Journal Pre-proof

Environmental impacts of solar photovoltaic systems: A critical

review of recent progress and future outlook

Muhammad Tawalbeh, Amani Al-Othman, Feras Kafiah, Emad

Abdelsalam, Fares Almomani, Malek Alkasrawi

PII: S0048-9697(20)37059-5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143528
Reference: STOTEN 143528

To appear in: Science of the Total Environment

Received date: 4 July 2020

Revised date: 27 October 2020
Accepted date: 30 October 2020

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.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier.

 Journal Pre-proof

Environmental impacts of solar photovoltaic systems: A critical review of recent progress

and future outlook

Muhammad Tawalbeh 1*, Amani Al-Othman 2, Feras Kafiah 3, Emad Abdelsalam 3, Fares

Almomani 4, Malek Alkasrawi 5

1
Sustainable and Renewable Energy Engineering Department (SREE), University of Sharjah, P.

O. Box: 27272 Sharjah, UAE; mtawalbeh@sharjah.ac.ae

of
2

ro
Department of Chemical Engineering, American University of Sharjah, UAE, P.O. Box 26666,

aalothman@aus.edu

-p
re
3
Electrical and Energy Engineering Department, Al Hussein Technical University, Amman

11831, Jordan; Emad.Abdelsalam@htu.edu.jo, Feras.Kafiah@htu.edu.jo

lP

4
Chemical Engineering Department, Qatar University, Qatar; falmomani@qu.edu.qa
na

5
Paper Science & Chemical Engineering Department, University of Wisconsin Stevens Point,
ur

WI 54481, USA; malkasra@uwsp.edu

Jo

* Correspondence: mtawalbeh@sharjah.ac.ae

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

comprehensive analysis of all possible environmental challenges as well as presenting novel

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

PV systems could be substantially mitigated using optimized design, development of novel

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,

Water usage, Hazardous materials.

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

and environmental challenges [24][25].

 Journal Pre-proof

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

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

-p
Gigawatts
re
Fig. 2 Global solar energy developmental trend, adapted from [40].
lP
na

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

grasslands, farmlands might impact the environment.

The previous literature review reveals a well-established environmental impacts assessment of

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

were explored in detail.

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

conflict with agriculture land is by installing renewable technologies in degraded areas as

na

Shiraishi et al. reported [54].

ur

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.

Technology Type Size (acres/MW) References

PV <10 kW 3.2 [57]

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

2-axis flat panel 9.4 [58]

2-axis Concentrator photovoltaics (CPV) 6.9 [58]
na

Large PV (> 20 MW) 7.9 [58]

Fixed 5.8 [58]
ur

1-axis 9.0 [58]

Jo

2-axis flat CPV 6.1 [58]

Small and large PV installations 2.2–12.2 [40]
Small and large CSP installations 2.0–13.9 [40]
PV panels installed in parallel 6.1 [59]
PV parks 8.1 [59]
Wind <10 kW 30 [57]
Wind 10 100 kW 30 [57]
Wind 100- 1000 kW 30 [57]
Wind 1 10 MW 44.7 [57]
 Journal Pre-proof

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

systems at houses and warehouses roofs.

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.

3. Air pollution and climate change

 Journal Pre-proof

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

the largest share of emissions, followed by construction and operation.

na
ur

Table 2. Breakdown of lifecycle GHG emissions for wind energy and solar PV (% of total) [74].
Jo

Energy Source Fabrication Construction Operation Decommissioning

Solar PV 71.3% 19% 13% -3.3%

Wind 71.5% 24% 23.9% -19.4%

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

various PV modules [84].

Table 3. SOX and NOX emissions out of various PV modules [84].

Silicon PVs Thin Film PVs Nano PVs

Ribbon Multi-Si Mono-Si CdTe CIS DSPV QDPV
Multi-Si

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,

Multi-Si: Multicrystalline silicon, Mono-Si: Monocrystalline silicon

na
ur
Jo

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

overall reduction of CO2 emissions is significantly decreased.

 Journal Pre-proof

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

68,000–99,000 tons, respectively. These reductions of emissions are projected to lead to a

significant drop in several dangerous diseases such as heart attacks and asthma that are expected

to decrease by 490–720 and 320–470 annually, respectively. Moreover, PV solar systems’

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,

should be taken in consideration to reach the lowest gases emission levels.

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

gas emissions associated with PV utilization.

