4 ms·
> Vertically they produce 77% compared to 90% of the tilted panels? In what graph is the lower number better? 77% of the ’normal orientation’ per year, but th
by Linosaurus 1y ago
> Vertically they produce 77% compared to 90% of the tilted panels? In what graph is the lower number better?
77% of the ’normal orientation’ per year, but the graph and 131% value is for a day in winter (January 15 this year). At least that’s my read.
- JumpCrisscross 1y agoI also believe vertical panels produce more than flat panels in the mornings and evenings, thereby giving them anti-duck curve properties.
- dylan604 1y agoSo one day of the year is producing 131% yet still only averages 77% for the year? Yeah, that sounds like a good trade off. /s I'm still trying to decide if the entire post is trolling or not. Nothing about it sounds sane to me.
- Xylakant 1y agoSo your problem is that during summer, average solar production is much higher than in winter in the first place. So to ensure that you have sufficient energy in winter, you can either overprovision heavily for summer use (lots of flat panels facing south) or you can sacrifice summer efficiency to gain winter efficiency - vertical panels do that.
- fckgw 1y agoIt's not just about production, it's also about reducing maintenance costs (don't collect snow, less dust build up on panels) and land usage. If you can take that 77% average, but maybe stick a couple more panels on land to reach your energy goals in an overall smaller footprint with less maintenance work, then maybe it's a good solution to specific problems.
- adgjlsfhk1 1y agoIf you had a solar panel that produced half as much power as regular, but produced power at night that would be a massive win. This is a less extreme equivalent. It produces less power than a normal solar pannel, but it produces power at an important time (when regular solar panels don't produce much power).