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. mindcandy · 1790110601 · focus · HN ↗

      My understanding is that "The best reasoning they give" is the entire point. It such a huge issue that it drowns out all of the valid but smaller issues you are pointing out. And, the benefit to the water is just a bonus.

      1. 0cf8612b2e1e · 1790111035 · focus · HN ↗

         Exactly, that is hundreds of miles over which no NIMBY holds sway. The state can do what they want.

         1. throwaway2037 · 1790163924 · focus · HN ↗

            High level, I agree with your comment. In the case of this experiment, it was built by the Turlock Irrigation District, which was "financed by issuing public general obligation bonds. The debt was systematically paid back over decades through local property taxes and water delivery fees collected from the farmers." However, there are lots of canals that are directly owned by the state, so they are good candidates also.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.