Hanwha Qcells has launched a solar panel recycling program called EcoRecycle. The company aims to recycle up to 250 megawatts (MW) of solar panels each year. This effort will reduce waste and promote sustainable energy in the U.S. It meets the growing need for solar panel recycling as the industry expands.
Why Qcells Chose Georgia?
Qcells chose Georgia for its new recycling facility. The company already runs major solar projects in the state, which is a hub for solar energy. Expanding there allows Qcells to use existing infrastructure and a skilled local workforce.
This year, EcoRecycle will begin operations at a state-of-the-art facility in Cartersville, Georgia. At full capacity, it can recycle about 250 MW of solar panels each year—around 500,000 panels—recovering materials like aluminum, glass, silver, and copper. EcoRecycle plans to expand its centers across the U.S. to boost efficiency.
This move helps the local economy by creating jobs and promoting green technology. Georgia is key to U.S. solar growth. It’s an ideal place for a large-scale recycling program that can transform how the industry manages solar waste.
Jung-Kwon Hong, Head of Hanwha Qcells Manufacturing Group
“As the U.S. moves towards a more sustainable and self-reliant solar industry, EcoRecycle by Qcells is committed to pioneering innovative recycling technologies that not only reduce environmental impact but also create economic opportunities. Through strategic investments and cutting-edge solutions, we are positioning ourselves as a leader in the circular economy, ensuring that solar energy remains a truly renewable and responsible power source.”
What Makes EcoRecycle Important for Solar Waste?
Solar panels typically last 25 to 30 years. As older panels reach the end of their life, they create a waste problem. Currently, less than 10% of solar panels are recycled. Most end up in landfills, wasting valuable materials like glass, aluminum, silicon, and silver.
Qcells wants to change this with EcoRecycle. The goal is to recover key materials and reuse them in new products. By keeping these materials in circulation, Qcells helps reduce emissions tied to mining and production, which are crucial steps in fighting climate change.
Kelly Weger, Senior Director of Sustainability at Hanwha Qcells said,
“With this new business, Hanwha Qcells will emerge as the first-ever crystalline silicon (C-Si) solar panel producer to possess a full value chain, conducting both solar panel manufacturing and recycling on U.S. soil. Effectively managing solar waste is essential to ensure the long-term sustainability and resilience of the clean energy sector. We’re proud to be leading the charge with the launch of EcoRecycle by Qcells.”
To boost its recycling efforts, Qcells partnered with Solarcycle, a company that specializes in solar panel recycling. Solarcycle uses innovative technology to separate valuable components from old panels. These parts, like silicon and precious metals, can be reused to make new panels.
This partnership allows Qcells to recycle more efficiently. It also shows how collaboration can help the solar sector adopt greener practices.
Recycling Solar Waste and Its Impact on the Environment
As global demand for solar energy grows, solar panel installations are rapidly increasing. At the same time, concerns are rising about carbon emissions from panel production and how to manage solar waste.
Measuring Solar’s Life-Cycle Emissions
Life-cycle emissions refer to the total greenhouse gases released throughout the entire process of producing energy, from mining raw materials and manufacturing to installation, maintenance, and final disposal.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), producing 1 kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity from rooftop solar panels results in about 41 grams of CO2 equivalents—the same weight as a medium-sized chicken egg.
While solar energy isn’t completely carbon-free, its emissions are significantly lower than those from fossil fuel-based electricity, making it a much cleaner alternative.
Recycling solar panels cuts the need for raw materials like mined aluminum, copper, and glass. By reusing these materials, Qcells reduces energy use and carbon emissions tied to production.
In 2023, the Qcells division took responsibility by launching an extended producer responsibility (EPR) program and setting up an eco-friendly system to recycle waste panels.
Additionally, Solarcycle’s advanced resource separation can recover up to 95% of materials in a panel. This means less waste in landfills and fewer carbon emissions from mining and transporting raw materials. With solar panel waste expected to reach 76 million tons globally by 2030, EcoRecycle helps ease that future burden.
Boosting the U.S. Solar Sector
The U.S. solar sector is rapidly growing, currently valued at $20 billion. It will continue to expand as more homes and businesses adopt solar. However, this growth also creates more waste unless recycling becomes standard.
By launching EcoRecycle, Qcells prepares for future regulations and market demands. Currently, there are no national laws for solar panel recycling, though some states are starting to discuss it. If these laws pass, Qcells will be well-positioned to start early.
Recycling also reduces the solar industry’s reliance on imports for key materials, protecting companies from price changes. This stability gives manufacturers reliable domestic supplies of materials.
Trends Driving Solar Panel Recycling
In the renewable energy sector, companies are focusing more on the entire product lifecycle. This means designing solar technology for both performance and end-of-life management. More firms invest in recycling to maximize the value of their materials.
Businesses and governments promote a circular economy in solar, where products are reused or remade instead of being discarded. This approach reduces waste and supports long-term sustainability goals. Initiatives like Qcells’ EcoRecycle show this strategy in action.
Industry experts agree that effective recycling will shape the next phase of solar growth. According to EIA’s latest forecast, the US expects 63GW of new utility-scale power projects in 2025, with solar PV leading the way. Utility-scale solar PV will contribute 32.5GW, making up 52% of the total.
However, this growth brings increased waste. If recycling doesn’t keep pace, the solar boom could lead to major environmental challenges.
EcoRecycle addresses the urgent need for infrastructure to manage outdated and damaged panels. With Solarcycle’s advanced recovery technology, Qcells takes an early lead in a market with few large-scale recyclers. This offers both environmental and competitive advantages.
Public pressure is also growing. Consumers want to know what happens to products after they use them. They prefer brands that act responsibly. Qcells’ program meets this demand. It builds trust with an audience that cares about sustainable energy choices.
EcoRecycle Sets a New Standard in Solar Tech Management
EcoRecycle sets a new standard for responsible solar tech management. Growth is important, but the solar industry must handle its waste. If it doesn’t, it risks undermining its green mission. Hanwha Qcells is an example of this by its investment in recycling. They offer a roadmap for others to follow.
As technology advances and regulations change, recycling will likely become central to solar economics. Qcells’ proactive approach lets it shape the market while helping reduce emissions and landfill waste. It’s not just about solar power; it’s about building a sustainable future.
With EcoRecycle, Qcells has taken a significant step forward. It paves the way for a future where energy is clean, smart, and sustainable.
The post Hanwha Qcells Launches EcoRecycle for Solar Panel Recycling appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits