Economic Benefits of VBPV Systems
Vertical Bifacial Photovoltaic (VBPV) agrivoltaic systems offer transformative economic advantages, delivering £161-187 billion in total system savings over 30 years compared to Traditional Mounted Photovoltaic (TMPV) systems.
The United Kingdom faces a critical decision point. Current plans to deploy 47 GW of solar capacity by 2030 using Traditional Mounted Photovoltaic (TMPV) systems would create a £161-187 billion infrastructure burdenwhile sacrificing 32,000-45,000 hectares of prime agricultural land.
This analysis demonstrates that Vertical Bifacial Photovoltaic (VBPV) agrivoltaic systems offer a transformative alternative that eliminates this false choice between energy security and food security.
⚠️ Critical Window
Currently, 1,546 ground-mounted solar projects (35.7 GW) are under construction, awaiting construction, or in planning. There is a 6-12 month window to influence these decisions before planning approvals become final. After this window closes, the opportunity to capture £161-187 billion in system savings will be lost for 25-30 years.
Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) Requirements
The fundamental difference in generation profiles between TMPV and VBPV systems creates dramatically different battery storage requirements. TMPV's midday-only generation pattern requires massive battery capacity to shift energy to morning and evening demand peaks, while VBPV's dual-peak generation naturally matches UK demand patterns.
| System Component | TMPV (47 GW) | VBPV (47 GW) |
|---|---|---|
| BESS Capacity Required | 170-190 GWh | 78-87 GWh (94% reduction) |
| Initial BESS CAPEX | £54-60 billion | £25-28 billion |
| Replacement Cycles (30yr) | 2× full replacements | 2× full replacements |
| Total BESS Cost (30yr) | £224-249 billion | £103-115 billion |
| BESS SAVINGS | £121-134 billion |
UK Government Context
The UK government's Clean Power 2030 Action Plan (December 2024) targets 23-27 GW of battery storage capacity by 2030, equivalent to approximately 115-135 GWh. The TMPV approach would require 170-190 GWh, exceeding government targets by 40-60%. In contrast, VBPV systems require only 78-87 GWh, operating comfortably within planned battery capacity.
Grid Infrastructure Investment Requirements
The UK's transmission and distribution networks require substantial upgrades to accommodate large-scale solar deployment. However, the infrastructure requirements differ dramatically based on whether the solar generation matches or conflicts with demand patterns.
| Infrastructure Component | TMPV Required | VBPV Required |
|---|---|---|
| Transmission Network | £25.8-34.5 billion | £11.1-14.8 billion |
| Distribution Network | £11.8-15.7 billion | £5.1-6.8 billion |
| Substation Upgrades | £5.4-7.2 billion | £2.3-3.1 billion |
| Ancillary Services | £6.0-8.0 billion | £2.6-3.4 billion |
| Total Grid Infrastructure | £49-65.4 billion | £21.1-28.1 billion |
| Flexibility Services Avoided | £11-13 billion | £3-5 billion |
| COMBINED GRID SAVINGS | £40-53 billion |
Even after accounting for the 16% premium in VBPV panel costs (approximately £3.5-4.2 billion for 47 GW), VBPV systems deliver net savings of £157-203 billion over 30 years compared to TMPV deployments.
Understanding the True System Cost
The savings are greater than the TMPV cost because they account for the massive, recurring costs associated with managing the TMPV-induced "Duck Curve" and system instability. The difference is best understood through three layers:
Layer 1: Generator CAPEX
TMPV requires 23-27 GW of BESS capacity over 30 years to shift midday energy. VBPV requires up to 94% less BESS capacity due to better demand matching.
Source: Avoided Battery Investment
Layer 2: Operational OPEX
TMPV incurs soaring costs for flexibility, grid constraint payments, and transmission upgrades to handle midday peak congestion. VBPV significantly reduces peak midday generation, minimising system-wide congestion management.
Source: Avoided Constraint Payments
Layer 3: Market/Societal Cost
TMPV forces gas peaker plants and other expensive, rapid-response generation to fill the 4 PM-7 PM evening ramp (the neck of the duck curve). VBPV's pronounced second peak directly meets the 4 PM-7 PM demand window.
Source: Avoided Flexibility Services
In essence, the VBPV solution is so cost-effective at providing stable, demand-aligned power that the value of the chaos it prevents outweighs the upfront cost of the alternative system designed to manage that chaos.