Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management: X

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/energy-conversion-and-management-x

Techno-Economic Comparative analysis of hybrid renewable energy

systems optimization considering Off-Grid remote area electrification
in Bangladesh
Himalay Baidya , Md Tarak Rahman Zisan , Arham Zaman Alif , Ahbab Ahmed ,
Mahmudul Hasan , Nahid-Ur-Rahman Chowdhury *
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Ahsanullah University of Science and Technology (AUST), Dhaka 1208, Bangladesh

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Reliable electricity access is crucial for enhancing living standards, fostering socio-economic growth, and
Techno-economic analysis ensuring community well-being in remote and underserved regions. Bhasan Char, a remote island in the Bay of
Hybrid renewable energy systems Bengal, faces significant challenges in providing sustainable and reliable energy to support its population of over
Sustainable energy
100,000 Rohingya refugees. For off-grid regions, Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems present a viable and envi­
Rural electrification
Bangladesh
ronmentally sustainable electrification solution by integrating multiple energy sources. This study investigates
the design, simulation, and optimization of HRES-based power generation to meet the comprehensive electricity
needs of Bhasan Char. Using HOMER Pro software, six different hybrid energy models were developed and
analyzed to evaluate their technical, economic, and environmental viability. Throughout the optimization pro­
cess, peak loads of 2,287 kW, 470 kW, and 2,180 kW were considered for residential, community, and deferrable
uses, respectively. Out of the six models evaluated, the most cost-effective configuration was found to be PV/
Biogas/Diesel/Wind/Battery. This optimal solution comprises 3.5 MW of PV, 0.5 MW of biogas generator, 3.2
MW of diesel power, 1.98 MW of wind, 8.53 MWh battery storage capacity and can generate 14,893,809 kWh of
energy annually, which is sufficient to meet the entire community’s energy requirements. With a Cost of Energy
of $0.195/kWh and a Net Present Cost of roughly $34.9 million, the system presents an economically viable
solution. The substantial 80.6 % penetration of renewable energy considerably reduces greenhouse gas emis­
sions. Additionally, Sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the resilience of the proposed systems
ensuring adaptability to future uncertainties. The research offers a viable model for rural electrification,
providing valuable insights into deploying sustainable power solutions in isolated regions and supporting global
objectives for energy transition.

needs, many nations are developing innovative energy strategies

focused on renewable energy (RE) sources. These include solar photo­
1. Introduction
voltaic (PV), wind power, micro-hydro systems, biomass, geothermal
energy, and ocean wave and tidal power. Among these alternatives,
The exponential growth in energy consumption over recent decades
photovoltaic (PV) and wind turbines (WT) have emerged as particularly
has brought the environmental crisis of carbon emissions and climate
popular options worldwide. Their appeal stems from their complemen­
change, resulting from fossil fuel use in power generation, to the fore­
tary nature, low operational costs, and modular design [2]. The inte­
front of global concern. Current estimates, based on existing reserves
gration of renewable energy sources (RES) with their non-renewable
and utilization rates of fossil resources, suggest that coal supplies will
counterparts can mitigate supply reliability concerns and enhance sys­
last approximately 122 years, oil 42 years, and natural gas 60 years.
tem performance. Hybrid Renewable Energy System (HRES) offers
Projections indicate that if the annual consumption rate remains at 1.6
multiple advantages, including reduced Cost of energy (COE), dimin­
%, there will be a 36 % surge in global fossil fuel energy usage between
ished carbon dioxide emissions, and the provision of affordable elec­
2011 and 2030 [1]. In the current climate of growing concerns about
tricity to remote rural regions and insular territories [3]. The techno-
depleting fossil fuels, environmental issues, and rising global energy

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (N.-U.-R. Chowdhury).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2025.101004
Received 2 January 2025; Received in revised form 1 April 2025; Accepted 3 April 2025
Available online 6 April 2025
2590-1745/© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Nomenclature G1 The incline of the generator’s fuel curve (unit/hr/kW)

Cgen Rated capacity of the generator (kW)
List of Abbreviations Egen Power output of the generator during this specific time
RE Renewable Energy interval (kW)
RES Renewable Energy Sources Qa Available energy at the beginning of the time step (kWh)
HRES Hybrid Renewable Energy System Qb Total stored energy at the beginning of the time step (kWh)
HRESs Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems s Storage capacity ratio
EE Excess Electricity z Storage rate constant (h− 1)
NPC Net Present Cost TL Duration of the time step (h)
RS Renewable Share β Storage’s maximum charging rate (A/Ah)
PV Photovoltaics Qm Overall storage bank capacity (kWh)
COE Cost of Energy N Number of batteries in the storage bank
CF Capacity Factor I Storage’s maximum charging current (A)
WT Wind Turbines V Storage’s nominal voltage in (V)
ηs Storage charge efficiency
List of Symbols ηd Storage discharge efficiency
Yrated Rated capacity of the PV array (kW) Pout,con Output power of the inverter (kW)
Df PV derating factor (%)
η Efficiency of inverter
Gʹ Solar radiation incident on the PV array in the current time Pin,con Input power of the inverter (kW)
step (kW/m2) CC Capital cost on a yearly basis ($)
αp Incident radiation at standard test conditions (kW/m2) CR Cost of replacement over a year ($)
Tcell PV cell temperature in the current time step (% oC) COM Annualized cost of operation and maintenance ($)
Tstc PV cell temperature under standard test conditions (oC) Cf Annualized cost of fuel ($)
τα Effective transmittance and absorptance of the PV array m Represents the real discount rate
(%) CNPC,tot Total net Present cost
RT Solar radiation incident on the PV array (kW/m2) CRF() is a function that returns capital recovery factor
ηcon Electrical conversion efficiency of the PV array Rproj Project lifetime
H Coefficient of heat transfer to the surroundings (kW/m2oC)
Enonren Nonrenewable electrical production [kWh/yr]
Tamb Ambient temperature both measured (oC) Hnonren Nonrenewable thermal production [kWh/yr]
Tcell,NoCT Nominal operating cell temperature (oC)
Eserved Total electrical load served [kWh/yr]
Tamb,NOCT Ambient temperature (20 ◦ C) Hserved Total thermal load served [kWh/yr]
RT,NOCT Solar radiation at 20 ◦ C (0.8 kW/m2) Egridsales Energy sold to the grid [kWh/yr]
Uhub Wind speed at the hub height of the wind turbine (m/s) S Annualized salvage value ($)
Uanem Wind speed at anemometer height (m/s) EY Yearly electricity served (kWh)
Hhub Hub height of the wind turbine (m) N Number of years
Hanem Anemometer height (m) p Real annual interest rate (%)
Href Reference height at which the wind is measured. (m) pʹ Nominal interest rate (%)
Pout,wtg Wind turbine power output (kW) S Yearly inflation rate (%)
Pstp Wind turbine power output at Standard Temperature and ET Total capacity shortage (kWh/yr)
Pressure (kW) Ed Total energy demand (kWh/yr)
ρactual Actual air density (kg/m3) EUnmet Total unmet load (kWh/yr)
ρstp Air density at standard temperature and pressure (1.225 EDemand Total annual electrical demand (kWh/yr)
kg/m3) EExcess Total excess electricity (kWh/yr)
G Fuel consumption rate (unit/hr) Eproduction Total electricity production (kWh/yr)
G0 Intercept coefficient of the generator’s fuel curve (unit/hr/
kW)

economic feasibility of the hybrid energy system has demonstrated ad­ renewable. Though Bangladesh exhibits considerable potential for har­
vantageous characteristics that have played a role in its wide acceptance nessing RES to produce environmentally friendly electricity, RE con­
[4]. tributes only 4.65 % of total energy production. Fig. 1(b) demonstrates
The economic and social advancement of Bangladesh is significantly the renewable energy capacity of different sources like solar, wind,
influenced by energy resources. Currently, there exists a fundamental hydro, biomass and biogas. During FY 2023–2024, the peak power
requirement to deliver energy to remote regions through sustainable generation was 16,477 MW, and total electricity generation was 95.996
methods, given the diminishing fossil fuel reserves, rising costs associ­ TWh over the year, reflecting the growing energy demand and the need
ated with traditional energy production, increasing population, and for further diversification of energy sources [6]. The government of
limited waste management infrastructure [3]. The utilization of Bangladesh has embarked on ambitious initiatives to expand its power
renewable resources for electricity generation in Bangladesh remains generation capacity, with targets set at 40,000 MW by 2030 and 60,000
significantly limited. According to data from the International Energy MW by 2041. In alignment with its power system strategy, the nation
Agency (IEA), RE sources contributed a mere 1.3 % to the country’s total has established a goal to derive 40 % of its energy from renewable
power production in 2022, marking a substantial decline from the 4.9 % sources by 2041, demonstrating a commitment to sustainable power
recorded in 2000 [5]. Fig. 1(a) shows the current energy mix (December generation for the current generation [7].
2024) of Bangladesh which indicates the primary energy sources as of As new technologies advance, RESs are gaining increasing popu­
now are coal, natural gas, heavy fuel oil (HFO), captive power and larity. This study aims to assess the feasibility of hybrid systems powered

2
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Fig. 1. Energy scenario of Bangladesh in 2024: (a) Electricity generation mix upon different sources, and (b) Renewable energy capacity [18].

by RESs for various regions in Bangladesh. The implementation of such relocation of roughly one million Rohingya refugees to Bangladesh after
hybrid energy systems offers multiple advantages, including reduced the 2017 Myanmar crisis presented the pressing need for sustainable
reliance on expensive and unreliable conventional energy sources [8]. infrastructure solutions. In response, Bangladesh’s government
Integrating traditional energy sources with renewable alternatives like launched the Ashrayan-3 rehabilitation initiative to house 103,200
wind and solar can significantly reduce the n, energy expenses, and refugees on Bhasan Char, a remote coastal island. This comprehensive
operational costs. By combining these renewable options with conven­ project encompasses crucial facilities such as housing, educational in­
tional power sources, overall fuel expenditures can be decreased. stitutions, medical centers, storm shelters, and communication net­
Furthermore, this hybrid energy approach ensures a continuous power works. Consistent electricity generation is crucial for supporting the
supply for industrial applications [9]. The reliability of RES like solar long-term development and resilience of this community. However,
and wind fluctuates significantly due to seasonal changes in solar radi­ given Bhasan Char’s geographical isolation and the impracticality of
ation and wind speed. To address this issue, one solution involves grid extension, it is necessary to explore alternative energy options.
implementing HRES, which combine multiple energy sources to mitigate Renewable sources like solar PV, wind, and biomass offer a promising
the impact of these variations [10]. Combining RE sources with existing approach to sustainably meet the island’s energy requirements.
battery capacity is crucial for tackling the issues of inconsistent power Furthermore, harnessing these resources can reduce environmental
generation and excessive reliance on the national power grid. Wind and impact and contribute to global decarbonization efforts. Despite the
solar energy are abundant and have few environmental risks [11]. For potential of HRESs in such contexts’, limited studies have addressed the
rural areas where extending the utility grid is not practical, a hybrid design, optimization, and techno-economic feasibility of HRES for
energy system based on RES presents the most viable option for elec­ refugee settlements. Driven by this research gap, this study aims to
tricity provision [12]. evaluate and optimize an HRES to reliably fulfil the energy needs of
The adoption of this hybrid system across rural and urban regions Bhasan Char’s Rohingya population. By using HOMER Pro software for
can enhance energy usage, decrease carbon output, stimulate economic system design and sizing, this research aims to provide a scalable and
growth, and address challenges associated with the scarcity of fossil fuel replicable model for powering remote, off-grid communities while
reserves [13]. In recent years, there has been a substantial rise in the promoting sustainable energy practices.
adoption of sustainable energy resources as a strategy to tackle envi­ In the past decades, a significant amount of research has been con­
ronmental issues and ensure long-term energy viability [14]. Multiple ducted in the domain of HRESs, primarily focusing on optimizing de­
research findings suggest that hybrid systems can be designed more signs and evaluating techno-economic viability. The authors in [19]
efficiently through the utilization of HOMER Pro software in conjunc­ conducted an analysis of grid-connected and stand-alone hybrid
tion with various optimization tools and techniques such as artificial renewable systems across 21 provinces in 7 regions of Turkey, consid­
neural networks (ANN), differential evolution (DE), and particle swarm ering different regional solar radiation and wind speed conditions. The
optimization (PSO) [15]. study evaluated the performance of these systems in terms of Net present
Achieving the worldwide Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) cost (NPC), COE, greenhouse gas emissions, and renewable share (RS). It
relies heavily on HRES, especially when it comes to providing electricity was found that the optimal configurations for grid-tied systems involved
to underserved populations [16]. In 2015, the United Nations intro­ a combination of solar and wind energy (Grid/PV/WT), while stand-
duced the SDGs, also known as the Global Goals, with the aim of elim­ alone systems included a diesel generator and battery storage (PV/
inating poverty, protecting the environment, and ensuring peace and WT/DG/BESS). Results showed that the NPC ranged from $2,504 to
prosperity for all by 2030. These 17 SDGs recognize the interconnec­ $8,951 for grid-connected systems and from $23,372 to $40,858 for
tedness of social equity, environmental protection, and economic stand-alone systems. A study in [20] assessed the techno-economic
growth, emphasizing the need for balanced progress across these three feasibility of a hybrid microgrid system for Riphah International Uni­
domains. Among the 17 objectives, Goal 7 focuses on energy. This goal versity (RIU) in Lahore, Pakistan, that ensures a continuous and
seeks to provide universal access to affordable, clean energy, which is affordable energy supply by harnessing reliable energy sources. By
essential for advancing various sectors including business, education, considering factors like energy resource availability, load profiles, and
healthcare, agriculture, and communications. The most viable approach environmental impact, the study optimized the system, which yielded
to achieving Goal 7 involves harnessing power from renewable sources, the most cost-effective solution with an NPC of $0.483 million and a
as these are more cost-effective and help reduce environmental pollution 99.3 % RS. The results highlighted the system’s advancement toward
and global warming [17]. clean and environmentally friendly energy generation while minimizing
In order to support sustainable growth and ensure energy access for greenhouse gas emissions. In [21], the authors performed an analysis of
underprivileged populations, it is vital that vulnerable and underde­ a grid-independent hybrid system for rural electrification in Kutubdia
veloped areas—including refugee settlements—be decarbonized. The Island, Bangladesh. The system, comprising solar PV, wind, battery

3
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

storage, and diesel generators, was optimized using HOMER Pro and hydrogen storage, and electrolyzers, offering the lowest NPC of $5.21
NSGA-II software to minimize the NPC and COE, along with reducing million and a LCOE of $0.25/kWh. This configuration provided a 99.8 %
CO2 emissions. The optimized PV/Wind/Battery/Diesel system had a renewable energy fraction, reduced carbon emissions, and achieved a
lower NPC of USD 711,943 and a COE of USD 0.200/kWh, with an RS of high return on investment, making it the optimal solution for sustainable
70.8 %. In [22], the authors assessed the performance of an off-grid rural electrification.
HRES for Kuakata, Bangladesh, combining solar PV, diesel generators, While most studies focus on conventional optimization techniques
and battery storage. The study optimized the system to meet the com­ for HRES, recent research has explored advanced modelling approaches,
munity’s 3000 kWh/day demand, achieving an NPC of USD 5.19 million such as thermostatted kinetic theory (TKT), to enhance energy distri­
and a Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) of USD 0.367/kWh. The system bution and storage modelling. TKT has emerged as an advanced
reduced CO2 emissions by more than 30 %, equivalent to over 10 tons modelling approach for HRES. It offers innovative solutions to address
annually, making it an economically and environmentally favorable the challenges of energy distribution and storage. By utilizing kinetic
alternative to traditional power systems. theory principles, TKT models energy exchanges within multisource
In a study in [23], the author addressed the energy needs of an in­ networks while accounting for the intermittent nature of renewable
dustrial facility in Iraq by evaluating the feasibility of a stand-alone energy sources. The authors in [30] introduced a framework that utilizes
microgrid. Through simulation and analysis using PVsyst, HOMER TKT to model a hybrid energy network comprising both renewable and
Pro, and SAM software, the study identified a PV/BESS/Diesel-based non-renewable sources, incorporating energy storage through an
system as the optimal solution. This research examines PV system external force field coupled with a thermostat term. This approach
sizes, demand profiles, temperatures, radiation, hazardous emissions, effectively addresses the intermittent nature of renewable energy sour­
and RE penetration impacts on LCOE, NPC, and technical qualities, ces by optimizing energy storage and distribution, thereby improving
highlighting its socioeconomic benefits. In [24], the authors analyzed the quality of the energy supplied to consumers. Similarly, in [31], the
the feasibility of a hybrid heat recovery-renewable energy system for authors provided a comprehensive review of energy-multisource net­
enhancing power reliability in cement factories in Pakistan. The pro­ works modelled through TKT, highlighting its efficacy in capturing the
posed system integrated solar thermal, wind power, and waste heat re­ complex dynamics of energy exchanges within HRES and proposing
covery, optimized using TRNSYS software. The results indicated that future research directions to enhance system optimization and control
this hybrid system could generate 40 % of the factory’s electricity de­ strategies. Furthermore, the study focused on integrating thermostatic
mand, with an annual output of 109.2 GWh. The techno-economic management strategies with advanced energy storage solutions, such as
analysis demonstrated a net present value (NPV) of USD 25.69 million hydrogen storage systems, to improve the resilience and efficiency of
and a significant reduction in CO2 emissions by 52.7 thousand tCO2e/ HRES.
year, highlighting the system’s economic viability and environmental The literature review summarized in Table 1 highlights key findings
benefits. The authors in [25] assessed the design and optimization of off- from few other relevant studies on hybrid renewable energy models.
grid hybrid systems for urban communities in China. The study evalu­ These studies usually suggest that HRESs provide a lower LCOE and
ated 16 scenarios combining solar, wind, biomass, and battery storage, fewer environmental consequences than single-source electricity sys­
considering technical, economic, and environmental factors. Results tems. However, significant gaps still persist in existing studies, espe­
showed that hybrid systems generally outperformed single-source RE cially on specific load dynamics, proper resource allocation, and
solutions. The optimal configurations were determined using the Ana­ operating characteristics of hybrid systems in off-grid configurations.
lytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The methodology can serve as an effec­ Very few studies have considered real-time load data for the selected
tive framework for designing and evaluating hybrid systems optimized study location where hybrid systems are proposed for installation. This
system for regions with similar resource and load conditions. A study in absence of localized load analysis reduces the practical applicability of
[26] assessed the economic and environmental advantages of grid- these designs. Furthermore, the EE in hybrid system operations has been
connected and off-grid hybrid systems using PV/Wind/Diesel/Grid- overlooked in prior research, despite its significance. EE, surplus power,
based solutions for a university campus in Ghazni, Afghanistan. The or dumped energy refers to the unused portion of energy in HRESs.
study, utilizing HOMER Pro software, optimized the configurations for Several studies shown in Table 1 demonstrate a significant value of
the lowest COE and NPC. The results indicated that the PV/Diesel/Grid surplus electricity in their proposed HRESs. EE significantly impacts the
system was the most cost-effective, while the PV/Wind/Grid system stability, affordability, and reliability of the energy system. EE in HRES
demonstrated superior environmental benefits with an RS of 94.8 % and beyond acceptable limits leads to economic inefficiency, system over­
significantly lower CO2 emissions of 7,453 kg/year. In [27] the author sizing, resource wastage, and missed opportunities for optimizing en­
designed an efficient HRES to meet electricity demands in a rural ergy use and sustainability. It is recommended that Off-grid HRESs
community in Somalia. A combination of solar PV, wind, diesel, and should sustain surplus power levels below 10 %, ideally around 5 %, to
battery storage was used in this study. The study identified the PV/ attain maximum energy efficiency. There are a few effective strategies
Wind/Diesel/Battery configuration as the most cost-effective, with the that may be utilized to restrict the EE such as deferrable load, thermal
lowest NPC of $96,899.16 and LCOE of $0.090/kWh. The system also load controller, supercapacitor storage, and multi-generator imple­
demonstrated a RE penetration rate of 91.8 %, reduced CO2 emissions mentation [32].
by 53.34 %, and achieved 25 % excess electricity (EE) production, Another key gap is the limited focus on biomass-based electricity
making it a feasible and environmentally friendly solution for rural generation, despite its growing importance as a renewable resource.
electrification. A study in [28] focused on analyzing the feasibility of a Specifically, for Bhasan Char, a remote island with abundant agricul­
standalone hybrid system for Monpura Island, Bangladesh. The study tural residue and animal waste, biomass electricity generation has not
utilized HOMER Pro to simulate various configurations, including PV/ been investigated. Our study is the first to introduce and evaluate
Biogas/Wind. The optimal system, identified as the most cost-effective biomass electricity generation for this location, presenting a unique
and environmentally friendly, showed a COE of 0.691 USD/kWh and contribution to RE integration in the area. Moreover, while designing a
an 18 % reduction in NPC compared to the existing microgrid system. hybrid system for community loads some emerging load categories, such
This system also emitted only 4.43 kg of CO2 annually which reduced as electric vehicles (EVs) are often not included. In Bhasan Char, the
carbon emissions. In [29], the author analyzed the feasibility of an HRES rising use of EV autorickshaws as a sustainable transportation option
for long-term rural electrification in Billerahalli village, Karnataka, inside the island has not been analyzed previously, even though it has a
India. A hybrid system was designed combining solar PV, wind, significant impact on the community’s energy demand.
hydrogen storage, electrolyzers, and batteries. The study identified the This research aims to design, simulate, and evaluate HRESs to meet
most cost-effective configuration, which included wind turbines, the complete electrical demand of the Rohingya community in Bhasan

4
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Table 1
Literature review of relevant HRES model studies.
Refs. Optimal Year, Site Location Area Type Methodology/ Operating Size Of Load Optimized Excess
HRES Model Software Used Mode Results Electricity
(%/kWh)

[33] Diesel/ 2024, Kunder Char, Rural area HOMER Grid (Residential)Average COE = 0.38 %
National Bangladesh Connected Load = 1,031 kWh/day $0.0436/kWh
Grid/Wind/ Peak Load = 186 kW NPC = $1.43
PV (Non-Residential) million
Average Load = 191.1
kWh/day
Peak Load = 18.26 kW,
(Deferrable)Average
Load = 15.00 kWh/day
Peak Load = 5.00 kW
[34] PV/Wind/ 2024, Andaman and Island HOMER Stand Alone Average Load = 165.59 COE = $0.059/ −
Diesel/ Nicobar,India kWh/day kWh
Battery Peak Load = 23.31 kW NPC = $ 126.4
million
[35] PV/Diesel/ 2024, Shinshicho Rural area HOMER Stand Alone Average Load = 276 COE = 21.10 %
Battery Town, kWh/day $0.0436/kWh
Ethiopia Peak Load = 40 kW NPC = $1.43
million
[36] PV/Diesel/ 2024, Satarkul Badda University HOMER and Stand Alone Average Load = 450 COE = $0.187/ 5.17 %,
Battery Dhaka Helioscope kWh/day kWh
Peak Load = 62 kW NPC = $1.32
million
[37] PV/Wind 2024, Patenga Sea City HOMER and PVSyst Grid Average Load = 1000 COE = −
Beach, Bangladesh Connected kWh/day $0.0295/kWh
Peak Load = 53.57 kW NPC = $1.96
million
PV/Wind/ 2024, Abeokuta, Agricultural HOMER Stand Alone Average Load = COE = $0.26/ −
[38] Diesel/ Ogun State Nigeria sector 1386.85 kWh/day kWh
Battery Peak Load = 79.76 kW NPC =
/Biogas $1782,602
[4] PV/Diesel/ 2022, Gangachara, Rural HOMER Powering Grid Average Load = 81.88 COE = $0.065/ −
Battery Rangpur, Bangladesh Healthcare Health Tool Connected kWh/day kWh
center and PVSyst Peak Load = 22.76 kW NPC = $86,171
[39] PV/Wind/ 2021, Kukri Mukri Island HOMER Stand Alone Average Load = 221 COE = $0.142 13,042 kWh
Diesel/ island, Bhola, 4kWh/day /kWh
Biomass Bangladesh Peak Load = 45 kW NPC = $
239,494.50
USD
PV/Wind/ 2021, Rajshahi City HOMER Stand Alone Average Load = COE = $0.142 22,398 kWh
[40] Diesel/ 228,991 kWh/year /kWh
Battery Peak Load = 186 kW NPC = $
239,494.50
USD
[20] PV/Battery 2024, Lahore, University HOMER Grid Total Load = 304.006 COE = 36.49 %
Pakistan Connected kW $0.0176/kWh
NPC =
$483,112
[41] PV/WT/BES 2022, Sudan Pumping water/ HOMER Stand Alone Peak Load = 2KW COE = $0.417/ >70 %
farmlands kWh
NPC=$7 0,987
[42] PV/WT/BES 2021, Egypt Remote area GWO Stand Alone Annual load = 357 COE = $0.098/ 46 %
kWh/day kWh
NPC=$146,400
[43] PV/FC/EL 2021, Spain Rural area HOMER Stand Alone Annual load = 200 COE = $0.84 30 %
kWh/day /kWh
NPC=
$1,006,293
[44] PV/WT/DG/ 2020, Iran Residential GWO Stand Alone Annual load = 27.1 COE = $0.145/ 30.10 %
BES building kWh/day kWh
NPC = 187,000
CHF
[45] PV/WT/DG/ 2020, Algeria Residential HOMER Stand Alone Annual load = 8698 COE = $0.210/ >25 %
BES application kWh/year kWh
[46] PV/WT/BES 2020, Pakistan Residential area HOMER/MATLAB Stand Alone Annual load = 21.57 COE = $0.311/ >30 %
kWh/day kWh
NPC=$ 28,620
[47] PV/DG/BES 2019, Pakistan Residential HOMER Stand Alone Annual load = 11.25 COE = $0.309/ 21.40 %
house kWh/day kWh
NPC=$14,846

5
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Char, addressing existing knowledge gaps through a comprehensive and the subject of the current investigation.
systematic analysis. Moreover, the study incorporates real load data The key research contributions of this paper are as follows:
including battery-powered vehicles as a local transport medium, eval­
uates the viability of biomass-based power generation, and limits EE to • Six distinct off-grid HRESs are meticulously designed, optimized, and
enhance the system’s overall efficiency and sustainability. Table 2 pre­ compared to evaluating their technical, economic, and environ­
sents an overview of the contributions made by other significant works mental performance to identify the most cost-effective and sustain­
as well as any possible research gaps identified in those works that are able electrification solution for Bhasan Char using HOMER PRO
software. Additionally, it provides an analysis of biomass-based
power generation from local livestock waste in the proposed site.
Table 2 • The analysis of the proposed systems provides notable environ­
Contributions and research gap in HRES in the recent literature. mental benefits and presents attractive energy costs. The study in­
References Contributions Research Gap tegrates electric autorickshaws as a sustainable transportation
[19] Taking into account variations in This study did not include any solution promoting local green mobility and reducing dependence on
regional solar radiation and wind EVs into load profile. Only fossil fuels.
speed variety, the study’s residential load was evaluated. • Detailed sensitivity analysis is performed to examine the resilience
objective was to assess the Only two system designed and
and adaptability of the optimal system under varying input condi­
economic, technical, and analyzed for implementing
environmental performances of HRES. tions including resource availability, fuel prices, and economic pa­
grid-tied and standalone HRESs in rameters such as inflation rate, nominal discount rate etc.
21 provinces throughout seven
regions of Turkey. The HOMER This paper’s remaining sections are arranged as follows: The meth­
PRO was used to construct and
odology used for this study as well as the design and optimization
simulate HRES in order to satisfy
a household’s 13.26 kWh daily technique of HOMER Pro software is described in Section 2. An over­
load. The energy cost, NPC, view of the hybrid energy system design along with thorough evaluation
greenhouse gas emissions, of the study site, the available renewable resources, load estimation,
renewable percentage (RF), and
mathematical modeling of components and their economical, electrical
ideal system architecture were
taken into account while features considered for this study is given in Section 3. Section 4 con­
comparing the analysis results for tains a detailed analysis of the HRES’s performance metrics, energy
each province. output, environmental impacts, and optimum hybrid configurations.
[21] This study’s main objective was This paper did not provide any Section 5 provides a discussion on the optimal system and Section 6
to lower the proposed power analysis for biomass-based
wraps up the study by providing a summary of the results, making
system’s NPC, COE, and CO2 power generation. No
emissions using the HOMER Pro sensitivity analysis has been suggestions for further study and real-world application.
software and the non-dominated shown here.
sorting genetic algorithm 2. Methodology
(NSGA)-II. To choose the best
HRES system for Bangladesh’s
Kutubdia Island, five instances This study employs HOMER Pro (Version 3.14.2), a widely recog­
had been examined, and the nized software developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
system’s technical feasibility and (NREL) of the United States. HOMER Pro facilitates the design and
economic potential had been optimization of hybrid energy systems by simulating various configu­
examined.
[22] In order to fulfill a load This study did not include any
rations of conventional and RE sources to identify the most cost-effective
requirement of 3000 kWh per day EVs into load profile. Only one and reliable solutions. The input data required for HOMER Pro includes
with a peak load demand of system designed and analyzed several key parameters that define the hybrid system’s technical and
501.61 kW, this research for implementing HRES. This economic characteristics. These inputs include electrical load profiles,
examined the performance of an paper did not provide any
solar irradiance, wind speed data, fuel prices, capital and operational
off-grid, hybrid PV/diesel analysis for biomass-based
generator/battery system for a power generation. costs of components, component specifications, and system constraints.
decentralized power plant in Financial inputs such as interest rates, inflation rates, discount rates,
Kuakata, Bangladesh. The component lifetimes, and maintenance costs play a crucial role in
findings show that, in comparison determining the system’s economic feasibility. HOMER Pro follows a
to conventional power plants,
CO2 emissions may have dropped
structured optimization process that involves three main steps: simula­
by almost 30 % and more than 10 tion, optimization, and sensitivity analysis. In the simulation step, it
tons annually, respectively. simulates the operation of a hybrid energy system by performing energy
[25] Four resource conditions and four Only one system designed and balance calculations at each time step throughout the year. During each
load categories were combined to analyzed for implementing
time interval, the software evaluates the energy demand and compares it
create 16 scenarios in this article. HRES. No sensitivity analysis
A thorough evaluation has been shown here. with the available supply from various system components. It then de­
framework based on the Analytic termines the flow of energy between sources, loads, and storage ele­
Hierarchy Process is constructed, ments, ensuring that the demand is met efficiently. This process is
and nine indices were chosen repeated for every system configuration under consideration. HOMER
from three categories
(technology, economics, and
Pro assesses whether each configuration is technically feasible—mean­
environment). ing it can reliably meet the energy demand under specified conditions.
[28] In order to gather local load data This paper did not provide any The optimization step evaluates multiple system configurations by
on Monpura Island, which is analysis for biomass-based comparing their NPC, COE, and other performance metrics to determine
situated in Bhola, Bangladesh, a power generation. This study
the most cost-effective solution. The total NPC is HOMER’s main eco­
study was carried out. Among all did not include any EVs into
combinations, PV/biogas/wind load profile. nomic output, the value by which it ranks all system configurations in
had been determined to be the the optimization results. As output, it then estimates the total cost of the
best suitable system based on system over its lifetime, considering factors such as capital investment,
expert opinion and replacement expenses, operation and maintenance costs, fuel con­
technoeconomic analysis.
sumption, and financial parameters like interest rates for every system.

6
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

By systematically evaluating multiple configurations, HOMER Pro de­ the models’ viability under different conditions. The study concludes by
termines the optimal energy system configuration by balancing cost- integrating and examining these findings.
effectiveness and technical feasibility. Additionally, HOMER Pro offers
sensitivity analysis features, allowing users to assess how variations in 3. Hybrid energy system design
input variables impact system performance and economic outcomes
[48]. Despite its advanced capabilities, HOMER Pro has certain limita­ This section provides an overview of the study location, Bhasan Char,
tions, such as assuming perfect foresight in dispatch strategies, lacking focusing on its geography, current status, and renewable resource
multi-objective optimization as it primarily focuses on minimizing NPC, availability. It includes a detailed analysis of load demand, mathemat­
and not fully accounting for battery depth of discharge (DOD) con­ ical modeling of hybrid system components, and the economic and
straints [49]. electrical specifications of the selected components. Additionally, sys­
The framework of a hybrid energy system design utilizing HOMER tem constraints and the economic considerations for the analysis are
Pro software is illustrated in Fig. 2. To identify the research gaps, a discussed.
comprehensive literature review was conducted first. Later, Bhasan Char
was identified as an appropriate site for implementing the models. The 3.1. Details of study location − Bhasan Char
hybrid model’s components were identified, and the necessary input
variables, including estimates of load and RE resources, were deter­ Bhasan Char is an isolated island situated approximately 60 km from
mined. After selecting the component sizing and economic metrics, the main landmass in the Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh. Detailed
HOMER Pro software was used to run simulations and generate opti­ geographical details of Bhasan Char are highlighted in Table 3. The is­
mization outcomes. Multiple simulations were conducted by systemat­ land emerged in the Bay of Bengal in 2006. To alleviate the pressure on
ically adjusting input parameters to identify the most feasible system the overcrowded refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar on the mainland, where
criterion. The optimal solution is selected based on predefined criteria, about one million Rohingyas sought refuge after fleeing persecution in
such as minimizing NPC and COE, maximizing RE penetration, and Myanmar in 2017, the government of Bangladesh (GoB) initiated a
reducing EE and greenhouse gas emissions. Following this, additional rehabilitation project named Ashrayan-3 there. It has been transformed
analyses explored the feasible models’ electrical, economic, and envi­ into an environmentally sustainable settlement designed to accommo­
ronmental aspects. Various sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess date approximately 100,000 Rohingya refugees with a cost of

Fig. 2. Methodological framework of this study using HOMER Pro software.

7
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Table 3 recorded temperature data spans from 20.50 to 28.80 degrees Celsius,
Geographical Data of Bhasan Char Island [51]. with an annual average of 26.24 degrees Celsius. The peak temperature
Particulars Details is recorded in May, while the lowest occurs in January. The location
experiences temperatures exceeding 27 degrees Celsius from April
Country Bangladesh
Division Chittagong through October.
District Noakhali
Upazilla Hatiya 3.2.2. Wind resources
Location Bay of Bengal Data on the wind resources of Bhasan Char, obtained from the NREL
Coordinates 22◦ 22′30″N 91◦ 23′33″E
Area 25 sq mi (65 km2)
database via HOMER Pro, is presented in Table 4. The information re­
veals that Bhasan Char possesses significant wind energy potential due
to its coastal location. The average wind speed per month is 5.4 m/s,
approximately $350 million [50]. The infrastructure of Bhasan Char with peak wind speeds occurring between April and September. Addi­
comprises 120 plots featuring 1,440 buildings. These structures are tionally, Fig. 7 indicates that the months of June and July offer the
equipped with systems for collecting rainwater and include shared highest potential for wind power generation. During the winter season
cooking areas, lavatories, and communal amenities. (November-March), energy production tends to decrease due to lower
The island boasts 42 km of roadways, 1,000 street lights, shelters for wind speeds compared to the rest of the year.
cyclones, medical facilities, community health centers, mobile towers,
lighthouses and warehouses [53]. According to an October 2024 report, 3.2.3. Biomass resources
the island’s 65 square kilometer area houses a population of roughly Organic materials obtained from plants, animals, and agricultural bi-
35,890 and more are on the way [54]. The government has currently products are known as biomass resources. These include wood, crop
installed 1 MW of photovoltaic panels and a 1 MW diesel generator as residues, animal manure, and other biodegradable waste, all of which
the primary source of electricity for the region. However, this power can serve as reliable renewable energy sources. Through anaerobic
supply is inadequate to meet the growing needs of the residents and the digestion, animal manure undergoes microbial decomposition to pro­
increasing number of families being relocated to the island. The site’s duce biogas, a methane-rich fuel. This biogas is subsequently purified
geographical position is presented in Fig. 3 and the aerial view is pre­ and utilized in a generator to produce electricity. Because Bhasan Char is
sented in Fig. 4. a fertile island with lots of open space, it has a lot of possibilities for
producing biogas through its successful farming and livestock raising.
The island’s inhabitants, predominantly Rohingya refugees participate
3.2. Renewable resources assessment of Bhasan Char
in several economic activities including cattle and poultry rearing, rice
cultivation, and fishing [56,57]. These activities produce a consistent
Bangladesh possesses a remarkable diversity of RE resources. In the
availability of animal manure and agricultural byproducts, which are
selected location, those resources are abundant and capable of meeting
appropriate for biogas production.
the region’s energy demands effectively. Below are various renewable
Furthermore, both governmental and non-governmental organiza­
sources available and their respective availabilities.
tions, including numerous NGOs, have been actively promoting partic­
ipatory organic farming, fish culture, livestock rearing, and vegetable
3.2.1. Solar resources
cultivation to strengthen food security and increase community liveli­
The monthly average solar GHI resources and clearness index of
hoods on the island [58,59]. In this research, livestock manure was the
Bhasan Char are collected from the National Renewable Energy data­
only biomass source considered for electricity production. The Rohin­
base by HOMER Pro software. The location’s average clearness index is
gyas can not only profit from collecting manure from grazing or farm-
0.504, with an annual solar radiation of 4.53 kWh/m2/day. As illus­
raised animals, buffaloes, and goats but also, they can ensure a suffi­
trated in Fig. 5, the period from February to May experiences high solar
cient supply for a biogas plant. The total livestock population considered
irradiation. In contrast, the months of July through September receive
in our study is 3,400 animals which includes 2000 buffalo, 700 cattle,
comparatively lower radiation levels than the rest of the year. Fig. 6
400 chickens, and 300 goats. They generate an average of 37.332 tons of
displays the monthly average temperature of Bhasan Char. The site’s

Fig. 3. Location of Bhasan Char Island, Bay of Bengal (satellite view).

8
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Fig. 4. Bhasan Char aerial view [52].

Table 4
Monthly wind average speed and extractable wind power.
Average wind speed Extractable Wind Power (watt-h/m2)
Month (m/s) [55]

January 4.3 11.28

February 4.04 9.96
March 4.70 13.47
April 5.48 18.32
May 6.29 24.13
June 7.55 34.77
July 7.82 37.30
August 6.93 29.30
September 5.41 17.85
October 4.30 11.28
November 4.18 10.66
December 4.04 9.96

Fig. 5. Monthly average solar radiation and clearness index of Bhasan Char.

Fig. 7. Monthly average wind speed and extractable power of Bhasan Char.

dung daily collectively. The average amount of fresh manure per day per
Fig. 6. Monthly average temperature of Bhasan Char.
head is obtained from cattle 10 kg, horses, and donkeys 10 kg, buffalos
15 kg, sheep and goats 1 kg, and chickens 0.08 kg [60]. The assessment
of the biogas was conducted based on the amount of manure produced.

9
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Table 5
Biomass Resources in study area and electricity potential.
Livestock Quantity Average Manure Availability Total Dung (kg/ Total Dung considering (Recovery Total Gas Yield Potential power Yield
(kg/day) day) factor ¼ 0.7) (m3/day) (kWh/day)

Buffalo 2,000 15 30,000 21,000 756 1,035.6

Cattle 700 10 7,000 4,900 176.4 241.6
Chicken 400 0.08 32 22.4 0.8 1.1
Goat 300 1 300 210 7.5 10.3
Total 3,400 − 37,332 26,132.4 940.7 1,288.6

Table 5 presents a comprehensive evaluation of the capacity for pro­ water-pumping machines with a capacity of one horsepower (760 W).
ducing biogas and electricity from local livestock waste. The total E-autorickshaws and three-wheeled electric vehicles are prevalent in
manure yield and biogas production were calculated to be more than 26 the local transportation of Bhasan Char. Normally, in the daytime,
tons and 940.7 m3/day respectively considering a recovery factor of 0.7 drivers carry passengers, which continues until 8 or 9 PM in the evening.
and a “gas yield per kg of wet manure” of 0.036 m3/kg [61]. Subse­ Therefore, autorickshaws undergo charging predominantly during the
quently, the daily electricity generation potential from the on-site live­ nighttime hours. The autorickshaw comprises lead-acid batteries and a
stock manure was determined to be 1,288.6 kWh, based on the DC motor. Typically, the power output of a DC motor ranges from 1000
requirement of 0.73 m3 of biogas to produce 1 kWh of electricity [62]. to 1250 W. The battery voltage varies from 48 to 72 V and has an
The data filled in HOMER was the average daily manure available for ampere-hour rating of 140 to 160 Ah. The average charging duration is
biogas production. In our study, the daily average biofuel requirement is around 10 to 12 h [63].In this study, a fleet of 500 E-autorickshaws, each
around 25 tons which can be easily collected as shown in Fig. 8. equipped with an 1100-watt battery and a daily average charging
requirement of 10 h is considered.
The daily load profiles for residential, community, and deferrable
3.3. Load estimation loads are illustrated in Fig. 9(a), (b), and (c), respectively, following
which HOMER Pro estimates the scaled daily average load to be 23,516
Estimating electrical load is a pivotal component of this study. kWh/day for residential use, with a peak load of 2,287 kW and a load
Bhasan Char, a rural locality characterized by a simple lifestyle, has been factor of 0.43. Similarly, for non-residential loads, it considers an
analyzed with respect to three distinct load categories: residential, non- average load of 6,581 kWh/day with a peak load of 470 kW and a load
residential, and deferrable loads. This study includes 1,440 households factor of 0.58. For deferrable loads, the average load is 7,845 kWh/day
assessing residential load, which typically includes energy consumption with a peak load of 2,180 kW. Detailed estimations of load calculations
for lighting, fans, and mobile chargers. for the Rohingya community have been illustrated in Table 6.
For community loads, various facilities are considered, including
mosques, cyclone shelters, administrative buildings, schools, fire sta­
tions, police stations, hospitals, shops, and streetlights. Academic and 3.4. Mathematical modeling of system components
administrative buildings demonstrate peak electricity consumption be­
tween 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM, while shops maintain operations from 3.4.1. Modeling of PV
early morning to late evening. Healthcare facilities operate continu­ HOMER employs the following Eq. (1) to compute the output of the
ously, ensuring round-the-clock service provision. Religious structures PV array.
like mosques require electrical power for a five-hour duration daily, and ( ʹ)
public lighting systems remain active from 6 PM until 6 AM. G [ ]
Pout,PV = Yrated Df ʹ 1 + αp (Tcell − Tstc ) (1)
Water pumps and EV auto-rickshaw batteries are categorized as G stc
deferrable loads. Deferrable loads refer to electrical loads that can be
postponed or rescheduled without significantly compromising the Pout,PV refers to the output of the array, Yrated is the rated capacity of the
comfort or efficiency of the end user. These loads can be shifted to pe­ PV array (kW), Df is the PV derating factor (%),Gʹ represents solar ra­
riods of lower electricity demand. This can contribute to enhanced en­ diation incident on the PV array in the current time step (kW/m2), Gʹstc is
ergy utilization and stability of the power grid. Water pumping the same parameter but for Standard Test conditions,αp means the
machines with a capacity of 3 hp (equivalent to approximately 2000 W) incident radiation at standard test conditions (kW/m2) Tcell is the PV cell
have been considered for fire stations, hospitals, and cyclone shelters temperature in the current time step (% oC) and Tstc means PV cell
that operate for 2 h daily. Conversely, other establishments are allocated temperature under standard test conditions (oC).
The PV cell temperature denotes the surface temperature of the PV
array. At night, it aligns with the ambient temperature, while in direct
sunlight, it may ascend to 30 ◦C or more. The subsequent equation
demonstrates how HOMER calculates the cell temperature by factoring
in both the ambient temperature and the radiation impacting on the
array.
Due to the difficulty in directly measuring (τα/H), manufacturers
commonly provide the nominal operating cell temperature (NOCT) as an
alternative. NOCT is determined under specific conditions: a solar
irradiation of 800 W/m2, an ambient temperature of 20 ◦ C, and a state of
no load. (i.e. ηcon = 0).
ταRT + H(Tcell − Tamb ) (2)

τα is the effective transmittance and absorptance of the PV array (%),RT

is the solar radiation incident on the PV array (kW/m2), H represents the
coefficient of heat transfer to the surroundings (kW/m2oC) and ηcon
Fig. 8. Monthly average available biomass resource of Bhasan Char. means electrical conversion efficiency of the PV array.

10
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Fig. 9. Daily load demand profile (summer and winter) of (a) Residential Load, (b) Community Load, and (c) Monthly average deferrable load demand.

By solving Eq. (2) for cell temperature, the following equation is refers to ambient temperature (20 ◦ C) and RT,NOCT is solar radiation at
derived. 20 ◦ C (0.8 kW/m2).
(τα)( η ) With τα estimated to be around 0.9, the PV cell temperature can be
Tcell = Tamb + RT 1 − con (3) derived using Eq. (5) [64].
H τα

Here, Tamb is ambient temperature both measured (oC) 3.4.2. Modeling of Wind turbine
Consequently, Eq. (3) can be written as follows HOMER calculates the wind velocity at a particular hub elevation
(τα) T using the following Eq. (6) [64].
cell,NOCT − Tamb,NOCT
= (4) ( )
H RT,NOCT ln Hhub /Href
Uhub = Uanem × ( ) (6)
( ) ln Hanem /Href
Tcell,NOCT − Tamb,NOCT ( η )
Tcell = Tamb + RT 1 − con (5)
RT,NOCT τα Uhub is wind speed at the hub height of the wind turbine (m/s),Uanem
means wind speed at anemometer height (m/s),Hhub represents the hub
Here, Tcell,NoCT is the nominal operating cell temperature (oC),Tamb,NOCT height of the wind turbine (m) and Href is the reference height of the

11
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Fig. 9. (continued).

wind speed measurement (m). charge level and recent charging and discharging patterns. The
When the power law is selected, HOMER employs Eq. (7) to deter­ following Eq. (10) determines the highest level of power(Pmax,battery ) that
mine the wind speed at hub height. can be absorbed by the dual-tank arrangement [64].
( )β
Hhub zQa e− zTL + Qb zs(1 − e− zTL )
Uhub = Uanem × (7) Pmax,battery = (10)
Hanem 1 − e− zTL + s(zTL − 1 + e− zTL )

Here, β represents the exponent in the power law equation. Wind turbine Qa is the available energy at the beginning of the time step (kWh),Qb
performance is typically depicted by power curves under standard refers to the total stored energy at the beginning of the time step (kWh), s
temperature and pressure (STP) conditions. To account for real-world is storage capacity ratio,z represents storage rate constant (h− 1), and TL
conditions, HOMER adjusts the power value estimated from the power is the duration of the time step (h).
curve. This adjustment is made using the air density ratio, according to The Eq. (11) below depicts the power used for charging storage at its
Eq. (8). highest rate.
( )
ρactual (1 − e− )(Qm − Qb )
βTL
Pout,wtg = × Pstp (8) Pmax,battery = (11)
ρstp TL

Here, Pout,wtg is wind turbine power output (kW),Pstp means wind turbine β is storage’s maximum charging rate (A/Ah),Qm is overall storage bank
power output at Standard Temperature and Pressure (kW),ρactual refers capacity
to actual air density (kg/m3) and ρstp is air density at standard temper­ The Eq. (12) below determines the highest power (Pʹʹmax,battery ) at
ature and pressure (1.225 kg/m3). which the storage bank can be charged, corresponding to the maximum
charging current.
3.4.3. Modeling of Diesel generator N is the number of batteries in the storage bank, I means storage’s
The gradient of the generator’s fuel curve illustrates the relationship maximum charging current (A), and V refers to the storage’s nominal
between fuel consumption and power output. This gradient is deter­ voltage in (V).
mined by plotting a line on a graph that connects the generator’s power HOMER determines the maximum charging power for storage by
production to its fuel usage. Eq. (9) is subsequently employed to selecting the smallest value from each option, considering any appli­
calculate the generator’s hourly fuel consumption based on its electrical cable charging losses. At each time interval, HOMER determines the
output [33]. highest power output the storage bank can deliver. This “maximum
discharge power” is utilized in decision-making processes, such as
G = G0 Cgen + G1 Egen (9) assessing whether the Storage Component can independently meet the
load requirements. The maximum discharge power fluctuates between
Here, G represents fuel consumption rate (unit/hr),G0 is the intercept time steps based on the current state of charge.
coefficient of the generator’s fuel curve (unit/hr/kW),G1 is the incline of The following Eq. (13) determines the highest power output
the generator’s fuel curve (unit/hr/kW),Cgen means the rated capacity of (Pmax,discharge ) that the storage bank can deliver over a particular
the generator (kW) and Egen is power output of the generator during this duration.
specific time interval (kW).
− zsQm + zQa e− zTL + Qb zs(1 − e− sTL )
Pmax,discharge = (13)
3.4.4. Modeling of Battery 1 − e− zTL + s(zTL − 1 + e− zTL )
This maximum charge power is employed when determining
whether the storage bank can accommodate all excess RE or the amount The maximum discharging power (Pmax ) of the storage bank is deter­
of surplus power a cycle charging generator ought to produce. The peak mined by the following Eq. (14)
charging capacity fluctuates between time intervals based on the current ηd refers to Storage discharge efficiency.

12
 H. Baidya et al.
Table 6
Detailed load estimation for project location, Bhasan Char.
Residential ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Summer (March-October) Winter (November-February)
Load Load Category Quantity Load Type Number of Power Connected Connected Consumption Connected Connected Consumption
Use Rating (W) Load (kW) Period (daily) (kWh/day) Load (kW) Period (daily) (kWh/day)
Cluster House 1440 Light 36 20 1036.8 5 PM – 12 AM 7257.6 1036.8 4 PM – 12 AM 8294.4
Fan 16 80 1843.2 11 AM – 11 PM 22118.4 1843.2 0 0
Socket (Mobile 16 15 345.6 7 PM – 10 PM 1036.8 345.6 7 PM – 10 PM 1036.8
Charger)
Total 30412.8 9331.2
Community Cyclone Shelters 120 Light 100 20 240 5 PM – 1 AM 1920 240 4 PM – 1 AM 2160
Load Fan 30 80 288 6 PM – 6 AM 3456 288 0 0
Socket (Mobile 50 15 90 7 PM – 10 PM 270 90 7 PM – 11 PM 360
Charger)
Administration 20 Light 20 20 8 8 AM – 4 PM 64 8 8 AM – 4 PM 64
Building Fan 15 80 24 8 AM – 4 PM 192 24 0 0
Socket (Mobile 15 15 4.5 10 AM – 11 AM 4.5 4.5 10 AM – 11 AM 4.5
Charger)
School 6 Light 15 20 1.8 9 AM – 2 PM 9 1.8 9 AM – 2 PM 9
Fan 10 80 4.8 9 AM – 2 PM 24 4.8 0 0
Hospital 6 Light 30 20 3.6 12 AM – 12 AM 86.4 3.6 12 AM – 12 AM 86.4
Fan 20 80 9.6 12 AM – 12 AM 230.4 9.6 0 0
Socket (Mobile 20 15 1.8 4 PM – 8 PM 7.2 1.8 4 PM – 8 PM 7.2
Charger)
Fridge 3 600 10.8 12 AM – 12 AM 259.2 10.8 12 AM – 12 AM 259.2
Shop 100 Light 2 20 4 6 PM – 11 PM 20 4 5 PM – 11 PM 24
Fan 2 80 16 3 PM – 10 PM 112 16 0 0
13

Mosque 10 Light 5 20 1 6 PM – 9 PM 3 1 6 PM – 9 PM 3
Fan 10 80 8 6 PM – 9 PM 24 8 0 0
Police Station 1 Light 10 20 0.2 12 AM – 12 AM 4.8 0.2 12 AM – 12 AM 4.8
Fan 5 80 0.4 12 AM – 12 AM 9.6 0.4 0 0
Socket (Mobile 5 15 0.075 6 PM – 10 PM 0.3 0.075 6 PM – 10 PM 0.3
Charger)
Fire Station 1 Light 10 20 0.2 6 PM – 6 AM 2.4 0.2 6 PM – 6 AM 2.4
Fan 5 80 0.4 12 AM – 12 PM 4.8 0.4 0 0
Socket (Mobile 5 15 0.075 6 PM – 8 PM 0.15 0.075 6 PM – 8 PM 0.15
Charger)
Relief Center 4 Light 10 20 0.8 6 PM – 11 PM 4 0.8 6 PM – 11 PM 4
Small Factory 3 − − 10,000 30 10 AM – 6 PM 240 30 10 AM – 6 PM 240

Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Light House 1 − − 900 0.9 6 PM – 6 AM 10.8 0.9 6 PM – 6 AM 10.8
Street Light 1000 − − 20 20 6 PM – 6 AM 240 20 6 PM – 6 AM 240
Mobile Tower 2 − − 3000 6 12 AM – 12 AM 144 6 12 AM – 12 AM 144
Total 7342.55 3623.75
Deferrable Cluster House 1440 Pump 1 760 1094.4 7 AM – 8 AM 1094.4 1094.4 7 AM – 8 AM 1094.4
Load Cyclone Shelters 120 Pump 2 2,000 480 7 AM – 9 AM 960 480 7 AM – 9 AM 960
Administration 20 Pump 1 1000 20 8 AM – 9 AM 20 20 8 AM – 9 AM 20
Building
School 6 Pump 1 760 4.56 8 AM – 9 AM 4.56 4.56 8 AM – 9 AM 4.56
Hospital 6 Pump 2 2000 24 7 AM – 9 AM 48 24 7 AM – 9 AM 48
Mosque 10 Pump 1 760 7.6 5 AM – 6 AM 7.6 7.6 5 AM – 6 AM 7.6
Police Station 1 Pump 1 760 0.76 8 AM – 9 AM 0.76 0.76 8 AM – 9 AM 0.76
Fire Station 1 Pump 2 2000 4 8 AM – 10 AM 8 4 8 AM – 10 AM 8
E-Autorickshaw 500 Battery ​ 1100 550 10 PM – 8 AM 5500 550 10 PM – 8 AM 5500
Total 7638.76 7638.76
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Pmax = ηd Pmax,discharge (14) all system elements.

Cc + CR + COM + Cf − S
Eq. (15) is used to calculate the charging or discharging power of a NPC = (19)
CRF(m, N)
battery system based on its rate constant (C-rate) and energy storage
capacity. [65]
m × (1 + m)N
Here, CRF(m, N) = (20)
( ) (1 + m)N − 1
1
PChargingorDischarging (MW) = RateconstantorC − rate *
hour (15) mʹ − s
m= (21)
BatteryCapacity(MWh) 1+s

PChargingorDischarging (MW): Charging or discharging power of the battery in The capital recovery factor is denoted by the equation CRF(m, N), which
megawatts (MW). is derived from Eq. (20). In this Eq., m represents the real discount rate,
( ) whilst N signifies the number of years. Furthermore, the real discount
1
RateconstantorC − rate hour : Rate constant or C-rate of the battery. rate is computed using Eq. (21), where s denotes the expected inflation
rate and m’ represents the nominal discount rate.
BatteryCapacity(MWh): Energy storage capacity of the battery in
megawatt-hours (MWh).
3.5.2. Levelized cost of energy (LCOE or COE)
The rate constant quantifies how quickly the battery can deliver or
The Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE or COE) represents the average
absorb energy relative to its nominal capacity. It is expressed in recip­
expense of electricity production per kWh for a system. It is determined
rocal hours (1/hr), where a value of 1.0 indicates the battery can fully
by dividing the total annualized cost of the system by its yearly useful
charge or discharge in 1 h.
electricity output. This value is derived using the following Eq. (22)
[64].
3.4.5. Modeling of biogas generator
The study island possesses a substantial energy resource in the form Cann,tot − cboiler× Hserved
COE = (22)
of biomass. This primarily comprises organic substances such as timber, Eserved
human and animal waste, and animal feed. When deprived of oxygen,
this energy source can produce flammable gases like methane (CH4), Here Cann,tot is the total annualized cost ($/year),cboiler refers to boiler
along with CO2. An assessment of biomass energy potential in the study marginal cost ($/kWh),Hserved means total thermal load served (kWh/
area indicates its suitability for electricity production. The majority of year),Eserved represents total electrical load served (kWh/year). The
power generation in a biomass facility is achieved through the utiliza­ second term in the numerator represents the portion of the yearly cost
tion of an internal combustion engine [39]. that comes from serving the thermal load. This term is zero in systems
( ) with no thermal load (Hserved = 0), such as wind or PV-based system.
ηelectricalenergy = Poutput − Pauxilary /(Inputbiomass)LHV (16) Eserved is calculated by adding AC primary load served (kWh/year),
DC primary load served (kWh/year) and total grid sales (kWh/year). In
ηelectricalenergy = (Pnet )/(Inputbiomass)LHV (17) this study, no energy sale to the grid is considered.
The total annualized cost is the annualized value of the total NPC
The overall system efficiency of electricity generation can be calculated which includes capital, O&M, replacement, and fuel costs. HOMER
through the prescribed Eqs. (16) and (17). Here, Poutput represents the calculates the total annualized cost using the following Eq. (23) [66].
generated electrical power output (W), whilst Pauxilary denotes the power ( )
requirement (W) for various electrical components, such as the Cann,tot = CRF m, Rproj .CNPC,tot (23)
compressor, pumps, and other devices. Pnet signifies the effective elec­
trical power (W), and (Input biomass) LHV indicates the quantity of In this Eq., m represents the real discount rate (%),CRF() is function that
biomass input at its Lower Heating Value (MJ/kg). returns the capital recovery factor, Rproj refers to project lifetime in year,
CNPC,tot is the total NPC.
3.4.6. Modeling of bi-directional converters
Solar photovoltaic systems and battery banks produce direct current 3.5.3. Nominal cash flow
(DC) power, while the loads operate on alternating current (AC). Nominal cash flow represents the actual monetary inflows and out­
Consequently, a bi-directional converter is employed to transform DC flows of a system in a given year without adjusting for inflation. It re­
current into AC electricity. HOMER use the following equation (18) to flects the real income and expenses, including fuel costs, operation and
ascertain the dimensions of the converter [64]. maintenance (O&M), equipment replacement, and revenues from en­
Pout,con means the output power of the inverter (kW),Pin,con refers to ergy sales.
the input power of the inverter (kW), η is the efficiency of the inverter. HOMER calculates the nominal cash flow by summing all revenue
sources, such as electricity sales and salvage value, and subtracting all
expenses, including capital costs, fuel, maintenance, and replacement
3.5. Economic parameters costs. The following equation is used to calculate the nominal cash flow
[67].
3.5.1. Net present cost (NPC)
The system’s total NPC is calculated by subtracting the current value Nominal Cash Flowt = Total Revenuet − Total Costt (24)
of all revenue generated throughout its lifespan from the present value
where t denotes the specific year. This metric represents the actual in­
of all expenses incurred. Costs considered include the initial capital
come minus costs that HOMER anticipates for that year.
outlay, replacement of components, operational and maintenance ex­
penses, fuel consumption, emission penalties, and electricity purchases
from the grid. HOMER calculates the total NPC by summing up the 3.6. Electrical parameters
discounted cash flows for each year over the project’s duration [64].
The NPC is computed using Eq. (19) where Cc , CR , COM , and Cf are, 3.6.1. Capacity factor (CF)
respectively, the annual capital, replacement, operational and fuel costs The Capacity Factor (CF) quantifies the operational efficiency of a
of all components.S here represents the annualized total savage value of power generation unit over a given timeframe. It compares the actual

14
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

output to the theoretical maximum output if the unit were to operate at

EExcess
full capacity continuously throughout that period. CF represented in Eq. Fexcess = (30)
EProduction
(25) [68].
Annualactualproduction(MWh) EExcess means total excess electricity (kWh/yr),Eproduction refers to total
CF = electricity production (kWh/yr).
Annual theoretical production (MWh)
Annualactualproduction(MWh)
= (25)
Capacity(MW).Hoursperyear(Hr) 3.7. Dispatch strategy

3.6.2. PVS penetration In a hybrid energy system, dispatch strategy refers to the principles
The proportion of average power output from a photovoltaic system and procedures employed to manage how various energy sources are
compared to the typical load demand is referred to as PVS penetration. utilized to fulfill energy requirements at any given moment. It usually
Mathematically, it is represented by the following Eq. (26) [68]. governs the order and method in which power generation and storage
( ) resources are utilized. HOMER utilizes multiple dispatch strategies,
MeanoutputpowerofPVS kWh day
including Cycle Charging, Load Following, MATLAB Link, Generator
PVSpenetration = ( ) (26) Order, Combined Dispatch, and Predictive Dispatch for hybrid model
Averageloaddemand daykWh design. However, this study includes two types of dispatch strategy load
following (LF) and cycle charging (CC) for modeling the hybrid systems.
A. Load Following: In the LF dispatch strategy, the system priori­
3.6.3. Renewable share (RS) tizes renewable sources—such as solar PV and wind—to directly meet
The term ’RS’, or renewable share, refers to the proportion of energy the primary load demand. Any excess power generated by RE is stored in
supplied to a load from a non-traditional source [69]. It can be expressed the battery if it is not fully charged. In LF, generators operate only when
mathematically using the following Eq. (27): necessary and produce just enough power to meet the immediate load;
Enonren + Hnonren they do not charge the battery. Lower-priority tasks, such as charging
fren = 1 − (27) the battery bank or supplying deferrable loads, are handled exclusively
Eserved + Hserved
by renewables when surplus power is available. If the renewable gen­
Here, eration and stored battery energy are insufficient, a backup generator,
Enonren = nonrenewable electrical production [kWh/yr]. such as a diesel or biogas unit, runs only as needed to supply the
Hnonren = nonrenewable thermal production [kWh/yr]. shortfall, minimizing fuel consumption and operational costs. If
Eserved = total electrical load served [kWh/yr]. economically beneficial, the generator can also ramp up and sell power
Hserved = total thermal load served [kWh/yr]. to the grid. This strategy is particularly effective in systems with a high
Egridsales = energy sold to the grid [kWh/yr] (included in Eserved ). share of renewables, as it makes the most of solar and wind power. By
For systems with no thermal load, Hnonren and Hserved are considered relying more on clean energy, it keeps generator use to a minimum and
zero. helps reduce fuel costs and emissions [73].
B. Cycle Charging: The CC strategy is a dispatch approach where,
3.6.4. Capacity shortage fraction whenever a generator operates to serve the primary load, it runs at full
The capacity shortage fraction quantifies the extent of insufficient capacity. Any surplus electricity is then directed toward lower-priority
capacity in a system compared to the overall demand. It reflects the ratio objectives in the following order: serving deferrable loads, charging
of unfulfilled demand to total demand over a given timeframe. To the storage bank, and supplying an electrolyzer. In systems that rely
comply with HOMER’s standards, this fraction must not surpass the solely on renewables (solar PV and wind) and battery storage, CC
maximum yearly capacity shortage. The calculation of this metric uti­ operates differently from its traditional role with diesel generators.
lizes the following Eq. (28). and signify total capacity shortage (kWh/ Since there is no dispatchable generator like diesel or biogas, the system
year) and total electrical demand (kWh/year), respectively [70]. prioritizes renewables to meet the primary load demand. When renew­
Here, ET is the total capacity shortage (kWh/yr), and total energy able generation exceeds the load, the excess energy is stored in the
demand is expressed by Ed . battery until it reaches its maximum state of charge (SOC). Conversely,
when RE is insufficient and the battery’s SOC is above the minimum
ET
f= (28) level, the system discharges stored energy from the battery to meet the
Ed
demand, ensuring a stable power supply [74].

3.6.5. Unmet load fraction

The proportion of the yearly electrical demand that remains unful­ 3.8. Specification of hybrid Model components
filled due to insufficient power generation is referred to as the unmet
load fraction (Funmet ) [71]. The proposed energy systems comprise several components,
This metric is calculated using Eq. (29) including Photovoltaic (PV) modules, wind turbines, diesel generators,
biogas generators, batteries, and converters at different combinations.
EUnmet The technical characteristics and cost assumptions for each are discussed
Funmet = (29)
EDemand in this section.
EUnmet is total unmet load (kWh/yr),EDemand means total annual electrical
3.8.1. PV module
demand (kWh/yr).
For this research, the Generic Flat PV solar Module was selected for
analysis. Table 7 presents the technical specifications summary of PV
3.6.6. Excess electricity fraction
modules. The nominal power of the module is 327 W, with an efficiency
The proportion of total surplus electricity to overall electricity gen­
of 20.40 %. A derating factor of 80 % has been applied to account for
eration is referred to as the excess electricity fraction (Fexcess ). To
system losses. The PV system is expected to function for 25 years.
calculate this value at the end of each simulation, HOMER utilizes the
Financial considerations include an initial investment of $750 per kW, a
following Eq. (30) [72].
cost of $750 per kW for replacement, and yearly operational and
maintenance expenses of $10.

15
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Table 7 Table 9
PV module specifications. Performance Characteristics of the Diesel Generator.
Characteristics Values Characteristics Values

Panel Type Generic Flat PV Module Rated Capacity 1 KW

Nominal Power 327 W Capital Cost 500$/1 KW
Panel Efficiency 20.40 % Replacement Cost 500$/1 KW
Derating Factor 80 % O&M Cost 0.03 $/op. hour
Capital Cost 750 $/kW Lifetime 15,000 h
Replacement Cost 750 $/kW Fuel Diesel
O&M Cost 10 $/year Fuel intercept curve 46.9Liter/hour
Lifetime 25 years Diesel Fuel price 1$/Liter
Minimum Load Ratio 25 %

3.8.2. Biogas generator

This study considers a generic biogas generator connected to an
Table 10
alternating current (AC) output. The selection of the generator’s ca­ Technical specifications of the selected wind turbine model.
pacity was guided by the system’s energy demand, ensuring an optimal
Characteristics Values
balance between power generation efficiency and economic feasibility.
Through performing multiple simulations using HOMER’s optimization Manufacturer Vestas Wind System
Model V47
process, various generator capacities were analyzed based on load re­
Rated Capacity 660 kW
quirements, fuel availability, and operational costs. The simulation re­ Capital Cost 1,320,000$
sults indicated that a 500-kW rated output was the most cost-effective Replacement Cost 1,200,000$
and technically viable option. This capacity was chosen to ensure O&M Cost 500 $/year
adequate power generation while avoiding excess capacity and mini­ Lifetime 20 years
Rated Capacity 660 kW
mizing underutilization. The system incurs operational expenses of $30
per hour, with an initial investment of $1,500,000 per kW and a cost of
$625,000 for replacement. As indicated in Table 8 below, the generator 3.8.5. Battery
has an operational life of 20,000 h and operates with a minimum load For modelling the hybrid systems in HOMER, the HOMER Opti­
ratio of 50 %. mizerTM was used for battery sizing. The HOMER OptimizerTM de­
termines the optimal battery quantity for the system by evaluating
3.8.3. Diesel generator different sizing options to minimize costs while ensuring reliable energy
Table 9 shows the design parameters of the diesel generator. Its storage. In this study, the EnerSys Powersafe SBS 1800 battery was
operating cost is $0.03 per hour, while capital and replacement costs are selected, featuring a 24.8 kWh nominal capacity and 12 V operating
$500 per kW. The generator runs effectively with a minimum load ratio voltage. Its 97 % roundtrip efficiency minimizes energy loss during
of 25 % and has a lifespan of 15,000 operational hours. For designing the charge and discharge cycles. The initial and replacement costs for the
hybrid systems, Homer’s “Auto-Size Genset” was selected. In HOMER, battery amount to $6,500, while yearly maintenance and operational
selecting the “Auto-Size Genset” option allows the software to auto­ expenses are $3. As outlined in Table 11, the battery configuration
matically determine the optimal generator size based on the system’s comprises a single string, initially charged to 100 % with a 30 % mini­
load requirements and economic feasibility. It ensures that the generator mum allowable charge state. The battery is estimated to function for 15
is neither oversized, which would lead to inefficiencies and increased years.
costs, nor undersized, which could result in insufficient power supply. The round-trip efficiency of 97 % was obtained from HOMER soft­
ware after selecting the specific battery model, aligning with the effi­
3.8.4. Wind turbine ciency value stated in the manufacturer’s datasheet. Additionally, the
The wind turbine model features a rated capacity of 660 kW. The cost of $6,500 was sourced from a published study on Bangladesh that
total initial and replacement costs were estimated at 1,320,000$ /unit utilized this figure, ensuring consistency with relevant literature [33].
and 1,200,000$/unit, respectively. The system has an expected opera­
tional duration of 20 years and requires $500 annually for operational 3.8.6. Converter
expenses. Table 10 provides a comprehensive overview of the turbine’s A power converter is essential for sustaining energy transfer between
technical parameters. In order to ensure realistic and context-specific the DC and AC components of the system. This study employed a
cost analysis for the study, the capital and replacement costs for the
wind turbine were approximated using data from Bangladesh’s first and
largest wind energy plant at Khurushkul, Cox’s Bazar [75]. Table 11
Electrical and Storage Properties of the Battery.
Characteristics Values

Manufacturer EnerSys
Model Powersafe SBS 1800
Table 8 Chemistry Lead Acid
Design Parameters of the Biogas Generator. Nominal Capacity 24.8 kWh
Nominal Voltage 12 V
Characteristics Values
Maximum discharge power 27.6 KW
Rated Capacity 500 KW Rate Constant 1.94
Capital Cost 1,500,000$ Roundtrip Efficiency 97 %
Replacement Cost 625,000$ Capital Cost 6,500$
O&M Cost 30 $/op. hour Replacement Cost 6,500$
Lifetime 20,000 h O and M Cost 3 $/year
Fuel Biogas Lifetime 15 years
Fuel intercept curve 50 kg/hour String Size 1
Biomass Fuel price 0.018$/kg Initial State of Charge 100 %
Minimum Load Ratio 50 % Minimum State of Charge 30 %

16
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

standard system converter from HOMER with a 1 kW power rating and Table 13
95 % efficiency in conversion. The initial investment and replacement Economics considered for hybrid model design.
costs were both estimated at $300, with no annual operational expenses. Economic Parameters Considered Value
Similar to battery sizing, the HOMER OptimizerTM was used for con­
Nominal discount rate (%) 8.00
verter sizing. HOMER automatically selects the best converter size to Real discount rate (%) 5.88
optimize system efficiency and reliability. As indicated in Table 12, the Expected inflation rate (%) 2.00
system was designed to function for a period of 15 years. Project lifetime (years) 25.00

3.9. Constraints and economics WT (1.98 MW). Energy management is supported by a battery storage
system comprising 344 strings having a storage capacity of 8.53 MWh,
System configuration feasibility and reliability are ensured through while a bi-directional converter with a capacity of 1.396 MW enables
constraints. HOMER was configured with a 0 % maximum annual ca­ efficient energy conversion. This configuration achieves a notable
pacity shortage, meaning that only systems capable of fulfilling 100 % of renewable penetration of 80.6 %, demonstrating significant utilization
the yearly electrical demand were considered in the analysis. HOMER of renewable resources. The system generates 6.1 % EE and operates at a
optimizes each hour to meet the demand for that hour. When setting the COE of $0.195 per kWh. With an NPC of approximately $34.9 million,
maximum annual capacity shortage to 0 %, HOMER ensures that in the model employs a load-following dispatch strategy for optimal
every hour of the year, the energy supply must be sufficient to meet the performance.
load. This means the system is optimized on an hourly basis, ensuring II) Model-2 (PV/Wind/Diesel/Battery): Model-2 comprises a PV
that for every timestep (e.g., every hour), the generation from renewable capacity of 5 MW, three diesel generators, and three WT (1.98 MW), in
sources, storage, and backup generation (if available) must be able to addition to 750 battery strings which have 18.6 MWh of storage ca­
meet the demand without any shortage [77]. A minimum renewable pacity. The bi-directional converter capacity is 1.808 MW. This config­
share of 0 % was set, which allowed a range of system design options. To uration achieves a renewable penetration of 75.1 %. It generates 8.84 %
ensure system stability and manage load variations, operating reserves EE and exhibits a COE of $0.21 per kWh. The NPC for this system is
were incorporated. These reserves were calculated as a percentage of approximately $36.7 million. Similar to Model- 1, it employs a load-
both load and renewable energy production. Specifically, a 10 % oper­ following dispatch strategy.
ating reserve was established for the current time step’s load, while no III) Model-3 (PV/Diesel/Biogas/Battery): This model incorporates
reserve was required for the annual peak load. An 80 % operating a PV system with a capacity of 6 MW, a biogas generator of 1 MW, and a
reserve was defined for solar power output, while a 50 % reserve was diesel generator of 3.2 MW. It is equipped with 547 battery strings
implemented for wind power generation. Additionally, the techno- (13.57 MWh storage) and a bi-directional converter with a capacity of
economic study requires economic factors like discount rate, inflation 2.513 MW. The RE penetration for this configuration is 71.8 %, with
rate etc. Table 13 contains the economic parameter values considered 5.85 % EE generated. The COE and NPC for Model-3 are approximately
for this study. A nominal discount rate of 8.00 % to reflect the time value $0.253 per kWh and $45.2 million respectively, and the model utilizes a
of money was considered. This was adjusted for 2.00 % projected load-following dispatch strategy.
inflation, yielding a real discount rate of 5.88 %. The project is aimed to IV) Model-4 (PV/Wind/Battery): The fourth model is distinguished
last for 25 years. by its sole reliance on renewable energy, incorporating an 8 MW
photovoltaic system and eight WT (5.28 MW). This configuration en­
4. Results analysis compasses 3,147 battery strings having 78.95 MWh storage capacity and
a bi-directional converter rated at 2.723 MW. Achieving 100 % renew­
This section presents the findings of this study. The optimization able penetration, the model generates a 42.2 % surplus of electricity.
results are initially analyzed, followed by a description of the sensitivity The COE stands at $0.267 per kWh, with an NPC of approximately $47.7
analysis outcomes and discussion on hybrid models’ performance. million. A Cycle Charging dispatch strategy is implemented.
V) Model-5 (PV/Diesel/Battery): Model-5 consists of a 6 MW
photovoltaic (PV) array, 3.2 MW diesel generators, and 960 battery
4.1. Optimized hybrid renewable energy models
strings, providing a total storage capacity of 23.81 MWh. The system
utilizes a bi-directional converter rated at 2.074 MW. This configuration
This study performs the design and thorough analysis of six distinct
achieves a RE penetration of 52.9 % and produces a surplus of 5.44 %
hybrid energy systems to satisfy the load demand for Bhasan Char Is­
electricity. The COE for this configuration amounts to $0.275 per kWh,
land. The systems are Model-1 (PV/Biogas/Diesel/Wind/Battery),
with an NPC of approximately $49.2 million. Consistent with Models 1
Model-2 (PV/Wind/Diesel/Battery), Model-3 (PV/Diesel/Biogas/Bat­
and 2, this configuration implements a load-following dispatch strategy.
tery), Model-4 (PV/Wind/Battery), Model-5 (PV/Diesel/Battery), and
VI) Model-6 (PV/Battery): The configuration of Model-6 exhibits a
Model-6 (PV/Battery). The schematic diagram of the hybrid systems is
high degree of renewable energy utilization, featuring a substantial 28
given in Fig. 10. Table 14 shows the optimized sizing and results for the
MW photovoltaic array and 5,923 battery strings having battery storage
hybrid models.
of 146.89 MWh. Energy flow optimization is achieved through a bi-
I) Model-1 (PV/Biogas/Diesel/Wind/Battery): The hybrid
directional converter with a capacity of 2.739 MW. This setup attains
configuration of Model-1 encompasses a 3.5 MW photovoltaic (PV)
complete renewable penetration, resulting in the maximum EE pro­
system, a 0.5 MW biogas generator, a 3.2 MW diesel generator, and three
duction at 63.4 %. The economic parameters include a COE of $0.434
per kWh and an NPC of $77.5 million. The model employs a Cycle
Table 12
Charging dispatch strategy which facilitates efficient management of the
Specification Details of the Converter [76].
extensive energy storage system in concert with the photovoltaic gen­
Characteristics Values eration capabilities.
Rated Power 1 kW
Conversion Efficiency 95 %
Capital Cost 300$ 4.2. Cost analysis of HRES models
Replacement Cost 300$
O&M Cost 0.0 $/year The cost summary of the hybrid models is presented in Table 15
Lifetime 15 years
while Fig. 11 illustrates the component-wise economic metrics

17
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Fig. 10. Schematic diagram of the hybrid models: (a) PV/Biogas/Diesel/Wind/Battery, (b) PV/Wind/Diesel/Battery, (c) PV/Diesel/Biogas/Battery, (d) PV/Wind/
Battery, (e) PV/Diesel/Battery, and (f) PV/Battery.

18
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Table 14
Optimized result summary of six hybrid energy models.
Parameters Specification Unit Hybrid Systems
Model-1: PV/ Model-2: PV/ Model-3: PV/ Model-4: PV/ Model-5: PV/ Model-6: PV/
Biogas/Diesel/ Wind/Diesel/ Diesel/Biogas/ Wind/Battery Diesel/Battery Battery
Wind/Battery Battery Battery

System PV array MW 3.5 5 6 8 6 28

architecture Wind turbine MW 1.98 1.98 0 5.28 0 0
Biogas Generator MW 0.5 0 1 0 0 0
Diesel Generator MW 3.2 3.2 3.2 0 3.2 0
Converter MW 1.396 1.808 2.513 2.723 2.074 2.739
Battery Storage MWh 8.53 18.6 13.57 78.05 23.81 146.89
Capacity
Battery Charging/ MW 11.57 25.22 18.39 105.83 105.83 199.18
Discharging Capacity
(MW)
Dispatch Strategy LF or LF LF LF CC LF CC
CC
Cost COE $/kWh 0.195 0.210 0.253 0.267 0.275 0.475
NPC (million $) $ 34.9 36.7 45.2 47.7 49.2 77.5
Total O&M cost $ 12,040,000 11,950,000 18,420,000 13,310,000 15,540,000 20,550,000
Total capital cost $ 12,300,000 14,700,000 12,000,000 37,800,000 13,000,000 60,300,000
Power PV array kWh/ 5,003,677 7,148,110 8,577,732 11,436,976 8,577,732 40,029,417
production year
Wind turbine kWh/ 4,958,839 4,958,839 0 13,223,571 0 0
year
Biogas Generator kWh/ 2,890,543 0 2,669,751 0 0 0
year
Diesel Generator kWh/ 2,040,750 0 0 0 6,528,470 0
year
Total electricity kWh/ 14,893,809 15,560,228 15,154,393 24,660,548 15,106,202 40,029,417
production year
Primary load kWh/ 10,985,405 10,985,405 10,985,405 10,977,296 10,985,405 10,976,235
consumption year
Capacity shortage kWh/ 0 0 0 12,959 0 13,378
year
Unmet load kWh/ 0 0 0 8,109 0 9,720
year
Excess electricity kWh/ 816,976 1,375,146 886,504 10,411,484 821,160 25,287,782
year (6.1 %) (8.84 %) (5.85 %) (42.2 %) (5.44 %) (63.4 %)
Capacity factor PV array % 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3
Wind turbine % 28.6 29 0 29 0 0
Biogas Generator % 46.6 0 30.5 0 0 0
Converter % 32.8 34.9 33 23.3 40.3 57.7

Table 15
Cost summary of hybrid models.
Economic Metric ($) System
Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-4 Model-5 Model-6
PV/Biogas/ PV/Wind/ PV/Diesel/ PV/ PV/Diesel/ PV/
Diesel Diesel/Battery Biogas/Battery Wind/ Battery Battery
/Wind Battery
/Battery

Capital 12,300,000 14,700,000 12,000,000 37,800,000 13,000,000 60,300,000

Operating 5,280,000 3,890,000 8,980,000 1,210,000 5,820,000 3,850,000
Replacement 6,760,000 8,060,000 9,440,000 12,100,000 9,720,000 16,700,000
Salvage − 1,200,000 − 2,030,000 − 8,583,65 − 3,420,000 − 1,620,000 − 3,140,000
Resource 11,700,000 12,100,000 15,700,000 0 22,400,000 0
Total 34,840,000 36,720,000 45,261,635 47,690,000 49,320,000 77,710,000

associated with each configuration. Model-1, which consists of a PV/ their remaining value or potential recycling revenue. Model-2 (PV/
Biogas/Diesel/Wind/Battery, has a total cost of $34,840,000, with Wind/Diesel/Battery) has a total cost of $36,720,000, with higher
capital costs at $12,300,000, operating costs of $5,280,000, and capital costs of $14,700,000 but lower operating costs at $3,890,000
replacement costs amounting to $6,760,000. The initial investment in than Model-1. The highest operational expense is attributed to the diesel
wind turbine technology represents the most significant capital expen­ generator, primarily due to the cost of purchasing diesel fuel. It also
diture, followed by the cost of PV and battery, respectively. In addition, includes a salvage cost of − $2,030,000. Model-3, which integrates a PV/
it accounts for a salvage cost of − $1,200,000. Salvage value refers to the Diesel/Biogas/Battery, shows a total cost of $45,261,635. The majority
estimated resale, recycling, or scrap value of an asset at the end of its of the initial expenditure is spent on PV modules and battery compo­
useful life. In HRES, components like solar photovoltaic panels, wind nents. Among the operational expenses, the combined costs of running
turbines, batteries, and generators frequently possess negative salvage the diesel and biogas generators represent the largest portion. The
values. This occurs because the expenses associated with decom­ salvage cost of − $858,365 slightly offsets its total cost. This salvage
missioning, transporting, and disposing of these components surpass value is less than Model-2′s because Model-3 lacks wind turbines, which

19
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Fig. 11. The cost summary charts of the HRES models: (a) PV/Biogas/Diesel/Wind/Battery, (b) PV/Wind/Diesel/Battery, (c) PV/Diesel/Biogas/Battery, (d) PV/
Wind/Battery, (e) PV/Diesel/Battery, and (f) PV/Battery.

are costly to decommission due to their size and materials. Conversely, expenses followed by PV modules. The salvage cost of − $3,140,000
Model-3′s biogas and diesel generators have components that can be reflects the end-of-life disposal costs of large-scale battery storage.
reused or sold, lowering decommissioning costs. Model-4, comprising a Fig. 12 shows the component-wise nominal cash flow scenario of 25-
PV/Wind/Battery, has the highest capital investment at $37,800,000 year project lifetime for these models. A nominal cash flow is the actual
which is mainly needed for the battery system. This model has a total income minus cost in a particular year. Each cash flow is displayed as a
cost of $47,690,000 with the lowest operating costs of $1,210,000 stacked bar, with a different color representing each of the components
among the hybrid models. Salvage cost of − $3,420,000, which is the in the system. Each bar in the graph represents the total cash inflow or
highest among the six models. This is mainly because it has the largest outflow for the specific year. The initial bar, corresponding to year zero,
wind turbine capacity of 5.28 MW and WT have high decommissioning indicates the system’s capital cost, mainly from PV, wind, generator and
costs. Model-5 (PV/Diesel/Battery) incurs a total cost of $49,320,000, battery investments. Models 1, 2, 3, and 5 incur regular annual expen­
largely driven by its replacement costs of $9,720,000. Besides, this ditures for O&M and fuel costs, with certain years experiencing higher
model has the highest resource cost among all systems. However, the costs due to equipment replacements. Among them, Model-5 (PV/
salvage cost of − $1,620,000 is primarily attributed to the decom­ Diesel/Battery) has consistently higher operational expenses due to its
missioning and disposal expenses of its diesel generator and battery reliance on fuel-based generation. In contrast, Models 4 (PV/Wind/
system. Lastly, Model-6 (PV/Battery) has the highest total cost at Battery) and 6 (PV/Battery) have significantly lower recurring costs, as
$77,710,000, primarily due to its significant capital expenditure of they are fully renewable-based and do not require fuel. However, both
$60,300,000. Batteries account for the largest portion of the initial models exhibit a substantial cash outflow in the 15th year, likely due to

20
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Fig. 12. Cashflow of HRES models: (a) PV/Biogas/Diesel/Wind/Battery, (b) PV/Wind/Diesel/Battery, (c) PV/Diesel/Biogas/Battery, (d) PV/Wind/Battery, (e) PV/
Diesel/Battery, and (f) PV/Battery.

major component replacements such as batteries and converters. 1,375,146 kWh (8.84 %) of surplus electricity. The analysis of Model-3
reveals that photovoltaic sources constitute the primary energy contri­
4.3. Electricity production and consumption analysis bution at 56.6 %, with diesel generation accounting for a noteworthy
25.8 % of the total output. This configuration yields a total energy
Table 16 illustrates the annual electricity production and consump­ output of 15,154,393 kWh, with an excess production of 886,504 kWh,
tion across the HRES models. The monthly electricity production is while successfully meeting all load requirements. Model-4 generates
depicted in Fig. 13, and Fig. 14 shows the yearly electricity production 24,660,548 kWh through a combination of wind (53.6 %) and PV (46.4
percentage shared by different sources. Notably, battery production is %) sources. This configuration results in a substantial surplus of elec­
not shown in these figures, as batteries do not generate electricity but tricity 10,411,484 kWh (42.2 %) while ensuring consistent power
rather store energy. output. Model-5 demonstrates a balanced energy production of
Across all models examined, the AC load consumption rate consti­ 15,106,202 kWh, with PV systems accounting for 56.8 % and diesel
tutes 79.3 % of the total, while the deferrable load accounts for the generators contributing the remaining 43.2 %. Finally, Model-6 exclu­
remaining 20.7 %. Model-1 demonstrates an annual electricity genera­ sively utilizes only PV which generates a total of 40,029,417 kWh of
tion of 14,893,809 kWh. Wind and PV systems are the primary con­ energy yearly. This system produces a significant surplus of 25,287,782
tributors to this output, generating 33.2 % and 33.5 % of the total kWh (63.4 %) due to the intermittent nature of photovoltaics (PV).
electricity, respectively. The configuration optimizes the balance be­
tween RE production and system reliability, generating 816,976 kWh 4.3.1. Excess electricity management techniques in HRES
(6.1 %) of EE while maintaining zero unmet electrical demands. Model-2 EE, surplus power, or dumped energy in HRES affects stability,
yields a slightly higher total electricity output than Model-1 which is affordability, and reliability of the system. Renewable sources such as
15,560,228 kWh. This model demonstrates an increased utilization of solar and wind energy are intermittent in nature as a result, surplus
PV (45.9 %) and diesel (22.2 %) sources, resulting in the production of power is generated when the battery is fully charged, or the generator’s

21
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Table 16
Energy production and consumption of six models.
Model-1 PV/Biogas/Diesel/Wind/Battery Production kWh/yr % Consumption kWh/yr % Quantity kWh/yr
PV 5,003,677 33.5 AC Primary Load 10,985,405 79.3 Excess Electricity 816,976
Biogas Generator 2,890,543 14.5 DC Primary Load 0 0 Unmet Electric Load 0
Diesel Generator 2,040,750 18.7 Deferrable Load 2,861,550 20.7 Capacity Shortage 0
Wind Turbine 4,958,839 33.2
Total 14,893,809 100 Total 13,846,955 100

Model-2 PV/Wind/Diesel/Battery Production kWh/yr % Consumption kWh/yr % Quantity kWh/yr

PV 7,148,110 45.9 AC Primary Load 10,985,405 79.3 Excess Electricity 1,375,146
Diesel Generator 3,453,278 22.2 DC Primary Load 0 0 Unmet Electric Load 0
Wind Turbine 4,958,839 31.9 Deferrable Load 2,861,594 20.7 Capacity Shortage 0
Total 15,560,228 100 Total 13,846,999 100 ​ ​
Model-3 PV/Diesel/Biogas/Battery Production kWh/yr % Consumption kWh/yr % Quantity kWh/yr
PV 8,577,732 56.6 AC Primary Load 10,985,405 79.3 Excess Electricity 886,504
Biogas Generator 2,669,751 17.6 DC Primary Load 0 0 Unmet Electric Load 0
Diesel Generator 3,906,910 25.8 Deferrable Load 2,861,550 20.7 Capacity Shortage 0
Total 15,154,393 100 Total 13,846,955 100 ​ ​
Model-4 PV/Wind/Battery Production kWh/yr % Consumption kWh/yr % Quantity kWh/yr
PV 11,436,976 46.4 AC Primary Load 10,977,296 79.3 Excess Electricity 10,411,484
Wind Turbine 13,223,571 53.6 DC Primary Load 0 0 Unmet Electric Load 8,109
​ ​ ​ Deferrable Load 2,862,219 20.7 Capacity Shortage 12,959
Total 24,660,548 100 Total 13,839,515 100 ​ ​
Model-5 PV/Diesel/Battery Production kWh/yr % Consumption kWh/yr % Quantity kWh/yr
PV 8,577,732 56.8 AC Primary Load 10,985,405 79.3 Excess Electricity 821,160
Diesel Generator 6,528,470 43.2 DC Primary Load 0 0 Unmet Electric Load 0
Total 15,106,202 100 Deferrable Load 2,861,550 20.7 Capacity Shortage 0
​ ​ ​ Total 13,846,955 100 ​ ​
Model-6 PV/Battery Production kWh/yr % Consumption kWh/yr % Quantity kWh/yr
PV 40,029,417 100 AC Primary Load 10,976,235 79.3 Excess Electricity 25,287,782
​ ​ ​ DC Primary Load 0 0 Unmet Electric Load 9,720
​ ​ ​ Deferrable Load 2,861,319 20.7 Capacity Shortage 13,378
Total 40,029,417 100 Total 13,837,554 100 ​ ​

minimum output exceeds the load. Off-grid systems confront challenges Therefore, for high EE like Model-4 and Model-6, such technologies may
with this excess power but grid-connected HRESs can transmit it to the work. Electrolyzers could convert extra electricity into hydrogen for
grid utility. Therefore, On-grid systems tend to have very lower or even clean energy storage. Desalination plants could employ excess power to
zero EE. In off-grid HRES, surplus electricity is wasted. Dump loads, manage water scarcity and increase energy efficiency. These methods
commonly resistor banks, are used for surplus electricity dissipation may reduce electricity waste.
[32]. In our study, Models 1, 2, 3, and 5 have lower EE percentages as
they employ non-renewable resources like biogas and diesel. Model-1 4.4. Emission analysis of models
generates 816,976 kWh/year (6.1 %), Model- 2 produces 1,375,146
kWh/year (8.84 %), Model-3 outputs 886,504 kWh/year (5.85 %), and The combustion of fossil fuels is the largest source of CO2 and other
Model-5 yields 821,160 kWh/year (5.44 %) of EE. The lower values GHG that contribute to global climate change. RES, particularly solar
result from hybrid systems’ integration of renewable and non-renewable and wind, directly reduce CO2 emissions by generating electricity
resources, coupled with the application of appropriate optimization without the use of fossil fuels. Combining RES with conventional energy
techniques during the component sizing process. sources such as diesel generators presents a versatile approach to
In contrast, the highest surplus electricity is observed in Model-4 pollution reduction. These systems leverage the advantages of RE to
(PV/Wind/Battery) and Model-6 (PV/Battery), with annual outputs of decrease emissions while ensuring the necessary reliability and stability
10,411,484 kWh (42.2 %) and 25,287,782 kWh (63.4 %) respectively. to meet energy needs. The integration of both renewable and non-
These models achieve a 100 % RS by exclusively utilizing renewable renewable sources in a hybrid configuration contributes to the mitiga­
sources. The system is only reliable when it meets the required load tion of various pollutants. A comparison of the emissions produced by
demand. High renewable penetration leads to frequent intermittencies. the six models is illustrated in Table 17. It is observed that Model-4 and
As a result, the optimal system has large amounts of EE and unmet loads. Model-6 stand out as the most environmentally friendly options, pro­
To consistently meet load demands, the system components have been ducing zero GHG. These systems rely solely on RES with renewable
generously sized. This oversizing is essential for maintaining energy penetration of 100 % (PV and wind in Model-4, and PV and battery in
reliability but results in considerable EE generation. In standalone en­ Model-6), which explains the absence of emissions. Model- 1 produces
ergy systems designed for high reliability, this excess power generation emissions totaling 2,083,067 kg CO2, among the systems that use fossil
is unavoidable. Specially system with 100 % RS achieves higher EE fuels, making it a comparatively eco-friendly hybrid solution that in­
percentage [78,79,80,81,82]. However, efforts can be made to minimize corporates both renewable and non-renewable energy sources. Models 3
this surplus energy by finding alternative uses for the extra energy in and 2 also exhibit higher emission levels compared to Model-1. Gener­
secondary applications. Researchers in [83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90] have ally, Model-3 produces 38 % more emissions, while Model-2 emits
implemented techniques like thermal load controllers, deferrable loads, approximately 21 % more across most categories. In contrast, Model-5
physical energy storage, battery banks, supercapacitors, electrolyzers to has the highest emissions across all categories due to its significant
H2 production, synthetic loads, use of multi-generator etc. in their dependence on diesel generation.
proposed study and found those very effective in lowering the excess
power percentage in HRES system. Research shows that supercapacitors 4.5. PV output analysis
and power-to-gas cycle technologies are better for large-scale energy
demands. If economic constraints are not a barrier, then electrolyzers, Table 18 delineates crucial performance metrics for the PV module
fuel cells, and desalination facilities (as deferrable loads) can reduce EE. outputs across six hybrid energy systems. The PV contribution fluctuates

22
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Fig. 13. Monthly electricity production of the models: (a) PV/Biogas/Diesel/Wind/Battery, (b) PV/Wind/Diesel/Battery, (c) PV/Diesel/Biogas/Battery, (d) PV/
Wind/Battery, (e) PV/Diesel/Battery, and (f) PV/Battery.

based on the specific model configuration. Notably, Model-6 demon­ 4.6. Diesel generator output analysis
strates the highest rated capacity at 28,000 kW among the hybrid
models. This configuration achieves a mean output of 4,570 kW and Four models – Model-1, Model-2, Model-3, and Model-5 have
generates a daily production of 109,670 kWh. On the other hand, Model- incorporated diesel generators. Table 19 illustrates the diesel generator
1 possesses a rated capacity of 3,500 kW, with a mean production of 571 output for these four systems. The annual diesel generator output is
kW and 13,709 kWh per day. All models share a similar capacity factor presented in Fig. 16. During the winter season (November-February),
of 16.3 %, indicating that their utilization of available capacity is equal. energy requirements are lower than in summer; consequently, the
Additionally, Fig. 15 illustrates that the availability of solar power generator does not operate, as alternative sources can supply the
generation is primarily concentrated between the hours of 6:00 AM and necessary energy requirements. Therefore, it is observed that from
6:00 PM for all systems. The total production reveals substantial varia­ March to October there is significant power production for all four
tions, with Model-6 generating the largest yearly energy output of hybrid models. Diesel generators act as backup for the hybrid models,
40,029,417 kWh. In terms of PV penetration, which represents the particularly during periods when renewable resources like solar, wind,
proportion of energy supplied by the photovoltaic system, Model-6 or biogas are unavailable. Model-5 exhibits the highest dependence on
achieves the highest level at 364 %, substantially outperforming the diesel generation, with 43.2 % of the energy (6,528,470 kWh/year)
other models. In contrast, Model-1 attains a penetration rate of 45.5 %. derived from diesel sources. Although photovoltaic systems still
contribute 56.8 % of the total energy, the absence of alternative

23
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Fig. 14. Yearly electricity production percentage shared by different sources: (a) PV/Biogas/Diesel/Wind/Battery, (b) PV/Wind/Diesel/Battery, (c) PV/Diesel/
Biogas/Battery, (d) PV/Wind/Battery, (e) PV/Diesel/Battery, and (f) PV/Battery.

Table 17
Annual emission of hybrid models across key pollutants.
Emissions (kg/yr) System

Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-4 Model-5 Model-6

PV/Biogas PV/Wind/Diesel PV/Diesel/ PV/Wind PV/Diesel/ PV/

/Diesel /Battery Biogas /Battery Battery Battery
/Wind /Battery
/Battery

Carbon Dioxide 2,083,067 2,449,460 2,792,562 0 4,528,746 0

Carbon Monoxide 13,136 15,440 17,610 0 28,547 0
Unburned Hydrocarbons 573 674 768 0 1,246 0
Particulate Matter 79.5 93.6 107 0 173 0
Sulfur Dioxide 5,098 5,998 6,835 0 11,090 0
Nitrogen Oxides 12,336 14,504 16,537 0 26,817 0

Table 18
Performance and energy production of photovoltaic systems.
Parameters System

Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-4 Model-5 Model-6

​ PV/Biogas/Diesel PV/Wind PV/Diesel/ PV/Wind/ PV/Diesel PV/

/Wind/ /Diesel/ Biogas/ Battery /Battery Battery
Battery Battery Battery
Rated Capacity (kW) 3,500 5,000 6,000 8,000 6,000 28,000
Mean Output (kW) 571 816 979 1,306 979 4,570
Mean Output(kWh/day) 13,709 19,584 23,501 31,334 23,501 109,670
Capacity Factor (%) 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3
Total Production (kWh/year) 5,003,677 7,148,110 8,577,732 11,436,976 8,577,732 40,029,417
Minimum Output (kW) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maximum Output (kW) 3,470 4,957 5,948 7,931 5,948 27,758
PV Penetration (%) 45.5 65.1 78.1 104 78.1 364
Hours of Operation (Hours/year) 4,373 4,373 4,373 4,373 4,373 4,373
Levelized Cost ($/kW) 0.0476 0.0476 0.0476 0.0476 0.0476 0.0476

24
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Fig. 15. Annual PV power outputs of the HRES models: (a) PV/Biogas/Diesel/Wind/Battery, (b) PV/Wind/Diesel/Battery, (c) PV/Diesel/Biogas/Battery, (d) PV/
Wind/Battery, (e) PV/Diesel/Battery, and (f) PV/Battery.

renewable sources such as wind or biogas results in increased reliance on

Table 19
diesel for a substantial portion of the annual energy production. Simi­
Diesel generator performance in different systems.
larly, in Model-1, the diesel generator accounts for 18.7 % of the total
Parameters System electricity production, generating 2,890,543 kWh/year, which is the
Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-5 lowest among the models. This relatively low reliance on diesel is ach­
PV/ PV/ PV/ PV/Wind ieved through a balanced contribution from PV systems (33.5 %), biogas
Biogas/ Wind/ Diesel/ /Battery (14.5 %), and WT (33.2 %).
Diesel/ Diesel/ Biogas/
Wind/ Battery Battery
Battery

Electrical Production 2,890,543 3,453,278 3,906,910 6,528,470 Table 20

(kWh/year) Comparative analysis of biogas generator output across systems.
Mean Electrical Output 1,198 1,341 1,271 1,617
Parameters System
(kW)
Minimum Electrical 800 800 800 800 Model-1 Model-3
Output (kW)
PV/Biogas/Diesel PV/Diesel/
Maximum Electrical 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200
/Wind/Battery Biogas/Battery
Output (kW)
Electrical Production (kWh/year) 2,040,750 2,669,751
Mean Electrical Output (kW) 440 791
Minimum Electrical Output (kW) 250 500
Maximum Electrical Output (kW) 500 1,000

Fig. 16. Annual Diesel generator power output of the HRES models: (a) PV/Biogas/Diesel/Wind/Battery, (b) PV/Wind/Diesel/Battery, (c) PV/Diesel/Biogas/Bat­
tery, and (d) PV/Diesel/Battery.

25
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

4.7. Biogas generator output analysis Table 21

Wind turbine output in various systems.
Integrating biogas generators is a key feature across two hybrid RE Parameters System
models: Model-1 and Model-3. Table 20 illustrates the output of the
Model-1 Model-2 Model-4
biogas generator across these systems. The examination of biogas
generator performance between Model-1 and Model-3 highlights the PV/Biogas/Diesel/ PV/Wind/ PV/Wind/
Wind/Battery Diesel/Battery Battery
critical role of biogas as an RE source within hybrid systems. The biogas
generator in Model-1 produces 2,040,750 kWh per year, contributing Total Rated Capacity 1,980 1,980 5,280
(kW)
14.5 % of the total electricity output. This generator delivers an average
Mean Output (kW) 566 566 1,510
electrical power of 440 kW. It operates within a capacity spectrum of Capacity Factor (%) 28.6 29 29
250 kW to 500 kW. Fig. 17(a) shows the biogas generator operates at Total Production 4,958,839 4,958,839 13,223,571
nearly full capacity from March through October, primarily during (kWh/year)
nighttime hours between 6:00 PM and 6:00 AM due to the absence of Minimum Output 0 0 0
(kW)
solar power availability. In contrast, Model-3 exhibits a superior biogas Maximum Output 1,980 1,980 5,280
yield of 2,669,751 kWh/year, accounting for 17.6 % of the total pro­ (kW)
duction. This configuration generates an average electrical output of Wind Penetration 45.1 45 120
791 kW, with outputs ranging from a minimum of 500 kW to a (%)
Hours of Operation 7,604 7,604 7,604
maximum of 1,000 kW. According to Fig. 17(b), minimal operations are
(Hours/Year)
observed during winter months, while in the summer months, the Levelized Cost 0.0699 0.0699 0.0699
generator operates at maximum capacity between 12 AM and 6 AM. ($/kWh)

4.8. Wind turbine output analysis

energy in and out, losses, and autonomy is presented in Table 22. Model-
1 incorporates a system of 344 batteries that annually consumes
The wind turbine outputs for Models 1, 2, and 4 are illustrated in
658,836 kWh of energy and generates 640,621 kWh, with a modest
Table 21. The total production and output varied significantly due to
energy loss of 19,789 kWh during the process. Model-2, with 750 bat­
differences in the number of turbines and their rated capacities. Model-1
teries, has a significant increase in both input (1,676,629 kWh) and
and model-2 both employ three turbines with a total rated capacity of
output (1,630,526 kWh), but it also loses more energy (50,363 kWh),
1,980 kW. Both models yield a mean output of 566 kW and a total
showing the trade-off between capacity and efficiency. Model-3 has 547
annual production of approximately 4,958,839 kWh. Fig. 18(a) and 18
batteries with an autonomy of 6 h. Energy storage in Model-4 is
(b) demonstrate that from June to August, production attained its
accomplished through 3,147 batteries. The system receives 2,975,464
maximum level at multiple daily intervals. Likewise, Model-4 consists of
kWh and outputs 2,888,833 kWh, with a total energy loss of 89,304
eight turbines and has a greater overall rated capacity of 5,280 kW. This
kWh. This model has an autonomy of 34.5 h after Model-6, which is
model produces 13,223,571 kWh per year, yielding an average output of
64.9 h. A higher autonomy value signifies that the system can provide
1,510 kW. Production is seen to remain high from the month of May to
energy for a longer period without relying on external power sources or
August for this model as shown in Fig. 18(c).
supply energy without needing to be recharged, which is crucial for
ensuring energy reliability. Model-6 has the most batteries, with 5,923
4.9. Battery performance analysis
of them, and the highest usable nominal capacity of 102,670 kWh. It also
has the highest lifetime output of 89,122,759 kWh. The state of charge
A comprehensive analysis of the battery systems used across six
(SOC) levels of the batteries throughout the year are graphically
hybrid RE models, focusing on key parameters such as battery quantity,

Fig. 17. Annual Biogas generator power output: (a) PV/Biogas/Diesel/Wind/Battery, and (b) PV/Diesel/Biogas/Battery.

26
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Fig. 18. Annual Wind turbine power outputs of the HRES models: (a) PV/Biogas/Diesel/Wind/Battery, (b) PV/Wind/Diesel/Battery, and (c) PV/Wind/Battery.

Table 22
Battery properties and performance in different hybrid energy systems.
Parameters System

Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-4 Model-5 Model-6

​ PV/Biogas/ PV/Wind/Diesel/Battery PV/Diesel/Biogas/Battery PV/Wind/Battery PV/Diesel/ PV/Battery

Diesel Battery
/Wind/
Battery
Batteries (Qty.) 344 750 547 3,147 3,147 5,923
String Size (Batteries) 1 1 1 1 1 1
Strings in Parallel (Strings) 344 750 547 3,147 3,147 5,923
Bus Voltage (V) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Average Energy Cost ($/kWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Energy In (kWh/year) 658,836 1,676,629 1,581,525 2,975,464 2,975,464 6,027,505
Energy Out (kWh/year) 640,621 1,630,526 1,543,238 2,888,833 2,888,833 5,851,716
Storage Depletion (kWh/year) 1,574 4,260 9,299 2,674 2,674 5,114
Losses (kWh/year) 19,789 50,363 47,586 89,304 89,304 180,902
Annual Throughput (kWh/year) 650,452 1,655,548 1,566,920 2,933,166 2,933,166 5,941,517
Autonomy (hour) 3.77 8.22 6 34.5 34.5 64.9
Storage Wear Cost ($/kWh) 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.25
Nominal Capacity (kWh) 8,518 18,572 13,545 77,929 77,929 146,671
Usable Nominal Capacity (kWh) 5,963 13,001 9,482 54,550 54,550 102,670
Lifetime Throughput (kWh) 9,094,053 19,827,150 14,460,601 43,997,487 43,997,487 89,122,759
Expected Life (year) 14 12 9.23 15 15 15

27
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Fig. 19. State of Charge of the Designed System with (a) PV/Biogas/Diesel/Wind/Battery, (b) PV/Wind/Diesel/Battery, (c) PV/Diesel/Biogas/Battery, (d) PV/Wind/
Battery, (e) PV/Diesel/Battery, and (f) PV/Battery.

represented in Fig. 19. For Models 1, 2, 3, and 5, the average battery in the battery passively, without requiring additional power generation.
energy cost is 0 $/kWh because, under the LF strategy, the system never Since no extra cost is incurred for charging the storage in these models,
incurs a cost to charge the storage. Instead, the battery is charged only HOMER assigns a zero storage energy cost to them as well.
when there is excess renewable electricity, which does not add any Fig. 20 represents the daily battery charging patterns of six hybrid
additional expenses. Similarly, in Models 4 and 6, where the system systems throughout the year. Battey is charged normally in the daytime
relies solely on PV, wind, and battery storage, renewables are prioritized when solar is available. Model-1 (PV/Biogas/Diesel/Wind/Battery) re­
to meet the primary load. Any surplus energy from PV or wind is stored quires the least battery charging due to its dependence on biogas and

Fig. 20. Battery charging in designed Systems: (a) PV/Biogas/Diesel/Wind/Battery, (b) PV/Wind/Diesel/Battery, (c) PV/Diesel/Biogas/Battery, (d) PV/Wind/
Battery, (e) PV/Diesel/Battery, and (f) PV/Battery.

28
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Fig. 21. Battery discharging in designed Systems: (a) PV/Biogas/Diesel/Wind/Battery, (b) PV/Wind/Diesel/Battery, (c) PV/Diesel/Biogas/Battery, (d) PV/Wind/
Battery, (e) PV/Diesel/Battery, and (f) PV/Battery.

diesel generator. For Models 2, 3, and 5 (with diesel or biogas) moderate 3(PV/Diesel/Biogas/Battery), as wind and diesel generation are suffi­
charging is observed as well. Model-4 (PV/Wind/Battery) shows scat­ cient to meet the load. In Model-4 (PV/Wind/Battery), higher battery
tered charging throughout the day as well as at night. At night the discharging is also observed in the evening period. Model-2 (PV/Wind/
batteries are charged through wind turbine. In contrast, in Model-6 (PV/ Diesel/Battery) experiences fewer discharge events in the early morning
Battery) the highest battery charging is observed as the model solely compared to the evening. Lastly, Model-5 (PV/Diesel/Battery) shows
relies on solar and battery storage. some battery discharge during the day, with noticeable discharge
Similarly, Fig. 21 depicts the daily discharge patterns of the six occurring in the early morning.
hybrid systems across the year. In all models, the batteries mainly
discharge during nighttime, supplying the stored energy to the load. In
Model-1 (PV/Biogas/Diesel/Wind/Battery), biogas and diesel genera­ 4.10. Converter output analysis
tors can handle most of the energy requirements. So less battery dis­
charging is observed among all the models. In contrast, the highest The converter output of the hybrid renewable system models is
battery discharge occurs in Model-6 (PV/Battery). In the evening when presented in Table 23 and Fig. 22. Among the models evaluated, Model-
solar energy is unavailable, and the load demand remains high, the 6 boasts the highest capacity at 2,739 kW, with Model-4 following
batteries supply all the necessary power. During the summer season, closely behind at 2,723 kW. As both models require substantial batteries
battery discharge is rarely observed between 12 AM and 6 AM in Model- for storing and retrieving energy, high-capacity converters are required
to handle peak power demands efficiently. Model-1 has a total energy

Table 23
Performance comparison of converter output in different systems.
Parameters System

Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-4 Model-5 Model-6

PV/Biogas/ PV/Wind/ PV/Diesel/ PV/Wind/ PV/Diesel/ PV/Battery

Diesel Diesel/ Biogas/Battery Battery Battery
/Wind/ Battery
Battery

Capacity (kW) 1,396 1,808 2,513 2,723 2,074 2,739

Mean Output (kW) 458 630 830 634 835 1,580
Minimum Output (kW) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maximum Output (kW) 1,396 1,808 2,513 2,723 2,074 2,739
Capacity Factor (%) 32.8 34.9 33 23.3 40.3 57.7
Hours of Operation (hours/year) 6,062 6,699 6,325 5,376 6,831 8,760
Energy Out (kWh/year) 4,012,299 5,522,050 7,270,294 5,553,557 7,318,485 13,837,554
Energy In (kWh/year) 4,223,472 5,812,684 7,652,942 5,845,850 7,703,668 14,565,846
Losses (kWh/year) 211,174 290,634 382,647 292,292 385,183 728,292

29
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Fig. 22. Yearly Converter Performance of the hybrid models: (a) PV/Biogas/Diesel/Wind/Battery, (b) PV/Wind/Diesel/Battery, (c) PV/Diesel/Biogas/Battery, (d)
PV/Wind/Battery, (e) PV/Diesel/Battery, and (f) PV/Battery.

input of 4,223,472 kWh and losses of 211,174 kWh. Model-3 shows a operation of diesel generators. Biogas is utilized in Models 1 and 3, with
mean output of 830 kW and a capacity of 2,513 kW, contributing to an total feedstock consumption at 6,162 tons and 8,110 tons, respectively,
annual energy generation of 7,270,294 kWh. Model-2 has a capacity of while Models 2, 4, 5, and 6 do not employ biogas. Model-1 necessitates
1,808 kW and a mean output of 630 kW, resulting in an annual gener­ biomass fuel throughout the year, whereas Model-3 does not require fuel
ation of 5,522,050 kWh. Model-6 has the highest capacity factor of 57.7 during winter months as shown in Fig. 24.
%. The capacity factor indicates the efficiency of the converter’s utili­
zation within the system, with higher values indicating a more optimal
use of its available capacity. In contrast, Model-4 has the lowest capacity 4.12. Sensitivity analysis
factor of 23.3 %.
In HRES modelling, sensitivity analysis plays a vital role by exam­
ining how changes in input variables affect system performance, thus
4.11. Fuel consumption analysis identifying the key factors that influence design and operation. This
process enhances decision-making reliability by exploring uncertainties
The fuel consumption analysis of the hybrid renewable systems re­ related to resource availability, fuel costs, energy demand, and equip­
veals varying reliance on conventional fuels and feedstock, as shown in ment expenses. Table 25 contains the sensitivity variables and their
Table 24. Model-4, utilizing only RES (PV and wind), records zero diesel values along with current values used in system design for the six hybrid
and biogas consumption, while Model-1 and Model-2 demonstrate sig­ models.
nificant diesel usage, with Model-2 consuming approximately 18 %
more diesel than Model-1. Model-1 consumes a total of 795,364 L of 4.12.1. Model-1: PV/Biogas/Diesel/Wind/Battery
diesel, whereas Model-5 showcases the highest consumption at For this model, parameters like diesel price, biomass price, renew­
1,730,104 L. Fig. 23 illustrates that the requirement for diesel typically able resource data have been fluctuated to investigate how the system
occurs from March to late October for all the hybrid models, corre­ performance under variation. Fig. 25 shows how the COE changes as
sponding to the summer season. During winter, renewable sources are biomass and diesel prices fluctuate. Diesel fuel price is shown on the ­
sufficient to generate the necessary energy to meet the load without the horizontal axis (ranging from 0.8 to 1.6 $/L), while biomass price is

Table 24
Comparative analysis of fuel consumption in systems: diesel and biogas utilization.
Parameters System

Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-4 Model-5 Model-6

PV/Biogas/ PV/Wind/ PV/Diesel/Biogas/ PV/Wind/Battery PV/Diesel/Battery PV/

Diesel Diesel/ Battery Battery
/Wind/ Battery
Battery

Diesel Total fuel consumed (L) 795,364 935,760 1,066,276 0 1,730,104 0

Avg fuel per day (L/day) 2,179 2,564 2,921 0 4,740 0
Avg fuel per hour (L/hour) 90.8 107 122 0 198 0
Biogas Total feedstock consumed (Ton) 6,162 0 8,110 0 0 0
Avg feedstock per day (Ton/day) 17 0 22.2 0 0 0
Avg feedstock per hour (Ton/hour) 0.703 0 0.926 0 0 0

30
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Fig. 23. Hourly diesel consumption of the Hybrid models: (a) PV/Biogas/Diesel/Wind/Battery, (b) PV/Wind/Diesel/Battery, (c) PV/Diesel/Biogas/Battery, and (d)
PV/Diesel/Battery.

shown on the vertical axis (ranging from 15 to 30 $/ton) with super­ when wind velocity rises to 6 m/s and solar Global Horizontal Irradiance
imposed COE. For diesel at 1 $/L and biomass at 18 $/ton (the selected (GHI) increases to 5.5 kWh/m2/day, the NPC drops to roughly 29.7
optimal values), the COE is 0.195 $/kWh. When the diesel price is million dollars.
reduced to 0.8 $/liter from 1 $/liter the COE reaches its lowest at 0.182 The sensitivity analysis is further extended to analyze the effects of
$/kWh with biomass price at 15 $/ton. As diesel prices rise to 1.6 $/L, wind speed change on wind turbine production and the COE of the
the COE increases significantly, ranging between 0.239 and 0.255 model as can be seen in Fig. 28.
$/kWh with the increase of biomass price from 15 to 30 $/ton. As wind speed increases, wind production (kWh/year) rises while the
The impact of diesel fuel price (on the horizontal axis) on two key COE declines. As wind velocity rises to 6 m/s, energy output approaches
parameters: generator fuel cost (blue line) and total operating cost (or­ 6.5 million kWh annually, while the COE falls under 0.17 $/kWh, sug­
ange line), with biomass price fixed at $18/ton is presented in Fig. 26. As gesting that expenses decrease at higher wind velocities.
diesel price increases, both the generator fuel cost and the total oper­
ating cost rise steadily. The increase in generator fuel costs drives up 4.12.2. Model-2: PV/Wind/Diesel/Battery
total operating expenses, as fuel constitutes a significant portion of The performance variability of this system is evaluated based on
operational costs. changes in key sensitivity factors, including solar and wind resources,
It can be seen from Fig. 27 that variations in average solar Global nominal discount rates, and inflation rates. Fig. 29 illustrates how the
Horizontal Irradiance (GHI) and wind speed have significant impacts on COE fluctuates with alterations in diesel fuel prices and solar-scaled
NPC. The analysis shows that increasing solar irradiance and wind averages. It’s observed that energy costs increase with higher diesel
speeds results in a reduction of NPC and vice versa, demonstrating how prices or decreased solar availability, highlighting the COE’s sensitivity
higher RE potentials can contribute to lower system costs. For instance, to both fuel expenses and solar global horizontal irradiance (GHI) levels.

31
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Fig. 24. Hourly biomass fuel consumption of the Hybrid models: (a) PV/Biogas/Diesel/Wind/Battery, and (b) PV/Diesel/Biogas/Battery.

contributes to increased operational expenses, subsequently driving up

Table 25 energy costs.
Sensitivity values of different variables.
Similarly, Fig. 31 demonstrates the impact of diesel fuel price fluc­
Sensitivity Variables Considered Value Sensitivity Values tuations on carbon dioxide emissions and diesel generator production.
1. Diesel price ($/L) 1 0.8,1.2,1.4,1.6 As the cost of diesel increases from $1 to $1.20 per liter, both emissions
2. Biomass price ($/ton) 18 15,20,25,30 and generator output rise.
3. Solar GHI average (kWh/m2/day) 4.53 4,5,5.50 However, when the price reaches $1.40 per liter, these metrics show
4. Average Wind Speed (ms− 1) 5.4 4.50,5,6,6.5
5. Inflation Rate (%) 2 0,1,3,4
a significant decrease, indicating reduced generator use. Between $1.40
6. Nominal Discount Rate (%) 8 6,10,12 and $1.60 per liter, there is a slight uptick in emissions and production,
7. Minimum State of Charge-SOC (%) 30 20,40,50 though they remain below their previous peak. As diesel prices continue
to climb, the system becomes less economically feasible, resulting in
increased reliance on RES and stored power to meet energy
The lowest electricity cost (COE) of 0.183 $/kWh is achieved when the
requirements.
solar average reaches 5.5 kWh/m2/day and diesel is priced at 0.8 $/L.
Fig. 30 showcases the effects of fluctuations in the nominal discount
4.12.3. Model-3: PV/Diesel/Biogas/Battery
rate and anticipated inflation rate on the COE within this model. The
Biomass and diesel prices exert a significant influence on system
nominal discount rate fluctuates between 6.0 % and 12.0 %, while the
output by affecting the reliance on respective energy sources, thereby
expected inflation rate spans from 0.0 % to 4.0 %. The model achieves its
impacting operational costs, emissions, and RE integration. Fig. 32
lowest energy cost of 0.177 $/kWh when the nominal discount rate is set
demonstrates the correlation between COE and fluctuations in diesel
at 6.0 % and the expected inflation rate is 4 %. Escalating inflation
and biomass prices. The analysis reveals that when diesel prices are

Fig. 25. Impact on COE for biomass and diesel fuel price variation.

32
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

4.12.4. Model-4: PV/Wind/Battery

This hybrid model considers changes in renewable sources avail­
ability and their impact on COE and NPC. Fig. 34 shows how variations
in solar irradiance (4.0 to 5.5 kWh/m2/day) and wind speed (4.5 to 6.5
m/s) affect the COE. As solar and wind resources increase, the COE
drops, lowering energy prices.
For instance, when solar irradiance attains 5 kWh/m2/day and wind
velocity is 6 m/s, the COE is reduced to 0.233 $/kWh, compared to a
higher COE of 0.412 $/kWh at lower solar and wind levels (4.0 kWh/
m2/day and 4.5 m/s). This signifies that enhanced renewable resources
can lead to more economical energy production. Similarly, Fig. 35
presents a sensitivity analysis showing the effect of varying wind speed
on EE production and the total NPC at constant solar 4.53 kWh/m2/day.
Fig. 26. Sensitivity of Generator fuel cost and total operating cost upon diesel
As wind velocity increases, the EE percentage initially decreases but
fuel price.
subsequently begins to increase, while the total NPC gradually de­
creases. This observed trend suggests that higher wind velocities result
decreased to $0.8 per liter and biomass to $15 per ton from their optimal in increased electricity generation but also influence the system’s cost
values, the COE attains its lowest point of 0.226 $/kWh. This finding efficiency.
indicates that acquiring diesel and biomass at prices below their optimal
thresholds can lead to a considerable reduction in energy costs. The 4.12.5. Model-5: PV/Diesel/Battery
impact of biomass pricing on energy cost (COE) and yearly biofuel ex­ Fig. 36 and Fig. 37. If the diesel price increases to 1.20 $/liter from 1
penses is depicted in Fig. 33. $/liter, the COE correspondingly experiences an increase to 0.304
The COE exhibits a complex pattern, initially rising to a maximum at $/kWh (at optimal solar irradiance). Under conditions of low diesel
around $20 per ton, then dropping to $25 per ton, before ascending prices (0.80 $/L) and high solar irradiance (5.5 kWh/m2/day), the COE
again as biomass costs approach $30 per ton. This trend indicates po­ reaches its minimum at 0.234 $/kWh. So, it is evident from Fig. 36 that
tential changes in cost dynamics at certain biomass price points. higher solar irradiance contributes to a reduction in COE, although

Fig. 27. Effects on NPC for solar and wind resource variation.

Fig. 28. The impacts on wind production and COE upon wind resource availability.

33
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Fig. 29. Effects on COE for diesel fuel price and solar resource availability variation.

Fig. 30. Impacts on COE upon nominal discount rate and inflation rate change.

Fig. 31. The effects on CO2 emission and generator production upon diesel fuel price variation.

34
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Fig. 32. Sensitivity of systems COE on diesel and biomass fuel price change.

Fig. 33. Biomass fuel price change impact on COE and biofuel cost.

Fig. 34. The effects on systems COE upon solar and wind resource variation.

35
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Fig. 35. The influence of wind resource availability on EE and total NPC.

Fig. 36. Sensitivity of system’s COE on diesel fuel price and different solar resource.

Fig. 37. The impact of diesel fuel prices on generator running hours and battery quantity.

diesel prices exert a substantial influence on total energy costs. gradually rises, reaching approximately 1000 units at 1.60 $/L. This
Similarly, Fig. 37 shows the impact of diesel fuel price variations on trend implies that higher diesel prices encourage more use of battery
generator hours and battery quantity, with average solar radiation than lesser generator operation to reduce the overall cost of the system.
remaining the same throughout the period. As diesel prices increase,
generator hours initially increase, then steadily decrease, indicating 4.12.6. Module-6: PV/Battery
reduced generator use at higher fuel costs. Meanwhile, battery quantity Solar radiation and minimum SOC have impact on the COE of the

36
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

Fig. 38. Variation of COE considering fluctuation of solar resource and battery’s minimum state of charge.

hybrid system which is demonstrated in Fig. 38. Minimum SOC refers to • The analyses clearly indicate that all hybrid systems can meet the
the lowest level of charge (expressed as a percentage of total battery electricity demand of Bhasan Char’s inhabitants. However, Model-1
capacity) that a battery is allowed to reach during operation. In our stands out due to its balanced use of resources, including 3.5 MW PV,
analysis, the optimal minimum SOC is considered 30 % to maximize 0.5 MW biogas, 3.2 MW diesel, three wind turbines of 1.98 MW, and
battery life expectancy. 8.53 MWh battery storage capacity. With a competitive NPC of $34.9
As solar radiation increases, more energy is generated and batteries million and the lowest COE of $0.195 per kWh, this configuration
recharge more frequently. This allows deeper battery discharge by uti­ emerges as the most economically feasible option.
lizing more of the stored energy. By lowering the minimum SOC level to • On the other hand, Model-2 (PV/Wind/Diesel/Battery) produced
20 %, the COE can be reduced to 0.40 $/kWh from 0.436 $/kWh as less 8.84 % excess electricity and had a slightly higher COE of $0.21 per
numbers of battery will be required to meet the load demand. Moreover, kWh. Similarly, Model-3 (PV/Diesel/Biogas/Battery) had a higher
it is observed that as solar radiation increases, photovoltaic (PV) pro­ COE of $0.253 per kWh and an NPC of $45.2 million. The higher
duction increases concurrently, resulting in a lower COE production as emissions and operating costs were attributed to the model’s heavy
shown in Fig. 39. reliance on diesel generators.
• The efficiency of the system and its economic viability are both
5. Discussions adversely impacted by excess electricity. Model-1 successfully limits
surplus electricity to 6.1 % of total production, aligning closely with
This study evaluated six distinct HRES configurations to provide the recommended range for maximum energy efficiency. While
sustainable electrification opportunities for the Rohingya community in Models 2, 3, and 5 maintain surplus energy within acceptable levels,
Bhasan Char. Each model has been assessed based on cost, renewable Model-4 and Model-6 generate excess electricity of 42.23 % and
energy penetration, system efficiency, individual component perfor­ 63.24 %, respectively, reducing their practicality due to inefficient
mance, fuel usage, and environmental impact. These configurations resource utilization.
integrate PV, biogas, wind, diesel, and battery storage in various ways, • By leveraging local livestock waste to generate biogas, Model-1
identifying several trade-offs between economic, environmental, and promotes renewable energy adoption and reduces diesel de­
practical factors. pendency. Utilizing biomass sources for electricity generation en­
hances energy security for the Rohingya community while fostering
economic opportunities through waste-to-energy initiatives. Models

Fig. 39. The effects of solar scaled average in COE and PV production of system.

37
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

2, 4, 5, and 6, which do not incorporate biogas, lack this capability. However, ensuring long-term energy security for Bhasan Char pre­
Furthermore, Model-1′s integration of wind turbines and diesel sents significant technical and financial challenges, particularly in
optimization contributes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, integrating the island into Bangladesh’s national electricity grid. Due to
aligning with global decarbonization objectives. its remote location in the middle of the sea and its considerable distance
• With a carbon dioxide emission level of 2,083,067 kg/year, Model-1 from the mainland, establishing a stable and reliable grid connection
successfully minimizes emissions compared to diesel-dependent al­ would be both logistically complex and financially burdensome. The
ternatives such as Models 2, 3, and 5. Additionally, by integrating cost of extending grid infrastructure to such an isolated area would
biogas derived from local animal waste, Model-1 fosters a circular involve high capital investment and ongoing operational expenses. Ac­
economy while decreasing reliance on fossil fuels. cording to the Bangladesh Power Development Board (BPDB), past grid
• Model-4 and Model-6 produce zero greenhouse gas emissions due to expansion projects in similarly remote areas have proven economically
their exclusive reliance on renewable energy. However, their high unfeasible due to excessive costs [91 92]. Furthermore, with Bangladesh
capital costs, economic inefficiencies, and significant excess elec­ currently importing approximately 7.8 % of its electricity from India and
tricity generation limit their feasibility as practical solutions. already burdened with substantial loans for energy infrastructure
• The integration of multiple energy sources—including diesel, biogas, development, expanding the grid to Bhasan Char would further strain
wind, and photovoltaics—enhances Model-1′s reliability and resil­ national resources and increase electricity costs [93]. Given these
ience against resource variability. This hybrid configuration effec­ financial and logistical constraints, an off-grid HRES emerges as a more
tively addresses both residential and deferrable load demands while viable and sustainable alternative. The proposed HRES model in this
ensuring a stable and uninterrupted energy supply. study offers a cost-effective solution with lower installation and opera­
• Model-1 also proves to be cost-effective in both capital investment tional expenses while ensuring uninterrupted energy access for the
and long-term operation, with a capital cost of $12.3 million and Rohingya population. Additionally, the model significantly reduces
operating costs of $12.04 million—among the lowest of all evaluated carbon emissions by relying on renewable sources for power generation,
models. Sensitivity analyses further confirm its adaptability to fluc­ aligning with Bangladesh’s commitment to sustainability. Considering
tuations in resource availability, fuel prices, and inflation rates. these advantages, an HRES represents a more practical, environmentally
friendly, and economically sound approach to electrifying Bhasan Char
The results of this study offer valuable insights into optimizing compared to conventional grid expansion.
HRESs for off-grid communities. The integration of multiple renewable The findings of this study, while specific to Bhasan Char, offer
sources not only enhances energy reliability but also reduces depen­ valuable insights that can be applied to other remote and off-grid regions
dence on diesel, which is both costly and environmentally detrimental. facing similar energy challenges. The techno-economic optimization of
A significant takeaway from this analysis is the importance of balancing HRESs presented in this research provides a scalable framework for
renewable energy penetration with economic feasibility. While fully electrifying isolated communities, particularly in coastal or disaster-
renewable models such as Model-4 and Model-6 eliminate emissions, prone areas where grid extension is costly or impractical. Many islan­
they are hindered by excessive capital costs and surplus electricity. ded and rural regions across Bangladesh and other developing countries
Those make them less attractive in real-world applications. The study share comparable geographical, economic, and energy resource con­
emphasizes the need for a hybridized approach, where a carefully straints. The integration of biogas, solar, wind, and diesel generation
selected mix of renewable and conventional generation ensures both with battery storage ensures system resilience, making this hybrid
sustainability and economic viability. approach suitable for regions with variable RE potential. Furthermore,
The study also highlights the importance of incorporating deferrable the study highlights key challenges, such as managing excess electricity
loads, such as water pumps and electric auto-rickshaws, in system and ensuring economic feasibility, which are relevant to broader energy
design. Unlike traditional electrification models that solely focus on planning in isolated areas. Policymakers and energy planners can
residential or commercial loads, this study’s inclusion of seasonal and leverage these insights to design sustainable energy solutions tailored to
deferrable demand provides a more realistic assessment of energy needs specific regional contexts.
in remote communities. By strategically integrating battery storage and
optimizing resource allocation, the proposed hybrid system mitigates 6. Conclusion
intermittency issues commonly associated with renewable energy.
The following key aspects emphasize the originality of this study: (1) Bangladesh, with its large population and pressing energy chal­
The utilization of HOMER Pro software to model and simulate six lenges, must prioritize renewable energy integration to ensure both
distinct hybrid models capable of satisfying the electricity demand of energy security and environmental sustainability. Rural regions,
100,000 individuals; (2)The incorporation of the deferrable loads (water particularly off-grid communities, face severe electricity shortages,
pump and E-autorickshaw) and seasonal fluctuations in evaluating the making reliable and sustainable energy solutions essential. This study
electricity demand; (3) Comprehensive optimized output analysis presents a comprehensive techno-economic analysis of HRES tailored
(electrical, economic, environmental) alongside performance evaluation for the Rohingya community in Bhasan Char Island, Bangladesh, uti­
of hybrid model components (4) the expansion of sensitivity analysis lizing HOMER Pro software. By designing, simulating, and optimizing
applications to tackle practical challenges associated with hybrid energy six hybrid models, this study evaluates their technical, economic, and
systems. environmental performance to identify the most viable solution. All
The principal beneficiaries of this research will be the Rohingya proposed hybrid models are capable of meeting the full energy demand
community of Bhasan Char. They will benefit in several ways. Firstly, of the locality. Among them, the PV/Biogas/Diesel/Wind/Battery sys­
the provision of electricity will mitigate energy insecurity, ensuring a tem (Model-1) emerges as the most cost-effective and sustainable op­
dependable power supply for essential services such as healthcare, ed­ tion. This system comprises 3.5 MW of photovoltaic panels, a 0.5 MW
ucation, and transportation. Additionally, access to reliable electricity biogas generator, a 3.2 MW diesel generator, three wind turbines
will strengthen the local economy by enabling small businesses and totaling 1.98 MW, 8.53 MWh of battery storage, and 1.396 MW of in­
agricultural activities, fostering economic self-sufficiency within the verters. With an 80.6 % renewable energy penetration and only 6.1 %
community. Beyond economic benefits, the implementation of a sus­ excess electricity, this configuration ensures both efficiency and mini­
tainable energy solution will enhance overall quality of life by mal environmental impact. Furthermore, the inclusion of biogas
improving health outcomes, promoting gender equality, expanding significantly reduces carbon emissions, aligning the system with global
educational opportunities, and addressing critical issues such as sustainability objectives.
migration and deforestation. Designed with a lifespan of 25 years, this project not only addresses

38
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

the immediate energy needs of the Rohingya community but also en­ [4] Islam MMM, et al. Techno-economic Analysis of Hybrid Renewable Energy System
for Healthcare Centre in Northwest Bangladesh. Process Integr Optim Sustain, Mar.
sures long-term benefits for Bhasan Char. In the event of the Rohingya
2023;7(1–2):315–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41660-022-00294-8.
population’s repatriation, the infrastructure could be repurposed for [5] Hasan SMN, Bijoy HM, Shameem A, Rifat HM, Mahadi HM. Feasibility and techno-
local rehabilitation initiatives and regional development projects, economic analysis of hybrid renewable energy-based microgrid system for
fostering economic growth and social stability. The findings of this study Kutubdia island in Bangladesh. BIO Web Conf, 2024;144:02002. https://doi.org/
10.1051/bioconf/202414402002.
provide a strategic roadmap for deploying similar off-grid hybrid energy [6] “Annual Report 2023-24.pdf,” Google Docs. Accessed: Feb. 23, 2025. [Online].
solutions in other remote and underserved regions of Bangladesh, Available: https://drive.google.com/file/d/
potentially contributing to the country’s broader energy transition 1HIDtQmLmHL3EziZF8Rmezv3neEsLOUDn/view?usp=sharing&usp=embed_
facebook.
goals. [7] Md. Ashraful Islam, M. M. Naushad Ali, A. Al Mamun, M. Shahadat Hossain, Md.
Future research should explore advanced demand-side management Hasan Maruf, and A. S. M. Shihavuddin, “Optimizing energy solutions: A techno-
techniques and innovative energy storage solutions to mitigate chal­ economic analysis of solar-wind hybrid power generation in the coastal regions of
Bangladesh,” Energy Convers. Manag. X, vol. 22, p. 100605, Apr. 2024, doi:
lenges associated with excess electricity generation in high-renewable 10.1016/j.ecmx.2024.100605.
penetration systems. The integration of smart grid technologies, such [8] Molu RJJ, et al. A techno-economic perspective on efficient hybrid renewable
as automated load control, real-time energy monitoring, and predictive energy solutions in Douala, Cameroon’s grid-connected systems. Sci Rep, Jun.
2024;14(1):13590. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-64427-4.
analytics, could further enhance system efficiency and reliability. [9] Mumtaz MA, et al. Techno-economic and environmental analysis of hybrid energy
Additionally, investigating the socioeconomic impact of HRES on local system for industrial sector of Pakistan. Sci Rep, Oct. 2024;14(1):23736. https://
communities would provide valuable insights into their long-term doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-74540-z.
[10] A.S. AlBusaidi H. Al Lamki A. ALHinai, and H. A. Kazem, Techno-economic design
viability and contribution to regional development. Moreover, opti­
and analysis of a hybrid renewable energy system for Jazirat Al Halaniyat in Oman
mizing HRES design under dynamic meteorological conditions and International Journal of Renewable Energy Research 13 3 2023 1039 1050
fluctuating energy demands could improve resilience and adaptability. 10.20508/ijrer.v13i3.13679.g8778.
Policy frameworks and financial mechanisms should be explored to [11] Ayua TJ, Emetere ME. Technical and economic simulation of a hybrid renewable
energy power system design for industrial application. Sci Rep, Nov. 2024;14(1):
accelerate the large-scale deployment of hybrid energy systems in rural 28739. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-77946-x.
and off-grid areas, ensuring widespread adoption of sustainable energy [12] Krishan O, Suhag S. Techno-economic analysis of a hybrid renewable energy
solutions. Furthermore, the implementation of Thermostatic Kinetic system for an energy poor rural community. J Energy Storage Jun. 2019;23:305–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2019.04.002.
Energy (TKE) management strategies in HRES could enhance system [13] Pujari HK, Rudramoorthy M. Optimal design and techno-economic analysis of a
performance by effectively managing the thermal effects on solar, wind, hybrid grid-independent renewable energy system for a rural community. Int Trans
and battery components. By integrating TKE into forecasting models, Electr Energy Syst, 2021;31(9):Sep. https://doi.org/10.1002/2050-7038.13007.
[14] Bipongo CN, Adonis M, Almaktoof A. Real-Time Energy Management System for a
renewable energy sources can be better synchronized with grid de­ Hybrid Renewable Microgrid System. Energy Sci Eng, Dec. 2024;12(12):5542–54.
mands, leading to improved efficiency and extended system lifespan. https://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.1966.
[15] Thirunavukkarasu M, Sawle Y, Lala H. A comprehensive review on optimization of
hybrid renewable energy systems using various optimization techniques. Renew
CRediT authorship contribution statement Sustain Energy Rev, Apr. 2023;176:113192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2023.113192.
Himalay Baidya: Writing – original draft, Software, Methodology, [16] Eze VHU, Mwenyi JS, Ukagwu KJ, Eze MC, Eze CE, Okafor WO. Design analysis of
a sustainable techno-economic hybrid renewable energy system: Application of
Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Md solar and wind in Sigulu Island, Uganda. Sci Afr, Dec. 2024;26:e02454. https://doi.
Tarak Rahman Zisan: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Valida­ org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2024.e02454.
tion, Software, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation. Arham [17] “The Sustainable Development Agenda - United Nations Sustainable
Development.” Accessed: Dec. 31, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.un.org/
Zaman Alif: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Soft­ sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/.
ware, Resources, Methodology, Conceptualization. Ahbab Ahmed: [18] “Sustainable and Renewable Energy Development Authority (SREDA) - Power
Visualization, Validation, Software, Resources, Methodology, Investi­ Division; Ministry of Power, Energy and Mineral Resources.” Accessed: Dec. 31,
2024. [Online]. Available: https://sreda.gov.bd/.
gation, Formal analysis. Mahmudul Hasan: Validation, Software, Re­
[19] Ayan O, Turkay BE. Techno-Economic Comparative Analysis of Grid-Connected
sources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Formal and Islanded Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems in 7 Climate Regions, Turkey. IEEE
analysis. Nahid-Ur-Rahman Chowdhury: Writing – review & editing, Access 2023;11:48797–825. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3276776.
[20] Khaled O, Zahid M, Zahid T, Ilahi T. Techno-Economic Feasibility of Hybrid Energy
Validation, Supervision, Software, Resources, Project administration,
Systems Installation in Pakistan. IEEE Access 2024;12:41643–58. https://doi.org/
Conceptualization. 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3376409.
[21] Islam Md, Akter H, Howlader H, Senjyu T. Optimal Sizing and Techno-Economic
Analysis of Grid-Independent Hybrid Energy System for Sustained Rural
Declaration of competing interest Electrification in Developing Countries: A Case Study in Bangladesh. Energies Sep.
2022;15(17):6381. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15176381.
[22] Hasan SMN, et al. Techno-Economic Performance and Sensitivity Analysis of an
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Off-Grid Renewable Energy-Based Hybrid System: A Case Study of Kuakata,
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Bangladesh. Energies Mar. 2024;17(6):1476. https://doi.org/10.3390/
the work reported in this paper. en17061476.
[23] Bhatti MZA, Siddique A, Aslam W, Atiq S. Design and Analysis of a Hybrid Stand-
Alone Microgrid. Energies Dec. 2023;17(1):200. https://doi.org/10.3390/
Data availability en17010200.
[24] N. Ul Rehman and H. Farzaneh, “Techno-economic analysis of a hybrid heat
recovery-renewable energy system for enhancing power reliability in cement
Data will be made available on request.
factories in Pakistan,” Energy Convers. Manag. X, vol. 20, p. 100492, Oct. 2023, doi:
10.1016/j.ecmx.2023.100492.
References [25] Xu X, Zhang Z, Yuan J, Shao J. Design and multi-objective comprehensive
evaluation analysis of PV-WT-BG-Battery hybrid renewable energy systems in
urban communities. Energy Convers Manag X Apr. 2023;18:100357. https://doi.
[1] Murty VVVSN, Kumar A. Optimal Energy Management and Techno-economic
org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2023.100357.
Analysis in Microgrid with Hybrid Renewable Energy Sources. J Mod Power Syst
[26] Z. Serat, M. Danishmal, and F. Mohammad Mohammadi, “Optimizing hybrid PV/
Clean Energy 2020;8(5):929–40. https://doi.org/10.35833/MPCE.2020.000273.
Wind and grid systems for sustainable energy solutions at the university campus:
[2] C. Ndeke, M. Adonis, and A. Almaktoof, “Energy Management Strategy for a
Economic, environmental, and sensitivity analysis,” Energy Convers. Manag. X, vol.
Hybrid Micro-Grid System Using Renewable Energy,” Oct. 30, 2023, In Review. doi:
24, p. 100691, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ecmx.2024.100691.
10.21203/rs.3.rs-3453430/v1.
[27] Samatar AM, Mekhilef S, Mokhlis H, Kermadi M, Alshammari O. Performance
[3] U. S. Mousumi, M. Asaduzzaman, M. A. Zardar, and K. Z. Islam, “Techno-economic
analysis of hybrid off-grid renewable energy systems for sustainable rural
evaluation of hybrid supply system for sustainable powering the Saint Martin
electrification. Energy Convers Manag X Oct. 2024;24:100780. https://doi.org/
Island in Bangladesh,” in Proc. 1st Int. Conf. Adv. Sci., Eng. Robot. Technol.
10.1016/j.ecmx.2024.100780.
(ICASERT), Dhaka, Bangladesh, May 2019, pp. 1–6, doi: 10.1109/
ICASERT.2019.8934543.

