sustainability

Article
Optimal Design and Mathematical Modeling of Hybrid Solar
PV–Biogas Generator with Energy Storage Power Generation
System in Multi-Objective Function Cases
Takele Ferede Agajie 1,2 , Armand Fopah-Lele 3 , Isaac Amoussou 1 , Ahmed Ali 4 , Baseem Khan 4,5, *
and Emmanuel Tanyi 1

1 Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology,

University of Buea, Buea P.O. Box 63, Cameroon
2 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Debre Markos University,
Debre Markos P.O. Box 269, Ethiopia
3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, University of Buea,
Buea P.O. Box 63, Cameroon
4 Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering Technology, Faculty of Engineering and the Built
Environment, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa
5 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Hawassa University, Hawassa P.O. Box 05, Ethiopia
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: This study demonstrates how to use grid-connected hybrid PV and biogas energy with a
SMES-PHES storage system in a nation with frequent grid outages. The primary goal of this work
is to enhance the HRES’s capacity to favorably influence the HRES’s economic viability, reliability,
and environmental impact. The net present cost (NPC), greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and
the likelihood of a power outage are among the variables that are examined. A mixed solution
involves using a variety of methodologies to compromise aspects of the economy, reliability, and
the environment. Metaheuristic optimization techniques such as non-dominated sorting whale
optimization algorithm (NSWOA), multi-objective grey wolf optimization (MOGWO), and multi-
Citation: Agajie, T.F.; Fopah-Lele, A.; objective particle swarm optimization (MOPSO) are used to find the best size for hybrid systems
Amoussou, I.; Ali, A.; Khan, B.; Tanyi, based on evaluation parameters for financial stability, reliability, and GHG emissions and have been
E. Optimal Design and Mathematical evaluated using MATLAB. A thorough comparison between NSWOA, MOGWO, and MOPSO and
Modeling of Hybrid Solar PV–Biogas
the system parameters at 150 iterations has been presented. The outcomes demonstrated NSWOA’s
Generator with Energy Storage
superiority in achieving the best optimum value of the predefined multi-objective function, with
Power Generation System in
MOGWO and MOPSO coming in second and third, respectively. The comparison study has focused
Multi-Objective Function Cases.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8264.
on NSWOA’s ability to produce the best NPC, LPSP, and GHG emissions values, which are EUR
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108264 6.997 × 106, 0.0085, and 7.3679 × 106 Kg reduced, respectively. Additionally, the simulation results
demonstrated that the NSWOA technique outperforms other optimization techniques in its ability
Academic Editors: Abdulaziz Banawi
to solve the optimization problem. Furthermore, the outcomes show that the designed system has
and Yao Yu
acceptable NPC, LPSP, and GHG emissions values under various operating conditions.
Received: 14 April 2023
Revised: 15 May 2023 Keywords: photovoltaic; hybrid renewable energy source; NPC; CO2 emissions; LPSP; energy
Accepted: 16 May 2023 storage; PHES; SMES; biogas; metaheuristic optimization; NSWOA; MOGWO; MOPSO
Published: 18 May 2023

1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
1.1. Background Justification and Motivations
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article Access to electricity is critical for every country’s socioeconomic and long-term growth.
distributed under the terms and It is necessary for doing daily activities including heating, cooking, lighting, and trans-
conditions of the Creative Commons portation. Providing unlimited access to renewable energy will fundamentally alter the
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// energy system and significantly help to achieve other Sustainable Development Goals
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ (SDGs) such as eradicating poverty, promoting good health, ensuring access to clean water,
4.0/). and reducing climate change, according to the UN’s SDGs [1–4].

Sustainability 2023, 15, 8264. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108264 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 8264 2 of 26

Around 840 million people worldwide still do not have access to electricity. In sub-
Saharan Africa only, there are 573 million individuals without access to electricity [4]. There
is better access to energy in Ghana and a few other African countries. Ghana’s coverage
rates for urban and rural electricity in 2018 were 94% and 67%, respectively [5]. At the
moment, standalone and grid-connected mini-grid systems are considered some of the
accessible alternative energy solutions required to improve and quicken the availability
of electricity in many rural and sub-urban areas [6]. The utilization of renewable energy
sources (RESs) is growing today in order to address the problems with electrical power
networks. Supporting the constantly falling usage of conventional sources, such as in
various coal and natural gas power plants, is one of the largest problems. The combustion
of coal, oil, and natural gas has long contributed significantly to the world’s energy sup-
ply. It is commonly known that fossil fuels are a source of greenhouse gas (GHG). GHG
emissions have a significant detrimental influence on the environment because they change
the climate. The supply of fossil fuels will eventually run out, according to a study. The
majority of industrialized and developing countries, including Ethiopia, continue to use
these conventional energy sources as their primary source of energy for transportation
and power generation, despite the negative environmental effects they produce. Providing
power to varying loads in accordance with societal, industrial, and national patterns is
another challenge. Compared to RESs, conventional energy sources also have a number of
disadvantages, including the maximum costs, maximum pollution levels, rapid depletion
rates, and strict rules regarding GHG pollution [7]. The advantages of RESs over conven-
tional energy sources, in contrast, are their affordability, environmental friendliness, low
maintenance requirements, and the fact that they do not deplete when used [8]. The major-
ity of countries, therefore, plan to utilize RESs, such as solar, wind, wave, and hydropower,
for a range of uses, including heating, energy, and transportation [9]. As a result of their
accessibility and continually decreasing acquisition costs, RESs are regarded as the most
preferred choice [10]. According to the most current revision of the International Energy
Agency’s (IEA) estimates on renewable energy sources, estimated energy generation is
almost 8.3 × 109 MWh, which is the greatest change in the energy sector [11].
In order to back up intermittent renewable energy sources (such as solar and wind),
energy storage systems (ESS), such as pumped hydro energy storage (PHES) or super-
conducting magnetic energy storage (SMES) systems, are required. When RESs provide
more power than the connected load, the ESS stores the extra power and sends it back
into the grid when the connected load needs more power than what RESs can provide.
When the storage system cannot give the loads the power they need, some systems use
diesel generators or another traditional source of energy. However, these alternatives
are neither economically feasible nor environmentally friendly. It is suggested that the
PHES be used both to help power systems that are already in place and to store energy,
especially for large-scale HRES. Many projects and studies throughout the world have
used this sort of ESS [12–17]. These PHES systems can operate as standalone [12–14] or
grid-connected [15–17] mode systems and can be used for long-term sustainable energy
storage systems. It takes at least four minutes for biogas and PHES to provide power to
the connected load. SMES, or quick response energy storage system, is used to smooth
the output power from solar and wind [18,19]. SMES can be utilized in any power source
change because it responds in milliseconds.
The IEA’s recent efforts to safeguard the environment from GHG emissions have
resulted in the establishment and present implementation of national and international
laws to reduce the use of fossil fuels. The Paris Agreement, for instance, aims to make the
world’s response to climate change better by keeping the rise in global temperature to less
than 2 ◦ C and agreeing to reduce GHG emissions, while also making a commitment to
adapt behaviors. Additionally, it strengthens countries’ ability to combat climate change’s
effects [20]. To meet the Kyoto Protocol’s goal of lowering carbon dioxide, a number of
governments have suggested and approved plans to increase the use of biomass to meet
future energy needs [21]. At the moment, the world is putting a lot of attention on clean
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8264 3 of 26

energy as a way to make electricity. This is because people are using more electricity, fossil
fuels are running out and getting more expensive, crude oil reserves are running out, fossil
fuels are in short supply, and there are environmental concerns [22,23].
A hybrid renewable energy source (HRES) system integrates several power generation
techniques, whether they operate independently from the grid or together, and whether
they use renewable or conventional fuels [24,25]. HRES is already well known as a desirable
option for grid-connected or standalone modes of power generation in urban and rural
areas because of recent improvements in renewable energy technology. Hybrid systems are
more reliable and cost-effective than single-source renewable power production systems,
according to numerous evaluations of their technological viability, dependability, and
financials [26]. Greater efficiencies are also made possible by hybrid systems than by a
single renewable energy source.

