ENAG11008 – Professional and Sustainable Engineering Practice

2nd May 2017
ENAG11008 – Professional and Sustainable Engineering Practice
Sustainable Development
Critique
Assignment 2 – Leah Kelly 10284943 / s0139873
Introduction
Sustainable development is a term that has been used for
many years, although today we are focusing more on
sustainable options to combat the global issues we are
facing (United Nations 2016a). With this focus comes the
need for a clear definition of what sustainable development
(SD) is. This critique will firstly look at various definitions of
sustainable development to formulate a cohesive and
inclusive meaning. Secondly, this paper will present a clear
framework addressing the needs of SD which will then be
used to assess the sustainability of solar photovoltaic (PV)
systems used to convert light to energy (National
Renewable Energy Laboratory 2016). Lastly, the outcomes
of the framework assessment will highlight
recommendations for areas of improvement.
1
Leah Kelly -Sustainable Development Critique
Defining Sustainability
Although the terminology has been around for decades, the notion of sustainable
development was first taken seriously by the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development in 1992. Proposing tactics to combat environmental issues raised in the
1987 report, Our Common Future by the Brundtland Commission, the conference drew a
wide variety of public bodies and delegates from many governments including more than
100 Heads of State (Sustainable Development Commission 2011a). The importance of
sustainable development has come to the forefront in recent times with the introduction of
the United Nations ‘Sustainable Development Goals, 17 goals to transform our world’ shown
in figure 1 (United Nations 2016a). However, effectively defining SD can be challenging as it
is dependent on an individual’s interpretation and what is important to them (White 2013).
Figure 1 Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations)
Bearing different meanings, the definition of sustainable development can also vary
depending on a stakeholder’s standpoint. Thus the viewpoint of the interested party leans
toward a bias of self-interest. With the primary focus on humanity, the United Nations
(2016a), as a part of their ‘Sustainability Goals’, broadly defines sustainable development as
“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability future
generations to meet their own needs”. Alternatively, BHP in their 2008-2009 Sustainable
Development Policy (2008), emphasises safety as the key element of their statement
adopting the motto “Zero Harm”, yet still incorporates ‘business conduct, social,
environmental and economic’ factors into their charter. In comparison, the World Tourism
Organization (2016b) understandably focuses on tourism, but again addresses similar topics
including ‘future economic, social and environmental impacts’. Although the three examples
have different key factors, they do possess similar themes of community, environment and
economy.
Another viewpoint held by Orecchini (2007) concentrates on the process of consumption,
outlining sustainable development as a process that reuses resources over and over again.
Indicating if we control consumption, we can become more sustainable. Likewise, in an
article centred around our world becoming ‘zero waste’, the author suggests that we need to
consider sustainability at the grassroots of design, so we ultimately eliminate waste before
we produce it (Lehmann 2012). An interesting concept shown in Figure 2 represents the
definition of sustainability through the use of word clouds. Word clouds visually represent
concepts through different font styles/sizes to demonstrate the frequency of a term. In this
example, using the phrase “definitions of sustainability”, the top ten Google searches were
used to generate a visual representation for this term (White 2013).
2
Leah Kelly -Sustainable Development Critique
Figure 2 Word Cloud (White)
Analysing the various concepts of SD, it is apparent that common among most definitions
are three components which are the foundation of sustainable development. The central
elements or dimensions include economic, social & environmental factors which should be
equally balanced to achieve sustainable development (United Nations 2016a). Also,
underpinning all aspects is the implication that sustainability is a target to aim for with each
definition referring to the future, using sustainable development to reach this goal. Thus,
conclude that although there are many definitions for sustainable development, they all
contain the same core elements. Drawing from each dimension, we can define sustainable
development as a process of striving to achieve sustainability, by considering economic,
social and environmental factors equally.
Framework for Assessing Sustainable Developments
Engineers Australia (2017) states one of the key elements of an engineering associate is to
‘establish criteria/performance measures. Defining sustainable development has, in turn,
provided a base for assessing almost any process or project for its potential sustainability.
The dimensions which comprise of the three core elements, also portrayed as ‘profit, people,
planet’(CSR Ambassadors 2015), are viewed as the foundation for achieving sustainability
providing equal attention is given to each. Figure 3 demonstrates the three fundamental
components acting as pillars to uphold sustainability (Heijungs, Huppes & Guinée 2010).
Commonly referred to as the ‘three pillars’ for this reason, they have become a widely
adopted framework for evaluating sustainability. One of the more common examples utilised
is the ‘triple bottom line’ (Dowling et al. 2016). Termed by John Elkington in 1980, he
describes the expression as “a framework for measuring and reporting corporate
performance against economic, social and environmental parameters” (Elkington, J 1980,
cited in Dowling et al. 2016 p 119). Although referring to the framework in a corporate sense,
the principal can be applied to assess a variety of engineering challenges (Dowling et al.
2016), implemented by numerous corporations and organisations around the world.
Figure 3 Three Pillars of Sustainable Development (Heijungs, Huppes & Guinée 2010)
3
Leah Kelly -Sustainable Development Critique
In the same way, as there are differences of meanings for sustainable development, there
are different adaptations of the triple bottom line. Equally, these alternatives derive through
having a need to expand and incorporate new pillars to suit the needs of the application. The
following figures represent some adapted models of the triple bottom line. The most common
representation sees all elements equally denoted, highlighting the overlap which portrays
where sustainability is reached (see below in figure 4).Similarly, figure 5, depicting the
framework for large oil & gas (Wood, Lamberson & Mokhatab 2011), has all three pillars
equally, yet adds the additional safety component to meet the needs of their business.
Alternatively, the Sustainable Development Commission (2011b) uses the three most
important principles, but includes two additional categories ‘using sound science responsibly’
and also incorporating ‘good governance’.
Figure 4 ‘Triple Bottom Line (TBL)’ (CSR Ambassadors
2015)
Figure 5 ‘Triple Bottom Line’ Large Oil & Gas (Wood,
Lamberson & Mokhatab 2011)
Figure 6 Five Principles of Sustainable Development’ in its Shared Framework for Sustainable Development (Sustainable
Development Commission)
1
Leah Kelly -Sustainable Development Critique
By considering these and other current practices for establishing a framework to assess a
process, it would appear the most straightforward and efficient method is to utilise the triple
bottom line analysis. This process is uncomplicated yet thorough and will address all the
critical issues facing sustainability when conducting the critique of solar PV systems.
There are many factors to consider in analysing the life cycle of solar PV systems. Sourcing
materials, manufacturing, operation and end-of-life recycling are all aspects to study. One of
the most common methods addressing all of these critical points is the life cycle analysis
(LCA) (Heijungs, Huppes & Guinée 2010). This widely adopted method, when applied to a
solar PV system, will highlight efficiencies and inefficacies. Often the term ‘energy pay back
time’ (EPBT) is referred to in LCA’s on a solar PV system. This function generally refers to
assessing the system against current energy use. Alternatively, evaluating an individual
system may be beneficial in an LCA to highlight areas that need to be improved (Kannan et
al. 2006). These are a few of the current methods used to assess the sustainability of a solar
PV system. In the following tables, this assessment will critique the key indicators of solar
PV systems against the three pillars of sustainability, economics, society and environmental
and provide recommendations for improvements.
Aspects of Solar PV Systems that are Sustainable or Show High Potential for
improvement
Table 1 Triple bottom line analysis Installation/Operation of Solar PV Systems

2
Leah Kelly -Sustainable Development Critique
Table 2 Triple bottom line analysis End of Life Recycle of Solar PV Systems

Recommendations
Costs associated with installation and purchase of systems initially tends to be high (Energy
Informative 2014). With the majority of solar manufacturing moving to China, reduced
production costs are to minimise the cost of the systems themselves in turn. As solar energy
becomes more attractive to consumers, there becomes a greater demand, presenting
another issue, as more and more solar PV systems come to their end of life. (McDonald &
Pearce 2010) This is why end of life recycling is such an important part in making solar PV
modules completely sustainable (Orecchini 2007). Recently, leading industry representatives
have formed a group entitled CABRISS (2015), which is an acronym for “Implementation of a
CirculAr Economy Based on Recycled, reused, and recovered Indium, Silicon and Silver
materials for photovoltaic and other applications”. CABRISS is a European body made up of
research institutes and industry companies who sole focus is on creating a cradle to cradle
or ‘closed circle’ approach to the photovoltaic industry.
Aspects of solar PV systems that are unsustainable or low potential for
improvement
Table 3 Triple bottom line analysis Materials of Solar PV Systems

3
Leah Kelly -Sustainable Development Critique
Table 4 Triple bottom line analysis Manufacturing of Solar PV Systems

Recommendations
More research needs to be done into alternative, cost effective, sustainable materials to
produce solar modules. This will ensure the longevity of our natural resources and
environment. Similarly further engineering solutions need to be investigated to reduce the
cost of manufacturing modules (Heijungs, Huppes & Guinée 2010). Advancements are being
made in organic solar cells which have the capability to be moulded into many forms of
mediums. This technology is deemed to be less expensive but more flexible in design terms
than its predecessor (PhysOrg 2016). Researching further methods and materials would be
beneficial to increase the sustainability of these factors.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, solar PV systems are not entirely sustainable, however as key indicators
show, it is more viable than other methods. Research is ramping up, investigating new
technologies to combat the sustainability of solar PV modules. With a focus put on end of life
recycling and closed cycle methods, new sustainable materials and manufacturing
processes, exploration of this area will ensure the complete sustainability of a solar PV
system.
,
4
Leah Kelly -Sustainable Development Critique
References
BHP Billiton 2008, POL.004 Sustainable Development Policy viewed 29.04.17,
http://eisdocs.dsdip.qld.gov.au/Bowen%20Basin%20Coal%20Growth%20Proj%202%20-
%20Caval%20Ridge%20Mine/EIS/Appendix/app-r1bhp-sustainable-development-policy.pdf
CABRISS 2015, Implementation of CirculAr economy Based on Recylced, reused and
recovered Indium, silicon and Silver materials for photvoltaic and pther applications, viewed
01.05.17, http://www.spire2030.eu/cabriss
CSR Ambassadors 2015, Triple Bottom Line, viewed 19.04.17,
http://www.csrambassadors.com
Dowling, D, Hadgraft, R, Carew, A, MCCarthy, T, Hargreaves, D & Baille, C 2016,
Engineering Your Future: An Australasian Guide Thrid edn, John Wiley & Sons Australia,
Ltd, Milton, Queensland.
Energy Informative 2014, Solar Energy Pros and Cons, viewed 30.05.17,
http://energyinformative.org/solar-energy-pros-and-cons/
Engineers Australia 2017, Stage 1 Competency Standards for Engineering Associate,
viewed 29.04.17, https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/content-files/2017-
02/130607_stage_1_ea_2013_approved.pdf
Heijungs, R, Huppes, G & Guinée, JB 2010, ‘Life cycle assessment and sustainability
analysis of products, materials and technologies. Toward a scientific framework for
sustainability life cycle analysis’, Polymer Degradation and Stability, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 422-
428.
Kannan, R, Leong, KC, Osman, R, Ho, HK & Tso, CP 2006, ‘Life cycle assessment study of
solar PV systems: An example of a 2.7kW.sub.p distributed solar PV system in
Singapore.(Report)’, Solar Energy, vol. 80, no. 5, p. 555.
Lehmann, S 2012, For a truly sustainable world, we need zero waste cities, viewed
19.04.17, http://theconversation.com/au
McDonald, NC & Pearce, JM 2010, ‘Producer responsibility and recycling solar photovoltaic
modules’, Energy Policy, vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 7041-7047.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 2016, Solar Photovoltaic Technology Basics,
https://www.nrel.gov
Orecchini, F 2007, ‘A “measurable” definition of sustainable development based on closed
cycles of resources and its application to energy systems’, Sustain Sci, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 245-
252.
5
Leah Kelly -Sustainable Development Critique
PhysOrg 2016, New material for efficient and sustainable organic solar cells as an
alternative to standard silicon cells
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-07-material-efficient-sustainable-solarcells.html#jCp, viewed 02.05.17, https://phys.org/news/2016-07-material-efficientsustainable-solar-cells.html#jCp
Sustainable Development Commission 2011a, History of SD, viewed 15.04.17,
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk
Sustainable Development Commission 2011b, The Principals, viewed 28.04.17,
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk
United Nations 2016a, Sustainable Development Goals, 17 goals to transform our world,
viewed 18.04.2017, http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/.
United Nations 2016b, Sustainable Development of Tourism, Definition, viewed 27.04.17,
http://sdt.unwto.org.
White, MA 2013, ‘Sustainability : I know it when I see it’, Ecological economics : the
transdisciplinary journal of the International Society for Ecological Economics, pp. 213-217.
Wood, DA, Lamberson, G & Mokhatab, S 2011, ‘Staffing strategies for large projects must
tackle many diverse issues’, Oil & Gas Financial Journal,

The post ENAG11008 – Professional and Sustainable Engineering Practice appeared first on My Assignment Online.