Shade analysis tool ?

[garybeck]

I've been using the solar pathfinder for 30+ years and while i love it I would like to use something a little more convenient and something that ties into software directly instead of me having to use a pencil and calculator. I don't have the money to spend on a Sun Eye and I think they are not made anymore anyway, but I do see them on ebay

i googled and found an interesting product called Steprobotics. it's essentially a Sun Eye but it attaches to your phone and it's $300 instead of $2000. has anyone tried that? https://steprobotics.com/

or any other advice/thoughts about a decent digital shade analysis tool?

thanks

[garybeck]

no one has answered this so I am bumping and hoping to get a response

[J.P.M.]

no one has answered this so I am bumping and hoping to get a response

Have you tried/looked at SAM from NREL ? It has a shade tool that seems adequate, but you need some familiarity w/ the entire model to make use of it.

I've got some stuff I wrote that several years ago that seems pretty accurate but it needs a fair amount of site analysis with respect to the necessary math.

After I wrote the software and got the model working, I found the solar pathfinder gives results that are close enough.

Most of this stuff ain't rocket science.

[bcroe]

My Solar Pathfinder was used off Evil Bay, well supported. It told me where to put
arrays and hinted where to use my chain saw. Bruce Roe

PathFd1.jpg

[garybeck]

I love the solar pathfinder. I have used one for over 30 years and I met the person who invented it. but I find it is tedious to add up all the numbers and it makes it difficult really compare sites that are close to decide which is better. i think they have software now but I haven't tried it. the steprobotics product takes a photo and analyzes the shade automatically, would be more accurate and less tedious, if it really does what it says it does.

My Solar Pathfinder was used off Evil Bay, well supported. It told me where to put
arrays and hinted where to use my chain saw. Bruce Roe

PathFd1.jpg

[garybeck]

yes it's not rocket science but if you are looking at field with shading issues and trees and trying to find the best place possible place to locate an array, it can make a big difference. every KWH counts and sometimes moving an array a few feet in one direction or another can have an affect on yearly output. i'm interested in this steprobotics because it sounds like it is similar to the SunEye (no longer available) in that it takes a photo of the horizon and analyzes it. thanks, i will check out the SAM tool too.

Have you tried/looked at SAM from NREL ? It has a shade tool that seems adequate, but you need some familiarity w/ the entire model to make use of it.

I've got some stuff I wrote that several years ago that seems pretty accurate but it needs a fair amount of site analysis with respect to the necessary math.

After I wrote the software and got the model working, I found the solar pathfinder gives results that are close enough.

Most of this stuff ain't rocket science.

[bcroe]

For consumer level renewable energy, I see accuracy beyond the first decimal place
as pretty much a wild guess. Before my first serious installation, nobody mentioned
that my biggest problems might be clouds, snow accumulation, high line voltage, and
system losses. Having beaten these issues to solutions over half a decade, I periodically
check if shading can be reduced (it KEEPS CHANGING). If it is a concern, just putting
a few more panels in the right place might be a cure. good luck, Bruce Roe

[garybeck]

I'm not talking about going past the decimal. i'm talking about finding the best place to put a ground mount array. when there are trees, the location of the array can make much more difference than going past the first decimal. I believe if customer is paying $20,000 for a system, they deserve the attention to detail and they deserve to have the array put in the absolute best place possible because it will affect them financially. Now if it's an open field then obviously it doesn't matter but if it is a clearing in the woods it can make a significant difference. i agree, a few more panels can help. but we are maxing out the wattage we can get from a single Osprey mount and to add anymore would mean an additional mounting structure and significant extra cost.

For consumer level renewable energy, I see accuracy beyond the first decimal place
as pretty much a wild guess. Before my first serious installation, nobody mentioned
that my biggest problems might be clouds, snow accumulation, high line voltage, and
system losses. Having beaten these issues to solutions over half a decade, I periodically
check if shading can be reduced (it KEEPS CHANGING). If it is a concern, just putting
a few more panels in the right place might be a cure. good luck, Bruce Roe

[J.P.M.]

I'm not talking about going past the decimal. i'm talking about finding the best place to put a ground mount array. when there are trees, the location of the array can make much more difference than going past the first decimal. I believe if customer is paying $20,000 for a system, they deserve the attention to detail and they deserve to have the array put in the absolute best place possible because it will affect them financially. Now if it's an open field then obviously it doesn't matter but if it is a clearing in the woods it can make a significant difference. i agree, a few more panels can help. but we are maxing out the wattage we can get from a single Osprey mount and to add anymore would mean an additional mounting structure and significant extra cost.

Before I got into a shade analysis, I always figured a necessary piece of input before I started was the cost of that last) kWh of energy I'd get from a PV array in a particular application. Do you have something like that yet ?

As for shading analysis, although certainly necessary, I found that for all the uncertainty involved in the process and the tools, I could do better on my own. I believe I did that, and get results that seem to agree with other stuff available for the task but in the process, I also discovered that given the variables of the process as well as the other inputs to the design process I'm aware of that can also synergistically affect a shade analysis - not even considering things I'm clueless about - I found that the Solar Pathfinder is about as accurate as necessary and relatively easy to use.

But if it'll cost me, say, $100 to rent such a tool and in so doing it'll improve the array siting and so array output such that the NPV of that output goes up by $99, is it worth it ?

Lots of variables and that's only talking about the known variables.

At the end of the day, if I had a site that had enough shade to make me feel the need to get real serious about a shade analysis and worry about, and after I got what I'd consider a reasonable/working handle/SWAG on a LCOE for the project, I might start to wonder if it was a good site for a solar application in the first place.

Not every site is a good site for a solar array.

[bcroe]

I'm not talking about going past the decimal. i'm talking about finding the best place to put a ground mount array. when there are trees, the location of the array can make much more difference than going past the first decimal. I believe if customer is paying $20,000 for a system, they deserve the attention to detail and they deserve to have the array put in the absolute best place possible because it will affect them financially. Now if it's an open field then obviously it doesn't matter but if it is a clearing in the woods it can make a significant difference. i agree, a few more panels can help. but we are maxing out the wattage we can get from a single Osprey mount and to add anymore would mean an additional mounting structure and significant extra cost.

I agree with giving the customer the best possible starting point. But over time the issues
I mentioned turned out to be more significant. My last panel mount considers these and
will out perform the Osprey mount. The Osprey appears to be commercially oriented (for
which I will not comment) as used in fields, not a woods clearing. And of course, the shading
changes every year. good luck, Bruce Roe

[garybeck]

I agree with giving the customer the best possible starting point. But over time the issues
I mentioned turned out to be more significant. My last panel mount considers these and
will out perform the Osprey mount. The Osprey appears to be commercially oriented (for
which I will not comment) as used in fields, not a woods clearing. And of course, the shading
changes every year. good luck, Bruce Roe

why do you say Osprey is commercially oriented? they have mounts that hold only 12 panels. and what do you mean it's only for a field, not a woods clearing? not sure what you mean there..... the "other things" you mention are already accounted for. when we estimate 4.2 hours of peak sun per day in our area, it comes from the solar radiation database and it accounts for clouds, line loss, and other things. in my area we also have a general rule of thumb, approximately 1,100 KWH produced per year for every KW of array, with NO shading or snow load. this is based on monitoring our existing customer's output over time, as every system has a separate production meter. so when I design a system and give the customer a payback estimate, I have to determine a shade factor. The tool i'm looking at (steprobotics) is $400, a fraction of the SunEye that most people used to use but is no longer available. I think it's worth it to have an accurate shade analysis tool so I can determine a reasonable shade derate factor and also to pick the absolute best spot in a field. my reason for this post was to see if anyone here had tried the steprobotics product as an alternative to the SunEye, or if there is something out there better that I haven't come across yet. regardless, thanks for your input and take care

[J.P.M.]

why do you say Osprey is commercially oriented? they have mounts that hold only 12 panels. and what do you mean it's only for a field, not a woods clearing? not sure what you mean there..... the "other things" you mention are already accounted for. when we estimate 4.2 hours of peak sun per day in our area, it comes from the solar radiation database and it accounts for clouds, line loss, and other things. in my area we also have a general rule of thumb, approximately 1,100 KWH produced per year for every KW of array, with NO shading or snow load. this is based on monitoring our existing customer's output over time, as every system has a separate production meter. so when I design a system and give the customer a payback estimate, I have to determine a shade factor. The tool i'm looking at (steprobotics) is $400, a fraction of the SunEye that most people used to use but is no longer available. I think it's worth it to have an accurate shade analysis tool so I can determine a reasonable shade derate factor and also to pick the absolute best spot in a field. my reason for this post was to see if anyone here had tried the steprobotics product as an alternative to the SunEye, or if there is something out there better that I haven't come across yet. regardless, thanks for your input and take care

I appreciate that it's not my money/business I may sound cavalier about spending, but if I was in the business of installing PV, and I felt strongly about the equivalence Steprobotics == Suneye, I'd probably take a chance on a $300 gamble.

Otherwise, since you're an installer I'd guess you're familiar w/solar modeling, I'd check out what SAM offers, but I suspect if you're not familiar with it (SAM), once you got fluent in using SAM, you'd have long since spent $300 equivalent of your time.

As for the Osprey anchoring system, its main advantage seems to be that it avoids the use of digging and concrete. Otherwise, as long as it keeps the system designers and inspectors happy and is otherwise fit for purpose and application, it looks like a lot of other ground mounts, residential and commercial. I do note that the details and any design technical information on the anchors seems to be non existent.