Part 6 - Embodied Energy and Life-Cycle

Renewable Energy
&
Energy Management
Module Code: ENE817

Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic Processes &
Technologies
Lecture 6 Embodied Energy and Life-cycle

Assessment: - Selected Renewable Energy case
studies
Dr Jayanta Mondol
Centre for Sustainable Technologies
School of the Built Environment
University of Ulster
BT37 0QB Northern Ireland
Tel: +44 (0) 2890 368037
Email: jd.mondol@ulster.ac.uk
1
Contents
1.0 The sustainability of renewable energy systems 3
2.0 Defining Embodied Energy ...................................... ……………………… 3
2.1 How to quantify embodied energy.. 5
2.2 Measuring Embodied Energy 5
2.3 Different ways of expressing embodied energy 6
3.0 Life cycle analysis calculation processes……………………………………………… 7
4.0 Case studies .............................................................................................................8
4.1 Integrated collector storage solar water heater case study 8
4.1.1 The embodied energy of the CST ICSSWH ...................................................9
4.1.2 ICSSWH specification ..................................................................................10
4.1.3 Embodied Energy content of primary ICSSWH components........................11
4.1.4 Embodied Energy content of intermediate ICSSWH components................13
4.1.5 Power consumption during manufacture of ICSSWH...................................13
4.1.6 Potential annual energy savings and LCA of the ICSSWH ..........................15
4.1.7 Energy Payback period ................................................................................15
4.2 Large-scale, On, and Off-shore, wind turbine case study 16
4.2.1 Embodied energy analysis of wind turbines .................................................16
4.2.2 Embodied energy of primary materials used in large-scale wind turbines ....17
4.2.3 Material emission factors..............................................................................18
4.2.4 Material Disposal..........................................................................................20
4.2.5 Large-scale wind farms selected for comparison .........................................21
4.2.6 Embodied energy 500kW on/off-shore wind turbines ...................................22
4.2.7 Energy and emissions related to the production and disposal of the wind farms
4.2.8 Energy Payback Period ................................................................................24
4.2.9 Recycled materials from wind farms ..................................................................24
4.3 PV case study……………………………………………………………………………25
4.3.1 Energy analysis ............................................................................................26
4.3.2 Embodied energy of crystalline silicon PV....................................................26
4.3.3 The reduced production process for thin-film silicon modules. .....................27
4.3.4 Embodied energy of thin-film silicon PV .......................................................28
4.3.5 Embodied energy of inverter & cabling.........................................................29
4.3.6 Embodied energy of module or array supports.............................................30
4.3.7 Energy payback period of roof-mounted/ground located PV systems ..........31
4.3.8 Future improvements in Crystalline silicon PV system performance ............33
4.3.8 Future improvements in Crystalline silicon PV system performance ............33
4.3.9 Future improvements in thin-film PV system performance ...........................34
4.3.10 CO2 Mitigation Potential.................................................................................34
4.3.11 CO2 emissions of grid supply options ............................................................35
5.0 Limitations to life-cycle analysis ...................................................................................36
6.0 Economic Considerations………………………………………………………………….. 39
6.1 Life Cycle Costing……………………………………………………………………………39
7.0 Further Information..................................................................................................40
8.0 References..............................................................................................................40
2
1.0 The sustainability of renewable energy systems
Any energy technology, which is purported to be “renewable” or “sustainable”, should be
subjected to an analysis of its energy balance in order to asses its “energy viability” and to
calculate the net energy yield. For renewable energy technologies in particular it is
important to establish whether they generate a net energy gain, i.e. does the technology
generate more energy than was first used to manufacture, install and decommission it?
Also it is important that such an energy analysis is not only based on data for present
generation systems but also considers expected improvements in production and energy
system technology wherever possible.
The Energy Payback Period is a means by which the energy sustainability of various
technologies may be compared, and is analogous to financial payback periods. When
considering a PV system, for example, it may be defined as the time necessary for a PV
system to generate the same energy as that which was used to manufacture, install,
operate and decommission the PV system. This latter energy content is often referred to
as the embodied energy of the system. The energy payback period will ultimately allow
us to compare different renewable energy technologies by undertaking a full life cycle
assessment.
Since energy consumption generally has significant environmental implications, the

embodied energy analysis may be considered as a first step towards a more
comprehensive environmental life-cycle assessment. Furthermore, embodied energy
analysis results provide a good indication of the CO2 mitigation potential of the considered
energy technology.
In a life-cycle assessment or analysis, (LCA), an inventory is made of all material and

energy requirements, as well as emissions to the environment, after which the inventory
results may be evaluated regarding their environmental impacts. The total of all
measurable factors involved in, or resulting from, a process is ‘the system of interest’. If
these factors are analysed comprehensively and to the full lifetime of the process and its
consequences, the study is called ‘life cycle analysis’. Comprehensive analysis includes
both internal and external factors. Full LCAs are difficult to perform for technologies, which
are still in their R&D phase, or in early stages of implementation, because reliable data on
emissions, etc. are lacking. Embodied energy analyses are somewhat simpler and more
reliable because energy consumption data are more readily available, but as we shall see
later it can still be a complex process.
2.0 Defining Embodied Energy

Embodied energy is generally defined as the energy consumed in all activities undertaken
to support a particular material or process. If we wish to investigate the manufacture,
installation, operation and decommissioning of renewable energy systems, it is often
convenient to identify all the materials used and the processes involved in their production.
The embodied energy of a specific material refers to the energy used to extract, process
and refine it before use in product manufacture. Therefore, a correlation often exists
between the number and type of processing steps and the final embodied energy of
materials. Monocrystalline PV cell manufacture is a good example of a complex multi-
staged renewable energy technology process. (Figure 2.1 below is just a reminder of the
many stages involved in its manufacture.)
3
Metallurgical Grade Silicon used
Coke Reduction in steel making (98-99% pure)
in an Arc
Furnace
Sand
Dissolve
in HCL
Reduction with
H2 at 900 C
Distillation
Semiconductor-grade
Polysilicon with random
crystal structure
(99.99999% pure)
Interconnection,
Diamond testing, encapsulation
Sawing & assembly into
Chem/Mech
modules
Polishing
Small, Cooled
silicon Crystal
Doping to
Seed form P-N
Ingot Junction
Heating
Coils
Molten
Silicon @
1414¼C Formation
Crucible Anti- of front
reflection contacts
coating
Figure 2.1 Life cycle of monocrystalline silicon PV module
The fewer and simpler the extraction, processing and refining steps involved in a material's
production, the lower its embodied energy content. Monolithic or etched PV cells have
fewer manufacturing processes than the manufacture of monocrystalline silicon cells, and
therefore, have a lower embodied energy. The embodied energy of a material is often
reflected in its price and this is particularly true for PV cell materials. If we wish to study the
embodied energy of, for example, a complete PV installation, then we would have to
identify the individual components of a PV system, attribute a specific embodied energy to
each, and sum these parts.
4
2.1 How to quantify embodied energy
Embodied energy is often divided into two primary components, direct and indirect energy.
• Direct energy – This includes the energy used on-site for the assembly of
components and other direct energy use by the main contractor. This not only
includes all on-site construction and fabrication, but also the final transportation of
equipment and materials to the site.
• Indirect energy – This is represented by the energy consumed during the

production of all raw materials used and their associated transport (energy) costs,
e.g. the quarry used to produce the sand for the initial refinement from sand to
silicon wafers. This also includes the energy inputs of goods and services to the
construction and fabrication process, as well as the energy in upstream inputs to
these processes, e.g. the machinery used to excavate the sand at the quarry.
What is not considered – Most embodied energy calculations do not include the labour
used to operate all the machinery used during the above processes, i.e. the energy in the
food they consume while working, or the energy content of their transport to and from their
place of work, is not generally included. This would be very difficult to assess in a
consistent manner, for all locations or countries, and it often would not represent a
significant proportion of the final embodied energy value. If these values were to be
considered we would have to include the transport required to deliver goods to and from
the supermarkets at which they shop. If this continued, the chain of energy consumption
would continue unabated until almost all global activities were considered! Operational
costs are normally included in embodied energy calculations but maintenance is omitted
as it often represents such a small proportion of the total energy cost and is normally in the
form of manual labour. However, exceptions might include regular maintenance of large
solar thermal reflectors requiring specific cleaning equipment.
2.2 Measuring Embodied Energy
There are two main methods by which embodied energy may be calculated, the process
method and the input-output method. There is also a third method, which is a
combination of these two, the hybrid method.
Process method - Process analysis involves the systematic examination of the direct and
indirect energy inputs to a process. The analysis usually begins with the final production
process and works backwards as the energy of each contributing material or energy input
needs to be ascertained. For example the large-scale wind turbine case study identifies
the main materials involved in its manufacture and construction, and assigns an energy
content, to each material. The product of these two values will give a total embodied
energy per turbine. In spite of the considerable time required, process analysis is the most
common method of energy analysis. This is because the data required can usually be
obtained, albeit by dint of considerable delving and persistence. The reduced time and
effort required is the main disadvantage of the method. There are also likely to be specific
material data that cannot be obtained. However, process analysis produces results that
are accurate and case specific.
5
Input-output method - is a macro-economic technique, which uses sector or industry-
based economic data to account for all industrial interdependencies inherent in modern
economies. The embodied energy can be estimated from calculations using matrices,
which describe a sectors’ economic structure, combined with matrices containing energy
use statistics. For example if we consider the steel industry we would identify how much
primary energy is used for the whole industry, (within a particular country), and divide that
by the total amount of steel produced by that industry. However, although the direct
energy use associated with a process is relatively simple to calculate, indirect
contributions are often many and complex and therefore difficult to assess.
Input–output analyses generally suffer from lack of detail in calculating direct contributions
simply because the data on which they are based are spread over a limited number of
industrial sectors. Hence, the particular process of interest may only be contained in an
aggregated classification, with corresponding loss of accuracy. For instance in certain
analysis, there may only be two industries involved in a particular analysis, e.g. Coal and
Steel. Coal is required to produce steel and some amount of steel in the form of tools is
required to produce coal, so if a particular industry has clear boundary limits such as, for
example, the semi-conductor industry, then this method has merit. Nevertheless, it suffers
from errors of a different nature and its disadvantages include;
• Price level changes

• Technology changes
• Aggregation (compound errors)
• Producer’s price versus purchaser’s price
• Energy cost of capital
• Uncertainty in base year data
• Physical flows assumed proportional to dollar values
• Errors due to secondary products and linearity assumptions
Hybrid method - A hybrid analysis builds on the Input Output approach by supplementing
case specific industry data into the input output calculations to improve its accuracy while
maintaining the coverage of a broad system boundary. This effectively allows an input-
output assessment to be gradually refined with time.
As a general rule the process method is more suited to small, individual technologies such
as a single solar water heater or a single wind turbine. The input-output method is used for
larger sector based calculations, e.g. the steel industry. The figures for the input-output
method will of course be used to make calculations using the process method. This is not
an easy concept to grasp due to the myriad of assumptions that often have to be made
during the calculation process.
2.3 Different ways of expressing embodied energy
Unfortunately there are a number of different ways in which embodied energies are
expressed. This often depends on the material, or technological process, which is being
compared. When comparing raw materials it is common to use GJ/m3 for say insulation
materials or GJ/tonne for bulk materials such as sand or aggregates. For the purposes of
comparison one should convert all embodied energy values to a common unit of
measurement, normally MJ/kg, but if considering a specific process, such as the
manufacture of PV cells, the aggregated material embodied energies are often expressed
in final units of MJ/m2 because PV arrays are most commonly measured by area.
6
3.0 Life cycle analysis calculation processes
Life cycle assessment may be carried out under different conditions, but it is based mostly
on a careful accounting of all energy and material flows associated with a system or a
process. The approach is typically used to compare the environmental impacts for different
products performing the same functions. A full life cycle analysis would include both an
energy analysis, and an emissions analysis, associated with this energy use. The
various stages of the calculation process are shown below in Figure 3.1.
Total primary energy

consumption involved in
production and disposal Total embodied
of specific materials (by energy of technology
fuel type if possible) or site under Full life cycle analysis
( MJ/kg or MJ/m3 ) consideration
( MJ or GJ )
Energy payback
Total amount of material period
involved in production (Years)
and disposal of Energy production
technology or site under ( kWh or MWh/Year )
consideration Life cycle emissions
( kg ) ( g/kWh )
Total emissions of
technology or site
Total emissions Proportion of
under consideration
involved in production ( MJ or GJ ) materials recycled
and disposal of specific ( g/kWh )
materials
( g/kg material )
Figure 3.1 Generic life cycle analysis calculation processes
The validity of the full life cycle analysis will depend entirely on the availability and
accuracy of the energy and emissions source data. Technology specific data, especially
regarding the energy consumption during the production and disposal of specific materials,
may not produce results which allow inter-technology comparisons unless the same data
was used for each technology being compared. In instances where the analysis is merely
considering a single device, (see ICSSWH case study later), the emissions calculations
are rarely considered as they are negligible for individual devices. Where entire
technologies are under consideration the environmental impacts of emissions should not
be ignored.
7
4.0 Case studies
Rather than try to investigate the embodied energy of all renewable energy systems I have
selected three different technologies, which will indicate the complexities of embodied
energy calculations;
A simple DIY solar water heater – This gives an idea of how simple the embodied
calculation can be by analysing, in (often monotonous) detail, the individual components of
an integrated collector storage solar water heater (ICSSWH), using the process method.
The embodied energy of such DIY systems are often easier to calculate because all the
quantities of materials are known, in this case down to every last screw and washer!
Large-scale land based, and off-shore, wind turbines - As the name would suggest,
large scale wind turbines require a similar approach to the ICSSWH but on a much larger
scale. Again this would employ the process method but as for the ICSSWH much of the
material embodied energy data was acquired using the input-output method for specific
industries, e.g. steel.
Crystalline and thin-film PV systems – Assessing the embodied energy of PV systems

is probably the most complex of all the renewable energy technologies because,
(especially for the crystalline silicon manufacture), there are far more processes to
consider, so the same input-output method, as is used for the semi-conductor industry, is
often employed.
4.1 Integrated collector storage solar water heater case study
This case study will investigate the embodied energy payback period for a non-
commercial, heat retaining, integrated collector/storage solar water heater (ICSSWH),
manufactured at the Centre for Sustainable Technologies (CST) at the University of Ulster.
A slide of this unit, as installed at CST is shown below in Figure 4.1.1. The study of the
embodied energy of the materials, components and assembly techniques for the
Integrated Collector/Storage Solar Water Heater (ICSSWH) are all seen as an integral part
of the total life cycle assessment and subsequent environmental impact.
8
Figure 4.1.1 ICSSWH as installed at CST
4.1.1 The embodied energy of the CST ICSSWH
The total energy required to manufacture the ICSSWH unit, based on the primary and
intermediate embodied energy of the components and materials has been determined.
The energy required to fabricate the final solar water-heating unit is also included. No
allowance is made for unit packaging, transportation, installation and maintenance. The
embodied energy payback period was determined from results of an extensive series of
outdoor experimental tests performed upon the unit. An annual potential energy saving
was calculated for the unit, and this value used to determine an overall energy payback
period. A schematic illustrating the factors to be considered in the life cycle analysis of the
ICSSWH is shown below in Figure 4.1.1.1.
Location, system design, climate and other factors affect the effectiveness of a solar water
heater and thus significantly influence the energy savings attributable to their use, so it is
essential to know how much energy is consumed in the initial manufacture (operation and
eventual disposal) of the unit if an accurate life cycle assessment is to be made.
9
PRIMARY PRODUCTION INTERMEDIATE
PRODUCTION
Glue, paint,
Primary coatings, etc.
raw Glass
materials
Insulation
production
Sheet & pipe
and Plastic
extraction Vessel,
brackets & Useful
Metal fasteners, etc
energy
Forest Wood Structure & saving
collector box during
collector
lifespan
Packaging Transport Installation Maintenance Demolition
Disposal, Refuse, Recycling
Figure 4.1.1.1 Materials & processes associated with CST ICSSWH
4.1.2 ICSSWH specification
The unit consisted of a heat retaining ICS vessel with a capacity of 57 litres positioned at
the focal point of a truncated, concentrating cusp reflector profile. The specification of the
unit can be seen in Table 4.1.2.1 below.
Table 4.1.2.1 ICSSWH dimensions and specification
Dimensions 1.1 m × 1.2 m × 0.6 m

UNIT Weight 35 kg (empty)
Aperture area 0.9215 m2
Glazing material A single sheet of 4mm thick float glass
Reflector profile A truncated, McIntire modified, cusp
REFLECTOR Half acceptance 45° with 32% truncation
angle
Concentration ratio 1.15
Reflector material 1mm thick polystyrene substrate with or
without specular silver reflective film
Dimensions 0.27m φ / 1.0m long
VESSELS Capacity 57 litres
Vessel material 1mm thick aluminium
Vessel coating Maxorb selective absorbent foil
10
4.1.3 Embodied Energy content of primary ICSSWH components
The total embodied energy required to produce the complete ICSSWH unit was calculated
using primary and intermediate production stages. The primary stage was established
from an assessment of the various materials used and their corresponding mass. Using an
Embodied Energy of materials index, (MJ/kg), (Alcorn A, 1996), the embodied energy
content of all the materials within the unit was determined. Table 4.1.3.1 below
summarises the materials used and lists their corresponding mass and embodied energy
content. The primary embodied energy content for all materials was calculated at 2943.51
MJ. The intermediate embodied energy, i.e. the amount of energy used in the production
and assembly of the component parts during the construction stage, was determined
through a stage-by-stage appraisal of the power sources used. The main power supply
assumed to be employed was electrical and all the various stages are presented in kWh.
Inherent within this intermediate stage was the fabrication of components not
manufactured in–house. These include nuts and bolts, screws, and reflective film, etc.
11
Table 4.1.3.1 Embodied energy content of the heat retaining ICSSWH
[Embodied energy index values from Alcorn, 1996]
VESSEL
Description Mass (kg) Embodied Energy Embodied Energy
Index (MJ/kg) Content (MJ)
Aluminium vessel 2.38 199 473.6
UPVC tube 6.195 70 433.6
Brass fittings 0.24 62 14.88
Copper pipe 0.0214 70.6 1.51
Polyproplene 0.01 95.4 0.95
(sheet)
APERTURE COVER
Glass cover 8.0 15.9 127.2
Timber frame 2.014 2.5 5.03
(dressed)
FRAME AND REFLECTOR STRUCTURE
Timber structure 19.08 10.4 198.4
(plywood)
Polystyrene (foam) 5.99 117 700.8
insulation
Polystyrene 1.1 64 70.4
(sheet) substrate
Stainless steel 0.054 110 5.94
fixings
Iron nails and 0.00125 12.5 0.016
screws
CASING
Glavanised sheet 26.18 34.8 911.1
steel
Steel fixing 0.00125 34.8 0.044
brackets
Bolts and screws 0.00125 34.8 0.044
Total primary and intermediate embodied energy 2943.51 MJ
content of ICSSWH materials
12
4.1.4 Embodied Energy content of intermediate ICSSWH components
Table 4.1.4.1 below lists these components and an approximation of their embodied
energy content.
Table 4.1.4.1 Production embodied energy of intermediate components

