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. AngryData · 1790114039 · focus · HN ↗

         To my eye if you were putting up a few hundred or more of those steel structures, and it didn't require a redesign of the canal retainment around it, it could be built quite economically.

         Every extra pylon structure built, especially the first dozen, will be cheaper and easy to produce and install.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.