Optimization Power Systems Pinch Analysis

Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e10
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
Optimal sizing of hybrid power systems using power pinch analysis

Nor Erniza Mohammad Rozali a, Sharifah Radah Wan Alwi a, *, Zainuddin Abdul Manan a,
Jir Jaromr Klemes b, Mohammad Yusri Hassan c
a
Process Systems Engineering Centre (PROSPECT), Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Johor Bahru, Malaysia
}
Centre for Process Integration and Intensication e CPI2, Research Institute of Chemical and Process Engineering e MUKI,
Faculty of Information
Technology, University of Pannonia, Egyetem u. 10, H-8200 Veszprm, Hungary
c
Centre of Electrical Energy Systems (CEES), Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia
b
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 3 September 2013
Received in revised form
27 November 2013
Accepted 9 December 2013
Available online xxx
Hybrid Power Systems (HPS) consist of different renewable generators, which produce electricity from
renewable energy (RE) sources required by the load. An optimal sizing method is the key factor to
achieve the technical and economical feasibility of the HPS. Power Pinch Analysis (PoPA) method has
been applied to set the guidelines for proper HPS sizing. Different scenarios for RE generators allow the
designers to choose the best alternative for their systems. The scenarios considered are the reduction of
(1) the size of the most expensive RE generator, (2) the size of generator with the most abundant RE
sources available during the time interval with large electricity surplus and (3) the size of both the most
expensive and abundant RE sources available during the time interval with large electricity surplus. The
results show that the rst option yields the minimum capital and operating costs and results in the
lowest payback period for a given set of electricity targets.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Power pinch analysis (PoPA)
Hybrid power systems (HPS)
Renewable energy
Sizing
Optimisation
Management
1. Introduction
The growing global concerns on the depletion of energy resources, climate change and environmental emissions have become
the key drivers to sustainable development. Reducing greenhouse
gas emissions and mitigating global warming are becoming socially
and economically pressing for nations across the globe
(Georgakellos, 2012). Effective measures to prevent climate change
include mitigating emissions from the power generation systems
(Battaglini et al., 2009) and to accelerate the implementation of
renewable energy (RE) sources as clean alternatives to fossil fuels in
power generation and hybrid power systems (HPS). In the long run,
application of RE sources can prove to be a smart economic strategy
as it can provide an effective safeguard to the changing climate
while enhancing energy security and efciency (Purvins et al.,
2011).
Different types of renewable energy generators have been
installed in HPS to produce electricity to be supplied to the loads.
The high uctuations in time and output of many RE sources
however makes them harder to be utilised efciently in large
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 60 7 5536025; fax: 60 7 5588166.

E-mail addresses: sr_wanalwi@yahoo.com, shasha@cheme.utm.my (S.R. Wan Alwi).
power networks (Grbe et al., 2012). This can signicantly affect the
systems performance because electricity should be produced and
supplied at the time when it is needed. An optimal sizing method is
therefore vital to ensure a cost-effective utilisation of RE sources at
the desired conditions. Higher investment cost results from the
larger HPS sizes, while supply uctuations for a particular load may
lu et al., 2009). In order to
occur due to smaller HPS sizes (Hocaog
obtain an optimum HPS, various sizing methods such as the
simulation, graphical, iterative, probabilistic and articial intelligence techniques can be implemented.
Software tools that are available for designing the HPS include
Hybrid Optimization by Genetic Algorithm e HOGA (BernalAgustn and Dufo-Lpez, 2009), energyPRO (Lund et al., 2009),
RETScreen (Redpath et al., 2011) and Hybrid Optimisation Model
for Electric Renewables e HOMER (Goodbody et al., 2013). A
graphical approach for optimal HPS was introduced by Borowy and
Salameh (1996) who proposed a methodology to calculate the
optimum size of a battery bank and the photovoltaic (PV) array in a
hybrid wind-PV system. The minimum cost of the system was used
to calculate the optimum conguration for a given load and a
desired loss of power supply probability (LPSP). The optimum
sizing is achieved by constructing the curve that represents the
relationship between the number of PV modules and batteries.
Kaldellis et al. (2009) developed an optimum sizing methodology
0959-6526/$ e see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.028
Please cite this article in press as: Mohammad Rozali, N.E., et al., Optimal sizing of hybrid power systems using power pinch analysis, Journal of
Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.028
N.E. Mohammad Rozali et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e10
for stand-alone PV-battery systems according to the PV panels

