3 ms·
1 the canals in question are already in California. 2 they have more than enough peak power to desalinate as it stands. Even in the case that they wanted more,
by bilbo0s 5y ago
1 the canals in question are already in California.
2 they have more than enough peak power to desalinate as it stands. Even in the case that they wanted more, there are better places to site those solar resources than on those canals. (Which canals they'd be better off not using in the future in any case.)
- ncmncm 5y agoThere are canals in places other than California. The best choices for where to site solar panel farms have not been established. Siting them over canals or floating in reservoirs, besides cutting evaporation and biofouling, makes them 3% more efficient; at 12 GW, that is an extra 360 MW you would not have got from them on a roof somewhere. Siting them over farmland also makes them more efficient (perhaps less so) but improves crop yield by reducing heat stress and (again) water loss.
- bilbo0s 5y agoYou don't get efficiency boosts from dry canals. Not thinking a little bit ahead is what got all those states into the mess they are in today. California should definitely not assume a future where those canals are in use, and then base their power generation on that assumption.
- ncmncm 5y agoHint: 3% less power is not the same as no power.
- bilbo0s 5y agoBut why not get MORE power via generation resources sited with an eye towards better logistical availability? Rather than trying to force the use of canals that will have no logical role in power generation in a future where said canals will likely be empty.