Looking at the power output graph in the article, would there be a worthwhile efficiency gain to an undulating rooftop array? Instead of a single power peak at midday, perhaps a double peak in the morning and afternoon?
Something like this, but not so pronounced: /\/\/\/\
> There is no free lunch, and traditional solar installations don't usually have a lot of light missing the panels.
Traditional single axis tracking installations don't miss much light. These provide similar characteristics in space constrained areas, which are also closer to electricity consumers, potentially reducing transmission costs.
Fixed panels - common in denser areas, do miss a lot of light.
The article says they cost ~ $0.05/kwh. Does that include installation + foundation work? Presumably, they need to anchor these pretty well to withstand 110-170mph wind. I’d guess a lot less per-site engineering (and geological surveys/digging) is needed for 2d panels that sit a few feet off the ground.
Also, what’s state of the art $/kwh for rooftop and “on the ground” solar? Is $0.05 good these days?
Solar PV panels are as cheap as plywood at this point (sometimes cheaper, depends on your market as always). The cost is mostly soft costs (permitting, etc), labor, and the frame. Rooftop residential solar is still 3x-5x more expensive than ground mount, commercial is somewhere in between due to scale. Ground mount total cost is ~$1/watt, residential solar ~$3-5/watt.
Easiest wins are code to require large commercial and industrial buildings to meet load requirements for future solar installs, parking lot canopies that are solar ready (or solar installed at time of canopy install), and in the case of residential, ground mount with low regulatory overhead and minimal to no shading.
> Rooftop residential solar is still 3x-5x more expensive than ground mount
which is puzzling to me, because most feasible rooftop solar needs close to zero prep work to be able to mount the panels on the roof. Ground mount needs either helical screws or concrete footings, both of which are relatively expensive in terms of either material and/or labor/time.
Land cost is immaterial when talking utility scale ground mount and rooftop. Grid connection improvement costs are highly variable and dependent on local distribution infra. Solar is so cheap, you can usually roll the generator development cost component into the financing, with the utility paying the other component of it.
> The kW per acre metric is pretty poor for solar, especially when you get out of sunny desert areas.
The data says different. Broadly speaking, anywhere in the continental US is favorable for solar. The US gets more sunlight than Germany, and Germany has 101GW of solar capacity installed as of this comment (deploying ~2GW/month). You might need more panels near Canada, but panels and land are cheap, and demand for power is low due to limited population (caveats being PNW, served by hydro, and NE-ISO in New England, which is going to turn up a transmission line in December to bring 1.2GW of hydro from Québec).
For comparison, the US ag industry farms almost 60 million acres for soybean and corn biofuel, and that is far less cost and resource efficient than covering that land in solar PV.
This is true, but a bit of a dodge. Solar is competing with gas, so when you have a land parcel and want to maximize the energy you get from it, you need lots of sunshine to beat out gas.
This also factors heavily into where we use energy vs. where we produce it, and the associated losses. You can slot a GW of gas generation into ~350 acres anywhere. Solar you need ~5,000 acres with lots of sun. Combine this with the fact that the land where energy is used (population centers) is the land that is most expensive, and the difference becomes substantial. This also doesn't factor in energy storage costs, which is also necessary to reach parity with gas.
Also, don't take this as me attacking solar, I am a huge proponent, but there is a reality check needed so people can understand why we aren't paving the earth with panels despite constant headlines of "Solar is the cheapest energy". It's the cheapest energy when in an ideal location, and overwhelming majority of people in the US don't live in an ideal location.
This however doesn't really apply to non-gridscale generation. People can (and should) put panels on their roofs and batteries in their basement.
Gas generation manufacturing has a 7-10 year backlog [1] [2]. You can build ~1GW of solar in under a year [3] (1GW of solar is deployed every 15 hours globally, as of this comment, tangentially). As you can see with Intermountain in Utah, supplying power to Los Angeles (via Path 27), you can site batteries and renewables in the middle of nowhere and leverage existing transmission to get utility scale solar to load centers [4]. Again, there is lots of land everywhere, and it is straightforward to get solar generated to the load. It doesn't matter that solar takes more land than gas, nuclear, or other legacy generator technologies; its cost makes it a non issue. Also, solar, backed by battery storage, is cheaper than gas in most cases [5] [6] [7] [8].
No dodge, solar won, and it is going to steamroll fossil fuels globally as battery storage deployment comes up to speed [9] [10].
They look a lot nicer than just an array elevated off the ground, and the split angle makes more consistent power through the day. Doesn't look like this is targeting the bare-minimum-budget market. Looks like something I'd expect to see around an airport as functional decoration.
But … that’s not a solar tower. If I think of solar towers I’m typically imagining what Wikipedia calls a “solar power tower”[1] (lots of mirrors pointing at probably something with molten salt) or maybe a “solar updraft tower”[2] greenhouse with a tall ducted fan in the middle. This is solar panels on a gimbal? Which is cool and all, but not as cool as the first two.
Is the photo in the article relevant? Unless they have some new tech that isn't pictured in the article, it looks like all they're doing is installing solar panels facing multiple different angles with motorised mounts. Potentially increases efficiency a bit, but surely nothing groundbreaking?
Yes. The second sentence describes the target niche:
> The funds are expected to help the startup scale its patented 3D solar towers that are designed to have high levels of energy density for space-constrained areas.
Third describes applications where this arrangement could be relevant:
> The product has applications for data centers, EV charging hubs, telecom towers, universities, and a range of industrial facilities, said Janta Power.
Clearly if land is cheap, traditional surface mount with no tracking is simpler and cheaper. This is targeting areas where land is at a premium but on-site capacity is still desired.
Looking at their site[0] that's exactly what they're doing. Vertical alignment rather than horizontal, turning to face the sun.
Which doesn't seem that excitingly new to me, but I don't know the industry that well. Has nobody tried vertical alignment before? Seems unlikely to me.
And those motors plus their maintenance, aren't they adding significant setup costs and, well, maintenance? We don't create energy out of a vacuum and all this doesn't seem to be discussed there.
I find the title disingenuous. "3D" solar tower? as opposed to a "2D" tower?
Seems largely based on the assumption that most people view PV installations as a strictly planar affair.
Does my neighbor who has solar on both slopes of his pitched roof have a geometrically novel "folded plate" configuration which increases capacity by employing the biomimetic strategy of diurnal heliotropism?
I stopped reading as soon as I got to the word "tracking". Solar panels are so cheap it's always better to overpanel than add tracking. Then I re-read a bit and this is about adding solar panels in space constrained areas. Why would you do that? I guess maybe if some company needs to virtue signal rather than actually use the power and has a small lawn. Solar is amazing, but don't try and jam it into places it doesn't make sense.
Many (most?) grid scale PV plants use at least single axis tracking. Sure adding more panels could also increase output, but these plants are usually completed covered with panels and there is no more space to add more.
If the mounts are not too expensive it could make financial sense to even out the curve in the mornings and afternoons, especially as more and more solar comes online the price you get for your power will be higher if generation is offset from most other solar farms.
Looking at the power output graph in the article, would there be a worthwhile efficiency gain to an undulating rooftop array? Instead of a single power peak at midday, perhaps a double peak in the morning and afternoon?
Something like this, but not so pronounced: /\/\/\/\
Presumably at the cost of shading your neighbors and high wind loading/expensive mounts.
There is no free lunch, and traditional solar installations don't usually have a lot of light missing the panels.
> There is no free lunch, and traditional solar installations don't usually have a lot of light missing the panels.
Traditional single axis tracking installations don't miss much light. These provide similar characteristics in space constrained areas, which are also closer to electricity consumers, potentially reducing transmission costs.
Fixed panels - common in denser areas, do miss a lot of light.
Could these be mounted on roofs of high rise buildings? At a certain point the shade doesn’t matter in a dense city right?
"... designed to have high levels of energy density for space-constrained areas."
Going vertical doesn't magically increase capacity. It increases capacity for fixed surface area and if the surrounding surface area isn't needed.
It increases capacity relative to footprint.
The article says they cost ~ $0.05/kwh. Does that include installation + foundation work? Presumably, they need to anchor these pretty well to withstand 110-170mph wind. I’d guess a lot less per-site engineering (and geological surveys/digging) is needed for 2d panels that sit a few feet off the ground.
Also, what’s state of the art $/kwh for rooftop and “on the ground” solar? Is $0.05 good these days?
Solar PV panels are as cheap as plywood at this point (sometimes cheaper, depends on your market as always). The cost is mostly soft costs (permitting, etc), labor, and the frame. Rooftop residential solar is still 3x-5x more expensive than ground mount, commercial is somewhere in between due to scale. Ground mount total cost is ~$1/watt, residential solar ~$3-5/watt.
