# A Technoeconomic Feasibility Analysis for Affordable Energy System in the East African Community Countries

Authors: Samuel Bimenyimana; Chen Wang; Godwin Norense Osarumwense Asemota; Aphrodis Nduwamungu; Cicilia Kemunto Mesa; Jeanne Paula Ihirwe; Jean De Dieu Niyonteze; Shilpi Bora; Chun-Ling Ho; Noel Hagumimana; Yiyi Mo
Journal: International Journal of Photoenergy
 (2021)

---

## Abstract

Access to energy is among the key pillars to socioeconomic and improved life style. The East African Community (EAC) countries, also members of sub-Saharan Africa, are among countries with enough energy resources but still struggling with low electricity access, and the lower proportion of citizens with electricity access challenges such as expensive tariff, frequent blackouts, and unreliable service still persists. Diesel technology is among the easy and fast installation technologies for a location with an urgent need of electricity while solar is a clean technology with free fuel. Considering the diversity of electricity tariffs, cost of diesel fuel, and suitability to solar energy exploitation in EAC, this paper intends to provide a technoeconomic analysis for reliable, affordable, and sustainable energy system in the region. A daily load of 94.44 kWh recorded from averaging electricity bills of a luxury house in Kigali, Rwanda, is used as research object, and HOMER simulations are carried on considering the level of such daily load being supplied by either (a) diesel generator, (b)solar+diesel technology, (c) PV+battery storage, or (d) PV+batterystorage+grid system in each member country of the EAC. The results show that (a) solar energy is a feasible and applicable technology for energy generation for the whole six EAC countries; (b) for South Sudan, if it is a standalone system, the diesel technology is less costly than solar technology; however, solar energy can still be recommended to be adopted as it has no gas emissions; (c) except South Sudan, PV+battery storage technology is found to be more affordable and cleaner than any technology including diesel; and (d) the option of connecting PV+battery storage to the grid is found more economical for locations where grid interaction is possible because their levelized electricity costs (LCOE) are lower than the real electricity tariffs currently in use within each of the six EAC countries. The solar energy system with battery storage (both off-grid and grid connected) proposed in this research can lead to an efficient increase of national energy resource exploitation in the EAC countries, resulting in reliable, affordable, and sustainable energy access to all the citizenry of the EAC.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Access to energy is among the key pillars to socioeconomic and improved life style [1]. Key indicators from different research perspectives show that electrification has acquired steady progress worldwide within the past decade. However, there is a huge population around the globe who has not yet acquired access to electricity (estimation of 770 million population globally with energy poverty where around 577.5 million (75%) are located in sub-Saharan Africa) [2, 3]. Living without access to electricity is a major challenge and ultimate economic obstacle as it prevents people from fully participating in the modern economy. The East African Community (EAC) countries, which are also members of sub-Saharan Africa, are among countries with enough energy resources but still struggling with low electricity access, and to the lower proportion of citizens with electricity access, challenges such as expensive tariffs, frequent blackouts, and unreliable service still persist [4, 5]. Figure 1 indicates the actual location of the East African Community countries as both an economic and a linguistic block on the map of Africa [6].Figure 1
Location of EAC countries on the map of Africa.In modern era, different technologies (renewables and nonrenewable) are adopted, and others are being developed all for the purpose of taking off energy crisis and shortage worldwide in different countries. Diesel technology is a fast and rapid energy solution for a location with urgent need of electrification due to its straightforward and swift installation; diesel generators are highly useful devices that apply diesel fuel to generate electricity [1, 3, 5]. To produce electricity, these devices combine an electric generator with a diesel engine. However, with the current mitigation policies and regulations, their adoptions must be carefully analysed before their recommended usage to a certain area [3]. Solar energy technologies transform sunlight radiations into usable electrical energy either through PV modules or mirrors that concentrate sunlight radiation. This energy can be utilized to produce electric power or can be kept in energy-storing devices (batteries) or thermal storage battery devices. Africa is considered the “sun mainland” or the landmass with the highest sun’s effect. Also, the “World Sunshine Map” indicates that Africa receives abundant sunlight all year than other continents on the Earth. Despite the enormous solar capacity, the penetration of solar power in Africa is presently very low [7–11]. Photovoltaic solar energy is a viable and promising alternative and prospect because it authorizes the rapid deployment of carbon-free, economically accessible energy on a large scale. But, only a limited number of solar technologies have been installed in Africa to date.Except diesel technology and solar energy, there are other energy technologies like hydropower, coal-fired, biomass, wind, tidal, geothermal, and bioenergy. Hybrid energy technology and systems tie together two or more technologies in order to build more effective systems. They integrate multiple power generation and storage units to meet the needs of the environment [12]. There is some existing research exploring and analysing technoeconomic concepts of applicability and adoption of different renewable energies in some African regions such as sub-Saharan Africa and each country as well; however, (a) there is no existing research analysing solution to affordable energy option for the whole EAC country members; (b) some EAC members such as Burundi and South Sudan still have not enough scientific research works published investigating technoeconomic situation related to renewable energy exploration. Thus, the research in this paper is intended to provide cost comparison of technology approaches which can lead to affordable and reliable energy systems and services in the East African Community countries. Different alternative technologies: (a) diesel technology, (b) solar PV+diesel technology, (c) PV+battery storage, and (d) PV+storage battery + grid, are analysed to find the least cost and affordable technology with respect to different climatic weather conditions and diesel fuel price levels in the six EAC countries. It is hypothesised that high solar energy exploitation in EAC countries can contribute a lot to ameliorate the energy crisis and shortage in EAC with citizens without electricity access and solve the affordability and unreliability issues for grid-connected users in the region. Table 1 describes the analogy of different state-of-the-art analyses with the proposed solution.Table 1
Analogy of different state-of-the-art analyses with the proposed solution.
