Dual use of land for PV farms and agriculture literature review

This literature review is for a project which involves using the same piece of land for setting up a PV farm and performing agriculture/livestock grazing on it. By doing this, the same piece of land can be used to generate electricity and food crops, thus, increasing land use. This setup can prove to be a as it would not only be a steady source of income for farmers but also allow a small area in the vicinity of the PV farm to become self sustaining in terms of electricity.

Initially, this topic would cover the growth of lettuce on a farm having PV panels mounted and the influence of PV panels on the growth pattern of lettuce.

This literature review supported this review article:

Harshavardhan Dinesh, Joshua M. Pearce, The potential of agrivoltaic systems, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54, 299-308 (2016). DOI:10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.024, open access

This focused article on grape farm potential:

Prannay R. Malu, Utkarsh S. Sharma, Joshua M. Pearce. Agrivoltaic potential on grape farms in India. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 23, pp. 104-110, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.seta.2017.08.004 open access

This article discussing the views of farmers on agrivoltaics:

Pascaris, A.S.; Schelly, C.; Pearce, J.M. A First Investigation of Agriculture Sector Perspectives on the Opportunities and Barriers for Agrivoltaics. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1885. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10121885 open access

and the views of solar photovoltaic industry persceptives on agrivoltaics:

Alexis S. Pascaris, Chelsea Schelly, Laurie Burnham, Joshua M.Pearce. Integrating solar energy with agriculture: Industry perspectives on the market, community, and socio-political dimensions of agrivoltaics Energy Research & Social Science 75, (2021), 102023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102023 open access

The life cycle analysis of pasture-based asgrivoltaics for rabbit:

Alexis S. Pascaris, Rob Handler, Chelsea Schelly, and Joshua M. Pearce. Life cycle assessment of pasture-based agrivoltaic systems: Emissions and energy use of integrated rabbit production. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption (2021): 100030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2021.100030 academia

Glossary[edit | edit source]

APV - Agrophotovoltaics

AV - Agrivoltaics

AVS - Agrivoltaic Systems

AI - Artificial Intelligence

Amax - Maximum net photosynthesis rate

BOS - Balance of System

BIPV - Building Integrated PV

BG - Bifacial Gain

BF - Bifaciality Factor

CBA - Cost Benefit Analysis

CS - Column Spacing

CPV - Concentrated PV

CT - Customized Tracking

CT - Constant Tilt

CLCA - Consequential Life-Cycle Assessment

DC - Data Center

DRAM - Distributed Recycling and Additive Manufacturing

DSSC - Dye-Sensitized Solar Cells

DHI - Diffuse Horizontal Irradiance

DNI - Direct Normal Irradiance

DAS - Day After Sowing

E - East

EV - Electric Vehicles

FIT - Feed-in Tariff

FS - Full Sun

FD - Full density

GHI - Global Horizontal Irradiance

GMPV - Ground Mounted PV

HD - Half Density

IoT - Internet of Things

ICS - Inter-column-spacing

IRS - Inter-row-spacing

LAOR - Land Area Occupation Ratio

LCA - Life Cycle Analysis

LCOE - Levelized cost of electricity

LAI - Leaf Area Index

LCP - Light Compensation Point

LSP - Light Saturation Point

LER - Land Equivalent Ratio

LPF - Light Productivity Factor

N - North

NPQ - Nonphotochemical Quenching

OPV - Organic PV

POSCAS - Parametric Open-source Cold Frame Agrivoltaic System

PV - Photovoltaic

PPFD - Photosynthetic photon flux density

PPV - Pasture-based Photovoltaics

POA - Plane of Array

PAR - Photosynthetically Active Radiation

PR - Panel Rows

PSN - Net photosynthesis rate

PVSCs - Perovskite Cells

RS - Row spacing

RT - Reverse Tracking

S - South

SCAPV - Spectral-splitting Concentrator Agrivoltaics

STC - Standard Test Conditions

STPV - Semi-transparent Photovoltaics

SVF - Sky View Factor

ST - Standard Tracking

TT - Tracking Treatment

TRF - Spectral total transmittance factor

VPD - Vapor Pressure Deficit

W - West

WTP - Willingness to Pay

Literature Review Page for "Dual Use of Land for PV farms and agriculture literature review"[edit | edit source]

Selected Papers and Literature[edit | edit source]

Combining solar photovoltaic panels and food crops for optimising land use: Towards new agrivoltaic schemes^[1][edit | edit source]

Abstract:

Extracting fuel from biomass was put forth as an alternative energy source to dwindling fossil fuel resources. However, this would involve the widespread use of food crops for producing biomass resulting in food shortages as the existing cultivable land on the planet cannot cope with the demand for crops used for food and biomass at the same time. A solution to this problem is an 'Agrivoltaic' system i.e. a combination of PV panels set up on an existing farmland, thus increasing land use. Simulations have shown an increase in land productivity by 60-70%.

Summary:

Optimized solar panel orientation is determined by PVsyst software to ensure maximum amount of radiation is tapped by the panels.
Panels are mounted at a certain height over the crops to allow mechanical farming equipment to underneath the panels.
Difficult to predict the behavior of crops under the shaded area of the PV panel.
Experiments have shown that electricity and crop yield of a 100 hectare farm with an agrovoltaic system in place is greater than a 170 hectare farm having separate production.

Productivity and radiation use efficiency of lettuces grown in the partial shade of photovoltaic panels. European Journal of Agronomy^[2][edit | edit source]

Abstract: Converting crop lands into PV farms would aggravate the competition for land between food and energy production. Setting up PV panels on top of crop farms shades a part of the crops. In spite of the shading effect, lettuce yields were higher by improving the Radiation Interception Efficiency. The effect of the shade on the lettuce plantation was a reduction in the number of leaves but and increase in the leaf area. This was the adaptation bought about by lettuce to thrive in the shade. A framework is defined based on the adaptive characteristics of crops that thrive in the shade to optimize agrovoltaic systems.

Summary:

Lettuce has the ability to adapt to lower light conditions by increasing its capability to harvest light.
Similar experiments were done using cucumber, french beans and durum wheat to study the effect of crop rotation on an agrivoltaic system.
Agrovoltaic systems can be optimized by plant breeding and making adjustments to PV panels to find the best way to co-produce electricity and food on the same piece of land.

Solar Farms for livestock^[3][edit | edit source]

Report released by the BRE and National Solar Center of UK stating that PV farms can be set up on lands reserved for livestock grazing.
PV farms gives the farmers an economic boost and at the same time does not affect his existing farming practices.
The farmer does not need to cut down on the number of grazing animals nor does he have to adjust the grazing frequency of livestock as 95% of the grazing land is unaffected by the PV panels.
A PV farm with an output of 4.2 MW was set up in Axminster, Devon, UK. This farm provides electricity as well as fodder for livestock.

To mix or not to mix: evidences for the unexpected high productivity of new complex agrivoltaic and agroforestry systems^[4][edit | edit source]

Abstract: Agrivoltaic schemes are profitable, environment friendly and have high levels of production. These schemes have higher volumes of production due to higher land equivalent ratios. Land equivalent ratio(LER) determines the efficacy of a piece of land. It is calculated by the relative yields of the components on the piece of land in question. LER for an agrovoltaic(AV) systerm was the sum of the relative yield of the crop and the relative yield of electricity by the PV panels.

Summary:

LER for a 100 hectare AV farm was in the 1.3-1.6 range. Methods to optimize LER were suggested like having a North-South orientation for the crops.
PV panels provide constant shading over crops which affect winter crops more as compared to summer crops due to the sunlight demands of such crops. However, the PV panels acts as a protective measure for the crops in the summer from excessive heat and evaporation.
More research is needed on the PV panel density depending on the light demands of various crops.

[http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?id_clanak_jezik

26832&show=clanak Assessing the land equivalent ratio (LER) of two corn varieties intercropping at various nitrogen levels in Karaj, Iran.]^[5]====

Abstract:

LER is the ratio of yield of the individual crop in the intercropped land to the yield of each crop in a monocropped land. LER value of 1.0 indicates the same yield from an intercropped and monocropped land. If LER>1.0 indicates a higher yield from the intercropped land and if LER<1.0, the yield of the monocropped land is higher than that of the intercropped land.

Summary:

Experiment was conducted to study the effect of two different varieties of corn on land use efficiency with different nitrogen levels
LER's for an intercropped land was observed to be 1.066.
At different levels of nitrogen content in the soil, LER's were always greater than zero.

How does a shelter of solar panels influence water flows in a soil–crop system?^[6][edit | edit source]

Abstract:

Crops can achieve a higher yield under the fluctuating sunlight of an Agrovoltaic system. Under dry climatic conditions, the climatic conditions below the PV panels suggest that the PV panels help in alleviating the water demand by the crops. Water use efficiency can be increased by selecting crops with a rapid soil covering which contributes to a higher amount of light being captured with decreased soil evaporation.

Summary:

Shading due to the PV panels resulted in water savings by 14-29% depending on the level of shading.
Water demand reduction was achieved by reduction in incident radiation due to the shading effect.
Water use efficiency was found to increase for some varieties of lettuce in the shade

Tradeoffs and Synergies between Biofuel Production and Large Solar Infrastructure in Deserts^[7][edit | edit source]

Abstract: The paper discusses the setting up of agrivoltaic schemes in arid regions with limited water resources. It discusses about the use of land between panels for growing biofuel plants like Agave which can thrive in dry and arid climate thanks to its water efficient photosynthesis process. Monte Carlo Approach is adopted to measure the uncertainty amongst the various parameters such as variations in the number of solar modules /ha, module efficiency, overall sugar conversion efficiency for agave and number of agave plants /ha. The limited water resources can be used to clean the PV panels as well as watering the plants by directing the water onto the PV panels which would drain off on the agave plants resulting in efficient usage of limited resources. The Agave plants are used in the production of ethanol fuel.

Summary:

Revenues from the solar PV per unit of water used was 100 times greater than that of traditional crops. Combination of solar PV and agave resulted in the highest returns per cubic meter of water used.
Competition for land for growing biofuel and food crops is reduced and the agave crops can help in reduction of dust collection on the PV panels.

Renewable energy and food supply: will there be enough land?^[8][edit | edit source]

Abstract: Renewable energy schemes such as PV farms require large tracts of land to capture sunlight and produce electricity in large quantities. Ideally, the best place to set up PV farms is on barren land. However, if barren land is not available, PV farms have to be set up on cultivable land used for growing food/cash crops. The land required for energy and food production depends on the demand and supply of that particular area. This paper discusses biomass as a short term renewable energy source and the long term potential of solar energy and their effects on limited land resources.

Summary:

The food and electricity yield figures obtained are very sensitive to the changes in the estimated input parameters with respect to land requirements.
Two scenarios are considered i.e. rich and poor. In the poor scenario, land requirements fall short when biomass is used as an energy source. In the rich scenario, land requirements for food and energy production are satisfied.
Widespread changes are to be incorporated into the existing energy infrastructure to accommodate solar PV systems such as storage batteries that store the energy from the PV panels for use at night or during low light periods.

What is the maximum efficiency with which photosynthesis can convert solar energy into biomass?^[9][edit | edit source]

Abstract: This paper examines the efficiency of the photosynthesis process at each step in the conversion of solar radiation into biomass and to understand the factors that limit this efficiency. The efficiency of photosynthesis ranges 4.6% to 6%.

Summary:

Plants can tap solar radiation between 400-740 nm which is about 48% of the incident solar radiation on Earth.
Reasons for losses in the photosynthesis process include reflection and transmission of solar radiation, photochemical process inefficiency, inability of plants to tap solar radiation wavelengths less than 400nm and greater than 740nm, losses due to photo-respiration.
Photosynthesis efficiency can be improved by overcoming the photo respiration losses which is the one of the main limiting factors.

Determination of the optimal tilt angle and orientation for solar photovoltaic arrays^[10][edit | edit source]

Abstract: The optimum tilt angle of a PV panel can be determined by maximizing the incident solar radiation on the panel subject to minimization of the variance in the power output. The most accurate solar irradiance figures can be selected from existing data for several PV models. A database is then prepared using the existing data for different tilt angles over different periods of time. Meta-models are produced to co-relate the tilt angle with the solar radiations at different times of the day using the data from the database. An optimization problem is then formulated with an objective to maximize solar irradiation on the panel.

Output energy of a photovoltaic module mounted on a single-axis tracking system^[11][edit | edit source]

Abstract: This paper deals with the power output of a PV panel installed in Taiwan at different azimuth's and tilt angles. The gain of a single axis mounted panel was compared with that of a traditionally mounted panel. Simulation results show that the optimal tilt angle for observed radiation is flatter than that from extraterrestrial and global radiation.

Summary:

Yearly gains from extraterrestrial, global and observed radiation is 51.4%, 28.5%, 18.7% for a module installed at the yearly optimal tilt angle for over a year. Similarly, the gains for a PV panel mounted at the monthly optimal tilt angle are 45.3%, 25.9% and 17.5% respectively.
Conversion efficiency of the PV panel mounted at the yearly optimal angle is 10.2%, 9.2% and 8.3% for extraterrestrial, global and observed solar irradiation.
The panels can be mounted either at the optimal yearly tilt angle and changed yearly or at the monthly optimal tilt angle which would be changed on a monthly basis.

&arnumber=4522840&isnumber=4522647 A reconfigurable solar photovoltaic array under shadow conditions]^[12]

Abstract: This paper proposes a method to reconfiguration scheme to reduce the effect of shading on the PV panels. In this method, a smaller reconfigurable adaptive PV bank is connected to a larger fixed PV bank and the maximum power point(MPP) can be tracked with a single MPP tracker. During non-uniform illumination periods, the number of adaptive solar cells connected to the shaded modules depends on the area of shading. A control algorithm is designed to open and close the switches linking the adaptive and the fixed PV modules. The adaptive reconfiguration is bought about by a switching matrix defined in the control algorithm.

Summary:

A matrix of switches is used to connect an adaptive PV array to a larger fixed array with an objective to maximize output power in case of non-uniform illumination.
An experimental prototype was built and was used to test said algorithms.
This configuration is aimed at avoiding the local MPP of each module and focus on the central MPP of the entire array to maximize power output.^[13]====

Abstract: The power output of a PV system depends on its nominal power, incoming solar radiation and the losses in the system. It also depends on the other factors such as response to low light response, temperature of modules, light spectrum range, deviation from MPP etc. The paper compares theoretical calculations with actual experiments conducted on the field.

Summary:

Theoretical calculations compared with experimental data obtained from PV farms set up at Nicosia, Cyprus and Heraklion, Greece
Reduction in power output is due to excess photon concentration caused by overheating cells.
Part of the experimental data used was involving PV modules made of multicrystalline modules having stable performance characteristics. For example, amorphous Silicon initially have a higher power output, but the output drops after a few months of use.

On morphogenesis of lettuce leaves in relation to light and temperature^[14][edit | edit source]

Abstract: The growth of lettuce under different light and temperature conditions was examined with special emphasis on the head of the lettuce. The number of leaves increased as light intensity and temperature increased. Leaf length and width depend on the environmental conditions i.e high light intensity can cause changes in the width of the leaves. The light intensity in turn is responsible for the temperature effect on the leaves. Similarly, variations in the leaf length are more prevalent at low light intensities i.e they elongate faster at lower light intensities. In contrast, light intensity affects the growth rate and duration of the leaf width which are reduced greatly at low light intensities.

Are species shade and drought tolerance reflected in leaf‐level structural and functional differentiation in Northern Hemisphere temperate woody flora?^[15][edit | edit source]

Abstract: This paper explores the shade and drought tolerances of the leaves of woody species of fauna found in the Northern Hemisphere. A consolidated database was prepared combining the information regarding leaf traits and species tolerances.

Summary:

Plant species with higher drought tolerance were resource conserving species with low nitrogen and photosynthetic capacity, longer life span and higher dry leaf mass.
Variation in shade tolerance amongst species did not significantly affect the life of the plant.
The shade tolerance of the plant depends upon the type of foliage and also suggests a corelation between the leaf structure and the plant's tolerance to environmental conditions.
The ability of plant species to develop tolerance against both, drought and shade is an inherent limitation of the plant species in question.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2401901?seq 1#page_scan_tab_contents Solar radiation and productivity in tropical ecosystems^[16][edit | edit source]

Abstract: This paper attempts to develop an approach relating efficiences of dry matter production to factors that determine growth rates. Tropical fauna examples were used to develop this approach.

Summary:

Solar energy storage efficiency is expressed as a product of factors describing the dependence of dry matter production, seasonal variation etc.
The limitations used to predict crop growth rates are ignorance about the decrease of leaf diffusion resistance, ignorance about the relation between respiration rates and rate of photosynthesis etc.
Another limitation for tropical fauna models is the need to do measurements instead of predictions.

Different methods for separating diffuse and direct components of solar radiation and their application in crop growth models^[17][edit | edit source]

Abstract: This paper discusses the effect of diffused solar radiation on the dry matter production of leaves under different climatic conditions. Daily and hourly values of incoming direct and diffuse radiation are compared for incorporation into the simulation of wheat growth models.

Summary:

By comparison, accuracy of direct and diffuse components of solar radiation varies with changes in climatic conditions.
Final yield calculation results are influenced by the methods used to calculate the incoming radiation.
Small errors in calculating solar irradiation affects the final yield figures.

Biofuels: environment, technology and food security.^[18][edit | edit source]

Abstract: Dwindling fossil fuel resources have pushed up biofuel production levels significantly over the past 10 years and there has been an impetus towards the intensification towards biofuel use. The life cycle analysis helps in understanding the environmental impacts of biofuel production, land requirements and its impacts on food production. Certain protocols have to be established regarding the social impacts of the biofuel production chain.

Summary:

In a nutshell, biofuel production and its supporting social and economic factors depend on the development scale of each country.
Biofuel cannot be called as a long term replacement for fossil fuels. It can only act as an intermediate solution.
Technological development will allow the transition from simple biofuels like bioethanol, biodiesel to cellulosic ethanol, methanol and bio-hydrogen which would alleviate the impact on food production while using large amounts of raw materials at the same time.
The by-product obtained from ethanol production from sugarcane bagasse can be used as fodder for livestock, thus benefiting the livestock industry which in turn would reduce the burden on grazing lands and pastures.
Regulatory framework imposes limits on land use and also to improve and safeguard the conditions of personnel involved in the biofuel production industry.

Semi-transparent PV: Thermal performance, power generation, daylight modelling and energy saving potential in a residential application^[19][edit | edit source]

Abstract: This paper proposes the use of semi-transparent PV panels for residential applications. The characteristics of semi-transparent PV panels are obtained from field tests which give vital information regarding power output, thermal characteristics etc. Semi-transparent PV panels can also be used for daylighting indoor areas, but the saving from this is not very significant as indoor electricity demands are mostly during nights.

Summary:

A semi-transparent PV panel with 50% transmission capacity produces a 5.3% reduction in the heating and cooling energy as compared to a normal PV panel.
Net energy savings in terms of total energy consumed would be in the range of 3-8.7% by a semi-transparent PV panel.
The inner and outer temperatures of the semi-transparent PV panel were measured during summer and winter seasons. Outside temperatures ranged from 35-75^oC in winter and summer respectively. Similarly, inner temperatures ranged from 30-40^oC in the summer.
In terms of power generation by the PV, the paper assumes poly-crystalline Silicon whose power generation capacity deteriorates after a few months.
Optimization of PV panels corresponding to the climate and building characteristics contribute to further savings.

Operating temperature of photovoltaic modules: A survey of pertinent correlations^[20][edit | edit source]

Abstract: This paper discusses the operating temperature for the best performance of PV panels.

Summary:

The temperature of a PV panel can be co-related to factors such as ambient temperature, wind speed, solar radiation.
With respect to the weather, temperature rise of the PV cell is sensitive to wind speed changes and practically independent of atmospheric temperature.
Temperature of the PV cell depends strongly on the solar radiation on the PV module.

Light distribution, photosynthetic rate and yield in a Paulownia-wheat intercropping system in China^[21][edit | edit source]

Abstract: This paper discusses the effect of shading in a Paulownia-wheat intercropped system and its effect on the wheat yields. Factors such as photosynthetically active radiation(PAR), leaf photosynthesis, canopy leaf area index were measured to study the effects of shading on the wheat yields.

Summary:

Shading reduced the PAR by 22%, 44% and 56% during the flowering, grain filling and maturing stage.
The amount of PAR intercepted in an intercropped system is less than that in a mono cropped system which in turn reduced the number of grains and the grain dry matter.
Wheat yields in the intercropped system was less by 51% than that in the mono cropped system.

An overview of the crop model STICS^[22][edit | edit source]

Abstract: STICS was a model developed by INRA in 1996. The model simulates crop growth, water balance and nitrogen balance in the soil with respect to the climatic data obtained on a daily basis. This paper discusses the STICS model concerning interractions between the soil and roots and the relation between crop management and the soil-crop system. In addition to this, specific crop species related data is provided by the experts in this field. The paper also discusses the limitations of this model

Advantages:

STICS relies on well established data rather than untested assumptions.
Adaptability to different crops.
Professionals from various related fields can equally contribute to this model, thus evolving as more and more data is provided, making this model grow.

Agrivoltaics in Ontario Canada: Promise and Policy[edit | edit source]

Pearce, J. M. (2022). Agrivoltaics in Ontario Canada: Promise and Policy. Sustainability, 14(5), 3037.

Electricity production in Canada via PV < 1% of total energy generation
Ontario accounts for the highest share of PV generation - approx. 94%
Agricultural Land Use Regulations restrict solar PV deployment
- Reason - protect farmland/agricultural land from adverse impacts
On the contrary, latest studies manifest dual use of land for both PV development and agriculture (known as Agrivoltaics) is entirely possible and even beneficial:
- Study conducted on pepper, corn and winter wheat showed financial promise; data of different countries utilized
- Enhanced agricultural production of the crops (especially shade tolerant crops and leafy vegetables)
- 1% increased PV output since cooler than conventional PV farms
- Steady stream of revenue for farmers is ensured through electricity
- Risk of food price fluctuation is alleviated
Ontario's three-tiered land-use policy: 1) agricultural land, 2) specialty crop areas and 3) rural area
- Defines what types of uses will be allowed on each
- Uses should either be 1) agricultural, 2) agricultural-related and 3) on-farm diversified
- Current criteria "on-farm diversified" highly restrictive for agrivoltaics

Future Scope

Use Ontario's data (especially solar) for analyzing financial gains when using agrivoltaics for pepper, corn and winter wheat farming
Regulations being developed on municipal level to be leveraged for agrivoltaic development
Consider Agrivoltaics as an agricultural use or agricultural-related use or use on-farm diversified criteria - detailed criteria discussed in paper
For crop rotation, agrivoltaic system may have dynamic designs - requires further research
Social acceptance in Ontario - requires further research
Four policy areas need to be focused for Agrivoltaics:
- Research & Development
  - Concentrate Ontario's major markets of crops/vegetables
  - Investigate results for target crops and optimize agrivoltaic systems
  - Test "red greenhouse modules" for field and greenhouse deployment
  - Further research on variety of crops and PV systems designs
- Education/Public Awareness
  - Citizen science approach to be adopted - devices such as parameteric open-source cold frame agrivoltaic system (POSCAS) to be used
  - Conduct open pilot studies
- Policy Mechanisms to Support Farmers
  - Explicitly define Agrivoltaics
  - Investigate policy of other countries (Japan, U.S etc.)
  - Introduce Feed-in Tariff (FIT)
  - Study Europe's testing methods and utilize to develop similar standards for Ontario's
  - Align provincial and municipal policies
- Utilize Agrivoltaics as a Trad Surplus with U.S.
  - International power lines connect Canada to U.S.
  - Many states in U.S. have appalling carbon emission
  - Offset emissions and adverse health impacts with renewable solar power
  - Investigate techno-commercial viability

Limitations

Farming methods to be revised - additional cost may incur
Limited studies conducted on crop rotation
Initial costs of deploying Agrivoltaics is higher than conventional farming or PV systems
- Sustainable business models required to promote Agrivoltaics adoption
Cross-border electricity trade may be called into question on political front
Social acceptance in Ontario

Parametric Open Source Cold-Frame Agrivoltaic Systems[edit | edit source]

Pearce, J. M. (2021). Parametric Open Source Cold-Frame Agrivoltaic Systems. Inventions, 6(4), 71.

Costs of PV are expected to further decline (approx. 60%)
Several technical improvements foreseen in PV development
- Black silicon
- Bifacial PV
Massive areas required for PV deployment coin land use conflicts
The issue can be addressed using Agrivoltaics - dual use of of land for PV electrical generation and agriculture
Combinations of different edible plants with PV system variables can be overwhelmingly large
Method required for agrivoltaic testing for technology optimization
Parametric Open Source Cold-Frame Agrivoltaic System (POSCAS) can be utilized for such testing
- Replaces the cold frame with semi-transparent PV
Frame Design
- Parametric to adopt for different sizes of PV module
- Design variables can be controlled via parametric OpenSCAD script
- 3 printable file generated using distributed recycling and additive manufacturing (DRAM)
DRAM to fabricate a POSCAS
- A wide range of thermopolymers may be used
- Ensures material flexibility and accessibility
Module Design
- Thin film based thickness of active layer adjusts transparency
- Crystal silicon technology - spacing adjusts transparency
Source of raw material has the highest impact on economics of POSCAS - details discussed in research paper
- Double POSCAS design also alleviates costs
Partially transparent PV with colored designs are also being studied
- Can increase crop yield
- May be used in greenhouses
POSCAS comparison with cold frame and ground-mounted PV systems indicate economic competitiveness
Parametric scripts allows variations in POSCAS framework to be customized on any agricultural crop and agrivoltaic system
Considering economic viability, researchers can use DRAM POSCAS for agrivoltaic studies

Future Works:

Investigate interplay between PV and nanoparticles responsible for spectral shifting in PV with colored designs for a range of crops
Identify ideal PV designs for crops using large no. of POSCAS
Include accessories (sensors, fans, cameras etc.) to automate care of plants and soil
Sensors can be integrated with Internet of Thigs (IoT)/Artificial Intelligence (AI) for data accumulation
- Data can subsequently be utilized o optimize crop and PV production
Verify impact of reflection of solar energy from crops on bifacial PV modules

Crop-specific Optimization of Bifacial PV Arrays for Agrivoltaic Food-Energy Production: The Light-Productivity-Factor Approach[edit | edit source]

Riaz, M. H., Imran, H., Alam, H., Alam, M. A., & Butt, N. Z. (2022). Crop-Specific Optimization of Bifacial PV Arrays for Agrivoltaic Food-Energy Production: The Light-Productivity-Factor Approach. IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics.

Agrivoltaics systems installation for improved sunlight sharing between PV arrays and crops
- Height of PV modules kept between 4 - 7 m above crops
- Low density - p/h ratio 2 to 3 times of standard PV
Paper introduces Light Productivity Factor (LPF) - factor that determines efficacy of light sharing between PV modules and crops
- For PV only - LPF=1; with Agrivoltaics methodology 1 < LPF > 2
- Used lettuce, turnip and corn
Land Equivalent Ratio (LER) - factor that provides food-energy performance
- Uses crop yield and electrical output
Crop yield is directly proportional to useful photosynthetically active radiation (PAR)
Crops have a threshold PAR above which the process of photosynthesis saturates
Custom tracking; combination of standard and reverse tacking maximizes PAR requirement
Results indicate:
- For shade tolerant crops, full density PV arrays may be utilized
- For shade sensitive crops. reduced density PV arrays may be utilized
- E/W faced vertical PV orientation - preferable fixed tilt scheme
  - Benefits: Low elevation mounting, ease of operation of farm machinery and reduced soil loss

Integration of bifacial photovoltaics in agrivoltaic systems: A synergistic design approach[edit | edit source]

Katsikogiannis, O. A., Ziar, H., & Isabella, O. (2022). Integration of bifacial photovoltaics in agrivoltaic systems: A synergistic design approach. Applied Energy, 309, 118475.

Objective - Devise a multi-scale modelling approach and ascertain optimal topology for APV

Idea of APV first coined in 1981
Conventional topologies are harmful for crop production
Maximum crop productivity (or photosynthesis process) achieved at light saturation point (LSP) - exceeding irradiance alleviates productivity
Crops can be classified as C3 & C4 based on carbon assimilation - C3 preferable for APV systems as they saturate at low photosynthetically active radiation (PAR)
Plant productivity increased by 5% by using diffusion cover - (cucumbers 8%, roses 10% & tomatoes 8-11%)
PV array may reduce soil temperature, crop temperature during noon positively impacting crop productivity
Results indicate:
- Increased irradiance and bifacial gain (BG) by elevated height of PV array; however, main advantage is ease of operation of agricultural machinery
- Increasing row spacing (RS) reduced electrical output, though, it increased ground irradiation and bifacial gain (BG)
- South-west orientation augments light penetration in morning while provides shading in noon
- South facing topologies conducive for cultivation during summer and shade tolerant crops
- E-W vertical for permanent crops and during winter

Improving Productivity of Cropland through Agrivoltaics[edit | edit source]

Nassar, A., Perez-Wurfl, I., Roemer, C., & Hameiri, Z. Improving Productivity of Cropland through Agrivoltaics.

Objective - Review existing literature of Agrivoltaics and ascertain its applicability in Australia

Land equivalent ratio (LER) - parameter used for this study
Electrical output of PV system modelled via System Advisory Model
Crops (lettuce and silverbeet) grown without shading and under shade (using black tarps) for the study - solar panels not installed
Yield produced in Agrivoltaics setting: 72% of lettuce yield compared with traditional farms; 60% of silverbeet yield compared with traditional farms (based on fresh mass)
Reduced crop yield most probably due to increased shading

Solar Sharing for Both Food and Clean Energy Production: Performance of Agrivoltaic Systems for Corn, A Typical Shade-Intolerant Crop[edit | edit source]

Sekiyama, T., & Nagashima, A. (2019). Solar sharing for both food and clean energy production: performance of agrivoltaic systems for corn, a typical shade-intolerant crop. Environments, 6(6), 65.

Agrivoltaics may have beneficial application for shade-tolerant crops as per past researches
- Shade tolerance - ability of crops to sustain low levels of light
- Stilt-mounted agrivoltaics alleviate trade off between crop production and energy generation
- First agrivoltaic farm experimentation conducted in France with lettuce - research depicted no major impact on lettuce yield
- Experimentation on durum wheat showed increase (35-72%) in yield
- 30% increased economic value by employing agrivoltaics on shade-tolerant crops
Research conducted on corn in three configurations: traditional farming without solar panel installation (control), low module and high module density
- PV modules used self-cleaning glass
- Identical soil, fertilizer and water used
- Organic farming adopted
- No pesticides used
- Feed-in-tariff of 48 yen per kWh
Corn yield increased by 5.6% for low density configuration compared with control configuration; total revenue increase 4.7 times larger than control configuration
Corn yield reduced by 3.6% for high density configuration compared with control configuration; total revenue increase 8.3 times larger than control configuration
High density configuration produced approx. twice electrical output than low density configuration
Both low and high density configuration are economically beneficial even if the tariff is reduced to 8 yen per kWh
Reasons for high crop yield:
- Increasing light beyond light saturation point
- Too high light exposure
- Reduced water evaporation due to installed PV panels

Future Works:

Extend work to shade intolerant crops (watermelon, tomato cucumber, pumpkin, cabbage, turnip & rice)
- Especially incorporating stilt-mounted configuration
Verify results with large sample size
Carry out further financial feasibility studies
Improved PV designs for enhanced electrical output and agricultural yield

Crop production in partial shade of solar photovoltaic panels on trackers[edit | edit source]

Hudelson, T., & Lieth, J. H. (2021, June). Crop production in partial shade of solar photovoltaic panels on trackers. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2361, No. 1, p. 080001). AIP Publishing LLC.

