Agrivoltaics enjoys comparatively high acceptance
Photovoltaic systems are increasingly being installed not only on roofs but also on open land. This does not always meet with citizens' approval. What is known as agrivoltaics (Agri-PV), however, is viewed more favorably, as researchers at the University of Bonn have now been able to show. In this case, the solar cells are installed in spaces used for agriculture — such as on pastures or as a canopy over grapevines. According to a survey of almost 2,000 people, this form enjoys much higher acceptance than normal solar parks. The study has been published in the journal Land Use Policy .
Solar electricity is an important environmentally friendly energy source. However, the light-sensitive panels swallow up a great deal of space. Many citizens also consider the systems to be unattractive and annoying — especially if arable land and grassland has been sacrificed for them.
One alternative is what is known as agrivoltaics. This involves installing the panels on land that continues to be used for agriculture — grain fields, pastures, apple orchards, or vineyards. 'They usually reduce the yield,' explains Hendrik Zeddies from the Center for Development Research (ZEF) at the University of Bonn. 'However, they sometimes also create synergies. For example, the solar cells can be used as a transparent canopy to protect fruit trees or grapevines from hailstones or harsh sunlight. On wheat fields, they often serve as wind protection — similar to a wall or a hedge.'
Cows graze between solar panels
The study that has now been published also shows that agrivoltaics offers a further advantage that should not be underestimated: It clearly enjoys much greater acceptance among the public than conventional solar parks. This is at least what the results of an online survey involving almost 2,000 men and women from Germany indicate. Zeddies is one of its initiators, alongside his colleagues Dr. Martin Parlasca and Prof. Dr. Matin Qaim, Director of the ZEF.
The respondents were chosen in such a way that their composition with regard to age, sex, education, income, and state of residency reflected the German population. They were initially given information on the advantages and disadvantages of agrivoltaics and conventional solar parks on open land. They were then assigned at random to one of three groups. The first saw photos of a pasture and, as a comparison, a meadow on which long rows of solar panels stood between the grazing cows. Similarly, the second group looked at pairs of images of a wheat field with and without solar panels, the third of a vineyard. These images were each compared with pure solar parks in the same landscape scene.
'We asked the participants how they assessed the intervention in the respective landscape,' explains Zeddies. 'For instance, how attractive or unattractive they found the areas shown or how they assessed their recreational value.' In addition, they were asked to state whether they would be willing to accept a price premium for the electricity produced in the respective areas — or the reverse: Whether they would pay money to prevent the solar park.
Almost 44 percent would pay more for agrivoltaic electricity
The results show that agrivoltaics met with much higher acceptance — regardless of the scenario shown: Almost 44 percent would pay more for electricity from these areas; however, only 29 percent would be willing to do so for normal solar parks on open land. Just 2.9 percent would also finance measures to prevent agrivoltaics out of their own pockets — the figure was 4.8 percent for conventional parks. Although the respondents were generally of the opinion that photovoltaics impairs the view of the landscape, these negative impacts were lower in their eyes when it came to agrivoltaics — presumably because it makes a difference whether solar energy production is pushing agriculture aside or whether energy and food production are combined.
'Our survey is hypothetical — the participants do not really have to spend any money,' stresses Prof. Dr. Matin Qaim, who is also a member of the Transdisciplinary Research Area (TRA) 'Sustainable Futures' and the Cluster of Excellence 'PhenoRob.' 'Nevertheless, the results allow us to conclude that agrivoltaics meets with greater acceptance among the public than normal open-space solar systems.' Agrivoltaics could, therefore, be a way to accelerate the development of environmentally friendly energy without provoking major conflicts among the population and jeopardizing food security.
