There is currently no set, clear and industry-wide standard on these green fuels, in terms of their quality, performance, supply chain, and carbon avoidance potential

Lolade

<h2>Increasing regulation on the shipping industry</h2>
The shipping industry is one of the most important in the global movement of goods. Its decarbonisation is now becoming a regulatory requirement with new regulations coming into force across EU, USA and the industry regulatory, the IMO. For example, shipping will be added to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme in October 2023, meaning ship operators will now need to account for the cost of carbon. The idea behind this is to ensure the cost of polluting is accounted for, which either ensures that the polluter pays, or that companies are incentivised to decarbonise operations.
In the case of the shipping industry, this means using alternative fuels that pollute less than the conventional bunker fuels that are common today, such as Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) and Marine Fuel Oil (MFO).
The problem today with such a decarbonisation requirement is two-fold: the current availability of alternative non-polluting fuels is low. Even the most major ports in the world are only just starting to offer such bunkering in low-carbon methanol, ammonia, with essentially no hydrogen coming online in the next year.&nbsp;
The second point, which is the focus of this article, is thus: even with high availability, there is currently no set, clear and industry-wide standard on these green fuels, in terms of their quality, performance, supply chain, and carbon avoidance potential.
Take methanol for example. Methanol is a widely used and available chemical today, but it is produced through the steam reformation of gas, which does not currently count as a low-carbon production method. If the bunker fuel used is conventionally produced methanol, carbon avoidance is estimated at 15%. If the bunker fuel is bio-methanol (methanol made from organic waste or other biomass), carbon avoidance is estimated at 60 &ndash; 70%. If e-methanol is used (methanol made using renewable energy) the carbon avoidance estimate is around 70 &ndash; 90%.
What this illustrates is that three ships could all be using methanol and have radically different carbon emission levels and, therefore, different carbon costs to pay.
The shipping industry heavily relies on fuel products to power its vessels, with the cost of fuel sometimes representing as much as 70% of a ship&rsquo;s operational costs. A key part of the process of bunkering these fuels, therefore, is quality testing of the fuel which covers chemical composition, quality, water contents of the fuel, performance, presence of impurities, combustion efficiency, emissions, energy density, stability, compatibility with the ship&rsquo;s engine system, among other pertinent points, to ensure the fuel will allow the ship to run smoothly.&nbsp;
In a maritime industry where carbon price becomes more and more relevant, it will be important to adopt and/or adapt tests relevant to the carbon intensity of the fuel beyond general indications of the fuel quality. A brief overview of the key focuses in marine fuel testing will be useful in demonstrating the complexity of this challenge to the bunkering industry.
<h2>Important tests on bunker fuel</h2>
<h3>Fuel composition and properties</h3>
Traditional fuel analysis examines parameters such as viscosity, the flashpoint of the fuel (essentially, the point of combustion), sulfur content, and density to ensure compliance with industry and regulatory standards.
For renewable or low carbon fuels, the composition, and properties, particularly viscosity, differ significantly compared to conventional bunker fuel, which is a very dense black liquid. The composition and viscosity standards would therefore need to be adjusted and agreed upon within the industry as it pertains to cleaner and lighter fuels such as methanol and ammonia, which are much shorter-chain molecules compared to conventional bunker fuel. Analysis of the &ldquo;renewables&rdquo; will need to include parameters specific to these fuels, namely biofuel content, feedstock origin, carbon intensity, and blending compatibility.
But this is precisely where the problem lies. &ldquo;Feedstock origin&rdquo; as a parameter will differ between different types of methanol and ammonia, bio- and e-, and different types of hydrogen: green, blue, or grey. Biofuel content will differ also. As such, the road to maritime fuel decarbonisation, and ensuring shipping companies are charged the right carbon price fairly, is far from simple.
<h3>Combustion efficiency and energy density</h3>
Combustion efficiency generally refers to how easily the fuel burns in the ship engine and covers factors like ignition delay, heat release, and flame stability.
The &ldquo;renewables&rdquo; such as methanol and ammonia have lower energy density and potentially altered combustion kinetics compared to conventional carbon-intense fuel, so a whole new testing standard would be required in this regard. It will also take time for the industry to understand precisely what counts as a good combustion efficiency rate for the new fuels, particularly if ships are not being retrofitted to contain new engines. This will most likely impact engine performance and vessel efficiency negatively, requiring adjustments calculations to be taken into account.
<h3>The emissions profile and lifecycle assessment</h3>
Evaluating emissions and overall environmental impact is crucial for measuring the environmental impact of shipping fuels and calculating the carbon price a shipping operator ought to pay.
Traditional fuel analysis focuses on sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter emissions. Renewable or low carbon fuels often produce lower or even negligible SOx and particulate matter emissions. However, the analysis may need to consider other pollutants, such as greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., carbon dioxide, methane), and potential effects on local air quality.
An additional consideration particularly important to ammonia is aquatic impact. Ammonia toxicity, if it leaks into seawater, can lead to pH toxicity and potentially death in aquatic species. As such, a key part of ammonia fuel testing may be, quite interestingly, a test on the ship engine&rsquo;s ability to burn ammonia properly, to ensure avoidance of ammonia leakage. This will be a testing standard quite unique to this fuel which will need to be developed and enforced with the help of the maritime regulator.
Overall, the move to cleaner, lighter, and less-polluting fuels is not as easy as just producing them and throwing them in the ship engine. A whole new set of standards and processes need to be created to ensure that these fuels have the proper composition, low carbon impact, feedstock origin, and engine compatibility to run the ship smoothly. However, there is hope, as the maritime industry has done this before. A short overview of the developed Low Sulfur Fuel Oil standard is helpful in understanding the way such standards could be developed quickly and efficiently.
<h2>The creation of the low sulfur fuel oil standard in 2020</h2>
To begin, Low Sulfur Fuel Oil, LSFO, is a fuel introduced by IMO to meet regulations on sulfur emissions, introduced in 2020.
LSFO has a maximum sulfur content of 0.50%, significantly lower than traditional Heavy Fuel Oil, the widely used bunker fuel in the industry.
<h3>ISO standards</h3>
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has established standards, such as ISO 8217, to define the specifications and quality parameters for marine fuels.
These standards cover various aspects explored above, including viscosity, sulfur content, flashpoint, and density.
<h3>The LSFO standard and testing process</h3>
Ship operators conduct routine onboard tests to verify fuel quality and compliance with specifications through intuitive and standardised onboard tests. These tests can cover viscosity measurement, flashpoint testing, and density determination quickly and at low cost.
Fuel samples are then sent to accredited laboratories for comprehensive analysis (examples are Lloyd&rsquo;s Register, Bureau Veritas, and Intertek). Laboratory testing involves more rigorous techniques, including gas chromatography, elemental analysis, and sulfur content determination.
The test results are then compared with the information in the Bunker Delivery Note (BDN), which is sent from the fuel supplier to the fuel buyer. A BDN details the quantity and quality of the fuel delivered. This is an important step in successful bunkering, where the buyer can compare the information in the BDN to the laboratory results on the fuel.
<h2>How to properly test a low-carbon fuel</h2>
For low-carbon fuels, many features of this test, such as sulfur content determination, will remain the same. Additional tests analysing carbon intensity and water content (essentially fuel purity) will likely need to be incorporated. This is because the carbon intensity of the fuel will determine how much a shipping operator has to pay under carbon price mechanisms.&nbsp;
The carbon intensity will include elements beyond the lab. For example, to determine the carbon intensity or carbon avoided of bio-methanol, you would likely need documentation confirming the supply chain. This could cause delays and complexity as more stakeholders are part of the &ldquo;testing&rdquo; process.&nbsp;
In the scenario of e-methanol, or an e-fuel generally, it is likely renewable energy certification will be needed to confirm that the fuel was truly produced using renewable energy sources. Perhaps such proof of low carbon intensity could be sent alongside the BDN, or incorporated into the document, but this will generally make the BDN document longer and more complex, with additional risk to be taken by the buyer, particularly on feedstock origin of the fuel.