39
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

[28] Chowdhury T, et al. Sizing of an Island Standalone Hybrid System Considering [50] StoriesAsia, “Bhasan Char: A New Home for Rohingya Refugees.” Accessed: Dec.
Economic and Environmental Parameters: A Case Study. Energies Aug. 2022;15 31, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://thediplomat.com/2020/12/bhasan-char-a-
(16):5940. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15165940. new-home-for-rohingya-refugees/.
[29] P. H. Kumar, R. R. Gopi, R. Rajarajan, N. B. Vaishali, K. Vasavi, and S. Kumar P, [51] “Bhasan Char - Wikipedia.” Accessed: Dec. 31, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://
“Prefeasibility techno-economic analysis of hybrid renewable energy system,” E- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhasan_Char.
Prime - Adv. Electr. Eng. Electron. Energy, vol. 7, p. 100443, Mar. 2024, doi: [52] “Bhasan Char: Better conditions, but home still beckons | Daily Star.” Accessed:
10.1016/j.prime.2024.100443. Dec. 31, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.thedailystar.net/rohingya-influx/
[30] M. Dalla Via, C. Bianca, I. El Abbassi, and A. Darcherif, “A thermostatted kinetic news/bhasan-char-better-conditions-home-still-beckons-3102681.
theory model for a hybrid multisource system with storage,” Appl. Math. Model., [53] “An inside look at Bhashan Char – the new home for Rohingyas,” The Business
vol. 78, pp. 232–248, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2019.10.009. Standard. Accessed: Dec. 31, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.tbsnews.net/
[31] M. Dalla Via, C. Bianca, I. El Abbassi, and A. Darcherif, “A hybrid thermostatted rohingya-crisis/inside-look-bhashan-char-new-home-rohingyas.
kinetic framework for the modeling of a hybrid multisource system with storage,” [54] “Rohingya Refugee Response, Bangladesh: Bhasan Char Population Factsheet (as of
Nonlinear Anal. Hybrid Syst., vol. 38, p. 100928, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j. 31,. Bangladesh | ReliefWeb.”. Accessed: Dec. 31, 2024. [Online]. Available: https
nahs.2020.100928. ://reliefweb.int/report/bangladesh/rohingya-refugee-responsebangladesh-bhasan
[32] M. A. Vaziri Rad, A. Kasaeian, X. Niu, K. Zhang, and O. Mahian, “Excess electricity -char-population-factsheet-31-october-2024; October 2024.
problem in off-grid hybrid renewable energy systems: A comprehensive review [55] M.A. Sattar M.A. Hossain M.J. Hossen M.A. Khatun A. Amin A review on the
from challenges to prevalent solutions,” Renew. Energy, vol. 212, pp. 538–560, Aug. prospects of wind energy in Bangladesh International Journal of Engineering
2023, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2023.05.073. Science Invention 11 8 Aug. 2022 08 16 10.35629/6734-11080816.
[33] Mojumder MFH, et al. Techno-economic and environmental analysis of hybrid [56] “Cattle rearing takes off in Bhasan Char,” The Daily Star. Accessed: Dec. 31, 2024.
energy systems for remote areas: A sustainable case study in Bangladesh. Energy [Online]. Available: https://www.thedailystar.net/backpage/news/cattle-rearing-
Convers Manag X Jul. 2024;23:100664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. takes-bhasan-char-1981541.
ecmx.2024.100664. [57] “Fisheries skills can improve lives of Rohingyas in Bhasan Char: Nippon
[34] Mohammad Shariz Ansari et al., “Techno-Economic Investigations of Hybrid Foundation chief,” The Business Standard. Accessed: Dec. 31, 2024. [Online].
Renewable Energy Systems for Andaman & Nicobar Islands,” J. Environ. Available: https://www.tbsnews.net/bangladesh/fisheries-skills-can-improve-
Nanotechnol., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 360–367, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.13074/ lives-rohingyas-bhasan-char-nippon-foundation-chief-824301.
jent.2024.06.241528. [58] “ACLAB - Alliance for Cooperation and Legal Aid Bangladesh - Sustainable
[35] Salau AO, Maitra SK, Kumar A, Mane A, Dumicho RW. “Design, modeling, and Agriculture and Livestock Program at Bhasan Char, Engaging Rohingya
simulation of a PV/diesel/battery hybrid energy system for an off-grid hospital in Community People.” Accessed: Dec. 31, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.
Ethiopia,” E-Prime - Adv. Electr Eng Electron Energy Jun. 2024;8:100607. https:// aclabbd.org/sustainable-agriculture-and-livestock-program-at-bhasan-char-
doi.org/10.1016/j.prime.2024.100607. engaging-rohingya-community-people/.
[36] Md. F. H. Mojumder, T. Islam, N. A. Takia, N. A. Chowdhury, M. Hasan, and N.-U.- [59] “Bhasan Char,” BDRCS. Accessed: Dec. 31, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://
R. Chowdhury, “Enhancing Energy Economics Using Hybrid Renewable Energy bdrcs.org/bhasan-char/.
Systems on the Permanent Campus of Dhaka International University,” in 2024 3rd [60] Bhatt A, Sharma MP, Saini RP. Feasibility and sensitivity analysis of an off-grid
International Conference on Advancement in Electrical and Electronic Engineering micro hydro–photovoltaic–biomass and biogas–diesel–battery hybrid energy
(ICAEEE), Gazipur, Bangladesh: IEEE, Apr. 2024, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/ system for a remote area in Uttarakhand state, India. Renew Sustain Energy Rev,
ICAEEE62219.2024.10561680. Aug. 2016;61:53–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.03.030.
[37] Md. Ashraful Islam, M. M. Naushad Ali, A. Al Mamun, M. Shahadat Hossain, Md. [61] N. Yimen, O. Hamandjoda, L. Meva’a, B. Ndzana, and J. Nganhou, “Analyzing of a
Hasan Maruf, and A. S. M. Shihavuddin, “Optimizing energy solutions: A techno- Photovoltaic/Wind/Biogas/Pumped-Hydro Off-Grid Hybrid System for Rural
economic analysis of solar-wind hybrid power generation in the coastal regions of Electrification in Sub-Saharan Africa—Case Study of Djoundé in Northern
Bangladesh,” Energy Convers. Manag. X, vol. 22, p. 100605, Apr. 2024, doi: Cameroon,” Energies, vol. 11, no. 10, p. 2644, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.3390/
10.1016/j.ecmx.2024.100605. en11102644.
[38] Emezirinwune MU, Adejumobi IA, Adebisi OI, Akinboro FG. “Synergizing hybrid [62] Mandal S, Yasmin H, Sarker MRI, Beg MRA, “Prospect of solar-PV, biogas, diesel
renewable energy systems and sustainable agriculture for rural development in generator hybrid energy system of an off-grid area in Bangladesh”, presented at the
Nigeria,” E-Prime - Adv. Electr Eng Electron Energy Mar. 2024;7:100492. https://doi. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MECHANICAL
org/10.1016/j.prime.2024.100492. ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCE (ICMEAS,. Dhaka. Bangladesh 2017;2017:
[39] Rashid F, Hoque ME, Aziz M, Sakib TN, Islam MT, Robin RM. Investigation of 020020. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5018538.
Optimal Hybrid Energy Systems Using Available Energy Sources in a Rural Area of [63] Al-Amin Md, Sahabuddin Md. High penetration of electric autorickshaw on
Bangladesh. Energies Sep. 2021;14(18):5794. https://doi.org/10.3390/ national power system and barriers against the adoption of solar energy: A case
en14185794. study in Bangladesh. Clean Eng Technol, Jun. 2023;14:100637. https://doi.org/
[40] Das BK, Alotaibi MA, Das P, Islam MS, Das SK, Hossain MA. Feasibility and techno- 10.1016/j.clet.2023.100637.
economic analysis of stand-alone and grid-connected PV/Wind/Diesel/Batt hybrid [64] “HOMER’s Calculations.” Accessed: Jan. 01, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://
energy system: A case study. Energy Strategy Rev, Sep. 2021;37:100673. https:// homerenergy.com/products/pro/docs/3.15/homers_calculations.html.
doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2021.100673. [65] M. Spendiff-Smith, “What Is A Battery C Rating & How Do I Calculate C Rate,”
[41] Khan ZA, Imran M, Altamimi A, Diemuodeke OE, Abdelatif AO. Assessment of Power Sonic. Accessed: Feb. 21, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.power-
Wind and Solar Hybrid Energy for Agricultural Applications in Sudan. Energies Dec. sonic.com/blog/what-is-a-battery-c-rating/.
2021;15(1):5. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15010005. [66] “Total Annualized Cost.” Accessed: Feb. 21, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://
[42] Emad D, El-Hameed MA, El-Fergany AA. Optimal techno-economic design of homerenergy.com/products/pro/docs/3.15/total_annualized_cost.html.
hybrid PV/wind system comprising battery energy storage: Case study for a remote [67] “Cash Flow Outputs.” Accessed: Feb. 21, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://
area. Energy Convers Manag, Dec. 2021;249:114847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. homerenergy.com/products/pro/docs/3.15/cash_flow_outputs.html.
enconman.2021.114847. [68] Prakash VJ, Dhal PK. Techno-Economic Assessment of a Standalone Hybrid System
[43] Peláez-Peláez S, Colmenar-Santos A, Pérez-Molina C, Rosales A-E, Rosales- Using Various Solar Tracking Systems for Kalpeni Island, India. Energies Dec. 2021;
Asensio E. Techno-economic analysis of a heat and power combination system 14(24):8533. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14248533.
based on hybrid photovoltaic-fuel cell systems using hydrogen as an energy vector. [69] “7.133 Renewable Fraction.” Accessed: Feb. 21, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://
Energy Jun. 2021;224:120110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120110. homerenergy.com/products/pro/docs/3.15/_renewable_fraction.html.
[44] Mahian O, Javidmehr M, Kasaeian A, Mohasseb S, Panahi M. Optimal sizing and [70] “Capacity Shortage Fraction.” Accessed: Jan. 01, 2025. [Online]. Available:
performance assessment of a hybrid combined heat and power system with energy https://homerenergy.com/products/pro/docs/3.15/capacity_shortage_fraction.
storage for residential buildings. Energy Convers Manag, May 2020;211:112751. html.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112751. [71] “Unmet Load Fraction.” Accessed: Jan. 01, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://
[45] Mokhtara C, Negrou B, Bouferrouk A, Yao Y, Settou N, Ramadan M. Integrated homerenergy.com/products/pro/docs/3.15/unmet_load_fraction.html.
supply–demand energy management for optimal design of off-grid hybrid [72] “Excess Electricity Fraction.” Accessed: Jan. 01, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://
renewable energy systems for residential electrification in arid climates. Energy homerenergy.com/products/pro/docs/3.15/excess_electricity_fraction.html.
Convers Manag, Oct. 2020;221:113192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [73] “Load Following Strategy.” Accessed: Jan. 01, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://
enconman.2020.113192. homerenergy.com/products/pro/docs/3.15/load_following_strategy.html.
[46] Al-Ammar EA, et al. Residential Community Load Management Based on Optimal [74] “Cycle Charging Strategy.” Accessed: Jan. 01, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://
Design of Standalone HRES With Model Predictive Control. IEEE Access 2020;8: homerenergy.com/products/pro/docs/3.15/cycle_charging_strategy.html.
12542–72. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2965250. [75] “60MW wind power project in Cox’s Bazar to come in June,” Dhaka Tribune.
[47] Habib HUR, Wang S, Elkadeem MR, Elmorshedy MF. Design Optimization and Accessed: Jan. 01, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.dhakatribune.com/
Model Predictive Control of a Standalone Hybrid Renewable Energy System: A bangladesh/power-energy/303390/60mw-wind-power-project-in-cox%E2%80%
Case Study on a Small Residential Load in Pakistan. IEEE Access 2019;7: 99s-bazar-to-come-in.
117369–90. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2936789. [76] Das BK, et al. Optimum Design, Socioenvironmental Impact, and Exergy Analysis of
[48] “Welcome to HOMER.” Accessed: Feb. 21, 2025. [Online]. Available: https:// a Solar and Rice Husk-Based Off-Grid Hybrid Renewable Energy System. Int Trans
homerenergy.com/products/pro/docs/3.15/index.html. Electr Energy Syst, Aug. 2023;2023:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/3597840.
[49] Mahesh A, Sandhu KS. Hybrid wind/photovoltaic energy system developments: [77] “Simulation Time Step.” Accessed: Feb. 23, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://
Critical review and findings. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, Dec. 2015;52:1135–47. homerenergy.com/products/pro/docs/3.15/simulation_time_step.html.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.08.008. [78] Elmorshedy MF, Elkadeem MR, Kotb KM, Taha IBM, Mazzeo D. Optimal design and
energy management of an isolated fully renewable energy system integrating

40
H. Baidya et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 26 (2025) 101004

batteries and supercapacitors. Energy Convers Manag, Oct. 2021;245:114584. Renew Power Gener, Feb. 2021;15(3):491–503. https://doi.org/10.1049/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114584. rpg2.12056.
[79] Bhayo BA, Al-Kayiem HH, Gilani SIU, Khan N, Kumar D. Energy management [87] Emrani A, Berrada A, Arechkik A, Bakhouya M. Improved techno-economic
strategy of hybrid solar-hydro system with various probabilities of power supply optimization of an off-grid hybrid solar/wind/gravity energy storage system based
loss. Sol Energy Feb. 2022;233:230–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. on performance indicators. J Energy Storage May 2022;49:104163. https://doi.org/
solener.2022.01.043. 10.1016/j.est.2022.104163.
[80] L. Al-Ghussain, A. Darwish Ahmad, A. M. Abubaker, and M. A. Mohamed, “An [88] Alsagri AS, Alrobaian AA, Nejlaoui M. Techno-economic evaluation of an off-grid
integrated photovoltaic/wind/biomass and hybrid energy storage systems towards health clinic considering the current and future energy challenges: A rural case
100% renewable energy microgrids in university campuses,” Sustain. Energy study. Renew Energy May 2021;169:34–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Technol. Assess., vol. 46, p. 101273, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.seta.2021.101273. renene.2021.01.017.
[81] Hossain MS, Alharbi AG, Islam KZ, Islam MR. Techno-Economic Analysis of the [89] Awan AB, Zubair M, Sidhu GAS, Bhatti AR, Abo-Khalil AG. Performance analysis of
Hybrid Solar PV/H/Fuel Cell Based Supply Scheme for Green Mobile various hybrid renewable energy systems using battery, hydrogen, and pumped
Communication. Sustainability Nov. 2021;13(22):12508. https://doi.org/10.3390/ hydro-based storage units. Int J Energy Res, Oct. 2019;43(12):6296–321. https://
su132212508. doi.org/10.1002/er.4343.
[82] Islam MS, Das BK, Das P, Rahaman MH. Techno-economic optimization of a zero [90] Sk. A. Shezan, Rawdah, S. S. Ali, and Z. Rahman, “Design and implementation of an
emission energy system for a coastal community in Newfoundland, Canada. Energy islanded hybrid microgrid system for a large resort center for PENANG ISLAND with the
Apr. 2021;220:119709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119709. proper application of excess energy,” Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy, vol. 40, no. 4,
[83] Das P, Das BK, Rahman M, Hassan R. Evaluating the prospect of utilizing excess p. e13584, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1002/ep.13584.
energy and creating employments from a hybrid energy system meeting electricity [91] bdnews24.com, “Electricity lights up life, re-energises communities in Kutubdia
and freshwater demands using multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. Energy island,” Electricity lights up life, re-energises communities in Kutubdia island.
Jan. 2022;238:121860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121860. Accessed: Feb. 21, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/
[84] Hassan R, Das BK, Al-Abdeli YM. Investigation of a hybrid renewable-based grid- tlpalgxpc2.
independent electricity-heat nexus: Impacts of recovery and thermally storing [92] “Submarine power line to connect isolated Kutubdia with national grid in Feb,”
waste heat and electricity. Energy Convers Manag, Jan. 2022;252:115073. https:// The Business Standard. Accessed: Feb. 21, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.115073. tbsnews.net/bangladesh/submarine-power-line-connect-isolated-kutubdia-
[85] Salameh T, Abdelkareem MA, Olabi AG, Sayed ET, Al-Chaderchi M, Rezk H. national-grid-feb-565566.
Integrated standalone hybrid solar PV, fuel cell and diesel generator power system [93] “Bangladesh Power Development Board.” Accessed: Feb. 21, 2025. [Online].
for battery or supercapacitor storage systems in Khorfakkan, United Arab Emirates. Available: https://bpdb.portal.gov.bd/site/page/e7f4aaea-7605-4588-a705-
Int J Hydrog Energy Jan. 2021;46(8):6014–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. e615c574cb88/https%3A%2F%2F2.zoppoz.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fbpdb.portal.gov.bd%2Fsite%2Fpage%
ijhydene.2020.08.153. 2Fe7f4aaea-7605-4588-a705-e615c574cb88%2F.
[86] Arévalo P, Cano A, Benavides J, Jurado F. Feasibility study of a renewable system
(PV/HKT/GB) for hybrid tramway based on fuel cell and super capacitor. IET

41