MEASURING ENVIRONMENTAL AND HUMAN IMPACT OF COPPER IN SILICON-

BASED SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC CELLS USING LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................2
1.1 Background of the Study........................................................................................................2
1.2 Problem Statement.................................................................................................................5
1.3 Research Objectives...............................................................................................................6
1.3.1 Main Objective................................................................................................................6
1.3.2 Specific Objectives..........................................................................................................6
1.4 Significance of the Study.......................................................................................................6
1.5 Scope of the Study.................................................................................................................7
1.6 Limitations.............................................................................................................................8
LITRITURE REVIEW....................................................................................................................8
2.1 A solar panel..........................................................................................................................9
2.2 Mechanism of the Solar Panel...............................................................................................9
2.3 A life cycle assessment........................................................................................................10
2.4 The Limitations of Life Cycle Assessment..........................................................................13
2.5 Life cycle assessments of solar cells....................................................................................14
2.6 Life cycle assessment for silicon-based solar......................................................................17
2.7 Manufacturing processes of crystalline silicon PV modules...............................................18
2.8 Main phases of solar cell production...................................................................................20
2.9 Life cycle energy requirement of PV modules....................................................................22
METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................24
3.1 Goal and Scope Definition...................................................................................................24
3.2 Boundaries and the Process Flow Diagram.........................................................................25
3.3 Life-Cycle Inventory............................................................................................................26
3.3.1 Calculation of average solar power requirements.........................................................26
3.3.2 Calculating the annual yield of sunlight for the UK.....................................................27
3.3.3 Calculating copper weight factor..................................................................................30
3.3.4 Transportation of the copper.........................................................................................35
3.3.5 Solar cell manufacturing process..................................................................................35
3.3.6 Calculation of total electrify consumption for production of the solar cells.................36
3.3.7 Water consumption for silicon solar cell manufacturing..............................................38
3.3.8 Solar cells assembling...................................................................................................39
3.3.9 Use phase.......................................................................................................................40
 3.3.10 Dissembling phase.......................................................................................................42
3.3.11 Recycling phase...........................................................................................................43
3.4 Impact assessment................................................................................................................45
Interpretation..................................................................................................................................47
4.1 Primary Copper from Canada to Europe..............................................................................47
4.2 Primary Copper from worldwide.........................................................................................54
4.3 Comparative analysis...........................................................................................................55
CONCLUISONS AND RECOMDATIONS.................................................................................59
5.1 Conclusions..........................................................................................................................59
5.2 Recommendations................................................................................................................60
5.3 Future Works........................................................................................................................60
References..................................................................................................................................61
List of Figures

Figure 01: Total Number of Solar Energy Production by the UK in 2021 (https://rb.gy/g6g36). . .5
Figure 02: Annual solar energy generation globally, 2000–2021(Remmen, 2012)........................7
Figure 03: Mechanism of a Solar Cell (https://shorturl.at/BHZ48)...............................................13
Figure 04: Impact assessment evaluation from LCA (https://rb.gy/22mja)..................................15
Figure 3.3.5.1: - Basic steps of solar cell manufacturing (Krebs-Moberg et al., 2021)................38
Figure 3.3.7.1: - Basic steps of solar cell manufacturing (Hong et al., 2016)...............................41
Figure 5: Impact assessment of two Scenario................................................................................48

List of tables

Table 3.3.1.1: - Power requirement for solar panels (Life Cycle Inventories and Life Cycle
Assessments of Photovoltaic Systems 2020 Task 12 PV Sustainability, n.d)...............................29
Table 3.3.2.1: - Power requirement (Life Cycle Inventories and Life Cycle Assessments of
Photovoltaic Systems 2020 Task 12 PV Sustainability, n.d).........................................................30
Table 3.3.2.2: - Power requirement for Solar panels (Life Cycle Inventories and Life Cycle
Assessments of Photovoltaic Systems 2020 Task 12 PV Sustainability, n.d)...............................32
Table 3.3.3.1 – Weight percentages of the main materials that have been used to produce solar
panels (Life Cycle Inventories and Life Cycle Assessments of Photovoltaic Systems 2020 Task
12 PV Sustainability, n.d)..............................................................................................................33
Table 3.3.3.2 – Weight percentages of other materials that have been using to produce solar
panels (Life Cycle Inventories and Life Cycle Assessments of Photovoltaic Systems 2020 Task
12 PV Sustainability, n.d)..............................................................................................................35
Table 3.3.3.2 – Weight percentages of copper which is used for produce batteries cables and
other conductive materials (Life Cycle Inventories and Life Cycle Assessments of Photovoltaic
Systems 2020 Task 12 PV Sustainability, n.d)..............................................................................36
Table 3.3.4.1: - Transport distances of Copper from Europe to Canada.......................................38
Table 3.3.4.2: - Transport distances of Copper from rest of the world.........................................38
Table 3.3.6.1: - Transport distances of Copper from Europe to Canada (Krebs-Moberg et al.,
2021)..............................................................................................................................................39
Table 3.3.7.1: - Total Water consumption for solar cell manufacturing.......................................42
Table 3.3.8.1: - Inputs for Solar cell assembling and dissembling (Stoppato, 2008)....................42
Table 3.3.9.1: - Degradation coefficients of the solar cells (Krebs-Moberg et al., 2021).............43
Table 3.3.8.1: - Inputs for Solar Cell Dissembling (Stoppato, 2008)............................................45
Table 3.3.10.1: - Inputs for the recycling phase (Latunussa et al., 2016)......................................46
Table 4.1.1: - Impact assessment for primary copper came from Canada to Europe....................50
Table 4.2.1: - Impact assessment for primary copper came from Worldwide..............................57
Table 4.3.1: - Comparative Impact assessment for primary copper came from Worldwide and
Canada...........................................................................................................................................58
 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Energy demand is growing, yet there are limited supplies of fossil fuels and other natural
resources. To accommodate the ever-increasing demand, the global energy infrastructure will
need to undergo significant transformations. Renewable sources of energy are slowly but surely
gaining support in nations all around the world. Many of these are actual countries located in the
United Kingdom. Less pollution is one of the numerous benefits that will result from the energy
shift. According to Monteiro Lunardi et al. (2017), a significant portion of the potential of solar
energy is already being utilized thanks to the development of photovoltaic (PV) technology. This
technology converts direct solar radiation into electricity. According to Muteri et al.'s 2020
research, it's probable that by the year 2050, waste consisting of 60–78 million tons of PV panels
will have accumulated all over the world. Because of this, it is of the utmost importance to create
technologies that reduce pollution not only at the end of a product's life but also during the
entirety of the production process. Life cycle assessment, most often abbreviated as LCA, has
supplanted traditional methods as the preeminent approach to environmental analysis. LCA now
allows for the assessment of the whole environmental impact of solar technology, from the
production process through disposal. The ISO standards 14040 and 14044 each provide a
comprehensive description of the LCA procedures. In life cycle assessments (also known as
LCAs), some examples of best practices include establishing goals and constraints, building an
inventory, conducting an analysis of impacts, and drawing conclusions.

The photovoltaic panel is becoming of greater importance in the field of renewable energy as a
result of its increasing prevalence in a wide range of contemporary applications and settings.
Since the 1970s, solar energy, namely photovoltaics, has been utilized to power satellites (El
Chaar, Lamont, & El Zein, 2011). In addition to that, it powers unmanned traffic signals, street
lights, radio communication stations, a large parking lot with charging stations, and a number of
inconspicuous household products that we use on a daily basis. In addition to this, the building of
freestanding solar power plants with capacities ranging from fifty to one thousand kilowatts is
happening gradually (Sueyoshi & Goto, 2014). Because solar panels are becoming more
accessible, integrated building and photovoltaic technology has emerged as a potential solution
for the problem of fulfilling the electrical requirements of a building. According to research done
by Vats and Tiwari (2012), the development of integrated photovoltaic applications is one of the
most important aspects of the deployment of alternative energy systems.

Figure 01: Total Number of Solar Energy Production by the UK in 2021

(https://rb.gy/g6g36)

Solar cells are an interesting alternative to rising energy demand, given the recent scientific
advancements that have been made in their field. However, in order to assess the usefulness of
solar cells, more research into topics like the toxicity of the byproducts and their effects on the
environment is necessary. Copper is one of the major elements that has been used for the
production of solar cells. There is evidence that copper oxide is harmful to the immune system as
well as genotoxic and cytotoxic. Despite decades of study for a variety of reasons, the
mechanism by which metal oxides arise is still poorly understood. The release of metal ions from
oxide is a major factor contributing to the potentially dangerous nature of the scenario (Kumar et
al., 2021). One of the primary causes of toxicity is the dissolution of metal oxides and the release
of metal ions into the solution. Copper is an important component in silicon photovoltaic cells
(Omazic et al., 2019). Some research suggests that copper could be harmful to the environment.
But so far, only a handful of studies have been conducted. Copper's impact on human health,
ecological system quality, and climate change as a result of its use in PV cells is the primary
focus of this research.

Figure 02: Annual solar energy generation globally, 2000–2021(Remmen, 2012)

An item's overall impact, from raw material collection through waste disposal, can be measured
with the use of a life cycle assessment. The goal specified by the British government is to reduce
carbon emissions to zero by 2050. Therefore, the government is transitioning to green energy.
Solar power can be used to generate electricity since it is a renewable energy source that can be
collected. So, to keep up with the rising demand for electricity, the government has started
investing in solar cells. There are benefits and drawbacks to using silicon-based solar panels. The
silicon substrate allows for a wide variety of materials to be used in solar cells. Copper is a
crucial component in every stage of making solar cells. Copper has been widely criticized for its
potential for widespread harm to human health and natural environments. Copper is used in the
manufacturing of silicon-based solar cells; however, only a few studies have used life cycle
assessment to investigate the potential effects of copper on human and environmental health. To
better understand the effects of copper on human and environmental health, this study employs a
life cycle assessment.

The major objective of this life cycle assessment was to determine the most significant
environmental impact associated with copper consumption in the introduction of PV cells in the
United Kingdom. This study investigates the whole life cycle, from manufacturing to disposal, of
the components that make up a standard PV panel. One step of this process entails quantifying
the environmental damage caused by the copper in Solar panels. From the collection of raw
materials through their ultimate disposal, the LCA will analyze the whole range of environmental
impacts, such as greenhouse gas emissions and harmful air pollution. With this study's findings
in hand, the drawbacks of copper used in PV cells can be lessened.

1.2 Problem Statement

Currently, there are research using the methodology of LCA to analyze the life cycle impact of
copper, which is a major element included in PV systems. it is important to know the
environmental impact data of the system. A life cycle assessment is important to identify the
impact of the product on the environment and the ecosystem. How copper impacts the
environment and humans was assessed in this study.
1.3 Research Objectives

1.3.1 Main Objective

 To identify the impact of copper, which is used to produce silicon-based solar cells, on
the environment and humans in between production steps of the gate to grave through life
cycle assessment

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

 To analyze a comprehensive literature review related to the life cycle assessment of solar
cells
 To identify the impact of copper, which is used to produce silicon-based solar cells, on
the environment
 To identify the impact of copper, which is used to produce silicon-based solar cells, on
humans
 To investigate a comparative analysis in-between two scenarios of copper transportation

1.4 Significance of the Study

The United Kingdom has set a target date of 2050 to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions of zero, which would require a drop of exactly one hundred percent from the levels in
1990. In May of 2019, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) proposed a target of net zero
emissions. The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) is a federal agency that provides objective
advice on matters related to climate change to the governments of the constituent nations that
make up the United Kingdom. In line with the 2019 Climate Change Act (2050). It is necessary
to achieve the goal of zero emissions by the year 2050. Prior to this new legislation, the United
Kingdom had a legally enforceable goal of reducing emissions by 80 percent from their levels in
1990 by the year 2050. It was with great satisfaction that the news that the United Kingdom had
given its approval to the first worldwide law to attain net-zero emissions was shared with the
public. As a result, the government of the United Kingdom has begun providing money for
projects related to renewable energy, which helps minimize pollution. Solar panels are a popular
means of producing environmentally friendly electricity. The findings of this study will help
lower the potential adverse influence that solar panels could have on people's mental health as
well as their bank accounts.

