Solar panels are starting to die. What will we do with the megatons of toxic trash?
By: Maddie Stone (Grist)
In the United States, environmentalists tend to bury their heads in the sand and depend upon NIMBY fixes for the problems they create. Quite fitting in the case of solar panels.
A manufacturing base could utilize old, decommissioned solar panels as a feedstock to produce new panels. And the cost of recycling would be factored into the price of new panels since the manufacturers would also be the recyclers. But environmentalists have adamantly opposed manufacturing in the United States and have advocated the NIMBY solution of importing manufactured goods while exporting the waste. That does provide an accountant's 'feel good' victory but is far from being environmentally friendly.
Quick NIMBY fixes that depend upon shifting the environmental burden to other countries aren't sustainable. The sustainable environmental solution is to build an industrial base that can also serve as recyclers. That would certainly be unattractive to profiteering environmentalists. But producing what we consume from what we throw away is really the only way to be environmentally responsible.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Solar panels are an increasingly important source of renewable power that will play an essential role in fighting climate change. They are also complex pieces of technology that become big, bulky sheets of electronic waste at the end of their lives — and right now, most of the world doesn't have a plan for dealing with that.
But we'll need to develop one soon, because the solar e-waste glut is coming. By 2050, the International Renewable Energy Agency projects that up to 78 million metric tons of solar panels will have reached the end of their life, and that the world will be generating about 6 million metric tons of new solar e-waste annually. While the latter number is a small fraction of the total e-waste humanity produces each year, standard electronics recycling methods don't cut it for solar panels. Recovering the most valuable materials from one, including silver and silicon, requires bespoke recycling solutions. And if we fail to develop those solutions along with policies that support their widespread adoption, we already know what will happen.
"If we don't mandate recycling, many of the modules will go to landfill," said Arizona State University solar researcher Meng Tao, who recently authored a review paper on recycling silicon solar panels, which comprise 95 percent of the solar market.
Solar panels are composed of photovoltaic (PV) cells that convert sunlight to electricity. When these panels enter landfills, valuable resources go to waste. And because solar panels contain toxic materials like lead that can leach out as they break down, landfilling also creates new environmental hazards.
Most solar manufacturers claim their panels will last for about 25 years, and the world didn't start deploying solar widely until the early 2000s. As a result, a fairly small number of solar panels are being decommissioned today. PV CYCLE, a nonprofit dedicated to solar panel takeback and recycling, collects several thousand tons of solar e-waste across the European Union each year, according to director Jan Clyncke. That figure includes solar panels that have reached the end of their life, but also those that were decommissioned early because they were damaged during a storm, had some sort of manufacturer defect, or got replaced with a newer, more efficient model.
When solar panels do reach their end of their life today, they face a few possible fates. Under E.U. law, producers are required to ensure their solar panels are recycled properly. In Japan, India, and Australia, recycling requirements are in the works. In the United States, it's the Wild West: With the exception of a state law in Washington, the U.S. has no solar recycling mandates whatsoever. Voluntary, industry-led recycling efforts are limited in scope. "Right now, we're pretty confident the number is around 10 percent of solar panels recycled," said Sam Vanderhoof, the CEO of Recycle PV Solar, one of the only U.S. companies dedicated to PV recycling. The rest, he says, go to landfills or are exported overseas for reuse in developing countries with weak environmental protections.
Even when recycling happens, there's a lot of room for improvement. A solar panel is essentially an electronic sandwich. The filling is a thin layer of crystalline silicon cells, which are insulated and protected from the elements on both sides by sheets of polymers and glass. It's all held together in an aluminum frame. On the back of the panel, a junction box contains copper wiring that channels electricity away as it's being generated.
At a typical e-waste facility, this high-tech sandwich will be treated crudely. Recyclers often take off the panel's frame and its junction box to recover the aluminum and copper, then shred the rest of the module, including the glass, polymers, and silicon cells, which get coated in a silver electrode and soldered using tin and lead. (Because the vast majority of that mixture by weight is glass, the resultant product is considered an impure, crushed glass.) Tao and his colleagues estimate that a recycler taking apart a standard, 60-cell silicon panel can get about $3 for the recovered aluminum, copper, and glass. Vanderhoof, meanwhile, says that the cost of recycling that panel in the U.S. is anywhere between $12 and $25 — after transportation costs, which "oftentimes equal the cost to recycle." At the same time, in states that allow it, it typically costs less than a dollar to dump a solar panel in a solid waste landfill.
"We believe the big blind spot in the U.S. for recycling is that the cost far exceeds the revenue," Meng said. "It's on the order of a 10-to-1 ratio."
If a solar panel's more valuable components — namely, the silicon and silver — could be separated and purified efficiently, that could improve that cost-to-revenue ratio. A small number of dedicated solar PV recyclers are trying to do this. Veolia, which runs the world's only commercial-scale silicon PV recycling plant in France, shreds and grinds up panels and then uses an optical technique to recover low-purity silicon. According to Vanderhoof, Recycle PV Solar initially used a "heat process and a ball mill process" that could recapture more than 90 percent of the materials present in a panel, including low-purity silver and silicon. But the company recently received some new equipment from its European partners that can do "95 plus percent recapture," he said, while separating the recaptured materials much better.
Some PV researchers want to do even better than that. In another recent review paper, a team led by National Renewable Energy Laboratory scientists calls for the development of new recycling processes where all metals and minerals are recovered at high purity, with the goal of making recycling as economically viable and as environmentally beneficial as possible. As lead study author Garvin Heath explains, such processes might include using heat or chemical treatments to separate the glass from the silicon cells, followed by the application of other chemical or electrical techniques to separate and purify the silicon and various trace metals.
"What we call for is what we name a high-value, integrated recycling system," Heath told Grist. "High-value means we want to recover all the constituent materials that have value from these modules. Integrated refers to a recycling process that can go after all of these materials, and not have to cascade from one recycler to the next."
In addition to developing better recycling methods, the solar industry should be thinking about how to repurpose panels whenever possible, since used solar panels are likely to fetch a higher price than the metals and minerals inside them (and since reuse generally requires less energy than recycling). As is the case with recycling, the E.U. is out in front on this: Through its Circular Business Models for the Solar Power Industry program, the European Commission is funding a range of demonstration projects showing how solar panels from rooftops and solar farms can be repurposed, including for powering e-bike charging stations in Berlin and housing complexes in Belgium.
Recycle PV Solar also recertifies and resells good-condition panels it receives, which Vanderhoof says helps to offset the cost of recycling. However, both he and Tao are concerned that various U.S. recyclers are selling second-hand solar panels with low quality control overseas to developing countries. "And those countries typically don't have regulations for electronics waste," Tao said. "So eventually, you're dumping your problem on a poor country."
For the solar recycling industry to grow sustainably, it will ultimately need supportive policies and regulations. The E.U. model of having producers finance the takeback and recycling of solar panels might be a good one for the U.S. to emulate. But before that's going to happen, U.S. lawmakers need to recognize that the problem exists and is only getting bigger, which is why Vanderhoof spends a great deal of time educating them.
"We need to face the fact that solar panels do fail over time, and there's a lot of them out there," he said. "And what do we do when they start to fail? It's not right throwing that responsibility on the consumer, and that's where we're at right now."
Tags
Who is online
92 visitors
Another problem created by profiteering environmentalists who depend upon dumping the problem onto poor countries. NIMBY environmentalism only exploits poor countries to make money.
Doesn't every industrialized nation or corporations do that? Jobs are outsourced to poor countries because of cheaper labor costs.
Did an environmental scientist drop you on your head as a baby? Your hostility is misplaced.
It keeps turning out that "clean energy" isn't as clean as they say.
Clean energy has been highly profitable. NIMBY environmentalism is really about chasing dirty profits.
Thanks to Government Subsidies.
Still cleaner than fossil fuels.
In some ways, yes, obviously. Not so much in less obvious ways. For example, all the exotic metals and plastics required to construct a lot of the hardware that collects and utilizes "clean energy" generates their own pollution in myriad ways from construction to disposal. Energy and pollution are far more complicated than smokestacks and tailpipes.
Of course you never hear about that stuff when politicians are trying to sell the public on how clean energy will save the world. And since support for clean energy is being marketed politically - and knowing what I know about corporations and politicians - I'm going to assume that there is a significant downside they aren't going to admit until you wring it out of them.
That doesn't mean I oppose alternative energy sources, but stories like this are a bit of a justifiable "a-ha!" moment.
One has to look at overall pollution over the long term. While pollution can be generated producing clean energy sources like solar panels, the panels themselves do not produce pollution over their lifespan, unlike other energy sources. That amounts to a net savings in pollution.
We already know "dirty" energy is "destroying" the world. And I doubt anyone actually thinks clean energy will save the world. It's only a supplemental source and is much less in quantity. But energy sources like fossil fuels are finite and non-renewable. Once those sources are finally depleted, we'll have no choice but to rely on clean sources. Best to get the ball rolling on that now and develop the necessary sources and infrastructure over time rather than waiting for the inevitable decline and not be prepared.
No doubt there are spins on every story. Even "clean" sources like hydroelectric sources carry their own environmental changes or damage. Not to mention clean sources tend to generate less overall power, even if they are efficient and less polluting. But unless we develop sustainable, clean, high energy sources like fusion power, we will gradually become increasingly reliant on alternative sources of energy as current resources decline and become more costly. Clean energy sources coupled with current sources may help mitigate any environmental effects and provide adequate energy means, while slowing the consumption of resources. Until we develop something better, perhaps we just need to be smarter about it.
This is something Washington should be working on. Instead Trump guts the EPA and wants to go back to incandescent bulbs.
Yep. Instead of looking at any problems, what are they worried about? Reversing an edict on low flow shower heads.
What's wrong with incandescent bulbs? Replacing one problem with a different problem isn't really a solution.
LED bulbs not as eco-friendly as some might think
While the switch to different bulbs has certainly provided short-term profits, has that switch really been environmentally responsible? Is exporting a different type of waste to Malaysia really a solution?
They use and waste more energy, generate more heat, and do not last as long as fluorescent or LCD bulbs.
I just noticed my typo. That should be LED lights. My bad.
I actually like the LEDs better.
Same. I resisted at first, especially with Christmas lights. The early LEDs had a bluish white light that I didn't like. But newer ones have a yellower light that looks a bit warmer, so I like them better.
It's nice that they don't get as hot, too. No more burning my fingers when I change a light bulb, which isn't very often with LEDs, anyway.
I like them too.
I was hesitant at first too. Now I wouldn't go back. All my overhead lights I switched to LED and everything else has the LED bulbs. The overhead lights are actually really bright.
I haven't switched the Xmas lights yet. Have so many different old ones.
Now with the smart bulbs and the colour changing bulbs, it is a new world. Haha
I have a pre-lit tree that changes colors (or stays white), and pre-lit garland that I put on my porch railing that has several different settings and color choices. When my son discovered that the tree would blink back and forth between white and multicolor settings, he kept changing it to that. While I was putting the ornaments on it. Just about drove my eyes insane.
I do still miss my old garland that had bulbs that flickered like candlelight, though. So pretty. But it shorted out.
I know some people that would throw old strings of lights on the bonfire. Believe it or not they make colour. May be a little toxic. : )
They also got a live tree every year and it would end up on the fire. That is a trip they way those things go up in flames.
They sound like fun folks. Seems like watching how fast a Christmas tree burns would be a good argument for an artificial one.
Definitely would be. Once the thing starts, the whole tree engulfs. Shoots flames and embers way up. Someone took a vid of it once. Need to see if I can find it.
Solar panels do not simply become non-functional once they reach their estimated lifespan. As they reach their lifespan, their efficiency begins to drop. So they'll still convert sunlight to electricity. Just not as efficiently as they did when they were new. But even with reduced efficiency, they can be functional and productive for a number of years. Of course, there are other factors which determines their efficiency, before and after their estimated lifespan. Solar technology has also improved over time, allowing for higher efficiencies in newer panels. Kind of like auto engine technology has made them more fuel efficient. The use of solar in its early days was also not as widespread as it is now. So panels that are near the end of their lifespan are probably not that numerous. But during the 25 year span, the panel is generating electricity and producing no pollution. So there is a net gain in power and a net loss in pollution. But as technology continues to improve, it's reasonable that solar panel efficiency and functional lifespan will also be increased, further maximizing energy gains and pollution reduction.
Recycling of everything is way down. Our town just dropped curbside recycling because trash companies would not bid on it, that displeased me a lot
I talked to someone who works at the landfill. He said even the stuff we take to the dump sites and sort for recycling ends up mostly in the landfill. It has to be "pristine" (his word) to be recycled.
I have been told that too
Our dump pulls electronics to the side, and appliances.
Everything else seems to go in the landfill.
Electronics are dropped off separately from other trash, but I'm not sure what happens to them after that. We have to pay to dispose of televisions. At each dump site in the county, there is a compactor for most trash, and dumpsters for recyclables. It's a bit discouraging, rinsing out plastic bottles and glass jars and separating them to recycle, then finding out that they'll just go to the landfill, anyway.
Chances are, if it were pristine, it wouldn't be brought to the dump. Although, I would think metal could be recycled regardless of its condition.
I think most of it CAN be recycled. It's a matter of how much work do companies want to put into recycling it? They don't want to put much effort into cleaning laundry detergent and curdled milk out of plastic containers. And neither do the homeowners who are trying to sort and recycle. They'll give a cursory rinse and leave it at that.
Or how much incentive there is in recycling it.
True. I hear that companies that used to buy it aren't offering nearly as much now. Not enough to recoup the costs of collecting it.
Traditionally, Homo consumerus has simply thrown his waste onto a trash heap.Why should solar panel waste be handled differently?