Stanford Journal of International Relations

6 • Spring 2010

In the rising wave of solar energy, some have begun to sound the alarm on the possibility of hazardous waste escaping into the environment. In response, solar firms have begun planning and forming coalitions to recycle used panels before their materials can leach out, trumpeting their efforts to guarantee life-cycle sustainability. But the focus on dealing with used panels threatens to obscure a more pressing concern from waste in the manufacturing process. With the production of silicon base materials exploding in China – where anecdotal evidence shows a lack of safety regulations – solar firms and regulators must shift their focus to ensuring safe production processes, even if the international situation can be difficult. Until these issues are properly addressed, a

shadow of doubt will hang over the true environmental impacts of solar energy.

US Air Force, Public DomainThe demand for 'green' energy has raised both hopes and profits in the solar energy industry. But will the creation of toxic waste cripple the industry just as it emerges into prominence?

{ }By Ishan Nath

Cleaning Up After Clean Energy: Hazardous Waste in the Solar Industry

Solar Waste

Vol. XI | No. 2 • 7

Ishan Nath is a sophomore at Stanford University double-majoring in Economics and Earth Systems with a focus on energy science and technology. While pursuing these academic interests through coursework and extracurricular activities, Ishan aspires to get involved in environmental policy research or go to graduate school in economics after college. When he is not studying economics and environmental issues, Ishan enjoys running and playing basketball.

Despite the competing interests of the United States and China, President Barack Obama does share at least one vision with Chinese

Premier Wen Jiabao: both leaders expect the solar industry to positively impact their countries in coming decades. Their governments, as a result, have begun to direct significant investments towards expanding solar infrastructure, following the lead of several European markets. The solar industry has rapidly espanded its small market share and has shown signs of greater potential. These hopes for a viable source of renewable energy, however, have recently been tempered with a word of caution. Toxic waste, experts say, is something the solar industry must watch out for, as detailed by the watchdog nonprofit Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC) in a widely circulated new report. Essentially, solar firms face two dilemmas concerning their hazardous chemicals. How can the production process ensure that panels are manufactured without leaking waste and how will they be disposed of after a lifetime of use? These concerns, though fairly manageable in and of themselves, exist in a complex international web of competing political, economic, and scientific interests. Given this complexity, most solar firms have focused on the more straightforward of the two problems: end-of-life recycling. But in creating a fairly solid foundation for addressing this issue, the industry has largely overlooked investigative reports revealing current problems with production waste, particularly pertaining to Chinese manufacturing. Until these concerns receive more attention, promises of panel recycling will quell any public anxiety, preventing the creation of necessary safeguards to stop rogue firms from unsafe manufacturing practices. To fully address its hazardous waste issues, the solar industry must move forward aggressively not only with its development of panel recycling programs, but also with steps to address more pressing issues in the production process. The first question facing solar firms is how to

address the prospect of used panels inundating landfills and leaching toxic waste into the environment. When a solar module outlives its usefulness 20 to 25 years after installation, its disposal must be carefully handled to avoid contamination from the enclosed chemicals. But, given examples from similar industries, there is no guarantee that this procedure will take place. More than two-thirds of American states have no existing laws requiring electronics recycling and the US currently exports 80 percent of its electronic waste (e-waste) to developing countries that lack infrastructure to manage it.1 Thus, by urging solar companies to plan for proper disposal of decommissioned panels, SVTC draws attention to an issue that currently remains unaddressed. The Coalition makes an appeal for legislation requiring Extended Producer Responsibility, which would force firms to take back and recycle their used products, but in the absence of such requirements, is the solar industry ready for the eventual onrush of solar panels?2

“I don’t think enough people are thinking about [recycling used solar panels],” said Jamie Porges, COO and Founder of Radiance Solar, an Atlanta-based startup. “I’m sure there are people who have thought about it, but I don’t think there’s been enough open discussion and I haven’t heard a plan.”3 Another executive familiar with the solar industry frames the problem more urgently. Steve Newcomb, Founder and CEO of “One Block Off the Grid,” a firm that connects consumers with the solar industry, calls the issue of used solar modules “a big deal, and one that nobody’s thought a lot about yet.” If nothing is done, he warns, the situation could escalate into “a major disaster.”4

Despite this initial doubt about dealing with used panels, solid progress is already underway. The European solar industry has developed a comprehensive commitment to handle solar waste. Through the formation of the PV Cycle Association, a group of firms comprising more than 80 percent of the European solar market have signed a voluntary pledge to take back and recycle used solar panels.5 Under the agreement, companies will label products with instructions to return end-of-life modules, and promise to collect an ambitious 65 percent of units sold since 1990, and recycle 85 percent of the waste. A committee including the European Parliament, European Commission, and European Photovoltaic Industry Association will monitor members to track achievement of these goals.6 Even with these strict guidelines, PV Cycle already counts over 40 companies

}

Stanford Journal of International Relations

8 • Spring 2010

among its ranks and has more than doubled in size over the past year.7 As The New York Times noted, “the solar industry in Europe is not taking any chances with its reputation as a clean business.”8 More importantly, with signatories including GE, BP, Sanyo, Sharp, and First Solar, the rapidly expanding organization has already made strides at a global level.9 In fact, as of September 2009, seven of the eight largest solar cell producers in the world were members.10 Thus, at the very least, PV Cycle represents a strong start toward collectively overcoming the challenge of used solar panels. This initial movement towards a recycling agenda fails to bring complete assurance, because the vast majority of companies have yet to actually implement recycling schemes. While significant portions of the industry have taken PV Cycle’s pledge, only the German firm Deutsche Solar AG and the Arizona-based First Solar have thus far implemented active take-back and recycling programs.11 On the positive side, there is some real impact even in this limited implementation; First Solar leads the world in production with a 13 percent total PV market share.12 Actively touting their commitment to “Product Life Cycle Management” as a part of their overall mission, the company has installed industrial-scale recycling facilities at each of their plants and takes panels back at no cost to consumers.13 In the process, First Solar recovers all components of the panels, including 95 percent of semiconductor material and 90 percent of the glass.14 This program has earned the firm widespread recognition and could serve as the example that spurs the rest of the industry to follow suit. The challenge, however, will lie in convincing other companies that recycling is worthwhile. In this drive to establish recycling programs, the costs of reusing old panels in the production process should not be an impediment. Porges says he holds “some confidence that [reusing panels] is going to be possible, because of the high value of the material in the panels.” Indeed, since valuable metals such as purified silicon and cadmium telluride can be recovered from old modules, experts predict production from recycled ingredients should cost no more than using raw materials while using only one-third as much energy.15 Furthermore, David Appleyard, Associate Editor of renewableenergyworld.com, claims this would result in “no apparent loss of performance.”16 Unfortunately, the National Photovoltaics Environmental Research Center offers a different view, positing that “currently,

economic incentives may be inadequate to move the PV industry into voluntary recycling.”17 It is possible that government subsidies or public pressure to match the recycling reputation of competitors will eventually produce sufficient incentive to overcome any cost disparity; if not, the Research Center also predicts that future large-scale needs could be “economically served by centralized strategies.”18 This projection relies on the theory that firms bringing their recycling initiatives together would benefit from economies of scale when sharing the fixed costs of recycling infrastructure. Since PV Cycle brings together solar firms from around the world with a common purpose, the Association seems like an effective way to apply this approach and eventually bring recycling costs down. Fortunately for the solar industry, these programs have no need to scale up in the short-term. Since major installation of solar energy systems did not begin until the 1990s, the 20- to 25-year lifecycle of panels means that end-of-life recycling will not become a major issue until about 2020. Certainly, an industry that grew 58 percent in 2008 with $17.2 billion in global revenues cannot be taken lightly, but the time-lag of waste accumulation reduces its exigency as a pressing issue.19 This fact gets cited frequently in almost all serious discussions of the subject, from the National Photovoltaics Environment Research Center’s report to PV Cycle’s website. With ample time to prepare, the industry seems set to concentrate more heavily on the imminent tasks of becoming more cost-competitive and increasing its miniscule share of the energy market. The current US track record of electronics waste disposal, however, must serve as a cautionary example. With the current careless exporting of e-waste and the fact that the US stands along with Afghanistan and Haiti as one of only three countries not to have signed the Basel Convention outlawing international trade of hazardous waste, the situation does not inspire much confidence. Preliminary signs of effort are not enough to assure that solar recycling will be able to scale up when the large volume of used panels arrives. But with companies representing a significant portion of the market making explicit promises to that end as part of an ever-growing global organization, it is safe to say that end-of-life recycling for solar panels is not yet behind the curve. Time, at least for now, gives the solar industry room to maneuver. Recycling used panels, however, must be considered as only part of the picture in an industry increasingly intertwined with overseas production,

