## 4 Conclusions  
This paper presents an energy study on the influence of the movement limit of a horizontal single-axis tracker. The study focused on three photovoltaic power plants in Spain (Miraflores \(PV\) power plant, Basir \(PV\) power plant, and Canredondo \(PV\) power plant). Four evaluation indicators (annual energy loss, daily energy loss, beam component, and diffuse component) and ten movement limits, ranging from \(\pm\)50 (\({}^{\circ}\)) to \(\pm\)60 (\({}^{\circ}\)), were analysed. In Spain, \(PV\) power plants usually have a movement limit of \(\pm\)60 (\({}^{\circ}\)). Several specific codes were developed to determine the components of the incident solar irradiance (beam component, diffuse component, and reflected component) and the periods of operation (normal tracking mode, backtracking mode, and static mode). The codes were performed with _Mathematica_ software. The current scenario (\(\pm\)60 (\({}^{\circ}\))) was used as a basis for the comparison. The main conclusions of this study are summarised as follows:  
1. In all three \(PV\) power plants analysed, the energy loss per square metre is small, but as the surface of the \(PV\) field is large, these losses cannot be neglected. The choice of a movement limit different from the optimum produces energy losses that cannot be neglected, taking into account the large surface area of the \(PV\) field. The surface area of the \(PV\) field at the Miraflores \(PV\) power plant is 105,109.81 (m\({}^{2}\)), and at the Basir and Canredondo \(PV\) power plant it is (m\({}^{2}\)) 95,616.64 and 105,012.67 (m\({}^{2}\)), respectively. 2. Although most \(PV\) power plants in Spain use a movement limit of \(\pm\)60 (\({}^{\circ}\)), a study on the optimum movement limit is necessary. The movement limit of the Canredondo \(PV\) power plant is currently \(\pm\)60 (\({}^{\circ}\)). It has been demonstrated that the movement limit is not optimised. The annual energy loss is 18.49 (MWh). Therefore, it is necessary to calculate the optimal movement limit for each location under study, as the annual losses of the incident energy are not negligible. In contrast, the Miraflores and Basir \(PV\) power plants do use an optimal movement limit. 3. In all locations, the current scenario has the shortest static mode operation period. Therefore, when the current scenario starts the normal tracking mode (where the beam component is maximised), the other two scenarios remain in the operation static mode, impairing the incidence of the beam component on the \(PV\) field. 4. Considering the current scenario as a basis for comparison, the most favourable results for this scenario are obtained in the summer months (low \(k_{d}\)) and the least favourable in the spring months (high \(k_{d}\)). 5. If the beam component is predominant, the longer the duration of operation in static mode, the better the performance of the current scenario. Since the current scenario first starts the normal tracking mode that favours the beam component, the rest of the scenarios follow in the horizontal position. 6. If the diffuse component is predominant, the longer the duration of operation in static mode, the worse the performance of the current scenario. Since the current scenario starts the normal tracking mode first, the rest of the scenarios follow in the horizontal position that favours the diffuse component. 7. It can be concluded that high values of the beam component favour the current scenario. In contrast, high values of the diffuse component favour scenarios other than the current scenario. This study achieved its objectives and can be replicated anywhere in the world, with the only limitation being the knowledge of the meteorological data of the location. As the basis of the study is the calculation of the incident solar irradiance on the \(PV\) field, the lack of solar irradiance data would be the only limitation of this study. It is also true that such data are available in most locations. Conceptualization, A.B. and L.B. ; Methodology, A.B. and L.B.