Covid-19 Research

Research Article

Towards Reduced Solar PV Industry Waste: A Feasibility Assessment of Novel Ownership Models

Journal of Biomedical Research & Environmental Sciences article abstract with citation details, DOI, publication dates, subject areas, full text links, and references.

View DOI Submit Manuscript

Article Details

Publication record, authors, dates, abstract, and full text access.

Open Access
Article Type Research Article
Subject Environmental Sciences
OCLC 9528717440
Luke Fagan, Mary Harty, Josephy Sweeney and Kevin P McDonnell*
Issue: Volume3-Issue5
Pages: 595-601
Received: 2022-04-15
Accepted: 2022-05-21
Published: 2022-05-24

Abstract

Since 2010, solar Photovoltaic (PV) has been the single fastest growing power generation technology worldwide. However, given that the useful lifetime of a PV installation currently stands at 25 years and that current industry End-of-Life (EOL) management techniques, focus primarily on recycling and disposal, it has been estimated that by 2050, there will exist 78 million tonnes of hazardous solar PV waste.

One potential solution that could aid in mitigating this impending environmental crisis, is determining whether or not the lifetime of commercial and residential solar PV installations can be elongated from the industry standard of 25 years to 50 years. Two novel solar PV ownership models, “The Cascading Tiered Commercial Ownership model” (CTCO) and “The Elongated Residential Ownership model” (ERO) have been created by projecting the technical outputs and economic Net Present Values (NPV) of a 60 kwp commercial and 4.8 kWp residential installation operated over a 50 as opposed to 25 year period.

As expected, the Business as Usual (BAU) model which required that the commercial residential installations be decommissioned and replaced at 25 years, produced more energy over a 50 year period than both lifetime elongation models. However, the cascading tiered ownership model and the elongated residential ownership model had an NPV that was higher than the BAU model. Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) analysis identified that a rate of more than €0.25 per kWh would be required for the BAU model to be favoured, while the rate of module degradation favoured the elongated ownership model for all rates under 2% per year. Alterations to the FIT at 25 years assuming preference for environmentally sustainable business models, led to a greater disparity in results in favour of the novel ownership models. Irradiation levels only favoured the BAU ownership model when in excess of 1750 kWh/m2. Altogether, the projected technical output of both hypothesised ownership models suggests that elongation of PV system lifetime is economically advantageous and should be considered as a viable alternative to other models in both commercial and residential market segments.

FullText HTML FullText PDF DOI: 10.37871/jbres1485 Crossmark

Certificate of Publication

Certificate of Publication

Copyright

© 2022 Fagan L, et al. Distributed under Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 Creative CommonsAttribution

How to cite this article

Fagan L, Harty M, Sweeney J, McDonnell KP. Towards Reduced Solar PV Industry Waste: A Feasibility Assessment of Novel Ownership Models. J Biomed Res Environ Sci. 2022 May 24; 3(5): 595-601. doi: 10.37871/jbres1485, Article ID: JBRES1485, Available at: https://www.jelsciences.com/articles/jbres1485.pdf

Subject area(s)

