A Comparison of the Environmental Impact of Solar Power Generation Using Multicrystalline Silicon and Thin Film of Amorphous Silicon Solar Cells: Case Study in Thailand

• Autorzy: Khaenson W. , Maneewan S. , Punlek C.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.12911/22998993/74386

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This paper studies the environmental impact of two different forms of solar power generation in Thailand – that of multicrystalline silicon solar cells, and that of thin film amorphous silicon solar cells. It takes as its study two of the largest solar cell power plants of their kind in Thailand; a multicrystalline silicon plant in the north (generating 90 MW) and a thin film amorphous silicon plant in the centre (generating 55 MW). The Life Cycle Assessment tool (LCA) was used to assess the environmental impact of each stage of the process, from the manufacture of the cells, through to their transportation, installation and eventual recycling. The functional unit of the study was the generation of 1 kWh of power transmitted and distributed by the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) and Provincial Electricity Authority (PEA). The environmental impact results were calculated in terms of eco-points (Pt) per functional unit of 1 kWh. The characterised data for 1 kWh of solar power generation was then compared with data for 1 kWh of combined cycle and thermal power generation (both in Thailand), using the same set of characterisation factors. After analyzing the results, both forms of solar power energy generation were found to impact upon the studied categories of Human Health, Ecosystem Quality and Resource Depletion, whilst also highlighting the importance of the solar cell module recycling process in decreasing the overall environmental impact. When the two solar cell technologies were compared, the overall impact of the multicrystalline silicon solar cell was found to be higher than that of the thin film amorphous silicon solar cell. Furthermore, when assessing the overall impact against non-renewable power generating technologies such as combined cycle and thermal power generation, the thin film amorphous silicon solar cells were found to have the lowest environmental impact of all technologies studied.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

solar power generation; life cycle assessment (LCA); multicrystalline silicon solar cell; amorphous silicon solar cell

• Wydawca: Polskie Towarzystwo Inżynierii Ekologicznej ; Lublin University of Technology
• Czasopismo: Journal of Ecological Engineering
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: Vol. 18, nr 4
• Strony: 1--14
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 36 poz., tab., rys.

Twórcy

autor

Khaenson W.

• Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, 65000, Thailand

autor

Maneewan S.

• Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, 65000, Thailand

autor

Punlek C.

• Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, 65000, Thailand

Bibliografia

• 1. Alsema E.A., Wild-Scholten M.J., Fthenakis V.M. 2006. Environmental impacts of PV electricity generation-A critical comparison of energy supply options. 21st European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition.
• 2. Anctil A., Fthenakis. 2012. Recyclability challenges in “abundant” material-based technologies. 27th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition.
• 3. Azapagic A. 1999. Life cycle assessment and its application to process selection design and optimization. Chemical Engineering Journal, 73, 1–21.
• 4. Chamsilpa M., Vorayos N., Katsiriroat K. 2010. Environmental impact analysis of solar cell power plant compared with fossil fuel power plants in Thailand. Asian Journal on Energy and Environment, 103–117.
• 5. Davies S. 2013. The following is a short description on the various types of panels available and some of their characteristics. World Focus 1412 CC, 2007/000484/23.
• 6. DEDE. 2015. Alternative Energy Situation in Thailand 2015 (14th edition). Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency, Bangkok.
• 7. Fraas L., Partain L. 2010. Solar cells and their applications second edition. Wiley, New Jersey.
• 8. Goedkoop M., Spriensma R. 2000. The Eco – indicator 99 – A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. 2nd ed., PRé Consultants b.v., Amersfoort.
• 9. Goedkoop M., Spriensma R., Müller-Wenk R., Hofstetter P., Köllner T., Mettier T., Braunschweig A., Frischknecht R., Van de Meent D., Rikken M., Breure T., Heijungs R., Lindeijer E., Sas H., Effting S. 2001. The Eco – indicator 99 – A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. 3rd ed., PRé Consultants b.v., Amersfoort.
• 10. Havelaar A. 2007. Methodological choices for calculating the disease burden and cost-of-illness of foodborne zoonoses in European countries. Med-Vet-Net Administration Bureau, Maisons-Alfort Cedex.
• 11. Hendrickson C., Horvath A., Joshi S., Lave L. B. 1998. Use of Economic Input-Output Models for Environmental Life Cycle Assessment. Environmental Science & Technology.
• 12. Henryk M.S. 2011. Environmental impact of rail and road transport. Economic and Environmental Studies, 11, 405–421.
• 13. ISO 14040. 2006a. Environmental management–life cycle assessment–principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
• 14. ISO 14042. 2000. Environmental management–life cycle assessment–life cycle impact assessment. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
• 15. ISO 14044. 2006b. Environmental management–life cycle assessment–requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
• 16. Jensen A.A., Hoffman L., Møller B.T., Schmidt A., Christiansen K., Elkington J., Dijk F.V. 1997. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) – a guide to approaches, experiences and information sources. European Environment Agency.
• 17. Khaenson W., Maneewan S., Punlek C., Chindaraksa S., Rachapradit N. 2016a. Life cycle assessment of power generation from solar energy in Thailand. Environmental Science and Sustainable Development, 223–229.
• 18. Khaenson W., Maneewan S., Punlek C. 2016b. Life cycle assessment of power generation from renewable energy in Thailand. GMSARN International Journal, 10 (4), 145–156.
• 19. Maehlum M.A. 2013. Amorphous Silicon Solar Panels. http://energyinformative.org/amorphous-silicon-solar-panels [Online].
• 20. Meyer L., Tsatsaronis G., Buchgeister J., Schebek L. 2009. Exergo environmental analysis for evaluation of the environmental impact of energy conversion system. Energy, 34, 75–89.
• 21. Monier V., Hestin M. 2011. Study on photovoltaic panels supplementing the impact assessment for a recast of the WEEE directive. http://ec.europa. eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/Study%20on%20 PVs%20Bio%20final.pdf [Online].
• 22. Müller A., Wambach K., Alsema E. 2005. Life cycle analysis of a solar module recycling process. 20th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition.
• 23. Netherlands Embassy in Bangkok. 2016. Solar Power in Thailand. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bangkok.
• 24. Olson C., Geerligs B., Goris M., Bennett I., Clyncke J. 2013. Current and future priorities for mass and material in silicon PV module recycling. 28th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition.
• 25. Phumpradab K., Thongbhakdi A., Shabbir H.G. 2006. Environmental assessment of electricity production from natural gas fired power plants. The 2nd Joint International Conference on Sustainable Energy and Environment.
• 26. Phylipsen G.J.M., Alsema E.A. 1995. Environmental life cycle assessment of multicrystalline silicon solar cell modules. Netherlands Agency for Energy and the Environment, Sittard.
• 27. Reno M.L.G., Lora E.E.S., Palacio J.C.E., Venturini O.J., Buchgeister J., Almazan O. 2011. A LCA (life cycle assessment) of the methanol production from sugarcane bagasse. Energy, 36, 3716–3726.
• 28. Richard M.G. 2008. Solar Industry Creates Scheme to Recycle Solar panels in Europe. http:// www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/solar-panels-recycling-recycled-europe.php [Online].
• 29. Stoppato A. 2008. Life cycle assessment of photovoltaic electricity generation. Energy, 33, 224–232.
• 30. Terry C., Tanokkorn C. 2014. Thailand PV status report 2012–2013. Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency, Bangkok.
• 31. Theodosiou C., Koroneos C., Moussiopoulos N. 2005. Alternative scenarios analysis concerning different types of fuels used for the coverage of the energy requirements of a typical apartment building in Thessaloniki, Greece. Part II: life cycle analysis. Building and Environment, 40, 1602–1610.
• 32. Tsuo Y.S., Wang T.H., Ciszek T.F. 1999. Crystalline-silicon solar cells for the 21st century. The Electrochemical Society Annual Meeting.
• 33. Wambach K., Schlenker S., Müller A., Ramin-Marro D.V., Clyncke J., Gomez V., Hartleitner B., Rommel W. 2009. The voluntary take back system and industrial recycling of PV modules. 24th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition.
• 34. Weidema B. 2000. Avoiding co-product allocation in life-cycle assessment. Journal of Industry Ecology, 4, 11–33.
• 35. Yue D., You F., Darling S.B. 2014. Domestic and overseas manufacturing scenarios of silicon-based photovoltaics: Life cycle energy and environmental comparative analysis. Solar Energy, 105, 669–678.
• 36. http://www.ertc.deqp.go.th/ertc/images/stories/ user/ct/ERTC20Y/CarbonLabel.pdf [Online].

Uwagi

PL

Opracowanie ze środków MNiSW w ramach umowy 812/P-DUN/2016 na działalność upowszechniającą naukę (zadania 2017).