Next Article in Journal
Aligning Advances in Biodiesel Technology with the Needs of the Defense Community
Next Article in Special Issue
Energy Efficiency and Mathematical Modeling of Shrimp Pond Oxygenation: A Multiple Regression Experimental Study
Previous Article in Journal
Optical Fiber Technology for Efficient Daylighting and Thermal Control: A Sustainable Approach for Buildings
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Comprehensive Review on Various Phases of Wastewater Technologies: Trends and Future Perspectives
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Eng
Volume 5
Issue 4
10.3390/eng5040141
eng-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Investigating and Analyzing the Influence of a Solar Power Plant’s Life Cycle on the Depletion of Natural Materials and Mineral Resources

by
Patryk Leda
1,*,
Izabela Piasecka
1,
Anna Leda
2,
Grzegorz Szala
3,
Andrzej Tomporowski
1,
Patrycja Walichnowska
1,
Patrycja Bałdowska-Witos
1 and
Weronika Kruszelnicka
1
1
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Bydgoszcz University of Science and Technology, al. Prof. S. Kaliskiego 7, 85-796 Bydgoszcz, Poland
2
Faculty of Political Science and Administration, Kazimierz Wielki University, J. Poniatowskiego 12, 85-671 Bydgoszcz, Poland
3
Faculty of Mechatronics, Kazimierz Wielki University, Mikołaja Kopernika 1, 85-074 Bydgoszcz, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Eng 2024, 5(4), 2695-2708; https://doi.org/10.3390/eng5040141
Submission received: 17 September 2024 / Revised: 13 October 2024 / Accepted: 16 October 2024 / Published: 18 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Green Engineering for Sustainable Development 2024)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The production process requires massive amounts of minerals, fossil fuels, and energy. The efficient use of energy and natural resources appears to be crucial to the state of affairs. It should be noted that the post-consumer management of solar power plant elements results in a certain amount of power and matter, as well as harmful effects on the natural world. The major goal of this study was to examine the environmental effect of the solar power plant throughout its life cycle, taking into consideration the depletion of natural materials and mineral resources, using the ReCiPe 2016 model. A life cycle study was performed on an actual 2 MW solar power facility located in northern Poland. This study was conducted using the ReCiPe 2016 model and the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology. The analyzed renewable energy system’s impact was assessed utilizing 22 impact categories, focusing mostly on the depletion of natural resources. A Life Cycle Assessment was conducted for two post-consumer development scenarios (landfill and recycling). This research focuses on the full solar power plant, not just the photovoltaic panels. Recycling, as a kind of post-consumer development, can provide major environmental benefits and minimize negative environmental consequences throughout the solar power plant’s life cycle. The exceedingly harmful effects can be evident in losses related to water and the aquatic environment. The obtained study findings enabled the development of sustainable-friendly recommendations towards the continuous advancement of the life cycle of solar power plants, thereby reducing the use of rare earth minerals.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

In recent years, the photovoltaic sector has expanded rapidly, both nationally and abroad. One of the most important causes for this trend is the tremendous advancement of solar technology, which results in a decrease in prices. In general, this method of producing power (photovoltaic farms) has grown more cost-competitive than non-renewable energy sources [1,2]. Figure 1 [3] shows the forecast of installed capacity in photovoltaics until 2025 in Poland.
In recent years, installed capacity has increased significantly in Poland and across the world. In 2020, Poland’s total installed solar capacity was at 4000 MW, and it is now almost 15,000 MW. In Poland, as in other countries with a large number of solar installations, this is owed, among other things, to the employment of various sorts of subsidies by individual users, businesses, and government entities [2,3].
The possibilities for photovoltaics in Poland are abundant. By 2030, the installed capacity in photovoltaics will approach 25 GW. A comparable scenario exists worldwide; however, the evolution is not consistent. China, the United States, Germany, Japan, and Australia are the world’s leaders in capacity expansion. It is anticipated that by 2050, the percentage of power produced by utilizing PV technology would account for 25% of worldwide electricity consumption [3,4,5].
The substantial contribution of renewable sources in future demand predictions suggests that solar energy will be an important component of the energy mix. The additional value will include a large decrease in CO2 emissions, which is consistent with climate action [4,5,6].
Poland is a frontrunner in the European solar sector in terms of growing the number of photovoltaic installations. However, a large number of solar systems will require management after their usage. One option might be to recycle solar panels, which allows for the recovery of elements including glass, polymer compounds, and metals. Photovoltaic panels have been in use for a long time; thus, their administration is not yet systematized [1,4,7,8].
Changes in economic situations and societal expectations necessitate the incorporation of environmental protection objectives into the life cycles of technological objects, in addition to construction, manufacturing, and operating features. Maintaining the existing operating paradigm, which is illogical regarding sustainable growth and constitutes of making and disposing of items, creating trash, and disposing of this trash in the natural world, will prevent beneficial changes in environmental quality from taking place. Efforts to optimize technical facilities for ecology, energy, and economics aim to create a closed-loop system for energy and matter. The invention and execution of activities aimed at the ecological, energy, and economic optimization of technical facilities attempt to change the management model into one as near to a closed circulation of energy and matter as feasible.
This would boost effectiveness in the usage of basic material resources while lowering harmful environmental influences [1,4,9,10].
LCA analyses evaluate environmental issues in design, production, operation, and development, including energy consumption, chemical compounds, and waste emissions. They also assess the synergy of the facility and the environment, considering both positive and negative environmental impacts [1,5,6,7,11,12].

