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. swiftcoder · 1790149813 · focus · HN ↗

         > 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

         I live in a European country, where the phone company hasn't bothered to come remove the old unused copper phone lines in the last 5 years. Thousands of dollars worth of cables running past my house alone, and no one has bothered to go strip it in the night and sell it

         This feels like one of those USA problems that would be better addressed by funding decent social services (free healthcare, cheap housing, addiction treatment programs, etc).

         1. oldsklgdfth · 1790183113 · focus · HN ↗

            There is an argument to be made, albeit an absurd one, that the introduction of copper seeking junkies into this Euro country would help recycling and improve the carbon footprint.

            Not a serious argument, but an argument.

            1. MajorTakeaway · 1790183985 · focus · HN ↗

               What footprint are we talking about? Is it emitting carbon into the atmosphere?

               1. oldsklgdfth · 1790184312 · focus · HN ↗

                  It's not the abandoned copper is emitting carbon.

                  It's that recycling has a smaller carbon footprint than making new copper from scratch. I think this claim is true for copper, recycling v. manufacturing.

                  At the very least this would increase cash flow in your economy. The cash flow coming from junkies and their newly acquired "free" copper are better off and more likely to spend some of their money on goods other than dope.

                  Also not a serious argument, but an argument.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.