Solar Energy 80 (2006) 1568–1579

www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Solar drying vs. open sun drying: A framework

for financial evaluation
Pallav Purohit, Atul Kumar, Tara Chandra Kandpal *

Centre for Energy Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India

Received 7 July 2005; received in revised form 21 November 2005; accepted 20 December 2005
Available online 17 February 2006

Communicated by: S.C. Bhattacharya

Abstract

Initiatives towards large-scale dissemination of solar dryers for drying of agri-produce face severe competition from the
largely prevalent practice of open sun drying in most of the developing countries. Therefore, solar drying systems must
offer exceptionally attractive financial gains to enhance their acceptance among the potential users. A modest attempt
to develop a simple framework to facilitate a comparison of the financial feasibility of solar drying as against open sun
drying has been made in the present work. Results of some exemplifying calculations are presented and briefly discussed.
Ó 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Solar dryer; Open sun drying; Agri-produce; Financial analysis

1. Introduction suffers from high product losses due to inadequate

Drying is practiced to enhance the storage life, to
minimize losses during storage, and to reduce trans-
portation costs of agricultural products (Leon et al.,
2002). Drying processes range from open sun drying
to industrial drying. In most of the developing coun-
tries, use of fossil fuels for drying of agricultural
products has not been practically feasible due to
unaffordable costs to majority of the farmers
(Okoro and Madueme, 2004). On the other hand,
traditional open sun drying practiced on a large
scale in the rural areas of the developing countries
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 11 2659 1262; fax: +91 11
2658 2037.
E-mail address: tarak@ces.iitd.ernet.in (T.C. Kandpal).
drying, fungal growth, encroachment of insects,
birds and rodents, etc. Properly designed solar dry-
ers may provide a much-needed appropriate alter-
native for drying of some of the agricultural
products in developing countries (Mahapatra and
Imre, 1990; Sodha and Chandra, 1994; Ekechukwu
and Norton, 1999; Hossain et al., 2005; Zhiqiang,
2005).
Considerable efforts have been made to design
and develop solar dryers for drying of agricultural
products (Fuller, 1995; Kiebling, 1996; Leon et al.,
2002; Singh et al., 2004). A large number of solar
dryers along with details of their configurations,
capacity, products dried and costs have been
reviewed by Kiebling (1996). A detailed review of
different solar dryers, and a comparison of their

0038-092X/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.solener.2005.12.009
 P. Purohit et al. / Solar Energy 80 (2006) 1568–1579
Nomenclature
Ac collector area required for drying an
amount Msd (dry basis) of the product
(in m2)
Bi net annual incremental benefits due to
replacement of open sun drying by solar
drying (in Indian Rupees (Rs), on 1st
August 2005, 1US$ = Rs 43.50)
Bqi annual incremental benefits due to im-
proved quality of product (in Rs)
Brw annual incremental benefits due to re-
duced wastage during product drying
(in Rs)
Co capital cost of solar dryer (in Rs)
Cp specific heat of raw product (in MJ/kg/
°C)
CUF capacity utilization factor of solar dryer
(in fraction)
d discount rate (in fraction)
f cost of the remaining components of the
indirect type solar dryer as a fraction of
the collector cost
fl fraction of dried product lost in the tradi-
tional open sun drying process
fq increase in the selling price of the product
due to improved quality as a fraction of
selling price of the product
hfg latent heat of vaporization of water (in
MJ/kg)
I average daily solar radiation availability
(in MJ/m2)
m annual operation and maintenance cost
of solar dryer as a fraction of its capital
cost (in fraction)
Mcf final moisture content of the product on
wet basis (in fraction)
performance and applicability in rural areas have
been undertaken by Fuller (1995) and Ekechukwu
and Norton (1999). Most of the solar dryers devel-
oped so far are designed for specific agricultural
products or class of products (FAO, 1980; ILO,
1986). Selection of a solar dryer for drying a particu-
lar agricultural product is determined by the drying
characteristics of the product, quality requirements
and economic considerations (Nonhebel, 1971;
Sodha and Chandra, 1994; Leon et al., 2002). The
operational parameters that significantly influence
the performance of a dryer are (a) drying air charac-
1569
Mci initial moisture content of the product on
wet basis (in fraction)
Msd per batch drying capacity of solar dryer
(in kg)
pc cost of the solar dryer per unit aperture
area (in Rs/m2)
pc,b break-even price of collector (in Rs/m2)
psp selling price of the product (in Rs/kg)
qevap useful energy required for evaporation of
moisture in the product (in MJ)
qsens useful energy required for sensible heat-
ing of the product (in MJ)
t useful life time of the solar dryer (in
years)
Ta ambient temperature (°C)
Td drying temperature (°C)
Uc,d unit cost of solar drying of the product
(in Rs/kg)
UEd minimum useful energy required for dry-
ing unit amount of the product (in MJ/
kg)
Uu,e unit cost of useful energy (in Rs/MJ)
Greeks
s time required for drying of a single batch
of the product (in days)
gd overall thermal efficiency of the solar
dryer (in fraction)
n fraction of the sensible heating require-
ment of the product on the first day that
is required for sensible heating on other
days of drying
asd capital cost of the solar dryer per unit
drying capacity (in Rs/kg)
teristics (such as drying air temperature, humidity
and airflow rate); (b) product variables (product
throughput, initial and final moisture contents,
product size and size distribution); and (c) dimen-
sional variables (width, length, height or diameter
of the dryer, number of passes and dryer configura-
tion). Evaluation of the performance of solar dryers
should consider these parameters. In the evaluation
of solar dryers, the parameters generally measured
and reported could be categorized as physical fea-
tures of the dryer, type, size, shape, drying capac-
ity/loading density, tray area and number of trays
1570 P. Purohit et al. / Solar Energy 80 (2006) 1568–1579
(as applicable), loading/unloading convenience,
thermal performance, drying time/drying rate, dry-
ing air temperature and relative humidity, airflow
rate, dryer efficiency, quality of dried product, sen-
sory quality (colour, flavour, taste, texture, aroma),
nutritional attributes, rehydration capacity, cost of
dryer and payback period (Leon et al., 2002).
Palaniappan and Subramanian (1998) presented
an economic analysis of a solar tea drying system
with a collector area of 212 m2. Purohit and Kand-
pal (2005) have presented a framework for the
financial evaluation of an indirect type solar dryer
substituting commercial fuels. Most of the studies
indicate that the use of solar dryer is financially
attractive to the end user in case of the substitution
of commercial fuels(s) (IDRC, 1989; Palaniappan
and Subramanian, 1998; Kandpal et al., 2003;
Purohit and Kandpal, 2005). However, none of
the studies address the issues related to the quanti-
fication and comparison of the benefit(s) and
cost(s) of substituting open-sun drying with solar
drying. As majority of the potential end users of
solar dryers in developing countries are presently
practicing open sun drying such a framework facil-
itating a comparison of open sun drying and solar
drying will be directly relevant and useful for
researchers, policy makers and other stakeholders
in the field.
The Ministry of Non-conventional Energy
Sources (MNES) of the Government of India has
made concerted efforts for a large-scale dissemina-
tion of solar energy devices in the country for more
than two decades (MNES, 2004). However, the dis-
semination of solar dryers in India for drying of
agri-produce faces severe competition from the lar-
gely prevalent practice of open sun drying and also
to a lesser extent from drying systems using biofu-
els and commercial fuels. Therefore, unless the
solar drying systems offer exceptionally attractive
financial gains as compared to open sun drying it
may not be practically possible to enhance their
acceptance among the potential users. A simple
framework for facilitating a comparison of the
financial feasibility of solar drying (using indirect
type solar dryers) to potential users as against open
sun drying is presented in this paper. The frame-
work takes into account the operational factors
such as initial and final moisture content, drying
temperature, drying time, harvesting period of the
agricultural product, etc. Similarly, the financial
factors such as capital cost, annual repair and
maintenance cost, capacity utilization factor, useful
lifetime, discount rate, selling price of the agricul-
tural product, etc. have also been internalized in
the proposed framework. Using the available data
on various parameters used in the framework
numerical values of relevant financial performance
measures for some typical cases have been calcu-
lated and presented.
2. Analysis
2.1. Capital cost of solar dryer
The minimum useful energy required for drying
unit amount of an agricultural product can be esti-
mated as the sum of the useful energy required for
sensible heating of the product (qsens) and the useful
energy required for evaporation of moisture in the
product (qevap), i.e.
1  M cf
   
UEd ¼ qsens þ qevap ¼ C p ðT d  T a Þ
1  M ci

M ci  M cf
 
 f1 þ ðs  1Þng þ hfg ð1Þ
1  M ci
where Mci and Mcf respectively represent the initial
and final moisture contents (on wet basis) of the
product to be dried, Cp the specific heat of the prod-
uct, and hfg the latent heat of vaporization of water,
s the time required (in days) for drying of a single
batch of the product. During off sunshine hours
the temperature inside the drying chamber of a solar
dryer may often decrease due to thermal losses and
reach values much below the drying temperature of
the product. Therefore, some thermal energy will be
required for sensible heating of the agricultural
product to its drying temperature on subsequent
days as well. In this paper, it is assumed that, on
other days of drying, a fraction n of the sensible
heating requirement of the agricultural product on
the first day is required to raise the temperature to
the drying temperature.
While the first term on the right hand side of
Eq. (1) represents the useful energy required for
sensible heating of wet agricultural product from
the ambient temperature (Ta) to the drying temper-
ature (Td), the second term represents the useful
energy required for evaporation of moisture in
the product. The specific heat of the product can
be estimated (in MJ/kg/°C) from Siebel’s formula
(ASHRAE, 1974)
C p ¼ f0:80M ci þ 0:20g4:1868  103 ð2Þ
 P. Purohit et al. / Solar Energy 80 (2006) 1568–1579 1571

The collector area (Ac) required for drying an where CUF represents the annual capacity utiliza-
amount Msd (dry basis) of the agricultural product tion factor of the dryer, m the annual repair and
may be expressed as (Purohit and Kandpal, 2005) maintenance cost as a fraction of the capital cost
!
1  M cf of the solar dryer, d the discount rate and t the use-
   
M sd
Ac ¼ C p ðT d  T a Þ ful lifetime of the dryer.
sIgd 1  M ci
   The unit cost of useful energy (Uu,e) delivered by
M ci  M cf
f1 þ ðs  1Þng þ hfg ð3Þ the solar dryer can be determined as
1  M ci

 
dð1þdÞt
2 3
Co ð1þdÞt 1
þm
U u;e ¼ 4
hn1M cf  o n o i5 ð7Þ
365CUFM sd ci M cf
s 1M ci
C p ðT d  T a Þ f1 þ ðs  1Þng þ M1M ci
hfg

where I represents the average daily solar radiation 2.3. Valuation of benefits
available during the harvesting period and gd the
overall thermal efficiency of the solar dryer. The potential merits of solar drying as compared
The capital cost (Co) of the solar drying system to open sun drying include (i) improved product
(of drying capacity Msd) can be expressed as quality, (ii) reduced wastage of products, (iii) reduc-

M sd pc ð1 þ f Þ

1  M cf
  tion in the drying time, and consequently, (iv) free
Co ¼ C p ðT d  T a Þ land available for some more days, etc. An
sIgd 1  M ci
   approach to quantify the monetary worth of the
M ci  M cf first two benefits has been presented in the following
 f1 þ ðs  1Þng þ hfg ð4Þ
1  M ci subsections.

where pc represents the market price of collector per 2.3.1. Improved product quality
unit aperture area and f the cost of the remaining The annual incremental benefits (Bqi) due to
components of the system as a fraction of the collec- improved product quality from a switch over from
tor cost. It may be noted that any possible economy sun drying to solar drying can be estimated as
of scale in the capital cost of the solar dryer with an
365CUFM sd fq psp ð1  fl Þ
 
increase in the collector area has been ignored in Eq.
Bqi ¼ ð8Þ
(4). s
The capital cost of the solar dryer per unit drying
capacity (asd) can, therefore, be expressed as where fl represents the fraction of dried product lost
in the traditional open sun drying process, fq the in-
1  M cf crease in the selling price of the product due to im-
   
Co pc ð1 þ f Þ
asd ¼ ¼ C p ðT d  T a Þ proved quality of the solar dried product as a
M sd sIgd 1  M ci
   fraction of selling price (psp) of the product. It
M ci  M cf
 f1 þ ðs  1Þng þ hfg ð5Þ may be noted that the monetary benefits of im-
1  M ci proved product quality shall only be applicable in
those situations when the consumers are quality sen-
2.2. Unit cost of drying and unit cost of useful energy sitive and are willing to pay higher prices for better
quality products. For most of the commonly con-
The unit cost of solar drying (Uc,d) can be deter- sumed food products, majority of the population
mined as the ratio of the total annual cost of the in developing countries may not normally satisfy
solar dryer to the total annual amount of agricul- the above-mentioned criteria.
tural product dried and can be mathematically
expressed as 2.3.2. Reduced wastage of the agricultural product
  during drying
dð1þdÞt Estimates for the annual incremental benefits
Co ð1þdÞt 1
þm
U c;d ¼ ð6Þ (Brw) due to reduced wastage during drying can be
365CUF


s
M sd obtained by the following expression:
1572 P. Purohit et al. / Solar Energy 80 (2006) 1568–1579

365CUFM sd fl psp ð1 þ fq Þ such information is presently not available in the lit-

 
Brw ¼ ð9Þ
s erature and a variety of assumptions have been
made in this paper to facilitate numerical calcula-
Thus, the net annual incremental benefits (Bi) due to tions for exemplifying the procedure.
replacement of open sun drying by solar drying can Table 1 presents the values of various input
be estimated as parameters used in the financial evaluation of a
365CUFM sd psp 100 kg capacity solar dryer (Alwar and Naidu,
 
Bi ¼ ðfq þ fl Þ ð10Þ
s 1998; Kandpal et al., 2003; Kandpal and Garg,
2003; Malik et al., 1980; Mande et al., 1999; Pala-
For financial feasibility of solar drying as compared niappan and Subramanian, 1998; Pangavhane and
to open sun drying, the ratio of incremental annual Sawhney, 2002; Singh and Singh, 1996). Since most
benefits to incremental annual costs should be great- parts of the country receive daily solar radiation in
er than unity. Using Eqs. (5) and (10) this condition the range 5–7 kW h/m2/day (Mani and Rangarajan,
can be mathematically expressed as 1981), a daily value of 5.5 kW h/m2 has been taken
365CUF
for the same in the calculations made in the present

s
ðfq þ fl Þpsp
n  o P asd ð11Þ study. The initial and final moisture contents of the
dð1þdÞt
þm
ð1þdÞt 1 products considered in the study are given in Table
2 (Purohit, 2004; Purohit and Kandpal, 2005;
2.4. Break-even price of collector Kumar and Kandpal, 2005). The overall drying effi-
ciency depends on several factors such as the type of
It may be useful to estimate the break-even price the dryer, product dried, weather conditions, and
of collector up to which a solar dryer would be final moisture content. Drying efficiency drops sig-
financially viable to the investor. The following nificantly with increasing drying time. According
expression has been obtained for the break-even to Mrema et al. (1987) the overall efficiency of dry-
price of the collector used in the solar dryer: ing is generally in the range of 10–15% for natural

365CUFpsp ðfq þ fl ÞIgd

pc;b ¼ n  ohn  o n o i ð12Þ
dð1þdÞt 1M cf ci M cf
ð1 þ f Þ ð1þdÞt 1
þm 1M ci
C p ðT d  T a Þ f1 þ ðs  1Þng þ M1M ci
hfg

3. Results and discussion
The framework presented in this paper is quite
generalized. It can be used for evaluating the finan-
cial feasibility of solar drying of any agricultural
product (as against open sun drying) subject to the
availability of accurate data on the parameters
and factors introduced in the framework. However,
convection dryers and 20–30% for forced convec-
tion dryers. Therefore, the overall drying efficiency
has been taken 25% in the present work. It may
be noted, the results of this study are valid for indi-
rect type solar dryers. In this type of dryers solar
collectors are used for air heating and separate dry-
ing chamber for crop drying. Such dryers can be
made to operate efficiently for a large variety of

Table 1
Input parameters used in the calculations
Parameter Symbol Unit Value
Mass of solar dried product in a batch Msd kg 100
Latent heat of vaporization of water hfg MJ/kg 2.26
Daily solar radiation availability I kW h/m2-day 5.50
Overall efficiency of drying gd Fraction 0.25
Market price of collector pc Rs/m2 3250
Annual repair and maintenance cost as a fraction of capital cost m Fraction 0.05
Useful lifetime of the dryer t Years 10
Discount rate d Fraction 0.10
Cost of the remaining components of the system as a fraction of the collector cost f Fraction 0.10
 P. Purohit et al. / Solar Energy 80 (2006) 1568–1579 1573

products by selection of suitable design and operat-
ing parameters. Moreover, to study the effect of a
possible variation in the overall efficiency of the
solar dryer, sensitivity of the unit cost of solar dry-
ing to its value has been shown in Fig. 1.
The value of the parameter n, introduced in the
framework to take into account the incremental sen-
sible heating requirement due to heat losses will
essentially depend upon the rate of heat loss from
the drying chamber during off sunshine hours and
the same, in turn, will depend upon the design and
construction of the drying chamber and ambient
conditions (temperature, wind speed, etc.). In an
indirect type solar dryer it should be possible to
insulate the drying chamber to minimize thermal
losses. In this study, as a conservative estimate, a
value of 0.50 has been considered for calculations.
The drying time (s) of a product would depend
on the characteristics of the product as both too
high and too low drying rates may spoil the prod-
uct. It may also be noted that a smaller value of s
would necessitate large collector area and conse-
quently increased capital cost for the same amount
of solar dried product per batch of drying. On the
other hand, for highly perishable products it may
be necessary to dry them in a shorter time. The val-
ues of s for the product considered in the study are
also given in Table 2.
The estimated values of the annual cost of dryers
for different products have been presented in Table
2. The estimates for the unit cost of drying of the
agricultural products considered in the study are
also presented in Table 2. It may be noted that these
estimates are critically dependent on the assump-
tions regarding the moisture content, the harvesting
season of the product and the drying time for each
batch of the solar dryer and hence the capacity uti-
lization factor of the dryer. For the values of differ-
ent parameters as assumed in Tables 1 and 2, a large
variation in the estimated annual cost of 100 kg
capacity (dried product) solar dryers for different
products is noticed. The collector size required for
the solar dryer and hence the annual cost of the
solar dryer directly depends on the number of days
one batch of a product needs to be kept in the dryer
for reaching the desired final moisture content. In
fact, the collector area required is relatively smaller
for products those take longer for drying in the
solar dryer. However, for such products, for a given
harvesting period, the total number of batches dried
shall be much smaller. As a consequence, though
the unit cost of drying varies from Rs 3.72 kg1
for coffee to Rs 22.53 kg1 for garlic flakes, the dif-
ference is not as pronounced as that in the capital
costs of the respective dryers. In order to get a pre-
liminary idea of the relative magnitude of the cost of
solar drying as compared to the prevailing whole-
sale selling price of the dried product in the market,
the unit cost of drying has also been expressed as a
fraction of its selling price in Table 2. It may be

Table 2
Unit cost of drying of different products for a 100 kg capacity solar dryer
Product Initial Final Harvesting Drying Annual Unit cost Unit cost Wholesale Unit cost of
moisture moisture time time cost (Rs) of drying of useful selling drying as a
content content (days) (days) (Rs/kg) energy price fraction of
(fraction) (fraction) (Rs/MJ) (Rs/kg) wholesale
selling price
Tobacco 0.90 0.10 150 4 71,068 18.95 0.95 45.00 0.42
Coffee 0.65 0.11 210 12 6510 3.72 0.68 42.32 0.09
Onion flakes 0.80 0.10 120 1 121,275 10.11 1.18 44.55 0.23
Garlic flakes 0.80 0.04 60 2 67,603 22.53 2.37 70.00 0.32
Grapes 0.80 0.15 90 4 32,150 14.29 1.58 150.00 0.10
Chilies 0.80 0.05 150 2 67,317 8.98 0.95 40.25 0.22
Ginger 0.80 0.10 75 7 21,342 19.92 1.90 55.00 0.36
Cabbage 0.80 0.04 270 2 67,603 5.01 0.53 2.00 2.50
Tea 0.80 0.03 280 4 37,272 5.32 0.51 69.87 0.08
Cardamom 0.72 0.06 150 14 7610 7.10 0.95 403.77 0.02
(small)
Pepper 0.71 0.13 135 2 34,714 5.14 1.05 73.66 0.07
Turmeric 0.80 0.10 150 5 27,517 9.17 0.95 55.25 0.17
Potato chips 0.75 0.13 150 3 30,341 6.07 0.95 2.50 2.43
Smashed tomato 0.85 0.10 270 2 89,765 6.65 0.53 3.00 2.22
1574 P. Purohit et al. / Solar Energy 80 (2006) 1568–1579

60

50

40
Unit cost of drying (Rs/kg)

30

20

10

0
0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.3
Overall efficiency of drying (in fraction)

Tobacco Coffee Onion flakes Garlic flakes Grapes

Chillies Ginger Cabbage Tea Cardamom
Pepper Turmeric Potato chips Smashed tomato

Fig. 1. Effect of overall efficiency of drying, gd, on the unit cost of drying of the product.

noted that for some products (cardamom, peeper, used in Eqs. (8)–(11). For different products and
tea, grapes and coffee) the unit cost of drying is possible variations in open sun drying practices
lower than 10% of their wholesale selling prices. the values of these parameters may vary consider-
For certain products (onion flakes, garlic flakes, ably. A detailed study of the extent of product
chilies, ginger, turmeric and tobacco) the unit cost loss(es) during sun drying and also of the prevailing
of drying is found to vary between 15% and 45% variation (if any) in the selling price of the agri-pro-
of the selling price of the dried product whereas in duce (due to adoption of different drying practices)
case of vegetables (cabbage, smashed tomato and is therefore critical for a realistic quantification of
potato chips) the unit cost of drying is higher than the monetary benefits of solar drying as compared
220% of their wholesale selling prices. to sun drying. Due to unavailability of detailed data
The quantification of benefits essentially depends on the above mentioned aspects, in this study, the
upon the estimation of the potential product loss value of fl is assumed to be 0.3 for highly perishable
during open sun drying and also upon the estima- products such as cabbage, garlic flakes, onion
tion of incremental price the solar dried product flakes, smashed tomato, potato chips, etc., and it
can fetch in the market as compared to the open is assumed to be 0.1 for other products (such as cash
sun dried product. In other words, the financial crops). It is also assumed that for cash crops, con-
attractiveness of solar drying (as against open sun trolled solar drying may provide a product which
drying) will depend upon the parameters fl and fq may, on an average, fetch 10% higher price than
 P. Purohit et al. / Solar Energy 80 (2006) 1568–1579 1575

that of the corresponding open sun dried product.
In this study such an increase in price has not been
considered for solar dried cabbage, onion flakes,
garlic flakes, smashed tomato and potato chips.
Table 3 presents the results of a preliminary quanti-
fication exercise undertaken for the base values of fl
and fq for a 100 kg (dried product) capacity solar
dryer in the reference case. Table 4 presents the
results for different values of fq for the same dryer.
Table 5 presents the financial performance indica-
tors of solar drying as against open sun drying. It
may be noted that solar drying of cash crops (such
as tea, cardamom, coffee, etc.) is financially quite
attractive whereas in case of vegetables (such as cab-
bage, smashed tomato, potato chips, etc.) solar dry-
ing does not appear to be a financially feasible
option for the prevailing value of the cost of the
solar dryer.

Table 3
Financial performance indicators of solar drying as against sun drying (reference case)
Product Annual incremental Annual incremental Net incremental Discounted Benefit to Net present Internal
benefits due to benefits due to benefits (Rs) payback cost ratio value (Rs) rate of
improved quality reduced wastage period (years) (fraction) return (%)
of solar dried of product (Rs)
product (Rs)
Tobacco 15,188 18,563 33,750 –a 0.47 229,301 –
Coffee 6665 8147 14,812 – 0.50 18,263 38.00
Onion flakes – 160,380 160,380 6.29 1.32 240,281 17.90
Garlic flakes – 63,000 63,000 11.48 0.93 28,281 8.20
Grapes 30,375 37,125 67,500 3.37 2.10 217,210 34.50
Chilies 27,169 33,206 60,375 12.46 0.90 42,653 7.24
Ginger 5304 6482 11,786 – 0.55 58,719 12.67
Cabbage – 8100 8100 – 0.12 365,618 –
Tea 44,018 53,800 97,818 2.57 2.62 372,031 44.85
Cardamom 38,935 47,587 86,522 0.52 11.37 484,884 205.80
(small)
Pepper 44,748 54,693 99,441 2.32 2.86 397,717 49.44
Turmeric 14,918 18,233 33,150 7.26 1.20 34,614 15.10
Potato chips – 3750 3750 – 0.12 163,390 –
Smashed tomato – 12,150 12,150 – 0.14 476,911 –
a
Not possible.

Table 4
Annual incremental monetary benefits of solar drying as against sun drying
Product Annual incremental benefits due Annual incremental benefits due Net incremental benefits (Rs)
to improved quality of solar dried to reduced wastage of product
product (Rs) (Rs)
fq = 0.05 fq = 0.10 fq = 0.15 fq = 0.05 fq = 0.10 fq = 0.15 fq = 0.05 fq = 0.10 fq = 0.15
Tobacco 7594 15,188 22,781 17,719 18,563 19,406 25,313 33,750 42,188
Coffee 3333 6665 9998 7776 8147 8517 11,109 14,812 18,515
Onion flakes – – – 160,380 160,380 160,380 160,380 160,380 160,380
Garlic flakes – – – 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000
Grapes 15,188 30,375 45,563 35,438 37,125 38,813 50,625 67,500 84,375
Chilies 13,584 27,169 40,753 31,697 33,206 34,716 45,281 60,375 75,469
Ginger 2652 5304 7955 6188 6482 6777 8839 11,786 14,732
Cabbage – – – 8100 8100 8100 8100 8100 8100
Tea 22,009 44,018 66,027 51,354 53,800 56,245 73,364 97,818 122,273
Cardamom (small) 19,467 38,935 58,402 45,424 47,587 49,750 64,892 86,522 10,8153
Pepper 22,374 44,748 67,123 52,207 54,693 57,179 74,581 99,441 124,301
Turmeric 7459 14,918 22,376 17,404 18,233 19,061 24,863 33,150 41,438
Potato chips – – – 3750 3750 3750 3750 3750 3750
Smashed tomato – – – 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150
1576 P. Purohit et al. / Solar Energy 80 (2006) 1568–1579

Table 5
Financial performance indicators of solar drying as against sun drying
Product Discounted payback period Benefits to cost ratio Net present value (Rs) Internal rate of return (%)
(Years)
fq = 0.05 fq = 0.10 fq = 0.15 fq = 0.05 fq = 0.10 fq = 0.05 fq = 0.05 fq = 0.10 fq = 0.15 fq = 0.05 fq = 0.10 fq = 0.15
Tobacco –a – – 0.36 0.47 0.59 281,146 229,301 177,456 – – –
Coffee 4.40 3.06 2.34 1.71 2.28 2.84 28,258 51,011 73,765 26.38 38.00 49.05
Onion flakes 6.29 6.29 6.29 1.32 1.32 1.32 240,281 240,281 240,281 17.89 17.89 17.89
Garlic flakes 11.48 11.48 11.48 0.93 0.93 0.93 28,281 28,281 28,281 8.19 8.19 8.19
Grapes 4.91 3.37 2.57 1.57 2.10 2.62 113,521 217,210 320,900 23.55 34.50 44.83
Chilies 37.36 12.46 8.17 0.67 0.90 1.12 135,398 42,653 50,091 0.53 7.20 13.08
Ginger – – 29.89 0.41 0.55 0.69 76,823 58,719 40,614 – – 1.10
Cabbage – – – 0.12 0.12 0.12 365,618 365,618 65,618 – – –
Tea 3.66 2.57 1.99 1.97 2.62 3.28 221,769 372,031 522,293 31.83 44.83 57.33
Cardamom 0.71 0.52 0.42 8.53 11.37 14.21 351,974 484,884 617,794 153.80 206.00 258.00
(small)
Pepper 3.28 2.32 1.80 2.15 2.86 3.58 244,962 397,717 550,472 35.50 49.44 63.00
Turmeric 12.26 7.26 5.22 0.90 1.20 1.51 16,309 34,614 85,537 7.42 15.12 22.04
Potato chips – – – 0.12 0.12 0.12 163,390 163,390 163,390 – – –
Smashed tomato – – – 0.14 0.14 0.14 476,911 476,911 476,911 – – –
a
Not possible.

The estimates obtained for the break-even prices the user up to a collector price of Rs 419 per m2
of the solar collectors for different products have only. It is therefore necessary to develop inexpensive
been presented in Table 6. The capital cost of the solar dryers for drying of vegetables and other
reference case solar dryer is also presented in this highly perishable products based on locally avail-
table. It may be noted that the break-even price of able materials and skills.
the collector is very high for most of the cash crops Fig. 2 presents the results of a sensitivity analysis
whereas in the case of vegetables the break-even undertaken to study the effect of uncertainties asso-
prices of collector are rather low. For example, in ciated with some of the important input variables on
the case of small cardamom, the use of a solar dryer the break-even price of the solar collector in case of
would be financially attractive even up to a collector tea drying. The break-even price of collector for tea
price of Rs 39,796 per m2 whereas for cabbage the drying is found to be quite sensitive to the capacity
use of a solar dryer will be financially attractive to utilization factor of the dryer and also its useful life-
time, and the discount rate. It also depends on the
extent of product loss during open sun drying and
Table 6 the incremental price gain for the solar dried prod-
Break-even price of collector for a 100 kg capacity solar dryer uct as compared to the open sun dried product.
Product Capital Break-even price The annual repair and maintenance cost has a mod-
cost (Rs) of collector (Rs/m2) erate effect on the break-even price of collector. The
Tobacco 388,889 1662 effect of an uncertainty in the value of daily solar
Coffee 35,624 7963 radiation availability (expressed as percentage
Onion flakes 663,630 4629
Garlic flakes 369,928 3262
change from the base value) on the break-even price
Grapes 175,928 7348 of the solar collector is the same as the effect of a
Chilies 368,363 3139 similar percentage change in the value of overall effi-
Ginger 116,785 1933 ciency of drying or the capacity utilization factor.
Cabbage 369,928 419 Fig. 3 presents the effect of the fraction of dried
Tea 203,954 9186
Cardamom (small) 41,640 39,796
product lost in the traditional open sun drying pro-
Pepper 189,960 10,026 cess (fl) on the net present value of the solar dryer
Turmeric 150,574 4217 for different products. The net present value of the
Potato chips 166,028 433 benefits likely to accrue to the user of solar dryer
Smashed tomato 491,203 474 is highly sensitive to fl.
 P. Purohit et al. / Solar Energy 80 (2006) 1568–1579 1577

50000

Break-even price of collector (Rs/m2)

d 40000

30000

fq
fl
20000
t

CUF
10000
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
% Variation from base case

Fig. 2. Sensitivity analysis for the break-even price of collector in tea drying for a 100 kg capacity (dried basis) solar dryer with respect to
(i) capacity utilization factor; CUF, (ii) fractional increase in the selling price of a solar dried product; fq, (iii) fraction of product lost in sun
drying; fl, (iv) discount rate; d, (v) useful lifetime; t, and (vi) annual repair and maintenance cost as a fraction of capital cost; m.

25000

20000

15000
Net present value (000. Rs)

10000

5000

0
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
fl (in fraction)

-5000

Tobacco Coffee Onion flakes Garlic flakes Grapes

Chillies Ginger Cabbage Tea Cardamom
Pepper Turmeric Potato chips Smashed tomato

Fig. 3. Effect of fl on the net present value of the solar dryer for different products.
1578 P. Purohit et al. / Solar Energy 80 (2006) 1568–1579
4. Concluding remarks
Solar drying of agricultural products appears to
be financially quite attractive for cash crops (such
as tea, cardamom, etc.) and it may even be possible
to justify the use of high cost solar drying systems
in their case. However, for drying highly perishable
products such as vegetables and fruits (aimed at
helping the low and middle income level popula-
tion in developing countries) it is extremely impor-
tant to develop low cost solar drying system
preferably using local materials and skills. The
framework developed in this study facilitates a
comparison of the financial feasibility of solar dry-
ing to potential users as against open sun drying. It
also incorporates the operational and financial fac-
tors of a solar dryer. However, the applicability of
the framework in its present form is restricted by
the assumptions made in its formulation. For
example, it is essentially applicable for indirect type
of solar dryers with their capital cost primarily
decided by the collector area. It is also worth
mentioning that the results of the framework will
depend upon the parameters used in the
calculations.
Acknowledgement
The financial assistance provided by the Council
of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New
Delhi to the first author (Pallav Purohit) is grate-
fully acknowledged.
References
Alwar, R.P.A., Naidu, R., 1998. Energy requirement and drying
techniques at estate level processing of coffee. In: Palaniap-
pan, C., Kolar, A.K., Haridasan, T.M. (Eds.), Renewable
Energy Applications to Industries. Narosa Publishing House
Private Ltd., New Delhi, India, pp. 67–70.
ASHRAE, 1974. ASHRAE Handbook and Product Dictionary:
1974 Application. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), New York, p.
42.1.
Ekechukwu, O.V., Norton, B., 1999. Review of solar-energy
drying systems II: an overview of solar drying technology.
Energy Conversion and Management 40, 615–655.
FAO, 1980. Assessment collection of data on post-harvest
foodgrain losses. Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO). Econ. Social Development Paper 13, pp. 1–70.
Fuller, R.J., 1995. A review of solar drying of fruit, vegetables
and other food crops. Agriculture Victoria. Department of
Natural Resources and Environment, Australia.
Hossain, M.A., Woods, J.L., Bala, B.K., 2005. Optimisation of
solar tunnel drier for drying of chilli without color loss.
Renewable Energy 30, 729–742.
IDRC, 1989. Final report: multi-crop dryers project first phase
(1986–1988). IDRC File No. 3-P-85-0063. The International
Development Research Centre (IDRC) of Canada.
Available from: <http://archive.idrc.ca/library/document/
046680/>.
ILO, 1986. Solar Drying: Practical Methods of Food Preserva-
tion. International Labour Office (ILO), Geneva.
Kandpal, T.C., Garg, H.P., 2003. Financial Evaluation of
Renewable Energy Technologies. Macmillan India Ltd.,
New Delhi, India.
Kandpal, T.C., Purohit, P., Kumar, A., 2003. Techno-economic
evaluation of solar crop dryer. In: Proceedings of the Second
International Conference on Renewable Energy Technology
for Rural Development (RETRUD-03), Katmandu, Nepal,
12–14 October 2003, pp. 197–201.
Kiebling, J., 1996. Solare Trochner—Eine Tabellarische Ubers-
icht (in German), Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische
Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, OE 402.2, Information and
Advisory Service for Appropriate Technology (ISAT), Pro-
jekt Nummer: 88.2000.3-03-100.
Kumar, A., Kandpal, T.C., 2005. Solar drying and CO2 emissions
mitigation: potential for selected cash crops in India. Solar
Energy 78, 321–329.
Leon, M.A., Kumar, S., Bhattacharya, S.C., 2002. A compre-
hensive procedure for performance evaluation of solar food
dryers. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 6, 367–
393.
Mahapatra, A.K., Imre, L., 1990. Role of solar agricultural
drying in developing countries. International Journal of
Ambient Energy 2, 205–210.
Malik, M.A.S., Sodha, M.S., Bansal, P.K., Bansal, N.K., Kumar,
A., 1980. Solar crop drying, vol. 2, Report No. GLO/80/003.
Report Submitted to United Nations Development Pro-
gramme (UNDP), Indian Institute of Technology Delhi,
India.
Mande, S., Kumar, A., Kishore, V.V.N., 1999. A study of large-
cardamom curing chambers in Sikkim. Biomass and Bioen-
ergy 16, 463–473.
Mani, A., Rangarajan, S., 1981. Solar Radiation Over India.
Allied Publishers Ltd., New Delhi, India.
MNES, 2004. Annual Report: 2003–2004. Ministry of Non-
conventional Energy Sources (MNES). Government of India,
New Delhi.
Mrema, G.C., Brenndorfer, B., Kennedy, L., Oswin Bateman,
C.O., Trim, D.S., Wereko-Brobby, C., 1987. Solar Dryers—
their Role in Post-Harvest Processing. Commonwealth Sci-
ence Council, London, UK.
Nonhebel, G., 1971. Drying of Solids in the Chemical Industry.
Butterworth & Co. Publishers Ltd., London.
Okoro, O.I., Madueme, T.C., 2004. Solar energy investments
in a developing economy. Renewable Energy 29, 1599–
1610.
Palaniappan, C., Subramanian, S.V., 1998. Economics of solar
air pre-heating in south Indian tea factories: a case study.
Solar Energy 63, 31–37.
Pangavhane, D.R., Sawhney, R.L., 2002. Review of research and
development work on solar dryers for grape drying. Energy
Conversion and Management 43, 45–61.
 P. Purohit et al. / Solar Energy 80 (2006) 1568–1579 1579

Purohit, P., 2004. Techno-economics of Renewable Energy
Utilization in Indian Agriculture Sector, Ph.D. thesis, Indian
Institute of Technology Delhi.
Purohit, P., Kandpal, T.C., 2005. Solar crop dryer for saving
commercial fuels: a techno-economic evaluation. Interna-
tional Journal of Ambient Energy 26, 3–12.
Singh, V.B., Singh, K., 1996. Spices. New Age International Ltd.,
New Delhi, India.
Singh, S., Singh, P.P., Dhaliwal, S.S., 2004. Multi-shelf portable
solar dryer. Renewable Energy 29, 753–765.
Sodha, M.S., Chandra, R., 1994. Solar drying systems and their
testing procedures: a review. Energy Conversion and Man-
agement 35, 219–267.
Zhiqiang, Y., 2005. Development of solar thermal systems in
China. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 86, 427–442.