Manufacturing-attributed generation carbon intensity of monocrystalline silicon photovoltaic modules in China under production–use spatial coupling

i

This article has been updated. A Correction to this article was published on .

i

The Original Article was published on

i

The Original Article was published on

i

This article has been updated

i

This article was retracted on

i

This article has been updated

Abstract

Photovoltaic (PV) module manufacturing footprints are typically reported per kWp, yet their interpretation changes when these burdens are allocated over lifetime electricity generation in regions with unequal solar resources. We present a parameterized life-cycle assessment (LCA) model for monocrystalline silicon PV modules linking manufacturing emissions, provincial grid factors, solar resources, technology routes, material-factor scenarios, and Monte Carlo uncertainty. Manufacturing-footprint results are reported in kg CO₂e/kWp, while generation-intensity outcomes are described by their relative rankings to avoid mixing different allocation bases. Built on International Energy Agency Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme (IEA PVPS) Task 12 inventories, ecoinvent 3.9.1 Cutoff material factors with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2021 100-year global warming potential (GWP100), China’s 2023 provincial electricity factors, and the NASA POWER 2014–2023 irradiation data, the 19.5% crystalline-silicon (c-Si) reference module yields 494.4 kg CO₂e/kWp under national-average manufacturing electricity. Route-specific proxies for passivated emitter and rear cell (PERC), tunnel oxide passivated contact (TOPCon), and heterojunction (HJT) modules give 446.2, 392.8, and 367.9 kg CO₂e/kWp, respectively, under the ecoinvent 3.9.1 Cutoff factor set. The three factor sets are the ecoinvent 3.9.1 Cutoff, China-adjusted literature, and low-carbon materials-and-power sets; their route-specific ranges are 367.9–446.2, 593.0–719.4, and 73.9–88.7 kg CO₂e/kWp, respectively. The production–use matrix distinguishes manufacturing-location effects from use-location solar-resource effects, while the uncertainty analysis shows that factor-set ordering is more stable than technology-route ordering. PV carbon-footprint screening should jointly disclose material factors, electricity factors, solar-resource assumptions, and technology-route parameters.

Keywords

carbon footprint / life cycle assessment / monocrystalline silicon photovoltaic module / provincial electricity factor / production–use spatial coupling

CHANGE HISTORY

A Correction to this paper has been published:
https://doi.org

The Retraction Note was updated to reflect reception of statements of disagreement from all authors.

This article has been retracted.Please see the Retraction Notice for more detail:
https://doi.org

References

[1] International Organization for Standardization (2006) ISO 14040: Environmental management- life cycle assessment-principles and framework. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html.

[2] International Organization for Standardization (2006) ISO 14044: Environmental management- life cycle assessment-requirements and guidelines. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/38498.html.

[3] International Organization for Standardization (2018) ISO 14067: Greenhouse gases-carbon footprint of products-requirements and guidelines for quantification. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/71206.html.

[4] IEA PVPS Task 12 (2020) Life cycle inventories and life cycle assessments of photovoltaic systems. Available from: https://iea-pvps.org/key-topics/life-cycle-inventories-and-life-cycle-assessments-of-photovoltaic-systems/.

[5] IEA PVPS Task 12 (2020) PV supply chain LCI spreadsheet. Available from: https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/PVPS-Task12-19 2020 EcoSpold LCI-PV-supplyChains-CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0.xlsx.

[6] Chowdhury P, Chowdhury H, Chowdhury T, et al. (2026) Standardization as a pathway to a circular PV industry: Addressing material recovery and design challenges. Sol Energ Mat Sol C 296: 114067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2025.114067

[7] M¨uller A, Friedrich L, Reichel C, et al. (2021) A comparative life cycle assessment of silicon PV modules: Impact of module design, manufacturing location and inventory. Sol Energ Mat Sol C 230: 111277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2021.111277

[8] Yuan L, Nain P, Kothari M, et al. (2024) Material intensity and carbon footprint of crystalline silicon module assembly over time. Sol Energy 269: 112336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2024.112336

[9] Louwen A, van Sark WGJHM, Faaij APC, et al. (2016) Re-assessment of net energy production and greenhouse gas emissions avoidance after 40 years of photovoltaics development. Nat Commun 7: 13728. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13728

[10] Wernet G, Bauer C, Steubing B, et al. (2016) The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): Overview and methodology. Int J Life Cycle Ass 21: 1218-1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8

[11] Mariutti E (2025) The limits of the current consensus regarding the carbon footprint of photovoltaic modules manufactured in China: A review and case study. Energies 18: 1178. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18051178

[12] Garcia GR, Kneifel J (2025) Public life cycle inventory data gap analysis for silicon-based photovoltaic panels, NIST Technical Note 2350. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.2350

[13] Luo Z, Yu P, Wang H, et al. (2025) Life-cycle assessment of monocrystalline silicon photovoltaic systems. Acta Energ Sol Sin 46: 237-243. https://doi.org/10.19912/j.0254-0096.tynxb.2024-1022

[14] Hernandez-Padilla F, Borja V, Urbina A (2026) Life cycle assessment of photovoltaic module production in Mexico: hidden impacts of global manufacturing. Sustainability 18: 175. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010175

[15] Michiels F, Geeraerd A (2022) Two-dimensional Monte Carlo simulations in LCA: An innovative approach to guide the choice for the environmentally preferable option. Int J Life Cycle Ass 27: 505-523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02041-0

[16] Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China, National Bureau of Statistics of China (2025) 2023 power carbon dioxide emission factors. Available from: https://www.mee.gov.cn/xxgk2018/xxgk/xxgk01/202512/W020251231726284332528.pdf.

[17] NASA Langley Research Center (2026) POWER Data Access Viewer and API. Available from: https://power.larc.nasa.gov/api/pages/.

[18] ITRPV (2024) International Technology Roadmap for Photovoltaic results 2024 presentation. Available from: https://solar-media.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/PVCellTechEurope24/20240313 ITRPV 15th edition presentation PVCellTech MF 240313.pdf.

[19] International Aluminium Institute (n.d.) Aluminium recycling and greenhouse gas emissions. Available from: https://international-aluminium.org/landing/as-well-as-aluminium-recycling-saving-95-of-the-energy-needed-for-primary-aluminium-production-the-recycling-process-saves-a-similar-percentage-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions/.

[20] REC Solar Norway AS (2021) Environmental Product Declaration: REC Solar solar grade silicon (SoG-Si), NEPD-2681-1371-EN. The Norwegian EPD Foundation. Available from: https://www.recgroup.com/sites/default/files/documents/nepd-2681-1371 rec-solar-solar-grade-silicon-sog-si-.pdf.

[21] Global Electronics Council (2024) Criteria for the Assessment of Ultra-Low Carbon Solar Modules: EPEAT-ULCS-2023, Interim Corrections December 2024. Available from: https://globalelectronicscouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/EPEAT ULCS 2023 Interim Corrections-December 2024.pdf.

[22] Singh S, Powar S, Dhar A (2023) End of life management of crystalline silicon and cadmium telluride photovoltaic modules utilising life cycle assessment. Resour Conserv Recy 197: 107097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107097