Site assessment, yield modelling, system sizing, storage evaluation, and the documentation a solar project needs to reach financial close and tender.
A solar feasibility study tests whether a specific site, a specific load, and a specific tariff produce a project worth building. It is a technical exercise with a financial output, and the two halves have to be built on the same set of assumptions — a yield model detached from the tariff structure produces a number nobody can bank.
Design follows feasibility. Once viability is established, the work moves from modelling to engineering documentation: layouts, single-line diagrams, specifications, and bills of quantities detailed enough for a contractor to price without guessing.
Five workstreams that together determine whether the project is viable and at what return.
Usable roof or ground area, structural capacity, orientation and tilt, shading analysis across the year, and irradiation data for the location. Shading and structural capacity are the two findings most likely to change a project's size or kill it outright.
Hourly or interval consumption where available, otherwise a reconstructed profile from bills and operating patterns. The match between generation profile and load profile determines self-consumption — which, under most tariff structures, determines the entire economic case.
Simulation of expected annual generation accounting for irradiation, temperature derating, soiling, inverter efficiency, cable losses, and long-term module degradation. Report the modelled yield with its loss assumptions visible, not as a single headline figure.
Whether batteries improve the case depends on tariff structure, export terms, and outage exposure. Where net metering is favourable, storage often does not pay; where export is curtailed or supply is unreliable, it can be decisive. This is modelled, not assumed.
Capital cost, operating cost, tariff escalation, degradation, and financing terms combined into payback, IRR, NPV, and LCOE — with sensitivity analysis on the two or three variables that actually move the outcome.
The path a project takes through feasibility and design.
Desktop review of site, load, and tariff to establish indicative size and rough economics before committing to a full study. Filters out non-viable sites within days.
Site survey, shading and structural assessment, yield simulation, storage evaluation where relevant, and a financial model with sensitivities and a clear recommendation.
Module and inverter selection, array layout, string configuration, single-line diagram, and grid-connection approach — enough to support permitting and budget approval.
Full electrical and structural documentation, specifications, bill of quantities, and tender documents that let contractors bid on a like-for-like basis.
A system sized to fill available area rather than to match consumption produces export the tariff may not reward. Self-consumption, not capacity, drives returns under most local tariff structures.
Omitting soiling, temperature derating, or realistic degradation inflates generation by ten percent or more — enough to move a project from marginal to attractive on paper and back again in operation.
Discovering that the roof requires strengthening after the financial model is approved is one of the most common causes of project delay and cost overrun. It belongs in feasibility.
Without specifications and a bill of quantities, contractor bids differ in scope as much as in price, and the cheapest bid is usually the least complete one.
A site and structural assessment, year-round shading analysis, load profile reconstruction, yield simulation with stated loss assumptions, grid-connection and permitting review, storage evaluation where relevant, and a financial model producing payback, IRR, and LCOE with sensitivity analysis. It closes with a recommendation and the conditions that recommendation depends on.
Size is driven by the consumption profile, not by available area. The model matches expected hourly generation against hourly load to maximise self-consumption, then tests larger and smaller configurations against the tariff and export terms. Roof area, structural capacity, and grid-connection limits act as constraints on that optimum.
It depends on the tariff and the reliability of supply. Where net metering credits exported energy at a fair rate, storage often does not pay back within its own lifetime. Where export is curtailed or unpaid, or where outages impose real costs on operations, storage can be the difference between a marginal and a strong case. It should be modelled against the specific tariff, never assumed.
Lenders typically expect a feasibility study with a defensible yield model, a structural and electrical design package, permitting status, an EPC scope and cost basis, an O&M plan, and a financial model with sensitivities. Independent technical review of these documents is common for larger projects and is worth anticipating in how the study is written.
We run solar projects from screening through tender: feasibility studies with defensible yield models, preliminary and detailed engineering design, and tender documentation that produces comparable bids. We also act as independent technical reviewer for lenders assessing third-party project documentation.
Continue with the guides that share the same evidence base, standards, and delivery teams.
A practical overview of what environmental consultants do, the services they deliver, and how organizations use them to grow responsibly.
What an energy audit covers, how audit levels differ, the measures that typically pay back fastest, and what a bankable audit report should contain.
Share the location, the load, and the tariff — we will tell you quickly whether it is worth a full study.