However, Zeddies, who himself grew up on a farm, still sees unanswered questions. For instance, the costs for these systems are higher than for conventional open-space systems. As agrivoltaics also delivers lower electricity yields, these initial investments only amortize very slowly. 'Without subsidies, it will presumably not be possible to install many systems,' he says.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Cancer Moonshot: Bristol-Myers Just Dropped $11 Billion on a Single BioNTech Drug
Bristol-Myers Squibb (NYSE:BMY) is doubling down on its oncology ambitions with a deal that could reach $11.1 billion, partnering with BioNTech (NASDAQ:BNTX) to co-develop a next-generation cancer therapy known as BNT327. The German biotech will receive $1.5 billion upfront, $2 billion in staggered payments through 2028, and stands to gain another $7.6 billion if clinical and commercial milestones are met. Both companies will share development costs and future profits. The deal reflects growing urgency among pharma giants to replenish their pipelines, as legacy blockbusters face generic competition. Bloomberg Intelligence estimates this class of immunotherapy drugs could generate $60 billion annually by 2027. BNT327's backstory adds intrigue. BioNTech originally licensed the compound from Chinese biotech Biotheus in 2023 before acquiring the company outright for up to $950 million. It's now positioning the therapy as a core asset in its oncology portfolio. While early trial data suggests Pfizer's competing drug may show stronger efficacy, BioNTech is further along in developing broader cancer indications. The approach behind these drugs is evolving fastmerging immunotherapy with anti-angiogenesis mechanisms to cut off tumors' blood and oxygen supply. This model gained traction after Akeso and Summit Therapeutics' combination therapy showed promising results against Merck's Keytruda in a major Chinese trial. Still, the bar remains high. These new therapies haven't yet demonstrated a consistent survival advantage over standard treatments, and head-to-head data outside China could take years. For BioNTech, though, this deal marks a decisive return to its original focuscancerafter riding a pandemic-era wave with its COVID-19 vaccine. Bristol-Myers also gains optionality: the ability to pair BNT327 with other in-house experimental compounds. With both firms now locked into a shared bet on combo therapies, this could be a pivotal move in a rapidly shifting oncology landscape. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Cancer Moonshot: Bristol-Myers Just Dropped $11 Billion on a Single BioNTech Drug
Bristol-Myers Squibb (NYSE:BMY) is doubling down on its oncology ambitions with a deal that could reach $11.1 billion, partnering with BioNTech (NASDAQ:BNTX) to co-develop a next-generation cancer therapy known as BNT327. The German biotech will receive $1.5 billion upfront, $2 billion in staggered payments through 2028, and stands to gain another $7.6 billion if clinical and commercial milestones are met. Both companies will share development costs and future profits. The deal reflects growing urgency among pharma giants to replenish their pipelines, as legacy blockbusters face generic competition. Bloomberg Intelligence estimates this class of immunotherapy drugs could generate $60 billion annually by 2027. BNT327's backstory adds intrigue. BioNTech originally licensed the compound from Chinese biotech Biotheus in 2023 before acquiring the company outright for up to $950 million. It's now positioning the therapy as a core asset in its oncology portfolio. While early trial data suggests Pfizer's competing drug may show stronger efficacy, BioNTech is further along in developing broader cancer indications. The approach behind these drugs is evolving fastmerging immunotherapy with anti-angiogenesis mechanisms to cut off tumors' blood and oxygen supply. This model gained traction after Akeso and Summit Therapeutics' combination therapy showed promising results against Merck's Keytruda in a major Chinese trial. Still, the bar remains high. These new therapies haven't yet demonstrated a consistent survival advantage over standard treatments, and head-to-head data outside China could take years. For BioNTech, though, this deal marks a decisive return to its original focuscancerafter riding a pandemic-era wave with its COVID-19 vaccine. Bristol-Myers also gains optionality: the ability to pair BNT327 with other in-house experimental compounds. With both firms now locked into a shared bet on combo therapies, this could be a pivotal move in a rapidly shifting oncology landscape. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
The ugly truth of Trump's America first agenda
The United States became the undisputed leader of the "free world" after World War II for a lot of reasons, but one of the most important was the fact that so many of the most renowned scientists who had been displaced during the war came to America. This was especially true of German Jews and some of their comrades who were chased out of Germany when the Nazis took power. It was a massive brain drain that hobbled the German war effort and benefited the Allies greatly. As reported in the book "Hitler's Gift" by Jean Medawar and David Pyke, Germany had long been the acknowledged world leader in the hard sciences. Between 1901 and 1933, it had won a full one-third of all the Nobel Prizes. Between 1933 and 1960, it won only eight. According to the book, 'some 2600 scientists and other scholars left Germany within the first year [alone], the vast majority of them Jewish. Twenty-five per cent of all physicists were lost from German universities in an insane squandering of talent.' Almost all of them emigrated to the United States and the U.K., winning a vast number of Nobel prizes in the ensuing years. They included such luminaries as Albert Einstein, Edward Teller, Leo Szilard, John von Neumann, Hans Bethe and Stanisław Ulam among many others. This ended up being Hitler's gift to America