What California is learning from solar panels built over irrigation canals

>>The state currently generates 62% of its electricity from renewable and zero-carbon sources, with the largest percentage of that coming from solar

62% is pretty respectable for the size of California (same electricity consumption as Spain). I did not know this.

It seems like it would be more effective to simply put all the solar panels in a field, and construct a cheap shade over the entire canal no? The supports in the picture are massive and don't look cheap. Also I would imagine the solar array uses more copper than a similar capacity array just built in a field. You can't daisy chain multiple miles of solar panels together, so you need an extra power line to run alongside the whole thing.

Put the solar panels in a field: The solar array uses less copper. The shade supports don't have to hold up solar panels: Shade supports cost less.

The best reasoning they give is that California has insane permitting requirements, and it takes 1/6 the time to build on developed land compared to undeveloped land.

They should give credit where credit is due. Solar panels on top of irrigation canals was pioneered in the Indian state of Gujarat back in 2012[1]

[1] https://www.autonocion.com/us/arizona-solar-panels-irrigatio...

Are there risks of any poisons or chemicals from the solar panels leaking into the water system over time?

When you read lines like "California’s extensive network of canals and aqueducts is the lifeblood of the state, providing clean water to populous cities and expansive farms that wouldn’t otherwise have it." you have to ask how we ended up with these canal systems, what the tradeoffs are in a landscape setup this way rather than one where water infiltrates the ground and stays hydrated, and who owns water rights in California.

Build Soil has some interesting threads on this:

- https://bsky.app/profile/buildsoil.bsky.social/post/3lmeddjd...

- https://bsky.app/profile/buildsoil.bsky.social/post/3mkzybkk...

(note: I'm not trying to totally bash the solar panel project nor some of the key figures involved who've done great work like Dustin Mulvaney, but do think we should think about how we ended up here)

oof, that is a crap ton of steel. I doubt those panels will ever harvest enough energy to offset the energy use to produce both the cells and supports.

I imagine with cells in that configuration, lifting wind loads are significant which is why it's overbuilt like that.

Perhaps some laminate timber for the cross supports?

Lastly, the US has got to start eating seasonally. The water problem in the southwest is all agriculture: people want to grow baby spinach in January. Unless we figure out a way to create a crap ton of energy cheaply so we can supply industrial sized flows without worrying about the energy cost, we use far more water than we should in California and Arizona.

What is it learning?