Comparative Experimental Performance Assessment of Tilted and Vertical Bifacial Photovoltaic Configurations for Agrivoltaic Applications

Abstract

Agrivoltaics—the co-location of photovoltaic energy production with agriculture—offers a promising pathway to address growing pressures on land, food, and clean energy resources. This study evaluates the first agrivoltaic pilot installation in Jordan, located in Amman (935 m above sea level; hot-summer Mediterranean climate), during its first operational year. Two 11.1 kWp bifacial photovoltaic (PV) systems were compared: (i) a south-facing array tilted at 10°, and (ii) a vertical east–west “fence” configuration. The tilted system achieved an annual specific yield of 1962 kWh/kWp, approximately 35% higher than the 1288 kWh/kWp obtained from the vertical array. Seasonal variation was observed, with the performance gap widening to ~45% during winter and narrowing to ~22% in June. As expected, the vertical system exhibited more uniform diurnal output, enhanced early-morning and late-afternoon generation, and lower soiling losses. The light profiles measured for the year indicate that vertical systems barely impede the light requirements of crops, while the tilted system splits into distinct profiles for the intra-row area (akin to the vertical system) and sub-panel area, which is likely to support only low-light requirement crops. This configuration increases the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) by roughly 88% compared to a conventional ground-mounted system due to elevated structural costs. In contrast, the vertical east–west system provides an energy yield equivalent to about 33% of the land area at the tested configuration but achieves this without increasing the LCOE. These results highlight a fundamental trade-off: elevated tilted systems offer greater land-use efficiency but at higher cost, whereas vertical systems preserve cost parity at the expense of lower energy density.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

The interplay of water, energy, and food security is globally significant and ripe for research, and Jordan is a prominent location for these complex and interdependent challenges. The country faces extreme water scarcity, limiting its agricultural production and, consequently, food security [1,2]. Jordan also lacks domestic primary energy resources, such as oil and natural gas, making it heavily dependent on imported fossil fuels while it transitions a portion of its dependence onto renewable resources. This reliance exposes the country to fluctuations in global energy markets, with direct impacts on other economic sectors, particularly transportation and imports [3]. All this, coupled with growing climatic changes, rapid population growth, and urbanization, has exacerbated Jordan’s resource challenges further [4].

In response to energy security and environmental concerns, Jordan has expanded its renewable energy (RE) capacity, particularly through solar photovoltaic (PV) installations. By 2022, RE contributed to approximately 26% of Jordan’s total electricity generation, marking a significant shift towards sustainable energy solutions [5]. The government of Jordan has affirmed its intention to increase the share of renewable energy in the national electricity mix from 31%, as outlined in the national energy strategy (2020–2030), to 50%. The energy strategy is currently under revision to reflect these more ambitious objectives [6].

1.2. Agrivoltaic Systems

A holistic nexus approach tackling the issues simultaneously is necessary for effective positive change, and agrivoltaic systems stand out as a solution. Agrivoltaic systems, which combine solar energy generation with agricultural activities on the same plot of land, present a promising solution for arid regions like Jordan. These systems enhance land use efficiency by allowing for crops to be cultivated under solar panels, thereby improving resource utilization and addressing both energy and food production needs [7]. The shading effect of the panels can potentially provide numerous benefits, including crop protection from extreme weather, reduced soil water evaporation, renewable energy generation, improved land-use efficiency, higher crop yields, and irrigation water savings. Together, these effects contribute to a more sustainable and resilient approach to managing Jordan’s resource challenges [8].

Jordan encompasses three main agricultural climatic regions: the Jordan Valley, the Highlands, and the Desert area, also known as the Badia. More than 90% of the country’s area is characterized by arid conditions, receiving less than 200 mm of annual precipitation [9,10]. The average annual rainfall ranges from about 600 mm in the northwest to less than 50 mm in the southern and eastern regions [11]. The fluctuating precipitation and rising temperatures adversely affect the country’s fragile agricultural land resources, necessitating the adoption of adaptive strategies to ensure sustainable agricultural production [12,13,14]. The country is identified as one of the world’s most resource-poor nations, particularly in terms of fresh water, a situation exacerbated by climate change [15]. Jordan’s agricultural sector is projected to decline in food production by as much as 14% by 2050 if effective adaptation measures are not rigorously implemented [16].

