The uncertainty surrounding land availability for renewable energy deployment is a growing concern, creating a strong need for alternative solutions. In recent years, offshore floating photovoltaic (OFPV) systems have shown great promise in meeting global energy demands without competing for land resources. With ambitious targets like 3 GW in The Netherlands by 2030 and global projections exceeding 20 GW, OFPVs are emerging as a key solution at this critical juncture in energy transition. The significance of this technology is also reflected in the 95% increase in research outputs over the past five years. Despite this growth, insights remain scattered, with limited understanding of both the technology and performance. This review fills this gap by providing a comprehensive overview of OFPV systems, addressing both technical and performance aspects. Specifically, the objectives are to: provide detailed information about technology readiness levels, real-world deployments, and a new classification matrix to categorize different OFPV designs; identify key processes like dynamic motion, cooling, optical changes, and long-term degradation that impact energy yield (EY); and quantify the impact of each process on EY based on reported data. The findings reveal that dynamic motion (-0.4% to -15%) and long-term degradation (-2% to -20%) generally reduce EY, while cooling (-4% to +20%) and optical effects (-40% to +5%) can enhance or reduce EY depending on operating conditions. While these insights are crucial, several challenges remain, with the most pressing being the need to standardize measurement and modeling techniques for EY prediction to propel OFPVs towards large-scale commercialization.

The authors have operated a few minor modifications in response to helpful feedback received post-publication from the readership. These updates are solely intended to clarify certain aspects of the article and enhance its overall readability. The first update concerns the caption of Fig. 7, which has been revised to improve clarity for readers through the addition of explanatory notes. The second update pertains to the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of a technology developer in Table 3, which has been updated based on the latest provided information. As a derivative of this change, Fig. 8(a), that is a visual representation of Table 3, has also been updated to reflect the revised TRLs. Additionally, the note in the caption of Table 3 has been slightly modified for improved clarity. These modifications do not affect the outcomes, analysis, or conclusions of the article and are solely intended to improve clarity for readers and consistency with respect to most recent information.[Figure presented] Fig. 7: Proposed classification framework. FPV designs compiled and classified based on research publications and designs used by technology providers. Note: (i) each reported archetype can be technically made modular with companies deploying different (proprietary) solutions for upscaling the surface coverage of the farm; (ii) the adjective “large” in the acronym ”LRP” is related to the area of the floater as a surface that is at least bigger than one PV module. Table 3: TRLs of different FPV archetypes hosted by different organisations. Note: This table shows the TRLs based on publicly available information and represents a snapshot in time. The TRLs are subject to change over time and may not reflect the most up-to-date values.[Figure presented][Figure presented] Fig. 8: Current technology readiness landscape. (a) The trend of TRLs for inland and offshore solar deployments, (b) number of organisations working on inland and offshore solar deployment. Data derived from Table 3.