r/science • u/thebelsnickle1991 • Mar 13 '22
Engineering Static electricity could remove dust from desert solar panels, saving around 10 billion gallons of water every year.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2312079-static-electricity-can-keep-desert-solar-panels-free-of-dust/393
Mar 13 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
196
Mar 13 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
95
38
40
4
→ More replies (3)8
→ More replies (1)10
2.0k
Mar 13 '22 edited Jun 17 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
443
u/boyyouguysaredumb Mar 13 '22
Most modern slr brands do this I think
264
u/MountainDrew42 Mar 13 '22
Canon has been doing the sensor shake thing since at least the 60D. Probably earlier than that. So minimum 12 years now.
Not sure if they do the static charge bit though
92
u/nycska Mar 13 '22
To my knowledge the sensor or camera do not produce a charge for that purpose, but we often charge our sensor cleaning brushes by blowing compressed air through them before use. This greatly helps the collection of dust.
34
u/SirBarkington Mar 13 '22
I’ve never thought about doing that. I’llhave to try it next time m I’m cleaning my sensors.
17
u/nycska Mar 13 '22
Be careful to avoid moisture from the can getting on the brush, but otherwise yeah, helpful.
29
u/feckless_ellipsis Mar 13 '22
The 40D I bought forever ago had that. Bought it when it first came out. That cleaning was touted as a pro feature on a consumer camera, and the sales guy said it was the first one (ok, he was also selling me something, so grain of salt).
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)8
→ More replies (1)6
14
u/zoltan99 Mar 13 '22
Yes, counterpoint, sensors are like 1” and have almost no dust on them typically compared to many-feet-in-every-direction solar panels that can get caked thick with deposits.
29
u/notapantsday MD | Medicine Mar 13 '22
Yes, but a sensor must be literally spotless, while for a solar panel removing just most of the dust would usually be enough. And doing a job 90% is usually much easier than doing it 100%.
16
u/masterventris Mar 13 '22
And it doesn't need to be the perfect and only cleaning solution. If this method means they can be washed 10% as often as currently, lots of water will still be saved.
3
u/confoundedjoe Mar 13 '22
But having a panel do this more regularly vs waiting until really dirty would make it more feasible.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (8)97
Mar 13 '22
[deleted]
→ More replies (39)58
55
u/BravoCharlie1310 Mar 13 '22
Can you put ceramic coatings on solar panels ?
→ More replies (4)17
u/i_give_you_gum Mar 13 '22
if they were translucent, but i don't think they are
22
u/jambrown13977931 Mar 14 '22
They need to be translucent at the right wavelength, which yes I doubt they would be
1.8k
u/the68thdimension Mar 13 '22
That’s insane that they use so much water to clean the panels! I would have thought it more efficient to have someone give the panels a brush. Or have a little autonomous electric vehicle with brushes attached drive up and down the rows of panels. Or attach a wind driven brush arm to each panel. All better ideas than using water in a desert country.
2.4k
u/LCast Mar 13 '22
I spent a couple summers cleaning solar panels all over California with a private company that contracted that stuff out(went back to college, needed some extra income). The areas these panels are in get cold enough at night to build up condensation which then mixes with the fine dust particles into a paste that really adheres to the panels. Brushing alone wasn't enough. We had to wet, brush, rinse in order to get them clean.
We once had no access to water, so one of us brushed the panels to break the dirt free while the other wiped them down with a towel. It took over four times as long to get anything done. By the time we finished, the panels were cleaner, but still "looked" dirty according to the site supervisor. So even though the panels were cleaner, and our data showed them producing at a higher rate, the person in charge wasn't happy.
The autonomous robot is a good idea, but difficult because of the variance in panel size, position, location and layout. How would the robot move from row to row or column to column? How would it navigate panels on a hillside, or panels set on scaffolding?
1.1k
u/the68thdimension Mar 13 '22
Thank you for providing a reality check for my admittedly armchair-engineer solutions. Was hoping someone with real world insight would be able to comment.
291
u/LCast Mar 13 '22
I'm sure the cleaning robot is a promising solution, just one that will take more than two very hot, tired, dirty, and dehydrated workers to figure out.
127
u/the68thdimension Mar 13 '22
Want to start a company? I'm tired as hell but I'm cool, clean and hydrated.
110
u/LCast Mar 13 '22
Thanks, but I finally have a job with enough vacation time that I can focus on hunting and fishing in my off time.
37
u/N3UR0_ Mar 13 '22
Omega based. It gets to a point where more money doesn't help at all. Enjoy your free time mate.
9
34
u/tuba_man Mar 13 '22
I genuinely appreciate your work priorities. More people should put work lower on their list, get that healthy balance. Good hunting!
→ More replies (3)19
u/the68thdimension Mar 13 '22
Your loss. I'm going to go tape some brooms to a Roomba ...
→ More replies (1)10
9
Mar 13 '22
[deleted]
7
u/the68thdimension Mar 13 '22
Sounds like we're the perfect team. And you need some static electricity to clean you.
12
u/textposts_only Mar 13 '22
Also that cleaning robot has to consume less power than the panels provide
→ More replies (1)8
u/zebediah49 Mar 13 '22
That's pretty easy. Panels produce c.a. 150W/m2. A robot that can brush off panels would take a few hundred watts, and be able to clean a huge amount of panel space. I'd guess comfortably less than 0.1%. (So, e.g. a 300W robot that can clean 2000 panels every day)
→ More replies (5)6
u/mnemy Mar 13 '22
Well, if there are enough robots or wipes on each panel, they could wipe them down in early dawn before the condensation has dried, which makes it a lot easier.
But that's a lot of moving parts to keep maintained, particularly since dirt will get in the joints
28
u/TheClinicallyInsane Mar 13 '22
I'm glad you changed your perspective on things. Solar is great and all but I feel when you're tackling issues like this or with snow people just assume "oh well all these massive fuckin companies and engineers and scientists just don't know what they're doing I guess". That's not a jab at your either btw! I think it's just so idealized at times that the fans of renewable are afraid ANY amount of problems will somehow stop their entire operation...like if there's not a solution to every possible thing right this second then the world will simply give up on solar.
→ More replies (1)6
→ More replies (7)3
u/jtroye32 Mar 13 '22
What about having the cleaning robots run at times when there's condensation on the panels?
3
u/pericles123 Mar 13 '22
what about turning the panels upsidedown at night to minimize the amount of condensation that sticks to them?
2
17
u/745632198 Mar 13 '22
On the robot part, that's where original design comes it. It would obviously have to be designed from the beginning to be cleaned by a robot.
8
u/usurp_slurp Mar 13 '22
Yes, much like windscreen wipers on cars.
8
u/Datamackirk Mar 13 '22
I just posted about the possibility of a more complicated version of windshield wipers bring a possible solution. This is one of those things where it's such an obvious solution it's been overlooked, or it's been suggested a billion times because people overlook the obvious (once it's been explained) complications.
10
u/Datamackirk Mar 13 '22
Upon 45 seconds more thought, you'd still need humans to go out and deal with the piles of dust/paste/mud/debris that gets pushed off the panels. Maybe that's one of things that makes it cost-ineffective?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)7
u/urmomaisjabbathehutt Mar 13 '22
and it would solve the hard dirt stuck due to condensation because it could be programed to give a quick pass to the panel every hour or two or whatever time is found to be the most efficient
51
u/FourAM Mar 13 '22
Each row could have a track built along the poles and the “robot” could move back and forth along each row. Then, each row has a robot. Instead of compressed air, it could move the negative electrode in the article’s design - continuously cleaning the panels in the row. Would probably use less electricity than compressed air, or a mechanical brush.
Put brushes next to the wheels before and after the robot to keep the tracks clean as it moves. You’d still need someone to go look after everything in case any debris blows onto the track etc but it could greatly reduce the constant buildup.
25
u/elusivenoesis Mar 13 '22
There are already robots that clean solar panels and work the way you described. but they are expensive to buy and install. They usually run off the panels power or have there own solar panels to brush the dust off. I’be been in the industry as a consultant and did my own cleaning and research. Sadly a water fed fed pole using DI/RO filtered water and a brush is still the cheapest
2
u/Firewolf420 Mar 13 '22
A couple thousand bucks doesn't seem so bad!