ReferenceCountry of applicationResource parametersPower ratings of model architectureExpression of initial capital costOperating cost ($/year)NPC(US$)LCOE (US$/kWh)Other metric parameters[27]Mbuguni, Arumeru district, TanzaniaGlobal horizontal irradiation for the entire country varies between 5.2 and 6.4 kWh/m2Annual average solar irradiation: 5.6 kWh/m2/dayAnnual average wind speed: 5.17 m/sSPV-W-GENSolar PV: 0.764 kW1 wind turbine: 1 kW5 batteries: 12 V, 83.4 AhConverter system: 0.824 kWGenerator: 1.40 kWCapital costSolar PV: 1000$/kWWind turbine: 780$/kWBattery: 150$Replacement costSolar PV: 900$/kWWind turbine: 780$/kWBattery: $150239.866259.860.2146752.42 L of dieselSPVSolar PV: 3.36 kW16 batteries: 12 V, 83.4 AhConverter system: 1.37 kW359.3010638.520.32599Pure renewableSPV-windSolar PV: 1.30 kW1 wind turbine: 1 kW10 batteries: 12 V, 83.4 AhConverter system: 1.15 kW218.957110.530.24394Pure renewableSPV-GenSolar PV: 2.25 kW9 batteries: 12 V, 83.4 AhConverter system: 1.1 kWGenerator: 1.40 kW388.909505.970.3259969.92 L of dieselWind-Gen10 batteries: 12 V, 83.4 AhConverter system: 0.75 kWGenerator: 1.40 kW413.818031.250.27541183.32 L of dieselGenGenerator: 1.40 kW2409.9431,854.571.092381654.39 L of diesel[28]Djounde, Mora, Cameroon11° 30′ 00″ north14° 18′ 00″ eastAverage annual wind speed at the site was 4.95 m/s at 50 m anemometer6.67 kWh/m2/day maximum solar irradiation and minimum: 4.77 kWh/m2/dayPV: 81.8 kWBiogas generator: 15 kWWind turbine:Pumped hydrostorageconverter: 40 kW323,750$4031451165.190.316Power production (kWh/year)PV array: 141,046Wind turbine: 0Biogas generator: 17,794Total: 158,840Consumption (kWh/year)125,056[29]Batocha, Cameroon5.93 kWh/m2/dayAnnual average horizontal irradiation9 L/s annual average flow rateSolar PV: 5 kWHydroturbine: 2.12 kWDiesel: 1 kW125 batteriesInverter: 6 kWRectifier: 6 kWSolar PV: 21,000$Hydroturbine: 6000$Diesel: 1000$Batteries: 3000$Converter:5143$Total system replacement: 28,897$PV: 703Hydroturbine: 1562Diesel:1765Battery: 976Converter: 1339Other: 10170,0420.278Power production (kWh/year)PV array: 9831.0 (39.0%)Diesel: 191.0 (1.0%)Hydroturbine: 15,493.0 (61.0%)Unmet load: 172.0 (1.0%)Capacity shortage: 309.0 (2.0%)Excess electricity: 9110.0 (33.0%)[30]Rwanda—Hydro: 10 kWWind turbine: 100 kWSolar PV: 1.09 kWConverter: 0.05 kWCapital costWind turbine: 80,000$Hydro: 20,000$Solar PV: 16,000$Batteries (1 kWh each): 2400$Converter: 30,000$1895.49126,324.100.1715Production (kWh/year)Hydro: 122,716 (82.6%)Solar PV: 1620 (1.09%)Wind turbine: 24,203 (16.3%)Hydro (1 turbine): 10 kWPV: 1.09 kWConverter: 10 kW1495.4941,210.800.05601Production (kWh/year)Hydro: 122,716 (98.7%)Solar PV: 1620 (1.3%)Hydro: 10 kWWind turbine: 100 kW1873.48124,175.900.1688Production (kWh/year)Hydro: 122,716 (83.5%)Wind turbine: 24,401.3 (16.5%)[26]Golbo II village, Adaa district, Oromia Region, EthiopiaSolar radiation: 3.74 kWh/m2/dayScenario 1Solar PV: 20 kW3 wind turbines: 3 kWDiesel generator: 5 kW24 batteries: 2 V, 3000 AhConverterWind turbine: initial cost 2000$/kWReplacement 1600$/kWDiesel generators:Capital outlay: USD 250/kWRestoration: USD 200/kWhConverter; capital cost: 1300.0 USD/kWReplacement: 1000 USD/kWBatteries:Capital cost: 400 USD/kWhReplacement: 300 USD/kWhWind turbine 50$/year/turbineDiesel generator: USD 0.3/hourConverter: 5 USD/yearBattery: 20 USD/year82,7340.207Power productionPV array: 41,957 (80%)Wind turbines: 7306 (14%)Generator: 3073 (6%)Total production: 52336 kWhAC primary load served: 37,780 kWhExcess electricity: 5779 kWh (11%)Unmet load: 1676 kWh (4%)Capacity shortage: 2295 kWh (6%)Solar radiation: 3.74 kWh/m2/dayDiesel consumption: 2233 LScenario 2Solar PV array: 20 kWDiesel generator: 7 kW24 batteries: 2 V 3000 Ah85,7540.214Power production:PV array: 41,957 (87%)Generator: 6014 (13%)Total production: 47,970 kWhAC primary load served: 37,838 kWhExcess electricity: 1686 kWh (4%)Unmet load: 1619 kWh (4%)Capacity shortage: 2303 kWh (6%)Diesel consumption: 12,973 LScenario 33 water turbine: 3 kW each24 batteries: 2 V, 3000 AhDiesel generator: 7 kW141,1260.352—Diesel consumption: 15,278 LScenario 4Diesel generator: 7 kW20 batteries: 2 V, 3000 Ah153,2490.384—[31]Ethiopia 23 sitesSite 1: SerwatDiesel consumption: 17,507 L/year5 wind turbines:Diesel generator: 110 kW240 batteriesConverter: 100 kWUSD 501,031—1,248,1190.574Renewable fraction: 0.86Diesel consumption: 16,898 L/yearSolar PV: 5 kW5 wind turbines:Diesel generator: 110 kW240 batteriesConverter: 100 kWUSD 521,031—1,253,5990.576Renewable fraction: 0.87Diesel consumption: 5767 L/yearSolar PV: 180 kWDiesel generator: 70 kW400 batteriesConverter: 150 kWUSD 1,170,839—1,526,6340.702Renewable fraction: 0.94Diesel consumption: 0 L/yearSolar PV: 180 kW3 wind turbines560 batteriesConverter: 130 kWUSD 1,404,230—1,733,9540.797Renewable fraction: 1.00Diesel consumption137,797 L/yearDiesel generator: 150 kWUSD 27,083—6,161,8422.831Renewable fraction: 0Site 2: Feleg DaeroDiesel consumption: 11,299 L/yearSolar PV: 30 kW2 wind turbines:Diesel generator: 50 kW120 batteriesConverter: 50 kWUSD 353,875—754,4080.605Renewable fraction: 0.85Diesel consumption: 13,092 L/year3 wind turbines:Diesel generator: 50 kW160 batteriesConverter: 70 kWUSD 323,445—766,3240.614Renewable fraction: 0.85Diesel consumption: 5991 L/yearSolar PV: 100 kWDiesel generator: 30 kW200 batteriesConverter: 70 kWUSD 624,249—$886,4660.711Renewable fraction: 0.91Solar PV: 100 kW2 wind turbines, 320 batteriesConverter: 90 kWUSD 814,060—1,030,8600.827Renewable fraction: 1.00Diesel consumption: 89,144 L/yearDiesel generator: 85 kWUSD 24,505—3,758,7763.012Renewable fraction: 0.00Site 3: Adi MesanuDiesel consumption: 2184 L/yearSolar PV: 5 kW1 wind turbineDiesel generator: 10 kW32 batteriesConverter: 10 kWUSD 101,081—191,5800.410Renewable fraction: 0.90Diesel consumption: 3377 L/year1 wind turbineDiesel generator: 10 kW32 batteriesConverter: 10 kWUSD 81,081—$198,2610.425Renewable fraction: 0.84Solar PV: 15 kW1 wind turbine80 batteriesConverter: 15 kWUSD 179,390—241,0490.517Renewable fraction: 1.00Diesel consumption: 22,009 L/yearDiesel generator: 15 kWUSD 7762—781,3171.673Renewable fraction: 0.00[32]Khartoum, Sudan—Solar PV: 0.15 kW2 batteries: 6 V, 225 Ah150.98707$—224.12690.12—Solar PV: 1 kW1 wind generator: 3 turbines, 0.5 kW16 batteries: 6 V, 225 Ah1902.8909$—2052.87770.06—Solar PV: 2 kW1 wind generator: 3 turbines, 0.5 kW24 batteries: 6 V, 225 Ah2388.1036$—3569.8720.05—Solar PV: 2.5 kW2 wind generators24 batteries: 6 V, 225 Ah5338.6579$—4878.20710.06$/kWh—Solar PV: 3.5 kW2 wind generators3 turbines, 0.5 kW8 batteries 6 V, 225 Ah3823.3956$—4735.23410.04—[33]Sokoto, NigeriaLatitude 10.0° N and longitude 8.0° EWind speed: between 4.5 m/s and 5.2 m/s at ≥10 mSolar/wind systemSolar PV: 35.21 kWWind turbine: 25.0 kW and 4.75 kW mean output24 batteries: 12 V, 83400 AhConverter: inverter: 17.44 kWRectifier: 15.66 kWCapital costSolar PV: 105,604.91 USDWind turbine: 58,333.33Battery: 80,700 USDConverter: 5232 USDTotal system cost: 249910.24 USDOperation & replacement cost for solar PV: 4501.66Wind turbine: 33,102.53Battery: 96,930.33Converter: 2183Total system replacement cost: 82914.85Maintenance cost: 53802.80——Total production/year: 93,300 kWhPV: 57.5%Wind: 42.5%[34]NyongYapalsi, Karaga district, Ghana9° 46.601′ N, 0° 36.944′ WSolar resource: average annual solar irradiance of 5.57 kWh/m2/daySolar PV minigrid with storage batteriesSolar PV: 24.4 kWConverter: 11.4 kW156 batteries: 12 V, 200 AhCapital cost: $72,324.00Operating cost: $4233/yr.119,479.00$0.480Total electricity production: 53,211 kWhSurplus: 46.5%Solar PV minigrid with storage batteriesSolar PV: 24.4 kWConverter: 11.4 kW156 batteries: 12 V, 200 AhThis arrangement has free solar PV panels——82,166.00$0.330—[35]Gweru, ZimbabweWind potential: 15.0 W/m2 in Kariba to 115.0 W/m2 at 50.0 m hub height in GweruMonthly wind speed: 4.215 m/sSolar potential: 5.81 kWh/m2/day annual averageSolar PV-wind hybrid:Battery capacity: 245.0 Ah/24.0 VPower source: 300.0 W Wind turbine and2×125.0 W PV modulesLED streetlights 80 W/24 VCharge controller 20 A/24 V Solar-WindHybrid (PMW)——4350.00.175400−245/400=38.75%Energy storage reduced by 38.75%PV stand-aloneBattery capacity 400 Ah/24 VPower source: 2×210.0 W PV modulesLED streetlights: 80.0 W/24 VCharge controller20.0 A/24 V Solar chargerController (PWM)—————[36]South AfricaSolar PV: 5 kW30 batteries 2 V, 720 Ah:Generator: 5.5 kW, 50 Hz, rpm3000Converter: 6 kWCapital cost:Solar PV: $4250Battery: $269Generator: $313Converter: $3731Fuel: $0.7/L: $32,990Fuel: $0.9/L: $15,398—$62,402.0 at 0.7$/L$65,833.0 at 0.9$/L—Least case diesel use (Upington) 1267.0 L/year at $0.7/L and 1275 L/year at $0.9/L3.336 tons/year CO2 emissions for diesel priced at 0.7$/L and 3.359 tons/year CO2 emissions for diesel priced at 0.7$/LConversion rate: 1 euro equals 1.2179631$; 1$ equal to 409.903 Sudan Pound; date of conversion: 23rd May 2021; conversion source: https://www.xe.com/. Table 1 indicates the analogy of different state-of-the-art analyses (studies using different energy technologies including renewable and conventional energy resources) and the proposed solution. It can be seen that different parameters such as net present value cost (NPC), levelized electricity expense (LCOE), renewable energy percentage, and electricity production from the system have played a key role in deciding and concluding the energy system which is optimal, reliable, sustainable, and affordable for the study cases.