number against battery maximum size curve. Application of the
method on case studies shows that the minimum energy payback
period is achieved whilst providing 100% energy autonomy for
remote consumers. The concept of design space is applied by
Bandyopadhyay (2011) to establish the optimum sizing of generators and storage for isolated power systems. Identication of the
design space is done by constructing the sizing curve, which represents the minimum storage capacity for a given generator rating.
Application of iterative optimisation technique for HPS optimisation has been carried out by Kaabeche et al. (2011). They recommended an optimal sizing model based on an iterative
technique to optimise the capacity of different components in
hybrid PV/wind power generation systems using a battery bank. A
two-stage iterative approach for distributed generation (DG) sizing
was given by Rotaru et al. (2012). The time-dependent evolution of
generation and load are taken into account in determining the
pseudo-optimal DG sizing without violating any of the system
constraints under any operating condition. Mohamed and Khatib
(2013) recently proposed an optimisation method based on iterative simulation to optimally size a PV/wind/diesel generators with
battery storage. The optimal sizes obtained are closely matched
with the results calculated by HOMER software.
The probabilistic approach was presented by Tina and Gagliano
(2011). The authors evaluate the long-term performance of hybrid
solar-wind power systems using the probability density function
(PDF) based on the convolution technique. Ould Bilal et al. (2013)
incorporated the uctuating nature of the resources as well as
the loads by using the probabilistic technique. The presented
method eliminates the need for time-series data in optimising the
hybrid PV-wind-battery system in order to reach the best
compromise between annual cost system (ACS) and the loss of
power supply probability (LPSP).
Rajkumar et al. (2011) applied the articial intelligence method
namely Neuro-Fuzzy in optimising the HPS. The PV and wind systems are modelled with the Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy System (ANFIS)
and the results showed that low excess energy is achieved.
Nasiraghdam and Jadid (2012) recommended a novel multiobjective articial bee colony algorithm to investigate the distribution system reconguration and the optimal sizing of a hybrid
energy system. The key parameters considered as the optimisation
objectives include the total power loss, total electrical energy cost
and total emission. The optimal capacity of individual components
in a stand-alone hybrid generation system is decided using Adaptive Genetic Algorithm by Chen (2013). The proposed method appears to be useful in locating the global optimum for large
nonlinear systems.
In this paper, the Pinch Analysis technique is applied to optimally size an HPS e see e.g. Klemes and Varbanov (2013). Pinch
Analysis has been, and is still widely applied for the optimal targeting and design for various resource networks. This is demonstrated by the recent publications e.g. heat (Torres et al., 2013),
mass (Tay and Ng, 2012), water (Shenoy and Shenoy, 2013), carbon
(Munir et al., 2012), property (Saw et al., 2011) and gas (Lou et al.,
2013). Those papers declared that the Pinch Analysis has gained
general acceptance by the public on its usefulness due to its simple
insightful approaches that are either based on graphical or numerical techniques. The recent extension of Pinch Analysis for the
design of power systems is employed in this paper. Power Pinch
Analysis (PoPA) technique introduced by Wan Alwi et al. (2012)
helps designers to determine the minimum targets for outsourced electricity as well as the amount of excess electricity. The
(PoPA) technique has been further extended by Mohammad Rozali
et al. (2013a) to include the losses analysis associated with power
conversion, transfer and storage. The previous studies have been
Table 1
Limiting power sources for Illustrative Case Study.
Power source
Time, h
AC
DC
From
To
Solar
2
0
8
10
24
18
Wind
Biomass
Time
interval, h
Power source
rating, kW
Electricity
generation,
kWh
8
24
10
80
70
60
640
1680
600
broadened in the current paper to set the feasible limits for the size
of RE generators in the HPS and to determine the battery capacity.
Three scenarios have been considered to allow the user to decide
the choice of investment paths consisting of several combinations
of RE technologies.
2. Methodology
This section describes the step-wise procedure to obtain the
optimal sizing of an HPS. The Modied Storage Cascade Table (SCT)
previously developed by Mohammad Rozali et al. (2013a) is applied
for electricity targeting and allocation in the system before further
detailed design is carried out to establish the optimal sizing of
generators and storage systems. In order to obtain the cost-effective
HPS with the minimum electricity targets, an Illustrative Case Study
is used to demonstrate the sizing method. The studied system
consists of wind turbine, biomass generator and PV modules as the
power producer while the lead-acid battery functions as the power
storage system. The sizing procedure is implemented as follows;
Step 1: Based on the meteorological data and the load demands
of a location, the limiting power data is extracted (Mohammad
Rozali et al., 2013b). The maximum capacity for all RE generators
is initially assumed without considering the demand proles. The
total electricity generation (source) is obtained by assuming that all
the RE sources available for the given sample day are converted to
electricity after the generators efciency is taken into account.
Tables 1 and 2 tabulate the limiting power sources and demands for
the Illustrative Case Study. The maximum sizes for the RE generators are 80 kW, 70 kW and 60 kW for wind, biomass and PV.
Step 2: The Modied SCT (Mohammad Rozali et al., 2013a) is
used to obtain the electricity targets for the system. The step-wise
construction of the Modied SCT is done as follows (see also
Table 3a);
1) Column 1 lists the time interval for power sources and power
demands in ascending order, while Column 2 gives the duration
between two adjacent time-intervals.
2) The total sum of ratings for power sources and power demands
for each time interval are given in columns 3 and 4. These values
can be obtained from the Power Cascade Table e PCT
(Mohammad Rozali et al., 2013b). The sources and demands for
the AC and DC electricity are listed separately.
Table 2
Limiting power demands for Illustrative Case Study.
Power demand appliances
Time, h
AC
DC
From To
Appliance 1
0
8
0
8
8
Appliance 2
Appliance 3
Appliance 4
Appliance 5
24
18
24
18
20
Electricity
Time
Power
consumption,
interval, h demand
rating, kW kWh
24
10
24
10
12
30
50
20
50
40
720
500
480
500
480
Table 3a
Modied Storage Cascade Table for Illustrative Case Study.
1
Time, h
Time
interval, h
3
P
4
P
Power source
rating, kW
AC
5
P
Power demand
rating, kW
DC
AC
6
P
Electricity
source, kWh
DC
AC
DC
Electricity
demand, kWh
Electricity surplus/decit,
kWh
AC
AC
DC
DC
0
2
70
50
140
100
140
100
150
50
900
300
900
300
150
60
140
50
300
120
280
100
20
20
70
60
140
50
560
480
1120
400
560
80
70
40
50
140
80
100
60
100
70
50
280
200
280
200
2
8
10
18
20
24
3) The quantities of the electricity sources and demands between

time intervals are obtained using Equation (1), and listed in
Columns 5 and 6.
2) Column 9 shows the DC electricity available for storage after

load utilisation, which is obtained using Equation (5).
Charging=Discharging quantity DCs=d ACconverted
Electricity source=demand
Power rating
DCconverted
Time interval duration

(1)
4) The sources are sent directly to the demands accordingly for the
AC and DC. The surpluses and decits for the AC and DC electricity between time intervals are calculated by using Equation
(2), and listed in Column 7.
Electricity surplus=deficit
Electricity source
X

Electricity demand
(2)
Equation 2 should be applied separately for the AC and DC

electricity. A positive value indicates an electricity surplus while a
negative value, electricity decit.
Table 3b is constructed as follows;
1) The electricity decit would be satised by converting the
electricity surplus. Column 8 gives the converted AC and DC
electricity surplus, which is obtained from Equation (3). For the
DC electricity surplus, similar equation as Equation (3) (replace
the AC to DC electricity surplus and the rectier to inverter efciency) can be used if the amount of surplus is less than the AC
decit. If the amount of DC surplus is higher than the AC decit,
only the exact amount of the required AC load is converted from
the available DC surplus. Equation (4) is derived to calculate the
amount of DC surplus to be converted to AC if this case occurs.
The AC electricity surplus is completely converted to DC because
any excess DC can be directly sent to the storage system.
Amount of converted AC electricity to DC

