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. walrus01 · 1790110178 · focus · HN ↗

      The cost of building that steel structure that will hold up against maximum in 100 year wind forces isn't cheap. Large PV panels make very good sails. The trusses look basically the same as you'd see in a large agricultural barn, horse riding arena, etc. Putting the PV panels on empty bare land at a height people can walk around and work with would be considerably less costly.

      I would very much like to see a total dollar figure for the example "roof trusses over the canel" structure vs. how many panels it can hold.

      It's already true that the ground mounting costs and labor to assemble the ground mount are a huge part of building a large scale PV system.

      1. dragonwriter · 1790112378 · focus · HN ↗

         > Putting the PV panels on empty bare land at a height people can walk around and work with would be considerably less costly.

         What empty, bare land?

         If its really empty and bare, there is a reason for it and that reason is probably a problem for building and maintaining PV, and otherwise you have to add the loss of the alternative uses of the land to the cost.

         1. mlmonkey · 1790113008 · focus · HN ↗

            > What empty, bare land?

            Have you been to Death Valley, my friend? All of Southeastern California is empty, barren land. Death Valley, Mojave Desert, etc.

            1. asdff · 1790116251 · focus · HN ↗

               Guess how fast the wind blows across the surfaces. There's a reason why these places currently host massive wind turbine farms.
            2. dragonwriter · 1790120292 · focus · HN ↗

               > Have you been to Death Valley, my friend?

               Well, no, but I’ve been close and I can imagine some features of the area that might have impacts on cost of construction and ongoing maintenance that are related to why it was empty land even before it was a National Park (and I can think of additional problems with California trying to build solar generation in a national park—different ones under the current federal administration than would be historically normal, but either way it would problematic.)

               1. throwaway2037 · 1790163475 · focus · HN ↗

                  If you look at the city of Mojave, Calif. on Google Maps (satellite view) you can see massive solar farms all around it. There is plenty of space for expansion. There is no need to use a national or state park. (To be clear: Mojave Desert is far away from the city of Mojave!)
            3. lazide · 1790131843 · focus · HN ↗

               The wind and blown sand is something to behold. But large stretches are getting solar panels, yes.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.