Prva stran - WBC-INCO Net

Sensitivity analysis performed with 10% step change of the
avoided costs of energy and annual costs is shown on figure
6.
Years
25
20
15
10
5
0
-20% -10% 0% 10% 20%
2,08 2,34 2,6 2,86 3,12
Avoided costs of energy (EUR/gal), 10%
step change
200 -20%
225 -10%
250 0%
275 10%
300 20%
Annual costs
(EUR), 10%
step change
Fig. 6. Sensitivity analysis graph showing the year-to-positive cash flow
when the avoided costs of energy and the annual costs are changed with
10% step change
2) Avoiding Grid Extension
When avoiding grid extension, similar analysis have
been performed, assuming that the avoided cost of energy
would be 0,05 €/kWh. The other parameters have been kept
the same. The cumulative cash flow is shown on figure 7.
The cumulative cash flow shows that even after 30 years,
year-to-positive cash flow would not be achieved. The
analysis did not take in consideration any promoting
measures for RES. The avoided cost of energy was set to the
actual electricity price, but changes in electricity price
should be expected.
Cumulative cash flow (EUR)
-125000
-126000
-127000
-128000
-129000
-130000
-131000
-132000
-133000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
years
Fig. 7. Cumulative cash flow when grid extension is avoided
If the price of electricity is set higher, the year-positive-cash
flow would be achieved sooner. The figure 8 shows the
cumulative cash flow, assuming electricity price of 0,5
€/kWh, which is 10 times higher than the starting point.
Cumulative cash flow (EUR)
50000
0
-50000
-100000
-150000
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31
years
Fig. 8. Cumulative cash flow when grid extension is avoided when higher
prices of electricity are taken in consideration
Even with this price, the year-to-positive cash flow would
be achieved after the thirtieth project year. After applying
sensitivity analysis to the second case, the prices for which
the year-to-positive cash flow is obtained were determined.
Figure 9 shows the year-to-positive cash flow assuming
different values for avoided costs for energy.
Years
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-20% -10% 0% 10% 20%
0,4 0,45 0,5 0,55 0,6
Avoided costs of energy (EUR/kWh)
105.245 -20%
118.400 -10%
131.556 0%
144.712 10%
157.867 20%
Initial
costs(EUR),
with 10%
step change
Fig. 9. Sensitivity analysis graph showing the year-to-positive cash flow
when the avoided costs of energy and the initial costs are changed with
10% step change
Sensitivity analysis was carried out changing the avoided
costs of energy and annual costs, again with step change of
10% and the results are given in figure 10.
Years
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-20% -10% 0% 10% 20%
0,4 0,45 0,5 0,55 0,6
Avoided costs of energy (EUR/kWh)
200 -20%
225 -10%
250 0%
275 10%
300 20%
5
Annual
costs
(EUR),
10% step
change
Fig. 10. Sensitivity analysis graph showing the year-to-positive cash flow
when the avoided costs of energy and the annual costs are changed with
10% step change
The cumulative cash flow analysis were made
considering the electricity grid as base system and assuming
that the avoided costs for energy would be equal to the
electricity price that the consumer would have to pay if the
location was connected to the electricity grid. Further
analysis should be made in order to estimate the costs for
building and maintaining a distribution line to the location
and compare them to the costs for building and maintaining
the small PV system.
III. CONCLUSION
T
HE estimation of costs for RES applications to isolated
regions can be made using different software
applications. The analyses in this paper were done with
RETScreen, which is a software package with more detailed
economic model. Only basic analyses were performed, not