Rural Development PV Lighting Pre-Feasibility Study

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

2014

Lighting with Renewable Energy in the village of Batzchocola, Guatemala Pre-Feasibility Study Edgar Eduardo Sacayon, Master of Environmental Management.

Edgar Eduardo Sacayon Massey University 10/27/2014

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Contents Executive Summary................................................................................................................................ iii Background Information ......................................................................................................................... 1 Geographic Location ........................................................................................................................... 1 Socio-Economic Profile ....................................................................................................................... 1 Environmental Issues .......................................................................................................................... 2 Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................. 2 Deforestation and emissions .......................................................................................................... 3 Health .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Access to clean water...................................................................................................................... 3 Needs Assessment .............................................................................................................................. 3 Energy Consumption Patterns ........................................................................................................ 3 Access to the National Electricity Grid ............................................................................................ 4 Willingness to pay ........................................................................................................................... 5 Institutional framework ...................................................................................................................... 5 Ministry of Energy and Mines ......................................................................................................... 5 Stakeholders ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Batzchocola COCODE ...................................................................................................................... 5 ASHDINQUI...................................................................................................................................... 6 Solar Foundation ............................................................................................................................. 6 Technical feasibility ................................................................................................................................. 7 Load Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Renewable Energy Resources ............................................................................................................. 8 Solar resource assessment.............................................................................................................. 8 Wind Resource Assessment ............................................................................................................ 9 Hydropower potential................................................................................................................... 10 Renewable Energy Technologies ...................................................................................................... 11 PV Technologies ............................................................................................................................ 11 Hydropower technologies ............................................................................................................. 13 Economic Feasibility.............................................................................................................................. 15 Life Cycle Costing Analysis ................................................................................................................ 15 Annuities ........................................................................................................................................... 16 Comparison to Diesel Genset............................................................................................................ 16 Business Models................................................................................................................................ 16 Social Feasibility .................................................................................................................................... 18 Potential Benefits.............................................................................................................................. 18 Social Benefits ............................................................................................................................... 18 i

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Health Benefits.............................................................................................................................. 18 Rural Development ....................................................................................................................... 18 Environmental Benefits - GHG Reductions ................................................................................... 18 Potential Barriers .............................................................................................................................. 19 Social Acceptance ......................................................................................................................... 19 Technology Transfer and Productive Uses.................................................................................... 19 Theft and Damage ......................................................................................................................... 19 Unsatisfied costumers................................................................................................................... 20 Capital Investment ........................................................................................................................ 20 Policy and subsidies for RETs ........................................................................................................ 20 Environmental Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 20 Electronic waste ............................................................................................................................ 20 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 21 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 22 References ............................................................................................................................................ 23 Appendix 1 Hydropower Potential Estimation ..................................................................................... 25 Appendix 2 Photovoltaic Solar Home System Design ........................................................................... 26 Appendix 3 PV Micro Grid System Design ............................................................................................ 27 Appendix 4 Life Cycle Costing of Pico PV System.................................................................................. 28 Appendix 5 Life Cycle Costing of Solar Home System ........................................................................... 29 Appendix 6 Life Cycle Costing of PV Micro Grid System ....................................................................... 30 Appendix 7 Life Cycle Costing of Micro Hydro Power........................................................................... 31 Appendix 7 Life Cycle Costing of Diesel Genset .................................................................................... 32 Appendix 8 Diesel Genset Fuel Consumption ....................................................................................... 33

ii

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Executive Summary In the present report we assess the technical, environmental and socio-economic feasibility of providing lighting to the Mayan Ixchil Community of Batzchocola in the northern region of Quiche, Guatemala using renewable energy technologies (RETs). Since Batzchocola could not be visited, the background information was gathered from other reports. Literature on other Guatemalan rural energy projects was adapted to build a socioeconomic profile of the Batzchocola community. From this information we estimated the energy consumption patterns. The willingness to pay for energy services on a monthly basis is $ 8.50. Three key stakeholders were identified for the successful implementation of the lighting program, the Batzchocola Community Development Council (COCODE), the Northern Quiche Rural Hydroelectric Development Association (ASHDINQUI) and the Solar Foundation.

The technical feasibility of the program is divided into three sections, the energy load analysis, the renewable resource assessment and the RETs evaluation. The energy load analysis shows that the average daily load of one house is 250 Watt hours and 25 kilo watt hours for the whole village used.

Based on the resource assessment made, hydropower and solar energy are the resources with more production potential. The annual mean solar radiation for the village is 5.11 kWh m-1 day-1. The hydropower potential from the Batzchocola River was calculated during the driest season at 141 kW and during the rainy season at 245 kW. Pico Photovoltaic (PV) Systems, Solar Home Systems (SHS) and PV Micro Grid are three feasible technologies to harness solar resources. From these, the 50 Watt Pico PV system has the best technical feasibility. The 50 Watt Pico PV kit has the advantage of being, small, flexible and does not need a high degree of technical skills to be installed. The shortcoming is that it has a limited timelife of 10 years. The SHS is more robust, it uses 2 PV modules and a bigger battery and thus requires a higher degree of technical capacity for instalment, operation and maintenance. And the PV micro grid would reduce number of PV modules and batteries for the whole village but it would need additional infrastructure development for the electricity distribution network. For Hydropower production the most appropriate technology seems to be a Micro-Hydropower (MHP) System using a 30 kW Kaplan turbine with a run-off-the-river scheme. From all technologies the MHP has the highest Greenhouse Gas emissions reduction potential, considering that it could produce constant energy throughout a 24 hour period.

A simplified version of a life cycle costing was used to evaluate the costs associated of each technology. The results for a 20 year lifetime indicate that for a rural lighting program in Guatemala the most cost-effective RET is the 50 Watt Pico PV system, which has a total life cycle cost of iii

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

$743.59. The levelized cost of energy for the Pico PV system is the lowest at $ 0.07 per kWh. Using a fixed 10% interest rate on the initial capital investment also shows that the 50W Pico PV system would have a payback monthly fee of $ 4.91, which is nearly half of the current village household expenses. The business model suggested to implement the lighting program is a “fee-for-service� model in which ASHDINQUI would act as the Renewable Energy Service Company (RESCO) supported by the Solar Foundation as a Microfinance Institution (MFI).

From the social point of view all RETs have their strengths and weaknesses. However the Pico PV system perhaps is the most cost-effective solution and would have more acceptance in the community because of the combination of service-cost it provides. Even though a Hydropower scheme has the potential to produce more power, it would be underutilised for lighting purposes.

It is suggested that the support of the productive uses of energy are carried out throughout the project life time to allow the village to improve their economic status. A rural RESCO could in fact be the first positive impact in the economy of the village. It would have the advantage of strengthening the village organizational and managerial skills. It would create employment opportunities and allow upgrading of future energy programs.

To overcome some of the potential barriers of the program identified to be social acceptance and bad technology transfer it is recommended that: there is full engagement with the identified stakeholders throughout the life time of the program, there is monitoring of system performance, customer satisfaction, and that the lighting program is coupled to a productive use.

iv

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Background Information Geographic Location The village of Batzchocola is located in the municipality of Nebaj, in the northern region of the department of Quiche, 287 km away from Guatemala’s capital city (Jimenez, 2013). The village is located in the central highlands, a mountainous region with the highest elevations of the country.

The total trip from the city takes approximate seven and a half hours. Access is made by a four wheel drive vehicle or by foot. Geographic coordinates are latitude 15.572826, longitude -91.109029.

Map 1 Geographic Location of the Batzchocola Village

Socio-Economic Profile Batzchocola is a Mayan Ixchil community, located in one of the poorest departments of the country, and with the lowest human development index (Jiménez, 2013). The village considered as a low density populated is inhabited by 65 families living in 100 households. Total inhabitants are 364 people, 189 female and 175 male (Jiménez, 2013). Each house is constructed of adobe bricks and roofs of aluminium sheets or tiles and has single living-dining room and one single bedroom where 6 family members sleep. In some cases two families can share a common household.

Ixchil is the predominant language and only a minority of community members speak Spanish. The village has a 40% rate of illiteracy from which a higher proportion is women (Arriaza, 2005).

Although the central government has set goals to reduce illiteracy, rural villages like Batzchocola have fewer opportunities because of absence of qualified human resources and infrastructure for education.

1

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

The municipality of Nebaj has one of the lowest degrees of electricity coverage in the country (Jiménez, 2013). Most of the villages in the rough terrain of the region have very low energy demands making it unattractive for electricity utilities providing connection to the national grid.

An important social issue faced by the community of Batzchocola is the devastating effects suffered by a 30 year old civil war conflict. The Ixchil area is known to have been “scorched-earth” policy, in which the military was the worst offender (Rodriguez, 2013). This has weakened social participation and the organizational capacity of rural villages in the Ixchil area (Arriaza, 2005).

The average daily income per family stands at $5.00 USD which is well below the extreme poverty line (Rodriguez, 2013). Annual income is estimated around $ 2,700 (PUREGT). The main economic activities besides poultry and swine farming are subsistence agriculture of maize, coffee, beans, cardamom and other vegetables (Rodriguez, 2013). Other important sources of income come from unskilled labour and some families have immigrant remittance sent from the United States, (Jiménez, 2013).

In Guatemala most of the financial mechanisms offered by banks are designed for urban areas.

Loans and credits are oriented to Spanish speaking clients with credentials to guarantee loan payback (Arriaza, 2005). However the rural client is usually characterised by a low education level, without any means to proof land ownership and guarantee their civil rights (Arriaza, 2005).

Furthermore government institutions are influenced by political campaigns that tend to change their electrification programs to meet political agendas. This has negatively affected past feasibility studies, cost-benefit analysis, and willingness to pay assessments, which has left entire villages without access to energy (Arriaza, 2005).

Environmental Issues Infrastructure

Households are made from local materials. There is no infrastructure for water. A latrine is used by all members of the family without wastewater treatment. The community has one small school and one community centre for the local organizations. The village has no health facilities, no telephone lines and one small community centre. Corn, the staple food of most families, is grinded using mechanical mills. Land is communally owned.

2

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Deforestation and emissions

Biomass plays an important role in meeting the needs of rural villages like Batzchocola. In Guatemala more than 80% of the primary energy fuel needs are met by firewood (Gil, 2009). Low efficiency cook stoves are used throughout the community, which demands a continuous amount of biomass which is gathered from nearby forests. Burning of biomass produces indoor smoke, and contributes to toxic CO2 emissions.

Health

Women and children have a high risk of respiratory illness because they spend more time in the house. They also spend long periods of time collecting wood. Health issues faced by the village are related to high rates of infectious diseases that are caused by lack of health staff, medical equipment and facilities. There is a high percentage of prenatal deaths and child malnutrition.

Access to clean water

Access to clean sources of water has been identified as an important health and environmental issue in the community. Most of the water supply comes from the Batzchocola stream which is located less than 3Km away. People in the village spend one hour collecting water in plastic containers.

Needs Assessment Energy Consumption Patterns

Several studies have analysed the rural consumption trends in Guatemala (Arriaza, 2005 and Gil, 2009). From these studies it can be estimated that the people in the Batzchocola community use one litre of kerosene gas for oil lamps, and an approximate of 30 candles per month to meet their lighting needs. Firewood is used for cooking in mud stoves. Four pairs of batteries are used to power lanterns from 6pm to 12 pm. for household activities the night time. The local store supplies these elements which are brought into the village once a month on a truck.

Table 1 Household consumption patterns

Household Village

Batteries 4 Pairs 400

Candles 30 candles 300

Firewood 0.5 kg 50 kg

Kerosene 1 lt 100 lt

It is expected that in the next 20 years the community will grow at a 2.5 % rate and will reach a total of 586 members based on the country statistics (INE, 2014). Consequently the energy demand will increase as well. It is expected that once energy is introduce the village’s consumption patterns will change. Estimations made by Gil (2009) show that a single household can use 20 - 27 kWh per 3

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

month after their village has access to electricity. However, if the village is supported with productive uses of energy the demand can increase to 48 kWh per user each month.

Figure 1 Population Growth Over a 20 Year Period. Growth Rate 2.5% Based on National Statistics (2014)

Access to the National Electricity Grid

Isolated rural villages in Guatemala have a high vulnerability and risk for the electricity market, because they have low energy demands. In Guatemala several programs to connect the national electricity grid have been developed for rural villages over the past decades (Arriaza, 2005).

However, the roughness of the terrain as well as the criteria used to select potential benefactors from these programs, like the distance to the nearest point and energy demand has not been met by the villages in the Nebaj municipality. This has reduced the opportunities of Batzchocola to access the services energy provides.

Map 2 Guatemala’s National Electricity Grid

4

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Willingness to pay

The energy payment capacity of rural households in Guatemala was estimated at $ 8.30 by Jimenez (2013) based on the average monthly consumption trends found by national statistical institute. He determined that the average rural household spends Q 44.64 or $5.87 USD per month (JimĂŠnez, 2013). This costs has been incremented with the use of cell phones by Q20.00 or $2.55 per month (JimĂŠnez, 2013). Another study in Guatemala (Gil, 2009) based on the information provided by the Solar Foundation1 found that the average budget for lighting in rural villages of the country is Q70.00 or $ 9.00 USD. Therefore, it is assumed here that the monthly budget for lighting in rural villages in Guatemala is $ 8.50 USD.

Institutional framework Ministry of Energy and Mines

Electricity generation in Guatemala is based on a free market model, were both state and privately owned companies compete for electricity generation, distribution, transport and dispatch. Under the Guatemalan Ministry of Energy and Mines, the National Electrical Energy Commission (CNEE) is the institution in charge of administrating and regulating the electricity market in the country (MEM, 2013). The two segments from this market are the National Interconnected System (SIN) and Offgrid stand-alone systems. The National Interconnected System meets the demands of urban consumers and industry using utilities, distributors and dispatchers who trade in wholesale quantities electrical energy. Off-grid stand-alone systems are regulated directly by the CNEE (MEM, 2013). These include all stand-alone fossil fuel power plants, micro-hydro, biomass, wind and solar photovoltaic power systems.

Stakeholders Batzchocola COCODE

The Batzchocola Community Development Council (COCODE in Spanish) is the organization in charge of taking decisions and managing all the village affairs. In order to guarantee the successful implementation and lifetime of the project the Batzchocola community association has been identified as the key stakeholder and should be included in the planification, design and implementation of the program. The Batzchocola COCODE has formally expressed the needs of the community to participate in a lighting program by signing a formal agreement to participate

1

Fundacion Solar is one of the leading renewable energy for sustainable development NGOs in Guatemala.

5

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

(JimĂŠnez, 2013). They act as the legal representative of all community members with other stakeholders.

ASHDINQUI

A consequence of the community’s interest to participate in a rural electrification programs, and past interactions with other funding agencies the Northern Quiche Rural Hydroelectric Development Association has been formed by members of three neighbouring villages. The association is a community microenterprise with a democratically elected directive board conceived to handle all administrative, maintenance and operation of renewable energy programs. The association employs members of the villages as hired staff and interacts with the COCODE and other stakeholders as the benefactor of assistance programs.

Solar Foundation

The Solar Foundation is a Private Development Organization that has been working in rural energy programs in the country. It is the link between national corporations, international funding agencies and grassroots organizations.

6

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Technical feasibility Load Analysis The average daily load of an isolated rural household was estimated based on previous studies of rural energy consumption (Gil, 2009). In the present scenario it is expected that a single household would consume 205 Wh of electricity to power four energy efficient LED2 lamps, a small radio, and charge a cell phone 6 hours per day, from 6 pm to 12 pm. The average daily, monthly and annual energy loads for a single household as well as for the entire village are presented in table 2, and Figure 4 and 5. The annual load profiles show an average monthly load of 25 kWh which considers losses from the inverter.

Table 2 Load Analysis

Units LED- Lamp Radio Cell phone Total

4 1 1

Power (watts)

Daily use (Hours) 7 3 5

Daily Demand per User (Wh) 6 4 5

168 12 25 205

Daily Demand Village(kWh)

Monthly Demands (kWh)

16.8 1.2 2.5 20.5

504 36 75 615

Annual Demand (kWh) 6132 438 912.5 7,482.5

Figure 2 Average Daily Load Profile of a single Household

Figure 3 Batzchocola Annual Load Profile

2

Light-emitting diodes lamps have enhanced efficiency and longer life time than incandescent or fluorescent lamps.

7

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Renewable Energy Resources Solar resource assessment

The solar radiation was estimated using the information dataset from the Solar and Wind Resource Assessment (SWERA) models (NREL, 2014). The values for solar radiation at the coordinates of Batzchocola range from 4.4 kWh m-2d-1 in January to 6.4 kWh m-2d-1 in April. On average 5.11 kWh m-2d-1 of solar energy falls annually in the village. Latitude at 14o north of the equator, provides a constant sunlight throughout the year from 6 am to 6 pm. A decrease in solar radiation is expected due to cloud coverage during the rainy season in the months of June to October. This can be a limiting factor to produce solar energy during these months which would require a means of energy storage, or an alternative generation technology.

Figure 4 Solar radiation in Batzchocola. Source: NREL – Homer Legacy Software (2014)

Map 3 Central America Solar Radiation, Source: NREL (2014)

8

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Wind Resource Assessment

Wind speed data was obtained from the closest climatological station in Nebaj, 25 Km away from Batzchocola (INSIVUHME, 2014) and SWERA models (NREL, 2014). The annual mean wind speed less is 4.72 m/s which makes it a “poor” site for wind power.

Figure 5 Average Wind Speed in Nebaj

Map 4 Wind Atlas of Central America, Source: NREL (2014)

9

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Hydropower potential

The Batzchocola Stream runs less than 3km away of the village. The annual rainfall influences the river flow in the months of the rainy season from June to October cording to the nearest weather station in Nebaj (INSIVUHME, 2014). During the driest season the river has a water flow of 75 l/s and a can reach a maximum of 102 l/s during the rainy season (Hernandez, 2014). A net head of 200 m can be obtained in the terrain which would allow the production of 141 kW during the dry season and 245 kW in during the rainy season. These conditions make the village appropriate for a “run-ofthe-river” micro hydro scheme.

Figure 6 Average Annual Rainfall

10

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Renewable Energy Technologies PV Technologies

To harness the solar resources Pico-photovoltaic Systems (Pico-PV), Solar Home Systems (SHS) and PV Micro-Grids are feasible technologies that have been proven successful for rural isolated areas (ARE, 2011). Based on 250 W individual household loads the three systems were sized to have an approximate number of components and estimate the costs. The PV micro grid was sized based on the total village load of 25 kW expected at the inverter. Table 3 presents the summary of the three systems. The full analysis is included in the Appendices.

Pico-PV Kit

The Pico-PV is the smallest system. One 50 W PV module is able to produce enough energy to meet the lighting demands of one household. The ready to use “kit� comes with its own light bulbs and can charge a cell phone or a radio. The kit can be supplied by the private company Guatemala Solar with a 1 year warranty and does not need a qualified technician for system installation. A life time of 10 years is expected.

Solar Home System

The solar home system is more complex than the Pico-PV. It would require a trained technician for installation and a higher degree of knowledge for operation and maintenance. With good energy load management the battery is guaranteed to last 4 years but the 2 solar PV modules have an expected life time of 20 years.

PV-Micro grid.

A decentralized grid system allows the reduction in number of PV modules and battery units for the whole village, in contrast with the 100 units needed for the 100 households. However the costs associated with the installation and the power losses of the distribution network can pose a potential technical barrier. Overall PV technologies have the advantage of being expandable, but a PV-micro grid has the extra advantage that it can be used with hybrid systems and would allow easier incorporation to the national electric grid.

For all PV systems, technical training is needed, to learn how to operate and maintain the equipment, as well as energy load management and battery replacement. This will guarantee the life time of the system.

11

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Table 3 PV Technologies for the Batzchocola Village

Systems Pico-PV (PPS)

Solar Home Systems

PV Micro-Grids

Rated Output 50 W

275 W

32 kWh

Voltage 12V DC

12 V DC/AC

48V DC

Number of Units

Components

Applications

1

Solarworld 50W solar module

Lighting

1

Charge Controller

Radio

1

Small Battery

4 1

LED lamps Mounting accessories, Connection box,

2 1 1 4

PV modules Charge controller 200 Ah Battery LED lamps

56 1 64 400 3km

PV modules Charge controller 415 Ah Batteries LED Lamps Electricity network

Advantaves Easy installation (Plug & Play), user friendly low investment cost, no O&M, flexible use.

Modularity and expandable.

Disadvantages 1 year warranty. Limited Life time, needs replacement after 10 years.

Cell phone

Lamps DC or AC loads. Several days of autonomy. radios Higher rated output. tvs Bigger appliances Flexibility allows scaling the system.

Rural Villages Hospitals Schools Factories

12

Can be scaled and coupled to other renewable energy technologies, like hidropower, biogas, diesel or biomass generators. Allow connection to the grid.

Longer Life time

Risks are introduced with oversized inefficient appliances. Batteries need replacement and can be damaged if allowed deep discharge. Increased costs. Would need active technology transfer.

Requires good design and technical skill for installation. Needs good O&M to increase lifetime.

Power losses in distribution network.

Needs qualified technical staff for instalation, O&M. Increased costs.

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Deep Cycle Lead –Acid Batteries

Deep cycle lead-acid batteries are compatible to use with PV systems. They are designed to last longer, charge with small currents and have higher discharge efficiencies. Sealed lead-acid batteries have the advantage of being maintenance free, being easier to transport and do not pose any explosive risks to the user. The number of batteries in a system and expected life time is a function of the Amp hour (Ah) capacity needed versus the discharge rate. Higher depths of discharges shorten the life time of the battery. For the SHS a 200 Ah sealed lead-acid battery was selected to reduce the depth of discharge to 10%. This would increase the life time of the battery to 1200 cycles or 4 years.

PV Micro Grid Battery Bank

For the PV-micro grid 64 deep cycle lead-acid batteries would be needed at a 415 Ah capacity. This would allow the micro grid 3 days of autonomy discharging the batteries at 16%, to last 1800 cycles equivalent to 5 years.

Charge Controller

A charge controller is needed for the PV system output to manage the current deliver to the batteries or to appliances. The most sophisticated are the Multiple Power Point Trackers because they enhance the efficiency of the PV modules. However for the purpose of the present program a generic charge controller can meet the requirements.

Hydropower technologies Small Micro Hydro Power System

Based on the load analysis and hydro resources the appropriate technology for the village is a 30 kW Micro Hydropower System (MHP) with a “run-of-the-river scheme” using a Kaplan turbine generator.

A small MHP scheme is able to produce anywhere from 10-100kW, depending on the river flow and the net head. Therefore careful planning and design are needed before construction. The most basic design structures include a settling tank, a canal to divert the river and a penstock directed to a power house where the turbine generator is located. The reaction turbine is positioned in the water channel system and has higher conversion efficiencies at low flow rates (Buchla, Kissell, & Floyd, 2014). It is one of the most popular turbines in Guatemala and has been used in other rural village energy projects (Arriaza, 2005).

13

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA. Table 4 Advantages and Disadvantages of MHP

MHP Advantages Water turbine generator can meet the load directly.

Reliable and mature technology, with high conversion efficiencies.

Low level skills for O&M. It has low environmental impacts Low O&M costs and extended life time.

Good payback ratios.

Power output can be upgraded

Disadvantages High Initial capital costs Requires medium skills for civil works and certified technical skills for turbine generator installation Needs a distribution network Needs regular O&M. Could be underutilized

14

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Economic Feasibility Life Cycle Costing Analysis A levelized cost of energy is used to compare all renewable technologies using a life time of 20 years and a 25 kW load per day for the village. This was estimated as the total costs divided by the total kWh produced over the entire life cycle (Vanek, 2012). For the initial analysis no interest or discount rates were used. Prices were obtained from local and international distributors. Installation was calculated at 10% of capital costs. This is what is reported for several MHP schemes in Guatemala (Rodriguez, 2013).. For operation and maintenance 2.5% of the capital investment was used as reported for other PV programs (Akiki, Hinrichs, van Zuylen, & Rojas-Sol贸rzano, 2010). The Pico PV system does not have installation and O&M costs. A diesel generator was included in the analysis to allow comparison of a fossil fuel based energy source.

Table 5 Life Cycle Costing Analysis

Price per kWh Capital Costs 1 Household Capital Investment Village KWh Produced per year Total costs for each household Total cost of the program

Pico-PV Solar System $ 0.07 $ 372 $ 37,179 54,750 $ 744 $ 74,359

$ $ $ $ $

Solar Home System 0.35 1,652 165,220 54,750 378,320 37,832,000

PV Micro Grid $ 0.18 $ 632 $ 63,218 54,750 $ 1,928 $ 192,754

Micro Hydro Power $ 0.65 $ 5,485 $ 548,515 54,750 $ 7,129 $ 712,865

Diesel $ $ $ $ $

0.47 1,340 133,978 54,750 5,131 513,061

The Pico PV-System has an entry price of $372. Considering its limited life time the unit would have to be replaced every 10 years and thus increasing the overall life cycle costs to $ 743.59 for each household. The increase in costs in the SHS and the PV Micro Grid are a consequence of battery replacement every 4 and 5 years respectively. The PV Micro Grid has the additional costs of the electric distribution network. From the PV technologies the Pico-PV system has the lowest costs per kWh. The PV Micro Grid has the advantage over the SHS of reducing the number of PV modules and Batteries in contrast to the 100 units needed for the 100 individual SHS.

The MHP system has a much higher capital and life cycle cost because of the planning, design, supervision and civil works required during the implementation stage. This could be reduced if local work is outsourced and design parameters adapt to the local landscape. Also the costs per kWh are higher because only 6 hours of electricity (54,750 kWh) production from the 24 hour potential of the turbine generator were considered. However if the total amount of kWh produced per year increases to its full potential, the price per kWh could be as low as $ 0.16.

15

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Annuities To have an idea on a monthly fee from a micro-credit or loan all technologies were compared using annuities on the capital investment using a 10% fixed interest rate. The Pico-PV system was annuitized for a period of 10 years because this is the expected life time of the kit and a new kit would need to be installed after this period is over. Both Pico-PV and PV Micro Grid systems would have fees less than the $ 8.50 price villagers are willing to pay. These considerations do not include any other replacements or O&M costs, which the PV micro grid would have. The Pico PV system would therefore be the only technology economically feasible for the village because it would not incur in any additional costs. Unless there is a subsidy for the acquisition of the PV Micro Grid, SHS or the MHP these systems would be out of reach for the whole community.

Table 6 Annuities on Capital Investment of the RETs

Pico-PV Solar Solar Home System* System Capital Investment by Household $ 372 $ 1,652 Household Monthly Fee $4.91 $ 15.94 * Analysis for 10 years lifetime of one kit 10% interest rate

Micro Hydro PV Micro Grid Power $ 632 $ 5,485 $ $ 6.10 $ 52.93 $

Diesel 1,340 12.93

Comparison to Diesel Genset At $ 0.47 per kWh Diesel generator would seem like a viable option. However using the fuel consumption curve from the specs sheet (Appendix 8) the fuel costs can be estimated at $ 17,359 per year of diesel fuel. Considering the annuities for the loan payment the diesel generator would have increased costs of $ 0.63 per kWh.

Business Models It has been agreed by the development agencies that distribution of RET free of charge is avoided and costumers pay either all or some of the costs of the system. This has been suggested as past experiences have shown that payment creates value for the system (ARE, 2011). In Guatemala the social tariff for electricity price stands at $ 0.21 per kWh. The figures presented here for Pico PV are within the range of costs of electricity in Guatemala and seem to be affordable by the village. Using microfinance it could be possible to allow either the whole village or each individual family to get a credit to pay for the PV kit. From the Microfinance Business models, the “Fee for Service Model� seems to have more potential in the community (ARE, 2011). In this model Solar Foundation would act as the Credit Provider or Microfinance Institution (MFI) while ASHDINQUI would be the Renewable Energy Service Company (RESCO) maintaining ownership of the renewable energy 16

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

technology. These model has been used in other rural communities in Guatemala and has proven to be successful (Arriaza, 2005).

17

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Social Feasibility Potential Benefits Social Benefits

From the individual household perspective, illumination can bring several benefits to each family.

First there would be improved living standards which provide a sense of self-esteem to the members of the community. Then there would be savings from kerosene and candle consumption by half of the present consumption price. It will also improve women’s household activities.

Health Benefits

Reduction in kerosene use would not only reduce costs per household but also reduce respiratory affections due to the reduction of emissions. In rural villages children are born without medical assistance. An illuminated room without smoke is much healthier for new born children.

Rural Development

A RESCO has several positive impacts in the development of rural communities. It strengthens the community organisation and managerial skills and opens up work opportunities as members of the village are hired as formal staff for O&M instalment and after sales service. It also improves the technical capacity of the community as members of the RESCO are trained and qualified to provide a service to the community. It also improves gender equality because women become involved and have more participation in decision of the community.

Environmental Benefits - GHG Reductions

It is expected that any of the RETs used in the program will have net Greenhouse Gas emissions reductions in the community. The MHP system has the biggest emission reduction possibilities because it can generate more kWh than PV technologies. However for a demand of 25 kW per day the total emissions reductions are 19,114 tonnes of CO2 eq. per year and 382,273 tonnes of CO2 eq. for the whole life cycle of the program in the village.

18

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Figure 7 GHG Emission Reduction Potential

Potential Barriers Social Acceptance

Acceptance of the RET from the benefited stakeholders is the first social barrier to overcome. It is important to consider the village consent throughout the design and implementation stages of the program. In the case of the Pico PV system the limited life time of 10 years could be seen not attractive for the members of the community. Also the limited energy production of PV systems compared to the Hydropower potential could lead the community to choose MHP. Technology Transfer and Productive Uses

Assistance during the whole life cycle of the program is needed to support and appropriate technology transfer. Productive uses of energy like microenterprises, corn mills or other income generating activity will allow them to payback for any RET introduced.

Theft and Damage

PV technologies have the risk of being misused by the costumers. Usually demand side management practices are needed to be implemented for proper operation and maintenance of the systems.

These could include limiting hours of operation and reduction of the number of appliances used. The other potential barrier is theft and damage to the RET. This is an important risk that needs to be considered, even though it is expected that the members of the village would take good care of the system. Several case studies in Guatemala have shown that severe climatic events have damaged

19

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

RETs (Arriaza, 2005). However in many cases RETs have been repaired and continue to work. The lack of guarantee could also limit the life time of the products.

Unsatisfied costumers

Lack of after sales service, bad operation and maintenance can lead to system failure. In several case studies costumers have stopped paying fees for these reasons or because they would like to meet higher energy demands.

Capital Investment

Overcoming the capital investment of the RETs is a strong barrier. In Guatemala most of the financial mechanisms offered by banks are designed for urban areas. Loans and credits are oriented to Spanish speaking clients with credentials to guarantee loan payback (Arriaza, 2005). However the rural client is usually characterised by a low education level, without any means to proof land ownership and guarantee their civil rights (Arriaza, 2005). Partnerships between NGOs, private corporations and government organizations have been able to overcome the high capital costs from RETs. Policy and subsidies for RETs

Government institutions are influenced by political campaigns that tend to change their electrification programs to meet political agendas. This has negatively affected past feasibility studies, cost-benefit analysis, and willingness to pay assessments, which has left entire villages without access to energy (Arriaza, 2005). Currently there are no subsidies or tax exemption mechanisms in Guatemala for access to electricity. The new energy policy has a

Environmental Impacts Electronic waste

PV technologies have a negative environmental impact from battery waste used with the systems.

Transportation to proper recycling facilities needs to be considered to reduce the risk of exposure to heavy metal contaminants. Electronic waste from damage parts and PV modules is a potential risk.

The best way to approach these issues would be to have a business model where the full life cycle management of the PV systems is included.

20

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Conclusions The present Pre-feasibility study shows that people in the rural village of Batzchocola in Guatemala have well defined energy consumption patterns using Kerosene oil, candles and batteries that cost them an approximate of $8.50 per month. These have negative environmental and social consequences that can be reduced by changing from traditional sources of fuel to renewable energy technologies.

The load analysis found that one household uses 250 Watts six hours each night. The village has a daily load of 25 kW. This is 54,750 kWh per year. From the resource assessment, solar and hydropower are the feasible resources that can be harnessed using PV systems or Micro Hydro Power. For the technical requirements and for the goals of the program which are to provide lighting to rural households, the Pico PV System presents more economic, environmental and social benefits than the four RETs reviewed. The MHP run-off-the-river scheme has the potential to produce more power, reduce more GHG gases and produce more productive uses of energy however the costs associated are so high that only if resources are available, should be considered.

The life cycle costs show that the 50 Watt Pico PV System is an affordable alternative as long as there is the support from the Solar Foundation acting as a Microfinance Institution to allow the ASHDINQUI to overcome the capital investments and provide the service to the community.

However the program would have a positive economic effect only if the RESCO is supported by government with financial mechanisms (Subsidies).

21

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Recommendations It is recommended before the program is implemented that all stakeholders are included throughout the project design and implementation. Education and training for the RESCO would have to address: business administration and active technology transfer in PV systems including best practices for operation and maintenance.

The “fee-for-service” has been suggested here as an adequate business model however this does not mean that other models like the “lease/hire” could render positive results. The government could play an important role if a financial instrument like a subsidy or tax exemption is applied to technology dealers which would lower substantially the costs for the village.

To overcome the social barriers including acceptance of the technology the lighting program should be actively supported throughout the first years with monitoring activities to determine the overall results and the effectiveness of the systems Finally coupling the program to productive uses of energy like recycling of electronic waste or refurbishment of broken units should be included into the program design. This could lead to other rural enterprises reducing the environmental impacts of PV systems and create productive economic activities in the village.

22

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

References Akiki, G., Hinrichs, F., van Zuylen, R. A., & Rojas-Solórzano, L. (2010). Pre-feasibility study for pv electrfication of off-grid rural communities. Paper presented at the International Renewable energy Congress, Sousse, Tunisia.

ARE. (2011). Rural Electrification with Renewable Energy: Technologies, quality standards and business models. Brussels, Belgium: Alliance for Rural Electrification.

Arriaza, H. (2005). Assessment of the Guatemalan rural energy sector Guatemala: Organizacion Latinoamericana de Energia, OLADE.

Buchla, D. M., Kissell, T. E., & Floyd, T. L. (2014). Renewable Energy Systems: Pearson Higher Ed.

Gil, J. (2009). Characterization of energy demands in isolated rural villages of Guatemala. Revista Electronica de la Universidad Landivar(14).

Hernandez, M. (2014). Informe Final de la Consultoria Aplicacion de Responsabilidad Social Corporativa en Sistemas de Energia Rural en Zonas Aisladas de Guatemala [Corporate Social Responsability for Energy Systems in Remote Isolated Areas of Guatemala, Final Report].

Organizacion Latinoamericana de Energia

INE. (2014). Guatemala: People and Development. A sociodemographic analysis. Guatemala: Instituto Nacional de Estadistica.

INSIVUHME. (2014). Nebaj Climatic Station Data. from Instituto Nacional de Sismologia, Vulcanologia, Hidrologia y Meteorologia. Guatemala http://www.insivumeh.gob.gt/

Jiménez, M. H. (2013). Aplicacion de responsabilidad social corporativa en sistemas de energía en zonas aisladas de Guatemala. Guatemala: Organizacion Latinoamericana de Energia.

23

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

MEM. (2013). Politica Energetica 2013-2027 [Energy Policy 2013-2027]. Guatemala: Ministerio de Energia y Minas.

NREL. (2014). Solar and Wind Energy Resource Assessment.

Retrieved 22/10/2014, 2014, from

http://en.openei.org/wiki/SWERA/Data

Rodriguez, H. (2013). Productive uses of renewable energy in Guatemala, PURE. Guatemala: United Nations Development Program.

24

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Appendix 1 Hydropower Potential Estimation

(

(

(

)

)

)

25

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Appendix 2 Photovoltaic Solar Home System Design

System Inputs Average Daily Load Inverter Efficiency Battery Efficiency Regulator Efficiency

0.2 kWh 0.82 0.8 1

Load (Batt&Inv) Sun Peak Hours

0.3 kWh

1kW=

Formulas

SolarWorld SunModule Sw275 mono Energy Required by PV Array Expected Output from PV Array 20.50 kWh Energy required at Inverter 0.24 kWh Sun Peak Hours Tilt 14o

5.11 kWh m-2d-1 Derating factor for temperature (f temp) Average Daily Temperature (Ta,day) 25.00 oC

3.6 MJ

1kW=

Average daily cell temperature (Tcell.eff) 50.00 oC Derating factor for temperature (f temp) 0.91 Derated Output of Module (Pmod) Rated Output of the module (Pstc) 100.00 W Derated factor of manufacture (fman) 0.84

1 SPH

SolarWorld SunModule Sw275 mono Pstc 100 Watts Fman 0.84 25 oC g 0.004 Fdirt 0.97 TSTC

PV Array Overest. factor fo

npv-batt nreg nbatt ninv

1.5

ftemp Derating Factor for dirt (Fdirt) Pmod Number of Modules Etot

0.9

Pmod

0.9 0.8 0.82

Average Daily Load Voltage

3 50% 0.82

Battery for PV Module Required Battery Capacity 1.5 kWh 1,500 Wh 31.25 Ah

0.205 kW 12 V

Battery Arrangement Number of strings Total number of Batteries

243.90 Wh 73.74 W

Htilt 14 Degrees 5.30 SPH 1.44 PV modules N Corrected number of PV modules N 2 PV modules Energy Output of PV Array E out 0.42 kWh

Expected output of array Pr 100 watts System Voltage 48 V

System Data Days of Autonomy Depth of Discharge Inverter Efficiency

0.91 0.97 73.74 W

Average daily Discharge Currents Hours of Operation Discharge Power At inverter

6.00 0.03 kWh 0.04 KWh

Average Daily current draw Av. Daily Curr. (2X)

3.47 Amps 6.94 Amps

Average DoD 1 1

Batt. Rated Cap. C5 discharge current

26

200 Ah Batt. Rated Cap. 34 Amps Daily discharge DoD Years

2400.00 Wh 250.00 Wh 10 % 4

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Appendix 3 PV Micro Grid System Design

System Inputs

Formulas

Average Daily Load Inverter Efficiency Battery Efficiency Regulator Efficiency

20.5 kWh 0.82 0.8 1

SolarWorld SunModule Sw275 mono Energy Required by PV Array Expected Output from PV Array 20.50 kWh Energy required at Inverter 25.00 kWh Sun Peak Hours

Load (Batt&Inv) Sun Peak Hours

25.6 kWh

Tilt 14o

1kW=

5.11 kWh m-2d-1 Derating factor for temperature (f temp) Average Daily Temperature (Ta,day) 25.00 oC

3.6 MJ

1kW=

Average daily cell temperature (Tcell.eff) 50.00 oC Derating factor for temperature (f temp) 0.91 Derated Output of Module (Pmod) Rated Output of the module (Pstc) 275.00 W Derated factor of manufacture (fman) 0.84

1 SPH

SolarWorld SunModule Sw275 mono Pstc 275 Watts Fman 0.84 25 oC g 0.004 Fdirt 0.97 TSTC

PV Array Overest. factor fo

npv-batt nreg nbatt ninv

1.5

ftemp 0.91 Derating Factor for dirt (Fdirt) 0.97 Pmod 202.78 W Number of Modules Etot 25,000.00 Wh

0.9

Pmod

0.9 0.8 0.82

202.78 W

Htilt 14 Degrees 5.30 SPH 53.85 PV modules N Corrected number of PV modules N 56 PV modules Energy Output of PV Array E out 32 kWh

Expected output of array Pr 275 watts System Voltage 48 V

System Data Days of Autonomy Depth of Discharge Inverter Efficiency

3 50% 0.82

Average Daily Load Voltage

20.5 48 V

Battery Bank for PV Array Required Battery Capacity 150 kWh 150,000 Wh 3125 Ah

Average daily Discharge Currents Hours of Operation Discharge Power At inverter Average Daily current draw Av. Daily Curr. (2X)

6.00 3.42 kWh 4.17 kWh 86.81 Amps 173.61 Amps

Battery Arrangement 1 string Number of strings Total number of Batteries

8 (6V) 8 64

Batt. Rated capacity C5 discharge current

415 Ah Current draw per string 80 Amps Batt. Rated. Cap. Depth of Discharge Average Daily load at inverter Depth of Discharge Years

27

21.70 Amps 159,360 25,000 W 16% 5

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Appendix 4 Life Cycle Costing of Pico PV System Pico-PV Solar System Output of Individual System Annual Output Components Solarworld 50W solar module Charge controller Morningstar SHS-6 PowerKing 12V 12Ah Battery 3 LED Bulbs Mounting accessories Conection box with 12 plug Cellphone charger Total in GT Q. Exchange Rate Total USD $ Source: Guatemala Solar

Guatemala Factor IPCC (2009) GHG emission reduction Whole Proyect

Units 250 W 547.5 kWh

$

2,900.00 7.8 371.79

0.35 kg CO2/kWh 19,114 T/year 382,273 T

Pico-PV Solar System Year Capital Costs Replacement 0 $ 371.79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 $ 371.79 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Individual $ 371.79 $ 371.79 Village $ 37,179.49 $ 37,179.49

28

Costs of fuel kWh

O&M $

-

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

-

Total Costs

$ $

743.59 74,358.97

kWh Produced 547.50 547.50 547.50 547.50 547.50 547.50 547.50 547.50 547.50 547.50 547.50 547.50 547.50 547.50 547.50 547.50 547.50 547.50 547.50 547.50 10,950.00 1,095,000

Costs per kWh Total Costs/kWh Produced

$ $

0.07 0.07

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Appendix 5 Life Cycle Costing of Solar Home System

Solar Home System Output of System Capacity factor Annual Output Components Solarland 100 Silver Poly SLP100-12U MPPT Charge Controller 150 UB4D Battery 3 LED Bulbs Sub-Total USD $ Installation Total O&M Source: Wholesale Solar http://www.wholesalesolar.com Guatemala Factor IPCC (2009) GHG emission reduction Whole Proyect

Units 25 kW 54750 kWh $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

255.00 607.00 345.00 40.00 1,502.00 150.20 1,652.20 37.55

2

10%

0.349108 kg CO2/kWh

19,114 T/year 382,273 T

Solar Home System Year Captial Costs 0 $ 1,652.20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Individual $ 1,652.20 Village $ 165,220.00

Replacement

$

345.00

$

345.00

$

345.00

$

345.00

$ $

1,380.00 138,000.00

29

O&M $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

37.55 37.55 37.55 37.55 37.55 37.55 37.55 37.55 37.55 37.55 37.55 37.55 37.55 37.55 37.55 37.55 37.55 37.55 37.55 37.55 751.00 75,100.00

Costs of fuel kWh $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Total Costs

-

kWh Produced

Costs per kWh Total Costs/kWh Produced

54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 $ 378,320.00

1,095,000.00

$

0.35

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Appendix 6 Life Cycle Costing of PV Micro Grid System PV Micro Grid Output of System Annual Demmand Annual Output Components Sunmodule SW 275 MPPT Charge Controller 150 DC400-6 Battery 3 LED Bulbs Sub-Total USD $ Installation Total O&M Source: Wholesale Solar http://www.wholesalesolar.com Guatemala Factor IPCC (2009) GHG emission reduction Whole Proyect

Units 32 kW 54,750 59,568 kWh $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

344.00 607.00 525.00 40.00 57,471.00 5,747.10 63,218.10 1,436.78

56 1 64 100 10%

0.349108 kg CO2/kWh

19,114 T/year 382,273 T

Pv-Micro Grid Year Captial Costs 0 $ 63,218.10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Total $ 63,218.10

Replacement

$

33,600.00

$

33,600.00

$

33,600.00

$

100,800.00

30

O&M $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

1,436.78 1,436.78 1,436.78 1,436.78 1,436.78 1,436.78 1,436.78 1,436.78 1,436.78 1,436.78 1,436.78 1,436.78 1,436.78 1,436.78 1,436.78 1,436.78 1,436.78 1,436.78 1,436.78 1,436.78 28,735.50

Costs of fuel kWh $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

-

Total Costs

kWh Produced

$ 192,753.60

54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 1,095,000.00

Costs per kWh Total Costs/kWh Produced

$

0.18

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Appendix 7 Life Cycle Costing of Micro Hydro Power Micro Hydro Power Rated Output of System Annual Demand Annual Output Components Civil Works Electromechanical equipment Transmission and distribution Planning, final design and supervision Sub-Total USD $ Installation Total O&M Source: PURE Guatemala Guatemala Factor IPCC (2009) GHG emission reduction Whole Proyect

Units 25 kWh 54,750 kWh 54,750 kWh $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

328,650.00 100,000.00 50,000.00 20,000.00 498,650.00 49,865.00 548,515.00 8,217.50

0.349108 kg CO2/kWh

19,114 T/year 382,273 T

Micro Hydro Power Year Captial Costs 0 $ 548,515.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Total $ 548,515.00

Replacement

O&M $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

31

8,217.50 8,217.50 8,217.50 8,217.50 8,217.50 8,217.50 8,217.50 8,217.50 8,217.50 8,217.50 8,217.50 8,217.50 8,217.50 8,217.50 8,217.50 8,217.50 8,217.50 8,217.50 8,217.50 8,217.50 164,350.00

Costs of fuel kWh $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

-

Total Costs

kWh Produced

$ 712,865.00

54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 1,095,000.00

Costs per kWh Total Costs/kWh Produced

$

0.65

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Appendix 7 Life Cycle Costing of Diesel Genset Diesel Rated Output of System Annual Demand Daily Fuel Consumption Annual Fuel Consumption Fuel Costs Fuel costs in USD Fuel costs per liter Fuel costs per year Components Diesel Generator Set Transmission and distribution Sub-Total USD $ Installation Total O&M Source: Present Study

Guatemala Factor IPCC (2009) GHG emissions Whole Proyect

Q $ $ $

Units 30 kWh 54,750 kWh 51.5 Litre 18,798 Litre 27.30 per gal 3.50 per gal 0.92 per Litre 17,359.17

$ 13,799.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 63,799.00 $ 6,379.90 $ 133,977.90 $ 1,594.98

0.349108 kg CO2/kWh

19,114 T/year 382,273 T

Diesel Year

Captial Costs 0 $ 133,977.90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Total $ 133,977.90

Replacement

O&M $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

32

1,594.98 1,594.98 1,594.98 1,594.98 1,594.98 1,594.98 1,594.98 1,594.98 1,594.98 1,594.98 1,594.98 1,594.98 1,594.98 1,594.98 1,594.98 1,594.98 1,594.98 1,594.98 1,594.98 1,594.98 31,899.50

Costs of fuel kWh $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

17,359.17 17,359.17 17,359.17 17,359.17 17,359.17 17,359.17 17,359.17 17,359.17 17,359.17 17,359.17 17,359.17 17,359.17 17,359.17 17,359.17 17,359.17 17,359.17 17,359.17 17,359.17 17,359.17 17,359.17 347,183.38

Total Costs

kWh Produced

$ 513,060.78

54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 54,750.00 1,095,000.00

Costs per kWh Total Costs/kWh Produced

$

0.47

ZPEC587 RESD FINAL PROJECT

EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

Appendix 8 Diesel Genset Fuel Consumption

1 2 3 4 5 6

9.04 X +

Fuel Consumption Efficiency Generac RD030

1.05

Hours kW Rated Load Liters 6pm-7pm 25 0.83 8.58 7pm-8pm 25 0.83 8.58 8pm-9pm 25 0.83 8.58 9pm-10pm 25 0.83 8.58 10pm-11pm 25 0.83 8.58 11pm-12pm 25 0.83 8.58 Daily Fuel Consumption 51.5 liters Average Daily Load 25

Load curve Rated Output 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

Fuel consumption l/hr 3.5 5.5 7.4 10.4

12 y = 9.04x + 1.05 R² = 0.9875

10

Fuel Consumption

Fuel Consumption Eq =

8

6

Series1 Linear (Series1)

4

2

0 0

0.2

0.4

0.6 Rated Load

33

0.8

1

1.2