Recently, during the forum "From Project to Megawatt: Engineering of Ukraine's New Energy," organized by the Energy Club, I shared my vision of the practical challenges currently faced by companies implementing new generation projects.
These observations and conclusions are based on the practical experience of the "Energo-Plus" company, which implements distributed generation projects with a total capacity of over 430 MW.
Modern equipment on the infrastructure of the past
Today, the implementation of new energy projects is held back not by a single factor, but by the simultaneous action of several challenges. One of them is the need to integrate modern technological equipment into an infrastructure that was designed back in the Soviet era.
We connect modern, technologically advanced equipment to a grid that was designed during Soviet times and has long outlived its standard operational lifespan. This is our daily engineering reality.
Grid connection requires dialogue
Special attention should be paid to the procedure for connecting new facilities to the networks of distribution system operators (DSOs). In my experience, without detailed and joint development of technical specifications at meetings involving all participants in the process — the customer, the DSO, and the contractor — it is impossible to move forward promptly.
If technical specifications are not worked out in dialogue beforehand, the project runs into constraints that are often artifacts of an obsolete methodology for constructing energy facilities.
As an example, I can cite one of our facilities in the Vinnytsia region. The technical specifications provided for connection according to current standards — fair, but oriented towards standard peacetime conditions. Several parties with different priorities are involved in the implementation of the project: the DSO, for whom the main thing is safe connection; the customer, who needs generation as quickly as possible; and the contractor, who is obliged to fulfill contractual terms.
If even one of the parties takes a closed position and says "no," the process stops. And in war conditions, a stoppage means missing deadlines and breaching contractual obligations.
In my opinion, the way out is the phased execution of technical specifications, jointly agreed upon by the customer and the distribution system operator. This approach makes it possible to shorten the time required for delivering power to the grid.
Equipment shortage has become part of the project reality
Another factor that directly affects the timeline of energy projects is the availability of equipment. Certain items today are either not produced in the required volumes, or their delivery takes four to six months. For projects implemented under war conditions, this creates additional risks and requires greater flexibility during planning.
That is why "Energo-Plus" works out alternative technical solutions in advance. At each of our facilities, there are options B, C, and D — today, this is a prerequisite for the timely fulfillment of contractual obligations.
Mistakes embedded as early as the master plan stage
Among the typical problems during the design phase, the lack of reserve for the future development of the facility is worth highlighting. If the possibility of accommodating additional capacities is not envisioned at the general layout (master plan) stage, it can later become a serious constraint.
At "Energo-Plus," we guide ourselves by a simple principle — to think ahead. Already at the master plan stage, we ask what exactly will be placed at the facility in 6–12 months and whether the possibility of quick access for its maintenance and repair will remain.
If this is not foreseen in advance, the problem may not manifest itself immediately. Over time, a need for additional capacities arises, but there is no longer any space for them. Especially if the equipment is already housed in protective structures, where adding anything is practically impossible.
No less important is the subsequent operation. Access to equipment, the possibility of its maintenance, repair, and the dismantling of its largest elements must be embedded as early as the design stage.
How war changes design approaches
The war has significantly changed approaches to designing energy facilities. Our practice shows the effectiveness of block and modular solutions — mobile switchgears with the capability of rapid dismantling and relocation. This is not a tribute to fashion, but a practical necessity.
At the same time, the requirements for protecting facilities according to the "fortress-country" standard sometimes contradict the logic of subsequent operation. We have already encountered situations where equipment, securely enclosed by a protective sarcophagus, became practically inaccessible for maintenance.
Maintainability is a key requirement for any energy facility. That is why, as early as the design stage, we take into account all possible operations with the equipment in advance, including the dismantling of its largest elements.
Why the future belongs to hybrid solutions
Speaking about generation technologies, I consider hybrid systems to be the optimal format — a combination of a gas turbine, battery energy storage systems (BESS), solar or wind generation, and an intelligent management system.
Such an architecture is beneficial because the components balance the cost of the generated energy depending on conditions. It is reliable because the failure of one source does not stop the system. And it is resilient because it allows adaptation to changing military, market, and regulatory conditions.
Monotechnology solutions today are a wager that a single condition will remain stable. In current realities, this is an overly optimistic assumption.
What shortens the path from concept to megawatt
In my opinion, there are three conditions without which it is practically impossible to accelerate the implementation of new energy projects.
-
First — synchronous, rather than sequential, interaction between the customer, the contractor, and the distribution system operator. Every step based on the "pass it on" principle costs a lost week.
-
Second — phased implementation. For example, moving the landscaping and site improvement section to a separate, later stage, with priority given to commissioning the generating facility.
-
Third — flexibility regarding equipment. If specifications call for the delivery of certain components in six months, we parallelly prepare a temporary technical solution to conduct commissioning works.
It is the combination of these approaches that makes it possible to shorten the time from the start of project implementation to the appearance of new megawatts in the Ukrainian energy system. And this is not just about efficiency: under the circumstances of wartime, it is a matter of the country's energy resilience.
