Abstract:

A mathematical MILP model is developed for a microgrid, where various renewable energy resources (such as photovoltaic cells, wind turbines and tidal generators) are combined with nonrenewable resources such as diesel generations in conjunction with storage reserves such as a battery and hydrogen storage tanks, is developed. The model is initially optimized for minimum costs and then subsequently for emissions. Finally, a multi-objective case is also developed and the dependency of the microgrid on each individual unit is analyzed. Thus, coupling mathematical methodologies and with global awareness of how human activities affect the environment, a sustainable and economical solution is achieved for future energy generation, creating a platform for future developments. It is concluded that such co-generation of heat and electricity will result in increased efficiencies, where production of heat, and electricity, and their usage are in closer proximity.

Comment [HJ1]: Fix this sentence. Break it down. I fragmented the next one. You do this one as you see it making sense. And remember, its a sentence, not a paragraph youre writing. Comment [R2]: better to avoid making sentences too heavy. here also, see if you can do away with global awareness ... environment... better write something like incorporating mathematical methodologies in order to minimize impact of human activities on environment through efficient energy resource utilization

Introduction:
Over the last few decades, tighter restrictions ofon power production and increasing world population have resulted in the needthea tendency to increase the flexibility of electricity generation. This has led to increased demand for optimallyfinely distributed and decentralized power generation, thatwhich is capable of lowering both costs and emissions. thusThis reducing reduces the carbon footprint, whilst maintaining cost competitiveness. This has led, in turn, leads to increased research and developments on microgrids, which that are capable of satisfying both objectives. A Microgrid is an isolated group of electrical generation units including energy storage, as well as an isolated load that would otherwise be satisfied using a centralized grid (traditionally referred to as a Macrogrid).

Comment [HJ3]: Youre defining a microgrid after mentioning it a few times in the preceding sentences. Shouldnt you defining it the first time you mention it? Comment [R4]: Would support the above comment here. an example would be, the motivation to reduce environmental impact while working with minimum costs has led to research and development of systems supporting multiple energy sources, commonly referred to as microgrids. then add any additional detail that you think is necessary in order to complete the definition.

Objectives:
Couple the individual energy generation sources into single microgrid model Apply MILP optimization on to the Microgrid, minimizing total operating costs Apply MILP optimization on to the Microgrid, minimizing total emissions Study the trade-off between minimizing costs and emissions using multi-objective MILP optimization Study robustness of MILP model to changes in external conditions such as wind speeds and solar irradiation

Methodology:
Firstly, the constraints of individual energy sources and overall energy demand are categorized into the capacities of the individual energy production units, limits on the operation of the individual production sources, ramping up/down rates of fuel cells and diesel generators and the changes in their associated efficiencies, forecasted energy production profiles of solar cells, solar ponds, wind farms and tidal generators based on their associated external factors, limits on the storage capacities of the hydrogen storage and battery and their charging/discharging rates and discharge losses, cost of production of energy from each generation unit in terms of operational costs per kWh, emissions resulting from energy production from each unit per kWh, and

considering the individual mass and energy balances of inter-connected units in operation as well forecasted demand energy profile. Secondly, the configuration of the various units within the microgrid is developed. Whilst the following development is categorized as a CHP (Combined Heat and Power) system, the scheduling will be optimized in terms of electrical generation. The configuration can be displayed as follows:

Comment [HJ5]: Write this as a list with bullets.

Thirdly, detailed mathematical models considering the energy production, costs incurred and emissions produced from each individual unit of the microgrid are established. In the power system the daily load curve can be well forecasted. To uphold the basic power balance between load and generation, the constraints are then formulated in the form of mathematical equations. These include constraints for the energy production and battery usage meeting the energy demand. Further realistic constraints are developed for each individual unit of the microgrid. These include the consideration of mass and energy balances. Fourthly, the objective functions are developed. These include the optimization of the schedule to minimize the emissions, and then to minimize the cost of operation. Furthermore, the trade-off between cost and emissions will beare explored, thus leading to multi-objective optimization by means of the Pareto Optimal set. Finally, a weighted method is used to optimize between the conflicting objectives, and. Thereafter, the optimal schedule for the microgrid is developed.

Comment [R6]: Its better if you could feature some equations which you are talking about. will make more sense I guess especially where you say the constraints are formulated into equations. Comment [HJ7]: Maintain the tense in which you are writing the report all through out.

