Applied Energy 281 (2021) 116102

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Innovative agrivoltaic systems to produce sustainable energy: An economic

and environmental assessment
A. Agostini a, b, *, M. Colauzzi a, S. Amaducci a
a
Department of Sustainable Crop Production, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 29122 Piacenza, Italy
b
ENEA–Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and the Environment, Via Anguillarese 301, 00123 Rome, Italy

H I G H L I G H T S

• An economic and environmental assessment of agrivoltaic systems was performed.

• Agrivoltaic systems minimise land occupation and stabilise crop yield.
• Agrovoltaico has environmental performances similar to other photovoltaic systems.
• The cost of power from Agrovoltaico is comparable to other photovoltaic systems.
• Agrovoltaico contributes positively to 14 of the 17 sustainable development goals.

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

Keywords: Agrivoltaic systems are photovoltaic (PV) technologies in which PV panels are mounted at a sufficient height
Agrivoltaic from the ground to enable conventional cultivation practices underneath. Agrivoltaic systems not only preserve
Photovoltaic agricultural land, but also benefit crop production by improving water use efficiency and reducing water stress.
Environmental impacts
For these positive attributes, the interest over agrivoltaic systems is increasing, but the lack of a thorough
Climate change
LCA
environmental and economic analysis of agrivoltaic systems is limiting their implementation. This work aims to
Economics fill this gap by modelling the environmental and economic performances of an innovative agrivoltaic system built
on tensile structures (Agrovoltaico®) in the Po Valley. The life cycle assessment performed shows that Agrovoltaico
systems have environmental performances similar to those of other PV systems in all the areas of environmental
concern investigated (climate change, eutrophication, air quality and resource consumption). Agrovoltaico sys­
tems show a Levelized Cost Of Electricity comparable to those of ground or roof mounted PV systems, thanks to
both the higher productivity of these sun tracking systems and the materials saved by mounting them on a tensile
structure. Relying on tensile structures was economically safe and compatible with the current Italian net-
metering approach adopted to incentivise PV systems. It is concluded that the economic and environmental
costs of Agrovoltaico systems are comparable to those of other PV systems, though the reduced impact on land
occupation and the stabilisation of crop production are relevant added values that should be properly valorised
in a future energy system dominated by increasing human land appropriation and climate change.

1. Introduction facing hunger and forced displacement, as well as curtailing progress

In 2015 all United Nations (UN) Member States have adopted the
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [1], which defines 17 Sus­
tainable Development Goals (SDGs), for peace and prosperity for people
and the planet, now and into the future. Three years later, in its 2018
SDGs progress report, the UN found that conflict and climate change
were major contributing factors leading to a growing number of people
towards universal access to basic water and sanitation services [2].
The UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has stated,
with high confidence, that human activities have caused approximately
1.0 ◦ C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, and global
warming is likely to reach 1.5 ◦ C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues
to increase at the current rate [3]. Renewable Energy (RE) has a large
potential to mitigate climate change by reducing the use of fossil fuels,

* Corresponding author at: ENEA–Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and the Environment, Via Anguillarese 301, 00123 Rome, Italy.
E-mail address: alessandro.agostini@enea.it (A. Agostini).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116102
Received 22 June 2020; Received in revised form 13 October 2020; Accepted 22 October 2020
Available online 1 November 2020
0306-2619/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Agostini et al.
and, potentially, can generate positive feedbacks if implemented prop­
erly, (i.e. contribute to social and economic development, energy access,
security of energy supply, and reducing negative impacts on the envi­
ronment and health) [4]. On the other hand, if not implemented prop­
erly, some renewables technologies result in GHG emissions higher than
the fossil fuels they are competing with [5], and, especially for biomass
based energy, there may be trade-offs with other areas of environmental
concern such as particulate matter emissions [6] or eutrophication [7]
which are not always properly identified and communicated to policy
makers [8].
In 2019, for the fourth year in a row, additions of renewable power
generation capacity outpaced net installations of fossil fuel and nuclear
power combined. Around 100 GW of solar photovoltaics (PV) was
installed – accounting for 55% of renewable capacity additions – fol­
lowed by wind power (28%) and hydropower (11%). Overall, renewable
energy has grown to account for more than 33% of the world’s total
installed power generating capacity [9].
A major drawback of renewable energies is its impact on land
occupation, which can be contained in the case of PV installed on the
built environment [10]. In general, wind turbines occupy less land than
solar systems (about half) while biomass has the highest land occupation
(e.g. [11] found an energy output/land input ratio of 100:42:1 for wind,
solar and biomass respectively).
In 2018 the European Union has set ambitious targets in its 2030
energy union strategy, with renewables expected to cover 32% of the
total energy consumption [12]. Member states have prepared integrated
climate and energy plans, and, for example, Italy expects to have large
amounts of ground mounted PV to reach its climate targets [13].
Agrivoltaic technologies are PV panels mounted at a sufficient height
from the ground to enable conventional cultivation practices under­
neath. Agrivoltaic systems enable the installation of PV panels without
competing with agricultural land. The impact of the agrivoltaic plant
shading on agricultural activities is poorly understood as long-term
studies of APV impacts on crop physiology, soil, and agricultural pro­
duction are not available [14]. The shading caused by the PV modules
reduces evapotranspiration and proves beneficial especially in the dry
season [15]. The presence of the PV panels (in analogy to trees) protects
crops from excessive heating and provides soil temperature mitigation
[16]. Marrou et al. [17] found that the growth rate of crops grown under
agrivoltaic systems is not reduced except during the juvenile phase of
crops. Dupraz et al. modelled wheat yields under agrivoltaic systems at
two different panel densities finding a loss of 19 and 8% compared to full
light for the high and low density, respectively [18]. Dinesh and Pierce
found that lettuce yield in partially shaded conditions decreased by
0–42% compared to full light, depending on the PV panel’s density and
season [19]. Schindele et al. [14] reported that the effect of cultivation
under an agrivoltaic plant in Germany on the yield of wheat and po­
tatoes was either negative or positive according to weather conditions.
However, these studies did not analyse the impact of water stress, unlike
Amaducci et al. [15] that simulated the grain yield of maize cultivated in
partial shade under the Agrovoltaico system using a 40-year climate
dataset from a location in North Italy. Comparing the results obtained
under rainfed and irrigated conditions, it was found that when water is a
non-limiting factor the yield of maize under Agrovoltaico systems is
slightly lower than maize cultivated in full light. However, when there
was drought stress the average yield was higher and more stable under
the Agrovoltaico system than in full light conditions.
In a recent review Weselek et al. concluded that the agrivoltaic
practicability and impact on crop production have hardly been investi­
gated. They discuss microclimatic alterations and the resulting impacts
of agrivoltaic systems on crop production [20]. They found that crop
yield underneath agorvoltaic is expected to decline with a reduction in
solar radiation, but, as data on microclimatic heterogeneities and their
impact on crop yields is scarce, the impact remains uncertain. Further­
more, they conclude that given the impacts of climate change and the
conditions in arid climates, potential benefits for crop production from
2
Applied Energy 281 (2021) 116102
additional shading and observed improvements of water productivity
are likely.
This indicates that agrivoltaic systems, by supporting non-irrigated
crop yield, clean energy production and water saving, may play a sig­
nificant role at the energy-food-water nexus by increasing the agricul­
tural sector’s resilience to climate change, especially when the
cultivation techniques and crops will be developed to best suit to the
conditions under the agrivoltaic systems.
With this in mind, the company REM TEC S.r.l. [21] developed a new
concept of agrivoltaic system that was named Agrovoltaico®, which is
the only commercial system designed and built on a large scale to
combine the cultivation of field crops with the production of electricity
from sun-tracking PV panels on the same land unit. The concept was
conceived in 2004 and the first three plants, for a total of 6.7 MW, were
installed between 2011 and 2012 in the Po valley, northern Italy, on
area of approximately 35 hm2. The Agrovoltaico system consists of
panels, made of silicon PV cells, which change their inclination ac­
cording to the movement of the sun and weather conditions in order to
maximize the production of electrical energy and increase safety during
extreme weather events. The PV mounting structures are designed to
minimize crop shading and to enable the use of conventional agricul­
tural machineries underneath them.
This work builds on that done by Amaducci et al. [15] (an assessment
of the agricultural performances of Agrovoltaico systems), and both ex­
pands and completes it with an assessment of the system’s environ­
mental and economic performances.
In fact, Amaducci et al. [15] concluded that an economic and envi­
ronmental analysis should be carried out in order to provide a complete
sustainability assessment of the Agrovoltaico system, so as to determine,
and optimise, the environmental and economic performance of Agro­
voltaico systems.
To date, we could not find in literature a complete environmental
and economic assessment of an agivoltaic plant. This work therefore
aims to fill that gap by providing comprehensive assessment of the
environmental performances of the Agrovoltaico technology with a Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA) that compares the Agrovoltaico technology to
other conventional and renewables power sources. In addition, a
detailed cost analysis shows the costs of Agrovoltaico systems in terms of
both the Levelized Cost Of Electricity (LCOE) and the profitability of
Agrovoltaico projects.
The hypothesis tested was that by using tensile structures Agro­
voltaico systems have costs and environmental performances similar to
those of conventional PV systems, yet they have the added value of
sparing agricultural land and stabilizing crop production.
The economic and environmental assessments performed leave the
agricultural practices underneath Agrovoltaico out of the analysis system
boundary. To get the whole picture, the results should be further inte­
grated with the performances of the crops and agricultural techniques
adopted by the farmer. An analysis of the potential impacts of shad­
owing on different crops yields is reported in Weselek et al., [20], who
found a highly variable impact of shadowing on yields. However, since
shading under agrivoltaic is not homogenous, as it is in netting shading
experiments (where forage crops and leaf vegetables may benefit from
the diminished solar irradiation by increasing leaf area and thus total
plant biomass [20]), further research must look instead at how to best
exploit the protection from drought stress that agrivoltaic systems can
provide.
Finally, the potential contribution of Agrovoltaico systems to the
achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals set by the United
Nations was qualitatively assessed.
A. Agostini et al.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Environmental life cycle assessment
2.1.1. Goal and scope definition
The goal of this work is to assess the environmental performances of
Agrovoltaico systems and compare them with the environmental per­
formances of alternative sources of electricity.
The Agrovoltaico system (Fig. 1) is an aerial solar tracking system,
built on suspended structures (stilts). On the stilts are mounted hori­
zontal main axis on which are hinged secondary axis holding the solar
panels. Two configurations are available and analysed. In the bi-axial
configuration (2A) the solar panels can rotate around two orthogonal
axes driven by electric motors controlled by an innovative system based
on wireless communication. In the mono-axial configuration (1A), only
the main axis can rotate. A major difference of Agrovoltaico plants from
traditional ground installations is the possibility to cultivate conven­
tional crops underneath the PV panels using standard machinery. Three
different types of support infrastructure and sun tracking configurations
of Agrovoltaico systems are analysed: the two recent releases, biaxial sun
tracking with tensile structure (2A), monoaxial sun tracking with tensile
structure (1A), (see Fig. 1) and an old static concept with conventional
structure made of a concrete basement and steel poles (ST).
The technologies providing the same function chosen for comparison
are: roof or ground mounted PV solar panels, wind turbines, coal or
natural gas power plants, biogas from maize and sorghum, the Italian
electricity mix. These power technologies represent the most common
fossil sources of electricity in Italy and competing renewable electricity
sources.
The properties of roof or ground mounted PV solar panels, wind
turbines, coal or natural gas power plants and the Italian electricity mix
are described in the commercial database Ecoinvent [22].
The biogas from maize system is representative of an alternative
source of electricity potentially deployed on the same land of Agro­
voltaico systems and a common practice in the Po Valley [23]. The biogas
sector diverts a significant share of maize produced in the Po Valley
(about one fifth in Lombardy) towards about 1000 biogas plants [23].
The biogas systems modelled in [5] is used for comparison as it is
representative of a common competing use of the same land where the
Agrovoltaico systems are modelled. Sorghum is a less demanding alter­
native feedstock for the production of biogas as it requires a lower input
of fertilisers and water, and therefore it has a lower environmental
footprint [5]. Furthermore, biogas environmental impacts, especially
Fig. 1. The tensile structures of the Agrovoltaico systems have a minimal land occupation.
3
Applied Energy 281 (2021) 116102
GHG emissions, are heavily affected by the emissions from the open
storage of the digestate [5] although this is a common practice in Italy.
We therefore use for comparison two biogas systems: maize open
digestate storage and sorghum closed digestate storage to include the
best and worst performing options for biogas production from energy
crops.
This LCA follows an attributional modelling principle integrated
with elements of consequential modelling related to land use change
(ILUC factors) for the biogas systems and the ground mounted PV
systems.
The Agrivoltaico systems are located in the Po Valley and have an
expected lifetime of 25 years.
The functional unit is 1 MJ of electricity delivered to the grid.
The environmental impacts considered relevant, and therefore ana­
lysed in this study are reported in Table 1 together with the description
of the impact assessment methods used.
The impact assessment were chosen according to the International
Life Cycle Data System recommended methods for Environmental
Footprint Programme [24].
In addition, the aspects related to land use and water were discussed
qualitatively.
The study was carried out using the software GABI [25].
2.1.2. Life cycle inventory (LCI)
The Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) for the construction of the Agrovoltaico
systems and their performances was compiled with primary data from
the company producing the systems suspended on tensile structures
[21].
The systems models and performances are provided by the manu­
facturer [21] and represent new potential installations in 2020.
All the system modelled in this study deploy commercial solar panels
with an efficiency of about 19%, with an annual productivity degrada­
tion assumed to be 0.3%.
The density of the panels is 500 kW per hm2 (1 hm2 equals one
hectare) for both the 1A and 2A sun tracking systems and the static
system at high density (HD). The low-density configuration has a panel
density of 200 kW per hm2 (LD).
The ground mounted PV system (GM) is a conventional system
installed on the ground with the necessary infrastructure with a proper
tilting toward south.
The roof mounted (RM) solar panels are assumed to be installed on
pitched roofs exposed toward the south with a slope allowing an
installation without supporting infrastructures, their density is double
A. Agostini et al. Applied Energy 281 (2021) 116102

