Energy Conversion and Management 276 (2023) 116567

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Spectral-splitting concentrator agrivoltaics for higher hybrid solar energy

conversion efficiency
Zhisen Zhang a, Fangxin Zhang a, Wei Zhang b, Ming Li a, Wenjun Liu b, Altyeb Ali Abaker Omer a,
Jianan Zheng a, Xinyu Zhang a, b, 1, Wen Liu a, b, 1, *
a
Department of Optics and Optical Engineering, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China
b
Xiong’an Institute of Innovation, Xiong’an 071799, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: By integrating solar cells into agricultural lands, agrivoltaics is a promising route to widely deploy photovoltaics,
Spectral splitting and it can reduce land competition for food and energy production. Although various agrivoltaics have been
Solar energy conversion proposed, their optical properties and effects on plant growth remain disputed, which largely limits the wide­
Agrivoltaics
spread deployment of agrivoltaics. Here, we present spectral-splitting concentrator agrivoltaics (SCAPV), which
Semitransparent solar cells
can effectively harvest photosynthetically excess light energy for photovoltaic power without compromising crop
Tunable photovoltaics
productivity. This system transmits a selected light spectrum for plant growth while reflecting the remaining
spectrum for electricity generation. Field trials show that SCAPV can increase plant biomass by 13% and decrease
plant heat dissipation by approximately 50%. Meanwhile, SCAPV has a maximum photovoltaic power conversion
efficiency (PCE) of 9.9%. The overall solar energy conversion efficiency is higher than the theoretical limitation
of photosynthesis. Economic analysis shows that SCAPV has a levelized cost of energy (LCE) of $0.033/kWh. Our
results show that with proper spectral management, only a portion of sunlight is sufficient to support or even
enhance plant growth. Compared to other spectral-splitting agrivoltaics, SCAPV is a scalable technology with
flexible spectrum and high transparency and can be implemented using low-cost components.

1. Introduction
Solar energy is known as the most abundant and reliable energy
source. Photosynthetic organisms and photovoltaic devices are the most
scalable and mature ways to utilize solar energy. For the present silicon
solar cells, the highest confirmed efficiency is 26.7 ± 0.5 % [1]. The
theoretical limit of photosynthetic efficiency (εc, from solar energy into
biomass) is 4.6 % for C3 plants and 6 % for C4 plants. Under common
field conditions, crops typically show an εc of less than 1 % [2–5], which
is considerably lower than that of solar cells. This inefficiency of
photosynthesis is largely due to the inefficient use of photons. For plants,
sunlight is too bright and encompasses the broadband spectrum. Plant
pigments selectively absorb blue, red and far-red (FR) light (Fig. 1a)
[6–8]. In addition, even for photons within the radiation band
comprising photosynthetically active irradiation (PAR), a large pro­
portion of oversaturated light energy is mostly dissipated as heat
(Fig. 1b), resulting in a low photosynthetic εc [2,9,10]. In fact, the plant
photosynthetic apparatus usually encounters and absorbs much more
light than it can use and has different protective mechanisms to avoid
damage from overexcitation [9,10]; a major path to dissipate the excess
energy is through dissipation in the form of heat [11], which accounts
for over 50 % of the light energy absorbed by photosystem II (PSII)
chlorophylls [12].
As photosynthesis is inefficient, various agrivoltaics can be seen as a
game-changing strategy for hybrid light use systems on agricultural
lands [8,13–15]. Agrivoltaics is also important because the rising de­
mand for PV will lead to heightened land use competition between en­
ergy and food, especially in densely populated areas [16–18]. Although
large-scale PV power stations in remote areas are feasible and
economical, long-distance energy transmission is expensive, risky and
associated with substantial losses [19]. Previous studies have estimated
that the potential of deploying PV is greatest on agricultural lands
[20,21]. In addition, agrivoltaics have been proven to improve the
microclimate [16,22].
However, the opaque agrivoltaics currently used in China and all
over the world usually have limitations, as they cause spatial and tem­
poral shading, which usually decreases agricultural productivity

* Corresponding author at: Department of Optics and Optical Engineering, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China.
E-mail address: wenliu@ustc.edu.cn (W. Liu).
1
The two authors have the same contribution to this study.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.116567
Received 22 September 2022; Received in revised form 17 November 2022; Accepted 10 December 2022
Available online 20 December 2022
0196-8904/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Z. Zhang et al. Energy Conversion and Management 276 (2023) 116567

Nomenclature PTC parabolic trough concentrator

Fv/Fm the maximum photosynthetic efficiency of PSII
PV photovoltaic NPQ nonphotochemical quenching
CPV concentrating photovoltaic PPFD photosynthetic photon flux density
CPVT concentrating photovoltaic/thermal G solar radiation flux (W/m2)
SCAPV spectral-splitting concentrator agrivoltaics Τ temperature (K)
MPF multilayer polymer films Pm maximum power point (W)
εc photosynthetic efficiency Vm the voltage at the maximum power point (V)
PAR photosynthetically active irradiation Im the current at the maximum power point (A)
PSII photosystem II Isc the short-circuit current (A)
OPV organic photovoltaics Voc the open-circuit voltage (V)
DSSC dye-sensitized solar cells Id the dark saturation current (A)
LSC luminescent solar concentrators Eg bandgap energy (eV)
PVSC perovskite solar cells RS spectral response of silicon cells (A/W)
a-Si amorphous silicon solar cells Wp cost per Watt of PVs ($)
PCE power conversion efficiency (of solar cells) LCE levelized cost of energy ($/kWh)

[23–25]. Due to the spectral selective absorption properties of plants
(Fig. 1a), strategy of designing various spectral-splitting agrivoltaics has
also been actively explored, such as semitransparent organic photovol­
taics (OPVs) [26–30], dye-sensitized solar cells (DSSCs) [24,31–33],
perovskite cells (PVSCs) [34,35], luminescent solar concentrators (LSCs)
[36,37], amorphous silicon solar cells (a-Si) [38,39], and other solutions
[40,41]. These solar cells under this strategy usually have wavelength-
selective transparency and have been of particular interest recently.
However, the average transmittance of these solar cells is usually low,
the sizes of these laboratory-stage PV panels are usually small (hence
unscalable for massive plant trials), and the spectral tuning capabilities
are inflexible. In fact, the optical properties of a-Si are inherently diffi­
cult to regulate, including fixed transmitting spectra and low trans­
parency; among the few reports thus far, the effects on plants have been
negative [38]. OPVs have the property of narrow-band absorption,
which is not conducive to high efficiency but brings the chance to
flexibly adjust spectra; by adjusting the photoactive layer, OPVs can
allow PAR to pass through and use only UV or IR for power generation
[29]; new donors and acceptors can also allow a green absorption peak
[27], which makes the transmitting properties closer to the spectra in
Fig. 1a. However, the transparencies of OPVs are mostly limited to low
percentages of less than 10–20 %, which needs further improvement.
DSSCs are electrochemical devices that use light-absorbing dye mole­
cules to generate electricity. Although DSSCs have high transparency
[14], the absorption property is adjusted by dye sensitizers, which is less
flexible. PVSCs also have high transparency due to their low
absorptance; the spectral property of PVSCs comes from tuning the band
gap through element control; to make it more adjustable, structural
management, such as micro-structured islands [34], or light manage­
ment, such as optical filters, must be engaged [42].
Meanwhile, according to our literature survey on the knowledge gap,
some studies did not conduct any test to evaluate the effects of these
technologies on plants [28,33,34,43,44]. Although several other studies
conducted plant tests, they were usually qualitative without statistical
repeat and evaluated in a short-term period [30,45,46], using artificial
light sources [47], or cultured in pots in greenhouses [45,48]. In general,
for currently available semitransparent solar cells, there remains dispute
about plant growth [26,38,47,49]. As maintaining crop production is of
high priority for agrivoltaics, the prerequisite of balancing agricultural
and electrical yields brings critical challenges to designing spectral-
splitting agrivoltaics.
In previous publications, the design concept of spectral-splitting
concentrator agrivoltaics (SCAPV) was also proposed, which holds po­
tential for high transparency and flexible spectra [19,50–52]. This
concept usually contains a parabolic trough concentrator/compound
parabolic concentrator (PTC/CPC) and solar spectral-splitting dichroic
mirrors and supports photosynthesis with a selected portion of the
incident sunlight while generating electricity with the excess light.
However, these were usually notional or laboratory-stage prototypes,
and the in situ efficiencies and productivities are still unclear, which
largely limits the utilization of these systems. In this study, the optical
properties and photosynthetic and photovoltaic efficiencies of SCAPV

Fig. 1. Feasibility and schematic of the spectral-splitting strategy in agrivoltaics. (a) Absorption spectra of photosynthetic pigments [6–8]. (b) Light response
curve of photosynthesis. An represents net photosynthetic rates. (c) The transmission spectrum of multilayer polymer films (MPF) and the response spectrum of
crystalline silicon.