Objective: Ascertain economic viability of crop production under tracking-based PV solar system

With PV tracking system, 7 acres land may be required for 1 MW of electrical output
Crops experimented: kale, chard, broccoli, spinach, peppers and tomatoes
PV panels adopted with tracking system
- Panel rows (PR) 1 to 7 - crops grown under solar panels
- Panel row (PR) 8 - traditional crop farming without solar panels (control configuration)
Average ambient air temperature increased in morning and reduced in afternoon when compared with control (no panel) configuration
No substantial difference in relative humidity in any PR configuration (with or without solar panels)

Results:

Biomass accumulated as a function of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) - varied for different crop type
Yield of kale reduced by 23% when compared with control configuration - similar yield production between 55% and 85% of full sun PAR level
Yield of chard similar to control when PAR was 85% of full sun values - slight less yield when PAR level was 55% and 62% of full sun numbers
Yield of broccoli attainable with at least 85% of full sun PAR - intolerant to high shading
Yield of pepper attainable above 55% of full sun PAR - however, quantity will be reduced. For considerable yield, PAR to be greater than 85% of full sun
Yield of tomato attainable above 55% of full sun PAR - can tolerate slight shading
Yield of spinach extremely sensitive to PAR
Maximum daily temperatures 3oC cooler under panel during summer while 2oC warmer during spring
For a 24-hour period - temperatures remained warmer in the morning and cooler in the afternoon when compared with full-sun conditions
Kale, chard and tomatoes can be cultivated as long as 55% of full-sun irradiance can be attained with PV arrays
Cultivation of spinach not advisable considering its high reliance on on solar irradiance

Efficiency Improvement of Ground-Mounted Solar Power Generation in Agrivoltaic System by Cultivation of Bok Choy (Brassica rapa subsp. chinensis L.) Under the Panels[edit | edit source]

Kumpanalaisatit, M., Setthapun, W., Sintuya, H., & Jansri, S. N. (2022). Efficiency Improvement of Ground-Mounted Solar Power Generation in Agrivoltaic System by Cultivation of Bok Choy (Brassica rapa subsp. chinensis L.) Under the Panels. International Journal of Renewable Energy Development, 11(1).

Objective: Investigate improvement in efficiency of PV electrical generation by cultivation of crops beneath the PV modules

Study conducted on 25kW power plant using amorphous PV modules; crop selected: bok choy since it can grow well under shade
Average solar intensity recorded = 569W/m2
Temperature of solar panels was 0.18oC less with crop production beneath when compared with control configuration
Crops below solar panel may result in reduced module temperature and higher electrical power output (0.09%)
Crop production without solar panels was higher when compared with crop yield with solar panels

Future Works:

More crops to be investigated which are favorable for growth under PVs for instance lettuce, spinach, celery, spring onion, ginger, galangal, sweet potato, carrots and chili

Yield Optimization Through Control Strategies in Tracked Agrivoltaic Systems[edit | edit source]

Gfüllner, L., Muller, O., Meier-Grüll, M., Jedmowski, C., & Berwind, M. Yield Optimization Through Control Strategies in Tracked Agrivoltaic Systems.

Objective: To optimize light distribution for gaining maximum crop yield and electrical output via unique solar tracking systems

Three strategies were studied:
- Focus on PV generation - horizontal single axis east west tracking system
- Focus on plant growth
- Focus on dual-use (crop production and PV electrical generation)
Crop selected: Potatoes; experimental setup was simulation based
Results indicate that crop yields are higher in an agrivoltaic system - reason could be increased soil moisture levels

Future Works:

Develop a crop model based on hourly timesteps
Improved weather files to better investigate impact on crop yields
Investigate water resource as a function of optimized tracking system

Comparison of Yield and Yield Components of Several Crops Grown under Agro-Photovoltaic System in Korea[edit | edit source]

Jo, H., Asekova, S., Bayat, M. A., Ali, L., Song, J. T., Ha, Y. S., ... & Lee, J. D. (2022). Comparison of Yield and Yield Components of Several Crops Grown under Agro-Photovoltaic System in Korea. Agriculture, 12(5), 619.

Objective: Investigate crop yields with agrivoltaic systems and compare with control configuration

Korea - one of the five top-most importers of fossil fuels
Crops experimented: Rice, onion, garlic, rye, soybean, adzuki bean, monocropping corn and mixed planting of corn with soybean
Experiment conducted with dummy solar panels
Advantages of cultivating crops under PV panels:
- Effective water/rain distribution and protection against climatic uncertainty
- Reduced evapotranspiration, soil and crop temperature
- Increased carbon uptake and water use, land productivity

Results:

Yield of rice: Reduced by 18.7% and 8.9% in 2018 and 2019 when compared with open field
Yield of soybean: No difference in 2019 while significantly higher in 2020 for open field
Yield of adzuki bean: No difference in 2019 while higher in 2020 for open field
Yield of garlic and onion: Reduced by 18.7% and 14.6% in 2018-19 and 2019-20 when compared with open field
Yield of rye: No significant difference between APV system and open field
Yield of corn: No significant difference between APV system and open field
Yield of mixed planting of corn with soybean: Reduced when compared with open field
Yield of onion: Reduced by 14.4% when compared with open field
Yield of garlic: Reduced by 18.7% when compared with open field
Conclusive results deduced for corn, rye and rice - for remaining crops, results were inconclusive

Future Works:

Research on crop yield for soybean and adzuki bean under APV systems
Determine various crop's critical sunlight period requirements to understand their physiological mechanisms
Further trials for rice, soybean, adzuki bean, onion and garlic under APV system

Effects of Agrivoltaics (Photovoltaic Power Generation Facilities on Farmland) on Growing Condition and Yield of Komatsuna, Mizuna, Kabu, and Spinach[edit | edit source]

KIRIMURA, M., TAKESHITA, S., MATSUO, M., ZUSHI, K., GEJIMA, Y., HONSHO, C., ... & NISHIOKA, K. (2022). Effects of Agrivoltaics (Photovoltaic Power Generation Facilities on Farmland) on Growing Condition and Yield of Komatsuna, Mizuna, Kabu, and Spinach. Environmental Control in Biology, 60(2), 117-127.

Objective: Investigate crop yields with agrivoltaic systems

Crops experimented: Komatsuna, kabu, mizuna and spinach
PV panels covered 62% of ground area farm - constant tilt (CT) tracking treatment (TT) as well as control configuration was adopted for study
- Tracking treatment - single axis
Electrical generation income calculated at 37 yen/kWh

Results:

Solar radiations transmitted below PV panels
- TT - 24% of open field radiations
- CT - 39% of open field radiations
Growth rate of komatsuna, mizuna and kabu slower under PV panels - no difference in yields between CT & TT configurations
Significant reduction in yield of spinach - not suitable for growth under conditions of alleviated solar radiations
Yield, solar radiation, light intensity and air & soil temperature were lower under PV panels
Results indicate that
- Mizuna and kabu are suitable for cultivation in winter season
- Komatsuna most suitable for growth under PV panels
- TT conditions suitable for komatsuna and kabu while CT for mizuna
Extended cultivation times could result in sufficient yields

Global energy assessment of the potential of photovoltaics for greenhouse farming[edit | edit source]

World temperatures may increase to 3.2oC till 2100AD
Fossil fuels are responsible for 3/4th of greenhouse gases (GHGs)
Estimated world population by 2050 - 9 billion
- 70% increase in production of food will be needed
Energy demands could be met if only 1% of agricultural land is converted to APV
The paper discusses a novel Agrivoltaic Model - output: electricity generated and crop photosynthesis rate with regards to Agrivoltaics transparency
- Three sub models - solar radiation, PV and crop
  - Outputs - PV model: energy harvested with time; crop model: CO2 abosrbed during photosynthesis over time;
Experimental locations: El Ejido (Spain), Pachino (Italy), Antalya (Turkey) and Vicente Guerrero (Mexico).
PV technology adopted semi-transparent c-Si technology based on opaque cells
- Reason: High efficiency & reliability
Crops selected: 15 species from 5 different families, i.e. Cucurbitaceae, Fabaceae, Solanacae, Poaceae, Rosaceae
TRF - Gobal transparency of PV module; TRF value is 0 for fully opaque and 1 for fully transparent
- Increase TRF - PV energy alleviates while crop performance augments
Optimum PV system considered for the application - transparency set as such that net photosynthesis rate (PSN) does not reduce more than 10%
Lower photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) at which maximum photosynthesis rate (Amax) is achieved, lower will be the TRF resulting in higher PV energy without adversely affecting the crops
Solanacae, followed by the Rosaceae and the Curcubitaceae - most suitable families for APV applications in greenhouses

Effects of different photovoltaic shading levels on kiwifruit growth, yield and water productivity under “agrivoltaic” system in Southwest China[edit | edit source]

Jiang, S., Tang, D., Zhao, L., Liang, C., Cui, N., Gong, D., ... & Peng, Y. (2022). Effects of different photovoltaic shading levels on kiwifruit growth, yield and water productivity under “agrivoltaic” system in Southwest China. Agricultural Water Management, 269, 107675.

Objective: Investigate impact of different shading levels on kiwifruit

Previous studies indicated no adverse impact of Agrivoltaic setup on tomato and cucumber
Experiment conducted using three (03) different densities (19%, 30.4%, 38%) of translucent PV - same compared with control configuration
Kiwifruit used for experimentation due to its compatibility with shading for growth
- Kiwifruit plant is capable to acclimatize to shaded environment
Results indicate
- Solar radiation reduced as compared to control configuration - percentage of reduction increased with increased shading
- No impact of shading on temperature
- Relative humidity augmented with increased shading

Leaf transpiration rate, accumulated transpiration, soil evaporation, photosynthetic rate and water use efficiency reduced with increased shading

- Higher densities (30.4% & 38%) had a significant adverse impact on kiwifruit yield and volume
- With 19% of translucent PV panels, kiwifruit yield slightly reduced - configuration suitable for kiwifruit growth with Agrivoltaic setup as no major impact on yield

Consumer Study of Agrivoltaics Food Products Including Tomato, Basil, Potato, Bean, and Squash[edit | edit source]

Rogers, M. (2022). Consumer Study of Agrivoltaics Food Products Including Tomato, Basil, Potato, Bean, and Squash (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Arizona).

Not much reasearch on senorial charateristics and consumer acceptability of AV based crops
For AV to be successful, it must be sustainable (economically, socially and environmentally) - the study explores all three aspects
- It analysed users' responses to AV configuration and control configuration to gauge any differences/preferences for the crops

Objective:

To carry out study of AV crops (tomatoes, basil, beans, potatoes and squash) to ascertain any impact of growth conditions on sensory charatecteristics
Testing techniques employed
- Triangle test - determine perceptible difference between samples grown in different growth conditions
- Paired comparison test - determine difference in sensory attributes between AV and control growth configuration
- Paired preference test - determine preference of changed/modified product vs established product
- 5-point ordinal Likert scale
- Multinomial logistic regression and logistic regression

Economic Sustainability:

AV have no major history of profitability
Installation and maintenance costs are high
Subsidies and amneties for AV could promote the technology
Fair wages for farm workers to be ensured or its growth

Social Sustainability:

Producers/suppliers of AV can promoted social sustainability of the technology by ensuring fair wages to workers, healthcare benefits, safe working environment, fair pricing and preserving cultural heritage
Consumers can do the same by reducing waste, eating locally and seasonally
AV provides safer environment to workers by protecting them from excessive heat
Electrical risk is associated with AV - threat to human and animal life
Local workforce and involvement to be enhanced to develop AV technology
Diversification of workforce (gender, races etc.) is also imperative to promote AV technology

Environmental Sustainability:

Potential environmental issues associated with AV: soil erosion, PV waste and pollinator pattern
Rainwater collection system can reduce the risk of soil erosion
Proper soil selection is also imperative to protect cropland beneath PV
To reduce PV waste, it can be recycled

Conclusion:

No major differences/preferences were reported by the tasters between AV-based crops and control grown crop
- Fruits more likely to be identified as different than vegetables
- Only beans were preceived as different from the tests
Individuals were also inclined to pay more for AV based crops

Future Works

Carry out similar research at other geographical locations with variety of crops
Reward participants of the study
Record data at different times of the season
Consider participants prior knowledge and perceptions about solar industry for better understanding of their responses and their utilization in the study
Larger sample size for similar research

Increasing the total productivity of a land by combining mobile photovoltaic panels and food crops[edit | edit source]

Valle, B.; Simonneau, T.; Sourd, F.; Pechier, P.; Hamard, P.; Frisson, T.; Ryckewaert, M.; Christophe, A. Increasing the Total Productivity of a Land by Combining Mobile Photovoltaic Panels and Food Crops. Applied Energy 2017, 206, 1495–1507, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.09.113.

Crop Type: Lettuce
Fixed PV type; inter row spacing 0.80 for half density (HD) and 1.6m for full density (FD)
Tracking PV; two types (ST: normal PV tracking; CT: PVs move parallel to sun rays except between 11AM and 03PM during which the operation was normal as for normal solar PV tracking)

Results:

Radiation at Plant Level:

Less for all systems when compared with control systems (without PV modules)
When compared with ST and HD, CT showed 30 and 40% more radiation
HD configuration manifested 8% and 23% higher radiations in spring and autumn whenc compared with FD
For overcast conditions, there was less effect of PV system configuration on radiations received below the panels due to dominance of diffuse radiations

Leaf temperature:

No major difference in control and agrivoltaic configuratoin for cloudy days or morning/evening times
Major difference during sunny days
However, 24h average did not show major difference in sunny or non-sunny days

Plant Dry Mass:

Reduction observed between up to 18%when compared with traditional crops - more important in spring and summer seasons than in autumn

Leaf Number and Project Leaf Area:

No. of leaves reduced when compared with full sun (FS) conditions

Specific Leaf Area and Leaf Dimensions:

Increased generally for all the configurations when compared with FS conditions

Electricity:

2.7 (CT) to 4.8 (ST) times higher for sunny days as compared to overcast days
Total energy production for unit land area for ST 74% higher than HD
Total energy production for CT reduced 23% when compared with HD
For overcast conditions, electricity generaiton for ST and CT was higher
Total energy production for ST 65% to 90% higher than FD

Land Equivalent Ratio (LER):

LER was found to be between 1.25 and 1.5

Biomass:

For ST, in summer and spring, biomass was 67% to 77% of biomass produced in FS
For CT, biomass was 77% for Madelona and 99% for Kiribati
Thinner, longer and narrower leaves resulted in AV systems compared to FS – thus, higher SLA. This compensated partial shading due to more area for light interception.
Kiribati performance better than Madelona.
In CT crop yield 71% in spring and 82% in summer compared with FS.

Agrivoltaic systems to optimise land use for electric energy production[edit | edit source]

Amaducci, S.; Yin, X.; Colauzzi, M. Agrivoltaic Systems to Optimise Land Use for Electric Energy Production. Applied Energy 2018, 220, 545–561, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.03.081.

Crop Type: Maize
Two difference schemes (based on solar PV panels densities) for fixed and solar tracking employed
Solar Tracking 1: Total panels surface/soil surface = 0.13; Electricity: 17.42 kWh/m2; Grain Yield: 735 g/m2; Biomass Yield: 2091 g/m2; LER based on biomass yield: 1.28
Fixed Tilt 1: Total panels surface/soil surface = 0.13; Electricity: 17.42 kWh/m2; Grain Yield: 793 g/m2; Biomass Yield: 2178 g/m2; LER based on biomass yield: 1.23
Solar Tracking 2: Total panels surface/soil surface = 0.36; Electricity: 17.42 kWh/m2; Grain Yield: 743 g/m2; Biomass Yield: 2131 g/m2; LER based on biomass yield: 2.02
Fixed Tilt 2: Total panels surface/soil surface = 0.36; Electricity: 17.42 kWh/m2; Grain Yield: 781 g/m2; Biomass Yield: 2202 g/m2; LER based on biomass yield: 1.74
Full light biomass yield: 2080 g/m2.

Crop production in partial shade of solar photovoltaic panels on trackers[edit | edit source]

Hudelson, T.; Lieth, J.H. Crop Production in Partial Shade of Solar Photovoltaic Panels on Trackers. AIP Conference Proceedings 2021, 2361, 080001, doi:10.1063/5.0055174.

Crop: Kale, Chard, Broccoli, Tomato, Spinach, Peppers
Solar tracking configuration; inter-row spacing when the panels were flat was 5.7 meters
Values of PAR reduced to 7% of control in PR1 and PR7, 62% and 55% in PR2 and PR6 and 85% in PR3 and PR5
Across the 24-hour day, average ambient air temperatures beneath the PV panels for all locations increased during morning and decreased in afternoon when compared with control configuration.
No major difference was observed in relative humidity
No impact on Kale yield when PAR values are between 55% and 85% of FS conditions; yield was 23% less than control configuration
Yield similar to control configuraiton is observed when PAR is 85% or more of full sun conditions
85% or more PAR values are required referenced to FS for broccoli to have harvestable yield
More yield observed for peppers when PAR was 85% or greater - although harvestable biomass is observed above 55% PAR

Effects on Crop Development, Yields and Chemical Composition of Celeriac (Apium graveolens L. var. rapaceum) Cultivated Underneath an Agrivoltaic System[edit | edit source]

Weselek, A.; Bauerle, A.; Zikeli, S.; Lewandowski, I.; Högy, P. Effects on Crop Development, Yields and Chemical Composition of Celeriac (Apium Graveolens L. Var. Rapaceum) Cultivated Underneath an Agrivoltaic System. Agronomy 2021, 11, 733, doi:10.3390/agronomy11040733.

Crop: Celeriac
PAR reduced about 30% for AV systems
Crop height and leaf area index incrasaed for shaded conditions
Under AV, in 2017, yields were lowerer when compared with 2018 - possible reason hot and dry weather made lower soil temperatures and lower PAR favorable for plant growth
Celeriac could be a good option for cultivation under AV

Agrivoltaics provide mutual benefits across the food–energy–water nexus in drylands[edit | edit source]

Barron-Gafford, G.A.; Pavao-Zuckerman, M.A.; Minor, R.L.; Sutter, L.F.; Barnett-Moreno, I.; Blackett, D.T.; Thompson, M.; Dimond, K.; Gerlak, A.K.; Nabhan, G.P.; et al. Agrivoltaics Provide Mutual Benefits across the Food–Energy–Water Nexus in Drylands. Nat Sustain 2019, 2, 848–855, doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0364-5.

PV panel efficiency deteriorates 0.6% as temperature increases 1oC.
Large PV arrays can accumuate heat which can cause further deterioration in performance
Fixed PV used for experimentation
PAR for control configuration as higher than AV
Lower PAR in AV resulted in lower temperatures during day approximately 1.2 + 0.3 oC while night temperatures were higher 0.5 + 0.4 oC
Vapor pressure deficity (VPD) was lower (0.52 + 0.15 kPa) in AV
Yield: Chiltepin fruite three times and tomato two times higher under AV while nearly equal yield for jalapeno
Soil moisture: 5% greater and 15% greater than control configuration when irrigated every day and every second day respectively. Mositure was found higher in AV after 2 days of irrgation than the driest points in control configuraiton afte daily irrigation.
Electricity: Temeprature reduction resulted in 3% increase in generation between May and July while for the whole year, the advantage gained was 1%

Remarkable agrivoltaic influence on soil moisture, micrometeorology and water-use efficiency[edit | edit source]

Adeh, E.H.; Selker, J.S.; Higgins, C.W. Remarkable Agrivoltaic Influence on Soil Moisture, Micrometeorology and Water-Use Efficiency. PLOS ONE 2018, 13, e0203256, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0203256.

Crops: Pasture
Design : East-west oriented, tilt of 18 degrees, inter-row spacing of 6m
PV system capacity: 1435 kW
Mean Temperature: Major difference in temperature closest to PV panel
Relative Humidity/Wind Speed: Major difference in readings for different heights
Solar Radiation: Major reduction below the solar panel installed
Wind Direction: Wind direction is reoriented for AV configuration - south to north; while for control it is oriented at different directions
Soil Moisture: Reduces rapidly in the area between the panels for AV configuration than the shaded or control configuration. Ideally, it should be the same as for control configuration - reason could be reduced view factor and long wave radiation transfer. Shaded area has more moisture in general than control configuration and the alley area between the panels for AV
Yield: 126% more biomass yield is observed for shaded area when compared with alley area for AV and 90% more for when compared with control configuration
Water Efficiency: 328% more efficient than control configuration

Performance of Agrivoltaic Systems for Shade-Intolerant Crops: Land for Both Food and Clean Energy Production[edit | edit source]

Sekiyama, T. Performance of Agrivoltaic Systems for Shade-Intolerant Crops: Land for Both Food and Clean Energy Production. 2019.

Crop: Corn
Three configurations - control, low density AV (1.67m) and high density AV (0.71m)
System capacity: 4.5 kW
Biomass in low density AV configuration was 4.9% higher than control and corn yield per sq meter was 5.6% higher.
Revenue from high density system and low dnesity system was 8.3 times and 4.7 times larger.
Electricity production from high density system was twice the amount of low density system.

A new predictive model for the design and evaluation of bifacial photovoltaic plants under the influence of vegetation soils[edit | edit source]

Rodriguez-Pastor, D.A.; Ildefonso-Sanchez, A.F.; Soltero, V.M.; Peralta, M.E.; Chacartegui, R. A New Predictive Model for the Design and Evaluation of Bifacial Photovoltaic Plants under the Influence of Vegetation Soils. Journal of Cleaner Production 2023, 385, 135701, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135701.

For the anlaytical model, view factors, heat transfer calculations and electrical model are considered
Study performed on 11.24 MWp system; solar tracking based and the distance between the trackers i 9.7m
Electricity generation increased for the crops because:
- Decreased module temperatures;
- Increased albedo
Hourly analysis shows module temperautre 1 to 1.5oC lower in AV configuration
Difference between energies was around 250 kWh for AV and control configuration

Key Word - Agrivoltaic Electric[edit | edit source]

Agrivoltaic Engineering and Layout Optimization Approaches in the Transition to Renewable Energy Technologies: A Review[edit | edit source]

Reasoner, M.; Ghosh, A. Agrivoltaic Engineering and Layout Optimization Approaches in the Transition to Renewable Energy Technologies: A Review. Challenges 2022, 13, 43, doi:10.3390/challe13020043.

Crops: Lettuce and tomato
Tracking: Comparison of N/S and E/W tracking on PAR - E/W tracking gives best electricity output while E/W fixed gives best PAR
PV Cell Type: Different types being used including high concentration PV, ulta-thin amorphous germanium and semi transparent PVs
- Tuning the transmitted light is feasible, however, maximum efficiency achieved is 5%
Half density provides better output than full density but only in summers
Shading under PV was found between 18% and 58% for vertical PVs with different row spacing
Spacing increases crop productivity - half density provides 24% better output
Vertical bifacial PVs improves spacial distribution of sunlight as well as LER
Spacing between the panels (not inter-row spacing) also decreased shading
Checkerboard arrangement of PV panels reduces irradition losses by 6%
Higher density tracking increased yield of maize as opposed to fixed configuration which decreased it
Bifacial optimum spacing is 9.7m for oats and potatoes
Crop production
- Alfalfa - Oregon, US; 2.63$ per acre improvement
- Basil - Italy; 15% decrease in yield but 2.5% financial benefit
- Bok Choy - Thailand; PV system efficiency but loss in production
- Canola - Spain; decreased yield 20%
- Carrots - Spain; decreased yield 10%
- Celeriac - Germany; 12 % increased yield; 1.76 LER
- Chiltepin Pepper - AK, USA; 3 times greater production with same water efficiency
- Clover grass - Germany; decreased production 8% in 2017 adnd 5 % in 2018
- Fava Bean - Spain; no impact on yield - same
- Grape
  - Korea; no difference in yield but harvest delayed by 10 days
  - India; same yield and 15 times economic advantage
- Jalapeno - Arizon, USA; same yield with 157% water efficiency
- Melon - Spain; Reduced yield 17%
- Misai Kuicy - Malaysia; no impact on yield, however, 14.27% efficiency improvement of PV
- Onion - Spain; reduced yield of 6%
- Potato
  - Germany; reduced harvest yield of 10% in 2017, 11% increase in 18% while LER was 1.76
  - Spain; 23% decrease in crop yield
- Rice - Japan; limit for shading is 27-39%
- Soybeans - North Carlolina, US; 2.473$ per acre benefit
- Spinach - Italy; 26% decrease in marketable yield but 35% economic benefit
- Tomato
  - Arizon, US; twice production with 65% efficiency of water
  - Oregon, US; 51% reduction under the panelwhile between the panel the reduction was 39%
  - Spain; 5% decrease in crop yield
- Wheat - Germany; 19% reduction in 2017 while 3% increase in 2018 in harvest yield while LER was 1.71
Dual axis tracking is the most beneficial - highest electricity output without any adverse impact on crops
South-facing E-W axis tracking gives best result for electricity output with minimal impact on yield

Agrivoltaic Systems Enhance Farmers’ Profits through Broccoli Visual Quality and Electricity Production without Dramatic Changes in Yield, Antioxidant Capacity, and Glucosinolates[edit | edit source]

Chae, S.-H.; Kim, H.J.; Moon, H.-W.; Kim, Y.H.; Ku, K.-M. Agrivoltaic Systems Enhance Farmers’ Profits through Broccoli Visual Quality and Electricity Production without Dramatic Changes in Yield, Antioxidant Capacity, and Glucosinolates. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1415, doi:10.3390/agronomy12061415.

Bifacial modules may provide 20% higher capacity for PV applicaitons
Broccoli plant was selected for experiment
- Higher vitamin C than broccolis and cabbages
- Anticancer compounds
Major variation in antioxidant capacity between seasons but no disparity in control and AV configurations
Lower PPFD (AV configuration) may be more conducive for broccoli growth than pepper
Average soild temperature found higher than AV configuration
Reduction in yield was 10% for simple AV configuration and 16% for AV + additional shading when compared with control configuration
Reduction in PPFD was 58% for simple AV configuration and 41% for AV + additional shading when compared with control configuration
Yearly financial advantage from solar energy was 10.4 times than economic benefits from broccoli

Current status of agrivoltaic systems and their benefits to energy, food, environment, economy, and society[edit | edit source]

Kumpanalaisatit, M.; Setthapun, W.; Sintuya, H.; Pattiya, A.; Jansri, S.N. Current Status of Agrivoltaic Systems and Their Benefits to Energy, Food, Environment, Economy, and Society. Sustainable Production and Consumption 2022, 33, 952–963, doi:10.1016/j.spc.2022.08.013.

Objective: To determine the best configuration fo fixed bifacial based AV configuration
EW configuration provides the best shading schedule and most predictable microclimate
Plantation between Arrays
- Water for cleaning PV used for irrigation of aloe vera
- Economic value of AV configuration was 15 times more than control configuration for grape farming
Animal grazing and PV
- Fish growth improved and PV system efficiency improved by 30% (due to reduced temperature of panels)
- Efficiency of PV panels improve when coated with AlO or tantalum pentoxide
- Sheep spent 70% of time under th shades of PVs when solar irradiation was 800 W/m2
- Dry mass of lettuce cultivated under solar tracker based AV was almost equal to control agrivultural configuration
Power
- Temperature for panels installed in AV configuration was 2.8oC and 0.71oC lower for sunny and cloudy days when compared with normally installed PV panels
- Increased PV efficieny for AV configuration - 1.13%-1.42% for sunny days and 0.28% -0.35% for cloudy days
- Increase energy for AV configuration - between 3.05% and 3.2%
- Another study showed 0.18oC decrease in PV panels temperature for AV scheme while 0.09% voltage and power output improvement
Crop
- Decrease in yield observed - 3.98% to 91.30%
- One study found no difference in crop yield quality
Land Equivalent Ratio
- LER for AV system were found between 1.29 and 1.73
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
- Agricultural sector contributes 10-14% of total increase in greenhouse gases glabally
- 1500kW PV system reduces greenhouse gases by 1549tCO2e/year
Finances
- Simple payback period for AV system - between 5 year and 8 years
- Installation of PV for an AV system could generate 117,000 empolyment opportunities in US for a 20 year timeframe

Future Works

Corrosion and lifetime analysis of PV racking materials/structural materials for use in AV configuration - considering more moisture/water

Integration of bifacial photovoltaics in agrivoltaic systems: A synergistic design approach[edit | edit source]

Katsikogiannis, O.A.; Ziar, H.; Isabella, O. Integration of Bifacial Photovoltaics in Agrivoltaic Systems: A Synergistic Design Approach. Applied Energy 2022, 309, 118475, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118475.

Plant Growth

Crops may be categorized as C3 or C4 based on PAR levels - C3 crops saturate earlier than C4 and hence, more suitable

Diffuse Light

Short and compact canopies provide substantial shading - compensation through diffuse radiation can be performed
Lower Leaf Area Index (LAI) provide least shading - no requirement for diffuse cover
Light diffusion film can improve crop production by 5% - For cucumber 8%, roses 10% and tomatoes 8-11% improvement

Effect of Plant Canopy

Mean daily air tempeature - no major difference when compared with FS conditions
Reduced soil temperature observed for shaded regions
Low temperature observed for crops during the day while higher at night

Elevation

Bifacial gain, elevation and energy output showed a linear trend

Transparency

Augmenting transparency in module by 50% improved rear irradiance gain by 10%
PV temperatures also reduce due to better heat dissipation

Tilt

Optimum - latitude of slightly higher

Azimuth

E-W vertical performs better than N-S for albedo and latidues values of 0.5 and 30o

Row Spacing

Logarithmic trend observed for bifacial gain with increased spacing between row - changes from 27.7 to 31.5 for an albedo of 0.5 and spacing of 2.5m
Irradiance increased by 1% S-N and 7.9% E-W as inter row spacing changes from 2.9 to 3.9m
N-S generates 32% more electrical output
With an inter-row spacing of 2m, E-W orientation results in10-20% more electrical ouput when compared with a monofacial optimally inclined system

Soiling Loss

0.35%/day in Chile; almost none for E-W vertical

Results

Linear increment upto 3.4% observed for annual and average ground irradiation as the array height increased from 2m to 7m
Increasing the row-spacing by twice increased ground irradiation from 58.1% to 79.6% for south oriented panels at a tilt of 35o
Increasing the row-spacing for E-W vertical orientation increased ground irradiation from 75.9% to 88.6%
E-W orientation improves light penetration especially during winter season - hence, preferable for permanent crops; N-S suitable for summer
For conventional PV modules - S-N orientation is preferreable for shade tolerant crops; E-W vertical improves improves sunlight intensity during winters, hence, compatible with permanent crops while E-W wings for crops that require shading mid-day
Increasing transparenecy from 7% to 55% incrases bifacial gain by 3.8%

Progress and challenges of crop production and electricity generation in agrivoltaic systems using semi-transparent photovoltaic technology[edit | edit source]

Gorjian, S.; Bousi, E.; Özdemir, Ö.E.; Trommsdorff, M.; Kumar, N.M.; Anand, A.; Kant, K.; Chopra, S.S. Progress and Challenges of Crop Production and Electricity Generation in Agrivoltaic Systems Using Semi-Transparent Photovoltaic Technology. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2022, 158, 112126, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2022.112126.

