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. burnte · 1790112297 · 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?

      No because now you're using land that could be used for other things, which is exactly what this avoids. This takes existing land that loses water and costs money, and makes it lose less water and make money.

      1. dietr1ch · 1790113901 · focus · HN ↗

         You are assuming that land is expensive and forgetting that building and maintaining panels over long a canal is harder than building over a large plot.

         1. burnte · 1790173744 · focus · HN ↗

            No I'm not. I'm assuming that existing unused land should be reserved for better projects when we have currently used land that both can do more and where this helps save water. My comment had absolutely nothing to do with the price of land. Everyone else is missing the "water conservation" part because they're distracted by the solar panels and are getting nerd sniped. This isn't a solar first project, it's a water first project.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.