Feasibility study of hybrid renewable energy systems for off-grid electrification in Kuwait’s rural national park reserve

Figures & data

Figure 1. Kuwait's map showing the planned land use as outlined in Kuwait’s 4th master plan (Dar Al-Handasah 2024).

Figure 2. Flowchart of the sequential steps of the methodology used in this paper.

Figure 3. Proposed system diagram for KNPR using HOMER® software showing major components.

Figure 4. Daily load profile of KNPR during typical (a) summer, and (b) winter days.

Table 1. KNPR estimated load power and energy calculations during typical summer and winter days.

Type	Rated load	Demand factor		Demand load (kW)		Working hours (h)		Daily energy (kWh)
		Summer	Winter	Summer	Winter	Summer	Winter	Summer	Winter
Lighting	10.50	0.80	0.80	8.40	8.40	8.00	8.00	67.20	67.20
Sockets	71.99	0.60	0.60	43.20	43.20	6.00	6.00	259.17	259.17
A/C units	105.00	1.00	–	105.00	–	16.00	–	1680.00	–
Exhaust fans	0.31	0.80	0.80	0.25	0.25	8.00	8.00	1.97	1.97
Water heaters	6.00	0.30	0.80	1.80	4.80	4.00	6.00	7.20	28.80
Water pumps	2.00	0.80	0.80	1.60	1.60	3.00	3.00	4.80	4.80
Sewage pumps	6.00	1.00	1.00	6.00	6.00	3.00	3.00	18.00	18.00
Refrigerators	2.10	0.80	0.80	1.68	1.68	12.00	12.00	20.16	20.16
Filters	0.60	1.00	1.00	0.60	0.60	3.00	3.00	1.80	1.80
Heating	23.00	–	1.00	–	23.00	–	16.00	–	368.00
Safety margin and expansions	–	–	50%	50%	–	–	50%	50%
Total	227.50	–	–	252.78	134.28	–	–	3090.45	1154.85
Rounded value	–	–	–	260.00	140.00	–	–	3100.00	1200.00

Figure 5. Monthly weather data of KNPR showing average daily (a) solar irradiance, and (b) wind speed at 50 m (NASA Langley Research Center 2024).

Table 2. SunPower X21-335-BLK PV panels datasheet (SunPower Corporation 2024).

Parameter	Value	Unit
Rated Capacity	0.335	kW
Efficiency	21	%
Maximum Power Point Voltage (Vmpp)	57.30	V
Maximum Power Point Current (Impp)	5.85	A
Power Temperature Coefficient	−0.29	%/°C
Voltage Temperature Coefficient	−167.30	mV/°C
Operating Temperature	−40 to +85	°C
Capital Cost	356	$ per unit
Replacement Cost	356	$ per unit
Operation and Maintenance Cost	3.35	$/year per unit
Lifetime	25	Year

Table 3. Eocycle EO20 WT datasheet (Eocycle 2024).

Parameter	Value	Unit
Rated capacity	20	kW
Rated wind speed	7.50	m/s
Cut-in wind speed	2.75	m/s
Cut-out wind speed	20	m/s
Hub height	36	M
Rotor diameter	15.81	M
Capital cost	34,000	$ per unit
Replacement cost	34,000	$ per unit
Operation and maintenance cost	340	$/year per unit
Lifetime	20	Year

Figure 6. Eocycle EO20 WT power curve showing the cut-in, cut-out, rated speeds, and the rated power (Eocycle 2024).

Table 4. Datasheet of the generic DG used in the proposed design (UL Solutions 2024).

Parameter	Value	Unit
Minimum load ratio	25	%
Capital cost	350	$/kW
Replacement cost	350	$/kW
Operation and Maintenance Cost	0.01	$/operating hour
Fuel cost	1.2	$/L
Lifetime	30,000	Operating hours

Table 5. GHG emissions of the generic DG used in the proposed design (UL Solutions 2024).

Emission	Emission (g/L fuel)	Percentage of total emission (%)
Carbon dioxide (CO₂)	2617.61	98.523
Carbon monoxide (CO)	16.50	0.621
Unburned hydrocarbons (UHC)	0.72	0.027
Particulate matters (PM)	0.10	0.004
Sulfur dioxide (SO₂)	6.41	0.241
Nitrogen oxides (NOₓ)	15.50	0.583

Table 6. Lithium-ion batteries datasheet (UL Solutions 2024).

Parameter	Value	Unit
Nominal voltage	6	V
Nominal energy capacity	1	kWh
Nominal current capacity	167	Ah
Maximum charge current	167	A
Maximum discharge current	500	A
Roundtrip efficiency	90	%
Capital cost per unit	150	$
Replacement cost	150	$ per unit
Operation and maintenance cost	5	$/year per unit
Lifetime	7	Year

Table 7. Generic converter datasheet (UL Solutions 2024).

Parameter	Value	Unit
Capital cost	415	$/kW
Replacement cost	415	$/kW
Operation and maintenance cost	10	$/year
Relative capacity	100	%
Inverter efficiency	95	%
Rectifier efficiency	95	%
Lifetime	10	Year

Table 8. Considered hybrid systems configurations showing component's sizes.

No.	Configuration	PV (kW)	WT (kW)	DG (kW)	BB (kWh)	Converter (kW)
1	PV-WT-DG-BB	307	160	290	673	232
2	PV-WT-DG	386	320	290	–	203
3*	PV-WT-BB	550	200	–	1424	328
4	PV-DG-BB	700	–	290	1204	286
5	WT-DG-BB	–	320	290	895	167
6	PV-DG	832	–	290	–	286
7	WT-DG	–	440	290	–	–
8	PV-BB	1357	–	–	1921	295
9	WT-BB	–	640	–	3222	370
10	DG	–	–	290	–	–

*This configuration ended being the optimal configuration in this study.

Figure 7. Technical assessment (energy generation distribution) for each hybrid configuation.

Table 9. Technical assessment (energy generation distribution) for each hybrid configuration.

No.	Configuration	Energy generation						Total generation
		PV		WT		DG
		kWh/year	%	kWh/year	%	kWh/year	%	kWh/year
1	PV-WT-DG-BB	540,086	43	682,774	54	39,150	3	1,262,009
2	PV-WT-DG	680,780	31	1,365,547	61	183,994	8	2,230,321
3	PV-WT-BB	968,265	53	853,467	47	–	–	1,821,732
4	PV-DG-BB	1,233,157	97	–	–	38,375	3	1,271,532
5	WT-DG-BB	–	–	1,365,547	94	92,323	6	1,457,870
6	PV-DG	1,465,950	78	–	–	404,352	22	1,870,302
7	WT-DG	–	–	1,877,627	87	276,520	13	2,154,147
8	PV-BB	2,391,067	100	–	–	–	–	2,391,067
9	WT-BB	–	–	2,731,094	100	–	–	2,731,094
10	DG	–	–	–	–	973,155	100	973,155

Figure 8. Economic assessment showing (a) NPC, CAPEX, and OPEX, and (b) LCOE for each hybrid configuation.

Table 10. Economic assessment for each hybrid configuation.

No.	Configuration	NPC ($)	LCOE ($/kWh)	CAPEX ($)	OPEX ($/year)	IRR (%)	DPP (year)
1	PV-WT-DG-BB	1,692,118	0.117	896,332	45,700	44.0	2.47
2	PV-WT-DG	2,966,029	0.205	1,140,129	104,858	28.1	3.74
3	PV-WT-BB	2,206,308	0.152	1,273,704	53,557	29.9	3.47
4	PV-DG-BB	2,124,312	0.147	1,144,586	56,264	32.7	3.24
5	WT-DG-BB	2,093,902	0.144	848,979	71,493	44.0	2.46
6	PV-DG	4,664,523	0.322	1,104,492	204,445	18.8	5.96
7	WT-DG	3,169,301	0.219	849,500	133,221	35.2	3.14
8	PV-BB	2,958,101	0.204	1,852,726	63,479	18.9	5.34
9	WT-BB	3,507,598	0.242	1,724,731	102,386	18.9	4.96
10	DG	6,948,616	0.479	101,500	393,215	–	–

Figure 9. Environmental assessment showing (a) fuel consumption, and (b) CO₂ and total GHG emissions for each hybrid configuation.

Table 11. Environmental assessment for each hybrid configuation.

No.	Configuration	Fuel consumption (L/year)	GHG emissions (kg/year)							REF (%)
			CO₂	CO	UHC	PM	SO₂	NOₓ	Total
1	PV-WT-DG-BB	12,473	32,650	206	8.98	1.25	80	193	33,139	95.3
2	PV-WT-DG	59,036	154,533	974	42.50	5.90	378	915	156,848	77.9
3	PV-WT-BB	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	100
4	PV-DG-BB	12,183	31,890	201	8.77	1.22	78	189	32,368	95.4
5	WT-DG-BB	27,857	72,920	460	20.10	2.79	179	432	74,014	88.9
6	PV-DG	129,805	339,780	2142	93.50	13.00	832	2012	344,873	51.4
7	WT-DG	84,856	222,121	1400	61.10	8.49	544	1315	225,450	66.8
8	PV-BB	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	100
9	WT-BB	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	100
10	DG	284,985	745,982	4702	205.00	28.50	1827	4417	757,162	0

Figure 10. Optimal configuration (No. 3. PV-WT-BB) electrical generation dispatch in MWh.

Figure 11. Weather data at KNPR showing (a) solar irradiance and cell temperature, (b) wind speed for a typical summer day (July 19), (c) solar irradiance and cell temperature, and (d) wind speed for a typical winter day (December 23).

Figure 12. Hourly analysis for the optimal HRES configuration no. 3 (PV-WT-BB) showing (a) electrical generated power and load served, (b) BB energy status for a typical summer day (July 19th), (c) electrical generated power and load served, and (d) BB energy status for a typical winter day (December 23rd).

Figure 13. Cumulative cash flow in US dollar for both DG and PV-WT-BB configurations over the project’s lifetime.

Table 12. Cost breakdown of the PV-WT-BB configuration based on cost type and component over the project lifetime.

Component	Capital ($)	O & M ($)	Replacement ($)	Salvage ($)	Total ($)
PV	720,104	152,809	176,666	−32,508	1,017,071
WT	340,000	59,205	188,250	−121,789	465,665
BB	213,600	123,982	429,712*	−43,721	723,572
System	1,273,704	335,995	794,628	−198,019	2,206,308

*Batteries are estimated to be replaced every 7 years leading to a higher replacement cost than initial capital cost.

Table 13. Comparison between optimal HRES configuration and base case of DG.

Configuration	Total generation (kWh/year)	NPC ($)	LCOE ($/kWh)	CAPEX ($)	OPEX ($/year)	GHG emissions (kg/year)	REF (%)
PV-WT-BB	1,821,732	2,206,308	0.152	1,273,704	53,557	0	100
DG	973,155	6,948,616	0.479	101,500	393,215	757,162	0
Difference (%)	+87.20%	−68.25%	−68.27%	+1,154.88%	−86.38%	−100%	+100%

Table 14. Sensitivity analysis performed on optimal HRES configuration (PV-WT-BB) by only varying number of WTs.

Number of WTs	Components Rated Capacity			NPC ($)	Total Generation (kWh/year)	Generation contribution
	PV (kW)	WT (kW)	BB (kWh)			PV (%)	WT (%)
7	575	140	1953	2,321,712	1,610,568	62.9	37.1
8	523	160	1902	2,289,744	1,604,181	57.4	42.6
9	566	180	1539	2,256,268	1,766,090	56.5	43.5
10*	550	200	1426	2,154,398	1,822,569	53.2	46.8
11	523	220	1467	2,182,371	1,859,919	49.5	50.5
12	477	240	1476	2,192,256	1,864,354	45.1	54.9
13	483	260	1394	2,195,828	1,959,905	43.4	56.6
14	496	280	1324	2,228,088	2,069,172	42.3	57.7
15	432	300	1436	2,252,005	2,041,903	37.3	62.7

*This closely represents the optimal configuration selected and assessed in Section 3.

Table 15. Sensitivity analysis performed on optimal HRES configuration (PV-WT-BB) by only varying PV capacity.

Components Rated Capacity			NPC ($)	Total Generation (kWh/year)	Generation contribution
PV (kW)	WT (kW)	BB (kWh)			PV (%)	WT (%)
470	240	1515	2,194,066	1,852,302	44.7	55.3
490	240	1443	2,184,272	1,887,542	45.7	54.3
510	220	1456	2,171,171	1,837,435	48.9	51.1
530	200	1485	2,168,255	1,787,329	52.2	47.8
550*	200	1426	2,154,398	1,822,569	53.2	46.8
570	200	1374	2,158,191	1,857,809	54.1	45.9
590	200	1367	2,174,148	1,893,049	54.9	45.1
610	200	1307	2,176,754	1,928,289	55.7	44.3
630	200	1307	2,189,732	1,963,529	56.5	43.5
650	180	1347	2,193,108	1,913,422	59.9	40.1

*This closely represents the optimal configuration selected and assessed in Section 3.

Dar Al-Handasah. 2024. “Kuwait Master Plan 2040.” [Online]. Accessed April 9, 2024. https://www.dar.com/work/project/kuwait-master-plan-2040.

 Google Scholar

NASA Langley Research Center. 2024. [Online]. Accessed April 9, 2024. https://power.larc.nasa.gov/.

 Google Scholar

SunPower Corporation. 2024. [Online]. Accessed April 9, 2024. https://us.sunpower.com/products/solar-panels.

 Google Scholar

Eocycle. 2024. [Online]. Accessed April 9, 2024. https://eocycle.com/.

 Google Scholar

UL Solutions. 2024. “Information about HOMER Pro.” [Online]. Accessed April 9, 2024. https://www.homerenergy.com/products/pro/index.html.

 Google Scholar