## 3 Results
### Scenario I: Economic Optimization  
After analyzing various configurations using HOMER software, the most optimal configurations have been identified to achieve the most cost-effective operation under the existing conditions. These configurations are summarized in Table 2.  
Table 2 demonstrates that integrating renewable energy technologies often yields greater economic efficiency than relying exclusively on the main grid. For example, Configuration No. 1 (the Proposed System), which includes 147 kW of PV, exhibits an NPC of USD 3.27 M--USD 90,000 lower than the Base Case (USD 3.36 M), which uses only the grid. Its LCOE of 0.182 USD/kWh also betters the 0.190 USD/kWh of the Base Case, underscoring the cost-effectiveness of introducing renewables. The Proposed System requires a higher initial investment (USD 396,148) than the Base Case (USD 0). However, it benefits from reduced annual O&M expenses of USD 208,764. This reduction results in annual savings of USD 35,078 compared to the Base Case. These savings reflect lower reliance on grid power and efficient deployment of on-site generation. Although WTs appear in some configurations (e.g., No. 2 and No. 4), their geographical constraints yield only modest gains in renewable fraction (up to about 15.8%) compared to PV-dominated systems. Similarly, BES can further reduce grid dependency, yet they remain costly due to high upfront expenses and shorter lifespans. Even so, hybrid systems that combine PV, WTs, and/or limited BES often balance overall costs and raise renewable penetration to about 15-16%, lowering emissions relative to a 0% renewable scenario. Regarding environmental impact, each increment in renewable fraction directly reduces the reliance on conventional power sources, suggesting lower greenhouse gas emissions than the fully grid-based alternative. This trade-off involves higher initial capital requirements for equipment like PV modules and BES systems, which is offset by long-term economic and environmental benefits in most configurations. Ultimately, the data confirm \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**No.**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Architecture**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Cost**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**System**} \\ \cline{2-11}  & **PV (kW)** & **WT (\#)** & **BES (\#)** & **Con.** & **(kW)** & **Grid** & **Dispatch** & **NPC** & **LCOE** & **O\&M** & **Initial** & **Ren.** \\  & & & & & & **(USD)** & **(USD)** & **(USD)** & **(USD)** & **(USD)** & **Frac (\%)** \\ \hline
1 & 147 & - & - & 99.3 & Inf. & CC & 3.27 M & 0.182 & 208,764 & 396,148 & 15.1 \\
2 & 135 & 1 & - & 102 & Inf. & CC & 3.28 M & 0.183 & 207,743 & 418,912 & 15.7 \\
3 & 152 & - & 16 & 102 & Inf. & CC & 3.28 M & 0.182 & 208,103 & 415,745 & 15.6 \\
4 & 137 & 1 & 4 & 125 & Inf. & LF & 3.29 M & 0.183 & 207,670 & 430,254 & 15.8 \\
5 & - & - & - & - & Inf. & CC & 3.36 M & 0.190 & 243,842 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Scenario I: best results. that partial renewable adoption--especially via PV--can achieve cost savings, improve sustainability, and lower annual operating costs while maintaining feasible overall economics. Figure 8 shows the cumulative discounted cash flow over the 20-year project lifetime for the Base Case and the Proposed System. Although the Proposed System's simple payback period is around 12 years, its discounted payback extends to 17.31 years--reflecting the time value of money and thus providing a more accurate measure of how quickly the initial costs are recovered. Despite this longer discounted payback, the Proposed System's cash flow curve remains higher (i.e., less negative) than that of the Base Case towards the end of the timeline. By the end of the project, this translates into a net advantage of about USD 90,000 for the Proposed System. Key economic indicators for the Proposed System emphasize its financial viability. With an IRR of 6.0%--exceeding the real discount rate of 3.85%--the project demonstrates profitability over its lifespan.