Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 10311054

www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Life cycle assessment of a solar thermal collector

Fulvio Ardente, Giorgio Beccali,
Maurizio Cellura*, Valerio Lo Brano
Dipartimento di Ricerche Energetiche ed Ambientali (DREAM),
Universita` di Palermo, Viale delle Scienze, 90128 Palermo, Italy
Received 9 March 2004; accepted 13 September 2004
Available online 23 November 2004

Abstract
The renewable energy sources are often presented as clean sources, not considering the
environmental impacts related to their manufacture. The production of the renewable plants, like
every production process, entails a consumption of energy and raw materials as well as the release of
pollutants. Furthermore, the impacts related to some life cycle phases (as maintenance or
installation) are sometimes neglected or not adequately investigated.
The energy and the environmental performances of one of the most common renewable
technologies have been studied: the solar thermal collector for sanitary warm water demand. A life
cycle assessment (LCA) has been performed following the international standards of series ISO
14040. The aim is to trace the products eco-profile that synthesises the main energy and
environmental impacts related to the whole products life cycle. The following phases have been
investigated: production and deliver of energy and raw materials, production process, installation,
maintenance, disposal and transports occurring during each step. The analysis is carried out on the
basis of data directly collected in an Italian factory.
q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Life cycle assessment (LCA); Renewable energy; Solar thermal collector

1. Introduction
All goods and services have an environmental impact along their life cycle. On this concept
the European countries have focused their attention, considering the improvement of
* Corresponding author. Tel.: C39 91 236 131; fax: C39 91 484 425.
E-mail address: mcellura@dream.unipa.it (M. Cellura).
0960-1481/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2004.09.009

1032

F. Ardente et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 10311054

the eco-performances of products/services as a key point of the European environmental

programme [1]. In other words, global environmental problems can be met only if the use of
the energy and the raw materials per product unit will be reduced, i.e. eco-efficiency increased.
The need to strengthen the green market has been successively confirmed in another
official document named the green paper on Integrated Product Policy (IPP) [2]. Once a
product is put on the market, there is relatively little that can be done to improve its
environmental characteristics. The IPP approach seeks to reduce the environmental
impacts occurring throughout the entire life cycle of the product since the early stages
of product design and development. Furthermore, the diffusion of the green public
procurement should induce the producers to investigate the environmental impacts of
their production and to disseminate the environmental information adopting scientific data
format as the environmental product declaration (EPD) [3].
For IPP to be effective, life cycle thinking needs to become second nature for all those
who come into contact with products [4]. The cognitive process is at the basis of the
environmental performances improving. It is necessary to have detailed and reliable data
on which to base assessments regarding each life cycle step. Life cycle assessment (LCA)
represents an important support tool for IPP and the the best framework for assessing the
potential environmental impacts of products currently available [4]. To obtain reliable
results, data should be collected and managed following standardised procedures. The
international standards of series ISO 14040 represent a widespread accepted methodology
[57]. The best way to demonstrate the advantage of the life cycle thinking concept is by
demonstrating its practical application. The present paper focuses the attention upon one
of the most common renewable technologies: the solar thermal collectors for warm
sanitary water demand. Renewable energy sources are often presented as clean energy,
not considering the environmental impacts related to their manufacture. The production of
the renewable plants, like every production process, entails a consumption of energy and
natural resources as well as the release of pollutants [8].
Many authors have deeply investigated the benefits related to the employment of solar
systems [913] including studies regarding LCA of solar collectors and comparative
analyses of different collectors typologies [1419]. However, the studys assumptions or
data references are often not clearly shown. In addition, results are often presented as
aggregated indexes [1517] making difficult the comparison among different studies or the
dominance analysis of each life cycle step are difficult. Furthermore, some life cycle steps
(as, for example, installation or maintenance processes) are generally not investigated in
detail or are simply neglected. Some studies, in fact, consider the full LCA of a solar
collectors as too much expensive and time consuming [17] or suppose as significant only
the impacts related to materials processing and collectors assembling [18,19].
On the other hand, the principles of eco-design suggest to employ disaggregated
information to identify the steps with the greatest impacts and with the largest
improvements potentials [20,21]. The aims of this paper are:
to trace an eco-balance of an exemplary equipment, referring to a passive thermal. The
research refers to a passive thermal solar collector produced in Italy
to grant transparency of assumptions, system boundaries and data sources in order to
allow comparability to other studies

F. Ardente et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 10311054

1033

to present results as much disaggregated as possible, in order to show the incidence of

each component and life cycle step and to avoid uncertainties related to weighting
processes and impacts assessment
The presented results are extracted from the case study CS2 performed within the
works of Task 27Subtask C of IEA (International Energy Agency) about Performance,
durability and sustainability of advanced windows and solar components for buildings.
Data regarding the production, the installation and maintenance phases have been directly
collected; thanks to the collaboration of an Italian firm [22]. The data collection has been
also referred to the Environmental Management System active in the production site. Data
regarding raw materials and energy sources have been referred, when possible, to Italian
mean values. When not available, data of other European databases have been employed.

2. The choice of the functional unit (FU)

The first phase of the LCA is the goal and scope definition. It includes an important
step: the clear statement of the functional unit (FU). The FU is defined as the reference
unit expressed as quantified performance of the product system [5]. The FU is important
as basis for data collection and for the comparability of different studies referred to the
same product category. The choice of the FU is not always immediate. In our case study
three different alternatives were checked [3]:
1. FU equal to the entire equipment. The results are presented as global quantities
concerning the whole collector. Probably, this is the most intuitive choice but it could
cause misunderstanding. In fact, there are various typologies of collectors, which can
be roughly divided in two main categories: collectors with forced circulating flow and
collectors with natural circulating flow.1 Performing the LCA related to these two
collectors types, the results could be not comparable.
2. Impacts per unit of collector area. This alternative may be misleading. Enlarging the
collector surface S, the specific environmental impacts (as, for example, the CO2/S)
could decrease. So, two collectors with the same total impacts could have different
specific ones. In fact, the collector with the greater surface would be considered as more
ecological not necessarily being. Furthermore, a greater extension does not imply a
proportional growth of the energy harvest, due to the non-linear relationship between
the collector surface and the collected energy.
3. Impact per unit of energy output. This alternative is generally chosen for energy
systems [23,24], because it refers to the environmental impacts of the energy
performances of the plant. However, it is difficult to apply this FU to the LCA of solar
collectors. The output of this system is an extremely variable data, depending on
1

The first one represents the normal flat collector whose thermal fluid is moved by a pump towards a separate
water tank. The second is a compact collector strictly connected to a smaller water tank, and the fluid is naturally
moved by the difference of density caused by the solar heating.

1034

F. Ardente et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 10311054

the solar energy input. Confusion could arise referring the impacts to the energy output
because the same collector could have a different eco-profile depending on the location.
Our LCA case study refers to the first FU alternative, and the environmental impacts are
related to the whole collector.
2.1. The studied system
The studied FU is one solar thermal collector (dimensions: 2.005!1.165!0.91 m)
with a total net surface of 2.13 m2. The FU is constituted by three main components:
The absorbing collector (including the main framework, the absorbing plate and the
pipes for the thermal fluid flow);
The water tank (including the heat exchanger, the coverage, the electrical resistance
and the inner pipes for the sanitary water flow);
The external support (employed to fasten the system on the houses roof).
The collector belongs to the category of passive solar device. The water tank and the
absorbing surface are strictly connected, constituting a unique unit, and the thermal fluid
circulation occurs with the natural convection. The internal fluid circuit does not need
pumps and it does not cause power energy consumption. This typology of collector is
particularly recommended for small domestic plants with a mediumlow demand of
sanitary warm water.
The water tank and the collector can be directly installed on sloping roofs. The
producing company also furnishes an optional steel support that allows the installation on
flat roofs. This constructive typology being common in Italy, the external support has also
been included into the FU (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Solar thermal collector with water tank and support.

F. Ardente et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 10311054

1035

Impacts related to the three components have been disaggregated to grant the
transparency of the study and to define a dominance analysis referring to the main
components of the plant.
2.2. Technical peculiarities and mass detail
The collector framework is made of painted galvanised steel (0.003 m width). A blackpainted copper plate, welded with pipes for the thermal fluid flow, constitutes the
absorbing surface. An aluminium frame with high-reflectance coefficient to increase the
collectors efficiency protects the plate. The thermal insulation is granted by high-density
polyurethane-PUR foam (0.03 m width).
The collector is covered by high-transparent tempered single glass with low iron-oxides
percentage. The glass (0.004 m width) is shock-proof and it is hermetically fastened to the
framework. To reduce heat losses, vacuum is created inside the collector.
The water tank has 0.16 m3 of capacity and it mainly consists of a galvanised steel
framework. It is protected by the stainless steel coverage, and it is placed on the top of the
collector. The space within the water tank and the external coverage is filled with highdensity PUR foam. There are two circuits for the fluid flows: the heat carrier circuit and the
sanitary water circuit. The thermal fluid is a mixture of water (5080%) and propylene
glycol (2050%) that avoids freezing problems during the cold season. It has been
supposed to use a 50% mixture. The fluid mixture flows along a cylindrical interstice that
works as heat exchanger. The water tank encloses a magnesium anode (to reduce the
corrosion) and an electrical resistance. In the studied FU, this auxiliary resistance is not
computed as a water tanks part but it is considered separately (in the section other
components). So, it is easier to state the incidence of this component on the global ecoprofile.
The section other components also includes the materials for packaging (cardboard
and the low density polyethylene, LDPE) and the external high-density polyethylene
(HDPE) pipes used to connect the collector to the water tank.
Galvanised steel bars, together assembled and fastened to the collector by means of
bolts and screws, constitute the support. Table 1 shows the details of employed materials
and masses.
3. Analysis of life cycle phases
The following sections describe the studys assumptions and the related energy and
environmental impacts occurring during the collectors life cycle. The following phases
have been investigated: production and delivery of energy and raw materials, production
process, installation, maintenance, disposal and transports occurring during each step.
3.1. Transports
As mentioned above, the FU is mainly composed of metallic and plastic
components.

1036

F. Ardente et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 10311054

Table 1
Details of employed materials and masses
Absorbing collector

Water tank

Material

Mass (kg)

Material

Mass (kg)

Material

Mass (kg)

Material

Mass (kg)

Galvanised
steel
Glass

33.9

Galvanised
steel
Stainless
steel
Rigid PUR
Thermal
fluid
Copper
Epoxy dust
Steel
Welding rod
Brass
Magnesium

49.6

Galvanised
steel
Stainless
steel

27

Cardboard
LDPE

3.0
0.8

HDPE
Copper

0.87
0.46

10.5

Copper
Stainless steel

8.2
6.1

Rigid PUR
Aluminium
Thermal fluid
Epoxy dust
Welding rod
Brass
Flexible PUR
PVC
Total

4.2
4
0.9
0.3
0.1
0.04
0.01
0.01
68.2

Support

21.0

Other parts

0.5

4.8
5.4
3.8
0.7
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.2

86.2

27.5

5.1

As it is not possible to determine the exact amount of travels for the production of
the solar collector, the tkm is assumed as functional unit for trucks transport.
It represents the energy and environmental impacts referred to the transport of 1000 kg of
products for 1 km route [25]. The impacts are then calculated by means of the masses and
the distances.
It has been assumed that every transport occurs by means of trucks with 28,000 kg
capacity. A different assumption regards the glass transport, purchased from a foreign
company, that is supposed transported by medium and high-capacity trucks. Having not
further information, it has been supposed an averaged condition of half load transport for
double way. Specific impacts related to trucks have been referred to Italian studies
performed by the Italian Agency for the Environment Protection [25,26].
Regarding all the input materials employed during the life cycle steps and considering
the mean distance values, it has been estimated a global transport load of 154 tkm. Details
of estimated air emissions are shown in Table 2.
3.2. The production process
Data regarding the collectors production process have been collected; thanks to a field
analysis. The production process concerns mainly in metals transformation and in
assembling them with other externally worked parts (generally, little plastic or metal
auxiliary parts). The three main components (absorbing collector, water tank and support)
are produced in different periods, then packed and stored in warehouses (Fig. 2).
Successively, external companies sell the collectors, attending to transport and install
them to final users.

F. Ardente et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 10311054

1037

Table 2
Estimated transports air emissions
Transports air emissions
C6H6 (mg)
C20H12 (mg)
CO2 (kg)
Cd (mg)
NMVOC (g)
CH4 (mg)
CO (g)
NOx (g)
SO2 (g)
Pb (mg)
Particulate (g)
N2O (g)
Zn (g)

5.9
0.03
20
0.3
27.4
890.4
56.4
259.7
16.9
2.1
14.2
2.8
0.9

3.2.1. Production of the absorbing collector

The absorbing collector consists mainly of three parts: the framework, the absorbing
plate (including the pipes for the thermal fluid flow) and the glass.
The framework is obtained using a zinc steel plate. After cutting and bending, it is
glazed with epoxy powders. Both the absorber plate and pipes are copper made. The pipes
are separately worked and then welded to the plate by acetylene welding. Having no
available data about acetylene welding, air emissions have been not computed. However,
little quantities of acetylene are used and consequently air emissions can be neglected.
Absorber and pipes are then black painted to increase their absorbance. The absorbing
plate, the framework and the glass are successively assembled together. Finally, PUR
insulation is blown and the external framework is painted with epoxy powders.
Fig. 3 shows the production process flow-sheet with the succession of employed
materials and numbered sub-processes. Each sub-process has been analysed to state the
energy and mass flows (Fig. 4 shows the details of the process number C.1 representing the
production of the external collectors framework).
3.2.2. Production of the water tank
The water tank mainly consists of three parts: the framework, the interstice and the
external covering. The water tank is made using a galvanised steel sheet cylindrical shaped
(diameter 0.444 m). The side parts are welded to this cylinder. A flange is annexed to one

Fig. 2. Solar collector production flow.

1038

F. Ardente et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 10311054

Fig. 3. Collector manufacture, process flow-sheet.

side: this flange works as support for the electrical resistance, the magnesium anode and
the coil copper pipe. Successively, another cylindrical steel sheet is externally welded to
the water tank. The thermal fluid flows inside this interstice and exchanges heat with water
tank.
The external covering is separately produced and painted. Finally, the water tank parts
are assembled together and PUR is injected into empty spaces.
Fig. 5 shows the production process flow-sheet with the details of masses and subprocesses.
3.2.3. Production of the support
The support consists of various steel bars. These are cut, drilled and finally fastened
together with bolts. Fig. 6 shows the production process flow-sheet with the details of
masses and sub-processes.

Fig. 4. Details of collectors framework production.

F. Ardente et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 10311054

1039

Fig. 5. Water tank manufacture, process flow-sheet.

3.3. Air emissions in the factory

Power energy being the only energy source directly employed during the production
process, there are not direct emissions from fossil fuels combustion. The production
(mainly concerning with cutting and drilling processes) causes the production of scraps
and metallic dusts. However, it has not been possible to state the exact quantities of
released dusts. On the basis of data coming from the Environmental Management System,
dusts have been indirectly estimated as percentage (about 1.5%) of the process scraps
mass. Particular emissions are produced during the plasma cutting, the coating and

Fig. 6. Support manufacture, process flow-sheet.

1040

F. Ardente et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 10311054

Table 3
Main air-emissions due to welding
Collector
Used electrode (kg)
Air emissions
Cr (mg)
Cr (VI) (mg)
Mn (mg)
Ni (mg)

Water tank

0.1

0.2

0.3
0.1
99.1
0.4

0.6
0.2
198.2
0.8

the welding. These processes are described in the following paragraphs. No water
emissions have been detected.
3.3.1. Shielded metal arc welding
Shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) is employed to weld together various collectors
parts with welding rods. The elemental composition of the fumes varies with the electrode
type and with the work-piece composition. Hazardous metals have been recorded in
welding [27].
Following the US welding classification, it has been assumed to use the welding rod
class E6010. The specific air pollutants, produced consuming 1 kg of rod E6010, mainly
include: Mn (9.91!10K1 g/kg); Ni (0.04!10K1 g/kg); total Cr (0.04!10K1 g/kg) [27].
Table 3 shows welding emissions related to the water tank and the collector production.
3.3.2. Plasma cutting
Regarding dry plasma cutting of 0.008 m plate we estimate, for stainless steel, the
global release of 3040!10K3 kg of fumes per cutting minute and, concerning mild steel,
the release of 2026!10K3 kg of fumes per cutting minute [28]. Table 4 shows the main
components of fumes in dry plasma cutting [28].
Dry plasma cutting is used in the water tank production to cut and drill some stainless
and mild steel plates. As the amount of emission increases increasing the plate thickness
[28], a linear variation of fumes with thickness has been supposed. The used plates have a
thickness of 0.003 m. Concerning the composition of fumes, average values of Table 4
have been chosen. Calculated emissions are summarised in Table 5.
3.3.3. Surface coating
The production process includes the application of epoxy powders. The coating is
applied by melting the powder on the surfaces. The employed epoxy powders had
Table 4
Composition emission in plasma cutting [18]
Main components of fumes in dry plasma cutting
Mild steel (0.008 m)
Stainless steel (0.008 m)

Fe (%)

Mn (%)

Cr (%)

Ni (%)

Cu (%)

Mo (%)

6773
3844

210
410

1220

48

01.4
26

01

F. Ardente et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 10311054

1041

Table 5
Plasma cuttingglobal air emissions
Mild steel
Cutting time (min)

Stainless steel

16.5

4.5

Pollutant

Mild steel

Stainless steel

Total (g)

NOx (g)
Fe (g)
Mn (g)
Ni (g)
Cr (g)
Cu (g)
Mo (g)

42.6
99.6
8.5

26.6
24.2
4.1
3.5
9.5
2.4
0.6

69.2
123.8
12.7
3.5
9.5
3.4
0.6

1.0

a content of about 7 g of volatile organic compounds per kilogram. Emissions from surface
coating for an uncontrolled facility could be estimated by assuming that all the VOC are
emitted [29]. The coating air emissions are summarised in Table 6.
3.4. Installation
The installation consists of the following steps:
Transport of the FU from the factory to storehouses for the sale by retail;
Transport from storehouse to the user place;
Installation of FUs parts.
Transports from factory to storehouses employ various trucks. Also the destinations are
variable (depending on the selling companies places). For these reasons, the following
average conditions have been assumed:
Functional unit: 1 tkm of 28,000 kg capacity truck;
Covered distance (double way): 100 km.
The FU is transported from storehouse to the user place by van of 3500 kg capacity.
Generally, the company makes one travel for each collector. The average covered distance
(double way) is 30 km. The installation consists of:
To fasten the support on the roof;
To fasten the water tank and the collector to the support.
Table 6
Air emissions of epoxy dust coating

Used epoxy dust (kg)

COV content (g/kg)
Air emissions
Estimated COV emission (g)

Collector

Water tank

0.350
7

0.730
7

2.45

5.11

1042

F. Ardente et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 10311054

Table 7
Installation transports air emissions
Transports air emissions
C6H6 (mg)
Benzopirene (mg)
CO2 (kg)
Cd (mg)
NMVOC (g)
CH4 (mg)
CO (g)
NOx (g)
SO2 (g)
Pb (mg)
Particulate (g)
N2O (g)
Zn (g)

0.72
0.004
10.17
0.06
12.79
318
46.24
61.23
4.44
0.25
12.43
0.87
0.11

Specific impacts related to transports refer to Italian studies [25,26]. Table 7

shows the calculated transports air emissions. Regarding the drilling operations during
the fastening, it has been measured the consumption of 0.5 MJ of low voltage
electricity.
3.5. Maintenance
As suggested by the selling company we have supposed that the FU would have an
average useful life of 15 years. In absence of rare external damages (as the glass break), the
FU does not necessitate frequent maintenance. The ordinary cycles consist of one
operation every 45 years (in all 23 operations during the FUs useful life). Regarding the
maintenance phase, main assumptions are:
Two maintenance operations (after 5 and 10 years from the purchasing);
Travels of maintenance technicians (overall distance 80 km by diesel car);
Each operation includes the substitution of the following components:
PVC gaskets;
Sealing;
Magnesium anode;
Electrical resistance;
Thermal fluid (50% water; 50% propyleneglycol)
Air emissions produced during the transports are summarised in Table 8.
3.6. Disposal
The FUs manufacture causes the production of scraps and wastes (the amount is
4.4 kg, excluding the packagings that wrap raw materials). The company periodically
deliver the wastes to a company that takes care about disposal.

F. Ardente et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 10311054

1043

Table 8
Maintenance phases transports air emissions
Global distance

80 (km)

NH3 (mg)
Cd (mg)
CO (g)
CO2 (kg)
Cr (mg)
Particulate (g)
SO2 (g)
Zn (g)
CH4 (mg)
N2O (g)
Ni (mg)
COV (g)
NOx (g)
Cu (g)
Se (mg)

80.0
0.03
28.0
9.2
0.14
3.20
2.88
0.003
480.0
0.80
0.20
4.40
22.0
0.005
0.03

Regarding the FUs disposal, no data are available. In fact, the company started the
production of solar collectors few years ago and, consequently, the sold collectors have not
yet reached their end-life. Furthermore the producing company have not started any
project regarding the collectors recycling (for example, the users could return the
collectors to the factory and the collectors could be successively disassembled in their
components). In particular the metallic components (representing more than 80% of the
total mass) could be potentially recycled.
Having no further information, the recycling of materials has been neglected. It is only
supposed that solar collectors would be collected and disposed to the nearest landfill by
truck (50 km double way). Suppose the transports occur by 28,000 kg truck, the release of
1.4 kgCO2 and few quantities of other pollutants has been estimated. Impacts related to the
landifill management have not been considered.

4. Energy analysis
The energy analysis concerns with the energy flows occurring during the life cycle of
the product. The energy consumption could be split into direct energy and embodied
energy. Direct is the energy directly used during a life cycle step (for example, it
includes the electricity or heat energy employed during the production, the fuel for
transports, etc.). Embodied is the energy consumed by all the processes associated with
the production of the materials employed as FUs inputs.
Besides, it is necessary to state how much of the energy consumption is related to the
feedstock rate. This is defined as heat of combustion of raw material inputs, which are
not used as an energy source, to a product system [6]. The feedstock quantifies the
potential of materials (as wood or plastics) to deliver energy when they are burned with
heat recovery after their useful life. The overall energy consumption can be obtained

1044

F. Ardente et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 10311054

Table 9
Direct energy consumption
Direct energy consumption
Electricity MV
Absorbing collector
Water tank
Support
Total
Electricity LV
Installation
Total
Diesel (for transports)
Materials (process input)
Installation
Maintenance
Disposal
Total

End-energy

Primary energy

66.6 MJ
113.0 MJ
9.6 MJ

191.0 MJPrim
324.0 MJPrim
27.6 MJPrim
542.6 MJPrim

0.56 MJ

1.8 MJPrim
1.8 MJPrim

6.62 kg
3.30 kg
2.96 kg
0.45 kg

346.5 MJPrim
172.7 MJPrim
155.1 MJPrim
23.6 MJPrim
697.9 MJPrim

multiplying the used energy quantities by the calorific value. Following the suggestions of
the Italian Environment Protection Agency (ANPA), all the energy calculations refer to
the gross calorific value for fuels [30]. The following paragraphs show in detail the energy
consumption during all the life cycle phases.
4.1. Direct energy consumption
The FUs LCA has involved two direct energy consumptions: the electricity used for
the production (medium voltage) and installation (low voltage) and the diesel oil used for
transports (during every life cycle phase).
However, the energy quantities described in the previous paragraphs are end-energy
quantities, meaning the energy quantities consumed by final users. All these quantities
have to be valued as primary, defined as the energy embodied in natural resources (e.g.
coal, crude oil, sunlight, uranium) that has not undergone any anthropogenic conversion or
transformation [31]. The secondary sources can be transformed into primary quantities by
means of specific conversion factors. They represent the effective MJs of energy that are
necessary to deliver one MJ of energy to users, including all the energy losses occurring
during the energy source life cycle.2 Table 9 summarises direct energy consumption in
terms of end-energy and primary-energy.

2
The production of electricity refers to the Italian energy mix during the period 19901994 [26]. Data include
all the energy losses occurring in the following phases: extraction, treatment and transport of fuels, production and
distribution of electricity, construction and disposal of structures. It has been assumed the following conversion
factors: low voltage electricity (3.21 MJPrim/MJEnd) and medium voltage electricity (2.87 MJPrim/MJEnd).
Regarding diesel oil for transport, it has been assumed a conversion factor of 1.16 MJPrim/MJEnd. It includes all
the energy losses occurring for extraction, refining and transport of diesel up to the filling station [32].

F. Ardente et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 10311054

1045

Table 10
Embodied energy consumption
Embodied energy of materials
Fuel (MJprim)
Collector
Water tank
Support
Other
(HDPE pipes-resistance)
Other (packaging)
Maintenance
Total (MJprim)

Feedstock (MJprim)

Total (MJprim)

3297.1
3641.0
1066.4
64.9

215.3
485.9

41.7

3512.5
4126.9
1066.4
106.7

147.0
544.1
8760.6

141.9
627.2
1512.1

289.0
1171.3
10,272.7

4.2. Embodied energy consumption

Analogous to the direct energy consumptions, also the embodied energy consumptions
have to be computed as primary. Table 10 summarises the primary energy demand for all
the employed raw materials. Data regarding the embodied energy of materials refers to
the Italian official environmental database [26]. Missing data are taken from other sources
[32,33]. General assumptions are:
Missing information about Italian stainless steel, it has been referred to average steel
data;
The producing company employs glass with low iron oxides. Missing information
about this glass, it has been referred to common float glass for windows;
The company uses epoxy powders as coating. Missing information about these
powders, data have been referred to epoxy resin. However, epoxy powders are about
0.6% of the overall empty mass and they could be neglected, following 1% cut-off
criteria [5].
No information is available about the eco-profile of welding rods. However, the rod
mass is very low (less than 0.2% of the overall mass) and it has been neglected in the
calculations.
4.3. Global energy consumption
The global energy consumption is obtained by adding embodied and direct
contributions (Figs. 7 and 8). Table 11 shows the energy consumption (split in the
energy carriers). It is possible to point out that:
The global energy consumption is 11.5 GJPrim. The direct energy consumption is only
11%, while the indirect is 89%.
The energy consumption for the production (542.6 MJPrim of electricity) is less than 5%
of the global consumption. This value shows the low incidence of the factory process on
the global energy balance.

1046

F. Ardente et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 10311054

Fig. 7. Global energy consumption (feedstock and fuel energy demands).

The energy consumption (direct and indirect) related to the water tank manufacture is
about 4.4 GJPrim (38.6% of the global). The production of the collector has a similar
energy demand (3.7 GJPrim and 32% of the global) while the support involves a lower
consumption (about 1.1 GJprim).
Installation and disposal have a low incidence. The computed impacts are mainly
related to transports. About the installation, it is possible to observe that the support is
used for flat-roof installation (and it is the most common case in our region). If the
support is considered as belonging to the installation, its contribution will be about
11.5% of the global consumption.

Fig. 8. Global energy consumption (direct and embodied contributions).

F. Ardente et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 10311054

1047

Table 11
Main energy and resource consumption
Primary energy consumption
Not renewable sources
Coal (kg)
Natural gas (N m3)
Coke (kg)
Wood (kg)
Lignite (kg)
Oil (kg)
Uranium (kg)
Renewable sources (MJ)
Fuel energy (GJ)
Feedstock energy (GJ)
Total primary energy (GJ)

193.7
42.8
1.5
7.6
39.2
88.8
0.001
673.8
10.0
1.5
11.5

The inclusion of other parts (copper resistance and HDPE-pipes) needs of a further
0.2 GJPrim (0.9% of the global). The packaging has, instead, a greater influence
(0.6 GJPrim and 2.5% of global).
Maintenance involves a significant energy consumption (about 11.5% of the global). This
is caused by the use of spare parts (and, in particular, by the substitution of thermal fluid).
The propyleneglycol is an oil-derived fluid and it involves a primary consumption of
77.4 MJprim/kg. Furthermore, this fluid is largely employed in the collector (about 19 kg
all over the life cycle). Consequently, the global use of this fluid has a great incidence
on the results (about 13% of the global consumption).
Transports cause the consumption of about 700 MJprim (6.1% of the global).
Feedstock consumption is about 13% of the global (and about 15% of the indirect
contribution). This energy could be theoretically recovered when materials are burnt
(with heat recovery) after their end-life. Actually, about 60% of feedstock is related to
the use of propyleneglycol; this fluid is mixed to water in the thermal fluid and,
generally, it is wasted without any treatment.

5. Environmental impacts
The main environmental impacts can be included in the following classes:

Resources consumption;
Air emissions;
Water emissions;
Wastes and solid pollutants.

Environmental impacts have been divided into direct and indirect. Direct impacts are
those directly related to the production process and to transports. Indirect are the impacts
related to the production of process inputs (as raw materials and energy sources). The FUs
manufacture caused the direct emission of some air pollutants and the production of

1048

F. Ardente et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 10311054

Table 12
Resource consumption
Main resources consumption
Ferrous minerals (kg)
Water (m3)
Iron scraps (kg)
Bauxite (kg)
CaCO3 (kg)
Copper minerals (kg)
NaCl (kg)
Zinc (kg)
Sand (kg)
Copper scraps (kg)
Lime (kg)
Clay (kg)
Nitrogen (kg)

293.5
31.6
47.3
14.9
14.3
8.2
7.7
6.8
6.4
5.4
2.0
1.3
1.2

a small quantity of wastes. Emissions related to the production of diesel fuel have been
neglected: these emissions are very low with respect to those related to the fuel
combustion [26].
5.1. Resources consumption
The life cycle analysis has shown an overall consumption of about 415 kg of resources.
The employed materials are summarised in Table 12. It is possible to observe that they are
mainly constituted by ferrous minerals: it reflects the FUs composition mainly made by
steel parts.
5.2. Air emissions
Table 13 shows the direct and indirect air emissions. In detail, we could observe that
The overall CO2 emission is about 650 kg;
Indirect emissions are generally dominant and they are mainly related to the raw
materials production (with an incidence of about 8090%). The other emissions
(related to the production and transports) have an overall incidence of 1020%.
Direct emissions of some metal pollutants (as Fe, Mn, Mo, Cr) related to the
production process are dominant. These emissions are mainly due to cutting and
welding phases.
5.3. Water emissions
Water emissions are only indirect (in fact, neither the production process nor the
transports have water contact). Table 14 shows the main pollutants. Organic releases
amount to 18 kg of chemical oxygen demand (COD); other emission are mainly little
quantities of metallic ions.

F. Ardente et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 10311054

1049

Table 13
Direct and indirect air emissions
Indirect

CO2 (kg)
CO (kg)
SO2 (kg)
CH4 (kg)
NOx (kg)
Dust (kg)
NMCOV (kg)
Mn (kg)
Fe (kg)
N2O (g)
HCl (g)
Cr (total) (g)
Ni (g)
Cu (g)
Zn (g)
HF (g)
NH3 (g)
Mo (g)
Pb (g)
PAH (g)
Benzene (mg)
Cd (mg)

Direct

Raw materials

Electricity

Transports

580.4
4.4
3.3
2.1
1.3
0.5
0.2
0.0001
0.0004
20.9
35.0
0.01
0.3
0.01
2.3
2.5
2.5
0.003
0.5
0.2
529.0
125.4

35.8
0.01
0.2
0.05
0.1
0.02
0.05

40.8
0.1
0.03
0.002
0.4
0.03
0.03

5.6!10K7
1.5
1.1
0.004

Total
Production
process

0.1
0.07
0.01
0.3
0.1

1.9
0.0003
0.0004
0.005
1.0

10.7
4.7
3.4

0.2
0.03
0.6
0.012
0.001
87.3
1.3

0.003
7.1
0.1

657.0
4.5
3.6
2.2
1.8
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.1
24.3
36.1
10.7
5.1
3.4
3.3
2.6
2.5
0.6
0.5
0.2
623.4
126.9

5.4. Wastes
Wastes directly produced by company are about 4.4 kg. The overall produced wastes
are summarised in Table 15.
Table 14
Water emissions
Water pollutants
COD (kg)
Fe (g)
Mg (g)
K (g)
NH3 (g)
Phosphorus (g)
Cr (g)
Pb (g)
Na (g)
Ni (g)
Mn (g)
Cd (mg)
Hg (mg)

18.1
49.8
16.4
7.8
4.8
1.4
1.1
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
5.4
4.0

1050

F. Ardente et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 10311054

Table 15
Wastes production
Wastes production
Normal wastes (kg)
Special wastes (kg)
Ashes (kg)

59.5
5.2
6.8

5.5. Potential environmental impacts

The eco-profile of the collectors can be summarised employing the following potential
environmental indexes:

Global warming potential (GWP);

acidification potential (AP)
ozone depleting potential (ODP);
nutrification potential (NP)
photochemical ozone creation potential (POPC)

These indexes have been calculated employing the characterisation factors regarding
the compilation of the Italian Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) [30]. Results are
summarised in Table 16.

6. Energy and CO2 payback times

The energy payback-time (EPT) can be defined as the time necessary for a solar equipment
to collect the energy (valued as primary) equivalent to that used to produce it [34]
EPT Z

LCAenergy
Euseful K EUse

(1)

where
LCAenergy primary energy consumed during all the life cycle phases (GJ);
Euseful yearly useful saved energy (GJ per year);
Euse energy employed during the use of the renewable system (GJ per year).
Table 16
Potential environmental impacts
Potential environmental impacts
GWP (kgCO2 eq.)
AP (kgSO2 eq.)
ODP (kgCFC-11 eq.)
NP (kg3K
PO4 eq.)
POPC (kgC2H4 eq.)

721
5
Negligible
0.7
0.4

F. Ardente et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 10311054

1051

In passive collector systems the water circulation occurs naturally and, consequently, the
Euse is null. The energy saving referred to the use of solar collector has been calculated
considering the average temperatures and solar inputs of the city of Palermo (Italy, 388
latitude) [3,9]. The useful primary energy saving Euseful is estimated 6.6 GJ per year [34].
The payback-time related to the studied equipment results lower than 2 years. This value
shows the great energy convenience of such technology.
Knowing the yearly Euseful, we have also calculated the yearly emission saving (EMSi).
It represents the emissions that the auxiliary system would produce to deliver as much
energy as that saved by means of the solar collector. The EMS depends on the typology of
the employed auxiliary heater. The global impacts during the life cycle and the emission
saving are summarised by the emission payback-time (EMPT). It is defined as the
time during which the avoided emissions due to the employment of the solar plant are equal
to those released during the production and use of the renewable plant itself. It is possible to
calculate the EMPT relatively to the pollutant i as [34]
EMPTKi Z

EMi
EMSKi K EMUSEKi

(2)

EMi global emissions of generic pollutant i related to the production, assembly,

transport, maintenance and disposal of the solar plant (kgi);
EMSi yearly emission saving of generic pollutant i (kgi/year);
EMUSEi yearly emission of pollutant i related to the use of the renewable plant (kgi/year).
The EMuse could be caused by the use of the conventional energy that the plant needs to
work (mainly the electricity used by pumps). In passive collectors the EMuse term is null.
The global warming potential (GWP) related to the collector life cycle is 721 kgeq.CO2
(see Table 16). Considering a domestic gas boiler as auxiliary system, it is assumed a
specific global warming factor of 65.7!10K3 kgeq.CO2 per MJ of useful heat [26]. The
yearly CO2-eq. emission saving is estimated to be 407 kgeq.CO2 [34]. Similarly to the energy
payback-time, even the CO2 payback-time resulted lower than 2 years.
The positive judgements revealed by the low values of energy and CO2 payback times
substantially agree with the results of different studies [14,1719].

7. Conclusions
The present report shows the results of an LCA performed upon a solar thermal collector.
Production process, installation, maintenance, transports and disposal are checked.
The collected information could become an important starting point to improve the
ecological performances of the product. It is important to carry out a database of FUs
environmental performances as a powerful tool for the eco-oriented design. On the other
hand, we would like to point out that the life cycle thinking is basic in the design for
environment but the final decision regarding the product cannot be just environmental
oriented. Other aspects like cost, physical lifetime, and energy performances are important

1052

F. Ardente et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 10311054

factors underpinning customers preferences. To achieve a more realistic evaluation, it is

important to consider a set of core criteria in addition to the main function, keeping in mind
that designers generally do not give top priority to the environmental matters. In this respect,
design for environment means to take environmental issues into account without
compromising the other features of the product and to seek a balance among all the
competing requirements.
Regarding the studied FU, it has been estimated an overall primary energy consumption
of 11.5 GJ. However, the energy directly used during the production process and installation
is only the 5% of the overall consumption; another 6% is consumed for transports during the
various life cycle phases. The remaining percentage is employed for the production of raw
materials, used as process inputs. These results show that the direct energy requirement is
less important than the indirect one (in fact, the production processes consist mainly in
cutting, welding, bending and assembling steps with a low energy demand). Consequently,
including or neglecting some materials, the results will be sensibly modified. For example
excluding the collectors support, the primary demand decreases of 1 GJ (10% of the overall
consumption). Furthermore, maintenance can involve a large primary energy consumption
related to the substitution of spare parts. Two maintenance cycles has been supposed with an
overall primary energy demand of 1.1 GJ.
The production of the solar collector causes mainly direct emissions of metals (Fe, Mn,
Mo, Cr, etc.) related to cutting and welding phases. Regarding the other pollutants, it is
possible to comment in a similar way as done in the energy analysis. In fact, the indirect
emissions (related to production of raw materials) are about the 8090% of the overall
releases, and the results sensibly depend on the materials included in the calculations. Direct
emissions related to transports have an incidence of 1015%. Water soil releases and wastes
are very low.
As previously shown, it is very important to clearly define the studys boundaries and the
involved materials. To grant transparency of results, the study has been presented as much
disaggregated as possible and all the studys assumptions have been described in detail. It is
possible to separate all the contributions and follow all the calculation steps, to modify the
initial hypothesis (e.g. excluding or adding some components) and to re-calculate the LCA
results.
The last part of the study focused on the calculation of energy and CO2 payback times.
According to the results of other authors, these indicators resulted very low (less than 2
years) showing the great environmental convenience of this technology.

