Do these university types realize large amount dollars in electrical construction costs there would be ? But why should they care, it will be taxpayer dollars. Solar projects need a large panel footprint to justify cost of a project as well as installing current carrying conductors. Additional costs each year of preventive as well as breakdown maintenance. They mention India where construction costs are miniscule.
Would be interested to see number of companies who would step up to build, OWN and operate this project if there were no government construction or operating incentives ! ! !
Sounds very much like, with drought talk news stories conveniently beginning, this was an opportunistic press release.
If you wan to understand any problem in America,
Focus on who profits from the problem.
NOT who suffers from the problem.
remember
April 26, 2021 - 5:55 PM 5:55 PM
better than letting bill gates block out the sun, that SOB is evil for trying to do this all on his own. he should called for crimes against humanity for wanting to try to something like that.
Cellophane
April 26, 2021 - 6:02 PM 6:02 PM
Whatever happened to that high-speed rail line?
Last I heard it was abandoned in Modesto costing the state Billions.
Mojave Desert would be a less desirable place for a solar field. Solar panels have a optimum operating temperature of 77 degrees. The farther you get away from 77 degrees, the less energy they produce.
Quick! Someone tell hydroplants that they are in danger of electrocuting everyone!
Mom
April 26, 2021 - 6:34 PM 6:34 PM
I feel like pretty soon California will be covered in unsightly solar panels. I’d rather relinquish some conveniences than see metal everywhere I look.
I think the solar panels are very clean and good looking. As far as renewable energy this is the only way to go now. I love changes for the good. I want solar here for my condo and my HOA is considering this. I have all electric. It is very expensive. I hope someday we can get all electric vehicles and solar panels going on your roofs.
Oh, please
April 26, 2021 - 8:30 PM 8:30 PM
Totally sure that CA will come up with the most efficient and cost-effective way to do this. Nothing at all like the bullet train…
I’d rather underwater turbines in the aqueduct for electricity.
To Do List
April 26, 2021 - 9:39 PM 9:39 PM
This sounds like an outstanding idea. Maybe they could use the aqueduct water itself to send the electricity down to L.A. The carcinogens leaching out of the tiles and into the water will create hundreds of new medical jobs in cancer units. This is nothing like the dumpster fire the bullet train turned into.
theunforgiven
April 27, 2021 - 2:23 AM 2:23 AM
what a stupid idea!
The Fractionator
April 27, 2021 - 4:32 AM 4:32 AM
Another way of spending California Tax Payers money!!!
Yeah! Let’s just continue to ignore the drough and energy concerns of the state! We should all aim to be like Texas and privatize the energy system and deregulate. What could possibly go wrong? Republicans will surely save us from Mexico!
dahn
April 27, 2021 - 7:08 AM 7:08 AM
Oddly enough, a friend and I were having a conversation about doing this on Sunday. Some areas in India are covering their aqueducts. It lowers evaporation, keeps the water cooler, and cuts algae growth in addition to generating electricity. The efficiency of Land Use is great.
I’d love to see it on rail and freeway medians too.
Randy
April 27, 2021 - 7:19 AM 7:19 AM
,, could be a good idea… how much will it cost? who will pay for it? Feds? … only use panels made in USA … used to subsidize who? … has to be everybody if we’re getting taxed on it .. if not .. no way!
Sam Malone
April 27, 2021 - 7:29 AM 7:29 AM
For those of you who voted these losers into office now we all have to continue to suffer the ever present over tax and over spend. They can’t print money fast enough.
Thank you all so much for voting in Joe Bin Lyin and Heels Up Harris.
Bean Burner
April 27, 2021 - 7:30 AM 7:30 AM
The opening scene of Blade Runner 2049 gets more accurate every day.
SubStaEngr
April 27, 2021 - 7:32 AM 7:32 AM
Let me chime in….
1. This researcher at UC Santa Cruz is an environmental post-doc analyst, not an engineer as she claims to be.
2. Doing some quick calcs, the 400 mile long canal system (if covered completely by solar cells) could theoretically generate ~2900 MWe of power or about 30 percent more than Diablo Canyon during the day (when sunny).
3. The installed cost per watt would run about $1/watt, or $2.9 trillion for a solar system that operates only during the day.
4. That does not include the cost of the battery stem to maintain son generation at night or during periods of low sunlight. My guess is another 7 to 8 billion (minimum).
5. That does not include O&M costs, security, grid interconnections every few miles or so.
6. This could reduce the amount of evaporation (unknown amount).
We’re talking at least $3 trillion. You want to show me how California can manage this project in a cost effective manner? Now we’re up to a $4 trillion boondoggle.
