Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Review

A review on opportunities for implementation of solar energy

technologies in agricultural greenhouses
Shiva Gorjian a, *, Francesco Calise b, Karunesh Kant c, Md Shamim Ahamed d,
Benedetta Copertaro e, Gholamhassan Najafi a, Xingxing Zhang e,
Mohammadreza Aghaei f, g, Redmond R. Shamshiri h
a
Biosystems Engineering Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University (T.M.U.), Tehran, Iran
b
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Naples Federico II, P.le Tecchio, 80, 80125, Naples, Italy
c
University Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, SIGMA Clermont, Institut Pascal, F63000, Clermont, Ferrand, France
d
Department of Building, Civil, and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University, Montr
eal, Canada
e
Department of Energy and Construction Technology, Dalarna University, Falun, SE79188, Sweden
f
Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e), Design of Sustainable Energy Systems, Energy Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Eindhoven,
the Netherlands
g
Department of Microsystems Engineering (IMTEK), University of Freiburg, Solar Energy Engineering, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany
h
Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering and Bioeconomy (ATB), Max-Eyth-Allee 100, 14469, Potsdam-Bornim, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The greenhouse industry is an energy-intensive sector with a heavy reliance on fossil fuels, contributing
Received 22 May 2020 to substantial greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Addressing this issue, the employment of energy-saving
Received in revised form strategies along with the replacement of conventional energy sources with renewable energies are
15 October 2020
among the most feasible solutions. Over the last few years, solar energy has demonstrated great potential
Accepted 21 October 2020
Available online 24 October 2020
for integration with agricultural greenhouses. The present study reviews the progress of solar green-
houses by investigating their integration with solar energy technologies including photovoltaic (PV),
Handling editor: Prof. Jiri Jaromir Klemes photovoltaic-thermal (PVT), and solar thermal collectors. From the literature, PV modules mounted on
roofs or walls of greenhouses cause shading which can adversely affect the growing trend of cultivated
Keywords: crops inside. This issue can be addressed by using bifacial PV modules or employing sun trackers to
Greenhouse cultivation create dynamic shades. PVT modules are more efficient in producing both heat and electricity, and less
Energy saving shading occurs when concentrating modules are employed. In terms of using solar thermal collectors,
Solar thermal energy higher performance values have been reported for greenhouses installed in moderate climate conditions.
Photovoltaics
Further, in this review, the employment of thermal energy storage (TES) units as crucial components for
Thermal energy storage
secure energy supply in solar greenhouses is studied. The usage of TES systems can increase the thermal
Sustainable development
performance of solar greenhouses by 29%. Additionally, the most common mathematical models utilized
to describe the thermal behavior of solar greenhouses are presented and discussed. From the literature,
machine learning algorithms have shown a better capability to describe the complex environment of
greenhouses, but their main drawback is less reliability. Notwithstanding the progress which has been
made, further improvements in technology and more reductions in costs are required to make the solar
greenhouse technology a solution to achieve sustainable development.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Indoor farming technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Overview of a greenhouse system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Gorjian@modares.ac.ir (S. Gorjian), francesco.calise@unina.it (F. Calise), k1091kant@gmail.com (K. Kant), mda469@mail.usask.ca (M.S. Ahamed), bcp@
du.se (B. Copertaro), G.najafi@modares.ac.ir (G. Najafi), xza@du.se (X. Zhang), m.aghaei@tue.nl (M. Aghaei), RShamshiri@atb-potsdam.de (R.R. Shamshiri).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124807
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807

2.2. Energy consumption of conventional greenhouses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3. Solargreenhouse technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Passive solar greenhouses (PSGs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Greenhouse integrated PV (GHIPV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.1. Developments and prospects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Greenhouse integrated PVT (GHIPVT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.1. Developments and prospects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4. Greenhouse integrated solar thermal collectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.1. Greenhouse integrated FPCs (GHIFPCs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.2. Greenhouse integrated ETCs (GHIETCs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.4.3. Greenhouse integrated concentrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.5. Solar greenhouses integrated with thermal energy storage (TES) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.5.1. Integration of solar greenhouses with STES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.5.2. Integration solar greenhouses with LTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4. Modeling and performance evaluation of solar greenhouses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.1. Use of knowledge-based models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.2. Use of commercial simulation software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.3. Use of machine learning algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5. Conclusions and future prospects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Declaration of competing interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Abbreviations IPSO Improved Particle Swarm Optimization

LCA Life Cycles Assessment
ANN Artificial Neural Network LCS Life Cycle Saving
ATES Aquifers Thermal Energy Storage LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas
BPNN Back Propagation Neural Network LSC Luminescent Solar Concentrator
BTES Thermal Energy Storage with Boreholes LSSVM Least-squares Support Vector Machine
CAD Computer-Aided Design LTES Latent Thermal Energy Storage
CB-ELM Convex Bidirectional Extreme Learning Machine MLP Multi-layer Perceptron
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics MLR Multiple Linear Regression
CPV Concentrating Photovoltaic NE Net Energy
CPVT Concentrating Photovoltaic Thermal ODE Ordinary Differential Equations
CSG Chinese-Style Solar Greenhouse OPEX Operating Expenses
CSHPSS Central Solar Heating Plant with Seasonal Storage PSG Passive Solar Greenhouse
DER Distributed Energy Resource PCM Phase Change Material
DPP Discounted Payback Period PCM Polycarbonate Module
DWC Deep Water Culture PSG Passive Solar Greenhouse
EAHE Earth Air Heat Exchanger PV Photovoltaic
EIA Environmental Impacts Assessment PVT Photovoltaic Thermal
EMEA Europe, the Middle East, and Africa RB-TES Rock Bed TES
EP Energy Productivity RMSD Root Mean Square Deviation
EPBT Embodied Energy Payback Period RMSE Root Mean Square Error
ER Energy Ratio RoW Rest of the World
ETC Evacuated Tube Collector SAHLSC Solar Air Heater with LHS Collector
EWEA Early Warning Early Action SFSs Sustainable Food Systems
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization SHCS Solar Heating Cooling System
FP-PVT Flat-Plate Photovoltaic Thermal SHPSS Solar Heating Plant with Seasonal Storage
FPC Flat-Plate Collector SSSHS Seasonal Solar Soil Heat Storage
FRP Fiber-Reinforced Plastic STES Sensible Thermal Energy Storage
GAC Ground Air Collector STPV Semi-Transparent PV
GHG Greenhouse Gas SVM Support Vector Machine
GHICPVT Greenhouse-Integrated Concentrating Photovoltaic SWHS Solar Water Heating System
Thermal TCM Thermochemical Material
GHIETC Greenhouse-Integrated Evacuated Tube Collector TES Thermal Energy Storage
GHIFPC Greenhouse-Integrated Flat Plate Collector TPM Traditional PV Module
GHIPV Greenhouse-Integrated Photovoltaic UTES Underground TES
GHIPVT Greenhouse-Integrated Photovoltaic Thermal WFS World Food Summit
IPM Innovative PV Module

2
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al.
Fig. 1. The number of undernourished people in the world (2005e2018) (Porter et al., 2015).
1. Introduction
The world’s population has been doubled since the early 1960s
envisaged to overtake 9.8 billion people by 2050 which leads to
exacerbating the worldwide issue of “Food Security” as one of the
most critical dimensions of sustainability. Unlike the global
downward trend in undernourishment, since 2014, the number of
people suffering from hunger has been raised so that the number of
undernourished people reached to approximately 784 million
people in 2015 followed a rising trend to reach 821 million people
in 2017 (Fig. 1). Hence, investment in the agriculture sector is
crucial to provide food security and reduce global hunger and
poverty (Gorjian et al., 2020d; United Nations, 2019). In 1996, a
multi-aspect definition was presented by the “World Food Summit”
(WFS) for food security which gained wide acceptance as following
(Hassanien et al., 2016):
“Food security is a situation in which all people, at all times, have
physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutri-
tious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for
an active and healthy life”.
The “Early Warning Early Action” (EWEA) report (2019),
revealed by the “Food and Agriculture Organization” (FAO) of the
United Nations (FAO, 2019), provided a progressive analysis of the
leading calamity risks to the agriculture sector and food security.
According to this report, in several countries and regions with
political conflicts and climate-related disasters, a cumulatively
destructive effect on food production and availability can be
observed. Mounting evidence shows that climate change is already
affecting agriculture and food security, especially in countries
where agricultural systems are more sensitive to weather in-
stabilities. It is claimed that the growth of the agriculture sector has
up to 3.2 times more effectivity in reducing poverty rather than the
other sectors (Gorjian et al., 2020c; Veldhuizen et al., 2020).
Development of “Sustainable Food Systems” (SFSs) enjoying a
secure energy supply to overcome the problem of oscillating fuel
prices and to support food security is another major challenge that
the agriculture sector is facing (Nguyen, 2018; Vadiee and Martin,
2013). Achieving sustainability in farming and food systems
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807
entails persistent efforts to recognize and strike a balance between
social, economic, and environmental targets of agriculture, as well
as between the agriculture and other economic sectors
(Compassion in World Farming, 2008). Energy is an essential
component in all steps of the food chain including crop production,
forestry, dairy production, post-harvest applications, food storage,
processing, transport, and distribution (Gorjian et al., 2020d). Ac-
cording to the recent figures from FAO (2019), food chains globally
consume about 30% of the total global energy, and its heavy
dependence on fossil fuels contributes approximately 19e29% of
total annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In recent years, en-
ergy consumption in agricultural greenhouses has become a chal-
lenge due to the rise in energy costs and environmental issues
caused by the utilization of conventional energy sources. In this
regard, an intense stimulation has been created for researchers,
scientists, and investors to find alternative clean energy sources, as
well as energy-saving solutions to mitigate the reliance of green-
houses to non-renewable energy sources (Marcelis and Heuvelink,
2019). In the last few years, renewable energies have shown a huge
potential for integration with conventional greenhouse structures.
Solar energy as a clean, extendable, and reliable renewable energy
source with a minimum impact on the environment can be
considered as a compatible option for integration with agricultural
greenhouses. In this way, the implementation of solar technologies
can assist in reducing the energy dependence of greenhouse
cultivation systems to conventional resources, leading to the
minimization of GHG emissions. Until now, several researchers
have conducted studies on solar greenhouses by investigating some
special types of solar technologies employed in greenhouse struc-
tures. In the current review, the most widely used and feasible solar
energy technologies (according to the literature) and their inte-
gration with agricultural greenhouses are profoundly investigated.
To do the literature review and to identify a primary database of
peer-reviewed studies as well as relevant research and develop-
ment in the field of solar-powered agricultural greenhouses, a
search was conducted using Scopus and Web of Science with the
keywords of “solar energy þ greenhouses”, “greenhouses þ solar
collectors”, “passive þ solar greenhouses”,
“photovoltaic þ greenhouses”, and “thermal energy
storage þ greenhouses” within English language articles,
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al.
conference papers, books and book chapters, as well as reports.
Therefore, in this paper, the implementation of different solar
technologies in agricultural greenhouses is studied. In this way,
along with passive solar greenhouses (PSGs), the greenhouses in-
tegrated with photovoltaic (PV) modules, photovoltaic-thermal
(PVT) modules, and solar thermal collectors presented in the
literature are reviewed and their associated challenges and pros-
pects are explored. Additionally, recent progress in thermal energy
storage (TES) systems as an important component in solar green-
houses that can reduce the mismatch between the energy supply
and demand and avoid wastage of energy are reviewed and dis-
cussed. Finally, different models developed by researchers to
describe the thermal behavior of solar greenhouses are presented,
compared, and their benefits and drawbacks are discussed.
2. Indoor farming technology
A variety of agricultural products are cultivated indoors, either
in greenhouses or, increasingly, in fully enclosed buildings. Indoor
farming is an efficient method of indoor growing crops and plants,
nearly independent of external climate conditions and arable land
availability (Gorjian et al., 2011; Tun, 2014). Indoor farming facil-
ities require a climate control system as the most crucial compo-
nent which allows creating a favorable environment for year-round
production. Indoor farming includes various cultivation systems
ranges from small-scale urban farms to fully-controlled high-tech
rural greenhouses (Indoor farming market outlook-Global Trends
Forecast and Opportunity Assessment, 2019). According to the
growing system, the indoor farming technology is primarily clas-
sified into hydroponics, aquaponics, aeroponics, soil-based, and
hybrid, while based on the facility type, it can be categorized as
indoor vertical farms, greenhouses, and container farms. In vertical
farming, crops are cultivated in vertically stacked layers commonly
integrated into buildings, shipping containers, or repurposed
warehouses. The first urban vertical farm installed in Moscow is
shown in Fig. 2a. The primary goal of vertical farming is maximizing
crops yield in a limited space, where a combination of natural and
artificial light is provided, and soilless growing mediums such as
aeroponic, aquaponic, or hydroponic are employed (Benke and
Tomkins, 2017). Greenhouses are structures that are covered with
transparent or semi-transparent materials and can provide a
favorable controlled or partially-controlled growing environment
for crops. More information on this farming technique is provided
in Section 2.1. The ease of transporting and stacking containers have
made them suitable options for indoor farming applications. Their
main benefits are less use of water than traditional farming and no
Fig. 2. a) Vertical farm of RusEco in Moscow (A unique agricultural complex appeared in Moscow, 2020), b) A container farm developed by “growbox” (GrowBoxco Custom Shipping
Container Farms, 2020).
4
Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807
requirement for pesticides. A typical container farm developed by
the “growbox” is shown in Fig. 2b.
The most dominated global indoor farming market accounts for
vegetables, microgreens, herbs, fruits, and medicinal crops, with
the largest market allocated to vegetable cultivation in 2018.
Moreover, 80% of crop production in indoor farming devote to the
cultivation of more than two types of crops, while single crop op-
erations account for only 20% of the cases (Indoor farming market
outlook-Global Trends Forecast and Opportunity Assessment,
2019). The profitability of indoor farms depends on three main
factors including the type of facilities, cultivation environment, and
type of crops. The profitability of indoor farming technologies ac-
cording to the type of the facility based on a survey conducted in
2017, in the US is shown in Fig. 3. This figure shows that a larger
fraction of deep-water culture (DWC) (or floating raft) and green-
house cultivation are profitable, while indoor vertical farms and
low-tech plastic houses have lower profitability. DWC is a hydro-
ponic cultivation method in which, the plant roots are suspended in
a solution of nutrient-rich, oxygenated water (Fig. 4). A review by
Yep and Zhang (2019) shows that 33% of aquaponic systems are
allocated to DWC systems. DWC is an attractive technology for
commercial growers mainly due to supporting abundant plants
using the least materials and low maintenance.
Another benefit of DWC systems is that they reduce water re-
quirements by 95% over traditional practices (Silva et al., 2018).
Despite its extensive deployment, indoor farming technology is
facing some major challenges and barriers with the most imper-
fection of high capital and operating costs. The other issues are
related to the pest control and management of environmental
conditions (Agrilyst, 2017).
2.1. Overview of a greenhouse system
A greenhouse is a closed space covered with transparent or
translucent materials such as glass, fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP),
and polyethylene film, in which the sunlight passes through the
cover and strikes the opaque surfaces inside (floor, walls, crops,
etc.) where some of the light energy is converted to heat. The
produced heat is trapped inside the greenhouse causing the air
temperature to be increased, providing favorable growing condi-
tions inside (Syed and Hachem, 2019). Protecting the cultivated
plants against harsh outdoor environments, pests, and diseases
result in high productivity and efficiency. A schematic of a typical
greenhouse and its energy transfer mechanisms are presented in
Fig. 5a, and the inside view of a real greenhouse is shown in Fig. 5b.
Greenhouses are classified based on several criteria including
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807

Fig. 3. The profitability of different indoor farming technologies (Agrilyst, 2017).

Fig. 4. a) Schematic representation of the DWC method (Deep Water Culture, 2020), b) Cultivation of tomatoes in the DWC system (DWC, 2020).

