Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 45 (2021) 101189

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments

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

Original article

Techno-economic and environmental analysis of biomass-based hybrid

energy systems: A case study of a Western Himalayan state in India
Prashant Malik a, *, Mamta Awasthi a, Sunanda Sinha b
a
Centre for Energy & Environmental Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur 177005, Himachal Pradesh, India
b
Centre for Energy & Environment, Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur 302017, Rajasthan, India

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

Keywords: India has a profuse reserve of renewables to contribute to energy sectors. In this study, a techno-economic and
Hybrid energy system environmental analysis are carried out for an off-grid hybrid system as a case study in the western Himalayan
Biomass region. Seven different hybrid systems with and without battery storage are simulated. The PV/Biomass gasifier/
Solar photovoltaics
Battery based hybrid energy system is found to be the optimal configuration with the least cost of energy $0.185/
Wind turbine
kWh at an estimated total net present cost $76080 with 59% biomass and 41% PV contribution. A saving of 27.8
Diesel generator
Mt CO2/year (equated to the diesel-only system) is predicted. Finally, sensitivity analysis is performed for critical
parameter identification. Five (Solar radiation, biomass price, annual interest rate, biomass gasifier lifetime, and
annual capacity shortage) out of nine sensitivity parameters is found to be critical. The outcome of the study is of
importance to designers, researchers, policymakers on the latest design constraints and relevant policies for
biomass-based hybrid systems.

Introduction
The world emphasizes renewable energy sources due to low green­
house gas emissions, useful for remote areas, and hastily declining costs
[1–3]. It is estimated that energy sector emissions can be reduced to 11
percent (375 MT CO2) if the share of RESs is increased to 45 percent by
2030 [4]. Additionally, green energy utilization leads to increased job
opportunities, infrastructure development, and improved local prov­
inces’ health conditions [5–8]. Renewable resources like solar, biomass,
wind, micro-hydro, etc., are plenty in rural areas. Therefore, decen­
tralized renewable resources power generation system can perform an
indispensable role in rural electrification and attain round-the-clock
electricity supply in electrified villages.
In developing countries like India, around 70% of the population
lives in rural areas, and only 18% of the population has reliable elec­
tricity access [9]. To radically escalate in electrification, the Indian
Government launched Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission
(JNNSM) in 2010 and committed to achieving 175 GW of installed
renewable energy by 2022 [10]. Further, Saubhagya Scheme in 2017
was also launched to aim for 100% electrification. However, Still,
18,734 households in rural areas at remote locations (as of December
2019) do not have access to electricity because of grid extension costs
and intricacy [11]. Even in the electrified villages, the power distribu­
tion is irregular.
The sporadic existence of renewable resources in the villages is still a
significant obstacle to their sustainable implementation. The amal­
gamation of 2 or more renewable resources could be the most appro­
priate solution for the intermittency of renewable resources, energy
production costs, overall system performance, and power reliability
[12–15]. “National Wind-Solar Hybrid Policy” was launched by the
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), India, in 2018 to
optimize, promote, and development of technological advancements in
the field of hybrid renewable power generation and to contribute Paris
Agreement on Climate Change [16,17]. But the intermittent nature of
PV and wind cannot satisfy the electricity requirement throughout the
year, paving the way for other renewable hybrid systems opening
biomass-based energy systems as a feasible option [18]. Many re­
searchers have explored feasibility analysis and evaluation on rural
electrification through an off-grid HRES system in India and other
countries. For instance, Karki et al. [19] performed a feasibility analysis
of HRES for an isolated island in India to evaluate the effect of distrib­
uted resource adoption in terms of net present cost, cost of energy, and
CO2 emissions. Chambon et al. [20] Investigated the techno-economic
analysis of different HRES configurations for India’s rural areas. Bhatt
et al. [21] examined the feasibility of an off-grid HRES for five un-