In conclusion, there are a lot of moving parts that are very important in ensuring a clear, standardised, and fair transition to renewable and low-carbon fuels in the maritime industry. The move to lighter and cleaner fuels will require shifts in fuel quality testing standards and, more difficulty, what is being tested in the first instance. While the key metrics of fuel performance will remain the same, the additional hurdles of testing feedstock origin, carbon intensity and, perhaps, engine compatibility with the fuel will require the help and opinion of the IMO and classification societies to ensure the process is clear and carbon prices are fairly applied to shipping companies.&nbsp;
The shift to low sulfur fuel oil in 2020 demonstrates the maritime industry&rsquo;s ability to research and innovate testing methods to properly understand alternative fuel technologies. As the use of cleaner marine fuels are encouraged and adopted, such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) and biofuels, the way we power global trade and, by extension, the way we test the fuels powering global change, will likely change drastically.
<div class="css-16rcf8n">
<div>
<div class="css-16rcf8n">
<div>
<div class="css-16rcf8n">
<div>
<div class="css-16rcf8n">
<div>
<div class="css-16rcf8n">
<div>
<div class="css-16rcf8n">
Future Thought Leaders is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of rising Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Clarity on carbon: are current testing standards sufficient?

How the simplest alcohol compound can decarbonise one of the world's most crucial industries

<h2>The push for new fuels</h2>
In March 2023, shipping giant Maersk announced the arrival of their first methanol-ready carrier ship, with a range of festivities planned to take place in Copenhagen in September this year. This announcement of Maersk has emphasised the promise of methanol, the most simple alcohol, methanol (CH3OH), as key in the decarbonisation of the shipping industry, which carries over 90% of goods globally and accounts for approximately 3% of carbon emissions.
Methanol is quickly becoming a main contender for the global decarbonisation efforts across multiple industries. The use case of methanol differs from industry to industry, with the clear potential as a green fuel in shipping, a green chemical in industry, and more experimentally, a green and highly efficient hydrogen carrier. The demand for methanol is expected to grow quite rapidly between now and 2030, yet the sources and carbon credentials of methanol planned for use in a low-carbon world are still not finalised, with a number of options at play.
<h2>Exploring the methanol options</h2>
Methanol can be produced from a variety of sources, including natural gas, coal, biomass, and renewable electricity. Biomethanol, also known as bio-methyl alcohol, is produced from biomass, while e-methanol, or electro-methyl alcohol, is produced using renewable electricity.&nbsp;
Biomethanol is considered a sustainable option because it is produced from renewable sources, and it has a significantly lower carbon footprint compared to fossil fuel-derived methanol. However, the necessary waste feedstock for large-scale methanol production is not readily available or organised, with methods for efficient conversion still in the research stage.&nbsp;
As such, e-methanol is considered to be the most sustainable option because it is produced using renewable electricity and has a negligible carbon footprint. E-methanol would seek to create the fuel product using pre-established and mature processes powered by abundant solar or wind energy.
<h2>Unfortunately, not a &lsquo;foolproof&rsquo; solution</h2>
There is a problem with the e-methanol story, though. That is, the feedstock for methanol within today's natural processes is natural gas. As such, its &lsquo;decarbonised&rsquo; status under the e-methanol label still requires access to oil &amp; gas products and the fossil fuel industry generally. To truly have negligible carbon emissions, there would need to be proof of decarbonised production of the synthesis gas, which in itself is a huge undertaking within a separate chemical industry. In addition, there will likely be accusations of &lsquo;greenwashing&rsquo; from those who produce e-methanol from a natural gas feedstock, even if the steam reformation of that gas into methanol is fully decarbonised through the use of renewable energy. As such, the full decarbonisation of the methanol production supply chain will likely be a mixture of the two ideas: an increased economy of biomethane and biogas products, that are then steam reformed into methanol and other useful fuel products. Another viable alternative is new chemical processes altogether, such as the oxidation of carbon monoxide in the presence of a catalyst, but this will need time to mature to the large-scale industrial phase.
Given that the demand for methanol is set to increase rapidly in the next few years given new shipbuilds designed to run on methanol fuel, it is likely necessary to decarbonise existing processes of methanol production instead of waiting for processes that do not require synthesis gas at all.&nbsp; An overview of the demand for low-carbon fuels within shipping, and why biomethanol is key in meeting it, is helpful in explaining the importance of proper management of new methanol production methods and an integrated understanding of global supply.
<h2>Demand for methanol at sea</h2>
Methanol has been used as a marine fuel for several years, primarily in niche applications such as ferries, cruise ships, and smaller vessels. Methanol is seen as a sensible decarbonisation choice because it is readily available and can be produced from a variety of sources. Furthermore, it can be easily transported and stored, making it a practical solution for shipping companies.
The shipping industry has been under pressure to reduce its emissions and improve its environmental footprint. In response to this, many shipping companies are exploring alternative fuels, popularly methanol, which is seen as a promising solution due to its low carbon footprint and compatibility with existing engines. Since 2020, there has been a significant increase in the number of chemical tankers and freight carrier ships that have been ordered to run on methanol fuel.
And it is not only Maersk that has betted on methanol. In April 2021, the Norwegian shipping company Klaveness Combination Carriers announced that it had ordered two new methanol-fueled combination carriers, with an option for two more. The vessels are set to be delivered in 2023 and will be the first methanol-fueled combination carriers in the world.
The increase in the number of orders for methanol-fueled ships is a positive development for the shipping industry&rsquo;s efforts to reduce its emissions. Methanol has a significantly lower carbon footprint compared to traditional marine fuels, and it can be produced from a variety of sources, including biomass and renewable electricity. Methanol can also be easily transported and stored, making it a practical solution for shipping companies.
One of the key benefits of methanol as a marine fuel is its compatibility with existing engines. Unlike some other alternative fuels, such as hydrogen or ammonia, methanol can be used in existing engines without the need for significant modifications. This makes it a practical solution for shipping companies that want to decarbonize their operations today.
Nevertheless, the CO2 intensity of methanol is significantly lower than bunker fuel without a decarbonised supply chain. The use of methanol as a marine fuel has the potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the shipping industry. According to industry estimates, using methanol as a marine fuel can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 15%, compared to traditional marine fuels. This is a significant reduction and could help the shipping industry meet its emissions reduction targets.
Furthermore, the use of methanol as a marine fuel can help shipping companies comply with regulations such as the International Maritime Organization&rsquo;s (IMO) regulations on sulfur emissions. Methanol has a lower sulfur content compared to traditional marine fuels, which makes it an attractive option for shipping companies looking to comply with these regulations.
<h2>Solving the hydrogen storage problem</h2>
Another benefit of methanol as a marine fuel is that it can serve as a hydrogen carrier. Hydrogen is widely regarded as a promising alternative fuel for the shipping industry, but one of the biggest challenges associated with hydrogen is storage. Hydrogen has a low energy density, which means it requires large tanks to store it onboard ships. Methanol can solve this problem by serving as a hydrogen carrier. Methanol can be easily converted into hydrogen using a reformer onboard the ship. The hydrogen can then be used in a fuel cell to generate electricity to power the ship.
Hydrogen is widely regarded as a promising alternative fuel that will be key to a low-carbon future. However, one of the biggest challenges associated with hydrogen is storage. Hydrogen has a low energy density, which means it requires large tanks to store it onboard ships. This can be a significant challenge for shipping companies, particularly for those operating larger vessels.&nbsp;
Methanol can solve this problem by serving as a hydrogen carrier. Methanol can be easily converted into hydrogen using a reformer onboard the ship. The hydrogen can then be used in a fuel cell to generate electricity to power the ship. This makes methanol an attractive option for shipping companies that want to use hydrogen but are concerned about storage issues.
The hydrogen storage caveat also gives a good argument about why fuels from biomass resources (biomethanol) are key to cost-effective decarbonisation. Most grids have low integration of renewable resources, with intermittency (not providing electricity 24/7) remaining an issue. Renewable capacity will need to be approximately 3x or 4x electricity demand to overcome the issue of intermittency, and the cost of this integration into grids is very high, estimated at around 4.5 trillion USD in the United States, 3.6 trillion in the EU, and 11 trillion in India. The rising cost of electricity brings the cost of net-zero H2 from water electrolysis to around $3.5/kg, which is not cost-competitive with existing fuels. This does not include the cost of storage, which is a huge challenge in the H2 supply chain. Biomethanol, by contrast, is easily stored and can achieve 90% greenhouse gas reductions within both the methanol and hydrogen supply chains. And, importantly, it can work today with existing technologies, methanol plants, and carrier ships on order.
As methanol has low carbon intensity and has the potential to be carbon-neutral, biomethanol is a viable and cost-competitive option for hydrogen storage, particularly by sea.&nbsp;
In conclusion, methanol is a sensible choice for a low-carbon marine fuel and a cost-efficient hydrogen carrier. It can be produced from a variety of sources, including renewable sources, and has a significantly lower carbon footprint compared to traditional marine fuels. Methanol is readily available and can be easily transported and stored, making it a practical solution for shipping companies. Furthermore, methanol is compatible with today's engines, which makes it a practical solution for shipping companies that want to decarbonize their operations today. Finally, methanol can solve the problem of hydrogen storage by serving as a hydrogen carrier. 
Decarbonisation of the supply chain will be no easy feat, particularly given that methanol today is steam reformed from natural gas. As such, instead of biomethanol and e-methanol being considered as competing options and technologies, there will need to be a synergy where renewable gas is converted via steam reformation, powered by abundant solar and wind energy. This will ensure that, the same way methanol is a drop-in solution that works with existing engines, methanol production can take advantage of existing chemical infrastructure.&nbsp;
For these reasons, methanol is a promising alternative fuel for the shipping industry, and it is likely to play an increasingly important role in the coming years.
<div class="css-16rcf8n">
<div>
<div class="css-16rcf8n">
<div>
<div class="css-16rcf8n">
<div>
Future Thought Leaders is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of rising Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Future of green methanol: biomethanol, e-methanol, or both?

The call for the timely deployment of renewable energy is becoming more politically prominent as predictions on climate change worsen. Also, the expected population growth of 1.5 billion in the next 15 years raises questions about the resilience of our global energy and food systems.

The call for the timely deployment of renewable energy is becoming more politically prominent as predictions on climate change worsen. Also, the expected population growth of 1.5 billion in the next 15 years raises questions about the resilience of our global energy and food systems. Electricity demand is currently growing faster than population growth, which is leading many to look for synergies between sustainable agriculture and renewable energy. 
<h2>Electrifying crops</h2>
The typical solar farm, which features ground-mounted solar panels, needs a substantial amount of space to generate electricity at the megawatt level. Agrivoltaics (APV) combines agriculture with electricity generation by farming under a canopy of elevated solar panels. There are some interesting reasons why APV is a potential growth market, but before exploring this, it is important to understand the challenges of solar farms and their respective solutions.
<h2>Challenges of solar plant development</h2>
Solar panels are considered an established technology, however in the typical solar farm the ground beneath the panels cannot be used for anything, mainly due to the small gaps between rows of panels which are too small for modern farm equipment to pass through. It is possible to convert a typical solar farm to a dual-land use system when it is designated as a living area for grazing farm animals or for beekeeping, for example. This lowers the cost of maintaining vegetation growth without posing a risk to the panels themselves. However, this depends on the farm animal. Pigs, cattle or goats often do pose risk to the panels.
When more space is allowed between the solar panel rows, it is possible to grow crops in between the spaces. This is known as alternating land use because the purpose of the land alternates between ground-mounted solar panels (electricity generation purpose) and crop growth (horticulture purpose). So, it would not be exactly correct to say that alternating land use systems would be agrivoltaics. This is because the land between the rows would be shadowed during certain times of the day, altering the characteristics of the land and the types of crops that can be grown there. Ground-mounted solar panels of any kind simply do not allow for electricity generation and crop growth at the same time on the same areas of land.
<h2>Going vertical</h2>
Elevating solar panels on a vertical plane is where we begin to see interesting alternatives to traditional solar installations. There are two main APV systems that are in the process of proof of concept and testing. Vertically mounted bifacial solar modules allow for more arable land without a sharp decline in sun exposure (and therefore electricity generation), as bifacial modules can collect solar energy from both sides of the panel.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/bd4264909cc09ac18a8e113c2e7f8e5dbc4248f1.png" alt="Figure 1: tractor driving between solar panels (en:former, The Future of Solar Energy has two sides, https://www.en-former.com/en/the-future-of-solar-energy-has-two-sides/)." />
This system, according to research at Dutch and German Institutes, works particularly well in farming areas suffering from wind erosion, as the vertical installations &lsquo;break&rsquo; the wind, reducing the wind speed, and therefore protect the crops that are grown there. The bifacial panels also generate more power per square meter than the traditional monofacial panels without requiring any moving parts which typically raise costs of development significantly.