Table 1 replaced once in the life time of the whole plant. The inverter conversion
Environmental impact categories analysed and impact assessment methods used efficiency is 97%.
in accord to the European Product Environmental Footprint programme [24]. Steel was assumed to be produced in China and transported 16000
Impact category Indicator Unit Recommended Source km by boat. The steel and all the other materials are transported 100 km
default LCIA of CFs by truck.
method Table 3 shows the bill of materials, i.e. the aggregated inventory of
Climate change Radiative kg CO2 eq Baseline model EF 3.0 the data used in the LCA.
forcing as of 100 years of The datasets for ground mounted and slanted roof PV systems, for the
Global the IPCC (based
natural gas and coal power plants and the Italian electricity mix are
Warming on IPCC 2013)
Potential taken from Ecoinvent [22].
(GWP100) An additional factor to be considered in the calculation of the GHG
Ozone depletion Ozone kg CFC-11 Steady-state EF 3.0 emissions of land intensive technologies is the occupation of arable land
Depletion eq ODPs as in by ground mounted PV panels and bioenergy crops. The appropriation
Potential (ODP) (WMO 1999)
Particulate Human health Disease PM method EF 3.0
of arable land displaces the production of feed and food crops, which can
matter/ effects incidences recommended by cause indirect, market mediated, effects leading to additional GHG
Respiratory associated with UNEP (UNEP emissions from the expansion of agricultural land on forests or grass­
inorganics exposure to 2016) land. This phenomenon, normally referred to as Indirect Land Use
PM2.5
Change (ILUC) [26], is difficult to quantify and highly uncertain [27]. In
Photochemical Tropospheric kg LOTOS-EUROS EF 3.0
ozone ozone NMVOC (Van Zelm et al, this work we add the ILUC emissions per hectare calculated by [5] to
formation concentration eq 2008) as applied provide the readers with an estimate of the magnitude of these emis­
increase in ReCiPe 2008 sions. Agostini et al. [5] calculated the ILUC generated by the
Acidification Accumulated mol H + Accumulated EF 3.0 displacement of the cultivation of 1 hm2 of maize in the same study area
Exceedance eq Exceedance
and found an ILUC of 1595 kg CO2eq hm− 2. While this amount is almost
(AE) (Seppälä et al.
2006, Posch et negligible for ground mounted PV systems (less than 0.4 gCO2eq MJ− 1),
al, 2008) they are significant for bioenergy crop based technologies (28 and 27
Eutrophication, Accumulated mol N eq Accumulated EF 3.0 gCO2eq MJ− 1 for maize and sorghum systems respectively).
terrestrial Exceedance Exceedance
(AE) (Seppälä et al.
2006, Posch et 2.2. Economic analysis
al, 2008)
Eutrophication, Fraction of kg P eq EUTREND model EF 3.0 An analysis of the economic performances of the latest release of the
aquatic nutrients (Struijs et al, Agrovoltaico systems, relying on tensile structures and with biaxial sun
freshwater reaching 2009) as
freshwater end implemented in
trackers, both at low and high density (2A – LD; 2A – HD) is carried out
compartment ReCiPe and the results are compared to GM and RM PV systems. GM PV systems
(P) are expected to be widely deployed in Italy [13] while RM PV systems
Eutrophication, Fraction of kg N eq EUTREND model EF 3.0 are meant to represent a best-case scenario as the solar panels are
aquatic marine nutrients (Struijs et al,
directly fixed to the roof, without support structures, on large slanted
reaching 2009) as
marine end implemented in roofs with a good exposition towards south.
compartment ReCiPe The economic analysis of the different systems was carried out
(N) considering a set of key indicators enabling the comparison of economic
Resource use, Abiotic resource kg Sb eq CML Guinée EF 3.0 performances. LCOE is calculated by dividing the discounted lifetime
minerals and depletion (ADP et al. (2002) and
metals ultimate van Oers et al.
costs of building, operating and maintaining the plants by the dis­
reserves) (2002). counted total electricity produced (Eq (1)) and it allows the comparison
Resource use, Abiotic resource MJ CML Guinée EF 3.0 of the actual costs of producing electricity with agrivoltaic system with
energy carriers depletion – et al. (2002) and those of different technologies (e.g., wind, solar, natural gas) of unequal
fossil fuels van Oers et al.
life spans, project size, different capital cost, risk, return, and capacities
(ADP-fossil) (2002)
[28].
∑n It +Mt +Ft
than that of ground mounted systems (1000 kW per hm2) as there is no LCOE = ∑n
t=1 (1+r)t
(1)
shadowing involved. Table 2 shows the main characteristics and per­
Elt
t=1 (1+r)t
formances of the Agrovoltaico plants modelled.
The string inverter has a lifetime of 12–13 years, it is therefore where It = investment expenditures in year t; Mt = operations and
maintenance expenditures in year t; Ft = fuel expenditure in year t; Elt =
electricity generated in year t, r = discount rate; n = economic life of the
Table 2 system.
Energy production and land occupation of the systems modelled. To make the comparison consistent with the LCOE of other tech­
MAIN DATA unit ST 1A 2A nologies, the decommissioning and the end of life values and costs are
Installed kW 1000 1000 1000
not included in the analysis as this is the methodological approach
capacity recommended and used by the International Renewable Energy Agency
Power kWh/ 1,100,000 1,320,000 1,500,000 (IRENA) [29], the International Energy Agency [30] and the US National
production y Renewable Energy Laboratory [31]. Moreover, for the solar panels the
Land occupation hm2 2 2 2
EU Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive re­
Power auxiliaries kWh/ 10,000 10,000 20,000
consumption y quires all producers supplying PV panels to the EU market (wherever
sun kWh/ 0 1000 4000 they may be based) to finance the costs of collecting and recycling end-
tracking y of-life PV panels put on the market in Europe, so the costs for the
inverters kWh/ 500 500 500 disposal (collection and recycling) of the solar panels, as well as other
y
electronics, are included in the purchase costs [32]. The materials of the

4
A. Agostini et al. Applied Energy 281 (2021) 116102

Table 3
Detailed inventory of the materials deployed in systems modelled ant their transport used for the life cycle assessment.
Materials (aggregated values per MW) ST 1A 2A TRANSPORT Ecoinvent dataset

SUB-System component Material units origin mode

support structure stilts Concrete kg 704,000 n.a. n.a. Italy truck concrete
Steel kg 693,000 29,300 29,300 Italy truck reinforcing steel
support structure Steel kg 176,000 29,710 29,710 China Ship & truck steel pipe
horizontal main axes Steel kg 195,360 56,840 69,600 China Ship & truck steel pipe
secondary axes Steel kg n.a. 40,700 79,280 China Ship & truck steel pipe
aluminium kg n.a. 11,200 11,800 China Ship & truck aluminium

auxiliaries auxiliaries foundations Concrete kg 13,125 13,125 13,125 Italy truck concrete
Steel kg 10,216 14,401 14,401 Italy truck reinforcing steel
inverters Steel, copper, plastic kg 45 45 45 Italy truck inverter
wiring copper, plastic kg 800 2710 2950 Italy truck cable
control units electronics kg 5 5 11 Italy truck electronic control unit

sun tracking system electric motors Steel, copper, plastic kg n.a. 595 606 Italy truck electric motor
PV panel PV panel PV panels kg n.a. 595 606 Italy truck PV panels