1. She is a Post Doctoral Researcher and is introduced as a Lead Researcher on the project. Never in the video does she claim to be an engineer.
2. It’s 4,000 miles, not 400. CA Aqueduct with all branches is ~700 miles. Plus ~700 miles of other major canals in Central Valley and State Water Project, Imperial Valley, etc. Plus many many hundreds of miles of smaller irrigation canals within and between the counties.
3. An estimate of evaporation that she provided may be off, but there is no doubt that it’s very large. You don’t like hers, yet you can’t provide any alternative.
4. There is another controversial estimate that irrigation evaporation in CA contributes ~30% of summer flow in Colorado River. And that the agriculture in the Four Corners is essentially sustained by the water evaporated from CA canals and reservoirs. May be it’s all crap, but worth thinking about.
5. Because of the amount of water lost to evaporation the question of covering the canals with something – solar panels or fabric – comes up regularly. Or even rebuilding them entirely underground, considering that many of them are also sinking.
With this year’s drought we can expect increased groundwater pumping in Central Valley and increased subsidence and further deterioration of the canal system.
6. Redesigning and rebuilding CA water delivery system in a more resilient way is a $2-3 trillion project. And no, $17 billion “Delta Conveyance Project” (colloquially known as “twin tunnels”) doesn’t even make a small dent.
So looking at savings from evaporation losses and ways to recoup some of the costs of rebuilding is absolutely valid research, and not a pipe dream.
7. It is absolutely true that CA has lost any ability to manage public infrastructure projects in a cost-efficient way. The State Water Project in the 60s built at 3X the cost of the original estimate is a marvel of efficiency in comparison to our recent developments (boondoggles).
However, it’s certainly not the fault of this young lady. So there is no reason to be rude and dismissive.
1. No, she did not identify herself in the video as an engineer; however, in her LinkedIn profile, she describes herself as a “researcher and engineer.” She has an environmental engineering technology degree (which is NOT an engineering degree), but is NOT licensed in the state of California as an engineer. Become familiar with the laws regarding use of the term “engineer.”
2. I used a rough number of 400 miles as an estimate. Your number of 4000 miles includes smaller privately owned canals, pipelines (which cannot be included), penstocks and hydro generation (which cannot be included), etc….
3. Nowhere did I say I didn’t like her numbers regarding evaporation. Please do not put words into my mouth. No, I didn’t know I was expected to provide alternatives… I notice you didn’t either. F I’m asked to provide alternatives and an engineering study (as a registered engineer in 4 states, including CA), I can be reached by the various consulting engineering firms to perform such studies.
4. As far as “fault”? I’m not sure wheee you get that idea. If someone is performing research, they ought to be able to back it up with facts. My concern with this research is that it does NOT contain any rough economic evaluation, which should be included. And “rude and dismissive?” ? Your opinion. I called out my comments based on the video and her LinkedIn account. If you have an issue with that, then I recommend you reread my comments to understand where I’m coming from.
Engineering is much more than research and idealistic proposals – there’s a difference between science and engineering. And those hat can’t take (or understand) comments have no business evaluating others’ comments. That being said, let’s have your CV to determine whether you’re even capable of understanding basic engineering principles.
As far as my LinkedIn profile, I am not in a habit of throwing it around. My profile includes that necessary information for companies to hire me as an independent consultant, so distribution of that information is not appropriate to those who aren’t qualified to evaluate it. Suffice it to say that I’m a registered engineer in 4 states and have 47 years of industry and consulting experience under my belt – since becoming registered.
Any further discussion and evaluations will necessitate setting up a consulting contract. Since this is essentially an open blog, I offered my opinions based on the 15-20 minutes of research on my part. My time is much more valuable than that.
Have a nice day.
Dr. Jellyfinger
April 27, 2021 - 7:50 AM 7:50 AM
Why not mount the panels on the sides of El Capitan in Yosemite?
That way we could take Windex and paper towels with us to clean the panels as we go bungee jumping?
Build it over the Aqueduct? Plbbbbt!
What fun is that?
tashaj
April 27, 2021 - 8:25 AM 8:25 AM
1. The same way they are doing it with large arrays in the deserts. Do you think there is spare water in Jordan? Robotic dry brush systems were in existence for about 10 years.
2. There are less than 20 fishing access points on the ~450 miles of CA Aqueduct. A lot of it is closed or in the process of being closed due to littering and vandalism. So not an issue.
3. Yes, technology will undoubtedly improve. Is it worth waiting and losing billions of gallons of water to evaporation when drought restrictions are about to take effect?
chuckie the troll
April 27, 2021 - 9:43 AM 9:43 AM
I think that face masks should be covered with solar panels. Imagine how much energy could be generated!
