An efcient sizing method with suitable energy management

strategy for hybrid renewable energy systems

Mohammad Ali Yazdanpanah-Jahromi
*
,
, Seyed-Masoud Barakati and Said Farahat
University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran
SUMMARY
This paper propose a new method for designing a stand-alone hybrid wind-photovoltaic-diesel-battery
system that minimizes the inequality coefcient and annualized cost of system and maximizes the correla-
tion coefcient using multi-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm. The proposed method uses
data from solar radiation, temperature, and wind speed that are collected from the city of Zabol, located
in south-east of Iran. The results are presented as an optimal Pareto front set and the optimal number of
devices, as well as objective functions, that is, inequality coefcient, annualized cost of system, and corre-
lation coefcient. Additionally, a study of the operating hours of diesel generator in optimal conguration is
carried out. Simulation results show the match rate between demand, supply, and energy storage. The
optimal number of wind turbines, photovoltaic modules, and batteries ensuring that the system total cost
is minimized, while guaranteeing a highly reliable source of load power is obtained. The proposed sizing
method can be applied to any other locations with different weather data, load demands, and different
characteristics. Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
key words: large-scale optimization; hybrid power systems; wind-PV-power systems; multi-objective
optimization; sizing method; electricity match rate (EMR)
1. INTRODUCTION
Ever-increasing need for energy, global environmental concerns, and growth of population calls for com-
bining multiple renewable energy resources in a practical fashion. Wind power has recently become the
fastest growing renewable energy resource and is projected to lead the growth of the renewable power
portfolio in the near term [1]. Solar energy, both as a thermal and as an electric source, has been also well
suited as an environmentally friendly power source. Additionally, wind turbine (WT) and photovoltaic
(PV) have been considered as promising power generating sources because of their complementary power
generation characteristics, that is, there is more sunlight during lowwind and more wind at night time. The
reliability of hybrid systems must be considered during the planning and design stages, although design-
ing hybrid systems with both solar and wind components increases the reliability of such systems [2].
Adoption of renewable energy technologies poses risks of compromising system reliability because of
the intermittent nature of renewable sources. The social cost of emissions helps to justify hybrids
implementation. Many simulation studies have been performed to justify the hybrid systems. Hybrid
stand-alone electric generating systems are usually more reliable and less costly than systems that use only
a single source of energy [3]. Additionally, energy storage devices are necessary in the hybrid systems
because of the intermittent nature of wind and solar energies. Traditionally, deep-cycle lead-acid batteries
are used to store direct current electrical energy in electrochemical form[4]. In order to generate the power
from renewable energy continuously, there is a need for back-up systems. A diesel generator is usually
used as a back-up system to supply the load demand and to charge the batteries.
*Correspondence to: Mohammad Ali Yazdanpanah-Jahromi, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran.