4. Hazardous materials emissions

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

leaching, precipitating, and electrowinning processes. This is followed by vacuum distillation to

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

the growth rate of these solar cells.

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

treated at high temperatures to manufacture monocrystalline or multi-crystalline silicon crystals.

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

Ribbon Multi-Si Multi-Si -p

Mono-Si CdTe QDPV
re
Nickel 20 15 30 9.0 55
lP

Mercury 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 2.0

Arsenic 3.0 3.5 4.0 2.5 30

na

Cadmium 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.65 5.0

ur

Chromium 5.5 6.0 6.5 4.0 400

Jo

Lead 6.5 7.0 9.0 6.0 70

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

and dust-off chips. -p infection, kidney and liver problems,

re
nerve damage, birth defects and sexual
lP

problems including lower ability to

reproduce males.
na

Ammonia (NH3) Production of antireflective Skin and eyes irritation, throat and
ur

coatings lungs infections, mouth and stomach

Jo

burns.

Arsenic (As) Production of Gallium Toxic and carcinogens, heart and liver

arsenide (GaAs) solar PV cells problems, lung cancer, throat

infection, nausea, vomiting, reduced

blood cells, dark and red spot on skin,

hands and feet etching.

Cadmium (Cd) Manufacturing cadmium Toxic and carcinogenic, kidney,

 Journal Pre-proof

telluride (CdTe) solar cells prostate and respiratory system

infections, diarrhea, and lung cancer.

Hexavalent Coating material in solar Carcinogenic

Chromium (Cr- panel, screws and solar

VI) chassis board.

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,

(C3H8O) and dust-off chips. dermatitis, nausea, unconsciousness,

lP

respiratory failure, death or coma.

na

Lead (Pb) Wiring and welding Carcinogenic, brain, kidneys and

photovoltaic electrical nervous system damage, weakness in

ur

components bones, anemia, and miscarriage.

Jo

Nitric acid Cleaning and removing Chemical burns.

(HNO3) dopants from wafers and

reactors

Polybrominated Circuit boards and solar panel Toxic, carcinogenic and cause

biphenyls (PBBs) inverters endocrine disrupters.

Polybrominated Circuit boards and solar panel Toxic, carcinogenic and cause

diphenylethers inverters endocrine disrupters.

 Journal Pre-proof

(PBDEs)

Silicon (Si) PV semiconductor material Causes respiratory problems, irritating

skin and eyes.

Sulfur Semiconductors etching and Strong greenhouse gas.

hexafluoride (SF6) cleaning reactors

Toluene (C7H8) Clean out microscopic dirt and Headaches, hearing and memory loss,

dust-off chips confusion, pregnancy problems, and

of
retarded growth.

ro
1,1,1- Clean out microscopic dirt and Dizziness, reduced blood pressure,

Trichloroethane dust-off chips

-p unconsciousness, and heart problems.
re
(C2H3Cl3)

Xylene (C8H10) Clean out microscopic dirt and Skin and eye irritation, liver kidneys,
lP

dust-off chips nose and throat infections, and

na

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;

hence, they generate more power without water consumption [120].

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],

advanced oxidation [125][126], coagulation [114], and membrane separation [127].

na

Fthenakis and Kim [128] reviewed the recent studies related to water usage in conventional and
ur

renewable energy type of technologies from a full-lifecycle standpoint tacking inconsideration

Jo

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

renewable energy system is mostly are upstream- related to manufacturing a device or

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

accounted for most water withdrawals.

Jin et al. [129] stated that to accurately measure water consumption is a very important step

towards transitioning to renewable energy resources and towards understanding measures of

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

order to further understand water usage in photovoltaic technologies as well as other

technologies.
 Journal Pre-proof

Table 6 Median of water consumption in a full life cycle for different energy generation

technologies [129].

Energy Technology Median of Water Consumption

(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

appropriate technology for water-limited regions.

 Journal Pre-proof

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

the optimal technical and economic point of view.

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

by 2050 would reduce water consumption to 70%.

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

alternative to current fossil-fuels desalination plants. They provided a comprehensive analysis of

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

has a positive impact on the local environment.

Jo

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

to 20 years in producing clean and sustainable energy and water supply.

 Journal Pre-proof

6. Noise and visual impacts

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

the PV and significantly hinder its implementation.

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

public opinion on the project [145][40].

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

will not receive any governmental or public acceptance [150].

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.

8. Prospects and Future trends

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

manufacturing, to transportation, installation, operation, and ending up with

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

systems have the lowest water footprint compared to other technologies.

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

residential- or industrial purposes.

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

as opposed to conventional practices in PV systems. Below, future trends are addressed.

-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

in landfills. Deng et al. [168] conducted a techno-economic review of silicon PV module

 Journal Pre-proof

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.

Sustainability in design appears to be the future trend towards producing environmentally

friendly PV systems. PV manufacturers have to up-design the product to facilitate end-of-life

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

Table 7 Greenhouse gas emission (GHG) for different PV Types.

ur
Jo

PV type GHG emission Reference

(g-CO2/kWhe)
Thin-film amorphous silicon Average = 37.6 [88]
Thin-film CdTe Average =32.4 [88]
Thin-film copper indium gallium Average =45.7 [88]
diselenide (CIGS)
Multi-Si 13.2% 37 [169]
CdTe 8% 21 [169]
Mono-Si 30-46 [170]
DSPV 59 [84]
 Journal Pre-proof

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,

strategies to mitigate the environmental impact of hazardous materials involved in the

ur

manufacturing of PV should be implemented. Recycling of these materials is a challenging

Jo

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

[1] S. A. Sarkodie and P. A. Owusu, “Bibliometric analysis of water–energy–food nexus:

Sustainability assessment of renewable energy,” Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Heal., vol. 13,

pp. 29–34, 2020.

[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

J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. Technol., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 97–117, 2020.

na

[5] F. Almomani, “Prediction of biogas production from chemically treated co-digested

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.

[7] L. Ahmad, N. Khordehgah, J. Malinauskaite, and H. Jouhara, “Recent advances and

applications of solar photovoltaics and thermal technologies,” Energy, vol. 207, p.

118254, Sep. 2020.

[8] R. Alizadeh, L. Soltanisehat, P. D. Lund, and H. Zamanisabzi, “Improving renewable

energy policy planning and decision-making through a hybrid MCDM method,” Energy
 Journal Pre-proof

Policy, vol. 137, p. 111174, 2020.

[9] H. Mohammed, A. Al-Othman, P. Nancarrow, M. Tawalbeh, and M. El Haj Assad,

“Direct hydrocarbon fuel cells: A promising technology for improving energy efficiency,”

Energy, vol. 172, pp. 207–219, Apr. 2019.

[10] Y. Zhu, T. Robinson, A. Al-Othman, A. Y. Tremblay, and M. Ternan, “n-Hexadecane

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,

“Assessment of calotropis natural dye extracts on the efficiency of dye-sensitized solar

-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

[13] M. Tawalbeh, A. Al-Othman, K. Singh, I. Douba, D. Kabakebji, and M. Alkasrawi,

ur

“Microbial desalination cells for water purification and power generation: A critical
Jo

review,” Energy, vol. 209, p. 118493, Oct. 2020.

[14] F. Almomani and R. Bhosale, “Enhancing the production of biogas through anaerobic co-

digestion of agricultural waste and chemical pre-treatments,” Chemosphere, p. 126805,

2020.

[15] “The World Energy System.” [Online]. Available:

https://www.worldenergydata.org/world/.

[16] N. Khordehgah, A. Żabnieńska-Góra, and H. Jouhara, “Energy Performance Analysis of a

 Journal Pre-proof

PV/T System Coupled with Domestic Hot Water System,” ChemEngineering, vol. 4, no.

2, p. 22, Mar. 2020.

[17] T. Wilberforce, A. Baroutaji, Z. El Hassan, J. Thompson, B. Soudan, and A. G. Olabi,

“Prospects and challenges of concentrated solar photovoltaics and enhanced geothermal

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.

[20] K. Osmani, A. Haddad, T. Lemenand, B. Castanier, and M. Ramadan, “A review on

na

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,”

MS&E, vol. 748, no. 1, p. 12016, 2020.

[22] D. Prochowicz et al., “Engineering of perovskite materials based on formamidinium and

cesium hybridization for high-efficiency solar cells,” Chem. Mater., vol. 31, no. 5, pp.

1620–1627, 2019.

[23] R. Bhosale et al., “Solar hydrogen production via a samarium oxide-based

thermochemical water splitting cycle,” Energies, vol. 9, no. 5, 2016.

