Abstract: The approaching end-of life phase of early installed PV modules gave rise to a variety of potential end-of-life strategies, ranging from basic generic waste management strategies to advanced case-specific recycling options. However, no comprehensive assessment on the full range of technological possibilities is available and only limited attention was given to the material recovery rates of these different technologies in light of circular economy. In addition, current material recovery rates are indifferent towards the material value and the value of their secondary applications. Based on an extensive literature review, ten end-of-life scenarios with potential learning effects are identified and their material flows are quantified using a combined material and substance flow analysis. Subsequently, material recovery rates from a mass, economic value and embodied energy perspective are calculated, incorporating the differences in secondary applications. The differences in the mass-based recovery rates of the seven end-of-life scenarios that did not have landfill or municipal waste incineration as the main destination were minimal, as 73-79% of the mass was recovered for the best-case learning scenario. For the economic value recovery rate (9-66%) and the embodied energy recovery rate (18-45%), more profound differences were found. The collection rate was identified as most crucial parameter for all end-of-life scenarios, learning scenarios and recycling indicators. The mass-based recovery rate might favor end-of-life scenarios that lead to dissipation of valuable materials in non-functional secondary applications. Additional targets are required to avoid cascading of valuable materials and to avoid the economic cost and environmental burden of virgin materials.

Abstract: Energy supply is essential for the functioning and well-being of a society. Decision-makers are faced with the challenge to balance burdens and benefits of energy supply practices with the aim to achieve environmental, economic, and social sustainability. Literature exhibits a broad variety of sustainability assessment frameworks for energy supply technologies. However, there is no consensus on which aspects need to be covered for a comprehensive assessment of sustainability. While some aspects, such as environmental emission damage, receive predominant attention, there is a lack of coverage and adequate quantification for others. This led in the past to an unbalanced basis for decision-making.
Based on an analysis of literature, 12 impact categories were identified for the assessment of energy technologies. The analysis included the judgement of quantification approaches regarding their significance for describing the impact categories and their maturity resulting in the proposal of 12 concrete indicators. A framework is proposed to manage and integrate the assessment of single impact categories. The framework produces normalized and weighted output indicators to use in the form of a dashboard or alternatively a single sustainability index for informed decision-making.
Finally, the proposed sustainability assessment framework relies on life cycle, local impact, and supply chain risks assessment. It consists of both well-established assessment methods as well as suggestions for new indicators in order to allow a full assessment of all impact categories. It thereby goes beyond the isolated assessment of impacts and offers the basis for comparison of complete energy supply mixes.

Abstract: Global environmental problems have urged the need for developing sustainable technologies. However, new technologies that enter the market have often higher economic costs and potentially higher environmental impacts than conventional technologies. This can be explained by learning effects: a production process that is performed for the first time runs less smooth than a production process that has been in operation for years. To obtain a fair estimation of the potential of a new technology, learning effects need to be included. A review on the current literature on learning effects was conducted in order to provide guidelines on how to include learning effects in prospective technology assessment. Based on the results of this review, five recommendations have been formulated and an integration of learning effects in the structure of prospective technology assessment has been proposed. These five recommendations include the combined use of learning effects on the component level and on the end product level; the combined use of learning effects on the technical, economic and environmental level; the combined use of extrapolated values and expert estimates; the combined use of learning-by-doing and learning-by-searching effects and; a tier-based method, including quality criteria, to calculate the learning effect. These five complementary strategies could lead to a clearer perspective on the environmental impact and cost structure of the new technology and a fairer comparison base with conventional technologies, potentially resulting in a faster adoption and a shorter time-to-market for sustainable technologies.

Abstract: Shifting from a linear to a circular economy has consequences on how the sustainability of products is assessed. This is the case for products recovered from resources such as sewage sludge. The “zero-burden” assumption is commonly used in Life Cycle Assessment and considers that waste streams are burden-free, which becomes debatable when comparing waste-based with virgin material-based products in the context of the growing circular economy. If waste streams are considered as resources rather than waste, upstream burdens should be partly allocated to all products to allow a fair comparison with their virgin material-based equivalents. In this paper, five allocation approaches are applied to allocate the resource use of upstream processes (consumer goods production) to products recovered from the processing of sewage sludge in the Netherlands, which produces biogas, (phosphorus-based) chemicals and building materials. Except for the approach which allocates 100% of the impact from resource recovery processes to the preceding consumer goods, the allocation approaches show a resource use 27 to 80% higher than with the “zero-burden” assumption. In this particular case, using these allocation approaches is likely to find little support from recyclers. The producers of household products, recyclers and policy makers should find a consensus to consider the shift from a linear to a circular economy in sustainability assessment studies while avoiding discouraging the implementation of recovery technologies. This paper suggests starting the discussion with the approach which allocates the impacts from upstream processes degressively to the downstream products as it best translates the industrial ecology principles.