Thread

What California is learning from solar panels built over irrigation canals

372 points · 744 comments · Jtsummers

nbf_1995 · 1790086541 · focus · HN ↗
It seems like it would be more effective to simply put all the solar panels in a field, and construct a cheap shade over the entire canal no? The supports in the picture are massive and don't look cheap. Also I would imagine the solar array uses more copper than a similar capacity array just built in a field. You can't daisy chain multiple miles of solar panels together, so you need an extra power line to run alongside the whole thing.
Put the solar panels in a field: The solar array uses less copper. The shade supports don't have to hold up solar panels: Shade supports cost less.
The best reasoning they give is that California has insane permitting requirements, and it takes 1/6 the time to build on developed land compared to undeveloped land.
1. ch4s3 · 1790109461 · focus · HN ↗
  Or better yet, invest in pipes.
  1. jimt1234 · 1790110206 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm sure it could be done, but it would cost a fortune. My understanding is the canals were built to distribute water to farmers, and conservation/evaporation wasn't really much of a consideration because California had plenty of water back then.
    BTW, I used to swim in those same canals around Modesto and Turlock as a kid. So gross.
    wahern · 1790110943 · focus · HN ↗
    At least $16 billion for 45 miles. See <a href="https://www.deltaconveyanceproject.com/about-the-delta-conveyance-project" rel="nofollow">https://www.deltaconveyanceproject.com/about-the-delta-conve... and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Conveyance_Project" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Conveyance_Project

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.