> "Install in half the cost, half the time on 33% of the land"
If the panels don't point directly at the sun, then you lose much of the efficiency.
I wonder how the robot cleaner handles bird poop.
If the panels don't point directly at the sun, then you lose much of the efficiency.
I wonder how the robot cleaner handles bird poop.
If you can get 75% efficiency for half the cost, your return on investment is 50% higher
So what's the actual maintenance cost? I could imagine it's going to be cheaper to just install new panels every few decades than constantly maintaining the installation to be 100% capacity.
the interesting question is whether the costs of racking, grading, cleaning, repairing, etc., go up or down, and if they go down, whether it's enough of a reduction to make up for the larger amount of solar panels per average watt, as they say it will be
I think this approach has interesting applications for small-scale solar in rural environments if the permitting can be streamlined
the numbers they gave make the pv module prices seem slightly higher than the cited racking prices (15¢ per watt) but it's a little hard to be sure because of the numerous kinds of watts involved
In regions that get snow, bifacial panels (that use light reflected onto the back of the panels as well as light from the front) get a lot better output in the winter, increasing the annual capacity factor and therefor return on investment. (Winter electricity can be more valuable too, in those regions.)
Horses for courses.
This is true for a single panel. But the amount of sunlight which hits an acre of land is constant. If the land is 100% covered with panels, the panels will collect 100% of the available sunlight.
Installations that tilt the panels have lots of space between the panels.
That is not true from my understanding. The increased solar angle of incidence effects how much of the energy reflects back into the sky. Having more panels next to it without a gap won't change that. Yes you can fit more panels in the same area without putting them on an angle but they will be quite a bit less efficient because more light will be reflecting back up per sqft of panel which is what matters cost wise.
[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6611928/#:~:tex....
it'll be interesting to know if they're derating the nameplate capacity by cos(latitude) as they should be
>Our fees are based on the plant producing at its optimal performance. If the plant underperforms for any reason, we curtail our fees – creating strong incentive and perfect alignment with the long-term asset owner.
[0] https://www.asa-lift.com/asalift/producttypes/bodenbearbeitu...
Trench will flood. Mound needs to be maintained. Cheaper to put more static panels flat than trying to get every electron out of them.
Just use the rack then, it's exactly the same result.
[0] http://www.thompsonpotatofarm.com/common-tater/banking-the-p...
My question is whether sitting on the ground itself causes problems with efficiency due to the panels getting hotter than they would with some airflow under them.
https://www.erthos.com/modeling-heat-dissipation-in-earth-mo...
It is much better from POV of the cleaning robot maneuvering requirements. It's also much better in terms of single robot can access the entire installation.
But it's worse in terms of how much distance the dust should be pushed before it's off panel (as I don't see any gaps there)
Apparently they also have special shoes that maintenance people can wear that distribute the weight properly so they can walk on them if they have to.