,(((,QWHUQDWLRQDO&RQIHUHQFHRQ,QIRUPDWLRQ&RPPXQLFDWLRQ,QVWUXPHQWDWLRQDQG&RQWURO,&,&,&ದ
3DSHU,G
Economic Comparison of Solar PV and Diesel Water
Pumping System
Gitika Dadhich
Department of Renewable Energy
Rajasthan Technical University
Kota, India
gitika.dadhich@gmail.com
Abstract— In today’s scenario feasibility of a system is of
utmost importance to install it and get the desired output in a
more economic and better way. In this study investigation has
been done about the feasibility check of solar powered
irrigation practice followed in Pipalda Kalan a village in
Rajasthan near Kota. To run a submersible pump and supply
water to crop a photovoltaic based pump is used to utilize solar
energy as the basic source of it. Moreover, same rating pumps
of 5 hp of solar as well as diesel have been considered for the
economic analysis. Various parameters like benefit cost ratio,
net present worth and internal rate of return are considered for
the economic analysis and comparison of the two system. The
comparison shows that the solar water pumping system was
more feasible than the diesel-operated pump.
Keywords- IRR, LCC, net present worth, photovoltaic pumping
system, renewable energy, solar energy
I. INTRODUCTION
India holds 314642.32 MW of the installed capacity
including both the central and state sectors updated till
31.1.2017. Different energy resources holds different shares in
electricity production as 59.9% of coal, 8.05% of gas, 0.266%
of Diesel, 1.83% of nuclear, 14.04% of hydro, and 15.89% by
the clean energy i.e. by the renewable one[1].
The contribution of fossil fuel in environment pollution is
increasing day-by-day and researchers are moving forward in
the favor of non-conventional energy sources all over the
world. So for power generation renewable sources such as
solar, wind, geothermal etc. are used. To deal with the
environmental problem and at the same time fulfill the demand
of energy firstly, available renewable energy resource is
focused on in a particular region and then a better way should
be find out to make them more economic and efficient.
Here two systems are taken for water pumping i.e. the
diesel and solar pumps. Life cycle cost (LCC) method is
chosen to compare these two systems to evaluate which one is
better option. Field study has been done for the two installed
pumps in a field and based on different economic parameters as
the maintenance and operation costs, fuel costs, salvage costs,
initial costs a comparison is done.
IEEE Bombay Section/Madhya Pradesh Sub-Section
Vivek Shrivastava
Department of Electrical Engineering
Rajasthan Technical University
Kota, India
shvivek@gmail.com
A vast comparative study has been done on economic
analysis of water pumping using various methods. Oparaku [2]
took a case study of rural areas of Nigeria and a comparison is
done of the three sources PV, diesel generator and grid utility
options on the basis of cost to supply power. Odeh et al. [3]
took system between 2.8 kWp to 15 kWp size to evaluate the
economic feasibility of PV and diesel water pumping systems
in Ireland.
A stand-by solar system was analysed for economic as well
as environmental issues in Nigeria by Offiong [4]. Schmid and
Hoffmann [5] took a study of PV-diesel hybrid systems in
Amazon region for the replacement of diesel irrigation pumps
by PV systems and did the economic study too.
A techno-economic assessment of water pump for
renewable energy systems was done by Purohit and Purohit [6].
Curtis [7] for forage production in the great Basin checked the
economic feasibility of PV irrigation system. Mahjoubi et al.
[8] analysed photovoltaic water pumping systems in Tunisia
region desert on the economic bases. Sako et al. [9] chosen
Cote d’ivoire and did a comparison of photovoltaic, diesel
generator and grid extension on economic bases.
Moreover, Kumar et.al. [10] presented an overall
investigation of PV powered water pumping system.
Simulation study has been done by developing
MATLAB/Simulink model of the complete system.
II. METHODOLOGY
A. Area considered
This case study is taken for a village Pipalda Kalan located
in Pipalda Tehsil of Kota district in Rajasthan, India. It is 4 km
away from sub-district headquarter Pipalda and 85 km from
Kota which is the district headquarter. The gram panchayat of
Pipalda Kalan village is Pipalda according to 2009 statistics
[11].
Total geographical area of the village is 512.77 hectares
and a population of 5,143 peoples. About 1,060 numbers of
houses are there in the village. Mangrol is the nearest town to
Pipalda Kalan village which is at a distance of 40 km from it
[11]. Fig. 1 is showing the map of the Pipalda Kalan village
which is nearby to Itawa.
,(((,QWHUQDWLRQDO&RQIHUHQFHRQ,QIRUPDWLRQ&RPPXQLFDWLRQ,QVWUXPHQWDWLRQDQG&RQWURO,&,&,&ದ
3DSHU,G

