Environmental Impacts of Solar Photovoltaic Systems A Critical Review of Recent Progress and Future Outlook
Environmental Impacts of Solar Photovoltaic Systems A Critical Review of Recent Progress and Future Outlook
Environmental Impacts of Solar Photovoltaic Systems A Critical Review of Recent Progress and Future Outlook
PII: S0048-9697(20)37059-5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143528
Reference: STOTEN 143528
Please cite this article as: M. Tawalbeh, A. Al-Othman, F. Kafiah, et al., Environmental
impacts of solar photovoltaic systems: A critical review of recent progress and future
outlook, Science of the Total Environment (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2020.143528
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such
as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is
not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting,
typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this
version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production
process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers
that apply to the journal pertain.
Muhammad Tawalbeh 1*, Amani Al-Othman 2, Feras Kafiah 3, Emad Abdelsalam 3, Fares
1
Sustainable and Renewable Energy Engineering Department (SREE), University of Sharjah, P.
of
2
ro
Department of Chemical Engineering, American University of Sharjah, UAE, P.O. Box 26666,
-p
re
3
Electrical and Energy Engineering Department, Al Hussein Technical University, Amman
4
Chemical Engineering Department, Qatar University, Qatar; [email protected]
na
5
Paper Science & Chemical Engineering Department, University of Wisconsin Stevens Point,
ur
* Correspondence: [email protected]
Abstract
Photovoltaic (PV) systems are regarded as clean and sustainable sources of energy. Although the
operation of PV systems exhibits minimal pollution during their lifetime, the probable
environmental impacts of such systems from manufacturing until disposal cannot be ignored.
The production of hazardous contaminates, water resources pollution, and emissions of air
pollutants during the manufacturing process as well as the impact of PV installations on land use
Journal Pre-proof
are important environmental factors to consider. The present study aims at developing a
design proposals to mitigate and solve the aforementioned environmental problems. The
emissions of greenhouse gas (GHG) from various PV systems were also explored and compared
with fossil fuel energy resources. The results revealed that the negative environmental impacts of
materials, minimize the use of hazardous materials, recycling whenever possible, and careful site
of
selection. Such mitigation actions will reduce the emissions of GHG to the environment,
ro
decrease the accumulation of solid wastes, and preserve valuable water resources. The carbon
-p
footprint emission from PV systems was found to be in the range of 14 – 73 g CO2-eq/kWh,
re
which is 10 to 53 orders of magnitude lower than emission reported from the burning of oil (742
g CO2-eq/kWh from oil). It was concluded that the carbon footprint of the PV system could be
lP
decreased further by one order of magnitude using novel manufacturing materials. Recycling
na
solar cell materials can also contribute up to a 42% reduction in GHG emissions. The present
study offers a valuable management strategy that can be used to improve the sustainability of PV
ur
manufacturing processes, improve its economic value, and mitigate its negative impacts on the
Jo
environment.
Keywords: Environmental impacts, Photovoltaic systems, Greenhouse gas emissions, Land use,
1. Introduction
The continuous increase of the world’s population placed heavy demands on food, water, and
energy sectors [1]–[3]. The energy generation processes are facing major challenges such as
sustainability, cost, security, and market price fluctuations [4][5]. In addition, the increase in
Journal Pre-proof
environmental awareness and the application of more stringent discharge regulations has directed
the scientific community to work on developing alternative, sustainable, and renewable energy
sources [6]–[8]. With such implications, the transformation of energy systems has also received
lots of attention ranging from more focus on biofuels and solar cells [9]–[11]. Hybrid and
sustainable energy systems such as solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass are considered as the
key technologies in the renewable revolution phase [12]–[14]. Figure 1 shows that the global
electricity generation in 2017 is coming from oil, natural gas, and coal. The data in Figure 1
of
confirms that the contribution of renewable energy resources to the global energy demand is very
ro
limited compared to coal and gas [15][16].
-p
Among renewable energy resources, solar energy offers a clean source for electrical power
re
generation with zero emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) to the atmosphere [17]–[19]. The
lP
solar irradiation contains excessive amounts of energy in one minute that could be employed as a
great opportunity for clean energy harvesting [20]. The amount of energy from the solar
na
radiation that hits the earth is about 1.8 × 1011 MW [21], which can be utilized to produce free
ur
electricity. Advancing in material science and engineering would make it more efficient to
harvest the energy from solar radiation and to deliver it to the end-users [22][23]. The
Jo
widespread of solar energy facilities combined with efficient utilization promises to increase the
energy supply and reduce the dependence on fossil fuel. However, the contribution of solar
energy to the energy demand is still at the minimum level and it is faced by several economic
of
ro
-p
re
Fig. 1 world total primary electricity generation in 2017 [15].
lP
na
The environmental impacts associated with the use of solar energy include the extensive use of
ur
land and the use of hazardous materials in the manufacturing process. In addition, the limited
solar power harvesting efficiency whether through photovoltaic (PV) solar cells or by
Jo
concentrating the thermal solar energy is still considered as the major techno-economic challenge
[26]. USA, India, and China are among the major countries currently implementing solar energy
harvesting technologies [27]–[29]. Ren et al., [30] reported a solar PV energy generation up to
92.6 TWh in the USA in 2018. Other countries have shown serious investment in solar energy
harvesting technologies including Japan, India, Brazil, Australia, and the United Arab Emirates
(UAE). UAE, as example, achieved major progress by building the world’s largest concentrating
solar plant (Shams) and Mohammed Bin Rashed solar park in 2018 [31][32].
Journal Pre-proof
The energy production from solar-based technologies plays a special role where other renewable
technologies fail to comply. For example, it is more practical to use a micro-solar system for a
single house instead of a wind turbine or biomass combustion system. The excess energy
produced in a single house can be fed directly to the city grid [33]. Therefore, solar energy is
becoming the preferred option for decision-makers and planners seeking to reduce carbon
footprint [34]. The global solar energy harvesting trends (Figure 2) clearly shows the
accelerating effort to increase the solar power production to around 400 GW by the end of 2017,
of
which accounts for no more than 0.006% of the global energy demand in the same year.
ro
Therefore, research work on improving solar energy harvesting efficiency with a minimal impact
-p
on the environment and the ecosystem is highly encouraged [35][36].
re
The PV cells are competitive energy generation devices that convert sunlight into electricity with
lP
recent price bids of US$ 0.01567/kWh in 2020 [37]. The prices of PV panels have dropped by a
factor of 10 within a decade. In general, the PV setup consists of several parts including the cells,
na
electrical and mechanical components, which work together to regulate and manage the electrical
ur
current generation. The fabrication of different components of the PV system involves the use of
different chemicals and hazardous material that might emit GHG at different stages, thus,
Jo
offsetting the claim of zero-emission once the entire life cycle is analyzed [38][39].
Journal Pre-proof
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
Year
2011
2010
2009
of
2008
ro
2007
The environmental impacts of PV power generation system from the manufacturing stage [41],
ur
to installation and operation [42], decommission and disposal or recycling of solar PV equipment
Jo
[43] have been reported in the literature. Like any power generation system, construction of a PV
facility involves the use of heavy machinery which results in noise and visual disturbances,
hence, disturbing the natural habitat and the environment [44][45]. There are several impacts that
are related primarily to human health [35], climate [46], wildlife [47], land use [48],
groundwater, and soil [49]. Turney and Fthenakis [42] identified up to 32 environmental impacts
of utilizing solar energy instead of traditional energy sources. However, 22 of these impacts were
classified as low-level impact, 4 with medium impact, and further investigations and studies are
Journal Pre-proof
required to recognize the real effect of the remaining impacts. Dimond and Webb [50] have
shown that solar insulation, temperature, humidity, precipitation, biomass density, and
biodiversity are the main characteristics of installation location with high environmental impacts.
In addition, it was reported that the locations range from forests to deserts, all through
of
the solar PV systems is crucial. Currently, there is a gap in the literature regarding the impact of
ro
different PV system components on the environment. Moreover, the effect of factors such as land
requirement and use and proper patterns distribution on the performance of the PV system
-p
require further investigation. There is a lack of knowledge related to the effect of PV technology
re
in reducing GHG emissions and the best practices in design and deployment to lower the PV
lP
carbon footprint. The impact of components of PV solar cells on the generation and emission of
hazardous materials and the possible recycling approaches are other important aspects that
na
required further investigation. Although extensive research has been carried out on the
ur
environmental impact of PV, but very few studies exist as a review that covers the effect during
the whole PV lifetime cycle. Accordingly, this review addresses comprehensively, all the key
Jo
environmental impacts associated with solar PV power generation. The reflections of this
technology on land use, air quality parameters and emissions, water consumption, contamination
and reused as well as the inclusion of hazardous materials, and possible noise/visual pollution
2. Land use
Land patterns and proper distribution is important to efficiently utilize it for PV systems and
Journal Pre-proof
avoid competition with other important activities such as agriculture. According to Dias et al.
2019 [51], the land prioritization for agricultural activities has decreased the amount of solar
energy harvested to a great extend (from 2494 to 1116 MW). An interesting evaluating parameter
is to determine the energy land-use intensity for all renewable energy technologies and compare
them based on the environmental and local economic effects. Several reports and studies showed
that solar power systems (PV and Concentrated solar power (CSP)) have the highest energy land-
use intensity compared to other energy technologies [36][47][48]. Cagle et al. [14] reported that
of
the fast growth of solar systems will acquire thousands of acres in the U.S alone [52]. Kafka et
ro
al. 2020 [53] proposed a novel method in order to reduce land use by introducing a dual-angle
-p
solar harvest system a two tilt angle solar array. The same study showed that increasing the PV
re
capacity requires less land. For example, the 10 MW power that would normally require 1154
PV panels’ installations were reduced to 104 with 30 MW power. Another way to avoid the
lP
It is noteworthy to mention, that coal combined with carbon sequestration utilizes more land
compared to PV systems in electricity generation. Groesbeck et al. [55] attributed this to the
Jo
lower thermal efficiencies of coal plants that also emit GHG at a rate of 13–18 times higher than
that of PV and occupy 5–13 times more land. The same study concluded that coal plants
combined with carbon sequestration utilize 62% of U.S. land. In a recent study for the Great
Center Valley, California, USA, Hoffacker et al. [56] identified 8415 km2 (15% of California
area) as a potential land-use for solar energy installation with 19561 TWh/annually produced
from both PV and CSP systems. Table 1 shows the land requirements for solar and wind
technologies. It clearly shows that the land requirement when the wind is used, for the same
Journal Pre-proof
power production, is larger than those of PV installations. For example, Photovoltaics <10 kW
power requires about 3.2 acres/MW whereas wind with <10 kW power requires 30 acres/MW.
Table 1. Land requirement for various sizes of solar and wind technologies.
of
PV 10100 kW 5.5 [57]
ro
PV 1001,000 kW 5.5 [57]
PV 110 MW 6.1 [57]
Small PV (>1 MW, <20 MW) -p 5.9 [58]
re
Fixed 5.5 [58]
1-axis 6.3 [58]
lP
Typically, the land requirements for solar projects are also larger than conventional fossil fuels’
projects [60]. Land use efficiency is usually quantified by the land area transformation and
occupation metrics. Transformation (km2/TWh) assesses the change of the physical nature of the
land by one-time action while the occupation (km2 yr/TWh) deals with the land being used for a
certain period of time (including the time required for the land restoration to the pre-disturbed
state) [59]. The transformation metric considers the impact of installation, however, the
occupation metric considers the impact installation and operation [42]. For instance, the direct
of
land-use requirements for PV installations in the United States are between 2.2 and 12.2
ro
acres/MW, with a capacity-weighted average of 6.9 acres/MW and a generation-weighted
-p
average of 3.1 acres/GWh/year [61]. The total land-use is all the land within the project site
re
boundaries while the direct land-use is the land occupied by physical infrastructures such as solar
arrays, facility buildings, and access roads. It is clear that the installations needed for the tracking
lP
systems make the land use for single and dual trackers relatively larger than the fixed mounting
na
modules [62].
ur
The construction phase usually contributes to the major environmental impact on the land and
habitat [47]. This is mainly due to the use of concrete and heavy machinery, installation of the
Jo
structures, setting up the trenches for cables, and to connect the infrastructure [63]. One way to
lower the land use and raise land efficiency is by shortening the distance between the rows of PV
modules. This could be done also by installing the modules in occupied spaces such as parking
lots, roofs, and landfills. Nevertheless, utilizing an already disturbed or degraded land such as
landfills, spent mines, or contaminated sites, to install PV systems would significantly lower the
impact compared to the utilization of undisturbed land [64][65]. New policies and regulations
would help in the land reduction for solar energy by introducing incentives for installing PV
Journal Pre-proof
Land use can be also reduced by employing floating PV (FPV) systems. In FPV systems, the PV
panels are laid on top of a structure that floats in a waterbody. FPV systems are usually utilized
in the unused areas, hence minimizing the land use [66]. In addition, it is anticipated that FPV
systems would generate more power than the inland PV systems [67]. This is mainly due to the
higher efficiency resulted from the continuous cooling caused by water evaporation at the
of
backside of the FPV panels. Another advantage of using FPV is decreasing the water losses from
ro
freshwater bodies [65]. For instance, the Gujarat irrigation canal in India which was covered by
FPV panels to generate 1 MW, has reduced water evaporation by around 9 thousand cubic
-p
meters [65]. Several FPV systems were installed at lakes in several countries such as the USA,
re
UK, Japan, Korea, Italy, and Brazil [47]. However, the land area required for the PV could be
lP
also reduced by adopting a hybrid power system. Al-Ajmi et al. [68] reported that introducing
hybrid wind-solar configuration reduced the land requirement from 4 acre/MW down to 1.06
na
acres/MW. Micro-Solar technology integration with other systems engineering processes for
ur
electrical supply would offset the land requirement issue [69][70]. Salameh et al. [71]
investigated the technical and economical possibilities of integrated PV systems with a power
Jo
plant where no additional land was required since the system will be installed within the power
plan campus. However, land requirements and competition with agricultural activities do not
impose environmental impacts on countries where desert areas occupy a major part of their land.
Deserts and no cropping land are the ideal locations to install mega PV systems for electrical
supply.
PV energy is a clean energy source and its impact on air quality and climate change is
significantly lower than any other traditional power generation system. Hence, it can assist in
eliminating numerous environmental issues that resulted from utilizing fossil fuels [72]. PV
systems have zero emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides
(CO2, CH4, SOX, NOX, respectively) during operation with negligible effects on air pollution and
global warming [43]. For instance, 0.53 kg of CO2 emissions can be reduced for each kWh of
electricity produced by employing PV systems [73]. However, this is based on the operation of
of
PV systems, which does not include all lifecycle phases into consideration. Hence, and for a far
ro
evaluation, the emissions during all PV systems lifecycle phases from manufacturing, to
-p
transportation, installation, operation, and ending up with disposal/decommissioning should be
re
considered. Table 2 shows the breakdown of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for PV in total
percentages [74]. It is evident from the table that fabrication (manufacturing) is responsible for
lP
Table 2. Breakdown of lifecycle GHG emissions for wind energy and solar PV (% of total) [74].
Jo
The emissions related to the transportation of PV modules are intangible compared to the
emissions from the manufacturing. The transportation emissions are only between 0.1 – 1 % of
Journal Pre-proof
the manufacturing emissions [75]. In manufacturing, emissions are primarily generated during:
the fabrication of steel and aluminum to build supports and frames; the production of glass; and
the reduction of silica to silicon for silicon solar cells [46]. Moreover, the type and magnitude of
emissions are tightly linked to the nature of the fuel or the fuel mix used to power the PV
modules production [76]. As an example, Cucchiella and D’Adamo [76] investigated the
greenhouse emissions from monocrystalline PV cells as kg carbon dioxide (CO2) eq/kWp. They
reported that the emissions during the manufacturing phase were 2186 kg CO2 eq/kWp which is
of
around 93.7% of the total greenhouse gas emissions, while the emissions during the operation,
ro
transportation, and disposal phases were 3.5%, 0.9%, and 1.9%, respectively.
-p
Typically, various gas emissions are converted to carbon dioxide (CO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2)
re
equivalents since they are the two main gases emitted from PV power systems [77]. Moreover, it
lP
is quite easy to estimate the cost of CO2 and SO2 emissions due to the vast availability of their
shadow prices in literature [78]–[80]. Carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent is used mainly to quantify
na
the global warming potential for the six types of greenhouse gases specified by Kyoto protocol,
ur
i.e. carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC),
perfluorocarbons (PFC) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) against CO2 as a reference substance
Jo
[76][81]. On the other hand, SO2 equivalent is used to quantify the acidification potential, or the
acid formation potential against SO2 as a reference substance. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is mostly
used with hydrochloric acid (HCl), hydrofluoric acid (HF), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), Hydrogen
sulfide (H2S), ammonium (NH4), and ammonia (NH3) [82]. For instance, the SO2 equivalent for
H2S, NH3 and HCl gases are 1.88, 0.88 and 0.70, respectively [82][83]. Xu et al. [77] estimated
the total kg CO2 eq/kWp and kg SO2 eq/kWp for PV system production in China as 2060.40,600
and 20.83,591, respectively. Table 3 shows a comparison of SOX and NOX emissions from
Journal Pre-proof
of
SOx 55 55 65 50 105 195 20
ro
(mg/kWh)
NOx 35 40 45 25 35 115 5
(mg/kWh)
CO2 19 24 28
-p 16 69 59 5
re
(g/kWh)
lP
CIS: Copper Indium Selenide, CdTe: Cadmium Telluride, DSPV: Dye sensitized PV, QDPV: Quantum Dot-PV,
One of the major advantages of utilizing solar energy is the reduction of CO2 emissions.
