This study focuses on the recycling of crystalline silicon (c-Si) PV modules, which account for more than 95 per cent of the market share as of 2025 (Intersolar Europe 2025). The design of a typical c-Si PV module, along with the minerals used in its manufacturing, is shown in Figure 2.

The following section summarises current technological trends for these approaches and provides details on the recycling processes considered in this study.

Recycling technologies

Solar module recycling involves three broad steps: disassembly of the module, delamination, and metal recovery. Current PV recycling technologies primarily employ mechanical processes or a combination of mechanical and thermal or chemical processes (IEA PVPS 2022), as outlined in Table 1. These processes can recover ferrous and non-ferrous metals, polymers, glass, solar cell materials, and plastics. Recovery rates are generally above 80 per cent, and the processes mainly yield aluminium frames and glass. The recovered materials are then forwarded for further processing or sent directly to secondary markets, depending on their purity levels and the requirements of the off-taker. For instance, solar PV manufacturers use solar-grade silicon (SoG-Si) with a minimum purity level of 99.9999 per cent, also referred to as 6N purity (IEA PVPS 2015). In contrast, a lower grade of silicon, such as ferrosilicon with a purity level of 75 per cent, is used in the steel industry (Gasik 2013). Purity levels, therefore, vary based on the recycling processes implemented. Recycling technologies must thus be assessed with respect to recovery rates, purity levels of the recovered materials, possible limitations, and their stage of development, which is defined by technology readiness levels (TRLs). This approach facilitates the identification of recycling technologies that are technically and financially viable for implementation, as well as those that require support for further development.

Figure 2. A typical crystalline silicon (c-Si) PV module design highlighting intrinsic materials

Source: Garvin et al. 2020. “Research and Development Priorities for Silicon Photovoltaic Module Recycling to Support a Circular Economy.” Nature Energy 5 (7). 

Table 1. Comparison of different solar PV recycling processes at various stages of development

Source: Authors’ compilation from multiple sources (listed in Table 1) 

Note: The authors have assigned the TRLs to each recycling process based on their assessment of the technological readiness in each process.

Recycling pathways modelled for financial analysis

We modelled two solar module recycling pathways for the financial analysis. Each pathway employs a distinct recycling technology that results in the extraction of different materials.

Mechanical recycling

This pathway uses only mechanical operations to recover materials from solar PV modules (Figure ES2). It is one of the most commonly used methods of solar module recycling (IEA PVPS 2022).

Mechanical recycling (P1) begins with the disassembly of the PV modules.8 This yields de-framed modules, with aluminium frames and junction boxes as outputs. While modules are de-framed using machines, junction boxes can be removed either manually or mechanically. For our analysis, we assumed a mechanical process. The next step involves separating the glass from the de-framed laminated module using a machine. The remaining laminated structure is processed through a shredder, crusher, and grinder to create a fine powder containing solar cells, polymeric backsheets, and EVA encapsulants.

Various methods can then be applied to further refine this mixture (Figure ES2). Table 2 describes the mechanisms of each method and the corresponding recovered materials. For our analysis, we selected electrostatic separation as it is a low-cost, environmentally friendly method widely used to recover materials from other waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (Li et al. 2023). The equipment used to separate materials includes a screw conveyor, a cyclone, an electrostatic separator, and a dust collector. If any glass granules remain in the mixture, they can be separated through a sieving operation.

At the end of P1, the recovered materials include aluminium, crushed glass, silicon powder (ferrosilicon), low-quality copper (including polymer residues and silicon powder), and polymer powder. Silver is not recovered in this process. Both silicon and copper require further refining before they can be put to secondary use, especially in the solar industry. The dust collected during this process mainly consists of glass and polymer powder; it has buyers in the secondary market and is used as an alternative to sand in the construction industry (ENGIE 2021). Recovery rates for the various materials in P1 are presented in Table 3.

Table 2. Electrostatic separation is a widely used method to recover materials from electronic waste

Source: Authors’ adaptation from Deng, Rong, Yuting Zhuo and Yansong Shen. 2022. “Recent progress in silicon photovoltaic module recycling processes.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 

Chemical recycling

The chemical recycling pathway (P2) combines mechanical and thermal steps with chemical recycling processes to recover individual metals from solar modules. After removing the glass from de-framed modules, which is similar to the process in P1, the remaining laminate is shredded and crushed. If any glass granules remain, they can be separated using optical or screening operations. The remaining mixture then undergoes thermal treatment, such as pyrolysis, to burn off the polymer (encapsulant and backsheet) present in it; the entire polymer is lost in this step. This is necessary to expose the silicon cell surfaces so that metals can leach out during the subsequent chemical stage (Tao et al. 2023). The resulting mixture contains fragments of silicon cells and clippings from busbars, some of which also appear as fine particles. The metals present in this mixture are silicon and silver from the cells, and copper from the ribbons in the cells and busbars.

Table 3. Mechanical recycling with electrostatic separation has an overall material recovery rate of 87% by weight

Source: Authors’ compilation from stakeholder consultations and Suny Group. “Solutions for Solar PV Panel Recycling.” 2023.

The mixture is then leached with nitric acid (HNO₃) to extract silver from the cells and copper from the ribbons and busbars. A sequential electrowinning process is employed to recover silver and copper from this leachate, achieving recovery rates of 74 per cent and 83 per cent, respectively, with a minimum purity of 99 per cent (Wen-Hsi Huang 2017). The remaining silicon cell fragments are treated with hydrofluoric acid (HF) to remove the silicon nitride (SiN_X) anti-reflective layer from the cell’s surface (see Figure 2). Aluminium is then removed from the cell’s back surface using a sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution. The final product is crushed silicon wafers or metallurgical-grade silicon (MGSi), with a recovery rate of 90 per cent. Used chemicals are neutralised and disposed of safely.⁹ Table 4 summarises the recovery rates of various materials in the chemical process.

Table 4. Chemical recycling allows the recovery of high-purity critical and precious metals from solar modules

Source: Authors’ compliation from Wen-Hsi Huang et al. 2017. “Strategy and Technology to Recycle Wafer-Silicon Solar Modules.” Solar Energy (144): 22–31 and Suny Group. 2023. “Solutions for Solar PV Panel Recycling.”

This section describes the approach used for the financial assessment of c-Si module recycling, focusing on the various costs incurred and the benefits accrued. Broadly, the analysis is divided into three parts (Figure 3), estimating:

• non-recurring costs, or the initial investment made by the recycler
• recurring costs, or the operational costs
• financial benefits accrued from the sale of recovered materials

The weight of one c-Si module is assumed to be 22 kg, with the composition shown in Table 7 (Paiano 2015).

Table 7. Material composition of crystalline silicon PV module assumed in the study

Source: Authors’ compilation from Paiano, Annarita. 2015. “Photovoltaic Waste Assessment in Italy.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 41 (1): 99–112.

The processing capacity of the recycling facility is assumed to be 5,400 tonnes per annum. Based on consultations with recyclers, the capacity utilisation factor for the recycling facility is set at 67 per cent. Operating at full capacity is generally considered detrimental due to the smaller margins for error and the increased frequency of maintenance requirements. For our analysis, a 67 per cent capacity utilisation factor reduces the effective annual processing capacity to 3,600 tonnes, translating to a processing capacity of 12 tonnes per day.

We also define the distance between the recycling facility and the project site(s) for obtaining solar PV waste as 360 km. Our previous study found that 67 per cent of India’s solar waste will come from five states: Rajasthan, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Maharashtra, reflecting capacity installation trends (MNRE-CEEW 2024). In this study, we take the average distance between the top three districts with the highest installed solar capacity and the district with the highest number of e-waste recyclers in these five states (CPCB 2023). An important assumption in this analysis is that the entire solar waste generated in the country is available for collection and recycling. This means exports of solar waste, leakages to the informal sector, or withholding of solar waste by consumers are not considered in the analysis.

Further details on the general assumptions are provided in Annexure A.

Assessment of recycling costs

There are two types of recycling costs — non-recurring and recurring. Non-recurring costs are further divided into four components: land, facility construction, machinery, and compliance.

• Land: Land costs vary depending on factors such as the state and district in which the facility is located, as well as the type of land (for example, converted land, land in industrial parks, or land in special economic zones). For mechanical recycling (P1), the estimated land requirement is 30,000 square feet (sq ft),¹⁰ costing approximately USD 0.42 million (INR 3.56 crore). Chemical recycling (P2) requires more space due to additional chemical equipment and storage for new and spent chemicals, increasing the requirement to 40,000 sq ft,¹¹ with an estimated cost of approximately USD 0.57 million¹² (INR 4.75 crore). However, the E-Waste (Management) Rules, 2016, require a minimum facility area of 500 square metre (sq m) for processing 1 tonne of e-waste per day, irrespective of the recycling pathway (CPCB 2016). Based on this, the land requirement can be up to 64,400 sq ft,¹³ costing approximately USD 0.92 million (INR 7.64 crore) for both modelled pathways.
• Facility construction: An industrial shed is the minimum requirement for a module recycling facility. However, its design would vary based on the modelled recycling pathway. For P1, the construction of an industrial shed could cost about USD 0.22–0.27 million (INR 1.8–2.2 crore). For P2, the increased space requirement for additional equipment and storage tanks could result in a 15 per cent increase in construction costs, amounting to USD 0.25–0.30 million (INR 2.1–2.5 crore)
• Machinery: Machinery costs include procurement and installation. Procurement costs can vary depending on whether machines are domestically manufactured or imported. Under these considerations, for P1, machinery costs are estimated at around USD 0.43– 0.56 million (INR 3.60–4.63 crore), with procurement accounting for 70 per cent, i.e., USD 0.30–0.43 million (INR 2.50–3.53 crore) and installation accounting for the remaining USD 0.13 million (INR 1.10 crore). For P2, additional equipment is required beyond the machinery used for mechanical operations. This includes a pyrolysis unit with a wet scrubber system for thermal operations, reactor vessels, and storage tanks for both new and spent chemicals, as well as instrumentation and control systems to facilitate the chemical processes. Depending on the extent of automation, the cost of this equipment ranges from USD 0.27 to 0.84 million (INR 2.21–7.0 crore). The total machinery cost for P2, including installation, is estimated at approximately USD 0.75–1.38 million (INR 6.21–11.52 crore).
• Compliance: As per the E-Waste (Management) Rules, 2022, authorised recyclers must adhere to several compliance requirements, such as those related to facility discharge. Due to the difference in the nature of the processes, compliance costs are estimated at USD 18,000 (INR 0.15 crore) for P1 and approximately USD 24,000 (INR 0.20 crore) for P2, which is about 33 per cent higher than for P1.

Recurring costs are also divided into four parts: waste procurement, collection, processing, and disposal. 

• Waste procurement costs: Recyclers often incur additional costs to procure waste solar modules, typically ranging from INR 25,000 to INR 30,000 per tonne, depending on market fluctuations.¹⁴ For this analysis, we consider a value of INR 27,300 per tonne or INR 600 per module, based on stakeholder consultations.
• Collection costs: These costs comprise the charges incurred for transporting solar waste to the recycling facility. Stakeholder consultations suggest that the collection cost varies from INR 2,909 to INR 5,455 per tonne, equivalent to INR 8–15 per tonne per km. For this analysis, we consider collection costs to be INR 4,454 per tonne¹⁵ or INR 12 per tonne per km.
• Processing costs: These costs are associated with the modelled recycling pathway and include workforce, power, maintenance, and material expenses. Workforce requirements for efficient recycling facility operations include process operators, floor labour, maintenance personnel, supervisors, and a plant manager. Power and maintenance costs for P2 are 20 per cent and 33 per cent higher than P1, respectively, due to the additional chemical equipment, workforce, and processes involved. Material costs–chemicals and electrodes–are INR 5,913 per tonne for P2, while for P1, they are zero, since no chemicals are used.
• Disposal costs: These refer to the expenses incurred for disposing of residual waste or spent materials. They vary depending on the modelled recycling pathway, as the nature and volume of waste generated differ. The chemical process produces liquid and chemical waste, resulting in disposal costs. In contrast, the mechanical process creates dust, which has secondary market value in industries such as construction, eliminating disposal costs (ENGIE 2021).

Annexure A contains further details about the assumptions made specific to the modelled recycling pathways.

Figure 3. The financial assessment of solar module recycling includes recurring costs, non-recurring costs, and revenue from the sale of recovered materials

Source: Authors’ analysis 

Assessment of benefits

We assess the financial benefits of solar module recycling based on the sale of recovered materials, such as aluminium, glass, copper, silicon, and silver. The resale values of these materials vary based on their purity levels (Table 8).

Both recycling pathways recover glass and aluminium. In addition, P1 recovers low-quality copper and ferrosilicon, while P2 recovers pure copper and MG-Si. The recovered materials can be utilised in various industries, including cement (recovered glass), steel (recovered silicon), and metal manufacturing (recovered aluminium). However, further processing is required before these recovered materials can be reused in solar module manufacturing. For instance, Trina Solar, a Chinese module manufacturer, has demonstrated the ability to manufacture modules using recycled silicon, silver, aluminium frames, and discarded glass from old modules (Trinasolar 2024). The company reported an efficiency of 20.7 per cent and a maximum power output of 645 W.

This assessment includes a sensitivity analysis to examine variations in costs, including the waste module procurement cost, collection cost, recovery rates of materials, purity levels of recovered materials, and module composition.

Table 8. Resale value of recovered materials increases with purity levels.

Source: Authors’ compilation from stakeholder consultations and online marketplaces. 

Limitations 

Our study is based on several assumptions and discussions with diverse stakeholders. Accordingly, the final results are influenced by these assumptions. The key limitations are as follows:

• A direct USD–INR conversion was applied to determine the costs of machines used for the mechanical processes in P1.
• The financial analysis does not account for the recoverable aluminium, tin, and zinc found in solar cells.
• Compliance costs do not include additional fees that may apply to facilities located outside industrial areas or to zero liquid discharge plants.
• The cost of demineralised water requirements has not been added to the compliance costs.
• The power and maintenance costs may vary depending on the ancillary machinery, motors, pumps, and other equipment used at a recycling facility, as well as the associated maintenance and repair work.
• The secondary value of recovered silicon is assumed to be equal to the average value of industrial-grade silicon available in the Indian market. A lower secondary value than assumed could impact the overall revenue. The same applied to recovered silver.
• The cost–benefit assessment does not include any benefits from the resale of polymer powder (recovered in P1) in the secondary market (ENGIE 2021).

Solar module recycling is an emerging industry, but the financial returns associated with the sector remain unattractive. Nevertheless, given the strategic and potential future economic opportunities, the industry must be scaled immediately. Recycling technologies must be developed to meet both current requirements and new trends in solar module manufacturing.

Mechanical recycling has been the preferred method for recycling various types of e-waste for over a decade. It is a familiar technology, with machinery that is well established and easy to scale. Being chemical-free, it avoids the use of harmful substances and the risk of generating hazardous by-products. Among the various recycling methods, it has the lowest recurring costs at INR 40,132 per tonne (INR 4.11 per watt or INR 883 per module). However, the materials recovered through mechanical recycling contain high concentrations of impurities. These low-purity end products have limited resale value in secondary markets, resulting in reduced benefits for recyclers–INR 29,902 per tonne (INR 3.06 per watt or INR 658 per module). Meanwhile, chemical recycling enables the recovery of high-purity metals from solar waste, including silver, which commands higher prices in secondary markets. This has the potential to increase revenues from recycling to INR 36,726 per tonne (INR 3.76 per watt or INR 808 per module). However, the process requires the additional use of chemicals, resulting in higher recurring costs of INR 49,067 per tonne (approximately INR 5.02 per watt or INR 1,079 per module). Chemical recycling technologies will, therefore, need further advancement and optimisation to enable the recovery of higher-grade silver and SoG-Si at scale.

In general, the high procurement costs of waste modules and the low purity of recovered materials hinder module recycling. Furthermore, given the volatility of commodity prices, it is prudent to focus on reducing both recurring and non-recurring costs to improve the financial viability of solar module recycling.

India must prioritise the development and scaling of solar module recycling pathways that can supply high-quality raw materials to existing and upcoming manufacturing industries. With polysilicon production expected to commence soon in the country, the demand for high-purity MG-Si, a raw material required for this process, is expected to rise significantly. Similarly, pure silver is essential for a range of applications beyond solar energy, including electronics, electric vehicles, aerospace, medical devices, and water purification (The Silver Institute 2025). Chemicalbased recycling technologies have already demonstrated their capability to recover such high-purity materials. Ongoing industrial and academic research in such technologies is advancing process efficiencies, recovery rates, and the quality of recovered materials. To establish a reliable and efficient recycling ecosystem, policymakers must support existing and emerging technologies capable of recovering high-quality outputs.

Beyond technological challenges, the absence of regulatory mandates and market linkages for recovered materials limits the financial sustainability of solar module recycling. For example, Reclaim PV, a major player in Australia’s solar PV recycling market, went bankrupt at the end of 2022 after attempting to develop an in-house low-cost recycling technology (Peacock 2023). Difficulties in establishing manufacturer networks, collection channels, and investor interest also contributed to the company’s downfall. This case illustrates that numerous factors must align consistently to sustain such initiatives. These factors include a continuous supply of waste PV modules at low or no cost, an efficient recovery process to obtain high-purity materials from solar waste, low-cost reverse logistics mechanisms, and affordable electricity and material costs for processing solar waste. The recently launched mineral recycling incentive scheme under the National Critical Mineral Mission will support reducing recycling costs (MoM 2025). However, additional support can be provided at the state level.

