Desirable Small-Scale Solar Power Production in a Global Context: Local Tradition-Inspired Solutions to Global Issues

Introduction

Holistic Framework - Methodology

Figure 1. Visual Holistic Framework - Methodology Diagram Dyads related + grow -degrow process7.

Figure 1. Visual Holistic Framework - Methodology Diagram Dyads related + grow -degrow process7.

Figure 2. Visual Holistic Framework 7- Methodology Diagram Dyad Knowledge vs. Understanding, "the Knowledge vs Understanding diagram": Legend Scales O Object; L Locality; T Territory; G Global/ N Nature + B Built + E Energy; Grow – Degrow process from a Starting point, as Locality scale – polder.

Figure 2. Visual Holistic Framework 7- Methodology Diagram Dyad Knowledge vs. Understanding, "the Knowledge vs Understanding diagram": Legend Scales O Object; L Locality; T Territory; G Global/ N Nature + B Built + E Energy; Grow – Degrow process from a Starting point, as Locality scale – polder.

Table 1. Criteria related to Knowledge like/ 1-Technology, 2-Technical, 3–Active to achieve 1-Tradition, 2-Humanist, 3-Passive/as Understanding.

Table 2. 9 [DNSH] Do No Significant Harm principle.

NATURE10 — Regenerative Dyad "Tradition vs. Technology"

The Dyad examines the relationship between traditional and technological approaches in natural contexts, focusing on Biodiversity, agriculture, and environmental management. The research analyses how traditional agricultural practices and modern technological solutions can be integrated to enhance Biodiversity and ecological sustainability. The analysis is conducted across different scales, from individual plots to entire ecosystems. Specific attention is given to the role of wetlands, traditional water management systems, and their integration with modern agricultural technologies.

The chapter includes a detailed assessment of biodiversity metrics, carbon sequestration potential, and the impact of different land management approaches on natural systems.

Table 3. NATURE 1—Nowadays, the New "1—Tradition" needs to be perfected after many "1—Technology" implementations on different scales in a grow-degrow process.

Table 3. NATURE 1—Nowadays, the New "1—Tradition" needs to be perfected after many "1—Technology" implementations on different scales in a grow-degrow process.

Scale Global	correct assessment
Green	Increased Biodiversity of local species measures (after invasive species issues)
Agriculture	Following the Anthropocene-specific era of industrial agriculture, locally adapted cultures for regenerative. Pesticide-free European agriculture
Blue	Water management - longitudinal connectivity & transversal connectivity related to wild corridors (after Anthropocene excessive Hydropower measures, excessive micro hydro number)
Biodiversity	Wetland areas and longitudinal watercourse connectivity (following the Antropocene’s decreased Biodiversity)
Soil	Soil health measures are needed after the Anthropocene - specific soil degradation.
Risks related	Water Scarcity / Risks relevant to energy production are to be evaluated
Scale Object	plot
Green	Increasing biocapacity/ biodiversity
Agriculture	Pesticide-free crop rotation, Increasing Biodiversity
Blue	Irrigation canals needed/ ponds needed
Biodiversity	Increasing biodiversity measures, connectivity related to wild corridors
Soil	Pesticide-free crop rotation
Risks related	Water footprint/ Energy production to be evaluated
Scale Locality	dam/polder
Green	Increasing biocapacity/ biodiversity
Agriculture	Pesticide-free crop rotation, Increasing Biodiversity
Blue	Irrigation canals needed/ ponds&dams needed, longitudinal connectivity & transversal connectivity related to wild corridors
Biodiversity	Biodiversity improvement measures, such as meander renaturation, connectivity related to wild corridors
Soil	Pesticide-free crop rotation in an agricultural community
Risks related	Water footprint/ Energy production to be evaluated
Scale Territory	Hydrological Basin
Green	Increasing biocapacity/ biodiversity
Agriculture	Pesticide-free crop rotation, Increasing Biodiversity
Blue	Wetland areas, dams needed, longitudinal connectivity & transversal connectivity related to wild corridors
Biodiversity	Increasing Biodiversity measures for local species, connectivity related to wild corridors
Soil	Soil health improvement measures
Risks related	Water Scarcity /Biodiversity issues/ Energy production to be evaluated

BUILT11 — Regenerative Dyad "Humanist vs. Technical"

This Dyad analyses the intersection of humanistic and technical approaches in built environments. The research examines how cultural heritage, traditional building practices, and modern technical solutions can be integrated into agricultural and Energy infrastructure. The analysis covers heritage value assessment, cultural landscape preservation, and social aspects of development. Particular attention is paid to adapting traditional rural structures for modern energy production while maintaining their cultural significance.

The chapter thoroughly examines how indigene/traditional property boundaries and land use patterns can be preserved while incorporating modern renewable energy systems.

Table 4. BUILT 2—Nowadays, the New "2—Humanist" needs more "2—Technical" accomplishments, which are often repeated in the same grow - degrow process.

Table 4. BUILT 2—Nowadays, the New "2—Humanist" needs more "2—Technical" accomplishments, which are often repeated in the same grow - degrow process.

Scale Global	correct assessment
Recyclable	The existing built environment that supports PV systems
Heritage Value	Revitalizing the traditional household after vernacular heritage-specific degradation in the Anthropocene
Cultural Landscape	Revitalizing the cultural landscape after a possible Anthropocene-specific degradation
Social	Traditional agricultural plots for energy community / agrarian communities’ circular metabolism community.12
Degrowth	Revitalizing an intangible heritage through measures specific to traditional culture encompasses daily life routines that follow the circadian cycle and agricultural activities that follow the lunar cycle
Risks related	Risks relevant to energy production are to be evaluated.
Scale Object	plot
Recyclable	Built environment rehabilitation - photovoltaic support
Heritage Value	Cultural landscape preserved on traditional plots, particular heritage elements, as fences or others
Cultural Landscape	Traditional landscape design
Social	Social Impact of Agrarian/ Energy Communities
Degrowth	Agrarian/Energy communities according to a traditional design
Risks related	Risk of aggressive intervention in the cultural landscape
Scale Locality	dam/polder
Recyclable	Circular metabolism on a large scale as a metropolitan/ basin scale12
Heritage Value	Industrial dams – evaluated as industrial/technical heritage value
Cultural Landscape	Cultural heritage preservation
Social	Human-centred measures large-scale, infrastructure interventions with social impact evaluated
Degrowth	Degrowth and interconnectivity in large-scale infrastructure interventions
Risks related	Energy production / Biodiversity to be evaluated
Scale Territory	hydrological basin
Recyclable	Heritage preservation as a circular economy measure
Heritage Value	Heritage studies, thematic heritage visit route basinal scale
Cultural Landscape	Cultural landscape studies
Social	Circular metabolism12 / Energy / Agrarian communities
Degrowth	Heritage preservation as a degrow measure
Risks related	Biodiversity issues / Energy production to be evaluated

