A client had a solar proposal for €700,000. The building consumed 480,000 kWh annually. Both numbers were wrong -- not because the proposal was poorly made, but because no one had questioned the baseline.
The proposal was conventional and competently done. A 500 kWp solar system, €700,000 installed, sized to match the building's annual consumption of 480,000 kWh. Production matched to need. That is the standard approach, and it produces the standard result.
The question no one had asked was whether 480,000 kWh was the right number to size against.
It was not. It was decades of accumulated inefficiency, running unchallenged because it had always been that way.
The first intervention was lighting. Occupancy-controlled LED systems throughout the building. Installed capacity dropped by 90%. Annual electricity costs fell from €30,000 to €3,800.
That single step changed what everything else needed to be.
With the lighting load transformed, the building envelope became the priority. Loading dock doors fitted with pleated curtains to stop the heat loss that the heating system had been silently compensating for. Ceiling fans redistributed the warm air that had been rising unused to the roof. Ventilation rebalanced. Heating optimised to serve a building that now lost significantly less energy than before.
Final annual consumption: 50,000 kWh.
The building had not changed. Its systems had not been replaced. They had been made to work correctly, in sequence, each step informed by what the previous one had revealed.
The client still wanted solar. The new proposal: a 50 kWp system for €60,000.
Total capital deployed across all interventions: €110,000 -- lighting, envelope, ventilation, heating, and solar combined.
The original proposal was €700,000 for solar alone.
Capital not required -- same energy independence goal achieved
Annual consumption after systematic reduction
Total capital deployed across all interventions including solar
Drop in installed lighting capacity from occupancy-controlled LED
The standard approach measures consumption and adds production to match it. That is rational given the inputs. The inputs were wrong.
Once the baseline was questioned, everything changed. The solar system the building needed was a fraction of the size, at a fraction of the cost, serving an asset that already performed rather than one that did not. It reached energy independence sooner, returned capital faster, and produced better net operating income from a smaller deployment.
Capital sequencing is not a refinement of the standard approach. It is a different question asked at the beginning: what does this building actually need, and in what order should we address it?
Next step
The starting point is always the same: understand what the building actually consumes and why, before deciding what to add.
Get in touch