Emissions from Photovoltaic Life Cycles

PV Environmental Research Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York, USA.
Environmental Science and Technology (Impact Factor: 5.48). 04/2008; 42(6):2168-74. DOI: 10.1021/es071763q
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Photovoltaic (PV) technologies have shown remarkable progress recently in terms of annual production capacity and life cycle environmental performances, which necessitate timely updates of environmental indicators. Based on PV production data of 2004-2006, this study presents the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, criteria pollutant emissions, and heavy metal emissions from four types of major commercial PV systems: multicrystalline silicon, monocrystalline silicon, ribbon silicon, and thin-film cadmium telluride. Life-cycle emissions were determined by employing average electricity mixtures in Europe and the United States during the materials and module production for each PV system. Among the current vintage of PV technologies, thin-film cadmium telluride (CdTe) PV emits the least amount of harmful air emissions as it requires the least amount of energy during the module production. However, the differences in the emissions between different PV technologies are very small in comparison to the emissions from conventional energy technologies that PV could displace. As a part of prospective analysis, the effect of PV breeder was investigated. Overall, all PV technologies generate far less life-cycle air emissions per GWh than conventional fossil-fuel-based electricity generation technologies. At least 89% of air emissions associated with electricity generation could be prevented if electricity from photovoltaics displaces electricity from the grid.

Download full-text


Available from: E.A. Alsema, Feb 05, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: One of the key features of environmental policy integration in Sweden is sector responsibility. The National Board of Housing, Building and Planning is responsible for the building and real estate management sector and should, as a part of this responsibility, assess the environmental impacts of this sector. The aim of this study is to suggest and demonstrate a method for such an assessment. The suggested method is a life cycle assessment, based on an input‐output analysis. The method can be used for regular monitoring and for prioritization between different improving measures. For the assessment to sufficiently cover the Swedish Environmental Quality Objectives, complementary information is needed, in particular with respect to the indoor environment. According to the results, the real estate management sector contributes between 10% and 40% of Swedish energy use; use of hazardous chemical products; generation of solid waste; emissions of gases contributing to climate change; and human toxicological impacts, including nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulates. Transport and production of nonrenewable building materials contribute significantly to several of the emissions. Heating of buildings contributes more to energy use than to climate change, due to the use of renewable energy sources. To reduce climate change, measures should therefore prioritize not only heating of buildings but also the important upstream processes.
    Journal of Industrial Ecology 06/2011; DOI:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00340.x · 2.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The seasonal and hourly variation of electricity grid emissions and building operational energy use are generally not accounted for in carbon footprint analyses of buildings. This work presents a technique for and results of such an analysis and quantifies the errors that can be encountered when these variations are not appropriately addressed. The study consists of an hour‐by‐hour analysis of the energy used by four different variations of a five‐story condominium building, with a gross floor area of approximately 9,290 square meters (m2), planned for construction in Markham, Ontario, Canada. The results of the case studied indicate that failure to account for variation can, for example, cause a 4% error in the carbon footprint of a building where ground source heat pumps are used and a 6% and 8% error in accounting for the carbon savings of wind and photovoltaic systems, respectively. After the building envelope was enhanced and sources of alternative energy were incorporated, the embodied greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were more than 50% of the building's operational emissions. This work illustrates the importance of short‐time‐scale GHG analysis for buildings.
    Journal of Industrial Ecology 06/2011; DOI:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00335.x · 2.71 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The development of copper chalcogenide based nanomaterials as promising candidates for sustainable energy materials, due to their environmental compatibility and low toxicity, is presented and discussed in this review. Different solution syntheses have recently been developed for the low-cost preparation of copper chalcogenidenanocrystals, and their unique properties derived from copper deficiencies were investigated with much progress. The notorious compositional instability and defect formation of copper chalcogenidenanocrystals have been healed by forming donor–acceptor pairs in ternary and quaternary chalcogenide based nanocrystals, especially in copper zinc tinsulfides (CZTS). In addition to their use as light absorbers in solar cells, copper chalcogenide nanocrystals have also been utilized in different applications, such as electrode materials in Li ion batteries and high efficiency counter electrodes in dye/quantum dot sensitized solar cells as well as for NIR photothermal therapy. All relate to their unique copper deficiency properties. The copper chalcogenide based nanomaterials are believed to be sustainable materials for future energy applications once the syntheses and property investigations have led to a more complete understanding of their physics.
    Energy & Environmental Science 01/2012; 5(2):5564-5576. DOI:10.1039/C1EE02734D · 15.49 Impact Factor