Energy 30 (2005) 952–967

www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Evaluation of technical improvements of photovoltaic systems

through life cycle assessment methodology
Riccardo Battisti, Annalisa Corrado*
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering, University of Roma ‘La Sapienza’ via Eudossiana,
18-00184 Rome, Italy
Received 23 August 2003

Abstract
Since solar energy systems feed on a ‘clean’ energy source, they do not produce polluting emissions during their
operation. However, they carry the environmental weight of other phases in their life cycle. In order to analyze the
energy and environmental profile of these systems, it is necessary to expand the system boundaries, taking into
account also the ‘hidden impacts’ related to production, transportation and system disposal at the end of its
technical life. Here, the life cycle assessment methodology is applied to derive a complete and extended energy
and environmental profile of photovoltaic systems. As reference case, a conventional multi-crystalline building
integrated system is selected, retrofitted on a tilted roof, located in Rome (Italy) and connected to the national
electricity grid. Then improved configurations of the reference system are assessed, focusing on building
integration issues and the operational phase (considering an experimental hybrid photovoltaic system with heat
recovery). Environmental ‘pay back times’ of the assessed systems are then calculated for CO2 equivalent
emissions and embodied energy. All the analyzed configurations are characterized by environmental pay back
times one order of magnitude lower than their expected life time (3–4 years vs. 15–30 years). Thanks to a wider
exploitation of photovoltaic potential during its ‘zero emission operation’, these results are further lowered by
photovoltaic hybrid systems (environmental pay back times, depending on heat recovery configuration, go down to
40–50% of the values calculated for the reference case).
q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Solar energy systems feed on a ‘clean’ energy source and do not show polluting emissions during their
operation. However, they carry the environmental weight of other phases in their life cycle. In order to

* Corresponding author. Tel.: C39-06-44585271; fax: C39-06-4881759.

E-mail address: annalisa.corrado@uniroma1.it (A. Corrado).
0360-5442/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2004.07.011
 R. Battisti, A. Corrado / Energy 30 (2005) 952–967 953

Nomenclature
BOS balance of system
CED cumulative energy demand
CO2eq PBT ‘CO2 equivalent’ pay back time
Cu heat use coefficient (share of recovered heat delivered to the user)
DHW domestic hot water
EPBT energy pay back time
GWP global warming potential
HRU heat recovery unit
LCA life cycle assessment
LHW low heating value
mc-Si multicrystalline silicon
PV photovoltaic
PV/TH photovoltaic/thermal
PBT pay back time

better analyze the energy and environmental profile of such systems, the system boundaries need to be
expanded, taking into account also the ‘hidden impacts’ related to production, transportation and system
disposal.
In this study, the life cycle assessment (LCA) analysis is applied to derive a complete and extended
energy and environmental profile of photovoltaic systems.
Thanks to the LCA capability of pinpointing energy and environmental bottlenecks of the analyzed
processes, it is possible to generate and evaluate improved system configurations. Focusing on the
operational phase, in particular, the benefits of reduced material requirement for installation and
improved energy performance through a wider exploitation of system potential are investigated.
In this paper, the main results of the above study are presented and discussed

2. Life cycle assessment

The LCA methodology allows to assess the potential environmental impacts of a product or service
during its whole life cycle (‘from the cradle to the grave’).1
A LCA study is divided into the following steps:
1. Goal and scope definition.
2. Life cycle inventory.
3. Life cycle impact assessment.
4. Interpretation of results.

1
LCA methodology is ruled by ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 14040 standards [1–4].
954 R. Battisti, A. Corrado / Energy 30 (2005) 952–967

Fig. 1. Input and output data to be collected in the LCI phase.

In step 1 the goal of the study, its intended audience, and the main work hypotheses are defined. The
key parameter to be fixed is the ‘functional unit’, i.e. the reference unit for which environmental impacts
are calculated. The functional unit is related to the service offered by the product.2 The geographical and
time boundaries of the analysis are defined as well, underlining the phases excluded from the analysis
(cut-off criteria).
In the life cycle inventory step, the environmental data for all the phases included in the study are
collected. These data include raw resource and material consumption, electric and thermal energy use as
well as air, water and soil emissions and by-products (Fig. 1).
When performing the life cycle impact assessment, the data collected in the previous step are grouped
into aggregate indicators, such as greenhouse effect, primary energy consumption or solid waste
production. To calculate these indicators, a relative weight factor is associated to every substance emitted
or resource consumed. In the greenhouse effect indicator, for example, the weight factor for methane
(CH4) is 21; therefore, 1 kg of methane has the same effect as 21 kg of CO2, the reference substance for this
indicator.
In the last step, the results of the study are analyzed in detail and compared with the initial goals. The
limits of the performed analysis, and consequently its applicability, are underlined. Some changes to
the initial hyphoteses may be needed after the result of calculation, in order to obtain more useful,
reliable and meaningful outputs.

2
In the LCA study of an electricity production system, for example, the functional unit is a certain amount of electric energy
delivered to the user (e.g. 1 kWh at low voltage, in Italy: 230 V).
 R. Battisti, A. Corrado / Energy 30 (2005) 952–967 955

Usually, the first part of the interpretation step involves the ‘contribution analysis’: hence the share of
all life cycle phases in the total impacts is calculated and the bottlenecks, i.e. the most relevant
contributions, are highlighted.
After the contribution analysis, a ‘sensitivity analysis’ is slightly recommended. Focusing on the
bottlenecks, this step may show how the results change by modifying some fundamental parameters of
the study. In this way it is possible to assess the real benefits of optimization choices.

3. Description of the evaluated systems

First a reference system is analyzed: a multi-crystalline silicon (mc-Si) photovoltaic system, grid-
connected and retrofitted on a tilted roof in Rome (Italy; latitude: 41851 0 North, yearly average
global insolation on a horizontal plane: 1530 kWh/m2 yr); as for the disposal phase, at the end of
its technical life the system is assumed to be landfilled without any material or energy recovering
process.
Fig. 2 shows all the macro-phases included within the system boundaries, consistently with the LCA
methodology perspective.
Table 1 summarizes some key characteristics of the mc-Si module.

Fig. 2. System boundaries of the LCA study.

956 R. Battisti, A. Corrado / Energy 30 (2005) 952–967

Table 1
Main characteristics of the multi-crystalline silicon module
PV cell type Multi-crystalline Si
Module efficiency 10.7%
Active surface necessary for 1 kWp 9.4 m2
Module encapsulation Glass-Tedlar
Frame material Aluminium
Module weight 12.6 kg/m2

To take into account the energy losses in the balance of system (BOS), made up of the whole PV
system except for the modules,3 a BOS efficiency of 0.8 is considered [5,6]. Several system
configurations were studied and compared with the reference system.
First of all, as to building integration, the architectural installations considered are the flat roof
(conventional or advanced) and tilted roof (retrofit or integrated). The use of PV in vertical façades was
excluded because, for Italian latitudes, this solution leads to an energy loss of about 50% with respect to
the maximum available solar radiation.
Flat roof installations allow optimal orientation and tilt for PV modules, since generally there are no
restrictions for these variables. The difference between conventional and advanced flat roof installation
is the lower material requirement for support structures in the latter case.
Tilted roof installations are preferable from an aesthetic point of view, but in general they are
characterized by lower system output because of non-optimal orientation and tilt of modules. In
order to assess the difference, a reduction coefficient of 0.9 was used. Therefore, the solar radiation
hitting a PV system installed on a tilted roof is 90% of the maximum radiation available on a flat
roof.
Table 2 shows the material requirements for the analyzed installation typologies.
As for the energy performance of the system, an important modification of PV systems was analyzed:
heat recovery from the modules during operation. This technical solution allows to improve the
electrical output (decreasing with higher module temperature [7]), also providing thermal energy
available for use. Through module cooling, a cogeneration with a photovoltaic/thermal (PV/TH) system
is obtained.
The PV/TH systems, studied at the test site of the University of New South Wales in Sydney
(Australia), produce both electricity and heat by means of a heat recovery unit (HRU). The heat transfer
fluid used is air, moved through induced convection by an electrical fan.
The HRU for air flow is made of a wood duct, whose sides are insulated by means of thermoplastic
materials. In order to obtain longer life times for future commercial use, different solutions need to be
found, such as, for example, a metal sheet duct.
More detailed information on the analyzed PV/TH systems may be found in Ref. [8].

