Thread

1. 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. BurningFrog · 1790110103 · focus · HN ↗

      There are solutions like this to most of Californias big intractable problems, and they're not done because some California laws and/or regulations make it impossible.

      This is one reason I now live in Nevada, where pretty much everything is legal...

      1. ceejayoz · 1790111025 · focus · HN ↗

         A lot of things get easier when everyone basically lives in one city, yes.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.