3 ms·
Prevent evaporation sounds like a good idea, but it seems like the payback for that alone must not be much, or else they would have been covered a long time ago
by pimlottc 4y ago
Prevent evaporation sounds like a good idea, but it seems like the payback for that alone must not be much, or else they would have been covered a long time ago (with non-solar-generating materials)?
I'm not saying it doesn't make sense in conjunction with power generation, but that it's probably much less of a benefit.
- mikestew 4y agoSo there's not really a $20 bill on the ground, Mr. Economist? :-) There was no payback because the water kept flowing regardless. But past performance is no indication of future performance, and that realization is starting to dawn on at least a few folks.
- CydeWeys 4y agoThere already are reservoirs that are covered to prevent evaporation. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shade_balls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shade_balls
- hedora 4y ago1-2% of the water that goes into the canals is currently lost to evaporation: https://theconversation.com/installing-solar-panels-over-californias-canals-could-yield-water-land-air-and-climate-payoffs-158754 https://theconversation.com/installing-solar-panels-over-cal... So, reducing that is not going to have as big an impact as, say, improved irrigation techniques, or building more reservoirs. However, it will produce a lot of electricity. (Though probably less per dollar than putting the panels on top of failed farmland.)