ENERGY^{13 14}—Regenerative Dyad "Passive vs. Active"

The Dyad explores the relationship between passive and active energy systems in agricultural contexts. The research analyses different energy generation and consumption approaches, examining carbon footprint, water footprint, renewable energy potential, and energy consumption patterns across various scales. The study includes a detailed assessment of how traditional passive energy systems can be integrated with active solar power generation. The analysis covers specific metrics for energy efficiency and environmental impact, including carbon sequestration potential and water usage efficiency in different agricultural systems.

Table 5. ENERGY 3—Nowadays, the New "3—Passive" achievement is achieved through an optimal "3—Active" process after a growth-degrowth process.

Table 5. ENERGY 3—Nowadays, the New "3—Passive" achievement is achieved through an optimal "3—Active" process after a growth-degrowth process.

Scale Global	correct assessment
Carbon footprint	Carbon sequestration through nature-based solutions measures
Water footprint	Related to hydrogen production and hydropower production
Renewable Energy	Agrivoltaics, translucent solar panels on irrigation canals, micro-hydro fish-friendly
Energy Consumption	Hydrogen production
Risks related	Water / Energy / Built / Biodiversity risks related
Scale Object	plot
Carbon footprint	Plot Carbon footprint / Carbon storage to be assessed
Water footprint	Irrigation needed
Renewable Energy	PV production to be assessed
Energy Consumption	Irrigation pump consumption to be evaluated
Risks related	Water / Biodiversity issues /Energy / Built risks related
Scale Locality	dam/polder
Carbon footprint	Carbon footprint / Carbon storage to be assessed
Water footprint	Hydrogen and hydropower production to be evaluated Irrigation needed, Biodiversity wetland needs
Renewable Energy	Hydrogen production/PV production to be assessed
Energy Consumption	Irrigation pumps consumption/Consumption in Hydrogen production to be evaluated
Risks related	Water / Biodiversity issues /Energy / Built risks related
Scale Territory	hydrological basin
Carbon footprint	Carbon storage to be assessed
Water footprint	Hydrogen and hydropower production and other consumers to be evaluated
Renewable Energy	Production to be assessed/ potential production
Energy Consumption	Consumers/potential consumers
Risks related	Water / Biodiversity issues /Energy / Built risks related.

New BUILT [S-SV] vs. [Z-AR] Regenerative Dyad "Humanist vs. Technical"

BUILT [S-SV] Study Case Traditional Rural Plots – Boroaia, Suceava County, Romania

Traditional rural plot - Historical assessment^18,19.

The origin of the Boroaia village name is based on the "hypothesis of transfer from Transylvania". This hypothesis is also mentioned in the monograph of the locality, which considers it reasonably certain20. The Banat area is remembered for the 150 families that left the village of Macea, Arad County, for Moldova, near Suceava21. Boroaia and Săcuţa are known to have been established around 1772-1774, but the documentation is unavailable.

Historical, village monography reveals some dates: "Boroaia is also a prehistoric locality (...) and on the terrace of the Tîrziu stream, (...) Neolithic (Cucuteni phase A)"22, archaeological protected – near Boroaia village Tumular necropolis Daco-Roman period (3rd - 4th century)23.

"Hydrological data". Săcuţa village24 / Secuţa in Moldavia (1892-1898) map is related to the Romanian Seaca river (name translation as Dry, Drain), a temporary flowing river. Decreasing the scale, a family plot area, "the names of some families (...) C. family name,"^25,26 appears as one of them, and teacher Nicolae Cercel27 remembered this family origin is from the Banat area, Transylvania28. The plot for the first family member, named C., dated 189929, bears the same name as that of other villages in the same county, such as SV3-Brosteni, a village with inhabitants of Transylvanian origin. The same origin of the relocated inhabitants was noticed for Fundu Moldovei village, Mălini, where the ditches appear as plot limits a particular measure for a wetland landscape, Păltinoasa, Stuplicani, Vatra Moldoviţei and Brodina de Sus30. Banat is a known wetland that is scarce in warm periods. The family origin seems to import the know-how for managing a related confluence of the rivers with wetlands areas in rainy times of the year and scarcity in warm periods. Diches on property limits, as well as landscape management related to different plot areas, ponds, springs and fountains, vegetation near flowing water, and related temporary wetlands, are some specificities related to an extended area of one family origin. The period related to the Anthropocene was well focused on agricultural production, and these land works were significant in one year, with specific traditions and cultural immaterial heritage. In the 2000s, the village decreased its activities due to relative abandonment. The reduced maintenance of land works affected the landscape and caused landslides near the watercourse. However, it also expanded vegetation to a degree of wildness that transformed wetlands into protected areas, a desirable post-Anthropocene regenerative design31. This evolution is also documented on GIS maps.

Figure 3 and Figure 4 are on the cadastral support image ancpi/geoportal map [S-SV], with areas related to the extended family marked with numbers. Ponds are also marked to define a blue-green corridor visible on the anterior map plans with decreased/increased green spaces related to the year affiliated - GIs maps from 2005 till 2024. Sentinele 2 land cover^32,33 year 2017 vs. 2024 compared, land cover evolution for plot 3 No marked in the context of changed land use. If the two Sentinel 2 maps reveal a decreased green area for the entire Săcuţa locality, the blue-green corridor increased can be noticed.

Figure 3. [S-SV] 2005; 2009; 2012; 2015; 2024 years, edited map source34.

Figure 3. [S-SV] 2005; 2009; 2012; 2015; 2024 years, edited map source34.

