Fixed solar panels can be more efficient than solar tracking panels in certain specific locations and conditions, primarily due to factors like terrain, space constraints, weather, and installation costs. Here is a detailed explanation based on the search results:
Situations and Locations Favoring Fixed Solar Panels Over Trackers
- Limited or Irregular Space: Fixed panels allow for denser installation because they do not require the extra space and clearance that tracking systems need for movement. This is advantageous in small or irregularly shaped sites where maximizing the number of panels is critical.
- Undulating or Sloped Terrain: On uneven or hilly ground, single-axis trackers may be impractical or too costly to install due to the need for large foundations to withstand wind loads and the difficulty of accommodating movement. Fixed-tilt panels can be better suited to such terrain, reducing installation complexity and costs.
- High Latitude Regions with Limited Land: In some northern countries (e.g., Germany), fixed or east-west fixed structures are preferred because they can accommodate more peak power for the same area, resulting in a greater total energy output despite lower specific production per panel. Trackers can take more space and may generate less total energy in such contexts.
- Cloudy or Diffuse Light Conditions: Fixed panels tend to perform relatively better on cloudy days or during early morning and late evening when sunlight is diffuse, because their constant angle can capture ambient light more consistently than trackers, which are optimized for direct sunlight during peak hours.
- Cost and Maintenance Considerations in Certain Climates: The more complex tracking systems require motors, sensors, and regular maintenance, which raises costs and risk of breakdown. In areas with harsh weather or where maintenance access is difficult, fixed panels’ simplicity and durability make them more cost-effective overall.
- Projects with Low Energy Demand or Budget Constraints: For residential or small commercial installations where energy needs are modest and budgets limited, fixed panels offer a simpler, less expensive solution with lower installation and ongoing costs. Trackers, while more efficient, may not economically justify their higher upfront and maintenance costs in these cases.
Summary Table Comparing Conditions Favoring Fixed vs. Tracking Solar Panels
| Condition / Location | Fixed Solar Panels Advantage | Tracking Solar Panels Advantage |
|---|---|---|
| Limited or irregular site space | Can install more panels densely, maximizing peak power | Require more space for movement |
| Hilly or uneven terrain | Easier and cheaper installation, no complex foundations needed | Difficult and expensive installation on slopes |
| High latitude with limited land availability | Higher total energy output per area despite lower per panel yield | More efficient per panel but need more space |
| Cloudy or diffuse light conditions | Better at capturing ambient light throughout day | Best performance under direct sunlight in peak hours |
| Harsh weather or high maintenance cost areas | Lower maintenance and more durable | Higher maintenance and risk of breakdown |
| Low energy demand or budget constraints | Lower upfront and operational costs | Higher output but costly |
Conclusion
While solar tracking panels generally provide higher efficiency (up to 40% more energy) by following the sun’s movement, fixed solar panels are more efficient or economically preferable in specific locations such as small or irregular sites, hilly terrain, regions with diffuse light, harsh climates, and projects with limited budgets or lower energy demands. The choice depends on site-specific factors including geography, weather, available space, and financial considerations.
Original article by NenPower, If reposted, please credit the source: https://nenpower.com/blog/are-there-any-specific-locations-where-fixed-solar-panels-are-more-efficient-than-tracking-panels/
