Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 51 (2022) 101909

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/seta

Original article

Techno-economic evaluation of stand-alone energy supply to a health clinic

considering pandemic diseases (COVID-19) challenge
Mohammad Amin Vaziri Rad a, Mouzhan Panahi Vaghar a, Amir Kouravand a, Evangelos Bellos b,
Alibakhsh Kasaeian a, *
a
Faculty of New Sciences and Technologies, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
b
Thermal Department, School of Mechanical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Athens 10682, Greece

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The increase in the number of patients in health care centers boosts electricity consumption. Such a load jump
Hybrid energy system also adversely affects the energy supply, in particular, in rural off-grid systems. To overcome the mentioned
COVID-19 challenges, some innovative and practical approaches with available optimization tools should be employed.
Pandemic diseases
This study addresses the possibility of developing a challenge prediction-based method for optimizing a reliable
Techno-economic optimization
Load jump
and affordable hybrid renewable energy system (HRES) to aid with energy challenges associated with pandemic
conditions. The results indicate that the PV/diesel/battery hybrid system with a maximum energy cost of
$0.141/kWh and a renewable fraction of more than 50% can meet demand even during the most severe load
jumps. Furthermore, the fuel constraints during pandemic years can increase the energy costs up to 2.5 times,
and the required photovoltaic installation capacity by about four times. Due to the 20.1% PV output boost,
Vertical-axis tracking systems are recommended in areas with limited PV installation space. It is concluded that,
by considering the likely effects of pandemics, the supplied energy cost to the rural health clinic equipment and
water treatment loads would be between $0.113–0.200/kWh.

Introduction
The COVID-19 outbreak in numerous parts of the world has impacted
various aspects of human life [1]. The energy industry is one of the
sectors which has been affected and experienced significant changes
since late 2019. Global energy demand is expected to fall by 6% in 2020,
compared to 2019. Despite declining overall energy demand, the resi­
dential and medical sectors increased their energy consumption in 2020.
Thus, industrial and commercial needs have decreased, while medical
and residential demands have increased [2]. So the main question is how
energy systems, particularly standalone systems with limited flexibility,
will cope with this demand increase. Numerous studies on domestic
energy consumption during the COVID-19 period have been conducted.
For instance, a study conducted in Barcelona, Spain, estimated thermal
energy consumption and CO2 emissions increased by 182% in the resi­
dential sector [3]. Another study concluded that the lockdown period
resulted in a 115% increase in electricity consumption of residential
buildings in India [4]. The international energy agency (IEA) [5]
released the first quarter 2020 statistical data, indicating that global coal
demand fell by 8% in the second quarter of 2019 compared to the first
quarter, owing to significant declines in electricity demand and indus­
trial coal demand. Additionally, global oil demand fell by 5% due to
travel restrictions. Nuclear energy and natural gas demand were also in a
similar state. However, the renewable energy demand increased by
approximately 1.5% in the first quarter of 2020, compared to the same
period in 2019. Based on the IEA reports [5], renewable energy has been
the most resilient energy source to the Covid-19 conditions. The first
reason is that, renewable electricity is ineffective when the demand is
reduced for the other applications of renewable energy. Secondly, they
are given priority due to the low operating costs and some environ­
mental regulations. Furthermore, because of the global clean energy
roadmap, the renewable energies production capacity has increased
slightly.
During the pandemic, the energy industry was also affected from the
supply chain point of view. Insufficient energy access can speed up the
virus spread (such as COVID-19); hence the energy supply security is
more critical than ever [6]. Investigations have shown that residents at
the houses with energy problems have often lower levels of health and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: akasa@ut.ac.ir (A. Kasaeian).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101909
Received 24 August 2021; Received in revised form 16 December 2021; Accepted 18 December 2021
Available online 25 December 2021
2213-1388/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.A. Vaziri Rad et al.
are more vulnerable to pandemic diseases. Also, the energy access is a
vital issue in the proper availability of medical facilities and appropriate
services quality. Hospitals and health centers consume energy for
medical services and equipment, sterilization, disinfection, and other
therapeutic operations [7]. Consequently, access to the most flexible
energy systems during the pandemic condition has become a worldwide
challenge [8]. The discussed pandemic problems and advantages of re­
newables for these conditions require HRES as efficient and flexible
systems.
During pandemics such as COVID-19, areas without access to the
electricity grid require greater attention than ever. Adequate power
supply to rural health clinics is a major need [9]. A hybrid energy system
can be the most reliable choice for the deprived areas in pandemic
conditions. Also, the increased energy demands of the health care cen­
ters due to the COVID-19 pandemic must have been considered in
obtaining the appropriate capacities of the system components. It should
be noted that the hybrid optimization of multiple energy resources
(HOMER) software includes a microgrid modeling tool that enables the
developing countries to increase the reliability of their energy systems in
response to the demand changes [10].
According to the Iran Electrical Industry Syndicate [11], the Coro­
navirus has harmed this industry drastically. Several consequences
include the damage to the electrical industry construction projects,
supply chain difficulties, electrical industry import and export problems,
and power outages. According to this organization‘s estimations, in
2021, there is a 30% probability of grid uncertainty and power outage
under the impact of disruption in rural electrical infrastructure devel­
opment. This problem can damage vital sectors such as hospitals and
service centers. One of the primary strategies to deal with COVID-19′ s
energy challenges is adding energy storage units for health applications.
Batteries are counted as an essential part of the off-grid HRES facil­
ities. The batteries can overcome intermittent renewable energy gen­
eration challenges and compensate for sudden load increases [12]. A
fundamental question is the ability of optimized battery capacity in
HRESs to respond the severe load jumps in an emergency such as the
COVID-19 pandemic. In the previous studies, the use of some equipment
such as bio generators [13], diesel generators [14], and fuel cells [15]
have been effective in increasing the flexibility of hybrid systems. These
methods can be helpful for the electrification of some essential appli­
cations such as rural health clinics.
Several papers examined the techno-economic implications of elec­
trifying health clinics in rural areas using HRESs. For example, Al-
Karaghouli et al. [16] presented an optimal model for meeting the
power demand of a health clinic in rural southern Iraq using a photo­
voltaic solar system. Using the HOMER software, it was determined that
the electricity cost of the presented method was $0.238/kWh. Also, AL-
Shammari et al. [17] proposed a cost-effective hybrid energy system
with a 100 percent renewable component, to meet the power demand of
a rural health clinic in southeastern Iraq, using HOMER software. The
proposed system, which consisted of photovoltaic panels, wind turbines,
and batteries, was found to have a cost of energy (COE) of $0.547/kWh
and a net present cost (NPC) of $72878. As demonstrated by the former
literature review, the possibility of severe load jump on clinics’ energy
demand was not considered when determining the HRES appropriate
capacity. This paper investigates the increased power consumption of
medical centers, as a result of COVID-19. Some studies have discussed
the effect of possible pandemics on the design of health clinic energy
systems. Chowdhury et al. [18] optimized a proposed standalone HRES
using HOMER software. During the COVID-19 period, this hybrid sys­
tem, comprised of photovoltaic/wind/battery energy sources, met the
energy demands of a temporary medical center in Bangladesh. The
optimal Levelized COE of HRES was $0.468/kWh.
The previous studies on rural healthcare designs did not account for
fuel scarcity as an energy challenge during pandemic conditions. Tsao
et al. [8] identified the energy supply and demand risks, caused by
COVID-19 when designing a reliable renewable-energy-based energy
2
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 51 (2022) 101909
supply for pandemic conditions.
Alsagri et al. [19] also investigated some methods for managing
excess electricity, assuming the possibility of electrical load jumping for
a fuel cell/photovoltaic/diesel/battery system. The generated electricity
was used to power a medical center in Saudi Arabia during the COVID-
19 outbreak crisis. The HOMER software demonstrated a reliable and
cost-effective energy system with an energy cost between
$0.105–0.120/kWh. However, the effect of fluctuating fuel prices, the
availability of space for photovoltaic installation, or the impact of severe
load jumps were not completely investigated. Table 1 summarizes the
recent research works on rural health facility power supply. Although
the mentioned studies did not consider the fuel shortages, space con­
straints for installing the PVs, and load shock in pandemic conditions,
the current investigation attempts to address these issues.
The current study examines the effect of load jump and fuel shortage
as the primary energy challenges caused by COVID-19 on the techno-
economic specifications of a standalone HRES. This issue has been
addressed for the first time using the HOMER software’s multi-year tool
and sensitivity analysis feature. Additionally, due to the increased ca­
pacity of photovoltaic installations during epidemic conditions, the ef­
fect of using various types of tracking modes has been investigated to
make the best use of an available space. The study case is a rural area in
Iran, experiencing severe fresh water and energy shortages. The ob­
tained results have been extrapolated to other parts of the world, taking
into account various solar radiations. The proposed hybrid system
consists of a photovoltaic array, a diesel generator, and a battery bank,
which is one of the most common hybrid systems for off-grid applica­
tions. The results of this study are hoped to demonstrate the critical
nature of considering epidemic conditions when designing standalone
HRESs. Furthermore, the proposed method attempts to identify a cost-
effective solution to this challenge.
The main purposes of this study are focused on the suggestions for
solving energy problems in poverty-stricken areas in the face of epi­
demics. Such objectives are achieved based on a challenge prediction
method for optimizing a hybrid renewable system. In the presented
techno-economic evaluation, the effect of fuel shortage and load jump,
as the potential pandemic challenges on the designing of standalone
HRESs, are investigated. Furthermore, comprehensive sensitivity ana­
lyses are conducted to determine the most cost-effective and reliable
method of powering off-grid medical units. It should be noted that the
governments and investors can effectively address the mentioned power
supply challenges by utilizing a pre-made software, as described in this
study.
Methodology
In this section, the methodology for optimizing the hybrid energy
system’s techno-economic performance is descibed. As such, Sections
2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 introduce the case study, the electrical load, and the
load jump assumptions, respectively. Then, in section 2.4, the energy
system’s component equations and economic objectives are presented.
Following that, Sections 2.5 and 2.6 discuss the input data and the
proposed HRES configuration, respectively.
Case study and resources
Iran has an appropriate potential for solar energy resource, based on
the world’s photovoltaic power potential map (Fig. 1). Furthermore,
Iran’s solar radiation conditions are close to those found in most regions
of West Asia, Africa, and Oceania. To generalization of results to other
parts of the world, the sensitivity analyses consider all possible solar
radiations in the range of 4 to 6 kWh/m2/day. Also, a deprived area with
severe water stress has been selected to more efficiently estimate the
proposed energy system’s capability to supply the rural regions. The
Chutani village, as a deprived area in the Sistan and Baluchestan prov­
ince, near the Oman Sea, is investigated. This village has an estimated
M.A. Vaziri Rad et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 51 (2022) 101909