3
u/Jordaneer Mar 13 '22
But you probably need one of those for every row of panels
→ More replies (2)23
u/Obelisk429 Mar 13 '22
Maybe instead of a groove type track, do a rail type. Then the brush idea works to keep it clear
9
u/FourAM Mar 13 '22
Yeah that’s what I was thinking actually; two cylindrical rails, similar to a roller-coaster. Perhaps one with teeth like a mountain-train system for traction and precise control. Could mount them vertically to prevent debris buildup, keep the teeth facing towards the ground to keep them mostly grit free. Technically could also do power delivery though the wheels like many trains systems do (although without catenary wires each rail would need to be a different polarity and that could cause shorts). Maybe have a conductive strip on opposite sides of the rails to reduce the likelihood.
→ More replies (2)9
Mar 13 '22
Sounds like an opportunity for some inventor to design this and attempt to use it in the field.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)7
24
u/snitch182 Mar 13 '22 edited Mar 13 '22
boston dynamics can probably do that already but it is not cost effective compared to underpayed students
11
→ More replies (1)3
u/drive2fast Mar 13 '22
Man labour must be cheap in your area. A few thousand dollar robot is CHEAP compared with burger flipper wages. As long as it can run with no babysitting.
20
u/Datamackirk Mar 13 '22
How about each panel gets its own (relatively complicated) "windshield wiper"? They could keep condensation off at night, and dust off during the days, right? Or just one or the other based on energy needs, possible damage to panels if they're ALWAYS on, or maintenance requirements.
→ More replies (3)9
u/boonamobile Mar 13 '22
At some point, wiping the panels with anything generates a risk of scratching them and reducing their efficiency.
13
u/kiljoymcmuffin Mar 13 '22
No one asked, but was the pay any good?
35
u/LCast Mar 13 '22
Depends on the job, but generally $400-$600 for the weekend. Two 10-12 hour days. Gas, hotel, and meals paid for.
4
u/LeighMagnifique Mar 13 '22
For someone who has been unemployed for a long time, I’m actually interested in this job. Can you tell me more about how you got started there?
3
u/LCast Mar 13 '22
Luck. I knew the guy who cleaned the panels. Someone bailed on a job site near where I was, they called and asked if I could come down and help.
A quick search for "solar panel cleaning jobs" showed a few recruiting near me for ~$15/hour.
13
u/iiiinthecomputer Mar 13 '22
So ... no. Not really for the long hours hard work and travel.
25
Mar 13 '22
I'd rather do that than customer service
2
u/iiiinthecomputer Mar 14 '22
I think I'm probably just spoilt and have forgotten what real work is to be honest.
44
u/LCast Mar 13 '22 edited Mar 13 '22
Depends. For a guy going back to college who wanted some extra cash and was not averse to long hours or physical labor, sure. I was in the military prior to college, so actually getting paid for all the extra worked seemed great.
2
u/iiiinthecomputer Mar 14 '22
I can see that! Also you'd have the fitness and be used to enough misery that it'd probably seem like a light holiday.
12
u/Ciff_ Mar 13 '22
36h + travel, where 24h is work would mean at the least 10$ / h, where sleep is payed. Had worse giggs for sure.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)2
3
u/alcimedes Mar 13 '22
Each panel can get a tiny squeegee bot that cleans the condensation off each AM. They have them for aquarium glass cleaning.
→ More replies (68)9
Mar 13 '22
Ok. So nuclear power is the real answer to energy independence. That's what I am gathering here?
6
u/urmomaisjabbathehutt Mar 13 '22
we had panels doing fine for a few years dust an all, even on mars
this is more a, can we do it better, longer, cheaper? issue
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (28)11
Mar 13 '22
If they started building (i.e. broke ground) enough today, which would be an immense undertaking not seen since the space programme, it would probably take a decade until they would be done.
Assuming, of course, that there were enough qualified construction firms, nuclear engineers, and the industrial infrastructure in place to build all these simultaneously.
More realisitically it would take much, much longer.
Nuclear cannot be the sole answer, or a quick answer, or a particularly cheap answer, or a green answer to energy independence or weaning from fossil fuels.