1.3. Study Aims

This study presents the design of Jordan’s first pilot agrivoltaic project and compares the performance of two bifacial photovoltaic (PV) array configurations. The scope of this study is the crop-less implementation across a full year, covering all seasons, which would be the baseline for future studies and guide the choice for the first set of crops to be used in the studies. The configurations consist of a vertically mounted east–west system and a south-facing tilted system at a fixed angle. These systems are installed within the premises of the Applied Science Private University in Jordan. By integrating bifacial solar panels with crop production, the study seeks to explore the energy generation potential of the agrivoltaic project and provide initial observations on the agricultural component.

1.4. Recent Studies

Recent emphasis and interest in agrivoltaic systems highlight their significance in optimizing land use for both energy and agricultural production. A recent publication investigated the technical potential of agrivoltaic systems in Jordan [7]. The study identified that approximately 9.5% of Jordan’s land area was suitable for agrivoltaic systems, highlighting their potential to enhance water and energy security. The research suggested that the adoption of agrivoltaic systems on just half of the country’s irrigated summer tomato fields could meet the 50% renewable energy target of the country and conserve up to 8.6% of its water budget. This finding underscored the viability of agrivoltaics within Jordan’s specific context [7].

In agrivoltaic systems, a thorough understanding of the interactions between crops and solar panels is essential, as these factors jointly influence crop growth, yield, quality, and overall system performance [17]. Earlier studies reported that crop shading in agrivoltaic systems can, in some cases, lead to yield reductions; however, under specific climatic conditions, it can also provide protection from extreme weather conditions that enhance crop yield and quality [8,18]. Combining strategic management, careful selection of crop types, and PV configurations in an agrivoltaic system can also deliver additional ecological benefits. This includes enhanced biodiversity and improved water-use efficiency relative to conventional systems [19]. Prior research findings also reveal that panel shading mitigates drought stress, increases crop productivity, and reduces PV heat stress, demonstrating synergistic benefits that strengthen system resilience to future heat and drought conditions [19].

Prior studies on this synergistic integration optimized for the unique challenges and opportunities presented by the given environment [20]. The results support the possibility of higher economic returns, lower electricity costs, and shorter payback periods compared to conventional ground-mounted systems. A balance must be struck between energy generation and crop productivity, while also ensuring compliance with existing regulatory frameworks and standards [21]. The viability of agrivoltaic systems across diverse geographical contexts depends on parameters, such as system design (panel height, interspace distance, configuration, etc.), recent technical advancements, as well as the agronomic aspects (crop selection and yield performance) [22,23]. Altogether, this concludes that each environmental condition requires a specific design.

Various classifications of agrivoltaic systems already exist [24], which standardize categorization based on attributes like application, farming type, and PV structure. Three configurations: static with optimal tilt, vertically mounted bifacial, and single-axis tracking have been studied [25]. These studies and models found that vertical and single-axis tracking configurations yielded more, with an optimal density of about 30 W/m² for agrivoltaic systems. The study conducted at Germany’s largest agrivoltaic research facility, established in 2016 project by the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems (ISE), evaluated both electrical yield and crop performance under an agrivoltaic system. The design, characterized by a vertical clearance of 5 m and a width of up to 19 m, enables extensive mechanized farming. Four crops (potato, celeriac, clover grass, and winter wheat) were cultivated under the system and on a reference field. Results indicated that the Land Equivalent Ratio (LER) increased by 56–70% in 2017, with productivity gains approaching 90% during the dry and hot summer of 2018. Radiation modeling further demonstrated that orienting panels approximately 30° off south achieved uniform ground-level light distribution, forming the foundation of the system’s design. Their findings again highlight agrivoltaics as a promising and efficient approach to enhancing land productivity and addressing challenges related to climate change and land scarcity [26].

Concerning panel selection and its effect on agrivoltaics, studies on global optimization of vertical bifacial solar farms, integrating local irradiance data and considering light impacts, are available [27]. Their findings showed that vertical bifacial farms generate 10% to 20% more energy than traditional monofacial farms, with additional gains through reduced soiling and tilt optimization. Other research developed a multi-objective model for vertically mounted bifacial systems, confirming that row distance significantly affects Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) distribution and suggested that maximizing the Land Equivalent Ratio (LER) can be the major compromise between agricultural and electricity production [28]. Another study compared bifacial PV array topologies to conventional monofacial systems, revealing significant increases in specific yields: 39% for E-W vertical, 18% for E-W wings, and 13% for S-N facing configurations. The E-W vertical arrangement was presented as ideal for permanent crops, while the S-N facing topology requires shade-tolerant crops for summer cultivation. The E-W wings configuration offers a balance, providing effective noon shading and uniform light distribution [29]. Another study examined installation parameters affecting bifacial systems, confirming that height and albedo influence performance, while tilt angle effects vary [30].

A comprehensive methodology was advanced for agrivoltaic system design, integrating technological and spatial parameters. Ensuring an adequate elevation between the PV module and the ground is crucial to enhance sunlight reflectance and maximize bifacial gain [31]. Consequently, the module elevation emerges as a key factor significantly influencing electric energy production in the agrivoltaic system. A study on the impact of PV module elevation on the distribution of ground light revealed that for east–west vertical PV farms mounted at E ≥ 1 m, the ground global reflection (GGR) achieves homogeneity, indicating the necessity of spatial uniformity in ground irradiance for optimal crop yield [32].

1.5. Performance Evaluation

Regarding performance evaluation, key performance indicators (KPI) have been proposed for evaluating agrivoltaic systems, including ground coverage ratio (GCR), energy and agricultural yield, and water savings [24]. KPIs are required for comparative studies, such as grape growth, in facilities with and without solar PV modules, demonstrating that solar-power systems can coexist effectively with agriculture [33]. Instead of KPIs, models were also developed for the performance evaluation of agrivoltaic systems in South Korea, providing tools for assessing cost-effectiveness and profitability [34]. These studies highlight the importance of factors like PV topology, row spacing, and environmental conditions. With all this progress, few studies have explored agrivoltaic systems in a context like Jordan’s, or in Middle Eastern countries more broadly, which face unique challenges due to the arid climate and limited water resources.

1.6. Agricultural Component

The Daily Light Integral (DLI) represents the cumulative amount of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) received by plants over a 24 h period and is expressed in mol·m⁻²·d⁻¹ [35]. It is calculated by integrating the instantaneous photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD—µmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹) over time, as defined in Equation (1). Unlike PPFD, which varies continuously throughout the day, DLI provides a time-integrated measure of daily light availability and thus serves as a more reliable indicator of photosynthetic potential under agrivoltaic conditions. Consequently, DLI is widely used to evaluate the impact of photovoltaic shading on crop growth and to guide crop selection and yield optimization in agrivoltaic systems [36]. A general classification of plant light requirements based on DLI levels, ranging from low to very high lights presented in

Table 1. General classification of plant light requirements based on Daily Light Integral (DLI) levels as adopted from [37].

Source/Study	DLI Bands (mol·m−2·day−1)	Example Crops
[37]	Low: 3 < DLI < 6	Herbs, Himalayan mushroom
	Medium: 6 < DLI < 12	Basil, carrot, cauliflower
	High: 12 < DLI < 18	Lettuce, spinach, mint
	Very High: DLI > 18	Pumpkin, watermelon
[38]	Low: DLI < 10	Rice is an example of a medium-light crop (15–25 mol m−2 day−1).
	moderate: 10 < DLI < 20
	High: 20 < DLI < 30
	Very High: DLI > 30

. This links DLI ranges with representative crop types for agrivoltaic applications.

$$DLI={\int }_{t=0hr}^{t=24hr}PPFD \left(t\right) dt$$

(1)

1.7. Energy Component

This study is the first in Jordan to experimentally assess agrivoltaic systems. The focus is on the design and configuration of the PV component using bifacial panels in order to set a year-long benchmark prior to crop introduction. This research aims to provide localized data and models, evaluating tilted versus vertical PV systems’ energy yields in the Jordanian context. Vertical bifacial PV can yield competitive (or even superior) energy output in climates with high diffuse light or reflective terrain and offers practical advantages like reduced soiling and land use efficiency [39,40]. This pilot confirms the energy shortfall for vertical vs. tilted configurations in Jordan, with context-specific tweaks like albedo effects and Jordan’s dusty environment [40]. This result provides design constraints used in all future agrivoltaic projects in Jordan, allowing for more accurate economic analyses.

The Jordan pilot can be seen as a practical validation of the various challenges and constraints that could potentially be encountered in an agrivoltaic project. This is intended as a reference, translating the theoretical water–food–energy nexus benefits into on-the-ground data.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site and Climatic Data

The pilot agrivoltaic project is located within an agricultural plot on the campus of the Applied Sciences University in Amman (32°02′33.7″ N 35°54′00.6″ E). Figure 1 shows the site layout, which includes both the experimental plots and a reference control plot. A weather station is installed to track basic climatic conditions such as wind speed, temperature, humidity, and solar irradiance. Supplementary sensors are also present to record crop growth parameters and microclimatic variations under each of the agrivoltaic configurations separately.

The climatic conditions recorded by the on-site weather station during the year preceding the first agricultural season of the experiment are presented in Figure 2. This 1-year baseline dataset serves as a reference for evaluating future solar production and agricultural performance under agrivoltaic operations. The maximum and minimum monthly values are illustrated by the colored range in each subplot. The reason behind a full year of solar production by itself is to have a baseline across the seasons, as each crop may influence the system differently through its evapotranspiration characteristics.

2.2. Configuration

The setup for this study involved two PV systems; the first system is a fixed-tilt configuration at a 10-degree panel tilt angle. The second system was a vertically mounted east–west configuration.

Table 2. PV panel specifications.

Specification	Value
Open circuit voltage (V)	51.20
Short circuit current (A)	13.64
Rated voltage at maximum power (V)	42.10
Rated current at maximum power (A)	13.19
Rated maximum power at STC (W)	555
Cell efficiency (%)	21.5

summarizes the main parameters for the PV modules that were used in the experiment.

2.2.1. Fixed Tilted System

The fixed-tilt PV system was designed with a structural height of 2.4 m (lower edge) to allow for physical access for farmers to cultivate and harvest crops below the structure, as in Figure 3. This elevated design ensures that agricultural activities are not blocked while attempting to maximize the land’s dual-use for energy production and agriculture. A total of 11.1 kWp of PV panels were installed in this system (20 modules, 555 Wp each). A 10° tilt was selected as an agrivoltaic design compromise rather than a PV-only energy optimization step for Amman. Low-tilt configurations are commonly adopted to reduce row-to-row/self-shading and to limit shading gradients over crops. For this elevated system, the tilt is further constrained by farming access and structural requirements. With a front-edge ground clearance of 2.4 m and a rafter length of 4 m, increasing the tilt from 10° toward the PV-only optimum for Amman (~28–30°) [41] would raise the rear-edge height by around 1.3 m (that is, [$4\times \left(\sin 30°-\sin 10°\right)$]). This would substantially increase the overall structure height, wind loads, and cost. PVGIS sensitivity runs for Amman under identical assumptions (same azimuth and system losses) indicate that the annual specific yield at 10° is only ~4% lower than at 30°, implying a modest energy penalty relative to the agrivoltaic and structural benefits.

The top view of the elevated fixed-tilt structure is illustrated in Figure 4, showing the arrangement of PV panels across 12.5 m, with 2.5 m intervals between supporting columns. The columns are constructed from double C160 × 2 mm steel sections, providing sturdy vertical support. The steel structure nearly doubled the capital cost relative to a conventional PV mounting system. Figure 5 presents the foundation layout of the structure, which occupies approximately 4.32 m² near the soil surface. Due to the combination of local soil conditions and anticipated wind speeds during construction, the foundation blocks had to be larger than originally planned to prevent buckling. This, however, did not affect agricultural requirements, like cultivator-path or irrigation installations. Figure 6 shows the cross-sectional side view of the structure.

2.2.2. Vertical East–West System

The second system consists of PV panels mounted vertically in an east–west configuration. As illustrated in Figure 7 and Figure 8, the system consists of two strings, each string has 10 PV modules mounted in a landscape orientation, which keeps the structure lower to the ground to better mitigate wind effects and cut down on the structure’s costs. Due to the foundation blocks, approximately 10.8 m² of the plot’s soil surface is subtracted from the agriculturally available space.

2.2.3. Monitoring System

This system integrates comprehensive data logging, environmental monitoring, and irrigation control functionalities across the three experimental plots. A centralized control box, equipped with internet connectivity, enables continuous remote access and management of the sensor network. Figure 9 illustrates the layout of the monitoring and control system, which includes Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) sensors, soil temperature and moisture sensors, PV cell temperature sensors, and ambient air temperature and humidity sensors distributed across all three experimental zones.

The monitoring network was designed to capture microclimatic and soil variations in each configuration. In the vertical system, sensors were distributed between and around the PV rows to measure spatial gradients in soil temperature, moisture, PAR, and module surface temperature, with ambient conditions tracked at crop height. The tilted system included two monitored zones, both beneath the panels and within the shaded area. It is also equipped with similar soil and PAR sensors to assess shading effects on soil and light conditions. The reference plot replicated the same instrumentation but was divided into irrigated and non-irrigated sections to isolate the influence of controlled watering from natural environmental variations. The technical specifications of the sensors and monitoring devices are shown in

Table 3. Experimental monitoring hardware specifications.

Sensor Type	Measured Parameter	Sensor Range	Accuracy	Installation Height/Depth
PAR Sensor	PAR (µmol m−2 s−1)	0 ~ 2500 μmol/m2 s	±1 μmol/m2 s	0.2 m above ground
Soil Temp and Moisture Sensor	T (°C), VWC (m3/m3)	−40~80 °C 0~100% VWC	±0.5 °C, ±3% VWC	10 cm below surface
PV Cell Temperature Sensor	Cell Temperature (°C)	−55~125 °C	±0.5 °C	Front and Rear of modules
Ambient Temp and RH Sensor	Air T (°C), RH (%)	−40~125 °C 0~100% RH	±0.1 °C, ±1.5% RH	1.5–2 m above ground

.

The power generation performance of both vertical and tilted PV systems is continuously monitored through the Huawei inverter’s integrated data logging platform, which records electrical parameters, such as power and energy yield. Since both systems are measured using the same inverter and data acquisition hardware, any systematic measurement uncertainty affects the two systems equally and therefore does not influence their relative performance comparison. The accuracy and measurement uncertainty of all auxiliary environmental and system sensors are summarized in Table 3 alongside the manufacturer’s specified accuracy for each sensor.

All measured datasets were checked for physical plausibility prior to analysis, including screening for negative power or energy values, violations of system-rated limits, and inconsistencies with concurrent irradiance and temperature conditions. No anomalous or erroneous measurements were identified during the monitoring period; therefore, no data filtering, correction, or gap filling was required, and all analyses are based exclusively on validated experimental measurements.

