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. 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).
    alt227 · 1790159330 · focus · HN ↗
    > This feels like one of those USA problems
    In the uk rail industry we have people stealing copper all the time. They cut a live cable, attach it to the back of a truck and drive off. Sometimes this can yield them kms of cable.
    We also had issues where people would jump over fences into depots, use scaffold boards to build a ramp over the 2.5m fence, and then use forklifts to roll big reels of cable up the ramps and over the fence on to the back of a waiting truck the other side.
    Copper cable theft is 100% a massive issue in the UK.
    GJim · 1790160652 · focus · HN ↗
    > In the uk rail industry we have people stealing copper all the time.
    The elephant in the room is naming the group almost exclusively responsible for this crime.
    Cthulhu_ · 1790163657 · focus · HN ↗
    Does it matter? Because if it does, it's advocating for (racial?) profiling and/or singling one demographic out, which is both illegal (maybe not in the UK since it doesn't have a constitution?), amoral, and contrary to one of the core principles of current-day law, i.e. "innocent until proven guilty".
    But do tell, what do you think is the group and what do you think should happen?
    alt227 · 1790168296 · focus · HN ↗
    If a certain group of people are the ones constantly causing the majority of the same specific societal issues, why shouldnt they be called out?
    someonebaggy · 1790170586 · focus · HN ↗
    You can call out a person. What does it mean to call out a group? That's guilt by association.
    alt227 · 1790174499 · focus · HN ↗
    OK cool, I look forward to everybody stopping targeting rich white men as the main problem in the world.
    5upplied_demand · 1790181744 · focus · HN ↗
    Is "everybody" doing that, seems like a stretch? In fact, the current US President explicitly blames immigrants for many of our problems.
    The Economy - <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/us/politics/trump-somalis-immigrants.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/us/politics/trump-somalis...
    Affordability - <a href="https://www.pbs.org/video/trump-s-message-1765403127/" rel="nofollow">https://www.pbs.org/video/trump-s-message-1765403127/
    Crime - <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/29/trumps-hate-filled-rant-ignores-facts-on-immigrant-and-economic-benefits" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/29/trumps-hate-...
    Benefits - <a href="https://www.themarshallproject.org/2024/10/24/fact-check-trump-statements-immigrants-takeaways" rel="nofollow">https://www.themarshallproject.org/2024/10/24/fact-check-tru...
    alt227 · 1790183206 · focus · HN ↗
    Its interesting that to argue against my point you use an example of somebody from the very specific group I mentioned.
    Of course Donald Trump isnt going to blame rich white men for anything, he is one!
    5upplied_demand · 1790183478 · focus · HN ↗
    If that's the case, you shouldn't use words like everybody, because you don't mean everybody
    The rest of your response can be answered in your own words: Oh there are clauses and exceptions to prejudice are there?
    EDITED
    alt227 · 1790184700 · focus · HN ↗
    Lol you literally have no idea what you are arguing against here.
    I didnt think any sensible person would take the word everybody to mean literally every single person in existence. If I could go back and edit the post now I would happily change the word 'everybody' into lots of people' to satisfy the semantic pedants.
    I dont think I have the energy to correct a random on the internet about what my opinion is, other than to say I very much dont blame rich white men for anything and no I dont think there are exceptions to prejudice. But thats it, you can have the last word I'm out.
    5upplied_demand · 1790193633 · focus · HN ↗
    No, it was perfectly clear that you simply meant "everybody" that disagrees with you. That said, we know a large percentage of the population agrees with the President's immigrant framing because he was elected President based largely on that premise.
    So, lots and lots of people are blaming immigrants for all our problems. I'm not sure rich white men need you to defend them to a random on the internet, they are doing just fine.
    imtringued · 1790260140 · focus · HN ↗
    No I'm pretty sure by "everybody" he meant a loose quantity as in a large number of people. Of course such a quantity could be constrained e.g. to what can be seen on the news or maybe the local neighbourhood.
    When someone says "everyone and their dog", they don't mean that the dogs are also participating.
    Basically you failed to charitably interpret the person you are responding to and are now insisting on a reinterpretation that makes you look silly.
    5upplied_demand · 1790787083 · focus · HN ↗
    I think most people would charitably interpret that "everybody" means at least a majority of people. That is what I questioned.
    I don't really view internet comments as "strategic" like you. I was simply clarifying that this person's world (social media, news, friends, etc.) may give them the impression that "everybody" is blaming this group, but in reality that isn't true.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.