Master’s Degree

Design of Mini-Grids for The Productive Use of Energy

A CASE STUDY OF THREE VILLAGES IN RURAL ETHIOPIA

Author: Rahima Rahima

Director: Tom Walsh and David Bauner
Supervisor: Oriol Gomis-Bellmunt
Submission: October 2021

Escola Tècnica Superior

d’Enginyeria Industrial de Barcelona
Abstract:

Electricity access is among the major challenges many Sub-Saharan African countries face,
particularly in rural areas. Most of the rural population rely on traditional biomass for their basic
energy needs. This energy inequality is due to the high investment costs of grid extension to
remote rural areas, which poses a great financial burden to the governments. Therefore,
Hybrid mini-grids are gaining attention from researchers, investors and governments, as they
can provide electricity in remote areas of developing countries where grid extension is costly.
Sadly, a significant fraction of mini-grids remains in their pilot projects in the SSA region. This
is due to the difficulty associated with accurately predicting the future electricity demand of
currently unelectrified communities. Moreover, it is also challenging to incentivise local
economies once electricity is made available. Therefore, this thesis aims to design the mini-
grid to provide power to three un-electrified communities of Ethiopia at the least possible cost
of electricity. The main target of electrification is to substitute the fossil-powered irrigation
system for more sustainable farming. The feasibility of the mini-grid system was performed
using HOMER Pro and PVsyst, which calculated the optimise solution using diesel and solar
resources. The simulation results gave the LCOE of the three communities within a range of
0.15$/kWh to 0.18$/kWh with a CAPEX range of 1250$/kWp to 1500$/kWp. A complete
financial analysis was used to assess the feasibility of the mini-grid over a twenty-five-year
lifetime. The analysis gave promising results, with an IRR of 8% and NPV of 3 million dollars,
assuming the constant electricity tariff of 0.067$/kWh and 0.30$/kWh for communities and
farmers, respectively.
Acknowledgement:

I want to thank Tom Walsh and David Bauner from Renetech for providing me with the
opportunity to work on this master thesis. They offered their technical knowledge throughout
this project and were always available to give feedback and assistance. I also want to thank
Israel Biramo and Benjamin Mategeko for providing their comprehensive expertise on mini-
grids and the energy situation in Ethiopia.

I would also like to thank my UPC thesis supervisor Oriol Gomis Bellmunt for his support.

Finally, I would like to thank my amazing family for their unending support and encouragement.
Table of Content

Abstract:........................................................................................................................... 3
Acknowledgement: ......................................................................................................... 4
Table of Content .............................................................................................................. 5
List of Figures ................................................................................................................. 8
List of Tables ................................................................................................................. 10
Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ 11
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 13
1.1. Problem statement:......................................................................................... 14
1.2. Overview of current energy situation in Ethiopia: ...................................... 15
1.3. Electrification projects of government organizations: ............................... 15
1.4. Productive Use of Energy: ............................................................................. 16
1.5. Aims:................................................................................................................. 16

1.6. Methods: .......................................................................................................... 17

1.7. Outline of the thesis........................................................................................ 17
2. Literature Review: .................................................................................................. 18
2.1 Energy Situation in Sub-Saharan Africa: ..................................................... 18
2.1. Energy Situation in Ethiopia: ......................................................................... 19
2.2. Mini-grids: ........................................................................................................ 21
2.2.1. Overview: ....................................................................................................... 21
2.2.2. Definition: ....................................................................................................... 21
2.2.3. Types of mini-grids: ....................................................................................... 22
2.3. Case studies: ................................................................................................... 22
2.4. Financing of Mini-grids: ................................................................................. 23
2.5. Lesson learnt: .................................................................................................. 24
3. Load Demand Assessment................................................................................... 25
3.1 Background ..................................................................................................... 25
3.1.1. Site Selection: ................................................................................................ 25
 3.2. Case Study 1: Murche .................................................................................... 25
3.2.1. Site Description .............................................................................................. 25
3.2.2. Irrigation Requirement of Murche .................................................................. 26
3.2.3. Energy Requirement of Murche Community ................................................. 31
3.2.4. Energy Consumption profile of entire village................................................. 35
3.3. Case Study 2: Lelicho..................................................................................... 36
3.3.1. Site Description .............................................................................................. 36
3.3.2. Irrigation Requirement of Lelicho .................................................................. 37
3.3.3. Energy Requirement of Lelicho Community ................................................. 39
3.3.4. Energy Consumption profile of entire village................................................. 41
3.4. Case Study 3: Telifa ........................................................................................ 42
3.4.1. Site Description .............................................................................................. 42
3.4.2. Irrigation Requirement of Telifa ..................................................................... 43
3.4.3. Energy Consumption profile of entire village................................................. 44
4. System Layout........................................................................................................ 46
4.1. Computational Tools for the Mini-grid Design ............................................ 46
4.1.1. PVsyst: ........................................................................................................... 46
4.1.2. HOMER Analysis ........................................................................................... 46
4.2. Solar Energy Resource in Ethiopia............................................................... 47
4.3. Case study 1: Murche ..................................................................................... 48
4.3.1. Solar Resource Data ..................................................................................... 48
4.3.2. PVsyst Design ............................................................................................... 49
4.3.3. HOMER Design ............................................................................................. 50
4.4. Case study 2: Lelicho ..................................................................................... 55
4.4.1. Climatic Data.................................................................................................. 55
4.4.2. PVsyst Design ............................................................................................... 56
4.4.3. HOMER Design ............................................................................................. 56
4.5. Case study 3: Telifa ........................................................................................ 57
4.5.1. Climatic Data.................................................................................................. 57
4.5.2. PVsyst Design ............................................................................................... 57
4.5.3. HOMER Design ............................................................................................. 57
5. Results .................................................................................................................... 59
5.1. Case Study 1: Murche .................................................................................... 59
5.1.1. PVsyst Energy Output ................................................................................... 59
5.1.2. HOMER Pro Results:..................................................................................... 59
 5.1.3. Energy and Power profile of the Optimal case.............................................. 60
5.1.4. Sensitivity Analysis ........................................................................................ 63
5.1.5. Financial Analysis .......................................................................................... 64
5.2. Case Study 2: Lelicho..................................................................................... 66
5.2.1. PVsyst Energy Output ................................................................................... 66
5.2.2. HOMER Pro Results:..................................................................................... 67
5.2.3. Sensitivity Analysis ........................................................................................ 69
5.2.4. Financial Analysis .......................................................................................... 70
5.3. Case Study 3: Telifa ........................................................................................ 71
5.3.1. PVsyst Energy Output ................................................................................... 71
5.3.2. HOMER Pro Results:..................................................................................... 72
5.3.3. Sensitivity Analysis ........................................................................................ 74
5.3.4. Financial Analysis .......................................................................................... 75
6. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 77
7. References .............................................................................................................. 78
8. Appendix 1: ............................................................................................................. 86
8.1. Homer Simulations ......................................................................................... 87
8.1.1. Case Study 1: Murche ................................................................................... 87
8.1.2. Case study 2: Lelicho .................................................................................... 87
8.1.3. Case Study 3: Telifa ...................................................................................... 88
9. Appendix 2: .................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
List of Figures

Figure 1 Site-Level mapping of Murche from Veritas Consulting .............................. 26

Figure 2 Mean Temperature values of Murche village from Solargis ........................ 27
Figure 3 Average Monthly Rainfall in Murche ........................................................... 29
Figure 4 Actual water needs of crops grown in Murche ............................................ 30
Figure 5 Energy Requirement for Irrigation of Murche Village .................................. 31
Figure 6 Monthly Energy Requirement of Murche Community ................................. 36
Figure 7 Site-Level mapping of Lelicho from Veritas Consulting ............................... 36
Figure 8 Average Monthly temperatures of Lelicho ................................................... 37
Figure 9 Irrigation Requirement of the crops grown in Lelicho .................................. 38
Figure 10 Energy Required for Irrigation of farmlands in Lelicho Village .................. 39
Figure 11 Electrical load on weekday vs weekend .................................................... 41
Figure 12 Monthly Energy Requirement of Lelicho Community ................................ 41
Figure 13 Site-Level mapping of Telifa from Veritas Consulting ............................... 42
Figure 14 Water requirements of the crops grown in Telifa ...................................... 43
Figure 15 Energy Required to Irrigate all the farmlands in Telifa .............................. 44
Figure 16 Hourly Load Profile of Telifa Community ................................................... 44
Figure 17 Monthly Energy Requirement of Telifa Community ................................... 45
Figure 18 Annual average irradiation for Ethiopia [90] .............................................. 48
Figure 19 Average Global Horizontal Irradiance of Murche Village .......................... 48
Figure 20 Orientation of PV panels ........................................................................... 49
Figure 21 Layout of Mini-grid ..................................................................................... 51
Figure 22 Yearly Load Profile of Murche Community (HOMER) ............................... 51
Figure 23 Average Monthly Global Horizontal Irradiance of Lelicho Village ............. 55
Figure 24 Average Monthly Global Horizontal Irradiance of Telifa Village ................ 57
Figure 25 Solar PV Output of Murche Village ........................................................... 59
Figure 26 Yearly Energy Production and Consumption of Murche Mini-grid ............ 60
Figure 27 Total Electrical Load Served vs Generator Power (Murche) ..................... 61
Figure 28 Yearly SOC of Lithium-Iron phosphate battery (Murche) .......................... 61
Figure 29 Total Renewable Power Production vs Total Electrical Load Served
(Murche) .................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 30 Power and Load Profile on Jan 10 (Murche) ............................................. 62
Figure 31 Hourly Load Profile and Battery’s SOC (Murche) ..................................... 63
Figure 32 Total Net Present Cost of Murche Mini-grid .............................................. 65
Figure 33 Murche Mini-grid Cashflows ...................................................................... 66
Figure 34 Solar PV Output of Lelicho ........................................................................ 66
Figure 35 Total Renewable Power Production vs Total Electrical Load Served ....... 67
Figure 36 Total Load Served vs Diesel Power (Lelicho) ........................................... 68
Figure 37 Yearly SOC and Battery Power (Lelicho) .................................................. 68
Figure 38 Total NPC of Lelicho Mini-grid .................................................................. 70
Figure 39 Cashflows of Lelicho Mini-grid .................................................................. 71
Figure 40 Solar PV Output of Telifa .......................................................................... 71
Figure 41 Total Renewable Power Production vs Total Electrical Load Served
(Telifa) ....................................................................................................................... 72
Figure 42 Total Electrical Load Served vs Diesel Generator Power (Telifa) ............. 73
Figure 43 Yearly SOC and Power of Battery (Telifa) ................................................ 73
Figure 44 Total NPC of Telifa Mini-grid ..................................................................... 75
Figure 45 Cashflows of Telifa mini-grid ..................................................................... 76
Figure 46 Average Monthly Rainfall in Lelicho .......................................................... 86
Figure 47 Average Monthly Temperature of Telifa Village ........................................ 86
Figure 48 Average Monthly Rainfall of Telifa Village ................................................. 87
List of Tables

Table 1Multi-tier framework to household electricity services [74] ............................ 16

Table 2 Summary of Murche Village ......................................................................... 26
Table 3 Reference ETo of Murche Village ................................................................ 28
Table 4 Kc values of the crops grown in Murche ...................................................... 28
Table 5 Reference ETo of the crops grown in Murche Village .................................. 29
Table 6 Design parameters of Pump ......................................................................... 30
Table 7 Water Pump Specifications .......................................................................... 30
Table 8 Assumed hourly % appliance usage for a household .................................. 32
Table 9 Hourly load of Murche Community ............................................................... 33
Table 10 Specifications of Drinking Water Pump ...................................................... 33
Table 11 Hourly Load Profile of Drinking Water Pump .............................................. 34
Table 12 Hourly Load Profile of the entire Murche Community ................................. 35
Table 13 Summary of Lelicho Village ........................................................................ 37
Table 14 Kc and ETo values of the crops grown in Lelicho ...................................... 38
Table 15 Coffee Plant specifications of Lelicho Village ............................................. 39
Table 16 Hourly Load Profile of Coffee Plant ............................................................ 40
Table 17 Summary of Telifa Village .......................................................................... 42
Table 18 Kc and ETo values of the crops grown in Telifa ......................................... 43
Table 19 PVsyst Design Parameters ........................................................................ 49
Table 20 Solar PV System Losses ............................................................................ 50
Table 21 Deferable Load Storage Capacity of Murche ............................................. 52
Table 22 Deferable Load Energy Requirement for Murche Village ........................... 52
Table 23 Design Parameters of Diesel Generator .................................................... 53
Table 24 CAPEX and OPEX for Solar PV ................................................................. 53
Table 25 Design Parameters of Lead-acid batteries ................................................. 54
Table 26 Design Parameters of Lithium-Iron Phosphate batteries ............................ 54
Table 27 Design Parameters of Converter ................................................................ 54
Table 28 Summary of Economic factors for Mini-grid Design of Murche Village ...... 55
Table 29 Monthly Energy Requirement of Deferable Load of Lelicho Village ........... 56
Table 30 Energy Storage Capacity of Deferable Load (Lelicho) ............................... 56
Table 31 Monthly Energy Requirement of Deferable Load of Telifa Village .............. 58
Table 32 Energy Storage Capacity of Deferable Load (Telifa) .................................. 58
Table 33 HOMER Optimisation Results for Murche Village ...................................... 60
Table 34 HOMER Sensitivity Analysis of Murche Mini-grid Design .......................... 64
Table 35 Summary of Financial Results for Murche Mini-grid ................................... 65
Table 36 HOMER Optimisation Results of Lelicho Mini-grid ..................................... 67
Table 37 HOMER Sensitivity Analysis for Lelicho Mini-grid Design .......................... 69
Table 38 Summary of Financial Results for Lelicho Mini-grid ................................... 70
Table 39 HOMER Optimisation Results of Telifa Mini-grid Design .......................... 72
Table 40 HOMER Sensitivity Analysis Results for Telifa Mini-grid ............................ 74
Table 41Summary of Financial Results of Telifa Mini-grid ........................................ 75
Abbreviations

GDP - Gross domestic product

SSA - Sub-Saharan Africa

SDG - Sustainable development goals

NDC - Nationally Determined Contributions

GW – Gigawatt

IEA – International energy agency

GOE - Government of Ethiopia

NEP 2.0 - National Energy Policy

MoWIE - The Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Energy

GTP - Growth and Transformation Plan

EEPCo - Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation

ESMAP - The Energy Sector Management Assistance Program

MTF - Multi-tier framework

PUE - Productive use of energy

LCOE - Levelized Cost of Energy

NREL - National Renewable Energy Laboratory

TWh - Terawatt-hours

kWh – Kilowatt-hours

GHG - greenhouse gases

RE - Renewable energy

EU - European Union

EEPCO - Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation

SHS - Solar home systems

CAPEX - Capital Expense

OPEX - Operational Expense

LFS - Load following strategy

CSV - Comma-separated value

NPC - Net present cost

SOC - State of charge

DEG – Diesel Generator

ROI - Return on investment

COE - Cost of electricity

CFR- Capital Recovery Factor

IRR - Internal rate of return

NPV - Net present value

1. Introduction
Energy consumption in the world is rising exponentially, especially in developing countries and
growing economies. Globally, electricity demand is set to grow by close to 5% in 2021(IEA’s
semi-annual Electricity Market Report 2021) and is projected to double by 2050 [1]. This surge
in demand will mainly result from rapidly growing economies. Developed countries, especially
those in Europe, are planning on meeting their increasing energy demand by expanding
renewable energy production. The utilization of reflects better economic well-being. As
measured by GDP (gross domestic product) per capita, in most countries’ higher levels of
energy consumption correspond to better living standards. Efficient utilization of energy can
enhance this dependence. The balance harmful environmental effects of extracting and using
traditional energy resources and their development at the same time is very crucial.

Goal 7 (SDG 7) of 17 Sustainable Development Goals was initiated by the United Nations
General Assembly (UNGA) in 2015. Its objective is to ensure everyone has access to reliable,
sustainable and affordable energy [2]. According to the latest 2019 country-by-country
analysis, the number of individuals who still have no access to electricity has declined to a
record low in the past few years to 770 million.[3]. However, there are still almost 0.9 billion
people without access to electricity; 75% of this population lives in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA),
a share that has risen over recent years [3]. Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), a population of 573
million, remains highest energy access deficit region where more than one in every two people
have no access to electricity.[4]. Under the Paris Agreement, 45 African countries have
included targets and activities to support renewable energy expansion in their Nationally
Determined Contributions (NDCs) that can ensure energy supply for everyone.

The total installed energy generation capacity of Sub-Saharan Africa is about 90 GW. Only
6GW of this capacity, i.e., 40%, is operational due to poor maintenance and shortage of fuel.
Most of the countries have a generation capacity of less than 1 GW (IEA, 2014). The SSA
countries only invest 0.5% of their GDP in the energy generation sector, which is the major
cause of poor energy production (Africa Progress Panel, 2015) [5].

In the past decade, Africa has made significant progress in the expansion of its grid connections.
A rapid growth in off-grid solutions has also been noted in countries, like Nigeria which
accomplished universal access by increasing efforts for those living far from the grid to provide
them with off-grid energy solutions (IEA (2019), Nigeria Energy Outlook). According to the 2019
Africa Energy Outlook, in 2018, almost half of the 5 million individuals that acquired energy
access by using the new solar home solutions were from Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia.[4]. The
lack of access to the reliable electricity has forced most people in Sub-Saharan Africa to use
expensive and inefficient on-site self-generating energy systems. Along with residential
consumers, commercial and industrial consumers have also been using such systems, which
now accounts for 10% of the region's generation capacity [5].

In Africa, 45 per cent of the 2018 primary energy demand was met with biomass – mainly
firewood and charcoal for cooking. On average, the total energy-related gas greenhouse gas
emissions in African countries increased by nearly 20 per cent. Therefore, renewable energy
must be accelerated to provide universal electricity access in SSA by 2030 while making the
vision of zero-emission African power sectors a reality by 2050.

Only 20 per cent of the total installed electricity generation capacity in Africa in 2019 was based
on renewable sources (IRENA, 2020b). Even though a vast portion of installed renewable energy
capacity in Africa comes from hydropower, its relative share has declined from 92 per cent in
2010 to 67 per cent till today as other renewable technologies have become more competitive.
To achieve the goal of complete access to electricity by 2030, it is crucial accelerate the pace of
rural electrification programs, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. For this purpose, mini-grids can
be a flexible and competitive solution, characterized by remoteness and sparse population
density [6]. Independent mini-grids built on different architectures and sizes can provide different
levels of services [7], enabling energy access to remote populations at a lower cost.

Due to technological developments, new policies, and fast adaptation of renewable energy
worldwide, a huge cost reduction for solar PV has been reported. Installation of utility-level solar
projects has shown a huge increment since 2012. This increase is mainly due to the
establishment of various renewable energy institutions and frameworks [8].

1.1. Problem statement:

According to the latest data, the population of rural areas of SSA is around 59% which is a 1.69%
increase from 2019. World bank report from 2019 shows only 28.1% of the rural population have
electricity access whereas, on the other hand, 78% of the people in urban areas have electricity
access. Electricity access correlates with living standards and poverty. Studies show, most of the
people living below the poverty line are from rural areas in SSA (World Bank Data).

Ethiopia's economy experienced strong, broad-based growth averaging 9.4% a year from
2010/11 to 2019/20 (World Bank in Ethiopia 2021). Despite this growth, the poverty level in rural
areas increased. And the main reason for this is either no or expensive accessibility of energy. In
Ethiopia, 79% of the population live in rural areas. However, only 33% of them have electricity
access, whereas 92% of people living in urban areas have electricity access [12,13]. This is
why there are poor living standards and high poverty rates in rural areas. Economic inequality
will increase further if a situation like this continues. Hence a sustainable rural electrification
program has become a huge necessity.

For the electrification of SSA, the Government of Ethiopia (GOE) has launched the electrification
plan to expand the grid connections to nearly 60 per cent. From covering only 667 villages and
towns to approximately 6,000 towns [14]. GOE introduced a systematic National Energy Policy
(NEP 2.0) in March 2019. The NEP 2.0 adopted an integrated, sector-wise approach to achieve
the goal of electrification of the country. The remaining 35% of the population was targeted with
mini-grids, long term off-grid systems and individual home solar solutions by a complementary
and integrated off-grid access program.[9]

Electrifying rural areas through several mini-grids is one of many agendas of the plan. The plan
targeted the development of micro-grids powered by appropriate renewable energy resources
(solar or hybrid) with local LV networks.[10] The plan includes a combinational system of mini-
grids and standalone solar home solutions to provide off-grid electricity access to around 250,000
people. Twelve of these systems were initiated in May 2019.[9]

Though there are many different risk factors associated with the failure of mini-grid projects, the
low paying ability of customers, low utilization factor of mini-grid energy supply, and risk
associated with battery life [17 - 19], planning rural mini-grids in such a way to stimulate
productive use of the mini-grid energy could help for the economic viability of mini-grid projects
[20]. Therefore, this research focuses on designing localized mini-grids for providing electricity
access to the remote rural population so that income-generating activities can make the
deployment cost-effective.
1.2. Overview of current energy situation in Ethiopia:

According to World Bank data, Ethiopia has a population of around 115 million as of 2020. The
Government of Ethiopia (GOE) is targeting to increase electricity access from 26% (2014) to 60%
by 2040 [15]. Additionally, the enhancement in the efficiency of existing energy sources is another
target.

The majority of the rural population is involved in agriculture-based professions. Due to

the extremely low electricity access at about 5% [16], the rural population is forced to rely on
kerosene/diesel generators or traditional biomass energy sources for cooking and heating.
Dependency on this sort of energy generation is difficult to afford on a long-term basis due to the
increasing cost of fuel day by day. Furthermore, biomass resources like firewood are increasing
deforestation and soil degradation cause major environmental effects.[11]

Most of these rural areas are either scattered in large areas or are located at a long distance
from the national grid. Hence high cost of transmission and low load factor makes it economically
impossible to provide energy through it. To change these circumstances, The Ministry of Water,
Irrigation and Energy (MoWIE) of Ethiopia has recognized PV-wind hybrid, PV-diesel generator
hybrid, micro-hydro and other renewable energy-based mini-grids as the only suitable solution.

The National Electrification Program, launched in 2017, outlines a plan to reach universal access
by 2025, aiming to supply 35% of the population with off-grid solutions. Meanwhile, Ethiopia is
diversifying its hydro-dominated installed generation mix favouring solar, wind and geothermal to
pursue a more climate-resilient power system and reach economic development
objectives. Ethiopian ministry of water, irrigation and energy is now the power holding institution
in the new energy policy outlining a plan to diversify its energy sector and pursue all exploitable
renewable energy resources

1.3. Electrification projects of government organizations:

Govt of Ethiopia is working tirelessly to achieve the goal of providing electricity access to
everyone by the year 2030 through most cost-effective ways. There are multiple development
programs initiated by the government and Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCo)
focusing on meeting the growing energy demands in Ethiopia. Electrification projects were
launched under Ethiopia’s National Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP).

Electric energy is considered to be the main player in the industrialization and economic growth,
and development of a country. The low energy access rate in Ethiopia is a huge barrier in
country’s progress and aim of reducing poverty. The Energy Sector Management Assistance
Program (ESMAP) launched a multi-tier framework approach for electrification and to evaluate
the state of energy access in June 2015. The MTF collects a comprehensive set of data at the
country level and distributes all the households into multiple tiers depending on the level of access
to electricity they have. It helps to draw a rough image of the energy situation in the countries,
and this data is used to inform policymaking institutes. The six tiers of access are classified as
ranging from Tier 0 (no access) to Tier 5 (full access). [74].

Grid-connected households are mostly in Tiers 2–5 for access to electricity, with the largest share
in Tier 3, while most households that use an off-grid solution are in Tier 0 or 1. Of households in
Tier 0, 33% do not have access to any source of electricity, and 44.2% use dry-cell batteries as
their primary source of electricity [74]. Table 1 shows an excerpt from MTF categorization of
electricity service, capacity, and consumption [75].
Table 1Multi-tier framework to household electricity services [74]
Tiers Electrical appliances and tasks Load

Tier 1 Lights, Phone charging, Radio 3-49 W

Tier 2 Fans, Lighting, Computer, Television 50-199 W

Tier 3 Freezer, Refrigerator, Water pump, Air 200-799 W

cooler
Tier 4 Microwave, Iron, Washing machine 800-1999 W

Tier 5 Water heater, Room heater, Air conditioner, >2000 W

Vacuum cleaner

1.4. Productive Use of Energy:

The financial feasibility of mini-grids in the industry is mainly dependent on using the energy
productively. Intergovernmental bodies like Energy4Impact [76] and GIZ [77] have introduced a
framework for productive uses of energy to unelectrified communities. It is reported that with
these frameworks, introducing a productive use load to the electrification project will not only bring
benefits to the consumers but will also bring profits to the operator. Electrification encourages the
communities to adopt modern industrial practices by creating the ability to acquire new
equipment. Due to these reasons, numerous studies suggest that new PUEs should be
introduced to the currently unelectrified rural areas [78] [77] [79] [80].

1.5. Aims:

Electricity is a key driver of economic development. However, access to electricity remains a

distant dream for most of the population living in rural areas of Ethiopia. With the increasing
demand for reliable energy, solar energy remains the least exploited energy source in the
Ethiopian energy mix despite being the safest form of energy.

Solar mini-grids can provide an alternative to grid electricity in rural areas that do not have grid
connections. Since mini-grids are independent, they do not pose any threat to the conventional
grid [48]. They provide more reliable electricity, as any outages or faults can be immediately
identified and corrected. Moreover, having power generation closer to the load reduces the
transmission and distribution losses.

In this context, this study aimed to design the optimal solar-based mini-grid systems for three
unelectrified communities of Ethiopia. To use solar energy resources more efficiently and
economically, the optimal sizing of hybrid PV systems with batteries plays an important role in
this respect.

This study also aimed at indicating the potential of productive use of PV base mini-grid for rural
electrification of communities in Ethiopia. Different cases of site studies will be reviewed to
provide substantial information about already existing and operating mini-grids in the rural areas
of Ethiopia and how PV based systems can be proved to be revolutionary in the agriculture sector
of Ethiopia.

Apart from productive use of energy (PUE) in agriculture, the economic competitiveness of PV-
based mini-grids will also be discussed for the sites selected for the study.

The goals of the project can be summarized as:

 • Design a RE mini-grid system for communities and irrigation load
• Improve the system for lowest Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE)
• Calculate the cost of investment and operation

1.6. Methods:

The methodology to design the optimal system for rural electrification of three communities in
Ethiopia follows five main steps of literature review, assessment of local demand and solar
resources, selection of components, modelling and sizing of the system components, and finally,
financial analysis of the systems.

The first step in designing a mini-grid is to estimate the energy requirements of the consumers
to calculate the load profile. The load profile of the consumers was calculated using the
localized information and Microgrid Load Profile Explorer developed by the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The calculated load profile is given as an input to the

HOMER Pro for techno-economic optimization. The HOMER allows adding random variability
to the load profile to make it more realistic.

With HOMER Pro, a mini-grid can be designed using multiple energy resources. Hence for
this study, technical and economic parameters for solar PV, diesel generator and batteries
were provided as an input to HOMER. The detailed simulation of the PV plant was made using
PVsyst software which analysed optical, array and system losses of all the PV components.
The hourly output of PVsyst was provided to HOMER for the design of the mini-grid simulation.
Finally, using the results of HOMER Pro and fixed tariff rates of given case studies, the
financial analysis of each case was performed.

The methodology can be summarized as:

• Estimation of the consumer’s load profile

• Designing the PV model on PVsyst with available data and limitations according
to the sites selected

• Simulating PV system in PVsyst import the AC electricity production in to Homer

Pro

• Using load profile and other techno-economic data as input parameters to Homer
Pro

• Observe the result from Homer Pro and suggest a system with least LCOE

1.7. Outline of the thesis

The thesis includes analytical, theoretical, and related discussions across six chapters.
Chapter 1 introduces the basis of the study and the scope and main focus of the
thesis. Chapter 2 presents a literature review on the energy situation of Ethiopia, its energy
policies and some of the challenges faced by the country. Chapter 3 provides an
assessment of the local energy resource and energy consumption of three communities
understudy for rural electrification. Chapter 4 provides a very comprehensive description of
the design parameters of the mini-grid. Chapter 5 presents the results of the techno-
economic optimisation of the mini-grid. Chapter 6 provides the conclusion of this thesis
2. Literature Review:
2.1 Energy Situation in Sub-Saharan Africa:

With a population of more than 950 million, Sub-Saharan Africa is the most electricity deprived
region globally [21]. In Africa, the number of individuals that gained access to electricity increased
twofold from 9 million (2000-2013) to 20 million people (2014-2019), outpacing population
growth (IEA report 2020). This drastically decreased the number of people without access to
electricity from 610 million in 2013 to 580 million in 2019, mainly because of the electrification
programs taking place in this region. The health crisis and Covid-19 pandemic have hit these
particular regions very severely. These issues have reversed the effects of recent progress and
achievements of electrification [3].

Most countries in the SSA region have an electricity access rate of about 20%. The average
annual electricity consumption in the Sub-Saharan residential sector is 488-kilowatt hours (kWh)
per capita. It observed a growth of 35% in electricity demand from 2000 to 2012, reported to have
reached about 352 terawatt-hours (TWh). Increasing trend of energy demand is expected to
increase at a 4% rate annually [21].

The current energy situations in SSA call for immediate steps for expansion and rehabilitation of
the power grids. The current pace of electrification efforts is not enough to achieve the goal of
“electricity for all” till 2030. At this rate of electrification more than half a billion people will still be
without electricity by 2040 and will take at least 40 more years to accomplish the goal.[21]

Africa is a minor contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions globally, reported to contribute
only 2% of global CO2 emissions to date energy related cumulative. Despite rapidly growing
economies in Africa, its cumulative CO2 contribution is estimated to increase to only 3% by 2040
[22]. Moreover, the total contribution of electricity generation in Africa to climate change is modest
compared to any other region in the world. Combined emissions from fossil fuel use in Africa
made up only 3.6 per cent of the global total in 2017, even though the continent hosts nearly 17
per cent of the world's population. [23]

However, Africa is one of the regions that is most vulnerable to climate change. Even though
almost 700 million people live in areas where average daily temperature exceeds 25 degrees,
most people in this region have no access to cooling devices due to poverty. The situation is
expected to worsen by 2040 with the rise of average temperatures due to climate change.
Moreover, the population is expected to reach to 1.2 billion [22]. Hence, investments in modern
and efficient power systems are crucial to ensuring that Africa can harness renewable energy
potential and avoid a potential lock-in to fossil fuel energy. [23]

Despite the significant part of its population living without access to electricity, SSA contains a
diverse and vast mix of energy resources that can meet the continents' present and future
electricity needs. These resources include solar resource potential across almost all SSA
countries; geothermal capacity in Eastern Africa; hydropower resources in Central, Western, and
Eastern Africa; coal in Southern Africa; and oil and gas in Eastern, Southern, and Western Africa.
[24].

SSA has a vast renewable energy resource potential. SSA has an estimated potential of 525 GW
of solar PV resource and 475 GW of concentrated solar power [29]. This solar energy resource
is distributed across all countries in the region. The wind resource potential of SSA is estimated
to be 109 GW across all the countries [29,30].

In SSA, only East African countries are suitable for geothermal energy generation. Geothermal
energy generation is carried out in East African Rift Valley and is estimated at 20 GW. Of these,
10 GW are located in the Kenyan Rift Valley [31] and 7 GW in the Ethiopian Rift Valley, while the
Tanzanian and Uganda Rift Valleys have an estimated potential of over 650 MW and 450 MW,
respectively [31,32]. The remaining geothermal potential of SSA is distributed among Djibouti,
Eritrea, Rwanda, Comoros, Zambia, and Burundi [31].

The technically feasible hydropower potential of SSA is estimated at 350 GW and is mainly
located in Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Cameroon, and Gabon [29]. This
energy potential is attributable to the River Nile and the Congo River, which are found in the
eastern and central parts of the region, respectively. As of April 2019, the total installed capacity
of all technically feasible renewable energy resources potential was 9% for hydro, 4% for
geothermal, 4% for wind, and 0.5% for solar energy [33].

The renewable energy (RE) based mini-grid sector is growing and attracting investors' interest
from the public and private sector [25,26]. The report from the Africa Progress Panel calls for a
diverse energy mix with immediate deployment of off-grid solar systems that can be deployed
in tandem with grid infrastructure improvement [6]. There are only a few studies on specific PV
installation costs in Africa. IRENA published a journal in 2016 giving an overview on PV in Africa
focusing on costs and markets [34], while the IRENA mini-grid Outlook publication focuses on
the cost evolution of PV/hybrid mini-grid components by disaggregating them according to their
functionalities and types [35]

Countries have undertaken a range of reforms in the energy sector, the most significant being
the formulation of more comprehensive energy policies and incorporating the private sector's role
in the national development agenda [26]. The significant funding gap that holds back investments
in new power projects in Africa cannot be bridged by the public sector alone. Private participation
is crucial. Historically, most of such private sector financing has been channelled through
independent power projects (IPPs). [27]

Political risks, commercial risks and lack of stable power market regulations are discouraging
factors for private investors. But still, inflows and international development assistance to the
power sector of Africa increased four folds over the last decade, from $2 billion in 2005 to $8
billion in 2015. Most of these investments came from The World Bank Group, European Union
(EU) institutions and member states, and the African Development Bank instead of the private
sector. [28] This situation points towards the necessity of new energy and investment policies to
attract private investors.

2.1. Energy Situation in Ethiopia:

Economic and livelihood development largely depends on having access to modern energy
sources [37]. The Ethiopian energy sector faces the dual challenges of limited access to modern
energy and heavy reliance on traditional biomass energy sources to meet growing needs [36].
Ethiopia generates most of its electric power from hydro. Although still, only 23% of the total
population was reported to be connected to the national grid in 2012 [16]. In the urban region,
87% of the population has access to electricity [38], while in rural regions, electricity access
remains extremely low at about 5% [16].

Ethiopia's primary source of energy is biomass, which accounts for 91% of the energy consumed
[39]. Most of the rural population mainly relies on traditional biomass energy sources for cooking
and heating. Biomass consumption accounts for over 98% of the total supply in the residential
sector. The World Development Indicators [16] and many other studies [41-43] show that their
heavy reliance on firewood, crop residues, and dung can cause serious health and environmental
issues in the future, creating irreversible effects.
In Ethiopia, mainly urban households and small industries effectively consume electricity [39].
Electricity consumption was 23 kWh per capita in 2000 [16] and increased to about 41 kWh by
2008 and 70 kWh by 2014 [38]. Most of the other African countries have a per capita energy
consumption of around 500 kWh, which indicate poor electrification rates and low electricity
access rates in the country [40]. Petroleum supplies about 7% of Ethiopia's total primary energy,
and electricity accounts for only 2% of total energy use.

Ethiopia is one of those countries that is greatly blessed with all sorts of renewable energy
resources such as hydro, PV, wind, biomass. The hydropower has a potential of 45 GW, the wind
is 10 GW, geothermal is 5 GW, and solar irradiation ranges from 4.5 kWh/m2 / day to 7.5 kWh/m2
/day [44]. Today about 2 GW of hydropower capacity is in operation in Ethiopia, and construction
is underway to multiply this level fivefold over the next several years. In its 25-year development
plan, the Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCO) outlines how it intends to greatly expand
its hydropower capacity over the next few decades [45].

In light of this, the Government of Ethiopia's strategic priorities in the energy sector is universal
electrification access, energy efficiency improvement, decentralised off-grid power generation
through the development of renewable energy technologies, and exporting electricity to
neighbouring countries.[36]

According to the growth and transformation plan of the country for 2015 [46], the present
generation is anticipated to grow fivefold to 30 TWh. The Grand Renaissance Dam on the Blue
Nile and the Gibe III dam with a designated power capacity of 8000 MW are already under
construction to achieve the plan. Another five hydropower stations ranging from 250 MW to 400
MW, Chemoga Yeda, Geba, Halele Werabesa and Genale Dawa III and IV with a total installed
capacity of 1500 MW, are already under planning. Electricity production from wind is also
expected to be increased to 866 MW. According to different data sources, including the national
databases, solar is not yet harnessed, and only 150,000 solar home systems (SHS) are planned
to be distributed to rural areas and institutions [46].

Plans like generating clean energy, universal electrification and exporting excess electricity to its
neighbouring countries are a few of the plans of the Ethiopian government. Ethiopia launched
the "Light to All" National Electrification Program in November 2017 with the goal of providing
electricity access to all by 2025 [47]. NEP 2.0 aims to reach 100 % electrification in 2025 by
addressing 65 % of the population with the grid and the rest with mini-grid and solar home
systems (SHS) [49]. The main goals and plans under the NEP 2.0 policy are as follows:[49].

• On-grid Access: By 2025, 65% of the population residing within 2.5km from the grid
will be connected to the grid. This accounts for almost 15 million households. It also
includes already grid-connected households.

• Off-grid short-term access: This is the population that will be provided access to
electricity in the later years of 2025. Till then, these households will be provided
electricity through solar home systems.

• Off-grid long-term access: Households located at a distance of more than 254 km

from the grids are not expected to get grid connections by 2030. Till then, mini-grids and
solar home systems will be provided for electrification.

• Mid-term electrification: The households located at a distance of 2.5-25 km from the

grid are expected to get electricity access by 2025-2030. They will be electrified by
using mini-grids or off-grid solar systems
2.2. Mini-grids:

2.2.1. Overview:

A recent set of evaluation studies have shown that on-grid rural electrification can have an
adverse effect on economic development in rural Africa, at least under current circumstances
(Chaplin et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2019; Lenz et al., 2017). Although on-grid systems can provide
improved access to electricity and bring several benefits to households, they have a high cost
per connection, especially in sparsely populated areas (IEA, 2010; Bos et al., 2018). Highly
subsidised connection rates are required since the remaining one billion unelectrified households
are mostly poor and located in rural areas. These evaluations also show that most of these people
who are connected to grids have very low electricity consumption (see as well Taneja, 2018),
and it has very little effect on their incomes and jobs [Peters and Sievert (2016) and Bos et al.
(2018)].

The imbalance between the costs of grid extension and the low demand indicates a need to
consider lower-cost alternatives to classical on-grid electrification. Although off-grid home solar
(Solar Home Systems and Pico-PV systems) doesn’t provide enough potential for productive
uses, they provide significant benefits to its users [50].

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that about 70% of rural households could be
electrified via off-grid technologies (both standalone and mini-grid) over the next decade or so
[51,52]. Furthermore, reports suggest that off-grid systems are almost totally required for rural
electrification, and about 90% of them are supposed to rely on renewable-based systems and
mini-grid. [51].

Small-scale generation systems are gaining more and more consideration in electric utility
planning of both developed and developing countries. Nevertheless, this is not a new approach.
In fact, at the sunrise of the electrical era, systems were quite decentralised, and small generation
plants, together with batteries, supplied electricity via DC grids only to nearby limited areas of
dense load [53,54].

2.2.2. Definition:

Mini-grids are a midway point between the main grid and stand-alone electricity systems. They
usually serve rural areas that are not economical to connect to main grids due to their isolation
but that have sufficient demand and diversity of loads making sense to connect them together. It
is an alternative to a centralised energy network such as main or national grids. It can have more
than one source of electricity generation. It consists of energy sources, storage systems, e.g.,
batteries, and a limited transmission system that distributes electricity to a limited number of
consumers. Mini-grids do not have to be necessarily connected to the centralised system and
are able to perform under complete isolation. But for energy sharing purposes, they can be
connected to another grid. Mini-grids can perform differently depending on the technical
specifications and size of the power generation [55].
2.2.3. Types of mini-grids:

Mini-grids can be classified in different ways:

• Grid-Connected: This type is connected to the main grid and, according to its needs
and situation, can exchange energy or stay disconnected.

• Renewable energy-based Mini-grids: They are fed energy using renewable energy
sources. It can also be hybrid where multiple generating sources are integrated
together, sometimes with diesel generators too.

• Based on the capacity, Mini-grids produce 5-100 kW, Nano-grids produce energy
less than 5 kW

The use and development of mini-grids in SSA has a long history. More than 200 villages in North
and West African countries like Morocco, Senegal, Mali and Burkina Faso were provided energy
access through village size mini-grids [58–61]. Village-sized mini-grids were not well known in
East Africa. There were less than fifty mini-grids till 2016 [62].

Schnitzer et al. (2014) reviewed seven case studies related to the successful establishment of
mini-grids using strategic planning. Flexible energy policies and regulations related to mini-grid
deployment carry huge importance (Franz et al., 2014). These policies are dependent on factors
like economic policy and regulations, financial sector support and other sector support schemes,
customer and environmental policy and regulations, political decision and energy policy, licensing
and contract regulations (Franz et al., 2014).

The size of the mini-grid and the related investment are the deciding factors for the economic
viability of mini-grid projects. Within a few years after commissioning, these investments need to
be backed by a payable demand. Accurate estimates of load profiles, energy needs and off-grid
system design are very important. An undersized system will provide unsatisfactory service and
will cause consumers dissatisfaction, whereas an oversized system will not recover the costs
required to set it up [57].

Clean and hybrid mini-grids are already competitive with diesel systems in many contexts, thanks
to lower operating costs. Nowadays, for most sites in Africa, renewable energy and hybrid
solutions have a lower Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) than diesel generators [6]. The
generation technologies for mini-grids have become cheaper (including dramatic cost reductions
for some renewable technologies) and have increased in reliability, resulting in lower capital,
operation, management and maintenance costs.

Kenyan Government has set up multiple diesel-based energy systems to provide electricity to
markets and towns in rural areas that are located far from existing grids. Small-scale hydro, PV
and wind systems have been established by different NGOs, research institutions and
organisations [62]. With the progress in PV technology in recent times in Kenya, it is noticed that
multiple private firms have shown interest in investing in solar-powered village-sized mini-grids in
rural areas. This type of investment is now taking place in other SSA countries as well [63-66].

2.3. Case studies:

Gebrehiwot. K et al. [67], in their study, developed the most suitable renewable energy system
for the electrification of Golbo II village in the Oromia Region of Ethiopia. This village goes through
the same issue of no access to electricity and is not expected to be electrified until 2030. People
here mainly depend on local resources like kerosene, traditional biomass for cooking and baking.
This village was a good potential site for both solar and wind-based mini-grids. Primary data was
collected through a questionnaire, observations and discussions. All the collected data and
constraints were fed into the HOMER energy model to identify the most cost-effective solution
that meets the primary energy load. A hybrid system was proposed, which was based on PV,
wind and diesel generators with batteries. The diesel generator and battery were considered in
this design as a backup when wind and solar energy is not being produced. The study indicated
that the selected site had all the factors suitable for solar and wind energy-based hybrid grid,
having a considerable annual average global solar radiation (5.23–6.57 kWh/m2 /day) as well as
substantial wind-speed (3.0–4.37 m/s). This study also concluded that in Ethiopia, generally, due
to favourable solar radiation, most of the remote rural areas have the potential for establishing
off-grid PV-diesel generator-battery hybrid systems for energy. They also deduced that a major
share of energy in the most optimal way is generated from solar PV

The study by Nigussie. T et al. [68] mainly focused on evaluating the economic and operational
practicality of the Micro Hydro-PV-DG-Battery hybrid standalone system for Melka Hera village.
They performed simulations using HOMER software. Numerous alternatives of attainable hybrid
systems with different levels of renewable resource penetration were given by the software, which
they sorted on the basis of the net cost of each solution. Most of the energy (70%) was produced
from hydropower; only 20% of energy was PV based, while diesel generator-based energy
accounted for only 1% of total load consumption. The average streamflow was 140 l/s, and solar
irradiation was 6.02 kWh/m2 /day. From an economic point of view, the hybrid system appeared
to be cost competitive with $0.133/kWh.

Bizuayehu [82], in the paper, studied on development of a hybrid PV/wind-based system as a

replacement to the currently used diesel generators in the towns of Kebri Dehar and Degehabur
in Ethiopia. Both towns were located far from the national grid. He designed the hybrid system
using the HOMER simulation program. The simulation results indicated that the generation cost
of energy 0.422 $/kWh and 0.441 $/kWh for Kebri Dehar and Degehabur towns, respectively,
was the best option. Simulations of providing energy to these areas with grid connections through
transmission lines were also made to compare both options. The software results showed the
extending transmission lines for electrification purposes was not economically feasible.

The study made by Getachew. B et al. [69] also discuss the possibility of supplying electricity
from a solar-wind hybrid system to a remote location in Ethiopia. Information like the sizes and
prices of the hybrid setup components were given as input to the calculation program. The
simulation provided numerous possibilities with different levels of exploitation of renewable
resources for the setup. One of the possibilities had 51% and 81% utilization of renewable
resources. The simulated system with 51% utilization had no shortage of capacity or unmet
demand. It had a net present cost of $239,756, and the Levelized cost is 0.383 $/kW h. The
model with 81% utilization of renewable resources reported a present cost is $289,942, and the
Levelized cost of energy is 0.464 $/kW h with no shortage of capacity and no unmet demand as
well.

2.4. Financing of Mini-grids:

To achieve the target of universal electrification by 2030, it is estimated that $52 billion annual
investment will be required, and about 50% of this investment will go to mini-grids [70]. Clearly,
financing universal electrification projects remains a big challenge. There are different
perspectives of the problem: for financial institutions and lending agencies, the transaction
volume is too low to be cost-effective, and many large entities are not interested in this market
even if some sort of project aggregation is undertaken. Moreover, due to a lack of bankable
revenues streams through power purchase or sales agreements and a lack of understanding by
the financial sector, the business is considered to be risky. [71]
To ensure fund flow and increase private sector engagement, the risks have to be mitigated. It
suggests that the mini-grid market could benefit from a Risk Sharing Facility. Similarly, a co-
developer fund where funds from several sources are raised and which takes the risk to a greater
extent can be beneficial for the sector. As small companies are often engaged in the mini-grid
sector due to the small size of the project, the financial needs are somewhat different, and the
risk of failure can be high due to the low margin of their businesses. The development of financial
institutions has a role here in bridging the finance gaps and supporting risk mitigation.[71]

There are a lot of barriers to the growth of mini-grids, such as difficult investment processes, lack
of affordable funding options, underdeveloped private sector and sensitivity to cost-reflective
tariffs. It sheds light on the fact that most of the urban areas that are electrified through national
grids have high subsidised rates that see urban households paying less than $0.05/kWh for
electricity. The rural population is aware of these high subsidies for on-grid connection and expect
the same for themselves.[73]

Ethiopia is yet to have established tariffs for mini-grids. However, grid tariffs in Ethiopia are cheap
for households at approx. $ 0.01/kWh for the first 50kWh (SouthSouthNorth Report 2020). When
compared to other countries, they are even less expensive. The costs of establishing and
operating mini-grids are high, and private sector developers invest if they believe that they will be
able to earn a profit on their investment. Given the freedom to charge what they like, private
sector project developers will charge tariffs that are likely to be significantly higher than grid tariffs
to ensure a return on investment.[72]

Providing households with comparable grid rates and securing commercial tariff rates is done by
using the 'ABC' business method. This method is also accepted by the Government of Ethiopia
(GOE). This model categorises the rural community customer base in the following manner:

• The Anchor (A) customer: A customer with high energy demand

• The Business (B) customer: The second source of revenue coming from business
customers in addition to the anchor customer

• The Community (C) customer: Customers that require electricity for domestic use.

2.5. Lesson learnt:

Rensys Engineering & Trading PLC is the first private solar microgrid project developer in
Ethiopia. It has developed an 18.24 KWp solar microgrid to deliver 24-hour power to 198
households, business centres and public institutions in the community of Dek Island. Rensys
received funding of $100,000 (80%) from USADF for this project.

An interview of the operator was conducted that gave a deep insight into the mini-grids situation
in Ethiopia. According to the operator, the reasons why mini-grids took so long to be included in
the energy sector in Ethiopia were financing gaps and regulation issues regarding mini-grids.

For investors to invest in mini-grids, they should have a clear idea about mini-grid regulations and
how they can make money from their investments. Therefore, investors prefer to invest in Solar
home systems, where they know about return on investment and has no challenge.
3. Load Demand Assessment
3.1 Background

The electrification plan of Ethiopia, NEP 2.0, focuses explicitly on the productive use of energy
by providing access to electricity. Agriculture is the backbone of Ethiopia’s economy as it
accounts for 40% of GDP and 75% of the country’s employment source [1]. It mostly depends
on highly variable rainfall; therefore, water pumping for irrigation and other agricultural
purposes is one of the major demands of small-scale farmers. Consequently, electric pumping
irrigation would maximize crop productivity with the efficient use of groundwater. Hence, it
aligns with one of the aims of the NEP off-grid electrification program.

The correct estimation of the electricity demand of a community is a governing factor for a
mini-grid design and is essential in achieving successful financial outcomes. The inaccurate
estimation of electricity demand can lead to an oversized or undersized mini-grid system. The
oversize system will have the under-consumed capacity, higher initial investment, operational
costs and low efficiency. The undersized system will reduce the reliability and availability of
the system, resulting in a loss in income.

Therefore, the capacity factor of a mini-grid is a critical parameter to gain profitability from the
project. It is a ratio between the maximum possible electricity that can be generated and the
amount of electricity it produces. The maximum capacity factor is fundamental for efficient
utilization of mini-grid.

There are many ways of estimating the load profiles of the community. The typical way of
estimating load is through energy-use surveys and measured consumption. Energy use
surveys estimate the present and aspirational energy consumption through the structured
survey.

3.1.1. Site Selection:

There are a considerable number of sites in Ethiopia that offer lucrative opportunities for off-
grid investments. The consumers in these sites have high productive use of energy
requirements [2]. The provision of electricity to these potential sites can yield substantial
benefits such as low power cost, excellent product value addition within the community, and
high productivity levels. A top-down approach is implemented to identify such sites. Usually,
governments and development organizations take charge of such an approach for large and
rural centric projects capable of productive and meaningful utilization activities. MoWIE, MoA,
and TA consultations have identified ten potential sites for private sector investments for mini-
grid development across four major Ethiopian regions. Out of these ten sites, three were
selected for this study.

3.2. Case Study 1: Murche

3.2.1. Site Description

The first site under study is Murche village, located in Kebele of Ganta Kenchamo, Arba Minch
Zuria woreda, in the Gamo zone of the SNNP region. The geographical coordinates of the
sites are 5.905304°N and 37.455187°E. The village has a mountainous landscape, but it is
accessible by roads during the non-rainy season. The closest MV grid line is located at a
distance of almost 10 km from the site.

Figure 1 Site-Level mapping of Murche from Veritas Consulting

The main crop in Murche is banana, and the secondary crop is maize. There is a one river to
provide water for irrigation. Farmers irrigate only 44% of the farmland, and the rest is irrigated
by rain. Additionally, farmers do not practice irrigation during the rainy season. Usually, the
pumping is required for the farmlands above the main water canal during the dry season from
December till April.

The village has 249 households, a school, two shops and a flour fill to grind maize. The
summary of the village is given in Table 2

Size of farmlands (Ha) 458

Total irrigation farm size (Ha) 203

Source of water for irrigation River

Principal Crop Banana
Other crops Maize, cotton, coffee, avocado
Households 249
Souks 2
Religious Centres 4
Flour Mill 1
Schools 1

Table 2 Summary of Murche Village

3.2.2. Irrigation Requirement of Murche

The crop water needs are dependent on climatic factors such as humidity, temperature,
irradiation, and wind speed which causes evaporation and transpiration. Therefore, the water
need of a crop includes the water loss due to evapotranspiration. Hence, areas that are hot,
dry, windy and sunny have the highest crop water needs. This influence of climate on water
needs can be understood with the reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo). The ETo
estimates the evapotranspiration rate from the "reference surface." which is a hypothetical
grass reference crop with a crop height of 8 to 15 cm. The reference surface approximates an
extensive surface of well-watered and green grass of uniform height. The ETo is denoted by
millimetres per day or millimetres per month [85].

The ETo can be determined by either experimental or theoretical methods. Due to the
inaccessibility of the case study sites, the theoretical method was chosen to calculate the ETo.
The Blaney-Criddle method uses climatic data such as temperature and mean annual daytime
hours to calculate ETo. The equation 1 gives the mathematical formulation of ETo calculation.

𝐸𝑇𝑜 = 𝑝(0.46 ∗ 𝑇_𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 + 8) (1)

Where ETo is an average reference crop evapotranspiration expressed in mm/day, p is the

mean daily percentage of annual daytime hours, and Tmean is the average daily temperature.

Figure 2 shows the mean temperature values of Murche

Average Temperature of Murche Village

28

27

26.9
26.6
26
25.9

25
24.9
24.6
24
℃

24.1 24.2
23.7
23.6
23 23.2 23.3
22.8

22

21

20
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 2 Mean Temperature values of Murche village from Solargis

With these temperature and p values, the reference ETo for Murche is calculated as:

Month p [98] Reference ETo (mm/month)

Jan 0.27 161.3
Feb 0.27 165.0
Mar 0.27 163.9
Apr 0.28 162.3
May 0.28 158.4
Jun 0.28 156.8
Jul 0.28 155.3
Aug 0.28 157.2
 Sep 0.28 160.3
Oct 0.27 153.1
Nov 0.27 155.0
Dec 0.27 157.6

Table 3 Reference ETo of Murche Village

Through the reference crop evapotranspiration, the crop evapotranspiration is calculated

using equation 2:

𝐸𝑇!"#$ = 𝐸𝑇𝑜 𝑥 𝐾! (2)

Where the crop coefficient, Kc, represents the development of a specific crop. There are
several Kc values of the crop development from germination to harvest. Most of the
evaporation occurs from the soil surface during the crop’s germination and establishment. The
evaporation from the soil surface decreases as the foliage develops; however, the
transpiration increases [99].

For the main crops grown in Murche, the Kc values are given below:

Crop Type Growing Period Kc Initial Kc Mid Kc end

Banana 365 days 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.75 0.9 1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Maize 125 days 0.54 0.87 1.15 0.85 0.23
Cotton 180 days 0.45 0.75 1.15 0.75
Coffee 3-4 years 1.1
Avocado 3 years 0.85

Table 4 Kc values of the crops grown in Murche

Banana and coffee are perennial crops, giving a harvest in one or more years after planting.
While maize and cotton are the annual crops completing their life cycle, within one growing
season, and then dies.

Since each crop has different growing period, the Kc values are taken as average for each
month with respect to their development stage. For instance, if a maize crop is planted in mid-
July, so the Kc for July will be:

16
𝐾!,&'() = 𝐾!,*"#+,-* ∗ (3)
31

Where numerator is the growing period number of days of Maize crop in July and denominator
is total number of days in July.

With this methodology, Kc values and ETo crop is calculated for each crop shown in Table 5
Month Banana Maize Cotton Coffee Avocado
ETo Crop ETo Crop ETo Crop ETo Crop ETo Crop
Kc Kc Kc Kc Kc
mm/month mm/month mm/month mm/month mm/month
Jan - - - - - - 1.1 177 0.85 137
Feb 0.75 124 - - - - 1.1 182 0.85 140
Mar 0.8 131 - - - - 1.1 180 0.85 139
Apr 0.75 122 - - 0.23 37 1.1 178 0.85 138
May 0.9 143 - - 0.96 151 1.1 174 0.85 135
Jun 1 157 - - 0.75 118 1.1 173 0.85 133
Jul 1.1 171 0.5 84 1.1 171 1.1 171 0.85 132
Aug 1.1 173 0.9 136 1.11 175 1.1 173 0.85 134
Sep 1.1 176 1.2 184 0.75 120 1.1 176 0.85 136

Oct 1.1 168 0.9 130 0.31 48 1.1 168 0.85 130
Nov 1.1 170 0.2 36 - - 1.1 170 0.85 132
Dec 1.1 173 - - - - 1.1 173 0.85 134

Table 5 Reference ETo of the crops grown in Murche Village

The above ETo crop value does not consider the yearly average rainfall on the village (figure
3). Therefore, to calculate the actual ETo required for the crop, the average monthly rainfall is
subtracted from the ETo crop.

Average Monthly Rainfall in Murche

250

233

200 193

177

150
mm/month

121 122
118
110

100
82 83

50 40 42

27

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 3 Average Monthly Rainfall in Murche

The water needed to irrigate each crop grown on one hectare of land is shown below. Since
the dry season is from December till March, the water requirement is higher in this period. But
in March, May, and Oct the crop water requirement is met by rainfall.

Water Requirement of Each Crop

3500
3000
m3/ha/month

2500
2000
1500
1000
500

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Banana Maize Cotton Coffee Avocado

Figure 4 Actual water needs of crops grown in Murche

With these monthly water requirements, it is convenient to size pumps that can fulfil the
irrigation demand. The oversizing of the pump is considered if, in the future, all the farmlands
are irrigated. The required power of the pump is oversized by a factor of 1.5 since pumps are
sensitive to the fluctuations of renewable power production. The design parameters of pumps
are shown in table 6:
Total Farmland 458 Ha
Total Irrigated Land 203 Ha
Oversizing ratio 2.26
Oversizing factor of power 1.5

Table 6 Design parameters of Pump

It is assumed that pumping water will be stored in wells to be later used by farmers. It is also
assumed that the primary crop is grown on 70% of the irrigated land, and the rest, 30%, is
equally divided between other crops. With these assumptions, a pump of the following
parameters is considered for the mini-grid design:
Power 75 kW
Max Flow rate 200 m3/h

Max Head 80 m
Pump operation hours per day 7h
Number of Pumps 12

Required Power 1350 kW

Table 7 Water Pump Specifications

The total energy required by all pumps to irrigate 203 hectares of land is shown in figure 5:

Monthly Energy Requirment for Irrigation

300

250

200
MWh/Month

150

100

50

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 5 Energy Requirement for Irrigation of Murche Village

3.2.3. Energy Requirement of Murche Community

The load profile estimation of the community is assessed using Microgrid Load Profile Explorer
[86] which provides hourly electrical load profiles for different multiple household types and
commercial organizations (clinics, schools, small shops and street lighting) that are often
found in rural Sub-Saharan Africa.

Local economic activities were observed to estimate the PUE service loaf and drinking water
consumption

3.2.3.1. Households:

As from the literature [57], the mini-grids are under-utilized after their deployment, therefore a
conservative demand assessment approach has been taken for this study. It is assumed that
all the households have a same income level (medium level) and will only own basic low-
wattage appliances. The load profile of the household appliances is given in table 8:
Mobile
Lights Radio
Phone/Charger
00:00 0 0 0
01:00 0 0 0
02:00 0 0 0
03:00 0 0 0
04:00 0 0 0

05:00 0 0 0
06:00 0 0.1 0
07:00 0 0.1 0

08:00 0 0.1 0.25

 09:00 0 0.1 0.25
10:00 0 0.1 0.25
11:00 0 0.25 0.25
12:00 0 0.25 0.5
13:00 0 0.25 0.5
14:00 0 0.25 0.5
15:00 0 0 0.25
16:00 0 0 0.25
17:00 0 0.5 0
18:00 0.25 0.5 0
19:00 0.75 0.5 0

20:00 0.75 0.5 0

21:00 0.5 0.5 0
22:00 0.5 0 0

23:00 0.25 0 0
Total No. of
3.0 4.0 3.0
hours/day

Table 8 Assumed hourly % appliance usage for a household

3.2.3.2. Commercial Entities

The village has one school, 6 religious centres, 2 Souqs (shops) and one flourmill. The
schools and flourmills will be closed on weekends. The hourly consumption profile of each
load is shown in table 9:
School Religious Streetlight Souq Flour
(W) Centre (W) (W) (W) Mill (W)

00:00 94 0 20 116 0

01:00 94 0 20 116 0

02:00 94 0 20 116 0

03:00 94 0 20 116 0

04:00 94 0 20 116 0

05:00 94 0 10 116 0

06:00 282 5 0 116 0

07:00 564 0 0 136 0

08:00 564 0 0 194 0

09:00 611 0 0 233 2000

 10:00 611 0 0 233 2000

11:00 611 0 0 233 2000

12:00 611 0 0 233 0

13:00 611 0 0 233 0

14:00 611 0 0 233 0

15:00 611 0 0 233 0

16:00 517 0 0 252 0

17:00 188 0 0 252 0

18:00 94 5 0 252 0

19:00 94 14 10 272 0

20:00 94 14 20 272 0

21:00 94 9 20 272 0

22:00 94 5 20 194 0

23:00 94 0 20 116 0

Total
Energy
(Wh/day) 7520 52 200 4655 6000

Table 9 Hourly load of Murche Community

3.2.3.3. Drinking water Requirement

The amount of water required for health and life support depends on the climate, but WHO
[87] mentions that a minimum of 7.5 litres a day is required for survival and basic hygiene.
Therefore, an average household of 4.6 people [88] in Ethiopia needs 34.5 litres of water per
day. With this data, a pump is sized with the following specifications:
Pump Parameters
Hours of Operation 6h
Power 1 kW
Oversized Power 1.5 kW
Head 50 m
Water Flow 1800 L/h

Table 10 Specifications of Drinking Water Pump

The hourly pumping load is given is table 11:

Power Required (KW)

00:00 0
01:00 0
02:00 0

03:00 0
04:00 0
05:00 0
06:00 0
07:00 0
08:00 0
09:00 0
10:00 0.8
11:00 0.8
12:00 0.8
13:00 0.8
14:00 0.8
15:00 0.8
16:00 0
17:00 0
18:00 0
19:00 0
20:00 0
21:00 0
22:00 0
23:00 0

Table 11 Hourly Load Profile of Drinking Water Pump

 3.2.4. Energy Consumption profile of entire village

The community load is considered as the primary load. The total daily primary load profile for
the entire village is given in Table 12. The daily primary load is different for weekdays and
weekends since schools and flourmills will be closed.
Religious Flour
Operating Schools Households Streetlights Drinking Souqs
Centres Mill
hour (kW) (kW) (kW) water (kW) (kW)
(kW) (kW)

00:00 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.2 0.0

01:00 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.2 0.0

02:00 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.2 0.0

03:00 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.2 0.0

04:00 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.2 0.0

05:00 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.2 0.0

06:00 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0

07:00 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0

08:00 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0

09:00 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 20.0

10:00 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5 20.0

11:00 0.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5 20.0

12:00 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.0

13:00 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.0

14:00 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.0

15:00 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.0

16:00 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0

17:00 0.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0

18:00 0.1 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0

19:00 0.1 5.6 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.5 0.0

20:00 0.1 5.6 0.1 3.0 0.0 0.5 0.0

21:00 0.1 4.2 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.5 0.0

22:00 0.1 2.8 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.4 0.0

23:00 0.1 1.4 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.2 0.0

Total
kWh/day 7.5 29.9 0.2 30.0 4.8 9.3 60.0

Table 12 Hourly Load Profile of the entire Murche Community

The yearly profile of the whole village is shown in figure 6. Since the schools will be closed
during Jul and Aug, the energy consumption is lower compared to other months.
 Energy Profile of the Entire Village
4900
4394 4394 4394 4394 4394
4252 4252 4231 4231 4252 4252
4200 3969

3500
KWh/month

2800

2100

1400

700

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 6 Monthly Energy Requirement of Murche Community

3.3. Case Study 2: Lelicho

3.3.1. Site Description

The second study site, Lelicho, is in the Great Rift Valley, located in Arsedo Mero Kebele, of
the Sidama region. The village also has a hilly landscape but has complete access to roads
throughout the year. The closest MV grid line is located at a distance of about 5 km from the
site. The geographical coordinates of the sites are 6.8283816 °N and 38.5154466°E.

Figure 7 Site-Level mapping of Lelicho from Veritas Consulting

Avocado is a primary crop in Lelicho, whereas coffee is a secondary crop. The farmers have
access to two rivers nearby the village, and they irrigate 60% of the farmlands using these
rivers. The village also has a coffee washing plant, one mill, two schools, six religious centres,
11 souks and 312 households.
 Size of farmlands (Ha) 512

Total irrigation farm size (Ha) 312

Source of water for irrigation River

Principal Crop Avocado
Other crops Coffee, Khat & Ensete
Households 312
Souks 11
Religious Centres 6
Flour Mill 1
Coffee washing machines 1
Schools 2

Table 13 Summary of Lelicho Village

3.3.2. Irrigation Requirement of Lelicho

To calculate the irrigation requirement of Lelicho, the same methodology is used as Murche.
The local average temperatures shown in figure 8, indicates the dry season from Nov to Mar.

Average Monthly Temperature

23

22
21.8 21.9

21
20.6 20.7

20
℃

19.6 19.7
19.4
19 19.1

18.6 18.7
18.3
18 18.1

17
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 8 Average Monthly temperatures of Lelicho

Due to the unavailability of data of local crop Khat and Ensete, only avocado and coffee are
considered assuming all the irrigated land grows these two crops. In Lelicho, coffee is planted
in April and July, which grows to maturation in three years. It is then harvested once a year,
from September through November [89].

An avocado tree takes three years to mature and start producing fruits in the fourth year. Once
matured, the tree gives two harvests per year.
Using the temperature data, the ETo crop for coffee and avocado is calculated (table 14). The
ETo crop of coffee and avocado grown in Lelicho is different from Murche since the
temperature and rainfall is different.
Avocado Coffee
Kc ETo crop (mm/month) Kc ETo crop (mm/month)
Jan 0.85 120.3 1.10 155.7
Feb 0.85 124.1 1.10 160.6
Mar 0.85 124.4 1.10 161.0
Apr 0.85 125.1 1.10 161.9
May 0.85 121.5 1.10 157.2
Jun 0.85 118.2 1.10 153.0
Jul 0.85 116.6 1.10 150.9
Aug 0.85 117.2 1.10 151.7
Sep 0.85 118.5 1.10 153.4
Oct 0.85 115.6 1.10 149.6
Nov 0.85 116.5 1.10 150.8
Dec 0.85 117.5 1.10 152.0

Table 14 Kc and ETo values of the crops grown in Lelicho

The actual irrigation requirement is displayed in figure 9. This requirement considers the local
average rainfall in Lelicho (See appendix 1)

Irrigation Requirement

2000

1600
m3/ha/month

1200

800

400

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Avocado Coffee

Figure 9 Irrigation Requirement of the crops grown in Lelicho

Out of 512 hectares of farmland, only 312 hectares of land is irrigated in Lelicho. Therefore, a
factor of 1.62 is multiplied by the total requirement to increase the irrigation capacity for future
demand. The peak power of twelve pumps is 1350 KW, and their monthly energy requirement
is presented in figure 10. The highest consumption is during dry season when there is a limited
flow of water in the rivers. However, during summers, most of the irrigation requirement is met
by rainfall.

Monthly Energy Requirment for Irrigation

300 285

247 244
250

200 191
MWh/month

150

100 88

64

50 39
28
21
2 0 0
-
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 10 Energy Required for Irrigation of farmlands in Lelicho Village

3.3.3. Energy Requirement of Lelicho Community

The load profile of Lelicho community is calculated same as Murche village except Lelicho
village has one coffee washing plant. The load profile of coffee plant is calculated as follows:

3.3.3.1. Energy Assessment of Coffee Processing Plant

The design characteristics of a coffee washing plant is presented in table 15. The error margin
of 1.2 is taken in case if the real production varies from literature values.
Coffee Beans Production per Hectare [100] (kg/ha) 512 kg/ ha
Total Coffee Production (kg) 112,128 kg
Error margin 1.7

Total Coffee Production after error (kg) 190,618 kg

Coffee Pulping machine Power (KW) 0.75 kW
Throughput (kg/hr) 1,200

Table 15 Coffee Plant specifications of Lelicho Village

The coffee pulper only operates during weekdays from November till February. The hourly
load profile of the machine is shown in table 16:

Power (KW)
00:00 0
01:00 0
02:00 0
03:00 0
04:00 0
05:00 0
06:00 0
07:00 0
08:00 0
09:00 0
10:00 0
11:00 1.125
12:00 1.125
13:00 1.125
14:00 0
15:00 0
16:00 0
17:00 0
18:00 0
19:00 0
20:00 0
21:00 0
22:00 0
23:00 0

Table 16 Hourly Load Profile of Coffee Plant

3.3.4. Energy Consumption profile of entire village

The consumption loads of Lelicho village includes households, schools, flourmills, religious
centres, streetlights, drinking water and coffee pulping plant. The schools, flour mills and
coffee pulpers are closed on weekends, however Souqs (shops) are assumed to be open.
The energy requirement of a peak load weekday versus on a weekend is displayed in the
figure 11.

The peak load is about 27 kW during mid-day on a weekday and minimal load during mid-
night. After 4 pm, the load starts to increase as many people stay at home during this time.

Energy Requirement on Weekday vs Weekend

30.0

25.0

20.0
Power (KW)

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00

Weekday Weekend

Figure 11 Electrical load on weekday vs weekend

The monthly energy requirement for the whole community is shown in figure (12). The schools
are closed in July and August, and coffee plants only operate from November till February.
There is no considerable difference in monthly energy consumption as schools and coffee
pulpers does not require high power.

Monthly Energy Requirement of the Community

7,000
6,428 6,323 6,428
6,119 6,119 6,119 6,119 6,221
5,806 5,997 5,997
6,000 5,711

5,000
KWh/month

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 12 Monthly Energy Requirement of Lelicho Community

3.4. Case Study 3: Telifa

3.4.1. Site Description

The third site under study is Telifa village, located in Wagetera Kebele, South Gondar
zone of the Amhara region. The village has complete road access all year-round,
which makes access to multiple markets for the farmers easy to sell their products.
The geographical coordinates of the sites are 11.8777786°N and 37.5718202°E.

