WK,QWHUQDWLRQDO&RQIHUHQFHRQ5HQHZDEOH(QHUJ\5HVHDUFKDQG$SSOLFDWLRQV
From Solar Microgrid Simulation to Field
Deployment: Accuracy and Uncertainties
Fabien Chidanand Robert, Sundararaman Gopalan
Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering,
Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amritapuri, India,
chidanand@am.amrita.edu, sundar@am.amrita.edu
Abstract— Economical, stand-alone, solar microgrids
can be quickly implemented in most un-electrified regions of
the world. Solar resource maps developed by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), together
with HOMER Pro software, have been widely used to
determine the optimal design of microgrids. Repercussions
of imprecise predictions of solar resources and electrical
power generation lead to an increased likelihood of energy
shortage in a stand-alone microgrid, or increases overall
project costs. Actual solar energy productions of two sites in
Kerala, India, were compared with solar electricity
generation, predicted by the HOMER Pro tool. For both test
sites, the results showed that the simulated, solar production
was within 8.1% of the actual annual production. However,
monthly variations in solar production led to unanticipated
energy shortages in the simulated microgrids. These findings
reaffirm the inexorable need of the following actions for
cost-effective design of microgrids: a) systematic analysis of
reliability of electrical supply, and b) deployment of schemes
for demand response and flexible load. Statistical analysis of
temporal variation of solar irradiance in the United States
were used to inform recommendations for stand-alone
microgrid design.
Keywords—microgrid, solar, model, resource, accuracy,
HOMER, design.
I. INTRODUCTION
Access to reliable electrical energy is crucial for material
comfort and reduced physical and strenuous work. However,
one person out of five worldwide remains without access to
electricity. Stand-alone microgrids are quick & easy-to-
install solutions to light up rural areas and have recently
become affordable. Stand-alone solar microgrids are
desirable as they require minimal maintenance and technical
expertise [1]. To support their efficient implementation,
several design techniques have been developed. Due to the
complexity of the problem involving numerous parameters,
many researchers [2-7] have used HOMER Pro software and
its inbuilt models. HOMER Pro is a simulation software that
can simulate the design of microgrids, either stand-alone, or
connected to the main electrical power grid. HOMER Pro
application can compare several different technologies and
recommend an optimal cost effective design, for a given load
pattern and set of available renewable energy resources.
Alternative simulation software (SAM, PVWatts, PVsyst,
and PV*SOL), which focus only on solar Photo-voltaic
power generation, were found to estimate the annual solar
production within 8% of the real solar electricity production
[8]. However, there have not been any published reports on
the accuracy of HOMER Pro estimations for solar electricity
production and optimal microgrid design. The accuracy of
design is important not only in term of cost but also in term
of meeting the demand and avoiding energy shortage (power
interruptions). Energy shortage is said to have occurred in a
,&5(5$
XXX-
‹,(((
3DULV)5$1&(2FW
stand-alone microgrid when solar resources are lacking and
the load cannot be fully met. There are numerous sources of
inaccuracy: losses in cabling, dust on solar panels, variation
in load demands, variations in weather and solar irradiance,
derating of solar cells, shading or even a physical damage on
a solar cell. Inaccuracies add up and produce imprecisions in
the recommended microgrid design. This leads either to
additional project costs or energy shortage during the
operation phase (see Fig. 1).
Uncertainty in solar resources
Inaccuracies in solar PV models and
internal losses
Imprecisions in microgrid design
x Increased project costs or
x Energy shortage during operation
Fig 1. Uncertainties and consequences for users
Solar resources are critical inputs in solar microgrid
design. At present, satellite data are used to provide solar
resource maps all over the world. The common practice is to
design a microgrid based on the average solar irradiance that
can be expected during any hour of the year (without
considering that solar radiations vary over the years).
HOMER Pro software can automatically download solar
resources from NREL or from the NASA. Both NREL and
NASA use different models.
A solar map of India has been developed by NREL in
cooperation with government of India's Ministry of New and
Renewable Energy. It provides hourly irradiance data, for
every 10 km2 of land area. The State University of New
York (SUNY) model provided by NREL was developed
using the semi-empirical satellite model developed by Perez
et al. [9], as part of the India-U.S. Energy Dialogue. The
NREL database was calculated using data from 2002 to 2014
and is accessible online, via the following link:
https://www.nrel.gov/rredc/solar_resource.html.
Surface meteorology and Solar Energy (SSE) data are
provided by the NASA Science Mission Directorate's
satellite and re-analysis research programs. Release 8.0 uses
data from 1983 to 2013. The solar irradiance data obtained
have been validated, based on recommendations from the
NASA’s partners, in the energy industry. Solar data are
available via the web portal: (https://power.larc.nasa.gov/):
it is supported by the NASA Langley Research Center
(LaRC) POWER Project [10].
The first aim of this paper is to evaluate the accuracy of
solar electricity generation calculated by HOMER Pro using

WK,QWHUQDWLRQDO&RQIHUHQFHRQ5HQHZDEOH(QHUJ\5HVHDUFKDQG$SSOLFDWLRQV
NREL and NASA solar irradiance data sets. The second aim
is to test the impact of solar electricity generation error, on
recommended microgrid designs and the likelihood of
energy shortage for the microgrid users. The actual
electricity output of solar panels and the output calculated by
simulation were compared for a year, at two locations:
Amritapuri and Cochin, in Kerala, a southwestern state of
India. The simulated outputs were calculated using the
technical characteristics of solar panels and their associated,
realistic derating factors together with NREL and NASA
solar irradiance data. Stand-alone microgrids were designed
by HOMER Pro to provide electrical power to a load
representing an Indian village of 100 households. Three sets
of simulation were performed with the following parameters:
1) NREL solar irradiance data,
2) NASA solar irradiance data, and
3) Actual solar production data being directly fed as
inputs to the simulation software.
The monthly electrical production of the simulated,
stand-alone microgrids were compared using the Normalized
Root Mean Square Error (NRMSE). The recommended
microgrid designs were compared in terms of total project
cost, number of solar panels and number of batteries. The
expected distributions of energy shortage in a year were also
computed and compared. The variability of solar irradiance,
at a given period, for different years is also discussed.
Consequences of such variations on the likelihood of energy
shortage in a microgrid are detailed. Finally microgrid design
recommendations are proposed.
II. METHOD AND ASUMPTIONS
A. Method
Both NREL and NASA datasets were used as inputs to
HOMER Pro software to compare the expected output of
solar panels with the actual solar production from October
2016 to September 2017, for two locations (see Fig. 2). A
lack of electricity generation compared to the expected value
would result in energy shortage in the microgrid. The
Hourly Solar Irradiance
from NREL
Model of Solar Panel
and Derating Factors
Hourly Solar Irradiance
from NASA
Fig. 2. Comparison of expected electricity generation vs. actual generation.
Hourly Solar
Irradiance from: Model of
- NREL Solar Panel Model of
- NASA - Battery
- Inverter
- Derating Factors
- Load
Actual Hourly Solar Production
Fig. 3. Comparison of microgrid designs obtained using different input data
,&5(5$
3DULV)5$1&(2FW
resulting discomfort experienced by users is modeled in the
literature as a second order polynomial function [11]. Thus,
the monthly average electrical productions from solar panels
were compared using the NRMSE, which assigns more
weight to larger deviations. The annual average solar
production is also an important indicator when microgrids
are connected with the main grid, or users are able to adjust
their demands for electricity. Therefore, the annual average
predictions were compared with the actual production
throughout the year.
Stand-alone microgrid design simulations were
performed to evaluate the impact of a mismatch between
actual solar production and simulated (expected) production.
A project developer would either use NREL or NASA data
set and design a microgrid according to the simulation output
provided by HOMER Pro. NREL and NASA irradiance data
were fed into HOMER Pro together with the technical
characteristics of solar panels, batteries and inverters. The
optimal designs were calculated by the software in both cases
for the two locations. A third set of simulations was
performed where the actual solar electricity generated from
the two test-sites was directly fed as inputs to the software.
In the last case, the software scaled the actual solar
production up or down and dimensioned the battery bank to
satisfy the electricity demand. The factors of uncertainty
responsible for the difference in microgrid design
recommendations are:
1) the difference between actual solar irradiance and the
expected solar irradiance from NREL and NASA, and
2) the imprecisions related to environmental factors such as
shading, derating factors of equipment as well as electrical
losses in the installation.
The designs recommended by the software in each of the
three cases, the total project cost, as well as the distribution
of energy shortage throughout the year were compared for
the two locations (see Fig. 3).
Comparison: Monthly Mean
Simulated Solar
HOMER Pro Electricity Generation
Simulations
Actual Solar Electricity
Generation
Comparison: Design, Cost, and
Distribution of Energy Shortage
Recommended
HOMER Pro
Microgrid Designs
Simulations

WK,QWHUQDWLRQDO&RQIHUHQFHRQ5HQHZDEOH(QHUJ\5HVHDUFKDQG$SSOLFDWLRQV 3DULV)5$1&(2FW

B. Assumption
Several parameters have to be estimated in order to
simulate solar production. HOMER Pro software used GPS
coordinates of the microgrid locations to evaluate precisely
the position of the sun in the sky and the angle of incidence
of the radiations on the solar panel. The inclination of solar
panels was chosen equal to the latitude of the sites. Solar
panels were modeled by their efficiency, temperature
coefficient, and nominal operating cell temperature. A single
derating factor can be applied to account for cabling and
dusting losses, as well as Maximum Power Point Tracking
(MPPT) tracking errors [12]. The derating factor due to
temperature was computed hourly by HOMER Pro, using
hourly temperature data at the location, and the temperature
coefficient of the solar panel. The temperature data were
obtained from the NASA database. The characteristics of the
chosen solar panels are summed up in Table I.
It was assumed for the microgrid simulations that a
village with 100 households has to be electrified. The load
profile used is shown in Fig. 4. Such load profile corresponds
to a village where approximately 20% of its electricity is
consumed by home businesses, enterprises or schools [13].
80% is consumed by households with peak consumption in
the morning and early at night. It is not cost-effective to
design a stand-alone microgrid that meets 100% of the
demand [14]. Therefore, simulation designs were computed
with an allowed 3% of energy shortage in a year (compared
to the demand). Lead-acid batteries were used for back-up as
they are standard in stand-alone microgrids. Their technical
characteristics are shown in Table II. The lifetime is defined
as the maximal length of time or maximum energy
throughput for a battery. As soon as one of these values is
reached during a simulation, the battery bank is replaced by
the software. The cost of solar panels, inverters, and batteries
are the benchmark cost provided by the government of India
[15]. The actual solar production of the two, 31.5 kW solar
installations were measured using a commercial smart meter
placed just before the inverter, on the DC cables coming
from the solar panels. For the microgrid simulations, the
inverter and rectifier were modeled as 95% efficient.
The Net Present Cost represents the total cost of the
microgrid project over its chosen lifetime, which is assumed
to be 25 years: the lifetime of the solar panels. In this
simulation, the electrification project was assumed to benefit
from a loan free of interest to cover the initial investment
(i.e. the real discount rate was assumed to be zero).
III. RESULTS
The electricity generation per month obtained from
simulations was compared with the actual generated units of
electricity for the two test-sites, Amritapuri and Cochin (see
Fig. 5). As observed in Fig. 5, the electricity generation
expected from simulations is often above the actual
production. The annual average generation was
overestimated by 8.1% in three cases and underestimated by
0.3% in the fourth case. These results are satisfying and
within the accuracy range of other professional software :
SAM, PVWatts, PVsyst, and PV*SOL [8]. Nevertheless,
when the simulated monthly solar electricity generations
were compared with the actual production, the NRMSE was
found to vary from 12% to 20% (see Table III). The results
indicate unexpected variations between the simulated
monthly production and actual production of electricity.
Such differences may not have much significance in grid tied
systems, while in stand-alone microgrids, they may lead to
energy excesses in some months and energy shortage in
others.
Despite anticipating higher solar production, the microgrid
designs that were calculated by the simulation software
using NREL and NASA solar irradiance had up to 29%
more solar panels and 25% more batteries than the designs
performed using the actual solar electricity generation data
(see Fig. 6). Inspite of these differences, costs for the
microgrid projects simulated with NREL and NASA data
are within 4.5% of the costs of the designs performed with
the actual solar production data. The small financial
difference can be attributed to batteries that must be
replaced, more often, in case of designs with fewer batteries.

TABLE I. SOLAR PANEL CHARACTERISTICS TABLE II. BATTERY CHARACTERISTICS

Cost (incl. Life T° Nominal Derating
Effici- inverter and - coeffi operating factor Energy Cost Lifetime Maximal Depth
ency logistic) [15] time cient. cell T° [12] Capacity of Discharge
Capital O&M
(%) Capital O&M (kWh) kWh a %
(a) N.A. (°C) (%) (€) (€/a)
(€) (€/a)
1 75 1.5 800 8 40
18.5 960 10 25 -0.39 47 10

14 TABLE III. ACTUAL ELECTRICAL PRODUCTION VS. ESTIMATED

PRODUCTION BY HOMER PRO USING SOLAR RESOURCE MAPS
Energy Consummed

12 AND MODELED SOLAR PANELS.

10
Amritapuri Cochin
8
(kWh)

6 NREL NASA NREL NASA

Annual vs. vs. vs. vs.
4 average Actual Actual Actual Actual
2 difference
0 (%) -0.3 7.6 8.1 8.1
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Hour of the day NRMSE (%) 12.5 12.7 16.0 19.8
Fig. 4. Average daily consumption pattern for the 100 household
community

,&5(5$ 
WK,QWHUQDWLRQDO&RQIHUHQFHRQ5HQHZDEOH(QHUJ\5HVHDUFKDQG$SSOLFDWLRQV 3DULV)5$1&(2FW

Average electricity generation

2.50
Actual NREL NASA Observed
Actual
NREL NASA Observed
2.00

1.50
(kW)

1.00

0.50

0.00

Septemb…

Septemb…
February

June

November
January

March

July
April
May

October
August

December

July

October
August

November
April
May
June
January

March

December
February
a b
Fig. 5. Comparison of actual solar electricity generation vs. expected generation obtained from simulation using satellite data, for 10 kWp of solar panels in
two locations: (a) Amritapuri and (b) Cochin, Kerala, India.

350 NREL
300 NREL
250 NASA NASA
200 Observed
Actual Actual
Observed
150
100 54.5 46.7
42.4 57.1
50 46.7
47.6
0
Solar panels Batteries (kWh) Total Cost (k€)
(kWp) Solar panels Batteries Total Cost (k€)
a b (kWp) (kWh)
Fig. 6. Comparison of microgrid designs recommendations from HOMER Pro using for input: 1) NREL solar irradiance data, 2) NASA irradiance data, and
3) actual solar electricity generation. Two locations: (a) Amritapuri and (b) Cochin.

In spite of anticipating more solar production than the actual microgrid was found to be 18%, when actual solar
production, the designs performed using NREL and NASA production were used in the simulation.
solar irradiance data, recommended more solar panels and It is recommended to encourage villagers to make a
batteries than the designs performed using the actual solar productive usage of electricity to revitalize rural
production data, at both the test locations. This counter development [16]. Unplanned energy shortages adversely
intuitive result can be explained by analyzing the distribution impact users who depend on electricity to generate revenue
of energy shortage during the year. Although the annual (e.g. tailors, small workshop owners). Preventive measures
average solar irradiance may be well estimated, it is not the may be taken to inform them about the expected frequency
case for the distribution of solar resources within a year. The and duration of power interruptions. Forecasting the power
monthly average energy shortage is illustrated in Fig. 7, for output [17] and resorting to demand response mechanisms or
both locations. Even though all the microgrids in this study sequential load shedding [18, 19] may protect such users
were designed with an average energy shortage of 3% per from financial losses when solar energy resources are not
year, one can observe large variations in monthly energy sufficient.
shortage values. The NRMSE measured the error for the
monthly energy shortage obtained by simulation, compared TABLE IV. DIFFERENCE IN MONTHLY ENERGY SHORTAGE
to the monthly energy shortage obtained using actual solar OBTAINED FROM DESIGNS PERFORMED USING SATELLITE
DATA VS. OBTAINED FROM DESIGNS PERFORMED USING
electricity generation data in the simulation. The NRMSE ACTUAL SOLAR PRODUCTION.
values were found to be in the range of 100% in all the four
cases (see Table IV). This confirms that the expected Amritapuri Cochin
distribution of solar irradiance during the year was
NREL NASA NREL NASA
significantly different from the actual solar irradiance. For
example, the simulations performed using NREL and NASA vs. vs. vs. vs.
solar data, anticipated an average energy shortage of 9% in Actual Actual Actual Actual
the month of June, while the energy shortage in the Normalized
102 84 130 111
RMSE (%)

,&5(5$ 
WK,QWHUQDWLRQDO&RQIHUHQFHRQ5HQHZDEOH(QHUJ\5HVHDUFKDQG$SSOLFDWLRQV 3DULV)5$1&(2FW

1
Average demand in the village: 5.7kW NREL
Average energy
shortage (kW)
0.8
NREL NASA
0.6
NASA Observed
Actual
0.4
Actual
Observed
0.2
0

Decem…
Novem…
Septe…

Decem…
Novem…
Septe…
June
February
March
January

April
May

July

October
August

June
February
January

March

July
April
May

October
August
a b
Fig. 7. Monthly energy shortage in microgrids designed, using different input data and with annual energy shortage of 3%: 1) NREL solar irradiance, 2)
NASA solar irradiance, and 3) actual solar electricity generation in a) Amritapuri, and b) Cochin, Kerala, India.

x NREL or NASA solar irradiance data minus 12.5%

IV. VARIABILITY OF SOLAR IRRADIANCE
A. Statistics
The previous results show that the difference between
expected and actual solar irradiance can lead up to 18% of
the energy demand not being met in a month (twice as much
as anticipated). The impact of weather variations on
reliability of supply in a stand-alone microgrid has recently
been studied [20]. Nevertheless, no statistical data could be
found related to the yearly variability of solar resources in
India. In the United States (US), NREL conducted a study
for the variability of total irradiance reaching a tilted surface
with an angle equal to the latitude of the concerned location
(the standard tilt angle of solar panels) [21]. Their findings
show that for the large majority of the US, the annual
average solar irradiance can be estimated within 8%, with a
confidence rule of 95% (i.e. By assuming a Gaussian
distribution for the annual total irradiance, there is a 95%
likelihood that measurements for any given year will be
within this range). Nonetheless, it is also shown that the
monthly variation in solar irradiance is much higher. In the
US, minimum solar irradiance occurs, during the months of
November to February, and is commonly 20% less than the
annual average. These four months happen to have the
highest level of variability in solar resources. Based on the
figures presented in [21], the monthly average solar
irradiance of those four months can only be estimated within
25% with a confidence rule of 95%, or within 12.5% with a
confidence rule of 67%. In other words, over several years,
5% of observations for the monthly total irradiance are
likely to be outside the +/-25% interval around the monthly
average, and 33% of the observations are likely to be
outside the +/-12.5% interval. Thus, a stand-alone microgrid
is likely to lack renewable energy supply during these
months, if it is designed according to the average irradiance
value.
B. Microgrid Design Recommendations
When designing a stand-alone microgrid, the requirements
for the reliability of electrical supply have to be well
understood. It is recommended to explore possibilities of
adjusting the demand when supply of renewable energy is
temporarily inadequate. Depending on the requirement for
the reliability of supply, the simulation design for a stand-
alone microgrid can be performed with:
x NREL or NASA solar irradiance data,
for the four months with the least irradiance on the
tilted solar panels. (67% confidence rule)
x NREL or NASA solar irradiance data minus 25%
for the four months with the least irradiance on the
tilted solar panels (95% confidence rule)
Fig. 8 presents the optimal microgrid designs obtained from
HOMER Pro simulations with NREL solar irradiance data
of Amritapuri, in the above-mentioned three cases. The first
case is identical to the case illustrated in Fig. 6a. The
examples shown in Fig. 8 were computed assuming that the
yearly variation in solar resources is similar to what is
commonly observed in the US but considering that the
month with minimal solar irradiance are different in Kerala,
India: May, June, July and August. The results show that it
costs 12% more than indicated by HOMER Pro (using
average solar irradiance values) to guarantee that energy
shortage constraints are respected with a confidence rule of
95% (light blue on Fig. 8). If the confidence rule is relaxed
to 67%, then the cost increase is 6% compared to the
original HOMER Pro design (dark blue on Fig.8).
Reduced solar resources increased the requirement in
solar panels. Nonetheless, it did not affect the recommended
number of batteries. This is because in this simulation, the
distribution of solar resources within a month remained
unchanged despite the changes in monthly average. Thus,
the reduction of solar resources was fully compensated by
additional solar panels.
350 Design performed with
NREL solar resources
300
250
173 184
200 Design performed with
163
150 NREL resources -12.5% on
100 May, June, July and
August monthly averages
50
0 Design performed with
NREL resources -25% on
May, June, July and
August montly averages
Fig. 8 Microgrid designs for different assumption of solar resources

,&5(5$ 
WK,QWHUQDWLRQDO&RQIHUHQFHRQ5HQHZDEOH(QHUJ\5HVHDUFKDQG$SSOLFDWLRQV
In reality, the distribution of solar irradiance within a
month may vary from year to year, with variable lengths of
cloudy days in a month. This phenomenon needs to be
discussed in a future finer analysis. Nevertheless, in order to
avoid unexpected energy shortage the need to consider
yearly variation in solar resources has been made obvious.
V. CONCLUSION
Generation of solar electricity was estimated by HOMER
Pro using NREL and NASA solar irradiance data sets. The
simulation results, for two locations in Kerala, India, were
compared with the actual measurements. The impacts of
errors in prediction were measured by performing microgrid
design simulations. Repercussions on hardware requirement,
total cost, and temporal distribution of energy shortage were
assessed. The results for the test-sites at Amritapuri and
Cochin in Kerala, India showed that the predicted
generation of electricity for a complete year was within 8%
of the actual solar production. The observed results are
acceptable, as they lie within the accuracy of other
specialized software [8]. However, monthly variations in
electricity generation were not captured with the same level
of accuracy. When stand-alone microgrids were designed to
power a typical village load, the NRMSE values, for the
monthly predicted occurrence of energy shortage were in the
range of 100%. Such unplanned power interruptions in
stand-alone microgrids may affect users who use electricity
for their livelihood. In the US, NREL found that the
variability of solar resources is higher during the four
months with minimal solar resources with an accuracy of
prediction of +/-25% with a confidence rule of 95%. This
finding was extrapolated to India, and the recommendation
is to avoid designing microgrids based on monthly and
yearly average solar resources. Instead, design can be done
according to the amount of solar resource that can be
guaranteed at a chosen level of confidence. Such method
will ensure that the level of energy shortage in microgrids is
acceptable.
Although microgrid modeling has gone through
impressive upgrades in the last ten years, this short study
highlights the crucial need for better knowledge of
prediction errors and accuracy of prevailing weather models
and microgrid design recommendations. Accurate short-
term weather and energy consumption forecast, as well as
demand response technics, are promising enhancements
which will foster improved usability of solar resources in
rural microgrids.
REFERENCES
[1] K. Palaniappan and R. M. Cuzner, "Educating students as a means to
help people in a low income community live in a DC microgrid
laboratory," 2017 IEEE 6th Inter. Conf. on Ren. Energy Research and
Applications (ICRERA), San Diego, CA, pp. 339-344, 2017.
[2] N. Ramchandran, R. Pai, and A. Parihar, “Feasibility assessment of
Anchor-Business-Community model for off-grid rural electrification
in India” Ren. Energy, vol. 97, pp. 197-209. 2016.
[3] W. Amutha and V. Rajini, “Cost benefit and technical analysis of
rural electrification alternatives in southern India using HOMER”.
Ren. And Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 62, pp. 236-46, 2016.
[4] R. Sen, and S. Bhattacharyya, “Off-grid electricity generation with
renewable energy technologies in India: An application of HOMER”.
Renewable Energy, vol. 62, pp. 388-98, 2014.
,&5(5$
3DULV)5$1&(2FW
[5] S. Sinha and S. Chandel, “Review of software tools for hybrid
renewable energy systems”. Renewable And Sustainable Energy
Reviews, vol. 32, pp 192-205, 2014.
[6] F.C. Robert and S. Gopalan, “Low cost, highly reliable rural
electrification through a combination of grid extension and local
renewable energy generation”,Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 42,
pp. 344-354, 2018.
[7] S. R. Alvarez, A. M. Ruiz and J. E. Oviedo, "Optimal design of a
diesel-PV-wind system with batteries and hydro pumped storage in a
Colombian community," 2017 IEEE 6th International Conference on
Renewable Energy Research and Applications (ICRERA), San Diego,
CA, 2017, pp. 234-239
[8] J. Freeman, J. Whitmore, N. Blair and A. P. Dobos, “Validation of
Multiple Tools for Flat Plate, Photovoltaic Modeling Against
Measured Data”, Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-61497, Natioanal
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), 2014.
[9] R. Perez, T. Cebecauer, M. Suri, “Semi-Empirical Satellite Models”,
Solar Resource Assessment and Forecasting (Editor Jan Kleissl),
Elsevier, 2013
[10] W. P. Stackhouse Jr , T. Zhang , D. Westberg , A. J. Barnett, T.
Bristow, B. Macpherson and J. M. Hoell, “POWER Release 8 (with
GIS Applications) Methodology (Data Parameters, Sources, &
Validation)”, 2018.
https://power.larc.nasa.gov/documents/POWER_Data_v8_methodolo
gy.pdf [accessd on July 2018]
[11] P. Samadi, A. H. Mohsenian-Rad, R. Schober, V. W. S. Wong and J.
Jatskevich, “Optimal real-time pricing algorithm based on utility
maximization for smart grid”, [First IEEE Inter. Conf. on Smart Grid
Communications, Gaithersburg, pp. 415-420, 2010].
[12] F. C. Robert, G. S. Sisodia, and S. Gopalan, “An intelligent approach
to strengthening of the rural electrical power supply using renewable
energy resources”, 2nd Inter. Conf. on Green Energy Technology
(ICGET 2017) [IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science,
83, 012005, 2017].
[13] F. C. Robert, G. S. Sisodia and S. Gopalan, "The critical role of
anchor customers in rural microgrids: Impact of load factor on energy
cost," 2017 International Conference on Computation of Power,
Energy Information and Commuincation (ICCPEIC), Melmaruvathur,
2017, pp. 398-403.
[14] M. Lee, D. Soto and V. Modi, “Cost versus reliability sizing strategy
ˆ‘” ‹•‘Žƒ–‡† ’Š‘–‘˜‘Ž–ƒ‹… ‹…”‘Ǧ‰”‹†• ‹ –Š‡ †‡˜‡Ž‘’‹‰ ™‘”Ž†dzǡ
‡‡™ƒ„Ž‡‡”‰›ǡ˜‘ŽǤ͸ͻǡ’’Ǥͳ͸ǦʹͶǡʹͲͳͶǤ
[15] Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), ”Benchmark cost
for off-grid and decentralized solar PV application programme for the
year 2017-18”, No.30/11/2012-13/NSM, 2017.
[16] R. Nair et al., "Community development and energy equality:
Experiences from micro hydro implementation in a tribal settlement
in India," [2016 IEEE Region 10 Humanitarian Technology Conf.
(R10-HTC), Agra, pp1-7, 2016].
[17] R. Nageem and R. Jayabarathi, “Predicting the Power Output of a
Grid-Connected Solar Panel Using Multi-Input Support Vector
Regression”, [Procedia Computer Science, vol. 115, pp 723-730,
2017].
[18] F.C. Robert, G. S. Sisodia, S. Gopalan, “A critical review on the
utilization of storage and demand response on the implementation of
renewable energy microgrids”, Sustainable Cities and Society, vol.
40, pp 735-745, 2018.
[19] A. Scalfati, D. Iannuzzi, M. Fantauzzi and M. Roscia, "Optimal sizing
of distributed energy resources in smart microgrids: A mixed integer
linear programming formulation," 2017 IEEE 6th International
Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications
(ICRERA), San Diego, CA, 2017, pp. 568-573.
[20] A. Abdulkarim, S. M. Abdelkader, D. J. Morrow, A. J. Falade, A.U.
Lawan, Iswadi HR, “Effect of Weather and the Hybrid Energy
Storage on the Availability of Standalone Microgrid”, International
Journal of Renewable Energy Research, Vol.6, No.1, 2016. With the
last paragraph.
[21] S. Wilcox, C. A. Gueymard, Spatial and Temporal Variability of the
Solar Resource in the United States, ASES Solar 2010, 2010,
available online:
https://www.nrel.gov/grid/solar-resource/assets/data/ases_47760_final.pdf