**Appendix A: model inputs**


#### **Table A1.**

*Techno-economic parameters for diesel generator.*


*Economic Development of Rural Communities in Sub-Saharan Africa through Decentralized… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90424*


#### **Table A2.**

because of its low CAPEX and constrained maximum capacity due to shortage of livestock manure as input. Based on this model results, decentralized energy-waterfood systems have shown their potential to enable LCOE below state-of-the-art offgrid systems and local job creation through improved agricultural productivity.

nated to and used by interested NGOs and social enterprises. Thereby,

fight extreme poverty of the population in rural sub-Saharan Africa.

**Nomenclature**

BG biogas generator DG diesel generator

*Regional Development in Africa*

E + W energy and water HH household

**Appendix A: model inputs**

*Techno-economic parameters for diesel generator.*

**Table A1.**

**114**

EWFS energy-water-food system

LCOE levelized costs of electricity OpEx operational expenses PV solar photovoltaics SSA sub-Saharan Africa

decentralized energy-water-food systems could prove their potential to improve access to reliable energy, water, and food supply, to create local jobs, and thus to

Load efficiency % 28 Minimum load % 25 Investment costs USD/kW 500 Fixed costs USD/kW/year 10 Variable costs USD/kWh 0.01 Lifetime Year 15

Module type — Crystalline silicon Tracking system — Fixed Investment costs USD/kW 1400

**Unit Value**

**Unit Value**

In order to prove the potential of decentralized energy-water-food systems, they must be implemented on-ground including research on the optimal management and ownership structures; professional requirements for its managers, technicians, and farmers; as well as possible investment strategies. Also, the least-cost model shall be improved regarding more detailed modeling of groundwater availability, nutrients in the soil, water consumption of different crops, and biogas digestion of various inputs. After adding these improvements of the model, it shall be dissemi-

*Techno-economic parameters for solar photovoltaics.*


#### **Table A3.**

*Techno-economic parameters for battery.*


#### **Table A4.**

*Techno-economic parameters for biogas generator.*


#### **Table A5.**

*Techno-economic parameters for biogas digester.*



#### **Table A6.**

*Techno-economic parameters for biogas tank.*


#### **Table A7.**

*Techno-economic parameters for water pump.*


**Appendix B: model results**

Unit costs of water (USD/m<sup>3</sup>

**117**

**Table A10.**

**Table A11.**

**Table A12.**

Fixed costs USD/m<sup>3</sup>

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90424*

*Economic parameters of commodities bought from market.*

*Economic parameters of commodities sold to market.*

*Techno-economic parameters for waste silo.*

**Unit Value**

/year 1% of investment costs

**Unit Value**

**Unit Value**

Material — Ferrocement Investment costs USD/m<sup>3</sup> 35

*Economic Development of Rural Communities in Sub-Saharan Africa through Decentralized…*

Efficiency % 100 Lifetime Year 25

Diesel fuel USD/kWh 0.106 Maize grain USD/ton 200

Maize grain USD/ton 200

**Output variable/technology DG DG + PV DG + PV + BG (=EWFS)**

) 0.08 0.04 0.03

Food production (ton/year) 263 263 263 Total revenues (USD/year) 56,560 56,560 56,560 Total costs (USD/year) 66,844 49,813 38,508 Profit (USD/year) �14,284 2747 14,052 Profit per HH (USD/year) — 39 201 Cost per HH for E + W (USD/year) 204 — — Electricity costs (USD/kWh) 0.34 — — LCOE (USD/kWh) 0.39 0.14 0.08

Unit costs of food (USD/ton) 189 163 132 Investment costs - Electricity (USD/year) 644 8198 3959 Investment costs - DG (USD/year) 644 104 52 Investment costs - PV (USD/year) — 8095 2567 Investment costs - BG (USD/year) — — 1341 Total installed power (kW) 19 71 52 Installed power - DG (kW) 19 3 2 Installed power - PV (kW) — 68 39 Installed power - BG (kW) — — 12

## **Table A8.**

*Techno-economic parameters for water tank.*


#### **Table A9.**

*Techno-economic parameters for maize field.*

*Economic Development of Rural Communities in Sub-Saharan Africa through Decentralized… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90424*


#### **Table A10.**

**Unit Value**

/year 0

**Unit Value**

/kWh 4.4

**Unit Value**

/year 1% of investment costs

**Unit Value**

Fixed costs USD/m<sup>3</sup>

*Techno-economic parameters for biogas tank.*

*Regional Development in Africa*

Rated volume m<sup>3</sup>

*Techno-economic parameters for water pump.*

*Techno-economic parameters for water tank.*

*Techno-economic parameters for maize field.*

Fixed costs USD/m<sup>3</sup>

**Table A6.**

**Table A7.**

**Table A8.**

**Table A9.**

**116**

Efficiency % 100 Lifetime Year 10

Technology — 3-phase AC submersible pump

Fixed costs USD/kW/year 10% of investment costs

Material — Ferrocement Investment costs USD/m<sup>3</sup> 35

Efficiency % 100 Lifetime Year 25

Arable land ha 15 Modeled crop — Maize Maize growth time day 125 Maize yield ton/ha 6 Annual crop evapotranspiration mm/year 1330.7 Crop residue to maize grain ratio — 1.69 Fertilizer costs USD/ton 400 Labor requirement day/ha 144 Labor wage USD/day 3.08 Drip irrigation investment costs USD/ha 2000 Drip irrigation efficiency % 90

Fixed costs USD/ton/h/year 2% of investment costs

Lifetime Year 20

Total dynamic head m 50

Investment costs USD/kW 900

Variable costs USD/kWh 0.01 Lifetime Year 15

*Techno-economic parameters for waste silo.*


#### **Table A11.**

*Economic parameters of commodities bought from market.*


#### **Table A12.**

*Economic parameters of commodities sold to market.*