Figure 4. [S-SV] Area related to C. name family with ponds marked blue colour - families same name & origin 2021’s year map dated34No. legend: 1. Gheorghe C. - Cad. No. 30490 ; 2. Ion C.- no Cad. No. ; 3. Ilie C. V. – pond & fountain; no Cad. No. ; no Cad. No.; pink color underlined; 4. Ion C.- Cad. No. 34022; 5. Costache C.- pond; Cad. No. 34822; 6. Ion C. - no Cad. No. ; 7. Mihai C.- pond; Cad. No. 30161; 8. Gheorghe C. V. – pond; Cad. No. 33577.

Figure 4. [S-SV] Area related to C. name family with ponds marked blue colour - families same name & origin 2021’s year map dated34No. legend: 1. Gheorghe C. - Cad. No. 30490 ; 2. Ion C.- no Cad. No. ; 3. Ilie C. V. – pond & fountain; no Cad. No. ; no Cad. No.; pink color underlined; 4. Ion C.- Cad. No. 34022; 5. Costache C.- pond; Cad. No. 34822; 6. Ion C. - no Cad. No. ; 7. Mihai C.- pond; Cad. No. 30161; 8. Gheorghe C. V. – pond; Cad. No. 33577.

Figure 5. [S-SV] planimetric Ditoiu, N.C.’ sketch, edited map source^34.

Figure 5. [S-SV] planimetric Ditoiu, N.C.’ sketch, edited map source^34.

Figure 6. [S-SV] 6.1 Ditoiu, N.C.’ personal dated photos; 6.2 Ditoiu, N.C.’ Sections sketch with ponds and ditches, particular measures for a wetland landscape.

Figure 6. [S-SV] 6.1 Ditoiu, N.C.’ personal dated photos; 6.2 Ditoiu, N.C.’ Sections sketch with ponds and ditches, particular measures for a wetland landscape.

Figures 5 [S-SV] Planimetric sketch and Figure 6.2 [S-SV] other sketches of the No. 3 plot, Ilie C.’s plot traditional landscaping – sketched plan, land sections, and Figure 6.1 [S-SV] photos of the pond and watercourse wetland area. Every part of Plot No. 3 was landscaped in a family-oriented, almost urbanistic design environment, featuring a house with a front flower garden, a yard, a vegetable garden, a beehive yard, a cornfield, and a pasture, all delimited by numerous ditches and a natural wetland with a pond area. The pond continues the ponds set till the watercourse, with the natural wetland for most of the year boundaries by the Seaca watercourse.

New NATURE [Z-AR] Regenerative Dyad "Tradition vs. Technology"

Table 6. Biodiversity & Carbon Sequestration40 .

Table 7. Biodiversity metrics41 vs. G-res tool biodiversity metrics42.

Figure 7. ENERGY & NATURE & BUILT43.

Figure 7. ENERGY & NATURE & BUILT43.

New ENERGY [Z-AR] Regenerative Dyad "Passive vs. Active"

Agrivoltaics Production

During the 21st century, as Earth’s population continues to grow, the demand for food and Energy is also expected to rise. To obtain food, agricultural land will become one of the most sought-after assets on the planet. The trend to generate as much renewable Energy as possible will also need to continue in order to combat climate change and ensure our descendants a more sustainable and climate-neutral future. As an example, calculations performed by the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems (ISE) show that the installed PV capacity in Germany needs to increase by six to eight times by 2045 if the country’s energy system is to become climate-neutral46. Such figures can be extrapolated everywhere in the world. The proposal to combine land areas from polders used for agriculture with renewable energy production is one way to address food and energy demand concerns together.

As already presented in Table 5 for the ENERGY dyad "Passive vs. Active", the renewable energy-related assessment identified agrivoltaics or agri-PV, translucent solar panels on irrigation canals, micro-hydro fish-friendly facilities, and possible smaller-scale green hydrogen production facilities as potential renewable energy production sources. The expected energy consumers might be the agriculture-specific installations needed for growing the crops, like the irrigation pumps, but also the green hydrogen production facilities, if considered.

In some cases, the Energy generated by solar panels could be also used for ensuring the proper treatment for the water used for Irrigation. A research study from Morocco47 investigated the efficiency of a solar-powered single-stage distillation system for treating domestic wastewater, using heat to vaporise the wastewater, followed by condensation to produce purified liquid water. According to the authors, the system demonstrated increased distilled water production with rising temperatures. A water treatment system like the one mentioned, powered by solar panels, can achieve reductions in parameters like biological oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, suspended matter and heavy metals, producing distilled water which can be used for Irrigation even in periods of water scarcity. Solar Energy can be used also for powering desalination systems to attenuate water scarcity48, where seawater is available. However, the use of domestic wastewater as feed water supply when available outperforms seawater. When the polders are located close to rural villages, using wastewater as feed water supply might be an interesting option to better promote environmental sustainability, while the solar power generation can be further extended by creating rural energy communities using energy resources both from the villages and from the agricultural land plots within the polders.

Additionally, depending on the particularities of the territory or even locality scale of the land used for the polder, there can be also identified solutions for the connections to the power grid, in which case the surplus renewable energy generated inside the polder and inside the rural energy community, if case, might be exported into the rural power grid, while the eventual deficit of Energy might be imported as energy supply from the power grid.

Since the PV production is variable, depending both on the location, season, time of day, shading and other variables, to ensure a certain "in-band" production capability for the polder and energy community, if case, the use of storage systems will be also necessary.

It is obvious that renewable Energy requires land area, either if it is solar or wind based. Solar Energy is quite land intensive – for example, for a solar plant of 1 MWp it is necessary a ground area of at least 1 hectare (around 2.5 acres), with no shade. Other older sources consider even larger ground areas of 4-5 acres^49,50 or even 6-8 acres51 needed for 1 MWp, but since the efficiency of photovoltaic panels increased, the 1ha figure seems more accurate nowadays. Obviously, a better efficiency of the solar panel implies a better utilisation of the land area to generate electricity.

While panels based on regular monocrystalline silicone regularly achieve efficiencies of more than 20%-23%, emerging materials like perovskite, while easier to be produced at a lower cost, can already achieve around 25% efficiency values. Despite their faster degradation and stability issues, perovskite based photovoltaic panels present some interesting features. Unfortunately, perovskites are known to degrade fast in humid areas, or polders are located near riverbeds, where humidity is usually quite high. Also, the first generations of perovskites used in solar panels contained lead, posing additional environmental concerns. Researchers are currently studying different coatings, encapsulation, lead-free configurations and new formulations for the device structure. In such a research work52, the authors explored complex impedance and modulus over a wide frequency range, process which allowed them to identify certain diffusion, recombination, and ionic transport processes and to observe a correlation between the time constants for each process and the power conversion efficiency (PCE)52. During their analysis of lead-free Perovskite Solar Cells (PSC) were revealed intricate dynamics governing their performance52. The optimal thickness was identified as a critical factor influencing PCE, while the trends observed in ionic transport, recombination processes, and electronic diffusion showed a delicate balance required to maximise charge transport while minimising recombination losses. The findings52 emphasised that selecting the appropriate thickness for the absorbing material and recognising the impact of series and shunt resistance in enhancing the efficiency of lead-free PSCs are utterly important steps.