3
Key elements of the BOS for a grid-connected PV system: support structure, inverter, electrical and electronic devices and
cabling.
 R. Battisti, A. Corrado / Energy 30 (2005) 952–967 957

Table 2
Material requirements for different installation typologies
Steel Aluminum Concrete Rubber Lead
(kg/m2 module) (kg/m2 module) (kg/m2 module) (kg/m2 module) (kg/m2 module)
Flat roof advanced 0.2 – 109.88 –
Tilted roof retrofitted 5.97 1.6 – –
Tilted roof integrated 4.68 3.38 – –
Tilted roof integrated 0.95 1.56 – 0.19 0.07
(advanced)

4. The LCA study

4.1. Data quality and environmental indicators

The quality of data collected in the life cycle inventory phase is an essential requirement for a LCA
study. These data can be classified as primary (direct) or secondary (indirect). The former are collected
directly ‘on the field’ and checked jointly with the process-chain personnel, whereas the latter are
selected from available literature sources by means of a strict selection. The quality of data used for each
phase included in the study, is summarized in Table 34 by means of the application of a ‘pedigree
matrix’, defined in Ref. [11]. In the matrix data are evaluated from different viewpoints by assigning a
score from 1 (best quality) to 5 (worst quality).
To process the collected data to make the life cycle impact assessment, two environmental indicators
were used: global warming potential (GWP, expressed in kg CO2eq), resulting from the sum of each
greenhouse gas emission (CO2, CH4, NO2, etc.) multiplied by a suitable weight factor, and cumulative
energy demand (CED, expressed in MJ LHV, low heating value) which measures the primary energy
needed for the whole life cycle. The weight factors for CED are the LHV of the fuels.
Tables 4 and 5 show the characterization factors of GWP and CED in accordance with
ECOINDICATOR ’95 methodology, implemented in the software SimaPro 5.1. As for the GWP
table, it should be noticed that the weight factors applied to CH4 and N2O have been modified according
to more recent estimations made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.5
Actually, the greenhouse airborne emission effect on global warming depends on the selected time
horizon. For the GWP indicator used in the paper, the time horizon is 100 years. A sensitivity analysis
was carried out in order to assess the difference in the study results using a time horizon of 500 years
(characterization factors for GWP500 indicator were taken from Ref. [12]). Differences range between
5 and 8%.
In this paper two additional parameters are used: energy pay back time (EPBT) and CO2eq PBT.
These parameters compare the cumulative energy (or the CO2 equivalent emissions) consumed over
the whole life cycle with the cumulative energy (or the CO2 equivalent emissions) saved during
operation. This approach allows to evaluate the real ‘zero emission’ operating period and to compare it
to the expected system lifespan.

4
As to primary data, sources are not specified to keep the privacy of data providers.
5
Weight factor for CH4: 21 instead of 11; weight factor for N2O: 310 instead of 270.
958 R. Battisti, A. Corrado / Energy 30 (2005) 952–967

Table 3
Pedigree matrix for life cycle inventory data
Life cycle phase Data type and source Reliability Completeness Temporal Geographical Further
correlation correlation technical
correlation
Crystalline silicon Secondary [9] 2 3 3 2 2
feedstock production
Crystalline silicon Primary (year 2001 1 2 1 1 1
module production [10])
Support structures Secondary [9] 2 2 3 2 2
PV electric energy Primary (year 2002 1 2 1 3 1
production [8])
PV thermal energy Primary (year 2002 1 2 1 3 1
production [8])
Transportation Secondary (SimaPro 2 2 3 2 2
5.1 database)
Electricity pro- Secondary (SimaPro 1 1 3 1 1
duction 5.1 database)
Other material pro- Secondary (SimaPro 2 2 3 2 2
duction (from the 5.1 database)
cradle—material
extraction—to the
gate—intermediate
industrial product
delivery)

Both parameters are particularly useful because the study involves systems that provide different
services; therefore also the functional units are different. Consequently, it would not be correct to
compare them on the base of different functional units.

4.2. LCA contribution analysis

The LCA is mainly aimed at identifying bottlenecks which may affect the energy–environmental
profile of the analyzed system. This step is strongly needed as a guideline to develop a consistent strategy
for the system optimization in a life cycle perspective.
As to the grid-connected PV system, in Ref. [13] it was shown that, from the environmental point of
view, the electrical BOS components such as inverters, cables and control electronic devices are
negligible with respect to module frames and mechanical BOS (as mounting materials and structures):
therefore this assessment focuses on the latter.
The scheme in Fig. 3 results from a graphic elaboration (obtained by means of SimaPro 5.1 software)
illustrating the contribution to the CED indicator of each macro-phase of a 1 kWp PV reference system
(100%Z5.3!104 MJ LHV).
It is immediately clear that the most relevant phase is the production of modules. The primary energy
consumption related to the disposal phase is definitely negligible; the transportation contribution is very
low, while the mechanical BOS components, due to the high embodied energy, cover almost 6% of the
whole indicator.
 R. Battisti, A. Corrado / Energy 30 (2005) 952–967 959

Table 4
Characterization factors for GWP indicator calculation
Global warming potential (GWP)
Airborne emission Characterization factor (kg CO2eq/kg)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 100
CFC-14 4500
CFC (hard) 7100
CFC (soft) 1600
CFC-11 3400
CFC-113 4500
CFC-114 7000
CFC-115 7000
CFC-116 6200
CFC-12 7100
CFC-13 13,000
CO2 1
CO2 (fossil) 1
Dichloromethane 15
HALON-1211 4900
HALON-1301 4900
HCFC-123 90
HCFC-124 440
HCFC-141b 580
HCFC-142b 1800
HCFC-22 1600
HFC-125 3400
HFC-134a 1200
HFC-143a 3800
HFC-152a 150
Methane 21
N2O 310
Tetrachloromethane 1300
Trichloromethane 25

Fig. 4 details the different contributions, in terms of CED, of materials and processes involved in
mc-Si module production. It indicates that the silicon feedstock used as primary material for module
production is characterized by the highest impact (CED indicator: 75.8% of 5.150 MJ LHV
corresponding to 1 m2 of modules).
The main energy–environmental hot spot, i.e. the silicon feedstock, consists primarily of scraps from
the electronic industry whose high energy content is due to the level of purity achieved during processes
such as Siemens purification and Czochralsky single-crystalline growth. This kind of feedstock is used
owing to the predominant and well-established electronic industry in the silicon market which is, so far,
the easiest techno-economical route for PV-silicon supply. Actually, in spite of an increased demand
for silicon from the growing PV industry, the original idea of a dedicated industrial route for the PV
‘solar grade’ silicon is far from being fulfilled. Instead, the electronic industry has started to produce
a particular kind of multi-crystalline silicon that bypasses Czochralsky process and needs a less
energy-intensive Siemens process. This kind of product is now sharing the silicon PV feedstock market
960 R. Battisti, A. Corrado / Energy 30 (2005) 952–967