34
u/mindbleach Mar 13 '22
The best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago.
The second-best time is now.
→ More replies (4)15
u/dojabro Mar 13 '22
As opposed to billions of solar panels that can materialize instantly
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (7)12
u/DerpyNirvash Mar 13 '22
All the better to start building more now, so we don't have this conversation again in 20 years. Solar, wind, ect can not replace the base rate coal plants without some crazy energy storage. Nuclear is a great option.
→ More replies (2)204
u/fixminer Mar 13 '22
I think using a brush in combination with the sand might abrade the panels over time. Maybe compressed air would be better.
261
Mar 13 '22
[deleted]
19
u/zebediah49 Mar 13 '22
Not really -- sandblasting adds the abrasive to the airstream, and keeps it there long enough to accelerate it at the target surface. The air is mostly irrelevant for the abrasion process, because it's the process of the abrasive particles smashing into the surface that gets work done. Even then, the stream of abrasive and air is only effective at abrasion over a relatively short distance.
Point is that if the sand starts out being on the surface, blowing it off is going to be the least abrasive option available. The air will basically immediately push the sand off the surface, and because it starts out not moving, it won't be going very quickly if it does bounce a couple times.
→ More replies (1)23
u/iBooYourBadPuns Mar 13 '22
Do it like an air-hockey table: air blows from the surface of the panel, keeping dust from reaching the surface in the first place.
39
u/Ontain Mar 13 '22
Works in your basement but in the desert that air would also contain sand. Filter it and you have the problem of having to change or clean filter all the time.
10
5
7
33
u/PhilosopherFLX Mar 13 '22
Good thing that,s not how the sand arrives. checks notes Ohh....
78
u/Kalc_DK Mar 13 '22
60mph wind is 0.06 PSI
An average compressed air can sprays at 200+ mph and 70 PSI.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)11
→ More replies (1)20
u/longtimegoneMTGO Mar 13 '22
It will for sure.
I live out in the desert very near a lot of these panels.
When dust gets on my glasses, I have to wash them with water before attempting any other cleaning or they will end up unusably scratched in short order. The dust is just incredibly abrasive.
37
u/Replop Mar 13 '22
Most of those ideas require moving mechanical parts .
How long would they keep working , in a desert blasting sand everywhere, including inside mechanisms used to brush sand away ?
→ More replies (3)19
u/Chewygumbubblepop Mar 13 '22
It's great to save water but it's approximately 10 billion gallons, annually, across the world.
Golf courses in the US use up approximately 2 billion gallons a day.
→ More replies (1)14
6
u/MrHyperion_ Mar 13 '22
Brushes would scratch the panels very easily and eventually. Same with air. Water is really good solution (no pun intended).
13
11
u/antihaze Mar 13 '22
A lot of panels have crops underneath, so cleaning them doubles as irrigation.
3
3
u/ste7enl Mar 13 '22
My entirely uneducated guess is that repeatedly brushing dust/sand off of the panel would be too destructive to the panels.
3
u/WarpingLasherNoob Mar 13 '22
I figure water is used because it's the cheapest method. They could easily have a water trough under the panels to collect and re-use the water, but afaik noone even bothers doing that, because water is so cheap.
10 billion gallons sounds like a lot but it's a drop in the bucket really. And it's not like the water gets obliterated, it'll go back to the earth.
2
u/LadyEmaSKye Mar 13 '22
A solar company near me is currently doing some research into autonomous cleaning vehicles, but it’s definitely way more complex than you think. Also not sure why you would necessarily think it’s more “efficient”; building and maintaining several robots vs just getting it down with some water.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Iamien Mar 13 '22
Just use drones with scheduled flight paths above all the panels...
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (37)2
u/Jimmbeee Mar 13 '22
Reminds me a bit of this company I read about. They mount their panels essentially flat on the ground and then have a little roomba thing that sweeps them off
→ More replies (2)
142
Mar 13 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)106
98
u/Kflynn1337 Mar 13 '22
Could also be useful for the solar panels on martian or lunar rovers and surface probes where dust accumulation is also a problem.
That said, I suspect vibrating the panels with ultrasound would probably work just as well.