2
Z. Zhang et al.
are experimentally evaluated on a scaled-up SCAPV field. In the field
trial, the SCAPV shows a short-term PCE of 9.9 % and gains an in situ
electrical power generation of ~ 10.86 kWh/m2 within the lettuce
growth period of 50 days; meanwhile, the SCAPV increases the crop
productivity of multiple plant species. Most notably, the overall effi­
ciency breaks the theoretical limitation of photosynthesis. We also
observe an improved microclimate. Furthermore, based on chlorophyll
fluorescence measurements, we observe a decreased plant heat dissi­
pation and photoinhibition; we conclude that the essence of maintaining
production relies on the fact that the spectral-splitting strategy can
release the plant photoprotection and cleverly turn the photosyntheti­
cally excess radiation into a significant amount of electricity.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Spectral-splitting concentrator agrivoltaics (SCAPV)
2.1.1. System description
The SCAPV described herein was developed based on multilayer
polymer film (MPF), PTC, and silicon cell (Fig. 2). The flexibility in size,
transparency and spectrum of SCAPV relies on MPF, which has
wavelength-selective interference effects through scaling layer thick­
ness; light of particular wavelengths (pass bands) can be transmitted by
adjusting the composition and thickness of the polymer materials
[53,54]. Two polymer materials with different optical refractive indices
can be alternately superposed layer by layer with prescribed gradient,
leading to a broad pass band (from blue to far red) stack and a green-
reflective stack; multiwavelength selective MPF for photosynthesis can
be generated by coextruding these stacks. Compared to expensive
vacuum-depositional dielectric films, MPF fabricated by polymer coex­
trusion and stretching is characterized by low cost and production in
large coverage areas [55,56], which is the essential component that
Fig. 2. Spectral-splitting concentrator agrivoltaics (SCAPV). Multilayer
polymer films (MPF) transmit a portion of the incident solar spectrum for plant
growth, while other portions of the incident solar spectrum are reflected by the
PTC and focused on solar cells for electricity generation.
3
Energy Conversion and Management 276 (2023) 116567
makes SCAPV scalable. We have thoroughly studied the characteristics
and design of MPF [56], and the overall cost of MPF could be as low as
$1.0 USD per m2 per polymer film-processing study. As a proof of
concept, commercially available MPF (3 M Chill, 3 M PR90, USA) was
used herein. The MPF has high transmittance (~87 %) at 397–493 nm
and 604–852 nm, and the average reflectance of other bands is over 90
% (Fig. 1c), which is generally in accordance with the absorption bands
of plant photosynthesis, except that it transmits more infrared light than
can be used (750–852 nm). In the future, customized rather than
commercially available MPF can better match the absorption spectra of
plants.
Some semitransparent PV technologies have optical performances
independent of the incidence angle of the light, such as OPV and DSSC.
Multilayer interference films are, however, known to show angular
dependence (20, 23). To reduce this effect and achieve satisfactory solar
splitting and tracking performance in the field with diurnal changes in
solar angles, the bent paraboloidal glass panel of a PTC is used as a
substrate for the flexible MPF and as a reflector to direct the reflected
bands toward focal-point PV cells, thus creating the SCAPV. Further­
more, silicon cells are used in the SCAPV; although multijunction III-V
cells hold potential for higher efficiency, silicon cells are cost competi­
tive for a scalable solution, and can maintain performance under high
incident radiation within a concentration ratio of 3–100 [57].
2.1.2. Installation details
In this study, a large-scale project (128 × 81 W) was constructed to
test both PV and plant productivity. The experimental site in Fuyang
(32.93◦ N, 115.80◦ E) has a warm temperate subhumid monsoon climate,
characterized by significant monsoons, four distinct seasons, a mild
climate, and moderate rainfall (annual average rainfall of 820–950 mm).
The PTC of the SCAPV has a 45◦ rim angle and geometrical concentra­
tion ratio of 6.7 suns. The extreme tracking angle is ± 45◦ from east to
the west and 10◦ north and 35◦ south from north to south. The me­
chanical structure of the SCAPV is composed of welded angle steel and
steel plates and then assembled with screws (Fig. 3a). The SCAPV is also
equipped with a dual-axis solar tracking system to generate more power
throughout the day. According to the nature of the solar angle variation,
the tracking mode is 1.25◦ every 5 min, and the movement of reflected
light on the surface of the PV module is within 23 mm, which is
acceptable.
The height of the column is 1.5 m, while the ground pile penetrates
into the earth at approximately 2 m, and the land is leveled on a large
scale before system deployment. The pile spacing is 6.1 m between the
north and south and 4 m between the east and west. The number of PTCs
installed on each row is 32 sets. The total land area used is 422.4 m2. The
length from north to south is 26.4 m, and the east to west length is 16 m
(Fig. 3b, c).
A double-sided monocrystalline PV from Sunpower (C60) with a
physical size of 1090 mm × 140 mm (24 pcs of 1/3 sliced solar cells in
series) is the electrical power generating component in the SCAPV. The
PV module comprises a front cover made of low-iron glass, the PV
laminate (EVA, solar cells and EVA) and a back aluminum substrate. The
cells were thermally bonded to the substrate using thermally conductive
and electrically insulating silica gel. The details and electrical properties
of the PV module under the AM1.5 spectrum (T = 298 K, G = 1000 W/
m2) are listed in Table 1.
2.2. Evaluation of electrical performance
In our SCAPV design, the PCE is defined as the generated Pm divided
by the solar radiation flux G reaching the effective area of the reflective
panel A:
Isc ⋅Voc ⋅FF
PCE = (1)
G×A
The essence is to mathematically and experimentally evaluate Pm
Z. Zhang et al. Energy Conversion and Management 276 (2023) 116567

Fig. 3. Schematic of the large-scale SCAPV field. (a) 3D structure of the proposed SCAPV system. (b) Schematic drawing of the SCAPV field. (c) Photographs of the
SCAPV field in Fuyang (32.93◦ N, 115.80◦ E), China.

