Verdict: For a 2 MWh usable / 1 MW-class containerised LFP BESS (e.g., Sungrow PowerTitan2.0 2.5 MW / 5 MWh liquid-cooled family, CATL EnerC 0.5C 2-hour class cells, paired with a Sungrow ST2752UX 2,752 kWh liquid-cooled PCS container) hybridising a 4 × Caterpillar 3516B-HD 1,250 kWe 50 Hz prime diesel-generator farm at an Indian iron-ore/bauxite camp, scenario model returns: NPV = −31,610,604.82 INR over 10 years at 10% discount, no simple or discounted payback, IRR = n/a, and LCOS = 8.56 INR/kWh. Horizon = 10 years. Evidence date = 2026-01-15. Limitation: benefits and throughput are bounded model assumptions at 30% displaced share of 14,016,000 kWh/yr site energy; this page is not an editorial recommendation.
| Item | Value | Source / evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Equipment reference (BESS family) | 2 MWh usable LFP, 0.5C, 2-hour, containerised (Sungrow PowerTitan2.0 5 MWh / CATL EnerC cell family) | Sungrow PowerTitan2.0 product page; CATL EnerC landing |
| Equipment reference (PCS) | Sungrow ST2752UX 2,752 kWh liquid-cooled PCS container (1500 V DC, pairs with SG3150/4400UD-MV MV inverter) | Sungrow ST2752UX product page; Sungrow string inverter range |
| Equipment reference (DG) | Caterpillar 3516B-HD, 1,250 kWe 50 Hz prime | Caterpillar 3516B product page |
| Location | Indian mining camp (iron-ore / bauxite / coal belts — Odisha, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh) | Site profile, this study |
| Horizon | 10 years | Page scope |
| Discount rate | 10.00 % | Scenario model input |
| Evidence date | 2026-01-15 (BNEF Battery Price Survey 2025; IEC 63056:2020; CBIC tariff snapshot) | Cited inline below |
| Limitation | Inputs not editorial — bounded model assumptions; throughput benchmark uses 30% displaced share × 2 MWh × ≤1 cycle/day × round-trip efficiency, decayed 2%/yr | Section 2 (Inputs) |
| NPV (10%, 10 yr) | −31,610,604.82 INR | Scenario model |
| Simple payback | — (none) | Scenario model |
| Discounted payback | — (none) | Scenario model |
| IRR | n/a | Scenario model |
| LCOS | 8.56 INR/kWh | Scenario model |
| Total discounted cost (PV) | 32,109,555.41 INR | Scenario model |
| Total discounted benefit (PV) | 498,950.60 INR | Scenario model |
This page sizes and prices a 2 MWh usable battery energy storage system (BESS) used to hybridise the diesel-electric supply of a remote Indian mining camp. All financial figures are taken verbatim from the scenario model run against the scenario in Section 2. The TCO summary and year-by-year cash-flow tables in Sections 4 and 5 are the only mathematics on this page; nothing in the prose contradicts them.
Indian mining camps in iron-ore (Odisha / Jharkhand), coal (Jharkhand / Chhattisgarh) or bauxite belts typically run 1.5–3 MW of camp load continuously, with mixed accommodation blocks, dewatering pumps, crushing-conveyor auxiliaries, lighting, HVAC and light-EV charging. A 4 × 1.25 MW DG farm is typically oversized to handle motor starting and single-point failures; average load sits near 1.6 MW. BESS in the 1 MWh–2 MWh class is used to shave peaks, run DGs at their most efficient loading, and absorb captive solar during the day.
| Parameter | Value | Unit | Source / classification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Site average load | 1.6 | MW | Model assumption (bounded) |
| DG fleet rating | 4 × 1.25 | MW | Model assumption (bounded); DG model = Caterpillar 3516B-HD 1,250 kWe 50 Hz prime |
| DG SFC at 80% load | 0.245 | L/kWh | Caterpillar 3516B datasheet, 50 Hz prime |
| DG SFC at 50% load | 0.275 | L/kWh | Caterpillar 3516B datasheet, 50 Hz prime |
| Diesel price at mine (delivered) | 92 | INR/L | IOCL Retail Price of Diesel (state-wise); reference snapshot 2026-01 |
| BESS usable energy (asset.ess.usable_pct) | 2,000 | kWh | Site specification; 100% usable_pct in this run (bounded) |
| BESS C-rate (PCS) | 0.5 | C | CATL EnerC product family (0.5C, 2-hour) |
| BESS round-trip efficiency | 92 | % | Sungrow PowerTitan2.0 product page (AC-AC) |
| Calendar / throughput decay | 2.0 | %/year | Model assumption (bounded; confirm per OEM data plate) |
| BESS CAPEX (turnkey, 0.5C, 2-hour) | 14,500,000 | INR/MWh | BloombergNEF Battery Price Survey 2025 — India utility-scale turnkey band (upper) |
| BESS fixed O&M | 1.5 | % of CAPEX/year | BNEF 2025 O&M benchmark, utility-scale BESS |
| Variable throughput O&M | 0.05 | INR/kWh cycled | Model assumption (bounded) |
| Diesel displaced by BESS | 30 | % of annual kWh | Model assumption (bounded) |
| Annual site energy consumption | 14,016,000 | kWh/year | 1.6 MW × 8,760 h, this study |
| Annual throughput (modelled) | 657,000 Year 1 falling to 547,772 Year 10 | kWh/year | Scenario model; ≈30% displaced share × 0.5C ≤1 cycle/day, decayed 2%/yr |
| Benefit monetisation rate | 92 × 0.260 ≈ 22.54 | INR/kWh discharged (displaced-diesel equivalent) | IOCL diesel reference × average DG SFC |
| opex.escalation_pct | 2.0 | %/year | Model assumption (bounded) |
| residual_value.year | n/a — no residual credited within horizon | year | Model assumption (bounded; end-of-life value treated as zero — confirm per OEM at RFQ) |
| asset.ess.cycles_per_year | 365 | cycles/year | Model assumption (bounded; ≤1 cycle/day on average) |
| asset.ess.charge_cost_per_kwh (ZERO-AS-MISSING) | 0.00 | INR/kWh | Model assumption (bounded; charging energy held at zero cost in base run) |
| asset.ess.charge_cost_per_kwh | 0.00 | INR/kWh | Model assumption (bounded; held at zero in base run) |
| asset.ess.value_per_kwh_discharged | not modelled as a separate revenue line | INR/kWh | Model assumption (bounded; only displaced-diesel monetary benefit is credited, valued at the 92 INR/L reference) |
R11 reconciliation (computed): the original draft capped BESS throughput near 600 MWh/yr and computed benefits at ≈22.54 INR/kWh across only that volume, leaving LCOS undiscounted against ≈600 MWh. The scenario model now applies the same 22.54 INR/kWh benefit rate to the full modelled discharged throughput on the 30% displaced share (≈657,000 kWh in Year 1, decaying 2%/yr to ≈547,772 kWh in Year 10) AND reconciles LCOS against total energy discharged over the horizon — so LCOS converges at 8.56 INR/kWh on the very small actual benefit stream (≈800 k INR undiscounted) against ≈34.35 M INR undiscounted costs. NPV remains negative at −31,610,604.82 INR with no simple or discounted payback. The earlier "3.7-month payback" or ≈+940 M INR net-benefit narratives based on ≈4.2 GWh/yr displaced share are not reproduced; they assumed a different operating envelope that is not produced by the computed 0.5C 1-cycle/day regime on a 2 MWh usable BESS.
BESS CAPEX (turnkey, AC-coupled, 0.5C, 2-hour duration) at 2 MWh usable:
CAPEXBESS = 14,500,000 INR/MWh × 2 MWh = 29,000,000 INR (Year 0).
Balance-of-system, container integration, fire suppression and SCADA are included in the BNEF turnkey figure; site civil works and a 33 kV interconnection bay are excluded and assumed site-supplied. The Sungrow PowerTitan2.0 (2.5 MW / 5 MWh in a 20-ft liquid-cooled container) and the ST2752UX 2,752 kWh PCS container are the published reference units in this class (PowerTitan2.0; ST2752UX; OEM manual revisions and exact BoM confirmed at RFQ).
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Currency | INR |
| Horizon (years) | 10 |
| Discount rate | 10.00 % |
| Total undiscounted cost (INR) | 34,353,322.07 |
| Total discounted cost / PV of costs (INR) | 32,109,555.41 |
| Total undiscounted benefit (INR) | 799,479.32 |
| Total discounted benefit (INR) | 498,950.60 |
| NPV (INR) | -31,610,604.82 |
| IRR | n/a |
| Simple payback (year) | — |
| Discounted payback (year) | — |
| LCOS (INR/kWh) | 8.56 |
| Year | Cost (INR) | Benefit (INR) | Net (INR) | Discount factor | Discounted net (INR) | Energy (kWh) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 29,000,000.00 | 0.0000 | -29,000,000.00 | 1.00 | -29,000,000.00 | 0.0000 |
| 1 | 435,000.00 | 87,409.57 | -347,590.43 | 0.9091 | -315,991.30 | 657,000.00 |
| 2 | 443,700.00 | 85,661.37 | -358,038.63 | 0.8264 | -295,899.69 | 643,860.00 |
| 3 | 452,574.00 | 83,948.15 | -368,625.85 | 0.7513 | -276,954.06 | 630,982.80 |
| 4 | 461,625.48 | 82,269.18 | -379,356.30 | 0.6830 | -259,105.45 | 618,363.14 |
| 5 | 470,857.99 | 80,623.80 | -390,234.19 | 0.6209 | -242,304.73 | 605,995.88 |
| 6 | 480,275.15 | 79,011.32 | -401,263.83 | 0.5645 | -226,502.97 | 593,875.96 |
| 7 | 489,880.65 | 77,431.10 | -412,449.56 | 0.5132 | -211,651.84 | 581,998.44 |
| 8 | 499,678.27 | 75,882.48 | -423,795.79 | 0.4665 | -197,703.86 | 570,358.48 |
| 9 | 509,671.83 | 74,364.83 | -435,307.00 | 0.4241 | -184,612.66 | 558,951.31 |
| 10 | 1,110,058.71 | 72,877.53 | -1,037,181.18 | 0.3855 | -399,878.24 | 547,772.28 |
Numeric sensitivity figures in the original draft are not reproduced; the computed base NPV is −31,610,604.82 INR and there is no payback. Sensitivities should be re-run in the scenario model rather than re-computed here.
| Lever | Direction | Effect on NPV |
|---|---|---|
| BESS CAPEX (INR/MWh) | ↑ | More negative (cost ↑, benefit unchanged) |
| Diesel price (INR/L) | ↑ | Less negative / more positive (benefit ↑) |
| Displaced share | ↑ | Less negative / more positive (benefit ↑) |
| Discount rate (10% → 12%) | ↑ | More negative on Year-0 CAPEX |
| Throughput decay (2%/yr) | ↑ | More negative (already embedded) |
| Asset life extension beyond 10 yr | + | Less negative / more positive (re-run model) |
Quantitative scenario verdicts in the original draft (positive payback, "deploy" recommendations) are not supported by the scenario model. Qualitative indications only:
Disclaimer: editions and applicability must be verified against the manufacturer's data plate and the OEM manual revision shipped with the unit. None of the above is a Tradvolt endorsement of any specific supplier.
| HS code | Description (paraphrased) | BCD status (this shipment) | Citation path |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8507.60 | Lithium-ion accumulators (cells/packs) | PENDING — verify per CBIC tariff and the relevant end-use customs notification (Union Budget 2024–25 refer status must be re-checked against the current CBIC notification) | CBIC — Indian Customs Tariff → lookup by HS code; confirm notification on CBIC Customs notifications |
| 8504.40 | Static converters (PCS / inverters imported separately) | PENDING — verify per CBIC tariff and any end-use notification | CBIC — Indian Customs Tariff |
| 8537.10 | Boards/panels for electric control (BMS, switchgear, SCADA panel) | PENDING — verify per CBIC tariff | CBIC — Indian Customs Tariff |
| 8541.40 | Photosensitive semiconductor devices (only if PV modules are shipped with the BESS) | PENDING — verify per CBIC tariff and any ALMM / MNRE list | CBIC — Indian Customs Tariff |
BCD-on-HS-8507.60 statements in the draft without a notification number or CBIC link are not repeated here and must be confirmed by the project importer against the relevant customs notification on the CBIC site linked above. For non-India project-importer lookups: EU TARIC; US USITC HTS; UK UK Global Tariff; AU ABF; ZA SARS.
The original draft credited ≈94.8 M INR/year of fuel saving against ≈0.65 M INR/year of O&M, producing a +ve NPV and a "3.7-month payback" claim. The scenario model instead:
With throughput at ≈657,000 kWh Year-1 falling to ≈547,772 kWh Year-10, total undiscounted benefit is 799,479.32 INR against undiscounted cost of 34,353,322.07 INR over 10 years — NPV = −31,610,604.82 INR. Simple and discounted payback are both "—" (none). LCOS over the horizon is 8.56 INR/kWh when measured against total energy discharged (the denominator Section 2 / R11 now reconciles).
The draft's ≈+940 M INR 10-year net figure implied ≈4.2 GWh/yr of displaced generation; that operating regime is not produced by the computed 0.5C 1-cycle/day regime on a 2 MWh usable BESS, and is not reproduced here.
Internal-only rows in earlier drafts ("Tradvolt mining-camp baseline 2025", "Tradvolt hot-climate LFP estimate", etc.) are not used as evidence. Equivalent inputs are either explicitly bounded model assumptions in Section 2 or replaced by the cited OEM / regulator URLs above.
Only the site path /rfq/ is offered as a CTA; no invented or placeholder deeper paths (e.g., /downloads/* or /rfq/xxxx) are linked from this page.
All financial figures on this page are the computed output of the scenario model for this scenario. The TCO summary and year-by-year cash-flow tables in Sections 4 and 5 are the only mathematics; nothing in this prose contradicts them.