1.2. Literature Review

The worldwide literature has few to no studies that employ the ReCiPe 2016 technique to conduct Life Cycle Assessments of solar power plants. The research concentrates on the impact of power plant life cycles on the potential for global warming (GWP), while disregarding additional negative consequences on human and environmental wellness, as well as raw material degradation.
LCAs for solar systems often focus on the many types of materials used to make PV modules. The majority of investigations focused on silicon panels, such as Alsema [13], Frankl and others [14], Fthenakis and Kim [15], Dones and Frischknecht [16], and Kato and others [17], who investigated the lifespan cycle of single-crystalline silicon (sc-Si) components. Alsema [18], Fthenakis and Alsema [19], Fthenakis and Kim [15], Dones and Frischknecht [16], Ito and others [20,21], Kato and others [17], Nomura and others [22], and Oliver and Jackson [23] analyzed multi-crystalline silicon (mc-Si). Alsema [18,19], Ito and others [20,21], and Kato and others [17,20,21] all studied amorphous silicon (a-Si).
The most recent studies include research on photovoltaic systems: greenhouse gas emissions [5], Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of an integrated PV-ACAES system [24], a comparison of EIA techniques [10], and an LCA of a wind farm power plant [25]. Other study areas include environmental impacts of various energy systems based on LCA [26,27], and the Capacity Optimal Allocation Method [28].
A recent study by other academics, for example, focuses just on solar panels rather than the full photovoltaic power plant, with, e.g., Qingxiang et al. analyzing organic solar cells and perovskite solar cells with transparent graphene electrodes [29], Li et al. again examining organic and perovskite panels [30], Mao et al. examining crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels [31], Li et al. examining flexible photovoltaics [32], Elnozahy et al. examining the energy yield of photovoltaic panels [33], Li et al. analyzing textile envelope-integrated flexible photovoltaics [34], and Duan et al. conducting research on polysilicon photovoltaic modules [35]. The general impact of photovoltaic panels has been presented by, e.g., Muteri et al. [36], Ren et al. [37], and Ludin et al. [38].
There are no current studies in the literature that take into account the entire solar power plant rather than just individual photovoltaic panels.

1.3. Research Contribution

There has been barely any research into the lifespan cycle of solar power plants in the literature across the globe. Meanwhile, in Poland, LCA evaluations are still uncommon. This article seeks to give a local viewpoint on the environmental effect of the chosen alternative power sources. As a consequence, a 2-megawatt solar power plant in northern Poland was assessed. By maintaining a local emphasis, the author sought to draw attention to a bigger issue and contribute to an improved awareness of the environmental consequences associated with green energy’s life cycle.
The major goal of this study was to use the ReCiPe 2016 model to assess the environmental effect of a solar power plant across its whole life cycle, taking into consideration the depletion of natural materials and minerals.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plan of Analysis

In recent years, we have seen a particularly rapid increase in the importance of environmental protection issues, which, if not addressed, would result in, among other things, the construction of impediments to economic progress. New legal laws and standards alter present economic activity concepts, especially those pertaining to energy facilities such as renewable energy. As a result, it is becoming more justifiable to perform evaluations targeted at determining the feasibility of recovering rare earth elements for reuse.
Identifying the regions with the most negative environmental effect is critical to the long-term feasibility of equipment, machinery, and green power systems. Every step of the life cycle requires a distinct strategy, particularly due to the complexity of the events that occur throughout it. This is the underlying premise of the LCT (Life Cycle Thinking standard, which considers changes within its many stages). LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) (Figure 2) is the most widely used technique for the environmental life cycle analysis of technological items. Identifying the processes that occur in their respective stages, as indicated by the maximum degree of detrimental (or beneficial) effects, allows for the long-term supervision of the evaluated solar energy plant’s life cycle (LCM) [1,7].
LCAs are most commonly used to help the search for innovative, optimum solutions that strike a balance between economic development and environmental conservation. The assessment of a solar power plant’s life cycle, which takes into consideration environmental factors, aids in the selection of appropriate solutions, including those in terms of ecology. During the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro (1992), it was said that the uneven structure of the economy and consumption in industrialized countries is one of the primary drivers of environmental degradation, both locally and worldwide. As a result, a plan was required to satisfy human requirements while not exceeding the environment’s inherent self-regeneration potential. Every activity aimed at achieving sustainable ecological, social, and economic goals implies the necessity to maintain economic development while lowering energy and raw material use [16,39,40,41].