However, special consideration has to be given when installing solar power plants in forests. In
such regions, plants have to be cut to less than 1 m height or completely removed during the
installation to avert shading effects on solar panels [42][85]. This normally leads to less
sequestration rate of CO2 by vegetation, in addition to the fact that around 50% to 75% of cut
vegetation converted to firewood and consequently to CO2 emissions [42]. Thus, the actual
Zhai et al. [86] estimated that there will be a 6.5% to 18.8% reduction in CO2 emissions in the
USA if 10% of the grid electricity generated through PV systems. Furthermore, Hosenuzzaman
et al. [87] also estimated that the use of PV systems can lead, by the year of 2030, to a reduction
of CO2, SO2 and NOX emissions by around 69–100 million tons, 126,000–184,000 tons and
significant drop in several dangerous diseases such as heart attacks and asthma that are expected
of
carbon footprint is in the range of 14 – 73 g CO2-eq/kWh [88][89]. On the other hand, the
ro
combustion of fossil fuel is accountable for around 94% of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions,
-p
and carbon footprints of gas, oil, and coal-fired electricity generation power plants are 607.6,
re
742.1, and 975.3 g CO2-eq/kWh, respectively [90][91]. It is clear that the PV systems footprint
values are around an order of magnitude lower than the fossil fuel values [92][93].
lP
Researchers have investigated many improvement approaches to lower the PV carbon footprint
na
[74]. This could be achieved by adopting best practices in design and deployment phases that can
ur
better improve the performance and reduce the overall emissions. Some attributes such as:
increase lifespan; increase system capacity; ground mounting; increase irradiance (desert); use of
Jo
renewable energy mixes and thin-film (CdTe) or cadmium selenide (CdSe) quantum dot PVs,
Another aspect when investigating the effect of PV power generation systems on climate change
is the albedo effect [94]. PV panels have a quite low reflectivity with an effective albedo of 0.18
to 0.23, hence, converting most of the solar insolation into heat, which in turn may have an effect
on the climate [95][96][97][98]. Nemet [96] studied the albedo effect on global climate change
Journal Pre-proof
and revealed that this effect is insignificant compared to the substantial reduction of greenhouse
The manufacturing of PV solar cells involves different kinds of hazardous materials during either
the extraction of solar cells or semiconductors etching and surface cleaning [99][100]. Several
raw materials are utilized during PV cells’ manufacturing such as silicon (Si), cadmium (Cd),
of
tellurium (Te), copper (Cu), selenium (Se), and gallium (Ga) [101][102]. The production of these
ro
raw materials involves mining and several extraction and purification processes. Most of these
-p
materials are produced as by-products from the mining of other metals. For example, cadmium is
re
produced as a bi-product from waste streams of lead and zinc minerals processing [84].
Cadmium removed from the zinc or lead recovery unit as a sponge with 99.5% purity and moved
lP
to a recovery unit. It is then further concentrated to 99.99% purity through a series of oxidation,
na
reach 99.999% purity needed for CdTe cell fabrication [99]. Moreover, tellurium (Te) is also
ur
produced as a by-product during the mineral processing of ores of several metals such as lead,
Jo
gold, and copper [103]. However, tellurium is a rare metal, which may restrict the expansion of
CdTe solar cells’ production. Hence, recycling and recovery of tellurium are crucial for retaining
Silicon for silicon solar cells is produced from silicates minerals, in particular silica (SiO2) ores.
Silicate minerals form more than 90% of the Earth's crust, which makes silicon the second
most abundant element in the Earth's crust after oxygen [104]. High purity silicon is produced
mainly by reducing silica with the presence of coke at high temperature [105], then treating the
Journal Pre-proof
output stream with hydrochloric acid with the presence of copper. High purity silicon is then
It is noteworthy to mention that 80% of the high purity silicon is dissipated during high
temperature treatment [105]. Several heavy metals emissions occur during the production of
different types of PV solar cells and the major ones are shown in Table 4 [84].
of
Table 4: Heavy metal emissions from different types of PV cell materials in µg/kWh [84].
ro
Metal Silicon PVs Thin Film PVs Nano PVs
Furthermore, numerous chemicals and solvents with considerable amounts are used throughout
the separation, extraction, purification, production, and cleaning processes of different types of
solar cells. Examples of these chemicals are hydrogen, hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, iso-
propanol, ammonia, and selenium hydride. Most of these compounds are flammable, corrosive,
toxic, and carcinogenic, hence they require special handling. The emissions of these hazardous
Journal Pre-proof
gases and chemical solvents vary with the type of PV cell materials. Table 5 summarizes the
main health and environmental impacts of the chemical compounds involved in PV cells’
manufacturing [35].
Table 5. Health and environmental impacts of the chemical compounds involved in PV cells’
manufacturing [35].
of
ro
Compounds Purpose Health and environmental impacts
Acetone (C3H6O) Cleaning out microscopic dirt Eyes and nose irritation, throat
reproduce males.
na
Ammonia (NH3) Production of antireflective Skin and eyes irritation, throat and
ur
burns.
Arsenic (As) Production of Gallium Toxic and carcinogens, heart and liver
Hydrochloric acid Production of electrical grade Skin irritation, eyes, nose, mouth and
(HCl) silicon, clean and etch throat infections, food digestion, and
of
semiconductors respiratory depression.
ro
Hydrogen (H2) Manufacturing amorphous-Si Flammable and highly explosive.
solar cells.
-p
re
Iso-propanol Cleaning out microscopic dirt Vomiting, Eyes irritation, depression,
reactors
Polybrominated Circuit boards and solar panel Toxic, carcinogenic and cause
Polybrominated Circuit boards and solar panel Toxic, carcinogenic and cause
(PBDEs)
Toluene (C7H8) Clean out microscopic dirt and Headaches, hearing and memory loss,
of
retarded growth.
ro
1,1,1- Clean out microscopic dirt and Dizziness, reduced blood pressure,
Xylene (C8H10) Clean out microscopic dirt and Skin and eye irritation, liver kidneys,
lP
pregnancy problems.
ur
Jo
Recycling of PV waste and disposed PV modules is a crucial step to reduce the environmental
impacts and to sustain the raw materials supplies. This is particularly important because the
majority of the metals encountered in PV cell manufacturing are rare. The recycling of wastes
and disposed modules is extensively investigated, and many recovery techniques for the various
materials have been evolved. Moreover, there are several recycling processes that have been
well-established and already scaled up for commercial use [106]. Other processes are still in the
pilot plant phase. However, these recycling processes are energy intensive, quite complex,
Journal Pre-proof
experience limited efficiency, and utilized massive quantities of chemicals [107]. The latter,
consequently, leads to further negative environmental impact. Furthermore, many studies have
been performed on the re-manufacturing and reuse of PV modules [108]. However, this subject
requires further investigation and design improvements to enhance the reusability of various
components. So far, the recycling route appears to be challenging. Studies reported that the
recycling of solar cells’ materials, in general, is a multi-step process but 90% of the materials can
be fully recycled [109] [110]. This will help mitigate GHG emissions. For example, it was shown
of
that GHG emissions can be reduced by 42% upon the use of recycled silicon material [111].
ro
Therefore, actions are required and regulations are to be imposed to modify the design for ease
-p
of reuse, improve the wastes collection system, and promote the liability of the manufactures
re
toward recycling.
lP
5. Water usage
na
Water consumption is critical mainly for countries exposed by severe water shortage such as
Libya, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Singapore, therefore, sustainable and effective technologies for
ur
water consumption and treatment are critically required [112]–[115]. Meldrum et al. [116]
Jo
reviewed the life cycle of water use for electricity generation. It was evident from their review
shown in that the water consumption in PV systems during operation is insignificant. During
operation, water is used mainly for panels cooling and cleaning. Water usage for cooling can be
greatly reduced by recirculating cooling water and employing dry or hybrid cooling schemes
[117] where the cooling occurs by ventilation. However, recirculating or employing dry cooling
systems consume more energy compared to once-through cooling systems [118]. Moreover,
cleaning PV panels rises the efficiency, yet, the overall cost is higher due to water usage [119].