Solar Waste

Vol. XI | No. 2 • 9

particularly in China. For one thing, US firms often export manufacturing to China to reduce costs, as affirmed by Dr. Michael Filler, Assistant Professor of Chemical Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology. “We’re definitely buying solar panels made in China,” said Filler. “A lot of American companies have plants in China.”20 Furthermore, the Chinese industry has seen burgeoning growth that has led to significant US imports. A company called Suntech Power Holdings, for example, has become the second largest solar firm in the world, while exporting 98 percent of its panels and building a 12 percent US market share.21, 22 So powerful has been the charge led by Chinese firms and stimulated by their government, that China is projected to become the largest solar producer in the world in the next five years.23 And as China continues its push to become the “Silicon Valley of renewables,” the American solar market will only become more integrated with Chinese production.24 Unfortunately, links to Chinese manufacturing raise the specter of dubious environmental practices. While the prospect of used solar panels looms somewhere on the horizon of American consumers, villagers in China are forced to grapple with the toxic effects of solar-grade silicon production today. The Washington Post reported these side effects in a recent article that spotlighted a small village in the central province of Henan overcome by a steady flow of silicon tetrachloride, a byproduct of the polysilicon manufactured by Luoyang Zhonggui, a nearby subsidiary of the solar behemoth Suntech.25 An extremely toxic substance, silicon tetrachloride renders crops infertile, causes skin burns and increases the likelihood of lung disease, and transforms into acids and poisonous hydrogen chloride gas when exposed to air. Ron Bingyan, a professor of materials science at Hebei Industrial University, says “It is like dynamite – it is poisonous, it is polluting.” Almost every day, workers dump buckets of this bubbling white liquid toxin over the land as the villagers, most of whom earn about $200 in annual income, are powerless to stop it. Despite

persistent denials of wrongdoing from the factory, independent, nationally accredited lab tests confirmed the claims of leaked toxic pollutants by the villagers. The Post also reported that industry sources indicate that “other solar plants in China have not installed technology to prevent pollutants from getting into the environment,” implying that this anecdote does not refer to an isolated incident.26

Why hasn’t any action been taken to prevent this pollution? On top of the Chinese government’s underlying aversion to environmental regulations, the Post reports that “there's such a severe shortage of polysilicon that the government is willing to overlook this issue for now.”27 Indeed, persistent shortages of purified silicon in the face of escalating demand have created a lucrative profit opportunity in the market – particularly for Chinese firms willing to cut corners and reduce costs. As of 2006, 91 percent of the solar industry still relied on silicon for producing its panels.28 While these numbers have declined, experts say the “consensus is that crystalline silicon is and will remain for at least a long decade the workhorse of this growing market.”29 With 30 percent annual growth anticipated over the next ten years, projections show that 300,000 metric tons of annual silicon production will be necessary to meet the growing demand.30,31 Current global annual production, however, only amounts to 120,000 tons, which would explain why the price of silicon recently exploded from $20 to $450 per kilogram.32, 33 To exploit

JosefLehmkuhl, Creative Commons

Management of electronic waste still leaves much to be desired. Will waste from the solar industry be handled any differently?

Stanford Journal of International Relations

10 • Spring 2010

this opportunity, Chinese companies plan to expand their silicon production fivefold by 2012, from 20,000 to 100,000 tons, which would account for almost half of the world’s total production.34 Twenty new plants are already under construction as venture capital pours in, taking advantage of generous subsidies, free land, and low-interest loans from the government, thereby assuring that production growth will continue to accelerate.35