Table 1
A summary of techno-economic studies on stand-alone health care amenities in rural areas.
Study Year, Area Declared Application System COE Emissions
($/kWh)

Chowdhury et al. [18] 2021, Temporary health care center PV/WT/DG/Battery 0.468 14.5% Emission reduction
Bangladesh
Ayodele et al. [20] 2021, South Rural community health clinic PV/WT/FC/Electrolyzer/ 2.340 100% Renewable fraction
Africa Hydrogen Tank
Oladigbolu et al. [21] 2021, Nigeria Rural healthcare facility PV/DG/Battery 0.259 80% Emission reduction
Alsagri et al. [19] 2021, Saudi Desert health clinic PV/DG/Battery 0.105 30% Renewable fraction
Arabia
Rad et al. [22] 2020, Iran Needed loads for affected areas by natural PV/WT/DG/Battery/Biodiesel 0.130–0.167 greater than30% Renewable
disasters generator fraction
Raghuwanshi & Arya 2019, India Remote healthcare center PV/DG/Battery 0.293 53.3% Emission reduction
[23]
Muh & Tabet [24] 2019, Cameroon A rural loads collection PV/DG/Battery/Hydro Turbine 0.443 91.45% Renewable fraction
Alotaibi et al. [25] 2019, Saudi Sustainable hospital PV/Bio Generator/Battery 0.210 84% Emission reduction
Arabia
Olatomiwa et al. [26] 2018, Nigeria Healthcare delivery center PV/WT/DG/Battery 0.207–0.323 greater than80% Renewable
fraction
Olatomiwa et al. [27] 2016, Nigeria Rural health clinics PV/DG/Battery 0.324–0.482 greater than70% Renewable
fraction

Fig. 1. The world’s solar resource map for photovoltaic power potential [31]. (© 2020 The World Bank, Source: Global Solar Atlas 2.0, Solar resource data: Solargis.)

population of more than 400 people, a tropical climate, and limited
access to water and electricity. It is worth noting that the lack of access
to facilities leads to many health problems in such villages. To obtain
water, residents need to dig pits (referred to as Houtag) to collect
rainwater, which poses health risks [28]. The annual average solar ra­
diation in the Chutani village is 5.4 kWh/m2/day with a clearness index
of approximately 60%, indicating the area’s excellent solar radiation
potential (Fig. 2 (a)). This city’s average annual temperature is around
26 ◦ C, reaching as high as 50 ◦ C in the summer. However, the average
yearly wind speed is about 4 m/s, indicating that this region’s wind
resource has a limited potential (Fig. 2 (b)) [29]. At certain times of the
year, the high temperatures reduce the output power of photovoltaic
panels [30]. This issue is considered in the current optimization.
Electrical load
The electricity supply of a standalone outpatient clinic is considered
in this paper due to the critical nature of medical services in remote
areas. So, a small medical clinic with the size of two combined 40-ft
containers (approximately 56 m2 in area) has been selected. The
clinic’s standard capacity is four patients and four employees, but can be
increased to ten patients during an emergency, such as a pandemic.
Table 2 estimates the energy consumption of a typical health clinic.
Additionally, the power consumption profile of this load is determined
using the HOMER software library and an actual outpatient clinic in a
climate similar to that of the selected area (Fig. 3). Consequently, the
annual average consumed energy is 25.76 kWh/day, with a peak of
approximately 2.1 kW.
Moreover, due to the critical need for clean water in arid rural areas,
an electrical load equal to the demand of a brackish water reverse
osmosis desalination (BWRO) is considered. Taking the minimum
amount of freshwater, needed for each resident, to be approximately 0.3
m3, the total daily freshwater requirement for 14 residents would be
equal to 4.2 m3. The BWRO unit consumes up to 2.5 kWh/m3 of energy
[32], which causes an increase in the total electrical demand by about
10.5 kWh/day. Also, it consumes a maximum peak of 0.8 kW for
pumping fluid between a water resource, desalination device, and
storage tank. This load is considered as a deferrable load which must be

3
M.A. Vaziri Rad et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 51 (2022) 101909

Fig. 3. The monthly electricity demand of the rural outpatient clinic.

