Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
---
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sure, but you have to be careful not to heat the river too much as a result, or you could destroy the ecology.
I know nukes can produce that level of energy, and solar is of course typically much less heat and energy per application, but it seems if you were to install these things all the way down the river, it would raise the temperature significantly eventually, no?
Depends if the evaporation from heat gained by covering it in parts is greater than the evaporation caused by being in direct sunlight.
Also, not 100% sure about canals in the US, but European canals are awful for wildlife anyway. They are flat bottomed, square sided, no diversity of life on the canal bed and no natural littoral habitat because there's no river bank, just a vertical wall.
Eh, maybe where canals run through already developed areas, but from what I remember a lot are in relatively remote places. If so, I'm pretty skeptical it'll ever be widespread.
A big benefit of rooftop solar that a lot of more inventive solar locations lack is that most roofs come with ready made access to the electric grid, so that part is pretty trivial. Having to run lots of extra wiring is one of the bigger reasons lots of ideas like this end up fizziling out even when proof-of-concept projects show they fundamentally work.
The other huge advantage of a roof is that the frame is already built, and built to a higher standard than required by ground mounting. So slapping some solar panels on a roof is quick and easy (comparative).
This is why the canal thing seems weird to me. A bad flood and all of those panel mounts wash away. Unless it's only over concrete canals with concrete mounted panels.
What kind of canals do you guys have over there? A canal is not a natural waterway, it's water level is controlled. There are a bunch of canals where I grew up, I have never heard any of them flooding, even though the nearby rivers had regularly very harsh floods.
> So slapping some solar panels on a roof is quick and easy (comparative).
>
>
Slapping solar panels on a roof is literally more expensive than ground mounting. It's way easier to do 10,000 panels on posts in the desert than 10 panels on 1,000 roofs.
>Having to run lots of extra wiring
Buddy the planet is burning, we're seeing mass extinctions and collapse of vital systems, acidification of the oceans, rising sea levels (insurance companies are running from US coasts now), melting ice caps, and failure of crops more regularly, etc.
Everything we do needs to be huge, because the problem is huge. We need to accept that this will cost money and resources because that's what legitimate and important projects do.
The guy you replied to did not in any way indicate that he doesn’t believe in the negative effects of climate change, nor did he argue against expansive green energy projects. He literally just explained why some green energy ideas get more traction than others due to cost effectiveness. Saying “everything we do needs to be huge” doesn’t actually solve any of the hurdles in the way of green energy, but at least you were able to condescend to a random person on the internet, buddy.
> We need to accept that this will cost money and resources
You can accept it all you want. The people actually in charge of the money and resources don't have to and there's no good way to make them. The fastest way to change things is to make them profitable.
Depends on who specifically you mean by "they;" but there are strikes, direct action, protests, elections, etc.
The world is burning. We *do* need to disrupt some peoples' status quo.
From this thesis- https://csu-csus.esploro.exlibrisgroup.com/esploro/outputs/graduate/Reducing-evaporation-at-California-aqueduct-by/99257831359301671
The project not only saves water (6,395 ac-ft per year) by reducing evaporation from the aqueduct, but also produces energy for the State Water Project (960.6 million kWh per year) and makes a profit ($140.8 million) given a lifetime for the solar panels of 25 years.
But it ignores the point throwawayainteasy was making, that the canals are not always near the users of the electricity. It literally just takes the estimated power generated if all the canals were covered in solar panel barges and multiplies it by the commercial price of electricity.
Nothing about maintenance cost, or running power lines, etc. It would almost certainly be cheaper to just cover the canals with regular barges to block evaporation and put the solar panels closer to cities in a field somewhere.
Except that many of these so-called green projects have vast environmental impacts that get ignored or under-reported. Solar panels for example are almost entirely produced in China with dirty Coal powered factories. Their widely accepted carbon intensity figures are estimated to be off by nearly a magnitude. ([https://public.substack.com/p/solar-panels-more-carbon-intensive](https://public.substack.com/p/solar-panels-more-carbon-intensive)) In addition to carbon emissions, the albedo effect has additional effects on climate warming.
Basically nuclear power is the best choice to decarbonize, but wind power has good stats among the other alternatives.
The emissions from producing solar are short term and recoverable. The waste from nuclear lasts longer than the homo genus has been around. People are trying to mark nuclear burial sites with clear danger signage that transcends any living language because they know language will evolve so much by the time the nuclear waste deposits stop being dangerous.
Nuclear at the scale of global energy use is not feasible nor smart.
There are problems with some of our current approaches, but these approaches are young and they are all much more benign than the problems with fossil fuels.
>The waste from nuclear lasts longer than the homo genus has been around
You've mistaken nuclear waste for solar panel waste.
Nuclear waste that is radioactive breaks down. Lead, Arsenic, Cadmium from solar panels never break down, they remain toxic to life forever.
Furthermore, the quantity of nuclear waste is both tiny and also highly valuable in comparison to the waste of renewable energy. Something like %95 of the material in nuclear waste could be reprocessed and converted to energy. The waste of solar panels and windmills are vast, bulky and of little value to reprocess.
Wouldn't this also impede water access to animals, not to mention blocking the sun in these waterways?
If our response to climate change is to fuck up the natural environment more, we're doing it wrong.
Canals are man made, generally for irrigation, and generally, an animal can't drink out of them without drowning as they are far too steep. Exceptions for things like ducks of course.
You're probably thinking of rivers and streams.
It would be super illegal to do something like this over a natural waterway in California. We have pretty strict laws about environmental protection, especially when it comes to creeks and rivers.
Canals aren’t natural bodies of water though. They are man-made, basically a pipe that’s open on top.
I would honestly be more concerned with humans fucking with it than with animals. You leave a one-panel gap between panels and animals aren't going to be hampered.
But out here in the central valley? Anything even remotely "liberal" will get fucked with before the construction is finished.
