Techno Economic Modeling for Agrivoltaics: Can Agrivoltaics Be More Profitable Than Ground Mounted PV?
Habeel Alam, Muhammad A. Alam, Nauman Zafar Butt
Abstract
Agrivoltaics ( <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">${\boldsymbol{AV}}$</tex-math></inline-formula> ) is a dual land-use approach to collocate solar energy generation with agriculture for preserving the terrestrial ecosystem and enabling food-energy-water synergies. Here, we present a systematic approach to model the economic performance of <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">${\boldsymbol{AV}}$</tex-math></inline-formula> relative to standalone ground-mounted PV <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$({{\boldsymbol{GMPV}}})$</tex-math></inline-formula> and explore how the module design configuration can affect the dual food-energy economic performance. A remarkably simple criterion for economic feasibility is quantified that relates the land preservation cost to dual food-energy profit. We explore case studies including both high and low value crops under fixed tilt bifacial modules oriented either along the conventional North/South <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$({{\boldsymbol{N}}/{\boldsymbol{S}}})$</tex-math></inline-formula> facings or vertical East/West <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$({{\boldsymbol{E}}/{\boldsymbol{W}}})$</tex-math></inline-formula> facings. For each module configuration, the array density is varied to explore an economically feasible design space relative to <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">${\boldsymbol{GMPV}}$</tex-math></inline-formula> for a range of module to land cost ratio ( <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">${{\boldsymbol{M}}}_{\boldsymbol{L}}$</tex-math></inline-formula> )—a location-specific indicator relating the module technology (hardware and installation) costs to the soft (land acquisition, tax, overheads, etc.) costs. To offset a typically higher <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">${\boldsymbol{AV}}$</tex-math></inline-formula> module cost needed to preserve the cropland, both <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">${\boldsymbol{E}}/{\boldsymbol{W}}$</tex-math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">${\boldsymbol{N}}/{\boldsymbol{S}}$</tex-math></inline-formula> orientated modules favor high value crops, reduced ( <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$ < $</tex-math></inline-formula> 60%) module density, and higher <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">${{\boldsymbol{M}}}_{\boldsymbol{L}} \ (> 25)$</tex-math></inline-formula> . In contrast, higher module density and an increased feed-in-tariff ( <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">${\boldsymbol{FIT}})$</tex-math></inline-formula> relative to <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">${\boldsymbol{GMPV}}$</tex-math></inline-formula> are desirable at lower <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">${{\boldsymbol{M}}}_{\boldsymbol{L}}$</tex-math></inline-formula> . The economic trends vary sharply for <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">${{\boldsymbol{M}}}_{\boldsymbol{L}} < $</tex-math></inline-formula> 10 but tend to saturate for <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">${{\boldsymbol{M}}}_{\boldsymbol{L}} > \ $</tex-math></inline-formula> 20. For low value crops, ∼15% additional <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">${\boldsymbol{FIT}}$</tex-math></inline-formula> can enable economic equivalence to <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">${\boldsymbol{GMPV}}$</tex-math></inline-formula> at standard module density. The proposed modeling framework can provide a valuable tool for <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">${\boldsymbol{AV}}$</tex-math></inline-formula> stakeholders to assess, predict, and optimize the technoeconomic design for <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">${\boldsymbol{AV}}.$</tex-math></inline-formula>