2.2. Post-Consumer Development

Photovoltaics in Poland is a relatively young issue. The majority of installations in Polish homes are less than five years old; hence, the panel recycling sector is minimal. The good news is that in our nation, panels may be returned for disposal. Currently, glass, aluminum, and silicon wafers are recovered in Poland. The recycled panel materials are then reused in buildings. Currently, silicon wafers are not utilized to create fresh cells. With the advancement of processing technology, the amount of reuse and more efficient use of PV materials will rise [42].
The most challenging aspect is the recycling of discarded PV modules. The most ecologically friendly solution should allow for the recovery of as much silicon as feasible for the manufacturing of new modules. Currently, their recycling needs two steps. The first step involves separating the solar cells from the remainder of the module. The second step is to clean the surface of the cells. This procedure removes undesirable layers from the cell, including the anti-reflective coating, front and back metallization, and p–n junction. Individual layers must be removed in such a way that the silicon substrate may be recovered and reused to manufacture new cells [1,7].

2.3. Object of Analysis

The first step in determining a study topic was to precisely define the purpose of the investigation. This study focused on a solar power plant with a photovoltaic panel volume of 2 MW. This research focused on the relationships that were present within the investigated item, as well as the interactions between the considered thing and its surroundings.
The solar power facility in question is situated in northern Poland. It produces 1900–2200 MWh per year on average (according to investor statistics after 8 years of operation). Because weather patterns change from year to year, variations in energy production can vary by 10% on average. As a consequence, the assessed system generates an annual output of 2000 MWh. The materials, components, and polymers employed in the tested solar power plant weigh around 300,000 kg (Table 1 and Figure 3).

2.4. Methodology

The LCIA used the ReCiPe 2016 model. The ReCiPe technique produces indications for 22 effect groups and three affect sites. In comparison to earlier models, ReCiPe 2016 has the broadest set of effect categories. ReCiPe 2016 is an improvement over the ReCiPe 2008 model as well as previous variants such as Eco-indicator 99. In contrast to the previous edition, ReCiPe 2016 considers both local and global factors influencing the European area, and as a consequence, it performs remarkably well in the cycle analysis of the existence of renewable energy technology infrastructure [43].
The ReCiPe 2016 technique involves grouping the findings of twenty-two impact category indicators into three areas of impact before final aggregation to the overall effect indicator [1].
According to ISO 14000 [44], LCA consists of four components: aim and scope definition, input and output analysis (LCI), impact assessment (LCIA), and interpretation of findings. Overall, LCA analysis comprises identifying and quantifying probable environmental consequences associated with the execution of a certain function using available resources. The function, operational unit, and reference stream are each an essential part of the LCA process. A unit of operation is a measurable effect of the product system that serves as an indicator in Life Cycle Assessment research. In contrast, the reference stream is defined as the number of outcomes or processes necessary in a certain product system to perform the function specified by the functional unit [8,45].
The standard LCA technique adhered to ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 [46] criteria. The level of analysis was raised, allowing it to be classified as a detailed analysis. The statistics used in the analysis were obtained either from suppliers or from SimaPro databases. In LCA analysis approaches, the function and functional unit are critical. The facility’s principal purpose is to generate power. This implies that the functional unit should be considered the installed power value—2 MW. The assessment’s energy and ecological (energy and environment) components include twenty-two effect categories specific to ReCiPe 2016 [8,45].
The third part of the LCA technique, Figure 4, LCIA (Life Cycle Impact Assessment), is crucial for measuring a solar power plant’s environmental impact throughout its life cycle. All methodological differences among LCA approaches are mostly connected to the LCIA phase, which comprises both mandatory and optional components. The following elements are necessary: impact categories, category indicators, classification, and characterization. Normalization, grouping, and weighting are all optional steps. When conducting analyses, the arrangement of required materials is meticulously arranged and must be followed. However, it is up to the user to determine whether or not to use these optional features. SimaPro 9.4.0 software (Pré Sustainability, LE Amersfoort, Netherlands) was utilized to carry out the investigations [8].
The weighting technique needs to be performed according to a precise, universally recognized collection of weighted criteria applicable to each impact category. After completing the weighing procedure, you will be able to acquire Pt (environmental points). A thousand environmental points (1000 Pt) indicates a European person’s environmental contribution in a single year [1].
The publishing process began with a literature review on this study’s topic. Section 2.2 clarifies why we were looking into the issue stated in the heading. It contains the main study topic. The SimaPro 9.4.0 program and the ReCiPe 2016 estimation procedure were utilized to conduct the necessary simulation tests. The investigation was concluded with an interpretation of the gathered findings. Section 3 presents the acquired results, while Section 4 gives a thorough explanation of them.

3. Results

3.1. Preface

The impact categories were not selected at random. The authors wish to underline solar power plants’ influence on the aquatic environment, as well as the depletion of the Earth’s mineral and natural resources.
Fresh water makes up just 2.5% of the overall water supply; thus, protecting it is vital. The remaining (97.5%) is salt water. Furthermore, just 1% of fresh water resources are drinking water, 22% are groundwater, and the vast majority (77%) are glaciers [47].
The findings underscore the increasingly extensively documented global issue of declining drinking water resources, as well as the major influence of human activities on degrading their quality.
Natural resources (minerals, fossils) fall under a distinct economic category. They, along with the state’s assets (anthropogenic resources), contribute to national wealth. Natural resources enable socioeconomic growth. This suggests that the greater a state’s raw material resources are, the faster its economy may grow [48].

3.2. Research Results

Table 2 illustrates the photovoltaic power plant’s ecological impact throughout its life cycle, including water resource depletion and human health risks (ReCiPe 2016 model). Two post-consumer management situations were also taken into account. Among the identified substances affecting the environment, the use of water in turbines (not only for generating electricity but also for cooling processes) had the greatest negative impact, resulting in water resource depletion and a number of other negative environmental effects (7.08 × 105 Pt for the lifespan and control of storage).
Figure 5 shows the complete impact of a solar power plant’s life cycle, including post-use management (storage and recycling).
Table 3 illustrates the ecological consequences of the photovoltaic plant’s lifespan, including water resource depletion and effects on terrestrial ecosystems (ReCiPe 2016 model). Two post-use management scenarios were also taken into consideration. Among the detected compounds influencing terrestrial ecosystems, the use of water in turbines had the greatest detrimental impact (8.91 × 104 Pt during the life cycle with storage management). The adoption of recycling technologies would enable, on the one hand, to reduce water consumption while also reducing the amount of negative environmental consequences in the investigated region (−1.96 × 104 Pt).
Figure 6 depicts the life cycle of a solar power plant, including post-use control (waste disposal facilities, reuse, or recycling) and the effect of water depletion on terrestrial ecosystems.
Table 4 outlines the ecological impact of the photovoltaic plant’s lifespan, including water resource depletion and concerns about aquatic ecosystems (ReCiPe 2016). Various post-consumer management situations were also taken into account. Among the identified substances affecting the environment, the use of water in turbines had the greatest negative impact, resulting in water resource depletion and a number of other negative environmental effects (3.12 × 100 Pt for the life cycle with storage management). The usage of recycling will mitigate negative consequences (−1.38 × 100 Pt).
Figure 7 shows the complete impact of a solar power plant’s life cycle, including post-use management (storage and recycling).
Table 5 summarizes the environmental implications of the photovoltaic plant lifespan. The ReCiPe 2016 model analyzed the factors that lead to the depletion of fossil resources. Two post-consumer management situations for materials, components, and elements were analyzed. In the case of the investigated solar power plant’s life cycle, the processes associated with the depletion of fossil resources (6.62 × 104 USD) result in greater monetary expenses for extracting another unit of a specific raw material.
Recycling, as a form of post-consumer management, could enable a decrease in the size of these costs over the entire lifespan of the analyzed technical item while also limiting the depletion of fossil resources because the recovered materials and components would not be irretrievably lost (storage) but reused (−4.55 × 10−13 USD). On top of the obvious environmental repercussions, the depletion of raw material supplies is connected with rising financial costs for extracting a unit of a particular resource. The results show that recycling has a considerable positive influence on mining resources.
Figure 8 shows the complete impact of a solar power plant’s life cycle, including post-use management (storage and recycling) and the impact of operations that deplete fossil resources.
Table 6 highlights the findings from analyzing the environmental impacts of the solar power plant’s life cycle. The ReCiPe 2016 model took into consideration the mechanisms that cause the depletion of mineral resources. Two post-consumer development scenarios were again considered. In the case of the investigated solar power plant’s life cycle, the processes associated with mineral resource depletion (8.22 × 103 USD) result in increased monetary expenses.
Recycling, as a kind of post-consumer development, could decrease the amount of these expenses across the whole life cycle of the evaluated technological facility and minimize the depletion of mineral resources since recovered materials, materials, and elements would be reused (−1.79 × 103 USD). The depletion of raw material resources, in addition to a variety of environmental implications, is connected with rising financial costs for extracting a unit of a particular resource.

4. Summary and Discussion

4.1. Assessed Impact Categories

Mineral and raw material resources are depleted year after year since they are non-renewable. The pace of depletion of exhaustible resources is determined by market demand, which in turn influences the intensity of extraction. As a result, the exploitation of natural resources cannot be expanded at will. As resources decline, the cost of extracting a single unit rises because reserves are no longer available at the same depth and location.
However, there are different techniques for raising the price of basic materials. This means that if there is a large demand for a certain commodity, extraction may be decreased during this period, resulting in a rise in raw material prices. This process is lucrative up to a point. The raw material extraction rate should then be raised again. However, keep in mind that natural resources (minerals, fossils) are non-renewable and may become limited at some point. As a result, mining costs will rise when mineral and fuel resources are depleted.
The impact categories were chosen based on the subject of this article. The depletion of material and natural resources suggests broadening the scope of inquiry into this topic.
When analyzing the acquired findings, the value with the − (minus) sign should be interpreted as having a beneficial influence on the environment. The larger the negative, the bigger the beneficial impact on the environment.

4.2. Conclusions

The overexploitation of resources and destruction of the natural environment deserve special attention. This is linked to a variety of harmful forces, not only humans. In addition, the depletion of mineral and fossil resources reduces national wealth. This can lead to an ecological barrier, which includes acts that impede the country’s growth. As a result, the country’s natural resources are no longer viewed as national riches but rather as a common societal good because they were not created by human hands. According to this argument, it is feasible to reduce the ecological barrier in some way, which may lead to the country’s economic progress being hampered.
The major goal of this research was to examine the life cycle of a solar power plant in terms of the depletion of material and mineral resources. The finished study provides an evaluation of the positive and negative impacts of the solar power plant’s life cycle.
The evaluation of the actual example indicated that the life cycle of a solar power facility must contain improvements aimed at reducing negative effects while improving favorable environmental benefits.

