17th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition.

Munich, October 2001

ELECTRICITY COSTS OF PV- HYBRID vs. DIESEL IN MICROGRIDS FOR VILLAGE POWER X. Vallv1, G. Gafas1, C. Arias2 J.J. Mendoza3, C. Torra4 Trama Tecnoambiental S.L., C/ Ripolls 46, 08026 Barcelona Spain Tel. 34 93 4463234, Fax 34 93 4566948, tta@tramatecnoambiental.es 2 EJSEDSA. C/ Independencia 60. Jujuy, Argentina. Tel: (0388) 423-9596, Fax: 423-9595, carias@ejesa.com.ar 3 Viceministerio de Energa e Hidrocarburos, Av. Mcal. Santa Cruz Esq. Oruro Piso 12 La Paz - Bolivia Tel 374050/51/52, Fax 0811-3859, jmendoza@energia.gov.bo 4 Institut Catal d Energia (ICAEN), Av. Diagonal, 453 Bis, tic, 08036 Barcelona Spain, Tel. 34 93 6220500, Fax 34 93 6220501, edificis@icaen.es
1

All over the world, many small villages, ranging from a cluster of a few houses up to a few hundred, are far away from the conventional electric grid. Electricity needs of rural villagers, related to their daily activities, can be easily t satisfied, due to the high economical costs and frequently environmental costs- that involves grid extension. Following the example of larger villages, electricity supply is traditionally solved in many of these locations with a genset microgrid. This solution has a limited performance and high operating costs, mainly due to the fuel consumption, but is being unfortunately accepted as if it was the only option available, and often hoping that someday the grid of real electricity will reach the village. Usually electric service is limited to a few hours a day, with frequent cut offs due to technical problems or fuel supply. It also has to be considered the high environmental risks of fuel transport, storage and spills. One of the few advantages is that initial investment is low and that if there is lack of money for operating, one can simply reduce the operating costs by not operating the service. In an effort to further understand the competitiveness of PV-hybrid w.r.t. genset microgrids, investment costs and operating costs have been analysed for several case studies in the bolivian Amazonia region (Baures and Huacaraje), Argentina (Pastos Chico and Lagunilla), in Spain (Rambla del Agua and Escuan) and also insular Ecuador (Galapagos islands). This has allowed to identify the costs related with the quality of service technology and organization schemes. It has been observed that technology related costs are only part of the costs associated to standalone village rural electrification and a good operation scheme has significant cost as well; the life-cycle costs related to technology (operation and amortization) of PV-hybrids can be smaller than these of the genset-only. This is only certain if users are introduced to a load management and also high efficient appliances. Thanks to batteries, system configuration enables a culture of rational and efficient use of energy, obtaining global costs reduction. Keywords: Rural electrification 1:Villages 2: Developing countries 3. INTRODUCTION Rural electrification is a basic service required for development. Traditionally, in developed countries, it has been done by subsidized grid extension into rural areas in the form of direct grants or a cross-subsidy from profitable industrial and urban electricity tariffs, or a combination of both. Grid extension, nevertheless, is not feasible for very large regions with scattered population and low electricity loads. Autonomous decentralized electrification is a much more appropriate and cost effective solution.[1] Governments often encourage these options, sometimes integrated with the national electrical scheme. An example in Europe is the French case where PVhybrid systems are a technical option for isolated dwellings and implementation is done with the standard rural electrification scheme (F.A.C.E.). In other cases there is no officially regulated off-grid electrification but governments subsidize investment in renewable energy application. This is the case of Spain where a non-profit PV users association, SEBA, has been providing basic electric services to rural users using PVhybrid technology, with some subsidies to the investment. Today, the diesel generator represents the most common means for supplying power in these areas, ranging applications from the kW up to a few 10 MW [2]. However, depending on the quality of the power supply and demand, in most cases the hybrid system is cheaper in the investment and the electricity production cost, as systematic costs analysis have revealed [3], [4]. On these 1. studies, application potential for stand-alone PV-only or PV-hybrid supplies stretched in the range of 0-50kW. PARAMETERS AFECTING COSTS In general, studies calculate the cost of electricity generation using PV-hybrid technology compared to diesel generation and even to large scale grid connected generation. Long time is usually spent on discussions to compare cost per kW.h with little agreement between experts. But rural electrification issues -and costs-, are much more complex than simple electrical generation and one often suspects that kW.h costs can been misleading. In an effort to investigate the associated issues to further understand costs and other advantages of PVhybrids w.r.t. diesel on real operating conditions we have visited and analysed nine villages of small size in South America and also in rural Europe; the Puna region of Argentina (Pastos Chico and Lagunilla), in mountain areas of Spain (Rambla del Agua and Escuan), in Bolivian Amazonia lowlands (Baures and Huacaraje), and Ecuador (isla Floreana, Galpagos). We have been looking to a spectrum of application, technology, operating schemes and tariff structures in an attempt to identify costs associated to each of the issues. APPLICATION. The general objective is the same for all villages: provide basic electricity at single phase for small domestic loads, small business and public illumination, but the geographical and socio-economic conditions will play an indirect role on investment and operating costs 2.

