Compare cost of provision and installation, reliability, maintenance, lifetime, versus electricity produced. This should include the cost of standby power to take over when the sun is insufficient, as the two systems may have different utilisation rates over the daily cycle.
Site usage, which might include cost of suitable land, access, shading from adjacent units (spacing of units), need for site levelling, foundations, shading towards the horizon (hills and trees), flooding, storms (wind), dust, permits. This is the overall cost of land.
Maintenance. A system that needs regular cleaning to sustain performance would be higher maintenance cost for example.
Environmental aspects include sustainability (large scale availability of materials used in the long term), disposal after life, effect on people and wildlife, permits and grants or subsidies, etc. Some of these could be left out for different types of assessments. Some are vague about the realities, depending on legislation, public view point, etc. and might change during the lifetime. Consider dish, trough and mirror array concentrators might be seen as different.
Production of electricity on average over a period of time like one year, all things being equal, or better still, comparing this in the actual specific situation. e.g. Some might work better in a hot dry desert location than others. Overcast weather performance is generally poor with concentrator systems, but proper tracking gives more hours per day, so different utilisation rates.
Often the figure presented up front in brochures is the efficiency, which is electricity produced for standard solar conditions, on a power basis (instantaneous) rather than the desired overall energy basis (production in kWh per day or year etc.) Efficiency may not even take operating temperature into account. This is about capacity compared to utilisation (actual production).
Connection. The built in ability to operate with a network of units, connect to a grid, standards involved, monitoring facilities, safety and protection devices.
Cost of money. A system that is not widely used (call it not well established) may not attract investors, or might attract higher interest on loans because of perceived risk.
Looking at the above you might decide to add more points or simplify the comparison. An assessment should have stated goals, what are you comparing. Generally it is about the return (money earned on the money spent, over a period of time such as the full life). In a simpler evaluation it might only be about the efficiency or capacity to produce power, but that is likely to be misleading.
Comments
Compare cost of provision and installation, reliability, maintenance, lifetime, versus electricity produced. This should include the cost of standby power to take over when the sun is insufficient, as the two systems may have different utilisation rates over the daily cycle.
Site usage, which might include cost of suitable land, access, shading from adjacent units (spacing of units), need for site levelling, foundations, shading towards the horizon (hills and trees), flooding, storms (wind), dust, permits. This is the overall cost of land.
Maintenance. A system that needs regular cleaning to sustain performance would be higher maintenance cost for example.
Environmental aspects include sustainability (large scale availability of materials used in the long term), disposal after life, effect on people and wildlife, permits and grants or subsidies, etc. Some of these could be left out for different types of assessments. Some are vague about the realities, depending on legislation, public view point, etc. and might change during the lifetime. Consider dish, trough and mirror array concentrators might be seen as different.
Production of electricity on average over a period of time like one year, all things being equal, or better still, comparing this in the actual specific situation. e.g. Some might work better in a hot dry desert location than others. Overcast weather performance is generally poor with concentrator systems, but proper tracking gives more hours per day, so different utilisation rates.
Often the figure presented up front in brochures is the efficiency, which is electricity produced for standard solar conditions, on a power basis (instantaneous) rather than the desired overall energy basis (production in kWh per day or year etc.) Efficiency may not even take operating temperature into account. This is about capacity compared to utilisation (actual production).
Connection. The built in ability to operate with a network of units, connect to a grid, standards involved, monitoring facilities, safety and protection devices.
Cost of money. A system that is not widely used (call it not well established) may not attract investors, or might attract higher interest on loans because of perceived risk.
Looking at the above you might decide to add more points or simplify the comparison. An assessment should have stated goals, what are you comparing. Generally it is about the return (money earned on the money spent, over a period of time such as the full life). In a simpler evaluation it might only be about the efficiency or capacity to produce power, but that is likely to be misleading.