1.5 Scope of the Study

This investigation was carried out so that a greater understanding can be gained regarding the
impact that the utilization of copper in silicon solar cells has had on the natural environment.
This study focuses on one company in UK, which is assembling in London. The data has been
collected based on this solar cell brand. This company is situated in London, and the parts are
assembled in the UK. In this study, the researcher has investigated the entire life cycle of a solar
panel that produces 1 MW, and the solar panel was located on domestic premises. The Life cycle
of the solar system was considered as 25 years. After that, both the human and environmental
repercussions can be analyzed. Currently, the United Kingdom has set a target for reducing the
amount of emissions it produces. The findings of this study will help make decisions concerning
the utilization of silicon photovoltaic cells in the United Kingdom. With a focus on the copper
supply chain, the research was conducted thorough comparative study of the environmental
effects associated with the life cycle of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems in this current study.
Two distinct scenarios were covered by the study. The first scenario was considered as the
environmental effects of using only primary copper that is sourced from Canada, and the second
was evaluating the dynamics of the global supply chain while using primary copper sources from
all over the world. The current study assumes that 50% of the copper which is used to produce
solar cells were derive form primary sources and rest of 50% were from secondary sources.
1.6 Limitations

The major limitation was the lack of data while conducting the study. Another limitation was that
the study mainly focused on the copper impact, which is a component of a silicon-based solar
panel. Another limitation was that this study focuses only on human and ecological impacts.
Obtaining accurate and up-to-date data can be a daunting task, particularly for complex and
global supply chains. Additionally, data gaps and uncertainties can introduce bias and affect the
reliability of LCA results. Moreover, LCAs often involve making assumptions and
simplifications to fill data gaps, which can introduce variability in the outcomes. It is crucial for
LCA practitioners to transparently communicate these limitations and uncertainties to ensure the
credibility and usefulness of the assessment results.
 LITRITURE REVIEW

2.1 A solar panel

Solar panels that are created to absorb sunlight to produce sustainable energy, such as electricity
or heat. Solar panels have become an increasingly popular option for the generation of electricity
in recent years. According to Raza et al. (2019), solar photovoltaic cells are defined as the
component that has the ability to produce electricity.

2.2 Mechanism of the Solar Panel

Silicon's four outermost electron shells are completely devoid of electrons. Sharing electrons
with neighboring atoms is an essential step on the path to bonding and crystallization for those
silicon atoms that lack an electron pair. Because of the way a crystal is structured, the electron
energy it contains can be separated into several different "energy bands. According to Shaikh
(2017), the valence band is where the electrons' energy is concentrated when the outer shell of a
silicon atom is transmitted. In a semiconductor, there is a gap called a bandgap that can be seen
between the valence band and the conduction band. The energy of the conduction band is greater
than the energy of the valence band. However, the level of conductivity of silicon is directly
proportional to the ease with which electrons are able to move throughout the material. A
semiconductor consisting of pure silicon would behave more like an insulator than a conductor
due to electrons being trapped within its crystalline structure. According to the definition
provided by Nogueira et al. (2015), an intrinsic semiconductor is one that does not have
impurities in its composition.

Silicon and other semiconductors are unable to conduct lead electricity because doing so would
require either expanding the conduction band or contracting the valence band. If silicon were
"doped" with an impurity, then this outcome is possible. Silicon can be "doped" with an element
like phosphorus, which has a full outer electron shell consisting of five electrons, to achieve the
desired result of filling the valence band with four electrons and the conduction band with five
electrons. After that, the valence band can be filled up to its maximum capacity. A negative
current is formed if additional electrons are permitted to freely move within the conduction band.
This results in the formation of an electron deficit. According to Shaikh (2017), this silicon
crystal has undergone the process necessary to become an n-type semiconductor.

Doping silicon can also be accomplished through the utilization of a chemical (such as boron)
whose atoms contain just three atoms in the outer shell of their nucleus. The valence band of the
silicon atom contains a "hole" because its outermost electron shell is missing four electrons,
which results in the band having a hole. This "hole" serves as a pathway for electrons to leave
their confined space. These voids generate a positive current by behaving in a manner that is
analogous to that of free electrons. According to Shaikh (2017), silicon is considered a p-type
semiconductor because it is capable of conducting large amounts of current.

Figure 03: Mechanism of a Solar Cell (https://shorturl.at/BHZ48)

2.3 A life cycle assessment

A previous definition of LCA was "life cycle analysis." The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and SETAC have all switched
from the qualitatively used "LCA" acronym of "Life Cycle Assessment" to the more quantitative
LCA. In place of life cycle assessment (LCA), the term "eco-balance" is frequently employed by
researchers in Europe and Japan; nevertheless, the two ideas may be basically interchanged with
one another. Because of the intricacy of the LCA technique and the diversity of the goals
pursued by different implementations, there are many vastly varying conceptualizations of the
LCA's fundamental principles and procedures. Even though the definition of LCA in the files
maintained by SETAC and ISO is subject to ongoing change, the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
technique has become more transparent as a result of ongoing research and development, in
particular the standardization work on LCA carried out by ISO (Monteiro Lunardi et al., 2017).

In 1993, the four fundamental phases of life cycle assessment (LCA) were also outlined: the life-
cycle inventory, the life-cycle impact analysis, the life-cycle improvement analysis, and the life-
cycle inventory once again. This framework continues to be utilized as the primary analytic
foundation for the process-based LCA technique. The following elaboration of the meaning of
the acronym "life cycle assessment" (LCA) is intended to serve as the primary objective of this
standard: According to Guideee (2012), "life cycle assessment" (LCA) "is the compilation and
evaluation of inputs, outputs, and potential environmental impacts of a product system
throughout its life cycle. The process of accumulating components that are connected to
resources and energy in order to carry out a certain function is referred to as a "product system"
in the world of business. The LCA standard treats the concept of "product" as interchangeable,
whether it is referring to production systems in the manufacturing sector or business systems in
the service sector. The term "life cycle" refers to the sequence of activities that occur across the
entirety of an industrial system, beginning with the procurement of raw materials and ending
with the disposal of waste.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, defines LCA as follows: "LCA is a
technique to assess the environmental aspects and potential impacts associated with a product,
process, or service by compiling an inventory of relevant energy and material inputs and
environmental releases, evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with identified
inputs and releases, and interpreting the results. LCA is a technique to assess the environmental
aspects and potential impacts associated with a product, process, or service. For their part, the
upper management at 3M makes use of the LCA concept, which they define as follows: "LCM is
a process for identifying and managing the environmental, health, safety, and regulatory impacts
and efficient use of resources in 3M products throughout their life cycle to guide responsible
design, development, manufacturing, use, and disposal. Additionally, Procter & Gamble was an
early user of LCA, beginning to use it as early as the 1980s to help guide their commercial
decisions. P&G views life cycle assessment (LCA) as a responsible approach to addressing the
environmental effects of their goods across the whole product life cycle, from product
conception to manufacture to distribution to consumption to disposal. This includes all stages of
the product's life cycle (Muteri et al., 2020).
 Figure 04: Impact assessment evaluation from LCA (https://rb.gy/22mja)

2.4 The Limitations of Life Cycle Assessment

Because life cycle assessment is just one of many tools used in environmental management, it is
not viable to depend entirely on the LCA method to solve all of the challenges that may come up
throughout the course of the decision-making process. However, the life cycle assessment does
not take into consideration any technological, economic, or social ramifications, such as quality,
performance, costs, profit, or public image, among other things; rather, it primarily covers the
natural environment, human health, resource consumption, and other aspects of environmental
issues. As a result, each process of decision-making has to incorporate a variety of approaches to
analysis as well as sources of information (Azzopardi et al., 2010).

Additionally, the LCA does not address all of the environmental issues that are significant. For
example, life cycle assessment (LCA) only considers the effects on the environment that have
already occurred or will occur in the future; it does not take into consideration all of the possible
threats to the environment or the requirement for emergency or preventative actions. In addition,
environmental legislation and regulation limits are not accounted for in the LCA method, despite
the crucial role that they play in the formulation of environmental policy and the decision-
making process for enterprises (Remmen, 2007).

The life cycle assessment (LCA) method of evaluation is not, strictly speaking, a scientific
procedure because it has parts that are subjective. In life cycle assessment (LCA), there is a
certain amount of subjectivity, choice, assumption, and value judgment involved in the
establishment of system boundaries, data sources, types of environmental damage, calculation
techniques, the evaluation process in environmental impact assessment, and other aspects of the
process, among other things. When attempting to define boundaries, circularity effects can
frequently be a source of difficulty. In other words, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to
do a life cycle assessment on a particular material or process without first performing such an
assessment on every other material and process that may possibly be involved. In the process of
determining the limits of a limited spectrum, researchers may make assumptions that might result
in truncation mistakes. This is true regardless of the scope or level of detail of the assessment
because all LCAs contain subjective factors such as hypotheses, value judgments, and trade-offs.
The conclusions of LCA require a full explanation to differentiate the information obtained by
assumptions and subjective judgments from the knowledge obtained by measurement using the
scientific method.

The original data and/or assessment findings provided by LCA are restricted in other respects as
well, such as with regard to time and geography. The applicability of the associated assessment
results is determined, in part, by the time period and geographic characteristics of the production
system. This is due to the fact that environmental data may differ within different time periods
and geographic scopes.

2.5 Life cycle assessments of solar cells

In the 2012s, scholars first started examining the lifespan of solar panels as well as their energy
outputs and impacts on the environment. The major objective of this research was to provide a
technique for determining how long it would take monocrystalline PV systems to recoup their
initial investment in terms of energy savings. According to the data, the energy payback period
for the ground silicon cell system is around 11.60 years (Hunt, 2012). Since 2005, a growing
corpus of research has been conducted on the energy requirements and environmental impacts of
PV systems, which has led to the discovery of several key results. The first-ever complete
assessment of the life cycle of silicon photovoltaic technology was carried out by Huber W.
(2005). He made the discovery that the only PV technology that is economically viable for
applications connected to energy is high-efficiency PV and that decreasing power consumption is
the most important factor in increasing the percentage of solar supply. By utilizing the life-cycle
assessment, Komiyama H. (1996) was able to compare the amounts of carbon dioxide emissions
produced throughout the construction of two solar cell power plants. Although Japan was
responsible for the production of the solar panels that were utilized in both of these power plants,
it was only responsible for the installation of one of the two battery components. It was
discovered that the emissions of carbon dioxide produced by the generation of energy in
Indonesia were lower than those produced in Japan. This was primarily attributable to the
abundance of solar energy resources in Indonesia.

Utilizing ideas from life cycle assessment, Kazuhiko Kato (2017) conducted an analysis of
silicon photovoltaic systems that were manufactured utilizing waste products from the
semiconductor industry. Using a photovoltaic (PV) system in a home with a capacity of 3
kilowatts (kW) as an illustration, he discovered that the amount of carbon dioxide emissions per
kilowatt-hour (kWh) was 91 grams, and the time it took to recover the energy was around 15.5
years when using recycled silicon.

