Facade Integrated Photovoltaic Systems (FIPS) is considered the most promising strategy to utilize solar power in various buildings and enhance its energy efficiency in recent years. The sustainability performance of FIPS needs to be evaluated. Hence, this study aims to analyze and compare the life cycle impacts of FIPS using energy analysis, life cycle assessment (LCA), and life cycle costing (LCC), from cradle-to-grave to identify the most sustainable alternative. Three types of PV facades using cadmium telluride (CdTe), dye sensitizes (DSS), and Perovskite modules were investigated to determine the best and worst economic and environmental options. Life cycle impact assessment was performed through cumulative energy demand (CED), ReCiPe, greenhouse gas (GHG) emission rate, and the energy payback time (EPBT). The ReCiPe results indicated that Perovskite and CdTe façades created the lowest and highest environmental burdens, regardless of their lifespan. The module fabrication, along with panel manufacturing, was the major contributor to the environmental impacts. Furthermore, the total CED for the CdTe facade was 1975.6 MJ per m2, which was significantly higher than that for perovskite (587.1 MJ) and DSS (1177.4 MJ) facades. Besides, the EPBT of DSS, CdTe, and Perovskite facades was 1.57, 1.21, and 0.6 years, respectively. Moreover, the economic analysis, including LCC and the Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of the DSS façade was estimated at 204 $ and 0.12 $/kWh, which indicated the lowest quantity among other facades. Hierarchical adaptive weighting (HAW) was utilized as a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) tool which assists to combine the suggested various criteria in environmental (e.g., GHG emission rate, ReCiPe, CED), economic (e.g., LCC and LCOE), and energy (EPBT) aspects to a sustainability index. Therefore, the analysis results indicated that the Perovskite façade was the most sustainable options for building. However, the integrated LCC-LCA- HAW implies that choosing an option depends on the policy maker’s approach.

Keywords