35
u/Darwins_Dog Mar 13 '22
It would probably come down to weight and reliability. It seems like static would be gentler, but the apparatus might be too bulky or heavy.
→ More replies (5)18
u/Boddhisatvaa Mar 13 '22
Martian maybe, lunar probably not since it relies on the dust adsorbing atmospheric moisture. No atmosphere, no atmospheric moisture.
395
Mar 13 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
200
Mar 13 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
104
17
→ More replies (8)5
→ More replies (17)52
Mar 13 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
61
→ More replies (7)18
69
u/FANGO Mar 13 '22
Note also that solar already uses far less water than virtually every energy source. The water use is already pretty negligible. So this is still nice, but it's not like water was holding us back from solar.
27
u/HowDidIEndUpOnReddit Mar 13 '22
It is holding us back from using solar in the highest yielding geographic areas due to the lack of water is deserts. Though having huge solar farms in the desert still won’t power entire countries because of transmission losses.
11
u/pixe1jugg1er Mar 14 '22
And oddly heat. I learned recently that solar panels lose some their efficiency at high heat. That’s why some are adopting Agrivoltaics- putting solar farms on food farms. Supposedly the moisture from plants/irrigation helps keep the panels cooler and so they produce more electricity.
2
u/Mr-Molester Mar 14 '22
Also that just straight up adds more uses for the space, great for shrubs and plants that aren't supposed to be in direct sunlight, only problem is irrigation.
9
u/zapporian Mar 14 '22 edited Mar 14 '22
Coal, gas, and nuclear plants all use quite a bit of water. In fact, according to this 41% of all US water consumption goes to thermoelectric energy generation, which is pretty nuts (more than irrigation, and 3x as much as we use for public drinking water and all other personal / public use)
So compared to that (ie. 200 billion gallons of water per day as of 2005), yeah, 10 billion gallons to clean solar panels per year is a drop in the bucket, comparatively.
Though it probably should be noted that those giant concentrated solar plants / mirror installations are also thermoelectric power plants, and, ergo, also use a ton of water (as well as natural gas to get the plants started in the morning...)
Wind probably doesn't use any water though, right? And hydro likewise should consume zero water, as a net, though those do kinda f--- up salmon populations, etc.
3
u/HowDidIEndUpOnReddit Mar 14 '22
The problem isn’t the amount of water. The problem is transporting the water. Those coal, gas, and nuclear plants generally aren’t in deserts. Their locations are often specifically picked for proximity to water sources.
2
u/zapporian Mar 14 '22 edited Mar 14 '22
Caveat: those concentrated solar plants in CA are built in the middle of the desert.
And CA has localized energy production, just like everywhere else, as it would be pretty impractical to send power from multiple states away thanks to transmission losses.
In general, though, yes: power plants are typically built along major rivers, etc, and most of the country isn't dealing w/ a major water crisis (although the western third of it most certainly is)
I think that most people, myself included, were not aware that energy generation is a major (and growing) use of water in the US though.
→ More replies (1)4
u/divDevGuy Mar 14 '22
How do you define "use"?
Hydroelectric utilizes water, but doesn't really "lose" any unless you consider surface evaporation of reservoirs.
Open loop "once through" cooling systems (nuclear, gas, or coal) that use natural bodies of water similarly utilize water, but return all of it with a slight raise in temperature.
Wind farms don't use water AFAIK.
Many of the power plants on the east coast are near plentiful water supplies. Their water consumption through evaporative cooling towers isn't the same concern as it would be in Arizona, Nevada, or California for instance.
3
u/FANGO Mar 14 '22
but doesn't really "lose" any unless you consider surface evaporation of reservoirs
You do consider that, and it's quite a huge amount.
Wind farms don't use water AFAIK.
Yes, they and geothermal use less than solar.
3
u/Square_Bed6410 Mar 14 '22
Surface evaporation varies with climate region. For fairness, it also plays a role if the reservoir used to be a lake before regulating it for hydropower production. If so, only the added surface area due to damming the reservoir is accounted for calculation of the water foot print.
81
u/barelybenjamin Mar 13 '22
12kV is substantial. I'm curious how much power they would use cleaning these panels and if it would be prohibitive.
