Exnovation in the energy transition: Why ending old technologies is so hard and how it can succeed

29.04.2026

The energy transition is not just a story of innovation. It is also a story of saying goodbye: to the combustion engine, to fossil infrastructures and to routines that have shaped entire industries. Those who understand why exnovation often feels like a collective loss can make the dismantling process fairer, more predictable and faster.

Person hält eine Lupe vor eine digitale Weltkugel mit Symbolen für erneuerbare Energien, Ressourcen und Energiewende.

The energy transition is often told as a success story of innovation: new batteries, new grids, new business models. In practice, however, it is not only how quickly new things are created, but also how consistently old things end. This is exactly what the term exnovation stands for: it describes the deliberate, politically and socially organized dismantling of unsustainable technologies, infrastructures and routines. Exnovation is not a side effect of innovation. It is a transformational achievement in its own right. And it is so difficult because it interferes with existing values, investments and identities.

In techno-sociological terms, exnovation is best understood if it is not viewed as a technical change, but as a collective acceptance process. The analogy to phases of mourning or the acceptance of a chronic diagnosis seems unusual at first. However, it gets to the heart of the matter: the focus is not on individual feelings, but on typical patterns with which organizations, industries, politics and the public react to the loss of familiar things. It is about routines, competencies, interpretative sovereignty, capital values and the question of who still has a role in the new system.

Why exnovation triggers resistance

The dismantling of established technologies, such as the combustion engine in the course of electromobility, does not just affect one product. It affects entire value creation systems: billions invested in systems, qualifications, supplier networks, workshops and spare parts markets. It affects infrastructure paths (filling station network, refineries), cultural models (range, "engine competence", freedom) and political arrangements (tax privileges, subsidies, exemptions). If such a system loses its sustainability, it is not just a technology that is at risk, but a socially stabilized regime.

The gears of inertia: lock-in and path dependency

Why is exnovation so tough? Because technological paths stabilize themselves over decades. Economists speak of lock-in: switching costs and coordination hurdles become so high that even better alternatives are difficult to break through. Lock-in is the coupling of technology, infrastructure, institutions and interpretation.

Sunk costs: Plants, factories, networks and vehicle fleets are paid for. Nobody likes to write them off prematurely.
Economies of scale and learning curves: The established system is well-established and often cheaper in the short term.
Complementary infrastructure: Standards, workshops, spare parts, training; many things fit in with the status quo.
Rules and standards: Approvals, taxes, funding logics and reporting requirements are often built around old technologies.
Power and identity: Roles, status and regional prosperity models are tied to the existing regime.

This lock-in also explains why exnovation often takes place in phases. Not because actors are irrational, but because social systems need time to change interpretations, reorganize interests and make alternatives manageable. Important: The phases are not strictly linear. They can overlap, repeat themselves and occur simultaneously in different stages for different groups.

Phase 1: Denial - the future is put into perspective

It often starts with relativization: climate targets, regulation or market indicators seem "excessive", "too early" or "still solvable without changing the system". Instead of a clear change of course, the focus is on increasing efficiency, niche solutions or the hope that targets will be postponed. Sociologically, this phase fulfills a function: it protects against tough decisions, prevents value adjustments and keeps established routines stable. Denial is therefore less an error than a stabilization mechanism under uncertainty.
This can be seen in electromobility when e-cars are dismissed as "not suitable for the masses" or "questionable in terms of the overall balance sheet". Often not so much due to a lack of data, but because investments, skills and business models are tied to the combustion engine path. As long as relativization remains plausible, it is easiest to postpone exnovation.

Phase 2: Outrage - when technology becomes a culture war

The signals intensify. Through regulation, shifts in investment or market shares, relativization often turns into outrage. A technical issue becomes a conflict about freedom, identity, justice or location policy. Blame is placed externally: in Brussels, with a culture of prohibition or with lobby groups - depending on the perspective. This is precisely where it becomes clear that exnovation affects not only emissions, but also social order. Those defending the old technology are often also defending their own role in the familiar system.
This phase can harden blockades, but it makes conflicts visible that were previously hidden. It is often decided here whether exnovation is seen as a manageable transition or is experienced as an attack.

Phase 3: Negotiating - transitions, exceptions and "bridges"

In the negotiation phase, change is no longer fundamentally contested, but conditioned: "Yes, but ...". Demands for transition periods, exceptions, pilot corridors or openness to technology are increasing. Negotiation is not bad per se. It can structure transitions, cushion the losers and manage complexity. However, it becomes a delay if its main purpose is to push the time of exnovation further and further back.
In electromobility, for example, this can be seen in bridges such as hybrids, in special paths via alternative fuels or in exceptions for certain vehicle classes. Sociologically, this is a control strategy: when the end of the old is no longer avoidable, we try to time it - and "write off" the old lock in an orderly fashion.

Phase 4: Resignation - doom and gloom narrative and investment backlog

If negotiations do not provide certainty or the structural break seems too great, resignation often follows. It manifests itself in narratives of doom ("deindustrialization", "we are losing our expertise"), in a backlog of investment and a declining willingness to change. The moment when the old path is no longer worthwhile but the new one is not yet viable is particularly risky: Then everyone is waiting for each other (infrastructure, demand, standards). Inertia becomes a coordination problem.
This is where the disease analogy fits best: the diagnosis is accepted, but the therapy seems hopeless or unreasonable. Reliable framework conditions and support are then crucial: qualification, regional structural programs, new industrial perspectives and a policy that makes investments in the new path calculable.

Phase 5: Acceptance - a new normal emerges

Acceptance does not mean enthusiasm, but the ability to act. Companies are reinvesting, supply chains are being reconfigured, competencies are shifting and narratives are changing. In electromobility, this means less fundamental debate about the combustion engine and more focus on scaling battery value creation, charging infrastructure, recycling, software and system integration. Acceptance is also re-identification: employees and organizations must find themselves in new roles.
A "new normal" stabilizes when standards, training paths, service ecosystems and investor logics follow suit. A new lock-in will then form and the combustion engine will lose its status as a matter of course, even if it does not disappear overnight.

What the analogy does and where it ends

The grief or illness analogy makes exnovation visible as a social process: resistance is not merely ignorance, but part of a collective reorganization. At the same time, the analogy has limits. Exnovation is always also a power and distribution process: those who do not accept often act strategically because assets, business models and zones of influence are at stake. The phase model should therefore not psychologize conflicts, but rather help to identify which argumentation patterns dominate in which phase and which interventions are then suitable.

Zwei Hände im Handschlag vor digitalem Netzwerkhintergrund mit Symbolen für Energie, Nachhaltigkeit und Zusammenarbeit.

How exnovation can succeed: Shaping instead of suffering

If you want to shape exnovation in politics, administration, companies or regional structural development, you can use the phase model as a diagnostic tool. Reliable target paths help in the relativization phase. In the outrage phase, serious negotiation and fair burden sharing are key. In the negotiation phase, transitions are needed that enable adaptation without artificially prolonging the old. In the resignation phase, security, training and regional prospects are important. And when acceptance emerges, it's all about scaling: standards, infrastructure and investment conditions.

1) Political levers: sending signals, securing transitions

Politics creates the framework in which exnovation becomes possible in the first place. Clear targets and reliable timetables provide orientation and trigger investment.

Reliable exit paths: Don't just define end dates, but concrete step-by-step plans with verifiable milestones (e.g. fleet limits, infrastructure targets, interim quotas).
Organize and finance decommissioning: Programs for decommissioning, repurposing and recycling - from refineries to workshop chains - so that exnovation is actively shaped.
Cushion stranded assets socially: Transition funds, qualification measures and regional development pacts where value losses have a particularly strong impact.
Enable coordination: accelerate standards, approvals and infrastructure (grid connections, charging points, storage) so that investments do not stall.
Communication without a culture clash: Openly identify conflicting goals - such as costs, jobs or security of supply - and at the same time provide a clear direction.

2) Company leverage: reorganize value creation before the market forces it

Define exnovation as a management task: Responsibilities, KPIs and timelines for "orderly exit" (product lines, plants, suppliers) - not just for growth.
Decouple portfolios: Use old cash flows to build new competencies instead of using them to simply extend the status quo.
Migrate skills: Systematically upskill (high-voltage systems, software, data, power electronics, recycling) before bottlenecks occur.
Renegotiate supply chains: Involve suppliers at an early stage, define changeover windows, enable joint investment in new components.
Focus on customer benefits: Facilitate new routines (charging, billing, service), because acceptance grows when the new path is more suitable for everyday use.

3) Regional levers: Turning regions with combustion engines into regions of the future

Realistic stocktaking: Which plants, qualifications and supplier clusters are under threat - and which are transferable?
Further training "close to the job": Programs with companies and vocational schools/universities that finance concrete transitions (not just courses).
Attract new anchor investments: Battery recycling, power electronics, charging infrastructure services, grid services with space, energy pricing and fast approval.
Infrastructure as location policy: grid capacities, fast-charging hubs, public transport/logistics - visible and early so that companies have planning security.
Change the narrative: Away from doom and gloom towards a plausible picture of the future that offers employees roles.
A short checklist: How to recognize good exnovation
Clear direction: Is the end goal politically and strategically clear or does everything remain open to technology until the company is unable to act?

How to recognize good exnovation

Plannable pace: Are there interim goals that trigger investment decisions today (and not just at the end date)?
Dismantling capacity: Who organizes decommissioning, repurposing, recycling and who pays?
Fairness: Are burdens and opportunities distributed in such a way that affected groups have a perspective?
Alternative suitable for everyday use: Will the new path be noticeably simpler, cheaper or more reliable or will it remain a pilot project?

Understood in this way, exnovation is not a shutdown, but a bundle of design tasks: Setting frameworks, enabling transitions, moderating conflicts, building alternatives, cushioning losses and stabilizing new normalities. The techno-sociological perspective helps us to look not only at the next innovation, but also at what really determines transformation: the orderly departure from the old.