5 January 2024

About 90 per cent of our solar panels are expected to end up in landfill. Is there another way?

| James Coleman
Join the conversation
24
A worker is installing solar panel on the roof of a house

Solar panels have an estimated working lifespan of 25 to 30 years but many are decommissioned after a decade. Photo: Bill Mead.

Australia has the highest rate of solar panel usage per capita – they’re on more than 3.6 million Aussie roofs. ACT homes and businesses make up more than 39,000 of those. But there’s a problem.

The average lifespan of solar panels is estimated to be 25 to 30 years, so what happens when they reach the end of their productive life?

For many, at the moment, their final destination is landfill. In fact, UNSW Sydney estimates up to 90 per cent could end up in landfill, complete with toxic materials inside, including cadmium and lead.

The ACT Government has joined those in Victoria and South Australia in banning solar panels from entering the tip – they must be taken to e-waste drop-off points instead.

Up to 95 per cent of the materials in a solar panel can be recycled. The most valuable components are silicon and silver, but there are only tiny traces of each and companies struggle to make it worth the cost of extracting them.

According to the University of Sydney, the cost of recycling a solar panel in Australia is around $28, or roughly six times the cost of sending it to landfill ($4.50).

READ ALSO Can your school canteen pass the healthy food test? You’re about to find out in 2024

Dr Rabin Basnet from the ANU College of Engineering & Computer Science says that’s just the start of the challenge.

“Even though we say 25 to 30 years of service life in the real world, there are lots of cases where PV panels are decommissioned way before that – like in five or 10 years,” he says.

This can be because the polymer backing or the glass is cracked, letting in moisture. However, the modules inside often retain 80 per cent of their original capability.

Dr Basnet says many businesses find it easier to sell used panels to overseas buyers at bargain prices – usually in developing regions like Africa. World Vision even accepts donations of used solar panels and accessories (such as chargers, batteries and inverters) to power homes and schools in remote villages.

Other businesses simply heap them up in warehouses as a problem to deal with later or sell them through online marketplaces like Facebook and Gumtree.

building with solar panels on roof

A solar array on the roof of the Burns Club in Kambah. Photo: Ian Bushnell.

Dr Basnet is among a team of ANU researchers who have received a $214,374 grant from the ACT Government to investigate ways of changing this. Together with Mitchell-based PV Lab Australia and Circular PV Alliance, the plan is to refurbish the modules in old panels for reuse.

But that’s not the only problem.

“We need to test the modules before we can reuse them, and there is no standard procedure for this, so the first step is to create one,” he says.

However, cost remains a hurdle. New solar panels have come down in price to the point the Australian average is $0.93 per watt. In Canberra, the average price for a rooftop array ranges from $4,700 for a 3-kW system to $8,920 for a 10-kW system, including installation costs.

READ ALSO Graffiti attack on Canberra’s peace bell, Lennox Gardens memorials ‘feels like a violation’

It will be hard to justify a steeper price for those panels containing reused modules, even if they are perfectly up to the same job. Dr Basnet is banking on social pressure and lower costs swinging in their favour over time.

“We should look at it from the environmental perspective because the one thing we proudly say about PV panels is how they are a renewable source of energy. But if we use them for a few years and then dump them, we’re losing this main purpose right here.”

He adds that now is the time to get this process sorted while volumes are relatively low.

“If you look at the next five or 10 years, the volume of decommissioned modules will be very high. We are worried about the next few years rather than the moment.”

Reuse might provide a short-term solution, but recycling remains the ultimate answer.

“After reuse, there needs to be recycling, and there’s work happening on that right now around the world. I’m optimistic.”

A test facility will be set up at the ANU over the coming weeks, and the research is expected to yield its first results by the end of the year.

Join the conversation

24
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Don’t buy cheap Chinese made solar panels.

For cities, industry and just about anyone on the grid, nuclear power is a far better option in just about all respects. I’m saying that as an ex-prosletizer of solar, and, being off-grid at the moment, a user of the remote area 12v PV system I installed myself.

Capital Retro1:27 pm 08 Jan 24

Best way to dispose of them is to blow them up like the climate-crisis crazies blow up the evil coal fired power stations.

I do wish you’d go live next to a coal power plant for a while. You might learn why not everyone loves them like you do…

Capital Retro12:14 pm 09 Jan 24

The only coal fired electricity generator I am familiar with was the one at Liddell in the Hunter Valley. I regularly drove past it while it was being built but I don’t recall any houses near it. There were communities about 30km away where I called regularly on my customers and not one of them ever complained about it.

The smoke stacks dispersed the burnt coal straight into the clear layer and it quickly disappeared.

The air in the Tuggeranong Valley here in the ACT is more polluted than the air in the Hunter Valley.

https://www.health.act.gov.au/about-our-health-system/population-health/environmental-monitoring/monitoring-and-regulating-air

Great conditions at Monash today as well.

Good to see you haven’t improved in backing up your points with actual evidence. Actually explains your inability to understand the reality of climate change well.

Capital Retro9:58 am 10 Jan 24

The government owned monitor at Monash doesn’t cover all of Tuggeranong. But you knew that, didn’t you?

Capital Retro,
Did you seriously just write that comment after posting a link to the NSW government monitoring air quality stations that similarly doesn’t cover all of the Hunter Valley, whatever you think “coverage” means.

The Hunter Valley is 10 times the land area of the ACT you realise?

Similar to other air quality stations, locations are strategically chosen to give the best representative sample for the areas.

And you still haven’t provided a single shred of actual analysis to even attempt a basic support for your comments on overall air quality.

But weirdly it actually looks like you support the banning of woodfire heaters in Canberra because of the air quality problems they cause in Tuggeranong.

Do you ever tire of writing meaningless dribble and flip flopping on issues solely based on your weird ideological bent?

What are the evangelists saying – that’s right – nothing!

The biggest lie we’ve ever been sold in our generation is climate change. Someone will eventually do the calculations and work out if you add up all the impacts from manufacturing, the processing of rare earth minerals, importing panels from China, we end with a higher net cost on the environment than fossil fuels ever did! It’ll take a while though just like it took over 100 years to prove smoking causes cancer!

@Sam Oak
Your comparison of climate change ignorance to the health issues related to smoking is quite apt.
Smoking was first linked to lung cancer and other diseases in the late 1940s and early 1950s but the scientific eveidence was dismissed by the tobacco industry as it pushed a campaign to create doubt and confusion around public health research … and the ignorant punters bought it.
Similarly, the fossil fuel industry, in the face of overwhelming evidence from the scientific community, continues to push a campaign of obfuscation and misinformation about the impacts of anthropomorphic climate change … and the ignorant punters are buying it – thankfully their numbers are diminishing to the extent they are merely a squawking minority.

CO2 is the bad one. Yet methane is 10x as bad as CO2.

It’s way worse than Y2K

Want to provide some empirical evidence to back up your claims Sam?

Capital Retro10:18 am 09 Jan 24

I think you need to check what the meaning of “empirical evidence” is, JS9.
In the absence of proving something by experiment (which has never been done with “climate change”) one relies on “sensory” evidence which means common sense.

Capital Retro,
ironically you need to take you own advice. Empirical evidence is just that which is shown by observation rather than theory. The empirical evidence for climate change being real, occurring now and caused by increased CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases by humans is enormous and irrefutable. The only question is how bad the impact will actually be into the future, not whether it is occurring or not.

And that’s even ignoring the fact that JS’s question around Sam’s point, was the environmental impact and costs of moving away from fossil fuels rather than continuing their use.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.