Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 11131122

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Life cycle assessment of electricity production from renewable

energies: Review and results harmonization
Francesco Asdrubali n,1, Giorgio Baldinelli, Francesco DAlessandro, Flavio Scrucca
Universit degli Studi di Perugia, Department of Engineering, via G. Duranti, 67, Perugia, Italy

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A signicant number of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) analyses of renewable energy technologies is
Received 27 February 2014 available in the literature, even though there is a lack of consistent conclusions about the life cycle
Received in revised form impacts of the different technologies. The reported results vary consistently, according to the size and
2 September 2014
the technology of the considered plant, thus limiting the utility of LCA to inform policy makers and
Accepted 21 October 2014
Available online 15 November 2014
constituting a barrier to the deployment of a full awareness on sustainable energies. This variability in
LCA results, in fact, can generate confusion regarding the actual environmental consequences of
Keywords: implementing renewable technologies. The article reviews approximately 50 papers, related to more
Electricity production than 100 different case studies regarding solar energy (Concentrated Solar Power, Photovoltaic), wind
Solar
power, hydropower, and geothermal power. A methodology for the harmonization of the results is
Wind
presented. The detailed data collection and the results normalization and harmonization allowed a more
Hydro
Geothermal reliable comparison of the various renewable technologies. For most of the considered environmental
LCA indicators, wind power technologies turn out to be the low end while geothermal and PV technologies
the high end of the impact range where all the other technologies are positioned.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113
2. Life cycle assessment methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114
3. Literature data collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115
3.1. Screening approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115
3.2. Data collected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115
4. Review results by technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116
4.1. Concentrated solar power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116
4.2. Wind power. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116
4.3. Geothermal power. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116
4.4. Hydropower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
4.5. Photovoltaic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
5. Data harmonization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
6. Harmonization procedure results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
7. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121

1. Introduction

n
Over the past 40 years the world energy nal consumption
Corresponding author. Tel.: 39 0755853716.
approximately doubled and the growth in global energy demand,
E-mail address: [email protected] (F. Asdrubali).
1
Postal address: Via G. Duranti 67, 06125 Perugia, Italy. in a scenario with no change in government policies, is projected

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.082
1364-0321/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1114 F. Asdrubali et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 11131122

Nomenclature GHG Greenhouse Gas

GWP Global Warming Potential
AP Acidication Potential IPCC International Panel on Climate Change
a-Si Amorphous Silicon IQR Inter Quartile Range
CdTe Cadmium Telluride ISO International Organization for Standardization
CE Conversion Efciency LCI Life Cycle Inventory
CED Cumulative Energy Demand LCIA Life Cycle Impact Assessment
CF Capacity Factor LCA Life Cycle Assessment
CIGS Copper Indium Gallium Selenide LCSA Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment
CSP Concentrated Solar Power LU Land Use
Di,harm Harmonized data related to the environmental ME Module Efciency
indicator i Mono-Si Monocristalline Silicon
Di,pub Published data related to the environmental Multi-Si Multicristalline Silicon
indicator i POCP Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential
Di Lifetime harmonized data related to the environmen- PR Performance Ratio
tal indicator i PV Photovoltaic
DNI Direct Normal Irradiance SE Solar-to-electric Efciency
EP Eutrophication Potential SF Solar Fraction
EPBT Energy Pay-Back Time WC Water Consumption

to rise sharply over the coming years [1]. The total primary energy not allow to obtain a signicant number of data about environ-
supply reached the value of 13,113 Mtoe in 2011 [2]; fossil fuels mental impacts. Therefore, also this renewable technology was
remain the main source of energy supply, with a share of 81.9% of excluded from the study.
total nal consumption in 2010, even though the contributions of The article also proposes a simple and straightforward
renewables are increasing. methodology to harmonize the LCA studies results on the basis
In this context, the environmental impact associated to differ- of the main parameters on which the output of each renewable
ent energy technologies is becoming more and more a key issue to energy power plant depends (e.g. resource availability, capacity
support policy decisions; carbon footprinting, other GHG account- factor, efciency, and lifetime). The main purpose of the article
ing approaches and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) are commonly is therefore to suggest a methodological approach to perform a
used in this regard [36]. more reliable comparison of the various renewable technolo-
Evaluation approaches with a single indicator, such as Carbon gies, thus making the best use of LCA results to inform policy
Footprint, are certainly more attractive than LCA due to their makers.
simplicity [7], but may result in oversimplication. With particular
regard to electricity generation technologies, recent studies [8]
conrm that focusing only on GHG emissions may lead to wrong
conclusions concerning their environmental consequences. As a 2. Life cycle assessment methodology
matter of fact, many renewable energy technologies do have an
impact on water, ground, wildlife, landscape, therefore the mere LCA methodology allows the evaluation of the environmental
evaluation of CO2 emissions results limitative. Thus, a range of key impact of products and services across all life cycle stages,
indicators must be considered to evaluate the sustainability of energy modeling their interaction with the environment and accounting
generation technologies [9] and a LCA approach is desirable to avoid for all steps from raw material extraction to nal disposal or
impact shifting from one life cycle phase to another [10]. In this regard, recycling. According to LCA guidelines provided by ISO 14040 and
also the utilization of a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) 14044 [18,19], a LCA analysis is carried out by iterating four
model is considered a valid supporting tool [11]. phases: goal and scope denition of the study, life cycle inventory,
Several literature studies deal with LCA of renewable energy life cycle impact assessment and interpretation.
technologies as well as with the review of literature results [8,12 The goal and scope denition phase species the overall aim of
17]. Although different tools to ensure a correct implementation of the study, the system boundaries, the sources of data, and the
LCA have been developed [1820], the individual interpretation of functional unit to which refer all input and output ows. The Life
methodological aspects plays a key role, generating different and Cycle Inventory (LCI) phase includes a detailed description of all
inconsistent results. Furthermore, renewable energies plants are the environmental inputs (material and energy ows) and outputs
characterized by a wide range of power, technologies, congura- (air, water, solid emissions), while the Life Cycle Impact Assess-
tions, and applications. This article focuses on the set of environ- ment (LCIA) phase quanties the relative magnitude of all the
mental indicators generally used to carry out LCA of power plants, environmental impacts by using several environmental indicators.
in order to take into account all the issues related to the electricity Finally, the results from the LCI and LCIA phases are interpreted to
production with the most common renewable energy technologies identify critical aspects, to evaluate alternative options, and to
(solar, wind, hydro, geothermal). Bioenergies were excluded implement optimizations.
because of the great number of existing typologies (biofuels, There are many evaluation methods used in LCA analyses and
biogas, solid biomass) and technologies (direct combustion, various different commercial codes for the implementation.
co-combustion with fossil fuels, gasication) and, therefore, Among the most used, the following are: the IPCC method, which
because of the consequent impossibility to obtain a signicant expresses the impact in terms of CO2 equivalent emissions, the
number of data for each one of these typologies. Literature CED method, which evaluates the energy used during the entire
regarding wave power, even if many projects have been imple- life cycle of the product or service, and the scoring method
mented leading to interesting insights and innovations [21], did Ecoindicator 99 that considers a total of eleven impact categories
 F. Asdrubali et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 11131122 1115

