CHAPTER 7

SOLAR ENERGY SCENARIO–

A CASE STUDY OF MYSORE DISTRICT
 CHAPTER 7

SOLAR ENERGY SCENARIO – A CASE STUDY OF MYSORE DISTRICT

This chapter deals with the Conventional Energy Conservation for Solar

Energy Consumption particularly Solar Water Heater System Consumption for

Mysore City of Mysore District. The study was conducted on the information based

on Socio-economic status, Information on SWHs, Demand and supply side

management, Rebate scheme, Cost related and energy saving, Seasonal Cost,

Information on Energy Consumption and Cost(Conventional Energy).

The above information was collected through structured questionnaire by

interviewing Households, Institution and Commercial establishment. The study is

based on the primary data analysis and three objectives is related to this chapter, first

objectives is to know how SWHs is economically viable to consumers, this analysis

have taken the profile of one household respondent of SWHs consumers, the second

objective is to know how SWHs consumption has an impact on conventional energy

saving and the third objective is to know how SWHs consumption is related on

income, family size and energy consumption.

Location of the Primary Study Area in Karnataka

154 
7.1 Profile of Mysore District:
Mysore is a historical and heritage city in the state of Karnataka, and

Karnataka is the 7th largest state in the Indian union. Mysore is the administrative seat

of Mysore district and one of the larger districts in Karnataka. Mysore was the former

capital of the kingdom of Mysore. Mysore is located at 770mtr above sea level at

N12°.18 , E 76°.42 and is 135 km from Bangalore, is the state capital. The

challenge for Mysore is to absorb and encourage growth, without compromising on its

heritage, culture and pleasant life-style. The population of Mysore city in 2001

census was 2,641,027 persons which became 3,001,127 persons by 2011 as per census

2011. The temperature ranges from 11ºC to 38ºC, thus the climate of Mysore district

is moderate variations in temperature in different seasons. The total area for Mysore

city as per Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) has shown an increase to

16789 hectares in 2011 from 9221 hectares in 2001. The city’s growth in the recent

years has been skewed towards southern part of Mysore i.e. the industrial areas

located in Nanjangud. MUDA/private developers have developed areas like

Vijayanagar and J.P. nagar. At the side of, the residential layout the private

developers have lined up to develop malls, convention center and golf course.

Electricity consumption scenario in Mysore comes under the area of Chamundeshwari

Electricity Supply Corporation Limited (CESC). In the year 2005, CESC carved out

of MESCOM and is managing distribution of electric power for the five districts. The

five districts under CESC controlled in Mysore, Chamarajanagar, Mandya, Hassan

and Madakeri. CESC caters power to the world renowned industries viz., Infosys

Technologies, TVS Motors, Nestle, Reid and Taylors, J.K Tyres etc. The major

electricity consumption categories are residential, commercial/institutional, municipal

services, industrial. Karnataka Renewable Energy Development Limited (KREDL)

155 
was established in 1996 as a nodal agency of the Government of Karnataka to

facilitate the development of Non-conventional / Renewable Energy sources in the

state. KREDL is the designated Agency for Implementation of Energy Conservation

Act in the state that regulates and enforces the provision contained in the Energy

Conservation Act. KREDL is also a designated Agency for Clean Development

Mechanism (CDM). KREDL recently established a new branch in Mysore city in

2012. Because, Mysore intends to develop Mysore city as Solar City as per the

guidelines laid by MNRE recently announced scheme for development of solar cities,

with aim to achieve minimum 10% reduction in projected demand of conventional

energy.

7.2 Segmentation Methodology of SWHs

The hot water has many applications. In the domestic category, it is typically

used for bathing while commercial and institutional category, hot water is used for

variety of purposes such as bathing, cooking and washing etc. all these hot water users

have been influenced for the installation of the SWH system. Therefore, SWH usage

is based on location, climate and economic status. The study has used segmentation

analysis for the usage of SWHs consumers.

Chapter 3 had explained about the methodology and data sources for the

primary data with sampling design. The methodology and data is used in analyzing

SWHs consumption.

Domestic – Urban Consumers:

This category primarily consists of middle and high class population residing

in ever-expanding urban areas in the Mysore city. This population is typically using

electrical geysers, SWHs and fuel wood for their hot water requirement. While

maximum share of the current usage of SWHs is held by this category of consumers

156 
because, this category operated during morning period causing demand to hot water.

Therefore, morning peak demand for most of the utilities has been found to be

between 6am to 10 am. If, these consumers used electric geysers which consume

energy between 200 or more units per month and high cost. Therefore, if consumers

use SWHs the energy can be reduced to a greater extend and also reduced is cost.

Institutional Consumers:

Consumer category consists of non-commercial establishments such as

hostels, educational institutions, hospital, orphanages, clubs, religious places, etc.,

The study has taken only hostels and hospitals for a better understanding. While hot

water requirement in hostels and hospitals is primarily during the morning period, hot

water requirement in other consumer categories varies and is not necessarily during

morning period. Further, consumers in this category do not necessarily use electrical

geysers to meet their hot water requirement. It is learnt that most consumers in this

category use non-electrical means to meet their hot water requirement. This fact

should be taken into account while designing promotional schemes for SWHs.

Commercial Consumers:

This consumer category consists of commercial establishments such as hotels,

malls etc. For the study purpose, only hostel is considered. This consumer’s category

uses electrical heating systems for their current hot water requirement. While hot

water requirement in hotels is primarily during the morning period, hot water

requirement for other consumer categories is not necessarily during morning period.

That fact needs to be taken into account while quantifying DSM benefits of the

SWHs.

157 
7.3 Balanced for Utility Motivated Promotional Scheme:

From above mentioned segmentation of methodology is utility of hot water

systems is based on the segments can be classified into two categories.

¾ Consumers using Electricity for Water Heating:

The important requirement for hot water in domestic urban and commercial

categories is met by using electricity. This demand forms part of the morning

peak hour requirement for distribution Utility. If, they installation SWHs

there will be in the reduction in demand on electricity network. The electricity

saved due to installation on SWHs would benefit into the following

consequences depending upon the demand-supply scenario of the utility.

• Reduction in load shedding by a utility during morning peak demand

hours

• Reduction of energy demand – supply gap

• Reduction in costlier power purchase if the utility is self – sufficient

• SWHs Consumers are benefited the cost reduction

¾ Consumers using Non-electric means for water heating:

Most of the domestic – urban, institutional consumers meet their hot water

requirement using non-electricity means such as fuel oil, gas coal , biomass,

fuel wood etc,. They do not use electricity for water heating, for various

reasons such as high cost of electrical systems non- availability of electricity

easy availability of biomass etc,. While most of the domestic and institutional

consumers consume kerosene, biomass and wood waste, industrial consumers

also use other fossil fuels such as fuel oil, diesel etc,. It should be noted that

biomass has several other applications such as fodder, thatching, electricity

generation etc. Further, biomass burning inside the house is a health hazard.

158 
 Installation of SWHs would free compare to other technology, while avoid

consumer looking into electrical geysers and improve health conditions,

especially in case of women and children. There is no doubt that, from broad

environmental standpoint, it makes imminent sense to convert all water

heating technology from other fuels to solar. Therefore, it makes imminent

sense to promote solar water heaters among domestic consumers.

However, since these consumers are currently not drawing electricity from the

grid for hot water purposes, the distribution utility will not benefit due to

installation of SWHs by these consumers. Therefore, it is necessary to

identify suitable scheme for promoting of solar water heating systems among

these consumer categories.

¾ Rebate Scheme:

The rebate scheme is reduction of cost by consumers. If, consumer’s installed

SWHs Government has given rebate scheme the electricity bill is some extent,

which would enhance financial viability of installation of SWHs. Therefore,

the government benefited to promotion for solar water system utility is helps

in reducing the high cost of energy purchased from other states, to manage the

little bit gap between demand and supply. However, consumers and

Government are benefited by this scheme.

7.4 Major findings for the Primary data

7.4A Socio-Economic Status of Respondents in Households

The study has made an attempt to an analyse the socio – economic status of

the respondents of households (Domestic-Urban), Institutions and Commercial that

helps to evaluate and understand based on the information is respect of occupation,

income, family size, family type, education level and consumption of water cost.

159 
 Table 19 depicts the profile of Socio – economic status of household’s

respondents. The sl. no. 1 in this table displays the sex ratio of the respondents. It was

found that only 25percent respondents male and 75 percent female. It’s clearly

understood that, the majority of the household respondents were female.

Table 19: Socio-Economic Status of Household’s Respondents

Sl. No. Socio-Economic status Category Frequency Percentage
1 Sex Male 94 25
Female 277 75
2 Age 18 - 25 35 9
26 - 35 142 38
36 - 45 108 29
46 - 55 45 13
56 - 65 41 11
3 Occupation Self Employ 92 25
Private Employ 125 34
Govt. Official 108 29
Others 46 12
4 Education level SSLC 0 0
PUC 9 2
Under Graduate 208 56
Post Graduate 102 28
Others 52 14
5 Family income per month Up to Rs. 10000 10 3
10001 - 20000 57 15
20001 - 30000 133 36
More than 30000 171 46
6 Family type Nuclear 346 93
Joint 25 7
7 Family Size Only 3 members 62 17
4 -6 Members 284 76
above 6 25 7
8 Cost of Water per month Less than Rs. 200 130 35
Rs. 201 - 300 170 46
More than 300 71 19
Sources: Primary survey data
Note: Households respondents no. 371(n= 371)

Sl. No. 2 mention about the, Age of the Household’s respondent. It was

observed that, the respondents between 26-35 years age groups was 38 percent and

the respondents is the age group of 36-45years was 29percent respondents are

enthusiastic because they are more family responsibility.

160 
 Chart 12: Socio-Economic Status of Respondents from Households
Chart 12a: Age of Households Respondents

Sl. No. 3, chart 12b shows that, the study are comprised with well educated

respondent occupation, 34percent of respondent were occupied by private sector that

is include technical assistant, technicians and engineers (BEML, Infosys), medical

store manager, 29percent were Government officials that included professors, high

school teachers and Bank managers, 25percent were self employed like contractors

and doing business, and 12percent is the category others that included retire officials.

Chart 12b: Occupation of Households Respondents 

 
 

Sl. No. 4 and chart 12c shows that, the study observed the Education Level of

the respondents. About 56 percent belonged to under graduate level of education

respondents like engineers, doctors, high school teacher, first division clerks, about

28percentage of respondents had post graduation degree they included professors,

Bank managers etc. and 14 percent of respondents had technical and skilled

161 
qualification (diploma and ITI). Only 2 percent were educated up to PUC level. Since,

the household respondents are educated, they were highly informed with recent

technologies and were aware of the environmental friendly energy sources.

Chart 12c: Education Level of Households Respondents

Sl. No. 5 and chat 12d shows that, Family Income per month of the

respondents. 46percent of respondents had income more than Rs.30000 they were

considered to high income respondents like professors, engineers, managers,

contractors and other sources. 36 percent of respondents belong to income between

Rs. 20001 to Rs. 30000 they were middle class level of respondents. The respondents

had no difficult is the installation of solar water heater system.

Chart 12d: Family Income of Households Respondents

 
 

162 
 Sl. No. 6 in the table depicts the Type of Family of the respondents. The study

observed that the nuclear families were very high when compared to joint family. The

93 percent of nuclear families are staying in the average of 4 members were as the

higher side. Only 7 percent of the families belong to joint family and their average

size of the family was 10. Ex: 16 members in one family in JP Nagar, area whose

annual income is more than Rs. 30,000.

Sl.No.7 and chart 12e shows that, the Family Size of the respondents between

4-6 members of groups are 76 percent, only 3 members family was 17 percent and

above 6 member’s family were 7 percent. Based on the family size related to solar

water heater capacity and consumption is increased.

Chart 12e: Family Size of Households Respondents

 
 
Sl. No. 8 in the table shows that Cost of Water per month of the respondents.

The consumption of water has an impact of the solar water heater consumption.

Therefore, government has been to provide concession in water bill of consumers

while using SWHs depending up on family size. In this observation 46percent

respondents paid at Rs.201 – 300, 35percent respondents paid at less than Rs. 200 and

19percent respondents paid more than Rs.300.

163 
7.4B Socio-Economic Status of Institution and Commercial Respondents
Table 20, chart 13a shows that, Socio-Economic Status of Institution and

Commercial respondents. The study observed that of Institutional hospitals and

Hostels require hot water because, more numbers of students and patient’s necessary

use hot water. Therefore the study, has selected government hospitals and hostels and

private hospitals and hostels. Data was collected through questionnaire from

government’s institutions 24 percent and from private institutions 76 percent.

Table 20: Socio-Economic Status of Institution and Commercial Respondents

Sl.No. Socio-economic status Category Frequency Percentage
1 Hospital and Hostel Govt. 7 24
Private 22 76
2 If hostel, no. of students 20 -60 7 44
61-100 4 25
101-250 2 12
251-500 1 6
more than 500 2 13
3 If hospital no. of patients per
month 25-50 8 62
51-100 3 23
101-150 2 15
4 Respondent position Warden 12 41
Warden assistant 4 14
In charger 7 24
Nurse 4 14
Doctor 2 7
Commercial
1 Respondent position Manager 5 50
Receptionist 2 20
In charge 3 30
No. of paying guest per
2 month 10 - 30 4 40
31 – 50 4 40
51 - 70 2 20
Sources: Primary survey data
Note: Institutional respondent’s no. 29(Hospital sample size is13, Hostel sample size 16) Commercial
respondent’s no. 10
 

164 
Chart 13: Socio-Economic Status of Institution and Commercial Respondents

Chart 13a: Institutional respondents

Table 20, Sl.No. 2 and Chart 13b shows that, In Hostels, Students are

required hot water. Given the numbers of hostels installed solar water heater. 20 -

40groups of students utilized at 44percent, 25percent of students groups is 61-100,

more the 500 groups is 13percent. Ex: JSS hostel like boys, girls, nursing, pharmacy

hostels students are approximately 1500 and Saraswathi Hostel mentioned that

900students are staying that hostel. More than 500students required for SWHs. but,

SWHs installed capacity at only 500lit. The 12percent of students are 101-250groups

and only one hostel at 6percent of 251- 500groups of students.

Chart 13b: Students in Hostel

165 
 Table 20, Sl.No. 3 and Chart 13c shows that, In Hospitals since patients

required hot water for purpose hospitals owners installed the solar water heater and

also geyser system. The Patients admitter per month is grouped between 25 – 50

patients is 62% and patients admitted between 51-100 patients are 23% and patients

admitted between 101 to 150 patients are 15%. All the above information is hospitals

were given by respondents like wardens (41%), warden’s assistants (14%) hospital in

charge (24%), nurses (14%) and doctors (7%)

Chart 13c: Position of Institutional Respondent

In the commercial sector, like hotels also required hot water. For this

purpose, hotels have installed solar and geyser technology for heating water. The

respondents of hotels are managers at 50 percent, receptionist at 20 percent and in

charger at 30 percent. The customers or guests who come to hotels per month range

between 10-30 grouped at 40 percent, 31-50 grouped at 40 percent and 51 – 70 groups

at 20 percent.

The socio-economic status of SWH consumers of Domestic Urban,

Institutions and Commercials sectors are taken into consideration with a purpose to

identify the consumer behavior of utility of solar water heater systems in their

respective establishment.

166 
 7.4C Institution and Commercial sector information on SWHs and Energy

Table 21: Information on SWHs and Energy in Institutions

Information on
SWHs Category Frequency Percentage
Hospital
and Hostel Capacity of SWHs 500ltr 12 41
1000ltr 17 59
Panels Boards 4 - 49 27 93
50-75 2 7
Type of SWHs Flat plate 20 69
ECT 9 31
Switched in the year 2000-2005 3 10
2006-2013 26 90
Reason of installation Required hot water 15 52
Energy bill saving 2 7
Problems of fire wood 12 41
Satisfaction of SWHs Yes 3 10
No 26 90
Saving electricity bill Yes 9 31
No 20 69
Alternatives used Geyser 21 72
Fire wood 8 28
Sources: Primary survey data
Note: sample size of institution is 29
 
Table 21 exhibits that, information on SWHs institutions. In institution

category 59 percent used, 1000ltr capacity of SWHs and 41 percent used capacity

500ltr. The panel’s boards were 93 percent is respect of hostel and hospital and is

based on the students and patient in hostels and hospitals respectively. Where even

there were more than 1000 students of in hostels they used 50-75 panels board

systems. Ex: JSS hostels in Mysore, students are more than 1000, so, installed

70panels. 69percent of the hostels and hospitals used Flat Plate collector and ECT was

31percent is usage. In the group of 2006 -2013, 90percent of institution switched on

the SWH because government made it mandatory rules for installation of SWHs. The

hospitals and hotels main reason of installation of SWH is that about 52 percent

required hot water. In respect of fire wood about 41percent respondents said fire

167 
wood problems and only 7 percent of institutions said electricity cost reduction. In

case of institutions they opined that, SWHs did not satisfy because hospitals used both

geyser and SWHs and did not find out difference in electricity cost.

Table 22: Information on SWHs and Energy in Commercial sector

Information on SWHs Category Frequency Percentage
Hotels Capacity of SWHs 500ltr 2 20
1000ltr 8 80
Panels Less than 10 7 70
More than 10 3 30
Type of SWHs Flat Plate 6 60
ECT 4 40
Switched on year 2000-2005 2 20
2006-2013 8 80
Reason of installation Required hot water 8 80
Energy bill save 1 10
Problems of fire wood 1 10
Satisfaction of SWHs Yes 2 20
No 8 80
Save electricity bill Yes 3 30
No 7 70
Other fuel used Geyser 9 90
Fire wood plant 1 10
Sources: Primary survey data
Note: sample size of Commercial is 10

Table 22 exhibits that, information on SWHs in commercial establishment

used 80 percent with 1000ltr of capacity of SWHs and 20percent 500ltr capacity. The

panels board were used is 70 percent of hotels. During group of 2006 -2013,

80percent of hotels switched on the SWH because government made mandatory rules.

In respect of hotels the main reason for installation is 80 percent required hot water,

10percent said fire wood problems and only 10 percent of electricity cost reduction. In

commercial establishments hotel managers said that, SWHs did not satisfy because

hotel was used both geyser and SWHs and there is no difference is electricity cost.

Therefore in these commercial and institution sector energy is more used but

less energy is conserved. But, household’s consumption of energy is possible for

168 
conservation of conventional energy sources. The next analysis examined is that of

domestic urban sector.

7.4D Households information on SWHs, Demand and supply side management,

Rebate scheme, Cost related and Energy saving.

Table 23: Information on SWHs in Households

Sl.no. SWHs Information Category Frequency Percent
1 SWHs Capacity 100ltr. 7 2
200ltr. 90 24
250ltr. 159 43
300ltr. 93 25
500ltr. 22 6
2 SWHs Technology Flat Plate 121 33
ECT 250 67
3 SWHs Quality Excellent 110 30
Good 261 70
Poor 0 0
4 SWHs Switched on year 1995-2000 30 8
2001-2005 66 18
2006-2010 159 43
2011-2013* 116 31
5 SWHs important in life V. important 60 16
Important 299 81
Not important 12 3
Sources: Primary survey data
Note: Households respondents no. 371(n= 371), V-very important, ECT-Evacuated Tube.
2013* indicated at as on July and August, 2013
 

Table 23, shows that, information on SWHs in households respondents in

Mysore city. In this study area, Sl. No. 1, chart 14a, indicated that, SWHs capacity

most of the households using 250ltr, in other words, the 250ltr capacity of SWHs used

was 43% of household, 25 percent of households used 300ltr and 24 percent of

households used 200ltr. This table clearly understands that the family size and income

level is based on the respondents purchasing SWHs.

169 
Chart 14: Information on SWHs in Households

Chart 14a: SWHs capacity usage in households

The Sl. No. 2 and chart 14b, is shows that next aspect is Technology of

SWHs, the table indicated that SWHs is manufactured two types. One is Flat Plate

collector another Evacuated Tube. These are two technologies used has hot water

system in solar energy, it is a thermal connector. The study conducted most of that

households respondents used ECT systems. Because, easy to clean tubes. Because,

water supply in Mysore city, both of soft and hard water. In soft water, there is a no

problem of the system but in hard water, SWH systems salt is deposited in tube and plate.

ECTs can be easily cleaned and safe to use. For that purpose, 67 percent of households

installed the ECT system and 33 percent of households used Flat plate system.

Chart 14b: Technology Respondents

 
 

170 
 Table 23, Sl.no.3, and Chart 14c displays about, SWHs Quality. The

households are evaluated the systems quality. About 70% of the household’s

respondents agree that the SWHs is good, 30percent of the households to agree the

SWHs has excellent technology because reasons of time saving, energy conservation,

environment friendly. Therefore this table clearly understands that, SWHs is

beneficial to consumers.

Chart 14c: SWHs Quality

 
 

Table 23, Sl.No. 4 and Chart 14d shows that, SWHs Year of Installation is

the household’s respondents. This chart clearly understood that, between the grouped

of 2005-2010 is 43% installed that year. The Karnataka government has made

mandatory for installation solar water heater systems for a new building. Therefore,

31percent of Mysore city households are switched on year group is 2011 - 2013. They

are familiar about energy cost and energy usage is very high for that purpose they

installed the solar water heater systems. Respondents are aware that it is environment

friendly sources. 18percentage of the household have installed the SWHs during the

year the group of 2001-2005. During that time government did not frame any rules or

any other scheme. Only 8 percent of households installed SWHs during the period

1995-2000.

171 
 Chart 14d: SWHs installation year

 
 

Table 23, Sl.No. 5 and Chart 14e shows that, respondents said, 81 percents of

households SWHs in the households is important in life because, it is saves energy,

cost, time, for that purpose it is necessary and important persons using it. 16 percent

of it is households said it is very important. The SWHs is safe when compare to

conventional energy sources. Therefore, for all reasons households agree that it is

important is using SWH in households.

Chart 14e: SWHs Important in Life

172 
 Table 24: Demand and Supply Side Management in households
Sl. no. Information on DSM and SSM Category Frequency Percent
1 Company of SWHs Solarizer 146 39
Supreme 64 17
Rashmi 27 7
Disol 32 9
Tata BP 36 10
Others 66 18
2 Influence on Purchasing Government 23 6
Suppliers 177 48
Pamphlets 77 21
Friends 49 13
Others 45 12
3 Demand for purpose Bathing 298 80
washing 0 0
Both 73 20
4 Required for demand SWHs Morning 348 93
Afternoon 1 1
Evening 22 6
5 Seasonal demand required Summer 24 6
Winter 154 42
Monsoon 193 52
Sources: Primary survey data
Note: Households respondents no. 371(n= 371),

Table 24 exhibits that Demand and Supply side management of SWHs. In the

table 24 and Sl.No.1 describes to which company the SWH belongs to are influenced

is purchasing. SWHs based on their requirement and demand for hot water. About

39percent of households used Solarizer Company, 17percent supreme, 10percent Tata

BP, 9 percent Disol and 7percent Rashmi systems. But 18percent of household used

different systems like emmvee, anu, kotak etc.

Table 24, Sl.No.2 and chart a 15a show that, influenced to purchasing SWHs

is most important and are influenced on the basis of several factors. About 48 percent

have influenced by suppliers and agents and have given the direction and benefits of

SWHs, 21 percent of respondents were influenced by pamphlets, 13 percent by

friends, 12 percent from others like TV, radio, magazines etc., and 6 percent

government department give the suggestions for installation of solar water heater.

They also gave the information and benefits and rebate scheme offered.

173 
 Chart 15: Demand and Supply Side Management

Chart 15a: Influenced to Purchasing SWHs

Table 24 and Sl.No. 5, shows that, Seasonal Hot Water Requirement of

households. 52 percent of respondents required hot water during Monsoon. 42 percent

respondents required hot water during winter and only 6 percent of the respondents in

summer during morning time only. Because SWHs does not work is full capacity in

winter and monsoon season, so at that time respondents use for fire wood, geyser,

boiler and gas. This is the only one defect of solar water heater system in facing. So if

electricity back up is installed in SWHs. Therefore, the usage of electricity increased

and the electricity bill will be high.

Table 25: Information on Rebate Scheme and Subsidies in Households

Sl.no. Scheme and Subsidy Category Frequency Percent
1 Reason for installation
of SWHs Saving Elect. Bill 114 31
Rebate scheme 34 9
Govt. mandatory 79 21
Time saving& problem of wood 61 17
Environment concern 83 22
2 Taken subsidy Yes 132 36
No 239 64
3 Getting Rebate
scheme Yes 287 77
No 84 23
Sources: Primary survey data
Note: Households respondents no. 371(n= 371)

174 
 Table 25 and chart 16, clearly understand that information on Rebate scheme

and subsidy for SWHs. The Sl.No. 1 and chart 16a explains about the reason for

installation of SWHs. 31 percent of respondents were for installation of SWHs is

because of saving electricity bill, 22 percent of household’s respondents opined

environment concern, 21percent of respondents said because of Government made it

mandatory for installation of SWHs and 17percent respondents said time saving and

the problem of fire wood availability. Only 9percent of the household’s installed

rebate through scheme.

Chart 16: Information on Rebate scheme and Subsidies

Chart 16a: Reason for SWHs installation

Chart 16b: Subsidy and Rebate scheme holders 

175 
 Table 25, Sl.No. 2 & 3 and Chart 16b show that subsidy holders and Rebate

scheme holders for installation SWHs. In respect of subsidy of SWHs, 64percent of

respondents did make the subsidy. Only 36percent of respondents have taken

subsidy. But 77percent of respondent knew the electricity rebate scheme and are

availing this scheme, about 33percent of respondents are not aware of the scheme and

are not interested to applying the rebate application form.

Different fuels used for water heating (Earlier/Before using SWHs)

Sources Frequency Percentage

Fire wood 140 38
Electricity 217 58
LPG 14 4
Total 371 100

This table clearly understands that, different fuels used for water heating

before installation of SWHs in households of Mysore city. The sources used earlier

were fire wood, Electricity and LPG. Therefore, according to survey analysis, 58

percent of consumers used electricity to heat water, 38 percent of consumers used fire

wood and 4 percent of consumers used LPG for heating hot water.

Therefore, Hypothesis testing 2 and 3 has taken Electricity consumers only

i.e., 217 households. Because, this analysis shows that, Energy consumption and cost

has reduced after the installation of SWHs in households.

Information on Cost related and Energy Utility and Saving:

Table 26 exhibits that, information on energy usage and energy cost of before

and after installation SWHs. Information in respect of after SWHs installation there

reduction of energy cost and energy usage and seasonal cost in respect of household’s

respondents. About 59 percent respondents opined that before energy cost was

176 
 Rs.501-1000, about 17 percent of households paid electricity bill which was more

than Rs 1000/-, 24percent of respondents up to Rs.500/-.

After the installation of SWHs, 62 percent the group between of Rs.301-500

to reduce the electricity cost, 20percent of respondent up to Rs.300 reduced and

18percent of respondent more than Rs.500 reduced the electricity cost per month. But

due to seasonal variation the cost affected the households.

Table 26: Information on Cost related and Energy Utility and

Save in Households
Sl.no. Cost and Energy Unit Category Frequency Percent
1 Before Electricity Bill(cost) Up to Rs.500 53 24
(Before installation of SWH) Rs. 501-1000 127 59
More than 1000 37 17
2 Before Energy Utilization
(Units) Up to 200units 60 28
(Before installation of SWH) 201-500units 121 56
More than 500units 36 16
3 After Electricity Cost
Reduction from SWHs Up to Rs.300 43 20
(After installation of SWH) Rs.301-500 135 62
More than 500 39 18
4 After Electricity Unit
reduction from SWHs Up to 100units 45 21
(After installation of SWH) 101-200units 138 64
More than 200units 34 15
5 Seasonal cost per month Less than Rs.300 88 41
Rs. 301 - Rs. 800 129 59
Sources: Primary survey data
Note: Households respondents no. 217(n= 217), only electricity consumers

    The information on before energy utilization usage for households, 56percent of

respondents to used electricity of the group is 201-500units, 28percent respondents to used

group of up to 200units, 16percent respondents to used electricity more than 500unit.

But after the SWHs installation, 64percentage of respondents reduced the

electricity is the group of 101-200 units, 21percentage respondents reduced in the

group of up to 100units, 15percent reduced electricity more than 200 units.

177 
 Therefore, the energy conservation and cost reduction after the solar water

heater installation. This respondent’s observation is with reference to hypothesis

testing 2 and hypothesis test 3.

 

7.5 Hypothesis Testing 2:

To Examine Solar Water Heater Consumption to Reduce the Energy Consumption in

Mysore city

H0: There is insignificant/equal reduction in the Energy Consumption

H1: Installation of SWHs consumption has significantly reduced Energy

Consumption

This hypothesis testing is comparing EWH and SWH only for two related

samples of usage of energy unit of before and after installation of solar water heater.

The test used paired sample test and observed that positive. If these is reduction in

electricity or not in households and it is possible to solve the problem of gap between

demand and supply.

Table 27: Paired Samples Test of Energy Consumption(Electricity Unit)

Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Std. Interval of the
Std. Error Difference Sig.
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df (2-tailed)

Pair Before
1 Electricity unit -
-0.060 0.274 0.019 -0.097 -0.023 -3.220 216 0.001
After Electricity
unit
Note: significance level at 5% and 2-tailed

Table 27, shows that, the paired samples test before and after electricity units.

This table clearly understands that, Calculated ‘t’ value is -3.220 is significant at 5%

level and 2-tailed test. Therefore, it rejects the null hypothesis at 5% level of

178 
significant and accepts the alternative hypothesis. Therefore, electricity units will be

reduced after installation of SWHs technology. In other words after installation of

SWHs there is reduction in the electricity unit. There is significantly (positive)

reduced in electricity unit after installation of SWHs and it has also helped to manage

the gap between demand and supply in Mysore city.

7.6 Hypothesis Testing 3:

To examine the solar water heater consumption for economic viability of cost

effectiveness in Mysore city

H0: SWHs is insignificantly cost effectiveness when compared to the

conventional energy.

H1: SWHs is significantly cost effectiveness when compared to

conventional energy.

To test the SWH consumption in respect of economic viability and cost

effectiveness two types of analysis has been taken into consideration. It is based on

the profile of household respondent. The two analyses are,

• Techno-Economic analysis: Technology and economically benefited

• Life Cycle cost analysis: Cost is benefited to consumers

The sample is referred in respect of one profile of the respondent residence is

Siddarathanagar, Do.no.No.9/15, KaivalyaMargai’s respondent name is Dr. Swamy,

aged 55years, occupation professor, monthly income group was more than Rs.30000,

a joint family, 5 members are living his house, his qualification Ph.D. His family

lives since 2001 in Mysore. His Monthly water bill amounted to Rs.245, installed

solar water system in the year 2005, with SWHs capacity of 300ltrs which belongs to

Company (Solarizer). He was influenced by the suppliers and agent for installation of

SWHs. The model is Flat Plate SWHs; He is the opinion that technology is good. He

179 
pays monthly electricity bill of Rs.660 (As on July-2013) and electricity unit was in

the group of 101 to 200units. He states the reason for installation of SWHs was to

save electricity and time. Before, installation he used electric geyser and fire wood

(20lit geyser) with cost of approximately Rs. 5000. Earlier he paid electricity bill of

Rs.1100/- and using electricity unit in the group of 201 to 500 units. After purchasing

SWHs amount paid was Rs. 32,000/- with installation charges and he has also faced

the problem of seasonal effect of the SWH during that time he used for electric

geyser. The purpose of usage of hot water was only for bathing and during winter and

monsoon season. SWH was connected with the electric back up. He has not taken any

subsidy but is getting a monthly rebate scheme in the electric bill. Finally, he was of

the opinion that, SWHs has saved time, cost, and environment friendly, which is

very important to consumers. Nowadays, it is safer when compare to electric shock

proof. Finally since it is in all way considered he suggested to “Going for installation

of SWHs”.

In order to calculate the technical and economic (cost) feasibility two types of

analysis is based on Techno-economic analysis and Life Cycle cost analysis.

Table 28 depicts the analysis in respect of both aspects of technology and cost

with regard the electric and solar water heaters.

Table 28: Techno – Economic and Life Cycle Cost Analysis 

Sl.no. Electric Water Heater (EWH) 5years cost
Installed year 2001-2005
Electric Geyser initial cost Rs.5,000
1 Monthly electricity cost Rs.1,100
2 Annually Electricity cost 13,200
3 Repaired 2times cost in five years Rs.2,500 Rs.2,500
4 Five years Electricity cost of Rs.13,200*5 Rs.66,000
Total LCC of Electricity in five years Rs.68,500
Sources: Primary survey data
Note: Household respondent selected profile

180 
 5years
Sl.no. Solar Water Heaters (SWH) cost
Installed year 2005-2010
SWHs initial cost RS. 32,000
1 No monthly bill 0
2 Annually Bill (cost) 0
3 Seasonally effect therefore, used Electric geyser per
month Rs. 400
4 Seasonal Annually cost (only for 3months) Rs.1,200
6 Five years seasonal cost Rs.1,200*5 RS.6,000
5 Service cost in five years(3 times) Rs.200*3 Rs.600
Total LCC of SWHs in five years RS.6,600
Sources: Primary survey data
Note: Household respondent selected profile
 

Life Cycle Cost formula

LCC = Total Life cycle cost of EWH --- Total Life cycle cost of SWH
LCC = Rs.68,500 --- RS.6,600
LCC = 61, 900 / 5years of saving

In these table 28 shows that, Techno – Economic and Life Cycle cost analysis.

The LCC of EWH cost of five years Rs.68500 and SWH cost of five years Rs. 6,600,

because of seasonal effect on five years. These analyses clearly understand that,

minimum LCC of five years of saving money is Rs.61900. Its mean, utilization of

SWHs has reduced the burden of electricity cost. Technology based on that EWH was

less initially compared to SWH, which also faced the problem of seasonal effect. But,

the study shows that SWH technology is benefited to consumers when compared to

EWH. The analysis of the test shows that LCC. SWHs is positive impact on

economically viability has benefited the consumers is the long run energy

management.

This hypothesis was tested by comparing EWH and SWH systems consumers

of two related samples of Electricity cost, before and after installation of solar water

heater. The test used paired sample test and observed whether there is the positive

181 
reduction in electricity cost or not in households. It means that whether technology

has it impact on economic viability is cost reduction.  

Table 29: Paired Samples Test of Energy Cost (Electricity Cost)

Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Std. Interval of the
Std. Error Difference Sig.
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df (2-tailed)

Pair Before
1 Electricity cost -
-0.055 .229 .016 -0.086 -0.025 -3.556 216 0.000
After Electricity
cost
Note: significance level at 5%

Table 29, shows that, the paired samples test before and after electricity cost.

This table clearly understand that, Calculated ‘t’ value is -3.556 is significant at 5%

level and 2-tailed test. Therefore, reject the null hypothesis at 5% level of significant

and accept the alternative hypothesis. This results shows that, the cost of electricity

bill has reduced after installation of SWHs with reduction in the electricity cost and

there is a positive impact on the economic viability of energy management.

7.7 Hypothesis Testing 4:

The test is an analysis was made based on socio-economic status of household

respondents.

The Hypothesis testing 4 is to study the impact of family income and family

size on energy consumption in Mysore city

H0: Energy consumption, family income and family size are negatively related

H1: Energy consumption, family income and family size are positively related

182 
 Multiple Regression is to construct an equation prediction the value of the

dependent variable from the values of independent variables. In this hypothesis

testing, Energy Consumption (EC) is a dependent variable and independent variables

are Family income (Fi) and Family size (Fs). Therefore, in this testing, energy

consumption is regress on the independent variables such as family income and

family size. The parameters of this equation can be used to relate the variability in

energy consumption to the variability in family income and family size.

Yi= β0 + β1X1 + β 2X2 +Ui ……………Eqn. (1)

By applying the testing variables

EC=β0 + β1Fi + β2Fs + Ui …………..……Eqn. (2)

Where, β1 and β2 are parameters of coefficient of the variables 

EC = Energy consumption
β0 = Constant
β1Fi = Family income
β2Fs = Family size
Ui = Error term
β1 and β2 are parameters of co-efficient of the variables

Model Summaryb
Adjusted R Std. Error of
Model R R Square Square the Estimate
1 0.834a 0.696 0.695 0.347
a. Predictors: (Constant), family size, family income
b. Dependent Variable: Energy consumption

The model summary exhibits the regression. The above table shows, R, R²,

adjusted R² and standard error of the estimate. These estimations can be indicates,

whether this model is suitable to construct or not with data. The ‘R’ value is 0.834; it

represents the multiple correlation coefficients. R² indicated goodness of fit, this

183 
value (0.696) explained about energy consumption is depended on family income and

family size.

Table 30: ANOVAb

Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 101.589 2 50.794 421.816 0.000a
Residual 44.314 368 0.120
Total 145.903 370
a. Predictors: (Constant), family size, family income
b. Dependent Variable: Energy consumption

The table 30, exhibit the Anova table to test for F-ratio. This test indicated the

multiple regression model is good fit for the data. The table clearly shows that, family

income and family size is significantly predicted on energy consumption. The value

of F is 421.81 and P =0.000, this result shows that, it is significant. Therefore, the

regression model is good to fit.

Table 31: Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) -0.277 0.080 -3.469 0.001

family income 0.357 0.034 0.461 10.628 0.000
family size 0.579 0.058 0.431 9.938 0.000
a. Dependent Variable: Energy consumption

To estimated regression model coefficient is,

EC = -0.277 + 0.357Fi + 0.579Fs…………………….eqn. (3)

The table 31 shows that, coefficients of variables results. The value of family

income of coefficient is 0.357 and it is significant at 1% level, that is t = 10.628, sig.

is 0.001. It clearly understood that with an increase in the family income, there is an

184 
increase in the energy consumption. Then the value of family size of coefficient is

0.579 and it is significant at 1% level, that is t = 9.938, sig. = 0.000. It clearly

understands that, with an increased family size, there is also increased energy

consumption. Therefore, both variables are statistically significant at 1% level, the

null hypothesis is rejected and accept the alternative hypothesis that energy

consumption is significantly depend or related on family income and family size in

households of Mysore city.

185