Quick Answer
Fixed solar mounts are generally less expensive and easier to install than tracker mounts, while tracker mounts can increase energy production by up to 45% in optimal conditions. However, tracker mounts require more maintenance and can be more prone to mechanical failure. The choice between the two ultimately depends on the specific needs and constraints of the remote location.
Choosing the Right Mount Type
When selecting between a fixed and tracker solar mount, consider the site’s solar irradiance, wind, and snow loads. For locations with high solar irradiance (over 200 W/m²) and minimal shading, a tracker mount can be a good option. However, for areas with frequent snowfall or strong winds, a fixed mount may be more suitable.
Mechanical Considerations
Tracker mounts typically require a sturdier foundation and more robust mechanical components than fixed mounts. A 4-post tracker mount, for example, can be anchored to a 12" x 12" foundation, while a fixed mount can be anchored to a 6" x 6" foundation. Additionally, tracker mounts often require more frequent lubrication and maintenance to ensure smooth operation.
Electrical and Energy Considerations
A fixed mount can produce 250-300 kWh of energy per year in optimal conditions, while a tracker mount can produce 400-450 kWh per year. When calculating the return on investment (ROI), consider the additional upfront cost of the tracker mount against the potential increase in energy production. For remote locations with high energy demand, the extra cost may be justified by the increased energy output.
Find more answers
Browse the full Q&A library by topic, or jump back to the topic this question belongs to.