2024-03-28T14:59:13Zhttps://riubu.ubu.es/oai/requestoai:riubu.ubu.es:10259/44962021-11-10T09:38:27Zcom_10259_4393com_10259_5086com_10259_2604col_10259_4394
Real energy payback time and carbon footprint of a GCPVS
Simón Martín, Miguel de
Diez Mediavilla, Montserrat
Alonso Tristán, Cristina
Grid connected PV systems
Real Energy Payback Time
Life Cycle Assessment
PV degradation
Carbon Footprint
clean energy
Ingeniería eléctrica
Electric engineering
Grid connected PV systems, or GCPVS, produce clean and renewable energy through the
photovoltaic e ect in the operation stage of the power plant. However, this is the penultimate stage of
the facilities before its dismantlement. Before starting generating electricity with zero CO2 emissions,
a negative energy balance exists mainly because of the embodied energy costs of the PV components
manufacturing, transport and late dismantlement.
First, a review of existing studies about energy life cycle assessment (LCA) and Carbon Footprint
of PV systems has been carried out in this paper. Then, a new method to evaluate the Real Energy
Payback Time (REPBT), which includes power looses due to PV panels degradation is proposed and
di erences with traditional Energy Payback Time are analysed. Finally, a typical PV grid connected
plant (100 kW nominal power) located in Northern Spain is studied in these sustainability terms. This
facility has been firstly completely modelled, including PV modules, inverters, structures and wiring.
It has been also considerated the energy involved in the replacement of those components with shorter
lifespan. The PV panels degradation has been analysed through the comparison of normalised flash
test reports on a significant sample of the installed modules before and 5 years after installation.
Results show that real PV degradation a ect significantly to the Energy Payback Time of the installation
increasing slightly a 4:2% more the EPBT value for the case study. However, along a lifespan
of 30 years, the GCPVS under analysis will return only 5:6 times the inverted energy on components
manufacturing, transport and installation, rather than the expected 9:1 times with the classical estimation.
2017-06-14T09:32:50Z
2017-06-14T09:32:50Z
2017-01
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
2333-8334
http://hdl.handle.net/10259/4496
eng
AIMS Energy. 2017, V. 5, n. 1, p. 77-95
https://doi.org/10.3934/energy.2017.1.77
Attribution 4.0 International
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
application/pdf
AIMS Press
https://riubu.ubu.es/bitstream/10259/4496/7/Sim%c3%b3n-Energy-2017.pdf.jpg
Hispana
TEXT
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
RIUBU. Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Burgos
http://hdl.handle.net/10259/4496