Journal Pre-proof
Nevertheless, the amount of water required and the frequency of cleaning relies on several
variables such as dust characteristics, wind speed, wind direction, panel orientation, tilt angle,
temperature, rainfall, vegetation, air pollution, humidity, and glazing properties [40]. Floating
PV installations are cooled by water evaporation from the water body at the back of the panel;
The water consumption during the manufacturing and recycling processes is considerably higher
of
than the water consumption during operation. Manufacturing processes include minerals
ro
processing, extraction, purification, and chemical etching. For example, water consumption
during silicon production is around 180 kg/kg, and during its conversion to multi-crystalline is
-p
around 470 kg/kg and accordingly, each kWp would require between 3.7 to 5.2 tons of water
re
[121]. Nevertheless, the wastewater produced should be treated and reused. Several processes
lP
were employed to treat wastewater such as biological processes [122], adsorption [123][124],
Fthenakis and Kim [128] reviewed the recent studies related to water usage in conventional and
ur
water demand factors (withdrawal and consumption). They showed that moving to photovoltaic
technology would be the best option for conserving water supply. They studied water usage
during fuel acquisition, preparation, and device/plant construction. The fuel cycle for a
constructing a power plant, except for the biomass fuel cycle that requires a significant amount
of irrigation water. There is a lack of accurate water usage for renewable technologies due to
accurate data of water recycling in the power plants. They selected three common types of PV:
Journal Pre-proof
multi-Si, mono-Si, and, thin-film CdTe. One-site water usage is related to cleaning and cooling
wafers, cells, modules. However, producing cast-silicon and growing single crystals accounts
Jin et al. [129] stated that to accurately measure water consumption is a very important step
water conservation. They reported although there are many studies in the literature related to
of
water usage, the studies seem to have a lot of disparity. Hence, making it very difficult for
ro
decision makers to move forward with renewable energy resources. Having said that, they
investigated the usage of blue water in the current studies to understand and accurately estimate
-p
water usage and uncertainties in the reported data. The results showed that photovoltaics has the
re
lowest footprint in water usage compared to other renewable technologies as depicted in Table 6
lP
[129]. The authors also reported that water usage is very dependent on geographical locations
and is vastly differ from one location to another around the world. They also reported that
na
capacity factor - an influencing measure – has been studied in a handful of studies only. The
ur
authors reported that the water usage values reported, in these studies, has been based on the
numbers reported in the literature or from estimation, and not from the direct measure. Although
Jo
water scarcity directly influences the use of water in photovoltaic systems, there has been a low
number of studies related to water scarcity around the world. Unfortunately, they are not reliable
due to gaps and inconsistency in measurement. Hence, an accurate measure of water full cycle in
technologies.
Journal Pre-proof
Table 6 Median of water consumption in a full life cycle for different energy generation
technologies [129].
(L/MWh)
Biomass 85,100
Hydropower 4,961
Oil 3,220
of
Nuclear 2,290
ro
Coal 2,220
CSP 1,250
Geothermal
Natural Gas
1,022
596
-p
re
PV 330
lP
Wind 43
na
Following up on the point above that is related to water usage and measure per specific area
ur
around the world, Bukhari et al. [130] focused on water requirements specifically for the
Jo
southwest U.S. region. The study reported that although the southwest U.S. has a great potential
for PV technologies, however, this potential might be hindered due to the availability of water in
the region. A model was established to estimate the water usage in the southwest region based on
estimates from literature for water usage, land usage, and carbon emissions reduction
requirement for six southwestern states based on renewable portfolio standards (RPS). The
results of the model showed that among the renewable energy technologies, PV was the most
One of the key advantages of PV systems is their use in remote areas to pump water for irrigation
systems [131][132]. Hence, the design of the PV system for this purpose depends on the
requirement for water demand and supply to grow crops. The optimal design of PV can lead to
optimizing the different components (for example a pump) and water resources. The study
reported a model that allows the reduction of water leaks and a proper selection of devices for
of
Madhlopa et al. [133], reiterated that the photovoltaic system is considered one of the renewable
ro
energy technologies that have the lowest demand for water during production. This is
specifically true for PV-wind based systems, as no sufficient studies have been conducted to
-p
show the effect of water resources on the optimization of the system. The study elaborated that
re
water demand in such plants has always been expressed as a linear function, which is not
lP
accurate. Hence, a model of PV-wind system based on meteorological data taken from Bonfoi
Stellenbosch in South Africa was designed. The major conclusion was hat a water-constraint
na
scenario reduced the water demand by 24%, which has a positive impact on the environment.
ur
In Germany, the potential for cooling water reduction when using PV-wind based technologies to
Jo
substitute nuclear and coal-based power plants was evaluated [117]. The impact of PV-wind
electricity feed in on the operation of thermoelectric power plants and the amount of water
consumed for the period between July 2011 and June 2013 was also evaluated in the same study.
Simulations for cycling all thermoelectric power plants over the River Neckar while calculating
the amounts for the required cooling water were performed. The study concluded that 7% (431 L
per MWh) reduction of cooling water is achievable with electricity generated by the PV-wind
system. The study also forecasted that renewable energy (PV-wind) share of feed in electricity
Journal Pre-proof
Khan et al. [134], provided a comprehensive study on the use of PV and PV-wind based systems
for desalination to provide the water needs in Saudi Arabia. They stated that the majority of
desalination plants depend on fossil fuels, which caused depletion and a dramatic impact on the
local environment. They studied PV based reverse osmosis (RO) desalination approach as an
of
the trends and technical details of PV-RO systems among other systems. The results indicated
ro
that water production could be significantly reduced using PV or PV-wind based technology.
This implies a positive perspective on the local environment and future roll-out/expansions of
such technology. -p
re
Deb et al. [135], reported that t maintenance and cleaning of PV panels is very challenging and
lP
has a negative impact on soiling. This primarily because manual and automated cleaning use
na
mostly water to remove debris that accumulate on the surface of the PV panels. They proposed a
design for a device that can automatically clean PV panels, water-free. Hence, saving water and
ur
Stambouli et al. [136], studied the strategic objectives of establishing a superhighway of energy
to address North Africa’s regions of energy, water demand and environmental conditions due to
heavy demand on fossil-fuel power plants. They stated that the global energy demand is expected
to rise in the next 15 years, so as the need for technologies to produce a high capacity for water
and energy supply chain. They also reported that PV would have a significant role in the next 15
According to the world health organization, the noise is defined as unwanted sound [137],
therefore, it is considered a type of pollution due to its impact on human health [138]. The
hearing range of healthy human being range from 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz and the effect on human
health depends on the exposure time and the wavelength. Noise is an environmental factor that
causes tension and possible harmful effects on human health [138][139]. The interfering effects
of
of noise are originated from the difference of power intensities which is also responsible for the
ro
development of different stresses. Dehra [139] performed an investigation on noise
characterization on solar energy conversion and photovoltaic devices equipped with ventilation.
-p
The sources of noise waves were all identified based on their speed of noise interference [139].
re
The noise of the solar system is taking place due to the differences in power intensities between
lP
two PV installations. PV modules do not contain moving or rotating parts, hence, there is no
significant noise pollution produced during their operation [75]. However, during the
na
construction phase, many heavy machinery and vehicles operate in the site which cause noise
ur
pollution for residences, travelers, and wildlife [140]. One novel design is the use of PV systems
as noise barriers (NB). These are usually top-mounted near highways and provide the dual
Jo
combination of combating noise while providing electricity. Several configurations are shown in
Figure 3 [141].
Journal Pre-proof
of
ro
-p
Fig. 3 Different Possible PVNB Configurations [141].
re
lP
The visual impact of the PV system or often called visual pollution was reported to have a
na
negative impact due to the large scale of PV projects and installations [40]. The visual pollution
appears to be a problem often raised by the public, local communities, or environmental activists.
ur
Depending on the degree of visual impact, public opinion can strongly oppose the installation of
Jo
Visual impact typically depends on the area of installation and a negative impact is anticipated
especially for large PV projects. Most of the PV power plants are installed in rural areas, hence,
their negative influence on the landscape is significant [142]. A possible practice to minimize
this negative impact is to mount PV panels on the rooftop and building facades [143][144].
Typically, the integration of PV panels into the facade of buildings has a positive visual impact.
