Next Article in Journal
Comprehensive Evaluation of Agrivoltaics Research: Breadth, Depth, and Insights for Future Research
Previous Article in Journal
Microscopic Transport During Carbon Dioxide Injection in Crude Oil from Jimsar Oilfield Using Microfluidics
Previous Article in Special Issue
Strategic Assessment of Building-Integrated Photovoltaics Adoption: A Combined SWOT-AHP Approach
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 18
Issue 17
10.3390/en18174775
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Increasing the Ecological Efficiency of Monocrystalline Photovoltaic Power Plants by Management Their Life Cycle Assessment

by
Adam Idzikowski
1,*,
Patryk Leda
2,*,
Izabela Piasecka
3,
Tomasz Cierlicki
3 and
Magdalena Mazur
1
1
Department Faculty of Management, Czestochowa University of Technology, Armii Krajowej 19B, 42-201 Czestochowa, Poland
2
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechatronics, Kazimierz Wielki University, Mikołaja Kopernika 1, 85-074 Bydgoszcz, Poland
3
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Bydgoszcz University of Science and Technology, al. Prof. S. Kaliskiego 7, 85-796 Bydgoszcz, Poland
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2025, 18(17), 4775; https://doi.org/10.3390/en18174775
Submission received: 18 July 2025 / Revised: 30 August 2025 / Accepted: 3 September 2025 / Published: 8 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Energy Management and Life Cycle Assessment for Sustainable Energy)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study’s objectives were to evaluate the life cycle of a 2 MW solar power plant in northern Poland and provide suggestions for enhancing this kind of installation’s environmental performance. Eight years of operating data were examined under the assumption that 2000 MWh of energy was produced annually on average. The evaluation took into account two waste management scenarios—landfill and recycling—and was carried out in accordance with the ReCiPe 2016 methodology. Human health and water resource usage had the most environmental effects (7.08 × 105 Pt—landfill), but recycling greatly reduced these effects (−3.08 × 105 Pt). Terrestrial ecosystems were negatively impacted by the turbines’ water consumption (8.94 × 105 Pt—landfill), which was lessened in the recycling scenario. The water and soil environment was greatly impacted by released pollutants, such as zinc and chlorinated hydrocarbons, whose emissions were greatly decreased by material recovery. Particularly detrimental was sulfur dioxide (SO2), which is the cause of PM 2.5 particle matter, which is dangerous to the public’s health. Recycling has helped to lower these pollutants and enhance the quality of the air. Reducing methane and other greenhouse gas emissions can help reduce CO2 emissions, which were the most significant factor in the context of climate change (1.91 × 104 Pt—landfilling). Recycling lessened these impacts and decreased the need to acquire virgin raw materials, but landfilling was linked to soil acidification and the depletion of mineral resources. According to the findings, even “green” technology, like photovoltaics, can have detrimental effects on the environment if they are not properly handled at the end of their useful lives. Recycling is turning out to be a crucial instrument for lowering negative effects on the environment, increasing resource efficiency, and safeguarding public health.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

As PV is being widely used (Figure 1), more panels are reaching the end of their useful lives, which calls for the creation of systems for collection, recycling, and reuse. Regulations pertaining to the manufacture, use, and disposal of PV panels have become necessary as a result of their widespread use [1].
More sophisticated PV laws are being implemented by the US, China, the EU, and other nations [3,4,5]. The PV sector started implementing circular strategies—extending panel life, repairing, reusing, remanufacturing, and recycling—in response to environmental and societal issues [1,6,7,8]. At first, the focus was on cutting expenses and increasing efficiency [5,9]. Problems with raw material consumption, material toxicity, and rising waste quantities have emerged as PV deployment has grown in scope [6,10]. In order to evaluate the environmental effect of PV at each stage—from the extraction of raw materials through manufacture, usage, and disposal—LCA techniques are used [1]. Materials from defunct panels may be recovered and reused thanks to the development of closed-loop recycling technology [11,12,13].

1.2. Literature Review

Despite their growing usage globally, life cycle assessments (LCA) are still very uncommon in Poland when it comes to evaluating the environmental impact of photovoltaic (PV) systems. Prior national evaluations have mostly concentrated on photovoltaic modules, leaving out other parts of PV power plants, such as inverter stations, electrical systems, and support structures. Meanwhile, despite tremendous advancements, the worldwide literature also shows notable shortcomings in fully tackling the problem. The majority of current research relies on estimating global warming potential (GWP), ignoring other important factors, including the effects on ecosystem quality, human health, and the loss of non-renewable natural resources.
To ascertain how photovoltaic systems affect the environment, life cycle assessment is essential. Numerous PV technologies, which are anticipated to rule the market by 2030, have been the subject of recent studies (Maniscalco et al. [14]). Although impact assessment approaches and methods differ, LCA studies may take into account environmental effects and energy indicators such as cumulative energy consumption and energy payback time (Muteri et al. [15]). Important variables affecting LCA results include system efficiency, location, and PV type (Muteri et al. [15]). The choice of material affects how well PV systems operate environmentally (Portillo et al. [16]). LCA can be used for both large-scale assessments and micro-scale studies of individual components or generating systems (Ito [17]). Standardizing LCA methodologies and integrating environmental, economic, and social concerns are necessary to enhance the evaluation of renewable energy systems (Portillo et al. [16]).
The research often focuses on the various materials used to produce PV modules in the context of life cycle assessment (LCA) assessments for photovoltaic systems. The majority of evaluations included silicon-based components. For instance, the life cycle of monocrystalline silicon (sc-Si) modules was examined by Alsema [18,19], Frankl et al. [20], Fthenakis and Kim [21,22], Dones and Frischknecht [23], and Kato et al. [24,25,26]. However, multicrystalline silicon (mc-Si) served as the basis for the investigations carried out by Alsema [19,27], Fthenakis and Alsema [18], Fthenakis and Kim [22], Dones and Frischknecht [23], Ito et al. [17,25,28], Kato et al. [24,25,26,28], Nomura et al. [29], and Oliver and Jackson [30]. Amorphous silicon (a-Si) was explored by Alsema [19,27], Ito et al. [17], and Kato et al. [25,26]. Studies evaluating the life cycle of photovoltaic systems utilizing the ReCiPe 2016 approach are scarce in the global literature, nevertheless.
Photovoltaic system studies are among the recent research projects. These studies include an LCA of the Sobaszek photovoltaic power plant [31], a comparison of environmental impact assessment techniques [32,33], greenhouse gas emissions [18,21], and an LCA of an integrated PV-ACAES system [34]. While Li et al. reviewed organic and perovskite photovoltaic cells [35,36,37,38,39], organic and perovskite cells with transparent graphene electrodes were also studied [36,40]. Crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels were studied by Piasecka et al. [41,42,43,44,45,46] and Mao et al. [47], flexible photovoltaic cells were studied by Li et al. [35,36], photovoltaic panel energy efficiency was studied by Elnozahy et al. [48], and a few panels were studied by Li et al. [36]. Studies on the overall effect of photovoltaic panels were carried out by Muteri et al. [15], Ren et al. [49], and Ludin et al. [50]. Numerous studies concentrate on distinct geographical areas, such as Texas [51], New York [52], and Pakistan [53]. However, there is a lack of comprehensive analyses of the broad spectrum of environmental, health, and resource depletion impacts of the currently most frequently used photovoltaic power plants based on monocrystalline silicon modules.
The majority of LCA studies only include the solar panels themselves, as the literature review illustrates. We chose to examine the full solar power plant, including the electrical installation, support structure, inverter station, and photovoltaic panels, in order to increase the study’s scope. The LCA for the complete solar power plant, not just the photovoltaic panels, can be determined uniquely thanks to this research.

1.3. Research Contribution

All factors that might or do affect the environment and ecosystem must be taken into account in order to comprehend the goal of life cycle management research. The ReCiPe 2016 approach enables the evaluation of a technological facility’s influence across 22 impact categories, in accordance with sustainable development. At the moment, an LCA is necessary for all projects within the EU. In line with sustainable development concepts, life cycle assessment (LCA) management analysis helps lessen the adverse effects of manufacturing, operation, and post-consumer management procedures on the environment and ecosystem during the course of a technological facility’s life cycle.
Recycling and landfill disposal were the two alternatives that were taken into consideration. Because of their highest level of popularity, these two scenarios were selected. This makes it possible to depict the post-consumer management problems as accurately as possible.
The first step in achieving sustainable life-cycle management of renewable energy technology installations is to do an environmental study of the processes that take place during this cycle. However, as unprofitable systems have little chance of becoming popular in society, economic evaluations are necessary in addition to environmental models to ascertain the profitability of the investment. However, the likelihood of this solution becoming widely accepted is low if society has a strong distaste for a certain kind of technology choice (in the case of renewable energy sources, this is typically caused by ignorance). Therefore, in order to increase the environmental efficiency of monocrystalline photovoltaic power plants, our research aimed to develop guidelines and suggestions for managing their life cycle, which will also have a positive impact on their economic and social efficiency.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Life Cycle Thinking (LCT)

Life cycle thinking (LCT) takes into account a product’s effects on the environment, the economy, and society at every point in its lifespan [54,55,56]. A life cycle assessment (LCA) is a thorough, quantitative examination of the social and environmental effects of a system or product, both locally and worldwide, from the extraction of raw materials to disposal [41,44,57,58,59]. This includes all phases, including the extraction of raw materials, processing, manufacturing, consumption of the final product, and waste management. The principles of the ISO 14040 [60] and ISO 14044 [60] standards, which help achieve sustainable development objectives, serve as the foundation for this strategy. Enhancing eco-efficiency and lowering greenhouse gas emissions are important components of this idea, which has positive effects on ecosystems, human health, and the preservation of natural resources [61,62,63,64].

2.2. Life Cycle Management (LCM)

All kinds of businesses and organizations, regardless of size, may use lifecycle management (LCM) as a management technique to boost the efficacy of their sustainability initiatives [65,66,67]. This strategy encourages more conscientious value chain management. With the use of LCM, a product’s information and actions may be planned, organized, analyzed, and controlled, allowing for systematic improvement at every step of its lifespan [68,69,70,71].
The goal of lifecycle management (LCM), a strategic method utilized in the manufacturing and service sectors, is to increase the sustainability of the entire business and its value chain while also enhancing the goods and services provided. In actuality, this entails incorporating sustainability efforts into every aspect of the business’s everyday operations, from marketing to procurement to research and development [72,73,74]. Through active stakeholder participation and careful management at every stage of the product lifecycle, LCM turns into a vehicle for creating competitive advantage. It is not only a short-term plan; rather, it is a long-term strategy that seeks to increase social and economic advantages while minimizing adverse environmental and societal effects [42,75,76,77,78,79].

2.3. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

A thorough method for examining the possible environmental effects of a process or product is life-cycle assessment, or LCA [80,81,82]. It entails measuring the amount of energy and raw materials used, as well as the emissions of pollutants, and then evaluating the effects on human health, the environment, and the depletion of natural resources. The extraction of raw materials, manufacture, distribution, and waste management at the conclusion of a product’s life cycle are all included in this study [41,44,83].
Using the ReCiPe 2016 model, the study applied the LCA technique. SimaPro 9.4 software was used for the study. Creating a highly extensive life cycle assessment of a technological facility, such as a photovoltaic power plant, was made possible by the detailed input model. Using LCA in the design of renewable energy-based technologies enables more effective raw material and energy management over the course of the system’s life cycle [84]. This results in higher recycling and less resource use during production, among other things. This makes it possible to develop more environmentally friendly technical solutions that promote a circular economy [41,44].

2.4. ReCiPe 2016

Using so-called characterization factors, life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) converts emissions and resource consumption data into a collection of environmental effect indicators [85,86]. The two primary methods for identifying these indications are based on endpoints and midpoints, respectively [87]. The availability of resources, environmental integrity, and human health are the three main areas of protection that are directly related to these objectives [88,89]. The endpoint factors are computed using conversion constants unique to each effect category and are obtained from the midway factors. The ReCiPe 2016 approach is one of the newest and most sophisticated tools in the fast-evolving area of LCIA. It allows inventory data to be efficiently transformed into impact assessment findings at both the midpoint and endpoint levels. Within the ReCiPe 2016 model, the analysis is carried out using 22 impact categories that can be aggregated into 3 areas of influence (human health, ecosystems quality and raw material resources) [45,46,90,91,92].

2.5. Object of Analysis

A 2 MW photovoltaic power facility in northern Poland was the subject of the investigation. Data from eight years of operation indicates that this facility can generate between 1900 and 2200 MWh annually. The average amount of energy generated might fluctuate by around 10% due to fluctuating weather conditions. Consequently, it was assumed that the facility produces 2000 MWh annually on average. About 300,000 kg of materials, raw materials, and components make up the photovoltaic power plant under study (Figure 2). The photovoltaic power plant’s components are listed in Figure 3. At a 40-degree angle, the photovoltaic panels face south. 8334 polycrystalline photovoltaic modules, each having a 240 W power output, make up the plant under study.

3. Results

3.1. Impact Categories

Table 1 presents the results of categorizing and assessing the environmental impacts associated with the life cycle of the photovoltaic power plant under study. All impact categories defined in the ReCiPe 2016 model were considered. For plastics, materials, and components, both recycling and landfill disposal were evaluated as potential end-of-life management options. The group that includes procedures that harmed human health and depleted water resources had the most negative impact (7.08 × 105 Pt during the life cycle with landfill disposal) of the impacts discovered. When recycling was used as a post-consumer management technique, the same category experienced the largest benefit in this area (−3.08 × 105 Pt). The findings draw attention to the growing worldwide concern over the depletion of drinking water supplies and the substantial influence of human activities on their quality. On the other hand, recycling as a post-consumer management strategy would lower these expenses across the technological facility’s whole life cycle. In addition, Table 1 highlights the variables that exerted the greatest positive and negative influences throughout the life cycle of the photovoltaic power plant.
The most significant adverse impacts identified over the life cycle of the examined photovoltaic power plant were associated with water consumption affecting human health, water consumption affecting terrestrial ecosystems, human non-carcinogenic toxicity, generation of fine airborne particulate matter, and global warming impacts on human health. This section will go into greater detail about their individual effects on the ecology.

3.1.1. Water Consumption, Human Health

The overall amount of freshwater on Earth has drastically decreased since May 2014 and has stayed low ever since, according to a global team of experts utilizing satellite data from Germany and NASA. According to satellite measurements conducted between 2015 and 2023, the average amount of freshwater stored on land, comprising water in subterranean aquifers and liquid surface water like lakes and rivers, was 1200 cubic kilometers (290 cubic miles) less than the average from 2002 to 2014 [93].
Table 2 (based on the ReCiPe 2016 model) summarizes the results of aggregating and weighting the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle, focusing on processes detrimental to human health and those contributing to water resource depletion. Furthermore, two alternative post-consumer management scenarios were considered. Among the identified compounds, water consumption in turbines—which includes both power generation and cooling processes—had the biggest negative environmental impact, contributing to water resource depletion and a variety of other severe environmental repercussions (7.08 × 105 Pt for the life cycle with landfill management). Recycling procedures lessen harmful effects on the environment (−1.90 × 105 Pt). Considering the kind of post-consumer management (landfill, recycling) in terms of processes that deplete water resources and affect human health, Figure 4 shows the summary values of grouping and weighing the life cycle impacts of the photovoltaic power plant. The largest negative impact on the environment in terms of the impact of processes producing the depletion of water resources is the life cycle of solar modules, which would be put in a landfill following the end of their use (6.04 × 105 Pt).

3.1.2. Water Consumption, Terrestrial Ecosystems

Table 3 displays the results of grouping and weighting the environmental repercussions caused by the life cycle of the researched solar power plant in the area of processes that cause water depletion and damage terrestrial eco-systems (ReCiPe 2016 model). Additionally, two post-use management scenarios were considered. The use of water in turbines had the greatest damaging effect on terrestrial ecosystems of all the substances that were shown to have an affect (8.94 × 105 Pt over the life cycle including landfill management). In addition to lowering water usage, recycling procedures would also lessen the amount of adverse environmental effects in the region under consideration (−1.96 × 104 Pt). Figure 5 presents the summary values of grouping and weighting the consequences of the solar power plant’s life cycle, taking into account the kind of post-use management (landfill, recycling) in terms of the influence of processes causing water depletion and affecting terrestrial ecosystems. Again, the largest negative impact on the environment in the investigated region is the life cycle of solar modules, which would be put in a landfill once they were no longer usable (5.96 × 104 Pt).

3.1.3. Human Non-Carcinogenic Toxicity

Table 4 presents the results of categorizing and weighting the environmental impacts associated with the life cycle of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant. Toxic chemical emissions that do not cause cancer were considered (ReCiPe 2016 model). Two post-consumer disposal scenarios were considered for plastics, materials, and components. It should be mentioned that certain compounds affect the soil, water, and air emission zones. Zinc has the most detrimental impacts of all the compounds that have been found to have hazardous effects (2.87 × 104 Pt for the life cycle with disposal in the form of landfill, in the field of water emissions). The human body uses zinc, a trace element, for a variety of purposes. It is necessary for healthy tissue regeneration and development. Reduced immunity and skin irritation are the results of this element’s deficiency, but excess is just as harmful. Diarrhea, nausea, appetite loss, headaches, and stomach discomfort are all symptoms of acute zinc poisoning. Prolonged exposure to high amounts of zinc emissions lowers HDL cholesterol, weakens the immune system, and causes zinc buildup in the kidneys and liver, which can lead to anemia. Zinc is an important trace element that has a long-lasting effect on our seas. Zinc accumulates to dangerous levels as a result of human activity, which releases more and more of the metal into the marine environment through urban runoff, industrial waste, and daily goods like sunscreen and cosmetics. Zinc may be harmful to marine life once it is in the water, impairing its ability to grow, reproduce, and survive. Particularly susceptible to its detrimental effects are delicate species like corals and oysters [94].
In the examined region, the recycling procedure lowers emissions of dangerous compounds such chlorinated hydrocarbons (3.03 × 10−3 Pt, in the air emissions area). The results emphasize the problems associated with the release of harmful substances into the air, water, and soil. Using recycling as a post-consumer management approach, however, can mitigate these negative effects throughout the life cycle of the studied technological facility, since materials and components would be reused rather than permanently disposed of in landfills. Figure 6 depicts the summary values of the solar power plant’s life cycle impact based on the kind of post-consumer management (landfilling, recycling) in the area of hazardous material emissions that do not cause carcinogenic effects in humans. The life cycle of solar panels produced the most damaging pollutants in the investigated area (for both post-consumer management scenarios—landfill: 2.88 × 104 Pt, recycling: 2.84 × 104 Pt).

