## 3 Results
### Scenario II: Economic Optimization
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**No.**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Architecture**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Cost**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**System**} \\ \cline{2-13}  & **PV** & **PV** & **(\#)** & **BES** & **Conv.** & **Grid** & **BG** & **Dispatch** & **NPC** & **LCOE** & **O\&M** & **Initial** & **Ren.** & **Fuel** \\  & **(kW)** & **WT (\#)** & **BES** & **(\#)** & **(kW)** & **Grid** & **(kW)** & **(USD)** & **(USD)** & **(USD)** & **(USD)** & **(USD)** & **(USD)** & **(U)** \\ \hline
1 & 144 & - & - & 97 & Inf. & 200 & CC & 4.93 M & 0.274 & 286,188 & 988,787 & 71.1 & 2225 \\
2 & 184 & - & 4 & 115 & Inf. & 200 & LF & 4.94 M & 0.271 & 279,183 & 1.10 M & 73.8 & 2222 \\
3 & 155 & 1 & - & 96 & Inf. & 200 & CC & 4.95 M & 0.274 & 281,643 & 1.07 M & 72.8 & 2210 \\
4 & 262 & 1 & 4 & 143 & Inf. & 200 & LF & 5.01 M & 0.264 & 265,450 & 1.35 M & 78.5 & 2205 \\
5 & - & - & - & - & Inf. & 200 & CC & 5.01 M & 0.283 & 320,444 & 0.6 M & 57.5 & 2233 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Scenario II best results. As shown in Figure 12, in Scenario II, the BG dominates the total project cost, accounting for 72.6%, reflecting its significant role in the system. The grid contributes 19.6%, a notable reduction from Scenario I, while PV maintains a smaller yet consistent share of 7.0%. The converter represents 0.7% of the total, underscoring its minimal contribution. This cost distribution highlights the system's reliance on BG as the primary energy source, complemented by the grid and PV to ensure reliability and renewable integration. Moreover, HOMER's capacity optimization for the BG--considering fuel costs, operational constraints, and site-specific conditions--drives its dominant cost share, while targeted PV usage helps offset grid dependence and mitigate long-term operational expenses. Figure 13 illustrates the cumulative cash flow of the project, categorized by equipment, over the analysis period for better economic insight. As observed, BG consistently accounts for the largest share of costs across all years, reflecting its dominant role in the system's financial structure. Following BG, grid electricity purchases represent the second most significant expense, highlighting the system's reliance on external power sources. Other  
Figure 11: Cash flow for the Proposed System and the Base Case in Scenario II. Figure 12: Cost summary of the Proposed System in Scenario II. components, including PV and the converter, contribute comparatively smaller portions only during the initial investment phase and occasional replacement years. If the discounted cash flow based on the cost type is analyzed as presented in Figure 14, it becomes evident that the project initially incurs a high capital investment. Over the operational years, O&M costs for the BG remain significant due to its relatively high operating hours, alongside grid electricity expenses, which also contribute notably. Additionally, fuel costs for biomass consumption in BG become increasingly visible throughout the project's lifetime. Furthermore, the chart shows that the BG system requires replacement four times during the analysis period, marking key investment points. The converter was also replaced once, but its cost was relatively minor compared to other expenditures. Figure 15 illustrates the distribution of energy supply and consumption for Scenario II. The inner ring shows BG supplying 734.8 MWh (55.8%), PV providing 205.2 MWh (15.6%), and the grid contributing 376.9 MWh (28.6%). The outer ring further breaks down how this energy is utilized: BG primarily supplies the load (734.3 MWh, 55.8%), with  
Figure 14: Discounted cash flow by cost type for the Proposed System in Scenario II. Figure 13: Discounted cash flow by component for the Proposed System in Scenario II. only a negligible export of 0.5 MWh to the grid. PV energy is mainly consumed on-site (185.4 MWh, 14.1%), while 19.8 MWh (1.5%) is sold back to the grid.