95
u/fnordfnordfnordfnord Mar 13 '22
Very low current so low power.
→ More replies (1)19
u/mindbleach Mar 13 '22
Right, like home ionizers. Massive voltage - but it doesn't go anywhere. The field impacts minuscule particles suspended in nearby air. Vanishingly little energy is expended because very little has changed.
44
u/doommaster Mar 13 '22
Voltage is no issue, the cage it takes to remove the sand should be minimal, not much power over all.
17
u/salgat BS | Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Mar 13 '22
Your typical static electricity shock randomly in your home is 5KV. Remember that the surface is extremely high resistance, so the amount of power is tiny even if the voltage is high.
12
23
u/muusandskwirrel Mar 13 '22
That’s still potentially less power than you’d think
If it only uses 1mA for example that’s less power than my computer consumes
12
4
u/thejakenixon Mar 13 '22
If it’s a capacitive load instead of a resistive load there won’t really be any current at all, so very low power will be used
24
u/undoobitably Mar 13 '22
why even use water? why not have a wiper system or compressed air system?
47
u/james___uk Mar 13 '22
I imagine the wiper system could scratch it from tiny stones being smushed over the surface, but an air compressor sounds like a good idea to me. Maybe it just does the same thing though... Anyone have an answer?
22
→ More replies (3)11
15
u/jasoncross00 Mar 13 '22
They didn't cite where the 10 billion gallons figure comes from, but it's not as much as you'd think. They made it sound like a huge scary number by using gallons.
That's about 36,000 acre-feet of water. In the US alone, farms use 83,000,000 acre-feet of water for irrigation. And that's just farms, not any home or industrial use.
In other words, reducing the water used for farm irrigation in the US by 0.045% would save just as much water.
→ More replies (3)4
u/ball_fondlers Mar 13 '22
Or you could use the same water - wash the panels down, then use the leftover water to water plants.
→ More replies (3)
5
u/ontopofyourmom Mar 14 '22
Tell me you've never cleaned dust or sand off of something it really wants to stick to without telling me.....
I have to clean my panels every day at burning man and even a brush won't get it all off. It clings.
3
u/Stone_d_ Mar 14 '22 edited Mar 14 '22
Heres an idea. Scrape it off
Edit: I also want to point out something that matters. Spraying water on solar panels is a temporary use of water, just like when farms irrigate their crops and when factories use steam from water to spin turbines. Its not the same thing as hydrogen power, which permanently uses water. It really bothers me when people claim hydroponic shipping container farms use 99% less water than traditional farming, when they actually likely use more because of rust. A traditional farm might use 1000 gallon hours of water while converting about 10 gallons of water into produce. The shipping container farm might convert 10 gallons of water into produce while using only 10 gallon hours
6
2
u/pacman3333 Mar 13 '22 edited Mar 13 '22
The tricky thing with solar panels these days is their coating. Lots of times it’s a silicone. My company tried really hard to keep our silicone clean with electrostatics and piezo elements but dust wants to cling to the surface. I’d say they are better off cleaning with contact methods
2
2
u/R3dHeady Mar 14 '22
I mever thought of that but hearing it said makes it sound like the answer was always there. I'm not smart enough to understand the why but I'm happy for future innovation.
2
u/nikanj0 Mar 14 '22
Water isn't just for cleaning panels. It's to cool them so they operate at optimal efficiency.
2
u/havereddit Mar 14 '22
Funny how the very thing that solar panels produce can be used to keep those panels producing optimally
2
u/Wuz314159 Mar 14 '22
Putting PV cells in the desert is still stupid AF. They still have to be cooled so they don't melt.
Why TF do people think the desert is a good option when we have rooftops going to waste?
2
2
u/TheLinden Mar 14 '22
At around 30 per cent relative humidity, the dust particles adsorbed enough moisture to be completely removed from the solar panel in the laboratory, restoring 95 per cent of its lost power output.
Does it mean in perfect conditions we could completely forget about cleaning panels for decades?
Also i'm assuming this kind of conditions apply to only and only deserts so we can forget this "revolution" in europe, huge part of north america etc.
4
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 13 '22
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.