International Journal of Sustainable Engineering

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tsue20

Life Cycle Costing Analysis of Solar Photo Voltaic

Generation System in Indian Scenario

N. Ranganath & Debasis Sarkar

To cite this article: N. Ranganath & Debasis Sarkar (2021) Life Cycle Costing Analysis of Solar
Photo Voltaic Generation System in Indian Scenario, International Journal of Sustainable
Engineering, 14:6, 1698-1713, DOI: 10.1080/19397038.2021.1986596

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2021.1986596

Published online: 03 Oct 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4424

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsue20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING
2021, VOL. 14, NO. 6, 1698–1713
https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2021.1986596

Life Cycle Costing Analysis of Solar Photo Voltaic Generation System in Indian
Scenario
N. Ranganatha and Debasis Sarkarb
a
Department of Civil Engineering, School of Technology, Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University, Ei Technologies (P) Ltd, Bangalore, India;
b
Department of Civil Engineering, School of Technology, Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University, Ganghinagar, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper aims at the application of Life-Cycle-Costing (LCC) analysis of sustainable renewable energy Received 9 May 2021
like solar photo voltaic generation system in India to find out its viability and techno-economic feasibility. Accepted 21 September 2021
Life-Cycle-Costinganalysis is employed to evaluate the long term benefit of the huge investments KEYWORDS
in India’s ambitious plan of setting up nearly 100 GW installed solar power capacity by December Life cycle costing; solar
2022. For renewable energy systems, this methodology shows the cost-effectiveness of being used as photo voltaic; generation
an alternative source compared to conventional power generations. Case studies of six solar power plants system; renewable energy
in India in the state of Karnataka, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, New Delhi and Rajasthan were
considered to find out the economic viability of the feasibility of the solar power plants in India. It has
been observed that in an emerging economy like India, the feasibility and economic viability of solar
power plants are quite high. The cash flow analysis for all six cases confirms that project payback depends
on initial investment and rate of Power–Purchase-Agreement (PPA). It has been observed that the
payback period is generally less than eight years. Thereby the techno-economic feasibility of the solar
power plant projects in India is quite high.

Introduction Voltaic (PV) systems in Florida, USA. They raised the concern
that adoption of solar PV was relatively less due to the higher
India’s solar power installed capacity was 35,739 MW as of
initial investment of the PV systems and also due to their
June 30th, 2020. Solar electricity generation from April 2019 to
higher unit price than the grid price. Sajid and Bicer (2021)
March 2020 was 50.1 TWh or 3.6% of total generation (1,391
were the main proponents to carry out a comparative analysis
TWh). The cost of setting up 1 GW of the solar power plant
of four different systems powered by solar energy for providing
will be about INR 5000 Crores. The exponential growth in
electricity, water and cooling systems for a greenhouse com­
Renewable Energy (RE) markets like solar and wind has lead to
plex. They observed that solar irradiance and ambient tem­
the need for an accurate and precise economic feasibility
perature have a huge impact on the LCC of all the PV systems.,
evaluation of these technologies. This is a cause of concern to
The system dynamics model was used by Ren et al. (2020) to
the project investors, developers as well as decision-makers
compute the LCC of solar PV systems for the energy demand
(Sharma et al. 2012). It is required to consider the cost of all
and carbon footprint. Furthermore, Matthews et al. (2004)
the works involved in such projects right from the feasibility
worked on the economic and environmental evaluation of
stage till completion, including the safe disposal phases. This
residential fixed solar PV systems. Most parts of
computation is possible throughLife Cycle Costing (LCC).
Indiaexperience clear and sunny weatherabout 250 to
LCC is a methodology used in the economic calculation of
300 days in a year. This makes the potential of the use of
the entire cost incurred during the life span of any project. For
solar power technology in India very high. Development for
Renewable Energy (RE) systems, LCC is a good methodology,
sustaining the growth of the Indian economy in the existing
which shows the cost-effectiveness of using RE as an alterna­
infrastructure is crucial, but the development of policies for the
tive source compared to conventional power generations. LCC
viable utilisation of solar energy can help India emerge as a
model is applied to the Photo-Voltaic (PV) projects in the
global leader in the area of solar power technology. In the last
Indian scenario since the projects planned are of gigantic
decade in India, solar energy research and development has
scale, and hence this exercise will help decision-makers to
been supported by the central government and state govern­
take appropriate decisions while approving such projects
ments. The high cost of solar cells is the main problem.
(Sharma 2011a). Since the initial investment of solar PV
However, a substantial reduction in costs of the solar PV
appears to be quite high, it has been observed that many
system has been observed, and the market demand for solar
researchers have attempted to compute LCC for finding out
PV in India is also considerably increasing. In the year 2002,
the economic viability of solar PV systems. Jiang and Zhu
the global PV market was about 500 MWp per year which
(2011) computed the LCC for grid-connected solar Photo
corresponds to a value of about US$ 1 billion.Raina and Sinha

CONTACT Debasis Sarkar debasis.sarkar@sot.pdpu.ac.in Department of Civil Engineering, School of Technology, Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University,
Ganghinagar, India
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

(2019) have tried to comprehensively study and understand
the policies in place for the development of solar energy in
India and the barriers and challenges that need to be taken care
of for the implementation of the solar mission and policy.
Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission (JNNSM) has been
the most efficient policy that has been brought forward by the
policymakers with the purpose of enhancing the installed
capacity of solar energy generation, and a culmination of
several schemes around the country has enabled its success.
Dawn et al. (2016) analysed the recent scenario, strategies,
availability, future potential, policies and development of
solar energy in the emerging Indian power sector. During the
last five to ten years, India is facing a big problem with the
shortage of electricity. The Government of India predicted that
the total power demand will expand to 400,000 MW at the end
of 2020. It needs enormous additions in the capacity of elec­
trical generation to meet the demand and to maintain the
progress in the electricity market economy of the country.
Better economic scenario can be obtained across India in
terms of implementation of solar power if all the developed
and developing states make a joint initiative for implementa­
tion of the solar mission and policies adopted by Government
of India. LCC model may be applied to the solar PV projects in
Indian scenario since the projects planned are of gigantic scale,
and hence this exercise will help for decision makers to take
appropriate decision while approving such projects. Thus the
primary objective of this paper is to compute LCC for solar PV
systems in the Indian scenario to find out the viability and
techno-economic feasibility for implementation of solar power
plants in India.
Literature review
Life Cycle Costing Assessment (LCCA) for electric buses in the
Indian scenario was carried out by Sheth and Sarkar (2019).
The authors concluded that the electric buses are feasible in the
Indian scenario if some more awareness in created amongst
the users and with some promotional incentives from the
Government. Sheth and Sarkar (2020, 2020) were the main
proponents to work on the feasibility analysis of biodiesel bus
transport in the Indian scenario through detailed computation
of Social Benefit Cost Analysis (SBCA) and LCCA. Their work
also concluded that sustainable transport is the need of the
hour for an emerging economy like India and biodiesel bus
transport is very much feasible in India. Furthermore, Sheth
and Sarkar (2021) carried out SBCA for electric bus transit to
find out its feasibility and viability in Indian scenario.
Ranganath et al. (2020) carried out a detailed study on the
feasibility analysis and the risks associated and involved in the
launching of solar power plants in India. They identified the
risks associated in the feasibility, design, development and
implementation of the solar power plants in India and then
applied fuzzy TOPSIS to analyse and find out the severity of
the identified risks. Finally, they proposed corrective and pre­
ventive mitigation measures of the identified risks. Sahu (2016)
worked on the policies, development strategies and implemen­
tation road maps for the solar energy promotion for Odisa
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING 1699
state in India. Shrimali and Rohra (2012) carried out their
work in details to study the solar mission in India. Their
study recommended some noteworthy policies, strategies and
sustainable developments for growth of solar energy.
The mitigation of global energy demands and climate
change are the most important factors in modern days.
Limited fossil resources and environmental problems asso­
ciated with them have emphasised the need for new sustain­
able energy supply options that use renewable energies. Over
the years, renewable energy sources and the associated tech­
nologies have witnessed giant progress towards sustainable
development. Solar power is one of the most potential areas
in energy investment right now because it is a less polluting RE
source. But there is much debate about the future of solar
technology and solar energy markets. The development of
conventional forms of energy for meeting the growing energy
needs of society at a reasonable cost is the responsibility of the
Government. India being the second most populated country,
relies more on conventional sources. The development and
application of solar energy have been regarded by the
Government of India and the common people, and they
thought that solar energy can provide more energy in the
future in comparison to other renewable energies. The power
sector of India is one of the largest expanded power sectors in
the world. India, as a ‘developing country, is in the middle of a
unique situation of handling its energy transition towards
carbon-free energy along with its continued economic devel­
opment. India is located in the equatorial sunbelt of the earth,
thereby receiving abundant radiant energy from the sun. The
India Meteorological Department (IMD) maintains a nation­
wide network of radiation stations that measure solar radiation
and also the daily duration of sunshine. In most parts of India,
clear sunny weather is experienced about 250 to 300 days a
year. The economically exploitable potential of the solar power
technology of India is quite high. Development for sustaining
the growth of the Indian economy in the existing infrastruc­
ture is crucial, but the development of policies for the viable
utilization of solar energy can help India emerge as a leader in
the global arena. In the last decade in India, solarenergy
research and development has been supported by the central
government and state governments. The high cost of solar cells
is the primary problem for the users. Nevertheless, costs are
dropping continuously, and remarkable market development
has taken place. The photovoltaic world market in 2002 was
more than 500 MWp per year, corresponding to a value of
roughly US$ 1 billion. This is a remarkable market but still far
away from constituting a noticeable contribution to world
energy consumption. Market growth in the last decade was
between 15 and 25% per year and has risen recently to 30% and
even 40%. The average yearly rate of price decrease was 9%.
Sharma (2011b) attempted to show how improvements in
technology and competitiveness among players in the fields
of manufacture, supply, and installation leading to a reduction
in costs. His report examines various ways in which solar
power is precisely such an opportunity. Raina and Sinha
(2019) have tried to comprehensively study and understand
the policies in place for the development of solar energy in
1700 N. RANGANATH AND D. SARKAR
India and the barriers that need to be addressed for successful
policy development and deployment. Jawaharlal Nehru
National Solar Mission (JNNSM) has been the most efficient
policy that has been brought forward by the policymakers with
the purpose of enhancing the installed capacity of solar energy
generation, and a culmination of several schemes around the
country has enabled its success. Dawn et al. (2016) analyzed
the recent scenario, strategies, availability, future potential,
policies and development of solar energy in the emerging
Indian power sector. During the last five to ten years, India is
facing a big problem with the shortage of electricity. The
Government of India predicted that the total power demand
would expand to 400,000 MW at the end of 2020. It needs
enormous additions in the capacity of electrical generation to
meet the demand and to maintain the progress in the electri­
city market economy of the country. Solar power can also
provide a better economic scenario after the successful imple­
mentation of solar mission for all states of India, especially for
some undeveloped states, where the potential of solar power
generation is very good but has not been utilized to date.
Sharma (2011) observed that quality modules are very impor­
tant in determining the extent of degradation. The improve­
ments in technology and quality assurance have reduced this
degradation considerably. The equivalent energy potential is
about 6,000 million GWh of energy per year. The highest
annual global radiation is received in Rajasthan and northern
Gujarat. The data collection and simulation are complex pro­
cedures and can have inaccuracies varying from 3 to 20%. The
most reliable data is ground measured with accurate instru­
ments. The performance (Capacity utilization factor) CUF
depends on several factors, including the solar radiation, tem­
perature, air velocity apart from the module type and quality,
angle of tilt (or tracking), design parameters to avoid cable
losses and efficiencies of inverters and transformers. There are
some inherent losses that can be reduced through proper
design but not completely avoided. Sahu (2016) highlighted
the renewable energy trend in India with major achievements,
state-wise analysis of solar parks and industrial applications
and also discusses the Indian government policies and initia­
tives to promote solar energy in India. His research work on
solar photovoltaic energy will help decision-makers and var­
ious stakeholders to understand the current status, barriers
and challenges for better planning and management in the
field. Kumar (2015) focuses on the Economic Assessment
models while estimating the economic impacts of constructing
and operating power generation at the local and state levels.
The work considers many aspects of the problem, including
the energy and economic ones, which areof basic importance
for evaluating real outcomes of investments. The result of the
assessment screens the economic feasibility of photovoltaic
systems and the consequent production of electricity, recover­
ing costs of installation and maintenance of the system. The
methodology was applied for the percentage of coverage of the
electricity demand and the economic feasibility of grid-
connected photovoltaic systems installed on the roofs of build­
ings. The obtained results showed the difficulty faced to size
the PV systems in big urban contexts in a proper and effective
way and point out the suitability of the tool for energy plan­
ning of the systems. The possibility to identify situations where
the economic feasibility of investments is not convenient is an
important feature of the method that can help decision-makers
to select effective alternatives in energy planning procedures.
Energy self-sufficiency is one of the factors which may deter­
mine an economic advantage upon careful analysis of the
actual costs for the devices. Bhat et al. (2019) developed a
unique techno-economic simulation model at the Institute of
Electricity Economics and Energy Innovation, Graz University
of Technology. Their model was purely designed for the elec­
tricity system in the Indian subcontinent region. The model
covers the electricity systems of India, Bangladesh, Bhutan,
Nepal, and Sri Lanka and is used to analyze a scenario where
around 118 GW of solar PV and wind capacity expansion is
planned in India until the target year 2050. Their research
paper presents the simulation approach as well as the simu­
lated results and conclusions. The simulation result showed
the positive and negative techno-economic impacts of the
strategy on the overall electricity system and also suggested a
possible solution. Pankadan, Nikam, and Anwer (2021) have
analyzed the status of the global PV market and the time when
the critical point of generated PV waste will reach. They have
also discussed the need for PV waste management and recy­
cling and also the ways how policies and regulations can help
for the same. The solar panels contain hazardous but valuable
materials, which give an opportunity to be recycled and reused.
A proper waste management strategy can tackle the PV waste
generation as well as reclaim required materials from it rather
than being discarded in the landfills, which can raise environ­
mental concerns. Sawant and Jadhav (2020) developed a fra­
mework based on secondary datasets to determine appropriate
pump sizes and characteristics for a district to address the
needs of the appropriate demography of farmers. Through
this same framework, they also determine the seasonality of
unused energy that could be fed back into the grid by net
metering. This framework could also be used to determine
seasonal tariffs that encourage water efficiency yet prevent
gaming. Sharma and Harinarayana (2012) displayed results
of two-layer solar panels. Their results have shown about a
75% increase in efficiency as compared to a single layer solar
panel. They have shown an increase of over 70% in the output,
and their result is more applicable to rooftops of the houses or
small-scale plants. Sharma and Harinarayana (2013) summar­
ized that the national highway space couldcontribute to the
huge amount of energy generation without extra cost for the
land. There is an urgent need for an attractive policy by the
government of India to increase the solar potential. Shezan,
Hasan, and Datta (2019) worked on the optimal sizing of the
Islanded Hybrid Microgrid System (IHMS), considering the
alternative dispatch strategies. The authors evaluated the
design and optimization of IHMS by assessing the optimal
sizing of each component and power, voltage and frequency
profiles.Their results provided guidelines to estimate the gen­
eration mix and the required optimal size of the IHMS con­
sidered for the study.Singh and Gao (2019) explored the
economic dispatch to minimize the total operation or genera­
tion of microgrids by complying with all the associated con­
straints. Their proposed system would enhance the microgrid’s
performance and also would make it a more resilient system.
Shezan (2020) raised the concern that the proper consumption

of additional energy produced from the IHMS that has not
been consumed by the load is a major global challenge. The
authors have proposed to develop a multi-optimal combina­
tion of stand-alone IHMS for a project in Malaysia with an
efficient exertion of redundant energy. This proposed model
may be an effective solution to solving the above problem.
Furthermore, Shezan (2021) worked on the feasibility analysis
of an islanded hybrid wind-dieselbattery microgrid with vol­
tage and power response for offshore islands. Authors con­
ducted the optimisation process by considering the
meteorological data and technical specifications of each mod­
ule by the use of iHOGA renewable energy software. It has
been observed that designed, and simulated IHMS is econom­
ically and environmentally feasible.
Burdick and Schmidt (2017) discussed about the methodol­
ogy for installation of solar panels at home. The authors tried
to promote the solar technology by making people self suffi­
cient in the process of installations of the solar panels at their
own residences (2016), in their study, explored about the
physics of PV cells and design of the PV systems for real-life
applications. Their work also focussed on the PV technology
which would include crystalline silicon solar cells, thin-film
cells, PV modules and also third-generation concepts. Farr
(2011) presented techniques of engineering economics and
simulation-based costing (SBC) with a focus on total life
cycle understanding and perspective and also introduces tech­
niques for detailed analysis of modern complex systems.
Solanki (2015) explored and worked on the fundamental tech­
nologies and applications of solar PV. Their work was primar­
ily focussed on the technologies used in Indian conditions.
Dhillon (2009) brought together up-to-date life cycle costing
concepts and explained their applications in various industrial
sectors. Furthermore, (2003) discussed in details the applica­
tions of LCC in design process. They identified the economic
criteria for computation of LCC for infrastructural systems,
including solar PV systems. Also, the authors developed a
methodology for selection of design alternatives for the solar
PV systems.
Reviewing the available literature, it has been observed that
though considerable work has been carried out for improving
the technology for the solar PV, but the economic aspects
pertaining to the affordability of the solar PV systems is still
in very nascent stage. Adequate studies pertaining to the tech­
nical feasibility and economic feasibility for installation and
implementation of the solar power plants suiting the geogra­
phical conditions, metrological conditions and environmental
conditions of Indian subcontinent has not been conducted.
Thereby, the present research study aims in exploring the
economic viability of the solar PV in Indian context by appli­
cation of a decision-making tool like LCC.
Solar Status – Indian scenario
Covid pandemic and subsequent developments in the interna­
tional policy and decision-making is moving towards India
centric development leading to major industrial growth, rapid
urbanization and subsequent infrastructural developments.
This requires a continuous and uninterrupted quality power
supply and thereby exponentially increasing energy needs. In
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING 1701
the present scenario, the use of fossil fuels or non-renewable
sources for energy generation already has an adverse effect on
the environment and mankind as a whole (Sharma et al. 2012).
Apart from that, setting up such power plants takes substantial
time, and recurring costs are exorbitant. Hence, tapping freely
available abundant divine solar energy, a non-conventional
energy source, is one such endeavour to mitigate the process
of climate change. Realizing the need for non-conventional
energy and also mitigating the threats of global warming,
India has taken proactive steps by setting up solar power plants
in several parts of India. The country wishes to commission
nearly 100 GW capacities by Dec ’22 (Alagh, Shah, and Shah
1998; Sharma et al. 2012).
It is necessary to deal with the energy crisis through the
utilization of abundantly available existing renewable energy
resources, such as solar energy, wind energy and biomass energy
etc. (Sharma 2011a). India is endowed with massive solar energy
potential. The equivalent energy potential is about 6,000 million
GWh of energy per year (Sharma et al. 2012). Solar power has
wider applications than other energy resources such as power
generation, water pumping, heating, chilling, desalination and
drying, etc. Recent development ensures that solar power sys­
tems are made available easily for industrial and domestic usage
with the added advantage of less maintenance.
The harnessing of solar energy has been increasing expo­
nentially during the last decade in view of favourable govern­
ment policies to promote RE. Further, the drastically fallen
prices of PV module in the last few years (Figure 1) has made
the field attractive to the investors. In addition, the automated
innovations in manufacturing processes and metallization
solutions also contribute to the current fall in prices. PV cells
manufacturing costs have sharply declined from more than
INR 68/Wp in 2010 to approximately less than INR 21/Wp
nowadays and are expected to go further down in the coming
times. The decline in the cost of the PV module and the
increase in the commissioning of the solar PV plants during
the previous decade (2010–2020) are shown in Figures 1 and 2,
respectively.
According to Figure 1, the module price of the solar PV
panels has drastically reduced from INR 68/Wp in 2010 to INR
21/Wp in 2020. Thereby this would encourage the promotion
and enormous use of solar power in an emerging economic
nation like India. According to Figure 2,the installation capa­
city of the solar power plants in 2010 was about 200 MW, and
it had increased to about 9980 MW in 2018. However, due to
the COVID-19 pandemic situation, the installation capacity
has reduced to about 7000 MW in 2020.
Methodology and Case Study
PV Costing andInstallation of Solar Projects:Indian
scenario
The data and information regarding the Installation across
India during 2010–2020 has been collected, and also the cost­
ing of the PV module has been analysed and presented in
Figures 3 and 4, respectively. The decline in PV costing after
2015 has led to exponential growth in PV installation in India.
This is evident from Figure 4.
1702 N. RANGANATH AND D. SARKAR

Figure 1. Decline in PV costing in 2010–2020.

Figure 2. Exponential growth in PV installation in 2010–2020.

Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE) Levelised cost of electricity represents the average revenue
per unit of electricity generated that would be required to
Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE) is a term that describes the
recover the costs of building and to operate a generating
cost of the power produced by solar over a period of time,
plant during an assumed financial life and duty cycle. LCOE
typically the warranted life of the system. Purchasing solar is
is often cited as a convenient summary measure of the overall
essentially creating a hedge against rising utility costs by fixing
competitiveness of different generating technologies (US
the per kWh rate at a known cost.
Energy Information Administration, Feb 2020).

