f97.beERIK SCHMIDT’S WORKSHOP
← All terms

Glossary · Energy industry & energy transition

Agri-PV

Agrivoltaics Term photovoltaics agriculture land use renewable energies solar energy

Agri-PV

Agri-PV, short for agrivoltaics (Agri-Photovoltaik), combines agricultural production with solar power generation using photovoltaics on the same land. Agriculture remains a core use: for example arable farming, fruit growing, vegetable production or grassland management. Grazing can also be part of it. What matters is not that something still grows beneath the modules, but that the system design and the farming practice are coordinated with each other.

Delimitation and system types

With elevated systems, work is carried out underneath the modules; with ground-level row systems, it is mostly carried out between the rows. Vertical systems can use bifacial modules, which convert light into electricity on both sides. Height, row spacing and orientation determine machinery access, shading and material requirements. Compared with densely covered solar parks, larger spacing can reduce the installable capacity per hectare. East-west-oriented module surfaces can shift the generation profile more towards the morning and afternoon hours; vertical mounting alone does not guarantee this.

A practical question helps to delimit the term: would agricultural production still be planned as a serious line of business if the electricity revenues were considered separately? Occasional conservation grazing should not on its own justify the Agri-PV label. Equally, an ecologically enhanced solar park area and a productively farmed Agri-PV area are not the same objective. With rooftop PV on a barn, in turn, the question of how modules and field cultivation share the same ground area does not arise.

Two yields instead of a single indicator

The installed capacity is often stated in kilowatt-peak, kWp for short: the module output under standardised test conditions. It is neither an annual quantity of electricity nor a promise of continuous output. Electricity yield, by contrast, is stated, for example, in kilowatt-hours per year.

A purely assumed calculation example: a 600 kWp system with a specific annual yield of 950 kWh per kWp generates a total of 570,000 kWh per year. That is 570 MWh. These assumptions are not a site forecast. For the agricultural comparison, assume 8 tonnes of harvest per hectare without the system and 6.4 tonnes per hectare with the system: 80 percent of the reference yield then remains. From these two results, neither a combined monetary value nor an automatically doubled benefit can be derived. Among other things, product prices, costs and the electricity generation of a suitable comparison system are missing.

A meaningful project comparison should therefore show separately: total project area, area actually available for cultivation, harvest quantity and product quality, labour input, as well as electricity quantity and its profile over time. The denominator is particularly important: a good yield per remaining hectare of cultivation can obscure the fact that less is harvested across the whole project area. Likewise, a large annual quantity of electricity says nothing about whether the electricity is generated at economically favourable times.

Agricultural benefits and trade-offs

Partial shading has different effects depending on the crop, site and weather. It can reduce heat stress and water loss, but can also cause light-related yield losses. Module coverage and actual shading are not the same thing: shadows move and change over the course of the year. Crop selection, crop rotation and light distribution must therefore be examined together.

Depending on the construction, modules can also offer protection against hail or intense solar radiation. Rainwater, however, must be specifically taken into account: module surfaces change its distribution; drip edges can concentrate water. A protective effect therefore does not replace a site-appropriate water and soil protection concept.

The trade-off becomes clear in two hypothetical farming years: in a hot, dry summer, shade could help a sensitive crop. In a cool, low-light summer, the same arrangement could be disadvantageous. Robust planning should therefore not look only at a particularly favourable trial year. Practical questions should also be raised early: does the combine harvester fit through, including safety clearances? Do turning areas remain free? Can a defective module be repaired during harvest? Who bears damage to plants or to the structure?

Economic viability and integration into the electricity system

Economically, it is not only construction costs that count, but also maintenance, cleaning, insurance and long-term contractual commitments. The distance to the grid connection, the connection capacity available there and the cable construction can be decisive. An agronomically suitable area is therefore not yet an economically suitable site for electricity generation.

The electricity can be fed into the grid or used for self-consumption. A combination is also possible. Eligibility for support under the EEG (German Renewable Energy Sources Act) and contractual electricity marketing are separate assessments; the designation Agri-PV alone does not establish a claim to remuneration.

For a preliminary check at farm level, generation and consumption should be compared over time: when do cooling, pumps or other electrical loads run? Which usage can be shifted? A battery storage system should be assessed as a separate investment with its own cost calculation, not as an automatically economical component. A clear separation of the roles of landowner, farm business and system operator is also advisable. Matters to be agreed would include, for example, access rights, harvest windows, liability, revenue sharing and decommissioning costs.

Germany: technical criteria and legal classification

DIN SPEC 91434:2021-05 specifies, among other things, an agricultural use concept, a land loss of no more than 10 percent for elevated systems and 15 percent for ground-level systems respectively, and at least 66 percent of the agricultural reference yield. These criteria are neither a yield forecast nor, in themselves, a building permit.

For CAP direct payments (GAP-Direktzahlungen), the following applies in Germany under § 12 GAPDZV: areas with solar installations are in principle excluded, unless the farmer demonstrates the Agri-PV exception. The installation must not preclude cultivation using customary agricultural methods, machinery and equipment. In addition, it may reduce the agriculturally usable area by no more than 15 percent, based on the expressly named DIN SPEC 91434:2021-05. This area limit under agricultural subsidy law must not be confused with a permitted reduction in yield. Nor does the provision establish a blanket entitlement to all agricultural payments or to support for the entire project area.

Under building planning law, § 35 paragraph 1 number 9 BauGB (German Federal Building Code) privileges certain special solar installations on arable land, permanent crop land or grassland in the outdoor area (Außenbereich). Required are a spatial and functional connection with an agricultural or horticultural holding named there, a footprint of no more than 25,000 square metres and only one such installation per farmstead or business location. This corresponds to 2.5 hectares; what is decisive is an area limit, not a capacity limit in MWp. Public interests must not conflict, and adequate servicing (access and utilities) must be secured. In addition, there is in principle an obligation to dismantle the installation. Privileged status therefore means neither exemption from permit requirements nor unrestricted admissibility. Outside this statutory scenario, the planning-law basis must be clarified separately, often through municipal land-use planning.

Assessment

Agri-PV is most precisely understood as a jointly planned agricultural and energy project. For assessment, three questions should be answered separately: does agricultural production remain viable? Is electricity generation integrated in a technically and economically sensible way? Are the permit, support and long-term operation legally secured? Only the interplay of these answers shows whether the dual use of land creates genuine added value or merely gives a different name to an existing land-use conflict.

Sources

Related glossary entries

Edited by eCMS on 11.11.2026 13:50

© 2026 Erik Schmidt. All rights reserved. Quotations with a link to the source are welcome.