76 IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. 13, No.
1, March 1998
A DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUE FOR THE DESIGN
OF HYBRID SOLAR-WIND POWER SYSTEltlS
. Chedid, Member IEEE & H. Akiki
Department of Electrical & Computer Eng'g,
American University of Beimt
850 Third Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022, USA
Abstract. This paper presents a decision support technique to help
decision makers study the influencing factors in the design of a
hybrid solar-wind power system (HSWPS) for grid-linked
applications. These factors relate mainly to political and social
conditions, and to technical advances and economics. The Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP) is used to quantify the various divergencies
of opinions, practices and events that lead to confusion and
uncertainties in planning HSWPS. The trade-offhisk method is used
to generate multiple plans under 16 different futures and obtain the
corresponding trade-off curves. Unlike the traditional 2-D simulation,
a novel modeling of a trade-off surface in 3-D space is presented
where the knee set is determined using the minimum distance
approach. Robust and inferior plans are segregated based on their
frequent occurrence in the conditional decision set of each future and
hedging analysis to reduce risk is performed in order to assign
alternati5.e options in case risky futures occur.
I. Introduction
The limited reserves of fuel oils and their unstable prices have
significantly increased the interest in renewable energy
sources. The design of hybrid solar-wind power systems
(HSWPS) has received considerable attention in the last
decade. In [1,2] linear programming models are proposed in
order to minimize the average production cost of electricity
while meeting the load requirements in a reliable manner.
These works, however, are single objective models and,
therefore, emissions and reliability are only addressed in the
constraints. A methodology for optimal unit sizing of hybrid
power generation systems using multiobjective optimization is
presented in 131. Device capacities are determined such that
the annual total cost and annual energy consumption are
minimized. A major drawback of this approach is that the
reliability of the system is not accounted for although the
utility grid is not an infinite pool of energy. Reference [4]
presents an application of multiobjective planning under
uncertainty. This paper applies the trade off/risk method to the
design of an autonomous system with renewable energy
PE-414-EC-0-05-1997 A paper recommended and approved by the
IEEE Energy Development and Power Generation Committee of the
IEEE Power Engineering Society for publication in the IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion. Manuscript submitted July 30,
1996; made available for printing May 15, 1997.
0885-8969/98/$10.00 0 1997 IEEE
Saifur Rahman, Senior Member IEEE
Center for Energy & the Global Environment
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
Blacksburg, VA 2406 1-0111, USA
sources. Here, the optimum device capacities are calculated
based on simultaneous maximization of reliability and
minimization of cost. The main disadvantage of this approach
is that emission control, which has a major influence on the
final trade-off curve, is not taken into account. Important
details on energy planning under uncertainty can be found in
[5,6]. In [5], the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is
introduced as a decision analysis tool for electric utility
planning, and in [6], an excellent description of the trade-off
risk method is given with a special attention on the treatment
of risk in power systems planning. To the knowledge of the
authors, there has been no reports on global planning
methodologies that combine decision analysis, multiobjective
planning and risk analysis when designing HSWPS. Hence,
the aim of this paper is to provide the decision makers with a
decision support technique through which they can study all
the influencing factors in the design of HSWPS for grid-linked
applications. These factors relate mainly to political and social
conditions; and to technical advances and economics.
11. Problem Formulation
When designing HSWPS, several goals could be aimed at.
Examples include reduction in emissions, generation of
additional jobs, security of supply, and in some situations,
solar and wind resources may constitute the cheapest option
for electricity generation. In this paper, the main goal behind
proposing HSWPS is to increase the penetration of solar and
wind energy technologies in the total energy mix. To achieve
this, it is important to highlight all the factors influencing the
main goal, whether technical, political, economical or may be
social. Then, a hierarchical structure of the system is built
descending from the main goal, down to the constraints, and
then down to the policies affecting the constraints, and finally
to the outcomes which represent the objectives (attributes).
The various divergencies of opinions and influencing factors
are identified, weighted and, accordingly, the objectives are
assigned a priority order. In this paper three objectives are
considered. These are the minimization of both cost and
emissions, and the maximization of system reliability.
The hierarchical structure used in this work is shown in Fig.1.
As seen, level 2 includes the constraints that may prohibit the
achievement of the main goal. Lack of resources and funding
form the basic, obstacle in the development of HSWPS,
whereas public acceptance and political will constitute the
opinion of the people. Although the first two factors are
normally of higher weight, political influence may have an
