Sostenibilidad Suiza

sustainability
Article
Techno-Economic Analysis of Hybrid Renewable Energy-Based
Electricity Supply to Gwadar, Pakistan
Muhammad Sharjeel Ali 1 , Syed Umaid Ali 2 , Saeed Mian Qaisar 3 , Asad Waqar 1,2, * , Faheem Haroon 1
and Ahmad Alzahrani 4, *
1 Department of Electrical Engineering, Bahria School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Bahria University,
Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
2 Center of Excellence in Artificial Intelligence (CoE-AI), Department of Electrical Engineering,
Bahria University, E-8 Shangrilla Road, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
3 Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Effat University, Jeddah 22332, Saudi Arabia
4 Electrical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Najran University, Najran 11001, Saudi Arabia
* Correspondence: asadwaqar.buic@bahria.edu.pk (A.W.); asalzahrani@nu.edu.sa (A.A.)
Abstract: Gwadar is essential to Pakistan’s financial stability. Being the third deep-water port in
Pakistan, it plays a significant role in trade between the Gulf States, Africa, UAE, and CARs. The load
shedding of 12–16 h in Gwadar is the most concerning issue due to the non-availability of a utility grid,
which is why the Pakistan imports 70 MW of electricity from Iran to fulfill Gwadar’s electricity needs.
Gwadar has renewable energy resources that can be utilized for electricity generation. However,
wind and solar systems were only installed for limited residential areas. Considering this scenario,
a technological and economic analysis was performed using the Hybrid Optimization Model for
Multiple Energy Resources (HOMER) software. Three models were considered in this study. Model
1 consisted of photovoltaic (PV) cells, wind turbines, converters, and batteries. Model 2 consisted
of PV cells, wind turbines, converters, and a grid. Model 3 consisted of PV cells, wind turbines,
Citation: Ali, M.S.; Ali, S.U.; Mian converters, and diesel generators. The annual energy generated by Model 1, Model 2, and Model
Qaisar, S.; Waqar, A.; Haroon, F.; 3 was respectively 57.37 GWh, 81.5 GWh, and 30.4 GWh. The Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE)
Alzahrani, A. Techno-Economic for Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3 was respectively USD 0.401/kWh, USD 0.0347/kWh, and USD
Analysis of Hybrid Renewable 0.184/kWh. The simple payback period of Model 1 was 6.70 years, the simple payback period of
Energy-Based Electricity Supply to Model 2 was 7.77 years and the simple payback period of Model 3 was 4.98 years. Because Model 3
Gwadar, Pakistan. Sustainability 2022, had the lowest Net Present Cost NPC, its payback period was also less than those of the other two.
14, 16281. https://doi.org/10.3390/ However, Model 2 had the lowest LCOE and its renewable fraction was 73.3%. These facts indicate
su142316281
that Model 2 is the optimal solution.
Academic Editor: Nicu Bizon
Keywords: techno-economic analysis; Gwadar; renewable energy; HOMER Pro; feasibility analysis
Received: 4 October 2022
Accepted: 29 November 2022
Published: 6 December 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral 1. Introduction

with regard to jurisdictional claims in
Scientists have long predicted that the Earth’s temperature will rise as a result of the
published maps and institutional affil-
current extensive use of fossil fuels, of which a significant percentage is burned. Because of
iations.
the impact that human behavior has on power generation systems, environmental changes
may now be felt throughout the planet due to a rise in the planet’s mean temperature [1].
One of the main causes of an increase in the average temperature of the Earth is the
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
electrical power produced by fossil fuels-based plants. Many ozone-depleting chemicals are
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. released into the atmosphere by these fossil fuel-based plants. The ongoing confrontation
This article is an open access article between Russia and Ukraine has made this worse. The price of petroleum products has
distributed under the terms and skyrocketed; therefore, now is the ideal time for nations that import petroleum products
conditions of the Creative Commons to seriously pursue sustainable power plans. The use of environmentally friendly energy
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// as a substitute for petroleum products and to manage the unnatural weather shift, which
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ has been effectively implemented in industrialized countries, can now be implemented
4.0/). by emerging nations [2]. There is no other option besides ecofriendly power. Eco-friendly
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16281. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142316281 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 16281 2 of 25
energy became more well-known after the ban on Middle East crude oil in the 1970s. Since
then, eco-friendly energy has been improved and most petroleum products can be replaced
by it [3]. The most well-known sustainable energy source in the past was hydropower,
which requires the construction of a dam, a significant project. Hydropower can be utilized
to lessen floods, as demonstrated by the Itaipu Dam in Paraguay and the Three Gorges
Dam in China. Although hydropower requires a large initial investment, the levelized cost
of energy generated through hydropower is less expensive in the long run. Microscale
hydropower operations are also possible. The issue that micro-scale hydropower runs into
is its temperamental nature: its levelized energy is pricey relative to even low-cost fossil fuel
products such as coal, since solar photovoltaic and wind turbine systems are presently the
most recognized renewable energy sources [4–6]. To make solar energy competitive, a lot
of research has been done, including employing nanofluids [7] and enhancing performance
with a compound explanatory concentrator and a heated dryer powered by the sun [8].
Several nations have adopted this network-related structure, particularly the clever city [9].
A study for the southern part of Ghana showed that a stand-alone hybrid energy system
could be used and cheap electricity generated [10]. The author of [11] shows that electric
charging stations can use different renewable energy sources to generate cheap electricity
that can charge electric vehicles. An off-grid hybrid energy system was designed for radio
transmitter stations in India and the results showed that such a system is a promising
solution for radio transmitter stations [12]. When selecting solar for a hybrid system, the
type of solar module must be selected with great care. The author of [13] produced results
that show that monocrystalline solar PV modules perform better than polycrystalline
modules in all-weather conditions. If a battery is being used in the hybrid system, then
the type of battery should also be selected carefully. The author of [14] found that lead-
acid batteries are used 70% of the time and are easily available in the market. This helps
in lowering the cost of systems, because if batteries are imported or they are not easily
available then they will be costly. Implementing independent and framework-related
half-and-half energy frameworks has been indicated as being feasible via techno-economic
analysis [15].
According to recent studies [11], the execution of serious and sustainable energy ar-
rangements is beneficial to move beyond conventional energy utilization. This is especially
true for the development of energy that incorporates ozone-depleting substances. Accord-
ing to the International Energy Agency’s 2019 special report, there will be a 55% increase in
power demand by 2040 relative to 2018; 30% of that growth should be produced by wind
and solar energy [16]. The Colombian Caribbean region benefits from the ability of solar
panels and wind turbines to utilize sunlight-based illumination and wind speed separately.
Research has focused on demonstrating that the public energy needs of Colombia could
be met solely by installing wind turbines in 20% of the La Guajira division’s domain and
10% in the ocean, leaving 40% of power demand unfinished [17]. Colombia is the sixth
largest coal exporter, which means it is affecting the global climate [18]. The author of [19]
investigated how much CO2 is produced in Colombia and suggested a method to reduce
the CO2 . Since petroleum products are still widely used in the area and despite efforts to
carry out deep oil drilling to raise the use of non-renewable energy sources for a few more
years, the great potential for power creation through wind turbines and sunlight-based
chargers in the Colombian Caribbean district remains unfulfilled. In [20], a hybrid system
of solar and wind energy was designed which would help to reduce the CO2 emissions in
the region of the Colombian Caribbean. However, using non-renewable energy sources
and emitting ozone-depleting substances will soon be subject to financial penalties [21],
and the efficiency of wind turbines and solar chargers will be improved. The electrifi-
cation of rural areas is difficult [22] but when it is implemented, hybrid power systems
will greatly aid in the transition to sustainable power systems while gradually shifting
the entire activity of conventional non-renewable energy sources to systems powered by
wind and solar energy [19,20]. Another benefit of using environmentally friendly energy is
that it is predicted to produce continuous employment rates of 16% in the manufacturing
sector, 29% in the development sector, and 50% in maintenance by 2050 [23]. The authors
of [24] showed that using a hybrid system for off-grid connection would help to provide
safer electricity supply to Dibba. Hybrid Optimization for Multiple Energy Resources
(HOMER) programming was used to support this research project. Since HOMER has the
reenactment equipment to conduct research with altered energy sources, which enables
evaluating the presentation of force age plants with one or a few inexhaustible sources,
it is incredibly helpful for the estimation of a half-breed energy supply framework [21].
In addition to analyzing energy performance, HOMER can deliver information from a
financial and environmental standpoint [25].
A challenging energy planning problem is combining multiple sustainable power
systems into a single system [26]. However, introducing environmentally friendly power
into power grids offers prospective solutions to several present issues, such as increasing
environmental change and ozone-depleting chemical emissions, dependence on petroleum
derivatives, and extreme fluctuations in energy prices [27]. Clean energy is becoming more
accepted on a global scale. Sustainable power developments are typically essential for
long-term improvement, energy security, and environmental assurance [28,29]. Particularly
viable options for reducing fossil fuel products and creating a cleaner, safer society are
wind and solar-based energy sources. Recent studies on sustainable power resources in
Thailand have focused on solar-based [30] and hybrid environmentally friendly power
sources [31] to promote a cleaner energy age and increase the energy security of this South-
east Asian nation with a developing economy. However, there are certain drawbacks to
using ecologically friendly power sources, one of which is their erratic nature. Addition-
ally, geographic and environmental factors have an impact on the wind and the sun [32].
Energy for remote villages can be easily produced by hybrid systems and fulfill village
electricity demands [33]. Hybrid systems have become popular for rural areas due to
the high price of fuel and need to reduce CO2 emissions [34]. When selecting a hybrid
system for any area, different models should be studied and an optimized model should
be implemented [35]. The energy storage is very important for minimizing the power
fluctuations in the system for a stable power supply [36]. An energy storage system with
a reasonable capacity configuration can improve the operation reliability and economic
efficiency of a microgrid [37]. To increase productivity, crossbreed sustainable power frame-
works (HRES) have been developed [31–33]. These frameworks combine various energy
resources, which has several benefits, including lower capital costs, an extended power age
limit, increased steadfastness and general effectiveness, and more adaptability in the plan
streamlining. Additionally, the instability of the renewable market and the vulnerability of
environmentally friendly power sources affect the dependability of the power framework.
Utilizing energy storage systems (ESS) can aid in resolving these difficulties [34,35]. The
expansion of environmentally friendly power in the public portfolio is at the center of
Thailand’s 2018 Power Development Plan (PDP), which aims to support cleaner generation
as a route to energy security and carbon neutrality. Depending on the spatial circulation and
the capacity of the sustainable power assets, dispersed power is a characteristic of several
developments in sustainable power, such as PV, wind power, biomass, hydropower, and
biogas. A HRES may be designed to combine solar, wind, hydro, biogas, and diesel genera-
tor (DG) reinforcement with a battery power capacity framework (BESS), depending on the
application [38]. These hybrid systems can be installed in small telecom base stations [39].
The studies show that if a hybrid system has fuel cells and wind energy, then fuel cells help
to reduce carbon dioxide emissions [40]. Energy units (FC) with H2 innovation (HT) have
more recently been incorporated into HRES frameworks [37,38]. Keeping the literature
review in mind, the research gap and novelty of this study are the following.
1.1. Research Gap

(1) Gwadar is not connected to any national grid, which is why there is high demand
for micro-grids. There are no large-scale micro-grids in Gwadar that can fulfill
power demand.
ability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 27
1.1. Research Gap

Sustainability 2022, (1) Gwadar is not connected to any national grid, which is why there is high demand for
14, 16281 4 of 25
micro-grids. There are no large-scale micro-grids in Gwadar that can fulfill power
demand.
(2) There is no(2)research
There on a large-scale
is no research onhybrid systemhybrid
a large-scale with a system
different generation
with mixgeneration mix
a different
for Gwadar. for Gwadar.
(3) In this study,
(3) configurations are PV/wind/battery,
In this study, configurations PV/wind/grid,
are PV/wind/battery, and PV/wind/die-
PV/wind/grid, and PV/wind/diesel
sel generator. No research has been done on the selected configurations for Gwadar.for Gwadar.
generator. No research has been done on the selected configurations
(4) Techno-economic analysis has notanalysis
(4) Techno-economic been carried
has out
notforbeen
Gwadar with the
carried out above con-
for Gwadar with the
figurations. above configurations.
1.2. Novelty 1.2. Novelty

(1) Gwadar is(1) coastal area and
Gwadar to fulfill
is coastal area itsand
power demand
to fulfill the above
its power selected
demand configura-
the above selected configura-
tions of generation
tionsmix were first used.
of generation mix were first used.
(2) The sensitivity analysis
(2) The and techno-economic
sensitivity analysis was done
analysis and techno-economic withwas
analysis the objective
done withofthe objective of
confirming net confirming
present costnet present
(NPC), cost cost
lowest (NPC), lowest cost
of electricity of electricity
(LCOE), (LCOE), and greenhouse
and greenhouse
gas emissions. gas emissions.
(3) Homer Pro (3)wasHomer Promulti-criteria
used for was used fordecision
multi-criteria
analysis decision
so thatanalysis so that
the optimal the optimal
value of value of
all objectives
all objectives could could be obtained.
be obtained.
2. Materials
2. Materials and Methods and Methods
A methodology A methodology
was created and was used
created and used throughout
throughout the research thetoresearch
ensure to ensure practical work
practical
was accomplished. Figure 1 shows the plan of the methodology
work was accomplished. Figure 1 shows the plan of the methodology used. The method- used. The methodology
ology focused research on the importance of resolving the electricity shortfall issue issue
focused research on the importance of resolving the electricity shortfall of of Gwadar,
Gwadar, usingusing renewable
renewable energyenergy sources.
sources. The following
The following steps involved
steps involved collecting
collecting data on data on solar
solar and wind energy to identify how much power could be generated. This wasThis
and wind energy to identify how much power could be generated. thenwas then used
to produce the demand profile that could be used in the HOMER model (Hybrid Opti-
used to produce the demand profile that could be used in the HOMER model (Hybrid
mization Model for Multiple Energy Resources). This study used the following analytical
Optimization Model for Multiple Energy Resources). This study used the following ana-
framework [41] (Figure 1 shows methodology flow charts).
lytical framework [41] (Figure 1 shows methodology flow charts).
(1) Specification of location.
(1) Specification of location.
(2) The data needed for modeling:
(2) The data needed for modeling:
(a)
(a) Average electric Average
load electric load demand;
demand;
(b) The area’s
(b) The area’s everyday radiation everyday radiation
and clarity index;and clarity index;
(c) The site’s everyday
(c) The site’s everyday temperature. temperature.
(3) ofArchitecture
(3) Architecture systems. of systems.
Figure 1. Flow chart of methodology.

Figure 1. Flow chart of methodology.
Homer Pro software uses mixed integer linear programming to solve problems. Multi-
criteria decision analysis is implemented in a model to obtain results. Three different
models with different generation mixes were implemented to obtain optimized net present
cost (NPC), lowest cost of electricity (LCOE), and renewable fraction values.
Homer Pro software uses mixed integer linear programming to solve problems.
Multi-criteria decision analysis is implemented in a model to obtain results. Three differ-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16281 ent models with different generation mixes were implemented to obtain optimized 5 ofnet
25
present cost (NPC), lowest cost of electricity (LCOE), and renewable fraction values.
2.1.Location
2.1. Location
Pakistanisisaadeveloping
Pakistan developingcountry
countrythat
thatisisstruggling
strugglingto toaccelerate
accelerateitsitseconomic
economicgrowth
growth
and keep pace with the region’s fast-expanding economies. Energy,
and keep pace with the region’s fast-expanding economies. Energy, economic, and indus- economic, and indus-
trial crises are major concerns in Pakistan. To overcome these issues,
trial crises are major concerns in Pakistan. To overcome these issues, Pakistan must engage Pakistan must en-
gage in various projects. One such initiative, the China-Pakistan
in various projects. One such initiative, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), hasEconomic Corridor
(CPEC),begun.
already has already begun.toAccording
According the authortoofthe author
[42], of [42],investment
the CPEC the CPEC investment is USD
is USD 46 billion,
46 billion,
with the mainwith theofmain
goal goal of China
connecting connecting China and
and Pakistan Pakistan
to the Middle toEast
the Middle East and
and conducting
conducting
trade. trade.
All trade Allbe
will trade will be conducted
conducted from Gwadar, fromPakistan,
Gwadar,because
Pakistan,it because it is posi-
is positioned on
tioned on an international trade route, which is why Gwadar is
an international trade route, which is why Gwadar is significant. The biggest concernsignificant. The biggest
concern
in Gwadar in is
Gwadar
a lack is
ofaenergy:
lack of energy:
there is there is no national
no national grid and grid and electricity
electricity is imported
is imported from
from Iran [43]. Optimizing a system to overcome this challenge was
Iran [43]. Optimizing a system to overcome this challenge was chosen for this paper’s chosen for this paper’s
research,and
research, andaamodel
modelwaswascreated
createdforforGwadar.
Gwadar.ItIthas hasseveral
severalrenewable
renewableenergy
energyresources
resources
thatcan
that canmeet
meetthe thecity’s
city’spower
powerneeds.
needs.The
TheGwadar
Gwadarmap mapisispresented
presentedininFigure
Figure2.2.
Figure2.2.Gwadar
Figure Gwadarmap
map[44].
[44].
2.2.
2.2.Modeling
ModelingStatistics
Statistics
2.2.1.
2.2.1. AverageElectric
Average electricLoad Demand
load demand
At
Atpresent,
present,7070MW/day
MW/day of of electricity
electricity is
is imported
imported from
from Iran
Iran to
tofulfill
fulfillthe
thedemands
demandsofof
Gwadar.
Gwadar. However, due to Iran’s own electricity demands, it does not supply thecomplete
However, due to Iran’s own electricity demands, it does not supply the complete
70
70MW,
MW,and andconsequently
consequentlythere
thereisisload
loadshedding
sheddingof of12–16
12–16hhperperday.
day.People
Peopleuse usegenerators
generators
to
to fulfill the demand for electricity. The price of electricity imported from Iranvaries
fulfill the demand for electricity. The price of electricity imported from Iran variesdue
due
to oil prices and Pakistan buys it in US dollars, for prices ranging from 8 cents/kWh to
to oil prices and Pakistan buys it in US dollars, for prices ranging from 8 cents/kWh to 11
11 cents/kWh [45]. Gwadar’s load is based on a power market survey conducted by NTDC
cents/kWh [45]. Gwadar’s load is based on a power market survey conducted by NTDC
(National Transmission and Dispatch Company) and QESCO (Quetta Electricity Supply
(National Transmission and Dispatch Company) and QESCO (Quetta Electricity Supply
Company) [46]. The daily and seasonal load profile is shown in Figures 3 and 4. Load
Company) [46]. The daily and seasonal load profile is shown in Figures 3 and 4. Load
variation can be due to many reasons, including economic factors, customer behavior,
variation can be due to many reasons, including economic factors, customer behavior, and
and weather conditions. This means there are uncertainties regarding load. The results
weather conditions. This means there are uncertainties regarding load. The results of [47]
of [47] show that weather has a correlation with load. The components of weather are
show that weather has a correlation with load. The components of weather are tempera-
temperature, humidity, and wind speed. They influence load variance owing to the use
ture, humidity, and wind speed. They influence load variance owing to the use of heating
of heating or cooling units. In Figure 4, the box plot of load variation shows that there
or cooling units. In Figure 4, the box plot of load variation shows that there is no outlier,
is no outlier, which means that the estimated load is realistic. The box plot shows that
which means that the estimated load is realistic. The box plot shows that the maximum
the maximum load is 3123 kW and the minimum load is 2423 kW. The box plot of solar
load radiation
daily is 3123 kW andand the minimum
monthly averageloadwindisspeed
2423 kW.showsThethat
boxthere
plot is
ofasolar dailyin
variation radiation
energy
sources due to weather, which has an impact on load variation. In Figure 5b, it can bedue
and monthly average wind speed shows that there is a variation in energy sources to
seen
2 2
that 3.59 kW/m /day is minimum daily radiation, 5.29 kW/m /day is median of daily
radiation and 6.46 kW/m2 /day is maximum daily radiation. In Figure 6b it can be seen
that 4.24 m/s is the minimum wind speed, 4.7 m/s is median of wind speed and 5.28 m/s
is maximum wind speed. That is why load variation can be visible in the load profile when
Sustainability 2022,
2022, 14,
14, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW
higher, whereas during non-peak hours, the demand is lower.
Sustainability 66 of
of 27
27
kW/m22/day
kW/m /day is
is minimum
minimum daily
daily radiation,
radiation, 5.29
5.29 kW/m
kW/m22/day
/day isis median
median of
of daily
daily radiation
radiation and
and
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16281 6.46 kW/m 2/day is maximum daily radiation. In Figure 6b it can be seen that 4.24 m/s is 6 of 25
6.46 kW/m /day is maximum daily radiation. In Figure 6b it can be seen that 4.24 m/s is
2
the minimum
the minimum windwind speed,
speed, 4.7
4.7 m/s
m/s is
is median
median of of wind
wind speed
speed and
and 5.28
5.28 m/s
m/s is
is maximum
maximum
wind speed. That is why load variation can be visible in the load profile
wind speed. That is why load variation can be visible in the load profile when the when the load
load is
is
less
less in
the loadsome
in some hours
is less and
in some
hours increased
hours and
and increased in others.
inincreased For
others. For example,
inexample,
others. For during peak
example,
during hours,
peak during the
peak
hours, the load is
hours,
load is the
higher,
load whereaswhereas
is whereas
higher, higher, during non-peak
during non-peak hours, the
during non-peak
hours, thehours,
demand
demand isdemand
theis lower. is lower.
lower.
Figure 3. Daily load profile of Gwadar.
Figure Dailyload
3. Daily
Figure 3.
3. loadprofile
profileofof Gwadar.
Gwadar.
Figure Daily load profile of Gwadar.
Figure 4. Monthly load profile of Gwadar.
2.2.2. Everyday Radiation and Clarity Index at the Site

Indicators of the clarity of the atmosphere include the daily indexes for radiation and
clarity numbers. A portion of solar energy reaches the Earth’s surface through the atmos-
phere. To calculate it, surface radiation is divided by extraterrestrial radiation, yielding a
one-dimensional number between 0 and 1. The clarity index has a significant value while
it is sunny and clear outside and a low value when it is cloudy. Figure 5 shows the every-
day solar radiation and clarity index and Figure 6 displays the location’s average wind
Figure
Figure Monthly
4.Monthly
Figure 4.
4. Monthly load
load
speed.
load profile
profile
profile ofof
of Gwadar.
Gwadar.
Gwadar.
2.2.2. Everyday
2.2.2. Everyday Radiation
Radiation and
and Clarity
Clarity Index
Index at
at the
the Site
Site
Indicators of
Indicators of the
the clarity
clarity of
of the
the atmosphere
atmosphere include
include thethe daily
daily indexes
indexes for
for radiation
radiation and
and
clarity numbers. A portion of solar energy reaches the Earth’s surface through
clarity numbers. A portion of solar energy reaches the Earth’s surface through the atmos- the atmos-
phere. To To calculate
calculate it,
it, surface radiation is divided by extraterrestrial radiation, yielding a
Sustainability 2022,phere.
14, x FOR PEER REVIEW surface radiation is divided by extraterrestrial radiation, yielding a 7 of 27
one-dimensional
Sustainability 2022, 14, xone-dimensional number between
FOR PEER REVIEW number between 00 and
and 1.
1. The
The clarity
clarity index
index has
has aa significant
significant value
value while
while 7 of 27
it is sunny and clear outside and a low value when it is cloudy. Figure 5 shows
it is sunny and clear outside and a low value when it is cloudy. Figure 5 shows the every- the every-
day solar
day solar radiation
radiation and
and clarity
clarity index
index and
and Figure
Figure 66 displays
displays the
the location’s
location’s average
average wind
wind
speed.
speed. (a)
(b)
(b)
Figure 5. (a) Annual
(a) daily radiation and clarity index [48]. (b) Box plot of annual daily radiation
Figure 5. (a)Figure
Annual (a)
5. (a) Annual daily radiation and clarity index [48]. (b) Box plot of annual daily radiation
[48]. daily radiation and clarity index [48]. (b) Box plot of annual daily radiation [48].
[48].
(a)
(a)
Figure 6. Cont.
(a)
(b)
Figurewind
Figure 6. (a) Average 6. (a) speed
Average wind
(m/s) speed
[48]. (b)(m/s) [48].of
Box plot (b)average
Box plotwind
of average
speed wind
[48]. speed [48].
2.2.2. Everyday Radiation

2.3. Proposed and
System Clarity Index at the Site
Architecture
Indicators of the clarity
It was of thetoatmosphere
necessary initially buildinclude the daily
the system indexes to
architecture formimic
radiation
the renewabl
and clarity numbers. A portion
energy system. Thereof were
solartwoenergy reaches
models in thisthe Earth’seach
instance, surface through
of which the the pho
included
atmosphere. tovoltaics,
To calculatewind turbines,radiation
it, surface batteries, is
grid connections,
divided and capacity that
by extraterrestrial was previousl
radiation,
mentioned. Figures
yielding a one-dimensional number 7–9 between
exhibit the schematic
0 and 1. Therepresentations
clarity index has of the three distinct mode
a significant
designs,
value while it is sunny respectively.
and clear outsideTableand
1 lists all of
a low the specific
value when itdetails of the
is cloudy. proposed
Figure 5 showssystems. Th
proposed
the everyday solar systems’
radiation andlocation is 4867+5Q
clarity index Gwadar,
and Figure Pakistanthe
6 displays (25′6.6″ N, 62′18.9″
location’s E). Solar pan
average
wind speed. els, wind turbines, battery banks, and grid connectivity make up the scenario of the rec
ommended renewable energy system.
2.3. Proposed System Architecture
It was necessary to initially build the system architecture to mimic the renewable
energy system. There were two models in this instance, each of which included the
photovoltaics, wind turbines, batteries, grid connections, and capacity that was previously
mentioned. Figures 7–9 exhibit the schematic representations of the three distinct model
designs, respectively. Table 1 lists all of the specific details of the proposed systems. The
Sustainability
proposed systems’ location is 4867+5Q Gwadar, Pakistan (250 6.6” N, 620 18.9” E). Solar
Sustainability 2022,
2022, 14,
14, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 88 of
of 27
27
panels, wind turbines, battery banks, and grid connectivity make up the scenario of the
recommended renewable energy system.
Figure
Figure7.7.Model
Model1.1.
Figure
Figure8.8.Model
Model2.2.
Figure 8. Model 2.
Figure
Figure9.9.Model
Model3.3.
Table 1.
Table Cost of
1. Cost of components.
components.
Capital
CapitalCost
Cost Replacement
Replacement O&M
O&MCost Cost
Component
Component Name
Name Lifetime
Lifetime Reference
Reference
(USD)
(USD) Cost(USD)
Cost (USD) (USD/Year)
(USD/Year)
Solar
Solar Flat-plate PV
Flat-plate PV 641.75
641.75 437.50
437.50 5.80
5.80 25 year
25 year [49]
[49]
Wind
Wind Generic
Generic 1010
kWkW 33,640.00
33,640.00 23,640.00
23,640.00 360.20
360.20 20 year
20 year [50]
[50]
Storage 1 kWh Lead Acid 300 300 10 10 year [50]
Storage 1 kWh Lead Acid 300 300 10 10 year [50]
Converter System Converter 300 300 0 15 year [50]
Converter
Diesel Generator System Converter
Autosize Diesel Gen. 300
400 300400 0
0.010 15 year
15,000 h [50]
[51]
Diesel Generator
Grid Autosize Diesel Gen.
Simple Tariff 400kWh
0.06 400- 0.010- 15,000 h [51]
Grid Simple Tariff 0.06 kWh - -
2.3.1. PV Panels
A mono-crystalline PV module was used because it has better performance in dry
climates [13]. The lifespan and efficiency of generic PV panels are 25 years and 14%,
respectively. One kW is the rated capacity of each PV plate. A photovoltaic system is
expected to cost USD 641.75/kW to buy, USD 437.50/kW to replace, and USD 5.80/kW to
run. The de-rating factor for the solar array was about 80%. Equation (1) [52] determines
the module’s output power under ideal operating circumstances:
IT
Ppv = f pv x Ypv x (1)
IS
where Ypv stands for nominal capacity of a group of PV and the unit is kW. IT stands for
total incident radiation. fpv stands for reduction factor. IS is considered to have a base value
of 1000 W/m2 . The average horizontal irradiance is 5.19 kWh/m2 . Figure 5 shows the
annual daily radiation and clearness index for Gwadar.
2.3.2. Wind Turbines

For this project, a generic wind turbine with a 10 kW rated power was chosen. The
generic wind turbine has a 20-year lifespan and a 24 m hub height. The selected wind
turbine is of a small scale, which is why its hub height was also small. Knowing the hub
height wind speed allows one to compute the wind turbine’s output by using the power
curve [53]. The power curve shows the anticipated power production of the wind turbine
when estimated under typical pressure and temperature conditions. The output can be
calculated by Equation (2) [54],
P(V2 ) − P(V1 )
P(Vhj. ) = x (Vhj − V1 ) + P(V1 ) (2)
V2 − V1
where P(Vhj ) stands for wind turbine output, Vhj stands for hub height and P(V) is the
turbine output at wind speed V from the power curve, while V 2 and V 1 are the wind speeds
from the power curve to the hub height, respectively.
2.3.3. Battery
A “battery bank” is a grouping of a few different batteries. A solo battery is modeled
by HOMER as a component with a fixed energy efficiency that can store a certain amount
of DC power, depending on limitations on how fast it can be charged or discharged and
the maximum amount of energy it can handle before needing to be replaced. The battery
used in this design was a generic 12 volt lead-acid battery with 1 kWh of energy storage.
The main reason we used lead-acid batteries in this study was that these batteries are easily
available and 70% of batteries in the market are lead-acid batteries [14]. In Pakistan, lead-
acid batteries are manufactured by local companies and lithium-ion batteries are imported
due to which they have an import tax, which is very high. Due to this, lithium-ion batteries
are costly. Its efficiency is 80%. Maximum currents for charging and discharging were
16.7 A and 24.3 A, respectively.
2.3.4. Converter
With this model, a generic system converter from the Homer Pro software was utilized.
It had both rectifier and inverter modes of process. When solar and wind resources are not
available, the converter only operates in inverter mode; this typically occurs at night and in
overcast weather. When there is enough renewable energy to charge the battery storage
system, the converter solely operates in rectifier mode. The converter has a 95% efficiency
rating. The inverter’s efficiency and selection will determine how well the power converter
converts DC to AC. This was calculated using Equation (3) [48].
Pl,s(t) = Pinput (t) ∗ ηconv (3)
where Pinput (t) stands for the converter’s input power and conv for its efficiency.
2.4. Economic Parameters

The techno-economic study of an engineering system requires certain economic statis-
tics. The minimal discount rate, anticipated inflation rate, and project duration are just
a few examples of the information included. The economic information needed for both
Model 1 and Model 2 is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Economic analysis.
Description Value Unit References

Currency 1 USD -
Nominal discount rate 13.75 % [55]
Predictable inflation rate 9.74 % [56]
Project lifespan 25 Year -
2.4.1. Interest Rate

The real rate of interest for the year, often known as the actual rate of interest or basic
rate of interest, is one of the inputs utilized by HOMER. It is the discount rate/interest rate
used for converting one-time charges to annual costs overall. The value of the interest rate
is given above in Table 2. The following equation establishes a relationship between the
minimal rate of interest and the annual real rate of interest [48]:
i0 − f
i= (4)
1+ f
2.4.2. Levelized Cost of Energy

The normal price per kWh of usable power the system produces as electrical energy
is what HOMER refers to as the levelized cost of energy (COE). The total annualized cost
less the cost of feeding the load is the cost of producing power annually, which is then
divided by HOMER’s total output of usable electricity. The following equation was used to
determine COE [48]:
Cann.tot
LCOE = (5)
E prim + Ede f + Egrid.sales
The absolute annualized cost is the amount of every framework part’s annualized
costs in addition to the annualized expenses. HOMER calculates the levelized and total net
present expenses of energy using this value, making it a crucial figure.
2.4.3. Net Present Cost (NPC)

The ongoing value of the various costs the combination framework incurs over the
course of its declared useful life, less the recovery value at that period, is the net present cost
of the combination framework. The expenses contributing to the net current cost are those
for capital expense, replacement, activity, and maintenance costs, as given in Equation (4)
in accordance with [48]. Each component of the newly introduced framework had its NPC
determined by Homer’s expert programming. The total NPC was calculated using the
formula below [48].
Cann.tot
CNPC = (6)
CRF i.R proj
In this case, the structure had a 25-year lifespan, and the investment recovery factor
was a percentage used to calculate the annual present value (a progression of equivalent
yearly incomes). The status of the capital recovery component was as follows [48].
i (1 + i ) N
CRF (i, N ) = (7)
(1 + i ) N − 1
2.4.4. Salvage Value

Salvage value describes how much a power system component is worth if it is still
functional at the expiration of a project’s lifespan. Using this equation, HOMER determines
the value of each part at the conclusion of the project’s life cycle [48]:
Rrem
S = Crep (8)
Rcomp
2.4.5. Internal Rate of Return

The internal rate of return (IRR) is the discount rate where the net present cost of
the reference case is similar to the net present cost of the optimized system. The IRR is
calculated by HOMER by dividing the difference between the current values of the two
cash flow sequences by the discount rate.
2.4.6. Return on Investment

Return on investment is the annual budget savings compared to the initial investment
(ROI). By dividing the difference in capital costs by the typical yearly difference in nominal
cash flows throughout the course of the project, the ROI is determined. The next equation
is used to define the return on investment [48].
R proj
∑ Ci,re f − Ci
i =0
ROI = (9)
R proj (Ccap − Ccap,re f )
2.4.7. Simple Payback

In the optimal and baseline examples, the term “simple payback” refers to the number
of years required for the accumulated cash flow differential between the systems to become
positive. The time required to recover the difference in investment costs between the
optimal and baseline case systems is known as the payback period.
2.4.8. Total Annualized Cost

A component’s full annualized cost is the amount that, if spread out equally over the
life of the project, would result in a net present cost that is identical to the component’s
actual cash flow sequence. As shown in the following calculation, the capital recovery
factor is divided by the net present cost to produce the annualized cost [48].
Cann,tot = CRF (i, R proj ) x CNPC,tot (10)
2.4.9. Renewable Fraction

The renewable fraction is the portion of energy given to the load that comes from
renewable sources. It was computed using Equation (11) [48]. Table 3 shows the renewable
fraction of all three selected models
Enon ren + Hnon ren
f ren = 1 − (11)
Eserved + Hserved
where Enon ren stands for non-renewable energy, Hnon ren stands for non-renewable thermal
production, Eserved stands for total electrical load served, and Hserved stands for total thermal
load served.
Table 3. Renewable fraction.
Quantity Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Renewable Fraction 100% 73.3% 28.7%
2.4.10. Reliability Analysis

The reliability of renewable energy systems is a critical evaluation for future power
generation systems. There are many methods to check it and loss of power supply proba-
bility (LPSP) is a popular method. It is a probability function and is defined by a number
range from 0–1. If the LPSP is 1 then there is 100% of electricity loss and if the LPSP is 0
then there is 0% of electricity loss. The LPSP can be calculated using Equation (12) [57]
∑8760
h=1 Eunmet ( h )
LPSP = (12)
Edemand
where Eunmet stands for unmet load demand and Edemand stands for electrical demand for
one full year. The LPSP of the three different models was calculated through the above
given equation and it specified that Model 1 had 0.013 (1%), Model 2 had 0 (0%), and Model
3 also had 0 (0%), which are equivalent to 3.65 days in a year. Model 2 and 3 had zero
unmet load, so their LPSP was also zero.
3. Results and Discussion

HOMER Pro was used for the techno-economic analysis and optimization of three
distinct solar PV and wind turbine models for Gwadar, Pakistan, the findings of which are
included in this section. The outcomes of the optimization are reviewed first, and then the
techno-economic analysis findings.
3.1. Optimization Results

3.1.1. Model 1
The optimization results for the plant location 4867+5Q Gwadar, Pakistan (250 6.600 N,
620 18.900 E) show that all components were used in a system. The system with the lowest
COE and highest proportion of renewable energy was chosen by HOMER PRO after a cost
analysis of a number of system capabilities and configurations. Homer has two control
dispatch strategies: cycle charging (CC) and load following (LF) [58]. The dispatch strategy
used for Model 1 was cycle charging (CC). The simulation method determines the long-
term feasibility of energy systems. Several configurations were generated after the hourly
simulation, with the mentioned system figures displayed in light blue. To find the optimum
configuration out of several combinations to meet Gwadar’s load demand, two different
scenarios were assessed among diverse configured energy systems in this study. Table 4
lists the details of the optimized components. Figure 10 displays the optimized13
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW system.
of 27
Table 5 summarizes the system information for the optimized components.
Theproposed
Table4.4.The
Table proposedsystem’s
system’soptimization
optimizationresults
resultsof
ofModel
Model 1.
1.
Architecture
Architecture Cost
Cost System
System
Operat- Initial
Operating Initial Total
Total
1 kWh Converter
Converter NPC COE COE Ren.
Ren.
PV(kW)
PV (kW) G10
G10 1 kWh Dispatch Cost Capital Fuel
LA LA (kW)
(kW)
Dispatch NPC(USD)
(USD) (USD)USD (USD)
ing Cost Capital Fract. Fuel
Fract. (L/yr)
(USD/yr)
(USD) (USD/yr) (L/yr)
46,573
46,573 422
422 128,058
128,058 3924
3924 CC
CC 166166
M M 0.401 0.401 5.095.09
M M 83.783.7
M M 100100 00
54,634 150,829 8493 CC 176 M 0.423 5.72 M 82.9 M 100 0
54,634 150,829 8493 CC 176 M 0.423 5.72 M 82.9 M 100 0
Figure
Figure10.
10.The
Theoptimized
optimizedsystem
systemarchitecture
architectureof
ofModel
Model1.1.
Table
Table5.5.Optimized
Optimizedcomponent
componentdetails
detailsof
ofModel
Model1.1.
Component Name SizeSize Electricity

Electricity Production
Production (kWh/Year)
Component Name
(kWh/Year)
Solar PV Generic flat-plate PV 46,573 kW 75,705,768
Solarturbine
Wind PV Generic
Genericflat-plate
10 kW PV 46,573
422 kW 75,705,768
5,859,989
Wind
Systemturbine
converter Generic
System 10 kW
converter 3924 kW422 5,859,989
-
SystemBattery
converter Generic 1 kWh
System lead acid
converter 128,058
3924 kW 12,733,506
-
Battery Generic 1 kWh lead acid 128,058 12,733,506
With peak loads of 3123 kW, the total daily electricity usage in Gwadar is 70,102 kWh.
The With peak loads
following of 3123sources
generating kW, thewould
total daily electricity
be used by theusage in Gwadar
proposed is 70,102
system kWh.
to meet the
The following generating sources would be used by the proposed system to meet
electrical load. The results showed that a Model 1 system had the lowest COE (0.401/kWh) the elec-
trical
over load. The results
the course showedand
of the project that
thea highest
Model 1fraction
systemofhad the lowest
renewable COE(100%).
energy (0.401/kWh)
over the course of the project and the highest fraction of renewable energy (100%).
Electricity Generation, Consumption, and Cost
Electricity Generation,
As indicated Consumption,
in Table and Cost
3, the optimized system generated 100% renewable energy, with
solarAsPVindicated in Table
accounting 3, the optimized
for 75,705,768 kWh/yearsystem
and windgenerated 100%
turbines renewable
for 5,859,989 energy,
kWh/year.
with
Figuresolar PV accounting
11 displays for of
an overview 75,705,768 kWh/year
the monthly and wind
electric output from turbines for 5,859,989
PV and GT10. Figure 12
shows the Figure
kWh/year. output 11
of adisplays
solar photovoltaic system
an overview of thewith a standard
monthly wind
electric turbine.
output fromFigure
PV and13
GT10. Figure 12 shows the output of a solar photovoltaic system with a standard wind
turbine. Figure 13 shows the cost analysis for Model 1. Tables 6 and 7 show the net present
costs and annualized costs of Model 1.
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 27
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14
Sustainability
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16281 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 25
shows the cost analysis for Model 1. Tables 6 and 7 show the net present costs and
annualized costs of Model 1.
Figure 11. Monthly electric production of solar PV and GT10.

Generic flat-plate PV
Wind turbine: generic 10 kW

Figure 12. Solar PV output and generic wind turbine output.
Wind turbine: generic 10 kW

Figure
Figure 12. Solar 12. Solar
PV output andPV output
Wind
generic andturbine
generic
turbine:
wind wind10
generic turbine
output. kW output.
Figure 12. Solar PV output and generic wind turbine output.
Figure 13. Cost Graph for Model 1.
Table 6. Net present costs of Model 1 (USD).

Figure 13. Cost Graph for Model 1.
Name Capital Operating Replacement Salvage Resource Total
Generic 10 kW 14.2 M 2.46 M 4.87 M −3.05 M 0.00 18.5 M
Generic 1 kWh lead acid 38.4 M Figure 13. Cost Graph for Model 1. −14.0 M
20.8 M 66.5 M 0.00 112 M
Generic flat-plate PV 29.9 M 4.38 M 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.3 M
System converter 1.18 M Figure
0.00 13. Cost Graph for Model 1.−159,971
687,111 0.00 1.70 M
System 83.7 M 27.6 M 72.1 M −17.2 M 0.00 166 M
Table 7. Annualized cost of Model 1 (USD).

Generic 10 kW 875,800 152,004 300,239 −188,190 0.00 1.14 M
Generic 1 kWh lead acid 2.37 M 1.28 M 4.10 M −862,542 0.00 6.89 M
Generic flat-plate PV 1.84 M 270,125 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.11 M
System converter 72,621 0.00 42,390 −9869 0.00 105,142
System 5.16 M 1.70 M 4.45 M −1.06 M 0.00 10.2 M
3.1.2. Model 2
Results of the optimization for plant 4867+5Q at Gwadar, Pakistan (250 6.600 N, 620 18.900 E)
demonstrate how the system uses each component. Following a cost study of several
system configurations and their capacities, the HOMER PRO selected the model with
the lowest COE and maximum percentage of renewable energy. Homer has two control
dispatch strategies: cycle charging (CC) and load following (LF) [58]. The dispatch strategy
used in Model 2 was cycle charging (CC). The long-term viability of the energy system was
assessed using the simulation method. The hourly simulation results are given in several
configurations, using the illustrated reference case system in light blue. In this case, four
alternative situations were assessed among various energy systems in order to identify the
ideal layout for the given configuration system of Gwadar to meet its load demand. Table 8
provides information on the optimized components. The system details for the optimized
components with size and electricity production are listed in Table 9. The optimized system
architecture of Model 2 is shown in Figure 14.
Table 8. The optimization results of Model 2.
Architecture Cost (USD) System

Operating Initial
PV Grid Converter NPC COE Ren. Total Fuel
G10 Dispatch Cost Capital
(kW) (kW) (kW) (USD) (USD) Fract. (L/yr)
(USD/yr) (USD)
27,019 999,999 14,055 CC 28.2 M 0.0347 410,961 21.6 M 73.2 0
27,112 4 999,999 14,055 CC 28.3 M 0.0347 404,959 21.8 M 73.3 0
Sustainability 2022, 14, 999,999
x FOR PEER REVIEW CC 49.8 M 0.120 3.07 M 0.00 0 16
0 of 27
9 999,999 CC 49.9 M 0.120 3.06 M 302,760 0.488 0
Figure
Figure14.
14.The
Theoptimized
optimizedsystem
systemarchitecture
architectureof
ofModel
Model2.
2.
Table 9. Optimized components details of Model 2.
Component Name Size Electricity Production (kWh/Year)

Solar Generic flat-plate PV 27,112 kW 44,071,788
Wind turbine Generic 10 kW 4 55,545
System converter System converter 14,055 kW -
Grid connected Simple tariff 0.06 USD/kW 13,423,227
Figure 14. The optimized system architecture of Model 2.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16281 Table 9. Optimized components details of Model 2. 15 of 25

Table 9. Optimized components details of Model 2.
System Component
converter System converter
Name 14,055 kW Size - Production (kWh/Year)
Electricity
Grid connected Simple tariff 0.06 USD/kW 13,423,227
System converter The total converter
System daily electricity consumption
14,055 in
kWGwadar is 70,102 kWh, with- peak loads of
Grid connected 3123 kW. The planned system used the production sources to handle the electrical load.
Simple tariff 0.06 USD/kW 13,423,227
The findings showed that a Model 2 system had the largest percentage of renewable en-
ergy (73.3%) and the lowest COE (0.0347/kWh) over the life of the project.
The total daily electricity consumption in Gwadar is 70,102 kWh, with peak loads of
3123 kW. The planned system used the production sources to handle the electrical load.
Electricity Generation, Consumption, and Cost
The findings showed that a Model 2 system had the largest percentage of renewable energy
Tableand
(73.3%) 6 shows that the
the lowest COEoptimized system
(0.0347/kWh) would
over produce
the life of the 76.6%
project.renewable energy,
with solar PV accounting for 43,919,754 kWh per year and wind turbines for 55,545 kWh
perElectricity Generation,
year; 13,452,374 Consumption,
kWh per andofCost
year, or 23.4% the total energy, would be bought from the
grid. The monthly
Table electric
6 shows output
that the from PVs
optimized systemandwould
the grid are shown
produce 76.6%inrenewable
Figure 15 energy,
as a sum-with
mary. A solar photovoltaic system with a typical grid is shown in Figure 16
solar PV accounting for 43,919,754 kWh per year and wind turbines for 55,545 kWh per as its output.
The cost13,452,374
year; analysis for
kWhModel 2 is displayed
per year, or 23.4% ofintheFigure
total 17. Tables
energy, 10 and
would 11 present
be bought fromthethean-
grid.
nualized and net present costs for Model 2, respectively.
The monthly electric output from PVs and the grid are shown in Figure 15 as a summary. A
solar photovoltaic system with a typical grid is shown in Figure 16 as its output. The cost
analysis for Model 2 is displayed in Figure 17. Tables 10 and 11 present the annualized and
net present costs for Model 2, respectively.
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17
Figure 15. Monthly electric production of solar PV panels and grid.
Figure 15. Monthly electric production of solar PV panels and grid.
Electricity purchased from grid

Figure
Figure 16. Solar 16. Solar
PV output andPV output
grid and grid output.
output.
Electricity purchased from grid
Figure 16. Solar PV output and grid output.
Figure 17. Cost graph for Model 2.
Table 10. Net present costs of Model 2 (USD).

Generic flat-plate PV 17.3 M Table 10. Net
2.54 M present costs of
0.00 Model 2 (USD).
0.00 0.00 19.9 M
Grid 0.00 2.23 M 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.23 M
System converter Name 4.22 M Capital 0.00Operating 2.46 M Replacement
−573,020 Salvage0.00 Resource
6.10 M Total
Generic
System flat-plate PV21.6 M 17.3 M 4.77 M2.54 M 2.46 M 0.00 −573,020 0.00 0.00 0.0028.2 M 19.9 M
Grid 0.00 2.23 M 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.23 M
System converter 4.22 M 0.00 2.46
Table 11. Annualized cost of Model 2 (USD). M −573,020 0.00 6.10 M
System 21.6 M 4.77 M 2.46 M −573,020 0.00 28.2 M
Name CapitalOperating Replacement Salvage Resource Total
Generic flat-plate PV 1.07 M Table 11. Annualized
156,709 cost of Model
0.00 2 (USD).0.00 0.00 1.23 M
Grid 0.00 137,761 0.00 0.00 0.00 137,761
System converter 260,129 0.00 151,842 −35,351 0.00 376,619
Generic
System flat-plate PV1.33 M 1.07 M 294,471 156,709 151,842 0.00 −35,351 0.00 0.00 0.001.74 M 1.23 M
Grid 0.00 137,761 0.00 0.00 0.00 137,761
3.1.3. Model 3
System 1.33 M 294,471 151,842 −35,351 0.00 1.74 M
Optimization results for plant 4867+5Q Gwadar, Pakistan (250 6.6” N, 620 18.9” E) show
how the system makes use of each component. Following a cost analysis of several system
3.1.3. Model 3
configurations and capacities, HOMER PRO chose the model with the lowest COE and the
highest percentage of renewable energy. Homer Pro has two control dispatch strategies:
cycle charging (CC) and load following (LF) [58]. Cycle charging was the dispatch strategy
employed. The simulation method was used to examine the long-term viability of energy
systems. Displaying the illustrated reference case system in light blue, the hourly simulation
produced a number of possibilities. In this case, four distinct scenarios were evaluated
among several created energy systems in order to discover the optimal layout for Gwadar’s
given configuration system in order to meet the load demand requirement. Table 12 shows
the system with the highest level of optimization. Table 13 lists the system details for
the optimized components. The optimized system architecture of Model 3 is shown in
Figure 18.
Table 12. The optimization results of Model 3 (USD).
Architecture Cost System

Operating Initial
PV Converter NPC COE Ren. Total Fuel
G10 Gen (kW) Dispatch Cost Capital
(kW) (kW) (USD) (USD) Fract. (L/yr)
(USD/yr) (USD)
7364 3500 2259 CC 76.4 M 0.184 4.29 M 6.80 M 28.3 4,779,279
7536 6 3500 2340 CC 76.6 M 0.185 4.28 M 7.14 M 28.7 4,755,970
3500 CC 88.3 M 0.213 5.36 M 1.40 M 0 6,487,708
9 3500 CC 88.4 M 0.213 5.35 M 1.70 M 0.488 6,458,216
quirement. Table 12 shows the system with the highest level of optimization. Table 13 lists
the system details for the optimized components. The optimized system architecture of
Model 3 is shown in Figure 18.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16281 Table 12. The optimization results of Model 3 (USD). 17 of 25
Architecture Cost System

Operating Initial
Gen Converter
Table 13. Optimized NPC COE Ren. Total Fuel
PV (kW) G10 Dispatchcomponent details of ModelCost
3. Capital
(kW) (kW) (USD) (USD) Fract. (L/yr)
(USD/yr) (USD)
7364 3500 2259 CC 76.4 M 0.184 4.29 M 6.80 M 28.3 4,779,279
Solar Generic flat-plate PV 7536 kW 11,971,131
7536 6 3500 2340 CC 76.6 M 0.185 4.28 M 7.14 M 28.7 4,755,970
3500
System converter CC
System converter 88.3 M 0.2132340 kW5.36 M 1.40 M 0 - 6,487,708
Diesel 9generator
3500 CC
Autosize generator 88.4 M 0.2133500 kW5.35 M 1.70 M 0.488
18,347,3786,458,216
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 o

Figure
Figure18.
18.The
Theoptimized
optimizedsystem
systemarchitecture
architectureof
ofModel
Model3.3.
Table To meet the required

13. Optimized electrical
component details ofload,
Modelthe
3. designed system employed the specified
sources. TheElectricity Generation,
data revealed Consumption,
that a Model and the
3 system had Costlowest percentage of renewable
Component Name
energy (23.7%) and Table
the9lowest Size
demonstrates Electricity
that the optimized
COE (0.184/kWh) Production
over the system
course (kWh/Year)
generated
of 23.7% renewable ener
the project.
Solar Generic flat-plate
withPV 7536 kWfor 11,971,131 kWh per year,
solar PV accounting 11,971,131
wind turbines accounting for 83,
Wind turbine Electricity
Generic 10Generation,
kW per year,
kWh Consumption, 6
and diesel and Cost accounting for83,317
generator 18,347,378 kWh per year. Figure
System converter System converter
Table 9summarizes
demonstrates 2340
thethat kW
the optimized
monthly systemfrom
power output generated -
the PV23.7%
panelsrenewable
and dieselenergy,
generator. Fig
Diesel generator Autosize
with solargenerator
PV
20accounting
depicts thefor 3500 kW
11,971,131
output kWh per
of a solar 18,347,378
year, windsystem
photovoltaic turbines accounting
with a diesel for 83,317 Figure
generator.
kWh per year, and the
depicts diesel
costgenerator accounting
analysis for Model 3. for 18,347,378
Tables 14 and kWh per the
15 show year. Figure 19and net c
annualized
summarizes the
To meetrentthemonthlyfor power
required
costs output
electrical
Model 3. load, from
thethe PV panels
designed and diesel
system generator.
employed Figure 20
the specified
depicts the
sources. Theoutput of a solar
data revealed photovoltaic
that a Model 3 system with a diesel
had the lowestgenerator.
percentage Figure 21 depicts
of renewable
the cost(23.7%)
energy analysis
andforthe
Model
lowest3. COE
Tables(0.184/kWh)
14 and 15 showover the
the annualized
course of the and net current costs
project.
for Model 3.
Figure 19. Monthly electric production of solar PV panels and diesel generator.
Table 14. NetFigure

present19. Monthly
costs electric
of Model production of solar PV panels and diesel generator.
3 (USD).

Autosize genset 1.40 M 4.97 M 12.7 M −228,311 51.1 M 70.0 M
System 6.80 M 5.66 M 13.1 M −320,396 51.1 M 76.4 M
Figure 19. Monthly electric production of solar PV panels and diesel generator.
Diesel generator
Figure 20. Solar PV output and diesel generator output.
Figure 20. Solar PV output and diesel generator output.
Table 15. Annualized Cost of Model 3 (USD).

Autosize genset Table 14.
86,370 306,600
Net present costs 786,264
of Model 3 (USD). −14,085 3.15 M 4.32 M
Generic flat-plate PV 291,571 42,714 0.00 0.00 0.00 334,285
NameSystem converterCapital 41,803
Operating 0.00 Replacement 24,401Salvage Resource 0.00 Total
−5681 60,523
System 1.40 M 419,744
Autosize genset 4.97 M 349,31412.7 M 810,665
−228,311 −19,766
51.1 M 3.15 M 70.0 M 4.71 M
System converter 677,597 4. Sensitivity
0.00 Analysis
395,526 −92,085 0.00 981,037
System 6.80 M 5.66 M
Certain 13.1can
variables M have a direct
−320,396
impact on both 51.1 Meconomic and
the 76.4technical
M perfor-
mance of the proposed system. As a result, a sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate
Table 15.the
Annualized Cost
impact of of Model
some 3 (USD).on the system’s output. Discount rate and wind turbine
parameters
hub height are two examples. As shown in Figure 22, the effect of the discount rate on
the economic viability of the three models is quite significant; the NPC decreases as the
Autosize genset 86,370 306,600 rate increases.
discount 786,264 −14,085
The discounting 3.15inMsuch analyses
process is critical 4.32because
M it assists
Generic flat-plate decision-makers and investors in understanding the benefits and costs of policies with
291,571 42,714 0.00 0.00 0.00 334,285
PV long-term consequences. Interested parties can use discounting to adjust the difference
System converter 41,803 0.00 present and
between 24,401
future values to−5681 0.00
ensure that the project’s benefits60,523
and costs are con-
System 419,744 349,314 810,665 −19,766 3.15 M
sistently compared. The NPC of all three models decreases as the discount 4.71 Mrate increases,
4. Sensitivity Analysis
Certain variables can have a direct impact on both the economic and technical per-
formance of the proposed system. As a result, a sensitivity analysis was performed to
and the LCOE increases as the discount increases. They both have direct relationships. The
effect of hub height also impacts on NPC and LCOE. In the table it is clearly shown that if
hub height increases, the NPC and LCOE both decrease. The reason is that at height the
wind speed is more stable due to which constant electricity is generated, which helps to
decrease the NPC and LCOE.
Figure 22. Sensitivity analysis.

Figure 22. Sensitivity analysis.
5.5.Technical
Technical Analysis
Analysis
Model
Model22was wasrecognized
recognizedas asananoptimum
optimumsystem
systembased
basedononthe
theresults,
results,and
andits
itsfeatures
features
are described
are described in in this section. Gwadar receives enough solar radiation and wind to generate
receives enough solar radiation and wind to gener-
electricity,
ate which
electricity, is why
which this
is why model
this model was created.
was created.These
Thesemodels
modelsarearePV/wind/battery
PV/wind/battery
(Model1),
(Model 1),PV/wind/grid
PV/wind/grid (model
(model 2), and
2), and PV/wind/diesel
PV/wind/diesel generator
generator (Model(Model 3).study
3). This This
simulated the technical performance of three models under base case average solar radi-
ation 5.19 kWh/m2/day and wind 4.72 m/s. The results from the simulation showed elec-
tricity produced by Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3 would be 81,565,754 kWh/yr,
57,372,128 kWh/yr, and 30,318,510 kWh/yr, respectively. The electricity produced from
study simulated the technical performance of three models under base case average solar
radiation 5.19 kWh/m2/day and wind 4.72 m/s. The results from the simulation showed
electricity produced by Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3 would be 81,565,754 kWh/yr,
57,372,128 kWh/yr, and 30,318,510 kWh/yr, respectively. The electricity produced from
these models would depend mainly on renewable energy sources. Model 1, Model 2, and
Model 3 had 100%, 73.3%, and 28.8% renewable energy fractions, respectively. Model 2 is
preferable because the electricity cost would be less than that under the other two models
and give 73.3% power from RES.
6. Economic Analysis
The NPC values of Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3 are USD 166 M, USD 28.2 M, and
USD 76.4 M respectively. The cost of Model 1 is high due to battery storage attached to the
system. In Model 1, a battery is necessary because backup batteries are the only source. For
Model 3, a diesel generator is attached due to fuel costs and its NPC is high. Model 2 is
preferable in this case. Due to the low NPC of Model 2, its LCOE is also lowest among the
3 models. Model 20 s LCOE is USD 0.0347/kWh; USD 0.401/kWh and USD 0.184/kWh are
the LCOE values of Model 1 and Model 3, respectively. The LCOE of Model 1 is less than
the current tariff rate of Pakistan [59]. The salvage cost for Model 1 is USD 42,167,420, for
Model 2 is USD 1,405,500, and for Model 3 is USD 785,865. This validates what is already
known: while renewable energy projects may have a high initial cost, their operating costs
after commissioning are significantly lower than those of fossil fuel power plants. Table 16
shows important economic indicators of all selected models. The simple payback period
of Model 2 is longer than that of the others, due to the lowest LCOE. That is fine because
consumers would have cheap electricity.
Table 16. Economic indicators.
Metric Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Present Worth (USD) 9,375,284 21,552,830 11,877,420
Annual Worth (USD/yr) 578,390 1,329,660 732,755
Return on Investment 74% 8.4% 15.7%
Internal Rate of Return 36% 11.7% 19.7%
Simple Payback 6.7 yr 7.77 yr 4.98 yr
Discounted Payback 7.83 yr 9.30 yr 5.60 yr
7. Environmental Impact of Model

Nowadays, electricity generated by renewable energy sources is considered to be
eco-friendly because it contributes to decarbonizing the energy sector. RES do not produce
carbon dioxide but still can have an impact on environment. That is why RES should be
carefully selected for electricity generation at any power plant. Careful analysis of the
results shows that if RES is not selected properly, then it will have a very harmful impact on
the environment. Table 17 shows the greenhouse gas emissions of all three models. Model
1 uses only RES to generate electricity, which is why it has a 100% renewable fraction, while
Model 2 purchases electricity from the grid, due to which its renewable energy fraction is
lower at 73.3%. Model 3 completely relies on diesel generators for backup due to which it
has a low renewable fraction.
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, a techno-economic analysis for Gwadar has
never been done before. As a result, the authors are unable to find any existing method
with which the results could be compared in the existing literature. This study can be
used to analyze the options available for fulfilling the power needs of a certain area using
different models with a different set of renewable/conventional sources. This study was
for Gwadar, which is a coastal area. So this study can be used to analyze different coastal
areas, such as Tanzania, Mozambique, and Cape Town in Africa.
Table 17. Renewable energy fraction and emissions of models.
Quantity Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Carbon Dioxide 0 8,501,900 kg/yr 12,510,312 kg/yr
Carbon Monoxide 0 0 78,858 kg/yr
Unburned Hydrocarbons 0 0 3441 kg/yr
Particulate Matter 0 0 478 kg/yr
Sulfur Dioxide 0 36,860 kg/yr 30,635 kg/yr
Nitrogen Dioxide 0 18,026 kg/yr 74,079 kg/yr
The event-driven tools are beneficial in terms of the computational effectiveness and
real-time compression [60–62]. The incorporation of optimization algorithms can also
enhance assessment studies [63–65]. The feasibility of incorporating these tools into the
suggested assessment method can be investigated in future.
8. Limitation of Study
Every study has some limitations due to different reasons. In this study, limitations
are that this design is only for the location of Gwadar; if the location is changed the results
will be different. Another limitation is that Homer software is used to produce results and
these results are theoretical results, which are close to actual results but not actual results.
9. Conclusions
Pakistan imports electricity from Iran because of the absence of a national grid in
Gwadar city. Pakistan’s electricity constraints are also a hindrance for electricity transmis-
sion to Gwadar city. Therefore, microgrids were studied in this research. Wind turbines
and PV modules were selected to fulfill the 70 MW load demand.
(1) Three different models have been considered. Model 1 comprised wind turbines, PV
cells, a converter and a battery system. Model 2 consisted of wind turbines, PV cells,
a grid and a converter, while Model 3 consisted of wind turbines, PV cells, converters
and diesel generators.
(2) The LCOEs for Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3 were respectively USD 0.401/kWh,
USD 0.0347/kWh, and USD 0.185/kWh.
(3) The simple payback period of Model 1 is 6.70 years, for Model 2 it is 7.77 years, and
for Model 3 it is 4.98 years.
(4) Renewable fractions for of Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3 are respectively 100%,
73.3%, and 28.7%.
Due to the high LCOE of Model 1, and significant renewable fraction of Model 2, it
is evident that Model 2 is the optimal solution. This study will help the consumers of
Gwadar to have cheap electricity. Based on the success of a previously installed 100 MW
solar power plant in the city of Bahawalpur, the government of Pakistan can install the
devised model in the city of Gwadar. It is a promising approach instead of installing a
long-distance, 622.3 km transmission line from the city of Karachi to Gwadar. Under this
scenario, Pakistan would not need to import electricity from Iran. Furthermore, when
the electricity issue is resolved for Gwadar, new industries will open up and improve the
economy and lower Pakistan’s unemployment. The devised method is compared with the
previously presented counterparts and a summary is presented in Table 18. It is shown that
the devised method has a lower LCOE.
Table 18. Comparative studies elsewhere.
Objective
Year of Publication Scheme of Study Reference No.
NPC LCOE
PV-Wind-DG-Battery system and USD 8,649,054 and USD 0.382/kWh and
2020 [10]
Wind-DG-Battery system USD 8,966,700 0.396 USD /kWh
2022 Solar, Wind, Biogas USD 6.53 million USD 0.52/kWh [11]
2019 Solar, Biogas, Pumped Hydro Energy Storage USD 0.813 million USD 0.4864/kWh [12]
2018 Solar, Wind USD 149 million USD 7.91/kWh [54]
2019 Solar, Wind USD 1,747,413 USD 0.166/kWh [66]
Current Work Solar, Wind USD 28.3 million USD 0.0347/kWh
10. Direction for Future Work

(1) Homer Pro uses mixed integer linear programming to calculate the results. These find-
ings can be also be obtained by using alternate approaches such as heuristic algorithms.
(2) Prediction of renewable energy sources can be done by using artificial intelligence
techniques. These techniques can forecast the solar and wind energy requirements
and production. In future, these findings can be incorporated into a microgrid to
obtain results.
(3) If a microgrid is connected with the national grid and grid of Iran, then it will utilize
power accordingly. The values obtained can be compared and checked for feasibility.
(4) A techno-economic analysis of generation can be done focused on load variation.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.S.A., S.U.A., A.W. and S.M.Q.; methodology, M.S.A.,
S.U.A., A.W. and S.M.Q.; implementation, M.S.A. and S.U.A.; validation, S.U.A., S.M.Q., F.H. and
A.W.; formal analysis, M.S.A., S.U.A., F.H. and A.W.; investigation, S.U.A., A.W. and F.H.; resources,
A.W. and A.A.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S.A., S.U.A. and A.W.; writing—review and
editing, S.M.Q., A.W., F.H. and A.A.; visualization, M.S.A. and S.U.A.; supervision, A.W. and S.M.Q.;
project administration, S.M.Q., A.W. and A.A.; funding acquisition, S.M.Q. and A.A. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The authors would like to thank the Deanship of Scientific Research at Najran Uni-
versity for funding this work under the Research Collaboration Funding program grant code
(NU/RC/SERC/11/1).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to Bahria School of Engineering and Applied Sciences,
Bahria University Islamabad and Effat University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia for technical support. The
authors also acknowledge financial support from the Deanship of Scientific Research at Najran
University for funding this work under the Research Collaboration Funding program grant code
(NU/RC/SERC/11/1).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Norouzi, N. The Pahlev Reliability Index: A measurement for the resilience of power generation technologies versus climate
change. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 2021, 53, 1658–1663. [CrossRef]
2. Khan, H.; Khan, I.; BiBi, R. The role of innovations and renewable energy consumption in reducing environmental degradation in
OECD countries: An investigation for Innovation Claudia Curve. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 43800–43813. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
3. Norouzi, N.; Bozorgian, A.; Dehghani, M.A. Best Option of Investment in Renewable Energy: A Multicriteria Decision-Making
Analysis for Iranian Energy Industry. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. 2020, 22, 2250001. [CrossRef]
4. Bhol, S.; Sahu, N.C. Decarbonizing the grid by optimal scheduling of solar PV- WIND turbine-pumped hydro storage considering
application on heuristic algorithms: A comprehensive review. Int. J. Energy Res. 2021, 45, 18473–18497. [CrossRef]
5. Otsuki, T. Costs and benefits of large-scale deployment of wind turbines and solar PV in Mongolia for international power
exports. Renew. Energy 2017, 108, 321–335. [CrossRef]
6. Sunderland, K.; Narayana, M.; Putrus, G.; Conlon, M. Levelised cost of energy analysis: A comparison of urban (micro) wind
turbines and solar PV systems. In Proceedings of the 2016 51st International Universities Power Engineering Conference (UPEC),
Coimbra, Portugal, 6–9 September 2016; pp. 1–6.
7. Shoeibi, S. Numerical Analysis of Optimizing a Heat Sink and Nanofluid Concentration Used in a Thermoelectric Solar Still: An
Economic and Environmental Study. Environ. Res. Eng. Manag. 2021, 77, 110–122. [CrossRef]
8. Shoeibi, S.; Kargarsharifabad, H.; Mirjalily, S.A.A.; Zargarazad, M. Performance analysis of finned photovoltaic/thermal solar air
dryer with using a compound parabolic concentrator. Appl. Energy 2021, 304, 117778. [CrossRef]
9. Kazerani, M.; Tehrani, K. Grid of Hybrid AC/DC Microgrids: A New Paradigm for Smart City of Tomorrow. In Proceedings
of the 2020 IEEE 15th International Conference of System of Systems Engineering (SoSE), Budapest, Hungary, 2–4 June 2020;
pp. 175–180.
10. Agyekum, E.B.; Nutakor, C. Feasibility study and economic analysis of stand-alone hybrid energy system for southern Ghana.
Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2020, 39, 100695. [CrossRef]
11. Ampah, J.D.; Afrane, S.; Agyekum, E.B.; Adun, H.; Yusuf, A.A.; Bamisile, O. Electric vehicles development in Sub-Saharan
Africa: Performance assessment of standalone renewable energy systems for hydrogen refuelling and electricity charging stations
(HRECS). J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 376, 134238. [CrossRef]
12. Das, M.; Singh, M.A.K.; Biswas, A. Techno-economic optimization of an off-grid hybrid renewable energy system using
metaheuristic optimization approaches–Case of a radio transmitter station in India. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 185, 339–352.
[CrossRef]
13. Baghel, N.S.; Chander, N. Performance comparison of mono and polycrystalline silicon solar photovoltaic modules under tropical
wet and dry climatic conditions in east-central India. Clean Energy 2022, 6, 165–177. [CrossRef]
14. Jiang, S.; Song, Z. A review on the state of health estimation methods of lead-acid batteries. J. Power Sources 2022, 517, 230710.
[CrossRef]
15. Türkay, B.E.; Telli, A.Y. Economic analysis of standalone and grid connected hybrid energy systems. Renew. Energy 2011, 36,
1931–1943. [CrossRef]
16. IEA. World Energy Outlook; IEA: Paris, France, 2019; Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2019
(accessed on 10 July 2022).
17. Carvajal-Romo, G.; Valderrama-Mendoza, M.; Rodríguez-Urrego, D.; Rodríguez-Urrego, L. Assessment of solar and wind
energy potential in La Guajira, Colombia: Current status, and future prospects. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2019, 36, 100531.
[CrossRef]
18. Strambo, C.; González Espinosa, A.C. Extraction and development: Fossil fuel production narratives and counternarratives in
Colombia. Clim. Policy 2020, 20, 931–948. [CrossRef]
19. Calderón, S.; Alvarez, A.C.; Loboguerrero, A.M.; Arango, S.; Calvin, K.; Kober, T.; Daenzer, K.; Fisher-Vanden, K. Achieving CO2
reductions in Colombia: Effects of carbon taxes and abatement targets. Energy Econ. 2016, 56, 575–586. [CrossRef]
20. Valencia, G.; Benavides, A.; Cárdenas, Y. Economic and Environmental Multiobjective Optimization of a Wind–Solar–Fuel Cell
Hybrid Energy System in the Colombian Caribbean Region. Energies 2019, 12, 2119. [CrossRef]
21. Nieves, J.A.; Aristizábal, A.J.; Dyner, I.; Báez, O.; Ospina, D.H. Energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions analysis in
Colombia: A LEAP model application. Energy 2019, 169, 380–397. [CrossRef]
22. Haghighat Mamaghani, A.; Avella Escandon, S.A.; Najafi, B.; Shirazi, A.; Rinaldi, F. Techno-economic feasibility of photovoltaic,
wind, diesel and hybrid electrification systems for off-grid rural electrification in Colombia. Renew. Energy 2016, 97, 293–305.
[CrossRef]
23. Ram, M.; Aghahosseini, A.; Breyer, C. Job creation during the global energy transition towards 100% renewable power system by
2050. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 151, 119682. [CrossRef]
24. Abdul-Wahab, S.; Mujezinovic, K.; Al-Mahruqi, A.M. Optimal design and evaluation of a hybrid energy system for off-grid
remote area. Energy Sources Part Recover. Util. Environ. Eff. 2019, 44, 4964–4976. [CrossRef]
25. Al Ghaithi, H.M.; Fotis, G.P.; Vita, V. Techno-Economic Assessment of Hybrid Energy Off-Grid System—A Case Study for Masirah
Island in Oman. Int. J. Power Energy Res. 2017, 1, 103–116. [CrossRef]
26. Iten, M.; Liu, S.; Shukla, A. Experimental validation of an air-PCM storage unit comparing the effective heat capacity and enthalpy
methods through CFD simulations. Energy 2018, 155, 495–503. [CrossRef]
27. Ma, W.; Xue, X.; Liu, G. Techno-economic evaluation for hybrid renewable energy system: Application and merits. Energy 2018,
159, 385–409. [CrossRef]
28. Haoyang, W.; Lei, G.; Ying, J. The predicament of clean energy technology promotion in China in the carbon neutrality context:
Lessons from China’s environmental regulation policies from the perspective of the evolutionary game theory. Energy Rep. 2022,
8, 4706–4723. [CrossRef]
29. Li, B.; Haneklaus, N. The role of clean energy, fossil fuel consumption and trade openness for carbon neutrality in China. Energy
Rep. 2022, 8, 1090–1098. [CrossRef]
30. Waewsak, J.; Chancham, C.; Mani, M.; Gagnon, Y. Estimation of Monthly Mean Daily Global Solar Radiation over Bangkok,
Thailand Using Artificial Neural Networks. Energy Procedia 2014, 57, 1160–1168. [CrossRef]
31. Waewsak, J.; Ali, S.; Natee, W.; Kongruang, C.; Chancham, C.; Gagnon, Y. Assessment of hybrid, firm renewable energy-based
power plants: Application in the southernmost region of Thailand. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 130, 109953. [CrossRef]
32. Devrim, Y.; Bilir, L. Performance investigation of a wind turbine–solar photovoltaic panels–fuel cell hybrid system installed at
İncek region–Ankara, Turkey. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 126, 759–766. [CrossRef]
33. Suresh, V.; Muralidhar, M.; Kiranmayi, R. Modelling and optimization of an off-grid hybrid renewable energy system for
electrification in a rural areas. Energy Rep. 2020, 6, 594–604. [CrossRef]
34. Mahmoud, F.S.; Diab, A.A.Z.; Ali, Z.M.; El-Sayed, A.-H.M.; Alquthami, T.; Ahmed, M.; Ramadan, H.A. Optimal sizing of smart
hybrid renewable energy system using different optimization algorithms. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 4935–4956. [CrossRef]
35. Odoi-Yorke, F.; Owusu, J.J.; Atepor, L. Composite decision-making algorithms for optimisation of hybrid renewable energy
systems: Port of Takoradi as a case study. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 2131–2150. [CrossRef]
36. Aktaş, A.; Kırçiçek, Y. A novel optimal energy management strategy for offshore wind/marine current/battery/ultracapacitor
hybrid renewable energy system. Energy 2020, 199, 117425. [CrossRef]
37. Gao, X.; Wang, L.; Sun, H.; Tian, J.; Wang, Z.; Jiang, J.; Guo, W. Research on optimal configuration of hybrid energy storage system
based on improved CEEMDAN. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 1308–1318. [CrossRef]
38. Aziz, A.S.; Tajuddin, M.F.N.; Adzman, M.R.; Azmi, A.; Ramli, M.A.M. Optimization and sensitivity analysis of standalone hybrid
energy systems for rural electrification: A case study of Iraq. Renew. Energy 2019, 138, 775–792. [CrossRef]
39. Odoi-Yorke, F.; Woenagnon, A. Techno-economic assessment of solar PV/fuel cell hybrid power system for telecom base stations
in Ghana. Cogent Eng. 2021, 8, 1911285. [CrossRef]
40. Zahedi, R.; Ahmadi, A.; Sadeh, M. Investigation of the load management and environmental impact of the hybrid cogeneration
of the wind power plant and fuel cell. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 2930–2939. [CrossRef]
41. Halabi, L.M.; Mekhilef, S.; Olatomiwa, L.; Hazelton, J. Performance analysis of hybrid PV/diesel/battery system using HOMER:
A case study Sabah, Malaysia. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 144, 322–339. [CrossRef]
42. Hussain, S.; Khan, M.A. CPEC; A Roadmap of Region’s Development. FWU J. Soc. Sci. 2017, 11, 51–59.
43. Revised Tariff Petition CIHC, National Electric Power Regulatory Authority. 2018. Available online: https://nepra.org.pk/tariff/
Tariff/Petitions/2018/Revised%20Tariff%20Petition%20CIHC.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2022).
44. Gwadar, Pakistan Map. Available online: https://goo.gl/maps/TMBW8Eyu8huCUyYq6 (accessed on 25 July 2022).
45. Approval of the Authority with Respect to Extension of Tariff between NTDC & TAVANIR. Available online: https://nepra.org.
pk/tariff/Tariff/CPPAG/2020/PAR-137%20Amendment%2014-01-2020%201062-64.PDF (accessed on 28 July 2022).
46. Quetta Electric Supply Company, Electricity Demand Forcast. Available online: https://ntdc.gov.pk/ntdc/public/uploads/
services/planning/pms%20load%20forecasts%202014/qesco.pdf (accessed on 5 August 2022).
47. Shi, D.; Li, R.; Shi, R.; Li, F. Analysis of the relationship between load profile and weather condition. In Proceedings of the 2014
IEEE PES General Meeting Conference & Exposition, National Harbor, MD, USA, 27–31 July 2014; pp. 1–5.
48. HOMER Help Files; HOMER Pro Version 3.14.5; HOMER Grid: Boulder, CO, USA, 2021; Available online: https://www.
homerenergy.com/pdf/HOMER2_2.8_HelpManual.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2022).
49. Tahir, M.U.R.; Amin, A.; Baig, A.A.; Manzoor, S.; Haq, A.U.; Asgha, M.A.; Khawaja, W.A.G. Design and optimization of grid
Integrated hybrid on-site energy generation system for rural area in AJK-Pakistan using HOMER software. AIMS Energy 2021, 9,
1113–1135. [CrossRef]
50. Kamran, M.; Asghar, R.; Mudassar, M.; Ahmed, S.R.; Fazal, M.R.; Abid, M.I.; Zameer, M.Z. Designing and Optimization of
Stand-alone Hybrid Renewable Energy System for Rural Areas of Punjab, Pakistan. Int. J. Renew. Energy Res. 2018, 8, 2585–2597.
[CrossRef]
51. Basheer, Y.; Waqar, A.; Qaisar, S.M.; Ahmed, T.; Ullah, N.; Alotaibi, S. Analyzing the Prospect of Hybrid Energy in the Cement
Industry of Pakistan, Using HOMER Pro. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12440. [CrossRef]
52. Icaza-Alvarez, D.; Jurado, F.; Tostado-Véliz, M.; Arevalo, P. Design to include a wind turbine and socio-techno-economic analysis
of an isolated airplane-type organic building based on a photovoltaic/hydrokinetic/battery. Energy Convers. Manag. X 2022, 14,
100202. [CrossRef]
53. Reference Manual for the System Advisor Model’s Wind Power Performance Model (NREL, 2014). Available online: https:
//www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60570.pdf (accessed on 15 August 2022).
54. Zubair, M. Analysis of net-zero energy housing society in Gwadar Pakistan to mitigate the load shedding problem. J. Renew.
Sustain. Energy 2018, 10, 065906. [CrossRef]
55. Pakistan Interest Rates. Available online: https://countryeconomy.com/key-rates/pakistan (accessed on 19 August 2022).
56. Inflation of Pakistan(Report). Available online: https://www.sbp.org.pk/publications/Inflation_Monitor/2022/Aug/IM_Aug_
2022.pdf (accessed on 5 September 2022).
57. Lu, J.; Wang, W.; Zhang, Y.; Cheng, S. Multi-Objective Optimal Design of Stand-Alone Hybrid Energy System Using Entropy
Weight Method Based on HOMER. Energies 2017, 10, 1664. [CrossRef]
58. Toopshekan, A.; Yousefi, H.; Astaraei, F.R. Technical, economic, and performance analysis of a hybrid energy system using a
novel dispatch strategy. Energy 2020, 213, 118850. [CrossRef]
59. Pakistan Electricity Tariff. Available online: https://nepra.org.pk/consumer%20affairs/Electricity%20Bill.php (accessed on
20 September 2022).
60. Qaisar, S.M. A two stage interpolator and multi threshold discriminator for the Brain-PET scanner timestamp calculation. In
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment; Elsevier:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; Volume 922, pp. 364–372. [CrossRef]
61. Mian Qaisar, S.; Alsharif, F. Signal piloted processing of the smart meter data for effective appliances recognition. J. Electr. Eng.
Technol. 2020, 15, 2279–2285. [CrossRef]
62. Qaisar, S.M.; Khan, S.I.; Dallet, D.; Tadeusiewicz, R.; Pławiak, P. Signal-piloted processing metaheuristic optimization and wavelet
decomposi-tion based elucidation of arrhythmia for mobile healthcare. Biocybernet. Biomed. Eng. 2022, 42, 681–694. [CrossRef]
63. Abbas, A.; Qaisar, S.M.; Waqar, A.; Ullah, N.; Al Ahmadi, A.A. Min-Max Regret-Based Approach for Sizing and Placement of
DGs in Distribution System under a 24 h Load Horizon. Energies 2022, 15, 3701. [CrossRef]
64. Rani, S.; Koundal, D.; Ijaz, M.F.; Elhoseny, M.; Alghamdi, M.I. An optimized framework for WSN routing in the context of
industry 4.0. Sensors. Sensors 2021, 21, 6474. [CrossRef]
65. Basak, H.; Kundu, R.; Singh, P.K.; Ijaz, M.F.; Woźniak, M.; Sarkar, R. A union of deep learning and swarm-based optimization for
3D human action recognition. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 5494. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66. Adil Khan, M.; Aziz, M.S.; Khan, A.; Zeb, K.; Uddin, W.; Ishfaq, M. An Optimized Off-gird Renewable AC/DC Microgrid
for Remote Communities of Pakistan. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Electrical, Communication, and
Computer Engineering (ICECCE), Swat, Pakistan, 24–25 July 2019; pp. 1–6.