## 2. Experimental Methodology

### 2.1. Site Location and Visit

Site visits were made to an electricity user with luxury house located in Rwanda, Kigali city (Kimisagara National Road, Kigali, Rwanda) (1° 57.2′ S, 30° 2.8′ E), and its average electric load was calculated based on the electricity bill for the past eight months and the electricity tariff. The average load was estimated at 23.85 kW daily peak load, 182°kWh per day, and 66430°kWh annual load. This load structure was used as a research object in the other five EAC countries with different locations (as shown in Figure 2) such as at 2 Mulago III 2662, Kampala, Uganda (0° 20.8′ N, 32° 34.9′ E), for Uganda; at Unnamed Road, Dodoma, Tanzania (6° 10.3′ S, 35° 45.6′ E), for Tanzania; at Times Tower, Nairobi, Kenya (1° 17.5′ S, 36° 49.4′ E), for Kenya; at Bentiu, South Sudan (9° 13.9′ N, 29° 48.0′ E), for South Sudan; and at Chaussee de L’Agriculture, Bujumbura, Burundi (3° 21.7′ S, 29° 21.5′ E), for Burundi. The luxury house electric load data was used in the paper to prove that solar energy can still be an affordable and reliable option regardless of the energy consumption size range.Figure 2
A map that depicts different selected sites in the East African Community countries: (a) is the Kimisagara National Road, Kigali, Rwanda (1° 57.2′ S, 30° 2.8′ E); (b) is the Chaussee de L’Agriculture, Bujumbura, Burundi (3° 21.7′ S, 29° 21.5′ E); (c) is the 2 Mulago III 2662, Kampala, Uganda (0° 20.8′ N, 32° 34.9′ E); (d) is the Unnamed Road, Dodoma, Tanzania (6° 10.3′ S, 35° 45.6′ E); (e) is the Times Tower, Nairobi, Kenya (1° 17.5′ S, 36° 49.4′ E); while the Bentiu, South Sudan (9° 13.9′ N, 29° 48.0′ E) is shown in (f).


### 2.2. Load Profile

Figure3 depicts the daily load variation of the luxury house used in the research.Figure 3
Daily load variation for the luxury house used as a research object.The load pattern indicates a fluctuation from 4.00 kW (0.00 hr) to 2.50 kW (04.075 hrs), 5.00 kW (05.00 hrs), 10.00 kW (08.15 hrs), 9.25 kW (9.15 hrs), 12.00 kW (13.225 hrs), 9.00 (15.00 hrs), 10.00 kW (16.375 hrs), 15.00 kW (18.45 hrs), 16.50 kW peak (19.30 hrs), 15.00 kW (20.00 hrs), and 7.00 kW (23.45 hrs).


### 2.3. HOMER Simulation and Scenario Analysis

The scenarios to be carefully analysed as shown in Figure4, include (a) use the diesel system to supply the loads during day and night times; (b) solar PV system without battery storage system to supply the loads at daytime and diesel generator as alternative to supply the load during daytime if the irradiance is not enough to generate the level of electricity which can satisfy the load and also at night; because there is no sunshine, the diesel generator will be the supply; (c) use the PV system with storage systems during daytime and night time,;(d) use the PV with storage the whole day to supply the loads and inject extra electricity to the grid or draw electricity from the grid in case the electricity generation capacity from the hybrid system is lower than the load capacity.Figure 4
Various configurations of energy technologies: (a) diesel technology, (b)diesel+PV technology, (c) PV+battery storage technology, and (d) PV+batterystorage+grid.
(a)(b)(c)(d)