Fig. 5. a) Energy transfer mechanisms between a typical greenhouse and its surroundings, b) Inside view of a vegetable greenhouse (Glass-Like Solar Panels Could Help
Greenhouses Become Completely Energy Neutral, 2020).

shape, dimensions, orientation (E-W or SeN), covering/shading and
structure materials, applications and, the technology used for
microclimate control (field or remote methods) (Ghani et al., 2019;
Sahdev et al., 2019), or based on their applications as crop culti-
vation and crop drying greenhouses. The crop production green-
houses facilitate off-season year-round cultivation of vegetables,
fruits, flowers, etc. (Yano and Cossu, 2019), while crop drying
greenhouses are employed to produce dried crops with higher
quality in comparison with the open sun drying method (Khanlari
et al., 2020).
2.2. Energy consumption of conventional greenhouses
The current practices in conventional greenhouses require
considerable energy which makes their specific energy utilization
(i.e. units of required energy per crop yield) a significant challenge.
In some cases, the costs of the energy consumption in greenhouses
are up to 50% of the production costs and account for the second-
most massive operating costs (Acosta-Silva et al., 2019; Golzar
et al., 2018; Shen et al., 2018). To keep the greenhouse environ-
ment as close as the optimal growing conditions, some of the

5
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al.
Fig. 6. a) Schematic view of a typical PSG, b) Photo of a real PSG (Solar Greenhouses, 2020). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred
to the Web version of this article.)
heating and cooling facilities, ventilation and fogging systems,
varying shading, and lighting mechanisms, and CO2 enrichment
systems are required (Hassanien et al., 2016; Radojevic et al., 2014).
All these equipment consume energy with the highest share of the
primary energy demand of about 65e85% for heating and cooling
applications (Ahamed et al., 2019; Yano and Cossu, 2019). There-
fore, employing energy-saving strategies seems to be crucial in
greenhouses. Additionally, conventional materials used in façades
of greenhouses are usually poor thermal insulators with the en-
velope’s heat loss of 20e40% (Cuce et al., 2016). The energy de-
mands of greenhouses are primarily supplied by fossil fuels (i.e.,
coal, diesel, fuel oil, wood, liquefied petroleum, and natural gas),
contributing to a significant percentage of GHG emissions. Uncer-
tainty, the limited availability of fossil fuels along with their high
costs, have resulted in seeking for more reliable and sustainable
alternative energy resources (Çokay et al., 2018; Mostefaoui and
Amara, 2019). In commercial greenhouses, the energy output is
equal to the product’s energy value while the energy input is
accounted for direct and indirect energy inputs. In this case, the
energy ratio (ER), as a gauge of the energy consumption efficiency
in greenhouses is calculated as following (Djevic and Dimitrijevic,
2009; Pahlavan et al., 2012; Taki, 2012):
MJ
Energy output ðm2Þ
Energy Ratio ðERÞ ¼ MJ
Total greenhouse energy inputs ðm 2Þ
The energy productivity (EP) is another criterion used to compare
the commercial greenhouses’ productivity under various energy
management scenarios as follow (Djevic and Dimitrijevic, 2009;
Pahlavan et al., 2012; Taki, 2012):
kg
Greenhouse productivity yield ðm2Þ
Energy Productivity ðEPÞ ¼
Total greenhouse energy inputs ðm2Þ
The third criterion is the Net Energy (NE), which is known as the
Net Energy output in commercial greenhouses as follow (Djevic
and Dimitrijevic, 2009):
Net Energy ðNEÞ ¼ Total greenhouse energy output ð
MJ
 Total greenhouse energy input ð 2 Þ
m captured by the greenhouse during the day and the excess heat is
Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807
3. Solar greenhouse technologies
Some striking novelties that occurred in solar technologies
have made solar energy a competitive alternative for carbon-
based conventional fuels (Loni et al., 2020; Mirzamohammadi
et al., 2020). Solar energy technologies are broadly categorized
as solar thermal and photovoltaic (PV). In solar thermal tech-
nology, the energy in solar radiation is converted into heat
through flat-plate and concentrating solar collectors, where the
accumulated heat can be stored to be used in different domestic,
residential, and industrial applications (Crabtree and Lewis,
2007; Mekhilef et al., 2011). Since PV systems employ semi-
conductors, allowing them to convert sunlight directly into
electricity. Both thermal and PV applications in agriculture aim to
increase profitability in this sector by enhancing yields, reducing
losses, and accelerating production, assisting in better manage-
ment of natural resources (Arkian et al., 2019; Mohsenipour et al.,
2020). The agricultural greenhouses which are solar-powered are
primarily classified into passive and active solar greenhouses.
Passive solar greenhouses (PSGs) are designed in a way to collect
as much solar energy as possible, while active solar greenhouses
are integrated with solar systems such as PV, PVT, or solar
thermal collectors to intensify the capture of solar energy
(Gorjian et al., 2011; 2020d; Panwar et al., 2011). In both designs,
employing thermal energy storage (TES) can increase the overall
thermal performance of the greenhouse. Although PSGs have
(1) simpler structures compared to the active solar greenhouses
with lower capital and operating costs, the active greenhouses
benefit from the higher thermal performance which can some-
what compensate the costs and therefore, increase the profit-
ability of them (Shukla et al., 2016).
MJ
3.1. Passive solar greenhouses (PSGs)
(2) In PSGs, the amount of solar energy absorbed by the greenhouse
differs depending on the location of the sun in the sky (Li et al.,
2018). As is shown in Fig. 6, the PSGs are located along the east-
west axis where the length of the south-facing wall is extended
to maximize the possible surface area exposed to the sun. While,
MJ the areas of the east- and west-facing walls are reduced to mini-
Þ mize heat losses and created shades inside the greenhouse (Çokay
m2
et al., 2018; Ontent, 2003). The PSGs are usually equipped with
(3) thermal collection units where the incoming solar radiation is
transferred to heat storage mediums such as water, rock bed, soil,
6
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al.
Fig. 7. Thermal heat storage mediums inside PSGs; a) PCM pipes (Fashioning a Greenhouse, 2020,Fashioning a Greenhouse, 2020), b) Water barrels (Tips on Using Water Barrels in a
Solar Greenhouse, 2020), c) Rock bed (Solar greenhouse, 2020).
and phase change materials (PCMs)1 as shown in Fig. 7 to maximize
the solar gains (Santamouris et al., 1994). The water heat storage
units in the form of plastic bags filled with water are usually placed
outside, or inside in water containers on the ground surface along
passages between the cultivated rows, and along the greenhouse
north side (Gorjian et al., 2011). The overall performance of a PSG
depends on several parameters, including the greenhouse size, the
cover materials, the cultivation type, and the installation site of the
greenhouse (Santamouris et al., 1994).
Wang et al. (2017) studied the thermal performance of a hollow
block wall in a solar greenhouse that was filled with soil and perlite
as heat storage mediums. They concluded that filling the cavities of
the hollow block wall with these materials is a feasible way to
improve the thermal performance of the north wall in solar Chinese
greenhouses.2 In another study, the effect of increasing the size of
the span on the indoor climate of Chinese greenhouses was
experimentally investigated by Tong et al. (2018a,b). In this case,
they studied three sizes of the span as 10 m, 12 m, and 14 m. They
reported that the highest and lowest indoor air temperatures are
achieved for 14 m and 10 m spans respectively. They also concluded
that heat loss and temperature distribution inside the greenhouse
can be considered as good measures for choosing the most
appropriate span. Çakır and Şahin (2015) compared the solar
gaining rates of the five common greenhouses by assigning seven
different floor area of 50e400 m2 (with 50 m2 intervals) to each
greenhouse. The results revealed the uneven-span, even-span,
semi-circular, and vinery type as the optimum ones after the elliptic
type for all floor areas. Hassanain et al. (2011) investigated the ef-
fect of the Trombe wall as a TES unit in three PSGs with different
roof shapes including the gable, flat, and semi-circle. The results
indicated that the greenhouse with a flat-shape roof provides the
higher indoor air temperatures when the greenhouse direction is
north-south, while the span-shape roof can provide higher tem-
peratures when the greenhouse direction is east-west. Tong et al.
(2018a,b) developed a novel sliding cover and energy-saving solar
greenhouse with a circular-type roof and compared its perfor-
mance with elliptical-type greenhouses. They reported that the
newly-developed solar greenhouse has a better performance with
an effective aperture increase of 15% in winter and a cooling load
decrease of 16% in summer. They also claimed that the proposed
1
PCMs absorb or release large amounts of latent heat when they go through a
phase change from solid to liquid and vice versa.
2
A solar Chinese greenhouse is a special type of solar greenhouse which is faced
south to maximize solar heat collection, while it has solid walls on its north (back),
east and west sides. Also, it can be covered with insulating materials like straw
mats at night and rolled up again in the morning.
7
Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807
solar greenhouse has good potential for intelligent management
operations. Zhang et al. (2019) theoretically investigated the ther-
mal performance of five north-walls using inexpensive materials
including the gravel-layered wall, aerocrete brick-layered wall,
concrete hollow block-layered wall, concrete-layered wall, and
flange-layered wall as passive heat storage units. The results
confirmed the considerable effects of the flange-layered, concrete-
layered, and gravel-layered walls in the thermal performance
improvement of the greenhouse with an enhancement in the heat
storage performance up to 5%, 38%, and 37% respectively.
3.2. Greenhouse integrated PV (GHIPV)
The use of PV systems in greenhouses is an emerging technology
to mitigate their dependency on fossil fuels. Solar PV modules can
be integrated with greenhouses in the same way as buildings, but
they need different approaches due to the required transparency of
cladding elements which allows sunlight to enter the greenhouse
(Allardyce et al., 2017; Harjunowibowo et al., 2018). Also, green-
houses require a stable and reliable energy source and, therefore
distributed energy resources (DER) available through wind turbines
and PV systems would be good options (Callejo
n-Ferre et al., 2011;
Carlini et al., 2010). Solar PV systems integrated with agricultural
greenhouses are categorized into two main configurations of on-
grid and off-grid systems. In on-grid PV systems, the generated
electricity by the PV modules is directly consumed by the green-
house, while the excess amounts are injected into the power grid
(Fig. 8a). The off-grid systems provide electricity in situations
where utility power is not available (Gorjian et al., 2019; Gorjian
and Shukla, 2020; Tiwari et al., 2011). Typically, this type of PV
system employs a fossil-fueled generator as well as a battery bank
connected for back-up purposes (Fig. 8b). The grid-connected PV
systems are the most common types used in greenhouses, while
integration with off-grid systems is the most suitable option for
installation in sites with no access to the electric grid due to long
distances or complex topography (Eltawil and Zhao, 2010; Gorjian
et al., 2020c; Pe
rez-Alonso et al., 2012).
3.2.1. Developments and prospects
Mounting PV modules on roofs and walls of greenhouses make
them an attractive option when sufficient land is not accessible. But
installation should be done in a way to provide enough light
transmittance inside the greenhouse to avoid decreasing crop
production rate. Trypanagnostopoulos et al. (2017) experimentally
investigated the energy production from PV modules mounted on a
greenhouse roof by observing the plant growth rate inside
(Fig. 9a&b). The lettuce cultivation period (Feb-Mar-Apr) inside two
greenhouses was investigated; one with fixed PV modules installed
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807

Fig. 8. Typical configurations of a GHIPV system; a) On-grid GHIPV system, b) Off-grid GHIPV system with a backup generator and batteries.

Fig. 9. Greenhouse with PV modules mounted on the south-facing roof (Trypanagnostopoulos et al., 2017), a) Outside view of the GHIPV, b) Inside view of the GHIPV containing
cultivated lettuces.

on the roof and the other without PV modules. During this period,
PV modules produced 50.83 kWh/m2 while, creating 20% interior
shading with no significant effect on the plant growth. Theoretical
calculations indicated that PV modules with sun-trackers produce
more electricity than fixed ones, resulting in better control of the
greenhouse interior space. Hassanien and Li (2017) examined the
shading effects of semi-transparent mono-Si double glazing PV
(STPV) modules installed on a greenhouse roof (with the area
occupation percentage of 20%) on the microclimate of the green-
house and growth rate of the lettuce plants cultivated inside. The

8
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al.
Fig. 10. Greenhouse cover materials; a) Traditional PV modules (TPMs), b) Polycarbonate modules (PCM), c) Combination of innovative PV modules (IPM), and polycarbonate
modules (Buttaro et al., 2016).
obtained results indicated that the combination of STPVs and the
cover made of polyethylene decreases solar radiation by 35e40% in
comparison with the situation that there is only the polyethylene
cover.
Buttaro et al. (2016) studied three commercial greenhouses
covered with different materials include polycarbonate modules
(PCM), traditional PV modules (TPM), and innovative semi-
transparent PV modules (IPM) to examine the compatibility of
energy production from the sun and production of high-quality
wild rocket (Diplotaxis tenuifolia L.) inside the greenhouse
(Fig. 10). From the results, rocket yield growth in TPM was lower
compared with IPM and PCM.
Yano et al. (2014) developed two semi-transparent PV module
prototypes suitable for mounting on greenhouse roofs. The 39% and
about 13% of the first and second module surface areas were
covered with spherical cells respectively (Fig. 11a). The efficiencies
of about 4.5% for the first module and 1.6% for the second module
were reported. It was investigated that the annual produced elec-
tricity per unit area of the greenhouse is only sufficient in locations
where the high potential of solar radiation is available. Cossu et al.
(2016) evaluated the performance of a novel semi-transparent PV
module (STM) fabricated from spherical silicon microcells with cell
density of 2 cell/cm2 and 73% transmissivity mounted on a green-
house roof oriented at 26.5 from horizontal (Fig. 11b). The results
indicated a slightly higher yield factor for the STM due to their
specific features of being isotropic rather than the conventional
modules since they can absorb both sky-incident and ground-
reflected radiations.
Yano et al. (2010) evaluated the spatial sunlight distribution
inside a single-span GHIPV with a 12.9% roof-occupation. During
the experiments, two distinct PV modules arrangements of
straight-line (PVs) (Fig. 12a) and checkerboard (PVc) (Fig. 12b) were
examined. It was observed that the PVs array creates a continuous
shadow inside the greenhouse for about four months while the PVc
array creates an alternative shadow on the same position during a
Fig. 11. a) Semi-transparent PV module containing spherical cells (Yano et al., 2014), b) The STM developed and installed on the greenhouse roof (Cossu et al., 2016).
9
Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807
day with more uniform irradiation distribution. The annual
amounts of solar energy received by GHIPVs and GHIPVc were
calculated as 5.31 GJ/m2 and 5.03 GJ/m2 respectively.
In a recent study by Ezzaeri et al. (2020), the shading effect of
flexible PV modules arranged in the checkerboard pattern mounted
on the roof of a greenhouse was investigated on tomato production
yield during summer and winter. The results indicated no signifi-
cant effect for 40%-cover PV modules on the climatic parameters of
canary type greenhouse. Moreover, it was concluded that PV
modules can reduce the greenhouse air temperature in hot weather
conditions and also lead to an inside temperature range lies within
the optimum temperature range for tomato growth. Marucci et al.
(2017) analyzed the distribution and variation of shading inside a
tunnel type greenhouse employing flexible and transparent PV
modules with the checkerboard arrangement (Fig. 13a&b). The
flexible transparent PV modules were fabricated using mono-Si
cells with almost 18% conversion efficiency incorporated into
high resistance polymers. The results indicated that because of the
curvilinear shape of the greenhouse section, there is some regu-
larity in the created shadow. They also reported that with the
adopted PV arrangement, the annual shading percentage never
exceeds 40%. In another study by Marucci et al. (2015), the behavior
of the created shades by the PV modules inside a dynamic GHIPV
prototype was investigated. The PV modules could be rotated along
the longitudinal axis to allow shading degree variations following
latitude and different solar angles (Fig. 13c). They claimed that
finding a relation between the optimum inclination of PV modules,
solar angles, and energy requirements will assist in achieving the
optimum position of the panels, adopting energy generation with
crop production. Corrado et al. (2016) constructed two greenhouses
with and without a luminescent solar concentrator (LSC) with PV
cells attached to the roof of both ones (Fig. 13d). They changed the
type and placement of PV cells integrated with LSC panels to
compare performances. Based on the annual power generation
results, the LSC panels showed an increase in power production up
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807

Fig. 12. PV array installed on the roof of a greenhouse (Yano et al., 2010); a) With a straight-line pattern, b) With a checkerboard pattern.

Fig. 13. a) PV modules mounted on the greenhouse roof (Marucci et al., 2017), b) Shadings created inside the greenhouse due to the mounted PV modules, c) Dynamic PV modules
mounted on the greenhouse roof (Marucci et al., 2015), d) The LSC (right) and the reference (left) greenhouses (Corrado et al., 2016).

to 37% compared with the reference greenhouse.
Table 1 summarizes the main findings of the studies performed
on GHIPV technology. According to the literature, the main con-
clusions can be listed as follows:
 The most common ways of mounting PV modules on green-
houses are the installation of them on roofs and in very few
cases on walls of greenhouses. Although keeping an optimum
microclimate inside the greenhouse is crucial, providing suffi-
cient light transmittance is also vital for natural photosynthesis
since roof installations can create shading impacts that
adversely affect the growth of cultivated crops inside.
 A potential solution to mitigate the adverse impacts of shading
is partially covering the roof with PV modules or replacing a part
or even the entire area of the roof with bifacial/semi-transparent
modules. Another solution proposed by researchers is the
integration of PV modules with sun-tracking systems which
allows shading degree variations, assisting in alleviating unde-
sirable impacts of shading inside the greenhouse. Also, different
mounting patterns of PV modules as checkboard and straight-
forward have been studied in the literature, where checkboard
arrangement has shown more uniform irradiation distribution
with alternative shadows. In some cases, fewer air temperatures
have been reported inside the greenhouse due to the installation
of PV modules on the roofs especially for greenhouses installed
in regions with hot climate conditions.
 Both types of rigid and flexible PV modules are integrated with
greenhouses, while flexible modules are mounted mostly on
greenhouses with curvilinear roofs and walls. In addition to
opaque conventional modules, the use of semi-transparent PV
modules has also been reported in some studies leading both
higher electricity generation due to the absorption of both sky-

10
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807

Table 1
Summary of the main results obtained from the studies conducted on GHIPV systems.

Study Area PV Module Installation Type Main Findings Refs.

Matsue, Japan Semi-transparent Roof-type/Partially  Suitable for use in greenhouses to produce electricity; A. Yano et al.
covered (12.9%)  Improved sunlight distribution in checkboard PV module arrangement (2010)
rather than straight-line.
Decimomannu, Poly-Si Roof-type/Partially  Reduction in solar radiation entering the greenhouse by 64%; Cossu et al.
Italy covered (50%)  Only an 18% sunlight reduction for crop rows placed far from the PV cover; (2014)
 Annual reduction of 46% and 82% in solar radiation inside the greenhouse
for plastic and PV covers respectively.
Matsue, Japan Semi-transparent, Poly-Si e  Suitable for use in greenhouses due to the isotropic photoreception of the Akira Yano
spherical microcells cells. et al. (2014)
 Threefold higher electricity generation for PV module with 39% cells
covered area compared with 13% cells covered area;
 Modules are more suitable for use in high-radiation regions.
Viterbo, Italy c-Si e  Possibility for adjustment of shading degree inside the greenhouse. Marucci et al.
 Assisting to find the optimum position of the modules to reconcile the (2015)
energy production.
e Transparent OPV modules e  Average enhancement in transmittance by 20.7% and in crop growth factor F. Yang et al.
containing PC by 24.5%; (2015)
 Average absorption efficiency of 1.78% higher than transparent OPVs
without PC and 76% higher than opaque OPVs.
Avetrana, Semi-transparent Roof-type/Partially  Higher performance values in greenhouses with a covering ratio of up to Castellano et al.
Southern covered 25%. (2016)
Italy  Highest electricity production in 100% coverage with conventional PV
modules, but the lowest crop production rate.
Matsue, Japan Semi-transparent, Poly-Si Roof-type/Partially  Suitable for installing on sidewalls and the roof of the greenhouses; Cossu et al.
spherical microcells covered  Higher yield ratio due to the capability of capturing ground-reflected (2016)
radiation;
 Low module conversion efficiencies over a broad range of radiation’s
incident angle by 0.2%;
 Less sensitive to the angle of slope since spherical microcells are isotropic
photoreception.
e CPV, LSC, and mono-Si cells Roof-type  Effective technology for solar energy harvesting in greenhouses; Corrado et al.
 Enabling the use of land for both cultivation and energy production; (2016)
 Optimization for both energy production and plant productivity are
required.
Viterbo, Italy Flexible and semi-transparent Roof-type/Partially and  Uniformity in shading percentage because of the curvilinear shape of the Marucci et al.
modules, mono-Si cells entirely covered greenhouse section; (2017)
 Shading percentage always lower than 40% during the year.
Kunming, Semi-transparent mono-Si Roof-type/Partially  Reduction of solar radiation by 35e40% in semi-transparent PV modules Hassanien and
China covered (20%) combined with polyethylene cover only for clear days; Li (2017)
 No significant shading effect by semi-transparent modules.
e Semi-transparent Roof-type/Partially  Using both fixed and moving modules allows to enter more light inside the Colantoni et al.
covered (20%) greenhouse; (2018)
 Being able to shade the inside environment in most lighting conditions.
Agadir, flexible PV modules Roof-type/Partially  No significant shading effect created by PV modules (in checkboard pattern) Ezzaeri et al.
Morocco covered (10%) on the product yield inside the greenhouse. (2018)
e Semi-transparent, flexible OPV e  Development of OPV modules with absorptance, transmissivity, and Friman Peretz
modules reflectivity of 65%, 20%, and 15% in PAR range respectively; et al. (2019)
 Suitable for using as shading materials with higher prices and shorter
lifetime;
 Higher transmissivity of 30% in the IR range;
 Improvements in electric efficiency are required.

incident and ground-reflected radiations with minor shading
effects.
 Other reported issues associated with GHIPV systems are rela-
tively low-efficiency values of PV modules and their high prices.
Although employing sun-tracking systems can increase the
electricity generation by PV modules, however, a sufficient
amount of electricity can be generated in locations with high
potentials of solar radiation. However, both improvements in
technology and costs are crucial to making this technology more
attractive for investment.
3.3. Greenhouse integrated PVT (GHIPVT)
Solar PV modules available today convert solar radiation into
electricity at an efficiency of around 15%e18%. During this process,
a large portion of the received solar radiation is dissipated as heat,
increases the PV module surface temperature, and results in a
significant reduction in electricity output (Debbarma et al., 2017;
Idoko et al., 2018; Shakouri et al., 2020). A hybrid PVT module takes
advantage of generating electricity, and at the same time being a
thermal collector. In this hybrid collector, the cooling medium
(generally air/water) extracts the excess generated heat from the PV
module and therefore, improves the overall electric efficiency. The
extracted heat can then be used in low-to medium-temperature
applications (Al-Waeli et al., 2017; Gorjian et al., 2020b). Fig. 14
shows a general classification of PVT modules.
Concentrating PVT (CPVT) modules use curved reflectors or re-
fractors (Fig. 15) to concentrate solar radiation onto the multi-
junction (MJ) or non-silicon solar cells with efficiencies that could
reach more than 40%. The CPVT modules are among the most
efficient hybrid collectors since they enjoy high optical and thermal
efficiencies (Daneshazarian et al., 2018; Sharaf and Orhan, 2015).

