What we have reviewed, designed and built

Technical reviews of the documents investors were given: PPA, feasibility study, PVsyst report, single-line diagram and financial model. On one site, reading those documents against each other found:

• Installed inverter AC capacity well below the capacity the PPA committed the plant to deliver
• A P90 set unrealistically close to P50, because year-to-year weather variability had been set to zero
• Battery storage required by the PPA but missing from the CapEx model
• PPA technical schedules describing a different plant from the one designed

Each document looked sound on its own. Together, they did not describe a financeable asset.

A hybrid plant designed to replace heavy fuel oil peaking with a firm 100 MW evening block, every day of the year. It sets out our method at utility scale: hourly dispatch, P90 and P99 downside cases, and an independent-style review of every major design choice.

Design decisions the review drove: battery tendered at about 430 MWh so the firm block holds beyond year 3; the export cap identified as the largest single risk, since a 250 MW cap instead of 314 MW moves equity IRR to 5.4%, as much as a 10% CapEx overrun; and a mid-life inverter overhaul built into the maintenance reserve.

Request the study summary

Before moving to advisory work, Linden Hof designed and built turnkey solar, battery and inverter systems for commercial clients in Kenya. One example: a hybrid system for a dairy processor, with variable-speed drives on the milk-cooling compressors so the inverters could carry the motor starts.

The physics of that plant is the physics of every process-load hybrid: motor starting, drive harmonics, generator coordination and battery ride-through. It is why our reviews start from how equipment behaves on site, not from the datasheet.