One of the many causes of failure of Off-grid electrification project is not involving the community in the development of project. A model has been developed and demonstrated for prefeasibility analysis of off-grid electrification projects. This model compares the two cases for each possible scenario for the site. Two cases are conventional off-grid electrification and off-grid electrification with investment in downstream productive activities. The model has been successfully demonstrated for Village Gorad, District Thane, Maharashtra, India. The results show that the sustainability of the project can be assured by initiating productive activities in the remote communities.

1. Guide: Prof. Prasad Modak
Tausif (09335009)
1

2. Outline of presentation









2

3. Increasing energy deficit
10 12.0%
x 100000 MU
9
10.0%
8
7
8.0%
6
5 6.0%
4
4.0%
3
2
2.0%
1
0 0.0%
1997-98 1999-00 2001-02 2003-04 2005-06 2007-08 2009-10
Source : (Ministry of Power, 2012)
3

4. Electricity demand projections





4

5. Renewable Potential







5

6. Renewable potential
12
x 10000 MW
10
8
6
4
2
0
Source : (Ministry of Power, 2012)
6

7. Energy Access Rural



7

8. Distributed Renewable Energy





8

9. Development Strategy







9

10. Objectives


10

11. Motivation



11

12. Central Subsidies
Source : (Table 2-1)
12

13. Technology
 Biomass gasifier
 Biogas
 Solar PV
 Wind
13

14. Source : (The Energy and Mining Sector Board, 2008)
14

15. Framework
 Technical Dimension
 Resources
 Demand
 Technologies
 Decision making dimension
 Socio-economic impacts
 Project Financial analysis
 Project catchment analysis
15

16. Process flow of development
16

17. Modules of framework
1. Electricity Demand estimation and
projection module
2. Renewable energy technologies selection
and sizing module
3. Project financing module
4. Downstream productive activities
financing module
5. Sensitivity analysis module
17

18. Two cases
1. An energy access scenario to meet
current and projected electricity
demand assuming no additional
commercial activity in future.
2. A sustainable energy supply scenario to
meet current and projected electricity
demand while also investing in the
additional productive activities
18

19. Demand module : domestic
19

20. Demand module: irrigation
20

21. Demand module:
commercial
21

22. Demand module: social
22

23. Demand : Seasonal variation
23

24. Technology configuration
24

25. Financial case 1
25

26. 26

27. Financial case 2
27

28. Sensitivity module
2 1 3
Input parameter -5% base 5%
1 Initial costs 46,24,226 4867607 51,10,987 Rs
2 Annual costs (O&M) 159885 168300 176715 Rs
3 Debt ratio 34% 36.31% 38% %
4 Debt interest rate 15% 15.00% 15% %
5 Debt term 12 12.0 12 Yr
6 Preferential customer enery rate difference 2 2.0 2 Rs
7 Energy price escalation rate 2% 2.00% 2% %
8 Renewable enrgy generated 9,37,901 987264 10,36,627 kWh
9 transmisson loss 2% 2.00% 2% %
10 inflation rate 0% 5.00% 10% %
28

29. Case study Gorad
29

30. Gorad
Village Gorad
District Thane
Longitude 19⁰30.215’ N
Latitude 73⁰1.551’E
Language Marathi
Households 254
Primary occupation Agriculture, labour
Area(cultivable) 184.4 hectare
Major crop Rice and Tuar
Irrigation Rain fed
Cattle 400 approx
Average Annual household income ₹50,000
Post office No
School Anganwadi, Primary and middle schools
Health Facility No
Grid electricity Available but not reliable
30

31. 31

32. Gorad Seasonal variation
Seasonal Variation
Thousands kWh
140
120
100
80 Preferential
Irrigation
Commerrcial
60
Social
Total
40 Non Preferencial
20
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
-20
32

33. Load distribution between technologies
140
Thousands kWh
120
100
80
Min (Base)
Avg (intermediate)
60 Max (peak)
Total
40
20
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
33

34. Technology Scenarios
Scenario Biomass Biogas Solar PV Wind
Gasifier
1 Yes Yes Yes No
2 Yes Yes No Yes
3 Yes No Yes Yes
4 No Yes Yes Yes
5 Yes Yes Yes Yes
34

35. Scenario 1
Generation Vs Demand
2,000 Cummulative cash flows
Thousands kWh
Annual 150
Millions
1,500
Demand#1
100
1,000 Annual
50
500
Demand#2
Annual -
-
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Generation
(50) 35

36. Case 1
Scenario >> 1 2 3 4 5
Project Pre Tax IRR 4% #NUM! -3% 8% -9%
Project After Tax
4% #NUM! -3% -10%
IRR 8%
Equity IRR 187% #NUM! 132% 385% 54%
Community IRR 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
Equity payback (yr) 17 26 26 13 26
Net present Value
-6,391,672 -34,927,566 -23,619,499 -7,998,598 -28,242,616
(Rs)
Benefit-cost ratio 0.51 -0.38 0.19 0.68 0.08
36

37. Case 2
Scenario >> 1 2 3 4 5
Project Pre Tax IRR 22% -4% 12% 18% 11%
Project After Tax
21% -4% 12% 17% 10%
IRR
Equity IRR 148% 19% 121% 265% 95%
Equity payback (yr) 7 26 10 8 11
Net present Value
8,933,072 -23,461,850 -7,550,622 4,583,987 -11,201,510
(Rs)
Benefit-cost ratio 0.07
1.68 0.74 1.18 0.63
37

38. Gorad Sensitivity
Case 1 A: Project IRR,
130.00
C: Equity IRR,
F: NPV,
120.00
G: Benefit Cost Ratio
110.00
A
100.00 C
F
90.00 G
80.00
130.00
70.00 Case 2
0 10 20 30 40 50 120.00
110.00
A 100.00
C
F 90.00
G
80.00
70.00
- 10 20 30 40 50
38

39. Conclusion




39

40. Policy recommendation

40

41. Future work




41

42. Future work



42

43. 43

44. 44

45. 45

46. 46

47. 47

48. 48

49. 49

50. 50

51. Thanks
 Dr. Prasad Modak
 prasad.modak@emcentre.com
 +91 982 012 6074
 Tausif Farooqui
 tausif.farooqui@gmail.com
 +91 922 142 6955
51