Solutions
Every line below is written from the operating side. The numbers are what we have actually delivered, not what the technology could do in principle.
Where to start
Most enquiries arrive as an asset, not as a service line. Find the row that describes what is on your desk and read across.
What you arrive with
Solar
Onshore wind
Storage
Grid services
Land under option, no grid yet
A queue position and a deadline
A fleet out of warranty
A node that keeps curtailing
An offtake to place, no asset
The four lines
Utility-scale PV from land origination to commissioning. We take queue position as the real schedule — it is the only part of a programme nobody can buy back — and design the array around what the connection will actually accept.
Typical size
Origination to COD
30–48 months
Where we start
The interconnection queue, then the resource
What we need from you
Land control, a queue position, or a credible route to one
Delivered to date
3.1 GW across 42 sites
New capacity where the network can take it, and repowering for fleets that are out of warranty but nowhere near out of wind. Reusing foundations and access tracks is usually the difference between a viable repower and a demolition bill.
Typical size
30–150 MW
Origination to COD
36–60 months new build · 18–30 repowering
Where we start
Ten years of measured wind, not a map
What we need from you
An existing site, or consent already in hand
Delivered to date
2.8 GW across 18 farms
Two- and four-hour systems sited against measured curtailment rather than next to the generation, where it is easier to explain. The asset should earn from the constraint, not wait it out.
Typical size
40–320 MWh
Origination to energisation
18–30 months
Where we start
Three years of nodal price and curtailment data
What we need from you
A grid node under stress, and patience with the paperwork
Delivered to date
940 MWh across 23 systems
Connection studies, curtailment modelling and the compliance work nobody photographs. Most programmes are lost here rather than in construction, which is why we sell it on its own as well as inside a build.
Engagement
Standalone, or bundled into a development mandate
Turnaround
6–14 weeks for a first constraint view
Where we start
The TSO's own published data, then our own model
What we need from you
A node, a technology and an honest budget
Delivered to date
260 studies with 11 TSOs
Phase 01 · weeks 1–6 · fixed fee
One real read, in the order we run it.
Energisation offered for 2031. The programme in front of us had been sold on 2028.
Three years of half-hourly metering at the same substation. The forecast we were handed said three.
Found in the test pits, which nobody had dug. It was mapped as mineral soil.
We said no
Roughly a third of constraint reads end here. The six weeks are cheap; the answer is the product.
The other list
A capability list with nothing missing from it is a sales page. These are the enquiries we send elsewhere, and we will usually tell you where.
We have never built one, and the learning curve is not ours to climb on your programme. We will name two firms who are better at it.
If the mandate is develop-and-flip, the twenty-year decisions get taken by whoever holds it afterwards. That is a legitimate business and it is not this one.
If the case only closes against a P75 resource and no curtailment, we will show you the same model against measured data and then decline it politely.
We publish monthly performance including the assets that miss. An engagement that requires the bad year to come out of the deck ends at that sentence.
Send us the constraint. We will tell you within a fortnight whether it is buildable and what it would take.
