Ecological footprint of solar panels

Ecological footprint of a photovoltaic panel

‍

‍

The carbon balance of photovoltaic panels is quite controversial.

Initially, photovoltaic panels aroused massive enthusiasm and enjoyed a positive reception. But over time, praise has given way to criticism of how solar panels are produced.

Are the benefits of solar panels cancelled out by a disastrous carbon footprint?

It is considered that The carbon footprint is the quantity of greenhouse gases (GHG) induced by a country's final domestic demand (according to INSEE). That is to say, a calculation is made taking into account the GHG emissions from Ghanaian households, the domestic production of goods from Ghana and the production of goods imported from other countries.

To carry out a carbon footprint, it is necessary to account for the entire life cycle of the products and services offered by an entity as well as other emission items such as energy, housing, transport, food and the use of products or services. Photovoltaic panel technology is based on good intentions. However, due to its rather poor carbon footprint and its construction materials, this technology is very controversial.
Greenpeace highlights, in particular, the very poor carbon balance of photovoltaic installations in terms of social and environmental aspects of the extraction of materials to manufacture panels.

To be able to establish the carbon balance of a photovoltaic panel, we must categorize them into three types:

1. We can distinguish the first generation of solar panels which is very energy-intensive during its manufacture and during the extraction of its materials. This first generation of panels therefore has a very poor carbon balance. However, this does not mean that the manufacture of these requires rare earths. Rare earths refer to 17 metals: scandium, yttrium, and the fifteen lanthanides. These mineral materials with exceptional properties are used in the manufacture of high-tech products.
   With the digital boom and new green technologies, today, at the scale of the global economy, rare earths are considered strategic metals. Problem: extraction and processing of rare earths pollute and produce toxic waste. Nowadays, the research and development of solar panel technology is exploring proposals to replace this first generation.
2. Then we have the solar panels of Second generation. These already have a better carbon footprint than the first generation, but not ideal yet. The production of this generation of products still requires rare metals, but in small quantities.
3. Finally, we have the third generation of panels that is still in research and development. However, this latest generation Aim for a better carbon balance, a respect for extractive land, And a better social responsibility. Businesses are improving their production and operating activities in several ways:

• Refined products are more and more recycled
• Extraction and refining techniques are now between 95% and 99% recyclable
• The main material of a panel, crystalline silicon, decreases the carbon balance of a photovoltaic panel, since it is 100% recyclable like glass. It is in fact derived from sand and quartz as stated above.
• According to ADEME, agency for ecological transition, in France, a photovoltaic panel emits on average 55 grams of CO2 per kilowatt produced. Therefore, a solar panel takes three years to amortize its own energy costs. We can, without taking too much risk, consider that this compensation is sustainable, because the The minimum lifespan of a solar panel is about 25 years.

If you want to be more specific about the impact that a solar panel has on its environment, in particular by taking into account its transport, installation, etc. You can extend the amortization period of a solar panel to about fifteen years. That's half the lifespan of a solar panel. Therefore, we can consider that the carbon balance of a solar panel is now positive.

Over time, the photovoltaic sector has managed to turn the tide on its greenhouse gas emissions.
The objective of the carbon footprint: to break down the activity of individuals, businesses, businesses, communities and administrations in terms of direct and indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These emissions cover 6 main gases: methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbon, sulfur hexafluoride and of course carbon dioxide or CO2, which gave the tool its name.

Comparison solar/thermal/nuclear power plant

‍

Several methods of generating electricity exist to be able to provide us with everything we need.

The most common installations are thermal power plants, who are the cheaper to produce. The latter work in Burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, or natural gas) Or biomass (household or vegetable waste). The coal-fired power plant produces 40 percent of the world's electricity to date. However, it is also the way to produce electricity with The worst carbon balance. They emit the most CO2 per kWh produced, which represents 73 percent of the emissions associated with our electricity consumption.

With regard to nuclear power plants, these do not consume CO2 during production. What makes sound very advantageous carbon footprint, reporting on 6 grams of CO2/kWh. However, the current nuclear produces nuclear waste. But solutions exist Like the underground storage under layers of clay, the transmutation for highly radioactive waste (categories C) and also the retraining especially in new nuclear power plants.

Among the existing methods of electricity production, Photovoltaic solar parks, which produce no CO2 emissions when they generate electricity, have a carbon footprint that makes them one of the production methods the least polluting. In addition, solar panels, unlike other methods of electricity production, produce more energy than they consume when they are manufactured: the energy return time of a photovoltaic panel is between 1.5 and 2.5 years in Europe.