Additional to the specific solar panels selected to be used, the ground area needed for renewable energy production will also have to accommodate the other elements needed to build a PV system such as inverters, cables, single axis mounting systems, tracking systems, access roads, connection to the grid, etc. While solar panels seem to be the better option for agrivoltaics inside polders, it is worth mentioning that compared to solar Energy, the overall average direct impact area for wind parks is around 0.3 ± 0.3 hectares/MW for permanent impact and 0.7 ± 0.6 hectares/MW for temporary impact, meaning that a total direct surface area disruption of about 1.0 ± 0.7 hectares53 is needed for 1 MW of installed power.

The previously mentioned estimations are based on the fact that the entire land is used for renewable generation.

While intensive agriculture for ensuring food safety competes for land with renewable energy sources for providing the power, colocation is possible especially for solar power generation by using agrivoltaics (agri-PVs). Given climate change threats, agrivoltaics may reduce inter-annual economic outcome fluctuation due to the frost and high-temperature negative effects on crops by generating economic outcomes through energy production54. Using agrivoltaics technology can also provide some benefits for crops as it can create a specific microclimate beneath the solar panels by altering factors like air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, wind direction and soil moisture. The panels shield crops from both excessive solar radiation and adverse weather conditions like strong rains and hail, potentially also reducing water consumption and stabilising yields during dry years.

One reason to consider perovskite solar panels instead of polycrystalline or monocrystalline silicon ones for agrivoltaic systems is due to their capability to absorb more light of the solar spectrum. Another feature of perovskite panels is that they can be printed on thin, flexibles substrates, the resulting product being lighter and more suitable to be used on the structures appliable for agrivoltaics. Perovskites present also some tunability properties, in the sense that their structure can be tuned for absorbing specific wavelengths of the incident light and that way they can be used for building transparent panels, suitable for covering both irrigation channels and for direct agrivoltaic applications. As a result, for some type of crops, solar panels based on PSCs can be tuned to ensure a certain shade level, optimum for those specific crops. Depending on the shade accepted by different crop types in agrivoltaics, achieving a high efficiency of more than 30% might be possible if using a solar panel combining perovskite and silicon. This can be achieved if perovskite would be tuned to handle one part of the light spectrum, while silicon will handle the other. Even if PSCs are not yet the perfect replacement for silicone and polders are humid, wet and many times both foggy or sunny areas, causing existing PSCs to be less stable and degrade faster over time, research efforts similar to the ones already mentioned52 will certainly improve upon these drawbacks and will recommend the use of PSCs for agrivoltaic applications, either stand alone or in tandem panels (together with silicone), while their flexibility and tunability for transparency will recommend them in specific architectural configurations for the supporting structures. While PSCs are not quite ready to replace silicon in large-scale agrivoltaics applications today, they show huge promise for greenhouse-integrated PV, low-light crop systems, and future hybrid solutions. With improvements in durability and lead-free options, they could become an excellent choice for agrivoltaic installations such as those proposed to be used inside polders, where low-light crops are easier to be grown due to the specific microclimate.

Since different crops can be grown on the same land, agrivoltaics also support Biodiversity and contributes to climate change mitigation through sustainable agricultural practices55.

Polders are land plots well suited, especially on their wetlands, for agrivoltaics. That way, polders can be beneficial not only for water management and flood defence but also for conserving Biodiversity and growing certain agricultural crops while generating renewable Energy at the same time.

However, while for solar Energy generated by PV panels located on land plots used only for renewable energy generation the specific values already mentioned for energy production might be around 1 MW / hectare or even less, in the case of colocation, when the same land plot is used both for agriculture by growing specific crops, and for energy production, the value of MW / hectare would decrease, but even so, agrivoltaics can increase yields for some specific types of crops, like fruits and berries, by up to 16%55 Using the land within the plots in this way makes it more efficient thanks to combined electricity and food production.

Within the polders the solar panels will be placed in a way that does not affect significantly the crops - either above crops that benefit from shading, like berries (see Figure 8), or between crops to enable the use of farming machinery (see Figure 9). While in the first case, for fruits and berries, there is instead an increase in yields, in the latter case, the revenues from the sales of generated electricity compensate the reduction in crop yields.

Agrivoltaic systems can range from overhead solar used especially for fruit orchards and berry plantations to interspaced vertical solar between main crops like roots, wheat or oats, in the latter case also allowing access space for farming machinery (tractors, ploughs, etc.).

In overhead agrivoltaic systems, a clearance of sufficient size (usually 2-4 m) ensures adequate space for the plants underneath. In interspaced agrivoltaic systems, row-to-row spacing can exceed 10 m to accommodate farming machinery. Sometimes, inter-spaced agrivoltaic systems might also comprise solar photovoltaic panels (PVP) installed at a certain tilt angle, or even solar trackers, which vary the position of the panels in relation to the sun to optimise both electricity production and crop shading patterns, depending on the crop used.

Usually, agri-photovoltaic (APV) panels are east-west oriented, allowing their daily electricity generation profile to be quite wide compared to south-facing panels. They also exhibit higher efficiencies, even during cooler times of the day.

As a result, even without energy storage added to a polder where east-west oriented APV panels are used, due to their wider generation profile, such systems can be used for grid balancing easier, reducing curtailment and energy exports during the time of day when electricity prices are higher.55

Vertical PV systems, used especially for interspaced agrivoltaics, have the added benefit of fully utilising the bifacial features of modern solar panels, reaching capacity factors similar to traditional ground-mounted solar farms, despite an east-west orientation.55 While apparently colocation of solar Energy and farming seems to decrease the yields in lands, studies^55,56 showed that they can increase yields for specific categories of plants, depending on location and weather: crop yields for berries or fruits can increase by 15-16% under 35% shade, compared to an unshaded reference, being a perfect fit for overhead agrivoltaic systems (see Figure 10) and also a perfect candidate for future improved perovskite based or even perovskite combined with silicone based solar panels.

