Solar energy modelling and proposed crops for different types of agrivoltaics systems

Energy 304 (2024) 132074 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Energy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy Solar energy modelling and proposed crops for different types of agrivoltaics systems Uzair Jamil a , Thomas Hickey b , Joshua M. Pearce c, d, * a Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Western University, London, ON, N6A 5B9, Canada Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Colorado State University, Fort Collins CO, 8523, USA c Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada d Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada b A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Handling editor: A Mellit Canada can radically reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by aggressively deploying agrivoltaics and reach its goal of cutting emissions by increasing the non-emitting share of electricity generation to 90 % by 2030. To help reach this goal, this study evaluated the potential energy production for vertical bi-facial solar photovoltaic arrays as well as the solar irradiation reaching the ground with three different spacings (5 m, 15 m and 45 m) and three different Canadian farming locations (London, Calgary and Winnipeg) using irradiance modeling with Ladybug tools plug-ins for Grasshopper and Honeybee. The crops currently grown in each region were identified and their sunlight requirements were analyzed. Based on the amount of solar radiation reaching the ground surface and the solar requirements of the crops, inter-row spacings that were suitable for agrivoltaic applications for the three locations were identified. Next the land acreage of a select few crops, which were proven to be satisfactory for agrivoltaic systems, were identified for each province and their electrical energy potential was ascertained using the open-source System Advisor Model. The results indicate that more than 84 % of the total national electricity requirements can be met by employing agrivoltaics on agricultural land where these crops are cultivated in the three provinces. Keywords: Agriculture Agrivoltaic Climate policy Canada Energy policy Farming 1. Introduction Canada, one of the worst per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting countries in the world [1], has committed to radically reducing emissions by increasing the non-emitting share of electricity generation to 90 % by 2030 [2]. One of the most straightforward ways to do this is to significantly increase solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, as the costs have plummeted [3], and now solar is generally the least expensive sustainable source of electricity [4]. Currently, PV-based electricity generation makes up less than 1 % of total electricity generation [5]; however, there is a substantial economic opportunity for substantive growth in the Canadian PV industry. With more than half of Canadians living in one of its four largest urban regions (the Calgary-Edmonton corridor, Lower Mainland, Southern Vancouver Island, and the Extended Golden Horseshoe in Ontario) [6], most of the utility-scale PV to power densely-populated localities will need to be located in rural agricultural areas [7]. There is a growing concern among rural residents similar to observed with wind power siting conflicts [8,9]. This conflict with large-scale PV deployment is primarily due to apprehensions of reduction in agricultural production and the concomitant employment [10–14]. As Canada’s population continues to increase (mostly through immigration) [15], Canada’s farms are already under siege for housing [16,17]. Fortunately, this conflict can be solved with the dual use of land for both electricity generation via solar PV and farming known as agrivoltaics [18–22]. Social science research has shown that more than 81 % of the U.S. public will support photovoltaic development if it is agrivoltaics [23]. Agrivoltaic research looks particularly economically promising as both agricultural yields coupled to revenue from solar electricity are encouranging [24–26]. PV developers are particularly interested in agrivoltaics as a way to solidify public support for their projects [27]. The agrivoltaic potential in the province of Ontario [28], Saskatchewan [29] and Alberta [30], is substantial although various policies need to be clarified to accelerate adoption. Recently, a comprehensive investigation was made for agrivoltaics deployment in Canada. This study quantified agrivoltaic potential in Canada by province using * Corresponding author. Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. E-mail addresses: ujamil@uwo.ca (U. Jamil), tjhickey@colostate.edu (T. Hickey), joshua.pearce@uwo.ca (J.M. Pearce). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.132074 Received 17 February 2024; Received in revised form 8 May 2024; Accepted 14 June 2024 Available online 18 June 2024 0360-5442/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). U. Jamil et al. Energy 304 (2024) 132074 geographical information system (GIS) analysis of agricultural areas and numerical simulations [31]. The study used 20m spacing between PV racks to allow for conventional farming of field crops, using bifacial PV for single axis tracking and vertical systems. The results found between a quarter (vertical) to more than one third (single axis tracking) of Canada’s electrical energy needs can be provided solely by agrivoltaics using only 1 % of current agricultural lands [31]. This overall, however, was a coarse analysis of the agrivoltaics potential of the country. There remain several major knowledge gaps for the mass-scale integration of agrivoltaics in Canada. It is imperative that agrivoltaic systems are employed strategically to not marginalize crop yield even if only 1 % of agricultural land is impacted. In fact, many agrivoltaic studies have shown an increase in crop yield [32–42], so the systems should benefit the crop production as well as provide additional benefit of renewable electricity. Although minimizing the solar radiation received by crops is beneficial, too much reduction might adversely impact crop production [43]. No research has previously been carried out to identify the crops which will perform satisfactorily for vertical bifacial agrivoltaics on farmland using simulation-based results. To fill this knowledge gap this study was carried out to determine the agronomic potential in vertically mounted agrivoltaic systems in Canada as a more granular refinement to Jamil et al. [31]. The analysis was conducted using a Beta Version of irradiance modeling with Ladybug tools plug-ins [44]. This is the first article to use this approach, which is being designed to analyze climate data for dual use systems to better understand the agronomic feasibility and farm viability within APV systems. This simulation-based study, for the first time, evaluates in detail the amount of solar radiation reaching the ground surface once agrivoltaic systems are installed in Canada. Three different inter-row spacings (5 m, 15 m and 45 m) were considered with three different locations within Canada (London, Calgary, and Winnipeg). Based on the available solar radiation, crops, which were currently grown in Canada, were identified to be suitable for growth for each row spacing and location. The impact on crop yield and optimized agrivoltaic designs are then subsequently discussed. language and environment that runs within the Rhinoceros 3D computer-aided design (CAD) application. The script in Grasshopper is a generative algorithm that allows for efficient parametric manipulation to the model space (e.g., the array configuration, including the geometry of the agrivoltaics systems). Honeybee effectively combines established and validated simulation engines like DAYSIM and Radiance [47], THERM, EnergyPlus [48], and OpenStudio [49] to conduct energy-related analyses and interactive visualizations in the Rhinoceros 3-D modeling space; described in Fig. 1. 