For rice output to be at least 80% of control, shading rate was between 27% and 39%
No significant impact on greenhouse microclimate if 40% of roof area covered by PVs

Integration of c-Si Semi-transparent Photovoltaics (STPV)

System
- South-facing greenhouse; crop: lettuce and tomatoes; cover ratio: 20%
35-40% reduction in light and reduced air temperature, no major difference in growth of lettuce/tomatoes
Payback period was found to be 9 years
STPV configuration provides better yield than checkerboard arrangement

c-Si STPV

Diffuse films with STPV modules may improve agricultural yield as more light reaches lower parts of the plant
When compared with traditional PVs, better light penetration and higher yields achieved

Thin Film PV

Mostly used in greenhouses due to lower performance and high costs

Organic Photovoltaics (OPV)

Uses UV or IR for electricity and lets visible spectrum to pass
Can be used as a substitute for plastics in greenhouses and in place of foils /nets for open spaces
OPVs offer improved light control and better integration with environment
OPVs less stable
- Hence, not much commercial appetite
- Lowers lifetime when compared with c-Si PV
More research required to understand crop response

Dye-sensitized Solar Cell (DSSC)

Electrochemical device using light-absorbing dye molecules to generate electricity from irradiation
Provide selective spectrum absorption characteristic - similar to OPVs
More aesthetic/more colorful - perhaps better social acceptance; flexible and lightweight
Ability to operate under diffuse light conditions
Through application of light scattering layer, light absorption can be increased (sunlight scatter when it reaches to the canopy)

Concentrated PV (CPV)

Diffuse sunlight passes through CPV - can be used for AV applications
Can generate higher electricity when compared with c-Si PV for the same diffuse light
More research required to understand crop response

Wavelength Selected PV (WSPV)

Can substitute plastic and glass coverings for greenhouses
Initial studies indicate better plant response for WSPV

A review of research on agrivoltaic systems[edit | edit source]

Mamun, M.A.A.; Dargusch, P.; Wadley, D.; Zulkarnain, N.A.; Aziz, A.A. A Review of Research on Agrivoltaic Systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2022, 161, 112351, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2022.112351.

France - no significant difference observed between AV and control configuration for mean daily air temperature
Germany - reduced air temperature under PV when compared with control configuration
Some researchers found similar temperature while others found major difference in humidity and daily air temperatures - reason could be ground clearance, confiiguration or shading pattern
Wind speed - wind speed found different at different ground clearance levels while wind direction was random
Soil Temperature - soil temperature reduces under the PVs when compared with open conditions
Daily Temperature - major disparity in mean daily air temperature for AV and control configurations - for AV slightly lower
Humidity - difference in humidity observed - during summer, daily change in humidity was less under PVs
Wind speed - large AV systems can change wind profile
Changing soil temperatures impacted the leaf emission rate in cucumbers and lettuce
Soil Moisture - changes observed due to varying shades
Crop Temperature and Growth Rate - crop temperature did not change for AV or control configurations while the growth was similar as well
Vapor Pressure Deficit - VPD lower (0.52 + 0.15 kPA) in AV system when compared with open air
PAR - Quite low for shaded regions in AV configuration
For tomato, 50% of incoming radiation makes up the required PAR
In situation of water scarcity, maize yield is found to be better in AV configuration
Perennial pasture perform satisfactorily in AV configurations
Crops perform better under under amorphous silicon (a-Si) and cadmium telluride (CdTe) PV when compared with mc-Si (crystalline silicon) PVs
Efficiency of PV reduced by 0.5% as air temperature increases by 10oC
PV temperature are found 8.9 + 0.2 oC less in AV configuration than for conventional PV plants
Recommended ground clearance - 4m; while inter-row spacing - 6.4m
Approx. 2% of agricultural land is covered with installation for AV - impact crop yield
Irradiation reduces 15-40% in AV configuration
Lettuce performs satisfactorily till 30% reduced irradiation
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) - payback period is 9 years for AV, 8 for ground-mounted and 6 for roof-mounted

Future Works

Economics of AV - detailed modelling

Agrivoltaic systems have the potential to meet energy demands of electric vehicles in rural Oregon, US[edit | edit source]

Agrivoltaic Systems Have the Potential to Meet Energy Demands of Electric Vehicles in Rural Oregon, US | Scientific Reports Available online: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-08673-4 (accessed on 26 February 2023).

25% of CO2 emissions world-wide comes from fossil fuels
Range anxiety is a mjor challenge for Electric Vehicles (EVs) expansion/adoption
Customers are comfortable if the distance between EV chargin stations is below 5 kms
3% of land is required in Oregon, US to power 86% of rural highway access points through AV

Future Works

Similar study for Canadian provinces

Agrivoltaic system: Experimental analysis for enhancing land productivity and revenue of farmers[edit | edit source]

Giri, N.C.; Mohanty, R.C. Agrivoltaic System: Experimental Analysis for Enhancing Land Productivity and Revenue of Farmers. Energy for Sustainable Development 2022, 70, 54–61, doi:10.1016/j.esd.2022.07.003.

System: 0.675 kWp; 11m2 of land; gap between solar panel - lower row 0.01m and upper row 0.65m; inter-row spacing 3.1m
Location: Odisha, India
70-75% shading from AV observed - microclimate for turmeric growth maintained while air temperature under PV reduced 1 to 1.5 oC when compared with ambient
Irradiation between the panels similar to control configuration
Economically advantageous to have AV

Results:

Annual electricity output for AV - 1120 kWh; without crops - 1024 kWh
Turmeric yield for AV - 16 kg; without AV - 18.5 kg
LER for AV with turmeric cultivation - 1.73

Keyword: Agrivoltaic

Computational fluid dynamics modelling of microclimate for a vertical agrivoltaic system[edit | edit source]

Zainali, S.; Qadir, O.; Parlak, S.C.; Lu, S.M.; Avelin, A.; Stridh, B.; Campana, P.E. Computational Fluid Dynamics Modelling of Microclimate for a Vertical Agrivoltaic System. Energy Nexus 2023, 9, 100173, doi:10.1016/j.nexus.2023.100173.

World's total primary energy consumption - 165,319 TWh (2021)
AV system investigated in Sweden; vertical E-W configuration and bifacial PVs used
Solar irradiance estimated from CFD simulations were near to the measured values although undervalued (especially for cloudy conditions)
Solar insolation on ground changes massively for vertical AV systems - found a reduction of 38% on a given day
Temperature of PV module can also be determined from CFD model - error between 0-2oC as compared to thermography
Ground temperature may also be predicted from CFD model - error less than 1oC
0.3oC increase in air temperature also observed for AV

The development of utility‑scale solar projects on US agricultural land: opportunities and obstacles[edit | edit source]

Daniels, T.L. The Development of Utility-Scale Solar Projects on US Agricultural Land: Opportunities and Obstacles. Socio Ecol Pract Res 2023, doi:10.1007/s42532-023-00139-9.

Large solar farms need to be less than one mile in distance from substation/transmission line to ensure economic viability
AV increases the cost of a conventional solar project by 5 to 50% considering height of stilt mounted panels
To protect farmland, the developer may be required to fill a bond for restoration works - might improve social acceptance
A mitigation levy can be introduced for any farmland transformed to solar farm - restricting only solar development
Crop yield must be at least 66% in Germany for AV; in France, 80%

Crop-driven optimization of agrivoltaics using a digital-replica framework[edit | edit source]

Mengi, E.; Samara, O.A.; Zohdi, T.I. Crop-Driven Optimization of Agrivoltaics Using a Digital-Replica Framework. Smart Agricultural Technology 2023, 4, 100168, doi:10.1016/j.atech.2022.100168.

Model agrivoltaic system through digital replica and genomic optimization framework
- Incident solar radiations are simulated for an identified crop, location and season
- Incident light abosrbed by PVs and crops are estimated
The estimates are input into crop model for ascertaining AV performance
Genomic optimization technique is used to come up the most suitable agrivoltaic design for a particular crop, season and location

Method

Solar angles are estimated from pysolar
- Irradiation acquired from weather files
SIMPLE crop model used in the paper
- Growth stage of crop is determined based on crop temperature (cumulative thermal time)
- Daily biomass growth is ascertained using the growth stage and incident along with other variables
Light is used to estimate the irradiation levels absorbed at ground as well as by solar PVs
The reference and agrivoltaic crop yield is estimated using SIMPLE model throught the estimated irradiation
Structure is developed using Python 3.9
A secondary program is then used to determine the optimal configuration which takes inputs from ligth model, crop model and other sources
The secondary program estimates crop biomass, evapotranspiration, water and light for different designs for optimization

Results

The best design was with close to vertical panels
28.9% reduction is cost esimtated from the best configuration
Reference yield: 1.70 tons/acre; AV yield: 1.43 tons - 18% loss in AV design

The potential for agrivoltaics to enhance solar farm cooling[edit | edit source]

Williams, H.J.; Hashad, K.; Wang, H.; Max Zhang, K. The Potential for Agrivoltaics to Enhance Solar Farm Cooling. Applied Energy 2023, 332, 120478, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.120478.

Objective: Understanding the implication of changing height of PV panels, albedo and evapotranspiration
Study conducted for fixed tilt system located in Sarnia, Ontario; tilt 25 degrees; spacing between arrays - 4m
With agriculture underneat the panels, more light is reflected - hence, reduced panel temperatures (according to one study 0.09oC/10% increase in reflection
Shading and radiation simulations are used to ascertain the min. height of panels convenient for crop growth
CFD model used to estimate the results
Root mean square error for temperature estimate - 1.91oC; Coefficient of determination - 0.98

Results

Compared with PV panel temperature at 0.5m for a normal PV site, 10oC temperature reduction can be achieved for PV panel installed at 4m above ground with crops (soybeans) underneath
Lower reflection - higher PV temperature as higher amounts of radiation absorbed in the ground and emitted as sensible heat; the cooling effect with higher reflection values is more prominent for cases without evapotranspiration than with evapotranspiration
In case of agricultural cover underneath - water particles (evaporated) may absorb reflected radiation; resulting in cooling of PVs - the cooling effect though is reduced with increased reflection values
In case of low albedo, the PV panel height has greater effect on PV panel's cooling as more radiation is emitted as heat - as albedo decreases, cooling effect increases with increased panel height
Increasing panel height to perform passive cooling is dependent of site conditions as well
Overall, PV panel temperature reduces as panel heights, reflectiviton is increased with inclusion of evapotranspiration

Economic Efficiency of Climate Smart Agriculture Technology: Case of Agrophotovoltaics[edit | edit source]

Mo, T.; Lee, H.; Oh, S.; Lee, H.; Kim, B.H.S. Economic Efficiency of Climate Smart Agriculture Technology: Case of Agrophotovoltaics. Land 2023, 12, 90, doi:10.3390/land12010090.

Generalized least square (GLS) used to ascertain profitability of AV
Generalized method of moments (GMM) used tp ascertain productivity of farm
AV installation is economically beneficial than not installing
AV is more beneficial in areas of low agricultural productivity
Crop productivity and AV profitability have inverse trend
AV more suited to be adopted by farmers of low-productivity agricultural land
Government should support small-scale farmers - especially financially

Designing Plant Transparent PV[edit | edit source]

Stallknecht, E.J.; Herrera, C.K.; Yang, C.; King, I.; Sharkey, T.D.; Lunt, R.R.; Runkle, E.S. Designing Plant–Transparent Agrivoltaics. Sci Rep 2023, 13, 1903, doi:10.1038/s41598-023-28484-5.

Each waveband within the PAR spectrum impact plant growth/morphology
Green light spectrum better at penetrating in the regions of plant which are shaded
Crops: herb basil, petunia and tomato investigated
Basil: Yield increases as daily light integral (DLI) was in between 6 to 12 mol/m2-day; not much impact when DLI increased above 12
Petunia: Yield increases as daily light integral (DLI) was in between 6 to 12 mol/m2-day; not much impact when DLI increased above 12
Tomato: Tomato yield increased linearly with DLI - any reduction alleviates tomato yield
One study indicated 25% shading can be tolerated by crops; upto 40% shading can be helpful in spring/summer while DLI's reduction during early springs/winters may be deterimental
Semi-transparent PVs shall be designed to absorb blue and green spectrum (more electrical output) than redu and far red spectrum (enhanced yield) - crops: lettuce, kale, geranium and snapdragon
Reduced DLI incrases stem length for tomato and decrease stem radii for basil and tomato
Crop quality was impacted anyhow with reduced DLI

Integrating Agrivoltaic Systems into Local Industries: A Case Study and Economic Analysis of Rural Japan[edit | edit source]

Nakata, H.; Ogata, S. Integrating Agrivoltaic Systems into Local Industries: A Case Study and Economic Analysis of Rural Japan. Agronomy 2023, 13, 513, doi:10.3390/agronomy13020513.

Objective: To ensure AV configuration bodes well within the community and minimizes adverse/undesirable implications
Location: Ine, Japan; core industry: Fisheries; crop: soybeans (as it is used as a feed to fishes)
For the research, problems associated with AV include safety, implications on local economy as well as contrasting output of agriculture and electricity
To ensure sustainable development, the model system considered the following
- Safety of solar panel installation for AVs ensured by following recommended practices/standards
- Land use condition included only reduction of agricultural output by 20% from reference yield
- AV systems to imporve economic condition of the region through financial gains, employment, industrialization
The model shall further comply the following
- AV to be installed on abandoned agricultural areas
  - Advantage - yield reduction to 20% limitation is not applicable
- Land Area Occupation Ratio (LAOR) to be kept at or below 35%; allows crop rotations but reduces electrical output
- Plants aiding food production and supplied to local industries to be employed
Identifying Abandoned Agricultural Land
- Literature suggested only 1 ha or less
- Interviews and surveys conducted
- GIS technique used to estimate abandoned farmland
- Total found out to be 52.9 ha
Electrical output for a single year is determined with varying LAOR
Agricultural production for soybean was esitmated for the same piece of land used for further processing
Based on the agricultural output, increased aquaculture production was estimated
For economic estimation
- Sales of electricity, soybeans, soybean oil, soybean oil cake, aquaculture feed, and farmed fish (yellowtail) were defined as sales generated by AVS projects
Three different scenarios considered for CAPEX of the project (50kWac)
OPEX of the project also calcuated for one year
Area focused in the research has electrical potential of92% compared to the area's annual requirement, financial output of 108.9% compared to the location's gross regional product, 69.4% reduction in GHG emissions
Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE): 14.94 - 25.45 euro cents/kWh - high due to low electricity output and high CAPEX
Ripple effect of AV on local industries also esimtated
Interviews suggest better acceptance of AV on abandoned farmland

A sustainable development pattern integrating data centers and pasture-based agrivoltaic systems for ecologically fragile areas[edit | edit source]

Zhang, J.; Wang, T.; Chang, Y.; Liu, B. A Sustainable Development Pattern Integrating Data Centers and Pasture-Based Agrivoltaic Systems for Ecologically Fragile Areas. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2023, 188, 106684, doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106684.

Objective: To come up with a system tying up data centers (DCs) and sustainable electricity through pasture-based photovoltaics (PPV) and understand its viability
Data centers are huge consumers of electricity; increase electricity requirements
Location: Qinghai Bigdata Industrial Park
Electrical production model is dependent on the required energy and atmospheric conditions - installation capacity and required area is ascertained
Study determined the electrical demand of DCs, electrical output from photovoltaic panels, decreased GHGs due to offset of electricity from PV and C stock enhancement as barren land is transformed to grassland
- Power requirement for DCs - 5.046e7 kWh per year
- PPV capacity - 1.363 e7 kWH per year
- GHG reduced - 10965.4 tCO2 equivalent (dependent on power usage effectiveness (PUE))
Cost benefit analysis (CBA) is performed for socio-commercial assessment - Input-output method used
Environmental impact is mainfested from the GHGs reduction
Promising results for PPV and DC integration observed - from the base model, other provinces studies as well

Spectral-splitting concentrator agrivoltaics for higher hybrid solar energy conversion efficiency[edit | edit source]

Zhang, Z.; Zhang, F.; Zhang, W.; Li, M.; Liu, W.; Ali Abaker Omer, A.; Zheng, J.; Zhang, X.; Liu, W. Spectral-Splitting Concentrator Agrivoltaics for Higher Hybrid Solar Energy Conversion Efficiency. Energy Conversion and Management 2023, 276, 116567, doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2022.116567.

Spectral-splitting concentrator agrivoltaics (SCAPV) used for selective wavelength transmission for crop cultivation and absorptance for electrical output
PV cell efficiency - highest 26.7 %; photosynthetic efficiency 4.6% for C3 and 6% for C4 plants
Blue, red and far-red light used by plants; even excess radiation within PAR is radiated out and dissipated as heat
- a-Si - not easy to control transmission;
- organic photovoltaics (OPVs) - narrow spectrum range transmission (PAR passes through while only UV/IR used for electricity generation), transmission less than 10-20%
- dye sensitized solar cells (DSSC) - use dye sensitizers for absorption; provides less flexibility, however, high transparency
- perovskite cells (PVSCs) - high transparency, low absorptance, manufactured through element control tuning the band gap
Reduced heat removal from the crop and photoinhibition; shows excessive radiation not taking part in photosynthesis can be used
Preparation of SCAPV is done using two poylmers with different properties (refractive indices) allowing spectral transmission - multilayer polymer film (MPF)
- MPF - transmission 87% between wavelength range of 397 nm to 493 nm and 604 nm to 852 nmPlant yield increased 13% and heat dissipation 50%
Parabolic trough concentrator (PTC) of SCAPV - dual axis tracking system used; 6.1m inter-row distance
Efficiency of SCAPV is esimated through calculations and practically through measurements; microclimate measurements are also performed
65% transparency achieved in the wavelength range from 400 - 800nm
Photons not taking part in photosynthesis (green light and IR) is reflected

Results

Due to spectrum selective transmission results in PCE (power conversion efficiency) of 9.9% - experimentally through I-V curves
Efficiency of split sunlight versys complete sunlight is 54% for a silicon cells - normal PV efficiency was 22.5% from supplier; PV efficiency estimated to be 10.35%
Levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of $0.033/kWh; yearly electricity generation 80 kWh/m2 despite SCAPV operating mainly on direct irradiation
Biomass increased by 13% - crops: potato and lettuce;
Nonphotochemical Quenching (NPQ) - used as a measure for heat dissipation; under SCAPV NPQ reduces while under normal setting (without SCAPV) higher NPQ observed
Air and soil temperature under SCAPV were lower; soil-water nexus improved
Combined efficiency - conversion of solar energy into biomass 39% higher than normal sunlight

Techno‑economic analysis of PV systems installed by using innovative strategies for smart sustainable agriculture farms[edit | edit source]

Aziz, Y.; Janjua, A.K.; Hassan, M.; Anwar, M.; Kanwal, S.; Yousif, M. Techno-Economic Analysis of PV Systems Installed by Using Innovative Strategies for Smart Sustainable Agriculture Farms. Environ Dev Sustain 2023, doi:10.1007/s10668-023-02919-5.

Feasibilty study performed for different cities in Pakistan to install solar PV system for agricultural farms
14.5 kW (small-scale) and 145 kW (large-scale) PV system established
Technical, financial and environmental implications studies for farmlands - positive impact in all faucets

Agrivoltaics: The Environmental Impacts of Combining Food Crop Cultivation and Solar Energy Generation[edit | edit source]

Wagner, M.; Lask, J.; Kiesel, A.; Lewandowski, I.; Weselek, A.; Högy, P.; Trommsdorff, M.; Schnaiker, M.-A.; Bauerle, A. Agrivoltaics: The Environmental Impacts of Combining Food Crop Cultivation and Solar Energy Generation. Agronomy 2023, 13, 299, doi:10.3390/agronomy13020299.

To ascertain environmental impacts of converting farmland to AV using Consequential Life-Cycle Assessment (CLCA)
Closed AV - refers to greenhouse; Open AV divided in to two categories - overhead (modules mounted as highg as 2 to 7m) and interspace
2% of the area is used for PV installation ibn AV configuration - less area remains for cultivation
1 hectare farm is converted to overhead AV configuration for enivronmental assessment
16 impacts categories used based on Product Environmental Footprint methodology
software openLCA 1.10.3 used for modelling and impact calculation
0.15 additional land is required to compensate for the loss in agricultural production - chiefly due to shading and area loss
Loss of arable restricted to 10% and agricultural output reduction to 34% in Germany for AV to qualify

Results

Environmental impact categories - 15 out 16 showed positive influence (climate change, fossil resource use etc.)
Alleviated 572.94t CO2-eq due to conversion of 1 ha land
Fossil energy reduction - 6745 GJ
Only negative impact is the resource use, minerals and metals - due to production of PV and balance of system (BOS)

Worldwide Research Trends in Agrivoltaic Systems—A Bibliometric Review[edit | edit source]

Chalgynbayeva, A.; Gabnai, Z.; Lengyel, P.; Pestisha, A.; Bai, A. Worldwide Research Trends in Agrivoltaic Systems—A Bibliometric Review. Energies 2023, 16, 611, doi:10.3390/en16020611.

Bibliometric analysis carried out using SCOPUS
121 articles reviewed in total after screening
Major research performed in last three years - mostly in US and China
Yield reductions of 20% observed in few studies, while some showed increase in yield under hot climates
One study indicated that almost 70% of sheep grazing was performed under shades of PV in AV configuration when irradiance was 800 W/m2 or more - same study showed 5.19 MWh of annual electrical production, 2.77 tons of GHG emission reduction and economic advantage of 740$ annually
CO2 emission reduction potential of AV is between 20-55%
Economic value of traditional agriculture increases by 30% when AV is employed
With transparency of 68% and no adverse implications on agriculture, AV can produce 200 kWh/m2 of energy
LCOE of AV found out to be 38% higher when compared with GM-PV (Groun-mounted Photovoltaics) due to high intial capital investiment; in Germany CAPEX was 73% higher
OPEX reduction for AV is 13% when comapred with conventional PV
IRR was greater than 8% for AV with 20% yield reduction
Global land productivity can be increased between 35% to 73% by employing AV
More research required on economics of AV

A Case Study of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicon var. Legend) Production and Water Productivity in Agrivoltaic Systems[edit | edit source]

Publisher: MDPI; Publication: Sustainability; Year: 2021; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: Fixed tilt, south facing; Location: Corvallis, OR, USA; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:
Water Productivity
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: N/A
- Unit: kg/m3
- Quantification Method: Calculated
- Implication analyzed: Yes
- Comments: N/A
Crop Yield
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: N/A
- Unit: kg/ha
- Quantification Method: Calculated
- Implication analyzed:N/A
- Comments: N/A
Introduction
- Solar installations are on the rise - 104% rise in 2018; this may cause land use conflict
- Agrivoltaics can solve this problem - increase land procuctivity by 60-70% instead
- Various studies suggested different impacts on agrivoltaics on solar radiation, crop yield, relative humidity, temperature, soil moisture, water consumption etc.
- Goal: The implications of agrivoltaic system on tomato production and water productivity
Methods
- Location: Corvallis, OR, USA
- East-west oriented; South-oriented; Tilt: 18 degrees; 0.8m above ground from the lowest height and 2.2m from highest
- Installed capacity: 482 kW
- Three different configurations studied; tomatoes grown on 1) control plots, 2) in between rows of PVs and 3) underneath PVs
- Two different irrigation regimes used - full (watering started when the soil water content (SWC) reached 75% of total available capcity) and deficit (watering started when the soil water contennt reached 40% of total available capacity)
- Inter-row spacing: 3m
- Soil mositure sensors, installed 0.15m below the ground, were used to control irrigation
- Water productivity is the amount of water applied to the crops during a season
- Dry biomass measurements of tomatoes were performed to compare the yields for different configurations
Results and Discussion
- Distribution Uniformity: 09 treatments below 70% and 04 above 70%; variation due to defects in emitters and tubing
- Uniformity Coefficient: between 70% and 99.5%
- Microclimate changes - air temperature, soil temperature and relative humidity was different barring a few configurations; mean volumetric water content was different for all configurations
- Evapotranspiration: higher in control area than row plot area
- The two rows for each configuration also showed different results; northern row (named a) showed higher yield, water demand and water use productivity as compared to southern row (named b)
- Total yield:
  - Control: fully irrigated a, b (47,160 kg/ha, 36,340 kg/ha), and deficit a, b (38,690 kg/ha, 36,440 kg/ha);
  - In-between-the-rows: fully irrigated a, b (29,000 kg/ha, 19,000 kg/ha) and deficit a, b (30,000 kg/ha, 20,000 kg/ha)
  - Underneath the panels: fully irrigated a, b (19,500 kg/ha, 12,000 kg/ha) and deficit a, b (26,000 kg/ha, 22,000 kg/ha)
- Water Treatment
  - Control: full a and b, deficit a and b, (3.15 m3, 2.94 m3, 2.02 m3, and 1.82 m3)
  - In-between-the-rows: full a and b, deficit a and b, (1.50 m3, 1.40 m3, 0.59 m3, and 0.72 m3)
  - Underneath the panels: full a and b, deficit a and b, (1.55 m3, 1.28 m3, 0.65 m3, and 0.70 m3)
- Water productivity
  - More in panel full and deficit, and row full and deficit compared to other configurations
  - Control: full a and b, deficit a and b, ( 22 kg/m3, 33 kg/m3, 35 kg/m3, and 39 kg/m3)
  - In-between-the-rows: full a and b, deficit a and b, (40 kg/m3, 25 kg/m3, 93.11 kg/m3, and 48 kg/m3)
  - Underneath the panels: full a and b, deficit a and b, ( 23 kg/m3, 18 kg/m3, 68.90 kg/m3, and 60.31kg/m3)
  - Shading leads to additional water productivity
Results and Discussion
- Water scarce areas can benefit from agrivoltaics as water requirements diminish
- Economic anlaysis needs to be carried out to ascertain viability
- Water productivity may further improve if distribution is more uniform
- Air temperature found highest in control and row configuraiton and lowest underneath the panels
- Relative humidity found highest in the row followed by control and underneath the panels
- Soil temperatuer decreased with increased shading
- Crop yield was highest in control followed by row and then panel - reduced with increased shading
- Water productivity highest in shading and deficit irrigation schemes

A Cost–Benefit Analysis for Utility-Scale Agrivoltaic Implementation in Italy[edit | edit source]

Publisher: MDPI; Publication: Energies; Year: 2023; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: ; Location: Italy; PV Power: 1MW; Energy: ; Efficiency:
Cost Benefit Anlaysis
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: N/A
- Unit: N/A
- Quantification Method: Calculated
- Implication analyzed: N/A
- Comments: N/A
Introduction
- One major issue with solar PV - low power-density energy source; hence large area requirements
- This causes land-use competition; apprehensions for agricultural use
- Goal: Carry out a cost-benefit analsysis to ascertain if agrivoltaic (AV) plant will be beneficial over ground-mounted PV (GMPV) in Italy
Methods
- Price-performance Ratio (ppr): Evaltes cost-effectiveness of the agrivoltaic's electricity production by comparing the benefits gained throughout its entire operational lifespan; considers the initial capital and ongoing operational expenses, as well as the revenue generated from agricultural activities
- LCOE: Ratio of the cost for a PV plant and the electrical energy generated in its entir life span
- Performance Benefit: Yearly revenue acquired from preserving the land through agrivoltaics installation for cropping activity w.r.t the yearly revenue generated from cropping activity compliant with GMPV
- Net Present Value: Sum of present value of one-yearly cash flows
Results & Discussion
- Occupied area for AV = 2.5 ha; power density for AV = 40 W/m2; Occupied area for GMP = 1.25 ha; power density for GMPV = 80 W/m2
- Regions with crops Durum Wheat, Common Wheat, Corn, Sunflower, Soybean, and Potato considered
- Agricultural revenue is not that much to make AV favorable in comparison to ground mounted PV unless incentivized apart from regions of potato where AV can be a possible option
- Price-performance Ratio comes out to be greater than one for all cases except for potato which too in a few regions only
- NPV result shows that only 6% of the crops will be profitable for AV w.r.t GMPV
- AV does not seem advantageous dueto high initial costs unless incentives such as feed-in-tariffs are provided; although it will be helpful in addressing land-abandonment issues and departure from rural areas
- For high-reveneue cropland such as potatoes, AV can have an economic advantage with value of ppr going below 1 - this is however is higly location dependent
- AV can be targetted on agricultural land that are abandoned or where crops are grown manually requiring less equipment
Conclusion
- Due to higher installation cost, AV is not economically advantageous when compared to GMPV
- Financial incentives should be provided for AV diffusion
- Targetted areas should include land which may be abandoned due to lower-reveneue crops cultivation
- Only using a few percent of such abandoned lands in Italy will be more than enough to meet the PV targets of the country for the year 2030

A First Investigation of Agriculture Sector Perspectives on the Opportunities and Barriers for Agrivoltaics[edit | edit source]

Publisher: MDPI; Publication: Agronomy; Year: 2020; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: ; Location: ; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:
Perception of the Technology
- Quantified: N/A
- Low or High: N/A
- Unit: N/A
- Quantification Method: N/A
- Implication analyzed: N/A
- Comments: N/A
Introduction
- The increase in solar PV farms have resulted in issues for land-use competition - agriculture vs energy generation
- Diffusion of agrivoltaics will be based on economics and enivronmental factors
- Goal: Use diffusion of innovations theory to refine agrivoltaic technology so that it becomes socially accepted which will promote its diffusion - also, what are the potential opportunities and barriers
Methods
- Interviews to ascertain the perception of agriculturists for the oppportunities and barriers of agrivoltaics
- Emails floated to introduce agrivoltaics followed by online discussions (10 interviews with 11 people)
- Excercise continued unless saturation in data was observed i.e., no new points were highlighted by the individuals
Results and Discusssion
- Main challenge is the long term viability of the land i.e., its quality being affected due to agrivotlaics employment and land productivity
  - Land-use plan or long-term plan (especially between farmers and solar industry) would be helpful in ensuring land viability and addressing this concern
- Market uncertainty, uncertainty in productivity and security of investment is the second concern
  - Flexibility and adaptation to changing market conditions can help address this challenge
- Just compensation when engaging agrivoltaics project is also required
- If the benefits of the technology are visible, the participants were found willing to adopt it - observability
- Relative advantage of the technology was deemed worthwhile
- An opportunity for the farmers was that the technology could be integrated with current practices of farming - integration and evolution of the technology must take care of that
- Other barrires: Life cycle impact from solar infrastructure, solar installations disrupting farming operations and hindering agricultural production, uncertainties surrounding operational procedures and planning
- Future work should focus on the changes in perception of the technology based on geography and occupations, increased education and outreach, practical demonstrations and experiments, market perceptions, policies
Conclusion
- Benefits of agrivoltaics are largely acknowledged
- Main barriers included long-term productivity of land, market potential, financial compensation and system flexibility for integration with farming operations
- These apprehensions can be used as opportunities to improve the technology to ensure its wide-scale adoption