Figure 10. Overhead APV effects on different crops yields, shading 35% [55,56] (facsimile Source of data: EMBER study).

Figure 10. Overhead APV effects on different crops yields, shading 35% [55,56] (facsimile Source of data: EMBER study).

Figure 11. Interspaced APV effects on different crop yields, shading 15%[55,56] (facsimile Source of data: EMBER study).

Figure 11. Interspaced APV effects on different crop yields, shading 15%[55,56] (facsimile Source of data: EMBER study).

The EMBER study55 conducted for Central European countries and published under a Creative Commons ShareAlike Attribution Licence (CC BY-SA 4.0), using data from another research56 showed that crops such as cereals (e.g. wheat, rye, oats), maise and root vegetables, are more sensitive to shading. The study concluded that with 15% shading, cereals will decrease yield by only 11%, root crops by 12%, and maise by over 20%. By contrary, forages (such as grasses) can increase by 4%. Interspaced agrivoltaic PV system row-to-row spacing of about 10 m limits the shading to between 10% and 20% and could combine all those crops, ensuring at least a level of 80% crop yields compared to a reference (see Figure 11). Even though the yields of different types of crops can be reduced, one significant advantage of agrivoltaic systems resides in their higher productivity, resulting from the combined production of food and electricity, meaning that the efficiency of land use is significantly increased compared to the use of land just for farming or just for producing renewable Energy.

Land use efficiency is measured as the sum of solar electricity generation compared to a traditional ground-mounted solar farm plus the crop yield compared to an unshaded reference55. Depending on the crop type, the results can reach 170-180% for berries, fruits and fruity vegetables and 110-130% for root vegetables, cereals and forages. Even the least shade-tolerant crop, maise, reaches 104% land use efficiency, showing that agrivoltaics will be more productive than the traditional approach of separating ground-mounted solar and farmingEroare! Marcaj în document nedefinit.. A synthetic view of the land use efficiency for different types of crops is illustrated in Figure 12:

Agrivoltaic solar generation varies depending on multiple parameters, including height, row spacing, tilt, geographic location, panel orientation, transparency, bifaciality ratio, and tracking. The relative generation compared to a traditional solar farm ranges from 25% for interspaced agri-PV to 63% for overhead agri-PV.

The lower solar generation is predominantly because less solar capacity can be installed per hectare. Considering a capacity of 1 MW per hectare is assumed for traditional solar farms, agrivoltaic systems can achieve capacities ranging from 0.3 MW/ha to 0.7 MW/ha46, as confirmed by shading analysis performed using the AGRIPV tool developed by the KU Leuven University from Belgium57. Capacity factors were calculated during the study55 conducted for Central European countries using the Python package for calculating renewable power potentials and time series Atlite58, assuming bifacial east-west vertical panels for interspaced agrivoltaics and 15 degrees tilted east-west for the overhead system.

The EMBER study55 also showed that the capital expenditure (CAPEX) for agrivoltaic projects is significantly higher than for traditional ground-mounted solar farms due to the particularities of the mounting system.

An estimate of the levelized cost of electricity (LCoE) over twenty years shows that overhead agrivoltaics (with clearance heights of 2.1/2.5 to 4 m) can be approximately 40% more expensive than ground-mounted PV systems. In contrast, for interspaced agrivoltaics, this increase is only about 11%. However, both agrivoltaic systems are considerably cheaper (40-50%) than rooftop solar used in regular households or industrial projects.

Romania shares many similarities with countries in Central Europe regarding the specificities of agrivoltaics, intended to avoid energy demand competing with food demand for land use. Even if a Romanian case was not considered in the EMBER55 document, other research papers have studied the agrivoltaics’ potential of the country. One such example59 is analysing a case study for a land plot of approximately 16.2 hectares located in southeast Romania, used for cereal production (mainly wheat), with an average productivity of 2.74 t/ha/year. The region is known for its flatness, and the land plot that was analysed also has a maximum slope of 2 degrees, making the installation of PV mounting structures easier and less expensive compared to other terrains.

The scenarios analysed were one in which bifacial monocrystalline PV modules adding up to 8.58 MWp were considered to be installed vertically in the interspaced APV configuration, a second one in which the panels were installed in the overhead APV configuration on a fixed mounting structure at a 30-degree tilt angle, calculated so that the modules would not shade the crops over a specific period of time, adding up to 13.2 MWp, and the reference scenario was considered for conventional PVP with a 30-degree tilt, adding up to 23.1 MWp.

Based on the quotations received from the local market, the research59 showed that an average specific cost for developing the project was around 850 EUR/kWp for the conventional PVP scenario, 950 EUR/kWp for the interspaced APV scenario and 1,300 EUR/kWp for the overhead APV scenario, figures which are roughly quite similar to the ones mentioned in the EMBER55 study.

The research59 performed a technic-economic analysis based on the Net Present Value (NPV), the Internal Rate of Return (IRR), the Simple Payback Period (SPV) and the Benefit-Cost Analysis. The analysis has been performed for a 25-year lifetime of the investment and used input data such as the discount rate (14%/year), the export electricity price (considered for Romania as 90 EUR/MWh, taking all relevant markets into account, such as the Day Ahead, Intra Day and the Balancing Market) with a specific escalation rate (7.5% / year), the wheat price (330 EUR / ton) and its escalation rate (2.5% / year).

The analysis (BAU or Business As Usual) has considered a fourth scenario for exploiting the land only for agricultural purposes.

Table 9 shows some of the financial results of the study59:

According to these findings, for specific input data which are also dependent on local market conditions, the NPV, IRR and SPP values for a conventional PVP project are significantly better than for the two agrivoltaics scenarios, while between the two agrivoltaics scenarios, the overhead APV one provides better values than the interspaced APV one.

The conclusion is that a conventional PVP project will be more profitable than an APV project.

However, since agricultural land is essential for ensuring food safety, to preserving the agricultural function of the land, legislators should act in the sense to limit the use of land only for energy production, or encourage through incentives the use of agrivoltaics systems to generate both food and electricity, or to use both approaches simultaneously. A more focused approach might be to enable agricultural companies or agricultural cooperatives to have access to financing toward implementing agrivoltaic projects from which those companies might benefit directly for the needs of growing their crops (like Irrigation, water treatment, if case, running electric farming machinery, different processing stages requiring power etc.).

