Environment, Development and Sustainability

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00583-2

Techno‑economic analysis of off‑grid solar/wind/biogas/

biomass/fuel cell/battery system for electrification
in a cluster of villages by HOMER software

Suresh Vendoti1   · M. Muralidhar2 · R. Kiranmayi3

Received: 18 December 2018 / Accepted: 30 December 2019

© Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Abstract
Electrification of villages is a vital step for improving the techno-economic conditions of
rural areas and crucial for the country’s overall development. The villages’ welfare is one
of the main aims of the rural electrification programs. Rural electrification is relatively
costly compared to electrification of urban areas. Now, the research question is to find the
best combinations of HRES from the available resources in a given village location that
can meet the electricity demand in a sustainable manner and to see whether this is a cost-
effective solution or not. This study is an attempt to structure a model of electricity gen-
eration based on multiple combinations of HRES with the application of HOMER energy
software at an identified off-grid village location in India. The main objectives of this study
are to analyze the best-suited configuration of a hybrid RE system out of various combina-
tions to meet the village load requirement reliably, continuously and sustainably. The study
also reduces the total system net present cost and least cost of energy (COE) using multi-
objective HOMER Pro software. In this study, a resource assessment and demand calcula-
tion have been carried out and the COE per unit has been ascertained for different systems
and configurations. A combination of PV–Wind–Biomass–Biogas–FC along with battery
has been identified as the cheapest and most dependable solution with a COE of $0.214/
kWh.

Keywords  Hybrid renewable energy system · Solar PV · Fuel cell system · Wind system ·
Biomass/biogas system · HOMER pro software

Abbreviations
HOMER Hybrid optimization model of electric renewable
COE Cost of energy

Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1066​

8-019-00583​-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

* Suresh Vendoti
[email protected]
1
EEE Department, JNTUA​, Ananthapuramu, A.P. 515002, India
2
EEE Department, SVCET Chittoor, Chittoor, A.P 517127, India
3
EEE Department, JNTUA Anantapur, Ananthapuramu, A.P 515002, India

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 S. Vendoti et al.

TNPC Total net present cost

ELE Electrolyzer
HRES Hybrid renewable energy system
BATT​ Battery
DSM Demand side management
FC Fuel cell
LCOE Least cost of energy
SPV Solar photo voltaic
BMG Biomass generator
BGG Biomass generator
WTG​ Wind turbine generator
SOC State of charge
H2Tank Hydrogen storage tank
DOD Depth of discharge
CRF Capital recovery factor
PEM Polymer electrolyte membrane

List of symbols
γ Annual interest (%)
hBGG No. of hours operated in BGG
τ Plant life
σ Hourly self-discharge rate
$ US dollars
hBMG No. of hours operated in BMG
C1, C2, C3, C4 Four combinations of HRES model
Egen Generation of annual energy (kWh)

1 Introduction

Sustainable and environmentally friendly renewable sources like solar PV, wind, fuel cells,
biogas, and biomass are the most growing energy sources in building a nation with a strong
economy. But a renewable source of energy experiences a number of restrictions while
used in a stand-alone application. The power produced from wind turbine and solar PV is
particularly dependent on environmental factors, while fuel cells need hydrogen-enriched
fuel. Biomass/biogas energy generating systems are sophisticated technologies that have
been developed newly and are extensively used in stand-alone mode for the rural area
energy demands. Fuel cells produce a huge amount of potential in the future green sources
as of numerous advantages for example high efficiency, zero emissions, and flexible struc-
ture. To conquer these problems, solar and wind energy sources are combined with other
sources. A hybrid renewable energy system (HRES) is formed by making more number
of renewable resources. Therefore, to obtain higher efficiency by making best use of their
characters as overcoming their restrictions (Vendoti et al. 2018; Rajanna and Saini 2016a).
Electrification in rural areas is enforced by technical barriers like restricted transmission,
hard terrains, and highly dispersed area with low population distinguished by lower educa-
tion, load density, and revenues.
This paper focuses on designing of rural electrification solutions considering hybrid
renewable energy systems for rural remote areas. Off-grid hybrid systems often are the

13
Techno‑economic analysis of off‑grid…

least-costly; they are a long-term energy solution and capable of delivering the best ser-
vices of the three alternatives. Adverse environmental effects such as greenhouse gas emis-
sion, global warming, and climate change, etc., has promoted focus on alternate energy
generations like solar, wind, hydro, tidal, and biogas, etc. In recent years, application of
renewable energy sources for electrification is becoming economically feasible due to rapid
development of relevant technologies (Halabi et al. 2017).
The remoteness of the majority villages and other physical boundaries make the addi-
tion of the electricity grid and different facilities using conservative energy distribution
networks almost incomprehensible or uneconomic. Moreover, the absences of the basic
facilities in the rural and remote areas are rising rapidly; the rush of urban immigration is
immersing the developing world. Such trends have to be arrested and upturned success-
fully to avoid the dangerous unbalanced growth. To accomplish this, electricity must be
provided in the remote and rural area also in sustainable manner (Hossain et al. 2017). For
the immediate future, the challenge is to provide electricity at a cost-effective basis to rural
remote areas as well to improve the quality of life and slow down the mass migration to the
cities. In other words, electricity should migrate to the remote areas instead of the people
migrating to the cities where the electricity is available. Engineers have to design size- and
cost-based hybrid renewable energy systems and optimize its applications in rural areas for
electrification in off-grid manner.
Rajanna and Saini (2014) developed a HOMER-based hybrid renewable energy system
to determine the different cost components, for example net present cost and cost of energy.
Rajanna and Saini (2016b) also developed the hybrid system using genetic algorithm to
fulfill the energy needs of various load sections within the rural villages in Chamarajana-
gar, Karnataka (India). Chauhan and Saini (2016a) proposed sizing-based hybrid renew-
able energy system to deliver the uninterrupted power supply to fulfill the energy demands
within the study area. They were found in different combinations of resources on optimum
cost of the hybrid energy system models using discrete harmony search algorithm. Chau-
han and Saini (2016b) also presented a comparative study of DSM-based hybrid energy
system through load shifting strategy. They suggested that with demand side management
strategy is most cost feasible solution than without demand side management strategy.
Olatomiwa et  al. (2015) developed different configurations of hybrid energy system
with six geopolitical zones of Nigeria. They determined economic feasibility solution using
HOMER software with sensitivity cases of $1.1–$1.3/1 based NPC and COE. Olatomiwa
et al. (2018) also presented a statistical analysis of wind and solar energies potentials for
rural areas in Nigeria based on the availability of meteorological data. It employs design
and sizing of an optimal technical and economic hybrid energy system components using
HOMER software. Olatomiwa et  al. (2015) also compared the two best optimal system
configurations namely, PV–diesel–battery and PV–wind–diesel–battery systems with the
conventional system. They indicated that PV array (10  kW), DG (5.5  kW), battery (64
units) is the most economically viable option with the TNPC of $69,811 and COE of 0.409
$/kWh.
Kumar et  al. (2017) presented a bi-level system employing decision analysis and
multi-objective optimization method for design and analysis of a rural micro-grid for
developing nations with a perception of sustainable development. Das et  al. (2019)
compared the performance of two meta-heuristic optimization techniques, namely
MFO and WCA algorithms. They are evaluated techno-economic optimal design of a
PV–BG–Battery–PHES-based HRES and compared with GA to obtain for powering a
radio transmitter station in India. Zhang et al. (2019) proposed a new hybrid optimiza-
tion algorithm for optimal sizing of a stand-alone hybrid energy system based on three

13
 S. Vendoti et al.

algorithms such as chaotic search, harmony search and simulated annealing. They are
used to review the feasibility study of proposed system with reliability.
Samy et  al. (2018) developed a techno-economic feasibility study for off-grid solar
PV-fuel cell hybrid energy systems for supplying electricity to remote areas in Egypt.
They found the total annual cost using Flower Pollination Algorithm (FPA). The loss of
power supply probability is also considered to improve the system performance. Vendoti
et al. (2018) implemented the design analysis of hybrid solar PV/fuel cell/battery-based
system for cluster of villages in India. Two storage devices are considered; both are
producing electricity as well as storage. But, a battery stores energy inside it. It also
makes energy like that of a fuel cell making its electricity through an external stor-
age tank. Batteries are used for the most part, for instantaneous use while for contin-
ued usage hydrogen storage is profitable. Jamshidi and Askarzadeh (2018) presented
a multi-objective design of a photovoltaic, fuel cell and diesel generator hybrid energy
system to supply the power of an off-grid rural community in Kerman, South of Iran,
with the presence of operating reserve and uncertainties.
Majority of the research scientists developed hybrid renewable energy system mod-
els in various configurations. From the available literature and gaps identified in the
research recognized above, here a novel hybrid renewable energy system (HRES) model
is developed for size and cost optimization of off-grid HRES for electrification in remote
rural areas. The HRES consists of solar–wind–biomass–biogas–fuel cell along with bat-
tery. Multi-objective HOMER software is proposed to solve sizing and economic prob-
lems. System performance is examined and compared by different combinations of
HRES for optimal configurations with minimum value of NPC and COE. Optimized
system is economically feasible, reasonable environmental benefits, attractive payback
period and also fewer emissions. Finally, sensitivity analysis is also presented for vari-
ation in annual wind speed and biomass fuel price with cost of energy and net present
cost.
The main contributions of the paper are listed below:

1. A novel hybrid renewable energy system (HRES) was developed for size and cost opti-
mization problems in remote areas.
2. The best-suited configuration of a hybrid RE system out of various combinations to meet
the village load requirement reliably, continuously and sustainably.
3. The minimized COE generation from the hybrid renewable energy system.
4. System performance is examined and compared with four combinations of stand-alone
HRES with minimum value of NPC and COE.
5. Combination of solar–wind–biomass–biogas–fuelcell–battery system leads to having
an efficient system.
6. Sensitivity analyses are also carried out for variation in annual wind speed and biomass
fuel price with COE and NPC.
7. Proposed system has reasonable environmental benefits, attractive payback period and
less emission.

The next section of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides methodol-
ogy adapted to the study which consists of selection of study area, demand assessment
and resource assessment. Sections 3 and 4 explain the mathematical modeling of all sys-
tem components and problem formulation. Section 5 gives the details of HOMER Pro
software. Section 6 shows the results and discussions, and Sect. 7 concludes the paper.

13
Techno‑economic analysis of off‑grid…

2 Methodologies

The selection of study area and its renewable sources availability and the estimation of energy
demands are allowed by the minimum desirable load in the study area as discussed below.

2.1 Case study

Chamarajanagar district, Karnataka (India), is selected for the case study, in which a clus-
ter of three un-electrified village-hamlets are established (http://www.ddugj​y.gov.in/porta​l/
state​_wise_summa​ry1.jsp?State​Code=29). The study consists of total 408 households and
1686 populations (Rajanna 2016). Majority of the population in these areas are living in
hilly terrains; supplying energy into these areas is difficult so that expansion of the grid is
not a viable solution. Renewable energy source availability is enormous in this study area as
solar, wind, biomass, and biogas; these are used in stand-alone mode. The plot of geological
location is shown in Fig. 1, and information regarding the cluster of three villages is given in
supplementary information Table 1 (List of Villages/Towns, Census of India 2011).

