Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: an implementation to photovoltaic modules
Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: an implementation to photovoltaic modules
复制标题
迈向生命周期可持续性评估：光伏组件的实施
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Finkbeiner
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Traverso;F. Asdrubali;A. Francia;M. Finkbeiner
本论文的主要目的是通过生命周期可持续评估(LCSA)和生命周期可持续发展仪表板(LCSD)的开发，对光伏组件生产装配工序进行首次可持续性评估，以比较不同光伏组件的可持续生命周期评估结果。通过一个案例研究，说明了康文署的适用性和实用性。结果表明，在涉及不同利益相关者、具有不同知识和背景的决策过程中，LCSA可以被认为是一种有价值的工具。康乐文化署是一个以介绍康乐及文化事务署研究为目的的应用程序。生命周期评价包括生命周期评价(LCA)、生命周期成本计算和社会生命周期评价(S-LCA)。结果和讨论根据基于生态指标99的生命周期评价结果，例如，德国模块的土地利用[1.77潜在消失分数(PDF)m2/年]和酸化(3.61 PDF m2/年)低于意大利模块(土地利用1.99 PDF m2/年，酸化3.83 PDF m2/年)。然而，德国模块的全球变暖潜力[4.5E-05伤残调整寿命年(DALY)]高于意大利模块[3.00E−05 DALY]。德国模块的经济成本低于意大利模块，例如德国模块每FU的电力成本为0.12亿欧元/m2，而意大利为0.85万欧元/m2。S-生命周期评估的结果显示，2008年和2009年的德国模块存在显著差异，分别代表了康文署所考虑的三个情景中整体社交表现最好和最差的两个情景。康文署的综合结果显示，2008年德国单元的整体可持续发展表现最佳，得分为665分(满分1,000分)(颜色等级为浅绿色)。意大利模块2008的整体可持续性表现最差，得分为404分，而德国模块2009的得分居中，得分为524分。结论可持续发展评估方法和可持续发展评估方法为支持可持续生产和消费的决策过程提供了一个适用的框架。然而，要有意义地应用仍然存在挑战，特别是社会生命周期评价指标的选择和如何为康文署衡量成套指标的问题。
PurposeThe main goal of the paper is to carry out the first implementation of sustainability assessment of the assembly step of photovoltaic (PV) modules production by Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) and the development of the Life Cycle Sustainability Dashboard (LCSD), in order to compare LCSA results of different PV modules. The applicability and practicability of the LCSD is reported thanks to a case study. The results show that LCSA can be considered a valuable tool to support decision-making processes that involve different stakeholders with different knowledge and background.MethodThe sustainability performance of the production step of Italian and German polycrystalline silicon modules is assessed using the LCSD. The LCSD is an application oriented to the presentation of an LCSA study. LCSA comprises life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing and social LCA (S-LCA). The primary data collected for the German module are related to two different years, and this led to the evaluation of three different scenarios: a German 2008 module, a German 2009 module, and an Italian 2008 module.Results and discussionAccording to the LCA results based on Ecoindicator 99, the German module for example has lower values of land use [1.77 potential disappeared fractions (PDF) m2/year] and acidification (3.61 PDF m2/year) than the Italian one (land use 1.99 PDF m2/year, acidification 3.83 PDF m2/year). However, the German module has higher global warming potential [4.5E–05 disability-adjusted life years (DALY)] than the Italian one [3.00E−05 DALY]. The economic costs of the German module are lower than the Italian one, e.g. the cost of electricity per FU for the German module is 0.12 €/m2 compared to the Italian 0.85 €/m2. The S-LCA results show significant differences between German module 2008 and 2009 that represent respectively the best and the worst overall social performances of the three considered scenarios compared by LCSD. The aggregate LCSD results show that the German module 2008 has the best overall sustainability performance and a score of 665 points out of 1,000 (and a colour scale of light green). The Italian module 2008 has the worst overall sustainability performance with a score of 404 points, while the German module 2009 is in the middle with 524 points.ConclusionsThe LCSA and LCSD methodologies represent an applicable framework as a tool for supporting decision-making processes which consider sustainable production and consumption. However, there are still challenges for a meaningful application, particularly the questions of the selection of social LCA indicators and how to weigh sets for the LCSD.