2.2.1.1. Calculation of ultimate efficiency limits. The ultimate PV effi­

Table 1
ciency limits were calculated based on the S-Q limit theory. For the
Properties of the PV module.
standard diode, the current in a single-junction solar cell is given by
Electrical properties Pm Vm Im Voc Isc [58,59]:
25 Wp 11.9 V 2.1A 15.9 V 2.4A ( )
Temperature coefficient V:-0.27 %/℃; P:-3.2 %/℃
qV
I = Isc − Id exp( )− 1 (2)
PV module size 1090 mm × 140 mm × 48 mm nkT
PV module structure 5 stacks: glass (3.2 mm) - EVA (0.5 mm) - solar cells
(0.165 mm) - EVA (0.5 mm) - backplane (0.35 mm); where Isc is the short-circuit current, which is:
aluminum heat sink and silica gel ∫
G(λ)
Isc = q × Q = q dλ (3)
qE
under the selective bands of the spectral-splitting strategy.
where q is the elementary charge and E is the energy of a photon.
Id is the dark saturation current, which is:
2.2.1. Mathematical modelling of PV efficiency.
The seminal research of Shockley and Quisser calculated the theo­ Id = I0 exp(−
qEg
) (4)
retical efficiency limit of solar cells (S-Q limit) [58]. However, this was nkT
under the assumption of broadband sunlight and ideally square-shaped where the thermodynamic limit of I0 is
external quantum efficiency (EQE). To estimate the ultimate efficiency
limits of the split sunlight and the ideal efficiency of the SCAPV, the I0 =
2πkTq3 Eg 2
(5)
following assumptions are made: h3 c2
The electrical efficiency can be determined from:
• AM1.5 solar irradiation is concentrated by an ideal concentrator with
negligible optical losses. max(V × I)
PCE = ∫ ∞ (6)
• The spectral management is ideal so that the transmittance at 0
G(λ)dλ
397–493 nm and 604–852 nm is 100 %, and the other bands are The original S-Q limit assumed that the sun had a 6000 K blackbody
completely retained for PV, without optical losses. spectrum. Here, the incident sunlight G(λ) is assumed to be the AM1.5G
• The calculation of the ultimate efficiency limits is based on an ideally spectrum. The solar cell temperature is assumed to be 300 K. An in-
square-shaped EQE, corresponding to 2.2.1.1. house Python code was developed to calculate the ultimate efficiency
• The calculation of the ideal PV efficiency of the SCAPV is based on limits as a function of bandgap energy by numerically maximizing the
silicon cells with a measured spectral response curve, corresponding (V × I) for each bandgap (100 sampling points in the range of 0.4 ~ 3.0
to 2.2.1.2. eV).

2.2.1.2. Calculation of the ideal PV efficiency of the SCAPV. Then,

4
Z. Zhang et al.
another model was performed to evaluate the ideal PV efficiency of the
SCAPV by calculating the efficiency loss based on the measured spectral
response curve (RS(λ)) of the silicon cells.
According to Eq. (2)
( )
Voc qVoc
= Isc − Id exp( )− 1 (7)
R nkT
Voc is the open-circuit voltage, and when R = ∞, we can calculate
that [50]:
kT Isc + Id kT Isc
Voc = ln ≈ ln (8)
q Id q Id
kT a − ln(a + 0.72)
Pm = Isc ⋅Voc ⋅FF = Isc a (9)
q a+1
where a is approximate to a constant
Isc
a = ln ≈ 16.1 (10)
Id
For the short-circuit current, the voltage V is zero and
∫
Isc = G(λ)⋅RS(λ)dλ (11)
An in-house code was developed to integrate G(λ)⋅RS(λ) and
accordingly calculate the ideal loss of Isc (%) and hence the ideal loss of
Pm (%) due to solar splitting. The ideal PV efficiency of the SCAPV was
calculated based on the nominal PV efficiency value from the supplier
(22.5 %) and the ideal loss of Pm (%).
2.2.2. Experimental evaluation of the PV efficiency
To experimentally evaluate the electrical properties of the SCAPV,
multiple I-V curves under concentrated sunlight in the outdoor SCAPV
field were tested between 10:00 and 16:00 on a typical sunny day using
a portable PV power meter (PROVA-1011, Taishi, Taiwan, China). The
solar irradiation, ambient temperature and wind velocity varied within
the ranges of 725–900 W/m2, 303–309 K and 0–1.5 m/s, respectively.
To derive the I-V curves in stable operating conditions, a single array
was stripped from the grid-connected SCAPV field and measured inde­
pendently; the value of the external load was gradually varied between
its minimum and maximum values to cover the entire operating range of
the PV module. Data for each testing sequence were obtained within 20
s, constituting a constant irradiation environment. Furthermore, the in
situ power generation of the SCAPV field was also recorded, and the
output power (W/m2) and electricity generation (kWh/m2) were
recorded by the inverter every 5 mins and transmitted using a 4G
transmission module. It is important to note that the in situ power gen­
eration results were assessed based on the vertical projected area of
SCAPV, which was 1.08 m2 for a single array; due to the semitransparent
property, the assumption here is that SCAPV does not require spacing to
avoid shading and that farmland can be densely covered with the ver­
tical projected area of SCAPV.
2.3. Plant experiments
2.3.1. Plant materials and cultivation
Potato (Jinshu No. 1) tubers were germinated in the field in six rows
and three repeats (320 cm × 180 cm block, 80 cm row spacing, and 14
cm plant spacing) under SCAPV or in open air (control). Lettuce
(Jonction RZ 81–45) seeds were germinated in a greenhouse and
transplanted to the field in three rows and three repeats (180 cm × 56
cm block, 18 cm row spacing and 14 cm plant spacing) under SCAPV or
in open air (control). The field was prepared two weeks prior to trans­
plant by rototilling. For potato plants, at 12 weeks after planting, the
aboveground fresh weight of two rows from each repeat under SCAPV or
in the open air was harvested, and then 12 representative plants under
SCAPV or in the open air were used to determine biomass. For lettuce,
5
Energy Conversion and Management 276 (2023) 116567
the aboveground dry biomass of the 12 representative plants under
SCAPV or in the open air was determined at 7 weeks after planting. The
biomass was harvested and dried at 70 ◦ C in an oven for 3 days to attain
a constant weight.
2.3.2. Chlorophyll fluorescence measurements
Chlorophyll fluorescence was measured on the youngest fully func­
tional leaf of lettuce plants using a Mini-PAM II (Walz, Effeltrich, Ger­
many). Briefly, the maximum photosynthetic efficiency of PSII was
determined as Fv/Fm = (Fm – F0)/Fm, where Fm is the maximal fluores­
cence level under a saturating pulse of 5000 μmol m− 2 s− 1 and F0 is the
ground fluorescence in dark-adapted leaves. Fv/Fm was measured both
in the early morning (4:00 a.m.) when plants were fully dark-adapted
overnight and at daytime (7:00 and 13:00) when plants were manu­
ally dark-adapted for 30 min.
After measuring the instantaneous fluorescence level F under
ambient light, a saturating pulse of 5000 μmol m− 2 s− 1 was applied to
measure Fm′ . The effective PSII quantum yield Y(II) was calculated using
the following formula: Y(II) = (Fm′ - F)/Fm′ . Furthermore, the non­
photochemical quenching NPQ was calculated as: NPQ = (Fm - Fm′ )/Fm′ .
2.4. Measurements of microclimate
The microclimatic conditions under SCAPV or in the open air were
recorded by weather stations (Shandong Renke Control Technology,
China), including the ambient temperature and humidity, water evap­
oration, soil temperature and moisture, and CO2 concentration. Soil
temperature and moisture sensors were placed at different depths (5 cm,
10 cm) under SCAPV or in the open air, respectively. Evaporation con­
tainers were used to evaluate water evaporation without plant transpi­
ration. The evaporation container (white plastic buckets) has a top
diameter of 26.0 cm, a bottom diameter of 22.0 cm, and a height of 28.5
