energies

Article
The Energy Cost Analysis of Hybrid Systems and
Diesel Generators in Powering Selected Base
Transceiver Station Locations in Nigeria
Peter Ozaveshe Oviroh and Tien-Chien Jen *
Department of Mechanical Engineering Science, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment,
University of Johannesburg, Auckland Park Campus, Johannesburg, Gauteng 2006, South Africa;
peteroviroh@yahoo.com
* Correspondence: tjen@uj.ac.za; Tel.: +27-115-594-208

Received: 29 November 2017; Accepted: 1 February 2018; Published: 19 March 2018

Abstract: As more locations gain access to telecommunication, there is a growing demand to provide
energy in a reliable, efficient and environmentally friendly manner while effectively addressing
growing energy needs. Erratic power supply and rising operation costs (OPEX) in Nigeria have
increased the need to harness local renewable energy sources. Thus, identifying the right generator
schedule with the renewable system to reduce OPEX is a priority for operators and vendors.
This study evaluates the energy costs of hybrid systems with different generator schedules in
powering base transceiver stations in Nigeria using the Hybrid Optimization Model for Electric
Renewable (HOMER). A load range of 4 kW to 8 kW was considered using: (i) an optimised generator
schedule; (ii) forced-on generator schedule and (iii) the generator-only schedule. The results showed
an optimal LCOE range between averages of USD 0.156/kWh to 0.172/kWh for the 8 kW load.
The percent energy contribution by generator ranges from 52.80% to 60.90%, and by the solar PV
system, 39.10% to 47.20%. Excess energy ranges from 0.03% to 14.98%. The optimised generator
schedule has the highest solar PV penetration of 56.8%. The OPEX savings on fuel ranges from
41.68% to 47% for the different load schedules and carbon emission savings of 4222 kg to 31,428.36 kg.
The simulation results shows that powering base stations using the optimised hybrid system schedule
would be a better option for the telecom industry.

Keywords: diesel generator; hybrid power system; levelised cost of energy (LCOE); homer pro

1. Introduction
As more and more locations gain access to telecommunication, there is a growing demand to
provide energy in a reliable, efficient and environmentally friendly manner while efficiently addressing
growing energy needs. The subscriber penetration rate in West Africa is 49%; in Nigeria, 45% [1,2].
Based on recent statistics, the subscriber identity module (SIM) penetration in Nigeria is 82% and the
number of lines connections is 151.8 million [3]. Furthermore, telecom density has risen from 72.72%
in May 2012 to 99.39% in August 2017 [4]. This amounts to an increase of 26.67% in the past five years.
Energy consumption is among the most expensive items for telecom operators. Base stations (BSs)
are among the key energy consumption elements of cell sites [5,6]. In off-grid and bad-grid tower sites,
the primary component of plant-level energy costs is the expenditure on diesel fuel for generators,
which accounts for almost 80% of the total energy costs. As such, operators and vendors must critically
consider and evaluate design consideration, operation and maintenance (OPEX), energy efficiency
of BSs, greenhouse gas emissions, and equipment evolution capability to yield the best return on
investment [2,5,7–9].

Energies 2018, 11, 687; doi:10.3390/en11030687 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2018, 11, 687 2 of 20

According to Alsharif [10], in 2014 approximately $22 billion was allocated to electric energy
consumption for the global operating cost of cellular networks. About 800 mobile operators worldwide
were gathered by the Global System for Mobile Communications Association (GSMA, London, UK)
for a planned launch to deploy energy resources for about 118,000 new and existing base stations in
developing countries in order to cut down diesel fuel consumption by 2.5 billion litres, which would
invariably reduce carbon emissions by 6.3 million tons on a yearly basis [11]. Utilizing renewable
energy sources such as solar, wind and biofuels as replacements would be a viable solution for the
mobile telecommunication industry.
Demand for voice and data services in the Nigerian telecom industry is increasing; as a result,
operators are faced with the challenge of powering their equipment reliably, efficiently, and profitably,
while balancing environmental concerns. A report in the Electronic Journal of Energy & Environment
discovered that erratic power supply is responsible for over 70% downtime across Nigeria, resulting in
poor quality of service in the telecom industry [12].
Internationally, most developed nations do not have erratic energy supplies except in unique
situations or natural disaster, which is not the case with Africa. Most parts of Africa have serious
energy concerns. Though Nigeria has invested heavily in energy over the years, its power supply
still seems far from meeting the demand of its yearning population, hence the need to make energy
reliable, efficient, and cost effective for the telecom industry.
There are approximately 12,560 mobile sites completely off the grid in Nigeria. An estimated
11,692 sites are linked to the national grid; of those, 9% have 6 hour grid outages per day on average;
10% have 6–12 h grid outages per day; and the remaining 81% have over 12 h grid outages in a day [13].
Of the 180 million Nigerians, 100 million, which represents about 60% of the country’s population,
have no access to grid electricity. On top of grid outages, a 2017 study by the Nigerian Economic
Summit Group and Heinrich Böll Stiftung Nigeria [10] reports that off-grid solar photovoltaic (PV)
systems cost an average of USD 20 cents/kWh, while diesel generators cost USD 30 cents/kWh.
Gasoline was found to cost over USD 60 cents/kWh. The most competitive among the energy sources
include large scale hydropower and natural gas, both of which average USD 0.05 to 0.07/kWh, while
wind is around USD 0.09/kWh [14]. Conversion to more efficient renewable energy hybrid systems
could save US$13–14 billion annually for the telecom industry while simultaneously accounting for
capital expenditure (CAPEX). If adopted, these green technologies have the potential to eliminate
approximately 40 million tons in carbon emissions as well as generate US$100–500 million annually in
carbon savings [2]. In this study, the Hybrid Optimization Model for Electrical Renewables (HOMER)
was used to simulate a solar PV hybrid system for three different loads (4, 6.4 and 8 kW) and three
different generator schedules: the optimised schedule, the forced-on schedule and the generator-only
schedule to simulate the energy and cost analysis of the hybrid system for 12 different sites across
Nigeria. The comparison is done to determine the schedule system that would be optimal for powering
base stations at the given loads range through: (1) levelised cost of energy (LCOE); (2) energy generated;
(3) percentage energy contribution by solar PV system; (4) photovoltaic (PV) penetration; (5) fuel
consumption; (6) percentage fuel savings and (7) carbon emissions.
The remaining parts of the paper are organized as follows: Section 2 presents work done on the
related hybrid power system. Section 3 discusses the site configuration, simulation and modelling
of system components using the Hybrid Optimization Model for Electric Renewable (HOMER).
The results of the simulations are presented in Section 4, while Section 5 gives the conclusions
and recommendations.

2. Hybrid Power System

Hybrid power systems are made to generate electrical power using different technologies and
energy sources. A number of power generation systems, such as main grid, photovoltaic, wind
turbines, fuel generators and batteries, can be combined in hybrid power systems for power generation.
Hybrid systems can also be independent of large centralized power grids and be used in remote areas.
Energies 2018, 11, 687 3 of 20

They usually consist of a primary renewable source working in parallel with a stand-in secondary
non-renewable component and storage units [15]. Hybrid power systems are a way to provide power
to the many remote areas in the developing world, where the costs for large scale expansion of electrical
grids as well as diesel fuel transportation are very high. However, due to the inconsistent nature of the
power supply in many developing countries, hybrid renewable systems are currently being used in
urban areas as well to reduce the operating expenditures (OPEX).
In this research, the simulated hybrid power system is made up of solar panels, batteries, a diesel
generator and other relevant equipment, such as controllers for flexibility in switching or integrating
diesel or grid through a unified controlling platform. Its maximum utilization of solar energy provides
a simple, efficient, and reliable on-site power supply.
Much research has been done regarding the solar hybrid cost. Cristóbal-Monreal and
Dufo-López [16] studied the optimisation of photovoltaic-diesel-battery stand-alone systems
minimising system weight. They considered minimisation of the weight of the system, minimisation
of the cost and minimisation of both weight and cost. They found out that a hybrid system is the
optimal option. Lopez et al. [17] took it further to discuss ways of optimising PV-wind-diesel hybrid
systems to minimise cost and maximise human development index and job creation. They used the
multi-objective optimisation of off-grid hybrid renewable systems to minimise net present cost and
maximise human development index and job creation.
Ogunjuyigbe et al. [18] used a generic algorithm on a hybrid system of solar and wind to minimize
the lifecycle cost, dump energy, and CO2 emissions. They used small split diesel generators instead
of a big single diesel generator. Their results achieved 28%, 46%, 82% and 94% reduction in cost of
energy, life cycle cost, CO2 emissions, and dump energy, respectively, when compared to the single
big diesel generator system. Ahadi et al. [19] investigated at several hybrid renewable energy system
(HRES) combinations of solar, wind and energy storage free of diesel generators to supply energy for
remote communities. The study showed that the wind turbine operations range must be considered.
Increasing the wind turbine fraction could also lead to significantly lower costs as well as the PV solar
cell number and number of batteries.
Taher et al. [20] did a techno-economic feasibility study of hybrid energy systems (PV/wind
turbine/diesel system with storage batteries) for electricity generation. With a peak load of 3 kW,
they had the most economical system with net present cost and levelized cost of energy of 57,320 USD
and 0.26 USD/kW, respectively. The incorporation of storage units also reduced the net present cost,
excess energy fraction and CO2 emission by 85%, 81% and 29%, respectively. They found out that
the use of hybrid energy systems in such locations improved the standard of living and economic
activities of the rural populace. Li et al. [21] developed a simple sizing algorithm for stand-alone
PV/wind/battery hybrid microgrid systems to determine the number of wind turbine and PV array
generating units and the storage capacity required for a stand-alone microgrid. The used the algorithm
to propose the state of charge (SOC) cycle variance, from which the number of photovoltaic arrays can
be calculated when the number of wind turbines is known.
PV systems and batteries serve complementary roles according to Katz et al. [22]. As the PV
system efficiently reduces total grid consumption, battery storage reduces the demand charges by
removing the load peaks when there is no solar radiation. Goel and Ali [23], in the study of the cost
analysis of solar/wind/diesel hybrid energy systems for telecom towers, used HOMER to get the
optimum net present cost (NPC), operating cost per year and the energy cost/kWh for different models.
They observed that the cost of energy (COE) decreases with increasing load for the system. They had
the maximum COE with only the DG system at different load levels.
According to the Saviva research group [24], most telecom operators are now moving away from
total dependence on diesel fuel for powering base stations, especially in remote and rural locations.
Some of these telecom firms have acquired integrated renewable energy systems; though higher capital
expenditure (CAPEX) is required, lower OPEX is expected in the long run. Alsharif, in comparing the
analysis of solar-powered base stations using the architecture, energy production, and optimal system
Energies 2018, 11, 687 4 of 20