1.2. Related Works

Several studies have been carried out to establish the optimal size for hybrid renewable
energy generation utilizing HOMER software, MATLAB, metaheuristic algorithms, and
others. The capacity optimization of hybrid renewable energy conversion systems that are
connected to the grid has received less attention than standalone hybrid power generation
systems, which have been the subject of extensive research. Around the world, research is
actively being done on the resilience of hybrid energy systems for a number of purposes.
Oladigbolu et al. (2020) [27] conducted a thorough investigation utilizing HOMER
software to determine whether it would be possible to generate electricity in Nigeria
using different HRES designs. Elements such as micro-hydro turbines, solar panels, wind
turbines, batteries, and diesel generators were integrated to create diverse combinations
that improve system reliability. The PV/diesel/battery system performed remarkably
well in terms of fuel use and CO2 savings, according to the data, and is the best choice
for each of the six locations. In order to simulate various hybrid system architectures for
rural electrification in West China, Li et al. (2020) [28] employed HOMER. The hybrid
system configuration is produced by combining solar panels, wind generators, and biogas
generating sets. The benefit of the modeled hybrid off-grid systems was compared to
that of grid expansion in the study. Anik et al. (2020) [29] looked at the possibility of
creating a PV/WT hybrid system that is a grid-connected mode of operation. The goal of
this work was to reduce LCOE. The results showed that the LCOE of the PV/WT system
that is connected to the grid is lower than that of the grid as it is now. Additionally, a
HRES system could be annually cut roughly 1894 tons of CO2 . Additionally, 587 tons of
coal are anticipated to be saved. Aziz et al. (2019) [30] proposed HOMER to evaluate
the performance of several HRES systems for rural electrification. According to the data,
PV/hydro/diesel/battery systems are the most economical options for rural electrification.
Mamaghani et al. (2016) [31] evaluated the utilization of diesel gen-sets, wind turbines, and
PV modules for remote area electrification systems. The optimal modeling of the plant was
run in the HOMER program in order to thoroughly examine the system configuration and
estimate which was the most affordable. According to this research, using diesel in addition
to renewable energy significantly reduces carbon emissions. The HOMER software is
simple to study and use; however, the objective functions and constraints are established by
the software, and it is not capable of executing multi-objective functions (such as financial,
reliability, and carbon emissions) simultaneously.
Numerous advanced optimization algorithms for the optimum design of hybrid RES
have been offered in multiple research publications published in peer-reviewed journals,
which are utilized to solve multi-objective functions with regard to constraints. In most
research works, financial objective functions are the most prioritized over the other two
objective functions (such as reliability and carbon emissions). The optimal size of a hy-
brid PV/WT/DG system was determined in [32] by using the multi-objective station
competition method to assess two objective functions, such as system cost and carbon
emissions. In [33–35], a genetic algorithm (GA) was used to find the best size and de-
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8264 4 of 26

sign for a hybrid PV/WT power system with battery storage, taking into account things
such as how reliable the system is when the weather changes, how much it costs each
year, and how likely it is that the losses of power supply probability (LPSP) will occur.
Several research studies have used particle swarm optimization (PSO) to improve the
performance and reliability of hybrid renewable energy systems [36,37]. The PSO was used
by Suresh et al. (2022) [38] to assess the technical and financial viability of hybrid systems
utilizing wind, PV, diesel, and batteries. The findings indicate that, although having a
higher initial cost, the wind/PV/diesel/battery option is more cost-effective than the diesel
alternative. Fadli and Purwoharjono (2019) [39] proposed a multi-objective bat algorithm
(MOBA) for designing a PV/DG/BES microgrid system for a distant community. The
author achieved comparatively good results for LCOE and LPSP, which are USD 0.108
per kWh and 0.238, respectively. This illustrates that the system can accomplish the target
constraints for remote electric access while also ensuring a steady supply of electricity. The
whale optimization algorithm (WOA), water cycle algorithm (WCA), moth-flame optimizer
(MFO), and hybrid particle swarm-gravitational search algorithm (PSOGSA) were used to
determine the optimal sizing of a hybrid PV/WT/DG system, as well as the construction
of two objective functions such as cost of energy (COE) and LPSP. WOA was very good
at running its business, as shown by the fact that it had the lowest COE and the fastest
speed of convergence with the smallest LPSP [40]. Arasteh et al. (2021) [41] utilized an
improved whale optimizer algorithm (IWOA) to optimize a PV/wind/battery system. The
hybrid PV/wind power system was found to have lower energy costs than standalone
power systems.
The goal of this study is to evacuate multi-objective functions (such as financial, relia-
bility, and carbon emissions) on a grid-connected hybrid solar PV–biogas with SMES-PHES
energy storage system that can deliver affordable electricity to the connected loads. The
study’s objective is to access power with minimum NPC, minimum LPSP, and minimum
CO2 emissions. The study’s findings are important for policymakers who want to increase
the percentage of distant areas from the main grid in Ethiopia that have access to power.
Additionally, it warns and educates decision makers to encourage implementations of sus-
tainable renewable energy choices such as biogas, PV, pumped hydro and superconducting
energy storage system.

1.3. Contribution and Organization of the Paper

The most important contributions to this work are the following:
• To examine the impact of various inputs of financial, reliability, CO2 emissions parame-
ters, and sensitivity analysis is performed on the optimized hybrid system components;
• Uncertainties in providing load demand in grid-connected systems are correctly ad-
dressed by a hybrid solar PV–biogas system with a SMES-PHES energy storage system
based on an energy management strategy;
• Optimal sizing of grid-connected hybrid solar PV–biogas with SMES-PHES energy
storage systems are depending on three objective functions such as NPC, LPSP, and
CO2 emissions by utilizing metaheuristic optimization techniques;
• Comparing the optimization outcomes of the three solutions mentioned in each Pareto
front. These are the points of economical, compromised, reliable, or environmental
proportionality;
• Establishing a mathematical model for each system component in order to discover
the best compromise option in terms of cost, reliability, and environmental impact;
• In terms of global solution capture and convergence time, these optimization findings veri-
fied the NSWOA algorithm is superior to the other metaheuristic optimization techniques.
The contributions listed above were used to supply a load in Debre Markos, Ethiopia.
The majority of the loads in this category are for the residential, commercial, machine lab,
and livestock sectors, which mostly depend on diesel generators. Adopting influential
HRES at this location will improve the quality of life in these settlements, get rid of the
pollution caused by diesel generators, and cut energy costs by a large amount. Furthermore,
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8264 5 of 26

in addition to all of the benefits mentioned above, the optimum exploitation of the SMES
and PHES energy storage systems in this situation gives still another motivation to launch
these new HRES research concepts.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the overview of the
study area and existing system. Section 3 presents the suggested methodology. Section 4
creates a hybrid system configuration and descriptions. Section 5 gives evaluation pa-
rameter modeling, followed by the formulation of the optimization problem in Section 6.
Section 7 gives simulation results and discussion, followed by the conclusion in Section 8.

2. Over View of Study Area and Existing System

Debre Markos distribution station feeder, Debre Markos, Ethiopia, was the site of
the proposed investigation. This origin’s longitude and latitude values are 37.44 N and
10.22 E. Figure 1 depicts the location details of the research origin by using Arc Geographic
Information System (ArcGIS version 10.3) software [42].

Figure 1. The map representation of the research site.

Debre Markos University has certain facilities such as different machines, electronics,
and agricultural laboratories, auditoriums, student dormitories, different school classrooms,
a water pump, different cooking machines, a teachers’ lounge, teachers and administrative
offices, and some other facilities. In this organization, the poor power quality national
grid and big diesel generator provide the connected load. The selected site is affordable
for solar PV power generation. The weather condition in February and the temperature
at the specified location reached 28.5 ◦ C. In July, the low temperature was 8.72 ◦ C. Solar
radiation data were extracted from NASA’s database. The average annual solar radiation
in the study area was 6.6701 kWh/m2 /day (ranging from 5.6011 to 6.80 kWh/m2 /day).
The average hourly electrical energy consumption (24 worst-case data points) was
taken from Debre Markos University, Ethiopia. The connected load profile is slightly raised
to 1707.4031 kW from 1668.3000 kW (from 08:00–09:00 h to 14:00–15:00 h); the load with the
highest demand is then connected. During the night (from 16:00–17:00 h to 02:00–03:00 h),
the load ranges from 687.3800 kW to 892.8500 kW. Between 07:00 and 08:00, electricity
demand falls to 662.6801 kW, resulting in the system’s minimal load. The minimum load
requirements are connected to the national grid between 07:00–08:00 h, as shown in Figure 2.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8264 6 of 26

Figure 2. Hourly load profile on a typical day.

The current power generation system consists of eight diesel generators interconnected
in parallel with the output side of the transformer in a common bus; each generator has a
650 KVA capacity. The existing distribution network layout is illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Existing distribution network schematic diagram on the study area.

3. Methodology
To design a hybrid solar–biogas system with SMES and PHES energy storage systems,
some inputs must be provided, such as an hourly load profile, available biogas input data,
biogas cost, monthly solar radiation, PV system value, the starting price of each unit (such
as PV panel, biogas generators, SMES, PHES, converters), the annual real interest rate, the
project lifetime, and so on. The projected equipment’s wattage and hourly usage were used
to calculate the load profile for the research region. The HRES design must be optimal
in order to supply electricity reliably, economically, and with minimum CO2 emissions.
The hybrid system’s component configuration is tuned to minimize NPC, LPSP, and CO2
emissions. The next part goes into a considerable discussion of the modeling of each HRES
unit. However, as shown in Figure 4 this system includes several components, such as
PV panels, a power converter, a utility grid, a biogas plant, a SMES, and a PHES energy
storage system. In fact, this study made use of four hourly measured input data sets. These
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8264 7 of 26

numerical values are needed to calculate the size of a grid-connected hybrid solar PV–
biogas generator with SMES and PHES energy storage systems located in Debre Markos,
Ethiopia. As a result, the hourly solar horizontal irradiance is described by KW/m2 , the
hourly ambient temperature is indicated by ◦ C, the hourly power load demand is indicated
by MW, and the hourly wastes are described by tones. The flowchart illustrated in Figure 5
is the general procedure of the methodology.

Figure 4. Grid-connected hybrid solar PV–biogas with hybrid SMES-PHES schematic diagram.

Figure 5. An overview of the suggested system design and analysis methodology.

Sustainability 2023, 15, 8264 8 of 26

4. Hybrid System Configuration and Descriptions

Figure 5 depicts the proposed hybrid energy system configuration. It is a grid-
connected hybrid system that includes a solar PV system, a biogas system, SMES, PHES, a
bidirectional inverter, and a connected load, as well as national grid connections on both
the DC and AC buses. There are two main sources of energy production units: solar PV
and biogas. The solar PV and SMES energy storage systems are interconnected to the DC
bus bar, whereas the biogas generator, PHES energy storage system, loads, and national
grid are interconnected to the AC bus bar. The bidirectional DC/AC converter functions as
both an inverter and a rectification bridge while converting AC to DC electricity. The PHES
and SMES energy storage systems are utilized to feed the electricity supply when solar PV
output power cannot satisfy the load completely. Purchase power from the national grid
to represent the second spare source and deliver power when neither solar PV nor biogas
generators can provide output power, nor do the PHES and SMES have stored energy.

4.1. Mathematical Modeling of Hybrid System

A photovoltaic array, a biogas generator, a SMES, and a PHES energy storage system
are all part of the proposed HRES. The next subsections demonstrate the modeling of each
component of the HRES.

4.1.1. Solar Energy Conversion System Modeling

The chosen area is in one of the country’s moderate solar radiation zones. The inso-
lation received in the selected areas is just enough to generate power for the majority of
the year. According to NASA and the Ministry of Energy (Ethiopia), the state receives an
average of 5.6011–6.80 kWh/m2 of solar energy. The integration of the power generated
by the solar generating unit with temperature and sun irradiation could use a simple
relationship [43,44].
ϑ (t)
PPV (t) = PPV −r × i × [1 + α c γ ] (1)
1000
 
γ = (τα + (0.0256 × ϑt )) − τp (2)

αc = −3.7 × 10−3 /◦ C (3)

4.1.2. Biogas Generator System Modeling

The biogas unit shown in Figure 1 generates gas from the fermentation of organic
materials burned within the AC generator to generate electrical energy. Equation (4) is used
to calculate the size of an AC generator that can be installed in a specific area. This biogas
energy is included in the power balance calculation. A simple formula for calculating the
output power of a biogas generator is as follows [45,46]:

VB (t) × CVB × ηB
PB (t) = (4)
860 × t B

4.1.3. Pumped Hydro Energy Storage System Modeling

The PHES system functions in this work in a very conventional way. The electrical
network’s energy flow is continuously observed. The PHES system enters a pumping
mode when there is extra energy on the electrical grid and the upper water reservoir is
not full. This mode lasts as long as there is extra energy and the upper reservoir is not
full. The PHES system switches to power generation mode to supply the power that was
previously met when a source (photovoltaic) is unable to fully meet the demand that was
previously met by diesel generator plants and the national grid. To perform the pumping
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8264 9 of 26

and generating mode of operation, the energy balance in the system should be executed
appropriately by using the following equation:

Pbala (t) = PPV (t) − PL (t) (5)

Therefore, the mode of operation (generating and pumping mode) depends on the
values of Pbala .
a. Generating Mode (Pbala < 0): It suggests that the demand exceeds the PV system’s
electricity generation. In this situation, the energy needed must be available from the
storage system. How much power the PHES can generate depends on the volume of
water in the upper reservoir and the turbines’ output power. The upper reservoir’s
ability to hold enough water will allow it to meet the loads’ energy needs. In any other
case, the storage system will attempt to function. In generation mode, the equation of
the PHES system is represented as [47–50]:

V(t−1)
   
gen
EPHES (t) = min min ; Q T ηT ηP ρg(h add + h3 ); | EB | (6)
3600

gen
EPHES (t)
Qdis (t) = (7)
g × ρ × ηT × ηP × (h add + h3 )
gen
PPHES (t) = Qdis. (t) × g × ρ × ηT × ηP × (h add + h3 ) (8)
As expressed under Equations (6)–(8), ρ represents the density of water and is equal to
1000 kg/m3 , and g represents the gravitational constant considered here equal to 9.81 m/s
of the proposed system.
b. Pumping Mode( Pbala > 0): The proposed system then has excess power. The PHES
process will pump until the upper reservoir is filled if the upper water tank is not
yet full. The level of water in the reservoir, the amount of excess energy, and the
maximum power of the PHES in pumping mode all affect how much water is pumped.

Vmax − V(t−1) ρ × g × (h add + h3 )

   
pump
EPHES (t) = min min ; QP ; | EB | (9)
3600 η pump × ηP
pump
E (t) × ηT × ηP
Qcha (t) = PHES (10)
g × ρ × (h add + h3 )

pump Qdis. (t) × g × ρ × (h add + h3 )

PPHES (t) = (11)
η pump × ηP

4.1.4. SMES Energy Storage System Modeling

SMESs can store excess or surplus energy produced by the hybrid system and release
it when needed to meet peak load demand, rather than limiting it when load demand is low.
This can be done until long-term energy sources are connected to the system during the
day. In other words, SMESs can act as loads to store energy while charging and generators
to release or transfer energy while discharging. Reactive power can also be delivered or
absorbed [51,52]. The SMES had two modes of operation, as explained below.
a. Charging mode: When the hybrid system power Psys exceeds the load demand PL
(i.e., PL − Psys < 0), this mode of operation happens.

(( Eexch (t − 1) − Eexch−max (t))

 
Pexch (t) = max −|∆P(t)|, , − Pexch−rated (12)
∆t × ηch

Eexch (t) = min{( Eexch (t − 1) − Pexch−ch (t) × ∆t × ηch ), Eexch−max } (13)

Sustainability 2023, 15, 8264 10 of 26

b. Discharging mode: When the load demand PL is higher than the hybrid system
power Psys (i.e., PL − Psys > 0), this mode of operation happens.

(( Eexch (t − 1) − Eexch−min (t)) × ηdis

 
Pexch (t) = max |∆P(t)|, , Pexch−rated (14)
∆t

Pexch,dis × ∆t
  
Eexch (t) = max Eexch (t − 1) − , Eexch−min (15)
ηdis
State of charge (SOC) represents an index of the energy stored in the SMES, with an
initial value (SOCinitial ) to be optimized for each SMES serving different load models [53–55].

4.1.5. Inverter Energy Conversion System Modeling

As expressed in Equation (16), the power inverter converts the DC sources provided
by the PV output to AC electricity. This PV output from the inverter will be utilized in the
energy management strategies, as explained in the next sections. The size of the inverter is
calculated as follows [56,57]:

Pinv (t) = PPV (t) × ηinv × NPV × f PV (16)

4.2. Proposed System Operational Procedure and Power Management Strategy

The following operational scenarios provide a summary of how the proposed hybrid
renewable energy system would function. Figure 6 shows a flow chart that describes
the operating strategy of a hybrid system. Whenever load demand changes, there is a
change in the power supply system. Changes in supply are proportional to changes in
load demand, so as load demand rises so does system power supply (generation). From
this point of view, the power system stability problem in the distribution system can
be reduced. As a result, the power supply must be adjusted to minimize the change
in hybrid power generation and load requirements when operating in fast mode. This
means that as the load demand rises, the power supply should rise along with it, and
once the load demand falls, the power supply should drop or be unplugged from the
grid-connected hybrid power production system. On this basis, a hybrid system proceeds
as follows: when a change in power generation minus load demand becomes negative,
SMES responds within milliseconds and supplies the power to the system until long-term
energy storage (PHES) or a biogas generator starts to supply the connected load. However,
before SMES operates, it must undergo that process where the inductor current (ISMES ) of
the superconducting coil is compared to its lower limit of inductor current (ISMES dL). If the
SMES coil’s current exceeds ISMES dL, SMES discharges and sends electricity to the hybrid
power system that is connected to the grid; otherwise, SMES is unable to generate power.
In another circumstance where the difference between the change in power generation
and the load demand is positive, the SMES does not supply the power but keeps running
until the long-term energy storage system or other energy sources are ready to meet the
connected demand. For some of the excess power supplied to the SMES before charging
the SMES, its inductor coil current has reached its upper limit. If the inductor current is less
than the upper limit, then SMES is in charging mode and consumes power from the grid-
connected hybrid power generation system; otherwise, SMES does not charge. When there
is no difference between the change in power generation and the change in load demand,
the SMES remains in standby mode, indicating it is neither charging nor discharging.
Long-term energy storage systems (PHES) and SMES both have the same commands.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8264 11 of 26

Figure 6. Diagram outlining how a proposed grid-connected hybrid system would operate.

Based on the availability of PPV , PL , and SOC of energy storage systems such as SMES
and PHES, the proposed power management’s general operational modes are as follows:
• Mode I (PPV > PL ): In this mode, the available solar PV output exceeds the load
demand, and energy storage systems (i.e., SMES and PHES) can absorb the extra
power. The PV runs at MPP, while the SMES keeps the common DC bus voltage at its
nominal value;
• Mode II (PPV < PL and PPV 6= 0): The load demand cannot be satisfied in this mode
by solar PV power. Therefore, energy storage system (i.e., SMES and PHES) discharges
to meet the extra load. SMES energy storage system provides for transition periods;
• Mode III (PPV > PL ): If the amount of solar PV power available is more than the
amount of power needed and the energy storage systems (SMES and PHES) are full,
the extra power is sent to the national grid through feed-in-tariff agreements;
• Mode IV (PPV = 0): Solar PV power is not available on cloudy days or at night. In
this mode, the PV is not connected, and the connected load demand is met by the
energy storage systems (i.e., SMES and PHES). Whenever PPV < PL and energy storage
s ystem (i.e., SMES and PHES) is not able to meet the connected loads, then the biogas
generator is on and provides power to unmeet connected loads;
• Mode V (( PPV + PB + PSMES + PPHES ) > PL ): If the hybrid system is not capable to
supply the connected load, then the deficit power is taken from the interconnected
national grid through purchasing agreement.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8264 12 of 26

5. Evaluation Parameter Modeling

5.1. Economic Modelling
This section shows the math model for the key economic factors, such as the levelized
cost of energy (LCOE), the annual real interest rate, the total net present cost (TNPC), the
annualized cost of the system (ACS), and the cost of energy (COE).
Equation (17) displays the annualized cost of the system (ACS), which is expressed in
USD/yr, as the sum of the costs of the system’s component parts, such as solar PV panels,
power inverters, a biogas plant, energy storage at SMES and PHES, energy sold to the
grid, and electricity purchased from the grid [58]. ACS is a required input parameter for
calculating NPC, which is one of the objectives to be optimized. This ensuing Pareto front
connects NPC with LPSP and CO2 emissions to explain the relationship between system
affordability, reliability, and environmental friendliness, respectively.

