The solar sunset: why decommissioning is the industry’s next structural reckoning
The sun is setting on the first generation of solar assets. How we manage that transition will determine whether the industry’s green promise remains a reality or becomes a cautionary tale. But as our experience has shown, true circularity begins the moment the first module is unbolted. Everything that follows depends on the discipline of execution.
In my opinion, the solar industry is at a critical juncture. The rapid deployment of the first generation of utility-scale PV assets is coming to an end, and the focus is now shifting to the end-of-life (EOL) phase. This is a significant shift, as decommissioning is no longer a niche subject but a defining test of the industry’s ability to manage the full life cycle of its assets.
What makes this particularly fascinating is the fact that the market is shifting. Interest in decommissioning is no longer driven only by old age but also by portfolio optimisation, refinancing decisions, repowering strategies, and growing awareness of legal and reputational exposure. Owners want clarity on what EOL will actually involve, what it will cost, who is responsible, and how to avoid turning a planned transition into an uncontrolled liability.
From my perspective, the absence of credible EOL strategies is a systemic risk. It affects bankability, project value, compliance, land recovery, stakeholder trust, and the long-term credibility of the energy transition itself. Planning for the end at the beginning is crucial, and decommissioning costs should be modelled as early as possible in a project’s lifecycle, ideally at the planning stage.
One of the most common weaknesses in the market is that decommissioning is considered too late. Substantial attention is given to yield modelling, grid connection, financing, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC), while the eventual dismantling of the asset is reduced to a vague cost assumption or a standard contractual clause. This underestimates both the complexity and the strategic importance of the exit phase.
In my view, a credible decommissioning plan should include several core elements. It should clearly define responsibilities, including ownership of dismantling, waste handling, recovery routes, and land restoration obligations. It should set out a technical understanding of the installed hardware, including module types, mounting structures, cabling, inverters, substations, and any site-specific constraints.
What many people don’t realise is that the benefits of planning early extend beyond administrative and financial considerations. They also extend into engineering. Projects that are designed with future dismantling in mind can significantly reduce later complexity. This begins with documentation, as accurate records of installed components, layouts, cable routing, serial information, and weight of the individual materials used are invaluable.
One thing that immediately stands out is the importance of accessibility in the physical design. The arrangement of rows, the design of cable routing, the handling of foundations and mounting systems, and the treatment of site infrastructure all influence how efficiently a project can one day be dismantled. Engineering for EOL does not require compromising operational performance but requires a broader understanding of project lifecycle value.
If you take a step back and think about it, the practical reality of decommissioning is that it is a highly operational discipline. It is a chain of tightly connected tasks that must be coordinated with precision. It typically begins with site assessment, planning of work sequences, safety procedures, and documentation review, followed by dismantling, electrical disconnection, module removal, structure removal, cable recovery, inverter and station handling, temporary site storage, loading, transport, and downstream treatment routes.
What this really suggests is that decommissioning is not a single activity but a complex process that requires disciplined coordination. The key failures are rarely dramatic in isolation but cumulative. Incomplete documentation delays planning, poor packaging reduces transport efficiency, mixed material streams complicate downstream treatment, and weak communication between site teams and logistics partners creates bottlenecks.
In my opinion, the industry would benefit from treating decommissioning readiness as a quality factor in project design, much like maintainability, safety, or grid performance. A project engineered for a cleaner exit will be better positioned commercially and operationally over its full lifespan.
The scale of the likely decommissioning wave in Europe should not be underestimated. Some assets are reaching genuine EOL, while others will enter repowering cycles, partial replacement programmes, or commercial reassessment earlier than originally expected. This will create growing pressure on service capacity, logistics infrastructure, treatment routes, and compliance systems.
However, this should not be viewed only as a threat. It is also a sign that the industry is maturing. Solar is no longer just about rapid deployment but about long-term asset stewardship. The companies that recognise this transition early will be better placed to protect value, meet expectations from investors and regulators, and contribute credibly to a more circular energy economy.
In conclusion, the solar sunset is upon us, and the industry must rise to the challenge of managing the EOL phase with the same seriousness it applies to development and construction. By planning early, coordinating disciplines, and treating decommissioning as a strategic process, the industry can ensure a smooth transition and preserve its green promise.