regarding human health, ecosystem quality and resources Acidication Potential (AP), Eutrophication Potential (EP), Global
depletion. Warming Potential (GWP), Photochemical Ozone Creation Poten-
Regarding energy technologies, LCA provides a clearly dened tial (POCP), Land Use (LU) and Water Consumption (WC). In
and comprehensive framework to facilitate comparative studies addition, two other signicant parameters were taken into
and allows to evaluate the environmental consequences from account: Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) and Energy Pay-Back
cradle to grave. Furthermore, LCA is recognized to be an effective Time (EPBT). Most of data used in this study were gathered
tool to evaluate the sustainability of various renewable energy directly from summary life cycle impact tables, but some assump-
sources and to help policy makers to choose the best energy tions were necessary to obtain uniform data. Firstly, when only the
source for a specic purpose [22]. outputs of the LCI of the system in terms of emissions were
available, equivalent factor tables were used to refer each emission
to its impact category. Table 1, in particular, shows the factors used
3. Literature data collection to convert common pollutants emissions in SO2 equivalent emis-
sions into the AP category, while Table 2 summarize the PO34 
3.1. Screening approach equivalent factor for the EP category. Table 3, instead, shows the
well known GWP values of different GHG and Table 4 reports the
In order to obtain a high quality research and to select only factors used to convert pollutants emissions in Ethylene equivalent
relevant and high quality information, the denition of screening emissions into the POCP category. Secondly, regarding the water
criteria to lter literature studies and to include data was the rst, consumption in hydropower plants, the evaporation of water from
crucial step of the study. According to previous similar literature the reservoir was not taken into account. Therefore, according to
studies [23], a preliminary screening based on several rough literature data [25], we considered an evaporation of 25 kg/kWh to
discriminators was set to eliminate a part of references. All the be subtracted from the data that included it. A similar assumption
documents listed below were excluded from the data collection: was made for the CED data of hydropower plants. In fact, some
studies included both the energy used during the plant
documents published before 1980;
posters and abstracts;
journal articles with a number of pages less than or equal Table 1
to three; Acidication potential equivalent factors [29].
conference papers with a number of pages less than or equal
to ve; Emission SO2 equivalent factor

documents regarding technologies that do not produce elec- 1 kg SOx as SO2 1 kg eq SO2
tricity as a nal product; if electricity is a co-product, the 1 kg NOx as NO2 0.7 kg eq SO2
document was considered only if the LCA results were clearly 1 kg NH3 1.88 kg eq SO2
separable; 1 kg H2S 1.88 kg eq SO2
1 kg HF 1.6 kg eq SO2
documents regarding not full LCA studies (less than two life
1 kg HCl 0.88 kg eq SO2
cycle phases evaluated). 1 kg SO3 0.8 kg eq SO2
1 kg NO 1.07 kg eq SO2
A subsequent screening was then set to further narrow the 1 kg H2SO4 0.65 kg eq SO2
1 kg HNO3 0.51 kg eq SO2
group of references by dening the quality of the studies. Speci-
1 kg H3PO4 0.98 kg eq SO2
cally, this screening step assessed the parameters described as
follows [24]:
Table 2
quality: the study had to follow currently accepted LCA meth- Eutrophication potential equivalent factors [30].
odologies, such as ISO 14040 series standards. The study had
3
also to consider impacts from materials extraction and compo- Emission PO4 equivalent factor
nent manufacturing stages, since they contribute signicantly
1 kg PO4 3  1 kg eq PO4 3

to the life cycle impact of renewable energies; 1 kg COD

transparency and completeness of reporting: the study had to (Chemical O2 Demand) 0.022 kg eq PO4 3 
present an adequate description of the inputs and methods, 1 kg NOx as NO2 0.13 kg eq PO4 3 
1 kg NH3 0.35 kg eq PO4 3 
thus, the results could be traced and trusted. In particular, it
1 kg NO3  0.1 kg eq PO4 3 
was requested: 1 kg NH4 0.33 kg eq PO4 3 
J a reasonably description of the study (goal and scope, 1 kg N 0.42 kg eq PO4 3 
system boundaries and other assumptions, such as system 1 kg P 3.06 kg eq PO4 3 
lifetime and end of life scenario characteristics);
J a description, numerical where possible, of the power
system studied (capacity, site description or location);
J the citation of primary or secondary data sources used for
the analysis; Table 3
J the specication of the software and database used (Sima- Global warming potential equivalent factors [31].
Pro, Ecoinvent, etc.);
the modern or future relevance of the technology: existing and Emission CO2 equivalent factor

future technologies were included. 1 kg CO2 1 kg eq CO2

1 kg CH4 25 kg eq CO2
3.2. Data collected 1 kg N2O 298 kg eq CO2
1 kg SF6 22,800 kg eq CO2
1 kg CF4 5,700 kg eq CO2
Our data collection focused on six environmental impact 1 kg C2F6 11,900 kg eq CO2
categories usually included into LCAs of power plants:
1116 F. Asdrubali et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 11131122

Table 4 impact during the operation one order of magnitude higher than
Photochemical ozone creation potential equivalent the impact of the construction. On the contrary, 100% sun-red
factors [32].
plants are characterized by an impact of the construction phase
Emission C2H4 equivalent factor comparable with the impact of the operating phase. The minimum
and maximum values observed for GWP were respectively equal to
Alkane 0.398 kg eq C2H4 14.2 and 203 g CO2eq/kWh, while CED values ranged between 0.16
Alkene 0.906 kg eq C2H4 and 2.78 MJ/kWh. The same high variability connected to the plant
Butane 0.363 kg eq C2H4
CH4 0.007 kg eq C2H4
typology was observed for AP, EP and POCP values. WC vary
CO 0.036 kg eq C2H4 signicantly, with values in the range 2944,710 g/kWh, and this is
Ethane 0.082 kg eq C2H4 essentially due the cooling option used (high water consumption
Ethylene 1 kg eq C2H4 values in water cooled plants and low values in air cooled plants,
Ethylbenzol 0.593 kg eq C2H4
where the consumption of water is associated only to cleaning
Formaldehyde 0.421 kg eq C2H4
Heptane 0.529 kg eq C2H4 activities). LU values were in the range 2.89E-057.92E-04 m2/kWh.
Hexane 0.421 kg eq C2H4
NMVOC 0.416 kg eq C2H4
Pentane 0.352 kg eq C2H4
Propane 0.42 kg eq C2H4 4.2. Wind power
Propene 1.03 kg eq C2H4
Toluol 0.563 kg eq C2H4
Regarding wind power, fourteen documents (ve papers [49
Xyloles 0.849 kg eq C2H4
Aromatic CHs 0.761 kg eq C2H4
53] and nine technical documents [5462]) dealing with 20 case
studies were included following the selection criteria (Fig. 1). All
the applications considered are comparable in terms of size, with a
minimum value of 0.25 MW, a maximum value of 6.00 MW and 13
Table 5 plants in the range 1.504.00 MW. All the reviewed studies
Number of data collected and processed.
included data regarding GWP, CED, and EPBT, while data regarding
Environmental indicator No of data AP and POCP were gathered from 11 of the documents considered.
12 documents contained data on AP, 10 documents data on WC
Acidication potential 57 and only one document data on LU. POCP data showed a high
Eutrophication potential 58
variability (values in the range 0.8516.10 mg C2H4eq/kWh), as
Global warming potential 99
Photochemical ozone creation Potential 41 well as CED data (values in the range 0.011.20 MJ/kWh) and EPBT
Land use 39 data (values in the range 2.427.5 months). This variability is
Water consumption 32 basically due to different operating conditions (Capacity Factor
Cumulative energy demand 93 varying between 19% and 53%) and to different assumptions in LCA
Energy pay-back time 94
modeling (e.g. conservative or non-conservative estimates regard-
ing the maintenance activities). A quite low variability was
observed for AP, EP, and GWP data: AP values were in the range
construction and the potential energy embodied in water, pre-
28.0115.2 mg SO2eq/kWh, EP values in the range 2.712.2 mg
senting CED values 10 times higher than those given in other
PO34  eq/kWh, while GWP values in the range 6.246.0 g CO2eq/
studies. We proceeded considering an embodied energy of
kWh. All studies, with the exception of [51,52,53,56], presented
3.79 MJ/kWh [26,27] to calculate the value to be subtracted and
the results by life cycle phases, showing that the construction
to obtain comparable CED data. Finally, with regard to EPBT, we
phase gives the highest contribution to the overall impact (one
found some studies presenting a value in terms of primary energy
order of magnitude higher than the operation phase).
and other studies which supply only the ratio between the
primary energy consumption during the whole life cycle and the
electricity produced by the plant (not accounting the utilization
grade of primary energy source to produce electricity, g). In our 4.3. Geothermal power
study, we chose to consider the primary EPBT and we set a value
of g equal to 0.365 [28] (average world value) for the data Three papers [15,71,72] and two technical documents [73,74],
adaptation. The total number of data collected and processed is related to 20 case studies, were included according to the selection
summarized in Table 5. criteria for geothermal power (Fig. 1). All the reviewed studies
included data regarding GWP, while data regarding CED and EPBT
were gathered from four documents. Only two studies included
4. Review results by technology data on LU and WC and the same applies for POCP, whereas data
regarding AP and EP were included in four documents.
4.1. Concentrated solar power AP values were in the range 212662 mg SO2eq/kWh, CED
values in the range 0.271.27 MJ/kWh and EPBT values in the
Five papers [42,4448] and two technical documents [41,43] range 8.246.5 months. A quite low variability was observed for
related to 15 case studies (Fig. 1) were included according to the POCP (values ranging between 13.1 and 43.7 mg C2H4eq/kWh) and
selection criteria for Concentrated Solar Power (CSP). Nine case for EP (values in the range 27.588.7 mg PO34  eq/kWh), while CO2
studies regarded Parabolic Trough (PT) applications, while six case emissions factors showed a high variability (GWP values ranging
studies were related to Central Tower (CT) plants. All the reviewed between 16.9 and 142.0 g CO2eq/kWh), essentially due to the
documents included data regarding GWP, CED and EPBT; six characteristics of the used technology. Moreover, one paper [72]
studies contained data on LU, whereas data on AP, EP, and WC showed that the environmental impacts result signicantly inu-
were gathered from four studies and data on POCP from three enced by the geological conditions at a specic site. Only three
documents. Results regarding GWP and CED included in studies [7274] allowed to analyze the impact by life cycle phases,
[41,42,44,45,48] were presented by life cycle phases and showed and also in this case the construction phase impact resulted one
that hybrid plants (i.e. plants with gas boiler integration) have an order of magnitude higher than the impact of the other phases.
F. Asdrubali et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 11131122 1117

Fig. 1. Data collected from the reviewed studies.

1118 F. Asdrubali et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 11131122

4.4. Hydropower Solar Fraction (SF) were selected, while for PV the other para-
meters indicated were Performance Ratio (PR) and Module Ef-
Eleven case studies, contained in four papers [63,64,68,69] and ciency (ME). Regarding some technologies (CSP, wind power, PV),
four other documents [65,66,67,70] were included for hydropower previous harmonization reviews were found and the same values
(Fig. 1). These studies encompass dams with reservoir plants and of these literature studies were chosen for the analysis; on the
run-of-river plants, large and small size installations. Data regard- other hand, for all the other technologies (hydropower, geother-
ing GWP, CED, and EPBT were included in all the documents mal power) the harmonization parameters values were set equal
considered, while data regarding AP, EP and POCP were gathered to the median values of data collected.
from seven of them. Only ve studies included data on LU and WC. Finally, since the resulting life cycle impacts of a power plant
Due to the consistent differences characterizing the plants con- are closely related to the lifetime period used to carry out its LCA, a
sidered, and also to the different approaches used (e.g. regarding/ reference value of the lifetime for each technology (equal to the
disregarding water evaporation from the reservoir and the poten- median value resulting from published data) was also selected for
tial energy embodied in water), a high variability (one order of the data harmonization of all technologies considered. Different
magnitude) was observed for all the environmental indicator technologies are characterized by different lifetimes.
considered. In particular, AP values ranged from 7.6 to 129.4 mg The parameters are listed in Table 6, with the related harmo-
SO2eq/kWh, EP values from 0.430.0 mg PO34  eq/kWh and POCP nization formula. With regard to CSP data, it must be stressed that
values from 1 to 30 mg C2H4eq/kWh; GWP data were in the range the contribution associated to the gas boiler integration in hybrid
2.274.8 g CO2eq/kWh, CED data in the range 0.010.90 MJ/kWh plants was excluded in the harmonization procedure.
and EPBT in the range 2.937.1 months. Data regarding LU varied from
4.87E-052.58E-03 m2/kWh and data on WC from 1 to 75 l/kWh). All
studies, except for [67], presented the results by life cycle phases. 6. Harmonization procedure results

4.5. Photovoltaic Looking at the central tendency of the harmonized AP values

(Fig. 2a), hydropower seems to be the best technology (median
The reviewed papers about photovoltaic (PV) applications were 11 value equal to 12.8 mg SO2eq/kWh), immediately followed by
[47,48,7583], regarding 33 case studies; also one technical document wind (median value equal to 48.9 mg SO2eq/kWh). CSP, with a median
[84] concerning three case studies was included according to the value of 91.2 mg SO2eq/kWh, is positioned at a medium level of
selection criteria (Fig. 1). Data regarding GWP and CED were gathered impact, while PV and geothermal have the highest impact values.
from 11 documents, while data regarding CED were included in 10 The central tendency of harmonized EP data (Fig. 2b) shows
documents. Five studies contained data regarding LU, four studies data wind and hydropower as the best technologies, with a comparable
on AP and EP and only one paper included data on WC. AP, EP, GWP and median value of the impact (4.9 and 4.8 mg PO34  eq/kWh respec-
LU values showed a high variability (the range was respectively 78.7 tively). CSP has a median EP impact quite comparable with wind
979.7 mg SO2eq/kWh, 4.092.5 mg PO3 4 eq/kWh, 9.4167.0 g CO2eq/
and hydro (6.8 mg PO34  eq/kWh), while PV assumes a medium
kWh and 1.02E-041.01E-03 m2/kWh), while POCP data were in the value (22.4 mg PO34  eq/kWh for PV). Geothermal is the technology
range 29.8125.0 mg C2H4eq/kWh, CED data in the range 0.361.80 MJ/ with the highest eutrophication potential.
kWh and EPBT values in the range 9.643.9 months. The documents The harmonized GWP data (Fig. 2c) are characterized by a low
include both upstream and downstream processes (raw materials variability, due to the larger sample of data found for each
production, fabrication of system components, transportation and technology, and the central tendency of the estimates shows wind
installation) and both ground and roof mounted systems. It is evident and hydropower as the best technologies (median value of the
that during the life cycle of PV, emissions mainly occur from the use of impact equal to 9.4 and 11.6 g CO2eq/kWh respectively). The other
fossil-fuel-based energy in generating the materials for cells, modules, three technologies, instead, present a higher and comparable value
and systems [81], with the production of the PV modules accounting for of the impact. In particular, PV has a median value equal to 29.2 g
more than the 84% of the total primary energy consumption of the CO2eq/kWh, CSP a median value of 30.9 g CO2eq/kWh and geothermal
whole PV system [79]. It also emerged that a tracking system may is characterized by a median equal to 33.6 g CO2eq/kWh.
increase signicantly the impact of the construction phase and that the Looking at the central tendency of the harmonized POCP values
tracking system itself may account for 65-70% of the overall impact of (Fig. 2d), hydropower and wind seems to be the best technologies,
the PV application [77]. An interesting projection of GWP for some PV with a median value of 1.5 and 4.6 mg C2H4eq/kWh respectively.
technologies in the years 2025 and 2050 is given in [78]. CSP and geothermal power have a quite similar impact (respec-
tively 16.4 and 22.1 mg C2H4eq/kWh), while PV is the technology
with the highest Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential.
5. Data harmonization The harmonized CED data (Fig. 2e) show wind as the best of all the
technologies, with a median value of the impact equal to 0.13 MJ/kWh,
The harmonization process aims at reducing the data varia- followed by hydropower (0.16 MJ/kWh), CSP (0.44 MJ/kWh), geother-
bility, aligning methodological inconsistencies in published LCAs, mal power (0.52 MJ/kWh) and PV (0.61 MJ/kWh).
such as not coherent system boundaries, the use of outdated data, Comparing Fig. 2 with Fig. 1, it is evident that the main effect of the
variations on similar energy process chains, and even simple proposed harmonization methodology is a general reduction in the
differences in reporting of results. Capacity Factor (CF), which is variability of the previously published estimates, increasing the precision
the ratio of average output power to peak power that a plant could and aligning common system parameters to a consistent set of values.
deliver, was chosen as harmonization parameter for wind power However, some exceptions emerged. In particular, the increase
and hydropower, thus normalizing data to a similar operation of the variability range of the environmental indicators values
scenario. For geothermal power, Conversion Efciency (CE) was observed for Geothermal power is due to two case studies
selected in addition to CF, as it represents a characteristic para- included in [72], with a CE higher than the one set for the
meter of plant operation. As far as solar energy technologies, harmonization and the same lifetime. The same applies for the
Direct Normal Irradiance (DNI), expressing the amount of solar raise observed in the variability range of AP values regarding
energy available, was chosen as the main harmonization para- PV: 2 case studies included in [79] were characterized by a lifetime
meter. In addition, for CSP, Solar-to-electric Efciency (SE) and and a ME higher than the ones set to harmonize (in detail, 40 years
 F. Asdrubali et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 11131122 1119

Table 6
Harmonization parameters for each technology and related harmonization formulas.

Harmonization parameter Parameter value used Notes

CSP technology
Solar Fraction, SF 1 The harmonization value for SF was chosen to be 100% to
better estimate the emissions resulting from a solar only CSP
plant.
Direct Normal Irradiance, DNI 2,400 kWh/m2 The value is representative of a high quality solar resource that
is incident upon thousands of square kilometers in several
global locations. CSP developers typically require about
2000 kWh/m2/yr to justify construction [33].
Solar-to-electric Efciency, SE Parabolic trough plants: 15% These SE values are representative of current state-of-the-art
Central Tower plants: 20% designs for CSP technologies [33].
Lifetime, LT 30 years Median value resulting from data collection.

Harmonization formula:
SF U DNI U SE U LT
Di;harm Di;pub U SF harmpubU DNIharm
pub pub pub
U SE harm U LT harm

Wind power
Capacity Factor, CF On-shore turbines: 35% Values suggested for modern turbines [34] and also more
Off-shore turbines: 45% consistent with the median values obtained from data
collection.
Lifetime, LT 20 years Median value resulting from data collection.

Harmonization formula:
CF U LT
Di;harm Di;pub U CF harm
pub pub
U LT harm

Hydropower
Capacity Factor, CF 70% Median value resulting from data collection.
Lifetime, LT 70 years Median value resulting from data collection.

Harmonization formula:
CF U LT
Di;harm Di;pub U CF harm
pub pub
U LT harm

Geothermal power
Capacity Factor, CF 70% Median value resulting from data collection.
Conversion Efciency, CE 11% Median value resulting from data collection
Lifetime, LT 30 years Median value resulting from data collection.

Harmonization formula:
CF U CE U LT
Di;harm Di;pub U CF harm
pub pub pub
U CE harm U LT harm

PV technology
Direct Normal Irradiance, DNI 1,700 kWh/m2 Published literature data [35,36], corresponding to the average
irradiation in southern Europe.
Performance Ratio, PR Rooftop and building integrated systems: 0.75 Performance ratios recommended in the IEA guidelines [37].
Ground mounted systems: 0.8
Modules Efciency, ME Mono-Si: 20% Values representative of current state-of-the-art
Multi-Si: 15% [35,36,38,39,40].
a-Si: 6.3%
CdTe: 10.9%
CIGS: 11.5%
Lifetime, LT 30 years Median value resulting from data collection.

Harmonization formula:
DNI U PR U ME U LT
Di;harm Di;pub U DNIharmpubU PRharm
pub pub pub
U MEharm U LT harm

and 16% and 50 years and 18%). The increase observed in the becoming a key issue in policy making. Different evaluation approaches
variability range of POCP values regarding CSP is the consequence are used in this regard and a LCA approach is considered as one of the
of a case study included in [41] with a DNI higher than the one most appropriate and comprehensive methods. However, published
used for the harmonization. LCA results vary signicantly, creating confusion on the actual envir-
Regarding LU and WC, only published estimates were analyzed, onmental consequences of implementing renewable technologies.
since, after the screening approach, the number of data available was In the present article, a selected and critical review of more
not sufcient to carry out the harmonization. Data regarding EPBT, on than 100 different case studies regarding solar energy (CSP, PV),
the contrary, were not harmonized because this parameter strongly wind power, hydropower and geothermal power was performed,
depends on local economic policies (e.g. feed-in tariff, incentives on which clearly showed this data variability and its causes. Further-
capital investments, etc.) and data regarding this aspect were lacking. more, a methodological approach to harmonize LCA results was
proposed. In fact, even if the energy production from renewable
sources is resource-dependent, a more reliable comparison of
7. Conclusions the environmental consequences of the different technologies is
desirable. A comprehensive set of environmental indicators was
The evaluation of the environmental impact associated to different selected for the comparison and a set of parameters to harmonize
energy technologies and, in particular, to renewable energies, is published LCA data was suggested.
1120 F. Asdrubali et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 11131122

Fig. 2. Main statistics of harmonized data.

