International Journal of Sustainable Engineering

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsue20

Life-cycle ecological footprint assessment of grid-

connected rooftop solar PV system

Ajay Biswas, Dilawar Husain & Ravi Prakash

To cite this article: Ajay Biswas, Dilawar Husain & Ravi Prakash (2021) Life-cycle ecological
footprint assessment of grid-connected rooftop solar PV system, International Journal of
Sustainable Engineering, 14:3, 529-538, DOI: 10.1080/19397038.2020.1783719

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2020.1783719

Published online: 28 Jun 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1141

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsue20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING
2021, VOL. 14, NO. 3, 529–538
https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2020.1783719

Life-cycle ecological footprint assessment of grid-connected rooftop solar PV system

Ajay Biswas, Dilawar Husain and Ravi Prakash
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad, UP, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Solar photovoltaic (PV) power generation system is generally considered to be land-intensive in view of Received 13 September 2019
the diffuse nature of solar energy. However, a comprehensive assessment in this regard would involve Accepted 10 June 2020
bio-productive land for all types of resource consumption during the lifespan of the system. This study KEYWORDS
presents such an assessment for a grid-connected rooftop solar photovoltaic (RSPV) system located in a Life cycle assessment; bio-
tropical climate. The life cycle ecological footprint (EFT) methodology has been used to derive the results productive land; ecological
based on material & energy consumption, water & manpower requirements along with waste disposal. footprint reduction
This methodology is illustrated through an existing 1 MWp RSPV system installed at an educational potential; solar PV system
institution in India. The total EFT is evaluated as 22.69 global hectare (gha) per year, out of which the
environmental impact of solar PV panels is 76% of the total. The EFT per kWP capacity is 0.454 gha/kWP
and the EFT per unit solar panel collector area is 0.074 gha/m2. The EFT of the RSPV system per unit
electricity generation is 1.59 × 10−5 gha/kWh. However, considering only emissions from the grid-
electricity in India, an approximate reduction potential of ecological footprint through RSPV-based
electricity is estimated as 95%.

1. Introduction
India being a tropical country receives adequate solar radiation
for nearly 300 days annually amounting to about 2300–3200
sunshine hours/year. Almost all the regions receive 4–7 kWh
of solar radiation per square metre depending upon the loca­
tion. The country’s solar installed capacity reached 28.18 GW
as of 31 March 2019 (CEA, 2019). In the year 2015, the target
was raised to 100 GW of solar capacity (including 40 GW from
rooftop solar) by 2022, targeting an investment of US$ 100
billion (Ahmad, Samuel, and Amar 2016; MNRE, 2018).
The Life Cycle Ecological Footprint-based studies for power
generating systems were not found in literature. However,
several studies have been reported in the area of life cycle
energy and carbon emissions from rooftop solar photovoltaic
(RSPV) systems. Among the renewable energy systems, photo­
voltaics have minimal environmental impacts (i.e. 3.33% of
coal-fired power generation) (Yu et al. 2017). The environ­
mental impacts of the 52.7 kWp rooftop PV system were
reported by Eskew et al. (2018). The system produced climatic
change impact of 0.079 kg CO2-eq/kWh and was estimated to
avoid 1 × 106 kgCO2-eq over its lifetime. Ludina et al. (2018)
reviewed and summarised impact assessment methods of life
cycle assessment (LCA) namely, cumulative energy demand
(CED), energy payback time (EPBT), and greenhouse gas
(GHG) emission rate and found that multi-crystalline silicon
PV technology has energy consumption of 1034–5150 MJ/m2,
the EPBT of 0.8–4.17 years, and greenhouse gas emissions rate
of 12.1–569.0 gCO2eq/kWh. Peng, Lun, and Yang (2013) exam­
ined the EPBT and GHG emissions from mono-crystalline
silicon (mono-Si), multi-crystalline silicon (multi-Si), amor­
phous silicon (a-Si), CdTe thin film and CIS thin film. They
found that for mono-Si PV systems, the EPBT varied from 1.7
to 2.7 years and GHG emission rate was in the order of 29–45
gCO2eq/kWh. For multi-Si PV system, the EPBT and GHG
emission rates were 1.5–2.6 years and 23–44 gCO2eq/kWh,
respectively; and for thin-film PV systems (a-Si, CdTe and
CIS), the EPBT and GHG emission rates were within the
range of 0.75–3.5 years and 10.5–50 gCO2eq/kWh, respectively.
Fthenakis and Alsema (2006) studied the EPBT and GHG
emissions for rooftop mono-Si and multi-Si PV modules and
concluded that under the solar irradiation of 1700 kWh/m2/
year, the EPBT for rooftop mono-Si and multi-Si were 2.7 and
1.7 years, respectively; and GHG emissions for mono-Si and
multi-Si were 45 and 37 gCO2eq/kWh, respectively. Kato et al.
(2001) conducted life cycle assessment (LCA) on CdS/CdTe
PV modules of residential rooftops to estimate and compare
primary energy requirements, EPBT, and CO2 emissions with
multi-Si and a-Si at different annual production rates. The
study showed that the EPBT of CdS/CdTe PV modules were
1.7 year at 10 MW/year, and 1.1 year at 100 MW/year, which
are lower than the EPBT of a-Si and multi-Si. The life cycle
GHG emissions of CdS/CdTe PV modules ranged from 8.9 to
14.0 gCO2eq/kWh for annual production from 10 to 100 MW/
year. Koo et al. (2017) reported that the electricity generation
of a-Si and CIGS base smart PV system blind for windows was
about 81.3 kWh/m2 and 145.8 kWh/m2, respectively. Ordóñez
et al. (2010) reported that in Andalusia (Spain), the estimated
PV solar energy capacity for residential buildings (if installed
on all of them) was 9.73 GW/year. With the total roof surface
area of 265.52 km2, this would satisfy 78.79% of energy needs
of the city.

CONTACT Dilawar Husain dilawar4friend@gmail.com Department of Mechanical Engineering, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad, UP
211004, India
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
530 A. BISWAS ET AL.

