Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Randomized trial assesses electricity yield and cost of solar setups in Arctic regions, highlighting economic viability.
The global Arctic and sub-Arctic region remains underrepresented in high-resolution techno-economic analyses of east-west bifacial vertical photovoltaics systems. This study delivers detailed assessments of electricity yield and levelised cost of electricity for these regions, evaluating fixed-tilted, horizontal single-axis tracking, and east-west bifacial vertical photovoltaics technologies, as well as their combined portfolios. A novel methodology is introduced to quantify the diurnal performance similarity between non-tracked and horizontal single-axis tracking systems, with results mapped on a high resolution 0.45° × 0.45° gridded map of the region. In the Arctic and sub-Arctic region above 66° N, horizontal single-axis tracking achieves 767-2171 full load hours annually, while the east-west vertical portfolio demonstrates a relative yield deficit of only 0-13% and strong diurnal correlation (0.88-0.95) above 75° N. A 50/50 mix of fixed-tilted and east-west vertical systems achieve similarly high correlation (0.86-0.96) between 60° N and 75° N. For fixed-tilted portfolios, extreme electricity yield deficit is observed compared to horizontal single-axis tracking ranging between 3.9% to 37.3%. The reference portfolio’s levelised cost of electricity ranges from 18.2 €/MWh to 51.7 €/MWh, with the east-west vertical configuration exhibiting a 1.4-14.0% reduction in all northern locations above 75° N. These findings highlight the technical and economic viability of east-west bifacial vertical solar photovoltaics systems for low-cost electricity generation in the uppermost Arctic and the essential role of conventional tilted setup in sub-Arctics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arachchi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: