Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 310–320

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Cities and Society

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scs

Techno-economic analysis and size optimization of an off-grid hybrid T

photovoltaic, fuel cell and diesel generator system
⁎
Mehran Jamshidi, Alireza Askarzadeh
Department of Energy Management and Optimization, Institute of Science and High Technology and Environmental Sciences, Graduate University of Advanced Technology,
Kerman, Iran

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper presents multi-objective design of a hybrid system composed of photovoltaic (PV), fuel cell (FC) and
Hybrid energy system diesel generator (DG) to supply electric power of an off-grid community in Kerman, south of Iran in the presence
Fuel cell of operating reserve (OR) and uncertainties of load and solar power. Total net present cost (TNPC) and loss of
Multi-objective optimization power supply probability (LPSP) are considered as the objectives and the decision variables are the number of PV
Operating reserve
panels, DGs, FCs, electrolysers and hydrogen tanks. A recently developed meta-heuristic optimizer, multi-ob-
Sizing
jective crow search algorithm (MOCSA), has been utilized to find Pareto front. The impact of different para-
meters (fuel price, FC system equipments cost, emission cost, etc) has been investigated on the sizing problem.
Based on the simulation results, it is observed that integration of hydrogen energy technology will reduce the
total cost of the hybrid energy systems. Moreover, the impact of OR on the Pareto front is more than that of load
and solar power uncertainties.

1. Introduction
One of the major problems in the world is air pollution and global
warming. This is due to the excessive use of fossil fuels. Nowadays, to
conquer this problem, renewable energy resources (such as solar, wind,
tidal, water, biomass, etc) are utilized. Using renewable energy re-
sources significantly reduces CO2 emission.
In remote or rural areas where the connection to the grid is im-
possible, or in areas where power loss probability is high or power
supply is not appropriate, the use of isolated power generation systems
such as an off-grid solar system, a small wind turbine, or a combination
of these resources could be suggested to meet the electricity demand.
Due to the uncertainties in renewable resources, it is not possible to use
these resources at some hours. Hence, a backup system should be
considered to satisfy the deficit power. In many off-grid applications,
diesel generators (DGs) are used as backup systems. To have a clean,
reliable and cost-effective energy system, optimal combination of re-
newable energy resources and DGs should be considered to simulta-
neously reduce CO2 emission, increase reliability and minimize energy
generation cost. Simultaneous use of PV and DG with an energy storage
could be an ideal combination to electrify remote areas. In hybrid
power generation systems (HPGSs), energy storage plays an important
role when generated power is more than the load demand. Most often,
two types of storages are used in HPGSs: battery andfuel cell (FC). Using
battery banks as storage system has some limitations. Due to short
lifetime, the replacement of battery is needed during the project life-
time. In addition, energy losses occur during battery loading and the
efficiency of battery decreases because of ageing or bad operating
conditions. In recent years, proton exchange membrane fuel cell
(PEMFC) has received a considerable attention as a storage system in
HPGSs. In comparison with the other FCs, PEMFC has a number of
merits such as low operational temperature, fast start-up and zero
pollution if it is run with pure hydrogen. This paper makes use of
PEMFC as the storage system. In the investigated hybrid PV/DG/FC
system, the excess energy of PV panels is injected to electrolyser to
produce hydrogen. The produced hydrogen is then stored in hydrogen
tank to use in deficit conditions.
One of the most challenging problems of HPGSs is optimal sizing.
Optimal sizing answers to this question which combination of the
system components is the best one. Optimal sizing can be conducted by
different objectives such as cost, emission or reliability. Study of the
literature shows that optimal sizing of HPGSs has been solved with
respect to single-objective and multi-objective optimization. Single-
objective optimization leads to a single solution as the optimum con-
figuration of the system while multi-objective optimization results in a
Pareto front which includes a set of equally good solutions. In multi-
objective optimization, the designer selects the solution by his/ her
preferences.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: a.askarzadeh@kgut.ac.ir (A. Askarzadeh).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.10.021
Received 2 August 2018; Received in revised form 20 September 2018; Accepted 12 October 2018
Available online 15 October 2018
2210-6707/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Jamshidi, A. Askarzadeh
They are many studies which focus on size optimization of hybrid
energy systems. In (Askarzadeh, 2016a), size optimization of a hybrid
system including PV, wind, tidal and battery has been performed by
CSA. In this research, net present cost (NPC) and equivalent loss factor
(ELF) have been selected as objective function and reliability index,
respectively. In (Ahmadi & Abdi, 2016), a hybrid big bang–big crunch
(HBB–BC)algorithm has been applied to optimize a stand-alone hybrid
PV/wind/battery system by considering the total present cost (TPC) as
objective function. In (Abushnaf & Rassau, 2018), optimum design of a
grid-connected solar system with battery storage has been investigated
to supply power of residential buildings. The decision variables are the
number of PV panels, batteries and inverters. The objective function is
defined to minimize the cost of energy (COE). In (Ghenai, Salameh, &
Merabet, 2018), the optimization results of a PV/ FC/electrolyser/in-
verter system indicate that the HPGS will be able to meet the daily
electrical demand of 150 homes in residential applications. In
(Yahiaoui, Fodhil, Benmansour, Tadjine, & Cheggaga, 2017), the size of
a PV/DG /battery system has been optimized by grey wolf optimizer
(GWO) to find the minimum value of the total annual cost. In (Roumila,
Rekioua, & Rekioua, 2017), energy management of a hybrid PV/wind/
diesel/battery system has been investigated by fuzzy logic control
(FLC). It has been shown that the simple and easy fuzzy logic controller
can determine various operating processes of the hybrid system. In
(Sanajaoba & Fernandez, 2016), cuckoo search (CS) algorithm has been
applied to design a hybrid PV/wind/battery generation system with the
aim of minimizing total system cost with respect to expected energy not
supplied (EENS) and loss of load expected (LOLE) as the reliability in-
dices. In (Movahediyan & Askarzadeh, 2018), multi-objective optimi-
zation of a stand-alone PV/DG hybrid system has been solved by a
multi-objective crow search algorithm (MO-CSA). Objective functions
are TNPC, LPSP and emission. In (Benchraa, Redouane, El Harraki, & El
Hasnaoui, 2018), a feasibility analysis for a PV/DG/battery/biomass
hybrid system has been studied in order to supply the electricity of a
village in Morocco. Optimization of the objective functions (TNPC, COE
and wood consumption) has been done by HOMER software. In
(Fonseca et al., 2018), multi-objective optimization of a PV/DG hybrid
system in the isolated sites have been evaluated with the goal of
minimizing LCOE and CO2emission. In (Kamjoo, Maheri, Ghanim, &
Putrus, 2016), optimal sizing of a hybrid system including PV, wind and
battery has been solved by considering uncertainty of wind speed and
solar irradiation using a non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II
(NSGA-II). The objective functions are the total cost and LPSP. In
(Baghaee & Mirsalim, 2017), multi-objective optimization of a hybrid
PV/wind/FC system has been solved to minimize cost and maximize
reliability by multi-objective particle swarm optimization (MO-PSO).
EENS, ELF and LPSP have been considered as the reliability indices. In
(Ramli, Bouchekara, & Alghamdi, 2018), optimal sizing of a PV/wind/
diesel HPGS with battery storage has been done using multi-objective
self-adaptive differential evolution (MOSADE) algorithm. In (Majidi,
Nojavan, Esfetanaj, Najafi-Ghalelou, & Zare, 2017), a new approach has
been applied to optimize a grid-connected PV/FC/battery hybrid en-
ergy system. Cost and CO2emission have been considered as the ob-
jective functions. In (Zhang et al., 2018), optimal sizing of a hybrid
energy storage system (HESS) including battery and ultracapacitor has
been studied with respect to battery health. In (Heydari & Askarzadeh,
2016), the optimal size of a PV/biomass hybrid energy system has been
determined with respect to reliability and cost. It has been shown that
the hybrid system performance is more promising than the performance
of a single PV system or a single biomass system. In (Singh, Singh, &
Chanana, 2012), the authors have modelled and controlled a grid-
connected PV/DG/FC system. The impact of FC has been studied on
frequency stability of the grid. It has been concluded that FC system can
contribute to frequency stability when load increases or decreases. In
(Lan, Wen, Hong, Yu, & Zhang, 2015), optimum size of a PV/battery/
diesel system has been carried out for a stand-alone ship power system.
Investment cost, fuel cost and CO2 emission are the problem objectives.
311
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 310–320
A methodology has been proposed which takes into account the sea-
sonal and geographical variation of solar radiations and temperatures
for PV output correction.
Literature survey reveals that the investigation on multi-objective
optimization of PV/DG/FC system is rarely found. The present study
focuses on multi-objective optimization of a hybrid PV/DG/FC system
by multi-objective variant of a recently developed meta-heuristic al-
gorithm, crow search algorithm (CSA). Authors in (Movahediyan &
Askarzadeh, 2018) have solved multi-objective optimization of a PV/
DG hybrid energy system by MO-CSA and multi-objective particle
swarm optimization (MO-PSO). PSO is a well-known and popular me-
taheuristic optimization technique which has attracted significant at-
tention for solving complex engineering optimization problems. Simu-
lated results reveal that MO-CSA finds a well-distributed and widely
spread Pareto front and produces more promising results than MO-PSO
(Movahediyan & Askarzadeh, 2018). Furthermore, in (Askarzadeh,
2016a), the results of sizing a PV/wind/tidal/battery hybrid system
indicate that the solution obtained by CSA is more accurate than the
solutions obtained by PSO and genetic algorithm (GA). Owing to the
efficiency of CSA, this algorithm has been selected to solve the size
optimization problem. The advantages of CSA are easy implementation,
fast convergence rate and global search ability. This optimizer is uti-
lized to effectively find Pareto front (Cost vs LPSP) of the multi-objec-
tive sizing problem. The main contributions of the present study can be
summarized as follows:
• There is a few investigation on multi-objective sizing of hybrid PV/
DG/FC system. In this paper, a comprehensive modeling is provided,
two important objectives are included and the impact of emission
cost is studied on the Pareto front (TNPC vs LPSP).
• Optimum number of all the system components (PV, diesel gen-
erator, electrolyzer, hydrogen tank and fuel cell) are determined by
the optimization technique to have a cost-effective and reliable
energy system.
• In real conditions, operating reserve (OR) and uncertainties affect
the system performance. In this paper, the multi-objective sizing
problem has been solved by consideration of OR and solar and load
uncertainties. OR helps the system to electrify the load when there is
sudden change in load demand or solar radiation.
• Due to the importance of storage systems, the impact of the cost of
FC and corresponding equipments (electrolyser and hydrogen tank)
has been investigated on the sizing results.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 models the
system components and formulates the optimization problem. In sec-
tion 3, the proposed algorithm is explained. Results and discussions are
described in Section 4 and finally, conclusion is stated in Section 5.
2. Problem definition
The hybrid system considered to supply the load demand includes
PV, DG, inverter, FC, electrolyser and hydrogen tank. In this section,
equations related to each component are introduced, objective func-
tions of the problem are defined, system uncertainties and OR are
modelled, and energy management strategy is expressed in detail.
2.1. PV equations
Photovoltaic is the conversion of light into electricity by use of
semiconducting materials. PV panels produce direct current electricity
from sunlight which can be used to electrify different equipments. The
power generation of a PV system is directly proportional to the solar
radiation. At hour t, the output power of the PV system can be calcu-
lated as follows (Sawle, Gupta, & Bohre, 2018a):
M. Jamshidi, A. Askarzadeh Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 310–320

NPC of the DG system (NPCdg) is calculated by use of the investment

⎧ Npv × Prs ×
⎪
⎪
( Ra2 (t )
R srs × R cr ) 0 ≤ Ra (t ) < R cr
cost (ICdg), operation and maintenance cost (OMCdg,npv), replacement
Ppv (t ) = cost (RCdg,npv) and fuel cost as follows:
⎨ Npv × Prs ×
⎪
( ) R a (t )
R srs
R cr ≤ Ra (t ) < Rsrs
NPCdg = ICdg + OMCdg, npv + RCdg, npv + FCdg, npv
⎪ Npv × Prs otherwise (11)
⎩ (1)
where
where Ppv(t) is the output power of the PV system at hour t, Npv is the
number of PV panels, Prs is the PV panel rated power (kW), Ra(t) is the ICdg = αdg × Ndg (12)
solar radiation at hour t, Rsrs is the standard solar radiation (1000 W/
N z
m2) and Rcr is the certain radiation (150 W/m2). 1+β
Since the lifespan of the PV panels is equal to the lifespan of the
OMCdg,npv = OMCdg × Nrun × ∑ ⎛ 1+r ⎞
z−1 ⎝ ⎠ (13)
project, the replacement cost (RC) for the PV system has not been
considered. Net present cost (NPC) of the PV system is calculated by PV N z
1+E
investment cost (ICpv) and operation and maintenance cost (OMCpv) as FCdg, npv = FCdg × ∑ ⎛1 + r ⎞
z=1 ⎝ ⎠ (14)
follows:
NPCpv = ICpv + OMCpv, npv (2) where αdg is the DG price, Ndg is the number of DGs and Nrun denotes the
number of hours which DG is running. RC of the DG is determined
where based on running hours (here 15,000 h). OMCdg and FCdg are the op-
ICpv = αpv × Npv (3) eration and maintenance cost and fuel cost of a DG, respectively.

N
1+β 2.4. FC equations
OMCpv, npv = OMCpv × Npv × ∑ ( 1 + r )z
z=1 (4)
Fuel cell is an electrochemical device which converts the chemical
where αpv denotes the PV price, N is the project lifetime and subscript energy of hydrogen and oxygen into electricity. Among different FC
npv denotes the net present value. OMCpv is the yearly operation and types, proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) has attracted
maintenance cost of a PV panel. In order to obtain accurate calcula- significant attention. PEMFC has high current density and operate in
tions, escalation (β), inflation (E) and interest (r) rates have been in- low operating temperature.
cluded in the economic calculations. NPC of the FC (NPCfc) is obtained by IC, OMC and RC of the FC as
follows:
2.2. Inverter equations
NPCfc = ICfc + OMCfc, npv + RCfc, npv (15)
The inverter capacity is selected so that it can pass the power pro- where
duced by PV and FC systems. For inverter, NPC (NPCinv) is obtained
using its investment cost (ICinv) and replacement cost (RCinv,npv) as ICfc = αfc × Nfc (16)
follows: N
1+β
NPCinv = ICinv + RCinv, npv (5) OMCfc,npv = OMCfc × Nfc × ∑ ( 1 + r )z
z=1 (17)
where
1+β z
ICinv = αinv × Pinv (6) RCfc, npv = RCfc × Nfc × ∑ (
1+r
)
z = 5,10,15 (18)
1 + β ninv
RCinv, npv = αinv × Pinv × ( ) where αfc is the FC price and Nfc is the number of FCs. OMCfc and RCfc
1+r (7)
are the operation and maintenance cost and replacement cost, respec-
where αinv and n_inv denotes the price and lifespan of the inverter (here tively.
10 years), respectively. Pinv is the inverter power.
2.5. Electrolyser equations
2.3. DG equations
Electrolysis is the process of using electricity to split water into
Diesel generator is an alternative and reliable source which is used
hydrogen and oxygen. This reaction takes place in a unit called an
to power different applications such as homes and businesses. It pro-
electrolyzer. NPC of the electrolyser (NPCel) is obtained by IC, OMC and
duces electricity by using an alternator and a diesel engine. The engine
RC of the electrolyser as follows:
utilizes diesel fuel to operate.
Fuel consumption of a DG (fc) is modeled by Eq. (8) as a function of NPCel = ICel + OMCel, npv + RCel, npv (19)
the output power (Pdg) and nominal power (Pdgn) (Dufo-López & Bernal-
where
Agustín, 2008). The fuel cost of the DG (Cf) is the multiplication of the
fuel price (Pf) and fuel consumption. The yearly fuel cost of the DG ICel = α el × Nel (20)
(FCdg) is obtained by Eq. (10).
N z
1+β
fc (t ) = Adg × Pdgn + Bdg × Pdg (t ) (8) OMCel,npv = OMCel × Nel × ∑ ⎛ 1+r ⎞
z=1 ⎝ ⎠ (21)
Cf (t ) = Pf × fc (t ) (9)
_ el
1 + β ⎞n
8760 RCel, npv = RCel × Nel × ⎛
FCdg = ∑ Cf (t ) ⎝1 + r ⎠ (22)
t=1 (10)
where αel is the electrolyser price, Nel is the number of Electrolysers. n_el
where Adg and Bdg are fuel intercept and fuel slope coefficients. These denotes the lifespan of theelectrolyser (here 10 years). OMCel and RCel
coefficients have been set to 0.2461 and 0.08145 l/kWh, respectively are the operation and maintenance cost and replacement cost of an
(Skarstein & Ulhen, 1989). electrolyser, respectively.