Pacca, Sivaraman, and Keoleian (2007) compared poly-Si
(13% efficiency) with a-Si (6.3% efficiency) module-based roof­
top solar PV systems (33 kWh system capacity) that were
installed in the University of Michigan. The EPBT of poly-Si
and a-Si are 2.4 and 7.4 year, respectively. For the CO2 emis­
sions, it comes in the range of 34.3 and 72.4 g of CO2/kWh,
respectively. The life cycle assessment of multi-Si module-
based solar PV systems with the irradiation of 1427 kW h/
m2/yr installed in Japan showed that the EPBT and GHG
emission rates were 2.4 years and 20 g CO2-eq./kWh, respec­
tively (Kota et al. 1998). Stoppato (2008) presented the EPBT
and emissions results of an LCA of poly-Si module panels in 27
countries. The EPBT ranged from 3.368 years in Spain to
6.522 years in the United Kingdom, and CO2 emissions ranged
from 0.002 kgCO2/kWh in Norway to 0.841 kgCO2/kWh in
Australia.
Osma-Pinto and Ordóñez-Plata (2019) studied the measur­
ing factors influencing the performance of rooftop PV panels
in warm tropical climates. They found that, on average, a green
roof-top solar PV system can generate between 1.0 ± 0.4% and
1.3 ± 0.4% more energy per day than a PV system installed on a
concrete roof at an average height of 50 cm above the roof
surface. In addition, air velocities exceeding 1 m/s may
enhance the daily average energy generation by 1 ± 0.4%
and 3 ± 0.4%.
In India’s context, Prakash and Bansal (1995) evaluated the
energy consumption in mono-Si solar PV module production
in India, and examined its implications for large-scale intro­
duction of solar PV plants in the country. They evaluated the
energy payback period as approximately 4 years, which was
comparable to energy payback periods of similar modules
produced internationally. Nawaz and Tiwari (2006) examined
a 1.2 kWp (capacity) PV system for mud house at IIT Delhi and
reported that the EPBT is in the range of 7–26 years and the
net CO2 saved is 0.24–0.77 kg/kWh, depending on solar
panel’s efficiency and climatic condition of India.
Table 1 summarises the results from previous studies based
on rooftop solar PV system with poly-Si-based module. This
summary indicates that for different solar irradiations, system
capacities, and module efficiencies, the EPBT of the rooftop
solar PV (poly-Si module) for most of the cases is in the range
of 0.8–7.4 years. The GHG emissions produced during the life of
the rooftop solar PV is in the range of 12–840 gCO2-eq/kW h.
Ecological Footprint: The Ecological Footprint (EF) con­
cept was developed in the mid-nineties by Mathis Wackernagel
and William Rees (Wackernagel and Rees 1996). It can be used
to examine various measures such as the feasibility of resource
use, distribution of the world’s natural resources, waste assim­
ilation, and overall sustainability of a system. The indicator
incorporates all inputs (resources) and converts them into a
single parameter called ‘global hectare (gha)’. One global hec­
tare (gha) is equivalent to 1 ha of bio-productive land with
world average productivity (Bastianoni et al. 2006). The
expression for evaluating EF is as follows:
Ecological Footprint (EF) = ∑ ( CYii ).ei,
where Ci is annual consumption of ith product (ton/year), Yi
is yield factor (annual productivity) of ith product (ton/ha), ei is
equivalence factor of different bio-productive land types. The
equivalence factor (ei) of different land types (cropland, pasture­
land, forestland, marine land, etc.) is provided in Table 2.
This study focuses on the life cycle ecological footprint
assessment of an RSPV system located in tropical climatic
zone of India. This study is significant, as a huge enhancement
in installation and commissioning of RSPV systems in India is
envisaged in the near future. This study will help in the direc­
tion of overall estimation of natural resource demand for
India’s renewable energy transition. Such a study may also be
helpful in exploring the potential reduction feasible in the EF
of the power sector of the country.
2. Methodology
The method used in this study to compute the life cycle
ecological footprint of an RSPV system is explained below:
Table 2. Equivalence factor (GFN, 2016).
Bio-productive land Equivalence factor ei(gha/ha)
CO2 absorption land (eCO2 land ) 1.28
Forest land (eforestland ) 1.28
Crop land (ecropland ) 2.52
Pasture land (epastureland ) 0.43
Sea productive/marine land (emarineland ) 0.35

Table 1. Literature review summary.

S. Irradiation
No. Authors System Specification (kWh/m2/yr) EPBT (yr) Emission Remark
1 Eskew et al. 2018 52.7 kWP, 16.2% - 2.5 0.079 kgCO2-eq/kWh Roof-top; poly-Si module,
efficiency
2 Ludina et al. 2018 1200–1700 0.8–4.17 12.1–569.0 gCO2eq/ Rooftop, poly-Si module,
kWh EE 1034–5150 MJ/m2
3 Peng, Lun, and Yang 2013 11.6–14% efficiency 1117–1700 1.5–2.6 23–44 g CO2-eq./kW h 2699–5150 MJ/m2
4 Wild-Scholten 2009 13.2% efficiency 1700 1.75 29 g CO2-eq/kW h Rooftop, frameless, poly-Si module
5 Stoppato 2008 Range of efficiency 890–1754 3.368– 0.058 − 0.840 kgCO2/ Rooftop, poly-Si module, Annual
of most module are 6.064 kWh production (kWh/kWp) 754–1460
about 16%
6 Pacca, Sivaraman, 33 kWP, 13% efficiency 4–6.5 kWh/m2/ 2.7–7.4 34.3 g CO2-eq/kW h Rooftop, poly-Si module
and Keoleian 2007 day
7 Jungbluth, Dones, and Frischknecht 13.2% efficiency 1117 2.9 60 g CO2-eq/kW h Rooftop, Frame, poly-Si module
2007
8 Nawaz and Tiwari 2006 1.2 kWP, 8–11% 800–1200 W/m2 13.26– 38.64 kg CO2/yr/m2 Rooftop, poly-Si module, EE 1380
efficiency 18.14 kWh/m2
9 Battisti and Corrado 2005 10.7% efficiency 1530 3.3 NA Rooftop poly-Si module
10 Ito et al. 2003 12.8% efficiency 1675 1.7 12 g CO2-eq/kW h Rooftop, poly-Si module
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING 531

2.1. Life cycle ecological footprint of a roof-top solar PV
system (EFT)
RSPV systems are responsible for natural resource consump­
tion for manufacture &transportation, manpower require­
ment, waste generation, etc., during their life span. In order
to evaluate EFT, the direct and indirect resource consumption
related to RSPV systems are converted into their equivalent
productive land that is needed to produce or absorb their
impacts in the form of land categories (such as CO2 land,
forestland, cropland, etc.). The various stages of the RSPV
system’s life cycle are shown in Figure 1. The principle of
assessment of the EFT is depicted in Figure 2. The estimation
of EFT is given by Equation (1):
EFT¼ EFmþEFeþEFtþEFwþEFmpþEFwe;
where, EFm, EFe, EFt, EFw, EFmp and EFw represent the life
cycle ecological footprint of RSPV systems’ material consump­
tion, direct energy consumption, transportation, water con­
sumption, manpower and waste generation of the RSPV
systems, respectively. All the above parameters cumulatively
assess the EFT of RSPV system.
* represents Heavy Duty Vehicle (HDV).
2.1.1. Ecological footprint of materials consumption (EFm)
The EFm may be determined by considering the embodied
energy of total material consumption during the lifecycle of
an RSPV system. The EFm of an RSPV system is calculated by
using Equation (2):
X
EFm ¼ f ðMi :EEi Þ:λm ð1 AocAf Þg:eCO2 land ; (2)
where Mi is the material consumed during the lifecycle of an
RSPV system and EEi is the embodied energy associated with
(1) that material; λm represents corresponding emission factor
(tCO2/MJ); Aoc represents percentage of CO2 absorption in
oceans i.e. 0.3 (SIO, 2017), and Af is CO2 absorption factor of
forests i.e. 2.68 tCO2/ha (Mancini et al. 2016). The term
eCO2 land represents the equivalence factor of CO2 absorption
land (Table 2).

Raw Materials Extraction

RSPV components manufacturing

Labour/Manpower

Transportation (Bus) Transportation (HDV*)

Maintenance Installation and

commissioning

Water
Consumption
Electricity/
Fossil Fuel

Waste Use phase

Demolition

Transportation (HDV*)

Landfill Area Recycling Plant Re-use Materials

Figure 1. System boundary of the life cycle stages of RSPV system.

532 A. BISWAS ET AL.

Roof-top
Solar PV
System

Implementation
Use Phase Demolition Phase
&Installation Phase

Land-use categories

CO2 Sea
Crop Pastureland
Absorption Forestland Productive / marine
land
land land

Life Cycle Ecological

Footprint of a RSPV
System

Figure 2. The life cycle ecological footprint of RSPV system.

2.1.2. Ecological footprint of direct energy consumption
(EFe)
The EFe depends on the amount of direct energy consumed
during the life cycle of RSPV system. The estimation of EFe is
given by Equation (3):
X X
EFe ¼ ð El :αe þ Cfuel :αfuel Þ:ð1 Aoc Af Þ:eCO2 land ; (3)
where El and Cfuel are the amount of electricity and fossil fuel
used, respectively; αe (i.e. 0.82 tCO2/MWh; Ministry of Power
Central Electricity Authority, Government of India (MPCEA)
2018) and αfuel (i.e. 3.17 kgCO2/kg of diesel; EEA, 2013) are the
emission factor for electricity and emission factor for fossil
fuel, respectively.
2.1.3. Ecological footprint of transportation (EFt)
The EFt depends on three parameters: first, RSPV system
materials’ transportation from the production site to the onsite
RSPV project; second, manpower transportation from their
houses to the onsite RSPV project; and third, waste disposal
from the project site to landfill area/recycling plant. The
assumptions for the estimation of the EFt are as follows:
(1) RSPV system materials and wastes are transported
through Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDV).
(2) Labourers use diesel-fuelled buses to reach the site of
the RSPV project from their houses.
(3) The average distance travelled by labourers is 5–10 km
and wastes are transported to a distance of 10–15 km.
Estimation of the EFt of material, manpower and wastes is
done by Equation (4):
X X
EFt ¼ fð Xmi :Tmi CHDV þ Ywj :Twj Cbus Þ:FHDV
X
þ Zk :Tk Cbus :Fbus g:αfuel :ð1 Aoc Af ÞeCO2 land ; (4)
where Xmi and Tmi are consumption and the average distance
of transportation of ith material during RSPV system life,
respectively. Ywj (i.e. 10 km) and Twj (i.e. 12 km) are waste
generation and the average distance travelled by the jth mate­
rial, respectively. Zk and Tk (i.e. 7 km) are number of labourers
and average distance travelled by them, respectively. CHDV (i.e.
3.5 tonnes) and Cbus (i.e. 50 passengers) represent the capacity
of HDV and Bus, respectively. αfuel is emission factor of fossil
fuel (i.e. 3.17 kgCO2/kg of diesel; EEA, 2013), FHDV (i.e.
0.222 kg of fuel/km) is average fuel efficiency of HDV and
Fbus (i.e. 0.222 kg of fuel/km) is average fuel efficiency of the
bus (Baidya and Borken-Kleefeld 2009).
2.1.4. Ecological footprint of labour/manpower (EFmp)
The manpower requirement for an RSPV system is categorised
into three categories: (a) skilled labour, (b) semi-skilled labour
and (3) unskilled labour. The total manpower requirements
during an RSPV lifespan are estimated in terms of full-time
equivalent (FTE). FTE is the ratio of the total numbers of paid
hours during a period (part time, full time, contracted) by the
number of working hours in that period. An employment
opportunity of one FTE is a job that exists for one person to
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING 533

