Comparison of waste photovoltaic panel processing alternatives in Australia
Emily Ruth Suyanto, Massoud Sofi, Elisa Lumantarna, Lu Aye
Abstract
This work aims to compare end-of-life alternative processing scenarios of waste photovoltaic panel in Australia. Landfill, generic waste electrical and electronic equipment recycling (European business-as-usual (EU BAU)), full-recovery end-of-life photovoltaic (FRELP), and Modified FRELP are the alternative processing scenarios considered for the next five years. Environmental analysis by a simplified life cycle assessment (LCA) is performed using Material, Energy, Chemical, and Other (MECO) matrix. This semi-quantitative comparison eliminates reliance on LCA software and environmental expertise for preliminary screening. Financial analysis is also performed by using a life cycle costing (LCC) approach. Overall, comparative findings are consistent with full-quantitative LCA and LCC despite magnitude differences. Simplified analysis merely reflects process complexity and resource consumption. A full financial insight can only be acquired when non-resource-derived costs are incorporated. Considering the increasing trend of waste levies and landfill ban extending into the future, landfill is no longer the cheapest option in Australia. Consequently, mass-based waste recovery for landfill diversion facilitates cost savings. Recovering 8% more waste with FRELP compared to modified FRELP has the potential to save $19 more per tonne of processed PV waste. EU BAU is the most eco-efficient interim solution, while waste volume is still low. Modified FRELP saves 321 kg CO2-e emission by avoiding traditional incineration. The focus on reclaiming solar-grade silicon rather than silver has the potential to attract $154 more revenue per tonne compared to FRELP.