this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2023
405 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

58108 readers
4981 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Arizona's solar-over-canal project will tackle its major drought issue::undefined

top 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 60 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The economic viability of this solar-over-canal approach is a key aspect. The need to acquire additional land is eliminated by utilizing the existing canal infrastructure, making the project considerably more cost-effective than traditional solar farms. This cost efficiency is critical in ensuring the scalability and replicability of such projects on a larger scale.

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 31 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 24 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Arizona is a mixed bag, but I guess everywhere kind of is. They hire that crazy sheriff, that election craziness, and paint their lawns, but then do stuff like this.

[–] Cannibal_MoshpitV3@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The influx of folks moving in from more expensive big city locations plus the general shift of young people rejecting conservative views even as they age is turning the state away from its traditionally republican voting tendencies as seen in recent elections.

[–] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's nice to see it changing for the better, it's hard to parse from the outside looking in though. A lot of the old school r's still live there, ig.

[–] wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It do be like that (old ppl voting R). Plus for whatever reason they all want to be here before they die, so it's a big stubborn aged community.

Source: 🏡🏜

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

In my experience with my aged relatives, they all feel extra cold now and either crank the heat up or move south.

[–] wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

In the summer, "could you turn the A/C down a bit?" "why, you're hot?" as it's set to 85F...

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I said that was California that painted their lawns. I lived in Arizona for a couple years, and I don't even remember seeing lawns. But I lived in Tucson. Almost everyone had a xeriscaped yard.

[–] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Seattle does this but with plantings and rain gardens. Nice to see them using alternatives. I haven't been to Arizona in years, I just go by what I hear. You guys don't have that great of a reputation.

xeriscaped yard

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/how-xeriscaping-offers-a-water-efficient-environmentally-friendly-alternative-to-lawns

[–] Hugin@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago

It's also a win win design. Shade from the panels reduces evaporation in the canals and the water helps cool the panels which improves their efficiency.

[–] Lophostemon@aussie.zone 42 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I really hope this works. Also: banning water-intensive farming in dumb places might help.

[–] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 15 points 9 months ago

It would definitely help because that is the main problem.

[–] praise_idleness@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 months ago

What do you mean I can't farm on a fucking desert? What kind of communist dunghole is this?

[–] badbytes@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Or we could put effort towards limitations of fossil fuels and fix it long term. Maybe both, but if we don't do former, only duct tape.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 22 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Luckily this does both, to some extent. It's not as far as we need, but solar offsets dirty energy usage.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Doesn't Arizona get most of its energy from the giant nuclear power plant near Phoenix?

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 7 points 9 months ago

Well they're part of a larger grid. Any clean energy on the grid will be cheaper than dirty, so will be sold to offset dirty even if Arizona was 100% clean.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don't understand how it "offsets". If someone pisses in the pool and I do it behind a tree, that somehow gets rid of piss molecules in the pool?

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 9 months ago

You only need a certain amount of power. (In fact, you can't generate more power than is needed, or you cause massive issues.) If this adds extra energy generation but doesn't add demand, generation somewhere else will be taken offline. This will be whatever is cheapest, and green energy is nearly free after construction, so it'll be dirty energy that isn't running anymore.

[–] captainjaneway@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Open canal systems should be illegal. This is the dumbest shit we do. At least top 10 dumbest.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 11 points 9 months ago (4 children)

As someone who knows nothing about canals (or what they are even used for), anyone want to explain why they are used, why they are dumb, and what we should do instead?

[–] seaQueue@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Evaporation. You lose a phenomenal amount of water moving it by canal over large distances in an arid climate. Ideally you'd enclose the whole system to reduce loss but sticking a roof over the top helps to some degree and is less complicated.

[–] Shihali@sh.itjust.works 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

An irrigation canal like this is a big ditch to move water from a river to near farm fields. Without the extra water taken from the river, there wouldn't be enough water in the soil for crops to grow in the area.

Being a big ditch open to the sky, the hot sun and dry air make a bunch of the irrigation water evaporate before it even gets to the field. So we went to all the effort of taking water out of the river just to waste it humidifying the nearby air.

Why did we do it in the first place? Because it's way easier and cheaper to dig a ditch than to lay a big pipe, and I don't know if the US had any other water-delivery tech at the right scale when these were built.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Are there not enough areas of the US that get rainfall suitable for growing the needed food?

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Almost everything West of the Colorado Rocky mountains is very arid and requires extensive irrigation.

Everything except for the Pacific Northwest, and only the area west of the Cascade mountain range in Oregon and Washington.

[–] Shihali@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

The US has lots of land that doesn't require irrigation, but also lots of land that can grow crops if irrigated. Some of that land in California is some of the best farmland in the whole country, growing things that prefer California's Mediterranean climate (similar to parts of Australia's southwest coast).

We have the technology and have had it for a while. But we don't have the laws and habits of dry countries so US water laws are a wasteful mess.

[–] captainjaneway@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Imagine a canal which is 3 feet wide at the minimum. It contains a constant volume of water. This canal ultimately waters farm land. By way of example, California has the imperial valley which contains these canal systems. They feed desert farm land. The problem is these canals are often:

  • open
  • in a hot dry desert
  • cheap

Water rights have perverted water usage. People take cheap water which was grandfathered in by old laws and agreements and they waste it to evaporation. If you think "well the water isn't lost, just evaporated, right?" You'd be close, but slightly off the mark. The water is evaporated but it's transported often hundreds or thousands of miles from its original source. We are basically bleeding rivers to feed a desert. And deserts might as well be an infinite sink for water.

We should not have farm land in deserts. But if we do, we should at least conserve the water we are using. Just because it's cheap doesn't mean it's good (not that you're implying that, just saying).

[–] wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

it contains a constant volume of water

This guy has never been to the Phoenix area :P we even have rivers with no water, too! Bring the whole family, camp out and have imaginary marco / polo by the hill infested with scorpions, only a half-mile from the city dump! Bring your RV so you can feel like a complete moron with the other people who thought it was a great idea to buy a mini house on wheels that gets 6 miles to the gallon. And if you are early to rise, you can make Laughlin a day-trip to lose all your social security check by dusk, before sauntering back to the depression-rut of a life you have carved out for yourself. Because living in a desert with a large elderly population, just-barely-enough power during the summer even though there is a fucking nuclear power plant 20 miles out of town, and has been in a drought for my entire life while everyone waters their lawn 3 times a week, never felt so good!

Oh sorry I got mixed up with my "fuck off and stop moving here" speech. Give me 10 minutes.

[–] Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Wouldn't that make it an aqueduct?

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago

Hundreds of miles of shallow canals in the middle of the desert, where regular exceeds 120° f. The water evaporates very quickly.

[–] seaQueue@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (3 children)
[–] rustyriffs@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] seaQueue@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Water scarcity causes societal collapse throughout the American Southwest. Well written book, interesting premise - just an all around enjoyable bit of fiction.

[–] rustyriffs@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check it out!

anyone that's interested:

the water knife

[–] SaintWacko@midwest.social 1 points 9 months ago

I just finished reading that. Agree with all of that

[–] Unforeseen@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

Good book :)

[–] DerKriegs@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago

YES! Such a good read!

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They should try this at those retaining ponds where they filled them with black balls.

[–] greybeard@lemmy.one 7 points 9 months ago

There are several companies working on solar covers for reservoirs. I agree, seems like a win win. Reduce evaporation and have a large, level, "field" for solar arrays.

[–] LostAndSmelly@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This idea is so poorly conceived. Imagine installing and maintaining something like this. How are those panels supposed to stay clean?The panels and the cover should both be built but they should not be the same thing. No current panels are engineered for this application so they would have to be custom made. Just getting the project to the point where the first panel could be installed would cost millions. We could get started now installing commercially available shade covers and ground mounted solar. Ground mounted solar is simple to clean, simple to maintain, and simple to replace.

I agree the idea looks like a great way to reclaim the space, reduce evaporation, and generate power I just think the money would be better spent on a plan the optimized for expenses and longevity instead of optimizing for novelty.

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

I guess I missed it but how are these panels any different than typical ground based PV panels? Looks like, based on the rendering, they they are on some kind of rigid scaffolding over the canal. Not sure how that is different from typical installs?

For sure cleaning them is a problem, don't have an answer to that. Hope that that is accounted for in the proposal.