Article

Hybrid Genetic Algorithm-Based Optimal Sizing of a

PV–Wind–Diesel–Battery Microgrid: A Case Study for the ICT
Center, Ethiopia
Adnan Kedir Jarso 1 , Ganggyoo Jin 2 and Jongkap Ahn 3, *

1 Department of Electrical Power and Control Engineering, Graduate School, Adama Science and Technology
University, Adama P.O. Box 1888, Ethiopia; [email protected]
2 Department of Electrical Power and Control Engineering, Adama Science and Technology University,
Adama P.O. Box 1888, Ethiopia; [email protected]
3 Training Ship Operation Center, Gyeongsang National University, Tongyeong-si 53064, Republic of Korea
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-55-772-9042

Abstract: This study presents analysis and optimization of a standalone hybrid renewable
energy system (HRES) for Adama Science and Technology University’s ICT center in
Ethiopia. The proposed hybrid system combines photovoltaic panels, wind turbines, a
battery bank, and a diesel generator to ensure reliable and sustainable power. The objectives
are to minimize the system’s total annualized cost and loss of power supply probability,
while energy reliability is maintained. To optimize the component sizing and energy
management strategy of the HRES, we formulated a mathematical model that incorporates
the variability of renewable energy and load demand. This optimization problem is solved
using a hybrid genetic algorithm (HGA). Simulation results indicate that the HGA yielded
the best solution, characterized by the levelized cost of energy of USD 0.2546/kWh, the
loss of power supply probability of 0.58%, and a convergence time of 197.2889 s.

Keywords: hybrid energy system; total energy cost; loss of power supply probability;
optimal sizing; hybrid genetic algorithm

Academic Editor: Cheng-Hung MSC: 93-10

Huang

Received: 16 February 2025

Revised: 9 March 2025
Accepted: 13 March 2025 1. Introduction
Published: 17 March 2025
As global energy demands rise and environmental concerns escalate, the urgent need
Citation: Jarso, A.K.; Jin, G.; Ahn, J.
for sustainable energy solutions has brought renewable-based hybrid energy systems into
Hybrid Genetic Algorithm-Based
focus [1]. The depletion of fossil fuels and the increase in fuel prices further underscore
Optimal Sizing of a
PV–Wind–Diesel–Battery Microgrid:
the necessity of transitioning to renewable energy sources, particularly solar and wind
A Case Study for the ICT Center, power. However, the intermittent nature of these resources poses significant challenges in
Ethiopia. Mathematics 2025, 13, 985. maintaining a stable power supply [2].
https://doi.org/10.3390/ Hybrid energy systems (HESs) offer a promising alternative by integrating renewable
math13060985
sources with energy storage and backup generation. By utilizing battery storage to capture
Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. excess energy during peak production periods, HESs enhance reliability by providing
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. backup power when renewable output is low or demand is high. Diesel generators can
This article is an open access article
also serve as supplementary power sources when battery reserves are depleted. Microgrids
distributed under the terms and
(MGs), which incorporate distributed energy resources, such as solar panels, wind turbines,
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license
energy storage systems, and generators, provide localized solutions that address the lim-
(https://creativecommons.org/ itations of centralized power grids. These systems improve energy resilience, efficiency,
licenses/by/4.0/).

Mathematics 2025, 13, 985 https://doi.org/10.3390/math13060985

Mathematics 2025, 13, 985 2 of 27

and sustainability while allowing for independent or grid-connected operation, thereby

