I saw this article in Solar Builder proposing ground-mounting bi-facial panels vertically. They say it doubles as a fence. The idea fascinates me.
Vertical Reach.jpg
I wondered if it was a good idea in terms of sun utilization and did some quick runs of PVWatts to try to answer this question.
#1: New England location, South facing, 30 degree from horizontal, all else default. 5194 kWh/year.
#2: New England location, East facing, 90 degree from horizontal, all else default. 2832 kWh/year, to model one side of a vertical panel.
#3: New England location, West facing, 90 degree from horizontal, all else default. 2826 kWh/year, to model the other side of a vertical panel.
No model is perfect. This one is far from perfect. For starters, it ignores stray backside radition like ground reflections. But despite the limitations, do you think this is a fair way to compare a standard ground mount (#1) to a horizontal ground mount (the sum of #2 and #3)?
Do you have a better idea for comparing this approach using bi-facial panels to a traditional ground-mount using bi-facial panels?
Vertical Reach.jpg
I wondered if it was a good idea in terms of sun utilization and did some quick runs of PVWatts to try to answer this question.
#1: New England location, South facing, 30 degree from horizontal, all else default. 5194 kWh/year.
#2: New England location, East facing, 90 degree from horizontal, all else default. 2832 kWh/year, to model one side of a vertical panel.
#3: New England location, West facing, 90 degree from horizontal, all else default. 2826 kWh/year, to model the other side of a vertical panel.
No model is perfect. This one is far from perfect. For starters, it ignores stray backside radition like ground reflections. But despite the limitations, do you think this is a fair way to compare a standard ground mount (#1) to a horizontal ground mount (the sum of #2 and #3)?
Do you have a better idea for comparing this approach using bi-facial panels to a traditional ground-mount using bi-facial panels?
Comment