E-mail: M.yazdanpanah.j@gmail.com
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRICAL ENERGY SYSTEMS
Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/etep.1790
The optimal design of stand-alone hybrid renewable energy systems includes proper capacity plan-
ning and sizing, to ensure the lowest investment and optimal deployment of hybrid energy resources.
The optimal design should consider the coordination among hybrid energy sources, energy storage
systems, and load demand proles. Various optimization techniques in sizing of hybrid energy
resources have been reported in literature. Classical optimization techniques may be computationally
intensive or may not take into account all relevant parameters. Because some of the practical problem
involves objective functions that are not continuous and/or differentiable, the classical optimization
technique has limited scope in practical application [5]. Some other optimization method is conceptu-
ally different from the traditional method. These methods are labeled as modern or nontraditional
method of optimization [5]. Modern optimization methods on the other hand provide nondominated
solutions with minimal computational requirements. Genetic algorithm and particle swarm optimiza-
tion (PSO) are emerging as valuable, robust, simple, and effective tools for traction in industrial pro-
cess automation and online control adaption [6]. An optimized wind-PV hybrid power system using
PSO algorithm resulting in higher capacity and better efciency has been proposed in [7]. The
nondominated sorting genetic algorithm II (NSGA-II) that is used to simultaneously minimize power
losses in transmission network and cost has been proposed by Dhillon (2009) in [8]. The use of genetic
algorithm in unit sizing of PV/wind generator systems has been discussed in [9]. Juhari et al. (2009)
have discussed sizing and determined the optimum combination of a hybrid PV-wind-hydro-diesel
energy system [10]. Erdinc and Uzunoglu (2012) have reviewed different optimum sizing approaches
that are available in literature [11]. PSO is especially suited to deal with complex engineering
designs because of its fast convergence performance and simple operations [12]. In this paper, a
multi-objective PSO (MOPSO) algorithm has been proposed to handle the problem.
Hybrid systems are usually designed with the lowest total cost and pollutant emissions for the life of
the installation. Boomsma et al. (2012) have presented a framework to evaluate investment time frame
and capacity for renewable energy scenarios [13]. Some other researchers have developed preprocess-
ing techniques and heuristic algorithms for timetabling and labor scheduling, obtaining excellent
results [14]. Two different hierarchical approaches, fuzzy logic and physical model-based optimiza-
tion, to control the heat transfer uid output temperature and attempt to maximize prot by nding
the optimal operating point have been performed in [15].
Proper design of stand-alone renewable energy system by maximizing the power reliability and cost
minimization has been considered in recent years. One parameter that helps to elucidate the systems
reliability is the loss of power supply probability. Optimal congurations for different hybrid systems
have been obtained by the loss of power supply probability technique and minimum annualized cost of
system (ACS) [1621]. Some others have sized the hybrid power systems based on minimization of
the levelized cost of energy and the carbon dioxide emission [22,23]. The levelized cost of energy
can be dened as a metric that describes the cost of every unit of energy generated by a project. A
multi-objective design of hybrid systems by minimizing the total cost, pollutant emission, and unmet
load has been presented in [24]. The different sizing methodologies developed in recent years have
been reviewed by Luna-Rubio et al. (2012) [25]. Match evaluation method (MEM), which is used
in this article, can be another sizing method [26]. The MEM is based on the coordination criteria
between generation and consumption intervals.
In this paper, a wind-PV-diesel-battery (WPDB) hybrid power generation system is suggested. The
WPDB hybrid systems consist of many components. Ways to match various components are the main
challenge in such systems. More coordination between the components increases the system ef-
ciency. When the output power of renewable energy resources cannot meet the load demand, the strat-
egy will be used to start the diesel generator or use the battery power. The WPDB components have
nonlinear characteristics. Therefore, to have an optimal power generation, a nonlinear optimization
problem must be solved.
Correctly designed of hybrid systems can greatly increase the rate of hybrid adoption and could jus-
tify by the additional social benets of emissions reduction. The design of hybrid WPDB system has
been studied extensively in recent years [18,19,22,23]. However, these references do not calculate the
electricity match rate (EMR). Some of the studies have used monthly average weather conditions such
as solar insolation and wind speed for a year. However, it is not accurate and not suitable to size the
hybrid system based on monthly average because of the intermittent nature of renewable energy
M. A. YAZDANPANAH-JAHROMI ET AL.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
sources [17]. Some of the researchers have determined the optimal number of hybrid components
based on iteration techniques [16]. These techniques take a lot of computational times. Changing the
weather data such as solar insolation and wind speed is also difcult in these techniques.
In this paper, a new optimum sizing methodology for hybrid systems based on the coordination
between electricity generation and consumption periods with the lowest cost is developed. The
EMR technique, considered to be the criterion for sizing, is deployed in a WPDB hybrid system.
The EMR sizing technique is based on MOPSO algorithm. For this technique, hourly average solar
irradiation, temperature, wind speed, and demand data for a small village in Sistan and Baluchestan
province, Iran, are collected for 1 year. The data are used for system modeling and optimization. It
is assumed that the hourly generation and hourly demand are constant. In this technique, three param-
eters are used: inequality coefcient (IC), correlation coefcient (CC), and ACS. IC and CC control the
EMR, whereas ACS represents the system cost. IC provides a measure of how well a time series of
estimated values compares with a corresponding time series of observed values [27]. In other words,
IC provides a relative measure of forecast accuracy in terms of deviation from the perfect forecast
[28]. CC measures of how well the predicted values from a forecast model t with the real-life data
[29]. IC gives the match magnitude, whereas CC deals with trend matching. Hence, IC and CC are
selected together, to check the EMR between supply and load demand proles. These two objectives
together provide a good match rate for hybrid systems. The calculation of IC will always result in a
value between zero and one, with zero denoting a perfect match and one indicating no match. The
CC can range in values between 1 and 1. The results of 1 denote perfect positive correlation, and
1 shows perfect negative correlation. A value of zero represents no correlation between the variables.
The ACS checks the total system cost. The economical approach, according to the concept of ACS, is
developed. For the proposed hybrid WPDB system, the ACS is composed of annualized capital cost
(ACC), annualized replacement cost, annualized maintenance cost, and annualized fuel cost.
The optimum combination of IC, CC, and ACS parameters results in the most efcient hybrid
WPDB system. The optimization is achieved by an iterative process using a system model and real
weather and load demand data to investigate the efciency of the proposed methodology. The simula-
tion is carried out on the basis of the algorithm developed for the proposed hybrid system using the
climate data of the mentioned area, located in south-east of Iran. Using the EMR objective functions,
the conguration of the proposed hybrid system, which gives the highest match rate requirements, can
be obtained. The decision variables included in the optimization process are the number of PV mod-
ules, WTs, and batteries. This proposed algorithm is most suitable for global optimization of renewable
energy systems with variable nature. The results show a set of possible solutions as a Pareto front. The
designer can select the solution he or she considers most suitable from the Pareto front obtained, study-
ing for each solution its IC, CC, and ACS. The designer can also limit the acceptable upper and lower
bound of each objective.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the mathematical model of
hybrid components. Sections 3 and 4 formulate the hybrid system design problem. The proposed
MOPSO algorithm is detailed in Section 5. The operation strategy is discussed in Section 6. Simulation
results and analysis are presented in Section 7. Finally, conclusions are drawn, and future research di-
rection is suggested.
2. MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF HYBRID SYSTEM
The proposed hybrid power generation system consists of WT, PV array, battery bank, diesel, controller,
inverter, cables, and other accessory devices. Mathematical modeling of the hybrid components is
performed before applying optimal sizing algorithm to ensure the hybrid system meets the load demand.
A brief description for modeling of the proposed hybrid system is presented in the following sections.
2.1. Modeling of photovoltaic generator
Photovoltaic technology is identied as the most environment friendly technology [30]. The simula-
tion of PV array performance has been carried out by considering the modeling of the maximum power
MODELING OF RENEWABLE ENERGY COMPONENT
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
point tracking. This model can predict the output power of PV panels in different temperatures and
various irradiation levels. The output power of a PV panel can be calculated by using the following
equations [31]:
I V
lx
1-exp -
1
b
_ _ 1 exp
V
bVx

1
b
_ _ _ _
(1)
Vx s
E
i
E
iN
TCV T T
N
sV
max
s V
max
V
min
exp
E
i
E
iN
ln
V
max
V
oc
V
max
V
min
_ _ _ _
(2)
lx p
E
i
E
iN
l
sc
TC
i
T T
N
(3)
P V
Vlx
1 exp
1
b
_ _ 1 exp
V
bVx

1
b
_ _ _ _
(4)
where P(V) is the output power of the PV panel in watts (W); I(V) is the output current of the PV panel
in amperes (A); V is the output voltage of the PV in volts (V); I
sc
and V
oc
are the short-circuit current
and the open-circuit voltage at 25C and 1000 W/m
2
, respectively; V
max
is the maximum open-circuit
voltage at 25C and 1200 W/m
2
(usually, V
max
is close to 1.03 V
oc
); V
min
is the minimum open-circuit
voltage at 25C and 1200 W/m
2
(usually, V
min
is close to 0.85 V
oc
); T is the solar panel temperature
(C); E
i
is the effective solar irradiation impinging the cell in watts per square meter (W/m
2
); T
w
is the
25C standard test condition; TC
i
is the temperature coefcient of I
SC
in A/C; TCV is the temperature
coefcient of V
oc
in V/C; Ix and Vx are the short-circuit current and the open-circuit voltage, respectively,
at any given E
i
and T; s is the number of PVpanels in series; p is the number of PVpanels in parallel; and b
is the characteristic constant based on the I-V curve. The characteristic constant, b, usually varies from
0.01 to 0.18 and can be calculated using Equation (5) with iterative procedures [32]:
b
n1

V
op
V
oc
V
oc
ln 1
I
op
I
sc
1 exp
1
b
n
_ _ _ _ _ _ (5)
where V
op
is the nominal voltage in volts, and I
op
is the nominal current of the selected module in amperes.
For calculating the available energy of PVarray at a specic site, which its solar radiation prole has been
shown in Figure 1, the following equation is used [32]:
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Time (Hour in a year)
I
n
s
o
l
a
t
i
o
n

(
k
W
/
m
2
)
Figure 1. Meteorological conditions of solar radiation.
M. A. YAZDANPANAH-JAHROMI ET AL.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
E
PV
P
out
E
x
SolarWindow TotalDay (6)
where E
PV
is the yearly production of the PV energy in kilowatt hour (kWh),SolarWindow is the total
time hours that the sun hits the PV module at an average hourly solar irradiation, the product of
TotalDay is to change from daily to monthly or yearly quantities, and P
out
(E
x
) is the PV module power
output at an average hourly solar irradiation (E
x
). The KyoceraKC200 GHT-2 PV module type is used
in this simulation procedure. The P-V and I-V curves for 36 PVs in series (s =36 and p =1) have been
shown in Figure 2.
2.2. The Wind Turbine Model
Adjusting the measured wind speed to the hub height (h), by using the wind speed data at a reference
height (h
r
) from the database, is an important stage before calculating the output power of WT. This
can be carried out through the wind power law equation as describe in Equation (7) [33]:
v t v
r
t
h
h
r
_ _

(7)
where is the wind speed at the desired height h,
r
is the wind speed measured at known height h
r
, is
the wind shear exponent coefcient, which varies with pressure, temperature, and time of day. A
commonly used value for in open lands is 1/7.
The variation in wind speed are best described by the Weibull probability distribution function
(PDF), f, with two parameters, the shape factor , and the scale factor [34]. The PDF calculates
the probability that the wind speed will be occurred between zero and innity during the entire chosen
period. Note that the PDF curve shape and the height of it provide in some way that the area under the
PDF curve is unity. There are various notations for the Weibull PDF in literature. In this paper, the
Weibull PDF is dened as follow [34]:
f v

_ _
1
e

(8)
where is the shape factor, and v is the wind speed. Figures 3 and 4 are the plot of f versus v for dif-
ferent values of and in Equation 8, respectively. The value of controls the curve shape and hence
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
x 10
4
Voltage (V)
P
o
w
e
r

(
W
)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
5
10
15
20
25
Voltage (V)
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

(
A
)
Figure 2. P-V and I-V curve for 36 photovoltaics in series.
MODELING OF RENEWABLE ENERGY COMPONENT
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
is called the shape factor. The larger shape factor indicates a relatively narrow distribution of wind
speeds around the average, whereas the lower shape factor indicates a relatively wide distribution of
wind speeds around the average. The scale factor () denes where the bulk of the distribution lies
and how stretched out [32]. For wind speed prole, which is shown in Figure 5, the Weibull PDF is
shown in Figure 6.
The PDF is the key information needed to estimate the total kilowatt hour produced in a year by a
WT at a given site. Using the WT power curve, the annual output energy can then be calculated. A
power curve is a graph that presents the output power of WT at any wind speed. This curve is a
function of the turbine design and normally obtained from the WT manufacturer. The power curve
of the selected WT is shown in Figure 7. The energy available for a WT at a specic site can be cal-
culated as follows [35]:
E
WT
days hours P
c
f v; ; (9)
where E
WT
is the generated energy of WT in kilowatt hour for a specic site, P
c
is the output power of
WT, f(v) is the Weibull PDF for wind speed , is the shape factor, and is the scale factor. The
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
Wind Speed (m/s)
W
e
i
b
u
l
l

p
d
f
Shape Factor=1
Shape Factor=2
Shape Factor=3
Shape Factor=4
Shape Factor=5
Figure 3. Weibull probability distribution function with scale factor =10 and shape factor =1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Wind Speed (m/s)
W
e
i
b
u
l
l

p
d
f
Scale Factor=6
Scale Factor=7
Scale Factor=8
Scale Factor=9
Scale Factor=10
Scale Factor=11
Scale Factor=12
Figure 4. Weibull probability distribution function with shape factor =2 and scale factor
= 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.
M. A. YAZDANPANAH-JAHROMI ET AL.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Time (Hour of day)
W
i
n
d

S
p
e
e
d

(
m
/
s
)
Figure 5. Meteorological conditions of wind speed.
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
Wind Speed (m/s)
f
(
V
)
Figure 6. Weibull probability density function [f(v)].
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Wind Speed (m/s)
P
o
w
e
r

O
u
t
p
u
t

(
K
W
)
Figure 7. Power curve of selected wind turbine (the symbols represent the data sampled from the power
curve graphs given by the manufacturer).
MODELING OF RENEWABLE ENERGY COMPONENT
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
multiplication of days by hours gives the total hours in the period of simulation. ARE442, a small WT
type, is employed in this simulation. Figure 8 shows the total energy output for the selected WT in 1 year.
2.3. Battery Performance Model
Batteries are the most widely used devices for energy storage. Leadacid batteries are usually used for
stand-alone hybrid wind-PV-diesel generation systems. Surplus electrical energy is stored in a battery
bank, which supplies power to the load when the total power output of WTs and PVs is insufcient. So
the correct battery sizing is critical. There are different models in literature for battery behavior
simulation. The modeling of battery based on state of charge (SOC) is the most commonly used model.
SOC is an important parameter in system assessments [18]. Temperature can also affect battery capac-
ity. The available battery capacity [C

bat
(Ah)], in a given temperature [T
bat
(K)], can be calculated using
Equation (10) [16]:
C

bat
C
}
bat
1
c
T
bat
298:15 (10)
where
c
is temperature coefcient. The value of 0.6% per degree is usually used for
c
, unless other-
wise specied by the manufacturer.
For the proposed hybrid WPDB system, it is supposed that the WT has the direct current output. If
the cable losses in the system are neglected, the battery current rate at time t can be expressed as
Equation (11) [18]:
I
bat
t
P
PV
t P
Wind
t
P
ACLoad
t

inverter
P
DCLoad
V
bat
t
(11)
where
inverter
is the inverter efciency, which is considered as 92% in this study.
The SOC at any hour t is depending on the battery current, the charge or discharge time, and the pre-
vious SOC. By all the aforementioned consideration, the battery SOC can be dened as follows [18]:
SOC t 1 SOC t 1
:t
24

I
bat
t t
bat
C

bat
_ _
(12)
where
bat
is the battery efciency, which 90% for charging stage and 100% in discharging process are
recommended. is the self-discharge rate; 0.2% per day is recommended, and t is the desire time inter-
val. When the WT and PV modules supply power more than the load demand, the overcharging process is
occurred. On the other hand, when the load demand is more than the total output energy of supply sources,
the battery SOCmay decrease to the minimumlevel, which is dened as SOC
min
=1 DOD, where DOD
is the depth of discharging of battery. In this study, for longevity of battery lifetime, the value of DOD is
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Wind Speed (m/s)
E
n
e
r
g
y

(
k
W
h
/
Y
e
a
r
)
Figure 8. Total wind turbine energy output for 1 year.
M. A. YAZDANPANAH-JAHROMI ET AL.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
considered 50%. In order to prevent the batteries against destruction, it is important to control the batteries
SOC at the following constrain:
SOC
min
SOC SOC
max
(13)
where SOC
max
is the maximum SOC for batteries (SOC
max
=1). The US Battery US250 battery type is
used for this simulation. The selected battery has a voltage of 6 V and a capacity of 250 Ah.
2.4. Load Model
The total output power of the proposed hybrid system (WT, PV, battery, and diesel generator) should
meet the power load demand. The hourly load data used in this study is shown in Figure 9. This is the
yearly variation of domestic load prole in the region.
3. SIZING MODEL BASED ON MATCH EVALUATION METHOD
The maximization of EMR between demand and supply in hybrid renewable energy systems is an es-
sential issue in power generation. In other words, the generating periods for renewable resources
should closely match the consumption periods. For quantifying the deviation between two set of data
variables, the least squares (LS) approach is used. The following equation describes LS [36]:
LS
n
t0
D
t
S
t

2
(14)
where D
t
and S
t
are the demand and supply at time t, respectively. The value of LS is always a positive
value, and zero value shows a perfect match. Spearmans Rank CC is one of the objectives that can
describe the correlation between supply and demands. CC can vary from 1 to 1. One shows the
perfect positive match, 1 shows the perfect negative correlation, and 0 represents no match.
The CC can be expressed as Equation (15) [37]:
CC

n
t0
D
t
d S
t
s

n
t0
D
t
d
2

n
t0
S
t
s
2
(15)
where D
t
is the demand and S
t
is the supply at time t, and d and s are the demand and supply average over
period n, respectively. The CC is used to describe the trend matching between the time series of two data
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Time (Hour of day)
L
o
a
d

(
k
W
)
Figure 9. Yearly variation of domestic load prole.
MODELING OF RENEWABLE ENERGY COMPONENT
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
sets. It does not explain the relative match magnitudes of the individual variables. Thus, if the size of a
power supply doubled, however the excess supply would be far greater, the CC would stabilize the same.
Moreover, if two proles are perfectly in phase with each other, but of very different magnitudes, would
result in perfect correlation but not a perfect match rate. For a perfect match rate, both phase and magni-
tude must be considered. Hence, another criterion is needed to determine the match magnitude. The IC,
describes the inequality in the magnitude domain because of three sources: unequal tendency (mean), un-
equal variation (variance), and imperfect covariation (covariance) [37]. Therefore, IC and CCare selected
together, to check the EMRbetween supply and load demand. The resultant ICcan range in value between
0 and 1. The smaller IC denotes the larger match rate. Value of 0 represents a perfect match, and 1 shows
no match. The IC can be given by the following equation [37]:
IC

1
n

n
t0
D
t
S
t

2

1
n

n
t0
D
t

2

1
n

n
t0
S
t

2

_
(16)
where D
t
and S
t
are the demand and supply at time t, respectively; and n is the total time period. Value of
IC between 0 and 0.4 shows good match, and value greater than 0.5 represents weak match [38]. IC is the
best criterion for matching between supply and demand. However, CCis also good criteria, but it is not as
well as IC[38]. In this work, MEMis used for sizing purpose. The algorithmhas been implemented on the
basis of the MEM technique. Load is needed to be matched with different supplies in a way that resultant
supply (N
1
.S
1
+N
2
S
2
++N
n
.S
n
) meets the load with high EMR. The main objective of the proposed op-
timal algorithm is to nd the optimal values of N
1
, N
2
, , N
n
. S
t
in Equations 15 and 16 is the sum of
two parts, N
PV
.S
PV
, N
WT
.S
WT
, and N
batt
.S
batt
or N
PV
.S
PV
, N
WT
S
WT
, and S
Diesel
that respectively denote the
energy supply sources, PV modules, WTs, and battery or PV modules, WTs, and diesel generator. N
PV
is
the total number of PV modules, N
WT
is the total number of the WTs, and N
batt
is the number of battery.
The initial assumption of the hybrid system conguration will be subjected to the following constrains:
Min N
PV
; N
WT
; N
batt
1 (17)
Max N
PV
; N
WT
; N
batt
max D = min S
n
(18)
where max(D) and min(S
n
) are, respectively, the maximum and minimum values of demand and supply
over considered period. An initial population of 200 particles, comprising the 1st generation, is generated
randomly and the constraints described by (17) and (18) are evaluated for each particle. If any of the initial
population particles violates the problem constraints, then it is replaced by a new particle, which is gen-
erated randomly and fullls these constraints.
4. COST ANALYSIS BASED ON ANNUALIZED COST OF SYSTEM CONCEPT
A cost analysis of the system is performed according to the concept of ACS. The ACS is composed of
individual annualized capital cost (ACC) of components, annualized operation and maintenance cost
(AOC), annual replacement cost (ARC), and annual fuel cost. It supposes that the life of the project
is 20 years. ACS can be calculated as follows:
ACS ACC PV Wind Tower Diesel Battery AOC PV Wind Tower Battery
ARC Battery AFC Diesel
(19)
4.1. Annualized capital cost
The annualized capital cost (ACC) of each component has taken into account the installation cost. The
ACC of each component can be calculated by using Equation (20):
M. A. YAZDANPANAH-JAHROMI ET AL.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
ACC C
cap
CRF i; n
proj
_ _
(20)
where C
cap
is capital cost of each component ($), n
proj
is the component lifetime (year), and CRF is
capital recovery factor, dened as Equation (21):
CRF i; n
proj
_ _

i: 1 i
n
proj
1 i
n
proj
1
(21)
where i is the annual interest rate, consisting of nominal interest rate (i
loan
, the rate at which a loan can
be obtained) and the annual ination rate, f, calculated as follows:
i
i
loan
f
1 f
(22)
In this study, the i
loan
and f are considered to be 5% and 2%, respectively.
4.2. Operation and maintenance cost
The operation and maintenance cost is the maintenance and repair cost of each hybrid component cal-
culated by using Equation (23):
AOC n AOC 1 1 f
n
(23)
where AOC(n) is the maintenance cost of nth year, and the AOC(1) is the component maintenance cost
for the rst year of the project.
4.3. Annual replacement cost
Annual replacement cost is the annual cost value for replacing the components during the project
lifetime. The components that have a lifetime less than the lifetime of the project needs to be replaced
during the project lifetime. In this study, components that need replacement are batteries. Other
components do not need for replacement because their lifetime is the same as the project lifetime.
The ARC is calculated as the following Equation (24):
ARC C
rep
SFF i; n
rep
_ _
(24)
where C
rep
is the replacement cost of units, SFF is the Sinking Fund Factor that depends on lifetime of
units (n
rep
) and interest rate (i). SFF is a ratio that calculates the future value of a series of equal annual
cash ow and can be calculated as the following Equation (25):
SFF i; n
rep
_ _

i
1 i
n
rep
1
(25)
4.4. Annual fuel cost
The cost of fuel for diesel generator is calculated by using the following Equation (26):
AFC T
fc
CRF i; n (26)
where T
fc
is total fuel consumption for 20 years.
The fuel (gas oil) price is considered 0.16049 $/kWh. The expected carbon dioxide emission is
0.669 kg/kWh. The output power of diesel generator is 5 kW. Other cost parameters used in this paper
are shown in Table I.
5. MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION PROCEDURE USING MULTI-OBJECTIVE
PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZATION
Implementation of MOPSO and NSGA-II for various engineering and business applications have been
carried out in recent years. MOPSO is an evolutionary computation optimization technique (a search
MODELING OF RENEWABLE ENERGY COMPONENT
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
method based on a natural system) [39,40]. MOPSO is a form of swarm intelligence, and it is moti-
vated by social behavior of organism such as ock of birds. In bird ocking, if a member nds a
suitable way to move for food or protection, other individuals in the swarm will follow its movement.
This behavior can be modeled by swarms of particle. Each particle, having both position and velocity,
is rst randomly initialized. Then, its tness value is calculated according to the tness measure
prespecied. If the position is better than the best position (P
best
) encountered by itself and its neigh-
bors, the current value is set as the new P
best
. The particle that has the best tness value of all particles
is chosen as the global best (G
best
). The position and the velocity of each particle are updated according
to its own ight experience and that of its companions. Finally, stopping criteria such as maximum it-
erations can be used to stop the algorithm.
Nondominated sorting genetic algorithm II is another multi-objective evolutionary algorithm that
was rst proposed by Deb et al. in 2000 [41]. NSGA-II is a revised version of NSGA, which was pro-
posed by Srinivas and Deb in 1994 [42]. NSGA-II uses a fast nondominated sorting approach, an elitist
strategy, and no niching parameter. Diversity is preserved by the use of crowded comparison in the
tournament selection and in the phase of population reduction [43]. The MOPSO and NSGA-II share
several common points. For instance, both of them improve the solution quality through continues
adjustment parameters; the tness value of each individual evaluates by the prespecied criteria; both
begin with a population generated randomly. However, there are several aspects that make their inner
working different from one another. The philosophy of MOSPO is to follow the leader, whereas that
of NSGA-II is survival of the ttest. In MOPSO, the particles update their states with the internal
velocity, and there are no genetic operators such as crossover and mutation. The mechanism of infor-
mation sharing signicantly differs from one another. In MOSPO, just local and global positions are
transparent to other individuals, which is a form of one-way communication. However, in NSGA-II,
the whole population moves toward the promising region because individuals share information with
each other. The control parameters are fewer in MOPSO compared with NSGA-II. So, in MOSPO, all
the particle tend to converge to the best solution quickly, comparing with NSGA-II [6].
These two multi-objective optimization algorithms can nd Pareto-optimal solution in one single simu-
lation run. The objectives of sizing stand-alone hybrid power systemare usually in conict with each other.
The sizing of the hybrid wind/PV systems is much more complicated than the single source power gener-
ation systems. This is due to multiple variables and parameters that have to be taken into account in system
optimization. Long-term system performance, cost parameters, and EMR objectives must be considered in
order to reach the best compromise for both power match rate and cost. Both algorithms were applied to the
proposed system. It was found that with the same number of iteration and population, MOPSO converged
faster than NSGA-II [26]. Therefore, MOPSO was selected for this optimization procedure.
The MOPSO algorithm achieves system optimization by dynamically searching for the optimal con-
guration based on maximizing the EMR and minimizing ACS and IC parameters and maximizing the
CC parameter. It is noted that ACS, IC, and CC parameters, essential for the optimization process, con-
ict with one another. By employing the MOPSO algorithm for each conguration, a set of possible
solutions (Pareto set) are obtained.
A proper sizing algorithm is the one that can nd the optimal size of each component in each con-
guration to maximize the EMR between demand and supply. The numbers of PV panels, WTs, and
battery are considered design variables for proper sizing. The minimum value (lower limit) of design
variables is selected to be one to be sure that there is at least one of each resource in the system. The
owchart for applying the MOPSO algorithm is shown in Figure 10.
Table I. The costs and lifetime aspect for the proposed hybrid components.
Components
Initial capital
cost ($)
Maintenance cost in the
rst year ($)
Replacement
cost ($)
Life time
(year)
Photovoltaic module 800.00 65.00 Null 20.00
Wind turbine and its tower 1404.86 101.50 Null 20.00
Battery 126.35 25.00 126.35 5.00
Diesel 500.00 1000.00 Null 20.00
Other components 900.00 90.00 Null 20.00
M. A. YAZDANPANAH-JAHROMI ET AL.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
6. OPERATION STRATEGY OF PROPOSED HYBRID WIND-PV-DIESEL-BATTERY SYSTEM
One of the crucial factor for optimization is to determinate the best time for starting and stopping the
diesel generator. A suitable operation strategy can optimize the fuel consumption, which is one of the
main concerns for the entire operation cost of a diesel generator over its lifetime. The optimized model
achieves the optimal size for hybrid components based on the maximum EMR and minimum ACS.
The operating strategy is as follows:
If the total power generated from WTs (P
WT
) and PV panels (P
PV
) is more than the load demand
(P
L
), the excess power is used to charge the batteries. In this case, the sizing optimization will be
carried out with only two supplies (PV and wind).
If the total generated power (P
WT
+P
PV
+P
batt
) is less than the load demand and SOC of batteries
is higher than SOC
min
, the batteries will supply the extra power. The sizing optimization will be
carried out with PV, wind, and battery.
If the batteries SOC are equal or less than SOC
min
, the diesel generator will start and supply the
power in order to protect the batteries against excessive draining. Surplus power from diesel will
charge the batteries as amount as SOC
max
. In this case, the calculation of sizing optimization will
be carried out with PV-wind including one diesel generator.
The decision parameters for the optimization algorithm are the numbers of PV modules, WTs, and
batteries. The simulation assumes ambient air temperature, high WT installation, hourly solar
Initial Guess of NPV, NWT and NBatt
Fitness Function
Evaluation:
Minimization of IC and
ACS and also
Maximization Of CC
Diesel
Generation
All Combination
Optimized
Optimum Number of
Units:
NWT, NPV and NBatt
Selection Operation:
Minimum ACS
Crossover and Mutation
Operation of MOPSO
(or NSGA-II)
Hourly Meteorological Data for One Year
(Wind Speed, Solar irradiation and Load
Demand Data)
Wind Turbine
Model and
Calculation Of PWT
PV System Model
and Calculation
Of PPV
The PV Module
Temperature
(TPV)
Desire High
(H
WT
)
Battery
Performance
Model
N
New Generation of
Configuration
Y
Figure 10. Flowchart of the optimization procedure for the multi-objective particle swarm optimization
(MOPSO) algorithm.
MODELING OF RENEWABLE ENERGY COMPONENT
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
irradiation on a horizontal surface, existence of wind, and load demand for 1 year. The output power of
PV array and WT is calculated according to the models described before. The battery storage system is
permitted to discharge up to a limit dened by the maximum DOD. The proposed strategy determines
the best value for diesel generator starting and stopping points, which are the keys to achieve an opti-
mum operation. The system design is optimized by employing the MOPSO algorithm, which dynam-
ically searches for the optimal conguration in somehow to maximize the EMR in the lowest ACS.
The proposed strategy of operating the hybrid WPDB system is presented as a owchart in Figure 11.
7. OPTIMIZATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The output power of PV array and WT is calculated according to the model that was described previ-
ously. The maximum power point tracker method has been employed in the PV systems. The actual
collected solar radiation, temperature, wind speed, and load demand data from south-east of Iran are
used for simulation. The optimization process, which dynamically searches for the optimal congura-
tion by minimizing the IC and ACS and maximizing the CC, is deployed. The results of optimal solu-
tion obtained for optimal capacities of WT and PV generation from MOPSO and the Pareto front are
presented in Table II. As mentioned, for having good EMR, IC values must be as low as possible. The
values lower than 0.4 are acceptable for providing a good match rate between supply and demand [38].
The ACS cost should be as low as possible. Higher CC is another criterion for this process. It is worth
mentioning that CC deals with trend matching, whereas IC shows the match magnitude. Hence, IC and
Read Hourly Wind Speed, Solar
Irradiation And Load Demand DATA
PL>PWT+PPV
SOC<SOCmax
Charge the
Batteries
Calculate IC, CC
and ACS as:
S1=PV, S2=Wind
PL>PBatt+PWT+PPV
Or
SOC<SOCmin
Diesel Start and
Supply the Power.
Surplus Power Will
Charge the Batteries
The Batteries
Supply the Power
and Will Be
Discharged.
Calculate IC, CC and
ACS as:
S1=PV, S2=Wind and
S3=Diesel
Calculate IC, CC
and ACS as:
S1=PV, S2=Wind
and S3=Battery
Calculation of Available
Output Energy for Wind
Turbine (PWT)
Y
Y
N
Dump the
Excess Power
N
Y
N
Calculation of Available
Output Energy for PV
Module (PPV)
Figure 11. Operation strategy of proposed hybrid system.
M. A. YAZDANPANAH-JAHROMI ET AL.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
CC values are selected together to ensure the match rate between supply and demand. The IC param-
eter is especially of greater importance than CC or ACS. Furthermore, the CC parameter is of greater
importance when compared with ACS. Therefore, the Pareto front has been plotted for IC and CC, IC
and ACS, and CC and ACS, as shown in Figures 12, 13, and 14, respectively. When a prespecied
iteration count (N= N
max
) is reached, MOPSO is terminated (N
max
=300 and a population size of
N
pop
=200 are considered).
The 20 best sizing selections out of 30 runs searching for the best conguration have been obtained
and rounding up. The solutions found by these optimization algorithms are shown in Table II. These
results show the optimum combination of equipment needed to supply the energy to the load at the
lowest cost possible.
Table II. Pareto front/optimal solutions obtained from multi-objective optimization.
Solution
Obtained results from MOPSO algorithm
IC CC ACS N
PV
N
WIND
N
batt
N
PV-New
N
WI-New
N
batt-New
1 0.1041 0.8924 2207.1 1.0102 1.0266 1.0242 2 2 2
2 0.1055 0.8934 2301.8 1.0116 1.4203 1.0000 2 2 1
3 0.0980 0.9022 2373.2 1.0680 1.1641 1.3246 2 2 2
4 0.0903 0.9116 2347.7 1.0065 1.3256 1.8844 2 2 2
5 0.0886 0.9111 2559.4 1.0000 1.0024 1.7803 1 2 2
6 0.1018 0.8948 2206.2 1.0105 1.0000 1.0942 2 1 2
7 0.0900 0.9123 2354.1 1.0050 1.4004 1.7371 2 2 2
8 0.1046 0.8900 2559.1 1.0042 1.2515 1.0000 2 2 1
9 0.0942 0.9086 2392.2 1.0442 1.5754 1.6031 2 2 2
10 0.0923 0.9078 2240.6 1.0288 1.0000 1.4954 2 1 2
11 0.0921 0.9077 2339.5 1.0126 1.0176 1.4582 2 2 2
12 0.1044 0.8965 2312.6 1.1620 1.1443 1.7070 2 2 2
13 0.0914 0.9109 2358.6 1.0051 1.4805 1.5452 2 2 2
14 0.0917 0.9086 2265.7 1.0378 1.0525 1.6334 2 2 2
15 0.0928 0.9069 2263.2 1.0242 1.0000 1.4500 2 1 2
16 0.0911 0.9116 2363.4 1.0146 1.4500 1.6829 2 2 2
17 0.0907 0.9105 2295.1 1.0017 1.2249 1.5408 2 2 2
18 0.0923 0.9106 2362.2 1.0289 1.4499 1.6508 2 2 2
19 0.0899 0.9104 2350.4 1.0110 1.0000 1.6529 2 1 2
20 0.0941 0.9096 2460.7 1.0050 1.9275 1.4536 2 2 2
MOPSO, multi-objective particle swarm optimization; IC, inequality coefcient; CC, correlation coefcient; ACS, annualized
cost of system.
0.0885 0.089 0.0895 0.09 0.0905 0.091 0.0915 0.092 0.0925
0.914
0.9135
0.913
0.9125
0.912
0.9115
0.911
0.9105
C
C
Figure 12. 2D Pareto front for the last generation inequality coefcient (IC) versus correlation coefcient
(CC).
MODELING OF RENEWABLE ENERGY COMPONENT
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
New parameters values for the rounded sizing numbers are shown in Table III. One can conclude
that there are variations in optimization parameter functions. As shown in Table II, all the obtained
results for PV sizing numbers are near 1. Rounding these values to the greater one, disturb the match
rate. The optimal sizing numbers, which is shown in Table III, show that the values 1, 2, and 2 for PV
modules, WT, and battery, respectively, give us the best match rate.
0.088 0.09 0.092 0.094 0.096 0.098 0.1 0.102 0.104 0.106
1580
1590
1600
1610
1620
1630
1640
1650
IC
A
C
S
Figure 13. 2D Pareto front for the last generation inequality coefcient (IC) versus annualized cost of
system (ACS).
0.915 0.91 0.905 0.9 0.895 0.89 0.885
2190
2200
2210
2220
2230
2240
2250
2260
Figure 14. 2D Pareto front for the last generation correlation coefcient (CC) vs. annualized cost of system
(ACS).
Table III. The nal goal function values for sizing numbers and the total hours the diesel operates in 1 year.
N
PV-New
N
WT-New
N
batt-New
IC CC ACS
Diesel operating hours for 1 year
(total year hours = 8760)
2 2 2 0.2565 0.7592 2670.9 3230
2 1 2 0.2477 0.7569 2426.2 3269
1 2 2 0.0938 0.9110 2520.9 4907
2 2 1 0.2577 0.7514 2591.9 3906
IC, inequality coefcient; CC, correlation coefcient; ACS, annualized cost of system.
M. A. YAZDANPANAH-JAHROMI ET AL.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
One scope of using hybrid renewable energy systems is to use green energies such as solar and wind
instead of fossil fuels. So the total hours the diesel generator operates in 1 year (8760 h) can be one of
the criteria in the selection of optimal solutions. The total hours the diesel operates in 1 year is also
given in Table III.
Table III shows that 2, 2, and 2 sizing numbers for PV modules, WT, and battery, respectively, give
the minimum hours diesel operating, and 1, 2, and 2 have the maximum one.
It depends to the designer to select one of the obtained optimal sizing numbers for the hybrid com-
ponents, by considering the fuel cost, the necessity of match rate, and the cost consideration.
8. CONCLUSION
A new methodology to size an optimal stand-alone hybrid WPDB bank using a MOPSO algorithm has
been presented in this paper. The developed methodology is applied to a selected site to size the hybrid
WPDB systems. The methodology minimizes the IC and ACS, while simultaneously maximizing CC.
The actual collected solar radiation, temperature, wind speed, and load demand data are used for sim-
ulation. The application of the methodology offers several solutions, which are presented under opti-
mal Pareto front. For the hybrid system, a control strategy has been designed to achieve a higher match
rate between supply and demand intervals. Simulation results show that a conguration with one PV,
two WTs, and two battery units have a high EMR with the expense of long operating hours for the
diesel generator. Another conguration with two units of each PV, WTs, and battery has short diesel
operating hours and acceptable match rate, but its ACS is the highest. The designers can select the best
conguration among the Pareto set, which ts their desire. In the future work of this study, other more
decision variables and different design scenarios may be incorporated into system designs.
9. LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
9.1. Symbols
Wind shear exponent coefcient
Shape factor
Scale factor
Self-discharge rate of battery