Chinese expansion of silicon production triggers alarms because of the reckless steps firms are taking to cut costs. The US and other developed countries have shown that polysilicon manufacturing can be an entirely safe process that recycles silicon tetrachloride back into a base material for production. Cost remains the only problem. A Chinese journal, the China Chemical Reporter, notes that the “cost in the hydrogenation of silicon tetrachloride [makes] commercial application of the technology hard to be conducted.”36 With an enormous waste stream producing four times as much silicon tetrachloride as

actual polysilicon and a process that requires heating the chemical up to 1800° F, proper safety measures include significant capital investment as well as persistently high energy use.37,38 Thus, the Reporter calls “comprehensive utilization of silicon tetrachloride . . . an issue of increasing concern . . . [that] has seriously constrained the sound development of polycrystalline silicon and solar energy sectors in China.”39 This conclusion seems odd, however, in light of the lack of concern for such matters in China reported by the Post. For instance, Shi Jun, a former photovoltaic technology researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, claims Chinese companies have been producing polysilicon at $21,000-$56,000 per ton, far below the $84,500 necessary to cover proper environmental protection.40

In addition to cost concerns, convenience and time might also be dissuading firms from instituting proper procedures. To hasten the growth of profits, many manufacturing plants in China have been launching in under a year, less than half the time required to install suitable infrastructure.41 Other factors of expediency

High Contrast, Creative CommonsUnder intense competition, Chinese based manufacturing of solar panels has likely bypassed both safety and environmental standards.

Solar Waste

Vol. XI | No. 2 • 11

might play a role as well, as observed by one silicon industry source:

Manufacture of ultrapure silicon is a very sophisticated process,… What if that equipment is not available to you locally? Or if it is, do you have all the training and skilled service people who could make sure it was operating properly?42

Whatever the excuse, Chinese companies have certainly been realizing the financial success to be able to afford more prudence. Suntech, for example, became the first privately-owned Chinese firm to be traded on the New York Stock Exchange, and has seen its value skyrocket to the point that its founder Shi Zhengrong is now the richest man in China.43,44,45 It comes as no surprise, then, that Jim Bashkin, Adjunct Professor of Chemistry at the University of Missouri, calls it “wrong to think the funds aren’t available in China to implement this waste processing technology, it is simply a question of priorities (and greed).”46 Sustaining and expanding dominance over the solar market clearly qualifies as one of these priorities. In the drive to do so, “one of their key strategies is to reduce the cost of silicon.”47 Firms such as Suntech have been achieving this goal with alarming success, as noted by several academic papers and newspapers.48,49 The New York Times even asserted that, “American manufacturers fear being overwhelmed by cheap Chinese panels.”50 These remarkably low prices mount more evidence on the allegations of impropriety, raising the obvious question of where these cost cuts are coming from. To be fair, McCue points out that lower labor costs in China might play a significant role, but the widely documented “aggressive” efforts at cost-reduction still make suspicions of negligence seem warranted. Moreover, with “exceptional” profits that sometimes exceed 300 percent of costs, such disregard seems entirely indefensible.51,52

US manufacturers of solar-grade silicon would never be able to replicate the actions of the Chinese. Porges stresses that “production in the United States is a highly, highly, highly regulated process” and McCue misses no opportunity to emphasize the extensive waste management efforts of his company. Shi categorically contrasts the US market with Chinese manufacturers, claiming that if silicon tetrachloride poisoning “happened in the United States, you'd probably be arrested.”53 Even with the best efforts at strict government regulation, however, government action can never be fully relied on. According to Filler,

“the federal government can always be five or ten years behind technology.” Meanwhile, even completely safe domestic manufacturing would not extricate the US solar market from responsibility for the situation in China. More and more firms from the two countries are collaborating on their efforts. Some of these stories, such as First Solar’s deal to build the world’s largest solar farm in China, include US manufacturing.54 Most, however, deal with taking advantage of China as a manufacturing hub. For example, Duke Energy, a leading US energy company, has signed on with two Chinese firms for the purpose of testing new technologies at lower costs.55

With his experience in the solar industry, Newcomb offers insight into the attitude behind the actions of solar firms. “Firms in the solar industry are absolutely ruthless,” said Newcomb. “They take the level of cutthroat competition to a whole different level than companies in other markets.” With high production costs that already constrain solar to only 0.1 percent of the overall energy market, such vigorous rivalry is hardly a surprise.56 Some firms, such as Suntech, simply seem to have bigger concerns than the health of Chinese villagers. And with a goal of collaborating on clean energy growth, not to mention a heavy economic dependence on China, the American government does too – meaning it certainly will not want to start a dispute over the regulation of polysilicon.57 Therefore, as long as Chinese plants can sell silicon for low prices, demand will exist regardless of any collateral damage. Could emerging ventures to move away from silicon provide an answer? Young believes new directions in solar materials can be attributed largely to the production costs of silicon that are heavily influenced by disposal of hazardous waste. And the market share of silicon has, indeed, begun to falter, but Filler offers caution against expectations of sweeping changes:

If people have already invested billions of dollars for a particular material, even if it turns out to be a little more expensive, the industry doesn’t want to change.58

Nonetheless, thin-film technologies using cadmium telluride have seen expansion as an alternative to silicon-based panels. First Solar utilizes cadmium telluride (CdTe), and several companies including GE plan to switch into the field, citing lower costs as their motive.59 But unfortunately, this potential “solution”

Stanford Journal of International Relations

12 • Spring 2010

might lead to even bigger problems. Cadmium is a carcinogen deemed “extremely toxic” by the EPA and can cause lung cancer as well as kidney, liver, and bone damage from inhalation.60

“I would say a far bigger concern [than silicon tetrachloride] is cadmium telluride,” said Filler. “In a perfect world at room temperature, this is a stable compound that’s not going to degrade and leach into the ground or water. I think there are a number of studies where people suggest this. However, in my experience with mother nature, it’s not always so simple. I worry a lot about cadmium, even though the form in a solar cell is distinct from that of classic cases of poisoning. The degradation hasn’t been studied enough and I wouldn’t be surprised if one day it decays on people’s roofs and in landfills and causes major health problems.” Filler goes on to raise a further concern by mentioning that thin-film cells also require a layer of cadmium sulfide, whose production process creates a “large volume” of dissolved cadmium waste. In an opposing view, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory fulfills Filler’s expectation of existing research testifying to the safety of cadmium. The institution’s website states that “CdTe PV modules do not present any risks to health and the environment.” In fact, it claims that they “provide a solution to the challenge of what to do with the cadmium generated from zinc refining.” Cadmium, the argument goes, gets produced anyway in the process of zinc production. Thus, putting the chemical in solar panels represents a safer alternative to the storage or landfills it would otherwise occupy.61,62 Does Filler disagree with this assessment? “At scale, yes,” he said. “Over time, we’re going to want to use so much of it that we’ll want to produce more of it anyway. Maybe now it makes sense to people, but you can argue it should be stored in a central location instead of putting it on everybody’s rooftop.” Furthermore, Filler indicated that the extreme rarity of tellurium will likely prevent the use of cadmium telluride panels from overtaking the market. Thus, between its potentially devastating toxicity and questionable feasibility of growth, cadmium telluride comes with its own considerable shortcomings as silicon’s main competitor. Given the evidence, reliance on safe, expansive production from either polysilicon or cadmium telluride solar panels seems questionable. If issues linger with the two technologies currently dominating the market, what steps can be taken to alleviate

environmental safety concerns? For a start, the currently low level of awareness of issues involved with solar cell manufacturing must become a key part of the conversation. Despite the facts brought forth by the Post feature and others, silicon tetrachloride waste remains almost unheard of in much of the industry. McCue, for example, manages environmental affairs for a silicon manufacturer who received the EPA’s National Environmental Performance Award, and yet admitted he was “not familiar with silicon tetrachloride.”63 Even specific analysis of the Chinese PV industry, such as a 78 page report published by Malardalen University in Sweden and several articles in the New York Times, makes numerous references to the low costs of Chinese production without ever speculating about firms bypassing environmental safety.64,65,66,67 Clearly, the exigency elucidated by the Post report has failed to take hold on a wide scale. Ironically, focus on end-of-life recycling seems to be a key factor in obscuring concerns about production safety. The simple elegance of panel recycling as a solution to end-of-life concerns makes it an instant and communicable talking point. Anyone, no matter how unfamiliar with the topic, can identify with the image of mounds of unwieldy metal solar panels requiring disposal. As a result, press coverage of panel recycling routinely thrusts it to the forefront of the conversation, mentioning manufacturing waste only as a brief aside or afterthought. Solar companies catch onto this fact, and thus pursue the publicity boost from committing to create a recycling program by joining PV Cycle. The way it stands, such a promise prompts the instant triumph of a responsible image, no matter what happens on the production side. Putting too much stock in the pledge to recycle opens the potential for firms to hide behind their recycling reputations while cutting corners during the manufacturing process. Earlier this year, Suntech turned this risk into reality by joining PV Cycle and subsequently touting the value their company places upon “sustainability and minimizing the impact ... on the environment.”68 As a member of the leading group promoting sustainable solutions to solar waste, Suntech cemented its reputation as an environmentally conscientious business. But because its commitment to PV Cycle applies only to end-of-life recycling, its participation opens the possibility that Suntech can fulfill its obligations while continuing to dump buckets of silicon tetrachloride onto helpless Chinese villages. To be sure, this does not imply that other

Solar Waste

Vol. XI | No. 2 • 13

members of PV Cycle engage in unsafe manufacturing practices. Nor should the participation of Chinese firms in recycling programs be undermined. Both Suntech and Yingli Green Energy, another sizable firm, have signed already, opening the prospects for proper environmental safety to take hold in China and pull the country’s industry in a more responsible and positive direction.69 But to really make solar energy around the world safe, PV Cycle must expand its scope to monitor supply-chain waste as well. Until they do, firms such as Suntech will continue to use their commitment to future recycling to pull the wool over people’s eyes as they siphon off untreated waste in China. TIME provided the perfect illustration of this phenomenon by naming Suntech’s Zhengrong one of its “Heroes of the Environment.”70 When a colossally wealthy executive engaging in practices endangering the health and welfare of his own country’s poor can be called a hero, something in the conversation needs to change. If Suntech wants to trumpet its sustainability by joining PV Cycle, it should be encouraged and applauded for doing so, but only as long as the Association can supplement the inspectors monitoring its recycling goals with frequent visits to its members’ silicon plants. This modification to PV Cycle would come as part of an overall shift of focus from end-of-life recycling to manufacturing waste. To be sure, recycling used panels remains an important issue. The solar industry must expand its commitment to PV Cycle and adhere to the goals it has set for itself, but with several years to plan and a feasible solution at hand, at least the path is clear. On the other hand, waste from the raw materials and production processes presents a complex, more pressing challenge, as it already affects large numbers of people today. The extent of the problem remains largely unknown, and the solutions even murkier. And yet, the images of Chinese villagers suffering from the effect of this problem make it strikingly urgent. Addressing the situation will require international efforts in business, politics, and science, and none of these will come forth until the questions surrounding manufacturing waste enter the limelight. Ideally, this publicity would bring with it enough bad press to convince Suntech and other potential offenders to stop their profiteering, thus alleviating the pressing issue of silicon tetrachloride waste while the industry diversified organically into different forms of panels. But in the mean time, while Chinese silicon dominates the solar market and governments,

businesses, and international agencies fail to bring Chinese production into line, what ought to follow in the search for solutions? As an academic, Filler notes that “good regulation is hard to come by . . . That’s why I think about it from the research side – how can we design solar cells that in their manufacturing and in their whole lifecycle are nontoxic and easily degrade?” Efforts in this vein have certainly been pursued. Startups in solar abound, constantly churning out unique and creative ideas such as the “solar paint” and “solar ink” looked into by a firm called Nanosolar.71 Such innovations fill the imagination with possibilities that might replace the current set of uncertain options and propel the industry ahead. For the time being, though, these possibilities are just that: possible but not yet a reality. Surely, these initiatives will grow and expand with countries around the world pushing to make solar a significant part of its energy mix. Carbon-free, sustainable, trendy, and growing steadily less expensive, the solar industry seems well on its way there. And even with the side effects discussed here, solar energy remains far cleaner, for the atmosphere and for human health, than burning coal.72 Solar will expand its power in the energy market. But as this ascent occurs, the global players involved, from firms to governments to international agencies, must take responsibility to ensure it expands the right way. Until it finds a way to guarantee that the production of solar panels will not poison Chinese villagers and that their use will not expose people to potential carcinogens on their rooftops, the the solar industry cannot characterize its rise to prominence as one of truly clean energy. §

Endnotes1. “Global Ewaste Crisis.” Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. http://www.

svtc.org/site/PageServer?pagename=svtc_global_ewaste_crisis.2. “Toward a Just and Sustainable Solar Energy Industry.” 2009. Silicon

Valley Toxics Coalition, January 14. http://www.svtc.org/site/DocServer/Silicon_Valley_Toxics _Coalition__Toward_a_Just_and_Sust.pdf?docID=821.

