Essay by Eric Worrall
Solar panels, which contain dangerous toxins like Lead, Cadmium, Arsenic and toxic plastics, are to be installed as covers for California’s water supply canals.
California to try tackling drought with canal-top solar panels
Watt an interesting idea
California is ready to try out something that could help it save water and generate electricity at the same time: solar panels over irrigation canals.
For this proof-of-concept experiment, some 8,500 feet of photovoltaic panels will be installed over waterways just north of Turlock, central California, generating electricity while preventing water from evaporating away.
This $20 million state-funded pilot program has been dubbed Project Nexus, and will by run by Turlock Irrigation District (TID), a nonprofit water and power utility, along with its partners. If it’s a success, it could well be deployed across more of America’s Golden State.
…
Read more: https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/31/california_solar_power_canals/
Solar panels are so toxic, disposal is a serious issue. From the US EPA;
…
Are Solar Panels Hazardous Waste?
Hazardous waste testing on solar panels in the marketplace has indicated that different varieties of solar panels have different metals present in the semiconductor and solder. Some of these metals, like lead and cadmium, are harmful to human health and the environment at high levels. If these metals are present in high enough quantities in the solar panels, solar panel waste could be a hazardous waste under RCRA. Some solar panels are considered hazardous waste, and some are not, even within the same model and manufacturer. Homeowners with solar panels on their houses should contact their state/local recycling agencies for more information on disposal/recycling.
Overview of Hazardous Waste Regulations
Federal solid and hazardous waste regulations (i.e., the RCRA requirements) apply to solar panels when they are discarded. When a solar panel reaches the end of its usable life or is otherwise discarded, it becomes solid waste. Solid waste is regulated federally under RCRA Subtitle D and through state and local government programs.
…
Read more: https://www.epa.gov/hw/end-life-solar-panels-regulations-and-management
I don’t know if sufficient quantities of Lead, Cadmium, Arsenic and other more exotic toxins could leach into the water to constitute a health hazard. But who in their right mind would want to take such a risk?
Roofing hundreds of miles of waterways with covers which contain dangerous chemicals, and can potentially leach those dangerous chemicals into the water supply, is not my idea of a sensible plan. A low level of leaching might add up to a serious problem over a long enough distance. Even if the leach rate is initially low, as the panels deteriorate, or are vandalised, the rate at which nasty chemicals enter the water supply could accelerate to dangerous levels.
Lets just say if California goes forward with this ridiculous plan, deliberately placing deadly toxins in close proximity to their household and agricultural water supply, I’m going to start checking the produce labels more carefully in the future when I go shopping.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ideas resulting from brain farts sometimes have a thread of credibility to them.
In this case if you put aside the justifiable criticisms of solar panels, you are left with the fact that water loss from evaporation will actually be reduced.
Not exactly putting tits on goldfish Jim…_
I’m curious if they have any engineering studies that give them an idea of how much water loss via evaporation they will be preventing? If that’s the goal wouldn’t a pipeline be a better solution?
The other issue, that appears to be glossed over in the UC Merced Study is — energy storage – presumably by commercial grade battery storage using Lithium Ion batteries all along the canal system and the infrastructure required to install and maintain that truly massive battery system.
I read the study. The study ignores the costs of energy storage in their NPV calculations and rather blithely assumes (the assumptions section of a study is always a good read) “we assumed that existing infrastructure (such as electrical substations and power line corridors) … would be available adjacent to the selected sites.” Implying that they did not include the costs for that infrastructure in their NPV estimates.
No mention of the cost of energy storage and/or backup systems is made in the assumptions or anywhere in the study that I could find.
It’s almost as though they were determined to make it look cost effective….
Ignore the cost and everything is cost effective.
Do that and you can even reduce inflation!
The other issue, that appears to be glossed over in the UC Merced Study is — energy storage – presumably by commercial grade battery storage using Lithium Ion batteries all along the canal system and the infrastructure required to install and maintain that truly massive battery system.
Mmm, what happens when there is a flood? … or, on second thoughts don’t even think about it.
This has long been standard practice in India, with no ill effects. and can these panels leak any material into the water? Absolutely not. And being over a water channel, not much chance of the underlying structure catching fire.
“can these panels leak any material into the water? Absolutely not.”
Oooh, oooh, I can play this game:
“can a 200ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 cause catastrophic climate change? Absolutely not.”
See, problem solved!
You said this twice without providing evidence to support it.
You ever heard of of Environmental Impact Statement?
What is an Environmental Impact Statement? (americanbar.org)
India is building more coal fired power plants.
Should we do the same?
Yes !
Yes.
https://www.modernpowersystems.com/features/featuresteamh-raising-the-bar-6197154
What a stupid idea!
Hi,
I’m looking for a retired electrical engineer who is interested in working with me on a new/old technology project that addresses the electricity curtailment arising from solar PV and wind use at scale and flared natural gas problems.
Ideally someone with strong industrial scale electrical device development experience. Experience with physics/chemistry a plus.
As for this idea: people are looking at this the wrong way.
The water quality bureaucrats will now face off vs. the California air quality bureaucrats.
Alien vs. Predator…
I would be more concerned about up keep and maintenance of both the panels and the transmission lines. But I live in Florida so don’t really care if California hits themselves over the head with this.
If you want to stop evaporation just cover it up, and if you need a lot of “co² free” energy you should build some nuclear power stations.
Wow, I’m a genius.
Do solar panels creat a UHI effect? And if so, would this not contribute to evaporation?
UHI is mostly caused by a lack of evaporation and dark surfaces like asphalt.
Also a dark black PV panel can heat up to 80-90°C if they are mounted with deficient air cooling.