Comparing the harmonized results, wind power emerged as Extending the comparison of the harmonized results to con-
the renewable technology with a lower overall environmental ventional power systems (e.g. hard coal or natural gas power
impact (it had the lowest impact values and the narrowest station) the analysis of all impact categories demonstrates that
ranges of variability). For instance, wind power had the lowest renewable energy technologies show signicant environmental
CO2eq emissions and the lowest embodied energy. Geothermal advantages. Considering for example GWP values, a combined
power and PV power, instead, came out as the renewable cycle natural gas plant has a mean emission of 350400 g CO2eq/
technologies with the highest overall environmental impact kWh and a hard coal plant with direct combustion has an emission
values and the widest ranges of variability. Within the other range of 7501050 g CO2eq/kWh [8], while all the analyzed
technologies considered, CSP was positioned at a medium level technologies are characterized by values lower than 100 g
of environmental impact, resulting better than PV, geothermal, CO2eq/kWh. Moreover, while an old hard coal plants with direct
and hydropower plants in almost all the impact categories combustion has an AP range of 27 g SO2/kWh [8], all the analyzed
considered. technologies are characterized by values lower than 1 g SO2/kWh.
 F. Asdrubali et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 11131122 1121

As a further example, whereas for conventional fossil fuels-red generation: systematic review and harmonization. J Ind Ecol 2012;16(Issue
power plant it is possible to consider a CED impact in the order Supplement s1):93109.
[24] Dolan Stacey L, Heath Garvin A. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of utility-
of magnitude of 10 MJ/kWh [85], the harmonized CED values of all scale wind power systematic review and harmonization. J Ind Ecol 2012;16
the considered renewable energy technologies result below (Issue Supplement s1):13654.
1.3 MJ/kWh. [25] Pster S, Saner D, Koehler A. The environmental relevance of freshwater
consumption in global power production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2011;16:58091.
[26] Twidell J, Weir T. Renewable energy resources. 2nd ed. London: Taylor &
Francis; 2005.
Acknowledgments [27] Hanne Lerche Raadal H., Saur Modahl I. (Ostfold Research), Haakon Bakken T.
(SINTEF Energy Research). Energy indicators for electricity production
Comparing technologies and the nature of the indicators Energy Payback
The authors are indebted to lvaro Martnez Malo for the Ratio (EPR), Net Energy Ratio (NER) and Cumulative Energy Demand (CED).
signicant contribution given in data collection and elaboration. Report OR.09.12; 2012.
[28] International Energy Agency (IEA). The world energy outlook; 2008.
[29] Wenzel H, Hauscild M, Alting L. Environmental assessment of products.
Methodology, tools and case studies in product development, Vol. 1. London:
References Chapman and Hall;; 1997.
[30] Lindfors LG, Christiansen K, Hoffmann L, Virtanen Y, Juntilla V, Hanssen OJ,
[1] Moncada Lo Giudice, Asdrubali G, Rotili F. A. Inuence of new factors on global Rnning A, Ekvall T, Finnveden G. LCA-Nordic Technical Reports No. 1 - 9.
energy prospects in the medium term: comparison among the 2010, 2011 and TemaNord; 1995:502. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. ISBN 92 9120
2012 editions of the IEAs World Energy Outlook reports. Econo Policy Energ 608 3, ISSN 0908-6692.
Environ 2013;3:6789. [31] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) GWPs 100 yr; 2007.
[2] International Energy Agency (IEA). Key world energy statistics, http://www. [32] Gantner U, Hofstetter P. koinventare fr Energiesysteme: Teil VI Kohle.
iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2013.pdf; 2013. Zrich, Switzerland: Laboratorium fr Energiesysteme, The Swiss Federal
[3] Xi, Fengming, Geng, Yong, Chen, Xudong, Zhang, Yunsong, Wang, Xinbei, Xue, Institute of Technology (ETH); 1996.
Bing, Dong, Huijuan, Liu, Zhu, Ren, Wanxia, Fujita, Tsuyoshi, Zhu, Qinghua. [33] IEA (International Energy Agency). Technology roadmap: concentrating solar
Contributing to local policy making on GHG emission reduction through power. Paris, France: IEA; 2010.
inventorying and attribution: a case study of Shenyang. China Energy Policy [34] Wiser R, Bolinger M. Wind Technologies Market Report. DOE/GO-102011-
2011;39:59996010. 3322. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy Ofce of Energy Efciency
[4] Vzquez-Rowe I, Marvuglia A, Rege S, Benetto E. Applying consequential LCA and Renewable Energy;; 2010 (2011).
to support energy policy: land use change effects of bioenergy production. [35] Hsu David D, ODonoughue P, Fthenakis V, Heath Garvin A, Kim HC, Sawyer P,
Sci Total Environ 2014;472:7889. Jun-Ki Choi, Turney Damon E. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of crystal-
[5] Blengini GA, Brizio E, Cibrarioa M, Genona G. LCA of bioenergy chains in line silicon photovoltaic electricity generation systematic review and
Piedmont (Italy): a case study to support public decision makers towards harmonization. J Ind Ecol 2012;16(Issue Supplement s1):S12235.
sustainability. Resour Conserv Recy 2011;57:3647. [36] KimH C, Fthenakis V, Jun-Ki Choi, Turney Damon E. Life cycle greenhouse gas
[6] Asdrubali F, Presciutti A, Scrucca F. Development of a greenhouse gas emissions of thin-lm photovoltaic electricity generation systematic review
accounting GIS-based tool to support local policy makingapplication to an and harmonization. J Indust Ecol 2012;16(Issue Supplement s1):S11021.
Italian municipality. Energy Policy 2013;61:58794. [37] Alsema EA, Fraile D, Frischknecht R, Fthenakis VM, Held M, Kim HC, Polz W,
[7] Weidema BP, Thrane M, Christensen P, Schmidt J, Lkke S. Carbonfootprint. Raugei M, De Wild-Scholten MJ. Methodology guidelines on life cycle assess-
J Indust Ecol 2008;12:36. ment of photovoltaic electricity. IEA-PVPS T12 01:2009. Paris: International
[8] Turconi R, Boldrin A, Astrup T. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity Energy Agency; 2009.
generation technologies: overview, comparability and limitations. Renew [38] Alsema EA, De Wild-Scholten MJ, Fthenakis VM. Environmental impacts of PV
Sustain Energ Rev 2013;28:55565. electricity generation a critical comparison of energy supply options, 21th
[9] Evans A, Strezov V, Evans TJ. Assessment of sustainability indicators for European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, Dresden, Germany, 4-8
renewable energy technologies. Renew Sustain Energ Rev 2009;13:10828. September 2006.
[10] Asdrubali F, Baldassarri C, Fthenakis V. Life cycle analysis in the construction [39] De Wild-Scholten MJ, Alsema EA. Environmental life cycle inventory of
sector: Guiding the optimization of conventional Italian buildings. Energy crystalline silicon photovoltaic system production: status 2005/2006.
Build 2013;64:7389. [40] Granata JE, Boyson WE, Kratochvil JA, Quintana MA. Long-term performance
[11] Traverso M, Asdrubali F, Francia A, Finkbeiner M. Towards life cycle sustain- and reliability assessment of 8 PV arrays at Sandia National Laboratories. 34th
ability assessment: an implementation to photovoltaic modules. Int J Life Cycle IEEE-PVSC Proceedings, Philadelphia, PA; 2009.
Assess 2012;17:106879. [41] U.S. Department of Energy, Ofce of fossil energy. Role of Alternative Energy
[12] Sherwani AF, Usmani JA, Varun. Life cycle assessment of solar PV based Sources: Solar Thermal Technology Assessment. August; 2012.
electricity generation systems: a review. Renew Sustain Energ Rev [42] Lechn Y, De la Ra C, Sez R. Life cycle environmental impacts of electricity
2010;14:5404. production by solar thermal power plants in Spain. J Solar Energ Eng 2008;130,
[13] Raadal Hanne Lerche, Gagnon Luc, Modahl Ingunn Saur, Hanssen Ole Jrgen. pages 1-7 (Article number: 021012).
Life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the generation of wind and [43] Viebahn P, Kronshage S, Trieb F(DLR), Lechon Y(CIEMAT). Final report on
hydro power. Renew Sustain Energ Rev 2011;15:341722. technical data, costs, and life cycle inventories of solar thermal power plants.
[14] Jinqing Peng, L.i.n. Lu, Hongxing Yang. Review on life cycle assessment of NEEDS Project; 2008.
energy payback and greenhouse gas emission of solar photovoltaic systems. [44] Burkhardt III John J, Heath Garvin A, Turchi Craig S. Life cycle assessment of a
Renew Sustain Energ Rev 2013;19:255274. parabolic trough concentrating solar power plant and the impacts of key
[15] Bayer P, Rybach L, Philipp Blum P, Brauchler R. Review on life cycle design alternatives. Environ Sci Technol 2011;45:245764.
environmental effects of geothermal power generation. Renew Sustain Energ [45] Whitaker Michael B, Heath Garvin A, Burkhardt III John J, Turchi Craig S. Life
Rev 2013;26:44663. cycle assessment of a power tower concentrating solar plant and the impacts
[16] Bhat Varun IK, Ravi Prakash LCA. of renewable energy for electricity genera- of key design alternatives. Environ Sci Technol 2013;47(11):5896903.
tion systemsa review. Renew Sustain Energ Rev 2009;13:106773. [46] Weinrebe G, Bhnke M, Trieb F. Life cycle assessment of an 80 MW SEGS plant
[17] Marimuthu C, Kirubakarann V. Carbon payback period for solar and wind and a 30 MW PHOEBUS power tower. International Solar Energy Conference
energy project installed in India: a critical review. Renew Sustain Energ Rev Proceedings. ISBN: 0-7918-1856-X; 1998.
2013;23:8090. [47] Desideri U, Zepparelli F, Morettini V, Garroni E. Comparative analysis of
[18] ISO, EN ISO14040 Environmental management Life cycleassessment concentrating solar power and photovoltaic technologies: technical and
Principles and framework; 2006. environmental evaluations. Appl Energ 2013;102:76584.
[19] ISO, EN ISO14044 Environmental management Life cycle assessment [48] Asdrubali F, Baldinelli G, Presciutti A, Baldassarri C, Scrucca F. Comparative
Requirements and guidelines; 2006. analysis of solar power technologies through life cycle assessment approach.
[20] European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and 3rd International Exergy, Life Cycle Assessment and Sustainability Workshop
Sustainability, EC JRC, International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) & Symposium (ELCAS3) Proceedings; 2013.
Handbook general guide for Life Cycle Assessment detailed guidance. [49] Ardente F, Beccali M, Cellura M, Lo Brano V. Energy performances and life
Luxembourg, Publications Ofce of the European Union; 2010. cycle assessment of an Italian wind farm. Renew Sustain Energ Rev 2008;12
[21] Ilyas Arqam, Kashif Syed AR, Saqib Muhammad A, Asad Muhammad M. Wave (1):20017.
electrical energy systems: implementation, challenges and environmental [50] Tremeac B, Meunier F. Life cycle analysis of 4.5 MW and 250 W wind turbines.
issues. Renew Sustain Energ Rev 2014;40:2608. Renew Sustain Energ Rev 2009;13:210410.
[22] Singh Anoop, Olsen Stig Irving, Pant Deepak. Importance of life cycle [51] Weinzettel J, Reenaas M, Solli C, Hertwich Edgar G. Life cycle assessment of a
assessment of renewable energy sources. Life cycle assessment of renewable oating offshore wind turbine. Renew Energ 2009;34:7427.
energy sources. Green energy and technology. London: Springer; 978-1-4471- [52] Schleisner L. Life cycle assessment of a wind farm and related externalities.
5363-42013; 111 (Print) 978-1-4471-5364-1 (Online). Renew Energ 2000;20:27988.
[23] Burkhardt John III J, Heath Garvin, Cohen Elliot. Life cycle greenhouse gas [53] Begoa Guezuraga, Rudolf Zauner, Werner Plz. Life cycle assessment of two
emissions of trough and tower concentrating solar power electricity different 2 MW class wind turbines. Renew Energ 2012;37:3744.
1122 F. Asdrubali et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015) 11131122