Moreover, novel designs and new shapes above floating structures appear to have a pleasant
Journal Pre-proof
appearance. Another option to minimize the visual impact is to place the PV facilities in regions
far away from residential areas such as desert regions [140]. Nevertheless, there are many
practices and know-how procedures to reduce the visual impact of PV plants. The measures are,
but not limited, proper planning and selection of the suitable site, adoption of environmental
friendly regulations and policies, implementation of suitable installation practices, enhancing the
integration of PV panels into the facade of buildings, preventing placing PV panels on buildings
with historical and cultural value or conservation areas, and finally, engaging the public in the
of
early planning stages to acquire public acceptance [75][140].
ro
For several PV projects, visual pollution often does not impose a concern for installation,
-p
however, few published works recommended seeking the public acceptance for proper project
re
commencement [75][40]. For example, visual pollution of natural sites with intensive biological
lP
diversity and special recreational areas may have public disapproval [47]. Pimentel et al. [47]
proposed that the floating structure of the PV system as a design alternative to present the PV in
na
a new configuration providing new apparition of the project in order to have public acceptance.
ur
Visual pollution is one of the biggest concerns for touristic areas where visitors prefer to enjoy
nature without industrial disturbances. Therefore, PV projects near sightseen or touristic places
Jo
require special permission from authorities and may be subjected to the disapproval of changing
the design configuration [4,5]. Pimentel et al. [47] proposed an advertising solar system as
special sightseeing of clean renewable energy that minimizes the effect of GHG. Therefore, any
PV project installation must be assessed with respect to visual pollution and take into account
According to report published in Renewable Energy World [146], the PV industry promoted the
Journal Pre-proof
integration of ergonomic shape within the system design codes and standard at the research and
development phase. This would introduce an esthetic design without compromising the system
functionality. The ergonomic shape emerges from a market point of view but at the same time it
alleviate the visual pollution impact whenever addressed. Several published articles and patent
developed a new ergonomic design for solar system for various purposes driven by market
requirement [147][148]. These designs could be utilized to reduce the visual pollution. Frietas
et al. [149] proposed the integration of PV with shading systems such as tents and umbrella as
of
embedded system where visual impact is an issue. In the future, PV systems design will suits
ro
better our daily life by meeting the requirements of visual aesthetic and public acceptance [148].
-p
Guiren et al. 2017 [45] demonstrated that visual amenity protection by tree plantation close to the
re
PV installation reduced the visual pollution for the area. In order to alleviate the visual pollution
lP
of PV, a special management plane has to be in place, depending on how the visual impact
affects the area, community, and the local industry [45][40][75]. One of the interesting cases that
na
appeared to have a visual impact, is the PV installation near highways where sunlight reflection
ur
disturbed drivers [45]. To tackle such challenges, special glass modification and coating can be
considered with the generic design of the PV setup [145][45]. Finally, the visual pollution is high
Jo
when installed near, or within the historic buildings and may cause disturbances for visitors and
In general, noise pollution during the construction phase causes potential hazardous to the
workers and the ecosystem [151]. The noise pollution may impact the hearing ability of the
workers and distract the animal from their natural habitat ecosystems [152]. According to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA, USA, the level of sound can be
Journal Pre-proof
measured at a unit of decibel (dBA) and reported that 80-85 dBA can damage hearing ability
after 2 hours of exposure [153]. Therefore, for any PV construction project must comply with
noise control regulation and continuously measure the noise level. It is recommended to use a
special measuring device as part of a construction environmental management plan which itself
comprised of numerous specialized sub-plans including the impact of noise pollution [154].
Guerin et al. [154] reported that the construction phase of PV does not impose potential pollution
and the source of the noise was a minor disturbance from transportation vehicles. In comparison
of
with other renewable technologies, the construction of wind turbine exhibits higher noise
ro
pollution compared to the PV system [155]. For example, the construction of an offshore wind
-p
power generation system produces underwater sounds wave and continuous noise at low
re
frequencies [155]. This pollution affected negatively the marine mammals by interfering and
overlapping with the communication signals between the mammals [155][156]. Biofuel
lP
production from renewable biomass integrated into power plants generates noise during
na
construction at a higher level than the PV and wind turbine systems [157][158]. The biorefinery
of the biomass systems requires continuous loading and uploading of biomass feedstock which
ur
generates continuous sounds that affect people living in the neighborhood as well as the
Jo
communication between the animals, especially the birds. In conclusion, the noise pollution of
PV is minor and lower than other renewable systems during the construction phase.
Overall, although PV systems are often referred to as zero-emissions systems, yet, careful
examination of all potential environmental aspects shows various effects involved. PV energy is
a clean energy source during operation, however, its impact on air quality and climate change
can be seen during the manufacturing phase. It is interesting to compare power sources in terms
Journal Pre-proof
of carbon emissions, and that was the topic of several studies in the literature. It is observed that
researchers have also investigated many approaches to lower the PV carbon footprint. A
comprehensive look at these studies shows a full analysis of PV systems lifecycle phases from
disposal/decommissioning. The first thing to note is that the major amount of emissions are
emitted during the manufacturing process rather than installing them into their final location.
of
The environmental impact of PV as seen from the studies in the literature does not only include
carbon emissions but also extends to include evaluating the noise pollution coming from mainly
ro
the construction phase. Researchers recommended utilizing PV system installations as noise
-p
barriers beside highways for example. Visual impact does not seem to impose a serious problem,
re
however, it typically depends on the area of installation and a negative impact is anticipated
lP
especially for large PV projects. It is interesting to observe the water usage effect in PV systems.
This is mainly for cooling and cleaning due to the soiling effect. Studies recommended the
na
reduction of water usage for cooling by recirculation or employing dry or hybrid cooling
ur
schemes. The water consumption during the manufacturing and recycling processes is
considerably higher than the water consumption during operation. However, it was seen that PV
Jo
This review showed that the major environmental impact is the evolution of hazardous materials
during the manufacturing of PV systems. Studies showed that the main component evolved are
heavy metals, chemical solvents, and acids throughout the separation, extraction, purification,
production, and cleaning processes of different types of solar cells. It is interesting to realize that
the land use of PV systems has distinct features from conventional power cycles in a way that
large scales are utilized. However, the land can be safely restored and can be exploited for
Journal Pre-proof
It can be clearly seen that there are some gaps in materials research. Additional research efforts
are certainly required to improve and innovate in producing materials for solar cells. This will be
positively reflected in energy consumption, efficiency, and carbon dioxide emissions during the
manufacturing phase. Research on self-cleaning materials is still required and would reduce
water consumption. It is also recommended to recycle the PV waste to reduce the environmental
of
impacts and to sustain the raw materials supplies. A significant improvement can be achieved in
ro
terms of specific emissions from PV systems during their lifetime and the way there are installed
-p
re
In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in PV future challenges and prospects, and
most of the research focus was to reduce the cost, improve the effectiveness, and enhance the
lP
technical design of current systems [159]. However, it is very important to envision the
na
environmental impact and sustainability of these PV systems in the future. The current trends
associated with PV sustainability have been investigated in many aspects such as sustainability
ur
in PV system design [160][161]; use of recyclable and biodegradable polymeric materials [162];
Jo
frameless roofing design [163]; eliminate or reduce the rare elements [164][165], and recycling
the waste of PV systems [166]. Vellini et al. [167] assessed and compared the life cycle of two
different PV technologies: CdTe and Si panels. They have examined two possible scenarios at
the end of PV life: recycling and landfilling. The study highlighted the importance of the
recycling process that involves the recovering of raw materials, a decrease in energy demand,
and a reduction of emissions of materials that would be harmful to the environment if discharged
recycling. They have reviewed the state-of-art recycling technology along with a quantitative
economic assessment to breakdown the cost structure and better understand the presented
economic barrier.
recycling [168]. This includes features for disassembly, recycling, and reducing or eliminating
of
the use of toxic components. Table 7 shows the CO2 Greenhouse gas emission for different PV
ro
Types. It can be clearly seen that the emissions from Thin-film amorphous silicon are 37.6 g-
CO2/kWhe while with enhanced technologies and novel materials such as quantum dots QDPV,
-p
the emissions can be greatly decreased to 5 g-CO2/kWhe. Furthermore, future research trends
re
should be directed on evaluating the environmental trade-offs of solar versus agriculture and
lP
forestry. The results of these studies will offer a platform for proper environmental legislations.
na
QDPV 5 [84]
CIS 69 [84]
Ribbon Multi-Si 19 [84]
9. Conclusions
The efficiency and environmental impact of the PV systems have been reviewed with in depth
of
focus on system component and materials of construction. The life cycle analysis revealed that
ro
the PV systems cannot be considered as zero-emission technology due to the probable”
-p
environmental effects imposed by land use, air quality, water use, the inclusion of hazardous
materials, and possible noise/visual pollution. The study revealed that high PV performance can
re
be achieved, under low land usage, by adopting novel technologies such as hybrid power systems
lP
and/or floating PV systems. The environmental impact of the PV energy system on air quality
na
and climate change is significantly lower than traditional power generation system. Nonetheless,
process due to the variations in the materials used and the need for several step-processing. The
carbon footprint of PV solar systems’ was estimated in the range (14 – 73 g CO2-eq/kWh), which
is lower than gas (607.6 CO2-eq/kWh) oil (742.1CO2-eq/kWh), and coal-fired (975.3 g CO2-
eq/kWh) power plants. Up to 50% lower GHG emissions can be achieved using new materials
and/or recycled silicon material. Floating PV systems and installations with self-cleaning
techniques have the advantage to reduce the water usage during the cleaning process. Noise and
visual impacts of the PV modules are minimal except during the installation time.
Journal Pre-proof
References
Sustainability assessment of renewable energy,” Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Heal., vol. 13,
[2] G. Rasul, “Managing the food, water, and energy nexus for achieving the Sustainable
Development Goals in South Asia,” Environ. Dev., vol. 18, pp. 14–25, 2016.
of
[3] M. Gulied, F. Al Momani, M. Khraisheh, R. Bhosale, and A. AlNouss, “Influence of draw
ro
solution type and properties on the performance of forward osmosis process: Energy
consumption and sustainable water reuse,” Chemosphere, vol. 233, pp. 234–244, 2019.
[4]
-p
W. S. Ebhota and T.-C. Jen, “Fossil fuels environmental challenges and the role of solar
re
photovoltaic technology advances in fast tracking hybrid renewable Energy System,” Int.
lP
agricultural waste using artificial neural network,” Fuel, vol. 280, p. 118573, 2020.
ur
[6] S. A. A. Shah, “Feasibility study of renewable energy sources for developing the
Jo
hydrogen economy in Pakistan,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, vol. 45, no. 32, pp. 15841–
15854, 2020.
energy policy planning and decision-making through a hybrid MCDM method,” Energy
Journal Pre-proof
“Direct hydrocarbon fuel cells: A promising technology for improving energy efficiency,”
Fuel for a Phosphoric Acid Direct Hydrocarbon Fuel Cell,” J. Fuels, vol. 2015, pp. 1–9,
of
2015.
ro
[11] A. H. Alami, K. Aokal, D. Zhang, M. Tawalbeh, A. Alhammadi, and A. Taieb,
-p
cells,” Agron. Res., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 1569–1579, 2018.
re
[12] R. Kommalapati, A. Kadiyala, M. T. Shahriar, and Z. Huque, “Review of the life cycle
lP
greenhouse gas emissions from different photovoltaic and concentrating solar power
electricity generation systems,” Energies, vol. 10, no. 3. MDPI AG, 2017.
na
“Microbial desalination cells for water purification and power generation: A critical
Jo
[14] F. Almomani and R. Bhosale, “Enhancing the production of biogas through anaerobic co-
2020.
https://www.worldenergydata.org/world/.
PV/T System Coupled with Domestic Hot Water System,” ChemEngineering, vol. 4, no.
energy technologies,” Sci. Total Environ., vol. 659, pp. 851–861, Apr. 2019.
[18] E. Abdelsalam et al., “Performance analysis of hybrid solar chimney–power plant for
power production and seawater desalination: A sustainable approach,” Int. J. Energy Res.,
of
p. er.6004, Oct. 2020.
ro
[19] A. Ashok, A. Kumar, R. Bhosale, M. A. Saleh Saad, F. AlMomani, and F. Tarlochan,
-p
“Study of ethanol dehydrogenation reaction mechanism for hydrogen production on
re
combustion synthesized cobalt catalyst,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, vol. 42, no. 37, pp.
lP
23464–23473, 2017.
maintenance strategies for PV systems,” Sci. Total Environ., vol. 746, p. 141753, Dec.
ur
2020.
Jo
[21] A. Saurabh, D. Atheaya, and A. Kumar, “Study of hybrid photovoltaic thermal systems,”
cesium hybridization for high-efficiency solar cells,” Chem. Mater., vol. 31, no. 5, pp.
1620–1627, 2019.
Active cooling techniques,” Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 155, pp. 301–323, Jan. 2018.
[25] R. Jing, K. Kuriyan, J. Lin, N. Shah, and Y. Zhao, “Quantifying the contribution of
of
photovoltaic/thermal hybrid solar collectors: Classifications, applications and new
ro
systems,” Sol. Energy, vol. 207, pp. 1321–1347, Sep. 2020.
-p
[27] A. Jäger-Waldau, “Progress in chalcopyrite compound semiconductor research for
re
photovoltaic applications and transfer of results into actual solar cell production,” in
lP
[28] O. B. Mousa and R. A. Taylor, “Global solar technology optimization for factory rooftop
na
emissions mitigation,” Environ. Res. Lett., vol. 15, no. 4, p. 44013, 2020.
ur
[29] M. S. Ibrahim and R. Oum Kumari, “Emerging Solar Energy Technologies for Sustainable
Jo
Farming: A Review.”
[30] M. Ren, C. R. Mitchell, and W. Mo, “Dynamic life cycle economic and environmental
assessment of residential solar photovoltaic systems,” Sci. Total Environ., vol. 722, Jun.
2020.
[31] A. Al-Othman, M. Tawalbeh, M. El Haj Assad, T. Alkayyali, and A. Eisa, “Novel multi-
stage flash (MSF) desalination plant driven by parabolic trough collectors and a solar
pond: A simulation study in UAE,” Desalination, vol. 443, pp. 237–244, Oct. 2018.
Journal Pre-proof
[32] D. Zhang et al., “Efficiency and high-temperature response of dye-sensitized solar cells
using natural dyes extracted from Calotropis,” in 2018 5th International Conference on
[33] D. Masa-Bote et al., “Improving photovoltaics grid integration through short time
forecasting and self-consumption,” Appl. Energy, vol. 125, pp. 103–113, 2014.
[34] M. Mahmoud, M. Ramadan, S. Naher, K. Pullen, and A.-G. Olabi, “The impacts of
different heating systems on the environment: A review,” Sci. Total Environ., p. 142625,
of
Oct. 2020.
ro
[35] M. M. Aman et al., “A review of Safety, Health and Environmental (SHE) issues of solar
-p
energy system,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 41, pp. 1190–1204, 2015.
re
[36] D. Pearlmutter et al., “Enhancing the circular economy with nature-based solutions in the
lP
built urban environment: green building materials, systems and sites,” Blue-Green Syst.,
[37] E. Bellini, “Qatar’s 800 MW tender draws world record solar power price of
ur
Cycle Analysis Comparison between Single Crystalline Solar Cells and poly Crystaline
[39] A. Letafat et al., “Simultaneous energy management and optimal components sizing of a
environmental impacts and a land reclamation strategy for solar and wind energy
systems,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 718. Elsevier B.V., 20-May-2020.
[42] D. Turney and V. Fthenakis, “Environmental impacts from the installation and operation
of large-scale solar power plants,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 3261–
of
3270, 2011.
ro
[43] V. M. Fthenakis, H. C. Kim, and E. Alsema, “Emissions from Photovoltaic Life Cycles
-p
Emissions from Photovoltaic Life Cycles,” Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 42, no. 6, pp.
re
2168–2174, 2008.
lP
[44] M. Soliño, A. Prada, and M. X. Vázquez, “Green electricity externalities: Forest biomass
in an Atlantic European Region,” Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 407–414,
na
2009.
ur
[45] T. Guerin, “A case study identifying and mitigating the environmental and community
Jo
[46] E. Alsema, Energy Payback Time and CO2Emissions of PV Systems, no. 1. Elsevier Ltd,
2012.
[47] G. D. Pimentel Da Silva and D. A. C. Branco, “Is floating photovoltaic better than
[48] P. Denholm and R. M. Margolis, “Impacts of array configuration on land use requirements
for large-scale photovoltaic deployment in the united states,” Am. Sol. Energy Soc. - Sol.
2008, Incl. Proc. 37th ASES Annu. Conf., 33rd Natl. Passiv. Sol. Conf., 3rd Renew.
