made it very attractive to develop that net work. The mere existence of that net work makes it worthwhile to invest in a conversion. The possibility is already proven but there are multiple problems that still need to be resolved. One simple problem: The flame from gas is visible, from hydrogen not which makes is dangerous for cooking. Another is the cost: it will be 2030 before the price of gas gets higher than hydrogen, maybe even later.
Personally I don't see it happening but the companies currently involved in our gas system of course do want it to happen, for some it's their reason for existing.

It's already proven that conversion of our gas network is possible,

You keep saying that, but I've yet to see or find anything that supports the statement. Everything I've known regarding piping systems says it's not possible. If you have something that says otherwise, I'd be interested in seeing it.

If you have something that says otherwise, I'd be interested in seeing it.

It took me a while to find reports in English but I found it:
https://www.hyway27.nl/en
The report itself: https://www.gasunie.nl/en/news/gasunie-decision-on-hydrogen-infrastructure-is-milestone-for-energy-transition/$12693/$12694
On page 62:

Various previous studies have concluded that hydrogen transmission through natural gas pipelines is possible

In Zeeland province, a
repurposed natural gas pipeline has been in use to transport hydrogen between Dow Chemical in
Terneuzen and Yara in Sluisklil since October 2018 (Gasunie, 2019).

key role in meeting the storage/flexibility needs of the hydrogen system, provided that it is economically and technically possible to flexibly set up dehydrogenation, theoretically hold 0.8PJ hydrogen in the form of LOHC (50kg H 3 2 /m 3 could ) or 1.9PJ hydrogen in the form of Net storage capacity (in PJ) Investment costs million) Service life (years) Capital costs HyWay 27 Strategy& 2 Approx. 0.5 107 30 1 7,500,000 Approx. 0.0035 12 50 680,000 Approx. 0.00004 0.080.12 20 10,000 ammonia (120kg H 1. Including above3 2 /m ) (Andersson et al, 2019)

Yep, smoking holes in the ground when they try to implement some of the 'ideas' in that AGW fantasy report. The above quote is itself a quote from another study. The latter having been tested and failed.

That sort of 'study' is riddled with holes in it. The hype and assumptions made should never have a place in any serious study. I've read many such documents, and to a fault, they all turned out to be written as belly scratchin cover for politicians, so that the latter can float it as justification for the BS they are spewing. By the time implementation came around and the smoking holes became reality, they'd long since been removed from any responsibility for said smoking holes.

They are talking about binding the hydrogen with ammonia for transportation as well (page 44). The amount of ammonia to make that viable will be massive. The energy cost to both bind and unbind it will be huge. Their other option is liquefaction. Do you know the temperature for liquid hydrogen? -253° Celsius. That temperature presents a host of problems for storage and transportation in regards to safety.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/hydrogen/hydrogen_fuel_of_choice.html

NASA and the ESA uses liquid hydrogen for rocket fuel. The last upgrade NASA did for their storage capacity, I was there. I've worked on the storage and delivery systems for fueling their rockets. As such, I've a bit more understanding of the technical difficulties than the average bear.

I strongly suggest you read that susposed study with a more critical eye towards the assumptions made within.

Look up the videos of rocket engine failures, then imagine the damage from such an explosion. They are going to get some people killed in the name of PC and AGW.

Still stopping the usage of gas is good for the exact reason you mentioned: dependency on Russia. Russia has proven more than once to be a very unreliable 'partner'.

Or, they could go with the offshore *semi-submerged LNG storage technology that Royal Dutch Shell and others already have developed that is gathering dust on their shelves.

Reducing your suppliers to just one (Russia) is simply insane. Especially when that sole supplier is Russia.

ETA:* correction of earlier post

https://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/145292/posh_wins_contract_from_technip_for_prelude_flng_project_in_browse_basin/

Australia has beaten the rest of the world to first implementation of FLNG.