c
Temperature coefcient
AOC(1) Maintenance cost of that component for the rst year of the project
B characteristic constant based on I-V curve
C

bat
Available battery capacity
C
cap
Capital cost of each component ($)
C
rep
Replacement cost of units ($)
C
rep
Replacement cost of units
D Mean demand over time period n
D
t
Demand at time t
D
t
Load demand at time t
E
i
Effective solar irradiation impinging the cell in (W/m
2
)
E
pv
Yearly expected production of photovoltaic energy in kilowatt hour (kWh)
E
wt
Expected energy production of wind turbine in kilowatt hour (kWh) for a specic site
f Annual ination rate
f(v) Weibull PDF for wind speed ()
H
1
Known height
H
2
Desired height
i Annual interest rate
i
loan
Nominal interest rate
I
op
Nominal current in amperes (A)
MODELING OF RENEWABLE ENERGY COMPONENT
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
I
sc
Short-circuit current at 25C and 1000 W/m
2
Ix Short-circuit current at any given E
i
and T
I(V) Output current of the photovoltaic panel (A)

bat
Battery efciency

inverter
Inverter efciency
n
rep
Lifetime of units
N Component lifetime (year)
N
PV
Total number of PV modules
N
WT
Total number of the WTs
P Number of photovoltaic panels in parallel
P Output power of the photovoltaic panel (W)
P
L
Load demand
P
out
(E
x
) PV module output power at an average hourly solar irradiation (E
x
)
P
PV
Total generated powert of PV panels
P
WT
Total generated power of wind turbines
S Number of photovoltaic panels in series
S Supply over time period n
SolarWindow Total time hours that the sun hits the PV module at an average hourly solar irradiation
S
PV
Supplied energy of PV modules
S
WT
Supplied energy of WT
S
t
Supply at time t
T Solar panel temperature (C)
T
bat
Battery temperature
TCi temperature coefcient of I
SC
in (A/C)
TCV Temperature coefcient of V
oc
in (V/C)
T
fc
Total fuel consumption
TotalDay Change from daily to monthly or yearly quantities
T
w
25C standard test condition (STC)
V
1
Wind speed measured at H
1
V
2
Wind speed at H
2
V Output voltage of the photovoltaic (V)
V
max
Maximum open-circuit voltage at 25C and 1200 W/m
2
(usually it is close to 1.03 V
oc
)
V
min
minimumopen-circuit voltage at 25C and 200 W/m
2
(usually, V
min
is close to 0.85 V
oc
)
V
oc
Short-circuit current at 25C and 1000 W/m
2
V
op
Nominal voltage in volts (V)
Vx Open-circuit voltage at any given E
i
and T
9.2. Abbreviations
ACS Annualized cost of system
ACC Annualized capital cost of components
AFC Annual fuel cost
AOC Annualized operation and maintenance cost
ARC Annual replacement cost
CC Spearmans rank correlation coefcient
CRF Capital recovery factor
EMR Electricity match rate
IC Inequality coefcient
LS Least squares
MEM Match evaluation method
PDF Weibull probability distribution function
SFF Sinking Fund Factor
DOD Depth of discharging of battery
SOC Battery based on state of charge
M. A. YAZDANPANAH-JAHROMI ET AL.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
REFERENCES
1. Tarroja B, Mueller F, Eichman JD, Samuelsen S. Metrics for evaluating the impacts of intermittent renewable
generation on utility load-balancing. Journal of Energy 2012; 44:546562.
2. Abedi S, Alimardani A, Gharehpetian GB, Riahy GH, Hosseinian SH. A comprehensive method for optimal power
management and design of hybrid RES-based autonomous energy systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 2012; 16(3):15771587.
3. Vafaei M. Optimally-sized design of a wind/diesel/fuel cell hybrid system for remote community. Master of Applied
Science Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Waterloo, 2011.
4. Bindner H, Cronin T, Lundsager P, Manwell JF, Abdulwahid U, Baring-Gould I. Lifetime Modelling of Lead Acid
Batteries. Ris National Laboratory Information Service Department: Denmark, 2005.
5. Rao SS. Engineering Optimization: Theory and Practice, 4th edn. John Wiley & Sons, Inc: Canada, 2009.
6. El-Gammal Adel AA, Sharaf AM. A hybrid PV-FC-diesel-battery efcient schemes for four-wheel PMDC electric
vehicle drive system. International Journal of Renewable Energy Research 2012; 2(1):5377.
7. Zhao YS, Zhan J, Zhang Y, Wang DP, Zou BG. The optimal capacity conguration of an independent wind/PV
hybrid power supply system based on improved PSO algorithm. IEEE, 2006, pp. 17.
8. Dhillon J. Multi-objective optimization of power dispatch problem using NSGA-II. Master of Engineering Power
Systems & Electric Drives, Thapar University, Patiala, 2009.
9. Koutroulis E, Kolokotsa D, Potirakis A, Kalaitzakis K. Methodology for optimal sizing of stand-alone photovoltaic/
wind-generator systems using genetic algorithms. Solar Energy 2006; 80(9):10721088.
10. Razak JA, Sopian K, Ali Y, Alghoul MA, Zaharim A, Ahmad I. Optimization of PV-wind-hydro-diesel hybrid
system by minimizing excess capacity. European Journal of Scientic Research 2009; 25:663671.
11. Erdinc O, Uzunoglu M. Optimum design of hybrid renewable energy systems: overview of different approaches.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2012; 16(3):14121425.
12. Wang L, Singh C. PSO-based multi-criteria optimum design of a grid-connected hybrid power system with
multiple renewable source of energy. Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symposium (SIS),
2007, pp. 18.
13. Boomsma TK, Meade N, Fleten SE. Renewable energy investments under different support schemes: a real options
approach. European Journal of Operational Research 2012; 220(1):225237.
14. Alvarez-Valdes R, Crespo E, Tamarit JM, Villa F. GRASP and path relinking for project scheduling under partially
renewable resources. European Journal of Operational Research 2008; 189(3):11531170.
15. Cirre CM, Berenguel M, Valenzuela L, Klempous R. Reference governor optimization and control of a distributed
solar collector eld. European Journal of Operational Research 2009; 193(3):709717.
16. Yang H, Zhou W, Lua L, Fang Z. Optimal sizing method for stand-alone hybrid solarwind system with LPSP
technology by using genetic algorithm. Solar Energy 2008; 82(4):354367.
17. Nelson DB, Nehrir MH, Wang C. Unit sizing and cost analysis of stand-alone hybrid wind/PV/fuel cell power
generation systems. Renewable Energy 2006; 31(10):16411656.
18. Wei Z. Simulation and optimum design of hybrid solar-wind and solar-wind-diesel power generation systems.
Doctor of Philosophy, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 2007.
19. Xu D, Kang L, Cao B. The elitist non-dominated sorting GA for multi-objective optimization of standalone hybrid
wind/PV power systems. The International journal of Applied Sciences 2006; 6(9):20002005.
20. Elbaset AA. Design, modeling and control strategy of PV/FC hybrid power system. Electrical Systems 2011;
7(2):270286.
21. Bakelli Y, Arab AH, Azoui B. Optimal sizing of photovoltaic pumping system with water tank storage using LPSP
concept. Solar Energy 2011; 85(2):288294.
22. Bilala BO, Samboua V, Kb CMF, Ndiaye PA, Ndongo M. Methodology to size an optimal stand-alone PV/wind/
diesel/battery system minimizing the levelized cost of energy and the CO
2
emissions. Energy Procedia 2012;
14:16361647.
23. Yang H, Lu L, Zhou W. A novel optimization sizing model for hybrid solar-wind power generation system. Solar
Energy 2007; 81(1):7684.
24. Dufo-Lopez R, Bernal-Agustin JL. Multi-objective design of PVwinddieselhydrogenbattery systems.
Renewable Energy 2008; 33(12):25592572.
25. Luna-Rubio R, Trejo-Perea M, Vargas-Vazquez D, Ros-Moreno GJ. Optimal sizing of renewable hybrids energy
systems: a review of methodologies. Solar Energy 2012; 86(4):10771088.
26. Yazdanpanah-Jahromi MA, Farahat S, Barakati SM. A novel sizing methodology based on match evaluation
method for optimal sizing of stand-alone hybrid energy systems using NSGA-II. The Journal of Mathematics and
Computer Science 2012; 5:134145.
27. AEMO. Victorial annual planning report: Australian energy market operator limited (AEMO), 2010.
28. Henderson N. Report to reliability panel on demand forecast: AEMO, 2010.
29. Hsieh CY. Climate change prediction by wireless sensor technology. International Electrical Engineering Journal
(IEEJ) 2012; 3(2):620624.
30. Mohammadi M, Hosseinian SH, Gharehpetian GB. GA-based optimal sizing of microgrid and DG units under pool
and hybrid electricity markets. Electrical Power and Energy System 2012; 35(1):8392.
31. Ortiz Rivera EI. Modeling and analysis of solar distributed generation. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Electrical
and Computer Engineering, Michigan State University, 2006.
MODELING OF RENEWABLE ENERGY COMPONENT
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep
32. Rios Rivera M. Small wind/photovoltaic hybrid renewable energy system optimization. Master of Science,
Electrical Engineering, Puerto Rico, Mayagez Campus, 2008.
33. Borowy BS, Salameh ZM. Methodology for optimally sizing the combination of a battery bank and PV array in a
wind/PV hybrid system. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion 1996; 11:367375.
34. Patel MR. Wind and Solar Power Systems: Design, Analysis, and Operation, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis
Group, New York, 2006.
35. Ramos Robles CA. Determination of favorable conditions for the developement of a wind power farm in PUERTO
RICO. Master Of Science, Electrical Engineering, PUERTO RICO, 2005.
36. Scheaffer L, Mulekar S, MvClave T. Probability and Statistics for Engineers, 5th edn. Richard Stratton: Canada, 2011.
37. Born FJ. Aiding renewable energy integration through complimentary demand-supply matching. Doctor of
Philosophy, Energy Systems Research Unit, University of Strathclyde, 2001.
38. Waqas S. Development of an optimisation algorithm for auto sizing capacity of renewable and low carbon energy
systems. Master of Science, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Strathclyde Engineering, 2011.
39. Kennedy J, Eberhart R. Particle swarm optimization. Proceeding, IEEE International Conf. on Neural Network, Vol.
4, pp. 19421948, 1995.
40. Shi Y, Eberhart R. Empirical study of particle swarm optimization. Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary
Computation, Vol. 3, 1999.
41. Deb K, Agrawal S, Pratab A, Meyarivan T. A fast elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm for multi-objective
optimization: NSGA-II. Parallel Problem Solving From Nature VI Conf, 2000, pp. 849858.
42. Srinivas N, Deb K. Multiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting in genetic algorithms. Evolutionary
computation 1994; 2(3):221248.
43. Deb K. Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms. John Wiley and Sons: Chichester, England.
M. A. YAZDANPANAH-JAHROMI ET AL.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/etep