 Journal Pre-proof

[24] S. Nižetić, E. Giama, and A. M. Papadopoulos, “Comprehensive analysis and general

economic-environmental evaluation of cooling techniques for photovoltaic panels, Part II:

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

individual technologies in integrated urban energy systems–A system value approach,”

Appl. Energy, vol. 266, p. 114859, 2020.

[26] A. Herez, H. El Hage, T. Lemenand, M. Ramadan, and M. Khaled, “Review on

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

Practical Handbook of Photovoltaics, Elsevier, 2012, pp. 373–395.

[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

Renewable Energy: Generation and Applications (ICREGA), 2018, pp. 183–187.

[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.,

vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 46–72, 2020.

na

[37] E. Bellini, “Qatar’s 800 MW tender draws world record solar power price of
ur

$0.01567/kWh,” Magazine, PV, Jan-2020.

Jo

[38] T. Salameh, M. Tawalbeh, A. H. Alami, A. Al-Othman, S. Issa, and M. Alkasrawi, “Life

Cycle Analysis Comparison between Single Crystalline Solar Cells and poly Crystaline

Gallium in UAE,” in 2020 Advances in Science and Engineering Technology

International Conferences (ASET), 2020, pp. 1–6.

[39] A. Letafat et al., “Simultaneous energy management and optimal components sizing of a

zero-emission ferry boat,” J. Energy Storage, vol. 28, p. 101215, 2020.

[40] A. Dhar, M. A. Naeth, P. D. Jennings, and M. Gamal El-Din, “Perspectives on

 Journal Pre-proof

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.

[41] V. M. Fthenakis, M. Fuhrmann, J. Heiser, A. Lanzirotti, J. Fitts, and W. Wang,

“Emissions and encapsulation of cadmium in CdTe PV modules during fires,” Prog.

Photovoltaics Res. Appl., vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 713–723, 2005.

[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

impacts from construction of a utility-scale solar photovoltaic power plant in eastern

Australia,” Sol. Energy, vol. 146, pp. 94–104, 2017.

[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

conventional photovoltaic? Assessing environmental impacts,” Impact Assess. Proj.

Apprais., vol. 00, no. 00, pp. 1–11, 2018.

 Journal Pre-proof

[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.

[49] M. Tammaro, A. Salluzzo, J. Rimauro, S. Schiavo, and S. Manzo, “Experimental

investigation to evaluate the potential environmental hazards of photovoltaic panels,” J.

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

[52] A. Cagle, R. R. Hernandez, and M. Shepherd, “Solar Energy Development in an Era of

Jo

Looming Land Scarcity: Land-Use Metric Standardization and Novel Concepts,”

AGUFM, vol. 2019, pp. GC53I-1206, 2019.

[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

conjunction with land use,” Renew. Energy, 2020.

[54] K. Shiraishi, R. G. Shirley, and D. M. Kammen, “Geospatial multi-criteria analysis for

identifying high priority clean energy investment opportunities: A case study on land-use
 Journal Pre-proof

conflict in Bangladesh,” Appl. Energy, vol. 235, pp. 1457–1467, 2019.

[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

production,” Sci. Rep., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2018.

[56] M. K. Hoffacker, M. F. Allen, and R. R. Hernandez, “Land-sparing opportunities for solar

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.

[60] A. De Marco, I. Petrosillo, T. Semeraro, M. R. Pasimeni, R. Aretano, and G. Zurlini, “The

ur

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.

Energies Dev. Countries, REDEC 2016, pp. 3–6, 2016.

[62] A. Beylot et al., “Environmental impacts of large-scale grid-connected ground-mounted

PV installations,” Renew. Energy, vol. 61, pp. 2–6, 2014.

 Journal Pre-proof

[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.

[64] R. R. Hernandez et al., “Environmental impacts of utility-scale solar energy,” Renew.

Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 29, no. January, pp. 766–779, 2014.

[65] M. R. Santafé, P. S. Ferrer Gisbert, F. J. Sánchez Romero, J. B. Torregrosa Soler, J. J.

Ferrán Gozálvez, and C. M. Ferrer Gisbert, “Implementation of a photovoltaic floating

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,”

Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 66, pp. 815–824, 2016.

na

[68] M. S. Al-Ajmi, F. Mustapha, N. A. M. Yunus, and I. A. Halin, “A True Hybrid Solar

ur

Wind Turbine Electric Generator System for Smaller Hybrid Renewable Energy Power
Jo

Plants,” in MATEC Web of Conferences, 2018, vol. 215, p. 1015.

[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

production,” Sol. Energy, vol. 172, pp. 204–211, 2018.

[71] T. Salameh, C. Ghenai, A. Merabet, and M. Alkasrawi, “Techno-economical optimization

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

estimation and performance comparison of the public support in five representative

countries,” Energy Policy, vol. 51, pp. 244–258, 2012.

[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

roof-mounted building-integrated photovoltaic systems,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.,

vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 5245–5259, 2012.

ur

[77] L. Xu, S. Zhang, M. Yang, W. Li, and J. Xu, “Environmental effects of China’s solar
Jo

photovoltaic industry during 2011–2016: A life cycle assessment approach,” J. Clean.

Prod., vol. 170, pp. 310–329, 2018.

[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

Econ., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 723–732, May 2012.

[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

utilization,” Sci. Total Environ., vol. 717, p. 137221, May 2020.

[82] E. L. V Directive and F. R. Annexes, “ANnex 5 - Environmental impacts analysed 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

19, no. 1, pp. 21–31, 2011.

na

[85] A. J. Swart and P. E. Hertzog, “Varying percentages of full uniform shading of a PV

module in a controlled environment yields linear power reduction,” J. Energy South.

ur

Africa, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 28–38, 2016.

Jo

[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.

443–450, Nov. 2012.

[87] M. Hosenuzzaman, N. A. Rahim, J. Selvaraj, M. Hasanuzzaman, A. B. M. A. Malek, and

A. Nahar, “Global prospects, progress, policies, and environmental impact of solar

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

Emissions of Thin‐Film Photovoltaic Electricity Generation,” Ssrn, vol. 16, 2012.

[89] D. D. Hsu et al., “Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Crystalline Silicon

Photovoltaic Electricity Generation: Systematic Review and Harmonization,” J. Ind.

Ecol., vol. 16, no. SUPPL.1, 2012.

[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

European photovoltaic solar energy conference, 2006, pp. 3201–3207.

na

[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

[94] W. M. Washington and G. A. Meehl, “Greenhouse sensitivity experiments with

penetrative cumulus convection and tropical cirrus albedo effects,” Clim. Dyn., vol. 8, no.

5, pp. 211–223, 1993.

[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.

[96] G. F. Nemet, “Net radiative forcing from widespread deployment of photovoltaics,”

Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 2173–2178, 2009.

 Journal Pre-proof

[97] M. P. Brennan, A. L. Abramase, R. W. Andrews, and J. M. Pearce, “Effects of spectral

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

643, pp. 1579–1589, 2018.

[101] A. H. Alami, M. Faraj, K. Aokal, A. Abu Hawili, M. Tawalbeh, and D. Zhang,

na

“Investigating Various Permutations of Copper Iodide/FeCu Tandem Materials as

ur

Electrodes for Dye-Sensitized Solar Cells with a Natural Dye,” Nanomaterials, vol. 10,
Jo

no. 4, p. 784, Apr. 2020.

[102] L. Stamford and A. Azapagic, “Environmental impacts of copper‐indium‐gallium-selenide

(CIGS) photovoltaics and the elimination of cadmium through atomic layer deposition,”

Sci. Total Environ., vol. 688, pp. 1092–1101, 2019.

[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

[104] K. Hamasha, E. Hamasha, G. Masadeh, A. Shariah, and M. M. Hamasha, “Aluminum-

induced crystallization of hydrogenated amorphous silicon thin films with assistance of

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

,” J. Met. Mater. Miner., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 51–59, 2009.

[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,”

J. Ind. Ecol., vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 947–964, Dec. 2010.

na

[109] M. Bogacka, K. Pikoń, and M. Landrat, “Environmental impact of PV cell waste

ur

scenario,” Waste Manag., vol. 70, pp. 198–203, Dec. 2017.

Jo

[110] T. Maani, I. Celik, M. J. Heben, R. J. Ellingson, and D. Apul, “Environmental impacts of

recycling crystalline silicon (c-SI) and cadmium telluride (CDTE) solar panels,” Sci. Total

Environ., vol. 735, p. 138827, 2020.

[111] E. Klugmann-Radziemska and A. Kuczyńska-Łażewska, “The use of recycled

semiconductor material in crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules production - A life

cycle assessment of environmental impacts,” Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, vol. 205, p.

