Resource efficient recovery of critical and precious metals from waste silicon PV panel recycling

Although the amount of waste photovoltaic (PV)panels is expected to grow exponentially in the next decades, little research on the resource efficiency of their recycling has been conducted so far. The article analyses the performance of different processes for the recycling of crystalline silicon PV waste, in a life cycle perspective. The life cycle impacts of the recycling are compared, under different scenarios, to the environmental benefits of secondary raw materials recovered. Base-case recycling has a low efficiency and, in some cases, not even in line with legislative targets. Conversely, high-efficient recycling can meet these targets and allows to recover high quality materials (as silicon, glass and silver)that are generally lost in base-case recycling. The benefits due to the recovery of these materials counterbalance the larger impacts of the high-efficiency recycling process. Considering the full life cycle of the panel, the energy produced by the panel grants the most significant environmental benefits. However, benefits due to high-efficient recycling are relevant for some impact categories, especially for the resource depletion indicator. The article also points out that thermal treatments are generally necessary to grant the high efficiency in the recycling. Nevertheless, these treatments have to be carefully assessed since they can be responsible for the emissions of air pollutants (as hydrogen fluoride potentially released from the combustion of halogenated plastics in the panel's backsheet). The article also identifies and assesses potential modifications to the high-efficiency recycling process, including the delocalisation of some treatments for the optimisation of waste transport and the introduction of pyrolysis in the thermal processing of the waste. Finally, recommendations for product designers, recyclers and policymakers are discussed, in order to improve the resource efficiency of future PV panels

Assessment of the methodology for establishing the EU list of critical raw materials : background report

This report presents the results of work carried out by the Directorate General (DG) Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission (EC), in close cooperation with Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (GROW), in the context of the revision of the EC methodology that was used to identify the list of critical raw materials (CRMs) for the EU in 2011 and 2014 (EC 2011, 2014). As a background report, it complements the corresponding Guidelines Document, which contains the "ready-to-apply" methodology for updating the list of CRMs in 2017. This background report highlights the needs for updating the EC criticality methodology, the analysis and the proposals for improvement with related examples, discussion and justifications. However, a few initial remarks are necessary to clarify the context, the objectives of the revision and the approach. As the in-house scientific service of the EC, DG JRC was asked to provide scientific advice to DG GROW in order to assess the current methodology, identify aspects that have to be adapted to better address the needs and expectations of the list of CRMs and ultimately propose an improved and integrated methodology. This work was conducted closely in consultation with the adhoc working group on CRMs, who participated in regular discussions and provided informed expert feedback. The analysis and subsequent revision started from the assumption that the methodology used for the 2011 and 2014 CRMs lists proved to be reliable and robust and, therefore, the JRC mandate was focused on fine-tuning and/or targeted incremental methodological improvements. An in depth re-discussion of fundamentals of criticality assessment and/or major changes to the EC methodology were not within the scope of this work. High priority was given to ensure good comparability with the criticality exercises of 2011 and 2014. The existing methodology was therefore retained, except for specific aspects for which there were policy and/or stakeholder needs on the one hand, or strong scientific reasons for refinement of the methodology on the other. This was partially facilitated through intensive dialogue with DG GROW, the CRM adhoc working group, other key EU and extra-EU stakeholders