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. schnevets · 1790111056 · focus · HN ↗

      Anecdotally speaking, I have heard of a massive California solar farm in an undeveloped area that has serious vandalism problems. Junkies will find ways through the fencing at night, strip copper and other materials from panels, and cause thousands in damages and lost energy just to extract enough scrap for a fix.

      Nothing short of a face-to-face security response will deter these criminals, so there it is a challenging cost-benefit balance. At least panels in parking lots and other developed spaces have the benefit of witnesses. I'm sure a 20 foot climb up a steel beam over running water is a decent deterrent as well.

      1. rottencupcakes · 1790113398 · focus · HN ↗

         [dead]

         1. onlypassingthru · 1790115247 · focus · HN ↗

            A company nightwatchman making $20/hr would cost about $80k/yr, all in.

            One prisoner costs the California taxpayer $125k/yr, all in.

            Maybe the company should foot the bill for a security guard instead of asking the taxpayers to subsidize their business.

            1. conductr · 1790140702 · focus · HN ↗

               Not sure if you realize it but you’re actually arguing that the government should employ potential criminals as it’s cheaper, for them. The problem with that is people will find ways to appear like a potential criminal and then we have a huge welfare state that cost much more than the prison system. Also, people with jobs sometimes still do crime, so it’s not a fully baked solution.

               The company wouldn’t employ the guard unless it saved them money, reducing losses by more than $80k. For Many businesses that’s not going to make sense. Even larger businesses, have larger risk footprint, needing more security guards, needing more loss savings to justify.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.