Or, they could go with the offshore submerged LNG storage technology that Royal Dutch Shell and others already have developed that is gathering dust on their shelves.

Hmm, this conversation makes me wonder if we could make methane hydrates in a lab and how that would compare for storage volume and cost vs LNG.

Hmm, this conversation makes me wonder if we could make methane hydrates in a lab and how that would compare for storage volume and cost vs LNG.

For storage they would be comparable. Cost of production is another matter.

For storage they would be comparable

Is that just volume?

What about cost of storage.

Methane hydrates are solid.

Edited: Nevermind. I found a source that mentioned they aren't stable at normal temperatures/pressures.

The instability is why extraction of that stuff from seafloor is tricky at best and why they're a huge concern regarding possible climate trigger points (if those deposits start spontaneously evaporate releasing huge amounts of potent greenhouse gas, that's a nice scare scenario at least)

Why is it problematic to mix SNG with either CNG or LNG from fossil sources?

Trace elements and temperature. The temperature difference isn't a big one as it's only about 5° Celsius or so. But that's enough to be a problem at cryogenic temperatures.

How about converting it to methane?

Methane is still a gas, albeit having a high enough BP so it can be liquefied purely by pressure. Pressure means bulky, weighty vessels and pipes. Going to liquid hydrocarbons massively simplifies storage and distribution, especially since we've already got the infrastructure in place for fossil fuels. One of the catalysts being looked at for this is a mixture of Manganese and Iron oxides, basically the black gunk from the middle of 'dry' cell batteries, and rust. Carbon dioxide could be extracted directly from air, but there's also a process to extract it from sea water which is apparently more efficient. This raises the intriguing possibility of retrofitting these technologies to old oil-and-gas platforms, along with wind/solar/tidal current electricity generation to power it, and directly replacing the fossil fuel feedstocks at source.

ETA: I'm wrong, as Remus2 notes Methane requires cryogenics to liquefy (it's supercritical at room temperature, which is difficult to handle); this is another strike against Methane. But, if we're going to use Methane, why aren't we using Methane Digesters in industrial scales to process farm slurries and domestic sewage?

ETA2: A bit out-of-date (it's 2019), but this may be of interest:
Sustainable synthetic carbon based fuels for transport

Hydrogen gas pipelines are not going to happen due to explosion risk.

That depends. Here in the Netherlands we have a gas network to every single house. Energy suppliers, network companies, and climate activists all have done research concerning changing the gas network to hydrogen and all come to the same conclusion: it is possible. Our gas pipes are already very dense but they will require a coating on the inside to avoid that the hydrogen corrodes the pipes. Because hydrogen only holds a third of the energy density to gas and the pressure can't be kept as high as with gas all devices using the gas must be modified for use with hydrogen (mostly heating and cooking appliances). Third is that, like currently with our gas, a specific smell must be added to enable detection of leaks. It is calculated that just upgrading the gas network for hydrogen will cost less than €10 per household. I don't know if it will happen but it is possible and viable, at least here it is.

The hydrogen atom is so small that leaks become inevitable.
Then there is hydrogen embrittlement.
https://nace.org/resources/general-resources/corrosion-basics/group-3/hydrogen-embrittlement
I don't know the studies you refer to, but I did hold NACE certifications at one point in my career. You'll not be getting around HE (hydrogen embrittlement) for €10 per household. I have to throw a BS flag on that one.

You'll not be getting around HE (hydrogen embrittlement) for €10 per household. I have to throw a BS flag on that one.

That's only for the inside coating of an already existing very good network of gas pipes. The network companies themselves calculated that number to upgrade their own pipes. I couldn't find if that included a possible upgrade of the meters.

One thing that interests me is the possibility of rural houses capturing and storing energy to cope with differences in energy needs and production across the seasons.

Our solar capacity is sufficient to power this place year round. The same is true for our wind capacity. Batteries and or super capacitors are all that's needed. We are most definitely rural here.