I was recently watching a YouTube video that compared single and dual-axis solar trackers, and I was surprised to learn that some of these systems use optical tracking instead of just relying on latitude and longitude to calculate sun positions like an altazimuth telescope mount. I'm curious, why is that? Is it more cost-effective? Are there times when the optimal angle doesn't align directly with the sun?
3 Answers
I've built my own solar tracking system before using parts from a satellite dish motor and a photoresistor. It worked pretty well at first but then had issues, especially with waterproofing the sensor. Later, I bought an electronic tracker which was fine until it broke down too. Nowadays, I've just got fixed solar panels. Honestly, the prices of solar panels have dropped so much that unless you have a tiny space, investing more in panels rather than trackers just makes more sense.
Using sensors instead of complex calculations makes things way easier. Why make installers do all those precision alignments when a simple sensor setup can simply track the sun and work wherever you plug it in?
One big issue with trackers is that they don't account for obstacles like trees, which can lead to inefficiencies. Plus, on cloudy days, pointing panels straight up can actually yield better results than trying to follow the sun that isn’t there. Generally, with how cheap solar panels are now, it's often more cost-effective to add a few extra panels rather than invest in a tracker.