The more radical and experimental option is stilt mounted solar modules, which would hold monofacial solar panels at a higher vertical. This would allow farming machinery to pass underneath and operate as in a regular farm. In this design, there has to be a specific gap between the crop rows and the stilt rows to ensure the stilts do not bump into the moving machinery. This admittedly leads to an arable land surface loss of about 3-10% percent.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/ba96fcb8b345b954785cf5e576f1989a2df4bd01.png" alt="Figure 2: Solar Panels covering greenhouses (Source: Galileo Green Energy, AgriPV How Solar Enables the Clean Energy Transition in Rural Areas)." />
Arable land surface loss refers to areas of land that is suitable for crop growth but is not used for this reason of allowing space for farming machinery. A piece of research within this type of APV is mounting solar panels using actuators, which would allow for mechanical tilting based on the angle of incidence and plant growth optimisation. This is an extremely advanced system which could maximise electricity generation by perfecting angles of incidence on the solar panels while also shading crops during initial stages of growth.
<h2>Plant physiology and solar panel shading</h2>
Contrary to what many people may think, plants growing underneath actuator-mounted solar panels could create crucial optimisations in the future of agriculture. The intuitive conclusion would be that a plant growing under a solar panel would be unable to access the necessary sunlight to grow efficiently. However, research in plant physiology shows that this depends on the crop.
During photosynthesis, plants grow their biomass out of carbon dioxide with the help of chemical energy under the Sun. However, the relationship between sun exposure and biomass growth is not linear: there is a &lsquo;plateau&rsquo; point (as in the light saturation point section of the graph below) where the remaining available sunlight cannot be converted into biomass. At the light saturation threshold (or light saturation point),plants struggle to absorb extra energy and enter photoinhibition (final section of the graph below), where they must release energy through evaporating water.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/77effc988ac1e8df61bb403f3890850b530cda2f.png" alt="Figure 3: Plateau of photosynthesis of light absorbed by plants (Source: Light response curves for photosynthesis, Microbial Cell Factories, November 2018)." />
This light saturation point is different for each plant, and certain plants will benefit greatly from shading throughout the day to optimise solar energy consumption, with the extra energy being channelled into electricity generation. The caveat to this is that shade-intolerant plants (plants that require higher levels of sunlight throughout the day), such as red peppers, would probably not be suitable for crops placed under actuator mounted solar panels.
Nevertheless, these advanced APV opportunities highlight an important problem, which is that plants can suffer from too much sunlight when they reach their light saturation thresholds. This can lead to the equivalent of sunburn and heat stress, causing increased levels of water evaporation. This inevitably leads to suboptimal crop growth and horticulture, an issue that will likely take a significant toll on food security in the coming years.
<h2>Research</h2>
According to a report from the Fraunh&ouml;fer Institute for Solar Energy in Germany, nearly all crops can be cultivated under solar panels in APV systems, with the caveat of some yield loss of these shade-intolerant plants during the autumn and winter seasons. They estimate that there is up to 1700 GW of technical potential in deploying APV across Germany. During a RESOLA project, conducted for two years in the Bodensee and funded by the BMBF, during the relatively wet and cold year of 2016, APV crop yield was 25% less than reference fields that did not have solar panels. However, in the relatively dry and hot years of 2017 and 2018, APV systems offered higher crop yields &ldquo;for winter wheat, potatoes and celery&rdquo;. This may signal the high applicability of APV in hot and arid regions, which are often the most vulnerable to food security issues. The Netherlands is the second largest exporter of food resources in the world, second only to the United States. The agricultural company GroenLeven, a subsidiary of major developer BayWa, has started several pilot APV projects with fruit farmers. In their largest pilot, a large 4-hectare raspberry farm in Babberich was converted to a 2MW APV farm, with the remaining area kept as traditional farmland for the raspberries. Raspberries are shade-tolerant fruit that are typically grown in rows (making it suitable for a solar installation) and are typically covered with some sort of plastic to protect them from the elements and prevent them squashing.