X
work on for the duration of 1 year. The calculation assumes EFwe ¼ ð1 rÞXWi Mwi :elandfill; (7)
260 working days per calendar year (CEEW and NRDC, 2014,
2015). The total number of manpower requirements during where Xwi represents the total volume of waste generated
the lifecycle of an RSPV system is estimated according to a during RSPV system life (m3) and r represents the recycled
report by the Skill Council of Green Jobs (SCGJ, 2016); which fraction of the PV system (if any). Mwi represents the dump
is depicted in Table 3. capacity of waste disposal (m3/ha); and elandfill represents the
The EFmp is associated with the metabolic rate of labour/ equivalence factor of the type of bio-productive land for the
manpower for the different type of activities (Martínez- wastes to be disposed (0.48 gha/ha pasture land; GFN, 2016).
Rocamora, Solís-Guzmán, and Marrero 2017). However, the
impact of manpower’s mobility has already been considered in 2.2. Details of RSPV and climatic condition of the location
Section 2.1.3. It is assumed that nearly 60% of the daily meta­
bolic calories (i.e. 2400 kcal/day; National Institute of The RSPV system used in this study is of 1 MWp capacity;
Nutrition (NIN) 2018) are burned by manpower during installed and commissioned by Renew Solar Energy Pvt. Ltd,
work activities. The EFmp is determined by Equation (5). India. The System is installed at Motilal Nehru National
Institute of Technology, Allahabad, Prayagraj, UP, India. The
- photographic and satellite images of the RSPV system are
( � � � � ) depicted in Figure 3(a,b) respectively.
dw X CYfi X Cfuelj :λj ð1 Soc Þ The city of Prayagraj is located in a tropical climatic zone,
EFmp ¼ :fd fi
:ei þ : :eCO2 land having geometrical coordinates of 25º27ʹ N and 81º51ʹ E. The
365 Af
ambient air temperature reaches up to 50ºC in summer time
(5) during peak hours, while during winter time, it drops up to
where dw is total number of labour-days worked during the life 2ºC during night time. Average annual precipitation has been
of RSPV system; fd is food intake fraction of an Indian adult recorded as 978.5 mm with average rainy days of 47.9 during
diet assigned to work activity (i.e. 60%), Cfi is food consump­ the year 2018. Also, the mean monthly sunshine hours are
tion category i (kg/person-year); Yfi is food production yield of recorded as 2773.72
hours with average daily solar radiation of
ith food item (kg/ha-yr). Cfuelj is fuel consumption category j 4.93 kWh/m /day. The relative humidity varies between 29%
(i.e. LPG, kerosene, etc.) during cooking (kg/person-year), λj is and 81% during the year.
emission factor of fuel category j. The consumption of different
food items in Indian households and their EF are depicted in 3. Results and discussion
Table 1A (Annexure).
3.1. Ecological footprint of the RSPV system (EFT)

2.1.5. Ecological footprint of water use (EFw) The EFT of the RSPV system as evaluated from Equation (1)
The EFw depends on water use during the lifecycle of an RSPV is 453.84 gha (20 years of life), while the annual average EFT is
system. Groundwater is generally used in RSPV system construction about 22.69 gha/yr. The EFT per kWP capacity is 0.454 gha/
in India, therefore CO2 absorption land is needed to compensate for kWP and the EFT per unit solar panel collector area is 0.074
the electrical energy for uplifting water from underground to over­ gha/m2. A break-up of the EFT in its various components is
head tanks. The EFw of water use is determined by Equation (6): depicted in Figure 4. Solar PV panels contribute as much as
76% to EFT, followed by Balance of System (BOS) that con­
EFw ¼ Cw :fEw :αe :ð1 Aoc ÞAf geCO2 land ; (6) tributes 15%. The detailed break-up of the results is as
follows:
where Cw is total water use during all phases of RSPV system
(m3); Ew is electricity consumption to extract groundwater 3.1.1. Ecological footprint of materials consumption (EFm)
(kWh/m3); αe is emission factor of electricity used for ground­ The embodied energy of solar PV modules and Balance of
water extraction. System (BOS) of the RSPV system are given in Table 4.
The EFm of RSPV system as calculated by Equation (2) is
2.1.6. Ecological footprint of wastes (EFwe) 412.46 gha (i.e. 91% of the total EFT). The detailed specifica­
RSPV systems’ wastes generally result in landfill disposal after tions of the RSPV system along with their environmental
transportation of the waste materials. Its transportation is impact are provided in Table 5. The EF of solar PV panels is
included in Section 2.1.2. The EFwe is determined by 83.5% (i.e. 344.25 gha) of the EFm of RSPV system.
Equation (7):
3.1.2. Ecological footprint of direct energy consumption
(EFe)
Table 3. Employment estimate for RSPV system.
The environmental impact of direct energy of RSPV system mainly
Employee Employee requirement (Labour Charges per person (Rs/
(Type) days/MW) daya)
occurs in installation and commissioning phase of system. Due to
Skilled 3.03b x 260 = 788 1500
lack of data about the direct energy consumption in RSPV system,
Semi- skilled 18.06b x 260 = 4696 1000 the assumption of energy consumption in installation of rooftop
Unskilled 2.5b x 260 = 650 350 system is taken as 448MJ/kWp (Sumper et al. 2011). For one MWp
a
One working day is equivalent to 8 hours of work; bFTE estimation according to RSPV system, the direct energy consumption has been estimated as
SCGJ report (SCGJ, 2016).
534 A. BISWAS ET AL.

(a) (b)
Figure 3. (a) Photographic image of RSPV system, (b) Satellite image of RSPV system.

Manpower Table 5. Specifications of the different parts of Installed solar PV system.

BOS 1%
15% EF
Component Specifications (gha)
Water
< 0.1% Transportation Multi- Si Rated power 320Wp 344.25
panel Module 16.41 %
1%
efficiency 45.7
Open circuit 9.06
Waste voltage – Voc 1970 mm x 990 mm x 35 mm
Generated (Volts) - 40 to 85°C
< 0.01% Short circuit 3125 Nos.
current – Isc 20 series; 8 parallel
PV panels Installation (Amps) 6094.68 m2
76% Energy Dimensions: 2699–3120 MJ/m2 panel area
2% length x width x (Jungbluth, Stucki, and
Maintenance height Frischknecht 2009)
5% Operating
temperature
range
No of Panels
Figure 4. Break-up of the EFT distribution. PV String size
Total Panel area
Embodied
energy (EE)
Table 4. Embodied energy of rooftop solar PV system. Balance of
System
Component Embodied energy(MJ/m2)
(BOS)
Solar PV module Frame Mild steel – 52.6 ton 52.62
poly crystalline(multi-Si) 2699–3120 (Jungbluth, Stucki, and Frischknecht EE – 32.24 MJ/kg (Praseeda, Reddy, and Mani 2015)
2009; Wild-Scholten 2009; Inverter Model KSG-50 K 9.76
Alsema and Wild-Scholten 2007) Nominal input 620 V
BOS Voltage 250–950 V
Inverter (per kWP capacity) 503 (Pacca, Sivaraman, and Keoleian 2007) PV input 108 ADC
Frame mild steel 32.24 (MJP/kg) (Praseeda, Reddy, and Mani 2015) operating 98%
Installation 448 MJ/kW (Sumper et al. 2011) Voltage range 503 MJ/kWp (Pacca, Sivaraman,
Maximum and Keoleian 2007)
operating PV
input current
4.48 x 105MJ. The EFeas calculated by using Equation (3) is 8.69 gha Efficiency
(i.e. 1.9% of the total EFT). EE
Cables PV panels to inverter – 900 m. 1.04
Inverter to metering system – 300 m.
Grounding cables – 120 m
3.1.3. Ecological footprint of transportation (EFt) Material of all cables is copper.
Location of installation site of RSPV is an important factor in Concrete Cement – 450 packets (50 kg each) 4.79
deciding the EF of transportation. In this study, the solar PV Aggregate – 47.8 m3
Sand – 23.9 m3
modules, steel frames, inverter and cables were transported
from Delhi city to Prayagraj city by heavy duty vehicles (dis­
tance: approx. 700 kilometres). The EF of transportation as
calculated by Equation (4) is 5.82 gha (i.e. 1.1% of the 3.1.4. Ecological footprint of manpower (EFmp)
total EFT). The total manpower requirement is 6134 labour-days. The
EFmp as estimated by Equation (5) is 5.11 gha (i.e. 1.1% of
the total EFT).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING 535

3.1.5. Ecological footprint of water use (EFw) the total monthly electricity consumption of the MNNIT
Water is mainly used during installation and operation phase campus, hence all the electricity produced by the RSPV system
of an RSPV system. To calculate water use during the entire life is consumed within the campus and not exported to the grid. It
of RSPV system, 3.5–5 litres of water per m2 of solar PV indicates that the inter-annual variation of electricity con­
surface (EIA, 2016) have been considered. The EFw of RSPV sumption in the building does not influence our results, as
system as calculated by Equation (6) is 0.094 gha (i.e. 0.02% of no fraction of the electricity produced from RSPV is exported
the total EFT). to the grid.
The life cycle electricity generation has been calculated
3.1.6. Ecological footprint of waste generation (EFwe) with RETScreen software and the simulation results of
Recycling/reuse of waste materials may reduce ecological monthly electricity generation are shown in Figure 6. For
impact but it is not evaluated in this study (r = 0). However, the year of 2018, the actual and simulated annual electricity
the EF of landfill for the waste generated is evaluated. The EFwe generation are 1523 MWh and 1544.5 MWh, respectively.
of the RSPV system as calculated by using Equation (7) is The maximum positive variation in any month is recorded
0.0029 gha. as 5.68% in the month of June and maximum negative
variation is recorded as 4.65% in the month of September.
Annual variation in actual and simulation electricity genera­
3.2. Potential of EF reduction through RSPV system
tion is recorded as 1.39%. The estimation of total electricity
The total monthly electricity supply by national grid and RSPV generation from the RSPV system is about 30,460 MWh,
system in the MNNIT campus (for the year of 2018) is depicted during the lifespan of 20 years. The total life cycle emission
in Figure 5. The RSPV system contributed only 10–13.6% of mitigation by the RSPV system is about 1288.5 tCO2. If the

Electricity Consumption in MNNIT Campus

106.6 MWh Electricity from Grid RSPV Generation

136.8 MWh
132.8 MWh

121.4 MWh

131.2 mWh
146.2 MWh

128.3 MWh
132.1 MWh

145 mWh
124.7 MWh

12.7%
12.3%

11.4%

12.3%
10%
13.6%

12.4%
13.4%
12.9%

12.2%

106.1 MWh

111.8 MWh
12.1%

12%

894.7 MWh 931.9 MWh 949.7 MWh 796.5 MWh 945.6 MWh 936.6 MWh
87.1% 86.4% 87.7% 87.7% 88.6% 87.7%

894.5 MWh 935.8 MWh 770.4 MWh 956.4 MWh 941.6 MWh 906.1 MWh
87.8% 86.6% 87.9% 90% 87.3% 87.6%

Figure 5. Electricity consumption in the MNNIT campus.

160
Actual Simulation
Electricity generation (MWh)

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Figure 6. Monthly electricity generation by the RSPV system.

