## 3 Results
### Scenario II: Economic Optimization  
Next, the results of the second scenario, which involves the implementation of a BG, are presented in Table 3. This approach leverages the availability of livestock waste in the region to enhance energy production. BG offers economic benefits and aims to increase the microgrid's independence from the main grid. By reducing reliance on the grid, this configuration addresses frequent outages and power interruptions, thereby improving reliability and ensuring a more stable energy supply. Figure 10: Energy share of the Proposed System in Scenario I.  
Figure 9: Cost summary of the Proposed System in Scenario I. Like Scenario I, integrating renewable energy equipment in Scenario II improves system performance. It reduces long-term costs, with PV panels dominating WTs and BES systems. A noteworthy example is Configuration No. 1 (the Proposed System), which combines 144 kW of PV, a 200 kW BG unit, and the main grid. This setup achieves an NPC of USD 4.93 M, slightly lower than the USD 5.01 M of the Base Case (Configuration No. 5). The Base Case relies on no PV, no WT, and a 200 kW BG alongside the main grid. Although the Proposed System's initial capital cost is higher (USD 988,787 vs. USD 600,000), it significantly cuts O&M expenses--286,188 USD/year instead of 320,444 USD/year--and yields a lower LCOE of 0.274 USD/kWh compared to 0.283 USD/kWh in the Base Case. Despite the greater upfront investment, these savings highlight the economic advantages of adopting PV. Regarding renewable energy fraction, the Proposed System (Configuration No. 1) achieves 71.1%, substantially higher than the 57.5% in the Base Case. Other configurations, like No. 4, push the renewable fraction up to 78.5%, albeit with a slightly higher NPC of USD 5.01 M--reflecting a trade-off between maximizing renewables and minimizing costs. As with Scenario I, WTs and BES systems play secondary roles due to geographical limitations and higher capital costs. Nonetheless, each increment in renewable penetration contributes to a lower environmental impact by reducing reliance on conventional energy, underscoring the potential for hybrid systems to balance economic viability with sustainability goals. Figure 11 illustrates the cumulative discounted cash flow over 20 years for the Base Case and the Proposed System. Both systems exhibit a steady decline in cash flow due to operating and maintenance costs; however, the Proposed System consistently performs better, showing less negative cash flow throughout the period. This demonstrates the long-term economic advantage of integrating renewable energy technologies. The gap between the two systems widens over time, highlighting the cost-saving benefits of the Proposed System in reducing reliance on the grid and optimizing operational expenses. By year 20, the cumulative savings of the Proposed System over the Base Case become substantial, emphasizing its financial feasibility and sustainability. The system has a discounted payback period of 17.44 years, meaning the initial capital investment is recovered within this timeframe, leaving more than two years of net financial benefit over the system's 20-year lifetime. Key economic metrics for the Proposed System demonstrate its robust financial viability. The 6.0% IRR represents the rate of return over the system's lifetime--a modest but acceptable value for renewable energy projects. The ROI is 4.2%, reflecting the net benefit of the project relative to its total investment, which, while modest, confirms its economic feasibility. These metrics highlight the system's long-term economic viability, like Scenario I.