110259, Feb. 2020.

 Journal Pre-proof

[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.

[113] A. Al Bsoul, M. Hailat, A. Abdelhay, M. Tawalbeh, I. Jum’h, and K. Bani-Melhem,

“Treatment of olive mill effluent by adsorption on titanium oxide nanoparticles,” Sci.

Total Environ., vol. 688, pp. 1327–1334, Oct. 2019.

of
[114] Z. Al-Qodah, M. Tawalbeh, M. Al-Shannag, Z. Al-Anber, and K. Bani-Melhem,

“Combined electrocoagulation processes as a novel approach for enhanced pollutants

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

evaluation,” J. Environ. Chem. Eng., vol. 8, no. 5, p. 104099, Oct. 2020.

[116] J. Meldrum, S. Nettles-Anderson, G. Heath, and J. Macknick, “Life cycle water use for
na

electricity generation: A review and harmonization of literature estimates,” Environ. Res.

ur

Lett., vol. 8, no. 1, 2013.

Jo

[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.

[118] T. Salameh, M. Tawalbeh, A. Juaidi, R. Abdallah, S. Issa, and A. H. Alami, “A novel

numerical simulation model for the PVT water system in the GCC region,” in 2020

Advances in Science and Engineering Technology International Conferences (ASET),

2020, pp. 1–5.

[119] A. Sahm, A. Gray, R. Boehm, and K. Stone, “Cleanliness Maintenance for an Amonix
 Journal Pre-proof

Lens System,” in Solar Energy, 2005, vol. 2005, pp. 817–822.

[120] Y. K. Choi, “A study on power generation analysis of floating PV system considering

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,

“Bio-carrier and operating temperature effect on ammonia removal from secondary

ro
wastewater effluents using moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR),” Sci. Total Environ., vol.

693, p. 133425, Nov. 2019. -p

re
[123] J. Hoslett, H. Ghazal, N. Mohamad, and H. Jouhara, “Removal of methylene blue from
lP

aqueous solutions by biochar prepared from the pyrolysis of mixed municipal discarded

material,” Sci. Total Environ., vol. 714, p. 136832, Apr. 2020.

na

[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

[125] F. Almomani, R. Bhosale, M. Khraisheh, A. Kumar, and M. Tawalbeh, “Photocatalytic

conversion of CO2 and H2O to useful fuels by nanostructured composite catalysis,” Appl.

Surf. Sci., vol. 483, pp. 363–372, Jul. 2019.

[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.,

vol. 662, pp. 662–671, Apr. 2019.

[127] M. Tawalbeh, A. Al Mojjly, A. Al-Othman, and N. Hilal, “Membrane separation as a pre-

 Journal Pre-proof

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

deployment in the Southwestern United States,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy

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

[132] G. Todde et al., “Energy and environmental performances of hybrid photovoltaic

na

irrigation systems in Mediterranean intensive and super-intensive olive orchards,” Sci.

Total Environ., vol. 651, pp. 2514–2523, Feb. 2019.

ur

[133] A. Madhlopa, D. Sparks, S. Keen, M. Moorlach, P. Krog, and T. Dlamini, “Optimization

Jo

of a PV-wind hybrid system under limited water resources,” Renewable and Sustainable

Energy Reviews, vol. 47. Elsevier Ltd, pp. 324–331, 01-Jul-2015.

[134] M. A. M. Khan, S. Rehman, and F. A. Al-sulaiman, “A hybrid renewable energy system

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

prevention, and a proposed water-free automated cleaning solution,” Renewable and

 Journal Pre-proof

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

research in North Africa: Sahara solar breeder concerns at the intersection of

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

observability,” Renew. Energy, vol. 78, pp. 7–15, 2015.

ur

[141] C. Poe, A. Plovnick, T. Hodges, A. Hastings, and S. Dresley, “Highway Renewable

Jo

Energy: Photovoltaic Noise Barriers,” no. August, 2017.

[142] A. del C. Torres-Sibille, V. A. Cloquell-Ballester, V. A. Cloquell-Ballester, and M. Á.

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.

[143] T. Salameh, M. E. H. Assad, M. Tawalbeh, C. Ghenai, A. Merabet, and H. F. Öztop,

“Analysis of cooling load on commercial building in UAE climate using building

integrated photovoltaic façade system,” Sol. Energy, vol. 199, pp. 617–629, Mar. 2020.
 Journal Pre-proof

[144] J. Bazán, J. Rieradevall, X. Gabarrell, and I. Vázquez-Rowe, “Low-carbon electricity

production through the implementation of photovoltaic panels in rooftops in urban

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

Agency (ARENA), Melbourne, Victoria, 2015.

