Decommissioning and Recycling of End-of-Life Photovoltaic Solar Panels in Western Australia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the paper entitled Decommissioning and Recycling of End-of-Life Photovoltaic  Solar Panels in Western Australia, the authors discuss their proposals of  solutions for the decommissioning and recycling of EOL PV solar panel waste in Western Australia (WA). And with this, they seek to answer the broader research question of how EOL PV solar panel waste can be managed sustainably in Western Australia.

The whole manuscript offers a good approach to the problem caused by handling photovoltaic solar panels. However, prior to publishing this paper a suggest some minor changes.

The authors have properly stressed the lack of relevant published references that can enhance their work, but at this point I suggest to stress two points. Firstly, how  the solar panels are managed in other countries, and also, how the public policies of Australia have an effect on this process. Finally, a comparison of the public policies of Australia with other countries is relevant.

I find no problems with language, but I believe that the use of some information organizers could improve the quality of this manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 
Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "Decommissioning and Recycling of End-of-Life Photovoltaic Solar Panels in Western Australia" addresses the emerging issue of managing end-of-life (EOL) photovoltaic (PV) solar panel waste in Western Australia. The study is significant as it appears to be the first focusing on this topic in the Western Australian context.

1. Enhance Detail on Local Context: Include more specific information about Western Australia's current PV solar panel usage and recycling practices.
2. Expand on Stakeholder Perspectives: Offer deeper insights into the views and roles of different stakeholders, including government agencies and PV panel users.
3. Clarify Methodological Details: Provide more details on the participant selection process and the rationale behind the chosen methodology.
4. Consider Broader Implications: Discuss the broader implications of the study’s findings, especially in relation to global trends in PV panel recycling and sustainability.
5. Improve Accessibility: Simplify technical language where possible to make the paper accessible to a broader audience.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is relevant and well structured. I suggest to accept it while taking into account the following remarks:

 

Abstract

The half of the abstract presents introduction materials. I would suggest to shorten introduction part while adding more results.

 

Materials and Methods

1. To have Material and Methods section completely clear, I would like to know which questions were asked in the survey. Are these four questions (lines 94-100)? Please clarify

 

Results

Lines 248-250. Is this a barrier? It seems to be element of management.

 

Discussion

1. The beginning of the section and 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 are mainly the repetition of the information in relevant Results sections.

2. Subsections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 are very similar in formulation. Perhaps, it is worth to merge them.

3. Line 427. “…Australia has no regulations for managing EOL solar PV waste.” This statement is questionable since there are few examples later: lines 442-443 and lines 492-493.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work deals with decommissioning and recycling of end-of-life photovoltaic solar panels in Western Australia. The situation/state was determined by review and on-line survey and interviews with relevant subjects participating in the business with PV solar panels and the government.

The authors declare the contribution and novelty of the manuscript in that there are only 4 academic papers in concerned area related to Australia and none for Western Australia.

The text is logically conceived and comprehensible.

But it shows a number of shortcomings:

There are relatively few references (22) to similar article to summarize the situation/state and solve the problem. In the absence of resources for a given region, information for other areas should be used. Established perspective specific procedures for processing EOL-PVs could/should also be specified and cited. It would therefore be good to focus the Introduction on knowledge directly related, but from other regions with adequate economic and geographical characteristics and development of waste management.

Novelty = decommissioning and recycling of EOL-PVs in WA. Is the knowledge available within the wider region not transferable within Australia? (state of development, social point of view, economic point of view, state of knowledge,...)

Is the sample of respondents (Table 1,2 - participants – recyclers, sellers) sufficient for the statements made?

"The only recycling company in WA that claims to recycle EOL PV solar panel east in WA to the Australian e-waste standard did not participate in this study." (line 407-408) That's a big shame perhaps the findings would increase the value and information yield of the article. I think it is quite important.

Authors often rely on the claim "findings of this study". But finding are not surprising and are to be expected.

So don't the authors overestimate their output?

The investigation methodology (specific/generalized answers, nuances, sample variants, grouping of answers) and evaluation is not sufficiently described.

Text/statements are repeated many times in the text. For example, the following direct duplications or informational duplications:

Line 12-14; line 76-77; line 308-309; line 587-588.

Line 94-100; line 318-323.

Line 120-123; line 323-324; line 593-594.

Line 16-18; line 125-127; line 324-327; line 595-597.

Duplications are frequent in the text and without any information overlap. Furthermore, even if the passages in the abstract/body of the article/conclusion are concerned, there should be no direct repetition, it is assumed that the reader absorbs the text of the article at once and does not lose sight of what has already been said. The above approach just lengthens the text with no added value.

The text contains general findings and statements, is relatively long and does not bring impact and expected information yield for its length.

It would be good to shorten the conclusion and remove duplicates.

Line 53 - typo "Islam Md et"

 

I recommend a revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the approach of the authors and the efforts made to improve the manuscript.

The authors responded to all comments and described specifically what position/opinion they took on the comments.

I think that the relatively extensive addition of the "Introduction" section towards information from other regions, the addition of information sources and especially then the extensive continuous detailed description of "Data analysis" greatly contributed to supporting the stated claims.

Duplications have been removed and sub-paragraphs have been reformulated.

(Heading 3.5 "Recycler (Interview)" should be consistent with the previous edit in italics.)

I am glad that the authors agreed with the need to supplement the text and analyze the questions in the "Data analysis" section and did not consider my arguments unnecessary.

I thank the authors for their patience and the changes made, leading to an increase in the level and transparency of the findings gained.

I recommend accepting the manuscript for publication.