3. Porges, Jamie. Interview by author. Atlanta, GA, November 5, 2009.4. Newcomb, Steve. Interview by author. Stanford, CA, October 30, 2009.5. “Suntech Joins PV Cycle Association to Develop Solar Module

Recycling Program.” Reuters, May 7, 2009. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS151532+07-May-2009+PRN20090507.

6. “PV Cycle List of Goals and Declarations.” http://www.pvcycle.com/uploads/media/Declaration_PV_CYCLE_EN.pdf.

7. Ibid.8. Kanter, James. “Solar Promoters Push Recycling as Path to ‘Double

Green.’” New York Times Green Inc. Blog, posted January 12, 2009. http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/solar-promoters-push-recycling-as- path-to-double-green/.

Stanford Journal of International Relations

14 • Spring 2010

9. “PV Cycle List of Goals and Declarations.” 10. Osborne, Mark. “First Solar’s Market Share Set to Soar.” PV-Tech.

org, September 7, 2009. http://www.pvtech.org/news/_a/first_solars_market_share_set_to_soar/.

11. Appleyard, David. “Light Cycle: Recycling PV Materials.” Renewable Energy World, April 22, 2009. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/print/article/2009/04/light-cycle-recycling-pv-materials.

12. Osborne, Mark. “First Solar’s Market Share Set to Soar.”13. “Product Lifecycle.” First Solar. http://www.firstsolar.com/product_

lifecycle.php14. Appleyard, David.15. Kuehnen, Eva. “Solar firms team up on recycling to beat regulators.”

Reuters, May 15, 2008. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL129055920080515?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews.

16. Appleyard, David.17. Fthenakis, V.M., and P.D. Moskowitz. 2008. “The Value and

Feasibility of Proactive Recycling.” National Photovoltaics Environmental Research Center, June 18. http://www.bnl.gov/pv/abs/abs_1 42.asp.

18. Ibid.19. “2008 U.S. Solar Industry Year in Review.” 2009. Solar Energy

Industries Association. March. http://www.seia.org/galleries/pdf/2008_Year_in_Review-small.pdf

20. Filler, Michael. Interview by author. Atlanta, GA, November 8, 2009.21. Bradsher, Keith. “China Racing Ahead of U.S. in Drive to Go

Solar.” New York Times, August 24, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/business/energy-environment/25solar.html.

22. Galbraith, Kate. “Suntech to Open Plant in Arizona.” New York Times Green Inc. Blog, November 16, 2009. http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/suntech-to-open-plant-in-arizona/?hp.

23. Schmit, Julie. “China pushes solar, wind power development.” USA Today, November 18, 2009. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2009-11-17-chinasolar17_CV _N.htm

24. Ibid. 25. Cha, Ariana Eunjung. “Solar Firms Leave Waste Behind in China.”

Washington Post, March 9, 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html.

26. Ibid.27. Ibid.28. “What’s Raining on Solar’s Parade.” Business Week, February 6, 2006.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_06/b3970108.htm.

29. Luque, Antonio, and Steven Hegedus. 2003. Handbook of Photovoltaic Science and Engineering. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=u-bCMhl_JjQC&oi=fnd&pg=PT184&dq=silicon+tetrachloride+solar+toxic+recycling&ots=JDuOc6eO4E&sig=vz9vDGqDVmLzxXkS0UQ5KWJEJYU#v=onepage&q=&f=false.

30. Braga, A.F.B. et. al. 2007. “New processes for the production of solar-grade polysilicon: a review.” Science Direct, October 15. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V51-4R70VSG1&_user=145269&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=& view=c&_searchStrId=1069130803&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000012078&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=145269&md5=8d2f93bf24daa83d96dbf03c61ed9c79.

31. Luque, Antonio, and Steven Hegedus.32. Cha, Ariana Eunjung.33. “Research Report on Chinese Polysilicon Industry 2009-2010.” China

Research and Intelligence Co., Ltd., September 28, 2009. http://www.marketresearch.com/product/display.asp?productid=2444942.