imposing opinion and can also attain a higher weight. An
additional set of constraints represents the immaturity of
technologies in terms of cost and efficiency.
Fig. 1 The hierarchical setup of the HSWPS problem
Level 3 includes the policy instruments that highly influence
the constraints. An incentive from the government may
encourage the use of renewable energy as part of a plan that
aims at a cleaner atmosphere. Private and other economic
instruments such as “Build Operate Transfer” (BOT) or
“Build Own Operate” (BOO) could also influence the different
constraints, while promotion of products is an important factor
for a fast market penetration of new designs and technologies.
Finally, Level 4 consists of the outcomes of the hierarchy
which are the objectives to be ranked in order of priority. In
order to decide on the various strategies that are built in this
hierarchical structure and their mutual dependence, both the
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the trade-off/risk
technique are proposed.
111. The AHP for Planning HSWPS
The Analytic Hierarchy Process is a top-down structuring of a
decision problem in a hierarchical fashion with the overall goal
at the top followed by intermediate levels and the lowest level
usually containing the set of options needed to attain the main
goal. There is no standard procedure for generating the
objectives, criteria and activities to be included in the
hierarchy. These are essentially determined by the way we
choose to decompose the complexity of the system of interest.
Such a process is interactive, involving brainstorming,
evaluation, debate, as well as legal, political and social
considerations.
1 a12 ..... aln
A= l/a12 1 ..... a2n (1)
..... ..... ..... .....
l/aln ..... ..... 1
The judgmental matrices corresponding to each level of Fig. 1
(see the Appendix) are generated after consultation with the
electric utility, design offices and private consultants using the
scale of relative importance for ranking one factor over the
other recommended by Saaty [7].
A local priority vector can now be generated by normalizing
the principal eigenvector W of the matrix A:
[A] W = hmax W (2)
where Zwi=l and hmax is the principal or largest eigenvalue
value composed of positive real values. The priority vector
ranks the variables in order of importance depending on the
pairwise comparisons. Such a priority vector with respect to
the top level can be computed for any decision hierarchy by
combining the priority vectors for each level. The priority
vectors in each level are combined with the net priority vector
of levels below in order to arrive at a global priority vector.
This final priority vector represents the decision maker’s
scaling of the alternatives with all things considered. Details
about both the priority vector calculation and the consistency
of judgment can be found in [ 5 ] . A summary of the results
obtained is given in Table 1. The eigenvector of the constraints
clearly indicates that inadequate funding (IF) is the first in
order of priority followed by immaturity of technology (IOT),
political will (PW), lack of resources (LOR) and public
acceptance (PA). The eigenvalues of level 3 (policies) clearly
indicate the priority for promotion of products (POP) followed
by privatization (P), economic instruments (EI) and incentive
from the government (IFG). As for the final result of the
analysis which ranks the objectives to be adopted by the
decision makers, the eigenvector indicates that the
minimization of cost (C) is ranked first, the maximization of
reliability (R) is ranked 2nd, and the environmental impact
(EC) is ranked 3rd.
IV.System Modeling
After deciding on the priority of the design objectives, there is
a need to know how the system components are simulated and
78
Table 1. Composite priorities for levels 2, 3 and 4. PV arrays. The output power, PS, (kW) of a PV array of area
Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 'As' when subjected to a horizontal irradiance H (kW/mz) is
given by
LOR 0.0921 IFG 0.1190 C 0.5006
PS = H x As x eff, (5)
IF 0.4327 P 0.2845 EC 0.1901
PA 0.0389 E1 0.2687 R 0.3094 where eff, is the efficiency of the arrays and the corresponding
PW 0 1032 POP 0.3278 converters shown in Fig.2.
IOT 0.3330
Electric mid. When electric grid is available, then utilizing
what is the operating strategy of the proposed design. In this renewable energy sources can only be justified on the basis
paper, the HSWPS will be composed of wind turbine that reduction in electric utility emissions is desirable. On the
generators (WTGs), PV arrays, batteries and a grid option. The customer side, the use of renewable energy may become
candidate site under consideration is the American University attractive if in the future, customers would have to pay not only
of Beirut (AUB) campus where time series data is available for for the cost of electric power generation, transmission and
hourly wind speeds, solar insolation and load demand. AUB is distribution, but also for the indirect cost of environmental
currently running its own diesel power plant in parallel with cleaning up and health effects [Z]. It is assumed that the energy
the utility grid, and as such this work will investigate the delivered by the electric grid is always available but limited by
replacement of the diesel plant with solar and wind units. Fig.2 the rating of the substation which establishes the connection
shows the configuration of the hybrid power generation system with the hybrid power system. Keeping in mind the goal of
under investigation. minimizing utility emissions, it was decided not to expand the
4
--3 existing grid, which is of finite capacity, but to use batteries
-+
WIND

+
instead to meet the peak load. In other situations, where the
grid is modeled as an infinite bus, the presence of batteries will
SOLAR
RADlAl
no longer be justified and the concept of expected energy not
served (EENS) will no longer be valid except when the grid
availability is to be considered. It is worth mentioning, at this
stage, that energy cannot be sold back to the utility because of
the current regulations in Lebanon. Should such regulations
E L E C T RlCAL
GRID change, then the proposed technique will still be easily applied
t m BUS ' with slight modification related to cost correction due to
electric energy sale revenue.
I I
Fig.2 The grid-connectedHSWPS Batteries. Energy from batteries is needed whenever the
renewable energy is insufficient to supply the load. On the
A. System's Components other hand, energy is sto:5d whenever the supply from the
renewable system exceeds the load demand. The maximum
WTG. The following is the model used to calculate the output allowable energy taken or added to the batteries is a percentage
power, PW, (kW/m2) generated by a WTG: of the total capacity Rb, usually taken as 10% of Rb per hour
[8]. In addition, to avoid deep discharges, the minimum
PW=O v c vci storage level is limited to 20% of what is available in the
PW = a.V3 - b.Pr vci € v c v, battery before the discharging cycle begins.
(3)
PW = Pr v, < v c v,,
B. Energy Flow.
PW=O v 'vco
Pr The following operating strategy is employed [2]:
where a = andb = vci3 and,
vr3 - vci3 vr3- vci3

Pr, V,,, V, and V,, are the rated power, cut-in , rated and cut-
out wind speeds respectively.
The real electric power is calculated as:
P,,=PWxAwxeff,
where Aw is the total swept area of the WTGs and eff, is the
efficiency of the WTGs and the corresponding converters
shown in Fig, 2
- The use of electric power generated by the photovoltaic
arrays and wind turbine generators has priority in satisfying
electricity demand over that provided by the batteries or by the
electric power grid.
- If the total electric power generated by the photovoltaic array
(4)
and wind turbine generators is higher than the demand, the
additional electric power wiT1lbe charged into the batteries.
- After charging the battery, the electric power that remains is
disposed of.

- If the total electric power generated by the photovoltaic
arrays and wind turbine generators is less than the demand,
electric power will be discharged from the batteries to supply
the demand because once the batteries are bought, their major
cost would have been committed and their use is given priority.
- If batteries cannot supply the demand, then electric power has
to be drawn from the electric power grid.
- If the demand still cannot be satisfied, then this will result in
an electric deficit which will be used to compute the EENS.
Having decided on the operation strategy, the next step is to
calculate, for a proposed design, the cost of generating
electricity ($/kWh), the reliability of the design and, finally,
evaluate the resulting environmental impact.
C. Economic Analysis
The cost of generating one kWh is calculated by dividing the
summation of the present worth of all the salvage values of the
equipmsnts, the yearly operation and maintenance costs and
the capital investments by the expected yearly energy demand
(E,) that is going to be supplied during the life time of the
project (N).
Where the summation includes wind, solar, grid installations,
and batteries,
Ik- initial investment for each component 'k',
Spk-present worth of the salvage value of each component 'k',
OMpk.present worth of the operation and maintenance costs
for each component 'k',
The design variables of the WTGs, the PV arrays, the batteries
and the electric grid are the total wind rotor area (m2), the total
solar panels' area (m'), the size of the batteries (kWh) and the
rating of the substation (kW) respectively. Full details about
the implementation of ( 6 ) are given in [1,2].
D.Reliability Evaluation
Reliability is the measure of quality of consumer supply. Any
proposed design will have a certain reliability, which is
quantified using the cxpected cnergy not served (EENS)
(kWh/yr). To evaluate the reliability of a HSWPS, the
existence of time series data of load demand (kW), wind
velocity ( d s ) and solar insolation (kWh/mz) is necessary. It is
assumed that a "controller unit" manages the flow of energy
between supply & load according to the operation strategy
discussed in section 1V.B.
The EENS for a study period T is calculated as follows: 141
T - Formulate the problem in terms of options, uncertainties, and
m= (BL,- E?L(t) - S(t) - W)).U(% - W t ) s(t) -Em)) (7)
t=l
79
Where U is the unit step function and ,
EG(t) is the energy supplied by the grid,
LD(t) is the load demand during hour t,
BL(t) is the battery charge level during hour t,
S(t) = ER (t) - LD (t) is the surplus energy during hour t,
ER (t) is the sum of the energy generated by the photovoltaic
arrays and wind turbine generators during hour t,
BL, is the minimum allowable storage level,
E. Environmental Quality Assessment
Environmental quality is used to determine the environmental
implications of a proposed design. The emissions of carbon,
sulphur and nitrogen, which are used to quantify the
environmental impacts, depend on the consumed energy (kWh)
from the electric grid. Such a value is directly determined on
hourly basis based on thr encrgy flow policy described in
Section 1V.B. Hence, when the composition of the electric
energy resource is given, the quality of its atmospheric
emissions can be predicted. The corresponding expected
emissions of carbon oxides and carbon particles can be
expressed in terms of equivalent carbon emissions. This value,
when divided by the calorific values of the fuel, gives the
emission rate of carbon oxides for the resource, and can be
expressed in ktlograms of carbon released per unit of energy
liberated by the resource. The emission rates of sulphur oxides
and nitrogen oxides can also be obtained in a similar manner.
The emission rates of the thermal power plant (fuel oil)
considered in this work are 68.46 gkWh for Carbon,
2.037g/kWh for Sulphur and 0.815gkWh for Nitrogen [SI.
V. The Trade Off/Risk Method
At this stage, there is a need to distinguish among basic
concepts used throughout this section. A future is an assumed
set of outcomes, for example 8m/s wind speed or 130kWh/m2
solar insolation; a plan is a set of specified options, for
example install lOOkW of WTG or 400 kWh of batteries; and
a scenario is a set of specified variables, i.e. is a single plan in
a single future [4,6]. The results of the AHP analysis in section
I11 have ranked the objectives of the design by priority order,
what is left is to propose a plan and evaluate it from the view
points of cost, reliability and emission. Unlike multiobjective
optimization, in which all the objectives are to be formulated
with their corresponding constraints, the trade-offlrisk method
deals with a wide range of options among which the most
convenient solution is chosen. Because of conflicting
objectives and uncertainty, it is impossible to develop a plan
that optimally satisfies all the three objectives . Instead, the
trade-off/risk method will help identifying plans that represent
good compromises. This method consists of four steps: [ 61
attributes.
80

- Develop a data base by computing attributes for a large
number of scenarios.
- Obtain the trade-off curves (surfaces) and identify the
"conditional decision set", i.e the set of plans left after all
inferior plans have been rejected.
- Perform risk analysis to analyze the plans in the decision set
in order to filter out more unfeasible plans and develop a final
strategy.
A. Modeling Uncertainty
highest priority. Recognizing that the minimum distance
corresponds to the optimum plan in one conditional future,
then to enforce the cost attribute and render it the dominating
factor, all plans whose cost is higher than the cost of the
optimum plan are to be eliminated from the conditional
decision set. The resulting plans will constitute the knee set of
that particular future. In order to specify a plan the following
parameters must be specified: wind turbine swept area (mz),
solar area (m*), battery capacity (kWh) and grid capacity (kW).
(See Table 3).

Uncertainties are modeled as unknown with bounded variables
with no assumptions about probability distributions. The
uncertainties considered in this work are associated basically
with fuel prices, PV array efficiency and price, and wind and
solar source availability. Although time series data of the latter
two variables are available, maximum, intermediate and
minimum limits are assumed. Uncertainties related to
economic factors such as interest, inflation and escalation
rates, and load growth will also be considered. For this,
multiple futures will be created to simulate the occurrence of
these uncertainties.
VI. Results and Discussions
As mentioned earlier, the proposed technique is applied to
AUB campus. The baseline parameters used in setting up the
trade-off surfaces are tabulated in the Appendix. Table 2
summarizes the 16 studied futures. Futures 1,2,3,4,15 and 16
are based on economic factors such as grid energy charge, PV
cost and interest rate. Futures number 5 - 12 are based on
resource availability, whereas futures number 13 - 14 are load
growth dependent. As to the knee set of each future, it is
determined as described in Section V.B.

B. Decision Set Analysis Table 2. C:scription of futures

Decision set analysis supports the development of the final

design. This is achieved by identifying robust plans and
inferior options. A plan that is 100% robust is a plan which is
in the decision set for all futures [6]. If no plan is completely
robust, then a second measure of plan's riskiness is the degree
to which we might regret selecting it. If a decision is risky,
hedging to reduce risk must be applied.

The knee set of a traditional 2-D trade-off curve is the set of all
plans that are not significantly dominated by any other plan,
conditional on a particular future [4,6]. Finding the knee set in
3-D problems is not straightforward because by projecting a 3-
D surface on the various 2-D planes, the optimal points on the
knee set of a selected 2-D trade-off curve may not be on the
knee set of another 2-D curve of the same problem [6]. As an
alternative, the minimum distance method which consists of ** pu

the following five steps is used:

s
- Define the trade-off surface after eliminating unfeasible Wind Solar Substation Battery
solutions residing inside the surface. area (m2) area (m') rating (kW) ratmg (kWh)
- Normalize the available data for each attribute separately. Min 20000 0 200 500
- Calculate the distance from the origin to each point on the
trade-off surface. Max 75000 20000 900 1000
- Find the minimum distance. Step 5000 5000 100 500
- Define the maximum acceptable tolerance above the
Although it is clearly stated in [6] that problems with more
minimum distance based on the AHP results.
than two attributes have higher dimension trade-off surfaces
which are analogous to trade-off curves, no reports have
The plans satisfying these conditions constitute the knee set
displayed the results in graphs higher than 2-D. Fig. 3 displays
conditional on a particular future. However, back to section
a 3-D plot for the cost, EENS, and sulphur emissions. Such a
III, the results of the AHP ranked the "cost" as the attribute of
plot displays, for clarity purposes, only 100 plans out of the
 81
900 studied cases. Here, the plans are generated through
combinations of data given in table 3. The 2-D representation
of the EENS versus cost is shown in Fig. 4. Fig. 5 displays the
effect of uncertainty in weather conditions. The decrease in the
total energy generated per year imposes a higher cost/kWh.
Emissions are higher because, in each plan, the dedicated
amount of grid power will be exploited to the maximum in
order to partly balance the deficit incurred in renewable
energy. Fig. 6 displays futures 15 and 16, in which the interest
rate is 8% and 15% respectively, against the base case (12%).
It is clear that for a lower interest rate, the present value of the
1000 . .' :. '....:... . . .
4. I : ;

cost of electricity generation will be higher. 0

008 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
COST (VKWh)
Znferior and Robust Plans. Before determining the knee sets Fig. 5 The effect of weather conditions on emission and cost
of the various futures, a first step screening is to eliminate
plans whose cost and EENS are higher than some prescribed
values. Table 4 lists the global decision set for the grid-linked
hybrid power generation system. For simplicity, plans with low
frequency of occurrence have not been listed. The analysis of z
the global decision set in this table highlights the following 5
facts:

- There is no acceptable plan which consists of a single energy

resource alone, whether wind, solar, grid or battery.
TRADE-OFF SURFACE
COST ( W h )

EENS Fig. 6 The effect of interest rates on EENS and cost

- There is at least, in the global decision set, three energy

resources, out of four, that contribute to the grid-linked hybrid
power generation system.
- The main contributors in the energy mix are the utility and
.". wind resources. The high capital cost of photovoltaics forces
the contribution of this option to zero or to a maximum value
of 5000mz. In the latter case the corresponding plans are
inferior.
- None of the listed plans is 100%robust.
SULPHUR EM (KGSNR) COST (VKWI
Table 4. The Global Decision Set
Fig.3 A 3-D trade-off surface for sulphur emission

COST ( W h )

Fig.4 A 2-D trade-off curve obtained from Fig.3

82
Consequently, plan 1 is the optimum plan to be chosen because
it has the highest frequency of occurrence 75%. However, the
implementation of this plan is risky, in case any of the
remaining futures 6, 9, 10, 15 materializes. Plan 1 has the
following characteristics: 45000m’ of wind area, 500kW of
grid power, 5OOkWh of battery storage, and has an EENS of
2.67%. The cost of electricity is 0.103l$/kWh and the
enlission rates of sulphur, carbon and nitrogen are 2375
Kg/year, 79806Kg/year and 950Kg/year respectively.
Hedging to Reduce Risk. One way to reduce risk is to
associate to the optimum plan another option in case one of the
risky futures occurs [6]. In Table 4, plans 4 and 5 are in the
conditional decision set for future 15. Plans 1 and 4 have two
options in common. Hence, to start the project and to avoid
any risk in case future 15 (8% interest rate) occurs, the project
owner can commit himself to 45000 m2 of wind area with no
PV arrays, 500 kW of substation rating and 500 kWh of
storage batteries, with an option to decrease the substation
rating to 300 kW and increase the storage batteries to
1000 kWh.
On the other hand, plans 8-12 are in the conditional decision
set for futures 6, 9, and 10 (low renewable resource
availability). Plans 1 and 8 have two options in common, thus,
the project owner can commit himself to 45000m2 of wind
area with no PV arrays, 500 kW of substation rating and
500 kWh of storage batteries with an option to decrease the
wind area to 35000 m2 and build new PV arrays of 5000 m2. In
summary, the project owner can commit himself to plan 1 with
two options. In case the interest rate decreases to 8% (future
15), the substation rating is to be decreased by 200 kW and the
capacity of storage batteries is to be increased by 500 kWh. In
case renewable resources are worse than expected (futures 6-
lo), wind area is to be decreased by 10000 m2 and solar area is
to be increased to 5000 m2. It is worth mentioning here that
although futures 9 and 10 simulate the worst weather
conditions, the PV efficiency is 17% instead of 12%. Hence,
this supports the decision of converting 10000 m2 of wind area
to 5000 m2of PV arrays.
VII. Conclusion
An attempt has been made in this paper to develop a decision
support technique which can help decision makers optimally
design grid-linked renewable energy systems. The various
procedures of the proposed technique have been fully
explained, and a case study on a site in Lebanon has been
illustrated. The Analytic Hierarchy Process was used to
quantify the various divergencies of opinions, practices and
events that lead to confusion and uncertainties in planning
HSWPS. The application of AHP enforced, on one hand, the
cost, reliability and emissions as major design objectives, and
on the other hand, ranked them in a priority order. The trade-
offhisk method was used to generate multiple plans under 16
different futures and obtain the corresponding trade-off
curves. Unlike the traditional 2-D simulation, a novel modeling
of a trade-off surface in 3-D space has been presented where
the knee set is determined using the minimum distance
approach. Robust and inferior plans are segregated based on
their frequent occurrence in the conditional decision set of
each future, and since there was no plan which is 100%
robust, hedging analysis to reduce risk was performed by
assigning alternative options to be adopted in case the risky
futures occur.
VIII. Acknowledgment
This research was supported by the URB of the American
University of Beirut.
IX. References
[l]. R. Chedid and Y. Saliba, ’Optimization and Control of Autonomous
Renewable Energy Systems’. Intemational Joumal of Energy Research,
V01.20, No. 7, July, 1996.
[Z]. R. Chedid, Saifur Rahman, “Unit Sizing And Control of Hybrid Wind-
Solar Power systems”, IEEE Summer Power Meeting, 96SM572-8EC, 1996.
[3]. R. Yokoyama, K. Ito and Y. Yuasa, ‘Multiobjective optimal Unit Sizing
of Hybrid Power Generation Systems Utilizing Photovoltaic and Wind
Energy’ Int. Joumal of Solar Energy Engineering, Vol.116, 1994.
[4].E.S Gavanidou and A.G Bakirtzis, ‘Design of a Stand Alone System With
Renewable Energy Resources Using Trade-off Methods’, IEEE Trans. on
Energy Conversion, Vo1.7, No.1, 1992,
[5]. S. Rahman and L.C.Frair, “A Hierarchical Approach to Electric Utility
Planning”, Intemational Joumal of Energy Research, Vol. 8, No. 2,
March,1984.
[6]. E. Crousillat, P. Dorfner, P. Alvarado and H. Meril1,’Conflicting
Objectives and Risk in Power Systems Planning’. IEEE Trans. On Power
Systems, Vol. 8, No.3, 1993.
171. T.L. Saaty,’The Analytic Hierarchy Process’, McGraw-Hill, New York,
1980.
181. A.R Musgrove, ‘The optimization of Hybrid Energy Conversion Systems
Using the Dynamic Programming Model RAPSODY’, Int. Joumal of Energy
Research, V01.12, 1988.
191. R. Ramanathan and L.S. Gancsh, ’A Multiobjective Programming
Approach to Energy Resource Allocation Problems’, Int. Joumal of Energy
Research, Vo1.17, No. 2, April-June, 1993.
Appendix
A. Input Data for system simulation [l].
Efficiency of solar system 0.12
Inflation (escalation rate) 0.09, Interest rate 0.12
Solar panel price 450$/mz(12$n;\i, for 23 MJ/m’/day
Wind turbine price 100$/m2 (l$iWp for 5.5 m/s speed)
Battery price 100$kWh for a life span of 5 years
Grid connection 500$/KW
Solar panel salvage value 45$/mz
Wind turbine salvage value 10$/m2
Solar panels’ OM costs 4.3$/m1/year
Wind turbine’ OM costs 2.5$/m2/year
Battenes’ OM costs 10$/kWh
Grid energy charge 0.08$/kWh
Demand charge (grid) 15$/kW month
Battery efficiency 0.78
Lobs of load C o b t 0.8$/kWh
 Load demand varies between 300 kW and 11OOkW Level 4.2. Privatization
Wind speed varies between 2.6mls and 10.5ds C EC R
Hourly solar insolation varies between 0 WlmZand 900W1mz c 1 7 5
EC 117 1 115
B. Judgmental matrices for the AHP analysis of Fig.1 R 115 5 1

Technologies Level 4.3. Economic instruments

C EC R
LOR 1 117 3 1 113 c 1 7 5
IF 7 1 9 5 1 EC 117 1 115
PA 113 119 1 115 115 R 115 5 1
PW 1 115 5 1 115
IOT 3 1 5 5 1 cts
C EC R
C 1 115 1n
-^_I - l l _ _ " ^ ~ _ - -~ - - ~ EC 5 1 1
IFG 1 117 115 119 R 7 1 1
P 7 1 3 113
E1 5 113 1 113 Riad Chedid was bom in Lebanon in 1960. He received his M.S degree
POP 9 3 3 1 (with distinction) in Electrical Engineering from Moscow Power Engineering
Institute in 1986. In 1992 he obtained his Ph.D in Electrical Engineering
from the University of London, and the DIC from Imperial College of
IFG P E1 POP Science Technology and Medicine, U.K. At present, Dr. Chedid is Assistant
IFG 1 117 119 119 Prof. at the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, American
P 7 1 113 115 University of Beirut. His research interests include altemative energy
E1 9 3 1 1 systems, low speed drives, and finite element analysis of electric machinery.
POP 9 5 1 1
Hadi Akiki was born in Lebanon in 1970. He received his BE degree (with
distinction) from the American University of Beirut (AUB) in 1992. He
joined the graduate Power Engineering program at AUB in 1993 and
-_~
IFG _P _ E1
_ POP-
graduated in July 1996 with ME in electrical power engineering. Since 1992,
IFG 1 117 119 119
he has been working as a consultant engineer at Dar AI Handasah (Shair &
P 7 1 1 1
Partners). His research interests include altemative energy systems, and
E1 9 1 1 113
power systems planning.
POP 9 1 3 1
Saifur Rahman (IEEE S-75, M-78, SM-83) graduated from the Bangladesh
Level 3.4. Political will
University of Engineering and Technology in 1973 with a B.Sc degree in
IFG P E1 POP Electrical Engineering. He obtained his M.S degree in Electrical Sciences
IFG 1 7 7 5 from the State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1975. His Ph.D
P 117 1 113 113 degree (1978) is in Electrical Engineering from the Virginia Polytechnic
E1 117 3 1 3 Institute and State University.
POP 115 3 113 1
Saifur Rahman has taught in the Department of Electrical Engineering, the
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, the Texas A&M
. ..."^"ll,...."~".I..I."^~
IFG .
l
.
,
l
P _-__l_l."
E1....... POP University and the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University where
IFG 1 113 113 113 he is a Full Professor. He also directs the Center for Energy and the Global
P 3 1 3 5 Environment at VPI. His industrial experience includes work at the
E1 3 113 1 1 Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York, the Carolina Power and Light
POP 3 115 1 1 Company, and the Tokyo Electric Power Company, Japan. He is a member of
the IEEE Power Engineering and Computer Societies. He serves on the
vemment System Planning and Demand Side Management subcommittees, and the
Load Forecasting and the Photovoltaics working groups of the IEEE Power
C EC R
Engineering Society. His areas of interest are demand side management,
C l 7 3
power system planning, altemative energy systems and environmental
EC in 1 113
systems. He has authored more than 180 technical papers and reports in these
R 113 3 1
areas.