Do these university types realize large amount dollars in electrical construction costs there would be ? But why should they care, it will be taxpayer dollars. Solar projects need a large panel footprint to justify cost of a project as well as installing current carrying conductors. Additional costs each year of preventive as well as breakdown maintenance. They mention India where construction costs are miniscule.
Would be interested to see number of companies who would step up to build, OWN and operate this project if there were no government construction or operating incentives ! ! !
Sounds very much like, with drought talk news stories conveniently beginning, this was an opportunistic press release.
If you wan to understand any problem in America,
Focus on who profits from the problem.
NOT who suffers from the problem.
better than letting bill gates block out the sun, that SOB is evil for trying to do this all on his own. he should called for crimes against humanity for wanting to try to something like that.
Whatever happened to that high-speed rail line?
Last I heard it was abandoned in Modesto costing the state Billions.
Now solar panels across the State?
Solar panels that can’t be recycled?
Solar panels made in China?
Sounds like just another costly boondoggle to me.
Put the solar panels on top of the high speed rail track. That would be a great anchor point.
Boondoggle for sure! Is this Newscum outgoing salvo??
What a great idea. I wish I would have thought of it.
Water and electricity in close proximity. Sounds like a good idea.
I’ve got an electrolysis tank if my garage. 100% safe to stock your hand in the water even though it has electricity running through it.
Is your system exposed to rain, wind, lightening, blistering summer hear, earthquakes, farm equipment and positioned above what amounts to a river?
I don’t know how much current you’re pulling, but I assume the solar panels are putting out major current at certain points in the system.
The Mojave Desert would be a better choice. Little rain and plenty of sun almost year-round.
Mojave Desert would be a less desirable place for a solar field. Solar panels have a optimum operating temperature of 77 degrees. The farther you get away from 77 degrees, the less energy they produce.
Quick! Someone tell hydroplants that they are in danger of electrocuting everyone!
I feel like pretty soon California will be covered in unsightly solar panels. I’d rather relinquish some conveniences than see metal everywhere I look.
I think the solar panels are very clean and good looking. As far as renewable energy this is the only way to go now. I love changes for the good. I want solar here for my condo and my HOA is considering this. I have all electric. It is very expensive. I hope someday we can get all electric vehicles and solar panels going on your roofs.
Totally sure that CA will come up with the most efficient and cost-effective way to do this. Nothing at all like the bullet train…
I’d rather underwater turbines in the aqueduct for electricity.
This sounds like an outstanding idea. Maybe they could use the aqueduct water itself to send the electricity down to L.A. The carcinogens leaching out of the tiles and into the water will create hundreds of new medical jobs in cancer units. This is nothing like the dumpster fire the bullet train turned into.
what a stupid idea!
Another way of spending California Tax Payers money!!!
Yeah! Let’s just continue to ignore the drough and energy concerns of the state! We should all aim to be like Texas and privatize the energy system and deregulate. What could possibly go wrong? Republicans will surely save us from Mexico!
Oddly enough, a friend and I were having a conversation about doing this on Sunday. Some areas in India are covering their aqueducts. It lowers evaporation, keeps the water cooler, and cuts algae growth in addition to generating electricity. The efficiency of Land Use is great.
I’d love to see it on rail and freeway medians too.
,, could be a good idea… how much will it cost? who will pay for it? Feds? … only use panels made in USA … used to subsidize who? … has to be everybody if we’re getting taxed on it .. if not .. no way!
For those of you who voted these losers into office now we all have to continue to suffer the ever present over tax and over spend. They can’t print money fast enough.
Thank you all so much for voting in Joe Bin Lyin and Heels Up Harris.
The opening scene of Blade Runner 2049 gets more accurate every day.
Let me chime in….
1. This researcher at UC Santa Cruz is an environmental post-doc analyst, not an engineer as she claims to be.
2. Doing some quick calcs, the 400 mile long canal system (if covered completely by solar cells) could theoretically generate ~2900 MWe of power or about 30 percent more than Diablo Canyon during the day (when sunny).
3. The installed cost per watt would run about $1/watt, or $2.9 trillion for a solar system that operates only during the day.
4. That does not include the cost of the battery stem to maintain son generation at night or during periods of low sunlight. My guess is another 7 to 8 billion (minimum).
5. That does not include O&M costs, security, grid interconnections every few miles or so.
6. This could reduce the amount of evaporation (unknown amount).
We’re talking at least $3 trillion. You want to show me how California can manage this project in a cost effective manner? Now we’re up to a $4 trillion boondoggle.
No thanks.
You may want to review her LinkedIn where you can see the degrees she has which includes engineering.
