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. happyopossum · 1790116042 · focus · HN ↗

         > Anecdotally speaking

         First hand experience here - worked with a non-profit that has a tiny solar and battery installation for a light display, and we have had constant theft and vandalism problems with it. It's not even easy to get to - those meth-heads had to work to steal the lead acid batteries and copper wire...

         1. dylan604 · 1790118706 · focus · HN ↗

            Several years ago one of the local youth sports complex was limited to daylight use because the copper would get stolen from the light poles. This was a large complex with many light poles. Within a week of them being fixed, they'd come and steal the new copper. I never did follow up to see what they ultimately did to discourage the thieves.

            1. gricardo99 · 1790140735 · focus · HN ↗

               why not switch to aluminum? I believe most building codes allow aluminum conductors.

               1. bluGill · 1790168748 · focus · HN ↗

                  Aluminum has a lot of weird strict rules. It is cheaper, but the labor is more expensive. You can slap copper together quick and it will be safe and work perfectly fine for decades - there is no real world advantage to doing any better. For Al you need to take a lot more care to follow the rules or you have a fire in a few years.

                  Al is typically used for the large wires - the cost of the wires makes it worth the extra labor. For your typical house though the cost of labor is more than the wires, so Al is more expensive than copper.

                  1. 83 · 1790197463 · focus · HN ↗

                     Does the labor actually cost more? It's not that much extra work to use a torque driver and some anti-ox paste. If anything I'd expect buying aluminum rated terminations and outlets would be the biggest additional cost. Might be a little harder to pull aluminum with the larger diameter I suppose.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.