Enhancing Rural Energy Resilience Through Combined Agrivoltaic and Bioenergy Systems: A Case Study of a Real Small-Scale Farm in Southern Italy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agrivoltaics (APV) mitigates land-use competition between photovoltaic installations and agricultural activities, thereby supporting multifaceted policy objectives in energy transition and sustainability. The availability of organic residuals from agrifood practices may also open the way to their energy valorization. This paper examines a small-scale farm in the Basilicata Region, southern Italy, to investigate the potential installation of an APV plant or a combined APV and bioenergy system to meet the electrical needs of the existing processing machinery. A dynamic numerical analysis is performed over an annual cycle to properly size the storage system under three distinct APV configurations. The panel shadowing effects on the underlying crops are quantified by evaluating the reduction in incident solar irradiance during daylight and the consequent agricultural yield differentials over the life period of each crop. The integration of APV and a biomass-powered cogenerator is then considered to explore the possible off-grid farm operation. In the sole APV case, the single-axis tracking configuration achieves the highest performance, with 45.83% self-consumption, a land equivalent ratio (LER) of 1.7, and a payback period of 2.77 years. For APV and bioenergy, integration with a 20 kW cogeneration unit achieves over 99% grid independence by utilizing a 97.57 kWh storage system. The CO2 emission reduction is 49.6% for APV alone and 100% with biomass integration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".