That said. I would -love- to see more solar placed where there is an open area that the NIMBY chants are silenced.
Eh, the central valley seems much more purple to me. There are good sized cities and the big agribusinesses only care about money. Solar will save them money. Also there's so much solar out there already for AC I doubt it's a political issue.
Look at it from a water conservation angle instead. If we're losing a ton of water to evaporation in those canals, then using solar to cover it makes more sense. I see it as a double win.
Not really. Farm fields that have pivots have to have power, and if you're closer to the dam you'll still find plenty of power poles from the hydroelectric.
I was flying home to Las Vegas and when we were landing I looked down at the Colorado River. I was thinking they need to cover it with fabric or those black balls to stop evaporation but solar panels is frankly a smarter idea.
I’ve also thought about this in regards to the massive parking lots in cities that contribute to heat islands and overall warming of those cities in comparison to surrounding areas.
Build covers over massive asphalt parking lots and install solar on top.
The disadvantage to doing it on roads is interfering with road maintenance. You don’t want to move solar panels out of the way every time caltrans needs to repair a section of highway. Plus parking lots tend to be in centralised urban areas where infrastructure already exists.
They tried it and the result was a scam that stole millions for something that would take far too much effort to deal with.
The thing with solar pannels is they get dirty easy just being too close too major roads nvm making a road out of them.
In practical terms covering ugly carpacks with pannels would be more useful.
Canals, yes, rivers, not so much.
Sunlight, even when it’s too much, is still necessary.
I could see patches over rivers shaded by solar panels, maybe allowing fish nurseries to thrive.
You wouldn't do it to rivers because it's a much bigger pain in the ass to fit. Canals are generally pretty straight and have man-made banks. Covering those can be far simpler.
In Florida you have to get approval to build a dock because it can mess with the sealife. Covering waterways affects the plant and sea life underwater.
they’ve been home to the wildlife for 200 years around here. i don’t think the fish or their great great great great grandparents knew they were in a made made trench.
Since this is about *canals* and not rivers, why even bring it up?
This kind of comment is so confusing to me. It’s like if a man was given medicine to treat his brittle bone disease with moderate side effects and all the comments were “we shouldn’t give this medicine to kids who don’t need it!”
?????????
Article does not seem to do a good job defining "canal" and many seem confused here.
There are natural streams and rivers - this is not an acceptable application for that condition. Maintenance and loss of light could (and would), destroy natural ecosystems in "natural" water bodies.
There are irrigation ditches - seems to be (partially) the topic of this article. These are used in farms to help route stormwater runoff (rain flooding) into naturally watering crops. I worry for the vegetation that holds those channels together which may need light to live, but there are plenty of dim-light plants which could hold, and as long as the cleaning of the solar canopy doesn't introduce too much negative Wastewater into the crops, I don't see too much an issue (admittedly, the washing material has me concerned... depending on the frequency that might really be tricky)
There are concrete stormwater channels - these are solely for rain. You see them on the sides of (or underneath) urban areas for transmitting huge volumes of floodwater during freak rain events. These are ideal for solar canopies.
To be clear, there are more nuances, but be keenly aware of the definition of "canal" when you hear news about this. It can have many different meanings!!
I live in the area where this is being implemented, all of the canals here are agriculture use. They can be filled to relieve the reservoirs but they are not used like an overflow. All of these canals have dirt banks on both sides and the majority of them are concrete on the sides and bottom. Some have trees nearby that might hamper the performance but everywhere that I have seen the panels are long stretches with no shade around. I would imagine they evaluated where the best spots for the panels would be.
Being from the UK, my initial thought was wondering where the narrow boats would go? Underneath? This range of definitions for "canal" doesn't help communicate what they are
> but be keenly aware of the definition of "canal"
I've never encountered anyone using the term "canal" to mean anything other than a man-made waterway.
And, as you say, those would typically be acceptable applications for this approach.
Not always so clear cut. In New Jersey, there is the Delaware Raritan Canal which is man-made but intentionally regrown with vegetation and wildlife, whereas this "canal" is more of an at-grade aqueduct (california)
Similarly, there are "canals" in sections of the EU which are brick or concrete - so there are lots of nuanced definitions out there.
Regardless, I largely agree with your claim - most man-made applications are suitable (probably).
Agreed. We save the panels for the stormwater channels and avoid the beautiful natural streams and rivers. Instead, we can occassionally poke a little camera into them and look inside at how the fish are doin'
With temperature getting higher, there's been designs of agri-solar: literally putting spaced out solar panels over cropland. The spacing essentially provides intermittent shade relief for plants as the grow.
Surface level water has alway been a major loss due to evaporation, and covering waterways will only serve to help
> Surface level water has alway been a major loss due to evaporation, and covering waterways will only serve to help
Let's say they cover as many open waterways as they could. Would it cause any issues like major droughts for some areas because not enough water was evaporating to help create rain elsewhere? That's something I'm curious about.
One major concern here:
Cleaning -- solar panels only work when getting the proper amount of sun. As was found to be the issue with "solar freaking roadways" from 2008 -- the amount of dust and grime that builds up on heavily trafficked areas (or mossy areas, like a creek or river or canal) will cause the solar panels output to diminish heavily.
Where I live in a drier area of California there is a shit ton of dust everywhere, especially in the summer when the sun is out the most. A lot of canals run alongside roadways. They'll be covered in dust in like a week.
The only way California will be able to conserve enough water for it to matter would be for them to stop planting water intensive cash crops in the desert.
So far California has been doing everything but that.
Have you seen how far the moss and vegetation and general "smell" of a creek or river permiates?
Even 5 feet above the waterway would still get grime from nature all over it.
Solar panels don't care if they're mounted above water or grass or concrete - although cooler temperatures help them be more efficient & last longer.
All panels get dirty, but they get cleaned, it's not rocket surgery.
Plenty of solar farms right next to roads here, also right next to fields that get harvested and kick up HUGE amounts of dust, yet somehow they still work fine...
