/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10900014
Because maintenance costs are prohibitive, you'd be losing money.

Are there any studies/papers regarding this?

>>10900014
Because maintenance mostly, until we get some pretty great and very cheap robots at least this won't change

>>10900031
if you combined something else in the same area it may be cost effective because you would be travelling to the same area to do many other tasks. using the same space to do more.

>>10900031
if you combined other revenue streams in the same area it may be cost effective because you would be travelling to the same area to do many other tasks. using the same space to do more.

>>10900014
You are looking at one of the best examples of how solar struggles to provide cost effective power. They already have to replace all the panels every five to ten years. Cloudy days reduce their income. They only get eight or ten hours of good sunlight per day...

>>10900014
>has to research to find out if solar panels not pointed at the sun don't do as well

>>10900671
Sod off Frodo

>>10900014
up to 30° misalignment will only result in minor losses, also static mounting is more stable

>>10900014
More moving parts = more points of failure.

>>10900710
Why do you have so many moving parts, anon?

>>10900712
The only effective way to do solar tracking is with a Canfield joint

>>10900722
>Canfield joint
Based af, though so many joints. That can't be easy to maintain

>>10900722
>Canfield joint
That is excessively complicated. A polar mount with azimuth travel for each day and elevation depending on month is far easier. With a mechanism the elevation can be derived from the time, mechanically.

>>10900574
looking good to me oh and it's closer to 30 years for panel lifetime not 5

>>10900014

Look up the patent for rotating light weight solar panels.

Its a DoD contract for afghanistan and remote places.

>>10901337
Amazing graph. I really hope it turns out to be true. Because if that turns out to be fake data solar is dead. Dead and buried.

I haven't spoken to anybody who has had a solar panel work for thirty years. I can't believe that industry is paying more for their panels than the average suburbanite.

Something is broken. Time will tell who is right.

I'm not actually against solar but panels are garbage.

>>10901501
>a graph showing solar panels are cost-effective is evidence that they aren't cost-effective
interesting tactic

>>10900574
>replace all the panels every 5 to ten years
What? Most modern solar panels can last 30 years with only ~20% degradation.

>>10900014
A single panel is easy to track.
Solar farms have long series of connected panels that are way too unwieldy to track. If you divide into smaller panels tracking will mean panels will cast shadows on neighbouring panels.
As a compromise you could track in elevation only, that would work, but I am not sure how much that added complexity would gain in power generated. Compromising the compromise you could track in elevation just to account for season rather than time of day.

>>10900671
research to determine the cost effectiveness of tracking panels vs static panels

>>10901503
Sure. Show me a panel that lasted thirty years. I suspect that in thirty years that graph will look very different.

Look honestly idgaf. Panels are part of the space agenda. Just don't try to sell any to me.

>>10900722
>>10901070
Ack!
Even simpler: the axis of rotation aligned with the celestial north pole, then use a drive that counter rotates the Earth. At sunset, slew back to the morning position.
Just like every freaking equatorial mount telescope.

>>10900014
If its just for personal stuff, it costs about $50-100 worth of material to setup the tracking hardware/software.

Is that worth it for ~15-20% gain in efficiency? Probably not. If you are buying 100 watt panel, buying 200 watt panel for extra $100 would be better than spending $50-100 for 15% gain.