The global growth of clean energy technology deployment will be inexorably followed by a parallel growth of end-of-life (EOL) products that bring both challenges and opportunities. Cumulatively, by 2050, estimates project 78 million tonnes of raw materials embodied in the mass of EOL photovoltaic (PV) modules. Owing partly to concern that the projected growth of clean energy technologies could become constrained by availability of raw materials, despite ongoing dematerialization efforts, significant attention under the umbrella of circular economy has been brought to recycling these technologies at EOL. Yet PV has not been designed with recycling at EOL in mind, and it presents challenges to returning embodied raw materials back to use in new products through recycling. This study aims to inform future designs to improve recyclability through synthesis of prior published works augmented by novel recommendations that result in a set of general design for recycling (DfR) guidelines, with a subset specific to PV modules. We further discuss how established trends in design of PV modules could affect recyclability. If adopted today, application of these DfR guidelines could help to mitigate tomorrow's resource scarcity, lower the barriers and cost for PV recycling, and enable a circular economy during the energy transition.

The United States generates the most plastic waste of any country and is a top contributor to global plastic pollution. Multiple end‐of‐life strategies must be implemented to minimize environmental impacts and retain valuable plastic material, but it is challenging to compare options that generate products with different lifetimes and utilities. Herein, they present a material flow model equipped with consequential life cycle assessment, cost analysis, and a plastic circularity indicator that considers product quality and lifetime. The model is used to estimate the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, circularity, and cost of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottle mechanical downcycling to lower‐quality resin, closed‐loop glycolysis to food‐grade PET, upcycling to glass fiber‐reinforced plastic, and conversion to non‐plastic products (electricity, oil) on a United States economy‐wide basis for the year 2020. A brute force algorithm suggests that a combination of 68% glycolysis, 11% mechanical recycling, 6% upcycling, 9% landfilling, and 5% incineration can minimize the cost and GHG emissions and maximize the circularity of the current PET economy. However, uncertainty around transportation distances, materials recovery facility efficiencies, and recycling yields can result in different “optimal” pathway mixes. This flexible framework enables informed decision‐making to move toward a cost‐ and environment‐conscious circular economy for plastic.