Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Phssthp0kThePak t1_iwgrrat wrote

What about MWh per acre? Is that closer, like 0.74/0.4 since trackers can double the energy harvested? Then you are at twice the energy for 3.5x the cost.

3

WhatdoIdowithmyhands t1_iwh3sqb wrote

You are right, MWh is the true measurement that should be used when comparing these systems. And that will vary of course for every site. Single axis trackers are still the best solution for most utility scale solar sites.

4

manual_tranny OP t1_iwh7497 wrote

MWh is in the article. (as KWh/KW/year)

Your math is funny, you didn't even try to account for the price of a tracker, and yet you have a final number on costs?

FYI, the price of a solar panel is NOT the same as the price of installed, interconnected solar project. Panel pricing has come down so aggressively over the last decade that it is considerably cheaper per MWh to install more panels than to operate trackers. Labor is a significant factor in solar projects, and most trackers take more labor to install as well as never ending O&M.

(There are a couple of recently developed single-axis trackers that might tip the scale the other way, but MOST tracking hardware is silly expensive)

If you had read the article, instead of reacting to the title, you would have learned that dense panel fitment is actually a way to protect against severe weather AND take advantage of limited land, both top concerns for islands in the Caribbean.

3

Phssthp0kThePak t1_iwhkcpn wrote

Just arithmetic trying to balance your title which you admit is a little misleading. For the rest, sounds cool for an application like islands in stormy regions. Great. Maybe trackers can have a stow position that is wind resistant. Maybe not though.

−1

manual_tranny OP t1_iwi7loa wrote

I absolutely did not 'admit' any such thing.

You have no idea what you are talking about, or how to use units, and you're acting like a jerk. Now you're blocked. 😘

0