Figure 3. Module price and cumulative installed capacity.
Figure 4. Life cycle costing percentages for 3.3 MW solar power plant of Karnataka, India.
Key inputs for calculating LCOE include capital costs, fuel
costs (no fuel costs in case of RE), fixed and variable operations
and maintenance (OM) costs, financing costs, and an assumed
utilization rate for each plant type. The importance of each of
these factors varies across technologies. For technologies with
no fuel costs and relatively small variable OM costs, such as
solar and wind electric generating technologies, LCOE changes
nearly in proportion to the estimated capital cost of the tech­
nology. For technologies with significant fuel costs, both fuel
cost and capital cost estimates significantly affect LCOE.
LCOE can be computed by Eq (1).
LifeCycleCostðLCCÞ
LCOE ¼
LifeCycleEnergyðLCEÞ
Where LCOE is the Levelised Cost of Energy; LCC comprises
of (i) Cost of Project conceptualisation/Feasibility/Detailed
project activities/Statutory compliances/Project financing/
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING 1703
Costing for Pre project activities (C-Ppa), (ii) Cost of selection
and finalisation of the correct technology (PV panels) and cost
towards procurement of the same (C-Panel), (iii) Cost of AC
and DC electrical side including transmission, evacuation,
inverters and associated related costs (C-Elec.), (iv) Cost of
civil and mechanical design including mounting structure
costing (C-Civil and Mounting), (v) Cost of all the peripeheral
works, testing and commissioning (C-Pw and Com), (vi)
Operation and maintenance costing (C-OM) and (vii) Cost
of safe disposal of the PV panels after their life span (C-PDis).
Since LCC is a decision-making tool to forecast the future cost
of a facility in a present date, time value of money has always
been considered. The final computation is either carried out
(1)
through Present Worth (PW) or Annual Worth (AW) or
Future Worth (FW) methods.General assumptions for com­
putation of LCC lies in assuming the feasibility studies cost,
design costs, technology selection cost, project implementation
cost and also the project operation cost.
1704 N. RANGANATH AND D. SARKAR
The Life Cycle Energy (LCE) produced has been computed
through equation (2).
LCC is a good methodology, especially for the RE system,
which shows the benefits of using RE as an alternative source
compared to fuel incurred costs. The LCE produced can thus
be computed annually, discounted with r discount rate as
shown in Eq. (2)
X
n
AEPxð1 dfiÞ
LifeCycleEnergyðLCEÞ ¼ (2)
i¼0
ð1 rÞi
Where AEP is the Expected Annual Energy produced, in line
with the estimated life of the project, “r” represents the interest
rate,“i” represents the economic life of the facility or system.
With the system, life progresses, its output power yield will be
degraded with a factor “df” in order to get a better energy
harvest forecasting.
Life Cycle Costing Analysis (LCCA) MODEL for solar PV:
Indian Scenario
Life Cycle Costing model developed for Indian scenario of
solar PV generation system are distributed into seven cost
centres as presented in Eq (3).
(1) Cost of project conceptualisation/Feasibility/Detailed
project activities/Statutory compliances/Project finan­
cing/Costing for Pre-project activities (CPpa),
(2) Cost of selection and finalisation of the correct technol­
ogy (PV panels) and cost towards procurement of the
same (CPanel),
(3) Cost ofAC and DC electrical side including transmission,
evacuation, inverters and associated related costs (CElec.),
(4) Cost of civil, mechanical design including mounting
structure costing (CCivilandMounting),
(5) Cost of all the peripheral works, testing and commis­
sioning (CPw and Com),
(6) Operation and Maintenance Costing (COM),
(7) Cost of safe disposal of the PV panels after their life
span (CPDis).
LCC = CPpa+ CPanel + CElec. + CCiviland Mounting + CPw and Com +
COM + CPDis(3)
Cost of project conceptualisation/Feasibility/Detailed
project activities /Statutory compliances /Project
financing, Costing for pre project activities (CPpa)
Project conceptualisation is an important event in any project
since the idea of going ahead with the project, including
investment, will be decided and firmed up subjected to eco­
nomic validity of the project, availability of the land free from
encumbrances, statutory compliances, including required
approvals from various authorities.
Any misadventure at this time will have a serious impact on
the overall project completion schedule resulting in an expo­
nential increase in the project cost, and in some of the cases,
projects get abondonded. A thorough investigation at this
juncture with respect to all the ‘do’s’ and ‘dont’s’ of the project
activities, including firming up of preliminary costing, consid­
ering the overall project requirement, will ensure the investors’
confidence. All the expenses involved under this category have
been termed as cost towards Panels and should be accounted
for in the project cost CPpa.
Cost of selection and finalisation of the right technology
(PV panels) and cost towards procurement of the same
(CPanel)
Selection of the right kind of technology, including vendors,
capable of meeting the project timelines, having excellent track
record regarding their performance including proven technol­
ogy with competitive price plays a vital role. In most cases,
failure on the part of selecting the right technology for the
given environment and other climatic conditions will lead to
generation loss and also degradation of the panels much before
the expected life span. Research has to be done while selecting
the appropriate technology, including the supplier with all the
warranties, so as to ensure that in the event any setback occurs,
the supplier should be able to make up good not only by
replacing the panels and also taking care of the generation
losses. All the expenses involved under this category should
be accounted for in the project cost C Panel.
Cost of AC and DC Electrical side including transmission,
evacuation, inverters and related works costing (CElec.)
The power generated from the panels will be DC, and this will
be required to be converted to AC with the help of an inverter
for further transmission to the grid or to the consumer point.
They are working out detailed costs with respect to the inver­
ter, electrical installation on both AC and DC side, transmis­
sion line along with facilities at the power plant and receiving
station, monitoring system to detect any issues with the panels.
All the expenses involved under this category should be
accounted for in the project cost CElect.
Cost of civil, mechanical design, fabrication, fixing of
Panels (CCiviland Mounting
Detailed design for civil and mechanical has to be carried out
after study with regard to soil parameters, foundation, wind,
earth quake, flooding, etc. There are several incidents wherein
the entire solar PV plant has been washed away due to floods
or blown off due to wind in view of the poor designs and
construction without QA and QC. Hence, required precau­
tions have to be taken at the time of investigation, design,
construction and commissioning followed by proper super­
vision, including the QA and QC. All the expenses involved
under this category should be accounted for in the project cost
CCivil and Mounting.
Cost of all the peripeheral works, testing and
commissioning (CPw and Com)
Every solar plant requires space all around for carrying out
routine inspections, O and M, besides protecting the plant
from theft. Hence, required accessibility to all the panels,

including the facility planned with proper entrance, security,
building for fixing and commissioning of inverters, etc., to be
catered while working out the detailed costing. Third-party
inspection at the time of testing and commissioning of the
plant is equally important for ensuring that there will not be
any fire hazards or any other such challenges at the time of
commissioning of the plant. All the expenses involved under
this category should be accounted for in the project
costCPw and Com.
Costing for safe disposal of the panels after their life span
(CPDis)
The dark side of any solar PV plant is the safe disposals of the
panels on completion of the estimated life span, which nor­
mally is considered as 25 to 30 years. While manufacturing the
solar panel, pure silicon is used. However, in order to increase
the efficiency of the panels, metals such as cadmium and lead
are added. This makes solar cells difficult to recycle, and if
these metals find its way to the soil or to water, then it becomes
hazards. Hence, it is important to earmark certain costings in
the overall projects costings towards safe disposal of the solar
panelsC PDis.
Life cycle costing of PV modules is totally dependent on the
quality of data or the input. Higher the accuracy of the data,
the output will be more realistic and implementable. As reit­
erated in Figure 1, the cost of the PV is decreasing in the last
decade. In view of this in the present study, the data and
information have been collected from the main developers or
implementing agency through a questionnaire with regard to
various parameters or activities involved in the entire life cycle
of the solar project. The only issue in the entire data system is
the disposal of solar PV panels. Consequent to completion of
life span (normally 25 to 30 years), it has been reported by all
the developers that the panels have to be safely disposed of, for
which a certain amount has to be earmarked while working out
the life cycle cost.
The data and information with regard to solar projects
implemented in Gujarat, Rajasthan, Karnataka and
Tamilnadu during the previous decade (2010 to 2020). The
Figure 5. Life cycle costing percentages for 1 MW solar power plant of Charanka, India.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING 1705
details of data and information with respect to various states
are furnished in Table 1 Tables 2 and 3. Figure 4 represents the
LCC percentages for the 3.3 MW solar power plant of
Karnataka, India. Figure 5 representsLCC percentages for the
1 MW solar power plant of Charanka, India. Figure 6 repre­
sents the LCC percentages for the 10 MW solar power plant of
Andhra Pradesh, India. Figure 7 represents LCC percentages
for the 15 MW solar power plant of Tamil Nadu, India. Figure
8 represents LCC percentages for the 5 MW solar power plant
of New Delhi, India and Figure 9 representsLCC percentages
for the 5 MW solar power plant of Barmer, Rajasthan, India.
Case analysis through projected cash flow and
sensitivity analysis
Cash flow has been worked out based on the initial investment
cost envisaged for all the projects based on the plant capacity.
Summary of the cost and other details are presented below,
which have been financial cash flow analysis for different
sensitivity scenarios. Table 4 highlights the summary of the
initial investment costs and other associated costs of the six
solar power plants of India under study. This comprises the
tariff, PV panel costs and Bill of Procurement (BOP) costs.
Sensitivity Scenarios in Analysis
Case-1: Base Cost and Base Revenue
Case-2: Base Cost increased by 15%, and base Revenue
Case-3: Base Cost and Base Revenue reduced by 15%
Case-4: Base Cost increased by 15%, and Base Revenue
reduced by 15%
Table 5 represents the sensitivity analysis for the four cases
of the Chankara solar power plant of 1 MW in Gujarat. It has
been observed that 25 years project IRR for case 1 is 17.1%, for
case 2 is 14%, for case 3 is 13.4% and for case 4 is 10.7%. The
project payback period for case 1 is 6.49 years, case 2 is
7.54 years, case 3 is 7.77 years, and case 4 is 9.12 years. The
results of sensitivity analysis reveal that the plant is techo-
economically viable. Figure 10 represents the cash flow dia­
gram for sensitivity analysis for case 1 for the solar power plant
1706 N. RANGANATH AND D. SARKAR

Figure 6. Life cycle costing percentages for 10 MW solar power plant of Andhra Pradesh, India.

Figure 7. Life cycle costing percentages for 15 MW solar power plant of Tamil Nadu, India.

Figure 8. Life cycle costing percentages for 10 MW solar power plant of New Delhi, India.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING 1707

Figure 9. Life cycle costing percentages for 5 MW solar power plant of Barmer, Rajasthan, India.

Table 1. Module price and installed capacity in India.

S No. Year Module price (INR/Wp) Cumulative installed capacity in India (MW)
1 2010 68 161
2 2011 60 461
3 2012 48 1205
4 2013 41 2319
5 2014 37 2632
6 2015 32 3744
7 2016 30 6763
8 2017 28 12,289
9 2018 24 21,651
10 2019 21 28,181
11 2020 21 34,627

Table 2. Life cycle costing model for solar photovoltaic in Indian scenario.
S Charanka, Barmer, Andhra New
No. Description Gujarat Rajasthan Tamilnadu Pradesh Delhi Karnataka
1 MW 5 MW 15 MW 10 MW 10 MW 3.3 MW
Costing (INR Million)
1 Pre project Costing 7.5 28.5 44.0 2.5 20.5 2.5
2 Selection and procurement Costing of PV panels. 75.5 200.0 562.5 320.0 450.0 115.5
3 AC and DC Electrical, Inverter, Installation, Transmission, evacuation, including 260.0 137.5 227.5 140.3 103.0 32.86
related works costing.
4 Civil, Mechanical design including mounting structure costing. 17.5 87.5 157.5 159.3 306.0 31.64
5 All the Peripeheral works, Testing and Commissioning 1.5 23.5.0 70.0 29.5 175.5 12.4.
6 Operation and Maintainance 45.0 150.0 510.0 360.0 500.0 120.0
7 Safe Disposal of the solar PV Panels 2.5 10.0 25.0 12.0 15.0 9.0
Total cost 175.5 627.0 1571.5 1011.6 1555.0 314.9

Table 3. Investment/Costing Heads for solar photo voltaic in Indian scenario.

Investment/Costing Heads
Commissioning Pre- PV AC and DC Electrical, Inverter, Installation, Transmission, Civil, Mechanical Design including Peripheral works, Testing
Year project panels Evacuation, including Related Works. Mounting Structure. and Commissioning
2013 5.97 41.93 28.83 18.34 4.93
2014 4.15 52.99 21.43 14.84 6.59
2015 0.38 49.11 21.53 24.45 4.53
2016 1.94 42.65 9.76 29.00 16.64
2017 1.28 59.26 16.86 16.23 6.36
1708 N. RANGANATH AND D. SARKAR

Table 4. Summary of the initial investment cost and other costs for the solar power plants of India understudy.
S No. Charanka, Gujarat Barmer, Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Andhra Pradesh New Delhi Karnataka
1 Project No. 1 2 3 4 5 6
2 Tariff (INR/KWH) 15.00 8.00 7.05 7.05 8.05 8.40
3 PV Cost (INR Cr./MW) 7.55 4.00 3.75 3.20 4.50 3.50
4 Bill of Procurement (BOP) Cost (INR Cr./MW) 5.50 5.74 3.49 3.44 6.20 2.68
5 Total MW 1 5 15 10 10 3
6 1st PV Panel Module Commissioning Capacity 0.50 2.50 7.50 5.00 5.00 1.65
7 2nd PV Panel Module Commissioning Capacity (MW) 0.50 2.50 7.50 5.00 5.00 1.65

Table 5. Sensitivity analysis results for the four cases of the Shankara solar plant 1 MW in Gujarat.
Project 1: Charanka, Gujarat (1 MW)
Sensitivity Cases Results
Financial Indicators/Sensitivity Cases Case-1 Case-2 Case-3 Case-4
Tariff (INR/KWH) 15.00 15.00 12.75 12.75
PV Cost (INR Cr./MW) 7.55 8.68 7.55 8.68
BOP Cost (INR Cr./MW) 5.50 6.33 5.50 6.33
25 Yr. Equity IRR 45.1% 31.7% 28.1% 20.1%
Equity Payback (Yrs) 3.15 4.23 4.80 7.75
25 Yr. Equity NPV (INR Cr.) 5.18 4.21 3.28 2.31
DSCR 2.17 1.91 1.81 1.59
25 Yr. Project IRR 17.1% 14.0% 13.4% 10.7%
Project Payback(Yrs) 6.49 7.54 7.77 9.12
25 Yr. Project NPV (INR Cr.) 5.84 3.74 2.79 0.69

of Charanka, Gujarat. Figure 11 represents a cash flow diagram
for sensitivity analysis for case-2 of the Charanka solar power
plant of Gujarat. Figure 12 represents the cash flow diagram
for sensitivity analysis for case-3 of the Charanka solar power
plant of Gujarat. Figure 13 represents the cash flow diagram
for sensitivity analysis for case-4 of the Charanka solar power
plant of Gujarat.
According to Figure 10, which represents the cash flow
diagram for sensitivity analysis for case 1 for solar power
plant of Charanka, Gujarat, the cash revenue from the power
sales it goes on increasing from year 2029 upto 2046. The other
associated costs like operation and maintenance (O and M)
costs, insurance costs, etc. are within the range which the
project authorities can afford. Thus, from the LCC computa­
tion, it has been observed that the project is techno-
economically viable.
Figure 11 represents the cash flow diagram for sensitivity
analysis for case-2 of the Charanka solar power plant of
Gujarat. According to Figure 5, the cash flow diagram for the
sensitivity analysis shows that the revenue from the power
sales starts increasing from year 2029 and then goes on steep
increase upto year 2046. The other associated costs related to
operations and maintenance and insurance costs remain con­
stant within an affordable range from year 2021 to 2046.
Thereby this indicates that the project for case 2 is techno-
economically viable.

Figure 10. Cash flow diagram for sensitivity analysis for Case-1Charanka, Gujarat (1 MW).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING 1709

Figure 11. Cash flow diagram for sensitivity analysis for Case-2Charanka, Gujarat (1 MW).

Figure 12. Cash flow diagram for sensitivity analysis for Case-3Charanka, Gujarat (1 MW).

Figure 12 represents cash flow diagram for sensitivity ana­
lysis for case-3 of the Charanka solar power plant of Gujarat. It
has been observed that the revenue from the power sales starts
increasing from year 2028 and then continuously increases
upto year 2046. The associated costs are bit less in the initial
years of 2021 and 2022 but then remain constant upto year
2046. Thus, this plant also is techno-economically viable.
Figure 13 represents cash flow diagram for sensitivity ana­
lysis for case-4 of the Charanka solar power plant of Gujarat. It
has been observed that the revenue from the power sales starts
increasing from year 2029 and then continuously increases
upto year 2046. The associated costs are bit less in the initial
years of 2021 and 2022 but then remain constant upto year
2046. Thus, this plant also is techno-economically viable.
Table 6 represents the sensitivity analysis for the four cases
of the Barmer, Rajasthan solar plant 5 MW in India. According
to Table 6 it has been observed that 25 years project IRR for
case 1 is 9.9%, for case 2 is 7.6%, for case 3 is 7.2% and for case
4 is 5.1%. The project payback period for case 1 is 9.61 years,
case 2 is 11.43 years, case 3 is 11.86 years and case 4 is
14.31 years. The results of sensitivity analysis reveal that the
plant is techo-economically viable.
Table 7 represents the sensitivity analysis results for the four
cases of the Tamil Nadu solar plant 15 MW in India. Table 7
represents the sensitivity analysis results for the four cases of
the Tamil Nadu solar plant 15 MW in India. According to
Table 7, it has been observed that 25 years project IRR for case
1 is 13%, for case 2 is 10.4%, for case 3 is 9.9% and for case 4 is
1710 N. RANGANATH AND D. SARKAR

Figure 13. Cash flow diagram for sensitivity analysis for Case-4Charanka, Gujarat (1 MW).

Table 6.. Sensitivity analysis results for the four cases of the Barmer, Rajasthan solar plant 5 MW in India.
Project 2: Barmer, Rajasthan (5 MW)
Sensitivity Cases Results
Financial Indicators/Sensitivity Cases Case-1 Case-2 Case-3 Case-4
Tariff (INR/KWH) 8.00 8.00 6.80 6.80
PV Cost (INR Cr./MW) 4.00 4.60 4.00 4.60
BOP Cost (INR Cr./MW) 5.74 6.60 5.74 6.60
25 Yr. Equity IRR 29.2% 21.2% 18.2% 13.1%
Equity Payback (Yrs) 4.58 6.92 9.69 11.67
25 Yr. Equity NPV (INR Cr.) 10.22 7.39 5.15 2.32
DSCR 1.83 1.62 1.52 1.34
25 Yr. Project IRR 9.9% 7.6% 7.2% 5.1%
Project Payback(Yrs) 9.61 11.43 11.86 14.31
25 Yr. Project NPV (INR Cr.) −0.16 −8.02 −8.30 −16.16

Table 7.. Sensitivity analysis results for the four cases of the Tamil Nadu solar plant 15 MW in India.
Project 3: Tamilnadu(15 MW)
Sensitivity Cases Results
Financial Indicators/Sensitivity Cases Case-1 Case-2 Case-3 Case-4
Tariff (Rs./KWH) 7.05 7.05 5.99 5.99
PV Cost (INR Cr./MW) 3.75 4.31 3.75 4.31
BOP Cost (INR Cr./MW) 3.49 4.02 3.49 4.02
25 Yr. Equity IRR 25.7% 19.1% 16.5% 12.1%
Equity Payback (Yrs) 5.34 8.62 10.47 12.11
25 Yr. Equity NPV (INR Cr.) 25.56 18.10 12.17 4.68
DSCR 1.73 1.53 1.43 1.27
25 Yr. Project IRR 13.0% 10.4% 9.9% 7.6%
Project Payback(Yrs) 7.95 9.32 9.66 11.48
25 Yr. Project NPV (INR Cr.) 20.61 3.08 −0.90 −18.43
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING 1711

7.6%. The project payback period for case 1 is 7.95 years, case 2
is 9.32 years, case 3 is 9.66 years, and case 4 is 11.48 years. The
results of sensitivity analysis reveal that the plant is techo-
economically viable.
Table 8 represents the sensitivity analysis results for the four
cases of the New Delhi solar plant 10 MW in India. According
to Table 8 it has been observed that 25 years project IRR for case
1 is 8.5%, for case 2 is 6.3%, for case 3 is 5.8% and for case 4 is
3.8%. The project payback period for case 1 is 10.69 years, case 2
is 12.80 years, case 3 is 13.31 years, and case 4 is 16.20 years. The
results of sensitivity analysis reveal that the plant is to a certain
extent techo-economically viable, and attempts need to be made
to increase the IRR and reduce the project payback period.
Table 9 represents the sensitivity analysis results for the four
cases of the Karnataka solar plant 3.3 MW in India. According
to Table 8, it has been observed that 25 years project IRR for
case 1 is 20.9%, for case 2 is 17.4%, for case 3 is 16.6% and for
case 4 is 13.6%. The project payback period for case 1 is
5.56 years, case 2 is 6.41 years, case 3 is 6.62 years and case 4
is 7.69 years. The results of sensitivity analysis reveal that the
plant is very much techo-economically viable.
Results and Discussions
In the present study, costing has been worked out for the
projects executed in the states of Gujarat, Rajasthan, New
Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu states of
India.Data has been compiled for the projects in the east, west,
north and south of India. The investment costing considered
includes pre-project expenses, PV panels, electrical AC and
DC, civil andmechanicalinstallation and peripheral works. The
cost towards disposal of the PV panels has also been consid­
ered. In all the cases, PV panel investment is the highest, and
the pre-project or the peripheral expenses are the lowest. In
some cases, like Andhra Pradesh, the land was owned by the
developer. The solar projects which are considered for evalua­
tion of life cycle cost analysis are located in different geo­
graphic locations of India. The major cost component in
solar project is the supply of solar panels and any change in
the cost of solar panel procurement will have direct impact on
the project cost. Incidentally, the graph presented in the paper
shows the decline in the solar panel cost over a period of a
decade starting from 2010 to 2020 for procurement of solar
panels in Indian scenario. The solar projects have been exe­
cuted starting from 2010–11 to as late as 2017–18. During this
period, the cost of solar panels have drastically reduced from
INR 68/Wp to INR 21/Wp. Since this component is being the
major item of the solar project, there is a substantial reduction
in the project cost. This is also reflected in PPA rates signed by
project authorities which is varying from INR 15/KWh to INR
7.05/KWh.
According to the objectives of this research which is to
compute a LCCA model for the solar power plants in India,
it has been observed that feasibility and economic viability of
solar power plants are quite high but there needs to be aware­
ness campaigns and policy incentives for promotion of

Table 8.. Sensitivity analysis results for the four cases of the New Delhi solar plant 10 MW in India.
Project 5: New Delhi(10 MW)
Sensitivity Cases Results
Financial Indicators/Sensitivity Cases Case-1 Case-2 Case-3 Case-4
Tariff (Rs./KWH) 8.05 8.05 6.84 6.84
PV Cost (INR Cr./MW) 4.50 5.18 4.50 5.18
BOP Cost (INR Cr./MW) 6.20 7.13 6.20 7.13
25 Yr. Equity IRR 23.0% 16.6% 14.4% 9.9%
Equity Payback (Yrs) 6.09 10.44 11.20 13.27
25 Yr. Equity NPV (INR Cr.) 16.50 10.17 6.30 −0.21
DSCR 1.67 1.47 1.38 1.21
25 Yr. Project IRR 8.5% 6.3% 5.8% 3.8%
Project Payback(Yrs) 10.69 12.80 13.31 16.20
25 Yr. Project NPV (INR Cr.) −9.90 −27.17 −26.28 −43.54

Table 9. Sensitivity analysis results for the four cases of the Karnataka solar plant 3.3 MW in India.
Project 6: Karnataka(3.3 MW)
Sensitivity Cases Results
Financial Indicators/Sensitivity Cases Case-1 Case-2 Case-3 Case-4
Tariff (INR/KWH) 8.40 8.40 7.14 7.14
PV Cost (INR Cr./MW) 3.50 4.03 3.50 4.03
BOP Cost (INR Cr./MW) 2.68 3.08 2.68 3.08
25 Yr. Equity IRR 49.8% 36.8% 31.2% 23.5%
Equity Payback (Yrs) 2.94 3.71 4.32 6.02
25 Yr. Equity NPV (INR Cr.) 10.30 8.80 6.79 5.29
DSCR 2.23 1.99 1.86 1.66
25 Yr. Project IRR 20.9% 17.4% 16.6% 13.6%
Project Payback(Yrs) 5.56 6.41 6.62 7.69
25 Yr. Project NPV (INR Cr.) 14.30 11.01 8.66 5.37
1712 N. RANGANATH AND D. SARKAR
sustainable and renewable energy-like solar energy. The cash
flow analysis for all the six cases confirms that project payback
depends on initial investment and Power Purchase Agreement
(PPA) rate. The payback is generally less than eight years
which is less than 30% of the project life cycle of 25 years.
The results of this research are comparable with the past
researches in India carried out by Kumar (2015), Kumar
(2016); Ranganath et al. (2020); Raina and Sinha (2019);
Sahu (2016) and Sharma et al. (2012). The studies carried out
by the stated authors also communicates about the techno-
economic feasibility of the solar powern plants in India and
encourages and promotes the use of solar energy in Indian
subcontinent. However, this study may not be considered with
the past studies outside Indian subcontinent as the geographi­
cal conditions, meteorological conditions and environmental
conditions are quite different and do not match with that of
India. This study should set the baseline for the Indian sub­
continent, and future works may be compared with the results
of this study.
The novelty and unique contribution of this research lies in
communicating the concerned authorities and policy makers
of India about the techno-economic feasibility of the solar
plants in India which is adequately supported by the results
and findings of this study. Also, this is an unique study for
LCCA where the disposal cost of the solar PV pannels has also
been considered.
Validation of Data
The data and information furnished by the various project
implementing authorities or developers have also been vali­
dated by interacting with many suppliers in order to ensure the
data is realistic, with regard to costing of PV model, costing of
inverters, costing of civil structures including mounting, etc.,
has been verified. The data and information furnished by the
developers are found to be realistic and can be considered for
evaluation of LCC of the project. However, regarding the
disposal of the PV model, not much validation could be done
except a confirmation from respective developers.
Conclusions
The exponential increase and growth in Renewable Energy
(RE) markets like solar and wind have led to the need for an
accurate and precise evaluation of the economic feasibility of
these technologies. This is a cause of concern to the project
investors, developers and decision-makers. It is required to
consider the cost of all the works involved in such projects
right from the feasibility stage till completion of the project
and also at safe disposal phases. Hence, LCC is an excellent
approach and methodology, especially for a RE system which
shows the benefits of using RE as an alternative source com­
pared to fuel incurred costs (due to fluctuations) in the present
scenario in view of global warming. LCC model for solar PV
generation system has been developed for an Indian scenario
based on the data and information collected through extensive
questionnaire by interacting with developers, investors and
also contractors. The unique feature of the current study has
been consideration of the solar PV pannel disposal costs. It has
been observed that for 25 years PV lifetime, the operation and
maintenance contribution and safe disposal of the PV panels to
LCC is a mere 32.45%, and the average module price is INR
36.4/Wp. The capital investment is INR 76.96/Wp which indi­
cates the benefits and the viability of the project for the given
lifetime of the PV. The cash flow analysis carried out in this
study for all the six solar power plants of India in the state of
Karnataka, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, New Delhi
and Rajasthan confirms that, project payback depends on
initial investment and Power Purchase Agreement (PPA)
rate. The payback period is generally less than eight years for
the project whose life cycle is about twenty-five years. Thereby,
in Indian scenario, it can be concluded that the solar power
plants which are planned to be installed and implemented in
the upcoming and next decade are techno-economically
feasible.
Scope for Future Research
The future scope of this research work lies in developing a
Social Benefit Cost Analysis (SBCA) model for the solar power
plants of India. This model along with the LCCA model may
help in effective decision-making for techno-economic feasi­
bility analysis of the upcoming solar power plants in India.
Application of Internet of Things (IoT) can be explored for
maintenance of the solar pannels.Future research can also be
carried out in developing LCCA and SBCA for the storage
systems of the generated solar energy. Land cost and associated
compensation is a very important costing overhead which has
not been considered in this present study as the data is partially
available. The values also vary by a big margin from state to
state depending upon the affinity to nearby township. This
component would be considered as a scope for future research.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributors
Mr N. Ranganath is Managing Director with EI Technologies (P) Ltd,
Bangalore, India. He is also PhD student of Department of Civil
Engineering, School of Technology, Pandit Deendayal Energy
University (formerly Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University),
Gandhinagar, India. His research interests include solar energy imple­
mentation, operation and management, project management and solar
risk management.
Dr Debasis Sarkar has been working as Associate Professor and former
HOD of Department of Civil Engineering, Pandit Deendayal Energy
University (formerly, Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University)
Gandhinagar, India. His research interests are sustainable developmnent,
built environment, Building Information Modelling (BIM), solar energy
management, project management and risk management, He has received
Best Researcher Award 2021 and Best Paper Awards in international
conferences in Amsterdam, Netherlands, Berlin, Germany, AMA,
Ahmedabad, India and NICMAR, Pune, India.
References
Alagh, Y. K., J. Shah, and V. K. Shah. 1998. Power Economics in Gujarat.
New Delhi: Har-Anand Publications.

Bhat, K. S., U. Bachhiesl, and G. Feichtinger. 2019. “A Techno-economic
Model-based Analysis of the Renewable Energy Transition in the
Indian Subcontinent Region.” Elektrotech, Inftech 136: 361–367.
doi:10.1007/s00502-019-00773-w.
Burdick, J., and P. Schmidt. 2017. Designing and Installing a Photovoltaic
System to Power Your Home. North Adams, Massachusetts, USA:
Storey Publishing LLC.
Dawn, S., P. Tiwari, A. Goswami, and M. Mishra. 2016. “Recent
Developments of Solar Energy in India: Perspectives, Strategies and
Future Goals.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62: 215–235.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.04.040.
Dell’Isola, A. J., and S. J. Kirk. 2003. Life Cycle Costing for Facilities.
Kingston, USA: Construction Publishers and Consultants.
Dhillon, B. S. 2009. Life Cycle Costing for Engineers. New Delhi: CRC
Press.
Farr, J. V. 2011. Systems Life Cycle Costing: Economic Analysis, Estimation
and Management. UK: CRC Press.
Jiang, A., and Y. Zhu. 2011. “Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Residential
Grid-connected Solar Photovoltaic Systems in Florida.” International
Journal of Construction Education and Research 7: 71–81. doi:10.1080/
15578771.2011.615892.
Kumar, D. 2015. “Economic Assessment of Photovoltaic Energy
Production Prospects in India.” Procedia Earth and Planetary Science
11: 425–436. doi:10.1016/j.proeps.2015.06.042.
Kumar, S. 2016. “Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews Solar
Photovoltaic Energy Progress in India: A Review.” Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 59: 927–939. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.049.
Matthews, H. S., G. Cicas, and J. L. Aguirre. 2004. “Economic and
Environmental Evaluation of Residential Fixed Solar Photo Voltaic
Systems in the United States.” Journal of Infrastructure Systems 10:
105–110. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2004)10:3(105).
Pankadan, S., S. Nikam, and N. Anwer. 2021. An Analysis for
Management of End-of-Life Solar PV in India. In: Proceedings of the
7th International Conference on Advances in Energy Research,2021,
1361–1371. Singapore: Springer Proceedings in Energy.
Raina, G., and S. Sinha. 2019. “Outlook on the Indian Scenario of Solar
Energy Strategies: Policies and Challenges.” Energy Strategy Reviews
24: 331–341. doi:10.1016/j.esr.2019.04.005.
Ranganath, N., D. Sarkar, P. Patel, and S. Patel. 2020. “Application of
Fuzzy TOPSIS Method for Risk Evaluation in Development and
Implementation of Solar Park in India.” International Journal of
Construction Management 1–11. doi:10.1080/15623599.2020.1826027.
Ren, M., C. R. Mitchell, and W. Mo. 2020. “Dynamic Life Cycle Economic
and Environmental Assessment of Residential Solar Photo Voltaic
Systems.” Science of the Total Environment 722: 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2020.137932.
Sahu, B. K. 2016. “Solar Energy Developments, Policies and Future
Prospects in the State of Odisa, India.” Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 61: 526–536. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.04.027.
Sajid, M. U., and Y. Bicer. 2021. “Comparative Life Cycle Cost Analysis of
Various Solar Energy-based Integrated Systems for Self-sufficient
Green Houses.” Sustainable Production and Consumption 27:
141–156. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2020.10.025.
Sawant, N., and P. Jadhav. 2020. “Solar PV for Irrigation in India:
Developing a Framework for Determining Appropriate Pump
Characteristics for a Region, Advances in Energy Research.” Springer
Proceedings in Energy 1: 495–503.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING 1713
Sharma, A. 2011a. “A Comprehensive Study of Solar Power in India and
World.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15: 1767–1776.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2010.12.017.
Sharma, B. 2011b. Performance of Solar Plant in India. New Delhi: Central
Electricity Commission.
Sharma, N. K., P. K. Tiwari, and Y. R. Sood. 2012. “Solar Energy in India:
Strategies, Policies, Perspectives and Future Potential.” Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 16: 933–941. doi:10.1016/j.
rser.2011.09.014.
Sharma, P., and T. Harinarayana. 2012. “Enhancement of Energy
Generation from Two Layer Solar Panels.” International Journal of
Energy Environment and Engineering 3: 1–9. doi:10.1186/2251-6832-
3-12.
Sharma, P., and T. Harinarayana. 2013. “Solar Energy Generation
Potential along National Highways.” International Journal of
Energy Environment and Engineering 4: 1–13. doi:10.1186/2251-
6832-4-16.
Sheth, A., and D. Sarkar. 2019. “Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Electric Vs
Diesel Bus Transit in an Indian Scenario.” International Journal of
Technology 10: 105–115. doi:10.14716/ijtech.v10i1.1958.
Sheth, A., and D. Sarkar. 2020. “Socio-economic Feasibility Analysis for
Sustainable Mass Rapid Transit Project in Western India.” Journal of
Construction in Developing Countries 25: 129–151. doi:10.21315/
jcdc2020.25.2.5.
Sheth, A., and D. Sarkar. 2021. “Social Benefit Cost Analysis of Electric
Bus Transit for Ahmedabad.” Transportation in Developing Economies
7: 1–16. doi:10.1007/s40890-021-00116-5.
Sheth, A., D. Sarkar, and I. Mukhopadhyay. 2020. “Social Benefit Cost and
Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Sustainable Biodiesel Bus Transport in
India.” International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 1–14.
doi:10.1080/19397038.2020.1774818.
Shezan, S. A. 2020. “Design and Demonstration of an Islanded Hybrid
Microgrid for an Enormous Motel with the Appropriate
Solicitation of Superfluous Energy by Using iHOGA and Matlab.”
International Journal of Energy Research 45 (4): 5567–5585.
doi:10.1002/er.6184.
Shezan, S. A. 2021. “Feasibility Analysis of an Islanded Hybrid
Wind-diesel-battery Microgrid with Voltage and Power Response for
Offshore Islands.” Journal of Cleaner Production 288: 125568.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125568.
Shezan, S. A., K. N. Hasan, and M. Datta. 2019. Optimal Sizing of an
Islanded Hybrid Microgrid considering Alternative Dispatch
Strategies, 2019, 29th Australasian Universities Power Engineering
Conference (AUPEC); 1–6. IEEE, Perth, Australia.
Shrimali, G., and S. Rohra. 2012. “India Solar Mission: A Review.”
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16 (8): 6317–6332.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.06.018.
Singh, S., and D. W. Gao. 2019. Noiseless Consensus Based Economic
Dispatch Algorithm in Conjunction with STATCOM Controller for
Reactive Power Compensation in Islanded Microgrids to Enhance
Voltage and Power Stability,” 2019. In: North American Power
Symposium (NAPS): 1–6. IEEE, Colorado, USA.
Smets, A., K. Jager, O. Isabella, R. V. Swaaij, and M. Zeman. 2016. Solar
Energy: The Physics and Engineering of Photovoltaic Conversion,
Technologies and Systems,2016. UK: UIT Cambridge.
Solanki, C. S. 2015. Solar Photovoltaics: Fundamentals, Technologies and
Applications. India, New Delhi: Prentice Hall.