Energy Policy Mark. Conf. Catch Clean Energy Wave, vol. 8, no. May, pp. 5570–5573,
2008.
of
Hazard. Mater., vol. 306, pp. 395–405, 2016.
ro
[50] K. Dimond and A. Webb, “Sustainable roof selection: Environmental and contextual
-p
factors to be considered in choosing a vegetated roof or rooftop solar photovoltaic
re
system,” Sustain. Cities Soc., vol. 35, no. August, pp. 241–249, 2017.
lP
[51] L. Dias, J. P. Gouveia, P. Lourenço, and J. Seixas, “Interplay between the potential of
photovoltaic systems and agricultural land use,” Land use policy, vol. 81, pp. 725–735,
na
2019.
ur
[53] J. Kafka and M. A. Miller, “The dual angle solar harvest (DASH) method: An alternative
method for organizing large solar panel arrays that optimizes incident solar energy in
identifying high priority clean energy investment opportunities: A case study on land-use
Journal Pre-proof
[55] J. G. Groesbeck and J. M. Pearce, “Coal with carbon capture and sequestration is not as
land use efficient as solar photovoltaic technology for climate neutral electricity
energy development in agricultural landscapes: a case study of the Great Central Valley,
CA, United States,” Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 51, no. 24, pp. 14472–14482, 2017.
of
[57] NREL, “Land Use by System Technology,” 2020. .
ro
[58] S. Ong, C. Campbell, P. Denholm, R. Margolis, and G. Heath, “Land-Use Requirements
-p
for Solar Power Plants in the United States,” no. June, 2013.
re
[59] G. Mauro and V. Lughi, “Mapping land use impact of photovoltaic farms via
lP
crowdsourcing in the Province of Lecce (Southeastern Italy),” Sol. Energy, vol. 155, pp.
na
434–444, 2017.
contribution of Utility-Scale Solar Energy to the global climate regulation and its effects
Jo
on local ecosystem services,” Glob. Ecol. Conserv., vol. 2, no. October, pp. 324–337,
2014.
[61] M. Hammoud et al., “Power from photovoltaic installed in the middle of the Lebanese
high-ways: PV system in the middle of the high-ways,” 2016 3rd Int. Conf. Renew.
[63] J. E. Lovich and J. R. Ennen, “Wildlife Conservation and Solar Energy Development in
the Desert Southwest, United States,” Bioscience, vol. 61, no. 12, pp. 982–992, 2011.
Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 29, no. January, pp. 766–779, 2014.
cover for irrigation reservoirs,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 66, pp. 568–570, 2014.
of
[66] A. K. Singh, D. Boruah, L. Sehgal, and R. A. Prasath, “Feasibility study of a grid-tied
ro
2MW floating solar PV power station and e-transportation facility using ‘SketchUp Pro’
-p
for the proposed smart city of Pondicherry in India,” J. Smart Cities, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 49–
re
59, 2016.
lP
[67] A. Sahu, N. Yadav, and K. Sudhakar, “Floating photovoltaic power plant: A review,”
Wind Turbine Electric Generator System for Smaller Hybrid Renewable Energy Power
Jo
[69] R. R. Bhosale et al., “Solar hydrogen production via erbium oxide based thermochemical
water splitting cycle,” J. Renew. Sustain. Energy, vol. 8, no. 3, p. 34702, 2016.
[70] G. D. Takalkar et al., “Transition metal doped ceria for solar thermochemical fuel
of an integrated stand-alone hybrid solar PV tracking and diesel generator power system
Journal Pre-proof
in Khorfakkan, United Arab Emirates,” Energy, vol. 190, p. 116475, Jan. 2020.
[72] S. Avril, C. Mansilla, M. Busson, and T. Lemaire, “Photovoltaic energy policy: Financial
[73] J. Cheng, C. Yeh, and C. Tu, “Trust and knowledge sharing in green supply chains,”
Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 283–295, 2008.
of
[74] D. Nugent and B. K. Sovacool, “Assessing the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from
ro
solar PV and wind energy: A critical meta-survey,” Energy Policy, vol. 65, pp. 229–244,
2014.
-p
[75] T. Tsoutsos, N. Frantzeskaki, and V. Gekas, “Environmental impacts from the solar
re
energy technologies,” Energy Policy, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 289–296, 2005.
lP
[76] F. Cucchiella and I. Dadamo, “Estimation of the energetic and environmental impacts of a
na
[77] L. Xu, S. Zhang, M. Yang, W. Li, and J. Xu, “Environmental effects of China’s solar
Jo
[78] M. Mekaroonreung and A. L. Johnson, “Estimating the shadow prices of SO2 and NOx
for U.S. coal power plants: A convex nonparametric least squares approach,” Energy
[79] S. Zhang, P. Andrews-Speed, and M. Ji, “The erratic path of the low-carbon transition in
China: Evolution of solar PV policy,” Energy Policy, vol. 67, pp. 903–912, Apr. 2014.
Journal Pre-proof
[80] L. Du, A. Hanley, and C. Wei, “Marginal Abatement Costs of Carbon Dioxide Emissions
in China: A Parametric Analysis,” Environ. Resour. Econ., vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 191–216,
Jun. 2015.
[81] A. H. Alami et al., “Materials and logistics for carbon dioxide capture, storage and
characterisation factors.”
of
[83] I. O. for S. ISO 14042, “ISO 14042 Environmental management - Life cycle assessment -
ro
Life cycle impact assessment,” vol. 2000, pp. 1–22, 2000.
-p
[84] H. Engül and T. L. Theis, “An environmental impact assessment of quantum dot
re
photovoltaics (QDPV) from raw material acquisition through use,” J. Clean. Prod., vol.
lP
[86] P. Zhai, P. Larsen, D. Millstein, S. Menon, and E. Masanet, “The potential for avoided
emissions from photovoltaic electricity in the United States,” Energy, vol. 47, no. 1, pp.
photovoltaic power generation,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 41, pp. 284–297, 2015.
[88] H. C. Kim, V. Fthenakis, J. Choi, and D. E. Turney, “Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas
Journal Pre-proof
[89] D. D. Hsu et al., “Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Crystalline Silicon
[90] Varun, I. K. Bhat, and R. Prakash, “LCA of renewable energy for electricity generation
systems-A review,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1067–1073, 2009.
of
[91] M. Tawalbeh, F. H. Tezel, M. Al-Ismaily, and B. Kruczek, “Highly permeable tubular
silicalite-1 membranes for CO2 capture,” Sci. Total Environ., vol. 676, pp. 305–320, Aug.
ro
2019.
-p
[92] E. A. Alsema, M. J. de Wild-Scholten, and V. M. Fthenakis, “Environmental impacts of
re
PV electricity generation-a critical comparison of energy supply options,” in 21st
lP
[93] R. E. H. Sims, H.-H. Rogner, and K. Gregory, “Carbon emission and mitigation cost
comparisons between fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable energy resources for electricity
ur
generation,” Energy Policy, vol. 31, no. 13, pp. 1315–1326, 2003.
Jo
penetrative cumulus convection and tropical cirrus albedo effects,” Clim. Dyn., vol. 8, no.
[95] Y. Kotak, M. S. Gul, and T. Muneer, “Investigating the Impact of Ground Albedo on the
Performance of PV Systems,” CIBSE Tech. Symp. London, UK, no. April, pp. 1–16, 2015.
albedo on solar photovoltaic devices,” Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, vol. 124, pp. 111–
116, 2014.
[98] R. W. Andrews and J. M. Pearce, “The effect of spectral albedo on amorphous silicon and
crystalline silicon solar photovoltaic device performance,” Sol. Energy, vol. 91, pp. 233–
241, 2013.
[99] M. Marwede, W. Berger, M. Schlummer, A. Mäurer, and A. Reller, “Recycling paths for
of
thin-film chalcogenide photovoltaic waste - Current feasible processes,” Renew. Energy,
ro
vol. 55, pp. 220–229, 2013.
-p
[100] F. G. Üçtuğ and A. Azapagic, “Environmental impacts of small-scale hybrid energy
re
systems: Coupling solar photovoltaics and lithium-ion batteries,” Sci. Total Environ., vol.
lP
Electrodes for Dye-Sensitized Solar Cells with a Natural Dye,” Nanomaterials, vol. 10,
Jo
(CIGS) photovoltaics and the elimination of cadmium through atomic layer deposition,”
[103] V. Fthenakis, W. Wang, and H. C. Kim, “Life cycle inventory analysis of the production
of metals used in photovoltaics,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 493–
517, 2009.
Journal Pre-proof
electric field for solar photovoltaic applications,” J. Disp. Technol., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 82–
88, 2016.
[105] T. Okutani, “Utilization of silica in rice hulls as raw materials for silicon semiconductors
[106] J. Tao and S. Yu, “Review on feasible recycling pathways and technologies of solar
of
photovoltaic modules,” Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, vol. 141, pp. 108–124, 2015.
ro
[107] L. Rocchetti and F. Beolchini, “Recovery of valuable materials from end-of-life thin-film
-p
photovoltaic panels: Environmental impact assessment of different management options,”
re
J. Clean. Prod., vol. 89, pp. 59–64, 2015.
lP
[108] J.-K. Choi and V. Fthenakis, “Economic Feasibility of Recycling Photovoltaic Modules,”
recycling crystalline silicon (c-SI) and cadmium telluride (CDTE) solar panels,” Sci. Total
cycle assessment of environmental impacts,” Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, vol. 205, p.