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: prashantmalik04@yahoo.in (P. Malik).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101189
Received 1 November 2020; Received in revised form 21 February 2021; Accepted 10 March 2021
Available online 25 March 2021
2213-1388/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Malik et al.
Nomenclature
Symbol Representation
TNPC Total net present cost
LCOE Levelized cost of energy
PV Photovoltaic
BG Biomass gasifier
WT Wind turbine
DG Diesel generator
HOMER Hybrid optimization of multiple energy resources
PD Total power demand
PGen Total power generation
MHP Micro hydropower
CS Capacity shortage
RF Renewable fraction
SOC State of charge
GHG Greenhouse gases
t Hours in a day
HRES Hybrid renewable energy system
d Number of days in a year
PLife Project lifetime
electrified villages in Uttarakhand state, India. The optimal solution
energy generation cost was found 0.197 $/kWh with a 94% renewable
fraction. Chauhan and Saini [22] developed an optimization model for
HRES to meet the load demand of 48 un-electrified village hamlets of the
Chamoli district of Uttarakhand, India. Malik et al. [23] recommended
the integration of biomass gasifier with existing PV/WT hybrid system to
cater to the rising demand. Li et al. [24] investigated the feasibility of
hybrid systems with different types of batteries and found zinc-bromine-
type batteries more cost-effective with electricity generators than
lithium-ion and lead-acid. Rad et al. [25] investigated the feasibility of
HRES to fulfill the load requirement of a small village in Iran. The results
revealed that PV, WT, and BG integrated HRES is the most optimal so­
lution, and further system flexibility could be improved by adding fuel
cell, but it would again increase the overall cost by 33–37%. Vendoti
et al. [26] carried out the technical and economic analysis of HRES to
identify optimal solutions to meet the load demand of rural villages in
India.
The analysis found PV/WT/BG/FC/Battery-based HRES the most
optimal configuration with the least COE 0.214 $/kWh. Malik et al. [27]
dispensed a critical review of biomass-based HRES and revealed that
biomass integrated hybrid systems are cost-effective and eco-friendly
solutions for rural regions. Salehin et al. [28] recommended a HRES to
supply electricity for an isolated island Adorsho Char in Bangladesh.
Sigarchian et al. [29] carried out the optimization and sensitivity anal­
ysis of HRES for un-electrified villages in Kenya. The literature review
shows that the research is mainly focused on solar and wind-based
hybrid energy systems for rural electrification. However, significantly
less work has been done towards biomass-based hybrid systems, espe­
cially for hilly regions.
The western Himalayan region in India is having wide-spread
availability of biomass in the form of forest residues. However,
biomass-based hybrid power generation systems are neglected by re­
searchers in the western Himalayan region due to the dominance of
hydropower in the area, even though the large hydro plants are asso­
ciated with economic, social, ecological, and topographical problems
[30]. There is a need to focus on the combination of other available
renewable energy sources like solar radiation, wind, and biomass for
electricity generation. Sinha and Chandel [31,32] have emphasized the
need for numerous resource-based hybrid systems for low-windy sites in
India’s Himalayan region. The previous studies on the subject have also
been lacking in the use of realistic inputs, namely the latest equipment
2
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 45 (2021) 101189
market prices, kind of biomass raw material (untapped pine needles),
real-time hourly energy consumption, and location-specific renewable
resources data, which is currently being used in this study.
In pursuit of an optimized operating hybrid system, a techno-
economic and environmental analysis of an off-grid HRES for the
western Himalayan region in India has been conducted through a
simulation study using HOMER. HOMER is a user-friendly tool for HRES
design and development, as evident through a comprehensive review of
numerous simulation tools for HRES optimization by Sinha and Chandel
[33]. Seven different configurations were considered based on locally
available renewable resources, and CO2 emission was also calculated for
all the cases. Further, sensitivity analysis of the proposed system with
nine different input parameters has been performed to examine the
impact of input variables on system COE and TNPC. An institute building
of Centre for Energy and Environmental Engineering (CEEE), National
Institute of Technology (NITH)-Hamirpur (Himachal Pradesh), located
in the western Himalayan region, is selected as a case study. The study
will provide valuable insights to system designers/policymakers/re­
searchers to choose appropriate designing constraints and formulating
policies for decentralized off-grid biomass-based HRES in the western
Himalayan region and other remote hilly forest areas around the world.
The paper is organized as follows: “Materials and methods” provides
an overview of the methodology used in this study, “Results and discus­
sion” includes the results and discussion with sensitivity analysis.
Comparison with other similar studies from literature is carried out in
“Comparison with other similar studies”, and conclusions with the future
scope are given in “Conclusions and future scope”.
Materials and methods
In this section, execution steps to design a HRES, renewable resource
assessment, system sizing component details, and modelling are pre­
sented. An ingenious and efficient way is required to design an off-grid
hybrid energy system to satisfy electricity demand at the lowest cost. In
the flow chart shown in Fig. 1, the adopted approach is defined. Hybrid
Optimization of Multiple Energy Resources (HOMER) software devel­
oped by NREL [34] is used in this study for optimization and sensitivity
analysis. It is a micro-system optimization tool that can be used for both
off-grid and on-grid energy systems for a wide range of applications.
HOMER simulates the system for 8760 h per year and scales the opti­
mized results based upon total net present cost (TNPC). Additionally,
sensitivity can also be performed to reveal how the outputs vary with the
sensitivity inputs. Fig. 2 presents a graphical depiction of HOMER with
input and output parameters.
Load profile of the study location
Electric load demand assessment is one of the most crucial steps for
optimized hybrid system designing as it influences the system size. The
real-time hourly energy consumption data of the study area was five
days a week of a year. As per the building load evaluation, total energy
usage, peak power usage, and building load factor are found 3.65 kW,
87.6 units/day, 29.2 kW, and 0.125, respectively. The same load profile
has been used for all configurations for comparative analysis. Fig. 3
shows the daily trend of load requirements in winter, summer, and
vacation time.
Details of renewable resource potential
An automatic weather monitoring station was installed in 2011 at
the roof-top of CEEE (Lat. 31.590 N, Long. 76.520E; altitude 875 m), and
one-minute average measured solar radiation and wind speed data of the
year 2019 from this station are used in this study for simulation.
The monthly average daily global solar radiation at the study site
ranges from 2.53 kWh/m2/day to 5.5 kWh/m2/day, and the peak occurs
in May, while the least is in January. The monthly radiation with
P. Malik et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 45 (2021) 101189

Fig. 1. Flow chart for optimization of hybrid energy system.

clearness index and temperature data of study location is shown in Fig. 4 The study location has low wind speed; therefore, micro wind turbines
(a) and (b), respectively. The monthly average wind speed at the study can be used to harness the energy [30].
site ranges from 1.8 m/s to 2.32 m/s (at 20-meter height), and the The overall pine forest covers 58 ha of land within the campus, and
highest wind speed occurs in May and least in July, as shown in Fig. 5. usually, one hectare of pine forest offers 11.9 tons of pine needles each

3
P. Malik et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 45 (2021) 101189

table 2. Table 1 shows the technical and economical details of significant

components of the proposed HRES.

Renewable resource and economical parameter modeling

The following modeling equations have been used for HRES opti­
mization to calculate the system output power and economic output.

Solar radiation and PV module modeling

The HDKR (Hay, Davies, Klucher, Reindl) model [38] is used to
calculate the incident solar radiation at the PV array, given by Eq. (1)
( ) ( )
1 + cosβ [ (β) ] 1 − cosβ
GT = Rb (Gb + Gd Ai ) + Gd (1 − Ai ) 1 + fsin3 + G ρg
2 2 2
(1)
Fig. 2. Schematic representation of HOMER software.

year [35]. So, the total biomass availability at the study site is 690 tons/
year at a very cheap rate of 14.57 $/ton.

Hybrid renewable energy system configurations

The schematic of the proposed HRES with all components is shown in

Fig. 6, which consists of a BG, PV, WT, DG, battery bank, and converter.
In this study, seven different combinations of PV, BG, WT, and a diesel
generator is simulated, namely (only BG, BG/WT, only DG, PV/DG, PV/
Fig. 5. (a) Monthly average wind speed (m/s).
WT, PV/BG, PV/BG/WT) with and without battery storage as shown in

Fig. 3. Load demand profile for winter, summer and vacation time.

Fig. 4. (a) Month-wise average solar radiation with clearness index and (b) temperature.

4
P. Malik et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 45 (2021) 101189

Fig. 6. Schematic of a hybrid energy system with different components.

where Gb, Gd, G are the beam radiation (kW/m2), diffusion radiation The wind turbine maximum output power is calculated using
(kW/m2), and global radiation at earth surface (kW/m2) respectively, Ai equation [39]
denotes the anisotropy index, Rb is the ratio of beam radiation on the
tilted surface to beam radiation at the horizontal surface, f denotes ho­
√̅̅̅̅ Pmax = 0.5ρACp [V/ωm ]3 × ωm 3 (5)
rizon brightening= GGb , β is the slope of surface (0), ρg represents ground
reflectance (%). The PV modules power generation on the optimum Where Pmax (kW) is the maximum power generated by a wind tur­
tilted angle is estimated in HOMER by using the following Eq. (2): bine. ρ is the density of the air (kg/m3), A is the swept area, Cp is the
coefficient of a wind turbine, ωm is the rotor speed (rad/sec), V is the
GT [
Ppv = Ypv Dpv ( ) 1 + αp (T − Tref )
]
(2) linear speed of the wind (m/s).
Gn
where, Ppv denotes PV array generation (kW), Ypv represents the Biomass energy
rated capacity of PV array at standard test conditions (kW), Dpv sym­
bolizes the PV de-rating factor (%), GT is incident solar radiation on PV The biomass gasifier size depends on some crucial factors such as
array (kW/m2) calculated by Eq. (1), Gn is the incident radiation at STC biomass quantity (T) at the location, the calorific value of biomass
(kW/m2), αp denotes power temperature coefficient (%/◦ C), T is the PV (CV BM ), hours of operation per day (HBM ) and overall biomass gasifier
cell temperature (◦ C), Tref characterizes the PV cell temperature at STC. system efficiency (ηBMGS ).
Gasifier hourly energy generation is calculated by using Eq. (6) [40].
Wind turbine model T(kg/y) × CV BM × ηBMGS × Δt
HOMER calculates the output power of the wind turbine in an hour EBMGS (t) = (6)
365 × 860 × HBM
in three steps.
where EBMGS is the energy generation in kWh, and Δt is the time step
1. Using a logarithm profile or a power label profile, the hourly wind (1 h).
speed data can be measured at the hub height. The hub height of the
turbine is directly proportional to the wind speed according to the Diesel generator
wind speed profile given by Eq. (3).
( )α In the case of a DG, the consumption rate of diesel fuel is calculated
V H by Eq. (7), where the fuel curve is assumed as a straight line.
= (3)
Vr Href
F = FCoff . *DGCap. + F1 *PDG (7)
α is a power-law exponent, which is given by
( ) where FCoff . denotes fuel curve intercept coefficient, DGCap. represents
0.37 − 0.088ln Vref rated capacity of DG, F1 signifies fuel curve slope and PDG is generator
α= ( ) (4)
H power output.
1 − 0.088ln 10ref
Battery storage bank
where,
V = wind speed at height H (m/s)
In the case of surplus power generation, the excess charge is feed to
H = hub height (m)
the battery and calculated with the help of Eqs. (8) and (9) battery bank
Vr = wind speed at reference height Href
capacity at an hour (t).
Vref = reference wind speed (m/s)
Href = reference height (m) EBatt (t) = EBatt (t − 1) + EExcess (t)*ηBatt. *ηconv. (8)

5
P. Malik et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 45 (2021) 101189

Table 1 binations according to TNPC. The TNPC of a system is the addition of all
Technical specifications of components used. present values of all costs that occurs over its lifetime, minus the current
PV system Parameters [1*] Value Wind system Parameters Values value of all the revenue that it earns over its lifetime. The total net
[2*] present cost is calculated using the following equation:
Capacity (kWp) 1 Rated capacity (kW) 5 Cann,tot
Efficiency at standard test 15 Rotor diameter (m) 4.26 CNPC = (12)
CRF(i, N)
condition (%)
Slope or tilt angle (degree) 31.9 Number of blades 3 where, Cann,tot is the total annualized cost ($/yr). CRF denotes the
Capital cost ($) 741 Cut-in wind speed (m/s) 2.5
Replacement cost ($) 741 Cut-out wind speed (m/s) 25
capital recovery factor and calculated by Eq. (13)
O&M cost ($/yr) 25 Rated wind speed (m/s) 11
i(1 + i)N
Lifetime (yr) 25 Replacement cost ($) 8413 CRF(i, N) = (13)
Derating factor (%) 80 O&M cost ($/yr) 144 (1 + i)N − 1
Capital cost ($) 8413
Lifetime (yr) 15 where, i = interest rate (%), N = project lifetime (yr.)
The cost of energy (COE) is also calculated in HOMER by the
Biomass gasifier Parameters Values Converter Parameters Values
[3*,36] [4*,36] following equation
Capacity (kW) 1 Capacity (kW) 1
Cann,tot
Minimum load ratio (%) 30 Efficiency (%) 95 COE = (14)
Capital cost ($) 1162 Capital cost ($) 116 Eprim,AC
Replacement cost ($) 872 Replacement cost ($) 116
O&M cost ($/yr) 0.010 O&M cost ($/yr) 3
where Eprim,AC is the AC primary load served (kWh/yr).
Lifetime (Hrs.) 15,000 Lifetime (yr) 10 CO2 Emission: The emitted CO2 by the system can be calculated as
Consumption rate (kg/kWh) 1.13 follows [41].
Efficiency (%) 20 ∑∑
Totalemmision = En gnnt
Battery storage Parameters Values Diesel generator Parameters Values
t∈T n∈N
[5*,[37]] [6*,[37]]
Nominal voltage (V) 12 Capacity (kW) 1 where, En is the emitted CO2 of the nth unit in period t (ton/MWh),
Nominal capacity (Ah) 150 Minimum load ratio (%) 25
gnnt denotes total power generation of non-renewable in period t (MWh).
Minimum state of charge (%) 40 Capital cost ($) 500
Batteries per string (No) 10 Replacement cost ($) 500 Renewable fraction: it is the total generated power from renewable
Total DC voltage (V) 120 O&M cost ($/yr) 0.030 energy sources in a HRES and determined using the equation below
Capital cost ($) 273 Lifetime (Hrs.) 15,000 [42].
Replacement cost ($) 211 Consumption rate (L/kWh) 0.311 ( ∑ )
O&M cost ($/yr) 5.96 PDG
RF(%) = 1 − ∑ *100 (15)
Other economic inputs Values Prenew
Annual real interest rate (%) 5.95
System fixed capital cost ($) 2331.2 Results and discussion
System fixed O&M cost ($/yr) 116.56
Project lifetime (yr) 25
This section describes and discusses the technical, economic, and
1* PV Module Data (2019), Data collected from PV module manufacturers and environmental analysis with social aspects of simulated configurations.
utilities., 2* Wind turbine Data (2019), Data collected from wind turbine man­
ufacturers (Supernova Tech. Pvt. Ltd.)., 3* Biomass Gasifier Data (2019), Data
Optimization results
collected from biomass gasifier manufacturer (Ankur Scientific Energy Tech­
nologies Pvt. Ltd)., 4* Converter Data (2019), Data collected from converter
manufacturers and utilities.,5* Data collected from local distributors., 6* Data All possible seven biomass-based HRES configurations with and
collected from DG manufacturer (Mahindra Powerol, India). without battery storage based on load and available resources are
simulated after providing the necessary input parameters discussed in
the paper’s previous sections. The comparative evaluation of simulated
EExcess (t) = [EAC (t) + EDC (t)*ηconv. ]− EDemand (t) (9) optimum configurations is attained using the following criteria: TNPC,
Where, EExcess (t)denotes energy from resources after meeting the load LCOE, Capacity shortage, excess electricity production, CO2 emission,
demand, EBatt (t − 1)signifies battery bank capacity in the preceding state, renewable fraction, operating cost, fuel consumption, battery life, initial
EAC (t) is total generators output power, EDC (t) is the total power gener­ capital cost, battery and rectifier losses; with more accent on LCOE, CO2
ation from a DC source, ηBatt. is battery charging efficiency, ηconv. denotes emission, and TNPC.
converter efficiency. The overall optimum configuration simulation results for each
In another case, if demand is more than a generation, the battery defined case are shown in table 2. The LCOE, TNPC, initial capital cost
bank will be used to satisfy the excess demand. Eqs. (10) and (11) are (ICC), and operating cost (OC) of all the cases with and without storage
mostly used to calculate the battery bank storage capacity at time t. are shown in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. In the first case, only BG is used
[ ] with and without a storage unit, and configuration with a battery is
EBatt (t) = (1 − σ )*EBatt (t − 1) −
EDeficitdemand (t)
(10) found to be the optimal solution. The optimum configuration comprises
ηDiscchargeBatt. *ηconv. of 16 kW biomass gasifier system, 20 no. of 12 V batteries and 16 kW
converter and generate electricity at a levelized cost of energy (LCOE)
EDeficitdemand (t) = EDemand (t) − [EAC (t) + EDC (t)*ηconv. ] (11) 0.192$/kWh, which was very attractive because in most of the similar
Where EDeficitdemand is total deficit load demand, σ is hourly self- system COE from literature is found in the range of 0.183$/kWh-0.623
discharging rate and ηDiscchargeBatt. is battery discharging efficiency. $/kWh [43,44,20,45]. The overall COE from the BG system without
battery storage is found to be much higher (0.418 $/kWh) because of the
higher requirement of biomass gasifier capacity (26 kW) and biomass
Economic and environmental parameters quantity (28 ton/year), which raises the ICC and TNPC of the system.
The excess electricity generation was also higher because BG has a
The Homer simulates different system configurations according to limitation that it cannot operate below MLR (minimum load ratio).
the input parameters and finds the optimal solution from various com­ Therefore, battery bank plays an essential role with gasifier in an off-grid

6
P. Malik et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 45 (2021) 101189

Table 2
Relative simulation results of different configurations with and without battery storage of HRES.
Cases PV WT BG DG Batt. Converter Strategy ICC ($) OC TNPC COE RF Diesel Biomass
(kWp) (kW) (kW) (kW) No. (kW) ($/YEAR) ($) ($/kWh) (%) (l/ (ton/
year) year)

1 With 0 0 16 0 20 16 CC 28,240 3949 78,964 0.192 1 0 17

batt.
Without 0 0 26 0 0 0 CC 32,543 10,828 171,627 0.418 1 0 28
batt.
2 With 0 1 14 0 30 12 CC 36,594 4247 91,143 0.222 1 0 17
batt.
Without 0 1 26 0 0 0 CC 32,543 10,871 172,178 0.419 1 0 31
batt.
3 With 0 0 0 15 30 11 CC 19,297 14,506 205,615 0.501 0 10,563 0
batt.
Without 0 0 0 26 0 0 CC 15,331 30,337 404,983 0.986 0 19,959 0
batt.
4 With 42 0 0 13 30 24 CC 50,927 6085 129,081 0.314 0.86 2661 0
batt.
Without 36 0 0 24 0 13 CC 42,515 25,819 374,136 0.911 0.52 15,590 0
batt.
5 With 58 1 0 0 220 30 CC 117,262 6221 197,162 0.48 1 0 0
batt.
Without 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
batt.
6 With 13 0 13 0 20 14 CC 34,154 3264 76,080 0.185 1 0 12
batt.
Without 3 0 23 0 0 1 CC 31,396 9714 156,170 0.381 1 0 27
batt.
7 With 12 1 13 0 20 14 CC 41,826 3565 87,610 0.213 1 0 12
batt.
Without 1 1 26 0 0 1 CC 41,813 11,079 184,114 0.448 1 0 27
batt.

mode because, in low load conditions, there is no need to start the

Fig. 7. LCOE of different configurations with and without a storage unit.
Fig. 8. TNPC and operating cost of various configurations with and without
storage unit.
gasifier; battery storage can supply the electricity. The configuration
without a storage unit could be an attractive option in on-grid mode,
where excess electricity can feed to the grid.
In the second case, a hybrid of wind turbines and BG has been pro­
posed, but the integration of the wind system increases the system LCOE
(0.222 $/kWh) and TNPC ($91143) around 15.6% than case 1 because
the study area is under low wind zone. Therefore, BG has the maximum
share, i.e., 97% of total electricity generation and only 3% through WT.
Such a hybrid system is usually feasible for higher wind zones in grid-
connected mode [36,46,47].
In case 3, a standalone DG system is used to supplement the load
demand. Standalone DG sets are mostly used in industries, telecom
sectors as a backup, and in any off-grid areas as a baseload. In this case,
the ICC was 31.2% lower than case 1, and the response time of DG is also
less compared to the BG system, but the highest TNPC is obtained
because of high fuel price and diesel prices are increasing day by day.
Therefore, this case is not found suitable economically and environ­
mentally because of higher generation cost (0.501 $/kWh) and CO2
emission. In the next case, DG is integrated with PV as a backup unit, and
PV has the preference to serve the load in the daytime; the DG only
operates when solar radiation is low, and batteries SOC is also not
enough. The most favorable combination of this case consists of a 42 kW
PV array, 13 kW DG, 30 no. of 12 V batteries, and 24 kW converter in
which PV has the maximum share (84%) in electricity generation and
the rest 14% generated from DG. The PV integration with DG reduces
COE by around 37% than case 3, but it was more than case 1. In this case,
the optimal configuration will be required a larger land area and higher
maintenance because the optimal configuration comprises a larger
number of battery storage units. Such a hybrid system could be a choice
in those areas where biomass electricity generation is not feasible
because of biomass scarcity or economic reasons (high biomass price,
higher biomass transportation cost) [48–51].
In case 5, the winning combination comprises a 58 kW PV array, 5
kW wind, 220 no. of 12 V batteries, and 30 kW converter at the esti­
mated LCOE 0.48 $/kWh. The configuration could be a good option

7
P. Malik et al.
Fig. 9. Electricity generation pattern of case 6 for a weekday in summer.
from an environmental perspective compared to cases 3 and 4 but
economically not an attractive option for study location because of
higher generation cost. The lower generation from a wind turbine and a
large number of battery units (220 units of 12 V,200Ah capacity) to meet
the load demand at 0% capacity shortage were the major causes of
higher COE, TNPC, and O&M cost of the system. Such configuration
types could be an enticing option in an off-grid or on-grid mode where
wind also has a great resource with higher solar radiation. On the other
side, the configuration without battery storage is infeasible because both
the integrated sources (PV and Wind) are irregular and unable to meet
the electricity demand throughout the year.
In case 6, solar panels are integrated with BG, which offers the least
TNPC and COE with 100% RF. The BG has the maximum share of 59%
and the rest 41% through PV in total power generation because it is
locally available at a low price. The system comparison between cases 4
and 6 revealed that in waste biomass-dominated areas BG could be a
better replacement of DG from an economically as well as environmental
point of view, which is also supported by other similar studies
[20,28,52]. In case 7, all the three available renewable resources have
been integrated, which decline the biomass consumption but increase
the system’s overall cost because the wind turbine percentage share is
very low (3%). Therefore, the analysis demonstrates that the wind tur­
bine integration is not an economically viable option at the selected site
of location than other 100% renewable cases.
Fig. 10. Electricity generation pattern of case 6 for a weekday in winter.
8
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 45 (2021) 101189
Table 2 depicts that the configurations with battery storage are more
economical than without storage because higher-capacity power gen­
erators will be required to satisfy the load demand in the absence of a
battery bank, which increases the O&M costs of the system. To satisfy
electricity demand with a higher renewable fraction and 0% capacity
shortage, case 6 with battery storage is found to be the most optimal
among all the cases, which offers the lowest LCOE 0.185$/kWh at TNPC
$76080 and operating cost $3264. The LCOE of optimal configuration
agrees with previous works [20,25,52,53]. As expected, the LCOE of the
optimal configuration is found to be higher than the subsidized grid
tariff 0.023$/kWh [54]. The grid tariff rate is low in the western Hi­
malayan region because it is extremely rich in hydro resources and the
hydro system electricity generation cost is much lower than other
renewable resources because there is no fuel cost but some other critical
problems like large land requirement which is the cause of displacement
of thousands of people [55], choking rivers due to muck dumping,
damage roads and nearby houses due to blasting [56,57] and other
adverse impacts on the environment associated with hydro plants
[58–61]. Hydraulic power’s share of total electricity deployed in India
has fallen from 25% to 13% between 2008 and 2018, and in the same
period, renewables contribution has more than doubled (9 to 25%) [62].
Therefore, there is a possibility to develop an economical and
environment-friendly energy generation system in these regions. A
decentralized PV/biomass-based hybrid system could be the best
P. Malik et al.
Fig. 11. Electricity generation pattern of case 6 for a weekday in vacation time.
Fig. 12. Monthly average energy generation of most optimal HRES
configuration.
alternative because both are available in vast amounts in the western
Himalayan region. The consumer willingness might be low at present as
the COE of the proposed system is higher than the current grid system. In
the future, with the government support and alteration in renewable
energy policies, such systems could be an attractive option for local
communities. The optimal system COE is found to be 92% lower than a
diesel generator-based energy system. The optimum combination of case
6 consists of a 13 kW PV, 13 kW biomass gasifier, 20 units of 12 V
batteries, and 14 kW converter. The capacity shortage in all the opti­
mum combinations is almost 0% with 100% renewable fraction (RF),
but in cases 3 and 4, RF is found to be less than one because these cases
consist of DG as a power generation source or backup unit. Case 6 is
found to be the optimal, environmentally, and economical point of view;
hence the rest of the study was focused on case 6.
Electricity generation and economic analysis of case 6
The optimal biomass-based hybrid system produces 38,310 units per
year, with BG at the forefront of the generation with 59 percent of total
production, while solar accounts for 41 percent. Figs. 9–11 signifies the
optimal configuration components behavior for weekdays of summer,
winter, and vacation period, respectively. PV has a preference to serve
the load demand when its output power is enough; thus, the electricity
demand is served by the PV solely in the higher solar radiation hours, as
shown in Figs. 9–11. In another scenario, when the PV production ca­
pacity in the early morning, rainy seasons, and evening hours cannot
meet the load requirement, the gasifier would fulfill the load alone or
along with battery reliant on the load requirement and the optimized
decision. The battery would support the PV to satisfy the demand only if
the battery SOC is above SOCMin. Since PV and BG system constitutes the
9
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 45 (2021) 101189
Fig. 13. Cash flow details of the most optimized proposed hybrid system.
most considerable portion of the total electricity production, the state of
charge shows that the battery is almost full during the day’s sunny
hours.
The battery SOC variation is higher (40 to 100%) in the winter
seasons because of the higher load demand and the least (60–100%) in
vacation time. In night hours, when the PV energy production drops to
zero and the load demand also decreases compared to daytime, the
electricity requirement can be meet out by only a battery system.
The monthly power generation from optimal configuration is shown
in Fig. 12. Fig. 12 shows that solar PV generation is found at least in the
month of July due to rainy seasons, cloudy conditions, low solar radi­
ation, higher temperature, etc. The highest was in Nov because of good
solar radiation with low temperature. The average daily generation
units from solar and BG are the highest 3.8 and 7 unit/day in April and
Jan respectively. The nominal cash flow of the most optimized hybrid
energy system for 25 years is shown in Fig. 13. The cash flow study
shows that the biomass gasifier has the highest capital and replacement
cost because there is a need to replace the gasifier system when a lifetime
(15,000 h) is over. However, the PV array has the highest O&M cost of
about $4174 since cleaning is needed periodically after a few days. The
replacement cost also has a significant contribution to the overall cost
analysis of any system. In this system, BG and battery components have a
55 and 45% contribution in overall replacement cost. Therefore,
improvement in BG technology and battery lifetime could be further cuts
the overall cost of such systems.
Environmental and social benefits
The probable emission mitigation for each case has been evaluated
compared to the off-grid DG only system by evaluating yearly saved
P. Malik et al.
Fig. 14. GHG emission saving for all cases compared to DG only at 0% ca­
pacity shortage.
carbon emissions. Based on 10,563 L per year consumed diesel fuel, the
only DG system estimated to release 28.3 ktCO2e/year. The GHG per­
centage emissions savings in different cases compared to case 3 (only
DG) are shown in Fig. 14. In emission analysis, the emission from
different generation units is taken as 0.05 kg CO2e/kWh in solar PV[63] ,
0.08 kg CO2e/kWh in wind[64] , 0.09 kg CO2e/kWh in BG [65], 2.68 kg
CO2e/kWh in DG [38].
The analysis shows that PV/BG/Batt. based HRES is the best GHG
option among all, which emits 90% lower CO2 as compared to DG only
case. Installation of the optimal system in the study area employs local
peoples over the project lifetime because the biomass gasifier system job
creation is very much higher than other renewable energy supply
Fig. 15. Effect of the primary load to the TNPC and COE.
Fig. 16. Effect of global solar radiation to the TNPC and cost of energy.
10
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 45 (2021) 101189
systems[66,67].
Sensitivity analysis of the off-grid system
Sensitivity analysis also has been conducted with respect to COE and
NPC to analyze the volatility of considered HRES. Multiple optimiza­
tions have been performed with various groups of input sensitivity
constraints to investigate the uncertainty of optimal configuration.
Sensitivity analysis has been carried out with variation in load demand,
biomass rate, real annual interest rate, solar radiation, yearly capacity
shortage, gasification ratio, biomass gasifier lifetime, PV array de-rating
factor. The impact of these sensitivity parameters on system LCOE and
TNPC shown in figures (15–21).
Effect of primary load demand
For this study, the value of primary load demand was calculated as
87.6 kWh/d. The optimal system needs to be developed to recompense
the demand variation. Therefore, the primary load has been varied from
87.6 to 90kWh/day, and accordingly, the TNPC and LCOE deviation
have been estimated, which is shown in Fig. 15. The variation in load
demand has a higher impact on the TNPC than it does on the COE.
Solar radiation effect on COE and TNPC
The solar radiation fluctuated from 3.98 to 5.0 kWh/m2/day to check
the performance of optimum configuration under better sunlight.
Moreover, the solar radiation has an adverse effect on TNPC and LCOE,
LCOE is decreased 0.185 to 0.179 $/kWh, and TNPC diminishes $76080
to $73483 with increment in solar radiation, as shown in Fig. 16. COE is
found to be most sensitive to change in solar radiation.
P. Malik et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 45 (2021) 101189

Fig. 17. Impact of biomass price variation on TNPC and cost of energy.

Fig. 18. Effect of maximum annual capacity shortage on TNPC and cost of energy.

Fig. 19. Impact of interest rate variation on TNPC and COE.

Effect of biomass price
Biomass price contains the different charges of pretreatment,
collection, and transportation, which may vary in the future. Therefore,
biomass price has been swung from 14.5$/ton to 16$/ton, and LCOE
and TNPC estimated accordingly, as shown in Fig. 17. The TNPC and
COE were found to be very sensitive to biomass price.
Impact of ACS (annual capacity shortage)
Maximum ACS is also an essential factor in system reliability
improvement. LCOE and TNPC variation regarding an ACS for optimum
configuration have been assessed, as shown in Fig. 18. It has been
revealed that LCOE varies from 0.185$/kWh to 0.162$/kWh for 0% to
20% variation in ACS. The TNPC and COE variation is found to be a
minimum in higher % of capacity shortage than the initial stage.
Effect of interest rate
The real interest rate has been varied from 5.95% to 7%. The analysis
found that LCOE was directly proportional, while TNPC was found
inversely proportional to the real interest rate, as shown in Fig. 19.

11
P. Malik et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 45 (2021) 101189

Fig. 20. Surface plot based on gasifier operation life and gasification ratio on TNPC and COE.

Fig. 21. Surface plot based on PV de-rating factor and PV life effects on TNPC and COE.

Effect of BG life and gasification ratio

Table 3
Biomass gasifier system factors like the operational life of a gasifier
Comparison of current study results with similar configurations for different
and gasification ratio also affect the cost of energy, and both should be
locations.
higher for an economically viable solution. The BG replacement cost
could be diminished by the increment in operation life, which will Location Integrated COE Primary load Ref.
energy sources ($/kWh) demand (kWh/
decline the system’s overall TNPC. The gasification ratio is directly Day)
related to the BG efficiency, which is the ratio of biomass consumption
India PV, BM 0.185 87.6 Present
(kg) to gas production (kg). Therefore, these parameters’ effect has been
study
investigated and found a declining trend in LCOE and TNPC for incre­ India PV, BM 0.190 231 [53]
ment in the values of these factors as shown in Fig. 20. Egypt PV, BM 0.224 250 [68]
Southern PV, BM 0.330 81 [69]
Effect of PV array life and de-rating factor Africa
DR Congo PV, BM 0.805 61 [70]
Both factors are essential and affect the cost of energy. De-rating Iran PV, BM 0.164 361 [25]
factor and PV life should be higher for better generation through the India PV, BM 0.349 417 [71]
photovoltaic array and economic viability of HRES. The variation of
LCOE with these factors has been analyzed, and LCOE was found to be
inversely proportional to the de-rating factor and PV life, as shown in current study is found to be better or very competitive. Therefore, the
Fig. 21. optimal configuration is an alluring option from a cost and environ­
mental point of view for energy generation at the study location.
Comparison with other similar studies
Conclusions and future scope
The obtained COE of optimal configuration has been compared with
similar studies from literature in this section. Table 3 shows the obtained In this study, techno-economic and environmental feasibility anal­
COE from optimal configurations for different locations. In comparison ysis of seven different off-grid hybrid configurations with and without
to the other similar configuration, the optimal configuration COE of the storage unit has been carried out to identify the most optimal and
economical hybrid energy system for a remote area in the western

12
P. Malik et al.
Himalayan territory of India. The main conclusions of the study are as
follows:
• The renewable resource assessment analysis revealed that the west­
ern Himalayan region has some additional advantages to bare areas
like- plenty of unutilized forest biomass availability, favorable con­
ditions for PV power generation with ample solar radiation, and
moderate temperature range.
• Based on comparative analysis among seven different cases, PV/BG/
Battery hybrid configuration is found to be the most optimal solu­
tion, and it consists of a 13 kW biomass gasifier system, 13kWp PV
array, 20 units of 12 V batteries, and 14 kW converter.
• The optimal system offers the least LCOE $0.185 per kWh at an
estimated TNPC $76080, which is about 92% lower than the con­
ventional DG-only energy generation system. It is perceived from the
study that a significant share of 59% of total generation (38.3 MWh/
year) comes from the BG system, and the rest, 41% accounted by
solar.
• The environmental analysis revealed that the proposed optimal
configuration emits 90.1% lesser GHG than the diesel system.
• The sensitivity analysis shows that optimal configuration was more
sensitive towards variations in solar radiation, biomass price, annual
interest rate, biomass gasifier lifetime, and annual capacity shortage.
The proposed off-grid biomass-based hybrid system has demon­
strated techno-economic viability for feeding electricity in isolated rural
areas of the western Himalayan region. The practical use of unutilized
pine needles in the western Himalayan region will not only aid to curtail
recurrent forest fires, destruction of green vegetations, and GHG emis­
sion minimization, but it can also be a path breaker to achieve renew­
able energy target of India as well as generate employment for local
communities. Furthermore, such investigations provide a general
recommendation for best practices or suggestions for future biomass-
based study plans/projects in the western Himalayan region.
A further follow-up simulation study of an on-grid biomass-based
hybrid renewable energy system for western Himalayan regions is also
needed. The practical implementation based on simulation results could
also be a follow-up study to understand practical challenges and
solutions.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Prashant Malik: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Inves­
tigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing - original draft. Mamta
Awasthi: Supervision, Project administration, Resources. Sunanda
Sinha: Supervision, Project administration, Resources.
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] Chauhan A, Saini RP. A review on Integrated Renewable Energy System based
power generation for standalone applications: Configurations, storage options,
sizing methodologies and control. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;38:99–120.
[2] Raina G, Sinha S. Outlook on the Indian scenario of solar energy strategies: Policies
and challenges. Energy Strategy Reviews. 2019;24:331–41.
[3] Bajpai P, Dash V. Hybrid renewable energy systems for power generation in
standalone applications: A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16(5):
2926–39.
[4] Thambi, S., Bhatacharya, A., Fricko, O., “India’s Energy and Emissions Outlook:
Results from India energy model.” Energy, Climate Change and Overseas
Engagement Division, New Delhi, India, NITI Aayog, (2018),1-27, http://pure.
iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/15536/1/India%E2%80%99s-Energy-and-Emissions-
Outlook.pdf.
13
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 45 (2021) 101189
[5] Chauhan A, Saini RP. Renewable energy based off-grid rural electrification in
Uttarakhand state of India: Technology options, modelling method, barriers and
recommendations. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;51:662–81.
[6] Hiendro A, Kurnianto R, Rajagukguk M, Simanjuntak YM. Techno-economic
analysis of photovoltaic/wind hybrid system for onshore/remote area in Indonesia.
Energy. 2013;59:652–7.
[7] Malik P, Awasthi M, Sinha S. Study of grid integrated biomass-based hybrid
renewable energy systems for Himalayan terrain. Int J Sustain Energy Plan Manage
2020;28:71–88.
[8] Kusakana K. Techno-economic analysis of off-grid hydrokinetic-based hybrid
energy systems for onshore/remote area in South Africa. Energy. 2014;15(68):
947–57.
[9] Kusakana K. Techno-economic analysis of off-grid hydrokinetic-based hybrid
energy systems for onshore/remote area in South Africa. Energy. 2014 Apr;15(68):
947–57.
[10] Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India, https://mnre.gov.
in, [accessed on 3 Mar 2020].
[11] Ministry of Power, Government of India, https://saubhagya.gov.in/dashboard/gsa,
[accessed on 28 Apr 2020].
[12] Malik P, Awasthi M, Sinha S. Techno-economic analysis of decentralized biomass
energy system and CO2 reduction in the Himalayan region. Int J Energy Environ
Eng 2021:1–11.
[13] Malik, P, Awasthi, M, Sinha, S. Analysis of sensitive parameters influencing a SPV/
WT/Biomass/Battery based hybrid system. In 2019 8th International Conference
on Power Systems (ICPS) 2019, December :1-6. IEEE.
[14] Smaoui M, Abdelkafi A, Krichen L. Optimal sizing of standalone photovoltaic/
wind/hydrogen hybrid system supplying a desalination unit. Sol Energy 2015;120:
263–76.
[15] Neves D, Silva CA, Connors S. Design and implementation of hybrid renewable
energy systems on micro-communities: a review on case studies. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2014;31:935–46.
[16] UNFCCC. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Report No.
FCCC/INFORMAL/84, https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf.
[17] Chandel SS, Shrivastva R, Sharma V, Ramasamy P. Overview of the initiatives in
renewable energy sector under the national action plan on climate change in India.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;54:866–73.
[18] Saxena RC, Adhikari DK, Goyal HB. Biomass-based energy fuel through
biochemical routes: A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13(1):167–78.
[19] Karki S, Mann MD, Salehfar H. Environmental implications of renewable
distributed generation technologies in rural electrification. Energy Sources, Part B
Econ Plan Policy 2008;3:186–95.
[20] Chambon CL, Karia T, Sandwell P, Hallett JP. Techno-economic assessment of
biomass gasification-based mini-grids for productive energy applications: The case
of rural India. Renewable Energy 2020;154:432–44.
[21] Bhatt A, Sharma MP, Saini RP. Feasibility and sensitivity analysis of an off-grid
micro hydro-photovoltaic-biomass and biogas-diesel-battery hybrid energy system
for a remote area in Uttarakhand state. India. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;61:
53–69.
[22] Chauhan A, Saini RP. Discrete harmony search based size optimization of
Integrated Renewable Energy System for remote rural areas of Uttarakhand state in
India. Renew Energy 2016;94:587–604.
[23] Malik P, Awasthi M, Sinha S. Study on an Existing PV/Wind Hybrid System Using
Biomass Gasifier for Energy Generation. Pollution 2020;6(2):335–46.
[24] Li C, Zhou D, Wang H, Lu Y, Li D. Techno-economic performance study of
standalone wind/diesel/battery hybrid system with different battery technologies
in the cold region of China. Energy 2020;192.
[25] Rad MA, Ghasempour R, Rahdan P, Mousavi S, Arastounia M. Techno-economic
analysis of a hybrid power system based on the cost-effective hydrogen production
method for rural electrification, a case study in Iran. Energy 2020;190.
[26] Vendoti S, Muralidhar M, Kiranmayi R. Techno-economic analysis of off-grid solar/
wind/biogas/biomass/fuel cell/battery system for electrification in a cluster of
villages by HOMER software. Environ Dev Sustain 2020:1–22.
[27] Malik P, Awasthi M, Sinha S. Biomass-based gaseous fuel for hybrid renewable
energy systems: An overview and future research opportunities. Int J Energy Res
2020;45(3):3453–4820.