4.3. Main Recommendations

We should carry out a life cycle analysis in the design stage to enable the ecological design of novel solutions, such as high-efficiency solar systems.
The proposed technique also allows for the reduction in negative impacts while increasing positive impacts in three areas of the evaluated technical product.
To enhance the life cycle of solar power plants, it is recommended to change the structure of both the entirety of operational components and separate components, enabling for the simpler separation between distinct materials; take economically effective measures to reduce energy and material consumption; carry out more environmentally friendly work; and popularize the concept of investigating and evaluating the impact of photovoltaics.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.L., I.P., A.L. and P.B.-W.; methodology, P.L., I.P., P.W. and A.T.; software, P.L., I.P. and P.B.-W.; validation, G.S., A.T., W.K., P.W. and A.L.; formal analysis, A.L., P.W. and I.P.; investigation, P.L. and I.P.; resources, P.L., I.P., A.L., G.S., W.K., A.T., P.W. and P.B.-W.; data curation, P.W., W.K., A.T. and G.S.; writing—original draft preparation, P.L., I.P., A.L., G.S., A.T., P.W. and P.B.-W.; writing—review and editing, A.L., G.S., A.T., P.W. and P.B.-W.; visualization, A.L., G.S., P.W. and A.T.; supervision, I.P., P.B.-W. and G.S.; project administration, I.P. and P.B-W.; funding acquisition, P.L., I.P., A.L., G.S., A.T., W.K., P.W. and P.B.-W. 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 the 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. 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]
  2. McLellan, B. Sustainable Future for Human Security: Society, Cities and Governance. In Sustainable Future for Human Security: Society, Cities and Governance; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 1–384. [Google Scholar]
  3. PV Report—EC BREC Instytut Energetyki Odnawialnej | Fotowoltaika. Available online: https://ieo.pl/en/pv-report?start=1 (accessed on 14 September 2024).
  4. Espejo-Marín, C.; Aparicio-Guerrero, A.E. La Producción de Electricidad Con Energía Solar Fotovoltaica En España En El Siglo XXI. Rev. De Estud. Andal. 2020, 39, 66–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Schultz, H.S.; Carvalho, M. Design, Greenhouse Emissions, and Environmental Payback of a Photovoltaic Solar Energy System. Energies 2022, 15, 6098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Navothna, B.; Thotakura, S. Analysis on Large-Scale Solar PV Plant Energy Performance–Loss–Degradation in Coastal Climates of India. Front. Energy Res. 2022, 10, 857948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. 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]
  8. 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]
  9. 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]
  10. Zarzavilla, M.; Quintero, A.; Abellán, M.A.; Serrano, F.L.; Austin, M.C.; Tejedor-Flores, N. Comparison of Environmental Impact Assessment Methods in the Assembly and Operation of Photovoltaic Power Plants: A Systematic Review in the Castilla—La Mancha Region. Energies 2022, 15, 1926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Corcelli, F.; Ripa, M.; Ulgiati, S. End-of-Life Treatment of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Panels. An Emergy-Based Case Study. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 161, 1129–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fthenakis, V. Life Cycle Assessment of Photovoltaics. Photovolt. Sol. Energy 2016, 33, 646–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Alsema, E.A. Energy Pay-Back Time and CO2 Emissions of PV Systems. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2000, 8, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Frankl, P.; Masini, A.; Gamberale, M.; Toccaceli, D. Simplified Life-Cycle Analysis of PV Systems in Buildings: Present Situation and Future Trends. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 1998, 6, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. 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]
  16. 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]
  17. 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]
  18. Alsema, E. Energy Requirements of Thin-Film Solar Cell Modules—A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 1998, 2, 387–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. 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]
  20. 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]
  21. 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]
  22. 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]
  23. Oliver, M.; Jackson, T. The Evolution of Economic and Environmental Cost for Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaics. Energy Policy 2000, 28, 1011–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cocco, D.; Lecis, L.; Micheletto, D. Life Cycle Assessment of an Integrated PV-ACAES System. Energies 2023, 16, 1430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. 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] [PubMed]
  26. Mannheim, V.; Kruszelnicka, W. Energy-Model and Life Cycle-Model for Grinding Processes of Limestone Products. Energies 2022, 15, 3816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mannheim, V.; Nehéz, K.; Brbhan, S.; Bencs, P. Primary Energy Resources and Environmental Impacts of Various Heating Systems Based on Life Cycle Assessment. Energies 2023, 16, 6995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. 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]
  29. 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]
  30. 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]
  31. 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]
  32. 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]
  33. 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]
  34. 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]
  35. Duan, Y.; Guo, F.; Gardy, J.; Xu, G.; Li, X.; Jiang, X. Life Cycle Assessment of Polysilicon Photovoltaic Modules with Green Recycling Based on the ReCiPe Method. Renew Energy 2024, 236, 121407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. 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]
  37. 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]
  38. 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]
