Energy 126 (2017) 461e474

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Optimization of PV-biomass-diesel and grid base hybrid energy

systems for rural electrification by using HOMER
Rumi Rajbongshi a, b, Devashree Borgohain a, Sadhan Mahapatra a, *
a
Department of Energy, Tezpur University, Tezpur, 784028, Assam, India
b
Department of Electrical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Silchar, Assam, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Decentralized renewable energy base hybrid system is an economic and convenient option for rural
Received 10 January 2016 electrification where grid extension is not feasible. This study focuses on the design of a hybrid systems
Received in revised form based on PV-biomass gasifier-diesel and grid and optimize the system configuration for different load
11 March 2017
profiles. The cost of energy is calculated for different peak load, energy demand profiles and grid
Accepted 13 March 2017
availability. The cost of energy in case of off-grid hybrid system for peak load of 19 kW and energy
demand of 178 kWh/day, is US$ 0.145/kWh. However, in case of a grid connected hybrid system, it is
reduced to US$ 0.91/kWh for the same scenario. It is found that grid purchase of 9% and grid sales of 23%
Keywords:
Rural electrification
of the total energy demand or generation for the above load profile. The study concluded that the cost of
Off-grid hybrid system energy for a grid-connected hybrid system is lower compared to an off-grid hybrid system for similar
Grid-connected hybrid system load profiles. Finally, the comparison of grid extension and the off-grid hybrid system has been per-
Economic distance limit formed, and economic distance limit is determined. The simulation result shows that the best option
HOMER scenario for all the cases is biomass gasification system than photovoltaic system.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Energy is one of the major inputs for the socio-economic
development of the rural areas of a developing country. It is also
reported that rural electrification is a vital requirement for devel-
opment of the remote rural areas so as to obtain economic growth,
poverty elimination, employment generation and improvement of
livelihood of the villages. According to Census 2011, more than 77
million households still use kerosene for lighting in India [1]. In
rural India, more than 44% of the households do not have access to
grid electricity [2]. Even in the electrified villages, quality and
availability of power is low and irregular. There are at least 9000
villages in India where the grid may never reach due to their
remoteness and geographical constraints. Government of India has
initiated various programmes such as Remote Village Electrification
Programme (RVEP), Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana
(RGGVY), etc. [2]. In addition to these, Jawaharlal Nehru National
Solar Mission (JNNSM) is targeted to generate of 100 GW power
from solar photovoltaic and solar thermal energy. The JNNSM aims
to develop and deploy solar energy technologies in the country at
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sadhan.mahapatra@gmail.com (S. Mahapatra).
both centralized and decentralized levels [3]. The RVEP aims to
provide electricity to un-electrified villages through renewable
energy sources whereas the RGGVY targets at providing electricity
to the villages by using grid connection. The rural households
which are yet to have electricity access usually in remote inacces-
sible village where extending the grid is technically not feasible or
economically not viable or unconnected hamlets or un-electrified
households in grid connected villages. Higher electricity line
costs, T&D losses and the large infrastructure required for regular
maintenance make the rural electrification through conventional
grid extension an economically unattractive option for the remote
villages. Thus, distributed generation is an economically viable
option for electrification of the remote villages in a developing
country [4].
Various authors has reported different options of distributed
energy systems, cost of energy generation, comparison between
gasification, photovoltaic system, diesel generator etc. and impact
of energy generation from renewable energy systems on the live-
lihood of the remote villages [4e7]. Due to the intermittent nature
of renewable energy, use of diesel generator as backup power
generation along with renewable energy base systems improves
the reliability of system [8]. Bhattacharyya reported that low
electricity demand for the domestic use in the villages leads to

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.03.056
0360-5442/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
462 R. Rajbongshi et al. / Energy 126 (2017) 461e474
partial capacity utilization of gasification plants and consequently
energy generation cost becomes high [9]. Hence, integration of
agro-processing loads like rice-mills improves the load factor and
brings down the levelised cost of energy. Gokcol and Dursun
investigated the effect of renewable energy penetration on net
present cost (NPC) and cost of energy (COE) [10]. This study found
that as the renewable energy fraction increases, NPC and COE
decrease gradually. Silva et al. analyzed the performance of
photovoltaic - fuel cell - battery system to supply electricity in
Amazon region and found that the use of electrolyzer is not
economical since the cost of energy from PV-battery-fuel cell is
higher than PV-battery option [11]. It is also observed that with the
reduction of interest rate and higher availability of solar radiation,
the cost of energy will reduce. Fantidis et al. studied the potential of
solar radiation and solar power plants at different location of
Greece and found that PV system could reduce on an average 40.99
tons of greenhouse gases emission [12]. Giannoulis and Har-
alambopulos analyzed the economic effect of distributed genera-
tion in isolated grids and in particular to Lesvos Island in Greece
[13]. The study concluded that distributed generation with a wind
turbine is a promising technology for replacing the oil-fired plant in
Greece and CO2 emission can be reduce by increasing the renew-
able energy penetration. The optimum sizing of electric power to
support the electricity demand of fish pond aeration system has
designed using HOMER and it is observed that renewable energy
based system incurs lower cost of energy production compared to
grid electricity [14]. Ramli et al. analyzes the hybrid PV/diesel en-
ergy system performance with battery and flywheel energy storage
using HOMER [15]. This study focused on economic and environ-
mental benefits of the hybrid system. This study also analyzed on
fuel consumption and carbon emission reduction by this system.
Salehin et al. assessed solar-PV-diesel and wind-diesel energy
systems for Kutubdia islands, Bangladesh using HOMER and
RETScreen simulation tools [16]. HOMER is used to optimize the
system configuration and RETScreen is used for cost analysis and
emission analysis of the optimized system. Rahman et al. assess the
implementation of hybrid energy systems for an off-grid commu-
nity in Canada [17]. Various system configurations are proposed
and the sensitivity analysis on various input parameters on the cost
of energy generation is carried out. Economic assessment of the
optimized hybrid PV-diesel-battery systems and wind-diesel-
battery systems for residential load and off-grid loads for isolated
settlements of Saudi Arabia has been carried out by using HOMER
[18e20]. These studies conclude that increase in PV or wind system
capacity reduces the dependency on diesel consumption.
Studies have done by Munuswamy et al., Mahapatra & Dasappa,
and Sen & Bhattacharya on off-grid options for electrification of
remote villages, distant from central grid, and compared it with
grid extension [21e23]. All these studies concluded that villages
which are geographically remote and distant from central grid, off-
grid options or decentralized electricity generation system is sus-
tainable, techno-economically viable and environment friendly.
Estimation of economic distance limit is necessary to choose the
preferable option between renewable based hybrid system and grid
extension for rural electrification. When the conventional grid is
located beyond the breakeven distance/economic distance limit,
then the local distributed generation is an economical and optimal
option. There is an increase in net present cost with the increase in
breakeven distance [22e24]. Fadaeenejad et al. have given an
overview of a hybrid renewable system for worldwide with special
attention on Malaysia [25]. This study concluded that renewable
sources base hybrid system is a viable option for rural electrification
and PV-wind-battery configuration is cost effective hybrid renew-
able energy system. This study also discussed on excess electricity
generation that could be sold back to the grid if the system is
connected to the local grid. Aagreh and Al-Ghzawi simulated the
hybrid system considering grid and grid-renewable energy system
[26]. Kumar and Manoharan analyzed the economic feasibility of
hybrid system comprises of PV and diesel; which is installed in the
areas where the grid is available only for 10 h per day [27].
Prodromidis and Coutelieris studied renewable energy base off-
grid systems and grid connected hybrid systems for different
Islands of Greek and observed that grid connected hybrid systems
are economically more competative in compare to off-grid hybrid
systems due to sale of excess electricity generated from renewable
energy systems base hybrid systems [28]. Murphy et al. used
HOMER simulation tool to address the unreliable electricity supply
from the grid especially in rural areas, and integrate the unreliable
grid with the distributed energy systems [29]. The study develops
the methodology for the integration of unreliable grid with
distributed energy systems in simulation tool for determining the
optimal system configuration and cost of energy for reliable power
generation. Gonza lez et al. studied the optimal sizing of grid con-
nected hybrid renewable energy systems (PV and wind) consid-
ering minimum life cycle cost of the optimized system by matching
with the electricity demand [30]. The study has considered grid
power price and price of electricity sold to the grid. The simulation
results reveals that the grid connected system is most economical
viable. Türkay and Telli also observed that grid connected hybrid
systems produced electricity with a lower system cost in compar-
ison with the standalone systems [31]. This study found that the
renewable energy components are oversized to make the hybrid
system reliable which resulted higher system cost. However, the
integration of various of renewable energy systems along with
storage in the hybrid systems reduced the system size and increase
the overall energy output. It is also observed that grid-connected
hybrid systems including grid, PV, and hydrogen systems is the
most feasible solution and the cost of energy from the hybrid sys-
tems is found to be $0.307/kWh [32]. Bhattacharjee and Dey
investigated the viability of harnessing rice husk potential with a
hybrid system of grid-connected PV-biomass gasifier system [33].
The grid-connected PV-biomass hybrid power system may
conserve around 90% of grid electricity, which is utilized in rice
mills.
An off-grid hybrid energy system consists of two or more
renewable sources like solar or wind energy system which are
intermittent in nature and cannot provide continuous supply of
electricity to meet the load demand of the village. Hence, in the
most of the studies, energy storage like battery or non-renewable
energy systems like diesel generator is used as back up sources to
meet the load demand. This type of systems is common in case of
the villages, which does not have access to conventional grid
electricity. Hence, it is important to design the hybrid energy sys-
tems based on the load and energy requirement of a village and
able to provide quality and reliable electricity to a village. Hybrid
energy systems can be of two types (i) off-grid system and (ii) grid
connected system. In case of an off-grid system, different renew-
able energy systems along with conventional energy systems like
diesel generator can be combined to supply the energy require-
ment of the village. In most of the electrified villages in remote
areas, electricity available in the grid is only for few hours and that
is also most of the time, when electricity requirement in the village
is minimal. Hence, it is sensible to consider the grid-connected
hybrid energy systems, which provides more reliable electricity
supply to the villages, and electricity can be sold back to the grid,
when excess electricity generated from the systems. This in turn
improves the access, quality and reliability of electricity supply and
in the same time cost of energy generation is also lower in compare
with off-grid hybrid energy systems (standalone). The comparison
of the off-grid hybrid system and conventional grid extension is
 R. Rajbongshi et al. / Energy 126 (2017) 461e474
also necessary to estimate the breakeven distance or economic
distance limit for choosing the right options for off-grid hybrid
system and conventional grid extension.
Most of the study reported in the literature is primarily focused
on the various combinations of available renewable energy base
systems to provide electricity access in the remote villages in
different countries. There are also few studies reported in the
literature, where renewable energy system base hybrid system is
connected with grid and also provide excess power to the grid, to
make the system reliable and economically viable [28e33]. The
novelty of the present work is grid-connected renewable base
hybrid system configurations for the rural villages to improve the
access, quality and reliable electricity supply. In this study,
renewable energy base hybrid system is integrated with conven-
tional grid to improve the availability and quality of the grid power
for the remote village. In the same time, the excess energy gener-
ated in this system fed back to the grid to generate revenue. Grid
connected hybrid energy systems can be used both for purchasing
electricity from the grid, when the load demand is higher than the
generation in the village and selling electricity back to the grid
when there is excess electricity generation by the hybrid system at
the village. The study used the simulation tool HOMER to develop
the conceptual system configurations, and subsequent analysis to
understand the concept of a remote village is an energy hub, which
can meet the village load as well as sell the excess power to the grid.
The robustness of the system is also analyzed by sensitivity studies
of various parameters of the system. The study has considered the
load analysis of a typical village to create the framework for the
analysis, but the framework is generalized in nature. Finally, the
comparison of grid extension and off-grid hybrid energy system is
performed for selection of the right option in order to electricity
access in a village.
2. Methodology
2.1. Study area
In this study, the hybrid system is designed for the electrifica-
tion of Jhawani village (longitude 26.5
N and latitude 92.7
E),
which is 17 km from district headquarter Tezpur. The village is
located on the north bank of Brahmaputra River. The village Jha-
wani is divided into three clusters viz, Jhawani 1&2 (51 households),
Jhawani 3 (31 households) and Teenkhuriya (18 households). All the
clusters in the village are un-electrified. The primary source of in-
come and livelihood is agriculture. The livestock or animal rearing
is the subsidiary activity along with agriculture. The total
geographical area of the village is 329 acres. The cultivable land is
65 acres and the rest are waste land, grazing land, and community
land etc. There is only one lower primary school in the village and
the literacy rate is 85.5%. Both the traditional and modern energy
resources are being used in the village. The traditional energy
sources are fuel wood, cow dung, and crop residue etc. for cooking.
Kerosene is the major source for lighting. In few houses, solar home
lighting systems are used for television and lighting and LPG is used
for cooking purposes. Most of the family members especially
women spend considerable amount of time for collection of fuel
wood. Kerosene is provided 4 L for each family per month from
public distribution systems and used for lighting. It is found from
the primary survey that the kerosene amount is not sufficient to
meet their demand especially in monsoon season. The shortage of
kerosene affected the study at night time of the school going chil-
dren. Ranking exercise has carried out to ascertain the energy
concerns of the villagers and it is found that electricity is the top
priority of the villagers. Various income generation activities like
milk processing, bakery, irrigation for agriculture, agro product
463
value addition (potato chips, pickles, oil rearing etc.) could be
started if electricity is available in the village.
2.2. Village load assessment
The energy requirement in the village is assessed through pri-
mary survey data. The loads include domestic, community, com-
mercial and rural enterprises. The domestic load includes lighting,
fans, television, mobile charging point, water pump for drinking
water, etc. Community load includes street lights in the village, fans
in the community hall and computer for school. In case of com-
mercial loads, lighting is considered for the shops those operate in
the evening in the village. Table 1 presents the typical load analysis
for the village based on the survey data. Depending on the load
requirement of the village, three different load profiles for three
different conditions, such as (i) peak load is fixed and energy de-
mand is variable (ii) peak load is variable with constant energy
demand and (iii) both peak load and energy demand are kept
constant and varying load profiles are considered to analyze the
effect of load profiles on the cost of energy generation of the this
hybrid system. The energy demand is considered based on the
percentage of loading. As the energy demand increases, the loading
percentage increases. Depending on the load requirement, different
peak loads are considered. In case of constant peak load and energy
demand, only the distribution of the load profile changes. The peak
load, energy demand and the corresponding load factor of the load
profile of the village is presented in Table 2. It can be observed that
the load factor for the village is very low. The electrification cost of
rural areas is higher than the electrification cost of urban areas due
to low load demand. The daily hourly load profile of option A is
obtained after the load analysis based on primary survey data.
Likewise, the load profile for option B and C, considering the various
future load demands of the village are obtained and shown in Fig. 1.
The energy demand for option A is 161 kWh/day. However,
considering 10% losses in transmission and distribution within the
villages, the actual energy demand at the generation point for op-
tion A is 178 kWh/day and the peak load of 19 kW with a load factor
of 0.386. The peak load and energy demand for option B and C are
25 kW and 169 kWh/day and 41 kW and 286 kWh/day respectively.
These three load profiles are used in the subsequent analysis.
2.2.1. Village that has no grid power
Most of the remote villages in India use kerosene for illumina-
tion and also contributes large amount of greenhouse gases to the
environment [34]. However, the supply of kerosene through the
public distribution system is irregular, and the cost of kerosene in
an open market is high and not affordable for large numbers of
villagers. The grid power to these villages is not available due to
high transmission and distribution losses, the requirement for long
transmission line and low load demand. Thus, the electricity supply
from the centralized grid to these villages is not techno-
economically viable. Renewable energy base hybrid system is the
best viable option for electrification to such kind of villages. The
hybrid system is configured using solar photovoltaic and biomass
gasifier as renewable energy sources and diesel generator as con-
ventional energy sources. In this hybrid system, apart from
renewable sources of energy, the battery is used for energy storage,
a converter for conversion purpose (DC-AC) and a diesel generator
as a backup power. The average solar radiation is 4.8 kWh/m2/day
in this place and biomass resources are abundantly available in the
village. The optimal hybrid system configuration is assessed based
on the lowest cost of generation through HOMER simulation tool.
2.2.2. Village where grid is available
The grid-connected hybrid system is a combination of the
464 R. Rajbongshi et al. / Energy 126 (2017) 461e474

Table 1
Load analysis for option A.

Option A Load points in the village Ratings (W) Load (kW) Operation time (h) Load duration (h) Energy demand/day (kWh)

Domestic Load
Light (CFL) 480 15 7.2 17:00e23:00 6 43.2
Ceiling Fan 120 70 8.4 20:00e4:00 8 67.2
TV 25 100 2.5 17:00e23:00 6 15
Mobile charging 120 25 3 7:00e10:00 3 9
Water pumping 2 3730 7.46 7:00e10:00 3 22.38
Community Load
Street light 15 18 0.27 18:00e4:00 10 2.7
Ceiling Fan 2 70 0.14 14:00e18:00 4 0.56
Commercial load
Light (CFL) 15 18 0.27 17:00e22:00 5 1.35

Table 2
Different peak load and energy demand options.
Option Peak load (kW) Energy demand (kWh/d)
A 19 178
B 25 169
C 41 286
conventional grid along with the earlier discussed hybrid energy
system (solar photovoltaic, battery, converter, biomass gasifier and
diesel generator). Most of the grid connected rural villages expe-
rience irregular supply of electricity, and the quality of electricity
(low voltage) is also very poor. The study reported that on an
average not more than 6 h of electricity is available in these elec-
trified villages. In this study, focuses on designing a hybrid energy
system for electricity supply to villages where the grid is also
available. Grid can be used both for selling and purchasing the
electricity. Grid is used to purchase electricity depending on the
load profile. If the load demand cannot meet by hybrid energy
system, then the rest amount of electricity can be purchased from
the grid at purchase price rate. If there is excess electricity available
due to low energy consumption at a particular time at the village
Load factor that can be sold to the grid at sell back price rate to get extra rev-
enue. In this type of system, the village will get uninterrupted po-
0.386
0.279
wer supply and also become an energy generation hub. The grid
0.294 component that is available in HOMER tool is by default 100%
reliable. In a real situation, most of the villages of India which are
grid connected show most of the time grid is not available. How-
ever, the unreliable grid can also be designed in HOMER by using
proxy generator scheduling method [29,35]. In the fuel curve sec-
tion, the intercept coefficient and slope is set to be 0 and 1
respectively. In the schedule tab of the generator, it can be forced off
and on as per the requirement. Whenever proxy generator is forced
on, mean the grid is available and whenever it is forced off mean
there is a grid outage at that time [29,35]. However, in generator
proxy schedule method, there is no provision for assigning the
purchase price rate and sell-back rate of electricity, which is the
limitation of the HOMER simulation tool. So, for this purpose the
grid component is used for assigning the electricity purchase price
rate and sell-back rate. Thus, the hybrid system is designed with

Fig. 1. Load profiles for three different options.

 R. Rajbongshi et al. / Energy 126 (2017) 461e474 465

both reliable and unreliable grid. Here, the purchase rate and sell rate is considered as zero since the government will install this kind
back rate of electricity are considered as US$ 0.08/kWh and US$ of system as its social commitment to improve the livelihood of the
0.05/kWh respectively. rural villages. The cost of electricity generation from each option is
calculated based on the annual levelized cost (ALC) and used for
2.2.3. Choice between grid extension and off-grid renewable hybrid comparison of various options. The cost of energy is the average
system annualized cost of the system per kWh of useful electricity pro-
The remote villages where the grid power is not available, grid duced by the system. In this study, the conversion rate of 1$ is
can be extended to the villages from the existing load distribution considered INR 50.
point or renewable energy base hybrid system can also be used for
the same purpose. Hence, estimation of the economic distance limit 3. Results and discussion
or break-even distance is necessary to choose the preferable option
between grid extension and renewable energy base hybrid system 3.1. Off-grid hybrid system
for electrification of such village. The net present cost of the off-grid
hybrid system and grid extension matches at the breakeven dis- 3.1.1. Constant peak load and variable energy demand
tance. The hybrid system is preferable when the distance of the The off-grid hybrid system is designed by considering the input
village from existing grid or load point is more than economic parameters like peak load, energy demand, energy resources, sys-
distance limit. And, if the village is located within the economic tem components, etc. The off-grid hybrid system design for option
distance limit, grid extension is a preferable option for electrifica- A (peak load: 19 kW and energy demand: 178 kWh/d) is shown in
tion. This economic distance limit estimation considers the load Fig. 2. HOMER simulated the off-grid hybrid system for different
demands of the village and the grid availability. In case of grid options and optimized the result based on net present cost (NPC)
extension, capital cost and operation and maintenance cost per and cost of energy (COE). Tables 4e6 presents the optimal system
kilometer is considered as US$ 6500 and US$ 65/yr respectively. configurations for option A, B, and C respectively. In this case, peak
The grid power purchase rate is assumed as US$ 0.08/kWh. load kept constant, and the energy demand is varying. As the en-
ergy demand varies, load factor also varies. The energy generation
2.3. HOMER simulation tool increases from 117 kWh/d to 186 kWh/d by increasing the opera-
tion hours of the various loads of the systems in case of Option A.
HOMER simulation tool is used for the design of micro-power
system and comparisons of various powers generating system
[35]. HOMER can design grid-connected and off-grid hybrid sys-
tems serving electric and thermal loads using different renewable
and non-renewable sources along with power conditioning
equipment. Optimal system configurations suitable for electrifica-
tion of the village can be evaluated through this simulation tool. In
pre-HOMER phase, physical modeling of hybrid renewable system
or the various input parameters to model the system are the load
and energy demand of the village, selected energy components to
generate electricity, different energy resources associated with the
selected components and availability in the village. The hybrid
system is designed based on the above parameters with right sizing
of each component followed by economic analysis in terms of net
present cost (NPC) or cost of energy generation (COE). In this study,
photovoltaic system, biomass gasifier, diesel generator are consid-
ered as energy resources and converter and battery are considered
to maintain the energy flow between DC and AC electrical com-
ponents and energy storage respectively for the off-grid hybrid
system. The cost details of each component based on various re-
ports and literature are presented in Table 3. These cost parameters
are indicative; it may vary place to place. In this study, solar and
biomass resources are only available renewable energy in this
village. The simulation time step is taken as 1 h and the dispatch
strategy considered here is cycle charging with a set point of charge
is 80%. The maximum annual capacity shortage is set at 0%, and the
minimum renewable fraction is taken as 0%. HOMER selects the
optimal system based on net present cost and cost of energy. The
project lifetime is considered as 20 years, and the annual interest Fig. 2. Design of off-grid hybrid energy generation system for option A.

Table 3
Cost details of input components.

Component Capital cost ($/kW) Replacement cost ($/kW) Operation and maintenance cost

Biomass gasifier 1600 1280 0.025 $/hour

Solar photovoltaic 2800 0 20 $/year
Diesel generator 370 296 0.05 $/hour
Battery (Surrtte 6CS25P) 1295 1036 20 $/year
Converter 1000 800 0
466 R. Rajbongshi et al. / Energy 126 (2017) 461e474

Table 4
Optimization result of option A (Peak Load: 19 kW).

Case (Peak load: 19 kW) BG (kW) DG (kW) Battery (kW) Converter (kW) Total NPC ($) COE ($/kWh) Renewable fraction

Case 1 (LF:25%, energy demand: 117 kWh/d) 15 10 123668 0.145 0.93

Case 2 (LF:30%, energy demand: 141 kWh/d) 15 10 130099 0.126 0.94
Case 3 (LF:40%, energy demand: 186 kWh/d) 15 20 10 161169 0.119 1

Table 5
Optimization result of option B (Peak Load: 25 kW).

Case (Peak load: 25 kW) BG (kW) DG (kW) PV (kW) Battery (kW) Converter (kW) Total NPC ($) COE ($/kWh) Renewable fraction

Case 1 (LF:25%, energy demand: 152 kWh/d) 15 5 20 10 153194 0.138 0.99

Case 2 (LF:30%, energy demand: 182 kWh/d) 15 5 20 15 172003 0.129 1
Case 3 (LF:40%, energy demand: 242 kWh/d) 15 20 15 204670 0.116 1

Table 6
Optimization result of option C (Peak Load: 41 kW).

Case (Peak load: 41 kW) BG (kW) PV (kW) Battery (kW) Converter (kW) Total NPC ($) COE ($/kWh) Renewable fraction

Case 1 (LF:25%, energy demand: 248 kWh/d) 35 5 20 10 217551 0.120 1

Case 2 (LF:30%, energy demand: 297 kWh/d) 40 5 20 10 236685 0.109 1
Case 3 (LF:40%, energy demand: 392 kWh/d) 35 20 10 285622 0.100 1

Three different load factors are considered for each option (A, B, C).
Fig. 3 represents the relationship between load factor and cost of
energy for constant peak load for various options.
It is found from Fig. 3 that as the load factor increases, the cost of
generation decreases. As the load factor increases keeping the peak
load fixed, energy generation per day increases. Therefore, overall
unit cost of energy decreases due to the distribution of fixed costs,
which are proportional to the peak load and independent of units of
energy generated. There is an increase in the fuel cost (biomass cost
in case of gasifier) with the increase of energy generation per day.
As the energy generation increases from 117 kWh/d to 186 kWh/
d with a peak load 19 kW; the cost of energy decreases from US$
0.145 to US$ 0.119 as the load factor increases from 25% to 40%. In
case of Option B, as the energy demand increases, from 152 kWh/
day to 242 kWh/day, with a fixed peak load of 25 kW, the cost of
energy decreases from US$ 0.138 to US$ 0.116. In case of Option C, as
the energy demand increases from 248 kWh/day to 392 kWh/day
with a fixed peak load of 41 kW, the cost of energy decreases from
US$ 0.120 to US$ 0.100. In all the options, the load factor increases
from 25% to 40% keeping the peak load fixed and energy demand
variable. Hence, the higher load factor is desired to reduce the cost
of energy generation.
3.1.2. Constant energy demand and variable peak load
Fig. 4 represents the relationship between load factor and cost of
energy for fixed energy demand. In this case, three different peak
loads are considered with constant energy demand for all the three
options (A, B and C). It is evident from Fig. 4 that the cost of energy
varies inversely with the load factor. As the peak load increases,
load factor also increases for fixed energy demand and cost of en-
ergy decreases.
In this case, for same energy demand, the average load is fixed
and load factor is mainly dependent on peak load. As peak load
increases the capacity or components size of the generating system
such as photovoltaic system, biomass gasifier system, diesel
generator, etc. also increases to meet the peak demand. Since the
capacity of the system increases, the fixed cost of the total system
also increases. Hence, the unit cost of energy generation also in-
creases for fixed energy demand. The cost of energy increases from
US$ 0.118/kWh to US$ 0.153/kWh for energy demand of 178 kWh/d,
as peak load increases from 15 kW to 35 kW. Similarly, with the
increase of peak load from 20 kW to 40 kW, the cost of energy
increases from US$ 0.123/kWh to US$ 0.157/kWh for energy

Fig. 3. Relationship between load factor and cost of energy for constant peak load. Fig. 4. Relationship between load factor and cost of energy for fixed energy demand.
 R. Rajbongshi et al. / Energy 126 (2017) 461e474 467

demand of 169 kWh/d. In case of energy demand of 286 kWh/d, the

cost of energy increases from US$ 0.112/kWh to US$ 0.129/kWh as
the peak load increases from 30 kW to 50 kW. Hence, load
rescheduling or shifting of loads from one time to another time to
reduce the peak load with same energy demand is important and it
ultimately leads in reduction of the cost of energy generation.

3.1.3. Variable load profile with constant peak load and energy
demand
The off-grid hybrid system is simulated by considering different
load profiles with constant peak load and energy demand for
various options. In this case, three different load profiles are
considered for constant peak load and energy demand. The load
operation hours are scheduled or distributed within the day,
keeping the same peak load and energy demand. Fig. 5 presents
three different load profiles for option A (peak load: 19 kW and Fig. 6. Relationship between load profile and COE with fixed peak load and energy
energy demand: 178 kWh/day). Similarly, different load profiles are demand.

also considered for option B and C respectively. This load sched-

uling has done to observe the effect of load scheduling on the cost
(peak load: 25 kW and energy demand: 169 kWh/d), the cost of
of energy generation. The relationship between load profiles and
energy for different load profiles in similar scenarios, varies from
cost of energy with fixed energy demand and peak load is shown in
US$ 0.127 to US$ 0.138 and for Option C, it varies from US$ 0.086 to
Fig. 6 for various load profiles of each option. Depending on the load
US$ 0.125. This results shows that the cost of energy changes
profiles, HOMER chooses the various energy generating systems by
significantly as the load profile changes, keeping the peak load and
itself. The configuration of the hybrid system changes with the
energy demand constant. Hence, proper scheduling or distribution
changes in load profiles. So, the total net present cost of the system
of loads in a day cycle has importance on the cost of energy gen-
also changes as with change in the load profile. Consequently, the
eration. When the energy requirement is less for lesser durations,
cost of energy of the system is different with different load profiles.
diesel generator or solar photovoltaic or battery is considered in the
It can be observed from Fig. 6 that for Option A (peak load: 19 kW
analysis. When the energy requirement is high for longer durations,
and energy demand: 178 kWh/d), as the load profile changes
biomass gasifier is considered in the analysis. Even, if the capacity
keeping the peak load and energy demand constant, the cost of
of the generating systems is same for two different cases, the cost of
energy varies from US$ 0.115 to US$ 0.124. In case for Option B

Fig. 5. Different load profiles with constant peak load and energy demand for option A.
468 R. Rajbongshi et al. / Energy 126 (2017) 461e474

electricity generation is not same. This is mainly due to the oper- increases to US$ 0.133/kWh at biomass price US$ 60/t and photo-
ation hours of the system in a day. Thus, the cost of energy gener- voltaic cost reduces to 20% of its present cost. The optimum system
ation changes with the change in load profiles or scheduling, even if type is PV-BG-battery at biomass price in the range of US$ 50/t to
the peak loads or energy demand is same. 80/t and photovoltaic capital cost reduction in the range of 20%e
60% of its present cost. It is found that the cost of energy increases
from US$ 0.129/kWh to US$ 0.150/kWh as the biomass price in-
3.1.4. Sensitivity analysis of off-grid systems
creases from US$ 60/t to US$ 80/t and at 60% reduction in the
HOMER has taken into account the different uncertainty in the
photovoltaic system capital cost. The cost of energy reduces from
input parameters for off-grid hybrid system design. Sensitivity
US$ 0.131/kWh to US$ 0.129/kWh with the reduction of the
result shows in the form of graphical representation of the opti-
photovoltaic capital cost from 40% to 60% of its present cost. The
mum system combinations with the cost of energy. In this study,
optimum system type is PV-BG-DG-battery at biomass price in the
the uncertainty is considered both in energy resources and system
ranges US$ 80/t to US$ 100/t and PV capital cost reduction in the
components. The uncertain variables are the biomass price, diesel
ranges 35%e60% of its present cost. In the same biomass price range
price, global solar radiation, photovoltaic system capital cost
(80$/t to 100$/t) and photovoltaic capital cost reduction of 20% or
multiplier (capital cost decrease rate), biomass gasification system
less of its present cost, the BG-DG-battery is the optimum system
capital cost multiplier (capital cost increase rate) and diesel
configuration. It is also observed from the analysis that gasifier
generator capital cost multiplier (capital cost increase rate). Fig. 7
mainly operates to generate electricity when biomass price is low.
represents the graphical representation of sensitivity result of op-
However, when the price of biomass increases to US$ 100/t and the
tion A (peak load of 19 kW and energy demand of 178 kWh/day).
photovoltaic capital cost reduces to 30% of its present cost, then the
The solar radiation, diesel price, gasifier capital cost and diesel
diesel generator is the optimum option.
generator capital cost are fixed at 4.77 kWh/m2/day, US$ 1/l, US$
Fig. 8 presents the sensitivity results for option B (peak load of
1600/kW and US$ 370/kW respectively. The study has considered
25 kW and energy demand of 169 kWh/d). It can be observed from
all these systems operate with its rated efficiency. In case of non-
Fig. 8 that BG-DG-battery configuration is the optimum system
availability of solar radiation, battery storage can provide the po-
configuration. The cost of energy is US$ 0.128/kWh at global solar
wer when load demand is low, gasifier systems provide the power
radiation range from 4.5 kWh/m2/day to 5 kWh/m2/day and at
when load demand is high and diesel generator system operates as
biomass price of US$ 40/t. The optimum system comprises of BG-
backup power, when these load demand is low or any of these
battery as the biomass price varies from US$45/t to US$62/t, and
systems are not in operation. The cost of energy through only diesel
the cost of energy is US$ 0.145/kWh. It is also found that with a
generator system for the same peak load and energy demand is US$
slight change in biomass price (US$ 62/t to US$ 63/t); PV-BG-
0.24/kWh. Fig. 7 presents the effect of biomass price and photo-
battery is the optimum system configuration. As the biomass
voltaic capital cost on the cost of energy and different optimum
price increases from US$ 63/t to US$ 100/t, the optimum system
system type at different biomass price and photovoltaic capital cost.
configuration is PV-BG-DG-battery and cost of energy ranges from
The cost of energy is superimposed to identify the different cost of
US$ 0.160/kWh to US$ 0.177/kWh. As the biomass price increases,
energy at different scenarios in Fig. 7.
photovoltaic along with gasifier meet the energy demand. Biomass
It is observed from Fig. 7 that when the biomass price is less
gasifier meets 85e90%, photovoltaic meets 10% and diesel gener-
than US$ 50/t, BG-battery is the optimum system and the cost of
ator meets 1e2% of the energy demand at the biomass price range
energy is US$ 0.119/kWh, even if the photovoltaic capital cost re-
of US$ 63/t to 100/t.
duces to 60% of its present cost. The cost of energy of the system

Fig. 7. Sensitivity result for option A.

 R. Rajbongshi et al. / Energy 126 (2017) 461e474 469

Fig. 8. Sensitivity result for option B.

Fig. 9. Sensitivity result for option C.

Fig. 9 presents the sensitivity results for option C (peak load of
41 kW and energy demand of 286 kWh/d). It is found that BG-DG
hybrid system is the optimum configuration, irrespective of
biomass price and global solar radiation. The cost of energy of the
system increases as the biomass price increases with solar radiation
range 4.5 kWh/m2/day to 5 kWh/m2/day. In this option, photovol-
taic is not part of the optimum system configuration as, the peak
load (41 kW) is relatively high. It is observed that BG-DG is the
optimum system configuration at higher biomass price.
3.2. Grid-connected hybrid system
3.2.1. Hybrid system with reliable grid
In this system configuration, grid is added to the earlier hybrid
energy system. This type of hybrid energy system can be used both
for purchasing electricity from the grid, when the load demand is
higher than the generation from the hybrid system at the village
and selling electricity back to the grid when there is excess elec-
tricity generation from the hybrid system at the village. In this case,
470 R. Rajbongshi et al. / Energy 126 (2017) 461e474

grid is by default 100% reliable that is available in HOMER simu-

lation tool. The amount of excess electricity generated by the hybrid
system, which is fed back to the grid and the amount of electricity
purchased from grid, is analyzed and the effect of this on the cost of
energy generation is presented in Table 7. It is found from the
optimization results that the costs of energy of all the options are
nearly same for all the load profiles. However, load profiles in all
these options are not same. The system component capacity is
optimized or selected by the simulation tool based on the load
profiles. Hence, the capacity of each component in all these options
is not same or total net present costs of the options are different.
However, the ratio of total annualized cost of the system (taking
into consideration of grid purchase and sales) to the total electricity
served by the system is almost same for all the options. In the case
of an off-grid hybrid system, the cost of energy generation for op-
tion A (peak load: 19 kW and energy demand: 178 kWh/d) is
US$0.145/kWh. However, in the case of a hybrid system connected
with the reliable grid, the cost of energy reduces to US$0.91/kWh. It
is observed from Table 7 that there is a grid purchase of 9% and grid
sales of 23% of the total energy demand or generation of the system
for option A. The grid sales bring extra revenue to the system and
the overall cost of energy reduces. Hence, grid-connected hybrid
system brings down the cost of energy, village become energy
generation hub, meets the village load demand and excess gener-
ation fed back to the grid. This also improves the reliability of the
Fig. 10. Grid-connected hybrid system for option A.
system and also offers better economic performance.

3.2.2. Hybrid system with reliable and unreliable grid
The hybrid energy system is designed with both reliable and
unreliable grid (UG) for electrification of the village. The system
design for this case is presented in Fig. 10. The different value of grid
availability considered in the analysis is presented in Table 8. Grid
availability represents the time for which electricity is available in
the grid. Here, the grid availability is considered same for all the
months. The various grid availabilities are considered to assess the
effect of grid availability on sales or purchase of electricity from the
grid and the variations in the cost of energy. In this case, both
reliable and unreliable grid is considered for the analysis. The un-
reliable grid is considered as the real situation in most of the grid
connected rural villages of India, which experiences most of the
time grid is not available, or grid is unreliable. The unreliable grid is
designed in HOMER by using proxy generator scheduling method.
In the scheduling of this component, it can be forced off and on as
per the requirement. If it is forced ON means the grid is available
and if it is forced OFF means, there is a grid outage at that time
[29,35]. However, in proxy generator scheduling method, there is
no provision for assigning the electricity purchase or sell back rate.
So, for this purpose the grid component is used for assigning the
electricity purchase and sell back rate. Thus, this hybrid system is
designed with both reliable (assigning the purchase and sell back
rate of electricity) and unreliable grid (scheduling of grid avail-
ability in a day). The purchase and sell back rate of electricity are
US$ 0.08/kWh and US$ 0.05/kWh respectively. The unreliable grid
is also can be considered an energy generation source. This is
mainly use to fulfill the small amount of load. Biomass gasifier is not
operated for low energy demand as the gasifier with higher
Table 8
Grid availability at different time interval.
Grid availability (hour) Time interval
6 Midnight 12 to 6 a.m.
12 5 a.m. to 5 p.m.
18 4 p.m. to 10 a.m.
24 Complete day
capacity operates for low load demands leads to lower capacity
factor of the gasifier and consequently the cost of generation will
become higher. Whenever the load demand is higher than the
gasifier capacity then the required amount of electricity is pur-
chased from the grid and if there is excess generation than the
energy demand, the excess electricity fed into the grid.
The optimization results for option A with different grid avail-
ability is presented in Table 9. It can be observed from Table 9 that
for 6 h availability of the grid, the grid is not supplying any elec-
tricity to the village load demand. This is because when the grid is
available, the load demand is completely fulfilled by the gasifier.
The gasifier generates 15 kW of electricity to satisfy the load de-
mand of 9.3 kW and sell back the excess electricity to the grid. The
detailed analysis of the system with different time of a day is shown
in Fig. 11. It is found that during 24 h availability of the grid, all the
required energy is satisfied by the grid as it is 24 h available. The
cost of energy of the system is not same for all conditions of grid
availability. The cost of energy for 6 h and 12 h of grid availability is
same since the total cost of the system is almost same for both the
cases. The capacity or size of components and percentage of

Table 7
Optimization results of reliable grid-connected hybrid system.

Option BG (kW) Grid (kW) Total NPC ($) COE ($/kWh) Renewable fraction Grid purchase (%) Grid sales (%)

Option A 15 100 82822 0.064 0.91 9 23

Option B 15 100 79538 0.064 0.90 10 28
Option C 30 100 134270 0.064 0.89 11 5
 R. Rajbongshi et al. / Energy 126 (2017) 461e474
Table 9
Optimization result for different grid availability of Option A.
Grid availability (hr) Optimum system configuration
BG (kW) UG (kW) Grid (kW)
6 15 100 100
12 15 100 100
18 10 100 100
24 10 100 100
Fig. 11. Hourly data analysis of the system in a day for option A with 6 h of grid
availability.
electricity generation along with the amount of grid purchase and
sales are nearly same for both these conditions. In case of grid
availability of 18 h and 24 h, again the cost of energy is same. This is
because when the grid is not available then there is very little
amount of load demand, which is almost similar to 24 h of grid
availability. It can be found that the cost of energy generation for
option A is US$0.064/kWh, in compare to the off-grid hybrid energy
systems for the same load and energy demand; it is US$0.145/kWh
(Table 4). This is an interesting result in the sense, grid-connected
hybrid systems offer much lower cost of generation in compare
to off-grid hybrid systems. This is mainly due to the electricity
purchase from the grid when energy demand is high in the village
and sells back to the grid when hybrid system energy generation is
more than the demand. It can be found from Table 4 that for the
option A (load 19 kW and energy demand of 117 kWh/d), the op-
timum system configuration consists of BG of 15 kW and DG of
10 kW. However, the optimum system configuration for the grid-
connected hybrid system, it is only the BG of 15 kW capacity
(Table 9). So the net present cost is much lower in case of grid-
connected hybrid systems in compare to the off-grid hybrid sys-
tem, and consequently the cost of generation reduces from
US$0.145/kWh to US$0.064/kWh. It also can be found from Fig. 11,
that during the time 1:00 to 17:00 h, biomass gasifier is operating,
and the excess electricity is feeding to the grid (grid sales) as the
energy demand is lower than the generation. However, from 18:00
to 22:00 h, energy demand is higher than the biomass gasifier
generation, and the excess amount is purchased from the grid (grid
471
COE ($/kWh) Electricity generation (%) Grid purchase (%) Grid sales (%)
BG Unreliable grid
0.064 91 0 9 23
0.064 91 1 8 23
0.067 75 24 1 4
0.067 75 25 0 4
purchase). Similar kinds of results are also obtained for other grid
availability options.
Table 10 presents the optimization result for different grid
availability for option B. It is found that the cost of energy is less in
compare to all other conditions for 6 h grid availability. In this
condition, a higher amount of electricity is sold back to the grid, and
this generates extra cash inflow. So, the cost of energy is less in
compare to all other cases even if the capacity of the gasifier is
higher. The total cost difference of unreliable grid in case of 12 h
and 18 h of grid availability is higher compared to the cost differ-
ence of reliable grid for 12 h and 18 h of grid availability. The un-
reliable grid has more influence on the cost of energy of the system.
The system generates 2% and 23% of electricity in case of 12 h and
18 h of grid availability respectively. Hence, the cost of energy of
12 h of grid availability is less than 18 h of grid availability. The total
net present cost of the system for both the cases is almost similar,
and consequently the cost of energy is also same.
Table 11 presents the optimization result for different grid
availability for option C. Here for all the conditions of grid avail-
ability, capacity of system components, percentage of electricity
generation from gasifier and amount of grid sales is same. There is
only difference in the energy generation from the unreliable grid
and the amount of grid purchase. However, these two values are
also same for 6 h and 12 h of grid availability and 18 h and 24 h of
grid availability respectively. So, the cost of energy is same for 6 h
and 12 h of grid availability and 18 h and 24 h of grid availability. In
case of grid availability of 6 h and 12 h, energy demand is higher
than gasifier generation, and the difference amount in electricity is
purchased from the grid in both the cases since the unreliable grid
is not available at that time. In case of 18 h and 24 h of grid avail-
ability, the energy demand and generation is same. Thus, the cost of
energy of the system is same for both these grid availabilities.
3.3. Determination of breakeven distance
In case of access to electricity to the un-electrified rural villages,
determination of economic distance limit or breakeven distance is
important for comparison of choice between the off-grid hybrid
system and conventional grid extension. The net present cost of the
off-grid hybrid system and grid-extension matches at the break-
even distance. The net present cost of the off-grid hybrid system
depends on the various system capacities to meet the load pattern
of the village. In case of grid extension, the net present cost pri-
marily depends on the distance to which grid needs to be extended
from the existing grid point. Hence, the net present cost depends on
the installation of grid line cost, annual operation and maintenance
cost and electricity cost for the energy demand of the village. In this
study, the breakeven distance is estimated for all the three options
and sensitivity analysis has been performed by considering biomass
price and biomass gasifier capital cost as uncertain variables. The
optimization result for determination of breakeven distance is
presented in Table 12.
It is observed from Table 12 that the breakeven distance is
different for different options since the load demands are different
472 R. Rajbongshi et al. / Energy 126 (2017) 461e474

Table 10
Optimization result for different grid availability of Option B.

Grid availability (hr) Optimum system configuration COE ($/kWh) Electricity generation (%) Grid purchase (%) Grid sales (%)

BG (kW) UG (kW) Grid (kW) BG Unreliable grid

6 15 100 100 0.064 90 0 10 28

12 10 100 100 0.065 77 2 21 7
18 10 100 100 0.067 77 23 1 7
24 10 100 100 0.067 77 23 0 7

Table 11
Optimization result for different grid availability of Option C.

Grid availability (hr) Optimum system configuration COE ($/kWh) Electricity generation (%) Grid purchase (%) Grid sales (%)

BG (kW) UG (kW) Grid (kW) BG Unreliable grid

6 30 100 100 0.064 89 0 11 5

12 30 100 100 0.064 89 0 11 5
18 30 100 100 0.066 89 11 0 5
24 30 100 100 0.066 89 11 0 5

Table 12
Optimization results for breakeven distance.

Option Peak load (kW), energy demand (kWh/d) Optimum system configuration Total NPC ($) COE ($/kWh) Breakeven distance (km)

BG (kW) DG (kW) Battery Converter (kW)

Option A 19, 178 15 20 10 154884 0.119 6.53

Option B 25, 169 15 5 20 15 157193 0.127 7.50
Option C 41, 286 40 5 178564 0.086 1.48

for all the options. Thus, the total net present cost is varying for all
the three options. The total net present cost depends on the ca-
pacity of the hybrid system configuration components. As the load
demand of the various options changes, the system configuration
capacity varies and hence the net present cost changes. The grid
extension cost depends on the electricity demand at the village
load center, cost of grid lines along with the transformer and annual
operation and maintenance cost. Hence, as the load demand
changes, the grid extension cost also changes. It can be observed
from Table 12, that the energy demand for option B is lowest and
the option C is highest. It also can be observed from Table 12, as the
energy demand increases, the net present cost of off-grid hybrid
system increases. However, grid extension cost does not primarily
depend on the load demand. It can be concluded that for higher
load demand, breakeven distance is lower (option C) in compare to
lower energy demand, where the breakeven distance is higher
(option B). It is also can be observed from Fig. 12 that if the distance
of the village is less than breakeven distance, the grid extension is
preferred for the village which has similar load profile like option A.
The off-grid hybrid system is preferable option for the village that
lies higher than the breakeven distance. Thus the village that is
away from the grid more than 6.53 km, the off-grid hybrid system is
the optimum choice for option A.
biomass gasifier capital cost are fixed at 4.77 kWh/m2/d, US$ 1/l,
US$ 2800/kW, US$ 370/kW and US$ 1600/kW respectively. As the
biomass price increases, the total cost related to the operation of
the biomass gasifier increases and consequently the total net pre-
sent cost also increases. Hence, as the net present cost increases
that consequently increase the breakeven distance for fixed grid
extension cost. Here, the grid extension cost is fixed for each option.
It is found from Fig. 13 that as the biomass price increases from US$
40/t to US$ 100/t, the breakeven distance increases from 1.48 km to
13.5 km for option C. Similar results are also found for other op-
tions. The effect of biomass gasifier capital cost on the cost of
electricity is presented in Fig. 14. Here, the capital cost of biomass
gasifier increases by 10%, 20% and 30% from its initial cost. The
biomass price, global solar radiation, diesel price, PV capital cost,
diesel generator capital cost are fixed at US$ 40/t, 4.77 kWh/m2/d,
US$ 1/l, US$ 2800/kW and US$ 370/kW respectively. It can be
observed from Fig. 13 that as the capital cost of biomass gasifier
increases the breakeven distance increases linearly. The initial
capital cost of gasifier increases and consequently the breakeven
distance increases at fixed grid extension cost for each option. It is
also found that as the capital cost of the gasifier increases from 0%
to 30%, the breakeven distance increases from 1.48 km to 3.94 km
for option C.

3.3.1. Sensitivity results 4. Conclusions

It is found from the optimization results that optimum system
configuration for breakeven distances are consists of biomass
gasifier, diesel generator (DG), battery and converter (Table 12). The
maximum share of generated energy is from biomass gasifier. So
the sensitivity analysis has been carried out by considering biomass
price and biomass gasifier capital cost as an uncertain variable for
all the options. Fig. 13 presents the variation of breakeven distance
with the biomass price for all the options. The biomass price
changes from US$ 40/t to US$ 100/t. The global solar radiation,
diesel price, PV capital cost, diesel generator capital cost and
Access to energy is an important concern to improve the socio-
economic condition of the rural villages of any developing country.
Access to energy primarily depends on the energy requirement of
the village, peak load demand, the location of the village or distance
from the existing grid point, and the energy resource available in
the village. In this study, different peak load and energy demands
are considered, and the optimum system configurations are
analyzed through HOMER simulation tool. It is observed from the
analysis of the off-grid hybrid system that the cost of electricity
 R. Rajbongshi et al. / Energy 126 (2017) 461e474 473

Fig. 12. Breakeven distance for option A.

electricity generation reduces. Hence, proper load management

(reduce the peak load) or scheduling of the load (improve the load
factor) is important to bring down the cost of energy generation. In
case of a grid-connected hybrid system, both reliable and unreliable
grid is considered for the analysis. It is found that the cost of energy
for the grid-connected hybrid system is less in compare to an off-
grid hybrid system for similar load profiles. In the case for option
A, the cost of energy generation reduces from US$0.145/kWh to
US$0.064/kWh. This is due to the electricity purchase from the grid
when energy demand is high in the village and sell back to the grid
when hybrid system energy generation is more than the village
energy demand. The comparison between grid extension and off-
grid hybrid system reveals as the load demand increases the
breakeven distance decreases. The breakeven distances are
Fig. 13. Biomass price vs. breakeven distance.
1.48 km, 6.53 km and 7.50 km for the energy demand of 286 kWh/d,
178 kWh/d and 169 kWh/d respectively. The study concludes that
grid extension is preferable to the village that is within the break-
even distance and beyond that distance off-grid hybrid system is an
economic one. The optimization results show that hybrid energy
system is feasible and can provide reliable energy supply to the
remote village. This study has considered the load analysis of a
typical village in India to create the concept of grid-connected
hybrid systems, but the framework and analysis is generalized in
nature. However, it is important that the proposed configurations
need to implement to understand the practical challenges and
solutions.

Acknowledgement

The authors duly acknowledged the financial support from DST

(Grant No. 100/IFD/R/GIA/2686/2013-14), Government of India for
the RHEES project.
Fig. 14. BG capital cost increment vs. breakeven distance.
References

[1] Census Report, Registrar General & Census Commissioner, Government of

generation mainly depends on load factor. It is also found that as
India, 2A Mansingh Road, New Delhi 110 011, India. http://www.censusindia.
the peak load decreases or energy demand increases, cost of net/.
474 R. Rajbongshi et al. / Energy 126 (2017) 461e474
[2] Ministry of Power, Government of India, Shram Shakti Bhavan, New Delhi
110001, India. http://powermin.nic.in.
[3] Ministry of New and Renewable Energy Sources, Government of India, Block-
14, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003, India. http://mnes.nic.in.
[4] Banerjee R. Comparison of options for distributed generation in India. Energy
Policy 2006;34(1):101e11.
[5] Bernal-Agustín JL, Dufo-Lopez R. Simulation and optimization of stand-alone-
hybrid renewable energy systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13(8):
2111e8.
[6] Nfah EM, Ngundam JM, Vandenbergh M, Schmid J. Simulation of off-grid
generation options for remote villages in Cameroon. Renew Energy
2008;33(5):1064e72.
[7] Bahramara S, Moghaddam MP, Haghifam MR. Optimal planning of hybrid
renewable energy systems using HOMER: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;62:609e20.
[8] Mondal AH, Denich M. Hybrid systems for decentralized power generation in
Bangladesh. Energy Sustain Dev 2010;14(1):48e55.
[9] Bhattacharyya SC. Viability of off-grid electricity supply using rice husk: a case
study from South Asia. Biomass Bioenergy 2014;68:44e54.
[10] Gokcol C, Dursun B. A comprehensive economical and environmental analysis
of the renewable power generating systems for Kırklareli University, Turkey.
Energy Build 2013;64:249e57.
[11] Silva SV, Severino MM, de Oliveira MAG. A stand-alone hybrid photovoltaic,
fuel cell and battery system: a case study of Tocantins, Brazil. Renew Energy
2013;57:384e9.
[12] Fantidis JG, Bandekas DV, Potolias C, Vordos N. Cost of PV electricity e case
study of Greece. Sol Energy 2013;91:120e30.
[13] Giannoulis ED, Haralambopoulos DA. Distributed generation in an isolated
grid: methodology of case study for Lesvos-Greece. Appl Energy 2011;88:
2530e40.
[14] Prasetyaningsari I, Setiawan A, Setiawan AA. Design optimization of solar
powered aeration system for fish pond in Sleman Regency, Yogyakarta by
HOMER software. Energy Procedia 2013;32:90e8.
[15] Ramli MAM, Hiendro A, Twaha S. Economic analysis of PV/diesel hybrid sys-
tem with flywheel energy storage. Renew Energy 2015;78:398e405.
[16] Salehin S, Ferdaous MT, Chowdhury RM, Shithi SS, Rofi MSRB,
Mohammed MA. Assessment of renewable energy systems combining
techno-economic optimization with energy scenario analysis. Energy
2016;112:729e41.
[17] Rahman MM, Khan MM, Ullah MA, Zhang X, Kumar A. A hybrid renewable
energy system for a North American off-grid community. Energy 2016;97:
151e60.
[18] Shaahid SM, Elhadidy MA. Opportunities for utilization of stand-alone hybrid
(photovoltaic þ diesel þ battery) power systems in hot climates. Renew En-
ergy 2003;28:1741e53.
[19] Shaahid SM, El-Amin I, Rehman S, Al-Shehri A, Ahmad F, Bakashwain J.
Dissemination of off-grid hybrid wind-diesel-battery power systems for
electrification of isolated settlements of hot regions. Int J Sustain Energy
2007;26(2):91e105.
[20] Shaahid SM, Al-Hadhrami LM, Rahman MK. Review of economic assessment
of hybrid photovoltaic-diesel-battery power systems for residential loads for
different provinces of Saudi Arabia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;31:
174e81.
[21] Munuswamy S, Nakamura K, Katta A. Comparing the cost of electricity
sourced from a fuel cell-based renewable energy system and the national grid
to electrify a rural health centre in India: a case study. Renew Energy
2011;36(11):2978e83.
[22] Mahapatra S, Dasappa S. Rural electrification: optimising the choice between
decentralised renewable energy sources and grid extension. Energy Sustain
Dev 2012;16(2):146e54.
[23] Sen R, Bhattacharyya SC. Off-grid electricity generation with renewable en-
ergy technologies in India: an application of HOMER. Renew Energy 2014;62:
388e98.
[24] Rohani G, Nour M. Techno-economical analysis of stand-alone hybrid
renewable power system for Ras Musherib in United Arab Emirates. Energy
2014;64:828e41.
[25] Fadaeenejad M, Radzi MAM, AbKadir MZA, Hizam H. Assessment of hybrid
renewable power sources for rural electrification in Malaysia. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2013;30:299e305.
[26] Aagreh Y, Al-Ghzawi A. Feasibility of utilizing renewable energy systems for a
small hotel in Ajloun city. Jordan Appl Energy 2013;103:25e31.
[27] Kumar SU, Manoharan PS. Economic analysis of hybrid power systems (PV/
diesel) in different climatic zones of Tamil Nadu. Energy Convers Manag
2014;80:469e76.
[28] Prodromidis GN, Coutelieris FA. A comparative feasibility study of stand-alone
and grid connected RES-based systems in several Greek Islands. Renew En-
ergy 2011;36(7):1957e63.
[29] Murphy PM, Twaha S, Murphy IS. Analysis of the cost of reliable electricity: a
new method for analyzing grid connected solar, diesel and hybrid distributed
electricity systems considering an unreliable electric grid, with examples in
Uganda. Energy 2014;66:523e34.
[30] Gonz alez A, Riba J, Rius A, Puig R. Optimal sizing of a hybrid grid-connected
photovoltaic and wind power system. Appl Energy 2015;154:752e62.
[31] Türkay BE, Telli AY. Economic analysis of standalone and grid connected
hybrid energy systems. Renew Energy 2011;36(7):1931e43.
[32] Türkay B, Telli AY. An economic analysis of grid-connected hybrid energy
systems. Energy Sources Part B Econ Plan Policy 2011;6(3):228e41.
[33] Bhattacharjee S, Dey A. Techno-economic performance evaluation of grid
integrated PV-biomass hybrid power generation for rice mill. Sustain Energy
Technol Assess 2014;7:6e16.
[34] Mahapatra S, Chanakya HN, Dasappa S. Evaluation of various energy devices
for domestic lighting in India: technology, economics and CO2 emissions.
Energy Sustain Dev 2009;13(4):271e9.
[35] Homer Energy, http://www.homerenergy.com/software.html, [Accessed 20
March 2015].