Comments are speaking to it like it wasn't even addressed. Do you need data to understand that moving a cell out of a shadow would increase its capacity?
If that's the core proposition, yes, I want data on it. If that data is obvious and boring, then so is the proposition.
Besides, the panel can't move, only rotate and tilt. Have you actually read the article?
(With rotate and tilt only, pointing directly at the sun should maximize the power output from a single panel even with shade from other objects. You can get a very small amount of movement from the fact that the point of rotation is outside of the plane of the panel. But that's not mentioned at all, is it?)
In any case, if you solve a problem with machine learning that already has a non-machine learning solution, you will get this kind of comment. If on top of that you don't compare the existing solution and yours and show that yours significantly improves performance, it just looks like doing ML for the kicks.