cost with conventional energy sources, obtained an OPEX savings range of 32% to 66%. He concluded
that the solar-powered base stations would be a feasible long-term solution for the telecommunication
industry [5]. In a similar study in the optimisation of energy in the telecommunication industry for
base stations using hybrid system, an OPEX savings of 43% to 47% was achieved considering the solar
radiation in Malaysia [25].
In many developing countries, the emissions from fuel burned by telecom operators for their base
stations are an enormous source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into the atmosphere. According
to Alsharif [26], the mobile sector accounts for 51% of the total carbon footprint of the information and
communication technology sector. With the integration of hybrid systems, the size of the footprint
would be reduced significantly. Moradi et al. [27] in the Modeling of a Hybrid microgrid, concluded
that high renewable energy penetration have substantial effect on the grid operation with respect
to emission.
Different energy sources can be incorporated into a single energy platform to provide flexible
configuration, smooth evolution and easy expansion in the hybrid system [12,28–31]. With the hybrid
solution, the following can be achieved:

(1) A 40~90% reduction in fuel consumption by the diesel generator (DG) with the solar hybrid
system. 90% can be reduced as well on the operation and maintenance cost (OPEX). The OPEX on
sites powered by DG alone is higher than that in hybrid powered sites. Carbon footprint savings
of 30~75% are also achieved as a result of the reduction in the burning of fossil fuel [29–35].
(2) A 50% reduction in OPEX of traditional energy source (DG) and above [33,36].
(3) Reduction of DG set run hour by about 50% [33,36,37]. With the integration of the hybrid system,
a site that normally would have run on diesel fuel continually would have reduced generator
operation hours because of the ability of other energy sources to meet the load demand.
(4) Increased life cycle of DG and replacement time as a result of lower run hours [38]. Lower
generator run hours increases the life cycle of a generator.
(5) Equipment temperature maintenance at an acceptable range that would not cause damage due
to heating.

A complete hybrid system can be packaged in an ‘energy container’ to offer quick installation
in remote locations. The cycling battery must have a temperature-resistant, low-maintenance design,
accept fast charging, and be able to deliver a large number of charge-discharge cycles; the rectifier
must offer the highest possible energy efficiency. Furthermore, the controller must be equipped with
dedicated software enabling the operating profile of the battery and generator, which allows for
component optimization and thus delivering the lowest possible operating cost. The addition of
renewable energy sources will permit an increase in cycling time and consequently extend the life of
the battery and generator while also reducing environmental impact.
Colocation (colo) is the provision of space and facilities which includes towers, generators and
other equipment for telecommunications operators and internet service providers in the same location.
This has reduced the CAPEX and OPEX for most operators significantly.
Some of the challenges faced by telecom operators in powering their base transceiver station
include: high mean time to repair (MTTR), increasing fuel cost and consumption, high operation cost,
high cooling load, fuel theft and environmental pollution (oil spillage, carbon emission and noise).

3. Site Configuration
Site configuration determines the energy requirement for sites. This should be established during
the site design process. The sites, which can be either outdoors or indoors, also determine the load
requirements. Tables 1 and 2 are for real site configurations used by telecom operators in the design of
base transceiver stations’ load requirements. The configurations 222/444, 222/666 and 444/666 indicate
the number of TRXs (transceiver) in each sector for the BTS (base transceiver station). Microwave is a
communications system that uses a beam of radio waves in the microwave frequency range to transmit
Energies 2018, 11, 687 5 of 20

audio, video and other information between locations, from a few feet or meters to several miles or
kilometers apart. Tables 1 and 2 show the outdoor and indoor configurations.

Table 1. Outdoor configuration for base stations.

Configuration Power (kW) Current (A) Voltage (Vdc)

222/444 + Microwave + Lighting 3.2 67 48
222/444 + 3G + 4G + Microwave + Lighting 4.0 83 48
222/666 + 3G + 4G + Microwave + Lighting 5.4 112.5 48
444/666 + 3G + 4G + Microwave + Lighting 6.4 133 48

Table 2. Indoor configuration for base stations.

Configuration Power (kW) Current (A) Voltage (Vdc)

222/444 + Microwave + DC air conditioner + Lighting 4.8 100 48
222/444 + 3G + 4G + Microwave + DC air conditioner + Lighting 6 125 48
222/666 + 3G + 4G + Microwave + DC air conditioner + Lighting 7 146 48
444/666 + 3G + 4G + Microwave + DC air conditioner + Lighting 8 167 48

For the research work, three sets of configurations were considered:

(1) 222/444 + 3G + 4G + Microwave + Lighting 4 kW
(2) 444/666 + 3G + 4G + Microwave + Lighting 6.4 kW
(3) 444/666 + 3G + 4G + Microwave + DC air conditioner + Lighting 8 kW.
In the simulation, three schedules were considered for the generator: the optimised, the forced-on
and generator only. In the optimised schedule, the HOMER system decides what energy source
comes into play at every point. In the forced-on schedule, the generator operates between 10:00 p.m.
and 7:00 a.m., while there is no solar radiation. The generator only schedule is without a renewable
energy source.

3.1. Simulation and Modelling of System Components

Hybrid Optimization Model for Electric Renewable (HOMER) is a simulation model software.
It simulates a feasible system for all likely combinations of the equipment to be considered. It is a tool
for comparing and evaluating micro-grid technology for a wide range of applications; depending on
how the problem is posed, HOMER can simulate hundreds of systems. In this study, the HOMER Pro
3.9.2 software was used to simulate hybrid energy system for off-grid with different schedules and
compared with a system that run with diesel generator only system. In doing the simulations system
designs, several parameters have to be taken into consideration for proper decisions. Such includes
what components to include and the size of the component to make the system feasible and at optimum
cost. HOMER simulates the system over 8760 h, making energy balance for the values. HOMER in its
simulation compares the electric and thermal demand to the energy that the hybrid system can supply.
It calculates the flows of energy in and out of each component of the hybrid system and determines
whether a configuration is feasible or not.
The key components of the hybrid system comprise of solar PV, diesel generator, batteries and the
converter. HOMER incorporates the entire cost of the system to calculate the economic viability of
the systems. It involves information about the cost (capital, operation, maintenance and replacement),
number and size of the units to be used, hours of operation and lifetime, as well as specific component
properties. It uses the total net present cost (NPC) to signify the life-cycle cost of the system while
factoring in yearly real interest rate. HOMER takes a linear depreciation component, meaning that the
salvage value is directly proportional to its remaining life. The HOMER software performs sensitivity
analyses to justify the sensitivity of the system design to key factors, like the component resource costs
or availability.
Energies 2018, 11, 687 6 of 20

HOMER uses the following equation to calculate the total net present cost (NPC) [10,26,39,40]:
Cann,tot
CNPC =
CRF (i,R proj )
(1)

where Cann,tot is the total annualized cost, i is the annual real interest rate (the discount rate), Rproj is
the project lifetime, and CRF is the capital recovery factor, given by the equation:

i (1+ i ) N
CRF (i, N ) = (2)
(1+ i ) N −1

where i is the annual real interest rate and N is the number of years.
To calculate the salvage value of each component at the end of the project lifetime, HOMER uses
the following equation [5,39]:
S = Crep RRcomp
rem
(3)

where S is the salvage value, Crep the replacement cost of the component, Rrem the remaining life of the
component, and Rcomp the lifetime of the component. For each of the components, HOMER integrates
the capital, maintenance, replacement, fuel costs, along with the salvage value and any other costs or
revenues, to calculate the project component’s annualized cost.

3.1.1. Solar Resource

Solar resources are simulated from the NASA surface meteorology and solar energy database by
entering the GPS coordinates in the website [41]. It is advisable that the average radiation should have
a constant trend and annual radiation above 4 kWh/m2 /day to have a reliable source of power coming
from the photovoltaic panels [39]. The radiation values were determined for the 12 sites considered for
the six geo-political regions of Nigeria.

3.1.2. Clearness Index

In the HOMER Pro, the average radiation for each month is entered. HOMER calculates the
clearness index based on the radiation value, the month of the year and latitude. HOMER also
calculates the average radiation from the global horizontal radiation (GHI). The index is a number
indicating the fraction of the solar radiation striking the top of the atmosphere that makes it through
the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface. The value ranges between 0 and 1.
The following equation defines the monthly average clearness index:

Have
KT = Ho,ave (4)
 kWh 
m2
Have = Monthly average radiation on the horizontal surface of the earth day

Ho,ave = Extraterrestrial horizontal radiation − radiation on a horizontal surface at the top of the
 kWh 
Eart h0 satmosphere day
m2
.

HOMER uses the equation below to calculate the intensity of solar radiation at the top of the
Earth’s atmosphere:
Gon = Gsc 1 + 0.033 cos 360n


365 (5)
h i
where Gsc = Solar constant 1.367 m2
kW
, n is the day of the year [a number between 1 and 365].
Optimization process of the HOMER system: The optimization process of the HOMER system
assumes the generator runs continuously, which is not always the case. Most hybrid systems, when
optimising, switch between different energy sources, giving priority to the renewable energy system.
The generator is usually the last in the priority list [39,42,43].
Energies 2018, 11, 687 7 of 20

The annual average insolation level in kWh/m2 /day, and the clearness index is shown in Figure 1
for all 12 Energies
sites. 2018,
The 11, northern region of Nigeria has higher average insolation as compared
x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 20 to the
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 20
southern part. Sokoto has the highest solar radiation while Calabar has the lowest solar radiation
the southern part. Sokoto has the highest solar radiation while Calabar has the lowest solar radiation
among the
theamong
sites.
southern the part.
sites. Sokoto has the highest solar radiation while Calabar has the lowest solar radiation
among the sites.

Figure 1. Yearly solar resource.

Figure 1. Yearly solar resource.
3.2. Modelling of System Components
Figure 1. Yearly solar resource.
3.2. Modelling The
of System Components
architecture of a solar-powered base transceiver station is shown in Figure 2. The station
3.2.combines
Modellinga photovoltaic
of System Components
(PV) array, battery, the generator and converter. The load directly feeds the
The architecture of a solar-powered base transceiver station is shown in Figure 2. The station
required energy to the DC load of the base station. The alternating current (AC) load (cooling and
The
combines lighting) architecture
a photovoltaic of a solar-powered base transceiver station is shown inThe
Figure 2. directly
The station
is fed via (PV) array,
a DC/AC battery,
inverter. theenergy
Excess generator and
is stored converter.
in the load
battery bank and used during feeds the
combines a photovoltaic (PV) array, battery, the generator and converter. The load directly feeds the
required energy to thetheDC
night or when PV load
cannotof the base
supply energystation. The alternating
to the required load. current (AC) load (cooling and
required energy to the DC load of the base station. The alternating current (AC) load (cooling and
lighting) is fed via a DC/AC inverter. Excess energy is stored in the battery bank and used during
lighting) is fed via a DC/AC inverter. Excess energy is stored in the battery bank and used during
night ornight
when or the
when PVthecannot
PV cannotsupply
supplyenergy
energytotothe
the required load.
required load.

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of a solar hybrid system.

The schematic diagram of the simulated hybrid system is illustrated in Figure 3. The system
consists of a PV array containing the load, solar modules, converter, batteries for storage and the
diesel generator. The DC Figure
power 2. Schematic diagram
produceddiagramfrom PVof a solarand
hybrid
thesystem.
Figure 2. Schematic ofarrays
a solar hybrid fuel cell is fed to the DC Bus.
system.
The AC power generated from the diesel generator is directly fed to the AC Bus and then converted
The
into DCschematic
power and diagram
fed to theof DC
theBus.
simulated hybridgoes
Excess power system
to theis battery
illustrated
bankinand Figure 3. Thebysystem
is utilized the
Theconsists
schematicof in
fuel cell a case
PV array
of lackcontaining
diagram ofof the
the simulated
generated load,from
power solar modules,
hybrid
PV system
source. converter, batteries in
is illustrated forFigure
storage 3. andThe
the system
consistsdiesel
of a PV generator.
Thearray ofThe DC power
costs containing
renewable energy
the produced
in the
load, from
power
solar PV arrays
sector
modules, can beand the fuel
represented
converter, cell isfor
by per
batteries fed to
of the
unitstorage DC Bus.
electricity
and the diesel
Thegenerated
AC power andgenerated
per unit offrom the diesel
the installed generator
capacity calledis“overnight
directly fed to the
costs”. ACstudy
This Bus adopts
and then theconverted
former
generator. The DC power produced from PV arrays and the fuel cell is fed to the DC Bus. The AC
intoinDC
thispower and
analysis byfed to the
using DC Bus.
HOMER. TheExcess
LCOEpower goes to
is defined as the
the battery
ratio of bank andcosts
lifetime is utilized by the
to lifetime
power generated
fuelelectricityfrom the diesel
generation,
cell in case of lack both
of generator
discounted
generated powerbackisfrom
directly
to a common fed
PV source. to using
year the AC Bus and
a discount rate then converted
that captures the into DC
power andcost fed
Theofto theofDC
finance.
costs It Bus.
can alsoExcess
renewable beenergy power
seen as inthe
the goes price
average
power to the
sector battery
at which
can bank and
beelectricity
represented is per
generated
by utilized
must
unit beofby the
sold forfuel cell in
electricity
case of lack of generated
generated power
and per unit of the from PVcapacity
installed source.called “overnight costs”. This study adopts the former
Thein costs
this analysis by usingenergy
of renewable HOMER. in The LCOE issector
the power defined as be
can therepresented
ratio of lifetime
by costs to lifetime
per unit of electricity
electricity generation, both discounted back to a common year using a discount rate that captures the
generated and per unit of the installed capacity called “overnight costs”. This study adopts the former
cost of finance. It can also be seen as the average price at which electricity generated must be sold for
in this analysis by using HOMER. The LCOE is defined as the ratio of lifetime costs to lifetime electricity
generation, both discounted back to a common year using a discount rate that captures the cost of
finance. It can also be seen as the average price at which electricity generated must be sold for a project
Energies 2018, 11, 687 8 of 20

to reach “break-even” cost. This LCOE also represents cost of unit of electricity produced and in this
case is givenEnergies
in US2018,
dollars
11, x FORper
PEERkilowatt-hour
REVIEW ($/kWh) [44]. 8 of 20

In the hybrid system, the control unit monitors the power monitoring unit of the system and
a project to reach ‘’break-even’’ cost. This LCOE also represents cost of unit of electricity produced
delivers power based on the scenarios below:
and in this case is given in US dollars per kilowatt-hour ($/kWh) [44].
Scenario 1 (Optimised schedule):
In the hybrid system, The PV
the control unit provides
monitors thethe required
power energy
monitoring unitto
of the equipment
the system and at the
delivers power based on the scenarios below:
base stations and stores the excess energy in the battery to be used at night or when there is insufficient
radiation to provide
Scenario the required schedule):
1 (Optimised energy. TheThePVbattery
providessupplies
the required theenergy
required energy when
to the equipment at the there is
insufficient solar radiation till it get to its DoD, only then can the generator start working. is
base stations and stores the excess energy in the battery to be used at night or when there
insufficient radiation to provide the required energy. The battery supplies the required energy when
Scenario 2 (Forced-on schedule): In the forced on schedule the PV provides the required energy to
there is insufficient solar radiation till it get to its DoD, only then can the generator start working.
the equipment during
Scenariothe day timeschedule):
2 (Forced-on and the Ingenerator
the forced isonforced
schedule tothe
start from 10:00
PV provides p.m. and
the required 7:00 a.m. in
energy
the morning.toInthebetween
equipmentthe times
during when
the day timethere
and theisgenerator
no sufficient
is forcedsolar radiation
to start from 10:00to provide
p.m. and 7:00the
a.m.required
in the morning.
energy, the battery supplies In the
between the times
required when Excess
energy. there is energy
no sufficient solar radiation
is stored to provide
in the battery when the there is
required energy, the battery supplies the required energy. Excess energy is stored in the battery when
sufficient solar radiation and also when the generator is running.
there is sufficient solar radiation and also when the generator is running.
Scenario 3 (Generator only schedule):
Scenario 3 (Generator In this
only schedule): scenario
In this scenario the siteisis
the site made
made to on
to run run on diesel
diesel generator generator
only, which only,
is usedwhichto ismake the
used to comparison
make withwith
the comparison thethescenarios
scenarios 11 and
and2.2.

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the simulated system.

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the simulated system.

Levelised Cost of Energy

Levelised Cost of(LCOE)
Energy (LCOE)
The LCOE
The LCOE takes intotakes into account
account the expected
the expected power
power plant costs,
plant costs, including but but
including not limited to: capital
not limited to: capital
costs, the debt servicing and return on equity invested (weighted average cost of capital), operation
costs, the debt servicing and return on equity invested (weighted average cost of capital), operation
and maintenance costs (OPEX), costs of fuel and costs associated with CO2 and other emissions, and
and maintenance costs (OPEX),
decommissioning costs: costs of fuel and costs associated with CO2 and other emissions, and
decommissioning costs: n I + M + Ft

∑ 
n t =1 It t + Mt t + Ft
1 ((11++rr))t
t
LCOE = t =
Et (6)
LCOE = nt =1 Et t
n (6)
∑t=1 ((11++rr))t
= Electricity generation in the year
= generation
Et = Electricity Fuel expenditures in the
in the year
year
= Investment expenditures in the year
Ft = Fuel expenditures
= Operationsinand
themaintenace
year expenditures in the year
= Discount rate
It = Investment expenditures in the year
Mt = Operations Investment in the Nigerian
and maintenace PV industry shares
expenditures the year
in the same risks as other power generation investments,
including high capital costs, currency fluctuation risks and foreign exchange market. In addition, another
r = DiscountPV-specific
rate risk includes the poor wheeling capacity of the grid in high potential locations. The PV system
has an advantage of not being vulnerable to fuel price volatility or resource depletion.
Investment in the Nigerian PV industry shares the same risks as other power generation investments,
including high capital costs, currency fluctuation risks and foreign exchange market. In addition, another
PV-specific risk includes the poor wheeling capacity of the grid in high potential locations. The PV system
has an advantage of not being vulnerable to fuel price volatility or resource depletion.
Some assumptions and indicators used in the study to calculate the LCOE and NPC are:

(1) The PV system life is taken as 25 years.

(2) The discount rate is taken as 6%.
Energies 2018, 11, 687 9 of 20

(3) Inflation rate is at 2%.

(4) Costs of PV is at $1.3/W.
(5) The costs of maintenance for the generator used as paid by operators is shown below:

• 10–15 KVA @ $0.224/h

• 16.5 KVA @ $0.251/h
• 18–20 KVA @ $0.267/h
• 20–26 KVA @ $0.291/h
(1) Diesel cost of $0.52/L is based on current market price.
(2) The battery used is a 500 AH 2 V deep cycle battery.
For any site, the power requirement is a major component of the design process that needs to be
fully studied before installation.
In calculating the power requirement for a site, the equation below is used:

N
Tn
P= ∑ Pn ∗ 24 (7)
n =1

where P is the capacity of the total DC load power, Pn is the power of the different energy consumption
equipment like the BTS, microwave, cooling system, lighting and other equipment on site. Tn is the
run time of the corresponding energy equipment. Not all equipment runs 24 h on a site.
The battery capacity determines the backup time for the solar system. To determine the battery
capacity, the equation below is used:
P·D·t
C= (8)
Vb · Kb · DoD
where C = battery capacity (Ah); D = backup days (s); DoD = depth of discharge (=80%); Kb = coefficient
of battery capacity (=1.14); P = capacity of the total DC power load; t = working time per day of load
(=24) and Vb = voltage of the battery (=48).
The backup days (D) provides the length of time the batteries can sustain the system when the
primary sources of power (PV and DG) are not available. In determining this, several parameters
are taken into consideration, which include energy usage of the system, depth of discharge (DoD)
limit, temperature, autonomy days, and the battery capacity. In this research, a total of two strings of
batteries are connected in parallel for the site. One string comprises 24 blocks of 2 V each batteries
connected in series. The battery capacity and the DoD is used to determine the backup days from
the equation.
The DoD is defined using the following equation:

SOCmin
DoD = 1 − (9)
100
where SOCmin (minimum state of charge) is the lower limit or remaining capacity of battery. This is
required to help prevent the battery from discharge and overcharge, improve the battery life and
protect it [5,45].
According to the report by the Nigerian Economic Summit Group and Heinrich Böll Stiftung
Nigeria [10], the cost of off-grid electricity generation, based on LCOE, is shown in Figure 4. Though
small hydro has the smallest LCOE, it is followed by PV—hence the need to harness different renewable
sources of energy in all possible ways to mitigate the energy crisis in the Nigerian telecom industry.
Figure 4 shows the costs of off-grid electricity generation based on the LCOE Cost comparison of
different energy sources in Nigeria. Note that the Hybrid PV system has an LCOE of about $0.26/kWh.
Although a power plant’s electrical production capacity is far higher than that of the system being
considered, the graph still presents a comparison of energy costs across different categories.
Energies 2018, 11, 687 10 of 20
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 20

Figure
Figure 4. The
4. The cost
cost ofof off-gridelectricity
off-grid electricity generation,
generation,based
basedonon
lcoe: Adapted
lcoe: [14].[14].
Adapted

Table 3 shows the average levelized cost of energy (LCOE) analysis of off-grid PV systems.
Table 3 shows
The values the the
are from average
reportslevelized cost of energy
from international (LCOE)
organizations analysis
such of off-grid PV
as the International systems.
Energy
The values
Agencyare from
(IEA), worldtheenergy
reports from(WEO)
outlook international organizations
report focusing such
on renewable as the
energy andInternational
Lazard’s annualEnergy
study comparing the cost of generating energy from conventional and alternative
Agency (IEA), world energy outlook (WEO) report focusing on renewable energy and Lazard’s technologies. Other
sources
annual studyinclude the Renewable
comparing the cost ofEnergy and Energy
generating energyEfficiency Partnership (REEEP)
from conventional annual reports
and alternative on
technologies.
Otherclean energy
sources marketsthe
include and other reports
Renewable [14,44,46].
Energy andItEnergy
can be seen from the
Efficiency Table 3 that(REEEP)
Partnership the averageannual
LCOE varies from 0.182 to 0.310 $/kWh. The reports gives different values, based on the values used
reports on clean energy markets and other reports [14,44,46]. It can be seen from the Table 3 that
in their calculations. Higher LCOE implies higher energy costs for the populace. The Weighted
the average LCOE varies from 0.182 to 0.310 $/kWh. The reports gives different values, based on
average cost of capital (WACC) is the overall cost of capital for all funding sources in a company. The
the values used
exchange rateinis their
basedcalculations.
on 315 naira to Higher
a dollar. LCOE implies higher energy costs for the populace.
The Weighted average cost of capital (WACC) is the overall cost of capital for all funding sources in a
company.Table
The 3.
exchange
PV off-gridrate is based
rooftop on 315
(Residential, naira tokw
C&I)—few a to
dollar.
few mw storage included source [14,44,46].

IEA WEO Lazard 2016 NG PV off REEEP/NESP 2016 Hybrid

TableParameters Unit(Residential, C&I)—few kW to few MW storage included source [14,44,46].
3. PV off-grid rooftop 2016 [28] [30] Gird IPP [10] [14] PV-Diesel [14]
Currency and year - 2015 USD not stated 2016 USD NAIRA (=315 USD) not stated
Installed Capacity MW not
IEAstated
WEO 1.000
Lazard NG0.010
PV off 0.022
REEEP/NESP not Hybrid
stated
Parameters
Capital Cost Unit
$/kW 2840[28] 2400[30]
2016 2016 Gird3260
IPP [10] 2882[14]
2016 2000
PV-Diesel [14]
Technical Lifetime yr 20 20 20 20 30
Currency and year - 2015 USD not stated 2016 USD NAIRA (=315 USD) not stated
Capacity Factor % 17% 20% 23% 16% 20%
Installed Capacity MW not stated 1.000 0.010 0.022 not stated
FixedCost
Capital O&M $/kWh/yr
$/kW 28
2840 18
2400 50
3260 0
2882 502000
LCOE (11%
Technical WACC)
Lifetime $/kWh
year 0.258
20 0.182
20 0.223
20 0.260
20 0.25630
World Bank
Capacity 2013 LCOE
Factor $/kWh
% 17% 20% 23%0.310 16% 20%
Fixed O&M $/kWh/year 28 18 50 0 50
LCOE (11% WACC)
4. Results $/kWh
and Discussion 0.258 0.182 0.223 0.260 0.256
World Bank 2013 LCOE $/kWh 0.310
In doing the system comparisons, we have used several indices to compare the schedules used:
(1) levelised cost of energy (LCOE); (2) energy generated; (3) percentage energy contribution by solar
4. Results and Discussion
PV system; (4) photovoltaic (PV) penetration; (5) fuel consumption; (6) percentage fuel savings and
In
(7) doing
carbonthe systemThe
emissions. comparisons, we havebelow.
results are presented used several indices to compare the schedules used:
Table
(1) levelised cost4 illustrates
of energythe levelised
(LCOE); (2) cost of energy
energy (LCOE)
generated; (3) for the different
percentage loadcontribution
energy range for theby12 solar
locations
PV system; (4)inphotovoltaic
Nigeria. From(PV) the table, the solar hybrid
penetration; (5) fuelPV systems are cost
consumption; (6) competitive
percentageinfuelNigeria for and
savings
the 4 kW
(7) carbon load on aThe
emissions. lifetime
resultsbasis.
areThe LCOE for
presented the 4 kW load ranges between an average of USD
below.
0.199/kWh to 0.221/kWh (including storage costs) as opposed to diesel generators USD 0.30/kWh and
Table 4 illustrates the levelised cost of energy (LCOE) for the different load range for the 12
gasoline generators over USD 0.60/kWh as compared to the data in Table 3. However, they have
locations in Nigeria. From the table, the solar hybrid PV systems are cost competitive in Nigeria for
significant capital costs and, without affordable financing; diesel generators are more accessible to
the 4the
kWoperators
load on fora lifetime basis. The
their business. LCOE
If the OPEXfor thecosts
and 4 kW of load ranges between
components an average
like the battery could of
be USD
0.199/kWh to 0.221/kWh (including storage costs) as opposed to diesel generators
reduced, there would be a lower LCOE. The price of batteries, a major component of the PV system USD 0.30/kWh
and gasoline
costs, is generators over USD
rapidly decreasing, 0.60/kWh
majorly drivenasbycompared
the globaltotake-off
the dataofinelectric
Table 3. However,
vehicles. Thisthey
will have
significant capital
facilitate lowercosts
LCOEs and,
forwithout affordable financing; diesel generators are more accessible to the
the PV system.
operators for their business. If the OPEX and costs of components like the battery could be reduced,
there would be a lower LCOE. The price of batteries, a major component of the PV system costs,
is rapidly decreasing, majorly driven by the global take-off of electric vehicles. This will facilitate lower
LCOEs for the PV system.
Energies 2018, 11, 687 11 of 20

Table 4. Lcoe ($/kWh) for the different loads.

4 kW Optimised 4 kW Forced-on 6.4 kW Optimised 6.4 kW Forced-on 8 kW Optimised 8 kW Forced-on

Location Latitude (N) Longitude (E)
LCOE $/kWh LCOE $/kWh LCOE $/kWh LCOE $/kWh LCOE $/kWh LCOE $/kWh
Epe 6.58694 3.98361 0.215 0.215 0.203 0.202 0.167 0.167
Osogbo 7.8073 4.54111 0.214 0.214 0.202 0.202 0.167 0.167
Enugu 6.4575 7.53472 0.214 0.215 0.202 0.202 0.167 0.167
Owerri 5.49781 7.05194 0.218 0.219 0.205 0.205 0.169 0.170
Calabar 4.96722 8.32583 0.221 0.222 0.208 0.208 0.172 0.172
Igarra 7.0864 6.2775 0.211 0.212 0.200 0.200 0.169 0.165
Sokoto 13.07093 5.21083 0.199 0.199 0.189 0.189 0.156 0.156
Kano 11.94192 8.57389 0.201 0.202 0.190 0.190 0.157 0.158
Maiduguri 11.80057 13.20056 0.200 0.203 0.190 0.191 0.157 0.158
Bauchi 10.46797 9.83222 0.202 0.204 0.192 0.192 0.158 0.159
Garki 9.02636 7.48361 0.208 0.209 0.197 0.197 0.162 0.163
Jalingo 8.91306 11.31167 0.207 0.209 0.195 0.196 0.161 0.162
Average - - 0.209 0.210 0.198 0.198 0.164 0.164

Table 5. Total energy generated for each site (kWh/year) and the energy difference for the sites.

- Total Energy Generated for Each Site (kWh/year) Energy Difference (kWh/year)
4 kw Optimsed 4 kw Forced-on 6.4 kW Optimised 6.4 kW Forced-on 8 kW Optimised 8 kW Forced-on
Location 4 kW Load 6.4 kW Load 8 kW Load
(kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh)
Epe 27,191 27,371 58,518 58,681 79,625 80,364 180 163 739
Osogbo 27,206 27,357 58,441 58,708 80,164 80,216 151 267 52
Enugu 27,185 27,391 58,452 58,807 79,719 80,100 206 355 381
Owerri 27,217 27,410 58,478 58,634 79,212 78,926 193 156 −286
Calabar 28,471 27,456 58,464 58,683 78,707 78,707 −1015 219 0
Igarra 27,172 27,389 58,472 58,808 79,419 79,939 217 336 520
Sokoto 27,095 27,396 58,499 58,964 81,427 82,799 301 465 1372
Kano 27,116 27,403 58,631 58,631 81,476 81,300 287 0 −176
Maiduguri 27,125 27,511 58,618 59,085 82,093 81,711 386 467 −382
Bauchi 27,121 27,458 58,579 58,870 81,544 82,282 337 291 738
Garki 27,148 27,411 58,422 58,783 80,024 80,875 263 361 851
Jalingo 27,143 27,475 58,488 58,967 80,268 80,138 332 479 −130
Average 27,265.833 27,419.000 58,505.167 58,801.750 80,306.500 80,613.083 153.167 296.583 306.583
Energies 2018, 11, 687 12 of 20

For the 6.4 kW load on a lifetime basis, the LCOE which ranges between averages of USD
0.157/kWh to 0.208/kWh (including storage costs) is lower than the 4 kW load. This value is still very
competitive as opposed to diesel generators USD 0.30/kWh and gasoline over USD 0.60/kWh (Table 3).
However, they have significant capital costs and, without affordable financing, diesel generators are
more accessible to the operators for their business.
The solar hybrid PV systems are also the most cost competitive in Nigeria for the 8 kW load on a
lifetime basis. The LCOE which ranges between averages of USD 0.156/kWh to 0.172/kWh (including
storage costs) for this load (8 kW) is the lowest of the 3 loads scenario considered. As the load increases,
the PV size and generator size also increases but it gives lower LCOE. There is little change in the
LCOE for the optimised and forced-on generator schedules, the LCOEs are both within the same range.
Increased load gives better energy economics. However, they will have significantly higher initial
capital costs compared to 4 kW and 6.4 kW systems and require affordable financing. Diesel generators
require lower initial capital cost and therefore are more accessible to the operators for their business.
If the OPEX and costs of components like the battery could be reduced, LCOE would be reduced. It is
worth noting that from the report of [2], the cost of generation of electricity at off-grid sites, which also
includes cost of fuel theft, can rise up to US$2.21 per kWh, which is about 10 to 20 times the price of
electricity from the grid in most African countries [2].
Figure 5 shows the comparisons between the load’s total LCOE for each location. The bar gives
the overall systems with the highest and lowest LCOE when the different values are combined together.
The sum of Sokoto’s LCOE is 1.088 kWh and the average LCOE is $0.181/kWh for the optimised and
forced-on schedules. The solar radiation for Sokoto is the highest in comparison to all the sites locations
in Nigeria from the study (see Figure 1). Calabar has the highest average LCOE of $0.201/kWh for the
optimised and forced-on schedules, and has the lowest solar radiation, which is the reason for Calabar
having the highest LCOE.
Table 5 shows the total energy generated for each site and the energy difference between the
optimized and the forced-on schedule for the sites. As can be seen from the table, a total of 27,095 kWh
to 28,471 kWh range is the annual energy contribution of the PV array and the diesel generator for
the 4 kW optimised load system. The average energy of the optimised system and forced-on system
is 27,265.8 kWh and 27,419 kWh respectively. The optimised 6 kW load annual energy generated by
the PV array and diesel generator is 58,422 kWh to 58,631 kWh range. For the 8 kW optimised load
system, the total energy generated is 78,707 kWh to 81,711 kWh range.
The difference in energy generated between the optimised system and the forced-on system
shows that a higher energy is generated from the forced-on system. This implies that the optimised
system performs better than the forced-on system because it requires less energy compared to the
forced-on system. The OPEX on the forced-on system is higher so also is the carbon emission. It is
worth noting that a deviation from the energy difference is shown in the Table 5 with negative values.
The values indicates that the forced-on system have better performance than the optimised system
in such instances. Though the optimised system performs well on average, there are areas where
the forced-on system installation would be the best options for operators’ base transceiver stations
based on the values in the Table 5. The ratio of the average energy difference and the corresponding
loads of 4, 6.4 and 8 kW are 38.29, 46.34 and 38.32 per year, respectively. The 6.4 kW has a higher
energy difference.
Figure 6 shows the energy generated by the optimised system and the forced-on system. In the
forced-on system, the generator was simulated to run for 9 h: 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., the period when
there is little or no solar radiation. From the design results, the PV and battery supply is between
7:00 h and 22:00 h while the radiation peak is between 12:00 h and 14:00 h. The figure compares the
energy generated by the systems when they are on forced-on and optimised systems. From Figure 6,
the average energy generated by the forced-on system are more than the optimised system for all the
scenarios considered. The energy generated by the forced-on system is higher because of the higher
generator run time. The fuel combustion produces higher energy than the PV system.
Energies 2018, 11, 687 13 of 20

Table 6 summarizes the percentage energy contribution by the solar PV system and thus the
generator. As can be deduced from Table 6, 52.80% to 68.10% of the energy was supplied by the diesel
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 20
generators and 11,
Energies 2018, thex FOR
remaining
PEER REVIEW 31.90% to 47.20% was supplied by the solar PV system. Excess 13 of energy
20
for the system is different for the different loads and the percentage in comparison
for the system is different for the different loads and the percentage in comparison to the total load
to the total load
energyfordemand
the system is different
ranges from for the different
0.03% to loadsThe
14.98%. and8the
kW percentage
optimised in schedule
comparison to the
has the total loadsolar
highest
energy demand ranges from 0.03% to 14.98%. The 8 kW optimised schedule has the highest solar PV
energy demand ranges from 0.03% to 14.98%. The 8 kW optimised schedule has the highest solar PV
PV penetration
penetration rangerange forforallall loads;
loads; 43.2%
43.2% to 56.8%.
to 56.8%. From
From the the penetration
penetration percentage percentage
results, it isresults,
evident it is
penetration range for all loads; 43.2% to 56.8%. From the penetration percentage results, it is evident
evident
thatthat
thisthis
hashas direct
direct effect
effect on onthethe fuel
fuel consumption,
consumption, hence
hence fuelfuel conservation
conservation and and reduced
reduced carboncarbon
that this has direct effect on the fuel consumption, hence fuel conservation and reduced carbon
emission.
emission. Furthermore, the number of running hours of the generators decreased
Furthermore, the number of running hours of the generators decreased with an increase with an increase in in
emission. Furthermore, the number of running hours of the generators decreased with an increase in
solar
solar solar
energy energy penetration
penetration intointo the
thethe power
power system. The percentage of running time of the generators of
energy penetration into powersystem.
system. The percentageofofrunning
The percentage running time
time of the
of the generators
generators of of
the largest
the largest unit unit
and and
load load decreased
decreased comparedtotothat
compared that of
of smaller
smaller units.
units.Thus thethe
Thus larger generator
larger generator unitsunits
the largest unit and load decreased compared to that of smaller units. Thus the larger generator units
will require less maintenance hence longer life.
will require less less
will require maintenance
maintenance hence
hence longer
longerlife.
life.

Figure 5. Levelised cost of

Levelised of energy
energy ($/kWh).
Figure 5. 5.
Figure Levelisedcost
cost of energy ($/kWh).
($/kWh).

Figure 6. Energy generated comparison of optimised and forced-on (kWh/year).

Figure 6. Energy generated comparison of optimised and forced-on (kWh/year).
Figure 6. Energy generated comparison of optimised and forced-on (kWh/year).
Solar photovoltaic (PV) penetration is defined as the ratio of total peak PV power to peak load
Solar photovoltaic (PV) penetration is defined as the ratio of total peak PV power to peak load
apparent
Solar power. Figure
photovoltaic (PV)77 penetration
gives the aggregate percentage
is defined of the PV
as the ratio penetration. The 6.4 kW
apparent power. Figure gives the aggregate percentage of theofPVtotal peak PVThe
penetration. power to peak
6.4 kW
forced-on system has the lowest solar PV penetration on average 40.61% for all the loads schedule.
load forced-on
apparent systempower.has Figure 7 gives
the lowest the
solar PVaggregate
penetrationpercentage
on average of the PV
40.61% penetration.
for all The 6.4 kW
the loads schedule.
The implication is a higher DG “ON and OFF’’ time for the 6.4 kW load because the energy required
The implication
forced-on system has is athe
higher DG solar
lowest “ON and PV OFF’’ time for on
penetration theaverage
6.4 kW load because
40.61% forthe
all energy required
the loads schedule.
for the load has to be supplied to meet the load demands. This effect does not only affect the DG life
for the
The implication load has
is a to be
higher supplied
DG “ON to meet
and the
OFF” load demands.
time for the This
6.4 effect
kW does
load not
becauseonlytheaffect the
energy DG life for
required
cycle it also affects the OPEX. The 8 kW optimised system has the highest PV penetration of 50.20%
cycle
the load hasit also beaffects
to loads the OPEX.
supplied toTable
meetThethe8 kW
load optimised
demands. system
This has thedoes
effect highest
notPV penetration
only ofDG50.20%
for all the as seen in 7. This effect means reduced carbon emission andaffect thefrequency
also the life cycle
for all the loads as seen in Table 7. This effect means reduced carbon emission and also the frequency
it alsoofaffects
DG cyclicthe time.
OPEX. The
Care 8 kWalso
should optimised
be takensystem
becausehas thePV
of the highest PV penetration
penetration. of 50.20%
High penetrations of PVfor all
of DG cyclic time. Care should also be taken because of the PV penetration. High penetrations of PV
Energies 2018, 11, 687 14 of 20

the loads as seen in Table 7. This effect means reduced carbon emission and also the frequency of DG
cyclic time. Care should also be taken because of the PV penetration. High penetrations of PV impacts
circuitEnergies
voltage2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
in a number of ways. Voltage rise and voltage variations triggered by variations 14 of 20
in solar
PV generation are among the difficult impacts of high penetrations of PV. Real and reactive power from
impacts circuit voltage in a number of ways. Voltage rise and voltage variations triggered by
the PV system can
variations impact
in solar the steady-state
PV generation are among circuit voltage,
the difficult and rise
impacts andpenetrations
of high fall of PV output can result
of PV. Real and in
voltage fluctuations
reactive power from on the
thecircuit.
PV systemThis,
canin turn, the
impact cansteady-state
impact power quality
circuit and
voltage, andvoltage
rise andcontrol device
fall of PV
operation.
outputInstances
can resultof inhigh voltage
voltage can occur
fluctuations oncircuit.
on the the distribution circuit
This, in turn, duringpower
can impact low-load conditions.
quality and
Voltages should
voltage staydevice
control within the permissible
operation. Instancesrange;
of high otherwise, they can
voltage can occur reduce
on the the lifetime
distribution circuitof electrical
during
low-load
equipment andconditions.
cause DGVoltages should
(including PVstay within to
inverters) thetrip
permissible
off-line.range; otherwise, they can reduce
the lifetime of electrical equipment and cause DG (including PV inverters) to trip off-line.
Table 6. Percentage energy contribution by solar PV system.
Table 6. Percentage energy contribution by solar PV system.
4 kW 4 kW4 kW 6.4 kW
6.4 kW 6.46.4
kW kW 8 8kW
kW 88kW
kW
Location
Location 4 kW Optimised
Optimised % % Forced-on % %Optimised
Forced-on % % Forced-on
Optimised Forced-on %% Optimised
Optimised%% Forced-on
Forced-on %
%
Epe
Epe 45.100
45.100 40.900
40.900 36.300
36.300 35.500
35.500 40.400
40.400 40.400
40.400
Osogbo
Osogbo 41.200
41.200 40.600
40.600 35.300
35.300 35.900
35.900 41.400
41.400 40.200
40.200
Enugu
Enugu 42.800
42.800 40.000
40.000 36.000
36.000 35.800
35.800 40.600
40.600 39.700
39.700
Owerri
Owerri 41.000
41.000 39.400
39.400 34.200
34.200 32.600
32.600 38.300
38.300 36.800
36.800
Calabar
Calabar 36.200
36.200 37.700
37.700 32.700
32.700 31.900
31.900 37.200
37.200 37.200
37.200
Igarra
Igarra 43.200
43.200 41.400
41.400 37.100
37.100 36.400
36.400 39.400
39.400 40.100
40.100
Sokoto
Sokoto 47.200
47.200 46.200
46.200 41.200
41.200 41.100
41.100 46.200
46.200 46.600
46.600
Kano
Kano 46.800
46.800 44.700
44.700 41.900
41.900 41.900
41.900 45.900
45.900 43.700
43.700
Maiduguri
Maiduguri 46.900
46.900 44.400
44.400 41.400
41.400 39.300
39.300 46.900
46.900 43.600
43.600
Bauchi
Bauchi 46.800
46.800 44.400
44.400 40.600
40.600 38.600
38.600 45.800
45.800 44.500
44.500
Garki
Garki 45.200
45.200 42.300
42.300 37.300
37.300 37.100
37.100 42.300
42.300 41.800
41.800
Jalingo
Jalingo 45.800
45.800 42.400
42.400 38.600
38.600 37.500
37.500 42.900
42.900 40.400
40.400

Figure 7. PV penetration (%).

Figure 7. PV penetration (%).

Table 7. Percentage penetration.

Table 7. Percentage penetration.
4 kW 6.4 kW
Location 4 kW Optimised 6.4 kW Optimised 8 kW Optimised 8 kW Forced-on
Forced-on Forced-on
4 kW 4 kW 6.4 kW 6.4 kW 8 kW 8 kW
Epe Location 45.10 44.40 39.80 39.00 47.40 48.00
Optimised Forced-on Optimised Forced-on Optimised Forced-on
Osogbo 44.60 44.10 38.60 39.50 49.00 47.50
Enugu Epe 46.20 45.10 43.5044.40 39.80
39.50 39.00
39.50 47.40
47.80 48.0046.90
OwerriOsogbo 44.30 44.60 42.9044.10 38.60
37.50 39.50
35.80 49.00
45.40 47.5042.90
CalabarEnugu 40.90 46.20 41.1043.50 39.50
35.90 39.50
35.10 47.80
43.20 46.9043.20
Igarra Owerri 46.60 44.30 45.0042.90 37.50
40.70 35.80
40.20 45.40
46.20 42.9047.30
SokotoCalabar 50.80 40.90 50.2041.10 35.90
45.20 35.10
45.40 43.20
55.50 43.2056.70
Kano Igarra 50.40 46.60 48.6045.00 40.70
46.00 40.20
44.50 46.20
55.20 47.3052.40
MaiduguriSokoto 50.50 50.80 48.5050.20 45.20
45.50 45.40
43.50 55.50
56.80 56.7052.60
Bauchi Kano 50.40 50.40 48.4048.60 46.00
44.50 44.50
42.60 55.20
55.20 52.4054.10
GarkiMaiduguri 48.70 50.50 46.1048.50 45.50
40.80 43.50
40.80 56.80
49.90 52.6049.90
Jalingo Bauchi 49.30 50.40 46.3048.40 44.50
42.30 42.60
41.40 55.20
50.80 54.1047.80
Average Garki 47.32 48.70 45.76 46.10 40.80
41.36 40.80
40.61 49.90
50.20 49.9049.11
Jalingo 49.30 46.30 42.30 41.40 50.80 47.80
Average 47.32 45.76 41.36 40.61 50.20 49.11
Energies 2018, 11, 687 15 of 20

Table 8 depicts the total fuel consumptions of each site per annum while Table 9 shows the
difference of the fuel consumption between the forced-on and the optimized schedules at each site per
year. It can be seen from the tables that in most instances, the optimized system consumes less fuel
than the forced-on system which is expected because the optimsed system has lower generator run
time. Exceptions to the above are: the optimised 4 kW load at Calabar, the system fuel consumption is
75 L per year higher than the forced-on system. This is because the system capacity could not provide
the required energy. At Osogbo, the 6.4 kW load optimised system fuel consumption is 72 L per year
higher than the forced-on system. At Kano both systems require the same fuel consumption at 6.4 kW
load. At Igarra at 8 kW load, the optimised system requires 63 L of fuel more per year for the same
load as can be seen from Tables 8 and 9. For the optimised systems with higher fuel consumption
than the forced-on systems; the battery capacity and PV system capacity should be increased to have
optimum system performance. The number of running hours of the generators is decreased for the
optimised system, which means less maintenance is required and hence longer life. Meanwhile, there
is an increase for the forced-on system and hence higher OPEX.
Figure 8 shows the fuel energy production for all the sites. The 4 kW loads have distinct lower
fuel energy production because the fuel consumption is lower. The 8 kW forced-on system has the
highest energy production because it consumes more diesel than other schedules. The range of the
fuel energy production for the 8 kW load is 159,737 kWh/year to 183,433 kWh/year. The average
value for the same load schedule is 174,010.3 kWh/year. Owerri has the highest energy production of
183,433 kWh/year while Maiduguri has the lowest, 159,737 kWh/year for the 8 kW load. The energy
production is proportional to the generator capacity and fuel consumption. That is why there is a
large energy production difference between the different energy scenarios. The 6.4 kW and 8 kW
loads are close as seen from the graph in Figure 8. This is because the energy production from the
fuel consumption of both loads schedule are close. The average fuel energy production for both load
schedules are 162,819.79 kWh/year and 171,924.08 kWh/year respectively. The average difference in
the fuel energy production is 9104.29 kWh/year for the 6.4 kW and 8 kW load schedules.

Table 8. Simulated fuel consumption for the sites L/year.

4 kW 4 kW 6.4 kW 6.4 kW 8 kW 8 kW
Location
Optimised Forced-on Optimised Forced-on Optimised Forced-on
Epe 7006 7175 16,810 17,086 17,724 17,881
Osogbo 7082 7210 17,045 16,973 17,520 17,937
Enugu 6879 7288 16,831 17,007 17,668 18,066
Owerri 7105 7373 17,345 17,832 18,093 18,642
Calabar 7661 7586 17,722 18,031 18,460 18,460
Igarra 6829 7117 16,552 16,844 17,972 17,909
Sokoto 6316 6521 15,457 15,624 16,306 16,568
Kano 6366 6708 15,289 15,289 16,396 17,085
Maiduguri 6359 6767 15,416 16,155 16,233 17,217
Bauchi 6376 6759 15,639 16,273 16,437 17,042
Garki 6574 7009 16,493 16,663 17,237 17,566
Jalingo 6496 7005 16,142 16,604 17,073 17,836
Average 6754.083 7043.167 16,395.083 16,698.417 17,259.917 17,684.083
Energies 2018, 11, 687 16 of 20

Table 9. Fuel consumption difference for the sites.

4 kW Fuel Consumption 6.4 kW Fuel Consumption 8 kW Fuel Consumption

Location
Difference L/year Difference L/year Difference L/year
Epe 169.000 276.000 157.000
Osogbo 128.000 −72.000 417.000
Enugu 409.000 176.000 398.000
Owerri 268.000 487.000 549.000
Calabar -75.000 309.000 0.000
Igarra 288.000 292.000 −63.000
Sokoto 205.000 167.000 262.000
Kano 342.000 0.000 689.000
Maiduguri
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER408.000
REVIEW 739.000 984.000
16 of 20
Bauchi 383.000 634.000 605.000
Garki
Garki 435.000
435.000 170.000
170.000 329.000 329.000
Jalingo
Jalingo 509.000
509.000 462.000
462.000 763.000 763.000
Average
Average 289.083
289.083 303.333
303.333 424.167 424.167

Figure 8. Fuel
Figure8. energyproduction
Fuel energy production (kWh/year).
(kWh/year).

Table 10 shows the fuel consumption and LCOEs simulated result for sites on generators only.
Table 10 shows the fuel consumption and LCOEs simulated result for sites on generators only.
The configurations are without any renewable sources; they run essentially on diesel generators.
The configurations
These values are are
usedwithout
to computeanythe renewable sources;
percentage savings they
on fuel for run essentially
all the locations in on diesel generators.
the simulated
Thesevalues.
valuesBecause
are used to sites
these compute the percentage
run basically savings
on diesel fuel, on fuel
the energy cost,for all the
as well locations
as the OPEX, isin the simulated
higher.
values.The carbon emissions
Because andrun
these sites environmental
basically on concerns
diesel for these
fuel, thesites are also
energy higher.
cost, The OPEX
as well as thefor these is higher.
OPEX,
sites areemissions
The carbon among theand
major reasons why operators
environmental and for
concerns vendors
thesehave
sitesdevised ways
are also of mitigating
higher. these for these
The OPEX
effects through the use of hybrid systems. The LCOEs are 0.340 $/kWh, 0.234 $/kWh, 0.195 $/kWh for
sites are among the major reasons why operators and vendors have devised ways of mitigating these
the 4 kW, 6.4 kW and 8 kW loads respectively.
effects through the use of hybrid systems. The LCOEs are 0.340 $/kWh, 0.234 $/kWh, 0.195 $/kWh for
the 4 kW, 6.4 kW and 8 kW loads respectively.
Table 10. Fuel consumption for generator only.

Load (kW) Fuel Consumption for Generator Only (L) LCOE (kWh/yr)
4 Table 10. Fuel consumption
11,883 for generator only.
0.340
6.4 26,468 0.234
8 27,960 0.195
Load (kW) Fuel Consumption for Generator Only (L) LCOE (kWh/year)
4
Table 11 shows the percentage savings on11,883 0.340Table 11 that
fuel consumption. It can be seen from
6.4
the fuel consumption 26,468to 42.24%. With the hybrid system,
savings range from 24.76% 0.234 not only are
8
there higher savings 27,960
on fuel, but there are also implied savings on maintenance 0.195
and lower carbon
emissions. Table 12 shows the average savings on fuel as well as equivalent costs. The percentage
savings on fuel is the difference between the fuel consumption when running on generator only and
the fuel consumption when it is a hybrid system, divided by the fuel consumption when running on
generator only and then multiplied by 100:
−
% = 100 (10)

Table 12 is the summary of the average savings. The 8 kW optimised system has the highest
average percentage savings of 38.269% and cost savings of $5992.047. The optimised system has
Energies 2018, 11, 687 17 of 20

Table 11 shows the percentage savings on fuel consumption. It can be seen from Table 11 that the
fuel consumption savings range from 24.76% to 42.24%. With the hybrid system, not only are there
higher savings on fuel, but there are also implied savings on maintenance and lower carbon emissions.
Table 12 shows the average savings on fuel as well as equivalent costs. The percentage savings on
fuel is the difference between the fuel consumption when running on generator only and the fuel
consumption when it is a hybrid system, divided by the fuel consumption when running on generator
only and then multiplied by 100:

Fuel Consumption Gen only − Fuel Consumption Hybrid

 
% Savings = × 100 (10)
Fuel Consumption Gen only

Table 12 is the summary of the average savings. The 8 kW optimised system has the highest
average percentage savings of 38.269% and cost savings of $5992.047. The optimised system has
averagely better percentage savings than the forced-on system. Table 12 also depicts the costs that
could be saved by operators on average for each of the load schedules. With the optimised systems
higher costs is saved on fuel, the OPEX and carbon emissions. The energy economics comparisons
favours the optimised systems for all the different load schedules.

Table 11. Simulated percentage savings on fuel L/year.

4 kW 4 kW 6.4 kW 6.4 kW 8 kW 8 kW
Location
Optimised Forced-on Optimised Forced-on Optimised Forced-on
Epe 28.60% 27.61% 36.49% 35.45% 36.61% 36.05%
Osogbo 28.15% 27.40% 35.60% 35.87% 37.34% 35.85%
Enugu 29.34% 26.94% 36.41% 35.75% 36.81% 35.39%
Owerri 28.02% 26.45% 34.47% 32.63% 35.29% 33.33%
Calabar 24.76% 25.20% 33.04% 31.88% 33.98% 33.98%
Igarra 29.64% 27.95% 37.46% 36.36% 35.72% 35.95%
Sokoto 32.64% 31.44% 41.60% 40.97% 41.68% 40.74%
Kano 32.35% 30.34% 42.24% 42.24% 41.36% 38.89%
Maiduguri 32.39% 30.00% 41.76% 38.96% 41.94% 38.42%
Bauchi 32.29% 30.05% 40.91% 38.52% 41.21% 39.05%
Garki 31.13% 28.58% 37.69% 37.04% 38.35% 37.17%
Jalingo 31.59% 28.60% 39.01% 37.27% 38.94% 36.21%

Table 12. Summary of average savings.

Load Average Fuel Savings (L/year) Average Percentage Savings Costs Savings ($) on Fuel
4 kW Optimised 5128.917 30.075% 2872.193
4 kW Forced-on 4839.833 28.379% 2710.307
6.4 kW Optimised 10,072.917 38.057% 5640.833
6.4 kW Forced-on 9769.583 36.911% 5470.967
8 kW Optimised 10,700.083 38.269% 5992.047
8 kW Forced-on 10,275.917 36.752% 5754.513

From the date the percentage energy savings is dependent on the location, solar insolation,
the sequence control of the generator and load setting. A variation in any of these variables would
affect the energy produced hence the OPEX and carbon emissions.
Figure 9 shows the stacked carbon emissions for each of the site location. Calabar, with the highest
generator run time, has the highest carbon emission in total for the simulated values. Sokoto, which
has the lowest generator run time, also has the lowest carbon emission. To have a good reduction in
carbon emission while meeting load demands, the PV capacity has to be increased; this, however, has
economic implications. The total amount of annual CO2 emissions that can be eliminated is between
11,314.96 kg to 14,370.14 kg, 22,611.2 kg to 29,959.72 kg and 25,460 kg to 31,428.36 kg for the 4 kW,
6.4 kW and 8 kW loads respectively (annual diesel consumption of saved multiplied by 2.68 kg CO2 /L).
Energies 2018, 11, 687
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
18 of 20
18 of 20

250,000.00

Carbon Emission(Kg/year)
200,000.00

150,000.00 8kW Forced On

8kW Optimise
100,000.00
6.4kW Forced On

50,000.00 6.4kW Optimise

4kW Forced On
-
Enugu 4kW Optimise

Calabar
Epe

Sokoto
Osogbo

Kano
Maiduguri

Jalingo
Owerri

Bauchi
Garki
Igarra
Location

Figure 9. Total carbon emission for the location (kg/year).

Figure 9. Total carbon emission for the location (kg/year).

5. Conclusions and
5. Conclusions Recommendations
and Recommendations
ThisThisstudy examined
study examinedthe theuse
useof
of different solarhybrid
different solar hybridsystem
system schedules
schedules in comparison
in comparison to diesel
to diesel
generator
generatorschedules
schedulesin powering
in powering some base
some basetransceiver stations
transceiver stationsin in
different
differentlocations
locationsininNigeria.
Nigeria.With a
loadWith
rangea ofload range
4 kW to 8ofkW,
4 kW thetoschedules
8 kW, the examined
schedules examined are: (i) optimised
are: (i) optimised generatorgenerator
schedule; schedule;
(ii) forced-on
(ii) forced-on generator schedule and (iii)
generator schedule and (iii) the generator-only schedule. the generator-only schedule.
TheThe results
results showed
showed that
that thethe solarPV
solar PVhybrid
hybridsystem
system OPEX
OPEX fuelfuel savings
savingsrange
rangeofof41.68%
41.68% to to
47%47% for
for the loads considered. The percentage of energy contribution by generator is in the range of 52.80%
the loads considered. The percentage of energy contribution by generator is in the range of 52.80%
to 60.90% and 39.10% to 47.20% for the solar PV system. The solar PV penetration range is 40.90% to
to 60.90% and 39.10% to 47.20% for the solar PV system. The solar PV penetration range is 40.90%
56.80%. The penetration percentage result is proportional to the fuel consumption, hence there is fuel
to 56.80%. The penetration
conservation and reducedpercentage resultThe
carbon emissions. is proportional
running hourstoofthe the fuel consumption,
generators decreasedhence
with an there is
fuel increase
conservationin solarand reduced
energy carbon
so is the emissions.
percentage The running
of running hours
time of the of the generators
generators of the largestdecreased
unit and with
an increase in solar
load compared to energy so is the
that of smaller percentage
units. Solar Hybrid of running
PV systemstimeareof thecost
most generators
competitiveof the largest unit
in Nigeria
and for
loadthecompared
higher loadtoonthat a lifetime basis units.
of smaller among Solarthe load scenario
Hybrid PVwith LCOEare
systems range
mostbetween averages
cost competitive in
of USD 0.156/kWh to 0.172/kWh. Though the LCOE for both the optimised
Nigeria for the higher load on a lifetime basis among the load scenario with LCOE range between system and the forced-on
are within
averages of USD the 0.156/kWh
same range, to the0.172/kWh.
forced-on hasThoughhigher fuel
the consumption.
LCOE for both Forthe
better energy economics
optimised system and the
and environmental concerns, the optimised hybrid system proves a better system than both the
forced-on are within the same range, the forced-on has higher fuel consumption. For better energy
forced-on and the generator only site. Nevertheless there are a few instances where the forced-on
economics and environmental concerns, the optimised hybrid system proves a better system than both
system is better for certain locations. It is recommended that policies should be put in place by the
the forced-on and the generator only site. Nevertheless there are a few instances where the forced-on
government to make operators and vendor incorporate renewable energy in their energy solutions,
system is better
especially forfor
areascertain
with locations.
low loads thatIt iscanrecommended
be effectivelythat
and policies
efficientlyshould be put
sustained in place by the
by renewable
government to makeWith
energy sources. operators
that, andtherevendor
wouldincorporate renewable
be diversification andenergy
good in their energy
energy mix in solutions,
the
especially
telecommunication sector. Furthermore, operators and vendors should also study the type of hybridenergy
for areas with low loads that can be effectively and efficiently sustained by renewable
system
sources. that that,
With will be best for
there woulda particular location before
be diversification anddeploying
good energythe system
mix toinsite.
the telecommunication
sector. Furthermore, operators and vendors should also study the type of hybrid system that will be
Acknowledgments: We thank University of Johannesburg for the GES scholarship and financial support from
best for a particular location before deploying the system to site.
NRF Grant No. 110774 (South Africa-China Bilateral Collaborative Research Program). Both authors would also
like to acknowledge the proofreading from Annie Jen.
Acknowledgments: We thank University of Johannesburg for the GES scholarship and financial support from
NRFAuthor
Grant No. 110774 (South
Contributions: PeterAfrica-China Bilateral
Ozaveshe Oviroh Collaborative
did the Research
data collection Program).
and result analysis. Both authors
Tien-Chien Jen,would
the also
like to acknowledge
supervisor of Peterthe proofreading
Ozaveshe from Annie
Oviroh, guided Jen. and revised the paper several times before final submission.
the research
Author Contributions:
Conflicts Peter
of Interest: The Ozaveshe
authors declareOviroh
there is did the data
no conflict collection and result analysis. Tien-Chien Jen,
of interest.
the supervisor of Peter Ozaveshe Oviroh, guided the research and revised the paper several times before
final submission.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.
Energies 2018, 11, 687 19 of 20

References
1. Groupe Speciale Mobile Association (GSMA). The Mobile Economy West Africa 2017; Groupe Speciale Mobile
Association: London, UK, 2017.
2. Groupe Speciale Mobile Association (GSMA). The Global Telecom Tower Esco Market Overview of the Global
Market for Energy to Telecom Towers in Off-Grid and Bad-Grid Areas; Groupe Speciale Mobile Association:
London, UK, 2014.
3. SMA Intelligence Data. Available online: https://www.gsmaintelligence.com/markets/2481/dashboard/#
(accessed on 20 September 2017).
4. Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC). Subscriber/Teledensity Data. Available online: http://
www.ncc.gov.ng/stakeholder/statistics-reports/industry-overview#view-graphs-tables (accessed on 21
September 2017).
5. Alsharif, M.H. Comparative Analysis of Solar-Powered Base Stations for Green Mobile Networks. Energies
2017, 10, 1208. [CrossRef]
6. Ahmed, F.; Naeem, M.; Ejaz, W.; Iqbal, M.; Anpalagan, A.; Kim, H. Renewable Energy Assisted Traffic Aware
Cellular Base Station Energy Cooperation. Energies 2018, 11, 99. [CrossRef]
7. Mancuso, S.A.V. Reducing costs and pollution in cellular networks. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2011, 49. [CrossRef]
8. Wu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Zukerman, M.; Yung, E.K.N. Energy-Efficient Base-Stations Sleep-Mode Techniques in
Green Cellular Networks: A Survey. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2015, 17, 803–826. [CrossRef]
9. Feng, D.; Jiang, C.; Lim, G.; Cimini, L.J.; Feng, G.; Li, G.Y. A survey of energy-efficient wireless
communications. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2013, 15, 167–178. [CrossRef]
10. Alsharif, M.H. Techno-Economic Evaluation of a Stand-Alone Power System Based on Solar Power/Batteries
for Global System for Mobile Communications Base Stations. Energies 2017, 10, 392. [CrossRef]
11. Taverner, D. Green Power for Mobile Community Power. Available online: http://www.gsma.com/
mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Community-Power-Using-Mobile-to-Extend-the-
Grid-January-2010.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2017).
12. Anayochukwu, A.V.; Nnene, E.A. Simulation and optimization of hybrid diesel power generation system for
GSM base station site in Nigeria. Electron. J. Energy Environ. 2013, 1, 37–56. [CrossRef]
13. Olatomiwa, L.J.; Mekhilef, S.; Huda, A.S.N. Optimal Sizing of Hybrid Energy System for a Remote Telecom
Tower: A Case Study in Nigeria. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Conference on Energy Conversion
(CENCON), Johor Bahru, Malaysia, 13–14 October 2014.
14. Roche, M.Y. True Cost of Electrcity-Comparison of Costs of Electricity Generation in Nigeria; Nigerian Economic
Summit Group: Lagos, Nigeria; Heinrich Böll Stiftung Nigeria: Abuja, Nigeria, 2017.
15. Khan, M.J.; Iqbal, M.T. Pre-feasibility study of stand-alone hybrid energy systems for applications in
Newfoundland. Renew. Energy 2004, 30, 835–854. [CrossRef]
16. Cristóbal-Monreal, I.R.; Dufo-López, R. Optimisation of photovoltaic–diesel–battery stand-alone systems
minimising system weight. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 119, 279–288. [CrossRef]
17. Dufo-López, R.; Cristóbal-Monreal, I.R.; Yusta, J.M. Optimisation of PV-wind-diesel-battery stand-alone
systems to minimise cost and maximise human development index and job creation. Renew. Energy 2016,
94, 280–293. [CrossRef]
18. Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O.; Ayodele, T.R.; Akinola, O.A. Optimal allocation and sizing of PV/Wind/Split-diesel/
Battery hybrid energy system for minimizing life cycle cost, carbon emission and dump energy of remote
residential building. Appl. Energy 2016, 171, 153–171. [CrossRef]
19. Ahadi, A.; Kang, S.-K.; Lee, J.-H. A novel approach for optimal combinations of wind, PV, and energy storage
system in diesel-free isolated communities. Appl. Energy 2016, 170, 101–115. [CrossRef]
20. Maatallah, T.; Ghodhbane, N.; Nasrallah, S.B. Assessment viability for hybrid energy system
(PV/wind/diesel) with storage in the northernmost city in Africa, Bizerte, Tunisia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2016, 59, 1639–1652. [CrossRef]
21. Li, J.; Wei, W.; Xiang, J. A Simple Sizing Algorithm for Stand-Alone PV/Wind/Battery Hybrid Microgrids.
Energies 2012, 5, 5307. [CrossRef]
22. Katz, D.; Haaren, R.V.; Fthenakis, V. Applications and economics of combined PV and battery systems
for commercial & industrial peak shifting. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 42nd Photovoltaic Specialist
Conference (PVSC), New Orleans, LA, USA, 14–19 June 2015; pp. 1–6.
Energies 2018, 11, 687 20 of 20

23. Goel, S.; Ali, S.M. Cost Analysis of Solar/Wind/Diesel Hybrid Energy Systems for Telecom Tower by Using
HOMER. Int. J. Renew. Energy Res. 2014, 4, 305–311.
24. Saviva Research. Saviva Research Review Hybrid Energy Systems for Telecom Towers; Saviva Research: New York,
NY, USA, 2013.
25. Alsharif, M.H.; Nordin, R.; Ismail, M. Energy optimisation of hybrid off-grid system for remote
telecommunication base station deployment in Malaysia. EURASIP J. Wirel. Commun. Netw. 2015. [CrossRef]
26. Alsharif, M.H. A Solar Energy Solution for Sustainable Third Generation Mobile Networks. Energies 2017,
10, 429. [CrossRef]
27. Moradi, H.; Esfahanian, M.; Abtahi, A.; Zilouchian, A. Modeling a Hybrid Microgrid Using Probabilistic
Reconfiguration under System Uncertainties. Energies 2017, 10, 1430. [CrossRef]
28. Erdinc, O.; Uzunoglu, M. Optimum design of hybrid renewable energy systems: Overview of different
approaches. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 1412–1425. [CrossRef]
29. Huawei. Huawei Diesel Hybrid Power Solution; Huawei: Shenzhen, China, 2017.
30. Flexenclosure. Hybrid Power for Telecom Sites. Available online: http://www.flexenclosure.com/?wpfb_
dl=305/ (accessed on 21 June 2017).
31. Oviroh, P.O.; Jen, T.-C.; Idusuyi, N.; Gbadeyan, O. Comparative Energy Cost Analysis of Hybrid System and
Diesel Generator in Powering Selected Base Transceiver Stations in Nigeria. In Proceedings of the ASME
2017 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Tampa, FL, USA, 3–9 November 2017.
32. Khan, M.J.; Yadav, A.K.; Mathew, L. Techno economic feasibility analysis of different combinations of
PV-Wind-Diesel-Battery hybrid system for telecommunication applications in different cities of Punjab, India.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 76, 577–607. [CrossRef]
33. Huawei, D.G. Battery Hybrid System. Available online: http://www.huawei.com/za/products/energy-
infrastructure/hybrid_system/ (accessed on 22 June 2017).
34. Adaramola, M.S.; Paul, S.S.; Oyewola, O.M. Assessment of decentralized hybrid PV solar-diesel power
system for applications in Northern part of Nigeria. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2014, 19, 72–82. [CrossRef]
35. Ajlan, A.; Tan, C.W.; Abdilahi, A.M. Assessment of environmental and economic perspectives for
renewable-based hybrid power system in Yemen. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 75, 559–570. [CrossRef]
36. Gross, I. Mitigating ICTRelated Carbon Emissions: Using Renewable Energy to Power Base Stations in Africa’s
Mobile Telecommunications Sector; Centre for Development Informatics (CDI) University of Manchester:
Manchester, UK, 2012.
37. Shaahid, S.M.; El-Amin, I. Techno-economic evaluation of off-grid hybrid photovoltaic–diesel–battery power
systems for rural electrification in Saudi Arabia—A way forward for sustainable development. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 625–633. [CrossRef]
38. Ani, V.A. Design of a Reliable Hybrid (PV/Diesel) Power System with Energy Storage in Batteries for Remote
Residential Home. J. Energy 2016, 2016, 6278138. [CrossRef]
39. HOMER Energy. HOMER®Pro Version 3.7-User Manual; HOMER Energy: Boulder, CO, USA, 2016.
40. Alsharif, M.; Kim, J. Hybrid Off-Grid SPV/WTG Power System for Remote Cellular Base Stations towards
Green and Sustainable Cellular Networks in South Korea. Energies 2017, 10, 9. [CrossRef]
41. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NASA Prediction of Worldwide Energy
Resource (POWER). Available online: https://power.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/solar/timeseries.cgi
(accessed on 3 September 2017).
42. Kalogirou, S.A. Solar Energy Engineering: Processes and Systems; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
43. Duffie, J.A.; Beckman, W.A. Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY,
USA, 1980.
44. International Energy Agency (IEA). World Energy Outlook 2016; International Energy Agency (IEA): Paris,
France, 2016.
45. Chang, W.-Y. The State of Charge Estimating Methods for Battery: A Review. ISRN Appl. Math. 2013,
2013, 953792. [CrossRef]
46. LAZARD. Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis 10.0; LAZARD: New York, NY, USA, 2016.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).