In the project, the raspberries were grown directly under stilt mounted solar panels facing east and west alternately to maximise solar ray yields and protect the raspberries from the wind. They used monofacial panels with larger spacing than in a typical solar farm to allow more of the light to get through.
It was found that the yield and quality of raspberries grown in APV environments was the same or enhanced as in the typical plastic covering environment. This also reaps benefits for farmers because they save work from managing the plastic tunnels that normally cover the raspberries. These plastic tunnels are easily crushed or damaged by summer storms and hail. This forces farmers to harvest fruit that cannot be sold, and with climate change leading to more unpredictable climates, these problems can significantly harm a farmer&rsquo;s ability to make a living. Under the stilt mounted solar panels, the raspberries under the panels sustained no damage, while the raspberries in the reference field were mostly destroyed. Also, the temperature under the solar panels in the APV field was several degrees cooler than in the reference field without solar panels. This shade makes working easier and more pleasant for farming workers, allows for greater diversity of crop cultivation (as a farmer can create cooler environments by adding vertically mounted solar panels to specific patches of land), and importantly reduces water use in irrigation by 50%, reducing costs of cultivation and demand on water resources. Interestingly, there is a benefit to the solar panels from the crops as well. In GroenLeven&rsquo;s project, they found that since the crops are evaporating water at a limited rate (as they are less likely to reach their light saturation points, this keeps the panels cool which maintains the energy efficiency of the panels. The cooler a panel can be, the more solar energy it can convert to electricity. This optimises revenues for a farmer between electricity generation and crop cultivation and meets both growing demands of food and electricity.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/ac0bfdc0f7ac5dcedfca76c70e4617ba185cba2b.png" alt="Figure 4: Solar Panel green houses (Source: Solar Impulse Foundation, Agrinergie. Accelerating the ecological transition between agriculture and energy production in territories. This illustrates how solar panels may also be integrated into greenhouse systems.)" />
That being said, a lot of research on APV is still needed for conclusive evidence to be drawn. Projects are fairly limited, with most projects only done with shade-tolerant crops like spinach, tomatoes, potatoes, lettuce etc. This means the compelling case for APV is somewhat limited at present.
<h2>The future of APV</h2>
APV does seem to create an efficient and necessary synergy between efficient agriculture and renewable energy generation. If Europe was to convert just a fraction of current agricultural land into APV systems, we would be able to meet a significant portion of our energy needs, while also improving crop yields for shade-tolerant plants and even slow down soil degradation. Additionally, areas such as the Middle East, which would benefit from integrated crop shade and reduced water consumption, could stimulate their agricultural sectors significantly through APV. However, though there are clear synergies between farming and energy production, farmers may be slow to embrace the technology due to lack of expertise in energy, causing anxiety concerning how solar panels may affect their crops. Unfortunately, one of the main barriers is likely to be the NIMBY effect (Not In My Backyard). This is a psychological barrier to technological advance in renewable energy as many do not take well to industrialisation in their area or near their home. A common example is the visual impact and noise pollution issues common when installing wind turbines.
In agriculture, there are also a range of strict and complex regulations that dictate a farmer&rsquo;s access to subsidies. APV installation may have a range of issues penetrating the market for these reasons, particularly in the EU. As part of agricultural policy, EU direct payments (grants), are given to &ldquo;land used primarily for agriculture&rdquo;. Whether an APV farm loses its eligibility for this subsidy has not yet been clarified by the EU Institutions.
There are other regulatory risks that also play into bureaucracy which can slow down growth of the APV sector. In the EU, the solar panel modules are considered a physical structure under building regulation laws, meaning one needs a building permit to begin an APV project. Also, in Germany, there is a lot of red tape around building structures in rural areas. It can only go ahead if it the building structure falls under a list of public interests. It has not yet been considered by any German authority whether APV should be on that public interests list. Finally, as with any major renewable project, the issue of investment costs and ability to sell is a major contributor to growth or stagnation. APV systems admittedly do not generate as much electricity as traditional ground-mounted solar farms per square metre, making the cost/MWh up to 20% higher. If the ownership between the solar panels and the farm is split (eg. a developer owns the panels, a farmer owns/generates profit from the arable land), it is unlikely to be economical for either party. This will also play into a farmer&rsquo;s willingness to install APV as they are likely reluctant to take on operational costs. Likewise, if the farmer does own the solar array, he or she may choose to optimise in one direction. Put simply, they may choose to optimise the solar array for crop cultivation and only prioritise energy generation to make up for shortfalls in crop yield, or benefit from spikes in energy prices. This would minimise the synergistic effects outlined as a key driver of APV&rsquo;s value.
