Agrivoltaics Explained: Can India Grow Crops and Solar Power on the Same Land?

Dual use: Agrivoltaics, also called agri-photovoltaics or AgriPV, combines agricultural production and solar photovoltaic electricity generation on the same land. Crops may grow below elevated panels or between sufficiently spaced panel rows.

Defining test: Agricultural activity must remain meaningful. Replacing cultivation entirely with a conventional solar park is a different land-use model.

Photovoltaics: A solar photovoltaic cell converts sunlight directly into electricity. Solar thermal systems instead capture the sun's heat.

Current announcement: At the Agrivoltaics World Conference in New Delhi during 21–23 October 2026, the government emphasised farmer-centred expansion. The official opening release records an announced agrivoltaic programme under the next phase of PM-KUSUM.

Policy status: An announcement of intent should be distinguished from final notified operating guidelines, tariffs, subsidy rates and eligibility. Those details must be checked against the eventual scheme documents rather than inferred from speeches.

Land challenge: India needs land for food production, renewable energy, settlements and infrastructure. Agrivoltaics seeks to reduce competition between farming and electricity generation where dual use is feasible.

Scheme identity: Pradhan Mantri Kisan Urja Suraksha evam Utthaan Mahabhiyaan is MNRE's programme for decentralised renewable power and solarisation of agricultural pumping.

Component A: Decentralised ground- or stilt-mounted grid-connected renewable power plants. Existing guidelines already permit cultivable land where elevated structures allow crops below.

Component B: Standalone solar agricultural pumps.

Component C: Solarisation of grid-connected agricultural pumps, including relevant feeder-level arrangements. A feeder is a distribution line supplying a group of electricity consumers.

Local conditions: Microclimate means temperature, humidity, wind and light conditions immediately around plants. Panels redistribute sunlight and shade during the day.

Possible benefit: Partial shade can reduce excessive heat and water loss in suitable hot, dry settings. Evapotranspiration is the combined loss of water through soil evaporation and plant transpiration.

Possible cost: Excessive shade can reduce photosynthesis, the process by which plants use light to make food. Changes in airflow, humidity and rainfall distribution can also alter disease risk or create uneven growing conditions.

Biological differences: Crops vary in light requirements, heat sensitivity, growth form and critical stages such as flowering. A design suitable for one vegetable cannot automatically be recommended for a cereal crop.

Site differences: Soil, irrigation, season, latitude and panel layout influence performance. Lower crop yield in one trial does not prove universal unsuitability; improved yield in another does not guarantee success everywhere.

Research need: ICAR-IARI's AgriPV facility is intended to test crop configurations and develop a suitable crop matrix. Recommendations should come from local, multi-season comparisons with comparable open-field cultivation.

Space: Panel height and the distance between support columns must permit ploughing, spraying, harvesting and safe movement of the machinery actually used locally.

Light: Wider spacing, panel orientation and adjustable arrangements can balance electricity capture with crop-light requirements. More panel coverage can increase power generation while worsening crop shading.

Water and soil: Panel edges concentrate runoff. Drainage, harvesting channels and erosion control matter alongside foundations, cable routing and electrical safety.

Flexibility: Farmers should retain practical scope to change crops rather than becoming locked into one crop solely because of the structure.

Combined output: Compare the crop output and electricity generated by a dual-use system with the outputs from separate agricultural and solar plots under comparable conditions.

Illustration: Suppose one hectare produces 80% of the crop output of an agriculture-only hectare and 60% of the electricity from a solar-only hectare. Producing both outputs separately would require 0.8 plus 0.6 hectares, or 1.4 hectares. The combined land-equivalent ratio is 1.4.

Interpretation: This hypothetical example shows a land-saving advantage despite reduced crop output per hectare. It does not establish profitability or food-security acceptability; those require separate assessment.

Farmer-owned plant: The cultivator finances and operates the project, using electricity or selling it under applicable arrangements. Upfront capital and technical maintenance become major responsibilities.

Developer partnership: A developer may install and operate panels while a farmer continues cultivation and receives agreed rent or a revenue share. Rights and risks depend on the contract.

Collective model: Farmer Producer Organisations and cooperatives may pool access to finance, technical services and markets. This is a possible implementation approach, not an automatic entitlement under every scheme.

Engineering: Taller supports, stronger foundations and layouts accommodating agriculture can require additional material and civil works.

Official estimate: The government's conference release cited a 25–30% cost premium for elevated and tilted agrivoltaic structures. This is an indicative assessment, not a guaranteed cost for every project.

Full economics: Profitability depends on financing, crop income, electricity tariff, grid access, maintenance and payment reliability. Technical solar potential is not the same as economically feasible installed capacity.

Agricultural priority: Electricity revenues must not encourage nominal farming that disguises conversion of productive cropland. Yield, crop quality and cultivated area need monitoring.

Smallholder inclusion: Expensive structures and fragmented holdings can exclude small farmers. Informal tenants and women cultivators may miss benefits where contracts recognise only recorded landowners.

Contract risk: Agreements should specify access, crop-loss responsibilities, rent escalation, insurance, dispute resolution and restoration of land after project closure. Ownership and cultivation rights require separate protection.

Interdependence: The water-energy-food nexus describes the links between water use, power supply and food production.

Rebound risk: Solar pumping can lower the marginal cost of pumping water. Without appropriate incentives or groundwater controls, farmers may extract more water even if the equipment uses cleaner energy.

Resource efficiency: Crop choice, irrigation scheduling and efficient systems such as drip irrigation should be assessed together. Solarisation does not by itself guarantee water conservation.

Evidence: Trials should measure crop yield and quality, soil condition, water use and electricity output across seasons, rather than only installed megawatts.

Grid integration: Nearby distribution capacity, reliable purchase agreements and timely payments determine whether generated power earns revenue. Solar output is variable; storage or complementary supply may be needed for particular uses.

Public value: A successful model improves the combined use of land while maintaining viable agriculture and fair farmer returns. Scaling should follow demonstrated local performance rather than a single national template.