applied

sciences
Article
Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of End-of-Life
Silicon Solar Photovoltaic Modules
Marina M. Lunardi 1 ID
, J. P. Alvarez-Gaitan 2 , J. I. Bilbao 1 ID
and Richard Corkish 1, * ID

1 The Australian Centre for Advanced Photovoltaics (ACAP), School of Photovoltaic and Renewable Energy
Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia;
m.monteirolunardi@unsw.edu.au (M.M.L.); j.bilbao@unsw.edu.au (J.I.B.)
2 School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia;
j.alvarezgaitan@unsw.edu.au
* Correspondence: r.corkish@unsw.edu.au




Received: 26 July 2018; Accepted: 14 August 2018; Published: 18 August 2018


Abstract: The cumulative global photovoltaic (PV) waste reached 250,000 metric tonnes by the end
of 2016 and is expected to increase considerably in the future. Hence, adequate end-of-life (EoL)
management for PV modules must be developed. Today, most of the EoL modules go to landfill,
mainly because recycling processes for PV modules are not yet economically feasible and regulation in
most countries is not yet well established. Nevertheless, several methods for recycling PV modules are
under development. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a methodology that quantifies the environmental
impacts of a process or a product. An attributional LCA was undertaken to compare landfill,
incineration, reuse and recycling (mechanical, thermal and chemical routes) of EoL crystalline silicon
(c-Si) solar modules, based on a combination of real process data and assumptions. The results show
that recovery of materials from solar modules results in lower environmental impacts compared to
other EoL scenarios, considering our assumptions. The impacts could be even lower with the adoption
of more complex processes that can reclaim more materials. Although recycling processes can achieve
good recycling rates and recover almost all materials from solar modules, attention must be paid to
the use of toxic substances during the chemical routes of recycling and to the distance to recycling
centres due to the impacts of transportation.

Keywords: recycling PV; LCA; life cycle assessment; environmental impacts

1. Introduction
By the end of 2016, the world solar photovoltaic (PV) installed capacity was around 78 GW,
which is more than double compared with 2014 and 32 times more than in 2000 [1]. Because of this
growth in the photovoltaic market, the cumulative global PV waste reached 250,000 tonnes by the
end of 2016, while predictions show that, by 2050, the amount will increase to 5.5–6 million tonnes
per year [2]. The increasing waste from PV panels is an environmental obstacle to be overcome, but it
also opens a range of opportunities to create processes that can transform this discarded material into
an economic and ecological solution. For this to happen, there must be adequate end-of-life (EoL)
management technologies and policies for PV systems and, particularly, PV modules [2].
It is well known that today most of the PV modules go to landfill sites [2], because PV recycling
processes are not economically feasible yet and regulation in most countries has not been established
for this waste stream [2]. The late or non-inclusion of PV waste within countries’ waste legislation
is usually related to the thus-far low quantities of EoL PV modules, due to their long lifetime (up to
25–30 years or more) [3]. Regarding the financial aspects, the number of waste PV modules being taken
to recycling facilities is currently small compared to the amount of other electronic wastes [4], thus the

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1396; doi:10.3390/app8081396 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1396 2 of 15

technology developed for recycling PV waste is still unable to generate significant profits. Furthermore,
the lack of a substantial body of knowledge on the potential environmental and economic impacts of
c-Si PV waste treatments has not encouraged policymakers to get involved with this issue yet.
The majority of Life cycle assessment (LCA) studies of solar modules focus on the production
and operation phases, with an emphasis on the energy requirements of these processes, which have
been shown to have an important contribution to environmental impacts [5]. Lately, there has been
increasing interest and research on the impact of recycling processes of PV modules. Most of the
studies in c-Si have focused on the impacts of a specific recycling process [6,7], while some of them
compare recycling process with other scenarios such as landfill [8] and incineration [9]. This report
compares the environmental impacts of landfill, incineration, reuse and three potential recycling
options (mechanical, thermal and chemical routes) of EoL c-Si solar modules, considering results
already described in the literature. Therefore, this paper aims to present an overview of options for
PV waste management based on the environmental benefits or disadvantages produced by each EoL
possibility. The results presented here can inform on the best route waste management to be taken
from an ecological perspective, including the possible recovery of materials for their reuse during the
initial steps of solar cells and modules production.

2. Materials and Methods

The LCA methodology quantifies the environmental impacts of a process or a product through
a systematic set of procedures. This technique compiles and examines the inputs and outputs of
materials and energy, which results in the quantification of the environmental impacts directly
associated with the operation of processes or products throughout its life cycle [10]. Results from
an LCA can be used to inform the public sector, stakeholders and manufacturers about potential
environmental impacts from products and processes and suggest possible improvements [11].
The EoL of PV technologies is not commonly included in LCA studies due to the lack
of information and data on the subject. However, there are a few studies, particularly for c-Si,
that focus on the impacts of recycling processes for PV technologies [6,7] and some of them even
compare these process with other scenarios such as landfill [8] and incineration [9]. Although the
mentioned works are a step in the right direction, there is a need for a more comprehensive inventory
of different recycling possibilities. For example, it is still challenging to understand the impacts of
landfilling these devices and the possible benefits of recycling and recovering materials from used
modules and cells. With this in mind, here we present an LCA to compare the effects of different EoL
scenarios for c-Si solar modules, including recycling processes. The functional unit to be used in this
analysis is defined as 1 kg of silicon-based PV waste modules.
This study assumed common c-Si PV module materials: silicon wafer cells with silver-based and
aluminium contacts, ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) encapsulant, aluminium frame, polymer (Tedlar® )
back-sheet, cover glass, tinned copper tabbing and lead-containing solder. The assessed impacts due to
transportation of modules from their collection site to their EoL process (landfill, incineration or
recycling plant) depend on a set of assumptions. It has been shown in a previous article [7]
that, for a recycling plant 400 km from the collection point, using a truck for transportation adds
important environmental impacts to the recycling process, particularly, for abiotic depletion. However,
the results were calculated for a specific transport and location. In this LCA, a separate analysis on
the transportation phase is presented because the impacts do not depend on the recycling technology
but on the collection system and distance. The assessment of the environmental impacts was
performed using the LCA methodology (based on the ISO standard [12]) with the aid of GaBi software,
version 6 [13]. The calculations are based on data collected from the literature and the Ecoinvent
database, version 2 [14]. For a better understanding of the LCA results, ReCiPe (2016) endpoint
indicators are used for expressing the environmental impacts [15].
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1396 3 of 15
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 15

2.1. EoL
2.1. EoL Options
Optionsfor
forc-Si
c-SiSolar
SolarModules
Modules
This LCA
This LCAanalysed
analysedfour
four different
different EoLEoL approaches
approaches formodules,
for PV PV modules, as shown
as shown in 1.
in Figure Figure
Each 1.
Each approach has particular characteristics and can offer a different improvement on the PV modules’
approach has particular characteristics and can offer a different improvement on the PV modules’
environmental impact.
overall environmental impact.

Reuse Recycling Incineration Landfill

Figure 1.
Figure Photovoltaic(PV)
1. photovoltaic (PV)modules
modulesadequate
adequateend-of-life
end-of-life(EoL)
(EoL)possible
possible options
options based
based onon
thethe waste
waste
management hierarchy
management hierarchy[16].
[16].

2.1.1. Landfill
Landfill
EoL
EoL PV
PV modules
modulescancangenerate
generatepollutants,
pollutants,especially
especiallythetheleaching
leaching ofofmetals
metalsinto
intothethe
environment,
environment,
if they are not correctly handled [17,18]. Unfortunately, the literature presents
if they are not correctly handled [17,18]. Unfortunately, the literature presents few experimental few experimental
studies
studies
includingincluding the environmental
the environmental consequences
consequences of landfilling
of landfilling c-Si PV c-Si PV modules,
modules, mostly mostly focusing
focusing on the
on the presence of lead and silver in the modules [17,19,20]. However, studies
presence of lead and silver in the modules [17,19,20]. However, studies analysing and predicting analysing and
predicting the future resource availability of materials (mostly metals) demonstrate
the future resource availability of materials (mostly metals) demonstrate the necessity of a proactive the necessity of
asystem
proactive systemtoapproach
approach to naturalscarcity
natural resources resourcesandscarcity and consequential
consequential price [21].
price increases increases [21].cases,
In most In
most cases, before going to landfill, the PV module is separated from the balance-of-system
before going to landfill, the PV module is separated from the balance-of-system (BOS), which allows (BOS),
which allows
the specific the specifictocomponents
components be separated, to based
be separated, based types.
in their waste in theirThe
waste
BOStypes.
refersThe BOS
to the refers to
non-module
the non-module
components of acomponents of a PV system,
PV system, including including
inverters, racking,inverters, racking,
cables/wires, cables/wires,
switches, switches,
enclosures, fuses,
enclosures, fuses, ground fault detectors
ground fault detectors and other parts. and other parts.
The
The BOS
BOS components
componentsare areoften
oftenneglected
neglectedininPVPVLCALCAstudies,
studies,butbutthere are
there area few
a few results
resultsforfor
thethe
impacts of these materials [22,23]. The BOS component impacts are predominantly carcinogens and
impacts of these materials [22,23]. The BOS component impacts are predominantly carcinogens
ecotoxicity, attributable to the release of toxic substances and contaminants into the air or percolation
and ecotoxicity, attributable to the release of toxic substances and contaminants into the air or
into the ground during their manufacturing process and when they are placed in the landfill, affecting
percolation into the ground during their manufacturing process and when they are placed in the
the water and the soil [24].
landfill, affecting the water and the soil [24].
2.1.2.
2.1.2. Incineration
Incineration
Incinerating
Incinerating solar
solar modules,
modules,asasfor
forelectronic
electronicwaste
wasteiningeneral,
general,isisharmful
harmfultotothe
theenvironment
environment
because
because ofof the
the release
release of
oftoxic
toxicheavy
heavymetals,
metals,such
suchasaslead,
lead,into
intothe
theatmosphere.
atmosphere.SomeSome ofof
the materials
the materials
contained in solar modules are known to be persistent and accumulative when released, which means
contained in solar modules are known to be persistent and accumulative when released, which means
long-term effects to humans, fauna and flora.
long-term effects to humans, fauna and flora.
The benefit of this method is that EoL modules do not need to be separated from other
The benefit of this method is that EoL modules do not need to be separated from other commercial
commercial or industrial waste. On the other hand, this process abolishes the chances of recovering
or industrial waste. On the other hand, this process abolishes the chances of recovering raw materials.
raw materials. The impacts of municipal waste incineration and subsequent disposal at a landfill for
The impacts of municipal waste incineration and subsequent disposal at a landfill for inert waste have
inert waste have already been assessed in the literature [9], but the inventory was not made public.
already been assessed in the literature [9], but the inventory was not made public.
2.1.3.
2.1.3. Reuse
Reuse
Reuse is also a popular choice in the waste management hierarchy and, for PV modules, this
Reuse is also a popular choice in the waste management hierarchy and, for PV modules,
involves repair [25]. The improvement of c-Si solar modules is feasible depending on the conditions
this involves repair [25]. The improvement of c-Si solar modules is feasible depending on the conditions
of the materials. Typically, processes of repairing modules involve applying a new aluminium frame
of the materials. Typically, processes of repairing modules involve applying a new aluminium frame
or replacing the junction box. It can also be a solution to replace diodes, plugs, sockets and more [2].
or replacing the junction box. It can also be a solution to replace diodes, plugs, sockets and more [2].
Subsequently, the product receives a new label with new guarantees (in compliance with national
Subsequently, the product receives a new label with new guarantees (in compliance with national laws).
laws).
The repaired module can have a new lifetime of approximately 15 years but with lower efficiency
The repaired module can have a new lifetime of approximately 15 years but with lower efficiency
(around 1–2%) [26,27]. By lengthening their life, the industry avoids manufacture of replacement
(around 1–2%) [26,27]. By lengthening their life, the industry avoids manufacture of replacement
modules. The problem with this scenario is that, even with lower environmental outcomes due to
modules. The problem with this scenario is that, even with lower environmental outcomes due to the
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1396 4 of 15

the longer lifetime, the modules still have an EoL, hence not solving the problem completely but
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 15
postponing the impacts.
longer lifetime, the modules still have an EoL, hence not solving the problem completely but
2.1.4.postponing
Recycling the impacts.
Different techniques for recycling solar modules are been developed for all PV technologies.
2.1.4. Recycling
Specifically, for c-Si, there are different possibilities for recycling and good results can be achieved with
alternative Different techniques
or combined for recycling
recycling processes.solar Generally,
modules arethe been developed
first step is tofor all PV technologies.
mechanically remove the
Specifically,
aluminium frameforand c-Si,
thethere are different
junction box from possibilities
the rest offorthe
recycling
module. andThe
good
nextresults
stagecan be delaminate
is to achieved or
removewith alternative
the encapsulant or combined
material, recycling
which is processes.
normally Generally, the first step is to(EVA).
ethylene-vinyl-acetate mechanically
Severalremove
techniques
the aluminium frame and the junction box from the rest of the module. The next stage is to delaminate
can be used in this phase [2], including thermal [28,29], and chemical (organic and inorganic) [20,30,31]
or remove the encapsulant material, which is normally ethylene-vinyl-acetate (EVA). Several
and mechanical recycling processes [7].
techniques can be used in this phase [2], including thermal [28,29], and chemical (organic and
The most[20,30,31]
inorganic) commonand process
mechanicalfor recycling c-Si modules,
recycling processes [7]. which is commercially available in
Europe [32], is based on a mechanical process for the extraction
The most common process for recycling c-Si modules, which is commercially of the remaining
available materials
in Europeof the
module.
[32], is based on a mechanical process for the extraction of the remaining materials of the module.about
However, the maximum amount of recovered materials from this process is currently
80%, However,
which is the insufficient
maximumfor future
amount of regulation requirements
recovered materials from this[33] and the
process value ofabout
is currently the recovered
80%,
whichisislower
resources insufficient
than for
that future
of theregulation
originalrequirements
raw materials [33][32].
and the value ofthe
Recently. theEuropean
recovered resources
company PV
Cycleishas
lower than thata of
achieved the original
recycling rateraw materials
of 96% [32].PV
for c-Si Recently.
modules the using
European company
a new process PV that
Cyclecombines
has
achieved a recycling rate
mechanical and thermal treatments [34]. of 96% for c-Si PV modules using a new process that combines mechanical
and thermal treatments [34].
During the thermal process, the EVA and backsheet (Tedlar® ) layers are burned, releasing potentially
During the thermal process, the EVA and backsheet (Tedlar®) layers are burned, releasing
noxious and harmful emissions into the air. Therefore, in this study, we considered the treatment of the
potentially noxious and harmful emissions into the air. Therefore, in this study, we considered the
exhaust gas, asofitthe
treatment is essential
exhaust gas, in the
as itpursuit of an
is essential in environmentally responsible process
the pursuit of an environmentally [28,29].
responsible The same
process
assumption
[28,29]. The same assumption was made for the chemical process, as we considered that the backsheet from
was made for the chemical process, as we considered that the backsheet is removed
the module
is removedafterfrom
the the
chemical
moduletreatment. Assuming
after the chemical Tedlar®
treatment. as the backsheet,
Assuming Tedlar® asitthe is demonstrated
backsheet, it is that
it hasdemonstrated
a good thermal that itstability
has a good in thermal
the range of approximately
stability −70–100 ◦ C and
in the range of approximately loses
−70–100 °Citsand strength
loses at
its ◦
strength at 260–300 °C, which is not hot enough for the EVA
260–300 C, which is not hot enough for the EVA to start to decompose and so the Tedlar can be to start to decompose and so the
Tedlarfirst
separated can from
be separated
EVA [28], firsthowever
from EVA [28],experiments
more however more experiments
need to be done need to be to
related donethisrelated to
temperature.
this temperature.
2.2. Process Descriptions and Inventory Data
2.2. Process Descriptions and Inventory Data
Figure 2 shows a process flow diagram for c-Si possible EoL scenarios and the description of each
Figure 2 shows a process flow diagram for c-Si possible EoL scenarios and the description of
process. The process steps represented in Figure 2 are a compilation of the best results found by the
each process. The process steps represented in Figure 2 are a compilation of the best results found by
authors
the and areand
authors explained in thisinsession.
are explained this session.

Figure 2. Simplified process flow diagram for c-Si module manufacturing and possible EoL scenarios.
Figure 2. Simplified process flow diagram for c-Si module manufacturing and possible EoL
ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), ethylene-vinyl-acetate; Al, aluminium; Ag, silver; Si, silicon; ARC (anti-
scenarios. ethylene
reflection vinyl acetate (EVA), ethylene-vinyl-acetate; Al, aluminium; Ag, silver; Si, silicon;
coating).
ARC (anti-reflection coating).
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1396 5 of 15

Life Cycle Inventories (LCI) are essential for LCA studies, and the availability of such data is
frequently the greatest obstacle to conduct an LCA. However, since several authors published the
environmental impacts from the production process of c-Si solar cells and modules, the inventory
for these processes is well known. The International Energy Agency (IEA), through Task 12 of the
Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme, published a report in 2015 containing a complete inventory
for mono- and multi-crystalline silicon solar cells and modules production, including (limited) data for
the BOS, as well as environmental impacts from these technologies [5].
As Figure 2 shows, the c-Si solar module production process starts with the raw materials
(quartz sand), for which we included mining, processing and purification stages. The encapsulation
materials (e.g., silica for glass) were also considered in this step. The cell production includes mono- or
multi-crystalline silicon ingots sliced into wafers, p-n junction formation and application and firing of
metallization pastes. In the module manufacturing stage, cells are connected physically and electrically
and, after that, encapsulated by glass and plastics, which, together with the BOS components, create a
PV system. The use phase includes the PV system installation, operation and maintenance. The BOS
components and use phase impacts were not considered in this study. The BOS impacts calculated by
other authors demonstrate that these materials have significant impacts [22,23], but the inventory is
still very limited. The use phase has not demonstrated significant impacts [35], so it can be neglected.
When the modules reach their EoL, different pathways can be taken, as discussed above.
The impacts from the landfill, incineration and reuse scenarios are not completely studied yet,
but the Ecoinvent database [36] has a comprehensive database for plastic and some specific metals,
shown in the Supplementary Material.
For the recycling scenario, the considered processes were thermal [28,29] and chemical [6,20,30,31]
methods, compared with the mechanical approach, which is already published [7] but excluding
the transportation impacts from all processes. These recycling processes start with the mechanical
separation of the junction box and aluminium frame, which can be recycled and reused. We did not
consider the aluminium frame, the cables and the plastic parts in our recycling processes because they
are normally sent to separate plants for further treatment [7].
The thermal process inventory is based on the controlled burning of EVA (400–500 ◦ C),
assuming the glass can be recovered without breaking and could be directly used again as the module
component [28,29]. In this process, it is expected that most of the cells end up breaking due to the
excessive pressure from the gasses released during the burning process [28], but it can be reused as raw
material for ingot growing (we assumed that 100% of the raw silicon is from this recycling process).
There is also a 100% recovery of silver from the solar cells [28]. Tests with thermal treatment under air
resulted in significant temperature increase and the carbonisation of the EVA. The absence of oxygen
during this process avoids the oxidation of some materials, so a nitrogen atmosphere, which prevents
chemical oxidation of the EVA layer [19,37], was assumed.
The chemical route assumed in this study starts with melting the EVA layer by a thermal process as
already explained [28]. The most promising organic solvents used for this reaction are tetrahydrofuran,
o-dichlorobenzene and toluene. Toluene is the cheapest and more stable among these options and,
therefore, is the most common chemical used for dissolving EVA and it is our assumption in this report.
The assumption was that this process is carried out at 80 ◦ C, as that was proven to be more effective
compared with room temperature [30]. After this step, the glass is completely recovered and directly
used again as a module component. In the next stage, it is possible to recover the Si from the cells by
using a combination of chemicals. Subsequently, potassium hydroxide is used to remove Al metal
coatings, and a mixture of nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride and acetic acid remove metals, anti-reflection
coatings and p-n junctions. The metals (including silicon) were assumed to be reused in new cells [6]
and 80% of the silicon used in new cells can come from this recycling process.
For the mechanical approach, the Full Recovery End of Life Photovoltaic (FRELP) process was
used for the calculations. This project aims to test and develop innovative technologies for 100%
recycling of EoL PV modules in an economically viable way [38]. The impacts of this process are
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1396 6 of 15
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 15

calculated based on
calculated based on the
the published
published “gate-to-gate”
“gate-to-gate” LCA
LCA that
that assesses
assesses the
the potential
potential environmental
environmental
impacts related to the FRELP recycling process [7], excluding the impacts from transportation.
impacts related to the FRELP recycling process [7], excluding the impacts from transportation.
The production processes
The production processes for mono- and
for mono- and multi-crystalline
multi-crystalline silicon
silicon solar
solar modules
modules are
are well
well known,
known,
and their
their inventories
inventories are
arepublic
public[5].
[5].The
TheSupplementary
Supplementary Materials present the inventories
Materials present the inventories for the for
the recycling processes. For all cases, the analysis of the influence of transportation
recycling processes. For all cases, the analysis of the influence of transportation is discussed
independently using estimated distances for each of the the EoL
EoL scenarios.
scenarios.

3. Results and
3. Results and Discussion
Discussion
Based
Based on onthe
theLCALCAmethodology
methodology andandthe the
processes described,
processes the results
described, for global
the results for warming (GWP),
global warming
human toxicity–cancer and non-cancer effects (HTP-CE and HTP-nCE),
(GWP), human toxicity–cancer and non-cancer effects (HTP-CE and HTP-nCE), freshwater freshwater eutrophication
(FEuP), freshwater
eutrophication ecotoxicity
(FEuP), freshwater (FEcP) and abiotic
ecotoxicity depletion
(FEcP) of elements
and abiotic depletionpotential (ADP)potential
of elements impacts
are
(ADP)presented
impactsinarethis report. The
presented calculations
in this report. The arecalculations
based on the
areavailable
based ondata of each EoL
the available datascenario,
of each
but, as already mentioned, these processes are not deeply understood,
EoL scenario, but, as already mentioned, these processes are not deeply understood, and and their inventories aretheir
still
incomplete. Thus, estimations were made for the missing data based on published
inventories are still incomplete. Thus, estimations were made for the missing data based on published experiments and
industrial
experiments processes. The results
and industrial presented
processes. The inresults
this report are not
presented in completely
this reportrepresentative
are not completelyof the
environmental effects of the process and should be used with caution.
representative of the environmental effects of the process and should be used with caution.
A
A summary
summaryofof allall
results was was
results calculated using using
calculated the ReCiPe method, method,
the ReCiPe which is recent
whichand is harmonises
recent and
the environmental impacts based on current data [15]. This method’s
harmonises the environmental impacts based on current data [15]. This method’s primary primary objective is to transform
objective
all lifetransform
is to cycle inventory
all liferesults,
cycle into a limited
inventory number
results, of indicator
into a limitedscores.
number These indicator scores
of indicator scores.express
These
the relative severity on an environmental impact category and are presented
indicator scores express the relative severity on an environmental impact category and are presentedin three categories, i.e.,
the effect on human health (Figure 3), ecosystems (Figure 4) and resources (Figure
in three categories, i.e. the effect on human health (Figure 3), ecosystems (Figure 4) and resources 5). This approach is
usually beneficial to aid the understanding of environmental outcomes if the
(Figure 5). This approach is usually beneficial to aid the understanding of environmental outcomes target audience is not
formed of experts
if the target in this
audience is notfield.
formed of experts in this field.

Figure 3. ReCiPe results (effects on Human Health) in disability-adjusted life year (DALY) for multi-
Figure 3. ReCiPe results (effects on Human Health) in disability-adjusted life year (DALY) for multi-
and monocrystalline silicon modules.
and monocrystalline silicon modules.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1396 7 of 15
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 15
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 15

Figure 4. ReCiPe results for effects on Ecosystem in species per year (species·year) for multi- and
Figure 4. ReCiPe results for effects on Ecosystem in species per year (species·year) for multi- and
Figure 4. ReCiPesilicon
monocrystalline resultsmodules.
for effects on Ecosystem in species per year (species·year) for multi- and
monocrystalline silicon modules.
monocrystalline silicon modules.

Figure 5. ReCiPe results for effects on Resources in US Dollars (US$) for multi- and monocrystalline
Figure
silicon 5. ReCiPe results for effects on Resources in US Dollars (US$) for multi- and monocrystalline
modules.
Figure 5. ReCiPe results for effects on Resources in US Dollars (US$) for multi- and monocrystalline
silicon modules.
silicon modules.
The comparison of all scenarios studied, presented by the ReCiPe indicators, shows that lower
The comparison
environmental impacts of can
all scenarios
be achieved studied, presented
through recycling bymethods.
the ReCiPe Thatindicators, shows that
result is mainly due lower
to the
The comparison
environmental impacts ofcan
all scenarios
be achieved studied,
throughpresented
recycling bymethods.
the ReCiPe That indicators,
result is shows due
mainly that to
lower
the
recycling and reuse of part of the raw materials (e.g., silicon and silver) and the glass and aluminium
environmental
recycling impacts
and reuse can
of part be achieved
of thethe through
rawimportance recycling
materials (e.g., methods.
silicon and That
silver) and result is
the glass mainly due
and aluminium to the
from the frame, which confirms of high-value recycling processes compared to other
recycling
from and reuse
the frame, which of part of thethe raw materials (e.g., silicon and silver) and the glass and aluminium
disposal solutions thatconfirms
cannot reuseimportance
or recycle the of high-value recycling
individual components. processes compared to other
from the
disposal frame,
solutions which
that confirms
cannot the
reuse importance
or recycle of
the high-value
individual recycling
components. processes compared to other
It can also be observed that the incineration process produces the worst impacts compared with
disposal solutions
It can EoL
also be that cannot
observedmainly reuse or
that thebecause recycle
incineration the individual
process produces components.
the other scenarios, this process uses morethe worst impacts
primary energy compared
than the other with
the It canEoL
other also scenarios,
be observed that the
mainly incineration
because this processuses
process produces
more the worst impacts
primary energy compared
than the with
other
methods presented in this LCA. It is important to highlight that this analysis did not consider any
the other
methods EoL scenarios,
presented mainly because this process uses more primary energy than the other methods
thermal energy or in this LCA.
electricity It is important
produced by thetoincineration
highlight that this analysis
process, thus nodid not consider
energetic benefit any is
presented
thermal in
energy this LCA. It is important to highlight that this analysis did not consider any thermal
measured in thisor electricity produced by the incineration process, thus no energetic benefit is
scenario.
energy or in
measured electricity produced by the incineration process, thus no energetic benefit is measured in
this scenario.
The chemical approach shows low impacts. However, the use of toxic chemicals should always
this scenario.
The chemical
be observed in anyapproach
environmentalshowsanalysis.
low impacts. However,
The reuse of thethe use of(intoxic
solvent this chemicals
case, toluene)should always
in multiple
be The chemical
observed any approach shows low impacts. However,
of theasthe use of(intoxic chemicals should always
processes is in
possible environmental
and should analysis.be considered,The reuse
as well solvent
the final this case,
treatment toluene)
when the in multiple
chemical
be observed
processes in any environmental analysis. The reuse of the solvent (in this case, toluene) in multiple
cannot be is possible
used again and should
to recycle new be PVconsidered,
modules. as well as the final treatment when the chemical
processes
cannot is possible
be used and
again to in should
recycle be
new considered,
PVitmodules. as well as the final treatment when the chemical cannot
From the analysis Figures 3–5, can also be observed that reuse seems to be a better option
be used again
From the to recycle
analysis new
in and PV
Figures modules.
compared to the landfill the 3–5, it can also
incineration be observed
scenarios. that reuse
In addition, seemsreducing
besides to be a better
impacts,optionthe
compared
extra lifetime considered in the reuse scenario also allows more time for recycling technologies tothe
to the landfill and the incineration scenarios. In addition, besides reducing impacts, be
extra lifetime
developed. considered
Besides, in the reuse
the repaired scenario can
PV modules alsobeallows more time
alternatively for recycling
resold technologies
as used panels to be
at a reduced
developed. Besides, the repaired PV modules can be alternatively resold as used panels at a reduced
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1396 8 of 15

From the analysis in Figures 3–5, it can also be observed that reuse seems to be a better option
compared to the landfill and the incineration scenarios. In addition, besides reducing impacts, the extra
lifetime considered in the reuse scenario also allows more time for recycling technologies to be
developed. Besides, the repaired PV modules can be alternatively resold as used panels at a reduced
market price of approximately 70% of the original sales price [2], which creates a good opportunity for
a significant secondary market for used PV modules.
The impacts from the recovery of metals from the bottom ash are significant for freshwater
eutrophication and acidification, among other impacts that were not calculated in the present
LCA. These impacts are mainly due to the processes of sieving, acid leaching, electrolysis,
and acid neutralisation.
Considering a more specific analysis (Figures 6 and 7), the GWP impacts are mostly produced by
the silicon feedstock, which includes 50% solar grade silicon (SGS) and 50% electronic grade silicon
(EGS), due to the high energy requirement for these processes [5]. Both recycling processes can recover
the silicon and reuse it. The thermal treatment can recover crushed silicon cells and reprocess them by
ingot growth. The possibility of reusing silicon as raw material or intact wafers to produce new silicon
solar cells is beneficial regarding environmental outcomes from the entire process. The recovery of the
glass sheet is also advantageous, mostly for the ADP, as this material represents a high percentage of
the total weight of the module (approximately 80%) [2].
It is evident that the overall results from the recycling processes are environmentally favourable
when compared with the other scenarios included in this study, but some additional aspects should
be considered. The ADP impacts for the recycling processes (Supplementary Material) show that the
cell production has higher consequences compared to the other EoL scenarios, mainly because, in this
study, we did not considered the recovery of other materials besides glass, silver, aluminium and
silicon. Lower environmental impacts may be achieved with more complex recycling methods that
can recover additional materials and reuse them in new solar cells and modules. The European
directive about electronic waste management, which includes PV modules, highlights the importance
of recycling potentially harmful substances and rare materials as an environmental solution [33].
Additionally, the substances used during the chemical recycling treatment studied (tetrahydrofuran,
o-dichlorobenzene and toluene) present serious issues related to human health and can be risky
for fauna and flora. Tetrahydrofuran is a carcinogen and when in contact with humans or animals,
can cause severe diseases and even death. This substance is mobile in the environment causing
contamination of water, soil and air [39]. The o-dichlorobenzene is not carcinogenic but, otherwise,
has the same environmental and health effects [40]. Toluene is also toxic for both humans and animals
for acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) exposures. It can cause several illnesses, but there is
inadequate information to assess the carcinogenic potential of this substance. It is an environmentally
hazardous material that can affect soil and water causing long-lasting effects in aquatic organisms [41].
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1396 9 of 15

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15

Percentage of Environmental Impacts for Multicrystaline Silicon

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Recycling - Thermal

Recycling - Thermal

Recycling - Thermal

Recycling - Thermal

Recycling - Thermal

Recycling - Thermal
Landfill

Recycling - Mechanical
Incineration
Reuse

Recycling - Mechanical
Landfill
Incineration
Reuse

Landfill

Recycling - Mechanical
Incineration
Reuse

Recycling - Mechanical
Landfill
Incineration
Reuse

Landfill
Incineration
Reuse

Recycling - Mechanical
Landfill
Incineration
Reuse

Recycling - Mechanical
Recycling - Chemical

Recycling - Chemical

Recycling - Chemical

Recycling - Chemical

Recycling - Chemical

Recycling - Chemical

Global Warming Human Toxicity Human Toxicity Freshwater Freshwater Abiotic Depletion
Potential Potential Potential Eutrophication Ecotoxicity Potential
Cancer Effects Non-cancer Effects Potential Potential

MGS Silicon feedstock

Multicrystalline silicon production Wafer production
Photovoltaic cells Photovoltaic panel
EoL

Figure 6. Relative environmental impacts for different end-of-life scenarios considering multi-
Figure 6. Relative
crystalline environmental
silicon solar impacts
modules: landfill, for different
incineration, reuseend-of-life scenarios
and recycling considering
(thermal, multi-
chemical and
crystalline
mechanical).silicon solar modules: landfill, incineration, reuse and recycling (thermal, chemical
and mechanical).
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1396 10 of 15

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 15

Percentage of Environmental Impacts for Monocrystaline Silicon

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Recycling - Thermal

Recycling - Thermal

Recycling - Thermal

Recycling - Thermal

Recycling - Thermal

Recycling - Thermal
Recycling - Mechanical
Incineration
Reuse

Recycling - Mechanical

Incineration
Reuse

Incineration
Reuse

Recycling - Mechanical

Incineration
Reuse

Recycling - Mechanical

Incineration
Reuse

Recycling - Mechanical

Incineration
Reuse

Recycling - Mechanical
Recycling - Chemical

Recycling - Chemical

Recycling - Chemical

Recycling - Chemical

Recycling - Chemical

Recycling - Chemical
Landfill

Landfill

Landfill

Landfill

Landfill

Landfill

Global Warming Human Toxicity Human Toxicity Freshwater Freshwater Abiotic Depletion
Potential Potential Potential Eutrophication Ecotoxicity Potential
Cancer Effects Non-cancer Potential Potential
Effects

MGS Silicon feedstock

Multicrystalline silicon production Wafer production
Photovoltaic cells Photovoltaic panel
EoL

Figure 7. Relative environmental impacts for different end-of-life scenarios considering

Figure 7. Relative silicon
monocrystalline environmental impacts
solar modules: for different
landfill, end-of-life
incineration, scenarios
reuse considering
and recycling monocrystalline
(thermal, chemical
silicon solar modules:
and mechanical). landfill, incineration, reuse and recycling (thermal, chemical and mechanical).
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1396 11 of 15

Appl. Sci.
Analysis 2018, 8, x FOR PEER
of Transportation REVIEW
Impacts 11 of 15