11
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al.
Fig. 14. Classification of solar PVT modules, adapted from (Diwania et al., 2019).
Fig. 15. Different types of solar concentrators which are used in CPVT modules.
3.3.1. Developments and prospects
In GHIPVTs, the electricity produced from the PV modules is
consumed by electric facilities with the excess stored in batteries,
while the produced heat is used to provide an appropriate indoor
environment for the greenhouse and therefore, make the entire
system self-sustained (Tiwari et al., 2016). According to the litera-
ture, FP-PVT collectors are mainly mounted on façades or tilted
roofs of greenhouses which can also act as an opaque covering
material as well as a protection layer, offering higher straightness to
the whole greenhouse structure (Fig. 16) (Ghani et al., 2019).
Nayak and Tiwari (2007) investigated that the absence of the
airflow in a PVT module could positively affect the plant’s growth
rate, as higher air temperatures can be reached. It was shown that
thermal energy transfer from the Tedlar back surface to the
greenhouse air increases both the indoor and plant temperature by
5  C. On the other hand, by using forced convection, more thermal
energy is extracted from the PVT, increasing its thermal efficiency
between 15 and 23%. In a similar study, Nayak and Tiwari (2008)
12
Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807
found that by using a PVT module, the annual net electrical en-
ergy saving obtains about 716 kW with the exergy efficiency of
about 4%.
Sonneveld et al. (2011) developed an innovative greenhouse
integrated with linear Fresnel lenses. In their design, the CPVT
collector was mounted on the roof of the greenhouse and a tracking
system was employed to position it (Fig. 17). They reported the
generated electricity and the thermal yield as 29 kWh/m2/year and
518 MJ/m2 respectively. The obtained results indicated that the
CPVT system can also be used to both control the temperature and
to provide lighting inside the greenhouse.
Wu et al. (2019) conducted some experiments to study a CPC
cover with the capability of converting the light exceedance into
heat under representative weather conditions. They concluded that
under the highest total radiation of 1095 W/m2, the maximum
thermal power of 353 W/m2 is achievable when the instantaneous
efficiency is equal to 32.2%. Moreover, the results indicated that the
innovative covering material can provide a more balanced indoor
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807

Fig. 16. Roof integration method of FP-PVT modules: a) PVT module installed on the roof of a greenhouse dryer (Barnwal and Tiwari, 2011), b) A PVT module incorporated to a solar
greenhouse (Nayak and Tiwari, 2008), c) Semi-transparent solar PVT modules installed underneath a greenhouse glass roof (Li et al., 2018).

Fig. 17. a) PVT module with silicon solar cells, b) Linear Fresnel lenses, and PVT modules integrated to a greenhouse hood, c) The Fresnel GHICPVT system at its real size (Sonneveld
et al., 2011). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Fig. 18. a) Experimental setup of the CPVT system (Imtiaz Hussain et al., 2016), b) Modular construction of the Fresnel lens inside the greenhouse (Swinkels et al., 2011).

brightness, making the greenhouse lighting more even with an
improved internal thermal condition. Hussain et al. (2016) evalu-
ated the energy potential and economic feasibility of a GHICPVT
system. For this purpose, two CPVT modules, one with and the
other without a glass-reinforced plastic envelope were considered
(Fig. 18a). Based on the results, the glass-reinforced CPVT showed
better efficiency and lower heat loss compared with the standard
one. The results also indicated that using a CPVT module to supply
the required heat for the greenhouse leads to a significant
discounted payback period (DPP) and life cycle saving (LCS).
Swinkels et al. (2011) developed a greenhouse with two lenses
located in a double glass internal space, allowing for a reduction of
pollution and condensation on the lenses (Fig. 18b). They concluded
that the sunlight inside the greenhouse is very stable compared
with the outside. They reported the electrical power production of
37 W/m2 and the thermal yield of 20% under the incoming solar
radiation equal to 870 W/m2.
Table 2 summarizes the most important research works carried

13
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al.
out on GHIPVT systems. According to the literature, the main con-
clusions of GHIPV systems are pointed out as follows:
 PVT modules are the most efficient energy conversion systems
that can be integrated with greenhouses, providing both ther-
mal and electric requirements of the greenhouse. In this regard,
generated direct current (DC) electricity by PV modules can be
used to drive the electrical components inside the greenhouse
(such as a fan or electric lamps and heaters), while the surplus
can be stored in batteries, making these systems self-sustained
especially in remote locations or rural areas with difficult-to-
access electrical grids.
 In GHIPVT systems, PV modules overheating and blockage of the
visible light from entering the greenhouse due to the mounting
of opaque modules on the roof areas are reported as two main
issues. The first one is mainly due to the inadequate heat ex-
change between the PV Tedlar back surface and the cooling
medium, while the second issue is because of the opaque
characteristics of the PVT modules using conventional types
which can be solved by replacing them with semi-transparent
PV modules.
 CPVT collectors have shown higher thermal and electric effi-
ciencies in comparison with FP-PVT modules due to the con-
centration of sunlight. Therefore, higher electric and thermal
efficiencies achievable by CPVT modules make them more
suitable options for integration with greenhouses to provide
desirable indoor temperature especially in greenhouses
installed in regions with severe cold climates.
 No specific strategy has been reported in the literature for
implementation of GHIPVT systems and therefore, main tech-
nical barriers need to be investigated to help architects and
engineers to implement GHIPVT systems with the maximum
energy output by considering safety requirements.
 A more detailed parametric sensitivity analysis for PVT modules
integrated with greenhouses is strongly suggested. Most of the
review studies have focused on the operational parameters of
PVT modules (i.e. heat transfer fluid and temperature of the PV
module) where no analysis has been conducted considering
their design parameters considering their integration with
greenhouses (i.e. PV module type and mounting tilted angle) to
maximize solar energy.
Fig. 19. Classification of non-concentrating solar thermal collectors (Fortuin and Stryi-Hipp, 2012).
14
Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807
3.4. Greenhouse integrated solar thermal collectors
Solar thermal applications have attracted remarkable attention
due to their high energy conversion efficiency and energy storage
density. Solar thermal systems consist of two main components
namely solar collector and thermal energy storage unit (Gorjian
et al., 2015; Ketabchi et al., 2019). In greenhouse applications,
thermal collectors are used to absorbing solar radiation and pro-
duce heat which can then be transferred to the indoor space of the
greenhouse to provide an optimum thermal environment for plants
cultivated inside (Gorjian et al., 2020a; 2014; Xu et al., 2020). Be-
sides, the produced thermal energy can be stored in an energy
storage medium for later use at nocturnal periods or cloudy days
(Gourdo et al., 2019a; Ntinas et al., 2014). In general, solar thermal
collectors are classified into two main categories of non-
concentrating and concentrating types (Gorjian and Ghobadian,
2015; Sethi and Sharma, 2008). A classification of non-
concentrating solar thermal collectors is shown in Fig. 19.
3.4.1. Greenhouse integrated FPCs (GHIFPCs)
The performance of a heating system utilized in a plastic-
covered tunnel-type greenhouse (250 m2) in Morocco was evalu-
ated by Bargach et al. (1999). The heating system composed of a
cold-water tank with a capacity of 250 L, four FPCs with the aper-
ture area of 2.34 m2 for each one, and a storage tank for hot water
with a capacity of 250 L. For a day in February, the average
nocturnal temperature difference between the indoor and outdoor
air temperatures was reported as 1.7  C.
Kumari et al. (2006) theoretically evaluated the thermal per-
formance of an even-span greenhouse (24 m2) with a FPC (2 m2)
under the climate conditions of Delhi, India. The simulated results
indicated that the plant temperature inside the greenhouse can
significantly be higher in comparison with the plants inside the
€
reference greenhouse. Oztürk (2005) evaluated the performance of
a GHIFPC (180 m2) in the Cukurova, Turkey. The heating system is
composed of the main components including FPCs (1.5 m2 each), a
LTES system (6000 kg of paraffin), and a heat transfer unit. From the
results, the average net energy efficiency of the proposed system
was determined as 40.4%, while the exergy efficiency was calcu-
lated as 4.2%. Benli and Durmuş (2009) explored a greenhouse in-
tegrated with ten FPCs with a PCM thermal energy storage unit in
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807

Fig. 20. a) Air circulation lines and FPCs, b) View of the experimental GHIFPC (Benli and Durmuş, 2009).

Turkey (Fig. 20). The results indicated that the proposed design can
supply the total thermal energy of about 18e23% for 3e4 h in a day.
Xu et al. (2020) explored a new solar thermal collector inte-
grated with a greenhouse characterized by a water-circulating solar
heat collection and a release system with an indoor collector con-
structed from hollow polycarbonate sheets (low-cost, high-
strength and good-durability). In this way, it could capture indoor
solar heat during the daytime and transfer it back to the green-
house at night for heating. The experimental results demonstrated
a daily average heat collection ratio equal to 72.1%. Attar et al.
(2013) theoretically evaluated the heating performance of a small
greenhouse (4 m2) in Tunisia including a heating system composed
of a FPC with 2 m2 surface area and a storage tank with the capacity
of 200 L. The results indicated that the average indoor air temper-
ature reaches 22  C when the heating system is integrated and to
17  C when the greenhouse is unheated. They concluded that the
heating system allows for improving the indoor air temperature up
to 5  C. In another study, Attar et al. (2014) evaluated the thermal
performance of a greenhouse integrated with a solar heating sys-
tem composed of two capillary heat exchangers, one suspended in
the air and the other buried into the ground of the greenhouse. In
this way, the stored energy recovers through the heat exchangers
located in the depth of 0.3 m to provide the required hot air inside
the greenhouse for nocturnal applications. The results indicated
that the heating system can provide internal hot air with a tem-
perature of about 6  C at night. Also, It was found that the system
can individually provide an appropriate indoor temperature of
20  C for the pepper plant during the spring season (MarcheMay),
but it is not enough to provide desired temperatures and additional
electrical contributions during DecembereFebruary. Awani et al.
(2015) investigated the operation of a greenhouse (100 m2) in
Tunisia integrated with the heating system consist of a FPC (2 m2)
connected to a heat pump and a vertical heat exchanger to achieve
a desirable climate inside the greenhouse during winter. The
highest and lowest values of the indoor greenhouse temperatures
were reported as 35  C and 16  C respectively when the outside
temperatures were in the range of 15.6  Ce20  C. Esen and Yuksel
(2013) investigated the thermal performance of a solar heating
system integrated with FPCs in combination with a biogas plant and
a ground source heat pump to provide the heating demands of a
plastic-covered greenhouse (24 m2) in Turkey (Fig. 21). They re-
ported that the proposed hybrid heating system is suitable to be
used in a greenhouse located in the East and Southeast regions of
Turkey especially due to the high production of livestock.
3.4.2. Greenhouse integrated ETCs (GHIETCs)
A hybrid solar heating system consists of an ETC unit, a hot
water storage tank, and an auxiliary fossil fuel heating unit was
evaluated by Kıyan et al. (2013). The proposed system was utilized
to heat a conceptually designed greenhouse (5600 m2) in Turkey.
The study theoretically assessed the performance of a greenhouse
with various sizes (1000e2000 m2) of solar collectors and the
volume of the storage tank (10e160 m3). The results indicated that
modifying the current fossil-based fuel system with the introduced
hybrid configuration is affordable for most cases but results in a bite
more extended payback period. Lazaar et al. (2015) experimentally
investigated the performance of two tunnel greenhouses (200 m2)
with a solar heating system comprises of an ETC integrated to a
200-L storage tank to store the solar heat for use at nights. The
results indicated that the night-time indoor air temperature in-
creases 2  C in comparison with the reference greenhouse with the
average energy efficiency ranges from 25% to 80%. The economic
evaluation suggested that utilization of the proposed system with
three ETCs for heating the greenhouse is rentable as the system’s

Fig. 21. Different components of the hybrid renewable-based heating system for integration with a greenhouse; a) Solar FPCs, b) Heat exchanger of the heat pump buried in the
ground, c) Biomass generator (Esen and Yuksel, 2013).

15
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al.
Fig. 22. a) The ETC integrated with a greenhouse, b) Inside view of a greenhouse with heating pipes (Hassanien et al., 2018).
payback period was obtained as three years.
Hassanien et al. (2018) evaluated the heating performance of a
plastic-covered greenhouse (32 m2) under the climate conditions of
Kunming, China. The solar heating system consisted of four major
units of an ETC, an air-to-water heat pump, a hot water storage
tank, and heating pipes (Fig. 22). Results indicated that the system
can meet a significant portion of the total heat demand in October
(62%), March (40%), and April (78%) at the desired heating tem-
perature of 14  C. However, additional heat is required to supply the
optimal heating requirements during three months of the year
(Jan-Feb-Dec). Also, the proposed heating system yielded a 10%
decrease in the indoor relative humidity with comparison to the
reference greenhouse. Moreover, thermal efficiency and the
payback period of the ETC were calculated as 0.49 and 4.1 years,
respectively.
3.4.3. Greenhouse integrated concentrators
Hussain et al. (2015) experimentally evaluated the effectiveness
of two spot and linear Fresnel collectors to heat two identical
greenhouses under the climate conditions of Chuncheon, South
Korea. The results from the experiments indicated that the green-
house with the spot Fresnel collector offers 7e12% higher perfor-
mance than the linear Fresnel collector (Fig. 23) with thermal
efficiency values ranges from 45% to 70%. The techno-economic
analysis revealed that the long-term operation of the proposed
model results in cost savings equal to 7344$, 8658$, and 11,405$
compared with the electricity, kerosene, and diesel utilization
respectively for heating the greenhouse.
Table 3 summarizes the main findings of the research works
carried out on GHIPVT systems. Although the use of solar thermal
technologies in greenhouses has significant benefits, several chal-
lenges remained unsolved. From the literature survey presented in
Fig. 23. Experimental setup of concentrating solar collectors integrated with a greenhouse: a) Spot Fresnel lens collector system, b) Linear Fresnel lens collector system (Imtiaz
Hussain et al., 2015).
16
Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807
this section, the most highlighted points are;
 Solar thermal collectors can be considered as promising alter-
natives to provide heating demands in greenhouses, especially
under moderate climatic conditions since the heating potential
of solar thermal collectors significantly depends on the locations
that greenhouses are deployed in terms of solar radiation
availability and local weather conditions.
 In some cases, the total heat requirements of greenhouses can
not be fully supplied by the collectors especially when FPCs are
integrated. As a potential solution, the heating performance of
solar thermal collectors can be enhanced by employing large
areas of collectors, integrating thermal energy storage (TES)
units, and installing auxiliary thermal power supplying systems
(i.e. electric heaters), but in contrast, the costs of the system will
consequently be increased.
 The integration of solar concentrators with greenhouses has
been rarely investigated by the researchers and therefore, more
investigations are required especially in terms of controlling the
temperature provided by concentrators. Integrating concentra-
tors with greenhouses requires sun-tracking systems which
increases the total costs of the system. Fresnel lenses are the
most suitable concentrators for integration with greenhouses
since they can transmit most of the incident light into the
greenhouse.
 As reported in some studies, the heat demands of greenhouses
have been provided by hybrid thermal systems including solar
collectors and heat pumps. Since installing heat pumps is also a
feasible option for integration with agricultural greenhouses,
further investigations for the employment of theses systems are
suggested in future studies.
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al.
Fig. 24. Classification of TES systems, adapted from (Sharma et al., 2009).
3.5. Solar greenhouses integrated with thermal energy storage
(TES)
TES systems improve the performance of solar-powered
greenhouses by accumulating the heat remained from the day-
time operation and utilizing the stored energy in nocturnal oper-
ations and overcast days (Kant et al., 2017; 2016b).
In this regard, a proficient and cost-effective TES is sometimes
considered as a critical component in solar greenhouses. Three
main techniques for storing heat sensible and latent heat storage,
and chemical energy storage (Bazgaou et al., 2018; Hosseini et al.,
2018). An overview of primary TES techniques is presented in
Fig. 24.
Several greenhouses with TES have been developed to improve
the climate inside the greenhouses and mitigate burning fossil fuels
as an auxiliary heating supply. A list of the most common materials
used as sensible thermal energy storage (STES) systems is pre-
sented in Table 4.
3.5.1. Integration of solar greenhouses with STES
3.5.1.1. Rock bed TES (RB-TES). Kurklu et al. (2003) developed an
experimental setup to study the polyethylene tunnel type green-
house with RB-TES. The setup consisted of two similar tunnel
greenhouses with 0.2 mm thick polyethylene cover and 15 m2 floor
area. Two channels dig under beneath the greenhouse floor were
filled with rocks and insulated under the soil bed. A centrifugal fan
was used to push the greenhouse air to the rock bed at 1100 m3/h
that was controlled by a thermostat for storage and release of the
thermal energy. Results indicated that the indoor air temperature
of the greenhouse with rock storage is 10  C more than the
greenhouse without rocks during the night. From economic eval-
uation, it was found that the rock bed system exhibits higher
affordability compared to the liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) or
fossil fuel-based heating mode.
Bazgaou et al. (2018) experimentally investigated the effect of
using an RB-TES system on the microclimate as well as the crop
growth in a greenhouse. Intending to analyze the effects of the rock
bed on the temperature, humidity, and plant growth inside the
greenhouse, the geometry, material, and date of planting remained
the same. The obtained results indicated that the use of the RB-TES
system increases the temperature of the greenhouse by 2.6  C,
while the relative humidity is 10% lower at night due to the exis-
tence of the storage. The results also revealed a promotion in the
17
Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807
microclimate during the night-time with a significant enhance-
ment of 29% in the yield as well as in fruit quality. In another study,
Bazgaou et al. (2020a,b) assessed the efficiency of a solar heating
cooling system (SHCS) applied to the greenhouse microclimate.
They concluded that the heating and cooling of the indoor air by
SHCS can improve the greenhouse microclimate as well as the to-
mato yield. The results also indicated that the air temperature in-
side the greenhouse equipped with SHCS is higher than the control
greenhouse as 3  C at night and 6  C lower during the day with
fewer fluctuations. Gourdo et al. (2019) designed and fabricated an
experimental setup to survey the impact of utilizing an RB-TES on
the inside air temperature and the crop yield of a greenhouse with
dimensions of 5 m  3 m  3 m (Fig. 25). The thickness, trans-
mittance, conductivity, and diffusivity of the Polyethylene cover
were 200 mm, 75%, 0.41 W/mK, and 0.2991  106 m2/s respec-
tively. It was found that the inside air temperature reduces to 1.9  C
in the daytime and increases to 3  C in the night-time in compar-
ison with the conventional greenhouses. Moreover, the crop yield
with the RB-TES system was 22% higher than the traditional
greenhouses.
3.5.1.2. Underground TES (UTES). Underground TES (UTES) systems
are the most developed storage systems used in greenhouses for
seasonal storage. The UTES is classified into the thermal storage
with boreholes (BTES) and aquifers (ATES). Despite the other UTES
systems, the soil storage does not require heat pumps and there-
fore, these systems are more affordable (Reuss et al., 1997).
Zhang et al. (2015) developed a novel low-cost seasonal solar
soil heat storage system (SSSHS) for heating applications inside a
greenhouse. In the proposed TES system, solar thermal energy was
kept in the soil under the greenhouse to diminish the energy
required for inclement cold and continuously cloudy weather
during winter (Fig. 26). They also developed a TRNSYS model to
simulate the processes of solar energy absorption and heat storage
in the soil. The amounts of energy consumed by the SSSHS and the
traditional solar heating system were compared under similar
conditions, and it was found that the energy consumption of the
soil TES is less than the regular heating method.
Semple et al. (2017) examined the feasibility of the seasonal TES
integration with a large-scale solar collector system. TRNSYS
simulation software was used to model both low- and high-
temperature borehole of the TES systems and to compare their
performances. The results indicated that both systems can meet
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807

Table 2
Summary of the main results obtained from the studies conducted on GHIPVT systems.

PVT Study Area Methodology Main Findings Refs.

Type

FP- Delhi, India Numerical simulation
PVT
Delhi, India Numerical simulation
Delhi, India Numerical simulation
Shiraz, Iran Numerical simulation
Delhi, India Numerical simulation
CPVT Netherlands Experimental study
Netherlands Experimental study
South Korea Numerical simulation and
economic analysis
Netherlands Numerical simulation
Beijing, Numerical simulation and
China experimental study
 The annual net electrical energy saving of the greenhouse was 716 kWh. Nayak and
 The results of the exergy analysis showed the exergy efficiency of about 4%. Tiwari (2008)
 There was a good agreement between the theoretical and experimental data for the Tedlar back cover
and room temperature with the root mean square deviation of 7.05e17.58% and correlation
coefficient of 0.95e0.97.
 The earth air heat exchanger (EAHE) combined with a GHIPVT unit reduced the fluctuations of the Nayak and
indoor temperature. Tiwari (2009)
 During the winter period, the entire system (FP-PVT plus EAHE) indicated an increase of 7e8  C in the
indoor air temperature.
 The exergy efficiency of the system including the FP-PVT during the day and the EAHE during the
night was calculated as 5.5%.
 The overall thermal efficiency of a GHIPVT dryer was reported in the range of 33e37.8%. Barnwal and
 The dryer was considered self-sustained due to the DC electricity produced by the PV modules. Tiwari (2011)
 There was a fair agreement between the theatrical and experimental data for the inside air
temperature, crop temperature, and the evaporated moisture.
 The use of a solar-blind system maximized solar energy utilization and increased the annual exergy Vadiee and
efficiency from 0.2% to 4%. Yaghoubi (2016)
 The greenhouse setpoint temperature affected the annual exergy efficiency due to the power
requirements of the forced ventilation.
 The usage of natural ventilation was recommended when high greenhouse setpoint temperatures are
chosen.
 The results of the SAFF-NN model were in a close agreement with the experimental data, showed Singh et al.
priority over the conventional methods of the LM-NN and FF-NN. (2018)
 The results from the parametric study revealed that the efficiency of the solar cell decreases when its
temperature increases.
 A fair agreement between the experimental and predicted data was reported for the solar cell
temperature, electric energy, the indoor air temperature, and the efficiency of solar cells.
 The NIR reflection provided better climate conditions for crop production inside the greenhouse. Sonneveld et al.
 The annual thermal and the electric powers were calculated as 160 kWh/m2 and 20 kWh/m2 (2010)
respectively.
 Improving the spectral range of the near-infrared radiation film and the concentrating system
resulted in a self-sustained greenhouse.
 Separating the direct from the diffuse radiation by the linear Fresnel lenses allows the diffuse Sonneveld et al.
radiation to be utilized by the crops. (2011)
 Direct radiation removal limited the indoor temperature increase by a factor of 4 and reduced
summer cooling requirements.
 The annual thermal energy and electrical power were calculated as 518 MJ/m2 and 29 kWh/m2
respectively.
 The efficiency of the CPVT module was enhanced by increasing the capacity of the thermal energy Hussain et al.
storage (TES). (2016)
 The discounted payback period decreased significantly with an enhancement in the thermal mass
storage capacity.
 There was a fair agreement between the experimental and theoretical data to estimate the electric
and thermal outputs of the CPVT.
 The life cycle savings (LCSs) of the CPVT versus the use of electricity, kerosene, and diesel were
calculated as 7344$, 8658$ and 11,405$, with the calculated discounted payback periods (DPPs) of
21, 16 and 11 years, respectively.
 Removal of the direct solar radiation decreased the need for cooling in summer and glass lime Sonneveld et al.
coatings and screens. (2017)
 The annual maximum electric and thermal yields of 120 kW/m2 and 180 kW/m2 were obtained
respectively.
 The produced energy can be used in the desalination system or/and supply power for the excess
cooling using the pad and fan.
 The translucent greenhouse cover material reduced the entering light (from 60% to 32% at midday). Wu et al. (2019)
 The excess generated heat at noon transferred to a heat pipe attached to the CPC, caused the
maximum thermal power and efficiency of 353 W/m2 and 32.2% respectively.

65% of the heating energy required for the greenhouse. Moreover,
results demonstrated that the proposed configuration may reduce
the yearly CO2 by almost 220 tones/Acre.
3.5.1.3. Water TES (WTES). Kozai et al. (1986) investigated the
integration of water tanks with a solar greenhouse as the heat
storage and heat exchange to analyze its thermal performance.
From the results, the average solar energy absorption factor of the
greenhouse was obtained as 0.13 with the average oil reduction
factor of 0.76, the average greenhouse performance coefficient of
4.7, and the average overall heat transmission coefficient of 2.1 W/
m2 C. They concluded that the solar greenhouse has nearly high
18
thermal performance in which the best performance comes out of
the suitable environmental control. Mavrogianopoulos and Kyritsis
(1993), experimentally evaluated a greenhouse integrated with a
passive solar system used water to collect and store heat. In their
design, the water was stored in transparent polyethylene tubes
located between the rows of the cultivated tomato plants on the
soil of the greenhouse. The results indicated the minimum inside
air temperature of 3e4  C higher than the outside with an
increased solar energy collection factor of 90% during January.
Bargach et al. (1999) developed a heating system to improve the
microclimate inside a greenhouse using solar FPCs. The system
consisted of a set of solar collectors with an optical surface of
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807

Table 3
Summary of the main results obtained from the studies conducted on greenhouses integrated with solar thermal collectors.

Study Area Type of System Description Main Findings Refs.

Collector

Rabat, FPC  Four FPCs (2.34 m2 each), and a hot water storage tank (250 L)  The average nocturnal difference between the greenhouse and Bargach
Morocco integrated with the plastic-covered tunnel greenhouse (250 m2). the outside air temperature was about 1.7  C. et al. (1999)
Tianjin, FPC  Flat-plate absorbers (138 m2) connected in parallel with a  Daytime indoor temperature was more than 60  C. Wang et al.
China greenhouse (318 m2).  The ilistandoor air temperature was 9  C higher than the (2005)
ambient temperature of the next morning.
Delhi, India FPC  Even-span greenhouse (24 m2) with a FPC (2 m2)  Plant temperature with FPC increases up to 12  C as compared Kumari
to plant temperature in the greenhouse with a massive north et al. (2006)
wall.
Cukurova, FPC  FPC (27 m2) integrated with a greenhouse (180 m2) consists of a  Maximum energy and exergy efficiencies at a temperature €
Oztürk
Turkey PCM north wall. difference of 50 K were estimated to be 61.5% and 9.1%. (2005)
Borj FPC  A greenhouse (4 m2) with the heating system consists of FPC  The outlet temperature from the collector could be increased Attar et al.
Cedria, 2
(2 m ) and a storage tank (20 L) up to 62  C from 39  C for the increased collector area of 8 m2. (2013)
Tunisia  The average indoor temperature of the greenhouse increased
by 5  C.
Windsor, FPC  Several FPCs (861 m2) in a series-parallel arrangement in a com-  The heating system was able to cover 64% of the annual heating Semple
Canada mercial greenhouse (0.4 ha) demand of the greenhouse. et al. (2017)
 A payback period could be about 7 years as compared to a
typical natural gas-fired boiler.
Tunis, ETC  Two tunnel greenhouses (200 m2) with ETC coupled to a storage  The average energy efficiency of the evacuated tube solar water Lazaar et al.
Tunisia tank (200 L) heater was about 46%. (2015)
 The indoor air temperature was increased by 4  C.
Kunming, ETC  A plastic-covered greenhouse (32 m2) integrated with the heating  The indoor temperature of the heated greenhouse was 2e3  C Hassanien
China system consists of ETC, heat pump, storage tank. higher than the unheated greenhouse. et al. (2018)
 The thermal efficiency and the payback period of the ETC were
0.45 and 4.1 years.

Table 4
The most common materials used in STES systems (ISO-10456, 2007; Tatsidjodoung et al., 2013).

Medium Type Temperature Range [ C] Thermal Conductivity [W/moC] Density [kg/m3] Specific heat [J/kg K]

Rock Solid 20 3.5e0.85 2560 879

Brick Solid 20 0.73 1800 1880
Reinforced Concrete (2%) Solid 20 2.50 2400 1000
Concrete (high density) Solid 20 2.00 1900e2400 880
Water liquid 0e100 0.63 1000 4190
Engine Oil Liquid Up to 160 0.14 888 1880
Ethanol Organic liquid Up to 78 0.171 790 2400
Propanol Organic liquid Up to 97 0.1407 800 2500
Butanol Organic liquid Up to 118 0.1553 809 2400

2.34 m2 for each one. Two water tanks were installed, one for the
storage of warm water, which was thermally insulated, and the
other for cold water storage (Fig. 27). The results indicated the air
temperature increase of 1.2  C inside the greenhouse in the exis-
tence of the water storage during the night-time. Moreover, the
plant weight ratio increase of about 2.685 kg of melon was reported
inside the heated greenhouse.
Fig. 25. Schematic view of the RB-TES system utilized in a greenhouse (Gourdo et al.,
2019b).
19
3.5.2. Integration solar greenhouses with LTES
Latent thermal energy storage (LTES) can provide higher energy
density than the STES. PCMs offer a much higher density of energy
storage in comparison with the STES. A PCM can store a notable
quantity of thermal energy in the LTES cycle and the solid to liquid
phase transition occurs at a stable temperature (phase transition
temperature) (Kant et al., 2016b; Shukla et al., 2016). Properties of
different PCMs and their main selection criteria are listed in
Tables 5 and 6 respectively. Selected PCMs should have the melting
temperature varying from 20 to 60  C which makes them suitable
for use in greenhouses.
Benli et al. (2009) explored the effect of integrating a PCM
storage unit into the novel solar collectors to supply the heating
demands of a greenhouse. The test rig comprised of ten solar air
collectors located close to the greenhouse. The collectors were
positioned toward the south with an angle of 28.6 , as the optimum
installation during wintertime in Elazıg-Turkey (36e42 N). A cy-
lindrical tank filled with CaCl2.6H2O was placed inside the green-
house, and hot air from solar air collectors was contacted with the
PCM tank via a heat exchanger tube. The obtained results indicated
that proposed collectors incorporated with the PCM can provide
nearly 18e23% of the total daily thermal energy demand of the
greenhouse for 3e4 h compared to the conventional heating
methods.
Two identical chapel-shaped greenhouses each one occupied a
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807

Fig. 26. Schematic view of the developed SSSHS in Ref. (Zhang et al., 2015).

Cold tank
Tunnel Greenhouse
D N

D N Agrotherme

Pump
Collectors Storage tank

D N

During the day : valves D are open, and valves N are closed.
During the night : valves N are open, and valves D are closed.

: Circula on’s way during the day.

: Circula on’s way during the night.

Fig. 27. The tunnel greenhouse with the solar FPCs heating system (Bargach et al., 1999).

ground area up to 14.8 m2 (3.7 m  4 m) and 3 m height, with and
without LTES were studied by Bouadila et al. (2014). In this study,
the south wall and roof of the greenhouse were enveloped by 3 mm
plexiglass integrated to a heating system composed of a novel solar
air heating collector and a packed bed contains spherical PCM
capsules (Fig. 28). Experimental data revealed that the system’s
heat recovery value is 30% of the total heat demand for night
operation, while the stored thermal energy could meet 56% of the
total surplus heat gained inside the greenhouse during the day.
Kooli et al. (2015) experimentally investigated the impact of the
nocturnal shutter on an insulated greenhouse equipped with a
solar air heater and LTES. The obtained results indicated that the
indoor temperature of the greenhouse with nocturnal shutter is
2  C more than the greenhouse without shutter. It should be
mentioned that the interior temperature of the greenhouse with
the shutter was stayed at 15  C, while the exterior temperature
20
reached 8  C during the night. A novel hydroponic greenhouse in-
tegrated into a solar air heater with PCM was developed by Baddadi
et al. (2019) and its microclimate was investigated. The results
indicated a better environment for the developed greenhouse
compared with conventional greenhouses. Besides, a 6  C
enhancement in the interior air temperature of the greenhouse
with two packed beds of LTES was reported during the night-time.
Bouadila et al. (2014b) conducted an economic assessment of a
greenhouse with a new packed-bed solar air heater operating at
night, in Tunisia. In this study, the economic analysis of a new solar
air heater with LHS collector (SAHLSC) including the energy cost
and payback period in comparison with the expected service life
cycle of the installation was carried out. In this case, the life cycle
and thermal performance degradation of the collector were
considered as 20 years and 1% per year. The payback period of the
collector integrated with the latent storage was obtained as 5 years.
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807

Table 5
Different types of PCM that can be utilized as LTES.

Material Melting Temp. Latent Heat Type of Refs.

[oC] [kJ/kg] PCM

Formic acid 7.8 247 Organic
et al., 2012;Pereira da Cunha and Eames, 2016; Sharma et al.,
(Al-Abidi et al., 2012; Oro
2009; Su et al., 2015)
Caprilic acid 16.3 149 Organic (Pielichowska and Pielichowski, 2014; Sharma et al., 2009)
Acetic acid 16.7 184 Organic (Cabeza et al., 2011; Sharma et al., 2009)
Polyethylene glycol 600 20e25 146 Organic (Baetens et al., 2010; Sharma et al., 2009; Su et al., 2015; Zhu et al., 2009)
d-Lattic acid 26 184 Organic (Kant et al., 2016a; Sharma et al., 2009)
Capric acid 32 152 Organic (Kant et al., 2016a; Karaipekli and Sari, 2008; Sharma et al., 2009)
Docasyl bromide 40 201 Organic Sharma et al. (2009)
Lauric acid 49 178 Organic (Kant et al., 2016a; Sharma et al., 2009)
Camphene 50 238 Organic (Lee et al., 2014; Sharma et al., 2009; Su et al., 2015)
Myristic acid 58 199 Organic (Kant et al., 2016a; Sharma et al., 2009)
Stearic acid 69.4 199 Organic (Kant et al., 2016a; Sharma et al., 2009)
CaCl2$12H2O 29.8 174 Inorganic (Madessa, 2014; Shao et al., 2015; Sharma et al., 2009; Zhou et al., 2012)
LiNO3$3H2O 30 189 Inorganic Sharma et al. (2009)
KFe (SO4)2$12H2O 33 173 Inorganic Sharma et al. (2009)
LiBr2$2H2O 34 124 Inorganic Sharma et al. (2009)
FeCl3$6H2O 37.0 223 Inorganic Sharma et al. (2009)
CoSO4$7H2O 40.7 170 Inorganic Sharma et al. (2009)
CaCl2$6H2O þ CaBr2$6H2O (45% þ 55%, 14.7 140 Eutectic Sharma et al. (2009)
wt.)
CaCl2þMgCl2$6H2O (50% þ 50%, wt.) 25 95 Eutectic Sharma et al. (2009)
Triethylolethane þ urea 29.8 218 Eutectic Sharma et al. (2009)
(62.5% þ 37.5%, wt.)
CH3COONa$3H2O þ NH2CONH2 30 200.5 Eutectic Sharma et al. (2009)
(40% þ 60%, wt.)
Mg (NO3)3$6H2O þ NH4NO3 52 125.5 Eutectic Sharma et al. (2009)
(61.5% þ 38.5%, wt.)

Table 6
Desirable properties of PCMs for use in TES applications.

Parameters Properties of PCMs

Thermodynamic  Appropriate phase change temperature for the specific application

 Consistent melting point to avoid segregation
 Consistent and predicted phase change temperature (freeze/melt point)
 High density, resulting in fewer container volume requirement for enough quantity of material
 High specific heat that allows for additional STES
 High thermal conductivity (both liquid and solid phases of the material) facilitating the charging and discharge of the energy storage
 Higher phase change enthalpy concerning the volume of the storage unit
 Lower thermal expansion coefficient
Kinetic  Adequate crystallization rates
 Lesser or no undercooling within the freezing process
Chemical  Long-term chemical stability
 No chemical decomposition to facilitate the LTES system life higher
 Non-corrosiveness to construction material
 Non-toxic, non-poisonous, non-flammable, non-explosive, non-dangerous
Physical  Low vapor pressure
 Favorable phase equilibrium
Economic  High availability and enough quantity
 High economic feasibility with low cost

Fig. 28. a) External view of the insulated greenhouse, b) Solar air heater with LTES inside the greenhouse (Bouadila et al., 2014a).

21
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807

Bazgaou et al. (2020a,b) conducted an economic assessment for
combining RB-TES and water-filled passive solar sleeves for heating
a Canarian greenhouse. To evaluated the economic profitability of
the system, the profit of tomato crop for 10 harvesting periods with
a density of 2 plants/m2 was calculated. In this case, the yield of
7.24 kg/m2 was obtained for tomatoes inside the unheated green-
houses with a density of 2 plants/m,2 while using a combined
heating system improved this value to 10.80 kg/m2, giving a dif-
ference of 3.56 kg/m2 in yield and an average gain of 49% with the
average profit of 1.02 USD/m.2
Table 7 summarizes the main findings of research works carried
out on solar greenhouses equipped with TES units. According to the
literature;
 All research works including theoretical investigations and
experimental evaluations have reported higher thermal effi-
ciency and higher inside temperatures with fewer fluctuations
in solar greenhouses integrated with TES units which are most
desirable during cold seasons and night-time.
 In the literature, different TES technologies in terms of materials,
designs, and structures have been examined and discussed. In
the economic view, some studies have confirmed that solar
greenhouses integrated with STES are more affordable than
solar greenhouses that consume liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)
or fossil fuels to provide their thermal requirements. According
to the literature, employing TES in solar greenhouses can in-
crease thermal performance by 29%.
 Further researches are required to support the path from
research to market. In this case, some of the potential future
research prospects for TES-based solar greenhouses are: (i)
Effective design of heat exchangers, (ii) Numerical analyzing,
(iii) Performance evaluation and demonstration, and (iv) Life
cycle assessment (LCA), as well as economic feasibility and
investigation of associated environmental impacts.
4. Modeling and performance evaluation of solar
greenhouses
Numerous studies have been carried out to study heat and mass
transfer phenomena in solar greenhouses using mathematical-
based models. Most of these models were developed to analyze
the energy-efficient design of solar greenhouses according to local
weather conditions and to assess the effect of their integration with
heat storage systems. The input parameters of the models vary
depending on the greenhouse constructional materials, systems
properties, and the target parameters of the study. These inputs
include the thermal and physical properties of the greenhouse
envelope, indoor set-point parameters for the control volume,
plant properties, and properties of additional integrated systems in
the greenhouse. According to the literature, three main methods
employed to describe the thermal behavior of solar greenhouses
are knowledge-based models, commercial simulation software, and
machine learning algorithms which are described in the following
sections.
4.1. Use of knowledge-based models
Knowledge/first-principle-based models are developed based
on the thermodynamic principle of thermal environments of
greenhouses. This means that most of these models require prior
knowledge to describe the thermal behavior of solar greenhouses.
Jain and Tiwari (2003) developed a mathematical model to inves-
tigate the thermal behavior of an even-span greenhouse with an
effective floor area of 24 m2 integrated with a ground air collector
(GAC) located along the south face of the greenhouse. The existence
of a brick north wall in the greenhouse assisted in reducing heat
losses to the surrounding. In this study, the model was solved with
the help of a computer program developed in MATLAB software,
and plant and room temperatures as a function of the GAC’s design
parameters were predicted. The results indicated an excellent

Table 7
Summary of main results obtained from research works conducted on solar greenhouses integrated with TES.

TES Material Location Methodology Main Findings Refs.

PCM North Carolina, Experimental  The designed LTES system indicated remarkable higher compact storage capacity compared to the water Huang et al.
(CaCl2.6H2O) USA study or rock storage, (1986)
 The ring-baffled storage unit showed higher performance compared to the cross-baffled storage unit.
WTES Chiba, Japan Experimental  The average coefficient of performance and transmission coefficient of the greenhouse were reported as Kozai et al.
study 4.7 and 2$1 W/m2oC respectively. (1986)
WTES Western coasts Experimental  The internal temperature of the greenhouse increased by 1.2  C during night-time while the air tem- Bargach
of Morocco study perature was more homogenized. et al. (1999)
RB-TES Antalya, Turkey Experimental  Solar greenhouse integrated with RB-TES is more affordable than the liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) or Kurklu et al.
study fossil fuel heating systems. (2003)
PCM Elazıg, Turkey Experimental  The explored size of collectors coupled with PCM covered up to 18e23% of total daily heating load Benli et al.
(CaCl2.6H2O) study demands of the greenhouse for 3e4 h, compared to the common heating method. (2009)
PCM (Capsule Tunis, Tunisia Experimental  The amount of heat recovered in nocturnal operations could meet 30% of the total heating demands Bouadila
SN27) study where the stored heat was 56% of the total redundant trapped heat by the greenhouse during the day. et al. (2014)
UTES Shanghai, China Numerical  The amount of 27.8 kWh/m2 energy was saved as the result of SSSHS system implementation compared Zhang et al.
simulation to conventional solar-heated greenhouses. (2015)
PCM (Capsule, Tunis, Tunisia Experimental  The interior temperature of the greenhouse with shutter was remained at 15  C, while the ambient Kooli et al.
AC27) study temperature reached 8  C during the night. (2015)
UTES Ontario, Canada Numerical  The system could make up nearly 65% of the greenhouse heating demand per year and result in 220 Semple et al.
simulation [tone/Acre] reduction in yearly CO2 emissions. (2017)
PCM (Paraffin) Hunan, China Numerical  The mathematical analysis was carried out for the greenhouse integrated with PCM and validated Zhou et al.
simulation experimentally. (2017)
RB-TES Belfaa, Morocco Experimental  The RB-TES created a 6e9  C difference between the indoor and outdoor air temperatures. Gourdo et al.
study  The energy collection efficiency of the system was 34%. (2018)
RB-TES Agadir, Morocco Experimental  The presence of the RB-TES triggers 2.6  C growth in internal air temperature and a 10% fall in relative Bazgaou
study humidity as well as microclimate augmentation in the night-time and cold days. et al. (2018)
RB-TES Agadir, Morocco Experimental  The nocturnal air temperature inside the greenhouse was improved by 3  C and 4.7  C than a Gourdo et al.
study conventional greenhouse, and ambient temperature respectively. (2019)
 Increase the yield of 22% compared to the conventional greenhouse.
PCM Tunisia Experimental  The difference between the internal and external temperatures reached nearly 6  C. Baddadi
(CaCl2.6H2O) study  The relative humidity varied from 20 to 35% in the day and 70e85% at night. et al. (2019)

22
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al.
agreement between the estimated and measured data with an
average correlation coefficient of 0.9377, and the percent root mean
square deviation (RMSD) of 8.3538.
Al-Hussaini and Suen (1998) developed a quasi-steady state
mathematical model to evaluate the potential of using shallow
solar ponds to provide heating demands of greenhouses under cold
climatic conditions. The theoretical analysis revealed that the
proposed system can significantly save thermal energy between
March and October and require no auxiliary heat source between
May and September. A computer-based transient model was
developed by Gupta and Tiwari (2002) using FORTRAN to evaluate
the thermal performance of a low-cost passive greenhouse
employed a black-painted water tank to store solar heat. The model
was implemented to predict the room air temperature, as well as
temperature and thermal effect of the water storage tank with the
help of simple first-order differential equations. Bargach et al.
(2004) experimentally investigated two distinct solar systems to
evaluate their potential in providing heating demands of green-
houses. The first system consisted of a 250 m2 plastic tunnel
greenhouse integrated with FPCs and the second system utilized
selective solar collectors integrated with a 9 m2 glass greenhouse.
To compare the results of both systems, the thermal behavior of the
second system was modeled for a 250 m2 plastic greenhouse using
first-order differential equations. The results indicated that the
thermodynamic behaviors of a greenhouse along with its compo-
nents can be completely described by using the greenhouse ele-
ments’ heat balance equations.
Imtiaz Hussain et al. (2016) investigated the transient behavior
of two cases of CPVT system with and without a glass-reinforced
plastic enclosure. For this purpose, the thermal models based on
the transient energy balance equations for various elements
including the solar cell, the absorber pipe, the heat transfer fluid,
the insulation, and the storage tank were developed. The developed
transient models were solved with the help of the ordinary dif-
ferential equations (ODE) solvers using MATLAB software. The re-
sults indicated a quite good agreement between the predicted and
experimental data with an average deviation of less than 4.5%. A
quasi-steady state thermal study was carried out to estimate the
total performance of a PVT collector integrated with a greenhouse
under the climate conditions of Delhi, India (2008). The results
showed a fair agreement between the predicted and the experi-
mental data for the solar cell, the Tedlar back surface, and the air
temperature inside the greenhouse with the root mean square of
percent deviation from 7.05 to 17.58% and the correlation coeffi-
cient between 0.95 and 0.97.
Gao et al. (2019) developed computer simulation models of
typical greenhouses with PV panels installed on their roof for
different occupation shares of PV modules including 1/2 roof area
(high-density), and 1/3 and 1/4 roof area (low-density). They also
considered four sun-tracking positions in the equivalent global
irradiance model. The visualization of the parametric three-
dimensional models was achieved using Rhinoceros, a computer-
aided design (CAD) software where the amount of solar radiation
received by the PV panels was derived and calculated using the
basics of photometry and solid analytical geometry. MATLAB
Simulink was utilized to simulate the PV panel by considering the
module’s temperature and irradiance as the inputs. The results
showed that employing the proposed no-shading sun-tracking can
enhance the yearly average global irradiance by 10.96%, while
uniformity increases by 10.68% compared to the conventional sun-
tracking method. A simulation model called CSGHEAT was devel-
oped by Ahamed et al. (2018) to predict the hourly heating de-
mands of a Chinese-style greenhouse based on the heat balance of
the indoor air temperature of the greenhouse. In this study, the
floor surface and north wall temperatures were predicted by
23
Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807
solving ordinary differential heat balance equations. The results
indicated a good agreement between the estimated and measured
data with the average percent error between 0.2 and 24.9% with an
average value of 8.7% and a relative root mean square error of 11.5%.
4.2. Use of commercial simulation software
Building energy simulation tools have been emerged to model
and simulate different energy systems and performing the energy
analysis for different built-environments including residential,
commercial, and institutional buildings. Different types of com-
mercial software are used for analytics and design of PV-integrated
systems including EnergyPlus (Bigaila et al., 2015; Deng et al.,
2015), Green Building XML (Li et al., 2015), and PHEONICS (Vuong
et al., 2015) (for simulation and analysis), ESP-r (Agrawal and
Tiwari, 2011; Yang and Athienitis, 2014) (for power output calcu-
lations), PVsyst (Radmehr et al., 2014; Timchenko et al., 2015) (for
data analysis and modeling), THERM (Defaix et al., 2012) (for en-
ergy simulations), computation fluid dynamics (CFD) model (Liu
et al., 2020; Tong et al., 2018a) and PROTEUS (Bakos et al., 2003)
(for algorithm and equation solution), VR4PV (Yoo and Manz, 2011)
(for shading factor analysis), e-Quest (Chen and Yin, 2016) (for
annual electricity consumption), RETScreen (Yang et al., 2004) (for
yearly power generation), and TRNSYS which is a transient systems
simulation program. Among the mentioned software, EnrgyPlus
and TRNSYS have been extensively used to simulate the thermal
behavior of solar greenhouses. CFD simulation software is mostly
used for energy-efficient design of building envelope and the
orientation of solar greenhouses (Tong et al., 2018a; Zhang et al.,
2016), while a few studies have also modeled the plant physi-
ology and control systems in solar greenhouses (Boulard et al.,
2017; Saberian and Sajadiye, 2019).
Chen et al. (2018) found the optimal orientation of a solar
greenhouse based on the solar trajectory law and heat balance
theory by using the Extreme Value Theory under the climate con-
ditions of China. The cumulative solar radiation received by the
greenhouse with various orientations was calculated by the Ener-
gyPlus software. Comparing the simulation data derived by the
EnergyPlus and the measured data indicated a good agreement
between them. Fabrizio (2012) employed the EnergyPlus software
to evaluate the energy-saving potential of the harvested solar en-
ergy by a low-cost plastic solar collector in a basil production
tunnel greenhouse (400 m2). The simulated results indicated that
the proposed heating system is still problematic suffering from
extensive land use and lower global efficiencies.
In a study by Chung et al. (1998), thermal performance and
economic aspects of a greenhouse were explored using TRNSYS
software under the climate conditions of Cheju, a far southern part
of Korea. The greenhouse was integrated with a central solar
heating system with seasonal storage. The results from the simu-
lation indicated that the system could fulfill about 39% of the
annual total energy demand of the greenhouse equal to
885,000 MJ/year. Carlini et al. (2012) incorporated TRNSYS for
thermal behavior modeling and simulation of a GHIPV under three
different climate conditions in Italy. Simulated results showed that
the system could provide about 30% of summer cooling and 11% of
winter heat saving. Voulgaraki and Papadakis (2008) employed
TRNSYS software to simulate a solar heating plant with seasonal
storage (SHPSS) integrated into a greenhouse and to predict its
thermal and economic performances. The simulation results
revealed that the system can provide a high temperature (90  C) of
the storage tank for about 4000 h/year under the climate conditions
of northern Greece. The TRNSYS software was used by Attar et al.
(2013) to explore the thermal performance of a solar water heat-
ing system (SWHS) for use in a greenhouse in Tunisia. In this study,
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al.
the effective parameters on the performance of the thermal storage
unit, including tank volume, collector area, and inlet flow rate were
investigated. The simulated results revealed that the proposed
heating unit can increase the air temperature inside the green-
house by 5  C.
A low-cost seasonal solar soil heat storage (SSSHS) unit was
implemented to supply the heat demand of a greenhouse in
Shanghai. The energy consumption of the SSSHS was investigated
by TRNSYS and the results were compared with conventional solar
heating systems. The results indicated an annual energy saving of
about 28.7 kWh/m2 of the greenhouse area (Zhang et al., 2015).
Awani et al. (2017) developed a numerical model using TRNSYS
software to evaluate the performance of a heat pump system
assisted by solar energy using a FPC and geothermal energy by
employing a vertical heat exchanger. The performance of the model
was evaluated by comparing the experimental and simulated
temperatures of the fluid in the heat pump with the relative error
between 3.5% and 8.5%.
4.3. Use of machine learning algorithms
Generally, the knowledge-based models are complex to some
extent since the determination of several parameters is crucial (He
and Ma, 2010). In contrast, machine learning-based models do not
require to specify the value of every parameter. In utilizing machine
learning algorithms, more interests are gained by forecast models.
A few studies have developed machine learning-based or black-box
models to study the thermal environment of solar greenhouses.
Pe
rez-Alonso et al. (2012) introduced an artificial neural
network (ANN) model to estimate the instantaneous electricity
production in a GHIPV located in South-Eastern Spain. The results
indicated that this technique is more suitable for complex and non-
linear systems, where the pre-existing structures highly constrain
the configuration of the system and impinging radiation. Liu et al.
(2015) developed a backpropagation neural network (BPNN)
simulation model to predict the indoor air temperature of a solar
greenhouse in North China. The results indicated the agreement
index for the real-time air temperature prediction model between
0.95 and 0.99, and the root mean square error (RMSE) from 1.0 to
2.8  C. Yu et al. (2016) introduced a novel model based on the least-
squares support vector machine (LSSVM) model with parameters
optimized by improved particle swarm optimization (IPSO) method
to predict the indoor air temperature of a Chinese-style solar
greenhouse. They compare the performance of the IPSO-LSSVM
model with the standard support vector machine (SVM) and
BPNN. They concluded that the results of the proposed model are
more accurate. In a study by Taki et al. (2016), some mathematical
models including dynamic and multiple linear regression (MLR)
were compared with ANN to select the model with the best per-
formance in predicting the indoor air and roof temperatures as well
as the energy losses in a semi-solar greenhouse in Iran. The authors
claimed that the Multi-layer Perceptron (MLP) can be implemented
in greenhouses as a reliable method to predict the real data and
estimate the energy lost and exchange. Zou et al. (2017) proposed a
novel model to estimate the temperature and humidity inside solar
greenhouses using the convex bidirectional extreme learning ma-
chine (CB-ELM). The experimental verification indicates that the
results of this model are more accurate than the others such as
BPNN, SVM, etc. and thus this model is more effective for intelligent
control of the greenhouses’ microclimate. Table 8 summarizes the
main finding of conducted studies on the thermal behavior
modeling of solar greenhouses. From the literature survey it can be
concluded that:
24
Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807
 The relative humidity varied from 20 to 35% in the day and
70e85% at night.
Most of the developed and utilized knowledge-based developed
models employ the energy balance equations of various interactive
constitutes inside the greenhouses including plants, air, cover, soil,
walls, etc. In general, all the knowledge-based models feature
robustness-generalization for describing the thermal behavior of
the greenhouses with different settings due to their dependency on
physical parameters. However, a deep thermodynamic knowledge
for heat and mass transfer processes in greenhouses is a prereq-
uisite for the development of these models.
 The relative humidity varied from 20 to 35% in the day and
70e85% at night.
Most of the researchers have simulated the thermal environ-
ment of solar greenhouses without considering the presence of
crops which has a considerable contribution to the energy balance
of the greenhouses, and most of the models have not validated the
models with experimental data. The building simulation tools
require complicated modification and/or additional models for
photosynthesis, transpiration, long-wave radiation, CO2 balance,
ventilation, and condensation to be employed to model the thermal
environment of the greenhouses. Additionally, the heat and mass
transfer processes of the components inside the greenhouses are
significantly different from the ones that exist in commercial and
residential buildings.
 The relative humidity varied from 20 to 35% in the day and
70e85% at night.
Generally, machine learning algorithms have better abilities to
solve complex and bigger computational problems. Therefore,
large-scale problems can be handled more easily because they can
still work even if some crucial variables are missed. Moreover, the
reliability and robustness of these models are still doubtful since
they provide the best performance only for the training data set. It
makes these models efficient only when there is a large collection
of historical measured data for training. The main issue here is that
these long-term data are not always available since a significant
portion of the measurements is carried out in a controlled manner,
and are not stored in the automation systems of the greenhouses.
5. Conclusions and future prospects
Greenhouse farming plays an important role in sustainable crop
production by enhancing productivity through providing stronger
control of the growing environment for cultivated crops, enhancing
the quality and safety of the production process according to the
market demand and existing standards. However, the high energy
demand of agricultural greenhouses is considered as a substantial
obstacle against their widespread deployment around the world.
The modern agriculture industry is responsible for the develop-
ment of new technical solutions, policy subsidiaries, and invest-
ment opportunities to address the challenges associated with
productivity in conjunction with environmental concerns over the
greenhouse industry. Solar energy as the most plentiful renewable
energy source can be harnessed to supply the energy demand of
greenhouses. Besides, the simplicity of solar-based technologies
makes them ideal options for utilization in rural areas and remote
locations with difficult accessibility.
In this paper, two main configurations of active and passive solar
greenhouses are studied. The PSGs are simpler with lower costs, but
their profitability is less. In active solar greenhouses, the use of solar
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807

Table 8
Summary of some conducted studies on modeling and performance analysis of solar greenhouses.

Location Research Areas Type of Model Tool/Program for Validation Refs.

Simulation

Cheju, South  Study of the thermal behavior of a greenhouse (651 m2) One-dimensional transient thermal TRNSYS  Chung et al.
Korea coupled with a central solar heating plant with seasonal model (1998)
storage (CSHPSS).
Delhi, India  Study of the useful energy gain by ground air collector (GAC) One-dimensional, quasi-steady- MATLAB ✓ Jain and Tiwari
for a PE covered greenhouse (24 m2) state model (2003)
Tunis, Tunisia  Evaluating the effects of using a solar water heating system The parametric and numerical TRNSYS  Voulgaraki and
(SWHS) in a greenhouse model Papadakis
(2008)
Marrakesh,  tudy of the heating potential of the thick north wall with PCM Enthalpy method, sensible and NewtoneRaphson ✓ Berroug et al.
Morocco for an even-span greenhouse (24 m2) latent heat energy balance iterative numerical (2011)
equations method
Northern  Evaluating the applicability of a solar water heating system One-dimensional, transient model Finite difference ✓ Du et al. (2012)
China (SWHS) for a greenhouse. method
Nepal  Study the thermal behavior of CSG with the north wall made of Transient thermal model TRNSYS  Candy et al.
dry stone rendered with mud for storage of solar energy (2012)
Montreal,  Assessing the thermal performance of CSG with the north wall Dynamic building performance EnergyPlus  Bastien and
Canada made of dry stone rendered with mud to store of solar energy. model Athienitis
(2012)
North China  Determination of air temperature distribution of a solar Thermal model ANN ✓ Liu et al. (2015)
greenhouse
Azerbaijan,  Predicting internal parameters and energy lost in a semi-solar Multiple linear regression (MLR) ANN ✓ Taki et al.
Iran greenhouse (2016)
Shandong  Predicting the internal temperature of the CSG Least-squares support vector ANN ✓ Yu et al. (2016)
Province, machine (LSSVM) model
China
Winnipeg,  Study of the heating potential of a CSG (210 m2) at high One-dimensional transient thermal MATLAB ✓ Ahamed et al.
Canada northern latitudes. model based on heat balance (2018)
equations
China  Determining the optimum orientation of CSGs located at Dynamic building performance EnergyPlus ✓ Chen et al.
different latitudes in China model (2018)
Delft,  Study of the energy performances of GHIPV with sun-tracking Parametric three-dimensional MATLAB and CAD  Gao et al.
Netherlands functionality models software (2019)

collectors, as well as PV modules, is possible to increase the in-
tensity of the captured energy from the sun. In this regard, the
whole or partial heat and electricity demands of greenhouses can
be provided by solar energy. However, to meet the whole energy
requirement of solar greenhouses, the use of TES units is crucial.
This is mainly because of the inherently intermittent solar energy
supplies. Employment of TES units can bring security in energy
supply but somewhat increase the costs. The use of energy storage
systems along with auxiliary energy suppliers (such as fossil fuel-
based devices) in a way to decrease the energy storage load can
mitigate economic concerns over TES units by choosing smaller
units. In this paper, the opportunities for implementation of solar
technologies in agricultural greenhouses along with a specific focus
on their current status and future development perspectives are
presented. In this regard, the integration of a variety of solar energy
technologies with greenhouses including PV, PVT, and solar ther-
mal collectors are discussed. Also, the integration of both latent and
sensible thermal energy storage systems to improve the perfor-
mance of solar-powered greenhouses are deeply investigated. The
main conclusions derived from the present study can be summa-
rized as follow:
 In GHIPV systems, mounting PV modules on roofs and walls of
the greenhouse is an attractive option especially when sufficient
land is not accessible. However, the most obvious obstacle is
related to the shadowing effect created by PV modules that
might not allow proper entry of solar radiation inside which can
adversely affect the crop production rate. In this regard, the
potential solutions suggested by researchers are the partial roof
coverage with PV modules, the use of semi-transparent PV
modules, and in some cases, the use of sun trackers to create
dynamic shadows. However, relatively low efficiency and high
prices of PV modules are the most dominant factors that
decrease this technology’s attractiveness for investment.
 Hybrid PVT collectors represent a noteworthy option to supply
the heat and power demands of agricultural greenhouses. In this
way, the electricity produced by PV modules can be consumed
to drive electrical components of greenhouses, where the excess
production can be stored in batteries. Also, the heat extracted
from thermal collectors can be used to pre-heat the air or water
in low-to medium-temperature applications. However, over-
heating and blockage of the visible light from entering the inside
due to the mounting of opaque FP-PVT modules on roofs are still
two main encountered issues. In this regard, concentrating PVT
modules can better balance the light utilization of both culti-
vated crops and employed solar cells due to their capability of
directing all the sunlight coming from different directions on
the PV surface, providing higher electricity output.
 Among solar energy technologies, solar thermal systems have
indicated to be the first option to mitigate the energy con-
sumption of greenhouses. However, the best functioning of
these systems has been obtained under moderate climate con-
ditions. Both STES and LTES techniques result in an effective way
to optimize solar greenhouse heating performance due to the
capability of overcoming the mismatch between the energy
supply and demand.
 Integration of TES units in solar greenhouses can increase their
thermal yield by increasing both the inside temperatures of the
greenhouse as well as the temperature of the cultivated crops
inside. The integration of solar greenhouses with TES benefits
the long-term operation of these sustainable facilities especially
in regions with higher costs of fuels and severe cold climates.
Despite the benefits of using TES units in solar greenhouses,
some future research prospects in terms of technical

25
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al.
improvements and economic assessments are still required to
bring this technology to the commercial scale in solar
greenhouses.
 The thermal behavior of solar greenhouses can be described by
mathematical-based models. The knowledge-based models are
associated with physical parameters and describe the thermal
behavior of solar greenhouses by using energy balance equa-
tions. The thermal environment of solar greenhouses can also be
simulated by software with the common usage in commercial
buildings with a considerably different environment for green-
houses. Machine learning algorithms can better describe the
complex environment of greenhouses but, they are not
adequately reliable because they can provide the most trust-
worthy results only for the training data set which are not al-
ways accessible for greenhouses.
Despite numerous benefits that can be attributed to solar energy
technologies and their integration into agricultural greenhouses,
they have also associated impacts on the environment with a direct
dependency on the size of the projects and the site’s characteristics
where the solar greenhouse is implemented on. In this regard, the
assessments of environmental impacts (EIAs), as well as life cycle
assessments (LCAs) of solar greenhouse projects, are strongly rec-
ommended for future investigations. With further technical and
economic improvements, as well as the institution of encouraging
policies and attracting mechanisms, it can be expected that modern
solar greenhouses have a brilliant global opportunity to facilitate
sustainable development in the agriculture sector in near future.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the Renewable Energy Research
Institute (RERI) for the advisory support and Tarbiat Modares
University (TMU) for the financial support [grant number IG/
39705].
References
A unique agricultural complex appeared in Moscow [WWW Document]. URL.
https://www.mos.ru/mayor/themes/7299/6082050/. accessed 9.21.20.
Acosta-Silva, Y. de J., Torres-Pacheco, I., Matsumoto, Y., Toledano-Ayala, M., Soto-


Zarazúa, G.M., Zelaya-Angel, O., Me
ndez-Lo

pez, A., 2019. Applications of solar
and wind renewable energy in agriculture: a review. Sci. Prog. 102, 127e140.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0036850419832696.
Agrawal, B., Tiwari, G.N., 2011. An energy and exergy analysis of building integrated
photovoltaic thermal systems. Energy sources, Part A recover. Util. Environ. Eff.
33, 649e664. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567030903226280.
Agrilyst, 2017. State of Indoor Farming.
Ahamed, M.S., Guo, H., Tanino, K., 2018. Development of a thermal model for
simulation of supplemental heating requirements in Chinese-style solar
greenhouses. Comput. Electron. Agric. 150, 235e244. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compag.2018.04.025.
Ahamed, M.S., Guo, H., Tanino, K., 2019. Energy saving techniques for reducing the
heating cost of conventional greenhouses. Biosyst. Eng. 178, 9e33. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2018.10.017.
Al-Abidi, A.A., Bin Mat, S., Sopian, K., Sulaiman, M.Y.Y., Lim, C.H., Th, A., Mat, S.B.,
Sopian, K., Sulaiman, M.Y.Y., et al., 2012. Review of thermal energy storage for
air conditioning systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 5802e5819. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.05.030.
Al-Hussaini, H., Suen, K., 1998. Using shallow solar ponds as a heating source for
greenhouses in cold climates. Energy Convers. Manag. 39, 1369e1376. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(98)00007-7.
Al-Waeli, A.H.A., Sopian, K., Kazem, H.A., Chaichan, M.T., 2017. Photovoltaic/Thermal
(PV/T) systems: status and future prospects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 77,
109e130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.126.
26
Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807
Allardyce, C.S., Fankhauser, C., Zakeeruddin, S.M., Gra €tzel, M., Dyson, P.J., 2017. The
influence of greenhouse-integrated photovoltaics on crop production. Sol. En-
ergy 155, 517e522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.06.044.
Arkian, A.H., Najafi, G., Gorjian, S., Loni, R., Bellos, E., Yusaf, T., 2019. Performance
assessment of a solar dryer system using small parabolic dish and alumina/oil
nanofluid: simulation and experimental study. Energies 12, 4747. https://
doi.org/10.3390/en12244747.
Attar, I., Naili, N., Khalifa, N., Hazami, M., Farhat, A., 2013. Parametric and numerical
study of a solar system for heating a greenhouse equipped with a buried
exchanger. Energy Convers. Manag. 70, 163e173. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2013.02.017.
Attar, I., Naili, N., Khalifa, N., Hazami, M., Lazaar, M., Farhat, A., 2014. Experimental
study of an air conditioning system to control a greenhouse microclimate.
Energy Convers. Manag. 79, 543e553. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2013.12.023.
Awani, S., Chargui, R., Kooli, S., Farhat, A., Guizani, A., 2015. Performance of the
coupling of the flat plate collector and a heat pump system associated with a
vertical heat exchanger for heating of the two types of greenhouses system.
Energy Convers. Manag. 103, 266e275. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2015.06.032.
Awani, S., Kooli, S., Chargui, R., Guizani, A., 2017. Numerical and experimental study
of a closed loop for ground heat exchanger coupled with heat pump system and
a solar collector for heating a glass greenhouse in north of Tunisia. Int. J. Refrig.
76, 328e341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2017.01.030.
Baddadi, S., Bouadila, S., Ghorbel, W., Guizani, A.A., 2019. Autonomous greenhouse
microclimate through hydroponic design and refurbished thermal energy by
phase change material. J. Clean. Prod. 211, 360e379. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2018.11.192.
Baetens, R., Jelle, B.P.B.P., Gustavsen, A., 2010. Phase change materials for building
applications: a state-of-the-art review. Energy Build. 42, 1361e1368. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.03.026.
Bakos, G., Soursos, M., Tsagas, N., 2003. Technoeconomic assessment of a building-
integrated PV system for electrical energy saving in residential sector. Energy
Build. 35, 757e762. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(02)00229-3.
Bargach, M., Dahman, A., Boukallouch, M., 1999. A heating system using flat plate
collectors to improve the inside greenhouse microclimate in Morocco. Renew.
Energy 18, 367e381. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(98)00803-9.
Bargach, M., Tadili, R., Dahman, A., Boukallouch, M., 2004. Comparison of the per-
formance of two solar heating systems used to improve the microclimate of
agricultural greenhouses in Morocco. Renew. Energy 29, 1073e1083. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(03)00101-0.
Barnwal, P., Tiwari, G.N., 2011. Experimental validation of hybrid photovoltaic-
thermal (PV/T) greenhouse dryer under forced mode. Int. J. Food Eng. 6
https://doi.org/10.2202/1556-3758.1451.
Bastien, D., Athienitis, A.K., 2012. A control algorithm for optimal energy perfor-
mance of a solarium/greenhouse with combined interior and exterior motor-
ized shading. Energy Procedia 30, 995e1005. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.egypro.2012.11.112.
Bazgaou, A., Fatnassi, H., Bouhroud, R., Gourdo, L., Ezzaeri, K., Tiskatine, R.,
Demrati, H., Wifaya, A., Bekkaoui, A., Aharoune, A., Bouirden, L., 2018. An
experimental study on the effect of a rock-bed heating system on the micro-
climate and the crop development under canarian greenhouse. Sol. Energy 176,
42e50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.10.027.
Bazgaou, A., Fatnassi, H., Bouharroud, R., Elame, F., Ezzaeri, K., Gourdo, L., Wifaya, A.,
Demrati, H., Tiskatine, R., Bekkaoui, A., Aharoune, A., Bouirden, L., 2020a. Per-
formance assessment of combining rock-bed thermal energy storage and water
filled passive solar sleeves for heating Canarian greenhouse. Sol. Energy. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.01.041.
Bazgaou, Abderrahim, Fatnassi, H., Bouharroud, R., Ezzaeri, K., Gourdo, L., Wifaya, A.,
Demrati, H., El Baamrani, H., Idoum, A., Bekkaoui, A., Aharoune, A., Bouirden, L.,
2020b. Efficiency assessment of a solar heating cooling system applied to the
greenhouse microclimate. In: Materials Today: Proceedings. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matpr.2019.10.101.
Benke, K., Tomkins, B., 2017. Future food-production systems: vertical farming and
controlled-environment agriculture. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Pol. 13, 13e26. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2017.1394054.
Benli, H., Durmuş, A., 2009. Performance analysis of a latent heat storage system
with phase change material for new designed solar collectors in greenhouse
heating. Sol. Energy 83, 2109e2119. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2009.07.005.
Berroug, F., Lakhal, E.K., El Omari, M., Faraji, M., El Qarnia, H., 2011. Thermal per-
formance of a greenhouse with a phase change material north wall. Energy
Build. 43, 3027e3035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.07.020.
Bigaila, E., Rounis, E., Luk, P., Athienitis, A., 2015. A study of a BIPV/T collector
prototype for building façade applications. Energy Procedia 78, 1931e1936.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.11.374.
Bouadila, S., Kooli, S., Skouri, S., Lazaar, M., Farhat, A., 2014a. Improvement of the
greenhouse climate using a solar air heater with latent storage energy. Energy
64, 663e672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.10.066.
Bouadila, S., Lazaar, M., Skouri, S., Kooli, S., Farhat, A., 2014b. Assessment of the
greenhouse climate with a new packed-bed solar air heater at night, in Tunisia.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 35, 31e41. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2014.03.051.
Boulard, T., Roy, J.-C., Pouillard, J.-B., Fatnassi, H., Grisey, A., 2017. Modelling of
micrometeorology, canopy transpiration and photosynthesis in a closed
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al.
greenhouse using computational fluid dynamics. Biosyst. Eng. 158, 110e133.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2017.04.001.
Buttaro, D., Renna, M., Gerardi, C., Blando, F., Serio, F., Santamaria, P., 2016. Soilless
production of wild rocket as affected by greenhouse coverage with photovoltaic
modules. Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 15, 129.
Cabeza, L.F., Castell, A., Barreneche, C., de Gracia, A., Fern
andez, A.I., 2011. Materials
used as PCM in thermal energy storage in buildings: a review. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 15, 1675e1695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.11.018.
Çakır, U., Şahin, E., 2015. Using solar greenhouses in cold climates and evaluating
optimum type according to sizing, position and location: a case study. Comput.
Electron. Agric. 117, 245e257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2015.08.005.
Callejo
n-Ferre, A.J., Vel
azquez-Martí, B., Lo
pez-Martínez, J.A., Manzano-
Agugliaro, F., 2011. Greenhouse crop residues: energy potential and models for
the prediction of their higher heating value. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15,
948e955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.11.012.
Candy, S., Moore, G., Freere, P., 2012. Design and modeling of a greenhouse for a
remote region in Nepal. Procedia Eng 49, 152e160. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.proeng.2012.10.123.
Carlini, M., Villarini, M., Esposto, S., Bernardi, M., 2010. Performance analysis of
greenhouses with integrated photovoltaic modules. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci.
(including Subser. Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. Lect. Notes Bioinformatics) 6017 LNCS
206e214. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12165-4-17.
Carlini, M., Honorati, T., Castellucci, S., 2012. Photovoltaic greenhouses: comparison
of optical and thermal behaviour for energy savings. Math. Probl. Eng. 2012
1e10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/743764.
Castellano, S., Santamaria, P., Serio, F., 2016. Solar radiation distribution inside a
monospan greenhouse with the roof entirely covered by photovoltaic panels.
J. Agric. Eng. 47, 1. https://doi.org/10.4081/jae.2016.485.
Chen, F., Yin, H., 2016. Fabrication and laboratory-based performance testing of a
building-integrated photovoltaic-thermal roofing panel. Appl. Energy 177,
271e284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.05.112.
Chen, C., Li, Y., Li, N., Wei, S., Yang, F., Ling, H., Yu, N., Han, F., 2018. A computational
model to determine the optimal orientation for solar greenhouses located at
different latitudes in China. Sol. Energy 165, 19e26. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2018.02.022.
Chung, M., Park, J.-U., Yoon, H.-K., 1998. Simulation OF a central solar heating sys-
tem with seasonal storage IN korea. Sol. Energy 64, 163e178. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0038-092X(98)00101-7.
€
Çokay, E., Oztamer, €
M., Kocar, G., Eryasar, A., Godekmerdan, E., Ozgul, S., Duzenli, M.,
2018. A prospect on integration of solar technology to modern greenhouses.
Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Fen ve Mühendislik Derg. 20,
245e258. https://doi.org/10.21205/deufmd. 2018205820.
Colantoni, A., Monarca, D., Marucci, A., Cecchini, M., Zambon, I., Di Battista, F.,
Maccario, D., Saporito, M.G., Beruto, M., 2018. Solar radiation distribution inside
a greenhouse prototypal with photovoltaic mobile plant and effects on flower
growth. Sustain. Times 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030855.
Compassion in World Farming, 2008. Sustainable Farming - A Short Report by
Compassion in World Farming.
Corrado, C., Leow, S.W., Osborn, M., Carbone, I., Hellier, K., Short, M., Alers, G.,
Carter, S.A., 2016. Power generation study of luminescent solar concentrator
greenhouse. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 8. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4958735,
043502.
Cossu, M., Murgia, L., Ledda, L., Deligios, P.A., Sirigu, A., Chessa, F., Pazzona, A., 2014.
Solar radiation distribution inside a greenhouse with south-oriented photo-
voltaic roofs and effects on crop productivity. Appl. Energy 133, 89e100.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.07.070.
Cossu, M., Yano, A., Li, Z., Onoe, M., Nakamura, H., Matsumoto, T., Nakata, J., 2016.
Advances on the semi-transparent modules based on micro solar cells: first
integration in a greenhouse system. Appl. Energy 162, 1042e1051. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.11.002.
Crabtree, G.W., Lewis, N.S., 2007. Solar energy conversion. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1365-3040.2009.02017.x.
Cuce, E., Harjunowibowo, D., Cuce, P.M., 2016. Renewable and sustainable energy
saving strategies for greenhouse systems: a comprehensive review. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 64, 34e59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.077.
Daneshazarian, R., Cuce, E., Cuce, P.M., Sher, F., 2018. Concentrating photovoltaic
thermal (CPVT) collectors and systems: theory, performance assessment and
applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 81, 473e492. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2017.08.013.
Debbarma, M., Sudhakar, K., Baredar, P., 2017. Comparison of BIPV and BIPVT: a
review. Resour. Technol. 3, 263e271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reffit.2016.11.013.
Deep water culture (DWC) [WWW document]. URL. https://www.greenandvibrant.
com/deep-water-culture. accessed 9.21.20.
Defaix, P.R., van Sark, W.G.J.H.M., Worrell, E., de Visser, E., 2012. Technical potential
for photovoltaics on buildings in the EU-27. Sol. Energy 86, 2644e2653. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2012.06.007.
Deng, Y., Quan, Z., Zhao, Y., Wang, L., Liu, Z., 2015. Experimental research on the
performance of household-type photovoltaic-thermal system based on micro-
heat-pipe array in Beijing. Energy Convers. Manag. 106, 1039e1047. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.09.067.
Diwania, S., Agrawal, S., Siddiqui, A.S., Singh, S., 2019. Photovoltaicethermal (PV/T)
technology: a comprehensive review on applications and its advancement. Int.
J. Energy Environ. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40095-019-00327-y.
Djevic, M., Dimitrijevic, A., 2009. Energy consumption for different greenhouse
constructions. Energy 34, 1325e1331. https://doi.org/10.1016/
27
Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807
j.energy.2009.03.008.
Du, J., Bansal, P., Huang, B., 2012. Simulation model of a greenhouse with a heat-
pipe heating system. Appl. Energy 93, 268e276. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2011.12.069.
How to Grow tomatoes in deep water culture (DWC) [WWW document]. URL.
https://hydroponicsexplained.wordpress.com/2018/04/03/growing-tomatoes-
in-deep-water-culture-dwc/. accessed 9.21.20.
Eltawil, M.A., Zhao, Z., 2010. Grid-connected photovoltaic power systems: technical
and potential problemsda review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14, 112e129.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.07.015.
Esen, M., Yuksel, T., 2013. Experimental evaluation of using various renewable
energy sources for heating a greenhouse. Energy Build. 65, 340e351. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.06.018.
Ezzaeri, K., Fatnassi, H., Bouharroud, R., Gourdo, L., Bazgaou, A., Wifaya, A.,
Demrati, H., Bekkaoui, A., Aharoune, A., Poncet, C., Bouirden, L., 2018. The effect
of photovoltaic panels on the microclimate and on the tomato production
under photovoltaic canarian greenhouses. Sol. Energy 173, 1126e1134. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.08.043.
Ezzaeri, K., Fatnassi, H., Wifaya, A., Bazgaou, A., Aharoune, A., Poncet, C.,
Bekkaoui, A., Bouirden, L., 2020. Performance of photovoltaic canarian green-
house: a comparison study between summer and winter seasons. Sol. Energy.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.01.057.
Fabrizio, E., 2012. Energy reduction measures in agricultural greenhouses heating:
envelope, systems and solar energy collection. Energy Build. 53, 57e63. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.07.003.
FAO, 2019. Early Warning Early Action Report on Food Security and Agriculture.
Fashioning a Greenhouse. Hobby greenhouse with PCM pipes [WWW document],
n.d. URL. http://greenhousefashions.blogspot.com/2014/02/hobby-greenhouse-
with-savenrg-pcm-pipes.html.
Fortuin, S., Stryi-Hipp, G., 2012. Solar Collectors solar collector , Non-concentrating
solar collector non-concentrating. In: Meyers, R.A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Sus-
tainability Science and Technology. Springer New York, New York, NY,
pp. 9449e9469. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0851-3_681.
Friman Peretz, M., Geoola, F., Yehia, I., Ozer, S., Levi, A., Magadley, E., Brikman, R.,
Rosenfeld, L., Levy, A., Kacira, M., Teitel, M., 2019. Testing organic photovoltaic
modules for application as greenhouse cover or shading element. Biosyst. Eng.
184, 24e36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2019.05.003.
Gao, Y., Dong, J., Isabella, O., Santbergen, R., Tan, H., Zeman, M., Zhang, G., 2019.
Modeling and analyses of energy performances of photovoltaic greenhouses
with sun-tracking functionality. Appl. Energy 233e234, 424e442. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.10.019.
Ghani, S., Bakochristou, F., ElBialy, E.M.A.A., Gamaledin, S.M.A., Rashwan, M.M.,
Abdelhalim, A.M., Ismail, S.M., 2019. Design challenges of agricultural green-
houses in hot and arid environments e a review. Eng. Agric. Environ. Food 12,
48e70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eaef.2018.09.004.
Glass-like solar panels could help greenhouses become completely energy neutral
[WWW document]. URL. https://en.reset.org/blog/glass-solar-panels-could-
help-greenhouses-become-completely-energy-neutral-02252020. accessed
9.21.20.
Golzar, F., Heeren, N., Hellweg, S., Roshandel, R., 2018. A novel integrated framework
to evaluate greenhouse energy demand and crop yield production. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 96, 487e501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.06.046.
Gorjian, S., Ghobadian, B., 2015. Solar desalination: a sustainable solution to water
crisis in Iran. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 48, 571e584. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2015.04.009.
Gorjian, S., Shukla, A. (Eds.), 2020. Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conversion: Tech-
nologies, Applications and Environmental Impacts, First. ed. Elsevier, London.
https://doi.org/10.1016/C2018-0-05265-2.
Gorjian, S., Tavakoli Hashjin, T., Ghobadian, B., Hashjin, T.T., 2011. Solar powered
greenhouses. In: 10th International Conference on Sustainable Energy Tech-
nologies. ISTANBUL, Turkey, pp. 4e7.
Gorjian, S., Ghobadian, B., Tavakkoli Hashjin, T., Banakar, A., 2014. Experimental
performance evaluation of a stand-alone point-focus parabolic solar still.
Desalination 352, 1e17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.08.005.
Gorjian, S., Tavakkoli Hashjin, T., Ghobadian, B., Banakar, A., 2015. A thermal per-
formance evaluation of a medium-temperature point-focus solar collector using
local weather data and artificial neural networks. Int. J. Green Energy 12,
493e505. https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2013.848405.
Gorjian, S., Zadeh, B.N., Eltrop, L., Shamshiri, R.R., Amanlou, Y., 2019. Solar photo-
voltaic power generation in Iran: development, policies, and barriers. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 106, 110e123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.02.025.
Gorjian, S., Ebadi, H., Calise, F., Shukla, A., Ingrao, C., 2020a. A review on recent
advancements in performance enhancement techniques for low-temperature
solar collectors. Energy Convers. Manag. 222, 113246. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2020.113246.
Gorjian, S., Ghobadian, B., Ebadi, H., Ketabchi, F., Khanmohammadi, S., 2020b. Ap-
plications of solar PV systems in desalination technologies. In: Photovoltaic
Solar Energy Conversion. Elsevier, pp. 237e274. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-
12-819610-6.00008-9.
Gorjian, S., Minaei, S., MalehMirchegini, L., Trommsdorff, M., Shamshiri, R.R., 2020c.
Applications of solar PV systems in agricultural automation and robotics. In:
Gorjian, S., Shukla, A. (Eds.), Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conversion. Elsevier,
London, pp. 191e235. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819610-6.00007-7.
Gorjian, S., Singh, R., Shukla, A., Mazhar, A.R., 2020d. On-farm applications of solar
PV systems. In: Gorjian, S., Shukla, A. (Eds.), Photovoltaic Solar Energy
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al.
Conversion. Elsevier, London, pp. 147e190. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
819610-6.00006-5.
Gourdo, L., Bazgaou, A., Ezzaeri, K., Tiskatine, R., Wifaya, A., Demrati, H.,
Aharoune, A., B, L., 2018. Heating of an agricultural greenhouse by a reservoir
filled with rocks. J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 9, 1193e1199. https://doi.org/10.26872/
jmes.2017.9.4.131.
Gourdo, L., Fatnassi, H., Bouharroud, R., Ezzaeri, K., Bazgaou, A., Wifaya, A.,
Demrati, H., Bekkaoui, A., Aharoune, A., Poncet, C., Bouirden, L., 2019a. Heating
canarian greenhouse with a passive solar wateresleeve system: effect on
microclimate and tomato crop yield. Sol. Energy 188, 1349e1359. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.07.004.
Gourdo, L., Fatnassi, H., Tiskatine, R., Wifaya, A., Demrati, H., Aharoune, A.,
Bouirden, L., 2019b. Solar energy storing rock-bed to heat an agricultural
greenhouse. Energy 169, 206e212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.12.036.
GrowBoxco Custom shipping container farms | self contained Grow box farming
[WWW document]. URL. https://growboxco.com/. accessed 9.21.20.
Gupta, A., Tiwari, G.N., 2002. Computer model and its validation for prediction of
storage effect of water mass in a greenhouse: a transient analysis. Energy
Convers. Manag. 43, 2625e2640. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(01)
00196-0.
Harjunowibowo, D., Ding, Y., Omer, S., Riffat, S., 2018. Recent active technologies of
greenhouse systemsea comprehensive review. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci. 24, 158e170.
Hassanain, A.A., Hokam, E.M., Mallick, T.K., 2011. Effect of solar storage wall on the
passive solar heating constructions. Energy Build. 43, 737e747. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.11.020.
Hassanien, R.H.E., Li, M., 2017. Influences of greenhouse-integrated semi-trans-
parent photovoltaics on microclimate and lettuce growth. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng.
10, 11e22. https://doi.org/10.25165/j.ijabe.20171006.3407.
Hassanien, R.H.E., Li, M., Dong Lin, W., 2016. Advanced applications of solar energy
in agricultural greenhouses. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 54, 989e1001. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.095.
Hassanien, R.H.E., Li, M., Tang, Y., 2018. The evacuated tube solar collector assisted
heat pump for heating greenhouses. Energy Build. 169, 305e318. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.03.072.
He, F., Ma, C., 2010. Modeling greenhouse air humidity by means of artificial neural
network and principal component analysis. Comput. Electron. Agric. 71,
S19eS23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2009.07.011.
Hosseini, A., Banakar, A., Gorjian, S., 2018. Development and performance evalua-
tion of an active solar distillation system integrated with a vacuum-type heat
exchanger. Desalination 435, 45e59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.12.031.
Huang, B.K., Toksoy, M., Cengel, Y.A., 1986. Transient response of latent heat storage
in greenhouse solar system. Sol. Energy 37, 279e292. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0038-092X(86)90045-9.
Idoko, L., Anaya-Lara, O., McDonald, A., 2018. Enhancing PV modules efficiency and
power output using multi-concept cooling technique. Energy Rep. 4, 357e369.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2018.05.004.
Imtiaz Hussain, M., Ali, A., Lee, G.H., 2015. Performance and economic analyses of
linear and spot Fresnel lens solar collectors used for greenhouse heating in
South Korea. Energy 90, 1522e1531. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2015.06.115.
Imtiaz Hussain, M., Ali, A., Lee, G.H., 2016. Multi-module concentrated photovoltaic
thermal system feasibility for greenhouse heating: model validation and
techno-economic analysis. Sol. Energy 135, 719e730. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2016.06.053.
Indoor Farming Market Outlook-Global Trends, Forecast, and Opportunity Assess-
ment (2017-2026), 2019.
ISO-10456, 2007. Building Materials and Products d Hygrothermal Properties d
Tabulated Design Values and Procedures for Determining Declared and Design
Thermal Values.
Jain, D., Tiwari, G.N., 2003. Modeling and optimal design of ground air collector for
heating in controlled environment greenhouse. Energy Convers. Manag. 44,
1357e1372. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(02)00118-8.
Kant, K., Shukla, A., Sharma, A., 2016a. Performance evaluation of fatty acids as
phase change material for thermal energy storage. J. Energy Storage 6, 153e162.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2016.04.002.
Kant, K., Shukla, A., Sharma, A., Kumar, A., Jain, A., 2016b. Thermal energy storage
based solar drying systems: a review. Innovat. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 34,
86e99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2016.01.007.
Kant, K., Shukla, A., Sharma, A., 2017. Advancement in phase change materials for
thermal energy storage applications. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 172, 82e92.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2017.07.023.
Karaipekli, A., Sari, A., 2008. Capric-myristic acid/expanded perlite composite as
form-stable phase change material for latent heat thermal energy storage.
Renew. Energy 33, 2599e2605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2008.02.024.
Ketabchi, F., Gorjian, S., Sabzehparvar, S., Shadram, Z., Ghoreishi, M.S.,
Rahimzadeh, H., 2019. Experimental performance evaluation of a modified solar
still integrated with a cooling system and external flat-plate reflectors. Sol.
Energy 187, 137e146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.05.032.
Khanlari, A., So €zen, A., Şirin, C., Tuncer, A.D., Gungor, A., 2020. Performance
enhancement of a greenhouse dryer: analysis of a cost-effective alternative
solar air heater. J. Clean. Prod. 251, 119672. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2019.119672.
Kooli, S., Bouadila, S., Lazaar, M., Farhat, A., 2015. The effect of nocturnal shutter on
insulated greenhouse using a solar air heater with latent storage energy. Sol.
Energy 115, 217e228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2015.02.041.
28
Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807
Kozai, T., Shida, K., Watanabe, I., 1986. Thermal performance of a solar greenhouse
with water tanks for heat storage and heat exchange. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 33,
141e153. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-8634(86)80036-1.
Kumari, N., Tiwari, G.N., Sodha, M.S., 2006. Modelling of a greenhouse with inte-
grated solar collector for thermal heating. Int. J. Ambient Energy 27, 125e136.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01430750.2006.9675012.
€
Kürklü, A., Bilgin, S., Ozkan, B., 2003. A study on the solar energy storing rock-bed to
heat a polyethylene tunnel type greenhouse. Renew. Energy 28, 683e697.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(02)00109-X.
Kıyan, M., Bingo € l, E., Melikoglu, M., Albostan, A., 2013. Modelling and simulation of a
hybrid solar heating system for greenhouse applications using Matlab/Simu-
link. Energy Convers. Manag. 72, 147e155. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2012.09.036.
Lazaar, M., Bouadila, S., Kooli, S., Farhat, A., 2015. Comparative study of conventional
and solar heating systems under tunnel Tunisian greenhouses: thermal per-
formance and economic analysis. Sol. Energy 120, 620e635. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.solener.2015.08.014.
Lee, T., Chiu, Y.H., Lee, Y., Lee, H.L., 2014. Thermal properties and structural char-
acterizations of new types of phase change material: anhydrous and hydrated
palmitic acid/camphene solid dispersions. Thermochim. Acta 575, 81e89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tca.2013.10.008.
Li, H., Cao, C., Feng, G., Zhang, R., Huang, K., 2015. A BIPV/T system design based on
simulation and its application in integrated heating system. Procedia Eng 121,
1590e1596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.09.184.
Li, G., Tang, L., Zhang, X., Dong, J., Xiao, M., 2018. Factors affecting greenhouse
microclimate and its regulating techniques: a review. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth En-
viron. Sci. 167, 012019 https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/167/1/012019.
Li, Zhi, Yano, A., Cossu, Marco, Yoshioka, H., Kita, I., Ibaraki, Y., 2018. Shading and
electric performance of a prototype greenhouse blind system based on semi-
transparent photovoltaic technology. J. Agric. Meteorol. 74, 114e122. https://
doi.org/10.2480/agrmet.D-17-00047.
Liu, S., Xue, Q., Li, Z., Li, C., Gong, Z., Li, N., Tianjin, C.C., 2015. An air temperature
predict model based on BP neural networks for solar greenhouse in North
China. J. China Agric. Univ. 20, 176e184.
Liu, X., Li, H., Li, Y., Yue, X., Tian, S., Li, T., 2020. Effect of internal surface structure of
the north wall on Chinese solar greenhouse thermal microclimate based on
computational fluid dynamics. PloS One 15, e0231316. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0231316.
Loni, R., Askari Asli-Areh, E., Ghobadian, B., Kasaeian, A.B., Gorjian, S., Najafi, G.,
Bellos, E., 2020. Research and review study of solar dish concentrators with
different nanofluids and different shapes of cavity receiver: experimental tests.
Renew. Energy 145, 783e804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.056.
Madessa, H.B., 2014. A review of the performance of buildings integrated with
Phase change material: opportunities for application in cold climate. Energy
Procedia 62, 318e328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.12.393.
Marcelis, L., Heuvelink, E. (Eds.), 2019. Achieving Sustainable Greenhouse Cultiva-
tion. Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1201/
9780429266744.
Marucci, A., Monarca, D., Cecchini, M., Colantoni, A., Cappuccini, A., 2015. Analysis of
internal shading degree to a prototype of dynamics photovoltaic greenhouse
through simulation software. J. Agric. Eng. 46, 144. https://doi.org/10.4081/
jae.2015.483.
Marucci, A., Monarca, D., Colantoni, A., Campiglia, E., Cappuccini, A., 2017. Analysis
of the internal shading in a photovoltaic greenhouse tunnel. J. Agric. Eng. 48,
154. https://doi.org/10.4081/jae.2017.622.
Mavrogianopoulos, G., Kyritsis, S., 1993. Analysis and performance of a greenhouse
with water filled passive solar sleeves. Agric. For. Meteorol. 65, 47e61. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0168-1923(93)90037-I.
Mekhilef, S., Saidur, R., Safari, A., 2011. A review on solar energy use in industries.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 1777e1790. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2010.12.018.
Mirzamohammadi, S., Jabarzadeh, A., Shahrabi, M.S., 2020. Long-term planning of
supplying energy for greenhouses using renewable resources under uncer-
tainty. J. Clean. Prod. 264, 121611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121611.
Mohsenipour, M., Ebadollahi, M., Rostamzadeh, H., Amidpour, M., 2020. Design and
evaluation of a solar-based trigeneration system for a nearly zero energy
greenhouse in arid region. J. Clean. Prod. 254, 119990. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2020.119990.
Mostefaoui, Z., Amara, S., 2019. Renewable energy analysis in the
agricultureegreenhouse farms: a case study in the mediterranean region (sidi
bel abbes, Algeria). Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 38, e13029. https://doi.org/
10.1002/ep.13029.
Nayak, S., Tiwari, A., 2007. Performance evaluation of an integrated hybrid photo-
voltaic thermal (PV/T) greenhouse system. Int. J. Agric. Res. 2, 211e226. https://
doi.org/10.3923/ijar.2007.211.226.
Nayak, S., Tiwari, G.N., 2008. Energy and exergy analysis of photovoltaic/thermal
integrated with a solar greenhouse. Energy Build. 40, 2015e2021. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2008.05.007.
Nayak, S., Tiwari, G.N., 2009. Theoretical performance assessment of an integrated
photovoltaic and earth air heat exchanger greenhouse using energy and exergy
analysis methods. Energy Build. 41, 888e896. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enbuild.2009.03.012.
Nguyen, H., 2018. Sustainable food systems Concept and framework.
Ntinas, G.K., Fragos, V.P., Nikita-Martzopoulou, C., 2014. Thermal analysis of a hybrid
solar energy saving system inside a greenhouse. Energy Convers. Manag.
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.02.058.
Ontent, C., 2003. A Manual of Solar Greenhouse Running in Trans-himalayas.
Oro
, E., de Gracia, A., Castell, A., Farid, M.M., Cabeza, L.F., 2012. Review on phase
change materials (PCMs) for cold thermal energy storage applications. Appl.
Energy 99, 513e533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.03.058.
€
Oztürk, H.H., 2005. Experimental evaluation of energy and exergy efficiency of a
seasonal latent heat storage system for greenhouse heating. Energy Convers.
Manag. 46, 1523e1542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2004.07.001.
Pahlavan, R., Omid, M., Akram, A., 2012. The relationship between energy inputs
and crop yield in greenhouse basil production. J. Agric. Sci. Technol.
Panwar, N.L., Kaushik, S.C., Kothari, S., 2011. Solar greenhouse an option for
renewable and sustainable farming. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15,
3934e3945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.030.
Pereira da Cunha, J., Eames, P., 2016. Thermal energy storage for low and medium
temperature applications using phase change materials e a review. Appl. En-
ergy 177, 227e238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.05.097.

rez-Alonso, J., Pe
Pe
rez-García, M., Pasamontes-Romera, M., Callejo
n-Ferre, A.J.,
2012. Performance analysis and neural modelling of a greenhouse integrated
photovoltaic system. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 4675e4685. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.04.002.
Pielichowska, K., Pielichowski, K., 2014. Phase change materials for thermal energy
storage. Prog. Mater. Sci. 65, 67e123. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.pmatsci.2014.03.005.
Porter, J.R., Xie, L., Challinor, A.J., Cochrane, K., Howden, S.M., Iqbal, M.M.,
Lobell, D.B., Travasso, M.I., Aggarwal, P., Hakala, K., Jordan, J., 2015. Food security
and food production systems, climate change 2014 impacts, adaptation and
vulnerability: Part A: global and sectoral aspects. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9781107415379.012.
Radmehr, M., Willis, K., Kenechi, U.E., 2014. A framework for evaluating WTP for
BIPV in residential housing design in developing countries: a case study of
North Cyprus. Energy Pol. 70, 207e216. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enpol.2014.03.041.
Radojevic, N., Kostadinovic, D., Vlajkovic, H., Veg, E., 2014. Microclimate control in
greenhouses. FME Trans 42, 167e171. https://doi.org/10.5937/fmet1402167R.
Reuss, M., Beck, M., Müller, J.P., 1997. Design of a seasonal thermal energy storage in
the ground. Sol. Energy 59, 247e257. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-092X(97)
00011-X.
Saberian, A., Sajadiye, S.M., 2019. The effect of dynamic solar heat load on the
greenhouse microclimate using CFD simulation. Renew. Energy 138, 722e737.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.01.108.
Sahdev, R.K., Kumar, M., Dhingra, A.K., 2019. A comprehensive review of greenhouse
shapes and its applications. Front. Energy 13, 427e438. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11708-017-0464-8.
Santamouris, M., Balaras, C.A., Dascalaki, E., Vallindras, M., 1994. Passive solar
agricultural greenhouses: a worldwide classification and evaluation of tech-
nologies and systems used for heating purposes. Sol. Energy 53, 411e426.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-092X(94)90056-6.
Semple, L., Carriveau, R., Ting, D.S.-K., 2017. A techno-economic analysis of seasonal
thermal energy storage for greenhouse applications. Energy Build. 154,
175e187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.08.065.
Sethi, V.P., Sharma, S.K., 2008. Survey and evaluation of heating technologies for
worldwide agricultural greenhouse applications. Sol. Energy 82, 832e859.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2008.02.010.
Shakouri, M., Ebadi, H., Gorjian, S., 2020. Solar photovoltaic thermal (PVT) module
technologies. In: Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conversion. Elsevier, pp. 79e116.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819610-6.00004-1.
Shao, J., Darkwa, J., Kokogiannakis, G., 2015. Review of phase change emulsions
(PCMEs) and their applications in HVAC systems. Energy Build. 94, 200e217.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.03.003.
Sharaf, O.Z., Orhan, M.F., 2015. Concentrated photovoltaic thermal (CPVT) solar
collector systems: Part I e fundamentals, design considerations and current
technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 50, 1500e1565. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.036.
Sharma, A., Tyagi, V.V., Chen, C.R., Buddhi, D., 2009. Review on thermal energy
storage with phase change materials and applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 13, 318e345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2007.10.005.
Shen, Y., Wei, R., Xu, L., 2018. Energy consumption prediction of a greenhouse and
optimization of daily average temperature. Energies 11, 65. https://doi.org/
10.3390/en11010065.
Shukla, A., Sharma, A., Kant, K., 2016. Solar greenhouse with thermal energy stor-
age: a review. Curr. Sustain. Energy Reports 3, 58e66. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40518-016-0056-y.
Silva, L., Valde
s-Lozano, D., Escalante, E., Gasca-Leyva, E., 2018. Dynamic root
floating technique: an option to reduce electric power consumption in aqua-
ponic systems. J. Clean. Prod. 183, 132e142. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2018.02.086.
Singh, G., Jain, V.K., Singh, A., 2018. Adaptive network architecture and firefly al-
gorithm for biogas heating model aided by photovoltaic thermal greenhouse
system. Energy Environ. 29, 1073e1097.
Solar greenhouse - Ecodiy DIY eco-house [WWW Document], n.d. URL. http://www.
ecodiy.info/solar-greenhouse/. accessed 7.12.19.
Solar greenhouses - green houses and Sunrooms [WWW document]. URL. https://
www.greenhousesandsunrooms.com/building-solar-greenhouses.html.
accessed 9.19.20.
Sonneveld, P.J., Swinkels, G.L.A.M., Campen, J., van Tuijl, B.A.J., Janssen, H.J.J.,
29
Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807
Bot, G.P.A., 2010. Performance results of a solar greenhouse combining electrical
and thermal energy production. Biosyst. Eng. 106, 48e57. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2010.02.003.
Sonneveld, P.J., Swinkels, G.L.A.M., Tuijl, B.A.J. van, Janssen, H.J.J., Campen, J.,
Bot, G.P.A., 2011. Performance of a concentrated photovoltaic energy system
with static linear Fresnel lenses. Sol. Energy 85, 432e442. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.solener.2010.12.001.
Sonneveld, P.J., van der Sluys, M., van Rhijn, A., Hebbink, M., 2017. Feasibility study
of an electricity delivering Fresnel greenhouse. Acta Hortic. 1170, 477e484.
https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2017.1170.59.
Su, W., Darkwa, J., Kokogiannakis, G., 2015. Review of solideliquid phase change
materials and their encapsulation technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 48,
373e391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.044.
Swinkels, G.L.A.M., Sonneveld, P.J., van Tuijl, B.A.J., Janssen, H.J.J., de Zwart, H.F.,
2011. A concentrator system for Bi-cpvt with static linear Fresnel lenses. In:
26th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition,
pp. 4179e4183.
Syed, A.M., Hachem, C., 2019. Review of construction; geometry; heating, ventila-
tion, and air-conditioning; and indoor climate requirements of agricultural
greenhouses. J. Biosyst. Eng. 1e10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42853-019-00005-
1.
Taki, M., 2012. Energy consumption, inputeoutput relationship and cost analysis for
greenhouse productions in Esfahan province of Iran. Am. J. Exp. Agric. https://
doi.org/10.9734/ajea/2012/1461.
Taki, M., Ajabshirchi, Y., Ranjbar, S.F., Rohani, A., Matloobi, M., 2016. Heat transfer
and MLP neural network models to predict inside environment variables and
energy lost in a semi-solar greenhouse. Energy Build. 110, 314e329. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.11.010.
Tatsidjodoung, P., Le Pierre s, N., Luo, L., 2013. A review of potential materials for
thermal energy storage in building applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 18,
327e349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.10.025.
Timchenko, V., Tkachenko, O.A., Giroux-Julien, S., Me
ne

zo, C., 2015. Numerical and
experimental investigation of natural convection in open-Ended channels with
application to building integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) systems. EPJ Web Conf.
92 https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/20159201002, 01002.
Tips on using water barrels in a solar greenhouse | Ceres greenhouse [WWW
document], n.d. URL. https://ceresgs.com/tips-on-using-water-barrels-in-a-
solar-greenhouse/. accessed 7.12.19.
Tiwari, G.N., Mishra, R.K., Solanki, S.C., 2011. Photovoltaic modules and their ap-
plications: a review on thermal modelling. Appl. Energy 88, 2287e2304.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.01.005.
Tiwari, S., Bhatti, J., Tiwari, G.N., Al-Helal, I.M., 2016. Thermal modelling of photo-
voltaic thermal (PVT) integrated greenhouse system for biogas heating. Sol.
Energy 136, 639e649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.07.048.
Tong, G., Christopher, D.M., Zhang, G., 2018a. New insights on span selection for
Chinese solar greenhouses using CFD analyses. Comput. Electron. Agric. 149,
3e15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2017.09.031.
Tong, X., Sun, Z., Sigrimis, N., Li, T., 2018b. Energy sustainability performance of a
sliding cover solar greenhouse: solar energy capture aspects. Biosyst. Eng. 176,
88e102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2018.10.008.
Trypanagnostopoulos, G., Kavga, A., Souliotis, М., Tripanagnostopoulos, Y., 2017.
Greenhouse performance results for roof installed photovoltaics. Renew. Energy
111, 724e731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.04.066.
Tun, M., 2014. Emerging Opportunities. LegalWeek.
United Nations, 2019. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2019. United
Nations publication issued by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
Vadiee, A., Martin, V., 2013. Energy analysis and thermoeconomic assessment of the
closed greenhouse e the largest commercial solar building. Appl. Energy 102,
1256e1266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.06.051.
Vadiee, A., Yaghoubi, M., 2016. Exergy analysis of the solar blind system integrated
with a commercial solar greenhouse. Int. J. Renew. Energy Resour. 6, 1189e1199.
Veldhuizen, L.J., Giller, K.E., Oosterveer, P., Brouwer, I.D., Janssen, S., van
Zanten, H.H., Slingerland, M.A., 2020. The Missing Middle: connected action on
agriculture and nutrition across global, national and local levels to achieve
Sustainable Development Goal 2. Glob. Food Sec. 24, 100336. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.gfs.2019.100336.
Voulgaraki, S.I., Papadakis, G., 2008. Simulation OF a greenhouse solar heating
system with seasonal storage IN Greece. Acta Hortic. 757e764. https://doi.org/
10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.801.88.
Vuong, E., Kamel, R.S., Fung, A.S., 2015. Modelling and simulation of BIPV/T in
EnergyPlus and TRNSYS. Energy Procedia 78, 1883e1888. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.egypro.2015.11.354.
Wang, Y., Tian, W., Liu, Y., Yang, Z., Zhu, L., Zhang, J., Yuan, B., 2005. System modeling
of greenhouse type solar water heater. In: Solar Energy. ASME, pp. 395e401.
https://doi.org/10.1115/ISEC2005-76220.
Wang, Junwei, Li, S., Guo, S., Ma, C., Wang, Jian, Sun, J., 2017. Analysis of heat transfer
properties of hollow block wall filled by different materials in solar greenhouse.
Eng. Agric. Environ. Food 10, 31e38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eaef.2016.07.003.
Wu, G., Yang, Q., Fang, H., Zhang, Y., Zheng, H., Zhu, Z., Feng, C., 2019. Photothermal/
day lighting performance analysis of a multifunctional solid compound para-
bolic concentrator for an active solar greenhouse roof. Sol. Energy 180, 92e103.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.01.007.
Xu, W., Song, W., Ma, C., 2020. Performance of a water-circulating solar heat
collection and release system for greenhouse heating using an indoor collector
constructed of hollow polycarbonate sheets. J. Clean. Prod. 253, 119918. https://
S. Gorjian, F. Calise, K. Kant et al.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119918.
Yang, T., Athienitis, A.K., 2014. A study of design options for a building integrated
photovoltaic/thermal (BIPV/T) system with glazed air collector and multiple
inlets. Sol. Energy 104, 82e92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2014.01.049.
Yang, H., Zheng, G., Lou, C., An, D., Burnett, J., 2004. Grid-connected building-
integrated photovoltaics: a Hong Kong case study. Sol. Energy 76, 55e59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2003.09.007.
Yang, F., Zhang, Y., Hao, Y., Cui, Y., Wang, W., Ji, T., Shi, F., Wei, B., 2015. Visibly
transparent organic photovoltaic with improved transparency and absorption
based on tandem photonic crystal for greenhouse application. Appl. Optic. 54,
10232. https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.54.010232.
Yano, A., Cossu, M., 2019. Energy sustainable greenhouse crop cultivation using
photovoltaic technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 109, 116e137. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.026.
Yano, A., Kadowaki, M., Furue, A., Tamaki, N., Tanaka, T., Hiraki, E., Kato, Y., Ishizu, F.,
Noda, S., 2010. Shading and electrical features of a photovoltaic array mounted
inside the roof of an eastewest oriented greenhouse. Biosyst. Eng. 106,
367e377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2010.04.007.
Yano, A., Onoe, M., Nakata, J., 2014. Prototype semi-transparent photovoltaic
modules for greenhouse roof applications. Biosyst. Eng. 122, 62e73. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2014.04.003.
Yep, B., Zheng, Y., 2019. Aquaponic trends and challenges e a review. J. Clean. Prod.
228, 1586e1599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.290.
Yoo, S.-H., Manz, H., 2011. Available remodeling simulation for a BIPV as a shading
device. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 95, 394e397. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.solmat.2010.02.015.
Yu, H., Chen, Y., Hassan, S.G., Li, D., 2016. Prediction of the temperature in a Chinese
30
Journal of Cleaner Production 285 (2021) 124807
solar greenhouse based on LSSVM optimized by improved PSO. Comput. Elec-
tron. Agric. 122, 94e102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2016.01.019.
Zhang, L., Xu, P., Mao, J., Tang, X., Li, Z., Shi, J., 2015. A low cost seasonal solar soil
heat storage system for greenhouse heating: design and pilot study. Appl. En-
ergy 156, 213e222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.07.036.
Zhang, X., Wang, H., Zou, Z., Wang, S., 2016. CFD and weighted entropy based
simulation and optimisation of Chinese Solar Greenhouse temperature distri-
bution. Biosyst. Eng. 142, 12e26. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biosystemseng.2015.11.006.
Zhang, X., Lv, J., Dawuda, M.M., Xie, J., Yu, J., Gan, Y., Zhang, J., Tang, Z., Li, J., 2019.
Innovative passive heat-storage walls improve thermal performance and en-
ergy efficiency in Chinese solar greenhouses for non-arable lands. Sol. Energy
190, 561e575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.08.056.
Zhou, D., Zhao, C.Y.Y., Tian, Y., 2012. Review on thermal energy storage with phase
change materials ( PCMs ) in building applications. Appl. Energy 92, 593e605.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.08.025.
Zhou, N., Yu, Y., Yi, J., Liu, R., 2017. A study on thermal calculation method for a
plastic greenhouse with solar energy storage and heating. Sol. Energy 142,
39e48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.12.016.
Zhu, N., Ma, Z., Wang, S., 2009. Dynamic characteristics and energy performance of
buildings using phase change materials: a review. Energy Convers. Manag. 50,
3169e3181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2009.08.019.
Zou, W., Yao, F., Zhang, B., He, C., Guan, Z., 2017. Verification and predicting tem-
perature and humidity in a solar greenhouse based on convex bidirectional
extreme learning machine algorithm. Neurocomputing 249, 72e85. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2017.03.023.