Masakazu Ito (2003) carried out research into the practicability of large-scale solar systems from
both an economic and an environmental standpoint. Using the LCA method, the researcher was
able to determine the manufacturing costs of the system as well as the efficiency of the energy
recovery cycle and the rate of carbon dioxide emissions across the system's entire life cycle.
According to the findings of the study, the energy payback period, carbon dioxide emission rate,
and cost of electricity produced by a hypothetical large-scale solar power plant of 100 MW were
determined to be 1.7 years, 12 g/kWh, and 8.6 cents/kWh, respectively. This was done on the
assumption that the system would last for 30 years. The payback period that was discovered in
this study is reasonable, despite the fact that the rate of carbon dioxide emissions is substantially
lower than what is often seen. The results of these experiments in Japan are very diverse from
one another due to the magnitude and model of the solar power plants that were employed in the
inquiry. In addition, the three researchers' primary focus was on the CO2 emissions produced by
the projects during their whole life cycles. However, this does not take into account the great
majority of the environmental impacts that may potentially occur.

Krauter S. (2014) investigated the geographical origin of each component of a photovoltaic (PV)
system, as well as its mode of transportation, method of installation, method of operation, and
whether or not it was recyclable. In addition, the researcher took into account the possibility of
reusing raw materials, which made it possible to evaluate the extent to which the product's whole
life cycle presented a reduction opportunity for greenhouse gas emissions.

Kannan R. (2016) carried out research in the form of a case study on a solar photovoltaic system
in Singapore that had a capacity of 2.7 kilowatt hours. Within the context of this case study, the
researcher conducted an analysis of the energy recovery cycle, the potential for lowering
emissions of greenhouse gases, and the cost of the system. According to the findings of the
study, the solar photovoltaic system created just one-fourth of the amount of greenhouse gas that
the gas turbine-producing system did over the course of its entire life cycle (construction,
operation, and disposal). The price of electricity was five to seven times higher than the price of
energy produced by power plants that run on oil or gas. As a result of developments in
technology, the cost of electricity generated by a solar system is currently far lower than that.

Sergio Pacca (2017) conducted research on the rate of energy generation, the emissions of
carbon dioxide, and other aspects relating to the lifetime of solar systems. The intensity of solar
radiation, the position of components, and the efficiency with which solar radiation is converted
were all shown to have an effect on the findings of investigations.
The life cycle assessment (LCA) was performed on six different large-scale PV systems by
Masakazu Ito (2019). The analysis takes into account the process of extracting the fuel as well as
manufacturing, shipping, transmission, construction, and operation of the power plant. A
determination was also made on the rate of carbon dioxide emissions, in addition to the energy
recovery cycle of the system. It was discovered that large-scale solar thin-film battery systems
had a carbon dioxide emission rate of just 43–54 g CO2/kWh and an energy payback period of
only 1.8 years. This is very promising news.

2.6 Life cycle assessment for silicon-based solar

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a method that is both efficient and effective for studying the
positive effects that a product, process, or activity has on the surrounding environment. This is
accomplished by methodically identifying, measuring, and evaluating the impact of the utilized
energy and materials, as well as the wastes that are discharged into the environment. LCA
studies that are carried out in line with ISO standards (ISO 14040, 2006; ISO 14044, 2006) are
extremely beneficial to a variety of different endeavours, including the creation of new products,
the improvement of existing processes, eco-labelling projects, strategic planning, and consumer
education. Researchers from Europe and the United States have used the LCA technique to
discuss the environmental effects of multi-Si PV systems (Monteiro Lunardi et al., 2017). It has
been demonstrated that multi-Si PV power-producing systems offer a great deal of potential as a
solution to the energy crises and environmental concerns that are plaguing the globe today. With
the exception of the work done by Alsema and De Wild-Scholten (2005) and Koroneos et al.
(2006b), the majority of previous research has only looked at a limited fraction of the whole
spectrum of environmental consequences. This is the case with the exception of the work done
by Alsema and De Wild-Scholten (2005). Alsema and De Wild-Scholten (2005) used the CML
2000 model to present more than three categories, despite the hazy system boundaries that
existed at the time. These categories included abiotic depletion potential, global warming
potential, ozone layer depletion potential, photochemical oxidation potential, acidification
potential, and eutrophication potential. A taxonomy of ten different kinds of environmental
impacts generated by PV systems was presented by Koroneos et al. (2006b), all of which took
place during the production phase. Ito et al. (2003), Yue et al. (2014), and Fu et al. (2015) are
some of the few LCA case studies on PV systems based on regional data from China that have
been published in English and have been evaluated by experts in the field. Diao and Shi (2011)
and Fu (2013) carried out LCA research on photovoltaic (PV) systems. In order to compile their
study, Ito et al. (2003) relied significantly on inventory and relevant background data (including
PV modules, aluminium, copper, high-density polyethylene, epoxy resin, and polyvinyl
chloride). Diao and Shi (2011) and Fu (2013) used the a model to evaluate primary energy
demand as well as energy payback time and other environmental impact categories. On the other
hand, Yue et al. (2014) only evaluated energy and carbon emissions. However, the upstream
inventory data released in the works of Fu (2013), Fu et al. (2015), and Yue et al. (2014) were
mostly compiled using the ecoinvent database (2010), which only obliquely represents the reality
in China. Incomplete and underquantified national statistics data were utilised to build electricity
generation statistics (Zhao et al., 2013; Guan et al., 2012). These statistics may show that the
largest contributions of PV output to the total environmental burden come from the production of
photovoltaics (PV). The majority of research has chosen to focus instead on the benefits of
energy and global warming rather than on the effects of power generation based on coal.
Nevertheless, the environmental effects of the various means of generating electricity are rather
distinct from one another. Additionally, the production of multi-Si PV cells leads to
environmental difficulties due to the consumption of energy and raw materials. This transfer
occurs as a result of the manufacturing process.

2.7 Manufacturing processes of crystalline silicon PV modules

Quartz reduction, MG-silicon purification, manufacturing of EG-silicon or SoG-silicon, creation

of mono-Si or multi-Si crystals, wafer sawing, cell fabrication, and assembly of panels or
laminates are some of the primary operations. When silica sand is reduced in an arc furnace, an
impurity known as MG-silicon is produced. Following this, the MG-silicon can be purified into
EG-silicon by employing the Siemens process, or it can be purified into SoG-silicon by
employing a modified version of the Siemens approach or alternative techniques. In the Siemens
process, trichlorosilane (SiHCl3) and hydrogen (H2) gases are heated to temperatures between
1100 and 1200 degrees Celsius in a reactor chamber; in contrast, silane (SiH4) and hydrogen
(H2) gases are heated to temperatures between 800 and 900 degrees Celsius in the modified
Siemens process (McEvoy et al., 2012). As a result, the revised technique that Siemens
developed will result in a substantial cut in energy use. As a result of the recent meteoric
expansion of the PV industry, a modified version of the Siemens method is currently used to
manufacture the vast majority of the silicon required by the sector. In the past, the need for
silicon was satisfied by low-quality scraps from the electronics industry. The photovoltaic silicon
supply chain has historically relied more heavily on lower-grade silicon. However, according to
the most recent predictions, this percentage will slowly diminish over time (Chopra et al., 2004).

In order to create solar panels for the photovoltaic (PV) industry as it exists now, molten EG-
silicon, off-grade silicon, and SoG silicon will be poured into moulds. The Czochralski
technique, in which the developing crystal is progressively withdrawn from the molten Si
substrate, is required for mono-Si wafers; however, multi-Si wafers may immediately make use
of these polycrystalline blocks. After that, the silicon ingots are cut into columns using band
saws or wire saws, and the size of the cross section of each column is dependent on the size of
the final wafer. Assuming a thickness of 180–270 millimetres, the mono-Si columns are typically
sawn into square wafers with a dimension of 156 millimetres squared (0.0243 square metres).
Wafers that are manufactured from multi-Si columns have a thickness that ranges from 180–240
mm and measure around 156 mm2 (Lee et al., 2020, Wang et al., 2019, Han et al., 2019). Once
the wafer has been sawn, the following technologies are utilised in the manufacturing of cells:

 To begin, the surfaces of the wafers are washed in chemical baths as part of the etching
process. This is done in order to eliminate any minute damage as well as sawn pieces.
  Doping the wafers is the next stage in the process of constructing a photoactive PN
junction. This phase comes after the etching of the wafers. The use of phosphorus in
doping is prevalent.
 Metallization is required whenever screen printing is performed on both sides of a wafer.
This is so that electrons can be collected.
 In the last process, an anti-reflection coating is applied to the front in order to increase the
amount of light that passes through and the amount of output.
 Check the electrical properties of the completed cell as well as its efficiency. This is the
fifth and final step (Bishop et al., 2020).

After the photovoltaic (PV) panel or laminate has been constructed, the solar cells are initially
submerged in one of two layers of ethyl-vinyl acetate (EVA), one of which is designated for the
front of the panel and the other for the rear. This step serves the purpose of shielding the solar
cells from the damaging effects of the elements and other external conditions. The front cover of
the EVA is reinforced with low-iron glass with a thickness of between 1 and 3 millimetres, while
the back cover is reinforced with Tedlar film. A machine that applies pressure and heat to the
joints in the sandwich panel helps to clean the panel, and it also helps to isolate the joints. PV
lamination, on the other hand, may be erected without the need for any additional framing or
support, in contrast to PV panels, which must have an external aluminium frame in order to be
both rigid and easy to install. Before they are finally packed, the panels and laminates are put
through quality assurance testing one more time (Kant and Singh, 2022).

2.8 Main phases of solar cell production

Polysilicon is a rod- or bead-shaped form of high-purity, fine-grained crystalline silicon. Its

production Polysilicon is a rod- or bead-shaped form of crystalline silicon. Metallurgical-grade
silicon, which may be acquired from quartz sand, is used in the production of polysilicon, which
is then combined with hydrogen and chlorine to complete the chemical synthesis. Polysilicon is
created using methods that rely on highly reactive gases. A heated silicon filament is moved
through a gaseous mixture of silicon, hydrogen, and chlorine in the Siemens process. This action
breaks molecular bonds and deposits silicon atoms, which eventually develop into a giant U-
shaped polysilicon rod. Because the cycle is closed, individual atoms of both hydrogen and
chlorine can be reused. The ultra-pure polymer is protected from contamination by a silicon
filament. The tiny silicon beads can also be put at the base of an inverted cone-shaped jar, which
is then filled to the brim with a gas mixture consisting of silicon and hydrogen. This causes the
beads to rise to the top of the container. When silicon atoms deposit on the beads, it causes them
to become too heavy to float. This causes the beads to sink to the bottom of the tank, where they
can be collected. When the vessel is heated, the bonds between the silicon and the hydrogen are
broken, which is the first step in the process (Mufti et al., 2020, Su et al., 2019).

In order to begin the process of casting ingots and wafers, polysilicon must initially be liquefied
by being melted into a molten state. A huge cylindrical ingot of monocrystalline silicon may be
produced by putting a small crystalline seed on the surface of a liquid and then gently pushing it
upward. This will provide the desired effect. The Czochralski technique is the name given to this
particular procedure. In the process of directed solidification, the liquid mass is cooled down
progressively until it begins to solidify from the bottom up. This results in an ingot that is
composed of big grains of multi-crystalline silicon. Diamond-coated wire saws are used in the
process of sawing wafers from silicon ingots. The term "sawdust" is referred to as "kerf" in the
silicon industry. Both plucking cooled layers from a molten bath of silicon and utilising gaseous
silicon compounds to deposit a thin layer of silicon atoms onto a crystalline template in the shape
of a wafer may be used to create kerfless wafers. Kerfless wafers can also be manufactured by
employing a molten bath of silicon and plucking cooled layers from it (Meng et al., 2019).

The next procedure, which is referred to as the cell production process, calls for the utilisation of
silicon wafers in order to manufacture solar cells. The first thing that has to be done is to
chemically texturize the surface of the wafer so that saw damage can be repaired and solar
radiation absorption can be increased. The next steps might look very different depending on the
architecture of the device. In order to attain maximum performance from the majority of cell
types, the wafer has to be subjected to a gas that contains an electrically active dopant, and the
surfaces of the wafer need to be coated with layers. Screen-printed silver metallization is
frequently employed in a wide variety of cells throughout the body for the purpose of making
electrical connections (Smith et al., 2014).

In a facility that specialises in module assembly, a technique known as "tabbing and stringing" is
used to connect the silver busbars on the front of one cell to the back of a neighbouring cell. This
technique makes use of copper ribbons that have been coated with solder. On the reverse side of
the polymer encapsulant that has been coated onto the glass substrate, the linked cell network has
been laid out. After that, a second layer of encapsulant as well as a resilient polymer backsheet or
a cover made of glass is put on top of the cells. After the layers have been laminated in an oven
to make them watertight, subsequent steps include attaching the module's aluminium frame, edge
sealant, and junction box. Ribbons are linked to diodes in the junction box, which prevents
electricity from flowing in the wrong direction and destroys the diodes if it does. The junction
box of the module is where the current begins its journey to either another module or the power
electronics of the system (Pagliaro et al., 2008).

2.9 Life cycle energy requirement of PV modules

In order to do a life cycle analysis, a crystalline silicon PV system is required previously using
technology that was present at the time to estimate the total energy usage for manufacturing
silicon solar cells from raw materials of SiO2, researchers claimed that the energy payback
period for terrestrial cells was 12 years, while for space cells it was 24 years. This information
was based on an analysis of the total energy required to produce silicon solar cells from SiO2
raw materials. The amount of energy that was consumed throughout the fabrication of PV
modules on French industrial assembly lines was measured (Muteri et al., 2020). An
investigation was conducted to determine the amount of energy needed to create greenhouse gas
emissions, develop PV plants, and manufacture PV modules. According to a research in order to
assess the impact that the multi-Si PV module had on the surrounding environment. 1145 kW
ht/m2 is the amount of energy that is "embodied" in a multi-Si module, with the cell being
responsible for 970 kW ht/m2 and the frame being responsible for 175 kW ht/m2 (Nwaigwe et
al., 2019).

Chantana et al. studied the overall energy needs of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules
using a variety of different scenarios to determine how energy should be allocated throughout the
manufacture of silicon wafers. According to the findings, the total amount of energy that is
projected to be required by a mono-Si PV module can range anywhere from 4160 MJ/m2 to
15520 MJ/m2, depending on which allocation strategy is used (Chantana et al., 2019). It was
concluded that the most effective strategy in their instances would be to allocate mass, with a
total energy consumption of around 11670 MJ/m2. Alsema et al. collected data from numerous
energy analysis studies to produce a ''best guess'' condition in order to analyse the differences
between the mono-Si and multi-Si modules with regard to the embedded energy requirements of
the modules. This was done in order to examine the differences between the mono-Si and multi-
Si modules. The most difficult and resource-intensive aspect of manufacturing crystalline silicon
modules was the processing of the silicon feedstock. Both conservative and aggressive estimates
were provided in order to provide an accurate determination of the amount of energy needed for
the production of mono-Si and multi-Si photovoltaic (PV) modules based on the several methods
available for the manufacture of silicon feedstock. The lower energy estimate is more realistic
than the higher one for near-future technologies since standard electronic-grade silicon would be
too costly and may not be adequate for PV applications. Because of this, specialised silicon
purification methods would be required. Under the low estimate scenario, the required amount of
energy for mono-Si modules was 6000 MJ/m2, whereas the required amount of energy for multi-
Si modules was 4200 MJ/m2. Crystalline silicon photovoltaic module energy needs were once
expected to fall somewhere in the range of $2,400 to $7,000 per square metre for multi-Si
modules and $5,300 to $16,500 per square metre for mono-Si modules. Wafer thickness and
wafering loss are examples of process characteristics that might be contributing factors to these
variations. The majority of the discrepancies were due to inaccurately estimated needs for the
amount of energy needed for the silicon purification and crystallisation processes. The overall
energy needs of multi-Si and mono-Si frameless modules were anticipated to be 4,200 and 5,700
MJ/m2, respectively. This was accomplished by discounting the specifically necessary process
steps for the manufacturing of microelectronic wafers and making use of the lowered estimations
for the process's energy consumption. Although a mono-Si module has better conversion
efficiency than a multi-Si module, it does have a little drawback in the form of the higher energy
intensity needed for crystallisation. This results in slightly lower overall efficiency.

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Goal and Scope Definition

The fundamental goal of this research is to uncover and evaluate the effects that solar
technologies, such as solar PV and the influence of copper, which is extensively utilized in this
industry, have had and continue to have on the surrounding environment. Because of this, the
research makes use of a method known as life cycle assessment (LCA). Using life cycle
assessment (LCA), one is able to swiftly and easily determine the effects that a given product,
process, or system has on the surrounding environment. Just a few of the various uses of life
cycle assessment (LCA) include impact evaluation, sensitivity analysis, and sustainability
evaluation. In order to carry out this life cycle assessment (LCA), the ISO standards 14040:2006
and 14044:2006 will be utilized. Using the modelling software SimaPro, this research looked
into the potential impacts that using copper to generate solar electricity could have on both the
environment and people. In order to carry out a life-cycle analysis (LCA), it is necessary to first
create a life-cycle inventory (LCI) of both types of solar technology.

This investigation will be carried out so that a greater understanding can be gained regarding the
impact that the utilization of copper in silicon solar cells has had on the natural environment. The
lifespan of a solar cell for production of 1 MW is considered as the Functional Unit for this
study. After that, both the human and environmental repercussions can be analyzed. Right now,
the United Kingdom has set a target for reducing the amount of emissions it produces. The
findings of this study will be helpful in making decisions concerning the utilization of silicon
photovoltaic cells in the United Kingdom.

3.2 Boundaries and the Process Flow Diagram

LCA, scope, and objectives are established first. The major objective of this LCA is to assess the
effects of copper, which is used in PV cells. When doing an LCA, consideration is given to both
the gate-to-grave process and the
3.3 Life-Cycle Inventory

Creating a life-cycle inventory is the second step in doing a life-cycle analysis (LCA). When
compiling the LCA inventory, in addition to taking into account the materials and energy
required for production, the process also takes into account any emissions that are produced.
Figure 5 illustrates the complicated energy and material fluxes that are generated by systems.
Solar technology necessitates the transportation of raw materials to a facility, the production of
essential goods inside that facility, the transportation of those essential goods to the location of
the solar plant, the construction of the plant, the operation of the plant, and the disposal of waste.
The picture makes it very evident that there is a cycle of inputs and outputs at each level of the
operation. For the purpose of determining copper's effects, the researchers documented every
stage of their participants' lives, from birth to death. The examination of the inventory will make
use of a few different databases.

3.3.1 Calculation of average solar power requirements

Table 3.3.1.1: - Power requirement for solar panels (Life Cycle Inventories and Life Cycle
Assessments of Photovoltaic Systems 2020 Task 12 PV Sustainability, n.d)

Rated power in Wp per square meter of

195 180 160 180
module
Module efficiency in percent 19.50% 18.00% 16.00% 18.00%
Module area for 3kWp PV systems in square
15.4 16.7 18.8 16.7
meter
Module area for 570kWp PV systems in 2923 3167 3563 3167
 square meter

Average rate power per square meter for silicon solar cells = (195+180)/2

= 187.5 W per Square meter

Average area for produce 1 Mw = 1MW / 187.5 W per Square meter

= 5333.33 m2

3.3.2 Calculating the annual yield of sunlight for the UK

Table 3.3.2.1: - Power requirement (Life Cycle Inventories and Life Cycle Assessments of
Photovoltaic Systems 2020 Task 12 PV Sustainability, n.d)

Avg.
Irradiation
fixed
optimally
tilted
(pop- Yield Yield Yield
weighted) rooftop façade centralized
Average
Yield
kWh/ kWh/ kWh/ kWh/ kWh/
Country
(m2a) (kWp∙a) (kWp∙a) (kWp∙a) (kWp∙a)
Australia 1’914 1’254 1’240 868 1’314

Austria 1’389 1’042 1’044 731 1’111

Belgium 1’203 913 908 635 962
Canada 1’554 1’216 1’173 821 1’243
Chile 2’124 1’698 1’603 1’122 1’699
China 1’631 1’010 971 679 1’029
Czech
1’251 962 944 661 1’001
Republic
Denmark 1’287 982 971 680 1’030
Finland 1’181 886 891 624 945
France 1’441 988 968 678 1’026
Germany 1’222 932 922 645 978
Greece 1’753 1’348 1’323 926 1’402
Hungary 1’445 1’111 1’090 763 1’156
Ireland 1’055 811 796 557 844
Israel 2’247 1’754 1’695 1’187 1’798
Italy 1’720 1’340 1’298 908 1’376
Japan 1’578 1’041 1’024 717 1’086
Korea 1’770 1’187 1’129 790 1’197
Malaysia 1’766 1’380 1’332 933 1’413
Mexico 2’136 1’694 1’612 1’128 1’709
Netherlan
1’242 961 937 656 994
ds
New
1’644 1’255 1’240 868 1’315
Zealand
Norway 1’103 827 832 583 882
Portugal 1’891 1’480 1’427 999 1’513
South
2’166 1’717 1’634 1’144 1’733
Africa
Spain 1’886 1’503 1’423 996 1’509
Sweden 1’218 916 919 643 974
Switzerla
1’467 975 976 683 1’040
nd
 Thailand 1’903 1’506 1’436 1’005 1’522
Turkey 1’839 1’471 1’388 971 1’471
United
1’128 864 848 593 899
Kingdom
USA 1’796 1’448 1’401 981 1’485

The annual yield of sunlight per square meter = 1128kWh

The average area for producing 1 Mw = 5333.33 m2

Total yield per annual = 1128kWh × 5333.33 m2

=
6015996.24 kWh

Table 3.3.2.2: - Power requirement for Solar panels (Life Cycle Inventories and Life Cycle
Assessments of Photovoltaic Systems 2020 Task 12 PV Sustainability, n.d)

Rated power in Wp per square meter of

195 180 160 180
module
Module efficiency in percent 19.50% 18.00% 16.00% 18.00%
Module area for 3kWp PV systems in
15.4 16.7 18.8 16.7
square meter
Module area for 570kWp PV systems in
2923 3167 3563 3167
square meter

Average efficiency of silicon-based solar cells = (19.50 + 18.00) /2

= 18.75%

Total solar power that is harvested by the solar panels per year = 6015996.24 kWh × 18.75%
 = 1127999.320 kWh

Total solar power that is harvested by the solar panels per year = 1127.999 MWh

3.3.3 Calculating copper weight factor

Table 3.3.3.1 – Weight percentages of the main materials that have been used to produce
solar panels (Life Cycle Inventories and Life Cycle Assessments of Photovoltaic Systems
2020 Task 12 PV Sustainability, n.d)

Photovoltaic module
(laminate/unframed and
Material panel/framed)
Mono- Multi-
CI(G)S CdTe
Si Si
PVPS PVPS Jungblut PVPS
Source Task 12 Task 12 h et Task 12
2020 2020 al. 2012 2020
Subtotal wafer /
5.20% 5.58% 0.06% 0.15%
semiconductor
Lamina

unfram

silicon for
5.20% 5.58% 0.00% 0.00%
te/

photovoltaics
silane, at plant 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
indium 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00%
Wafer /
cadmium
semiconduct 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.14%
telluride
or
 cadmium
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
sulphide
gallium 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00%
selenium 0.00% 0.00% 0.04% 0.00%
Subtotal metals 1.47% 1.46% 0.55% 0.09%
aluminium 0.38% 0.38% 0.00% 0.00%
aluminium,
0.00% 0.00% 0.30% 0.00%
production mix
aluminium
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
alloy
copper 0.93% 0.93% 0.07% 0.08%
lead 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00%
molybdenum 0.00% 0.00% 0.04% 0.00%
silver 0.03% 0.03% 0.00% 0.00%
Metals steel 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
chromium steel 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01%
tin 0.12% 0.12% 0.08% 0.00%
zinc oxide 0.00% 0.00% 0.06% 0.00%
brazing solder 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
soft solder 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Subtotal plastics 13.41% 13.35% 12.20% 3.28%
ethylvinylacetat
7.94% 7.90% 5.05% 2.38%
e
polyvinylfluori
1.01% 1.01% 0.00% 0.00%
de film
polyvinylbutyra
0.00% 0.00% 1.27% 0.00%
l foil
polyphenylene
0.00% 0.00% 0.58% 0.00%
sulfide
polyethylene
terephthalate, 3.13% 3.12% 2.26% 0.00%
PET
polyethylene,
Plastics 0.22% 0.21% 0.33% 0.00%
HDPE
packaging film,
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
LDPE
glass fibre
reinforced
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.67%
plastic,
polyamide
silicone product 1.11% 1.10% 2.72% 0.23%
synthetic rubber 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Subtotal solar glass 79.93% 79.61% 87.19% 96.48%
 flat glass 0.00% 0.00% 35.43% 46.75%
Solar glass
solar glass 79.93% 79.61% 51.76% 49.73%
Subtotal metals panel 19.27% 19.20% 14.79% 2.03%
Pane
l/ aluminium
Metals 19.27% 19.20% 14.79% 2.03%
alloy
100.00 100.00 100.00
Total laminate/unframed 100.00%
% % %
119.27 119.20 102.03
Total panel/framed 114.79%
% % %
Total weight in kg per square meter of
11 11.1 14.9 16
unframed module
Rated power in Wp per square meter of
195 180 160 180
module
Module efficiency in percent 19.50% 18.00% 16.00% 18.00%
Module area for 3kWp PV systems in
15.4 16.7 18.8 16.7
square meter
Module area for 570kWp PV systems in
2923 3167 3563 3167
square meter

Total weight of an unframed module kg per square meter = 11 kg per square meter

The average area required to produce 1 Mw is = 5333.33 m2.

Total weight of an unframed module to produce 1 Mw = 11kg per square meter × 5333.33
m2
=
58666.66 kg

Copper weight factor = 0.93%

The system's copper weight is equal to 58666.66 × 0.93 / 100.

545.6 kg

Table 3.3.3.2 – Weight percentages of other materials that have been using to produce solar
panels (Life Cycle Inventories and Life Cycle Assessments of Photovoltaic Systems 2020
Task 12 PV Sustainability, n.d)
 Products Unit Amount Comment
Nominal
Inverters + input
p 1
Transformers power 1
MW DC
Materials
Total Steels kg 9792 weight
of the aluminum kg 894 system
copper kg 2277
= Total weight
polyamide
of an injection kg 485
molded
polyester Kg 300
Polyethylene,
Kg 150
HD
Paint Kg 150
Transformer
oil Kg 6001
(vegetable)
unframed module for produce 1 Mw + other material weight

=
58666.66 kg + (9792+894+2277+485+300+150+150)

= 72714.67 kg

Table 3.3.3.2 – Weight percentages of copper which is used for produce batteries cables
and other conductive materials (Life Cycle Inventories and Life Cycle Assessments of
Photovoltaic Systems 2020 Task 12 PV Sustainability, n.d)

on-roof ground ground

Type of system or in-
PhönixSonnenstrom Springerville
roof
Products Unit Amount Amount Amount Remarks
per m2
DC Cabling m2 1 1 1
module area
Materials/
fuels
Copper kg 0.1 0.62 0.64 2.2 m DC
 cable and
0.1 m AC
cable
TPE =
Thermoplastic
elastomer kg 0.06 0.25 0.48
Electricity
electricity,
medium kWh 0 0 0 unknown
voltage
Emissions unknown
Waste to
Unknown
treatment

The average area required to produce 1 Mw is 5333.33 m2.

Calculating total copper in thermoplastic elastomer = 0.06 kg per square meter × 5333.33 m2

Total copper in thermoplastic elastomer = 319.9998kg

The total weight of copper in the 1 MW system is 545.6 kg.

Total weight of copper in the solar system;

Total weight of copper of the 1 MW system + total copper in thermoplastic elastomer + total
copper in rooftop installation

Total weight of copper in the solar system = 545.6 kg + 319.9998 kg + 2277kg

= 3355.933333kg

Copper weight factor;

Total weight of the copper / total weight of the system × 100

Copper weight factor (CWF) = 3355.93333kg / 72714.67 kg ×100

= 4.165
3.3.4 Method Distance
Copper ores to Harbor By lorries 600km
Canada to Europe by ship by ship 8300km
From Harbor to Component
Manufacturing by lorries 100
Transportation of the copper

Under this section discuss about the transportation of the copper. There were two scenarios used
in the transportation only for the primary copper. In both cases secondary copper came from
Europe- also considering total copper weight 50%-primary copper, 50% of secondary copper

Scenario one: - Copper transport from Europe to Canada

Table 3.3.4.1: - Transport distances of Copper from Europe to Canada

Scenario two: - Copper transport from Rest of the world

Table 3.3.4.2: - Transport distances of Copper from rest of the world

By lorries 100km
Europe to London by ship By ship 800km
Harbor to Assembling point lorries 50km
 3.3.5 Solar cell manufacturing process

Figure 3.3.5.1: - Basic steps of solar cell manufacturing (Krebs-Moberg et al., 2021)

Under this scenario water and the electricity were inputs for each and every step in the
production process waste water were the main waste for this process.

3.3.6 Calculation of total electrify consumption for production of the solar cells

Under the production phase discuss about the water and electricity consumption for the
production of solar cells. The production phase was considered as the start to end of production
of the solar cells.

Table 3.3.6.1: - Transport distances of Copper from Europe to Canada (Krebs-Moberg et

al., 2021)

Amoun
Component Silicon Amount Organic Perovskite Amount
t
Substrate Glass (kg) 6750 PET (g) 74 Glass (g) 1.54
Aluminum
Frame 1090 e e
(kg)
Front
Silver (g) 28.8 FTOþ (g) 1.8 ITOþ (g) 0.43
electrode
Electron
e e ZnO (g) 45.9
Transport
Active Silica
2.87 PCBM (g) 0.235 PbI2 (g) 1.38
layer Sand (g)
 Graphite
0.129 P3HT (g) 0.205 CH3NH3Iþ (g) 0.14
(g)
Hole spiro-
e MnO3þ (g) 0.24 0.85
Transport OMeTADþ (g)
Back Aluminum Aluminum Silver pasteþ
883 0.995 1.19
Electrode (g) (g) (g)
Lamination e PET (g) 133 PET (g) 61.7
Silicon
Energy Annealing Substrate
production 149.26 5.13 1.74
Consumption (MJ) patterning (MJ)
(kWh)
Silicon
Component Chemical
production 81.94 2.56 2.931
printing (MJ) deposition (MJ)
(kWh)
Cell Cathode
Lamination
production 28.67 0.085 evaporation 11.7
(MJ)
(kWh) (MJ)
Module
Encapsulation
construction 2.32 0.0148
(MJ)
(kWh)

Total electricity consumption for production of the silicon solar cell per square meter;

(Electricity for Silicon production + Electricity for cell production + Electricity for Module
construction)

= 149.26 + 81.94+ 28.67+ 2.32 kWh per square meter

Total electricity consumption for production of the silicon solar cells;

262.19 kWh × CWF × Average area for produce 1 Mw

Total electricity consumption for production of the silicon solar cells

262.19 kWh × 4.165 × 5333.33 m2

Total electricity consumption for production of the silicon solar cells = 1398346.67 kWh

Total Electricity consumption in MWh = 1398.346 MWh

3.3.7 Water consumption for silicon solar cell manufacturing

 Water Consumption- 1kw in Kg
Figure 3.3.7.1: - Basic Silicon Production 230 steps of solar cell
manufacturing (Hong et multi-wafer production 3750 al., 2016)
Glass production 0.49
Photovolatic cell 2730
total (kg) 6710.49

Table 3.3.7.1: - Total Water consumption for solar cell manufacturing

Total Water consumption for 1Mwh = 6710490 kg

Total Water consumption for copper = 6710490 kg × CWF

= 309703.09kg

3.3.8 Solar cells assembling

Under this section discusses the assembling of the solar cells. Under the assembling discuss
about the assembling of the solar cells to the respective area after the production of the cells.

Table 3.3.8.1: - Inputs for Solar cell assembling and dissembling (Stoppato, 2008)
Area of 60 cells solar module = 1.7 m2

Average electricity for assembling and dissembling for one square meter = (20+25) / (2×1.7)
kWh

Average electricity for assembling and dissembling one square meter = 13.2351 kWh

Total Electricity for 1MW solar system = Average electricity for assembling and dissembling
one square meter × Average area for producing 1 Mw

Total Electricity for 1MW solar system = 13.2351 kWh ×5333.33 m2

=
70588.24 kWh

Total Electricity for copper = Total Electricity for 1MW solar

system × CWF

Total Electricity for copper = 3257.794 kWh

3.3.9 Use phase

Under the use phase discuss the assembling to dissembling point degradation. A 25-year lifetime
was assumed to the selected solar cells. The degradation was considered under this section.

Table 3.3.9.1: - Degradation coefficients of the solar cells (Krebs-Moberg et al., 2021)
 Panel Characteri Curr Projec
Type stic ent ted
efficiency
Silicon 19.9 23
(%)
lifetime
25 25
(years)
Degradati
0.91 0.91
on (%/year)
Active
95 95
area (%)
Organi efficiency
8.7 15
c (%)
lifetime
5 5
(years)
Degradati
1.38 1.38
on (%/year)
Total Estimated Active degradation through
100 100
area (%)
25years = Degradation
Perovs efficiency
coefficient × 11.6 23 Lifetime of the
kite (%)
system lifetime
5 5
(years)
Degradati
1.38 1.38
on (%/year)
= 0.91 Active × 25
70 70
area (%)

= 22.75

Estimated total electricity (kwh) = Total Estimated degradation through 25years ×

Total Electricity for solar system production of copper

= 1398346.67 kWh × 22.75

= 318123.87 kWh

Water consumption = Total Estimated degradation through 25years × Total Water consumption
for copper

= 309703.09kg × 22.75
 = 70457.453 kg

3.3.10 Dissembling phase

Under this phase discuss the dissembling of the solar cells from the respective areas. This section
discusses the electricity consumption for the dissembling of the solar cells. It was assumed that
the amount of energy needed to decommission the components would be equal to the amount
needed to assemble them.

Table 3.3.8.1: - Inputs for Solar Cell Dissembling (Stoppato, 2008)

Area of 60 cells solar module = 1.7 m2

Average electricity for assembling and dissembling for one square meter = (20+25) / (2×1.7)
kWh

Average electricity for assembling and dissembling one square meter = 13.2351 kWh
Total Electricity for 1MW solar system = Average electricity for assembling and dissembling
one square meter × Average area for producing 1 MW

Total Electricity for 1MW solar system = 13.2351 kWh ×5333.33 m2

=
70588.24 kWh

Total Electricity for copper = Total Electricity for 1MW solar

system × CWF

Total Electricity for copper = 3257.794 kWh

3.3.11 Recycling phase

Under this phase discuss the recycling of the material inside the solar cells. This section
discusses the transportation and the energy requirements for the recycling of the material in solar
cells.

Table 3.3.10.1: - Inputs for the recycling phase (Latunussa et al., 2016)
Total electricity needed for 1 kg of solar system = 0.11355 kWh

Total electricity needed for recycling of 1 MW unit = 0.11355 kWh × Total weight of copper in
solar system

= 0.11355 kWh × 3355.933333

= 8256.75 kWh

For Copper = 8256.75 kWh × CWF

= 381.0662

Diesel for Transportation

Total Diesel needed for 1 kg of solar system = 1.14 /1000 L

Total diesel needed for 1 MW unit = 1.14kg × Total weight of copper in the solar system

= 1.14 /1000 L× 3355.933333

= 82.89472 L

For Copper = 82.829472 L × CWF

 = 3.82576 L

Calculation of water

Total water needed for 1 kg of solar system = 0.30971 kg

Total electricity needed for recycling of 1 MW unit = 0.30971 kg× Total weight of copper in
solar system

= 0.90971 kg × 3355.933333

= 2252.46 kg

For Copper = 2252.46 kg× CWF

= 1039.366 kg

3.4 Impact assessment

SimaPro LCA software PhD version 9.4.0.3 was used to conduct the life cycle impact
assessment. All impact categories of the ReCiPe mid-point (H) were taken into the calculation
process. For LCA researchers, the impact assessment method ReCiPe was developed. It is one
of the latest and most advanced assessment techniques available. This approach converts a wide
range of environmental consequences into three end-point categories: human health, ecosystems,
and natural resources.
 Figure 5: Impact assessment of two Scenario

3.5 Summary

The researchers have analyzed past studies related to the topic Based on the past studies the
researcher has developed a method and documented it in this study based on previous work done
by different authors.
 Interpretation

4.1 Primary Copper from Canada to Europe

Table 4.1.1: - Impact assessment for primary copper came from Canada to Europe

Impact category Unit Total

Global warming kg CO2 eq 666259.772

Stratospheric ozone depletion kg CFC11 eq 0.37724246

Ionizing radiation kBq Co-60 eq 24901.8675

Ozone formation, Human health kg NOx eq 1282.9348

Fine particulate matter formation kg PM2.5 eq 1262.22394

Ozone formation, Terrestrial ecosystems kg NOx eq 1294.78533

Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq 3217.58354
Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 91.5910371

Marine eutrophication kg N eq 8.04322029

Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DCB 1381968.6

Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DCB 490.617003

Marine ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DCB 1346.94874
 Human carcinogenic toxicity kg 1,4-DCB 4290.48695
Human non-carcinogenic toxicity kg 1,4-DCB 266105.084
Land use m2a crop eq 20874.3877
Mineral resource scarcity kg Cu eq 2337.25436

Fossil resource scarcity kg oil eq 183100.377

Water consumption m3 13421.803

Global
warming
potential

The Global
Warming
Potential (GWP)
is
acknowledged as a
legitimate LCA
category, as
demonstrated by
research and
methods that make
its
computation
possible. In the course
of the
investigation into the
possibilities of climate
change, making
use of CO2
equivalent expressed either in kilotons or in tonnes. Carbon dioxide is frequently used as a stand-
in for all other greenhouse gases when the topic of the effects of greenhouse gases on Earth is
being discussed. This gives us the "greenhouse potential equivalent" of the gas. The degree to
which the various gases in the atmosphere are reactive or stable is what determines how long the
effects of this phenomenon continue. While the production of the vast majority of greenhouse
gases is directly attributable to the burning of fossil fuels in power plants, certain industrial
processes can result in the unintentional release of some of these gases. Process emissions are
frequently neglected because it can be difficult to precisely model all of the phases in a
manufacturing process. This can make it challenging to reduce emissions from the process.
According to the findings of the study, one megawatt of electricity produced by a household
solar power system has a global warming potential that is similar to 666259.772 kg CO2 eq; this
is the amount of CO2 that is created when copper is used to construct solar cells.

Stratospheric ozone depletion

The ozone layer acts as a screen that protects Earth from the dangerous ultraviolet B (UV-B)
radiation that is emitted by the sun. The loss of this resource has detrimental repercussions, not
just on plants but also on humans, including an increased likelihood of developing skin cancer.
The CFC-11 equivalency per kilogramme, also known as the kg CFC-11 eq, is the unit of
measurement to evaluate the possible impact of a substance on the depletion of the ozone layer.
One kg CFC-11 eq is comparable to eleven kilogrammes of trichlorofluoromethane, also known
as Freon-11 and R-11. Because trichlorofluoromethane is measured in kilogrammes, the effects
of each component are thus reported as a percentage of that mass. Copper, the major material in
solar panels, was shown to contribute 0.37724246 kg CFC11 eq to the depletion of stratospheric
ozone throughout the process of producing 1 megawatt (MW) of electricity from a residential
solar power system.

Ionizing radiation
Radioactivity, also known as ionising radiation, has the potential to harm a person's health when
they are exposed to it. When calculating the ecological footprint of a corporation, out-of-the-
ordinary emission levels are ignored as a factor in the calculation. Kilobecquerels are the unit of
measurement for the activity of cobalt-60, which is used to illustrate the potential threat that
various types of ionising radiation pose to human health. According to the findings of the study,
copper, an essential component of the solar panel, was subjected to an average of 24901.8675
kBq equivalent of carbon-60 radiation during the entirety of the process of generating 1 MW of
power from a residential solar system.

Ozone formation

Ground-level (tropospheric) ozone (O3) is dangerous because it breaks down organic molecules
in living organisms and makes breathing more difficult when it is present in metropolitan areas
during periods of high photochemical smog. During this process, the creation of ozone resulted
in the equivalent production of 1282.9348 kg of NOx.

Fine particulate matter formation

This indicator determines the degree to which emissions of particulate matter (PM) and its
precursors, such as nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide, have an effect on human health. The
more deeply that tiny particles are able to penetrate into the respiratory system, the greater the
risk that they offer. For the purpose of quantifying the possible repercussions, the rate of rise or
reduction in the incidence of illness per kilogramme of PM2.5 emissions is utilised. This strategy
resulted in the production of fine particulate matter that was comparable to 1262.22 kilogrammes
of PM2.5.

Acidification
There is a connection between the acidity of the ocean and the extinction of fish populations and
coniferous trees. Emissions that find their way into the atmosphere, water, and earth all
contribute to the process of acidification. Combustion processes are responsible for almost all
emissions. These processes are used to generate power, heat buildings, and transport people and
things. The majority of the acid rain issue may be attributed to the burning of fuels that are high
in sulphur content. The production of one megawatt (MW) of electricity by a residential solar
power system acidified copper, a crucial component of the solar panel, by a total of 3217.58
kilogrammes equivalent to sulphur dioxide.

Eutrophication, freshwater

The process of eutrophication, which occurs as a direct consequence of the use of chemicals that
include nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), is detrimental to the health of ecosystems. It is possible
for fish to perish due to a lack of oxygen in the water if the growth of algae is not managed. The
vast majority of nitrogen pollution seen in aquatic environments originates from the use of
fertilisers in agricultural practises and in activities involving combustion. Standardisation of
compounds that have the potential to affect the eutrophication of freshwater is done in terms of
kilogrammes of phosphorus equivalent, or kg P eq. Copper, a main component in the solar panel,
contributed 91.59 kg P eq to the eutrophication of fresh water throughout the whole process of
generating 1 MW of power from a residential solar system. This figure accounts for the total
amount of copper used in the solar panel.

Eutrophication marine

The process of eutrophication, which occurs as a direct consequence of the use of chemicals that
include nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), is detrimental to the health of ecosystems. The
availability of one of these nutrients will most likely be a limiting factor in the ecosystem, and
the introduction of that nutrient will drive the growth of algae or certain plant species. The
introduction of nitrogen (N) into the marine environment is mostly to blame for this
phenomenon. Even though combustion processes do contribute to atmospheric nitrogen oxides,
the use of nitrogen fertilisers in agricultural settings is a considerably higher contributor. When
referring to compounds that have the potential to add to the eutrophication of marine
environments, the standard unit of measurement is the kilogramme of nitrogen equivalent (kg N
eq). Copper, a primary component of solar panels, contributed 8.04 kg N equivalent to the
eutrophication of marine water over the entirety of the process of producing 1 megawatt (MW)
of electricity from a residential solar power system.

Terrestrial Ecotoxicity

The sum of the ecotoxicity of an ecosystem's individual habitats is the measure of that
ecosystem's overall level of ecological toxicity. An ecotoxicity level of 1381968 kg 1,4-DCB is
associated with the production of 1 MW of energy from a residential solar system on Earth.

Ecotoxicity of marine and freshwater

The environmental destiny, the ecological exposure, the effect of ecotoxicity, and the harm
produced by ecotoxicity are the four different impact pathways that are associated with
ecotoxicity. The ecotoxicity effect factor describes the potential ecotoxicity effects associated
with a given amount of dissolved chemical mass, exposure describes the relationship between
dissolved and total chemical mass in the environment, the damage factor describes the potential
effects on the quality of the ecosystem, and fate describes the distribution and transformation of
chemicals in the environment. Copper, which is a fundamental component of solar panels, has an
ecotoxicity of 490.617 kg 1,4-DCB during the whole process of generating 1 MW of power from
a home solar array. In comparison, the ecotoxicity of solar panels on their own is 1346.94 kg 1,4-
DCB. Freshwater Copper is an essential component of solar panels.
Human carcinogenic toxicity

The primary focus of this indicator is on the ways in which humans are exposed to
environmental contaminants via their respiratory, digestive, and excretory systems. According to
the findings, 1,4-DCB is responsible for the annual production of 4,290.48 kilogrammes' worth
of cancer in individuals.

Human non-carcinogenic toxicity

The primary focus of this indicator is on the ways in which humans are exposed to
environmental contaminants via their respiratory, digestive, and excretory systems. It was
discovered that 1,4-DCB in humans had a non-carcinogenic toxicity level of 266105.08 kg.

Land Use

Putting an area of land to use for a certain purpose, such as agriculture, industry, residential
development, or mining. The extinction of species, a reduction in the amount of organic matter in
the soil, and the loss of soil due to erosion are all possibilities. The land use was 20874.38 m2 of
crop equivalent.

Use of Water
The 'depletion' of water resources may be caused by the withdrawal of water from bodies of
water such as lakes, rivers, and groundwater. If the information is readily accessible, the category
of effect will be expanded to include consideration of the accessibility of water in the areas
where the activity will take place. The amount of water measured in cubic metres (m3) is used to
illustrate the possible impact on the regional water supply. During the entirety of the procedure,
an approximate volume of 13421.80 m3 of water was utilised.

Fuel usage

On our planet, humans have access to a limited quantity of nonrenewable resources such as coal,
oil, and natural gas. The essential notion that underpins this kind of effect is that the current rate
at which resources are harvested will, at some point in the future, be slowed down or otherwise
altered. Keep consuming fossil fuels at the pace we are right now, there is a good chance that
future generations won't be able to use any. Copper, which is utilised in the creation of silicon
solar panels, has a high production cost in terms of energy, coming in at 183100.37 kg of oil
equivalent.

