How accurately can solar panels be continuously oriented toward the sun on a typical satellite?
There is no such thing as a typical satellite orbiting the Earth. Satellites range in size from 10 cm cubesats (or even smaller!) to the 100 meter long International Space Station. The orbits range in altitude of a few hundreds of kilometers to beyond geostationary, with inclinations ranging from near 0° to over 90°. Some satellites point at the Sun, others point at space, but most point at the Earth.
One way to look at this question is in terms of the number of rotational degrees of freedom used to control the orientation of the solar arrays.
An Earth-orbiting satellite whose orientation with respect to the Earth is fully constrained needs to have solar arrays with two degrees of freedom to achieve 100% optimal power production. For example, the International Space Station has two alpha joints and eight beta joints that collectively work to keep the ISS close to optimal in terms of Sun pointing.
Those joints represent a good amount of weight and complexity, and also a number of single points of failure. Other satellites make do with less. At the opposite extreme, a number of satellites have fixed solar arrays. This is the only way to go with a satellite whose job is to observe the Sun. The pointing sensitivity of the sensors is much, much greater than the pointing sensitivity of the solar arrays. This is also how most cubesats (and surprisingly, some very expensive satellites) operate. There's a lot to be said for not having to rotate the solar panels. The drive mechanisms that do this are necessarily single points of failure. Getting rid of these mechanisms simplifies operations, simplifies design, and eliminates single points of failure. There's a lot to be said for simplicity, even if this means that the solar cells are almost never producing at 100% of optimal.
In between these two extremes are those satellites whose solar arrays have one rotational degree of freedom. If there is such a thing as a "typical" satellite, this is it. In some cases (e.g., sun-synchronous orbiters), that single degree of freedom is enough to provide optimal power. In others, the little bit of added power offered by a second degree of freedom is more than offset by added weight, added complexity, and reduced reliability. For example, most geostationary satellites have one degree of freedom solar arrays. (A few have fixed arrays or solar cells attached directly to the satellite.) Twice a year, the solar arrays of a geostationary satellite with one degree of rotational freedom will be misaligned from optimal by at least 23.5 degrees. However, the cosine of that angle is 0.917, which means the solar arrays will operate at more than 90% of optimal even under worst conditions. Getting that last 10% isn't worth it.