2020 International Conference on Electrical and Electronics Engineering (ICE3-2020)
Green Hybrid AC Microgrid and its Sustainability
for Rural Electrification
Shailendra Kumar Jha Arbind Kumar Mishra
Kathmandu University IOE, Tribhuvan University
Dhulikhel, Nepal Lalitpur, Nepal
shailendra@ku.edu.np akmishra@ioe.edu.np
Abstract—A green hybrid ac microgrid (GHAM) is an
interconnection of renewable energy sources like micro-hydro
power (MHP) plants, photo-voltaic (PV) systems, wind
turbines (WT), bio-gas generators etc., storage devices and
distribution lines to provide power to the local loads. This
paper presents a method to evaluate the sustainability of green
hybrid ac microgrids. The sustainability of different
alternatives for green and hybrid ac microgrid are evaluated
based on several sustainability indicators defined by experts’
survey. The paper presents an approach to analyze the
sustainability of alternatives of GHAM by combining
optimized result from Hybrid Optimization of Multiple Energy
Resources (HOMER) and total weighted score of sustainability
of different technologies to be used for GHAM. This approach
can be used by policy makers for selecting a suitable option for
GHAM to electrify a rural community.
Keywords—Green; hybrid, microgrid, rural-electrification,
sustainability
I. INTRODUCTION
A green hybrid ac microgrid (GHAM) is an interconnection
of renewable energy sources like micro-hydro power (MHP)
plants, photo-voltaic (PV) systems, wind turbines (WT), bio-
gas generators etc., storage devices and distribution lines to
provide power to the local loads. GHAM are formed to
improve the reliability and power quality of the system. The
types of generation from the microgrid can be either ac or dc
or ac-dc combined [1, 2]. A green hybrid ac microgrid would
be as depicted in Fig.1, where the interconnected grid bus is
ac, and the connected loads are ac. The distributed
generations like wind turbines, biogas generators and micro
hydro power plants produce ac and are connected directly to
the grid bus. The generations from photovoltaic arrays and
the storage device like battery supplies dc which is converted
to ac and fed to the interconnected grid bus. Thus all the
sources in the green and hybrid ac microgrid provide ac
generation to the interconnected grid bus and that is further
fed to operate the ac loads connected in the system.
II. SUSTAINABILITY OF A MICROGRID
As per the Bruntland Report for the World Commission on
Environment and Development, 1992 sustainable
development is defined as the development that meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs [3]. Sustainability
emerged from sustainable development, and thus
sustainability of a microgrid is concerned with the
electrification of the rural community for the betterment of
the society and environment with the efficient use of the
978-1-7281-5846-4/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Wollongong. Downloaded on July 18,2020 at 06:22:25 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Kjetil Uhlen Petter Stoa
NTNU Sintef
Trondheim, Norway Trondheim, Norway
kjetil.uhlen@ntnu.no petter.stoa@sintef.no
AC loads
MHP
HT SG
AC
DC PV
IG
WT AC
DC Battery
Fig.1. A green hybrid ac microgrid with PV, Wind turbine, MHP, battery
bank and loads
system in a long run.
The sustainability of a microgrid incorporates its viability in
various dimensions. The major dimensions for a microgrid to
be sustainable are (i) technical, (ii) economic, (iii)
environmental, and (iv) social [4-13]. The technical
dimension is a constituent of the economic dimension, and
both technical and economic dimensions are the integral part
of the social dimension. The technical, economic and social
dimensions determine the environment of the microgrid.
Thus all the four dimensions are interlinked, and to
determine the sustainability of a system the interaction
between all these dimensions are to be considered. These
sustainability dimensions are to be assessed by many
indicators. The sustainability indicators are selected such that
these can completely describe the major dimensions and the
interactions between the dimensions of the microgrid. These
indicators serve as tools for analysis of the sustainability of
the microgrid . The indicators are to be simple, transparent,
replicable, fair and comprehensive, and further should be
able to show the interactions between different sustainable
dimensions [4-13].
A. Sustainability indicators for GHAM in Nepal
The sustainability of GHAM in Nepal can be assessed by
dimensions and indicators as presented in Fig.2 and
explained as follows:
1) Technical Sustainability
Technical Sustainability is concerned with the efficient
operation of GHAM using local technology and resources
and to provide quality power to the rural community during
its overall life cycle [4-13]. The following indicators have
been selected for measuring the technical sustainability of
the system.
53
 and the operation & maintenance costs. The following
Sustainability of indicators are proposed for GHAM in Nepal.
a Microgrid
a) Capital investment: This indicator is concerned with the
initial investment requirements and the additional cost for
planned expansion of the project during the life cycle of
Technical Economic Environmental Social the project [10,12,13,14,16]. The microgrid should have
Sustainability Sustainability
Sustainability Sustainability
low cost providing quality power to the community.
b) Operation and maintenance cost: This indicator defines the
Sustainability Indicators
1. Efficiency
Sustainability Indicators
1. Capital investment
Sustainability Indicators Sustainability Indicators
1. Local employment
cost involved for the day to day operation of the microgrid.
1. GHG emissions
2. Energy availability
3. Reliability and power
2. Operation and
maintenance cost
2. Land use
3. Other environmental
2. Social acceptability
3. Community services
It includes the cots for technical manpower, cost of
quality
4. Life span of the
3. Electricity cost
4. Payback period
impacts 4. Health benefits
5. Community
maintenance, transportations for maintenance etc. [10-16].
system
5. System operation and
5. Tax incentives and
subsidy by government
engagement
6. Interference with
c) Electricity cost: This indicator defines the income
management capability 6. Opportunities for
private participation
other utility
infrastructures generated from the microgrid and is linked with the
economic level of the consumers of the microgrid [13,14].
Fig.2. Sustainability Indicators for GHAM
The electricity cost is generally decided on the basis of
investments and payback period, and thus is very less. As
most of the microgrid are initially funded by government
a) Efficiency: This indicator is concerned with the overall
or other agencies partially, the electricity cost is kept low,
efficiency of the microgrid which in turn is defined by the
even then its collections matters a lot for the operation and
efficiency of the individual components of the microgrid.
maintenance of the system and is directly linked with the
The efficiency of Micro Hydro Power plant is >90% and is
sustainability of the microgrid.
higher than all other technology being used for a microgrid
d) Payback period: This indicator defines the number of years
[14]. Wind turbine has lower efficiency around 24-53%
required to recover the investment for the microgrid [11]
[14] and depends upon size, manufacturer and site
and is a good deciding factor for investors to carry similar
conditions. Photovoltaic system has the lowest efficiency
projects.
around 4-20% and is very less compared to other
e) Tax incentives and subsidy by government: This indicator
technologies [14]. The efficiency of the overall system can
defines the financial incentive the government can provide
also be increased by promoting energy efficient devices,
to investors for the installation of the microgrid [11,15].
controlling power losses and proper demand side
Low tax values and subsidy attract investors to handle
management schemes.
such projects.
b) Energy availability: The availability of the sources and
f) Opportunities for private participation: The operation and
energy from these sources used in the microgrid is the
maintenance of the microgrid or the overall investment and
focus of this indicator. Microgrids use renewable energy
operation by private sector can be a sustainability indicator
sources like wind, solar radiation, water or biogas for the
for a microgrid [11,15]. The government invested
production of power. These sources are intermittent or are
microgrid can be undertaken by private sector for
limited by amount or hours of use. Proper planning of
operation and also private sectors can be promoted to
availability and use of energy sources are to be done for
install and operate such systems.
sustainability of the microgrid.
c) Reliability and power quality: This indicator defines the 3) Environmental Sustainability
consistency and quality of voltage and frequency supplied Environmental Sustainability is concerned with the impact of
by the system to the consumers [11,12,13,15]. The operation of microgrid on natural resources and its
operation of users’ appliances and equipment should not conservation [4-16]. It is concerned with reduction of
be affected or should have very less impact by power, greenhouse gas emissions, and proper use of land and
voltage or frequency fluctuations in the microgrid. protection of environment from other harmful effects due to
d) Life span of the system: This indictor presents the need of microgrid operation. The following indicators are proposed
microgrid for a longer run. The microgrid and its for defining environmental sustainability of GHAM.
components should have very long life span and the users a) GHG emissions: This indicator defines the amount of
should benefit from the system for longer period of time GHG production due to the operation of the microgrid.
[11,15]. System with shorter life span demands for The combustion of diesel or biogas or biomass by
frequent investments and that may not be possible for the generators releases several gasses which are harmful to the
rural communities [11,15]. environment [4-16]. GHG emissions can be also evaluated
e) System operation and management capability: This as the savings by use of renewable energy sources which
indicator reflects the capability of the technical personnel do not produce any gases during its operation compared to
to maintain and operate the system throughout the life diesel generators [4-16].
cycle of the microgrid [13]. The indicator also incorporates b) Land use: This indicator specifies the land use by the
the role of governing body for proper functioning of the microgrid and its adverse effect. Many microgrid
system. components require large land area for the installation of
2) Economic Sustainability the system and which may have adverse effect to the
agricultural requirements of the community [11,12,14,15].
Economic Sustainability focuses on the income and expenses
If PV system is to be introduced to form a microgrid with
of the microgrid [4-16]. The selected GHAM should be able
wind turbine or micro hydro power plant more land would
to generate sufficient revenue to meet the initial investment

54
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Wollongong. Downloaded on July 18,2020 at 06:22:25 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 be required. The accessibility of land and its cost can be B. Sustainability assessment approaches
major concern for installation of a microgrid. There are many approaches being used for determining the
c) Other environmental impacts: This indicator defines a sustainability of energy technologies and systems. The major
collection of hazards imparted by the installation of a approaches that have been used for sustainability analysis are
microgrid to the environment and wellbeing of people of described below.
the community. The use of hazardous components like
battery or use of biogas or biomass may pollute the Multi-criteria approach incorporates criteria defining
environment and can have a negative impact on human different sustainability dimensions. Set of criteria are defined
health [11, 13, 14]. Wind turbines, transformers and other based on the objective of the study and are scaled as per the
converter of a microgrid may prouduce noise and would decision makers of the study. In this approach the decisions
impact on the living of people around the system. are made based on multiple objectives [12, 15, 17]. The
Landslide and displacement of inhabitants due to decision makers select the solution based on mutual
installation of the microgrid can be other serious compromises [12, 15, 17]. The approach requires intensive
environmental concerns. survey to get the site specific data and users, attributes [12,
4) Social Sustainability 15, 17].
Social Sustainability is focused on maintaining social values
Composite Indicators approach analyses the performances of
and operating the microgrid to uplift the standard of living of
the systems under the study using composite indicators.
the community [4-16]. It is concerned with social acceptance
Several indicators selected for the study define another set of
of the microgrid and engagement of the people of the society
indicator called composite indicators. The composite
due to microgrid. The following indicators have been
indicators can summarize multi-dimensional attributes and
selected for evaluating the social sustainability of the
help the decision maker to give a solution [12,16]. There is
microgrid.
no standard method to derive composite indicators and thus
a) Local employment: This indicator measures the
may create disputes [12,16].
employment provided by the microgrid during its
installation and its commissioning [4-16]. The availability
Aggregate metric approach is used to determine the
of power also may lead to generate income generating
sustainability of the comparable systems meant for an
activities and which further can create more employment
objective. The approach first determines multi-dimension
requirements.
indicators to define sustainability of the system. These multi
b) Social acceptability: This indicator defines the need of the
dimensional indicators are aggregated into one dimensionless
microgrid for the society and its acceptance by the
index which is used for selection of suitable system [12,19].
community people [11,15]. The microgrid system to be
This method faces difficulty when weightage is assigned for
installed must be accepted by all cultural and ethnic groups
each metric [12,19].
of the society. The microgrid installation should not
interfere with the basic needs of the society. The
Principal component analysis approach reduces the
community people should take the ownership of the
dimensionality of the data set consisting of various
microgrid and should be supported by the political leaders.
interrelated indicators [12,20]. The interrelated indicators set
c) Community services: This indicator measures the
are converted to a new set of unrelated indicators so that the
additional services the microgrid is providing or will
new indicators retain the variations of the original indicators
provide in sectors like telecommunications, computer
[12,20]. This method is not suitable for small set of
education, agro-processing mills, etc [10, 12, 13, 16].
indicators and also is sensitive to changes in basic data and
d) Health benefits: This indicator refers to the medical
updates [12,20].
support that the microgrid can provide to the community
by the use of electricity. The generated electricity can be
Weighted score system approach is a multi attribute analysis
used to operate medical equipment and preserve vaccines.
and involves defining set of indicators for all the dimensions
The medical support can be provided in the evening hours
of the sustainability of the system and assigning weightage to
too due to availability of electricity [13].
those indicators based on their importance [9,10,11,14].
e) Community engagement: The indicator measures the
Further scores are assigned to each option based on the site
involvement of the community people for the proper
condition and technology used. The total weightage scores
operation of the microgrid [13]. The community people
for all the options are determined and are compared to select
have to take the charge of the microgrid and needs to plan
the best alternative for the site [11, 12]. This is the simplest
for the sustainability of the system.
method and determines sustainability using large number of
f) Interference with other utility infrastructures: This
indicators defining various sustainability dimensions [11,
indicator presents the interference of the microgrid with
12]. The detail methodology for using the approach is
the previously installed infrastructure [11,15]. The
described below.
installation of microgrid system may require dislocating
some communication towers or water supply canals and C. Weighted score system approach
wells which would lead to social un-acceptance of the In this approach the sustainability dimension are defined and
system or would increase the cost of the installation a set of indicators are assigned for each dimension.
[11,15]. Weightage are assigned to each dimensions considering the
total weightage to be 100. Further weightage are defined to
the indicators of each dimensions. The weightage for the

55
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Wollongong. Downloaded on July 18,2020 at 06:22:25 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
indicators is set from 1 to 10. Weightage 1 is for least
required and 10 is for most required. All the alternatives are
compared depending upon the site, the resource availability,
the technology used and the load requirements. Further a
score (or rank) is assigned from to 1 to N to each alternative
depending upon the numbers (N) of alternatives [11, 14].
Rank 1 is defined for best alternative and Rank N for the
worst alternative.
The weighted score for a particular alternative and ith
indicator = Wi × Si (1)
Where Si is the score assigned to an alternative and Wi is the
weightage assigned to the ith indicator. The weighted score
for all the alternatives and indicators are calculated similarly.
For ‘n’ set of indicators the total weighted score (WST) of the
‘T’ alternative is given by equation 2 [11,12].
(2)
The total weighted score is obtained for all the alternatives
and are compared. The alternative that scores the highest is
considered the best option [11].
III. METHODOLOGY TO EVALUATE THE SUSTAINABILITY OF
GHAM
The methodology to determine the sustainability of GHAM
using weighted score system approach is described below.
• The first step of the methodology is to define the
sustainability goal.
• The second step is the selection of sustainability
dimensions and set of sustainability indicators. This step
is carried out by literature review and experts’ survey.
• The third step is to select appropriate technology option
for the GHAM at the community. This is done by site
survey for each technology options to be included in the
study.
• The fourth step is to define weightages to each
sustainability dimensions and indicators, and to define
rank to each technology used for GHAM. This step is
carried out by performing an experts’ survey.
• The fifth step is to determine the total weighted score for
all the technologies using equation (2). The weightages
and ranks defined in step four are used for the
calculation of the total weighted scores.
• The next step is to get an optimized size of each
technologies required for different alternatives of
GHAM at the site. This is done by using HOMER
software. The site source availability, the load
requirements, the cost of all the components are all fed
to the HOMER software and the most optimum
alternatives for the hybrid system are selected for
sustainability evaluation.
• The final step is the evaluation of total weighted score
for each optimized GHAM alternative and ranking of
alternatives.
The total weighted score for each GHAM alternative
(TWSGHAM) is determined using equation (3)
(3)
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Wollongong. Downloaded on July 18,2020 at 06:22:25 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Where WSi is the total weighted score of the
technologies used for GHAM and SZi is the optimized
size of each technology for a GHAM alternative
determined by HOMER.
• The most sustainable alternative for GHAM at the site is
determined by the highest TWSGHAM obtained among
the alternatives.
IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
A case study of a rural site in Nepal is considered for the
study. The site has three different sources solar radiation,
water and wind for the operation of the green hybrid ac
microgrid (GHAM).
A. Selection of sustainability dimensions and indicators
To determine the sustainability of alternatives of GHAM at
the site, four sustainability dimensions are defined and 20
sustainability indicators are selected conducting literature
reviews and experts’ survey.
B. Selection of appropriate technology alternatives for
GHAM at a site
Appropriate technologies are selected for the site, by the
survey of the resources available and the load requirements
of the community. Three technologies photovoltaic system,
wind turbines and micro hydro power plant are selected for
the site.
C. Defining weightages to each sustainability dimensions
and indicators and ranking of different technologies to
be used by experts’ survey
Each dimension and their indicators are assigned suitable
weights by experts’ survey and ranks are provided to the
technology being preferred for the site as presented in table I.
The local and international experts’ were surveyed for the
indicators selection and weightages. Three technologies PV,
Wind turbine and MHP have been selected to form a GHAM
at the site. The three technologies are given rankings from 1
to 3 by experts.
D. Determination of total weighted score for all the
technologies
As per the weightages assigned to each sustainability
dimensions and indicators, and the rank (score) for each
technology the total weighted score for the technology
alternatives were calculated using equation (2) and is as
presented in table II. The total weighted score obtained for
the micro hydro power plant (MHP) option is highest and
wind turbine (WT) is lowest. The score of photovoltaic (PV)
system is in between MHP and WT.
E. The optimized size of each technologies required for
different alternatives of GHAM for the site is determined
using HOMER
Hybrid Optimization of Multiple Energy Resources
(HOMER) simulation tool developed by National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL) [21, 22] is used to determine the
optimum sizing of renewable energy sources. The best
option is determined by HOMER using the data of resources,
the load requirements and the cost of all the components to
be connected to GHAM.
56
TABLE I. WEIGHTAGES FOR SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS AND
RANKINGS FOR TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVES

Technology Ranks
Sustainability (1 to 3)
Indicators Weightage
(1 to 10) PV Wind MHP

Technical Sustainability

Efficiency 7 2 3 1
i. Energy
availability 9 2 3 1
ii. Reliability and (a) (b)
power quality 9 2 3 1
iii. Life span of the
system 7 2 3 1
iv. System
operation and
management
capability 6 2 3 1

Economical Sustainability
i. Capital
investment 6 2 3 1
ii. Operation and (c) (d)
maintenance Fig.3. (a) Case-I: MHP, WT and battery system, (b) Case-II: MHP, PV and
cost 4 2 3 1 battery system, (c) Case-III: PV, WT and battery system, (d) Case-IV:
MHP, PV, WT and battery system
iii. Electricity cost 4.5 3 2 1

iv. Payback period 4 2 3 1 variability is 10%. The annual average solar radiation of the
v. Tax incentives site is 4.82kWh/m2/day, the annual average wind speed of
and subsidy by the site is 7.5m/s and the annual average water flow is
government 4.5 2 3 1
vi. Opportunities 349L/s. The optimization of the GHAM presents four cases
for private for comparison. Case-I considers WT, MHP and battery
participation 4 1 3 2 based system, Case-II considers MHP, PV and battery based
Environmental Sustainability system, Case-III considers PV, WT and battery based
system, and Case-IV considers MHP, PV, WT and battery
i. GHG emissions 6 3 1 2 based system. The optimized four cases obtained by
ii. Land use 5 1 2 3 HOMER are as presented in Fig.3
iii. Other
environmental The power for the total load is to be supplied by GHAM, and
impacts 4 2 1 3
thus alternatives for the combination of the three
Social Sustainability technologies are selected using HOMER. The optimal sizes
i. Local of technologies for all the four hybrid cases as generated
employment 4 2 3 1
from HOMER, and to be used for the microgrid, are
ii. Social
acceptability 4 2 3 1 presented in Table III. The optimized result shows that for
iii. Community case-1 161kW of MHP and 180kW of WT are selected, for
services 3.5 2 3 1 case-2 161kW of MHP and 300kW of PV are selected, for
iv. Health benefits 3 2 3 1 case-3 360kW of PV and 60kW of WT are selected, and for
v. Community case-4 150kW of PV, 60kW of WT and 161kW of MHP are
engagement 3 2 3 1 selected.
vi. Interference with
other utility TABLE III. OPTIMAL SIZES OF TECHNOLOGY FOR HYBRID MICROGRID
infrastructures 2.5 2 3 1 CASES

Technology Case-1 Case-2 Case-3 Case-4

TABLE II. TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE FOR EACH TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS PV (kW) 0 300 360 150

Technology PV WT MHP WT (kW) 180 0 60 60

Total Weighted Score MHP (kW) 161 161 0 161

0.67 0.46 0.87
(WST)

F. Evaluation of total weighted score for each optimized

The daily electrical load profile, and the solar, wind and
water resources are assumed as per the rural site case in
Nepal. The peak load is 142.48kW and the total energy
consumed at the site is 754kWh/day. The daily random
variability in the load is assumed to be 15% and the hourly
GHAM alternative and ranking of alternatives
The sustainability of the four cases as presented in table III
are further determined depending upon the total weighted
score obtained for the three technologies PV, Wind and MHP
considered for the site. The total weighted scores for the
alternatives of GHAM (TWSGHAM) are determined using

57
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Wollongong. Downloaded on July 18,2020 at 06:22:25 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
equation (3). Table IV depicts the obtained TWSGHAM for
each alternative.
TABLE IV. TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE FOR OPTIMIZED
ALTERNATIVES
GHAM alternatives Total Weighted Score (TWSGHAM)
Case-I 222.51
Case-II 342.11
Case-III 269.10
Case-IV 268.66
Case-II with photovoltaic (PV) and micro hydro power plant
(MHP) has the highest score, and Case-I with MHP and
Wind turbine (WT) has the lowest score.
G. Decision of the most sustainable alternative for GHAM
at the site
Using all the dimensions for sustainability, Table IV shows
that Case-II with photovoltaic (PV) and micro hydro power
plant (MHP) is the most sustainable option among all the
four alternatives of GHAM at the site.
V. CONCLUSION
A green and hybrid ac microgrid (GHAM) is an
interconnection of distributed generations like wind turbines,
photovoltaic systems, biogas generators, micro-hydropower
plants to supply the local power demand. The sustainability
of the existing systems is an issue for the further installation
of GHAM at other rural sites in Nepal. This paper has
presented a mix of analytical and simulation method to
evaluate the sustainability of GHAM. The sustainability of
different alternatives for green and hybrid ac microgrid were
evaluated based on several sustainability indicators and
optimized result from HOMER software. The indicators
were selected from experts’ survey and the importance of the
indicators varied depending upon the site condition and
energy generation technology used. For a rural community
where three energy generating technologies photovoltaic
systems (PV), wind turbines (WT) and micro hydropower
plants (MHP) could be used, Micro hydropower plant (MHP)
was found to be the most sustainable technology. Further
analysis for sustainability of green hybrid ac microgrid
(GHAM) alternatives, for a defined site conditions,
depending on the optimized sizes from HOMER software
found that the alternative of GHAM with photovoltaic (PV)
and Micro hydropower plant (MHP) is the most sustainable
option for the rural electrification at the site in Nepal. The
paper presented a mix approach to analyze the sustainability
of alternative of GHAM by combining optimized result from
HOMER and analytically calculated total weighted score of
sustainability of different technologies to be used for
GHAM. This approach can be used by policy makers for
selecting a suitable option for GHAM to electrify a rural
community.
REFERENCES
[1] S. K. Jha, P. Stoa and K. Uhlen, "Green and hybrid microgrid for
rural electrification," 2016 IEEE Region 10 Humanitarian
Technology Conference (R10-HTC), Agra, 2016, pp. 1-5.
[2] S. K. Jha, P. Stoa and K. Uhlen, "Socio-economic impact of a rural
microgrid," 2016 4th International Conference on the Development in
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Wollongong. Downloaded on July 18,2020 at 06:22:25 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
the in Renewable Energy Technology (ICDRET), Dhaka, 2016, pp. 1-
4.
[3] Brundtland G. H., “Our Common Future”, The World Commission on
Environment and Development (WCED), UK, 1987
GHAM [4] A. Kumar, A. R. Singh, Y. Deng, X. He, P. Kumar and R. C. Bansal,
"A Novel Methodological Framework for the Design of Sustainable
Rural Microgrid for Developing Nations," in IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp.
24925-24951, 2018.
[5] L. He, S. Zhang, Y. Chen, L. Ren, and J. Li, "Techno-economic
potential of a renewable energy-based microgrid system for a
sustainable large-scale residential community in Beijing, China,"
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 93, pp. 631-641,
2018.
[6] J. Namaganda-Kiyimba and J. Mutale, "Sustainability Metrics for
Rural Electrification in Developing Countries," 2018 IEEE PES/IAS
PowerAfrica, Cape Town, 2018, pp. 1-6.
[7] Y. Parag and M. Ainspan, "Sustainable microgrids: Economic,
environmental and social costs and benefits of microgrid
deployment," Energy for Sustainable Development, vol. 52, pp. 72-
81, 2019.
[8] Mebratu D., “Sustainability and sustainable development: Historical
and conceptual review”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review,
1998,18, 493-520,.
[9] Ilskog, Elizabeth, “Indicators for assessment of rural electrification –
an approach for the comparison of apples and pears”, Energy Policy
2008b , 36:2665–7.
[10] Ilskog E, Kjellström B., “And then they lived sustainably ever after ?
– Assessment of rural electrification cases by means of indicators”,
Energy Policy 2008;36:2674–84.
[11] Lhendup T., “ Rural electrification in Bhutan and a methodology for
evaluation of distributed generation system as an alternative option
for rural electrification”, Energy Sustain Dev 2008;12:13–24.
[12] Mainali B, Silveira S., “Using a sustainability index to assess energy
technologies for rural electrification”, Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 2015, 41:1351-1365.
[13] Rahman C., Nunez O., Valencia F., Arrechea S., Sager J., Kammen
D., “Methodology for Monitoring Sustianable Development of
Isolated Microgrids in Rural Communities”, Sustainability, 2016, 8,
1163
[14] Evans A, Strezov V, Evans TJ., “Assessment of sustainability
indicators for renewable energy technologies”, Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2009;13:1082–8.
[15] Rahman M. M., Paatero J. V., and Lahdelma R., “Evaluation of
choices for sustainable rural electrification in developing countries: A
multicriteria approach”, Energy Policy, vol. 59, pp. 589-599,
2013/08/01/ 2013.
[16] Afgan NH, Carvalho MG, Hovanov NV, “Energy system assessment
with sustainability indicators”, Energy Policy 2000;28:603–12.
[17] Afgan NH, Carvalho MG, “Multi-criteria assessment of new and
renewable energy power plants”, Energy 2002;27:739–55.
[18] Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and
user guide, OECD publication; 2008.
[19] Sikdar SK, “On aggregating multiple indicators into a single metric
for sustainability”, Clean Technol Environ Policy, 2009;11:157–9.
[20] Li T, Zhang H, Yuan C, Liu Z, Fan C, “A PCA-based method for
construction of composite sustainability indicators”, Int J Life Cycle
Assess 2012;17:593–603 Springer publisher.
[21] Farret F. A., Simoes M. G., Integration of Alternative Sources of
Energy, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, 2006
[22] http://www.homerenergy.com/
58