accommodate even up to 15 patients (based on their available space) in

a pandemic situation. Observing the energy consumption bills in some
grid-connected rural clinics has also shown an increase of about 40 to
135 percent in the months of the epidemic, compared to the normal
months. Therefore, in this study, three worst-case scenarios, which
include the increase of 50%, 100%, and 150% in energy consumption,
are considered to perform the simulation. By default, the HOMER soft­
ware considers the worst-case scenario for the power peak to provide the
highest power supply reliability. Thus, it can be assumed that these
Fig. 2. Annual average of resources potential in the selected area: a) Solar
radiation and sky clearness index; b) Daily temperature and wind speed [29].
numbers indicate both the average increase in the load profile con­
sumption and the greatest shocks to the largest power consumption
peaks in pandemic conditions. In the HOMER software, the maximum
Table 2 stochastic behaviors for a load profile compared to the forecasted de­
Estimated energy consumption of the rural outpatient clinic [26]. mand profile are limited by two main parameters. The first one is the
Device Operation Quantity Rated Energy “day to day variability”, which shows the largest possible percentage of
(Hours) (Units) Power Consumption the stochastic behaviors of the load profile in two consecutive days of a
(W) (kWh/d) month. The second one is the “time step variability”, which shows the
Lighting 8 14 15 1.680 largest possible percentage of the stochastic behaviors of the load profile
(outdoor/ in two consecutive hours of a day. Based on the NREL’s (US National
indoor) Renewable Energy Laboratory) database, the HOMER software sug­
Air Conditioner 10 1 400 4.000
gested 18% and 21% for these two variables, respectively. It should be
Small Food 12 1 300 3.600
Refrigerator noted that these two parameters also affect the maximum possible value
Refrigerator 18 2 60 2.160 for the stochastic behavior of power peaks. As an example of a daily load
(vaccine/blood profile, Fig. 4 shows the average energy consumption in July, a month in
bank) which a high energy consumption occurs due to the high ambient
Ceiling/wall Fan 16 3 60 2.880
TV set 6 1 80 0.480
temperature. As it can be realized, a 100% load jump can significantly
Mobile Charger 4 3 20 0.240 increase the peak of power consumption. For the higher reliability of
Incubator 4 1 400 1.600 optimization, this random behavior is considered for all months of the
Oxygen 2 1 270 0.540 year as well as all the studied scenarios.
Concentrator
Centrifuge 2 1 240 0.480
Lab Autoclave 2 1 1500 3.000 Main equations
Microscope 3 2 20 0.120
Ultrasound 1 1 800 0.800 The following section details the primary formulas, used by HOMER,
Machine to calculate the output power-related parameters.
Suction 2 1 100 0.200
Apparatus
Radio Receiver 16 1 30 0.480 • PV module
Desktop 10 1 150 1.500
Computer
Others – – – 2.000
Total energy demand (kWh/d) 25.76

provided with its required daily capacity and does not require a specific
time of day to be supplied. As a result, this demand can be met during the
off-peak hours or with excess electricity generated by the HRES.

Load jump assumption

Theoretically, the maximum amount of ability to increase the nom­

inal capacity of patients’ admission in rural clinics would be equal to the
maximum increase in the energy consumption of the clinics. In Iran, the Fig. 4. An example of a daily load profile including baseload, load jump, and
small rural health clinics, that normally serve up to 5 patients, can stochastic changes range (July).

4
M.A. Vaziri Rad et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 51 (2022) 101909

The software determines the photovoltaic‘s output power, efficiency, rated power (kW), also Ca and Cb are the generator manufacturer’s
and cell temperature using equations (1) to (3) [33]. constant parameters range from 0.085 to 0.250 [35]. Additionally, DF is
( ) the duty factor, which is the ratio of the supplementary initial shakers’
GTotal
PPV = YPV fPV [1 + μ(Tcell − Tc.STC )] (1) produced power (kWh) to the total annual start/stops of generator (NSS ).
GT.STC
• Battery bank
where fPV denotes the module’s derating factor (%),YPV denotes the
module’s rated capacity (kW), and GTotal , and GT.STC are the incident
Energy storage units (battery banks) are added to hybrid energy
solar radiations on the photovoltaic array at the real and standard test
systems to improve the reliability of the power supply process. They
conditions (kW/m2 ), respectively. Additionally,μ is the temperature
store excess electricity and release it when there is insufficient power to
coefficient of the power (%/◦ C), and Tc and Tc.STC are the cell temper­
meet the demand [36]. The battery state of charge represents the energy,
atures under the real and standard test conditions (◦ C) [34].
stored in the bank, and varies according to the charge or discharge state,
(
μ μ a + bVNOCT NOCT − 20 as defined by Eqs. 8 and 9 [37].
ηPV = ηPV,STC 1 + (T − TSTC ) + (1
ηPV amb ηPV,STC a + bV 800 [
) SOCCha (t) = Pbat (t − 1) × (1 − σ ) + (NPV × PPV (t) + NDG
− ηPV,STC )GTotal á́ª (2) ]
DLoad (t)
×PDG (t) ) − × ηCbat (8)
ηinv
where ηPV,STC is the PV‘s efficiency obtained under the standard test
conditions (%),ηPV is the real efficiency (%), and TSTC and Tamb are the [
test condition and ambient temperatures (◦ C), respectively. Also, VNOCT SOCdis (t) = Pbat (t − 1) × (1 − σ ) + (NPV × PPV (t) + NDG
is the wind speed under the NOCT conditions (m/s), V is the real wind ]
DLoad (t)
speed (m/s), á́ª is the cooling effect correction factor, and a and b are the ×PDG (t) ) − /ηDbat (9)
ηinv
PV constants [34].
⎛ )⎞
(
(
) GTotal
)(
[1− ηmp,STC (1− μ.Tc.STC ).]
where SOC(t) denotes the unit state of charge at time t, Pbat denotes the
⎜Ta + Tc,NOCT − Ta,NOCT GT.STC
⎜ ατ ⎟
⎟ charge quantity of the storage unit (kWh), and (t − 1) represents a
Tcell = ⎜ ( )( ) ⎟ (3) previous time step. Furthermore, ηCbat and ηDbat are the charge and
⎝ ( ) GTotal μ.ηmp,STC ⎠
1 + Tc,NOCT − Ta,NOCT GT.STC ατ discharge efficiencies (%),and σ is the self-discharge rate of the battery.
Moreover,DLoad (t) indicates the demand at each time step, and N rep­
where Tc,NOCT and Ta,NOCT represent the cell temperature and ambient resents the number of units.
temperature at the nominal operating cell temperature (20 ◦ C),
respectively. In addition, ηmp,STC denotes the PV‘s efficiency at its • Economic objectives
maximum power point (%), α is the module’s solar absorptance (%), and
τ is the solar transmittance of any cover over the PV array (%) [34]. The The NPC and COE are the primary economic objective functions in
following equation calculates the global incident radiation on the sur­ current optimization. The NPC is the project’s total cost over its lifetime,
face of the photovoltaic module on an hourly basis: as calculated by Eq. (10) [38]. The term Cann denotes the annualized
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ total cost ($/year) [39], and CRF(i,n) demonstrates the capital recovery
( )[ ( )̅ ( )]
1 + cosβ Gb 3 β
factor, calculated by Eq. (11) [40]. Also, i is the real interest rate, which
GTotal = (Gb + Gd Ai )Rb + Gd (1 − Ai )
2
1+
G
sin
2 is calculated based on Eq. (12) by f (annual inflation rate (%)) and i◦
( ) (nominal interest rate (%)), and n is the lifetime of the project (year).
1 − cosβ
+ Gρg (4) Cann
2 CNPC = (10)
CRF(i, n)
where β is the surface slope (◦ ),Gb is the beam radiation (kW/m2), Gd is
the diffuse radiation (kW/m2), ρg is the ground reflectance (%),Ai is a i(1 + i)n
CRF(i.n) = (11)
measure of the atmospheric transmittance of beam radiation (anisotropy (1 + i)n − 1
index), and Rb is the ratio of beam radiation on the tilted surface to beam
radiation on the horizontal surface. These values are highly dependent i=
i− f
(12)
on the PV system’s tracking mode. The inverter‘s output power is 1+f
calculated using Eq. (5), where Pinv.in is the inverter’s input power (kW) The COE is a critical factor in determining the cost-effectiveness of a
and ηinv is the inverter’s efficiency (%) [34]. hybrid system, which is the average cost ($) of useful electricity per kWh
produced, which can be calculated using the following equation [25]:
Pinv.out = ηinv Pinv.in (5)
Cann
COE = (13)
Eserved
• Diesel generator
where Cann.t is the annualized total cost (including the component-
Diesel generators (DGs) are added to hybrid systems to increase the related expenses such as capital, replacement, and maintenance ($)),
power supply process’s reliability, cost-effectiveness, and flexibility. and Eserved is the annual served energy (kWh).
Equations (6) and (7) calculate the generator’s hourly output power and
duty factor, respectively:
Input data
PDG (t)= (FDG (t) − Ca .PR )/Cb (6)
Table 3 illustrates each component selection and economic input
DF =
PDG
(7) data, based on the local market situation. The assumed inflation and
NSS nominal discount rates are 15% and 18%, respectively. Due to the re­
gion’s low fuel prices, the diesel fuel price is estimated to be $0.2/L.
where FDG (t) is the hourly fuel consumption (L/h), PR is the generator’s
Furthermore, the project’s lifetime is assumed to be equal to the solar

5
M.A. Vaziri Rad et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 51 (2022) 101909

Table 3 Pandemics such as COVID-19 have historically resulted in a severe

Technical and economic characteristics of the hybrid system component. increase in the energy demand of healthcare facilities. This increase in
Component Specifications load results from the increased number of patients and the use of med­
ical equipment. However, the grid-connected clinics are much less likely
PV Module [14] Data
Temperature Coefficient 0.41%/◦ C to face this issue. However, the sudden increase in the demand is a
Operating Temperature 47 ◦ C significant issue for standalone clinics, particularly in rural areas. Thus,
Efficiency 18% HOMER software is used to estimate the effect of a 50% load jump (low
Lifetime 20 years shock), a 100% load jump (medium shock), and a 150% load jump
Capital cost $1200/kW
Maintenance cost 1% capital
(severe shock) on the techno-economic optimization of a standalone
Fixed-tilt structure capital cost $60/kW rural outpatient medical clinic. The current approach provides the en­
Continuous Adjustment Tracking systems [34] Data ergy required for the clinic equipment and water treatment.
Lifetime 20 years It should be noted that the main optimization objective of the current
Horizontal-axis capital cost $360/kW
study is the cost of energy, which is a major challenge in rural and
Vertical-axis capital cost $420/kW
Dual-axis capital cost $650/kW remote areas, especially for the developing and underdeveloped coun­
Maintenance cost 5% capital tries. Obviously, designing an energy system without considering the
Diesel Generator [41] Data possibility of epidemics can have two main consequences for a stand-
Minimum Load Ratio 25% alone health clinic. Firstly, the power outages’ possibility, due to the
Rated RPM 1500 RPM
Voltage 220 – 240 V
demand increase, leads to high social costs by endangering the lives of
Lifetime 15,000 h patients. Secondly, the use of additional power generation equipment
Capital cost $450/kW with non-optimal capacity, which leads to a significant increase in the
Maintenance cost $0.02/hours energy costs. Therefore, the present study aims to introduce the optimal
Battery unit [42] Data
hybrid system, taking into account the mentioned challenges.
Storage Type Li-Ion (1kWh)
Roundtrip Efficiency 90%
Nominal Voltage 6V Setup validation
Lifetime 15 years
Nominal Capacity 167 Ah Some researchers have compared the HOMER software’s techno-
Throughput 3000 kWh
Capital cost $400/kWh
economic output with various optimization algorithms. The HOMER
Maintenance cost 1% capital algorithm has demonstrated higher optimization speed and reliability
Power Inverter [43] Data than other well-known optimization algorithms such as GA and PSO
Inverter Efficiency 95% [44]. Furthermore, Sinha and Chandel [45] concluded in a review of
Rectifier Efficiency 90%
software tools for HRES optimization that HOMER software is highly
Lifetime 15 years
Capital cost $300/kW accurate at determining the techno-economic characteristics of an en­
Maintenance cost 1% capital ergy system. An HRES consisting of photovoltaic PV/DG/battery, opti­
mized with the particle swarm optimization (PSO) and an adaptive
version of the marine predators’ algorithm (AMPA), is selected to verify
panel’s (20-year) lifetime, to avoid salvage value harming the accuracy the accuracy of the current study’s calculations. From Table 4, it is
of calculations. It is worth noting that the allowable annual loss of power concluded that the outputs of these two optimization algorithms differ
supply is considered to be zero due to the selected load’s essential by less than 5%, using the HOMER algorithm. Additionally, the outputs
operation. of the HOMER algorithm in the current study model differed slightly
from those in the study of Yu et al. [46]. The main reason for this slight
System modeling mismatch would be the difference between the numbers of iterations
(focus factor) for the simulation process. It should be noted that, in the
This section introduces the HOMER‘s overall optimization process. current study, the focus factor of HOMER software is set at 5% (high).
The importance of considering the effect of pandemics on an outpatient These values demonstrate the simulation model’s accuracy.
health clinic’s energy consumption is then discussed.
Overall optimization process Results
The optimization process is depicted in Fig. 5. The first step specifies
the HRES’s initial parameters, including the electrical load, ambient In section 4.1, optimization is performed without considering the
temperature, solar radiation, computational constraints, and economic effect of a pandemic, and the use of various tracking modes in
and technical factors. Then, in the second step, all possible system‘s conjunction with the PV module is analyzed. Then, in section 4.2, the
configurations with varying energy unit sizes are selected. Various states impact of load jump and fuel limitation on the techno-economic char­
would occur at each time step depending on the input parameters and acteristics of the HRES is examined as two possible effects of pandemic
the component‘s chosen sizes. If the photovoltaic system generates more diseases. The technical performance of the proposed optimum scenario
energy than the remaining demand, the excess energy is sent to the is discussed in section 4.3, and the results are generalized to other
energy storage device. The battery bank’s state of charge (SOC) is possible conditions using the sensitivity analysis in section 4.4.
checked if the PV’s output power is less than the electrical load. If the
battery‘s SOC is sufficient, the storage device will discharge to meet the Standard optimization
load; if the SOC is insufficient, the fuel generator will operate to meet the
remaining demand. After repeating the optimization process for 8760 h The optimal scenarios for supplying the health clinic‘s load, using the
per year and the entire duration of the project, the optimization objec­ HOMER optimization algorithm, are summarized in Table 5, without
tive (energy cost) for each simulated scenario will be calculated. As a considering the effect of a pandemic. Thus, by combining a 5.2 kW PV, a
result, the optimal scenarios are classified according to the hybrid sys­ 5-kWh battery bank, and a 2 kW DG, the hybrid energy system can
tems’ lowest energy cost. generate electricity at the cost of approximately $0.133/kWh and a
46.2% RF. In the second case, removing the battery bank reduces the
• Pandemic assumption flexibility of the power supply. The limitations of using solar panels,
during sunny hours, and the lack of storage devices result in an

6
M.A. Vaziri Rad et al.
Fig. 5. Optimization flowchart of the proposed hybrid energy system.
approximately 6% increase in the COE and an 18% decrease in the RF.
The pure DG scenario has a 27% higher COE and over 4480L annual fuel
consumption, posing a challenge to the regions with limited access to
fuel resources. By comparison, the optimal scenario consumes 50.5%
less fuel than the pure DG scenario. Due to the critical nature of a
continuous and reliable electricity supply for the medical clinic, the
simulation was done without considering any annual capacity shortage.
Accordingly, the high capacity of PV and battery devices is needed for
7
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 51 (2022) 101909
the PV/battery scenario, causing the COE and NPC to be unaffordable.
Due to the limited roof space, available on the residential containers,
installing PV panels presents a challenge for the hybrid system. Thus,
due to the importance of making the best use of an available space,
Table 6 illustrates the HRES’s techno-economic characteristics when
different PV tracking modes are applied in the optimal scenario
(installation of a 5.2-kW PV). The results indicate that the vertical
tracking system (VTS) with a hybrid COE of $140/kWh and a component
M.A. Vaziri Rad et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 51 (2022) 101909

Table 4
The validation of the model with the other optimization algorithms.
Parameters PSO Algorithm [47] HOMER Algorithm AMPA Algorithm Current Study’s Algorithm Maximum Difference from PSO Method
[46] [46]

PV production (kWh/year) 21,839 20,832 22,232 21,014 4%

DG production (kWh/year) 1311 1990 470 1826 4%
Fuel consumption (L/year) 684 709 674 651 5%
Battery input (kWh/year) 9378 9649 9259 9513 2%
Battery output (kWh/year) 9570 8380 9570 9192 4%
CO2 emissions (kg/year) 1750 2000 1624 1835 5%
Total production (kWh/year) 23,260 22,840 22,713 22,822 2%
COE ($/kWh) 0.370 0.350 0.350 0.360 3%

Table 5
Techno-economic evaluation of the model without considering pandemic diseases‘ effect.
Scenario PV (kW) Con (kW) DG (kW) Fuel Consumption (L/year) Battery Bank (kWh) RF (%) COE ($/kWh) NPC ($)

PV/DG/Battery 5.2 2.7 2 2291 5 46.2 0.133 27,180

PV/DG 3.1 1.6 2 3172 – 28.2 0.141 28,732
DG – – 3 4481 – 0 0.169 34,539
PV/Battery 22.8 7.9 – – 53 100 0.295 60,146

Table 6
Techno-economic characteristics of the hybrid system by applying different tracking modes.
PV Tracking Mode PV Power Output (kWh/ Power Output Improvement PV LCOE Fuel Consumption (L/ RF COE NPC ($)
(kW) year) (%) ($/kWh) year) (%) ($/kWh)

Fixed tilt structure 8077 – 0.0607 2291 46.2 0.133 27,180

VTS 9694 20.1 0.0740 1918 53.3 0.140 28,636
HTS 8692 7.6 0.0784 2096 49.1 0.144 29,387
DTS 10,410 29.8 0.0803 1868 54.5 0.149 30,334

COE of $0.074/kWh performs the best economic performance among
the continuous adjustment tracking modes. The dual-axis tracking sys­
tem (DTS), which improved the PV output power by 29.8%, is the best-
performing mode from technical point of view. However, due to the
lower installation cost, the fixed tilt structure unit was more cost-
effective than the tracking-base unit. The installed module‘s capacity
and the price of diesel fuel are two factors that affect the economic ef­
ficiency of various tracking modes in the HRES, as directly and
indirectly.
Fig. 6 (a) illustrates the effect of the installed PV‘s capacity on the
COE and RF of a hybrid system with a roof-top space availability of 6 to
60 m2. As a result, the optimal capacity for PV, VTS, and DTS would
approximately be 5 kW, 4 kW, and 3 kW, respectively. Due to the higher
cost of tracking systems than the fixed structures, installing additional
PV capacity increases the COE significantly. The PVs’ main function is to
provide power during the day. Consequently, increasing the installed
capacity gradually increases the RF, as the additional generated power is
considered as a surplus electricity when the batteries are fully charged.
As illustrated in Fig. 6 (b), rising the diesel fuel prices from subsidized to
the international levels result in a reduction in a fuel consumption in the
hybrid system. As a result of the increased installation capacity of PV
modules, the COE would increase. At a $0.1/L diesel fuel price, the pure
DG scenario with a COE of $0.130/kWh would be optimal. On the other
hand, the annual fuel consumption is significantly reduced at a $0.6/L
diesel fuel price; which means that, in the higher fuel prices, the higher
PV capacities could be optimal.
Pandemic disease challenge
Fig. 7 depicts the annual power generation profile of the optimized
configuration without considering the pandemic impacts. This figure
illustrates that DG is used less during the day due to solar panel gener­
ation. However, the generator supplies most of the load during the night.
This performance demonstrates the superior capability of the PV and DG
hybridization, which has been proposed to many off-grid health centers
to date. However, rising the fuel consumption, rising the fuel prices, and
increasing the electrical demand all pose risks to the reliability and cost-
effectiveness of an optimized energy hybrid system. Today, challenges
imposed by a pandemic (such as COVID-19) must be anticipated,
particularly for critical applications. Fig. 8 (a) and Fig. 8 (b) illustrate the
effect of fuel constraints on the optimal energy cost and battery/PV
capacity, respectively. As a result, the low fuel availability results in an
18% to 40% increase in the COE for the small loads. This fuel restriction
requires an additional 6.1 kW to 13 kW of PV capacity and approxi­
mately 20 kWh to 30 kWh of battery capacity.
On the other hand, the low fuel availability results in a 95–135%
increase in the COE for large loads, an increase of about 22–31 kW
additional PV installation capacity and 95–114 kWh additional battery
installation capacity. These findings indicate that the fuel availability is
more critical for the larger loads (large clinics), which can significantly
impact the cost-effectiveness of a hybrid energy system. Moreover, due
to the low local cost of diesel, a lower COE can be achieved by increasing
the fuel consumption ratio, to generate a useful energy. However,
ignoring the possibility of an increased fuel consumption (higher fuel
availability) in an optimized hybrid configuration could result in a sig­
nificant increase in the system’s power shortage or cost.
The HOMER multi-year analyzer is used to analyze the sudden in­
crease in the annual energy consumption throughout the project’s life­
time and determine the techno-economic impact of a 50%, 100%, and
150% load jump in electrical demand. Two primary difficulties that a
standalone HRES faces with pandemic conditions are the load jumping
and lack of available fuel. Accordingly, Table 7 summarizes the hybrid
unit’s techno-economic outputs by considering the possibility of diesel
fuel shortage and the load jump.
According to Table 7, assuming no load jump, the hybrid unit
consumed about 2300 L/year of diesel fuel. This unit has a 5.2 kW PV
capacity, an RF of 46.2%, and a COE of $0.133/kWh. While adding a
load jump of 50%, 100%, or 150% increased the installed PV‘s capacity

8
M.A. Vaziri Rad et al.
Fig. 6. Comparison of the hybrid energy system‘s performance under different
PV tracking modes: a) The effect of variation in the PV‘s installed capacity; b)
The effect of variation in the diesel fuel price.
Fig. 7. The PV and DG annual power generation profile without considering
the load’s jump and fuel restriction.
by about 5.7%, 19.2%, and 46.1%, which provided the COE of 0.135,
0.137, and $0.141/kWh, respectively. On the other hand, if the fuel
restriction is applied to any load jump from low to high, the installed PV
capacity increases by approximately 75%, 136%, and 311%, respec­
tively. Likewise, the COE increases to 0.150, 0.230, and $0.325/kWh in
these cases subsequently. Without considering fuel constraints, the re­
sults demonstrate that the proposed system can withstand the largest
annual increase in the electricity demand, by predicting a sudden
9
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 51 (2022) 101909
Fig. 8. Comparison of the optimum HRES under different fuel availability: a)
The effect of demand increment on the COE; b) The effect of demand increment
on the PV and battery‘s installed capacity.
increase in the electrical load. As a result of the optimization process,
2.4 kW additional PV panels were installed, which caused only a $0.08/
kWh increase in the energy costs. While, under the fuel constraints, more
costs are required to pay for the extreme rise in the loads. Consequently,
ensuring adequate fuel supply to rural areas is critical for the govern­
ments to provide necessary stand-alone applications such as health
clinics.
Technical performance
This section compares the HRES‘s performance, with and without
load jump. Fig. 9 (a) depicts the primary demand and the demand that
will be impacted by the pandemic (100% load jump). In each case,
the performance of cost-effective HRES would vary. According to Fig. 9
(b), when there is no fuel restriction or load jump, the generator acts as a
peak-shaving component. The DG operates during times of peak power
consumption or low solar radiation. A DG will consume about 1976 L of
fuel per year to perform this task. Also, during the day, the generator is
rarely used (Fig. 10 (a)). Under specific conditions, such as when faced
with a pandemic, this hybrid energy configuration behaves differently
(Fig. 9 (c)). In this regard, the DG is constantly in operation to ensure
that the clinic load is reliably supplied. The generator can be switched
off only when the solar radiation is high and the batteries are fully
charged. It should be noted that the generator’s ability to operate with
different capacities (Fig. 10 (b)) reduces the need for batteries, even
during the peak times. This performance leads to a 140% increase in the
annual fuel consumption. The proposed approach eliminates the need
for high PV/battery installation capacity, and eventually decreases the
COE.
On the other hand, by assuming a fuel restriction in the years pre­
ceding a pandemic, the technical performance of the hybrid energy
M.A. Vaziri Rad et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 51 (2022) 101909

Table 7
Techno-economic optimization of the hybrid energy system based on the fuel restriction and the load’s jump in pandemic situations.
Load Fuel PV Con DG Annual fuel required without Annual fuel required with Battery Bank RF COE NPC
Jump Limitation (kW) (kW) (kW) load jump (L/year) load jump (L/year) (kWh) (%) ($/kWh) ($)

0% – 5.2 2.7 2 2291 – 5 46.2 0.133 27,180

50% No 5.5 2.9 3 2153 3734 5 47.1 0.135 27,961
50% Yes 9.1 3.5 3 870 2294 24 77.3 0.150 31,240
100% No 6.2 3.4 3 1976 4736 7 50.8 0.137 28,882
100% Yes 12.3 4.8 3 107 2300 61 95.8 0.230 48,668
150% No 7.6 3.8 3 1803 5987 10 54.4 0.141 30,156
150% Yes 21.4 5.7 3 53.9 2300 79 97.4 0.325 69,843

Fig. 9. Performance comparison of the hybrid system under the different pandemic scenarios in a typical week: a) Electrical load; b) Without fuel restriction/without
load jump; c) Without fuel restriction/with load jump; d) With fuel restriction/without load jump; e) With fuel restriction/with load jump.

10
M.A. Vaziri Rad et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 51 (2022) 101909

Sensitivity analyses

This section contains some heat maps illustrating the effect of the
significant factors on the NPC and COE of the optimal HRES. Fig. 11 (a)
shows the sensitivity of COE based on the PV‘s capital cost and the
annual average solar radiation variations. Accordingly, assuming a 30%
increase in the PV‘s capital cost and lowest solar radiation of 4 kWh/m2/
day, as a worst-case in western Asia, the maximum COE reaches $0.149/
kWh. While the COE improves to $0.117/kWh in the best-case scenario,
assuming a 30% reduction in the PV‘s capital cost and maximum solar
radiation of 6 kWh/m2/day. This range of energy costs demonstrates the
proposed hybrid unit’s affordability in the face of possible changes. The
effect of the variation of battery capital cost and diesel fuel price on the
COE is depicted in Fig. 11 (b). As can be seen from the variation in
battery capital costs and the variation in diesel fuel prices from $0.1/L
(subsidized rate) to $1/L (international rate), the COE varies between
0.113 and $0.192/kWh. The COE variation is less than $0.200/kWh for
all possible price changes, demonstrating the economic viability of the
presented hybrid system.
The NPC’s dependence on the ratio of the annual fuel availability to
the annual average electrical demand is depicted in Fig. 11 (c). As a
result, for any load and fuel availability greater than 3800L/year, the
NPC varies between $20,000 and $36,000. At the same time, NPC can be
increased to $60,000 in the large loads, by increasing the fuel restriction
up to 2300L/year. These changes will be more severe in cases where fuel
availability is less than 2300L/year, and for the loads greater than 50
kWh/day which lead to more than $110,000 NPC. Finally, Fig. 11 (d)
illustrates the NPC’s variation based on the nominal discount rate and
expected inflation rate. At any specified discount rate, the NPC grows in
lockstep with the rate of inflation. Lower inflation rates can make the
system more affordable; for example, in the countries with an inflation
rate of less than 8%, the NPC can be reduced to about 30%. On the other
hand, when the discount rate is low and the inflation rate is high, the
NPC could be increased to more than 45%. The findings demonstrate
that the proposed system is sufficiently generalizable to other economic
conditions.
Fig. 10. DG power generation profile in the optimum scenario during a specific Another important parameter, that can affect the final results, is the
year: a) Without load jump/without fuel restriction; b) With load jump/without
characteristics affecting the stochastic behavior of the simulated load
fuel restriction; c) Without load jump/with fuel restriction; d) With load jump/
profile. Table 8 shows the day-to-day and timestep parameters for
with fuel restriction.
different applications in tropical weather based on the HOMER software
database, imported from the NREL. The results show that in large
system is altered even in non-pandemic (normal) years. As illustrated in
amounts of stochastic behavior, the renewable energy role in the power
Fig. 9 (d), a higher PV/battery combination capacity is required, due to
supply will increase. This case happens because of the large peaks that
the limited fuel supply. As a result of this approach, the DG plays only a
occur in the demand profile. This increment consequently rises the final
backup role in the energy system, during normal years. The DG operates
energy costs slightly. The considered values for the stochastic behavior
when solar radiation is extremely low or the battery bank is completely
of the load profile were appropriate, due to the insignificant increase in
discharged (Fig. 10 (c)). This performance decreases the HRES’s reliance
costs.
on the battery bank. The excess electricity is increased due to the
increased solar capacity, particularly in normal years when the demand
Discussion
is not increased significantly. However, by increasing the capacity of the
batteries and incorporating a deferrable load, a significant portion of
The electricity tariffs on national grids vary globally. For example, in
this surplus electricity is consumed. Under the pandemic disease con­
2020, electricity prices in oil and natural gas producing countries were
ditions, this hybrid energy configuration operates based on the DG and
less than $0.10/kWh. This value was approximately $0.10/kWh in India
battery’s simultaneous usage (Fig. 9 (e)). When there is a fuel shortage,
and China, roughly $0.15/kWh in the United States, and more than
the battery’s role becomes significantly more important. Due to the
$0.20/kWh in the European Union countries [48]. However, the high
increased number of battery replacements, this issue would increase the
cost of developing grid transmission lines, particularly in the sparsely
system costs. The DG uses the maximum amount of the available annual
populated rural areas, may increase the competitiveness of the HRES
fuel, to supply the peaks (Fig. 10 (d)) with the assistance of batteries.
energy costs, compared to the grid electricity. The estimated cost of
Due to the fuel restriction, the system requires about twice the PV ca­
constructing an electricity network in developing countries is between
pacity and about nine fold battery capacity. This issue consequences in
1000 and 8000$/km, increasing to approximately $22,000/km, if the
an increase of up to 68% in the COE. This power supply management
route is difficult to build, such as in mountainous areas [49]. Generally,
process is accomplished by predicting the possibility of pandemic dis­
the cost of developing a power grid network in rural areas is seven to ten
eases. Otherwise, the system faces a very high cost, due to the addition of
folds of the urban areas [35]. Based on the considerations mentioned
high-capacity photovoltaic and battery systems in the fuel scarcity
above, an energy cost of less than $0.20/kWh is appropriate for an off-
times.
grid HRES. The areas with low fuel prices have a strong potential of
achieving this COE goal. The proposed hybrid PV/DG/Battery system

11
M.A. Vaziri Rad et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 51 (2022) 101909

Fig. 11. Economic sensitivity analyses based on: a) PV capital cost and solar radiation variation; b) Diesel price and battery capital cost variation; c) Annual load and
diesel availability variation; d) Discount rate and inflation rate variation.

Table 8
Analyzing the changes in optimal system configuration and COE based on different stochastic behavior.
Stochastic Behavior for Load Day to Day Variability Timestep Variability PV Capacity Fuel Consumption (L/ RF COE NPC ($)
Profile (%) (%) (kW) year) (%) ($/kWh)

Small health clinic 21 18 5.2 2291 46.2 0.133 27,180

Residential unit 10 20 5 2315 46.0 0.130 26,450
Hospital 10 7 4.7 2352 45.6 0.129 26,315
Small hotel 7.5 7 4.6 2362 45.3 0.129 26,320

has a $0.133/kWh COE, making it an affordable option for powering
health facilities in rural areas. The energy challenges of a pandemic on
the standalone health care centers are analyzed for the first time.
Accordingly, an attempt was made to address the limited flexibility
problem of renewable energy units, facing sudden changes in demand.
Furthermore, considering the fuel scarcity impact and 100% load jump,
the energy can be supplied at a maximum COE of $0.230/kWh by adding
7.1 kW and 2.1 kWh of PV and battery capacity.
Nonetheless, rural areas must be provided with adequate fuel for
more severe shocks to the load (about 20L/day on average). The local
governments must consider this issue to prepare for a COE of less than
$0.20/kWh. Governments and investors can efficiently address the
power supply challenges by utilizing a pre-made software based on the
introduced method for HRES optimization. This challenge prediction-
based method identified a cost-effective solution for powering a rural
health clinic without any capacity shortages. Fig. 12 depicts the grid
breakeven distance analysis for the selected area, which compares the
grid extension with the proposed standalone HRES. The average grid
tariff is assumed to be approximately $0.10/kWh in this simulation.
Also, the cost of grid extension is assumed to be between 5000 and 1000
$/km. As a result of the HOMER grid optimization tool, it was deter­
mined that the standalone system would be affordable for the distances
greater than 3.5 km, without considering pandemics. On the other side,
when the pandemic effects are considered, this value reaches about 7.5
km. So, it can be concluded that the proposed HRES would be a cost-
effective solution even in the intensity of the pandemic because the
distance between the impoverished rural areas and the nearest urban
areas is usually longer than 10 km.

Conclusion

Due to the critical nature of the power supply for rural health clinics,
the current study proposes an HRES, capable of dealing with epidemic
conditions. Based on the reviewed articles on the power supply of
standalone health clinics, it can be concluded that the fuel constraints,
Fig. 12. Grid extension breakeven distance analysis for the proposed HRES.

