Good Morning
What we’re reading this week (mostly listening, actually - big week for climate podcasts):
Planet Money’s Best By, Sell By, Use By
NYT The Daily’s Broken Climate Pledges and Europe’s Heat Wave
The Economist’s Europe’s Winter of Discontent
The Greendicator
Top Deals of the Week
![Image Image](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F59472b43-53e0-43a7-9923-24fcc38b86f5_2927x1512.png)
Monolith, a sustainable energy and chemicals company, raised a $300M funding round co-led by TPG Rise Climate and Decarbonization Partners (PRN)
TAE Technologies, a company hoping to revolutionize electricity generation through nuclear fusion, raised a $250M Series G-2 round from Chevron, Google, Reimagined Ventures, and others (CNBC)
Powin, a 12-year-old startup based in Tualatin, Or., whose offering includes energy management software as well as actual battery modules and racks, raised a $135 million round led by GIC (TC)
Everdrop, a Munich-based sustainability startup whose household and personal care products promise to completely avoid single-use plastics and unnecessary chemicals, has raised an $80M Series B round. The Belgian growth investor Sofina led the round (TC)
Nyobolt, a three-year-old, Cambridge, England-based maker of ultrafast battery chargers, has raised £50 million in Series B funding led by H.C. Starck Tungsten Powders. Axios has more here.
Terra CO2 Technologies, a 10-year-old startup based in Golden, Co., that has created a low carbon alternative to cement via feedstocks or waste products, raised a $46 million Series A co-led by Breakthrough Energy Ventures and LENx (F)
Helios, a startup based in Tel Aviv that aims to use space technology to reduce the cost of producing green steel, raised a $6 million seed round. At One Ventures and Doral Energy-Tech Ventures co-led the deal. (PRN)
Revterra Corporation, a startup developing a grid-stabilizing kinetic battery, raised a $6M Series A led by Equinor Ventures (PRN)
Green Theory
Sunset on solar panels?
No one wants lead or other heavy metals leaching into our land, water, and air: polluting our environments and threatening wellbeing. And when you see a solar system sitting atop a roof, or out in the desert, the vision and hope of a cleaner energy future likely overwhelms thoughts of how the panels were built, or how they’ll one day retire. Whether the solar energy revolution is powered by toxic metals bears asking, but the panels’ costs clearly outweigh the risks.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F752633dc-a851-427d-80ee-4f977cbd0d7a_495x281.png)
Given the urgency of the climate crisis, replacing traditional, dirty electricity sources with solar presents a straightforward path to purer power. Still, understanding the scale of solar needed around the globe demands a look into the resources and energy required upfront. As discussed previously, attention to the land rights of local people, natural ecology of environments, and human rights of workers must always be paid. In regard to the carbon emissions needed to manufacture and install planetary-level renewable energy equipment, estimates vary. The World Future Council puts the bill at 25 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. To put that in perspective, it represents roughly two-thirds of the annual global emissions today. Since energy production comprises almost three-quarters of annual emissions, the cost of 25 extra gigatons of carbon dioxide seems a worthy trade for almost 30 gigatons in savings, and that calculation only considers a one-year horizon. Just how long can we stretch out the benefit of that 25 gigatons spent building renewable energy capacity?
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa3b11761-f171-41b9-95c8-44bc045a0648_1336x858.png)
Though solar panels degrade over time, with proper care they can last up to and over 30 years. To meet climate goals, reducing production of solar panels appears off the table, but improving reuse and recycling can further extend panels’ value. With the freshness of cost declines, and rush toward clean energy, early adopters and drivers of solar were more concerned with unplugging from fossil fuels than where the panels were one day headed.
Admittedly, the market economy and US regulation offered little in way of plans or incentives for future panel decommissioning. Installing solar panels inspires, as new systems understandably overshadow the retirement of old ones. Flashy billboards pop up for new iPhones, not iPhone repair and e-waste management. In a country where we throw out a suitcase worth of electronics per person per year, around 45 lbs., few likely gasp when they learn we don’t have a great way to refurbish old solar panels. Given the speed with which solar has grown, reuse and recycling innovators have had to play catch-up, but benefit from decent estimates of when to expect their future stock. As the clock ticks, critics wait to see whether early solar buyers’ green-mindedness relates more to trees or cash.
If you’ve seen a rooftop solar system that’s more than 15 years old, its initiators found the merits of solar when module costs were orders of magnitude higher. Already falling rapidly, solar costs plunged deeper when, in 2006, California announced a rebate plan for enough solar to power one million homes. Tripling the installed capacity expected, and taking rooftop solar from virtually nonexistent in the energy mix to enough to power over 60% of California homes, the program ushered in a new era in solar innovation and adoption. Today, over 13% of California’s total energy comes from solar, and the state tops the charts for installed capacity (#1) and capacity per capita (#2). Advocates praise the mandating of renewables in the state’s utility energy mix, and other states have found success in similar policies. Amid so many signs of progress, some wonder what will happen when these panels wear out.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fbb79063c-87f6-4567-ab58-44490249ced6_1600x695.png)
At the heels of a new classification of solar panels as “universal waste” in California, facilities’ need to manage discarded panels will increase dramatically. Initially raising some alarms, this LA Times article went on to correct statements about the prevalence of heavy metals, panels’ recyclability, and lifetime service. Nonetheless, the piece points to the key issue blocking a circular solar economy: disposing of panels and buying new silicon is 2-3x cheaper than recovering silicon. Those discarding solar panels find it much easier to avoid the costs of recycling.
The solar recycling renaissance could be right around the corner. With more reliable commitments to renewables, growing adoption among the public, and continued innovation, the energy transition won’t slow down for solar’s marginal externalities. At the same time, recyclers and re-users ought to prepare for the ever-mounting wave of equipment. Even if solar recycling doesn’t turn out to be the $2.7B industry that Rystad forecasts by 2030 (worth a mere $170M today), some firms already stand ready. We Recycle Solar claims to offer “responsible” and “profitable” solar recycling, but refers to themselves as a “disposal partner.” A non-profit in Grass Valley, California, Good Sun, diverts photovoltaic equipment from landfills to support schools, and low- and middle-income communities, with low-cost solar, albeit at lower solar efficiency. At a systematic level, standardization on parts would help recyclers process equipment more efficiently, and ease re-users’ efforts to transfer panels from roof to roof. Another idea—forcing companies to cover the cost of recovery or recycling in upfront pricing—could slow down solar adoption, and especially limit access for the least financially secure. Since they stay stable unless damaged, perhaps past-due panels can enjoy a new life as art or furniture, until recycling becomes an economic inevitability. Until then, states should prioritize replacing energy infrastructure with renewables.
The Closer
S/o to our dear friend and reader Caro Chou for this submission…