14 minutes ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

And here and there I have noticed minor shade of the frame falling on some of or most panels. That is mos an issue, not?

This in my eyes is a design fault on your frame and kinda defeats the purpose trying to extract the maximum out of your panels then?

 

23 minutes ago, jdp said:

But hey each his own. You don't have to build a tracker. I just don't understand why you would say it wont work if you don't have experience in it.

We not saying it wont work, what we are saying is the cost of doing this + the wasted space you have now with trying to keep the panels from shading on each other vs the cost of just adding a few more panels (Cost is the key point)

10 minutes ago, jdp said:

Are you just guessing or have you done research on this when you make these statements? The space between the panels is so you don't get shading on each other.

This is just one paper of plenty that proves it.

http://solar.ypsi.com/repository/documents/DreamFarm/ac20energycomparison-madison-wi-43155.pdf

At work we have a 560kw array all on trackers. And they prove the stats as well. (20 % more on single axis)

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/csir-solar-plant-strives-for-100-off-grid-switch-2016-01-22

In fact we are installing tracking systems on each roof top where the CSIR is running experiments with solar tracking systems.

But hey each his own. You don't have to build a tracker. I just don't understand why you would say it wont work if you don't have experience in it.

 

You got the wrong side of the story, mate

I never said it doesn't work. But I said that 42% is too optimistic in my opinion. 20-30% is what most other researchers got from trackers. At 20 or even 30% increase it just doesn't make financial sense to me. 

On a 1KW (4x 250W panels) Array you would need to add at least 2 more panels, which is then 50% increase @ R5000. Would a small solar tracker cost less than say R2500 (let's work with 25% increase due to the solar tracker efficiency) to build & install for a 1Kw array?

On a 10,500w array (10Kw Infisolar grid tied inverter) will then require 8 more 250W panels at R20,000 to increase by 20%. Their manual doesn't show a configuration for 12,500w, but rather 13,500w so let's add 12 more panels, cost R30,000 and gives 28% increase. What would a tracker system of that scale cost?

On 100Kw and 1Mw the economies  of scale would work out about the same, or perhaps go down a bit. 

Fair enough, on larger installations, if you don't have enough roof / ground space, a tracker makes sens - not necessarily financially, but due to limits beyond your control. 

 

The point I am trying to make, is it really worth the money?

My neighbor also built his own and it wasn't worth the money he spend building it. He's an engineer and designed & bult it himself, so it cost him a fraction of what it would cost of the shelf. Two years later he "parked" it and added 6 more panels on his roof. He said the total output was better than with the tracker and he didn't have to worry about panels flying off in high winds, which we tend to get a lot of. 

Okay, I did a test.

Two identical panels, one fixed and one tilted (by hand) to face the sun spot on.

Check the Volts and amps. One left is manually tilted, one left is fixed.

What floors me, it is the 200w Tenesol Panel, see the specs here:

 

29 minutes ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

What floors me, it is the 200w Tenesol Panel, see the specs here:

 

STC is normally at 25^oC and NOCT is normally quoted at 20^oC. So the quoting at 45^oC is unusual so the >100% returns midday are due to irradiation over 1000W/m² . I suppose they are trying to be more honest as 45^oC is close to normal operating conditions than 20^oC.

 

4 minutes ago, Chris Hobson said:

STC is normally at 25^oC and NOCT is normally quoted at 20^oC. So the quoting at 45^oC is unusual so the >100% returns midday are due to irradiation over 1000W/m² . I suppose they are trying to be more honest as 45^oC is close to normal operating conditions than 20^oC.

 

It would actually be a good idea to graph the energy consumption, along with temperatures (probably just below the panel) to see how it performs. 

Good idea SilverNodashi. Will put it on the list of ideas that I want to do over time with the software. 

These old Tenesol panels, even after wot, 6 years, are still preforming above their specs. Joke is they where B-Visuals meaning there was a visual flaw on them somewhere (never found it) so I figured, once the panels are mounted, there will most definitely be more visual flaws. 

And yes, that 45 ^oC, it causes lots of drama when doing online calcs BUT, as you say Chris, 45 ^oC  is definitely more realistic for calcs for South Africa for they where manufactured right here in Cape Town. 

29 minutes ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

Good idea SilverNodashi. Will put it on the list of ideas that I want to do over time with the software. 

These old Tenesol panels, even after wot, 6 years, are still preforming above their specs. Joke is they where B-Visuals meaning there was a visual flaw on them somewhere (never found it) so I figured, once the panels are mounted, there will most definitely be more visual flaws. 

And yes, that 45 ^oC, it causes lots of drama when doing online calcs BUT, as you say Chris, 45 ^oC  is definitely more realistic for calcs for South Africa for they where manufactured right here in Cape Town. 

I wonder if 45 degrees celcius is enough though. Last December was the hottest in 100 years, or so, and I'm sure a glass of water could have boiled on some metal roofs. But it would be good to see this on a graph, do some decent comparisons. If only I had enough equipment to run a parallel comparison. And enough roof space with ample sun. 

Only reason I have this moment to compare, is because I am testing the panel, after it was repaired.

If it was not for that, I would not been able to do it. 

15 minutes ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

Only reason I have this moment to compare, is because I am testing the panel, after it was repaired.

If it was not for that, I would not been able to do it. 

At least you now how what your optimal mounting angle is

On 12/05/2016 at 10:10 AM, The Terrible Triplett said:

Must say, that monstrosity on my roof, not today. I would LOVE to do what Chris did, op die grond, maklik en naby om te kan beloer.

Funnily enough I rarely go out to the panels. We wash them once a month sometimes stretch it to 6 weeks and in a year I have twice checked on the Tekscrews  that hold them to the frame. Other than that the occasional visitor who is impressed that a "mere farmer can install a solar system". The quote comes from folk that  have opted to get a Tesla so we'll see how it goes.

1 hour ago, SilverNodashi said:

At least you now how what your optimal mounting angle is

I do, it differs substantially in CPT between mid summer and mid winter.

EDIT: I am moving the panel manually, so call me the 'solar tracker'.

Am I missing something here?  The left hand box indicates that the panel is outputting 91W and the right hand box indicates that that panel is outputting 153W? Left hand panel is fixed and right hand panel optimally angled - depending on how much is required to charge the batts at that moment and what the optimum PV watts (MPPT) at that stage is, everything looks in order. (for 200Wp panels)

 

47 minutes ago, superdiy said:

Am I missing something here?  The left hand box indicates that the panel is outputting 91W and the right hand box indicates that that panel is outputting 153W? Left hand panel is fixed and right hand panel optimally angled - depending on how much is required to charge the batts at that moment and what the optimum PV watts (MPPT) at that stage is, everything looks in order. (for 200Wp panels)

Good point. But I made it so that both systems batteries where low enough to necessitate a bulk charge.

Once the sun was hit them both optimally, their watts, volts and amps, where on par.

Just now, The Terrible Triplett said:

Good point. But I made it so that both systems batteries where low enough to necessitate a bulk charge.

Once the sun was hit them both optimally, their watts, volts and amps, where on par.

Are you looking at the charging amps and maybe confusing it with panel amps? Totally different thing. 

Left: 13.23V @ 6.54A  => 86.52W (91W from the panel) - looks in order

Right: 12.69V @11.29A => 143.26W (153W from panel) - again looks in order

I was looking at values from two identical panels with two identical controllers both 12v systems, both going in Bulk charge mode.

Only difference between the two systems is that one is a standard fixed position, the other one I "simulated" a tracking array and turned it optimally towards the sun.

So mornings and afternoons, solar tracking will most definitely add quite a bit of value, and then also between summer and winter.

Therefor one could take the leap and say maybe the % improvement claimed by tracking manufacturers, may not be that far off, may even be accurate, when one observes such a huge difference between 2 identical system.

Or am I missing the plot?

5 hours ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

What floors me, it is the 200w Tenesol Panel, see the specs here:

 

3 minutes ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

I was looking at values from two identical panels with two identical controllers both 12v systems, both going in Bulk charge mode.

Only difference between the two systems is that one is a standard fixed position, the other one I "simulated" a tracking array and turned it optimally towards the sun.

So mornings and afternoons, solar tracking will most definitely add quite a bit of value, and then also between summer and winter.

Therefor one could take the leap and say maybe the % improvement claimed by tracking manufacturers, may not be that far off, may even be accurate, when one observes such a huge difference between 2 identical system.

Or am I missing the plot?

What I could not understand was your comment above: "What floors me, it is the 200w Tenesol Panel" Are you satisfied, performing better than expected or worse than expected? 91W not optimally aligned and 153W optimally aligned on probably not a 1000W/m² irradiation day looks perfectly fine to me.

9 minutes ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

Therefor one could take the leap and say maybe the % improvement claimed by tracking manufacturers, may not be that far off,

I'm totally with you on this one, but only if you don't have any partial shading. I think someone mentioned partial shading at a certain time of day visible in the video clip (blocked at work), and that defeats the purpose. If you are planning on buying or constructing a tracker you have to ensure that you never get any partial shading on any panel, unless you are using something like micro-inverters, but that is a totally different topic for another day.

15 minutes ago, superdiy said:

What I could not understand was your comment above: "What floors me, it is the 200w Tenesol Panel" Are you satisfied, performing better than expected or worse than expected? 91W not optimally aligned and 153W optimally aligned on probably not a 1000W/m² irradiation day looks perfectly fine to me.

Yes, I agree, all is very good for a single 200w panel.

But what floors me is how close the volts are to the actual specs and the amps the MPPT can push into the batts, compared to the panel specs, that floored me.

1 minute ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

But what floors me is how close the volts are to the actual specs and the amps the MPPT can push into the batts, compared to the panel specs, that floored me.

Don't look at the amps the MPPT pushes into the batts - that is not panel amps - totally different.

Lets take the right hand one as example - Panel amps is at 25.64V (153 / 25.64) => 5.97A  - Battery amps is 11.29A but at only 12.69V - don't confuse the panel amps & the battery amps.

If you compare the PV V at max power (25.64) it sits between the 800W/m² (45°C) value of 24.4V and the 1000W/m² value of 26.7V as per the datasheet. Panel amps at 5.97A is just below 6.1A. Both values look very much in line with what the datasheet suggests.

Still cannot understand why it floored you - that is what is expected - if it was way off then you had to be worried.

Good point SuperDIY!

But still, those values at 10am with wot, 5-6 year old panels... not too shabby I say.

3 minutes ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

But still, those values at 10am with wot, 5-6 year old panels... not too shabby I say.

Agreed, not bad at all!

What degrees are your pannels fixed and direction. I am the only one in town here with solor. Still trying to find the sweet spot. Any help will be appreciated

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I used this site and it helped alot... you need to decide summer/winter or anything in between.  The sliders in the tool at the bottom of the page do the business for you... for you location (you need your GPS coordinates...)

Regards

Mark

Thanks Mark appreciate it

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk