|Fig. 1: Rows of solar panels on racks in a solar farm|
The most common configuration of solar farms is perhaps arrays consisting of rows of solar panel racks such as shown in Figure 1. But have you ever thought about why? Can we challenge this conventional wisdom?
|Fig.2: Cover the field with horizontally-placed solar panels|
Obviously, some inter-row spacing allows for easier cleaning and maintenance and, perhaps, even integration with agricultural farming (e.g., growing mushrooms that prefer shaded areas). But let's put those benefits aside for now and just consider the energy part of the problem. Let me point out a fact: If we completely cover the entire field with solar panels with zero tilt angle and zero gap (Figure 2), we are guaranteed to capture almost every single photon that strikes the area regardless of time and location. Such a simple-minded "design" will produce the maximal output of any given field at any location and time and there is absolutely no such problem as inter-row shading. So what solar design?
|Fig. 3: Comparing two hypothetical fields.|
It turns out that, although the simple-minded design can surely generate maximum electricity, each individual solar panel in it does not necessarily generate a maximum amount of electricity over the course of a year, compared with other designs. In other words, it may just use more solar panels to generate more electricity. As engineering design must consider cost effectiveness and even put it as a top priority, an engineer's job is then to look for a better solution that maximizes the production of each solar panel.
|Fig. 4: Compare outputs of single panels in two fields (Boston).|
A great advantage of Energy3D
is that it allows one to experiment with ideas rapidly. So let's create a field with tilted rows of solar panels and leave some gap between them and then use the Group Analysis Tools to compare the daily and annual outputs of individual solar panels in the two hypothetical fields (Figure 3). And let's assume the fields are in Boston.
|Fig. 5: Compare outputs of single panels in two fields (Phoenix).|
Figure 4 shows that the total annual output of a single solar panel in the field of tilted rows is nearly 20% higher than that of a single solar panel in the field of flat cover in Boston (42° N). In this simulation, the tilt angle was set to be equal to the latitude. This cost effectiveness is one of the main reasons why we choose tilted rows of solar panels in high-latitude areas (aside from the fact that tilted angles allow rain to wash panels more efficiently and snow to slide from them more quickly).
Caveat for low-latitude locations
|Fig. 6: Compare outputs of single panels in two fields (Mexico).|
Note that this result applies only to high-latitude areas such as Boston. If we are designing solar farms for tropical areas such as Singapore, the story may be completely different. In low-latitude areas, small or even zero tilt angles make sense. Therefore, the design principle may be to cover the field with as many solar panels as possible or to use trackers to increase individual outputs (whichever is more economic depends on the relative prices of solar panels and solar trackers that change all the time). You can experiment with Energy3D to find out at which latitude this principle starts to become dominant. Figure 5 shows that the results in cities with a lower latitude such as Phoenix (33° N) and Mexico City (19° N) in North America. In the case of Phoenix, AZ, the gain from the tilted rows drops to about 10%. In the case of Mexico City, it drops to 5%. So designing a ground-mounted solar array for Mexico may be very different from designing a ground-mounted solar array for Canada.