4 ms·
There was a proposal to do this to the California aqueduct, but it turns out they don’t lose much water from evaporation and it would be cheaper to put them on
by yaacov 6y ago
There was a proposal to do this to the California aqueduct, but it turns out they don’t lose much water from evaporation and it would be cheaper to put them on land.
https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/could-the-california-aqueduct-turn-into-a-solar-farm/ https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/could-the-califor...
- llukas 6y agoCA aqueduct proposal was floating panels. Not suspended above the canal.
- Johnyma22 6y ago"don't lose much water" in CA... I doubt the CA case study lends itself too much to the Indian environment.
- kjeetgill 6y agoYea, I think the parent was just discussing a similar project in California. They probably didn't mean to imply anything about the Indian project. Sorry you're getting buried.
- trackone 6y agoA quick google search found this PDF as my first result: http://watermanagement.ucdavis.edu/files/4114/3891/2385/A01_Burt_Good_Shachar_Pascual_ESM121_FinalReport.pdf http://watermanagement.ucdavis.edu/files/4114/3891/2385/A01_... According to that paper, 700 miles of canals lose 9300 acre feet of water per day. They say the price per acre feet (in 2015) was $107. Almost a million dollars per day is lost according to that paper. And California hasn't been cooling down since 2015. It looks like the paper looked at one section of the canal and extrapolated the evaporation loss to the rest of the canal system in California. *this paper seems to be from a class at the university. Just using it as an example that it might be more evaporation than stated above
- newyankee 6y agosmaller width canals are more suited in terms of the cost of the structure to support the panels or so i feel ?