cm, with holes of 1 cm diameter at the bottom. Each microclimatic
parameter was logged at a 10-minute interval. Solar radiation was
recorded by a PAR sensor (Li-190R, Li-cor, USA), and spectra were
recorded by a handheld spectrometer (PLA-30, Everfine, China).
2.5. Statistical analysis
Datasets were processed using GraphPad Prism 9.3.1 (3 5 0) for
macOS, GraphPad Software, San Diego, California USA, https://www.
graphpad.com.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Spectral properties under SCAPV
The spectral irradiance at different locations under SCAPV will vary
according to their specific positions and the time of day. We measured
the spectral irradiance close to the plant canopy at 12:00, and spectra
under SCAPV and in the open air are depicted in Fig. 4a. Compared to
the transmission property of the MPF in Fig. 1c, the in situ transmission
spectrum under SCAPV had smooth transition edges due to angular
dependence and light scattering. The transparency of 400–800 nm
sunlight reached 65 % (Fig. 4b), which is significantly higher than other
spectral-splitting agrivoltaics, such as OPV (10–20 %). More impor­
tantly, the SCAPV reduced the amount of non-useful photons trans­
mitted to the plant canopy, including most green and infrared bands. In
contrast, most other solutions did not accurately split the green band for
PV [45,46,51]. In general, the spectrum under SCAPV predominantly
matches the absorption spectra of plant pigments. These results indicate
that SCPAV, as an optimal spectra management, can split and utilize
broadband spectra accurately and efficiently.
Z. Zhang et al.
Fig. 4. Spectral properties of SCAPV. (a) Transmission spectrum under SCAPV and in the open air (control), measured at 12:00 a.m. (b) Transparency of the
spectral components of 400–800 nm sunlight.
3.2. Electrical performance of the system
3.2.1. Numerical simulation of PV efficiency
Based on the S-Q limit theory and ideally square-shaped EQE, we
evaluated the ultimate efficiency limits with the ideally reflective bands
of sunlight (detailed methods are introduced in Section 2.2.1.1). The
thermodynamic limiting efficiency for a single-junction PV as a function
of bandgap energy (Eg) is presented in Fig. 5a. With the consideration of
silicon cells (Eg = 1.12 eV), the ultimate efficiency limit is 17 %. This
represents the upper limit for harvesting the photosynthetically excess
radiation for PV conversion. Furthermore, even if too much infrared
light is transmitted (750–852 nm), this ultimate efficiency limit value is
still similar to the previous prediction of 17 % in Ref.[27] which
assumed narrower transmission bands, showing that with further spec­
tral management, there is room for balancing the energy between PV
and photosynthesis.
The above ultimate efficiency limit is based on an ideal EQE, and
there are multiple losses in actual PV devices, such as incomplete light
absorption or collection of carriers, recombination, parasitic resistance,
etc. We subsequently calculated the ideal PV efficiency of the SCPAV
based on the measured spectral response and the nominal efficiency of
silicon cells (detailed methods are introduced in Section 2.2.1.2). The
calculated efficiency loss of the split sunlight compared to broadband
sunlight is 54 %. As the nominal efficiency value of the silicon PV from
our supplier is 22.5 %, we report that the ideal PV efficiency of the
SCPAV is 10.35 % (Fig. 5b). Compared to the aforementioned ultimate
efficiency limit of 17 %, this ideal efficiency of 10.35 % is more prag­
matic, as the ideal EQE is replaced with the actual spectral response
curve, and the nominal efficiency value of 22.5 % has already consid­
ered multiple losses. Furthermore, as we have introduced, the spectral
property of the MPF used herein is not perfect, as it allocated too much
infrared light for plants rather than PV, which limited the PV efficiency.
3.2.2. Experimental evaluation of the PV efficiency
To verify the PV efficiency, we experimentally evaluated the elec­
trical properties of the SCAPV. We first tested multiple I-V curves of a
single array under concentrated sunlight. Vm and Im (the voltage and
current when operating at the maximum power point Pm) of all the I-V
curves are listed in Supplementary Data S1, and the multiple values of
Pm and PCE are depicted in Fig. 6a. The maximum power conversion
efficiency (PCE) was 9.9 % when Vm was 13.1 V, Im was 6.2 A, and the
solar irradiation was 825 W/m2. The I-V curve corresponding to the
maximum PCE is presented in Fig. 6b. This peak efficiency is close to the
simulated ideal efficiency mentioned in Section 3.2.1 (10.35 %).
6
Energy Conversion and Management 276 (2023) 116567
Meanwhile, this efficiency is higher than the reported results of 8.84 %
[50] and 3 % [51] in previous prototypes of similar designs.
As a field productivity trial, we also tested the in situ power gener­
ation of the field (all grid-connected arrays), including the diurnal
profile of PV output power (W/m2) on a typical sunny day and electricity
generation (kWh/m2) during the full life cycle of crop production. On a
typical sunny day, we measured an in situ maximum output power of
61.8 W/m2, and the power was maintained at ~ 50 W/m2 during most
daytime, except for the downfall at 13:00 due to temporary overcast
(Fig. 7a). The peak output power occurs at approximately 9:00, which
may suggest that the tracking system can be further optimized to gain
more power during most of this day. We also calculated an in situ elec­
tricity generation of 10.86 kWh/m2 during the lettuce growth (see
Section 3.3) period of 50 days, among which the maximum daily elec­
tricity generation was 0.43 kWh/m2 (Fig. 7b). The SCAPV and the PTC
systems contained therein mainly work with direct beam radiation, so
the electrical performance decreased on some cloudy days, and the
decrease was not linear to the decrement in solar radiation; thus, the
electricity generation was extremely low on June 16 and 28, July 11 and
17, etc. Despite this, the in situ electricity generation, which was
equivalent to ~ 80 kWh/m2-year, still represents quite a high level. As a
reference, the reported semitransparent LSC agrivoltaics showed a
power generation of ~ 47 kWh/m2-year [37].
In the future, higher PV efficiencies can be achieved by replacing the
existing monocrystalline solar cells with multijunction concentrator
cells, adjusting the optical properties of MPF, and continuously opti­
mizing the system structure and solar tracking performance.
3.3. Plant performance under SCAPV
3.3.1. Plants under agrivoltaics showed uncompromised biomass
To demonstrate agricultural biomass production under this system,
field productivity trials were conducted in 2020. Lettuce (Lactuca sativa)
and potato (Solanum tuberosum) plants were grown under SCAPV with
local famers’ agronomic practices (Fig. 8a, b, d, e). Compared with those
grown in the open field, lettuce and potato plants grown under SCAPV
both showed an increased aboveground biomass of 13 % (Fig. 8c, f). The
results imply that a large portion of incident solar energy can be used to
generate photovoltaic electricity without negatively influencing plant
productivity or even with potential growth benefit.
As introduced, due to limited spectral properties and sizes of
laboratory-stage semitransparent PVs, in most previous spectral-
splitting agrivoltaics studies, plant performances were merely evalu­
ated qualitatively or under protected crop cultivation environments of
Z. Zhang et al. Energy Conversion and Management 276 (2023) 116567

