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 utility-scale PV assets has led to a growing awareness of the need for end-of-life planning. As the first generation of solar panels reaches the end of their lifespan, the industry must confront the structural reckoning of decommissioning.
What makes this particularly fascinating is that decommissioning is no longer a niche subject. It is becoming a defining test of whether the solar industry is prepared to manage the full life cycle of its assets with the same seriousness it applies to development and construction.
From my perspective, the market is shifting. Interest in decommissioning is no longer driven only by old age. It is also driven by portfolio optimisation, refinancing decisions, repowering strategies and growing awareness of legal and reputational exposure. Owners want clarity on what end of life will actually involve, what it will cost, who is responsible and how to avoid turning a planned transition into an uncontrolled liability.
One thing that immediately stands out is that decommissioning is often considered too late. In many projects, 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.
If you take a step back and think about it, it's clear that planning for the end at the beginning is crucial. 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 realize is that without this level of foresight, hidden costs can accumulate rapidly. Transport distances may be longer than expected. Labour intensity may be underestimated. Mixed or damaged material streams may reduce recovery value. Unclear contractual responsibility can lead to disputes between owners, landholders, service providers and investors. Delays can also create knock-on effects for repowering schedules, land handback deadlines or future site use.
In my opinion, 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.
Personally, I think that the practical reality of decommissioning is that it is a highly operational discipline. It is here that theory is tested against reality. In practice, decommissioning is not a single activity. 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.
What this really suggests is that 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 life span.
A detail that I find especially interesting is that once a project enters execution, decommissioning becomes a highly operational discipline. It is here that theory is tested against reality. In my opinion, the key failures are rarely dramatic in isolation. They are cumulative. Incomplete documentation delays planning. Poor packaging reduces transport efficiency. Mixed material streams complicate downstream treatment. Weak communication between site teams and logistics partners creates bottlenecks.
One thing that immediately stands out is that the legal dimension of decommissioning is becoming steadily more important. Across Europe, the direction of travel is clear. Documentation, traceability, waste classification, recycling obligations and producer responsibility frameworks are under increasing scrutiny.
In my opinion, the sector now has a choice. It can continue to treat decommissioning as a marginal issue until volumes force reactive solutions. Or it can act now and make end-of-life planning central to project thinking.
What makes this particularly fascinating is that the scale of the likely decommissioning wave in Europe should not be underestimated. Some assets are reaching genuine end-of-life. Others will enter repowering cycles, partial replacement programmes or commercial reassessment earlier than originally expected. The result will be growing pressure on service capacity, logistics infrastructure, treatment routes and compliance systems.
From my perspective, 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. It is 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.