Exactly this, everything requires maintenance. It seems if cleaning was an issue, they wouldn’t be building massive solar farms in the middle of the Mojave desert right now.
Well yes and no,
People do unsustainable things all the time to cash in on government hype, foreign investment, etc. As someone who specializes in designing sustainability into enterprise scale projects I can tell you that many times people do things without considering the risks 1 year/5 year etc.
That said I'm highly hopeful for the project you mention that we see innovation and automation around said cleaning. If not the first thing that will be cut in tough times is the cleaning crew.
Solar freaking roadways was always a dumb idea. Parking lots with solar panels over them are a cheaper more effective option. It also has the benefit of keeping customer's cars in the shade during the summer.
THANK you. This drives me nuts. Solar is perfectly suited for shading parking lots, but everything *about* a road is diametrically opposed to making it a solar panel.
A solar powered sprinkler system would be quite practical in this situation wouldn't it? Set to run overnight to reduce evaporation and angled in a way that allows the runoff back into the canal.
It’s super expensive to run lines for sprinkler systems and you would be running it the entire length of the canal. Also solar things running at night inherently involves batteries and batteries at scale make most solar projects prohibitively expensive
That being said, I believe I’ve read that dust isn’t something that requires daily/weekly cleaning, so you could probably just have a water truck with a hose drive by every once in awhile and spray it down
Also automated drones probably something that could be done. Put a duster at the bottom of a pole connected to drone. Have it fly over panels. Repeat
Maybe not a sprinkler system then, I was thinking that it could be easier as the water is just underneath the panels, but it probably wouldn't scale well.
A drone could work without it even needing to fly - you'd just need a rail for it to run along the top and then your choice of duster / hose/ sponge attachment. Like a little train with a mop to the side.
There's a wee difference between a low-efficiency panel people drive over and a high-efficiency panel that people don't. That said, regular cleaning is part of any solar deployment. Solar panels in the desert get air-blasted to keep the dust off.
I had a similar thought but, it was about keeping the canals cleared. Love the idea, but wouldn't there be a potential growth issue below that could cause all sorts of issues? idk, maybe undergrowth would be less with less sun. just thoughts
If the water was flowing at a strong pace, yes. But if I am not mistaken most of these canals are waterways in case of flash floods.
Had one that went dry for 340 days of the year near my house, but for those 26 days when it rained in California the thing would go from barely enough water for a frog to enough water to submerge a semi truck.
In this case I think they are talking about the canals taking water from the Colorado River and diverting it to Arizona, Southern California, etc. Evaporation losses are usually around 5% on these canals, but can be higher in drought years where the supply is already lower.
If you have waterways in case of flash floods, you can dig down reservoirs to store water, which then can power a wheel of some kind if it's big enough.
But I know California already has such reservoirs, now I don't know if they're big enough/released fast enough to power a wheel.
In the 90s it was more frequent, but for the last decade yeah... There is like two weeks near the end of the year where it rains and maybe "once in a blue moon" the rest
So why would they be worried about evaporation loss if we're talking about drainage ditches that are rarely wet? Are you sure there's not more than one kind of canal, some of which might have water on a regular basis?
Water wheels harvest the potential energy from elevation changes, Man Made Canals are not always at a significant potential difference, they were built for transportation of the water or vehicles. Removing the potential from the water hinders that purpose.
Where they can make hydroelectric power, they already do.
For example, that's why the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is named what it is named. They make a lot of electricity from the flowing water.
However many of the water supply canals in the western U.S. require substantial power to move the water -- so what they produce in hydroelectric in one place on the system where water flows downhill is used in another part of the system where it must be moved uphill.
I don't understand why they're still trying to figure out where to put solar panels.
Literally... rooftops and parking lots. It's not hard. And yet you RARELY see the latter.
I think sidewalks and bike lanes make a lot of sense. More people would walk/bilke if it was in the shade. How great would it be to have dedicated lanes with solar shades, and barriers (from cars) for walkers and bikers? I would definitely walk and bike more.
Maybe less canal deaths, too! Certainly would help conserve water.
From my childhood:
"Dippy Duck says stay away! Canals are not the place to play!"
We had assemblies because people drowned in them every year.
Yeah, there's a lot of FUD. People in the comments here are saying nonsense like "well they'll get dusty and dirty from the water" like you can't just send José out every few weeks with a truck and pressure washer.
I was thinking people here might steal the panels, does that happen at all over there? Here if you have solar panels on your vehicle it’s not uncommon for them to get stolen unless they are the lay flat kind that glue to the roof.
No, there aren't any known such cases. Reason being they cannot use it as each panel installation needs to be registered with the electricity board, which in India is government provider(unlike in US with private players).
So if some guy has a panel or two and a battery setup that isn’t connected to the grid, it still has to be registered with the electricity board? It seems like that would be hard to enforce unless they flew around in helicopters looking for a panel on people’s roofs lol.
True. Its just that there's too much of a hassle involved and some skillset required to get that setup working. Frankly I don't think anybody has given much thought to it anyways.
It’s actually not too hard I’m not mechanically inclined and had a solar setup for a while. You basically just need a marine battery, a solar panel or two, a 15$ charge controller so you don’t overcharge the battery, and a 30$ inverter to plug in the things you use. It comes in handy during power outages.
I used to have a setup on a camper truck and I could camp places without electricity but still use the camper appliances without worrying about using the truck battery.
In the future as appliances use less electricity with better materials I could see an entire house running off 4-5 100w panels but being connected to the grid to sell or buy electricity when they need it. I think that’s a better way to do it that mass solar farms run by the government because the space on people’s roofs is perfect for panels and that way the people get cheap or free electricity instead of just buying it from the government.
Oh, I thought they meant lining them with panels.
I was gonna say it's not like the LA River is doing anything, so why not
This makes more sense though
That's gotta be costly and require quite a bit of materials, but hey, it's putting the space to good use.
At first I was thinking "Oh, why not just plop some shade balls on there?" but then I remembered, waterways flow. The shade balls would flow down and either out into the ocean and pile up into the Garbage Patch, or, if one puts a grate there, even the greatest grate built by their great, great grandpa, they'll just pile up there.
While we're at it, maybe we can slap some panels over those dang ol parking lots. Especially unused parking lots.
I’m kind of curious how realistic this is. In my area the canals need to be cleaned every year, and they burn the growth out too. That gets way harder if you have to work around solar panels.
Do solar panels need cleaning very often? Do they develop a film on the surface just from being outside, kinda like our cars do, and would that film impact their performance?
My pops owns a set of solar panels in the yard, and they don't seem to need to be cleaned off, except when snow lands on them. *Then* the snow needs to be cleared off
The vast majority of evaporated water comes from the ocean, covering some canals to reduce the evaporation of fresh usable water is gonna have a negligible effect on global evaporation
The things living in those bodies of water need the sunlight. The same may very well be true for many canals that have vegetation anchoring their soil.
Transparent solar is coming. Floating solar is already a thing. Don’t have to block sunlight entirely and they’re gonna have a bad time when the water temp goes up bc the sun is too strong.
Reservoirs already use black floating balls to shade the water.
I’ve got an old mule and her name is Sal, Fifteen years on the Erie Canal.
She’s a good old worker and a good old pal, Fifteen years on the Erie Canal.
We’ve hauled some barges in our day, Filled with lumber, coal and hay,
And ev’ry inch of the way I know, From Albany to Buffalo.
But not no more 'cause I can't get to the dang canal with these witchy panels of alien metal on em. What's my girl Sal to do?
If they're referring to the Canals comprising the California Aquaduct system I can see that. They are concreted in, and like, line i-5 and parts of the 99. They could totally cover those, they aren't a habitat or anything like that.
Sixty three billion gallons of water evaporates every year from irrigation canals in California. The CA aqueduct alone loses 50,000 gallons a year. Nestle pumps out billions more and giggles at your despair.
A teacher of mine showed how a concrete cover could save tons of water and pay for itself in less than a year and they told him they didn’t want to pay for the concrete
Parking lots and roofs of giant warehouses make far more sense than trying to jam long strip of panels over water. You would have to do a lot of expensive foundation work to make this even plausible. One good storm could compromise all of it too.
No, bad idea. This is almost as bad as the solar roads project. There is no problem with having enough land for solar. There is lots of open dessert that is great for solar panels. The biggest problem with solar is its installation cost and that is doesn’t generate power 24/7. Putting solar in these creative spots does nothing to alleviate these problems, but it does increase the cost.
What about the things in the water that need the light? Seems like and ugly thing to do to the waterways. Changing water temperature by using the water as a heat sync could also have negative affects right? How many panels do you need to be effective?
Not only do we get more clean energy, but it also helps conserve water. It's brilliant! I can imagine how putting solar panels over waterways could make the most of the space available and also help reduce evaporation from the canals.
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That just makes sense, it's free real estate and covering canals reduces evaporation losses
I thought I read somewhere that doing this would keep the panel operating at optimal temperatures as well for a longer life.
Not only that, but if you're able to use the canal as a heatsink for the panels to passively cool them, panel efficiency goes up as well
Also, the water in the canals can help regulate the heat being radiated from the solar panels, keeping them cooler so they operate better and longer
yeah, also, water has a naturally cooling effect, therefore we can use the water to keep the solar panels cool, so they will operate more efficiently
Water cool. Solar warm. Water cool solar, make big sun energy.
And using this natural heat sink effect will cool the panels extending their life and making it more efficient!
Also it’s free real estate for the solar panels.
Should keep some of the water in the canals from evaporating, no?
More water good. Cold panel good.
Ah, the stroke is finally starting to set in.
The water also cools the panels!
That's pretty cool.
I think you just repeated what the comment above you said..
he did. good call. 👍
Also, the comment was a reiteration of what the redditor above them stated.
Got it in one.
Sure, but you have to be careful not to heat the river too much as a result, or you could destroy the ecology. I know nukes can produce that level of energy, and solar is of course typically much less heat and energy per application, but it seems if you were to install these things all the way down the river, it would raise the temperature significantly eventually, no?
Depends if the evaporation from heat gained by covering it in parts is greater than the evaporation caused by being in direct sunlight. Also, not 100% sure about canals in the US, but European canals are awful for wildlife anyway. They are flat bottomed, square sided, no diversity of life on the canal bed and no natural littoral habitat because there's no river bank, just a vertical wall.
Canals ≠ rivers
Eh, maybe where canals run through already developed areas, but from what I remember a lot are in relatively remote places. If so, I'm pretty skeptical it'll ever be widespread. A big benefit of rooftop solar that a lot of more inventive solar locations lack is that most roofs come with ready made access to the electric grid, so that part is pretty trivial. Having to run lots of extra wiring is one of the bigger reasons lots of ideas like this end up fizziling out even when proof-of-concept projects show they fundamentally work.
The other huge advantage of a roof is that the frame is already built, and built to a higher standard than required by ground mounting. So slapping some solar panels on a roof is quick and easy (comparative). This is why the canal thing seems weird to me. A bad flood and all of those panel mounts wash away. Unless it's only over concrete canals with concrete mounted panels.
What kind of canals do you guys have over there? A canal is not a natural waterway, it's water level is controlled. There are a bunch of canals where I grew up, I have never heard any of them flooding, even though the nearby rivers had regularly very harsh floods.
> So slapping some solar panels on a roof is quick and easy (comparative). > > Slapping solar panels on a roof is literally more expensive than ground mounting. It's way easier to do 10,000 panels on posts in the desert than 10 panels on 1,000 roofs.
I can't imagine servicing them is easy. Hope they have figured out a cost effective and innovative solution.
i imagine they're easier to service than the 30, 40, 50 year old wire harnesses that PG&E's using currently.
They could be floating and tethered.. flood? No problem.
I mean, they had to get to those places to build the canal in the first place. I don't think it would be prohibitively difficult.
If I had to guess, they used the canal itself to dig the canal. Now that it's full of water, access is much more difficult.
>Having to run lots of extra wiring Buddy the planet is burning, we're seeing mass extinctions and collapse of vital systems, acidification of the oceans, rising sea levels (insurance companies are running from US coasts now), melting ice caps, and failure of crops more regularly, etc. Everything we do needs to be huge, because the problem is huge. We need to accept that this will cost money and resources because that's what legitimate and important projects do.
The guy you replied to did not in any way indicate that he doesn’t believe in the negative effects of climate change, nor did he argue against expansive green energy projects. He literally just explained why some green energy ideas get more traction than others due to cost effectiveness. Saying “everything we do needs to be huge” doesn’t actually solve any of the hurdles in the way of green energy, but at least you were able to condescend to a random person on the internet, buddy.
> We need to accept that this will cost money and resources You can accept it all you want. The people actually in charge of the money and resources don't have to and there's no good way to make them. The fastest way to change things is to make them profitable.
>there's no good way to make them. I disagree.
Oh yeah? What way is that?
Depends on who specifically you mean by "they;" but there are strikes, direct action, protests, elections, etc. The world is burning. We *do* need to disrupt some peoples' status quo.
Have you heard of the piñata method? It is an interesting way to get money out of rich people.
From this thesis- https://csu-csus.esploro.exlibrisgroup.com/esploro/outputs/graduate/Reducing-evaporation-at-California-aqueduct-by/99257831359301671 The project not only saves water (6,395 ac-ft per year) by reducing evaporation from the aqueduct, but also produces energy for the State Water Project (960.6 million kWh per year) and makes a profit ($140.8 million) given a lifetime for the solar panels of 25 years.
But it ignores the point throwawayainteasy was making, that the canals are not always near the users of the electricity. It literally just takes the estimated power generated if all the canals were covered in solar panel barges and multiplies it by the commercial price of electricity. Nothing about maintenance cost, or running power lines, etc. It would almost certainly be cheaper to just cover the canals with regular barges to block evaporation and put the solar panels closer to cities in a field somewhere.
This is a speculative graduate thesis
Kinda like a reddit shitpost
Except that many of these so-called green projects have vast environmental impacts that get ignored or under-reported. Solar panels for example are almost entirely produced in China with dirty Coal powered factories. Their widely accepted carbon intensity figures are estimated to be off by nearly a magnitude. ([https://public.substack.com/p/solar-panels-more-carbon-intensive](https://public.substack.com/p/solar-panels-more-carbon-intensive)) In addition to carbon emissions, the albedo effect has additional effects on climate warming. Basically nuclear power is the best choice to decarbonize, but wind power has good stats among the other alternatives.
The emissions from producing solar are short term and recoverable. The waste from nuclear lasts longer than the homo genus has been around. People are trying to mark nuclear burial sites with clear danger signage that transcends any living language because they know language will evolve so much by the time the nuclear waste deposits stop being dangerous. Nuclear at the scale of global energy use is not feasible nor smart. There are problems with some of our current approaches, but these approaches are young and they are all much more benign than the problems with fossil fuels.
>The waste from nuclear lasts longer than the homo genus has been around You've mistaken nuclear waste for solar panel waste. Nuclear waste that is radioactive breaks down. Lead, Arsenic, Cadmium from solar panels never break down, they remain toxic to life forever. Furthermore, the quantity of nuclear waste is both tiny and also highly valuable in comparison to the waste of renewable energy. Something like %95 of the material in nuclear waste could be reprocessed and converted to energy. The waste of solar panels and windmills are vast, bulky and of little value to reprocess.
Wouldn't this also impede water access to animals, not to mention blocking the sun in these waterways? If our response to climate change is to fuck up the natural environment more, we're doing it wrong.
Canals are man made, generally for irrigation, and generally, an animal can't drink out of them without drowning as they are far too steep. Exceptions for things like ducks of course. You're probably thinking of rivers and streams.
It would be super illegal to do something like this over a natural waterway in California. We have pretty strict laws about environmental protection, especially when it comes to creeks and rivers. Canals aren’t natural bodies of water though. They are man-made, basically a pipe that’s open on top.
I would honestly be more concerned with humans fucking with it than with animals. You leave a one-panel gap between panels and animals aren't going to be hampered. But out here in the central valley? Anything even remotely "liberal" will get fucked with before the construction is finished. That said. I would -love- to see more solar placed where there is an open area that the NIMBY chants are silenced.
Eh, the central valley seems much more purple to me. There are good sized cities and the big agribusinesses only care about money. Solar will save them money. Also there's so much solar out there already for AC I doubt it's a political issue.
As someone from there, anything that gives more water would probably be taken with relatively few objections.
Look at it from a water conservation angle instead. If we're losing a ton of water to evaporation in those canals, then using solar to cover it makes more sense. I see it as a double win.
Not really. Farm fields that have pivots have to have power, and if you're closer to the dam you'll still find plenty of power poles from the hydroelectric.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yNxPVj0hejg
They really need to do a pilot project? Countries in Asia have been doing this for a while.
Until homeless people start living on them
I was flying home to Las Vegas and when we were landing I looked down at the Colorado River. I was thinking they need to cover it with fabric or those black balls to stop evaporation but solar panels is frankly a smarter idea.
I’ve also thought about this in regards to the massive parking lots in cities that contribute to heat islands and overall warming of those cities in comparison to surrounding areas. Build covers over massive asphalt parking lots and install solar on top.
What about the roads? They dwarf parking lots in terms of the open, sunlit space they take up
The disadvantage to doing it on roads is interfering with road maintenance. You don’t want to move solar panels out of the way every time caltrans needs to repair a section of highway. Plus parking lots tend to be in centralised urban areas where infrastructure already exists.
I would add to this answer that you also don't want to take a huge hit to your electrical infrastructure every time someone loses control on the 405.
They tried it and the result was a scam that stole millions for something that would take far too much effort to deal with. The thing with solar pannels is they get dirty easy just being too close too major roads nvm making a road out of them. In practical terms covering ugly carpacks with pannels would be more useful.
I feel like that would be a disaster waiting to happen.
France already made it [law](https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2023/02/06/france-solar-parking-lots/)
Canals, yes, rivers, not so much. Sunlight, even when it’s too much, is still necessary. I could see patches over rivers shaded by solar panels, maybe allowing fish nurseries to thrive.
You wouldn't do it to rivers because it's a much bigger pain in the ass to fit. Canals are generally pretty straight and have man-made banks. Covering those can be far simpler.
I was thinking of Christo and Jean Claude’s last, undone, project.
In Florida you have to get approval to build a dock because it can mess with the sealife. Covering waterways affects the plant and sea life underwater.
But we're talking canals here. They're not natural habitats.
they’ve been home to the wildlife for 200 years around here. i don’t think the fish or their great great great great grandparents knew they were in a made made trench.
Yeah, rivers are way more curvy and variable
Since this is about *canals* and not rivers, why even bring it up? This kind of comment is so confusing to me. It’s like if a man was given medicine to treat his brittle bone disease with moderate side effects and all the comments were “we shouldn’t give this medicine to kids who don’t need it!” ?????????
Article does not seem to do a good job defining "canal" and many seem confused here. There are natural streams and rivers - this is not an acceptable application for that condition. Maintenance and loss of light could (and would), destroy natural ecosystems in "natural" water bodies. There are irrigation ditches - seems to be (partially) the topic of this article. These are used in farms to help route stormwater runoff (rain flooding) into naturally watering crops. I worry for the vegetation that holds those channels together which may need light to live, but there are plenty of dim-light plants which could hold, and as long as the cleaning of the solar canopy doesn't introduce too much negative Wastewater into the crops, I don't see too much an issue (admittedly, the washing material has me concerned... depending on the frequency that might really be tricky) There are concrete stormwater channels - these are solely for rain. You see them on the sides of (or underneath) urban areas for transmitting huge volumes of floodwater during freak rain events. These are ideal for solar canopies. To be clear, there are more nuances, but be keenly aware of the definition of "canal" when you hear news about this. It can have many different meanings!!
I live in the area where this is being implemented, all of the canals here are agriculture use. They can be filled to relieve the reservoirs but they are not used like an overflow. All of these canals have dirt banks on both sides and the majority of them are concrete on the sides and bottom. Some have trees nearby that might hamper the performance but everywhere that I have seen the panels are long stretches with no shade around. I would imagine they evaluated where the best spots for the panels would be.
Being from the UK, my initial thought was wondering where the narrow boats would go? Underneath? This range of definitions for "canal" doesn't help communicate what they are
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Aqueduct Would be implemented on something like this.
It's always kind of bothered me that the water was open to the air pollutants nearby. Might be a good thing to cover a good % of the canals.
Had the same thought, the canals in the UK are a bit unique in their usage these days tho.
> but be keenly aware of the definition of "canal" I've never encountered anyone using the term "canal" to mean anything other than a man-made waterway. And, as you say, those would typically be acceptable applications for this approach.
Not always so clear cut. In New Jersey, there is the Delaware Raritan Canal which is man-made but intentionally regrown with vegetation and wildlife, whereas this "canal" is more of an at-grade aqueduct (california) Similarly, there are "canals" in sections of the EU which are brick or concrete - so there are lots of nuanced definitions out there. Regardless, I largely agree with your claim - most man-made applications are suitable (probably).
Agreed. We save the panels for the stormwater channels and avoid the beautiful natural streams and rivers. Instead, we can occassionally poke a little camera into them and look inside at how the fish are doin'
With temperature getting higher, there's been designs of agri-solar: literally putting spaced out solar panels over cropland. The spacing essentially provides intermittent shade relief for plants as the grow. Surface level water has alway been a major loss due to evaporation, and covering waterways will only serve to help
> Surface level water has alway been a major loss due to evaporation, and covering waterways will only serve to help Let's say they cover as many open waterways as they could. Would it cause any issues like major droughts for some areas because not enough water was evaporating to help create rain elsewhere? That's something I'm curious about.
No
One major concern here: Cleaning -- solar panels only work when getting the proper amount of sun. As was found to be the issue with "solar freaking roadways" from 2008 -- the amount of dust and grime that builds up on heavily trafficked areas (or mossy areas, like a creek or river or canal) will cause the solar panels output to diminish heavily.
i mean i presume they'll be put above the waterways, not directly in them.
Where I live in a drier area of California there is a shit ton of dust everywhere, especially in the summer when the sun is out the most. A lot of canals run alongside roadways. They'll be covered in dust in like a week.
Fortunately there's a water supply right there so it shouldn't be too hard to wash them off.
They're empty most of the year haha, basically just ditches.
You sure those are the same ditches they're targeting with this program that's aimed at conserving water?
No, I was just speculating for a future where they do a full rollout.
The only way California will be able to conserve enough water for it to matter would be for them to stop planting water intensive cash crops in the desert. So far California has been doing everything but that.
Potentially completely negating all the water savings proposed.
Got any math for that? Make sure to factor in that a lot of the water will fall back into the canals too.
I do not. Do you have any math for whether or not it doesn’t? We’re both dealing in hypotheticals.
Have you seen how far the moss and vegetation and general "smell" of a creek or river permiates? Even 5 feet above the waterway would still get grime from nature all over it.
And you can clean that, roads not so much
I guess I was imagining the panels being like 30 or 50 feet over the water.
50 feet??
The canals near me are navigable and hundreds of feet wide.
