Study on covering California irrigation canals with solar panels (Mendota: buy, university)

[MechAndy]

Anytime you work on or over water it will cost a lot more than you think.
Flat ground just sounds more affordable.

I mean over water you will need constant access to the other side.
You will also need a crane or some type of boom truck instead of just a couple of forklifts or grade all’s.
Insurance would be more affordable as well working on land.

I didn’t spend much time thinking about but I’m thinking covering the roadway along the canal sides like they do parking lots would be money better spent.

I’m just a nobody but bidding jobs is one of the things I do.

[NORTY FLATZ]

I remember seeing those aqueducts in the El Centro area, when I was 5. I asked my dad why they weren't covered up then. I knew about evaporation, even as a kid. I don't want to say it's DRY there, but if you spit on the sidewalk, it dries between your mouth and the concrete. Cool to watch it bounce...LOL!

Solar panels might be an alternative....

Loved watching the trains out there too, as a child. I've seen A LOT of gondola cars filled with beets...

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by MechAndy

Anytime you work on or over water it will cost a lot more than you think.
Flat ground just sounds more affordable.

I mean over water you will need constant access to the other side.
You will also need a crane or some type of boom truck instead of just a couple of forklifts or grade all’s.
Insurance would be more affordable as well working on land.

I didn’t spend much time thinking about but I’m thinking covering the roadway along the canal sides like they do parking lots would be money better spent.

I’m just a nobody but bidding jobs is one of the things I do.

Yes, that's in their model for different ways to build over the canals and their associated costs with the baseline being a comparison form being built over flat ground. The reason why it's economically net benefit over a flat ground installations are greater efficiency of the panels from being over water as solar panels generally lose some efficiency when they get too hot (so this changes cost per kWh via increasing the denominator with more kWh gained per equivalent installation) and then a minor assist from additional "revenue" from lowered evaporative losses of the irrigation canal.



These are supposedly overall a net economic positive compared to an equivalent flatland installation in California despite the higher install and operating costs from being over canals and potentially being further away from grid connections. Mind you, the paper and research groups don't say that this is a novel concept that they've come up with as this is something that's already been deployed in other parts of the world. Their research was about developing the economical model for figuring out if the cost-benefit analysis makes sense against a roughly equivalent land installation of solar panels.

[T. Damon]

It seems like it would be a lot of expensive infrastructure for the potential array size, a better alternative might be a large, somewhat flexible raft array floating on the water of a reservoir that isn’t used for boating or other recreational activities. It would seem easier to utilize a fairly simple and modular floating mounting system that could fairly easily be expanded and sized to a specific area and to service or maintain.

[Racer46]

Originally Posted by T. Damon

It seems like it would be a lot of expensive infrastructure for the potential array size, a better alternative might be a large, somewhat flexible raft array floating on the water of a reservoir that isn’t used for boating or other recreational activities. It would seem easier to utilize a fairly simple and modular floating mounting system that could fairly easily be expanded and sized to a specific area and to service or maintain.

Not a bad idea except on a really windy day.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by T. Damon

It seems like it would be a lot of expensive infrastructure for the potential array size, a better alternative might be a large, somewhat flexible raft array floating on the water of a reservoir that isn’t used for boating or other recreational activities. It would seem easier to utilize a fairly simple and modular floating mounting system that could fairly easily be expanded and sized to a specific area and to service or maintain.

The study supposedly looked at both raft arrays and a more fixed overhanging structure, and the model favors the former more for most situations, though the latter at some sites was also a net economic positive versus a similarly situated, ground-based array.

[JGC97]

Sounds like an interesting idea. I hope that if the move forward on this, they make sure to inspect and repair the damaged incurred to canals during the drought. A number of them cracked and sunk a bit due to the depletion of the aquifers beneath. That could run into big bucks.

[DriveNotCommute]

Saw this article and thought of this thread. This is for the people talking about floating solar panels:
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapo...ng-solar-farms


Seems like theirs is only about a year old so no info yet about how well they hold up to wear and tear. But knowing that it's there, we could look them up in a few years and see how their experiment worked out and if any of their lessons learned would be applicable to our aqueducts.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by Bill the Butcher

Install them high enough so that it doesn’t effect the fishing? I think the anglers themselves would be fine. If anything, evens better as they could have some shade while fishing at certain times. The worry would be would it have negative effects on the fish and their for fishing. So install them high so plenty of light can get underneath.

My biggest gripe with solar panels is that they are an eyesore and waste a lot of land. Putting them in a location like a canal or aqua duct isn’t a waste since the land is already being used and can still be used for the main purpose of transporting water.

Isn't the purpose to reduce evaporation? I would think that would mean a tight seal.

[Bill the Butcher]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

Isn't the purpose to reduce evaporation? I would think that would mean a tight seal.

If you are concerned about water loss, yes. Which I think this study was concerned about. Personally, I'm not concerned about water loss but more concerned with putting solar panels in areas where the lands only purpose is solar. So that is why I like the idea of installing them high above the canals and aqueducts while still allowing for fishing.

When I drive by solar fields I tend to wonder if there is anything beneficial they can do with the land underneath the panels. Right now it seems like a pretty big waste, albeit, most of these panels are in areas where there were only tumble weeds anyway.