Although solar panels can benefit the environment due to their high recyclability, too many people simply just dispose of them, causing this trend-setting form of energy to potentially impact the environment negatively. Thus, while solar panels could be better for the environment compared to fossil fuels, they must be recycled for them to actually do so.
It becomes counterproductive if solar panels are just dumped into landfills. In fact, one might argue that they actually become quite costly in multiple ways: costly for the environment due to the financial aspect of making them, and costly to the ground soil by disposing of them improperly.
Weighing the costs:
To examine this, one first needs to understand what components go into making solar panels. Raw materials–such as pure silicon, glass, aluminum, copper, and silver–must be processed into the solar cells, while also still needing protective frames, wiring comments, and racking…and this is assuming that batteries aren’t required along with it, notes the United States Department of Energy.
Another site, Mackinac Center for Public Policy, outlines that the processes required to make solar arrays also generate sundry byproducts that are harmful to the environment–such as carbon and sulfur dioxide, along with silicon tetrachloride waste. While this particular site’s aim is to advance a “limited government in Michigan,” they do make numerous valid points about solar panels that extend globally. One of those points is that solar produces 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear energy does.
What this means is that, for solar to produce the same amount of power as nuclear energy, it’s 300-times more toxic for the environment–assuming that every solar panel is used to its recommended life time, then discarded.
But, if users were to recycle them instead, then the equation becomes this: 300 x 0 (Not Recycled percentage). In essence, if 100% of solar panels were recycled, an equation that provides a rough idea of this would be 300 x 0.0, as 0% of solar panels would be thrown away, leading to solar being much cleaner than nuclear. But, as stated via an abundance of reputable sources–including abc.net.au, blog.ucs.org, pnas.org, bloomberg.com, and werecyclesolar.com–all claim that only about 10% of solar panels make it to a recycling center, while the rest are sent to landfills.
This means the equation now becomes 300 x 0.90 = 270. Thus, solar is about 270-times more toxic, since only 10% of solar panels are actually recycled. However, this is not a slander on the value of solar panels; it simply highlights the necessity to interlock the recycling aspect to it. If this country makes a dedicated effort to recycle solar panels, it could hit that 0-times more toxic level that is desired.
Nothing lasts forever:
When assessing the value of solar panels, one must also consider their lifespan. Writers for energysage.com break this down: “Your solar panels should last at least 25 years—but some will last up to 40,” making their longevity enviable. They base their conclusion through this fact: “A 2024 study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) analyzing data through 2022 found that solar panels have a median performance loss of 0.75% per year.” This now moves the discussion into whether the initial cost to make the panels is worth the longevity of them. The answer is that, with the appropriate recycling infrastructure in place, solar panels can become extremely affordable. Look no further than the European Union as proof.
As the Union of Concerned Scientists states, “In the EU, on the other hand, recycling costs $0.75 per panel because of mandates requiring manufactures pay into a fund that subsidizes recycling. Consequently, in the EU, solar recycling rates reach 95%.” One can assume that if the United States had mandates on solar panels as the EU does, it could drop the cost of recycling and make it a much more viable option.
As with most issues, though, it boils down to cost. “Recycling a solar panel in the U.S. can cost $15-$45, while sending a panel to the landfill only costs $1-5,” according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. With that said, solar panels’ strongest point is being environmentally friendly; yet, their recyclability isn’t even being utilized–negating their benefit and only harming the environment for little return. This is because, while they are 95% recyclable, the environmental cost of making a brand new panel with new materials is high, due to the refinement of silver and silicone that is required to produce a solar panel, leaving behind harmful byproducts during the process.
As the Union of Concerned Scientists adds, “The PV cell manufacturing process includes a number of hazardous materials, most of which are used to clean and purify the semiconductor surface. These chemicals, similar to those used in the general semiconductor industry, include hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, 1,1,1-trichlorethane, and acetone.”
Not all energy is created equal:
One group educating others on the issue is a global student-led organization out of Canada called Student Energy. As studentenergy.org explains, it is critical that people understand the difference between the two types of solar energy harnessing–Solar Photovoltaics and Solar Thermal–before assessing its value against fossil fuels. Solar Photovoltaic converts sunlight into direct current electricity by using semiconductors, while Solar Thermal uses the heat from the sun to make electricity. Both processes are considered eco-friendly, with little-to-no impact on the surrounding environment–while the same cannot be said for fossil fuels.
There are three major types of fossil fuels, according to studentenergy.org: coal, oil, and natural gas. All three are finite and are made from organisms–coal being formed from plants that harden due to pressure and heat. Oil forms from smaller organisms undergoing intense amounts of pressure, causing it to decompose into oil. And, natural gas is the same as oil, except that it evolves over a longer period of time, with more heat and pressure.
So, on top of being a finite resource, fossil fuels are fraught with a phonebook of byproducts ranging from concerns of thermal pollution to carbon monoxide. Therefore, it would be to everyone’s benefit to further explore the recycling aspect to solar panels.
Moving forward:
While solar is the frontrunner for renewable energy, its potential negative impact on the environment is outweighing all else at the moment because of the byproducts associated with producing them without the mandate on recycling them. The U.S. needs to shed more light on the need to recycle solar panels, while also making it easier to do so. As long as it remains easier and cheaper to turn a blind eye to this reality, the issue will simply be pushed off to another generation to solve. By then, it may be too late.