A sustainable development pattern integrating data centers and pasture-based agrivoltaic systems for ecologically fragile areas[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Elsevier; Publication: Resources, Conservation & Recycling; Year: 2022; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: ; Location: Hainan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture (Hainan), Qinghai Province, China; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:
Supplement Data Centers from electricity generated via AV
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: 1.362×10E7
- Unit: kWh
- Quantification Method: Calculated
- Implication analyzed: Yes
- Comments: The same amount of energy was translated to determine equivalent CO2 reduction
Reduction in GHGs
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: 10,965.4 tCO2e
- Unit: tons of CO2 equivalent
- Quantification Method: Calculated
- Implication analyzed: N/A
- Comments: N/A
C-stock
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: 139.66 tons
- Unit: tons
- Quantification Method: Calculated
- Implication analyzed: Yes
- Comments: number was translated to CO2 equivalent reduction
Introduction
- Increased use of data centers in today's world seeks new avenues for electricity supply, especially from renewable sources
- Goal: To provide a model incorporating large-scale PV plant to power DC industries in environmentally challenged locations, thus supporting the economy and benefitting the ecology
- Pastureland in Gobi is selected for developing the model; wlectricity from which is used to supplement the energy reqiurement for DCs
Methods
- Step 1: Develop a model incorporating large unused land where pasture is grown, large PV plants, and data centers and interlink them
- Step 2: Cost benefit analysis is also performed to identify parameters to ensure a positive NPV
  - Improved carbon performance and cost implications from dedesertification are also ascertained in financial terms
- Step 3: Based on step 2, identify locations in China suitable for the system and run analysis for the environmental and socioeconomic potential
- Power consumption of the DC is calcuated based on energy requirements of servers which in turn is used to calculated the capacity and locations of PV systems as well as the coverage area
- Environmental benefits are three-fold
  - GHG reduction due to reduced cooling requirement in cold areas
  - GHG reduction as PV-based electricity replaces fossil-fuel based electricity
  - C-stock by the pastureland
- Revenue model included the benefits to environment in monetary terms for the agrivoltaic-DC coupling
- Input/output model used to ascertain secondary benefits of AV-DC coupling
Results & Disussion
- Electricity generated by PV: 1.362×10E7 kWh; Area coverage of PV panel: 38,418 m2; Using land-use factor of 0.45; total area of PV system: 85,374 m2
- CO2 reduction due to electricity substitution from renewable source: 10,965.4 tCO2e per annum
- PV panel coverage was used to calculate c-stock; 1-hm2 increment in PVs can enhance C stock by 35.94 tons; for this study 139.66 tons of c-stock was increased meaning 512 tonnes of CO2 equivalent can be alleviated through pasture/grass growth
- Technical, environmental and economic parameters that made NPV 0 were identified - these parameters indicate what are the feasible conditions for AV-DC coupling
  - Environmental revenue from pasture: 83,231.2 yuan
  - Economics of DCs depend more on rent and server utilization than the cost
  - PAsture-based PV reduced the risks of PV due to additional benefits
  - Electricity pricing, solar potential and PV tech also impacted the economics of AV
- Minimum electricity price=0.3719 yuan/kWh, this is lower than the average electricity price for industrial uses in the region
- Economics for AV system were rn with different scenarios such as subsidies, land use cost etc.
- Areas with solar irradiation of more than 6000 MJ/(m2y) are feasible for AV-DC coupling systems
  - 5 regions identified
- The Data Centers in the 5 locations can save 398,676 MWh electricity; 10,036 tons of carbon stock (36,798 tCO2e) from grassland, 9.8 million yuan of desertification control cost and alleviate 797,028 tCO2e carbon emissions per annum
- Based on the planned DCs in the near future, 600,000 MWh of electrical energy can be saved, more than 1140 hectares of Gobi can be transformed to pastureland, 150,262 tCO2e carbon stock can be increased that can be translated to 7.5 million yuan by selling the grassland carbon sink, more than 39 million yuan can be saved through desert management and 3252,935 tCO2e emissions can be reduced through electricity substitution
Conclusion
- Development of data centers in cold climate with good solar potential is feasible to address its energy requirements and impact on GHG
- The paper proposes copuling DC with AV installation on grassland and reviews its economical, environmental and climatic condition
- Installation of such system in areas with good solar outlook and weak environmental conditions is proven to be beneficial - both economically and environmentally
  - The price of electricity generated through AV is still high - hence, policies required to improve it

A Validated Model, Scalability, and Plant Growth Results for an Agrivoltaic Greenhouse[edit | edit source]

Publisher: MDPI; Publication: Sustainability; Year: 2022; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: Greenhouse PV; Location: ; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:
Growing Kale during Winter Season
- Quantified: No
- Low or High:
  - Unit: Nil
- Quantification Method:None
- Implication analyzed: Yes
- Comments:
Introduction
- With increased amount of solar PV plant, there are apprehensions that farmers may start leasing the agricultural land to solar companies as it is a reliable source of income - agrivoltaics can avoid this
- PV topologies for agrivotlaics can either be interspersed, greenhouse mounted or stilt mounted
- The model does not consider CO2 concentration, however, considers transient heat conduction in the ground
- Heat is trapped inside the greenhouse (referred to as test cell) due to convection and radiation
- The inside temperatures remain above the ambient due to greenhouse effect allowing extended growing season with the requriement of external heating
Methods
- Panels facing east and west; tilt: 35.5 degree
- An 8-inch PC window on the top, placed between the two panels, allows sunlight in and helps plant grow
- The other walls are sealed by plywood along with R-10 insulation
- The test cell is also provided with concrete which adds thermal mass to the system
- Pyranometers, temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and wind direction sensors were installed on the system
- Plant tested: Kale
- Total leaf area of the palnt from the test cell and control configuration was calculated using leaf length, width measurements
- Plant dry mass was also calculated for a normal greenhouse, test cell and control configurations
Results
- Validation
  - Thermal model - daily max temp differed by 1.9oC while daily min temp differed by 1.5oC
  - Moisture transport model - relative humidity did not provide good results
  - Shadowing model - excellent synergy except late in the day when the model over-predicted
- Experimental
  - Daytime temperatures was greater than ambient most of the time while the opposite was true for night
  - Plant growth was slow in winter in the greenhouse but better in control - however, later the plants in the greenhouse caught up
- Numerical
  - Increasing the north-south dimension of greenhouse increased heating during the day
  - Increasing the area of PC window increased daily maximum temperatures
  - Internal maximum temperatures reduces when a load is powered from the PV
  - Removing the concrete block reduced the max temp and increased min temp - might be helpful in maintaining the avg temp of the cell
- The center area under the PV window was found to be the most suitable for Kale - areas close to east-west received low sunlight
- In control configuration, the temperatures remained near the ideal temperature required for Kale more than the test cell; test cell has less below 0oC hours than control
- Shadow Model
  - The transmitted solar radiation for stilt mounted systems - 1.67m apart - 82%; 0.71m apart - 65%; test cell - 5.2%
Discussion
- Plants underneath the underneath the glazing grew well but not so much adjacent to it
- Kale remained alive during the winter
- Growing season of plants can be increased as the temperature in the greenhouse was found higher than the ambient
- Further shade tolerant crops can be investigated
- Heat transport model can be improved to provide good results for relative humidity
Conclusion
- Light levels can be increased in the greenhouse by widening the glazing area
- 36% reduction in time spent below 0oC inside greenhouses when compared with outdoor conditions
- Using electrical energy from PV will help keep the inside temperature of greenhouse to optimum - 20oC for Kale
- Stilt mounted system allow more sunlight to pass but cannot enhance growing period

Advancement in Agriculture Approaches with Agrivoltaics Natural Cooling in Large Scale Solar PV Farms[edit | edit source]

Publisher: MDPI; Publication: Agriculture; Year: 2023; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: ; Location: Puchong, Selangor, Malaysia; PV Power: 2MWp; Energy: ; Efficiency:
Increased Efficiency of Solar Cells
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: 3%
  - Unit: Percentage/kWh
- Quantification Method: Calculated
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments:
Introduction
- Large scale conventional solar farms can cause localized heating - heat island effect
- Solar panels degrade with increased heating; also reduces lifetime - several studies performed to achieve cooling of solar PVs which can enhance their efficiency
  - Active or Passive cooling systems
- Cooling system have a cost attributed to them which is a concern - agrivoltaics could be the solution though
- Previous studies have shown that the temperatures of panels reduce in an agrivoltaic system
- Goal: Ascertain impact of agrivoltaic on DC energy
Methodology
- Location: Puchong, Selangor, Malaysia; Capacity: 2MWp; Area: 5 acres; No. of modules: 8064; Crop: Misai Kucing
- Statistical approaches (ANOVA tests) used for the analysis
Results
- Ambient temp in the middle of conventional solar farm and agrivoltaic is the same
- Wind profile for both the locations is the same
- Relative humidity for agrivoltaic setting is 5% higher
- On average, 2.28% energy increase observed for agrivolaic plots; highest being 3.73%
Conclusion
- Energy increase of 3% on average was recorded due to agrivoltaic cooling effect

Agrivoltaic System and Modelling Simulation: A Case Study of Soybean (Glycine max L.) in Italy[edit | edit source]

Publisher: MDPI; Publication: Horticulture; Year: 2022; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: Full-sun tracking; Location: Monticelli d’Ongina, Italy; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:
Growing soybeans underneath the panels
- Quantified:
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Introduction
- With increased renewable energy share, issues related to land requirement may occur
- Especially agricultural land may be targetted which adversely impacts food production - AV is the answer
- Goal: To study the plant characteristics for soybean when grown under different shading intensities and also use field measurements to validate a crop model
Methodology
- Four different shading treatments compared with full-sun conditions AV1 27%, AV2 16%, AV3 9% and AV4 18%
- Crop height, chlorophyll content, Leaf Area Index (LAI) and Specific Leaf Area (SLA) as well as crop yield were the parameters that were to be measured
- Simulations were performed using crop growth model GERCOS and other alogorithms to validate it from field measurements
Results & Discussion
- Plant height was 98.25cm which is higher than full sun condition plants i.e., 87.8cm
- No large differences observed in chlorophyll content of either treatments
- LAI under shade was slightly higher in a few instances - largely the same
- Average reduction in pod number due to shading was approximately 13%, while grain yield reduction was 8%, 4.6%, 11.8% for AV1, AV3 and AV4 while AV2 observed slight increase 4.4%
- Crop yield ascertained from simulations underestimated the experimental values - but it can offer satisfactory predictions (error was between 7% and 16.5%)
- The experiment showed that the soybean is impacted by shading; but is shade tolerant
- The reduction in grain yield was less than the standard in Germany - 66% reference yield is necessary
- The reduction in grain yield was also less than that reported in previousl literatures
- Thus it is necessary to run multiple long term studies
Conclusion
- Soybean crop adapts itself to shading conditions by changing the morpohological and physiological traits
- Height of the crop, leaf area index and specific leaf area were all found to increase under AV system
- Grain yield of soybean was slightly reduced (8%) on average under AV
- Crop model simulated the crop yield satisfactorily with some error, however, it underestimates the yields with increased shading

Agrivoltaic system impacts on microclimate and yield of different crops within an organic crop rotation in a temperate climate[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Springer; Publication: Agronomy for Sustainable Development; Year: 2021; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: ; Location: near Lake Constance - Upper Swabia, Germany; PV Power: 194 kWp; Energy: 246MWh/year; Efficiency:
Growing celeriac, winter wheat, grass clover and potatoes underneath the panels
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method: Calculated
- Implication analyzed: Yes
- Comments:
Introduction
- Most studies on agrivoltaics based on simulations and modelling; shading performed using netting which do not perfectly replicate AV conditions
- 3.2m row spacing resulted in 30% reduction of sunlight
- Previous studies showed 20% decrease in rice yield due to 20% shading, increased maize grain in non-irrigated conditions but decreased when irrigated
- Goal: To ascertain the implication of micro environment on crops (celeriac, winter wheat, grass clover and potatoes) for an agrivoltaic setup
Methodology
- Location: Lake Constance-Upper Swabia; Area: 0.3 ha; power: 194 kWp; south-west oriented bifacial solar panels; tilt: 20o; row distance: 6.3m; clearance height: 5m
- Crops selected for study: celeriac, winter wheat, grass clover and potatoes
- Air humidity and temperature, soil moisture and temperature as well as PAR were measured
Results
- PAR was found 30% less in both the years for AV system
- Soil moisture was signifiantly decreased under AV - surprising
- Mean daily soil temperature was 1.2oC lower under AV in 2017 and 1.4oC in 2018
- Daily mean air temperature 1.1oC lower under AV for both years
- Air humidity higher under AV
- Canopy height/LAI of winter wheat/potato/grass clover found higher
- Grain yield of winter wheat 18.7% lower in 2017 and 2.7% higher in 2018 (hot conditions)
- Potato tuber yields 18.2% lower in 2017, 11% higher in 2018 (hot conditions) - however almost similar to national average
- Grass clover yields 5.3% lower in 2017, 7.8% lower in 2018
- 2 year average - grass clover 6.5% decrease; potato 7.2% and winter wheat 8%
- 246MWh of energy produced by AV in first cropping year
Conclusion
Microclimate have impact on crops
Plant height/LAI of all crops increased under AV - dry matter production did not see an increase though
Crop yield decreased under AV but it is beneficial in hot and dry weather - most beneficial weather for AV

Agrivoltaic systems have the potential to meet energy demands of electric vehicles in rural Oregon, US[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Nature; Publication: Scientific reports; Year: 2022; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: ; Location: Oregon, US; PV Power: 194 kWp; Energy: 246MWh/year; Efficiency:
Meeting demands of Electric Vehicles (EVs)
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: 673,915
  - Unit: Number
- Quantification Method: Calculated
- Implication analyzed: Yes
- Comments:
Reduction in CO2 emission
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: 3.1 mil MTCO2
  - Unit: mil MTCO2
- Quantification Method: Calculated
- Implication analyzed: Yes
- Comments:
25% global CO2 emission due to fossil fuels come from transport sector
EVs are potential sustainable substitutes - market share for EVs is however still low
Major concern with EV adoption is range anxiety - agrivoltaics is possible solution
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (EVCSs) infrastructure can be improved with AV without any land use issues
Results
- Land suitable for AV is identified i.e., farmland within 5 miles highway access points
- 231 access points out of the total 270 had sufficient area for AV that can serve as EVCSs
- The total area required is 5 kha
- 95% of the 231 access points have a distance of less than 27km in between them - mean distance 8.9 km
- Preferred mean distance are 4.1 km for people living in metropolis and 10.6 km for people living in towns
- 3.1` mil MTCO2 reduction is possible in Oregon through this approach
Conclusion and Discussion
- Supplementing EV charging through AV supported EVCS is feasible - needs only 3% of the land for 86% of highways access points
- With more EVCSs, the issue range anxiety might get addressed translating into more people moving towards EVs
- Reduction in CO2 emissions will be possible as well
Methods
- Evaluation of qty of land available to meet rural AVS supplemeted EVCS station (supply), amount of land required to meet the AVs-driven EVCS demand (demand), highway access points where energy required EVCS can be addressed through AV and finally the total power produced
- Supply criteria: within 8 km of access pts, designated farmland etc.
- Demand: Conservative analysis considering winter solar radiations; determined using 20-year average daily traffic, average EV eff and avg. AV eff.
- Comparison of supply area vs demand area performed to see if the access is valid or invalid to be employed with AV

Agrivoltaic systems to optimise land use for electric energy production[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Elsevier; Publication: Applied Energy; Year: 2018; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: Stilt mounted two axis solar tracking; Location: North Italy, Emila Romagna Region, PC; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:
Reduced soil temperatrue, evapotranspiration and water balance
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: 1 degree, 442mm, -10.3mm
  - Unit: degrees and mm
- Quantification Method: Calculated
- Implication analyzed: Yes
- Comments:
Higher dry mass
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: From graph
  - Unit: g/m2
- Quantification Method: Calculated
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments:
LER
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: Different values for 4 scenarios
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method: Calculated
- Implication analyzed: Yes
- Comments:
Introduction
- Solar PV is rapidly increasing - but land use is an issue; agrivoltaics can address the concern
- Combination of food production and PVs is normally seen in greenhouses; not much open-field applications
- Advantages of AV include protection of crops from excessive heat, soil temperature mitigation, carbon-free electricity
- Goal: 1) Simulate production of maize under different types of AVs; 2) Compare energy and yield for different types of AVs
Methodology
- Stilt mounted solar tracking system - two axis
- Crop growth simulator GERCOS used in combination with a radiation and shading model
  - Software developed by coupling them on Scilab
- Portion of soil receiving sunlight or shade with panels above is developed
- PV area was to used to calculate electricity generated over the total area of the study - 0.14 effi considered to convert solar power incident on PVs to electricity
- LER used toa ascertain productivity of land
- GERCOS predicts biomass of plant based on weather data, radiation intensity, soil water and nitrogen content
  - Photosynthesis and transpiration are the main features
  - Both sun/shade model
Results and Discussion
- Solar radiation reduction - more impact of panel density than tracking
- 1 degree reduced soil temperature, evapotranspiration lower 442 mm vs 477mm, water balance better -10.3mm vs -46mm
- Crop yield
  - Fixed panel beneficial compared to tracking
  - Panel area influence crop yield only in case of tracking
  - Average dry mass for the four agrivoltaic scenario higher than full light
- Reduced radiation and corp yield
  - Full irrigation
    - Higher yield with higher solar radiaiton for full light conditions
  - Rainfed conditions
    - In rainfed conditions; dry year; better yield under agrivoltaics
    - In rainfed conditions; not dry year - rainfall satisfied corp req.; better yield under full sun condition and yield reduced for agrivoltaic as radiation reduced
- Land equivalent ratio - above 1 for agrivoltaic systems; higher for solar tracking panels
- Simulations were performed for five scenarios - ST1 (0.135 panel area to lan ratio), ST2 (0.36); F1, F2; FL
- Standard PV considered same as ST2
- Radiation reduced in the range between 12 to 32% - may be due to increased height of panels (4.85m in te study) and panel density
- Mean evaporation saving 46mm due to AV
- Transpiration is higher under AV than FL - probably due to higher availability of water
- Shading provided a positive influence under high radiation levels for rainfed conditions
- Under rainfed conditions, AV yield higher; also more stable yield under AV each year - yield stability
- When water is scarce, AV is advantageous
- AV improves land productivity - consequence analyzed
Conclusion
Simulation-based study anlaysing different types of agrivoltaic systems (based on tracking and panel density) with maize crop and comparing with control system
Average grain yield higher under agrivoltaic in water stress conditions and rainfed conditions; lower when water is sufficiently available
Economic and environmental analysis needs to be performed for different AVs
Land equivalent ratio (LER) suggests agrivoltaics improves land productivity

Agrivoltaics Align with Green New Deal Goals While Supporting Investment in the US’ Rural Economy[edit | edit source]

Publisher: MDPI; Publication: Sustainability; Year: 2021; Lifetime: 25 years; PV Technology: ; PV Power: 457.1 GW; Energy: ; Efficiency:
Meeting electricity needs through agrivoltaics
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High:457.1
  - Unit: GWh
- Quantification Method:Calculation
- Implication analyzed:Yes
- Comments:
Reducing CO2
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: 330,470
  - Unit: metric tonnes of CO2
- Quantification Method: Calculation
- Implication analyzed:Yes (71,000 cars removal)
- Comments:
Job creation
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: 2.34 million
  - Unit: person-years
- Quantification Method: Calculation
- Implication analyzed:Yes (117,000 people employed for 20 years)
- Comments:
More food, more energy, lower water demand, lower carbon emissions and more prosperous rural community
- Quantified: No/Qualified
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments:
Introduction
- AV align well with The Green New Deal resolution (GND) - GND set objectives to keep temperatures below 1.5 and create jobs in US
- Land occupation issues associated with solar farms - especially farmland conversion
- Goal: Cost of widescale AV adoption in US (Upper bound estimate)
Methodology
- Array cost
  - 20% of 2019 electricity generated in US to come from AV
  - Panel life: 25 years, degradation: 0.5%, installation period: 10 years
  - $2/W for AV installation; $19/kWh/yr O&M cost; $1.25/W traditional PV cost
  - Using mathematical equation, total cost is determined
- Required Land
  - Avg. total area required for PV installation as per NREL was doubled - more spacing in AV
- Emissions Reduction
  - Difference between CO2 produced from grid and emissions from large scale PV as per Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
- Job Creation
  - Based on employment factors developed from Renewable Energy Focused Input-Output model
  - Calculations only related to PV - no employment for agriculture considered
- Lithium Ion Storage cost
  - NREL provides cost of 60 MW batteries for different time periods
  - Using no. of batteries and the costs, total battery cost is ascertained
  - Assuming inverters and batteries are replaced in 10 years
Results
- Total cost for 20% of US elec generation (451.7GW) - 1.12 trillion USD; total revenue 2.04 trillion USD; Payback period 17 years; difference between AV and PV for 35 years period 338.8 billion USD
- Land required: 34000 km2
- CO2 emission reduction: 330,470 metric tonnes CO2
- Job Creation: 2.34 million person-years - does not include addtional employment in agriculture
Discussion
- Funding for AV may take other forms - not entirely from government
- Water demand may be reduced due to AV
- More land and cost will be required for AV when compared to PV - but AV has better land use efficiency
- AV supports Just Transition of economy - low-carbon and climate resilient future
- 11 million acres of farmland transitioned to other uses in US - AV will protect farmland
- Electricity use for agricultural operation may also use clean energy from AV, further reducing CO2

Agrivoltaics analysis in a techno-economic framework: Understanding why agrivoltaics on rice will always be profitable[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Elsevier; Publication: Applied Energy; Year: 2022; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: Bifacial PV modules; Location: An Giang(Vietnam), Dhaka (Bangladesh), Jiangsu (China), Damietta (Egypt), Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil), and Haryana (India).; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:
Rice production
- Quantified:
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Introduction
- PV is more prevalent due to cheaper costs now - bifacial is the future
- Food requirements to increase - will cause land-use conflict; hence, agrivoltaics
- Previous studies performed anlayzed vegetable and microclimate; very limited on major crops which generally showed reduced yield; economic gains for AV
- Gaps in previous literature: No extensive work on major crops; LER may not be a viable parameter to see the AVs feasibility
- Goal: Investigation of rice-based AV and its financial feasibility
- Location specific AV modelling framework developed
- Sunlight incident on panels and land is ascertained for different PV panel configuraiton (mono/bi,tilt, orientation etc.)
- Agricultural Production System Simulator (APSIM) used to determine rice production; irradiance and electrical model used for electricity output (tilted N/S, vertical E/W, hor. E/W)
- Parametric analysis to ascertain optimal row spacing for desired rice production
- Economic anlaysis performed - PV density depends on rice production
- Hor E-W is the best for all locations; net profit higher for PV; no optimum array pitch for AV; PV-only always have more profits
- Hence, minimum yield requirements should be set
Numerical Model
- Considers irradiance model, light on panel and the ground, panel eff. and elec. output model and rice yield model - combine together for AV model
- Economic model determines revenue for each location - can be used for system optimization
Conventional Farm Output
- Energy production from N-S optimized PV ascertained on a monthly basid
- Rice productioon ascertained in open conditions for all location using APSIM
AV Farm Analysis
- Power Output of AV vs PV
  - N/S tilted highest; ver close to hor E/W
  - Lower pitches - ver. E/W performanceaffected due to shading
- Crop Output for AV
  - Most location - 4m row pitch gives 90% yield
  - Optimized N-S gives worst results
  - Vertical E-W gives advantage for ease of agricultural operation
- Crop production
  - N-S conf: crop yield significantly reduces
  - h E-W: more crops in the middle
  - v E-W: more crops directly underneath
AV Farm Output
- LER
  - Cases in the study found with LER>1
  - AV optimization based on LER is not appropriate
- Economic Output
  - FIT dictates economics; energy production and revenue follow similar trend
  - h E-W and N-S better revenure; v E-W low due to lower energy yield even though higher crop productivity
  - Low pitch results in higher revenure , not true for v E-W though
  - Policies imp as they impact pricing; also min crop yields should be set
  - Optimal pitch depends on AV conf. and region
  - With 80 or 90% crop yield, h E-W gives most benefit; v E-W least
  - With 90% production, profits with AV 22-115 times that of farming
  - Although bifacial installation cost higher, they are advantageous over monos
- Sensitivity Analysis
  - h E-W considered only - more economically viable
  - AV likely to be beneficial with changing economic factors
Summary and Conclusions
- Using AV in areas of high solar radiation more beneficial
- Energy output of h E-W and N-S similar, lowest for E-W vert. but it has highest rice yield
- Financial weight of rice and electricity is different - LER does not take into account it - hence, may be an inappropriate parameter
- AV 22 to 115 times more profitable than rice farming only
- Using bifacial modules - 18 to 35% more profit for AV vs monos
- Eco. output largely dependent on energy than rice production; therefore, policy guidelines important to ensure min rice productivity

Agrivoltaics and weather risk: A diversification strategy for landowners[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Elsevier; Publication: Applied Energy; Year: 2021; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: ; Location: North Carolina and Oregon, US; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:
- Quantified:
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Introduction
- Solar energy is the fastest growing renewable energy technology
- Issues related to land use competition arise
- Revenue stream of solar if more stable when compared to farms
- Goal: To determine if AV can stabilize revenue stream for farm especially considering weather
- AV can improve soil moisture; reduced evaporation; less risks of drought
- Crops: Alfafa, Soybeans and Strawberries
Methodology
- Location: North Carolina and Oregon; Area: 218 acres; PV capacity: 50 MW
- Weather conditions are determined stochastically - used as input to solar electricity generation model and crop yield model
- Solar power generation is simulated using a thermodynamic model - degradation considered 0.7%
- For AV on soybeans and alfalfa, 25% less land is considered available for panel installation to ensure farm operation
- A generalized statistical crop model used for yield prediction - can be applied for any location and crop
- Strawberries - 33% yield reduction; alfalfa and soybeans: 50% less acreage available for plantation
Results and Discussion
- Profitability
  - High value crops like strawberries better but volatile
  - For AV with PPA, electricity revenues more stable and crop revenues cause changes in profitability
  - For solar only, low installation cost and high prices make it favorable
- Scenario Comparison
  - AV increase net revenue when compared to farm only condition
  - Soybeans and Alfalfa : Narrow net revenue distribution when compared to solar only due to low prices and yield; Alfalfa NPV higher than strawberries
  - Strawberries: AV improve net revenues and reduces variability - mitigates risk; better NPV for AV than in farm only or solar only sondition
  - AV may be financially feasible for solar developers as well if they want to add a crop to increase revenue
  - Panel degraation have negative impact on net revenue when solar PV added to a farm
- Financial Risk
  - AV increase profitability as well as risk mitigation by improving lowest 5th percentile of net revenue
  - For highly profitable byt volatile crop, AV stabilizes net revenue; for solar developer AV provide risk managemetnt by reducing volatility of net revenues and landuse competition
- Risk Management of AV vs Federal Crop Insurance
  - With AV, impact of crop insurance is neglegible as solar addition increases revenue and no premium is to be paid yearly
- Sensitivity analysis performed for different crops
- There are crop and location combinations for which the advatamges of AV not only boost expected revenues and stabilizes net revenues for farmers
- Decreasing PPA prices reduce virability of solar projects - AV can help solar developers as they can plant low maintenance crop to supplement financial benefits
- AV also reduces financial risk for most scenarios (Crops and locations)
- Incentivizing AV instead of subsidizing crop insurance increases revenue - may act as a substitute for insurance
- Other benefits: Pollinator habitat can be planted which improves biodiversity; powering carbon-free farms and reducing emissions; less water requirement; protecting wildlife habitat
Conclusion
- AV may increase net revenue by up tp 5000%
- AV improves risk management such as substitute to crop insurance; increase 5th percentile net revenues of 48-53%; land-use competition; reduced fossil fuel use

Agrivoltaics provide mutual benefits across the food–energy–water nexus in drylands[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Nature; Publication: Sustainability; Year: 2019; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: ; Location: Tucson , Arizona, USA; PV Power: 200kW; Energy: ; Efficiency:
More crop yield
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: 3 times more chiltepin pepper, 2 time for tomato and same for jalapeno
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method: Calculation
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments:
Water use efficiency
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: 157% in jalapeno, 65% inn tomato
  - - Unit:
- Quantification Method: Calculation
- Implication analyzed: Yes
- Comments:
Water conservation
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: 15% imore soil moisture when irrigated after every 2d; 5% when daily
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method: Calculation
- Implication analyzed: Yes
- Comments:
HTC, extended growing season
- Quantified: Qualified
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Higher electricity
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: 377MWh vs 373 MWH per annum
  - Unit: MWh/yr
- Quantification Method: Calculation
- Implication analyzed: Yes
- Comments:
Introduction
- An approach needed to address the issues related to food, water and energy
- Climate changes is affecting agricultural land use as farmers seek other use of land instead of farming
- Water scarcity is a major issue agricultural sector is facing
- Hydro and thermal power plants also affected by climate change - PV and wind might be the solution
- PV adoption is on the rise in US
- As temperature negatively affects PV performance, agricultural land underneath can improve it
- Agrivoltaics can improve food - water - energy nexus
- Goal: Hypothesis: Increased water efficiency, improved food production and PV efficiency due to agrivoltaics
- Crops: chiltepin pepper, jalapeno and cherry tomato
- PV array height from lowest end: 3.3m ; tilt: 32 degrees; parameters measured: light, air temp, relative humidity (RH), soil temp and moisture; two configurations - one with daily irrigation and one with irrigation every 2 days
Results
- 1.2+0.3oC lower temperatures in day, 0.5+04oC higher temp in night
- Vapor pressure deficit lower in AV - 0.52+0.15kPa lower
- Impact of food production
  - Higher (3 times) more production of chiltepin pepper, almost similar for jalapeno, twice for tomato
- Potential impacts for water savings
  - 15% imore soil moisture when irrigated after every 2d; 5% when daily
  - For 2d irrigation schedule, soil moisture remained above the driest point for 1d irrigation schedule in open conditions
- Potential impacts for energy generation
  - PVs 8.9+0.2oC cooler in the day
  - 3% increase in elec. from May-Jul; 1% increase yearly
Discussion
- The idea that land can either be used for farms or for energy generation should be abandoned; instead it can have positive influence
- Plants received less light in AV but reduced soil moisture; also improved panel efficiency
- Tests should be perfomed with more crops and Pv design
- No studies performed for issues associated with AV for farm labour; human thermal comfort (HTC) assessment can done - may be better
- Microclimate under AV could extend growing season
- AV may provide reduced vulnerability to climate change for food and energy
- The technology has its challenges - more cost and farming operation/machinery adaptation
Methods
- Location: Tucson , Arizona, USA; PV array height from lowest end: 3.3m; tilt: 32 degrees; Area for control and AV conf: 9.1m2 x 18.2m2
- Equal amounts of irrigation water ensured - drip iirrigation
- 42 replicates of the three specie plants cultivated
- 200 kW plant simulated; 377 MWh energy under AB for a year; 373 MWh for PV

Agrivoltaics: The Environmental Impacts of Combining Food Crop Cultivation and Solar Energy Generation[edit | edit source]

Publisher: MDPI; Publication: Agronomy; Year: 2023; Lifetime: 25 years; PV Technology: ; Location: APV RESOLA Project, near Lake Constance, Germany; PV Power: ; Energy: 713.4MWh/ha-yr; Efficiency:
Reduction in CO2
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: 572.94 t CO2-eq.
  - Unit:t CO2-eq.
- Quantification Method: Consequential Life Cycle Analysis
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Reduction in fresh water eutrophication
- Quantified:
- Low or High: 524.22 kg P eq. per ha
  - Unit: kg P eq. per ha
- Quantification Method: Consequential Life Cycle Analysis
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Reduction in Fossils
- Quantified:
- Low or High: 6745GJ
  - Unit: GJ
- Quantification Method: Consequential Life Cycle Analysis
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Introduction
- Fossil fuels dominate global electricity generation; renewables share need to increase
- That causes issue of land use - especially as food requirements also augment; hence, agrivoltaics (AV)
- Two main types of AVs; closed and open system
  - Closed can be further divided as inter-space or overhead (2-7m)
- In addition to reduced light, less amount of area is available for cropping (2% to 8%)
- Goal: A CLCA to be performed to anlayse the environmental implications of shifting from single-use agriculture to AV
Materials & Methods
- Evaluation of environmental impact of changing 1 ha single-use agriculture to overhead AV
- Crops: winter wheat, celery, potatoes and grass–clover mixture
- Crop yield reduces as the area of cultivation reduces due to AV structure installation
- Functional units considered: amount of crop and generation of electrical enerygy
- ISO standards 14040 and 14044 used and applied
- 16 impact categories assessed - results presented as a single
- Impact categories contirbuting 80% to the total score - most important
- openLCA 1.10.3 used for analysis
- Major environmental impacts of AV installation included in the study including variation in crop yield
- 0.15 ha more area will be required for AV to produce reference crop yield
- Hypothesis: More land becomes available as the combination of farming and electricity will improve land poductivity
- Crop yield considered for AV are lower than reference - shaiding and area losses; the amount of crop yield must be compensated from elsewhere
- Material required frorthe mounting structure is used for the anlaysis
- 713.4MWh/ha-yr electrical output
Results
- Considerable environmental benefits when 1 ha of land is transformed AV - climate change, freshwater eutrophication and fossil resource use most benefitted
- Resource use (minerals and metals) show negative impact due to resources required for PV manufacturing and installation
- 572.94 t CO2-eq. can be reduced (climate change impact category) due to electricity substitution based on fossil fuel
- 524.22 kg P eq. per ha reduction in fresh water eutrophication due to electricity substitution based on fossil fuel
- Electricity subsititution reduces 6745GJ of fossils resource use
- Minerals and metal resource use increases 3.118 kg Sb eq.
Discussion
- Environmental Performance
  - 15 out of 16 impact categories showed beneficial consequences of AV
  - Positive impact of dual land use outperform the negatives of additional land required for same crop yield
    - Land no longer required for electricity production can be used as additional land for crops
  - Important to maintain how much agricultural yield reduction is allowed under AV; which crops could benefit
  - One study indicated similar environmental performance of AV to PV plant but better than biogas plant - only wind has better perofrmance
  - Impact on biodiversity or soil quality not assessed in this study
Conclusion
- Environmental impact of converting agricultural land on AV is positive - 15 our 16 impacts showed benefits
- Loss of farmland needs to be minimized and crop yield maintained to ensure enhanced renewable energy generation without compromising food production - shade tolertant crops can be used
- Legislation ensuring minimum food productivity shall be set in place to ensure no misuse

An carbon neutrality industrial chain of “desert-photovoltaic power generationecological agriculture”: Practice from the Ulan Buh Desert, Dengkou, Inner Mongolia[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Sciencedirect; Publication: China Geology; Year: 2022; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: mono and polycrystalline; Location: Ulan Boh Desert, Dengkou County, Inner Mongolia, China; PV Power: 50 MW (30 mono; 20 poly); Energy: 72.2591×106 kWh per annum; Efficiency: .
Sand Control
- Quantified: Qualified
- Low or High:
  - Unit:.
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Vegetation Growth
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: 75% increase
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method: Calculation
- Implication analyzed: Yes; economic benefits, PV benefit, greenery, dedesertification
- Comments:
Ease of water transportation over long distances, big agricultural sites and animal husbandries
- Quantified: Qualitative
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Dederstification/increased forest cover
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: From 0.04 to 20.2% forestry increase
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method: Calculation
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Biodiversity
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: More than 200 types of birds available in the region
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method: Calculation
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Emission Reduction
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: 25.37×103 t of coal and reducing 93023 t CO2 emissions every year
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method: Calculation
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Eco-tourism
- Quantified: Qualified
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Major achievements
- PV power generation and saving coal
- Development of desert - land expansion
- Utilizing water passing by the desert
- Improvement of environment and elimination of poverty
Location: Ulan Boh Desert, Dengkou County, Inner Mongolia, China
Good solar resource and water body (Yellow River) nearby - PV power and agricultural potential
Goal: Using PV control desertification and water efficient agriculture to provide economic and ecological benefits
Sand control observed from 2nd year after installation - PVs restrict sand dunes movement
Alfalfa and Artemisia found suitable for growth under AV
Plantation increased from 5% before PV installation to 80% after AV
Benefits of long distance water transportation due to electricity availability and setting up farms and animal husbandries
330 greenhouses setup - high quality Cucumis melo L. were produced
Fertilizer processing plant and organic pasture sites also built
Grape, Cistanche deserticola, a Chinese medicinal plant, and rice were successfully harvested
Dedesertification - increased forestry from 0.04% to 20.2%; more than 200 bird species availiable
25.37×103 t of coal and reducing 93023 t CO2 emissions every year
130 sand control sites, 23 businessess engaged in Cistanche, 19 in grapes, 72 in agriculture and anima husbandry, 7 in desert ecotourism, 6 PV plants and 3 professional seedling at the site
Site transformed into industrial chain

Balancing crop production and energy harvesting in organic solar-powered greenhouses[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Cell Press; Publication: Cell Reports Physical Science; Year: 2021; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: Organic Solar Cells; Location: Sacramento, California, US; PV Power: ; Energy: discuss with Koami; Efficiency: .
Growing red lettuce (crop)
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: similar yield as compared to control greenhouse
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method: Calculation
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Reducing energy demand of greenhouse
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: 67
  - Unit: percent reduction in heating demand when compared to non OSC shading; also reduced heating load
- Quantification Method: Calculation
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Introduction
- Greenhouses improve crop productivity, water requirement and pesticide use compared to conventional farming
- Thermal management of a greenhouse required sometimes which increases electrical load
- Integrating PVs/solar cells can meet this demand and result in energy savings
- Semitransparent organic solar cells (ST-OSCs) of particular interest as they provide flexible spectral management suitable for plant growth - also highly efficient >18%
- Crop yield needs to be maintained for ensuring the OSC's integration viable
- Evaluation of red lettuce for three different OSC filters under controlled environment
- Lettuce grown under different regimes was very much similar im terms of fresh weight
- Impact of reduced light intensity on lettuce yield minimal - increased leaf area and number observed
- Chlorophyll content for the plants also similar
- Hence, plants can be grown under ST-OSCs
- Future design aspects for OSCs also studied incuding using distributed bragg reflectors (DBRs) to manage light and power distribution as well as using an active layer that improves chlorophyll absorption
- DBRs 5-6% improved power conversion efficiency
- DBRs also manage NIR and can be advantageous in hot weather
- Using low emissivity DBR coatings to manage low-wavelength IR (LWIR) can reduce heating load in cold weather
Results and Discussion
- Plant Growth Experiments
  - Lettuce grown inside growth boxes covered with reflective surfaces at the side and top by OSC within growth chamber using artificial lights to imitate sunlight
  - Average transmittance of PAR from OSC filters: 29%, 31% and 38%
  - Experiments for lettuce growth peformed twice at 800 and once 1000 micromol/m2-s PPFD values - three replicates each with three different filters
- Crop Growth and Physiology
  - Comparable lettuce yield (fresh and dry weights) for greenhouse and contorl produces
  - Difference in production between three replicates
  - Higher photosynthesis rate in control than in OSC filters
- Underlying drivers for plant development
  - With reduced photosynthesis rate, increased leaf area compensates for it, provides similar yield in shaded environment
  - Lettuce adapted to change light conditions because of OSCs to ensure similar yield
  - Spectral differences between OSCs were insignificant - no major differences in corp development
  - Crop contined more nutritionally favorable parameters under control but it can be improved with higher light intensities; also, there are strategies to tackle it
- OSC design outlook
  - Different plants have different spectral requirements
  - Active layers used in OSCAs can be tailored with to manage PAR spectral needs of plants
  - Latest materials used in manufacturing of OSCs may also help
  - DBRs can be used to optimze light in visible and NIR regions
    - Experiments showed 5-6% increase in short circuit current
    - Thermal management of greenhouse can be performed by optimizing IR and NIR
    - DBR for summers improved the temperature management significantly; not much in winters instead they may lead to greater heating demand
    - Adding NIR-relective DBR coating improved power generation by 10%
    - Using DBR coatings depend on location, types of crop and the requirements of greenhouse
  - LWIR is managed through low emissivity thin metal or metal oxide films
  - OSC provide inherent LWIR managment; reduce heating demand for winters (67%)
  - OSC integration into greenhouses can benefit in several ways; power generation, lowering energy demands
  - There may be a tradeoff for power generation, crop productivity and thermal load - detailed evaluation required
- Red lettuce seems suitable for cultivation under OSC-shaded greenhouse; no significant impact on crop yield or quality
  - Photosynthetic rate reduces under OSC but is compensated by increased leaf area thus managing the biomass to similar levels as control
  - Different OSC did not impact lettuce yield much - similar productivity
  - Different crops will require different spectral characteristics; OSC material can be optimized to the changing needs
  - DBRs can be used to increase electrical output and reduce overheating in greenhouse (from 282h to 82 in a year)
  - OSC electrodes can also be used to reduce heating load of the house

Bilayer Luminescent Solar Concentrators with Enhanced Absorption and Efficiency for Agrivoltaic Applications[edit | edit source]

Publisher: American Chemical Society; Publication: Applied Energy Materials; Year: 2021; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: Luminescent Solar Concentrators; Location: ; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency: .
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: similar yield as compared to control greenhouse
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method: Calculation
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Introduction
- Luminiscent Solar Concentrators (LSCs) can cater the energy requirements for greenhouse while also allowing crop growth
- By spectral tuning, plants can benefit - LSCs provide that; absorbs blue sunlight and tramsits red
- Experiment: Form bilayer LSC with two different luminophores to manage transmission and improving electricity
Conclusion
- LSC manufacturing can be optimized with different materials increasing absorption and tuning transmission for spectral quality
- The proposed LSC can be used for agrivoltaic application as it allows control of transmission

NOT RELATED TO THE SCOPE OF OUR PAPER

Characterization of Agrivoltaic Crop Environment Conditions Using Opaque and Thin-Film Semi-Transparent Modules[edit | edit source]

Publisher: MDPI; Publication: Applied Energies; Year: 2023; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: Opaque silicon, opaque thin-film CdTe, semitransparent thin-film CdTe (40% transparency); Location: northern Colorado, USA; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:
Reduce water use rate and drought stress for food crops
- Quantified: No
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Greater food production and reduced PV temperature
- Quantified: No
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Reduce air temperature
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: 1.3
  - Unit: oC
- Quantification Method: Measurement
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Reduce soil temperature
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: 3
  - Unit: oC
- Quantification Method: Measurement
- Implication analyzed: Benficial for temperate crops
- Comments
Introduction
- Economics suggest that using solar PV to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 is the most financially feasible option
- AV combines use of solar PV and agricultural production - land use concerns are addressed
- Goal: Study crop growth at two different site with four types of AV; ST thin-film CdTe PV comparison with opaque thin-film CdTe PV and crytalline Si PV
- Rooftop APV
  - Shade plants in high temperature; reduces water use rate and drought stress
- Agrivoltaic Deployment
  - Greater food production and reduced PV temperature
APV Experiments
- Manual variable tile system; but jept fixed at 35 degrees for experiment
- Two Sites: ARDEC - o-Si and STPV | Pole-mounted; Foothills - o-CdTe and STPV (Rooftop simulation) | Ground-mounted
- Crops: ARDEC - Peppers, summer squash, lettuce; Foothills - lettuce, bush beans, and cilantro (also experimented peppers, tomatoes, lettuce and yellow summer squash
Results & Discussion
- Spectroradiometer used to measure PPFD - reduction observed as compared to full sun condition but the pattern remained same (all wavelengths passed)
- As compared to opaque, STPV allowed thrice the amount of radiation to pass through
- 1.3oC less air temp below panels at the hottest time - no temp difference between STPV or opaque
- 3oC lesser soild temperature under ARDEC STPV; not much difference at Foothills under rooftop simulation which might be due to the use of green roof substrate

Co-Generation of Solar Electricity and Agriculture Produce by Photovoltaic and Photosynthesis—Dual Model by Abellon, India[edit | edit source]

Publisher: ASME; Publication: Journal of Solar Energy Engineering; Year: 2019; Lifetime: 25 years ; PV Technology: Crystalline; Location: Gujarat, India; PV Power: 3 MW; Energy: 4.663 X 106 kWh/annum; Efficiency:
Improved finances
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: 158,978.61
  - Unit: USD/hectare/year
- Quantification Method: Calculation
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments:
Employment opportunities
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: 215
  - Unit: no.
- Quantification Method: Calculated
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments
Crop residue as animal feed
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: 52
  - Unit: tonnes
- Quantification Method: Calculated
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments
Reduced migration
- Quantified: Qualified
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
CO2 emission reduction due to panels
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 4000
  - Unit: MT/annum
- Quantification Method: Calculated
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments
CO2 capture by vegetation
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 250
  - Unit: tons/year
- Quantification Method: Calculated
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments
Water conservation due to reuse
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 78
  - Unit: lakhs liter/ year
- Quantification Method: Calculated
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments
Top soil protection from wind and rain
- Quantified: Qualified
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Combining PV and agricculture - Improved land utilization, no conflict between energy and food production, more climate resiliant system
- Quantified: Qualified
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Increased value of farm
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 30
  - Unit: %
- Quantification Method: Inferred (from other study)
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Improved water efficiency due to reduced soil water evaporation under PVs
- Quantified: Qualified
- Low or High: Inferred (from other study)
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method: Inferred (from other study)
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Introduction
- India has immense solar potential - leading International Solar Alliance
- Growth of solar is high - 30-40% among other renewable fields
- Hypohthesis: Improved food security by farming shade tolerant crops, reduced panel temperature to improve efficiency, better water use efficiency as water to clean the panels could be used for irrigation, CO2 emission reduction, soild health improvement as farmed crops circumvent top soil washing, zero discharge process by using the harvest residue for cattle feed, increased employment and dust prevention by planting creeper vegetation on the boundary as a wall - serve as wind break
Project Execution Methodology
- 3MW plant, crystalline technology, Gujarat - India, 10,715 modules with 280W peak capacity, 7.08 hecates of area
- Crops: bottle gourd, lady finger, turmeric, ginger & chilli
- Water used for cleaning panels used for irrigation
- Post harvest crop residues used as animal feed
- Henna and ivy guard planted on the fence which also served as wind break - fence installed to keep animals away
Results
- Economic Impact
  - Improved finances due to dual use of land - total revenue: 158,978.61 USD/heactare/year
- Social Impact
  - 215 people got employed
  - Migration to find sesonal jobs reduced
  - 52 tonnes of crop residue available as aimal feed
- Environmental Impact
  - 4000 MT/annum CO2 sequestration due to panel installation
  - 250 ton/year CO2 capture due to vegetation
  - 78 lakh litre of water (used for cleaning panels) reused for irrigation
  - Farming under panels protects top soil wash off due to rain or wind
Discussion
- Combining PV and agricculture - Improved land utilization, no conflict between energy and food production, more climate resiliant system
- Although there mare instances of reduced yield under PV, overall productivity still increases
- Study shows 30% enhanced value of farms with AV
- Reduction in PV efficiency - 1.1% when temperature incrase 1oC above 42oC; AV can have positive impact
- Conducive policies required for technology dissemination - only non-agricultural land is allocated to PV in India
- 1059.64 MW solar plant on 2501.45 hectares in India - sequester 1,600,000 MT CO2 and 10000 MT of crop
- Globally 4000 hectares occupied by solar; 143000 MT CO2/annum reduction and 100000 MT of produce

Combined land use of solar infrastructure and agriculture for socioeconomic and environmental co-benefits in the tropics[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Elsevier; Publication: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews; Year: 2021; Lifetime: 30 years; PV Technology: Multi-crystalline; Location: Indonesia; PV Power: 1) full density - 400kWp/ha, 2) half density 200 kWp/ha ; Energy: 1376 kWh/kWp; Efficiency:
GHG emission offset
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High:372.2 and 630.9
  - Unit: Mg/hayr
- Quantification Method: LCA
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Financial feasibility when compared to diesel electricity - reduced cost
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High:-12,257 vs -14702
  - Unit: million IDR
- Quantification Method: Calculated - NPC (net present cost)
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Economic stability and less varaition of income
- Quantified: Qualified
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method: Inferred
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Reduce deforestation
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 0.459 million hectares loss with AV vs 1.4 million hecatres loss with conventional PV
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method: Calculated
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Introduction
- Solar PV increasing adoption - cost decrease and policy support key driving factors
- Adopting solar PV on agricultural land provides several benefits - improved eff, water eff, improved yields etc
- Non-electrified rural locations in Indonesia present unique opportunity for Agrivoltaics (AV) as they are away from grid and have sufficient sunlight
- Patchouli seems a suitable crop for AV as it is shade tolerant, requires low maintenance, length is approx. 1m, 2-3 years of crop cycle, no machinery requirement, high price etc.
- Objective: To perform LCA for a hectare of each: full density PV, half density PV, cultivation and processing of patchouli and hypothetical colocation in context of land use, energy and emissions
Materials and Methods
- Four scenarios of 1ha land use: 1) full density 400kWp/ha; 2) cultivation of patchouli and yardlong with patchouli oil being extracted; 3) agrivoltaic with full density (400kWp/ha) and 4) agrivoltaic with half density (200kWp/ha)
LCA of PV
- Multicrystalline tech as it is beneficial in tropical climates
- 1660 modules in half density conf. per hectare while 3333 in full density - each module 0.120 kWp
- 1376 kWh/kWp annual output of PV
- Emission factor 79.7 g CO2-eq. /kWh
- Various inputs/outputs considered for LCA
- LCA of Patchouli Cultivation & Oil Extraction
  - 15 crop cycles for 30 years considered
  - 624 kg CO2 eq / ha emission factor introduced for yard-long beans which were introduced in the land for crop rotation purposes
Results and Discussion
- Lifetime energy flux and GHG emissions
  - Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) of PAtchouli land use - mean 45.8 GJ/ha
  - CED of stand alone PV - mean 389.9 GJ/ha; same annual energy output for 400kWp AV
  - Annual GHG emission/ ha for standalone PV 39.1 MG/hayr; patchouli land use 63.2 Mg/hayr
  - PV land use resulted in 1907.5 GJ/hayr electricity - results in 630.9 Mg/hayr of GHG emission offset against diesel elec. generation and 372.2 Mg/hayr against grid emission
- Sensitivity Analysis
  - GHG emission from PV alone - 39.1 Mg CO2eq /hayr
- NPV
  - Standalone PV: - 20,730 million IDR
  - 200kWp AV: - 8,404 million IDR
  - PV electricity generation not profitable at wholesale rates
  - If wholesale not considered, net present cost (NPC) of 200kWp is -12,257 million IDR; less than diesel generation which is -14,702 million
  - Economic stability and less variation in income of famers
- Land Use
  - Indonesion deforestion rate - highest among all nations
  - Agrivotlaics could reduce deforestation

Combining food and energy production: Design of an agrivoltaic system applied in arable and vegetable farming in Germany[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Elsevier; Publication: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews; Year: 2021; Lifetime: 30 years; PV Technology: Fixed tilt 20 degree; Location: south east of Basen-Wurttemberg, Germany ; PV Power: 194.4 kWp; Energy: 236 MWh/annum; Efficiency:
Higher crop yield (potato, celeriac and winter wheat)
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: 12%, 11% and 3%
  - Unit: %
- Quantification Method: Calculated
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments
Higher land equivalent ratio (productivity)
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: 1.56 to 1.87
  - Unit: Unitless
- Quantification Method: Calculated
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments
Introduction
- Land use conflict increasing with growing needs of population and PV diffusion
- AV provides a solution - also beneficial in other regards (water conservation, plant protection etc.)
- Objective: To ascertain technical feasibility of agrivoltaic plant, understand its design based on light simulation with Radiance software and determine the productivity of crops (potato, celeriac, winter wheat and clover grass)
- Height of panels: 5m (vertical clearance); inter-rwo spacing 19m (width clearance)
Theoretic Background and Simulations for Design APV System
- Crop Classification
  - Light availability - the only parameter considered for crops
  - Germany's crops divided into three classifications based on yield when under shade; +ve impact (Category PLUS); -ve impact (Category MINUS) and no impact (Category ZERO)
- Simulations as a basis for design of APV
  - Light simulations performed via Radiance
  - Electrical output ascertained via ZENIT for APV configuration
    - Radiation distribution underneath PV - 20 degree tilt, height of panels 5m, simulations performed for different azimuth (0, 15, 30 and 45) and inter-row spacings
    - Biomass and electrical yield with regards to row spacing - normal row spacing (d) in Germany is 2.2 times the width of Pv for GMPV; for APV it was analysed considering the trade-off between agricultural and electricity demands
- Biomass Yield
  - d varied from 2.2 to 7m and implications on crop yield ascertained based on available PAR when compared to no shade condition; azimuths also changed (0 and 45 degrees)
- Electrical Yield
  - Determined as a function of row distance
- Measuring benefits of APV: LER
  - Mounting structure took 0.23% of land but real losses were 8.3%
  - LER used for ascertained land productivity
Simulation Results
- Orientation
  - More equal distribution of light when orientation changed from pure south to either of east/west directions (not much difference in distribution when changed from 30 degree to 45 degree)
- Row Distance
  - Available radiation increases with row distance - different in different months
  - Biomass increases with increased row (as more PAR available)
  - PLUS crops have more than 100% crop yield at lowest d (2.8 or 3)
  - ZERO showed above 95% yield with higher d (changed with orientation as well, for instance, S d>4.7 and SW d>5.5)
  - MINUS required even higher row distances for 90% yield
  - In summers not much difference between S and SW facing, in winters 5% higher elec. yield for S
  - 80% of reference crop yield targetted - consideration for row distancing
  - Row distance best for APV for SW - 2.8 times the width of the panel
- Electrical yield prediction
  - 94.4% performance ratio for APV system
Practical implementation and results of the case study
- Engineering and installation of the APV system
  - Orientation: SW for homogenous irradiance
  - Ancjoring rods used as foundation - not concrete; quick installation, easy dismantling, no adverse impact on ground
  - Bifacial PVs used
- Electrical yield in first year of operation
  - 246 MWh of electricity during first yr of operation - conventional PV would produce 295.4 MWH i.e., 17% higher (with monofacial PVs)
  - 2017 - reduction in yield: clover grass 5%, celeriac 18%, potato 19%, winter wheat (not mentioned)
  - 2018 -- yiled reduction in clover grass 8%, increased yield: winter wheat 3%, potato 11% and celeriac 12%
- Land use efficiency
  - Between 1.56 and 1.7 in 2017 and 1.67 and 1.87 in 2018
  - Higher in 2018 due to weatehr - warmer
Discussion
- Row distance, tradeoff between agricultural and electrical yield, type of crop are some questions going forward
- Shading considered the only parameter affecting crop, there are other factors as well
- 1700 GW of APV potentially feasible in Germany

Comparative analysis of photovoltaic configurations for agrivoltaic systems in Europe[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Wiley; Publication: ; Year: 2021; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: Mono-crystalline; Location: ; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:
Introduction
- Covering 0.3% of land by PV will address the current demands of electricity of the world
- Agricultural land accounts for 9.6% of total world land
- With AV, shadowing can help plants - up to 20% less irrigation needs in drier climates
- Objective: Ascertain potential of AV across Europe using three different configurations (single axis tracking, vertical bifacial and fixed tilt)
- Vertical and tracking manifests even distribution of light as compared to fixed tilt
Investigated Agrivoltaic Configurations
- Optimal tilted
  - South facing, monofacial fixed tilt
- Hori single-axis tracking (SAT)
  - N-S oriented and movement along east-west, monofacial
- Vertical bifacial
  - N-S oriented facing east-west
Methods/Experimental Procedures
- Spacing between rows 2 m for fixed tilt and 1 m for SAT and vert. bifacial
- Height of PV modules - 1m, 2m or 3m; inter-row spacing 3m, 4.5m, 6m, 7.5m, 9m and 12m
- Direct, diffuse and albedo solar radiation reach the panels
- Comparison of different types of systems is carried out by electrical output
- Under a standard solar spectrum; PAR = 4.56micromol/m2s
- Three crop categories considered: requiring low, medium and high radiation
Results and Discussion
- System evaluation for Northern location with low irradiance
  - SAT highest el. output followed by fixed tilt and verticals
  - As panels height increase, more electricity is produced
  - As row spacing increases, elec. output decreases
  - In winter, fixed tilt produces more energy than the other two systems
  - Verticals have better price weighted ele. yield in Denmark as there is a dip in el. price during mid day
  - 56% irradiation reaches ground for fixed tilt systems
  - Min. irradiance levels for verticals is 77.6%
  - With SAT, min irradiance received is 78%
  - For low and mid radiation crop, high el. yields can be achieved while 80% land is maintained for crops
  - For high radiation crops, high el. yield will be at the cost of cropland
  - SAT provides better combination of el. yield and crops but has higher expense
  - To maintain 80% land suitable for corpoping, verticals and fixed tilt provide el. yield of 30 kWh/m2
- Extension of the anlaysis to Europe
  - With decrease in latitude, el. yield increases for all three config SAT>fixed>verticals
  - Price weighted el. yield is better for fixed and vertical - may differ depending on the country
  - Agricultural Land suitable for AV - arable land, permanent crops and pasture
  - Verticals potential in Mdtjylland - 215 TWh/year
  - Southern and eastern parts of Europe more suitable
  - Vertical bifacials can produce 71,500 TWh elec. in Europe

Computational fluid dynamics modelling of microclimate for a vertical agrivoltaic system[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Elsevier; Publication: Energy Nexus; Year: 2023; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: monocrystalline Si,Vertical bifacials; Location: Vasteras, Sweden; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:
Water savings
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 14 - 29
  - Unit: %
- Quantification Method: Calculation (quoted from other study)
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Introduction
- Growth in human population and economy will increase energy demands significantly
- PV most promising sourc erenewable el. generation
- Farming accounts for 70 % of fresh water usage world-wide
- AV can tackle both the issues
- Light intensity is considered the most important parameter for plant growth, especially shade intolerant crops
- Daily light integral between 0.69 to 3.71 negatively impacted plant growth
- AV beneficial for water conservation in water scarce areas
- Irrigation savings between 14 to 29
- CFD simulations have been used to predict the microclimate in literature - very limited work though on AV configuration
- Objective: To analyse and predict the microclimate of vertical AV using CFD
Method
- Vertical bifacial facing east west located in Vasteras, Sweden with 10m row spacing
- Solidworks used to perform the simulations, Navier Stokes equation used for solving fluid region
- Height of PV panel/structure 2.8m
- Validation of model performed from data obtained using a weather station
- Parameters used in CFD model as inputs: Global hor irr., ambient temp., diffuse hor irradiance, wind speed and direction
Results and Discussion
- Model validation
  - Solar irradiance variation between model and measurement 10-20 W/m2; model underestimates
  - Shaded areas received 38% less solar radiation
  - 0-2oC module temperature difference between model and measurements of thermal camera
  - Ground temp error<1oC between model and measurement
- Microclimatic variation within an agrivoltaic system
  - Wind speed decreased at 0-0.5m height
  - Highest air temperature observed at PV modules from the model (0.3oC higher)

Conceptual Design and Rationale for a New Agrivoltaics Concept: Pasture-Raised Rabbits and Solar Farming[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Elsevier; Publication: Journal of Cleaner Production; Year: 2021; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: Crystalline silicon; Location: Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, US; PV Power: 314kW; Energy: 381 MWh and 433 MWh; Efficiency:
Reduced carbon dioxide emissions
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 16 to 40 gCO2/kWh from PV compared to 909 gCO2/kWh from coal
  - Unit: gCO2/kWh
- Quantification Method: LCA
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
More efficient use of land for climate neutral energy production comapred to combining coal and carbon capture/sequestration
- Quantified: Qualified
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Animal welfare and quality of life
- Quantified: Qualified
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
No requirement of tree removals for PV installation
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 36
  - Unit:gCO2/kWh
- Quantification Method: Calculated (Adopted from other study)
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Reduction in carbon emissino by synergizing PV and rabbit-raising
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 36
  - Unit:gCO2/kWh
- Quantification Method: Calculated (Adopted from other study)
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Introduction
- PV is the cheapest source of power in the world
- Large use of land may create conflict; issue of food security also exists
- Agrivoltaics - dual use of land - can address these issues
- Objective: Investigate pasture-fed rabbit based agrivoltaics
Methods
- Grazing density of Rabbits
  - Basline for yield of rabbits adopted from DeForest, Wisconsin
  - Forage (Alfalfa) available for rabbits determined
  - No. of rabbits based on available pasture are determined - conservative analysis
- Conceptual design for rabbit-based agrivoltaics
  - Based on 1 hectare
  - Fence 1.1m high and 0.46m below ground
  - Fixed tilt, 30 degree, rows 5m apart, 1048 300W modules, 314kW peak capacity
  - Movable fences provided to graze different areas of farm
- Economic analysis
  - Herbicide spray and mowing are normally used ways for contorlling unwanted vegetation - not required in PV farm when rabbits are grazing there
  - Revenue of PV based on average PPA pricing from previous literature 0 SAM used for elec. output calculations
  - Revenue from rabbit - selling meat and fur
- Sustainability/carbon benefits of PV + Rabbits
  - CO2 emission gets reduced by employing PVs
  - Also, rabbits are better environmentally than cows
Results and discussion
- 381 MWh and 433 MWh energy output in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, US
- 6-15 and 15-33 rabbits can be raised in PA and WI on agrivoltaic plants
- 1-8% increase in revenue due to reduciton in O&M cost caused by grazing rabbits
- Renting the PV array could be financially feasible
- People experiencing renewables are more supportive of the tech. -AV could be used for outreach
- Quality of life of rabbits under AV better than industry standards
- No requirement of tree removal for solar installation reduces carbon footprint (36gCO2/kWh)
- CO2 emissions from rabbits 3.6kgCO2eq/kg live weight is less than cows

Crop-Specific Optimization of Bifacial PV Arrays for Agrivoltaic Food-Energy Production: The Light-Productivity-Factor Approach[edit | edit source]

Publisher: IEEE; Publication: ; Year: 2022; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: crystalline Silicon; Location: Lahore, Pakistan; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:
- Quantified:
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Introduction
- Agrivoltaics can address issues of land-use conflict associated with PV, water conservation, climate change etc.
- To reduce shading, 4-7m height of PV in AV and with lower density, but recently, more dense systems have been installed as well
- Amount of light available to panels and PAR available for crops could be one of the parameters to design AV plant
- Objective: To present a crop-specific parameter that could predict the AV plant performance considering the PV design adopted; uses availability of useful PAR at crop level compared to control conditions; idenitfy farm productivity for bifacial vertial E/W and fixed tilt N/S; farm productivity of different SAT, variation in farm productivity for fixed and variable tilt systems
Modelling Approach
- Integrated Model for PV Energy Yield and PAR
  - 2D model considered - PV generated due to solar radiation intercepted and PAR transmitted under the panels
  - PV energy and incident PAR are ascertained using view factor approach which determines the sunlight intercepted
- PV Array Configurations
  - Full density - GCR 0.5 and half density - GCR 0.25
  - Fixed tilt N-S mono, vertical bifacials, single axis tracking for E-W facing bifacials considered
    - Trackings considered: Standard tracking (ST), reverse tracking (RT) and control tracking (CT)
- Useful PAR Yield and Light Productivity Factor
  - Above a threashold PAR, the photosynthesis rate for crops is negatively impacted
  - Based on ratio of intergated PAR (400nm to 700nm) to integrated global standard sunlight spectrum, amount of irradiance received under control condition and on the panel, and the difference of it, the PAR for AV system available for crop is determined
  - Threshold PAR for lettuce, turnip and corn are 213, 469 and 685 W/m2 resp.
  - Yield ratio for daily useful PAR = Y(PAR) = PARuseful,AV/PARuseful,open
  - PV energy yield ratio = Y(PV) = PV energy for AV/PV for standard solar farm
  - LPF = Y(PV) + Y(PAR)
  - LER uses crop yield either from simulation or field measurement - LPF uses PAR which is a good representation (dir. proportional) of crop yield
Results
- Fixed Tilt Agrivoltaic Bifacial Farms (vertical E-W vs standard N-S)
  - PAR reduces as density increases for both config.
  - E-W; PAR reduces more during morning and evening, N-S; PAR reduces more during mid-day
  - Considering threshold PAR, for low density arrays, for corn E/W system better, for lettuce N-S
- Tracking Agrivoltaic Bifacial Farms
  - ST has reduced PAR as compared to RT - noticable difference for full density confi in morning and evening
  - For half density configu, not much difference btw three strategies
  - ST provide less than 60% Y(PAR) for full density configuration except for lettuce
  - RT increase Y(PAR) to 80% for all crops except during hot months (only for corn)
  - For half density, ST shows Y(PAR) above 80% for all crops in all seasons
  - Y(PV) lowest for RT and highest for ST - vice versa true for Y(PAR)
  - For half density conf, disparity between Y(PV), Y(PAR)
  - Max. LPF 1.6 for half density and 1.9 for full density arrays
- Model Comparison with Experimental Data
  - Comparison performed using published data in Germany for winter and potato
  - PAR for potato 1000 micromol/m2-s and 504 micromol/m2-s
  - Potato yield lies within the range of YPAR while for winter wheat, it exceelds
- AV Farm Design Under Y(PAR) Constraint
  - Y(PAR) may not be acceptable for crop yield; a min value can be fixed (e.g. 80%)
  - For shade tolerant lettuce, LPF=1.9 can be achieved for full arrray density for verticals and fixed tilts; with ST implementation LPF =1.8 and 2 for half and 1.4-1.9 full array densities
  - For moderate shade tolerant crop; LPF 1.5-1.9 for N-S with 3/4 array density in winters and full array density in spring; LPF 1.4-1.5 for E-W for winters and springs
  - For shade intolerant crops; LPF =1.3 for all seasons for half and 3/4 array density; with ST, half density is fine but requires RT for full density (though ST is better amongst the two)
  - For turnip, CT is better while ST fails due to lower Y(PAR)