We make the following recommendations for policymakers, technology providers, and the solar industry to establish a financially viable solar module recycling ecosystem in India.

For policymakers

• Strengthen solar waste management regulations and incentivise the full recovery of materials.
  • The MoEFCC should amend the E-Waste (Management) Rules, 2022, to introduce EPR targets for solar waste from 2027. The current rules only mandate storage of solar PV waste until 2034–2035. Removing these obligations and introducing EPR targets would ensure two critical outcomes: solar waste will be channelled more efficiently to registered recyclers, and recyclers will be assured consistent volumes of solar waste. These EPR targets should include separate collection and recycling targets as well as material-specific recovery targets. This approach would ensure the recovery of all materials specified under the rules. In contrast, notifying an overall recovery rate could lead to the recovery of only certain materials, such as glass and aluminium, which together account for about 85 per cent of module weight. For instance, existing EU recyclers using mechanical processes can easily achieve a WEEEcompliant overall recovery rate of 85 per cent (EUR-Lex n.d.). The EPR targets should also be extended to the refurbishing of solar modules, allowing producers to offset recycling EPR targets. The Bureau of Indian Standards and the National Institute of Solar Energy (NISE) should jointly develop standards for second-life modules. This measure would facilitate the creation of a repair and reuse industry for solar modules.
  • The MoEF&CC and CPCB should expand the scope of EPR certificates beyond aluminium and iron to include other metals commonly found in solar modules, such as copper, silver, silicon, cadmium, and tellurium. For instance, trading EPR certificates for recovered copper and aluminium could generate net positive impacts of INR 6,682 per tonne (INR 147 per module) for mechanical recycling and INR 4,186 per tonne (INR 92 per module) for chemical recycling.²²
  • The MoEF&CC should increase the solar developers’ responsibility for solar waste management under the E-Waste (Management) Rules 2022. Project developers should be made responsible for declaring their waste from repowering and decommissioning projects and channelling it to authorised recyclers. Developer must ensure that the asset management companies managing their projects also comply with these responsibilities. Furthermore, any damage to the project are managed by insurance companies, who, as per our stakeholder consultations, currently auction the rejected modules to different entities. It is important that developers mandate their insurers to adhere to the current E-Waste (Management) Regulations and supporting collection and storage obligations. Later, as the responsibilities evolve, the contracts between developers and insurers must also change to reflect these additional responsibilities.
•  Design mechanisms to reduce investments and costs.
  • State industrial departments and state industrial development corporations (SIDCs) should provide capital incentives, tax breaks and create recycling clusters. State industrial departments should extend capital incentives and tax breaks to invest in land, buildings, machinery, equipmbent, and associated utilities and technologies. Where such provisions already exist under state industrial policies, their scope should be expanded to include solar module recycling. States can also develop integrated recycling clusters that leverage shared infrastructure and feedstock. For example, Rajasthan has initiated such an effort by formulating an Integrated Resource Recovery Park Scheme, which allocates land for waste recycling units (including electronics, plastic, hazardous waste, batteries, and end-of-life vehicles) through e-auctions (RIICO 2023). More SIDCs should notify similar provisions to support the development of recycling clusters.
  • The state pollution control boards and pollution control committees should facilitate demand aggregation for solar waste. Aggregating the demand of waste PV modules within the state boundaries will help local recyclers reach critical volumes to process. For this purpose, the pollution control boards and committees may also involve urban local bodies or panchayats, particularly to manage the waste coming from distributed solar installations.
• Nurture technology innovation.
  • The DST and MNRE should support technology development and demonstration of efficient recycling technologies. Most high-efficiency module recycling technologies are still in early stages of development, with limited proven commercial feasibility. To address this gap, policymakers must support both the development and demonstration of new technologies through research grants for both academic institutions and private companies. The Division of Climate, Energy, and Sustainable Technology under the DST and the MNRE have already initiated several efforts; however, sustained efforts are needed with greater focus on technology demonstration and scale up. Institutions such as NISE can also lead these technology demonstrations efforts to have a better visibility on the technology landscape. For instance, NISE and Attero (a battery recycler) have signed an MoU to test and pilot new PV recycling technologies (Gupta 2025).
  • The MNRE, in collaboration with NISE, should foster partnerships among the solar producers and recyclers. Besides technology development, equivalent emphasis is required on creating market linkages and partnerships between recyclers and the solar industry. Such linkages could include offtake agreements with companies manufacturing solar glass, aluminium frames, and upcoming ones to manufacture polysilicon, which would not only improve recyclers’ revenues but also help establish a closed-loop circular economy. The MNRE may also leverage the Resource Efficiency Circular Economy Industry Coalition (RECEIC), launched during India’s G20 presidency, to promote technology use cases and drive the on-ground implementation of circular solutions. Matchmaking events should also be organised to identify high-impact solutions for solar module recycling, similar to the successful India–EU collaboration in electric vehicle battery recycling (PIB 2024b).