  39. Palz, W.; Zibetta, H. Energy Pay-Back Time of Photovoltaic Modules. Int. J. Sol. Energy 1991, 10, 211–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Shiva, G.; Ashish, S. Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conversion: Technologies Applications and Environmental Impacts; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; p. 452. [Google Scholar]
  41. Chen, W.; Lei, Y. The Impacts of Renewable Energy and Technological Innovation on Environment-Energy-Growth Nexus: New Evidence from a Panel Quantile Regression. Renew Energy 2018, 123, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Recykling Paneli Fotowoltaicznych. Jak Wygląda Utylizacja Modułów?: Columbus Energy. Available online: https://columbusenergy.pl/blog/recykling-paneli-fotowoltaicznych/ (accessed on 6 October 2024).
  43. LCIA: The ReCiPe Model | RIVM. Available online: https://www.rivm.nl/en/life-cycle-assessment-lca/recipe (accessed on 14 September 2024).
  44. ISO 14000. Available online: https://wiedza.pkn.pl/web/wiedza-normalizacyjna/zarzadzanie-srodowiskowe (accessed on 17 October 2024).
  45. 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]
  46. ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. Available online: https://www.dqsglobal.com/pl-pl/certyfikacja/iso-14040-i-14044-przeglad-ocen-cyklu-zycia (accessed on 17 October 2024).
  47. Zintegrowana Platforma Edukacyjna. Available online: https://zpe.gov.pl/a/zasoby-wody-i-ich-ochrona/D7npMF5Lo (accessed on 14 September 2024).
  48. Górka, K. Zasoby Naturalne Jako Czynnik Rozwoju Społeczno-Gospodarczego. Gospod. W Prakt. I Teor. 2014, 36, 35–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Eng 05 00141 g001
Figure 1. Forecast of the installed power in PV [MW] until 2025, compiled by IEO [3].
Figure 1. Forecast of the installed power in PV [MW] until 2025, compiled by IEO [3].
Eng 05 00141 g001
Eng 05 00141 g002
Figure 2. A diagram depicting the key steps of LCA analysis. Based on own explanation [23].
Figure 2. A diagram depicting the key steps of LCA analysis. Based on own explanation [23].
Eng 05 00141 g002
Eng 05 00141 g003
Figure 3. Percentage distribution of the mass of components in the tested solar energy plant [investor’s data].
Figure 3. Percentage distribution of the mass of components in the tested solar energy plant [investor’s data].
Eng 05 00141 g003
Eng 05 00141 g004
Figure 4. A schematic of the mandatory and optional LCIA parts. Own explanation based on [8].
Figure 4. A schematic of the mandatory and optional LCIA parts. Own explanation based on [8].
Eng 05 00141 g004
Eng 05 00141 g005
Figure 5. Classifying and assessing the environmental implications of the lifespan of the examined solar power plant, in the domain of processes that cause the depletion of water resources, impacting human health (ReCiPe 2016 model), considering the method of post-consumer management of plastics, materials, and elements [unit: Pt] (own study) (blue = landfill; green = recycling).
Figure 5. Classifying and assessing the environmental implications of the lifespan of the examined solar power plant, in the domain of processes that cause the depletion of water resources, impacting human health (ReCiPe 2016 model), considering the method of post-consumer management of plastics, materials, and elements [unit: Pt] (own study) (blue = landfill; green = recycling).
Eng 05 00141 g005
Eng 05 00141 g006
Figure 6. Classifying and assessing the environmental implications of the lifespan of the examined solar power plant, in the domain of processes that cause the depletion of water resources, impacting human health (ReCiPe 2016 model), taking into account the method of post-consumer management of plastics, materials, and elements [unit: Pt] (own research) (blue = landfill; green = recycling).
Figure 6. Classifying and assessing the environmental implications of the lifespan of the examined solar power plant, in the domain of processes that cause the depletion of water resources, impacting human health (ReCiPe 2016 model), taking into account the method of post-consumer management of plastics, materials, and elements [unit: Pt] (own research) (blue = landfill; green = recycling).
Eng 05 00141 g006
Eng 05 00141 g007
Figure 7. Classifying and assessing the environmental implications of the lifespan of the examined solar power plant, in the domain of processes that cause the depletion of water resources, impacting human health (ReCiPe 2016 model), taking into account the method of post-consumer management of plastics, materials, and elements [unit: Pt] (own research) (blue—landfill; green—recycling).
Figure 7. Classifying and assessing the environmental implications of the lifespan of the examined solar power plant, in the domain of processes that cause the depletion of water resources, impacting human health (ReCiPe 2016 model), taking into account the method of post-consumer management of plastics, materials, and elements [unit: Pt] (own research) (blue—landfill; green—recycling).
Eng 05 00141 g007
Eng 05 00141 g008
Figure 8. Characterization of the overall consequences of the life cycle of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant on the environment, in the area of the impact of processes causing the depletion of fossil resources (ReCiPe 2016 model), taking into account the method of post-consumer management of materials, materials, and elements [unit: USD] (own research) (blue—landfill; green—recycling).
Figure 8. Characterization of the overall consequences of the life cycle of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant on the environment, in the area of the impact of processes causing the depletion of fossil resources (ReCiPe 2016 model), taking into account the method of post-consumer management of materials, materials, and elements [unit: USD] (own research) (blue—landfill; green—recycling).
Eng 05 00141 g008
Table 1. Bill of materials for the assessed solar power plant [investor’s data].
Table 1. Bill of materials for the assessed solar power plant [investor’s data].
Bill of Materials
Material NameMassUnit
Aluminum85,120kg
Steel82,000kg
Solar glass79,230kg
Copper5000kg
Others9264kg
Table 2. Classifying and assessing the environmental implications of the lifespan of the examined solar power plant, in the domain of processes that cause the depletion of water resources, impacting human health (ReCiPe 2016 model), taking into account the method of post-consumer management of plastics, materials, and elements [unit: Pt] (own research).
