The blog seems more readable than that pdf so I've changed the URL above from https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/financing-offshore-wind to the first blog post.

Part 2: https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/financing-offshore-wind-...

Part 3: https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/financing-offshore-wind-...

Part 4: https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/financing-offshore-wind-...

Part 5: https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/financing-offshore-wind-...

(you're on your own after that)

For later entries, you probably want to make your own URLs, because the links in the pages are messed up.

Or, just start here: https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/financing-offshore-wind-...

Part 1: https://wfo-global.org/financing-offshore-wind-part-1/

> first part of what will be a 10–part series of blog posts,

What I find revealing is that the section about the "The offshore wind project cycle" does not cover the dismantling of the installation.

I had once to evaluate the offer of a local project for an (onshore) solar park in Germany. The lease offered was about 4 times the current usual land lease rates for 30 to 40 years with inflation adjustments. The solar park company should be responsible for the complete dismantling of the installation afterwards. In case of an insolvency of the company a bank guarantee would step in.

However, the (inflation adjusted) bank guarantee was only €10,000 per hectare (10,000 m^2), which seemed extremly low to me. This must cover everything from removing the panels and sockets, all the power lines in the ground, the transformer installation on the field, the removal of asphalt roads, etc., etc. I could not find any detailed studies about the likely dismantling costs for solar parks.

Bank guarantee prices are so high that a guarantee of between €30,000 and €50,000 per hectare (depending on the current bank rate) would have eaten up the entire surplus lease.

So if my guess is correct and the actual deconstruction costs are well over €10,000 per hectare, in 30 to 40 years there will be a high incentive for solar park companies to move solar parks that are to be phased out into equivalents to bad banks and threatening insolvency, so that either the land owners need to step in with their private savings after the bank guarantees where used up or the state needs to pay to prevent this from happening.

Does anyone here know of any reputable calculations for the deconstruction costs of solar parks?

Probably the assumption is that you will upgrade the panels at radically reduced prices, re-using the wiring and support. Then, the cost is for insurance against the site being no longer viable. And, probably, the cabling has high scrap value.

The future of solar is in mixed use, where the land continues doing whatever it was already doing, just with added revenue on a very different schedule. This easiest on pasture, but offers most value on reservoirs and canals.

In a rational market it would be impossible to get financing for single-use solar farms. Instead, ignorant investors love them, particularly when sited in the worst choice of place, deserts.

(Deserts are lousy because they are hot and dusty, cutting both output and panel life, and typically far from users requiring transmission line construction. And, the land produces no other revenue, so must be secured whole.)

Demolition costs are easy to estimate if you can just bulldoze and landfill everything.

The problem will come if you can do that today but not in 40 years.

Even if this were legally possible in 40 years, if the field were not restored to its current state, but only bulldozed, it would lose most of its current value, which would mean a decrease of about €30,000 to €40,000 per hectare. It is good soil, without many stones and drainaged. However, according to current German and EU regulations, the solar modules must be recycled (and not just disposed of), the wires in the ground must be removed and the surface restored.

But why not just uograde the panels?

We will still need to harvest Wind/solar energy in 40 and probably in 400 years. The land, permissions and transmission are already in place.

This might be a possible scenario, but currently the permits are limited and there is no guarantee that they will be renewed in the exact same form. There is already a lot of resistance against the destruction of the landscape and the withdrawal of farmland from food production. Economic considerations could lead to a shift in the production of solar energy from Europe to where it can be done more efficiently. (Marocco is already very active in this respect.) Other forms of energy production could gain in importance because they provide more continuous energy: geothermal energy in the near and fusion in the distant future. Therefore, I think, it is not unlikely that not all, but perhaps a lot of solar parks might be deconstruct after their projected service life of 30 to 40 years.

There is absolutely no need to remove land from food production to put solar on it. The crops do better with protection from full (particularly afternoon) sun, you use less water, the panels run more efficiently, and the landowner gets two revenue streams that operate on different schedules.

So, agree, dedicated solar farms might be a dead end.

Geothermal is a minor player because it is quite expensive to build and operate, kind of like a nuke, albeit without the poison-a-whole-region risk.

Fusion will never produce so much as one kWh of commercial power.

Currently they put already sheep on many solar farms here in the region. I do not know how much additional revenue you get from it, but no one here would otherwise keep sheep on such good arable land. So yes, there is some potential for food production on solar farms, but it is limited. Of course, no one knows exactly where it will all go in 40 years. The hard fact is that no investor bets on further use and leases for, say, 100 years. It is the farmers leasing their land for 40 years on whom the risk is passed with an unsufficiant compensation.

Personally, I think that the state should bear the costs for the complete dismantling of the installations and finance it through an upfront levy on the operation of the solar parks.

> potential for food production on solar farms ... is limited.

Food production in dual-use farms is really not limited in any way. Besides siting in existing pastureland, solar may easily be deployed in cropland in rows spaced to leave plenty of room between for farm equipment.

The key is that, with dual land use, there is no need for or value in cramming panels closely together. There is an absolute over-abundance of both pasture and cropland suitable for dual use, and panels work better when widely-spaced. Farmers welcome an extra revenue stream that costs them no yield or extra "inputs", delivers year-round, and cuts evaporative water loss.

The simplest way to deploy for dual use in farmland is to erect bifacial panels vertically in fence-rows running north-south, to pick up morning and afternoon sun.

Few crops can use more than a few hours' direct sunlight in a day, if that much. Most plants prepare overnight a stock of material to process in sunshine; once that stock is used up, any further sun exposure is only endured. Shade is a valuable and sometimes necessary commodity on a farm.

Some varieties of pepper yield 3x under partial shade. Most crops benefit less, but most over 1x. Even wheat delivers 0.9x, with the extra revenue and reduced water loss more than making up the difference. Some crops need physical protection, such as against hail and torrential rain, that solar panels can provide.

Most cropland yields revenue only in a pulse once or (sometimes) twice a year. A steady income year-round, even in fallow fields, makes management of the farm much easier.

A source of difficulty, in some places, is a mesh of land-use restrictions incompatible with installing solar. These restrictions are being eased in many places.

Upfront or continuing - a portion upfront that is invested in bonds or whatever, and a per annum or per kWh levy toward dismantling. If the plant runs longer than expected the extra dismantling fees can be used for the next plant or something.

Agreed. My formulation was too brief. We should have a combination of upfront and annual payments into a distmanteling fund that works like an insurance.