support structure, steel and aluminium, have a salvage value which is
highly variable in space and time depending on local scrap material
market and distances. These potential revenues are likely counter­
balanced by the cost of decommissioning which are also highly variable,
as both range around a few tens of k€ [33–35], i.e. a few percentage
points of the initial investment expenditure.
The financial attractiveness of the projects was examined by calcu­
lating the financial Net Present Value (NPV) of the investments and the
Internal Rate of Return (IRR). These indicators are used to measure the
extent to which the project’s net revenues are able to repay the in­
vestments, regardless of the sources of financing.
The NPV is defined as the sum of the present values of the individual
(yearly) cash flows (Eq. (2)). A project is financially feasible when the
NPV is positive. The higher the NPV, the more profitable the project
[36]. The NPV is expressed as follows:
∑n (Rt − M )
NPV = − It + t
(2)
t=1 (1 + r)t
where It = investment expenditures in year t, Rt = revenues year t, Mt =
operations and maintenance expenditures in year t; r = discount rate ;n
= economic life of the system.
For both the LCOE and the NPV, the discount rate, which reflects the
opportunity cost of capital, was set to 5% according to the recommen­
dation of the European Commission for project appraisal [37].
The IRR is defined as the discount rate at which the NPV becomes
zero, which means that the present value of future revenues equals the
present value of costs (Eq. (3)). IRR is used to evaluate the future per­
formance of the investment in comparison to other projects of different
size, or to a benchmark required rate of return [37]. Hence, IRR is
defined as:
∑n (Rt − M )
0 = − It + t
(3)
t=1 (1 + IRR)t
where It = investment expenditures in year t, Rt = revenues year t, Mt =
operations and maintenance expenditures in year t; r = discount rate; n
= economic life of the system..
If the IRR is higher than the discount rate, the project is viable,
otherwise it should be rejected. In general, the higher the IRR, the more
desirable it is to undertake the project [36].
The payback period is defined as the time at which the NPV becomes
zero. A payback calculation determines the length of time required to
recoup the initial investment. The shorter the payback period, the more
economically attractive is the investment [36].
An inventory of the costs, together with the results of the analysis, is
reported in Table 5.
The investment risks are limited as the sun tracking systems allows
PV panels to be oriented so as to avoid structural issues or PV cell
damage in the event of strong winds or hail. Further, the risk is totally
covered contractually by the manufacturer which guarantees mainte­
nance and replacements. The height of the panels, together with the
possibility of orienting them, makes the cleaning of the PV modules
easier and less frequent, and therefore the maintenance costs are similar
to ground mounted systems. Although the height of the agrivoltaic plant
may have an influence on the economics of the systems, the height
chosen, 5 m, guarantees access to all common agricultural machinery,
while a lower height would only slightly reduce the cost of the sup­
porting poles. It is also worth noting that in the long-term, Agrovoltaico
plants do not have an impact on the value of the land because the system
can be dismantled, and the land restored to its former use. In addition,
the overall economic performance is relatively insensitive to the reve­
nues of the agricultural activities underneath the agrivoltaic system as
these generally have orders of magnitude smaller economic balances
than the PV system (M€ per hm2 for agrivoltaic, k€ per hm2 for
agricultural).
The economic performances are however sensitive to the lifetime of
the Agrovoltaico system. Though this is guaranteed for 25 years, the
duration may vary. A longer duration would guarantee additional rev­
enue, but this would depend on the discount rate and the PV panels’
performance losses over time.
Currently in Italy there are no feed-in tariffs or subsidies, but elec­
tricity producers are incentivised to self-consume the electricity they
produce. The incentivisation method adopted, “Scambio sul posto”, is a
form of net-metering approach that allows prosumers to offset the
electricity produced and fed into the network at a certain moment with
the energy taken from the grid and used in any other moment. Virtually,
the power grid is used as a tool for the storage of electricity produced but
not self-consumed in the moment in which it is produced.
Under “Scambio sul posto”, the prosumer pays the supplier for the
electricity consumed, while the national grid operator (GSE) gives credit
for the electricity fed in. In the case of instantaneous self-consumption,
the revenues equal the avoided costs. In this study it is assumed that 80%
of the electricity produced is immediately self-consumed (as this is the
case for the Agrovoltaico plant that is being implemented at Università
Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, in Piacenza). The remaining 20% is
compensated by the grid operator with a variable value, which takes
into account several factors which include the annual average cost of the
electricity and its transmission, dispatchment and other costs. The
values used in this work are set to 0.07 and 0.17 € kWh− 1 for the elec­
tricity exchanged with the net-metering approach and the avoided costs
for instantaneous self-consumption, respectively. All the economic data,
regarding both costs and revenues, were provided by REMTEC, the
manufacturer [21], via personal communication.

5
A. Agostini et al. Applied Energy 281 (2021) 116102

3. Results Agrovoltaico systems have emissions similar to other PV systems, slightly

higher than wind farms, and 6 times lower than those of the Italian
The numerical results of the environmental LCA are reported in electricity mix. Energy crop based systems’ emissions are 20–30 times
Table 4. higher than those of Agrovoltaico systems (Fig. 3d).

3.1. Global warming potential (GWP) 3.3. Air quality

The GHG emission of the latest releases of the Agrovoltaico systems,
those relying on tensile structures, are approximately 20 g CO2eq MJ− 1
(20.2 and 19.4 g CO2eq MJ− 1 for 1A and 2A respectively), similar to
those of ground mounted or roof mounted solar panels (22.6 and 21.3 g
CO2eq MJ− 1 respectively), and about one order of magnitude smaller
than those of the Italian mix or biogas systems (see Fig. 2a). The old
Agrovoltaico concept, made of single steel poles fixed on heavy concrete
basements, was about 30 times more GHG intensive than the new re­
leases, which are supported by tensile structures.
The highest productivity of the 2A systems does not seem to payback
the additional GHG emissions related to the construction material and
energy consumption linked to the complex tracking system. The
contribution analysis (Fig. 2b) indicates that support structures and
solar panels are responsible for the majority of GHG emissions in
approximately equal parts, while auxiliaries, wiring and control units
provide an almost negligible contribution. Transport related emissions
also provide a very limited contribution to the total GHG emissions.
3.2. Impacts on ecosystems. Acidification and eutrophication.
The eutrophication potential related to the N cycle (terrestrial and
marine) of the Agrovoltaico systems based on tensile structures (2A and
1A) is similar to that of roof or ground mounted PV systems, and about
twice that of wind turbines, about one fifth of the Italian electricity mix
and two orders of magnitude lower than that of the energy crops biogas
systems (Fig. 3a and b).
The freshwater eutrophication potential of Agrovoltaico systems,
measured as emissions of P, excluding the ST system, which has enor­
mous emissions because of the huge amount of concrete used, is about
one third of that of the Italian electricity mix and similar to that of other
renewables, including biogas systems and natural gas. (For biogas sys­
tems it was assumed that fertilisation was limited to N as the P is recy­
cled with the digestate). Coal fuelled systems have emissions about ten
times higher that Agrovoltaico systems (Fig. 3c).
Regarding acidification potential (i.e. emissions leading to acid rain),
The most recent impact assessment method recommended by the
ILCD for the Product Environmental Footprint programme [24] mea­
sures the human health effects associated with exposure to respiratory
inorganics. Apart from ST, all PV systems have similar impacts, which
are about half those of the Italian electricity mix, more than twice those
of wind energy and one fourth those of coal (Fig. 4a). Because of the
large use of steel and concrete, ST system have the worst performance.
Impacts of biogas systems are twice (sorghum) to three times (maize)
higher than those of PV systems. A further indicator of the impacts on air
quality is provided by the tropospheric photochemical ozone creation
potential. In this case as well, all the PV systems (except the ST) have
similar emissions of ozone precursors, which are about twice those of
wind energy and one fourth those of the Italian electricity mix. Coal has
emissions about ten times higher while biogas systems and the ST
Agrovoltaico system emit thirty times more ozone precursors than PV
systems (including the new Agrovoltaico system) (Fig. 4b).
3.4. Resources depletion
As recommended in Fazio et al. (2018) [24], resource depletion is
split into two different indicators: Resource depletion – Minerals and
metals (now based on ultimate reserves) and Resource depletion – En­
ergy Carriers (based on fossil resources).
Regarding the consumption of minerals and metals, the impacts of
the ST system are not plotted because, being about 600 times those of
the Italian electricity mix, they would not allow a proper interpretation
of the results. PV systems consume about 20 to 30 times more materials
than the electricity mix. Wind about 15 times, biogas 3 (sorghum) to 4
(maize) times the Italian electricity mix. Fossil fuels, coal and natural
gas, consume fewer material resources than the Italian electricity mix
(86% and 54% respectively) (Fig. 5a). Electricity produced with natural
gas consumes energy carriers as much as the Italian mix, while the coal
technology we have considered consumes almost double the amount of
energy carriers of the Italian mix (Fig. 5b). PV systems consume about
one-eighth the amount of fossil energy carriers of the Italian mix, with

Table 4
Results of the environmental LCA: pollutant emissions and resources consumption per MJ of power produced by the systems analysed and alternative power sources
according to the methods reported in Table 1.
Units 1A 2A ST hard natural PV PV open wind, IT mix Biogas Biogas
coal gas (CC) roof ground >3MW Maize Sorghum
onshore Open Closed