Nevertheless, there are reasons to be hopeful. Though the NIMBY effect among local stakeholders has caused a delay in many renewable energy projects, this is often overcome over time. An example is the large biogas plants that are now relatively commonplace in Germany but were previously opposed by farmers and local communities.
For this reason, the growth of APV, to prevent immovable backlash, must be controlled and strategic. Regions such as the Netherlands and Germany, with expertise in agricultural systems and existing pilot projects, should likely lead the way in developing proof of success within the technology. Additionally, there are a range of developers who may build solar parks under the guise of agriculture and claim that it fits within the APV model. It is important, therefore, to be extremely clear about what counts as APV (vertical bifacial mounted, stilt mounted, and actuator mounted panels), and communicate this to farmers who may be targeted for potential projects. Overall, garnering community support and trust, as well as sector support and trust, will be essential to the growth of this technology in the future.
<h2>Industry recommendations</h2>
The Fraunh&ouml;fer Institute in Germany sets out the following recommendations for the future of APV:
<blockquote>1. Agrivoltaics should be deployed mainly where synergistic effects can be achieved, for instance reducing the water demand for crop production. 2. To maintain proper local support, agrivoltaics systems should preferably be operated by local farms, energy cooperatives or regional investors.</blockquote>
This article has sought to show that these two recommendations are very important and the local political economy of APV can be extremely complex. Though a promising concept that is potentially vital in the context of climate change mitigation and the urgency of the energy transition, government subsidies are likely necessary to make APV competitive with other renewable energy technologies. Regulation relating to APV is complex and slow changing, creating inertia that makes farmers reluctant and developers anxious about regulatory and technical risk. However, the potential to grow human crops with greater yield, or even biofuel crops such as corn, offers an attractive case for giving APV a try, particularly with the growing issue of global food security.
If governments, farmers and investors can find an economical way to generate one of the cheapest types of renewable energy with efficient advancements in agriculture, this movement towards APV could be a game changer which creates synergies between renewable energy deployment, efficient agriculture, soil regeneration or even reforestation.
Future Thought Leaders is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of rising Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
<h3>References</h3>
1. Fraunhofer ISE, APV-RESOLA &ndash; Agrophotovoltaic - A Contribution to Resource-Efficient Land Use
<a href="https://agri-pv.org/en/">2. https://agri-pv.org/en/</a>, Solar and energy transition
3. BayWa r.e. grows AgriPV across the Netherlands, <a href="https://www.baywa-re.com/en/news/details/baywa-re-grows-agripv-across-the-netherlands">https://www.baywa-re.com/en/news/details/baywa-re-grows-agripv-across-the-netherlands</a>​
4. Energy Innovation Policy &amp; Technology LLC, How &ldquo;Agrivoltaics&rdquo; Can Provide More Benefits Than Agriculture And Solar Photovoltaics Separately, <a href="https://energyinnovation.org/2021/11/01/how-agrivoltaics-can-provide-more-benefits-than-agriculture-and-solar-photovoltaics-separately/">https://energyinnovation.org/2021/11/01/how-agrivoltaics-can-provide-more-benefits-than-agriculture-and-solar-photovoltaics-separately/</a>​
5. Semchenko et. al, Positive effect of shade on plant growth: amelioration of stress or active regulation of growth rate, Journal of Ecology, British Ecological Society, Volume 100 (2), 12 December 2011.
6. Weselek et. al, Agrophotovoltaic systems: applications, challenges, and opportunities. A review, Agronomy for Sustainable Development 39, Article 35, 2019.

Lolade Aluko

Lolade Aluko

Clarity on carbon: are current testing standards sufficient?

Recent publications

Readers also like

Want to know more about illuminem Voices?