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15

As discussed
Analysis previously,
of Transportation transportation can add important impacts to these possible EoL
Impacts
scenarios
Analysis [7],
of but it depends
Transportation entirely on the location of the EoL modules and their final destination.
Impacts
As discussed previously, transportation can add important impacts to these possible EoL
These impacts[7],
scenarios can beitnegligible
but depends if the sites
entirely on the forlocation
the collection
of the of the
EoL modulesPV panels,
and to treatment
their and disposal
finalpossible
destination.
As discussed previously, transportation can add important impacts these EoL
are assumed
These to
impacts be in the
canitbe same
negligiblearea, but,
if the on in
sites most cases,
forlocation
the collectionthe data
of the for transport
PV panels, mode and distance
disposal are
scenarios [7], but depends entirely the of the EoL modules andtreatment
their finaland
destination.
difficult
are to assesstofor
assumed be the
in general case but,[2]. in most cases, the data for transport mode and distance are
These impacts can be the same area,
negligible if the sites for the collection of the PV panels, treatment and disposal
Forassumed
example,
difficult
are to assess significant
to be for
in the impacts
the general
same related
casebut,
area, [2]. in mostto the transport
cases, the dataof forPV waste to
transport the and
mode recycling
distance site
arewere
calculated For for the
example,FRELP process
significant [7].
impacts
difficult to assess for the general case [2]. However,
related tosuch
the result
transport applies
of PV only
waste toto that
the particular
recycling case
site werestudy;
calculated
hence, the for
approach the FRELP
chosen process
in this [7].
studyHowever,
is more such result
general. applies
As the only
location
For example, significant impacts related to the transport of PV waste to the recycling site were to that
of particular
the EoL case study;
treatment plant
hence,
was calculatedthe approach
not set in this study,
for the chosen
FRELP Figuresin
processthis
8–10 study
[7].show is more
the results
However, general. As
of three
such result the location
scenarios:
applies only tono of the EoL
transport
that treatment
particularand plant
a distance
case study; of
50 kmwas notthe
and
hence, setapproach
100 in
km this
to study,
thechosenFigures
EoL treatment
in this 8–10
studyshow theItresults
facility.
is more is of three
expected
general. scenarios:
that,
As the for theno
location transport
ofEoI
thescenarios andofa distance
EoL treatment landfill
plant and
of
was50 km
not and
set in 100
thiskm to
study, the EoL
Figures treatment
8–10 show facility.
the It
results is expected
of three that,
scenarios:
incineration, a maximum distance of 50 km is adequate as these sites are ubiquitous within economic for the
no EoI scenarios
transport and of
a landfill
distance
and incineration,
of 50However,
km and 100 a maximum
km to theof
EoL distance of facility.
50 km It is isadequate
expectedasthat,these forsites arescenarios
ubiquitous within
centres. a distance 100treatment
km might be more adequate to represent the EoI of landfill
the travel required to PV
economic centres.
and incineration, However,
a maximum a distance
distance of 100 km might
of 50 regularly.
km is adequate be more adequate to represent the travel
recycling centres as these centres are not found In anyas these
case, thesites are ubiquitous
information presentedwithinbelow
required
economic to PV recycling centres as these of centreskm are might
not found regularly. In any tocase, the information
be scaledcentres.
can presented to
below
However,
any distance
can be
a distance
required.
scaled to
For100
any
this analysis,
distance
be more
only
required.
adequate
terrestrial
For this
represent
transportation
analysis, only
the(Ecoinvent
travel
terrestrial
required to PV recycling centres as these centres are not found regularly. In any case, the information
inventory for “lorry
transportation 16–32 t”)inventory
(Ecoinvent was considered.
for “lorry 16–32 t”) was considered.
presented below can be scaled to any distance required. For this analysis, only terrestrial
transportation (Ecoinvent inventory for “lorry 16–32 t”) was considered.

Figure 8. Inclusion of transportation on the final results for the EoL scenarios analysed for Human
Figure 8. Inclusion
Health (ReCiPe), of transportation
considering on landfill
that the the final results
and for the plants
incineration EoL scenarios analysed
are within 50 km for Human
Figure 8. Inclusion of transportation on the final results for the EoL scenarios analysed forfrom the
Human
Health (ReCiPe),
collection point considering
in all cases. that the landfill and incineration plants are within 50 km from the
Health (ReCiPe), considering that the landfill and incineration plants are within 50 km from the
collection point in all cases.
collection point in all cases.

Figure 9. Inclusion of transportation on the final results for the EoL scenarios analysed for Ecosystems
(ReCiPe), considering
Figure 9. Inclusion that the landfill
of transportation on and incineration
the final plants
results for are scenarios
the EoL within 50analysed
km fromfor
theEcosystems
collection
Figure Inclusion
9. in
point all of transportation on the final results for the EoL scenarios analysed for Ecosystems
cases.
(ReCiPe), considering that the landfill and incineration plants are within 50 km from the collection
(ReCiPe), considering that the landfill and incineration plants are within 50 km from the collection
point in all cases.
point in all cases.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1396 12 of 15
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 15

Figure 10. Inclusion of transportation on the final results for the EoL scenarios analysed for Resources
Figure 10. Inclusion of transportation on the final results for the EoL scenarios analysed for Resources
(ReCiPe), considering that the landfill and incineration plants are within 50 km from the collection
(ReCiPe), considering that the landfill and incineration plants are within 50 km from the collection
point in all cases.
point in all cases.

The inclusion of transportation increases the overall results for all three ReCiPe environmental
The inclusion
categories of transportation
in an important increasesdoubling
way, sometimes the overall results for
or tripling theall three ReCiPe
impacts for the environmental
recycling EoL
categories
scenarios, in an important
which is in line with way,previous
sometimes studydoubling
[7]. It isor tripling to
important thehighlight
impactsthat for the recyclingfrom
the impacts EoL
scenarios, which is in line with previous study [7]. It is important
the transportation depend not only on the distance from the collection point to the EoL treatment to highlight that the impacts from
the transportation
facility, but also ondepend not only onmethod.
the transportation the distance from the collection point to the EoL treatment
facility,
Thebutanalysis
also oninthe transportation
Figures 8 and 9 showsmethod. that a PV recycling plant needs to be at most 80 km further
away The analysis
than the EoL inscenarios
Figures 8ofand 9 shows
landfill that a PV recycling
and incineration for recyclingplant toneeds
have lowerto be impacts,
at most when80 km
further away than the EoL
considering human health and ecosystems. scenarios of landfill and incineration for recycling to have lower impacts,
when Figure
considering10 showshuman that health and ecosystems.
the impacts related to ReCiPe resources is strongly influenced by the
Figure 10 shows
transportation processthat in all theEoLimpacts related
scenarios to ReCiPe
analysed. In thisresources
case, foristhe strongly
distance influenced
of 100 km, bythethe
transportation
recycling processes process areinstillall EoL
betterscenarios
environmentalanalysed. optionsIn this case, for
compared withthesomedistanceotherof choices.
100 km,
the recycling
However, processes
these results seem are still betterthat
to show environmental options to
it will be important compared
develop with eithersomeportableother choices.
recycling
plants or these
However, distributed
resultsrecycling
seem to show plantsthatthatit can
will be located reasonably
be important to develop close to portable
either the placesrecycling
where
modules
plants reach EoL. recycling plants that can be located reasonably close to the places where modules
or distributed
reach EoL.
4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
The present study discussed different scenarios for the EoL of c-Si solar modules through the
LCAThe present study
methodology. discussedthe
It analysed different scenariosimpacts
environmental for the EoL of c-Si
of each solar modules
scenario based on through
the GWP, the LCA
HTP-
methodology.
CE, HTP-nCE,It FEuP, analysed FEcP theandenvironmental
ADP of the impacts of each of
whole process scenario based onc-Si
manufacturing the solar
GWP,modules
HTP-CE,
HTP-nCE,
(considering FEuP, FEcPand
mono- andmulti-crystalline
ADP of the whole process
silicon solarofcells)
manufacturing
from the raw c-Simaterials
solar modules (considering
until the EoL. The
possible
mono- andEoL scenarios considered
multi-crystalline were cells)
silicon solar landfill,
from incineration,
the raw materialsreuse and untilrecycling
the EoL. (considering
The possible
mechanical,
EoL scenariosthermal
considered and chemical
were landfill,methods).
incineration, reuse and recycling (considering mechanical,
The results validate
thermal and chemical methods). the environmental benefits of the recycling processes when compared with
otherThepossible
results scenarios
validate the for environmental
all categories. benefits
With theofassumptions
the recyclingmade in this
processes whenLCA, all recycling
compared with
processes
other possibleproduce
scenarios improved
for all environmental
categories. With outcomes. The mainmade
the assumptions reason for that
in this LCA,isallthat these
recycling
processesproduce
processes can recoverimprovedglass and silicon to beoutcomes.
environmental reused to The manufacture
main reason newfor solar
thatcells andthese
is that modules.
processes
In thisglass
can recover study,andthe recovery
silicon to beof othertomaterials
reused manufacture besidesnewglass,
solar aluminium
cells and modules.and silicon was not
considered. Hence,the
In this study, the recovery
cell production,of other particularly,
materials presents higher aluminium
besides glass, ADP impacts from
and the recycling
silicon was not
processes compared to the other EoL scenarios. This outcome
considered. Hence, the cell production, particularly, presents higher ADP impacts from the could be lower with the adoption
recyclingof
more complex
processes compared recycling
to the otherprocesses that can This
EoL scenarios. recycle
outcomeothercould
substances,
be lowersuch with as thelead and of
adoption silver.
more
Especially for thermal recycling, the combination of other processes
complex recycling processes that can recycle other substances, such as lead and silver. Especially for after the recovery of the glass
needs torecycling,
thermal be addressed. Studies show
the combination of that
other theprocesses
combination afterofthe thermal
recovery andofchemical
the glassmethods
needs to can
be
achieve good
addressed. recycling
Studies show rates
thatand therecover almostofallthermal
combination materials and from solar modules
chemical methods[7,9,42].
can achieve good
Another
recycling rates critical
and recoverconcern is thealluse
almost of toxic from
materials substances during the
solar modules chemical recycling treatment,
[7,9,42].
which must be addressed. In this LCA, we considered tetrahydrofuran, o-dichlorobenzene and
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1396 13 of 15

Another critical concern is the use of toxic substances during the chemical recycling treatment,
which must be addressed. In this LCA, we considered tetrahydrofuran, o-dichlorobenzene and toluene,
which show the most promising results. However, these substances present serious issues related
to human health, fauna and flora. Alternative chemicals should be tested to decrease possibilities of
environmental impacts associated with chemical routes for recycling solar modules.
Transportation can add significant environmental impacts to all scenarios analysed. In this LCA,
the maximum distance from the collection point to the treatment facility for the recycling methods
to have lower environmental impacts than the other options studied was shown. For example,
for recycling to be the best option, it must be no more than 80 km further away than a landfill or
incineration plant when considering human health and ecosystems impacts (ReCiPe) and using a
diesel truck as the transportation method. The impacts for resources depletion (ReCiPe) are also
heavily impacted by the transportation method and, in this case, a distance of 100 km still shows the
recycling processes as the best environmental option.
In summary, the key finding of this study is that the possibility of recycling materials from solar
modules can result in lower environmental impacts when compared with other EoL scenarios, i.e.,
landfill, incineration and reuse, based on the assumptions made in this LCA, but attention should be
given to the transportation for all cases. Small fixed or portable recycling facilities could be considered,
as could less damaging transport modes than road trucks. Attention should also be given to reducing
the use of toxic substances during the chemical routes for recycling.

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/8/8/1396/s1,

Table S1: Relative environmental impacts for different end-of-life scenarios considering multicrystalline silicon
solar modules: landfill, incineration, reuse and recycling (thermal, chemical and mechanical). Table S2: Relative
environmental impacts for different end-of-life scenarios considering monocrystalline silicon solar modules:
landfill, incineration, reuse and recycling (thermal, chemical and mechanical).
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.M.L. and J.I.B.; Methodology, M.M.L. and J.P.A.-G.; Writing—
Original Draft Preparation, M.M.L., R.C. and J.I.B.; Writing—Review & Editing, M.M.L., R.C., J.I.B. and J.P.A.-G.
Funding: This research was funded by [the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA)] grant number
[SRI–1] and the Australian Centre for Advanced Photovoltaics (ACAP) was funded by ARENA.
Acknowledgments: M.M.L. and R.C. acknowledge the support of the Australian Government through the
Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA). Responsibility for the views, information or advice expressed
herein is not accepted by the Australian SupplemGovernment. Additionally, the first author would like to
acknowledge Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) for her scholarship.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Lacey, S. Global Solar Capacity Set to Surpass Nuclear for the First Time, Greentech Media. 2017.
Available online: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/global-solar-capacity-set-to-surpass-
global-nuclear-capacity (accessed on 20 March 2018).
2. IRENA; IEA-PVPS. End-of-Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels; USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EERE), Solar Energy Technologies Office (EE-4S): Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
3. Granata, G.; Pagnanelli, F.; Moscardini, E.; Havlik, T.; Toro, L. Recycling of photovoltaic panels by physical
operations. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2014, 123, 239–248. [CrossRef]
4. Monier, V.; Hestin, M. Study on Photovoltaic Panels Supplementing the Impact Assessment for a Recast of the WEEE
Directive, Final Report; BIO Intelligence Service: Paris, France, 2011; Volume 4, p. 6.
5. Frischknecht, R.; Itten, R.; Sinha, P.; de Wild-Scholten, M.; Zhang, M.; Fthenakis, V.; Kim, H.; Raugei, M.;
Stucki, M. Life Cycle Inventories and Life Cycle Assessment of Photovoltaic Systems; PVPS Task 12, Report T12;
International Energy Agency (IEA): Upton, NY, USA, 2015; p. 4.
6. Vellini, M.; Gambini, M.; Prattella, V. Environmental impacts of PV technology throughout the life cycle:
Importance of the end-of-life management for Si-panels and CdTe-panels. Energy 2011, 138, 1099–1111.
[CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1396 14 of 15

7. Latunussa, C.E.; Ardente, F.; Blengini, G.A.; Mancini, L. Life Cycle Assessment of an innovative recycling
process for crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2016, 156, 101–111. [CrossRef]
8. Huang, B.; Zhao, J.; Chai, J.; Xue, B.; Zhao, F.; Wang, X. Environmental influence assessment of China’s
multi-crystalline silicon (multi-Si) photovoltaic modules considering recycling process. Sol. Energy 2017, 143,
132–141. [CrossRef]
9. Müller, A.; Wambach, K.; Alsema, E. Life Cycle Analysis of Solar Module Recycling Process, MRS Online
Proceedings Library Archive. 2005. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46689298_
Life_Cycle_Analysis_of_Solar_Module_Recycling_Process (accessed on 16 June 2018).
10. Curran, M.A. Life Cycle Assessment Student Handbook; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015.
11. Finkbeiner, M.; Inaba, A.; Tan, R.; Christiansen, K.; Klüppel, H.-J. The new international standards for life
cycle assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2006, 11, 80–85. [CrossRef]
12. ISO 14040: Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Principles and Framework; International Organization
for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 1997.
13. GaBiSoftware. GaBi LCA Software; Thinkstep Global Headquaters: Boston, MA, USA, 2016.
14. Jungbluth, N.; Stucki, M.; Frischknecht, R. Photovoltaics. In Sachbilanzen von Energiesystemen: Grundlagen für
den Ökologischen Vergleich von Energiesystemen und den Einbezug von Energiesystemen in Ökobilanzen für die
Schweiz; Ecoinvent Report; SCNAT: Bern, Switzerland, 2009.
15. Mark, A.J.; Huijbregts, Z.; Steinmann, J.N.; Pieter, M.F.; Elshout, G.; Stam, F.; Verones, M.; Vieira, M.; Zijp, A.;
Hollander, R.V.Z. ReCiPe2016: A harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint
level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 138–147.
16. Gertsakis, J.; Lewis, H. Sustainability and the Waste Management Hierarchy; Sustainability Victoria: Melbourne,
Australia, 2008.
17. Fthenakis, V.M. End-of-life management and recycling of PV modules. Energy Policy 2000, 28, 1051–1058.
[CrossRef]
18. Berger, W.; Simon, F.-G.; Weimann, K.; Alsema, E.A. A novel approach for the recycling of thin film
photovoltaic modules. Res. Conserv. Recycl. 2010, 54, 711–718. [CrossRef]
19. Frisson, L.; Lieten, K.; Bruton, T.; Declercq, K.; Szlufcik, J.; De Moor, H.; Goris, M.; Benali, A.; Aceves, O.
Recent improvements in industrial PV module recycling. In Proceedings of the 16th European Photovoltaic
Solar Energy Conference, Glasgow, UK, 1–5 May 2000.
20. Kang, S.; Yoo, S.; Lee, J.; Boo, B.; Ryu, H. Experimental investigations for recycling of silicon and glass from
waste photovoltaic modules. Renew. Energy 2012, 47, 152–159. [CrossRef]
21. Choi, J.K.; Fthenakis, V. Crystalline silicon photovoltaic recycling planning: Macro and micro perspectives.
J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 66, 443–449. [CrossRef]
22. Gerbinet, S.; Belboom, S.; Léonard, A. Life cycle analysis (LCA) of photovoltaic panels: A review.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 38, 747–753. [CrossRef]
23. Stamford, L.; Azapagic, A. Environmental impacts of photovoltaics: The effects of technological
improvements and transfer of manufacturing from Europe to China. Energy Technol. 2018, 6, 1148–1160.
[CrossRef]
24. Zhong, Z.; Song, B.; Loh, P. LCAs of a polycrystalline photovoltaic module and a wind turbine. Renew. Energy
2011, 36, 2227–2237.
25. Barnes, L.L. Environmental Impact of Solar Panel Manufacturing and End-of-Life Management: Technology and
Policy Options, Champaign, IL; Illinois Sustainable Technology Center: Chicago, IL, USA, 2017.
26. Yamashita, K.; Miyazawa, A.; Sannomiya, H. Reserch and Development on Recycling and Reuse Treatment
Technologies for Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Modules, Photovoltaic Energy Conversion. In Proceedings
of the Conference Record of the 4th World Conference IEEE, Osaka, Japan, 11–18 May 2003; pp. 2254–2257.
27. Schmauder, J.; Kopecek, R.; Barinka, R.; Barinkova, P.; Bollar, A.; Koumanakos, D.; Otero, N.; Romero, P.
First Steps towards an Automated Repairing of Solar Cells by Laser Enabled Silicon Post-Processing.
In Proceedings of the 27th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, Frankfurt,
Germany, 24–28 September 2012.
28. Wang, T.-Y.; Hsiao, J.-C.; Du, C.-H. Recycling of materials from silicon base solar cell module. In Proceedings
of the 38th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), Austin, TX, USA, 3–8 June 2012; pp. 2355–2358.
29. Komoto, K. Developments on PV Recycling in Japan. In Proceedings of the 24th European Photovoltaic
Solar Energy Conference, Hamburg, Germany, 21–25 September 2009.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1396 15 of 15

30. Doi, T.; Tsuda, I.; Unagida, H.; Murata, A.; Sakuta, K.; Kurokawa, K. Experimental study on PV module
recycling with organic solvent method. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2001, 67, 397–403. [CrossRef]
31. Park, J.; Park, N. Wet etching processes for recycling crystalline silicon solar cells from end-of-life photovoltaic
modules. RSC Adv. 2014, 4, 34823–34829. [CrossRef]
32. PV Cycle. Breakthrough in PV Module Recycling. Brussels. February 18th, 2016. Available online: http:
//www.pvcycle.org/press/breakthrough-in-pv-module-recycling/ (accessed on 15 March 2018).
33. European Union. Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). Off. J. Eur. Un. 2012, L 197, 138–171.
34. Kenning, T. PV Cycle Achieves Record 96% Recycle Rate for Silicon-Based PV Modules. Available online:
https://www.pv-tech.org/news/pv-cycle-achieves-record-96-recycle-rate-for-silicon-based-pv-modules
(accessed on 10 June 2018).
35. Battisti, R.; Corrado, A. Evaluation of technical improvements of photovoltaic systems through life cycle
assessment methodology. Energy 2005, 30, 952–967. [CrossRef]
36. Jungbluth, N.; Stucki, M.; Frischknecht, R.; Buesser, S. Photovoltaics–Part XII, Ecoinvent Report No. 6-XII;
ESU Services Ltd.: Uster, Switzerland, 2010.
37. Born, M.; Wambach, K. Pyrolysis of EVA and its application in recycling of photovoltaic modules.
J. Environ. Sci. 2004, 16, 889–893.
38. SASIL. Full Recovery End of Life Photovoltaic–FRELP; SASIL S.p.A.: Brusnengo, Italy, 2014.
39. Fowles, J.; Boatman, R.; Bootman, J.; Lewis, C.; Morgott, D.; Rushton, E.; van Rooij, J.; Banton, M. A review of
the toxicological and environmental hazards and risks of tetrahydrofuran. Crit. Rev. Toxic. 2013, 43, 811–828.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Housingsworth, R.; Rowe, V.; Oyen, F.; Torkelson, T.; Adams, E. Toxicity of o-Dichlorobenzene. Studies on
animals and industrial experience. Arch. Indust. Health 1958, 17, 180–187.
41. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS); Toluene, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—National Center
for Environmental Assessment: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
42. Radziemska, E.; Ostrowski, P.; Cienian, A.; Sawczak, M. Chemical, thermal and laser processes in recycling
of photovoltaic silicon solar cells and modules. Ecol. Chem. Eng. S 2010, 17, 385–391.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).