this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
127 points (100.0% liked)
Environment
3923 readers
2 users here now
Environmental and ecological discussion, particularly of things like weather and other natural phenomena (especially if they're not breaking news).
See also our Nature and Gardening community for discussion centered around things like hiking, animals in their natural habitat, and gardening (urban or rural).
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
One issue is keeping them clean.
In this scenario, you've got water and electricity readily available, seems like it would be straightforward to have small pumps and sprinklers. When the output from the panels drops below expected levels, automatically turn on the sprinklers for a bit to rinse them off.
Typically the panels need to be scrubbed every so often, it's not enough to just sprinkle water on them. While I'm sure this would be feasible, you've got an added risk in doing it over water.
did any of you even read that article?
I did, especially the part where they said (my emphasis):
Granted, these are technical problems that can and should be overcome. However the title of the post and article says "why aren’t they widespread?", so it seems fitting to discuss these reasons.
The other answer is also in the article:
I did. What point are you here to make?
your discussion is so nay saying and the information presented doesn't really seem leave me with the same results.
I like the part where you completely ignore the person who made valid counterarguments
risk of what?
Risk of falling in, drowning, etc. Also the risk of DC cables falling into the water.
Working on or near water is significantly more hazardous than working on land. This drives up costs across the board.
Why is falling only a risk over water?
I'd rather fall into water than pavement. It's gonna be a much shorter fall than rooftop solar too. Im not sure what you've got cooked up in your imagination of what this looks like, but it's not towering workspaces over turbulent depths, with wires hanging everywhere. It's some rigid panels bolted in a few feet above tepid water. If you're still worried about the workers, well cleaning these panels can be and often is an automated process. A simple one at that.
Slips, trips and falls are definitely a massive risk anywhere. That's often the main killer in the workplace. However, I said falling in, as in falling into water - if you fall and injure yourself it's going to be much worse if you need to swim.
Yes, like I already said, they can find solutions for these problems. However these solutions are going to have to be invented and will incur a significant cost. No one wants to be the first to do this, they're all waiting to see what everyone else does, so they can copy it for less expense.
Also, cleaning is rarely an automated process. In my experience they typically hire the land owner to drive alongside the panels with his tractor and a big angled scrubber on the back - over waterways would require a more specialist solution, which again would cost more.
Source: work in HV on solar farms, among other places.
I just do not understand why falling risk is only a deal breaker for working a few feet above water, and not shit like wind turbines or rooftop solar, or any of the crazy amounts of high up places where electrical maintenance is done. I've done electrical work too and would love to work this close to the ground. If it's any amount of fall risk I can tether, but this is just stretching too far to make something sound dangerous, do you just avoid pools in general?
I didn't say it was a deal breaker, only that it was worse than working on land, eg a solar farm in a field. Working at heights is also a risk, and working at heights above water is even greater than that. As for the significance of working at heights on land vs working on or near water, really a hypothetical comparison there is moot - at that point, you should be considering the specific circumstances for your risk assessment.
At the end of the day, it's unusual and a greater risk than other work. So people are more likely to charge more for it. However the bigger costs will probably be whatever specialist equipment will need to be developed to clean the panels quickly, as well as mitigations for situations where live cables fall into the water, or even just the equipment you use to clean falling in and needing to be repaired or replaced. Again, none of this is insurmountable, but it very apparently puts off risk-averse developers (and/or the venture capitalists that finance them). If it didn't, they'd have already done it by now.
Tell me you've gone to proposals for rooftop solar and denounced it as being too hard to clean due to risk of falling
It's more time consuming and expensive to clean than a land owner with his tractor driving along the ground.
roof top
The water will evaporate and leave mineral deposits on the panels and that stuff is very hard to scrub off.