That's because you assume there is the same number/surface of panels in both cases. Change the constraint not to the surface but to the volume.
The problem might just not be "take 10 pieces of a solar panel and find optimal layout", but "take a 5x5x5m volume and find optimal layout". Maybe with a flat panel design you could be able to put 10 pieces at most in there, but it would turn out you could put 30, and at any time half of them are shaded. That leaves 15 generating power, which is more than the flat panel.
I really don't know if it's the case. I just say that everyone is comparing stuff on a wild assumption that you can't put more unshaded panels in a space than on a plane, and so discard a possibly valid solution without attempting to take it on.
Probably we would all see mushroom-shaped trees looking at the sun like Pinus Pinea[1] if it was so optimal. Most trees are not though so there has to have something to it.
Comments
That's because you assume there is the same number/surface of panels in both cases. Change the constraint not to the surface but to the volume.
The problem might just not be "take 10 pieces of a solar panel and find optimal layout", but "take a 5x5x5m volume and find optimal layout". Maybe with a flat panel design you could be able to put 10 pieces at most in there, but it would turn out you could put 30, and at any time half of them are shaded. That leaves 15 generating power, which is more than the flat panel.
I really don't know if it's the case. I just say that everyone is comparing stuff on a wild assumption that you can't put more unshaded panels in a space than on a plane, and so discard a possibly valid solution without attempting to take it on.
Probably we would all see mushroom-shaped trees looking at the sun like Pinus Pinea[1] if it was so optimal. Most trees are not though so there has to have something to it.
[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Pinus_pinea