At present we have only static solar panels to get energy. this will only track energy from the sun only at one position. so if there is some thing called as a traking system to track the sunlight. it will be very much better to get enery all through the day by tracking he sunlight.
by this method we can get a good amount of power
but there some constraints to be faced. some are like, the power needed to drive the tracking system, cost of the panels.
Around 35% but it depends on your latitude as well as the location of your installation. For example if there are trees peaking at a 45 deg angle from the panel then the tracker won't get a benefit from pointing towards the sun when the trees are in the way. The thing is the hours where the sun is not high in the sky is also the hours where the energy is not as intense anyways.
If you have a solar concentrator (a big lens or reflector in front of the panel), there is a much greater need for tracking.
What you need to consider is if the cost of the tracking system would not be better spent just buying a panel 35% larger or a higher output cell technology, which has no maintenance issues like stuck motors and is much simpler.
At present we have only static solar panels to get energy. this will only track energy from the sun only at one position. so if there is some thing called as a traking system to track the sunlight. it will be very much better to get enery all through the day by tracking he sunlight.
Maybe its the way you worded the above but its NOT true that you only get energy from a solar panel when the sun shines directly on it.
As long as the panel is not in shade you also get an output if the sun shines on it obliquely. Its just a little less output than if the panel were tracking the sun.
The complexity of a tracking system makes its benefits questionable for all but rather large arrays.
You could also try amorphous solar panels which are more shade tolerant, they give a reasonable output even on overcast days.
Klaus