Solar power at Naylor

Naylor Industries Group EHS Officer Alex Farrer gives a root and branch account of the company’s recent solar power installation, including the selection process, barriers to completion, project management skills, and project delivery & lessons learned.

Naylor Group’s ambition is to increase the company’s use of renewable energies, a pillar of its new net zero strategy. Economically feasible energies such as solar are part of our net zero strategy to reduce our reliance on grid supplied electricity. Another part of this is to increase the percentage of electricity derived from on-site/off-site renewables. We are discussing internally what a viable percentage of total energy consumed can be renewable. Naylor already has some solar power.

The solar project took place at our Wombwell site in Barnsley, South Yorkshire. Here there is a manufacturing facility that produces a range of extruded and moulded plastic products for variety of industries.

The solar panel installation covers an area of approximately 4000m2, generating 366 kWh. The system has been designed to offset the site’s draw from the electricity grid by about 19% annually, but can produce more than this during the summer.

The project is both a sustainability exercise and a business decision. Although our current net zero plan does not include renewable energy sources, our updated version will focus more on this.

For the business, high energy costs are forcing energy-intensive consumers to consider alternative sources to ensure future energy costs are stabilised, improving business certainty.

The solar project is forecasted to provide nearly 20% of our total energy requirements and is also forecasted to pay back in less than four years – this and high energy prices made it a very attractive project.

Choosing the solar project partners

Our energy consultancy Envantage helped us determine whether our existing solar installations could prove that energy projections before installation were broadly accurate. This provided evidence that solar projects were viable and, importantly, worth investing capital. We then acquired five quotes from various solar providers.

Knowing which solar power provider was the right one for our requirements proved difficult. Having five separate quotes gave us a broad range of prices. We met with the providers and asked questions, giving us a better understanding of what the projects would entail. We soon learned that prices varied greatly between providers and that certain providers provide better value for money depending on the size of their organisation and their overheads, and the size of the customer’s project.

We selected a provider that was reasonably local, from the North East, and that seemed a good fit with our organisation. We also chose it based on other factors such as knowledge of solar, range of information and detail provided, communication, and gut feeling. This supplier offered the best value for money that we calculated in kWh/£ , or size of installation by power generated divided by cost.

Following the signing of contracts, planning permissions and DNO applications were submitted by the solar installer, and a date was set for the installation. Once the project was complete, Barnsley Council asked for project details.

Barriers

1. The local council. Following submission of planning application and completion of works, Barnsley Council then suggested the project was oversized and asked if we could remove panels from the installation. We contested this and argued the case the installation was appropriately-sized, this was accepted, and permission granted.

2. Miscommunication between project installer and Naylor. Following commissioning of the installation, the project handlers failed to properly communicate that the project was not fully commissioned, and that additional equipment was required before switching the panels on. This led to Naylor communicating to the stakeholders, erroneously, that the installation was up and running. Our feedback on this were communicated to the installers.

3. Weather. The install commenced in mid-March, shortly after scaffold had been erected. Late seasonal snow hindered the project. As such, all roof works ceased for approximately one week but the team worked around this by organising materials and doing ground level works, including electrical works.

4. Installation of inverters. The weight of the electrical inverters damaged an internal wall, which hindered the works slightly and resulted in Naylor bearing the repair costs to the wall. We worked around this by agreeing that Unistrut would be installed, and the inverters placed on this, with the solar installer bearing the cost of the Unistrut. This could have been avoided by a more thorough technical inspection before installation.

5. Lack of communication by the installer shortly after install. Communication was lacking once the panels were installed, but the project had not fully been completed. I found this particularly frustrating as pressure was mounting internally to complete the project.

Disruption to business continuity. What would you do differently next time?

I managed the project by being firm but fair with the installer, stating our requirements for documentation, including H&S, insurances, and contracts, well in advance and communicating any issues and feedback to them honestly.

From my part, I aimed to send documentation such as POs and signed contracts promptly and ensured that I was as communicative with them as I would want them to be with me.

I also ensured that any developments were communicated promptly internally. This involved booking in major works into relevant people’s schedules, suggesting they move away from areas where noise would be disruptive.

I feel like I managed this aspect of the project well and managed to avert additional issues by being well organised and communicative. As far as I am aware, disruption was minimal – with the only issues being the structural damage to the wall, noise issues in the office and lack of communication described above.

If I were to do this again – which I’m sure I will at some point! – I would request that the project is booked in with more notice; two weeks was given from notifying the date to starting works. This would have helped us organise time better from our end. Additionally, I would insist that more detail was recorded in the technical surveys, and consideration given to where the inverters were placed. I would be more cautious in communicating milestones of the project, ensuring it was 100% complete before communicating this to internal stakeholders.

Additional value for the business from completing the project, and future focus

Time will tell on further value to the company and staff. The project has only been in operation 1 month.

It is also too soon to measure the energy savings and cost benefits. We will have to report back once we have comparable data

On the cost, I can’t reveal the price but the cost that was quoted was exactly what we paid.

Looking ahead now, the main areas in energy efficiency we will now focus on is expanding our onsite/offsite renewable energy, exploring alternative fuel sources, improving production efficiency (behavioural and technical), increasing employee training and employee awareness in energy consumption.