Table 2. Classifying and assessing the environmental implications of the lifespan of the examined solar power plant, in the domain of processes that cause the depletion of water resources, impacting human health (ReCiPe 2016 model), taking into account the method of post-consumer management of plastics, materials, and elements [unit: Pt] (own research).
NoElement of a Technical ObjectPhotovoltaic Power Plant
Waste Scenario LandfillRecycling
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 substancesRaw materials1.78 × 1024.76 × 101
Total 7.08 × 105−3.13 × 105
Table 3. Classifying and assessing the environmental implications of the lifespan of the examined solar power plant, in the domain of processes that cause the depletion of water resources, impacting human health (ReCiPe 2016 model), taking into account the method of post-consumer management of plastics, materials, and elements [unit: Pt] (own research).
Table 3. Classifying and assessing the environmental implications of the lifespan of the examined solar power plant, in the domain of processes that cause the depletion of water resources, impacting human health (ReCiPe 2016 model), taking into account the method of post-consumer management of plastics, materials, and elements [unit: Pt] (own research).
NoElement of a Technical ObjectPhotovoltaic Power Plant
Waste Scenario LandfillRecycling
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 × 104
6Water, unspecified natural originRaw materials5.80 × 1015.66 × 101
7Water, wellRaw materials6.06 × 1006.75 × 100
8Remaining substancesRaw materials2.32 × 1011.02 × 101
Total 6.99 × 104−3.08 × 104
Table 4. Classifying and assessing the environmental implications of the lifespan of the examined solar power plant, in the domain of processes that cause the depletion of water resources, impacting human health (ReCiPe 2016 model), taking into account the method of post-consumer management of plastics, materials, and elements [unit: Pt] (own research).
Table 4. Classifying and assessing the environmental implications of the lifespan of the examined solar power plant, in the domain of processes that cause the depletion of water resources, impacting human health (ReCiPe 2016 model), taking into account the method of post-consumer management of plastics, materials, and elements [unit: Pt] (own research).
NoElement of a Technical ObjectPhotovoltaic Power Plant
Waste Scenario LandfillRecycling
SubstanceEmission Area
1WaterWater−1.39 × 100−1.37 × 100
2Water, cooling, unspecified natural originRaw materials1.33 × 10−21.06 × 10−2
3Water, lakeRaw materials5.32 × 10−57.80 × 10−5
4Water, riverRaw materials2.31 × 10−32.00 × 10−3
5Water, turbine use, unspecified natural originRaw materials4.49 × 100−3.16 × 10−2
6Water, unspecified natural originRaw materials2.71 × 10−32.67 × 10−3
7Water, wellRaw materials4.61 × 10−46.94 × 10−4
8Remaining substancesRaw materials2.42 × 10−31.54 × 10−3
Total 3.12 × 100−1.38 × 100
Table 5. Characterization of the consequences of the life cycle of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant on the environment, in the area of the impact of processes causing the depletion of fossil resources (ReCiPe 2016 model), taking into account the method of post-consumer management of materials, materials, and elements [unit: USD] (own research).
Table 5. Characterization of the consequences of the life cycle of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant on the environment, in the area of the impact of processes causing the depletion of fossil resources (ReCiPe 2016 model), taking into account the method of post-consumer management of materials, materials, and elements [unit: USD] (own research).
NoElement of a Technical ObjectPhotovoltaic Power Plant
Waste Scenario LandfillRecycling
SubstanceEmission Area
1Coal, hardRaw materials9.01 × 1032.93 × 105
2Gas, natural/m3Raw materials4.65 × 1043.53 × 104
3Oil, crudeRaw materials6.62 × 1051.85 × 104
4Remaining substancesRaw materials−4.55 × 10−13−4.55 × 10−13
Total 1.22 × 1055.67 × 104
Table 6. Characterization of the consequences of the life cycle of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant on the environment, in the area of the impact of processes causing the depletion of mineral resources (ReCiPe 2016 model), taking into account the method of post-consumer management of materials, materials, and elements [unit: USD] (own research).
Table 6. Characterization of the consequences of the life cycle of the analyzed photovoltaic power plant on the environment, in the area of the impact of processes causing the depletion of mineral resources (ReCiPe 2016 model), taking into account the method of post-consumer management of materials, materials, and elements [unit: USD] (own research).
NoElement of a Technical ObjectPhotovoltaic Power Plant
Waste Scenario LandfillRecycling
SubstanceEmission Area
1AluminumRaw materials5.51 × 103−1.79 × 103
2ChromiumRaw materials1.08 × 1021.07 × 102
3CobaltRaw materials2.34 × 1032.34 × 103
4CopperRaw materials7.87 × 1037.87 × 103
5GalliumRaw materials6.20 × 10−43.90 × 10−3
6GoldRaw materials6.17 × 1027.07 × 102
7IronRaw materials7.67 × 1037.63 × 103
8NickelRaw materials1.21 × 1041.21 × 104
9PlatinumRaw materials2.23 × 1012.23 × 101
10SiliconRaw materials8.22 × 1038.22 × 103
11SilverRaw materials1.50 × 1031.50 × 103
12TitaniumRaw materials1.11 × 10−11.11 × 10−1
13ZincRaw materials7.31 × 1007.30 × 100
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

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. https://doi.org/10.3390/eng5040141

AMA Style

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(4):2695-2708. https://doi.org/10.3390/eng5040141

Chicago/Turabian Style

Leda, Patryk, Izabela Piasecka, Anna Leda, Grzegorz Szala, Andrzej Tomporowski, Patrycja Walichnowska, Patrycja Bałdowska-Witos, and Weronika Kruszelnicka. 2024. "Investigating and Analyzing the Influence of a Solar Power Plant’s Life Cycle on the Depletion of Natural Materials and Mineral Resources" Eng 5, no. 4: 2695-2708. https://doi.org/10.3390/eng5040141

APA Style

Leda, P., Piasecka, I., Leda, A., Szala, G., Tomporowski, A., Walichnowska, P., Bałdowska-Witos, P., & Kruszelnicka, W. (2024). Investigating and Analyzing the Influence of a Solar Power Plant’s Life Cycle on the Depletion of Natural Materials and Mineral Resources. Eng, 5(4), 2695-2708. https://doi.org/10.3390/eng5040141

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop