Technical and Economic Assessment of the Implementation of 60 MW Hybrid Power Plant Projects (Wind, Solar Photovoltaic) in Iraq
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Challenges in Solar and Wind Energy
- Technical and Engineering Challenges of Solar and Wind Energy;
- Solar Sector: The focus here is on boosting the efficiency and longevity of solar panels. As the demand for solar modules grows, domestic manufacturers work at full capacity, and new production facilities are being developed. These efforts aim to produce durable panels that can withstand various environmental factors, enhancing power generation.
- Wind Energy Advancements: In wind energy, engineering challenges revolve around designing turbines that maximize energy capture and efficiency. This requires a deep understanding of aerodynamics, material science, and environmental considerations.
- Economic and Financial Barriers
- The economic outlook for solar and wind energy presents both opportunities and challenges. Due to their cost-effectiveness, solar and wind energy are sometimes becoming more appealing for utility-scale power generation.
- Financing and Policy Support: Securing investments and effectively navigating policy frameworks is critical for the economic feasibility of these projects. Government efforts to promote domestic solar products and renewable energy have been substantial.
- Market Dynamics: The renewable energy market, especially in the solar and wind sectors, is influenced by government initiatives, demand from commercial and industrial users, and shifting global market trends.
- Environmental and Grid Integration Challenges;
- Land Acquisition and Environmental Impact: Establishing a uniform policy on land acquisition is essential for the successful development of projects. Issues related to land ownership can influence financing and undermine project stability.
- Grid Integration and Evacuation Infrastructure: The swift commissioning of solar and wind projects often outpaces the development of transmission facilities, creating significant challenges. Enhancing evacuation infrastructure and transmission capacity is crucial, particularly in regions with high potential for renewable energy [22,26,27].
2.2. Solutions for Renewable Implementation
- Overcoming the challenges of implementing renewable energy solutions requires a comprehensive approach.
- Financial incentives like grants, low-interest loans, and tax benefits can substantially lower the initial costs of hybrid systems, making them more attractive to investors.
- Leasing options provide a minimal or no-upfront cost alternative, enabling businesses to adopt renewable energy with minimal initial investment. Advancements in technology and innovative design are critical for maximizing the efficiency and integration of renewable technologies [26].
- High-efficiency panels and smart inverters in solar PV systems enhance energy production, even in constrained spaces. Similarly, wind energy technologies designed for optimal performance in various climates extend their usability and efficiency.
- Implementing hybrid systems offers a dependable and efficient power solution year-round, as shown in Figure 2.
- Strategic planning and professional consultation are vital for navigating local regulations and successfully integrating renewable systems into existing infrastructures.
- Expertise in renewable energy solutions facilitates the process and ensures installations comply with all regulatory requirements.
- Governments promote the successful adoption of renewable energy technologies by addressing these challenges through financial support, technical innovation, and strategic planning. This approach contributes to environmental sustainability, improves economic viability, and enhances energy independence, paving the way for a more sustainable future in the commercial sector [27].
2.3. Analysis Method
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Technical Assessment Results
3.2. Financial Analysis Results
- Scenario 1 (Sc 1): Project implementation without any grants (grants = USD 0) and with no revenue from GHG reduction credits (GHG credit rate = USD 0/tCO2).
- Scenario 2 (Sc 2): Project implementation with a grant covering 60% of the initial capital cost and no revenue from GHG reduction credits (GHG credit rate = USD 0/tCO2).
- Scenario 3 (Sc 3): Project implementation without any grants (grants = USD 0), but with GHG reduction credits valued at USD 30/tCO2. The crediting period is fixed at 10 years, representing the duration over which the project receives revenue from GHG reduction.
3.3. Risk Analysis Results
4. Conclusions
- The results indicate that both PV and wind technologies demonstrate significant energy export potential, with PV plants generally exporting slightly more electricity than their wind counterparts. Al Nasiriya Wind had the highest output, indicating favorable wind conditions or better system performance at that site.
- The results show that the analysis of the proposed hybrid system shows that it has a standardizing effect on emissions, reducing variability and environmental impact regardless of location.
- The results highlight that while solar PV is financially more attractive across both sites, targeted financial incentives are essential to improve the feasibility of wind energy, especially in locations with less favorable wind resources.
- The results demonstrate that solar PV is significantly more financially favorable in terms of capital recovery time at both sites, and that financial incentives, especially grants, are essential to improve project attractiveness, particularly for wind power.
- The analysis underscores the superior financial viability of solar PV projects in both regions. It highlights the critical role of financial support, particularly capital grants, in turning renewable energy investments into economically attractive opportunities.
- The wind project exhibits a broader and more dispersed cost distribution, ranging roughly from 132.76 to 180.79 USD/MWh. The cost frequency is highest in the 149.9 to 151.83 USD/MWh range. The wider spread indicates that wind energy production costs are more volatile and risk-prone due to higher initial costs, O&M variability, and fluctuations in wind energy yield. The results emphasize that, under uncertainty, PV projects offer a more predictable cost profile compared to wind projects, which are more susceptible to variations in input parameters, leading to higher financial risk.
- Finally, after analyzing the financial parameters of the hybrid project, the results show that all metrics improve significantly with increasing tariff rates for both Al-Rutbah and Al-Nasiriya. However, the economic performance results vary across scenarios. Generally, Scenario 2 yields the best IRR, SPB, NPV, and ALCS results.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Al-Maliki, W.A.K.; Al-Hasnawi, A.G.T.; Abdul Wahhab, H.A.; Alobaid, F.; Epple, B. A Comparison Study on the Improved Operation Strategy for a Parabolic trough Solar Power Plant in Spain. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Maliki, W.A.K.; Khafaji, H.Q.A.; Abdul Wahhab, H.A.; Al-Khafaji, H.M.H.; Alobaid, F.; Epple, B. Advances in Process Modelling and Simulation of Parabolic Trough Power Plants: A Review. Energy 2022, 15, 5512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohammadi, H.; Saghaian, S.; Gharibi, B.Z.D. Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy Consumption and Its Impact on Economic Growth. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ludwig, D.; Breyer, C.; Solomon, A.A.; Seguin, R. Evaluation of an onsite integrated hybrid PV-Wind power plant. AIMS Energy 2020, 8, 988–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chrifi-Alaoui, L.; Drid, S.; Ouriagli, M.; Mehdi, D. Overview of Photovoltaic and Wind Electrical Power Hybrid Systems. Energy 2023, 16, 4778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Babaremu, K.; Olumba, N.; Chris-Okoro, I.; Chuckwuma, K.; Jen, T.; Oladijo, O.; Akinlabi, E. Overview of Solar–Wind Hybrid Products: Prominent Challenges and Possible Solutions. Energy 2022, 15, 6014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Owolabi, A.B.; Kigha Nsafon, B.E.; Wook Roh, J.; Suh, D.; Huh, J. Validating the techno-economic and environmental sustainability of solar PV technology in Nigeria using RETScreen Experts to assess its viability. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2019, 36, 100542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Dousari, A.; Al-Nassar, W.; Al-Hemoud, A.; Alsaleh, A.; Ramadan, A.; Al-Dousari, N.; Ahmed, M. Solar and wind energy: Challenges and solutions in desert regions. Energy 2019, 176, 184–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbaspour, A.; Jahed, A.; Ahmad, A. Techno-economic analysis of PV–wind–diesel–battery hybrid power systems for industrial towns under different climates in Spain. Energy Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2831–2850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ishaq, S.; Naveed, S.; Mahmood Khan, S.; Najam-ul-Islam, M. Techno-Economic Analysis of a Hybrid Grid-Connected/PV/Wind System in Pakistan. Int. J. Renew. Enery Res. 2020, 6, 1319–1327. [Google Scholar]
- Kaabeche, A.; Belhamel, M.; Ibtiouen, R. Techno-economic valuation and optimization of integrated photovoltaic/wind energy conversion system. Sol. Energy 2011, 85, 2407–2420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaahida, S.M.; El-Amina, I.; Rehmana, S.; Al-Shehria, A.; Ahmada, F.; Bakashwaina, J.; AlHadhramia, L.M. Techno-Economic Potential of Retrofitting Diesel Power Systems with Hybrid Wind-Photovoltaic-Diesel Systems for Off-Grid Electrification of Remote Villages of Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Green Energy 2010, 7, 632–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ngan, M.S.; Tan, C.W. Assessment of economic viability for PV/wind/diesel hybrid energy system in southern Peninsular Malaysia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 634–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bekele, G.; Tadesse, G. Feasibility study of small Hydro/PV/Wind hybrid system for off-grid rural electrification in Ethiopia. Appl. Energy 2012, 97, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frangou, M.; Tsoutsos, T.; Sakellariou, N. Sustainability assessment of a solar thermal power project in Mediterranean application in the island of Crete. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 18, 379–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bazilian, M.; Hobbs, B.F.; Blyth, W.; MacGill, I.; Howells, M. Interactions between energy security and climate change: A focus on developing countries. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 750–3756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zambrano, C.; Olaya, Y. An agent-based simulation approach to congestion management for the Colombian electricity market. Ann. Oper. Res. 2017, 258, 217–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oladigbolu, J.O.; Ramli, M.A.M.; Al-Turki, Y.A. Techno-Economic and Sensitivity Analyses for an Optimal Hybrid Power System Which Is Adaptable and Effective for Rural Electrification: A Case Study of Nigeria. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olatomiwa, L.; Mekhilef, S.; Huda, A.S.N.; Ohunakin, O.S. Economic evaluation of hybrid energy systems for rural electrification in six geo-political zones of Nigeria. Renew. Energy 2015, 83, 435–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elegeonye, H.I.; Owolabi, A.B.; Ohunakin, O.S.; Abdulfatai Olatunji Yakub, A.O.; Yahaya, A.; Same, N.N.; Dongjun Suh, D.; Huh, J. Techno-Economic Optimization of Mini-Grid Systems in Nigeria: A Case Study of a PV–Battery–Diesel Hybrid System. Energy 2023, 16, 4645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahesh, A.; Sandhu, K.S. Hybrid wind/photovoltaic energy system developments: Critical review and findings. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 52, 1135–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zubi, G.; Dufo-López, R.; Pasaoglu, G.; Pardo, N. Techno-economic assessment of an off-grid PV system for developing regions to provide electricity for basic domestic needs: A 2020–2040 scenario. Appl. Energy 2016, 176, 309–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, A.; Baredar, P. Techno-economic assessment of a solar PV, fuel cell, and biomass gasifier hybrid energy system. Energy Rep. 2016, 2, 254–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, W.; Wang, Y.; Zeeshan, M.; Han, F.; Song, K. Super-twisting sliding mode control of grid-side inverters for wind power generation systems with parameter perturbation. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2025, 165, 110501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, W.; Sun, C.; Alharbi, M.; Hasanien, H.M.; Song, K. A voltage-power self-coordinated control system on the load-side of storage and distributed generation inverters in distribution grid. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2025, 16, 103480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajel, M.G.; Gedik, E.; Abdul Wahhab, H.A.; Shallal, B.A. Performance Analysis of an Open-Flow Photovoltaic/Thermal (PV/T) Solar Collector Using Different Fin Shapes. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sachit, M.S.; Shafri, H.Z.M.; Abdullah, A.F.; Rafie, A.S.M. Combining Re-Analyzed Climate Data and Landcover Products to Assess the Temporal Complementarity of Wind and Solar Resources in Iraq. Sustainability 2022, 14, 388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karee, A.F.; Akroot, A.; Abdul Wahhab, H.A.; Talal, W.; Ghazal, R.M.; Alfaris, A. Exergo–Economic and Parametric Analysis of Waste Heat Recovery from Taji Gas Turbines Power Plant Using Rankine Cycle and Organic Rankine Cycle. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Authors | Software | Achievements |
---|---|---|
Abbaspour et al. [9] | using HOMER | Analyzed PV–wind–diesel–battery systems in Spain; optimized configuration to minimize NPC and COE. |
Ishaq et al. [10] | Conducted techno-economic analysis of hybrid PV/wind system in Pakistan; emphasized role of environmental factors. | |
Kaabeche et al. [11] | Performed techno-economic assessment of hybrid PV–wind systems in Algeria. | |
Shaahid et al. [12] | Evaluated wind–solar–diesel hybrid systems for rural electrification in Saudi Arabia. | |
Olatomiwa et al. [19] | Optimized PV/wind/diesel hybrid system with batteries in Nigeria; reduced fuel consumption and emissions | |
Frangou et al. [15] | using RETScreen | Analyzed renewable energy projects in the Mediterranean. |
Bazilian et al. [16] | Highlighted role in global clean energy policy analysis. | |
Zambrano and Olaya [17] | For hybrid system modeling in Colombia. | |
Oladigbolu et al. [18] | Conducted a cost–benefit analysis of hybrid systems in Nigeria. | |
Zubi et al. [22] | To assess solar PV feasibility in UAE; confirmed technical and economic viability. | |
Mahesh and Sandhu [21] | Reviewed hybrid wind/PV systems in India; emphasized the importance of HOMER and RETScreen in design and evaluation. |
Al Nasiriya Plant | |||
---|---|---|---|
Item | Power photovoltaic | Wind power | Hybrid power project (PV + Wind) |
Base case | 43,995.7625 | 44,741.1418 | 88,736.9043 |
Proposed case | 3079.7034 | 3131.8799 | 6211.5833 |
Cross-annual GHG emission reduction | 40,916.0591 | 41,609.2619 | 82,525.321 |
Cross-annual GHG is equivalent to | 7493.7837 from cars and light trucks not used | 7620.7439 from cars and light trucks not used | |
95,153.6258 from barrels of crude oil not consumed | 96,765.7253 barrels of crude oil not consumed | ||
9299.1043 from acres of forests absorbing carbon | 9456.6504 from acres of forest absorbing carbon | ||
Al Rutbah plant | |||
Base case | 45,613.2459 | 37,249.1385 | 82,862.3844 |
Proposed case | 3192.9272 | 2607.4397 | 5800.3669 |
Cross annual GHG emission reduction | 42,420.3187 | 34,641.6988 | 77,062.0175 |
Cross annual GHG is equivalent to | 7769.2891 from cars and light trucks not used | 6344.6335 from cars and light trucks not used | |
98,651.904 from barrels of crude oil not consumed | 80,562.0901 from barrels of crude oil not consumed | ||
9640.9815 from acres of forest absorbing carbon | 7873.1134 from acres of forest absorbing carbon |
Item | Power Photovoltaic | Wind Power |
---|---|---|
Initial cost, USD | 29,700,336.6 | 63,000,000 |
Operation and maintenance cost savings, USD | 330,003.74 | 1,050,000 |
Al-Rutbah Project | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tariff USD/kWh | Internal Rate of Return (IRR) % | |||||
Solar Photovoltaic | Wind Power | |||||
Sc 1 | Sc 2 | Sc 3 | Sc 1 | Sc 2 | Sc 3 | |
0.015 | −13.16 | −11.53 | −10.49 | −30.44 | −26.38 | −25.66 |
0.035 | 0.79 | 6.557 | 6.5 | −23.56 | −21.37 | −20.99 |
0.055 | 9.68 | 17.442 | 18.14 | −11.98 | −9.9 | −11.03 |
0.075 | 18.46 | 29.456 | 29.2 | −5.6 | −4.11 | −4.27 |
0.095 | 27.93 | 41.784 | 40.11 | −1.16 | 0.73 | 0.52 |
Al-Nasiriya project | ||||||
Tariff USD/kWh | Internal Rate of Return (IRR) % | |||||
Solar Photovoltaic | Wind Power | |||||
Sc 1 | Sc 2 | Sc 3 | Sc 1 | Sc 2 | Sc 3 | |
0.015 | −13.86 | −12.41 | −11.41 | −31.55 | −25.66 | −24.66 |
0.035 | 0.18 | 5.433 | 5.45 | −23.44 | −19.44 | −21.88 |
0.055 | 8.85 | 16.643 | 16.68 | −8.07 | −3.55 | −6.62 |
0.075 | 17.26 | 28.673 | 27.31 | −2.16 | 0.1 | −0.2 |
0.095 | 26.28 | 39.211 | 37.82 | 2.43 | 5.2 | 4.9 |
Al-Rutbah Project | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tariff USD/kWh | Simple Payback (SPB) yr | |||||
Solar Photovoltaic | Wind Power | |||||
Sc 1 | Sc 2 | Sc 3 | Sc 1 | Sc 2 | Sc 3 | |
0.015 | 79.3293 | 31.7317 | 18.033 | None | None | 111.6067 |
0.035 | 22.6101 | 9.044 | 11.4842 | 215.6007 | 86.2403 | 47.3166 |
0.055 | 13.1838 | 5.2735 | 8.4247 | 59.4799 | 23.7919 | 30.0224 |
0.075 | 9.3047 | 3.7219 | 6.6524 | 34.4987 | 13.7995 | 21.9864 |
0.095 | 7.1893 | 2.8757 | 5.4962 | 24.2949 | 9.718 | 17.344 |
Al-Nasiriya project | ||||||
Tariff USD/kWh | Simple Payback (SPB) yr | |||||
Solar Photovoltaic | Wind Power | |||||
Sc 1 | Sc 2 | Sc 3 | Sc 1 | Sc 2 | Sc 3 | |
0.015 | 85.0003 | 34.0001 | 18.8347 | None | None | 70.8496 |
0.035 | 23.6598 | 9.4639 | 11.9625 | 112.0662 | 44.8265 | 34.7981 |
0.055 | 13.7425 | 5.497 | 8.7646 | 42.4698 | 16.9879 | 23.0627 |
0.075 | 9.6836 | 3.8734 | 6.9158 | 26.1993 | 10.4797 | 17.2465 |
0.095 | 7.4756 | 2.9902 | 5.7111 | 18.9423 | 7.5769 | 13.773 |
Al-Rutbah Project | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tariff USD/kWh | Net Present Value (NPV) USD | |||||
Solar Photovoltaic | Wind Power | |||||
Sc 1 | Sc 2 | Sc 3 | Sc 1 | Sc 2 | Sc 3 | |
0.015 | −21,901,453 | −4,081,251 | −13,734,281 | −62,361,946 | −2,4561,946 | −55,692,389 |
0.035 | −10,497,393 | 7,322,810 | −2,330,220 | −53,312,324 | −15,512,324 | −46,642,767 |
0.055 | 906,668 | 18,726,870 | 9,073,840 | −44,262,701 | −6,462,701 | −37,593,144 |
0.075 | 12,310,728 | 30,130,930 | 20,477,900 | −35,213,079 | 2,586,921 | −28,543,522 |
0.095 | 23,714,788 | 41,534,990 | 31,881,961 | −26,163,457 | 11,636,544 | −19,493,900 |
Al-Nasiriya project | ||||||
Tariff USD/kWh | Net Present Value (NPV) USD | |||||
Solar Photovoltaic | Wind Power | |||||
Sc 1 | Sc 2 | Sc 1 | Sc 1 | Sc 1 | Sc 3 | |
0.015 | −22,204,751 | −4,384,549 | −14,327,193 | −60,996,817 | −23,196,817 | −52,985,797 |
0.035 | −11,205,088 | 6,615,114 | −3,327,530 | −50,127,024 | −12,327,024 | −42,116,004 |
0.055 | −205,426 | 17,614,777 | 7,672,133 | −39,257,231 | −1,457,231 | −31,246,211 |
0.075 | 10,794,237 | 28,614,439 | 18,671,795 | −28,387,438 | 9,412,562 | −20,376,418 |
0.095 | 21,793,900 | 39,614,102 | 29,671,460 | −17,517,645 | 20,282,355 | −9,506,625 |
Al-Rutbah Project | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tariff USD/kWh | Annual Life Cycle Savings (ALCSs) USD/yr | |||||
Solar Photovoltaic | Wind Power | |||||
Sc 1 | Sc 2 | Sc 3 | Sc 1 | Sc 2 | Sc 3 | |
0.015 | −2,229,705 | −415,497 | −1,398,236 | −6,348,836 | −2,500,560 | −5,669,833 |
0.035 | −1,068,701 | 745,508 | −237,231 | −5,427,528 | −1,579,252 | −4,748,525 |
0.055 | 92,305 | 1,906,513 | 923,774 | −4,506,220 | −657,943 | −3,827,217 |
0.075 | 1,253,309 | 3,067,517 | 2,084,778 | −3,584,912 | 263,365 | −2,905,909 |
0.095 | 2,414,314 | 4,228,522 | 3,245,783 | −2,663,604 | 1,184,673 | −1,984,601 |
Al-Nasiriya project | ||||||
Tariff USD/kWh | Annual Life Cycle Savings (ALCSs) USD/yr | |||||
Solar Photovoltaic | Wind Power | |||||
Sc 1 | Sc 2 | Sc 3 | Sc 1 | Sc 2 | Sc 3 | |
0.015 | −2,260,583 | −446,375 | −1,458,598 | −6,209,857 | −2,361,581 | −5,394,285 |
0.035 | −1,140,748 | 673,460 | −338,763 | −5,103,244 | −1,254,968 | −4,287,672 |
0.055 | −20,914 | 1,793,294 | 781,071 | −3,996,631 | −148,355 | −3,181,060 |
0.075 | 1,098,921 | 2,913,129 | 1,900,905 | −2,890,019 | 958,258 | −2,074,447 |
0.095 | 2,218,755 | 4,032,963 | 3,020,740 | −1,783,406 | 2,064,871 | −967,834 |
Tariff USD/kWh | Internal Rate of Return (IRR) % | |||||
Al-Rutbah project | Al-Nasiriya project | |||||
Sc 1 | Sc 2 | Sc 3 | Sc 1 | Sc 2 | Sc 3 | |
0.015 | −24.88 | −21.83 | −21.29 | −21.63 | −21.41 | −17.58 |
0.035 | −15.17 | −11.33 | −12.02 | −11.43 | −10.90 | −7.13 |
0.055 | −5.04 | 1.32 | −2.47 | −2.65 | 4.73 | 0.85 |
0.075 | 2.11 | 14.49 | 6.45 | 5.25 | 16.24 | 8.62 |
0.095 | 8.17 | 22.56 | 14.4 | 11.07 | 24.50 | 15.87 |
Tariff USD/kWh | Simple Payback (SPB) yr | |||||
Al-Rutbah project | Al-Nasiriya project | |||||
Sc 1 | Sc 2 | Sc 3 | Sc 1 | Sc 2 | Sc 3 | |
0.015 | 162.5 | 68.4 | 41.9 | 152.81 | 58.42 | 37.58 |
0.035 | 57.7 | 23.1 | 23.7 | 51.01 | 20.40 | 21.59 |
0.055 | 28.0 | 11.2 | 16.5 | 25.43 | 10.17 | 15.14 |
0.075 | 18.5 | 7.4 | 12.6 | 16.94 | 6.77 | 11.66 |
0.095 | 13.8 | 5.5 | 10.3 | 12.70 | 5.08 | 9.48 |
Tariff USD/kWh | Net Present Value (NPV) USD | |||||
Al-Rutbah project | Al-Nasiriya project | |||||
Sc 1 | Sc 2 | Sc 3 | Sc 1 | Sc 2 | Sc 3 | |
0.015 | −84,263,399 | −28,643,197 | −69,426,670 | −83,201,568 | −27,581,366 | −67,312,990 |
0.035 | −63,809,717 | −8,189,514 | −48,972,987 | −61,332,112 | −5,711,910 | −45,443,534 |
0.055 | −43,356,033 | 12,264,169 | −28,519,304 | −39,462,657 | 16,157,546 | −23,574,078 |
0.075 | −22,902,351 | 32,717,851 | −8,065,622 | −17,593,201 | 38,026,001 | −1,704,623 |
0.095 | −2,448,669 | 53,171,534 | 12,388,061 | 4,276,255 | 59,896,457 | 20,164,835 |
Tariff USD/kWh | Annual Life Cycle Savings (ALCSs) USD/yr | |||||
Al-Rutbah project | Al-Nasiriya project | |||||
Sc 1 | Sc 2 | Sc 3 | Sc 1 | Sc 2 | Sc 3 | |
0.015 | −8,578,541 | −2,916,057 | −7,068,069 | −8,470,440 | −2,807,956 | −6,852,883 |
0.035 | −6,496,229 | −833,744 | −4,985,756 | −6,243,992 | −581,508 | −4,626,435 |
0.055 | −4,414,915 | 1,248,570 | −2,903,443 | −4,017,545 | 1,644,939 | −2,399,989 |
0.075 | −2,331,603 | 3,330,882 | −821,131 | −1,791,098 | 3,871,387 | −173,542 |
0.095 | −249,290 | 5,413,195 | 1,261,182 | 435,349 | 6,097,834 | 2,052,906 |
Parameter | Range | PV Project | Wind Project | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Minimum | Maximum | Minimum | Maximum | ||
Initial costs | 25% | USD 22,275,252.45 | USD 37,125,420.75 | USD 47,250,000 | USD 78,750,000 |
O&M | 25% | USD 247,502.805 | USD 412,504.675 | USD 787,500 | USD 1,312,500 |
Electricity is exported to the grid for the Al-Rutbah site, MWh | 25% | 35,219.8426 | 58,699.7377 | 28,761.575 | 47,935.9583 |
Electricity is exported to the grid for the Al Nasiriya site, MWh | 25% | 33,970.9178 | 56,618.1964 | 34,546.4555 | 57,577.4259 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Al-Mamory, L.F.; Akay, M.E.; Abdul Wahhab, H.A. Technical and Economic Assessment of the Implementation of 60 MW Hybrid Power Plant Projects (Wind, Solar Photovoltaic) in Iraq. Sustainability 2025, 17, 5853. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17135853
Al-Mamory LF, Akay ME, Abdul Wahhab HA. Technical and Economic Assessment of the Implementation of 60 MW Hybrid Power Plant Projects (Wind, Solar Photovoltaic) in Iraq. Sustainability. 2025; 17(13):5853. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17135853
Chicago/Turabian StyleAl-Mamory, Luay F., Mehmet E. Akay, and Hasanain A. Abdul Wahhab. 2025. "Technical and Economic Assessment of the Implementation of 60 MW Hybrid Power Plant Projects (Wind, Solar Photovoltaic) in Iraq" Sustainability 17, no. 13: 5853. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17135853
APA StyleAl-Mamory, L. F., Akay, M. E., & Abdul Wahhab, H. A. (2025). Technical and Economic Assessment of the Implementation of 60 MW Hybrid Power Plant Projects (Wind, Solar Photovoltaic) in Iraq. Sustainability, 17(13), 5853. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17135853