Fig. 5. Numerical simulation of PV efficiency. (a) The ultimate efficiency limits of split sunlight (black line) and full sunlight (red line) as a function of bandgap
energy. The red line agrees well with the original S-Q curve [58]. (b) A schematic of the ideal efficiency of the SCAPV.

Fig. 6. Photovoltaic efficiency of the system. (a) Pm, PCE and solar irradiation from multiple I-V curves measured under concentrated sunlight. (b) Representative
I-V curve with the maximum PCE.

7
Z. Zhang et al. Energy Conversion and Management 276 (2023) 116567

Fig. 7. The in situ power generation of the SCAPV field. (a) Profile of the output power (W/m2) of the SCAPV field on a typical sunny day. (b) Daily electrical
power generation and solar irradiation per sqm land during 50 days of the lettuce growth period.

Fig. 8. Crop productivity trials for SCAPV. (a, b) Photographs of potato plants under SCAPV and control conditions. (d, e) Photographs of lettuce plants under
SCAPV and control conditions. (c, f) Dry biomass of plants in SCAPV field trials. Bars represent the average SD of 10 independent measurements. P values indicate
that the differences are not significant.

8
Z. Zhang et al.
greenhouses. Our results were evaluated in open-air croplands and with
local farmers’ agronomic practices and thus have practical significance.
In addition, although the plants were evenly watered during the trial,
the rainwater distribution was altered by the system. As water is an
important variable for plant growth [60,61] and was reduced under
SCAPV, we anticipate that SCAPV could even have the potential to
enhance plant biomass under the assumption of equal water availability
or in hot arid climates.
Maintaining or enhancing plant productivity with partial sunlight is
of great significance to solar energy polygenerations. In previous opin­
ions, a 1 % radiation decrement usually results in a 0.5 to 1 % decrease
in biomass for most crops on a large statistical scale [62]. The SCAPV
might alter the linear relationship as a game changer. These results also
provide insights into the design and application of other spectral-
splitting agrivoltaics, such as OPV, which also holds potential for
maintaining or improving crop production if adjusted to proper spectral
properties.
3.3.2. Plants showed decreased heat dissipation and increased photosystem
II operating efficiency
There are several photoprotective mechanisms to cope with excess
sunlight, and heat dissipation in the photosystem II antenna is
commonly evaluated as nonphotochemical quenching (NPQ) [63]. This
heat dissipation results in a decrease in the quantum efficiency of
photosystem II (Y(II)) [9,64]. In situ chlorophyll fluorescence measure­
ments were conducted to evaluate NPQ, Y(II) and other fluorescence
parameters in lettuce plants, in order to support the biomass produc­
tivity results in Section 3.3.1.
Compared to the control group, the NPQ of lettuce plants under
SCAPV was significantly lower throughout the day (Fig. 9a). During 8:00
and 14:00, the NPQ values under SCAPV decreased by approximately 50
% compared to the control. At 16:00, the difference in NPQ was nar­
rowed due to the overcast afternoon, as indicated by the photosynthetic
photon flux density (PPFD) in Fig. 9c. Plants in the control group
Fig. 9. Chlorophyll fluorescence measurements. (a) NPQ of lettuce plants under SCAPV and control conditions. (b) Y(II) of lettuce plants under SCAPV and the
control. (c) PPFD under SCAPV and control conditions. (d) Fv/Fm measured at 7:00, 13:00, and 4:00. Bars represent the average SD of 6–11 independent mea­
surements. P values are indicated, * represents a significant difference at P less than 0.05 compared to the control, ** P ≤ 0.01, *** P ≤ 0.001.
9
Energy Conversion and Management 276 (2023) 116567
encountered too much sunlight and had to dissipate the overexcitation
light energy by heat as characterized by NPQ. This is partially why
plants show uncompromised biomass using only selected bands of the
solar spectrum; most importantly, this decreased heat dissipation under
SCAPV was funnelled to PV for electrical generation. We also observed
higher Y(II) of plants grown under SCAPV than the control throughout
the day (Fig. 9b), especially when the PPFD of natural sunlight is high.
This result partially reflects that the photosynthetic efficiency under
SCAPV is improved due to this optimized light environment, especially
under high light. The brief midday rise of Y(II) is due to the overcast at
noon, and the quick recovery of Y(II) at approximately 16:00 is also
because of the overcast afternoon (Fig. 9c).
The maximum photochemical efficiency of photosystem II is
measured as Fv/Fm. For lettuce plants grown in the open air, Fv/Fm at
13:00 was much lower than that at 4:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. (Fig. 9d).
This indicates severe photoinhibition and partial inactivation of the
photosynthetic apparatus at noon, and plants must involve a variety of
repair processes to prevent the accumulation of photodamage [9,12].
However, under SCAPV, this photoinhibition is largely relieved.
Chlorophyll fluorescence measurements can only partly reflect the
photosynthetic efficiency, and plant photosynthesis and physiological
mechanisms under SCAPV still require further research. However, we
have preliminarily revealed that the uncompromised biomass under
SCAPV is partly due to relieved photoinhibition and reduced photo­
protection. In essence, the photons that were originally wasted by plants
are cleverly applied to generate electricity. This may not only be the
process under SCAPV but also the physiological basis for various agri­
voltaics; in other words, photosynthesis is so inefficient, thus PV and
photosynthesis can be tandemly utilized on agricultural lands.
3.4. Improved microclimate under SCAPV
The microclimate conditions under SCAPV were evaluated in terms
of solar radiation, air temperature and humidity, soil–water status, etc.,
Z. Zhang et al. Energy Conversion and Management 276 (2023) 116567

Fig. 10. Measurements of microclimate. (a-d) PAR, CO2 concentration, air temperature and humidity over 2 typical sunny days under the SCAPV and control.

and measured from June 4 to June 8 (typical growing season). The covered when it rained; then they were constantly weighed using an
average atmospheric pressure was 99.99 kPa, and the average wind electronic scale over three days, and the results showed that evaporation
speed was 1.59 m/s. The PAR was diurnally lower under SCAPV under SCAPV (700 g) was slightly lower than that under the control (762
(Fig. 10a). The CO2 concentration in the air showed irregular fluctua­ g) (Fig. 11c). In general, the differences in evaporation were not sig­
tions (Fig. 10b). The air temperature under SCAPV was generally lower nificant, and plant transpiration may be a more important factor in the
(Fig. 10c), as was the air humidity (Fig. 10d). These results represent an soil moisture difference in Table 2, which can be clearly concluded from
improved microclimate under SCAPV due to optimal spectra Fig. 11b and Fig. 11c. In summary, SCAPV placed plants in a new
management. microclimate where the soil–water status is improved, which usually
We monitored the soil–water status as characterized by soil tem­ relieves drought stress and stomatal closure.
perature and soil humidity (relative amount of soil moisture content) at
5 cm and 10 cm depths of the SCAPV and control sites. Data were 3.5. Combined efficiency of SCAPV
averaged to a single representative value and are listed in Table 2, and
profiles are depicted in Fig. 11a, b. Under SCAPV, the average soil At present, there is no official standard available for the character­
temperature at 5 cm and 10 cm was generally lower, and the soil hu­ ization of hybrid efficiencies of agrivoltaics. Based on our literature
midity was generally higher than the natural control. survey, the combined efficiency of SCAPV should be evaluated by
To distinguish between soil evaporation and plant transpiration, the comparably cumulating photosynthetic and PV efficiencies. First, short-
evaporation of soil water measured using evaporation containers term (rapid growth phase) photosynthetic efficiency εc was calculated
(without plant cultivation) was also evaluated. After being fully watered based on crop biomass and local solar radiation. One mol of 1C carbo­
and discharged with gravity water, the evaporation containers were at hydrate unit (CH2O, 30 g), which is one-sixth of a mole of glucose,
the initial soil water content of the field capacity and then placed under contains 477 kJ of energy [3]; thus, 1 kg of biomass contains 15900 kJ of
either SCAPV or in the open air. The evaporation containers were energy. Photosynthetic light use efficiency εc can be determined from
the following equations: (total biomass (kg/m2) × 15900 (kJ/kg))/local
radiation (kJ/m2). For lettuce plants under SCAPV, this value is 1.13 %,
Table 2 while that under natural sunlight is 1.0 %. As illustrated in the Intro­
Average soil temperature and soil humidity under SCAPV and the control.
duction Section, the εc is extremely low, and when considering the net
Average T（℃） Average T (day)（℃） Average T (night)（℃） annual productivity and efficiency, the value would be even lower.
control SCAPV Control SCAPV control SCAPV PV and photosynthetic efficiencies must be compared with a process
5CM 28.77 26.81 30.83 28.00 26.21 25.33
in which PV must store energy in chemical bonds; based on this, the
10CM 28.27 26.74 28.58 27.05 27.89 26.37 generated electrical power can be used to electrolyze water [65]. Ac­
cording to this method, the overall short-term light use efficiency is
Soil moisture Soil moisture (day) Soil moisture (night)
（%） （%） （%） determined from the following equation: εc + photovoltaic efficiency ×
modern commercial electrolyser efficiency = 1.13 %+ 9.9 %×80 %=
control SCAPV control SCAPV control SCAPV
9.05 %[65]. Although this efficiency value falls far below the bench­
5CM 16.16 21.58 16.39 21.70 15.88 21.42 mark of most opaque Si-PV modules or other hybrid systems, such as
10CM 21.71 26.14 21.77 26.15 21.64 26.13
concentrating photovoltaic/thermal (CPVT) [66], which is due to the