Natural Resource Management

References

  1. Kannan N, Vakeesan D. Solar energy for future world: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2016;62:1092-1105. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.022.
  2. Schou P. Polluting non-renewable resources and growth. Environmental and Resource Economics. 2000;16(2):211-227. doi: 10.1023/A:1008359225189.
  3. Hoffmann W. PV solar electricity industry: Market growth and perspective. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells. 2006;90(18):3285-3311. doi: 10.1016/j.solmat.2005.09.022.
  4. Crago CL, Koegler E. Drivers of growth in commercial-scale solar PV capacity. Energy Policy. 2018;120:481-491. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.047.
  5. IEA. 2020.
  6. https://www.iea.org/
  7. Shin J, Park j, Park N. A method to recycle silicon wafer from end-of-life photovoltaic module and solar panels by using recycled silicon wafers. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells. 2017;162:1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.solmat.2016.12.038.
  8. Huang P, Negro SO, Hekkert MP, Bi K. How China became a leader in solar PV: An innovation system analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2016;64:777-789. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.06.061.
  9. IRENA. End-of-Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels. 2017.
  10. https://tinyurl.com/v7x9e974
  11. Tao J, Yu S. Review on feasible recycling pathways and technologies of solar photovoltaic modules. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cell. 2015;141:108-124. doi: 10.1016/j.solmat.2015.05.005.
  12. Chowdhury MS, Rahman KS, Chowdhury T, Nuthammachot N, Techato K, Akhtaruzzaman M, Tiong SK, Sopian K, Amin N. An overview of solar photovoltaic panels end-of-life material recycling. Energy Strategy Reviews. 2020;27:100431. doi: 10.1016/j.esr.2019.100431.
  13. Dias PR, Benevit MG, Veit HM. Photovoltaic solar panels of crystalline silicon: Characterization and separation. Waste Management & Research. 2016;34(3):235-245. doi: 10.1177/0734242X15622812.
  14. Abreu J, Wingartz N, Hard Ny. New trends in solar: A comparative study assessing the attitudes towards the adoption of rooftop PV. Energy Policy. 2019;128(C):347-363. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.12.038.
  15. Mokhtar M, Wagdy R, Abouelatta M, IA. Design of PV modules including a layer between solar cells and glass cover to increase pv module lifetime. International Journal of Computer Applications. 2018;182(19):18-23. doi: 10.5120/ijca2018917950.
  16. Baker-Brown D. The re-use atlas: A designer's guide towards the circular economy. London: RIBA Publishing; 2017.
  17. https://tinyurl.com/2p96ecuj
  18. Salim K, Stewart RA, Sahin O, Dudley M. Drivers barriers and enablers to end-of-life management of solar photovoltaic and battery energy storage systems: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019;211:537-554. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.229.
  19. Tomosk S, Haysom JE, Wright D. Quantifying economic risk in photovoltaic power projects. Renewable Energy. 2017;109:422-433. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2017.03.031.
  20. Karneyeva Y, Wüstenhagen R. Solar feed-in tariffs in a post-grid parity world: The role of risk, investor diversity and business models. Energy Policy. 2017;106:445-456. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.04.005.
  21. Osterwalder A, Pigneur Y, Clark T, Smith A. Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. 1st ed. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley; 2010. p.288.
  22. https://tinyurl.com/mrfeutnv
  23. Sica D, Malandrino O, Supino S, Testa M, Lucchetti MC. Management of end-of-life photovoltaic panels as a step towards a circular economy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2018;82:2934-2945. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.039.
  24. Building Research Establishment Ltd (BRE), National calculation methodologies for energy rating of dwellings (SAP/RdSAP), on behalf of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) 2016.
  25. Solar Quotes. 2020.
  26. https://tinyurl.com/mr4xaxmx
  27. Solar GIS. 2020.
  28. https://tinyurl.com/2evvajtf
  29. Jordan DC, Silverman TJ, Sekulic B, Kurtz SR. National Renewable Energy Lab, GCO. PV degradation curves: Non-linearities and failure modes. Progress in photovoltaics. 2017;25(7):583-591. doi: 10.1002/pip.2835.
  30. Quansah DA, Adaramola MS. Ageing and degradation in solar photovoltaic modules installed in northern Ghana. Solar energy. 2018;173:834-847. doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2018.08.021.
  31. Quintana MA, King DL, Hosking FM, Kratochvil JA, Johnson RW, Hansen BR, Dhere NG, Pandit MB. Diagnostic analysis of silicon photovoltaic modules after 20-year field exposure. IEEE. 2000;1420-1423. doi: 10.1109/PVSC.2000.916159.
  32. Sánchez-Friera P, Piliougine M, Peláez J, Carretero J, Sidrach de Cardona M. Analysis of degradation mechanisms of crystalline silicon PV modules after 12 years of operation in Southern Europe. Progress in photovoltaics. 2011;19(6):658-666. doi: 10.1002/pip.1083.
  33. Vignola F, Peterson J, Kessler R, Mavromatakis F, Dooraghi M, Sengupta M. Use of pyranometers to estimate PV module degradation rates in the field. IEEE. 2016;116-1021. doi: 10.1109/PVSC.2016.7749764.
  34. Eurostat. 2020.
  35. https://tinyurl.com/2w82a59a
  36. Wade A, Stolz P, Frischknecht R, Heath G, Sinha P, National Renewable Energy Lab, GCO. The Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) of photovoltaic modules-lessons learned from the environmental footprint pilot phase on the way to a single market for green products in the European Union. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications. 2018;26(8):553-564. doi: 10.1002/pip.2956.
Publish with JBRES — Peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary Open Access with rapid review, DOI, and global visibility.
Double-Blind CrossRef DOI Discoverable
Submit Manuscript Membership