In the modern world, every major energy investment gets scrutinised. Capital cost, operating cost, payback, energy savings and carbon reduction are modelled before a decision is made by the board.
But there is another option that often receives much less analysis: waiting.
When an organisation decides to revisit an energy project in three or five years, the assumption can be that the opportunity will still be there when it returns. With long-term energy infrastructure, that is not always the case.
Doing nothing still has a cost
During the period of delay, existing systems continue to consume energy and require maintenance. Plant gets older. Energy prices change. Grid capacity can become more constrained and construction costs can increase.
There is also the risk of entering another replacement cycle. A short-term plant replacement today could influence how a building is heated and cooled for another 15 or 20 years. Those costs rarely appear beside the original investment case.
Waiting can also reduce your options
This is particularly important with geoenergy infrastructure. Considering geothermal during masterplanning or early design allows borefield locations, thermal networks, electrical infrastructure, heating and cooling loads and future expansion to
be considered together.
As a project progresses, those options can become more difficult or expensive to incorporate. The cost of waiting therefore isn’t only financial. It can also be the loss of flexibility. Early consideration does not mean an organisation has to commit immediately to a particular technology. It means preserving the ability to make the best long-term decision when the time comes.
So perhaps energy business cases need another scenario alongside the options being considered: What does it cost us if we do nothing? Every investment decision deserves scrutiny. But so does the decision not to invest.