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. ck45 · 1790169130 · focus · HN ↗

         The concept of <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Agrivoltaics" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Agrivoltaics still sounds more promising than putting solar panels on top of the canal.

         1. [deleted] · 1790187561 · focus · HN ↗

            [deleted]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.