Solargation® mark Solargation® by Phoebus
Food + Agriculture + Energy

Farmer First Energy solutions that add a net agricultural gain.

Solargation® results in significant yield-impact growth while keeping agriculture at the center of the site. This page compares crop-output impacts and explains why food grown under properly installed, intact, and maintained solar panels can be supported by documented soil stewardship, equipment safeguards, and food-safety monitoring.

View comparison What it means Food safety
Yield accounting method

The benchmark starts with 100 MW energy development yield units of baseline farm output.

i

Baseline farm output on 100 MW = MW/acre-equivalent yield units.

Net crop impact = output after development minus baseline output. Negative values mean yield lost; positive values mean yield gained.

Same 100 MW comparison area

Different technologies create very different agricultural yield outcomes.

1

Traditional solar PV

Direct site footprint: approximately 400 acres.

Active crop yield on occupied land: typically minimal if ordinary farming stops.

-400 acre-equivalent yield
2

Diesel turbine / generator

Direct site footprint: approximately 12 acres.

-12 acre-equivalent yield
3

Natural gas turbine

Direct site footprint: approximately 11 acres.

-11 acre-equivalent yield
4

Yield-enhancing Solargation®

Direct dual-use footprint: approximately 700 acres at 7 acres per MW.

1 Base retained farm output: 630 acre-equivalent yield.
2 +84 from precision irrigation / fertigation (+12%).
3 +63 from soil-analytics nutrient management (+9%).
4 Total farm output shown: 777 acre-equivalent yield.
+77 acre-equivalent yield Net agricultural gain
What the comparison means

Keeping the whole field productive changes the agricultural economics.

Core takeaway

  • Traditional solar causes the largest crop-yield loss on this 700-acre farmland basis.
  • Diesel and natural gas have small direct yield losses because their plant footprints are small.
  • Solargation® keeps the whole site in production and, under the illustrated research-based assumptions, raises total farm output above baseline.

Important note

The Solargation® yield gain shown here is illustrative, not universal. Actual results vary by crop, climate, layout, irrigation demand, and management quality. The irrigation and nutrient-management uplifts are simplified from agricultural research and shown as a transparent comparison assumption.

From displaced production to increased farm output.

The Solargation® case shown here preserves baseline production across the full site, then layers on yield improvements from precision irrigation, fertigation, and soil-analytics nutrient management to move total output above the original 700-acre benchmark.

777 total farm output shown in acre-equivalent yield
+11% versus baseline in the illustrated comparison
Food Safety + Contamination Controls

Food grown under properly maintained solar panels can be supported by science-based safeguards.

The food-safety question should be answered with evidence, not assumption. Current solar-panel guidance and PV module research indicate that intact, working modules are sealed systems designed to keep internal materials isolated from weather, soil, and crops. Solargation® builds on that foundation by pairing dual-use solar with soil testing, stormwater controls, damaged-module removal, and end-of-life recycling procedures.

Evidence-based position Safe-by-design, verified-by-monitoring

The strongest contamination concern is not normal crop production beneath intact modules. The stronger concern is poor site management: damaged panels, debris, erosion, improper fertilizer application, abandoned equipment, or improper disposal.

01

Working solar panels do not expose crops to panel materials.

PV modules use glass, polymer encapsulants, backsheets, frames, and sealed electrical components to protect internal materials from weather and moisture during long-term outdoor use. EPA guidance states that working solar panels are safe during use and that encapsulation prevents leaching of small amounts of metals such as cadmium, silver, or lead.

02

Materials of concern are trace, sealed, and module-specific.

NREL identifies the primary materials of concern as trace lead in some crystalline-silicon modules and cadmium compounds in thin-film modules. These materials are tightly encapsulated inside the module package, and newer PV technologies have reduced these constituents over time.

03

Leaching research focuses on damaged or waste conditions.

Research that tests leaching usually simulates damaged panels, landfill conditions, acid-rain exposure, or end-of-life waste handling. Those conditions are materially different from food grown beneath intact modules in an operating field. The lesson for agriculture is straightforward: inspect equipment and remove damaged modules promptly.

04

Soil testing makes the claim auditable.

A Solargation® site should not ask buyers, farmers, or communities to rely on a blanket promise. Baseline soil testing, periodic soil sampling, stormwater observation, and crop-specific food-safety documentation make the land condition measurable and reviewable over time.

Potential contamination pathways and Solargation® controls

The practical food-safety standard is to identify each pathway, control it, and document the result. This turns “are crops safe?” into a managed agricultural quality-control process.

Concern How Solargation® controls it
Leaching from intact modules Use commercially appropriate PV modules with sealed encapsulation and maintain modules in operating condition.
Broken glass or damaged backsheets Inspect arrays, document damage, isolate affected areas when needed, and remove damaged modules from crop-production zones.
End-of-life panels Keep reusable panels separate from damaged panels and recycle or dispose of modules under applicable waste rules.
Stormwater dripline erosion Maintain ground cover, manage row spacing and grading, and correct concentrated runoff beneath panel edges.
Agricultural inputs near equipment Apply fertilizers, soil amendments, and fertigation materials carefully to protect crops and avoid corrosion of solar equipment.
Unknown pre-existing soil conditions Establish baseline soil conditions before or during site conversion and compare later tests against the baseline.

What this means for food grown under panels

Properly installed and maintained solar panels do not automatically make farmland unsafe. For Solargation®, the safety case is strongest when the farm can show that modules are intact, damaged equipment is removed, soil conditions are monitored, stormwater is controlled, and crop handling follows ordinary food-safety practices.

Solargation® food-safety commitment

  • Baseline soil testing before or during agricultural deployment.
  • Real-time Soil monitoring for site-specific metals or contaminants where risk factors exist.
  • Documented inspections for cracked glass, damaged backsheets, loose wiring, or debris.
  • Prompt damaged-module removal, recycling, or compliant disposal.
  • Ground-cover, erosion, and stormwater controls to protect productive topsoil.
  • Food-safety documentation suitable for farmers, buyers, lenders, agencies, and community review.
Plain-English takeaway: Food grown beneath intact, properly operated solar panels can be treated as safe when the project is designed, operated, and documented like an agricultural asset. Solargation® strengthens that position by combining solar engineering with farm management, soil testing, irrigation controls, and end-of-life panel procedures.
Sources and Methodology

Built directly from primary research around the world.

The methodology of acre-yield equivalents is based on USDA, EIA, and University research from around the globe.

Sources Used: NREL (2013) for utility-scale PV land use of roughly 7–9 acres/MWac; Jacobson / Stanford land-footprint compilation for fossil plant direct land factors around 0.12 acres/MW for diesel and 0.11 acres/MW for natural gas; USDA Climate Hubs and USDA ARS for agrivoltaics keeping working lands productive and precision agriculture / soil testing improving input management; University of Arizona / Barron-Gafford agrivoltaic field study showing tomatoes 2×, chiltepin 3×, and jalapeños similar yield with 65% less transpirational water loss; Li et al., Agricultural Water Management (2021) for drip fertigation meta-analysis finding about +12% yield; and Herrmann et al. (2024) for placed starter fertilization meta-analysis finding about +9.4% yield, shown here as +9%; EPA solar panel guidance for the statement that working panels are safe during use and encapsulated to prevent leaching; NREL PV module facts and trends for module construction, trace materials of concern, and damaged-module leaching research; and Cooperative Extension guidance for soil monitoring, stormwater control, fertilizer-care practices, and decommissioning planning on agricultural solar sites.