Design of agrivoltaic system to optimize land use for clean energy‑food production: a socio‑economic and environmental assessment[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Springer; Publication: Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy; Year: 2022; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: Polycrystalline; Location: Odisha, India; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:
Increased economic value of farmland
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: LER: 1.42, benefit/cost (B/C) ratio: 1.86; PPR: 0.75
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method: Calculation
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments
Water efficiency
- Quantified: Qualified
- Low or High: LER:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Introduction
- 0.012 billion hectares of land is lost every year to drought/desertification
- Major sources of GHGs - electricity and heat contribute 31% and agriculture 12%
- Solar can reduce carbon footprint by 0.82 kg/kWh
- Agrivotlaics is increasingly being adopted - various advantages
- Solar PV is expanding in India - 55GW installations in 2021 and about 100 GW expected in 2022
- Objective: Present three different designing techniques for AV using SOLIDWORKS
- A double-row 6kW installation is best suited in terms of economics when turmeric is grown
Materials and Method
- Location: Odisha, India
- Design of agrivoltaics system
  - Conventional PV - 1MW per 3-4 acres for crystalline panels and 4-6 acres for thin-film PVs
  - Three configurations: Single row PV with continuous panels; singe row PV with gap b/w panels and double row PV with continuous panels in lowe row and gaps b/w panels in upper row
  - Different gaps to understand light utility for farming and power production
  - 75W panels used, polycrystalline technology
- Energy production from AV
  - 6kW double row system installed on 14m2 area
- Food production from AVS
  - Turmeric assessed in the study
- Combined energy and food production
  - Most solar cells use UV and IR for electricity generation
  - Ddouble row designs is better for crop production and revenue
  - Price performance ratio = annual extra cost fror maintaining farmland/production value; less than 1 for AV to be beneficial
- Environmental risk and sensitivity assessment
  - 40-60% shading seems appropriate in terms of crop productivity
  - Sensitivity analysis performed based on incident irradiation and energy output of AV
Results and discussion
- Fixed tilt system; optimum tilt = latitude or 10 degrees less than latitude
- 1-3oC less temperature of panels - higher efficiency
- Annual revenue 2121.6 USD when turmeric is grown on 40.47m2 land with 6kWp solar
- Turmeric shows highest returns while potatoes the lowest; other crops considered gingers and vegetables
- Annual maximum revenue for turmeric, gingerm potato and vegetable 67.57, 144.49, 112.38, and 160.54 USD resp.
- PV revenue: 1, 100, and 1000 kW is 81.88, 8210.42, and 77,528.7 USD
- LER: 1.42, benefit/cost (B/C) ratio: 1.86; PPR: 0.75 and PBP: 7-8 years with turmeric

Discussion: Avoid severe (future) soil erosion from agrivoltaics[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Elsevier; Publication: Science of the Total Environment; Year: 2022; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: ; Location: ; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:
Plant-use water efficiency and water conservation
- Quantified: Qualified (adopted from other study)
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Reduced soil erosion by reducing rainsplash
- Quantified: Qualified
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Risk of soil erosion and requirement of biochar-based farming solutions discussed
Regions with highest PV potential are the most risked in terms of soil erosion
Rainfall intensity is expected to increase this century - more soil erosion (30-66%)
Improvements in soil sponge function imperative
- can be done by increasing organic content of soil or cover cropping
- Traditional elements for increasing organic content take a lot of time; biochar can do it in single application

Economic Potential for Rainfed Agrivoltaics in Groundwater- Stressed Regions[edit | edit source]

Publisher: ACS; Publication: Environmental Science and Technology Letters; Year: 2020; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: ; Location: ; PV Power: 1MW; Energy: ; Efficiency:
Reduced ground water depletion
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 150
  - Unit: km3
- Quantification Method: Calculations
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments
Avoiding CO2 costs
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 75-200
  - Unit: USD/tCO2
- Quantification Method: Calculations
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments
Introduction
- Restructing ground water use may affect farming
- AV - can colocate rainfed crops and PV generation
- Objective: What are the financial implications of leaving irrigated farming in favor of rainfed agrivoltaics in ground-water stressed locations
Materials and Methods
- Global hydrological model PCR-GLOBWB is used to identify ground-water stressed regions; regions where non-renewable groundwater extraction is employed
- PV and wind data at groundwater stressed regions is generated based MERRA-2 reanalysis of satellite measurements - comparison b/w solar and wind performed
- LCOE of agrivoltaic energy at groundwater stressed location is determined - loss of agricultural land when switching to rainfed option is also considered
- Eight crops considered: wheat, rice, maize, pulses, cotton, sugar cane, fruit, and vegetables - Global Agro-Ecological Zones (GAEZ) model used for crop yield determination
- CO2 emission implications assessed using United Nations’ ACM0002 baseline methodology for CDM projects
Results and Discussion
- AV global potential on groundwater stressed lands - 11.2-37.6 PWh/yr
- 150 km3 of groundwater depletion could be displaced if rainfed farming is adopted
- 50-100USD/MWh levelized cost of agrivoltaic
- 75-200 USD/tCO2 CO2 cost avoided
- Solar PV potential outperforms wind potential - with typical AV configuration, PV has higher power per unit area as compared to wind
- Yield losses are minimal when transforming to rainfed agrivotlaic farming practice

Effects of different photovoltaic shading levels on kiwifruit growth, yield and water productivity under “agrivoltaic” system in Southwest China[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Elsevier; Publication: Agricultural Water Management; Year: 2022; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: Thin film amporphous silicon; Location: Chengdu Plains, China; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:
Reduced evapotranspiration; reduced irrigation
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: in 2019 CKL 500.4, T1 416.5, T2 359.1, T3 347.1; in 2020 CKL 517.9, T1 471.9, T2 383.1, T3 365.4
  - Unit: mmol/m2s
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Water productivity
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: T1 8.2% and T2 5.8% compared to CKL while for T3 reduced 9.8%
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method: Measurement
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Higher Relative Humidity (RH)
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 6.5% higher in T3 compared to CKL
  - Unit: %
- Quantification Method: Measurement
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Increased Leaf Area Index
- Quantified: In the form of plot
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Higher Light Use Efficiency under shading
- Quantified: In the form of plot for selected data
- Low or High:
  - Unit: micromol/micromol
- Quantification Method: Calculated
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Protect crops from excessive light
- Quantified: Qualified - adopted from another study
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Potential increase in crop yield and water conservation as PV electricity can power drip irrigation
- Quantified: Qualified - in Discussion
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Reduction in CO2
- Quantified: Qualified - adopted from other study
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Introduction
- PV panels impact the microclimate in AV configuration - subsequent impact on plant morphology, also impacts water requirements as well as photosynthesis
- 9.8% PV roof coverage did not significantly impact tomoatoes yield; higher coverage can be detrimental though
- Kiwifruit - shade tolerant hence, chosen for study
- Objective: To ascertain if microclimate changes under PV, whether kiwifruit growth can adapt to PV shading and also, the impact of shading on crop yield
Materials and Methods
- Location: Changdu Plain, China; Panels mounted on roof 3.0m above the ground, Fixed tilt 16o south oriented included alternate panels and hollow PC sheets, while north oriented were PC sheets only tilt 28o
- Panels: Thin-film amorphous silicon abosrbing blue and green spectrum and transmitting red; transmission rate of panels: 19%
- Four config: Full sun (CKL), 19% coverage (T1), 30.4% coverage (T2), and 38% coverage (T3)
- Irrigation qty and freq same for all the four config
- Air temperature, relative humidity and solar radiation measured through weather station for outside environment and inside the AV setup through individual instrumentation
- Leaf area index, chlorophyll content, transpiration rate, photosynthetic rate, sap flux density, daily soil evaporation were also measured
- Kiwifruit shape parameters, growth rate and total were also determined
- Statistical analysis was also performed to understand the impact of PV shading on microclimate, kiwifruit yield and water content
Results
- Microclimate
  - Radiation reduction for T1, T2 and T3: 43.8 ± 0.6%, 50.5 ± 0.6%, and 55.0 ± 0.5% resp.
  - PAR reduction for T1, T2 and T3: 54.3%, 70.8% and 78.7% resp.
- Effects of different PV coverage ratios on leaf water/light use efficiency
  - Evaporation rate, transpiration rate and photosynthetic rate decreases with increased shading
  - Light use efficiency increased with shading
- Effects of different PV coverage ratio on kiwifruit volume
  - Highest volume of kiwifruit in 2018 in T1; in 2019 and 2020 in CKL
  - Yield reduction in 2018: 2.6%, 20.4% and 39.4%; in 2019 6.5%, 25.0% and 26.8%; in 2020 5.1%, 27.7% and 37.1%
Discussion
- Effect of PV shading on Microclimate
  - No significant impact on temperature but RH 6.5% higher in T3 compared to CKL
- Performance of kiwifruit morphology under PV shading
  - Leaf chlorophyll ocntent not impacted by shading significantly
  - Increased leaf area index, hence, better light interception compensating shading
- Leaf photosynthesis and water use of kiwifruit under PV shading
  - Transpirate rate and photosynthesis rate decreases with increased shading; both closely related to PAR
  - Water use efficiency more impacted by photosynthetic rate than transpiration rate, hence lower
  - Protection of corps from excessive radiation
  - Reduced evapotranspiration might result in reduced irrigation requirements (some studies showed higher transpiration due to increased vegetative growth) - here as well as T2 was slightly higher than T3
- Performance of kiwifruit volume and yield under PV shading
  - Yield reduced with shading - PAR reduction impacts yield
- Previous studies suggest 30% coverage, latest 20%
Conclusion
- 19% shading recommended

Effects of shade and deficit irrigation on maize growth and development in fixed and dynamic AgriVoltaic systems[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Elsevier; Publication: Agricultural Water Management; Year: 2023; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: Monocrystalline; Location: Montpellier, France; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:
Protection of crops from excessive light
- Quantified: Adopted from another study
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Water savings from reduced irrigation need
- Quantified: Adopted from another study
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Reduced Evapotranspiration
- Quantified: Quanitfied
- Low or High: DI: water inputs lower than ETo, by 21–44% in control, by 6–23% in SAT and by 9–10% in AVhalf; NI: 51-53% lower water inputs in control but 6-17% in AVfull
- Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Slower soil drying
- Quantified: Quanitfied (trend analysis)
- Low or High:
- Unit:
- Quantification Method: Calculations
- Implication analyzed: reduced irrigation and better soil water conservation
- Comments
Reduced irrigation requirements with shading
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: SAT and AVhalf b/w 19-35%; AVful 47%
- Unit: %
- Quantification Method: Calculations
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments
Improved water productivity of irrigation
- Quantified: Yes
- Low or High: Different for different conditions
- Unit: kg/m3
- Quantification Method: Calculations
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments
Introduction
- Climate change to -vely impact food production, water availability etc.; impact on maize
- Without irrigation supply, global cereal production expected to reduce 47%
- AV can protect crops by intecepting excessive radiation; reduce irrigation needs
- AV can also -vely impact crop charateristics (yield, morphology etc.)
- Objective: Understand implications of radiation, crop development and irrigation for maize with different AV configuration
Materials and Methods
- Location: Montpellier, France;
- Air temperature (Tair), Relative Humidity of the air (RH), Incident Global Radiation (Rg), Reference Evapotranspiration (ETo), Rainfall (R), Total global radiation, wind speed and soil water potential - measured parameters
  - Reference evapotranspiration calculated with equation
  - relative humidity, air temperature and wind speed considered same as full sun considering height of PVs
- PV panels held 4m above the ground; AVfull/AVhalf two fixed tilt configutaion at 25o using monocrystalline panels; AV half has one row removed from conventional solar plant called AVfull here
- AVfull cause 50% irradiation reduction; AVhalf 30%
- Two single-axis tracking systems use monocrystalline panels; maximize solar interception by PV; shading 35%
- Three different irrigation treatments: Fully irrigated (FI), Deficit Irrigated (DI), and Not Irrigated (NI)
- Daily Growing Degree-days = Tmean-Tbase used for evaluating relationship with leaf number
- Plant gas exchange also monitored to understand implication of PAR on photosynthesis and stomatal conductance
Results
- Impact of solar panels on agrometeorological variables
  - RH and wind not considered due to marginal differences, air temperature and radiation anlaysed
  - Shading rate: SAT: 29-38%, AVhalf 30-35% and AVfull 54-56%
  - DI: water inputs lower than ETo, by 21–44% in control, by 6–23% in SAT and by 9–10% in AVhalf
  - NI: 51-53% lower water inputs in control but 6-17% in AVfull
  - Temperature reduction under the panels b/w 0-1.5oC on average; daily variation higher between -5 and 3oC
  - Homogenous irradiation distribution in SAT as compared to fixed tilts
  - More scatterred irradiation in AVhalf atha nAVfull
- Soil water dynamics
  - Slower soil drying results in better water conservation and reduced irrigation
  - Different in inter panels and under panels for AVhalf as compared to SAT; soil drying slower in inter-panels
- Phenology and vegetative growth
  - Delay under AV for all configuration to reach flowering and emergence compared to control
  - No. of leaves highest in FI control plot; highly depend on shading/non-shading
  - Lead Area Index decresed with decreased irradiation or water limitation
- Stomatal response to shade
  - In non-limiting conditions, PAR, leaf temp, net assimilation rate and stomatal conductance increases till mid day and then decrease; same for AV configuration with intermittent shading instances
  - Impact of PAR evident on net assimilation rate and stomatal conductance
- Crop production
  - Total dry matter (TDM) and dry grain yield (DGY) reduce with reduced irrigation and radiation
  - Shading reduces irrigation requirement - SAT and AVhalf b/w 19-35%; AVful 47%
  - Yields in SAT/AVhalf under FI almost equal to control under DI
  - Water productivity of irrrigation higher in AV
Discussion
- Phenological and growth responses of maize to radiative and water stresses
  - Delay in plant emergence due to shading observed
  - Radiation (and not only thermal time) impacts the time interval between sequential emergence of leaves; can be a good measure for determining the same in AV
  - TDM, GT, LAI reduced with reduced irradiation
- Intermittent sahding in AV as a way to manage water scarcity
  - Shading strategies can be devised for better crop development

Effects on Crop Development, Yields and Chemical Composition of Celeriac (Apium graveolens L. var. rapaceum) Cultivated Underneath an Agrivoltaic System

Publisher: MDPI; Publication: Agronomy; Year: 2021; Lifetime:; PV Technology: ; Location: ; PV Power: ; Energy: 246MWh; Efficiency:
Increase yield and improve water use eff.
- Quantified: Qualified (adopted from other study)
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Higher soil moisture
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 1.9% higher in 2017, 3.1% lower in 2018
  - Unit: %
- Quantification Method: Calculations
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments
Higher plant height
- Quantified
- Low or High: 14% higher in 2017 and 30.6% higher in 2018
  - Unit: %
- Quantification Method: Calculations
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments
Higher yield
- Quantified
- Low or High: Dry matter above ground biomass 48% higher in 2017 and 31.9% in 2018; Bulb yield 18.9% lower in 2017 and 11.8% higher in 2018
  - Unit: %, ton/ha
- Quantification Method: Calculations
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments
Soil temperature reduction
- Quantified
- Low or High: 1.2oC in 2017 and 1.4oC in 2018
  - Unit: %, oC
- Quantification Method: Calculations
- Implication analyzed: Increased yield in 2018; diminishes adverse impact of excessive radiation
- Comments
Introduction
- Yield reductions of upto 20% can occur under AV
- Under water scarcity, AV beneficial and can increase yield, imporve water use eff.
- 4 crops considered: Celeriac, winter wheat, grass-clover and potato
- Crop yields decreased in 2017:18.7% (wheat), 18.2% (potatoes) and 5.3% (grassclover); in creased in 2018: 2.7% (wheat) 11% (potatoes); grass-clover yields by 7.8%
- 246MWh of energy produced - 83% of conventional solar plant
- Objective: To study impact of AV on celeriac including quality/chemical composition
Material & Methods
- Various instrumentation to monitor microclimate installed; PAR as well
- Crop development measured every two weeks
Results & Discussion
- PAR reduced 29.5%
- Soil temperature reduced 1.2oC in 2017 and 1.4oC in 2018
- Soil moisture 1.9% higher in 2017, 3.1% lower in 2018
- Air humidity 2.8% higher in AV compared to control
- No difference in yearly mean air temperature
- Higher plant height in AV; 14% higher in 2017 and 30.6% higher in 2018
- Dry matter above ground biomass 48% higher in 2017 and 31.9% in 2018
- Bulb yield 18.9% lower in 2017 and 11.8% higher in 2018; shading helped celeriac in 2018
- Dry weather conditions rendered lower results for control and AV when compared with national average
- Higher above ground biomass resulted in higher bulb yield
- Chemical composition - not much affected by treatements but only by year; Cpncentration of C, Ni and Mn decreased, rest only affected by year

Efficiency Improvement of Ground-Mounted Solar Power Generation in Agrivoltaic System by Cultivation of Bok Choy (Brassica rapa subsp. chinensis L.) Under the Panels[edit | edit source]

Publisher: CBIROE; Publication: International Journal of Renewable Energy Development; Year: 2021; Lifetime:; PV Technology: Amorphous; Location: Chiang Mai Rajabhat University, Thailand; PV Power: 25kW system; 2.28kW of power generation; Energy: ; Efficiency:

Introduction
- By 2036, Thailand intend to increase solar PV installatios to 6000MW
- Increase in solar can cause land use issues - can be addressed through AV
- Objective: To ascertain efficiency improvement of solar PV when installed above cultivated land
Materials and Methods
- Location: Chiang Mai Rajabhat University, Thailand; 5 arrays; 25kWp total installed capacity; amorphous PV modules; Crop: Bok Choy
- Solar radiation, temperatuer of modules, voltage and current measurements recorded
- Plant characteristics such as height, number of leaves etc. measured every 7 days; crop yield also measured
Results and Discussion
- 0.18oC lower solar panel temperature
- Higher power generation than control configuration; 2.28 and 2.12 kW vs 2.06kW in control
- No significant difference in height of plans, although, thinner/smaller stems; no. of leaves lower as well as leaf size and weights also lower
- Shading could cause 64% solar intensity reduction 1200 micromol/m-s to 74 micromol/m-s
- Increase in power generation - approx. 0.09%

Emergent molecular traits of lettuce and tomato grown under wavelength-selective solar cells[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Frontiers; Publication: Frontiers in Plant Science; Year: 2023; Lifetime:; PV Technology: Organic Solar Cell (OSC) ; Location: ; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:

Improved photosynthesis
- Quantified: Quantified - from figures/graphs
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method: Calculation
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Increased anthoyacin content
- Quantified: Quantified - from figures/graphs
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method: Calculation
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Abstract
- Semitransparent OSC effect electricity output as well as crop growth
- Three different OSC filters used; lettuce and tomato grown
- Lettuce yield not affected by AV; instead benefitted in terms of nutrient content and nitrogen utilization
Introduction
- 70% increase in food demand until 2050
- Greenhouse more productive for crop growth, less water requirements, less pesticide/fertilizer use, provide shelter to plants from drought/heat/flood
- Field crops damage due to weather in US in 2021 - 8 billion USD
- Greenhouses are energy intensive, carbon footprint negative when compared to conventional crop if fossil fuels used in greenhouses
- OSCs impact light spectrum as well as intensity
- Blue and red light spectrum more efficiency used by plants for photosynthesis
- Objective: To determine the impact of OSC on shade tolerant lettuce and shade intolerant tomato under simulated OSC greenhouse condition
- No adverse impact on biomass
Results
- Light use: similar spectra as natural light
- Biomass remained unaffected by different OSC filter
- Photosynthesis improved in OSC when compared to control for lettuce, tomato same but transpiration rate decreased
- Anthocyanin content for OSC in lettuce increased
Discussion
- The physiology of the plants changed with variation in light quality under different OSC filters

All related to Plant Sciences

Energy Policy for Agrivoltaics in Alberta Canada[edit | edit source]

Publisher: MDPI; Publication: Energies; Year: 2022; Lifetime:; PV Technology: ; Location: ; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:

Reduced GHGs, climate change, improved health, increased crop yield, increased land use efficiency, changed microclimate beneficial for crops, increased land productivity, water conservation, maintaining agricultural employment, on farm production of ammonia/hydrogen, charge EVs etc.
- Quantified: Adopted from other studies
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Introduction
- AV can address land-use conflicts
- Objective: To anlayze policies impacting AV in Alberta, Canada
AV Background
- AV benefits - Reduced GHGs, climate change, improved health, increased crop yield, increased land use efficiency, changed microclimate beneficial for crops, increased land productivity, water conservation, maintaining agricultural employment, on farm production of ammonia etc.
- Canada is behind other nations of the world in AV technology
- Land-use policies could play a vital role in its diffusion/deterrence
Alberta
- Solar potential of Alberta higher than Tokyo, Paris etc. - 1276 kWh/kW
- 30% of electricity to come from renewable until 2030 - aim
- Solar PV regulations in Alberta - micro, small scale, utility scale, based on installed MW
- Ample opportunities for AV in Alberta in context of AFA, climate smart agriculture etc.
Policies Review for Agrivoltaics in Alberta
- Land Use Framework
- Alberta Land Stewarship Act
- Municipal Government Act
- Agricultural Operation Practices Act (AOPA)
- Soil Conservation Act
- Bill 22
- Special Area Disposition Regulation
- Electricity from AV can be used to charge EV cars or produce hydrogen as transportation fuel

Evaluation of solar photovoltaic systems to shade cows in a pasture-based dairy herd[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Elsevier; Publication: Journal of Dairy Science;Year: 2021; Lifetime: 25 to 30 years; PV Technology: ; Location: Minnesota, US; PV Power: 30kW; Energy: ; Efficiency:

Lower respiration rate
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 66.4 breaths/min vs 78.3 breaths/min)
  - Unit: breathes/min
- Quantification Method: Measurement/calculation
- Implication analyzed: Increase well-being, reduced heat stress
- Comments
Lower body temp
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 39.0 vs 39.2°C & 39.3 vs39.4°C,
  - Unit: oC
- Quantification Method:Measurement/calculation
- Implication analyzed: Increased well-being, reduced heat stress
- Comments
Introduction
- Climate change to cause increase in average temperatures
- Above 25oC - cows can develop heat stress; 900 million $ of production losses in dairy sector in US caused by heat stress
- Temp-humidity index - measure to estimate implication of heat stress in terms of milk production etc.; 68 to 72 in cows means heat stress and reduced milk output/fertility
- Objective: Implication of PV shading on the production, health, and behavior of cows
Materials and Methods
- Morris, Minnesota, US; 30-kW facility; 35o facing south panels, 2.4 to 3m above ground
- 24 cows divided into 4 groups of 6 each; pasture/forage fed; divided into shaded or non-shaded treatments
- 4 periods of grazing; first 7-day long and remaining 5-days considering availability of pasture
- Weather data acquird from weather stations
- Fly count, fly avoidance behaviorm respiration, hygiene score, daily milk production was monitored; ear flicks, tail swishes, foot stomps, head tosses and skin twitches also noted
- Sensors used to monitor body temperature, cow activity etc.
- Use of shade was noted; observation of cows if they were utilizing the shade
- Statistical analysis performed with PROC GLIMMIX, PROC MIXED - SAS
Results and Discussion
- THI values b/w 73.3 and 77.4; cows experience mild heat stress
- Shaded cows had more ear flicks (11.4 ear flicks/30 s) than no-shade cows (8.6 ear flicks/30 s); dirtier bellies and lower legs (2.2 and 3.2, resp) than no-shade cows (1.9 and 2.9, resp) as well
- In the afternoon, shade cows showed lower respiration rates (66.4 breaths/min) than no-shade cows (78.3 breaths/min); similar in morning
  - Less than 60 breathes/min indicative of no heat stress in cows
- From 1200 to 1800 h and 1800 to 0000 h, shade cows had lower body temperature (39.0 and 39.2°C, resp) than no-shade cows (39.3 and 39.4°C, resp)
- B/w milking times (0800 and 1600 h), shaded cows had lower body temperature (38.9°C) than no-shade cows (39.1°C)
- No difference in fly intensity; milk, fat and protein production b/w shaded and non-shaded cows; similar drinking bout, hourly activity, eating etc.
- Cows spent 38% to 44% of time in shade

Greener sheep: Life cycle analysis of integrated sheep agrivoltaic systems[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Elsevier; Publication: Cleaner energy systems;Year: 2022; Lifetime: 30 years; PV Technology: silicon; Location: New York, Texas and Wyoming, US ; PV Power: 6.67 MW; Energy: ; Efficiency:

Higher land use eff, water use eff, increaed crop yield, improved microclimate, animal well being, 69.3% less GHGs for rabbit AV, crop protection from heat
- Quantified: Adopted from other studies
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Less greenhouse gas emissions
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 4
  - Unit: %
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Global warmming potential improvement
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 280 - 894% compared to conventional grid
  - Unit: %
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Introduction
- AV can address land-use conflicts; 1% of land address 20% of US electricity requirements
- Benefits: Higher land use eff, water use eff, increaed crop yield, improved microclimate, animal well being, 69.3% less GHGs for rabbit AV, crop protection from heat
- Objective: LCA for sheep based AV - follows ISO standard
Methods
- 30 acres, 30 years AV plant, 200 sheep annually could be grazed, 6.67 MW, Location: New York, Texas and Wyoming, US
- Sheep meat and electricity - main products
- Electricity in functional unit can come from grid, conventional solar plant or AV whereas sheep protein service can come from AV based sheep or conventionally grazed sheept
- Ecoinvent version 3 used for modelling
- Sheep fed with pasture (20% feed is supplemented though), water is pumped and fertilizer is also added, external fencing, while internal fencing for rotational grazing
- Conventional: 6.67 MW plant, ground mounted, silicon, 30 years, mowing equipment for grass removal, weed treatment
- Grid: Grid profile available in Ecoinvent used
- AV: 6.67 MW PV, 200 sheep, external and internal fence, no mowing or herbicide, sheep only graze on pasture, water and fertilizer req. same as conventional PV
- LCA modelling perofrmed in SimaPro version
Results and Discussion
- Solar PV 10 times less impactful than grid electricity
- AV sheep 25% better than conventional sheep
- 4% improvement in GHG emission for AV when compared to separated PV and sheep grazing
- 280 - 894% global warming potential improvement over conventional grid
- 70,000kg CO2 eq savings from grass management
- Ecological impact of electricity generation more promienent than meat production
- 75% reduction in ecotoxicity transitioning from conventional to AV based sheep production
- 5.73e8 kg of CO2 eq could be offset by raising sheep in US under AV
- Anlaysis did not consider end of life impact
- AV superior to ground mounted PV; improves chances of social acceptance; perfectly in line with sustainable development goals

Green-Light Wavelength-Selective Organic Solar Cells Based on Poly(3-hexylthiophene) and Naphthobisthiadiazole-Containing Acceptors toward Agrivoltaics[edit | edit source]

Publisher: American Chemical Society; Publication: ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering;Year: 2023; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: ; Location: ; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency

Introduction
- OSCs are being increasingly researched to improve power conversion efficiency (PCE)
- OSCs can tune wavelength for electricity generation
- Greenlight wavelength selective OSCs - only absorb photons from green, transmit other wavelengths
- Objective: Two new materials tested for OSCs
Results and Discussion
- Greenlight wavelength selectivity of proposed materials better when compared to high performance OSC
- Photosynthesis evaluation under OSC performed for strawberry plants
  - Improved photosynthetic rate when compared to conventional OSC

Does not mention any comparison with not using PVs

Ground-Mounted Photovoltaic and Crop Cultivation: A Comparative Analysis[edit | edit source]

Publisher: MDPI; Publication: Sustainability;Year: 2022; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: ; Location: Mykolaiv, Poland and Opole, Ukraine; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:

Reduction in CO2
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 601 (Opole), 286tCO2/ha (Mykolaiv)
  - Unit: tCO2/ha
- Quantification Method: Calculation
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Introduction
- PV will encompass 25% of world's electricity by 2050
- PV conversion into electricity more efficiency than photosynthesis
- PV causes land use conflict
- Electricity prices, global conflicts also support the need for renewable energy (solar PV) adoption
- Objective - Economic efficiency of PV vs farming
Materials and Methods
- Location: Mykolaiv, Poland and Opole, Ukraine
- Net present value and profitability index for farming project ascertained; coefficient of variation also calculated for two variables
- r.green.solar model used to compare economics of farming vs PV plant
- NPV = revenues - cost; PI = revenues/cost
- CO2 reduction calculated using emission factors of 318kgCO2/MWh for Ukrain and 934kgCO/MWh for Polant
Results and Discussion
- PV projects have higher NPV, but lower PI compared to farming
- Avg NPV in Mykolaiv=771,829EUR/ha and 71,938 EUR/ha in Opole
- Avg NPV for farming in Mykolaiv=7111.59EUR/ha, PI 6.465 for farming vs 2.057 for PV
- Avg NPV for farming in Opole=8300EUR/ha, PI 6.37 for farming vs 1.10 for PV
- CO2 reduction in Opole = 601 tCO2/ha; In Mykolaiv=286tCO2/ha

Not Agrivoltaics; replacing agriculture with PV

Herbage Yield, Lamb Growth and Foraging Behavior in Agrivoltaic Production System[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Frontiers; Publication: Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems;Year: 2022; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: ; Location: Oregon, US; PV Power: 1.4MW; Energy: ; Efficiency:

Reduced water consumption by lamb in late spring season
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 0.72 less
  - Unit: L/head-d
- Quantification Method: Calculation
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Higher forage quality
- Quantified: Qualified
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method: Inferred based on equal sheep production with smaller yield qty; also chemical composition (nothing specifically mentioned though which chemical contributes)
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Increased land productivity
- Quantified: Qualified
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Generate less GHGs, 30% more economic value, increased crop yield, ecosystem benefits
- Quantified: Adopted from other study
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Higher soil moisture
- Quantified: Qualified
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed: increase in late season biomass
- Comments
Cool climate for grazing/shelter from heat,wind
- Quantified: Qualified
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed: Reduce sheltering requirements and hence, capital cost
- Comments
High growth rate
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 120g/head-day solar lambs; 119 g/head-day open lambs
  - Unit:g/head-day
- Quantification Method: Calculated
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Live weight
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: solar lambs (1.5 kg/ha-d) and open lambs (1.3 kg/ha-d)
  - Unit:kg/ha-d
- Quantification Method: Calculated
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Higher land equivalent ratio
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 1.68 to 2.04
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method: Calculated
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Introduction
- Large solar farms cause land use conflicts; AV can address the issue and provide several other benefits including generation of less GHGs, 30% more economic value, increased crop yield, ecosystem benefits
- Raising livestock under shade is beneficial - extended grazing time due to lower evapotranspiration, higher nutrient of forage and lower environmental pollution
- Objective: To analyse pasture/lamb growth, grazing behavior, quality of forage under control and AV config.
Materials and Methods
- Oregon, US; 1.4MW power plant; 2.4 ha, fixed tilt facing south at 18o 1.1m above ground; inter row spacing 6m
- AV consisted 50% shading and 50% non-shading as 6m space was segregared as 3m fully shaded and 3m partial
- 09 lambs in each treatment; free access to fresh water
- Forage dry matter, livestock weight, lamb behavior (idling, grazing or ruminating) was observed; LER calculated; statistical analysis also performed
Results
- Mean air and soild temperatures similar in patially shaded AV and open field;
- Fully shaded - air temperature lower in spring and summer soil temp greater in spring and lower insummer
- Soild moisture - similar in control and partial AV; greater in spring and summer in fully shaded
- Similar pasture for partial and control; for fully AV pasture yield lower; 9-33% lower pasture in AV than open
- Higher herbage mass in open than AV
- Differences observed in nutrient contents between open and AV-based pasture
- Growth:120g/head-day solar lambs; 119 g/head-day open lambs
- Liveweight production between grazing: solar (1.5 kg/ha-d) and open (1.3 kg/ha-d) [confusing]
- Lamb behaviors (grazing, ruminating, drinking) were similar for both treatments
- In late spring, lambs under solar consumed 0.72 L less water per day than control
- LER - 1.68 to 2.04
Discussion
- Shading and animal trampling lessened pasture production in fully shaded regions
- No affect on lamb production even with lower available pasture in AV
- Lambs spend more time under shade and had similar or less water needs when compared to control
- Higher land use efficiency

Implications of spatial-temporal shading in agrivoltaics under fixed tilt & tracking bifacial photovoltaic panels[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Elsevier; Publication: Renewable Energy;Year: 2022; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: ; Location: Lahore, Pakistan; Corvallis, US; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:

- Quantified:
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Introduction
- From 1961 to 2016, cropland reduction 46%
- AV - addresses land use conflict amongst other benefits
- PAR impacts the crop yield and quality
- Objective: To model variation in sunlight based on PV config and esimate implications on crop yield
Methodology
- Factor-based approach used to determine shading pattern underneath PV
- Four config - N/S faced 30o fixed tilt, E-W verticals, N-S SAT and E-W SAT
- Useful PAR ratio is the PARu,AV divided by PARu,open; Y,PAR = PARu,AV/PARu,open
- Normalized PAR = PAR/PARth
Results and Discussion
- Half density = inter row spacing twice the normal heigh and half = four times the normal height; normal height 1m
- PAR th = 213W/m2 for lettuce and tomato = 596W/m2
- Fixed tilt - N/S vs E/W
  - E/W verticals have homogenous irradiation, higher PAR
  - N/S fixed tilts hetrogenous, lower PAR underneat panels compared to open space b/w modules
- SAT - N/S vs E/W
  - Similar PAR pattern E-W vertical and E-W SAT
  - For both SAT - seasonal variation evident - higher in underneath panels in winters and lower in summers
  - Normalized PAR vary significantly under N-S SAT
- Daily cummulative spatial useful PAR yield
  - 30% less useful PAR in winter and 10% in summer - NS fixed tilts, lettuce
  - 40-50% less useful PAR below PV modules, none in b/w spaces - NS fixed tilts, tomato
  - Tomato yield not less than 20% for E/W vertical - homogenous YPAR
- Comparison with field experiment
  - Corvallis, US; N-S fixed tilt
  - YPAR from experiment = 0.46 and from simulation = 0.51
- Intercropping for half density solar array
  - Based on threshold PAR (<80% for tomato), areas defined based on the pitch for cropping tomato and lettuce
  - Different for different configurations
  - E/W tracking - pitch can be segregated into 3 segments
  - N/S fixed - tomatoes to be farmed near north and lettuce south; uniform YPAR along the pitch during summer but not in winters
  - E/W verticals - YPAR more than 80%, hence no need for intercropping
  - Intercropping increases land productivity in general
- Intercropping for full density solar array
  - N/S fixed - tomato and lettuce planted alternately
  - E/W vertical - same intercropping pattern as half density
  - E/W vertical provide highest YPAR for tomato, lowerst E/W SAt
  - 30% less radiation in full-density vs half-density
  - YPAR higher in half density than full density
- Daily cummulative temporal useful PAR
  - N/S fixed tilt or tracking provide useful irradiation in mornings/evenings in summers; may be more useful for lettuce (shade tolerants)
  - In winters, useful radiation same for different configuations
- Solar power output analysis
  - E/W tracking highest prodcution, N/S fixed tilt and tracking similar, E/W vertical the least
  - E/W provides highest useful PAR though

No additional benefit of PV discussed

Increasing the comprehensive economic benefits offarmland with Even-lighting Agrivoltaic Systems[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Public Library of Science; Publication: PLOS ONE;Year: 2021; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: ; Location: Fuyang & Hefei, Anhui, China; PV Power: 35 kW in Fuyang ; Energy: ; Efficiency:

Reduce drought stress, maintain higher soil moisture and imporved biomass
- Quantified: Adopted from other study
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Increased yield for Jerusalem artichoke
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 23
  - Unit: %
- Quantification Method: Calculations
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments
LER increased
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 1.64
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method: Calculations
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments
Higher vit C and nitrate content in T3 vs T1 (Lettuce)
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 13.30 and 33.59
  - Unit: %
- Quantification Method: Calculations
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments
Increased farmers income
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 5.14 times
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method: Calculations
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments
Introduction
- Inter-row distance in AV - thrice the height of panels
- In dry climates, AV have shown to reduce drought stress, maintain higher soil moisture and imporved biomass
- In suitable climates, reduction in crop yield and quality observed under AV
- Objective: Propose Even-lighting Agrivoltaic System (EAS) for high yield/quality and eff. electrical output
Materials and methods
- From PV panel area, 1/3 area replaced with grooved glass plate; so area of glass plate is 1/3 the light receiving area of the system
- PV density remains the same as conventional PV
- Glass plate scatters the sunlight thus providing irradiation uniformly
- Tilt considered 23o; height of PVs = 2.5m; model of glass developed in Solidworks and coupled with Zemax 12 to give the light patter/illimination
- Two experiments:
  - smaller and semi-natural in Hefei; lettuce; four config: Control T1, Conventional AV T2, EAS T3 and EAS with additional lighting T4
  - larger in Fuyang; broccoli, shallot, garlic sprouts, garlic, broad bean, Jerusalem, rape; two config: control and EAS
- PAR, crop growth, yield, LER, comprehensive eco benefits of EAS were measured
Results
- 47.38% improved irradiation with grooved glass as compared to conventional AV; crops growth rate similar to control
- 5% yield reduction for all crops except broccoli and rape while Jerusalem artichoke increased 23%
- EAS increases farmer income by 5.14 times and LER was 1.64
- Uniform light scattering under grooved glass
- Under conv AV, PPFD was v less when compared to control or EAS
- 3.87% more irradiation received on panels than on ground; compared to control EAS received 40.87% less irradiation while conv AV 88.25% less
- Lettuce: Similar fresh and dry weight in T1, T3 and T4; 53.5% and 60.5% reduction in T2
- Large Scale Experiment: Reduction in broccoli 9%, rape 11%, shallot 2%, garlic sprouts 6%, garlic 4%, broad bean 6% and Jerusalem artichoke increased 23%
- Protein content similar in 4 treatments, higher nitrate in T2 and T3 than T1 and T4
- soluble sugar content in lettuce was T2> T4> T1>T3; for vitamin C, it was T2> T3> T1> T4; for nitrate content, it was T1 = T4 < T3 =T2
- Farmer's income increased by 5.14 times for EAS
- LER always greater than 1 - average 1.64

Innovative agrivoltaic systems to produce sustainable energy: An economic and environmental assessment[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Elsevier; Publication: Applied Energy;Year: 2021; Lifetime: 25 years; PV Technology: silicon cells; Location: Po Valley, Northern Italy; PV Power: 6.7MW; Energy: ST, 1A and 2A (1100000, 1320000 and 1500000 kWh/y); Efficiency:

- Reduced evaportranspiration, crops potection from heat, reduced soil temp, higher maize yield under water-stressed conditions, improved water productivity
- Quantified: Adopted from other study
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Gobal Warming Potential
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 1A (19.4), 2A (20.2) vs 22.6 and 21.3 for GMPV and rooftops
  - Unit: gCO2eq/MJ
- Quantification Method: LCA
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments
Freshwater Eutrophication
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 0.010 1A and 2A vs 0.020 for rooftop and 0.014 for GMPV
  - Unit: g P eq.
- Quantification Method: LCA
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments
Acidification
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 0.13 1A and 2A vs 0.17 for rooftop and 0.15 for GMPV
  - Unit: mmole of H + eq.
- Quantification Method: LCA
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments
Photochemical ozone formation
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 0.069 and 0.072 vs 0.080 for GMPV/rooftops
  - Unit: kg NMVOC eq.
- Quantification Method: LCA
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments
Minerals and metals use
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 0.467 (1A), 0.486 (2A), 0.778 (roof) and 0.589 (GMPV)
  - Unit: mm Sb eq.
- Quantification Method: LCA
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments
Energy carriers use
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 0.26 (1A and 2A), 0.29 (roof) and 0.30 (GMPV)
  - Unit: MJ
- Quantification Method: LCA
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments
Better land utilization, reduce impact on natural ecosystem, stability of crop production, food security, positive effect on water availability and water quality
- Quantified: Qualified
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Introduction
- Conflict and climate change - two main factors affect people (hunger, displacement, water access etc.)
- More than 33% of world's power generation installation are renewables - land occupation issue associated though
- AV provides several benefits: reduced evaportranspiration, crops potection from heat, reduced soil temp, higher maize yield under water-stressed conditions, improved water productivity
- Objective: Ascertain Agrivoltaico's environmental performance using LCA as well as economics
Materials and Methods
- Three different config tested - 1A (single axis), 2A (double axis) and ST (fixed - low and high density); compared with traditional PV (ground and roof mounted), wind turbines, coal/gas power plants, biogas (maize and sorghum) and Italian electricity mix
- Functional unit is 1MJ electricity delivered to grid
- GABI software used
- 500kW/hectare for 1A, 2A, HD ST while 200 kW/hectare for LD ST
- LCOE used as economic indicator; no end of life costs/revenues considered
- Feasibilty of project ascertained from NPV, IRR and payback periods
- Economic performance largely unaffected by crops underneath as orders of magnitude quite different for electr. sales
Results
- Global Warming Potential
  - Major contribution for GHG comes from modules and support structure
  - 1A/2A 20gCO2eq/MJ for AV vs 22.6 and 21.3gCO2eq/MJ for GMPV and rooftops
- Acidification and eutrophication
  - Marine eutrophication similar for 1A and 2A as compared to ground mounts and rooftops; freshwater lower for 1A and 2A
  - Acidification lower for 1A/2A - 0.13 mmole of H+ eq
- Similar respiratory organics impact for 1A/2A and other PV systems
- Photochemical ozone formation
  - AV better; 0.069 and 0.072 kg NMVOC eq. vs 0.080 for GMPV/rooftops
- Resources Depletion
  - AV better; mineral and metals; 0.467 (1A), 0.486 (2A), 0.778 (roof) and 0.589 (GMPV) mm Sb eq.
  - AV better; energy carriers; 0.26 (1A and 2A), 0.29 (roof) and 0.30 (GMPV) MJ
- Economic Performance
  - GMPV 33% cheaper than AV - reduced installation and infrastructures cost
  - Roof mounts even cheaper than GMPVs
  - 1/3 cost of AV are for installation. BOP and supporting infrastructure; 1/5 for panels
  - LCOE 89.5 euro/MWH for 1A, 88.9 for 2A - GMPV 5 euros and rooftops 15 euros lower though
  - IRR: AV 13%, GMPV 14% and rooftops above 17%
  - Payback time: 9 years AV, 8 and 6 years for GMPV and rooftops
Discussion
- Environmental performance for AV (except fixed tilts) similat to GMPVs and rooftops
- Better land utilization, reduce impact on natural ecosystem, stability of crop production, food security are other advantages of AV
- 20-70 times less energy production for biogas when compared to PV
- 50% higher CAPEX for AV than GMPV - additional electricity pays it off
- AV have no negative impact on sustainable development goals suggested by UN

Integration of bifacial photovoltaics in agrivoltaic systems: A synergistic design approach[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Elsevier; Publication: Applied Energy;Year: 2021; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: bifacial; Location: Boston, USA; ; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:

Decreased soil temperaure
- Quantified: Adopted from other study
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed: decrease in soil evaporation which increases yield for Maize under non-irrigated conditions
- Comments
Reduced evapotranspiration and cooler plants beneficial for plants
- Quantified: Adopted from other study
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Introduction
- Land use issues can be addressed with AV
- Objective: Coin a modelling framework to ascertain optimal topology for AV system using bifacial modules
- Location: Boston, USA
Literature Review
- Plant Productivity and growth
  - Under water stressed conditions, plants photosynthesis process is adversely impacted
  - PAR is the useful spectrum of light used for photosynthesis
  - C3 require lower PAR - suitable for AV than C4
- Diffuse light
  - Can penetrate deeper and be beneficial
  - Different ways to increase diffuse light; greenhouse or diffusion film
- Influence of PV array
  - Mean daily air temp remains same under AV, soil temp reduces, increases yield (Maize)
  - Cooler crops as well as reduced evapotranspiration beneficial for plants
- Bifacial PV optimization
  - Bifacials improve LCOE as compared to monos
  - Bifacial gain 15-25% for small setups while it is 5-15% for large farms
  - With stilt mounted AV systems, the bifacials offer great synergy (more rear irradiance due to increased height, low density)
- Ground albedo
- Ray tracing validity
  - Ray tracing (RT) model was adopted - software: Radiance and Daysim
Modelling
- Three stages of modelling - geometric, irradiance and yield
- Geometric modelling through CAD and Grasshopper
- Coupling of geomteric and irradiance modelling performed via DIVA
- Using irradiation values, electrical yield and corp yield determined
- Mathematical equations used to determine the electrical yield
- LER also ascertained; crop yield determined using CO2 assimilation rate for shaded and unshaded conditions
- Coeff. of variation used to ascertain light inhomogeneity
Results
- Higher electrical yield vs monos for all three config - S-N facing (39%), E-W wings (18%) and E-W vertical (13%)
- E-W vertical better for permanent crops, S-N facing better for shade tolerant crops during summer and E-W wings improves light distribution as well as provides shade in noon (best config)
- Increased row spacing impacted light transmittance less in E-W config than S-N facing arrays
- Higher tilts benefits more with increasing the row spacing
- Low density PV increases light availability for both PV and crops; decreases electrical output
- N-S facing arrays have higher electrical output than E-W vertical;; but E-W vertical have better light distribution
- E-W wings topology shall be used for crops requiring shading mid-day as E-W verticals do not provide shade in the afternoon
- For blueberry growth, E-W wings topology with customized bifacials were tested - land productivity increased 50% while electrical output reduced 33% compared to conventional
- To keep yield reduction to 17%, module transparency of 38% was used for E-W wings topology

Life cycle assessment of pasture-based agrivoltaic systems: Emissions and energy use of integrated rabbit production[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Elsevier; Publication: Cleaner and Responsible Consumption;Year: 2021; Lifetime: 30 years; PV Technology: multi-crystalline Si; Location: Texas, USA; PV Power: 1.57MW; Energy: 412596 MWh; Efficiency:

Additional yield, improved land use efficiency, land use conflict, reduced water consumption between 14-29% and financials, beneficial for environment
- Quantified: Adopted from other study
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Less emissions and fossil energy demand vs separate PV based elec generation
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: (3883000 vs 12667000) 69.3% and (46037000 vs 269234000)82.9%
  - Unit: kg CO2 eq and MJ
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Introduction
- Traditional PV farms cause land use conflict between energy and food production - AV provides the solution
- Additional benefits of putting solar on farmland: additional yield, improved land use efficiency, land use conflicts and financials, reduced water requirement between 14-29% for farming, beneficial for environment
- Objective: Ascertain the environmental performance of rabbit-based agrivoltaic systems against traditional practices
- Three scenarios studied: rabbit agrivoltaics, separate rabbit farming and PV electricity generation; and separate conventional electricity generation and rabbit farming
Methodology
- LCA performed according to ISO 14040 (ISO, 2006a) and ISO 14044 (ISO, 2006b)
- Energy generation potential for all 3 scenarios: 1.57MW (412596MWh); rabbit meat based on 2ha productive capacity of pasture (7200 rabbits); lifetime 30 years; location: Texas, USA
- Cradle to gate approach - no end of life processes considered (nelegible impact on GHG and fossil energy demand)
- Additional internal fencing considered for AV scenario to determine the environmental impact
- For conventional PV plant, vegetative maintenance required since no rabbits are available
- Conventional rabbit farming included feeding methods as well as housing/shelter
- Impact assessment methods ascertained using SimaPro (PCC 2013 Global Warming Potential (GWP) 100a V1.03 and cumulative energy dem (CED) V1.11)
- Cumulative energy demand and GHG emissions - major parameters being looked
Results & Discussion
- Rabbit AV environmentally superior - least GHG emission and fossil energy demand (69.3% and 82.9%)
  - Reason; no requirement of vegetative maintenance for PV and feed input for rabbit

Modeling of large-scale integration of agrivoltaic systems: Impact on the Japanese power grid[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Elsevier; Publication: Journal of Cleaner Production;Year: 2022; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: ; Location: ; PV Power: ; Energy: 35TWh other crops and 24 TWH for rice land; Efficiency:

Land use conflict, increased income
- Quantified: Adopted from other study
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Reduced CO2 emissions
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 8.14% for rice paddies
  - Unit: %
- Quantification Method: Calculation
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Introduction
- With PV grid stability is a problem as well as land use conflict; AV tackles it and can help decarbonize Japan's elec. grid
- For food security reasons, yield in AV config should be at least 80% of normal farming
- Objective: Identify the impact of large scale AV installation in Japan's grid using rice farmland and eq amount of farmland for other crops
Methodology
- Rice paddies account for 35% of farmlandland in Japan; hence "35%" of total cultivated land used for comparison
- Maximum agrivoltaic application on rice land - 28% to achieve 80% of yield; sensitivity performed for half this percentage
- Scenario 1: No batteries or expanded transmission lines; Scenario 2: With expanded transmmission lines; Scenarios 3 & 4: With battery storage only (differing costs); Scenarios 5 and 6: With both transmission lines and batteries
- CO2 emission ascertained uding the CO2 emission rate anf fuel used for generation
Results
- Installing AV on rice land more beneficial tham on similar acreage on other cropland since rice paddies are situated in high load requirement regions
- Without battery and expanded transmission line, generator/output suppression will occur as PV will produce more energy than required
- More suppression occurred in other cropland than rice land due to distributed allocation of rice paddies and closeness to high load centers
- Adding transmission lines reduced the output suppression but not much - with batteries (even alone) it is considerable, although together it is higher

Modeling of Stochastic Temperature and Heat Stress Directly Underneath Agrivoltaic Conditions with Orthosiphon Stamineus Crop Cultivation[edit | edit source]

Publisher: MDPI; Publication: Agronomy;Year: 2022; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: ; Location: University Putra, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:

Improved impact on environment, light usage and space for dual purpose, increased crop yield
- Quantified:
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Introduction
- Malaysia aims to increase its renewable share to 20% by 2025
- For PV based elec. output, temperature plays a key role - 1oC increase in temp reduces eff by 0.5%
- Heat stress/temperature can play an important role in plant's growth
- Orthosiphon stamineus used for study; drip fertigation employed
- Vapor pressure deficit and transpration aimpact plant health/growth
- Objective: Measure the temperature profile and impact of heat stress for AV system growing Orthosiphon stamineus
Methodology
- Location: University Putra, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia; height of PV: 1 -1 .5m; temp, RH and wind speed measured; VPD calculated, thermal camera used for recording temperature profile
- Increased VPD increases transpiration which reduces photosynthesis
Results
- VPD for AV - avg: 1.072 kPa; for greenhouse conditions: 0.85 kPa
- At 4 ft height, in the afternoon, highest heat stress occurrence (23%) - reason being high temp at the back of PVs (heat stress condition considered when temp got 10-15oC above ambient)
- The heat stress model could provide min and max temp based on PV panel and 4ft high temp

Not our scope

Module Technology for Agrivoltaics: Vertical Bifacial Versus Tilted Monofacial Farms[edit | edit source]

Publisher: IEEE; Publication: Journal of Photovoltaics;Year: 2021; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: ; Location: Lahore, Pakistan; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:

Reduced water requirements, improved crop yield, farmland conservation and socioeconomic advantages to farmers, land-use conflict, protection from extreme weather
- Quantified: Adopted from another study
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Introduction
- AV addresses land-use conflict with several benefits
- Full density PV arry: row to row distance twice the height of PV array and half density - four times
- South facing 30o tilt arrays; total global radiation 60% for half density and 80% for quarter density compared to open field
- Objective: Comparing vertical E-W bifacials vs tilted monos and bifacials with N-S orientation w.r.t PAR and elec. yield
Methodology
- Solar irradiation, shadow lengths, electrical yield, transmitted PAR are analytically determined
- LPF ascertained, uses PAR and electrical yield as matrix
- Soiling loss 4-7% higher for mono N-S vs bifacials; however, not considered in the analysis
Results and Discussion
- N-S tilted and E-W verticals compared for half (p/h=4), full (p/h=2) and double (p/h=1) density config
- Verticals produce same elec. yield and PAR comapred to half density tilted N-S facing arrays
- Verticals beneficial due to min land coverage, ease of farm machinery operation, reduced soiling losses etc.
- With increased panel density more than half density, shading becomes evident for verticals, hence, elec. yield reduces but PAR increases
- PAR higher for vertical vs N-S for all density config
- LPF alsmost similar for for half density config for both N-S and vertical E-W; as panel density increases LPF improves for N-S when compared to E-W verticals
- Tilt angle impacts crop yield as PAR gets affected - can be used to adjust PAR and PV energy yield
- For all three schemes: for 80% PAR, p/h=4; for 80% elec. yield, p/h = 2.6 for N/S and p/h=2 for bi E-W, however, PAR in this scenario reduces to 60-70%

Not our scope

Performance and Hydroponic Tomato Crop Quality Characteristics in a Novel Greenhouse Using Dye-Sensitized Solar Cell Technology for Covering Material[edit | edit source]

Publisher: MDPI; Publication: horticulture; Year: 2019; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: ; Location: Macedonia, Greece; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:

Quality of fruit
- Quantified: Qualified
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Lower transpiration rate for MST
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 6 for conventional and 5 for DSSC
  - Unit: H2O m-2 sec-1
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Higher lycopene for ChT in DSSC
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 42.2 vs 35 for conventional
  - Unit: microg/g
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Higher Beta-carotene for ChT in DSSC
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 12 vs 10 for conventional
  - Unit: microg/g
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Higher total Cartenoids
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 55 vs 40 for ChT and 40 vs 36 for MST (values ascertained from graph)
  - Unit: microg/g
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Higher antioxidant capacity
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: ABTS: 37 vs 32 for MST and 67 vs 61 for ChT; DPPH: 41 vs 39 for ChT (values ascertained from graph)
  - Unit: mg TE/100gfw
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments
Introduction
- Greenhouses are increasingly adopting renewable sources for energizing
- Integration of solar modules on greenhouses may cause reduced production unless the sunlight excess sunlight is harvested
- Objective: To ascertain the implication of using DSSC solar panel in a greenhouse application - crop yield and crop quality and compare with normal greenhouse
Materials and Methods
- Location: Thermi, Macedonia, Greece; medium-sized tomato (MST) and cherry tomato (ChT) experimented; solar radiation, air termp and humidity were measured; plant's yield, morphological, physiological, physiochemical, antioxidants and qualitative characteristics were measured
- PAR 576 +- 100 and 387 +- 100 micro mol (photon) m–2 s–1 for conventional and DSSC greenhouse
Results and Discussion
- Microclimate
  - Solar radiation, air temp, humidity, concentration of CO2 measured - data used for calculating photosynthesis/chlorophyll content
  - Same air temp, 20% less illumination in DSSC greenhouse
- Yield and mean weight of early and total fruit production
  - MST yield reduced 40% and ChT 31% in DSSC greenhouse
  - Average fruit weight similar for ChT but 7.5% less in DSSC
- Physiological Parameters of Plants
  - Chlorophyll content index (CCI) 37% lower for MST and 38% lower for ChT in DSSC
  - 18% lower transpiration rate for MST in DSSC - same for ChT; 6 H2O m-2 sec-1 vs 5 H2O m-2 sec-1
  - Stomatal conductance higher in conventional greenhouse (74% MST and 76% ChT)
  - Lower photosynthetic rate (55% for MST and 40% for ChT) in DSSC
- Fruit Quality Parameters and Bioactive Compounds
  - Similar citric acid, dry matter %, total sugar content for normal and DSSC based products
  - Higher lycopene 42.4 microg/g for ChT in DSSC vs approx. 35 (acquired from graph) for conventional
  - Beta-carotene 13% higher in DSSC greenhouse for ChT 12 vs 10 microg/g (both values taken from graph)
  - Total cartenoids higher (26%) for both fruits in DSSC
  - Antioxidant capacity - ABTS 10% and DPPH 5% higher in DSSC greenhouse

Recent progress in organic luminescent solar concentrators for agrivoltaics: Opportunities for rare-earth complexes[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Elsevier; Publication: Solar Energy;Year: 2022; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: ; Location: ; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:

Providing optimum plant conditions such as CO2 concentration, temp, humidity and incident radiation
- Quantified: Qualified
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Same tomato production while positive influence on other crops
- Quantified: Adopted from other study
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Introduction
- PAR is used for photossynthesis - other spectrum (IR and UV) can be converted to electrical output
- Luminescent solar concentrators (LSCs)
- Objective: Present organic LSC as a future AV technology
Conclusion
- LSC can be used to harness non PAR spectrum for electricity and the remaining for plant growth
- LSCs doped with rare earth complexes are transparent as compared to organic dyes

Unsure whether it makes our scope or not

Remarkable agrivoltaic influence on soil moisture, micrometeorology and water-use efficiency[edit | edit source]

Publisher: PLOS; Publication: PLOS ONE;Year: 2018; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: ; Location: Corvallis, Oregon, US; PV Power: 1435 kW; Energy: ; Efficiency:

Land use conflicts get addressed with AV, land productivity increases, lower soil water potential under PVs, increased final fresh weight
- Quantified: Adopted from another study
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Higher soil moisture
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: No numbers - graphs available though
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method: Calculation/measurement
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments:
Dry biomass
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: Under SFC 126 % and 90 % compared to SFO and control
  - Unit: grams
- Quantification Method: Calculation
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments:
Water efficiency
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: Under SFC 328 %
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method: Calculation
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments:
Biomass productivity
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: Under SFC 50 vs 9 and 12 fir SFO and control
  - Unit: kg/m3 of water
- Quantification Method: Calculation
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments:
Introduction
- Land use conflicts get addressed with AV; land productivity increases, lower soil water potential under PVs, increased final fresh weight
- Objective: To determined the effect of agrivoltaic on microclimate, soil moisture and pasture production
Materials and Methods
- Location: Corvallis, Oregon, US; south-facing at 18o, 1.1m above ground, inter row spacing of 6, installed capacity 1435 kW, non-irrigated
- Three configurations - Sky full open (SFO), Solar partially open (between panels) (SPO) and solar fully covered (under panels) (SFC); shadow length varies from 1.1m to 1.4m
- Air temp, RH, wind speed and directions, radiation, soil moisture, biomass were measured
Results and Discussion
- Wind direction is oriented from south to north, perpendicular to panels, reason being increased temp near the panels causing a buoyant force
- SFO soil moisture depletion higher than control; SFC remained moist the most among all configs - interesting result; may be result of long wave radiation and view factor
- Soil moisture: SFC>SPO>control>SFO
- Dry biomass: 126% more in SFC compared to SFO and 90% more in SFC compared to control
- 328% more water efficiency and higher biomass productivity (under SFC 50 vs 9 and 12 kg/m3 of water for SFO and control)

Shading apple trees with an agrivoltaic system: Impact on water relations, leaf morphophysiological characteristics and yield determinants[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Elsevier; Publication: Scientia Horticulturae;Year: 2022; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: ; Location: La Pugere, France; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:

Lower air temperature
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 3.8 less
  - Unit: oC
- Quantification Method: Calculation (measurement)
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments:
Increased RH
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 14
  - Unit: %
- Quantification Method: Calculation/measurement
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments:
Reduced irrigation requirement
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 6 - 31
  - Unit: % (MPa - Water potential unit)
- Quantification Method: Calculation/measurement
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments:
Higher no. of fruit bearing trees and no. of fuits per tree
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 31 & 44
  - Unit: %
- Quantification Method: Calculation/measurement
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments:
Increased surface leaf area
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 18.4-18.3-17.31 for AV leaves compared to 13.8-14.2-13-49 for control leaves in 2019-2020-2021.
  - Unit: m2/kg
- Quantification Method: Calculation/measurement
- Implication analyzed: No
- Comments:
Introduction
- Climate change will impact the crops
- To maintain apple production, tree shading is one of the strategies employed; however, it can affect the yield
- Agrivoltaics can provide shade to apple trees
- Objective: To ascertain the implication of solar tracking on microclimate, water requirements, carbon assimilation, plant morphology and yield determinants
Materials and methods
- Location: La Pugere, France; panel height of 5m (1.5m above apple trees), solar tracking employed until Jul 2021 (after raining light interception from PV was minimal for drying while in case of frost the panels were oriented horizontally), after Jul 2021 tracking only happened when irradiation exceeded 870 W/m2 and 30 oC
- Air temp, RH, water potential, photosynthetic light responses, leaf area, floribundity, fruit drop, starch concentration and yield was measured
Results
- Mean shadinf due to AV 40-50%
- Air temperature under AV 3.8oC less while RH 14% higher
- Irrigation requirements decreased between 6 - 31%
- Leaf area increased while photosynthetic capacity reduced; under low radiation, photosynthetic activity higher for AV (check with Koami)
- 7% lower starch accumulation, 31% lower flower intensity at shoot
- 31% higher no. of trees bearing fruit and 44% more no. of fruits in a fruit bearing tree
- Size of fruit reduced between 17% in 2019, but remained same in 2020 and 21
- 24% less dry matter under AV
- Density of flowere reduced under shading
- Higher large fruit drop less under shaded configuration than under control
- Fresh and dry mass of fruit less under shading; less yield at plot scale as well
- Reduced starch content for AV

