Nigeria’s electricity generation has worsened over the years leaving the majority of the people with no consistent power supply. According to the Minister of Power, Abubakar Aliyu, the reasons behind the recent poor power supply are the low hydro capacity during the dry season (due to regional changes in rainfall and water availability) and ongoing maintenance activities at natural-gas power stations. The situation was even worse during the months of April and June when the national power grid experienced multiple system collapse.
As a result of these recurring electricity problems, Nigerians have resorted to seeking alternative power supply, with the most preferred options being either diesel/petrol generators or inverters having a secondary solar power source. However, the high cost of fuel (the current pump prices of petrol and diesel are 165 naira/litre and 700 naira/litre respectively) makes the use of generators burdensome for the majority of people. Also, running generators contribute to environmental and noise pollution due to the noise and smoke fumes that emanate from them.
As part of its commitments to contribute to SDG 13, Green Habitat Initiative (GHI) is devising ways to pursue environmentally friendly power sources within its office buildings and decided to assess different energy alternatives in terms of their reliability, cost of running and impact on the environment. We consulted experts that provide expert advisory on three power sources (i.e., Abuja electricity distribution company (AEDC), generator suppliers, and solar panel companies) and carried out an analysis of the options at our disposal. The options were evaluated on the bases of how they can be used concurrently or substituted for one another.
GHI head office in Abuja was used as a case study. The following electronic appliances are being used in the office building:
-
A 6 1.5 HP Air conditioners (1119W)
-
One refrigerator (100W)
-
Two 45 inchTvs (186W)
-
One water dispenser (550W)
-
Two eco-saving Canon printers (50W)
-
A door activation system (36W)
-
Five laptop computers (50W)
-
Twenty-eight energy saving bulbs (17 watts)
With the cost of 1 KWh being N52.28, GHI pays N100,000 to AEDC every 3 months. This is in addition to installed Solar panel components (300 W Mono Panels, 5KVA Inverter, and 8 200Ah batteries).
Energy-saving colour printer used at the GHI HQ
The table below presents the comparison among the three power sources based on cost and sustainability.
Comparing the three power sources
Verdict based on expert Advisory
The options are listed below based on their ranking with option 1 being the best option and option 5 the least option to go for when considering the cost of running, reliability and impact on the environment.
Option 1: AEDC as the base load with Backup solar and no generator
In this case, the AEDC power supply is used as the base load for the office with the inverter being powered by the solar panels and the AEDC power unto eight batteries that run for at least 10 hours when there is power failure. This is the best choice in terms of reliability, cost and impact on the environment. Assuming that the 100,000 quarterly payments will be maintained for AEDC base load with N80,000 capital investment and median capital cost of N2,480,000, yearly expenditure becomes N2,960,000. There are concerns about intermittency during days of foggy or overcast cloudy weather. The payback period will be 7.4 years approximately.
Option 2: Baseload solar with backup generator and no AEDC
This implies that a solar powered inverter will act as base load with diesel generators to act as back up during periods of intermittency or unforeseen damage to panels, this is the second best option in terms of cost, reliability and environmental impact. This cumulatively brings the expenditure to approximately 2,828,000 due to lower demands for diesel. This potentially saves GHI AEDC costs and can make the organisation energy independent. However, during periods of intermittency, a backup generator will have to be deployed which has detrimental environmental effects.
Energy-saving bulbs used at GHI HQ
Option 3: Baseload solar with Backup AEDC and no generator
This implies that solar will be used as the base load with AEDC power as backup and no generator. This is an excellent choice for being environmentally friendly and significantly cuts down GHI emissions. However, concerns exist with the reliability because intermittency can occur and AEDC is highly unreliable during such times.
Option 4: Baseload AEDC with back up generator and no solar power
This implies that AEDC will be used as a base load with a backup generator and no solar power. This is the status quo. This assumes a cumulative expenditure of 4,700,000 including diesel costs to run for the whole year. There is also the environmental poor practice of running the generator for hours contributing to noise and air pollution.
Option 5: Baseload generator with back up solar and no AEDC
Here, a diesel powered generator will act as the base load with a solar powered inverter as a backup during periods of low diesel levels or high diesel costs. This cumulatively brings expenditure to about 7,818,000 annually especially during periods of high diesel costs. This scenario is costly, may have an unreliable backup option during periods of cloud cover or rainy weather, and has negative impacts on the environment.
Option 5: Baseload generator with backup AEDC and no solar power
In this case, a diesel powered generator will act as the base load with AEDC as a backup during periods of low supply or very high diesel costs. This cumulatively brings expenditure to about 5,738,000 annually especially during periods of high diesel costs. This scenario is costly, has an unreliable backup option, and has negative impacts on the environment.
Written by Habeebullahi Nurudeen & Abdurrahman Suleiman.
Habeebullahi is a Program Assistant at GHI headquarters, Abuja. He’s passionate about new ideas, fresh starts and learning new things.
Abdurrahman is a Program Officer at GHI.
