This article examines some of the basic questions about silicon module recycling: (1) What can be recovered from silicon modules? (2) What recycling technologies are needed? (3) What are the potential revenues for different recycling scenarios? And (4) what are the major challenges for different recycling scenarios? Three recycling scenarios are considered: module reuse, component extraction, and material extraction. Recycling process sequences for different scenarios are outlined. The discussions conclude that module reuse generates the highest revenue with the fewest processing steps, while material extraction leads to the lowest revenue with the most processing steps. It is suggested that gentle and clean separation of silicon solar cells from the glass pane is a critical technology for silicon module recycling. It is also argued that two low‐concentration metals must be recovered from silicon modules: silver as a scarce material and lead as a toxic material. Their recovery requires chemical methods, while bulky materials including glass cullet, aluminum frame, and copper wiring can be recovered with physical methods. The silicon in the cells can be extracted with different qualities: ferro‐silicon, metallurgical‐grade silicon, or solar‐grade silicon, with a higher revenue and more complicated recycling process for purer silicon. Markets outside the solar industry for the recovered silicon should be explored. The biggest challenge for module reuse is to find a large and sustained market for hundreds of gigawatts peak of decommissioned modules a year, and the biggest challenge for component extraction is the many different module and cell structures on the market and cell efficiency variability. For all the three scenarios, the cost of collecting and processing waste modules is a common challenge.

No abstract

No abstract

Incineration is in many countries a common treatment method for municipal solid waste, and utilization of the ash residues has attracted significant interest. The bottom ash is best suited as a secondary construction material, whereas the fly ash is being investigated as a secondary raw material for recovery of, for example, Zn, Cu, and salts. For both types of application, knowledge about the chemical speciation of Zn and Cu in the ashes is valuable. The present work focuses on identifying and quantifying the chemical species of Zn and Cu in 12 samples of fly ash and bottom ash from three waste-to-energy plants using X-ray absorption near edge structure (XANES). The XANES spectra of the ash samples showed similar distinctive features, and both in the bottom and fly ash samples, the same chemical forms were identified but in various ratios. Cu and Zn occurred in several chemical forms, with typically 5−7 forms present in the same sample. For Cu, the XANES spectra of the fly ash samples were nearly identical, indicating very similar chemical speciation (same chemical forms and similar ratios). Cu was found to exist in various oxide, hydroxide, chloride, silicate, and metallic forms. The most commonly occurring Zn compounds were the aluminate, ferrite, silicate, and oxide along with chloride, basic carbonate (hydrozincite), and occasionally metallic forms, probably alloyed with Cu in brass. Cu occurred in different oxidation states from zero to +II, with a higher prevalence of the lower oxidation states in bottom ash than in fly ash. Zn occurred mainly in oxidation state +II in all ashes analyzed. Finally, we showed that during outdoor storage of bottom ash, levels of Cu and Zn hydroxycarbonates were increased compared to fresh bottom ash. This carbonate formation aims to make Cu and Zn less leachable.