For technology providers 

• Develop efficient technologies via strategic partnerships. Academics and recyclers should expedite the research, development, and demonstration of efficient and scalable recycling technologies, with a focus on achieving high recovery rates and high purity. For instance, recovering SoG-Si for reuse in the manufacturing of new modules could lead to a 66 per cent increase in gross benefits accrued through using chemical recycling, though it would necessitate additional investment.23
  
  Technology providers should also track the evolution of PV module design and material composition. Shifts in design can render current recycling technologies obsolete, pose a risk to current investments. The industry should therefore invest in recycling technologies that can handle current modules and adapt to future technologies. In addition, recyclers should incorporate current recycling standards at new or existing facilities. This will lead to the implementation of rigorous safety standards and protocols, ensuring a safe and environmentally friendly work environment at recycling facilities. For example, recyclers can adopt the Sustainable Electronics Reuse and Recycling (R2) Standard, developed by Sustainable Electronics Recycling International, which provides guidelines for the safe handling of solar waste at recycling facilities.
• Recover market-ready materials. Technology providers should identify end-users for recovered materials, extending beyond the solar industry to include other secondary markets. This includes the cement industry, where recovered glass (Máčalová et al. 2021) and crushed PV laminate can serve as substitutes for sand (Zele et al. 2024), and the battery industry, where recovered MG-Si can replace the silicon anode in lithium-ion batteries (Simet al. 2023). Determining the purity levels of recovered materials can help with identifying their applications in the secondary market. For example, recovered MG-Si with a purity level above 98.5 per cent can be used in the production of anodes for lithium-ion batteries (Feyzia et al. 2024). Identifying such secondary markets will help ensure the financial viability of current recycling technologies that can recover materials of only limited grade. Thus, recycling costs are kept in check.

For solar cell and module producers

• Invest in waste management infrastructure. Solar cell and module producers should go beyond the limited obligations outlined in the E-Waste (Management) Rules to establish reliable, cost-effective collection and reverse logistics mechanisms, thereby enhancing the financial viability of solar module recycling. Manufacturers should also collaborate with technology providers to improve lab-scale recycling technologies to make them commercially viable, supported by adequate fiscal incentives and knowledge-sharing. Developing effective business models that guarantee a continuous stream of waste modules to recyclers would strengthen both the recycling sector and overall solar waste management. Academia–industry collaborations should also be encouraged to help translate research into commercially scalable recycling technologies. In this way, all stakeholders can work towards the common goal of developing financially viable recycling technologies.
• Leverage existing financial mechanisms available with project developers for financing solar waste management. Several renewable energy implementation agencies already incorporate provisions for the safe disposal of solar waste within their ‘Request for Selection’ documents, making developers liable for these requirements.24 Such an arrangement would encompass all the stages from the decommissioning of installed solar modules to their safe disposal. Additionally, developers certified under ISO 14001 must ensure that, after decommissioning, solar waste is disposed of through authorised channels to prevent it from becoming landfill; they must ensure that it is sent for recycling to recover valuable materials. Furthermore, according to the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission’s Draft Renewable Energy Tariff Regulations, a project’s salvage value can be considered up to 10 per cent of its capital cost (Central Electricity Regulatory Commission 2024). A share of this financial value can be utilised by developers for decommissioning and disposing of the solar waste through authorised recyclers.25 Producers can tap into these provisions and create a mutually agreed-upon financing model for solar waste management with project developers.
• Improve module design. The PV industry should incorporate circular design principles, such as design for disassembly, reuse, and recycling, to enable easier and more cost-effective recovery of components and materials from PV modules. Since module composition determines recovery processes, producers should disclose detailed material composition data so that technology providers can design and develop efficient processes that ensure high-purity recovery. This could be achieved by including material composition data as a field on the Radio Frequency Identification tags already mandated by the MNRE for all solar modules manufactured or installed in the country. Another method to achieve this is introducing digital product passports for solar modules, also known as PV passports, which carry relevant information on various data categories and fields, including material composition data. Such measures can effectively guide investments.