Thread

What California is learning from solar panels built over irrigation canals

372 points · 744 comments · Jtsummers

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. yongjik · 1790127716 · focus · HN ↗
    A few years ago, some foreigners entered a subway depot in South Korea, drew graffiti, and left the country before they were caught.
    South Korea put a notice on them on Interpol. At least one was arrested (at an airport in Romania), though I couldn't find any follow-up article on what happened to him. I hope he got to tour the inside of a South Korean jail.
    A society should be willing to put resources to protect is public infrastructure. In the long run, it will also be cheaper than fixing the same thing a hundred times, everyone enjoying second-grade service, or both.
    no-name-here · 1790129943 · focus · HN ↗
    The U.S. locks up a far, far, far higher rate of people than any other advanced economy. The U.S. locks up people at 5x the rate of South Korea. Whatever the difference is, it’s not because the U.S. is unwilling to punish people.
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarcera...
    phil21 · 1790131880 · focus · HN ↗
    > The U.S. locks up people at 5x the rate of South Korea. Whatever the difference is, it’s not because the U.S. is unwilling to punish people.
    The difference is in consistency in enforcement and general background crime rate.
    If you have a nearly guaranteed chance of getting caught doing something, the punishment almost doesn't matter. If every single time you went over the speed limit you got a $500 fine 100% guaranteed, there would be effectively zero speeders ever. If you have a 1 in a million chance of getting caught but the punishment is 10 years in prison - there will still be plenty of speeders all over the place.
    Humans do not do well with estimating risk on low probability events. We are all just big children in the end. Consistency in consequences are what actually matters, not overly harsh punishment.
    no-name-here · 1790138126 · focus · HN ↗
    What would that look like - increasing the number of US police officers by 2x etc. to ensure they catch every person who commits any crime? Reducing the rights of those accused of a crime to ensure they don't skate?
    mschuster91 · 1790145499 · focus · HN ↗
    Or maybe what constitutes a crime should be rethought (e.g. there is no reason at all to keep the "war on drugs" going, it clearly has failed), and instead focus on prevention?
    That way you'd get a massive reduction in crime without having to invest into more police officers.
    no-name-here · 1790150460 · focus · HN ↗
    What would ‘prevention’ look like? (As many other commenters seem to be pointing to many other crimes being as a result of people being on drugs, yes.)
    mschuster91 · 1790151792 · focus · HN ↗
    > What would ‘prevention’ look like?
    1. Give people housing.
    2. Give people housing.
    3. Give people housing.
    4. Expand access to mental and physical healthcare so that everyone can get access to the care they need.
    5. Remove the hurdles placed in front of social welfare programs. When people don't have to steal to make 10 bucks just to have something to eat or their next dose of whatever drug they're shooting up, that takes a lot of petty crime away.
    6. Provide (access to) public toilets everywhere.
    7. End the "war on drugs". Provide legal ways to access high-purity substances, either via dispensaries and allowing people to grow their own (for low risk stuff such as cannabis), or via pharmacies (for mid-risk stuff that already has pharmaceutical supply chains such as cocaine), or via dedicated centers for higher risk stuff such as heroin.
    > As many other commenters seem to be pointing to many other crimes being as a result of people being on drugs, yes.
    with the drug-related crimes, it's not just about the crimes being done in the pursuit of money or drugs... it's also about cleaning up the streets. Organized crime makes enough money purely from drugs (especially cocaine) that they can commandeer entire nation states, with their militia often being much stronger on paper and in practice than the official military, and the constant infights between cartels and gangs is endangering everyone around them.
    trollbridge · 1790164090 · focus · HN ↗
    >1 2 3. Give people housing.
    That’s already been done in my area and really doesn’t make a huge difference. Some people are so antisocial they are difficult to house (causing fights with neighbours, burning buildings down and so forth). But yes, it does help to have both abundant inexpensive housing and also programs for people who can’t afford it.
    It does have to be paired with police enforcement that doesn’t tolerate living on the street or in a park when housing is available.
    It also becomes a problem when people who live in such housing abuse it, such as operating drug dealing out of it.
    >4. Expand access to mental and physical healthcare so that everyone can get access to the care they need.
    We tried that too. It’s great for people like me. Some people refuse to access mental health or addiction rehab services. So the access is there.
    >5. Remove the hurdles placed in front of social welfare programs. When people don't have to steal to make 10 bucks just to have something to eat or their next dose of whatever drug they're shooting up, that takes a lot of petty crime away.
    There is zero public support to give drug addicts extra cash to go buy more drugs.
    Other than that, benefits are generous - I can say definitively nobody is going hungry. Some people will still refuse to apply for benefits. I stayed a few days in a hospital and my hospital roommate refused to apply for any benefits because he didn’t want to give the government info they could use to try to get the child support he owes. (The hospital sent a social worker in every few hours to try to persuade him.) Should such a person be given benefits including cash benefits?
    >6. Provide (access to) public toilets everywhere.
    We have that too. You need staff to clean them and it’s not fun to clean up after an antisocial person.
    >7. End the "war on drugs". Provide legal ways to access high-purity substances, either via dispensaries and allowing people to grow their own (for low risk stuff such as cannabis), or via pharmacies (for mid-risk stuff that already has pharmaceutical supply chains such as cocaine), or via dedicated centers for higher risk stuff such as heroin.
    There is no public support for a heroin dispensary.
    > As many other commenters seem to be pointing to many other crimes being as a result of people being on drugs, yes. with the drug-related crimes, it's not just about the crimes being done in the pursuit of money or drugs... it's also about cleaning up the streets. Organized crime makes enough money purely from drugs (especially cocaine) that they can commandeer entire nation states, with their militia often being much stronger on paper and in practice than the official military, and the constant infights between cartels and gangs is endangering everyone around them.
    Well, around here drugs are so cheap it’s not a big deal to pay for them. Now we just have loads of drug addicts who are strung out all the time, and in addition they can’t earn income with small time drug dealing like they used to. A fentanyl habit is cheap (maybe $10 a day) which is easily financed by selling eg your children’s food stamps card.
    The public is not going to support the government paying people to shoot up drugs all day.
    SoftTalker · 1790182826 · focus · HN ↗
    I think you've hit the point with "don't tolerate" the antisocial behavior, once you've put the avenues for assistance in place. If you're homeless, or addicted, and you accept help to get over those things, great. If you reject it, that choice should not be tolerated, and you should be bused to the county line and trespassed.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.