While saving the planet they should be more interested in saving the people they represent rather than putting them at risk.
Conserving water by covering it with pollutants while mandating other water that is usable be flowed into the ocean. California prides itself in leading the way, to what?
“Solar Panels are toxic” is a silly Junior Environmental Justice Warrior false talking point. They do not leach anything when in use — only possibly when broken up and land-filled. So put that whole objection in the round-bin (and not in the recycle bin either!)
This really isn’t a bad idea — at least it doesn’t waste valuable farmland and it does reduce evaporation from the uncovered canals.
A 10 acre solar farm has been opened within a mile of my home and I am interested in how they will keep the panels clean to maintain efficiency. In this area, we have a lot of dust and my experience on our sailboat is that solar panels quickly collect dust and lose efficiency rather quickly and must be cleaned regularly. Easy on our boat…hard for ten acres over land. Impossible for a mile and a half over water?
How the panels installed over water will be maintained will of great interest.
A high-pressure hose should be enough for cleaning and I assume that the panels can be walked on to service them. However, I find the substructure a bit fragile when viewed from a distance and the panels are not optimally aligned.
Kip, the idea is loaded with the possibility of “unintended consequences”.
If hail can damage my roof to the point that it needs to be replaced, why wouldn’t that same hail damage a solar panel?
How long before they need to be repaired/replaced?
Farmland is valuable. There is no need to sacrifice it OR irrigation canals to CAGW hype.
Lead: to my knowledge, PV module manufacturers use lead-free solders almost universally. Lead solders cannot be sold in Europe.
Cadmium: only in thin film CdS/CdTe modules, which are a small (<5%) portion of the PV module market, and the active semiconductor layers are extremely thin.
Arsenic: None in crystalline silicon modules; used in high-efficiency III-V semiconductor solar cells, especially GaAs. Nearly 100% restricted to power generation in space.
The author is a dumbass from the oil industry who fears for their sales.
Installing PV panels above water is ideal, as the cooler environment ensures higher electricity production from the panels (0.5%/°K) and at the same time reduces evaporation (1-1.5m3/m²) in the canal.
An oil tanker collided with an LNG carrier off the coast of Spain yesterday. Oil spill off Gibraltar. Fracking gas in the ground water, chemical industry, micro-plastic everywhere, etc. – these are the real scumbags when it comes to water pollution.
How very alarmist of you. The OS 35 was a bulk carrier carrying a cargo of steel bars – a small amount of fuel oil has leaked and work is progressing to remove the rest of the fuel oil on board. The LNG tanker it collided with has suffered very little damage and carried on to its destination. There has been very little environmental impact from the collision and the small amount of fuel oil that leaked can be easily cleaned up – it’s probably less than that from a natural oil seep.
Californians have been voting for this insanity for decades now, so I really don’t see how a little bit more lead in the water can do any worse.
On a ballot initiative 30 or so years ago, California voted to ban hunting for cougars, mountain lions.
Not long after they began to kill joggers and an endangered species (Rocky Mountain Billy Goat?) numbers started to decrease.
As a layman I have a basic question (ridicule is welcome) will the heat generated by the panels have a negative effect on the water itself?
You mean like growing toxic algae?
This seems like a Feel-Good project. But what are the economics of doing this? What is the return on capital employed. If it is such a good project, then industry would put up the capital. If it is a bad project, then Government puts up the capital and it is wasted. That is what Government does.
Now, what might go wrong with this plan?
See https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/02/cnbc-amazon-took-rooftop-solar-offline-after-roof-fires/ for a very recent case in point.
Also, one wonders how those solar-panels-over-aqueducts might fare during a major earthquake, which is not unheard of in California . . . you know, with the water sloshing over the solar panels and all that.
Sorry, but this very high level of arm waving is not sufficient.
Series-6-Datasheet.ashx (firstsolar.com)
Sustainability Documents | First Solar
Creating dark passages in an unsealed environment for water transport may have serious biological contamination issues. Open water flowing under the sun is why mountain streams are safe to drink. Who knows what will begin to grow in the dark places.
Trolls are well known to inhabit such dark and dank places – one can only assume that such a project will lead to a massive increase in the California Troll population.
” Open water flowing under the sun is why mountain streams are safe to drink. Who knows what will begin to grow in the dark places. ”
Open water flowing under the sun is why mountain streams are dried up in summer. If you want to knows what will begin to grow in the dark places – just look under your cap. The panels on the photo are semi-transparent.
It couldn’t have anything to do with the water flowing downhill, away from the mountain, could it? Plus summer being a time when said mountain streams are fed far less snowmelt, which is the great majority of their water supply? I would suggest that the implied evaporation would be a very minor factor.
Socialist grade stupid.
It seems to me that all of the green devil’s ideas have gone up in smoke. Have they had any ideas that are good?
Setting fire to Amazon was a good one, not sure that was the intention though.
Solar panels need regular washing to maintain conversion efficiency. Where will the run-off water go, if not into the canals? As you note, Eric, what will that water carry, along with the dust?
Maybe the Turlock Irrigation District should install some water-quality monitors downstream of the panels. Surely standard prudence demands that.
Read the comments and was surprised to see only a passing comment about earthquakes. What is the earthquake rating of these panels and their support structure? At first blush I would guess microcracks leading to water intrusion could be an issue. It rarely freezes, but the record low is 18 degrees F, so it is possible.
The largest earthquake in Turlock:
today: 2.8 in San Martin, California, United States
this week: 4.0 in Soledad, California, United States
this month: 4.5 in Smith Valley, Nevada, United States
this year: 4.7 in Cambria, California, United States