Table 5
Characterization factors for CED indicator calculation
Cumulative energy demand
Energy resources Reference unit Characterization factor (MJ LHV/reference unit)
Biomass (feedstock) MJ 1
Coal kg 29.3
Coal ETH kg 18
Coal FAL kg 26.4
Crude oil kg 41
Crude oil (feedstock) kg 41
Crude oil ETH kg 42.6
Crude oil FAL kg 42
Crude oil IDEMAT kg 42.7
Energy (undefined) MJ 1
Energy from coal MJ 1
Energy from hydro power MJ 1
Energy from lignite MJ 1
Energy from natural gas MJ 1
Energy from oil MJ 1
Energy from uranium MJ 1
Energy from wood MJ 1
Energy recovered MJ 1
Gas from oil production m3 40.9
Lignite kg 10
Lignite ETH kg 8
Methane kg 35.9
Natural gas kg 30.3
Natural gas (feedstock) m3 35
Natural gas (vol) m3 36.6
Natural gas ETH m3 35
Natural gas FAL kg 46.8
Potential energy hydropower MJ 1
Steam from waste incineration MJ 1
Unspecified energy MJ 1
Uranium (in ore) kg 451,000
Uranium (ore) kg 1,110
Uranium FAL g 2,291
Wood kg 15.3
Wood (feedstock) kg 15.3
Wood and wood wastes FAL kg 9.5
Natural gas (feedstock) FAL kg 46.8
Crude oil (feedstock) FAL kg 42
Coal (feedstock) FAL kg 26.4
Petroleum gas ETH m3 35

with the ‘traditional’ electronic silicon scraps. At the moment, neither information on the yearly amount
of this new product on the market, nor data on the real reduced energy consumption are available. As a
result, following a conservative approach, this study assumed that all the PV Silicon feedstock is made
up of electronic-grade scraps.
 R. Battisti, A. Corrado / Energy 30 (2005) 952–967 961

Fig. 3. Tree representation of CED contributions for 1 kWp of PV reference system. (100%Z5.3!104 MJ LHV).

Fig. 4. PV module production (1 m2): contribution analysis for CED indicator (100%Z5150 MJ LHV).
962 R. Battisti, A. Corrado / Energy 30 (2005) 952–967

The impact allocation between electronic industry outputs, i.e. primary products and byproducts as
electronic scraps, has been performed on a mass basis. This means that 1 kg of silicon scraps is considered
to have the same ‘environmental responsibility’ of 1 kg of silicon contained in electronic end products.
Another relevant contribution comes from the casting phase, characterized by a high electricity
requirement for scrap fusion.
It is interesting to notice that, in spite of its high-technology processes, the cell manufacturing
contribution to the CED indicator is almost negligible with respect to the wafer production, which is
affected by the high number of rejects (broken wafers).
The last relevant contribution is given by the assembling phase (10.8% of the total impact), namely
for the energy content of the materials used. The energy requirement of the lamination process is
dwarfed by the contribution of aluminum (used for the module frame), and also of ethylene vinyl acetate,
Tedlar and glass used to protect cells from atmospheric agents.
As for the installation phase, it is necessary to consider materials used to produce the mounting
structure and also the impacts connected to the transportation and distribution of devices. Building-
integrated solutions are assessed in Section 4.5, the reference case consists of an advanced retrofit
installation on a flat roof.
The contributions to the GWP indicator (Fig. 5) are very similar to those observed for CED. Table 6
summarizes the indicator values for 1 m2 of module (cradle to gate approach), 1 kWp of installed system
‘on site’ (ready to produce electricity) and 1 kWp of the reference system, considered over its whole life
cycle (cradle to grave approach).

4.3. Energy performance assessment

In order to calculate the environmental PBTs, after having assessed the impacts over the whole life
cycle of the analyzed systems, their annual energy output needs to be known.
As to PV and PV/TH systems, the experimental data were collected in Sydney, in the framework of a
PhD research at the University of New South Wales [8]. A brief summary of the results is contained in
Table 7.