34. Ibid.35. Cha, Ariana Eunjung.

36. “New Concept for the Utilization of Silicon Tetrachloride.” China Chemical Reporter 19, July 6, 2008: 20. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=3&sid=e9827177-fb8c-41ae-a075-c8fb2d2ae3a6%40sessionmgr4.

37. “Toward a Just and Sustainable Solar Energy Industry.” 2009. Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, January 14. http://www.svtc.org/site/DocServer/Silicon_Valley_Toxics _Coalition__Toward_a_Just_and_Sust.pdf?docID=821.

38. Cha, Ariana Eunjung.39. “New Concept for the Utilization of Silicon Tetrachloride.”40. Cha, Ariana Eunjung. “Solar Firms Leave Waste Behind in China.”41. Ibid.42. McCue, Thomas. Interview by author. November 5, 2009.43. Potash, Gerri. 2009. “China & the Future of Solar Photovoltaic

Technology.” Nerac. http://www.nerac. com/img/BusinessInChina.pdf.

44. Campillo, Javier, and Stephen Foster. 2008. “Global Solar Photovoltaic Industry Analysis with Focus on the Chinese Market.” The Department of Public Technology, Malardalen University, May 14.

45. Galbraith, Kate.46. Bashkin, James K. “When Light is Dark: Waste from Key Solar Cell

Ingredients Damages Chinese Environment.” GreenChemistry, March 11, 2008. http://greenchemistry.wordpress.com/2008/03/1 1/when-light-is-dark-waste-from-key-solar-cell-ingredient-damages-chinese-environment/.

47. Campillo, Javier, and Stephen Foster48. Bradsher, Keith.49. Campillo, Javier, and Stephen Foster.50. Galbraith, Kate.51. “Research Report on Chinese Polysilicon Industry 2009-2010.”

52. Campillo, Javier, and Stephen Foster.53. “Research Report on Chinese Polysilicon Industry 2009-2010.”54. Schmit, Julie. “China pushes solar, wind power development.”

USA Today, November 18, 2009. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2009-11-17-chinasolar17_CV _N.htm.

55. Ibid.56. “Toward a Just and Sustainable Solar Energy Industry.”57. “Editorial: President Obama in China.” New York Times, November

15, 2009. http://www.nytimes.co m/2009/11/16/opinion/16mon1.html.

58. “Toward a Just and Sustainable Solar Energy Industry.”59. LaMonica, Martin. “GE: Solar business is our ‘next wind.’” CNET

News, September 24, 2009. http://n ews.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10360611-54.html.

60. “Toward a Just and Sustainable Solar Energy Industry.”61. “Cadmium Use in Photovoltaics – The Perceived Risk and the

Scientific Evidence.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory. http://www.nrel.gov/pv/cdte/environment.html.

62. Fthenakis, Vasilis M., and Ken Zweibel. “CdTe Photovoltaics: Real and Perceived EHS Risks.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, March 25, 2003 http://www.bnl.gov/pv/files/pdf/NCPV_CdTe.pdf.

63. “Siltronic Corporation receives EPA’s National Environmental Performance Award.” 2007. Siltronic Corporation, May 23. http://www.siltronic.com/int/en/press/press-release/archiv2007/pressinforma tion-2007-detail_7982.jsp.

64. Campillo, Javier, and Stephen Foster.65. “Editorial: President Obama in China.”66. Galbraith, Kate.67. Bradsher, Keith.68. “Suntech Joins PV Cycle Association to Develop Solar Module

Recycling Program.” Reuters, May 7, 2009. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS151532+07-May-2009+PRN20090507.

Solar Waste

Vol. XI | No. 2 • 15

69. “Yingli Green Energy Becomes the First China-Based Company to Join PV Cycle.” Reuters, May 11, 2009. http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS103652+11-May-2009+PRN20090511.

70. Green, Martin. “Shi Zhengrong: Heroes of the Environment.” Time, October 17th, 2007. http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1663317_1663322_1669932,00.html.

71. Bashkin, James K.72. Fthenakis, Vasilis M., and Ken Zweibel. “CdTe Photovoltaics: Real

and Perceived EHS Risks."

PV Cycle and Shutterstock ©The 'PV Cycle' pictured above focuses on end-of-life recycle issues, but, like many other environmental plans, neglects to emphasize production waste.