The study aggregates the effect of agrivoltaics on crop yields at different sites. Tomatoes saw up to double yield with agrivoltaics, while wheat, cucumbers, potatoes and lettuce showed significant negative impacts and corn and grapes showed minimal impact.

I assume that maximal crop output would happen if you just grow things in their optimal climate, but then you rely more heavily on transportation.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 8 points 4 months ago

Agrivoltaics are so cool!

[–] ReveredOxygen@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If you put solar panels above your crops, that makes them significantly harder to harvest

[–] Spaceballstheusername@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

Depends on the crop lots of crops are still harvested by hand. Also lots of crops are destroyed by hail, heavy rains or high winds all of which are somewhat protected by solar panels above.

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Indoor farming is on the rise, as you can have the optimal climate anywhere. It's more spatially efficient with vertical planting, but it has a far higher energy cost for air conditioning and potentially lighting. At least the farm workers are cooler too 🤷‍♀️

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

AFAIK lighting is the biggest energy eater for indoor farming.

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It depends. Natural lighting makes more sense closer to the equator, while ac costs are probably higher than farther north. Regardless of what the energy is spent on, it has a huge footprint.

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Artificial lighting is not optional, otherwise it's not indoor farming, just fancy greenhouses.