If I had to guess, its because it's easier to just build solar on flat ground or existing structures than bridging long stretches of irregular excavated dirt that was originally dug with no...
If I had to guess, its because it's easier to just build solar on flat ground or existing structures than bridging long stretches of irregular excavated dirt that was originally dug with no thought of how it might someday hold a structure or need to be near a grid interconnect. There are simpler and cheaper ways to shade the water from the sun.
While I think it is a good initiative with great side benefits, such as less water evaporation, it feels like things are not getting thought through. And that makes me wonder if the 20 million...
While I think it is a good initiative with great side benefits, such as less water evaporation, it feels like things are not getting thought through.
And that makes me wonder if the 20 million dollars in a 2.6 km stretch is actuallythe way to do it. Why not have a smaller stretch and spend some money on measuring equipment to see what the benefits are.
Would be silly if they have to deconstruct the whole 2.6km for example if they cant maintain the canal.
A whole different perspective is the article only talking about panels. These are heavy, requiring significant constructional engineering of the frame. Why not use thin film, which is light and bendable?
I got the impression from the article that the $20m was also to cover the cost of studying the results. In addition they mention several variations in solar panel placement, so it appears the...
I got the impression from the article that the $20m was also to cover the cost of studying the results. In addition they mention several variations in solar panel placement, so it appears the intent is to try several similar ways of installing them to see what works best.
I think its perhaps a mistake to try and "kill two birds with one stone" here. The article mentions two separate points that put together seem like a problem. The panels are mounted in a way that...
I think its perhaps a mistake to try and "kill two birds with one stone" here.
The article mentions two separate points that put together seem like a problem.
The panels are mounted in a way that makes it difficult to access the canal for maintenence
Current maintenence work includes periodically clearing out weeds and brush growth
One of the purported claims is that reduced sunlight might inhibit growth, which could be true, but agrivoltaics argues plants grow just fine in partial shade.
So we build all these solar panels over the canal, and then we can't get in to clear out weeds, and then the canal gets clogged up and slows down.
Meanwhile, we probably could have just put a tarp over it and still gotten shade, but would still be easy to access. And there's room on the canal bank to out panels if you still want them.
The link appears to go to a correction article rather than the main article. Do you have the actual link to the main article? Edit: they fixed the link.
The link appears to go to a correction article rather than the main article. Do you have the actual link to the main article?
I can't find a separate article. I think perhaps they have pulled the original article entirely because of the erroneous math, with the correction published in its place.
I can't find a separate article. I think perhaps they have pulled the original article entirely because of the erroneous math, with the correction published in its place.
I see the article when I click the link. Even when I try the link in different browsers. Does this work Edit: I'm even pulling the same link from APs front page
I see the article when I click the link. Even when I try the link in different browsers. Does this work
Edit: I'm even pulling the same link from APs front page
If I had to guess, its because it's easier to just build solar on flat ground or existing structures than bridging long stretches of irregular excavated dirt that was originally dug with no thought of how it might someday hold a structure or need to be near a grid interconnect. There are simpler and cheaper ways to shade the water from the sun.
While I think it is a good initiative with great side benefits, such as less water evaporation, it feels like things are not getting thought through.
And that makes me wonder if the 20 million dollars in a 2.6 km stretch is actuallythe way to do it. Why not have a smaller stretch and spend some money on measuring equipment to see what the benefits are.
Would be silly if they have to deconstruct the whole 2.6km for example if they cant maintain the canal.
A whole different perspective is the article only talking about panels. These are heavy, requiring significant constructional engineering of the frame. Why not use thin film, which is light and bendable?
I got the impression from the article that the $20m was also to cover the cost of studying the results. In addition they mention several variations in solar panel placement, so it appears the intent is to try several similar ways of installing them to see what works best.
I think its perhaps a mistake to try and "kill two birds with one stone" here.
The article mentions two separate points that put together seem like a problem.
The panels are mounted in a way that makes it difficult to access the canal for maintenence
Current maintenence work includes periodically clearing out weeds and brush growth
One of the purported claims is that reduced sunlight might inhibit growth, which could be true, but agrivoltaics argues plants grow just fine in partial shade.
So we build all these solar panels over the canal, and then we can't get in to clear out weeds, and then the canal gets clogged up and slows down.
Meanwhile, we probably could have just put a tarp over it and still gotten shade, but would still be easy to access. And there's room on the canal bank to out panels if you still want them.
The link appears to go to a correction article rather than the main article. Do you have the actual link to the main article?
Edit: they fixed the link.
I can't find a separate article. I think perhaps they have pulled the original article entirely because of the erroneous math, with the correction published in its place.
I see the article when I click the link. Even when I try the link in different browsers.
Does this work
Edit: I'm even pulling the same link from APs front page
Looks like it was a temporary issue. The link works now. Thanks for the update