### 2.4. Estimation of LCOE, NPC, and OPEX

The LCOE is also the income estimation needed to develop and run an energy/electricity generation plant during the cost recovery period. The LCOE can be expressed by Equations (1) and (2) [13–15].
(1)LCOE=CyclelifeofthetotallifeTotallifetimepowergenerated,(2)LCOE=∑t=1nIt+Mt+Ft/1+tt∑t=1nEt/1+tt,where It stands for the spending on investments for the year t; Mt, expenditures on operations and maintenance during the fiscal year t; Ft, fuel expenses for the year t; Et, amount of electrical energy produced in a given year t; r is the discount rate; and n is the anticipated system or power station lifespan.Homer software uses the concept shown in Equation (3) to calculate and compute the levelized cost of energy depending on different parameters.
(3)LCOE=Cann,tEprim+Edef+Egrid,sales,where Cann,t stands for the total cost for the whole year and Eprim and Edef stand for the yearly total primary and deferrable load.
(4)LCOEPV=∑t=0nCPVextra+CPVdirectt/1+rt∑t=0nEPVextra+EPVdirectt/1+rt,(5)LCOEEout=CPVextraηEPVdirect+CEESEEES.Then, the overall levelized cost of electricity for the whole hybrid system (stand-alone PV and storage)LCOEsystem can be expressed in the following equation.
(6)LCOEsystem=∑t=0nCsystem/1+rt∑t=0nEsystem/1+rt=CPVextra+CEES+CPVdirectEEES+EPVdirect,where r stands for the discount rate factor; n stands for the lifespan; EPVdirect and CPVdirect stand for the direct energy from the PV to the load and its cost, respectively; Esystem and Csystem stand for the system’s energy and its cost; and EEES and CEES stand for the energy in the energy storage device and its cost.The term “net present cost” (NPC) refers to the present value of all expenses during the term of interest, including residual values such as negative costs, all added together; it is the present value of all expenses associated with installing and running the Component during the project’s lifespan, subtracting the present value of all revenues earned over the project’s duration [4, 16, 17]. The operating expenses or expenditure (OPEX) refer to the expenses incurred by a firm in carrying out its day-to-day activities [18].The NPC (CNPC) and OPEX (can be expressed through the following equation [13]:
(7)CNPC=Cann,totCRFi,N,CRFi,N=i1+iN1+iN−1,COPEX=Cann,tot−Cann,cap,where Cann,tot stands for the annualized total cost, i stands for the interest rate (discount rate), N represents the project lifetime, Cann,cap stands for the annualized capital cost, and CRF stands for the capital recovery factor.From Figure5 [13], it can be seen that the climatic weather conditions and geographical location of different African countries are attractive to the exploitation of different renewable energy resources. Figure 6 [19–22] depicts the cost of diesel fuels as used in this research.Figure 5
Climatic weather parameters (annual) for the six EAC countries.
(a)
Temperature(b)
Clearness index(c)
IrradianceFigure 6
Diesel prices (USD/L) and electricity tariff (USD/kWh) for the six EAC countries.


## 2.1. Site Location and Visit

Site visits were made to an electricity user with luxury house located in Rwanda, Kigali city (Kimisagara National Road, Kigali, Rwanda) (1° 57.2′ S, 30° 2.8′ E), and its average electric load was calculated based on the electricity bill for the past eight months and the electricity tariff. The average load was estimated at 23.85 kW daily peak load, 182°kWh per day, and 66430°kWh annual load. This load structure was used as a research object in the other five EAC countries with different locations (as shown in Figure 2) such as at 2 Mulago III 2662, Kampala, Uganda (0° 20.8′ N, 32° 34.9′ E), for Uganda; at Unnamed Road, Dodoma, Tanzania (6° 10.3′ S, 35° 45.6′ E), for Tanzania; at Times Tower, Nairobi, Kenya (1° 17.5′ S, 36° 49.4′ E), for Kenya; at Bentiu, South Sudan (9° 13.9′ N, 29° 48.0′ E), for South Sudan; and at Chaussee de L’Agriculture, Bujumbura, Burundi (3° 21.7′ S, 29° 21.5′ E), for Burundi. The luxury house electric load data was used in the paper to prove that solar energy can still be an affordable and reliable option regardless of the energy consumption size range.Figure 2
A map that depicts different selected sites in the East African Community countries: (a) is the Kimisagara National Road, Kigali, Rwanda (1° 57.2′ S, 30° 2.8′ E); (b) is the Chaussee de L’Agriculture, Bujumbura, Burundi (3° 21.7′ S, 29° 21.5′ E); (c) is the 2 Mulago III 2662, Kampala, Uganda (0° 20.8′ N, 32° 34.9′ E); (d) is the Unnamed Road, Dodoma, Tanzania (6° 10.3′ S, 35° 45.6′ E); (e) is the Times Tower, Nairobi, Kenya (1° 17.5′ S, 36° 49.4′ E); while the Bentiu, South Sudan (9° 13.9′ N, 29° 48.0′ E) is shown in (f).


## 2.2. Load Profile

Figure3 depicts the daily load variation of the luxury house used in the research.Figure 3
Daily load variation for the luxury house used as a research object.The load pattern indicates a fluctuation from 4.00 kW (0.00 hr) to 2.50 kW (04.075 hrs), 5.00 kW (05.00 hrs), 10.00 kW (08.15 hrs), 9.25 kW (9.15 hrs), 12.00 kW (13.225 hrs), 9.00 (15.00 hrs), 10.00 kW (16.375 hrs), 15.00 kW (18.45 hrs), 16.50 kW peak (19.30 hrs), 15.00 kW (20.00 hrs), and 7.00 kW (23.45 hrs).


## 2.3. HOMER Simulation and Scenario Analysis

The scenarios to be carefully analysed as shown in Figure4, include (a) use the diesel system to supply the loads during day and night times; (b) solar PV system without battery storage system to supply the loads at daytime and diesel generator as alternative to supply the load during daytime if the irradiance is not enough to generate the level of electricity which can satisfy the load and also at night; because there is no sunshine, the diesel generator will be the supply; (c) use the PV system with storage systems during daytime and night time,;(d) use the PV with storage the whole day to supply the loads and inject extra electricity to the grid or draw electricity from the grid in case the electricity generation capacity from the hybrid system is lower than the load capacity.Figure 4
Various configurations of energy technologies: (a) diesel technology, (b)diesel+PV technology, (c) PV+battery storage technology, and (d) PV+batterystorage+grid.
(a)(b)(c)(d)


## 2.4. Estimation of LCOE, NPC, and OPEX

The LCOE is also the income estimation needed to develop and run an energy/electricity generation plant during the cost recovery period. The LCOE can be expressed by Equations (1) and (2) [13–15].
(1)LCOE=CyclelifeofthetotallifeTotallifetimepowergenerated,(2)LCOE=∑t=1nIt+Mt+Ft/1+tt∑t=1nEt/1+tt,where It stands for the spending on investments for the year t; Mt, expenditures on operations and maintenance during the fiscal year t; Ft, fuel expenses for the year t; Et, amount of electrical energy produced in a given year t; r is the discount rate; and n is the anticipated system or power station lifespan.Homer software uses the concept shown in Equation (3) to calculate and compute the levelized cost of energy depending on different parameters.
(3)LCOE=Cann,tEprim+Edef+Egrid,sales,where Cann,t stands for the total cost for the whole year and Eprim and Edef stand for the yearly total primary and deferrable load.
(4)LCOEPV=∑t=0nCPVextra+CPVdirectt/1+rt∑t=0nEPVextra+EPVdirectt/1+rt,(5)LCOEEout=CPVextraηEPVdirect+CEESEEES.Then, the overall levelized cost of electricity for the whole hybrid system (stand-alone PV and storage)LCOEsystem can be expressed in the following equation.
(6)LCOEsystem=∑t=0nCsystem/1+rt∑t=0nEsystem/1+rt=CPVextra+CEES+CPVdirectEEES+EPVdirect,where r stands for the discount rate factor; n stands for the lifespan; EPVdirect and CPVdirect stand for the direct energy from the PV to the load and its cost, respectively; Esystem and Csystem stand for the system’s energy and its cost; and EEES and CEES stand for the energy in the energy storage device and its cost.The term “net present cost” (NPC) refers to the present value of all expenses during the term of interest, including residual values such as negative costs, all added together; it is the present value of all expenses associated with installing and running the Component during the project’s lifespan, subtracting the present value of all revenues earned over the project’s duration [4, 16, 17]. The operating expenses or expenditure (OPEX) refer to the expenses incurred by a firm in carrying out its day-to-day activities [18].The NPC (CNPC) and OPEX (can be expressed through the following equation [13]:
(7)CNPC=Cann,totCRFi,N,CRFi,N=i1+iN1+iN−1,COPEX=Cann,tot−Cann,cap,where Cann,tot stands for the annualized total cost, i stands for the interest rate (discount rate), N represents the project lifetime, Cann,cap stands for the annualized capital cost, and CRF stands for the capital recovery factor.From Figure5 [13], it can be seen that the climatic weather conditions and geographical location of different African countries are attractive to the exploitation of different renewable energy resources. Figure 6 [19–22] depicts the cost of diesel fuels as used in this research.Figure 5
Climatic weather parameters (annual) for the six EAC countries.
(a)
Temperature(b)
Clearness index(c)
IrradianceFigure 6
Diesel prices (USD/L) and electricity tariff (USD/kWh) for the six EAC countries.


## 3. Results and Discussion

### 3.1. Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) for Various Scenarios

#### 3.1.1. Scenario 1: Diesel

Figure7 indicates that the LCOE of diesel generator microgrid technology for each of the six EAC countries was US$ 0.719/kWh for Uganda, US$ 0.813/kWh for Burundi, US$ 0.667/kWh for Kenya, US$ 0.411/kWh for South Sudan, US$ 0.617/kWh for Tanzania, and US$ 0.701/kWh for Rwanda, respectively. The most expensive LCOE for diesel technology was for Burundi (US$ 0.813/kWh). The most optimal and least cost LCOE US$ 0.411/kWh was for South Sudan. The LCOE for South Sudan with diesel microgrid technology is the lowest among the other cases analysed in this study as the price for diesel fuel is lower than in the other EAC member countries. The lowest LCOE US$ 0.411/kWh for South Sudan was twice cheaper and more affordable than the LCOE US$ 0.945/kWh in Tanzania [23]. Also, the US$ 0.617/kWh (LCOE) obtained in this study for Tanzania is lower than that in [23].Figure 7
Levelized cost of electricity for all EAC countries with all the analysed energy technologies.


#### 3.1.2. Scenario 2:Diesel+PV

Thediesel+PV hybrid technology LCOE in Figure 7 indicates that each of the LCOE for the six EAC countries was US$ 0.661/kWh for Uganda, US$ 0.728/kWh for Burundi, US$ 0.626/kWh for Kenya, US$ 0.411/kWh for South Sudan, US$ 0.560/kWh for Tanzania, and US$ 0.625/kWh for Rwanda. Simulation analysis shows that combining PV and diesel is not optimal. Also, HOMER optimization results showed that energy from diesel generator microgrid is more affordable than combining diesel and PV system. This conclusion is due to the low price of diesel in South Sudan. Apart from South Sudan, the US$ 0.560/kWh LCOE for Tanzania was the lowest among the EAC countries analysed. It is also higher than both the calculated LCOE (US$ 0.433/kWh) of the hybrid diesel-generator and storage energy systems for Tanzania in [23] and the LCOE $0.260/kWh for a PV-diesel-battery microgrid system designed for Algeria [24].


#### 3.1.3. Scenario 3:PV+Battery Storage Technology

The LCOE for thePV+battery storage technology is plotted in Figure 7 where each of the six EAC countries’ LCOE for the technology was US$ 0.302/kWh (Uganda), US$ 0.331/kWh (Burundi), US$ 0.333/kWh (Kenya), US$ 0.306/kWh (South Sudan), US$ 0.296/kWh (Tanzania), and US$0.329/kWh (Rwanda), respectively. The least LCOE for the system was US$ 0.296/kWh (Tanzania) which was also lower than US$ 1.820/kWh LCOE obtained from the “Comparative Analysis of Reliable, Feasible, and Low-Cost Photovoltaic Microgrid for a Residential Load in Rwanda” [16]. The US$ 0.360/kWh LCOE for the “Photovoltaic Solar Technologies: Solution to Affordable, Sustainable, and Reliable Energy Access for All in Rwanda” [4] was more expensive than US$ 0.333/kWh (Kenya); more expensive than 0.2$/kWh for a hybrid made of a microhydropower technology, diesel, and storage [25]; and more expensive than US$0.207/kWh for “Optimization and Cost-Benefit Assessment of Hybrid Power Systems for Off-Grid Rural Electrification in Ethiopia” [26].


#### 3.1.4. Scenario 4:PV+BatteryStorage+Grid Hybrid Technology

Figure7 plots the LCOE for the PV+batterystorage+grid hybrid technology of the six EAC countries. The LCOE for each of the six EAC countries was US$ -0.0155/kWh (Uganda), US$ -0.567/kWh (Burundi), US$ 0.000584/kWh (Kenya), US$ -0.123/kWh (South Sudan), US$ 0.0167/kWh (Tanzania), and US$ -0.0373/kWh (Rwanda), respectively. Also, the LCOEs of the grid tied PV systems with storage in the study were lower than both the US$ 0.125/kWh and US$ 0.0645/kWh LCOEs obtained by other researchers in [4, 16]. The implementation of the proposed system indicates that Uganda gains US$ 0.0155 for every kWh generated, Burundi gains US$ 0.0567 per kWh generated, Kenya spends US$ 0.000584 per kWh generated, South Sudan gains US$ 0.123 for every kWh generated, Tanzania spends US$ 0.0167 for every kWh generated, and Rwanda gains US$ 0.0373 for every kWh generated, respectively.


### 3.2. Analysis of Net Present Cost (NPC) and Operating Expenditure (OPEX)

Figure8 depicts the net present cost and OPEX of using the diesel technology for each of the six EAC countries as focused in this study. The NPC for Uganda was US$ 369,723.00, US$ 417,712.10 for Burundi, US$ 342,955.30 for Kenya, US$ 211,528.00 for South Sudan, US$ 316,911.00 for Tanzania, and US$ 360,559.30 for Rwanda, respectively. The most expensive NPC was Burundi (US$ 417,712.10), and the lowest NPC was South Sudan (US$ 211,528.00). The NPCs hover between US$ 417,712.00 (Burundi) and US$ 211,528.00 (South Sudan), respectively.Figure 8
NPC and OPEX with diesel technology.The OPEX for each of the six EAC countries was US$ 46,034.00 for Uganda, US$ 52,236.00 for Burundi, US$ 42,575.00 for Kenya, US$ 25,591.00 for South Sudan, US$ 39,210.00 for Tanzania, and US$ 44,850.00 for Rwanda, respectively. The OPEX varied between US$ 25,591.00 (South Sudan) and US$ 52,236.00 (Burundi). The OPEXs lie between US$ 52,236.00 (Burundi) and US$ 25,591.00 (South Sudan), respectively.Figure9 shows the NPC and OPEX for the diesel+PV hybrid technology for the EAC cases simulated in this paper. Each NPC of the six EAC countries was US$ 339.718.50 for Uganda, US$ 374,418.10 for Burundi, US$ 321,602.80 for Kenya, US$ 211,528.00 for South Sudan, US$ 287,930.00 for Tanzania, and US$ 321,290.40 for Rwanda. Moreover, the least cost was US$ 211,528.00 (South Sudan), but there was no PV penetration, and US$ 374,418.10 for Burundi was the most expensive for the hybrid technology. The NPCs lie between US$ 374,418.10 (Burundi) and US$ 211,528.00 (South Sudan).Figure 9
NPC and OPEX with thediesel+PV technology.Each of the OPEX values for the six EAC countries was US$ 34,682.00 for Uganda, US$ 39,176.00 for Burundi, US$ 33,128.00 for Kenya, US$ 25,591.00 for South Sudan, US$ 29,108.00 for Tanzania, and US$ 32,644.00 for Rwanda. However, the OPEX for thediesel+PV hybrid varied between US$ 39,176.00 (Burundi) and US$ 25,591.00 (South Sudan). The OPEXs ranged between US$ 39,176.00 (Burundi) and US$ 25,591.00 (South Sudan), respectively.Figure10 shows the NPC and OPEX for the PV+storage battery technology for the simulated case studies. Each NPC of the six EAC countries was US$ 155,191.40 (Uganda), US$ 170,139.40 (Burundi), US$ 171,266.50 (Kenya), US$ 157,082.60 (South Sudan), US$ 157,107.30 (Tanzania), and US$ 169,290.10 (Rwanda). Moreover, US$ 171,266.50 was the highest NPC (Kenya) and the lowest (US$ 152,107.30) was for Tanzania. The NPCs hover around US$ 171,266.50 (Kenya) and US$ 152,107.30 (Tanzania), respectively.Figure 10
NPC and OPEX with thePV+storage technology.Each of the OPEX values was US$ 5,729.00 (Uganda), US$ 6,239.00 (Burundi), US$ 5,729.00 (Kenya), US$ 5,697.00 (South Sudan), US$ 5,662.00 (Tanzania), and US$ 6,231.00 (Rwanda), respectively. ThePV+storage technology ranged between US$ 6,239.00 (Burundi) and US$ 5,662.00 (Tanzania). The OPEXs lie between US$ 6,239.00 (Burundi) and US$ 5,697.00 (South Sudan), respectively.Figure11 indicates the NPC and OPEX for the PV+storage+grid hybrid technology as simulated in the cases study. Each of the six EAC countries’ NPC was 34,840.53 (Uganda), US$ 121,395.40 (Burundi), US$ 1243.24 (Kenya), US$ 192,931.30 (South Sudan), US$ 35,080.86 (Tanzania), and US$ 80,580.55 (Rwanda), respectively. However, the NPC varied between US$ 1243.24 (Kenya) and US$ 291,931.30 (South Sudan). The NPCs ranged between US$ 291,931.30 (South Sudan) and US$ 12,432.40 (Kenya).Figure 11
NPC and OPEX with thePV+storage+grid technology.Each of the OPEX prices was US$ -17,180.00 (Uganda), US$ -281,365.00 (Burundi), US$-12,517.00 (Kenya), US$ -50,403.00 (South Sudan), US$ -7,717.00 (Tanzania), and US$ -23,091.00 (Rwanda), respectively. These results indicate that all the six EAC countries will benefit immensely by implementing thePV+storage+grid hybrid technology for electricity generation. The OPEX of the PV+batterystorage+grid hybrid technology ranged between US$ -50,403.00 (South Sudan) and US$ -7,717.00 (Tanzania). The OPEXs hover around US$ -171,180.00 (Uganda) and US$ -7,717.00 (Tanzania), respectively.The implementation of this grid-connected system indicates that Uganda gains US$ 0.0155 for every kWh generated, Burundi gains US$ 0.0567 per kWh generated, Kenya spends US$ 0.000584 per kWh generated, South Sudan gains US$ 0.123 for every kWh generated, Tanzania spends US$ 0.0167 for every kWh generated, and Rwanda gains US$ 0.0373 for every kWh generated, respectively.


## 3.1. Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) for Various Scenarios

### 3.1.1. Scenario 1: Diesel

Figure7 indicates that the LCOE of diesel generator microgrid technology for each of the six EAC countries was US$ 0.719/kWh for Uganda, US$ 0.813/kWh for Burundi, US$ 0.667/kWh for Kenya, US$ 0.411/kWh for South Sudan, US$ 0.617/kWh for Tanzania, and US$ 0.701/kWh for Rwanda, respectively. The most expensive LCOE for diesel technology was for Burundi (US$ 0.813/kWh). The most optimal and least cost LCOE US$ 0.411/kWh was for South Sudan. The LCOE for South Sudan with diesel microgrid technology is the lowest among the other cases analysed in this study as the price for diesel fuel is lower than in the other EAC member countries. The lowest LCOE US$ 0.411/kWh for South Sudan was twice cheaper and more affordable than the LCOE US$ 0.945/kWh in Tanzania [23]. Also, the US$ 0.617/kWh (LCOE) obtained in this study for Tanzania is lower than that in [23].Figure 7
Levelized cost of electricity for all EAC countries with all the analysed energy technologies.


### 3.1.2. Scenario 2:Diesel+PV

Thediesel+PV hybrid technology LCOE in Figure 7 indicates that each of the LCOE for the six EAC countries was US$ 0.661/kWh for Uganda, US$ 0.728/kWh for Burundi, US$ 0.626/kWh for Kenya, US$ 0.411/kWh for South Sudan, US$ 0.560/kWh for Tanzania, and US$ 0.625/kWh for Rwanda. Simulation analysis shows that combining PV and diesel is not optimal. Also, HOMER optimization results showed that energy from diesel generator microgrid is more affordable than combining diesel and PV system. This conclusion is due to the low price of diesel in South Sudan. Apart from South Sudan, the US$ 0.560/kWh LCOE for Tanzania was the lowest among the EAC countries analysed. It is also higher than both the calculated LCOE (US$ 0.433/kWh) of the hybrid diesel-generator and storage energy systems for Tanzania in [23] and the LCOE $0.260/kWh for a PV-diesel-battery microgrid system designed for Algeria [24].


### 3.1.3. Scenario 3:PV+Battery Storage Technology

The LCOE for thePV+battery storage technology is plotted in Figure 7 where each of the six EAC countries’ LCOE for the technology was US$ 0.302/kWh (Uganda), US$ 0.331/kWh (Burundi), US$ 0.333/kWh (Kenya), US$ 0.306/kWh (South Sudan), US$ 0.296/kWh (Tanzania), and US$0.329/kWh (Rwanda), respectively. The least LCOE for the system was US$ 0.296/kWh (Tanzania) which was also lower than US$ 1.820/kWh LCOE obtained from the “Comparative Analysis of Reliable, Feasible, and Low-Cost Photovoltaic Microgrid for a Residential Load in Rwanda” [16]. The US$ 0.360/kWh LCOE for the “Photovoltaic Solar Technologies: Solution to Affordable, Sustainable, and Reliable Energy Access for All in Rwanda” [4] was more expensive than US$ 0.333/kWh (Kenya); more expensive than 0.2$/kWh for a hybrid made of a microhydropower technology, diesel, and storage [25]; and more expensive than US$0.207/kWh for “Optimization and Cost-Benefit Assessment of Hybrid Power Systems for Off-Grid Rural Electrification in Ethiopia” [26].


### 3.1.4. Scenario 4:PV+BatteryStorage+Grid Hybrid Technology

Figure7 plots the LCOE for the PV+batterystorage+grid hybrid technology of the six EAC countries. The LCOE for each of the six EAC countries was US$ -0.0155/kWh (Uganda), US$ -0.567/kWh (Burundi), US$ 0.000584/kWh (Kenya), US$ -0.123/kWh (South Sudan), US$ 0.0167/kWh (Tanzania), and US$ -0.0373/kWh (Rwanda), respectively. Also, the LCOEs of the grid tied PV systems with storage in the study were lower than both the US$ 0.125/kWh and US$ 0.0645/kWh LCOEs obtained by other researchers in [4, 16]. The implementation of the proposed system indicates that Uganda gains US$ 0.0155 for every kWh generated, Burundi gains US$ 0.0567 per kWh generated, Kenya spends US$ 0.000584 per kWh generated, South Sudan gains US$ 0.123 for every kWh generated, Tanzania spends US$ 0.0167 for every kWh generated, and Rwanda gains US$ 0.0373 for every kWh generated, respectively.


## 3.1.1. Scenario 1: Diesel

Figure7 indicates that the LCOE of diesel generator microgrid technology for each of the six EAC countries was US$ 0.719/kWh for Uganda, US$ 0.813/kWh for Burundi, US$ 0.667/kWh for Kenya, US$ 0.411/kWh for South Sudan, US$ 0.617/kWh for Tanzania, and US$ 0.701/kWh for Rwanda, respectively. The most expensive LCOE for diesel technology was for Burundi (US$ 0.813/kWh). The most optimal and least cost LCOE US$ 0.411/kWh was for South Sudan. The LCOE for South Sudan with diesel microgrid technology is the lowest among the other cases analysed in this study as the price for diesel fuel is lower than in the other EAC member countries. The lowest LCOE US$ 0.411/kWh for South Sudan was twice cheaper and more affordable than the LCOE US$ 0.945/kWh in Tanzania [23]. Also, the US$ 0.617/kWh (LCOE) obtained in this study for Tanzania is lower than that in [23].Figure 7
Levelized cost of electricity for all EAC countries with all the analysed energy technologies.


## 3.1.2. Scenario 2:Diesel+PV

Thediesel+PV hybrid technology LCOE in Figure 7 indicates that each of the LCOE for the six EAC countries was US$ 0.661/kWh for Uganda, US$ 0.728/kWh for Burundi, US$ 0.626/kWh for Kenya, US$ 0.411/kWh for South Sudan, US$ 0.560/kWh for Tanzania, and US$ 0.625/kWh for Rwanda. Simulation analysis shows that combining PV and diesel is not optimal. Also, HOMER optimization results showed that energy from diesel generator microgrid is more affordable than combining diesel and PV system. This conclusion is due to the low price of diesel in South Sudan. Apart from South Sudan, the US$ 0.560/kWh LCOE for Tanzania was the lowest among the EAC countries analysed. It is also higher than both the calculated LCOE (US$ 0.433/kWh) of the hybrid diesel-generator and storage energy systems for Tanzania in [23] and the LCOE $0.260/kWh for a PV-diesel-battery microgrid system designed for Algeria [24].


## 3.1.3. Scenario 3:PV+Battery Storage Technology

The LCOE for thePV+battery storage technology is plotted in Figure 7 where each of the six EAC countries’ LCOE for the technology was US$ 0.302/kWh (Uganda), US$ 0.331/kWh (Burundi), US$ 0.333/kWh (Kenya), US$ 0.306/kWh (South Sudan), US$ 0.296/kWh (Tanzania), and US$0.329/kWh (Rwanda), respectively. The least LCOE for the system was US$ 0.296/kWh (Tanzania) which was also lower than US$ 1.820/kWh LCOE obtained from the “Comparative Analysis of Reliable, Feasible, and Low-Cost Photovoltaic Microgrid for a Residential Load in Rwanda” [16]. The US$ 0.360/kWh LCOE for the “Photovoltaic Solar Technologies: Solution to Affordable, Sustainable, and Reliable Energy Access for All in Rwanda” [4] was more expensive than US$ 0.333/kWh (Kenya); more expensive than 0.2$/kWh for a hybrid made of a microhydropower technology, diesel, and storage [25]; and more expensive than US$0.207/kWh for “Optimization and Cost-Benefit Assessment of Hybrid Power Systems for Off-Grid Rural Electrification in Ethiopia” [26].


## 3.1.4. Scenario 4:PV+BatteryStorage+Grid Hybrid Technology

Figure7 plots the LCOE for the PV+batterystorage+grid hybrid technology of the six EAC countries. The LCOE for each of the six EAC countries was US$ -0.0155/kWh (Uganda), US$ -0.567/kWh (Burundi), US$ 0.000584/kWh (Kenya), US$ -0.123/kWh (South Sudan), US$ 0.0167/kWh (Tanzania), and US$ -0.0373/kWh (Rwanda), respectively. Also, the LCOEs of the grid tied PV systems with storage in the study were lower than both the US$ 0.125/kWh and US$ 0.0645/kWh LCOEs obtained by other researchers in [4, 16]. The implementation of the proposed system indicates that Uganda gains US$ 0.0155 for every kWh generated, Burundi gains US$ 0.0567 per kWh generated, Kenya spends US$ 0.000584 per kWh generated, South Sudan gains US$ 0.123 for every kWh generated, Tanzania spends US$ 0.0167 for every kWh generated, and Rwanda gains US$ 0.0373 for every kWh generated, respectively.


## 3.2. Analysis of Net Present Cost (NPC) and Operating Expenditure (OPEX)

Figure8 depicts the net present cost and OPEX of using the diesel technology for each of the six EAC countries as focused in this study. The NPC for Uganda was US$ 369,723.00, US$ 417,712.10 for Burundi, US$ 342,955.30 for Kenya, US$ 211,528.00 for South Sudan, US$ 316,911.00 for Tanzania, and US$ 360,559.30 for Rwanda, respectively. The most expensive NPC was Burundi (US$ 417,712.10), and the lowest NPC was South Sudan (US$ 211,528.00). The NPCs hover between US$ 417,712.00 (Burundi) and US$ 211,528.00 (South Sudan), respectively.Figure 8
NPC and OPEX with diesel technology.The OPEX for each of the six EAC countries was US$ 46,034.00 for Uganda, US$ 52,236.00 for Burundi, US$ 42,575.00 for Kenya, US$ 25,591.00 for South Sudan, US$ 39,210.00 for Tanzania, and US$ 44,850.00 for Rwanda, respectively. The OPEX varied between US$ 25,591.00 (South Sudan) and US$ 52,236.00 (Burundi). The OPEXs lie between US$ 52,236.00 (Burundi) and US$ 25,591.00 (South Sudan), respectively.Figure9 shows the NPC and OPEX for the diesel+PV hybrid technology for the EAC cases simulated in this paper. Each NPC of the six EAC countries was US$ 339.718.50 for Uganda, US$ 374,418.10 for Burundi, US$ 321,602.80 for Kenya, US$ 211,528.00 for South Sudan, US$ 287,930.00 for Tanzania, and US$ 321,290.40 for Rwanda. Moreover, the least cost was US$ 211,528.00 (South Sudan), but there was no PV penetration, and US$ 374,418.10 for Burundi was the most expensive for the hybrid technology. The NPCs lie between US$ 374,418.10 (Burundi) and US$ 211,528.00 (South Sudan).Figure 9
NPC and OPEX with thediesel+PV technology.Each of the OPEX values for the six EAC countries was US$ 34,682.00 for Uganda, US$ 39,176.00 for Burundi, US$ 33,128.00 for Kenya, US$ 25,591.00 for South Sudan, US$ 29,108.00 for Tanzania, and US$ 32,644.00 for Rwanda. However, the OPEX for thediesel+PV hybrid varied between US$ 39,176.00 (Burundi) and US$ 25,591.00 (South Sudan). The OPEXs ranged between US$ 39,176.00 (Burundi) and US$ 25,591.00 (South Sudan), respectively.Figure10 shows the NPC and OPEX for the PV+storage battery technology for the simulated case studies. Each NPC of the six EAC countries was US$ 155,191.40 (Uganda), US$ 170,139.40 (Burundi), US$ 171,266.50 (Kenya), US$ 157,082.60 (South Sudan), US$ 157,107.30 (Tanzania), and US$ 169,290.10 (Rwanda). Moreover, US$ 171,266.50 was the highest NPC (Kenya) and the lowest (US$ 152,107.30) was for Tanzania. The NPCs hover around US$ 171,266.50 (Kenya) and US$ 152,107.30 (Tanzania), respectively.Figure 10
NPC and OPEX with thePV+storage technology.Each of the OPEX values was US$ 5,729.00 (Uganda), US$ 6,239.00 (Burundi), US$ 5,729.00 (Kenya), US$ 5,697.00 (South Sudan), US$ 5,662.00 (Tanzania), and US$ 6,231.00 (Rwanda), respectively. ThePV+storage technology ranged between US$ 6,239.00 (Burundi) and US$ 5,662.00 (Tanzania). The OPEXs lie between US$ 6,239.00 (Burundi) and US$ 5,697.00 (South Sudan), respectively.Figure11 indicates the NPC and OPEX for the PV+storage+grid hybrid technology as simulated in the cases study. Each of the six EAC countries’ NPC was 34,840.53 (Uganda), US$ 121,395.40 (Burundi), US$ 1243.24 (Kenya), US$ 192,931.30 (South Sudan), US$ 35,080.86 (Tanzania), and US$ 80,580.55 (Rwanda), respectively. However, the NPC varied between US$ 1243.24 (Kenya) and US$ 291,931.30 (South Sudan). The NPCs ranged between US$ 291,931.30 (South Sudan) and US$ 12,432.40 (Kenya).Figure 11
NPC and OPEX with thePV+storage+grid technology.Each of the OPEX prices was US$ -17,180.00 (Uganda), US$ -281,365.00 (Burundi), US$-12,517.00 (Kenya), US$ -50,403.00 (South Sudan), US$ -7,717.00 (Tanzania), and US$ -23,091.00 (Rwanda), respectively. These results indicate that all the six EAC countries will benefit immensely by implementing thePV+storage+grid hybrid technology for electricity generation. The OPEX of the PV+batterystorage+grid hybrid technology ranged between US$ -50,403.00 (South Sudan) and US$ -7,717.00 (Tanzania). The OPEXs hover around US$ -171,180.00 (Uganda) and US$ -7,717.00 (Tanzania), respectively.The implementation of this grid-connected system indicates that Uganda gains US$ 0.0155 for every kWh generated, Burundi gains US$ 0.0567 per kWh generated, Kenya spends US$ 0.000584 per kWh generated, South Sudan gains US$ 0.123 for every kWh generated, Tanzania spends US$ 0.0167 for every kWh generated, and Rwanda gains US$ 0.0373 for every kWh generated, respectively.


## 4. Discussion and Summary

Table2 summarizes the details of important parameters from each technology covered in the research of this manuscript. We note that the results were based on the simulation of different energy technologies through HOMER software and with different parameter assumptions such as prices of diesel and electricity tariffs, respectively: (0.899$/L and 0.201$/kWh for Kenya, 0.7911$/L and 0.115$/kWh for Tanzania, 1.209$/L and 0.310$/kWh for Burundi, 0.972$/L and 0.259$/kWh for Rwanda, 1.010$/L and 0.185$/kWh for Uganda, and 0.354$/L and 0.43$/kWh for South Sudan).Table 2
Summary.
Diesel technologyNPC ($)LCOE ($/kWh)FGC ($/hr)MGC ($/kWh)Burundi417712.10.8133.530.285Kenya342955.30.6673.070.212Rwanda360559.30.7013.180.229Tanzania316911.00.6172.900.187South Sudan21528.00.4112.240.0835Uganda369723.00.7193.230.238PV+diesel technologyNPC ($)LCOE ($/kWh)DFGC($/hr)MGC ($/kWh)PV LC($/kWh)Burundi374418.10.7283.530.2850.00326Kenya321602.80.6263.070.2120.0327Rwanda321290.40.6253.180.2290.0322Tanzania287930.30.5602.900.1870.0281South Sudan211528.00.4112.240.0835—Uganda339718.50.6613.230.2380.00327PV+storage technologyNPC ($)LCOE ($/kWh)PV LC($/kWh)Burundi170139.40.3310.0326Kenya169290.10.3290.0327Rwanda169290.10.3290.323Tanzania152107.30.29600.281South Sudan157082.60.3060.0285Uganda155191.40.3020.0307PV+battery+grid technologyNPC ($)LCOE ($/kWh)PV LC($/kWh)Burundi121395.40-0.05670.0326Kenya1243.240.0005840.00327Rwanda80580.55-0.03730.0322Tanzania35080.860.01670.0322South Sudan291931.30-0.1230.285Uganda34840.53-0.01550.0307NPC: net present cost; LCOE: levelized cost of electricity; DFGC: diesel fixed generation cost; MGC: marginal generation cost; hr: hour; PVLC: levelized cost for photovoltaic system.


## 5. Conclusion

The research used a daily load of one luxury house as a research object and carried out modelling and optimization of least cost, efficient, and reliable electricity generation technology among four technologies: (a) diesel energy technology, (b)PV+diesel technology, (c) PV+storage battery, and (d) PV+batterystorage+grid, for all the EAC countries. The following conclusions were drawn from the study:
(1)
For off-grid users, thePV+storage battery technology was found to be the least costly and recommendable than any other technology including diesel technology(2)
However, for South Sudan, the combination ofPV+diesel technology, the sensitivity, and optimization analysis showed that the diesel technology would still dominate and be least costly technology than solar energy. This is so because South Sudan has the lowest price for diesel than any other countries in the EAC, but due to greenhouse gas emissions, solar energy would still need to be highly recommended(3)
The proposed technology for the study isPV+batterystorage+grid hybrid because the LCOE was each US$ -0.0155/kWh (Uganda), US$ -0.0373/kWh (Rwanda), US$ 0.0167/kWh (Tanzania), US$ 0.000584/kWh (Kenya), US$ -0.123/kWh (South Sudan), and US$ -0.0567/kWh (Burundi), respectively. Furthermore, each of the NPCs of the proposed PV+batterystorage+grid hybrid technology was US$ 34840.53 (Uganda), US$ 80580.55 (Rwanda), US$ 35080.86 (Tanzania), US$ 1243.24 (Kenya), US$ 291931.30 (South Sudan), and US$ 121395.40 (Burundi), respectively(4)
The proposedPV+batterystorage+grid hybrid technology is recommended for possible adoption in each of the six EAC countries because both the LCOEs and NPCs are lower than the real electricity tariffs currently in use within these six EAC countries. Also, the connection of PV+battery storage to the grid (for locations wherever possible) would lower and provide affordable, reliable, and sustainable electricity prices in these countries. The findings in this paper are limited to a technoeconomic feasibility analysis of affordable energy systems that focuses only on the EAC region



---

*Source: 9921940-2021-08-24.xml*