I'm trying to understand the pros and cons of installing a sun tracking solar system compared to a fixed panel setup. I've heard claims that trackers can boost energy production by around 40%, but they also come with a 50% higher price tag and require more space to match the energy output of fixed systems. Has anyone done the math on this, or can you point me to some results I can check out quickly?
3 Answers
For most people, going for fixed panels is way more cost-effective. Trackers can be appealing, but they often don't last as long as the panels themselves. If you have the space, adding more fixed panels tends to work better than investing in trackers. I actually set up separate arrays for summer and winter, and they perform great! It really shows how extra panels can help, especially in cloudy conditions.
It's true, the costs are a big issue. Trackers have moving parts that can break down more frequently than fixed setups. If you're tight on space, it might seem like a good idea, but you have to consider those added maintenance costs down the road too.
I got a quote for two solar trackers at about $64,000 before tax credits! While they look sleek, I realized I could build a solid ground mount system for much less. Plus, with the savings, I could invest in batteries or other upgrades. The cost is just a major factor against trackers for me.
That’s awesome you have separate arrays! It makes sense that raw panel square footage can really help with energy production, no matter the weather.