Results and Discussion:

Cost Minimization Objective:

The schedule for the individual units of the microgrid for the cost emissions is as achieved by implementing the above mathematical model in GAMS and minimizing the cost minimizing objective function, given the system constraints as following:

The difference between the Electricity Production and Demand Schedule if covered using the hydrogen storage for the minimum cost case as follows:

The total costs resulting from this configuration Costtotal (= f) is calculated to be 3041.12 $ for a total of 20883 kWh electricity resulting in an average cost of 14.56 /kWh. The corresponding emissions were 380913.20 gram equivalent CO2 at 18.24 g CO2/kWh. They can be analyzed as following:

Emission Minimization Objective: The schedule for the individual units of the microgrid for the minimum emissions is as achieved by implementing the above mathematical model in GAMS and minimizing the emission minimizing objective function, given the system constraints. This schedule is obtained as follows:

The difference between the Electricity Production and Demand Schedule if covered using the battery storage for the minimum emission case as follows:

The total emissions resulting from this configuration Emission total (= g) is calculated to be 244033.10 Gram equivalent CO2 for a total production of 20870 kWh electricity, resulting in an

average emissions of 11.69 g equivalent CO2/kWh. The corresponding cost is 3838.96$ at 18.49/kWh. They can be summarized as the following:

Figure - Emissions for the Emission Minimizing Scenario

Similarly, the cost profile can also be generated:

Figure - Variation of cost per kWh for Minimum Emission Case

Comparing between both Objectives:

The minimum cost and minimum emission case give us our extreme points for the scheduling problem. Marginally increasing the values of the cost objective function, i.e. setting f = a, to a pre-fixed value a and minimizing the emission objective, we can find the relationship between total cost and total emissions. This relationship is depicted graphically as follows:

Figure 128 - Relationship between Costs and Emissions for the Microgrid

Thus both of the objectives are indeed of conflicting nature, i.e. to minimize emissions at any point during the scheduling of the microgrid would result in increasing the costs, and vice versa. Multi-Objective Optimization using Method of Weighted Averages: Using Multi-Objective optimization, that is by fixing the values of the cost function (f=a) and emission function (g = b), by finding the values of a and b using the method of weighted averages to compromise between cost and emissions. The equation is developed as follows: h = 0.5*f + 0.5*g One of the possible schedules is determined as follows:

Figure - Production Schedule for the Weighted Average Case

Figure Individual Demand, Production and Storage Schedule for Weighted Average Case

The total cost for this case is 3557.7$ at an average of 16.84/kWh, whereas the total emissions are 342385.5 gram equivalent CO2 at an average of 16.21 g/kWh. The cost and emission distributions are depicted as follows:

Figure2 - Cost Variation for Weighted Average Case

Figure - Emission Variation for Weighted Average Case

Changing External Factors: The optimal schedule for changes in external factors which directly include the generation from renewable energy sources is also considered. These include wind velocity Ww(t), Solar Irradiation S(t), and wave velocity Wv(t). For this case, we will be using Ww(t) as the

representative for changes in external factors. Thus, if Ww(t) increases to change Energywind(t) from 272 kWh to 400 kWh, the microgrid schedule changes as follows:

Figure 333 - Microgrid Schedule for Increased Wind Speeds

This can be further depicted as follows:

Figure 434 - Production Schedule of individual units in the Microgrids, Demand Schedule and Storage

This mode of operations results in a total cost of 4193.67$ at 20.21/kWh and total emissions of 172114.38 gram equivalent CO2 at an average of 8.29 g/kWh.

On this basis, we can compare the cost to emission ratio (/g) of each individual unit within the microgrid to determine how increased dependence on any of the individual unit will change the costs and emissions. Production Unit Cost To Emission Ratio (/g) Photovoltaic Solar Pond Tidal Generator Wind Generator Fuel Cells Diesel Generator Weighted Average case 2.75 9.90 6.83 1222.22 0.43 0.27 1.04

Thus, we can conclude that increased dependence on any of the renewable energy generation units will result in increased costs and concurrently lower emissions in the following order Wind > Pond > Tidal > Photovoltaic. Similarly, increased dependence on any of the nonrenewable energy generation units will result in lower costs whilst simultaneously increasing emissions in the following order diesel > fuel cells. This is on the basis of comparison with the cost to emission ratio (/g) of the weighted average case.

Conclusions:
1. It is possible to schedule a microgrid to achieve isolated objectives using a single objectives functions such as minimizing costs and/or minimizing objectives. For both these scenarios, the overall costs and emissions are lower than the power utility averages as analyzed by Billintont et al. 2. Multi-objective optimization reveals that it is possible to achieve sufficiently low values for emissions and costs in order to achieve a compromise between the two conflicting objectives. Thus, it is possible to design a practical microgrid which is capable of reducing the carbon footprint, whilst remaining cost-competitive. 3. Such scheduling makes the microgrid less dependent on each individual unit and hence, less prone to decreases the potential break-downs and start-up and shut-down costs,. It is threfore thus able to cater to spikes in energy demand by coupling them with adequate energy storage resources, such as battery and conversion of excess energy to hydrogen and storing it for future use in fuel cells. 4. The dependence of the individual units of the microgrid is based on their cost to emissions ratios, which manifest themselves in the const-minimizing and emissionminimizing objectives. Thus for the microgrid to remain flexible and cater to a wide range of operating constraints, the individual capacities must be chosen to reflect the

Comment [R8]: ok, read it only when you have time. just an idea, when you are proposing cost to emission ratio of individual units, probably you should also have included the energy production per unit into the analysis too. you have values of energy production of different combinations but not for different production units. I would naturally question how efficient is the fuel cell as compared to diesel in terms of energy efficiency. Also, dont know what cost to emission ratio tells you. if the cost is prohibitive and so is the emission but are comparable the ratios maybe much less. shouldnt a function like energy/(cost)+(emission) would tell you more about the effect of marginal increase in the dependence. I am assuming that you are working towards a minimized cost and emission model. Comment [HJ9]: Check is this is correct. It seems grammatically weird. I dont know if what I did changed its meaning. Comment [R10]: you shouldnt start with it is possible cuz your objective was not to prove the possibility of anything. better to write that such and such a scheduling has been theorized. Comment [R11]: again, using it is possible dilutes your whole work. People would be reading conclusion to look for concrete statements. tell them what has been achieved and it better not be a mere possibility. say that such a model has been shown to work theoretically under stated assumptions of externalities. Comment [HJ12]: Prone to start-up and shutdown costs? Makes sense? Prone to breakdowns is ok, prone to cost? Change it if you wish to.

maximum diversity, whereas over-dependence on a single unit is counter to the principle of the micro-grid, and hence biased towards either costs or emissions. Further work on the linear diversity constraint has been undertaken by Naraharisetti et al.

Comment [R13]: finally a reference at the end. sprinkle a few references towards the definition of microgrid or the MILP if possible.

Recommendations:
1. The developed microgrid can be coupled with the central utility, where excess power is sold to the utility and in case of a supply deficit, power is bought from the utility. 2. Further cost considerations can be added to the cost-objective function, such as the installation, and. The site surveying costs and the time-frame for the micro-grid to reimburse its capital cost due to lower operational costs can be calculated. 3. Tax incentives such as green carbon taxes for lower emissions from the microgrid can be implemented, to further add incentives for lowering the carbon footprint by increasing dependence on conventional fossil fuel- based power generation. 4. The MILP optimization of the microgrid, in effect, removes the need for a central power utility altogether, where many functioning microgrids can be used in conjunction with a central power regulatory where so that microgrids with excess energy can supply it to micro-grids with and energy deficits and vice-versa. This will pave the way for easier regulations as well as lowering storage costs for each microgrid. 5. This MILP optimization can be applied to several other problems beyond the scheduling of microgrids, and can be the basis of future integration of alternative energy resources in the networks. This includes adding biomass generators and other renewable energy sources to the diverse mix of the microgrid. Based on the above MILP implementation to the microgrid, it is ideally suited to cater to the needs of an islanded production facility, such as a research facility where main grid connections are cumbersome, and stable power structure is necessary.

Comment [R14]: Suggestion 4 removes the need for suggestion 1 as far as I understand. Why this kolaveri di?

Comment [R15]: Since this is one of the constraints of your MILP implementation, it is more of a part of the problem that you have chosen to address and hence should come at the start where you are forming up the problem statement. In the end you may say that such an integrated system, based on emission and cost calculations, is wellsuited for an island-based population.