Circular solar / Cleantech R&D

Preserve the power.
Recover the value.

SBX is developing Solar Revitalizer™ to help recyclers, decommissioning firms and repowering operators preserve useful module life and recover material value.

Explore the next study See the whole system

Current research: optional test selection and module-intake routing.

Solar Revitalizer™ / Research architecture

Circularity starts with the next useful path: preserve generating life where suitable, recover materials when reuse is unsuitable, and qualify recovered streams for new applications.

Public research support

New Jersey CSIT awards supported university feasibility research and SBX’s internal modeling and prototyping.

Completed feasibility

Montclair State University / CESAC. Delivered on schedule and within budget.

NSF I-Corps

Northeast regional Cohort 13. Customer discovery and commercialization.

The next study

Which tests change
the next module decision?

A suspicious result can come from module damage, an unfamiliar module family or an unreliable capture. We propose investigating when another optional test, a repeat capture or specialist review is worth its full cost. Required safety checks remain in place.

Can a PV-specific sequential testing policy reduce complete assessment cost across unfamiliar retired crystalline-silicon module lots, at matched routing-error and decision-coverage limits, while preserving required safety checks and outperforming efficient fixed testing and established adaptive methods?

Proposed research / Protocol and access planning

A hard question.
A decisive experiment.

Start with one to three nonconfidential sentences about your intake problem, research question, capability or resource.

Discuss the proposed study Read the study brief

Explore the development timeline

Work you can inspect

Completed work.
Evidence you can inspect.

Completed feasibility / 2023–2024

Two questions shaped the feasibility work.

Completed landscape synthesis, solar-data exploration and customer-discovery support shaped the next study. Inspect the coauthored 2024 poster excerpt and the project’s delivery record.

Original research questions from the 2024 coauthored circular-PV poster

Montclair State University / CESAC · View the original excerpt ↗Explore the completed project

Completed analysis / 2026

Added complexity has to earn its place.

A separate solar-data analysis compares three models across two plants. Temperature features did not consistently beat a simpler quadratic model.

Compare the reported model errors

Final-week nMAE / Lower is better

Plant 11.97% quadratic1.94% + temperature

Plant 27.28% quadratic7.57% + temperature

Retrospective plant-power estimation. Normalized by each plant’s training-power 95th percentile.

Inspect methods, results & selected code

One connected research vision

See the whole system.
Test the next decision.

Assess each module. Preserve useful generating life where suitable, or recover materials when reuse is unsuitable. Qualify recovered streams for tested new applications.

The next module decision

Start with identity, condition and functional evidence. Then assess the appropriate next pathway.

Intake assessment / Current research focus

Preserve a reuse option

Identify candidates for qualified safety, performance and application-specific evaluation.

Recover and qualify materials

When reuse is unsuitable, assess recovery pathways and test recovered streams for a suitable next use.

Resolve the uncertainty

Bring incomplete, conflicting or handling-sensitive evidence to a qualified specialist before reassessing the route.

Proposed pathways connect assessment, qualification and outcomes. Each outcome informs the next measurement, model and decision.

Explore the system, stage by stage The next study, qualified routes and future experiments

Solar Revitalizer™ / Research architectureSee the next experiment, its dependencies and the longer-term vision.

Next experiment / Proposed

Choose the next useful test.

Investigate when an optional measurement, repeat capture or specialist referral earns its cost across unfamiliar module lots.

Inspect the testing study ↗

Connected qualification

Preserve the right pathway.

Qualified reuse branches before destructive recovery. Condition, safety, performance and destination requirements govern eligibility.

Follow qualification and recovery ↗

Later experiments

Qualify materials. Test new uses.

Recovered streams need their own characterization and application-specific trials before manufacturing, including additive manufacturing.

Explore material-to-part research ↗

Inside the first research question

Measure. Reassess. Choose the next step.

01 / READ THE EVIDENCE
What is known about identity, condition and capture quality?
02 / CHOOSE AN ELIGIBLE TEST
Could an optional measurement or repeat capture change the decision enough to justify its cost?
03 / UPDATE, STOP OR REFER
Update the record, end optional acquisition or seek specialist review when evidence is insufficient.

Safety and qualification follow specialist-defined requirements. Independent reference assessments evaluate the study; they remain separate from the optional-testing policy.

The experimental comparison: operator practice, efficient fixed testing and established adaptive methods at matched routing-error and decision-coverage limits.

Work through one hypothetical next-test choice

Fictional record / Reasoning example

Is the apparent defect in the module or the image?

Evidence available: The module ID is readable, but the RGB image has a quality flag for blur. Its apparent anomaly is not reliable condition evidence.
Example choice: If a qualified reviewer confirms that an approved repeat capture is safe and feasible, repeat that optional image capture before adding a different diagnostic. If no safe repeat is available, refer the record for specialist assessment.
What changes: The updated record can distinguish a capture problem from a remaining condition question. Further diagnostics and required safety and qualification procedures may still be necessary.
What this does not establish: The example contains no measured saving, defect diagnosis or reuse certification. Independent references and a fair cost/error/coverage comparison determine whether the proposed policy adds value.

01 / ASSESSIntake evidenceThe next proposed testing study.
02 / RECOVERRoute-specific recoveryAfter reuse eligibility is resolved.
03 / QUALIFYCharacterize the streamMaterial-specific acceptance criteria.
AM / MAKE & TESTManufacturing trialsSuitable qualified feedstocks only.

Follow a module pathway

00 / INCOMING MODULEProposed workflow

Start with a traceable module record.

Input & evidence: Identity, provenance, condition observations and acquisition-quality context.
Decision: Identify required handling and qualification procedures before considering optional testing.
Output: A documented record and the next qualified assessment step.

Proposed architecture, not an operating production line. The current study tests intake decisions; recovery, material qualification and manufacturing have separate validation gates.

Further reuse evaluation

Material recovery

Special handling / manual review

Explore the connected research program

Build the evidence together

Where you can contribute.

Bring an intake problem, research question, capability or resource that can help define a useful next study.

Operators & module owners

Bring a current testing problem, workflow insight or modules with documented provenance to help define the comparison.

Explore operator & module contributions

Researchers & labs

Bring PV characterization, acquisition-quality or sequential decision expertise to help scope a rigorous experiment.

Explore research & testing contributions

Sponsors & resource partners

Connect a defined research milestone with sponsorship, useful resources or a focused introduction.

Explore milestone & resource support

Illustrative economics

When does better
testing pay?

Try four hypothetical inputs to explore reuse-versus-recovery value. The operator study will compare complete costs and routing outcomes against an efficient existing testing workflow.

Illustrative scenario / User assumptions

The starting values are hypothetical; replace them with operator-specific estimates. Compare added diagnostics with an all-to-recovery alternative.

Share qualifying for reuse route (%) · 0–100

Qualified-route net proceeds (USD/module) · 0–1,000

Recovery-route net proceeds (USD/module) · -1,000–1,000

Added diagnostics & review cost (USD/incoming module) · 0–1,000

Illustrative incremental value · USD / incoming module+$2.80 / modulePositive incremental value under these assumptions.

Assumes correct routing, with recovery for every nonqualifying module.

Explore sensitivity and break-even

Illustrative scenario / Your assumptions

When does added testing cover its cost?

Vary the share qualifying for reuse while holding the other three inputs fixed. The scenario assumes correct routing and compares added diagnostics with sending every module to recovery.

0% qualify

Your assumed share

100% qualify

Above zero: positive incremental value under these assumptions. Below zero: negative. A break-even share is displayed only when one exists within 0–100%; it is rounded for readability.

V(q) = q × (qualified-route net proceeds − recovery-route net proceeds) − added diagnostics/review cost. q is the fraction qualifying for reuse. Monetary inputs are USD per module; the result is USD per incoming module. The boundary below defines net proceeds and excluded costs.

Boundary: one incoming module. Qualified-route and recovery-route net proceeds include downstream testing, logistics and processing. Capital, overhead, taxes, price changes, unpriced safety risks and misrouting losses are excluded. The proposed operator study evaluates those practical costs and error consequences.

Advanced: compare an operator workflow

Operator / analyst estimates

Does the candidate improve the whole operating case?

Compare your current workflow with a candidate workflow, including efficient fixed testing or an adaptive method. Enter operator or analyst estimates in USD per incoming module, averaged across the same defined population. Starting zeros are entry placeholders, not measured costs or SBX results.

Workflow costs · USD / incoming module
Cost item	Current workflow	Candidate workflow
Capture, setup & handling Include acquisition, setup, loading, failed or repeated captures and handling time.
Mandatory qualification Retain all required safety and qualification procedures; allocate their full workflow cost.
Specialist review Allocate expert time across every incoming module, including cases sent for review.
Allocated equipment & software Include relevant overhead once. Use consistent throughput, useful life and utilization assumptions.
Logistics Include transport and storage not already counted in another cost or downstream value.
Expected error consequences Use documented error rates and consequences where available; do not count a loss twice.

Include a downstream-value difference

Optional, signed USD per incoming module, including modules with no sale. Use documented realized value when available; otherwise use clearly identified estimates. Deduct downstream processing costs only if absent from the rows above. Exclude every cost and error loss already entered above, including transport. With this option off, equal downstream value is assumed to cancel; actual outcome equivalence still needs testing.

My estimates use the same incoming population, required safety checks, routing-error limits and decision-coverage basis.

This confirms the basis of your scenario, not demonstrated equivalence. Establish comparable outcomes and coverage with independent evidence before treating a modeled advantage as useful operating value.

Modeled candidate advantage · USD / incoming module—

Enter workflow estimates and confirm a common comparison basis.

Current workflow total cost: —
Candidate workflow total cost: —
Break-even candidate capture/setup & handling cost: —

The break-even amount is the total candidate capture/setup & handling allowance, not an extra allowance. A negative amount means the other candidate costs already exceed the available value even with zero capture cost.

Candidate advantage = (candidate downstream value − candidate total cost) − (current downstream value − current total cost).

Break-even candidate capture/setup & handling cost = current total cost + (candidate downstream value − current downstream value) − all other candidate costs.

Count each item once on a common per-incoming-module boundary. Separate one-time research/reference-testing costs from recurring operating costs. A modeled operating advantage does not establish financing, cash availability, demand or adoption.

Define the environmental comparison separately.

A lifecycle assessment needs qualified remaining generation, the product or material displaced, transport distances and modes, testing/repair/processing energy, usable yield, failure outcomes and final treatment within a stated boundary. Financial inputs alone cannot quantify environmental benefit.

An illustrative reuse-versus-recovery scenario. The research comparison must also account for an operator’s efficient existing workflow, routing errors and complete costs.

Inspect the economics method & boundaries

Founder-led execution

Product judgment.
Research discipline.

Frank Jackson originated Solar Revitalizer™, secured SBX’s research support and directed the completed university feasibility project. His enterprise product and analytics experience informs experiment scoping, evidence evaluation and coordination with scientific and engineering specialists.

Meet the people & technical practice

Keep exploring

Preserve the power.
Recover the value.