2.2 Energy demand assessment

The study area has presently low electrical energy demand, but as the electrical power will
be generated near to the villages, the energy consumption is expected to increase with time.
Therefore, electrical energy demand of the study area has been estimated considering the
future requirements of the cluster of village hamlets.
Based on the energy needs within the study, principal data is collected from the locals
through surveys with variety of sections like domestic load, agricultural load, community
load, and commercial load sections. Energy demands is mainly constituted as lighting for
health center, primary school, shops, street lighting, water pumping, and small industries
load. The estimation of total load within the study area is specified as supplementary infor-
mation Table 2. The total load in kWh per day within the area is estimated as 724.83 kWh/

Fig. 1  Geographical location in the study area

13
 S. Vendoti et al.

Fig. 2  Monthly load profiles within the study

Fig. 3  Hourly load profile within the study

day. The yearly energy consumption was obtained based on hourly load using HOMER
pro software as 701,263 kWh/year. Hourly and monthly load profiles in the study area are
shown in Figs. 2 and 3.

2.3 Source assessment

The study area has enormous potential of renewable energy resources like biomass (forest
foliage), biogas (cattle dung), solar irradiation and wind speed. The availability of solar

13
Techno‑economic analysis of off‑grid…

Fig. 4  Monthly solar radiation available (http://www.nrel.gov/inter​natio​nal/homer​)

Fig. 5  Monthly average wind speed available (http://www.nrel.gov/inter​natio​nal/homer​)

irradiation and wind speed details of study area are as available for the year 2018. The
HOMER Pro software calculates the global horizontal solar radiation, average wind speed
and optimum size of the system based on the longitude and latitude of a given geographi-
cal location. The selected study area is located at 11°59′ N latitude and 77°00′ E longitude.
The solar irradiation and wind speed data for this location was obtained from HOMER Pro
software (http://www.nrel.gov/inter​natio​nal/homer​).

2.3.1 Annual solar radiation

Annual daily solar irradiation available within the study location is shown in Fig. 4. High-
est solar irradiation is available as 6.43 kWh/m2/day in March month, whereas lowest as
4.11 kWh/m2/day was found in November month.

2.3.2 Scaled annual wind speed

Annual average wind speed available within the study location is given in supplementary
information Table 3 and their plot is shown in Fig. 5 (Rajanna 2016). The measured value
within the study area was found as 2.85 m/s.

13
 S. Vendoti et al.

2.3.3 Annual average of biomass and biogas

The availability of biomass and biogas potentials within the study location are estimated
as: biomass potential from forest foliage is 107.79 tons/year and biogas potential from cat-
tle dung is 372 m3/day (Rajanna and Saini 2016b). Monthly available biomass resource in
study location is shown in Fig. 6. Brief information about all the renewable energy source
availability within the study location is outlined in supplementary information Table 3.

3 Mathematical modeling of system components

For size optimization, mathematical modeling of hybrid energy system components is a

significant step to providing its performance under different situations. Mathematical mod-
eling of proposed HRES components is explained below:

3.1 Solar PV system

Single diode solar PV mathematical models are investigated for this study. The value of
solar PV module voltage (VSPV) is expressed by Eq. (1) (Chauhan and Saini 2017):

(1)
[ ( )] ( )
VPV = Vmppt 1 + 0.0539 log Gtt (t)∕Gst + 𝛼 Ta (t) + 0.02Gtt (t)

where Vmppt is the maximum power point voltage (in Volts), α is the coefficient of tem-
perature, Gtt is the measured value of irradiation (in kW/m2), Gst is the standard value of
irradiation (in 1 kW/m2), and Ta is the variable temperature (in K).
The output current of a solar PV module (ISPV) is calculated by using Eq. (2):

(2)
[ ( ) ]
ISPV (t) = Iph (t)−Irs (t) exp qVPV ∕Ns KTa (t)Ai −1

where Iph is the photo current, Irs as the saturation current, q is the charging of the elec-
trons, Ns is the number of series cells, K is the Boltzmann’s constant, and Ai is the ideal
diode factor.
Total energy generated by solar PV system (ESPV) is expressed by Eq. (3):

(3)
( )
ESPV (t) = NPV × VPV (t) × IPV (t) × Δt ∕1000

where NSPV is the number of PV modules and Δt is the step time as 15 min.

Fig. 6  Monthly available biomass resource (http://www.nrel.gov/inter​natio​nal/homer​)

13
Techno‑economic analysis of off‑grid…

3.2 Wind turbine system

Mathematical model of wind turbine is proposed based on the actual power curve supplied
by the manufacturer. The characteristic equations of a wind turbine have been developed by
fitting its actual power curve using method of least number of squares (Thapar et al. 2011).
Following equations are used to predict the power output of a wind turbine (PWT) in kW as:
PWT (t) = 0, for V < Vci
2
PWT (t) = aV + bV + c, for Vci < V < Vr (4)
PWT (t) = Pr , for V > Vco

where V is the actual value of wind turbine speed, Vci is the cut in speed, Vco is the cut out
speed, Vr is the rated speed of the wind turbine, and a, b, c are the coefficient of quadratic
equations.
Rated power of the wind turbine can be calculated by using Eq. (5) as;

Pr = 1∕2Cp 𝜌a 𝜂g Aw v3r (5)

where Aw is the swept area of wind turbine rotor; ρa is the air density; Cp is the power coef-
ficient of the proposed wind turbine; ηg is the generator efficiency.
Total energy generated by wind turbine system (EWT) is expressed by Eq. (6):

(6)
( )
EWT (t) = NWT × PWT (t) × Δt ∕1000

where NWT is the number of wind turbines.

3.3 Biogas system

Based on the cattle dung availability, the output energy generated from biogas generator
was determined using the equation expressed by (7) (Kanase-Patil et al. 2011);
( )
Biogas availability m3 ∕day × CVBGG × 𝜂BGG × Δt
EBGG = (7)
860 × hBGG

where EBGG is the hourly energy output of biogas generator; ηBGG is the system conversion
efficiency, ­CVBGG is the calorific value of biogas digester (4700 kcal/kg).

3.4 Biomass system model

Based on the forest foliage availability, the hourly energy generated by the biomass genera-
tor was determined using the equation expressed by (8) (Kanase-Patil et al. 2011);
Biomass availability (kg∕year) × CVBMG × 𝜂BMG × Δt
EBMG = (8)
365 × 860 × hBGG

where EBMG is output energy generated from biomass generator; ηBMG is the system con-
­ VBMG is biomass gasifier calorific value (4015 kcal/kg).
version efficiency; C

13
 S. Vendoti et al.

3.5 Fuel cell (FC) system

For all renewable energy systems, FC system is a potential applicant particularly as the
backup in rural area applications. These are very clean; it generates nearly no emissions
and are characterized by high efficiency. Hydrogen is the primary fuel in fuel cell sys-
tems, while oxygenate as the extant. Particular forms of fuels are used in fuel cells such
as methane, ethanol, fuels based on biomass, etc., depending on type of fuel cell system.
Out of different types FC systems, PEM fuel cell is used in commercial purpose available
in industrial applications and also it has a reliable performance under unbalanced supply.
Such types of fuel cells are used for large-scale power generation. The output power of a
FC was determined by Eq. (9) (Garcia and Weisser 2006);
PFC = Ptank-FC × 𝜂FC (9)
where Ptank-FC is the power output of fuel cell and ηFC efficiency of a fuel cell.
Electrolyzer/hydrogen tank Electrolyzer works under the process of electrolysis; cur-
rent flows from one electrode to another electrode within water and thus decomposes into
hydrogen and oxygen, after which hydrogen is collected from the anode. Most of the sur-
veys, output of the electrolyzer exactly coupled the hydrogen storage tank (Khan and Iqbal
2005; El-Shatter et al. 2006; Nelson et al. 2006).
The power transferred from electrolyzer to hydrogen storage tank has been estimated by
Eq. (10);
Pelec - tank = Pren - elec × 𝜂elec (10)
where Pren-elec is the output power from renewable energy system to electrolyser, and ηelec is
the electrolyzer efficiency in which assumed as constant.
The output energy of a stored hydrogen at a time step of ‘t’ is expressed by Eq. (11);

(11)
[ ( )]
EH2,tank (t) = EH2,tank (t − 1) + Pelec,tank (t)− Ptank,FC (t) ∕ 𝜂storage × Δt

where Ptank-FC is the output power of a fuel cell, ηstorage as the efficiency of hydrogen stor-
age and Pelec,tank is the power transferred from electrolyzer to hydrogen storage tank.

3.6 Battery bank system

The energy production and its consumption from the state of battery are connected at any
time from (t − 1) to t. In the charging process, power generation exceeds the load demand.
The availability of power in the battery bank at a specified time expressed by the given
Eq. (12) (Kanase-Patil et al. 2011):
EBatt (t) = EBatt (t − 1) + EEE (t) × 𝜂CC × 𝜂CHG (12)
where EBatt(t) is the energy stored in a battery, EEE(t) is the extra energy available from
all systems, ηCC is the charging controller efficiency, and ηCHG is the battery charging
efficiency.
The quantity of state of charging in battery is expressed by the given the quantity of
state of charging in battery is expressed by the given Eq. (13);
SOCmin < SOC < SOCmax (13)

13
Techno‑economic analysis of off‑grid…

where ­SOCmin is the value of minimum SOC; ­SOCmax is the maximum value of SOC
assumed as 1. Minimum value of SOC is obtained using the following Eq. (14),
SOCmin = 1−DOD (14)

3.7 Bi‑directional converter system

One of the important parts in hybrid energy system component is bi-directional con-
verter. The main role of this converter is flow of current into either direction during
extra power charging into the battery. Main function of this device is to provide the
necessary power from batteries also DC sources into the load. The size of this converter
based on the energy levels in minimum or maximum.

4 Problem formulation

HOMER simulation is not possible without the financial parameters. This study consists
of annual real interest rate, net present cost (NPC), cost of energy (COE), initial capital
cost, and replacement cost for the different system configurations.
The net present cost (or life-cycle cost) of a component is the present value of all the costs
of installing and operating that component over the project lifetime, minus the present value
of all the revenues that it earns over the project lifetime. Net preset cost contains several costs
such as capital, replacement, maintenance and operation, fuel costs, etc. HOMER calculates
the net present cost of each component of the system and of the system as a whole. HOMER
calculates the total NPC using the following equation as (Om Krishan and Sathans 2018):
CNPC = Canc, tot ∕CRF(𝛾, 𝜏) (15)
where CNPC is the total net present cost ($); Cann,tot is the total annualized cost in $/year; γ is the
annual interest rate (%); CRF is the capital recovery factor and τ is the plant life time (years).
The levelized cost of energy (COE) is defined as average cost per kWh of useful elec-
trical energy produced by the system. The equation of COE used in HOMER is:

(16)
( )
COE = Canc, tot ∕ Eprimary + Edifferable + Egridsales

where COE is the cost of energy; Cann,tot is the total annualized cost in $/year; Eprimary is the
primary load served (kWh/year); Edifferable is the deferrable load served (kWh/year); and
Egridsales is the total grid sales.
Capital recovery factor is depending on rate of annual interest (γ) and plant life (τ)
and is expressed by given Eq. (17) as (Rajanna and Saini 2016c):
𝛾(1 + 𝛾)𝜏
Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) = (17)
𝛾(1 + 𝛾)𝜏 − 1
In this study, the design of the hybrid system is done by entering the required
resource parameters into the HOMER software. In mathematical modeling of HRES
components, total cost of the system is varied from component to component with dif-
ferent specifications. The summaries of different parameters considered in the system
components are specified in the given supplementary information Tables 4 and 5 (Ven-
doti et al. 2017; Barsoum and Petrus 2015; Nowdeh and Hajibeigy 2013).

13
 S. Vendoti et al.

5 HOMER software

HOMER Programming (Created by National Renewable Energy Laboratory, USA) is uti-

lized to build up the hybrid renewable energy system in these studies (http://www.nrel.gov/
inter​natio​nal/homer​). It contains design and simulation at the optimized conditions with
expected constraints. HOMER is a novel programming to make an advanced model opera-
tion for planning of hybrid energy systems and as well as grid integrated systems.
HOMER performs three principal tasks: simulation, optimization, and sensitivity anal-
ysis. In the simulation process, HOMER models the performance of a particular micro-
power system configuration each hour of the year to determine its technical feasibility and
life-cycle cost. In the optimization process, HOMER simulates many different system con-
figurations in search of the one that satisfies the technical constraints at the lowest life-
cycle cost. In the sensitivity analysis process, HOMER performs multiple optimizations
under a range of input assumptions to gauge the effects of uncertainty or changes in the
model inputs. Optimization determines the optimal value of the variables over which the
system designer has control such as the mix of components that make up the system and
the size or quantity of each. Sensitivity analysis helps assess the effects of uncertainty or
changes in the variables over which the designer has no control, such as the average wind
speed or the future fuel price.
Figure 7 shows the relationship between simulation, optimization, and sensitivity analy-
sis using HOMER. The optimization oval encloses the simulation oval to signify the fact
that a single optimization consists of multiple simulations. Similarly, the sensitivity analy-
sis oval encompasses the optimization oval because a single sensitivity analysis consists of
multiple optimizations. The sensitivity factors are the world solar radiation, cost of wind
turbine, biomass fuel price, and cost of the battery, etc.
Different combinations of renewable energy sources available in the study area evalu-
ated through HOMER are shown in Fig.  8. The HRES comprises of biomass genera-
tor (BMG), biogas generator (BGG), solar PV generator (SPV), wind turbine generator
(WTG), fuel cell system (FC), electrolyzer (Elect), hydrogen storage tank ­(H2Tank), con-
verter (Conv.), and battery (Batt) systems.
Proposed system consists of two load buses, i.e., AC and DC buses. The power gener-
ated from AC bus connected to biomass, biogas, and wind generators, whereas the power
generated from DC bus is connected to solar and fuel cell systems. The availability of sur-
plus power in the battery when it exceeds the loads is used to the electrolyzers which ener-
gize to produce hydrogen (­ H2) and store it into hydrogen tanks. The stored energy is used
to run the fuel cell generator to meet the required loads during energy shortages to other
sources.

Fig. 7  Relationship between
simulation, optimization and sen-
sitivity analysis using HOMER

13
Techno‑economic analysis of off‑grid…

Fig. 8  Different combinations of HRES

6 Results and discussions

In the simulation process, HOMER estimates the cost and at the same time determines
the feasibility of hybridized energy system over the years with a list of system con-
figurations and their capacities are sorted based on lowest COE and NPC. After hourly
simulation, different configurations of HRES generated as shown in Fig. 9. In this study
among many configured energy systems, four different scenarios are evaluated to find

13
 S. Vendoti et al.

Fig. 9  Optimization results

the optimized system configuration. They are, both technically and economically, dis-
cussed below:
Combination-1 SPV–WTG–BGG–BMG–FC–BATT: In combination-1, allocation
of energy sources for meeting the required energy demand in the study area are SPV,
fuel cell, biogas, biomass, and wind turbine generators. These are shown in Fig. 8(i). In
combination, it was found that minimum NPC was $8,90,013 and least COE of 0.214
$/kWh at 0% had a capacity shortage. The size of the systems considered by SPV, fuel
cell, biogas, biomass, and wind turbine generators was 100 kW, 57 kW, 60 kW, 50 kW,
and 50 no’s, respectively, whereas energy demand was estimated at 328,266 kWh/year.
The total power generated from this scenario is 163,527  kWh. The contribution from
the PV is 46.8% of the total power, and the rest 53.8% comes from the other sources.
It is also evident from the result that the excess energy production is 6.07% of the total
energy generation, and this system is used to fully satisfy the load requirement. The
estimated values of total NPC, COE, and operating cost are given Table 1.
Combination-2 SPV–WTG–BGG–BMG–FC without Battery: In combination-2,
SPV, wind turbine, biogas, biomass, and fuel cell are taken into account and battery is
not considered here (Fig.  8(ii)). The size of the systems considered by SPV, fuel cell,
biogas, biomass, and wind turbine generators was 100 kW, 57 kW, 60 kW, 50 kW, and
50 no’s, respectively, whereas energy demand is estimated as 396,121  kWh/year; the

Table 1  Estimated values of total Combination-1 TNPC ($) COE ($/kWh) Operating cost ($)
NPC, COE, and operating cost
C1 890,013 0.214 34,109

Table 2  Estimated values of total Combination-2 TNPC ($) COE ($/kWh) Operating cost ($)
NPC, COE, and operating cost
C2 897,847 0.215 36,917

13
Techno‑economic analysis of off‑grid…

Table 3  Estimated values of total Combination-3 TNP ($) COE ($/kWh) Operating cost ($)
NPC, COE, and operating cost
C3 929,878 0.223 39,354

Table 4  Estimated values of total Combination-4 TNPC ($) COE ($/kWh) Operating cost ($)
NPC, COE, and operating cost
C4 10,95,020 0.263 52,148

availability of excess energy is 4.86%. The estimated values of total NPC, COE, and
operating cost are given in Table  2. Although this system is comparable to combina-
tion-1 regarding COE, and NPC, this system has slightly higher capital cost. The con-
tribution of energy from PV modules and other systems to the total energy generation
are around 39.3% and 60.7%, respectively. From the above discussion, it is evident that
the combination-2 is quite similar to combination-1 both economically and environmen-
tally. Ironically, marginally higher capital and replacement cost and a small contribu-
tion of fuel cell generator makes combination-2 complicated and not more attractive as
combination-1. The estimated values of total NPC, COE, and operating cost are given
in Table 2.
Combination-3 SPV–WTG–BGG–BMG–BATT without Fuel Cell: In combination-3,
SPV, biogas, biomass, wind turbine generators, and battery systems are taken into account
and fuel cell system are not considered here (Fig. 8(iii)). The size of the systems consid-
ered as SPV, biogas, biomass, and wind turbine generators was 100 kW, 60 kW, 50 kW,
50 no’s, and 200 no’s, respectively, whereas energy demand is estimated as 277,092 kWh/
year. The results also reveal that the SPV–WTG–BGG–BMG–BATT hybrid system gener-
ates higher excess energy compared to previous two cases. Additionally, a large number of
batteries require frequent maintenance which makes the system infeasible for a remote area
like this. The total value of NPC, COE, and operating costs of this combination are listed
in Table 3.
Combination-4 SPV–WTG–BGG–BMG without Storage: In combination-4, SPV,
biogas, biomass systems, wind turbine generators are taken into account and fuel cell bat-
tery systems are not considered here (Fig. 8(iv)). The size of the systems of SPV, biogas,
biomass, and wind turbine generators considered was 100 kW, 60 kW, 50 kW, and 50 no’s,
respectively, whereas energy demand is estimated as 276,755 kWh/year; the availability of
excess energy is 33.53%. The total NPC ($10,95,020) is almost 30% higher than the last
three configurations. The total value of NPC, COE, and operating costs of this combination
is listed in Table 4. From Table 4, it is evident that the COE and NPC are quite comparable
with the combination-3 but way higher than the first two combinations.
Cost breakdown of all the components The overall cost summary of all the components
of combination-1 is shown in Fig. 10. Out of certain components, biogas generator offers
high cost as $3,23,201 and generic electrolyzer system has the lowest total cost of $9963.
The total cash flow analyses of the selected HRES in combination-1 are shown in Fig. 11.
From the cash flow analysis, the total capital cost is $3,52,710 and total replacement cost is
$1,32,421.
Monthly electricity generation Monthly electricity generation during a year for pro-
posed HRES are shown Fig.  12. The annual energy generated by biogas generator, bio-
mass generator, wind turbines, PV system and fuel cell has been arranged as 27,719 kWh/

13
 S. Vendoti et al.

Fig. 10  Overall cost summary of all the components

Fig. 11  Cash flow analysis of total cost in combination-1

13
Techno‑economic analysis of off‑grid…

Fig. 12  Monthly electricity generation during a year

Table 5  Total emissions Contaminant Amount

generated by renewable energy
sources for proposed system
Carbon dioxide (kg/year) 4089
Carbon monoxide (kg/year) 148
Unburned hydrocarbons (kg/year) 1.35
Particulate matter (kg/year) 0.186
Sulfur dioxide (kg/year) 0
Nitrogen oxides (kg/year) 102

Fig. 13  Monthly fuel summary of biomass

13
 S. Vendoti et al.

Fig. 14  Monthly fuel summary of biogas

year, 92,335  kWh/year, 50,717  kWh/year, 163,527  kWh/year, and 15,195  kWh/year
correspondingly.
Emissions generated from the renewable energy sources To accomplish ­CO2 emissions,
no costs are considered in this study. Harmful emissions generated by renewable energy
sources in combination-1 are specified in a given Table 5. Here, carbon dioxide produces
the more harmful emissions, and sulfur dioxide produces the zero emissions.
Effect of fuel summary In this study, the fuels are considered as biogas, biomass, and
stored hydrogen. The average biomass feedstock consumed per day is 1.28 tons per day
and its consumption during the year is shown in Fig.  13. The average consumption of
biogas fuel per day is 160 kg/day and monthly consumption of biogas fuel is shown in
Fig. 14. The average consumption of stored hydrogen to run the fuel cell generator per
day is 3.84 kg/day and monthly consumption of stored hydrogen is shown in Fig. 15.
Comparison of economic aspects Comparison of the economic aspects of base sys-
tem and current system of proposed system with different parameters considered is
shown in Fig. 16.
Optimal configuration (SPV–WTG​–BGG–BMG–FC–BATT) In this study, economic
indicators and environmental emissions are the two criteria based on which optimal
configuration has been selected. Among the four combinations, the configuration of
combination-1 is considered as the most cost-effective hybrid system because of its low
cost of energy (COE) of 0.214$/kWh and NPC of $890,013. Although, combination-2
gives the appropriate results in terms of COE, the replacement and operating costs and
emissions are higher than the combination-1. The comparative analyses of all four con-
figurations are given Table 6 and their graphical representations are shown in Fig. 17.
Compared to the all possible configurations, results of combination-1 were
found that minimum NPC as $8,90,013 and least COE of 0.214 $/kWh at 0% capac-
ity shortage. Hence, the best possible configuration of resources combination-1
(SPV–WTG–BGG–BMG–FC with Battery) has been proposed. This configuration
offers minimum cost and fulfills required energy demand in the study area. Figure 11 is
the representation of monthly energy generation by the different components of the opti-
mized hybrid energy system (SPV–WTG–BGG–BMG–FC–BATT). The contribution of
PV is maximum in every monthly energy generation, whereas the contribution of fuel
cell increases slowly from January up to July then it is starts decreasing. It is evident
from the maximum share of load demand fulfilled by the PV and in absence of PV; bat-
tery bank is used to satisfy the load requirements. However, when neither solar PV nor
battery bank is able to meet the demand, the fuel cell generator is introduced to meet the
demand. The proposed hybrid system emitted C ­ O2 approximately 4089/year. It is also

13
Techno‑economic analysis of off‑grid…

Fig. 15  Monthly fuel summary of stored hydrogen

Fig. 16  Comparison of economics

Table 6  Comparison of different
HRES with NPC and COE Configurations NPC ($) COE ($/kWh) Operating cost ($)
C1 890,013 0.214 34,109
C2 897,847 0.215 36,917
C3 929,878 0.223 39,354
C4 1,095,020 0.263 52,148

obvious that ­CO2 emission from the optimized system is significantly lower than that of
the conventional system.
The hybrid power system can contribute to the rural community with better living stand-
ards, raising economic activities, empowering women, safety, employment opportunities,
and sustainable development. The hybrid power system will also contribute much more in
the case of having a green environment. Finally, the benefits of selling the electricity to the
local consumers and the national grid would help to reduce the excess energy substantially.
In this regard, government and private organizations should come forward to overcome
these hurdles to implement the stand-alone hybrid power system. Integration of renewable
energy resources to the conventional system not only reduce the greenhouse gas emissions
but also improve the reliability of supplying electricity to meet the required load demand.

13
 S. Vendoti et al.

929878 1095020
1000000 890013 897847

800000

600000

400000

200000 0.214 34,109 0.215 36,917 0.223 39,354 0.263 52,148

0
C1 C2 C3 C4
NPC ($) COE ($/kWh) Operang Cost ($)

Fig. 17  Comparison of NPC, COE and operating cost of different configurations

7 Conclusions

Four different configurations of HRES are compared in this paper comprising of

PV–wind–biomass–biogas–fuel cell–battery, PV–wind–biomass–biogas–fuel cell,
PV–wind–biomass–biogas–battery and PV–wind–biomass–biogas systems. Various fac-
tors are considered for the development of system operational strategy, i.e., energy demand
estimation; source allocation; monthly electricity generations; cost breakdown analysis;
and emissions generated by the system. Moreover, four combinations of hybrid energy sys-
tems have been designed and evaluated through HOMER Pro software.
Comparing all the possible configurations, results of combination-1 was found to have
minimum NPC as $8,90,013 and least COE of 0.214 $/kWh at 0% capacity shortage. This
configuration offers minimum cost and fulfills required energy demand in the study area.
In summary, the PV/wind/biomass/biogas/fuel cell/battery have lowest COE and NPC
among the system configurations and are fully capable of meeting the load requirements
of the studied area. Hence, the best possible configuration of resources combination-1
(SPV–WTG–BGG–BMG–FC with Battery) has been proposed by this study. The size of
the proposed systems considered are 60 kW biogas, 50 kW biomass, 50 kW wind turbine,
100  kW solar, 323  kWh battery storage systems and 80  kW converters. The results also
shows the monthly electricity generation produced by the proposed HRES, total emissions
generated, cash flow analysis, cost breakdown at each system components and comparison
of economics in base system and the proposed system.
Based on the environmental constraints and availability of fossil fuels, stand-alone
hybrid energy systems are preferred in the near future. Future research would involve the
integration of other renewable energy sources. It also seeks to include grid systems, gen-
eration expansion planning, and load profiles with other renewable generators. This would
provide a wide range for analyzing the economic and technical advantages of different sys-
tem configurations. The economical comparison between different combinations of hybrid
system is presented in Table 6.

References
Barsoum, N., & Petrus, P. D. (2015). Cost optimization of hybrid solar, micro-hydro and hydrogen fuel
cell using homer software. Energy and Power Engineering, 7, 337–347. https​://doi.org/10.4236/
epe.2015.78031​.

13
Techno‑economic analysis of off‑grid…

Chauhan, A., & Saini, R. P. (2016a). Discrete harmony search based size optimization of Integrated Renew-
able Energy System for remote rural areas of Uttarakhand state in India. Renew. Energy, 94, 587–604.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.renen​e.2016.03.079.
Chauhan, A., & Saini, R. P. (2016b). Techno-economic optimization based approach for energy manage-
ment of a stand-alone integrated renewable energy system for remote areas of India. Energy, 94, 138–
156. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.energ​y.2015.10.136.
Chauhan, A., & Saini, R. P. (2017). Size optimization and demand response of a stand-alone. Integrated
Renewable Energy System, Energy, 124, 59–73. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.energ​y.2017.02.049.
Das, M., Singh, M. A. K. , & Biswas, A. (2019). Techno-economic optimization of an off-grid hybrid
renewable energy system using meta-heuristic optimization approaches-Case of a radio transmitter
station in India. Energy Conversion and Management, 185, 339–352. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.encon​
man.2019.01.107.
El-Shatter, T. F., Eskander, M. N., & El-Hagry, M. T. (2006). Energy flow and management of a hybrid
wind/PV/fuel cell generation system. Energy Conversion and Management, 47, 1264–1280. https​://doi.
org/10.1109/PSEC.2002.10238​93.
Garcia, R. S., & Weisser, D. (2006). A wind–diesel system with hydrogen storage: Joint optimization of
design and dispatch. Renewable Energy, 31, 2296–2320. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.renen​e.2005.11.003.
Halabi, L. M., Mekhilef, S., Olatomiwa, L., & Hazelton, J. (2017). Performance analysis of hybrid PV/
diesel/battery system using HOMER: A case study Sabah, Malaysia. Energy Conversion and Manage-
ment, 144(2), 322–339. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.encon​man.2017.04.070.
Hossain, M., Mekhilef, S., & Olatomiwa, L. (2017). Performance evaluation of a stand-alone PV-wind-die-
sel-battery hybrid system feasible for a large resort center in South China Sea, Malaysia. Sustainable
Cities and Society, 28, 358–366. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.10.008.
Jamshidi, M., & Askarzadeh, A. (2018). Techno-economic analysis and size optimization of an off-grid
hybrid photovoltaic, fuel cell and diesel generator system. Sustainable Cities and Society. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.10.021.
Kanase-Patil, A. B., Saini, R. P., & Sharma, M. P. (2011). Development of IREOM model based on season-
ally varying load profile for hilly remote areas of Uttarakhand state in India. Energy, 36(9), 5690–
5702. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.energ​y.2011.06.057.
Khan, M. J., & Iqbal, M. T. (2005). Pre-feasibility study of stand-alone hybrid energy systems for applica-
tions in Newfoundland. Renewable Energy, 30, 835–854. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.renen​e.2004.09.001.
Kumar, A., Singh, A. R., Deng, Y., He, X., et al. (2017). Integrated assessment of a sustainable microgrid
for a remote village in hilly region. Energy Conversion and Management, 180, 442–472. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.encon​man.2018.10.084.
List of Villages/Towns, Census of India. (2011). http://censu​sindi​a.gov.in/2011c​ensus​/Listo​fvill​agesa​ndtow​
ns.aspx. Retrieved January 2018.
Nelson, D. B., Nehrir, M. H., & Wang, C. (2006). Unit sizing and cost analysis of stand-alone hybrid wind/
PV/fuel cell power generation system. Renewable Energy, 31, 1641–1656. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renen​e.2005.08.031.
Nowdeh, S. A., & Hajibeigy, M. (2013). Economic designing of PV/FC/wind hybrid system considering
components availability. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, 7, 69–77.
https​://doi.org/10.5815/ijmec​s.2013.07.08.
Olatomiwa, L., Blanchard, R., Mekhilef, S., & Akinyele, D. (2018). Hybrid renewable energy supply for
rural healthcare facilities: An approach to quality healthcare delivery. Sustainable Energy Technologies
and Assessments, 30, 121–138. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2018.09.007.
Olatomiwa, L., Mekhilef, S., Huda, A. S. N., & Ohunakin, O. S. (2015a). Economic evaluation of hybrid
energy systems for rural electrification in six geo-political zones of Nigeria. Renewable Energy, 83,
435–446. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.renen​e.2015.04.057.
Olatomiwa, L., Mekhilef, S., Huda, A. S. N., & Sanusi, K. (2015b). Techno-economic analysis of hybrid
PV–diesel–battery and PV–wind–diesel–battery power systems for mobile BTS: The way forward for
rural development. Energy Science and Engineering, 3(4), 271–285. https​://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.71.
Om Krishan and Sathans. (2018). Design and techno-economic analysis of a HRES in a rural village. Proce-
dia Computer Source, 125, 321–328. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs​.2017.12.043.
Rajanna, S. (2016). Integrated renewable energy system for a remote rural area. Ph.D. thesis, Alternate
Hydro Energy Center, IIT Roorkee, July 2016.
Rajanna, S., & Saini, R. P. (2014). Optimal modeling of solar/biogas/biomass based IRE system for remote
area electrification. In 6th IEEE power India international conference (PIICON), Delhi, India, Decem-
ber 2014 (pp. 1–5).

13
 S. Vendoti et al.

Rajanna, S., & Saini, R. P. (2016a). Employing demand side management for selection of suitable scenario-
wise isolated integrated renewal energy models in an Indian remote rural area. Renewable Energy, 99,
1161–1180. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.renen​e.2016.08.024.
Rajanna, S., & Saini, R. P. (2016b). Modeling of integrated renewable energy system for electrification of a
remote area in India. Renewable Energy, 90, 175–187. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.renen​e.2015.12.067.
Rajanna, S., & Saini, R. P. (2016c). Development of optimal integrated renewable energy model with battery
storage for a remote Indian area. Energy, 111, 803–817. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.energ​y.2016.06.005.
Samy, M. M., Barakat, S., & Ramadan, H. S. (2018). A flower pollination optimization algorithm for an
off-grid PV-Fuel cell hybrid renewable system. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijhyd​ene.2018.05.127.
Searched for un-electrified villages. http://www.ddugj​y.gov.in/porta​l/state​_wise_summa​ry1.jsp?State​
Code=29. Retrieved December 2017.
Thapar, V., Agnihotri, G., & Sethi, V. K. (2011). Critical analysis of methods for mathematical modelling of
wind turbines. Renewable Energy, 36, 3166–3177. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.renen​e.2011.03.016.
Vendoti, S., Muralidhar, M., & Kiranmayi, R. (2017). Optimization of hybrid renewable energy systems for
sustainable and economical power supply at sVCET Chittoor. i-Manager’s Journal on Power Systems
Engineering, 5(11), 26–34.
Vendoti, S., Muralidhar, M., & Kiranmayi, R. (2018). HOMER based optimization of solar-wind-diesel
hybrid system for electrification in a rural village. In IEEE conference proceedings; January 4th–6th,
2018, Coimbatore, India. https​://doi.org/10.1109/iccci​.2018.84415​17.
Vendoti, S., Muralidhar, M., & Kiranmayi, R. (2018b). Design and analysis of solar PV-fuel cell-battery
based hybrid renewable energy system (HRES) for off-grid electrification in rural areas. i-Manager’s
Journal on Instrumentation & Control Engineering, 6(3), 1–11.
HOMER software’ Hybrid optimization model for electric renewable. http://www.nrel.gov/inter​natio​nal/
homer​. Accessed Feb 2018.
Zhang, W., Maleki, A., Rosen, M. A., & Liu, J. (2019). Sizing a stand-alone solar-wind-hydrogen energy
system using weather forecasting and a hybrid search optimization algorithm. Energy Conversion and
Management, 180, 609–621. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.encon​man.2018.08.102.

Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13