Fig. 5. PV module production (1 m2): contribution analysis for GWP indicator (100%Z463 kg CO2eq).
 R. Battisti, A. Corrado / Energy 30 (2005) 952–967 963

Table 6
CED and GWP values for different steps of the performed analysis
Indicator Unit 1 m2 module 1 kWp system 1 kWp system
(installed) (life cycle)
CED MJ LHV 5150 53,165 53,200
GWP kg CO2eq 463 4727 4730

4.4. Pay back time values for the reference cases

The values of PBTs are obtained by an environmental cost–benefit analysis. Environmental PBTs
were calculated both for CO2eq emissions and for cumulative energy, in order to estimate the time period
needed for the benefits obtained in the operational phase to equal the impacts related to the whole life
cycle of the analyzed systems.
The benefits were assessed considering that solar energy replaces conventional energy, therefore
avoiding both non-renewable primary energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. The avoided
impacts depend on the conventional electricity mix partially displaced by the output of renewable
sources fed on systems. Since all data were referred (or adapted) to Italian situation, the Italian mix was
considered, including electricity import and distribution losses (the indicator values for 1 kWh of low
voltage electricity–230 V–delivered to the user are: GWPZ0.8 kg CO2eq; CEDZ8.6 MJ LHV).
The calculated EPBT is 3.3 years, while CO2eq PBT is 4.1 years. Both the environmental PBTs are
much lower than the average life time of the PV systems. As a matter of fact, the most conservative
assessments [14] indicate expected life periods of 15–25 years, while other sources [15], thanks to aging
tests conducted on operating plants, suggest a lifespan of more than 30 years.
Therefore, the production and operation of this kind of solar systems make sense, from an
environmental point of view, also in a life cycle perspective.
The calculated values seem to match with the results of previous LCA studies. For example, Kato et
al. [14] showed that the EPBT for PV systems could decrease to about 2.5 years for mc-Si. Furthermore,
Frankl et al. [5] forecasts a decrease in the EPBT down to a value between 2 and 3 years and Meijer et al.
[16] calculates the EPBT between 3 and 5 years.

4.5. LCA sensitivity analysis: environmental PBT values for improved systems

In this paragraph, improved configurations of both the analyzed systems are assessed from the energy–
environmental point of view. The reference criteria adopted in the sensitivity analysis are the following:
† Increased global efficiency of the systems during their zero-emission operation (in order to reach, with
the same ‘environmental expense’, a larger amount of clean energy);
† Integration of PV systems with existing structures.

Table 7
Electricity and heat production by PV/TH systems
Electrical energy (MJ/m2 yr) Thermal energy (MJ/m2 yr)
mc-Si 623 1142
964 R. Battisti, A. Corrado / Energy 30 (2005) 952–967

Table 8
Comparison among PV systems with different installation typologies
EPBT (years) CO2eq PBT (years)
Flat roof (advanced) 3.3 4.1
Tilted roof retrofitted 3.8 4.6
Tilted roof integrated 3 3.9
Tilted roof integrated (advanced) 2.9 3.6

The main sensitivity analyses performed are the following:

† Improved mechanical BOS configuration by means of a higher grade of architectural integration of

plants;
† Improved global efficiency of the system through the recovery and subsequent use of heat produced by
PV modules.

As to the benefits connected to BOS configurations optimized from the architectural integration point
of view, Table 8 shows the PBT values. It is clear that the energy–environmental performance becomes
more effective as the system design is more integrated with building design itself.6
In particular, by collecting and using the thermal energy (usually lost) produced during PV modules
operation it is possible to achieve two different goals: an increased amount of electrical yield (thanks to
the lower operating temperature of modules) and an additional ‘clean’ energy flow to be used to replace
traditional thermal energy sources.
The HRU consists of:

† insulating material, polystyrene (1.6 kg/m2);

† wood panel (12 kg/m2);
† electrical fan (maximum power: 6 W/module).

