Solar panel manufacturers are fighting for an exemption from EU legislation restricting the use of dangerous chemicals in electronic products. But some voices are calling for greater scrutiny of the industry, sparking a technology war between rival companies.
The European solar industry has begun a campaign to exclude photovoltaic solar panels from the recast directive on the restriction of certain hazardous substances (RoHS), which is currently being debated by the EU institutions.
It argues that having to comply with bans and restrictions originally applied to electrical and electronic household appliances would harm the industry's competitiveness without offering any health benefits, while slowing the EU's fight against climate change.
The directive's revision engulfed the solar industry last autumn after Sweden proposed to extend its scope to cover all electrical and electronic equipment. The amendment would bring solar panels within the scope of the directive unless specifically excluded.
"If solar modules were included in this, we believe it would do much more harm to the environment, society and industry compared to the current situation, where our industry has already in place voluntary recycling programmes for all the different modules which are sold on the market place," said Winfried Hoffman, vice-president of Applied Materials, asemiconductor manufacturer, and vice-president of the European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA).
Considering the fact that the minimum lifetime of a solar module is 25 years at the moment, it would not be "very logical" to integrate modules into a framework designed to regulate products with short lifespans, which are likely to be dumped at landfills.
Widening the scope of the directive would affect the renewable energy industry at large, as manufacturers of equipment like wind turbines, fuel cells and geothermal power systems would have to demonstrate compliance with the legislation too.
Concerns have already been raised that the new legislation could put renewable energies at a disadvantage compared to fossil fuels, which do not have to comply with the requirements.
MEPs have been divided over whether solar panels should be included in the directive. Some argue that they should be as environmentally friendly as possible, while others think they should be eligible for exemptions.
But the industry would rather see full exclusion from the legislation, arguing that having to apply for renewal every four years would introduce uncertainty to the market. At present companies give their modules warranties of up to 25 years.
A draft European Parliament report, to be voted upon in the environment committee in June, proposes to give an exemption to cadmium in thin-film photovoltaic panels based on cadmium telluride. It argues that the impact of substitution with more energy-intensive and technologically inferior alternatives would outweigh the benefits of using no cadmium.
Counter attack
But not everybody in the industry agrees that voluntary recycling schemes are enough to justify an exemption from the legislation.
The Non-Toxic Solar Alliance (NTSA), which describes itself as a not-for-profit advocacy group including members of the solar industry, argues that any industry efforts to recycle photovoltaic (PV) modules containing toxic materials require a "sufficient safety guarantee". It wants RoHS to regulate the PV industry to ensure that manufacturers with lower environmental standards are not encouraged to use technologies containing toxic materials.
"With absent safety guarantees and the comparatively small financial provisions existingtoday, we have serious doubts as to the adequacy of such efforts. Keeping modules containing toxic substances in a closed cycle over decades constitutes a significant and yet unsolved challenge," argues Jan Kallmorgen, the NTSA chairman.
Speaking to EurActiv, he argued that the safe use of toxic substances like cadmium and lead in PV modules cannot be guaranteed based on current scientific knowledge.
"There are no independent and public studies available that prove with certainty that the use of toxic substances in PV modules constitutes no risks. Risk factors to be considered include leakage, breakage and fire," he added.
In 2005, the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) organised a peer review of major studies on the environmental, health and safety aspects of cadmium tellurate PV systems. It concluded that large-scale use of such modules doesn't present a risk to public health or environment under normal operating conditions.
The NTSA believes that compliance with RoHS would accelerate research and development in non-toxic PV technologies and improve the industry’s capacity to meet the EU’s climate goals.
"There are many PV technologies in compliance with RoHS that do not contain any of the toxic materials currently restricted by the directive. It is important to understand that CdTe is not the only thin film technology and that clean thin film alternatives, such as amorphous SI or cadmium free CIS/GICS, are available right now and more manufacturers are getting ready to enter the market," Kallmorgen said.
A turf war?
The debate has opposed producers of thin film modules like current PV market leader First Solar, and those of crystalline silicon, which make up around 80% of the market.
The NTSA sides with the silicon cell producers, arguing that manufacturers of such "non-toxic solar technologies" as they call them are put at a competitive disadvantage by the current regulatory framework.
"A level playing field is needed, where all are treated fairly by the same standards. A consequent application of the logic of the RoHS recast would accelerate and strengthen research and development in non-toxic PV technologies," said the NTSA chair.
First Solar uses cadmium telluride (CdTE) as the semiconductor material to ramp up the capacity of its solar cells and convert sunlight into electricity. The technology allows it to produce modules at a significantly lower cost than most of its competitors.
Products containing cadmium telluride and sulphide, however, would not comply with the RoHS rules.
Solar World, a major crystalline producer, has announced it is against EPIA's efforts to exempt the solar industry from the RoHS directive.
NTSA says that Solar World is backing its position, but insists that it gets no funding from the company. Rather, it is fully funded by donations from its supporters, mainly scientists and private figures from the solar industry, according to its website.
"The NTSA does not represent the solar industry since nobody knows exactly which companies are behind this organisation. The one and only representation of the solar industry in Europe remains EPIA and we have a unambiguous position on RoHS," Hoffmann stressed.