Diesel Generator Hire Looks Cheaper. Is It Really?

When temporary power is priced for a project, the weekly hire rate is often the first figure compared.

A conventional diesel generator may initially appear cheaper than a hybrid generator. However, the hire rate is only one part of the operating cost.

Once fuel consumption is included, the result can change substantially.

The cheapest weekly hire rate may not be the cheapest way to power a site.

The cost that is easy to overlook

A diesel generator operating continuously consumes fuel even when the site is drawing only a small percentage of its rated capacity.

This is common on temporary sites where demand changes throughout the day. Offices, crib rooms, communications equipment, lighting and security systems may create short periods of higher demand, followed by long periods of relatively low consumption.

A Future Power Systems hybrid generator combines solar generation, battery storage and backup generation. The battery supplies the load for much of the operating period, while the generator starts only when additional energy is required.

This reduces generator runtime rather than relying on continuous diesel operation.

FPS manufactures six systems for smaller worksites, construction compounds, infrastructure projects and higher-capacity industrial applications.

Fuel use - not hire price - can determine the true cost of temporary power.

What our three-month comparison found

We modelled the cost of our six hybrid generator models against conventionally sized diesel generators operating for 24 hours per day at an assumed 25% load.

The calculation included:

• equipment hire

• estimated fuel consumption

• average FPS fuel use

• a three-month hire period

Across the modelled product range, the hybrid option produced estimated three-month savings of approximately:

$3,980 to $35,044

Estimated diesel savings ranged from:

3,276 litres to 18,776 litres

For example, the FPS20-20 was compared with a conventional 31kVA diesel generator.

Under the assumptions used, the conventional generator would consume approximately 82 litres per day, while the FPS20-20 average-use figure was approximately 5.2 litres per day.

For the FPS20-20 comparison, estimated diesel consumption fell from 82 litres per day to 5.2 litres per day.

Over three months, the model indicated an estimated saving of:

6,926 litres of diesel; $ 11,987 in total operating costs

These figures show why comparing hire rates alone can be misleading. A lower equipment rate does not necessarily produce a lower project cost.

The result depends on the site

Hybrid generator performance is influenced by:

• daily energy consumption

• peak demand

• overnight load

• solar access

• seasonal conditions

• equipment operating hours

• project duration

  
  

Some low-demand sites may require very little generator operation. Larger or continuously loaded sites will use more fuel, but can still benefit from reduced runtime, servicing and refuelling.

The correct comparison should therefore be based on the site’s expected load profile-not generator capacity alone.

The right temporary power system should be selected from the site load - not the hire rate alone.

See the complete comparison

Our full Hybrid Generator Hire and Cost Comparison Guide includes model-by-model pricing, equivalent generator sizes, estimated fuel use and projected three-month savings across the complete Future Power Systems range.

Subscribe to receive the full pricing and cost comparison guide.

All calculations are indicative estimates based on stated operating assumptions. Actual fuel use and savings will vary according to load profile, diesel price, site conditions, system configuration and operating practices.