Not intentionally wrong. Just expensively, inconsistently, slowly wrong — the way everyone in early-stage renewable energy development does it before they finally build something better.
We spent years at the intersection of financial analysis and technical engineering on renewable energy projects. Wind farms, solar portfolios, hybrid systems — the full stack. And for most of that time, a significant chunk of our working weeks went into rebuilding the same Excel models we’d built the week before, for different projects, in different markets, with slightly different assumptions.
Every analyst on the team had their own version. Every version had its own benchmark numbers — pulled from different reports, different years, different methodologies. When two people ran the same project through their models and got different LCOEs, the answer wasn't in the inputs. It was in the assumptions nobody had documented.
"We'd spend two weeks getting to a number we could defend, then spend another week defending the method behind the number. That gap — between a quick screen and a defensible result — was where early-stage decisions went to die."
When you needed a proper early-stage view fast — say, a board wants to know if a 150 MW wind site in Poland is even worth pursuing — your options were limited. Either you rebuilt the model yourself (again), or you called a consultant and waited three weeks for a deliverable that cost more than the decision was worth at that stage. There was no middle ground.
So we built one. First for our own internal project pipelines. Then for our wider teams. It became clear that this gap wasn't ours alone — it's structural. The tools that exist are either too rough (back-of-envelope calculators with no benchmark context) or too heavy (full feasibility platforms that assume you've already committed to the project).
preFeasibility sits in between. Fast enough for a screening conversation. Rigorous enough that the output can walk into a meeting. Transparent enough that anyone can see exactly what assumptions drove the number.
The platform now has two products. The Site Screener — a 30-second, 8-axis go/no-go verdict for any wind or solar site, designed to answer "is this site even worth a closer look?" And the Full Prefeasibility Study — a six-step workflow for sites that pass the screen, producing LCOE, IRR, NPV and benchmark comparison. One platform, one wallet, one methodology.
The three problems this solves
01
Rebuilding the same model, every time. A credible wind LCOE calculation isn't complicated — but it's fiddly, and it needs to be done right, consistently, every time. The platform does it once. You just change the inputs.
02
Consultants for screening-level decisions. Paying advisory fees to answer "is this site worth a closer look?" is a bad use of everyone's time and money. Early-stage screening should be fast and cheap. The hard analysis comes later, when it's earned.
03
Every analyst using different benchmarks. IRENA, Lazard, BNEF, EMBER — all credible sources, all publishing at different cadences, all using slightly different methodologies. We pick one consistent set, cite it publicly, and version-control every update. No more silent revisions.
What this is
A fast, rigorous pre-feasibility engine for wind and solar
Benchmark-anchored — every output compared to real market data
Fully transparent — every assumption is visible and traceable
Export-ready results you can put in front of a team
Built by someone who uses tools like this for a living
What this isn't
Investment-grade financial modelling
A substitute for a site-specific resource assessment
A replacement for detailed due diligence
Professional financial or legal advice
A black box — every number has a source
On transparency
Every output carries its full assumption set. If you can't see where a number came from, it isn't useful — it's just a number. We don't do black boxes. The methodology is public. The data sources are cited. The model changelog is versioned and open.
On scope
We are deliberately early-stage. Class 3–4 pre-feasibility. We are not trying to replace detailed feasibility work — we're trying to make the decision to commission that work faster and cheaper. Know what you're buying before you spend the real money.
On pricing
Pay-per-run because that's what makes sense at pre-feasibility stage. You might run three projects this quarter and none next quarter. No subscription, no seat licences, no minimums. Credits never expire. Top up when your pipeline demands it.
On who this is for
Developers doing early-stage screening — start with the Site Screener for a 30-second go/no-go verdict, then move to the full study. Analysts who need a defensible number before committing to a full model. Investment teams evaluating pipeline. Technical consultants who want a fast sanity check. If you've ever rebuilt an LCOE model from scratch and wondered why you were doing it again — this is for you.
And one more — the manager or director who has to evaluate a site, approve the budget, or walk into a board room with a view on whether a project makes sense. Who doesn't have a model. Who relies entirely on whoever last handed them a number. That's a real position to be in, and nobody talks about it. This gives you the ability to run your own check — quickly, without needing to ask someone, without needing to explain why you're asking. You already knew what the answer should feel like. Now you can verify it.
Screen a site — free
Your first Site Screener run is free on signup. No credit card, no subscription, no commitment.