GO
I think you might be missing the point of tracking. With tracking you "artificially" increase the geometry of the collection area when the sun is low. At a 45' angle a same size wall or roof surface will create equal shade. The amount of shade is equal to collected solar energy. Above 45' angle the roof shadow (or flat PV) increases until it's maximum at 90' degrees. Under 45' degrees a roof's shadow decreases, but the 90' wall shadow increases. Hence PV are also better when tracking by up to 30%.
The bigger the shadow they make, regardless of the time of day, the more they produce. (minus Temp derate and sunrise/sunset diffusivity etc.) CST uses this technique out of this reason. Tracking units are actually collecting more energy for less collection area of panel, regardless if for PV or CST. (The land is mostly less costly than the system therefore financially ok) But they do this at the cost of increased array spacing ie flat mounted but dense fields of PV would simply produce less than tracking PV at low sun angles, as they do not produce any more shadow under 45'degrees than the tracking arrays (depending on spacing the angle could be higher/ lower).
Imagine a wall just 10m high at the end of a solar array, if the sun is at 10' degree angle it will shade ca.55m of the PV array. Which one collects more energy from direct light? (BTW diffuse light differs, the dispersion of light however reduces the overall intensity of solar energy hitting the ground) Alternatively mount your flat panel PV on the north pole and see how much it makes on a summer "night"...;) And then compare it to a tracking one!
You wrote that the CST is located in a region with 2200W/m²? Where abouts is that? In space? Is there some point on the planet where the "optics" of the atmosphere focus more energy onto the ground than arrives at the earths atmosphere from the sun? Solar constant at earths atmosphere (ie space) is 1367W/m². Or did you mean isolation in kWh per year per m²? If so then you can't calculate 2200W x 15% (efficiency?) = 330W. The area required by PV can only be at the smallest; 15%(or whatever cell/panel eff.) of 1367W/m² minus atmospheric losses. ie more like 150W/m². The Aussie solar race would otherwise be much faster! 
On crops or electrons: I'd prefer to eat crops rather than electrons! And then I'd use the digested crops (!) to make some electrons, that should do. Also solar radiation is mostly IR, why use the less powerful portion in visible light spectrum PV and waste all that "already" collected heat energy? And then convert electricity back to heat for homes?? Even if you use a heat pump with a COP of 3, the electricity generated is only 15% ie 15% of COP 3 = 0.45 which is less than 1(unity) so half the energy is lost plus all the extra equipment required. Did you read the embedded CSST system advantages I posted? Me think I send you some new glasses! 
-
S2S
I was not trying to make an argument out of the subject, I was only trying to discuss the advantages/pitfalls. However in regard to household biogas for CSST:
1) How much electricity do you consume after sunset?
2) How much electricity could you reduce it to if you do most of your consumption during the day when the sun shines on the CSST?
3) How many days would you have to bridge with a small backup supply of biogas/biofuel in Australia in total kWh required in heat or electricity?
For example:
Assuming you had Biogas storage** and a CSST unit, every m³ of scrubbed Biogas would give you about 3.5kWh of electricity and 7kWh of usable heat. 100m³ would be 350kWh of electricity or about 12kWh per day for a whole month of bridging capacity for electricity, should the CSST produce nothing at all in that time. The same biogas would also provide 700kWh of heat or 24kWh (or 1kW continuous) for a month. Don't forget timber and other bio-fuels can supplement capacity through the same CSST generation device ie another 500liters of bio-diesel or eatable vege-oil as a "emergency" backup, would give you another 5 months of power. Some timber for pyrolisis gas (easy), or even direct wood stove heating, plus HRV etc, and I think it's quite possible to effectively bridge these periods for heating and electricity without other forms of energy storage ie batteries or excessive heat store.
Now a 100m³ of Biogas "buffer" would require approx 850kg of household green waste to produce. Note this can be garden or food waste as well as animal wastes. For example if you used grease waste or vegetable oil you would only need about 160kg for 100m³, and the resulting digester could be smaller.
If produced over a period of one month this would require a digester of about 10-15m³. The same size as a smaller rainwater tank ie 2.5m cube underground. The Biogas could then be stored until use in say 6 months without losses.
** Biogas can be safely stored in a cheap EPDM membrane at atmospheric pressure, or you can buy an off the shelf NG compressor for vehicle NG charging in USA/Japan which could be shared with vehicle usage and compresses it ca.240 times to ca.420liters of CNG in a tank. Allow about 10-12% extra biogas for compression energy consumption.
BTW using reticulated biogas and/or heat and electricity would be better to manage and run ie small 10-1000 house community plants. The CSST could still be used per household with more centralized Biogas production connected to agricultural hydroponics permaculture etc and aqauponics. The waste sludge from biogas can be used as fertilizer and feed for all these.
Overall I think that storage is not as critical as time of use changes, they are much more effective i.e. during the day with solar rather than at night with storage. I think Biogas is ideal as demand "peak lopping" fuel, and redundancy.
But this scale of digestion is definitely possible even in households. Besides thats how it started in India, they had 4 million of them in 2004 (without electricity generation, but for light and heat from just $150 each!) read here: http://www.globalmethane.org/documents/events_ag_20080422_anil_dhussa_sub.pdf
Do you think I should just move there with my ideas instead? I think they might just be further ahead!
