This past February the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) released its 2025 forecast of generation capacity it expected to see added to the U.S. power system in 2025. Overall, the EIA projected 63 gigawatts of new generation, an increase of 30 percent over 2024 and the most capacity installed in a year since 2002, when a weak economy, energy efficiency initiatives, and other factors dampened demand for electricity.
At 32.5 gigawatts, most of the new generation capacity forecast in 2025 is expected to be solar, totaling more than wind, natural gas, and battery storage combined. This is not a new story. The 30 gigawatts of solar added in 2024 represented over 60 percent of new capacity additions. Given the growing demand for electricity in the U.S. and around the world, the International Energy Agency (IEA) expects an additional 4,000 gigawatts of new solar to be installed globally between 2024 and 2030.
Regardless of the accuracy of these and other forecasts, the expanding market demand for solar underscores the need to plan for how to responsibly handle the increasing volumes of modules that reach the end of their expected operating life of 25 to 30 years (or need to be replaced due to damage, malfunction, or repowering). According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), about 760 megawatts of crystalline silicon modules in the U.S. were expected to reach their end of life (EOL) in 2022. By 2030, the number of modules forecast to reach EOL each year spikes to over one gigawatt, which is about five million 245-watt modules.
Why Utilities Care About What Happens to PV Modules
The large numbers of modules reaching EOL in coming years raise many questions for project owners, module manufacturers, regulators, policymakers, and utilities. For example, crystalline silicon modules and cadmium telluride (CdTe) thin-film modules usually contain trace amounts of the heavy metals lead (Pb) and cadmium (Cd), respectively. EPRI research shows that a small fraction of modules may qualify as hazardous waste under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). A test to determine if a module is hazardous is typically required at EOL, and those that are deemed hazardous must be managed according to guidelines designed to protect human health and ecosystems.
Even when utilities don’t own solar power plants, they may need to address liability concerns related to proper EOL module disposal or recycling. In the past, for instance, utilities have had to remediate many legacy environmental damages, and there is growing awareness about the potential for environmental issues related to the energy transition. Cara Libby, an EPRI Technical Executive whose research focuses on solar EOL management issues, also notes that utilities are owning and operating more solar assets, which is raising awareness about EOL management issues. “Utilities are starting to own more solar assets and are sometimes acquiring them midlife. They understand the need to deepen their knowledge and be prepared to manage end-of-life issues.”
There is a growing recognition that managing EOL modules goes beyond mitigating potential liability risks or even promoting recycling. Instead, it’s an opportunity to secure economic, environmental, and energy security benefits through the development of a circular economy.
A circular economy is one in which material loss to landfill or energy recovery is minimized, and usable materials re-enter manufacturing streams instead of being discarded. A circular economy can expand the environmental benefits of solar, including slashing its greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 50 percent while also preserving limited supplies of critical minerals, lowering the impact of mining raw materials, and reducing PV’s levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). A circular economy for solar modules also has supply chain benefits because it reduces reliance on products imported from overseas.
Is America Ready?
PV circularity has the potential to deliver myriad benefits, but it also depends on having a sufficiently large and financially sustainable domestic ecosystem for manufacturing, repairing and refurbishing, reusing, and recycling PV modules. Assessing the current capacity, capabilities, and challenges faced by the repair, reuse, and recycling portion of that ecosystem was the objective of a report, Review of End-of-Life Solar Photovoltaic Services in the United States, released last year.
The report is based on information and data from 12 U.S. EOL service providers, 11 of whom completed an online questionnaire and seven who also participated in a one-hour interview with EPRI. Topics covered in the questionnaire and interviews included business focus areas, facility capacity, years of experience, types of modules accepted, recycling processes and repair services, as well as environmental accreditations and certifications. The study also identified research and development (R&D) gaps to guide future studies.
One of the main takeaways from the study is that the EOL industry in the U.S. is maturing and expanding. For instance, the combined recycling capacity of seven crystalline silicon module recyclers is enough to support NREL’s prediction of the volume of EOL modules of that type through 2030. EOL service providers also indicated plans to expand capacity. Because EPRI received responses from 12 of the 27 U.S. EOL service providers contacted, the actual capacity may be larger.
However, there is some nuance in understanding available capacity. “Some of the capacity reported by recyclers may include capacity that they currently use to manage e-waste or automotive windshields, for example,” Libby said. “It may not be dedicated capacity for solar that’s just sitting idle.”
Based on annual throughput for the same recyclers and NREL’s estimate for EOL modules in 2022, EPRI estimates that the current U.S. recycling rate for PV modules is at least 10 to 12 percent. If CdTe modules, which represented 21 percent of PV installed in the U.S. in 2022, were included in the calculation, the overall recycling rate would likely be higher. That’s because the largest CdTe manufacturer, First Solar, offers EOL module takeback and recycling services.
Another sign of maturity is that EOL service providers are generally able to handle trace amounts of Pb and Cd found in modules and that they collectively follow a similar process to recycle modules. It’s a process that starts with removing the frame, junction box, and cables. The glass is then separated from the encapsulant and semiconductor layers of the module, typically by mechanical crushing and shredding but sometimes through delamination. Subsequent material separation may involve additional mechanical, thermal, optical, or chemical steps.
Improving the Economics of Circularity
The reported growth in recycling capacity to handle the expected volume of modules reaching EOL matters. However, the EPRI report emphasizes that much more needs to be done to drive the widespread adoption of PV module recycling and other circularity measures. Making circularity financially attractive is crucial. As a start, the cost premium to recycle a module rather than landfill it must be overcome to encourage a greater recycling rate. According to the EOL service providers surveyed, in-house PV module recycling costs ranged from $14 to $30 per module in 2023, compared to between $1 and $5 to landfill the same module.
There are ways to drive recycling costs down, some of which are outside the control of EOL service providers. For instance, modules do not come in one standard size or configuration. So, while EOL service providers follow a standard process for disassembling modules, adjustments that slow the process down must be made to handle differing sizes. A similar uniformity in design could also help encourage module repair, which is environmentally superior to recycling.
But, encouraging design to facilitate repair and recycling is a challenge. “Manufacturers have spent years or even decades fine-tuning for efficiency and cost reduction, not for ease of repair or dismantling 30 years after a module is made,” Libby said.
The promise of PV circularity—and circular economies generally—is that the modules or materials used in modules can be given second and third lives in new applications or products. This will only happen if market drivers, policy, or financial incentives are strong enough to encourage reuse and material recovery.
For many recyclers, a significant obstacle is extracting sufficiently pure materials to ensure their market value is financially attractive. Disassembled silicon-based solar modules produce glass, aluminum, polymers, silicon, and copper. “One way to advance circularity is to develop advanced recycling technologies that produce high-purity outputs. The revenue from selling those materials into high-value markets can offset the costs of recycling, improving the overall economics,” Libby said. “Right now, that is challenging because we are hearing from recyclers that the purity of recovered silicon is too low for high-value applications like silicon carbide, silicon nitride, or use again in solar products, which have very high purity requirements.”
Policy changes and incentives encouraging recycling and circularity could help. Currently, about half of all states have decommissioning requirements; only a handful have PV recycling regulations. There are also few market signals to encourage PV module makers to use recycled materials and components or design modules that can be more easily recycled. Purchasers of modules could signal their support for recycling and circularity by requesting module makers provide products with certain sustainability attributes and encourage labeling to educate buyers about the use of recycled materials, reduced critical and hazardous material content, low carbon footprint, and other features.
The Need for Collaborative Research
There is growing interest among utilities, module manufacturers, project developers and owners, and EOL service providers in pushing PV circularity forward. First Solar, the world’s largest producer of cadmium-telluride modules, is already recapturing the cadmium and tellurium from used modules to integrate into new products. Both First Solar and Qcells have registered products that meet Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) ecolabel sustainability criteria. Partnerships are also forming between various project developers and recyclers.
Greater collaboration among stakeholders could accelerate the necessary shift towards PV circularity. EPRI is leading a series of ongoing research projects aimed at identifying knowledge gaps that limit PV circularity, developing solutions to make recycling and circularity more technically and financially viable, and enabling partnerships across the value chain.
These research projects, which benefit from the involvement of more utilities, manufacturers, developers, policymakers, and other stakeholders, are exploring a range of topics. For instance, EPRI is supporting the development of module repair and high-value recycling solutions, developing guidance on safe EOL management practices, estimating the costs of repowering and decommissioning, advancing technologies to accelerate module upcycling, and encouraging module manufacturers to make changes that bolster circularity.
Part of what is necessary is a shift away from the mindset that recycling is the only objective. Indeed, while recycling is a key component of circularity, there are financial and environmental benefits to having it as a last choice. “If you look at everything that circularity encompasses, there is a lot more than recycling,” Libby said. “Recycling is what people think of when they hear circularity. But delaying recycling as long as possible by designing modules with long lifetimes and repairing and reusing modules will be a sign of real progress towards circularity.”
EPRI Technical Expert:
Cara Libby
For more information, contact techexpert@eprijournal.com.