536 A. BISWAS ET AL.
time-varying CO2eq emissions from the grid in future are
considered, it will influence only the mitigation potential of
the RSPV system. However, it does not influence the total
EFT of the RSPV system.
Thus, the life cycle ecological footprint of electricity gen­
eration by the RSPV system is only 1.49 × 10−5 gha/kWh.
Considering emission factor of grid electricity in India as
0.82 tCO2/MWh (Ministry of Power Central Electricity
Authority, Government of India (MPCEA) 2018), the esti­
mated ecological footprint of grid electricity generation is
2.72 × 10−4 gha/kWh (ignoring factors other than emissions).
Hence, the EF reduction potential by the RSPV system is about
95%. It may be pointed out here that although the physical
land requirements for conventional (e.g. coal based) plants
may be lower than that of RSPV systems; however, the total
bio-productive land requirement may be very high, particu­
larly in the form of CO2 absorption land. An accurate assess­
ment of EF reduction potential of RSPV system may be
possible when detailed life cycle ecological footprint studies
are available for conventional power generating systems.
3.3. Economic analysis
The life cycle cost (LCC) is an economic analysis tool that is
used in the selection of alternatives. It compares initial invest­
ment options and identifies the least cost alternatives for
selected lifespan. It consists of initial cost and yearly cost of
operation and maintenance. The LCC may be estimated by
Equation (7) (Kranti 2010):
LCC ¼ IC þ USðd; NÞAC: (7)
where IC represents the initial cost, AC represents annual cost
and USPW is universe-series present worth factor. The USPW
is calculated by Equation (8):
Figure 7. Cash flow diagram of the RSPV system.
N
USPW ¼ 1 ð1 þ dÞ d; (8)
where d represents discount rate and N represents the number
of years for which calculation is performed.
The total initial cost of the RSPV system is 69.15 million
rupees. The USPW (d = 5%, N = 20 years) as estimated by
Equation (8) is 12.46. The total annual cost is Rs. 15,632. The
LCC of the RSPV system as calculated by Equation (7) is 69.34
million rupees.
The payback period of the RSPV system is about 5.2 years
(electricity rate at 8.75 Rs/kWh (UPERC, 2019)), Intern Rate of
Return (IRR) is about 18.6%, and Net Present Value (NPV) is
about 197.11 million rupees. The cash flow diagram (20 years
of lifespan) of the RSPV system is depicted in Figure 7. The
maintenance cost and salvage value of the RSPV system is
about 10,000 Rs/year and 10% of the capital cost of the RSPV
system are considered, respectively.
The life cycle power generation is evaluated as 30,460
MWh, the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of the RSPV
system is estimated as Rs 2.27/kWh. However for off-grid and
hybrid systems, the LCOE of poly-crystalline module-based
PV system is about 0.32–0.37 $/kWh (Jahid et al. 2018, 2019).
This estimated value of LCOE is close to the LCOE of solar PV
(i.e. 42–62 $/MWh) of India reported by Deshmukh et al.
(2019).
4. Conclusions
Renewable energy systems are considered as clean sources of
energy through land-intensive. However, it consumes some
fossil energy and other resources as well as produces emissions
and wastes during its lifespan. Therefore, it imprints some
environmental impact on the planet. In this study, the life
cycle EF of RSPV system is estimated as 453.84 gha. The EFT
per kWP capacity is 0.454 gha/kWP and the EFT per unit solar

panel collector area is 0.074 gha/m2. The EF contribution of
solar PV panels during their lifespan is 344.25 gha (i.e. approx.
76% of the total EFT), while the EF of BOS is 68.22 gha (i.e.
approx. 15% of EFT). The estimation of lifecycle electricity
generation from the RSPV system is about 30,460 MWh.
The LCC of RSPV system is calculated as Rs. 69.3million for
the lifespan of 20 years; the solar PV panels and BOS contri­
bute 49% (34 million Rs) and 43% (30 million Rs) of the total
LCC of the RSPV system, respectively. The LCOE of the RSPV
system is estimated as Rs 2.27/kWh.
The EF of electricity generation by the RSPV system is only
1.49 x 10−5gha/kWh. The EF of electricity generation by the
RSPV system is about 95% lower than that of the grid electri­
city. The results obtained from such a study may be helpful in
proposing and evaluating strategies for reduction in EF of
power generating systems. The life cycle ecological footprint
assessment of building integrated RSPV system should also be
performed to facilitate sustainable building design.
Further studies need to be carried out to assess the life cycle
ecological footprint of other renewable energy systems (e.g.
ground-mounted solar PV, wind, biomass, small-hydro, etc.),
so as to facilitate a comparative assessment of different power
generating systems as well as their EF reduction potential.
Abbreviation
EF: ecological footprint
EFm: life cycle ecological footprint of material consumption
EFe: life cycle ecological footprint of energy
EFmp: life cycle ecological footprint of manpower
EFT: life cycle ecological footprint
EFt: life cycle ecological footprint of transportation
EFw: life cycle ecological footprint of water use
EFwe: life cycle ecological footprint of waste disposal
ei: equivalence factor
gha: global hectare
LCA: life cycle cost
RSPV: Roof-top solar photovoltaic
BOS: Balance of System
LCOE: Levelized cost of electricity
GHG: greenhouse gas
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Ajay Biswas is a postgraduate student of Department of Mechanical
Engineering at the Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology,
Allahabad (UP), India. His academic interest lie in the domain of renew­
able energy systems.
Dilawar Husain is currently pursuing doctoral programme in the
Department of Mechanical Engineering at the Motilal Nehru National
Institute of Technology, Allahabad (UP), India. His academic interests
include life cycle analysis, renewable system technologies and
sustainability.
Dr Ravi Prakash is currently working as a Professor in the Department of
Mechanical Engineering at the Motilal Nehru National Institute of
Technology, Allahabad (UP), India. His academic interests include energy
management, life cycle energy analysis, and sustainability. He is a Fellow
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING 537
of the Institution of Engineers (India) and a member of the International
Solar Energy Society.
ORCID
Ravi Prakash http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7299-7725
References
Ahmad, A., P. Samuel, and Y. Amar. 2016. “Solarizing India: Tapping the
Excellent Potential.” Renewable Energy 9 (3): 13–17. Ministry New and
Renewable Energy Government of India.
Alsema, E. A., and M. J. Wild-Scholten. 2007. “Reduction of the
Environmental Impacts in Crystalline Silicon Module
Manufacturing.” Proceedings of the 22nd European Photovoltaic
Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, Milan Italy, 829–836.
Baidya, S., and J. Borken-Kleefeld. 2009. “Atmospheric Emissions from
Road Transportation in India.” Energy Policy 37 (10): 3812–3822.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.010.
Bastianoni, S., A. Galli, V. Niccolucci, and R. M. Pulselli.2006. The
Sustainable City IV: Urban Regeneration and Sustainability’ Section 6:
Land Use and Management. Southampton, UK: WIT press. 1743-3541,
ISSN 1743-3541. doi:10.2495/SC060331.
Battisti, R., and R. Corrado. 2005. “Evaluation of Technical Improvements
of Photovoltaic Systems through Life Cycle Assessment Methodology.”
Energy 30 (7): 952–967. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2004.07.011.
Central Electricity Authority, Government of India, Ministry of Power
(CEA). “All India Installed Capacity of Power Stations on 31March
2019.” http://www.cea.nic.in/reports/monthly/installedcapacity/2019/
installed_capacity-03.pdf
Chambers, N., C. Simmons, and M. Wackernagel. 2004. Sharing Nature’s
Interest: Ecological Footprints as an Indicator of Sustainability. London,
Great Britain: Sterling Earthscan.
Council on Energy Environment and Water and National Research
Development Corporation (CEEW & NRDC). 2014. Solar Power
Jobs: Exploring the Employment Potential in India’s Grid- Connected
Solar Market. New Delhi: Shakti Foundation.
Council on Energy Environment and Water and National Research
Development Corporation (CEEW & NRDC). 2015. Clean Energy
Powers Local Job Growth in India. New Delhi: Shakti Foundation.
Deshmukh, R., G. C. Wu, D. S. Callaway, and A. Phadke. 2019.
“Geospatial and Techno-economic Analysis of Wind and Solar
Resources in India.” Renewable Energy 134: 947–960. doi:10.1016/j.
renene.2018.11.073. Accessed 15 June 2019.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). 2016. “Solar PV Park at Tumkur
By, Knight Frank India Pvt. Ltd.” http://www.kspdcl.in/sp_docs/
Environment%20Assesment%20impact%20report%20Feb-16.pdf
Eskew, J., M. Ratledge, M. Wallace, S. H. Gheewala, and P. Rakkwamsuk.
2018. “An Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Rooftop Solar in
Bangkok, Thailand.” Renewable Energy 123: 781–792. doi:10.1016/j.
renene.2018.02.045.
European Environment Agency (EEA). 2013. “EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant
Emission Inventory Guidebook – 2013.” http://www.eea.europa.eu/
publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2013
Forest survey of India (FSI), 2015, “Ministry of Environment, Forest &
Climate Change, Report 2015.” http://fsi.nic.in/details.php?pgID=sb_
62
Fthenakis, V., and E. Alsema. 2006. “Photovoltaics Energy Payback
Times, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and External Costs: 2004-early
2005 Status.” Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications 14
(3): 275–280. doi:10.1002/pip.706.
Global Footprint Network (GFN). 2016.“Working Guidebook to the
National Footprint Accounts: 2016.” Accessed 09 December 2018.
http://data.footprintnetwork.org/
Indian Horticulture Database (IHD). 2014. “Ministry of Agriculture,
Government of India”. www.nhb.gov.in
Ito, M., K. Kato, H. Sugihara, T. Kichimi, J. Song, and K. Kurokava. 2003.
“A Preliminary Study on Potential for Very Large-scale Photovoltaic
538 A. BISWAS ET AL.
Power Generation (VLS-PV) System in the Gobi Desert from
Economic and Environmental Viewpoints.” Solar Energy Materials &
Solar Cells 75 (3–4): 507–517. doi:10.1016/S0927-0248(02)00198-8.
Jahid, A., M. K. H. Monju, M. E. Hossain, and M. F. Hossain. 2018.
“Renewable Energy Assisted Cost Aware Sustainable Off-grid Base
Stations with Energy Cooperation.” IEEE Access 6: 60900–60920.
doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2874131.
Jahid, A., M. K. H. Monju, M. S. Hossain, and M. F. Hossain. 2019.
“Hybrid Power Supply Solutions for Off-grid Green Wireless
Networks.” International Journal of Green Energy 16 (1): 12–33.
doi:10.1080/15435075.2018.1529593.
Jungbluth, N., R. Dones, and R. Frischknecht. 2007. “Life Cycle
