Unless solar cells are almost free, that's not a vast improvement. That's only cost-positive if the cells are less than 1/5 of the total cost of your solar farm. I don't think any place qualifies.
Mounted over snow, water, white roof would be the optimal set-up.
But no, at 20%, I don't believe anybody will want this. Maybe in a decade that changes, but not right now.
2) You've assumed the panel costs double, which is likely false.
3) solar generation costs have been falling exponentially and upgrades are incorporated into various installations and new developments all the time.
But here near the equator where view of the sky is the only thing that matters, they are a non-starter. Perhaps in solar farms where panel mounting is 4m or higher?
Why should that change if vastly is the correct adjective or not? If I overpaid by a factor of 10 to be 20% taller I would still be vastly taller, regardless of how much I paid.
If I was 20% taller I would be well over 7ft tall.
> because of the particular distribution. It doesn't generalize.
and IMO it fits solar electricity production increases.
ok?
> and IMO it fits solar electricity production increases.
I think it's distracting more than anything. We can, at best, debate whether the distribution of power generation is similar to the distribution of height to get any usefulness of out of this.
and IMO they are, thus my original comment.
Bifacial panels have two layers of transistors on the silicon subtrate. One on the front and one on the back. Monofacial panels have just one layer. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifacial_solar_cells#/media/Fi...