[Alcorn, 1996]
COMPONENT QUANITY EMBODIED EMBODIED

DESCRIPTION ENERGY ENERGY
INDEX (MJ/kg) CONTENT (MJ)
Nuts and bolts 0.00125 kg 6.5 0.008
Nails 0.0006 kg 3.56 0.002
Screws 0.0006 kg 6.5 0.004
Copper pipe 200mm of 22mm∅ 5 (estimate) 0.05
Brass fittings 2 no. 22mm∅ 10 (estimate) 10
Bitumen paint 1 tin (approx 0.9kg) 44.1 39.69
Sealant 1 roll (approx 0.6kg) 110 66
Mastic 1 tube (approx 0.4kg) 87 34.8
Reflective film 1.4 m²/ 0.78 kg 204 (estimate) 159.12
Selective absorber 0.85 m² / 0.56 kg 204 (estimate) 114.24
coating
Total embodied energy for intermediate component 423.91 MJ
production
4.1.5 Power consumption during manufacture of ICSSWH
Table 4.1.5.1 below specifies the various stages of the ICSSWH manufacturing process.
The total embodied energy for each stage was summed to give a total embodied energy
for this unit of 3807.42 MJ.
13
Table 4.1.5.1 Embodied energy of ICSSWH unit production
VESSEL
Production process Method Time Power Power
(mins) rating consumption
(KW) (KWh)
Cutting aluminium Electric guilotene 10 12.4 2.07
Bending/rolling aluminium Manual / / /
Welding aluminium Electric welder 60 7.2 7.2
Cutting PVC tube Manual / / /
Cutting acrylic end plate Electric jigsaw 10 1.2 0.2
Drilling holes in vessel unit Electric drill 130 1.2 2.6
Finishing Manual / / /
Final assembly of vessel Manual / / /
APERTURE COVER
Cutting glass Manual / / /
Cutting timber frame Electric circular saw 15 7.2 1.8
Final assembly of vessel Manual / / /
FRAME AND REFLECTOR STRUCTURE
Cutting timber frame Electric circular saw 120 7.2 14.4
Cutting insulation Manual / / /
Cutting plastic substrate Manual / / /
Cutting SS fixing strips Electric guilotene 5 12.4 1.03
Bending SS fixing strips Manual / / /
Drilling holes in structure Electric drill 30 1.2
Final assembly of structure Manual / / /
CASING
Cutting glav sheet Electric guilotene 10 12.4 2.07
Bending glav sheet Manual / / /
Cutting brackets Electric guilotene 5 12.4 1.03
Bending brackets Manual / / /
Drilling holes in unit Electric drill 30 1.2 0.6
Final assembly of unit Manual / / /
Embodied energy for unit production 33 kW/hr
Embodied energy for unit production (Converted into MJ) 118.8 MJ
Primary embodied energy content for unit production using a nett to gross
value of conversion rate of 27% [Martin and Oughton, 1995] 440 MJ
Embodied energy for intermediate component production (see table 4)
423.91 MJ
Total embodied energy for unit production 863.91 MJ
Total embodied energy for ICSSHW unit 3807.42 MJ
The embodied energy of this particular unit may seem very high but it is a small example
and there are no economies of scale. It is also difficult to define suitable units to express
the final value. The use of MJ/m2 is one option, so as this ICSSWH has a unit area of
14
1.32m2 this gives a value of 654MJ/m2, which compares favourably with PV embodied
energy values, (see later), however, as we shall see this is not the whole story.
4.1.6 Potential annual energy savings and LCA of the ICSSWH
The collection efficiency of the ICSSWH is a function of the optical and thermal
performance of the unit during the collection period. Figure 4.1.6.1 below illustrates the
linear relationship of unit collection efficiency derived from the extensive series of tests
performed on the ICSSWH unit. From the experimental observations, the unit had an
overall collection efficiency of 38.5%. This value, however, relates to the collection
efficiency over a range of test conditions and does not illustrate the potential of the system
to the user. From the graph below, the interval between 0.025 and 0.06 ΔT/I is the most
frequent area of operation for domestic solar water heaters in this area the collection
efficiency of the unit was between 52% and 36%. The collection efficiency of ICSSWH
obtained under real climatic conditions was calculated from the performance data
obtained, and plotted below.
From local meteorological data, the potential annual energy saving of the unit was
calculated. The total annual global solar energy incident on a surface at 54°N at an
inclination of 64° is 3518.6 MJ/m2. With a maximum collection efficiency of 52%, the unit
has the potential, at maximum, to displace approximately 1830 MJ per year of energy
obtained from a conventional source.
70
60 y = -359.57x + 59.632
50
40
η (%)
30
20
10
0
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
ΔΤ / Ι ave ( C/Wm)
2
Figure 4.1.6.1 Efficiency of ICSSWH under real climatic conditions
4.1.7 Energy Payback period
To calculate the energy payback period of this unit, the replacement of a traditional water
heating system, such as an electric immersion heater, was determined from the calculated
embodied energy inherent in the manufacture of the unit and the potential annual energy
15
saving. A maximum primary energy saving of 1830 MJ per year is possible, which could
result in the total energy used in the manufacture of the unit being recouped in less than 2
years, i.e. the energy payback period. Emissions were deemed to be negligible but would
be calculated if this unit were adopted on a larger scale.
4.2 Large-scale, On, and Off-shore, wind turbine case study
In the assessment of externalities related to renewable energy technologies, such as a

wind farm, it has proven to be important to include the energy-based emissions through
the whole life cycle of the wind farm, from the manufacture of materials to the technology,
through operation to disposal of the technology. In Denmark, an LCA model has been
developed for making life cycle assessments of a selection of specific materials, which is
able to assess the energy use related to the production, transportation and manufacture
per 1 kg of material. The energy use is divided into fuels used in order to estimate the
emissions through the life cycle of the material. This model was used to estimate the
energy used to produce both an offshore and a land based wind farm.
Before we start it is important to identify the similarities and typical differences between
large-scale on-shore & offshore wind turbines to avoid repeating similar calculations for
both, see Table 4.2.1 below.
Table 4.2.1 Differences between large-scale on-shore & offshore wind

turbines
On-shore Off-shore
- Complex cabling,
- Standard Cabling,
Cabling - Close to National Grid
- Farms can be distant from shore
- Burial necessary for safety
- Mainly monopile or gravity based
- Design similar to buildings - Monopile - 200t
Foundations - Approximately 200-250t - Gravity concrete cassion 1000t
- Gravity steel cassion 200t
- Complex cabling,
- 2 to 3 segments
Tower - 60 to 80 m in height
- Farms can be distant from shore
- Burial necessary for safety
Generator - 600 - 2500 kWp - 1500 to 4000 kWp
Rotors - 45 to 80m Diameter - 65 to 120m Diameter
4.2.1 Embodied energy analysis of wind turbines
There is no established method for calculating the embodied energy of both on- and
offshore large scale wind turbines but we can approximate a value based on the process
method, using the total amount of materials used in each case. From the life cycle of a
generic large-scale wind turbine, shown in Figure 4.2.1.1 below, we can make an estimate
of the primary materials used from the established literature.
16
Resource extraction
Resource transportation
Materials processing
Component manufacture
Component transportation
Turbine construction
Turbine operation
Decommissioning
Product Disposal
Figure 4.2.1.1 Life cycle of a generic large-scale wind turbines
Figure 4.2.1.1 shows all the processes included in the embodied energy analysis; from the
basic extraction of materials to be used during the manufacture of the wind turbines, until
the recycling and disposal of components and materials at the end of their lifetime,
(typically 20 years). This includes all the transport stages in between and the processing
and manufacture of all the turbine components. The energy consumed during operation
would include component replacements due to wear-and-tear and/or failure, as well as
routine lubrication, servicing and maintenance.
4.2.2 Embodied energy of primary materials used in large-scale wind turbines
The total primary specific embodied energy for the main material categories used in the
manufacture, installation, commissioning, operation and decommissioning of large-scale
wind turbines are shown in Table 4.2.2.1 below. Not all manufacturers produce materials
using the same manufacturing processes so there will always be a range of values for any
given material. The materials included in this study are, in many cases, extracted in
different countries. As it is difficult to acquire the energy and emission data for the various
energy processes in different countries, the energy supply system has been assumed to
follow Danish conditions. This means that the energy used to procure the energy sources
is included in the energy data given, despite the actual origin of the energy source.
However, conversion and distribution are assumed to follow Danish conditions. This
means that although, for example, aluminium is produced in Norway with a relatively large
amount of hydropower, Danish energy data for coal is used. Also, the energy-related
emissions are based on Danish data, so the emissions estimated for aluminium, for
example, are higher than would normally be the case. Based on the above-mentioned
assumptions, the total energy use related to the production, transportation and
manufacture of 1 kg of material for specific substances has been calculated in primary
energy units, as shown in Table 4.2.2.1 below. The range of values for steel and
17
aluminium reflect the range of low- and high-technology production processes. As seen
from the table, copper and zinc are very energy intensive, while concrete and glass have a
lower energy demand.
Table 4.2.2.1 Total primary energy consumption in MJ for production of

specific materials.
Coke Coal Oil

Natural gas Total
(MJ/kg)
________________________________________________________________
Steel 1.6 14.1-20.7 4.9-8.2 0.1 20.7-30.6

Aluminium 0 23.1-31.5 8-11.4 1.4-2.9 32.5-45.8
Copper 3 45.1 13.6 16.5 78.2
Plastic
(polyester
and epoxy) 0 30.8 9.8 5.1 45.7
PVC 0 19 12.6 6.6 38.2
Rubber 0 19.8 20.5 0 40.3
Reinforced iron 7.4 10.6 18.2 0.1 36.3
Concrete 0 3.45 0.23 0 3.68
Lead 0 20.3 9 6.3 35.6
Zinc 0 61.3 9.3 2.4 73
Float glass 0 1 0.8 7.5 9.3
Packing glass 0 2 0.8 5.3 8.1
Rock-wool* 1.68 0.84 0.81 0.03 3.36
Glass wool* 0 0.5 0.024 0.41 0.916
________________________________________________________________
* Embodied energy for insulation materials are generally quoted in MJ/m3 but a density of 100 kg/m3 and 250
kg/m3 for medium density respectively for rock and glass-wool batts was used to calculate the figure in
MJ/kg.
Despite the variations in embodied energy values the main goal of embodied energy
analysis is to use the best and most appropriate data available to make comparisons
rather than obtaining absolute values.
4.2.3 Material emission factors
The energy-related emissions are based on Danish data, whereby the emissions
estimated for aluminium, for example, may be too high. Based on the above-mentioned
assumptions, the total energy used in relation to the production, transportation and
manufacture of 1 kg of material for CO2, SO2 & NOx has been calculated in the model in
primary energy units, as shown in Figures 4.2.3.1 - 4.2.3.3 below. The range of values, for
steel and aluminium, reflect the production of low- and high-technology products.
18
Concrete
Glass wool (/m3) CO2 Emissions per kg material
Range
Rock-wool (/m3)
Packing glass
Float glass
Zinc
Lead
Concrete
Reinforced iron (rebars)
Rubber
PVC
Plast (polyester/ epoxy)
Copper
Aluminium
Steel
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Emissions (g/kg)
Figure 4.2.3.1 CO2 emission factors for selected materials
Concrete
Glass wool (/m3) SO2 Emissions per kg material
Range
Rock-wool (/m3)
Packing glass
Float glass
Zinc
Lead
Concrete
Rubber
PVC
Copper
Aluminium
Steel
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Emissions (g/kg)
Figure 4.2.3.2 SO2 emission factors for selected materials
19
Concrete
Glass wool (/m3) NOx Emissions per kg material
Range
Rock-wool (/m3)
Packing glass
Float glass
Zinc
Lead
Concrete
Rubber
PVC
Copper
Aluminium
Steel
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Emissions (g/kg)
Figure 4.2.3.3 NOx emission factors for selected materials
Danish emissions factors have been used, which are based on the energy used for
material production and the energy actually consumed at the activities. Energy sources
(coal, natural gas, oil etc.) as well as type of energy production plant (district heating,
waste burning etc.) have been considered, because the emission factors differ depending
on the fuel and type of plant. Emissions related to transport have also been estimated
based on the type of fuel used and means of transport. From the above-mentioned
emission factors, the energy emissions related to the production of different materials from
extraction, transportation, processing, manufacturing and construction have been
calculated.
4.2.4 Material Disposal
Apart from the energy released during manufacture, the disposal of materials also has an
energy demand. For most of the materials, this energy arises during disassembly and
transportation of the materials, either for recycling or depositing. This energy consumption
comes to about 0.1- 0.4 MJ/kg depending on the material.
A large fraction of the materials is recycled, while a smaller fraction is disposed of. Plastic
materials, PVC and rubber are burned at waste power plants. The emissions related to the
disposal of 1 kg of these materials are shown in the three histograms in Figure 4.2.4.1
below.
20
Rubber
PVC
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

CO2
Rubber
PVC
0 1 SO2 2 3 4
Rubber
PVC
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
NOX
Figure 4.2.4.1 Emission factors associated with material disposal

(g/kg of material disposed)
4.2.5 Large-scale wind farms selected for comparison
The wind farms compared are an offshore wind farm consisting of 10 x 500-kW turbines
with a total capacity of 5 MW, and a land based wind farm, consisting of 18 x 500-kW units
with a total capacity of 9 MW. The offshore wind farm is Tunø Knob wind farm situated 6
km away from the east coast of Jutland. The turbines are three-bladed offshore pitch
regulated machines, each with a capacity of 500-kW at a nominal wind speed of 16 m/s.
The tower height is 40.5 m and the rotor diameter is 39 m. The land-based wind farm at
Fjaldene wind farm located in the middle of Jutland, with 18 wind turbines placed in two
rows of nine turbines. The distance between the rows is 580 m, while the distance
between the wind turbines in the row is 188 m. Each turbine has a capacity of 500 kW.
The height of the turbines is 41.5 m. The materials used for individual turbines in each
location are shown in Table 4.2.5.1 below. (Note that as similar turbines were used in
both cases the only significant different differences were in the foundations and
sea-laid cables).
21
Table 4.2.5.1 Materials used in large-scale (500kW) wind turbines
kg/ 500kW turbine

Materials
Offshore Land-based
Steel 52700
Aluminium 1400
Copper 350
Sand 2100
Turbine
Glass 1100
Polyester & Epoxy 2000
Oil Products 100
Others 700
Reinforced iron 24000 12000
Foundations
Concrete 565000 282500
Copper 2580
Lead 3360
Sea Cables
Steel 3900
Polyester/rubber etc 540
4.2.6 Embodied energy 500kW on/off-shore wind turbines
Combining the specific embodied energy of materials with the quantity of materials used in
500kW on- and off-shore wind turbines will give us the total embodied energy per (500kW)
turbine as shown below. As can be seen from Table 4.2.6.1, copper and zinc are very
energy intensive, while concrete and glass have a low energy demand, but ultimately it is
the total energy consumption per turbine which is important.
22
4.2.6.1 Embodied energy of materials per (500kW) turbine
(kg)/ turbine Material EE Total EE (MJ)

Materials
Offshore Land MJ/kg Offshore Land
Steel 52700 20.7 - 30.6 1091 - 2661
Aluminium 1400 32.5 - 45.8 45.5 - 109.6
Copper 350 78.2 27370.0
Sand 2100 -
Turbine
Glass 1100 8.1 8910.0
Polyester & Epoxy 2000 45.7 91400
Oil Products 100 - -
Others 700 - -
Found- Reinforced iron 24000 12000 36.3 871200 435600
ations Concrete 565000 282500 3.68 2079200 1039600
Copper 2580 78.2 201756.0
Sea Lead 3360 35.6 119616.0
Cables Steel 3900 20.7 - 30.6 80.8 - 197
Polyester/rubber etc 540 40.3 - 45.7 20.6 - 24.7
4638 - 2739 -
Totals
5220 3279
For the offshore and land-based wind turbines, we arrive at a range of embodied energy
values, of 4638 - 5220 GJ and 2739 - 3280 GJ for each offshore and land-based wind
turbine, respectively. (The range of values occurs as a result of the range of values quoted
for steel, aluminium and polyester/rubber) This will give us a specific embodied energy of
9.28 – 10.44 MJ/Wp, and 5.48 – 6.56 MJ/Wp, for offshore and land-based wind turbines
respectively.
4.2.7 Energy and emissions related to the production and disposal of the wind farms
The energy use has not been calculated for oil and other products. The same amount of
energy has been assumed for sand as for concrete. Glass and polyester are used in the
manufacture of fibreglass for the blades. However, due to lack of data the energy
consumption and emissions are estimated only for the manufacture of glass and polyester
and not for fibreglass. Four percent of the energy consumed by the offshore wind farm and
2.5% by the land-based wind farm are used to dispose of the materials at the end of the
turbine lifetime. The small amount of energy consumed in the disposal of plastic is due to
its positive energy content released on burning. The emissions from the energy output of
the wind farms have been divided into those due to the electrical and heat energy
expended in the manufacture of the materials of the turbine and that expended in their
transportation. The emissions of N2O, CH4 and CO have been recalculated as CO2
equivalents using the factors 270, 24.5 and 1.4, respectively. The emissions, which are
estimated, apply to plants without desulphurisation components or de NOx burners. The
estimate is therefore high. The SO2 and NOx emissions due to electricity production are
therefore reduced by 50%. This is because many plants in Denmark are provided with
desulphurisation components reducing the SO2 emissions by about 80%, and de-NOx
burners reducing the NOx emissions by about 70%.
23
4.2.8 Energy Payback Period
The primary energy used in the production and disposal of materials comprising the
offshore wind farm is between 46,383 – 52,202 GJ (12884 – 14500 MWh). The yearly
electricity production of 12,500MWh of the wind farm is converted to primary energy that
would be consumed at a conventional power plant in order to estimate the energy payback
period. Based on an estimated efficiency of 40%, the energy use is paid back in 0.41 –
0.46 years, or less than 2% of a 20-year lifetime. The efficiency used is rather low, but it is
the same as used in the LCA model for material production. The primary energy used in
the production and disposal of materials comprising the land-based wind farm is between
49,306 – 59,033 GJ (13,696 – 16,398 MWh)
The land-based wind farm, produces 19,800 MWh annually, so the range of energy
payback periods is between 0.3 – 0.36 years. These figures correspond to those for a
wind turbine in roughness class 1 calculated by the Wind Power Industry, although they
estimate the figures in another way using input/output tables and an efficiency of 43.5 %.
By assuming a turbine lifetime of 20 years and a total electricity production of 250 GWh,
we obtain specific lifetime emissions for each wind farm as shown in Table 4.2.8.1 below.
Table 4.2.8.1 Lifetime emissions for land-based & offshore wind farms
Lifetime emissions g/kWh

CO2 SO2 NOx
Land based turbines 9.7 0.02 0.03
Offshore turbines 16.5 0.03 0.05
4.2.9 Recycled materials from wind farms
A large part a wind farms’ materials, as shown in Table 4.2.5.1, may be recycled. This is
illustrated for a single wind turbine in Figure 4.2.9.1. The histogram shows the amount of
materials used for the construction of one 500 kW wind turbine. Altogether about 58
tonnes of material is used, of which 92% consists of steel for construction of the tower.
94% of the material is recycled after the expired lifetime of the turbine, while the remaining
6% of the material is disposed of. The materials that can be recycled are steel, aluminium,
and a smaller amount of copper, while plastic and glass are disposed of. If the materials
from the turbine were used for construction of a new turbine only 80% of the materials
could be reused. The reason for this is that steel is produced from 85% recycled steel and
15% new, raw steel. Similarly, aluminium is comprised of 85% recycled aluminium and
15% new aluminium, while copper is produced from 40% recycled copper and 60% raw
material.
24
500 kW turbine
92% Steel, 3% Plastic, 2% Aluiminium, 2% Glass, 1% Copper
Recycled material
97% Steel, 2.5% Aluiminium, 0.5% Copper
Disposed material 65% Plastic, 35% Glass
Material which may

be recycled for new
turbine
97% Steel, 2.7% Aluiminium, 0.3% Copper
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Tonnes
Figure 4.2.9.1 Wind farm materials used, recycled and disposed
For a more comprehensive review of the life-cycle analysis of a selection of wind turbines
see Review of WEC LCA.pdf.
4.3 PV case study
The use of large scale photovoltaic systems to reduce fossil fuel consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions requires that the embodied energy associated with the
construction, operation and decommissioning of the PV system be small compared with
the energy produced during the system’s lifetime, i.e. the energy payback period should
be short.
In this case study the energy balance, and consequently the “energy viability”, of multi-
crystalline and thin film PV’s will be considered. Not only will the energy analysis be
considered using data for present generation systems but also for expected improvements
in production and energy system technology. Since energy consumption generally has
significant environmental implications, the energy analysis should be considered as a first
step towards a more comprehensive environmental life-cycle assessment.
Present estimates of the embodied energy for manufacturing of PV systems will enable
the energy balance of the two selected PV system examples to be estimated. The effects
of future enhancements in PV production technology and PV system technology will also
be investigated. Only grid connected PV systems have been considered as domestic
stand-alone systems have a much smaller potential in terms of long-term, global energy
25
supply and because energy analysis results on standalone systems are hardly available at
present.
4.3.1 Energy analysis
In an energy analysis a comprehensive account of the energy inputs and outputs involved
in products or services must be considered. The overall energy performance of such
products and services is determined by accounting for all energy flows in the life cycle
(from resource extraction through manufacturing, product use until end-of-life
decommissioning), i.e. the embodied energy. In the case of PV cells, the gross energy
requirement Ein is determined by summing the energy input during resource “winning”,
(winning is a term often used to describe excavation of the original material, in this case
sand), production, installation, operation and decommissioning of the solar cell panels and
the other system components. This gross energy requirement is then compared with the
energy output Eout. From this input/output method the energy pay-back period may be
calculated.
4.3.1.1 Which processes should be considered?
When calculating embodied energy values, (and ultimately energy pay-back periods), it is
important to evaluate which processes should be considered in a PV system regarding
energy inputs and outputs.
This is dealt with by specifying the system boundary, which delimits the processes
analysed from the processes that are not accounted for. The reasons for not including
some processes in the system boundary are either that they can be considered as
negligible or that reliable data are lacking, e.g. often the energy requirement for
manufacturing capital goods is considered as negligible. For PV power systems, however,
the energy requirement for capital goods (e.g., machines used to produce modules) is
significant and therefore must be included in this analyses.
4.3.1.2 How should this information be presented?
PV system embodied energy for module production tends to be area dependent and not
power dependent and so are often quoted in MJ/m2 of module area. Relating the
embodied energy to module output (Wp or kWh) introduces extra parameters, namely
module efficiency, PV system performance and irradiation, parameters, which should be
treated separately. The advantage of the area dependent approach is that energy
requirement data for modules with differing efficiencies can be analysed and compared
more effectively. Only after we have established the area-related energy data, can we
consider the specific power output per square metre of module area to obtain the
embodied energy per Wp. As a third step, system performance and different levels of solar
radiation can be considered to evaluate the total PV system energy balance.
4.3.2 Embodied energy of crystalline silicon PV
As we have seen in previous lectures the PV manufacturing process, especially for

crystalline-based cells, is considerable. The figure below shows the embodied energy for a
typical multicrystalline silicon PV module. We can see from Figure 4.3.2.1, that the silicon
winning and purification process is the major energy consumer and responsible for
about half of the module's energy requirement. The reason for this is that the purification is
performed by a highly energy intensive process and the purity criteria are laid down by the
electronics industry, which consumes about 90% of the “electronic-grade” silicon. Although
26
solar cell production would also be possible with more relaxed purity standards, dedicated
purification of “solar-grade” silicon has, up to now, not been commercially feasible
because of the relatively small demand for this type of silicon material.
The next most significant energy consumer is the production of the silicon wafer from the
electronic grade silicon because 60% of the material is lost during the formation of the
multicrystalline ingots and the sawing of these ingots into wafers. Altogether the
production of the silicon wafers requires about 3200 MJ/m2 of module area, which is about
60% of the total energy requirement for the complete module. For monocrystalline silicon
wafers the more elaborate crystallization process increases the embodied energy with an
additional 1500 MJ/m2!
The energy requirements for cell and module processing are more modest (300 MJ/m2)
just as the energy requirements for the front cover glass, the lamination foil and the back
cover foil (200 MJ/m2). A typical aluminium frame around the module may add an extra
400 MJ/m2, but frame materials and dimensions can vary considerably, but frameless
modules are also available on the market to reduce this energy requirement. Also note the
relatively high-energy use, for overhead operations, (close-control clean-room production
facility, lighting, and compressed air, etc.) and for the manufacturing of the production
equipment itself (together 500 MJ/m2). The latter is due to relatively high capital costs of
solar cell manufacturing plants, which also formed the basis for the energy input estimate.
Based on a conversion efficiency of 13%, we have a power output of 130 Wp/m2 module,
so the embodied energy of present-day mc-Si modules can be evaluated as about 32
MJ/Wp without frame and 35 MJ/Wp with an aluminium frame.
Module frame (aluminium) 400
O/H oper. and equipment manuf. 500
Module encapsulation materials 200

Cell/module processing 300
1000
Wafer production
Winning and purification 2200
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
MJ prim. /m 2 module
Figure 4.3.2.1 Embodied energy of Multicrystalline silicon
4.3.3 The reduced production process for thin-film silicon modules.
Earlier lectures have shown how the production technology for thin-film modules differs
significantly from that of crystalline silicon modules, where, in general, thin-film modules
are made by depositing a thin, (0.5 -10 μm), layer of semiconductor material on a
substrate, (usually a glass plate). The thin-film deposition can be performed with a variety
of different techniques, among which are chemical vapour deposition, evaporation,
27
electrolytic deposition and chemical bath deposition. Depending on the selected deposition
technique the material properties, material utilization rate and the energy consumption for
the deposition process will vary. Processes employing elevated temperatures, and/or
vacuum conditions, will generally have a higher energy consumption per m2 of processed
substrate area. Contact layers are also deposited with chemical vapour deposition
(transparent contacts) and evaporation (back contacts). Between the subsequent layer
deposition steps, the individual solar cells are defined by removing some of the previously
deposited material with laser scribing. When processing of the solar cells has been
completed the module is finally encapsulated with a second glass plate or with a polymer
film. Depending on the intended application and on the manufacturer the module may be
left frameless or it may be equipped with an aluminium or polymer frame. We have seen
that the main difference between thin-film and crystalline silicon technologies is that in
each process step during the manufacture of thin-film technologies the entire module area
of 0.5 - 1 m2 is processed at once. In crystalline silicon technology, individual wafers of
100-200 cm2 need to be cut, processed and subsequently combined into a whole module.
4.3.4 Embodied energy of thin-film silicon PV
In Figure 4.3.4.1 below we can see that the material for the actual thin-film cell requires
relatively little energy compared to crystalline cells. This is of course because of the small
cell thickness in amorphous silicon and other thin-film technologies. The remaining energy
requirements are divided about equally between module materials, processing, overhead
operations and equipment manufacturing and, finally, the aluminium frame. Again, frame
materials and dimensions may differ greatly between manufacturers. Polyurethane frames
for example require much less energy. In this case the module encapsulation was
assumed to comprise two glass plates because this is most common in present-day thin-
film technology. Switching to polymer back covers, as in crystalline silicon technology, may
reduce the energy requirement by some 150 MJ/m2. However, in the case of toxic solar
cell materials such as CdTe or CuInSe2 this would be less desirable. Assuming a
conversion efficiency of say 7% we arrive at an energy requirement for present amorphous
silicon modules of 17 MJ/Wp without frame and 23 MJ/Wp including an aluminium
frame. For other thin-film technologies (e.g., CdTe, CuInSe2, and organic dyes) the energy
requirements for processing may be different, depending on the type of deposition
processes that are used to lay down the cell materials. In general, these differences
should not be greater than 200 MJ/m2, although a recent Japanese study suggests a much
higher processing energy for a specific CdTe deposition process. Furthermore, overhead
operations may require more energy, for example for more extensive waste treatment
(cadmium recovery). Nonetheless, it has been estimated that the energy requirement of
most thin-film modules will fall within a range of 1000-1500 MJ/m2, excluding the frame.
28
Module frame (aluminium) 400
O/H oper. and equipment manuf. 400
Module encapsulation materials 350
Cell/module processing 400
Cell material 50
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
MJ prim. /m2 module

Figure 4.3.4.1 Embodied energy of thin-film silicon modules
4.3.5 Embodied energy of inverter & cabling
The requirements for the balance-of-system, that is, all PV system components apart from
the modules, will depend largely on the desired application. In grid connected PV systems,
as we consider here, an inverter, cables and some module support materials will be
needed. In stand-alone systems, a battery, for energy storage, will be required. Like in
economic analyses of PV systems the Balance of-System cannot be neglected in energy
analyses. Therefore, we will shortly analyse the impacts of the inverter and array supports.
The embodied energy for the inverter and cabling are relatively low, about 1MJ/Wp, based
on a 3kW Inverter, i.e. 130MJ/m2 for a 13% efficient multicrystalline 3kW PV system and
about 70MJ/m2 for a 7% efficient thin-film 3kW PV system. Improvements in inverter
embodied energy over the next 20 years are not expected to be dramatic. Table 4.3.5.1
below shows that if cell efficiencies rise as predicted the actual specific inverter energy
requirement will actually rise because with rising cell efficiencies require reduced array
area to produce 3kWp.
29
Table 4.3.5.1 Embodied Energy of Inverters and cables
1999 2010 2020

3kW Inverter (MJ/W) 1 0.9 0.8
MJ/Inverter 3000 2700 2400
Multicrystalline module efficiency (%) 13 15 17
Area of mi-Si panels/3kW inverter (m 2) 23.08 20.00 17.65
Embodied energy of 3kW inverter

130 135 136
(MJ/m 2 of panel area in 3kW array)
Thin-Film module efficiency (%) 7 10 15
Area of thin-film panels/3kW inverter (m 2) 42.86 30.00 20.00
Embodied energy of 3kW inverter

70 90 120
(MJ/m 2 of panel area in 3kW array)
Note how the predicted specific embodied energy of the inverter rise over the 21-year
period. This is merely due to the predicted rise in PV module performances, which results
in smaller array areas required for each 3kW inverter.
4.3.6 Embodied energy of module or array supports
The energy requirement of module or array supports has a more significant impact than
inverter energy requirements. The results of a recent detailed analysis of the primary
energy content of selected applications of PV systems in buildings considered several
applications on rooftops and building facades. The ground array support materials
required an energy input of 1850 MJ/m2. This figure was for a PV plant in Italy that was
considered as state-of-the-art, requiring much less balance-of-system materials than
similar European plants. It was considered that the material, and thus energy requirements
for the supports in large ground mounted PV systems, could not be reduced significantly
below this present value of about 1800 MJ/m2. Therefore, it seems reasonable to take this
figure as representative for future plants of this type, except for a 1% annual improvement
in the energy efficiency of the production processes of common materials.
Roof-integrated modules were shown to have balance-of-system embodied energy of

around 700 MJ/m2. When analysing present roof mounted systems, this study found that
there was considerable scope for improvement, particularly by reducing material
requirements and increasing use of recycled aluminium. It was considered that future roof
mounted systems would have an energy requirement for the support structures of around
500 MJ/m2. Figure 4.3.6.1 below summarizes the predicted embodied energy for balance
of-system components and for module frames from 1999 to 2020.
30
Inverter (Thin- 120
90
film panels) 70 2020
2010
Inverter (mc-Si 136
135 1999
panels) 130
Array support 500

500
(roof) 700
Array support 1500

1700
(ground) 1800
Module Frame0
0
(Al) 400
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100
Energy requirements (MJ/m2)

Figure 4.3.6.1 Embodied energy of balance-of-system components
4.3.7 Energy payback period of roof-mounted/ground located PV systems
Let us now consider the energy output of a typical PV system and evaluate the energy
payback period. We will consider two types of grid-connected PV systems, a rooftop
system and a large, ground mounted system and two module technologies. We further
assume a system performance ratio of 0.75, i.e. 25% system losses, e.g. in the inverter,
cabling, etc. This loss may seem high, but in fact it is representative even for well-
designed PV systems today. The conversion efficiency of the conventional electricity
supply system is set at 35%. Finally, we shall select three levels of annual solar radiation;
• High irradiation (2200 kWh/m2 yr), as found in the south western USA or the
Sahara.
• Medium irradiation (1700 kWh/m2 yr), as found in large parts of the USA and
southern Europe;
• Low irradiation (1100 kWh/m2 yr), as found in middle Europe say Germany.
Given these assumptions we evaluate the energy payback period as the ratio of the total
embodied energy of the PV system and the annual energy generated during system
operation.
31
Using the embodied energy values stated in earlier sections and two different PV cell
materials, (for example, multicrystalline panels, with an efficiency of 13%, and thin-film
panels with an efficiency of 7%), we can determine the energy payback period for both
roof-mounted and ground located PV systems in the three locations above.
Figure 4.3.7.1 below shows that the energy payback period for these two systems is 2-3
years in a sunny climate and increases to 4-6 years (or more) under less favourable
conditions. Also note that the significance of the supports and the module frames,
especially for the ground-mounted systems.
We can also see that even though the thin-film modules have a lower efficiency they have
lower embodied energy than multicrystalline systems, however, this is partially offset by
their higher embodied energy for frames and supports. An energy payback period of 2-6
years may seem rather long, but in view of the expected lifetime of PV systems of 25-30
years there is still a significant net production of energy. The net energy yield of these
systems, (i.e. system lifetime/energy payback period), assuming a 30 year life time, would
be 10-14 in sunny regions and 5-7 under low irradiation levels. A first conclusion from
these energy balance considerations can be that grid-connected PV systems already have
a significant potential for reducing fossil energy consumption presently, although it may
take a few years of system operation before these savings may be realised. Nonetheless,
it would be preferable if the energy balance could be improved further. Therefore, we will
investigate in the next section what prospects exist for a further reduction of embodied
energy for PV systems.
Thin-film (ground)
mc-Si (ground)
1100 Thin-film (roof)
kWh/m2/yr mc-Si (roof)
Thin-film (ground)
mc-Si (ground)
1700 Thin-film (roof)

Thin-film (ground) Module
mc-Si (ground) Frame
2200 Thin-film (roof) Supports
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Years
Figure 4.3.7.1 Energy payback period of current PV
32
4.3.8 Future improvements in Crystalline silicon PV system performance
We have seen that in crystalline silicon technology the silicon wafer is a major contributor
to the embodied energy of the module. This offers three avenues for reduction of energy
inputs, as given below in decreasing order of probability.
Reduced wafer thickness: This possibility is already explored by the PV industry as it

offers significant cost advantages. Wafer thickness reductions from the present-day 200-
300 µm down 150 µm or less seem possible, so that the silicon requirements can go down
by 30-40% (however the proportion of wafer sawing losses will increase slightly).
Other wafer production methods: When blocks of crystalline silicon are sawn into thin
wafers about 40%of the material is lost. Furthermore, some 40% is lost in the preceding
process of block casting. So only 30% of the electronic-grade silicon ends up in the wafer!
As there are no clear possibilities for reduction of the sawing losses, novel methods to
produce wafers directly from molten silicon or from silicon powder have been investigated
since the 1970s. As direct wafer production processes, such as edge-defined film growth
become commercially attractive, they may lead to significant reductions in silicon
requirements, possibly in the order of 40-60%.
Other sources for high-purity silicon feedstock: We have seen that the high-purity
silicon used for solar cells is a very energy-intensive material. Presently, the PV industry
relies heavily on silicon rejected by the electronics industry which is of insufficient quality
for use in semiconductors (off-spec material). With the continued growth of the PV market
the supply of off-spec silicon will soon become insufficient so that other feedstock sources
will have to be developed. Because standard electronic-grade silicon is too expensive for
PV applications, dedicated silicon purification routes will be needed. Less is known about
the embodied energy of such “solar-grade” silicon processes but it seems likely that they
are lower than that of the standard process, which now produces to the specifications of
the electronics industry.
Regarding the actual cell and module production we can expect additional energy
reductions from using frameless modules, and from scaling up of production plants,
resulting in more efficient processing, lower overheads, and less equipment energy.
In summary, we can expect that future multicrystalline silicon production technology may
achieve a reduction in embodied energy to around 2600 MJ/m2, assuming innovations like
a dedicated silicon feedstock production for PV applications, improved casting methods
and reduced silicon requirements. This kind of technology will probably become available
by 2010. We can assume that future module efficiencies of 15% for multicrystalline-Si
technology during the same period. Modules based on monocrystalline silicon modules will
probably remain somewhat more energy intensive, at 20 MJ/Wp. When we look at the
situation beyond 2010, then it seems difficult to achieve major energy reductions for wafer-
based silicon technology. An energy efficiency improvement in the production process of
1% per year, as is often found for established production technologies, seems therefore a
reasonable assumption. Further improvements in the energy requirement per Wp will have
to be achieved by improving module efficiency (while not increasing energy consumption).
If we assume that in 2020 the efficiency of commercial mc-Si cells has been increased to
20% then module efficiency would be about 17% and thus the lowest conceivable energy
requirement for Si wafer technology might be 13 MJ/Wp.
33
4.3.9 Future improvements in thin-film PV system performance
As encapsulation materials and the processing are the main contributors to the energy
input for thin-film modules, the prospects for future reduction of the embodied energy are
less clearly identifiable as was the case with crystalline silicon technology. A modest
reduction, in the range of 10-20%, may be expected in the production of glass and other
encapsulation materials. It is not clear whether displacement of the glass cover, by a
transparent polymer, will lead to a lower energy requirement. Other, existing trends, which
may contribute to a lower energy requirement, are:
• frameless modules.
• thinner cells with a reduced processing time and thus a reduction in the processing
energy and in the energy for equipment manufacturing.
• an increase of production scale, leading to lower processing energy, reduce

equipment energy and lower overhead energy.
By these improvements we expect the energy requirement of thin-film modules to

decrease by some 30%, to 900 MJ/m2, by 2010. If concurrently, the module efficiency can
be increased to 10%, the energy requirement may drop to 9MJ/Wp for laminates. If we try
to make projections beyond 2010 we can note that further reductions in the energy
requirement below 900 MJ/m2 do not seem very probable. Like before we assume a
generic 1% per year energy-efficiency improvement in the production process. Only if
completely novel module encapsulation techniques are developed which require much
less (energy-intensive) material may we obtain a more significant improvement.
Furthermore, new methods of cell deposition, which require less processing and less
overhead operations, might help to reduce the energy input of thin-film modules. Of
course, increases in module efficiency will directly improve the energy input per Wp (if
energy input per m2 is constant). In this respect significant variations may occur between
different types of thin films. Moreover, significant efficiency improvements for thin film
technologies may be achievable. For instance, if we assume a 15% module efficiency for
2020, the embodied energy decrease to 5-6MJ/Wp.
4.3.10 CO2 Mitigation Potential
For PV systems, the energy payback period is a reasonable indicator of the CO2 mitigation
potential because generally more than 90% of the greenhouse gas emissions during the
PV system life cycle are caused by energy use. Emissions not related to energy use are
only found in steel and aluminium production (for the supports and frames) and in silica
reduction (for silicon solar cells). To obtain the CO2 emissions due to the production of a
PV system we have to multiply all energy and material inputs with their corresponding CO2
emission factors. This requires a detailed life-cycle assessment of greenhouse gas
emissions from solar cell manufacturing (and other life-cycle stages) and from the life cycle
of balance of-system components and materials. In this case study will we will make a
rough estimate of CO2 emissions by:
• Considering only energy-related CO2 emissions during module production; non-energy

CO2 emissions are typically 0.1 kg/Wp (silica reduction) or less.
• By evaluating all energy inputs in module production as electrical energy. (Primary

energy use for electricity is about 90% of the total primary energy consumption for
34
crystalline silicon modules. For thin-film modules this proportion is about 70%, but the
remaining 30% is used in glass production, where by chance the CO2 emission is
similar as our assumption for electricity production (0.055 kg CO2 per MJ of used
energy).
• Considering only the aluminium supports employed in roof-integrated systems for the
Balance-of-System components. The estimated overall error of these approximations is
a maximum of 20%.
We now arrive at a quite important point regarding the CO2 emissions of PV systems. In
contrast to most other energy technologies the CO2 emissions of PV occur almost entirely
during system manufacturing and not during system operation. As a consequence the
CO2 emissions of PV are determined very strongly by the “manufacturing environment”
and more specifically the fuel mix of the electricity supply system that is employed during
the PV system production. So, the CO2 emission of a PV system will depend on the CO2
emission factor of the local utility. In this analysis we have assumed a fuel mix of
continental Western Europe, where about 50% of the electricity is produced by nuclear
and hydro-electric plants, as well as 20% by coal, 10% by oil-, and 10% by gas-fired plant.
For this utility combination the CO2 emission factor is about 0.57 kg CO2 per kWh
produced electricity ( about 0.055 kg/MJprim. Although the fuel mix is likely to change in the
future, the CO2 emission factor will probably change by less than 7% up to 2010. For
simplicity we will therefore take this factor as constant. Two other parameters, which may
not be overlooked when evaluating CO2 emissions of PV, are, of course, the irradiation at
the site of PV system installation and the assumed system lifetime. As before we have
assumed a medium high irradiation of1700 kWh/m2 yr and a system lifetime of 30 yr. Note
that because of the three parameters mentioned above CO2 emission estimates for PV
can vary significantly between different studies.
4.3.11 CO2 emissions of grid supply options
Figure 4.3.11.1 below shows the CO2 emission factors (g/kWh) of supplied electricity for
grid-connected rooftop PV systems. For comparison a number of conventional power
generation technologies are also depicted. From a recent IEA study estimates for wind
turbines and biomass gasification technology as well as their estimate for present-day
multicrystalline-silicon PV technology in a rooftop application. The results show that
according to our estimates the CO2 emissions for present PV technology are in the range
of 50-60 g/kWh, which is considerably lower than for fossil-fuel plants but higher than
other renewable energy technologies. (For biomass energy it could be argued that the CO2
emission factor is effectively zero because parts of the biomass crop are not harvested
and stay in the ground (trunks, etc.), thus forming a CO2 sink, which offsets the energy
consumption in harvesting and transport.) The estimates in this case study for mc-Si
technology seem somewhat lower than that from the IEA study, but if we consider that the
latter probably has assumed a 30% higher CO2 emission factor for the utility system, the
difference becomes negligible (which is to be expected as the respective energy estimates
are also comparable). With improving technology, PV-related CO2 emissions may become
significantly lower, around 20-30 g/kWh in the near future, or even 10-20 g/kWh in the
longer term. Only in this last case do PV systems approach the range of emission factors
for current wind, biomass and nuclear energy. In conclusion, we can say that PV systems
can supply energy at a considerably lower CO2 emission rate than current fossil energy
technologies, but is not as environmentally benign as biomass and wind energy.
35
Thin-film (2020) 10
mc-Si (2020) 20
Thin-film (2010) 20
30
mc-Si (2010)
Thin-film (1999) 50
mc-Si (1999) 60
mc-Si (IEA) 87
Wind 8
Biomass GT 20
Nuclear 10
CC Gas 400 1000

Hard Coal
0 200 400 600 800 1000

(g/kWh)
Figure 4.3.11.1 CO2 emission of grid-supply options
5.0 Limitations to life-cycle analysis

Variations in values will always exist when attempting to assess the embodied energy of a
specific renewable energy technology, so there are a number of factors, which must be
considered when making comparisons, especially between different technologies:
• Each technology often has many sub-domains e.g. solar thermal may be divided
into solar air or solar water heating; solar water heating may be divided into flat-
plate or evacuated tube, and evacuated tube may be further divided into
concentrating and non-concentrating. Direct comparisons are not always as easy
as they first seem.
• Different calculation processes are used to calculate embodied energy depending

on industrial processes under consideration; e.g. the input-output method may be
well suited to the silicon cell industry, and the process method may suit small, one-
off DIY solar water heating units.
• Different technologies often use domain specific means of measuring embodied

energy, e.g. the PV industry may quote in terms of MJ/Wp or MJ/m2 of PV, whereas
other industries may find that comparison are more applicable in MJ/kg of material.
When making comparisons within a technology such as PV is often appropriate to
36
use MJ/m2. Comparisons between technologies such as solar thermal and PV may
still use MJ/m2, but as soon as the technologies under consideration become
radically different, e.g. PV and wind power, important that common units are used
throughout wherever possible, normally MJ/Wp or MJ/kWh.
• The primary energy mix of a particular manufacturing facility often dependent on the
country in which it is located, e.g. Norway and Denmark have significant
contributions from hydro-electric power but the UK is more heavily fossil fuel based.
This will influence the total environmental impact of the embodied energy values.
So, even if the embodied energy of one kg of UK produced aluminium were
comparable to one kg of Danish aluminium, the UK produced material would have a
greater environmental impact.
• The country of origin of the material under consideration will also greatly influence
the final value of embodied energy for that particular material, because the greatest
proportion of any variation in the embodied energy value tends to be transport costs
and mode of transport. If we consider two countries, which have significant
renewable primary energy sources, e.g. Norway and Denmark, the larger, and less
densely populated of the two, will have higher transport costs.
• The embodied energy only represents part of the environmental picture. The true
environmental impact can only be assessed, by determining the energy payback
period, and ultimately, the life cycle cost of selected technologies.
As we have seen in these three very different case studies the methods of life cycle
calculation have fundamental similarities but have been modified to suit the particular
technologies. In particular, the primary energy mix will vary by country and technology.
Also the calculation of energy production will be technology specific, i.e. PV efficiency can
be closely related to overall insolation whereas ICSSWH efficiency will change with
insolation.
These case studies show that the more expansive a technology and the greater the
number of manufacturing process, the more complex the life cycle analysis can be. Also,
when making inter-technology comparisons, care must be taken to use similar source
data, which is not the case for these three different case studies. An attempt was made to
undertake a full energy chain analysis of emissions for a number of different renewable
energy technologies, but it still contains a number of assumptions, which make future
replication problematic. (See Full chain analysis RE sys.pdf)
A comparison of the life-cycle CO2, SO2 & NOx emissions for a number of technologies is
shown in figures 5.0.1 to 5.0.3.
37
Nuclear
Wind
Hydroelectricity - Range
Solar Thermal
Future Energy Crops
Current Energy Crops
PV
Conbine Cycle Gas Turbine
Diesel - Embedded
Oil - Best Practice
Coal - Best Practice
Coal - Flue Gas Desulph. & Low Nox
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Lifecycle CO2 Emissions (g/kWh)
Figure 5.0.1 Comparison of life-cycle CO2 emissions
Nuclear
Wind
Solar Thermal
Future Energy Crops
PV
Diesel - Embedded
Oil - Best Practice
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Lifecycle SO2 Emissions (g/kWh)
Figure 5.0.2 Comparison of life-cycle SO2 emissions
38
Nuclear
Wind
Solar Thermal
Future Energy Crops
PV
Diesel - Embedded
Oil - Best Practice
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Lifecycle NOx Emissions (g/kWh)

Figure 5.0.3 Comparison of life-cycle NOx emissions
As we can see, despite the variability of source data with undertake life-cycle analyses,
the overall picture is generally very good for renewable energy technologies.
6.0 Economic Considerations

The PV system costs consist of acquisition costs, operating costs, maintenance costs, and
replacement costs. At the end of the life of a system, it may have a salvage value or it may
have a decommissioning cost. Life cycle cost is used in the design of the PV system that
will cost the least amount over its life time. Life cycle costs provide information to users
about the payback period of the system.
If it is necessary to borrow money to purchase an item, the cost of the loan may aloes
needed to be incorporated into the total cost of a system. If incentive programs are
available in any of a number of forms, they may significantly affect the life-cycle cost
(LCC), or payback of a system.
6.1 Life Cycle Costing

The time value of money
The life cycle cost of an item consists of the total cost of owning and operating an item
over its lifetime. Some costs involved in the owning and operating of an item are incurred
at the time of acquisition, and other costs ate incurred at later times.
39
Two phenomena affect the value of money over time. The inflation rate, i is a measure of
the decline in value of money. For example, if the inflation rate is 3% per yeat, then an
item will cost 3% more next year. Because it takes more money to purchase the same
thing, the value of the unit of currency, in effect, is decreased.
The discount rate, d, relates to the amount of interest that can be earned on principal that
is saved. If money is invested in an account that has a positive interest rate, the principal
will increase from year to year. The real challenge, then, in investing money, is to invest at
a discount rate that is greater than the inflation rate.
For example, if we assume the discount rate is d and N0 is the amount of investment then
the value of the investment after n years will be
N (n) = N0 (1 + d)n
Now, if the inflation rate is I and the cost of an item at the time of investment was made is
C0, then cost of the item after n years the cost of the item will be
C (n) = C0 (1 + i)n
7.0 Further Information

For more up-to-date papers on life cycle costing just go to www.sciencedirect.com under
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews using “life cycle” in the search criteria.
This database will also prove useful when researching for your dissertation. Access should
be possible using your Athens database username and password.
8.0 References
Alcorn A, 1996, Embodied energy coefficients of building materials, Centre for Building
Performance Research, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
40

Part 6 - Embodied Energy and Life-Cycle

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Part 6 - Embodied Energy and Life-Cycle

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Renewable Energy

Module Code: ENE817

Lecture 6 Embodied Energy and Life-cycle

Since energy consumption generally has significant environmental implications, the

In a life-cycle assessment or analysis, (LCA), an inventory is made of all material and

2.0 Defining Embodied Energy

Figure 2.1 Life cycle of monocrystalline silicon PV module

• Indirect energy – This is represented by the energy consumed during the

2.2 Measuring Embodied Energy

• Price level changes

2.3 Different ways of expressing embodied energy

Total primary energy

Figure 3.1 Generic life cycle analysis calculation processes

Crystalline and thin-film PV systems – Assessing the embodied energy of PV systems

4.1 Integrated collector storage solar water heater case study

4.1.1 The embodied energy of the CST ICSSWH

Packaging Transport Installation Maintenance Demolition

Disposal, Refuse, Recycling

Figure 4.1.1.1 Materials & processes associated with CST ICSSWH

4.1.2 ICSSWH specification

Table 4.1.2.1 ICSSWH dimensions and specification

Dimensions 1.1 m × 1.2 m × 0.6 m

Table 4.1.4.1 Production embodied energy of intermediate components

COMPONENT QUANITY EMBODIED EMBODIED

4.1.5 Power consumption during manufacture of ICSSWH

4.1.6 Potential annual energy savings and LCA of the ICSSWH

Figure 4.1.6.1 Efficiency of ICSSWH under real climatic conditions

4.1.7 Energy Payback period

4.2 Large-scale, On, and Off-shore, wind turbine case study

In the assessment of externalities related to renewable energy technologies, such as a

Table 4.2.1 Differences between large-scale on-shore & offshore wind

Generator - 600 - 2500 kWp - 1500 to 4000 kWp

Rotors - 45 to 80m Diameter - 65 to 120m Diameter

4.2.1 Embodied energy analysis of wind turbines

Figure 4.2.1.1 Life cycle of a generic large-scale wind turbines

4.2.2 Embodied energy of primary materials used in large-scale wind turbines

Table 4.2.2.1 Total primary energy consumption in MJ for production of

Coke Coal Oil

Steel 1.6 14.1-20.7 4.9-8.2 0.1 20.7-30.6

4.2.3 Material emission factors

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Figure 4.2.3.1 CO2 emission factors for selected materials

Figure 4.2.3.2 SO2 emission factors for selected materials

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Figure 4.2.3.3 NOx emission factors for selected materials

4.2.4 Material Disposal

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Figure 4.2.4.1 Emission factors associated with material disposal

4.2.5 Large-scale wind farms selected for comparison

kg/ 500kW turbine

4.2.6 Embodied energy 500kW on/off-shore wind turbines

(kg)/ turbine Material EE Total EE (MJ)

Lifetime emissions g/kWh

Offshore turbines 16.5 0.03 0.05

4.2.9 Recycled materials from wind farms

Disposed material 65% Plastic, 35% Glass

Material which may

4.3 PV case study

4.3.1 Energy analysis

4.3.1.1 Which processes should be considered?

4.3.1.2 How should this information be presented?

4.3.2 Embodied energy of crystalline silicon PV

As we have seen in previous lectures the PV manufacturing process, especially for