AC electricity surplus Rectifier efficiency
(3)
Amount of DC electricity surplus to be converted to AC
Amount of AC deficit
Inverter efficiency
(4)
(5)
where
DCs/d DC electricity surplus/decit; ACconverted amount of DC
converted from AC electricity surplus; DCconverted amount of DC
electricity surplus that will be converted to AC to satisfy the AC load
demand.
The positive value represents the charging quantity while the
negative value indicates the discharging quantity for the DC decit.
3) The quantity of the electricity discharged from the battery to
satisfy the AC decit is calculated using Equation (6), and listed
in Column 10. Taking into account of the positive/negative signs,
the amount of DC electricity to be discharged from battery can
be calculated using Equation (6), as follows:
DC Electricity to be discharged
Converted DC surplus AC deficit

Rectifier efficiency
(6)
If the battery capacity is less than the DC discharge requirement

to satisfy the AC decit, the battery will be discharged to its depth
of discharge (DoD). The DoD of the lead-acid battery used is typically about 80% of its maximum capacity (Komor and Glassmire,
2012). Equation (7) is applied in this scenario to calculate the
amount of DC electricity available from battery to satisfy the AC
demand decit.
DC electricity available from battery

Bt1 1 s T hI hd
(7)
where
Bt1 battery capacity at previous time interval [kWh];
s hourly self-discharge rate [0.00004/h]; t time [h]; T time
interval [h]; hI inverter efciency (0.95); hd discharging efciency (0.9).
4) Based on the values in Columns 9 and 10, the cumulative storage
capacity (Column 11) is calculated by including the battery
Table 3b
Modied Storage Cascade Table for Illustrative Case Study.
8
10
11
Converted surplus,
kWh
Charging/discharging
quantity (DC), kWh
Discharge for AC
decit, kWh
Start up
ACeDC
DCeAC
12
Battery
capacity, kWh
13
14
Operation
Outsourced electricity, kWh
AC
DC
Battery
capacity,
kWh
Outsourced electricity, kWh

AC
DC
0
59.40
133.00
33.00
29.70
0
89.10
855.00
555.00
529.19
0
588.57
19.00
39.00
564.25
0
623.63
76.00
482.41
1.59
0
57.52
57.00
43.00
9.74
266.00
66.00
59.40
0
69.14
efciency (self-discharge rate, charging and discharging) via

Equation (8).
Bt Bt1 1 s T Ct hc Dt =hd
(8)
where
Bt battery capacity [kWh]; Ct charging quantity [kWh];
Dt discharging quantity [kWh]; s hourly self-discharge rate
[0.00004/h]; t time [h]; T time interval [h]; hc charging efciency (0.9); hd discharging efciency (0.9).
If the battery has been discharged to its DoD (e.g. between 10
and 18 h), the electricity cascade for the next time interval resumes
at zero.
5) When the amount of storage is still insufcient to satisfy the
electricity demand, external electricity may be purchased from
the grid. Column 12 lists the net electricity decit, which indicates the outsourced AC and DC electricity requirements. The
grid supplies the AC electricity. The DC electricity calculated is
divided with the rectier efciency to give the required amount
of the outsourced AC electricity to satisfy the DC demand.
Equation (9) is used to obtain the kW instantaneous external
power demand.
Outsourced power rating
Outsourced electricity
Time interval
(9)
Procedures 1 to 6 are carried out to obtain the electricity targets

for startup operation (Day 1). During startup at the time t 0 h, no
power is available in the battery. After power is generated and
utilised during the startup period, the excess power stored in the
battery at t 24 h is brought to the next day to reduce the required
outsourced electricity.
6) For the next day (normal 24 h) operation, the battery capacity at
t 0 is taken from the electricity stored during startup, at t 24
(59.40 kWh). Equation (8) is used to calculate the battery capacity. The battery capacities are listed in Column 13.
The key electricity targets that need to be extracted from the
table are; (i) The minimum outsourced electricity supply (MOES),
(ii) Available excess electricity for the next day (AEEND) and (iii)
The storage capacity.
Results from the Modied SCT show that 59.40 kWh of electricity (AEEND) is in excess at the end of the rst day (Column 11,
t 24 h). This value is higher than the total amount of MOES
required for startup, which are 1.59 kWh and 43.00 kWh for AC and
DC demands (Column 12). The difference between the AEEND and
MOES (59.40 e (1.59/0.95) 43.00 14.73 kWh) indicates the
amount of electricity, which would be wasted without being stored
or sent to the load. This amount of electricity is not transferred to
the next day because continuously cascading the excess AEEND to
the next day would accumulate the energy inside the storage system (Wan Alwi et al., 2012) e see Column 13. This scenario offers
the opportunity to reduce the initially installed capacity of RE
generators.
Step 3: Reduce the size of the selected RE generator. Different
scenarios can be considered in selecting the best RE generator to be
resized. The established targets in Step 2 can guide the users to
decide on the best scenario in order to achieve the minimum cost
for the designed system. The following scenarios that have been
analysed and the results compared among one other:
(i) Reduce the size of the most expensive RE generator
(ii) Reduce the size of generator with the most abundant RE
sources available during the time interval with large electricity surplus
(iii) Reduce the size of both the most expensive and abundant RE
sources available during the time interval with large electricity surplus.
The excess electricity targets are plotted against their corresponding RE generator sizes for each scenario. The size of the
generator without electricity wastage has been selected in order to
optimise the utilisation of RE sources.
(i) Scenario 1: Reduce the size of the most expensive RE
generator
Table 4
Power plant capital and operating costs (U. S. Energy Information Administration,
2010).
Wind
Biomass
Solar
Capital cost, $/kW
Fixed operating and maintenance

cost, $/kW.yrs
2438.00
3860.00
6050.00
28.07
100.50
26.04
20
14
0.8
0.7
15
12
5
Solar
Wind
0
55
60
-5
65
70
Generator size, kW
75
80
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Wind speed, m/s
10
10
Insolation, kW/m2
Excess electricity, kWh
0.6
Solar
Wind
4
0.1
0
-1
-0.1
-10
-15
Fig. 1. Excess electricity versus generator size for Illustrative Case Study (Scenarios 1
and 2).
2
4
14
19
Time, h
24
0
Fig. 3. Average hourly solar insolation and wind prole (Feroldi et al., 2013).
(ii) Scenario 2: Reduce the size of generator with the most

abundant RE sources available during time interval with
large electricity surplus
20
Excess electricity, kWh
15
10
5
Solar
Wind
0
55
60
-5
65
70
75
80
85
Generator size, kW
-10
-15
Fig. 2. Excess electricity versus generator size for Illustrative Case Study (Scenario 3).
Table 4 shows the cost for the PV, wind and biomass technologies considered in this study. Among the REs, PV facility is selected
to be resized because of its high costs compared to the other REs.
Fig. 1 illustrates the plot of excess electricity versus various PV sizes,
below its maximum size (60 kW). From the graph, the optimum
size for PV array which gives zero excess electricity is 58.47 kW. The
optimal conguration for the new system is therefore 80 kW for the
wind turbine, 70 kW for the biomass generator and 58.47 kW for PV
panels. Inserting these RE generators size into the Modied SCT, the
capacity of 701.87 kWh is obtained for the lead-acid battery after
consideration of 80% depth of discharge e DoD (Notton et al., 2011).
Table 5
Economic evaluation of each Scenario for Illustrative Case Study.
Generator size (S), kW
(iii) Scenario 3: Reduce the size of both the most expensive and
abundant RE sources available during the time interval with
Both PV arrays and wind turbine capacities are reduced equally
(e.g. 1 kW reduction in PV capacity and 1 kW in wind). Repeating
the same procedure as for the previous scenarios, different sizes for
PV arrays and wind turbine are combined, below their maximum
capacities. The resulting excess electricity for each size combination
is plotted and shown in Fig. 2. The PV array and the wind turbine
capacity when there is no excess in electricity occur at 59.07 kW
and 79.07 kW. For this condition, the system requires 70 kW of
biomass generator and 695.25 kWh storage capacity.
Step 4: Calculate the payback period to decide the best investment path between the three scenarios. Equation (10) gives the
payback period for the design.
Payback period
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
PV e 58.47
Wind e 80
Biomass e 70
PV e 584.68
Wind e 640
Biomass e 1680
10,803
PV e 60
Wind e 77.61
Biomass e 70
PV e 600
Wind e 620.85
Biomass e 1680
10,776
PV e 59.07
Wind e 79.07
Biomass e 70
PV e 590.68
Wind e 632.54
Biomass e 1680
10,793
822,405
116,282
7.07
820,329
116,368
7.05
Daily electricity
generation
(EG), kWh
Total annual operating
and maintenance
cost, $/kW
Net capital investment, $ 818,974
Net annual savings, $/y
116,422
Payback period, y
7.03
Based on Tables 3a and b, it can be observed that a large AC

electricity surplus exists between 2 and 10 h (Column 7). This
observation is strongly supported by the huge amount of storage at
the same time interval (Columns 11 and 13). The main AC source
during that period is identied, which is the wind energy. The size
of wind turbine is therefore reduced from its maximum capacity,
80 kW. Fig. 1 shows the variation of excess electricity with the
change in wind turbine size. The required size for the wind turbine
of 77.61 kW is expected to efciently utilise all the RE sources
without any excess electricity. The lead-acid battery capacity in this
case is 684.85 kWh.
Net capital investment

Net annual savings
(10)
Table 6
Parameters of RE technologies.
2.50 MW PV panels
Total area, m2
Efciency
4.00 MW wind turbine
Swept area, m2
Air density, kg/m3
Efciency
20,000
0.164
3904
1.225
0.95
0.12 $/kWh/0.377 RM/kWh (Tenaga Nasional Berhad, 2013), S is the

RE capacity or size and OM is the annualised operating and maintenance cost obtained from Table 4.
The industrial pricing and tariff currently implemented in
Malaysia is used in the calculations. Even though the tariff rate is
different for different consumption ranges and types of industries, a
single rate (low voltage industrial tariff for overall monthly consumption of more than 200 kWh/month) is applied in this study.
Table 5 lists the payback period for the projects selected from each
scenario.
As can be seen in Table 5, Scenario 1 gives the shortest payback
period (7.03 y) compared to the other two solutions. The total
annual expenditure on this alternative is higher than the other
options because the OM for the other two generators are higher
than that of solar. However, this RE technology results in the
highest annual savings and the capital cost is also much lower. The
conguration from Scenario 1 is therefore chosen as the most
optimal design for this demand trend.
Table 7
Limiting power sources for Case Study.
Time, h
Power source rating, kW
Power demand rating, kW
From
To
AC
DC
AC
DC
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1575.00
1500.00
1462.50
1375.00
1300.00
1275.00
1250.00
1175.00
1050.00
950.00
925.00
875.00
975.00
1050.00
1225.00
1350.00
1525.00
1675.00
1700.00
1737.50
1775.00
1750.00
1725.00
1700.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
37.50
400.00
825.00
1200.00
1525.00
1725.00
1750.00
1725.00
1525.00
1200.00
825.00
400.00
37.50
0
0
0
0
0
903.96
803.52
669.60
502.20
435.24
368.28
468.29
540.34
1765.10
2017.26
2017.26
1584.99
1260.79
1584.99
1945.22
1945.22
1621.01
1801.13
1693.06
1071.36
970.92
1640.52
1540.08
1540.08
311.01
276.48
230.40
172.80
149.76
126.72
116.71
134.66
439.90
502.74
502.74
395.01
314.21
395.01
484.79
484.79
403.99
448.88
421.94
368.64
334.08
564.48
529.92
529.92
3. Case Study
The net annual savings is calculated using Equation (11), which

is the difference between the cost of electricity production and the
commercial electricity tariff.
Net annual savings
X
EG D TE S OM
(11)
where
i is the number of RE technologies, EG is the total daily electricity
generation for each RE source, D are days for an annual
operation (assumed as 365 d), TE is the tariff rate for electricity e
The electricity system of a chemical plant is taken as the Case

Study. Fig. 3 presents the hourly average solar insolation and wind
speed for a typical day at the plant site (Feroldi et al., 2013). The
storage scheme applied in the system is the lead-acid battery with
90% charging/discharging efciency (Zhou et al., 2008) and selfdischarge rate of 0.004%/h (Pickard et al., 2009).
Step 1: Referring to Fig. 3, the hourly power output from the solar
and wind energy are calculated using Equations (12) and (13)
(Nelson et al., 2006). The specication data for PV facility and wind
turbine used for installation at the plant site are tabulated in Table 6.
PPV t ItAhPV
(12)
where I(t) is the insolation data at time t (kW/m2), A is the area of