3.1.4. Fine Particulate Matter Formation

Substances that lead to the creation of fine particulate matter (PM) have an impact on air pollution. They aid in the production of primary and secondary aerosols in the atmosphere, which can seriously harm people’s health. Particles with a diameter of less than 2.5 μm, for instance, are classified as atmospheric aerosols. Because these particles avoid many of the body’s defensive mechanisms, such mucus and nasal hairs, which work to catch particles before they enter the body more deeply, they are thought to be especially dangerous to human health. Particles of PM 2.5 can reach the circulation after first entering the lungs and then the alveoli. Toxic substances may be present in these particles. Among other things, this kind of particulate matter causes heart rhythm abnormalities, lung, throat, and laryngeal malignancies, inflammation of blood vessels, worsening of asthma, and deterioration of lung function. Transportation, industry, and the burning of fossil fuels are the primary sources of particulate matter smaller than 2.5 µm [90].
Table 5 summarizes the results of identifying and weighing the environmental consequences caused by the solar power plant’s life cycle. The ReCiPe 2016 model took into account chemical emissions that contribute to the formation of fine particulate matter. Additionally, two post-consumer management scenarios—landfill and recycling—were taken into account. Sulfur dioxide has the most detrimental effect on air emissions among the compounds that have been discovered (2.16 × 104 Pt for the life cycle with landfill management). SO2 irritates the skin and the mucous membranes of the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs. At high concentrations, especially during intense physical activity, it can trigger irritation and inflammation of the respiratory system. Common symptoms include breathing difficulties, coughing, throat inflammation, and pain when taking deep breaths [95].
Recycling management has the biggest beneficial effects on the life cycle. Recycling lowers toxic chemical emissions in the studied region (1.54 × 10−1 Pt). The data obtained underscore the growing worldwide concern over particulate matter (PM) emissions into the atmosphere. However, since the recovered materials, components, and materials would be reused, recycling as a post-consumer management strategy would lessen the negative environmental effects over the course of the technological facility under consideration. Figure 7 presents the cumulative life cycle impacts of the components of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant, including post-consumer management options (recycling and storage) in relation to emissions of chemicals contributing to the formation of fine particulate matter (PM). Once again, the highest level of harmful emissions in this category was associated with the life cycle of photovoltaic panels (especially for post-consumer management in the form of landfill disposal—1.80 × 104 Pt).

3.1.5. Global Warming, Human Health

Table 6 summarizes the results of identifying and weighing the environmental consequences of the solar power plant’s life cycle. The ReCiPe 2016 model took into account emissions of chemicals that affect human health and contribute to global warming. Recycling and landfill disposal were the two post-consumer management options for plastics, materials, and components that were taken into consideration. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels have the most detrimental effect on human health of the chemicals that have been found (1.91 × 104 Pt for the life cycle with landfill disposal). Headaches, lightheadedness, confusion, and unconsciousness can happen as CO2 levels in the air rise. Since CO2 is heavier than air, asphyxiation fatalities have happened when large quantities of the gas displace oxygen in confined locations like tanks, wells, or basements. After leaks, which are more likely to happen if the CO2 is discharged under pressure, it can also build up in outside ditches or depressions when the exiting CO2 is colder than the surrounding air [96].
Recycling procedures lower the amount of methane (−7.79 × 102 Pt) and other dangerous substances released into the atmosphere. The findings show how human activity significantly affects both global warming and the deterioration of air quality. Recycling as a post-consumer management strategy, however, would lower these emissions throughout the technological facility’s life cycle since recovered materials, components, and materials would be utilized rather than irretrievably lost (landfilled). Considering post-consumer management (landfilling, recycling), Figure 8 shows the cumulative effect values of the photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in terms of emissions of pollutants that impair human health and cause global warming. The highest level of greenhouse gas emissions was recorded for the life cycle of photovoltaic panels, which will be disposed of in a landfill after use (1.24 × 104 Pt).

3.2. Areas of Influence

Table 7 summarizes the results of identifying and weighing the environmental consequences of the solar power plant’s life cycle. Every effect region in the ReCiPe 2016 model was taken into account. Post-consumer management scenarios for plastics, materials, and components included both recycling and landfill disposal. Human health suffered the most detrimental effects among the impact areas that were assessed (8.30 × 105 Pt over the life cycle with landfill disposal). Recycling as a post-consumer management strategy likewise had the most beneficial impact in this area (−2.39 × 105 Pt). The most detrimental effect on the ecosystem caused by the technological facility under analysis was 7.22 × 104 Pt. If recycling were chosen as the post-use management method in this case, the previously mentioned category would also show the highest level of positive impacts in the area under study (−2.97 × 104 Pt). As a result, adopting recycling as a post-use management strategy would reduce the severity of negative environmental impacts throughout the life cycle of the technical object under consideration, as recovered materials and components would be reused rather than being permanently discarded in landfills.

3.2.1. Human Health

Throughout the photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle, the following impact categories have the most negative consequences on human health: fine particulate matter creation, human non-carcinogenic toxicity, and water consumption. Section 3.1.1., Section 3.1.3. and Section 3.1.4. go into further detail on these issues.

3.2.2. Ecosystems

Among the effect categories studied, the highest level of negative impact during the whole life cycle of the analyzed power plant was found for: water consumption—terrestrial ecosystem (approximately presented in Section 3.1.2), terrestrial acidification and global warming—terrestrial ecosystems.
3.2.2.1. Terrestrial Acidification
The findings of classifying and weighing the environmental effects of the examined photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in the domain of processes leading to soil acidification (ReCiPe 2016 model) are summarized in Table 8. Additionally, two post-use management situations were taken into account. Sulfur dioxide had the most detrimental effect on the environment of all the compounds that were found to be impacting it, generating air pollution (4.08 × 102 Pt for the life cycle with landfill management). Utilizing recycling techniques lessens the damaging effects on the environment (1.91 × 102 Pt). The second highest level of harmful emissions was recorded for nitrogen oxides. Emissions of NOx, a harmful air pollutant, have detrimental effects on both human health and the ecosystem. Although it may be produced by a variety of creatures, harmful nitrogen oxide is mostly produced by industry, transportation, and natural processes [97]. Figure 9 presents the aggregated and weighted values of the photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle impacts in the area of processes contributing to soil acidification, taking into account post-use management options (landfilling and recycling). The highest emissions of soil-acidifying substances were recorded for the life cycle of photovoltaic panels destined for landfill disposal after the end of their use (2.70 × 102 Pt).
3.2.2.2. Global Warming, Terrestrial Ecosystems
Table 9 summarizes the results of categorizing and assessing the environmental impacts caused by the life cycle of the photovoltaic power plant under investigation. The ReCiPe 2016 model took into account chemical emissions that affect human health and contribute to global warming. The two post-consumer management options considered for plastics, materials, and components were recycling and landfill disposal. Among the identified compounds, methane emissions were found to have the most significant adverse impact on human health. Recycling practices reduce the levels of other harmful chemicals including methane (−7.11 × 100 Pt). However, as recovered materials, components, and materials would be used rather than irretrievably lost (landfilled), recycling as a post-consumer management technique would reduce these emissions throughout the technological facility’s life cycle. Since methane emissions contribute to climate change far more quickly than carbon dioxide, they have a major effect on global warming. In order to mitigate environmental harm and meet climate targets, methane emissions must be reduced. A key component of this endeavor is the Global Methane Reduction Commitment, which was created via worldwide collaboration and mobilizes resources and techniques to lower methane emissions across a variety of industries, including waste management, agriculture, and energy [98]. The cumulative values of a photovoltaic power plant’s life-cycle influence on the emissions of pollutants that contribute to global warming, accounting for post-consumer waste management (landfill, recycling), are displayed in Figure 10. By far the highest level of greenhouse gas emissions was recorded for the life cycle of photovoltaic panels (post-consumer scenario—landfill disposal: 6.07 × 102 Pt).

3.2.3. Resources

For the impact area of resource depletion, the ReCiPe 2016 model assesses two impact categories: mineral resource scarcity and fossil resource scarcity. In the evaluated area, the latter was found to have a greater undesired influence.
3.2.3.1. Fossil Resource Scarcity
Table 10 presents the results of categorizing and evaluating the environmental impacts of the photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to processes contributing to soil acidification (ReCiPe 2016 model). Two post-mining management scenarios were also considered. Among all influencing substances, oil extraction exhibited the most harmful effects on the ecosystem (4.73 × 102 Pt over the life cycle, including waste management). Recycling methods lessen the negative effects on the environment (1.32 × 102 Pt). The risks associated with the petroleum sector include those involved with the production, processing, and transportation of natural gas and crude oil. Although dramatic events like oil spills and oil rig explosions are frequently talked about, handling pressurized, combustible, and poisonous hydrocarbons on a daily basis poses a number of risks. In all of their forms, these chemicals provide both short-term and long-term health dangers, leading to environmental pollution and possible health issues such as malignancies linked to aromatic compound exposure [99]. The overall results of classifying and evaluating the effects of the photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle are displayed in Figure 11. The highest negative implications for the environment, connected to processes driving the depletion of fossil resources, were documented for the life cycle of solar panels, which will be buried in a landfill once they have been used (4.65 × 102 Pt).
3.2.3.2. Mineral Resource Scarcity
Table 11 compiles the results of aggregating and weighting the environmental impacts associated with the life cycle of a photovoltaic power plant. The ReCiPe 2016 model included processes contributing to the depletion of mineral resources. For materials and components, both recycling and landfill disposal were considered as post-consumer management scenarios. The extraction phase of the production and consumption chain typically has a significant impact on a product’s environmental impact throughout its life cycle, resulting in pollution that damages the quality of the air, land, and water. The type of pollution and its final impacts on the environment are mostly influenced by the sort of raw materials extracted [100]. The extraction of each additional unit of a given raw material incurs higher financial costs as a result of processes linked to the depletion of mineral resources. Recycling, as a post-consumer management strategy, would mitigate mineral resource depletion and reduce these costs over the entire life cycle of the technical facility, as recovered materials and components would be reused rather than permanently discarded through landfilling. Figure 12 summarizes the life cycle impacts of a photovoltaic power plant, also accounting for post-consumer management options (landfilling and recycling) in areas affected by operations that deplete mineral resources. In this situation, the most negative implications for the environment, connected to processes producing the depletion of mineral resources, were documented for the life cycle of solar panels (both for the post-consumer management scenario in the form of landfill disposal (3.22 × 102 Pt) and recycling (3.15 × 102 Pt)).