Photovoltaic modules were manually cleaned once per month using water. The tilted system accumulated more dust due to its inclined positioning, while the vertical system was less susceptible because of its near-vertical orientation. Thus, soiling effects are inherently reflected in the measured energy yield and performance ratio, representing realistic operating conditions in this environment.

2.3. Capital Cost

The capital cost for each PV system centers on the type of solar panels, mounting structure, and material, inverters, data acquisition systems, and installation labor. The capital cost for the tilted system was approximately USD 19,000, while the vertical system cost approximately USD 13,000. The additional cost of the titled system over the vertical system is due to the additional structural support required to elevate the panels while maintaining their rigidity to resist wind and gust forces. These enlarged structures can prove beneficial in agricultural systems where a wind barrier is required. The final costs are listed in

Table 4. PV system configuration cost comparison (USD).

Description	Tilted System		Vertical System
	Quantity	Price (USD)	Quantity	Price (USD)
Canadian Solar CS6W-555TB-AG	20	4373	20	4373
Huawei inverter SUN2000-10KTL-M1	1	1996	1	1996
Distribution panel	1	35	1	35
Galvanized Steel Structure	N/A	9076	N/A	3918
DC Cables 4 mm2	N/A	530	N/A	530
Cable Tray	N/A	70	N/A	70
Cable Connectors	4	19	4	19
AC Cables	15 m	275	15 m	275
AC circuit breaker RCCB, 20	1	49	1	49
AC circuit breaker MCB, 20	2	26	2	26
Earthing Manhole	1	21	1	21
Electrical Rod	1	16	1	16
Structure earthling Cable 4 mm2	N/A	19	N/A	19
Monitoring system	22.2 kWp		133
All Miscellaneous Items	N/A		1226
Civil Work	N/A	1692	N/A	1692
All Main Systems	N/A		2538

, providing a detailed comparison of each configuration, which would later be considered against the long-term production and benefits in terms of energy production and agriculture yield. AV systems in other locations are typically 20–90% costlier to install than conventional PV systems [42].

3. Results and Discussion

This section presents the main results from the study. The vertical system row spacing design showed that in latitudes such as those in Jordan (31°), the row spacing should be ≥6 m to avoid excessive shading. While both structures took up more surface-level soil area than anticipated, this did not hinder agricultural activities or cultivator access.

3.1. Agricultural Component Results

This section analyzes PAR under agrivoltaic conditions using 10 min resolution PPFD measurements collected from December 2024 to December 2025 across three experimental plots (tilted system, vertical system, and open-field reference). Five quantum sensors were deployed to capture spatial light variability: two beneath the tilted array (under-panel and edge/shaded zone), two within the vertical system (central and west positions), and one in the reference plot. The analysis focuses on both instantaneous PPFD and the derived Daily Light Integral (DLI) to quantify seasonal light availability. This is to compare the agrivoltaic configurations with the open-field and evaluate suitability for different crop light requirements based on established DLI classifications [35]. Standardized light comparisons and visualizations are used to facilitate agronomic interpretation.

The full-year DLI assessment highlights pronounced seasonal and geometric effects on cumulative light availability. In the tilted system Figure 10, the shaded zone exhibits low winter DLI values (~5 mol·m⁻²·day⁻¹), increasing sharply toward summer and approaching open-field conditions as panel shading diminishes. The area directly under the tilted panels maintains consistently low DLI (4–11 mol·m⁻²·day⁻¹), making it suitable for shade-tolerant crops, such as leafy vegetables. The vertical system shows higher DLI values, increasing from ~13 mol·m⁻²·day⁻¹ in winter to peaks near 39 mol·m⁻²·day⁻¹ in summer, closely matching the reference plot and indicating minimal light penalty (Figure 10). When classified by crop light requirements [35], these results demonstrate that agrivoltaic geometry creates a controllable light gradient. Nevertheless, while DLI is a robust indicator of photosynthetic light availability, effective crop selection under agrivoltaics must also consider complementary microclimatic factors, such as temperature, humidity, and soil moisture, particularly in semi-arid regions like Jordan.

