Renewable Energy Technologies B51GE

Final Report

Team members
Ailsa Anderson
Mohamed Ajmal
Chengwei Zhang
Arnaud DAmato

Submission date - 26 December 2011

Contents
1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3

Problem definition and real world analogue .................................................................................. 5

2.1

Load demand estimation ........................................................................................................ 6

Selection and quantification of available resource......................................................................... 7

Design methodology ..................................................................................................................... 10

4.1

PV panel sizing ...................................................................................................................... 11

4.2

Battery sizing ......................................................................................................................... 15

4.3

Inverter sizing ........................................................................................................................ 16

4.4

Charge controller sizing ........................................................................................................ 17

4.5

Generator sizing .................................................................................................................... 17

Performance Analysis.................................................................................................................... 18
5.1

System Performance ............................................................................................................. 18

5.2

Economic Analysis ................................................................................................................. 19

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 23

References .................................................................................................................................... 25

Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 27
8.1

Appendix A Load estimation for Category I health center................................................. 27

8.2

Appendix B Daily load profile for rural health centre Zimbabwe ...................................... 28

8.3

Appendix C Component Specifications .............................................................................. 28

1 Introduction
This paper looks at the conceptualisation and design of a Renewable Energy System to solve a
particular facilitys (which will be defined later) energy needs in the most robust possible way, going
through step-by-step process of problem definition, quantification of facility load, selection of a
suitable natural resource, assessing its feasibility in providing the facilitys needs, actual design of the
system components (sizing), analysis of technical and economic aspects and conclusion. Before we
get into defining the problem, let us have a brief look at the need for Renewable Energy Systems
(RES).

It is an accepted fact in todays world that fossil fuels will be around for only the next 50 to 100
years, depending on whose estimates you go by. It is essentially a limited resource which does not
replenish itself at the rate at which demand for it is generated in the modern economy. There are
issues of energy security, where the regions of the world in which fossil fuel deposits are most
abundant are not currently the most politically stable, neither are they the main markets for these
commodities (Mishra et al., 2014). The issue of global warming is still an ongoing debate, however
there are strong provable correlations between burning of fossil fuels and increase in CO2
concentrations in the atmosphere, which is currently believed to be the number one factor in
increase in global temperatures over the last few decades. (Mishra et al., 2014)

Renewable energy in its most common forms of solar energy, wind energy, geothermal and hydro
power are clean, readily available and essentially unlimited by supply once the initial infrastructure
has been put in place. The technologies associated with their uptake (PV panels for solar and wind
turbines for wind energy) have been traditionally considered expensive and inefficient, however,
recent advances in technology are pushing the costs down and efficiencies up on an ever-increasing

scale (Mishra et al., 2014). They have already proven to be commercially viable and with increasing
support from governments all over the world, more and more companies and house owners are
seeing the economic sense in undertaking RES projects either for their local needs or for supply to
the grid taking advantage of feed-in tariffs. Feed-in-tariffs are financial incentives introduced by the
government to encourage homeowners and organizations to generate their own electricity from RES
which can then be used to feed into the national grid as well (Fitariffs.co.uk, 2014).

This brings us to the question of what exactly is an RES. Lund (2010) defines an RES as complete
energy supply and demand systems based on renewable energy as opposed to nuclear and fossil
fuels. They include supply as well as demand. He includes demand as well in his definition because
decreasing energy consumption and making appliances more energy-efficient also contributes to the
goals of long-term sustainability, which is one of the main objectives of renewable energy as well.

A RES usually consists of various components such as energy conversion devices (eg. PV panels, wind
turbines), devices which convert the generated DC current to usable AC current, devices which
storage generated electricity for periods of low generation (eg. batteries, pumped storage), devices
which optimize several system functions (eg. charge controllers, power electronics) and devices
which also provide a conventional backup option (eg. diesel generators) (Lund, 2010). RES are
usually either implemented on a large scale for supply to the national or on a smaller scale for
supplying local demand either with or without a grid tie-in. For owners of small scale RES,
connection to the grid is advantageous for the reasons that one can draw on the grid supply in times
of low supply of said resource, and provide electricity to the grid for additional revenue in times of
plentiful power output from said resource.