Figure 13 Site-Level mapping of Telifa from Veritas Consulting

The primary crop in Telifa is onion however garlic, maize, rice, and teff are some other crops
grown in the village. Farmers have access to a river nearby for irrigation. Since all the
farmlands are irrigated, there is no potential to increase pumping-based irrigation. The village
also has three grinding flour mills.
Size of farmlands (Ha) 450

Total irrigation farm size (Ha) 450

Source of water for irrigation River

Principal Crop Onion

Other crops Tomato, Garlic, maize, teff, rice
Households 480

Souks1 2
Religious Centers4 1
Flour Mill 3

Schools4 1

Table 17 Summary of Telifa Village

1
Due to unavailability of the data, it is assumed
3.4.2. Irrigation Requirement of Telifa

The irrigation requirement for crops grown in Telifa is calculated using the same methodology
as Murche. The Kc values and ETo crop for Onion, Tomato, Maize and Rice is given shown in
table (18):
Onion Tomato Maize Rice
ETo crop ETo crop ETo crop ETo crop
Kc Kc Kc Kc
(mm/month) (mm/month) (mm/month) (mm/month)

Jan 1.01 142 0.86 120 - - - -

Feb 1.05 153 0.45 65 - - - -
Mar 0.95 145 0.68 103 - - - -

Apr 0.74 118 0.95 152 - - - -

May - - 1.15 182 - - - -
Jun - - 0.86 131 - - 1.10 167

Jul - - - - 0.54 79 1.10 160

Aug - - - - 0.87 122 1.30 183
Sep - - 0.45 65 1.15 166 - -
Oct - - 0.70 100 0.85 121 - -
Nov - - 0.95 130 0.23 32 - -
Dec 0.63 87 1.15 160 - - - -

Table 18 Kc and ETo values of the crops grown in Telifa

The actual water requirement of each crop is calculated using the local rainfall data (appendix
1) and presented in figure 14. Due to heavy rainfall in summers, there is no need for irrigation,
however during winters, the highest irrigation requirement is 2500 m3/ha.

Water Required for Each Crop

2500

2000
m3/month/ha

1500

1000

500

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Onion Tomato Maize Rice

Figure 14 Water requirements of the crops grown in Telifa

Telifa village has 450 hectares of farmland, and all of it is irrigated using diesel generators.
Therefore, the oversizing of pumping capacity is not considered. A total of twelve pumps are
required with a peak power of 1,350 kW to fulfil the irrigation needs. The monthly energy
consumption of pumps is shown in figure 15.

Energy Required to Irrigiate 450 HA

300

250

200
MWh/month

150

100

50

-
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 15 Energy Required to Irrigate all the farmlands in Telifa

3.4.3. Energy Consumption profile of entire village

The energy consumption profile of Telifa community is also calculated using Murche’s
methodology. The size of the village is bigger than Murche, therefore the required power is
greater. The figure 16 shows the hourly load profile of Telifa. The peak energy consumption
is from 9:00 to 11:00 since three flour mills, each of 20 KW capacity, are operating.

Hourly Load Profile of Telifa Community

70

60

50
Power (kW)

40

30

20

10

0
00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00

Figure 16 Hourly Load Profile of Telifa Community

Figure 17 shows the monthly energy consumption of the community. Since there are not any
seasonal loads, the energy consumption is pretty much the same each month.

Monthly Energy Requirement of the Community

10,000 9,364 9,364 9,364 9,364 9,364
9,062 9,062 9,201 9,201 9,062 9,062
8,458

8,000

6,000
kWh/month

4,000

2,000

-
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 17 Monthly Energy Requirement of Telifa Community

4. System Layout
By 2025, NEP 2.0 plans to provide electricity access to 6 million users through off-grid
solutions using stand-alone solar and mini-grids technologies. This will require a significant
amount of financing; hence priority connections (grid or off-grid) to areas with high potential
economic growth, particularly in the agriculture sector, is financially feasible and attracts
private investors. Therefore, the optimal design of mini-grids is essential to maximise the
profits of the electrification projects. Given that economic concerns are priorities to private
developers, the techno-economic simulations minimise costs such as LCOE, O&M, NPC.

There are five fundamental steps in the design process of the mini-grid:

1. Defining the geographical location of the project

2. Estimation of the load profile of the users
3. Assessment of the available local energy resources
4. Sizing the energy production capacity of the system
5. Techno-economic optimisation of the system

In this process, mini-grids for the selected locations are designed with the aid of professional
software like Homer Pro and PVsyst. The optimal size of the mini-grids for each site is
modelled using HOMER with an estimated cost of components and deployment.The
simulation aims to present the life cycle value of the project that accounts for both CAPEX and
OPEX, which gives an investor an indication of investment in the mini-grid system.

4.1. Computational Tools for the Mini-grid Design

4.1.1. PVsyst:

PVsyst is a software package for energy modelling used by the PV developers to simulate the
energy production of a potential project site. The pre-feasibility studies, sizing and simulations
for PV projects can be made using this software. It can simulate all sorts of PV systems, such
as stand-alone (off-grid with or without batteries) and grid-connected systems. It offers a huge
database of meteorological data and solar components data that are the latest technology in
the market. With the PVsyst, a detailed analysis of the optical, array and system losses can
be simulated to get the realistic production of a PV plant. Finally, the software provides results
in the form of graphs and tables presented in a report.

4.1.2. HOMER Analysis

The HOME Pro is an optimisation tool that was developed by National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) to design microgrids. It is abbreviated for Hybrid Optimization Model for
Multiple Energy Resources. As the name suggests, HOMER provides designing multiple
energy resources such as hydrogen, biomass, wind, PV, hydro, and thermal resources that
can be integrated into one energy system. It optimises a viable system for all possible
combinations of the equipments under consideration. HOMER takes the demand assessment
from user to design the optimal micro-grid system for a specific site. Moreover, it simulates
the operation of a micro-grid for a year, in time steps of minutes or hours.
Along with technical optimisation, HOMER provides the economic optimisation of different
components of a micro-grid which helps to assess the financial viability of the project. It can
be used by all types of users ranging from small rural areas to industries.

4.2. Solar Energy Resource in Ethiopia

In Ethiopia, climate-resilient economic growth is the main objective of the current development
and energy policies. With abundant renewable energy resources, clean power generation is
vital for national energy and industrial development targets. But efficient and cost-effective
exploitation of these resources is the key challenge in Ethiopia.

Ethiopia has an exploitable potential of 4 PWh annually from wind energy [92]. The potential
varies from location to location. According to the global wind energy classification, the average
Ethiopian wind energy is classified as class 1 [93]. There are very limited locations that are
classified within the good to excellent (above class 4) category. All areas in the country are
not suitable for the establishment of wind energy plants or grids. Agricultural, forested and
built-up lands are not considered at all. As this study is about the electrification of rural areas
where most people are related to agricultural lands, wind-powered mini-grids are not the best
option to implement. Other issues like infrastructure, altitude, distance from main power,
transportation, installation and operational cost, which can be very high sometimes, are the
limiting factors for the wind energy-based mini-grids. Moreover, the availability of technical
staff in a remote location is also a significant restriction. Thus, a wind-powered mini-grid isn’t
a sustainable solution for electrification in rural areas.

Ethiopia, an agricultural-based economy, has the potential to produce around 50 Mtoe of

biogas [3]. The biomass resources are abundant in rural areas. The crop residues, particularly
cereals, account for almost 60% of the total potential, whereas animal manure and municipal
solid waste are used for most of the remaining energy potential. [3]. The literature review
shows that 7,000 digesters were installed between 2008 and 2013. However, only about 40%
of the bio-digesters are now operational due to a lack of local capacity. Thus, indicating that
bioenergy is not a suitable and productive solution for electrification.

In the case of solar energy resources, Ethiopia receives solar irradiation ranging somewhere
from 4.5 KWh/m2 to 7.5 KWh/m2 per day, which keeps on varying. The least amount of
irradiation is recorded in highland areas during summers. Sites at extreme north till the eastern
border to the southern rift valley regions have been recorded to receive the most irradiation
per day, exceeding the value of 7.5 KWh/m2. [22]

Fig. 18 is a map of solar radiation patterns of the country. It receives about 6 kWh/m2 per day
on average, which sums up to 2200 KWh/m2 per year. [90].
 Figure 18 Annual average irradiation for Ethiopia [90]

According to the IRENA report, the cost of utility-scale PV projects in Africa has decreased to
60 per cent since 2012 [34]. With this energy resource potential and reduction of cost of PV
technology in recent times, PV powered mini-grids seem to be a viable option for electrification
purposes.

4.3. Case study 1: Murche

4.3.1. Solar Resource Data

The capacity and technical configuration of the PV plant is correlated to the site's solar
irradiance, and thus it is essential to use precise data for the techno-economic analysis. Within
this study, the Meteonorm solar irradiance data has been used to simulate the Solar PV array.
The system's location is a crucial parameter in the mini-grid design since it is the deciding
factor of the size and cost of the system. Figure 19 shows the average monthly global
irradiance in Murche village. The highest irradiance is 181 m2/kWh in March and the average
irradiance for a whole year is 168 m2/kWh.

Average Monthly GHI in Murche

200

160
KWh/m2/Month

120

80

40

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 19 Average Global Horizontal Irradiance of Murche Village

4.3.2. PVsyst Design

From the given availability of the solar energy resource of the Murche, the optimal size of a
solar array is determined with the help of Homer Pro. The software optimises the PV plant
capacity based on demand assessment, solar array output, and economic parameters. From
the proposed capacity of the PV plant (HOMER), the detailed analysis of the PV plant was
modelled using PVsyst. The technical parameters of the PVsyst simulation are given in table
19 and 20.

Plane Tilt: 35°

Orientation
Azimuth: 0°

Pitch: 8m
Shed
Collector width: 2.104m

LONGI Solar (LR4-72 HBD 420 M Bifacial), 420 Wp

PV Panels
No. of panels installed: 4,032

SMA Sunny Highpower Peak3 – 100 KW

Inverter Model
No. of inverters installed: 16

Table 19 PVsyst Design Parameters

Since the highest consumption of Murche village is in the dry season from December to March,
the plane tilt is set to 35° to get the highest production during this period. The pitch and
collector width are chosen considering the landscape orientation of two panels (2V landscape
design) fixed on a single solar mounting structure. A pitch is a distance between two PV
arrays. The maximum pitch allows less near shading losses. The collector band width is the
width of two PV modules that are mounted together on a mounting structure. Figure 20 shows
the PVsyst orientation of PV panels.

Figure 20 Orientation of PV panels

For this study, bifacial solar panels are considered as they offer many advantages over
traditional panels since they produce power from both sides of the panel. Some manufactures
claim that they produce 30% more power compared to common PV panels [64].

The SMA’s 100 KW inverter has been chosen for this study because larger inverters are more
affordable than smaller ones. Additionally, inverters require special expertise for installation
and commission, which increases the labour cost of the project.

4.3.2.1. Losses

The table 20 presents the losses considered during PVsyst simulations. The optical losses of
the system are 6.94% which includes losses due to far and near shading. However, the overall
array and system losses are 18.10% including the temperature, wirings, inverter and
auxiliaries’ loss.
Surface Losses
Soiling losses 1.5%
Shading Losses 1.74%
Other Losses 3.7%
Array and System Losses
Module Degradation loss 0.4%/year
PV loss due to temperature 5.23%
Light-Induced Degradation (LID) 2%
Wiring loss 1.13%
Module mismatch losses 3.73%
Other Losses 5.61%

Table 20 Solar PV System Losses

4.3.3. HOMER Design

The optimal design of hybrid mini-grids is a key issue, and it requires reliable load assessment,
energy generation profiles and economic parameters. The following sections describe the
important design components of the HOMER simulation. A general layout of the mini-grid
design is shown in figure 21. The electrical loads are connected to the AC bus because GOE
has a plan to connect the mini-grids with the national grid. Hence, AC based three-phase
systems are considered for the mini-grid design.
 Figure 21 Layout of Mini-grid

4.3.3.1. Load

The first step for mini-grid optimisation on HOMER, is to define the load profile of the mini-grid
users. There are two options to add a load, either you can upload a time-series load profile,
or you can create your own synthetic load data. As we have already created a load profile of
Murche in chapter 3, we will add this load profile as electric load #1 in HOMER. The Electric
load #1 represents the load profile of the community which includes households, schools,
souqs, flour mills and religious centres. As their consumption will be variable, HOMER
provides Random Variability parameters through which adding randomness to the load data
becomes realistic. For the community load profile, the day-to-day variable is set to 10% while
the timestep variable is set to 20%.

Figure 22 Yearly Load Profile of Murche Community (HOMER)

The Irrigation load can be given as a deferable load input to the HOMER, which means the exact timing
is not important, and it can wait until power is available. Since, the water will be stored in the wells for
later to be used for irrigation, the irrigation load is defined under deferable load in HOMER as seen
below:
Flow at Full power 2,400 m3/h
Hours req to fill the well 6.91 h
 Peak load 1,350 KW
Storage Capacity 9,332.92 (KWh/day)
Minimum Load ratio 50%

Table 21 Deferable Load Storage Capacity of Murche

The peak deferrable load is the rated power of the pump which means at full power, the pump
draws 1350 WW of electrical power and pumps 2,400 m3 per hour, which would take the pump
6.91 hours at full power to fill the wells. The storage capacity of the wells relies on the highest
irrigation season as shown below:
Month Energy (KWh/day)
Jan 6,842.46

Feb 6,593.14
Mar 1,327.85
Apr -
May -
Jun 5,642.20
Jul 4,580.25

Aug 3,984.64
Sep 4,111.11
Oct -

Nov 6,134.96
Dec 9,332.92
Average 4,045.79

Table 22 Deferable Load Energy Requirement for Murche Village

4.3.3.2. Components

4.3.3.2.1 Controller

The controller in HOMER uses different control algorithms that specify the operation strategies
for mini-grids. For the purpose of this research, the most common strategy that is Load
following strategy (LFS) is used given its low hardware and computational requirements.[3]
With LFS, renewable power sources are first exploited to serve the primary load, deferable
load and charging the battery. To meet the demands of photovoltaic plant, the generator is
turned on only after the minimum allowed energy level of the batteries is reached. as they
usually correspond to the most expensive energy source. The generator produces only
enough power to meet the primary load.

4.3.3.2.2 Auto-size generator

The HOMER resource library has numerous generator models but auto size generator feature
is chosen which automatically sizes generator capacity to meet the primary load. The capacity
of the generator will be the smallest that will produce no capacity shortage. The table below
shows the important sizing parameters:
Capacity 1 KW

Initial Capital 750 $/KW

Replacement Cost 500 $/KW

Operating Cost 0.03 $/hr

Fuel Price 0.65$/L

Minimum Load Ratio 25%

Lifetime 15,000 hr

Minimum Runtime 15 min

Table 23 Design Parameters of Diesel Generator

4.3.3.2.3 PVsyst Data

In addition to add solar photovoltaic components in HOMER Pro, it also incorporates PVsyst
data in comma-separated value (CSV) file. The only defined variable in CSV format, is the PV
production data in kW from the modelled array. However, the economic parameters were
added to HOMER Pro as show below:
Solar Module Cost $470
PV Inverter Cost $13,020

Total Cost $1,593.71

Operating Cost 18.79 $/kWp

Table 24 CAPEX and OPEX for Solar PV

4.3.3.2.4 Battery

Within this study, two batteries are considered, a generic lead-acid battery and a Lithium-Iron
phosphate battery from Power plus (LiFe 2433). HOMER suggests the battery chemistry,
which minimises the overall cost of the system. The technical and economic parameters are
of both batteries are given in Table 25 & 26.

Lead-acid
Nominal Capacity 1 kWh
Nominal voltage 12 V
Round-trip Efficiency 80%
 Energy Throughput 1000 kWh
Unit Cost 300 $

Replacement Cost 300 $

Operating Cost 10$/kW
Initial Charging State 100%
Minimum State of Charge (SOC) 40%

Table 25 Design Parameters of Lead-acid batteries

Lithium-Iron-Phosphate
Nominal Capacity 3.28 kWh
Voltage 25.6 V

Round-trip Efficiency 96%

Energy Throughput 15744 kWh
Unit Cost $2,556

Replacement Cost $2,556

Operating Cost 10 $/kW
Initial Charging State 100%

Minimum State of Charge (SOC) 20%

Table 26 Design Parameters of Lithium-Iron Phosphate batteries

4.3.3.2.5 Converter

A generic converter with the following specifications has been modelled in HOMER Pro:
Nominal Capacity 1 kW
Efficiency 95%

Lifetime 15 years
Unit Cost 300 $/kW
Replacement Cost 300 $/kW

Operating Cost 5$/kW

Table 27 Design Parameters of Converter

4.3.3.3. Economics

The economic parameters are also crucial for the financial viability of the project. The table 28
provides the key inputs used in the HOMER simulation. The system fixed cost is the
distribution and transmission cost of the mini-grid infrastructure while O&M costs includes the
salaries of the mini-grid operators.
Project Lifetime 25
Nominal Discount rate 12.0%
inflation rate 10.00%
real discount rate 1.82%
System Fixed Capital Cost $177,636
System Fixed O&M Cost $17,782.20

Table 28 Summary of Economic factors for Mini-grid Design of Murche Village

4.4. Case study 2: Lelicho

4.4.1. Climatic Data

Figure 23 displays the average monthly Global Horizontal Irradiance for 12 months of Lelicho
village. The village receives an average irradiance of 158 kWh/m2/month. It receives the
highest irradiance in December and March.

Average Monthly GHI

200
180
160
140
KWh/m2/month

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 23 Average Monthly Global Horizontal Irradiance of Lelicho Village

4.4.2. PVsyst Design

All the design parameters of PVsyst are same as Murche except the tilt angle which is 40° to
maximise the production in November and December.

4.4.3. HOMER Design

4.4.3.1. Load

The community load from chapter 3 was provided as an input for electric load 1 in HOMER
whereas irrigation load is provided as deferable load. The energy requirement for irrigation
purposes is shown in table 29. It can be noted that December has the highest energy demand
compared to other months and average energy consumption per day is 3,332 kWh.
Month Energy (kWh/day)
Jan 7,960.33
Feb 6,820.49
Mar 2,050.73
Apr 942.10

May 665.07
Jun 1,303.81
Jul 53.03

Aug -
Sep -
Oct 2,853.25

Nov 8,139.60
Dec 9,199.44
Average 3,332.32

Table 29 Monthly Energy Requirement of Deferable Load of Lelicho Village

The maximum capacity of the wells is designed considering the highest energy demand per
day
Flow at Full power 2,400 m3/hr
Hours required to fill the well 6.81 hr
Peak load 1,350 kW
Storage Capacity 9,199.44 kWh
Minimum Load ratio 50 %

Table 30 Energy Storage Capacity of Deferable Load (Lelicho)

4.4.3.2. Economic Inputs

The economic parameters for Lelicho mini-grid design are the same as Murche except for the
distribution cost, which is $229,396.

4.5. Case study 3: Telifa

4.5.1. Climatic Data

The average Global Horizontal Irradiance of Telifa village is shown in figure 24. The village
receives as average GHI of 176 kWh/m2/month which is more than the previous two sites. It
has the highest irradiance in March.

Average Monthly GHI

250

200
KWh/m2/month

150

100

50

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 24 Average Monthly Global Horizontal Irradiance of Telifa Village

4.5.2. PVsyst Design

The design parameters of PVsyst simulation for Telifa are same as described above for
Murche village except the tilt angle is 30° to maximise the power production for the month of
January and February.

4.5.3. HOMER Design

The community load of Telifa from chapter 3 is given as a primary AC load input to HOMER
while irrigation load is given as deferable load. The irrigation load provided to HOMER is
shown in table 31. The peak demand is during the months of January and February, while
there is no demand during July and August.
 Month Energy (kWh/day)
Jan 9,108.11

Feb 9,306.82
Mar 8,413.16
Apr 6,350.70
May 862.61
Jun 27.38
Jul -

Aug -
Sep 9.72
Oct 635.97

Nov 980.04
Dec 6,037.31
Average 3,477.65

Table 31 Monthly Energy Requirement of Deferable Load of Telifa Village

The storage capacity of the wells is designed based on the highest monthly load. The
maximum water all wells can store is 16,536 m3. The design parameters for deferable load are
shown is table 32:
Flow at Full power 2,400 m3/hr
Hours req to fill the well 6.89 hr
Peak load 1,350 kW
Storage Capacity 9,306.82 kWh
Minimum Load ratio (%) 50%

Table 32 Energy Storage Capacity of Deferable Load (Telifa)

4.5.3.1. Economic Inputs

The economic inputs of Telifa are same as Murche since both the sites are located in Ethiopia.
However, the distribution cost is $205,305 for Telifa mini-grid.
5. Results
System design and modelling are essential to optimise the mini-grid design. This chapter
presents the simulation results and financial analysis for the rural electrification of the three
case studies. The model has been used to determine optimal capacity for PV plants, diesel
generator and batteries, which minimises the Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). Using the
simulation results from PVsyst modelling of solar arrays, HOMER Pro finds the optimum
system configuration that minimises the Net Present Cost (NPC) and the average LCOE
incurred during the lifetime of the system.

5.1. Case Study 1: Murche

5.1.1. PVsyst Energy Output

The PVsyst simulation for Murche is sized for a 1693KWDC PV plant with an AC output of 1600
KW. The output from the grid-connected inverter is shown below:

Energy Production with Array Losses

350

300

250

200
MWh

150

100

50

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Inverter Output Array Losses

Figure 25 Solar PV Output of Murche Village

As discussed in chapter 4, the orientation angle is set to get the highest production in the dry
season from November to February, when we have the highest irrigation demand. The yearly
PV output is highest in December (318 MWh) followed by January (309 MWh); however, the
highest energy losses from the inverter are 11% in December, and monthly average losses
are 3%.

5.1.2. HOMER Pro Results:

All the possible combinations of components that can provide least-cost option for microgrids
are analysed by HOMER for an entire year thus, it simulates the operation of a hybrid
microgrid. The technical configuration proposed for the mini-grid is presented in Table 33. The
given parameters are the optimised outputs based on the costs, required demand, and solar
array production from PVsyst.
 PV Gen COE Initial Ren
(KW (kW 1kWh Converte NPC ($/kWh O&M capital Frac
) ) LA LiFe r (kW) (M$) ) ($/yr) (M$) (%)

85,99
1600 730 68 30.7 5.32 0.1758 4 3.61 85.8

98,48
1600 730 306 26.2 5.49 0.1812 9 3.53 85.4

Table 33 HOMER Optimisation Results for Murche Village

As stated in Table 33, HOMER suggested two optimised systems with different battery
technologies, lithium-ion and lead-acid batteries. The operating costs of the lead-acid battery
system are 13% higher than the lithium-ion battery system. Hence, mini-grids with lithium-ion
batteries are the optimum choice with the least cost of electricity production, 0.175$/kWh. It
can be noted that both systems have 85% of the renewable capacity.

5.1.3. Energy and Power profile of the Optimal case

Figure 26 shows power supply from PV plant, batteries, and diesel generator to the total
electrical load served. As indicated, that the generator is only used during peak demand
months while PV plant and batteries fulfil the demand all year long.

Figure 26 Yearly Energy Production and Consumption of Murche Mini-grid

The large generator for times of high energy demand implies that an increased initial
investment (3.61M$) is needed for an underused generator. As indicated in figure 27, the
generator does not turn on minimal demand period of April, May and October because of the
low irrigation period.

Figure 27 Total Electrical Load Served vs Generator Power (Murche)

Figure 28 indicates the state of charge (SOC) of the lithium-iron-phosphate batteries. It is seen
that the battery’s state of charge is 70% for most of the year, except during peak demand, it
reaches its minimum allowable state, 20%.

Figure 28 Yearly SOC of Lithium-Iron phosphate battery (Murche)

Figure 29 shows the total renewable output and penetration of the year. The electricity demand
is majorly covered by solar PV and the 25% rest is covered by DEG. The peak power
consumption is around 1500 KW for the whole year except for a few peak loads.

Figure 29 Total Renewable Power Production vs Total Electrical Load Served (Murche)

As shown in Figure 30 & 31, a typical peak demand day in January, the generator is used at
night to serve deferable load while battery is discharged to cover the AC primary load. During
the peak solar hours, battery is charged and deferable load is also served while generator
provided minimum power to serve the deferable load.

Figure 30 Power and Load Profile on Jan 10 (Murche)

 Figure 31 Hourly Load Profile and Battery’s SOC (Murche)

5.1.4. Sensitivity Analysis

HOMER performs the sensitivity analysis by repeating its optimisation process for each
variable and shows how the results are affected by changes in each variable. For this
research, two sensitivity parameters are taken, capacity shortage and fuel price. A capacity
shortage is a deficit between the actual amount of operating capacity the system can provide
and the required operating capacity.

Table 34 shows the sensitivity analysis of capacity shortage and diesel price on the system
design. By allowing a 10% capacity shortage, the initial capital increases by 19%, but the total
Net Present Cost (NPC) decreases by only 0.6%. The cost of electricity (COE) production is
higher for a 10% capacity shortage, but the system solely relies on renewable electricity
production. However, this capacity shortage will reduce the revenues during the peak demand
season. Therefore, the system without a capacity shortage is an optimum choice for Murche
village.

The increase in diesel prices does not substantially affect the initial capital, but the 22%
increase in diesel prices increase 3% COE and NPC. However, the difference is not
considerable due to the size of the project.
 Diesel
Initial
Capacity Fuel PV Gen Converter NPC COE O&M Ren Frac
LiFe2433 capital
Shortage Price (KW) (kW) (kW) (M$) ($) ($/yr) (%)
(M$)
($/L)

0% 0.53 1600 730 68 30.66 5.32 0.1758 85,994 3.61 86

5% 0.53 1600 730 68 30.66 5.32 0.1758 85,994 3.61 86

10% 0.53 1600 483 699 5.29 0.1921 48,563 4.32 100

0% 0.65 1600 730 74 25.39 5.46 0.1804 92,294 3.62 86

5% 0.65 1600 730 74 25.39 5.46 0.1804 92,294 3.62 86

10% 0.65 1600 483 699 5.29 0.1921 48,563 4.32 100

0% 0.79 1600 730 78 33.12 5.61 0.1853 99,190 3.63 86

5% 0.79 1600 730 78 33.12 5.61 0.1853 99,190 3.63 86

10% 0.79 1600 483 699 5.29 0.1921 48,563 4.32 100

Table 34 HOMER Sensitivity Analysis of Murche Mini-grid Design

5.1.5. Financial Analysis

The financial analysis of a project provides insights into its economic feasibility. The bar chart
below represents the total lifetime cost of the mini-grid deployment in Murche village. The total
NPC is 5.4 million dollars, and 66% of it accounts for the initial cost. The replacement cost is
very little because only inverters will be replaced after 15 years of project commencement.
Since the mini-grid has lithium-iron phosphate batteries, there isn’t any replacement cost of
batteries as they have more charge/discharge cycles than lead-acid batteries and are
operating in optimal temperature (15°C-35°C) [95] conditions (see fig 2, chap 3). The total
operations and maintenance cost of the mini-grid is 1.1 million dollars of which 55% is of Solar
PV and 30% salaries of the mini-grid workers.
 Total NPC
$4,000,000

$3,500,000

$3,000,000

$2,500,000

$2,000,000

$1,500,000

$1,000,000

$500,000

$0
Capital ($) Replacement($) O&M ($) Fuel($) Sal vage ($)
-$500,000

Genset Solar PV+ Inverter Li-Ion Battery Converter Other

Figure 32 Total Net Present Cost of Murche Mini-grid

Table 35 summarises the major financial parameters of the project, and the tariff is an
essential factor in determining the financial viability of each project. For this research, the
customers are divided into two consumer sectors, community and farmers, with different
energy requirements. The revenue from each consumer is calculated based on their yearly
consumption simulated in HOMER (see appendix 2). The capital recovery factor is a ratio used
to determine the present value of a series of equal annual cash flows. It tells when funds
initially paid at the beginning of investment are earned back. The total annual cost is the overall
net value, and is calculation using the equation 4:

Cann,tot = CRF * CNPC,tot (4)

Project Lifetime 25 years

Diesel Price 0.65$/L

Community Tariff 0.067 $/kWh

Farmers Tariff 0.30 $/kWh
NPV $3,313,995

IRR 8%
Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) 0.050134
CNPC $5,463,073

Cannual, tot $273,883.94

Eserved 1,518 MWh/yr
COE 0.1804$/kWh

Table 35 Summary of Financial Results for Murche Mini-grid

The NPV and IRR are calculated assuming the tariffs and diesel prices will remain constant
throughout the project lifetime. With this optimistic approach, the project has a positive NPV
and IRR of 8% which makes this project economically profitable.

The cash flow below illustrates the net present income of the project. The initial capital is
recovered in the 12th year of operation and has a cumulative NPV of 3.3 million dollars.

Cash Flows
$4,000,000

$3,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
-$1,000,000

-$2,000,000

-$3,000,000

-$4,000,000
Project Lifetime (years)

Figure 33 Murche Mini-grid Cashflows

5.2. Case Study 2: Lelicho

5.2.1. PVsyst Energy Output

For Lelicho village, a 1440 KWp DC solar power plant was simulated in PVsyst with 1300 KWac
grid-connected inverter. The results of the PVsyst are shown in figure 34. The least energy
production is from June-Aug when the energy demand is also low. Overall, the average array
losses are 2% each month, except in August, October and December.

Energy Production with Array Losses

300

250

200
MWh

150

100

50

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Inverter Output Arra y Losses

Figure 34 Solar PV Output of Lelicho

5.2.2. HOMER Pro Results:

5.2.2.1. Optimisation results:

Table 36 shows the HOMER optimisation results with lead-acid and lithium-ion batteries. Both
systems have 91% renewable penetration, but the cost of electricity production with lithium
batteries is 4% lower than lead-acid batteries due to their high operations and maintenance
cost. Hence, the system with lead-acid batteries is the optimum choice for Lelicho village.

Initial
PV Gen Converter NPC COE O&M capital Ren Frac
(KW) (kW) LiFe2433 1 kWh LA (kW) (M$) ($) ($/yr) (M$) (%)

1300 740 72 35.13 4.52 0.1771 63,304 3.26 91

1300 740 408 38.97 4.72 0.1847 76,248 3.20 91

Table 36 HOMER Optimisation Results of Lelicho Mini-grid

5.2.2.2. Yearly profile of the optimal case

The yearly profile of energy production and consumption of the mini-grid components is shown
in figure 35 & 36.

Figure 35 Total Renewable Power Production vs Total Electrical Load Served

 Figure 36 Total Load Served vs Diesel Power (Lelicho)

The yearly State of Charge (SOC) of the lithium-ion batteries is shown in the figure 37. The
battery has around 60% SOC all around year except in Jan-Feb and Nov-Dec when there is
high irrigation demand; therefore, most of the electricity production by PV and DEG is serving
the pumping load.

Figure 37 Yearly SOC and Battery Power (Lelicho)

5.2.3. Sensitivity Analysis

The sensitivity analysis carried for Lelicho village is shown in Table 37. The capacity shortage
of 5% does not affect the system’s parameters, but changing to 10%, significantly reduces the
COE & initial cost of the system. Additionally, the whole design is 100% renewable.

The effect of diesel prices on COE and NPC is minimal, with an increase of 22% in diesel
prices, only 2% COE and NPC are increased. The overall system layout is same except the
capacity of lithium-ion batteries is added to the design with increase in diesel prices.

Diesel
Fuel Initial Ren
Capacity Price PV Gen Converter NPC O&M capital Frac
Shortage ($/L) (KW) (kW) LiFe2433 (kW) (M$) COE ($) ($/yr) (M$) (%)

0% 0.53 1 740 72 35.13 4.52 0.1771 63,304 3.26 91

5% 0.53 1 740 72 35.13 4.52 0.1771 63,304 3.26 91

10% 0.53 1 34 13.19 3.63 0.1578 51,507 2.60 100

0% 0.65 1 740 81 36.20 4.59 0.1798 65,745 3.28 91

5% 0.65 1 740 81 36.20 4.59 0.1798 65,745 3.28 91

10 0.65 1 34 13.19 3.63 0.1578 51,507 2.60 100

0% 0.79 1 740 94 41.29 4.69 0.1834 68,646 3.32 91

5% 0.79 1 740 94 41.29 4.69 0.1834 68,646 3.32 91

10% 0.79 1 34 13.19 3.63 0.1578 51,507 2.60 100

Table 37 HOMER Sensitivity Analysis for Lelicho Mini-grid Design

5.2.4. Financial Analysis

To carry out the financial analysis, a system with 0% capacity shortage and diesel price of
0.65$/L is chosen. The chart below represents the Net Present Cost for the lifetime of the
project. The initial investment for this project is 3.2 million dollars in which Solar PV has high
chunk of share, 2.2 million dollars. The replacement cost is negligible because only PV inverter
and converters are being replaced in the project lifetime. Since, the system is 90% renewable,
the operative and maintenance cost of PV is higher compared to other components.

Total NPC
$3,500,000

$3,000,000
$2,500,000

$2,000,000

$1,500,000

$1,000,000

$500,000

$0
Capital ($) Replacement($) O&M ($) Fuel($) Sal vage ($)
-$500,000

Genset Solar PV + Inverter Lithium Ion Battery Converter Other

Figure 38 Total NPC of Lelicho Mini-grid

The summary of financial parameters is given in table 38. The NPV is 2.6 million dollars and
IRR is 8%, which makes this mini-grid project economically feasible and lucrative.
Project Lifetime 25 years

Diesel Price 0.65$/L

Community Tariff 0.067$/kWh

Farmers Tariff 0.3$/kWh

NPV $2,648,101

IRR 8%

CRF 0.05013

CNPC $4,592,889

Cannual,tot $230,258

Eserved
1,280MWh/yr

COE $0.1798

Table 38 Summary of Financial Results for Lelicho Mini-grid

The figure 39 shows the net present incomes from the electricity sales to community and
farmers. With this design and economic parameters, it will take twelve years to recover the
initial investment.

Cash Flows
$3,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
-$1,000,000

-$2,000,000

-$3,000,000

-$4,000,000
Project Lifetime (years)

Figure 39 Cashflows of Lelicho Mini-grid

5.3. Case Study 3: Telifa

5.3.1. PVsyst Energy Output

The figure 40 shows the monthly energy production and array losses of solar plant simulated
in PVsyst. The installed DC capacity is 1693 KW connected with 1300 KWac grid-connected
inverter. The average monthly losses are 2%, except in March and Aug when losses are 14%
and 13% respectively.

Energy Production with Array Losses

350

300

250

200
MWh

150

100

50

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Inverter Output Array Losses

Figure 40 Solar PV Output of Telifa

5.3.2. HOMER Pro Results:

5.3.2.1. Optimisation results:

The optimisation results of HOMER are presented in table 39. This design also suggests the
optimum design with lithium iron phosphate batteries with least COE, 0.152$/kWh compared
to the other two sites. Furthermore, the renewable power capacity is higher than previous two
designs.

Initial Ren
PV Gen 1kWh Converter NPC O&M capital Frac
(KW) (kW) LA LiFe2433 (kW) (M$) COE ($) ($/yr) (M$) (%)

1 820 59 25.6 4.20 0.1542 53,128 3.14 95.1

1 820 242 34.5 4.36 0.1600 64,862 3.06 95.0

Table 39 HOMER Optimisation Results of Telifa Mini-grid Design

5.3.2.2. Yearly profile of the optimal case

The figures 41 & 42 shows the yearly profile of energy generation from PV and DEG, and the
total electric load.

Figure 41 Total Renewable Power Production vs Total Electrical Load Served (Telifa)
Figure 42 Total Electrical Load Served vs Diesel Generator Power (Telifa)

Figure 43 Yearly SOC and Power of Battery (Telifa)

5.3.3. Sensitivity Analysis

The sensitivity analysis results from HOMER are presented in table 40. The sensitivity
parameters are the same for this design. Since the optimised results for 0% capacity shortage
has 95% of renewable capacity, it is ideal for providing all the load demand. Moreover, with
95% of renewable capacity, the effect of change in diesel prices is also very minimal on COE
and the total net present cost of the project.

Capacit Diese Initial Ren

y l Fuel PV Gen COE capit Fra
Shortag Price (KW (kW LiFe243 Convert NPC ($/KW O&M al c
e (%) ($/L) ) ) 3 er (kW) (M$) h) ($/yr) (M$) (%)

0 0.53 1600 820 59 25.6 4.20 0.154 53,128 3.14 95

5% 0.53 1600 36 13.9 3.54 0.137 53,809 2.46 100

10% 0.53 1600 3.40 0.134 51,797 2.37 100

0 0.65 1600 820 61 24.4 4.24 0.156 54,815 3.14 95

5% 0.65 1600 36 13.9 3.54 0.137 53,809 2.46 100

10% 0.65 1600 3.40 0.134 51,797 2.37 100

0 0.78 1600 820 65 24.4 4.29 0.157 56,823 3.15 95

5% 0.78 1600 36 13.9 3.54 0.137 53,809 2.46 100

10% 0.78 1600 3.40 0.134 51,797 2.37 100

Table 40 HOMER Sensitivity Analysis Results for Telifa Mini-grid

5.3.4. Financial Analysis

The total Net Present Cost (NPC) of the mini-grid project is presented in figure 44. The initial
investment for the components and grid distribution is 3.4 million dollars, and the operational
cost is almost 1 million dollars. The fuel cost is minimal due to the high percentage of solar PV
capacity. Additionally, the replacement cost is also low since only converters are being
replaced in the project lifetime.

Total NPC
$3,500,000

$3,000,000

$2,500,000

$2,000,000

$1,500,000

$1,000,000

$500,000

$0
Capital ($) Replacement($) O&M ($) Fuel($) Sal vage ($)
-$500,000

Genset PV+ Inverter Li-Ion Battery Converter Other

Figure 44 Total NPC of Telifa Mini-grid

Table 41 presents the summary of the financial parameters of the mini-grid for the Telifa
village. The lowest cost of electricity production and 3.3-million-dollar NPV, gives a high IRR
of 9% making an investment profitable.
Project Lifetime 25 years
Community Tariff 0.067$/kWh
Farmers Tariff 0.3 $/kWh
NPV $3,363,885.30
IRR 9%
Capital Recovery Factor 0.050134
CNPC $4,237,114
Cannual, tot $212,422.08
Eserved 1,365 MWh/yr
COE 0.1556 $/kWh

Table 41Summary of Financial Results of Telifa Mini-grid

The cash flows below show the net present income from the electricity sales to Telifa village.
It shows the payback period of 10 years which makes the mini-grid design economically
feasible.

Cash flows
$4,000,000

$3,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
-$1,000,000

-$2,000,000

-$3,000,000

-$4,000,000
Project Lifetime

Figure 45 Cashflows of Telifa mini-grid

6. Conclusion
The thesis aimed to correctly size mini-grid for the Ethiopian communities exploiting local
resources. The success of rural energy access interventions may ultimately depend on
financing, as the mini-grids often risk failing from the economic point of view; hence the correct
sizing of the components is fundamental.

Initially, the available solar resources and the electric load of the community were estimated.
Afterwards, the detailed simulation of the solar array was modelled in PVsyst to provide more
precise results on energy production from PV plants and given as input for the HOMER Pro.
The HOMER Pro software was provided with the technical and economic parameters of the
various components for the optimal sizing of the system.

The aim was to determine the mini-grid design that would produce electricity at the lowest
cost. The simulations have shown that the optimum layout for exploiting local resources is
composed of both solar PV and diesel generator. The optimised HOMER model proposed a
mini-grid design with a minimum of 85% renewable penetration, and the COE ranges from
0.15$/kWh to 0.18$/kWh with an NPC range of 4.2 M$ to 5.32 M$.

However, in Ethiopia, the cost of electricity from the national grid is estimated at $0.09/kWh.
With 56% people without access to electricity, the national grid's extension seems cost and
time intensive [96][97]

The sensitivity analysis of the HOMER sizing study showed that the capacity shortage greatly
affects the optimal configuration and initial capital. With a 10% capacity shortage, all the mini-
grid designs have 100% renewable power production capacity, but there will be a revenue
loss during the peak demand season.

Overall, if the tariffs remain fixed, all the systems have positive NPV and an IRR of at least
8%, making the project economically viable.

The constant growth of mini-grid systems in recent years has allowed bringing electricity to
many rural areas improving the living conditions of many people and allowing productive use
of energy. The sustainable development of mini-grids is essential to ensure the continuous
growth of emerging economies. The low costs of mini-grid components can make these
systems more economical and draw interest from private and public companies.
7. References
[1] Whitesides GM, Crabtree GW. Don't forget long-term fundamental research in energy.
Science 2007;315:796–8.

[2]United Nations (2015) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September

2015, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1)

[3] IEA (2020), SDG7: Data and Projections, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/sdg7-data-
and-projections

[4] International Energy Agency (IEA), International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA),

United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD), World Bank (WB), World Health Organization

(WHO), "Tracking SDG7 report," World Bank, Washington DC 20433, 2020.

[5] Avila N, Carvallo JP, Shaw B, Kammen DM. The energy challenge in sub-Saharan Africa:
a guide for advocates and policymakers: Part 1: generating energy for sustainable and
equitable development. 2017.

https://www.oxfamamerica.org/static/media/files/oxfam-RAEL-energySSA-pt1.pdf. [Accessed
6 September 2019].

[6] Africa Progress Panel. Lights power action. Electrifying Africa. Geneva, Switzerland:
African Progress Panel; 2017.

[7] ESMAP, SE4ALL. Beyond connections. energy access redefined. Washington, DC: The
International Bank for Reconstruction And Development, The World Bank; 2015.

[8] National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC). Practical Guide To the
Regulatory Treatment of Minigrids. Washington DC, US: United States Agency for
International Development (USAID); 2017.

[9] Ethiopia's Energy Sector Transformation. ESMAP Impact,no. 18 Washington, DC: World
Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/249971573762529445/Ethiopias-
Energy-Sector-Transformation

[10] Ethiopia - Electrification Program for Results (English). Washington, DC: World Bank
Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/347061503651051401/Ethiopia-
Electrification-Program-for-Results

[11] Tilahun Nigussie, Wondwossen Bogale, Feyisa Bekele, Edessa Dribssa. Feasibility study
for power generation using off- grid energy system from micro hydro-PV-diesel generator-
battery for rural area of Ethiopia: The case of Melkey Hera village, Western Ethiopia[J]. AIMS
Energy, 2017, 5(4): 667-690. doi: 10.3934/energy.2017.4.667
[12] World Bank, "Access to electricity, rural ( % of rural population) -
Ethiopia|Data,"WorldBank,2018.[Online].Available:https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.E
LC.ACCS.RU.ZS?locations=ET. [Accessed 07 11 2020].

[13] World Bank, "Access to electricity, urban ( % of urban population ) -

Ethiopia|Data,"WorldBank,[Online].Available:https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.AC
CS.UR.ZS?locations=ET. [Accessed 07 11 2020].

[14] 2021 Energy Sector Management Assistance Program, The World Bank. Reaching
universal energy access by 2025.
https://www.esmap.org/impact_story_ethiopiasector_transformation

[15] Baseem Khan, Pawan Singh "The Current and Future States of Ethiopia's Energy Sector
and Potential for Green Energy: A Comprehensive Study", International Journal of
Engineering Research in Africa 2017

[16] WB. World development indicators. Washington DC: World Bank; 2015. 2015.

[17] Economic Consulting Associates and Africa Minigrid Developers Association,

"Benchmarking Africa minigrids," 2020.

[18] Eric Lockhart, Xiangkun Li , Samuel Booth, James Salasovich, Dan Olis, James Elsworth,
and Lars Lisell, "Comparative study of techno-economics of lithium-ion and lead acid battries
in micro-grids in Sub-Saharan Africa," National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), 2019.

[19] C. Ruud, "Why not go green? - An analysis of the viability of solar PV-mini-grids in
Tanzania," 2013.

[20] Aparna Katre, Arianna Tozzi, Subhes Bhattacharyya, "Sustainability of community-owned

minigrids: evidence from India," Cross Mark, 2019.

[21] Avila, N., Carvallo, J. P., Shaw, B. and Kammen, D. M, The energy challenge in sub-
Saharan Africa: A guide for advocates and policy makers: Part 1: Generating energy for
sustainable and equitable development. Oxfam Research Backgrounder series (2017):
https://www.oxfamamerica.org/static/media/files/oxfam-RAEL-energySSA-pt1.pdf

[22] IEA (2019), Africa Energy Outlook 2019, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/africa-
energy-outlook-2019

[23] International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), "The Renewable Energy Transition in
Africa", March 2021:
https://www.irena.org//media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2021/March/Renewable_Ener
gy_Transition_Africa_2021.pdf

[24] Xavier S. Musonye, Brynhildur Davíðsdottir, Ragnar Kristjansson, Eyjolfur I. Asgeirsson,

Hlynur Stefansson, "Integrated energy systems' modeling studies for sub-Saharan Africa: A
scoping review", Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2020

[25] Allan G, Eromenko I, Gilmartin M, Kockar I, McGregor P. The economics of distributed

energy generation: a literature review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;42:543–56.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.064.
[26] Debajit P, Sarangi GK. Renewable energy-based rural electrification: the mini-grid
experience from India. Copenhagen, Denmark: GNESD; 2014

[27] “Eberhard, Anton; Gratwick, Katharine; Morella, Elvira; Antmann, Pedro.

2016. Independent Power Projects in Sub-Saharan Africa : Lessons from Five Key
Countries. Directions in Development--Energy and Mining;. Washington, DC: World Bank. ©
World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/23970 License: CC BY 3.0
IGO."

[28] Oxford Energy Forum, "Electrifying Africa", Issue 115

[29] Castellano A, Kendall A, Nikomarov M, Swemmer T. The growth potential of the sub-
Saharan electricity sector. 2015. https://www.ee.co.za/article/brighter-africagrowth-potential-
sub-saharan-electricity-sector.html. [Accessed 6 September 2019].

[30] Cartwright A. Better growth, better cities: rethinking and redirecting urbanisation in Africa
capetown, South Africa. Africa progress report' power. In: People, Planet: seizing Africa's
energy and climate opportunities; 2015. https://www.cisl.cam.ac. uk/about/contact/cape-
town/pdfs/NCE-APP-final.pdf. [Accessed 6 September 2019].

[31] Omenda P. Update on the status of geothermal development in Africa. In: Proceedings of
GRC annual meeting and expo. Reno, Nevada, USA: GRC; 2018. 2018.

[32] Mnjokava T, Kabaka K, Mayalla J. Geothermal development in Tanzania – a country

update. In: WGC. Proceedings of world geothermal congress. Melbourne, Australia; 2015

[33] International Renewable Energy Agency. Statistics time series. 2018. http://resour
ceirena.irena.org/gateway/dashboard/?topic¼4&subTopic¼16;. [Accessed 6 September
2019].

[34] Taylor M, So EY. Solar PV in Africa: Costs and markets. Bonn, Germany: IRENA; 2016.

[35] IRENA. Innovation outlook: renewable mini-grids. Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates:
IRENA; 2016.

[36] Md Alam Hossain Mondal, Elizabeth Bryan, Claudia Ringler, Dawit Mekonnen, Mark
Rosegrant, "Ethiopian energy status and demand scenarios: Prospects to improve energy
efficiency and mitigate GHG emissions", Energy, 2018.

[37] Reddy BS. Access to modern energy services: an economic and policy framework. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2015;47:198e212.

[38] Mondal MAH, Bryan E, Ringler C, Rosegrant M. "Ethiopian power sector development:
renewable based universal electricity access and export strategies". Renew Sustain Energy
Rev Nov. 2017;75:11e20.
[39] MoWIE. Energy balance and statistics for years 2005/06-2010/11. Ministry of water,
Irrigation and Energy (MOWIE); 2012.

[40] Tessema Z, Mainali B, Silveira S. Mainstreaming and sector-wide approaches to

sustainable energy access in Ethiopia. Energy Strateg Rev 2014;2:313e22.

[41] Guta F, Damte A, Rede TF. The residential demand for electricity in Ethiopia, Environment
for Development (EfD). Discussion paper Series. 2015.

[42] Guta DD. Application of an almost ideal demand system (AIDS) to Ethiopian rural
residential energy use: Panel data evidence. Energy Policy 2012;50: 528e39.

[43] Mekonnen D, Bryan E, Alemu T, Ringler C. Food versus fuel: examining tradeoffs in the
allocation of biomass energy sources to domestic and productive uses in Ethiopia, agricultural
and applied economics association 2015 AAEA & WAEA joint annual meeting, July 26-28,
San Francisco, California. 2015.

[44] Mengistu MG, Simane B, Eshete G, Workneh TS. A review on biogas technology and its
contributions to sustainable rural livelihood in Ethiopia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2015;48:306e16.

[45] MWE, Ministry of water and energy, energy study and development, follow up directorate,
“power generation projects open for private sector participation”, 2011. Ethiopia.

[46] MoWE. Ethiopian master power plan for 2015. Addis Ababa: Ministry of Water Resources
and Energy; 2011

[47] MoWIE. Light to all, national electrification program: an implementation road map and
financing prospects. Ethiopia: Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Electricity (MoWIE); 2017.

[48] Marissa, B.T., Raestad, J., Anderson, R.G. and Sainju, P. (2012), Rural Electrification: The
Potential of Solar PV Off-Grid Systems, NORPLAN.

[49] Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Energy,

"National electrification program 2.0," Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Energy, Addis

Ababa, 2019.

[50] Jörg Peters, Maximiliane Sievert, Michael A. Toman," Rural electrification through mini-
grids: Challenges ahead", Energy Policy (2019).

[51] International Energy Agency (IEA). World Energy Outlook 2011; IEA: Paris, France, 2011.

[52] The International Energy Agency (IEA). Energy Access Outlook 2017: From Poverty to
Prosperity; IEA: Paris, France, 2017.
[53] Pepermans G, Driesen J, Haeseldonckx D, Belmans R, D’haeseleer W. Dis-tributed
generation: definition, benefits and issues. Energy Policy2005;33:787–98.

[54] IEA. Electricity market reform. Paris Cedex: OECD Publishing; 2000.

[55] Green Mini Grid Helpdesk Facility, “Green Mini Grid Helpdesk Facility Reference Library,”
se4all-africa, [Online].

Available: https://greenminigrid.se4all-africa.org/search/content. [Accessed 30 April 2019].

[56] Hystra, “Reaching scale in access to energy,” 2017.

[57] Gambino, Valeria, Riccardo Del Citto, Paolo Cherubini, Carlo Tacconelli, Andrea
Micangeli, and Romano Giglioli. 2019. "Methodology for the Energy Need Assessment to
Effectively Design and Deploy Mini-Grids for Rural Electrification" Energies 12, no. 3: 574.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en12030574

[58] I. Nygaard, T. Dafrallah, Utility led rural electrification in Morocco: combining grid
extension, mini-grids, and solar home systems, WIRE Energy Environ. 5 (2) (2016) 155–168,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wene.165.

[59] I. Nygaard, Rural Electrification Approaches in West Africa: Some Reflections

International Workshop on Financial and Institutional Challenges Facing Off-Grid
Electrification, De Montfort University, Leicester, United Kingdom, 2012 16/10/ 2012.

[60] I. Nygaard, Institutional options for rural energy access: exploring the concept of the
multifunctional platform in West Africa, Energy Policy 38 (2010) 1192–1201,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.11.009.

[61] I. Nygaard, Organisation of rural electrification: the case of Burkina Faso, Presentation at
PACEAA Training Seminar, Kigali (RW), 22 Oct, 2009, 2009.

[62] M.B. Pedersen, Deconstructing the concept of renewable energy-based mini-grids for
rural electrification in East Africa, WIRE Energy Environ. 5 (2016) 570–587,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wene.205.

[63] U.E. Hansen, M.B. Pedersen, I. Nygaard, Review of solar PV policies, interventions and
diffusion in East Africa, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 46 (2015) 236–248,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.046.

[64] https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2018/04/what-are-bifacial-solar-modules/

[65] Y. Glemarec, Financing off-grid sustainable energy access for the poor, Energy Policy 47
(2012) 87–93, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.032.
[66] P. Rolffs, D. Ockwell, R. Byrne, Beyond technology and finance: pay-as-you-go
sustainable energy access and theories of social change, Environ. Plan. A 47 (2015) 2609–
2627, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0308518X15615368

[67] Kiflom Gebrehiwot, Md. Alam Hossain Mondal, Claudia Ringler, Abiti Getaneh
Gebremeskel, "Optimisation and cost-benefit assessment of hybrid power systems for off-grid
rural electrification in Ethiopia," Elsevier BV, vol. 177, pp. 234-246, 2019.

[68] N. Tilahun, "Feasibility study for power generation using off- grid energy system from
micro hydro-PV-diesel generator-battery for rural area of Ethiopia: The case of Melkey Hera
village, Western Ethiopia," Aims Press, 2017.

[69] Getachew Bekele¸ Björn Palm, "Feasibility study for a standalone solar–wind-based
hybrid energy system for application in Ethiopia," Elsevier BV, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 487- 495,
2010.

[70] IEA.Energy Access Outlook, Special Report of World Energy Outlook 2017; International
Energy Agency: Paris,France, 2017

[71] Subhes C. Bhattacharyya I, "Mini-Grids for the Base of the Pyramid Market: A Critical
Review", Energies, 2018.

[72] Ethiopian Regulatory Environment and Capacity Constraints in Off-Grid Energy Sector
Report, August 2019

[73] Investment Report for a Mini-Grid Pilot Program at Agriculture Commercial Clusters in
Ethiopia, Veritas Consulting, July 2020

[74] Gouthami Padam, Dana Rysankova, Elisa Portale, Bryan Bonsuk Koo, Sandra Keller,
Gina Fleurantin, “Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework”,
Ethiopia Beyond Connection,

World Bank(https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/30102)

[75] ESMAP, "Beyond connections energy access redefined," WORLD BANK , 1818 H Street,

NW | Washington DC 20433 | USA, 2015.

[76] S. Booth, X. Li and I. Baring-Gould, “PRODUCTIVE USE OF ENERGY IN AFRICAN

MICRO-GRIDS: TECHNICAL AND BUSINESS CONSIDERATIONS,” National Renewable
ENergy Laboratory, 2018.

[77] Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, “Productive Use of Energy –

PRODUSE A Manual for Electrifi cation Practitioners,” European Union Energy Initiative,
Eschborn, 2011.

[78] A. Pueyo and S. DeMartino, “The impact of solar mini-grids on Kenya's rural enterprises,”
Energy for Sustainable Development, vol. 45, pp. 28-37, 2018.

[79] The Shell Foundation, “Promoting Productive uses of Energy in Uganda - Status and
Potential Growth,” October 2017. [Online]. Available:
https://shellfoundation.org/app/uploads/2018/10/SF-OCA-Uganda-Accelerator-_-
ProductiveUse-Technology.pdf. [Accessed 5 July 2019].

[80] International Institute for Environment and Development , “Making mini-grid work -
Productive uses of energy in Tanzania,” January 2017. [Online]. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317185644_Making_minigrids_work_Productive_u
ses_of_electricity_in_Tanzania. [Accessed 21 July 2019].

[81] J. Terropon-Pfaff, M. C. Grone, C. Dienst and W. Ortiz, “Productive use of energy –

Pathway to development? Reviewing the outcomes and impacts of small-scale energy
projects in the global south,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 96, pp. 198 -
209, 2018.

[82] Tesfaye B (2011) Improved Sustainable Power Supply for Dagahabur and Kebridahar
Town of Somalia Region in Ethiopia. Eykjavik Energy Graduate School of Sustainable
Systems Master Thesis.

[83] https://www.usaid.gov/ethiopia/agriculture-and-food-security

[84] Veritas report

[85] Chapter 2: CROP WATER NEEDS https://www.fao.org/3/s2022e/s2022e02.htm

[86] Li, Xiangkun; Salasovich, James; Reber, Tim (2018): Microgrid Load and LCOE Modelling
Results. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. https://data.nrel.gov/submissions/79

[87]https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/2011/WHO_TN_09_How_much
_water_is_needed.pdf

[88]https://www.prb.org/international/indicator/hh-size-av/map/country/

[89] Veritas Site visit Report

[90] SWERA. Solar and wind resources assessment. In: United Nations Environmental
program; 2012

[91] Ashebir Dingeto Hailu, Desta Kalbessa Kumsa. Ethiopia renewable energy potentials and
current state[J]. AIMS Energy, 2021, 9(1): 1-14. doi: 10.3934/energy.2021001

[92] Gudina Terefe Tucho, Peter D.M. Weesie, Sanderine Nonhebel, “Assessment of
renewable energy resources potential for large scale and standalone applications in Ethiopia”,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 40, 2014

[93] Ilinca A. Wind potential assessment of Quebec Province. Renew Energy

2003;28(12):1881–97.
[94] IRENA (2016), Solar PV in Africa: Costs and Markets

[95] Addressing the Impact of Temperature Extremes on Large Format Li-Ion Batteries for
Vehicle Applications (Presentation), NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) Pesaran
A, Santhanagopalan S, Kim G (2013)

[96] Impacts and Drivers of Policies for Electricity Access | EEG, n.d.)

[97] Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Energy,
"National electrification program 2.0," Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Energy, Addis Ababa,
2019.

[98] http://www.fao.org/3/s2022e/s2022e07.htm

[99] https://farmwest.com/climate/calculator-information/et/crop-coefficients/

[100]http://www.nzdl.org/cgi-bin/library?e=d-00000-00---off-0hdl--00-0----0-10-0---0---0direct-10-
--4-------0-1l--11-en-50---20-about---00-0-1-00-0--4----0-0-11-10-0utfZz-8-
10&cl=CL1.14&d=HASH0173082659b1eafc593ba653.3.3&gt=1
8. Appendix :

8.1. Appendix 1

Average Monthly Rainfall

160 155 155
149

140 134
129

120 114 115

100 96
mm/month

80
64
60
48
42
40 32

20

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 46 Average Monthly Rainfall in Lelicho

Average Monthly Temperature of Telifa Village

30

25
23.4 24
22.4 22.9
20.9 20.6 20.9 20.8 20.6
20 20
19 19.1

15
℃

10

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 47 Average Monthly Temperature of Telifa Village

 Average Monthly Rainfall
450
400
350
300
mm/month

250
200
150
100
50
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 48 Average Monthly Rainfall of Telifa Village

8.2. Appendix 2

8.2.1. Case Study 1: Murche

8.2.2. Case study 2: Lelicho

8.2.3. Case Study 3: Telifa
 Version 7.1.3

PVsyst - Simulation report

Grid-Connected System

Project: Murche
Variant: New simulation variant
Unlimited sheds
System power: 1693 kWp
Murche - Ethiopia

Author
 Project: Murche
Variant: New simulation variant

PVsyst V7.1.3
VC0, Simulation date:
12/10/21 16:03
with v7.1.3

Project summary
Geographical Site Situation Project settings
Murche Latitude 5.91 °N Albedo 0.20
Ethiopia Longitude 37.46 °E
Altitude 1172 m
Time zone UTC+3

Meteo data
Murche
Meteonorm 7.3, Sat=100% - Synthetic

System summary
Grid-Connected System Unlimited sheds
Simulation for year no 10

PV Field Orientation Near Shadings User's needs

Sheds Mutual shadings of sheds Unlimited load (grid)
tilt 30 °
azimuth 0°

System information
PV Array Inverters
Nb. of modules 4032 units Nb. of units 16 units
Pnom total 1693 kWp Pnom total 1600 kWac
Pnom ratio 1.058

Results summary
Produced Energy 2868 MWh/year Specific production 1693 kWh/kWp/year Perf. Ratio PR 87.16 %

Table of contents
Project and results summary 2
General parameters, PV Array Characteristics, System losses 3
Horizon definition 5
Main results 6
Loss diagram 7
Special graphs 8
CO₂ Emission Balance 9

13/10/21 PVsyst Licensed to Page 2/9

 Project: Murche
Variant: New simulation variant

PVsyst V7.1.3
VC0, Simulation date:
12/10/21 16:03
with v7.1.3

General parameters
Grid-Connected System Unlimited sheds

PV Field Orientation
Orientation Sheds configuration Models used
Sheds Nb. of sheds 5 units Transposition Perez
tilt 30 ° Unlimited sheds Diffuse Perez, Meteonorm
azimuth 0° Sizes Circumsolar separate
Sheds spacing 8.00 m
Collector width 2.10 m
Ground Cov. Ratio (GCR) 26.3 %
Top inactive band 0.02 m
Bottom inactive band 0.02 m
Shading limit angle
Limit profile angle 9.8 °

Horizon Near Shadings User's needs

Average Height 3.8 ° Mutual shadings of sheds Unlimited load (grid)

Bifacial system
Model 2D Calculation
unlimited sheds
Bifacial model geometry Bifacial model definitions
Sheds spacing 8.00 m Ground albedo 0.30
Sheds width 2.14 m Bifaciality factor 75 %
Limit profile angle 9.9 ° Rear shading factor 5.0 %
GCR 26.8 % Rear mismatch loss 10.0 %
Height above ground 1.50 m Module transparency 0.0 %

PV Array Characteristics
PV module Inverter
Manufacturer Longi Solar Manufacturer SMA
Model LR4-72 HBD 420 M Bifacial Model Sunny Highpower Peak 3 - SHP100-20
(Original PVsyst database) (Original PVsyst database)
Unit Nom. Power 420 Wp Unit Nom. Power 100 kWac
Number of PV modules 4032 units Number of inverters 16 units
Nominal (STC) 1693 kWp Total power 1600 kWac
Modules 224 Strings x 18 In series Operating voltage 590-1000 V
At operating cond. (50°C) Pnom ratio (DC:AC) 1.06
Pmpp 1538 kWp
U mpp 655 V
I mpp 2350 A

Total PV power Total inverter power

Nominal (STC) 1693 kWp Total power 1600 kWac
Total 4032 modules Nb. of inverters 16 units
Module area 9039 m² Pnom ratio 1.06
Cell area 8001 m²

Array losses
Array Soiling Losses Thermal Loss factor DC wiring losses
Loss Fraction 1.5 % Module temperature according to irradiance Global array res. 4.7 mΩ
Uc (const) 29.0 W/m²K Loss Fraction 1.5 % at STC
Uv (wind) 0.0 W/m²K/m/s

13/10/21 PVsyst Licensed to Page 3/9

 Project: Murche
Variant: New simulation variant

PVsyst V7.1.3
VC0, Simulation date:
12/10/21 16:03
with v7.1.3

Array losses
LID - Light Induced Degradation Module Quality Loss Module mismatch losses
Loss Fraction 2.0 % Loss Fraction -0.4 % Loss Fraction 2.0 % at MPP

Strings Mismatch loss Module average degradation

Loss Fraction 0.1 % Year no 10
Loss factor 0.4 %/year
Mismatch due to degradation
Imp RMS dispersion 0.4 %/year
Vmp RMS dispersion 0.4 %/year

IAM loss factor

Incidence effect (IAM): User defined profile

0° 25° 45° 60° 65° 70° 75° 80° 90°

1.000 1.000 0.995 0.962 0.936 0.903 0.851 0.754 0.000

Spectral correction
FirstSolar model

Coefficient Set C0 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
0 0 0 0 0 0

System losses
Unavailability of the system Auxiliaries loss
Time fraction 2.0 % Proportionnal to Power 4.0 W/kW
7.3 days, 0.0 kW from Power thresh.
2 periods

AC wiring losses
Inv. output line up to injection point
Inverter voltage 400 Vac tri
Loss Fraction 0.0 % at STC
Inverter: Sunny Highpower Peak 3 - SHP100-20
Wire section (16 Inv.) Alu 16 x 3 x 95 mm²
Average wires length 0m

13/10/21 PVsyst Licensed to Page 4/9

 Project: Murche
Variant: New simulation variant

PVsyst V7.1.3
VC0, Simulation date:
12/10/21 16:03
with v7.1.3

Horizon definition

Average Height 3.8 ° Albedo Factor 0.92

Diffuse Factor 0.99 Albedo Fraction 100 %

Horizon profile

Azimuth [°] -180 -173 -165 -158 -150 -143 -135 -128 -120 -113 -105 -98
Height [°] 7.3 6.9 6.5 5.7 5.7 5.3 3.8 3.4 3.1 2.7 2.3 1.9
Azimuth [°] -90 -83 -75 -68 -60 -53 -45 -38 -30 -23 -15 -8
Height [°] 1.9 2.3 2.3 1.9 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.4 0.8 1.5 1.1 0.4
Azimuth [°] 8 15 23 30 38 45 53 60 68 75 83 90
Height [°] 1.1 1.5 2.3 2.3 3.1 3.1 3.4 3.4 2.3 2.7 3.4 5.0
Azimuth [°] 98 105 113 120 128 135 143 150 158 165 173 180
Height [°] 5.0 5.7 6.5 7.3 6.9 6.5 8.4 8.0 8.4 8.4 7.6 7.3

Sun Paths (Height / Azimuth diagram)

13/10/21 PVsyst Licensed to Page 5/9

 Project: Murche
Variant: New simulation variant

PVsyst V7.1.3
VC0, Simulation date:
12/10/21 16:03
with v7.1.3

Main results
System Production
Produced Energy 2868 MWh/year Specific production 1693 kWh/kWp/year
Performance Ratio PR 87.16 %

Normalized productions (per installed kWp) Performance Ratio PR

Balances and main results

GlobHor DiffHor T_Amb GlobInc GlobEff EArray E_Grid PR

kWh/m² kWh/m² °C kWh/m² kWh/m² MWh MWh ratio
January 178.2 56.97 18.98 208.4 201.3 309.5 304.2 0.862
February 166.2 57.51 20.09 179.4 173.1 266.5 261.8 0.862
March 181.6 77.00 20.57 174.5 167.1 264.0 259.4 0.877
April 166.1 77.22 19.80 141.7 134.5 221.6 217.8 0.907
May 174.2 70.90 19.60 134.2 126.0 214.4 210.5 0.926
June 155.9 74.73 18.25 116.8 109.3 190.1 186.5 0.943
July 146.8 82.66 18.00 114.9 107.8 186.2 182.8 0.940
August 156.0 78.28 18.19 130.2 123.1 206.3 202.6 0.919
September 163.6 74.79 19.53 149.7 142.5 229.8 225.8 0.891
October 176.4 63.09 20.28 180.8 173.8 271.0 266.2 0.869
November 172.7 54.88 19.05 198.4 191.5 295.9 267.6 0.796
December 176.7 52.99 19.07 213.9 207.0 318.7 282.4 0.779
Year 2014.3 821.02 19.28 1942.9 1856.8 2973.9 2867.6 0.872

Legends
GlobHor Global horizontal irradiation EArray Effective energy at the output of the array
DiffHor Horizontal diffuse irradiation E_Grid Energy injected into grid
T_Amb Ambient Temperature PR Performance Ratio
GlobInc Global incident in coll. plane
GlobEff Effective Global, corr. for IAM and shadings

13/10/21 PVsyst Licensed to Page 6/9

 Project: Murche
Variant: New simulation variant

PVsyst V7.1.3
VC0, Simulation date:
12/10/21 16:03
with v7.1.3

Loss diagram
2014 kWh/m² Global horizontal irradiation

-3.54% Global incident in coll. plane

-0.36% Far Shadings / Horizon
-1.38% Near Shadings: irradiance loss
-2.17% IAM factor on global
-1.50% Soiling loss factor
+0.93% Ground reflection on front side

Bifacial
Global incident on ground
1502 kWh/m² on 33728 m²

-70.00% (0.30 Gnd. albedo)

Ground reflection loss
-80.51% View Factor for rear side
Irrad. scale. 1:2

+6.08% Sky diffuse on the rear side

0.00% Beam effective on the rear side
-5.00% Shadings loss on rear side
17.78% Global Irradiance on rear side (330 kWh/m²)
1857 kWh/m² * 9039 m² coll. Effective irradiation on collectors

efficiency at STC = 18.76% PV conversion, Bifaciality factor = 0.75

3569 MWh Array nominal energy (at STC effic.)

-3.80% Module Degradation Loss ( for year #10)
-0.10% PV loss due to irradiance level
-5.23% PV loss due to temperature
-0.67% Spectral correction
+0.38% Module quality loss

-2.00% LID - Light induced degradation

-3.73% Mismatch loss, modules and strings
(including 1.6% for degradation dispersion
-1.58% Mismatch for back irradiance
-1.13% Ohmic wiring loss
2975 MWh Array virtual energy at MPP
-1.35% Inverter Loss during operation (efficiency)
-0.03% Inverter Loss over nominal inv. power
0.00% Inverter Loss due to max. input current
0.00% Inverter Loss over nominal inv. voltage
0.00% Inverter Loss due to power threshold
0.00% Inverter Loss due to voltage threshold
-0.01% Night consumption
2933 MWh Available Energy at Inverter Output

-0.39% Auxiliaries (fans, other)

0.00% AC ohmic loss
-1.86% System unavailability
2868 MWh Energy injected into grid

13/10/21 PVsyst Licensed to Page 7/9

 Project: Murche
Variant: New simulation variant

PVsyst V7.1.3
VC0, Simulation date:
12/10/21 16:03
with v7.1.3

Special graphs
Daily Input/Output diagram

System Output Power Distribution

13/10/21 PVsyst Licensed to Page 8/9

 Project: Murche
Variant: New simulation variant

PVsyst V7.1.3
VC0, Simulation date:
12/10/21 16:03
with v7.1.3

CO₂ Emission Balance

Total: 3197.4 tCO₂
Generated emissions Saved CO₂ Emission vs. Time
Total: 2923.31 tCO₂
Source: Detailed calculation from table below:
Replaced Emissions
Total: 7054.2 tCO₂
System production: 2867.58 MWh/yr
Grid Lifecycle Emissions: 82 gCO₂/kWh
Source: IEA List
Country: Ethiopia
Lifetime: 30 years
Annual degradation: 1.0 %

System Lifecycle Emissions Details

Item LCE Quantity Subtotal

[kgCO₂]
Modules 1713 kgCO2/kWp 1693 kWp 2900389
Supports 0.55 kgCO2/kg 40320 kg 22053
Inverters 54.2 kgCO2/ 16.0 867

13/10/21 PVsyst Licensed to Page 9/9

 Version 7.1.3

PVsyst - Simulation report

Grid-Connected System

Project: Lelicho_1
Variant: New simulation variant
Unlimited sheds
System power: 1436 kWp
Lelicho - Ethiopia

Author
 Project: Lelicho_1
Variant: New simulation variant

PVsyst V7.1.3
VC0, Simulation date:
12/10/21 15:05
with v7.1.3

Project summary
Geographical Site Situation Project settings
Lelicho Latitude 6.83 °N Albedo 0.20
Ethiopia Longitude 38.52 °E
Altitude 1990 m
Time zone UTC+3

Meteo data
Lelicho
Meteonorm 7.3, Sat=100% - Synthetic

System summary
Grid-Connected System Unlimited sheds
Simulation for year no 10

PV Field Orientation Near Shadings User's needs

Sheds Mutual shadings of sheds Unlimited load (grid)
tilt 35 °
azimuth 0°

System information
PV Array Inverters
Nb. of modules 3420 units Nb. of units 13 units
Pnom total 1436 kWp Pnom total 1300 kWac
Pnom ratio 1.105

Results summary
Produced Energy 2303 MWh/year Specific production 1603 kWh/kWp/year Perf. Ratio PR 87.22 %