Analysis of Life cycle cost of the system can be done by

using:

LCC = CC + MC + FC+ RC – SC
where,
CC= Capital cost
MC= Maintenance cost
FC= Fuel cost
RC= Replacement cost
SC= Salvage value

2. Net Present Worth (NPW):

It shows the final value of all the expenses and revenues
done during the whole life, which is discounted back to the
starting of the investment. This is used to compare various
options [16].
N t B CN
N
NPW
Fig. 1. Google Map representing Pipalda Kalan Village [12]. N 1 (1 i N
i)
where,
B. Economic Terminologies CN = Cost in each year
Following assumptions has been considered to analyze BN = Benefit in each year
both the systems on the economic basis as: N= 1, 2, 3................t
t Operating life: i = Interest rate
PV panels= 20 years.
Diesel engine= 10 years. 3. Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR):
It is the division of present worth of the benefits by the
t Maintenance cost:
present worth of the costs [17]. The value of BCR shows that
PV system= 0.1 % of total capital cost per year. the system is economically feasible over the period of
Diesel engine= 10 % of total capital cost per year. operation [18].
t Sunshine hours available= 300 days in a year. N t
BN
t Price of 5 hp diesel engine= Rs. 24,000 BCR N 1
N t
t Operating hours= 6 hr/day CN
N 1
t Salvage value:
where,
Diesel engine= 20 per cent of engine capital cost
CN = Cost in each year
t The interest rate on capital= 10% BN = Benefit in each year
Inflation rate= 4% [13]. N= 1, 2, 3................t
t CO2 emission per liter of diesel= 2.7 kg [14]. i = Interest rate, %

1. Life cycle cost (LCC): 4. Internal rate of return (IRR):

For a new system to be taken, life cycle cost is a key point IRR equates the present value of inflows to the present
to be considered with the investment cost. Presently the value of cash outflows i.e. the net present worth of the project
system’s ownership costs are much higher than the acquisition becomes zero [19].
cost. The LCC is the summation of all costs during the life time LV
of a system, both recurring (e.g. maintenance and operation) IRR = LR + × HR - LR
LV - HV
and non-recurring (e.g. investment cost) [15].
where,
Solar PV pumping system considered here is economically
IRR=internal rate of return
evaluated through life cycle cost (LCC) analysis. The overall
LR=lower rate
LCC of a solar pumping system consists of its capital cost,
HR=higher rate
maintenance cost, replacement costs and operational cost. All
LV=NPW at lower rate
future costs are converted to present worth of the system
HV=NPW at higher rate
considering the relative rate of inflation and discount rate
before adding these above costs.
,(((,QWHUQDWLRQDO&RQIHUHQFHRQ,QIRUPDWLRQ&RPPXQLFDWLRQ,QVWUXPHQWDWLRQDQG&RQWURO,&,&,&ದ
3DSHU,G

5. Payback Period In Pipalda Kalan village of Kota district around 300 clear
It is that time when the NPV equals to zero. It indicates the sky days remains available all over the year. The economic
recovery time for the investment costs. Payback periods should evaluation of PV based water pumping system is followed
be shorter as they are more preferred [19]. from. [22] and [23]. The NPW and payback period has been
considered for economic assessment.
C. PV Pump Specification
Sun is the utmost source of energy. Its energy is converted TABLE I. PV PANEL SPECIFICATIONS [24]
into electric energy which is used to pump the water from S. Specifications Values
ground or deep well for the solar water pumping system [20]. No.
A PV system is consists of different components wired 1. Maximum Power (Pmax) 230V
together known as balance of system which are as follows [21]: 2. Maximum Power Voltage (Vmp) 29V
t PV cells: These are semiconductors based power 3. Maximum Power(Imp) 7.39A
conversion units that transforms sunlight to electricity. 4. Short Circuit Current(Isc) 8.52A
Collectively these units form a module which
5. Open Circuit Volt( Voc) 36V
enhances power output and more of these module
connection in parallel or series forms panel. 6. Max System Voltage 1000V