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

modules.” Google Patents, 29-May-2014. -p

re
[148] W. Hong, “Analysis of the Constituent Elements in the Design of Solar Photovoltaic
lP

Products,” in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2019, vol. 252,

no. 3, p. 32075.
na

[149] P. O. Freitas, H. J. Loschi, Y. Iano, A. A. D. Rodriguez, F. D. Conte, and L. F. Tieghi, “A

ur

Design Concept Study of Multi-Integration Solar Shading System (M-ISSS).”

Jo

[150] D. Lingfors, T. Johansson, J. Widén, and T. Broström, “Target-based visibility assessment

on building envelopes: Applications to PV and cultural-heritage values,” Energy Build.,

vol. 204, p. 109483, 2019.

[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,

Manufacturing, Operation, and Maintenance of U.S. Distribution Infrastructure for

na

Petroleum and Biofuels,” J. Infrastruct. Syst., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 371–383, Dec. 2013.
ur

[158] A. M. Tanaka, P. C. Anastasopoulos, N. Carboneau, J. D. Fricker, J. A. Habermann, and J.

Jo

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.

[159] A. H. A. Al-Waeli, K. Sopian, H. A. Kazem, and M. T. Chaichan, “Photovoltaic/Thermal

(PV/T) systems: Status and future prospects,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 77, pp.

109–130, 2017.

[160] A. S. Al-Shareef, R. Khalifa, J. R. Lavoie, C. J. Yu, and L. Lutzenhiser, “Technological

Options for Enhancing ADU’s Sustainability: Solar PV and Insulation,” in R&D

 Journal Pre-proof

Management in the Knowledge Era, Springer, 2019, pp. 45–69.

[161] N. Phadnis, R. J. Yang, P. U. Wijeratne, H. Zhao, and C. Liu, “The Impact of Solar PV

Design Tilt and Orientation on Project Values,” in International Conference on

Sustainability in Energy and Buildings, 2018, pp. 301–310.

[162] V. Fiandra, L. Sannino, C. Andreozzi, and G. Graditi, “End-of-life of silicon PV panels: A

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.

[164] C. Helbig, A. M. Bradshaw, C. Kolotzek, A. Thorenz, and A. Tuma, “Supply risks

-p
associated with CdTe and CIGS thin-film photovoltaics,” Appl. Energy, vol. 178, pp. 422–
re
433, 2016.
lP

[165] C. C. Pavel et al., “Substitution strategies for reducing the use of rare earths in wind
na

turbines,” Resour. Policy, vol. 52, pp. 349–357, 2017.

[166] Y. Xu, J. Li, Q. Tan, A. L. Peters, and C. Yang, “Global status of recycling waste solar
ur

panels: A review,” Waste Manag., vol. 75, pp. 450–458, 2018.

Jo

[167] M. Vellini, M. Gambini, and V. Prattella, “Environmental impacts of PV technology

throughout the life cycle: Importance of the end-of-life management for Si-panels and

CdTe-panels,” Energy, vol. 138, pp. 1099–1111, 2017.

[168] R. Deng, N. L. Chang, Z. Ouyang, and C. M. Chong, “A techno-economic review of

silicon photovoltaic module recycling,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol.

109. Elsevier Ltd, pp. 532–550, 01-Jul-2019.

[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.,

vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 275–280, 2006.

[170] E. Alsema and M. J. de Wild, “Environmental impact of crystalline silicon photovoltaic

module production,” MRS Online Proc. Libr. Arch., vol. 895, 2005.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
 Journal Pre-proof

Declaration of competing interests

☒ 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

Credit Author Statement

Muhammad Tawalbeh: Conceptualization, Project administration, Investigation, Methodology,

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

Abdelsalam: Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft. Fares Almomani:

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

- PV systems cannot be regarded as completely eco-friendly systems with zero-emissions.

- The adverse environmental impacts of PV systems include land, water, pollution,
Hazardous materials, noise, and visual.
- Future design trends of PV systems focus on improved design, sustainability, and
recycling.
- Incentives and research to close the gaps can offer a great platform for future legislations.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo