640
2, APRIL 2012
Optimal Sizing of Hybrid Wind/PV/Diesel Generation
in a Stand-Alone Power System Using Markov-Based
Genetic Algorithm
Ying-Yi Hong, Senior Member, IEEE, and Ruo-Chen Lian
Abstract—Owing to the Kyoto Protocol and the growing deple-
tion of natural resources, renewable energies have attracted much
attention. This paper considers 25-kW wind-turbine generator,
5-kW PV and 30-kW diesel generator as unit sizes for generation
planning in a stand-alone power system. The investment cost
(installation and unit costs) and fuel cost are minimized while re-
taining the reliability requirement and CO2 emission limit. First,
the fuzzy-c-means (FCM) is employed to cluster the operation
states for system load, wind-turbine generations (WTG), and PV
in 8760 h. Then, the Markov models for the system load, WTG,
and photovoltaic (PV) are established. The Markov models are
embedded into the genetic algorithm to determine the optimal
sizes for WTG, PV, and the diesel generator. The simulation
results reveal that computation time can be reduced greatly while
optimality can be still retained, compared with the traditional
method using chronological data.
Index Terms—Genetic algorithm (GA), Markov model, optimal
size, reliability, renewable energy.
I. INTRODUCTION
ONCENTRATIONS of greenhouse gases (COx, SOx,
C and NOx) in the atmosphere have been increasing. The
Kyoto Protocol [1] is an agreement under which industrialized
countries should reduce their collective emissions of green-
house gases in 2012 by 5.2% compared with that in 1990. In
the Copenhagen Accord, the convention agrees to reduce global
emissions so as to maintain the increase in global temperature
below 2 C [2].
Renewable energies, such as solar, wind, geothermal,
biomass, tidal, and hydropower, constitute a type of distributed
electricity resource and have recently received much attention
as alternatives for electricity generation. The use of renewable
energies can mitigate the greenhouse effects to meet the strict
requirements stated in the Kyoto Protocol. In particular, wind
and solar photovoltaic (PV) power generations play essential
roles in a grid, especially in a small isolated (stand-alone) power
Manuscript received January 22, 2011; revised March 18, 2011, September
17, 2011, and November 15, 2011; accepted November 15, 2011. Date of publi-
cation January 05, 2012; date of current version March 28, 2012. This work
was supported by the National Science Council, Taiwan, under Grants NSC
99-2632-E-033-001-MY3 and NSC 100-3113-E-007-006. Paper no. TPWRD-
00060-2011.
The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Chung Yuan
Christian University (CYCU), Chung Li 320, Taiwan (e-mail: yyhong@dec.ee.
cycu.edu.tw; smallsun8@hotmail.com).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRD.2011.2177102
0885-8977/$31.00 © 2012 IEEE
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 27, NO.
system and microgrid. A small stand-alone power system can
be found on offshore islands. Renewable energies will help
reduce COx, SOx, and NOx emissions. This paper addresses
the generation expansion planning for small stand-alone power
systems.
There are some studies on generation expansion planning for
small stand-alone power systems. These studies can be divided
into three main categories, namely, reliability analysis [3]–[6];
optimization [7], [8]; and enumeration [9]–[11], as discussed in
the following text.
Reliability analyses generally involve loss of load proba-
bility (LOLP) or loss of power-supply probability (LPSP),
which implies the probability for imbalance between electricity
supply and load. Billinton utilized renewable energy in capacity
planning through cost and LOLP that recognized the highly
erratic nature of renewable energy sources while maintaining
the chronology and interdependence of their inherent random
variables [3]. Karki presented an approach to capacity planning
of small isolated systems, in which the conventional proba-
bilistic and the well-being indices were used jointly [4]. Ai
proposed a complete set of match calculation methods for the
optimum sizing of the wind/PV hybrid system and the annual
LPSP values of the wind/PV hybrid systems when different
capacities of PV array and battery bank were considered [5].
Nelson used the number of wind turbines as a free input param-
eter and then the number of PV panels is calculated using the
LPSP technique to match generation with load in [6].
The optimization method employs a set of algorithmic steps
to reduce the investment, operation, and fuel costs. Kabouris and
Contaxis proposed an optimization method with planning and
operational constraints incorporated with the stochastic nature
of the meteorological conditions, loads, and the availability of
the diesel units [7]. Kabouris and Contaxis also determined the
optimal expansion policy over a period of years for a limited
size generation system consisting of wind generators and PV
panels [8]. With the historical load data, the characteristics of
renewable sources, the cost of energy, and the associated esca-
lation rate, the dynamic programming algorithm was employed
to find the optimal expansion policy for the period of the next
years.
The enumeration method considers various types and capaci-
ties of distributed-generation resources for comparison of the in-
vestment, operation, and fuel costs. Lund analyzed them solely
from a technical point of view; investments are not included [9].
The PV and wave power were excluded when considering an op-
timal solution. Different sources are analyzed in the range of an
HONG AND LIAN: OPTIMAL SIZING OF HYBRID WIND/PV/DIESEL GENERATION 641

electricity production from 0 to 100% of the electricity demand TABLE I

[9]. Diaf considered various types and capacities of system de- WEATHER STATISTICS FOR MT. JADE IN 2007
vices with configurations that can meet the desired system reli-
ability by changing the type and size of the device systems. The
configuration with the lowest “levelized cost of energy” gave the
optimal choice [10]. Kaldellis used the available experimental
probability density function distributions in the past. The min-
imum acceptable nominal power of the wind turbine was then
predicted using nominal power, capacity factor, and the mean TABLE II
power coefficient [11]. WEATHER STATISTICS FOR ORCHID ISLAND IN 2007
As discussed before, most of the previous studies are on re-
liability analyses [3]–[6] and enumeration methods [9]–[11].
The optimization-based approaches were rarely implemented
due to the difficulty in solving the integer variables [7], [8].
In this paper, the investment cost (installation and unit cost)
and fuel cost are minimized while the reliability requirement
and CO emission constraint are retained. First, the fuzzy-c-
TABLE III
means (FCM) is employed to cluster the operation states for VARIOUS COSTS FOR DIESEL, WTG, AND PV UNITS
system load, wind-turbine generation (WTG), and solar PV.
Then, the Markov models for the system load, WTG, and PV
are established. The genetic algorithm (GA) incorporated with
the Markov models is utilized to determine optimal sizes for
WTG, PV, and diesel generator.

II. MODELS
The problem here is to determine the numbers of WTG,
PV, and diesel generators for a given system load. The IEEE
Reliability Test System (RTS) load profile [12] for the 365
24 8760) h in a year is utilized in the studied stand-alone
power system.
A. Kilowatt Generations of WTG and PV Using Historical
Chronological Weather Data
The weather statistics (wind speed, solar irradiation, and tem-
perature) for the studied power systems should be taken into ac-
count when planning generation expansion. The effects of wind
speed and solar irradiation in different areas have great impacts
on the kilowatt generations. In particular, the efficiency of the
PV will increase in a high mountain area because of higher solar
irradiation and lower temperatures. In general, the typical height
of an anemometer in a weather station is 15 m. The wind speed
measured at this height should be transformed to that at 30 m,
which is the height of the hub of a typical 25-kW WTG. As-
sume that the friction coefficient for the ground is 0.14. Tables I
and II show the wind speeds (in meters per second) and irra-
diation (in watts per meter ), measured in 2007, for Mt. Jade
and Orchid Island in Taiwan in all four seasons, respectively.
The symbol “SD” means standard deviation. In Taiwan, the
spring, summer, autumn, and winter are March–May, June–Au-
gust, September–November, and December–February, respec-
tively. As can be seen, the irradiation in the high mountain is
very high and the average wind speed for Mt. Jade exceeds 5
m/s, implying that Mt. Jade is suitable for developing wind and
PV power generations. However, the irradiation in the Orchid
Island is not as high as that in Mt. Jade. The wind speeds and
solar radiations/temperatures in 8760 h will be transferred into
8760 corresponding generations using manufacturer specifica-
tions of WTG and PV, respectively.
B. Cost Components
The unit cost, installation cost, and even maintenance cost
of new diesel units and renewable energy units should be con-
sidered in the planning stage. Compared with the cost of PV
material, the installation cost for PV is rather inexpensive and
can be neglected. These considerations are the same as those
in [3] and [4]. Table III illustrates the costs of these distributed
generations.
The fuel cost of the diesel generator can be modeled as a
quadratic function as
(1)
(2)
where (in U.S. dollars per hour), [in U.S.$/kilowatt-hour
(kWh)], and (U.S.$/kW h) are the cost coefficients. and
denote the price (U.S.$/Gcal transformed from U.S.$/liter)
of oil and kW generation, respectively. The values of , and
for the 30-kW diesel generator used in this paper are 1.07,
0.0657, and 0.00006, respectively.
The total cost includes three terms: 1) capacity cost and instal-
lation cost for new diesel and wind generators, 2) capacity cost
for new PV, and 3) fuel cost for total durations that diesel gen-
erators supply kilowatts. If the system load at hour is greater
than wind power generation plus PV power generation at hour
, then there is kilowatt generation from the diesel generator,
and the fuel cost at hour can be computed by (2).
642
C. CO Emission
The renewable sources can mitigate CO emission efficiently.
The stand-alone power system may be allocated with strict an-
nual CO emission and be supplied with a limited number of
new diesel generators. CO emission can be evaluated from the
heat in (1) as follows:
Heat
The values of , and for the 30-kW diesel generator used in
this paper are 0.028144, 0.001728, and 0.0000017, respectively.
III. PROBLEM FORMULATION
The aforementioned problem can be formulated using the
concept of chronological data including hourly load, wind
speed, and irradiation/temperature as follows:
where , and represent the (unknown) numbers of
WTG, PV, and diesel generators, respectively.
denote the costs per unit ($/kW) for the WTG, PV, and
diesel generator, respectively. is the installation cost for the
WTG. and are the installation and fuel costs for the
diesel generator, respectively. The superscript “max” and sub-
script “min” signify the maximum and minimum limits, respec-
tively.
The response of a diesel generation is very fast. The output
power from 0 kW to the rate generation of a diesel generator
can be achieved in several minutes. The ramping constraints on
diesel generation are not considered in this paper because the
time interval (step) in the chronological data is one hour. The
ramping rate was not considered in [3]–[11] either.
Once the unknown and are obtained (by the GA
in this paper), the chronological data, including hourly load,
wind speed, and irradiation/temperature can be employed to ex-
amine (8) and (9). Let be the index for loss of load. More-
over, let the chronological variables and be the
known kilowatt generations for the WTG and PV at hour ,
respectively. The chronological variable represents the
known total system load at hour . The pseudocode for calcu-
lating LOLP and CO at hour is described as follows:
;
1, 2, 8760;
If
then 0 0 and 0;
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 27, NO. 2, APRIL 2012
If
then can be computed by (2);
can be computed by (3). ;
If
then can be computed by (2);
(3)
can be computed by (3);
Next ;
8760;
Total fuel cost ;
Total (in kilograms).
This pseudocode is developed for calculating the dependent
variables in the problem. This is also the advantage of GA that
(4) can solve the independent and dependent variables separately;
however, most of the traditional optimization methods solve
all variables simultaneously. Hence, if is zero, then the
(5) emission and fuel cost will be zero at hour , as can be seen
(6) in the 4th line of the above pseudocode. Please note that if the
(7) number of diesel generators is zero, the third term of (4)
is zero too.
(8)
According to (4)–(9) and the pseudocode for calculating the
(9) fuel cost, LOLP and CO at hour , seeking the optimal sizing
of distributed generations in a stand-alone power system is a
mixed-integer programming (MIP) problem. Specifically, the
and
unknown and are integer (independent) variables
and the fuel cost, LOLP, and CO at hour are continuous (de-
pendent) variables. The reasons for adopting GA used to study
the optimal sizing problem are as follows.
1) Traditional MIP based on binary linear programming or
branch and bound can only handle explicit variables, con-
straints, and objectives. The problem of implicit variables
and objective cannot be solved by traditional MIP but can
be solved by the GA. The system frequency response dis-
cussed in [13] is an example of an implicit objective which
cannot be expressed in a closed form. LOLP and CO at
hour defined in the above pseudocode are examples of
implicit variables, which are defined by the cause-effect
relation (e.g., “IF-THEN”).
2) Linear programming and binary linear programming can
only study the problems of linearized objectives and con-
straints. This leads to the traditional branch and bound not
being suitable to solve the nonlinear integer problem, pri-
marily because the validity of the branching rules is tied
with the assumption of linearity (see [14, p. 171]). It is ob-
vious that (8) and (9) cannot be linearized due to the im-
plicit variables (i.e., the fuel cost, LOLP and CO ). How-
ever, GA is able to solve the problems of nonlinear objec-
tives and constraints by dealing with the independent and
dependent variables separately.
3) Traditional MIP can be solved by the master-level algo-
rithm (i.e., Benders decomposition) if the cost from con-
tinuous variables and that from the integer variables can
HONG AND LIAN: OPTIMAL SIZING OF HYBRID WIND/PV/DIESEL GENERATION
be added together in the objective function [14]. However,
LOLP, CO , and the cost of distributed generations cannot
be added together.
IV. PROPOSED METHOD
The central-processing unit (CPU) times required by
GA-based methods are generally very long because each it-
eration includes many solutions of chromosomes. Hence, this
paper presents a Markov-based GA to reduce the computation
burden but to retain the accuracy of the solution. More specif-
ically, FCM is used to identify the operation states (discrete
and , where and are the
state indices) in the Markov model from the chronological data
, and . Since the number of states is
much smaller than that (8760) of the chronological data, the
computation time can be greatly reduced.
A. Fuzzy-c-means (FCM)
Traditional -means clustering has at least the following dis-
advantages that were not considered in this paper: it does not
yield the same result with each run and does not ensure that
the result has a global minimum of variance. Hence, FCM is
adopted herein. In FCM, each data has a degree (membership
function) of belonging to clusters, rather than belonging com-
pletely to just one cluster. Bezdek defined a function
as an objective in the FCM algorithm [15]
(10)
where is the clustering number, represents the data
number, signifies the vector of the center in the th cluster,
is the th data vector for clustering, and implies the
membership function value as a weighting factor between
and . The clustering number is fixed for developing FCM.
The value of depends on the user’s requirement and the
problem characteristics. When the value of is mini-
mized, the data vectors can be partitioned into clusters.
Bezdek developed four solution steps to achieve the minimum
as follows.
Step 1) Estimate a matrix of membership functions
(11)
where is the iterative index and 0 initially.
Step 2) Let . Compute the center of the th cluster
(12)
643
Step 3) Update for all
(13)
Step 4) If , stop; else go to Step
2).
The symbol is the convergence tolerance.
In this paper, the values of clusters (i.e., ) for the WTG, PV,
and system load are 13, 4, and 10, respectively. More specif-
ically, there is no wind power generation if the wind speed is
below 3 m/s, and the wind power generation will be fixed if the
wind speed exceeds 16 m/s. Therefore, the wind speed can be
divided into 13 clusters in the case that the wind speed data are
evenly decomposed. However, FCM will not cluster the wind
speed evenly but coherently. That is, the amounts of data in all
clusters are not the same. The center in the cluster is the
representative in this cluster. The values of clusters for the PV
and system load are attained in a similar way. On the other hand,
the dimensions of and are both 1 1 and 8760.
B. Genetic Algorithm (GA)
The basis of employing GA to solve the optimization problem
is encoding all of the search parameters into discrete or binary
strings named genes. Then, according to the solved problem, a
fitness (objective) function is defined. An individual with better
fitness function values will be chosen and included in the mating
pool for the process of reproduction. Crossover and mutation
operations yield a new generation. The GA is performed by re-
peating each of the aforementioned processes to produce the
fittest individuals.
In this paper, GA is employed to solve (4)–(9). The variables
, and are considered as the gene strings (binary bits)
in the chromosome (control variables) while LOLP and CO are
the state variables. The lengths of binary bits for , and
are 5, 8, and 3, respectively. and cor-
respond to the values of 31, 63, and 7, respectively. The fitness
function is (4). The individuals for , and will be
crossed over and mutated within their limits without the problem
of enforcing inequality constraints. To deal with inequality con-
straints for the state variables (LOLP and CO ) in GA more ef-
ficiently, the penalty functions are employed in this paper.
A penalty term is augmented to (4) for further genetic selec-
tion. Specifically, the penalty function for dealing with (8) is
defined as follows:
(14)
where PF is called the penalty factor in this paper. Let the
symbol be the iterative index. Equation (14) implies that the
penalty weight should be gradually increased with
less effect on the initial iterations. The sign of the afore-
mentioned penalty factor is positive. Hence, a chromosome
with a large fitness value augmented with the penalty term will
result in few chances to be selected for further mating.
644 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 27, NO. 2, APRIL 2012

TABLE IV
(a) MARKOV MODEL OF A 25-kW WTG. (b) MARKOV
MODEL OF A 25-kW WTG

Fig. 1. Three-state Markov model.

C. Markov Model
The Markov model is an approach to relating a state proba-
bility with its corresponding event frequency in the stochastic
process [16], [17]. The operation states and
, where and are the state indices, identified by
FCM, will be treated using the Markov model in this paper.
First, a single wind farm with three states is considered. The
failure rate is the state transition probability from state 1 to
state 2 while the repair rate is the state transition probability
from state 2 to state 1. Fig. 1 illustrates a three-state Markov
model.
Let 1, 2, be the probabilities for states,
where is the number of clusters. Then

(15)
TABLE V
MARKOV MODEL OF LOAD PROFILE
(16)

The upper triangle matrix of the squared matrix [ ] includes

the repair rates among states while the lower triangle matrix
consists of the failure rates among states. The diagonal term in
the ( , ) location of [ ] is the negative sum of all offdiagonal
terms at the th column. The absolute value of the diagonal term
for a state in (16) is called the rate of departure for state .
Solving (15) and (16) yields the probabilities for the states.
Let , and be the rate of departure, frequency, and
duration for state , respectively. The frequency and duration
for state are evaluated, respectively, as follows:

(17) corresponding probabilities for two states in different individual

(18)
Table IV shows the Markov model for a 25-kW WTG. The
number of total states is 13, . The
second row (kilowatt generation) in Table IV is the center (i.e.,
defined in Section IV-A (FCM), of the cluster ). The prob-
ability, rate of departure, frequency (occurrence/h), and dura-
tion (h) are attained from the Markov model. Similarly, Table V
shows the Markov model (state 1, 2, 10) for the system
load.
Practically, WTG and PV exist in a stand-alone power system.
Assume that one WTG (13 states) and one PV (4 states) are con-
sidered here. There are 52 possible states in total for considering
WTG and PV. Then, the aggregate rate of departure for a new
operation state (scenario) is the sum of the corresponding rates
of departure for two states in individual WTG and PV. The ag-
gregate probability for a new operation state is the product of the
WTG and PV. For the same reason, the aggregate frequency and
duration for a new operation state can be attained.
In addition to the probability distribution for all states, the
advantage of the Markov model is that it provides information
about the frequency and duration of each state. The informa-
tion of frequency and duration is essential because they can be
employed to compute the kilowatts generated by diesel gener-
ators. Once aggregate frequency and duration are known, total
CO emission and total fuel cost can be further evaluated too.
For example, assume that the method for computing the total
fuel cost in a year is , as described
in Section III, by chronological data. However, the method for
computing the total fuel cost in a year can be simplified by
, where and
represent the duration and frequency at an aggregate state ,
respectively. And if
.
HONG AND LIAN: OPTIMAL SIZING OF HYBRID WIND/PV/DIESEL GENERATION
Fig. 2. Iteration performance of three methods (Mt. Jade).
TABLE VI
COMPARISON BETWEEN CHRONOLOGY-BASED AND MARKOV-BASED
METHODS (MT. JADE)
V. SIMULATION RESULTS
The IEEE reliability test system (loads for 8760 h) [12] and
the weather data in Mt. Jade (see Table I) are studied first in
Sections V-A-C for illustrating the performance of the proposed
method. The same reliability test system with the weather data in
Orchid Island (see Table II) are further investigated for showing
the robustness of the proposed method in Section V-D. Discus-
sions are given in Section V-E.
A. Comparison Between Chronology-Based and
Markov-Based GAs (Mt. Jade)
In this section, comparative results obtained from the
chronology-based and Markov-based GAs are shown. Different
numbers of states for WTG, PV, and load are also
considered, as shown in Table VI. Suppose that and
CO are 0.03 and 200 000 kg/yr, respectively. Table VI illus-
trates the comparative studies. As can be seen, the CPU times
(1.19 and 1.60 s) required by the Markov-based GA are much
smaller than that (95.3 s) required by the chronology-based
method. Both LOLP and CO constraints for all methods are
fulfilled. It can also be found that the cost (U.S.$225 595) for
the case with 14 load states is lower than that (U.S.$229 483)
with 10 load states and that (U.S.$227 402) with chronological
data. Fig. 2 illustrates the iteration performance of these three
methods.
GA is able to gain a global optimum but does not always
guarantee to yield one. Each result shown in Table VI is the
best solution among 50 runs. Chronology-based and Markov-
based GA require 8760 and 520 (or 728) iterative loops for a
645
Fig. 3. Iteration performance for three different LOLP ’s.
chromosome. It can be found that it is easier for the Markov-
based GA to yield a better result and the chronology-based can
only gain a local optimum due to complicate loops. The main
difference among obtained results in Table VI is the number of
wind generators (10, 11 and 9). The wind generators can provide
sufficient electricity at night in winter but most loss of loads
occur in the daytime with the peak load. Hence, although the
numbers of wind generators are different, the LOLPs are almost
the same and bound by its limit.
B. Impacts of Different LOLP Constraints (Mt. Jade)
In this section, impacts of different ’s on the cost
and iteration performance are examined. Let CO be 200
000 kg/yr. As shown in Table VII, when high reliability (small
) is requested, the investment cost becomes high. As
can be seen, when the LOLP constraint becomes stricter for high
reliability, the CPU time and number of iterations do not make
any difference. Fig. 3 illustrates the iteration performance for
these three different scenarios. Please note that the wind power
is sufficient at night in the winter, and the solar power is suffi-
cient in the daytime in the summer. The loss of load (electricity
deficit) occurs in different scenarios in the second and third rows
of Table VII.
C. Impacts of Different CO Constraints (Mt. Jade)
In this section, impacts of different CO ’s on the cost and
iteration performance are examined. Let be 0.03. As
shown in Table VIII, when a small CO is requested, the in-
vestment cost will become high but the fuel cost will become
low. As can be seen, when the CO constraint becomes stricter
646
TABLE VII
COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT LOLP CONSTRAINTS
Fig. 4. Iteration performance for three different CO ’s.
TABLE VIII
COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT CO CONSTRAINTS
for low emission, CPU time and the number of iterations do not
make any difference. Fig. 4 illustrates the iteration performance
for these four different scenarios.
D. Studies on the Optimal Sizing of Wind/PV/Diesel
Generation for Orchid Island
In this section, the weather statistics, as shown in Table II, for
Orchid Island will be used to study the optimal sizes of hybrid
wind/PV/diesel units. The IEEE reliability test system (loads for
8760 h) [12] is also utilized. Table IX shows the comparative
studies between different numbers of Markov states. As shown
in Tables I and II, the irradiation in Orchid Island is not as high
as that in Mt. Jade. The number of installed WTGs is therefore
much larger than that of installed PVs for reducing the cost and
satisfying LOLP and CO constraints. Fig. 5 illustrates the iter-
ation performance of the two methods. Table IX illustrates the
results indicating the efficiency of the proposed method.
E. Discussions
From the simulation results for both Mt. Jade and Orchid Is-
land in Taiwan, three comments can be made as follows.
1) The CPU times required should be similar for both small
and large-scale systems. The reason is that the problem
formulation is independent of the numbers of buses and
lines.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 27, NO. 2, APRIL 2012
Fig. 5. Iteration performance for two methods (Orchid Island).
TABLE IX
COMPARISON BETWEEN CHRONOLOGY-BASED AND MARKOV-BASED
METHODS (ORCHID ISLAND)
2) The case solved by the chronology-based GA evaluates
CO and the adequacy of power generation for 8760 h.
More CPU time may be required by using the chronology-
based GA in case more detailed data (e.g., 17 520 data of a
30-min interval) are studied. Furthermore, in the planning
stage, there are generally many plans (e.g., more than 200
scenarios) to be studied. These results will be discussed
step by step to achieve several applicable plans for making
policies at the final stage. Reducing the CPU time is there-
fore essential.
3) In this paper, the premise that the optimal number of units
is obtained ahead of time is made. In other words, the fore-
casted 8760-h wind speed, irradiation, and load profile are
used to determine the optimal numbers of different dis-
tributed generations. Therefore, accuracy of the models for
the load profile, wind speed, and irradiation and the time
step is very crucial. This issue was discussed in [3]–[11].
The load profile used in this paper is the same as that in
[3] and [4], and the weather model (8760 h) used in this
paper is the same as [5], [9], and [10]. References [3]–[6]
and [8]–[10] also considered the same time step (1 h) that
is used in this paper.
VI. CONCLUSION
A new method using the Markov-based GA for determining
optimal sizes of hybrid wind/PV/diesel units in a stand-alone
power system is presented in this paper. The presented method
considers cost minimization, and both reliability and CO emis-
sion constraints. The Markov-based GA can help reduce CPU
time greatly and provides competitive cost. The CPU times re-
quired for the proposed method do not make any difference for
different LOLP and CO emission constraints. It can also be
HONG AND LIAN: OPTIMAL SIZING OF HYBRID WIND/PV/DIESEL GENERATION
concluded that strict LOLP and CO emission constraints will
create high cost.
REFERENCES
[1] Kyotol Protocol to the United Nations—Framework Convention on Cli-
mate Change, Dec. 1997.
[2] The Heads of State, Heads of Government, Ministers, and other heads
of delegation present, “Copenhagen Accord,” presented at the United
Nations Climate Change Conf., Copenhagen, Denmark, Dec. 18, 2009.
[3] R. Billinton and R. Karki, “Capacity expansion of small isolated power
systems using PV and wind energy,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 16,
no. 4, pp. 892–897, Nov. 2001.
[4] R. Karki and R. Billinton, “Considering renewable energy in small
isolated power system expansion,” in Proc. Canadian Conf. Elect.
Comput. Eng., May 4–7, 2004, pp. 367–370.
[5] B. Ai, H. Yang, H. Shen, and X. Liao, “Computer-aided design of
PV/wind hybrid system,” Renew. Energy, vol. 28, pp. 1491–1512,
2003.
[6] D. B. Nelson, M. H. Nehrir, and C. Wang, “Unit sizing and cost analysis
of stand-alone hybrid wind/PV/fuel cell power generation systems,”
Renew. Energy, vol. 31, pp. 1641–1656, 2006.
[7] J. Kabouris and G. C. Contaxis, “Autonomous system expansion plan-
ning considering renewable energy sources—A computer package,”
IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 374–381, Sep. 1992.
[8] J. Kabouris and G. C. Contaxis, “Optimum expansion planning of
an unconventional generation system operating in parallel with a
large scale network,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 6, no. 3, pp.
394–400, Sep. 1991.
[9] H. Lund, “Large-scale integration of optimal combinations of PV, wind
and wave power into the electricity supply,” Renew. Energy, vol. 31, pp.
503–515, 2006.
[10] S. Diaf, D. Diaf, M. Belhamel, M. Haddadi, and A. Louche, “A method-
ology for optimal sizing of autonomous hybrid PV/wind system,” En-
ergy Policy, vol. 35, pp. 5708–5718, 2007.
[11] J. K. Kaldellis, “Optimum autonomous wind-power system sizing for
remote consumers using long-term wind speed data,” Appl. Energy, vol.
71, pp. 215–233, 2002.
647
[12] Reliability Test System Task Force of the Application of Probability
Methods Subcommittee, “IEEE reliability test system,” IEEE Trans.
Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-98, no. 6, pp. 273–282, Nov. 1979.
[13] Y. Y. Hong and S. F. Wei, “Multi-objective under-frequency load shed-
ding in an autonomous system using hierarchical genetic algorithms,”
IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 1355–1362, Jul. 2010.
[14] H. A. Taha, Integer Programming: Theory, Application and Computa-
tion. New York: Academic Press, 1975.
[15] J. C. Bezdek, R. Ehrlich, and W. Full, “FCM: The Fuzzy c-means
clustering algorithm,” Comput. Geosci., vol. 10, no. 2–3, pp. 191–203,
1984.
[16] T. Manco and A. Testa, “A Markovian approach to model power avail-
ability of a wind turbine,” in Proc. IEEE PowerTech Conf., Lausanne,
Switzerland, Jul. 2007, pp. 1256–1261.
[17] A. Shamshad, M. A. Bawadi, W. M. A. Wan Hussin, T. A. Majid, and
S. A. M. Sanusi, “First and second order Markov chain models for
synthetic generation of wind speed time series,” Energy, vol. 30, pp.
693–708, 2005.
Ying-Yi Hong (SM’00) received the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from
the Institute of Electrical Engineering, National Tsing-Hua University, Taiwan,
in 1990.
From 1991 to 1995, he was an Associate Professor in the Department of Elec-
trical Engineering, Chung Yuan Christian University, Chung Li, Taiwan. He was
promoted to Full Professor in 1995. His areas of interest are power system anal-
ysis, power-quality analysis, and AI applications.
Prof. Hong was the Chair of the IEEE Power and Engineering Society Taipei
Chapter in 2001. He is an Institute of Engineering and Technology Fellow.
Ruo-Chen Lian received the B.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from the
Ching Yun University of Technology and Science, Chung Li, Taiwan, in 2008
and the M.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from Chung Yuan Christian Uni-
versity, Chung Li, in 2010.
His research interests include the applications of artificial intelligence and
power system analysis.