Minerals and metals

This impact category follows the same line of reasoning as resource utilization and it is based on
the concept that future generations will have to extract a resource of a lower value. There are
approximately 2337.25 kilogrammes worth of copper equivalent scattered over the entire planet.

4.2 Primary Copper from worldwide

 Table 4.2.1: - Impact assessment for primary copper came from Worldwide

Impact category Unit Total

Global warming kg CO2 eq 703207.141

Stratospheric ozone depletion kg CFC11 eq 0.39290136

Ionizing radiation kBq Co-60 eq 25126.3936

Ozone formation, Human health kg NOx eq 1517.34974

Fine particulate matter formation kg PM2.5 eq 1352.98976

Ozone formation, Terrestrial ecosystems kg NOx eq 1530.55715

Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq 3638.45644

Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 90.6464496

Marine eutrophication kg N eq 7.03997566

Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DCB 9203689.98

Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DCB 451.292726

Marine ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DCB 4688.59008

Human carcinogenic toxicity kg 1,4-DCB 6573.17414

Human non-carcinogenic toxicity kg 1,4-DCB 600140.409

Land use m2a crop eq 22471.4527

Mineral resource scarcity kg Cu eq 2962.03402

Fossil resource scarcity kg oil eq 194669.702

Water consumption m3 13507.6905

Scenario two of this assessment was about the primary copper coming from the rest of the world.
According to the findings the global warming potential the around 703207.141 kg CO2 eq for
copper which is used in solar cells that came from worldwide. The value was much higher than the
primary copper that came from Canada. Stratospheric ozone depletion was 0.3929 kg CFC11 eq. it is also
higher than the primary copper that came from Canada. All the other impact categories also higher than
the copper which is came from Canada. This is mainly due to the distance difference of the transportation.
Ionizing radiation, Ozone formation, Human health, and Fine particulate matter formation values were
25126.39 kBq Co-60 eq, 1517.34kg NOx eq and 1352.98 kg PM2.5 eq.

4.3 Comparative analysis

Table 4.3.1: - Comparative Impact assessment for primary copper came from Worldwide
and Canada

Scenario 2-
Primary Scenario 1 -
copper coming Primary
from Copper coming
Impact category Unit worldwide from Canada

Global warming kg CO2 eq 703207.1404 666259.7719

Stratospheric ozone depletion kg CFC11 eq 0.392901357 0.377242458

kBq Co-60
Ionizing radiation eq 25126.39357 24901.86743

Ozone formation, Human health kg NOx eq 1517.349744 1282.934802

Fine particulate matter formation kg PM2.5 eq 1352.989758 1262.223936

Ozone formation, Terrestrial ecosystems kg NOx eq 1530.557152 1294.78533

Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq 3638.456441 3217.583537

 Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 90.64644959 91.59103708

Marine eutrophication kg N eq 7.039975657 8.043220287

Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DCB 9203689.98 1381968.601

Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DCB 451.2927269 490.6170045

Marine ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DCB 4688.590078 1346.948742

Human carcinogenic toxicity kg 1,4-DCB 6573.17413 4290.48695

Human non-carcinogenic toxicity kg 1,4-DCB 600140.4088 266105.0837

Land use m2a crop eq 22471.4527 20874.38766

Mineral resource scarcity kg Cu eq 2962.034033 2337.254356

Fossil resource scarcity kg oil eq 194669.702 183100.3765

Water consumption m3 13507.69055 13421.80296

Table 4.3.1 discusses the comparison and contrast of the environmental implications of Scenario
2 (primary copper supplied from across the world) and Scenario 1 (primary copper produced
from Canada) is performed using the material that is provided. The geographic location from
which basic copper is supplied has important consequences for both the maintenance of a healthy
environment and the administration of available resources. In this study, we analyse and contrast
two potential future scenarios for the acquisition of primary copper: one that employs primary
copper sourced only from Canada, and another that utilises primary copper sourced from all
around the world. Both of these future scenarios are plausible. We investigate the effects each
scenario has on the environment, classifying the outcomes according to the appropriate heading.

Global warming

Scenario 2, which has emissions of 703,207.14 kg CO2 equivalent, is more likely to contribute to
the warming of the planet than Scenario 1, which has emissions of 666,259.77 kg CO2
equivalent. The production of primary copper from sources located all over the world results in a
larger amount of carbon emissions. When making decisions about the supply chain, it is essential
to take into account the emissions caused by transportation, since they might be a contributor to
this rise when copper is transported and processed from a variety of places.

Stratospheric Ozone Depletion and Ionizing Radiation

In each scenario, the impacts of ozone depletion and ionizing radiation are not nearly as severe
as one might expect. When determining where to get copper, Canada and all over the world are
both feasible possibilities that have little to no effect on the previously listed categories.

Air Quality and Health

Both ozone and fine particulate matter emissions are harmful to people's health, and Scenario 2
has significantly higher emissions of both than Scenario 1. This shows that the global supply
chain for copper may represent a larger danger to human health and the quality of the air in local
communities. A global sourcing plan could incorporate more advanced technology for emission
management, in addition to other preventative measures, to lessen the impact of these
repercussions.

Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems

The global network of production and distribution of copper contributes to more toxicity of the
Earth's surface, eutrophication of its water supply, and acidification of its oceans. This illustrates
that obtaining copper from a source other than Canada may have more negative consequences on
the ecosystems of both land and water. The intensity of these effects might potentially be
lessened via the implementation of mining and waste management practices that are friendly to
the environment.

Toxicity and Ecotoxicity

The ecotoxicity values of Scenario 2 are much greater than those of Scenario 1 in all
environments, including on land, in freshwater, and in the ocean. The human population is put in
a more dangerous position as a result of Scenario 2. The fact that the sourcing of primary copper
in different parts of the world may have significant effects on both the health of people and the
environment brings to light the significance of environmentally responsible mining practices and
the regulation of pollution.

Resource Use

The amount of resources, such as arable land, natural gas, and coal, that are used is significantly
higher in Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 1. This points to an increasing demand for resources
all along the global supply chain, which might make the shortages that are now present even
worse.

Summary of the comparison

In conclusion, making a decision between importing primary copper from all over the world
(Scenario 2) or from Canada (Scenario 1) has significant negative consequences on the
environment across a range of impact categories. A rise in carbon emissions, air and water
pollution, and considerable resource utilisation are some of the negatives of having a worldwide
supply chain. However, the benefits of having a global supply chain include having more
alternatives and possibly having lower pricing. Before making a final decision, decision-makers
in industry and government should take into account the effects that different sources of copper
have on the surrounding environment. In order to develop solutions for responsible copper
sourcing, it is vital to evaluate the full scope of the effects that might occur throughout the life
cycle.
 CONCLUISONS AND RECOMDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions

Because it has been demonstrated that the use of copper in silicon solar cells has a detrimental
impact on the natural environment, this research was carried out to gain further insight into the
implications of these findings. The whole life cycle of a solar panel with a capacity of 1 MW that
was set up on domestic houses has been a concern. It was decided that the solar system would
continue to exist for another 25 years. After that, we may consider how the event impacted
individuals in addition to the natural world. Two stages of copper were observed in this study.
The first scenario was that the copper came from Canada. Second, copper came from the rest of
the world. The impact assessment was done based on two scenarios. Eighteen impact categories
have been observed in this study. According to the findings in scenario 1, the global warming
potential for the copper in solar cells was 39414.3144 kg CO2 eq. The stratospheric ozone
depletion for the entire process of producing 1 MW of electricity from a domestic solar system
was 0.03321508 kg CFC11 eq for the copper. Ionising radiation for the entire process of
producing 1 MW of electricity from a domestic solar system was 17462.8766 kBq Co-60 eq for
the copper. The ozone formation for the process was 168.97 kg NOx eq. The fine particulate
matter formation for the process was 336.93 kg PM2.5 eq. Acidification for the entire process of
producing 1 MW of electricity was 880.325 kg SO2 eq for the copper. The eutrophication of
fresh water was 192.897 kg P eq for copper. The human carcinogenic toxicity, according to the
results, was 8740.64 kg 1,4-DCB. The water usage for the process was around 834.8 m3. In
scenario two, the copper came from the rest of the world. Due to the different distances, the
impact was higher than in scenario 1.
5.2 Recommendations

There is an impact of copper on the environment and human beings when it is used in silicon-
based solar cells. However, the findings show that copper exported from Canada has a lower
impact than copper exported from other parts of the world. Therefore, the impact can be reduced
by using the primary copper, which is exported from Canada.

5.3 Future Works

This study mainly focuses on the primary copper used in solar cells. More studies need to be
conducted on secondary copper, which is used for the manufacturing of solar panels. More
studies need to be conducted to identify the potential impact of other elements used in the
production of solar panels.
References

1. Akinyele, D.O., Rayudu, R.K. And Nair, N.K.C. (2017). Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Of Photovoltaic Power Generation From Crystalline Silicon-Based Solar Modules In
Nigeria. Renewable Energy, 101, Pp.537–549.
Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Renene.2016.09.017.
2. Azzopardi, B., Mutale, J. J. R. & Reviews, S. E. 2010. Life Cycle Analysis For Future
Photovoltaic Systems Using Hybrid Solar Cells. 14, 1130-1134.
3. Bishop, J. E., Smith, J. A., Lidzey, D. G. J. A. A. M. & Interfaces 2020. Development Of
Spray-Coated Perovskite Solar Cells. 12, 48237-48245.
4. Chantana, J., Nishimura, T., Kawano, Y., Suyama, N., Yamada, A., Kimoto, Y., Kato, T.,
Sugimoto, H. & Minemoto, T. J. A. E. M. 2019. Aging Effect Of A Cu (In, Ga)(S, Se) 2
Absorber On The Photovoltaic Performance Of Its Cd‐Free Solar Cell Fabricated By An
All‐Dry Process: Its Carrier Recombination Analysis. 9, 1902869.
5. Chopra, K., Paulson, P., Dutta, V. J. P. I. P. R. & Applications 2004. Thin‐Film Solar
Cells: An Overview. 12, 69-92.
6. Colasante, A., D’adamo, I. And Morone, P. (2022). What Drives The Solar Energy
Transition? The Effect Of Policies, Incentives And Behavior In A Cross-Country
Comparison. Energy Research & Social Science, 85, P.102405.
Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Erss.2021.102405.
7. Ferrari, M. And Cirisano, F. (2020). High Transmittance And Highly Amphiphobic
Coatings For Environmental Protection Of Solar Panels. Advances In Colloid And
Interface Science, 286, P.102309. Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Cis.2020.102309.
8. Fu, Y., Liu, X. And Yuan, Z. (2015). Life-Cycle Assessment Of Multi-Crystalline
Photovoltaic (Pv) Systems In China. Journal Of Cleaner Production, 86, Pp.180–190.
Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Jclepro.2014.07.057.
9. Fukurozaki, S.H., Zilles, R. And Sauer, I.L. (2013). Energy Payback Time And Co2
Emissions Of 1.2 Kwp Photovoltaic Roof-Top System In Brazil. International Journal Of
Smart Grid And Clean Energy, 2(2), Pp.164–169.
Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.12720/Sgce.2.2.164-169.
10. Han, Y. W., Jeon, S. J., Lee, H. S., Park, H., Kim, K. S., Lee, H. W. & Moon, D. K. J. A.
E. M. 2019. Evaporation‐Free Nonfullerene Flexible Organic Solar Cell Modules
Manufactured By An All‐Solution Process. 9, 1902065.
11. ‌Hong, J., Chen, W., Qi, C., Ye, L. And Xu, C. (2016). Life Cycle Assessment Of
Multicrystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cell Production In China. Solar Energy, 133,
Pp.283–293. Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Solener.2016.04.013.
12. Hou, G., Sun, H., Jiang, Z., Pan, Z., Wang, Y., Zhang, X., Zhao, Y. And Yao, Q. (2016).
Life Cycle Assessment Of Grid-Connected Photovoltaic Power Generation From
Crystalline Silicon Solar Modules In China. Applied Energy, 164, Pp.882–890.
Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Apenergy.2015.11.023.
13. Huang, B., Zhao, J., Chai, J., Xue, B., Zhao, F. And Wang, X. (2017). Environmental
Influence Assessment Of China’s Multi-Crystalline Silicon (Multi-Si) Photovoltaic
Modules Considering Recycling Process. Solar Energy, 143, Pp.132–141.
Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Solener.2016.12.038.
14. Kant, N. & Singh, P. J. M. T. P. 2022. Review Of Next Generation Photovoltaic Solar
Cell Technology And Comparative Materialistic Development. 56, 3460-3470.
15. Kim, B., Lee, J., Kim, K. And Hur, T. (2014). Evaluation Of The Environmental
Performance Of Sc-Si And Mc-Si Pv Systems In Korea. Solar Energy, 99, Pp.100–114.
Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Solener.2013.10.038.
16. ‌Krebs-Moberg, M., Pitz, M., Dorsette, T.L. And Gheewala, S.H. (2021). Third
Generation Of Photovoltaic Panels: A Life Cycle Assessment. Renewable Energy, 164,
Pp.556–565. Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Renene.2020.09.054.
17. Krebs-Moberg, M., Pitz, M., Dorsette, T.L. And Gheewala, S.H. (2021). Third
Generation Of Photovoltaic Panels: A Life Cycle Assessment. Renewable Energy, 164,
Pp.556–565. Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Renene.2020.09.054.
18. Kumar, A. And Melkote, S.N. (2020). A Fracture Mechanics Approach To Enhance
Product And Process Sustainability In Diamond Wire Sawing Of Silicon Wafers For
Solar Cells Through Improved Wire Design. International Journal Of Sustainable
Manufacturing, 4(2/3/4), P.186. Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1504/Ijsm.2020.107133.
19. Kumar, V., Pandita, S., Singh Sidhu, G.P., Sharma, A., Khanna, K., Kaur, P., Bali, A.S.
And Setia, R. (2021). Copper Bioavailability, Uptake, Toxicity And Tolerance In Plants:
 A Comprehensive Review. Chemosphere, 262, P.127810.
Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Chemosphere.2020.127810.
20. Laseinde, O.T. And Ramere, M.D. (2021). Efficiency Improvement In Polycrystalline
Solar Panel Using Thermal Control Water Spraying Cooling. Procedia Computer
Science, 180, Pp.239–248. Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Procs.2021.01.161.
21. ‌Latunussa, C.E.L., Ardente, F., Blengini, G.A. And Mancini, L. (2016). Life Cycle
Assessment Of An Innovative Recycling Process For Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic
Panels. Solar Energy Materials And Solar Cells, 156, Pp.101–111.
Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Solmat.2016.03.020.
22. Latunussa, C.E.L., Ardente, F., Blengini, G.A. And Mancini, L. (2016). Life Cycle
Assessment Of An Innovative Recycling Process For Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic
Panels. Solar Energy Materials And Solar Cells, 156, Pp.101–111.
Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Solmat.2016.03.020.
23. Lee, H., Song, H.-J., Shim, M., Lee, C. J. E. & Science, E. 2020. Towards The
Commercialization Of Colloidal Quantum Dot Solar Cells: Perspectives On Device
Structures And Manufacturing. 13, 404-431.
24. Life Cycle Inventories And Life Cycle Assessments Of Photovoltaic Systems 2020 Task
12 Pv Sustainability. (N.D.). Available At:
Https://Treeze.Ch/Fileadmin/User_Upload/Downloads/Publications/Case_Studies/
Energy/Iea-Pvps-Lci-Report-2020-20201208.Pdf.
25. Maani, T., Celik, I., Heben, M.J., Ellingson, R.J. And Apul, D. (2020). Environmental
Impacts Of Recycling Crystalline Silicon (C-Si) And Cadmium Telluride (Cdte) Solar
Panels. Science Of The Total Environment, 735, P.138827.
Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Scitotenv.2020.138827.
26. Markert, E., Celik, I. And Apul, D. (2020). Private And Externality Costs And Benefits
Of Recycling Crystalline Silicon (C-Si) Photovoltaic Panels. Energies, 13(14), P.3650.
Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.3390/En13143650.
27. Mcevoy, A., Castaner, L. & Markvart, T. 2012. Solar Cells: Materials, Manufacture And
Operation, Academic Press.
28. Melskens, J., Van, Macco, B., Black, L.E., Smit, S. And Wilhelmus M. M. Kessels
(2018). Passivating Contacts For Crystalline Silicon Solar Cells: From Concepts And
 Materials To Prospects. Ieee Journal Of Photovoltaics, 8(2), Pp.373–388.
Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1109/Jphotov.2018.2797106.
29. Meng, X., Zhang, L., Xie, Y., Hu, X., Xing, Z., Huang, Z., Liu, C., Tan, L., Zhou, W. &
Sun, Y. J. A. M. 2019. A General Approach For Lab‐To‐Manufacturing Translation On
Flexible Organic Solar Cells. 31, 1903649.
30. Monteiro Lunardi, M., Wing Yi Ho‐Baillie, A., Alvarez‐Gaitan, J. P., Moore, S., Corkish,
R. J. P. I. P. R. & Applications 2017. A Life Cycle Assessment Of Perovskite/Silicon
Tandem Solar Cells. 25, 679-695.
31. Monteiro Lunardi, M., Wing Yi Ho-Baillie, A., Alvarez-Gaitan, J.P., Moore, S. And
Corkish, R. (2017). A Life Cycle Assessment Of Perovskite/Silicon Tandem Solar Cells.
Progress In Photovoltaics: Research And Applications, 25(8), Pp.679–695.
Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1002/Pip.2877.
32. Mufti, N., Amrillah, T., Taufiq, A., Diantoro, M. & Nur, H. J. S. E. 2020. Review Of
Cigs-Based Solar Cells Manufacturing By Structural Engineering. 207, 1146-1157.
33. Mundaca, L. And Samahita, M. (2020). What Drives Home Solar Pv Uptake? Subsidies,
Peer Effects And Visibility In Sweden. Energy Research & Social Science, 60, P.101319.
Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Erss.2019.101319.
34. Muteri, V., Cellura, M., Curto, D., Franzitta, V., Longo, S., Mistretta, M. And Parisi,
M.L. (2020). Review On Life Cycle Assessment Of Solar Photovoltaic Panels. Energies,
13(1), P.252. Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.3390/En13010252.
35. Muteri, V., Cellura, M., Curto, D., Franzitta, V., Longo, S., Mistretta, M. & Parisi, M. L.
J. E. 2020. Review On Life Cycle Assessment Of Solar Photovoltaic Panels. 13, 252.
36. Nogueira, C.E.C., Bedin, J., Niedzialkoski, R.K., De Souza, S.N.M. And Das Neves,
J.C.M. (2015). Performance Of Monocrystalline And Polycrystalline Solar Panels In A
Water Pumping System In Brazil. Renewable And Sustainable Energy Reviews, 51,
Pp.1610–1616. Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Rser.2015.07.082.
37. Nwaigwe, K., Mutabilwa, P. & Dintwa, E. J. M. S. F. E. T. 2019. An Overview Of Solar
Power (Pv Systems) Integration Into Electricity Grids. 2, 629-633.
38. Omazic, A., Oreski, G., Halwachs, M., Eder, G.C., Hirschl, C., Neumaier, L., Pinter, G.
And Erceg, M. (2019). Relation Between Degradation Of Polymeric Components In
Crystalline Silicon Pv Module And Climatic Conditions: A Literature Review. Solar
 Energy Materials And Solar Cells, [Online] 192, Pp.123–133.
Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Solmat.2018.12.027.
39. Pagliaro, M., Ciriminna, R., Palmisano, G. J. C. C., Energy, S. & Materials 2008.
Flexible Solar Cells. 1, 880-891.
40. Peng, J., Lu, L. And Yang, H. (2013). Review On Life Cycle Assessment Of Energy
Payback And Greenhouse Gas Emission Of Solar Photovoltaic Systems. Renewable And
Sustainable Energy Reviews, [Online] 19, Pp.255–274.
Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Rser.2012.11.035.
41. Raimundo, R., Lameirinhas, R.A.M., Fernandes, C.A.F. And Torres, J.P.N. (2021).
Comparative Analysis Of Organic And Inorganic Solar Cells. [Online] Ieee Xplore.
Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1109/Conf%E2%84%A1e50222.2021.9435499.
42. Raza, H.A., Riaz, M.T., Idrees, M., Afzal, M.M., Hashmi, W.S. And Asif, M.W. (2019).
Analysis The Effect Of 500kv High-Voltage Power Transmission Line On The Output
Efficiency Of Solar-Panels. [Online] Ieee Xplore.
Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1109/Icecce47252.2019.8940803.
43. Schmidt, J., Peibst, R. And Brendel, R. (2018). Surface Passivation Of Crystalline Silicon
Solar Cells: Present And Future. Solar Energy Materials And Solar Cells, 187, Pp.39–54.
Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Solmat.2018.06.047.
44. Schrantz, A., Rice, J., Buddelmeyer, K., Litzenberger, S., August, D. And Lampman, P.
(2022). Odrc Photovoltaic Solar Field Installation. Kb.Osu.Edu. [Online] Available At:
Https://Kb.Osu.Edu/Handle/1811/101463 [Accessed 3 Jun. 2023].
45. Shaikh, M.R.S. (2017). A Review Paper On Electricity Generation From Solar Energy.
Dspace.Khazar.Org. [Online] Available At:
Http://Dspace.Khazar.Org/Handle/20.500.12323/4326.
46. Smith, D. D., Cousins, P., Westerberg, S., De Jesus-Tabajonda, R., Aniero, G. & Shen,
Y.-C. J. I. J. O. P. 2014. Toward The Practical Limits Of Silicon Solar Cells. 4, 1465-
1469.
47. ‌Stoppato, A. (2008). Life Cycle Assessment Of Photovoltaic Electricity Generation.
Energy, [Online] 33(2), Pp.224–232. Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Energy.2007.11.012.
 48. Stylos, N. And Koroneos, C. (2014). Carbon Footprint Of Polycrystalline Photovoltaic
Systems. Journal Of Cleaner Production, 64, Pp.639–645.
Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Jclepro.2013.10.014.
49. Su, B., Chen, H., Zhu, Y., Liu, W., Liu, K. J. I. T. O. I. & Measurement 2019.
Classification Of Manufacturing Defects In Multicrystalline Solar Cells With Novel
Feature Descriptor. 68, 4675-4688.
50. Wang, P., Wu, Y., Cai, B., Ma, Q., Zheng, X. & Zhang, W. H. J. A. F. M. 2019.
Solution‐Processable Perovskite Solar Cells Toward Commercialization: Progress And
Challenges. 29, 1807661.
51. Xue, B., Li, F., Song, M., Shang, X., Cui, D., Chu, J. And Dai, S. (2021). Crack
Extraction For Polycrystalline Solar Panels. Energies, 14(2), P.374.
Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.3390/En14020374.
52. Zhang, T., Iqbal, S., Zhang, X.-Y., Wu, W., Su, D. And Zhou, H.-L. (2020). Recent
Advances In Highly Efficient Organic-Silicon Hybrid Solar Cells. Solar Energy Materials
And Solar Cells, 204, P.110245. Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Solmat.2019.110245.