Category: Uncategorized

India’s rapid solar energy expansion is widely hailed as a success. But without a plan to manage the waste it will generate, how clean is the transition?

In just over a decade, India has become the world’s third-largest solar producer, with renewables now central to its climate strategy. Solar panels are everywhere – from vast solar parks to blue rooftops across cities, towns and villages.

Alongside large solar parks, millions of rooftop systems now feed power into the electricity grid. Government data show nearly 2.4 million households have adopted solar under a subsidy scheme.

Solar growth has cut India’s reliance on coal. Though thermal and other non-renewables still supply over half of installed capacity, solar now contributes more than 20%. Yet the achievement carries a challenge: while clean in use, solar panels can pose environmental risks if not properly managed.

Solar panels are mostly recyclable, made of glass, aluminium, silver, and polymers – but trace toxic metals like lead and cadmium can pollute soil and water if mishandled.

Solar panels typically last about 25 years, after which they are removed and discarded. India currently has no dedicated budget for solar-waste recycling and only a few small facilities to process old panels.

India has no official data on solar waste, but a study estimated around 100,000 tonnes by 2023, rising to 600,000 tonnes by 2030. For now, the volume is small, but experts warn the bulk is yet to come – and without rapid recycling investment, India could face a growing waste crisis.

A new study by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) estimates that India could generate more than 11 million tonnes of solar waste by 2047. Managing this would require almost 300 dedicated recycling facilities and an investment of $478 (£362m) over the next two decades.

“Most of India’s large solar parks were built in the mid-2010s, so the real wave of waste is coming in 10 to 15 years,” says Rohit Pahwa of energy company Targray.

India’s solar-waste projections mirror global patterns: the US may generate 170,000–1 million tonnes and China nearly one million tonnes by 2030, following rapid solar expansion in the 2010s.

The policy landscape, however, differs significantly.

In the US, solar-panel recycling is mostly market-driven under a patchwork of state rules. China’s system, like India’s, is still developing and lacks a dedicated regulatory framework.

In 2022, India brought solar panels under e-waste rules, making manufacturers responsible for collecting, storing, dismantling and recycling them at end of life.

Experts say enforcement is uneven, especially for home and small-scale panels, which make up 5–10% of installations. Though modest, these panels can still generate substantial waste, as they are harder to track, collect, and recycle.

Damaged or discarded panels often end up in landfills or with unauthorised recyclers, where unsafe methods can release toxic materials. The BBC has contacted India’s renewable energy ministry for comment.

“Solar power gives an illusion of clean energy for two decades, but without a serious plan for recycling panels it risks leaving behind a graveyard of modules and not much of a legacy,” says environment expert Sai Bhaskar Reddy Nakka.

Despite the challenges, experts say the problem is not without opportunities.

“As waste rises, so will the demand for companies that know how to process it,” Mr Pahwa says.

Efficient recycling could reclaim 38% of materials for new panels by 2047 and prevent 37 million tonnes of carbon emissions from mining, says CEEW.

India already has markets for glass and aluminium, and metals found in solar cells – silicon, silver, and copper – can be recovered for new panels or other industries, says Akansha Tyagi, co-author of the study.

Currently, most solar waste is processed with basic methods that recover only low-value materials like glass and aluminium, while precious metals are lost, damaged or extracted in tiny amounts.

Experts say the next decade will be decisive for India’s solar goals. The country must act fast – building a regulated, self-sustaining recycling system, raising household awareness, and integrating waste collection into solar business models.

Companies that profit from solar power should also be responsible for what happens to panels once they stop working, says Mr Nakka.

“Without proper recycling, clean energy today could mean more waste tomorrow,” he warned.

Follow BBC News India on Instagram, YouTube, X and Facebook.

A Russian archaeologist detained in Poland is at the centre of an intense debate over the role of museums and experts and the role they play in Kremlin war propaganda.

Alexander Butyagin is under arrest in Warsaw, awaiting a Polish court decision on a request to extradite him to Ukraine.

Until now, courts across Europe have been reluctant to extradite Russians to Ukraine, citing the European Convention on Human Rights.

Butyagin’s case has divided opinion.

A senior scholar at the Hermitage, Russia’s largest art museum in St Petersburg, he has led the museum’s expedition at the site of Myrmekion in Crimea since 1999, well before Russia’s illegal landgrab of Ukraine’s southern peninsula in 2014.

Supporters argue his work has helped preserve Crimea’s ancient heritage, but critics say he is no better than a looter of Ukrainian history making the most of Russia’s occupation.

Myrmekion dates back to the 6th Century BC, when the Ancient Greeks settled in Crimea as democracy was being born in Athens.

Butyagin’s expedition has uncovered hundreds of ancient coins at the site, some from Alexander the Great’s period in the 4th Century BC.

His expedition continued after Russia seized Crimea from Ukraine, and a criminal case was opened against him by Ukrainian authorities for working there without authorisation.

In November 2024, he was placed on a wanted list, and in April 2025 a Kyiv court ordered his arrest in absentia. Butyagin is accused of illegal excavations and “illegal partial destruction” of an archaeological complex.

Under the 2nd Protocol to the Hague Convention for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict, occupying authorities “shall prohibit and prevent” any archaeological excavations with only a few, narrow exceptions.

Both Poland and Ukraine are parties to the protocol, while Russia is not.

Excavations, however ethical, amount to destruction if they take place without permission and under conditions of armed conflict, says Evelina Kravchenko, a senior researcher at the Institute of Archaeology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.

Butyagin “violated the Hague Convention, and all his problems stem from that”, says Krachenko, whose committee issued permits for Russian archaeologists to work in Crimea before its annexation.

Butyagin told Russian media last year he was “simply doing the work we’ve devoted our lives to”, and that his main goal was preserving monuments.

The Hermitage press office insisted Butyagin’s work complied with all international legal and ethical norms “regardless of geopolitical circumstances.”

A senior archaeologist from the museum told the BBC that Butyagin had followed the only path available for Russian archaeologists working in Crimea.

“A Russian archaeologist, if he wants to continue his research, has no opportunity to obtain permits from the Ukrainian side, but must obtain them from the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation,” said the scholar who spoke on condition of anonymity as he was not authorised to comment on the case.

Several Ukrainian sources have also accused Butyagin of “looting” objects by taking them to Russia, although these charges are not part of Ukraine’s case.

Both the archaeologist and the Hermitage insist all their finds remain in Crimea as they are transferred to the Eastern Crimean Museum in Kerch. They argue that objects can only be relocated to Russia temporarily for restoration or as exhibition loans.

However, this violates Ukrainian law too, as all discoveries must go into Ukraine’s museum fund. Under the terms of Russia’s illegal annexation, the Eastern Crimean Museum collection has instead been made part of Russia’s museum fund.

Since the start of the war, several European courts have refused Ukraine’s requests to extradite Russians, citing potential risks under the European Convention, which prohibits politically motivated persecution, violations of the right to a fair trial, and torture and inhuman treatment of detainees.

Even if the Polish court deciding Butyagin’s case does find sufficient grounds to extradite him, it might not go ahead, says Gleb Bogush, a researcher at the Institute for International Peace and Security Law at the University of Cologne.

Last June, Denmark’s Supreme Court ruled against extraditing to Ukraine a Russian national suspected of espionage for Moscow.

Gleb Bogush says it is primarily the Russian state and its officials that are responsible for Crimean excavations, rather than Butyagin, because it was not up to archaeologists to decide whether the Hermitage expedition should continue.

A senior Hermitage employee told the BBC that “a field archaeologist cannot be a citizen of the world; he deals with officials, obtaining permits and has to look for funding and volunteers”.

Butyagin has attracted support not just from the Kremlin but from Russians who oppose Putin and the war.

“The claims being made against him are absurd,” said Arseny Vesnin, an exiled journalist and historian. He said Butyagin had ensured conservation and preservation of the site he was excavating.

Others maintain that artefacts would have been looted by criminals and sold on the black market if Russian archaeologists had refused to work in Crimea.

That does not justify their actions, says Samuel Andrew Hardy, a leading British criminologist specialising in the protection of cultural property in conflict zones.

Official excavations do not always stop criminal digs from taking place, he argues. Some looters target sites that have already been excavated.

Hardy says all that Butyagin’s supporters are doing is arguing that ultimately Russia should just be allowed to carry on doing what it wants regardless of the war.