[54] Vestas. (2011). Life cycle assessment of electricity production from a V80- [70] U.S. Department of Energy. National energy technology laboratory. Role of
2.0MW gridstreamer wind plant. December 2011. Vestas Wind Systems A/S, alternative energy sources: hydropower technology assessment. August 2012.
Alsvej 21, 8900 Randers, Denmark. [71] Lacirignola M, Blanc I. Environmental analysis of practical design options for
[55] Elsam. (2004). Life cycle assessment of offshore and onshore sited wind farms. enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) through life-cycle assessment. Renew
October 2004. Elsam Engineering A/S. Energ 2013;50:90114.
[56] Vestas. (2006). Life cycle assessment of electricity produced from onshore [72] Frick S, Kaltschmitt M, Schrder G. Life cycle assessment of geothermal binary
sited wind power plants based on Vestas V82-1.65 MW turbines. December power plants using enhanced low-temperature reservoirs. Energy 2010;35
2006. Vestas Wind Systems A/S, Alsvej 21, 8900 Randers, Denmark. (5):228194 (01/).
[57] Vestas. (2011). Life cycle assessment of electricity production from a V90- [73] Frick S, Lohse C, Kaltschmitt M. Environmental impacts through geothermal
2.0MW Gridstreamer Wind Plant. December 2011. Vestas Wind Systems A/S, power generation in Germany. ENGINE Workshop 6, Athens, 14 September
Alsvej 21, 8900 Randers, Denmark. 2007.
[58] Vestas. (2012). Life cycle assessment of electricity production from an onshore [74] U.S. Department of Energy. National energy technology laboratory. Role of
V90-3.0MW Wind Plant. September 2012. Vestas Wind Systems A/S, Alsvej 21, alternative energy sources: geothermal technology assessment. August 2012.
8900 Randers, Denmark. [75] Alsema EA. Energy pay-back time and CO2 emissions of PV systems. Prog
[59] Vestas. (2011). Life cycle assessment of electricity production from a V100- Photovolt: Res Appl 2000;8(1):1725 (January/February).
1.8MW Gridstreamer Wind Plant. December 2011. Vestas Wind Systems A/S, [76] Raugei M, Bargigli S, Ulgiati S. Life cycle assessment and energy pay-back time
Alsvej 21, 8900 Randers, Denmark. of advanced photovoltaic modules: CdTe and CIS compared to poly-Si. Energy
[60] Vestas. (2012). Life cycle assessment of electricity production from an onshore 2007;32:13108.
V100-2.6MW Wind Plant. September 2012. Vestas Wind Systems A/S, Alsvej [77] Nishimura A, Hayashi Y, Tanaka K, Hirota M, Kato S, Ito v, Araki K, Hu EJ. Life
21, 8900 Randers, Denmark.
cycle assessment and evaluation of energy payback time on high-
[61] Vestas. (2011). Life cycle assessment of electricity production from a V112
concentration photovoltaic power generation system. Appl Energ 2010;87
Turbine Wind Plant. February 2011. Vestas Wind Systems A/S, Alsvej 21, 8900
(9):2797807 (01/).
Randers, Denmark.
[78] Raugei M, Frankl P. Life cycle impacts and costs of photovoltaic systems:
[62] U.S. Department of Energy. National energy technology laboratory. Role of
current state of the art and future outlooks. Energy 2009;34:3929.
Alternative Energy Sources: Wind Technology Assessment. August 2012.
[79] Sumper A, Robledo-Garca M, Villafla-Robles R, Bergas-Jan J, Andrs-Peir
[63] Pascale A, Urmee T, Moore A. Life cycle assessment of a community hydro-
J. Life-cycle assessment of a photovoltaic system in Catalonia (Spain). Renew
electric power system in rural Thailand. Renew Energ 2011;36:2799808.
[64] Flvio de Miranda Ribeiro, da Silva Gil Anderi. Life-cycle inventory for Sustain Energ Rev 2011;15:388896.
hydroelectric generation: a Brazilian case study. J Cleaner Prod 2010;18: [80] Koroneos C, Stylos N, Moussiopoulos N. LCA of multicrystalline silicon
4454. photovoltaic systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2006;11(3):1838.
[65] Flvio de Miranda Ribeiro. Inventrio de ciclo de vida da gerao hidreltrica [81] Fthenakis VM, Kim HC. Photovoltaics: life-cycle analyses. Solar Energ
no Brasil-Usina de Itaipu: primeira aproximao [Master Thesis]; 2004. 2011;85:160928.
[66] Silje Arny, Ingunn Saur Modahl. Life cycle data for hydroelectric generation [82] Kannan R, Leong KC, Osman R, Ho HK, Tso CP. Life cycle assessment study of
at embretsfoss 4 (E4) power station. Background Data for Life Cycle Assess- solar PV systems: an example of a 2.7 kWp distributed solar PV system in
ment (LCA) and Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) 2013 Report of Singapore. Solar Energy 80 (5): 555-563.
Ostfold Research Co., Report no.: OR.03.13, ISBN no.: 978-82-7520-685-3. [83] Ito Masakazu, Kato Kazuhiko, Komoto Keiichi, Kichimi Tetsuo, Kurokawa
[67] Karin Flury, Rolf Frischknecht. Life cycle inventories of hydroelectric power Kosuke. A comparative study on cost and life-cycle analysis for 100 MW very
generation. ESU-services Ltd., fair consulting in sustainability 2012. large-scale PV (VLS-PV) systems in deserts using m-Si, a-Si, CdTe, and CIS
[68] Varun I, Bhat, K, Prakash Ravi. Life cycle analysis of run-of river small hydro modules. Prog Photovolt Res Appl 2008;16(1):1730 (January).
power plants in India. Open Renew Energ J 2008;1:116. [84] Pacca S, Sivaraman D, Keoleian Gregory A. Life cycle assessment of the 33 kW
[69] Wall J, Passer A. Harvesting factor in hydropower generation. Life-cycle and photovoltaic system on the dana building at the University of Michigan: thin
sustainability of civil infrastructure systems. Proceedings of the Third Inter- lm laminates, multi-crystalline modules, and balance of system components.
national Symposium on Life-Cycle Civil Engineering (IALCCE'12), Vienna, Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan. June 2006.
Austria, October 3-6, 2012. Edited by Strauss, Frangopol & Bergmeister (Eds). [85] Scannapieco D, Naddeo V, Belgiorno V. Sustainable power plants: a support
2013. Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-62126-7. tool for the analysis of alternatives. Land Use Policy 2014;36:47884.