3 ms·

The fact you got downvoted for saying this shows how little critical thinking is going on around here. If people think this is a good idea, show us the numbers:

The fact you got downvoted for saying this shows how little critical thinking is going on around here. If people think this is a good idea, show us the numbers: how much would this cost including running all the cabling, building substations, linking into the grid, adding scaffolding spanning the canals, all for hundreds of miles. Compare that to $1800/kW installed for a normal solar power plant [1] and however much basic shade tarp or shade balls would cost to provide the same evaporation benefit. And no, I don’t believe “the government already owns the land” is a good argument here. We’re talking about comparing to land cost for a power plant literally in the desert, of which there is an awful lot in Southern California. [1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48736 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48736

buffington 4y ago
If I were to guess as to the motivations of those who downvoted, it'd be because of this statement: > Just cover the canals as cheaply as possible. Covering the panels as cheaply as possible is probably not worth the cost. Covering the canals with something that produces energy tips the scales to make covering worth it. Then there's this part: > And then put solar panels where it makes sense to put them I agree with that, and wouldn't consider that worthy of a downvote. But without an explanation of "where it makes sense to put them", it's not very constructive. Your reply, however, is far more constructive. It probably doesn't makes sense to cover every possible square inch of canal without considering the costs and benefits, or without considering the costs and benefits of alternative solutions. Keep in mind, the idea isn't only to produce energy. It's about reducing evaporation and maintenance of uncovered canals. Covering panels with just about anything other than solar panels helps reduce evaporation and maintenance, but that's it. If you can cover it with something that can produce energy, then the cost of covering the canals can be offset by the energy produced. Emphasis on "can", because as you point out, it's not as simple as slapping panels down and calling it a day.
toomuchtodo 4y ago
> The net present value of over-canal solar exceeds conventional overground solar by 20–50%, challenging the convention of leaving canals uncovered and calling into question our understanding of the most economic locations for solar power. From my link in top comment.
epistasis 4y ago
I find it ironic that you both are accusing others of not using critical thinking while failing to hold yourself to a similar standard! At least learn about the project before laying down a mountain of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Your "concerns" are addressed by other comments in this thread, yet you didn't hesitate to levy them without research or thought.

buffington 4y ago

If I were to guess as to the motivations of those who downvoted, it'd be because of this statement: > Just cover the canals as cheaply as possible. Covering the panels as cheaply as possible is probably not worth the cost. Covering the canals with something that produces energy tips the scales to make covering worth it. Then there's this part: > And then put solar panels where it makes sense to put them I agree with that, and wouldn't consider that worthy of a downvote. But without an explanation of "where it makes sense to put them", it's not very constructive. Your reply, however, is far more constructive. It probably doesn't makes sense to cover every possible square inch of canal without considering the costs and benefits, or without considering the costs and benefits of alternative solutions. Keep in mind, the idea isn't only to produce energy. It's about reducing evaporation and maintenance of uncovered canals. Covering panels with just about anything other than solar panels helps reduce evaporation and maintenance, but that's it. If you can cover it with something that can produce energy, then the cost of covering the canals can be offset by the energy produced. Emphasis on "can", because as you point out, it's not as simple as slapping panels down and calling it a day.

toomuchtodo 4y ago

> The net present value of over-canal solar exceeds conventional overground solar by 20–50%, challenging the convention of leaving canals uncovered and calling into question our understanding of the most economic locations for solar power. From my link in top comment.

epistasis 4y ago

I find it ironic that you both are accusing others of not using critical thinking while failing to hold yourself to a similar standard! At least learn about the project before laying down a mountain of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Your "concerns" are addressed by other comments in this thread, yet you didn't hesitate to levy them without research or thought.