Lca avancis for icv

Filename: XXX.ppt CONFIDENTIAL Author: Hartmut FischerFilename LCA AVANCIS 2011.ppt Page: 1 CONFIDENTIAL Author: Tom Clarius

Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) Modeling of Photovoltaics

July 2011


Agenda

Methodology Results Comparisons and interpretation Appendix


Methodology

Functional unit and reference flow Data collection Modeling


Functional Unit and reference flow


Functional Unit and reference flow

PV module specifications

Functional unit The functional unit chosen is “Produce electricity at 12% efficiency over 1

year with a PV module with the following characteristics (3.1 A, 57 V), and 1595 x 672 mm²”

Reference flow for the modeling in TEAM™

We chose the following reference flow for the modeling of the PowerMax® PV module life cycle in TEAM: 1 PV module.

The results of the LCI thus correspond to the life cycle of one PowerMax® PV module.

Module studied


Data collection Overall process and sources of data

The following scheme describes the process steps for the PowerMax® module and where it is performed

All data was collected at the corresponding plant except for the Diamant transformation

For the Diamant glass transformation Plant D data was used. It corresponds to similar operations including cutting the glass, smoothing the edges, etc.

Diamant 2.85 mm

Planilux 2.95 mm

CIS coatingMolybdenum

ProductionPlant: A

TransformationPlant: B

ProductionPlant: C

TransformationPlant: D

CoatingPlant: A

Processing and assemblingPlant: Torgau


Modeling Completeness of the data

Completeness and reliability of the data were increased since the intermediary meeting:

Confirmation of the data on the Planilux coating provided by the Plant A Conference call with (validation of energy, molybdenum quantity figures)

Confirmation of the data on the Planilux cutting provided by Plant D Mails (validation of the energy consumption, waste production, etc.)

Determination of an estimated distance for the distribution in France (EPD requirements)

Replacement of the primary aluminum module with a module corresponding to an alloy (based on the material used in other PV modules LCAs). No precise information was obtained on the composition of the aluminum used by Avancis

Further details on methodological choices and assumptions in the Methodological report

Main data:•Energy: 822 MWh (2.3 kWh/m² coated)•4.7 tons of molybdenum used (13g/m² coated)

Main data:•Energy: 0.23 MWh (for 212 669 m² glass cut ≈ 1 Wh per m²)

Assumption chosen: 1500km

GhG emissions (kg eq. CO2) for 1 kg of aluminum produced: •Primary aluminum: 11.2 kg •Aluminum alloy: 3.3 kg


All the steps of the PV module life cycle were modeled:

• The production phase has the greatest impacts over the life cycle

• The transport phase corresponds to the distribution of the PV modules. It has a low impact over the whole life cycle

• The implementation and use phase do not have any impact allocated to Avancis

• The end-of-life phase corresponds to the landfill of the PV module. There is no effective recycling channel for CIGS PV panels. No PowerMax panel has reached its end-of-life yet

Modeling Structure and methodology


It was modeled using TEAM v. 4.0 as presented below:

Modeling Focus on the production phase


The steps modeled in TEAM correspond to the following processes:


Diamant 2.85 mm

Planilux 2.95 mm

CIS coatingMolybdenum

0.1.Front Glass 2.85mm (Diamant)

ProductionPlant: A

TransformationPlant: B

ProductionPlant: C

TransformationPlant: D

CoatingPlant: A

0.Substrate Glass 2.95mm (Planilux)

Processing and assemblingPlant: Torgau

1.coating&evaporation2.wet_coating3.Oven4.Structuring5.Lamination&Connecting6.Utilities



0.1.Front Glass 2.85mm (Diamant) The module for the modeling of the production of Diamant was taken from a former

study by PwC for SG Glass “Life Cycle modeling and Environmental Product Declaration of Glass Products” November 2010.

0.Substrate Glass 2.95mm (Planilux) The module for the modeling of the production of Planilux was taken from the study

by PwC for SG Glass mentioned above.

Processing and assembling in Torgau We grouped the similar processes into the following categories proposed by Avancis:

1. Coating and evaporationPID1 - Glass storage, PID3 - Glass Wash, PID4A - Vakuum-coating, PID4B – Vakuum evaporation, PID9 - Vakuum coating, PID11 - Vakuum coating

2. Wet coatingPID8 - CdS wet coating



Processing and assembling in Torgau

3. OvenPID6 - Tempering

4. Structuring PID2 - Laser structuring, PID10 - Mechanical scribing, PID12 - Mechanical scribing, PID13 - Laser edge deletion, PID14 - Track brushing, PID15 - Bus bar welding

5. Lamination & connectingPID17 - Capsulation with front glass, PID19 - Edge treatment, PID20 - Frame mounting + MS polymer, PID21 - Mounting junction box, PID24 - Packaging

6. UtilitiesWaste water treatment, DI water production

Landfill

This module corresponds to the destination of the waste produced through the operations in Torgau


Modeling Methodology

The methodology for the LCA complies with the ISO 14040-44 standards. Here is a presentation of the main methodological choices.

Within this methodology, the following choices were made:

Modeling: As seen before, the steps that were modeled do not follow the chronological production cycle but gather similar operations from the production process. The utilities step thus take the following processes into account: DI Water production, Wastewater treatment, glass and laminate cleaning throughout the whole

process Losses during the production process: There are some losses during the production process

(almost due to breakage of the glass). However we could not get accurate information on the % of loss for each step. We thus considered the highest quantity at the beginning of the process (corresponding to the quantity of substrate glass purchased) for the steps from 1. to 4. and the quantity of front glass purchased for step 5. We used the quantity of modules produced in order to calculate the total quantities of packaging consumed.

Transportation: The transportation was only modeled for the front and substrate glasses using the kg/km transported. The transportation of the rest of the components was considered not significant considering their mass.


Modeling Hypothesis

The following main assumptions were made in order to cope with lack of information.

Metal targets: The modeling of the targets only takes the raw material into account and not the processes (no energy or water consumption)

Plastics: The modeling of components such as sealants, polymers, (mainly the terostat) only includes the main raw materials, identified through research on the materials or our expertise of chemicals

PVB: The PVB was modeled using the EVA module and adding 50% energy Transportation: For transportation of the substrate and front glass, we considered

that trucks drive directly the city to city distance to deliver the Torgau plant


Modeling Modules sources

The impact modules used in the modeling of the life cycle of the PowerMax® PV modules come from 2 main sources:

• The DEAM Database: internal PwC module database, updated regularly

• The Ecoinvent Database: from the Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories

• Diamant and Planilux Glass modules from the previous Ecobilan study: “Life Cycle modeling and Environmental Product Declaration of Glass Products” November 2010

A comprehensive list of the sources of the modules used is at the end of the methodological report


Results

The following part presents the main teachings of the LCA through an analysis of the results:

Total emissions for the full life cycle Full life cycle Production phase per step Production phase per material On-site water consumption and waste production Glass production phase: Diamant and Planilux

comparison


Indicator Value

Energy (GJ) 2.244

Water (m³) 0.903

Waste (kg) 34

Greenhouse effect (kg eq. CO2)

150.1

Results Total emissions for the full life cycle

The reference flow for the following figures is one PowerMax® PV module.

POWERMAX®


Results Full life cycle: Primary energy & Greenhouse gases


Impact Primary energy (GJ)

PhasePowerMax® (1 module)

Total 2.24

Production 2.22

Transport 0.02

Implementation 0.00

Use 0.00

End of life 0.00

Impact

Greenhouse gases

(kg eq. CO2)


Total 150.124

Production 148.497

Transport 1.604

Implementation 0.000

Use 0.000

End of life 0.023

The distribution of energy and greenhouse gases over

the steps of life cycle is similar The production phase

accounts for 99% of the whole


Results Full life cycle: Water consumption and total waste


Impact Water consumption (m³)


Total 0.903

Production 0.901

Transport 0.002

Implementation 0

Use 0

End of life 0

Impact Total waste (kg)


Total 33.54

Production 13.93

Transport 0.00

Implementation 0.00

Use 0.00

End of life 19.60

The production phase accounts for almost all the water consumptionThe production of waste is distributed

between the production phase (42%) and the

end-of-life (58%)


Results Production phase per material: Greenhouse gases

ImpactGreenhouse

gases (kg eq. CO2)

StepPowerMax® (1 module)

Total production 148.497

Glass 29.745

Electricity (site) 84.155

Process gas 7.271

Chemicals 0.667

Plastic materials 4.580

CIS metals 1.489

Aluminium 19.247

Packaging 0.816

PVB 0.526

Other 0

Waste & wastewater (site) 0

The main source of GhG emissions is the electricity consumption of the siteSecond is the production of glass

Third is the production of the aluminum frame


Results Production phase per material: Water consumption

Waste & wastewater (site) corresponds to the consumption of the Torgau plantThe other figures are up/downstream data for the other materials

The production of electricity is water intensive

ImpactWater consumption m³

StepPowerMax® (1 module)

Total production 0.901

Glass 0.075

Electricity (site) 0.258

Process gas 0.066

Chemicals 0.004

Plastic materials 0.145

CIS metals 0.028

Aluminium 0.103

Packaging 0.015

PVB 0.001

Other 0.000

Waste & wastewater (site) 0.204


Results On-site water consumption and waste production

Impact Total waste (kg)

Total waste

Total 13.93

From the site 3.76

Up/dowmstream data 10.170

The distributions of the water consumption and

waste production between on-site and up/downstream.

Up/downstream water consumption is mostly due to

electricity, plastic materials and aluminum productionUp/downstream waste production comes mostly from energy production

ImpactWater consumption (m³)

Water consumption

Total 0.903

On site 0.204

Up/dowmstream data 0.699


Results Glass production and transformation phase:

Impact Primary energy (MJ)

Planilux Diamant

Total 184.89 133.96

Production 141.25 125.18

Transport 11.79 7.64

Coating 30.72 0.00

Cutting 1.14 1.14

The production of glass is energy intensive and accounts for 16% of the total energy consumption over the PV module life cycle

The molybdenum coating operation is energy intensive and accounts for the higher energy consumption of Planilux

Reference flow: Diamant 2.85mm (1595 x 672 mm²) transformed, Planilux 2.95mm (1595 x 672 mm²) Mo+ coated and transformed


Comparison and interpretation

Full life cycle: Comparison with an other CIS module Variation of parameters: Transportation & Energy

consumption Calculation of the PV module energy payback


Comparison and interpretation Variation of parameters

Distance (km)

GhG (kg eq. CO2)

Variation

1500 150.1

500 149.1 -1%

3000 151.7 1%

Transportation for distribution

Electricity (on site)

GhG (kg eq. CO2)

Variation

Year 2010 150.1

Extrapolation of Feb 2011

142.9 -5%

Energy consumption

Transportation does not account for an important part of the greenhouse gases emissions of the full life cycle of the

PowerMax® PV moduleVariations of +100% or -67% of the transportation

distance only entail variations of +1% or -1% of the total greenhouse gases emissions

The electricity consumption of the Torgau plant accounts for 57% of the greenhouse gases emissions of the full life

cycle of the PowerMax® PV moduleWe extrapolated the consumption of February 2011, a month with few irregularities triggering no extra energy consumption. The overall effect on the total greenhouse

gases emissions is a 5% decrease


Comparison and interpretation Energy PayBack

The “Energy Pay Back Time” (EPBT), defined as the ratio of the total energy input during the system life cycle and the yearly energy generation during system operation, both should be of course expressed in the same unit, either in primary energy or in final electrical energy [1]. The EPBT is expressed in years

Primary energy vs. final electrical energy: the final electrical energy is the energy actually available for consumption after it has been produced, stored, transported, etc. It depends on the energy mix and the efficiency of the grid. The agreed efficiency for the Western Europe Mainland medium voltage grid is 31%*. It takes into account:

Energy consumption for building infrastructures, i.e. centralized power stations and transmission networks,

Energy consumption during transport and distribution of fuels,

Electric losses in transmission from power stations to medium-voltage consumers.

This value concretely results in the need to use an average 3.23 kWh of primary energy to supply 1 kWh of electricity through the grid to a medium-voltage consumer.

Energy input: It is the quantity of energy input needed during the system life cycle. This data is provided through LCA and presented in primary energy. For the calculation of the energy payback, it needs to be converted in kWhElec/kWp (final electricity input per kWp).

Calculation: 2244 MJ for a PV module with Pnom = 120W => 18700 MJ/kwp => converted to kWhElec/kWp: 18700/3.6/3.23 => 1608 kWhElec/kWp

Source: International Energy Agency, Compared assessment of selected environmental indicators of PV electricity in OECD cities (May 2006) * The annual output is in kWh/kWp.year. All figures are taken from the upper study, p45. Annex A: Annual energy output


Comparison and interpretation Energy PayBack

The energy payback time =

Energy input (kWhElec/kWp)=

Payback time =

Source: International Energy Agency, Compared assessment of selected environmental indicators of PV electricity in OECD cities (May 2006)

* The annual output is in kWh/kWp.year. All figures are taken from the upper study, p45. Annex A: Annual energy output

Energy input during system life cycleEnergy output in a year

2244 MJ for a PV module => 18700 MJ/kwp (Pnom = 120W) => /3.6/3.23 => 1608 kWhElec/kWp

Yearly energy output in Lyon is 984 kWh/kWp (roof-top)

1608/ 984 = 1.63 years

Both parameters must be either primary energy or final electricity

Paris Lyon Marseille Berlin Cologne Munich

Annual output* (kWh/kWp) 872 984 1317 839 809 960

Payback time (y) 1.84 1.63 1.22 1.92 1.99 1.68

Payback time (m) 22.1 19.6 14.7 23.0 23.9 20.1


Comparison and interpretation Energy Return Factor

The « Energy Return Factor » (ERF) is defined as the ratio of the total energy generation during the system operation lifetime and the total energy input during the system lifecycle. An ERF equal to ten means that a PV system produces ten times more energy than it consumes throughout its life cycle.

Energy Return Factor = Energy ouput during system

operation lifetime Energy input during system life cycle


Annual output* (kWh/kWp)

872 984 1317 839 809 960

Energy Return Factor

13.6 15.3 20.5 13.0 12.6 14.9


Comparison and interpretation Potential for CO2 Mitigation

The « Potential for CO2 Mitigation » is defined as the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions that will be avoided by the PV module.

It is calculated by multiplying the energy output of the PV module during its lifetime by the average CO2 content of the local electricity mix (taken at national level). It is expressed in kg of CO2.

Calculation :GhG emissions per kWh generated : France : 0.107 kg/kWh (source : IEA, ETH)

GhG emissions per kWh generated : Germany : 0.588 kg/kWh (source : IEA, ETH) Lifetime : 25 years

Potential for CO2 mitigation (kg CO2) =


Potential for CO2 mitigation (kg CO2) per PV module

280 316 423 1 480 1 427 1 693

Energy output of the PV module during its lifetime (kWh)

Electricity CO2 emission factor (kg CO2 / kWh)*


Appendix: Presentation of the deliverables

The methodological report: Life Cycle modeling and Environmental Product Declarations of a PowerMax photovoltaic module

It presents the context of the study, the description of the product studied, the methodology used and the assumptions made.

The Environmental Product Declaration: PowerMax® 120 photovoltaic module

It presents the product characterization, the inventory in accordance with NF P 01-010 § 5 and the environmental impacts of the product in accordance with NF P 01-010 § 6


Appendix: Definition of the studied indicators

Indicator Value

Energy (GJ)

Energy comes from energetic resources such as petroleum oil, natural gas, uranium, wood, biomass…

The studied indicator is expressed in GJ and measure the quantity of energy resources extracted from the

environment, including both used energy for the process and feedstock energy.

Water (m³)

The water consumption include all water resources drawn from the environment (excluding water from rain and used for

cooling).

Waste (kg)

All human activities generate waste that have to be collected and treated with significant incidence on the environment

This indicator allows to follow the quantity of total waste generated along the total life cycle.

Greenhouse effect

(kg eq. CO2)

This indicator gives the estimate of the effect of warming over time (100 years) of the emissions of certain greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, in comparison with carbon dioxide. It particularly takes into account the "fossil" emissions CO2, N2O (these emissions come, for example, from the combustion of fuel and from natural gas) and CH4 emissions (for example from the fermentation of dumped waste) but does not take into account CO2 "biomass" emissions, resulting for example from the combustion of waste in incinerators. The greenhouse effect is expressed in kg eq. CO2.


Appendix: Production phase - Focus on Planilux Glass


Phase Planilux

Total 184.89

Production 141.25

Transport 11.79

Implementation 30.72

Use 1.14


Appendix: Production phase - Focus on Diamant Glass


Phase Diamant

Total 133.96

Production 125.18

Transport 7.64

Implementation 0.00

Use 1.14


Appendix: Urban PV Applications


Comparisons with multi-crystalline PV modulesaround the world OECD study 2006

Appendix


Comparisons with multi-crystalline PV modulesaround the world (cont‘d)

OECD study 2006

Appendix



OECD study 2006

Appendix

Lca avancis for icv

Technology

Transcript of Lca avancis for icv