New framework identifies key costs of photovoltaic panel recycling

A group of researchers from the Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná (PUCPR) in Brazil has proposed a framework for evaluating the recycling costs of photovoltaic systems, with particular attention to emerging economies. The framework is based on a literature review and an expert assessment.

“This study proposes a structured decision-support framework to facilitate the evaluation and management of recycling costs associated with photovoltaic panels at the end of their useful life, with special attention to emerging economies,” the group stated. “Emerging economies provide the empirical context for developing and validating the proposed framework. Consequently, the weighting of categories and the prioritization of costs reflect this context, although the framework can be adapted to different regulatory, technological, and market conditions.”

The researchers developed the framework through a systematic literature review, a functional cost classification, and an expert evaluation. Searches in Scopus and Web of Science initially identified 5,784 records. After filtering, duplicate removal, and selection, 23 studies remained that explicitly reported on photovoltaic recycling costs.

The team identified 33 cost components and used the Function Analysis System Technique (FAST) to group them into five categories. The first two were infrastructure and facilities (equipment depreciation, operational costs of collection points, installation of collection points, installation of recycling plants, and facility investment); and logistics and resources (storage of input materials, transportation, waste collection, acquisition of auxiliary materials, reverse logistics, and component inventory).

The remaining categories were operations and production (scale, processing, electricity, component handling, component treatment, labor, equipment maintenance, general operating costs, component disassembly, machinery and equipment cleaning, and disposal of non-recoverable parts); management and finance (administrative management, administrative costs, sales costs, material costs, taxes and fees, opportunity costs, indirect economic costs, and financing through bank loans); and sustainability and environmental impacts (external environmental costs, avoided landfill disposal costs, and environmental management costs).

Next, 19 experts rated each component on a five-point importance scale and assessed the relevance of the categories from 0% to 100%. The researchers applied the fuzzy Delphi method to aggregate these ratings and calculate normalized relevance scores. Subsequently, they used a Mean Rank Position analysis to evaluate components that fell within the acceptance threshold, ultimately retaining 22 components. The 11 excluded components were input material storage, electricity, component handling, equipment maintenance, auxiliary material procurement, equipment depreciation, administrative management, administrative costs, collection point installation, opportunity costs, and machinery and equipment cleaning.

An adapted procedure of the Staged Weighted Assessment of Relationships (SWARA) analysis assigned relative weights to the categories. Finally, the team defined a cost index through the average of the normalized values of the components within each category and the sum of the weighted scores of the categories.

The analysis assigned the highest weight to operations and production (21.71%), followed by infrastructure and facilities (21.48%), logistics and resources (20.11%), sustainability and environmental impacts (18.91%), and management and finance (17.79%). Among the individual components, processing, component treatment, and recycling plant installation received the highest normalized relevance scores, at 1.000, 0.882, and 0.836, respectively. Machinery and equipment cleaning and administrative costs received the lowest scores, at 0.039 and 0.000, respectively.

“As the main outcome, the study provides a structured framework for organizing and evaluating the cost components of photovoltaic panel recycling, which offers a consistent basis for comparing technological alternatives, logistics configurations, suppliers, and regulatory scenarios, thereby supporting strategic planning, operational management, and investment decisions within the photovoltaic circular economy,” the group concluded. “Although developed in the context of an emerging economy, the framework can be adapted to other regional settings by recalibrating cost components and category weights according to local conditions.”

The article “A decision-support framework for structuring and assessing photovoltaic panel recycling costs in emerging economies” was published in the Journal of Cleaner Production.