As shown in Figure 11, seasonal PPFD profiles evaluated on representative days (21 December, 24 March, 21 June, and 21 September) reveal distinct micro-light environments within the agrivoltaic systems. The lowest PPFD levels occur consistently beneath the tilted panels, particularly in winter, where values fall below ~60 µmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹ due to low solar elevation and prolonged shading. The shaded edge of the tilted system exhibits moderately higher but still reduced PPFD (<150 µmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹ in winter), with short transient peaks caused by direct beam penetration between panel rows. In contrast, the vertical system demonstrates smoother and more uniform PPFD profiles that closely track the reference plot, ranging from 750 to 800 µmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹ in the winter to 1200–1300 µmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹ in the summer. These results confirm the formation of three stable microclimatic light zones: deep shade, partial shade, and moderate-to-high light-enabling stratified crop placement, according to light demand.

The crop groups—categorized by light requirement—and the year-long measurements for each configuration are shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11. The vertical configuration measurements were the closest to the open-field control plot. This indicates that a vertical configuration minimizes the impact of the PV components on the light available for crops. The tilted system bears two crop areas with distinct light profiles: under the panels and between the rows. The intra-row measurements were also close to the control plot, particularly between April and September. Outside of this range, the gap widened significantly. This suggests that while high-requirement crops may be unaffected during the summer months, only low-light requirement crops are suitable throughout the rest of the year. The area directly under the panel experienced the greatest deviation from the control plot, as it remained under shade for nearly the entire year. This means that in this configuration and location, only low-light requirement plants are suitable for year-round cultivation under the panels.

3.2. Energy Component Results

When it came to the energy output of the systems, a consistent disparity was observed between the two configurations. Figure 12 presents the minimum and maximum outputs for both systems during the year 2024. As shown, although the total daily outputs are close, the peak values throughout the day are consistently achieved by the tilted system, which also generally yields the higher daily total. The vertical system surpasses the tilted system during the early morning and late evening hours when the sun is almost normal to the panel’s surface.

Figure 13 presents the daily production of both configurations, showing that both systems follow a positively skewed trend starting at the tail end of winter, through spring, and leading up into the summer months, running parallel to each other. Both systems respond similarity to adverse weather conditions identically without a clear “better” system as all peaks flatten out. The tilted configuration’s output remains higher.

It is evident that the tilted system outperforms the vertical system by an average of 35.7%. Under no scenario does the daily output of the vertical system exceed that of the tilted system, even during adverse weather conditions where the overall output is diminished. The maximum output of the vertical system compared to the other system is about 88.8%; therefore, under similar conditions, the tilted system is better for energy production. Figure 14 shows a set of typical and atypical days under less favorable weather conditions, while Figure 15 presents a monthly comparison of the energy yield of the tilted and vertical agrivoltaic systems, as well as the percentage difference between them, for the year 2024. The results show that the tilted system produces consistently higher energy throughout all months, with the tilted system showing a higher production rate during the winter months, reaching 82% in January, while it decreases to 28% in June.

Over the entire monitoring period of 2024, as shown in Figure 15, the tilted system generated 21,784 kWh of energy, equivalent to a specific yield of approximately 1962 kWh/kWp. The vertical system generated 14,297 kWh, with a specific yield of 1288 kWh/kWp. These results reflect the effect of the panel tilt and orientation angle on solar radiation capture. Both systems still offer operational advantages that can be considered based on the project-specific agrivoltaics objectives. The levelized costs of energy (using the methodology outlined in [43]) for the tilted and vertical systems were USD 0.0838 and USD 0.0943, respectively, and as a benchmark for comparison, a similar ground-mounted system at the same energy output would yield a LCOE of USD 0.0452, highlighting the significance of the cost of the mounting structure. In calculating the LCOE, the manufacturer’s degradation value (0.4%) was used [44], while the remaining parameters were from the referenced publication: O&M rate of 11 USD/kW, discount rate of 7.5%, inflation rate of 2%, and an estimated lifetime of 25 years [43].

A farmer adopting energy generation through the tilted agrivoltaic system could achieve energy production equivalent to 50% of their land area if it were purely used for energy. This is, however, at the higher LCOE calculated previously. Nonetheless, this benefit is achieved without compromising crop yield when using a 4 m gap between panel rows. This proportion of energy production can be increased beyond 50% by reducing the gap, provided it remains within the shade-tolerance limits of the cultivated crops, or decreased if the gap is widened beyond this distance. The vertical system, at the 6 m gap in this study, offers comparatively lower benefits, yielding only about 33% of the land-equivalent energy production of an energy-only vertical project following the standard height-to-gap ratio of 2.5 m. Again, reducing the gap between the rows can boost energy yields beyond 33%, though the shading limitations of crops must be accounted for.

3.3. Economic Component Results

The following are the results of a sensitivity analysis for the configurations, as well as an assumed ground-mounted system that does not have additional structural costs, for comparison. The approach isolates volatile active costs (modules/inverters) from more stable infrastructural components (civil/electrical) while subjecting financial and operational parameters to a broad 80% variance to quantify any asymmetrical impact on the project’s LCOE. Figure 16 shows the sensitivity analysis for the tilted system. In it, we can see how the primary cost-driver is the discount rate, followed by the structural costs, and to a lesser degree, the other associated setup costs. If we compare this to Figure 17, which shows the same system without the additional structural costs under identical conditions, then the additional costs take a marginal edge in affecting the LCOE, followed by the discount rate. For the vertical system, as shown in Figure 18, it takes a similar trend to the tilted system. It does, however, show less dependence on the structural parameter, given that the required cost is lower.

Although the tilted system’s energy production surpassed that of the vertical system, this is not the only factor for consideration in an agrivoltaic system. The shading profile for the intended crops is of vital importance, and in some cases, the vertical system may still be sufficient depending on agricultural requirements. The final suitability will be a combination of project output priorities.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

This study demonstrates the potential of agrivoltaic systems to address Jordan’s challenges of food security and energy security. The data presented provides the foundation for the two components of a dual-use system and shows how the tested configurations, while negatively affected compared to a standard energy project, do not invalidate the economic gains possible through dual-use. The key conclusions from the experimental analysis include the following:

• The tilted system showed a higher energy yield compared to the vertical system by an annual average margin of 35.7%
• Considering the shading challenges of a vertical system, row spacing should be at least 6 m.
• There is a significant cost attached to increasing the elevation of the mounting structure compared to a ground-level installation. This increase is approximately double that of a standard project, although this may be abated by the economies-of-scale effect in future or larger projects.
• The tilted system’s initial cost may be reduced by decreasing the system’s height, although it will undoubtedly start affecting accessibility and logical crop choices.
• The results support the premise that agrivoltaics are a viable option for Jordan’s climate so far as the energy component is concerned.
• A landowner may allocate the equivalent of 50% of a cultivated plot for energy production, while maintaining agricultural use beneath and around the structure at a penalty of roughly 88% increase in LCOE compared to a conventional ground-mounted system due to elevated structural costs.
• A landowner may allocate the equivalent of 33% of a cultivated plot for energy production, while maintaining agricultural use beneath and around the structure without any increase in LCOE using a vertical configuration, but at the decreased margin mentioned previously compared to the titled system (35.7%).

Future work should aim to evaluate localized crop growth metrics and water use efficiency across both configurations to quantify the full agrivoltaic system efficiency (energy + agriculture) and provide real constraints for agrivoltaic system design from an agricultural perspective. Alongside this work, the full ability to calculate a project’s lifetime costs would be possible. Long-term studies could also explore the economic trade-offs between increased land-use efficiency and lower energy yield in vertical systems and how regulations and legislature could manage both across the public and private sectors.