312
M. Jamshidi, A. Askarzadeh Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 310–320

2.6. Hydrogen tank equations electrify the demand in hours where there is sudden change in load
demand or solar radiation. Indeed, OR is taken into account to increase
NPC of the hydrogen tank (NPCht) is calculated by using IC and OMC the system reliability. In this paper, to consider OR, it is assumed that at
of the hydrogen tank (ICht and OMCht,npv) as follows: each hour the load demand increases 10% and solar radiation decreases
NPCht = ICht + OMCht , npv 25%. For instance, if the load is 80 kW and the PV power is 20 kW, this
(23)
means that the OR should be 8 kW + 5 kW = 13 kW. As a results, the
where hybrid system must generate 80 kW for load demand and 13 kW for OR.
ICht = αht × Nht (24)
2.10. Objective functions and constraints
N
1+β z
OMCht ,npv = OMCht × Nht × ∑ (
1+r
) 2.10.1. Objective functions
z=1 (25)
The objective functions of the sizing problem are the minimization
where αht is the hydrogen tank price, Nht is the number of hydrogen of the TNPC and LPSP. In this optimization problem, the number of PVs,
tank and OMCht is the operation and maintenance cost of hydrogen DGs, FCs, electrolysers and hydrogen tanks (Npv, Ndg, Nfc, Nel and Nht)
tank. are the decision variables. The objective functions are formulated by
Eqs. (33) and (34), respectively.
2.7. Emission cost
Min. TNPC (Npv , Ndg , Nfc , Nel , Nht ) = NPC pv + NPC + NPCinv + NPCfc
dg
Among the hybrid system components, the DG produces a sig- + NPCel + NPCht + PC (33)
nificant amount of CO2 gas. Hence, a function for CO2 emission is
8760
considered and included in the cost function. This function can be de- ∑t = 1 LPS (t )
fined as follows (Sawle, Gupta, & Bohre, 2018b): Min. LPSP (Npv , Ndg , Nfc , Nel , Nht ) = 8760
∑t = 1 PL (t ) (34)
PC = CO2w × CO2T (26)
where LPS is the loss of power supply.
where
CC × EDG 2.10.2. Constraints
CO2w = The constraints related to the system components are defined as
1016.04 (27)
follows:
PTRC
CO2T = × 1016.04 0 ≤ Npv ≤Npv, max (35)
CC (28)
where PC is the emission cost, EDG is the generation energy by DG, CC is 0 ≤ Ndg ≤Ndg, max (36)
the carbon content (0.6078 kg/kWh), CO2w is the carbon weight in ton,
0 ≤ Nfc ≤Nfc, max (37)
CO2T is the carbon tax ($/ton) and PTRC is the price of the tradable
renewable energy certificate (0.05 $/kWh) (Gupta, Kumar, & Agnihotri, 0 ≤ Nel ≤Nel, max (38)
2011).
0 ≤ Nht ≤Nht , max (39)
2.8. Uncertainty
2.11. Energy management
2.8.1. Load uncertainty
Although load demand and solar radiation are forecasted, there are At each hour, the capacity of the hybrid system is the summation of
deviations from the forecasted values (due to uncertainty). To simulate PV power obtained by Eq. (1), rated power of DG system and rated
these deviations close to actual values, the method introduced in (Li, power of FC system with respect to the amount of stored hydrogen. To
Song, & Han, 2008) has been utilized. Based on this method, to model supply the demand, the output power of PV system is used and if there
the uncertainty of the load, the following equations are used: is deficit power, FC system is run to satisfy the remaining load. If the
PLun = dPL × n1 + PL (29) load demand is not completely met, DG system is turned on. After this
step, if the load is not entirely met, there will be unmet load. According
dPL = 0.6 × PL (30) to the amount of the produced power and load demand, one of the
following states (A or B) may occur. The steps of the energy manage-
where dPL is the deviation of the load, PL_un is the load demandconsi-
ment process can be explained in details as follows:
dering the uncertainty and n1 is defined by a standard normal dis-
A. If ηinv × Ppv (t ) ≥ PL (t ) , then electrical load is entirely supplied
tribution function.
and there will be excess power. The excess power produced by PV
system (PEx) is injected to the electrolyser for hydrogen production. The
2.8.2. Solar power uncertainty
power injected to the electrolyser can be described as follows:
To consider the uncertainty of the PV power, the following ex-
pressions are taken into account (Li et al., 2008): PEx (t ) = ηinv × Ppv (t ) − PL (t ) (40)
Ppvun = dPpv × n2 + Ppv (31) where ηinv is the inverter efficiency and PL denotes the load demand.
In this case, if PEx is more than the rated power of the electrolyser
dPpv = 0.7 × Ppv (32) (Peln), then PEx (t ) = Peln and the excess power is wasted in a dump load.
Since the power injected to the electrolyser cannot exceed the elec-
where dPpv dPL is the deviation of the PV power, Ppv_un Ppv _ un is the PV
trolyser rated power, a dump load is considered in the hybrid system.
power considering the uncertainty and n2 is produced by a standard
The hydrogen produced by the electrolyser is stored in hydrogen
normal distribution function.
tanks. The stored H2 (kg) can be obtained as follows (Hakimi &
Moghaddas-Tafreshi, 2009):
2.9. Operating reserve
PEx (t − 1)
Wht (t ) = Wht (t − 1)+
In the hybrid system, OR is defined by a safety margin that helps to 41.97 (41)

313
M. Jamshidi, A. Askarzadeh
where Wht(t) and Wht(t - 1) are the amount of hydrogen stored in the
tanks at hours t and t - 1, respectively. It must be mentioned that the
amount of the stored hydrogen cannot exceed the capacity of the hy-
drogen tanks.
B. If ηinv × Ppv (t ) < PL (t ) , then two states (B.1. and B.2.) may
happen.
At first, the deficit power (Pd) is supplied by use of FC system. In this
case, the deficit power is calculated by Eq. (42).
Pd (t ) = PL (t ) − ηinv × Ppv (t ) (42)
The required H2 (RH2) for meeting all the deficit power is calculated
as follows (Hakimi & Moghaddas-Tafreshi, 2009):
Pd (t )
ηinv
RH2 =
ηfc × 37.8 (43)
where ηfc is FC efficiency.
B.1. If RH2 ≤ Wht (t), the required hydrogen is less than the stored
hydrogen. As a result, the power supplied by FC is obtained by Eq. (44)
and the remained H2 in hydrogen tanks is calculated by Eq. (45).
Pd (t )
Pfc (t ) =
ηinv (44)
Wht (t ) = Wht (t − 1) − RH2 (45)
B.1.1. Since FC system cannot produce electricity more than its
rated power, if Pfc (t ) > Pfcn , then Pfc (t ) = Pfcn . The required H2 is
obtained by Eq. (46) and the amount of hydrogen in the tanks is up-
dated by Eq. (45).
Pfcn
RH2 =
ηfc × 37.8 (46)
To entirely supply the load, DG system should be run. The required
power met by the DG system is calculated by Eq. (47).
Pdg (t ) = Pd (t ) − ηinv × Pfc (t ) (47)
Since DG system cannot generate electricity more than its rated
power, if Pdg (t ) > Pdgn , then Pdg (t ) = Pdgn and the loss of power supply
is calculated as follows:
LPS (t ) = PL (t ) − ηinv × Ppv (t ) − ηinv × Pfc (t ) − Pdgn (48)
B.2. If RH2 > Wht (t), the required hydrogen is more than the stored
hydrogen. Hence, the stored hydrogen is entirely utilized to produce
electricity. In this case, the generated power of the FC system is ob-
tained by Eq. (49) and Wht (t) is set to 0.
Pfc (t ) = Wht (t ) × ηfc × 37.8 (49)
As before, if Pfc (t ) > Pfcn , then Pfc (t ) = Pfcn . To calculate the re-
quired H2, Eq. (46) is used and then, Eq. (45) is applied to find the
amount of stored hydrogen.
To entirely meet the load, DG system should be run. The required
power met by the DG system is calculated by Eq. (47). As before, if
Pdg (t ) > Pdgn , then Pdg (t ) = Pdgn and the value of LPS is calculated by
Eq. (48). A brief operation of the energy management process has been
shown in Fig. 1.
3. Multi-objective optimization algorithm
In (Askarzadeh, 2016b), in order to solve engineering optimization
problems a meta-heuristic algorithm was developed that is based on the
intelligent behaviour of crows. In recent years, the efficiency of CSA has
increased the attention to utilize this optimizer for solving complex
optimization problems. In this study, the following steps are considered
for implementation of MO-CSA for solving the sizing problem.
Step 1: Parameters adjustment
The adjustable parameters of MO-CSA (flock size (Nc)), flight length
314
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 310–320
(fl), awareness probability (AP) and maximum number of iterations
(itermax) should be tuned.
Step 2: Initialization of the position and memory of crows
An initial population of crows in the search space is randomly va-
lued. Position of each crow is indicated by a vector, x = [Npv, Ndg, Nfc,
Nel, Nht] where Npv, Ndg, Nfc, Nel and Nht are the number of PVs, DGs,
FCs, electrolysers and hydrogen tanks, respectively. At the first itera-
tion, the initial position of the crows is assumed to be their initial
memory.
Step 3: Calculation of the objective functions
The values of objective functions (cost and LPSP) are obtained for
each crow.
Step 4: Initialization of external archive (EA)
At the first iteration, non-dominated solutions among memory so-
lutions are saved in an EA.
Step 5: Assignment of new positions
At iteration k, crow i (i = 1,2,…,Nc) randomly chooses one of the
other crows (crow j) and follows it to discover its hiding place. Hence,
crow i goes to a new position as follows:
x i, k + ri × fli, k × (m j, k − x i, k ) r j ≥ AP j, k
x i, k + 1 = ⎧
⎨ a random position otherwise (50)
⎩
where fl , m and AP are flight length of crow i, the best experience
i,k j,k j,k
of crow j and awareness probability of corw j at iteration k, respec-
tively. r is a random number with uniform distribution from [0 1].
Step 6: Checking feasibility of new positions
At this step, if the new position of a crow is feasible, the crow up-
dates its position.
Step 7: Computation of the objective functions for new positions
The values of cost and LPSP are computed for the new position of
each crow.
Step 8: Updating memory of crows
If the new position of a crow is better than its memory solution or
both are non-dominated, then the memory is updated by the new po-
sition.
Step 9: Updating EA
Non-dominated solutions among the solutions of current EA and
memory solutions are found and stored in EA.
Step 10: Checking stopping criterion
Stopping criterion of MO-CSA is to reach to itermax. When the
stopping criterion is met, solutions stored in EA are reported as optimal
solutions. Otherwise, steps 5–9 are repeated.
4. Results and discussions
Fig. 2 shows the schematic of the PV/DG/FC system. This hybrid
system is optimally sized to electrify an off-grid application in the south
of Iran, Kerman. The load profile and solar radiation, during the year,
(8760 h), have been represented in Fig. 3. The parameters used in this
study are listed in Tables 1 and 2. The optimization problem has been
coded in MATLAB software. For optimal sizing of the hybrid system,
MO-CSA is run 10 times and the non-dominated solutions are demon-
strated as Pareto front. The parameter setting of MO-CSA is Nc = 20,
itermax = 2000, fl = 1 and AP = 0.2. These parameters have been tuned
by trial and error and no attempt has made to optimize them.
4.1. Multi-objective optimization of PV/DG and PV/DG/FC systems
In the first scenario, the problem has been solved with and without
considering energy storage system. In this case, the impact of OR, un-
certainties and CO2 emission are not included in the sizing problem.
Fig. 4 depicts Pareto front of the sizing problem with and without
considering FC. This figure shows the TNPC of the system at various
LPSP levels. In multi-objective optimization, the designer should select
one of the solutions according to his/ her preferences. It is obvious that
M. Jamshidi, A. Askarzadeh Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 310–320

Fig. 1. Flowchart of the energy management system (a brief description).

Fig. 2. Schematic of the PV/DG/FC system.

315
M. Jamshidi, A. Askarzadeh Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 310–320

Fig. 3. (a) Load demand (kW) and (b) solar radiation (W/m2).

Table 1 Table 2
Parameters used in this study. Parameters of the storage system used in this study.
Economical parameters FC lifespan 5 years
Project lifetime 20 years ηfc 50%
β 4% Rated power 2 kW
E 9% αfc 3000 $/kW
r 10% OMCfc 0.02×αfc
RCfc 2500 $/kW
PV parameters
PV lifespan 20 years Electrolyser parameters
Prs 0.260 kW Electrolyser lifespan 15 years
Rsrs 1000 W/m2 Rated power 2 kW
Rcr 150 W/m2 αel 2000 $/kW
αpv 468 $/panel OMCel 20 $
OMCpv 0.02×αpv RCel 1500 $/kW

Inverter parameters Hydrogen tank parameters

Inverter lifespan 10 years Hydrogen tank lifespan 20 years
ηinv 90 % Rated capacity 6 Kg
αinv 100 $/kW αht 660 $/Kg
OMCht 0.02×αht
DG parameters
DG lifespan 15,000 h
Rated power 1.8 k W
αdg 550 $ details of non-dominated solutions at LPSP 0% and 10%. It is observed
OMCdg 0.08 $/kWh that at LPSP = 0, TNPC of the optimized PV/DG system is 1.241 × 106
RCdg 550 $ $. This value has been obtained with respect to 239 PV panels and 31
Pf 1.18 $/l
diesel generators. At LPSP = 0, the rated power of PV and diesel gen-
erator systems is 62.14 kW and 55.8 kW, respectively. For the optimized
by decrease of the LPSP value, the TNPC of the system increases. This is PV/DG/FC system, at LPSP = 0, the TNPC is obtained 1.201 × 106 $
due to the conflict between reliability and cost. Comparison of the and the optimal number of PV panels, diesel generators, fuel cells,
Pareto fronts reveals that by using storage system, the cost of the hybrid electrolysers and hydrogen tanks is 443, 30, 7, 26 and 4, respectively. It
system decreases. Indeed, at a same LPSP value, the cost of PV/DG/FC can be drawn that if the hybrid system is optimally sized, using FC
system is less than the cost of PV/DG system. Figs. 5 and 6 indicate the system leads to decreasing total cost.
Pareto set obtained by MO-CSA for PV/DG and PV/DG/FC systems,
respectively. In the Pareto set of PV/DG/FC system, only the number of
PV panels, DGs and FCs has been shown. Tables 3 and 4 represent the

316
M. Jamshidi, A. Askarzadeh Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 310–320

Fig. 4. Comparison of Pareto fronts with and without considering FC system.

Fig. 5. Pareto set of the sizing problem without considering storage system.

Fig. 6. Pareto set of the sizing problem with considering storage system.

Table 3 4.2. Multi-objective optimization of PV/DG/FC system with respect to cost

Details of two non-dominated solutions of PV/DG system without considering of storage system
operating reserve, uncertainty and emission.
LPSP (%) TNPC ($) Npv Ndg To investigate the impact of the cost of FC equipments (FC, elec-
trolyser and hydrogen tank) on the sizing problem, the cost of the FC
0 1.241 × 106 239 31 equipments is decreased 30, 40 and 50 percent and the Pareto fronts are
10 1.033 × 106 369 13
plotted. Fig. 7 shows the impact of the FC system equipments cost on
the Pareto front. According to the results, it can be concluded that the
cost of FC equipments has a significant impact on the TNPC and Pareto
Table 4
Details of two non-dominated solutions of PV/DG/FC system without con- fronts. If the cost of FC equipments at LPSP = 0 decreases 30, 40 and
sidering operating reserve, uncertainty and emission. 50%, consequently, the system TNPC decreases 9.9, 14.5 and 19%,
respectively. Table 5 represents details of non-dominated solutions at
LPSP (%) TNPC ($) Npv Ndg Nfc Nel Nht
LPSP 0% and 10%.
0 1.201 × 106 443 30 7 26 4
10 9.931 × 105 607 5 11 37 8

317
M. Jamshidi, A. Askarzadeh Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 310–320

Fig. 7. The impact of the FC system equipments cost on the Pareto front.

Table 5 Table 6
Details of two non-dominated solutions of PV/DG/FC system with respect to the Details of two non-dominated solutions of PV/DG/FC system with respect to
cost of storage system. increase of fuel price.
LPSP (%) TNPC ($) Npv Ndg Nfc Nel Nht LPSP (%) TNPC ($) Npv Ndg Nfc Nel Nht

30% reduction 20% increase in fuel price

0 1.082 × 106 624 30 15 45 12 0 1.282 × 106 619 30 13 41 7
10 8.855 × 105 605 4 13 41 21 10 1.076 × 106 474 8 11 27 2

40% reduction 30% increase in fuel price

0 1.027 × 106 632 30 15 45 10 0 1.313 × 106 563 30 15 44 8
10 8.487 × 105 543 5 12 45 23 10 1.083 × 106 736 3 13 48 5

50% reduction 40% increase in fuel price

0 9.731 × 105 622 30 15 46 15 0 1.339 × 106 670 30 15 45 10
10 7.788 × 105 594 5 14 43 5 10 1.098 × 106 722 3 16 44 9

4.3. Multi-objective optimization of PV/DG/FC system with respect to fuel
price
In this scenario, the impact of increasing 20, 30 and 40% of DG fuel
price is investigated on the Pareto front. Based on Fig. 8, it is observed
that at LPSP = 0, increase of 20, 30 and 40% of fuel price leads to
increasing 6.7, 9.3 and 11.5% in TNPC value, respectively. Table 6
represents details of non-dominated solutions at LPSP 0% and 10%.
4.4. Multi-objective optimization of PV/DG/FC system with respect to the
impact of operating reserve and uncertainties
4.4.1. PV/DG/FC system with uncertainties of load demand and solar
radiation
Since during the year, the load demand and solar radiation are
uncertain, their uncertainties are taken into account in the sizing pro-
blem. Based on Fig. 9, it is observed that at a same LPSP value when
uncertainties are included, the cost of PV/DG/FC system increases.
Table 7 represents details of two non-dominated solutions at LPSP 0%
and 10%. Comparison of Tables 4 and 7 reveals that when solar power
uncertainty is considered, the number of PV panels decreases.
4.4.2. PV/DG/FC system with operating reserve and uncertainty
Fig. 10 shows Pareto fronts obtained by MO-CSA when OR is in-
cluded in the sizing problem. It is seen that when OR is considered, the
cost of the hybrid system significantly increases. It originates from this
fact that OR helps the hybrid system to compensate the deficit power
which may happen due to solar radiation decrease or load demand
increase. In this case, the optimizer attempts to increase the system size
to supply the demanded power at deficit conditions. Table 8 represents

Fig. 8. The impact of increase of fuel price on the Pareto front.

318
M. Jamshidi, A. Askarzadeh Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 310–320

Fig. 9. The impact of the uncertainties on the Pareto fronts.

Table 7 Table 8
Details of some non-dominated solutions of PV/DG/FC system with respect to Details of some non-dominated solutions of PV/DG/FC system with respect to
uncertainty. uncertainty and operating reserve.
LPSP (%) TNPC ($) Npv Ndg Nfc Nel Nht LPSP (%) TNPC ($) Npv Ndg Nfc Nel Nht

0 1.218 × 106 427 33 6 24 5 0 1.462 × 106 277 43 0 0 0

10 9.997 × 105 300 11 3 18 4 10 1.219 × 106 531 11 5 27 13

details of some non-dominated solutions at LPSP 0% and 10%. It can be 5. Conclusion

drawn that the impact of OR on Pareto front is more than the impact of
solar and load uncertainties.
4.5. Multi-objective optimization of PV/DG/FC system with respect to the
impact of CO2 emission
In order to study the impact of emission on the sizing problem, this
scenario has been conducted. Fig. 11 shows the Pareto fronts obtained
by MO-CSA in four states: (1) in the presence of emission when there
are no OR and uncertainty, (2) in the presence of emission when OR
and uncertainties are considered, (3) in the absence of emission when
there are no OR and uncertainty and (4) in the absence of emission
when OR and uncertainties are considered. It is observed that when
emission is taken into account, the cost of the system will increase. In
this case, the optimizer will provide a balance between emission cost
(namely, using diesel generator) and the cost of using other energy
sources. In Fig. 11, the Pareto front which is at the top of the other ones,
is close to the Pareto front of the hybrid system in real conditions.
Optimal sizing of hybrid energy systems is one of the most chal-
lenging problems of power system. In this paper, multi-objective opti-
mization of a hybrid system composed of photovoltaic, diesel generator
and fuel cell by crow search algorithm is the main issue. The impact of
operating reserve, emission, solar power uncertainty, load demand
uncertainty and system parameters cost has been investigated on the
Pareto front (TNPC vs LPSP). On an off-grid application, the following
results can be concluded:
• If the hybrid system is optimally sized, combination of PV panels,
diesel generator and fuel cell leads to having a cost-effective and
reliable energy system. Indeed, by considering fuel cell/electro-
lyser/hydrogen tank in the hybrid energy system, the total cost will
decrease.
• Operating reserve considerably affects the system cost. Indeed, in-
clusion of the operating reserve will increase the system size.
Investigations show that the impact of operating reserve is more
than the impact of solar and load uncertainties on the Pareto front.
• Fuel cost of diesel generator is one of the most important parameters
on the Pareto front.

Fig. 10. Comparison of Pareto fronts the sizing problem with respect to operating reserve and uncertainty.

319
M. Jamshidi, A. Askarzadeh
Fig. 11. The impact of the emission on the Pareto front.
References
Abushnaf, J., & Rassau, A. (2018). Impact of energy management system on the sizing of a
grid-connected PV/Battery system. The Electricity Journal, 31, 58–66.
Ahmadi, S., & Abdi, S. (2016). Application of the Hybrid Big Bang–Big Crunch algorithm
for optimal sizing of a stand-alone hybrid PV/wind/battery systemh. Solar Energy,
134, 366–374.
Askarzadeh, A. (2016a). Electrical power generation by an optimized autonomous PV/
wind/tidal/battery system. IET Renewable Power Generation, 11(1), 152–164.
Askarzadeh, A. (2016b). A novel metaheuristic method for solving constrained en-
gineering optimization problems: Crow search algorithm. Computers and Structures,
169, 1–12.
Baghaee, H. R., Mirsalim, M., et al. (2017). Multi-objective optimal power management
and sizing of a reliable wind/PV microgrid with hydrogen energy storage using
MOPSO. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 32, 1753–1773.
Benchraa, H., Redouane, A., El Harraki, I., & El Hasnaoui, A. (2018). Techno-economic
feasibility study of a hybrid Biomass/PV/Diesel/Battery system for powering the village of
Imlil in High Atlas of Morocco. The 9th international renewable energy congress
(IREC2018).
Dufo-López, R., & Bernal-Agustín, J. L. (2008). Multi-objective design of PV– wind–
diesel– hydrogen– battery systems. Renewable Energy, 33, 2559–2572.
Fonseca, M. N., Pamplona, E. D. O., Queiroz, A. R., Mello Valerio, V. E., Aquila, G., &
Silva, S. R. (2018). Multi-objective optimization applied for designing hybrid power
generation systems in isolated networks. Solar Energy, 161, 207–219.
Ghenai, Ch., Salameh, T., & Merabet, A. (2018). Technico-economic analysis of off grid
solar PV/Fuel cell energy system for residential community in desert region.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (in press).
Gupta, S. C., Kumar, Y., & Agnihotri, G. R. (2011). Renewable energy analysis and sizing
tool. Journal of Electrical Systems, 7(2), 206–224.
Hakimi, S. M., & Moghaddas-Tafreshi, S. M. (2009). Optimal sizing of a stand-alone hy-
brid power system via particle swarm optimization for Kahnouj area in south-east of
Iran. Renewable Energy, 34, 1855–1862.
Heydari, A., & Askarzadeh, A. (2016). Optimization of a biomass-based photovoltaic
power plant for an off-grid application subject to loss of power supply probability
concept. Applied Energy, 165, 601–611.
Kamjoo, A., Maheri, A., Ghanim, A. M. D., & Putrus, A. (2016). Multi-objective design
under uncertainties of hybrid renewable energy system using NSGA-II and chance
constrained programming. Electrical Power and Energy Systems, 74, 187–194.
320
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 310–320
Lan, H., Wen, S., Hong, Y.-Y., Yu, D. C., & Zhang, L. (2015). Optimal sizing of a hybrid
PV/diesel/battery in ship power system. Applied Energy, 158(November 15), 26–34.
Li, X., Song, Y. J., & Han, S. B. (2008). Frequency control in micro-grid power system
combined with electrolyzer system and fuzzy PI controller. Journal of Power Sources,
180, 468–475.
Majidi, M., Nojavan, S., Esfetanaj, N. N., Najafi-Ghalelou, A., & Zare, K. (2017). A multi-
objective model for optimal operation of a battery/PV/fuel cell/grid hybrid energy
system using weighted sum technique and fuzzy satisfying approach considering
responsible load management. Solar Energy, 144, 79–89.
Movahediyan, Z., & Askarzadeh, A. (2018). Multi-objective optimization framework of a
photovoltaic-diesel generator hybrid energy system considering operating reserve.
Sustainable Cities and Society, 41, 1–12.
Ramli, M. A. M., Bouchekara, H. R. E. H., & Alghamdi, A. S. (2018). Optimal Sizing of PV/
wind/diesel hybrid microgrid system using multi-objective self-adaptive differential
evolution algorithm. Renewable Energy, 121, 400–411.
Roumila, Z., Rekioua, D., & Rekioua, T. (2017). Energy management based fuzzy logic
controller of hybrid system wind/photovoltaic/diesel with storage battery.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 42(30), 19525–19535.
Sanajaoba, S., & Fernandez, E. (2016). Maiden application of cuckoo search algorithm for
optimal sizing of a remote hybrid renewable energy system. Renewable Energy, 96,
1–10.
Sawle, Y., Gupta, S. C., & Bohre, A. K. (2018a). Socio-techno-economic design of hybrid
renewable energy system using optimization techniques. Renewable Energy, 119,
459–472.
Sawle, Y., Gupta, S. C., & Bohre, A. K. (2018b). A novel methodology for scrutiny of
autonomous hybrid renewable energy system. International Journal of Energy
Research, 42, 570–586.
Singh, S., Singh, A. K., & Chanana, S. (2012). Operation and control of a hybrid photovoltaic-
diesel-fuel cell system connected to micro-grid. 2012 IEEE Fifth Power India Conference
19-22 Dec.
Skarstein, O., & Ulhen, K. (1989). Design considerations with respect to long-term diesel
saving in wind/diesel plants. Wind Energy, 13(2), 72–87.
Yahiaoui, A., Fodhil, F., Benmansour, k., Tadjine, M., & Cheggaga, N. (2017). Grey wolf
optimizer for optimal design of hybrid renewable energy system PV-Diesel Generator-
Battery: Application to the case of Djanet city of Algeria. Solar Energy, 158, 941–951.
Zhang, L., Hu, X., Wang, Z., Sun, F., Deng, J., & Dorrell, D. G. (2018). Multi-objective
optimal sizing of hybrid energy storage system for electric vehicles. IEEE Transactions
on Vehicular Technology, 67(2), 1027–1035.