which spent the next 90 years welcoming the very best minds from around the world to study here and do the research that made the U.S the world's leader in physics, medicine, chemistry and economics which has led to the astonishing innovations such as this contraption you're reading this on right now. The alliance between the federal government and the great American research universities is one of the most successful public-private partnerships in history. The parallels between what happened to Germany's scientific community and what is happening here isn't perfect, but it's close enough. The Trump administration has embarked on a concerted effort to end America's role as a world leader in science and innovation. They aren't singling out Jewish scholars, although plenty of Jews will be caught up in it. They are instead using a blunderbuss to blast the whole system by targeting foreign students for deportation and defunding the research that will lead to the breakthroughs of the future. There is no logical reason for any of this. Their reasons change day to day. One day it's because the research is "DEI" which simply means we have no need to understand anything about diverse populations. Another day it's withholding money for universities allegedly because of antisemitism and revoking Harvard University's right (and probably others in the future) to enroll foreign students. Now we've gone into full red scare McCarthyism toward Chinese students and scientists. Listen to the Secretary of Homeland Security speak about it over the weekend: That's just ignorant smearing by someone who doesn't even know what habeas corpus is. But it's a problem since our secretary of state has just announced that he will 'aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students." There are over a quarter of a million of them studying in the country as well as other Chinese and Chinese-American researchers who are very heavily represented in the scientific fields. They are now being hunted, apparently because our government doesn't value scientific innovation and wants them to go elsewhere to share their talents and ambition. According to the American Association of Universities: [A] recent brief from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) found that the NIH has canceled $1.9 billion in funding across hundreds of grants over the past few months. 'This year's terminations of biomedical research grants funded by the National Institutes of Health are unprecedented in the history of the agency,' stated AAMC in the brief. Every day, there are stories of researchers seeing their life's work being capriciously destroyed without any thought or consideration for the value they bring to the country's economic and social well-being. Foreign scientists working in the country are harassed by ignorant customs officials and, in some cases, thrown in prison on spurious grounds. It's impossible not to see this as another example of an authoritarian government purging the country of its finest minds simply as a way of exerting control. To make matters even worse, we seem to be also intent upon replacing our scientific community with woo-wellness influencers and conspiracy cranks, led by none other than the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert Kennedy Jr. It's a lethal one-two punch. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is eagerly anticipating that they will reap the benefits of "Trump's Gift." According to Politico, he has sparked Europe's "New Enlightenment." European universities and top politicians have mobilized in response to Trump's domestic measures, creating new initiatives aimed at attracting top foreign talent to Europe by offering generous grants and greater academic freedom. Earlier this month, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and French President Emmanuel Macron unveiled a €500 million plan named 'Choose Europe for Science' aiming to lure foreign researchers to the EU.[...] The Commission last month announced plans to accelerate visa procedures to attract U.S. researchers and EU research ministers met in Brussels on May 23 to discuss how to increase Europe's competitiveness in science and innovation. China and India are also stepping up efforts to lure foreign talent and keep their own at home. All of this is going to affect not just the cutting-edge medical advances, but it's also going to affect U.S. business competitiveness and the jobs of the future. The dynamism of the American economy has been the envy of the world for decades, but we are throwing away the very engine that drives it. But then, the Trump administration keeps insisting that Americans yearn to work in factories and eschew material things in order to engage in more spiritual pursuits, so perhaps our future really lies with supplying the rest of the world with consumer goods while they engage in the services and investing that made America wealthy in recent years. In some ways, it's odd that Trump would go along with all this. He's always been a big admirer of the MIT big brains like his uncle, who taught there (which he often uses as validation of his own alleged genius), and he went to Penn as did Don Jr., Ivanka and Tiffany, and it's an Ivy League school. But then he does have tremendous status envy, which was exacerbated during the pandemic when he commonly made a fool of himself with his attempts to discuss serious scientific subjects. And he certainly senses how much his followers loathe the intellectual elite. At this point, the battle with Harvard is simply a battle of wills. He wants to see them crawl. Whether they do or not, much of the damage is already done. The top scientific talent from around the world is already seeking opportunity elsewhere and they are being offered plenty of incentives. It's only a matter of time before American talent does the same because they won't have the support or the resources to do their work here anymore. It's a hell of a "gift" to the rest of the world. So much for America first.