ACS = NPV × ACPV + PB × ACB + Pinv × ACinv + PPHES × ACPHES

(17)
+ PSMES × ACSMES + CGP − CGS

The COE (USD/kWh) is the cost per unit of electrical energy produced by the system
and can be calculated as follows [59]:

Cann_tot NPC
COE = h=8760
= × CRF (18)
∑h=1 Pload ∑hh=
=1
8760
Pload

where Cann_tot , CRF, and Pload are represented as total annualized cost, cost of recovery
factor, and connected load power.
The investigated system’s TNPC in USD is the present value of the whole system’s
components throughout the project’s lifespan. This comprises the capital cost, replacement
cost, operating and maintenance cost, and salvage value, all while taking the time value of
money into consideration. In this research, TNPC was one of the best objective functions.
Equation (19) can be used to calculate the TNPC. CRF(r, M) is the capital recovery factor
value, and it can be computed using Equation (20); where r represents the real interest rate
(%) and M represents the project length (in years).

ACS
TNPC = (19)
CRF (r, M)

r (1 + r ) M
CRF (r, M) = (20)
(1 + r ) M − 1
The LCOE is the ratio of the ACS of the system’s parts to the amount of energy made
from renewable sources and used by the load over a year (kWh/yr). It is a widely used
indicator of economic viability that is calculated using Equation (21) [60]. The LCOE
represents the average cost per kWh generated by the HRES.

ACS
LCOE = (21)
Total Energy Consumed by the Load (kWh/year)

5.2. Reliability Indicators

The system’s reliability is defined as the HRES’s capacity to supply enough energy to
the load demand without running out or in outage mode. There are numerous reliability
indicators for the proposed HRES system. EENS and LPSP [61], the index of reliability
(IR) [62], LOLP [63], and loss of load expectation are the most popular measures of the
reliability of an energy system. These indicators indicate how much of the load has been
satisfied. EENS can be calculated using Equation (22) by calculating the amount of energy
shortage in the load [64], where PL is the power of the load demand, and PGP is the amount
of power purchased from the utility grid.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8264 13 of 26

8760h   i
EENS = ∑ cha
PL (t) + PPHES&SMES dis
(t) − PPV (t) + PB (t) + PPHES&SMES (t) + PGP (t) (22)
t =1

LPSP can be calculated as the ratio of the EENS with the total energy provided to the
connected load using Equation (23). Equation (24) shows how this reliability index is used
to figure out how well the HRES can handle the load without running out of energy [65,66].

EENS
LPSP = (23)
8760
∑ PL (t)
t =1

IR = 1 − LPSP (24)
According to Equation (25), LOLP can be mathematically computed by dividing the
total number of hours by the 8760 h period during which the power of the load demand
exceeds the quantity of energy purchased from the grid and renewable sources [67]. The
LPSP and LOLP indices have a 0 to 1 range. A value of 0 implies that there is no lack
of energy. The number 1 indicates that each one-hour time step always has an energy
deficit. LOLE is an abbreviation for service disruptions in days and is calculated using
Equation (26).

8760 h   i
cha dis
∑ hours#at PL (t) + PPHES&SMES (t) > PPV (t) + PB (t) + PPHES&SMES (t) + PGP (t)
t =1
LOLP = (25)
8760
LOLE = LOLP × Number of days in one year (26)

5.3. Environmental Indicators

This paper explores the influence of a hybrid solar PV–biogas system with SMES and
PHES energy storage system on reducing grid energy purchases and completely replacing
diesel generators. Equation (27) can be used in this paper to predict GHG emissions
hourly [68,69]. In addition, Equation (28) depicts the project’s emissions reduction. These
two equations can be combined and computed as an objective function. This aims to give
additional information regarding the environmental effects of upgrading a HRES system.
The amount of emissions reduced as a result of using renewables instead of traditional
fossil fuels to generate energy is defined as PEA [68].

EGP × EEF
CO2 Emissions = (27)
1 − Losses

PEA = [ EPV × EEFPV + EB × EEFB + ESMES × EEFSMES + EPHES × EEFPHES ] − CO2 Emissions (28)
Losses represent transmission and distribution losses, EGP represents energy purchases
from the grid, and EEF is the electrical emissions factor. However, base emissions are project
emissions, which are deemed insignificant in comparison to the number of emissions
offset by hybrid renewable energy resources, as shown in (28). This research looks at
CO2 Emissions renewable energy sources because of how they are made and how long
they last. As a result, in this study, the average base emissions of hybrid solar PV [70],
biogas [71], PHES [72], and SMES energy storage systems are equal to 30.5 gCO2 /kWh, 41
gCO2 /kWh, 24 gCO2 /kWh, and 18.5 gCO2 /kWh, respectively.

6. Formulation of Optimization Problem

The cost, reliability, and CO2 emissions function minimization can be solved by
proposing optimal sizing equations for each parameter. To determine the appropriate
sizes and number of needed generation units, optimization problems must be solved to
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8264 14 of 26

obtain the optimal component sizing as well as to assure the optimal operation of the
proposed microgrid.

6.1. Objective Functions

In this study, as mentioned above, three objective functions such as financial (TNPC),
reliability (LPSP), and GHG emissions (CO2 Emissions) are considered. Minimization of
the objective function in the aforementioned cases is expressed in Equations (29)–(31)
as follows:
 
C + C + C + C − C
 
Cann−total 
ann−cap ann−rep ann−O&M GP GS

F1 = min{ TNPV } = min = min (29)
CRF  r (1+r ) n 
(1+r ) n −1

 
8760
 ∑ [( Pload (t) + PPHES&SMES−cha (t)) − ( PPV&B (t) + PPHES&SMES−dis (t) + PGP (t))] 

 

 
t =1
F2 = min{ LPSP} = min (30)
8760
∑ Pload (t)

 


 

t =1
 
EPV (t) × EEFPV + EB (t) × EEFB
F3 = min{CO2 Emissions} = min (31)
+ EPHES (t) × EEFPHES + ESMES (t) × EEFSMES

6.2. Constraints
The number of solar panels, capacity of biogas generator, maximum install capacity
of inverter, maximum install capacity of SMES, maximum installed power of PHES, and
water storage sizes are under consideration. Equation (32) imposes constraints on the
optimization problem.

Nmin
PV ≤ NPV ≤ N PV
max 

max
Pinv ≥ PPV




min max

PB ≤ PB ≤ PB 


min
PSMES ≤ PSMES ≤ PSMES max (32)
0 ≤ PGP ≤ PGP max 



min ≤ P max
PHES ≤ PPHES

PPHES 


min max

VReservoir ≤ VReservoir ≤ VReservoir


min , N max , Pmin , Pmax , Pmin , Pmax , Pmin , Pmax , V min

where NPV max
PV B B PHS PHS SMES SMES Reservoir , VReservoir represent the
maximum and minimum limits of solar panels, the maximum and minimum capacity of
the output power of biogas, PHES, and SMES, and the maximum and minimum of the
upper reservoir, respectively.

6.3. Optimization Techniques

The proposed metaheuristic optimization technique is a non-dominated sorting whale
optimization algorithm (NSWOA) which is discussed and analyzed in detail in this section.
The chosen algorithm outcomes are also compared against other metaheuristic optimization
algorithms MOGWO and MOPSO. In MATLAB, the algorithms are executed.
Mirjalili and Lewis in 2016 [73] introduced the WOA, which is modeled after the social
behavior of humpback whales and is a unique meta-heuristic optimization algorithm. The
bubble-net hunting strategy served as the basis for the algorithm. Although WOA has a
fast rate of convergence, its efficacy in locating the global optimal solution to multimodal
issues with numerous local optimal solutions is inadequate. This approach is inspired by
nature and combines the WOA with an optimization technique based on non-dominated
sorting and simple to handle multiobjective function problems.
Mirjalili and Lewis in 2014 [74], introduced the grey wolf optimizer (GWO), which is
inspired by grey wolves and is modeled in accordance with the leadership hierarchy and
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8264 15 of 26

hunting mechanisms of grey wolves in nature. Al-Masri and Al-Sharqi in 2020 [75], used
the multi-objective grey wolf optimization (MOGWO) approach, and a comprehensive
mathematical model was created by researchers for a PV–biogas hybrid energy system.
This algorithm looked at things such as reliability, accessibility, and solutions that are not as
good as they could be for both on-grid and off-grid systems. A multi-objective and difficult
problem can be solved by deriving numerous optimal solutions using the PSO technique.
PSO, created by Kennedy and Eberhart in 1995, is an iterative optimization method that
simulates social behavior [76]. Ou and Hong in 2014 [77] investigated variable operation as
well as control strategies for a HRES system and used the PSO algorithm to evaluate the
effectiveness of the solar PV power system. WL Theo et al. in 2017 [78], proposed a study
of system planning and optimization strategies suitable for the integration of hybrid energy
systems, as well as a comparison of several mathematical programming methodologies.
Adewuyi et al. in 2017 [79], proposed how the maximum amount of solar PV that the
power system could handle while maintaining system voltage stability was determined
using the MOPSO method.

7. Result and Discussion

The proposed solutions try to cut costs, improve reliability, and reduce carbon emis-
sions all at the same time. Depending on how full the PHES and SMES are and how much
power the associated load needs for long-term power supply, charging or discharging can
happen during peak or off-peak hours. The rating, pricing, and type of HRES are taken into
account in the selection process. The HRES with ES components such as solar PV panels, a
biogas generator, PHES, SMES, and inverter properties are utilized in this investigation, as
shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Technical and financial specifications for HRES system’s component.

Solar panel [80]

Max power 380 Wp
Length width 1.976 × 0.991 m
Efficiency 19.41%
Temperature coefficient 0.41%
Initial cost 145.845 EUR/kW
O M cost 1% of initial cost
Life span 25 years
SMES [81]
Energy, ESMES 1 MJ
Inductance, LSMES 0.5 H
Current, ISMES 1 KA
Initial cost 5000 EUR/kW
Voltage, Vdc-link 2 KV
Capacitance, Cdc-link 0.01 F
PHES [82,83]
Overall efficiency 77%
Cost of power conversion 165–740 EUR/kW
Fixe OM cost 8.5 EUR/kW
Variable OM 0.8 EUR/MWh
Life Span 30 years
Biogas generator [84]
Initial cost 1342.5 EUR/kW
Fixed OM cost 71.65 EUR/kW
Variable OM 20.7 EUR/MWh
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8264 16 of 26

Table 1. Cont.

Inverter [85,86]
Model UnderstandSolar
Initial cost 172 EUR/kW
OM cost 1% of initial cost
Efficiency 95%

As shown in Table 1, each hybrid renewable energy source system component is

listed, and their initial cost, maintenance, and operational costs, as well as the technical
specifications such as efficiency, rating, life span, and models, are described well with
references for further details.
As shown in Figure 7, the minimum, maximum, and average numerical values in
one full year for solar PV horizontal global irradiance are 0, 1195.8, and 273.98 W/m2 ,
for ambient temperature, 16.5, 21.25, and 26 ◦ C, and connected load demand are 662.68,
1185.04, and 1707.40 kW, respectively.

Figure 7. Representation of data on the research area’s hourly load demand, solar irradiation, and
temperatures per annum.

7.1. Optimization Applications on Optimal Sizing of HRES Components

This study describes a multi-objective optimization to identify a collection of non-
dominant solutions. Every point on the Pareto front is thought of as the best possible
solution for the system, and no solution outperforms the others. However, metaheuristic
optimization techniques such as NSWOA, MOGWO, and MOPSO are suggested in this
study to identify the compromised solution that is regarded as dependable and affordable
in one scenario and affordable and ecological in another. In this work, the number of
solar PV panels, the capacity of the biogas generator, the capacity of the PHES system,
the capacity of the SMES system, and the capacity of the upper reservoir are the decision
variables employed in a grid-connected system. In a grid-connected HRES with a PHES-
SMES energy storage system, three Pareto frontier optimization instances (NPC vs. LPSP
vs. CE) are investigated. Optimal sizing of HRES system components are taking account of
those three objective functions. Table 2 shows the capacity of components that have been
optimized using various metaheuristic optimization algorithms.
According to Table 2, by using NSWOA the sizing is optimized, and the estimated
capacities of the PV modules, the biogas generator, the SMES, the PHES, and the upper
reservoir are 5495.44, 860.29 KW, 142.28 KWh, 400.67 KW, and 26,798.14 m3 , respectively.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8264 17 of 26

Table 2. Optimal sizing of HRES components by three metaheuristic optimization algorithms.

Type of Renewable Energy Resources

Techniques PHES Capacity Reservoir Capacity of SMES Capacity
No of PV Panel
(KW) Capacity (m3 ) Biogas (KW) (KWh)
NSWOA 5495.44 400.67 26,798.14 860.29 142.28
MOGWO 5228.58 378.97 25,296.88 936.94 142.28
MOPSO 5464.31 362.86 24,995.71 941.63 142.28

7.2. Result Evaluation of Economical, Reliability, and Carbon Emission Parameters

Among multi-objective optimization methods, Pareto front produces the best solution
results. In a multi-objective problem, the best solution for one objective may be the worst
solution for another. For example, as NPC numerical values increase, the LPSP value
may decrease. The increased capacity of the facility equipment raises the initial cost of
installing the renewable energy system, which raises the cost of energy and the levelized
cost of energy.
As shown in Table 3, the value of LPSP is predefined below 1%, and the results of each
algorithm are nearly similar; especially MOGWO and MOPSO numerical values have small
differences. In this study, the total project cost with the 25-year period taken into account,
varies very little between the MOGWO and MOPSO algorithms. This allows the results of
each algorithm to be validated against each other. Consistent with the NSWOA algorithm
results, the total NPC and CO2 Emissions and LPSP are EUR 6.997 × 106 , 1.6122 × 107 Kg
CO2 , and 0.0085. The algorithm results, which are total NPC, CO2 Emissions, and LPSP are
EUR 7.008 × 106 , 1.6122 × 107 Kg CO2 , and 0.0089 for MOGWO and EUR 7.011 × 106 and
1.6122 × 107 Kg CO2 and 0.9908 for MOPSO, respectively. According to the recorded results,
the existing carbon emission on the distribution network is the same (1.6122 × 107 Kg CO2 )
for all optimization techniques, whereas HRES CO2 Emissions (Kg CO2 ), by implementing
NSWOA, MOGWO, and MOPSO are 8.7536 × 106 , 8.7895 × 106 , and 8.7945 × 106 Kg CO2 ,
respectively. Based on the analysis of these results, NSWOA has the optimum total NPC,
LPSP, and GHG when compared to the other remaining two algorithms. For all values of
financial parameters such as NPC, COE, and LCOE, as shown in Figure 8, the NSWOA
result is optimal.

Table 3. Optimized evaluation parameters using various metaheuristic optimization techniques.

Optimization Techniques
NSWOA MOGWO MOPSO
Evaluation Parameters
NPC (EUR) 6.997 × 106 7.008 × 106 7.011 × 106
Financial COE (EUR/kWh) 0.053102 0.053625 0.053743
LCOE (EUR/kWh) 0.046218 0.046897 0.046985
EENS 1.124 × 105 1.174 × 105 1.186 × 105
LPSP 0.0085 0.0089 0.0092
Reliability IR 0.9915 0.9911 0.9908
LOLP 2.925 3.204 3.902
LOLE 10.605 11.502 14.201
Existing CO2 Emissions (KgCO2 ) 1.6122 × 107 1.6122 × 107 1.6122 × 107
GHG HRES CO2 Emissions (KgCO2 ) 8.7536 × 106 8.7895 × 106 8.7945 × 106
CO2 Emissions reduction (KgCO2 ) −7.3679 × 106 −7.3325 × 106 −7.3275 × 106
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8264 18 of 26

Figure 8. Financial parameters [NPC, COE, and LCOE] representations using NSWOA, MOGWO,
and MOPSO techniques.

Moreover, the numerical values of the constraints, as well as the participation rate of
renewable energy generation with energy storage systems, have a significant impact on
the reliability analysis. Figure 9 shows that NSWOA is optimal for all values of reliability
parameters such as LOLP, EENS, and LOLE.

Figure 9. Reliability parameters [EENS, LOLP, and LOLE] representations using NSWOA, MOGWO,
and MOPSO techniques.

Additionally, the GHG emissions analysis is significantly impacted by the numerical

values of the constraints as well as the rate at which renewable energy generation is coupled
with energy storage systems. As depicted in Figure 10, NSWOA is ideal for all values
of GHG emission parameters such as CO2 Emissions (Kg CO2 ), PHRES (Kg CO2 ), and PEA
(Kg CO2 ).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8264 19 of 26

Figure 10. GHG emissions parameters [CO2 Emissions, PHRES and PEA ] representations using
NSWOA, MOGWO, and MOPSO techniques.

7.3. Analysis and Applications of HRES Optimal Solutions

As the objective functions are used as the criteria for making decisions in this study,
the NPC, the LPSP, and CO2 emissions are the criteria. Based on the results of the three
algorithms, the remaining analyses were targeted at the results of NSWOA.
The energy share to the connected system load is shown in Figure 11, along with
the contribution of each HRES to the energy storage system. The PV system contributes
4.1258 × 106 KWh (43%) of the total installed energy, and the biogas generator system gen-
erated 4.4154 × 106 KWh (45%) of the total installed capacity in the hybrid solar PV–biogas
with SMES-PHES energy storage project. In addition, PHES generated 1.1582 × 106 KWh
(12%) of the project’s overall installed capacity of the proposed hybrid system. Since SMES
(1.315 × 105 KWh) is only used to keep peak transition loads steady when switching from
one power source to another, it is not counted as a long-sustained energy source.

Figure 11. Contributions of each energy generation, component’s total life cycle cost, and GHG
emissions to the proposed hybrid system.

The cost of the project’s total life cycle is shown in Figure 11, along with the con-
tribution of each component of the HRES to the energy storage system. The PV system
contributes 1.2828 × 106 (28%) of the total project costs, and the biogas generator system
contributes 1.4757 × 106 (32%) of the system costs in the hybrid solar PV–biogas with
SMES-PHES energy storage project. Additionally, 7.1853 × 105 (16%) and 1.0941 × 106
(24%) of the project’s overall costs come from the SMES and PHES, respectively.
The GHG emissions of the system are shown in Figure 11, along with the contri-
bution of each component of the HRES to the energy storage system. The PV system
contributes 3.1459 × 106 Kg CO2 emissions (37.33%), and the biogas generator system
contributes 4.5258 × 106 Kg CO2 emissions (54%) in the hybrid solar PV–biogas with
SMES-PHES energy storage project. Additionally, 0.06082 × 106 Kg CO2 emissions (0.73%)
and 0.6949 × 106 Kg CO2 emissions (8%) of the SMES and PHES, respectively.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8264 20 of 26

The annual energy conversions from solar PV, biogas generators, and energy balance
are 4.1258 GWh, 4.4154 GWh, and 2.3585 GWh, respectively. The hybrid system has surplus
and deficit energies that are roughly 0.2582 GWh and 0.00942 GWh, respectively, according
to the final energy exchanged with the grid utility and the surplus and deficit. The amount
of power exchanged with the electrical network is equal to the amount of energy sent to
the nearby electric distribution network. Figure 12 shows the annual output from solar PV,
the biogas power plant, energy balance, surplus, and deficit.

Figure 12. Annual power output from PV, biogas plant, energy balance, surplus and deficit using NSWOA.

The discharging power, charging power, and state of charge of the SMES are continu-
ously changing because of the connected loads, as shown in Figure 13. Due to fast response,
these energy storage systems essentially only function when switching between different
energy sources to meet demand. The annual energy discharge and charge for the SMES
energy storage systems are 0.1315 GWh and 0.1635 GWh, respectively. The SMES can be
charged anywhere between 5% and 100%.

Figure 13. Represents the annual charging, discharging, and SOC of a SMES energy storage system
using an NSWOA.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8264 21 of 26

In a proposed hybrid system, Figure 14 shows the consumed energy from solar PV
production or any excess power that may be present. Additionally, it displays the water
used or discharged during power generation mode, the water charged to the upper reservoir
during pumping mode, and the SOC parameter used to regulate the water level in the
upper reservoir. The annual energy discharge, generation, and consumption produced
by the PHES energy storage system are 0.6847 GWh and 1.0031 GWh, respectively. The
upper reservoir’s SOC illustrates the variation in water storage capacity between the full
and empty states of the tank. The minimum SOC of 61% for the upper reservoir is reached
when the PV energy is at its lowest. Annual water intake and output from the PHES upper
reservoir are 4.856 × 106 and 4.527 × 106 m3 , respectively.

Figure 14. Represents the annual charging, discharging, and SOC of a PHES energy storage system
using an NSWOA.

8. Conclusions
This study presents the design of a grid-connected hybrid PV/biogas system with
pumped hydro and super magnetic energy storage for Debre Markos, Ethiopia, based on
multiple objective functions, including the effects on cost, reliability, and GHG emissions.
Metaheuristic optimization techniques such as NSWOA, MOGWO, and MOPSO are used to
find the best size for hybrid systems based on evaluation parameters for financial stability,
reliability, and GHG emissions and have been evaluated using MATLAB. A thorough
comparison between NSWOA, MOGWO, and MOPSO and the system parameters at
150 iterations has been presented. The outcomes demonstrated NSWOA’s superiority
in achieving the best optimum value of the predefined multi-objective function, with
MOGWO and MOPSO coming in second and third, respectively. The comparison study
has focused on NSWOA’s ability to produce the best NPC, LPSP, and GHG emissions
values. Additionally, the simulation results demonstrated that the NSWOA technique
outperforms other optimization techniques in its ability to solve the optimization problem.
Furthermore, the outcomes show that the designed system has acceptable NPC, LPSP, and
GHG emissions values under various operating conditions.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.F.A., A.F.-L., I.A., A.A., B.K. and E.T.; methodology,
T.F.A., A.F.-L., I.A., A.A. and B.K.; software, T.F.A., A.F.-L., B.K. and E.T.; validation, T.F.A., A.F.-L.,
I.A., A.A., B.K. and E.T.; formal analysis, T.F.A., A.F.-L., I.A., A.A., B.K. and E.T.; investigation, T.F.A.
and A.F.-L.; resources, T.F.A., A.F.-L., I.A., A.A., B.K. and E.T.; data curation, T.F.A. and A.F.-L.;
writing—original draft preparation, T.F.A. and A.F.-L.; writing—review and editing, T.F.A., A.F.-L.,
I.A., A.A., B.K. and E.T.; visualization, T.F.A., A.F.-L., I.A., A.A., B.K. and E.T.; supervision, T.F.A.,
A.F.-L., I.A., A.A., B.K. and E.T.; project administration, T.F.A., A.F.-L., I.A., A.A., B.K. and E.T. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8264 22 of 26

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement: Data will be available on request.
Acknowledgments: The authors kindly thank the editor and reviewers who spent their valuable time
improving the present paper. Takele Ferede Agajie kindly thanks the MIRET Scholarship program for
their financial support, under project No: 614658-PANAF-1-2019-1-KE-PANAF-MOBAF.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviation and Symbols

Pexch Exchange Power

ηcha Charging Efficiency
ηdis Discharging Efficiency
pump
PPHES Consumed Power for Pumping
pump
EPHES Consumed Energy for Pumping
Pinv Inverter Output Power
NPV Number of PV Panels
ηinv Inverter Efficiency
f PV Derating Factor of PV panel
Vmax Maximum Reservoir Capacity
Q Dis Discharging Water Flow Rate
Qcha Charging Water Flow Rate
ηPump Pump Efficiency
Pexch−rated Exchange Rating Power
PPV −r Solar Panel Rated Power
Eexch Exchange Energy
Eexch−min Minimum Exchange Energy
Eexch−max Maximum Exchange Energy
ACPV Annualized Cost of PV Panel
ACB Annualized Cost of Biogas
ACinv Annualized Cost of Inverter
ACSMES Annualized Cost of SMES
∆P(t) Power Difference between Source and Demand
V(t−1) Volume of Water at time t
ηT Turbine Efficiency
ηP Water Pipe Efficiency
gen
E(t) Generated Energy by Turbine
| EB | Energy Balance
Pbala Power Balance
PPV Solar PV Output Power
PL Connected Load
PB Biogas Generator Output Power
VB Volume of Produced Biogas
CVB Biogas Calorific Value
ηB Biogas Generator Efficiency
tB Working Hours of Biogas
∆t Interval Time
ϑi Solar Irradiation
τα Ambient Temperatures
τp Panel Temperatures
αc Temperature Coefficient
PHES Pumped Hydro Energy Storage
ACPHES Annualized Cost of PHES
CGP Annual Cost of Grid Energy Purchases
CGS Annual Cost of Grid Energy Sales
SMES Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8264 23 of 26

References
1. IEA. World Energy Outlook 2018; OECD: Paris, France, 2018. [CrossRef]
2. Pachauri, S.; Kedia, S. Energiewende and Innovation: Are We Transitioning Fast Enough? Analytical Brief on Climate Ambition
and Sustainability Action: CASA Brief. Available online: https://worldsdf.org/research/ (accessed on 12 February 2020).
3. IEA; IRENA; UNSD; World Bank; World Health Organization. Tracking SDG 7: The Energy Progress Report 2019; World Bank:
Washington, DC, USA, 2019. Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/c6829d12-c273-555
3-99d5-80f8148e1ebd (accessed on 16 January 2023).
4. IEA; IRENA; UNSD; World Bank; World Health Organization. Tracking SDG 7: The Energy Progress Report; World Bank:
Washington, DC, USA, 2020. Available online: https://www.irena.org/Energy-Transition/Policy/Off-grid-for-Energy-Access
(accessed on 20 January 2023).
5. World Bank. World Development Report 2021: Data for Better Lives; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2021.
6. IRENA. Accelerating Off-Grid Renewable Energy. 2019. Available online: https://www.irena.org/publications/2015/Jan/
Accelerating-Off-Grid-Renewable-Energy (accessed on 29 November 2022).
7. Abdalla, A.N.; Nazir, M.S.; Tao, H.; Cao, S.; Ji, R.; Jiang, M.; Yao, L. Integration of energy storage system and renewable energy
sources based on artificial intelligence: An overview. J. Energy Storage 2021, 40, 102811. [CrossRef]
8. Androniceanu, A.; Sabie, O.M. Overview of Green Energy as a Real Strategic Option for Sustainable Development. Energies 2022,
15, 8573. [CrossRef]
9. Chen, X.; Xiao, J.; Yuan, J.; Xiao, Z.; Gang, W. Application and performance analysis of 100% renewable energy systems serving
low-density communities. Renew. Energy 2021, 176, 433–446. [CrossRef]
10. Elmorshedy, M.F.; Elkadeem, M.; Kotb, K.M.; Taha, I.B.; Mazzeo, D. Optimal design and energy management of an isolated fully
renewable energy system integrating batteries and supercapacitors. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021, 245, 114584. [CrossRef]
11. Zhongming, Z.; Linong, L.; Xiaona, Y.; Wangqiang, Z.; Wei, L. Global Energy Review 2021. 2021. Available online: https:
//www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2021 (accessed on 21 December 2022).
12. Bhattacharjee, S.; Nayak, P.K. PV-pumped energy storage option for convalescing performance of hydroelectric station under
declining precipitation trend. Renew. Energy 2018, 135, 288–302. [CrossRef]
13. Xu, X.; Hu, W.; Huang, Q.; Chen, Z. Optimal operation of photovoltaic-pump hydro storage hybrid system. In Proceedings of the
2018 IEEE PES Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference (APPEEC), Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, 7–10 October 2018;
pp. 194–199.
14. Koko, S.P.; Kusakana, K.; Vermaak, H.J. Optimal power dispatch of a grid-interactive micro-hydrokinetic-pumped hydro storage
system. J. Energy Storage 2018, 17, 63–72. [CrossRef]
15. Sun, K.; Li, K.-J.; Pan, J.; Liu, Y.; Liu, Y. An optimal combined operation scheme for pumped storage and hybrid wind-photovoltaic
complementary power generation system. Appl. Energy 2019, 242, 1155–1163. [CrossRef]
16. Duchaud, J.-L.; Notton, G.; Darras, C.; Voyant, C. Multi-Objective Particle Swarm optimal sizing of a renewable hybrid power
plant with storage. Renew Energy 2018, 131, 1156–1167. [CrossRef]
17. Javed, M.S.; Zhong, D.; Ma, T.; Song, A.; Ahmed, S. Hybrid pumped hydro and battery storage for renewable energy based power
supply system. Appl. Energy 2019, 257, 114026. [CrossRef]
18. Hashem, M.; Abdel-Salam, M.; El-Mohandes, M.T.; Nayel, M.; Ebeed, M. Optimal placement and sizing of wind turbine generators
and superconducting magnetic energy storages in a distribution system. J. Energy Storage 2021, 38, 102497. [CrossRef]
19. Salama, H.S.; Kotb, K.; Vokony, I.; Dán, A. The Role of Hybrid Battery–SMES Energy Storage in Enriching the Permanence of
PV–Wind DC Microgrids: A Case Study. Eng 2022, 3, 207–223. [CrossRef]
20. Möhner, A. The evolution of adaptation metrics under the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement. Adapt. Metr. Perspect. Meas.
Aggregating Comp. Adapt. Results 2018, 15, 15–27.
21. Aggarwal, N.K.; Kumar, N.; Mittal, M. Potential of Weed Biomass for Bioethanol Production. In Bioethanol Production; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 65–71.
22. Kumar, R.; Channi, H.K. A PV-Biomass off-grid hybrid renewable energy system (HRES) for rural electrification: Design,
optimization and techno-economic-environmental analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 349, 131347. [CrossRef]
23. Hailu, E.A.; Mezgebu, C. Design and simulation of standalone hybrid (solar/biomass) electricity generation system for a rural
village in Ethiopia. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2017, 8, 1570–1574.
24. Alzahrani, A.; Ramu, S.; Devarajan, G.; Vairavasundaram, I.; Vairavasundaram, S. A review on hydrogen-based hybrid microgrid
system: Topologies for hydrogen energy storage, integration, and energy management with solar and wind energy. Energies 2022,
15, 7979. [CrossRef]
25. Ebhota, W.S.; Jen, T.-C. Fossil fuels environmental challenges and the role of solar photovoltaic technology advances in fast
tracking hybrid renewable energy system. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf.-Green Technol. 2020, 7, 97–117. [CrossRef]
26. De Doile, G.N.D.; Junior, P.R.; Rocha, L.C.S.; Janda, K.; Aquila, G.; Peruchi, R.S.; Balestrassi, P.P. Feasibility of hybrid wind and
photovoltaic distributed generation and battery energy storage systems under techno-economic regulation. Renew. Energy 2022,
195, 1310–1323. [CrossRef]
27. Oladigbolu, J.O.; Ramli, M.A.M.; Al-Turki, Y.A. Feasibility Study and Comparative Analysis of Hybrid Renewable Power System
for off-Grid Rural Electrification in a Typical Remote Village Located in Nigeria. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 171643–171663. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8264 24 of 26

28. Li, J.; Liu, P.; Li, Z. Optimal design and techno-economic analysis of a solar-wind-biomass off-grid hybrid power system for
remote rural electrification: A case study of west China. Energy 2020, 208, 118387. [CrossRef]
29. Goswami, A.; Sadhu, P.; Sadhu, P.K. Development of a grid connected solar-wind hybrid system with reduction in levelized tariff
for a remote island in India. J. Sol. Energy Eng. 2020, 142, 044501. [CrossRef]
30. Aziz, A.S.; Tajuddin, M.; Adzman, M.; Azmi, A.; Ramli, M.A. Optimization and sensitivity analysis of standalone hybrid energy
systems for rural electrification: A case study of Iraq. Renew. Energy 2019, 138, 775–792. [CrossRef]
31. Mamaghani, A.H.; Escandon, S.A.; Najafi, B.; Shirazi, A.; Rinaldi, F. Techno-economic feasibility of photovoltaic, wind, diesel and
hybrid electrification systems for off-grid rural electrification in Colombia. Renew. Energy 2016, 97, 293–305. [CrossRef]
32. Shi, B.; Wu, W.; Yan, L. Size optimization of stand-alone PV/wind/diesel hybrid power generation systems. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem.
Eng. 2017, 73, 93–101. [CrossRef]
33. Javed, M.S.; Ma, T. Techno-economic assessment of a hybrid solar-wind-battery system with genetic algorithm. Energy Procedia
2019, 158, 6384–6392. [CrossRef]
34. Emad, D.; El-Hameed, M.; El-Fergany, A.A. Optimal techno-economic design of hybrid PV/wind system comprising battery
energy storage: Case study for a remote area. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021, 249, 114847. [CrossRef]
35. Hatata, A.Y.; Osman, G.; Aladl, M.M. An optimization method for sizing a solar/wind/battery hybrid power system based on
the artificial immune system. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2018, 27, 83–93. [CrossRef]
36. Askarzadeh, A.; Coelho, L.S. A novel framework for optimization of a grid independent hybrid renewable energy system: A case
study of Iran. Sol. Energy 2015, 112, 383–396. [CrossRef]
37. Atieh, A.; Charfi, S.; Chaabene, M. Chapter 8—Hybrid PV/Batteries Bank/Diesel Generator Solar-Renewable Energy System
Design, Energy Management, and Economics. In Advances in Renewable Energies and Power Technologies; Yahyaoui, I., Ed.; Elsevier:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 257–294. [CrossRef]
38. Suresh, M.; Meenakumari, R.; Panchal, H.; Priya, V.; El Agouz, E.; Israr, M. An enhanced multiobjective particle swarm
optimisation algorithm for optimum utilisation of hybrid renewable energy systems. Int. J. Ambient Energy 2022, 43, 2540–2548.
[CrossRef]
39. Fadli, D.; Purwoharjono, H. Optimal sizing of PV/Diesel/battery hybrid micro-grid system using multi-objective bat algorithm.
Int. J. Eng. Sci. 2019, 8, 6–14.
40. Diab, A.A.Z.; Sultan, H.; Mohamed, I.; Kuznetsov, O.; Do, T.D. Application of Different Optimization Algorithms for Optimal
Sizing of PV/Wind/Diesel/Battery Storage Stand-Alone Hybrid Microgrid. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 119223–119245. [CrossRef]
41. Arasteh, A.; Alemi, P.; Beiraghi, M. Optimal allocation of photovoltaic/wind energy system in distribution network using
meta-heuristic algorithm. Appl. Soft Comput. 2021, 109, 107594. [CrossRef]
42. ArcGIS 10.3: The Next Generation of GIS Is Here. Available online: https://www.esri.com/arcgis-blog/products/3d-gis/3d-gis/
arcgis-10-3-the-next-generation-of-gis-is-here/ (accessed on 15 May 2023).
43. Çetinbaş, İ.; Tamyürek, B.; Demirtaş, M. Sizing optimization and design of an autonomous AC microgrid for commercial loads
using Harris Hawks Optimization algorithm. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021, 245, 114562. [CrossRef]
44. Bukar, A.L.; Tan, C.; Lau, K.Y. Optimal sizing of an autonomous photovoltaic/wind/battery/diesel generator microgrid using
grasshopper optimization algorithm. Sol. Energy 2019, 188, 685–696. [CrossRef]
45. Mudgal, V.; Reddy, K.; Mallick, T.K. Techno-economic analysis of standalone solar photovoltaic-wind-biogas hybrid renewable
energy system for community energy requirement. Futur. Cities Environ. 2019, 5, 11. [CrossRef]
46. Podder, A.K.; Supti, S.A.; Islam, S.; Malvoni, M.; Jayakumar, A.; Deb, S.; Kumar, N.M. Feasibility Assessment of Hybrid Solar
Photovoltaic-Biogas Generator Based Charging Station: A Case of Easy Bike and Auto Rickshaw Scenario in a Developing Nation.
Sustainability 2021, 14, 166. [CrossRef]
47. Alturki, F.A.; Awwad, E.M. Sizing and cost minimization of standalone hybrid wt/pv/biomass/pump-hydro storage-based
energy systems. Energies 2021, 14, 489. [CrossRef]
48. Diab, A.A.Z.; Sultan, H.; Kuznetsov, O.N. Optimal sizing of hybrid solar/wind/hydroelectric pumped storage energy system in
Egypt based on different meta-heuristic techniques. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 32318–32340. [CrossRef]
49. Alotaibi, M.A.; Eltamaly, A.M. A Smart Strategy for Sizing of Hybrid Renewable Energy System to Supply Remote Loads in
Saudi Arabia. Energies 2021, 14, 7069. [CrossRef]
50. Kusakana, K. Feasibility analysis of river off-grid hydrokinetic systems with pumped hydro storage in rural applications. Energy
Convers. Manag. 2015, 96, 352–362. [CrossRef]
51. Faisal, M.; Hannan, M.; Ker, P.; Hussain, A.; Mansor, M.; Blaabjerg, F. Review of Energy Storage System Technologies in Microgrid
Applications: Issues and Challenges. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 35143–35164. [CrossRef]
52. Singh, S.; Joshi, H.; Chanana, S.; Verma, R.K. Impact of Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage on frequency stability of
an isolated hybrid power system. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Computing for Sustainable Global
Development (INDIACom), New Delhi, India, 5–7 March 2014; pp. 141–145.
53. Saranya, S.; Saravanan, B. Optimal size allocation of superconducting magnetic energy storage system based unit commitment.
J. Energy Storage 2018, 20, 173–189.
54. Mukherjee, P.; Rao, V.V. Superconducting magnetic energy storage for stabilizing grid integrated with wind power generation
systems. J. Mod. Power Syst. Clean Energy 2019, 7, 400–411. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8264 25 of 26

55. Chen, Z.; Xiao, X.; Li, C.; Zhang, Y.; Zheng, Z.X. Study on unit commitment problem considering large-scale superconducting
magnetic energy storage systems. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2016, 26, 5701306. [CrossRef]
56. Awan, A.B.; Zubair, M.; Sidhu, G.; Bhatti, A.; Abo-Khalil, A.G. Performance analysis of various hybrid renewable energy systems
using battery, hydrogen, and pumped hydro-based storage units. Int. J. Energy Res. 2019, 43, 6296–6321. [CrossRef]
57. Sultan, H.M.; Menesy, A.; Kamel, S.; Korashy, A.; Almohaimeed, S.; Abdel-Akher, M. An improved artificial ecosystem
optimization algorithm for optimal configuration of a hybrid PV/WT/FC energy system. Alex. Eng. J. 2021, 60, 1001–1025.
[CrossRef]
58. Optimal sizing of grid integrated hybrid PV-biomass energy system using artificial bee colony algorithm—Singh. IET Renew.
Power Gener.—Wiley Online Libr. 2016, 10, 642–650. Available online: https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.104
9/iet-rpg.2015.0298 (accessed on 8 December 2022). [CrossRef]
59. Podder, A.K.; Das, A.K.; Hossain, E.; Kumar, N.M.; Roy, N.K.; Alhelou, H.H.; Karthick, A.; Al-Hinai, A. Integrated modeling and
feasibility analysis of a rooftop photovoltaic systems for an academic building in Bangladesh. Int. J. Low-Carbon Technol. 2021,
16, 1317–1327. [CrossRef]
60. Ma, T.; Yang, H.; Lu, L.; Peng, J. Pumped storage-based standalone photovoltaic power generation system: Modeling and
techno-economic optimization. Appl. Energy 2015, 137, 649–659. [CrossRef]
61. Al-Masri, H.M.; Al-Sharqi, A.; Magableh, S.; Al-Shetwi, A.; Abdolrasol, M.; Ustun, T.S. Optimal Allocation of a Hybrid
Photovoltaic Biogas Energy System Using Multi-Objective Feasibility Enhanced Particle Swarm Algorithm. Sustainability 2022,
14, 685. [CrossRef]
62. Yang, H.; Zhang, Y.; Ma, Y.; Zhou, M.; Yang, X. Reliability evaluation of power systems in the presence of energy storage system
as demand management resource. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2019, 110, 1–10. [CrossRef]
63. Tian, Z.; Seifi, A.A. Reliability Analysis of Hybrid Energy System. Int. J. Reliab. Qual. Saf. Eng. 2014, 21, 1450011. [CrossRef]
64. Upadhyay, S.; Sharma, M.P. Development of hybrid energy system with cycle charging strategy using particle swarm optimization
for a remote area in India. Renew. Energy 2015, 77, 586–598. [CrossRef]
65. Arabali, A.; Ghofrani, M.; Etezadi-Amoli, M.; Fadali, M.S. Stochastic performance assessment and sizing for a hybrid power
system of solar/wind/energy storage. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2013, 5, 363–371. [CrossRef]
66. Al-Masri, H.M.K.; Magableh, S.; Abuelrub, A.; Saadeh, O.; Ehsani, M. Impact of Different Photovoltaic Models on the Design of a
Combined Solar Array and Pumped Hydro Storage System. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3650. [CrossRef]
67. Nguyen, H.T.; Safder, U.; Nguyen, X.; Yoo, C. Multi-objective decision-making and optimal sizing of a hybrid renewable energy
system to meet the dynamic energy demands of a wastewater treatment plant. Energy 2020, 191, 116570. [CrossRef]
68. Bank, A.D. Guidelines for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Asian Development Bank Projects: Additional Guidance for Clean
Energy Projects; Asian Development Bank: Mandaluyong, Philippines, 2017.
69. Xu, L.; Ruan, X.; Mao, C.; Zhang, B.; Luo, Y. An improved optimal sizing method for wind-solar-battery hybrid power system.
IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2013, 4, 774–785.
70. Stages, L.C. Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Solar Photovoltaics; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO,
USA, 2012.
71. Amponsah, N.Y.; Troldborg, M.; Kington, B.; Aalders, I.; Hough, R.L. Greenhouse gas emissions from renewable energy sources:
A review of lifecycle considerations. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 39, 461–475. [CrossRef]
72. Ubierna, M.; Santos, C.; Mercier-Blais, S. Water Security and Climate Change: Hydropower Reservoir Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
In Water Security under Climate Change; Biswas, A., Tortajada, C., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 69–94. [CrossRef]
73. Mirjalili, S.; Lewis, A. The whale optimization algorithm. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2016, 95, 51–67. [CrossRef]
74. Mirjalili, S.; Mirjalili, S.; Lewis, A. Grey wolf optimizer. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2014, 69, 46–61. [CrossRef]
75. Al-Masri, H.M.; Al-Sharqi, A.A. Technical design and optimal energy management of a hybrid photovoltaic biogas energy system
using multi-objective grey wolf optimisation. IET Renew. Power Gener. 2020, 14, 2765–2778. [CrossRef]
76. Clerc, M. Particle Swarm Optimization; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. Available online: https://books.google.cm/
books?hl=en&lr=&id=Slee72idZ8EC&oi=fnd&pg=PA5&ots=Rs2FPfhl_1&sig=blk_c2iShAljBtrDXXw1BXEQHXg&redir_esc=y#
v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed on 11 December 2022).
77. Ou, T.-C.; Hong, C.-M. Dynamic operation and control of microgrid hybrid power systems. Energy 2014, 66, 314–323. [CrossRef]
78. Theo, W.L.; Lim, J.; Ho, W.; Hashim, H.; Lee, C.T. Review of distributed generation (DG) system planning and optimisation
techniques: Comparison of numerical and mathematical modelling methods. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 67, 531–573.
[CrossRef]
79. Adewuyi, O.B.; Shigenobu, R.; Senjyu, T.; Lotfy, M.; Howlader, A.M. Multiobjective mix generation planning considering
utility-scale solar PV system and voltage stability: Nigerian case study. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2019, 168, 269–282. [CrossRef]
80. Loyyal Website. Luminous Solar. Available online: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Loyyal+
Website.+%282021%2C+December%29.+Luminous+Solar+Panel+380Watt+%2F+24Volt+Mono+Perc+%5BCommercial%5D.
+Luminous+Solar+Panel+380Watt+%2F+24Volt+Mono+Perc.+https%3A%2F%2Fptop.only.wip.la%3A443%2Fhttps%2Floyyal.in%2Fproduct-details%2Fluminous-
solar-panel380watt-24volt-mono-perc+%28Accessed+2022-06-17%29&btnG= (accessed on 22 December 2022).
81. Salama, H.S.; Vokony, I. Voltage and Frequency Control of Balanced/Unbalanced Distribution System Using the SMES System in
the Presence of Wind Energy. Electricity 2021, 2, 205–224. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8264 26 of 26

82. Aquino, T.; Zuelch, C.; Koss, C. Energy Storage Technology Assessment-Prepared for Public Service Company of New Mexico.
HDR Report No. 10060535-0ZP-C1001. 30 October 2017. Available online: https://www.pnm.com/documents/396023/1
506047/2017+-+HDR+10-30-17+PNM+Energy+Storage+Report.pdf/a2b7ca65-e1ba-92c8-308a-9a8391a87331 (accessed on 1
March 2023).
83. Mongird, K.; Viswanathan, V.V.; Balducci, P.J.; Alam, M.J.E.; Fotedar, V.; Koritarov, V.S.; Hadjerioua, B. Energy Storage Technology
and Cost Characterization Report. PNNL-28866, 1573487; Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL): Richland, WA, USA, 2019.
[CrossRef]
84. Schröder, A.; Kunz, F.; Meiss, J.; Mendelevitch, R.; Von Hirschhausen, C. Current and Prospective Costs of Electricity Generation until
2050; Data Documentation from DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research: Berlin, Germany, 2013.
85. Solar Inverter Costs and How to Choose the Right One. Understand Solar, 23 February 2017. Available online: https://
understandsolar.com/solar-inverter-costs/ (accessed on 24 November 2022).
86. Bhattacharjee, S.; Acharya, S. PV–wind hybrid power option for a low wind topography. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 89, 942–954.
[CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.