3 ms·
> if you add the cost of lenses+tracking system you could buy more panels. That increased number of (passive) panels will be more reliable and will produce roug
by imaginenore 12y ago
> if you add the cost of lenses+tracking system you could buy more panels. That increased number of (passive) panels will be more reliable and will produce roughly about as much power as a non-tracking system would.
How did you get to that conclusion? Arrays of plastic (and even glass) lenses are ridiculously cheap.
So are the motors and parts for tracking.
Panels, inverters and labor are still the expensive parts.
http://greenzone.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Soft-and-hard-costs-PV-residential.jpg http://greenzone.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Soft-and-hard...
- msandford 12y agoFurther, these cells are DESIGNED to be concentrating. Meaning that if you have a 32sqft "solar panel" the cell material might only be a few dozen square inches; the concentration ratio is something like 1600:1. The plastic and glass are indeed cheap and the solar cell material is also cheap due to the very small quantity needed per panel.
- jacquesm 12y agoVery high degrees of concentration tend to have negative effects on the longevity of the cell. So sure, you get a lot of power out of a smaller area (it will need good head dissipation but that's doable), but you may only get it for a shorter life-span. Solar is complex.
- jacquesm 12y agoMotors and parts for tracking as well as the tracking base are definitely not ridiculously cheap. They have to be weather proof, have to operate unattended for a decade or more and have to operate in a very wide range of temperatures. A typical tracking system (besides lenses) adds significantly to the total system price compared to a non-tracking system. Dual axis tracking even more so.