Ferrero Solar Project in South Africa: 120 kW Ground-Mount PV with Single-Axis Tracking

Ferrero Solar Project in South Africa: 120 kW Ground-Mount PV with Single-Axis Tracking

Project snapshot

Hexing Electrical South Africa (PTY) Ltd and Ferrero partnered on a commercial solar initiative in South Africa, delivered as a 120 kW ground-mounted photovoltaic (PV) power station designed to reduce grid electricity dependence and support Ferrero’s sustainability objectives.

The publicly shared project brief highlights the following named design choices and forecast outcomes:

• Plant type: ground-mounted PV (ground photovoltaic power station). [1]

• Capacity: 120 kW (also referenced as 120 kWp in a Hexing Group presentation). [2]

• Mounting: single-axis tracking bracket, selected to increase annual energy production versus a fixed-tilt layout (quote-free project claim: “20% increase” year-over-year generation vs fixed). [3]

• Financial forecast: payback described as ~4 years (forecast). [4]

• Expansion intent: the partners are described as actively exploring expansion of the solar system after the initial phase. [4]

Business driver and local context

Why an industrial solar project is strategically relevant in South Africa

South Africa’s grid has experienced prolonged reliability stress in recent years, including the controlled implementation of “load shedding” (rotational supply reductions). [5] The national utility, Eskom[6], describes load shedding as a controlled mechanism used to protect the power system from a broader blackout when demand exceeds available supply. [5]

Cost pressure is also a recurring catalyst for corporate and industrial (C&I) solar investment. The utility has implemented regulator-approved tariff increases affecting key industrial and urban tariffs (for example, Eskom reported an average 13.29% increase on key industrial and urban tariffs for 2024/25, tied to an affordability subsidy charge). [7]

Independent tracking of system performance and disruptions is also widely documented across the ecosystem; for example, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research[8] publishes annual power generation statistics that include load shedding metrics and system availability indicators. [9]

Why this aligns with Ferrero’s group-level sustainability direction

Ferrero describes itself as one of the world’s largest “sweet-packaged food” companies, with “over 35 iconic brands” sold in “more than 170 countries.” [10]

At group level, Ferrero’s latest published sustainability communications emphasize emissions reduction and renewable electricity sourcing. In its FY 2023/24 sustainability press release, Ferrero reports a 21.7% reduction in Scope 1 and 2 emissions vs its 2017/18 baseline and states that 90% of electricity for manufacturing and warehousing is sourced from renewables. [11]

Against that corporate backdrop, a site-level PV project in South Africa can serve two purposes at once: it is a practical resilience-and-cost investment in a constrained grid environment, and it is a tangible step that supports renewable electricity adoption within operations. [12]

System design and equipment configuration

The project write-up describes a ground-mounted, grid-connected PV plant engineered to meet Ferrero’s site needs, with an emphasis on efficiency and responsible implementation. [1] The same source notes that Ferrero and Hexing aimed to minimize ecosystem impacts across project phases—presented as a design-and-execution intent rather than a quantified biodiversity result. [1]

Key devices and sizing logic

The published configuration lists three primary building blocks:

• Livoltek 60 kW on-grid inverter: 2 units

• PV modules: 220 units rated at 550 W

• Mounting system: single-axis tracking bracket [4]

From a system engineering perspective, those quantities imply a close-matched PV-to-inverter sizing approach:

• Inverter capacity: 2 × 60 kW = 120 kW AC nameplate. [4]

• Module DC capacity: 220 × 550 W = 121,000 W (≈ 121 kWp DC). [4]

This aligns with the project being described both as 120 kW (project article) and 120 kWp (Hexing Group presentation), since kW (AC) and kWp (DC module nameplate) are often reported differently depending on whether the focus is inverters or PV array rating. [2]

Technology note: inverter category

The inverter is described as “on-grid” / “grid-tied,” which typically means the PV plant is designed to synchronize with the utility grid and export power internally to the facility load (and, depending on interconnection rules and contractual arrangements, potentially to the grid). [4] A representative manufacturer description for this inverter range positions it for commercial and industrial PV applications. [13]

Why single-axis tracking: performance intent, evidence base, and tradeoffs

The project brief states that a single-axis tracking bracket was incorporated to “enhance power generation efficiency,” with a claimed 20% increase in annual power generation compared to fixed brackets. [3]

That claim is directionally consistent with the broader technical literature on PV tracking systems. A widely cited review in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews reports that, “in most cases,” single-axis solar tracking increases energy produced by roughly 12–20% compared to fixed flat PV systems, with higher gains possible under certain optimized designs and conditions. [14]

In other words, the project’s stated “~20%” uplift target sits near the upper end of a commonly reported single-axis gain range—plausible in high-irradiance contexts, but still site-dependent (driven by solar resource, shading, layout, terrain, wind constraints, tracker control strategy, and downtime). [15]

Tracking is not a “free” gain: it introduces moving parts and typically higher operational complexity. For example, a 2025 applied engineering analysis in Applied Sciences (MDPI) notes that moving parts in horizontal single-axis trackers increase maintenance, and therefore fixed-tilt systems can have lower maintenance costs. [16] The Ferrero project narrative frames the tracker choice as an efficiency-and-economics decision intended to maximize energy output and financial benefit. [17]

Financial outlook, expansion pathway, and measurable outcomes

Payback expectations and what drives them

The project description forecasts a four-year investment recoupment timeframe. [4] In practice, payback for C&I solar commonly depends on:

• the facility’s daytime load profile (self-consumption vs export),

• tariff structure and escalation,

• system yield (including performance ratio and tracker uptime), and

• operations and maintenance planning (especially for trackers). [18]

Because the four-year figure is presented as a project forecast, it should be positioned on a website as an expected or projected return, not a guaranteed outcome—while still highlighting that it reflects a financially disciplined renewable energy investment case. [4]

Expansion intent

The same project note states that—following the initial phase—Hexing and Ferrero are actively exploring options to expand the solar system. [4]