- cross-posted to:
- environment@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- environment@beehaw.org
cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/25169968
The benefits of agrivoltaics—the placement of solar panels over cropland for more efficient land use—varies dramatically depending on where it’s located, finds new research from the United States. As agrivoltaics spread and attract more interest, this is one of the first studies to really dig into its inherent trade-offs, and identify places where it works well for both electricity generation and farmers’ bottom lines.
The trade-offs in question are that while the huge increased electricity production enabled by more solar panels is a positive, and renting out land to solar providers can also provide new revenue streams for farmers, the shading effect of solar panels can disturb crop growth. Weighing up these costs and benefits has complicated the picture for farmers who may be considering agrivoltaics on their land.
To shed some light on the issue, a study led by the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign started by looking at 14 years of maize and soybean crop data from the Midwestern US. The dataset, which included information on crop yield and water-use, compared conventional non-solar cropland with farms where a third of the productive area was covered by panels. They also applied climate simulations to the data, to determine how crop-growing conditions and solar panel impact could change under a low, high, and highest-emission future scenario.
Very quickly, stark differences appeared in the model, between the more humid eastern stretch of the Midwest, and the drier semiarid western Midwest.
Being in New Mexico, I have always wondered about this. We have solar fields, but they are devoid of agriculture.
We also have ditches for irrigation, but they are dirt so the solar that is used places over ditches would not work here because they dredge the ditches every season.



