No i am viewing from there graphs of power over the day not over the year.
Untracked panel production has a sharp peak at noon and that rises and falls pretty sharply before and after that. Maxing/stable between 10am - 2pm
Single Axis flattened that curve up very heavily so you were producing at or close peak production for much longer. 8am - 4 pm
The double axis seemed to just get slightly high magintude in power compared to the single axis which is good but definitely marginal.
The question would be is if you have an array of fixed panels can you fixed them in a way that flattens out the peak production but provides a more level and less peeking production for the grid as a whole. This is really important because its much harder to turn off/disconnect solar than other forms of power. The grid has to be sure it doesn't overcharge or undercharge the grid. If you do either you'll deviate from the target 60Hz (US) you can damage a switching and transformer infrastructure.
A less peeky supply is more predictable generally speaking and gives you more time to react to changes in the grid. The per cost question would benefit from answer this because it might make sense to install more panels in a fixed position that is not maximally optimal at an individual level but is maximal for the overall grid health. That investiment in deployment is worth it to make now because you'll never want to change it afterwards.
Untracked panel production has a sharp peak at noon and that rises and falls pretty sharply before and after that. Maxing/stable between 10am - 2pm
Single Axis flattened that curve up very heavily so you were producing at or close peak production for much longer. 8am - 4 pm
The double axis seemed to just get slightly high magintude in power compared to the single axis which is good but definitely marginal.
The question would be is if you have an array of fixed panels can you fixed them in a way that flattens out the peak production but provides a more level and less peeking production for the grid as a whole. This is really important because its much harder to turn off/disconnect solar than other forms of power. The grid has to be sure it doesn't overcharge or undercharge the grid. If you do either you'll deviate from the target 60Hz (US) you can damage a switching and transformer infrastructure.
A less peeky supply is more predictable generally speaking and gives you more time to react to changes in the grid. The per cost question would benefit from answer this because it might make sense to install more panels in a fixed position that is not maximally optimal at an individual level but is maximal for the overall grid health. That investiment in deployment is worth it to make now because you'll never want to change it afterwards.