Professional Documents
Culture Documents
IJES
I. INTRODUCTION
To date, there are still many inhabitants living in isolated
areas of developing countries who have no immediate access
to the main electricity grid. Most of these isolated
communities rely on diesel operated power systems to
generate electricity. Diesel operated systems are widely used
due to their availability and affordability to most consumers. It
is not uncommon to find various small-scale privately owned
diesel generators (DG) in isolated areas supplying a number of
households with their daily energy needs. Fig. 1 shows one
example of a small diesel generator supplying energy to the
nearby houses on Mabul Island, East Malaysia.
IJES
hybrid power system with a large battery bank may include the
costs for the batteries housing, auxiliary components, delivery
and installation. Another concern will be the life-span of the
batteries. These elements have short lifetimes that require the
elements to be replaced every five to ten years to ensure
proper operation of a system [11]. In consequence, the used
batteries have to be handled with caution or delivered for
recycling. Unfortunately, the majority of developing countries
lack recycling facilities, leading to the improper disposal of
the batteries.
Among the various system configurations, the combination
of renewable energy sources with a diesel generator supply
without complex control is more viable for remote
applications compared to a system with high penetration of
renewable energy, which requires massive energy storage
components and complicated system control. Due to these
reasons, several researchers have proposed use of the hybrid
power systems without the storage element. A simple but
robust wind-diesel system without energy storage was
introduced and the applicability of the system for remote areas
has been discussed [12]. Other literature has studied the
feasibility of an energy system without storage by retrofitting
renewable energy generators into the existing diesel based
systems [13]. An experimental study indicated the possibility
of practical implementation of hybrid power systems without
energy storage and the diesel generator was designed to meet
the peak load [14]. The above cases were focused only on the
standard diesel generator and there were no performance
studies done for a system without energy storage employing
VSDGs in the literature. Thus, this paper presents the original
analytical performance studies of the photovoltaic-variable
speed diesel generator (PV-VSDG) hybrid power system
without the energy storage element. The PV-VSDG hybrid
power system configuration without the energy storage
element is shown in Fig. 2. The supervisory controller of the
system gives highest priority to supply the primary load.
Secondary loads such as the heating element, crops dryer or
ice making device is optional to the system and the operation
of this load is usually deferrable.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 3. Off-grid power system configurations: (a) Configuration I, (b)
Configuration II, (c) Configuration III, (d) Configuration IV
IJES
no
PRem > 0
yes
no
PRem > Pmin,GFeed
yes
PGForm = Prated,GForm
PGFeed = PRem
NL 0
no
PGForm = Pmin,GForm
PDump = PPV,inv + PGform - PLoad, pri
yes
no
NL > Pmin,GForm
PGForm = Pmin,Gform
PDump = PPV,inv +PGForm PLoad,pri
yes
NL Prated,GForm
no
PGForm = NL
yes
PRem = NL - Prated,GForm
no
PRem > Pmin,GFeed
PGForm = NL - Pmin,GFeed
PGfeed = Pmin,GFeed
PDump = PPV,inv + PGForm + PGFeed PLoad,pri
yes
PGForm = Prated,GForm
PGfeed = PRem
IJES
IJES
(1)
= ( ) 0 1
=
(2)
(3)
(4)
, =
(6)
Parameters
Solar Cell No.
Power rating
_ =
Gaadhoo_gm1Hr
[Ppv]
From
Workspace1
Goto46
[Ppv_invm]
Goto22
26.7
Inverter
Tamb
PV Array
Vd
Id
Isc
Ip
Rp
(8)
Rs
72
Peak power
210W @1kW/m2,
25C
40.0V
5.25A
47.7V
5.75A
46C +/-2C
(5)
PV MODULE SPECIFICATIONS
IJES
Fuel
Consumption
(L/h)
y = 0.266x + 0.959
10
15
20
Output Power (kW)
(a)
25
30
35
PCSDG1_rated
[DefaultCSDG1_GForm]
Goto2
[PCSDG1_rated]
Goto26
HiSP_CSDG1
[HiSP_CSDG1]
LoSP_CSDG1
[LoSP_CSDG1]
Goto3
Goto24
PCSDG2_rated
15
[PCSDG2_rated]
Goto10
[CSDG2_GForm]
[PCSDG1_rated]
From51
Goto11
[CSDG1_GFeed]
[HiSP_CSDG1]
Goto12
[CSDG2_GFeed]
From53
Goto13
[Prated_GForm]
[LoSP_CSDG1]
Goto14
[HiSP_GForm]
From54
Goto15
[LoSP_GForm]
Goto27
[HiSP_CSDG2]
[LoSP_CSDG2]
Goto25
Fuel
Consumption
(L/h)
10
HiSP_CSDG2
LoSP_CSDG2
Goto29
PCSDG1_MinLoad
[PCSDG1_MinLoad]
PCSDG2_MinLoad
Goto28
[PCSDG2_MinLoad]
GFeed_MRT
Goto32
[GFeed_MRT]
Goto1
10
15
20
Output Power (kW)
(b)
25
30
35
Goto18
[LoSP_GFeed]
From55
Goto19
[GFeed_Acta]
[LoSP_CSDG2]
From56
Goto4
[GFeed_OLa]
Goto5
[GFeed_Status]
[AC_Bus]
Goto20
[MNL]
Display13
[PCSDG1_kWh]
Display14
From31
Goto17
[HiSP_GFeed]
[HiSP_CSDG2]
[GFeed_MRT]
[Ppv_invmkWh]
From59
Goto16
[Prated_GFeed]
From46
From7
[PCSDG2_rated]
Goto8
[GFeed_OpTime]
From5
Goto31
[PCSDG1_kWh]
[PCSDG1]
Goto39
[PCSDG2_kWh]
From3
[PCSDG2_kWh]
From26
Figure 11. Fuel consumption versus power production of a: (a) CSDG, (b)
VSDG
Display9
[Ppri_mkWh]
From60
[PCSDG2]
Goto6
[AccOpTime_CSDG2]
From25
Display15
[PdumpkWh]
From61
[CSDG1_GForm]
Goto40
[AccOpTime_CSDG1]
Goto7
[Ppv_invmkWh]
[Ppv_invm]
Display16
From28
Display6
[Ppri_m]
Goto41
[Ppri_mkWh]
[AccFC_CSDG1]
From70
From72
[GFeed_Acta]
[AccFC_CSDG2]
[FC_CSDG1]
From73
[PCSDG1]
From71
[CSDG2_GForm]
From63
Goto50
Display10
[FC_CSDG2]
From69
Supervisory Controller
Display12
[FC_CSDG2]
Goto47
From75
Goto49
[AccFC_CSDG2]
From68
[CSDG1_ctr]
From62
From67
[PCSDG2]
Goto45
[AccFC_CSDG1]
[FC_CSDG1]
[CSDG2_ctr]
From66
[GFeed_Acta]
Goto44
[CSDG2_ctr]
From38
Display1
From58
CSDG1
[Pdump]
Display
From57
[AccOpTime_CSDG2]
From74
Goto43
[CSDG1_ctr]
Display7
[AccOpTime_CSDG1]
Goto51
Goto42
[PdumpkWh]
From32
CSDG2
C. Supervisory Controller
The supervisory controller is modelled based on the
desired control strategies. Basically, the supervisory controller
performs system level control to coordinate and supervise
system operations while communicating with the components
IJES
monthly power production differences are below 0.06kW as
depicted in Fig. 18(b).
25
20
30
10
0
0
HOMER
Simulink
25
15
Photovoltaic Power(kW)
Ppv HOMER
Ppv Simulink
20
40
60
80
Time (Hour)
100
120
140
160
Figure 14. Simulation results of the PV power generation for seven days
20
15
10
5
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
50
PLoad HOMER
PLoad Simulink
45
(a)
40
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
20
40
60
80
Time (Hour)
100
120
140
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.000
-0.001
-0.002
-0.003
-0.004
-0.005
Load (kW)
35
160
Figure 15. Simulation results of the primary load demand for seven days
(b)
Figure 16. (a) Monthly CSDGs power production from HOMER and
Simulink for Configuration I, (b) Average monthly CSDG power production
differences between simulation results from HOMER and Simulink for
Configuration I
30
20
15
10
5
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(a)
HOMER
25
VSDG Power
(kW)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0.0005
0.0004
0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
-0.0001
-0.0002
-0.0003
-0.0004
-0.0005
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(b)
Figure 17. Monthly VSDGs power production from HOMER and Simulink
for Configuration II, (b) Average monthly VSDG power production
differences between simulation results from HOMER and Simulink for
Configuration II
6
5
4
3
2
20
15
10
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(a)
0.02
5
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Dec
0.05
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Feb
-0.02
Mar
0.00
Jan
HOMER
Simulink
25
PV Power(kW)
IJES
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-0.10
(b)
Figure 18. (a) Monthly PV generator power production from HOMER and
Simulink, (b) Average monthly PV generator power production differences
between simulation results from HOMER and Simulink
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
-0.01
HOMER
Simulink
25
20
15
10
5
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(a)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(b)
Figure 19. (a) Monthly CSDG power production from HOMER and Simulink
for Configuration III, (b) Average monthly CSDG power production
differences between simulation results from HOMER and Simulink for
Configuration III
(a)
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
-0.02
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(b)
Figure 20. (a) Monthly VSDG power production from HOMER and Simulink
for Configuration IV, (b) Average monthly VSDG power production
differences between simulation results from HOMER and Simulink for
Configuration IV
IJES
50
Pload
Pcsdg1
Pcsdg2
Pdump
45
40
II
III
IV
191,259
191,259
1
100
100
0
Power (kW)
191,259
191,257
0
35
18
82
100
6.91
37,826
167,047
191,259
13,613
18.5
81.5
100
6.65
37,458
154,526
191,257
727
19.5
80.5
100
0.38
37,826
153,575
191,259
382.17
19.8
80.2
100
0.20
25
20
10
100
100
0
37,458
167,246
191,257
14,145
30
15
5
0
0
40
20
60
80
TIme (Hour)
100
120
140
160
(a)
50
Pload
Pvsdg1
Pvsdg2
Pdump
45
40
35
Power (kW)
Total CSDG
production
Primary load
Excess electricity
Total VSDG
production
Primary load
Excess electricity
PV production
inv
Total CSDG
production
Primary load
Excess electricity
PV production
inv
Total VSDG
production
Primary load
Excess electricity
Simulink
kWh/yr
%
191,433
100
191,259
100
173
0.09
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
80
Time (Hour)
60
40
20
120
100
160
(b)
Pload
Ppv
Pcsdg1
Pcsdg2
Pdump
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
20
40
60
80
Time (Hour)
100
120
140
160
(c)
50
Pload
Ppv
Pvsdg1
Pvsdg2
Pdump
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
20
40
60
80
Time (Hour)
100
120
140
160
(d)
Figure 21. Seven days system operations for: (a) Configuration I, (b)
Configuration II, (c) Configuration III, (d) Configuration IV
15
CSDG
VSDG
PV-CSDG
PV-VSDG
10
0
0
10
15
20
25
Time (Hour)
30
35
40
45
Figure 22. Comparisons of fuel consumptions over forty-eight hours for the
four configurations
140
50
Power(kW)
HOMER
kWh/yr
%
191,428
100
191,257
100
171
0.09
Power(kW)
Parameter
Type
IJES
60,000
Fuel Consumption
CO2 Emission
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
1.7E+05
1.6E+05
50,000
1.5E+05
40,000
1.4E+05
30,000
1.3E+05
20,000
1.2E+05
10,000
1.1E+05
1.0E+05
70,000
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
Figure 23. Fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions of the four
configurations
[10]
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The system operations of four alternatives of off-grid
power systems without energy storage element for the village
in Gaadhoo, Maldives are discussed. Simulink was used to
model these systems to study the performance of the systems
using different types of diesel generators with and without PV
generator. The system component models developed in
Simulink have been validated by comparing the results of
annual operation with the results obtained from HOMER and
the comparisons show good agreement. The results obtained
from Simulink have demonstrated the potential of a system
employing VSDGs in terms of fuel savings and lower
environmental impact. The VSDG-only or the PV-VSDG
hybrid power system is found to outperform the CSDG-only
and PV-CSDG hybrid power system respectively. Among all
the configurations, PV-VSDG hybrid power system has
demonstrated the capability to meet the primary load demand
with the lowest fuel consumed and least excess energy
produced. It is worth noting that, the Simulink models
developed in this work can be extended to study the
performance of any other off-grid hybrid power system with
various renewable energy generators, provided the system
operating characteristics and the site conditions are known.
Furthermore, these models can be modified and used to study
the systems performances using different power management
or system level control strategies.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The first author would like to thank the Ministry of Higher
Education, Malaysia and University Malaysia Sabah for
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]