10
Z. Zhang et al.
Fig. 11. Measurements of soil temperature and moisture. (a) Soil temperature over 3 days at 10 cm underground. (b) Soil moisture over 3 days at 10 cm
underground. (c) Water evaporation over 3 days under SCAPV and the control.
inefficiency of photosynthesis, the SCAPV represents a hybrid system
with an overall solar energy conversion efficiency higher than that of
any existing biological photosynthetic system, i.e., the theoretical limi­
tation of εc of 4.6 % for C3 plants and 6 % for C4 plants.
Another way to comparably calculate the combined efficiency of the
SCAPV is by completely converting the energy to plant biomass. The
generated electricity can be used to further enhance plant productivity,
such as illumination in artificial light plant factories, supplemental
lighting in the understory or supplemental light at night. The electricity
cost per unit dry mass in the current LED-based plant factory is
approximately 75 kWh/kg for leafy microgreens [67]. The SCAPV re­
ported here generated a photovoltaic electricity power of 10.86 kWh/m2
during the lettuce growth period, which is equivalent to a biomass
increment of 0.14 kg/m2 and an εc increment of 0.26 %. For plants under
SCAPV, the combined efficiency of converting solar energy into biomass
(1.13 %+0.26 %=1.39 %) is 39 % higher than that grown under natural
sunlight (1.0 %).
By combining biological light conversion with PV electricity gener­
ation, the SCAPV reported here represents a novel efficient strategy of
utilizing broadband solar energy. Most importantly, for SCAPV, the light
spectrum can be fine-tuned to balance the demand for plant growth and
power generation, i.e., the transmitted spectrum of MPF can be custom-
designed and fabricated. For example, it may be designed to decrease
the transmission of blue light [68], decrease the reflection of green light
[69], increase the reflection of infrared light in Fig. 1c for more PV
power generation, etc. Thus, photosynthetic and photovoltaic effi­
ciencies can be simultaneously optimized by proper choice of MPF
spectra. In addition, SCAPV extends the earlier concept of concentrator
photovoltaic systems (CPVs) by integrating biomass production
concurrently with electricity generation. CPV has been well studied in
past decades, among which parabolic trough concentrators (PTCs) are
widely deployed and account for approximately 85 % of all active CPV
installations [57]. Since 2012, CPV’s market share continues to fall [70],
largely due to the rapid decline in the cost of Si-PV. Novel multi­
generation systems such as SCAPV may increase the interest in PTC and
CPV among researchers and the market.
Table 3
Comparisons for various spectral-splitting agrivoltaics.
PV Technology maturity Spectral flexibility
mono-Si ***** * *
poly-Si ***** * *
a-Si ***** **
OPV ** ****
DSSC *** ***
PVSC * ***
LSC *** ***
SCAPV ***** *****
***** represents high technology maturity, spectral flexibility, transparency and durability; the reduction of * means relatively low maturity, spectral flexibility,
transparency and durability. The effects of mono-Si and poly-Si on plants are not within the scope of our discussion.
Energy Conversion and Management 276 (2023) 116567
3.6. Comparative evaluation of various spectral-splitting agrivoltaics
As we have introduced, there are several other candidates for
spectral-splitting agrivoltaics, which have been of tremendous interest
in recent years [13,14,29]. Here, we compare different technologies in
terms of technology maturity, spectral flexibility, transparency, cost,
weathering performance (durability), and reported impacts on plants.
The available technologies considering these key parameters are pre­
sented in Table 3, among which mono-Si and poly-Si are for comparison.
As emerging technologies, OPVs and PVSCs are still in the learning
stage and are technically immature, especially in large-size
manufacturing and durability. The technology maturities of the DSSC
and LSC are relatively high compared to those of the OPV and PVSC, as
well as durability. In general, most technologies are not mature enough
to be commercialized yet, with only a few prototypes having demon­
strated reliable performance until now . In contrast, all the components
of SCAPV, including MPF, PTC and c-Si, are already commercially
available.
Evaluation of cost (Wp ($)) shows that the SCAPV is cost-effective
compared to most other spectral-splitting agrivoltaics at current stage.
It’s worth noting that, the estimated low costs for OPVs and PVSCs are
based on assumptions of future mass production. In fact, more conser­
vative data suggest that the costs would be 0.23–0.34$ or higher for OPV
[13] and 0.5–2.9$ for PVSC [73]. Fabrication methods of mass pro­
duction are still required to reduce the current high cost. Costs for DSSC
and LSC are estimated as approximately 0.5–0.94$ and 0.65$, respec­
tively. Compared to Si-PV, SCAPV consumes fewer Si materials, which
have a high carbon footprint and cost. It reduces PV module cost per
Watt by up to 50 % by replacing relatively expensive Si-PV with low cost
MPF. Based on our research and interviews with suppliers, the estimated
material costs of the SCAPV are approximately $0.1/W for PV cells +
$0.02/W for MPF + $0.45/W for hardware (concentrator and tracking
mechanism) = $0.57/W. In addition, note that for DSSC, LSC and
SCAPV, there could be a great margin in cost reduction if a more
extended production is considered.
As introduced, plant performances under these solar cells were
merely qualitatively tested. Despite this, the effects were generally
neutral (several studies show that plants grown under semitransparent
Transparency Cost/Wp ($) Durability Effects on plants
0.19–0.38 [70] ***** –
0.16–0.29 [70] ***** –
*** – ***** Negative[38]
*** 0.05 [8] ** Neutral [28,30,45–48]
***** 0.5–0.94[71] *** Unknown [33]
**** 0.12[72] * Unknown [34,43]
**** 0.65[37] *** Neutral [37]
***** 0.57 **** Positive
11
Z. Zhang et al.
solar cells showed similar or improved yields, see Table 3), which also
partly supports our conclusion. Combined with our results on plant
performance, we assume that, on the premise of relatively high trans­
parency and proper spectra, all these technologies under the spectral-
splitting strategy are promising. However, systematic theories and ex­
periments are still needed to establish the full impact of split sunlight on
plants in future studies.
3.7. Feasibilities and challenges of SCAPV
To assess the economic viability of SCAPV, a levelized cost of energy
(LCE) analysis was performed. LCE, defined as the ratio of the total life-
cycle cost (TLCC) to the equivalent electrical production during the
entire life of the project (EP ), can be calculated by [74]:
TLCC C0 + ΣLi=1
t
COM (1 + fR )i− 1 (1 + iR )− i ventional Si-PVs and hence have the opportunity to be commercialized
LCE = = (12)
EP ΣLi=1
t
QA (1 + iR )− i
where C0 is the initial capital cost of the SCAPV, which is 81 W/m2 ×
0.57$/W = 47$/m2 according to Fig. 6 and Table 3; Lt is the estimated
lifetime of the SCAPV, which is assumed to be 25 years [75]; COM is the
annual operating and maintenance cost, which is assumed to be 2 % of
C0 ; iR and fR are the rates of interest and inflation, which are assumed to
be 10 % and 5 %, respectively [74]; QA is the equivalent yearly electrical
production. Regarding the evaluation of QA , we cumulated the in situ
electricity generation of 80 kWh/m2-year (Section 3.2.2) and the po­
tential electrical cost equivalent to the dry biomass production (Section
3.3.1). Specifically, the potato plants in Section 3.3.1 gained a biomass
production of 0.31 kg/m2 (an average dry weight of 0.049 kg per plant,
with a cultivating density of 6.25 plants/m2), which is equivalent to a
biomass production of 0.62 kg/m2-year (a conservative assumption of
two cultivations in a year). Considering the method in Section 3.5, this is
equivalent to a potential electrical production of 121 kWh/m2-year. In
total, a comprehensive QA of 201 kWh/m2-year is calculated. Based on
