rural development pv lighting pre-feasibility study

ZPEC587 RESD EDGAR EDUARDO SACAYON ID 14029583 FINAL PROJECT LIGHTING WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BATZCHOCOLA, GUATEMALA.

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

2014

Edgar Eduardo Sacayon Massey University

10/27/2014


i

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


ii

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


iii

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


iv

$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.


1

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.


2

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.


3

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

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

Batteries Candles Firewood Kerosene

Household 4 Pairs 30 candles 0.5 kg 1 lt

Village 400 300 50 kg 100 lt


4

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


5

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 (Jiménez,

2013). This costs has been incremented with the use of cell phones by Q20.00 or $2.55 per month

(Jiménez, 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 Off-

grid 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.


6

(Jiménez, 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.


7

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

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.

UnitsPower

(watts)

Daily use

(Hours)

Daily Demand

per User (Wh)

Daily Demand

Village(kWh)

Monthly Demands

(kWh)

Annual Demand

(kWh)

LED- Lamp 4 7 6 168 16.8 504 6132

Radio 1 3 4 12 1.2 36 438

Cell phone 1 5 5 25 2.5 75 912.5

Total 205 20.5 615 7,482.5


8

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)


9

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)


10

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-of-

the-river” micro hydro scheme.

Figure 6 Average Annual Rainfall


11

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.


12

Table 3 PV Technologies for the Batzchocola Village

Systems Rated Output Voltage

Number

of UnitsComponents Applications Advantaves Disadvantages

Pico-PV (PPS) 50 W 12V DC 1 Solarworld 50W solar module Lighting

1 Charge Controller Radio

1 Small Battery

4 LED lamps

1

Mounting accessories,

Connection box,

Cell phone

275 W 12 V DC/AC 2 PV modules Lamps

1 Charge controller radios

1 200 Ah Battery tvs

4 LED lamps Bigger appliances

Flexibility allows scaling the system.

56 PV modules

PV Micro-Grids 32 kWh 48V DC 1 Charge controller Rural Villages

64 415 Ah Batteries Hospitals

400 LED Lamps Schools

3km Electricity network Factories Longer Life time

Easy installation (Plug & Play), user friendly

low investment cost, no O&M, flexible use.

Modularity and expandable.

1 year warranty. Limited Life time,

needs replacement after 10 years.

DC or AC loads. Several days of autonomy.

Higher rated output.

Solar Home

Systems

Can be scaled and coupled to other

renewable energy technologies, like

hidropower, biogas, diesel or biomass

generators. Allow connection to the grid.

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.


13

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).


14

Table 4 Advantages and Disadvantages of MHP

Advantages Disadvantages

Water turbine generator can meet the load

directly.High Initial capital costs

Reliable and mature technology, with high

conversion efficiencies.

Requires medium skills for civil works and certified

technical skills for turbine generator installation

Low level skills for O&M. Needs a distribution network

It has low environmental impacts Needs regular O&M.

Low O&M costs and extended life time. Could be underutilized

Good payback ratios.

Power output can be upgraded

MHP


15

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-Solórzano, 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

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.

Price per kWh 0.07$ 0.35$ 0.18$ 0.65$ 0.47$

Capital Costs 1 Household 372$ 1,652$ 632$ 5,485$ 1,340$

Capital Investment Village 37,179$ 165,220$ 63,218$ 548,515$ 133,978$

KWh Produced per year 54,750 54,750 54,750 54,750 54,750

Total costs for each household 744$ 378,320$ 1,928$ 7,129$ 5,131$

Total cost of the program 74,359$ 37,832,000$ 192,754$ 712,865$ 513,061$

Pico-PV Solar

System

Solar Home

System PV Micro Grid

Micro Hydro

Power Diesel


16

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

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

Capital Investment by Household 372$ 1,652$ 632$ 5,485$ 1,340$

Household Monthly Fee $4.91 15.94$ 6.10$ 52.93$ 12.93$

* Analysis for 10 years lifetime of one kit

Diesel10% interest rate

Pico-PV Solar

System*

Solar Home

System PV Micro Grid

Micro Hydro

Power


17

technology. These model has been used in other rural communities in Guatemala and has proven to

be successful (Arriaza, 2005).


18

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.


19

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


20

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.


21

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).


22

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.


23

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.

http://www.insivumeh.gob.gt/


24

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.

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


25

Appendix 1 Hydropower Potential Estimation

( )

( )

( )


26

Appendix 2 Photovoltaic Solar Home System Design

Average Daily Load 0.2 kWh Energy Required by PV Array

Inverter Efficiency 0.82 Expected Output from PV Array 20.50 kWh

Battery Efficiency 0.8 Energy required at Inverter 0.24 kWh

Regulator Efficiency 1 Sun Peak Hours

Load (Batt&Inv) 0.3 kWh Tilt 14o 5.11 kWh m-2d-1

Sun Peak Hours

1kW= 3.6 MJ Average Daily Temperature (Ta,day) 25.00 oC

1kW= 1 SPH Average daily cell temperature (Tcell.eff) 50.00 oC

Derating factor for temperature (ftemp) 0.91

SolarWorld SunModule Sw275 mono

Pstc 100 Watts Rated Output of the module (Pstc) 100.00 W

Fman 0.84 Derated factor of manufacture (fman) 0.84

TSTC 25 oC ftemp 0.91

g 0.004 Derating Factor for dirt (Fdirt) 0.97

Fdirt 0.97 Pmod 73.74 W

PV Array

Overest. factor fo 1.5 Etot 243.90 Wh

npv-batt 0.9 Pmod 73.74 W

nreg 0.9 Htilt 14 Degrees 5.30 SPHnbatt 0.8 N 1.44 PV modules

ninv 0.82 Corrected number of PV modules

Expected output of array N 2 PV modules

Pr 100 watts

System Voltage 48 V E out 0.42 kWh

Derated Output of Module (Pmod)

Number of Modules

Energy Output of PV Array

System Inputs Formulas SolarWorld SunModule Sw275 mono

Derating factor for temperature (ftemp)

System Data Required Battery Capacity Average daily Discharge Currents

Days of Autonomy 3 1.5 kWh Hours of Operation 6.00

Depth of Discharge 50% 1,500 Wh Discharge Power 0.03 kWh

Inverter Efficiency 0.82 31.25 Ah At inverter 0.04 KWh

Average Daily Load 0.205 kW Average Daily current draw 3.47 Amps

Voltage 12 V Av. Daily Curr. (2X) 6.94 Amps

Battery Arrangement Average DoD

Batt. Rated Cap. 200 Ah Batt. Rated Cap. 2400.00 Wh

Number of strings 1 C5 discharge current 34 Amps Daily discharge 250.00 Wh

Total number of Batteries 1 DoD 10 %

Years 4

Battery for PV Module


27

Appendix 3 PV Micro Grid System Design

Average Daily Load 20.5 kWh Energy Required by PV Array

Inverter Efficiency 0.82 Expected Output from PV Array 20.50 kWh

Battery Efficiency 0.8 Energy required at Inverter 25.00 kWh

Regulator Efficiency 1 Sun Peak Hours

Load (Batt&Inv) 25.6 kWh Tilt 14o 5.11 kWh m-2d-1

Sun Peak Hours

1kW= 3.6 MJ Average Daily Temperature (Ta,day) 25.00 oC

1kW= 1 SPH Average daily cell temperature (Tcell.eff) 50.00 oC

Derating factor for temperature (ftemp) 0.91

SolarWorld SunModule Sw275 mono

Pstc 275 Watts Rated Output of the module (Pstc) 275.00 W

Fman 0.84 Derated factor of manufacture (fman) 0.84

TSTC 25 oC ftemp 0.91

g 0.004 Derating Factor for dirt (Fdirt) 0.97

Fdirt 0.97 Pmod 202.78 W

PV Array

Overest. factor fo 1.5 Etot 25,000.00 Wh

npv-batt 0.9 Pmod 202.78 W

nreg 0.9 Htilt 14 Degrees 5.30 SPHnbatt 0.8 N 53.85 PV modules

ninv 0.82 Corrected number of PV modules

Expected output of array N 56 PV modules

Pr 275 watts

System Voltage 48 V E out 32 kWh

Number of Modules

Energy Output of PV Array

System Inputs Formulas SolarWorld SunModule Sw275 mono

Derating factor for temperature (ftemp)

Derated Output of Module (Pmod)

System Data Required Battery Capacity Average daily Discharge Currents

Days of Autonomy 3 150 kWh Hours of Operation 6.00

Depth of Discharge 50% 150,000 Wh Discharge Power 3.42 kWh

Inverter Efficiency 0.82 3125 Ah At inverter 4.17 kWh

Average Daily Load 20.5 Average Daily current draw 86.81 Amps

Voltage 48 V Av. Daily Curr. (2X) 173.61 Amps

Battery Arrangement

1 string 8 (6V) Batt. Rated capacity 415 Ah Current draw per string 21.70 Amps

Number of strings 8 C5 discharge current 80 Amps Batt. Rated. Cap. 159,360

Total number of Batteries 64 Depth of Discharge

Average Daily load at inverter 25,000 W

Depth of Discharge 16%

Years 5

Battery Bank for PV Array


28

Appendix 4 Life Cycle Costing of Pico PV System

Pico-PV Solar System Units Pico-PV Solar System Costs of fuel kWh Costs per kWh

Output of Individual System 250 W Year Capital Costs Replacement O&M kWh Total Costs Produced Total Costs/kWh Produced

Annual Output 547.5 kWh 0 371.79$

Components 1 - -$ 547.50

Solarworld 50W solar module 2 - -$ 547.50

Charge controller Morningstar SHS-6 3 - -$ 547.50

PowerKing 12V 12Ah Battery 4 - -$ 547.50

3 LED Bulbs 5 - -$ 547.50

Mounting accessories 6 - -$ 547.50

Conection box with 12 plug 7 - -$ 547.50

Cellphone charger 8 - -$ 547.50

Total in GT Q. 2,900.00 9 - -$ 547.50

Exchange Rate 7.8 10 371.79$ - -$ 547.50

Total USD $ 371.79$ 11 - -$ 547.50

Source: Guatemala Solar 12 - -$ 547.50

13 - -$ 547.50

14 - -$ 547.50

Guatemala Factor IPCC (2009) 0.35 kg CO2/kWh 15 - -$ 547.50

GHG emission reduction 19,114 T/year 16 - -$ 547.50

Whole Proyect 382,273 T 17 - -$ 547.50

18 - -$ 547.50

19 - -$ 547.50

20 - -$ 547.50

Individual 371.79$ 371.79$ -$ -$ 743.59$ 10,950.00 0.07$

Village 37,179.49$ 37,179.49$ 74,358.97$ 1,095,000 0.07$


29

Appendix 5 Life Cycle Costing of Solar Home System

Solar Home System Units Solar Home System Costs of fuel kWh Costs per kWh

Output of System 25 kW Year Captial Costs Replacement O&M kWh Total Costs Produced Total Costs/kWh Produced

Capacity factor 0 1,652.20$

Annual Output 54750 kWh 1 37.55$ -$ 54,750.00

Components 2 37.55$ -$ 54,750.00

Solarland 100 Silver Poly SLP100-12U 255.00$ 2 3 37.55$ -$ 54,750.00

MPPT Charge Controller 150 607.00$ 4 345.00$ 37.55$ -$ 54,750.00

UB4D Battery 345.00$ 5 37.55$ -$ 54,750.00

3 LED Bulbs 40.00$ 6 37.55$ -$ 54,750.00

Sub-Total USD $ 1,502.00$ 7 37.55$ -$ 54,750.00

Installation 150.20$ 10% 8 345.00$ 37.55$ -$ 54,750.00

Total 1,652.20$ 9 37.55$ -$ 54,750.00

O&M 37.55$ 10 37.55$ -$ 54,750.00

Source: Wholesale Solar 11 37.55$ -$ 54,750.00

http://www.wholesalesolar.com 12 345.00$ 37.55$ -$ 54,750.00

13 37.55$ -$ 54,750.00

Guatemala Factor IPCC (2009) 0.349108 kg CO2/kWh 14 37.55$ -$ 54,750.00

GHG emission reduction 19,114 T/year 15 37.55$ -$ 54,750.00

Whole Proyect 382,273 T 16 345.00$ 37.55$ -$ 54,750.00

17 37.55$ -$ 54,750.00

18 37.55$ -$ 54,750.00

19 37.55$ -$ 54,750.00

20 37.55$ -$ 54,750.00

Individual 1,652.20$ 1,380.00$ 751.00$ -$

Village 165,220.00$ 138,000.00$ 75,100.00$ 378,320.00$ 1,095,000.00 0.35$


30

Appendix 6 Life Cycle Costing of PV Micro Grid System

PV Micro Grid Units Pv-Micro Grid Costs of fuel kWh Costs per kWh

Output of System 32 kW Year Captial Costs Replacement O&M kWh Total Costs Produced Total Costs/kWh Produced

Annual Demmand 54,750 0 63,218.10$

Annual Output 59,568 kWh 1 1,436.78$ -$ 54,750.00

Components 2 1,436.78$ -$ 54,750.00

Sunmodule SW 275 344.00$ 56 3 1,436.78$ -$ 54,750.00

MPPT Charge Controller 150 607.00$ 1 4 1,436.78$ -$ 54,750.00

DC400-6 Battery 525.00$ 64 5 33,600.00$ 1,436.78$ -$ 54,750.00

3 LED Bulbs 40.00$ 100 6 1,436.78$ -$ 54,750.00

Sub-Total USD $ 57,471.00$ 7 1,436.78$ -$ 54,750.00

Installation 5,747.10$ 10% 8 1,436.78$ -$ 54,750.00

Total 63,218.10$ 9 1,436.78$ -$ 54,750.00

O&M 1,436.78$ 10 33,600.00$ 1,436.78$ -$ 54,750.00

Source: Wholesale Solar 11 1,436.78$ -$ 54,750.00

http://www.wholesalesolar.com 12 1,436.78$ -$ 54,750.00

13 1,436.78$ -$ 54,750.00

Guatemala Factor IPCC (2009) 0.349108 kg CO2/kWh 14 1,436.78$ -$ 54,750.00

GHG emission reduction 19,114 T/year 15 33,600.00$ 1,436.78$ -$ 54,750.00

Whole Proyect 382,273 T 16 1,436.78$ -$ 54,750.00

17 1,436.78$ -$ 54,750.00

18 1,436.78$ -$ 54,750.00

19 1,436.78$ -$ 54,750.00

20 1,436.78$ -$ 54,750.00

Total 63,218.10$ 100,800.00$ 28,735.50$ -$ 192,753.60$ 1,095,000.00 0.18$


31

Appendix 7 Life Cycle Costing of Micro Hydro Power

Micro Hydro Power Units Micro Hydro Power Costs of fuel kWh Costs per kWh

Rated Output of System 25 kWh Year Captial Costs Replacement O&M kWh Total Costs Produced Total Costs/kWh Produced

Annual Demand 54,750 kWh 0 548,515.00$

Annual Output 54,750 kWh 1 8,217.50$ -$ 54,750.00

Components 2 8,217.50$ -$ 54,750.00

Civil Works 328,650.00$ 3 8,217.50$ -$ 54,750.00

Electromechanical equipment 100,000.00$ 4 8,217.50$ -$ 54,750.00

Transmission and distribution 50,000.00$ 5 8,217.50$ -$ 54,750.00

Planning, final design and supervision 20,000.00$ 6 8,217.50$ -$ 54,750.00

Sub-Total USD $ 498,650.00$ 7 8,217.50$ -$ 54,750.00

Installation 49,865.00$ 8 8,217.50$ -$ 54,750.00

Total 548,515.00$ 9 8,217.50$ -$ 54,750.00

O&M 8,217.50$ 10 8,217.50$ -$ 54,750.00

Source: PURE Guatemala 11 8,217.50$ -$ 54,750.00

12 8,217.50$ -$ 54,750.00

Guatemala Factor IPCC (2009) 0.349108 kg CO2/kWh 13 8,217.50$ -$ 54,750.00

GHG emission reduction 19,114 T/year 14 8,217.50$ -$ 54,750.00

Whole Proyect 382,273 T 15 8,217.50$ -$ 54,750.00

16 8,217.50$ -$ 54,750.00

17 8,217.50$ -$ 54,750.00

18 8,217.50$ -$ 54,750.00

19 8,217.50$ -$ 54,750.00

20 8,217.50$ -$ 54,750.00

Total 548,515.00$ 164,350.00$ -$ 712,865.00$ 1,095,000.00 0.65$


32

Appendix 7 Life Cycle Costing of Diesel Genset

Diesel Units Diesel Costs of fuel kWh Costs per kWh

Rated Output of System 30 kWh Year Captial Costs Replacement O&M kWh Total Costs Produced Total Costs/kWh Produced

Annual Demand 54,750 kWh 0 133,977.90$

Daily Fuel Consumption 51.5 Litre 1 1,594.98$ 17,359.17$ 54,750.00

Annual Fuel Consumption 18,798 Litre 2 1,594.98$ 17,359.17$ 54,750.00

Fuel Costs 27.30Q per gal 3 1,594.98$ 17,359.17$ 54,750.00

Fuel costs in USD 3.50$ per gal 4 1,594.98$ 17,359.17$ 54,750.00

Fuel costs per liter 0.92$ per Litre 5 1,594.98$ 17,359.17$ 54,750.00

Fuel costs per year 17,359.17$ 6 1,594.98$ 17,359.17$ 54,750.00

Components 7 1,594.98$ 17,359.17$ 54,750.00

Diesel Generator Set 13,799.00$ 8 1,594.98$ 17,359.17$ 54,750.00

Transmission and distribution 50,000.00$ 9 1,594.98$ 17,359.17$ 54,750.00

Sub-Total USD $ 63,799.00$ 10 1,594.98$ 17,359.17$ 54,750.00

Installation 6,379.90$ 11 1,594.98$ 17,359.17$ 54,750.00

Total 133,977.90$ 12 1,594.98$ 17,359.17$ 54,750.00

O&M 1,594.98$ 13 1,594.98$ 17,359.17$ 54,750.00

Source: Present Study 14 1,594.98$ 17,359.17$ 54,750.00

15 1,594.98$ 17,359.17$ 54,750.00

16 1,594.98$ 17,359.17$ 54,750.00

Guatemala Factor IPCC (2009) 0.349108 kg CO2/kWh 17 1,594.98$ 17,359.17$ 54,750.00

GHG emissions 19,114 T/year 18 1,594.98$ 17,359.17$ 54,750.00

Whole Proyect 382,273 T 19 1,594.98$ 17,359.17$ 54,750.00

20 1,594.98$ 17,359.17$ 54,750.00

Total 133,977.90$ 31,899.50$ 347,183.38$ 513,060.78$ 1,095,000.00 0.47$


33

Appendix 8 Diesel Genset Fuel Consumption

9.04 X + 1.05

Load curve Fuel consumption

kW Rated Load Liters Rated Output l/hr

1 6pm-7pm 25 0.83 8.58 0.25 3.5

2 7pm-8pm 25 0.83 8.58 0.5 5.5

3 8pm-9pm 25 0.83 8.58 0.75 7.4

4 9pm-10pm 25 0.83 8.58 1 10.4

5 10pm-11pm 25 0.83 8.58

6 11pm-12pm 25 0.83 8.58

Daily Fuel Consumption 51.5 liters

Average Daily Load 25

Hours

Fuel Consumption Eq =

y = 9.04x + 1.05R² = 0.9875

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Fue

l Co

nsu

mp

tio

n

Rated Load

Fuel Consumption Efficiency Generac RD030

Series1

Linear (Series1)

rural development pv lighting pre-feasibility study

Documents

renewable energy

ministry of energy

village of batzchocola

batzchocola cocode

final project lighting

energy consumption patterns

environmental issues

national electricity