12
M.A. Vaziri Rad et al.
space availability for additional solar panels, and severe load shocks
have not been considered in HRES optimization. So, this matter can pose
a significant challenge for HRESs in essential applications in the pan­
demics times. The primary aim of this study is to optimize renewable
hybrid systems for critical applications. By using a challenge prediction-
based method, governments and investors can easily benefit from the
available optimization tools, to provide an optimal solution for deliv­
ering a cost-effective energy without shortages.
Without predicting a pandemic scenario, the optimized HRES in­
cludes a 5.2 kW PV, a 2.7 kW converter, a 2 kW DG, and a 5-kWh battery,
resulting in a COE of $0.133/kWh. Considering the pandemic disease,
the PV and battery‘s installation capacities reach 7.6 kW and 10 kWh,
respectively, resulting in a COE of $0.141/kWh. So, the problem of se­
vere load jumps can be solved by slightly increasing the PV/battery
installation capacity and providing adequate fuel to the area. Further­
more, two modes of operation could be used in situations where the PV‘s
installation space is limited. Firstly, a dual-axis tracking system with an
LCOE of $0.0803/kWh increased the PV power output by approximately
28.8%. Secondly, vertical-axis tracking system with an LCOE of
$0.0740/kWh increased the PV power output by 20.1%.
On the other side, if the fuel access is restricted during pandemic
years, the COE for the HRES would exceed $0.3/kWh in the extreme
load jumps. Accordingly, without designing the HRES for low fuel
consumption, about 21 kW PV and 80 kWh battery capacity must be
installed to provide a reliable power. This hybrid system showed more
than $0.325/kWh COE. While, by supplying approximately 6000 L of
diesel fuel per year, the COE decreased to $0.141/kWh. This issue
demonstrates the critical nature of fuel supply in the off-grid applica­
tions during the pandemics. The sensitivity analysis reveals the possible
variation of the COE by − 15 to + 45% in response to the changes in the
input costs and solar radiation. Additionally, it is shown that the pre­
sented HRES is more cost-effective in the countries with low inflation
rates. These findings represent the proposed hybrid system’s suitability
for a standalone power supply in rural areas.
The study’s findings demonstrate the importance of considering
COVID-19 pandemic scenarios when designing highly reliable stand­
alone HRESs for health clinics’ power supply. Finally, it is suggested that
the recommended method would be extended to other forms of renew­
able hybrid energies in future studies, such as wind turbines, fuel cells,
biogas generators, and combined heat and power units.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Mohammad Amin Vaziri Rad: Software, Data curation, Writing –
original draft, Conceptualization. Mouzhan Panahi Vaghar: Software,
Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. Amir Kouravand:
Investigation, Visualization. Evangelos Bellos: Methodology, Writing –
review & editing. Alibakhsh Kasaeian: Conceptualization, Writing –
review & editing, Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Nicola M, Alsafi Z, Sohrabi C, Kerwan A, Al-Jabir A, Iosifidis C, et al. The socio-
economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19): A review. Int J
Surg 2020;78:185–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.04.018.
[2] Jiang P, Van FY. Impacts of COVID-19 on energy demand and consumption :
Challenges, lessons and emerging opportunities. Appl Energy 2021;285:116441.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116441.
[3] Monzón-Chavarrías M, Guillén-Lambea S, García-Pérez S, Montealegre-Gracia AL,
Sierra-Pérez J. Heating energy consumption and environmental implications due to
the change in daily habits in residential buildings derived from COVID-19 Crisis:
sustainability Heating Energy Consumption and Environmental Implications Due
13
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 51 (2022) 101909
to the Change in Daily Habits. Sustainability 2021;13(2):918. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su13020918.
[4] Qarnain SS, Sankaranarayanan B, Ali SM. pandemic outbreak: a case study of
residential society Energy Sources, Part A : Recovery, Utilization, and Analyzing
energy consumption factors during coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic outbreak : a
case study of residential society Syed Shuibul Qarnai. Energy Sources, Part A
Recover Util Environ Eff 2020:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15567036.2020.1859651.
[5] IEA. Global Energy Review 2020 - The impacts of the Covid-19 crisis on global
energy demand and CO2 emissions. Int Energy Agency 2020; Reports. https://
www.iea.org/corrections (accessed January 20, 2021).
[6] Castán Broto V, Kirshner J. Energy access is needed to maintain health. Nat Energy
2020;5:419–21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-0625-6.
[7] Suhlrie L, Bartram J, Burns J, Joca L, Tomaro J, Rehfuess E, et al. The role of
energy in health facilities: A conceptual framework and complementary data
assessment in Malawi. PLoS ONE 2018;13(7):e0200261. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0200261.
[8] Tsao Y, Thanh V, Lu J, Wei H. A risk-sharing-based resilient renewable energy
supply network model under the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustain Prod Consum 2021;
25:484–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.12.003.
[9] Chiaramonti D, Maniatis K. Security of supply, strategic storage and Covid19:
Which lessons learnt for renewable and recycled carbon fuels, and their future role
in decarbonizing transport? Appl Energy 2020;271:115216. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115216.
[10] Fitzpatrick T. Preparing for Increased Electrical Demands for Health Facilities in
Developing Countries Due to COVID-19. HOMER Gr n.d. https://microgridnews.
com/modeling-electrical-demands-for-covid-in-developing-country-health-clinics/
(accessed January 28, 2021).
[11] Research and Planning Center. Statistical analysis of the economic effects of
Corona virus on the electricity industry and strategies to deal with its negative
effects and power supply jump in the electricity industry. Iran Electr Ind Synd
2020. http://www.ieis.ir/en/ (accessed March 15, 2021).
[12] Eteiba MB, Barakat S, Samy MM, Wahba WI. Optimization of an off-grid PV/
Biomass hybrid system with different battery technologies. Sustain Cities Soc 2018;
40:713–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.01.012.
[13] Barakat S, Samy MM, Eteiba MB, Wahba WI. Feasibility Study of Grid Connected
PV-Biomass Integrated Energy System in Egypt. Int J Emerg Electr Power Syst
2016;17(5):519–28. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijeeps-2016-0056.
[14] Kasaeian A, Rahdan P, Rad MAV, Yan W-M. Optimal design and technical analysis
of a grid-connected hybrid photovoltaic/diesel/biogas under different economic
conditions: A case study. Energy Convers Manag 2019;198:111810. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.111810.
[15] Samy MM, Mosaad MI, Barakat S. Optimal economic study of hybrid PV-wind-fuel
cell system integrated to unreliable electric utility using hybrid search optimization
technique. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2021;46(20):11217–31. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.07.258.
[16] Al-Karaghouli A, Kazmerski LL. Optimization and life-cycle cost of health clinic PV
system for a rural area in southern Iraq using HOMER software. Sol Energy 2010;
84(4):710–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2010.01.024.
[17] AL-Shammari Z, Azizan M, Rahman A.. Feasibility Analysis of a Hybrid System for
a Health Clinic in a Rural Area South-Eastern Iraq. Proc 11th Natl Tech Semin
Unmanned Syst Technol 2019;666:1193–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-
15-5281-6_84.
[18] Chowdhury T, Chowdhury H, Hasan S, Rahman MS, Bhuiya MMK, Chowdhury P.
Design of a stand-alone energy hybrid system for a makeshift health care center: A
case study. J Build Eng 2021;40:102346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jobe.2021.102346.
[19] Alsagri AS, Alrobaian AA, Nejlaoui M. Techno-economic evaluation of an off-grid
health clinic considering the current and future energy challenges: A rural case
study. Renew Energy 2021;169:34–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2021.01.017.
[20] Ayodele TR, Mosetlhe TC, Yusuff AA, Ogunjuyigbe ASO. Off-grid hybrid renewable
energy system with hydrogen storage for South African rural community health
clinic. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2021;46(38):19871–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2021.03.140.
[21] Oladigbolu JO, Al-Turki YA, Olatomiwa L. Comparative study and sensitivity
analysis of a standalone hybrid energy system for electrification of rural healthcare
facility in Nigeria. Alexandria Eng J 2021;60(6):5547–65. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.aej.2021.04.042.
[22] Vaziri Rad MA, Shahsavari A, Rajaee F, Kasaeian A, et al. Techno-economic
assessment of a hybrid system for energy supply in the affected areas by natural
disasters : A case study. Energy Convers Manag 2020;221:113170. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113170.
[23] Raghuwanshi SS, Arya R. Design and economic analysis of a stand-alone hybrid
photovoltaic energy system for remote healthcare centre. Int J Sustain Eng 2020;13
(5):360–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2019.1629674.
[24] Muh E, Tabet F. Comparative analysis of hybrid renewable energy systems for off-
grid applications in Southern Cameroons. Renew Energy 2019;135:41–54. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.11.105.
[25] Alotaibi DM, Akrami M, Dibaj M, Javadi AA. Smart energy solution for an
optimised sustainable hospital in the green city of NEOM. Sustain Energy Technol
Assessments 2019;35:32–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2019.05.017.
[26] Olatomiwa L, Blanchard R, Mekhilef S, Akinyele D. Hybrid renewable energy
supply for rural healthcare facilities : An approach to quality healthcare delivery.
Sustain Energy Technol Assessments 2018;30:121–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
seta.2018.09.007.
M.A. Vaziri Rad et al.
[27] Olatomiwa L, Mekhilef S, Ohunakin OS. Hybrid renewable power supply for rural
health clinics (RHC) in six geo-political zones of Nigeria. Sustain Energy Technol
Assessments 2016;13:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2015.11.001.
[28] SCHWARTZSTEIN P. Drought turns part of Iran into a new dust bowl. Natl Geogr
Mag 2021. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/drought-
climate-change-turn-iran-sistan-and-baluchestan-into-dust-bowl (accessed January
15, 2021).
[29] NASA. NASA Surface Meteorology and Solar Energy. NASA Data Source 2020.
https://power.larc.nasa.gov/.
[30] Vaziri Rad MA, Kasaeian A, Mousavi S, Rajaee F, Kouravand A. Empirical
investigation of a photovoltaic-thermal system with phase change materials and
aluminum shavings porous media. Renew Energy 2020;167:662–75. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.11.135.
[31] SolarGIS. 2019 The World Bank, Source: Global Solar Atlas 2.0, Solar resource
data: Solargis. Sol Resour Maps Iran 2019. https://solargis.com/maps-and-gis-
data/download/iran.
[32] Al-Karaghouli A, Kazmerski LL. Energy consumption and water production cost of
conventional and renewable-energy-powered desalination processes. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2013;24:343–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.12.064.
[33] Madurai Elavarasan R, Leoponraj S, Dheeraj A, Irfan M, Gangaram Sundar G,
Mahesh GK. PV-Diesel-Hydrogen fuel cell based grid connected configurations for
an institutional building using BWM framework and cost optimization algorithm.
Sustain Energy Technol Assessments 2021;43:100934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
seta.2020.100934.
[34] Vaziri Rad MA, Toopshekan A, Rahdan P, Kasaeian A, Mahian O. A comprehensive
study of techno-economic and environmental features of different solar tracking
systems for residential photovoltaic installations. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2020;
129:109923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109923.
[35] Jahangir MH, Fakouriyan S, Vaziri Rad MA. Feasibility study of on / off grid large-
scale PV / WT / WEC hybrid energy system in coastal cities : A case-based research.
Renew Energy 2020;162:2075–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.09.131.
[36] Dadak A, Mehrpooya M, Kasaeian A. Design and development of an innovative
integrated structure for the production and storage of energy and hydrogen
utilizing renewable energy. Sustain Energy Technol Assessments 2021;45:101123.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101123.
[37] Amrollahi MH, Bathaee SMT. Techno-economic optimization of hybrid
photovoltaic/wind generation together with energy storage system in a stand-alone
micro-grid subjected to demand response. Appl Energy 2017;202:66–77. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.116.
14
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 51 (2022) 101909
[38] Murugaperumal K, Srinivasn S, Satya Prasad GRKD. Optimum design of hybrid
renewable energy system through load forecasting and different operating
strategies for rural electrification. Sustain Energy Technol Assessments 2020;37:
100613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2019.100613.
[39] Das BK, Hasan M, Rashid F. Optimal sizing of a grid-independent PV/diesel/pump-
hydro hybrid system: A case study in Bangladesh. Sustain Energy Technol
Assessments 2021;44:100997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.100997.
[40] Faraji J, Hashemi-Dezaki H, Ketabi A. Multi-year load growth-based optimal
planning of grid-connected microgrid considering long-term load demand
forecasting: A case study of Tehran. Iran. Sustain Energy Technol Assessments
2020;42:100827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2020.100827.
[41] Sarker S. Feasibility analysis of a renewable hybrid energy system with producer
gas generator fulfilling remote household electricity demand in Southern Norway.
Renew Energy 2016;87:772–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.11.013.
[42] Tsiropoulos I, Lebedeva N. Li-ion batteries for mobility and stationary storage
applications. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2018.
10.2760/87175.
[43] Mousavi SA, Mehrpooya M, Rad MAV, Jahangir MH. A new decision-making
process by integration of exergy analysis and techno-economic optimization tool
for the evaluation of hybrid renewable systems. Sustain Energy Technol
Assessments 2021;45:101196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101196.
[44] Emad D, El-Hameed MA, Yousef MT, El-Fergany AA. Computational methods for
optimal planning of hybrid renewable microgrids: A comprehensive review and
challenges. Arch Comput Methods Eng 2020;27(4):1297–319. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11831-019-09353-9.
[45] Sinha S, Chandel SS. Review of software tools for hybrid renewable energy
systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;32:192–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2014.01.035.
[46] Yu G, Meng Z, Ma H, Liu L. An adaptive Marine Predators Algorithm for optimizing
a hybrid PV/DG/Battery System for a remote area in China. Energy Rep 2021;7:
398–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.01.005.
[47] Fodhil F, Hamidat A, Nadjemi O. Potential, optimization and sensitivity analysis of
photovoltaic-diesel-battery hybrid energy system for rural electri fi cation in
Algeria. Energy 2019;169:613–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.12.049.
[48] globalpetrolprices. Electricity prices, March 2020 2021. https://www.
globalpetrolprices.com/electricity_prices/.
[49] Bhattacharyya S, Palit D. Mini-grids for rural electrificaion of developing contries.
Springer 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04816-1.