Climate Change g CO2 eq. 19.4 20.2 614.1 327.4 136.6 21.3 22.6 8.22 167.1 209.2 113.7
Acidification mmole of H 0.13 0.13 4.10 2.15 0.28 0.17 0.15 0.09 0.81 4.32 3.05
+ eq.
Eutrophication g N eq. 0.02 0.02 0.64 0.21 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.10 2.57 2.18
marine
Eutrophication g P eq. 0.010 0.010 0.242 0.112 0.008 0.020 0.014 0.014 0.030 0.017 0.011
freshwater
Eutrophication mmole of N 0.20 0.21 6.77 2.71 0.41 0.22 0.23 0.12 1.09 20.41 14.72
terrestrial eq.
Respiratory Disease 7.9 8.7 374.4 30.9 5.9 7.4 7.4 2.9 14.2 25.7 16.7
inorganics incidence
(*10-9)
Photochemical kg NMVOC 0.069 0.072 2.210 0.739 0.159 0.080 0.080 0.040 0.336 2.185 1.963
ozone formation eq.
Resource use, mg Sb eq. 0.467 0.486 14.947 0.021 0.013 0.778 0.589 0.392 0.025 0.106 0.078
mineral and
metals
Resource use, MJ 0.26 0.26 7.61 3.97 2.09 0.29 0.30 0.11 2.21 0.71 0.46
energy carriers

6
A. Agostini et al. Applied Energy 281 (2021) 116102

Table 5
Capital and operational costs per MW of installed capacity and economic performances measured as LCOE, IRR and NPV.
Economic Analysis (per MW installed capacity)

Area occupation (kW hm− 2) 500 200 500 1000

2A-HD 2A-LD GM RM

Capital costs (€) PV panels 310,000 310,000 310,000 310,000

Supporting infrastructure 500,000 540,000 260,000 90,000
Surface rights (25 years) 5000 12,500 30,000 7500
Installation & BoP 520,000 520,000 260,000 260,000
Inverter (y = 0 and y = 12) 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000
Planning & admin. 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000
Total 1,455,000 1,502,500 980,000 787,500
Operational costs (€) Maintenance and personnel 10,000 10,000 9000 9000
Administration 2000 2000 2000 2000
Insurance 5000 5000 5000 5000
Total 17,000 17,000 16,000 16,000
Gross electrical production (kWh (y = 1)) 1,500,000 1,550,000 1,150,000 1,100,000
LCOE (€ MWh− 1) 89.5 88.9 84.7 75.4
Internal Return Rate 12.7% 12.8% 14.4% 17.4%
Net Present Value (€) 1,250,740 1,302,902 1,042,194 1,135,031

Fig. 2. GHG emissions (a) and relative contribution analysis (b) of the systems analysed per MJ of power produced according to the methods reported in Table 1.

Agrovoltaico systems performing better than ground mounted or roof
mounted PV, thanks to their higher productivity. Biogas based systems
consume from twice (sorghum) to three times (maize) the energy car­
riers of PV systems and about one third (maize) to one fourth (sorghum)
those of the Italian mix.
3.5. Economic performances
The capital expenditure of Agrovoltaico systems are close to 1.5 M€
per MW installed capacity, with the 2A LD (1502500 € MW-1) being
slightly more expensive than the 2A HD (1455000 € MW-1) because of
the higher costs of supporting infrastructures and surface rights (the cost
of the land occupation). Ground mounted systems are about 33%
cheaper than Agrovoltaico systems (980000 € MW-1) thanks to the
halved costs of installation and balance of plant (BOP) and support
infrastructure. The costs of the support structure are further reduced for
roof mounted systems as there is no need for supporting infrastructures,
the solar panels are directly fixed to the roof, reducing the total CAPEX
of RM PV to 787,500 € MW-1, almost half the CAPEX of Agrovoltaico
systems.
Installation & BOP and supporting infrastructures are the major
contributors to capital expenditures (CAPEX) of Agrovoltaico systems
both being about one third of total cost in both configurations, 2A HD
and 2A LD. About one fifth of CAPEX is needed for the solar panels. The
cost of inverters is about 5% of the CAPEX, while planning and
administration and surface rights are minor costs (see Fig. 7).
The results of the techno-economic analysis show that Agrovoltaico
systems have a LCOE similar to those of ground mounted static systems,
slightly lower than 90 € MWh− 1 produced (89.5 € MWh− 1 and 88.9 €
MWh− 1 for 1A and 2A respectively), approximately 5 € and 15 € higher
than the ground mounted system and the roof mounted systems,
respectively (Table 5).
The IRR is almost 13% for the Agrovoltaico systems, about 14% for
the ground mounted systems, and above 17% for the roof mounted
systems. All PV systems represent therefore a rather safe investment.
The NPV of all the modelled systems is highly positive (see Fig. 6)
and in the order of magnitude of the initial investment, making all the
projects economically viable. The initial cost is paid back in 9 years with
the Agrovoltaico systems, while the payback time for ground mounted
and roof mounted systems is 8 and 6 years, respectively.

7
A. Agostini et al. Applied Energy 281 (2021) 116102

Fig. 3. Environmental impacts on ecosystems per MJ of power produced according to the methods reported in Table 1: (a) Terrestrial eutrophication; (b) Marine
eutrophication; (c) Freshwater eutrophication; (d) Acidification.

Fig. 4. Impacts on air quality per MJ of power produced according to the methods reported in Table 1: (a) Respiratory inorganics; (b) Photochemical ozone for­
mation potential.

8
A. Agostini et al. Applied Energy 281 (2021) 116102

Fig. 5. Resources depletion per MJ of power produced according to the methods reported in Table 1: (a) Minerals and metals; (b) Energy carriers.

Fig. 6. Profitability of Agrovoltaico systems measured as NPV. When negative the project is not remunerative. The Agrovoltaico projects NPV becomes positive
(payback time) later than ground or roof mounted photovoltaics, but generates higher profits at the end of the project lifetime.

4. Discussion marine eutrophication), air quality (respiratory inorganics and photo­

4.1. Environmental impacts
Agrivoltaic systems, which combine electricity generation from PV
panels with the cultivation of agricultural crops, are gaining interna­
tional attention as sustainable solutions to produce renewable energy
with minimal impact on resources and particularly on the use of land. As
most of the studies on agrivoltaic systems were carried out considering
performance simulations [15,18,19] or prototypes [38] no information
is available on economic or environmental sustainability of agrivoltaic
systems.
In this work, the environmental performances of the innovative
Agrovoltaico system in 3 commercial configurations were compared to
those of alternative sources of electricity for their impacts on climate
change, ecosystem quality (acidification, terrestrial, freshwater and
chemical ozone formation) and resource depletion (minerals and metals
and energy carriers).
Results show that the environmental performances of Agrovoltaico
systems, excluding the old static concept (ST), are similar to those of
ground or roof mounted systems. The reason for these results lays in the
use of tensile structures. In fact, the first release of the Agrovoltaico
system, with massive concrete basements and large poles to guarantee
the stability in extreme weather events, had environmental perfor­
mances not just worse than the ground mounted systems, but much
worse than coal electricity. Instead, tensile structures enable Agro­
voltaico systems to score much better than the Italian electricity mix in
all environmental impact categories analysed apart from the depletion
of mineral and metal resources. Though tensile structures allow a dra­
matic reduction in resource consumption, PV systems are still infra­
structure intensive compared to fossil-based systems. Results show that

9
A. Agostini et al.
Fig. 7. Contribution analysis to the capital expenditures of the photovoltaic
systems modelled as percentage of the total initial investment.
not all the renewable systems may contribute effectively to climate
change mitigation. PV and wind energy, for example, emit one tenth and
one twentieth of the Italian electricity mix GHG emissions, respectively;
while biogas from energy crops emits more or less as much GHG as the
Italian electricity mix.
Eutrophication is a relevant issue for the Po Valley, one of the most
anthropised and intensively cultivated areas of Europe [39]. In this
context, Agrivoltaico systems, and PV systems in general, show emissions
that are about five times lower than the Italian electricity mix and about
100 times lower than those of biogas based systems.
This is reasonable as biogas based systems running on energy crops
rely on fertilisers for crop cultivation. This is particularly relevant to the
area of study considering that the Po Valley in 2015 had the highest
number of nutrient critical load exceedances in Europe, and is a
particularly vulnerable area to eutrophication [40].
Emission of acidifying substances are also relevant for the European
environment and ecosystems as it results in acidification of soils and
freshwaters, losses of fish stocks and harm to forests across many parts of
Europe [39]. Acidification from PV systems is about one sixth that of the
Italian electricity mix and one twentieth or thirtieth that of biogas
systems.
All PV systems (excluding the outdated Agrovoltaico first release)
have a similar impact on air quality in terms of respiratory inorganics
and about half that of the Italian electricity mix and sorghum biogas and
one third of the electricity from anaerobic digestion of maize. To high­
light how important the emission of respiratory inorganics is, according
to the European Environmental Agency, respiratory inorganic concen­
trations (PM2.5) in 2015 were responsible for about 391 000 premature
deaths originating from long-term exposure in the European Union [40].
PV systems have lower emissions because of their lack of combustion
processes in the operation phase. However, both the support infra­
structure and the PV panels are imported from China and have large
emissions due to the manufacturing with more polluting energy systems,
in particular coal [41].
Air quality is also affected by the emission of tropospheric ozone
precursors. Ground level ozone (O3) has negative impacts on human
health (16 400 premature deaths per year in the European Union) and
on ecosystems (plants are particularly sensitive to O3 concentrations)
[40]. Here again PV systems have much lower emissions that the Italian
electricity mix which still relies, for more than half of the electricity
produced, on fossil fuel combustion [42]. Biogas systems instead have
emissions about thirty times higher than the Italian mix, mostly because
10
Applied Energy 281 (2021) 116102
of the high emissions of methane and NOx (both ozone precursors) from
the plant and the energy intensive cultivation process [5].
All the renewable systems are material intensive (e.g. the PV systems
modelled use 20 to 30 more metal and mineral resources than the Italian
electricity mix), however, most of these materials can be recycled.
Renewable energy sources do tend to need larger infrastructures than
fossil based technologies, yet they consume much less fossil energy than
the electricity mix: Agrovoltaico systems consume about one-tenth the
energy carriers of the Italian electricity mix.
These results are representative of the Agrovoltaico environmental
performances in the Po Valley. However, since the main contributors to
the environmental impacts (steel and PV panels) are internationally
traded commodities, the results may also be valid for other geographical
areas so long as they are scaled to account for the different insolation.
Although a certain level of uncertainty in the environmental
assessment is unavoidable, as local environmental conditions, PV system
configuration and performances affect PV plants differently, it should be
noted that the differences with other energy technologies are so large,
that the conclusions drawn cannot be considered anything else but
robust.
4.2. Land use
The use of fertile land for energy production is of great concern in the
face of an increasing demand for food and the threat that extreme
weather events impose on food production, especially drought that may
exacerbate food shortage issues.
In terms of land use, agrivoltaic systems guarantee a double advan­
tage. First, they leave the land available for traditional agricultural uses,
therefore reducing the pressure on natural ecosystems, and second, they
increase and stabilise the productivity of crops, decreasing the risk of
food shortage and market shocks, particularly in dry years (in [15] it was
estimated that agrivoltaic systems can stabilize and increase the pro­
ductivity of maize cultivated underneath in non-irrigated land). The
issue of land use and energy production is particularly relevant in Italy
where large scale ground mounted solar panels are needed to reach 2030
targets (National Integrated Plan on Energy And Climate, [13]
In this context, the nil or reduced appropriation of land of agrivoltaic
systems may, and should, play a crucial role. In fact, 80–90% of the land
under the agrivoltaic systems can be cultivated with standard practices
and common agricultural machinery. The presence of steel tie rods in the
remaining 10–20% of land under the agrivoltaic systems, depending on
the specific configuration, impedes the access and progress of large
machineries. This land, however, is not necessarily unproductive as it
can host horticultural crops, livestock, or any other agricultural activity
that does not require large machineries.
When compared to a biogas system fed with maize cultivated in the
same area (see [5]), the PV systems produce 20–70 times more energy
per square metre (see Table 6). Furthermore, if we consider land re­
quirements, Agrovoltaico systems leave the land available for other uses,
therefore their land requirements are minimal, the only space
completely withdrawn from crop cultivation is the one occupied by the
Agrovoltaico supporting poles, which fit in between maize rows, for
example. The same applies to roof mounted panels, while even if ground
mounted PV occupy land, which may also be non-fertile land, they needs
about 37 times less land than biogas based systems.
4.3. Water
Agrivoltaic systems have a positive impact on both water availability
(by decreasing the irrigation needs) and water quality (by decreasing the
emissions of eutrophying substances compared to most alternative en­
ergy sources).
As shown by [15], in extremely dry conditions or when irrigation is
not available, maize production under agrivoltaic systems is higher and,
more importantly, more stable than in the open field. This aspect is
A. Agostini et al.
Table 6
Comparison of electricity production and land occupation of biogas, agrovoltaic, roof and ground mounted photovoltaic power production systems.
2A - HD 2A - LD
− 2
Specific Electricity production kWh m 75.00 31.00
Land requirement m2 kWh− 1
particularly relevant if we consider that climate change might increase
the frequency and magnitude of extreme weather events [43]. Agri­
voltaic systems, affecting microclimate and reducing soil temperature,
might enable the cultivation of drought sensitive species with a low risk
of crop loss.
4.4. Economics
The economic analysis shows that, although Agrovoltaico systems
have CAPEX about 50% higher than ground mounted systems, addi­
tional electrical production partially pays back the higher costs of sup­
porting infrastructures and installation and BOP as the LCOE of
Agrovoltaico systems and GM PV are substantially similar.
Revenues and costs vary depending on the specific conditions of the
power market and the location and configuration of the PV systems.
Capital costs are expected to be similar in other geographical areas, as
they are defined by the manufacturer and based on the costs of inter­
nationally traded commodities (steel and PV panels), yet labour costs for
the installation and maintenance, together with the cost of the land, may
be subject to substantial local variation. That said however, they are a
limited contribution to the total costs. Instead, the specificities of the PV
power market (both the incentivisation scheme and the price of elec­
tricity) has a large impact on the revenues. The level of insolation is also
fundamental for the economics.
As regards uncertainty in the economic assessment, the results we
present are rather certain, as they represent the actual costs and reve­
nues of a current project in the Po Valley. Instead of carrying out a
sensitivity analysis on the input parameters, which would be fully
dependent on the assumptions made, and lead to obvious conclusions (if
the insulation and revenues increase and the costs decrease, the eco­
nomics would improve, and the other way round), we offer the reader a
tool with which to carry out the economic analysis (by enabling the
calculation of LCOE, NPV and IRR) and evaluate the impact of different
assumptions (e.g. costs, revenues, power production, share of self-
consumption and discount rate) on the results in the Annex.
According to IRENA, the utility-scale solar PV projects commissioned
in 2018 had a global weighted average LCOE of 0.085$ kWh− 1, which
was around 13% lower than the equivalent figure for 2017 (it fell by
77% between 2010 and 2018)[28]. The results of this economic analysis
are therefore similar to the cost of PV systems currently built in the
world. The results are also similar to the LCOE of other agrivoltaic
systems. For comparison, in [14] we found a LCOE of 82.9 € MWh− 1 for
a research agrivoltaic system built in Germany (the same study found a
LCOE of 60.3 € MWh− 1 for ground mounted PV).
4.5. Putting the results into context
The Planetary Boundary (PB) concept may provide a framework to
put into context the relevance of the environmental impacts modelled.
First introduced in 2009, it defines the environmental limits within
which humanity can safely operate [44]. The PB concept, further
developed in 2015 [45], shows that, out of the 9 PBs identified, two have
already certainly been overtaken, namely biochemical flows (the nu­
trients cycles, both phosphorus and nitrogen) and biosphere integrity
(for what concerns genetic biodiversity). Land use and climate change
PBs are already overtaken, but still in the area of uncertainty.
In this context it is of upmost importance to aim at deploying
renewable energy sources that will not cause burden shift between
climate change and other areas of environmental concern, especially
Applied Energy 281 (2021) 116102
ST - GM - HD RM - HD Biogas Maize Open Biogas Sorghum Closed
57.50 110.00 1.53 1.58
0.017 0.652 0.631
with control variables that have already overtaken the planet boundary
or that are close to it (biodiversity, nutrient cycles and land system
change). Large scale bioenergy production, with its impact on nutrient
cycles, biodiversity and land occupation, is therefore difficult to recon­
cile with planetary boundaries, even if deployed together with carbon
capture and storage to fight climate change [46]. Renewable energy
sources allowing the decoupling of energy systems from GHG emission
and requiring minimal land use, and having limited impacts on nutrient
cycles and biodiversity, are to be pursued.
In Table 7 we attempt to qualitatively assess the impacts of Agro­
voltaico systems on the SDGs defined by the United Nations Organisation
[1]. We find that Agrovoltaico systems have no negative impacts, with 14
positive impacts out of 17 sustainable development goals.
5. Conclusions
Amaducci et al. have shown that Agrovoltaico systems can increase
and stabilise the yield of maize in comparison to the cultivation in full
light. They concluded that an economic and environmental analysis was
necessary to provide a complete sustainability assessment of the Agro­
voltaico system, in order to determine which configuration of the Agro­
voltaico has the best environmental performances and whether they can
represent a valuable option to diversify farm income. This work provides
evidence of the economic and environmental sustainability of Agro­
voltaico systems. Agrovoltaico systems have environmental performances
similar to those of ground mounted photovoltaic systems, thanks to the
tensile structure adopted, and they perform much better than the Italian
electricity mix in all the impact categories analysed, apart from for the
consumption of mineral and metal resources. Agrovoltaico systems
decrease greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality, and reduce the
impacts on ecosystems and the depletion of fossil fuels, all as compared
to the Italian electricity mix and the fossil fuels. When compared to other
renewable sources of energy, wind power has the best environmental
performances, but this is not an option in the Po Valley due to the lack of
wind; biogas plants running on energy crops have a far worse environ­
mental performances, but notwithstanding they have a widely used
across the Po Valley.
Economic performances of Agrovoltaico plants are similar to those of
ground mounted PV systems, thanks to the higher productivity achieved
by the sun tracking systems and the material saved with the adoption of
the tensile structure, but more importantly, they do not increase the
human appropriation of land, which is key in a future energy system
dominated by renewables.
Furthermore, they have the potential to increase and stabilise the
yield of non-irrigated crops in arid conditions by reducing evapotrans­
piration and soil temperature, especially if agricultural crops and prac­
tices are developed and optimised to the specific conditions of the
agrivoltaic system. Agrovoltaico systems may also contribute to fighting
climate change by reducing GHG emissions and to increasing the resil­
ience to climate change impacts on the food sector. The reduced impact
on land occupation and the stabilisation of crop production are relevant
added values that should be properly valorised by policy makers.
We have shown that Agrovoltaico system may contribute positively to
14 out of the 17 sustainable development goals set by the ONU, without
negative impacts.
Regarding economic performances, market local conditions and
volatility may impact the results obtained. However, the costs of Agro­
voltaico systems, though slightly higher than ground mounted systems,
are in any case comparable with the costs of other PV systems
11
A. Agostini et al. Applied Energy 281 (2021) 116102

Table 7 the modelling exercises.

Qualitative assessment of the potential contribution of Agrovoltaico systems to
the achievement of the UN SDGs. CRediT authorship contribution statement
Sustainable Qualitative Comment
Development Goal assessment A. Agostini: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Data cura­
No Poverty + Agrovoltaico systems may have positive tion, Writing - original draft. M. Colauzzi: Data curation. S. Amaducci:
impacts on poor rural communities Supervision, Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing.
both in terms of energy and economic
poverty and reduce crop losses in case
of water stress Declaration of Competing Interest
Zero Hunger + Agrovoltaico systems stabilise and
increase the yield of crops and do not
occupy arable land The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
Good Health and Well- + Agrovoltaico systems reduce pollution interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
being in comparison to other energy systems the work reported in this paper.
Quality Education n.a.
Gender Equality n.a.
Clean Water and + Agrovoltaico systems allow a reduction Acknowledgments
Sanitation in water needs for irrigation and
reduce the emissions of eutrophying The authors would like to thank Ing. Alessandro Reboldi and the
substances in comparison to other company REM TEC S.r.l. for their kind cooperation and Dr Francesca
sources of energy
Affordable and Clean + Agrovoltaico systems produce
O’Kane for linguistic revision.
Energy affordable and clean energy
Decent Work and + Agrovoltaico systems generate potential Appendix A. Supplementary material
Economic Growth revenues and job opportunities in rural
areas
Industry, Innovation, + Agrovoltaico systems are innovative
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
and Infrastructure and may contribute to the org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116102.
infrastructural development of rural
areas. References
Reducing Inequality + Agrovoltaico systems may contribute in
reducing inequality between
[1] United Nations General Assembly. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for
industrialised areas and rural
Sustainable Development. Gen Assem 70 Sess 2015. doi: 10.1007/s13398-014-
communities
0173-7.2.
Sustainable Cities and + Agrovoltaico systems may be built in [2] United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2018 | Multimedia
Communities the cities outskirt to provide power Library - United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2018. htt
close to the consumers and at the same ps://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/the-sustainable-development-
time allow for horticulture with lower goals-report-2018.html (accessed February 15, 2019).
water needs [3] Myles A, Mustafa B, Yang C, de Coninck H. Global Warming of 1.5◦ C. Summary for
Responsible + Agrovoltaico systems are a good Policymakers. IPPC 2018. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.10.013.
Consumption and example of responsible consumption of [4] Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Seyboth K, Eickemeier P, Matschoss P,
Production resources, in particular land and et al. IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change
energy Mitigation Summary for Policymakers and Technical Summary; 2011. doi:
Climate Action + Agrovoltaico systems contribute in both 10.5860/CHOICE.49-6309.
[5] Agostini A, Battini F, Giuntoli J, Tabaglio V, Padella M, Baxter D, et al.
reducing climate change by reducing
Environmentally sustainable biogas? The key role of manure co-digestion with
GHG emissions in comparison to most
energy crops. Energies 2015. https://doi.org/10.3390/en8065234.
energy sources and increase resilience
[6] Giuntoli J, Agostini A, Caserini S, Lugato E, Baxter D, Marelli L. Climate change
to climate change by stabilising and impacts of power generation from residual biomass. Biomass Bioenergy 2016;89.
increasing crop yields https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.02.024.
Life Below Water + Agrovoltaico systems support the [7] Boulamanti AK, Donida Maglio S, Giuntoli J, Agostini A. Influence of different
protection of life below water by practices on biogas sustainability. Biomass Bioenergy 2013;53. https://doi.org/
reducing the emission of eutrophying 10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.02.020.
substances in comparison to other [8] Agostini A, Giuntoli J, Marelli L, Amaducci S. Flaws in the interpretation phase of
sources of energy bioenergy LCA fuel the debate and mislead policymakers. Int J Life Cycle Assess
Life On Land + Agrovoltaico systems support the 2019:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01654-2.
protection of life on land by reducing [9] REN21. Renewables 2020 Global Status Report. 2020.
the emission of local pollution [10] Petter Jelle B, Breivik C, Drolsum Røkenes H. Building integrated photovoltaic
(eutrophying substances and airborn products: A state-of-the-art review and future research opportunities. Sol Energy
Mater Sol Cells 2012;100:69–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2011.12.016.
pollutants) but especially by reducing
[11] Dijkman TJ, Benders RMJ. Comparison of renewable fuels based on their land use
the human appropriation of land
using energy densities. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:3148–55. https://doi.
Peace, Justice, and + Agrivoltaico systems, as all the local org/10.1016/J.RSER.2010.07.029.
Strong Institutions renewable sources of energy, [12] European Union. DIRECTIVE (EU) 2018/2001 on the promotion of the use of
contribute to geopolitical stability by energy from renewable sources (recast). 11 December 2018. https://eur-lex.eur
avoiding the conflicts for energy opa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32018L2001&from=EN
sources. In addition, by lowering the (accessed February 15, 2019).
need of irrigation water, it reduces the [13] Ministero Dello Sviluppo Economico. PROPOSTA DI PIANO NAZIONALE
water conflicts as well. INTEGRATO PER L’ENERGIA E IL CLIMA; 2019.
Partnerships for the n.a. [14] Schindele S, Trommsdorff M, Schlaak A, Obergfell T, Bopp G, Reise C, et al.
Goals.[3] Implementation of agrophotovoltaics: Techno-economic analysis of the price-
performance ratio and its policy implications. Appl Energy 2020. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114737.
[15] Amaducci S, Yin X, Colauzzi M. Agrivoltaic systems to optimise land use for electric
Future work will include the analysis of the impacts of the Agro­ energy production. Appl Energy 2018;220:545–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
voltaico system on crop yield and the identification of the best options apenergy.2018.03.081.
for maximising the positive aspects of Agovoltaico systems in a real plant [16] Marrou H, Wery J, Dufour L, Dupraz C. Productivity and radiation use efficiency of
lettuces grown in the partial shade of photovoltaic panels. Eur J Agron 2013;44:
planned at the premises of the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore in 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2012.08.003.
Piacenza, where field trials will be performed to validate the results of [17] Marrou H, Guilioni L, Dufour L, Dupraz C, Wery J. Microclimate under agrivoltaic
systems: Is crop growth rate affected in the partial shade of solar panels? Agric For

12
A. Agostini et al.
Meteorol 2013;177:117–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
AGRFORMET.2013.04.012.
[18] Dupraz C, Marrou H, Talbot G, Dufour L, Nogier A, Ferard Y. Combining solar
photovoltaic panels and food crops for optimising land use: Towards new
agrivoltaic schemes. Renew Energy 2011;36:2725–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2011.03.005.
[19] Dinesh H, Pearce JM. The potential of agrivoltaic systems. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2016;54:299–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2015.10.024.
[20] Weselek A, Ehmann A, Zikeli S, Lewandowski I, Schindele S, Högy P.
Agrophotovoltaic systems: applications, challenges, and opportunities. A review.
Agron Sustain Dev 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-019-0581-3.
[21] Rem Tec - Fotovoltaico e Agricoltura 2019. http://www.remtec.energy/ (accessed
August 1, 2019).
[22] Ecoinvent. Ecoinvent Centre. EcoInvent v33 Database 2016.
[23] Mela G, Canali G. How distorting policies can affect energy efficiency and
sustainability: The case of biogas production in the Po Valley (Italy). AgBioForum
2013.
[24] Fazio S, Castellani V, Sala S, Schau EM, Secchi M, Zampori L, et al. Supporting
information to the characterisation factors of recommended EF Life Cycle Impact
Assessment method; 2018. doi: 10.2760/671368.
[25] Thinkstep. Gabi Professional 2019. https://www.thinkstep.com/ (accessed August
1, 2019).
[26] Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, et al. Use
of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from
land-use change. Science 2008;319:1238–40. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1151861.
[27] Finkbeiner M. Indirect land use change - Help beyond the hype? Biomass Bioenergy
2014;62:218–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.01.024.
[28] IRENA. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2018. /Publications/2019/May/
Renewable-Power-Generation-Costs-in-2018 2019.
[29] IRENA. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2019. Abu Dhabi: 2019.
[30] IEA – International Energy Agency - IEA n.d. https://www.iea.org/search?q=lcoe
(accessed August 25, 2020).
[31] Levelized Cost of Energy Calculator | Energy Analysis | NREL n.d. https://www.
nrel.gov/analysis/tech-lcoe.html (accessed August 25, 2020).
[32] Cucchiella F, D‫׳‬Adamo I, Rosa P. End-of-Life of used photovoltaic modules: A
financial analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015; 47: 552–61. doi: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.076.
[33] n.a. Piano di dismissione. 2020.
13
Applied Energy 281 (2021) 116102
[34] New York State Solar Guidebook - NYSERDA n.d. https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/All
Programs/Programs/Clean Energy Siting/Solar Guidebook (accessed August 20,
2020).
[35] What to do with old solar panels: Cost estimates for decommissioning solar power
plants | Commercial Solar Guy; n.d. https://commercialsolarguy.com/2020/03/
20/what-to-do-with-old-solar-panels/ (accessed August 20, 2020).
[36] Agostini A, Battini F, Padella M, Giuntoli J, Baxter D, Marelli L, et al. Economics of
GHG emissions mitigation via biogas production from Sorghum, maize and dairy
farm manure digestion in the Po valley. Biomass Bioenergy 2015;89:58–66.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.02.022.
[37] European Commission. Guide to Cost-benefit Analysis of Investment Projects:
Economic appraisal tool for Cohesion Policy 2014-2020. 2014. doi:10.2776/
97516.
[38] Valle B, Simonneau T, Sourd F, Pechier P, Hamard P, Frisson T, et al. Increasing the
total productivity of a land by combining mobile photovoltaic panels and food
crops. Appl Energy 2017;206:1495–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
APENERGY.2017.09.113.
[39] European Environmental Agency. The European environment — state and outlook
2020: knowledge for transition to a sustainable Europe. Luxembourg: 2020. doi:
10.2800/96749.
[40] Guerreiro C, de Leeuw F, Ortiz AG, Viana M, Colette A. Air quality in Europe —
2018 report. 2018. doi:10.2800/62459.
[41] International Energy Agency. China 2019. https://www.iea.org/weo/china/
(accessed August 21, 2019).
[42] Gracceva F, Baldissara B, Alessandro Z, Colosimo A, Tommasino MC. Analisi
trimestrale del sistema energetico italiano. ENEA 2019. http://www.enea.it/it/se
guici/pubblicazioni/analisi-trimestrale-del-sistema-energetico-italiano (accessed
August 20, 2019).
[43] IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II
and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. 2014.
[44] Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS, Lambin EF, et al. A safe
operating space for humanity. Nature 2009;461:472–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/
461472a.
[45] Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, et al.
Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science
(80-) 2015; 347: 1259855. doi:10.1126/science.1259855.
[46] Heck V, Gerten D, Lucht W, Popp A. Biomass-based negative emissions difficult to
reconcile with planetary boundaries. Nat Clim Chang 2018;8:151–5. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41558-017-0064-y.