these results and assumptions, the LCE of the SCAPV is 0.033 $/kWh,
which is lower than that of Refs.[74,75].
There are still limitations and challenges for SCAPV. The first chal­
lenge is the potential cost disadvantage compared to novel semi­
transparent solar cells in the future. For the current situation, the SCAPV
is cost-effective compared to most spectral splitting agrivoltaics; how­
ever, when considering future cost, OPVs and PVSCs may have cost
advantages due to the abundance of related elements on Earth and the
expected low processing costs. Another limitation the SCAPV is faced is
the durability and stability of the complex mechanical structure
compared to a conventional silicon module; according to Eq. (12), the
economic feasibility is highly related to the operating and maintenance
cost and the estimated lifetime. This is also a common challenge for
various novel energy polygeneration systems. The policy of protecting
cultivated land in many countries is also a major limitation, and this
concern calls for more investigations on photosynthetic yields and
economic feasibilities of SCAPV and other agrivoltaics.
4. Conclusions
The SCAPV reported in this study represents a hybrid solar energy
conversion system that selectively splits solar light into two portions,
with one portion supporting photosynthesis and the other supporting
photovoltaic electricity generation. The optimal light management of
SCAPV resulted in substantially decreased photoprotective heat loss and
improved quantum efficiency of plant photosystem II. Hence, one
counterintuitive result is that even without considering the electrical
power, plants grown under partial sunlight did not show any decrease in
biomass; in fact, multiple plants grown under the SCAPV showed the
potential for increased biomass. The experimentally measured PV effi­
ciency of the SCAPV was 9.9 %, which was in line with our simulation of
the ultimate efficiency limit (17 %) and the ideal efficiency (10.35 %) of
12
Energy Conversion and Management 276 (2023) 116567
the SCAPV. We calculated that this system can achieve a hybrid light use
efficiency of 9.05 % (from solar light to chemical bonds), which is higher
than the maximal theoretical photosynthetic efficiency, i.e., 6 %. Thus,
SCAPV provides a physical means to increase energy use efficiency
compared to contemporary agricultural systems based purely on crops.
Furthermore, the economic analysis shows that the LCE of SCAPV is
0.033 $/kWh, indicating the economic feasibility of SCAPV.
We compared the SCAPV with various spectral-splitting agrivoltaics,
showing the different technologies with this similar strategy and their
pros and cons. Our results show that SCAPV is a proper technology with
scalable size, flexible spectrum, high transparency and low cost; mean­
while, the progress and potential of other spectral-splitting agrivoltaics
are also noteworthy. Although these tunable PVs are usually not cost
competitive (compared to conventional Si-PVs) for now, agrivoltaics
provide a niche market where they can provide advantages over con­
and improved. Using spectral-splitting agrivoltaics to harvest the
damaging excess light energy for electricity generation suggests that it is
a feasible strategy that may be used to support the realization of the UN
millennium developmental goal of agricultural and water sustainability,
energy structure transformation, and the global effort to develop a
carbon–neutral society.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Zhisen Zhang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Fangxin Zhang:
Resources, Investigation. Wei Zhang: Data curation, Visualization.
Ming Li: Resources, Validation. Wenjun Liu: Data curation. Altyeb Ali
Abaker Omer: Validation. Jianan Zheng: Investigation. Xinyu Zhang:
Investigation, Visualization. Wen Liu: Conceptualization, Supervision,
Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
We thank Professor Xin-guang Zhu for the guidance of photosyn­
thesis theory and experimental experience. We thank Xin-liang Liu for
plant care and management. We thank Tian-shu Chu for language pol­
ishing. This work was financially supported by the Plan for Anhui Major
Provincial Science & Technology Project (Grant No. 202203a06020002)
and Science & Technology Program of Hebei (Grant No. 22327215D).
References
[1] Green MA, et al. Solar cell efficiency tables (version 59). Prog Photovolt Res Appl
2022;30(1):3–12.
[2] Melis A. Solar energy conversion efficiencies in photosynthesis: minimizing the
chlorophyll antennae to maximize efficiency. Plant Sci 2009;177(4):272–80.
[3] Zhu X-G, Long SP, Ort DR. What is the maximum efficiency with which
photosynthesis can convert solar energy into biomass? Curr Opin Biotechnol 2008;
19(2):153–9.
[4] Bailey-Serres J, et al. Genetic strategies for improving crop yields. Nature 2019;575
(7781):109–18.
[5] Long SP, Marshall-Colon A, Zhu X-G. Meeting the global food demand of the future
by engineering crop photosynthesis and yield potential. Cell 2015;161(1):56–66.
[6] Chen M, Blankenship RE. Expanding the solar spectrum used by photosynthesis.
Trends Plant Sci 2011;16(8):427–31.
Z. Zhang et al.
[7] Delegido J, et al. Retrieval of chlorophyll content and LAI of crops using
hyperspectral techniques: application to PROBA/CHRIS data. Int J Remote Sens
2008;29(24):7107–27.
[8] La Notte L, et al. Hybrid and organic photovoltaics for greenhouse applications.
Appl Energy 2020;278:115582.
[9] Murchie EH, Niyogi KK. Manipulation of photoprotection to improve plant
photosynthesis. Plant Physiol 2011;155(1):86–92.
[10] Niyogi KK, Björkman O, Grossman AR. The roles of specific xanthophylls in
photoprotection. Proc Natl Acad Sci 1997;94(25):14162–7.
[11] Zhu X-G, Long SP, Ort DR. Improving photosynthetic efficiency for greater yield.
Annu Rev Plant Biol 2010;61:235–61.
[12] Ort DR. When There Is Too Much Light. Plant Physiol 2001;125(1):29–32.
[13] Lu L, et al. Comprehensive review on the application of inorganic and organic
photovoltaics as greenhouse shading materials. Sustainable Energy Technol Assess
2022;52:102077.
[14] Gorjian S, et al. Progress and challenges of crop production and electricity
generation in agrivoltaic systems using semi-transparent photovoltaic technology.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2022;158:112126.
[15] Mamun MAA, et al. A review of research on agrivoltaic systems. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2022;161:112351.
[16] Barron-Gafford GA, et al. Agrivoltaics provide mutual benefits across the
food–energy–water nexus in drylands. Nat Sustainability 2019;2(9):848–55.
[17] Valle B, et al. Increasing the total productivity of a land by combining mobile
photovoltaic panels and food crops. Appl Energy 2017;206:1495–507.
[18] Ravi S, et al. Colocation opportunities for large solar infrastructures and
agriculture in drylands. Appl Energy 2016;165:383–92.
[19] Miskin CK, et al. Sustainable co-production of food and solar power to relax land-
use constraints. Nat Sustainability 2019;2(10):972–80.
[20] Adeh EH, et al. Solar PV Power Potential is Greatest Over Croplands. Sci Rep 2019;
9(1):11442.
[21] Fernández EF, et al. Global energy assessment of the potential of photovoltaics for
greenhouse farming. Appl Energy 2022;309:118474.
[22] Marrou H, et al. Microclimate under agrivoltaic systems: Is crop growth rate
affected in the partial shade of solar panels? Agric For Meteorol 2013;177:117–32.
[23] Armstrong A, Ostle NJ, Whitaker J. Solar park microclimate and vegetation
management effects on grassland carbon cycling. Environ Res Lett 2016;11(7):
074016.
[24] Allardyce CS, et al. The influence of greenhouse-integrated photovoltaics on crop
production. Sol Energy 2017;155:517–22.
[25] Cossu M, et al. Solar radiation distribution inside a greenhouse with south-oriented
photovoltaic roofs and effects on crop productivity. Appl Energy 2014;133:89–100.
[26] Emmott CJM, et al. Organic photovoltaic greenhouses: a unique application for