Sostenibilidad Suiza

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Sostenibilidad Suiza

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sostenibilidad Suiza

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral 1. Introduction

Sustainability 2022, 14, 16281. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142316281 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

1.1. Research Gap

1.1. Research Gap

1.2. Novelty 1.2. Novelty

Figure 1. Flow chart of methodology.

Figure 3. Daily load profile of Gwadar.

Figure 4. Monthly load profile of Gwadar.

2.2.2. Everyday Radiation and Clarity Index at the Site

2.2.2. Everyday Radiation

2.3.2. Wind Turbines

Pl,s(t) = Pinput (t) ∗ ηconv (3)

2.4. Economic Parameters

Table 2. Economic analysis.

Description Value Unit References

2.4.1. Interest Rate

2.4.2. Levelized Cost of Energy

2.4.3. Net Present Cost (NPC)

2.4.4. Salvage Value

2.4.5. Internal Rate of Return

2.4.6. Return on Investment

2.4.7. Simple Payback

2.4.8. Total Annualized Cost

Cann,tot = CRF (i, R proj ) x CNPC,tot (10)

2.4.9. Renewable Fraction

Table 3. Renewable fraction.

Quantity Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

2.4.10. Reliability Analysis

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Optimization Results

Component Name SizeSize Electricity

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14

Figure 11. Monthly electric production of solar PV and GT10.

Figure 11. Monthly electric production of solar PV and GT10.

Wind turbine: generic 10 kW

Wind turbine: generic 10 kW

Figure 13. Cost Graph for Model 1.

Table 6. Net present costs of Model 1 (USD).

Table 7. Annualized cost of Model 1 (USD).

Name Capital Operating Replacement Salvage Resource Total

Table 8. The optimization results of Model 2.

Architecture Cost (USD) System

Table 9. Optimized components details of Model 2.

Component Name Size Electricity Production (kWh/Year)

Sustainability 2022, 14, 16281 Table 9. Optimized components details of Model 2. 15 of 25

Component Name Size Electricity Production (kWh/Year)

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17

Figure 15. Monthly electric production of solar PV panels and grid.

Figure 15. Monthly electric production of solar PV panels and grid.

Electricity purchased from grid

Sustainability 2022, 14, 16281 16 of 25

Figure 17. Cost graph for Model 2.

Table 10. Net present costs of Model 2 (USD).

Table 12. The optimization results of Model 3 (USD).

Architecture Cost System

Architecture Cost System

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 o

Table To meet the required