3.3. Total Impact

Figure 13 illustrates the aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts across the entire life cycle of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant, considering two post-consumer management scenarios (landfilling and recycling) using the ReCiPe 2016 model. The overall environmental impact throughout the life cycle of the examined photovoltaic power plant is considerably greater when landfill disposal is employed as the post-consumer management strategy (9.03 × 105 Pt) than in the case of the use of recycling processes (−2.74 × 105 Pt).
Figure 14 depicts the grouping and weighing of the implications for the life cycle environment of the examined solar power plant, which are classified into elemental groupings. The highest overall level of negative environmental effect over the life cycle of the examined solar power plant was recorded when photovoltaic panels were disposed of in a landfill following their end-of-life use (7.07 × 105 Pt). The implementation of recycling methods would greatly lessen the magnitude of these negative effects (−2.99 × 105 Pt).

4. Discussion and Conclusions

4.1. Conclusions

The aim of this study was achieved by analyzing the possibilities of increasing the ecological efficiency of monocrystalline photovoltaic power plants by managing their life cycle assessment.
Of all the impact categories analyzed, the highest levels of harmful impact during the life cycle of the studied photovoltaic power plant were characterized by: water consumption—human health (landfill: 7.08 × 105, recycling: −3.13 × 105), water consumption—terrestrial ecosystems (landfill: 6.99 × 104, recycling: −3.08 × 104), human non-carcinogenic toxicity (landfill: 4.36 × 104, recycling: 3.73 × 104), fine particulate matter formation (landfill: 3.62 × 104, recycling: 1.68 × 104), and global warming—human health (landfill: 2.52 × 104, recycling: 8.29 × 103) (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6).
The element of a photovoltaic power plant whose life cycle has the greatest destructive impact is the PV. Their post-use management in the form of landfill disposal (total: 7.07 × 105 Pt) has more negative consequences for the environment compared to the use of recycling processes (total: −2.99 × 105 Pt) (Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 14).
Among the assessed areas of influence, the greatest negative impact was that on human health (landfill: 8.30 × 105, recycling: −2.39 × 105). The highest level of harmful emissions in this area was recorded for zinc (category: human non-carcinogenic toxicity) and sulfur dioxide (category: fine particulate matter formation), while among the processes, the greatest negative impact was observed in the use of water to power turbines (category: water consumption, human health) (Table 1, Table 3 and Table 4 and Figure 4, Figure 6 and Figure 7).
In the case of impact on the quality of ecosystems, the processes with the greatest negative impact include again the use of water to power turbines (category: water consumption, terrestrial ecosystem), while the most undesirable emissions include nitrogen oxides (category: terrestrial acidification) and carbon dioxide (category: global warming, terrestrial ecosystems) (Table 2, Table 8 and Table 9 and Figure 5, Figure 9 and Figure 10).
In relation to the issue of depletion of raw materials, the most negative environmental consequences were recorded for oil extraction processes (category: fossil resource scarcity) (Table 10 and Figure 11).
The total level of harmful impact on the environment during the life cycle of the examined photovoltaic power plant is significantly higher in the case of post-consumer management in the form of landfill disposal (9.03 × 105 Pt) than in the case of the use of recycling processes (−2.74 × 105 Pt). Sustainable management of the life cycle of a photovoltaic power plant should, therefore, take into account the recycling processes of its materials, components, and working units (in particular PV).

4.2. Discussion

The thorough identification of regions with the most adverse effects was made possible by the application of the ReCiPe 2016 approach to the environmental life-cycle evaluation of a photovoltaic power plant. The findings show that, if improperly handled at the end-of-life stage, even ecologically benign technology, like photovoltaics, can have a major negative influence on the environment. The biggest environmental impacts are caused by supporting operations, including transportation, raw material extraction, and water cooling of turbines, in addition to equipment operation. Important factors include CO2, SO2, zinc, PM 2.5 emissions, and water usage, all of which point to the need for more waste management and technical process optimization. Recycling is essential to reducing the environmental impact, as demonstrated by a comparison of landfill and recycling scenarios. Material recovery greatly lessens the effects on the environment and human health while lowering the requirement for new raw materials and pollution emissions.
Other areas that could be affected by dangerous contaminants could be added to the study’s scope. For instance, it is possible to study raw material resources, ecosystems, and human health. There are 22 impact regions covered by the ReCiPe 2016 model. To ascertain which elements, chemicals, or chemical compounds are most detrimental to the environment, each of the 22 impact categories should be examined both in the context of the solar power plant as a whole and in relation to its individual components and assemblies [90,101,102].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.L., A.I. and I.P.; methodology, P.L., A.I. and I.P.; software, P.L., A.I., I.P. and T.C.; validation, M.M. and T.C.; formal analysis, A.I., P.L., I.P., M.M. and T.C.; investigation, A.I., P.L., I.P. and M.M.; resources, I.P. and T.C.; data curation, P.L. and I.P.; writing—original draft preparation, A.I., P.L., I.P., M.M. and T.C.; writing—review and editing, A.I., P.L., I.P., M.M. and T.C.; visualization, M.M. and T.C.; supervision, I.P., A.I. and P.L.; project administration, I.P.; funding acquisition, A.I. and M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Gervais, E.; Herceg, S.; Nold, S.; Weiß, K.A. Sustainability Strategies for PV: Framework, Status and Needs. EPJ Photovolt. 2021, 12, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. World Solar PV Installations to Grow to ~600 Gigawatts This Year—CleanTechnica. Available online: https://cleantechnica.com/2024/09/11/world-solar-pv-installations-to-grow-to-600-gigawatts-this-year/ (accessed on 11 July 2025).
  3. Ali, A.; Malik, S.A.; Shafiullah, M.; Malik, M.Z.; Zahir, M.H. Policies and Regulations for Solar Photovoltaic End-of-Life Waste Management: Insights from China and the USA. Chemosphere 2023, 340, 139840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sala, S.; Amadei, A.M.; Beylot, A.; Ardente, F. The Evolution of Life Cycle Assessment in European Policies over Three Decades. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2021, 26, 2295–2314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tyagi, V.V.; Rahim, N.A.A.; Rahim, N.A.; Selvaraj, J.A.L. Progress in Solar PV Technology: Research and Achievement. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 20, 443–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Circular Solar: The Opportunities for Increased Circularity in the Solar PV Industry | Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL). Available online: https://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/news-and-resources/publications/circular-solar-opportunities-increased-circularity-solar-pv-industry (accessed on 11 July 2025).
  7. Reddy, S.S.; Yammani, C. Odd-Even-Prime Pattern for PV Array to Increase Power Output under Partial Shading Conditions. Energy 2020, 213, 118780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ding, F.; Mather, B.; Gotseff, P. Technologies to Increase PV Hosting Capacity in Distribution Feeders. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), Boston, MA, USA, 17–21 July 2016; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wandhare, R.G.; Agarwal, V. Reactive Power Capacity Enhancement of a PV-Grid System to Increase PV Penetration Level in Smart Grid Scenario. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2014, 5, 1845–1854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Aleem, S.A.; Suhail Hussain, S.M.; Ustun, T.S. A Review of Strategies to Increase PV Penetration Level in Smart Grids. Energies 2020, 13, 636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mirletz, H.; Ovaitt, S.; Sridhar, S.; Barnes, T.M. Circular Economy Priorities for Photovoltaics in the Energy Transition. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0274351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Maćkowiak, P.; Ligaj, B.; Płaczek, D.; Kotyk, M. Verification of Selected Failure Criteria for Adhesive Bonded Elements with Different Stiffness through the Use of Methacrylic Adhesive. Materials 2020, 13, 4011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Roselli, C.; Sasso, M. Integration between Electric Vehicle Charging and PV System to Increase Self-Consumption of an Office Application. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 130, 130–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Maniscalco, M.P.; Longo, S.; Miccichè, G.; Cellura, M.; Ferraro, M. A Critical Review of the Environmental Performance of Bifacial Photovoltaic Panels. Energies 2023, 17, 226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Muteri, V.; Cellura, M.; Curto, D.; Franzitta, V.; Longo, S.; Mistretta, M.; Parisi, M.L. Review on Life Cycle Assessment of Solar Photovoltaic Panels. Energies 2020, 13, 252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Portillo, F.; Alcayde, A.; Garcia, R.M.; Fernandez-Ros, M.; Gazquez, J.A.; Novas, N. Life Cycle Assessment in Renewable Energy: Solar and Wind Perspectives. Environments 2024, 11, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ito, M.; Ito, M. Life Cycle Assessment of PV Systems. In Crystalline Silicon—Properties and Uses; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fthenakis, V.; Alsema, E. Photovoltaics Energy Payback Times, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and External Costs: 2004–Early 2005 Status. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2006, 14, 275–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Alsema, E. Energy Requirements of Thin-Film Solar Cell Modules—A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 1998, 2, 387–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Frankl, P.; Masini, A.; Gamberale, M.; Toccaceli, D. Simplied Life-Cycle Analysis of PV Systems in Buildings: Present Situation and Future Trends. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 1998, 6, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fthenakis, V.M.; Kim, H.C. Greenhouse-Gas Emissions from Solar Electric- and Nuclear Power: A Life-Cycle Study. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2549–2557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fthenakis, V.M.; Kim, H.C. Life Cycle Assessment of High-Concentration Photovoltaic Systems. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2013, 21, 379–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dones, R.; Frischknecht, R. Life-Cycle Assessment of Photovoltaic Systems: Results of Swiss Studies on Energy Chains Background and Methodology. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 1998, 6, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kato, K.; Murata, A.; Sakuta, K. An Evaluation on the Life Cycle of Photovoltaic Energy System Considering Production Energy of Off-Grade Silicon. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 1997, 47, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ito, M.; Kato, K.; Komoto, K.; Kichimi, T.; Kurokawa, K. A Comparative Study on Cost and Life-Cycle Analysis for 100 MW Very Large-Scale PV (VLS-PV) Systems in Deserts Using m-Si, a-Si, CdTe, and CIS Modules. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2008, 16, 17–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kato, K.; Hibino, T.; Komoto, K.; Ihara, S.; Yamamoto, S.; Fujihara, H. A Life-Cycle Analysis on Thin-Film CdS/CdTe PV Modules. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2001, 67, 279–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Alsema, E.A. Energy Pay-Back Time and CO 2 Emissions of PV Systems. In Practical Handbook of Photovoltaics; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ito, M.; Kato, K.; Sugihara, H.; Kichimi, T.; Song, J.; Kurokawa, K. A Preliminary Study on Potential for Very Large-Scale Photovoltaic Power Generation (VLS-PV) System in the Gobi Desert from Economic and Environmental Viewpoints. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2003, 75, 507–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nomura, N.; Inaba, A.; Tonooka, Y.; Akai, M. Life-Cycle Emission of Oxidic Gases from Power-Generation Systems. Appl. Energy 2001, 68, 215–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Oliver, M.; Jackson, T. The Evolution of Economic and Environmental Cost for Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaics. Energy Policy 2000, 28, 1011–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sobaszek, Ł.; Piasecka, I.; Flizikowski, J.; Tomporowski, A.; Sokolovskij, E.; Bałdowska-Witos, P. Environmentally Oriented Analysis of Benefits and Expenditures in the Life Cycle of a Wind Power Plant. Materials 2023, 16, 538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Piasecka, I.; Tomporowski, A.; Flizikowski, J.; Kruszelnicka, W.; Kasner, R.; Mroziński, A. Life Cycle Analysis of Ecological Impacts of an Offshore and a Land-Based Wind Power Plant. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Piotrowska, K.; Piasecka, I.; Kłos, Z.; Marczuk, A.; Kasner, R. Assessment of the Life Cycle of a Wind and Photovoltaic Power Plant in the Context of Sustainable Development of Energy Systems. Materials 2022, 15, 7778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Cocco, D.; Lecis, L.; Micheletto, D. Life Cycle Assessment of an Integrated PV-ACAES System. Energies 2023, 16, 1430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Li, Q.; Li, T.; Kutlu, A.; Zanelli, A. Life Cycle Cost Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment of ETFE Cushion Integrated Transparent Organic/Perovskite Solar Cells: Comparison with PV Glazing Skylight. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 87, 109140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Li, Q.; Monticelli, C.; Zanelli, A. Life Cycle Assessment of Organic Solar Cells and Perovskite Solar Cells with Graphene Transparent Electrodes. Renew. Energy 2022, 195, 906–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Li, Q.; Monticelli, C.; Kutlu, A.; Zanelli, A. Environmental Performance Analysis of Textile Envelope Integrated Flexible Photovoltaic Using Life Cycle Assessment Approach. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 89, 109348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Li, Q.; Monticelli, C.; Kutlu, A.; Zanelli, A. Feasibility of Textile Envelope Integrated Flexible Photovoltaic in Europe: Carbon Footprint Assessment and Life Cycle Cost Analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 430, 139716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Li, W.; Jin, R.; Ma, X.; Zhang, G. Capacity Optimal Allocation Method and Frequency Division Energy Management for Hybrid Energy Storage System Considering Grid-Connected Requirements in Photovoltaic System. Energies 2023, 16, 4154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Piasecka, I.; Kłos, Z. An Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Construction Materials of Monocrystalline and Perovskite Photovoltaic Power Plants Toward Their Sustainable Development. Materials 2024, 17, 5787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Leda, P.; Szala, G.; Piasecka, I. Assessment of the Influence of the Life Cycle of Solar Power Plant Materials and Components on Ecosystem Quality. Materials 2024, 17, 6028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cierlicki, T.; Zawada, M.; Piasecka, I.; Leda, P. Management the Efficiency of a Photovoltaic Installation. Prod. Eng. Arch. 2024, 30, 296–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Leda, P.; Kruszelnicka, W.; Leda, A.; Piasecka, I.; Kłos, Z.; Tomporowski, A.; Flizikowski, J.; Opielak, M. Life Cycle Analysis of a Photovoltaic Power Plant Using the CED Method. Energies 2023, 16, 8098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Leda, P.; Idzikowski, A.; Piasecka, I.; Bałdowska-Witos, P.; Cierlicki, T.; Zawada, M. Management of Environmental Life Cycle Impact Assessment of a Photovoltaic Power Plant on the Atmosphere, Water, and Soil Environment. Energies 2023, 16, 4230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Leda, P.; Piasecka, I.; Leda, A.; Szala, G.; Tomporowski, A.; Walichnowska, P.; Bałdowska-Witos, P.; Kruszelnicka, W. Investigating and Analyzing the Influence of a Solar Power Plant’s Life Cycle on the Depletion of Natural Materials and Mineral Resources. Eng 2024, 5, 2695–2708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Piasecka, I.; Bałdowska-Witos, P.; Piotrowska, K.; Tomporowski, A. Eco-Energetical Life Cycle Assessment of Materials and Components of Photovoltaic Power Plant. Energies 2020, 13, 1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mao, D.; Yang, S.; Ma, L.; Ma, W.; Yu, Z.; Xi, F.; Yu, J. Overview of Life Cycle Assessment of Recycling End-of-Life Photovoltaic Panels: A Case Study of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Panels. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 434, 140320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Elnozahy, A.; Abd-Elbary, H.; Abo-Elyousr, F.K. Efficient Energy Harvesting from PV Panel with Reinforced Hydrophilic Nano-Materials for Eco-Buildings. Energy Built Environ. 2024, 5, 393–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ren, M.; Ghasemi, R.; Khalkhali, M.; Mo, W. Dynamics of Large-Scale Solar PV Adoption Feedback Effects: A Technical, Economic, and Environmental Assessment. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2024, 205, 107571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ludin, N.A.; Mustafa, N.I.; Hanafiah, M.M.; Ibrahim, M.A.; Asri Mat Teridi, M.; Sepeai, S.; Zaharim, A.; Sopian, K. Prospects of Life Cycle Assessment of Renewable Energy from Solar Photovoltaic Technologies: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 96, 11–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Das, J.; Ur Rehman, A.; Verma, R.; Gulen, G.; Young, M.H. Comparative Life-Cycle Assessment of Electricity-Generation Technologies: West Texas Case Study. Energies 2024, 17, 992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ali, A.; Koch, T.W.; Volk, T.A.; Malmsheimer, R.W.; Eisenbies, M.H.; Kloster, D.; Brown, T.R.; Naim, N.; Therasme, O. The Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Production in New York State from Distributed Solar Photovoltaic Systems. Energies 2022, 15, 7278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Shah, H.H.; Bareschino, P.; Mancusi, E.; Pepe, F. Environmental Life Cycle Analysis and Energy Payback Period Evaluation of Solar PV Systems: The Case of Pakistan. Energies 2023, 16, 6400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Idzikowski, A.; Cierlicki, T. Economy and Energy Analysis in the Operation of Renewable Energy Installations—A Case Study. Prod. Eng. Arch. 2021, 27, 90–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Muralikrishna, I.V.; Manickam, V. Life Cycle Assessment. In Environmental Management: Science and Engineering for Industry; Butterworth-Heinemann: Harlow, UK, 2017; pp. 57–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Widheden, J.; Ringström, E. Life Cycle Assessment. Handb. Clean. Decontam. Surf. 2007, 2, 695–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Cierlicki, T. Hydrogen as an Energy Storage in Home Energy Production Installations. Arch. Eng. Knowl. 2024, 2024, 79–87. [Google Scholar]
  58. Idzikowski, A.; Dudnikov, S.; Miroshnyk, O.; Savchenko, O.; Trunova, I.; Paziy, V.; Milenin, A.; Shchur, T.; Halko, S.; Burnayev, O.; et al. Prospects for Biogas Plant Implementation in the Unified Energy System. Syst. Saf. Hum.-Tech. Facil.-Environ. 2024, 6, 154–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gabrielyan, B.; Markosyan, A.; Almastyan, N.; Madoyan, D. Energy Efficiency in Household Sector. Prod. Eng. Arch. 2024, 30, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Finkbeiner, M.; Inaba, A.; Tan, R.B.H.; Christiansen, K.; Klüppel, H.J. The New International Standards for Life Cycle Assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2006, 11, 80–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Jacob-Lopes, E.; Zepka, L.Q.; Deprá, M.C. Assistant’s Tools toward Life Cycle Assessment. In Sustainability Metrics and Indicators of Environmental Impact; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 77–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mazzi, A. Introduction. Life Cycle Thinking. In Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment for Decision-Making: Methodologies and Case Studies; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Manfredi, S.; Pant, R. Improving the Environmental Performance of Bio-Waste Management with Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 285–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Gulotta, T.M.; Salomone, R.; Mondello, G.; Ricca, B. FLAVIA-LCT—Framework for Systematic Literature Review to Analyse Vast InformAtion in Life Cycle Thinking Studies. Heliyon 2023, 9, e15547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Laurent, A.; Bakas, I.; Clavreul, J.; Bernstad, A.; Niero, M.; Gentil, E.; Hauschild, M.Z.; Christensen, T.H. Review of LCA Studies of Solid Waste Management Systems—Part I: Lessons Learned and Perspectives. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 573–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Antelava, A.; Damilos, S.; Hafeez, S.; Manos, G.; Al-Salem, S.M.; Sharma, B.K.; Kohli, K.; Constantinou, A. Plastic Solid Waste (PSW) in the Context of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Sustainable Management. Environ. Manag. 2019, 64, 230–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Clavreul, J.; Guyonnet, D.; Christensen, T.H. Quantifying Uncertainty in LCA-Modelling of Waste Management Systems. Waste Manag. 2012, 32, 2482–2495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Life Cycle Management—Life Cycle Initiative. Available online: https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/starting-life-cycle-thinking/life-cycle-approaches/life-cycle-management/ (accessed on 13 July 2025).
  69. Razza, F.; Fieschi, M.; Innocenti, F.D.; Bastioli, C. Compostable Cutlery and Waste Management: An LCA Approach. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 1424–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. De Feo, G.; Malvano, C. The Use of LCA in Selecting the Best MSW Management System. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 1901–1915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ismail, H.; Hanafiah, M.M. An Overview of LCA Application in WEEE Management: Current Practices, Progress and Challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 232, 79–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Vogli, L.; Macrelli, S.; Marazza, D.; Galletti, P.; Torri, C.; Samorì, C.; Righi, S. Life Cycle Assessment and Energy Balance of a Novel Polyhydroxyalkanoates Production Process with Mixed Microbial Cultures Fed on Pyrolytic Products of Wastewater Treatment Sludge. Energies 2020, 13, 2706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Di Bari, R.; Horn, R.; Nienborg, B.; Klinker, F.; Kieseritzky, E.; Pawelz, F. The Environmental Potential of Phase Change Materials in Building Applications. A Multiple Case Investigation Based on Life Cycle Assessment and Building Simulation. Energies 2020, 13, 3045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ciacci, L.; Passarini, F. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Environmental and Energy Systems. Energies 2020, 13, 5892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Klöpp, W.; Curran, M.A.; Sonnemann, G.; Margni, M. Life Cycle Management; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; p. 353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Orłowska, J.; Suchacka, M.; Trembaczowski, Ł.; Ulewicz, R. Social Aspects of Establishing Energy Cooperatives. Energies 2024, 17, 5709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Mazur, M.; Fedorchuk, S.; Kulapin, O.; Ivakhnov, A.; Danylchenko, D.; Miroshnyk, O.; Shchur, T.; Halko, S.; Idzikowski, A. Analysis of the Required Energy Storage Capacity for Balancing the Load Schedule and Managing the Electric Energy Demand of an Apartment Building. Syst. Saf. Hum.-Tech. Facil.-Environ. 2023, 5, 342–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Płaczek, D.; Maćkowiak, P.; Boroński, D. Fatigue Analysis of Welded Joints Using a Thin-Walled Al/Fe Explosive Welded Transition Joints. Materials 2023, 16, 6259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Maćkowiak, P. Fatigue Properties of Methacrylic Adhesive Plexus MA300. Materials 2025, 18, 2127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Bałdowska-Witos, P.; Piasecka, I.; Flizikowski, J.; Tomporowski, A.; Idzikowski, A.; Zawada, M. Life Cycle Assessment of Two Alternative Plastics for Bottle Production. Materials 2021, 14, 4552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Finnveden, G.; Potting, J. Life Cycle Assessment. In Encyclopedia of Toxicology, 3rd ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 74–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. von der Assen, N.V.; Lafuente, A.M.L.; Peters, M.; Bardow, A. Environmental Assessment of CO2 Capture and Utilisation. In Carbon Dioxide Utilisation: Closing the Carbon Cycle, 1st ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Levy, M. Life Cycle Analysis—Strengths and Limitations of LCA. In Encyclopedia of Sustainable Technologies; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 233–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Piasecka, I.; Tomporowski, A.; Piotrowska, K. Environmental Analysis of Post-Use Management of Car Tires. Przem. Chem. 2018, 97, 1649–1653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Neves, S.A.; Marques, A.C. Drivers and Barriers in the Transition from a Linear Economy to a Circular Economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 341, 130865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Pergola, M.; Rita, A.; Tortora, A.; Castellaneta, M.; Borghetti, M.; De Franchi, A.S.; Lapolla, A.; Moretti, N.; Pecora, G.; Pierangeli, D.; et al. Identification of Suitable Areas for Biomass Power Plant Construction through Environmental Impact Assessment of Forest Harvesting Residues Transportation. Energies 2020, 13, 2699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Dekker, E.; Zijp, M.C.; van de Kamp, M.E.; Temme, E.H.M.; van Zelm, R. A Taste of the New ReCiPe for Life Cycle Assessment: Consequences of the Updated Impact Assessment Method on Food Product LCAs. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25, 2315–2324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Rybaczewska-Błażejowska, M.; Jezierski, D. Comparison of ReCiPe 2016, ILCD 2011, CML-IA Baseline and IMPACT 2002+ LCIA Methods: A Case Study Based on the Electricity Consumption Mix in Europe. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2024, 29, 1799–1817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Huijbregts, M.A.J.; Steinmann, Z.J.N.; Elshout, P.M.F.; Stam, G.; Verones, F.; Vieira, M.D.M.; Hollander, A.; Zijp, M.; van Zelm, R. ReCiPe 2016: A Harmonized Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method at Midpoint and Endpoint Level Report I: Characterization 2016; Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu RIVM: Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  90. Huijbregts, M.A.J.; Steinmann, Z.J.N.; Elshout, P.M.F.; Stam, G.; Verones, F.; Vieira, M.; Zijp, M.; Hollander, A.; van Zelm, R. ReCiPe2016: A Harmonised Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method at Midpoint and Endpoint Level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Bień, J.; Bień, B. Rapid Assessment of Solar PV Micro-System Energy Generation in Poland Based on Freely Pvlib-Python Library. Prod. Eng. Arch. 2024, 30, 326–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Garbier, M.; Čorejová, T. Efficiency of Battery Systems from the Point of View of Economic Return. Prod. Eng. Arch. 2024, 30, 344–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Rodell, M.; Barnoud, A.; Robertson, F.R.; Allan, R.P.; Bellas-Manley, A.; Bosilovich, M.G.; Chambers, D.; Landerer, F.; Loomis, B.; Nerem, R.S.; et al. Global Freshwater Abruptly Declines. Surv. Geophys. 2024, 45, 1875–1902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Zinc: The Hidden Metal Impacting Marine Ecosystems—Marine Biodiversity Science Center. Available online: https://www.marinebiodiversity.ca/zinc-the-hidden-metal-impacting-marine-ecosystems/ (accessed on 13 July 2025).
  95. Sulfur Dioxide Effects on Health—Air (U.S. National Park Service). Available online: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/air/humanhealth-sulfur.htm (accessed on 13 July 2025).
  96. General Hazards of Carbon Dioxide—HSE. Available online: https://www.hse.gov.uk/carboncapture/carbondioxide.htm (accessed on 13 July 2025).
  97. Singh, K.C.; Rawat, K. Nitric Oxide: Risk Assessment, Environmental, and Health Hazard. In Hazardous Gases: Risk Assessment on the Environment and Human Health; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Rashid, K.; Speck, A.; Osedach, T.P.; Perroni, D.V.; Pomerantz, A.E. Optimized Inspection of Upstream Oil and Gas Methane Emissions Using Airborne LiDAR Surveillance. Appl. Energy 2020, 275, 115327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Petroleum Industry Hazards | EBSCO Research Starters. Available online: https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/science/petroleum-industry-hazards (accessed on 13 July 2025).
  100. Resource Extraction—European Environment Agency. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/zero-pollution/production-consumption/resource-extraction (accessed on 13 July 2025).
  101. Plastow, N.A.; Ot, B. Mixing-up Research Methods: A Recipe for Success or Disaster? S. Afr. J. Occup. Ther. 2016, 46, 89–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Jain, A.; Gehlot, R.; Siddiqui, S.; Jangra, M.R. Optimization of Recipe for Development of Aonla Squash—A Response Surface Methodology Approach. J. Appl. Nat. Sci. 2016, 8, 1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Energies 18 04775 g001
Figure 1. Global expansion in the installed capacity of solar power plants. Own work based on [2].
Figure 1. Global expansion in the installed capacity of solar power plants. Own work based on [2].
Energies 18 04775 g001
Energies 18 04775 g002
Figure 2. Percentage distribution of component mass in the tested photovoltaic power plant (investor data).
Figure 2. Percentage distribution of component mass in the tested photovoltaic power plant (investor data).
Energies 18 04775 g002
Energies 18 04775 g003
Figure 3. Percentage division of the mass of materials of the considered photovoltaic power plant (investor data).
Figure 3. Percentage division of the mass of materials of the considered photovoltaic power plant (investor data).
Energies 18 04775 g003
Energies 18 04775 g004
Figure 4. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to processes leading to water resource depletion and affecting human health, with consideration of element groupings and alternative post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model).
Figure 4. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to processes leading to water resource depletion and affecting human health, with consideration of element groupings and alternative post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model).
Energies 18 04775 g004
Energies 18 04775 g005
Figure 5. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to processes leading to water resource depletion and affecting terrestrial ecosystems, with consideration of element groupings and alternative post-consumer development scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model).
Figure 5. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to processes leading to water resource depletion and affecting terrestrial ecosystems, with consideration of element groupings and alternative post-consumer development scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model).
Energies 18 04775 g005
Energies 18 04775 g006
Figure 6. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to processes involving toxic substances without carcinogenic effects on humans, with consideration of element groupings and different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model).
Figure 6. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to processes involving toxic substances without carcinogenic effects on humans, with consideration of element groupings and different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model).
Energies 18 04775 g006
Energies 18 04775 g007
Figure 7. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to substances contributing to the formation of fine particulate matter (PM), with consideration of element groupings and different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model).
Figure 7. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to substances contributing to the formation of fine particulate matter (PM), with consideration of element groupings and different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model).
Energies 18 04775 g007
Energies 18 04775 g008
Figure 8. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to substances contributing to global warming and affecting human health, with consideration of element groupings and different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model).
Figure 8. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to substances contributing to global warming and affecting human health, with consideration of element groupings and different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model).
Energies 18 04775 g008
Energies 18 04775 g009
Figure 9. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to substances contributing to soil acidification, with consideration of element groupings and different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model).
Figure 9. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to substances contributing to soil acidification, with consideration of element groupings and different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model).
Energies 18 04775 g009
Energies 18 04775 g010
Figure 10. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to substances exacerbating global warming and affecting terrestrial ecosystems, with consideration of element groupings and different post-consumer management scenarios (model ReCiPe 2016).
Figure 10. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to substances exacerbating global warming and affecting terrestrial ecosystems, with consideration of element groupings and different post-consumer management scenarios (model ReCiPe 2016).
Energies 18 04775 g010
Energies 18 04775 g011
Figure 11. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to processes leading to fossil resource depletion, with consideration of element groupings and different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model).
Figure 11. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to processes leading to fossil resource depletion, with consideration of element groupings and different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model).
Energies 18 04775 g011
Energies 18 04775 g012
Figure 12. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to processes leading to mineral resource depletion, with consideration of element groupings and different post-consumer development scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model).
Figure 12. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to processes leading to mineral resource depletion, with consideration of element groupings and different post-consumer development scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model).
Energies 18 04775 g012
Energies 18 04775 g013
Figure 13. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle, with consideration of different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model).
Figure 13. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle, with consideration of different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model).
Energies 18 04775 g013
Energies 18 04775 g014
Figure 14. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle, with consideration of element groupings and different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model).
Figure 14. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle, with consideration of element groupings and different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model).
Energies 18 04775 g014
Table 1. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts associated with the life cycle of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant, considering all relevant impact categories and alternative post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model) [unit: Pt].
Table 1. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts associated with the life cycle of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant, considering all relevant impact categories and alternative post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model) [unit: Pt].
NoElement of a Technical ObjectPhotovoltaic Power Plant
Waste ScenarioLandfillRecycling
Impact Category
1Global warming, human health2.52 × 1046.80 × 103
2Global warming, terrestrial ecosystems1.23 × 1033.33 × 102
3Global warming, freshwater ecosystems3.36 × 10−29.12 × 10−3
4Stratospheric ozone depletion7.74 × 1004.39 × 100
5Ionizing radiation5.23 × 1011.46 × 101
6Ozone formation, human health6.02 × 1012.77 × 101
7Fine particulate matter formation3.62 × 1041.50 × 104
8Ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems1.41 × 1026.51 × 101
9Terrestrial acidification5.04 × 1022.31 × 102
10Freshwater eutrophication2.02 × 1021.41 × 102
11Marine eutrophication1.10 × 10−17.83 × 10−2
12Terrestrial ecotoxicity1.13 × 1028.89 × 101
13Freshwater ecotoxicity7.51 × 1016.44 × 101
14Marine ecotoxicity1.61 × 1011.38 × 101
15Human carcinogenic toxicity1.66 × 1043.95 × 103
16Human non-carcinogenic toxicity4.36 × 1043.70 × 104
17Land use1.04 × 1026.88 × 101
18Mineral resource scarcity3.97 × 1023.18 × 102
19Fossil resource scarcity8.67 × 1023.81 × 102
20Water consumption, human health7.08 × 105−3.08 × 105
21Water consumption, terrestrial ecosystem6.99 × 104−3.08 × 104
22Water consumption, aquatic ecosystems3.12 × 100−1.38 × 100
TOTAL9.03 × 105−2.74 × 105
Table 2. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental consequences of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to processes contributing to water resource depletion and impacts on human health, taking into account different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model) [unit: Pt].
Table 2. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental consequences of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to processes contributing to water resource depletion and impacts on human health, taking into account different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model) [unit: Pt].
NoElement of a Technical ObjectPhotovoltaic Power Plant
Waste ScenarioLandfillRecycling
SubstanceEmission Area
1WaterWater−1.90 × 105−1.90 × 105
2Water, cooling, unspecified natural originRaw materials2.16 × 1031.47 × 103
3Water, lakeRaw materials1.21 × 1011.77 × 101
4Water, riverRaw materials3.30 × 1022.61 × 102
5Water, turbine use, unspecified natural originRaw materials8.94 × 105−1.25 × 105
6Water, unspecified natural originRaw materials5.87 × 1025.73 × 102
7Water, wellRaw materials6.21 × 1016.80 × 101
8Remaining substancesx1.78 × 1024.76 × 101
TOTAL 7.08 × 105−3.13 × 105
Table 3. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to processes contributing to water resource depletion and affecting terrestrial ecosystems, taking into account different post-consumer development scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model) [unit: Pt].
Table 3. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to processes contributing to water resource depletion and affecting terrestrial ecosystems, taking into account different post-consumer development scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model) [unit: Pt].
NoElement of a Technical ObjectPhotovoltaic Power Plant
Waste ScenarioLandfillRecycling
SubstanceEmission Area
1WaterWater−1.96 × 104−1.96 × 104
2Water, cooling, unspecified natural originRaw materials2.29 × 1021.63 × 102
3Water, lakeRaw materials1.19 × 1001.74 × 100
4Water, riverRaw materials3.25 × 1012.62 × 101
5Water, turbine use, unspecified natural originRaw materials8.91 × 104−1.14 × 145
6Water, unspecified natural originRaw materials5.80 × 1015.66 × 101
7Water, wellRaw materials6.06 × 1006.75 × 100
8Remaining substancesx2.32 × 1011.02 × 101
TOTAL 6.99 × 104−3.08 × 104
Table 4. Grouping and weighing the consequences for the environment of the life cycle of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant in the area of influence of toxic substances that do not show carcinogenic effects on humans, taking into account different post-use management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model) [unit: Pt].
Table 4. Grouping and weighing the consequences for the environment of the life cycle of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant in the area of influence of toxic substances that do not show carcinogenic effects on humans, taking into account different post-use management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model) [unit: Pt].
NoElement of a Technical ObjectPhotovoltaic Power Plant
Waste ScenarioLandfillRecycling
SubstanceEmission Area
1AcephateSoilx8.82 × 10−2
2AcroleinAir2.85 × 10−12.85 × 10−1
3AntimonyAir4.86 × 1002.65 × 100
4AntimonyWater1.70 × 1017.39 × 100
5ArsenicAir1.15 × 1036.95 × 102
6ArsenicWater9.92 × 1037.91 × 103
7BariumWater2.38 × 1022.17 × 102
8BariumSoil1.73 × 1001.05 × 10−1
9BerylliumAir5.15 × 1005.25 × 100
10CadmiumAir1.36 × 1028.06 × 101
11CadmiumWater5.02 × 1014.32 × 101
12Carbon disulfideAir9.33 × 1013.78 × 101
13Chromium VIWater4.74 × 1003.57 × 100
14CopperAir4.25 × 10−12.74 × 10−3
15CopperWater1.17 × 1011.02 × 101
16Hydrocarbons, chlorinatedAir4.82 × 10−13.03 × 10−3
17LeadAir1.31 × 1031.03 × 103
18LeadWater8.98 × 1048.26 × 102
19MercuryAir1.22 × 1019.86 × 100
20MercuryWater2.06 × 1021.75 × 102
21MolybdenumWater1.08 × 1001.11 × 100
22NickelWater5.99 × 10−15.45 × 10−2
23SilverWater4.18 × 1014.06 × 101
24ThalliumWater1.11 × 1021.07 × 102
25VanadiumAir1.20 × 1001.04 × 10−1
26VanadiumWater1.47 × 1026.07 × 101
27ZincAir4.02 × 1023.13 × 102
28ZincWater2.87 × 1042.55 × 104
29ZincSoil1.01 × 1029.67 × 101
30Remaining substancesx2.29 × 1011.77 × 101
TOTAL 4.36 × 1043.73 × 104
Table 5. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to substances contributing to the formation of fine particulate matter (PM), with consideration of different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model) [unit: Pt].
Table 5. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to substances contributing to the formation of fine particulate matter (PM), with consideration of different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model) [unit: Pt].
NoElement of a Technical ObjectPhotovoltaic Power Plant
Waste ScenarioLandfillRecycling
SubstanceEmission Area
1AmmoniaAir2.70 × 1021.63 × 102
2Nitrogen oxidesAir4.41 × 1032.29 × 103
3Particulates, <2.5 umAir9.73 × 1033.92 × 103
4Sulfur dioxodeAir2.16 × 1041.01 × 104
5Sulfur oxidesAir9.45 × 1009.45 × 140
6Sulfur trioxideAir2.63 × 1022.64 × 102
7Remaining substancesx1.26 × 1001.54 × 101
TOTAL 3.62 × 1041.68 × 104
Table 6. Grouping and weighing the consequences for the environment of the life cycle of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant in the area of the influence of substances that increase global warming and affect human health, taking into account different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model) [unit: Pt].
Table 6. Grouping and weighing the consequences for the environment of the life cycle of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant in the area of the influence of substances that increase global warming and affect human health, taking into account different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model) [unit: Pt].
NoElement of a Technical ObjectPhotovoltaic Power Plant
Waste ScenarioLandfillRecycling
SubstanceEmission Area
1Carbon dioxide, fossilAir1.91 × 1046.54 × 103
2Carbon dioxide, land transformationAir5.52 × 1015.50 × 101
3Dinitrogen monoxideAir2.96 × 1021.83 × 102
4Ethane, haxafluoro-, HFC-116Air3.12 × 102−1.46 × 102
5Hydrocarbons, chlorinatedAir6.65 × 10−12.30 × 10−1
6Methane, biogenicAir1.76 × 1031.30 × 103
7Methane, chlorodifluoro-, HCFC-22Air1.55 × 1002.50 × 100
8Methane, dichlorodifluoro-, CFC-12Air1.31 × 1001.31 × 100
9Methane, fossilAir1.68 × 1038.84 × 102
10Methane, tetrafluoro-, CFC-14Air1.66 × 103−7.79 × 102
11Sulfur hexafluorideAir2.93 × 1022.47 × 102
12Remaining substancesx3.18 × 1001.10 × 10−1
TOTAL 2.52 × 1048.29 × 103
Table 7. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle, considering the impact categories, element groupings, and different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model) [unit: Pt].
Table 7. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle, considering the impact categories, element groupings, and different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model) [unit: Pt].
NoElement of a Technical ObjectPhotovoltaic Power Plant
Waste ScenarioLandfillRecycling
Impact Category
1Human health8.30 × 105−2.39 × 105
2Ecosystems7.22 × 104−2.97 × 104
3Terrestrial acidification1.26 × 10−37.29 × 10−2
TOTAL9.03 × 105−2.69 × 105
Table 8. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to substances contributing to soil acidification, with consideration of element groupings and different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model) [unit: Pt].
Table 8. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to substances contributing to soil acidification, with consideration of element groupings and different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model) [unit: Pt].
NoElement of a Technical ObjectPhotovoltaic Power Plant
Waste ScenarioLandfillRecycling
SubstanceEmission Area
1AmmoniaAir1.21 × 1017.27 × 100
2Nitrogen oxidesAir7.89 × 1014.09 × 101
3Sulfur dioxideAir4.08 × 1021.91 × 102
4Sulfur oxidesAir1.78 × 10−11.78 × 10−1
5Sulfur trioxideAir5.02 × 10−05.02× 10−0
6Sulfuric acidAir1.04 × 10−11.06 × 10−1
7Remaining substancesx6.43 × 10−32.86 × 10−3
TOTAL 5.04 × 1022.45 × 102
Table 9. Grouping and weighing the consequences for the environment of the life cycle of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant in the area of influence of substances that deepen global warming and affect terrestrial ecosystems, taking into account different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model) [unit: Pt].
Table 9. Grouping and weighing the consequences for the environment of the life cycle of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant in the area of influence of substances that deepen global warming and affect terrestrial ecosystems, taking into account different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model) [unit: Pt].
NoElement of a Technical ObjectPhotovoltaic Power Plant
Waste ScenarioLandfillRecycling
SubstanceEmission Area
1Carbon dioxide, fossilAir9.33 × 1023.19 × 102
2Carbon dioxide, land transformationAir2.70 × 1002.69 × 100
3Dinitrogen monoxideAir1.45 × 1018.95 × 100
4Ethane, haxafluoro-, HFC-116Air1.52 × 101−7.11 × 100
5Hydrocarbons, chlorinatedAir3.25 × 10−21.12 × 10−2
6Methane, biogenicAir8.58 × 1016.35 × 101
7Methane, chlorodifluoro-, HCFC-22Air7.59 × 10−21.22 × 10−1
8Methane, dichlorodifluoro-, CFC-12Air6.42 × 10−26.42 × 10−2
9Methane, fossilAir8.23 × 1014.33 × 101
10Methane, tetrafluoro-, CFC-14Air8.14 × 101−3.81 × 101
11Sulfur hexafluorideAir1.43 × 1011.21 × 101
12Remaining substancesx1.55 × 10−15.35 × 10−3
TOTAL 1.23 × 1034.05 × 102
Table 10. Grouping and weighing the consequences for the environment of the life cycle of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant in the area of influence of processes causing depletion of fossil resources, taking into account different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model) [unit: Pt].
Table 10. Grouping and weighing the consequences for the environment of the life cycle of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant in the area of influence of processes causing depletion of fossil resources, taking into account different post-consumer management scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model) [unit: Pt].
NoElement of a Technical ObjectPhotovoltaic Power Plant
Waste ScenarioLandfillRecycling
SubstanceEmission Area
1Coal, hardRaw materials6.43 × 1012.09 × 101
2Gas, natural/m3Raw materials3.31 × 1022.53 × 102
3Oil, crudeRaw materials4.73 × 1031.32 × 102
4Remaining substancesxx−3.55 × 10−15
TOTAL 8.67 × 1024.06 × 102
Table 11. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to processes leading to mineral resource depletion, with consideration of different post-consumer development scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model) [unit: Pt].
Table 11. Aggregation and weighting of the environmental impacts of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant’s life cycle in relation to processes leading to mineral resource depletion, with consideration of different post-consumer development scenarios (ReCiPe 2016 model) [unit: Pt].
NoElement of a Technical ObjectPhotovoltaic Power Plant
Waste ScenarioLandfillRecycling
SubstanceEmission Area
1AluminiumRaw materials3.93 × 101−1.27 × 101
2BariteRaw materials1.24 × 10−2−4.90 × 10−3
3ChromiumRaw materials7.75 × 10−17.64 × 10−1
4Clay, bentoniteRaw materials1.25 × 10−21.25 × 10−2
5Clay, unspecifiedRaw materials2.82 × 10−12.26 × 10−1
6CobaltRaw materials1.66 × 1011.66 × 101
7CopperRaw materials5.62 × 1015.62 × 101
8Copper, 0.99% in sulfide, Cu 0.36% and Mo 8.2 × 10−3% in crude oreRaw materials3.78 × 10−11.94 × 10−2
9Copper, 1.18% in sulfide, Cu 0.39% and Mo 8.2 × 10−3% in crude oreRaw materials2.20 × 1002.05 × 10−1
10Copper, 1.42% in sulfide, Cu 0.81% and Mo 8.2 × 10−3% in crude oreRaw materials5.56 × 10−12.84 × 10−2
11Copper, 2.19% in sulfide, Cu 1.83% and Mo 8.2 × 10−3% in crude oreRaw materials2.89 × 1002.69 × 10−1
12GalliumRaw materials6.20 × 10−43.90 × 10−3
13GoldRaw materials5.05 × 1005.05 × 100
14HafniumRaw materials1.13 × 10−35.02 × 10−3
15IronRaw materials5.48 × 1015.45 × 101
16LeadRaw materials4.96 × 1004.85 × 100
17MagnesiumRaw materials3.14 × 1013.14 × 101
18ManganeseRaw materials4.42 × 10−14.44 × 10−1
19MolybdenumRaw materials1.25 × 1001.02 × 100
20Molybdenum, 0.010% in sulfide, Mo 8.2 × 10−3% and Cu 1.83% in crude oreRaw materials1.57 × 1001.46 × 10−1
21Molybdenum, 0.014% in sulfide, Mo 8.2 × 10−3% and Cu 0.81% in crude oreRaw materials2.14 × 10−11.09 × 10−2
22Molybdenum, 0.022% in sulfide, Mo 8.2 × 10−3% and Cu 0.36% in crude oreRaw materials8.94 × 10−2−1.09 × 10−2
23Molybdenum, 0.025% in sulfide, Mo 8.2 × 10−3% and Cu 0.39% in crude oreRaw materials8.20 × 10−17.64 × 10−2
24NickelRaw materials8.63 × 1018.63 × 101
25Nickel, 1.98% in silicates, 1.04% in crude oreRaw materials8.99 × 10−1−3.43 × 10−2
26NiobiumRaw materials1.75 × 10−31.75 × 10−3
27PalladiumRaw materials2.08 × 10−12.08 × 10−1
28PhosphorusRaw materials7.86 × 10−37.71 × 10−3
29PlatinumRaw materials1.59 × 10−11.59 × 10−1
30RhodiumRaw materials2.78 × 10−22.78 × 10−2
31SeleniumRaw materials6.82 × 10−36.82 × 10−3
32SiliconRaw materials5.87 × 1015.87 × 101
33SilverRaw materials1.07 × 1011.07 × 101
34TinRaw materials1.15 × 1017.76 × 10−2
35TiO2, 45–60% in IlmeniteRaw materials2.14 × 10−2−3.11 × 10−3
36TitaniumRaw materials1.11 × 10−11.11 × 10−1
37UraniumRaw materials3.97 × 10−11.72 × 10−1
38ZincRaw materials7.31 × 1007.30 × 100
39Remaining substancesx2.35 × 10−12.07 × 10−1
TOTAL 3.97 × 1023.24 × 102
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Idzikowski, A.; Leda, P.; Piasecka, I.; Cierlicki, T.; Mazur, M. Increasing the Ecological Efficiency of Monocrystalline Photovoltaic Power Plants by Management Their Life Cycle Assessment. Energies 2025, 18, 4775. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18174775

AMA Style

Idzikowski A, Leda P, Piasecka I, Cierlicki T, Mazur M. Increasing the Ecological Efficiency of Monocrystalline Photovoltaic Power Plants by Management Their Life Cycle Assessment. Energies. 2025; 18(17):4775. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18174775

Chicago/Turabian Style

Idzikowski, Adam, Patryk Leda, Izabela Piasecka, Tomasz Cierlicki, and Magdalena Mazur. 2025. "Increasing the Ecological Efficiency of Monocrystalline Photovoltaic Power Plants by Management Their Life Cycle Assessment" Energies 18, no. 17: 4775. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18174775

APA Style

Idzikowski, A., Leda, P., Piasecka, I., Cierlicki, T., & Mazur, M. (2025). Increasing the Ecological Efficiency of Monocrystalline Photovoltaic Power Plants by Management Their Life Cycle Assessment. Energies, 18(17), 4775. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18174775

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop