Advertisement

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

, Volume 17, Issue 8, pp 1068–1079 | Cite as

Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: an implementation to photovoltaic modules

  • Marzia Traverso
  • Francesco Asdrubali
  • Annalisa Francia
  • Matthias Finkbeiner
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Abstract

Purpose

The main goal of the paper is to carry out the first implementation of sustainability assessment of the assembly step of photovoltaic (PV) modules production by Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) and the development of the Life Cycle Sustainability Dashboard (LCSD), in order to compare LCSA results of different PV modules. The applicability and practicability of the LCSD is reported thanks to a case study. The results show that LCSA can be considered a valuable tool to support decision-making processes that involve different stakeholders with different knowledge and background.

Method

The sustainability performance of the production step of Italian and German polycrystalline silicon modules is assessed using the LCSD. The LCSD is an application oriented to the presentation of an LCSA study. LCSA comprises life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing and social LCA (S-LCA). The primary data collected for the German module are related to two different years, and this led to the evaluation of three different scenarios: a German 2008 module, a German 2009 module, and an Italian 2008 module.

Results and discussion

According to the LCA results based on Ecoindicator 99, the German module for example has lower values of land use [1.77 potential disappeared fractions (PDF) m2/year] and acidification (3.61 PDF m2/year) than the Italian one (land use 1.99 PDF m2/year, acidification 3.83 PDF m2/year). However, the German module has higher global warming potential [4.5E–05 disability-adjusted life years (DALY)] than the Italian one [3.00E−05 DALY]. The economic costs of the German module are lower than the Italian one, e.g. the cost of electricity per FU for the German module is 0.12 €/m2 compared to the Italian 0.85 €/m2. The S-LCA results show significant differences between German module 2008 and 2009 that represent respectively the best and the worst overall social performances of the three considered scenarios compared by LCSD. The aggregate LCSD results show that the German module 2008 has the best overall sustainability performance and a score of 665 points out of 1,000 (and a colour scale of light green). The Italian module 2008 has the worst overall sustainability performance with a score of 404 points, while the German module 2009 is in the middle with 524 points.

Conclusions

The LCSA and LCSD methodologies represent an applicable framework as a tool for supporting decision-making processes which consider sustainable production and consumption. However, there are still challenges for a meaningful application, particularly the questions of the selection of social LCA indicators and how to weigh sets for the LCSD.

Keywords

Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment  LCA LCC S-LCA Photovoltaic modules Social indicators 

Supplementary material

11367_2012_433_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 1,073 kb)

References

  1. Alsema EA (2000) Energy pay-back time and CO2 emissions of PV systems. Prog Photovolt Res Appl 8:17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alsema EA, De Wild MJ (2006) Environmental impacts of crystalline silicon photovoltaic module production. Presented at 13th CIRP Intern Conf on life cycle engineeringGoogle Scholar
  3. Asdrubali F (2009) The role of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in the design of sustainable buildings: thermal and sound insulating materials, Presented at Euronoise, Edinburgh, Scotland, 26–28 October 2009Google Scholar
  4. Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. EPIA (2010) “Global Market Outlook for Photovoltaics until 2014”. www.epia.org. Accessed May 2010
  6. Finkbeiner M, Reimann K, Ackermann R (2008) Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) for products and processes. SETAC Europe 18th Annual Meeting, 25–29 May 2008, WarsawGoogle Scholar
  7. Finkbeiner M, Schau E, Lehmann A, Traverso M (2010) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 2(10):3309–3322, http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/10/3309/, last call 15th Dec. 2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fthenakis VM, Kim HC (2009) Photovoltaics: life-cycle analyses. Sol Energy 85:1609–1628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. GSE (2011) Gestore Servizi Energetici. www.gse.it. Accessed November 2011
  10. Hardi P, Semple P (2000) The dashboard of sustainability—from a metaphor to an operational set of indices, in Fifth International Conference on Social Science Methodology: Cologne, Germany, 2000Google Scholar
  11. Hunkeler D, Lichtenvort K, Rebitzer G, Andreas Ciroth A, Huppes G, Lichtenvort K, Rüdenauer I, Stehen B (2008) Environmental life cycle costing. SETAC Publications, BrusselsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Organisation for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  13. ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Organisation for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  14. Jesinghaus J (2000) On the art of aggregating apples & oranges. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, MilanGoogle Scholar
  15. Jǿrgensen A, Le Bocq A, Nazarkina L, Hauschild M (2008) Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):96–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kloepffer W (2003) Life-cycle based methods for sustainable product development. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:157–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kloepffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koroneos C, Stylos N, Moussiopoulos N (2006a) LCA of multicrystalline silicon photovoltaic systems: present situation and future perspectives. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koroneos C, Stylos N, Moussiopoulos N (2006b) LCA of multicrystalline silicon photovoltaic systems: application on an island economy. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(3):183–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leleman R, Albrecht J, Dewulf J (2011) Life cycle analysis to estimate the environmental impact of residential photovoltaic systems in regions with low solar irradiation. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15:267–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. PE International, LBP (2009) GaBi 4 Software-System und Datenbank zur Ganzheitlichen Bilanzierung, 2009th edn. Echterdingen, Stuttgart, 2007Google Scholar
  22. PRé Consultants (2010) SimaPro 7, Pré-Product Ecology Consultants, The Netherlands, http://www.pre.nl Accessed April 2011
  23. PRé Consultants BV (2008) Eco-Indicator 99. Principles. http://www.pre.nl/eco-indicator99/eco-indicator_99.htm Accessed Feb 2011
  24. REN21 (2011) Renewables 2011 Global Status Report. Version 2.1. 08/2011 (Paris: REN21 Secretariat)Google Scholar
  25. Swarr TE, Hunkeler D, Kloepffer W, Pesonen H-L, CIroth A, Brent AC, Pagan R (2011) Environmental life cycle costing: a code of practice. SETAC publicationGoogle Scholar
  26. Traverso M, Finkbeiner M (2009) Life Cycle Sustainability Dashboard. Proceeding of the 4th International Conference on LCM2009, 6–9 September 2009, Cape Town, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  27. UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. United Nations Environment ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  28. UNEP/SETAC (2012) Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment, United Nations Environment Program, Paris SETAC Life Cycle Initiative United Nations Environment ProgrammeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marzia Traverso
    • 1
  • Francesco Asdrubali
    • 2
  • Annalisa Francia
    • 3
  • Matthias Finkbeiner
    • 1
  1. 1.Technische Universitaet BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.CIRIAF, Facoltà di IngegneriaUniversità di PerugiaPerugiaItaly
  3. 3.Solsonica S.p.aCittaducaleItaly

Personalised recommendations