Unit economics
The model at Year 6, and what happens when it goes wrong.
Figures are taken from the business plan's profit-and-loss statement, the set consistent with its revenue and cost tables. All modelled.
₹215.11 Cr
Year 6 revenue · Year 6 revenue
modelled
₹92.03 Cr
Year 6 EBITDA · Year 6 EBITDA, 42.8%
modelled
₹54.15 Cr
Year 6 PAT · Year 6 PAT, 25.2%
modelled
24.7%
project IRR · project IRR
modelled
4.8
years · years to payback
modelled
Per kilogram
| Line | Modelled | Note |
|---|---|---|
| All-in production cost | ₹180–220/kg | Year 3+, both sites |
| Internal transfer price (captive) | ₹200–250/kg | floor beneath merchant pricing |
| Merchant price assumed | ₹280–355/kg | declining 10%/yr to Year 5 |
| Gross margin | 30–45% | sustained through cost leadership |
| Capital per MW | ~₹35.5 Cr | vs ₹45–55 Cr industry |
| DSCR | 1.04 → 4.2 | Year 1 → avg Years 2–6 |
Sensitivity — the downside case
20% lower volume. 10% higher cost. Still standing.
| Assumption | Base case | Downside | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Merchant volume | 100% | 80% | Captive 30% unaffected; revenue falls, DSCR stays above 1 in every year |
| Operating cost | Model | +10% | Landed cost rises to about ₹200–240/kg; still below market |
| Merchant price | ₹280–355/kg | −10%/yr | Already in the base case through Year 5 |
| Irradiance | 5.5 / 5.2 kWh/m²/day | −10% | ~1.5 h autonomy lost before the 2 h margin is touched |
| Fuel-cell capex | ₹45–50 lakh/100 kW | +30% | Battery-line saving compresses to ~₹16/kg; does not reverse |
Showing the downside is deliberate. A model that only works in its base case is not a model. The captive floor is what holds this one up when merchant volume falls.