Assessment of Photovoltaics; Update of the Ecoinvent Database.” In
14th SETAC LCA Case Studies Symposium, Giteborg. www.esu-ser
vices.ch/fileadmin/downloadjungbluth-2007-PV-MRSpdfS jungbluth-
2007-PV-MRSpdfS
Jungbluth, N., M. Stucki, and R. Frischknecht. 2009. “Photovoltaics. Part
XII.” esu-services.ch/fileadmin/download/06_XII_Photovoltaic-v2.
2plus.pdf
Kato, K., T. Hibino, K. Komoto, S. Ihara, S. Yamamoto, and H. Fujihara.
2001. “A Life-cycle Analysis on Thin-film CdS/CdTe PV Modules.”
Solar Energy Materials 67 (1–4): 279–287. doi:10.1016/s0927-0248(00)
00293-2.
Kato, K., A. Murata, and K. Sakuta. 1998. “Energy Pay-back Time and Life-
cycle CO2 Emission of Residential PV Power System with Silicon PV
Module.” Progress in Photovoltaics Research and Applications 6 (2): 105–
115. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-159X(199803/04)6:2<105::AID-PIP212>3.0.
CO;2-C.
Koo, C., T. Hong, K. Jeong, C. Ban, and J. Oh. 2017. “Development of the
Smart Photovoltaic System Blind and Its Impact on Net-zero Energy
Solar Buildings Using Technical-economic-political Analyses.” Energy
124: 382–396. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2017.02.088.
Kranti, M. 2010. Energy Audit of Building Systems an Engineering
Approach. 2nd ed. UK: CRC Press. ISBN 9781439828717.
Ludina, N. A., N. I. Mustafaa, M. M. Hanafiahb, M. A. Ibrahima, M. A. M.
Teridia, S. Sepeaia, A. Zaharimc, and K. Sopiana. 2018. “Prospects of
Life Cycle Assessment of Renewable Energy from Solar Photovoltaic
Technologies: A Review.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
96: 11–28. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.07.048.
Mancini, M. S., A. Galli, V. Niccolucci, D. Lin, S. Bastianoni, M.
Wackernagel, and N. Marchettini. 2016. “Ecological Footprint:
Refining the Carbon Footprint Calculation.” Ecological Indicators. 61
(2): 390–403. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.09.040.
Martínez-Rocamora, A., J. Solís-Guzmán, and M. Marrero. 2017.
“Ecological Footprint of the Use and Maintenance Phase of
Buildings: Maintenance Tasks and Final Results.” Energy and
Buildings 155 (2017): 339–351. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.09.038.
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), Government of India.
2018. “India Release State Targets for 40 GW Rooftop Solar by 2022.”
http://www.pv-tech.org/news/india_releases_individual_state_tar
gets_for_40gw_rooftop_solar_by_2022
Ministry of Power Central Electricity Authority, Government of India
(MPCEA). “CO2 Baseline Database for the Indian Power Sector, User
Guide 2016”. Accessed November 2018. http://www.cea.nic.in/reports/
others/thermal/tpece/cdm_co2/user_guide_ver11.pdf
National Institute of Nutrition (NIN). “Dietary Guidelines for Indians – A
Manual 2011.”Accessed on March 2018. http://ninindia.org/
DietaryGuidelinesforNINwebsite.pdf
National sample survey office (NSSO), Ministry of Statistics and
Programme Implementation, Government of India. 2014. “Household
Consumption of Various Goods and Services in India 20ll-12.” mospi.
nic.in/mospi_new/upload/Report_no558_rou68_30june14.pdf
Nawaz, I., and G. N. Tiwari. 2006. “Embodied Energy Analysis of
Photovoltaic (PV) System Based on Macro- and Micro-level.” Energy
Policy 34 (17): 3144–3152. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2005.06.018.
Open Government Data (OGD). 2017. “Government of India.” https://
data.gov.in/node/94765/download
Ordóñez, J., E. Jadraque, J. Alegre, and G. Martínez. 2010. “Analysis of the
Photovoltaic Solar Energy Capacity of Residential Rooftops in
Andalusia (Spain).” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14
(7): 2122–2130. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2010.01.001.
Osma-Pinto, G., and G. Ordóñez-Plata. 2019. “Measuring Factors Influencing
Performance of Rooftop PV Panels in Warm Climate Tropical Climates.”
Solar Energy 185: 112–123. doi:10.1016/j.solener.2019.04.053.
Pacca, S., D. Sivaraman, and G. A. Keoleian. 2007. “Parameters Affecting
the Life Cycle Performance of PV Technologies and Systems.” Energy
Policy 35 (6): 3316–3326. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.10.003.
Peng, J., L. Lun, and H. Yang. 2013. “Review on Life Cycle Assessment of
Energy Payback and Greenhouse Gas Emission of Solar Photovoltaic
Systems.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 19: 255–274.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.035.
Prakash, R., and N. K. Bansal. 1995. “Energy Analysis of Solar
Photovoltaic Module Production in India.” Energy Sources 17 (6):
605–613. doi:10.1080/00908319508946107.
Praseeda, K. I., B. V. V. Reddy, and M. Mani. 2015. “Embodied Energy
Assessment of Building Materials in India Using Process and Input–
output Analysis.” Energy and Buildings 86: 677–686. doi:10.1016/j.
enbuild.2014.10.042.
Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO). 2017. “The Keeling Curve.”
Accessed 13 November 2018. https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/kee
lingcurve/2013/07/03/how-much-co2-can-the-oceans-take-up/
Skill Council for Green Jobs (SCGJ). 2016. “Skill Gap Report for Solar,
Wind and Small Hydro Sector.” New Delhi. http://sscgj.in/wp-content/
uploads/2016/06/SCGJ-skill-gap-report.pdf
Stoppato, A. 2008. “Life Cycle Assessment of Photovoltaic Electricity
Generation.” Energy 33 (2): 224–232. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2007.11.012.
Sumper, A., M. Robledo-García, R. Villafáfila-Robles, J. Bergas-Jané, and
J. Andrés-Peiró. 2011. “Life-cycle Assessment of a Photovoltaic System
in Catalonia (Spain).” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15
(8): 3888–3896. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.023.
Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (UPERC).
Accessed 2019. http://www.uperc.org/App_File/DISCOMS-
pdf93201972728PM.pdf
Wackernagel, M., and W. Rees. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing
Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New
Society.
Wild-Scholten, M. 2009. “Energy Payback Times of PV Modules and
Systems.” Energy research Centre of the Netherlands, Workshop-
Photovoltaik-Modultechnik, Koln, 26–27. http://www.solaik.ch/_
downloads/EnergyPaybackTime.pdf
Yu, Z., W. Ma, K. Xie, G. Lv, Z. Chen, J. Wu, and J. Yu. 2017. “Life Cycle
Assessment of Grid-connected Power Generation from Metallurgical
Route Multi-crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic System in China.” Applied
Energy 185: 68–81. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.10.051.
Annexure
Table 1A.
Main raw materials for food preparation per capita in India.
Monthly Total annual CO2 emission Yield Production EF
consumption consumption factor (ton/ha) (gha)
(NSSO, 2014)
Cereals 9.28 kg 111.36kg 2.39 (OGD, 2017) 0.117
Pulses 0.90 kg 10.8 kg 0.69 (OGD, 2017) 0.039
Vegetable 8.4 kg 100.8 kg 1.61 (OGD, 2017) 0.157
Beef 0.06 kg 0.72 kg 32 (Chambers, Simmons, and Wackernagel 2004) 0.011
Mutton 0.08 kg 0.96 kg 72 (Chambers, Simmons, and Wackernagel 2004)
0.006
Milk 5.4 litre 64.8 litre 458 (Chambers, Simmons, and Wackernagel 2004)
0.062
Fish 0.252 kg 3.024 kg 0.035 (Chambers, Simmons, and Wackernagel 2004)
0.030
Fruits 0.654 kg 7.848 kg 2330 (IHD, 2014) 1.58 × 10−6
Edible oil 0.85 kg 10.2 kg 0.38 0.068
Wood 4.3 kg 51.6 kg 1.5–1.6 (kgCO2/kg) 73 m3/ha (FSI, 2015) 0.028
LPG 1.9 kg 22.8 kg 3.31 (kgCO2/kg) 0.025
Kerosene 0.40 litre 4.8 litre 2.58 (kgCO2/litre) 0.004
Total annual EF/person 0.549