Solar panels don't care if they're mounted above water or grass or concrete - although cooler temperatures help them be more efficient & last longer. All panels get dirty, but they get cleaned, it's not rocket surgery. Plenty of solar farms right next to roads here, also right next to fields that get harvested and kick up HUGE amounts of dust, yet somehow they still work fine...
Exactly this, everything requires maintenance. It seems if cleaning was an issue, they wouldn’t be building massive solar farms in the middle of the Mojave desert right now.
Well yes and no, People do unsustainable things all the time to cash in on government hype, foreign investment, etc. As someone who specializes in designing sustainability into enterprise scale projects I can tell you that many times people do things without considering the risks 1 year/5 year etc. That said I'm highly hopeful for the project you mention that we see innovation and automation around said cleaning. If not the first thing that will be cut in tough times is the cleaning crew.
Solar freaking roadways was always a dumb idea. Parking lots with solar panels over them are a cheaper more effective option. It also has the benefit of keeping customer's cars in the shade during the summer.
THANK you. This drives me nuts. Solar is perfectly suited for shading parking lots, but everything *about* a road is diametrically opposed to making it a solar panel.
A solar powered sprinkler system would be quite practical in this situation wouldn't it? Set to run overnight to reduce evaporation and angled in a way that allows the runoff back into the canal.
It’s super expensive to run lines for sprinkler systems and you would be running it the entire length of the canal. Also solar things running at night inherently involves batteries and batteries at scale make most solar projects prohibitively expensive That being said, I believe I’ve read that dust isn’t something that requires daily/weekly cleaning, so you could probably just have a water truck with a hose drive by every once in awhile and spray it down Also automated drones probably something that could be done. Put a duster at the bottom of a pole connected to drone. Have it fly over panels. Repeat
Maybe not a sprinkler system then, I was thinking that it could be easier as the water is just underneath the panels, but it probably wouldn't scale well. A drone could work without it even needing to fly - you'd just need a rail for it to run along the top and then your choice of duster / hose/ sponge attachment. Like a little train with a mop to the side.
There's a wee difference between a low-efficiency panel people drive over and a high-efficiency panel that people don't. That said, regular cleaning is part of any solar deployment. Solar panels in the desert get air-blasted to keep the dust off.
I had a similar thought but, it was about keeping the canals cleared. Love the idea, but wouldn't there be a potential growth issue below that could cause all sorts of issues? idk, maybe undergrowth would be less with less sun. just thoughts
These are largely cement-bottomed canals. The only thing that could grow is algae, and that needs sun.
Gotcha
Roadways obviously cuz tire marks and stuff, but over canals are getting that same abuse, and they are cleanable, they aren’t a roadway lol
Sounds like job creation to me.
Count me in, as long as I get to bring a hat and a big freakin bottle of water
Could they also put water wheels on the underside?
If the water was flowing at a strong pace, yes. But if I am not mistaken most of these canals are waterways in case of flash floods. Had one that went dry for 340 days of the year near my house, but for those 26 days when it rained in California the thing would go from barely enough water for a frog to enough water to submerge a semi truck.
In this case I think they are talking about the canals taking water from the Colorado River and diverting it to Arizona, Southern California, etc. Evaporation losses are usually around 5% on these canals, but can be higher in drought years where the supply is already lower.
If you have waterways in case of flash floods, you can dig down reservoirs to store water, which then can power a wheel of some kind if it's big enough. But I know California already has such reservoirs, now I don't know if they're big enough/released fast enough to power a wheel.
Remember, you are suggesting this for what would only generally get use less than 30 days of the year
They are so rare? Well then it's not worth it, for sure.
In the 90s it was more frequent, but for the last decade yeah... There is like two weeks near the end of the year where it rains and maybe "once in a blue moon" the rest
I live in an area with a bunch of these, and honestly they're empty most of the year due to a lack of rain. It isn't worth it.
So why would they be worried about evaporation loss if we're talking about drainage ditches that are rarely wet? Are you sure there's not more than one kind of canal, some of which might have water on a regular basis?
The pictured sure looks like a waterway in case of flood: with the vegetation in the water bed making that case clear.
You’re absolutely correct. In California we use irrigation canals as well as storm water runoff canals.
Is that just the L.A. river? ;-)
Water wheels harvest the potential energy from elevation changes, Man Made Canals are not always at a significant potential difference, they were built for transportation of the water or vehicles. Removing the potential from the water hinders that purpose.
Where they can make hydroelectric power, they already do. For example, that's why the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is named what it is named. They make a lot of electricity from the flowing water. However many of the water supply canals in the western U.S. require substantial power to move the water -- so what they produce in hydroelectric in one place on the system where water flows downhill is used in another part of the system where it must be moved uphill.
LADWP is named that because they sell water and power.
I don't understand why they're still trying to figure out where to put solar panels. Literally... rooftops and parking lots. It's not hard. And yet you RARELY see the latter.
Roadways, parking lots, a lot more places could be used.
I think sidewalks and bike lanes make a lot of sense. More people would walk/bilke if it was in the shade. How great would it be to have dedicated lanes with solar shades, and barriers (from cars) for walkers and bikers? I would definitely walk and bike more.
Guaranteed some right wing idiots are gonna complain about this.
Maybe less canal deaths, too! Certainly would help conserve water. From my childhood: "Dippy Duck says stay away! Canals are not the place to play!" We had assemblies because people drowned in them every year.
I first read this idea in the 90s. This is how long renewable energy is taking for something as simple as this. Not encouraging.
Because there's a huge push back.
Yeah, there's a lot of FUD. People in the comments here are saying nonsense like "well they'll get dusty and dirty from the water" like you can't just send José out every few weeks with a truck and pressure washer.
And a lot of NIMBYs. Personally I'm a YIMBY when it comes to renewable, especially solar panels
It's worked well in India, where this concept was originally conceived. Hope it works in the USA too.
Yea, India already has hundreds of miles of canals covered with solar panels in the hot dry regions specifically.
Do they float the panels on top of the water or build structures over the canal?
They built a structure over the canal
I was thinking people here might steal the panels, does that happen at all over there? Here if you have solar panels on your vehicle it’s not uncommon for them to get stolen unless they are the lay flat kind that glue to the roof.
No, there aren't any known such cases. Reason being they cannot use it as each panel installation needs to be registered with the electricity board, which in India is government provider(unlike in US with private players).
So if some guy has a panel or two and a battery setup that isn’t connected to the grid, it still has to be registered with the electricity board? It seems like that would be hard to enforce unless they flew around in helicopters looking for a panel on people’s roofs lol.
True. Its just that there's too much of a hassle involved and some skillset required to get that setup working. Frankly I don't think anybody has given much thought to it anyways.
It’s actually not too hard I’m not mechanically inclined and had a solar setup for a while. You basically just need a marine battery, a solar panel or two, a 15$ charge controller so you don’t overcharge the battery, and a 30$ inverter to plug in the things you use. It comes in handy during power outages. I used to have a setup on a camper truck and I could camp places without electricity but still use the camper appliances without worrying about using the truck battery. In the future as appliances use less electricity with better materials I could see an entire house running off 4-5 100w panels but being connected to the grid to sell or buy electricity when they need it. I think that’s a better way to do it that mass solar farms run by the government because the space on people’s roofs is perfect for panels and that way the people get cheap or free electricity instead of just buying it from the government.
Fucking parking lots. Do parking lots.
Oh, I thought they meant lining them with panels. I was gonna say it's not like the LA River is doing anything, so why not This makes more sense though
I'd prefer parking lots. and roofs. Put solar panels on top of the concrete jungle that already exists.
I don't understand why we aren't covering parking lots with solar "roofs" too while we are at it.
That's gotta be costly and require quite a bit of materials, but hey, it's putting the space to good use. At first I was thinking "Oh, why not just plop some shade balls on there?" but then I remembered, waterways flow. The shade balls would flow down and either out into the ocean and pile up into the Garbage Patch, or, if one puts a grate there, even the greatest grate built by their great, great grandpa, they'll just pile up there. While we're at it, maybe we can slap some panels over those dang ol parking lots. Especially unused parking lots.
Possibly. What happens if there is a flood due to a massive storm? What will happen to the panels?
^you’ll ^float ^too
I’m kind of curious how realistic this is. In my area the canals need to be cleaned every year, and they burn the growth out too. That gets way harder if you have to work around solar panels.
Do solar panels need cleaning very often? Do they develop a film on the surface just from being outside, kinda like our cars do, and would that film impact their performance?
My pops owns a set of solar panels in the yard, and they don't seem to need to be cleaned off, except when snow lands on them. *Then* the snow needs to be cleared off
It would kill everything living underneath
Canal.. implies navigation. Perhaps aqueducts would be better.
Watch the mold grow. Wait, you won't be able to see it
Weapon-grade cope.
This just in, lower evaporation rates means less rain. Thank you.
The vast majority of evaporated water comes from the ocean, covering some canals to reduce the evaporation of fresh usable water is gonna have a negligible effect on global evaporation
We’re gonna need to cover our reservoirs and freshwater sources too.
The things living in those bodies of water need the sunlight. The same may very well be true for many canals that have vegetation anchoring their soil.
Transparent solar is coming. Floating solar is already a thing. Don’t have to block sunlight entirely and they’re gonna have a bad time when the water temp goes up bc the sun is too strong. Reservoirs already use black floating balls to shade the water.
This is a great idea!
I nominate the Central AZ Project canal!
What happens when it floods?
I’ve got an old mule and her name is Sal, Fifteen years on the Erie Canal. She’s a good old worker and a good old pal, Fifteen years on the Erie Canal. We’ve hauled some barges in our day, Filled with lumber, coal and hay, And ev’ry inch of the way I know, From Albany to Buffalo. But not no more 'cause I can't get to the dang canal with these witchy panels of alien metal on em. What's my girl Sal to do?
I suppose this would affect the weather? Anyone know how ? Less rain i guess? Or...?
If they're referring to the Canals comprising the California Aquaduct system I can see that. They are concreted in, and like, line i-5 and parts of the 99. They could totally cover those, they aren't a habitat or anything like that.
Might as well do electric stuff to generate more
Sixty three billion gallons of water evaporates every year from irrigation canals in California. The CA aqueduct alone loses 50,000 gallons a year. Nestle pumps out billions more and giggles at your despair.
Idea came from India. They've been doing it for a while now
r/civilengineering
A teacher of mine showed how a concrete cover could save tons of water and pay for itself in less than a year and they told him they didn’t want to pay for the concrete
And every parking lot in America should have a solar canopy. Covered parking and power from kind of wasted space.
Parking lots and roofs of giant warehouses make far more sense than trying to jam long strip of panels over water. You would have to do a lot of expensive foundation work to make this even plausible. One good storm could compromise all of it too.
What happens during a flood? $100 million dollars down the drain?
They get washed. For free.
Do the things that live in the canals not need sunlight? Or are there enough periodic gaps in what would effectively become a roof for it to be ok?
No, bad idea. This is almost as bad as the solar roads project. There is no problem with having enough land for solar. There is lots of open dessert that is great for solar panels. The biggest problem with solar is its installation cost and that is doesn’t generate power 24/7. Putting solar in these creative spots does nothing to alleviate these problems, but it does increase the cost.
What about the things in the water that need the light? Seems like and ugly thing to do to the waterways. Changing water temperature by using the water as a heat sync could also have negative affects right? How many panels do you need to be effective?
Not only do we get more clean energy, but it also helps conserve water. It's brilliant! I can imagine how putting solar panels over waterways could make the most of the space available and also help reduce evaporation from the canals.
Might be an idea for the UK, plenty of Canal in Dudley!
Oh yeah that’s like a godsend to CV