The numbers fail to make sense in the real world.
The 1.6 MW number is the nameplate capacity of the panels. That is not the actual peak generation capacity for this system (or any other system). This is due to the panels not having optimal alignment to sun rays. For example, in Los Angeles, once your array is facing directly south, you need to tilt it to about 35 degrees. The array in question has panels almost facing straight up and possibly tilted away from sun rays. They will experience a significant drop in peak output at various times in the year. My guess is they'd be lucky if they peak out at 1 MW during the best possible conditions.
So, you have a 1 MW array that cost $20 million. That's $20 per Watt. A traditional ground mount solar array costs about $1 per Watt, maybe $1.50. So, they took something that would cost $1 million and turned it into $20 million.
There does not appear to be any information whatsoever about ongoing maintenance, service and operating contracts. That would be useful information to have.
The good news is that it appears they did not have to run new high voltage power lines to connect to the array. That is unlikely to be the case for a much more extensive installation, which means that the cost of bringing high voltage power lines to the array would have to be added to that $20/Watt figure.
Wait. There's more.
One of the claims being made is that the shading helps save a million dollars a year in canal maintenance. That's fantastic! This also means that we must evaluate the cost of shading the canal using other technologies.
I had a quick look at solutions. It appears that tensioned fabric shading would run about $3 million per mile.
Solar would cost about $60 million per mile, maybe less, maybe more.
Yet, the story does not end there. What would the operations and maintenance costs be over, say 25 years?
The estimate I got was about $1.5 million for tensioned fabric (replacement and disposal) and almost $7 million for solar (replacement and disposal).
Now multiply that by, say, 50 or 100 miles...
The Verdict:
Wholesale electric prices in California vary, but a utility like TID can typically buy or generate clean energy elsewhere on the open market for 5¢ to 9¢ per kWh.
Paying a 31.2¢ per kWh structural premium means that without massive, permanent government subsidies or a dramatic 70%+ reduction in structural costs, the solar canal is a massive financial loser compared to a simple fabric shade structure.
The maintenance overhead and structural complexity of suspending high-voltage power over water completely swallows the value of the electricity it creates.
The 1.6 MW number is the nameplate capacity of the panels. That is not the actual peak generation capacity for this system (or any other system). This is due to the panels not having optimal alignment to sun rays. For example, in Los Angeles, once your array is facing directly south, you need to tilt it to about 35 degrees. The array in question has panels almost facing straight up and possibly tilted away from sun rays. They will experience a significant drop in peak output at various times in the year. My guess is they'd be lucky if they peak out at 1 MW during the best possible conditions.
So, you have a 1 MW array that cost $20 million. That's $20 per Watt. A traditional ground mount solar array costs about $1 per Watt, maybe $1.50. So, they took something that would cost $1 million and turned it into $20 million.
There does not appear to be any information whatsoever about ongoing maintenance, service and operating contracts. That would be useful information to have.
The good news is that it appears they did not have to run new high voltage power lines to connect to the array. That is unlikely to be the case for a much more extensive installation, which means that the cost of bringing high voltage power lines to the array would have to be added to that $20/Watt figure.
Wait. There's more.
One of the claims being made is that the shading helps save a million dollars a year in canal maintenance. That's fantastic! This also means that we must evaluate the cost of shading the canal using other technologies.
I had a quick look at solutions. It appears that tensioned fabric shading would run about $3 million per mile.
Solar would cost about $60 million per mile, maybe less, maybe more.
Yet, the story does not end there. What would the operations and maintenance costs be over, say 25 years?
The estimate I got was about $1.5 million for tensioned fabric (replacement and disposal) and almost $7 million for solar (replacement and disposal).
Now multiply that by, say, 50 or 100 miles...
The Verdict:
Wholesale electric prices in California vary, but a utility like TID can typically buy or generate clean energy elsewhere on the open market for 5¢ to 9¢ per kWh.
Paying a 31.2¢ per kWh structural premium means that without massive, permanent government subsidies or a dramatic 70%+ reduction in structural costs, the solar canal is a massive financial loser compared to a simple fabric shade structure.
The maintenance overhead and structural complexity of suspending high-voltage power over water completely swallows the value of the electricity it creates.