Easiest wins are code to require large commercial and industrial buildings to meet load requirements for future solar installs, parking lot canopies that are solar ready (or solar installed at time of canopy install), and in the case of residential, ground mount with low regulatory overhead and minimal to no shading.
Related:
NREL: Solar Installed System Cost Analysis - https://www.nrel.gov/solar/market-research-analysis/solar-in...
Cheap DIY solar fence design - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45597198 - October 2025
Great comment from that thread on cost breakdown (Alaska): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45692595
> Rooftop residential solar is still 3x-5x more expensive than ground mount
which is puzzling to me, because most feasible rooftop solar needs close to zero prep work to be able to mount the panels on the roof. Ground mount needs either helical screws or concrete footings, both of which are relatively expensive in terms of either material and/or labor/time.
Solar parking lot canopies make so much sense to me. I think they should be required going forward.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/11/18/france-publishes-new-...
Land cost and grid connection are often huge costs that aren't factored in too.
The kW per acre metric is pretty poor for solar, especially when you get out of sunny desert areas.
Land cost is immaterial when talking utility scale ground mount and rooftop. Grid connection improvement costs are highly variable and dependent on local distribution infra. Solar is so cheap, you can usually roll the generator development cost component into the financing, with the utility paying the other component of it.
> The kW per acre metric is pretty poor for solar, especially when you get out of sunny desert areas.
The data says different. Broadly speaking, anywhere in the continental US is favorable for solar. The US gets more sunlight than Germany, and Germany has 101GW of solar capacity installed as of this comment (deploying ~2GW/month). You might need more panels near Canada, but panels and land are cheap, and demand for power is low due to limited population (caveats being PNW, served by hydro, and NE-ISO in New England, which is going to turn up a transmission line in December to bring 1.2GW of hydro from Québec).
For comparison, the US ag industry farms almost 60 million acres for soybean and corn biofuel, and that is far less cost and resource efficient than covering that land in solar PV.
Citations:
EIA: Where solar is found and used - https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/solar/where-solar-is-fou...
EIA: Solar and wind crush coal with 20% more power in 2025 - https://electrek.co/2025/09/24/eia-solar-and-wind-crush-coal... - September 24th, 2025
EIA: Utility-Scale Generation Units Planned to Come Online Septmeber 2025 - August 2026 - https://web.archive.org/web/20251029151054/https://www.eia.g...
interconnection.fyi: Active solar projects in queue - https://www.interconnection.fyi/?status=Active&type=Solar
Electricity Maps - https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/live/fifteen_minutes
Solar energy is now the cheapest source of power, study - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45506365 - October 2025
A harmonized dataset of ground-mounted solar energy in the US with enhanced metadata - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-025-05862-4 - September 29th, 2025
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45587816
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45507531
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43333236
This is true, but a bit of a dodge. Solar is competing with gas, so when you have a land parcel and want to maximize the energy you get from it, you need lots of sunshine to beat out gas.
This also factors heavily into where we use energy vs. where we produce it, and the associated losses. You can slot a GW of gas generation into ~350 acres anywhere. Solar you need ~5,000 acres with lots of sun. Combine this with the fact that the land where energy is used (population centers) is the land that is most expensive, and the difference becomes substantial. This also doesn't factor in energy storage costs, which is also necessary to reach parity with gas.
Also, don't take this as me attacking solar, I am a huge proponent, but there is a reality check needed so people can understand why we aren't paving the earth with panels despite constant headlines of "Solar is the cheapest energy". It's the cheapest energy when in an ideal location, and overwhelming majority of people in the US don't live in an ideal location.
This however doesn't really apply to non-gridscale generation. People can (and should) put panels on their roofs and batteries in their basement.
Gas generation manufacturing has a 7-10 year backlog [1] [2]. You can build ~1GW of solar in under a year [3] (1GW of solar is deployed every 15 hours globally, as of this comment, tangentially). As you can see with Intermountain in Utah, supplying power to Los Angeles (via Path 27), you can site batteries and renewables in the middle of nowhere and leverage existing transmission to get utility scale solar to load centers [4]. Again, there is lots of land everywhere, and it is straightforward to get solar generated to the load. It doesn't matter that solar takes more land than gas, nuclear, or other legacy generator technologies; its cost makes it a non issue. Also, solar, backed by battery storage, is cheaper than gas in most cases [5] [6] [7] [8].
No dodge, solar won, and it is going to steamroll fossil fuels globally as battery storage deployment comes up to speed [9] [10].
[1] Gas-Turbine Crunch Threatens Demand Bonanza in Asia - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-10-07/gas-tu... | https://archive.today/z4Ixw - October 7th, 2025
[2] AI-Driven Demand for Gas Turbines Risks a New Energy Crunch - https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2025-bottlenecks-gas-turb... | https://archive.today/b8bhn - October 1st, 2025
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45746627 (Solar PV project timeline citations)
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45569054 (Path 27 transmission citations)
[5] Solar, battery storage to lead new U.S. generating capacity additions in 2025 - https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=64586 - February 24th, 2025
[6] Solar+storage is so much farther along than you think - https://www.volts.wtf/p/solarstorage-is-so-much-farther-alon... - July 16th, 2025
[7] In Solar vs. Gas Matchup, It Was Energy Storage That Killed The Beast - https://cleantechnica.com/2025/03/02/in-solar-vs-gas-matchup... - March 2nd, 2025
[8] Solar electricity every hour of every day is here and it changes everything - https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/solar-electricity-e... - June 21st, 2025
[9] The exponential growth of solar power will change the world - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40746617 - June 2024
[10] Global battery industry grows 83% in last five years, boosting deployment to over 300 GW - https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2025/10/29/global-battery-indust... - October 29th, 2025
They look a lot nicer than just an array elevated off the ground, and the split angle makes more consistent power through the day. Doesn't look like this is targeting the bare-minimum-budget market. Looks like something I'd expect to see around an airport as functional decoration.
Yeah, I’m not following on the split angle, unless cells are somehow more efficient if not perpendicular to the sun.
But … that’s not a solar tower. If I think of solar towers I’m typically imagining what Wikipedia calls a “solar power tower”[1] (lots of mirrors pointing at probably something with molten salt) or maybe a “solar updraft tower”[2] greenhouse with a tall ducted fan in the middle. This is solar panels on a gimbal? Which is cool and all, but not as cool as the first two.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower
Is the photo in the article relevant? Unless they have some new tech that isn't pictured in the article, it looks like all they're doing is installing solar panels facing multiple different angles with motorised mounts. Potentially increases efficiency a bit, but surely nothing groundbreaking?
Yes. The second sentence describes the target niche:
> The funds are expected to help the startup scale its patented 3D solar towers that are designed to have high levels of energy density for space-constrained areas.
Third describes applications where this arrangement could be relevant:
> The product has applications for data centers, EV charging hubs, telecom towers, universities, and a range of industrial facilities, said Janta Power.
Clearly if land is cheap, traditional surface mount with no tracking is simpler and cheaper. This is targeting areas where land is at a premium but on-site capacity is still desired.
Looking at their site[0] that's exactly what they're doing. Vertical alignment rather than horizontal, turning to face the sun.
Which doesn't seem that excitingly new to me, but I don't know the industry that well. Has nobody tried vertical alignment before? Seems unlikely to me.
[0] https://jantaus.com/
And those motors plus their maintenance, aren't they adding significant setup costs and, well, maintenance? We don't create energy out of a vacuum and all this doesn't seem to be discussed there.
So how does it compare to simpler vertical bifacial solar panels discussed in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45414215 ?
about 15 degrees
I find the title disingenuous. "3D" solar tower? as opposed to a "2D" tower?
Seems largely based on the assumption that most people view PV installations as a strictly planar affair.
Does my neighbor who has solar on both slopes of his pitched roof have a geometrically novel "folded plate" configuration which increases capacity by employing the biomimetic strategy of diurnal heliotropism?
I stopped reading as soon as I got to the word "tracking". Solar panels are so cheap it's always better to overpanel than add tracking. Then I re-read a bit and this is about adding solar panels in space constrained areas. Why would you do that? I guess maybe if some company needs to virtue signal rather than actually use the power and has a small lawn. Solar is amazing, but don't try and jam it into places it doesn't make sense.
Many (most?) grid scale PV plants use at least single axis tracking. Sure adding more panels could also increase output, but these plants are usually completed covered with panels and there is no more space to add more.
If the mounts are not too expensive it could make financial sense to even out the curve in the mornings and afternoons, especially as more and more solar comes online the price you get for your power will be higher if generation is offset from most other solar farms.
If you don't have space for more panels, tracking can get you more output for more hours of the day.
…it’s just two solar panels at an angle pointing south…
But you know they’re filling patents on that!
Trees knew all along!
Humans are simply trees that evolved into having arms before they had leaves.