The development of renewable energy systems is an exciting opportunity for a whole chain of operators. So interesting that often enthusiastic approach can be a source of errors. First, the delay in initiating action, particularly by government, has made investments less attractive, although partially offset by lower costs of the facilities. On the other hand you can see a profound difference of approach in relation to those filmmakers. In fact, contrast with the careful investment professionals to incorrect approaches by many other entities that are likely to see unfulfilled expectations valued or feared by many actors improvised.
The large operators, often made of large facilities, highly competent in financial matters, they walk a goal of economic feasibility, which often becomes speculative, approaching the initiative with a correct design technical / financial assistance.
In contrast, private investors and small, often inexperienced, rely to a large number of operators, riding the wave of enthusiasm for the development of renewable sources, making improvised design interventions that will produce results very different from those projected. Different results, sometimes, not because of the technologies implemented but due to wrong planning. Projects driven by marketing efforts and / or absolute lack of competence, which does not approach the needs clarity (lack of correct analysis) and what is necessary to achieve.
Blunders you can watch them anywhere. From projects for individuals, where the projects is often oversized compared to the real needs, not considering the actual annual consumption and favoring the reduce consumption. We are witnessing the construction of plants from 3-6 kWp when analyzing the consumption, it would take 1.2-3kwp. Obviously it's much easier to realize a system equal to the power connected that to analyze the power bill and much of what is needed.
But it is much more interesting, watching plants built to generate a business income. We are witnessing the proliferation projects on the land that use disparate technologies. Projects that often do not consider the more mundane elements of inefficiency, which will feed into a disastrous economic outcome. Among these I would like to list some major errors:
- The incorrect positioning of the panels, seeing guidelines and inclinations that can deliver the productivity provided for that specific location;
- The cone of shadow produced by the topography of the land (hills, forests, etc.) or buildings;
- The incorrect positioning and, in particular, the distance between the strings, or even worse, much tracking system. In this case you can see plants in which the rotation of the sails has the unique effect of producing shadows on neighboring structures.
All this not realizing, or often completely ignoring that only a few panels have the technology to ensure the partial production when some cells are in a shadow. For almost all of the panels on the market, the effect generated by the partial shading of the panel raises the total lack of productivity. We try to restructure the business plan, project containing such errors, and evaluate whether the investment is considered interesting or ....
An attention projecting after a careful analysis of all elements (location, technology, financial products, insurance, etc..), Can provide the expected benefits, but also prevent the implementation of projects financially disastrous.
"Renewable" and project: at who is to blame and to whom the merits?