[112] A. Al-Bsoul et al., “Optimal conditions for olive mill wastewater treatment using
ultrasound and advanced oxidation processes,” Sci. Total Environ., vol. 700, p. 134576,
Jan. 2020.
of
[114] Z. Al-Qodah, M. Tawalbeh, M. Al-Shannag, Z. Al-Anber, and K. Bani-Melhem,
ro
removal: A state-of-the-art review,” Sci. Total Environ., vol. 744, p. 140806, Nov. 2020.
-p
[115] K. Elsaid, E. T. Sayed, M. A. Abdelkareem, M. S. Mahmoud, M. Ramadan, and A. G.
re
Olabi, “Environmental impact of emerging desalination technologies: A preliminary
lP
[116] J. Meldrum, S. Nettles-Anderson, G. Heath, and J. Macknick, “Life cycle water use for
na
[117] M. Johst and B. Rothstein, “Reduction of cooling water consumption due to photovoltaic
and wind electricity feed-in,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 35, pp. 311–317, 2014.
numerical simulation model for the PVT water system in the GCC region,” in 2020
[119] A. Sahm, A. Gray, R. Boehm, and K. Stone, “Cleanliness Maintenance for an Amonix
Journal Pre-proof
environmental impact,” Int. J. Softw. Eng. its Appl., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 75–84, 2014.
[121] D. Yang, J. Liu, J. Yang, and N. Ding, “Life-cycle assessment of China’s multi-crystalline
silicon photovoltaic modules considering international trade,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 94, pp.
35–45, 2015.
of
[122] A. Ashkanani, F. Almomani, M. Khraisheh, R. Bhosale, M. Tawalbeh, and K. AlJaml,
ro
wastewater effluents using moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR),” Sci. Total Environ., vol.
aqueous solutions by biochar prepared from the pyrolysis of mixed municipal discarded
[124] A. Al Bsoul et al., “Efficient Removal of Phenol Compounds from Water Environment
ur
using Ziziphus Leaves Adsorbent,” Sci. Total Environ., p. 143229, Oct. 2020.
Jo
conversion of CO2 and H2O to useful fuels by nanostructured composite catalysis,” Appl.
[126] F. Almomani et al., “Impact of CO2 concentration and ambient conditions on microalgal
growth and nutrient removal from wastewater by a photobioreactor,” Sci. Total Environ.,
treatment process for oily saline water,” Desalination, vol. 447, pp. 182–202, Dec. 2018.
[128] V. Fthenakis and H. C. Kim, “Life-cycle uses of water in U.S. electricity generation,”
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 2039–2048, Sep. 2010.
[129] Y. Jin, P. Behrens, A. Tukker, and L. Scherer, “Water use of electricity technologies: A
global meta-analysis,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 115, no. September, p. 109391,
2019.
of
[130] S. Bukhary, S. Ahmad, and J. Batista, “Analyzing land and water requirements for solar
ro
Reviews, vol. 82. Elsevier Ltd, pp. 3288–3305, 01-Feb-2018.
-p
[131] P. E. Campana, H. Li, and J. Yan, “Dynamic modelling of a PV pumping system with
re
special consideration on water demand,” Appl. Energy, vol. 112, pp. 635–645, Dec. 2013.
lP
of a PV-wind hybrid system under limited water resources,” Renewable and Sustainable
as a potential energy source for water desalination using reverse osmosis : A review,”
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 97, no. June, pp. 456–477, 2018.
[135] D. Deb and N. L. Brahmbhatt, “Review of yield increase of solar panels through soiling
Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 82. Elsevier Ltd, pp. 3306–3313, 01-Feb-2018.
[136] A. Boudghene Stambouli et al., “Trends and challenges of sustainable energy and water
energy/water,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 30. Elsevier Ltd, pp.
912–922, 01-Feb-2014.
[137] R. D. Gupta, Environment Pollution: Hazards and Control. Concept Publishing Company,
of
2006.
[138] W. Passchier-Vermeer and W. F. Passchier, “Noise exposure and public health.,” Environ.
ro
Health Perspect., vol. 108, no. suppl 1, pp. 123–131, 2000.
-p
[139] H. Dehra, “Solar Energy Conversion and Noise Characterization in Photovoltaic Devices
re
with Ventilation,” in Recent Developments in Photovoltaic Materials and Devices,
lP
IntechOpen, 2018.
na
[140] L. A. Fernandez-Jimenez et al., “Site selection for new PV power plants based on their
Artacho Ramírez, “Aesthetic impact assessment of solar power plants: An objective and a
subjective approach,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 986–999, 2009.
integrated photovoltaic façade system,” Sol. Energy, vol. 199, pp. 617–629, Mar. 2020.
Journal Pre-proof
environments: A case study for three cities in Peru,” Sci. Total Environ., vol. 622–623, pp.
1448–1462, 2018.
[145] J. Brook and S. Clark, “Establishing the Social Licence to Operate Large Scale Solar
Facilities in Australia: Insights From Social Research for Industry,” Aust. Renew. Energy
of
[146] J. Ellison, “Leveraging ergonomics in the PV industry,” Renewable energy world, 2009.
ro
[147] J. Mouterde and L. Brottier, “Improving the longevity and ergonomics of hybrid solar
Products,” in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2019, vol. 252,
no. 3, p. 32075.
na
[151] C. R. Kight and J. P. Swaddle, “How and why environmental noise impacts animals: an
integrative, mechanistic review,” Ecol. Lett., vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 1052–1061, Oct. 2011.
[152] A. H. Suter, “Construction Noise: Exposure, Effects, and the Potential for Remediation; A
Review and Analysis,” AIHA J., vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 768–789, Nov. 2002.
Journal Pre-proof
[153] “What Noises Cause Hearing Loss? | NCEH | CDC.” [Online]. Available:
https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/hearing_loss/what_noises_cause_hearing_loss.html. [Accessed:
21-Sep-2020].
[154] T. F. Guerin, “Evaluating expected and comparing with observed risks on a large-scale
solar photovoltaic construction project: A case for reducing the regulatory burden,”
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 74, pp. 333–348, Jul. 2017.
[155] P. Madsen, M. Wahlberg, J. Tougaard, K. Lucke, and P. Tyack, “Wind turbine underwater
of
noise and marine mammals: implications of current knowledge and data needs,” Mar.
ro
Ecol. Prog. Ser., vol. 309, pp. 279–295, Mar. 2006.
-p
[156] K. Betke, “Measurement of wind turbine construction noise at Horns Rev II,” Itap
re
Bericht, no. 1256–08, 2008.
lP
[157] B. Strogen and A. Horvath, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Construction,
Petroleum and Biofuels,” J. Infrastruct. Syst., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 371–383, Dec. 2013.
ur
E. Haddock, “Policy Considerations for Construction of Wind Farms and Biofuel Plant
Facilities,” State Local Gov. Rev., vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 140–149, Jun. 2012.
(PV/T) systems: Status and future prospects,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 77, pp.
109–130, 2017.
[161] N. Phadnis, R. J. Yang, P. U. Wijeratne, H. Zhao, and C. Liu, “The Impact of Solar PV
sustainable materials recovery process,” Waste Manag., vol. 84, pp. 91–101, 2019.
of
[163] A. S. Bahaj, “Photovoltaic roofing: issues of design and integration into buildings,”
ro
Renew. energy, vol. 28, no. 14, pp. 2195–2204, 2003.
[165] C. C. Pavel et al., “Substitution strategies for reducing the use of rare earths in wind
na
[166] Y. Xu, J. Li, Q. Tan, A. L. Peters, and C. Yang, “Global status of recycling waste solar
ur
throughout the life cycle: Importance of the end-of-life management for Si-panels and
silicon photovoltaic module recycling,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol.
[169] V. Fthenakis and E. Alsema, “Photovoltaics energy payback times, greenhouse gas
Journal Pre-proof
emissions and external costs: 2004–early 2005 status,” Prog. photovoltaics Res. Appl.,
module production,” MRS Online Proc. Libr. Arch., vol. 895, 2005.
of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Journal Pre-proof
☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal
relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be
considered as potential competing interests:
of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Journal Pre-proof
Supervision, Data curation, Writing - original draft, review & editing. Amani Al-Othman:
Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - original draft, review & editing. Feras
Kafiah: Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original draft, review & editing. Emad
Investigation, Methodology, Writing - original draft, review & editing. Malek Alkasrawi:
of
Project administration, Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original draft, review & editing.
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Journal Pre-proof
Land use
Hazardous
Air pollution
materials
of
ro
Photovoltaic Systems
-p
Environmental Impacts
Noise
re
Visual
lP
Water usage
na
ur
Jo
Graphical abstract
Journal Pre-proof
Highlights
of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo