Article pubs.acs.

org/IECR

Microgrid Scheduling for Reliable, Cost-Eective, and Environmentally Friendly Energy Management
Jeremy Jie Ming Kwok,, Nan Yu,, Iftekhar A. Karimi, and Dong-Yup Lee*,,

Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, National University of Singapore, 4 Engineering Drive 4, Singapore 117576, Singapore Bioprocessing Technology Institute, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), 20 Biopolis Way, #06-01, Centros, Singapore 138668, Singapore ABSTRACT: There has been a growing interest in microgrids because of various advantages such as environmental benets through its integration with renewables, possible cost-ecient replacement of the electricity infrastructure in isolated areas, and improvement of reliability and resilience using multiple energy sources. However, the microgrid faces various challenges in operational management because it deals with a multitude of energy sources mainly comprising renewables (municipal solid waste incineration and solar and wind energy), fuels (natural gas, hydrogen, and biofuel), and batteries. In this work, we developed a mixed-integer linear programming model for cost-ecient and environmentally friendly scheduling in the microgrid operation. The model provides optimal schedules with minimal cost or reduced environmental impacts, e.g., global warming potential, while satisfying the balance of electricity supply and demand. Notably, an additional set of diversity constraints is incorporated within the model to ensure reasonable allocation of electricity generation from each source, thereby allowing us to maintain grid reliability. To demonstrate the applicability and utility of the model, a case study of a hypothetical microgid system in Singapore Island is presented. A comparison result with the national grid system clearly proves the cost eciency and environmental friendliness of the microgrid. We also investigated the eects of uncertainty in local demands and seasonal weather conditions on the microgrid scheduling, suggesting capacity planning to manage the dependency on national grid and renewable sources.

1. INTRODUCTION In recent decades, the booming population and ubiquity of electrical devices have led to a surge in growing energy demand. Coupled with the worlds increasing environmental consciousness, now it is urgently needed to make power generation more ecient and less polluting. However, the current national grid infrastructure poses certain limitations, such as long-distance transmission losses1 and power generation mainly by nonrenewable energy sources. Hence, alternative solutions should be pursued. In this regard, the microgrid, which is a localized generation, distribution, and regulation of the electricity cluster, has recently been recognized as one of the promising solutions to the future energy challenges.2 A microgrid network comprises small power-generating sources, loads consuming electricity, batteries for electricity storage, a controller, and a coupling point connected to the national grid.3 The size of the system boundary of a microgrid can range from a building to a community. Thus, it can be easily employed in isolated areas such as islands. More importantly, the ability to integrate smallscale renewable resources and other sources into the network makes it an environmentally friendly and exible alternative to the national grid.4 Therefore, the microgrid is able to reduce its carbon footprint and reliance on fossil fuels.5 In addition, because the microgrid system can be operated independently from the national grid, it is resilient to power disruption caused by a spike in demand for electricity in the national grid.1 Despite the aforementioned advantages, the microgrid still faces several issues that hinder its practical and industrial implementation. The planning and design of the microgrid
2012 American Chemical Society

system is a complicated process requiring heuristics and experiences.1 However, the development of microgrid systems is still in its infancy, so it is too early to obtain relevant design rules of thumb. Another drawback is its higher construction cost compared to the national grid, especially when an infrastructure for the national grid is already present. Because it is too costly to set up microgrids for research purposes, feasibility studies were conducted by microgrid modeling.1 Nevertheless, the accuracy of such models is still questionable due to the lack of realistic data. Last but not least, the critical and practical challenge is management of the microgrid system by the proper allocation of a number of energy sources to ensure its operational feasibility, reliability, and cost eciency. The last issue can be addressed by scheduling optimization as successfully applied to various manufacturing processes.6 There have been, however, only a handful of works in the scheduling of microgrids. Morais et al.7 developed a mixedinteger linear programming (MILP) model for a renewable microgrid while minimizing the total marginal cost. Ren et al.8 handled conicting objectives of cost and environmental friendliness within multiobjective optimization framework. Ren and Gao9 considered various sources for long-term microgrid planning while minimizing cost where carbon
Special Issue: L. T. Fan Festschrift Received: Revised: Accepted: Published:
142

March 15, 2012 May 24, 2012 May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie3006897 | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 142151

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Article

Figure 1. Schematic of the microgrid considered. The top six squares represent three types of renewables and three types of fuels connecting to their corresponding electricity generators as six dierent sources. The red line represents electricity production; the green line denotes the GWP ow from all six generators as well as the national grid and battery; the dark line denotes cost ow from fuel source generators together with the national grid and battery. Electricity can be purchased from or sold to the national grid; the battery can be charged or discharged, indicated by two direction arrows (MSW = municipal solid waste; GWP = global warming potential).

emissions are taxed. A discrete-time-interval MILP model was also formulated by Zamarripa et al.10 for energy planning of the microgrid. Recently, Mohammadi et al.11 employed a genetic algorithm to obtain the optimal electricity production of various power sources. The major problem of the previous works is that they did not consider the exibility and reliability of the microgrid, which can be described by proper allocation of multiple sources for operation purposes. Interestingly, Costello12 pointed out that a variety of sources can be widened to prevent overreliance on a few sources. Without such source diversication, scheduling results may simply show a major contribution to the electricity demand by the cheapest energy source; there will be a huge risk of microgrid power disruption if the energy source shuts down as a result of some unforeseen circumstances, thus compromising the reliability of the microgrid system. On the other hand, utilizing more energy sources gives rise to cost increases accordingly. Therefore, a tradeo must be examined for improving energy source diversity. Although Naraharisetti et al.13 recently introduced a linear diversity constraint that makes each source produce electricity close to the ideal of the equal fraction of its capacity, they recognized that the model failed to obtain feasible solution at a higher level of source diversity. Thus, in the current work, we develop a cost-eective and environmentally friendly scheduling model of the microgrid, considering a set of novel linear diversity constraints on the basis of reasonable minimal electricity production from each source. The environmental impact of the microgrid can be quantied by evaluating dierent types of emissions from construction, operation, and decommissioning of the energy sources and subsequently converting them into a standardized measurement, e.g., global warming potential (GWP). A case study based on a hypothetical microgrid system in Singapore is conducted to evaluate the applicability of the model. The resulting optimal schedules with minimized cost or GWP
143

indicate the signicance of cost and environmental eciency of the microgrid.

2. MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF MICROGRID SCHEDULING

A microgrid system can be mathematically formulated as a MILP model to allocate electricity generation from various energy sources during the operation. Sources of the microgrid, which connect to the national grid and local loads, mainly include renewables, I [solar panels, a wind turbine, and incineration of municipal solid waste (MSW)], and fuel electricity generators, J (an internal combustion engine, fuel cells, and a microturbine using biofuel, hydrogen, and natural gas, respectively). Batteries store up electricity and discharge when needed. A schematic of the system is summarized in Figure 1. 2.1. Objective Function. To achieve the most costecient and environmentally friendly schedule of the microgrid for the given time period T, two objective functions, the operational cost and environmental impact, are minimized. 2.1.1. Cost Minimization. The cost consists of expenses for purchasing dierent fuels, discharging electricity in batteries, and purchasing electricity from the national grid. In addition, an oset from the revenue of selling excess electricity to the national grid is included; a penalty is imposed to discourage overreliance on the national grid. Because of the small scale of the electricity generation, the operating and maintenance expense is considered to be negligible. Thus, we assume that renewable energy is self-sustaining, only requiring resources from natural replenishment with no cost in this problem. The cost function is as follows:
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie3006897 | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 142151

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

min cost =

Article

(Fuelpi tfueli) + Bdisp bdischarget

iI tT

efueli ,t + erenewj ,t + bdischarget + ebuynt = Deman

iI jJ

+ (Np + Pena) ebuynt Nprofit etont

tT tT

dt + etont + etobatteryt

tT

(3)

(1)

where Fuelpi, Bdisp, Np, Pena, and Nprof it denote the unit price for fuel i, price for discharging the battery, price and penalty for purchasing electricity from the national grid, and prot from selling excess electricity, respectively; tfueli, bdischarget, ebuynt, and etont denote the total fuel utilized in the corresponding fuel electricity generator i, the electricity produced from discharging the battery, the electricity purchased from the national grid, and the electricity sold to the national grid at time t, separately. 2.1.2. Environmental Impact Minimization. For a comprehensive environmental analysis, GWP is used as a standard benchmark to quantify various greenhouse gas emissions from the combustion of fuel for the entire lifespan and manufacturing to decommissioning of the electricity generation sources.14 The GWP of dierent emissions are converted to the equivalent carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt hour, and the values can be obtained from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) model (100 years time horizon).15 The environmental impact function can be described by computing the total GWP from all electricity-generating sources as follows:
min env =

where Demandt is the local demand that should be met at time t and etobatteryt is the excess electricity that is stored in the battery at time t. 2.2.2. Environmental Regulations. GWP cannot exceed its dangerous level as stipulated by government regulations.

(RenewGWPjerenewj ,t ) + (FuelGWPi efueli ,t )

jJ iI

+ BGWP bdischarget + NGWP ebuynt DL

tT
(4)

( (RenewGWPjerenewj ,t )
tT jJ

FuelGWPi efueli ,t + BGWPbdischarget

iI

+ NGWP ebuynt )

(2)

where RenewGWPj, FuelGWPi, BGWP, and NGWP denote the GWP imposed per unit of electricity from renewable source j, fuel source i, battery, and national grid, respectively; erenewj,t, and ef ueli,t denote electricity directly used from renewable source j and electricity generated from fuel i at time t, separately. 2.2. Constraints. The model constraints can be derived from the following: (1) The local demand needs to be satised. (2) The total environmental impact should not violate government regulations. (3) Reliability should be maintained through source diversity. (4) Electricity production from each fuel source should have a reasonable distribution and be limited by the generators capacity as well as fuel availability. (5) The battery must maintain a certain level of electricity storage. Its electricity production should have a realistic contribution to the local demand. (6) Renewables can be utilized or stored to the battery when they are available. (7) Purchasing and selling electricity to the national grid is not allowed to happen simultaneously. 2.2.1. Electricity Supply and Demand. The supply of electricity in the microgrid must meet the local demand, while excess electricity can be either charged to the battery or sold to the national grid. Thus, the balance of electricity supply and demand can be expressed as follows:
144

where DL denotes the dangerous level. When the other possibilities of disposal of MSW are considered, this creates an oset from the emissions generated by incineration of MSW such that it has a negative GWP.16 As a conservative estimate, the incineration of MSW is taken to have zero GWP. 2.2.3. Source Diversity. As epitomized by the popular proverb do not put all your eggs in one basket, diversity in sources of electricity reduces volatility in price uctuations and fuel shortages, creates a greener environment, decreases the risk in changes in regulations, and increases exibility in handling unforeseen events. Consequently, it provides enhanced stability and reliability in electricity production of the microgrid.12 Moreover, it improves security in electricity production especially against cases of unknown outcomes or unknown probability distribution.17 To ensure such source diversity during the operation, we introduce a diversity factor m in eq 5, indicating that at least m electricity-generating sources are operated at time t.
m

yrenewj ,t + yfueli ,t + ybdischarget + yebuynt

jJ iI

tT

(5)

where yrenewj,t = 1 when renewable source j is used at time t and yf ueli,t = 1 when fuel i is used at time t and otherwise 0. ybdischarget = 1 when batteries are discharged at time t, and yebuynt = 1 when the national grid is used at time t and otherwise 0. It should be noted that the factor m can be determined based on the users or policy makers needs on diversity. In this work, eight dierent energy sources are integrated into this microgrid system, including three types of renewables, three types of fuel electricity generators, batteries, and the national grid. However, solar and wind energy are not available throughout the time horizon, thus rendering it infeasible to constrain these sources to operate all of the time. Hence, m can range from 1 (no diversity) to 6 (all sources excluding wind and solar). The eect of m on balancing microgrid reliability and cost/GWP will be further elaborated in the results of a case study. 2.2.4. Fuels. The internal combustion engine, fuel cell, and microturbines are driven by biofuel, hydrogen, and natural gas, respectively, to generate electricity. The throughput and eciency have an exponential relationship that may result in nonlinearity of the model, rendering it cumbersome to obtain the optimal results. Thus, the nonlinear relationships are approximated to be piecewise linear.13 Each piece is dened as a numbered element r of set R, representing dierent ranges for
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie3006897 | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 142151

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research throughputs. The electricity produced from fuel is calculated by eq 6.
efueli , t =

Article

(fueli ,r ,t Effi ,r)

rR

i I,

tT
(6)

where f ueli,r,t denotes the quantity of utilized fuel i in the rth piece at time t and Eff i,r denotes the electricity throughput eciency of fuel i in the rth piece range. The piecewise linear range is selected and constrained through eqs 7 and 8.
Thruputr 1Capi yzi , r , t fueli , r , t Thruputr Capi yzi , r , t r R, r > 1, i I, tT
(7)

erenewj,t is a part of the contribution to satisfy the local demand in eq 3, it is possible that part of erenewj,t turns out to be excess electricity; this part of the electricity can be saved to batteries as well. However, this part of the stored electricity is not included in saverenewj,t but in etobatteryt. The excess electricity can be sold to the national grid, depending on its price eciency. In eq 14, the logic constraint is used such that the binary variable yrenewj,t equals 1 when Predrenewj,t is available, whereas it equals 0 when Predrenewj,t is not available.
yrenewj , t = 1, yrenewj , t = 0, tT
(14)

when when

Predrenewj , t > 0 Predrenewj , t = 0 j J,

LB Capi yzi , r , t fueli , r , t Thruputr Capi yzi , r , t r R, r = 1, i I, tT

(8)

where Capi denotes the fuel capacity of a type i electricity generator and Thruputr denotes the utilized fuel proportion of its capacity in the rth piecewise range. LB is the minimum ratio of fuel that should be used to make the generator operate; yzi,r,t = 1 when the quantity of utilized fuel i is in the rth range and otherwise 0. The logic that at most one piecewise range can be chosen is satised by eq 9.
yfueli , t =

2.2.6. Batteries. The concept of reasonable minimal electricity production from each source is applied to the batteries. The lower bound is set because batteries are regarded as an electricity source equal to others in the system. Because the capacity of the batteries is much smaller than the one of fuel electricity generation by dierent orders of magnitude, the lower bound of battery discharge is set as N (0 < N < 1) times that in fuel sources from eq 10. Therefore, the general lower and upper bounds of battery discharge are controlled by the binary variable ybdischarget in eq 15.
N Demandt ybdischarget bdischarget B ybdischarget m
(15)

yzi ,r ,t
rR

i I,

tT
(9)

The minimum amount of electricity supplied from each fuel source should be split equally among the number of sources determined by the diversity factor m. As shown in eq 10, when the microgrid system is working regularly, that is, at least m sources are under operation, each fuel source should be able to meet at least one part of the evenly distributed electricity demand. This constraint avoids unreasonable electricity distribution when only a little fuel resource is being utilized.
Demandt yfueli , t efueli , t F yfueli , t m i I, tT
(10)

tT

where B denotes the battery capacity and N denotes the factor used to reduce the lower bound of battery discharge. The discharged electricity at time t cannot be greater than the stored electricity in the batteries at time t 1, and the battery storage is initialized with half of its capacity, as shown in eqs 16 and 17.
bdischarget ebatterystoret 1 bdischarget 1 B 2 t T, t T, t=1 t>1
(16)

(17)

where F is a big number. Besides the fact that the electricity produced from fuel should be bounded, the total required fuel for the whole time horizon should be constrained by its supply availability in eqs 11 and 12.
tfueli Availablei iI
(11)

where ebatterystoret denotes the amount of battery storage at time t. ebatterystoret can be determined from eqs 18 and 19.
ebatterystoret = ebatterystoret 1 + Effbatt bcharget bdischarget
ebatterystoret = t T,

t T,

t>1

(18)

tfueli =

fueli ,r ,t
rR tT

iI
(12)

where Availablei is the available supply of fuel i. 2.2.5. Renewables. Wind, solar, and MSW energies are the renewables in the system; the expected renewable energy can be either stored to the battery or used to satisfy the demand of local loads as in eq 13.
erenewj , t + saverenewj , t = Predrenewj , t j J, tT
(13)

1 B + Effbatt bcharget bdischarget 2

(19)

t=1

where bcharget denotes the electricity charged to batteries at time t and Eff batt denotes the round-trip eciency. The batteries should have at least W MJ of energy stored in it to handle unforeseen circumstances, while not exceeding its capacity at that time (eq 20).
W ebatterystoret B tT
(20)

where Predrenewj,t denotes the estimated electricity generated from renewable source j and saverenewj,t denotes the electricity directly saved from renewable j to batteries. It should be noted that the action of saving electricity directly from Predrenewj,t is prior to saving electricity from excess electricity. Because
145

bcharget can be determined from eq 21, which shows that batteries can be charged from excess electricity and renewable energy storage.
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie3006897 | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 142151

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Article

Figure 2. Hypothesized data of the electricity demand and energy obtained from solar, wind, and incineration of MSW.

bcharget =

saverenewj ,t + etobatteryt
jJ

tT
(21)

where etobatteryt denotes the excess electricity that is saved into the batteries. The amount of electricity used to charge the batteries cannot exceed the capacity, as in eq 22.
bcharget B ybcharget tT
(22)

where ybcharget = 1 when the batteries are charging and otherwise 0. Because the battery units are considered as one single battery cluster, charging and discharging of the batteries cannot occur simultaneously, as shown in eq 23.
ybcharg et + ybdischarg et 1 tT
(23)

2.2.7. National Grid. When the electricity-generating sources are unable to fulll the local demand, additional electricity has to be purchased from the national grid. Moreover, surplus electricity can be sold to the national grid for prot. Equations 24 and 25 dene the bounds of ebuynt and etont,
L yebuynt ebuynt F yebuynt tT
(24) (25)

available, we only consider a natural-gas-powered national grid for a fair comparison with the microgrid. The model is formulated as a MILP problem that can be solved using CPLEX in the GAMS environment.19 The investigated time horizon T is assumed to be 24 h of a day. For the realistic application of this model, smaller time intervals (seconds or minutes) should be used for real-time control, while larger time intervals (hours, days, or months) should be applied for long-term planning. The estimated electricity demand and solar and wind energy are cited from the work proposed by Naraharisetti et al.13 (Figure 2). Other parameters are stated in Table 1. 3.1. Selection of the Diversity Factor. The diversity constraints are controlled by a parameter m. Thus, increasing m leads to greater diversity in sources that provide electricity to Table 1. Model Parameters Used
parameter Fuelpi Bdisp Np Pena Nprof it FuelGWPi RewGWPj BGWP NGWP DL B W Capl LB N Availablet Thruputr Eff i,r Eff batt
146

value i = 1, 0.2; i = 2, 0.336; i = 3, 0.275 $/kg 0.018 $/MJ 0.275 $/MJ 0.4 $/MJ 0.01 $/MJ i = 1, 1920; i = 2, 552; i = 3, 474 i = 1, 217; i = 2, 32; i = 3, 0 48 474 19315000 3000 MJ 5000 MJ i = 1, 1200; i = 2, 5000; i = 3, 1200 kg/h 0.3 0.1 i = 1, 28800; i = 2, 23000; i = 3, 10000 kg/day r = 1, 0.7; r = 2, 0.8; r = 3, 0.9; r = 4, 1.0; i = 1, r = l, 1.389; i = 1, r = 2, 1.666; i = 1, r = 3, 1.944; I = 1, r = 4, 2.222 i = 2, r = 1, 0.6; i = 2, r = 2, 0.7; i = 2, r = 3, 0.8; i = 2, r = 4, 0.9; i = 3, r = 1, 3.75; i = 3, r = 2, 4.50; i = 3, r = 3, 5.25; i = 3, r = 4, 6.00 0.81

reference 13 13

L yetont etont F yetont

tT

where L is a small number and yetont = 1 when excess electricity is sold to the national grid and otherwise 0. Equation 26 species the logic that purchase and sell is not permitted to happen simultaneously.
yebuynt + yetont 1 tT
(26)

3. CASE STUDY: SCHEDULING OF A MICROGRID ON SINGAPORE ISLAND As a case study, the current microgrid scheduling model was applied to a hypothetical microgrid system on Singapore Island. The application of the microgrid may decrease the reliance on Jurong Islands power supply, initiating a more cost-ecient and sustainable manner for electricity production. Incineration of MSW is common in Singapore, and the incineration plant operates 24 h/day. It is assumed that MSW is distributed evenly throughout the day. In Singapore, 78.7% of electricity was generated from natural gas in the year 2010.18 Because natural gas has the lowest GWP and cost among the fuel options

2426 2628 13 13 29

13

13 13 13

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie3006897 | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 142151

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Article

Figure 3. Minimum cost and GWP with respect to increasing diversity factor (m).

the microgrid. To investigate the relationship between m and Cost/GWP, we iteratively solve the optimization problem for each objective, giving rise to a plot of m versus minimum Cost/ GWP in Figure 3. The initial increase of m from 1 to 3 results in a signicant drop in cost. This is because when m is 1 or 2, at least one source or two sources from the microgrid provide electricity. However, electricity generation is limited by the lower bound for even energy distribution in eqs 10 and 15. When m is small, the electricity distribution is huge for only two sources; hence, the remaining demand has to be fullled by purchasing large amounts of electricity from the national grid, which incurs a vast penalty. On the other hand, when m is 3, at least three sources are under operation; the purchased electricity from the national grid is less compared to the condition when m is 1 and 2, and less penalty of purchasing national grid electricity helps in reducing the total cost. The minimized GWP is constant from m = 1 to 4, indicating that the diversity factor will not inuence the GWP minimization until it is higher than 4. This is because a minimum of four electricity sources are required to meet the electricity demand. Each electricity source has an upper limit in electricity production. Thus, a single electricity source or combinations consisting of up to three electricity sources will not be able to meet the electricity demand. After m = 4, there is an expected observation of increasing cost and GWP with increasing diversity. Thus, a tradeo between the diversity and cost/ GWP can be achieved. This optimal value of m should be as large as possible while keeping cost and GWP at a minimum. It can be seen that when m is 3 and 4, the costs and GWP are at their lowest with respect to increasing diversity. m = 4 is used to draw conclusive and reliable results because it represents higher diversity in sources. It should be noted that the tradeo between diversity and cost/GWP is dependent on the users or policy makers willingness to obtain more diversity at the expense of cost/GWP. However, the implementation of the diversity factor is limited by the type of the electricitygenerating sources at present. Hence, it will be more prudent to consider diversity in the planning and design stage of the microgrid. 3.2. Scheduling Results of Cost and GWP Minimization. Figure 4 presents the scheduling results obtained by minimizing cost (scenario 1) and GWP (scenario 2) based on
147

the optimal diversity factor value determined. It can be observed that the microturbine is highly utilized in both scenarios. This indicates that natural gas is the cheapest and also most environmentally friendly among the fuel sources considered, thus justifying that an ideal national grid should be powered by natural gas. However, the cost-minimized schedule of scenario 1 shows the possibility of the microgrid operating at island mode without national grid utilization. Interestingly, the fuel cell is not used for both scenarios, which is somewhat an unexpected result because we believe that the fuel cell can be environmentally friendly. In fact, the current technology of the fuel cell is not yet mature because it is comparatively inecient and its relevant fuel, i.e., hydrogen, is more expensive. Thus, the microgrid has to incorporate more eective technologies, e.g., trigeneration, in order to reduce the current dependency on the national grid. In Figure 4, scenarios 1 and 2 depict the potential cost savings and reduction in GWP of operating the microgrid compared to the national grid. From the result of cost minimization (scenario 1), the cost and GWP are reduced by 86% and 68%, respectively, compared to the national grid. When GWP is minimized in scenario 2, there is a 4% decrease in cost and 86% decrease in GWP of the microgrid, clearly indicating that the microgrid is more environmentally friendly and cost-eective. 3.3. Demand Uncertainty. In the presence of energy demand uncertainty, the operational exibility of the current microgrid system should be examined to manage capacity planning. In scenario 3 (Figure 4), the electricity demand is increased twice and a large proportion of the demand is fullled by purchasing electricity from the national grid. Hence, it would be benecial for the microgrid to be connected to the national grid especially when there is a huge surge in demand. However, this is not applicable to isolated areas where the microgrid is most likely to be employed. Thus, demand uncertainty has to be taken into account at the planning and design stage of the microgrid to provide enough capacity for such situations. In addition, with comparison to scenario 1, the proportion of fuel cell contribution to the demand is larger while that of internal combustion engine is reduced. Even though biofuel in internal combustion engines is cheaper than hydrogen that is used in fuel cells, the capacity of the internal combustion engine is
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie3006897 | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 142151

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Article

Figure 4. Optimal schedules with allocated energy sources in dierent scenarios: scenario 1, minimizing operational cost; scenario 2, minimizing GWP; scenario 3, minimizing cost for doubled demand. At least four resources are utilized with optimal diversity factor m = 4. Asterisks indicate the corresponding cost and GWP when only the national grid is utilized.

limited to meet the minimum output requirement that is linearly related to the demand. Therefore, this reemphasizes the importance of the capacity of sources in the microgrid. The cost of the microgrid will depend largely on the proportion of the capacity of cheap sources in the microgrid. 3.4. Seasonal Eect of Weather. In Singapore, there are no distinct seasons except for monsoons, and rainfall is prevalent throughout the year.20 This will aect the wind and solar energy harnessed.21 During normal light and heavy rainfall, the solar energy collected is reduced to 14.86% and 7.61%, respectively.22 Interestingly, for wind energy, it is increased by about 3% during light rain and reduced by 24% during heavy rain.23 The monsoon season is characterized by both types of rainfall and stronger wind, which is assumed to be 30% higher than that in the normal season. In order to cope with the signicant change of wind and solar energy in various
148

weather conditions, the sensitivity of the scheduling to seasonal change is analyzed. In the nonmonsoon season, light rain has a minor eect on the microgrid, whereas cost and GWP are reduced 20% compared to normal weather during the monsoon season with light rainfall (see Figure 5). Heavy rain greatly increases cost and GWP with more utilization of the internal combustion engine in the nonmonsoon season; however, the eect of heavy rain is compensated for by the increased wind power in the monsoon season. These variances illustrate that the scheduling results of the microgrid are sensitive to weather changes. This is because wind and solar power, which share a large proportion of electricity production together in the microgrid, are sensitive to weather changes. Therefore, the capacity of renewable generators, particularly wind turbines and solar panels, has to be carefully weighed and factored in at the planning and design
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie3006897 | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 142151

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Article

Figure 5. Comparison under various weather conditions for cost minimization: (a) dierent sources electricity output proportion; (b) total cost and GWP. A, normal weather; B, light rainfall; C, light rainfall in the monsoon season; D, heavy rainfall; E, heavy rainfall in the monsoon season (m = 4).

phase of the microgrid because this limits the extent of optimal results from scheduling. It should be noted that the weather conditions are restricted to the occasional rainfall in Singapore and its monsoon season; hence, the results may only be suitable for the summer season in some countries.

Notes

The authors declare no competing nancial interest.

4. CONCLUDING REMARKS In this work, a MILP model is developed for microgrid scheduling. The electricity demandsupply balance is constrained with source diversity consideration to make the model more reliable. The model is applied to a case study of the hypothetical microgrid system in Singapore. Various scenarios are considered to obtain cost-eective and environmentally friendly schedules and to examine the demand uncertainty and seasonal eects. The resulting schedules clearly indicate that the microgrid is ecient in saving cost and reducing environmental impacts. The eects of scheduling are limited by the microgrid system, as seen from the multiple scenario analysis of demand uncertainty and weather variances. Clearly, the model can be further exploited to manage the capacity of each source at the planning and design phase, as such balancing the reliance on the national grid and renewable sources.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported by the National University of Singapore, Biomedical Research Council of A*STAR (Agency for Science, Technology and Research), Singapore, and a grant from the Next-Generation BioGreen 21 Program (SSAC, No. PJ008184), Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea. The authors are very pleased to contribute to this special issue in honor of Dr. L. T. Fan.

NOMENCLATURE T = time intervals, t T I = energy sources using fuels, i I J = energy sources using renewables, j J R = piecewise range, r R
m = minimum number of sources that must be operating Fuelpi = price per unit fuel purchased Bdisp = price per unit electricity discharged from battery Np = price per unit electricity purchased from the national grid Pena = penalty for per unit electricity purchased from the national grid Nprof it = prot per unit electricity sold to the national grid FuelGWPi = amount of global warming potential per unit electricity produced from fuel source i

Parameters

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*Tel: (65) 6516 6907. E-mail: cheld@nus.edu.sg.

Author Contributions

These authors contributed equally to this work.

149

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie3006897 | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 142151

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research RewGWPj = amount of global warming potential per unit electricity produced from source j BGWP = amount of global warming potential per unit electricity produced from battery discharge NGWP = amount of global warming potential per unit electricity produced from the national grid Demandt = local demand for electricity at time t Predrenwj,t = estimated electricity output for renewable sources j at time t DL = amount of carbon credits at the dangerous level B = battery storage capacity W = minimum amount of electricity to be store in the battery Capi = fuel capacity in source unit i LB = lower bound of the fuel ratio of generator capacity N = factor used to reduce the lower bound of battery discharge Availablei = total available fuel storage for source i Thruputr = throughput of the piecewise relationship r Eff i,r = electricity conversion factor of fuel for source i at the piecewise relationship r Eff batt = round-trip eciency of the battery F = large number
Binary Variables

Article

yzi,r,t = 1 if the piecewise linear relationship r is used for source i at time t and 0 otherwise yf ueli,t = 1 if the corresponding fuel is used for source i at time t and 0 otherwise yrenewj,t = 1 if renewable sources j is used at time t and 0 otherwise ybdischarget = 1 if the battery is discharged at time t and 0 otherwise ybcharget = 1 if the battery is charged at time t and 0 otherwise yebuynt = 1 if electricity is purchased from the national grid at time t and 0 otherwise yetont = 1 if electricity is sold to the national grid at time t and 0 otherwise
Continuous Variables

cost = total cost for scheduling the microgrid env = total global warming potential for scheduling the microgrid tf ueli = total amount of fuel for source i required over the time horizon f ueli,r,t = amount of fuel for source i required from the piecewise relationship r at time t ef ueli,t = amount of electricity produced from source i at time t erenewj,t = amount of electricity produced from renewable source j at time t saverenewj,t = amount of electricity saved to the battery from renewable source j at time t bdischarget = amount of electricity discharged from the battery at time t bcharget = amount of electricity charged to the battery at time t etobatteryt = amount of excess electricity produced sent to the battery for storage at time t ebatterystoret = amount of electricity stored in the battery at time t ebuynt = amount of electricity purchased from the national grid at time t
150

(1) Platt, G.; Berry, A.; Cornforth, D. What Role for Microgrids? In Smart Grid: Integrating Renewable, Distributed & Ecient Energy; Sioshansi, P. F., Ed.; Elsevier: New York, 2012; pp 185207. (2) Lasseter, R. H.; Paigi, P. Proceedings of 35th Annual IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference, Aachen, Germany, June 2025, 2004; pp 42854290 (Microgrid: a Conceptual Solution, v6). (3) Lasseter, R. H. Proceedings of 2002 IEEE Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting, New York, Jan 2731, 2002; pp 305308. (Microgrid, v1). (4) Venkataramanan, G.; Marnay, C. A Larger Role for Microgrids. IEEE Power Energy Mag. 2008, 6 (3), 7882. (5) Tanrioven, M. Reliability and Cost-benets of Adding Alternate Power Sources to an Independent Micro-grid Community. J. Power Sources 2005, 150, 136149. (6) Pinedo, M. L. Planning and Scheduling in Manufacturing and Services; Springer Verlag: Berlin, 2009; pp 311. (7) Morais, H.; Kad ar , P.; Faria, P.; Vale, Z. A.; Khodr, H. M. Optimal Scheduling of a Renewable Micro-grid in an Isolated Load Area Using Mixed-Integer Linear Programming. Renewable Energy 2010, 35 (1), 151156. (8) Ren, H.; Zhou, W.; Nakagami, K.; Gao, W.; Wu, Q. Multiobjective Optimization for the Operation of Distributed Energy Systems Considering Economic and Environmental Aspects. Appl. Energy 2010, 87 (12), 36423651. (9) Ren, H.; Gao, W. A MILP Model for Integrated Plan and Evaluation of Distributed Energy Systems. Appl. Energy 2010, 87 (3), 10011014. (10) Zamarripa, M.; Vasquez, J. C.; Guerrero, J. M.; Graells, M. In Computer Aided Chemical Engineering 2011; Proceedings of the 21st European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering ESCAPE 21, Chalkidiki, Greece, May 29June 1, 2011; Pistikopoulos, E. N., Georgiadis, M. C., Kokossis A. C., Eds.; Elsevier BV: New York, 2011; pp 18191823 (Detailed Operation Scheduling and Control for Renewable Energy Powered Microgrids, v29). (11) Mohammadi, M.; Hosseinian, S. H.; Gharehpetian, G. B. GAbased Optimal Sizing of Microgrid and DG Units Under Pool and Hybrid Electricity Markets. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2012, 35 (1), 8392. (12) Costello, K. A Perspective on Fuel Diversity. The Electricity J. 2005, 18 (4), 2847. (13) Naraharisetti, P. K.; Karimi, I. A.; Anand, A.; Lee, D.-Y. A Linear Diversity ConstraintApplication to Scheduling in Microgrids. Energy 2011, 36 (7), 42354243. (14) Pulselli, F. M. Global Warming Potential and the Net Carbon Balance. In Encyclopedia of Ecology, 1st ed.; Jorgensen, S. E., Fath, B. D., Eds.; Elsevier BV: Oxford, U.K., 2008; Vol. 3, pp 17411746. (15) Curran, M. A. Life Cycle Assessment. In Encyclopedia of Ecology, 1st ed.; Jorgensen, S. E., Fath, B. D., Eds.; Elsevier BV: Oxford, U.K., 2008; Vol. 3, p 8. (16) Assamoi, B.; Lawryshyn, Y. The Environmental Comparison of Landlling vs. Incineration of MSW Accounting for Waste Diversion. Waste Manage. [Online early access]. DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.10.023. Published Online: Nov 17, 2011, ttp://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X1100482X, accessed Mar 14, 2012 (accepted manuscript, has not undergone nal copyediting, typesetting, or proof review). (17) Grubb, M.; Butler, L.; Twomey, P. Diversity and Security in UK Electricity Generation: The Inuence of Low-carbon Objectives. Energy Policy 2006, 34 (18), 40504062. (18) Lim, J.; Toh, E. Singapore Energy Statistics 2011. Research and Statistics Unit; Energy Market Authority: Singapore, 2011; p 14. (19) Brook, A.; Kendrick, D.; Meeraus, A. GAMS, a Users Guide. ACM SIGNUM Newsletter 1988, 23 (34), 1011. (20) Goh, T. N. Statistical Study of Solar Radiation Information in an Equatorial Region (Singapore). Sol. Energy 1979, 22 (2), 105111.
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie3006897 | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 142151

etont = amount of electricity sold to the national grid at time t

REFERENCES

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

(21) Choi, E. C. C.; Tanurdjaja, A. Extreme Wind Studies in Singapore. An Area with Mixed Weather System. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2002, 90 (1215), 16111630. (22) Parishwad, G. V.; Bhardwaj, R. K.; Nema, V. K. Eect of Rainfall on the Estimation of Monthly Mean Hourly Solar Radiation for India. Renewable Energy 1998, 13 (4), 505521. (23) Walker, S. N.; Wade, J. E. Eects of Precipitation on Wind Turbine Performance; NASA STI/Recon Technical Report; NASA: Washington, DC, 1988. (24) Lora, E. E. S.; Palacio, J. C. E.; Rocha, M. H.; Reno, M. L. G.; Venturini, O. J.; Olmo, O. A. D. Issues to Consider, Existing Tools and Constraints in Biofuels Sustainability Assessments. Energy 2011, 36 (4), 20972110. (25) Raugei, M.; Bargigli, S.; Ulgiati, S. A Multi-criteria Life Cycle Assessment of Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells (MCFC)A Comparison to Natural Gas Turbines. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2005, 30 (2), 123130. (26) Kannan, R.; Leong, K. C.; Osman, R.; Ho, H. K.; Tso, C. P. Gas Fired Combined Cycle Plant in Singapore: Energy Use, GWP and CostA Life Cycle Approach. Energy Convers. Manage. 2005, 46 (13 14), 21452157. (27) Kannan, R.; Leong, K. C.; Osman, R.; Ho, H. K.; Tso, C. P. Life Cycle Assessment Study of Solar PV Systems: An Example of a 2.7kWp Distributed Solar PV System in Singapore. Sol. Energy 2006, 80 (5), 555563. (28) Wagner, H. J.; Baack, C.; Eickelkamp, T.; Epe, A.; Lohmann, J.; Troy, S. Life Cycle Assessment of the Oshore Wind Farm Alpha Ventus. Energy 2011, 36 (5), 24592464. (29) Tay, E. Singapores Carbon Dioxide Emissions Per Capita and Carbon Intensity. http://www.lowcarbonsg.com/2009/05/14/ singapores-carbon-dioxide-emissions-per-capita-and-carbon-intensity/, accessed Feb 22, 2012.

Article

151

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie3006897 | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 142151