The previously mentioned Romanian research paper59 estimated, depending on location and crop type, an average need of 4,260 m3 of water for each hectare of arable land required for Irrigation, which implies a demand of around 1.2 MWh/ha/year for electricity needed for water extraction and pumping. At the same time, if using electric farming machinery, their need for power consumption might also be ensured by the renewable Energy produced on-site if properly configured. If the grown crop is wheat, the arable land would need a minimum of three farming machinery passes per year59 – the first for preparing the soil for seeding, the second for seeding and the final for harvesting the crop. Considering that the farming machinery are electric vehicles (e.g., tractors, ploughs, combine harvesters etc.) and their power consumption might be around 80 kWh/100 km, respectively around 0.8 kWh/ha/pass, this adds up to a power consumption of only 2.4 kWh/ha/year59 for the farming machinery.

Even if considering it an order of magnitude more significant, the value (0,024 MWh/ha/year) remains still small compared to the power needed for Irrigation (1.2 MWh/ha/year), adding to a total of 1.224 MWh/ha/year. Since the interspaced APV configuration analysed in the mentioned paper59 has been estimated (using PVSyst) at an energy production of around 6,670 MWh/year, it can be seen that even this less efficient configuration does ensure a power production capability to provide power for several thousands of hectares of agricultural land. The overhead APV system energy production was estimated at more than double compared to the interspaced APV system, more exactly at 13,200 MWh/year, providing a much larger power reserve in the land plot.

In Romania, the installed capacities in PVP are intended to be increased by 3,665.84 MW in the near future^59,60. Considering the required land mass for 1 MWp conventional PVP as 1 hectare, the increase in capacity will need at least 3,666 ha of land. Romania has a good solar potential for developing PVP projects, with solar irradiance values ranging between 1,000 to even more than 1,350 kWh/m2/year59, depending on the location. However, the agricultural potential of Romania overlaps in many areas with the solar potential map, meaning that the most profitable solar parks will have to compete with land plots with significant agricultural production capacities.

Polders are land plots which are usually considered for water defence and management purposes, where conventional PVP are not suitable to be installed, because some areas can be intentionally or non-intentionally flooded, so in this case the fact that both APV solutions are less profitable than conventional PVP configuration is less relevant. As a result, the idea to use agrivoltaics for such zones, which otherwise wouldn’t be used at all for solar production, allows a very constructive coexistence between energy production and agriculture, even if the capacity factors are significantly smaller, depending on the selected APV system, compared to conventional PV systems.

Obviously, since portions of the land in polders are intentionally flooded sometimes, the APV system which best suits such land plots is the overhead one, its construction structure allowing the exposed parts of such a system to be never flooded.

For the Zerindu [Z-AR] polder (more precisely for a specific plot at latitude 46.638291° and longitude 21.565599°), where the land can be used both for Biodiversity and agricultural production plus energy production through agrivoltaics, this research considered the simulation of around 1 MWp overhead APV system installed on the plot by using 180 rows of around 24 m length resulting in a total of 1,800 bifacial solar panels of 560 Wp (having a bi-faciality factor of around 80%), installed at 2.2 meters above the ground using a light structure to pose less shade on the crop. This configuration results in a land plot use as shown in Figure 13 of 16,584 m² for about 1 MWp, or roughly around 1.7 ha for 1 MWp, which is higher than the land use for traditional PV systems (1 ha for 1 MWp), meaning that the overhead APV land use for energy production is about 58% compared to the land use for energy production of a traditional PV system. This value resulted considering only the agrivoltaics PV panels for the necessary land use, but if adding the other necessary element (connection cables, access ways, cabinets, inverters, etc.) this value will decrease even further. The necessary land surface has been determined according to the example shown in Annex 4 of the French Government Instruction technique DGPE/SDPE/2025-93 regarding "Application of the regulatory provisions relating to ground-based photovoltaic and agrivoltaic installations in natural, agricultural and forest areas"61.

The proposed APV system orientation is east-west, and the tilt angle is 15 degrees, while the module transparency is 40%. The behaviour of the APV system has been simulated using the AGRIPV web tool57 developed by the KU Leuven University from Belgium as part of a Horizon 2020 project (however, considering a system ten times smaller, with only 18 rows of overhead APV panels instead of 180 rows, due to simulation limitations).

The specific energy yield resulting from the simulation for the berries crop is 1,256.58 MWh/MWp/year, while the monthly distribution of produced Energy is shown in Figure 17.

Figure 14. [Z-AR] Monthly distribution of specific solar yield in the polder (extracted from the simulation report).

Figure 14. [Z-AR] Monthly distribution of specific solar yield in the polder (extracted from the simulation report).

If comparing the specific energy yield resulted from the AGRIPV simulation for the configuration proposed, the value of 1,256.58 MWh/MWp/year is quite comparable to the specific value of 1.576,89 MWh/MWp/year resulted from the PVSyst simulation performed as part of the study in Ialomița county59, validating the overall approach for the similar APV configuration proposed here. The rather small difference is explainable due to the different locations and incident sunlight as well as other specific configuration parameters (type of panel, efficiency, tilt angle, etc.).

According to the simulation tool’s notes, it uses the weather data input based on Typical Meteorological Year data format (TMY) collected from PVGIS (2006-2016)62, the albedo of the field is fixed at 0.3, the tracking angles are limited from -50° to +50° and a backtracking algorithm is active to minimise row-to-row shading, the crop simulations are based on relative crop yield curves56 and only the shade caused by the PV modules is simulated in detail. For the shade caused by the support structure, the tool uses fixed parameters.

The remaining PAR percentage represents how much Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) still reaches the crops on average compared to a reference area without agrivoltaics – this value has been estimated by the web tool to be around 83%.

In the context of growing berries, respectively fruits on the land plot considered in the polder, the relative crop yield (compared to a reference land without solar) is shown in Figure 15.

It is worth mentioning that for the calculated remaining PAR of 83%, the relative crop yield is 112% for berries, meaning that in the presence of overhead APC, for specific crops like berries, the yield is greater than in the absence of shading from the overhead APC, making crops like berries suitable for being grown in the polder. A similar simulation shows that for fruit orchards, the relative crop yield at a remaining PAR of 83% is 111%, almost identical to that of berries. These simulation results confirm the findings from the EMBER55 study in a qualitative sense, because for fruits and berries a certain level of shade leads to an actual increase in the yield. Quantitively, for 83% of the light reaching the crops, their yield increases to 111-112%.

Since the relative crop yields are significantly lower for root crops, the access of farming machinery on wetlands as the ones in the polders is more difficult due to the Nature of the soil and the interspaced APV systems would be prone to flooding, in the polders the growability of root vegetables has been considered less suitable than berries or fruit orchards, which can be more easily grown on lands with collocated overhead APV systems whose structures makes them less prone to flooding.

For berry and fruit orchards, the power consumption of any specific machinery used inside the polders will be negligible compared to the power produced, meaning that the Energy generated in the polders will be usable mainly for Irrigation. Since the polders do usually have enough space to extend the overhead APV systems, the installed peak power might be expanded significantly to approach also other possible energy-intensive applications like small-scale green hydrogen electrolysis using water taken from the river near the polders, if the prerequisite conditions for water use and consumption might be met. Additionally, if the water used for Irrigation uses wastewater as input source and needs treatment, the distillation process could be also powered through solar Energy. If the local grid conditions allow, the overhead APV systems to be used together with berries or fruit production on the same land plot might also be connected to the grid, serving local communities or exporting the surplus power further into the grid.

Solar Storage Potential

Solar storage could include green hydrogen production and fish-friendly micro hydropower, but a more detailed technical design is needed to be implemented in a future design proposal. The Dyad related to ENERGY may examine various approaches to solar energy storage in agricultural settings, as in Figure 17.

A fish-friendly micro-hydro power plant associated with a lateral dam or water reserve area near the watercourse could be considered for one of the two discussed polders. However, this research stage analyses the possible and desirable aspects without detailing technical solutions, focusing solely on the potential for green hydrogen production and the potential of fish-friendly micro-hydropower systems.

The study includes more of a list than lists and technical specifications. It analyses the potential, rather than the feasibility, of green hydrogen production for implementing fish-friendly micro-hydropower systems without detailing technical solutions or specifications for different storage methods.

Figure 16 is a concept sketch of the study case [Z-AR] Zerindu polder, Arad county, and the related replicability case study - Tămaşda polder, Bihor county, with measures noted, both on Crişul Negru river.

Figure 16. [Z-AR] Ditoiu, N.C.’s sketch, replicability case study - Tămaşda polder, Bihor county & Study case - Zerindu polder, Arad county: planimetric sketch, Polders Zerind & Tămaşda Sketch63, the two polders with solving related to the legend. 1. watercourse; 2. polder boundary dike with inner polder contour channel; 3. old rehabilitated canal; 4. old pier inside the polder dismantled and arranged as a canal/wetland; 5—inland agricultural land for polders 6. Biodiversity /water level digitalisation.

Figure 16. [Z-AR] Ditoiu, N.C.’s sketch, replicability case study - Tămaşda polder, Bihor county & Study case - Zerindu polder, Arad county: planimetric sketch, Polders Zerind & Tămaşda Sketch63, the two polders with solving related to the legend. 1. watercourse; 2. polder boundary dike with inner polder contour channel; 3. old rehabilitated canal; 4. old pier inside the polder dismantled and arranged as a canal/wetland; 5—inland agricultural land for polders 6. Biodiversity /water level digitalisation.

Figure 17. Replicability study case - Tămaşda polder, Bihor county, and study case – [Z-AR] 15Zerindu polder, Arad county, with the same proposed measures:.

Figure 17. Replicability study case - Tămaşda polder, Bihor county, and study case – [Z-AR] 15Zerindu polder, Arad county, with the same proposed measures:.

• ENERGY AREA: APV plots, fish-friendly micro-hydropower, and existing irrigation canal—transparent photovoltaic covering;
• NATURE AREA: Renaturation for meanders with wetland/pond areas. The old internal polder dike was removed to transform the canal into a wetland area.

Discussions

Table 10. Evaluation with a similar SWOT method.