Table of contents
Project and results summary 2
General parameters, PV Array Characteristics, System losses 3
Horizon definition 5
Main results 6
Loss diagram 7
Special graphs 8

13/10/21 PVsyst Licensed to Page 2/8

 Project: Lelicho_1
Variant: New simulation variant

PVsyst V7.1.3
VC0, Simulation date:
12/10/21 15:05
with v7.1.3

General parameters
Grid-Connected System Unlimited sheds

PV Field Orientation
Orientation Sheds configuration Models used
Sheds Nb. of sheds 5 units Transposition Perez
tilt 35 ° Unlimited sheds Diffuse Perez, Meteonorm
azimuth 0° Sizes Circumsolar separate
Sheds spacing 8.00 m
Collector width 2.10 m
Ground Cov. Ratio (GCR) 26.3 %
Top inactive band 0.02 m
Bottom inactive band 0.02 m
Shading limit angle
Limit profile angle 11.0 °

Horizon Near Shadings User's needs

Average Height 2.6 ° Mutual shadings of sheds Unlimited load (grid)

Bifacial system
Model 2D Calculation
unlimited sheds
Bifacial model geometry Bifacial model definitions
Sheds spacing 8.00 m Ground albedo 0.30
Sheds width 2.14 m Bifaciality factor 75 %
Limit profile angle 11.1 ° Rear shading factor 5.0 %
GCR 26.8 % Rear mismatch loss 10.0 %
Height above ground 1.50 m Module transparency 0.0 %

PV Array Characteristics
PV module Inverter
Manufacturer Longi Solar Manufacturer Huawei Technologies
Model LR4-72 HBD 420 M Bifacial Model SUN2000-100KTL-M1-480Vac
(Original PVsyst database) (Original PVsyst database)
Unit Nom. Power 420 Wp Unit Nom. Power 100 kWac
Number of PV modules 3420 units Number of inverters 13 units
Nominal (STC) 1436 kWp Total power 1300 kWac
Modules 180 Strings x 19 In series Operating voltage 200-1000 V
At operating cond. (50°C) Max. power (=>40°C) 110 kWac
Pmpp 1305 kWp Pnom ratio (DC:AC) 1.10
U mpp 691 V
I mpp 1888 A

Total PV power Total inverter power

Nominal (STC) 1436 kWp Total power 1300 kWac
Total 3420 modules Nb. of inverters 13 units
Module area 7667 m² Pnom ratio 1.10
Cell area 6786 m²

Array losses
Array Soiling Losses Thermal Loss factor DC wiring losses
Loss Fraction 1.5 % Module temperature according to irradiance Global array res. 6.1 mΩ
Uc (const) 29.0 W/m²K Loss Fraction 1.5 % at STC
Uv (wind) 0.0 W/m²K/m/s

13/10/21 PVsyst Licensed to Page 3/8

 Project: Lelicho_1
Variant: New simulation variant

PVsyst V7.1.3
VC0, Simulation date:
12/10/21 15:05
with v7.1.3

Array losses
LID - Light Induced Degradation Module Quality Loss Module mismatch losses
Loss Fraction 1.5 % Loss Fraction -0.4 % Loss Fraction 2.0 % at MPP

Strings Mismatch loss Module average degradation

Loss Fraction 0.1 % Year no 10
Loss factor 0.4 %/year
Mismatch due to degradation
Imp RMS dispersion 0.4 %/year
Vmp RMS dispersion 0.4 %/year

IAM loss factor

Incidence effect (IAM): User defined profile

0° 25° 45° 60° 65° 70° 75° 80° 90°

1.000 1.000 0.995 0.962 0.936 0.903 0.851 0.754 0.000

Spectral correction
FirstSolar model

Coefficient Set C0 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
0 0 0 0 0 0

System losses
Unavailability of the system Auxiliaries loss
Time fraction 2.0 % Proportionnal to Power 4.0 W/kW
7.3 days, 0.0 kW from Power thresh.
3 periods

AC wiring losses
Inv. output line up to injection point
Inverter voltage 480 Vac tri
Loss Fraction 0.0 % at STC
Inverter: SUN2000-100KTL-M1-480Vac
Wire section (13 Inv.) Alu 13 x 3 x 70 mm²
Average wires length 1m

13/10/21 PVsyst Licensed to Page 4/8

 Project: Lelicho_1
Variant: New simulation variant

PVsyst V7.1.3
VC0, Simulation date:
12/10/21 15:05
with v7.1.3

Horizon definition

Average Height 2.6 ° Albedo Factor 0.88

Diffuse Factor 0.98 Albedo Fraction 100 %

Horizon profile

Azimuth [°] -180 -173 -165 -158 -128 -120 -113 -105 -98 -90 -83 -75
Height [°] 3.1 3.1 2.3 3.1 3.1 4.6 5.0 5.7 6.5 6.1 5.7 5.3
Azimuth [°] -68 -60 -45 -38 -30 -23 -15 -8 0 8 15 23
Height [°] 5.3 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.7 5.0 4.2 2.7 1.5 1.1 0.4 0.0
Azimuth [°] 90 98 105 120 128 135 143 165 173 180
Height [°] 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 2.3 2.3 3.1 3.1

Sun Paths (Height / Azimuth diagram)

13/10/21 PVsyst Licensed to Page 5/8

 Project: Lelicho_1
Variant: New simulation variant

PVsyst V7.1.3
VC0, Simulation date:
12/10/21 15:05
with v7.1.3

Main results
System Production
Produced Energy 2303 MWh/year Specific production 1603 kWh/kWp/year
Performance Ratio PR 87.22 %

Normalized productions (per installed kWp) Performance Ratio PR

Balances and main results

GlobHor DiffHor T_Amb GlobInc GlobEff EArray E_Grid PR

kWh/m² kWh/m² °C kWh/m² kWh/m² MWh MWh ratio
January 179.9 54.64 16.27 214.2 205.7 269.7 264.2 0.859
February 167.1 53.71 17.51 180.7 173.2 228.5 223.8 0.862
March 180.2 77.28 18.18 169.0 160.9 219.2 214.9 0.885
April 159.3 79.39 17.92 131.9 124.2 176.6 173.3 0.914
May 157.9 68.71 18.70 117.0 109.2 159.6 156.6 0.931
June 142.8 81.75 17.34 104.4 96.9 145.5 142.9 0.953
July 126.4 68.17 16.14 93.5 86.6 130.0 127.6 0.951
August 131.4 79.84 16.43 106.9 100.0 145.7 129.9 0.845
September 139.6 74.61 16.23 125.0 118.2 166.4 163.3 0.910
October 162.4 73.37 17.10 166.2 158.8 214.9 198.7 0.832
November 175.7 51.97 15.80 205.4 198.0 261.0 255.7 0.867
December 181.1 51.06 15.97 223.7 215.9 283.1 251.8 0.784
Year 1903.9 814.49 16.96 1837.9 1747.6 2400.2 2302.6 0.872

Legends
GlobHor Global horizontal irradiation EArray Effective energy at the output of the array
DiffHor Horizontal diffuse irradiation E_Grid Energy injected into grid
T_Amb Ambient Temperature PR Performance Ratio
GlobInc Global incident in coll. plane
GlobEff Effective Global, corr. for IAM and shadings

13/10/21 PVsyst Licensed to Page 6/8

 Project: Lelicho_1
Variant: New simulation variant

PVsyst V7.1.3
VC0, Simulation date:
12/10/21 15:05
with v7.1.3

Loss diagram
1904 kWh/m² Global horizontal irradiation

-3.46% Global incident in coll. plane

-0.90% Far Shadings / Horizon
-1.74% Near Shadings: irradiance loss
-2.19% IAM factor on global
-1.50% Soiling loss factor
+1.36% Ground reflection on front side

Bifacial
Global incident on ground
1419 kWh/m² on 28608 m²

-70.00% (0.30 Gnd. albedo)

Ground reflection loss
-80.84% View Factor for rear side
Irrad. scale. 1:2

+10.03% Sky diffuse on the rear side

-0.01% Beam effective on the rear side
-5.00% Shadings loss on rear side
18.20% Global Irradiance on rear side (318 kWh/m²)
1748 kWh/m² * 7667 m² coll. Effective irradiation on collectors

efficiency at STC = 18.76% PV conversion, Bifaciality factor = 0.75

2857 MWh Array nominal energy (at STC effic.)

-3.80% Module Degradation Loss ( for year #10)
-0.19% PV loss due to irradiance level
-4.21% PV loss due to temperature
-1.28% Spectral correction
+0.38% Module quality loss

-1.50% LID - Light induced degradation

-3.83% Mismatch loss, modules and strings
(including 1.7% for degradation dispersion
-1.61% Mismatch for back irradiance
-1.10% Ohmic wiring loss
2400 MWh Array virtual energy at MPP
-1.54% Inverter Loss during operation (efficiency)
-0.01% Inverter Loss over nominal inv. power
0.00% Inverter Loss due to max. input current
0.00% Inverter Loss over nominal inv. voltage
0.00% Inverter Loss due to power threshold
0.00% Inverter Loss due to voltage threshold
-0.01% Night consumption
2363 MWh Available Energy at Inverter Output

-0.39% Auxiliaries (fans, other)

-0.01% AC ohmic loss
-2.17% System unavailability
2303 MWh Energy injected into grid

13/10/21 PVsyst Licensed to Page 7/8

 Project: Lelicho_1
Variant: New simulation variant

PVsyst V7.1.3
VC0, Simulation date:
12/10/21 15:05
with v7.1.3

Special graphs
Daily Input/Output diagram

System Output Power Distribution

13/10/21 PVsyst Licensed to Page 8/8

 Version 7.1.3

PVsyst - Simulation report

Grid-Connected System

Project: telifa
Variant: 1500KW
Unlimited sheds
System power: 1588 kWp
Telifa - Ethiopia

Author
 Project: telifa
Variant: 1500KW

PVsyst V7.1.3
VC0, Simulation date:
11/10/21 17:37
with v7.1.3

Project summary
Geographical Site Situation Project settings
Telifa Latitude 11.88 °N Albedo 0.20
Ethiopia Longitude 37.57 °E
Altitude 1784 m
Time zone UTC+3

Meteo data
Telifa
Meteonorm 7.3, Sat=100% - Synthetic

System summary
Grid-Connected System Unlimited sheds
Simulation for year no 10

PV Field Orientation Near Shadings User's needs

Sheds Mutual shadings of sheds Unlimited load (grid)
tilt 30 °
azimuth 0°

System information
PV Array Inverters
Nb. of modules 3780 units Nb. of units 20 units
Pnom total 1588 kWp Pnom total 1500 kWac
Pnom ratio 1.058

Results summary
Produced Energy 2919 MWh/year Specific production 1839 kWh/kWp/year Perf. Ratio PR 85.03 %

Table of contents
Project and results summary 2
General parameters, PV Array Characteristics, System losses 3
Main results 5
Loss diagram 6
Special graphs 7

13/10/21 PVsyst Licensed to Page 2/7

 Project: telifa
Variant: 1500KW

PVsyst V7.1.3
VC0, Simulation date:
11/10/21 17:37
with v7.1.3

General parameters
Grid-Connected System Unlimited sheds

PV Field Orientation
Orientation Sheds configuration Models used
Sheds Nb. of sheds 5 units Transposition Perez
tilt 30 ° Unlimited sheds Diffuse Perez, Meteonorm
azimuth 0° Sizes Circumsolar separate
Sheds spacing 8.00 m
Collector width 2.10 m
Ground Cov. Ratio (GCR) 26.3 %
Top inactive band 0.02 m
Bottom inactive band 0.02 m
Shading limit angle
Limit profile angle 9.8 °

Horizon Near Shadings User's needs

Free Horizon Mutual shadings of sheds Unlimited load (grid)

Bifacial system
Model 2D Calculation
unlimited sheds
Bifacial model geometry Bifacial model definitions
Sheds spacing 8.00 m Ground albedo 0.30
Sheds width 2.14 m Bifaciality factor 75 %
Limit profile angle 9.9 ° Rear shading factor 5.0 %
GCR 26.8 % Rear mismatch loss 10.0 %
Height above ground 1.50 m Module transparency 0.0 %

PV Array Characteristics
PV module Inverter
Manufacturer Longi Solar Manufacturer SMA
Model LR4-72 HBD 420 M Bifacial Model Sunny Highpower-SHP 75-10
(Original PVsyst database) (Original PVsyst database)
Unit Nom. Power 420 Wp Unit Nom. Power 75.0 kWac
Number of PV modules 3780 units Number of inverters 20 units
Nominal (STC) 1588 kWp Total power 1500 kWac
Modules 210 Strings x 18 In series Operating voltage 570-800 V
At operating cond. (50°C) Pnom ratio (DC:AC) 1.06
Pmpp 1442 kWp
U mpp 655 V
I mpp 2203 A

Total PV power Total inverter power

Nominal (STC) 1588 kWp Total power 1500 kWac
Total 3780 modules Nb. of inverters 20 units
Module area 8474 m² Pnom ratio 1.06
Cell area 7501 m²

Array losses
Array Soiling Losses Thermal Loss factor DC wiring losses
Loss Fraction 1.5 % Module temperature according to irradiance Global array res. 5.0 mΩ
Uc (const) 29.0 W/m²K Loss Fraction 1.5 % at STC
Uv (wind) 0.0 W/m²K/m/s

13/10/21 PVsyst Licensed to Page 3/7

 Project: telifa
Variant: 1500KW

PVsyst V7.1.3
VC0, Simulation date:
11/10/21 17:37
with v7.1.3

Array losses
LID - Light Induced Degradation Module Quality Loss Module mismatch losses
Loss Fraction 2.0 % Loss Fraction -0.4 % Loss Fraction 2.0 % at MPP

Strings Mismatch loss Module average degradation

Loss Fraction 0.1 % Year no 10
Loss factor 0.5 %/year
Mismatch due to degradation
Imp RMS dispersion 0.4 %/year
Vmp RMS dispersion 0.4 %/year

IAM loss factor

Incidence effect (IAM): User defined profile

0° 25° 45° 60° 65° 70° 75° 80° 90°

1.000 1.000 0.995 0.962 0.936 0.903 0.851 0.754 0.000

Spectral correction
FirstSolar model

Coefficient Set C0 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
0 0 0 0 0 0

System losses
Unavailability of the system Auxiliaries loss
Time fraction 2.0 % Proportionnal to Power 4.0 W/kW
7.3 days, 0.0 kW from Power thresh.
2 periods

AC wiring losses
Inv. output line up to injection point
Inverter voltage 400 Vac tri
Loss Fraction 0.0 % at STC
Inverter: Sunny Highpower-SHP 75-10
Wire section (20 Inv.) Alu 20 x 3 x 50 mm²
Average wires length 0m

13/10/21 PVsyst Licensed to Page 4/7

 Project: telifa
Variant: 1500KW

PVsyst V7.1.3
VC0, Simulation date:
11/10/21 17:37
with v7.1.3

Main results
System Production
Produced Energy 2919 MWh/year Specific production 1839 kWh/kWp/year
Performance Ratio PR 85.03 %

Normalized productions (per installed kWp) Performance Ratio PR

Balances and main results

GlobHor DiffHor T_Amb GlobInc GlobEff EArray E_Grid PR

kWh/m² kWh/m² °C kWh/m² kWh/m² MWh MWh ratio
January 183.6 44.37 18.20 232.1 224.8 318.0 312.0 0.847
February 174.8 50.73 18.17 200.0 193.2 274.6 269.4 0.848
March 203.2 62.13 18.28 205.8 198.1 285.5 244.2 0.748
April 192.5 69.93 17.53 172.4 164.8 246.2 241.4 0.882
May 188.0 67.37 16.18 153.1 145.5 224.7 220.1 0.905
June 161.8 79.25 13.90 129.2 122.1 193.9 189.8 0.926
July 146.2 74.36 13.95 120.1 113.8 179.0 175.1 0.918
August 145.4 80.59 15.48 126.8 120.5 186.1 161.4 0.802
September 163.4 73.79 17.78 156.4 149.7 221.3 216.8 0.873
October 194.6 54.83 20.20 213.0 205.6 289.9 284.3 0.841
November 182.3 47.27 19.80 220.6 214.1 298.2 292.5 0.835
December 179.3 44.77 18.84 233.1 225.8 318.3 312.4 0.844
Year 2115.2 749.39 17.35 2162.5 2078.0 3035.8 2919.4 0.850

Legends
GlobHor Global horizontal irradiation EArray Effective energy at the output of the array
DiffHor Horizontal diffuse irradiation E_Grid Energy injected into grid
T_Amb Ambient Temperature PR Performance Ratio
GlobInc Global incident in coll. plane
GlobEff Effective Global, corr. for IAM and shadings

13/10/21 PVsyst Licensed to Page 5/7

 Project: telifa
Variant: 1500KW

PVsyst V7.1.3
VC0, Simulation date:
11/10/21 17:37
with v7.1.3

Loss diagram
2115 kWh/m² Global horizontal irradiation
+2.2% Global incident in coll. plane

-1.43% Near Shadings: irradiance loss

-1.86% IAM factor on global
-1.50% Soiling loss factor
+0.85% Ground reflection on front side

Bifacial

Global incident on ground

1547 kWh/m² on 31620 m²

-70.00% (0.30 Gnd. albedo)

Ground reflection loss
-80.73% View Factor for rear side
Irrad. scale. 1:2

+5.29% Sky diffuse on the rear side

-0.01% Beam effective on the rear side
-5.00% Shadings loss on rear side
16.06% Global Irradiance on rear side (334 kWh/m²)
2078 kWh/m² * 8474 m² coll. Effective irradiation on collectors

efficiency at STC = 18.76% PV conversion, Bifaciality factor = 0.75

3702 MWh Array nominal energy (at STC effic.)

-4.75% Module Degradation Loss ( for year #10)
-0.12% PV loss due to irradiance level
-5.20% PV loss due to temperature
-1.04% Spectral correction
+0.37% Module quality loss

-2.00% LID - Light induced degradation

-3.91% Mismatch loss, modules and strings
(including 1.8% for degradation dispersion
-1.44% Mismatch for back irradiance
-1.23% Ohmic wiring loss
3040 MWh Array virtual energy at MPP
-1.57% Inverter Loss during operation (efficiency)
-0.13% Inverter Loss over nominal inv. power
0.00% Inverter Loss due to max. input current
0.00% Inverter Loss over nominal inv. voltage
0.00% Inverter Loss due to power threshold
0.00% Inverter Loss due to voltage threshold
-0.01% Night consumption
2988 MWh Available Energy at Inverter Output

-0.39% Auxiliaries (fans, other)

0.00% AC ohmic loss
-1.91% System unavailability
2919 MWh Energy injected into grid

13/10/21 PVsyst Licensed to Page 6/7

 Project: telifa
Variant: 1500KW

PVsyst V7.1.3
VC0, Simulation date:
11/10/21 17:37
with v7.1.3

Special graphs
Daily Input/Output diagram

System Output Power Distribution

13/10/21 PVsyst Licensed to Page 7/7

 Consumption Summary (Murche)
Murche)
Electric Consumption

This microgrid requires 4181 kWh/day and has a peak of 1390 kW. In the proposed system, the
following generation sources serve the electrical load.

350
292
Production (MWh)

233
175
PVsyst
117
Gen
58
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Engineering Details (Murche)
Generator: Autosize Genset (Diesel)

Power output from the Generic generator system, rated at 730 kW using Diesel as fuel, is
218,029 kWh/yr.

Capacity 730 kW Generator Fuel Diesel

Operational Life 46.9 yr Generator Fuel Price 0.650 $/L
Capital Cost $547,500 Maintenance Cost 7,008 $/yr
Fuel Consumption 55,422 L Electrical Production 218,029 kWh/yr
Hours of Operation 320 hrs/yr Marginal Generation 0.153 $/kWh
Cost
Fixed Generation Cost 54.3 $/hr
24 800
Hour of Day

18
600
12

kW
6 400
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 200
Day of Year
0

Storage: Generic 3.28 kWh Lithium Ion

The Generic storage system's nominal capacity is 242 kWh. The annual throughput is 33,284
kWh/yr.

Rated Capacity 242 kWh Expected Life 35.0 yr

Annual Throughput 33,284 kWh/yr Capital Costs $189,144
Maintenance Cost 740 $/yr Losses 1,357 kWh/yr
Autonomy 1.11 hr
Engineering Details (Murche)
Custom: PVsyst

The annual production is 2,792,768 kWh/yr.

Rated Capacity 1.00 Minimum Output 0 kW

Mean Output 319 kW Maximum Output 1,525 kW
Mean Output 7,651 kWh/d Hours of Operation 4,213 hrs/yr
Capacity Factor 20.9 % Levelized Cost 0.0619 $/kWh
Total Production 2,792,768 kWh/yr
24 1600
Hour of Day

18
1200
12

kW
6 800
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 400
Day of Year
0

Converter: System Converter

Capacity 25.4 kW Hours of Operation 4,619 hrs/yr

Mean Output 3.54 kW Energy Out 30,981 kWh/yr
Minimum Output 0 kW Energy In 32,611 kWh/yr
Maximum Output 25.4 kW Losses 1,631 kWh/yr
Capacity Factor 13.9 % 30
24
22.5
Hour of Day

18
12
kW

15
6
7.5
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
0
Day of Year
Consumption Summary (Lelicho)
Electric Consumption

This microgrid requires 3531 kWh/day and has a peak of 1398 kW. In the proposed system, the
following generation sources serve the electrical load.

400
333
Production (MWh)

267
200
PVsyst
133
Gen
67
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Engineering Details (Lelicho)
Generator: Autosize Genset (Diesel)

Power output from the Generic generator system, rated at 740 kW using Diesel as fuel, is
117,701 kWh/yr.

Capacity 740 kW Generator Fuel Diesel

Operational Life 77.3 yr Generator Fuel Price 0.650 $/L
Capital Cost $555,000 Maintenance Cost 4,307 $/yr
Fuel Consumption 30,212 L Electrical Production 117,701 kWh/yr
Hours of Operation 194 hrs/yr Marginal Generation 0.153 $/kWh
Cost
Fixed Generation Cost 55.0 $/hr
24 800
Hour of Day

18
600
12

kW
6 400
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 200
Day of Year
0
Engineering Details (Lelicho)
Storage: PowerPlus Energy LiFe2433

The PowerPlus Energy storage system's nominal capacity is 265 kWh. The annual throughput is
43,793 kWh/yr.

Rated Capacity 265 kWh Expected Life 29.1 yr

Annual Throughput 43,793 kWh/yr Capital Costs $207,036
Maintenance Cost 810 $/yr Losses 1,786 kWh/yr
Autonomy 1.43 hr
24 100
Hour of Day

18
80
12
6 60

%
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 40

Day of Year
20

Custom: PVsyst

The annual production is 2,725,142 kWh/yr.

Rated Capacity 1.00 Minimum Output 0 kW

Mean Output 311 kW Maximum Output 1,641 kW
Mean Output 7,466 kWh/d Hours of Operation 4,190 hrs/yr
Capacity Factor 19.0 % Levelized Cost 0.0535 $/kWh
Total Production 2,725,142 kWh/yr 2000
24
1500
Hour of Day

18
12
kW

1000
6
500
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
0
Day of Year
Engineering Details (Lelicho)
Converter: System Converter

Capacity 36.2 kW Hours of Operation 4,568 hrs/yr

Mean Output 4.65 kW Energy Out 40,763 kWh/yr
Minimum Output 0 kW Energy In 42,908 kWh/yr
Maximum Output 36.2 kW Losses 2,145 kWh/yr
Capacity Factor 12.9 %
24 40
Hour of Day

18
30
12

kW
6 20
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 10
Day of Year
0
Consumption Summary (Telifa)
Electric Consumption

This microgrid requires 3771 kWh/day and has a peak of 1486 kW. In the proposed system, the
following generation sources serve the electrical load.

400
333
Production (MWh)

267
200
PVsyst
133
Gen
67
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Engineering Details (Telifa)
Generator: Autosize Genset (Diesel)

Power output from the Generic generator system, rated at 820 kW using Diesel as fuel, is 66,291
kWh/yr.

Capacity 820 kW Generator Fuel Diesel

Operational Life 153 yr Generator Fuel Price 0.650 $/L
Capital Cost $615,000 Maintenance Cost 2,411 $/yr
Fuel Consumption 16,989 L Electrical Production 66,291 kWh/yr
Hours of Operation 98.0 hrs/yr Marginal Generation 0.153 $/kWh
Cost
Fixed Generation Cost 60.9 $/hr
24 1000
Hour of Day

18
750
12

kW
6 500
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 250
Day of Year
0

Storage: Generic 3.28 kWh Lithium-Iron Phosphate

The Generic storage system's nominal capacity is 200 kWh. The annual throughput is 35,262
kWh/yr.

Rated Capacity 200 kWh Expected Life 27.2 yr

Annual Throughput 35,262 kWh/yr Capital Costs $155,916
Maintenance Cost 610 $/yr Losses 1,438 kWh/yr
Autonomy 1.02 hr
Engineering Details (Telifa)
Custom: PVsyst

The annual production is 3,333,368 kWh/yr.

Rated Capacity 1.00 Minimum Output 0 kW

Mean Output 381 kW Maximum Output 1,764 kW
Mean Output 9,133 kWh/d Hours of Operation 4,268 hrs/yr
Capacity Factor 21.6 % Levelized Cost 0.0438 $/kWh
Total Production 3,333,368 kWh/yr
24 2000
Hour of Day

18
1500
12

kW
6 1000
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 500
Day of Year
0

Converter: System Converter

Capacity 24.4 kW Hours of Operation 4,492 hrs/yr

Mean Output 3.75 kW Energy Out 32,822 kWh/yr
Minimum Output 0 kW Energy In 34,550 kWh/yr
Maximum Output 24.4 kW Losses 1,727 kWh/yr
Capacity Factor 15.4 % 25
24
18.75
Hour of Day

18
12
kW

12.5
6
6.25
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
0
Day of Year
 Cashflows
Murche

Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Discounting factor 1.000 0.982 0.965 0.947 0.930 0.914 0.898 0.882 0.866 0.850 0.835 0.820 0.806 0.791 0.777 0.763 0.750 0.736 0.723 0.710 0.697 0.685

GENSET
Capital 547,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Operating 0 7,008 7,008 7,008 7,008 7,008 7,008 7,008 7,008 7,008 7,008 7,008 7,008 7,008 7,008 7,008 7,008 7,008 7,008 7,008 7,008 7,008
Fuel 0 36,024 36,024 36,024 36,024 36,024 36,024 36,024 36,024 36,024 36,024 36,024 36,024 36,024 36,024 36,024 36,024 36,024 36,024 36,024 36,024 36,024
Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tot OPEX 0 43,032 43,032 43,032 43,032 43,032 43,032 43,032 43,032 43,032 43,032 43,032 43,032 43,032 43,032 43,032 43,032 43,032 43,032 43,032 43,032 43,032
Salvage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Discounted Operating 0 6,883 6,760 6,639 6,521 6,404 6,290 6,178 6,067 5,959 5,852 5,748 5,645 5,545 5,446 5,348 5,253 5,159 5,067 4,976 4,888 4,800
Discounted Fuel 0 35,381 34,749 34,128 33,519 32,920 32,333 31,755 31,188 30,631 30,084 29,547 29,019 28,501 27,992 27,492 27,001 26,519 26,046 25,581 25,124 24,675
Discounted OPEX 0 42,264 41,509 40,768 40,040 39,325 38,622 37,933 37,255 36,590 35,937 35,295 34,665 34,046 33,438 32,841 32,254 31,678 31,113 30,557 30,011 29,475
Discounted Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Discounted Salvage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PV + Inverter
Capital 2,700,230 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Operating 0 31,820 31,820 31,820 31,820 31,820 31,820 31,820 31,820 31,820 31,820 31,820 31,820 31,820 31,820 31,820 31,820 31,820 31,820 31,820 31,820 31,820
Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 208,320 0 0 0 0 0 0
Salvage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Discounted OPEX 0 31,252 30,693 30,145 29,607 29,078 28,559 28,049 27,548 27,056 26,573 26,099 25,633 25,175 24,725 24,284 23,850 23,424 23,006 22,595 22,192 21,795
Discounted Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 158,983 0 0 0 0 0 0
Discounted Salvage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Battery
Capital 189,144 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Operating 0 740 740 740 740 740 740 740 740 740 740 740 740 740 740 740 740 740 740 740 740 740
Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Salvage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Discounted OPEX 0 727 714 701 689 676 664 652 641 629 618 607 596 585 575 565 555 545 535 525 516 507
Discounted Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Discounted Salvage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Converter
Capital 7,618 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Operating 0 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127
Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,618 0 0 0 0 0 0
Salvage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Discounted OPEX 0 125 123 120 118 116 114 112 110 108 106 104 102 100 99 97 95 93 92 90 89 87
Discounted Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,814 0 0 0 0 0 0
Discounted Salvage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other
Capital 177,636 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Operating 0 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782
Fuel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tot OPEX 0 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782
Discounted OPEX 0 17,465 17,153 16,846 16,546 16,250 15,960 15,675 15,395 15,120 14,850 14,585 14,325 14,069 13,818 13,571 13,328 13,090 12,857 12,627 12,402 12,180
Discounted Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Incomes
Revenue 0 443,047 443,047 443,047 443,047 443,047 443,047 443,047 443,047 443,047 443,047 443,047 443,047 443,047 443,047 443,047 443,047 443,047 443,047 443,047 443,047 443,047
CAPEX 3,622,128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OPEX 0 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501
TOT Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 215,938 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tot Salvage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Cost 3,622,128 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 309,439 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501
Total Discounted Cost 3,622,128 91,831 90,191 88,581 86,999 85,446 83,920 82,421 80,949 79,504 78,084 76,690 75,320 73,975 72,654 236,154 70,083 68,831 67,602 66,395 65,209 64,045
Net Income -3,622,128 349,547 349,547 349,547 349,547 349,547 349,547 349,547 349,547 349,547 349,547 349,547 349,547 349,547 349,547 133,609 349,547 349,547 349,547 349,547 349,547 349,547
PV -3,622,128 343,305 337,174 331,153 325,240 319,432 313,728 308,126 302,623 297,219 291,912 286,699 281,579 276,551 271,613 101,966 261,999 257,320 252,725 248,212 243,780 239,427
Cumulative NPV -3,622,128 -3,278,824 -2,941,650 -2,610,496 -2,285,257 -1,965,825 -1,652,097 -1,343,971 -1,041,348 -744,129 -452,217 -165,518 116,062 392,613 664,226 766,191 1,028,190 1,285,511 1,538,236 1,786,449 2,030,229 2,269,656
Murche

Year 22 23 24 25
Discounting factor 0.673 0.661 0.649 0.637

GENSET
Capital 0 0 0 0
Operating 7,008 7,008 7,008 7,008
Fuel 36,024 36,024 36,024 36,024
Replacement 0 0 0 0
Tot OPEX 43,032 43,032 43,032 43,032
Salvage 0 0 0 170,333
Discounted Operating 4,715 4,630 4,548 4,466
Discounted Fuel 24,235 23,802 23,377 22,959
Discounted OPEX 28,949 28,432 27,924 27,426
Discounted Replacement 0 0 0 0
Discounted Salvage 0 0 0 108,559

PV + Inverter
Capital 0 0 0 0
Operating 31,820 31,820 31,820 31,820
Replacement 0 0 0 0
Salvage 0 0 0 69,440
Discounted OPEX 21,406 21,024 20,648 20,280
Discounted Replacement 0 0 0 0
Discounted Salvage 0 0 0 44,256

Battery
Capital 0 0 0 0
Operating 740 740 740 740
Replacement 0 0 0 0
Salvage 0 0 0 54,055
Discounted OPEX 498 489 480 472
Discounted Replacement 0 0 0 0
Discounted Salvage 0 0 0 34,451

Converter
Capital 0 0 0 0
Operating 127 127 127 127
Replacement 0 0 0 0
Salvage 0 0 0 2,539
Discounted OPEX 85 84 82 81
Discounted Replacement 0 0 0 0
Discounted Salvage 0 0 0 1,618

Other
Capital 0 0 0 0
Operating 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782
Fuel 0 0 0 0
Replacement 0 0 0 0
Tot OPEX 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782
Discounted OPEX 11,963 11,749 11,539 11,333
Discounted Replacement 0 0 0 0
Incomes
Revenue 443,047 443,047 443,047 443,047
CAPEX 0 0 0 0
OPEX 93,501 93,501 93,501 93,501
TOT Replacement 0 0 0 0
Tot Salvage 0 0 0 296,367
Total Cost 93,501 93,501 93,501 -202,866
Total Discounted Cost 62,901 61,778 60,675 -129,293
Net Income 349,547 349,547 349,547 645,914
PV 235,151 230,952 226,828 411,662
Cumulative NPV 2,504,807 2,735,759 2,962,588 3,374,250
Lelicho

Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Discounting factor 1.000 0.982 0.965 0.947 0.930 0.914 0.898 0.882 0.866 0.850 0.835 0.820 0.806 0.791 0.777 0.763 0.750 0.736 0.723 0.710

GENSET
Capital 555,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Operating 0 4,307 4,307 4,307 4,307 4,307 4,307 4,307 4,307 4,307 4,307 4,307 4,307 4,307 4,307 4,307 4,307 4,307 4,307 4,307
Fuel 0 19,637 19,637 19,637 19,637 19,637 19,637 19,637 19,637 19,637 19,637 19,637 19,637 19,637 19,637 19,637 19,637 19,637 19,637 19,637
Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tot OPEX 0 23,944 23,944 23,944 23,944 23,944 23,944 23,944 23,944 23,944 23,944 23,944 23,944 23,944 23,944 23,944 23,944 23,944 23,944 23,944
Salvage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Discounted Operating 0 4,230 4,155 4,080 4,007 3,936 3,866 3,797 3,729 3,662 3,597 3,533 3,470 3,408 3,347 3,287 3,228 3,171 3,114 3,058
Discounted Fuel 0 19,286 18,942 18,604 18,271 17,945 17,625 17,310 17,001 16,697 16,399 16,106 15,819 15,536 15,259 14,986 14,719 14,456 14,198 13,944
Discounted OPEX 0 23,516 23,096 22,684 22,279 21,881 21,490 21,107 20,730 20,360 19,996 19,639 19,288 18,944 18,606 18,273 17,947 17,626 17,312 17,003
Discounted Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Discounted Salvage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PV + Inverter
Capital 2,279,214 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Operating 0 26,990 26,990 26,990 26,990 26,990 26,990 26,990 26,990 26,990 26,990 26,990 26,990 26,990 26,990 26,990 26,990 26,990 26,990 26,990
Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 169,260 0 0 0 0
Salvage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Discounted OPEX 0 26,508 26,035 25,570 25,113 24,665 24,224 23,792 23,367 22,950 22,540 22,137 21,742 21,354 20,972 20,598 20,230 19,869 19,514 19,166
Discounted Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 129,174 0 0 0 0
Discounted Salvage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Battery
Capital 207,036 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Operating 0 810 810 810 810 810 810 810 810 810 810 810 810 810 810 810 810 810 810 810
Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Salvage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Discounted OPEX 0 796 781 767 754 740 727 714 701 689 676 664 653 641 629 618 607 596 586 575
Discounted Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Discounted Salvage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Converter
Capital 10,859 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Operating 0 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 181
Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,859 0 0 0 0
Salvage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Discounted OPEX 0 178 175 171 168 165 162 160 157 154 151 148 146 143 141 138 136 133 131 129
Discounted Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,287 0 0 0 0
Discounted Salvage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other
Capital 229,396 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Operating 0 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782
Fuel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tot OPEX 0 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782
Discounted OPEX 0 17,465 17,153 16,846 16,546 16,250 15,960 15,675 15,395 15,120 14,850 14,585 14,325 14,069 13,818 13,571 13,328 13,090 12,857 12,627
Discounted Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Incomes
Revenue 0 365,431 365,431 365,431 365,431 365,431 365,431 365,431 365,431 365,431 365,431 365,431 365,431 365,431 365,431 365,431 365,431 365,431 365,431 365,431
CAPEX 3,281,505 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OPEX 0 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707
TOT Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 180,119 0 0 0 0
Tot Salvage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Cost 3,281,505 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 249,826 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707
Total Discounted Cost 3,281,505 68,462 67,240 66,039 64,860 63,702 62,564 61,447 60,350 59,272 58,214 57,174 56,153 55,150 54,165 190,659 52,248 51,315 50,399 49,499
Net Income -3,281,505 295,724 295,724 295,724 295,724 295,724 295,724 295,724 295,724 295,724 295,724 295,724 295,724 295,724 295,724 115,605 295,724 295,724 295,724 295,724
PV -3,281,505 290,443 285,257 280,163 275,160 270,246 265,421 260,681 256,026 251,454 246,964 242,554 238,222 233,968 229,790 88,226 221,657 217,699 213,811 209,993
Cumulative NPV -3,281,505 -2,991,062 -2,705,805 -2,425,642 -2,150,482 -1,880,235 -1,614,815 -1,354,134 -1,098,108 -846,654 -599,690 -357,136 -118,914 115,055 344,845 433,071 654,728 872,427 1,086,238 1,296,231
Lelicho

Year 21 22 23 24 25
Discounting factor 0.685 0.673 0.661 0.649 0.637

GENSET
Capital 0 0 0 0 0
Operating 4,307 4,307 4,307 4,307 4,307
Fuel 19,637 19,637 19,637 19,637 19,637
Replacement 0 0 0 0 0
Tot OPEX 23,944 23,944 23,944 23,944 23,944
Salvage 0 0 0 0 250,367
Discounted Operating 2,950 2,897 2,846 2,795 2,745
Discounted Fuel 13,451 13,210 12,975 12,743 12,515
Discounted OPEX 16,401 16,108 15,820 15,538 15,260
Discounted Replacement 0 0 0 0 0
Discounted Salvage 0 0 0 0 159,567

PV + Inverter
Capital 0 0 0 0 0
Operating 26,990 26,990 26,990 26,990 26,990
Replacement 0 0 0 0 0
Salvage 0 0 0 0 56,420
Discounted OPEX 18,487 18,157 17,833 17,514 17,202
Discounted Replacement 0 0 0 0 0
Discounted Salvage 0 0 0 0 35,958

Battery
Capital 0 0 0 0 0
Operating 810 810 810 810 810
Replacement 0 0 0 0 0
Salvage 0 0 0 0 29,294
Discounted OPEX 555 545 535 526 516
Discounted Replacement 0 0 0 0 0
Discounted Salvage 0 0 0 0 18,670

Converter
Capital 0 0 0 0 0
Operating 181 181 181 181 181
Replacement 0 0 0 0 0
Salvage 0 0 0 0 3,620
Discounted OPEX 124 122 120 117 115
Discounted Replacement 0 0 0 0 0
Discounted Salvage 0 0 0 0 2,307

Other
Capital 0 0 0 0 0
Operating 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782
Fuel 0 0 0 0 0
Replacement 0 0 0 0 0
Tot OPEX 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782 17,782
Discounted OPEX 12,180 11,963 11,749 11,539 11,333
Discounted Replacement 0 0 0 0 0

Incomes
Revenue 365,431 365,431 365,431 365,431 365,431
CAPEX 0 0 0 0 0
OPEX 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707
TOT Replacement 0 0 0 0 0
Tot Salvage 0 0 0 0 339,701
Total Cost 69,707 69,707 69,707 69,707 -269,994
Total Discounted Cost 47,747 46,894 46,057 45,234 -172,076
Net Income 295,724 295,724 295,724 295,724 635,425
PV 202,560 198,943 195,391 191,902 404,978
Cumulative NPV 1,705,035 1,903,978 2,099,369 2,291,271 2,696,248
Telifa

Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Discounting factor 1.000 0.982 0.965 0.947 0.930 0.914 0.898 0.882 0.866 0.850 0.835 0.820 0.806 0.791 0.777 0.763 0.750 0.736 0.723

GENSET
Capital $615,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Operating $0 $2,411 $2,411 $2,411 $2,411 $2,411 $2,411 $2,411 $2,411 $2,411 $2,411 $2,411 $2,411 $2,411 $2,411 $2,411 $2,411 $2,411 $2,411
Fuel $0 $11,043 $11,043 $11,043 $11,043 $11,043 $11,043 $11,043 $11,043 $11,043 $11,043 $11,043 $11,043 $11,043 $11,043 $11,043 $11,043 $11,043 $11,043
Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Tot OPEX $0 $13,454 $13,454 $13,454 $13,454 $13,454 $13,454 $13,454 $13,454 $13,454 $13,454 $13,454 $13,454 $13,454 $13,454 $13,454 $13,454 $13,454 $13,454
Salvage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Discounted Operating $0 $2,368 $2,326 $2,284 $2,243 $2,203 $2,164 $2,125 $2,087 $2,050 $2,013 $1,978 $1,942 $1,908 $1,873 $1,840 $1,807 $1,775 $1,743
Discounted Fuel $0 $10,846 $10,652 $10,462 $10,275 $10,092 $9,911 $9,734 $9,561 $9,390 $9,222 $9,058 $8,896 $8,737 $8,581 $8,428 $8,277 $8,129 $7,984
Discounted OPEX $0 $13,214 $12,978 $12,746 $12,518 $12,295 $12,075 $11,860 $11,648 $11,440 $11,236 $11,035 $10,838 $10,644 $10,454 $10,268 $10,084 $9,904 $9,727
Discounted Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Discounted Salvage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

PV + Inverter
Capital $2,160,184 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Operating $0 $31,820 $31,820 $31,820 $31,820 $31,820 $31,820 $31,820 $31,820 $31,820 $31,820 $31,820 $31,820 $31,820 $31,820 $31,820 $31,820 $31,820 $31,820
Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $208,320 $0 $0 $0
Salvage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Discounted OPEX $0 $31,252 $30,693 $30,145 $29,607 $29,078 $28,559 $28,049 $27,548 $27,056 $26,573 $26,099 $25,633 $25,175 $24,725 $24,284 $23,850 $23,424 $23,006
Discounted Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $158,983 $0 $0 $0
Discounted Salvage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Battery
Capital $155,916 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Operating $0 $610 $610 $610 $610 $610 $610 $610 $610 $610 $610 $610 $610 $610 $610 $610 $610 $610 $610
Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Salvage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Discounted OPEX $0 $599 $588 $578 $568 $557 $547 $538 $528 $519 $509 $500 $491 $483 $474 $466 $457 $449 $441
Discounted Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Discounted Salvage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Converter
Capital $7,317 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Operating $0 $122 $122 $122 $122 $122 $122 $122 $122 $122 $122 $122 $122 $122 $122 $122 $122 $122 $122
Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,317 $0 $0 $0
Salvage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Discounted OPEX $0 $120 $118 $116 $114 $111 $109 $108 $106 $104 $102 $100 $98 $97 $95 $93 $91 $90 $88
Discounted Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,584 $0 $0 $0
Discounted Salvage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Other
Capital $205,305 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Operating $0 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226
Fuel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Tot OPEX $0 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226
Discounted OPEX $0 $13,972 $13,722 $13,477 $13,237 $13,000 $12,768 $12,540 $12,316 $12,096 $11,880 $11,668 $11,460 $11,255 $11,054 $10,857 $10,663 $10,472 $10,285
Discounted Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Incomes
Revenue $0 $384,132 $384,132 $384,132 $384,132 $384,132 $384,132 $384,132 $384,132 $384,132 $384,132 $384,132 $384,132 $384,132 $384,132 $384,132 $384,132 $384,132 $384,132
CAPEX $3,143,722 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
OPEX $0 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231
TOT Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $215,637 $0 $0 $0
Tot Salvage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost $3,143,722 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $275,868 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231
Total Discounted Cost $3,143,722 $59,156 $58,100 $57,062 $56,043 $55,042 $54,059 $53,094 $52,146 $51,215 $50,300 $49,402 $48,520 $47,653 $46,802 $210,534 $45,146 $44,340 $43,548
Net Income -$3,143,722 $323,901 $323,901 $323,901 $323,901 $323,901 $323,901 $323,901 $323,901 $323,901 $323,901 $323,901 $323,901 $323,901 $323,901 $108,264 $323,901 $323,901 $323,901
PV -$3,143,722 $318,117 $312,436 $306,857 $301,377 $295,996 $290,710 $285,519 $280,420 $275,413 $270,495 $265,664 $260,920 $256,261 $251,685 $82,623 $242,776 $238,441 $234,183
Cumulative NPV -$3,143,722 -$2,825,605 -$2,513,169 -$2,206,312 -$1,904,935 -$1,608,939 -$1,318,229 -$1,032,711 -$752,290 -$476,878 -$206,383 $59,281 $320,202 $576,463 $828,148 $910,771 $1,153,547 $1,391,989 $1,626,172
Telifa

Year 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Discounting factor 0.710 0.697 0.685 0.673 0.661 0.649 0.637

GENSET
Capital $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Operating $2,411 $2,411 $2,411 $2,411 $2,411 $2,411 $2,411
Fuel $11,043 $11,043 $11,043 $11,043 $11,043 $11,043 $11,043
Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Tot OPEX $13,454 $13,454 $13,454 $13,454 $13,454 $13,454 $13,454
Salvage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $343,033
Discounted Operating $1,712 $1,681 $1,651 $1,622 $1,593 $1,565 $1,537
Discounted Fuel $7,842 $7,702 $7,564 $7,429 $7,296 $7,166 $7,038
Discounted OPEX $9,554 $9,383 $9,216 $9,051 $8,889 $8,731 $8,575
Discounted Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Discounted Salvage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $218,626

PV + Inverter
Capital $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Operating $31,820 $31,820 $31,820 $31,820 $31,820 $31,820 $31,820
Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Salvage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $69,440
Discounted OPEX $22,595 $22,192 $21,795 $21,406 $21,024 $20,648 $20,280
Discounted Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Discounted Salvage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $44,256

Battery
Capital $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Operating $610 $610 $610 $610 $610 $610 $610
Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Salvage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,798
Discounted OPEX $433 $425 $418 $410 $403 $396 $389
Discounted Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Discounted Salvage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,157

Converter
Capital $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Operating $122 $122 $122 $122 $122 $122 $122
Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Salvage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,439
Discounted OPEX $87 $85 $84 $82 $81 $79 $78
Discounted Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Discounted Salvage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,554

Other
Capital $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Operating $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226
Fuel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Tot OPEX $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226 $14,226
Discounted OPEX $10,102 $9,921 $9,744 $9,570 $9,399 $9,231 $9,067
Discounted Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Incomes
Revenue $384,132 $384,132 $384,132 $384,132 $384,132 $384,132 $384,132
CAPEX $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
OPEX $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231
TOT Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Tot Salvage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $427,710
Total Cost $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 $60,231 -$367,479
Total Discounted Cost $42,770 $42,007 $41,256 $40,520 $39,796 $39,085 -$234,206
Net Income $323,901 $323,901 $323,901 $323,901 $323,901 $323,901 $751,611
PV $230,001 $225,894 $221,860 $217,899 $214,008 $210,186 $479,027
Cumulative NPV $1,856,173 $2,082,068 $2,303,928 $2,521,827 $2,735,834 $2,946,020 $3,425,047