semi-transparent PV? Energ Environ Sci 2015;8(4):1317–28.
[27] Meitzner R, Schubert US, Hoppe H. Agrivoltaics—The Perfect Fit for the Future of
Organic Photovoltaics. Adv Energy Mater 2021;11(1):2002551.
[28] Shi H, et al. Spectral Engineering of Semitransparent Polymer Solar Cells for
Greenhouse Applications. Adv Energy Mater 2019;9(5):1803438.
[29] Zhao Y, et al. A review on semitransparent solar cells for agricultural application.
Mater Today Energy 2021;22:100852.
[30] Wang D, et al. High-performance and eco-friendly semitransparent organic solar
cells for greenhouse applications. Joule 2021;5(4):945–57.
[31] Dessì A, et al. D-A–π–A organic dyes with tailored green light absorption for
potential application in greenhouse-integrated dye-sensitized solar cells.
Sustainable Energy Fuels 2021;5(4):1171–83.
[32] Barichello J, et al. Stable Semi-Transparent Dye-Sensitized Solar Modules and
Panels for Greenhouse Application. Energies 2021;14(19):6393.
[33] Dessì A, et al. Thiazolo[5,4-d]thiazole-based organic sensitizers with improved
spectral properties for application in greenhouse-integrated dye-sensitized solar
cells. Sustainable Energy Fuels 2020;4(5):2309–21.
[34] Weng S, et al. Band-Gap-Engineered Transparent Perovskite Solar Modules to
Combine Photovoltaics with Photosynthesis. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2021;13
(33):39230–8.
[35] Xue Q, et al. Recent advances in semi-transparent polymer and perovskite solar
cells for power generating window applications. Energ Environ Sci 2018;11(7):
1688–709.
[36] Corrado C, et al. Power generation study of luminescent solar concentrator
greenhouse. J Renewable Sustainable Energy 2016;8(4).
[37] Loik ME, et al. Wavelength-Selective Solar Photovoltaic Systems: Powering
Greenhouses for Plant Growth at the Food-Energy-Water Nexus. Earth’s Future
2017;5(10):1044–53.
[38] Thompson EP, et al. Tinted Semi-Transparent Solar Panels Allow Concurrent
Production of Crops and Electricity on the Same Cropland. Adv Energy Mater 2020;
10(35):2001189.
[39] Hassanien RHE, Li M, Yin F. The integration of semi-transparent photovoltaics on
greenhouse roof for energy and plant production. Renew Energy 2018;121:377–88.
[40] Tamang A, et al. Combining Photosynthesis and Photovoltaics: A Hybrid Energy-
Harvesting System Using Optical Antennas. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2020;12
(36):40261–8.
[41] Osterthun N, et al. Spectral engineering of ultrathin germanium solar cells for
combined photovoltaic and photosynthesis. Opt Express 2021;29(2):938–50.
13
Energy Conversion and Management 276 (2023) 116567
[42] Xia R, et al. High-Throughput Optical Screening for Efficient Semitransparent
Organic Solar Cells. Joule 2019;3(9):2241–54.
[43] Subhani WS, et al. Anti-solvent engineering for efficient semitransparent
CH3NH3PbBr 3 perovskite solar cells for greenhouse applications. Journal of
Energy Chemistry 2019;34:12–9.
[44] Yildirim N, Bilir L. Evaluation of a hybrid system for a nearly zero energy
greenhouse. Energ Conver Manage 2017;148:1278–90.
[45] Liu Y, et al. Unraveling Sunlight by Transparent Organic Semiconductors toward
Photovoltaic and Photosynthesis. ACS Nano 2019;13(2):1071–7.
[46] Song W, et al. Foldable Semitransparent Organic Solar Cells for Photovoltaic and
Photosynthesis. Adv Energy Mater 2020;10(15):2000136.
[47] Ravishankar E, et al. Balancing crop production and energy harvesting in organic solar-
powered greenhouses. Cell Reports Physical. Science 2021:100381.
[48] Song W, et al. Ultra-flexible light-permeable organic solar cells for the herbal
photosynthetic growth. Nano Energy 2021;86:106044.
[49] Zisis C, et al. Organic Photovoltaics on Greenhouse Rooftops: Effects on Plant
Growth. Mater Today: Proc 2019;19:65–72.
[50] Liu W, et al. A novel agricultural photovoltaic system based on solar spectrum
separation. Sol Energy 2018;162:84–94.
[51] Sonneveld PJ, et al. Feasibility study for combining cooling and high grade energy
production in a solar greenhouse. Biosyst Eng 2010;105(1):51–8.
[52] Ma Q, et al. Photovoltaic/spectrum performance analysis of a multifunctional solid
spectral splitting covering for passive solar greenhouse roof. Energ Conver Manage
2022;251:114955.
[53] Weber MF, et al. Giant birefringent optics in multilayer polymer mirrors. Science
2000;287(5462):2451–6.
[54] Macleod HA. Turning value monitoring of narrow-band all-dielectric thin-film
optical filters. Optica Acta: International Journal of Optics 1972;19(1):1–28.
[55] Alfrey Jr T, Gurnee E, Schrenk W. Physical optics of iridescent multilayered plastic
films. Polym Eng Sci 1969;9(6):400–4.
[56] Li M, et al. Polymer multilayer film with excellent UV-resistance & high
transmittance and its application for glass-free photovoltaic modules. Sol Energy
Mater Sol Cells 2021;229:111103.
[57] Tagle-Salazar PD, Nigam KDP, Rivera-Solorio CI. Parabolic trough solar collectors:
A general overview of technology, industrial applications, energy market,
modeling, and standards. Green Process Synth, 2020;9(1):595–649.
[58] Shockley W, Queisser HJ. Detailed Balance Limit of Efficiency of p-n Junction Solar
Cells. J Appl Phys 1961;32(3):510–9.
[59] Huang G, Wang K, Markides CN. Efficiency limits of concentrating spectral-
splitting hybrid photovoltaic-thermal (PV-T) solar collectors and systems. Light Sci
Appl 2021;10(1):28.
[60] Ai Z, et al. Global bioenergy with carbon capture and storage potential is largely
constrained by sustainable irrigation. Nat Sustainability 2021;4(10):884–91.
[61] Ort DR, Long SP. Limits on Yields in the Corn Belt. Science 2014;344(6183):484–5.
[62] Marcelis LFM, et al. Quantification of the growth response of light quantity of
greenhouse grown crops. Acta Hortic 2006;711(2006):711.
[63] Kromdijk J, et al. Improving photosynthesis and crop productivity by accelerating
recovery from photoprotection. Science 2016;354(6314):857–61.
[64] Genty B, Briantais J-M, Baker NR. The relationship between the quantum yield of
photosynthetic electron transport and quenching of chlorophyll fluorescence.
Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-General Subjects 1989;990(1):87–92.
[65] Blankenship RE, et al. Comparing photosynthetic and photovoltaic efficiencies and
recognizing the potential for improvement. Science 2011;332(6031):805–9.
[66] Khodadadi M, Sheikholeslami M. Review on poly-generation application of
photovoltaic/thermal systems. Sustainable Energy Technol Assess 2022;52:
102172.
[67] Pattison P, et al. LEDs for photons, physiology and food. Nature 2018;563(7732):
493–500.
[68] Hamdani S, et al. Changes in the photosynthesis properties and photoprotection
capacity in rice (Oryza sativa) grown under red, blue, or white light. Photosynth
Res 2019;139(1–3):107–21.
[69] Terashima I, et al. Green Light Drives Leaf Photosynthesis More Efficiently than
Red Light in Strong White Light: Revisiting the Enigmatic Question of Why Leaves
are Green. Plant Cell Physiol 2009;50(4):684–97.
[70] Benda V, Černá L. PV cells and modules – State of the art, limits and trends.
Heliyon 2020;6(12).
[71] Roslan N, et al. Dye Sensitized Solar Cell (DSSC) greenhouse shading: New insights
for solar radiation manipulation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;92:171–86.
[72] Faheem MB, et al. Insights from scalable fabrication to operational stability and
industrial opportunities for perovskite solar cells and modules. Cell Reports
Physical Science 2022;3(4):100827.
[73] Chang NL, et al. Manufacturing cost and market potential analysis of demonstrated
roll-to-roll perovskite photovoltaic cell processes. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2018;
174:314–24.
[74] Yuan Y, et al. Experimental investigation of full solar spectrum utilization based on
nanofluid spectral splitter for greenhouse applications. Energ Conver Manage
2022;254:115215.
[75] Schindele S, et al. Implementation of agrophotovoltaics: Techno-economic analysis
of the price-performance ratio and its policy implications. Appl Energy 2020;265:
114737.