Conclusion

References

1. Alexander, Christopher., The Nature of Order: An Essay on the Art of Building and the Nature of the Universe-The Phenomenon of Life (Center for Environmental Structure, Berkeley, California, 2014, first ed. 1980).
2. Bellstedt, Carolin., Gerardo Ezequiel Martín Carreño, Aristide Athanassiadis, Shamita Chaudhry, METABOLISM of CITIES (CityLoops-D4.4–Urban Circularity Assessment Method, Version 1.0 <2022-05-31>).
3. Bennett, John G., Elementary systematics: A Tool for Understanding Wholes (Bennett Books, the Estate of J.G. Bennett, United States of America, 1993).
4. Brown, Martin., FutuRestorative: Working Towards a New Sustainability (RIBA Publishing, 2016).
5. Czyżak, Paweł., Tatiana Mindeková, Empowering farmers in Central Europe: the case for agri-PV (EMBER: Published, 2024).
6. Denholm, Paul., Mohammed Hand, Maddalena Jackson, Sini Ong, Land-Use Requirements of Modern Wind Power Plants in the United States (National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Innovation for Our Energy Future, Technical Report: NREL/TP-6A2-45834, 2009).
7. Dilip da Cunha, The Invention of Rivers: Alexander’s Eye and Ganga’s Descent (Publisher: University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 2019).
8. Dițoiu, Nina Cristina., Ph. D. Thesis – Summary "The regenerative culture of the built environment: Multicriteria decisions in the double-way spiral", 2023.
9. Diţoiu, Nina Cristina., Mihaela Ioana Maria Agachi, Mugur Balan, Newness touches conventional history: the research of the photovoltaic technology on a wooden church heritage building (WMCAUS 2020 IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 960 (2020) 022055 IOP Publishing Part of ISSN: 1757-899X).
10. Droege, Peter., ed., URBAN ENERGY TRANSITION Renewable Strategies for Cities and Regions (Elsevier, 2018).
11. El Hafidi, El Mokhtar., El Ghaouti Chahid, Abdelhadi Mortadi, Said Laasri, Study on a new solar-powered desalination system to alleviate water scarcity using impedance spectroscopy (MaterialsToday: PROCEEDING, March 2024).
12. Ferreira, Carla S.S., Milica Kašanin-Grubin, Marijana Kapović Solomun, Svetlana Sushkova, Tatiana Minkina,.
13. Wenwu Zhao, Zahra Kalantari, Wetlands as nature-based solutions for water management in different environments (Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health Volume 33, June 2023, 100476).
14. Gheorghiu, Cristian., Mircea Scripcariu, Gabriela Sava, Miruna Gheorghiu, Alexandra Lidia Dina, Agrivoltaics potential in Romania – A symbiosis between agriculture and energy (EMERG, Volume VIII, Issue 3/2022 ISSN 2668-7003, ISSN-L 2457-5011). [CrossRef]
15. Ghinoiu, Ion., (coordonator general) Habitatul. Răspunsuri la chestionarele Atlasului Etnografic Român (Volumul II Banat, Crișana, Maramureș, ISBN 978-973-8920-21-7 Ed. Etnologică, București, 2010). (Volumul III Transilvania, ISBN 978-973-8920-31-6, Ed. Etnologică București, 2011). (Volumul IV Moldova, ISBN 978-973-8920-23-1 Ed. Etnologică, București, 2017).
16. Hawken, Paul., Regeneration: Ending the Climate Crisis in One Generation (Penguin Books: UK, 2021).
17. Heidegger, Martin., The Question Concerning Technique (Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Ed. David Farrell Krell, New York: Harper Collins, 1993).
18. Heidegger, Martin., Întrebarea privitoare la tehnică, in: Originea operei de artă, translated by Gabriel Liiceanu after: Die Frage nach der Technik (Vortrage und Aufsatze, Teil I, Neske, Pfullingen, 1967), (reprint, Bucharest: Humanitas, 2011).
19. Honeck, Erica., Arthur Sanguet, Martin A. Schlaepfer, Nicolas Wyler, Anthony Lehmann, Methods for identifying green infrastructure (SN - Published online: 28 October 2020).
20. Kindel, Peter J. Biomorphic Urbanism: A Guide for Sustainable Cities (Why ecology should be the fondationa of urban development: Medium SOM, Apr 2019).
21. Kumar N.M.,; K. Sudhakar,; M. Samykano, Techno-economic analysis of 1 MWp grid connected solar PV plant in Malaysia (International Journal of Ambient Energy: Vol. 40, No. 4, 2019).
22. Laasri, Said., El Mokhtar El Hafidi, Abdelhadi Mortadi, El Ghaouti Chahid, Solar-powered single-stage distillation and complex conductivity analysis for sustainable domestic wastewater treatment (Environmental Science and Pollution Research: Volume 31, April 2024).
23. Laub, Moritz., Lisa Pataczek, Arndt Feuerbacher, Sabine Zikeli, Petra Högy, Contrasting yield responses at varying levels of shade suggest different suitability of crops for dual land-use systems: a meta-analysis (Agronomy for Sustainable Development: Volume 42, June 2022).
24. Leach, Neil., Uitati-l pe Heidegger/Forget Heidegger (bilingv, Ed. Paideia, Bucuresti, Romania, 2006).
25. Lin, David., Laurel Hanscom, Adeline C Murthy, Alessandro Galli, Mikel Cody Evans, Evan Neill, Maria Serena Mancini and others, Ecological Footprin Accounting for Countries: Updates and Results of the National Footprint Accounts, 2012-2018 (MPDI Resources, 2018). [CrossRef]
26. Mortadi, A.; E. El Hafidi,; H. Nasrellah,; M. Monkade,; R. El Moznine, Analysis and optimisation of lead-free perovskite solar cells: investigating performance and electrical characteristics (Materials for Renewable and Sustainable Energy: 2024).
27. Ong, S.; C. Campbell,; P. Denholm,; R. Margolis,; G. Health, Land-Use Requirements for Solar Power Plant in the United States (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-56290, June 2013).
28. Sagmeister, Stefan, Jesssica Walsh, Sagmeister & Walsh – Beauty (Book: Phaidon Press Ltd, London, 2018).
29. Saunders, Paul J. Land Use Requirements of Solar and Wind Power Generation: Understanding a Decade of Academic Research (Publisher: Energy Innovation Reform Project, Nov. 2020).
30. Scripcaru, Gheorghe., Boroaia O reintoarcere in spirit (Monografie reeditată comuna Boroaia, 2013).
31. Seamon, David., Place, Place Identity, and phenomenology: a triadic Interpretation based on J.G. Bennett’s Systematics (The Role of Place Identity in Perception, Understanding, and Design of Built Environments, Editors: Hernan Casakin and Fatima Bernardo, Bentham Science Publishers, 2012).
32. Tapia, Carlos., Marco Bianchi, Mirari Zaldua, Marion Courtois, Philippe Micheaux Naudet, Andrea Bassi, Philippe Micheaux Naudet and others, CIRCTER - Circular Economy and Territorial Consequences (ESPON: Applied Research, Final Report, 2019).
33. Widmer J.; Christ B.; Grenz J.; Norgrove L.; Agrivoltaics, a promising new tool for electricity and food production: A systematic review, (Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews: March 2024). [CrossRef]
34. Weisauer, Caro., 100 Questions about Hundertwasser (100 X Hundertwasser. Artist-Visionary-Nonconformist, METROVERLAG: 2016).
35. Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE, Agrivoltaics: Opportunities for Agriculture and the Energy Transition (A Guideline for Germany: February 2024).
36. VERS UN CADASTRE SOLAIRE 2.0, note no. 148, april 2019, APUR (atelier parisien d’urbanisme) Directrice de la publication: ALBA, Dominique, Note réalisée par: Gabriel SENEGAS, Sous la direction de : Olivier RICHARD, Cartographie et traitement statistique: Apur, www.apur.org.
37. Vallée de la Seine, enjeux & perspectives, Dynamiques agricoles et alimentaires, Coopération des agences d’urbanisme APUR, AUCAME, AURBSE, AURH, L’INSTITUTE, Vallée de la Seine, contrat de plan inter- régional État-Régions Vallée de la Seine, 2021.
38. Romanian Government: The 2021-2030 Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan (April 2020),.
39. Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan of ROMANIA (2021-2030 Update).
40. Gouvernement de France, Ordre de méthode: Instruction technique DGPE/SDPE/2025-93 (Objet: Application des dispositions réglementaires relatives aux installations agrivoltaïques et photovoltaïques au sol dans les espaces naturels, agricoles et forestiers).