PV panels (m2), and hPV is the overall efciency of the PV panels and
the DC/DC converter.
Table 8
Limiting power demands for Case Study.
Time, Power demand rating, kW
h
AC
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DC
Motors
Lift
Pumps Workshop Overhead Ventilation Furnace Boilers Dust
machines cranes
collecting
equipment
Compressors AirLights
conditioners
Conveyors Refrigeration Others

systems
571.66
508.14
423.45
317.59
275.25
232.90
275.24
317.59
1037.45
1185.66
1185.66
931.59
741.04
931.59
1143.32
1143.32
952.76
1058.63
995.11
677.52
614.00
1037.45
973.94
973.94
167.06
148.5
123.75
92.81
80.44
68.06
80.44
92.81
303.19
346.5
346.5
272.25
216.56
272.25
334.13
334.13
278.44
309.38
290.81
198.00
179.44
303.19
284.63
284.63
107.53
95.58
79.65
59.74
51.77
43.81
51.77
59.74
195.14
223.02
223.02
175.23
139.39
175.23
215.06
215.06
179.21
199.13
187.18
127.44
115.49
195.14
183.20
183.20
12.15
10.80
9.00
6.75
5.85
4.95
5.85
6.75
22.05
25.20
25.20
19.80
15.75
19.80
24.30
24.30
20.25
22.50
21.15
14.40
13.05
22.05
20.70
20.70
72.90
64.80
54.00
40.50
35.10
29.70
35.10
40.50
132.30
151.20
151.20
118.80
94.50
118.80
145.80
145.80
121.50
135.00
126.90
86.40
78.30
132.30
124.20
124.20
36.45
32.40
27.00
20.25
17.55
14.85
17.55
20.25
66.15
75.60
75.60
59.40
47.25
59.40
72.90
72.90
60.75
67.50
63.45
43.20
39.15
66.15
62.10
62.10
23.81
21.17
17.64
13.23
11.47
9.70
11.47
13.23
43.22
49.39
49.39
38.81
30.87
38.81
47.63
47.63
39.69
44.10
41.45
28.22
25.58
43.22
40.57
40.57
15.31
13.61
11.34
8.51
7.37
6.24
7.37
8.51
27.78
31.75
31.75
24.95
19.85
24.95
30.62
30.62
25.52
28.35
26.65
18.14
16.44
27.78
26.08
26.08
10.69
9.50
7.92
5.94
5.15
4.36
5.15
5.94
19.40
22.18
22.18
17.42
13.86
17.42
21.38
21.38
17.82
19.80
18.61
12.67
11.48
19.40
18.22
18.22
3.65
3.24
2.70
2.03
1.76
1.49
1.76
2.03
6.62
7.56
7.56
5.94
4.73
5.94
7.29
7.29
6.08
6.75
6.35
4.32
3.92
6.62
6.21
6.21
2.43
2.16
1.80
1.35
1.17
0.99
1.17
1.35
4.41
5.04
5.04
3.96
3.15
3.96
4.86
4.86
4.05
4.50
4.23
2.88
2.61
4.41
4.14
4.14
87.60
77.87
64.89
48.67
42.18
35.69
42.18
48.67
158.98
181.70
181.70
142.76
113.56
142.76
175.20
175.20
146.00
162.23
152.49
103.82
94.09
158.98
149.25
149.25
68.65
61.02
50.85
38.14
33.05
27.97
33.05
38.14
124.58
142.38
142.38
111.87
88.99
111.87
137.30
137.30
11,441
127.13
119.50
81.36
73.73
124.58
116.96
116.96
5.95
5.29
4.41
3.31
2.87
2.43
2.87
3.31
10.80
12.35
12.35
9.70
7.72
9.70
11.91
11.91
9.92
11.03
10.36
7.06
6.39
10.80
10.14
10.14
29.16
25.92
21.60
16.20
14.04
11.88
14.04
16.20
52.92
60.48
60.48
47.52
37.80
47.52
58.32
58.32
48.60
54.00
50.76
34.56
31.32
52.92
49.68
49.68
Table 9a
Modied Storage Cascade Table for Case Study between time 0 and 11 h.
1
Time, h
Time
interval, h
3
P
Power source rating,

kW
4
P
Power demand rating,

kW
5
P
Electricity source,
kWh
6
P
Electricity demand,
kWh
kWh
AC
DC
AC
DC
AC
DC
AC
DC
AC
DC
251.23
903.96
311.04
251.23
903.96
311.04
652.74
311.04
283.96
803.52
276.48
283.96
803.52
276.48
519.57
276.48
283.96
669.60
230.40
283.96
669.60
230.40
385.65
230.40
168.30
502.20
172.80
168.30
502.20
172.80
333.90
172.80
338.20
435.24
149.76
338.20
435.24
149.76
97.05
149.76
338.20
368.28
126.72
338.20
368.28
126.72
30.08
126.72
623.85
468.29
116.71
623.85
468.29
116.71
155.56
116.71
1037.08
540.34
134.66
1037.08
540.34
134.66
496.74
134.66
1037.08
328.00
1765.10
439.90
1037.08
328.00
1765.10
439.90
728.02
111.90
920.52
951.20
2017.26
502.74
920.52
951.20
2017.26
502.74
1096.74
448.46
1207.24
1049.60
2017.26
502.74
1207.24
1049.60
2017.26
502.74
810.02
546.86
1298.89
1935.20
1584.99
395.01
1298.89
1935.20
1584.99
395.01
2,86.10
1540.19
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
PWind t 1=2rAvt3 Cp
(13)
where r is the air density (kg/m3), A is the swept area of the rotor
(m2), v(t) is the wind speed at time t (m/s), Cp is the efciency of the
wind turbine.
The extracted limiting power data for the Case Study is given in
Tables 7and 8.
Step 2: The Modied SCT for the Case Study is represented by

Tables 9aed. It can be observed that the amount of AEEND at
startup (9712.53 kWh) is more than the quantity required for the
outsourced electricity (4984.14 kWh). This clearly shows that the
installed capacities of PV and wind generators are too big and not
economical. The excess 4728.38 kWh should be eliminated by
altering the current systems conguration in order to decrease the
capital cost of the design.
Table 9b
1
Time, h
Time
interval, h
3
P
Power source rating,

kW
4
P
Power demand rating,

kW
5
P
Electricity source,
kWh
6
P
Electricity demand,
kWh
kWh
AC
DC
AC
DC
AC
DC
AC
DC
AC
DC
3454.88
2263.20
1260.79
314.21
3454.88
2263.20
1260.79
314.21
2194.09
1948.99
2629.71
2460.00
1584.99
395.01
2629.71
2460.00
1584.99
395.01
1044.72
2064.99
3925.39
2197.60
1945.22
484.79
3925.39
2197.60
1945.22
484.79
1980.18
1712.82
3454.88
1213.60
1945.22
484.79
3454.88
1213.60
1945.22
484.79
1509.67
728.82
2629.71
1115.20
1621.01
403.99
2629.71
1115.20
1621.01
403.99
1008.70
711.21
1298.89
1148.00
1801.13
448.88
1298.89
1148.00
1801.13
448.88
502.24
699.13
1495.88
393.60
1693.06
421.94
1495.88
393.60
1693.06
421.94
197.18
28.34
267.26
164.00
1071.36
368.64
267.26
164.00
1071.36
368.64
804.10
204.64
515.62
0.00
970.92
334.08
515.62
0.00
9,70.92
334.08
455.30
334.08
595.50
0.00
1640.52
564.48
595.50
0.00
1640.52
564.48
1045.02
564.48
1711.84
0.00
1540.08
529.92
1711.84
0.00
1540.08
529.92
171.76
529.92
2073.26
0.00
1540.08
529.92
2073.26
0.00
1540.08
529.92
533.18
529.92
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Table 9c
1
10
11
Time, h
Converted surplus,
kWh
Charging/Discharging
quantity (DC), kWh
Discharge for AC
decit, kWh
Start up
ACeDC
12
Battery
capacity,
kWh
DCeAC
13
14
Operation
Outsourced electricity,
kWh
AC
DC
Battery
capacity,
kWh
kWh
AC
DC
9858.80
0
652.74
311.04
8749.37
519.57
276.48
7834.15
385.65
230.40
7126.79
333.90
172.80
6543.98
97.05
149.76
6263.81
30.09
126.72
6087.57
6115.29
6115.05
550.92
5138.99
670.70
5923.22
290.50
6262.76
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
147.78
31.07
0
27.96
471.91
337.24
0
331.48
111.90
177.10
0
10
426.04
0
0
11
519.52
0
0
Step 3: It is assumed that the PV and wind turbine in this

Case Study is purchased from the same supplier as in the
previous Illustrative Case Study. The type and cost of the technologies are therefore identical and applied in the later
calculations.
(i) Scenario 1: Reduce the size of the most expensive RE

generator
As the most expensive RE technology, PV system is given the
priority to be resized. Various PV sizes below 2.5 MW with their
Table 9d
1
10
11
Time, h
Converted surplus,
kWh
Charging/Discharging
quantity (DC), kWh
Discharge for AC
decit, kWh
Start up
ACeDC
DCeAC
301.16
1239.03
2084.39
4033.38
992.48
1881.17
12
Battery capacity,
kWh
13
14
Operation
kWh
Battery
capacity,
kWh
kWh
AC
DC
AC
DC
1115.13
7377.64
4745.12
11,007.38
3057.47
7496.66
13,758.66
3593.98
10,730.94
16,992.70
1434.18
2163.00
12,677.21
18,938.71
958.26
1669.48
14,179.23
20,440.48
528.67
170.46
14,332.07
20,593.08
28.34
207.56
14,069.39
20,330.15
204.64
846.53
12,900.98
19,161.48
334.08
479.26
11,996.75
18,257.00
564.48
1100.02
10,146.82
16,406.82
163.17
366.75
9738.91
15,998.67
506.52
23.40
9712.53
15,972.03
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
interval, the charging quantity is also the highest because of there is

no decit. Further resizing is made to the wind turbine as the only
AC source for the system. Fig. 4 provides the excess electricity that
is obtained as a result of varying the wind turbine sizes below its
maximum capacity of 4.00 MW. In order to utilise the RE sources
without any electricity excess, a wind turbine of 3.37 MW capacity
has been chosen for installation with 2.5 MW PV arrays.
6000
5000
Excess electricity, MWh
4000
3000
2000
Solar
1000
Wind
0
-1000
1.5
2.5
3
Generator size, MW
3.5
-2000
-3000
-4000
Fig. 4. Excess electricity versus generator size for Case Study (Scenarios 1 and 2).
6
5
Excess electricity, MWh
4
3
2
1
0
-1
2.5
3.5
Generator size, MW
-2
-3
(iii) Scenario 3: Reduce the size of both the most expensive and
The capacities of PV and wind generators are evenly reduced
until the same AEEND and MOES are achieved. The amount of
excess electricity with each size reduction is shown in Fig. 5. It is
found that about 0.33 MW capacity reductions in both RE generators is required to ensure an optimal use of the REs while maintaining the systems reliability. The optimal conguration obtained
is 2.17 MW for PV panels, 3.67 MW for the wind turbine and
14.49 MW for the lead-acid battery.
Step 4: Table 10 summarises the results of the economic
assessment on the three designs under the different scenarios. The
results are parallel with the ndings in the Illustrative Case Study.
The rst Scenario appears to be the most promising solution that
can lead to the optimal design of the HPS. As the capital cost of PV
facility is about two-fold higher than the capital cost for the other
two technologies, reducing its capacity is seen to be the most
worthwhile strategy. This solution yields the minimum payback
period of 11.78 y as compared to 13.87 y and 12.99 y for Scenarios 2
and 3.
Note that Scenario 3 gives the intermediate results between
Scenarios 1 and 2 for both the Illustrative Example and the Case
Study. In order to save time, the designer is recommended to omit
Scenario 3 during analysis.
Fig. 5. Excess electricity versus generator size for Case Study (Scenario 3).
4. Conclusion
equivalent excess electricity are given in Fig. 4. The plot shows that
almost 1 MW unit can be reduced from the initial maximum PV
capacity in order to avoid any electricity excess. The optimal PV size
with efcient utilisation of all the RE sources without excess
occurrence is found to be 1.67 MW. Applying the Modied SCT
method on an HPS comprising PV panels with 1.67 MW power
output and wind turbine with 4.00 MW power output shows that
13.53 MW of storage capacity is required for the design.
(ii) Scenario 2: Reduce the size of generator with the most
The electricity surpluses at all time intervals are screened (see
Column 8, Tables 9c, d). It can be seen that the highest surplus
occurs between 12 and 13 h, from the AC source. During this time
An optimal sizing method for a hybrid power system has been

presented. In order to target the components conguration, the
insight-based Pinch Analysis technique has been utilised as an
alternative to complex mathematical model. The PoPA method is
applied to determine the amount of excess electricity that has been
applied as the indicator to decide on the optimal utilisation of RE
sources. For more ways on how to assess the environmental im cek et al. (2012). Three
pacts of HPS, readers are referred to e.g. Cu
possible scenarios have been considered as the solution to obtain
the optimal sizing. Two case studies presented show that the most
cost-effective solution is by reducing the size of the most expensive
RE technology. In some countries the situation is further complicated by peak and off-peak grid electricity prices. Nevertheless, the
described methodology can be adapted to those cases as well. The
different tariff rates for the peak and off-peak periods e see e.g.
Table 10
Economic evaluation of each Scenario for Case Study.
Generator size (S), MW

Daily electricity generation (EG), kWh
Total annual operating and maintenance cost, $/kW
Net capital investment, $
Net annual savings, $/y
Payback period, y
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
PV e 1.67
Wind e 4.00
PV e 10,142.08
Wind e 31,841.32
155,663
19,831,300
1,683,209
11.78
PV e 2.5
Wind e 3.37
PV e 15,219.20
Wind e 26,854.95
159,696
23,341,060
1,683,152
13.87
PV e 2.17
Wind e 3.67
PV e 13,195.66
Wind e 29,195.29
159,394
22,055,589
1,697,329
12.99
10
(Tenaga Nasional Berhad, 2013) will be considered in our future

work.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia (UTM) and Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) of
Malaysia for providing the nancial support through the Research
University Grant under the Vote No. Q.J130000.2544.03H44. The
authors also acknowledge the nancial support from the Hungarian
State and the European Union under project TAMOP-4.2.2.A-11/1/
KONV-2012-0072 d Design and optimisation of the modernisation and efcient operation of energy-supply and the utilisation
systems using renewable energy sources and ICTs. These grants
provided the opportunity to complete this research.
Abbreviations
AC
ACS
AEEND
ANFIS
DC
DG
HOGA
HOMER
HPS
LPSP
MOES
PDF
PoPA
PV
RE
SCT
alternating current
annual cost system
available excess electricity for next day
Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy System
direct current
distributed generation
Hybrid Optimization by Genetic Algorithm
Hybrid Optimisation Model for Electric Renewables
hybrid power systems
loss of power supply probability
minimum outsourced electricity supply
probability density function
Power Pinch Analysis
photovoltaic
renewable energy
Storage Cascade Table
References
Bandyopadhyay, S., 2011. Design and optimization of isolated energy systems
through pinch analysis. Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 6, 518e526.
Battaglini, A., Lilliestam, J., Haas, A., Patt, A., 2009. Development of SuperSmart
Grids for a more efcient utilisation of electricity from renewable sources.
J. Clean. Prod. 17, 911e918.
Bernal-Agustn, J.L., Dufo-Lpez, R., 2009. Simulation and optimization of standalone hybrid renewable energy systems. Renew. Sustain. Energ. Rev. 13,
2111e2118.
Borowy, B.S., Salameh, Z.M., 1996. Methodology for optimally sizing the combination of a battery bank and PV array in a wind/PV hybrid system. Energ. Conv.
IEEE Trans. 11, 367e375.
Chen, H.-C., 2013. Optimum capacity determination of stand-alone hybrid generation system considering cost and reliability. Appl. Energ. 103, 155e164.
Feroldi, D., Degliuomini, L.N., Basualdo, M., 2013. Energy management of a hybrid
system based on wind-solar power sources and bioethanol. Chem. Eng. Res.
Des. 91 (8), 1440e1455.
Georgakellos, D.A., 2012. Climate change external cost appraisal of electricity generation systems from a life cycle perspective: the case of Greece. J. Clean. Prod.
32, 124e140.
Goodbody, C., Walsh, E., McDonnell, K.P., Owende, P., 2013. Regional integration of
renewable energy systems in Ireland e the role of hybrid energy systems for
small communities. Int. J. Elect. Power Energ. Syst. 44, 713e720.
Grbe, P., Magyar, A., Hangos, K.M., 2012. Reduction of power losses with smart
grids fueled with renewable sources and applying EV batteries. J. Clean. Prod.
34, 125e137.
lu, F.O., Gerek, .N., Kurban, M., 2009. A novel hybrid (windephotovoltaic)
Hocaog
system sizing procedure. Sol Energ. 83, 2019e2028.
Kaabeche, A., Belhamel, M., Ibtiouen, R., 2011. Sizing optimization of gridindependent hybrid photovoltaic/wind power generation system. Energy 36,
1214e1222.
Kaldellis, J., Simotas, M., Zarakis, D., Kondili, E., 2009. Optimum autonomous
photovoltaic solution for the Greek islands on the basis of energy pay-back
analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 1311e1323.
Klemes, J., Varbanov, P., 2013. Process intensication and integration: an assessment. Clean Technol. Environ. Pol. 15, 417e422.
Komor, P., Glassmire, J., 2012. Electricity Storage and Renewables for Island Power e
a Guide for Decision Makers. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA),
Bonn, Germany.
Lou, J., Liao, Z., Jiang, B., Wang, J., Yang, Y., 2013. Pinch sliding approach for targeting
hydrogen and water networks with different types of purier. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 52, 8538e8549.
Lund, H., Salgi, G., Elmegaard, B., Andersen, A.N., 2009. Optimal operation strategies
of compressed air energy storage (CAES) on electricity spot markets with
uctuating prices. Appl. Therm. Eng. 29, 799e806.
Mohamed, A., Khatib, T., 2013. Optimal sizing of a PV/wind/diesel hybrid energy
system for Malaysia. In: Industrial Technology (ICIT), 2013 IEEE International
Conference on. IEEE, pp. 752e757.
Mohammad Rozali, N.E., Wan Alwi, S.R., Abdul Manan, Z., Klemes, J.J., Hassan, M.Y.,
2013a. Process integration of hybrid power systems with energy losses considerations. Energy 55, 38e45.
Mohammad Rozali, N.E., Wan Alwi, S.R., Manan, Z.A., Klemes, J.J., Hassan, M.Y.,
2013b. Process integration techniques for optimal design of hybrid power
systems. Appl. Ther. Eng. 61, 26e35.
Munir, S.M., Manan, Z.A., Wan Alwi, S.R., 2012. Holistic carbon planning for industrial parks: a waste-to-resources process integration approach. J. Clean.
Prod. 33, 74e85.
Nasiraghdam, H., Jadid, S., 2012. Optimal hybrid PV/WT/FC sizing and distribution
system reconguration using multi-objective articial bee colony (MOABC)
algorithm. Sol Energ. 86, 3057e3071.
Nelson, D.B., Nehrir, M.H., Wang, C., 2006. Unit sizing and cost analysis of standalone hybrid wind/PV/fuel cell power generation systems. Renew. Energ. 31,
1641e1656.
Notton, G., Lazarov, V., Stoyanov, L., 2011. Analysis of pumped hydroelectric storage
for a wind/PV system for grid integration. Ecol. Eng. Environ. Prot., 64e73.
Ould Bilal, B., Sambou, V., Ndiaye, P., Kebe, C., Ndongo, M., 2013. Multi-objective
design of PV-wind-batteries hybrid systems by minimizing the annualized cost
system and the loss of power supply probability (LPSP). In: Industrial Technology (ICIT), 2013 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, pp. 861e868.
Pickard, W.F., Shen, A.Q., Hansing, N.J., 2009. Parking the power: strategies and
physical limitations for bulk energy storage in supplyedemand matching on a
grid whose input power is provided by intermittent sources. Renew. Sustain.
Energ. Rev. 13, 1934e1945.
Purvins, A., Wilkening, H., Fulli, G., Tzimas, E., Celli, G., Mocci, S., Pilo, F., Tedde, S.,
2011. A European supergrid for renewable energy: local impacts and farreaching challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 1909e1916.
Rajkumar, R.K., Ramachandaramurthy, V.K., Yong, B.L., Chia, D.B., 2011. Technoeconomical optimization of hybrid pv/wind/battery system using Neuro-Fuzzy.
Energy 36, 5148e5153.
Redpath, D.A.G., McIlveen-Wright, D., Kattakayam, T., Hewitt, N.J., Karlowski, J.,
Bardi, U., 2011. Battery powered electric vehicles charged via solar photovoltaic
arrays developed for light agricultural duties in remote hilly areas in the
Southern Mediterranean region. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 2034e2048.
Rotaru, F., Chicco, G., Grigoras, G., Cartina, G., 2012. Two-stage distributed generation optimal sizing with clustering-based node selection. Int. J. Elect. Power
Energ. Syst. 40, 120e129.
Saw, S., Lee, L., Lim, M., Foo, D., Chew, I., Tan, R., Klemes, J., 2011. An extended
graphical targeting technique for direct reuse/recycle in concentration and
property-based resource conservation networks. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy
13, 347e357.
Shenoy, A.U., Shenoy, U.V., 2013. Targeting and design of CWNs (cooling water
networks). Energy 55, 1033e1043.
Tay, D.H.S., Ng, D.K.S., 2012. Multiple-cascade automated targeting for synthesis of a
gasication-based integrated biorenery. J. Clean. Prod. 34, 38e48.
Tenaga Nasional Berhad, 2013. Industrial Pricing & Tariff. www.tnb.com.my/
business/for-industrial/pricing-tariff.html (accessed 26.11.13.).
Tina, G., Gagliano, S., 2011. Probabilistic analysis of weather data for a hybrid solar/
wind energy system. Int. J. Energ. Res. 35, 221e232.
Torres, C.M., Gadalla, M., Mateo-Sanz, J.M., Jimnez, L., 2013. An automated environmental and economic evaluation methodology for the optimization of a sour
water stripping plant. J. Clean. Prod. 44, 56e68.
Wan Alwi, S.R., Mohammad Rozali, N.E., Abdul-Manan, Z., Klemes, J.J., 2012.
A process integration targeting method for hybrid power systems. Energy 44,
6e10.
Zhou, W., Yang, H., Fang, Z., 2008. Battery behavior prediction and battery working
states analysis of a hybrid solarewind power generation system. Renew. Energ.
33, 1413e1423.

Cu
cek, L., Klemes, J.J., Kravanja, Z., 2012. A Review of Footprint analysis tools for
monitoring impacts on sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 34, 9e20.

Optimization Power Systems Pinch Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Optimization Power Systems Pinch Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

Optimal sizing of hybrid power systems using power pinch analysis

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 60 7 5536025; fax: 60 7 5588166.

for stand-alone PV-battery systems according to the PV panels

3) The quantities of the electricity sources and demands between

2) Column 9 shows the DC electricity available for storage after

Charging=Discharging quantity DCs=d ACconverted

Time interval duration

Equation 2 should be applied separately for the AC and DC

Amount of converted AC electricity to DC

Amount of DC electricity surplus to be converted to AC

Converted DC surplus AC deficit

If the battery capacity is less than the DC discharge requirement

DC electricity available from battery

Outsourced electricity, kWh

efciency (self-discharge rate, charging and discharging) via

Outsourced power rating

Procedures 1 to 6 are carried out to obtain the electricity targets

Capital cost, $/kW

Fixed operating and maintenance

Wind speed, m/s

Excess electricity, kWh

(ii) Scenario 2: Reduce the size of generator with the most

Excess electricity, kWh

Generator size (S), kW

Based on Tables 3a and b, it can be observed that a large AC

Net capital investment

0.12 $/kWh/0.377 RM/kWh (Tenaga Nasional Berhad, 2013), S is the

Power source rating, kW

Power demand rating, kW

The net annual savings is calculated using Equation (11), which

Net annual savings

The electricity system of a chemical plant is taken as the Case

where I(t) is the insolation data at time t (kW/m2), A is the area of

Conveyors Refrigeration Others

Power source rating,

Power demand rating,

Step 2: The Modied SCT for the Case Study is represented by

Power source rating,

Power demand rating,

Step 3: It is assumed that the PV and wind turbine in this

(i) Scenario 1: Reduce the size of the most expensive RE

interval, the charging quantity is also the highest because of there is

Excess electricity, MWh

Excess electricity, MWh

An optimal sizing method for a hybrid power system has been

Generator size (S), MW

(Tenaga Nasional Berhad, 2013) will be considered in our future

You might also like