[28] Salehin S, Islam AKMS, Hoque R, Rahman M, Hoque A, Manna E. Optimized model
of a solar PV-biogas-diesel hybrid energy system for Adorsho Char Island,
Bangladesh. 2014 3rd Int Conf Dev Renew Energy Technol 2014:1–6.
[29] Sigarchian SG, Paleta R, Malmquist A, Pina A. Feasibility study of using a biogas
engine as backup in a decentralized hybrid (PV/wind/battery) power generation
system - Case study Kenya. Energy 2015;90:1830–41.
[30] Sinha S, Chandel SS. Prospects of solar photovoltaic–micro-wind based hybrid
power systems in western Himalayan state of Himachal Pradesh in India. Energy
Convers Manage 2015;105:1340–51.
[31] Sinha S, Chandel SS. Analysis of fixed tilt and sun tracking photovoltaic–micro
wind based hybrid power systems. Energy Convers Manage 2016;115:265–75.
[32] Sinha S, Chandel SS. Improving the reliability of photovoltaic-based hybrid power
system with battery storage in low wind locations. Sustainable Energy Technol
Assess 2017;19:146–59.
[33] Sinha S, Chandel SS. Review of software tools for hybrid renewable energy
systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;32:192–205.
[34] http://www.nrel.gov/homer/ [accessed 28/12/2019].
[35] Bisht, A. S. and Thakur, N. S., “Pine needle biomass a potential energy source for
Himalayan region.” In 2016 7th India International Conference on Power
Electronics (IICPE), (2016), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1109/IICPE.2016.8079505.
P. Malik et al.
[36] Balamurugan P, Ashok S, Jose TL. Optimal operation of biomass/wind/PV hybrid
energy system for rural areas. Int J Green Energy 2009;6(1):104–16.
[37] Chauhan A, Saini RP. Techno-economic feasibility study on Integrated Renewable
Energy System for an isolated community of India. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;59:388–405.
[38] Rajbongshi R, Borgohain D, Mahapatra S. Optimization of PV-biomass-diesel and
grid base hybrid energy systems for rural electrification by using HOMER. Energy
2017;126:461–74.
[39] Reindl DT, Beckman WA, Duffie JA. Evaluation of hourly tilted surface radiation
models. Sol Energy 1990;45(1):9–17.
[40] Muljadi E, Butterfield CP. Pitch-controlled variable-speed wind turbine generation.
IEEE Trans Ind Appl 2001;37(1):240–6.
[41] Ram NK, Singh NR, Raman P, Kumar A, Kaushal P. Experimental study on
performance analysis of an internal combustion engine operated on hydrogen-
enriched producer gas from the air–steam gasification. Energy. 2020;205.
[42] Martínez LV, Rubiano JE, Figueredo M, Gómez MF. Experimental study on the
performance of gasification of corncobs in a downdraft fixed bed gasifier at various
conditions. Renewable Energy 2020;148:1216–26.
[43] Dasappa S. Potential of biomass energy for electricity generation in sub-Saharan
Africa. Energy for Sustainable Development. 2011;15(3):203–13.
[44] Kumar MM, Banerjee R. Analysis of isolated power systems for village
electrification. Energy for Sustainable Development. 2010;14(3):213–22.
[45] Buragohain B, Mahanta P, Moholkar VS. Biomass gasification for decentralized
power generation: The Indian perspective. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14(1):
73–92.
[46] Mudasser M, Yiridoe EK, Corscadden K. Cost-benefit analysis of grid-connected
wind-biogas hybrid energy production, by turbine capacity and site. Renew Energy
2015;80:573–82.
[47] Pérez-Navarro A, Alfonso D, Álvarez C, Ibáñez F, Sánchez C, Segura I. Hybrid
biomass-wind power plant for reliable energy generation. Renew Energy 2010;35:
1436–43.
[48] Singal SK, Varun SRP. Rural electrification of a remote island by renewable energy
sources. Renew Energy 2007;32:2491–501.
[49] Mbaka NE, Muchob NJ, Godpromessea K. Economic evaluation of small-scale
photovoltaic hybrid systems for mini-grid applications in far north Cameroon.
Renew Energy 2010;35(10):2391–8.
[50] Nitin A, Kumar A. Varun,“. Optimization of grid independent hybrid PV-diesel-
battery system for power generation in remote villages of Uttar Pradesh, India,”
Energy Sustainable Dev. 2013;17:210-9.
[51] Islam MS, Akhter R, Rahman MA. A thorough investigation on hybrid application
of biomass gasifier and PV resources to meet energy needs for a northern rural off-
grid region of Bangladesh: A potential solution to replicate in rural off-grid areas or
not? Energy. 2018;145:338–55.
[52] Muh E, Tabet F. Comparative analysis of hybrid renewable energy systems for off-
grid applications in Southern Cameroons. Renewable Energy 2019;135:41–54.
[53] Ramchandran N, Pai R, Parihar AK. Feasibility assessment of Anchor-Business-
Community model for off-grid rural electrification in India. Renewable Energy
2016;97:197–209.
14
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 45 (2021) 101189
[54] Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, “Rate Schedule for Financial
Year 2017-18,”. Available at: https://www.hpseb.in/irj/go/km/docs/internet/Ne
w_Website/Pages/CurrentTariffRates.html.
[55] Agrawal R. Hydropower projects in Uttarakhand: displacing people and destroying
lives. Econ Political Weekly 2013;14–6.
[56] Verma HK, Goel RK, Prasad VV, Dutta S, Bhardwaj A, Upadhyay KC. Investigation
of cracks in domestic houses near construction project in the Himalaya, India: A
case study. InTunneling in Rock by Drilling and Blasting 2012 Nov 5 (pp. 117-122).
CRC Press.
[57] Kahlon S, Chandel VB, Brar KK. Landslides in Himalayan mountains: a study of
Himachal Pradesh, India. Int J IT Eng Appl Sci Res 2014;3:28–34.
[58] Katoch A, Guleria J, Kumar A. Impact of nathpa Jhakri Hydroelectric Power Project
on the Environment and Livelihood in Kinnaur and Shimla Districts of Himachal
Pradesh. Indian Council of Social Science Research. 2014 Aug.
[59] Huber A. Hydropower in the Himalayan hazardscape: Strategic ignorance and the
production of unequal risk. Water 2019;11(3):414.
[60] Chopra R, Das BP, Dhyani H, Verma A, Venkatesh HS, Vasistha HB, Dobhal DP,
Juyal N, Sathyakumar S, Pathak S, Chauhan TK. Assessment of environmental
degradation and impact of hydroelectric projects during the June 2013 disaster in
Uttarakhand. Part I-Main Report. submitted for publication to The Ministry of
Environment and Forests Government of India April. 2014 Apr.
[61] Raj M, Singh CP. Social implications of hydro power projects for tribal
communities of kinnaur in himalayan region: Need for social work intervention.
Stud Indian Place Names 2020;40(1):357–70.
[62] Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India, https://mnre.gov.
in/img/documents/uploads/file_f-1585710569965.pdf, [accesed on 3 Apr 2020].
[63] Nugent D, Sovacool BK. Assessing the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from solar
PV and wind energy: A critical meta-survey. Energy Policy 2014;65:229–44.
[64] Wang Y, Sun T. Life cycle assessment of CO2 emissions from wind power plants:
Methodology and case studies. Renewable Energy 2012;43:30–6.
[65] Sridhar G, Dasappa S, Sridhar HV, Paul PJ, Rajan NK. Gaseous emissions using
producer gas as fuel in reciprocating engines. SAE Technical Paper 2005:01–1732.
[66] Kanase-Patil AB, Saini RP, Sharma MP. Sizing of integrated renewable energy
system based on load profile and reliability index for the state of Uttarakhand in
India. Renew Energy 2011;36(11):2809–21.
[67] Bala BK. Energy and environment: modelling and simulation. Nova Publishers
1998.
[68] Fahmy FH, Farghally HM, Ahmed NM. Photovoltaic-biomass gasifier hybrid energy
system for poultry house. Int J Mod Eng Res (IJMER). 2014;4(8):51–62.
[69] Garrido H, Vendeirinho V, Brito MC. Feasibility of KUDURA hybrid generation
system in Mozambique: sensitivity study of the small-scale PV-biomass and PV-
diesel power generation hybrid system. Renewable Energy 2016;92:47–57.
[70] Hurtado E, Peñalvo-López E, Pérez-Navarro A, Vargas C, Alfonso D. Optimization
of a hybrid renewable system for high feasibility application in non-connected
zones. Appl Energy 2015;155:308–14.
[71] Singh S, Kaushik SC. Optimal sizing of grid integrated hybrid PV-biomass energy
system using artificial bee colony algorithm. IET Renewable Power Gener. 2016;
10:642–50.