Solar Sharing for Both Food and Clean Energy Production: Performance of Agrivoltaic Systems for Corn, A Typical Shade-Intolerant Crop[edit | edit source]

Publisher: MDPI; Publication: Environments; Year: 2019; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: ; Location: Ichihara City, Chiba Prefecture, Japan; PV Power: 4.5 kW; Energy: ; Efficiency:

Land use competition can be catered
- Quantified: Qualified
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Similar yield of lettuce, increased land productivity, reduced soil temp, daily air temp and VPD remains constance, reduced soil erosion by reducting mositure evaporation
- Quantified: Adopted from other study
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Higher fresh weight
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 393g LD vs 372.2g in control
  - Unit: grams
- Quantification Method: Calculation/measurement
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Higher average biomass (dry basis)
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 1.71kg/m2 LD vs 1.63kg/m2 in control
  - Unit: kg/m2
- Quantification Method: Calculation/measurement
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Higher yield
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 3.54kg/m2 LD vs 3.35kg/m2 in control
  - Unit: kg/m2
- Quantification Method: Calculation/measurement
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Reduced water evaporation
- Quantified: Qualified
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Introduction
- Land use competition can be catered with AV
- Objective: To find a PV system that reduced land use competition
Materials and methods
- Location: Ichihara City, Chiba Prefecture, Japan, area 100 m2, 2.7m high modules at a tilt of 30o
- Three config: High density (HD): 0.71m row spacing, Low Density (LD): 1.67m and Control, crop: Corn
Results
- Corn yield
  - Measured in terms of fresh weight adn biomass
  - Higher corn fresh weight for LD config than control and HD; 393g LD vs 372.2g in control
  - Higher average biomass for LD vs control and HD; 1.71 vs 1.63 kg/m2
  - Higher corn yield per square meter; 3.35 kg/m2 for control while 3.54 kg/m2 for LD
- Electrical performance
  - Double electrical energy for HD when compared to LD
- Crop Revenues
  - HD (8.3 times) highest revenue followed by LD (4.3 times) and control

Spectral-splitting concentrator agrivoltaics for higher hybrid solar energy conversion efficiency[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Elsevier; Publication: Energy Conversion & Management;Year: 2022; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: Spectral splitting concentrator mono crystalline silicon solar cells; Location: Fuyang, China; PV Power: ; Energy: 80kWh/m2-year; Efficiency:

Improve microclimate and cater land use competition
- Quantified: Adopted from other study
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Increased crop productivity, improved microclimate and decreased plant heat dissipation/photoinhibition
- Quantified: Qualified
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Increased aboved ground biomass
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 45 vs 40 grams for potato and 15 vs 13 grams for lettuce (from graph)
  - Unit: grams
- Quantification Method: Calculation/measurement
- Implication analyzed: yes
- Comments: Better biomass production in hot climates
Lower non-photochemical quenching
- Quantified: Quantified (measured)
- Low or High: A cont graph for a day, cannot be quantified - no avg mentioned as well
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method: Calculation/measurement
- Implication analyzed: yes
- Comments: Lower heat dissipation
Higher chlorophyll fluorescence
- Quantified: Quantified (measured)
- Low or High: A cont graph for a day, cannot be quantified - no avg mentioned as well
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method: Calculation/measurement
- Implication analyzed: yes
- Comments: Better photosynthetic eff; reduced photoinhibition
Improved microclimate
- Quantified: Quantified (measured); reduced temp and humidity
- Low or High: A cont graph, cannot be quantified - no avg mentioned as well
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method: Calculation/measurement
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Lower soil temperature
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 26.81 vs 28.77 at 5cm and 26.74 vs 28.27 at 10cm
  - Unit: oC
- Quantification Method: Calculation/measurement
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
High soil humidity
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 21.58 vs 16.16 at 5cm and 26.14 vs 21.71 at 10cm
  - Unit: %
- Quantification Method: Calculation/measurement
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Introduction
- Photosynthetic eff. is 4.6% for C3 and 6% for C4 plant theoretically - generally less than 1%
- Plant generally absorb blue, red and far-red spectrum; generally excess energy is dissipated (more than 50%)
- Opaque cells in AV cause shading - wavelength selective solar cells are being explored
- Objective: Understand optical properties and PV and photosynthetic eff. of SCAPV
Materials and methods
- SCAPV using parabolic trough concentrator, multilayer polymer film and silicon cell was used
- Transmittance 87% for 397-492nm abd 604-852nm range; reflectance of other bands greater than 90%
- Location: Fuyang, China; dual axis tracking PTA, mono crystalline silicon based solar panel
- PV efficiency calculations were performed - experimental evaluation also done using I-V curves tracers
- Potato tested in open SCAPV and lettuce under greenhouse; compared with control
- Chlorophyll fluorescence, outdoor air temp, humidity, water evaporation, solar radiation, soil temp and moisture as well as CO2 concentration was measured
Results and discussion
- SCAPV spectrum falls in line with plant requirements; better than other wavelength selective tech
- Ultimate efficiency: 17%, ideal efficiency: 10.35%, experimemtal: 9.9%
- Increased aboved ground biomass by 13%
- Non-photochemical quenching (NPQ) lower in SCAPV than control; improved chlorophyll
- Lower soil temperature and higher soil humidity
- Combined eff of SCAPV - 9.05%; higher than photosynthetic eff.
- LCOE=0.033$/kWh

The Agrivoltaic Potential of Canada[edit | edit source]

Publisher: MDPI; Publication: Sustainability;Year: 2023; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: bifacial mono c Si; Location: Canada; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:

Land use conflict, reduced GHG, reduced climate change, water conservation, increased yield, protection of crops from inclement weather and excess solar energy, soil erosion mitigation, reversing desertification, maintaining agriclutural employment, improved heath, increased revenue, onfarm fertilizer production and renewable fuels
- Quantified: Adopted from other studies
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Offset fossil-fuel based electricity generation
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Decarbonize transport sector, heating sector, power computer servers and export electricity to fossil fuel dependent US
- Quantified: Qualified
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Introduction
- Benefits of AV: Land use conflict, reduced GHG, reduced climate change, water conservation, increased yield, protection of crops from inclement weather and excess solar energy, soil erosion mitigation, reversing desertification, maintaining agriclutural employment, improved heath, increased revenue, onfarm fertilizer production and renewable fuels
- Canada is lacking in AV tech - Asia, Europe and US quite ahead
- Objective: To determine the AV potential of Canada on 1% agricultural land
Materials and methods
- Two configurations: Vertical south facing and single axis tracking
- GIS used to determined the location of farmland (excluding pasture)
- The total installed capacity of verticals and SAT on the farmland
- Simulation runs then performed on SAM to ascertain total potential for each province
Results
- 175,267GWh for verticals or 272,554GWh for SAT - potential electrical output for 1% of agricultural land - 28% to 43% of Canada's electrical needs
- Fossil fuel based electricity can be offset for majority of provinces - less than 1% agricultural land required except for Alberta , BC and Maritimes with verticals and only Maritimes with SAT

The optimization of vertical bifacial photovoltaic farms for efficient agrivoltaic systems[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Elsevier; Publication: Solar Energy;Year: 2021; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: ; Location: Lahore, Pakistan; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:

Land use competition, improved livelihood of farmers
- Quantified: Qualified
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Protection of crops from harmful climate, reduced soil leaching, 20% less requirement of water for irrigation. higher yield, water efficiency, soil moisture
- Quantified: Adopted from other studies
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Introduction
- AV can reduce land use competition
- Several benefits of AV cited in literature: Protection of crops from harmful climate, reduced soil leaching, 20% less requirement of water for irrigation. higher yield, water efficiency, soil moisture
- Objective: To develop a light distribution model that can provide esimate of the irradiation incident on the ground in AV setting and use it to determine the implication on energy and crop yield
Methodology
- Two config: N-S oriented at a tilt and use monos, E-W vertical and use bifacials; location: Lahore, Pakistan
- MATLAB code used for irradiance modelling; irradiation received by panels and ground calculated, shadowing on the ground, LER as well as crop yield (lettuce) determined
Results and discussion
- The two config tested with three variations in densities: p=h; p=2h and p=3h
- Similar energy and crop yields for both confi for shade intolerant crops - with half dense PV config as compared to GMPV
- Denser PV array; different yield; bi-E-W higher crop and mono-N-S higher energy
- For greater than 80% of lettuce yield, PV density varies from half to twice of GMPVs
- For greater than 80% of energy yield, crop yield varies from 65% (intolerant) to 100% (tolerant)
- High hetrogeneity observed for N-S config while homogenous for E-W under low panel densities; for high panel densities, light distribution generally homogenous for both config
- Crop yield suffers for E-W as p/h decreases; below p/h=4, crop yield for E-W are generally higher except for shade tolerant crops
- At low densities, LER similar while it gets higher for monons with increased densities
- Results related to impact of tilt angle also discussed
- Soiling can cause 2-5% loss of annual PV power for tilted arrays
- Model validation performed - model sligtly overstimates yield

Discuss with Koami - unsure if it makes our cut

Tinted Semi-Transparent Solar Panels Allow Concurrent Production of Crops and Electricity on the Same Cropland[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Wiley Online Library; Publication: Advanced Energy Materials;Year: 2021; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: ; Location: ; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:

Protection of plants, better water redistribution, wind mitigation, temperature modulation, reduced evapotranspiration, improved soil humidity, increased food production, better economics,
- Quantified: Adopted from other study
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Improved protein content
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: Basil: protein content improved leaf - 14.1%; steam 37.6% and root 9.6%; Spinach: 53.1%, 67.9% and 13.8%
  - Unit: %
- Quantification Method: Calculation
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Improved finances
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 223.4 vs 22.8 for basil and 5.66 vs 4.18 for spinach
  - Unit: USD/m2
- Quantification Method: Calculation
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Risk mitigation for farmers associated with climate and economic uncertainty/diversificaiton of income, crop protection, effective water redistribution, mitigation of wind, temperaturem evapotranspiration, improved soil humidity
- Quantified: Qualitative (discussion)
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Introduction
- PVs can make use of all the light or selective portions of the incoming light for electricity generation
- Electrical generation from PV - varies linearly with light intensity; not the same for plants as they reach a threshold
- Tinted STPV used with spinach and basil; energy, crop yield, economics, as well as quality of product studied
Results
- Basil yield reduced - mean dry weight of root, steam and leaf under AV: 441+-43gDW/m2 ; C: 627+-92 gDW/m2; only leaf + stem: 319+-31 for AV and 391+-82 for control
- Spinach yield increased - mean dry weight of root, steam and leaf under AV: 158+-29gDW/m2 ; C: 218+-42 gDW/m2; only leaf + stem: 145+-40 for AV and 196+-57 for control
- 57% less solar radiation received under AV but biomass reduced only 30% and 28% for basil and spinach - more efficient photosynthetic use of light
- Basil: protein content improved leaf - 14.1%; steam 37.6% and root 9.6%; Spinach: 53.1%, 67.9% and 13.8%
- Overall: 15% yield reduction for basil and 26% for spinach; financial gain 2.5% for basil and 35% for spainch

Water budget and crop modelling for agrivoltaic systems: Application to irrigated lettuces[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Elsevier; Publication: Agricultural Water Management;Year: 2018; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: ; Location: Montpellier, France; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:

Reduced water consumption (20-30%)
- Quantified: Adopted from other study
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Actual evapotranspiration
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 22% ST, 26% HD, and 19% CT
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Reduced irrigation requirements
- Quantified: Quantified
- Low or High: 1.75 ST, 1.77 HD, and 1.69 CT vs 2.11 CP (spring); 2.27 ST, 1.83 HD, and 2.10 CT vs 2.48 CP
  - Unit: g/mm
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Introduction
- Several benefits of AV - can address food and energy issues
- Objective: To esimtate the effect of rain redistribution on crop yield and water requirement, ascertain water use and land use efficiencies, optimizng shading strategy soil water considering various factors
Materials and methods
- Location: Montpellier, France; crop: lettuce; drip irrigation
- Four shading config; fixed tilt of 25o facing south - HD (3.2 m gap); HD (1.6m gap); ST (maximize solar interception by PV) and CT (parallel in morning and evening - max interception in afternoon)
- Radiaion, air temp and RH, wind vel and dir, rain, soil moisture content was measured; evapotranspiration, water productivity and LER calculated
- Irrigation model developed for AV considering stomatal conductance, variation of radiation and expandingo on Optirrig model
Results
- 33% ST, 30% HD, 49% FD and 23% CT - less radiation than Control
- Actual evapotranspiration reduction: 22% ST, 26% HD, and 19% CT
- Fresh biomass reduced for all AV config at the harvest dates
- Reduced irrigation for both seasons for AV config
- LER>1 for all AV config for both season
- Almost similar yields are obtained with delay in harvest

Water evaporation reduction by the agrivoltaic systems development[edit | edit source]

Publisher: Elsevier; Publication: Solar Energy; Year: 2022; Lifetime: ; PV Technology: ; Location: Fuyang, China; PV Power: ; Energy: ; Efficiency:

Avoid drought and water stress, protection of plant from excess radiation, and improve plant growth
- Quantified: Adopted from other study
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Reduced evaporation due to the EAS and CAS tech
- Quantified: Qualified
- Low or High:
  - Unit:
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Reduced soil surface evaporation
- Quantified: Quantified (measured)
- Low or High: CK, CAS, and EAS: 80.53 mm, 63.38 mm, and 54.14 mm,
  - Unit: mm
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Soil moisture conservation
- Quantified: Quantified (measured)
- Low or High: CK, CAS, and EAS: 26, 35, and 39
  - Unit: %
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Reduced pan surface evaporation
- Quantified: Quantified (measured)
- Low or High: CK, CAS, and EAS: 278.76 mm, 238.52 mm, and 225.85 mm,
  - Unit: mm
- Quantification Method:
- Implication analyzed:
- Comments:
Introduction
- Water shortage is a major issue and water evaporation occurs naturally
- Reduction in water evaporation is being increasingly looked into - AV is a potential method as well
- Objective: To estimate the alleviation of water evaporation under AV and study its mechanism
Experimental materials and methods
- Location: Fuyang, China; evaporated container, pan evaporation, weather station for measurements
- CAS allows red. blue and far red to pass through, reflect remaining wavelengths for elec. generation
- EAS use a glass between solar cells to scatter light
Results and discussion
- CAS only allows the light needed by plants reflecting the remaining, hence, reducing evaporation while in EAS due to diffusion, only a portion reaches the soil; also no direct light reaches in either EAS or CAS
- Soil surface evaporation: CK, CAS, and EAS: 80.53 mm, 63.38 mm, and 54.14 mm,
- Temp under CAS and EAS is lower than control; EAS<CAS<control
- Improved soil moisture conservation and reduced pan surface evaporation

↑ Dupraz, C., Marrou, H., Talbot, G., Dufour, L., Nogier, A., & Ferard, Y. (2011). Renewable Energy, 36(10), 2725-2732.
↑ Marrou, H., Wéry, J., Dufour, L., & Dupraz, C. (2013).44, 54-66.
↑ PVMagazine Article
↑ Dupraz, C.
↑ Dariush, M., Ahad, M., & Meysam, O. (2006). Journal of Central European Agriculture, 7(2), 359-364.
↑ Marrou, H., Dufour, L., & Wery, J. (2013).European Journal of Agronomy, 50, 38-51.
↑ Sujith Ravi, David B. Lobell, and Christopher B. Field. Environmental Science & Technology 2014 48 (5), 3021-3030
↑ Nonhebel, S. (2005). Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 9(2), 191-201.
↑ Zhu, X. G., Long, S. P., & Ort, D. R. (2008). Current opinion in biotechnology, 19(2), 153-159.
↑ Mehleri, E. D., Zervas, P. L., Sarimveis, H., Palyvos, J. A., & Markatos, N. C. (2010). Renewable Energy, 35(11), 2468-2475.
↑ Chang, T. P. (2009). Applied energy, 86(10), 2071-2078.
↑ Dzung Nguyen; Lehman, B., " Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition, 2008. APEC 2008. Twenty-Third Annual IEEE , vol., no., pp.980,986, 24-28 Feb. 2008 doi: 10.1109/APEC.2008.4522840
↑ Mavromatakis, F., Makrides, G., Georghiou, G., Pothrakis, A., Franghiadakis, Y., Drakakis, E., & Koudoumas, E. (2010).Renewable Energy, 35(7), 1387-1390.
↑ Bensink, J. (1971). Vernman and Zonen.
↑ Hallik, L., Niinemets, Ü., & Wright, I. J. (2009). . New Phytologist, 184(1), 257-274.
↑ Monteith, J. L. (1972). Journal of applied ecology, 747-766.
↑ Bindi, M., Miglietta, F., Zipoli, G., 1992. Clim. Res. 2, 47–54.
↑ Escobar, J. C., Lora, E. S., Venturini, O. J., Yáñez, E. E., Castillo, E. F., & Almazan, O. (2009). Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 13(6), 1275-1287
↑ Wong, P. W., Shimoda, Y., Nonaka, M., Inoue, M., & Mizuno, M. (2008). Renewable energy, 33(5), 1024-1036.
↑ Skoplaki, E., & Palyvos, J. A. (2009). Renewable Energy, 34(1), 23-29.
↑ Li, F., Meng, P., Fu, D., & Wang, B. (2008). Agroforestry Systems, 74(2), 163-172.
↑ Brisson, N., Gary, C., Justes, E., Roche, R., Mary, B., Ripoche, D., ... & Sinoquet, H. (2003). European Journal of agronomy, 18(3), 309-332.

[1] Dupraz, C., Marrou, H., Talbot, G., Dufour, L., Nogier, A., & Ferard, Y. (2011). Renewable Energy, 36(10), 2725-2732.

[2] Marrou, H., Wéry, J., Dufour, L., & Dupraz, C. (2013).44, 54-66.

[3] PVMagazine Article

[4] Dupraz, C.

[5] Dariush, M., Ahad, M., & Meysam, O. (2006). Journal of Central European Agriculture, 7(2), 359-364.

[6] Marrou, H., Dufour, L., & Wery, J. (2013).European Journal of Agronomy, 50, 38-51.

[7] Sujith Ravi, David B. Lobell, and Christopher B. Field. Environmental Science & Technology 2014 48 (5), 3021-3030

[8] Nonhebel, S. (2005). Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 9(2), 191-201.

[9] Zhu, X. G., Long, S. P., & Ort, D. R. (2008). Current opinion in biotechnology, 19(2), 153-159.

[10] Mehleri, E. D., Zervas, P. L., Sarimveis, H., Palyvos, J. A., & Markatos, N. C. (2010). Renewable Energy, 35(11), 2468-2475.

[11] Chang, T. P. (2009). Applied energy, 86(10), 2071-2078.

[12] Dzung Nguyen; Lehman, B., " Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition, 2008. APEC 2008. Twenty-Third Annual IEEE , vol., no., pp.980,986, 24-28 Feb. 2008 doi: 10.1109/APEC.2008.4522840

[13] Mavromatakis, F., Makrides, G., Georghiou, G., Pothrakis, A., Franghiadakis, Y., Drakakis, E., & Koudoumas, E. (2010).Renewable Energy, 35(7), 1387-1390.

[14] Bensink, J. (1971). Vernman and Zonen.

[15] Hallik, L., Niinemets, Ü., & Wright, I. J. (2009). . New Phytologist, 184(1), 257-274.

[16] Monteith, J. L. (1972). Journal of applied ecology, 747-766.

[17] Bindi, M., Miglietta, F., Zipoli, G., 1992. Clim. Res. 2, 47–54.

[18] Escobar, J. C., Lora, E. S., Venturini, O. J., Yáñez, E. E., Castillo, E. F., & Almazan, O. (2009). Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 13(6), 1275-1287

[19] Wong, P. W., Shimoda, Y., Nonaka, M., Inoue, M., & Mizuno, M. (2008). Renewable energy, 33(5), 1024-1036.

[20] Skoplaki, E., & Palyvos, J. A. (2009). Renewable Energy, 34(1), 23-29.

[21] Li, F., Meng, P., Fu, D., & Wang, B. (2008). Agroforestry Systems, 74(2), 163-172.

[22] Brisson, N., Gary, C., Justes, E., Roche, R., Mary, B., Ripoche, D., ... & Sinoquet, H. (2003). European Journal of agronomy, 18(3), 309-332.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

Authors	Harshavardhan Dinesh Prannay Malu Utkarsh Sharma Uzair Jamil Joshua M. Pearce
Location	Michigan, USA London, ON, Canada
OKH Manifest	Download

Part of	5490-16
Keywords	most literature reviews, photovoltaics, agrivoltaics, energy
SDG	SDG07 Affordable and clean energy
Authors	Uzair Jamil, Harshavardhan Dinesh, Prannay Malu
License	CC-BY-SA-3.0
Language	English (en)
What links here	47 pages
Translations	Chinese, Korean, Italian, Ukrainian
Impact	8,984
Suggestions	Add a main image, Summarize or split this page, Avoid lists nested too deep
Created	January 22, 2015 by Harshavardhan Dinesh
Modified	September 14, 2023 by StandardWikitext bot
Cite as	Uzair Jamil, Harshavardhan Dinesh, Prannay Malu (2015–2023). "Dual use of land for PV farms and agriculture literature review". Appropedia. Retrieved September 23, 2023.
API queries	basic, semantic, html, files, more

Dual use of land for PV farms and agriculture literature review

Glossary[edit | edit source]

See Also[edit | edit source]

Literature Review Page for "Dual Use of Land for PV farms and agriculture literature review"[edit | edit source]

Selected Papers and Literature[edit | edit source]

Combining solar photovoltaic panels and food crops for optimising land use: Towards new agrivoltaic schemes[1][edit | edit source]

Productivity and radiation use efficiency of lettuces grown in the partial shade of photovoltaic panels. European Journal of Agronomy[2][edit | edit source]

Solar Farms for livestock[3][edit | edit source]

To mix or not to mix: evidences for the unexpected high productivity of new complex agrivoltaic and agroforestry systems[4][edit | edit source]

How does a shelter of solar panels influence water flows in a soil–crop system?[6][edit | edit source]

Tradeoffs and Synergies between Biofuel Production and Large Solar Infrastructure in Deserts[7][edit | edit source]

Renewable energy and food supply: will there be enough land?[8][edit | edit source]

What is the maximum efficiency with which photosynthesis can convert solar energy into biomass?[9][edit | edit source]

Determination of the optimal tilt angle and orientation for solar photovoltaic arrays[10][edit | edit source]

Output energy of a photovoltaic module mounted on a single-axis tracking system[11][edit | edit source]

On morphogenesis of lettuce leaves in relation to light and temperature[14][edit | edit source]

Are species shade and drought tolerance reflected in leaf‐level structural and functional differentiation in Northern Hemisphere temperate woody flora?[15][edit | edit source]

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2401901?seq 1#page_scan_tab_contents Solar radiation and productivity in tropical ecosystems[16][edit | edit source]

Different methods for separating diffuse and direct components of solar radiation and their application in crop growth models[17][edit | edit source]

Biofuels: environment, technology and food security.[18][edit | edit source]

Semi-transparent PV: Thermal performance, power generation, daylight modelling and energy saving potential in a residential application[19][edit | edit source]

Operating temperature of photovoltaic modules: A survey of pertinent correlations[20][edit | edit source]

Light distribution, photosynthetic rate and yield in a Paulownia-wheat intercropping system in China[21][edit | edit source]

An overview of the crop model STICS[22][edit | edit source]

Agrivoltaics in Ontario Canada: Promise and Policy[edit | edit source]

Parametric Open Source Cold-Frame Agrivoltaic Systems[edit | edit source]

Crop-specific Optimization of Bifacial PV Arrays for Agrivoltaic Food-Energy Production: The Light-Productivity-Factor Approach[edit | edit source]

Integration of bifacial photovoltaics in agrivoltaic systems: A synergistic design approach[edit | edit source]

Improving Productivity of Cropland through Agrivoltaics[edit | edit source]

Solar Sharing for Both Food and Clean Energy Production: Performance of Agrivoltaic Systems for Corn, A Typical Shade-Intolerant Crop[edit | edit source]

Crop production in partial shade of solar photovoltaic panels on trackers[edit | edit source]

Efficiency Improvement of Ground-Mounted Solar Power Generation in Agrivoltaic System by Cultivation of Bok Choy (Brassica rapa subsp. chinensis L.) Under the Panels[edit | edit source]

Yield Optimization Through Control Strategies in Tracked Agrivoltaic Systems[edit | edit source]

Comparison of Yield and Yield Components of Several Crops Grown under Agro-Photovoltaic System in Korea[edit | edit source]

Effects of Agrivoltaics (Photovoltaic Power Generation Facilities on Farmland) on Growing Condition and Yield of Komatsuna, Mizuna, Kabu, and Spinach[edit | edit source]

Global energy assessment of the potential of photovoltaics for greenhouse farming[edit | edit source]

Effects of different photovoltaic shading levels on kiwifruit growth, yield and water productivity under “agrivoltaic” system in Southwest China[edit | edit source]

Consumer Study of Agrivoltaics Food Products Including Tomato, Basil, Potato, Bean, and Squash[edit | edit source]

Increasing the total productivity of a land by combining mobile photovoltaic panels and food crops[edit | edit source]

Agrivoltaic systems to optimise land use for electric energy production[edit | edit source]

Crop production in partial shade of solar photovoltaic panels on trackers[edit | edit source]

Effects on Crop Development, Yields and Chemical Composition of Celeriac (Apium graveolens L. var. rapaceum) Cultivated Underneath an Agrivoltaic System[edit | edit source]

Agrivoltaics provide mutual benefits across the food–energy–water nexus in drylands[edit | edit source]

Remarkable agrivoltaic influence on soil moisture, micrometeorology and water-use efficiency[edit | edit source]

Performance of Agrivoltaic Systems for Shade-Intolerant Crops: Land for Both Food and Clean Energy Production[edit | edit source]

A new predictive model for the design and evaluation of bifacial photovoltaic plants under the influence of vegetation soils[edit | edit source]

Key Word - Agrivoltaic Electric[edit | edit source]

Agrivoltaic Engineering and Layout Optimization Approaches in the Transition to Renewable Energy Technologies: A Review[edit | edit source]

Agrivoltaic Systems Enhance Farmers’ Profits through Broccoli Visual Quality and Electricity Production without Dramatic Changes in Yield, Antioxidant Capacity, and Glucosinolates[edit | edit source]

Current status of agrivoltaic systems and their benefits to energy, food, environment, economy, and society[edit | edit source]

Integration of bifacial photovoltaics in agrivoltaic systems: A synergistic design approach[edit | edit source]

Progress and challenges of crop production and electricity generation in agrivoltaic systems using semi-transparent photovoltaic technology[edit | edit source]

A review of research on agrivoltaic systems[edit | edit source]

Agrivoltaic systems have the potential to meet energy demands of electric vehicles in rural Oregon, US[edit | edit source]

Agrivoltaic system: Experimental analysis for enhancing land productivity and revenue of farmers[edit | edit source]

Computational fluid dynamics modelling of microclimate for a vertical agrivoltaic system[edit | edit source]

The development of utility‑scale solar projects on US agricultural land: opportunities and obstacles[edit | edit source]

Crop-driven optimization of agrivoltaics using a digital-replica framework[edit | edit source]

The potential for agrivoltaics to enhance solar farm cooling[edit | edit source]

Economic Efficiency of Climate Smart Agriculture Technology: Case of Agrophotovoltaics[edit | edit source]

Designing Plant Transparent PV[edit | edit source]

Integrating Agrivoltaic Systems into Local Industries: A Case Study and Economic Analysis of Rural Japan[edit | edit source]

A sustainable development pattern integrating data centers and pasture-based agrivoltaic systems for ecologically fragile areas[edit | edit source]

Spectral-splitting concentrator agrivoltaics for higher hybrid solar energy conversion efficiency[edit | edit source]

Techno‑economic analysis of PV systems installed by using innovative strategies for smart sustainable agriculture farms[edit | edit source]

Agrivoltaics: The Environmental Impacts of Combining Food Crop Cultivation and Solar Energy Generation[edit | edit source]

Worldwide Research Trends in Agrivoltaic Systems—A Bibliometric Review[edit | edit source]

A Case Study of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicon var. Legend) Production and Water Productivity in Agrivoltaic Systems[edit | edit source]

A Cost–Benefit Analysis for Utility-Scale Agrivoltaic Implementation in Italy[edit | edit source]

A First Investigation of Agriculture Sector Perspectives on the Opportunities and Barriers for Agrivoltaics[edit | edit source]

A sustainable development pattern integrating data centers and pasture-based agrivoltaic systems for ecologically fragile areas[edit | edit source]

A Validated Model, Scalability, and Plant Growth Results for an Agrivoltaic Greenhouse[edit | edit source]

Advancement in Agriculture Approaches with Agrivoltaics Natural Cooling in Large Scale Solar PV Farms[edit | edit source]

Agrivoltaic System and Modelling Simulation: A Case Study of Soybean (Glycine max L.) in Italy[edit | edit source]

Agrivoltaic system impacts on microclimate and yield of different crops within an organic crop rotation in a temperate climate[edit | edit source]

Agrivoltaic systems have the potential to meet energy demands of electric vehicles in rural Oregon, US[edit | edit source]

Agrivoltaic systems to optimise land use for electric energy production[edit | edit source]

Agrivoltaics Align with Green New Deal Goals While Supporting Investment in the US’ Rural Economy[edit | edit source]

Agrivoltaics analysis in a techno-economic framework: Understanding why agrivoltaics on rice will always be profitable[edit | edit source]

Agrivoltaics and weather risk: A diversification strategy for landowners[edit | edit source]

Combining solar photovoltaic panels and food crops for optimising land use: Towards new agrivoltaic schemes^[1][edit | edit source]

Productivity and radiation use efficiency of lettuces grown in the partial shade of photovoltaic panels. European Journal of Agronomy^[2][edit | edit source]

Solar Farms for livestock^[3][edit | edit source]

To mix or not to mix: evidences for the unexpected high productivity of new complex agrivoltaic and agroforestry systems^[4][edit | edit source]

How does a shelter of solar panels influence water flows in a soil–crop system?^[6][edit | edit source]

Tradeoffs and Synergies between Biofuel Production and Large Solar Infrastructure in Deserts^[7][edit | edit source]

Renewable energy and food supply: will there be enough land?^[8][edit | edit source]

What is the maximum efficiency with which photosynthesis can convert solar energy into biomass?^[9][edit | edit source]

Determination of the optimal tilt angle and orientation for solar photovoltaic arrays^[10][edit | edit source]

Output energy of a photovoltaic module mounted on a single-axis tracking system^[11][edit | edit source]

On morphogenesis of lettuce leaves in relation to light and temperature^[14][edit | edit source]

Are species shade and drought tolerance reflected in leaf‐level structural and functional differentiation in Northern Hemisphere temperate woody flora?^[15][edit | edit source]

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2401901?seq 1#page_scan_tab_contents Solar radiation and productivity in tropical ecosystems^[16][edit | edit source]

Different methods for separating diffuse and direct components of solar radiation and their application in crop growth models^[17][edit | edit source]

Biofuels: environment, technology and food security.^[18][edit | edit source]

Semi-transparent PV: Thermal performance, power generation, daylight modelling and energy saving potential in a residential application^[19][edit | edit source]

Operating temperature of photovoltaic modules: A survey of pertinent correlations^[20][edit | edit source]

Light distribution, photosynthetic rate and yield in a Paulownia-wheat intercropping system in China^[21][edit | edit source]

An overview of the crop model STICS^[22][edit | edit source]