We resolve renewable-energy risk from the physics up: how a specific asset, on a specific site, responds to the hazards that threaten it. The result is a number underwriters, developers and lenders can price against and defend — even on the floating and cyclone-exposed sites the loss history doesn't cover.
Wind assets are getting bigger, floating, and moving into harsher climates — while the loss history stays thin. We turn that uncertainty into numbers each side of the deal can act on.
An engineering view of the risk — even on the floating and cyclone-exposed sites the loss history doesn't cover.
Per-risk assessment →The engineering evidence that shows underwriters why an asset is a good risk — so placement starts from physics, not market defaults.
Risk engineering reports →The physics-based hazard-and-fragility layer behind your name — strengthening your work, never competing for your client.
Partner with us →Bankability from design to renewal — design verification, due diligence, and the report that unlocks capacity at close.
See the full stack →We are not a certification body or a full-service firm, and we do not pretend to be. Our strength is the early, hard part of a project — the technical risk that is genuinely difficult — resolved with high-fidelity modelling and data.
Immature technologies and first-of-a-kind designs — the risks and design calls that matter, flagged before they are locked in.
Hazard and response resolved to the specific asset and site, from first principles — the depth the hard questions actually need.
Every result is auditable end to end and built for the call in front of you — an underwriting decision, a design choice, a close.
Loss histories are a few decades short, the climate has moved underneath them, and the assets being built today — 22 MW machines, floating platforms, typhoon-basin sites — are nothing like the fleet the curves were fit to. This is also why we rarely rely on expert judgment alone: when a turbine is the first of its size ever installed, even the most experienced judgment has no precedent to stand on. When the data is thin, underwriters have to price the pessimistic end, or decline. Where the loss record and the rules of thumb run out, physics-based engineering fills the gap.
A 15 MW floating turbine in a typhoon basin does not behave like the 2 MW onshore fleet behind the historical loss data. Extrapolating a curve across that gap isn't pricing — it's guessing with confidence intervals.
Certification tells you an asset passed a standard. It doesn't tell you the EML, the downtime distribution, or what a Category 4 at this site does to this machine. Those are separate calculations — and most submissions don't contain them.
With insurers capping their lines, a single wind farm can need five to ten of them — and the most conservative underwriter at the table shapes terms for everyone. Engineering evidence is what moves the whole table.
A per-risk assessment before a submission deadline, a second opinion on a package, white-label capacity for your next bid — tell us the decision you need to make, and when you need it.
Start a conversation