System (CIMIS). While the modified Penman-Monteith approach estimates evaporation from an open water body directly, parameter conversions are required to convert pan evaporation and CIMIS landsurface evaporation into open-water-body evaporation. We examined the net effect on financial performance using the System Advisor Model (SAM) and a sensitivity analysis that included estimates of three different solar PV structures at eight different sites along the California network of canals (Fig. 1). In our main results we considered CdTe semiconductor technology but also considered multicrystalline silicon in the sensitivity analysis. The three solar PV structures included a ground-mounted system (Fig. 2a), a steel-truss canal-spanning design that has been deployed in Gujarat, India 26 (Fig. 2b), and a suspension-cable canal-spanning design 27 that has been deployed in Punjab, India 28 (Fig. 2c). Our financial performance analysis includes NPV and levelized cost of energy (LCOE) comparisons of over-canal to ground-mounted designs. Our design comparisons considered enhanced PV performance due to evaporative cooling, and avoided costs for water and aquatic weed mitigation (Fig. 2d and 2e).
ResultsHere, we present the results of our water savings, financial performance, and diesel engine retirement analysis.
Water savingsEvaporation rates extracted to the locations of the canals and averaged annually are 1716, 1497, and 1570 mm y -1 for the modified Penman, pan evaporation, and CIMIS approaches, respectively. As expected, these estimates of evaporation from canal water surfaces are higher than estimates of evaporation from land surfaces due to the availability of water and surface energy balance. Our surface water evaporation estimates are 11% to 59% higher than California statewide potential evaporation from land surfaces 29,30 . Similarly, previous estimates of evaporation from water surfaces on lakes are generally larger than potential evaporation from land surfaces 31 .