17th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition. Munich, October 2001

and also on technological options. A common feature, of course, is remoteness and isolation. Interestingly enough this is a feeling that we have when we see how difficult is to reach these places, but villages do not feel themselves isolated from their own sorrowdings and culture. Remoteness, in principle, should favour PV since it uses a local energy source, it requires less service than gensets and fuel transportation to the village is an important cost and effort. Done in drums by truck or canoe. But genset know-how is more universal because of car culture whilst with PV, the technology know-how is very far away. TECHNOLOGY. It is one of the main factors afecting costs from the point of view of energy generation there is a big difference between PV and diesel generation because of the stochastic nature of solar energy. But from a system and service to the user point of view, the biggest difference is batteries. When batteries are not used, as it is the case with most small diesel grids, there are two important drawbacks: supply is limited to a few hours per day and, worst of all, the model encourages a waste of energy. This happens because, gensets are operating at low load factor and reduction of load -by turing off the lights when not needed, for example- does not significantly reduce the hourly fuel consumption nor the periodic oil changes. From the operator point of view there is no advantage in load management. If batteries are included, then PV and rational use of energy make sense automatically because the marginal costs of PV (only array) and also small wind-generators has a similar lifecycle cost than that of fuel and less future uncertainties. Rational use of energy make sense because energy not instantly consumed can be stored. LOADS. Almost all loads are small and single phase. The most important need is illumination but also communications and small motors (radio, TV, sawing machines, pumps, saws, refrigeration). With diesel grids, that operate mainly a few hours at night, we have seen many users using battery powered radiocassettes and TV during the daytime as well as independent gensets operated individually by small business. These unsatisfied needs are potential clients for a 18 kW/day service offer. OPERATIONAL SCHEME. This factor is one of the most important ones, independently of technology, that can assure security and quality of supply to the users. It is very related to policy and is where we have seen a wider spread of options as well as costs. It can range from a well established utility operating under a specific regulatory framework for off-grid electrification, to a very fragile operator based exclusively on local human resources, often under funded and under trained. TARIFF AND ENERGY CULTURE. It is the third main factor afecting the overall costs of the service. The traditional tariff for grid-connected electricity is variable according to energy consumed and, in some countries, it also has a small fixed component. For off-grid villages, where almost all cost are fixed, operators have long learned that a fixed tariff is more adequate. Only in some cases where the regulated grid connected tariff system has to be applied by law, we see variable tariffs. Fixed tariffs could have the risk of encouraging waste of energy by the user, as it is the case in genset only grids, but there are clever methods to combine fixed tariffs and, at the same time, encourage RUE at the homes. One option is to have a fixed tariff with a small variable component related to energy consumption and introduce a

subsidy mechanism that decreases as consumption increases. This we have seen in CS1. Another, more advanced, [5], establishes a fixed tariff with several load levels to choose from that are limited by an intelligent energy dispenser-meter. This we have seen in CS3. Tariff structure, but also user training and encouragement to purchase efficient appliances, with partial subsidies if necessary, are one of the issues that most influence user satisfaction. It is amazing to see users in Spain using 25 kW.h/month to operate lights, TV, refrigerators, cold water laundry machines, etc. in a PV village and users in Bolivia consuming a larger amount of energy only to use an average of 2,6 light bulbs per house in a village with only 6 hrs a day of genset operation.[6][7] SUBSIDY. Public money is required to help operation of rural (as well as urban) infrastructures and village electrification is one of them. One should not question that this is necessary but the key is how can it be spent more effectively to complement the payment by the users. It can range from grants to the initial investment, to tariff based cross-subsidies and there are many good policies, but it is important that they do not have a negative influence on rational use of energy and local energy sources. Lower subsidies do not necessarily mean lower costs. LIFE-CYCLE COSTS. To calculate life-cycle costs data has been from the operators and site visits which have also allowed us to evaluate user satisfaction. A uniform scenario has been made and all costs have been included except interest rates and taxes. Subsidies are also analysed and distributed over the life cycle. Expenses can be grouped in four main categories. Related to local operation: local salaries, fuel and oil changes, and repairs and spare parts. Related to technology: amortization generation and distribution equipment. Related to the operational scheme: administrative and general overhead costs which include non-local management and technical staff, financial costs, amortization of general equipment and overheads. Related to energy culture: operating costs of local training, user's workshops and amortization of marginal costs of advanced energy dispensers-meter, high efficiency appliances, data loggers, etc. 3. CASE STUDIES 3.1. High plateaus of Argentina Lagunillas and Pastos Chico are villages representative of others in the Puna of Argentina. RES cover aprox. 80% of energy consumed. Diesel runs during low wind periods. Loads have been steadily increasing. Consequently, genset running hours have increased. The energy operator is extending the system with more renewable power, the cheapest option. The loads are domestic and public illumination and radio and PV and some small business. In the province of Jujuy in Argentina the former provincial public electrical utility has been privatised into two different companies, one to service the grid-connected clients -EJESA-, and another one -EJSEDSA-, exclusively for off-grid with a concession area of 28000 km2. The full tariff has been designed by the provincial regulating authority and is specific for off grid villages. It has a fixed component and a small variable component. The tariff must cover all costs by the energy operator, including amortization, and it is subsidized. Here a cross-subsidy, managed by the provincial government, ensures that a high quality service is provided and the user pay a similar

17th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition. Munich, October 2001

euro/month

fee to other grid connected rural users. There is a little subsidy on initial investment but there is on the full tariff. This is very significant for users that consume less than 12 kW.h/mo. (see table 1). An advantage is that it gives freedom to the private operator to design its own technological and financial strategy, but a drawback from the point of view of replicability could be that it requires a solid company with highly qualified management and financial back-up.
PROVINCE OF JUJUY (Argentina) Pastos chico Application: 236 inhabitants and 53 dwellings. Users supplied, 24:350 km to the service centre by road. Technology used : PV (0.92 kWp) , WIND (0.6 kW), diesel GENSET (17 kVA). Lagunillas Application: 296 inhabitants and 47 dwellings. Users supplied, 57; 250 km to the service centre by road. Technology used : PV (3.96 kWp) , WIND (0.6 kW), diesel GENSET (17 kVA). In both cases, loads, 24h/day: lighting (private and public), radiocassettes, small business. Excellent operational scheme: private provincial energy operator of 3,152 clients (09/2000) ; public authority responsible for inspection of quality of service Tariff, combined fixed fee (38.06$/mo) and variable (0.27 $/kWh with decreasing subsidy). All appliances, high efficiency. Decreasing subsidy on tariff: (<12 kWh/mo, 0.17$/kWh, fixed 33.97$ ; >12 kWh/mo, 50% )

4.000 3.500 3.000 2.500 2.000 1.500 1.000 500 0

USER FEE

Pastos Chicos Lagunillas

OTHER

TOTAL FUEL AND LUBRIFICANT SPARE PARTS AND MAINTENANCE A&G INFRAESTRUCTURE EXPLOITATION COSTS

TRAINING AND H.E.A.

EBITDA

TOTAL INCOME

INITIAL PAYMENT OF USERS

Fig.3. Cost analysis of case study 1

3.2 Rural regions of Spain ANDALUCA and ARAGN (Spain)
Escuan Application: Pyrinees area with 15 dwellings. Users supplied, 15; 120 km. to the service centre. Technology : PV (10.2 kWp), GENSET (10 kVA)GLP. Acceptable operational scheme, association of users (SEBA) Rambla del Agua Application: area with medium mountains and 44 dwellings.Users supplied,38; 250 km. to the service centre. Technology used : PV (10.23 kWp) , diesel GENSET (10 kVA) GLP. Acceptable operational scheme: a village users association federated to a larger association (SEBA). In both cases, loads, 24h/day: lighting (private and public), medium loads (refrigerators, TV,..) small business. Tariff, fixed fee for contracted EDA (Energy Deliverability Assurance). All appliances highly efficient. Energy dispensing with virtual limited storage for each house. Subsidy only on the initial investment

Fig. 1. PV-wind-genset plant of a village in Jujuy. Argentina

Fig. 4. PV array of La Rambla del Agua

Fig. 2. The energy operator is a highly skilled company with a good infrastructure

In Spain there is no policy on regulated off-grid rural electrification. Nevertheless, a users association has developed an operational scheme[8] to assure service. It is user based with the support of a general infrastructure. It is not as reliable as a large energy operator, but it is an acceptable option when there are roughly subsidies for and operating costs have to be minimal. Two representative villages were selected . Both villages are PV-hybrids with a very high level of energy culture.The initial investment was used to subsidise, apart from the PV equipment, load management equipment and high

LOCAL SALARIES

TARIFF SUBSIDY

INITIAL SUBSIDY

AMORTIZATION

TOTAL COSTS

EBIT

17th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition. Munich, October 2001

efficiency appliances. One of the main innovations was the introduction of energy dispensers-meters that limit the amount of daily energy to each user, allowing some freedom through a virtual battery. This results in an energy deliverability factor larger than 1 for the plant. That means that the sum of EDAs (Energy Deliverability Assurance) contracted to the users can be higher than the plant output. Tariffs are a flat rate according to EDA contracted

Fig. 7. Village grid in Baures electrification is done with a diesel genset and a low voltage aerial distribution grid. These two villages of about two thousand people each, are the main villages of its municipality, but within its boundaries there are also a few other villages and scattered non-electrified population. They have school and health care facilities and are suffering demographic pressure from migration of the more remote areas of municipality. In turn, many of its cititzens are trying to migrate to larger cities or overseas. No roads reach these Amazonian villages and acces is by motor-canoe or by small airplane. Transport of fuel is done though the river or 200 l drums. Repairs and maintenance of the diesel genset and the grid is done by technicians that have to be flown in. The grid supplies electricity to public and private illumination and a few refrigerators and TV from 18h to 24h. Daytime needs are solved by individual solutions, as the carpenter with an internal combustion engine to feed a mechanical saw, or a gas fridge for the hospital to keep vaccines. The diesel genset operates up to 6 hours a day and electricity is distributed with a low voltage electrical microgrid (220V, 50Hz). Surprisingly, there are no current general switches in the grid or in the houses; current limiters also are missing. Payment of users is based on installed power of each, independently of their real energy consumption. Baures tariff don distinguish the power of each appliance t ( 1,5 /month for each incandescent light). Huacaraje tariffs is more flexible and favour the use of fluorescent. Average payment is about 5 /mo per family. In general users are very unsatisfied with the service because of many blackouts. Initial investment on the diesel generation was provided historically by local governments and now the Ministry of Energy has to subsidize 29 million litres of diesel fuel per year to avoid the local cooperatives that operate the service from bankruptcy [1]. The fuel is subsidised (66% of the cost).

Fig. 5. Intelligent energy dispensers in each house contribute to develop a high RUE culture

1.600 La Rambla del Agua Escuan 1.100

600
euro/month

100
OTHER LOCAL SALARIES TOTAL FUEL AND LUBRIFICANT SPARE PARTS AND MAINTENANCE A&G INFRAESTRUCTURE EXPLOITATION COSTS AMORTIZATION TRAINING AND H.E.A. USER FEE TARIFF SUBSIDY INITIAL PAYMENT OF USERS INITIAL SUBSIDY TOTAL INCOME TOTAL COSTS EBITDA EBIT

-400

-900

Fig. 6. Cost analysis of case study 2 3.3 Bolivian Amazonia Pampa DEPARTAMENTO DE EL BENI (Bolivia) Baures Application: 1,959 inhabitants and 392 dwellings. Users supplied, 259; Access by river, small plane. Technology : GENSET (80 and 160 kVA).

Huacaraje
Application: 1,948 inhabitants and 389 dwellings. Users supplied, 216; Access by river, small plane. Technology : GENSET (80 and 160 kVA). In both cases, loads, 6 h/day: lighting and small loads (refrig., TVs).Needs not satisfied (hospital, business,...) Fragile operational scheme: cooperatives of users for each village with voluntary management Tariff: unmetered fixed based on installed load. Waste of energy. Low energy culture. Subsidy: initial investment and to the fuel ($0,33/l). Total of 29 Ml/years in Bolvia for 44 cooperatives Baures and Huacaraje in the Department of El Beni, Bolivia, are representative of many Amazonian villages and of other many villages in the world, where

Fig. 8. Carpenter has to produce this own energy during the islands 3.4 Pacific day because grid only operates at night.

17th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition. Munich, October 2001

ISLAS GALPAGOS (Ecuador) Floreana Island Application: 200 inhabitants and 55 dwellings. Users supplied, 34; >1000 km off mainland. Technology used : GENSET (60 and 145 kVA). Load, 13 h/day (9-13/15-24): lighting and medium loads (refrig., TVs). Excellent operational scheme: public owned private energy operator in charge of all diesel systems of the archipelago. Public authority (CONELEC) responsible for quality of service. Tariff at conventional-grid connected prices Energy efficiency not considered. Cross-subsidy including operational and amortization .

parts of the world, because shipment of fuel is done by the Ecuador and the operator pays mainland prices of fuel.
2500 Floreana 2000

euro/month

1500

1000

500

0
PA TA FE YM RI E EN FF OTH SU E T O B R IN F U SID IT TO IA SE Y SP TA L R AR L TO SU S E FU B PA EL LO TAL SID RT A CA IN Y ND L C S OM A L S A& ND UB ALA E G MA RIF RIE IN IN IC S F T A EX RA EN NT PL ES AN O TR CE IT U AT C IO TU N RE CO ST TR AM S AI O EB NI R NG TIZ ITD AN ATI A O TO D H N TA .E L .A. CO ST S EB IT

4. COST COMPARISON

Fig. 10.Village grid in Floreana Island

Most of the Galapagos archipelago is a Natural Park. Nevertheless, four of its islands are inhabited and a total of about 5 million liters of diesel per year are used to

Fig. 11Remains of the Jessica, that spilled 600,000 l of diesel in Jan.2001

generate electricity.We selected the smallest inhabited island , Floreana,, for the study.The operating scheme is representative of a situation where the users pay a standard grid tariff, and the energy operator is sustained through a cross-subsidy. The average load is about 100 kWh/(mo family) but a lot of energy is wasted by the use of incandescent lamps and no load management. Some users in the island are far from the grid and not connected.Small businesses have to operate their own gensets to complement the existing schedule. Although the island is 100 km from mainland and fuel has to be shipped for our study,it could be representative of other

4.1 Cost per kW.hour Following a traditional approach we have grouped all costs into the four categories described in 2 and divided by "consumed" energy. In an attempt to include in the analysis RUE we have defined the concept of "useful" kWh instead of consumed which in many cases, especially in diesel grids means "wasted". To convert from "consumed" to "useful we have multiplied by a load efficiency factor which is less than one if energy is wasted. From the user point of view if he consumes inefficiently because, for example, there are no swiches in the village, or the public lights are on at lunch time when the genset operates for two hours, only part of that consumed energy can be considered useful. If we compare the costs of the case studies we see that CS1 and CS2, the four villages with hybrid 24 h/day are producing the most expensive kw.h. CS1 addicionaly has significant infrastructure costs because is the only one that is part of a major regional operational scheme servicing more than 3000 scattered user over a territory of 28,000 km2. CS3 is producing apparently cheap kW.h because it only operates the genset only 6 hours a day at relatively high load factors. But the operational scheme is extremely fragile. There are no overhead costs, only voluntary management and when equipment breaks down they have to collect additional funds from very unsatisfied users to fund the repairs. When the gensets operate more hours, like in CS4 that operates 13 hours per day, then it is very interesting to observe that costs are higher than CS2 (PV-hybrid), which is a similar size village-. There is, nevertheless a very significant difference. Most of the costs of the genset system are operating costs, whilst most of the cost of the PV-hybrid is amortization.

IN IT IA L

US ER

Fig 12. Case study 4

17th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition. Munich, October 2001

7 6 5 euro/kWh 4 3 2 1 0
C S1 :c on su m ed C kW S1 C h S2 : us ef :c u on su l kW m h ed C kW S2 C :u h S3 : c sef ul on kW su h m ed C kW S3 C :u h S4 : c sef u on su l kW m h ed C kW S4 :u h se fu lk W h

than CS1 that are hybrids, with a similar operational quality management scheme, and provide a similar service to the users! 6. CONCLUSIONS As for rural electrification, these schemes have almost all costs fixed, and require subsidies independent of technological options. For reliable service overhead and infrastructure costs of qualified energy operator can be significant When comparing PV-hybrid vs. genset for domestic and small business loads(<50kWh/user)costs per user serviced is more indicative than costs per kWh. Typical costs are between 20 and 40 /user*month. The result is that for 18hs/day service (to satisfy basic needs) PV-hybrids have lower life cycle costs than genset if RUE is included in the scheme,and that neutral subsidies favour PV. To improve cost-effectiveness, research should be encouraged in the traditional PV technological aspects but also in load management, energy storage, or the new found concept of increased serviceability. As for social aspects, studying the users needs and trying to make an integral rural development would be the interesting research points.We strongly recommend using the fixed tariff as well as making an effort to build the local skills. Clear policies and energy efficiency values should be implemented.As a last point, subsidies should be neutral. 7. REFERENCES [1] X Vallv, J Serrasolses, PV stand-alone competing successfully with grid extension in rural electrification. 14th E. P.S.E.C., Barcelona, june-july 1997, pgs. 23-26. [2] J. Schmid, F. Raptis, P. Zacharias, PV Hybrid Plants State of the Art and Future Trends-, PV Hybrid Power Systems 2000, Aix en Provence, July 20th 2001. [3] K. Binder et al Photovoltaik-Diesel/Benzin-HybridSystemen Common Study of the University Karlsruhe & , Siemens Solar, Munich, Karlsruhe (1994). [4] P. Jourde, Y. Cyphelly, Examples of Parallel PV Hybrid Power Systems, PV Hybrid Power Systems 2000, Aix en Provence, July 20th 2001. [5] X. Vallv et al, Energy limitation for better energy service to the user, 16th E.P.S.E.C, Glasgow, May 2000. [6] EC DG TREN. Synergy 41041/D/99-012. Municipal Planning for energy supply in Beni and Pando regions. Final report. [7] R. Aliaga. Proyecto Reconstruccin, Ampliaciones y acometidas del Sistema de Distribucin de energa Elctrica de Huacaraje. Huacaraje, enero de 1999. [8] J. Serrasolses , X. Vallv, P. Chiva, PV systems for stand-alone electrification.the user point of view, 16th s E.P.S.E.C, Glasgow, May 2000 [9] EC DG TREN. AL/99/540. Development of RES investment projects in Small Islands Biosphere reserves. Final report.

Local Operator+Fuel and maintenance Energy Culture

Amortization Operational scheme

Fig 13. Comparative life-cycle cost per kWh

4.2 Cost per user But what the cost of kWh shows does not reflect qualitatively what we observed in the field. In CS1 and CS2 we saw satisfied users taking a lot of profit from little energy thanks to a good energy culture and the use of high efficiency appliances. Meanwhile in CS4 and, especially in CS3 we saw very unsatisfied users wasting a lot of energy to have only illumination and TV a few hours per day and small business not connected operating their own generators if they could afford it. A different approach is then to compare the costs per user serviced. This has been done and is shown in fig. 14. In an attempt to have a feeling for comparison between systems that operate on different schedules we have added a column with the costs for a standard 18 hrs/day service. To our surprise CS1, apparently the most expensive, turns out to be the cheapest!! CS3, the cheapest "produced" kwh but that is only supplying illumination at night time, turns out to be as expensive as a PV-hybrid in
100 90 80 euro/(month*user) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
ho ur so CS fs 1: er co vic rre CS e cte 2: dt 24 o ho 18 ur h so CS fs 2: er co vic rre e CS cte 3: dt 6 o ho 18 ur h so CS fs 3: er co vic rre CS e cte 4: dt 13 o ho 18 ur h so CS fs 4: er co vic rre e cte dt o 18 h

Local Operator+Fuel and maintenance Energy Culture

CS 1: 24

Amortization Operational scheme

Fig 14. Comparative life-cycle cost per user

Europe with medium-comfort standards. And CS4 which is a genset operating 13 hrs/day ends up costing double