So, now with that out of the way, what are your qualifications to make the statements you have made, please link your LinkedIn so we can see.
Thanks!
1. She is a Post Doctoral Researcher and is introduced as a Lead Researcher on the project. Never in the video does she claim to be an engineer.
2. It’s 4,000 miles, not 400. CA Aqueduct with all branches is ~700 miles. Plus ~700 miles of other major canals in Central Valley and State Water Project, Imperial Valley, etc. Plus many many hundreds of miles of smaller irrigation canals within and between the counties.
3. An estimate of evaporation that she provided may be off, but there is no doubt that it’s very large. You don’t like hers, yet you can’t provide any alternative.
4. There is another controversial estimate that irrigation evaporation in CA contributes ~30% of summer flow in Colorado River. And that the agriculture in the Four Corners is essentially sustained by the water evaporated from CA canals and reservoirs. May be it’s all crap, but worth thinking about.
5. Because of the amount of water lost to evaporation the question of covering the canals with something – solar panels or fabric – comes up regularly. Or even rebuilding them entirely underground, considering that many of them are also sinking.
With this year’s drought we can expect increased groundwater pumping in Central Valley and increased subsidence and further deterioration of the canal system.
6. Redesigning and rebuilding CA water delivery system in a more resilient way is a $2-3 trillion project. And no, $17 billion “Delta Conveyance Project” (colloquially known as “twin tunnels”) doesn’t even make a small dent.
So looking at savings from evaporation losses and ways to recoup some of the costs of rebuilding is absolutely valid research, and not a pipe dream.
7. It is absolutely true that CA has lost any ability to manage public infrastructure projects in a cost-efficient way. The State Water Project in the 60s built at 3X the cost of the original estimate is a marvel of efficiency in comparison to our recent developments (boondoggles).
However, it’s certainly not the fault of this young lady. So there is no reason to be rude and dismissive.
Ok, let me be clear…
1. No, she did not identify herself in the video as an engineer; however, in her LinkedIn profile, she describes herself as a “researcher and engineer.” She has an environmental engineering technology degree (which is NOT an engineering degree), but is NOT licensed in the state of California as an engineer. Become familiar with the laws regarding use of the term “engineer.”
2. I used a rough number of 400 miles as an estimate. Your number of 4000 miles includes smaller privately owned canals, pipelines (which cannot be included), penstocks and hydro generation (which cannot be included), etc….
3. Nowhere did I say I didn’t like her numbers regarding evaporation. Please do not put words into my mouth. No, I didn’t know I was expected to provide alternatives… I notice you didn’t either. F I’m asked to provide alternatives and an engineering study (as a registered engineer in 4 states, including CA), I can be reached by the various consulting engineering firms to perform such studies.
4. As far as “fault”? I’m not sure wheee you get that idea. If someone is performing research, they ought to be able to back it up with facts. My concern with this research is that it does NOT contain any rough economic evaluation, which should be included. And “rude and dismissive?” ? Your opinion. I called out my comments based on the video and her LinkedIn account. If you have an issue with that, then I recommend you reread my comments to understand where I’m coming from.
Engineering is much more than research and idealistic proposals – there’s a difference between science and engineering. And those hat can’t take (or understand) comments have no business evaluating others’ comments. That being said, let’s have your CV to determine whether you’re even capable of understanding basic engineering principles.
As far as my LinkedIn profile, I am not in a habit of throwing it around. My profile includes that necessary information for companies to hire me as an independent consultant, so distribution of that information is not appropriate to those who aren’t qualified to evaluate it. Suffice it to say that I’m a registered engineer in 4 states and have 47 years of industry and consulting experience under my belt – since becoming registered.
Any further discussion and evaluations will necessitate setting up a consulting contract. Since this is essentially an open blog, I offered my opinions based on the 15-20 minutes of research on my part. My time is much more valuable than that.
Have a nice day.
Why not mount the panels on the sides of El Capitan in Yosemite?
That way we could take Windex and paper towels with us to clean the panels as we go bungee jumping?
Build it over the Aqueduct? Plbbbbt!
What fun is that?
1. The same way they are doing it with large arrays in the deserts. Do you think there is spare water in Jordan? Robotic dry brush systems were in existence for about 10 years.
2. There are less than 20 fishing access points on the ~450 miles of CA Aqueduct. A lot of it is closed or in the process of being closed due to littering and vandalism. So not an issue.
3. Yes, technology will undoubtedly improve. Is it worth waiting and losing billions of gallons of water to evaporation when drought restrictions are about to take effect?
I think that face masks should be covered with solar panels. Imagine how much energy could be generated!
Pair that with a hat with one of those mini wind turbines on top and you’d really be saving the earth!! Brilliant