Connect with us

Published

on

Most business leaders believe sustainability costs money. They’re wrong. The proof is sitting right under their noses, bleeding out quietly as waste, excess heat, and byproducts every day the factory runs. Danish manufacturing data shows that more than 20% of raw materials purchased by the average company never reach a finished product. In a sector where resource costs account for more than 50% of total operating expenses — compared to less than 25% for salaries — that’s not a compliance problem or a branding challenge. It’s a structural, strategic failure that most business leaders have never been trained to see. Jasper Steinhausen spent two decades watching that failure play out across more than 100 companies in the Nordic countries. He came to sustainability not from the environmental side, but from marketing, where the core lesson was that people act on what they care about, not on what you think they should care about. When he started connecting the dots between resource-flow analysis and business strategy, the conversation changed. Leaders who tuned out every sustainability pitch suddenly leaned in when the frame was cost reduction, supply chain resilience, and competitive advantage. The “green” problem turned out to be a business problem in disguise — and a solvable one. That reframing is in his book, Making Sustainability Profitable: A Leader’s Guide to Growing a Thriving Business That Makes the World a Better Place. A free digital copy of the book is available at freebook.scoreapp.com — Jasper recommends starting with Chapter Three.

Jasper Steinhausen, Founder and CEO of Business With Impact and author of Making Sustainability Profitable, is our guest on Sustainability In Your Ear.

The argument Jasper makes is structural. Today’s business leaders have been trained rigorously in managing time and money, but almost never in managing material flows, even though materials dwarf payroll in the cost structure of most manufacturing companies. The result is a generation of leaders who are leaving more than half their cost base strategically unmanaged. The narrative problem compounds the structural one. When every leader wakes up believing sustainability is a cost, a constraint, and a compromise, they never get to the question of whether it might be something else. Jasper’s idea, which he posts about on LinkedIn and tests with clients ranging from small manufacturers to government advisory roles, is that the narrative is the first hurdle. The mental transformation has to precede the business transformation. Companies that clear that hurdle and start treating sustainability as an innovation platform consistently find themselves with a layer of competitive advantage their rivals haven’t even thought to open. Our conversation also covers the greenwashing trap, and how to avoid it by going around it entirely. The problem with leading on sustainability as a marketing message, Jasper argues, is that it inverts the logic. The job isn’t to convince customers to care about the planet. It’s to identify the problem they’re already trying to solve and deliver a better solution. Once that happens to be more sustainable because sustainability, done right, produces better outcomes. “Impact follows perceived value,” he says. A water company with a genuinely pure, chemical-free source doesn’t lead with environmental stewardship. It leads with safer drinking water for your kids. The sustainability isn’t hidden — it’s structural. It’s why the product delivers what it promises. Communicating it means doing what you say, saying what you do, and backing every claim with data and a visible roadmap. That’s not a compromise. That’s the only version of sustainability communication that survives contact with a skeptical market.

You can learn more about Jasper’s work at bwimpact.com and connect with him on LinkedIn.

Interview Transcript

Mitch Ratcliffe 0:09

Hello, good morning, good afternoon, or good evening, wherever you are on this beautiful planet of ours. Welcome to Sustainability In Your Ear. This is the podcast conversation about accelerating the transition to a sustainable, carbon-neutral society, and I’m your host, Mitch Ratcliffe. Thanks for joining the conversation.

Today we’re going to talk about sustainable business — making it sustainable, making it profitable; in other words, making it a business. Many people still believe that sustainability is just a cost center: a compliance hassle, a PR move, or something that hurts profits. This belief has kept many companies from joining the green transition. Instead, they’re waiting for rules to change or for others to show how it works. But the data tells a different story, and according to our guest today, when manufacturers in Denmark account for all their inputs, more than 20% of raw materials they purchase never reach a finished product. Instead, they bleed out as waste, excess heat, and other byproducts. That’s not just an environmental problem — that’s money leaving through a hole in the floor. And it points to something deeper: sustainability, when done right, isn’t a cost to be managed. It’s a source of competitive advantage that most business leaders have not yet learned to see.

So I’m joined today by Jasper Steinhausen, founder and CEO of Business With Impact, and the author of the book Making Sustainability Profitable. Jasper is a longtime circular economy business consultant to businesses in the Nordic countries. Over the past two decades, he’s worked with over 100 companies and has served as an advisor to the Danish government’s Green Transition Fund. He’s developed a framework — the Impact Blueprint — that guides business leaders through five key actions connecting sustainability with growth, resilience, and profit. Companies that use it have reported their best financial results ever.

So let’s talk with Jasper about common mistakes small and medium-sized companies make when starting with sustainability, how circular economy thinking is really about using resources better and making more profit, and how companies that go beyond compliance can stand out from the competition. We’ll also try to get into some tougher questions: Why isn’t the business case catching on faster? How do you tell real sustainability from greenwashing? And can businesses move quickly enough to meet what science says is needed?

To learn more about Jasper’s work, you can visit bwimpact.com — that’s all one word, no space, no dash. You can find his book Making Sustainability Profitable on Amazon or at your local bookseller. If sustainability is truly a profit driver hiding in plain sight, why do so many business leaders still see it as a burden, and what would it take to change that? Let’s find out right after this brief commercial break.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Mitch Ratcliffe 2:58

Welcome to the show, Jasper. How are you doing today?

Jasper Steinhausen 3:01

Thank you, Mitch. I’m doing really, really well. Looking forward to having this conversation with you.

Mitch Ratcliffe 3:06

Well, thank you for joining me. I really appreciate it. You know, like myself, you’ve been working for 20 years or so at the intersection of sustainability and business strategy. I’m wondering — was there a moment, or maybe a specific client, that made the bell ring for you, that these two things are intimately connected?

Jasper Steinhausen 3:23

Well, for me, the problem is that most people tend to focus on only one problem at a time, right? We tend to isolate problems, especially those we don’t quite understand. And that’s not just a sustainability thing — that’s just how our brains work. But the reality is that sustainability integrates into so many areas in a business, as you probably realize yourself.

And I’ve always been looking at the positive side of things, looking for the opportunity. At some point, back in the mid-2000s or so, I was very much into climate. This was heading up towards COP 15 in Copenhagen, so climate was the thing — also for me. I started looking at climate as the opportunity to innovate and to rethink, and thereby to solve more than one problem at the same time, because there was lots of stuff that needed fixing.

My experience from working in marketing right after I left university was that the more I talked to people about what they care about, the more they listened. So I started connecting the dots: what are the types of problems they do care about? Because a lot of people don’t necessarily care enough about sustainability — it’s not their top priority. So I started to look at it this way: What if I get curious, try to understand what your top priority is, and then figure out how climate — or sustainability, or whatever your slice of this pie is — intersects with that problem? And then speak to solving that problem in a way that also has impact. Basically turning sustainability into the toolbox and using it to solve the problems people actually care about.

And things started moving more easily. Conversations were more interesting to people. From there, I’ve just been refining that process for — yeah, 20-plus years.

Mitch Ratcliffe 5:32

Well, as you say, there are a lot of problems, and the range of challenges a business or policymaker faces today is growing constantly. What do you find the primary motivation is — is it profitability, or is it a combination of financial sustainability and a genuine desire to do better? Where does the motive lie these days?

Jasper Steinhausen 5:56

Well, it depends. Usually I just start by asking people: What are your top priorities right now? What do you really want to succeed with? Not necessarily in sustainability, but where’s your head on the line — what have you promised the board, or your senior leadership, or whoever I’m speaking to in the organization? So rather than having a conversation around sustainability, I find it more interesting to have a conversation about what we really want to achieve.

But I do find that many leaders feel a fairly significant pain around the gap between the values they live by in their private life — the choices they make about food, cars, travel, housing, what they buy, what they choose to repair — and their professional life. In their private life, they make conscious, deliberate choices that factor in sustainability. Then they go to work for eight or nine hours a day, and there they just can’t connect the dots. So they’re basically living a split, unable to live up to their values in their professional life — which is a big part of your life. And that’s painful.

So for some there is an underlying personal pain point, but it always comes back to: I’m being measured on delivering business results. And if you’re not in a company that’s advanced and mature in sustainability — where it’s an integrated part of the brand — well, then it’s a distant second to cutting costs, increasing sales, and attracting talent. So to come back to your question: the short answer is that it’s the business side for the vast majority, but a lot of them have a personal drive underneath. They just can’t connect the two, so they don’t even try. When I help them do that, it becomes a real personal relief as well.

Mitch Ratcliffe 8:30

So what would you say is the most common objection you hear when you make the argument to, say, a room full of CEOs that sustainability can be profitable? Is there a common myth you can dispel right off the bat?

Jasper Steinhausen 8:42

Yeah, I guess they don’t say this, but I’m pretty sure they think it — “BS, this can’t be true” — though they’re polite people and don’t say it to my face. But the thing is, I’ve asked people on every continent, and I get the same response: sustainability is a problem, it’s expensive, it’s hard for business, and you have to compromise in so many ways. That seems to be the decisive narrative globally on what sustainability is.

The reality is that sustainability delivers competitiveness. It drives down cost. It drives innovation. It fuels engagement — and engagement equals productivity, less sick leave, attracting talent, more innovation. And combine all those, as you advance further and further, it also starts to lead to increased customer loyalty, because you make better solutions and find people and companies who see that alignment. There is so much business value to be gained, and people just don’t get that.

When we make what I call a mental transformation — before we’re capable of doing a business transformation — it’s kind of like all of a sudden thinking: well, what have I been thinking for all these years? You can read more about this process in Making Sustainability Profitable.

Mitch Ratcliffe 10:31

Well, you’re describing the recognition of a series of connections that constitute the system in which the business does its work — whatever that work might be. And one of the things that was interesting, and why I wanted to talk with you, is that you frame this all initially as a waste issue. I was surprised by the Danish manufacturing results you reported — that 20% of raw materials never make it into the product or service. For business leaders who haven’t thought about it that way, how does framing sustainability primarily as a resource-efficiency problem change the conversation? Does it make it easier to take that first step?

Jasper Steinhausen 11:08

Well, it’s a really good question. In general, it shifts things quite a lot. The thing is that business leaders don’t really know how to deal with resource flow strategically, and there’s a reason for that. From around the early 1950s to the early 1970s — what’s often referred to as the golden age of capitalism — there was a notion of seemingly endless abundance in energy and materials, and prices just kept falling. So it became less of a strategic issue and more like a cost of operations, something to hand down the chain to the head of manufacturing or wherever it sits today. In leadership literature, it gradually disappeared as a strategic topic, meaning that today’s leaders have never really been trained to strategically look at the flow of resources. They focus mainly on the flow of time and the flow of money.

So through no fault of their own — because nobody ever taught them, it was never part of their education or their portfolio — now this massive area has been ignored. I once had an opportunity to dig into Danish national statistical data — about ten years ago, though I’m quite sure the picture is the same today, perhaps even more significant. Less than 25% of costs go to salary. A bit more than 50% is tied to resources. If you combine these two things — it’s kind of mind-blowing. More than 50% of all costs are not part of leadership’s strategic focus. Let’s leave that for listeners to chew on, because that’s insane when you look at it like that. But it kind of just disappeared.

So when I come in and help rewire this connection — have them look at where the resource flows are — it becomes quite easy to see that there are things really going wrong in how we produce today. When I look at a company or a value chain, I basically see money bleeding out all over the place. If I’m asking how we can increase competitiveness and reduce cost, the first thing I’d say is: well, why don’t we start by stopping some of these holes? And the response is: “Oh, yeah, okay — I hadn’t thought about that.” Because that’s just how things run. Procurement procures, manufacturing produces, sales sells, everybody’s busy, the cost structure is baked into the price, and that’s it. Just intercept a bit and show them what it really is, and it’s kind of “holy moly.” And then you can start doing things.

Mitch Ratcliffe 14:39

Well, you’re describing what happens when suddenly the water is off and you recognize you’ve been counting on it without thinking about it for a long time. Each organization within the entity is in its own silo, focused on its own thing. So how do you move from being reactive to being proactive about sustainability? What does the sweet spot look like in practice?

Jasper Steinhausen 14:58

Yeah, well, I guess you could say that things move a little more easily once you align strategy and offering, and you and your team are working toward something bigger than yourselves. As some of your listeners probably know, we understand quite a lot about intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. And we know that when we contribute to something beyond ourselves — something bigger — it feels really good.

So if you’re in a company that’s not just about profit, but also a profitable way to be part of making the world a better place — in whatever area fits that company — we can all see that a lot of things in this world are out of balance and moving in the wrong direction, whether that’s climate change, biodiversity, plastics, the amount of chemicals, or something in the social space. Whatever is your flavor, that’s up to you. And the second you can see: “Now I’m part of a team or a culture or movement that’s actually taking some real steps” — and you’re leveraging the full power of a business to do it — it becomes this massively leveraged change. You make better products because you use sustainability as an innovation platform. You put customers’ problems at the center, so you come up with solutions that are better for clients and better for the planet. Your team becomes more engaged, stays longer, works harder. And that’s why they beat the competition. It’s simply a better way of doing business.

Mitch Ratcliffe 17:15

Well, you see yourself within a larger system and a bigger context, and that allows you to find greater motivation as well as more opportunities for innovation. Can you share the principles of the Impact Blueprint — the five steps a leader listening right now on their commute can identify and potentially apply when they get to the office?

Jasper Steinhausen 17:39

Sure. There are five steps: mindset, mission, mapping out a course to move toward it, actually doing stuff, and then going out and talking about it. You can read through all of them in depth in Making Sustainability Profitable — and I’d be happy to gift your listeners a digital copy. Check the show notes for a link to download a free copy.

The mindset step is a lot of what we’ve already been talking about: shifting out of “it’s bad, costly, and a compromise” and into the opportunity space. Don’t start with “what environmental problems should I solve?” Start with “what business problem am I most focused on solving?” and then look at that through the lens of sustainability or resource flow. How does that intersect with the problem? Don’t go in thinking it’s more costly — it’s an innovation game. Find ways to make better solutions.

Mitch Ratcliffe 19:11

Great. We’ll include a link in the show notes.

Jasper Steinhausen 19:15

Perfect. Just read Chapter Three — that’s about a 20-minute read and you’ll be all good to go.

Mitch Ratcliffe 19:23

Chapter Three. Check it out.

Jasper Steinhausen 19:23

Check it out. The mission step is figuring out why we’re all doing this. What’s the bigger thing? Where do we want to go with this? Say you’re a smaller company, or founder-led, or owner-operated — where do I really want to go with this? What’s important to me? And making sure that matches with the business. You can look at a SWOT analysis — strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats — and then match that with what’s personally important to you. Kind of like legacy thinking: what would you like to be known for? Is it children? Is it animals? Is it climate change? And then make sure those match, so you don’t choose an impact area you have no ability to actually move.

I’ve worked with clients who really wanted to do something on climate, but had a business with a very insignificant direct climate impact, or where the impact was tied into a supply chain where they had zero ability to influence anything, because they were a small company with giant suppliers on the other side of the world. So you need to match those things so you actually choose something that gives you a real chance of working on sustainability in a way that also improves your business.

Mitch Ratcliffe 20:56

And those two — mindset and mission — are a great place to anchor the rest of the conversation. What is the minimum viable move in terms of its ability to catalyze the passion you’re talking about for making the world a better place, while balancing the day-to-day challenge of covering payroll at the end of the month? Is there some initial investment or activity that takes you out of your comfort zone — where the silos stop you in your tracks?

Jasper Steinhausen 21:41

Well, you’re very right that getting out of the comfort zone is part of it. I find that the absolute majority of leaders don’t know how to lead sustainability — they see it as this separate thing.

Mitch Ratcliffe 21:54

And I would argue that they may not even know how to lead.

Jasper Steinhausen 22:00

Point taken — yes, duly noted. And especially for smaller businesses. A lot of founders or engineers who suddenly have 20 people on their hands are struggling just to keep everything going. Some even dream about going back to being in the weeds doing the actual work rather than all this leadership stuff. So, yeah.

Mitch Ratcliffe 22:28

The lone innovator is often where a lot of us begin this journey.

Jasper Steinhausen 22:32

Exactly — true. But what I would say is that there’s a lot you can do that doesn’t require big, long-horizon investments. The story about sustainability is very often that it’s about investing for the long view or future-proofing. But what I sometimes refer to as the “brilliant basics” — not a phrase coined by me, but still very valid — is to look at your company and see what you’re going to keep doing for a very long time. You’re going to keep taking raw materials, running them through process A, B, and C, and turning out a product for your customers. And your customers will keep wanting good quality, reliability, and the best possible price. OK — so here is something you can invest in, because it’s going to be ongoing. Are you doing it the right way?

And again, back to the resource flow and waste issue: you are not doing it the right way if you’ve never really looked at it. Unless you’re a very high-volume, low-margin Walmart-type operation that scrutinizes every penny — or you’ve been on the brink of bankruptcy — odds are good you’ve never really looked hard at this. When the Ukraine war broke out four years ago, what we saw here in Europe was a massive, near-overnight increase in energy prices. All of a sudden, companies saw a doubling or more of their energy costs, and for many, that was lethal. All hands on deck.

And within weeks, so many things were changed — none of which required big new investments. It was just smarter practice: let’s produce at night when energy is cheaper; maybe we don’t need the temperature at 98 degrees — maybe 92 is fine. All these things that were never looked at, because it wasn’t on the radar. You can do a lot of that. The minimum viable move is really just getting the basics right.

Mitch Ratcliffe 25:41

So you’re describing that moment of crisis when the reframing is almost automatic — because you don’t have control anymore. This is also a great place to take a quick commercial break, folks, because the wheels have been clipped off the plane. Will we land it? We’ll find out right after a quick commercial break.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Mitch Ratcliffe 26:08

Welcome back to Sustainability In Your Ear. Now, let’s get back to my discussion with Jasper Steinhausen, author of Making Sustainability Profitable and founder and CEO of Business With Impact. So Jasper, one of the testimonials I read about your work is that in a single coaching session, you reframed an entire business through your questions. What do those questions look like when you sit down with somebody who says, “I know I need to do something — I think it might be sustainability.” How do you drill in to find out what they can actually do?

Jasper Steinhausen 26:41

Well, I can walk you back to that specific session, because I think it’s a story that underpins quite well what we’ve been talking about. So it’s a company that sells a water product of really, really high standard, and the founder is passionate about sustainability — but they were struggling a bit with getting traction in the marketplace and getting people to support it, whether that was investors, partners, or whatever. She was clearly more passionate about the sustainability part than a lot of the peers around her that she was trying to persuade.

But the thing is, she had really, really clear water — one of the few sources that could actually claim it was not contaminated with any man-made substances: no plastics, no chemicals, no PFAS, nothing. So I thought: what if we reframe this not as “a sustainable source” but as “better for your health”? How many people walk around caring about what they eat and drink? How many are worried about chemicals in their bodies or in their children? If this was the truly safe source of drinking water, what would that look like compared to pitching it as “the sustainable drinking water”? And she was like —

Mitch Ratcliffe 28:31

However — does that get them away from sustainability as a focus of the company? How do you avoid repositioning defocusing the mission?

Jasper Steinhausen 28:46

Well, the thing is that in order to deliver on that promise, she had to maintain exactly those sustainability standards. I was just reframing from selling the “green” solution to selling the value that comes out of doing that work.

Mitch Ratcliffe 29:03

Back to what I was asking about. So is leading with sustainability the wrong way to think about this, generally?

Jasper Steinhausen 29:12

It depends on your target market. So if you’re targeting people like you and me, it’s probably a good idea to lead with sustainability, because when I’m looking for something, my starting point is: where can I find anyone who’s done something remotely interesting in terms of sustainability? But the majority of people don’t start there. So if it’s green versus better, I’ll almost always go with better. What’s the better outcome that comes out of it?

In the water story, the pitch is cleaner and safer drinking water — P.S., it also happens to be sustainable. And that’s why she would not bottle it in plastic, obviously, because micro-plastics would migrate in and destroy the quality of the product. So it has to be in glass bottles — but you’re still not devaluing your mission. You’re just reframing the value. And basically it goes like this: impact follows perceived value. The job is to figure out what your ideal client perceives as valuable right now, and then show how your sustainable practice supports that. How do my choices become a reason for you to feel more confident in the product — because it helps you with the problem you know you have? And I know that, at the same time, it’s also good for climate or for whatever else. But that’s the icing on the cake.

Mitch Ratcliffe 31:05

One of the things I’ve learned over the years is that basing your product positioning on your own preference can be very challenging, because your preference and values may not map to the market’s. In this case, people are thirsty. They want good, clean, healthy water. Some of them — maybe not even most of them — want it delivered sustainably. Is it really important to lead with sustainability in any way, shape, or form? Or is that a subterranean activity? The thinking should be: let’s do this sustainably — but we don’t necessarily need to pitch that upfront. Let your quality speak first: you’re going to drink good, clean water; it won’t harm your kids; and, by the way, we’re going to be able to continue doing this without having destroyed nature.

Jasper Steinhausen 31:57

Yeah, I would probably go with something like that — but it depends on the room. Say I’m pitching this at Patagonia’s annual leadership assembly. Well, it’s probably a good idea to start by saying this is an amazing, sustainable product. They’re exactly the right audience for that. So it’s audience first — it’s page two of any book on selling.

So if people are on their commute back to the workplace thinking “what do I do?” — it’s just business. Sales is sales. Marketing is marketing. Innovation is innovation. What you can see is that sustainability is just an extra layer in the toolbox — and it’s one you probably haven’t utilized, and one that most of your competitors have never even thought about. That’s why you can beat the competition: by starting to utilize a layer in the toolbox nobody else is looking at, to develop better solutions, better business, lower costs, and more innovation.

And once you’ve done that, there’s a completely separate discussion: how much do you want to flag this externally? That comes back to who your target market is. Some you want to flag it a lot. Others — maybe not. “I’m trying to sell this to the White House right now, okay, I probably shouldn’t lead with sustainability. Let’s save that for later.” But if I’m selling to Patagonia, I probably want to flag it quite a lot. That’s a different discussion. You use the toolbox to make the better solution, and then you make a choice about whether and how much to flag it.

Mitch Ratcliffe 34:02

Well, in a lot of ways, what you’re doing is going around the greenwashing problem by actually focusing on why you’re making the decision. Greenwashing is a credibility killer in this space. If you were to go to Patagonia and say “we’re sustainable,” and it turns out you’re generating vast amounts of PFAS you’re dumping into the local water supply — you’re done with that audience. How do you recommend companies communicate sustainability in an authentic way, without making exaggerated claims? Because often, at the beginning of the process, they’re talking about their long-term goal rather than how they’re actually performing today. How do you begin that reveal in a way that lets people see you’re making progress, but without overpromising?

Jasper Steinhausen 34:51

Yes. If I should put this in really plain English: do what you say, say what you do, and be able to back it up with data. End of story. You could add: please don’t lie. In Europe, there’s regulation against this — it’s tied into marketing law. So making false claims is just breaking the law, the same as trying to sell liquor to minors.

But the key thing is: always be specific. Stay away from the generics — “I’m sustainable,” “I’m green,” whatever. No. We have done this specific thing. The problem is that when sustainability is pursued mainly as a branding exercise, because companies still believe it’s costly for business and the only return is PR — they try to push the envelope as far as possible. And that’s where all the greenwashing problems come from.

Whereas, if you go about it the way we’ve been discussing, the approach is: What are the three to five biggest business problems we have? What are the three to five biggest problems our clients have? Go to work on those. If you solve one of a customer’s biggest priorities, you don’t go out and say “this is amazing for climate.” You go out and say “we just fixed your problem — and, by the way, it’s also better for the climate.” See Chapter 3 of Making Sustainability Profitable for a full walk-through of this approach.

So there are three things to try to get at least a dash of in your communications. First, the mission — the bigger picture, the roadmap, the plan, whatever you call it. Show that this isn’t a standalone thing; it’s one in a series, and here’s what you plan to do next year and the year after. Then spend the majority of your time on the actual results: we have removed X, optimized Y, extended product life by Z. And be able to back it with data. In Europe, you need trusted third parties to verify the data. I’m not sure about the regulations on your end —

Mitch Ratcliffe 38:02

— here, we don’t have regulations anymore. Makes it easier, doesn’t it? Ha. You made reference earlier to potentially selling to our White House — which I’d argue is a fool’s gambit, because you’ll get stabbed in the back. But sorry, folks — it’s true. Do you see, in this environment of political pushback against sustainability, that the green transition is actually taking deeper hold — not just in Europe, but in business everywhere — because of the underlying resource-cost crisis you’ve been talking about? If we don’t find ways to reuse and reduce the cost of virgin material extraction, prices will just keep going up. Are we on the path to a greener, more environmentally responsible economy, or is it more talk than action?

Jasper Steinhausen 39:06

Well, that’s a really good question. There’s a long-form answer and a short form. Which one do you want?

Mitch Ratcliffe 39:13

Let’s go short — we’ve been talking for a while, and the commute for our listener is probably getting close to an end.

Jasper Steinhausen 39:19

  1. I think we are nowhere near realizing the potential, simply because way too few people have the right understanding of what this is all about. There’s a great misconception we’ve referred to a couple of times, and that’s really what’s holding us back. It’s what makes politicians pass the wrong type of laws and legislation; it’s what makes decision-makers pull back again. It’s somewhere between tragic and hilarious — because in the name of cutting costs and increasing competitiveness, we’re ignoring one of the most powerful levers available to do exactly that. This is probably one of the biggest opportunities to increase competitiveness in our time, rivaled only by AI. And yet, because we don’t understand it, we’re removing focus from it.

Mitch Ratcliffe 40:20

That’s a really important point — and it goes all the way back to the beginning of the conversation. You’re in your silo, focused on your particular challenge. If you just look up a little and see the synergistic opportunities in thinking across silos — first to reduce waste overall, and potentially even to begin regenerating nature by putting raw material back into it — that can be transformative.

One problem a lot of businesses have is that they think of the circular economy only as waste management or recycling. How do you talk about that with your clients? How do you make the case for a full life-cycle approach versus “I took care of my part of the job, I hope somebody else does theirs”?

Jasper Steinhausen 41:15

Well, basically — if they’re not ready to talk circularity, I don’t talk circularity. I might get there eventually, but I use different words. If the reason for taking materials back is to get cheaper or less risky raw materials — because right now they’re sourcing everything from the other end of the world, and we’ve all learned that international supply chains are far more fragile than we thought, what with wars and conflicts and all of that — then perhaps the smarter move is to start sourcing from more regional waste streams. OK, well, then maybe we’re talking about de-risking the supply chain, or cutting cost through access to cheaper raw materials. Whatever it is, I try to listen, tune in, and translate.

I’ve trained myself to speak the language of the CFO, CEO, CTO, head of manufacturing, and sales — whatever the role, I can probably find my way into it. The goal is to make sure they feel they’re on their own turf. In reality, I’m just getting them to use my tools — they’re just not necessarily aware of it. And if they are ready to talk circularity, great — we can go as deep as you like. But for most, that’s not the case.

Mitch Ratcliffe 43:09

Well, you’re hitting on the opportunity of the times, really — the era of code-switching, being able to move from one dialogue to another while maintaining continuity. That’s the authenticity piece, the non-greenwashing part we were discussing a moment ago. If this business case is so compelling, why isn’t every company doing it? What’s the real barrier — is it knowledge, lack of incentives, the need for a new culture, or the need to connect with a bigger culture than your organization? How would you encapsulate that for a business leader who asks?

Jasper Steinhausen 43:49

Well, my analysis is that the single biggest — or perhaps the first — hurdle to get over is changing the narrative. When every business leader wakes up every morning thinking “this is bad for business, this is costly, and it’s going to restrict me and force me to compromise” — and then sits down and thinks “OK, I’m trying to cut costs, trying to find new creative ways to expand into new territory” — they immediately think: “I’m probably not going to use this tool, because I know it’s more costly. It restrains me, and I’m trying to create maneuvering space.” When they think that’s what sustainability is, it never fits the purpose.

The reality is, it fits the purpose extremely well. But nobody knows why — which is also why I spend so much time pushing this narrative by posting six days a week on LinkedIn and being lucky enough to be invited onto programs like this. We need this change in narrative, because otherwise people never even get started. They never get to ask the questions. They never open their eyes to realize: “Huh, that’s strange — maybe we should have a look at this.”

Mitch Ratcliffe 45:19

And it’s because, in a lot of ways, we tell ourselves the same old stories — both because they’re comfortable and because you don’t have to explain them to anyone. As you think about the transition we need to make, what’s that one factor you would urge a business leader to consider as they think about the story of their business — is it the missed opportunity to do the world-improving work they want? Is it missed profitability? Or something else?

Jasper Steinhausen 45:51

Well, in the world of today — where competition is as fierce as it’s ever been for most — I would probably lead with the business side. Just: stop wasting money all the time. Stop that. So you could start by simply looking at what percentage of your overall cost is tied to resources, and how much of what you buy is turning into waste.

Waste is the most expensive and idiotic thing we can create. First, you pay good money to get raw materials. Then you pay people and equipment to work on them. You also pay for marketing, advertising, and sales. And by the time you’re nearly done, some of all of this is lost — and then you pay somebody to come and take it away. It’s lose, lose, lose, lose all the way through. And it’s also bad for the world.

So if we could just eliminate some of that, you’ll save money in procurement. You’ll save money in wasted time, salary, machinery, energy — all of it. And you’ll do a really, really good thing for the planet. And you can turn that into part of your story as well — your people will love you for it, and your clients potentially will too, depending on how you position it. It could turn a lose, lose, lose, lose, lose into a win, win, win, win. Or you could stay where you are and just be damned ineffective. It’s up to you.

Mitch Ratcliffe 47:41

I almost don’t know how to follow that last line — because that is the “I’m just going to stick to my guns” approach I hear from so many business leaders: “I don’t have time for that.” But when you open your thinking to new options, almost invariably, any business can recover. How can folks keep up with your thinking? Where can they see you? Posting on LinkedIn every day?

Jasper Steinhausen 48:03

Yeah, it’s fairly simple, because there’s only one person called Jasper Steinhausen. So if you find me on LinkedIn, I’d really love to have you following and engaging with my content. Hopefully there will be something that inspires you. And, as I said, I’ll be happy to gift you a copy of the book — check the show notes for a link to download a free copy. Start with Chapter Three, as we talked about.

Mitch Ratcliffe 48:29

Well, thank you, Jasper, for your time today. It’s really been a great conversation. I appreciate it.

Jasper Steinhausen 48:34

Likewise, likewise. And thank you for doing all of this. Thank you.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Mitch Ratcliffe 48:43

Welcome back to Sustainability In Your Ear. You’ve been listening to my conversation with Jasper Steinhausen — sorry about mispronouncing his name earlier, by the way. He’s founder and CEO of Business With Impact and the author of Making Sustainability Profitable. You can learn more about his work at bwimpact.com — all one word, no space, no dash. And you can download a free digital copy of his book at freebook.scoreapp.com. When you do, check out Chapter Three first.

Jasper’s reframing of sustainability as a resource-efficiency problem hiding in plain sight is an effective tool for sustainability advocates in any organization. Danish manufacturing data shows that more than 20% of raw materials purchased by the average company never reach a finished product — instead, they bleed out as waste, excess heat, and byproducts. And by the way, you can also be wasting electricity excessively or burning too much coal. Don’t do that. That’s money leaving through a hole in the floor, not to mention an environmental impact too long ignored by business.

But as Jasper points out, this isn’t a failure of character on the part of business leaders. It’s a failure of training and culture. Ever since capitalism began, it has ignored the importance of resource costs. Sure, people talk about it — but when you actually look at it, we waste so much it’s insane. Today’s leaders have been schooled in managing time and money, but almost never in managing material flows, even though resource costs dwarf payrolls and account for more than 50% of the total cost in the average manufacturing company.

The second takeaway I urge you to think about is Jasper’s argument that the single biggest barrier to a green transition isn’t regulation, capital, or technology — it’s a narrative problem. In other words, we have to tell the story that becomes behaviors, repeated over and over to become culture. When every business leader wakes up believing sustainability is a cost, a constraint, and a compromise, their mental calculation about its value is over before it begins. Jasper’s bet is that once companies make the mental transformation — recognizing waste reduction, supply-chain resilience, and innovation capacity as the actual deliverables of a sustainable practice — the business case becomes self-evident. The companies that crack this beat the competition simply by using a layer of the strategic toolbox other companies never bother to open.

Finally, there’s the idea that runs counter to much sustainability advocacy: leading with sustainability as a primary value in your marketing is often the wrong move. Jasper’s principle that “impact follows perceived value” makes the job of the sustainable business clear — it isn’t to convince the market to care about the planet; it’s to identify the problem the customer is already trying to solve, and then bring a sustainable practice to bear on that problem in a way that makes the solution visibly better. That water company with the purest, chemical-free source doesn’t lead with environmental stewardship — it leads with safer drinking water for your kids. Sustainability is structural: it goes deeper than product messaging to why the product delivers what it promises. But it’s best positioned as a consequence of quality, not a call to conscience. Yes, it works with some consumers — like myself, who really pay attention — but for most people, we need to lead with quality. And that distinction matters, especially now, because greenwashing remains one of the fastest ways to destroy trust with an audience that cares most about the environment.

Jasper’s suggestion that you should do what you say, say what you do, and back it with data summarizes the challenge for any sustainability effort — whether it’s an internal initiative or the basis for a major product launch. Communicate specific results, not general claims, which we see far too often from companies pitching stories to Earth911. Anchor your results in a visible roadmap, so that your progress today can be seen as the first accomplishment on your road to a more sustainable world — not just the first in a long series of promises not yet kept.

So here’s the tension worth sitting with. Jasper’s model depends on business leaders choosing to look up from their siloed priorities long enough to see the resource flows bleeding money all around them. The global narrative that sustainability is a burden rather than a tool is nowhere near being corrected. It’s still driving policy decisions, investment decisions, and competitive strategy in the wrong direction. The irony is almost painful: in the name of cutting costs and increasing competitiveness, companies are ignoring one of the most powerful levers available to do exactly that — reducing resource costs by eliminating waste.

The window to act is open — wide open — and people are screaming for us to do better. The question is whether enough leaders will decide to stop leaving money and a livable planet on the cutting-room floor. We’ll keep talking with the leaders who do see the light and use it to illuminate the waste we can no longer afford — as a species, as a society, and as an economy.

I hope you’ll also take a look at our archive of more than 540 episodes of Sustainability In Your Ear. We’re in our sixth season, and I guarantee there’s an interview you’ll want to share. Writing a review on your favorite podcast platform will help your neighbors find us — because folks, you’re the amplifiers that can spread more ideas to create less waste. Please tell your friends, family, co-workers, and the people you meet on the street that they can find Sustainability In Your Ear on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Audible, or whatever purveyor of podcast goodness they prefer.

Thank you for your support. I’m Mitch Ratcliffe. This is Sustainability In Your Ear, and we’ll be back with another innovator interview soon. In the meantime, folks, take care of yourself, take care of one another, and let’s all take care of this beautiful planet of ours. Have a green day.

The post Sustainability In Your Ear: Jasper Steinhausen on Making Sustainability Profitable appeared first on Earth911.

https://earth911.com/podcast/sustainability-in-your-ear-jasper-steinhausen-on-making-sustainability-profitable/

Continue Reading

Green Living

Need to Recycle Your Satellite TV Dish? Read This First

Published

on

Satellite dishes outlast the subscriptions that put them there. Drive through almost any American neighborhood and you will see them still bolted to fascia boards and chimney straps, aimed at satellites their owners stopped paying for years ago.

The subscriber base that installed those dishes is collapsing. Pew Research Center found in July 2025 that 36% of U.S. adults still subscribe to cable or satellite TV, while 83% watch streaming services. DIRECTV and DISH told investors in 2024 that they had collectively lost 63% of their satellite subscribers since 2016.

Every one of those canceled accounts left hardware behind, and removal and recycling still fall to the subscriber, who gets little support from the provider. For lack of clear information, a lot of that hardware ends up in a landfill.

Can You Recycle Your Satellite TV Dish?

Depending on who you ask, the proper method of disposal for a satellite TV dish can be as clear as, well, a fuzzy TV signal. So let’s tune in to what a dish system is made of, because the answer determines where each piece goes.

A residential satellite system is not one product. It is four material streams bolted together:

  • The reflector. The curved part everyone pictures. On modern 18- to 20-inch DIRECTV and DISH installations it is thin, powder-coated steel. Older and larger dishes are often aluminum. Either way, it is scrap metal and easily recyclable in most communities.
  • The LNB. The low-noise block downconverter on the end of the arm. It holds a circuit board and is the piece that makes the system electronic waste.
  • The mount and hardware. Usually galvanized steel, and usually the heaviest recyclable component in the assembly.
  • Coaxial cable. Copper conductor inside plastic jacketing, which scrap yards buy separately as insulated wire.

The Institute for Environmental Research and Education recommends separating those parts of the dish before you haul anything anywhere: detach the LNB, coil the coax, and sort aluminum from steel. That takes about 20 minutes with a screwdriver and a wrench, and it is the difference between a recycler accepting your load and turning it away.

The receiver, DVR, and remotes are a separate question, and an important one. Those are usually leased. If you cancel service and keep them, you will be billed for them.

satellite tv dish
Image courtesy of faungg’s photos.

Once It’s Installed, It’s Yours

This is the part that surprises people. The dish becomes the property of the homeowner at installation. Neither provider sends a technician to take it down when you cancel, and neither is obligated to. DIRECTV’s own support forums state the position plainly: the receivers go back, the dish stays, and what happens to it next is up to you.

Renters have a related wrinkle. The FCC’s Over-the-Air Reception Devices rule protects your right to install a dish under one meter in areas under your exclusive control, such as a balcony or patio, and it limits what landlords and HOAs can prohibit. It does not cover shared roofs or exterior walls, and it does not remove your responsibility to take the dish down and repair the mounting holes when you move out.

Read your lease before you install anything.

The Rules Changed in Some States, But Not Federally

U.S. federal guidelines still do not regulate circuit boards as hazardous waste, and there is no national electronics recycling law. What exists instead is a patchwork of state and local policy.

Twenty-five states plus the District of Columbia have passed electronics recycling legislation, most of it built on producer responsibility principles, and roughly two dozen states ban electronics from landfills outright. Whether your dish system is legally landfill-bound depends entirely on your ZIP code.

One change is worth flagging because it is new and relevant. Oregon’s modernized E-Cycles program took effect January 1, 2026, and the expanded list of covered devices now includes cable and satellite receivers, routers, modems, and game consoles. Oregon residents can drop those off free. The reflector itself is not a covered device, so it still goes to scrap metal, but the electronic half of the system finally has a no-cost home in one more state.

The stakes behind these rules keep climbing. The UN’s Global E-waste Monitor 2024 found the world generated a record 62 million metric tons of electronic waste in 2022 and formally collected and recycled just 22.3% of it. Generation is on track to hit 82 million metric tons by 2030, growing about five times faster than documented recycling.

Don’t Count on the Scrap Value

Earlier versions of this article suggested that local scrap vendors might be willing to pull the system down for the value of the materials. That is worth a reality check in 2026.

Scrap yards pay by weight and by grade. A modern 18-inch dish is a few pounds of thin, coated steel, which grades low and weighs almost nothing. The coax and the mount are worth more than the reflector, and the whole assembly is still unlikely to buy you lunch. Older six- to 12-foot aluminum C-band dishes are a genuinely different story and can be worth hauling. For the small dishes on most roofs, treat scrap as a disposal route rather than a payday, and do not expect a yard to send a crew for it.

Tips To Get You Started

Here at Earth911, we want your satellite TV dish handled properly at the end of its life. That is not the case. Here is the sequence that actually works:

  • Check your provider’s recycling page first and know what it covers. DIRECTV’s recycling page issues a prepaid shipping label and routes equipment to R2-certified recyclers. DISH points customers to Best Buy and a UPS mail-in program that offers free recycling if you pay the shipping costs. Both programs are built around receivers, remotes, and small equipment. Neither is designed to take the dish off your roof.
  • Return leased equipment on time. Providers typically give you about three weeks from the disconnect date before non-return fees land on your final bill. Get a receipt at the drop-off point and keep it.
  • Search for a satellite dish removal service, a handyman, or a local roofing company. Roofers are the right call if the mount is through the shingles, because someone has to seal the penetrations afterward. Removal is a roof job, not a recycling job, and the two rarely come bundled.
  • Find a certified recycler for the electronics. Look for R2 or e-Stewards certification, which tells you the downstream processing is audited. Use the Earth911 recycling search to find electronics and scrap metal locations near you.
  • Take the reflector and mount to a scrap metal yard. Separate steel from aluminum before you go.
  • Consider reuse before recycling. A working dish and LNB have a second life in free-to-air reception, RV and off-grid setups, and amateur satellite work. Offer it to others locally before you scrap it. There are also plenty of repurposing projects if you would rather keep it out of the waste stream entirely.
  • Watch out for lead-generation sites. Several “satellite dish removal” domains are referral networks that sell your contact information to whichever contractor is paying, not recyclers. Ask any service directly where the material goes and whether they are certified.

Earth911 Does Not Remove or Recycle Dishes

We regularly receive inquiries about whether Earth911 offers removal services. We do not. Earth911 does not offer satellite TV dish removal or recycling. If a satellite TV provider or one of its representatives tells you otherwise, that is not accurate information.

What Comes Next for Satellite TV

The retirement wave is not finished. DIRECTV shed roughly 288,000 subscribers in the third quarter of 2025 alone, according to reporting by TheStreet. EchoStar reported 6.63 million pay-TV subscribers at the end of the first quarter of 2026 after a net loss of 366,000 in three months, and its Dish DBS unit filed a prepackaged Chapter 11 restructuring on June 30, 2026. The company says Dish Network and Sling TV service continues without interruption.

For subscribers, the practical takeaway is unchanged: corporate restructuring does not come with a dish removal crew. If you are canceling, plan for the disposing of the hardware. Return what is leased, get the dish down safely, split the metal from the electronics, and route each stream to somewhere that will process it. That is a Saturday afternoon’s work that can keep your dish out of a landfill.

Related Reading

Editor’s note: This article was originally published on June 10, 2015. It was most recently updated in July 2026. Feature image courtesy of Alexis Lê-Quôc. 

The post Need to Recycle Your Satellite TV Dish? Read This First appeared first on Earth911.

https://earth911.com/eco-tech/looking-to-recycle-your-satellite-tv-dish-read-this-first/

Continue Reading

Green Living

Sustainability In Your Ear: Building Solar Panel Recycling Capacity with SPR’s Brett Henderson

Published

on

Glass makes up 62% to 70% of a solar panel’s weight, and as much as 80% of a bifacial module with glass on both faces. That single number explains most of what is wrong with solar panel recycling in the United States. The aluminum frame and the silver contacts are worth money. The glass mostly is not, so common practice is to pull the frame, shred everything behind it, and sell the mixed output as low-grade sandblasting grit or landfill cover. The EPA projects the country could accumulate up to 10 million metric tons of end-of-life panels by 2050, second only to China — roughly 393 million modules. And they are retiring now, not in 2050: broken during construction, shattered by hail, or pulled down in year 10 when a utility swaps a 200-watt module for an 800-watt one and quadruples output from the same land.

Our guest is Brett Henderson, co-founder and CEO of SolarPanelRecycling.com, or SPR. The company owns and operates plants in North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas, with a fourth opening in California this year, each built to run about a million panels a year and to scale to 3 million within six months when needed. SPR is a Solar Energy Industries Association-approved national recycler and partnered with SEIA on the first residential panel drop-off program in the country. Brett came to solar after 18 years in electronics recycling at Powerhouse Recycling, SPR’s parent company, and the business started in 2018 with a call from a longtime utility client that had 10,000 panels coming out of a power plant and nowhere to send them.

Brett Henderson, co-founder and CEO of SolarPanelRecycling.com (SPR), is our guest on Sustainability In Your Ear.

Brett is blunt about the economics: recycling a panel is a negative value proposition, because a panel is mostly glass and glass is cheap. What SPR sells is risk mitigation. Federal rules treat an end-of-life panel as hazardous until testing proves otherwise, most owners have no idea what is inside the modules they bought, and a utility loading thousands of them onto trucks takes on generator liability and Department of Transportation exposure. Aluminum and silver recovery subsidizes the rest. That cost has fallen 42% in 36 months at SPR, driven by rebuilt separation lines and steadier volume rather than any subsidy, and scale is what opens the end markets — a manufacturer will not retool a line for recycled glass cullet until a supplier can promise something like 160 tons of it every other week.

He is equally candid about the limits. Solar wafers require polysilicon at 6N purity, 99.9999%, and recovered silicon does not reach that grade at a price anyone will pay. The recovered glass is clean enough for foundries, but not for new module glass. A panel, in other words, does not yet close its own loop, and the discipline that matters is clean separation, sending each material to its best destination. He also points out the challenges in reusing early-retirement panels: utility-scale modules are too large for most rooftops, and a module’s UL listing lapses once it leaves its original application, which complicates putting it back on the grid.

On policy, Brett would take landfill bans plus bonding and insurance requirements at project permitting over extended producer responsibility. Washington’s producer takeback law is his cautionary example: enacted in 2017, its compliance deadline has slipped to 2031 after only one manufacturer filed an approved plan. Meanwhile SPR is financing capacity ahead of the wave, largely off its parent company’s balance sheet, so it will not have to turn away million-panel repowers while it builds. IRENA and IEA-PVPS estimate the materials in retired panels could be worth more than $15 billion globally by 2050, enough to build 2 billion new ones. Somebody has to build the receiving end of that system first. Learn more about SPR’s facilities and research at solarpanelrecycling.com — that’s all one word, no space, no dash.

Interview Transcript

Mitch Ratcliffe (0:11)

Hello. Good morning, good afternoon, or good evening, wherever you are on this beautiful planet of ours. Welcome to Sustainability In Your Ear. This is the podcast conversation about accelerating the transition to a sustainable, carbon-neutral society, and I’m your host, Mitch Ratcliffe. Today, we’re going to look at what happens when the clean energy grid ages out.

The United States has installed millions of solar panels, and we tend to treat them as though they’re all 30-year promises. Put them on a roof or in a field, reap the sun’s energy for decades, and the waste question belongs to, well, somebody who lives in the 2050s. But the data says otherwise. Panels are leaving service right now, broken during construction, shattered by hail or hurricanes, or pulled down in their first decade because the utility that owns them wants to repower. In other words, to put new, higher-efficiency modules in place because they pay better, and, in fact, it’s much more profitable than waiting to upgrade. So you swap a 200-watt panel for an 800-watt module, and you quadruple the output from the same land, which is why perfectly functional panels are coming to be retired by year 10.

And the EPA expects the country to accumulate as much as 1 million tons of solar panel waste annually by 2030, and as much as 10 million tons by 2050, the second-largest stockpile of end-of-life panels in the world. China is out front. Most of what passes for solar panel recycling today involves peeling off the aluminum frame and shredding everything else. Glass accounts for 62% to 70% of a standard panel’s weight, and as much as 80% of a two-sided module, and it is typically used as low-grade sandblasting grit or landfill cover instead of going back into a furnace and on to be reused in a new panel. The silver and silicon, while small in weight but large in value, disappear in that mix, and they’re lost for further use.

The International Energy Agency’s Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme estimates that recovering end-of-life panel materials and re-injecting them into the economy could deliver more than $15 billion in value by 2050, along with enough raw material to build 2 billion new panels. We could have a circular system that delivers consistently increasing output, that is, energy output, as panel materials are reused. And the industry we stand up over the next decade will decide whether that value is captured or ground into dust.

My guest today has spent the last eight years building the version of recycling solar panels that can capture those materials. Brett Henderson is co-founder and CEO of SolarPanelRecycling.com, known as SPR, which owns and operates recycling plants in North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas, along with a new California facility that’s slated to open this year. Each is built to process about a million panels annually and to scale toward 3 million within just six months when capacity is needed as more panels are retired. SPR is a Solar Energy Industries Association-approved national recycler, and it partnered with SEIA on the first residential solar panel drop-off program in the United States.

Brett came to solar after 18 years in electronics recycling at Powerhouse Recycling, which is SPR’s parent company, and there he built programs for Fortune 100 companies, government agencies, and universities. The company started in 2018 — that’s SPR — when a longtime utility client called with 10,000 panels coming out of a power plant and nowhere to send them. Brett draws a hard line between true recycling, that is, the clean separation of glass, aluminum, silicon, and the metals into commodities that can be remanufactured or used in remanufacturing, and the shredding and downcycling that often passes for responsible disposal, which he labels as greenwashing. He has seen the cost of recycling at the plant fall by 42% over just three years as technology improved and volume grew. He argues that the economics are approaching the point where a landfill stops being the cheap option on price alone, and getting there is a business design problem. You have to decide what to own, what to build ahead of demand, and how to turn yesterday’s clean energy into tomorrow’s raw materials.

So, let’s find out how you build that business after a brief commercial break. Stay tuned.

Brett Henderson, welcome to Sustainability In Your Ear. How are you doing today?

Brett Henderson (4:44)

Great. Thanks for having me, Mitch.

Mitch Ratcliffe (4:45)

Well, thank you for joining us, diving into solar panel recycling in anticipation of a growing wave of material that’s going to be coming down the pike. In 2018, a utility client showed up at your office with 10,000 panels and nowhere to send them. I’m wondering what made you think at that point that solar recycling could be a standalone business rather than just a service line within a larger recycling organization.

Brett Henderson (5:10)

Yeah, absolutely. So I still have a dual role at the parent company that was presented that opportunity. It’s Powerhouse Recycling. It’s been operating about two decades in the electronics recycling and IT asset disposition space. So one of our longtime utility clients at that time, in 2018 — so at that point, if I’m doing my quick math, we’d been servicing them about 15 years — did indeed come to us, and they were pulling out about 10,000 panels from a power plant they had. And they went to market and recognized at that time that there really weren’t any options, you know, locally within the state or even in the entire U.S. market at that time. And what I mean by that is aluminum harvesting was happening. You know, anything that has aluminum, a nice metal to it, you could probably present it to a metal yard, they’ll capture that, but then the other, more technical or challenging portions might just go to landfill.

So this particular utility of ours is, as most are, really under the microscope on their environmental sustainability initiatives. So they came to us and said, do you kind of want to tackle this project together? So, you know, to answer your question, when it was first presented to me, you look at everything for a client, to service them well. But, kind of in the back of my mind, and full disclosure, um, how many solar panels are really out there? So…

Mitch Ratcliffe (6:36)

Yeah, well, that’s the question. I mean, you’re way ahead of the wave.

Brett Henderson (6:40)

Yeah, right. So we started diving into this and started recognizing that, you know, maybe shift the mind from solar panels on the residential rooftops and go, how many of these utility-scale solar facilities are out there? And you start diving into the numbers and start recognizing, you know, hundreds of millions of panels, right? And then really dive back into where our flagship facility was at the time and still is, in North Carolina. I start diving into that data and recognize that North Carolina was fourth in installations in the entire country. So it really kind of intrigued us to start going down this path and looking into it, and that’s kind of when the R&D began, if you will.

Mitch Ratcliffe (7:21)

Now, most panel recycling focuses on the metal, the aluminum that you mentioned a moment ago. But there’s glass, there’s silicon, there’s silver, and other materials. What’s the value of a panel, and where does that value come from?

Brett Henderson (7:35)

Yes. So you’ll hear a lot, whether it’s us speaking at trade shows or some of our marketing materials, or if it’s even behind closed doors when we’re really doing the environmental audits with our clients — really, this whole industry, it’s all about the glass. So in any recycling medium, you really need to look at what’s the composition of that item, that widget you’re trying to recycle, right? So in the electronics recycling world, where our parent company still lives today and my entire 18 years in the recycling industry has lived, there’s a wide range of compositions depending on what that electronic is. But when you really look at the solar side of things, it’s glass, right?

So a single-sided solar panel, which means glass on one side — if you flip it upside down, you’ll see the plastic backsheet — it’s anywhere between 62% to 70% glass by weight. Bifacial modules, which are the newest technology being installed at the moment, where there’s glass on both sides — it allows them to be a bit more efficient because they could capture sun from both ways — the composition could be up to 80%.

So the aluminum frame indeed matters. It helps drive the cost per module that you’re hitting at. The silver recovery indeed matters. But really, the glass is where it all lays. If you cannot recover the glass cleanly without contaminating it with silicon and silver and other metals, or the plastic backsheet, or the encapsulant, then how can you charge yourself with the mission of being a recycler if that portion is kind of being skipped just to get the low-hanging fruit, which is aluminum? So the module value comes from the aluminum and derives from the silver that’s recovered, but that’s helping subsidize the overall cost of recycling a panel, which is typically always going to be a negative value proposition because it’s mainly glass, right?

Mitch Ratcliffe (9:30)

That’s an interesting point, that it’s a negative value proposition. It’s not the kind of pitch you would normally make for a business. So how do you describe what SPR is selling? Is it a disposal service for the asset owner? Is it a commodity that you’re providing as a feedstock to manufacturers? Or is it providing compliance information? Or all three?

Brett Henderson (9:52)

A little of all three. I mean, what we kind of present it as is risk mitigation, right? And it’s not just risk mitigation from an environmental perspective, which we’ll dive into. It’s not just risk mitigation on a project timeline occurring or staying on track. And it’s not just risk mitigation on DOT compliance when you transport panels from facility to landfill, or facility to, hopefully, a recycler like us. So all of these things are important. So that’s really what you’re selling.

I give the analogy of a cardboard box, right? Cardboard can be recycled, should be recycled. A lot of households, a lot of businesses choose not to, because there’s not a whole lot of risk if you throw it in the landfill. There’s not regulation against it. You’re not worried about hazardous waste or universal waste being transported incorrectly. You’re not really even worried from a PR perspective of someone coming to your facility and saying, “Why aren’t you recycling your cardboard?” But when you flip that on the panel side — this is the service we’re selling and what our industry is selling — solar panels have a wide range of compositions to them. Some could be classified hazardous. Most, you do not have the information. So as it stands today, from a federal level, it’s deemed hazardous until proven otherwise.

So the option and the ability to just load up thousands and thousands of solar panels from your utility site, put them on a truck, transfer them to landfill, and dump them is opening up all sorts of generator liability. It’s opening up the DOT risk on how you transport and tag waste. So these are all the things that are why this service is being presented, and why a utility or an energy company is willing to be charged for that service.

Mitch Ratcliffe (11:35)

You’re describing a lot of different panel chemistries, a lot of different physical configurations. That requires a lot of specialized equipment. How do you maintain full utilization of that so that you’re actually earning the return you’re expecting?

Brett Henderson (11:49)

Absolutely. So, quite a few different ways. You know, first and foremost, R&D has to be ongoing, right? So the way a panel is being manufactured now, or even a future panel that is still in that manufacturer’s R&D phase, could be a wildly different composition, size, and technology than what’s hitting our recycling stream now. So we have a very strong team. It’s led by Finley Collins, our circularity research analyst, and she is consistently looking at what’s in the stream now, what is upcoming, and maybe even what are some of those technologies that are currently in the lab setting, so we could really be a bit proactive on what are going to be the challenges that are upcoming.

Then that has to coordinate — and part of my role as a quarterback of all of this — coordinate with our actual operations team and our engineers that have the current technology. Okay, our current recycling technology in our North Carolina plant, our Georgia plant, our Texas plant, our California plant that’s getting set to open: how is that going to handle the current panel compositions hitting the stream now, and ones that our clients are installing? Because, again, installation breakage could put a very new technology into the recycling stream right away. So it’s this juggling act and this balancing act to continuously invest, research, and make sure that you have opportunities to offer recycling for all panel types.

Mitch Ratcliffe (13:17)

Design for recyclability is really where we need to go as an economy more broadly. But if you could sit down with panel manufacturers today and say, you know, build it this way, we can recover a lot more material, what would you advise them to do? How would you suggest simplifying the designs for better recyclability?

Brett Henderson (13:35)

Yeah, this is a question that’s asked often, not just in the solar manufacturing and recycling spaces when they merge, but really dating back to, you know, you can look at car manufacturers and the right to repair, and electronics manufacturers. And it’s always a challenge for a recycler to really have that leverage and push that manufacturer to have those discussions, mainly because they have a duty to their stakeholders and their shareholders to make sure they’re manufacturing a product that lasts, manufacturing a product that meets consumer needs and is durable, right? So we’re kind of that person on their right shoulder, in their ear, that they kind of probably want to ignore a little bit at times.

That being said, on the solar space, there has been some level of engagement from some manufacturers. But how it stands now is, the United States needs a whole lot of power. That’s no mystery, you know, with data centers and AI really driving that, and then all sorts of the building and expansions. Anyone that could produce any type of energy really is holding the cards at the moment, and they have this core focus to meet demand and get panels, in this instance, out into the field to help support power needs. So as it stands now, there’s not a whole lot of leverage or thought put into that.

And the challenging part with solar is, it needs to be durable. It’s supposed to withstand extreme hail events, wind events, hurricanes, all sorts of natural disasters, or even just regular weather events. So by design, it needs to almost be challenging to break apart, right? And now analyze the problem when it comes to a recycling facility: our whole goal is to break it apart to all raw commodities and get those back into the stream. So there’s obviously wildly opposite goals and conflicting goals there that make that a challenge. Now, that being said, what we do have quite a bit of talks with the manufacturers about, and see some willingness to, is the information of the panel, which is still lacking and could really help be proactive in recycling.

Mitch Ratcliffe (15:42)

You mean in the product passport sense?

Brett Henderson (15:44)

Yeah, in a few different senses. One is a TCLP test, right? Would manufacturers be willing to say, this particular make and model, here’s its characteristics? Now we know it needs to be classified hazardous, or it doesn’t need to be classified hazardous. Because as it stands now, we have to get a physical panel from the field from one of our clients — knowing that they’re having an upcoming event or repower, or they just have some backlog ready to recycle — and we have to bring that in, grind that down, if you will, and get it to a lab to understand how to classify it, to really be compliant with DOT rules and all sorts of regulations. So a manufacturer could really assist in allowing the recyclers, and even the asset owners, to know what this panel is comprised of. Does the lead pass TCLP? Does it not pass TCLP? So you could classify this as waste when it comes to end of life.

And a second piece of information that could be super helpful is, again, we talked at the front end of this conversation how aluminum recovery and silver recovery is really what subsidizes the recycling costs. That determines if a panel is five to $7 to recycle, or higher or lower. So understanding the silver and some of the other metals that were utilized, by parts per million or by grams per metric ton — understanding the composition of that panel could also help make recycling costs more competitive, and then also help divert more panels from landfill to the recycling stream.

Mitch Ratcliffe (17:21)

Well, SPR owns and operates all four of the facilities that you operate, and you don’t broker materials out to scrapyards or haulers or anybody. I have to say, you know, ownership is obviously capital intensive, but what does vertical integration buy you that you couldn’t get from a network model?

Brett Henderson (17:39)

Yeah, seamless service is first and foremost. And what I mean by that is, let’s talk about repowers here. Let’s talk about installations. Really, it’s the same bucket, but we’ll do this under the guise of repower. So a repower is when a utility or an energy company is going, we have 100,000 panels in our field, they’re 200-watt panels, you can now get an 800-watt panel. So the math maths out for us to pull these panels out, you know, maybe much earlier than the 25-year span that they’re kind of advertised for, so we could get a four-times power generation there.

It’s a major undertaking. They’re going to do it in stages, so a lot of times the site doesn’t have to ever completely shut down. So why does end of life matter in that instance, and why does vertical integration matter? Is, they really need seamless service. If they have 20 truckloads of new panels arriving that day, and their contractor has 20 truckloads of old panels that need to go out that day — it’s not a warehouse, there’s not loading docks — there’s a lot of seamless service from a logistical standpoint that could really have high cost to a customer for not going off seamlessly. So us controlling that logistical network is just one of four or five reasons why this owned-and-operated model is very helpful to our clients.

Mitch Ratcliffe (18:58)

Does it make sense to start thinking about this as a full lifecycle integration opportunity? Should you be part of a panel company, or panel companies be co-invested across a variety of processors like you?

Brett Henderson (19:10)

I believe that we won’t probably see it get to that point. And if I understand your question, what maybe you’re hitting at here is circularity in the sense that the commodity comes from the panel and goes directly into panel manufacturing. Is this what you’re…

Mitch Ratcliffe (19:26)

Yeah, essentially stewardship of the material over many generations.

Brett Henderson (19:30)

Yeah. So, you know, I can’t speak for manufacturers if they want to get into the recycling space or partner directly with a recycler under some sort of joint venture, but I don’t see it having value to a manufacturer in terms of cost savings of getting a material recovered from a solar panel and put back into manufacturing. And the reason for that is the polysilicon that’s used to make the wafer itself. So obviously the panel can’t work if you don’t have good solar wafers. That has to be manufactured at a 6N purity, and that basically means 99.9999%. That’s where the 6N comes from, and the recycling space can’t generate that.

When they’re getting this pure polysilicon to manufacture solar wafers, there’s other types of agents and reactors and compositions baked into this, if you will. Now it’s not pure silicon. So when the recycling industry recovers it, that silicon could be used in a lot of other applications that don’t require 6N purity, but not solar manufacturing. So one of the biggest drivers of what makes the solar panel work all of a sudden still can’t go back into it.

And then there’s an economic side to it as well. Raw polysilicon is not the most expensive raw material. So the cost of — our industry, we partnered with some very brilliant researchers that have been working on this for years, and they could get it to that 6N purity, but the economics aren’t even close.

Mitch Ratcliffe (21:09)

Yeah, right. At the cost that it’s going to take, you wouldn’t be profitable. Yeah, there’s a lot to talk about here. Let’s take a quick commercial break, folks. We’ll be right back to continue the conversation with Brett Henderson of SolarPanelRecycling.com.

Welcome back to Sustainability In Your Ear. Let’s return to my conversation with Brett Henderson. He’s the co-founder and CEO of SPR, which you can find at solarpanelrecycling.com. They’re a North Carolina-based recycling company that’s partnered with the Solar Energy Industries Association to launch the nation’s first residential solar panel drop-off recycling program. Brett, you’ve reported that your recycling costs have fallen by 42% over the last 36 months. What are the factors that are driving that cost curve down?

Brett Henderson (21:57)

So there’s several things that really drove the 42% drop in costing, but the main one is the technological advances that we’ve had. We’re consistently investing in improving our recycling lines that are separating all of the commodities cleanly from the solar panel. So we used to make this joke starting in 2018, when we were under R&D stages and putting equipment in, that if you visited any of our facilities and came back six months later, you might see a wildly different line. And that was true for the better part of 2018 to 2023. Now, when you would come back, you’d see iterations of it, some add-ons, some movements, so you might not see a complete rip-up-the-script type of deal. But really, technological advances is what’s driving these costs down.

First and foremost, how many panels could get through a machine in a given hour is a large aspect of it. But more importantly is how cleanly are you recovering the silver, the aluminum, the items that have value, to really help cut into the cost of getting clean glass cullet out into the market, you know, the negative-valued items. So those technological advances have allowed us to recover higher returns on items and go direct to foundries, direct to consumers with our glass and aluminum and silver, and then also get cleaner commodity separation for even some of those negative-valued items to make sure that they’re consumed at a better rate. So technological advances is the largest one.

Second is just economies of scale, right? You know, when we first got into this space, we might have a month where we bring in 15,000, 25,000 panels, and then you have a month where we only bring in 5,000. Then you have a month where you have 50,000. Well, fast-forward to 2026, and we have all or some involvement with the largest utilities or energy companies in the United States, the largest asset owners. You have a little bit more consistency there in your volume coming through. So that allows us to go to market to these manufacturers that consume our generated commodities and (a) get better pricing because we’re giving them more consistent volume, or (b) even open up markets together, right? So, you know, Mitch, if you wanted to use recycled glass cullet in something that you’re manufacturing, you’re probably not going to really take a serious look at that and start adjusting your manufacturing line until companies like SPR could say, I could provide you 160 tons every other week of it, right? So some of those economies of scale is really what helps bring down the pricing as well.

Mitch Ratcliffe (24:25)

Well, and that volume has allowed you to offer the residential panel recycling service, which of course then gives you another source of supply. But tell us about that program, and where can people drop stuff off?

Brett Henderson (24:36)

Yeah, absolutely. So, again, a lot of the recycling industry, really in any recycling medium, but even more so solar, is really driven around high volume, large scale. So all of the focus and the R&D and the education outreach is really toward corporations, private equity, anyone that owns these assets, utilities, energy companies. So the residential sector was kind of left behind as this industry that’s in its infancy is growing.

So SEIA, which is the largest trade association for solar in the United States, came to us two years ago and said, we’re receiving maybe 15, 20, 25 calls sometimes a week from a homeowner saying, we have one panel, we have two panels, we really like recycling, we don’t want to throw it in the landfill. So they recognized our early-mover advantage as one of the thought leaders in this industry, as well as the fact that our parent company already has municipality convenience center logistics and trucks staged throughout the country for the electronics recycling side. So they came to us and said a natural fit would be for us to partner together and kind of do this first pilot to understand how many residential panels are actually in need of being recycled. Are they willing to load that one panel in the back of their car to bring it to a convenience center?

So we partnered with Mecklenburg County, which is the county that represents Charlotte, North Carolina, for a few reasons. One, they have five collection sites that we already service. We already have trucks and infrastructure there, so it could keep costs low for the pilot. Secondly, our flagship recycling facility is 45 minutes up the road from it. And third, North Carolina is fourth in installations of solar in the entire nation. So it felt like a natural fit.

So we ran this six-month pilot program, and we found out a few pieces of key information. There is a willingness to recycle, but not a whole lot of volume yet. We received about 19 panels. And if you think about it — we talked about repowers earlier — a utility that’s trying to generate as much energy as possible for the grid, it makes sense to pull out a panel early, because you’re swapping out a 200-watt for an 800-watt, for a times-four multiplier. But when your house system is designed, it’s kind of designed to run the power that’s needed for the house. So a homeowner’s mindset is quite the opposite: I want these to last even past the 25 years. If I’m lucky, they last 50 years. So really, what you’re seeing in the residential space now would have to be a failed panel, or something quite literally dropping from the sky to crack it, or a hail event. That’s really what’s hitting the stream. So there’s not a whole lot of volume yet, but there is a willingness from those that invested in solar on the rooftop to want to actually recycle it.

Mitch Ratcliffe (27:19)

You make this point about the static needs of a home — I know I need this many kilowatt-hours to power the house overall. That suggests that there might be a reselling opportunity in taking those repowered panels you were talking about and making them available to residential buyers who do look for the 25 years that the utility is not interested in because they’re interested in maximum output. Is that a potential new direction for us to think about, repurposing some retired utility-scale solar panels?

Brett Henderson (27:52)

Yes. So we talk quite a bit on this. Finley Collins, who I mentioned earlier, our circularity research analyst, wrote a wonderful white paper on the challenges of reuse and repurpose. You know, any of the listeners are welcome to reach out on our website and request it. But there is an opportunity to reuse solar panels. Right now, in the market, though, it’s a little bit of greenwashing in the sense of really what that market could consume, and I’ll tell you why.

A solar panel isn’t plug-and-play. They’re not homogenous in their size, their width, their depth, their wattage, what inverter box, what string inverters it needs, the racking. So what happens is, when we have a utility take out 100,000 panels that still have life left on them, there could be an opportunity when you’re talking five panels, 10 panels, maybe for the DIYer to take that one panel and rig it on their RV. But this kind of notion that it’s going to put really any type of dent or percentage in panels from the recycling stream, to reuse, is quite flawed for that reason, right? And so utility-scale panels are typically heavier and larger, so the odds of it going on a rooftop application for a home is probably little to none. But that home might not have been developed yet, their system, and then they could consider something like that.

But, you know, when we’re talking about repowers — we’re under a repower right now that’s a million panels plus coming out, over the course of a few years as they’re doing it in stages — we get asked that all the time. Can’t you take these 1.2 million panels and put them overseas in an area that can’t afford it? And the challenge with that is, it has to be an engineered setup. You have to get the right racking, and then there’s a lot of interconnection rules about putting a used panel onto the grid. In the U.S., for example, the UL rating, once that panel is used and off of its initial application, the UL rating is no longer valid. So that’s just one of many problems of taking used panels and getting permitted to put a used panel back on the grid by the millions, by the hundreds of thousands — not for the DIYer that might want to put it on his or her RV.

Mitch Ratcliffe (30:14)

So 31 states have some form of decommissioning policy today. From a business design standpoint, which policies do you see actually creating functioning markets? Is it the landfill bans? The bonding requirements? Is it extended producer responsibility? And are there policies that just create paperwork?

Brett Henderson (30:33)

Yeah. So landfill bans is where we stand on this topic. We’re asked it quite often. I’ve spoken on the legislative floor in North Carolina for their economic review commission a few years back. Another partner of ours, Steven Turk, actually spoke up on Capitol Hill on this topic a little bit. But we see a landfill ban really being the one that would create the most action.

EPR is a very challenging thing to do in this space. You know, these panels might be installed for five years, 10 years, with the goal of them being 25 years, right? So how do we set up this EPR system when there could be a 25-year lifecycle for it? That creates some challenges. But even more so, we talked earlier about the leverage of this whole thing. There’s probably not going to be a tremendous amount of states willing to say to the manufacturer — which, by the way, most manufacturers are overseas still — that you’re not going to supply power to our state, even though the whole country is in need of as much power as possible, because you’re not helping fund recycling.

The state of Washington put in an EPR program for solar, and they had to extend the timeline for manufacturers to apply to it, because only one manufacturer actually went through the paperwork and applied to be compliant in it by its first deadline. So I think that’s just one example of why EPR might be a challenge.

So really, landfill bans is the largest thing that would drive it, as well as decommissioning, bonding, and insurance requirements. When we first got into the space, we would be presenting at a trade show, and someone would come up and say, hey, we’re trying to get this project permitted, and our locality needs to understand what the cost would be to return the land back to use. And they were tagging these as a positive: we’re going to take this equipment out, whether it’s five years, 10 years, 40 years down the road, and all the infrastructure is going to net positive value back, so we don’t need bonding, we don’t need insurance. And the education has kind of shifted that mentality now, where there are very few localities that aren’t onto that. So I think the landfill ban and the bonding and insurance requirements is really what would drive panels from going from landfill to recycling stream.

Mitch Ratcliffe (32:55)

Now, your bottom line is exposed to commodity price swings, like for aluminum and silver that we’ve been talking about. Can a recycler actually build a business model that survives a commodity price downturn?

Brett Henderson (33:06)

It can, because in this instance, again, it’s a service charge for that risk mitigation. So right now, the recycling industry is still in its infancy stages with solar. So we are generating our own black book, if you will, of knowing this make and model recovers X amount of grams per metric ton of silver, and this make and model has X amount of tons of aluminum, and here’s the aluminum composition. When this builds out five years, 10 years, 15 years, we might be able to get really granular with the commodity market and say, well, this particular panel, we could actually be 80% under what we normally charge because we know it has higher silver recovery, we know the aluminum frame is heavier.

But right now, unless there’s just an absolute crash in silver and aluminum, the commodity market — we have to kind of take a bearish look at it when we’re pricing, because, again, to hit on what we said before, the manufacturers don’t tell you what the composition of these are. So there’s a wide range of silver recovery. So we can’t just take the extreme side of that and say every single solar panel is going to recover X amount of silver, or you could find yourself in a challenging situation where you can’t scale.

So aluminum and silver markets do matter. Both were inflated. Silver’s back down a little bit, back down to earth. But for a while, that did cause us to be a little bit more bullish in our pricing and come down lower. But for the most part, the way the industry is set up, a little bit of volatility in that isn’t going to change the pricing, because most of that’s going to be on the transportation costs to get the panel from site to facility, as well as the processing costs.

Mitch Ratcliffe (34:45)

Now, as we’ve been talking, we’ve referred repeatedly to the future wave of material that’s coming, and you need to build capacity to get ready for that. You’re expecting that repowering, as we’ve been talking about, is going to increase from about 10% of the supply to 80% of the volume in five years. How do you get the investment, the financing, in place to build that capacity when the demand hasn’t arrived?

Brett Henderson (35:09)

The level of risk and putting the cart before the horse is probably the most simplified answer to that, and we have that. We’re very bullish on this industry. I think our background of being one of the nation’s largest electronics recyclers — it kind of has a similar arc to where that started. It was unregulated. There was sham recycling going on. Then it becomes regulated. Then you recognize how much volume of electronics are hitting. We have a little bit more of a bullish take on solar because we’ve seen that, and we think there’s a lot of synergies and similarities to that.

So we’re investing in owned-and-operated facilities and regions. As soon as we have a partner that might have only 100,000 panels that we’re contracted to take, we’re willing to maybe invest in that to build out our network ahead of all of these repowers hitting. But you are right, it is capital intensive. You have to have wonderful partners. Our parent company is what’s funding most of it. We have some other private investments at times. But again, we want to build out this infrastructure so that when that wave hits, we’re ready to absorb as many of those panels as we could be offered. We don’t want to be in that position where we’re turning down multimillion-panel repowers because we’re just building out our second facility.

The other side of that is, all of our facilities are being built with more added capacity that could get online much quicker. So the longer and more capital-intensive buildout is the actual facility, the land, the permitting, getting that first line in there, getting the training, the labor. You know, it’s a new industry. We can’t go to the industry and find someone that said, hey, I worked for a solar panel recycler the last 20 years. So there’s a lot of education and training. So once we’re having those built out — we did it in North Carolina first, then Georgia, then Texas, California slated to open in 2026 — all of these are being built where, okay, those have a capacity right now of 1 million panels a year, but it can quickly scale to 3 million panels a year within six months. So that’s the other side of, as you’re building out this network, is put the new spots, or put the new regional locations out there, but also make sure that those could quickly scale for more capacity.

Mitch Ratcliffe (37:16)

So you just described enough capacity to address what the EPA projects is going to be happening by mid-century. By 2050, they’re estimating about 10 million tons a year of panels are going to be coming back for recycling. Play this all forward to 2036. How many facilities, what policy frameworks, and what commodity markets are going to have developed as a result of this massive wave of new solar panels needing recycling?

Brett Henderson (37:42)

Yeah, a quick aside on the math of that. So the recycling world is always operating in tons or pounds when it comes to capacities, when it comes to recycling throughput and output. What I was just referring to was panel count. So, you know, 1 million panels annually, scalable to 3 million panels. And that was kind of driven off of the asset owners — you know, they speak in watts, right, how much is it per watt — so we kind of met in the middle there and kind of helped guide the industry to say, let’s do per-panel costing, let’s do per-panel quotes. The report you’re referring to, for 10 million metric tons — now you’re talking about 393 million panels.

Mitch Ratcliffe (38:29)

So, okay, so there’s plenty of room for growth.

Brett Henderson (38:30)

Yes, yeah. So, exactly. So, you know, we obviously want to capture as much of that as possible, but we’re not the only game in town. We won’t be the only game in town. But we want to build regionally to make sure that we have a competitive advantage from the logistical cost, so that client wants to push their panels through our facilities versus elsewhere. Logistics, nine times out of 10, is going to be the highest cost in recycling a panel, more so than the processing fees.

Mitch Ratcliffe (38:57)

To your point, there is no way of projecting the future value of a used panel. Should that be one of the focuses of the industry, to begin to provide the accounting to panel acquirers so that they can plan the full lifecycle? And would you share your data in order to help establish that standard?

Brett Henderson (39:16)

Yeah, the short of that is, we already have been developing that. We have some 3D mapping capabilities in all of our facilities, so anytime we get a panel in, we run these panels through so we can understand its true composition, because the manufacturers are not sharing that. So now we know this particular make and model has X amount of grams per metric ton of silver, it has this amount of weight of aluminum. So now we have this black book, if you will, that we already are developing, and, you know, R&D started in 2018, so we already have eight years of this. And we do already share that with our onboarded, signed clients.

Putting that out in the ethos would be wild for us to do at the moment, because we have that competitive advantage of doing this the right way from day one, where we could actually gather this data. At some point — whether, you know, you’re referencing 2036 — at some point there’ll be enough recyclers, I’ve been doing it long enough, that maybe that information isn’t so proprietary, that there’s value for our team to kind of be the home of that information and provide that to the public. But right now our clients are already receiving that service. And to be fair, there’s so many different makes and models that that service isn’t utilized 100% of the time, right? Like, a lot of these panels coming through, we’re going, that’s the first time we’ve had that. Let us bring this in and get you some good information on it.

Mitch Ratcliffe (40:38)

It is reminiscent of the emergence of standards across information technology as well. But in order for us to have a functioning and predictable circular economy, this information ultimately is going to become commonplace.

Brett Henderson (40:51)

Right.

Mitch Ratcliffe (40:52)

You don’t lose an advantage in that case, but you have had the opportunity to lead the industry toward those standards, and that could cement your leadership. Is that the kind of strategy that SPR is thinking about, or are you going to hunker down and keep it private in order to maintain that advantage?

Brett Henderson (41:12)

Absolutely. So we have always wanted to position ourselves as a thought leader. I think we’ve had a lot of early success in this industry due to our transparency. Here’s the issues. Here’s how you should audit a recycler. Here’s the right questions you should be asking. Because in an industry that doesn’t have any certifications or standards yet, we wanted to be the one driving it the right way. If we lose a deal because we know someone’s bringing that panel in, harvesting the aluminum frame, and landfilling the other 90%, and then they could offer free recycling or even pay back a few dollars — we’re fine losing those deals now, because we have been through this arc of what you see in our electronics recycling.

So we’re going to continuously be that thought leader and driving the industry the correct way. So, yeah, we would absolutely share that information. We do share a good bit of information publicly, you know, such as this white paper I’ve referred to that already is doing a lot of groundwork for people entering the space. But right now, as it stands today, there’s a lot of institutional knowledge that went into developing the specifics of actual panels, that we would present that to the market when it’s the right time.

Mitch Ratcliffe (42:21)

So we’re in the early chapters of this story, and people are going to want to understand what you’re learning. How can they follow your work?

Brett Henderson (42:27)

Yeah, so we’re quite active on LinkedIn. I think that’s probably the best space. We have a wonderful marketing team, as well as what we like to joke about here, that we really like to geek out on this stuff. We don’t want to market our way into recycling. We want our information to be clean, transparent, and knowledgeable. We’ll talk about what’s great about it. We’ll talk about the challenges about it. So a lot of that could be followed through that.

We’re at typically most regional and national trade shows. We speak often at them. We have a team that’s working on white papers, case studies. All these things are kind of readily available. We’re across a lot of the different social channels where those could be found, or on our website you could sign up for a newsletter that kind of guides some of these out as well. But I really would say LinkedIn and signing up for that newsletter is probably the easiest and quickest way to absorb all the information we’re putting out there.

Mitch Ratcliffe (43:21)

Well, Brett, thanks for sharing the story. It’s been a fascinating conversation.

Brett Henderson (43:25)

Yeah, thank you, Mitch. It’s always wonderful to talk about it. Anytime you’re in an industry that’s really in its infancy, the opportunities that you’re giving for this subject to come to light are equally as important. So thank you for that opportunity.

Mitch Ratcliffe (43:43)

Welcome back to Sustainability In Your Ear. You’ve been listening to my conversation with Brett Henderson, co-founder and CEO of SolarPanelRecycling.com, known in the industry as SPR, a company that owns and operates recycling plants in North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas, along with a new California facility opening this year. You can learn more about Brett and SPR at solarpanelrecycling.com. Solarpanelrecycling is all one word, no space, no dash: solarpanelrecycling.com.

So, reflecting on that conversation, the number that I’m thinking about is 42%, and that’s not just because 42 was Douglas Adams’ answer to the meaning of the universe. It represents how far the cost of recycling a panel the right way has fallen at SPR over the past 36 months, and it points to continued efficiency gains. No subsidy produced that. No mandate produced that. It came from rebuilding processing systems to separate clean glass, aluminum, and silver reliably enough to sell, and with enough steady volume to negotiate better prices with buyers who are seeking reliable material sources.

Brett’s candid that recycling a solar panel still remains a negative value proposition on the face of it, because a panel is mostly glass, and glass is cheap. The business he’s describing also sells risk mitigation to utilities that cannot afford a truckload of possibly hazardous waste ending up in the wrong place, so they take it and recycle it and get a fee for taking it away as well. The recovered materials subsidize the rest, and when revenue streams converge, that is what an industry looks like at the moment it starts to work.

The panel recycling wave is already building, and the recycling infrastructure is being built ahead of it. Brett’s plants are each built to run about a million panels a year, and to scale toward 3 million in just six months when panel retirements grow. And he’s financing that capacity before the volume arrives, largely off his parent company’s balance sheet. Now, that’s a real bet with a real downside. If repowering economics soften, that capital is just going to be sitting there not earning a return. But the alternative is an industry that turns away million-panel contracts because it was waiting for proof. Every array going up right now, including, for instance, the tribal solar power projects that Cody Two Bears of Indigenized Energy described on a recent show, is tomorrow’s feedstock for the next generation of panels and other products. Somebody has to build the receiving end of the circular economy first, and SPR is doing it, at least for solar panels.

The polysilicon in a solar wafer has to hit 6N purity. That’s 99.9999%, and recovered silicon currently can’t achieve those levels at a price anyone would pay. The glass comes back clean enough for foundries and other manufacturers, but not for new module glass. So the panel currently does not close its own loop, and Brett said so frankly. This is a most useful correction to how we think about circularity. A solar panel is an industrial object made of several materials that each have their own best destination, and the discipline that matters is clean separation, not sentimental attachment to a closed loop. So you have to take apart your thinking about circularity and reassemble it to make sense in the context that it actually exists. Amy Fernandez and Zach Lauer of Trex, the decking company, made the same case when we talked about polyethylene film recently on another show. The best source of feedstock for Trex turned out to be its retired decking, not solely collecting more polyethylene film. So for the time being, we have to judge a recycler, at least a solar panel recycler, on whether the glass they process leaves uncontaminated, not whether it goes back to where it came from — in other words, another panel.

The last idea of note is what all of this is for. Materials recovered from retired panels are materials that do not need to be mined, refined, and produced, so you don’t have to do as much damage to the environment, and you use a lot less energy. The estimated value of recoverable materials in end-of-life solar panels could exceed $15 billion by 2050. That’s enough raw material for 2 billion new panels, the basis for a robust industry, too. But that value will be realized only if someone will buy it, and that’s because end markets are built on reliability.

Mitch Ratcliffe (48:06)

Brett put this plainly: a manufacturer will not retool their line to use recycled glass until the supplier can promise 160 tons of it every other week. New rules can move that volume faster than prices. The European Union requires producers to finance collection and recycles the majority of its retired panels. On the other hand, the United States, without these regulations, recovers only 10%. The proposed EPA universal waste rule for panels has slipped again and is now expected, or rather not expected, until next year. Brett’s read on that is that landfill bans plus bonding and insurance requirements at the permitting stage of a solar project will do more than extended producer responsibility to drive recycling success. Regulation can create industries, not just destroy them, as critics often argue.

So we need to watch three things over the next 24 months: whether more states ban panels from landfills, whether decommissioning bonds become standard in project permitting, and whether the per-panel composition data — that is, what panels are made of — that recyclers are compiling privately becomes a shared standard, so everybody can begin to recognize the value in these materials based on a common understanding of that value. Those three will decide whether the next 393 million panels become raw material or just cover in a landfill. And we’re going to continue to track the story.

If this conversation changed how you think about the array on your roof or the one going up down the road, send it to someone who’s about to install solar, or leave a review wherever you’re listening. You folks are the amplifiers that can spread more ideas to create less waste. There are more than 560 episodes waiting in the Sustainability In Your Ear archive, and you’ll find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Audible, or whatever purveyor of podcast goodness you prefer. Thank you for your support.

I’m Mitch Ratcliffe. This is Sustainability In Your Ear, and we will be back with another innovator interview soon. In the meantime, folks, take care of yourself, take care of one another, and let’s all take care of this beautiful planet of ours. Have a green day.

The post Sustainability In Your Ear: Building Solar Panel Recycling Capacity with SPR’s Brett Henderson appeared first on Earth911.

https://earth911.com/podcast/sustainability-in-your-ear-building-solar-panel-recycling-capacity-with-sprs-brett-henderson/

Continue Reading

Green Living

Guest Idea: Why Your AC Is Leaking a Refrigerant That’s a ‘Super Greenhouse Gas’

Published

on

Refrigerants have posed a threat to the environment for decades. A group of chemical compounds called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) was responsible for the ozone hole over Antarctica, which increased the risk of health problems from exposure to extreme levels of ultraviolet radiation. The world gradually phased it out, causing the ozone layer to recover.

The collective effort to avert an environmental disaster by banning CFCs is worth celebrating. However, their long-term replacements, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), have proved to contribute to global warming. Learn how they worsen climate change and about the things you can do to cool your home more sustainably.

Air conditioning equipment relies on refrigerant to cool spaces. As a liquid, it flows through the unit’s evaporator coil and absorbs heat from nearby warm indoor air. Then, this fluid boils and turns into cool, low-pressure gas. The compressor converts it into a hot, high-pressure gas, raising its temperature above that of the outside air as it enters the condenser coil outside. The refrigerant releases heat inside, as the fan blows air over the coil. Next, the gas condenses back into a high-pressure liquid as it cools. It passes through an expansion valve, sharply dropping its pressure and temperature. The fluid reenters the evaporator coil to absorb more heat, repeating the process.

The refrigerant in fridges and freezers works similarly. The fluid also undergoes evaporation, compression, condensation, and expansion to cool the interior and transfer heat to the room.

Most Common Refrigerants Used Today

The most common air conditioner refrigerant is R-410A. Also known as Puron, it’s an HFC, which means it doesn’t deplete the ozone layer but has a high global warming potential (GWP). Every ton of R-410A is equivalent to 7,308 tons of carbon dioxide, making it a potent greenhouse gas.

That’s why the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has begun phasing it out. It no longer allows contractors to install HVAC equipment with R-410A manufactured or imported before January 1, 2025, in houses. This policy mandates that the construction and home improvement industries gradually transition to more eco-friendly refrigerants.

HVAC manufacturers are gravitating toward R-454B as the new standard for central air conditioning. Also known as Puron Advance, it’s a combination of HFC and hydrofluoroolefin. This blend contributes significantly less to climate change but has a safety designation of A2L, indicating low toxicity and a mildly flammable, low-burning-velocity profile.

For ductless ACs, HVAC brands are adopting R-32, a single-component HFC with a lower GWP and better recyclability.

Refrigerator makers are following the same trend. They’re decoupling from R-134a, the long-established refrigerant standard, as authorities begin phasing it down due to its high GWP. Its alternative is R-6000a or isobutane, a naturally occurring hydrocarbon found in crude oil and natural gas. This fossil-fuel derivative is still more sustainable than its predecessor, as it poses no threat to the ozone layer and has an ultralow GWP.

How You Can Be Part of the Solution

Soon-to-be-obsolete refrigerants harm the environment only when they escape from your cooling equipment. Although some causes of refrigerant leakage are challenging to stop, you can mitigate them with these tips.

Replace Your Older Unit

Aging equipment is more prone to damage. Constant vibration causes the tubes to rub together and loosen their sealed joints. Proper AC and refrigerator care only helps if you brush the coils with appropriate tools, as hard bristles and harsh chemicals can compromise the copper tubes.

Upgrading to a model with a more eco-friendly refrigerant reduces the risk of leakage and its negative environmental impact if it does occur. A modern system is more efficient, lowering your utility bills and helping pay for itself over time.

Seal Minor Leaks

Say you can’t afford to change appliances at the moment. The least you can do is to fix the leaks before they compound.

A good way to detect small causes of refrigerant leakage on your own is to monitor your energy usage. Any refrigeration equipment running low on this fluid operates inefficiently, translating into higher electricity bills.

For instance, your AC may be leaky if your electric consumption jumped from last month, even though your thermostat setting and cooling habits remained the same. A modern fridge uses nearly 1,575 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, so anything above that may indicate a lower refrigerant level.

Contact a qualified technician immediately if you notice that your unit underperforms. A professional should be able to identify and address the source of leakage, then recharge your appliance to restore its performance.

Embrace Preventive Maintenance

This appliance care strategy means scheduling a professional inspection at fixed intervals. It enables a credentialed technician to assess your equipment thoroughly and identify red flags early.

Learning about a potential refrigerant leak before it happens gives you time to weigh your options and make an informed decision.

In contrast, reactive maintenance risks letting your faulty appliance leak an HFC refrigerant, which has accounted for 4% of the atmosphere’s increased heating power since 1990. A full-blown leak is more expensive to repair than a minor one, so it may catch you financially unprepared.

The refrigerant crisis can accelerate global warming, but the ozone hole proves that no environmental problem is insurmountable. If you do your share, you can be a force for good and make a difference in the fight against climate change.

About the Author

Jane Marsh is the Editor-in-Chief of Environment.co, a source of sustainable living ideas.

The post Guest Idea: Why Your AC Is Leaking a Refrigerant That’s a ‘Super Greenhouse Gas’ appeared first on Earth911.

https://earth911.com/home-garden/guest-idea-why-your-ac-is-leaking-a-refrigerant-thats-a-super-greenhouse-gas/

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com