Search

Abstract: Some emerging technologies are expected to be pivotal for solving many of the environmental challenges faced today, especially those related to energy. However, many of these technologies may incur significant environmental impacts over their life cycle, while having environmental benefits during their use. This paper presents results of a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of a proposed type of nanophotovoltaic, quantum dot photovoltaic (QDPV) module. The LCA is confined to the stages of raw materials acquisition, manufacturing, and use. The impacts of QDPV are compared with other types of PV modules and energy sources – both renewable and nonrenewable. To provide a comprehensive comparative assessment, QDPV modules were compared with mature as well as emerging PV types for which data are available. Comparative assessment with other types of energy sources includes coal, oil, lignite, natural gas, diesel, nuclear, wind, and hydropower. QDPV modules may have the potential to overcome two current barriers of solar technology: low efficiencies and high manufacturing costs. If higher efficiencies are realized, QDPV modules could pave the way to large scale implementation of solar energy, helping nations move toward greater energy independence. On the other hand, candidate materials as quantum dots for solar cell applications are mostly compound semiconductors such as cadmium selenide, cadmium telluride, and lead sulfide which may be toxic and for which renewable options are limited. Toxic effects of these materials may be exacerbated by their nanoscale features. The LCA was carried out using the software SimaPro, and the Ecoinvent Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) database supplemented with available literature and patent information. Our results indicate that while QDPV modules have shorter Energy PayBack Time (EPBT), lower Global Warming Potential (GWP), SO x and NO x emissions than other types of PV modules, they have higher heavy metal emissions, underscoring the need for investigation of emerging technologies, especially nano-based ones, from a life cycle perspective. QDPV modules are better in all impact categories assessed than carbon-based energy sources but they have longer EPBT than wind and hydropower and higher GWP. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]