Top of Pole vs Ground Mount

[Scottg4001]

We have a potential customer that is a bit aprehensive about using a top-of-pole mount as it might be a eye sore. This is for a new housing development and they want to know if we can cut down the pole and lower the array during the install. I typically use a ten foot pole and bury it four feet with six feet above ground. I thought it might be a good idea to use a ground mount system instead for a cleaner look. So the question I have is; are there any disadvatages to using a ground mount rack vs a top-of-pole mount and are there any advantages? I would like to provide the customer with a few options and the pros and cons of each. The reason I ask is that I have never used a ground mount rack yet. Thanks ahead of time.

[niel]

good question. it sounds like either will be somewhat close to the ground so weeds can get overgrown and security can be compromised on both. i don't know of the winner in a wind survival event either. ground mounts may be easier to disassemble to move to a new location if one should sell the property.

[PNjunction]

Aside from security concerns, the ground mount will need a good eye to prevent debris, wet leaves, tall weed shadows etc from shadowing the panels. Amorphous panels may be a better choice for ground-mounting if temporary shadowy objects often land on the panel - provided all the pros and cons of amorphous are factored into the decision.

[niel]

Aside from security concerns, the ground mount will need a good eye to prevent debris, wet leaves, tall weed shadows etc from shadowing the panels. Amorphous panels may be a better choice for ground-mounting if temporary shadowy objects often land on the panel - provided all the pros and cons of amorphous are factored into the decision.

"I typically use a ten foot pole and bury it four feet with six feet above ground."

this says that there isn't an advantage using the pole mount over the ground mount as it will hang close to the ground anyway.

as to amorphous, i contend that there's no advantage with them for if you gain a tad of cloudy efficiency (i am not certain you do gain during cloudy times) it is negated by the lower initial output of the amorphous anyway. only real amorphous advantage may be if you have us64 pvs as the pvs do not have glass on the front, but you need 2 to 3 times the area to gain the same watts.

[PNjunction]

.. as to amorphous, i contend that there's no advantage with them for if you gain a tad of cloudy efficiency (i am not certain you do gain during cloudy times) it is negated by the lower initial output of the amorphous anyway. only real amorphous advantage may be if you have us64 pvs as the pvs do not have glass on the front, but you need 2 to 3 times the area to gain the same watts.

I agree totally. However I have found that indeed they do take temporary shading well landing across some of the panel. For example, if the shade from a pole, coax transmission line, tower, wet leaf, trash bag lands on it - you name it, as best as I can measure, the output seems to lower according to just how much is shaded, rather than take the whole panel down as with crystalline. I haven't dug too deeply if this is due to a different way that amorphous handles the reverse bias of the shaded portions.

I discovered this quite by accident when I had a t-shirt covering half of a panel in order to make my attachments, and measured nearly half the ouput of the panel available - quite a difference from my crystalline panels. I would in no way recommend purposely shading for any sort of cheap regulation.

Normally I use crystalline for my projects where I can keep an eye on them to watch for shadows, and heartily recommend them for efficiency. But as I learned when camping, unless I can guarantee no shade for the entire solar day, amorphous panels will actually deliver from the material that is left exposed, when unexpected shade crosses them. No panel should be shaded at all of course, and I wouldn't want to be putting a shadow across my amorphous panels all the time. They've got a limited lifespan to begin with.

There is a lot of hype out there (or used to be) about amorphous taking over the world, but for me, it is just a tool to be used when the conditions warrant it.

[Eric L]

I've had no real problems with my ground mounts. I was afraid heavy rain might splash dirt on the panels, which as you can see are close to the ground. I put river bed rock (sold at Lowes, HD, etc.) under the front of the panels to prevent this and dirt splashing hasn't been a problem. Since this picture was taken I've also planted grass around the panels to keep the weeds down. The array can be cleaned quickly too. These were DIY mounts which were very inexpensive (under .30/watt).

I guess the obvious minus is that ground mounts like this take up a lot of real estate.