References
[1] Commission of the European Communities. Sixth environment action programme of the European
community. Environment 2010: our future, our choice. Communication from the Commission to the Council,
COM 2001, 31 Final.
[2] Commission of the European Communities. Green paper on integrated product policy, COM 2001, 68 Final.
[3] Ardente F, Beccali G, Cellura M, Lo Brano V. The environmental product declaration EPD with a particular
application to a solar thermal collector. Proceedings of conference ECOSUD 2003, Siena; 46, 2003.

F. Ardente et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 10311054

1053

[4] Commission of the European Communities. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the
European ParliamentIntegrated product policy building on environmental life-cycle thinking, COM 2003,
302 Final.
[5] ISO14040. Environmental managementLife cycle assessmentPrinciples and framework; 1998.
[6] ISO14041. Environmental managementLife cycle assessmentGoal and scope definition and inventory
analysis; 1999.
[7] ISO 14042. Environmental managementLife cycle assessmentLife cycle impact assessment; 2000.
[8] Goralczyk M. Life cycle assessment in the renewable energy sector. Appl Energy 2003;75:20511.
[9] Duffie JA, Beckman WA. Lenergia solare nelle applicazioni termiche (Italian language), Liguori ed.; 1978.
[10] Diakoulaki D, Zervos A, Sarafidis J, Mirasgedis S. Cost benefit analysis for solar water heating systems.
Energy Convers Manage 2001;42:172739.
[11] Souliotis M, Tripanagnostopoulos Y. Experimental study of CPC type ICS solar systems. Solar Energy 2004;
76:389408.
[12] Tripanagnostopoulos YGT, Souliotis MK, Battisti R, Corrado A. Application aspects of hybrid PV/T solar
systems. ISES solar world congress 2003, Goteborg, Sweden; June 1419, 2003.
[13] Kalogirou SA. Solar thermal collector and applications. Progr Energy Combust Sci 2004;30:23195.
[14] Wagner HJ. Ermittlung des primaerenergieaufwanfes und Abschaetzung der emissionen zur Herstellung und
zum Betrieb von ausgewaehlten absorberanlangen zur Schimmbadwasserwaermung und von Solarkollectoranlangen zur Brauchwassererwaermung (German language),VDI Berichte, Reihe 6, no. 325; 1995.
[15] Veenstra A, Oversloot HP, Spoorenberg HHR. The environmental performance of solar energy systems and
related energy saving installations. Dissemination workshop of the International Energy Agency (IEA)Task
27Performance of Solar Facade, Copenhagen; April 2002.
[16] Andresen I, Thyholt M, Geissler S, Rappl B. Sustainable use of aluminium in buildings. Report no. 1:
overview of research studies. SINTEF civil and environmental engineering architecture and building
technology, Norway. Report no. STF22 A01525. p. 2548.
[17] Tsilingiridis G, Martinopoulos G, Kyriakis N. Life cycle environmental impact of a thermosyphonic domestic
solar hot water system in comparison with electrical and gas water heating. Renewable Energy 2004;29:
127788.
[18] Mirasgedis S, Diakoulaki D, Assimacopoulos D. Solar energy and the abatement of atmospheric emissions.
Renewable Energy 1996;7(4):32938.
[19] Crawford RH, Treloar GJ. Net energy analysis of solar and conventional domestic hot water systems in
Melbourne, Australia. Solar Energy 2004;76:15963.
[20] Ardente F, Beccali G, Cellura M. Eco-sustainable energy and environmental strategies in design for recycling:
the software ENDLESS. Ecolog Modell 2003;163:10118.
[21] Ardente F, Beccali M, Cellura M. FALCADE: a fuzzy software for the energy and environmental balances of
products. Ecolog Modell 2003;176(34):35979.
[22] Ardente F, Beccali G, Cellura M, Lo Brano V. Life cycle analysis of solar thermal collector (first part: life
cycle inventory). First report of the International Energy Agency (IEA)Task 27Performance of solar
facade, Subtask CProject C1 environmental performance; March 2003.
[23] The Swedish Environmental Management Council. Product-specific requirements (PSR)Electricity and
district heating generation; 2001.
[24] The Swedish Environmental Management Council. Product-specific requirements (PSR)Electrical
manipulating industrial robot; 2002.
[25] ANPAItalian National Agency for Environment Protection. Banca dati italiana a supporto della valutazione
del ciclo di vitaManuale settore trasporti (Italian language); 2000.
[26] ANPAItalian National Agency for Environment Protection. Banca dati italiana a supporto della valutazione
del ciclo di vita. Italian environmental database version 2.0; 2000.
[27] US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Compilation of air pollutant emission factors, 5th ed., vol. I:
stationary point and area sources. Chapter 12: Metallurgical industry; section 12.19: electric arc welding;
January 1995.
[28] von Bromsen B, Lilieberg L, Frojd N. Emission of fume, nitrogen oxides and noise in plasma cutting of
stainless and mild steel, the Swedish Institute of Production Engineering Research, doc IE-174-93 edition;
March 1994.

1054

F. Ardente et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 10311054

[29] US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Compilation of air pollutant emission factors, 5th ed., vol. I:
stationary point and area sources. Chapter 4: Evaporation loss sources; section 4.2.2.1: general industrial
surface coating; January 1995.
[30] ANPAItalian National Agency for Environment Protection. Regole per la redazione della Dichiarazione
Ambientale di Prodotto (Italian language); July 2001.
[31] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Third assessment reportAnnex BGlossary of terms;
2000.
ko-Institut (Institut fur angewandte O
kologie). Global emission model for integrated systems (GEMIS),
[32] O
German environmental database.
[33] Boustead Ltd. Boustead Model, environmental database; 2001.
[34] Ardente F, Beccali G, Cellura M, Lo Brano V. Life cycle assessment of a solar thermal collector: sensitivity
analysis, energy and environmental balances. Renewable Energy 2005;30:10930.