t Storage medium: The converted electrical energy of

TABLE II. PV WATER PUMPING SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS [25]
the cell is stored in battery bank and used at night or
when no energy is available. S. Specifications of Solar Details
t Voltage regulator: Overcharging and over No. Water Pump (WAREE)
discharging of the storage i.e. battery is managed and 1. Pump Type Submersible
prevented by voltage regulator which reverses current.
t Inverter: The system gets the usable AC voltage 2. Domestic lighting system (DLS) Included
from inverter which converts the incoming low DC-
voltage to the AC one. 3. Static/ Manual/ Auto tracker With Auto tracker
t Loads: It can be AC or DC devices consuming the
power output of the system. 4. AC/DC Type AC

5. Head 50 m

6. Base rate (in Rs. per set) 4,57,000/-

Fig. 2 shows the Solar PV pump installed in Pipalda used

for irrigation purpose in the field. Table I shows the technical
specifications of PV panel of 3000 Wp of WAREE Energies
Pvt. Ltd.. In Table II PV pump specifications are provided. In
the study SPV submersible pump with AC, DLS (domestic
lighting system) and an auto tracker is used.
D. Calculations for Diesel Pump:
A diesel pump of 5 hp is considered in the comparison
study.
t The specific fuel consumption (sfc) of chosen diesel
pump = 0.251kg/kWh i.e. 0.301 lt/kWh
(Density of diesel taken = 0.832kg/lt)
t Annual Fuel Cost = (sfc × capacity) × Fuel Price × No.
of operating total hrs per year
= (0.301lt/kWh × 3.73kW) × (54.9Rs/lt) ×
(6hrs/day × 300days/yr)
= 1,10,948 /-

Fig.
i 2.2 Solar
S l PV pumping
i system in
i the
h field
fi ld for
f irrigation.
i i i
,(((,QWHUQDWLRQDO&RQIHUHQFHRQ,QIRUPDWLRQ&RPPXQLFDWLRQ,QVWUXPHQWDWLRQDQG&RQWURO,&,&,&ದ
3DSHU,G

t Maintenance Cost per year = Depreciation rate × Cash flow analysis of Solar PV pumping system
Capital Cost Cash flow analysis of solar pumping system of 3000Wp
irrigating an area of 2 ha is done in the work. The operating
= 0.1 × 24000 days of the system is 300 per year and the pump works for 6
= 2,400/- hrs per day i.e. a total of 1800 hrs per yr.
Table IV shows the different Cost analysis done for the
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION system:
A techno economic analysis has been done in the case
study of the village. Various parameters are considered for the TABLE IV. COST ANALYSIS OF SOLAR PUMPING SYSTEM
comparison of the two water pumping system for irrigation S. Cost Specification Cost
that is the diesel and PV system. No. Details
Table III shows the parameters considered for comparison 1. Capital or the installed cost of the system Rs. 4,57,000
2. Overall Investments (A) Rs. 4,57,000
of the two for the life cycle cost evaluation. The cost of PV 3. Power taken by the system Free of cost.
system initially is although higher than the diesel one but the 4. Maintenance cost which is 0.1% of (A) per yr Rs. 457
life cycle cost of the PV system is lower. The fuel and 5. Land cost taken for per yr (Rs. 1000 per month) Rs. 12,000
replacement cost for solar pump is not there which is a 6. (B) Cost of electricity generation which is the total of Rs.12,457
positive part of it and thus reduces the LCC. Maintenance and land cost per yr
7. Cost of Diesel saved per year@ 54.9(Rs/lt) Rs. 1,10,948
TABLE III. LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS COMPARISON OF THE TWO Table V shows the Environment Benefit analysis done for the
SYSTEMS system considering the CO2 emission and trading rate related
S. Costs PV system Diesel Engine to it:
No. (Rs.) (Rs.)
TABLE V. ENVIRONMENT BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF SOLAR PUMPING
1. Capital Cost (CC) 4,57,000 24,000 SYSTEM
2. Maintenance Cost (MC) 9,140 48,000
S. Parameters Values
3. Fuel Cost (FC) - 22,18,960 No.
4. Replacement Cost (RC) - 24,000 1. CO2 Emission (1.125 lt/hr × 6 hr × 300days/yr × 5.46 tons/yr
2.7kg CO2)
5. Total Cost 4,66,140 23,14,960
2. Carbon tax benefit @ 50 per ton(5.46 × 50) Rs. 273
6. Salvage Cost (SC) 55,560.531 4,800
3. Carbon trading rate per yr (24.16 $ per tons) = 24.16 Rs. 8,503.150
7. Life Cycle Cost (LCC) 4,10,579.469 23,10,160 × 64.46 × 5.46
(* 1 US $ = Rs. 64.46)
4. Total Carbon Benefit (273 + 8503.150) Rs. 8,776.15
Fig. 3 shows the graphical comparison of the two water
5. Total Profit (c) = 8776.15 + 110948 Rs. 1,19,724.15
pumping system for the duration of 20 years. The first
comparative tab shows the variation among the LCC of them 6. Net annual saving (D) = C ‒ B Rs. 1,07,267.15
and thus indicates the lower cost for PV system and the second 7. Net present worth (NPW) Rs. 456225.7
one show the comparative values for the Total Cost of the two. 8. Benefit cost ratio 1.81
Although the initial investment is higher for the SPV system 9. Payback period (A/D) 4.26
in comparison to the diesel system still it is at the positive side
of having lower total cost. TABLE VI. CASH OUTFLOW FOR SOLAR PV PUMPING SYSTEM
2500000 Cash
PW of cash Cash PW of cash
out NPW
Year outflow inflow inflow
flow (Rs.)
2000000 (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.)
(Rs.)
0 457000 457000 0 0 -457000
1500000
Cost in Rs.

1 12457 11324.55 119724.15 108840.1 97515.59

PV Syst
2 12457 10295.04 119724.15 98945.58 88650.54
1000000 Diesel Syst
3 12457 9359.13 119724.15 89950.53 80591.4

500000 4 12457 8508.3 119724.15 81773.21 73264.91

5 12457 7734.82 119724.15 74339.28 66604.46
0 6 12457 7031.65 119724.15 67581.16 60549.51
Total Cost LCC
7 12457 6392.41 119724.15 61437.42 55045.01
Fig. 3 Graphs showing total cost and LCC in 20 years. 8 12457 5811.28 119724.15 55852.2 50040.92
,(((,QWHUQDWLRQDO&RQIHUHQFHRQ,QIRUPDWLRQ&RPPXQLFDWLRQ,QVWUXPHQWDWLRQDQG&RQWURO,&,&,&ದ
3DSHU,G

9 12457 5282.98 119724.15 50774.73 45491.75 The cost analysis of the system is made by considering the
assumptions made in the starting. Payback period of 4.26 is
10 12457 4802.71 119724.15 46158.84 41356.13
estimated which shows that investment is attained in PV water
11 12457 4366.1 119724.15 41962.58 37596.48 pumping system in this duration is feasible. The benefit cost
12 12457 3969.18 119724.15 38147.8 34178.62 ratio for this payback period is calculated as 1.81.
The IRR percentage should be high as it denotes good
13 12457 3608.35 119724.15 34679.82 31071.47
returns thus here the internal rate of return for the SPV water
14 12457 3280.32 119724.15 31527.11 28246.79 pumping system is obtained as 23.10413 percent for the two
15 12457 2982.11 119724.15 28661.01 25678.9 discount rates taken as 23.10 as the lower rate and 23.11 as the
higher one for the calculations.
16 12457 2711.01 119724.15 26055.46 23344.45
17 12457 2464.55 119724.15 23686.78 21222.23 IV. CONCLUSIONS
18 12457 2240.5 119724.15 21533.44 19292.94 Following conclusions were made from comparative study
of the two water pumping systems taken from the case study
19 12457 2036.82 119724.15 19575.86 17539.04
of Pipalda Kalan village in Kota, Rajasthan. The Total cost
20 12457 1851.65 119724.15 17796.23 15944.58 (TC) of PV system for a life span of 20 years was found as Rs.
Total 706140 563053.5 2394483 1019279 456225.7 4,66,140 and of the diesel engine was Rs. 23,14,960. The Life
cycle cost (LCC) of PV system was Rs. 4,10,579.469 which is
TABLE VII : INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN (IRR) FOR SOLAR PV WATER very less than the diesel engine which came out to be Rs.
PUMPING SYSTEM 23,10,160. Net present worth (NPW) of the system after 20
23.10% Discount 23.11% Discount years was found to be Rs. 4,56,225.7 and internal rate of
Factor Factor
return (IRR) was found as 23.10413%. Finally the benefit cost
Cash Present Present
Year flow
Discount
Value
Discount
Value ratio was found to be 1.81 with a payback period of 4.62
Factor Factor years. The overall comparison of the solar as well as the diesel
(Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.)
-457000 1 -457000 1 -457000 engine shows that PV water pumping system is quite feasible
than that of the diesel one.
1 107267.2 0.8123 87133.11 0.8123 87133.11
2 107267.2 0.6599 70785.59 0.6598 70774.87 V. REFERENCES
3 107267.2 0.5361 57505.92 0.5359 57484.47
[1]. Central Electricity Authority. (2017, Jan. 22). All India Installed
4 107267.2 0.4355 46714.84 0.4353 46693.39 Capacity (in MW) of Power Stations. [online] Available:
http://www.cea.nic.in/.
5 107267.2 0.3538 37951.12 0.3536 37929.66 [2]. O. U. Oparaku, “Rural area power supply in Nigeria: A cost
6 107267.2 0.2874 30828.58 0.2872 30807.13 comparison of the photovoltaic, diesel/gasoline generator and grid
utility options,” Renew. Energy, vol. 28, no. 13, pp. 2089–2098,
7 107267.2 0.2334 25036.15 0.2333 25025.43 2003.
[3]. I. Odeh, Y. G. Yohanis, and B. Norton, “Economic viability of
8 107267.2 0.1896 20337.85 0.1895 20327.12 photovoltaic water pumping systems,” Sol. Energy, vol. 80, no. 7,
9 107267.2 0.1541 16529.87 0.1539 16508.41 pp. 850–860, 2006.
[4]. Offiong, “Assessing the Economic and Environmental Prospects of
10 107267.2 0.1251 13419.12 0.125 13408.39 Stand-By Solar Powered Systems in Nigeria,” J. Appl. Sci.
Environ. Manag., vol. 7, pp. 37–42, 2003
11 107267.2 0.1017 10909.07 0.1016 10898.34 [5]. Schmid, A.L. and Hoffmann “Replacing diesel by solar in the
Amazon: short-term economic feasibility of PV-diesel,” CCA
12 107267.2 0.0826 8860.267 0.0825 8849.54
(2004).
13 107267.2 0.0671 7197.626 0.067 7186.899 [6]. I. Purohit and P. Purohit, “Techno-economic evaluation of
renewable energy systems for irrigation water pumping in India,”
14 107267.2 0.0545 5846.06 0.0544 5835.333 ISES Sol. World Congr. 2007, ISES 2007, vol. 4, no. 1, 2007.
[7]. K. R. Curtis, “Economic Feasibility of Solar Photovoltaic
15 107267.2 0.0443 4751.935 0.0442 4741.208
Irrigation System Use in Great Basin Forage Production,”
16 107267.2 0.036 3861.617 0.0359 3850.891 Economics Applied economics, Utah university, pp. 1–4, 2010.
[8]. A. Mahjoubi, R. F. Mechlouch and A. B. Brahim, “Economic
17 107267.2 0.0292 3132.201 0.0292 3132.201 viability of photovoltaic water pumping systems in the desert of
Tunisia,” International Renewable Energy Congress, November 5-
18 107267.2 0.0237 2542.231 0.0237 2542.231 7, 2010, Sousse, Tunisia, 2010.
19 107267.2 0.0193 2070.256 0.0192 2059.529 [9]. K. M. Sako, Y. N'guessan, A. K. Diango, and K. M.
Sangaré, “Comparative economic analysis of Photovoltaic, Diesel
20 107267.2 0.0157 1684.094 0.0156 1673.368 Generator and Grid Extension in Cote D’ivoire,” Asian Journal of
Applied Sciences, vol. 4, no. 8. pp. 787–793, 2011.
NPW 97.5063 NPW -138.481 [10]. B. Kumar, Y. K. Chauhan, and V. Shrivastava, “Performance
analysis of a water pumping system supplied by a photovoltaic
generator with different maximum power point tracking
,(((,QWHUQDWLRQDO&RQIHUHQFHRQ,QIRUPDWLRQ&RPPXQLFDWLRQ,QVWUXPHQWDWLRQDQG&RQWURO,&,&,&ದ
3DSHU,G
techniques,” Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol., vol. 36, no. 1, pp.
107–113, 2014.
[11]. Indian Village Directory. (2017, Jan 22). Peepalda kalan [online]
Available: https://villageinfo.in/rajasthan/kota/pipalda/peepalda-
kalan.html.
[12]. Google Map (2017, May. 10). Pipalda Map. [online]. Available:
https://www.google.co.in/maps/dir/Peepalda+Kalan,+Rajasthan/K
ota,+Rajasthan/@25.2344336,75.9826716,10z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m
13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x39701af6db04e107:0x2a6979e332247e89
!2m2!1d76.6094997!2d25.2755786!1m5!1m1!1s0x396f9b30c41bb
44d:0x5f5c103200045588!2m2!1d75.8647527!2d25.2138156.
[13]. Kolhe, M., Kolhe, S. and Joshi, J.C. (2002). Economic viability of
stand-alone solar photovoltaic system in comparison with diesel
powered system for India. Energy Econ., 24 (2): 155-165.
[14]. Chaurey, A. and Kandpal, T.C. (2009). Carbon abatement potential
of solar home systems in India and their cost reduction due to
carbon finance. Energy Policy, 37(1):115–125.
[15]. Dhillon, B. (2009). Life Cycle Costing For Engineers. Boca Raton:
CRC Press.
[16]. P. E. Campana, A. Olsson, H. Li, and J. Yan, “An economic
analysis of photovoltaic water pumping irrigation systems,” Int. J.
Green Energy, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 831–839, 2016.
[17]. P. D. Narale, N. S. Rathore, and M. M. Lad, “Techno economic
assessment of solar photovoltaic water pumping system,”
International Journal of Agricultural Engineering, vol. 7, no. 1,
pp. 1–6, 2014.H. F. Ahmed, “An Approach for Design and
Management of a Solar-Powered Center Pivot Irrigation System,”
M.S. thesis, Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering,
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, 2013.
[18]. H. F. Ahmed, “An Approach for Design and Management of a
Solar-Powered Center Pivot Irrigation System,” M.S. thesis,
Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, University of
Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, 2013.
[19]. P. Keeratiurai, “Comparison of Drip and Sprinkler Irrigation
System for the Cultivation Plants Vertically,” ARPN Journal of
Agricultural and Biological Science, vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 740–744,
2013.
[20]. S. Lal, P. Kumar, and R. Rajora, “Performance analysis of
photovoltaic based submersible water pump,” Int. J. Eng. Technol.,
vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 552–560, 2013.
[21]. Md. T. Khan, S. Sarkar, S. Hossain, A. U. Ahmed, and B. B.
Pathik, “The Feasibility Study of Solar Irrigation: Economical
Comparison between Diesel and Photovoltaic Water Pumping
Systems for Different Crops”, Electrical Information and
Communication Technology (EICT), 2013 International
Conference on IEEE, 2014.
[22]. Panwar N.L., Surendra K., Kaushik S.C., “Techno-economic
evaluation of masonry type animal feed solar cooker”,Energy
policy, 52: 583-586 (2013).
[23]. Kandpal T.C., Garg H.P., “Financial Evaluation of Renewable
Energy Technology”, Macmillan India Ltd. 2003, Chapter27, pp.
293–306.
[24]. WAREE (2017, May 10). [online] Available: Technical
Specificationhttp://fotovoltaico.gaiaenergygroup.it/FOTO/DOWN
LOAD/Aditya_Series_WS_230-WS_400.pdf
[25]. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Goyal (2013, Oct 10) [online] Available:
http://www.cips.org.in/documents/2013/24th_Oct/shri-dinesh-
kumar.pdf