Agrivoltaics: Can Solar Panels and Crop Production Be Profitable Together

Yes. Agrivoltaics can make solar power and crop production profitable on the same land when electricity value, remaining crop profit, and measurable farm savings are greater than the extra cost of making the PV system farm-friendly. A 10% crop-yield loss may still work financially if solar income offsets it. A 30% loss combined with expensive elevated structures is much harder to justify. The numbers have to be calculated for the actual farm.

The useful comparison is not agrivoltaics versus doing nothing. Compare it with two real alternatives: keeping the land in conventional agriculture and building a conventional ground-mounted solar project without commercial crop production.

Time also matters. The U.S. Department of Energy describes solar as a long-term investment, with an expected system life of 25 years or more.^[1] A layout that works for today's crop but makes farming awkward five years from now can quickly lose its advantage.

Start With Three Financial Baselines

Before debating panel height, crop choice, or trackers, work out three annual values:

• the farm's current net agricultural profit;
• the expected value of a conventional solar project;
• the expected value of the agrivoltaic project.

Take a simple 20-acre example.

Suppose the agrivoltaic layout generates $54,000 in crop profit and $158,000 in annual solar value:

$54,000 + $158,000 = $212,000 per year

Compared with $180,000 from conventional solar:

$212,000 − $180,000 = $32,000 of additional annual value

If the farming-compatible structure costs an extra $320,000:

$320,000 ÷ $32,000 = 10 years

That is only a quick screening calculation. A serious investment model also needs financing, taxes, module degradation, maintenance, crop-price changes, electricity prices, insurance, and site-specific operating costs.

Crop Yield Loss Does Not Equal Profit Loss

Agrivoltaic projects often focus on whether yield falls 5%, 10%, or 20%. That percentage by itself can be misleading.

A 10% drop in yield does not automatically mean a 10% drop in profit. Many farm costs stay almost the same even when fewer tonnes are harvested.

Consider a crop with these open-field numbers:

If marketable yield falls 10% and price stays unchanged, revenue becomes:

$5,000 × 90% = $4,500

If production costs remain near $3,000 because the land, equipment, planting, and much of the labor are still needed:

$4,500 − $3,000 = $1,500 net profit

Profit has fallen from $2,000 to $1,500:

($2,000 − $1,500) ÷ $2,000 × 100 = 25%

So in this example, a 10% yield reduction turns into a 25% profit reduction.

Real results depend on which costs are fixed. Harvesting, packaging, or sales commissions may fall with volume. Rent, machinery ownership, planting, and many irrigation expenses may not.

For a useful agrivoltaic model, calculate marketable revenue and actual operating costs separately instead of simply cutting net profit by the same percentage as yield.

Shade Can Improve Some Crops and Reduce Others

Panels change more than the amount of light reaching a crop. They can also change leaf temperature, soil temperature, evaporation, humidity, and when direct sunlight reaches the plants.

USDA Agricultural Research Service researchers note that crops have different light-saturation points. In hot conditions, extra sunlight can raise plant temperature without producing the same increase in photosynthesis. Heavy water loss can also cause stomata to close and slow growth.^[2]

That is one reason moderate shade can help certain crops in hot, dry climates.

A well-known Arizona study looked at chiltepin peppers, jalapeños, and cherry tomatoes under an agrivoltaic system. Under those study conditions, chiltepin fruit production was about three times the open-field result and tomato production about twice as high. Jalapeños produced similar fruit quantities with 65% less transpirational water loss. With irrigation every other day, soil moisture was about 15% higher in the agrivoltaic treatment.^[3]

Those are results from one dryland experiment. They should not be treated as default assumptions for another farm or climate.

A cool-season grain, lettuce in a hot region, and tomatoes in an arid climate can react very differently to the same shade. Panel height, row direction, season, and irrigation schedule all matter.

For a commercial farm, marketable output is what counts. A tomato crop can have similar total biomass but still lose value if fruit size, color, or ripening time changes.

Panel Spacing Changes Both Crop Area and Solar Output

Wider rows normally leave more usable farm area and let more light reach the ground. The tradeoff is fewer watts of PV per acre.

An NREL study of 100 kW and 1 MW agrivoltaic mini-grids in Haiti illustrates the tradeoff. In that specific model, a standard configuration left 27% of the project land available for crops. A wide-row configuration increased the farmable share to 65%, while total project area grew to 1.85 times. An elevated configuration kept 95% of the land farmable while increasing total project area to 1.12 times.^[4]

Those figures belong to the Haiti configurations in that report. They are not standard ratios for utility-scale agrivoltaics elsewhere.

You can put a dollar value on lower solar density.

Suppose a conventional layout can fit 10 MWdc, while an agriculture-friendly layout reduces capacity by 8%:

10 MWdc × 92% = 9.2 MWdc

Assume each MWdc produces 1,700 MWh in the first year and electricity is worth an illustrative $50/MWh.

First-year gross electricity value per MW is:

1,700 MWh × $50/MWh = $85,000

The 0.8 MW capacity difference represents:

0.8 MW × $85,000 = $68,000 of first-year gross electricity value

The extra crop area created by wider spacing needs to produce enough value to justify that lost PV capacity, plus any added land or construction cost.

On the electrical side, Tongwei's high-efficiency module portfolio can be used to review current power classes before array density and expected generation are modeled.

Panel Height Has to Earn Back Its Extra Cost

Elevating modules can make it easier for workers and machinery to move underneath them. It also usually makes the structure more demanding.

Foundations, columns, bracing, wind loads, cable routes, and installation methods may all change.

For a simple 7 MWdc example, assume a conventional low-mounted project costs $8.0 million and an agriculture-compatible elevated design costs $9.0 million.

The added capital cost is:

$9.0 million − $8.0 million = $1.0 million

If keeping the farm in operation creates $125,000 of extra annual net value:

$1,000,000 ÷ $125,000 = 8 years

If it creates only $40,000 per year:

$1,000,000 ÷ $40,000 = 25 years

The $8 million and $9 million figures are examples, not industry benchmarks. What matters is the cost difference between the conventional and agriculture-compatible designs for the same site.

DOE agrivoltaics research identifies solar configuration, farm management, environmental conditions, crop choice, and stakeholder coordination as important parts of project performance.^[5]

Design Around the Machinery That Actually Uses the Field

The size of the farm equipment can determine whether a layout works at all.

Record the width, operating height, and turning space needed by the largest machines used for planting, spraying, cultivation, and harvest.

Suppose the widest machine is 3.2 m.

A 3.3 m clear opening leaves:

(3.3 − 3.2) ÷ 2 = 0.05 m

or just 50 mm on each side.

That is almost no room for steering error, uneven ground, wheel movement, or structural posts. If the farm really needs a 4.0 m operating lane, the solar row layout may need to change completely.

Height deserves the same attention. A tractor might be 2.8 m high on the road but reach 3.5 m when a boom or attachment is raised.

Tongwei's utility-scale project portfolio includes the China Resources Power 300 MW Agriculture-PV-Energy Storage Integrated project in Nanning. Tongwei describes it as a project that combines PV generation with planting beneath the array, making it a useful reference for large PV + agriculture applications.

Water Savings Only Matter When They Have Economic Value

Panel shade can reduce direct heating of the soil and change evaporation and crop water stress. But the financial benefit depends on what water actually costs the farm.

Assume water supply and pumping cost $600 per acre each year across 100 irrigated acres.

In this example, a 20% reduction adds about $12,000 of annual value.

On rain-fed land with almost no irrigation expense, the same physical reduction in water demand may have very little direct cash value. On a groundwater-dependent farm, the saving may include both water and the electricity used for pumping.

Measure water first in physical units, such as cubic meters per acre, then apply the farm's real pumping, delivery, and water costs.

Agricultural Conditions Also Affect Solar Performance

The farm can also change the way the PV system performs. Crops and soil affect temperature, dust, ground reflectance, and the light that reaches the back of bifacial modules.

With bifacial PV, the ground under the array keeps changing. Bare soil turns into crop canopy. Irrigation wets the surface. Harvest exposes soil again.

Tongwei's discussion of bifacial PV performance in agricultural environments explains why crop height, soil condition, and rear-side visibility should not be represented by one fixed albedo value for the whole year.

This matters for modules such as Tongwei's TWMNH-66QD, for which Tongwei publishes a mass-production bifaciality of 90±5%. That number describes rear-side response under defined test conditions. It does not mean the installed system produces 90% more energy. Actual bifacial gain depends on rear irradiance, mounting height, row geometry, ground reflectance, and shading.

IEA PVPS likewise treats agrivoltaics as a system in which agricultural and PV performance have to be balanced under site-specific technical and environmental conditions.^[6]

A Few Percent of PV Output Can Be Worth Tens of Thousands of Dollars

Consider an illustrative 12 MWdc system expected to generate 20,000 MWh in its first year.

Specific yield is:

20,000 MWh ÷ 12 MW = 1,667 MWh/MW/year

or about 1,667 kWh/kW/year.

These are example values, but they show why row spacing, orientation, and shading should be translated into MWh instead of being brushed off as a “small percentage.”

Current Tongwei module datasheets and installation information are available through the product download library. Combine those specifications with local irradiance, real mounting geometry, temperature, losses, and grid constraints in the energy model.

Ownership Determines Who Actually Receives the Solar Income

A project can make money overall while giving the farmer a very different financial result.

If a developer owns a project that earns $500,000 a year from electricity, you cannot simply add that $500,000 to the farmer's income. The farmer receives it only if the contract says so.

Keep the site-level investment model and the farmer's own cash flow separate.

Land Productivity Is Different From Financial Return

Agrivoltaics can increase total useful output from one piece of land because the site produces food and electricity at the same time.

That still does not guarantee a better financial return.

A project may keep 80 acres in crop production and generate a large amount of electricity, yet still underperform conventional PV if taller structures, wider spacing, and extra operating costs are too expensive.

The land-use question is not minor. USDA Economic Research Service analysis found that more than 70% of the large commercial solar development it examined in rural U.S. areas between 2012 and 2020 was on agricultural land: 43% on cropland and 28% on pasture-range land.^[7]

Keeping agriculture active can therefore have real land-use value, even if it lowers PV density. That value still needs to appear explicitly in the economics.

Commercial Crop Agrivoltaics Is Still Developing

Agrivoltaics is a broad term. It can include crops, livestock grazing, pollinator habitat, and other agricultural activity around solar installations.

USDA reported in 2024 that less than 5% of U.S. agrivoltaic sites in its dataset had crops growing beneath the panels, usually fruits or vegetables. Just over one quarter used sheep grazing, and around 70% of the systems were smaller than 5 MW.^[8]

Crop-based agrivoltaics has real operating examples and research behind it, but there is no standardized performance number for every crop, climate, and array layout.

If the crop has never been tested under the proposed shade pattern, a pilot may be sensible before the project treats agricultural revenue forecasts as reliable.

Use a Pilot to Measure Marketable Output

A pilot plot lets you compare the proposed shaded condition with an unshaded control before building the full project.

Useful measurements include:

• marketable yield per hectare or acre;
• crop quality and grade;
• irrigation volume;
• soil moisture;
• crop and soil temperature;
• harvest date;
• labor hours;
• disease pressure;
• light reaching the crop.

Suppose the open field produces 40 tonnes of marketable crop per hectare and the shaded test plot produces 37 tonnes.

The reduction is:

(40 − 37) ÷ 40 × 100 = 7.5%

Do not automatically cut net profit by 7.5%. Calculate the revenue from 37 tonnes, subtract the real costs of producing it, and then add any measured water or quality benefit.

If the shaded plot uses 20% less irrigation and also reduces heat-related rejection, the commercial result may still be attractive. If production falls 25% with no meaningful saving in water, labor, or crop quality, changing the array layout may make more sense.

Construction and Maintenance Can Change Farm Economics

Farm access has to work during construction as well as after the project is operating.

Heavy equipment can compact the soil. Trenches can change drainage. Foundations and cable routes can get in the way of future irrigation work.

DOE notes that agrivoltaics research includes planning, mitigation, and construction methods designed to reduce environmental impact while keeping the land available for agriculture.^[9]

For a long-life project, the construction plan should identify temporary access routes, topsoil handling, drainage restoration, and areas where heavy equipment should be kept out.

Day-to-day conflicts have a price as well.

Suppose solar structures and maintenance restrictions add 30 farm labor hours each week for 20 weeks:

30 × 20 = 600 additional labor hours

At an illustrative loaded labor cost of $25/hour:

600 × $25 = $15,000 per year

That $15,000 belongs in the agricultural operating model.

The site agreement should also spell out access during solar maintenance, responsibility for crop damage, agricultural chemical use near electrical equipment, irrigation around foundations, and what happens if farm machinery damages PV infrastructure.

When Does Agrivoltaics Make Sense—and When Does It Not?

DOE guidance for farmers lists potential benefits such as diversified revenue, on-site energy use, and continued farming. It also stresses that solar design has to fit the farm's land, equipment, and production needs.^[10]

Build the Final Decision Model From Site-Specific Inputs

Consider an illustrative 80-acre project with this base case.

Agrivoltaic annual value is:

$236,000 + $650,000 + $20,000 − $15,000 = $891,000

Compared with $700,000 from conventional solar:

$891,000 − $700,000 = $191,000 of additional annual value

The simple recovery period for the extra $1.2 million is:

$1,200,000 ÷ $191,000 ≈ 6.3 years

Do not stop with the base case. Test a weaker year too.

These are sensitivity examples, not universal agrivoltaic risk limits. A real model should use ranges based on local crop prices, historic yield variation, EPC quotations, solar-resource uncertainty, and financing requirements.

If annual debt service is $150,000 and the owner wants at least $40,000 of cash flow after debt service, the project needs:

$150,000 + $40,000 = $190,000

available for those two requirements.

That kind of test tells you far more than simply calling the project “profitable.”

Finally

Agrivoltaics can be profitable when retained crop profit, solar value, and measurable farm savings are greater than the extra cost of combining the two systems. Calculate crop revenue and costs separately, price any lost PV capacity, include the agriculture-compatible structure, and test weaker crop and solar years. If the project still produces an acceptable return under realistic local assumptions, commercial farming and solar can work on the same land.