However, not all buildings are blessed with proximity to a grid connection, and this is especially true
in cases of isolated rural communities, which are the focus of our problem definition for the scope of
this design project. In such situations, RES can be used to supply an independent source of power to
a facility which would otherwise rely on expensive and dirty diesel generators. Hence, this may be
considered one of the advantages of RES with regard to isolated facilities. However the downsides
do still exist in that the startup costs for RES are relatively higher than a traditional grid connection,
and backup solutions are still required in the form of battery storage for days on which the resource
availability is below optimal (eg. cloudy days, non-windy days).

2 Problem definition and real world analogue

As a team, we conducted some research into potential energy challenges which could be addressed
by designing an RES. We had decided early on that we would like to tackle a situation where a RES
stand-alone system would stand out as the most optimal solution. After some initial brainstorming,
we agreed that a rural situation with limited grid connectivity in Africa would meet our criteria. Offgrid health centres were most often powered by diesel generators which presented problems in
terms of high expenses for fuel and unreliable supply (WHO International, 2014). One of papers we
read (Bryan et al., 2009) also discussed the various challenges faced by the health system in subSaharan Africa. The paper specifically focussed on a region of Tanzania called Lake Zone in order to
further investigate the various challenges faced by its health system. We were interested in the
energy situation of the regions health system and according to this paper, only 56% of the regions
health centres had access to regular power. The issue of energy shortages in rural Africa seemed to
be a recurring theme. Now an average health centre has a lot of medical equipment, some of which
may be life-saving in nature, which require a guaranteed power supply in order to function as
intended and provide essential services to patients.
Therefore, we decided to choose our scenario as an isolated hypothetical rural health centre in subSaharan Africa, to be located in the capital of one of the regions in Lake Zone, Tanzania, Mwanza

(Table 1 below). This facility was to be fitted with an off-grid RES system which could supply the
facilitys energy needs reliably, along with a backup diesel generator for contingencies. The next step
was to quantify the approximate energy needs of a rural health centre in Mwanza.

Figure 1. Chosen location within Africa - Mwanza, Tanzania

Facility type
Town
Region
Country
Latitude
Longitude

Rural health centre

Mwanza
Mwanza Region, Lake Zone
Tanzania
2 31' S
32 54' E

Table 1. Selected hypothetical facility for powering up

2.1 Load demand estimation

To achieve this goal, we set about to try and find the energy needs of an actual health centre in our
chosen location. However, information on the same was not easy to come by. Hence we found an
alternative solution. We decided to base the load requirement of our health centre in Mwanza,
Tanzania on the given load requirement of a Category I Health Clinic as per the guidance report
titled Powering Health: Electrification options for Rural Health Centres (USAID, n.d). The

description of such a health clinic (given in Table 2) fits our intended scenario and it is to be noted
that the actual load requirements (given in detail in Appendix A) for such a health clinic is only
intended by the report as a guideline for a generic clinic of the mentioned specifications (Table 2).
Type
Energy requirement
Location
Number of beds
Electricity required for

Category I Health Clinic

5 10 kWh/day
Usually in rural setting
0 60 beds
Lighting during evening hours, limited surgery
Maintaining cold chain for blood, vaccines etc.
- Utilizing basic lab equipment

Table 2. Specifications of typical Category I Health Clinic

3 Selection and quantification of available resource

The next required step was to select the optimal renewable resource for utilisation by our system in
order to provide a stable source of power to the chosen facility. From our literature review, the one
resource which had most potential in Africa, especially the region we were looking at (sub-Saharan
Africa) appeared to be solar energy. The African continent has access to virtually uninterrupted
sunshine (Chipman, 2014) and sub-Saharan Africa being very close to the Equator receives very high
doses of solar irradiation on an annual basis. Hence, it was decided that our RES would be solar
photo-voltaic panel based, with an additional provision for a diesel generator as a fail-safe measure.

In order start quantifying our available resource, which is solar energy, we need to be clear regarding
some terminology with regarding to the Suns radiation which reaches the Earth. Two important
terms, defined below, are Irradiance and Irradiation according to the HeatSpring Magazine
(2014):

Irradiance Irradiance is the amount of solar radiation falling on a particular area at any
given time. It is a RATE. Its a measure of POWER, in that its an instantaneous term that
does not consider time. It is measured in W/m2

Irradiation Irradiation is a measure of solar energy, the amount of irradiance that falls on
a location over time. It is measured in kWh/m2/day

Mwanza, Tanzania

Figure 2. Horizontal Irradiation - Africa

Figure 2 shows the horizontal irradiation values for the African continent. As can be seen, Mwanza
falls on a highly irradiated (~ 2000 - 2100 kWh/m2) and hence we may safely assume the availability
of sufficient raw solar energy available to power our RES.

As a part of our assessment of the potential for solar energy at this location, we also quantified the
variation in sun hours (hours of daylight suitable for powering a PV system) over a year, and the
results and displayed in Figure 3 below.

Average solar irradiation per month

7

kWh/m2/day

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Month

It is to be noted that the irradiation value in kWh/m2/day given in the plot above is also equivalent
to the daily sun hours available at the site, in terms of uselful hours of sunlight available to the PV
panels. This is evident from the statement Since the peak solar radiation is 1 kW/m2, the number of
peak sun hours is numerically identical to the average daily solar insolation on Pveducation.org
(2014). This is important because the number of available sun hours in December (5.08 sun hours)
which is the minimum available through the year, will be used in sizing the peak capacity of our solar
PV RES.

Keeping in mind that this is a health facility, which requires uninterrupted power supply, and that
traditional RES sources such as wind and solar energy (which we would most likely have to rely on)
do have periods of low power output, we decided to incorporate a redundancy in our design in the
form of a diesel generator. This generator will be sized to provide adequate power output in case of

a system failure or low power generation periods, as per the health centres needs. This adds
additional costs in the form of an actual generator as well as fuel (diesel). However, this was deemed
to be a necessary trade-off for planning purposes.

4 Design methodology
Before getting into the details of the RES design, we will provide a brief overview of the main
components of a solar RES. According to the guidance report Powering Health: Electrification
options for Rural Health Centres (USAID, n.d.), the main components of any RES be it solar, wind or
any other, are given below:

Batteries These are the primary form of energy storage systems for RES currently in use.
They are necessary to guarantee supply in case of grid outages or system failures. Batteries
do usually require period maintenance, and their life is usually limited to a certain number of
charge and discharge cycles. Lead-acid batteries are usually the ones used in solar PV
systems. Typical battery life is only about 5 years, hence battery maintenance costs usually
need to be factored in to a lifecycle cost analysis for the system, if one is being performed.
Important parameters in battery design are the number of autonomous days that one is
designing ones RES to go without power supply i.e. only on battery support and also the
depth of discharge level that will be maintained failing which the batterys life will be
reduced. (USAID, n.d.)

Inverter PV panels usually supply power in DC current and in order to convert this to the
AC current used by appliances, we need an inverter. Inverters are usually rated to the power
of the systems output they are required to converter, after including a factor of safety for
conversion losses. (USAID, n.d.)

Charge controller These devices are responsible for controlling the overcharging or
discharging of the battery bank. They also ensure optimal charging of batteries by ensuring

that the right voltage is maintained for the purpose. This technology is called Maximum
Power Point Tracking MPPT.

4.1 PV panel sizing

For the basic design of the renewable energy system journal discussing a similar stand-alone
photovoltaic system has been used as a guide (Abu-Jasser, 2010) along with another journal to
ensure that the equations used are correct (Oko, et al., 2012). The PV cell itself will not be
designed; instead a panel on the market suitable for this situation will be chosen and
implemented into the design.
To start our design, we used the load estimation explained in Section 2.1. The energy
requirements of a Category I Health Clinic are low and estimated between 5 and 10 kWh per
day, when looking closer into the equipment that is to be used each day a closer estimation of
between 4.4 and 10.3 kW/day is calculate (USAID, n.d.) (Anon., n.d.). For the purpose of this
design and erring on the side of caution, the larger value will be taken to give a daily energy
requirement of the health centre:

= 10.3 /

The sun will not hit the panel from sun rise to sun set and so an average of useful sun hours for a
year shall be taken. This will be the minimum solar hours that will hit the PV during a day. This
value is obtained from an online calculator obtained on the website for PVGIS Africa
(http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php?map=africa). Mwanza, Tanzania was chosen
as the input location and the obtained solar data (Wh/m2/day = sun hours) is given below:

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Year

Hh
5350
5880
6150
5440
5380
5700
6040
6000
5950
5820
5130
5080
5660

Hopt
5030
5600
5970
5380
5390
5770
6090
5980
5790
5580
4860
4730
5510

H(90)
951
953
1520
2550
3450
4230
4210
3160
1860
1050
990
939
2160

Iopt
-29
-17
0
17
29
35
33
23
7
-11
-24
-30
6

Table 3. Minimum available sun hours at location

Hh: Irradiation on horizontal plane (Wh/m2/day)

Hopt: Irradiation on optimally tilted plane (Wh/m2/day)
H(90): Irradiation on plane at angle: 90deg. (Wh/m2/day)
Iopt: Optimal tilt(deg.)
PVGIS European Communities, 2001-2012

We divide the values in the table above by 1000 to get the sun hours.
= 4.73 / (December)
To calculate the energy required for the PV system, the efficiency must be taken in to account. A
combined component efficiency of 66% has been assumed as a design factor, this accounts for
the efficiency of the wiring, module and shade factors. Therefore the total energy requirement
will be:

= =

10.3
= 15.6 /
0.66

The next step in the process is to calculate the power needs from:

This will be the peak power seen by the system during the peak sun hours and will be:

15.6
=
= 3.30 kWp

4.73

The peak power will be rounded to 3.5 kW for simplification and to give room for error. The
basic energy and power requirement are now shown and the system current can be calculated.
For this application a system voltage of 24 V will be used and so the current required to produce
a direct current voltage of 24 V will be:

3500
=
= 145.8

24

145.8 A is the current needed by the system as a whole and can be used to calculate the panel
arrangement. For this a panel has been selected and its module ratings have been taken in the
following calculations.
The panel chosen is the SETSOLAR M1400P (Anon., 2014). This panel has been selected as it
meets the requirements of the system design and the specifications can be found in Appendix C.
This type of panel is suitable for rural application and is manufactured in Africa. It also contains
a product warranty that starts that there will be an 80% yield after 20 years of terrestrial use,
this is important in this system as in a rural situation it is advised to keep maintenance and costs
at a minimum. The panel will also withstand the temperature highs and lows found in Mwanza
over a year.
To calculate the number of modules required in series we use the voltage required by the
system and the selected module rated voltage, in this case 18 V, and so:

24
=
=
= 1.3

18

This suggests that 2 modules in series will be required. For parallel arrangement we use the
current:

145.8
=
= 18.6

7.8

From the above calculations two modules in series will be accompanied by 19 in parallel, this
means the system requires 38 panels in total and our array design will look similar to Figure 3
below.

Figure 3. Panel Arrangement Example (Clean Green Renewable Energy, n.d.)

The dimensions of the selected module are 156mm by 156mm, hence for the PV system a
minimum area of 0.3 m by 2.8 m will be required to mount panels, taken from the dimensions of
the panel specifications (Appendix C). This will be the minimum area as the panels need to be
located in a position that they will not be affected by shading. This will mean that the second
row of panels needs to be a sufficient distance from the first to ensure they will not interfere
with each other.

As the PV system will be used in a rural location, access to people with the skills to maintain the
upkeep of panels might be erratic and so to ensure the least amount of maintenance, a fixed tilt
mount will be used. This will save having moving parts in the system that are not required and
can cause issues. The greatest amount of energy from the sun is received by the location directly
below it where the energy has the shortest distance to travel. Tanzania is in the southern
hemisphere; therefore the panel should be mounted facing north to gain optimum exposure to
the solar equator. Using the equation below (Openelectrical.org, 2014) the optimum tilt angle
for Mwanza, Tanzania was calculated to be 6:

, where is the latitude of the site

4.2 Battery sizing

The battery sizing procedure has been modelled on that described in the paper title Design and
Economic Analysis of a Photovoltaic System: A Case Study (Oko et al., 2012). The main equation
used in the sizing of the battery is as given below:

Where is number of autonomous days, is estimated daily load (10.3 kWh/day), DOD is depth
of discharge and is battery efficiency.
For our design purpose, which have chosen the number of autonomous days as 2 days, which is a
safe number. Also, the depth of discharge was selected as 75%, in order to avoid depleting the
battery too much with each cycle and hence reducing its operational life. Battery efficiency was
input as 85% based on the average efficiency of a lead acid battery, which was the battery type
chosen and recommended for solar PV systems (Solar-electric.com, 2014). Substituting these values
in the formula above, we obtain:

 = 32
However, we need a value in Amp-hours as that is how the standard battery is rated. Hence, we
convert the value obtained above to Ah below by multiplying with (1000 W/ 1 kW) and dividing by
the system voltage (24 V) to get:
= 1346
We chose to satisfy this requirement by multiple batteries of 225 Ah each, with a voltage of 6 V
(TROJAN 105 6V). The next step is to obtain the number of batteries in parallel as series, as well as
the total number of batteries.

1346
=
= 6

225

24
= 4
6

= 1.5 = 2

Hence we will have a total number of 8 batteries due to rounding to standard values, 4 in series and
2 in parallel. This gives us a total storage capacity of 225 Ah x 8 = 1800 Ah, and hence a good factor
of safety from our required 1346 Ah.

4.3 Inverter sizing

For the inverter sizing procedure, the methodology in the paper A Stand-Alone Photovoltaic
System, Case Study: A Residence in Gaza (Abu Jasser, 2010) was used. According to this paper, in
order correctly size the inverters rating, one needs to first find the total of all loads which can be
considered surge currents (high start-up load) and then multiply this by a factor of 3. This is then
added to the rest of the appliances to get a total load, which is then further multiplied by safety
factor of 1.25 taking into account conversion losses. The process is given below:

 ,
= 935 3 = 2805
= 1510
= 4315 1.25 = 5394
5394 W is the amount of load that we need to plan for inverter sizing. However, due to standard
ratings in the market, we selected a 6000 W inverter from SHENZHEN ORO POWER which uses a sine
wave type power electronics. This is important because this generates a high quality AC current
without fluctuations which can be used to power even sensitive medical equipment.

4.4 Charge controller sizing

A MORNINGSTAR TRISTAR 60 (ecodirect, n.d.) has been chosen as the charge controller for the
system. It has a rated current of 60A and so 4 controllers connected in parallel will be required. This
was calculated as follows:

=
This is the number of panels in parallel multiplied by the short circuit current multiplied by a safety
factor. This gave a current of 202.54 A, 4 controllers rated at 60 A will be sufficient to handle this
requirement. The controller was selected for a number of other reasons along with its large rated
current. It will be able to operate in temperatures between -40C and 60C witch should be sufficient
in our geographic area. It can also handle high humidity conditions.

4.5 Generator sizing

As this system is being designed to power a rural health centre it is important that the building is not
left without power for any length of time. A diesel generator will be used when energy needs cannot
be met by the solar cells due to lack of sunshine or an increase in the time that the peak power
supply is required. A portable 5kW silent diesel generator has been selected. This is more than

sufficient for our 3.5 kWp system. This particular generator provided a competitive price in the
market which was important to the economics of the design. It is also portable and will be suitable
for the situation.

5 Performance Analysis
5.1 System Performance
In order to analyse whether our designed system meets the needs of the facility and visualize how
battery performance supplements the off-peak production time of the solar RES, we have graphed
the following graph below (Figure 4). In this graph, we have tried to achieve two main goals, first
one is to show at what times of the day does the system power output put and how this matches the
load demand profile of a UNDP-supported rural health centre obtained from the paper titled Offgrid power supply carbon footprint and sustainable energy planning of primary health facilities by
Arup consultancy (Brucoli et al, 2014). This 24 hour load profile has been assumed as one required at
our facility for the purpose of analysis. The X-axis shows time of day, while the right and left Y-axes
show KW (load demand and system output) and battery charge state, respectively.

PV system performance

Average hourly load

100%
PV output

2.5

90%

Battery state

Kilowatt

2
1.5

First day battery

discharge

80%
Second day battery
discharge

70%

1
60%

0.5
0

50%

Time of day
Figure 4. Performance analysis

We can see that the PV output curve starts output only during the daylight hours (6 am to 6 pm) as
is expected from a solar PV system. So in order to demonstrate how our battery will serve during the
off-production period, we have displayed the battery charge percentage on the right axis, assuming
a full charge of 100% at the start of a two day period, in kWh capacity. Then we proceed to subtract
the load demand amount from the total kWh of the battery during the non-production time frame,
to have a rough estimate of how long the battery is expected to last, assuming no charging and only
discharging. Over a two-day period, the battery goes down to about 75%, which is our assumed
Depth of Discharge amount during the design phase. This indicates that the system is performing as
per design criteria.

5.2 Economic Analysis

The last part of the project is an economic analysis. We have designed the PV panel and
other electrical facilities, now we have to determine the price of this project and if the
project will be sustainable. The aim of an economic analysis is to induce a reflection and

take a decision about different parts of the project (Hay, 2013). It is necessary to make
some assumptions for this purpose. There are two main ways we could have conducted an
economic analysis:

I)

Life Cycle Cost and total costs

This item calculates the cost of all the components of the system. This cost includes
acquisition cost, operating cost, maintenance and replacement cost:

= + + +

These costs represent the Life Cycle Cost, but first the total cost is calculated (equal to
acquisition cost) and this formula is applied:

= + +
+ +

II)

Payback period

The payback period is the duration required to recover the total cost of the project. Shorter
payback period means a more sustainable/profitable project. The payback period is
calculated by dividing the total upfront investment in the system by the annual savings
made by not having to pay utilities cost to the utility provider. One of the most important
aims of this RES is for the health centre to be independent in their energy supply.We can
determine the payback period as given below:
= /

For the purpose of our project, we have analysed the paypack period for this solar PV sytem, since
many other cost estimations required for the Life Cycle Cost analysis were not readily available. We

used the total cost of all the components from their suppliers page to estimate a total upfront
investment value. However, since prices per module were not readily available from PV
suppliers, we used a per unit (kWp) cost given in GBP. This displayed a range of values from 0.3
to 0.5 GBP/kWp, hence in our analysis we have found the payback periods assuming 3 different
values for per unit cost (0.3, 0.4 and 0.4 GBP/kWp). Also the utilities cost in Tanzania was found
(0.04 GBP/kWh) in order to find our annual savings in the form of payment to a utility provider.
This information is summarized in the Table 4 below:

Per unit
cost
(GBP)

Total cost
(GBP)

Quantity

Unit

Solar panels

3.5

Kw

0.3
0.4
0.5

Battery
Inverter
Charge
controller
Diesel
generator

8
1

nos.
nos.

96
320

1050
1400
1750
768
320

nos.

117.8

471.2

nos.

351

351

Table 4. Component costs

(0.3 ) = + + +
+ = 2960 GBP

= 10.3

365 = 3760

= = 3760 0.04

= ~ 150

2960
=
= ~ 20

150

The calculations for payback period has been done above using a per unit cost of 0.3 GBP/kWh.
Varying this to 0.4 and 0.5 GBP/kWH, we get the payback periods of 22 and 24 years respectively.
This analysis has not included costs of maintenance or installation, as data on these were not readily
available. Also, the payback period may be higher than other solar RES due to lack of a grid
connection and hence no opportunities for additional revenue in the form of feed-in tariffs. The
graph for payback period is given below in Figure 5:

Payback period
3000

Project value (GBP)

2000

1000

0
0.3 GBP/Wp
-1000

0.4 GBP/Wp
0.5 GBP/Wp

-2000

-3000

-4000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Years

Figure 5. Payback period comparison for varying per unit PV cost

6 Conclusion
The purpose of this project was to supply a rural health centre with an independent and reliable
source of energy. The position of the centre is not within reach of a grid connection and so an offgrid solution was designed and the solar power design and economics of this project show that it will
ultimately be an asset to the community.

Previously health centres in locations similar to the one chosen have had to use costly and unreliable
means of power. The solar resource will enable the centre to generate its own electricity with little
outside help, this will only be needed in extreme conditions where the working hours of the centre
are extended beyond the design or during unusual weather conditions. This solution is also
environmentally favourable, decreasing the amount of dirty diesel fumes released. If the community
was to become connected to the grid in the future this PV system could be used to generate an
income. With a payback period of between 20 and 25 years the system is an economically
reasonable solution as the lifespan of a solar panel is generally much longer than this and the
running costs of the design have been considered throughout and kept low.

Figure 6. System diagram

7 References
Bryan, L., Conway, M., Keesmaat, T., McKenna, S. and Richardson, B. (2009). A practical
approach to health system strengthening in sub-Saharan Africa. Health International, [online]
(9). Available at:
http://www.touchfoundation.org/uploads/assets/documents/Health%20International_nMvrM1
5Z.pdf [Accessed 11 Oct. 2014].
Chipman, A. (2014). Power out of Africa. [online] WSJ. Available at:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204346104576638553875004940
[Accessed 12 Nov. 2014].
Fitariffs.co.uk, (2014). What are FITs? | FI Tariffs. [online] Available at:
http://www.fitariffs.co.uk/FITs/ [Accessed 22 Nov. 2014].
Hay, J. (2013). Economics of Solar Photovoltaic Systems. University of Nebraska, Institute of
Agriculture and Natural Resources.
HeatSpring Magazine, (2014). How to Design a Solar PV System 101: The Basic Terms.
[online] Available at: http://blog.heatspring.com/solar-basics/ [Accessed 9 Nov. 2014].
Hinsch, C. and Wchter, F. (2014). Why we need 100 percent renewable energies: A plea for
the Energiewende. Serbian Journal of Management, 9(1), pp.121-130.
Lund, H. (2010). Renewable energy systems. London: Academic.
Mishra, G, Zakerinia, S, Yeh, S, Teter, J, & Morrison, G 2014, 'Mitigating climate change:
Decomposing the relative roles of energy conservation, technological change, and structural
shift', Energy Economics, 44, pp. 448-455, Business Source Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 26
November 2014.
Oko, C., Nnamdi, E., Omunakwe, N. and Diemuodeke, E. (2012). Design and Economic
Analysis of a Photovoltaic System: A Case Study. International Journal of Renewable
Energy Development, 1(3), pp.65-73.
Openelectrical.org, (2014). Solar System Sizing - Open Electrical. [online] Available at:
http://www.openelectrical.org/wiki/index.php?title=Solar_System_Sizing#Baseline_Solar_Irr
adiation_Data [Accessed 9 Nov. 2014].
Pveducation.org, (2014). Average Solar Radiation. [online] Available at:
http://pveducation.org/pvcdrom/properties-of-sunlight/average-solar-radiation [Accessed 6
Nov. 2014].
Solar-electric.com, (2014). Deep Cycle Battery FAQ. [online] Available at: http://www.solarelectric.com/deep-cycle-battery-faq.html [Accessed 11 Nov. 2014].

United States Agency for International Development, (n.d.). Powering Health :

Electrification options for Rural Health Centres.
http://www.poweringhealth.org/Pubs/PNADJ557.pdf.
WHO International, (2014). WHO | Harnessing Africas untapped solar energy potential for
health. [online] Available at: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/92/2/14-020214/en/
[Accessed 11 Nov. 2014].

8 Appendices
8.1 Appendix A Load estimation for Category I health center

8.2 Appendix B Daily load profile for rural health centre Zimbabwe

8.3 Appendix C Component Specifications

Manufacturer

SETSOLAR Photovoltaic &

Systems Division

Model
Number of series modules
Number of parallel modules
Floor area required (m2)

M1400P
2
38
38

Table 5. PV specifications

Manufacturer
Model
Each battery capacity
Battery voltage
Table 6. Battery specifications

Trojan Battery Company

T-105
225 Ah
6V

Rating
Type
Output

6000W
220/230/240V

Table 7. Inverter specifications

Manufacturer
Model

Morningstar Tristar
TS-60

Table 8. Charge controller specifications

Manufacturer
Model
Table 9 Generator specifications

Huahe Heavy Industries Co.

5GF-B01