Smart solar tracking and on-site photovoltic efficiency measurement system

Comparative Evaluation of Second-Class Lever Principle Based Single-Axis Solar Tracking System and Conventional System

“…Moreover, the examinations do not include a valued analysis of energy yield and power consumption of the motor driver and electronic circuits. Here, the power consumption of a tracking system has 3-10% Salient Features • SAST system works based on a programmable logic controller (PLC) • Compared to the FSA system, the daily power extracted is 20% more [6] • A Passive SAST system is Aluminium/Steel bimetallic strips are controlled with a viscous damper • Improvement in energy is 23% greater than that of the FSA system [7] • 3-position automated tracking system • Extracted power is 24.5% greater than that of the FSA system [8] • Single-axis and dual-axis automatic system • Extracted power is 18% greater than that of the FSA system [9] • PIC microcontroller based SAST system • Mean power improvement is 66.9% greater than FSA system [10] • South-east 50 • , South and Southwest 50 • 3-position SAST system • Energy extracted is 24.2% greater than FSA system [11] • Fuzzy logic-based control system • Energy extracted is 47% greater than that of the FSA system [12] • Hybrid (dual-axis + single-axis) SAST system • Energy enhancement is 25.62% higher than the FSA [13] • MPPT based low power SAST system • Energy extracted is 12-20% greater than FSA system [14] • Tripper motor based single and two-axis solar tracking system • Energy extracted is 31.67% greater than FSA system [15] • Robot arm based SAST system • Power improvement is 17.2% greater than FSA system [16] • A passive SAST system working based on liquid vapor pressure (Thinner, Methanol, and Acetone) • Power improvement is 23.33% greater than FSA system [17] • A SAST system based on a real-time clock (RTC) • Energy savings are 15-20% greater than in the FSA system [18] • Scaled down version of SAST with 15 • step movement per hour • Energy improvement is 28-43.6% greater than FSA system [19] • Sunlight intensity based 3-position SAST system • Extracted energy is 20% greater than that of the FSA system [20] • A passive SAST system works reactor with metal hydride • Energy extracted is 7.2% greater than FSA system [21] • Irradiation monitored microcontroller SAST system • Energy extracted is 40% higher than in the FSA system [22] of improved effectiveness. The sun trackers essential not need to point directly sun effectively.…”

Proposed Design for Single Axis Photovoltaic Solar Tracker

“…Renewable energy sources are friendlier to the environment and more sustainable compared to fossil fuels Renewable energy includes several forms such as solar and wind energy [1][2][3][4][5][6]. The sun tracking system in different solar energy applications plays an important role where its benefits over the fixed systems not limited to the power and efficiency gains and increase, but also in the large-scale solar energy applications economic analyses [7][8][9][10][11][12][13].…”

“…The predominant two categories of tracking-single and dual axis tracking-have different features compared to each other. Although the dual-axis tracking is more complicated and has a higher cost, which uses more instruments and equipment [7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. Solar tracking systems can be divided into two main types, namely, active and passive solar tracking systems.…”

“…Solar tracking systems can be divided into two main types, namely, active and passive solar tracking systems. Active solar tracking systems use gears and motors to control photovoltaic modules, whereas passive tracking systems use a low boiling-point compressed gas fluid that originates from [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. The sun tracking systems have different based designs and components.…”

“…Active tracker recently used in most applications by about 76.42% while the chronological tracker used by about 7.55% as a second impact type. Moreover, the percentages of the other techniques are 16.87% for the Azimuth and altitude tracker, 16.67% for the Horizontal tracker, 10% for the Azimuth tracker and 4.44% for the polar tracker [7][8][9][10][11][12][13].…”