The yield of recovered heat that becomes a useful output for the user strictly depends on its final use;
this is calculated by means of the ‘use coefficient’ CuZthermal energy delivered to the user
(MJ/m2)/thermal energy recovered during PV system operation (MJ/m2). If the final use is space heating,
the coefficient Cu reaches the very low value of 0.2. As a matter of fact, in autumn and winter, when the
user heat requirement is higher, the availability of the primary source (the sun) achieves the lowest levels
of the year.
The exploitation of the recovered heat is obviously more interesting when it is used for domestic hot
water (DHW) production, thanks to a more homogeneous demand distribution during the year. In this
case, the calculated Cu rises to about 0.6.

6
As to the evaluation of tilted roof integrated configurations, the methodology of the system expansion, as described in ISO
14041, was applied. Therefore, clay tiles were considered as displaced building material, by subtracting their environmental
cost from the whole PV system results.
 R. Battisti, A. Corrado / Energy 30 (2005) 952–967 965

Table 9
Electrical and thermal outputs for PV and PV/TH systems
Net electricity output Thermal energy, Cu Useful heat output
(MJ/m2 yr) (MJ/m2 yr)
PV mc-Si module (1 m2) 596 – –
PV/TH module (1 m2) 623 0.2 228
0.6 685
(continued on next page)

Table 10
Energy–environmental PBTs for PV and PV/TH systems
EPBT (years) CO2eq PBT (years)
PV mc-Si system (flat roof) 3.3 4.1
PV/TH (space heating) 2.8 2.8
PV/TH (DHW, replacing natural gas) 2.3 2.4
PV/TH (DHW, replacing electricity) 1.7 1.6

Table 9 summarizes the data collected for the reference case and for the PV/TH configuration in both
cases.7
The results of the sensitivity analysis, in terms of PBT, are in Table 10, distinguishing the results
according to the traditional thermal energy source displaced (electricity or natural gas). Here, heat
recovery increases significantly the environmental benefits of PV systems, cutting down by half, in the
most favorable case, both the environmental PBTs.
The results are particularly good in terms of CO2eq PBT, thanks to the avoided amount of greenhouse
gases usually emitted (directly or indirectly) by conventional heat sources.

5. Conclusions

A complete energy and environmental profile of PV systems was obtained, examining in details the
critical phases and the bottlenecks over their life cycle.
Results were summarized by means of energy–environmental PBTs. Considering that the expected
lifespan for PV systems is 15–30 years, it is remarkable that all the analyzed configurations (even
the reference cases) are characterized by environmental PBT one order of magnitude lower than their
expected life. This is due to the significant benefits obtained by replacing conventional energy sources.
The analysis has shown that energy and environmental performances of PV systems become more
interesting as the system design is more integrated with the whole building design, and as the module is
more exploited as a dual-output device. In particular, heat recovery for DHW production reduces
environmental PBT of more than 50%. The increased demand for materials by the HRU is more than
compensated by an increased energy output of PV modules.

7
The amount of electricity necessary for fan operation is already subtracted (included).
966 R. Battisti, A. Corrado / Energy 30 (2005) 952–967

Table 11
Summary of main results
CED, life cycle GWP, life cycle Use of heat EPBT CO2eq PBT
of 1 kWp system of 1 kWp system recovered (years) (years)
(MJ LHV) (kg CO2eq)
Flat roof, advanced 5.11!104 4.63!103 – 3.3 4.1
Tilted roof, retro- 5.32!104 4.73!103 – 3.8 4.6
fitted
Tilted roof, inte- 5.43!104 4.83!103 – 3 3.9
grated
Tilted roof, inte- 4.44!104 4.16!103 – 2.9 3.6
grated advanced
PV/TH 4.88!104 4.24!103 Space heating 2.8 2.8
DWH (replacing 2.3 2.4
natural gas)
DWH (replacing 1.7 1.6
electricity)

Table 11 summarizes the most important results in terms of ‘environmental costs’ (GWP and CED
indicators are referred to the life cycle of 1 kWp system) and calculated PBTs.
The above results allow to state that it would be very useful for PV system manufacturers and
designers to take account of the LCA approach and use it as an eco-design tool to develop
‘environmentally-friendly’ products. Moreover, from a ‘mid-term’ point of view, such an effort becomes
a profitable investment: actually, improving the environmental profile means higher efficiency and lower
energy costs (and therefore production costs).

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Prof. Vincenzo Naso (Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical
Engineering) for initiating and supporting our research activities. Thanks also to the Italian factories
where the audits for primary data collection were carried out. Special thanks to Dr Morgan Bazilian for
making available his experimental results on thermal and electrical energy production of PV/TH
systems, and to Ms Gioconda Miele for technical editing.

References

[1] ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 14040 standard. ‘Environmental management—Life cycle
assessment—Principles and framework’; 1997. Mailing address: 1, rue de Varembé, Geneva 20, Switzerland.
[2] ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 14041 standard. ‘Environmental management—Life cycle
assessment—Goal and scope definition and inventory analysis’; 1998. Mailing address: 1, rue de Varembé, Geneva 20,
Switzerland.
[3] ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 14042 standard. ‘Environmental management—Life cycle
assessment—Life cycle impact assessment’; 2000. Mailing address: 1, rue de Varembé, Geneva 20, Switzerland.
 R. Battisti, A. Corrado / Energy 30 (2005) 952–967 967

[4] ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 14043 standard. ‘Environmental management—Life cycle
assessment—Life cycle interpretation’; 2000. Mailing address: 1, rue de Varembé, Geneva 20, Switzerland.
[5] 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):137–46.
[6] IEA (International Energy Agency). Task 2, Operational Performance reliability and promotion of photovoltaic systems.
See also: http://www.task2.org/public/index.htm
[7] Tripanagnostopoulos Y, Nousia TH, Souliotis M, Yanoulis P. Hybrid photovoltaic/thermal solar systems. Solar Energy
2002;(3):217–34.
[8] Bazilian MD. Thermoelectric numerical modeling and experimental testing of a building integrated photovoltaic
cogeneration system. PhD Thesis, Sydney, Australia, University of New South Wales; 2002.
[9] Frankl P. Life cycle assessment of photovoltaic systems. PhD Thesis, Rome, Italy, University of Rome1 ‘La Sapienza’;
1996 [in Italian].
[10] Cherubini A. Production process of polycrystalline photovoltaic modules. Master degree thesis, Rome, Italy, University of
Rome1 ‘La Sapienza’; 2001 [in Italian].
[11] Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University, Department of Industrial Ecology, Guide on
Environmental Life Cycle Assessment, Part 2b, see also: http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/lca2/index.html
[12] Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML). Leiden University, Department of Industrial Ecology, Characterisation
factors, see also: http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/index.html
[13] Nieuvlaar E, Alsema EA. Environmental aspects of PV power system. In: IEA PVPS Task 1 Workshop Utrecht, The
Netherlands, Report no. 97072; 1997.
[14] Kato K, Murata A, Sakuta K. Energy pay-back time and life-cycle CO2 emission of residential PV power system with
silicon PV module. Prog Photovolt: Res Appl 1998;(6):105–15.
[15] Travaglini G, et al. Behavior of m-Si plant approaching its 20-year design life. In: 16th European PV Solar Energy
Conference and Exhibition Glasgow, Scotland, Proceedings; 2000. p. 2245–8.
[16] Meijer A, Huijbregts MAJ, Schermer JJ, Reijnders L. Life-cycle assessment of photovoltaic modules: comparison of mc-
Si, InGaP and InGaP/mc-Si solar modules. Prog Photovolt: Res Appl 2003;(11):275–87.