2.3. Data collection In the 3-D model space the array specifications were modeled, to scale, from the open-source vertical bifacial system described in Vandewetering et al. [50]. A detailed analysis for vertical bifacial array configuration for the climates in Calgary, AB, London, ON, and Winnipeg, MA, at 3 unique inter-row distances, 5 m, 15 m, and 45 m totaling 9 agrivoltaic systems is carried out in this study. The arrays are 90◦ vertically aligned north and south (i.e., east-west facing) with an azimuth of 90◦ to maximize the power output from the east and west. It has been modeled that vertical bifacial systems can maximize solar production in Northern latitudes [51,52]. The array has a bottom panel edge height of 0.5 m above the ground surface and a maximum height of 3.6 m. The modules have dimensions of 2.05 m in length and 1.13 m in width. In the 3-D model and analysis space, the arrays are sectioned into rows with 3 strings of 15 modules in each row section. The distances of 5, 15 and 45 m represent a spectrum of potential row spacing for different crops and farm equipment viability through a common ratio geometric sequence (aₙ = a1 rⁿ−1 ). Moreover, large interrow spacing between the modules (45 m) allows traditional farm equipment to operate on agricultural land ensuring farming activity is continued while at the same time providing substantial PV output over large areas. Altering the inter-row distance in an agrivoltaic system can significantly alter the light density, and light pattern at the ground level and also, energy output through self-shading of the system. The input data used for this analysis was in the Energy Plus Weather (EPW) format. The EPW input data files were retrieved from Ladybug’s EPWMap website [53] that hosts climate files provided by USDOE, ONEBUILDING [54], Canadian Weather Energy and Engineering Datasets (CWEEDS), Canadian Weather Year for Energy Calculation (CWEC) [55], and datasets from other government entities. The EPW files used for this analysis are from the CWEC dataset. The CWEC datasets were created by selecting twelve Typical Meteorological Months from the years 2001–2016 CWEEDS hourly data. The specific typical meteorological months were chosen by statistically comparing individual monthly averages to long-term monthly averages across several parameters including daily total global radiation, average, minimum, and maximum dry bulb temperature [55]. The CWEC files used for this analysis include the following locations: 2. Methods The study is carried out using irradiance modeling with Ladybug tools plug-ins to determine the ground irradiation when vertically mounted solar modules are installed on farmland. The analysis is performed for three different inter-row spacings and for three different locations within Canada. Moreover, suitable crops are identified based on the light intensity levels reaching the ground at each location. 2.1. Software development The irradiance modeling with the Ladybug tools plug-in was initially created through the U.S. Department of Energy’s American Made Challenge Solar Prize Round 5 due to the current lack of software especially for agrivoltaics development and specifically, understanding the light profile within various APV systems. The development of an interactive 3D graphical user interface (GUI) will help break down barriers that exist at the crossroads of agriculture and solar development [45]. The script is currently in beta v2 that has adjustable parameters including location for climate data and configuration details that include PV system type (one axis tracking, vertical bifacial, peaked canopy, or fixed south). Module or PV cell dimensions can be accurately modeled to the millimeter scale, while module transparency can fall anywhere from 0 % (opaque) to 100 % (clear) to emulate new semi-transparent modules that can be used in building-integrated PV (BIPV) and Agri-PV projects. - Calgary: Calgary Intl AP 718770 CWEC2016 - Winnipeg: Winnipeg-Richardson Intl AP 718520 CWEC2016 - London: London Intl AP 716230 CWEC2016 2.4. Data analysis The irradiance profiles in the simulations presented in Figs. 2–7 represent average daily irradiance throughout the prime growing season in Canada which was determined to be April 1st through September 30th. Solar irradiance represents the power from the sun that reaches a surface per unit area. The irradiance profiles visualize a 1-m square grid detailing the average irradiance over the course of the selected growing season (April 1st – September 30th). The middle section of the middle row of panels also indicates the average panel surface level irradiance for the same time period (Figs. 2–7). In addition to average irradiance, the cumulative radiation for each 2.2. Software framework For this analysis, the script is powered by Ladybug Tools’ Honeybee application that analyzes Grasshopper [46], a visual programming 2 U. Jamil et al. Energy 304 (2024) 132074 Fig. 1. Framework of the honeybee application. Fig. 2. a: Top view – solar radiation distribution with 5 m row spacing in London Ontario. b: Top view – solar radiation distribution with 15 m row spacing in London Ontario. c: Top view – solar radiation distribution with 45 m row spacing in London Ontario. location and cumulative irradiation over the growing season is also calculated. The hourly global radiation charts visualize the global horizontal radiation from the EPW file used for each location (Fig. 8). The white dotted rectangles delineate the growing season (April 1September 30) from the rest of the year. While radiation refers to the solar power that is emitted, irradiation refers to the radiation falling on a surface. Direct irradiation refers to the component of solar irradiation that reaches a surface directly over a unit area and time, and diffuse irradiation represents the portion scattered by the atmosphere over a unit area and time. Global horizontal irradiation (GHI) is the aggregate of both direct and diffuse components incident on the same surface area over time. Fig. 9 shows cumulative irradiation over the growing season in each location with the 15 m inter-row spacing configuration. 2.5. Crop analysis To perform crop analysis, the cultivars grown in three locations 3 U. Jamil et al. Energy 304 (2024) 132074 Fig. 2. (continued). (London, Winnipeg and Calgary) under study were identified [56–58]. These crops remain common for the analysis in the three locations considered. For London, additional crops (soybean and winter wheat) were also included [59]. Moreover, the fruits/vegetables normally grown in the province of Ontario were also considered for the analysis for London [60,61]. For Calgary, supplementing the common crops, 4 U. Jamil et al. Energy 304 (2024) 132074 Fig. 3. a: 5 m inter-row spacing in between vertical solar arrays in London Ontario. b: 15 m inter-row spacing in between vertical solar arrays in London Ontario. c: 45 m inter-row spacing in between vertical solar arrays in London Ontario. winter wheat, oats, barley, lentils and mustard was also evaluated since these crops are widely cultivated within Alberta [62]. Furthermore, for Winnipeg, additional crops included barley, lentils, mustard, oats, soybeans, winter wheat, asparagus, garlic, pepper, blueberries, raspberries and strawberries [63]. Finally, the crops that are generally considered shade tolerant were analyzed for listed and evaluated for growth under agrivoltaics systems [64–66]. For each crop, the sun light requirements are ascertained either as full sun or partial sun [56–58,67–84]. Full sun conditions are referred to as the plants with requirement of more than 6 h of full sun while part sun conditions are referred to as the plants with requirement of 4 to 6 h of full sun conditions [85]. The full sun condition is assumed to be 1000 W/m2 in clear sky conditions during summer months, while the average irradiance in full sun conditions during the growing season (April–October) is between 220 and 230 W/m2 (demonstrated in Figs. 2–7). For the analysis, full sun plants are considered as plants requiring 7 h of full sunlight while part sun plants are considered as cultivars requiring 5 h of sunlight. By ascertaining the total hourly requirements of the plants with the total hourly irradiance determined from the irradiance modeling, the viability of crops for each of the three locations is established. Moreover, as some of the crops are known to be shade tolerant, these crops are also recognized as part sun plants [64–66]. Thus, the analysis is conservative as it only considers plants that are likely not to have a substantive reduction in yield in any scenario. Finally, following assumptions in Ref. [31], the open source System Advisory Model (SAM) [86] developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the U.S. was used to model the potential energy generation for vertical PV systems deployed at 15 m and 45 m row spacing in the identified crop areas currently grown [61–63,87] for the identified crops that would have minimal impact on their yield. Energy generation per year was aggregated and compared to Canada’s current electricity requirements. 3. Results 3.1. Simulation results 3.1.1. London, Ontario Figs. 2 and 3 show the top view of the simulation runs for London, ON for three different spacings. For 5 m spacing, the ground irradiance decreases to about 110–130 W/m2 in between the rows. The reduction is slightly significant within 1 m of the distance where the panels are installed. This effect within 1 m of the panel is found the most in the middle row (3rd). The irradiance levels with 15 m row spacing are considerably improved. Within 2 m of the location where panels are installed, the irradiance values are around 150–170 W/m2. The values continuously increase and reach 210 W/m2 beyond 4 m distance. The highest reduction in the irradiance closest to panels (within 1 m on either side) is seen by the middle (3rd) row where the values reduce to 110 W/m2. 45 m row spacing sees large areas of unaffected solar irradiance values. Slight reduction in irradiance is observed within distance of 5–6 m from the location of solar panel installation. The values then continue to decrease from 210 W/m2 to about 130 W/m2 very close to PVs. As for the 5 m and 15 m configurations, the center row sees the largest reduction in sunlight (mainly very close to the PV). 5 U. Jamil et al. Energy 304 (2024) 132074 Fig. 4. a: Top view – solar radiation distribution with 5 m row spacing in Winnipeg, Manitoba. b: Top view – solar radiation distribution with 15 m row spacing in Winnipeg, Manitoba. c: Top view – solar radiation distribution with 45 m row spacing in Winnipeg, Manitoba. to the panels (within 1 m distance), is observed in the middle row where the values decrease to 110 W/m2. The large spaces in between solar modules with 45 m row spacing mean that there is no significant reduction in sunlight. Although shading is significant very near the solar modules where the solar flux is approximately 130 W/m2, the intensity continues to increase and reaches 210 W/m2 at around 6 m distance from the solar modules. 3.1.2. Winnipeg, Manitoba Simulation results are illustrated in Figs. 4 and 5 for Winnipeg, Manitoba considering three different inter-row distances. The ground irradiance is found out to be approximately 110 W/m2 which is significantly less as compared to open field conditions. The shading is most notable very close to the panels, particularly within a distance of 1 m. Closely analyzing Fig. 4a reveals that the center row experiences the highest reduction in solar irradiation. The reduction is slightly higher than observed in London, ON, where large areas received 130 W/m2 of solar flux. As expected, increasing the inter-row spacing results in an increase in ground irradiation for 15 m row spacing. The irradiance values increased gradually from approximately 150-170 W/m2 to 210 W/m2 beyond a distance of 4 m. As with 5 m row spacing, the center row endures the greatest reduction in irradiance, where the values decrease to 110 W/m2. In the case of a 45 m row spacing, large areas between the panels do not witness any reduction in sunlight. Irradiance slightly decreased within a distance of 5–6 m from the solar panel installation location. The values then continue to decrease from 210 W/m2 to approximately 130 W/m2 very close to the PV rows. 3.2. Potential agrivoltaic crops as a function of spacing and location Crops grown in each location and their application for different row spacings is summarized in the following subsections for each of the three major agricultural regions in Canada analyzed in this study. 3.2.1. London, Ontario Table 1 lists the crops grown in London, Ontario. The part sun/full sun conditions along with the total requirement of solar flux is mentioned. Moreover, the hourly sunlight requirement required and available for 5 m and 15 m spacing is also included. Crops with hourly irradiance requirement less than the hourly irradiance levels found in 5 m and 15 m row spacings can be considered for agrivoltaic applications. For 45 m spacing, since large areas between the rows remain unaffected, any type of crop may be planted. From Table 1 it seems that 5 m spacing might affect the crop yield as the irradiation levels are less than required by the plants. With 15 m spacing however, several crops can be planted including arugula, asparagus, beets, bok choy, celery, coriander, collards, fava beans, garlic, kale, lettuce, parsley, parsnips, peas, swiss chard and thyme. Moreover, broccoli, cabbage, carrots, cauliflower, kohlrabi, potatoes, radishes, spinach, turnips, blackberries, raspberries, and onions are known to be shade-tolerant and can therefore be considered good candidates with 15 m spacing. 3.1.3. Calgary, Alberta Figs. 6 and 7 display the distribution of solar light intensity for Calgary, Alberta, examining three different spacings between vertical rows of solar modules. There is a reduction of irradiance to approximately 110–130 W/m2 for 5 m inter-row spacing. When compared to the solar intensity distribution for Winnipeg, MB, the alleviation is slightly lower. The trend of shading being more significant near the modules remains the same as for other locations. The simulations show an increase in the irradiation values and the row spacing is increased from 5 m to 15 m. As can be seen from Figs. 6 and 7, the solar light intensity reaches approximately 150–170 W/m2. These values further improve to 210 W/m2 approximately 4 m away for the vertical panels. The most substantial reduction in irradiance, closest 3.2.2. Winnipeg, Manitoba Table 2 lists the crops grown in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The part sun/ full sun conditions along with the daily solar flux requirement is defined 6 U. Jamil et al. Energy 304 (2024) 132074 Fig. 4. (continued). for each crop. In addition, the hourly irradiance levels required and available for 5 m and 15 m spacing are also mentioned. Similar to the analysis performed for London, crops with solar radiation level lower than the solar flux observed in 5 m and 15 m row spacings can be considered suitable for agrivoltaic applications. In the case of 45 m spacing, since significant areas between the rows remain 7 U. Jamil et al. Energy 304 (2024) 132074 Fig. 5. a: 5 m inter-row spacing in between solar PV rows in Winnipeg, Manitoba. b: 15 m inter-row spacing in between solar PV rows in Winnipeg, Manitoba. c: 45 m inter-row spacing in between solar PV rows in Winnipeg, Manitoba. unaffected in Winnipeg as well, any type of crop can thus be cultivated. According to Table 2 it appears that a 5 m spacing may adversely affect crop yield as the irradiation levels fall below what the plants require, although in this situation the transparency of the PV could be adjusted to enable some of the crops to be grown. With a 15 m spacing, however, various crops can be grown, including arugula, beets, bok choy, celery, coriander, collards, fava beans, kale, lettuce, parsley, parsnips, peas, Swiss chard, thyme, mustard and oats. Although, the irradiation levels are lower for broccoli, cabbage, carrots, cauliflower, kohlrabi, potatoes, radishes, spinach, turnips, but they can be considered for plantation within 15 m row spacing since they are known to be less sensitive to shading. parsnips, peas, Swiss chard, thyme, oats and mustard. In addition, asparagus, broccoli, cabbage, carrots, cauliflower, kohlrabi, potatoes, radishes, spinach, turnips, ginger, blackberries, and strawberries are considered insensitive to shading and shall be examined with agrivoltaic systems. 4. Discussion When deciding to utilize vertical agrivoltaic designs in agricultural areas there are several factors that must be considered. First, obviously the greater the row density the greater the PV power [89]. As rows are moved closer together, however, inter-row shading can become an issue [90]. This can be observed in the 5 m row spacing in all three locations. Generally, in agrivoltaics the rows spacing is set by the width of the farming equipment used on the farm and in general these widths are both large and expanding [24,91]. As row spacing increases the energy yield per row increases until there is no row-to-row shading as shown in the 15 m and 45 m cases. For these large row spacings, there is a modest increase in wire costs both for length and in some cases for wire diameter to overcome resistance losses [92]. For the crops grown in such agrivoltaic setups the primary impact on their growth is shading [90,93]. As expected, different row spacing results in different solar radiation levels and this is also somewhat dependent on location. This is seen from the results in Figs. 2–7, where the simulations indicate somewhat consistent results for the three 3.2.3. Calgary, Alberta In Table 3, the crops cultivated in Calgary, Alberta are documented [62,88]. The requirements for each crop are specified, such as the conditions of partial sun or full sun, as well as the daily solar flux. Moreover, Table 3 also includes the hourly irradiance levels required by the crops and the corresponding levels available for both 5 m and 15 m row spacings. Observations for solar flux levels for 5 m, 15 m and 45 m row spacing are the same as for the other two locations, hence, 15 m and 45 m row spacing seems suitable for agrivoltaic applications. Several plants indicate a potential to grow with 15 m row spacing including arugula, beets, bok choy, celery, coriander, collards, fava beans, kale, lettuce, parsley, 8 U. Jamil et al. Energy 304 (2024) 132074 Fig. 6. a: Top view – solar radiation distribution with 5 m row spacing in Calgary, Alberta. b: Top view – solar radiation distribution with 15 m row spacing in Calgary, Alberta. c: Top view – solar radiation distribution with 45 m row spacing in Calgary, Alberta. agricultural locations evaluated in Canada. For 5 m spacing, the radiation reduces to about ¼ to ½ of the incident intensity in between the rows and the reduction is slightly more for Winnipeg and Calgary than for London. For 15 m spacing, the radiation reduces to 2/3 or even less in between the rows for all the three locations. Finally, for 45 m spacing, there is a slight reduction (2/3 or even less) observed only near to the panels. Large spaces between the panel rows remain unaffected. It is well known that different crops require different sunlight requirements, and this study helps in identifying the crops which can be integrated with differently spaced agrivoltaic systems for the three target Canadian agricultural areas. Different solar radiation on ground will impact the crop yield. Many studies (basil [32], broccoli [33], celery [34], chiltepin peppers [35], corn [36]/maize [37–40], lettuce [20,41], potatoes [42], salad [42], spinach [32,42] and tomatoes [35]) have shown an increase in crop yield with partial shading from agrivoltaics. Most of these studies, however, were not vertical or vertical swinging arrays, so there is considerable future work needed to obtain experimental values of crop yield with different agrivoltaic scenarios (type, transparency of module, location, and crop). This study, which provided detailed modelling of the solar radiation reaching the ground for an agrivoltaic system will help to estimate crop yield and guide those future experimental studies. Moreover, it will help optimize the row spacing between PV arrays so as to not too negatively impact the crop yield and at the same generate maximum electrical output. As was done here as different crops require different levels of sunlight, the modelling can help in the selection of crops that can be integrated with agrivoltaics of a specific row spacing/farming equipment type. In the long run, this will help in formulating agrivoltaic standards [94–96] for different locations, different crops. It thus has value for farmers, solar developers and policy makers. Table 4 summarizes the amount of area harvested for crops [61,87] in Ontario that can be targeted with agrivoltaics along with solar PV installation capacities as well as the corresponding electrical outputs. Energy simulations performed by Jamil et al. [31] indicate that 105 kW of solar PVs can be installed in an acre of land using the vertical PV configuration with 15 m of inter-row spacing. These systems will generate electrical energy of 8038 GWh based on 1089 kWh/kWP annual yield in London, ON. The installed capacity per acreage reduces to 35 kW with 45 m inter-row spacing and the total electrical output is 3832 GWh. Table 5 presents a summary of the harvested crop areas in Manitoba [63] that are suitable for agrivoltaics, as well as the corresponding capacities and electrical outputs of vertical bifacial PV systems. According to previous energy simulations [31], it is estimated that with 15 m inter-row spacing can, solar PVs are expected to generate an electrical energy output of 209,667 GWh based on an annual yield of 1311 kWh/kWp in Winnipeg, MB. If the inter-row spacing is increased to 45 m, the resulting total electrical output is 52,417 GWh. The information in Table 6 summarizes the crop areas in Alberta [61] that are suitable for agrivoltaics, along with the capacities and electrical outputs for vertically east-west oriented PV systems. For the electrical energy output in Calgary, AB, System Advisor Model (SAM) was used [86]. Using the same methodology as [31], PV installation capacity in acre of land and subsequent electrical energy output for one kW of 9 U. Jamil et al. Energy 304 (2024) 132074 Fig. 6. (continued). system installed in Calgary was ascertained. With a 15 m inter-row spacing and the available agricultural land for crops which are found to be suitable for agrivoltaic systems, an electrical energy output of 315, 708 GWh is estimated considering an annual yield of 1272 kWh/kWp. However, if the inter-row spacing is increased to 45 m, the resulting total electrical output would be 78,927 GWh. 10 U. Jamil et al. Energy 304 (2024) 132074 Fig. 7. a: 5 m inter-row spacing in between solar PV rows in Calgary, Alberta. b15 m inter-row spacing in between solar PV rows in Calgary, Alberta. c45 m inter-row spacing in between solar PV rows in Calgary, Alberta. The total electricity consumption in Canada in 2019 was approximately 632 TWh [97]. The total electrical energy estimated from employing agrivoltaics only in three provinces within Canada, and that too on a handful of crops which are expected to perform well under agrivoltaic systems is 532 TWh. This makes up more than 84 % of the total electricity requirements within Canada and suggest a substantial potential increase in renewable energy generation in the country. Approximately 19 % (120 TWh) of the 632 TWh came from fossil fuel based electricity generation which can be completely offset using agrivoltaic systems as shown in the study [97]. This requires power to be stored, however, since the energy is generated through PV modules only during the daytime. It should be noted that these values of agrivoltaic potential are lower than the preliminary analysis done in as [31], for two reasons. First, in this study a more limited area is evaluated because of the crops chosen as compared to the former study that evaluated vertical systems for the major crops (grown over much wider areas). This was done in part because in this study only crops that were highly likely to be viable at 15 m were considered for the 45 m row spacing. This eliminated wheat, which was one of the two major crops (along with grass for grazing) considered in the earlier study. Grass was not considered at all as only food crops directly consumed by humans were considered. Second, this study looked only at three provinces in detail while the former study considered the entire country. Here the values are derived from more limited crops that, with a high probability, would be grown with the spacings proposed with little or no negative impact on yields. Future work is needed in experimental trials of vertical systems for wheat in Canada. There is some evidence that yields may actually be improved with the addition of vertical agrivoltaic arrays on farms. It is well known that windbreaks reduce soil erosion and improve water-use efficiency [98, 99]. Windbreaks can also increase crop quality and crop yield near the break [100–102] and this may be due to rebuilding soil carbon [103]. As the vertical arrays that are placed within the farm itself with agrivoltaics could be viewed as ‘many windbreaks’, these benefits might also occur, but experimental work is needed to quantify these benefits. 5. Limitations & future development There are several ways this study can be improved and expanded. First, it should be pointed out that the results of this study were for fixed vertical PV systems, which have already been commercialized in Germany. As a first approximation they can also be used for so-called swinging vertical PV, where the top of landscape vertically hung modules are fixed but then the bottoms are allowed to swing freely [50,104]. The findings of a simulation done in London, Ontario, revealed that free-swinging PV generates 12 % more energy than vertical fixed-tilt PV. Another advantage of this approach is it allows for weaker structural materials, like wood, to be used, which can reduce the capital costs of agrivoltaic arrays in some countries [105,106]. In addition, this study should be expanded to other locations of the country and similar studies can be run with the same method in other countries. The modules used in this study were conventional ~0 % transparent bifacial modules. To change the transparency of a bifacial module for crystalline silicon, the cells can be spaced further apart, and for thin film bifacial modules, the thickness of the active layer can be reduced. Future work can investigate the impacts of varying the transmission of the PV modules as well as row spacing to get an ideal solar 11 U. Jamil et al. Energy 304 (2024) 132074 Fig. 8. Cumulative radiation for each location during the growing season (April 1 – September 30). elucidate the complex interactions between agrivoltaic systems and agricultural productivity. Examining the effects of shading at different stages of crop growth also constitutes an important area of study that needs to be investigated in detail. In addition, the integration of a dispatch strategy, for instance, through the utilization of single-axis tracking photovoltaic systems, offers a promising avenue for customizing agrivoltaic methodologies to suit the precise needs of various crops. This framework may involve the deployment of anti-tracking mechanisms to avert shading during pivotal growth stages (or a mixture to provide some relative percent shading, or protection with shade only during the hottest points in the day). Such strategies should be studied in detail to ascertain the full potential of agrivoltaic flux environment for specific crops at specific locations. Furthermore, practical trials of crops can also be performed to confirm the viability of the simulation-based results. Moreover, noting that agrivoltaics has immense generation potential, an analysis of Canadian transmission and dispatch system should be carried out to gauge its sufficiency and efficacy. Although only three inter-row spacings (5 m, 15 m and 45 m) are analyzed in this study, the versatility of the software allows to accommodate any desired row spacing configuration. There is also a necessity for further experimental trials for diverse range of crops and under varying radiation conditions to comprehensively assess the impact of agrivoltaics. A comprehensive investigation should also be performed to 12 U. Jamil et al. Energy 304 (2024) 132074 Fig. 9. Cumulative irradiation over the growing season in each location with the 15 m inter-row spacing. technology. The study presented here provides only a basic survey of the crops in Canada that can employed with agrivoltaics. Future work should encompass a broader agronomic investigation for each crop for a specific region. Further detailed investigations, especially regarding the concept of dynamic shading, which could adjust according to the optimal conditions for each growth stage and real-time weather patterns specific to agricultural settings, are warranted. It is very well established in the software industry [107–112] and there is precedent in the PV literature for accelerating innovation by using open source development [113]. While Ladybug Tools, Honeybee, and the dependent components are all open source, the Rhino 3D software is not open source. The full software script is currently under copyright and is currently only accessible through requested analysis from AgriSolar Consulting or Sandbox Solar LLC. Ideally, an open source business model [114] could be identified in order to increase the rate of development [115] while making the tool accessible to farmers. Future development of the irradiance modeling software could include a system 13 U. Jamil et al. Energy 304 (2024) 132074 Table 1 Crops planted in London, ON and their viability analysis for agrivoltaic systems. Plant Planting Conditions Daily required solar irradiance (W/m2.hr) Hourly required solar irradiance (W/m2.hr) 5 m spacing irradiance (W/m2.hr) 15 m spacing irradiance (W/m2.hr) Arugula Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun 5000 209 130 210 7000 7000 7000 5000 292 292 292 209 130 130 130 130 210 210 210 210 7000 7000 5000 292 292 209 130 130 130 210 210 210 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 5000 292 292 292 292 292 209 130 130 130 130 130 130 210 210 210 210 210 210 7000 7000 5000 292 292 209 130 130 130 210 210 210 5000 209 130 210 7000 7000 7000 7000 5000 292 292 292 292 209 130 130 130 130 130 210 210 210 210 210 7000 7000 7000 7000 5000 292 292 292 292 209 130 130 130 130 130 210 210 210 210 210 7000 5000 292 209 130 130 210 210 7000 7000 7000 7000 5000 292 292 292 292 209 130 130 130 130 130 210 210 210 210 210 5000 209 130 210 7000 5000 292 209 130 130 210 210 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 5000 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 209 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 5000 209 130 210 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 Asparagus Apricots Basil Beets Bell Peppers Blueberries Bok Choy Broccoli Cabbage Cantaloupes Carrots Cauliflower Celery Cherries Chives Cilantro (Coriander) Collards Corn Cucumbers Dill Eggplants Fava Beans (Broad Beans) Garlic Grapes Green Beans Jalapeño Peppers Kale Kohlrabi Lettuce Nectarines Okra Onions Oregano Parsley Parsnips Pears Peas Plums Potatoes Pumpkins Radishes Raspberries Rosemary Sage Soybean Spinach Strawberries Sweet Potatoes Swiss Chard Thyme Tomatillos Tomatoes Turnips Watermelons Winter Wheat Winter Squash Zucchini and Summer Squash 14 U. Jamil et al. Energy 304 (2024) 132074 Table 2 Crops planted in Winnipeg, MB and their viability analysis for agrivoltaic systems. Plant Planting Conditions Daily required solar irradiance (W/m2.hr) Hourly required solar irradiance (W/m2.hr) 5 m spacing irradiance (W/m2.hr) 15 m spacing irradiance (W/m2.hr) Arugula Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun 5000 209 110 210 7000 7000 5000 292 292 209 110 110 110 210 210 210 7000 5000 292 209 110 110 210 210 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 5000 292 292 292 292 292 209 110 110 110 110 110 110 210 210 210 210 210 210 7000 5000 292 209 110 110 210 210 5000 209 110 210 7000 7000 7000 7000 5000 292 292 292 292 209 110 110 110 110 110 210 210 210 210 210 7000 7000 5000 292 292 209 110 110 110 210 210 210 7000 7000 5000 292 292 209 110 110 110 210 210 210 5000 209 110 210 5000 209 110 210 7000 7000 7000 5000 292 292 292 209 110 110 110 110 210 210 210 210 5000 209 110 210 5000 209 110 210 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 5000 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 209 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 5000 209 110 210 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 Barley Basil Beets Bell Peppers Bok Choy Broccoli Cabbage Cantaloupes Carrots Cauliflower Celery Chives Cilantro (Coriander) Collards Corn Cucumbers Dill Eggplants Fava Beans (Broad Beans) Green Beans Jalapeño Peppers Kale Kohlrabi Lentils Lettuce Mustard Oats Okra Onions Oregano Parsley Parsnips Peas Potatoes Pumpkins Radishes Rosemary Sage Spinach Sweet Potatoes Swiss Chard Thyme Tomatillos Tomatoes Turnips Watermelons Winter Squash Winter Wheat Zucchini and Summer Squash 6. Conclusions design explorer GUI utilizing Ladybug’s Pollination Cloud Server [116], in addition to PPFD/PAR analysis, a dual optimum design explorer and economic outputs in a SaaS web application platform. This study was the first simulation-based study in Canada that calculated solar flux reaching the ground surface with different interrow spacings of vertical agrivoltaic arrays. It is also the first study 15 U. Jamil et al. Energy 304 (2024) 132074 Table 3 Crops planted in Calgary, AB and their viability analysis for agrivoltaic systems. Plant Planting Conditions Daily required solar irradiance (W/m2.hr) Hourly required solar irradiance (W/m2.hr) 5 m spacing irradiance (W/m2.hr) 15 m spacing irradiance (W/m2.hr) Arugulaa Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Part Sun/Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun Full sun 5000 209 110 210 7000 7000 7000 5000 292 292 292 209 110 110 110 110 210 210 210 210 7000 7000 5000 292 292 209 110 110 110 210 210 210 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 5000 292 292 292 292 292 209 110 110 110 110 110 110 210 210 210 210 210 210 7000 5000 292 209 110 110 210 210 5000 209 110 210 7000 7000 7000 7000 5000 292 292 292 292 209 110 110 110 110 110 210 210 210 210 210 7000 7000 7000 5000 292 292 292 209 110 110 110 110 210 210 210 210 7000 7000 5000 292 292 209 110 110 110 210 210 210 5000 209 110 210 5000 209 110 210 7000 7000 7000 5000 292 292 292 209 110 110 110 110 210 210 210 210 5000 209 110 210 5000 209 110 210 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 5000 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 209 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 5000 209 110 210 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 Asparagus Barley Basil Beets Bell Peppers Blueberries Bok Choy Broccoli Cabbage Cantaloupes Carrots Cauliflower Celery Chives Cilantro (Coriander) Collards Corn Cucumbers Dill Eggplants Fava Beans (Broad Beans) Garlic Green Beans Jalapeño Peppers Kale Kohlrabi Lentils Lettuce Mustard Oats Okra Onions Oregano Parsley Parsnips Peas Pepper Potatoes Pumpkins Radishes Raspberries Rosemary Sage Soybean Spinach Strawberries Sweet Potatoes Swiss Chard Thyme Tomatillos Tomatoes Turnips Watermelons Winter Squash Winter Wheat Zucchini and Summer Squash 16 U. Jamil et al. Energy 304 (2024) 132074 Table 4 Agrivoltaic crops in Ontario and electrical energy potential. S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Total Crop Raspberries Asparagus Beans Beets Broccoli Cabbage Kale Carrots - Baby Cauliflower Celery Lettuce Parsley Parsnips Peas Radishes Spinach Area Harvested (acres) 15 m Row Spacing 45 m Row Spacing Electrical Installations (MW) Total Electrical Output (GWh) Electrical Installations (MW) Total Electrical Output (GWh) 389 4341 9386 1079 3206 7263 361 8678 1172 625 299 155 129 14588 600 451 52722 54 608 1314 151 449 1017 51 1215 164 88 42 22 18 2042 84 63 7381 59 662 1431 165 489 1107 55 1323 179 95 46 24 20 2224 91 69 8038 14 152 329 38 112 1017 13 1215 41 22 10 5 5 511 21 16 8038 15 165 358 41 122 1107 14 1323 45 24 11 6 5 556 23 17 3832 Table 5 Agrivoltaic crops in Manitoba and electrical energy potential. S. No. Crops Area Harvested (acres) 1 2 3 4 Total Oats Peas Beans Potatoes 643700 224100 193300 78000 1139100 15 m Row Spacing 45 m Row Spacing Electrical Installations (MW) Total Electrical Output (GWh) Electrical Installations (MW) Total Electrical Output (GWh) 90375 31464 27139 10951 159930 118482 41249 35580 14357 209667 22594 7866 6785 2738 39982 29620 10312 8895 3589 52417 Table 6 Agrivoltaic crops in Alberta and electrical energy potential. S. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Crops Oats Beans Peas Lentils Mustard Cabbage Carrots Area Harvested (acres) 943400 92400 42600 550200 143500 325 420 1772845 15 m Row Spacing 45 m Row Spacing Electrical Installations (MW) Total Electricity Output (GWh) Electrical Installations (MW) Total Electricity Output (GWh) 132076 12936 5964 77028 20090 46 59 248198 168001 16455 7586 97980 25554 58 75 315708 33019 3234 1491 19257 5022 11 15 62050 42000 4114 1897 24495 6389 14 19 78927 total electricity requirements can be met by employing agrivoltaics on agricultural land where these crops are cultivated. In addition, all of Canada’s fossil fuel electricity generation can be eliminated through application of the technology on agrivoltaic-friendly cropland. All of these estimations should be considered to be conservative as much larger areas of land would be available if wheat were to be included. The study gave an outlook on the huge agrivoltaic potential in Canada. The research can assist in making informed decisions going forward and could be advantageous for farmers, policy makers and other stakeholders. evaluating the crops that can be integrated with different spacings of vertical agrivoltaic systems in Canada. Three different spacings (5 m, 15 m and 45 m) and three different locations (London, Calgary and Winnipeg) were analyzed using irradiance modeling with Ladybug tools plug-ins. 5 m spacing saw the highest reduction in solar irradiation levels incident on the ground while 45 m spacing witnessed almost unaffected solar flux over large areas of land. 15 m row spacing experienced some reduction in the radiation intensity. The crops currently grown on each of the three locations were identified and their sunlight requirements were studied. Based on the amount of solar radiation reaching the ground surface and the solar requirements of the crops, the plants, and the inter-row spacings that were suitable for agrivoltaic applications for the three locations were identified. It was concluded that 5 m spacing might adversely impact the crops by not meeting their sunlight needs. Several crops, however, were identified which can be planted with 15 m row spacing, while the remaining crops were found to be suitable with 45 m row spacing. Next, acreage of land of a few crops, which were proven to be satisfactory for agrivoltaic systems, were identified for each province and their electrical energy potential was ascertained using SAM. The results indicate that more than 84 % of the CRediT authorship contribution statement Uzair Jamil: Writing – review & editing. Thomas Hickey: Writing – review & editing. Joshua M. Pearce: 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 17 U. Jamil et al. Energy 304 (2024) 132074 the work reported in this paper. [21] Data availability [22] Data will be made available on request. Acknowledgments [23] This research was supported by the Thompson Endowment and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Software development supported by the US Department of Energy American Made Challenge Solar Prize Round 5, Sandbox Solar LLC & AgriSolar Consulting. [24] [25] [26] References [27] [1] Woodside J. Any way you slice it, Canada is one of the worst emitters on the planet, Canada’s National Observer. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2021/ 10/07/news/any-way-you-slice-it-canada-one-worst-emitters-planet. [Accessed 25 June 2023]. [2] Bhandari KP, Collier JM, Ellingson RJ, Apul DS. Energy payback time (EPBT) and energy return on energy invested (EROI) of solar photovoltaic systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;47: 133–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.057. [3] Barbose G, Darghouth N, Millstein D, LaCommare K, DiSanti N, Widiss R. Tracking the sun X: the installed Price of residential and non-residential photovoltaic systems in the United States. 2017. [4] Dudley D. Renewable energy will Be consistently cheaper than fossil fuels by 2020. Forbes; 2020. Report Claims, https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudle y/2018/01/13/renewable-energy-cost-effective-fossil-fuels-2020/. [Accessed 25 June 2023]. [5] Baldus-Jeursen C. National survey report of PV power applications in Canada. htt ps://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NSR_Canada_2019.pdf. [Accessed 25 June 2023]. [6] What percentage of Canadians live in cities and towns?. http://www.canadafaq. ca/what+percentage+canadians+live+in+cities/. [Accessed 25 June 2023]. [7] Denholm P, Margolis RM. Land-use requirements and the per-capita solar footprint for photovoltaic generation in the United States. Energy Pol 2008;36: 3531–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.05.035. [8] Wüstenhagen R, Wolsink M, Bürer MJ. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Pol 2007;35:2683–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.001. [9] Batel S, Devine-Wright P, Tangeland T. Social acceptance of low carbon energy and associated infrastructures: a critical discussion. Energy Pol 2013;58:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.018. [10] Calvert K, Mabee W. More solar farms or more bioenergy crops? Mapping and assessing potential land-use conflicts among renewable energy technologies in eastern Ontario, Canada. Appl Geogr 2015;56:209–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.apgeog.2014.11.028. [11] Calvert K, Pearce JM, Mabee WE. Toward renewable energy geo-information infrastructures: applications of GIScience and remote sensing that build institutional capacity. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;18:416–29. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.10.024. [12] Sovacool BK. Exploring and contextualizing public opposition to renewable electricity in the United States. Sustainability 2009;1:702–21. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su1030702. [13] Sovacool BK, Lakshmi Ratan P. Conceptualizing the acceptance of wind and solar electricity. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:5268–79. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rser.2012.04.048. [14] Dias L, Gouveia JP, Lourenço P, Seixas J. Interplay between the potential of photovoltaic systems and agricultural land use. Land Use Pol 2019;81:725–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.036. [15] Canada population growth rate 1950-2023. https://www.macrotrends.net/ countries/CAN/canada/population-growth-rate. [Accessed 25 June 2023]. [16] Arsenault C. Rising demand for housing putting the squeeze on farmland in Canada - the Globe and Mail. THE GLOBE AND MAIL; 2021. https://www.theglo beandmail.com/business/article-rising-demand-for-housing-putting-the-squee ze-on-farmland-in-canada/. [Accessed 14 December 2022]. [17] Arsenault C. Sizzling house prices put the squeeze on farmland in Canada, CTVNews. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/sizzling-house-prices-put-the-squee ze-on-farmland-in-canada-1.5498364. [Accessed 14 December 2022]. [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] Guerin TF. Impacts and opportunities from large-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity generation on agricultural production. Environ Qual Manag 2019;28: 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.21629. [20] Valle B, Simonneau T, Sourd F, Pechier P, Hamard P, Frisson T, Ryckewaert M, Christophe A. Increasing the total productivity of a land by combining mobile [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] 18 photovoltaic panels and food crops. Appl Energy 2017;206:1495–507. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.09.113. Mavani DD, Chauhan PM, Joshi V. Beauty of agrivoltaic system regarding double utilization of same piece of land for generation of electricity & food production, 10; 2019. Agostini A, Colauzzi M, Amaducci S. Innovative agrivoltaic systems to produce sustainable energy: an economic and environmental assessment. Appl Energy 2021;281:116102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116102. Pascaris AS, Schelly C, Rouleau M, Pearce JM. Do agrivoltaics improve public support for solar? A survey on perceptions, preferences, and priorities. GRN TECH RES SUSTAIN 2022;2:8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44173-022-00007-x. 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. Mamun MAA, Dargusch P, Wadley D, Zulkarnain NA, Aziz AA. A review of research on agrivoltaic systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2022;161:112351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112351. Feuerbacher A, Herrmann T, Neuenfeldt S, Laub M, Gocht A. Estimating the economics and adoption potential of agrivoltaics in Germany using a farm-level bottom-up approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2022;168:112784. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112784. Pascaris AS, Schelly C, Burnham L, Pearce JM. Integrating solar energy with agriculture: industry perspectives on the market, community, and socio-political dimensions of agrivoltaics. Energy Res Social Sci 2021;75:102023. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102023. Pearce JM. Agrivoltaics in Ontario Canada: promise and policy. Sustainability 2022;14:3037. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14053037. Jamil U, Pearce JM. Maximizing biomass with agrivoltaics: potential and policy in saskatchewan Canada, biomass. 188–216, https://doi.org/10.3390/bioma ss3020012; 2023. Jamil U, Pearce JM. Energy policy for agrivoltaics in Alberta Canada. Energies 2023;16:53. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16010053. Jamil U, Bonnington A, Pearce JM. The agrivoltaic potential of Canada. Sustainability 2023;15:3228. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043228. Thompson EP, Bombelli EL, Shubham S, Watson H, Everard A, D’Ardes V, Schievano A, Bocchi S, Zand N, Howe CJ, Bombelli P. Tinted semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and electricity on the same cropland. Adv Energy Mater 2020;10:2001189. https://doi.org/10.1002/ aenm.202001189. Hudelson T, Lieth JH. Crop production in partial shade of solar photovoltaic panels on trackers. AIP Conf Proc 2021;2361:080001. https://doi.org/10.1063/ 5.0055174. Weselek A, Bauerle A, Zikeli S, Lewandowski I, Högy P. Effects on crop development, yields and chemical composition of celeriac (Apium graveolens L. Var. rapaceum) cultivated underneath an agrivoltaic system. Agronomy 2021;11: 733. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11040733. Barron-Gafford GA, Pavao-Zuckerman MA, Minor RL, Sutter LF, BarnettMoreno I, Blackett DT, Thompson M, Dimond K, Gerlak AK, Nabhan GP, Macknick JE. Agrivoltaics provide mutual benefits across the food–energy–water nexus in drylands. Nat Sustain 2019;2:848–55. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893019-0364-5. Sekiyama T, Nagashima A. Solar sharing for both food and clean energy production: performance of agrivoltaic systems for corn, A typical shadeintolerant crop. Environments 2019;6:65. https://doi.org/10.3390/ environments6060065. Rem TEC. REM tec - castelvetro agrovoltaico plant piacenza - Italy. REM TEC; 2011. https://remtec.energy/en/agrovoltaico/installations/31-castelvetro. [Accessed 14 December 2022]. Rem TEC. REM tec - monticelli D’ongina agrovoltaico plant piacenza - Italy, REM TEC. 2011. https://remtec.energy/en/agrovoltaico/installations/30-monticell i-dongina. [Accessed 14 December 2022]. Rem TEC. REM tec - borgo virgilio agrovoltaico plant montava - Italy. REM TEC; 2011. https://remtec.energy/en/agrovoltaico/installations/29-borgo-virgilio. [Accessed 14 December 2022]. Amaducci S, Yin X, Colauzzi M. Agrivoltaic systems to optimise land use for electric energy production. Appl Energy 2018;220:545–61. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.03.081. 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; 44:54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2012.08.003. Schindele S, Reise C, Obergfell T, Goetzberger A, Bopp G, Beck M. Combining PV and food crops to agrophotovoltaic – optimization of orientation and harvest. 27th European photovoltaic solar energy conference and exhibition. 2012. p. 4096–100. https://doi.org/10.4229/27thEUPVSEC2012-5AV.2.25. Nassar A, Perez-Wulf I, Hameiri Z. Improving productivity of cropland through agrivoltaics. 2020. https://apvi.org.au/solar-research-conference/wp-conte nt/uploads/2021/03/Alexander-Nassar-Improving-Productivity-of-Cropland-th rough-Agrivoltaics.pdf. [Accessed 6 February 2023]. SPADE Agrivoltaic Design + Development. SPADE agrivoltaic design + development. https://www.agrivoltaic.design. [Accessed 25 June 2023]. Pascaris AS, Schelly C, Pearce JM. A first investigation of agriculture sector perspectives on the opportunities and barriers for agrivoltaics. Agronomy 2020; 10:1885. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10121885. Sadeghipour Roudsari M, Pak M, Viola A. Ladybug: a parametric environmental plugin for grasshopper to help designers create an environmentally-conscious design. https://doi.org/10.26868/25222708.2013.2499; 2013. U. Jamil et al. Energy 304 (2024) 132074 [47] Larson GW, Shakespeare R. Rendering with radiance. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers; 1998. https://radsite.lbl.gov/radiance/book/. [Accessed 25 June 2023]. [48] EnergyPlusTM, national renewable energy laboratory (NREL). Berkeley, CA (United States): Golden, CO (United States); Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL); 2017. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1395882. [Accessed 25 June 2023]. [49] OpenStudio. Alliance for sustainable energy. LLC; 2023. https://openstudio.net/. [Accessed 25 June 2023]. [50] Vandewetering N, Hayibo KS, Pearce JM. Open-source vertical swinging woodbased solar photovoltaic racking systems. Design 2023;7:34. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/designs7020034. [51] Jouttijärvi S, Lobaccaro G, Kamppinen A, Miettunen K. Benefits of bifacial solar cells combined with low voltage power grids at high latitudes. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2022;161:112354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112354. [52] Riaz MH, Imran H, Alam H, Alam MA, Butt NZ. Crop-specific optimization of bifacial PV arrays for agrivoltaic food-energy production: the light-productivityfactor approach. IEEE J Photovoltaics 2022;12:572–80. https://doi.org/10.1109/ JPHOTOV.2021.3136158. [53] EPW Map, (n.d). https://www.ladybug.tools/epwmap/(accessed May 8, 2024).. [54] climate.onebuilding.org, (n.d). https://climate.onebuilding.org/(accessed May 8, 2024).. [55] Government of Canada, Engineering Climate Datasets - Climate - Environment and Climate Change Canada, (n.d). https://climate.weather.gc.ca/prods_servs /engineering_e.html (accessed May 8, 2024).. [56] 2023 planting calendar: when to start vegetable seeds | the old farmer’s almanac. https://www.almanac.com/gardening/planting-calendar/ON/London. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [57] 2023 planting calendar: when to start vegetable seeds | the old farmer’s almanac. https://www.almanac.com/gardening/planting-calendar/MB/Winnipeg. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [58] 2023 planting calendar: when to start vegetable seeds | the old farmer’s almanac. https://www.almanac.com/gardening/planting-calendar/AB/Calgary. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [59] 3.0 food production. https://www.healthunit.com/uploads/cfa-report-chapterthree.pdf. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [60] Archived - what you should know about fruit production in Ontario | ontario.ca. 2004. http://www.ontario.ca/page/what-you-should-know-about-fruit-product ion-ontario. [Accessed 24 June 2023]. [61] Current vegetable production and farm value - dataset - Ontario data catalogue. https://data.ontario.ca/dataset/ontario-commercial-vegetable-crops-production. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [62] Crop statistics. 2022. https://www.alberta.ca/crop-statistics.aspx. [Accessed 24 June 2023]. [63] Agriculture | province of Manitoba, province of Manitoba - agriculture. https ://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [64] Sweetser R. Vegetables to grow in shade: growing tips and garden plans. The Old Farmer’s Almanac; 2023. https://www.almanac.com/vegetables-grow-shade. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [65] Judd A. Vegetables, herbs & flowers that grow in shade: 5 tips for shade gardening. Growing In The Garden 2021. https://growinginthegarden.com/veget ables-herbs-flowers-that-grow-in-shade-5-tips-for-shade-gardening/. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [66] 30+ vegetables that grow in shade, grow a good life. https://www.facebook.co m/GrowAGoodLife. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. https://growagoodlife.com/v egetables-that-grow-in-shade/. [67] Edamame. How to plant, grow, and care for edamame (soybeans) | the old farmer’s almanac. https://www.almanac.com/plant/edamame. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [68] Growing wheat: optimal conditions, timing, & techniques. https://eos.com/blog/ growing-wheat/. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [69] Grapes: planting, growing, and harvesting grape vines | the old farmer’s almanac. https://www.almanac.com/plant/grapes. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [70] Pears: planting, growing, and harvesting pears | the old farmer’s almanac. https: //www.almanac.com/plant/pears. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [71] Rose L. How much sun does a nectarine tree need? Weekand 2012. https://www. weekand.com/home-garden/article/much-sun-nectarine-tree-need-18041530.ph p. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [72] Do apricot trees need full sun?. https://gardentabs.com/do-apricot-trees-needfull-sun/. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [73] Plums: how to plant and grow plum trees in your garden | the old farmer’s almanac. https://www.almanac.com/plant/plums. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [74] Cherry trees: how to plant, grow, and harvest cherries | the old farmer’s almanac. https://www.almanac.com/plant/cherries. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [75] Raspberries: how to plant, grow, and harvest raspberries at home | the old farmer’s almanac. https://www.almanac.com/plant/raspberries. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [76] Strawberries: planting, growing, and harvesting strawberries at home | the old farmer’s almanac. https://www.almanac.com/plant/strawberries. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [77] Blueberries: planting, growing, and harvesting blueberries at home | the old farmer’s almanac. https://www.almanac.com/plant/blueberries. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [78] Snyder J. Growing oats: whole-grain goodness. Epic Gardening; 2022. http s://www.epicgardening.com/growing-oats/. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [79] Meador K. Barley plant: grain for brewing or bread. Epic Gardening 2021. http s://www.epicgardening.com/barley-plant/. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [80] Albert S. How to grow and care for lentils, harvest to table. https://harvestto table.com/how_to_grow_lentil/. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [81] How to grow mustard seeds | the seed collection, TheSeedCollection. 2023. htt ps://www.theseedcollection.com.au/growguide/mustard-seeds. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [82] Asparagus: how to plant, grow, and harvest Asparagus | the old farmer’s almanac. https://www.almanac.com/plant/asparagus. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [83] Garlic. How to plant, grow, and harvest garlic bulbs | the old farmer’s almanac. https://www.almanac.com/plant/garlic. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [84] How to grow peppers from sowing to harvest. Almanac.com; 2023. https://www. almanac.com/video/how-grow-peppers-sowing-harvest. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [85] Shade garden and plant shade definitions | the old farmer’s almanac. https ://www.almanac.com/shade-garden-and-plant-shade-definitions. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [86] National Renewable Energy Laboratory. SAM open source - system advisor model - SAM. https://sam.nrel.gov/about-sam/sam-open-source.html. [Accessed 15 December 2022]. [87] Current fruit production and farm value - dataset - Ontario data catalogue. http s://data.ontario.ca/dataset/ontario-commercial-fruit-crops-production. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [88] Major commercial vegetable production. Alberta - Open Government; 2023. htt ps://open.alberta.ca/opendata/major-commercial-vegetable-production-alberta2007-2014. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [89] Katsikogiannis OA, Ziar H, Isabella O. Integration of bifacial photovoltaics in agrivoltaic systems: a synergistic design approach. Appl Energy 2022;309: 118475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118475. [90] Reasoner M, Ghosh A. Agrivoltaic engineering and layout optimization approaches in the transition to renewable energy technologies. A Review, Challenges 2022;13:43. https://doi.org/10.3390/challe13020043. [91] Zainol Abidin MA, Mahyuddin MN, Mohd Zainuri MAA. Solar photovoltaic architecture and agronomic management in agrivoltaic system: a review. Sustainability 2021;13:7846. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147846. [92] Hicks W. Increased spacing of solar panels comes with benefits. https://www.nre l.gov/news/program/2022/increased-spacing-of-solar-panels-comes-with-bene fits.html. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [93] Trommsdorff M, Kang J, Reise C, Schindele S, Bopp G, Ehmann A, Weselek A, Högy P, Obergfell T. Combining food and energy production: design of an agrivoltaic system applied in arable and vegetable farming in Germany. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;140:110694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rser.2020.110694. [94] DIN SPEC 91434:2021-05, Agri-photovoltaic systems - requirements for primary agricultural use. https://dx.doi.org/10.31030/3257526; 2021. [95] SolarPower Europe releases new guidelines for agrivoltaics. Pv Magazine International 2023. https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/06/23/solarpower-eur ope-releases-new-guidelines-for-agrivoltaics/. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [96] SolarPower Europe. Agrisolar best practice guidelines - version 2. https://api.sol arpowereurope.org/uploads/1523_SPE_Agrisolar_report_02_db69f1fcd6.pdf. [Accessed 26 June 2023]. [97] C.E.R. Government of Canada. Cer – provincial and territorial energy profiles – Canada. https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincialterritorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-canada.html. [Accessed 4 December 2022]. [98] Cornelis WM, Gabriels D. Optimal windbreak design for wind-erosion control. J Arid Environ 2005;61:315–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jaridenv.2004.10.005. [99] Masna S, Morse SM, Hayibo KS, Pearce JM. The potential for fencing to be used as low-cost solar photovoltaic racking. Sol Energy 2023;253:30–46. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.solener.2023.02.018. [100] Brandle JR, Johnson BB, Akeson T. Field windbreaks: are they economical? J Prod Agric 1992;5:393–8. https://doi.org/10.2134/jpa1992.0393. [101] Hodges L, Brandle JR. Windbreaks: an important component in a plasticulture system. HortTechnology 1996;6:177–81. https://doi.org/10.21273/ HORTTECH.6.3.177. [102] Brandle JR, Hodges L, Zhou XH. Windbreaks in North American agricultural systems. In: Nair PKR, Rao MR, Buck LE, editors. New vistas in agroforestry: a compendium for 1st world congress of agroforestry, 2004. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2004. p. 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2424-1_5. [103] Wiesmeier M, Lungu M, Cerbari V, Boincean B, Hübner R, Kögel-Knabner I. Rebuilding soil carbon in degraded steppe soils of Eastern Europe: the importance of windbreaks and improved cropland management. Land Degrad Dev 2018;29: 875–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2902. [104] Hayibo KS, Pearce JM. Vertical free-swinging photovoltaic racking energy modeling: a novel approach to agrivoltaics. Renew Energy 2023;218:119343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2023.119343. [105] Rana S, Vandewetering N, Powell J, Ariza JÁ, Pearce JM. Geographical dependence of open hardware optimization: case study of solar photovoltaic racking. Technologies 2023;11:62. https://doi.org/10.3390/ technologies11020062. [106] Jamil U, Vandewetering N, Sadat SA, Pearce JM. Wood- and cable-based variable tilt stilt-mounted solar photovoltaic racking system. Design 2024;8:6. https://doi. org/10.3390/designs8010006. [107] O’Reilly T. Lessons from open-source software development. Commun ACM 1999; 42:32–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/299157.299164. 19 U. Jamil et al. Energy 304 (2024) 132074 [108] Kogut B, Metiu A. Open-source software development and distributed innovation. Oxf Rev Econ Pol 2001;17:248–64. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/17.2.248. [109] Fitzgerald B. The transformation of open source software. MIS Q 2006;30:587–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148740. [110] von Krogh G, von Hippel E. The promise of research on open source software. Manag Sci 2006;52:975–83. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0560. [111] Powell A. Democratizing production through open source knowledge: from open software to open hardware. Media Cult Soc 2012;34:691–708. [112] Understanding open source software development, Guide Books (n.d). https://doi .org/10.5555/513726.. [113] Buitenhuis AJ, Pearce JM. Open-source development of solar photovoltaic technology. Energy for Sustainable Development 2012;16:379–88. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.esd.2012.06.006. [114] Fink M. The business and economics of linux and open source. Prentice Hall Professional; 2003. [115] Weber S. The success of open source. In: The success of open source. Harvard University Press; 2005. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674044999. [116] Pollination home page. 2023. https://www.pollination.cloud/. [Accessed 25 June 2023]. 20