reducing carbon emissions.
Recent advancements in renewable technologies and energy management systems
have made microgrids increasingly economically feasible. They can seamlessly transition
between grid-connected and islanded modes, optimizing energy generation and minimiz-
ing reliance on fossil fuels. Hybrid microgrid systems (HMSs), which combine renewable
generation, storage, and backup components, ensure a reliable and continuous power sup-
ply. However, optimizing these systems for residential or community applications requires
careful consideration of factors such as renewable variability, energy demand patterns,
and system sizing to achieve a balanced supply–demand relationship. While HESs inte-
grating solar and wind sources demonstrate greater reliability and cost-effectiveness than
single-source systems [3,4], optimizing these configurations remains complex due to the
stochastic nature of renewable resources and fluctuating energy demands. The integration
of components such as battery storage and diesel generators is essential for managing these
fluctuations and maintaining operational efficiency [5,6].
Despite advancements in this field, research focusing on optimizing hybrid systems
faces several challenges. Many island microgrid projects are interconnected with mainland
grids, limiting the applicability of their optimization methods to isolated systems. Further-
more, traditional single-objective optimization approaches often overlook the competing
goals inherent in standalone systems. Tools such as HOMER and intelligent algorithms
frequently encounter issues related to limited scopes, complex coding requirements, and
premature convergence during optimization processes [7].
Hybrid microgrids, which integrate various energy sources such as solar, wind, and
traditional fossil fuels, have emerged as a viable solution for addressing contemporary
energy demands sustainably. The effective sizing of these microgrids is paramount for
optimizing performance, enhancing reliability, and minimizing operational costs. This
literature review aims to explore the methodologies and findings in the domain of hybrid
microgrid sizing, emphasizing the diverse approaches, inherent challenges, and prospective
research directions. The methodologies employed for sizing hybrid microgrids can be
categorized into several key groups:
1. Software Tools: A considerable number of studies have leveraged software tools such
as HOMER, HOMER Pro, PVSYST, and HOGA for the optimization of MGs [8–12].
These tools facilitate the design process by enabling users to model various configura-
tions and conduct economic analyses. However, a significant limitation is their lack of
transparency; users often find it challenging to intuitively select system components
or access the underlying calculations and algorithms [10,13].
2. Deterministic Methods: Approaches including iterative, analytical, numerical, and
graphical techniques are also widely utilized. Although these methods are gener-
ally straightforward, they can be time-intensive due to the exhaustive simulations
required to cover all possible configurations. For instance, one study highlighted that,
while analytical models can produce accurate results, they necessitate considerable
computational resources and time to analyze different scenarios [11].
3. Metaheuristic Algorithms: Recent advancements have seen the adoption of meta-
heuristic algorithms for optimizing HMSs configurations. Techniques such as genetic
algorithms, particle swarm optimization, and social spider optimization have been
effectively applied to address complex sizing challenges. For example, a study [14]
employed social spider optimization (SSO) to determine the optimal sizing of an
HRES integrated into a microgrid in the Al-Jouf region of Saudi Arabia. This research
evaluated configurations that included photovoltaic (PV) systems, wind turbines
(WT), batteries, and diesel generators (DGs), with a focus on the cost of energy (COE)
Mathematics 2025, 13, 985 3 of 27

as the fitness function. Another noteworthy study utilized the grasshopper opti-
mization algorithm (GOA) to ascertain optimal system configurations in Yobe State,
Nigeria, encompassing PV systems, WTs, battery storage systems, and DGs [15]. The
objective was to minimize the COE while ensuring system reliability. Additionally,
a novel bonobo optimizer (BO) was introduced to optimize off-grid HRES designs
in Saudi Arabia, concentrating on minimizing annualized system costs (ASCs) and
enhancing power reliability [16].
Despite the array of methodologies available, several challenges persist in the sizing
of hybrid microgrids. A primary challenge is the inherent variability of renewable energy
sources, which complicates accurate forecasting and sizing efforts. Previous studies have
underscored the need for more robust models to accommodate this variability and adapt
to dynamic conditions. Furthermore, integrating energy management systems into sized
components introduces additional complexities. Research indicates that optimization
algorithms must consider operational efficiency and system resilience to ensure a reliable
energy supply.
This study optimizes the sizing and energy management of a standalone HESs, in-
corporating PV, WT, battery storage, and diesel generators, tailored to specific site energy
resources. The key contributions addressed in this research are:
• The application of a novel HGA that uses affine-combination-based reproduction
and non-uniform mutation which enhance the performance of traditional genetic
algorithms to HES optimization.
• To formulate the optimization problem with two primary objectives: annualized
system cost (ASC) and loss of power supply probability (LPSP).
• To employ the non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II (NSGA-II) to generate
a Pareto front, enabling decision-makers to visualize and select a typical solution
balancing conflicting objectives.
• To convert the two-objective optimization problem to a weighted single-objective
optimization problem, solved using an HGA.
• The feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed approach are demonstrated through
simulations and comparative performance analysis.
We are motivated to conduct this research by the critical need to address the high
energy demands of university ICT centers, ensure reliable power supply, reduce operational
costs, and support institutional sustainability goals. Furthermore, HMSs offer unique op-
portunities for education, research, and innovation, aligning with the university’s mission
to excel academically and environmentally. By implementing and studying these systems,
universities can serve as role models for sustainable energy practices while enhancing the
resilience and efficiency of their essential ICT infrastructure.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 1 provides an introduction. Section 2
presents a detailed modeling framework. Section 3 explains the optimization of the HMSs
and the application of the HGA to MGs. Section 4 presents the simulation results and
discussion, highlighting the HGA improvements. Finally, Section 5 concludes the research.

2. Modeling and Problem Formulation of Standalone Hybrid

Microgrid System
2.1. Components of a Microgrid
MGs, decentralized energy systems, are significantly impacting electricity delivery
and consumption by enabling local generation and load management, facilitating the inte-
gration of DREs, and enhancing grid resilience. In this section, we investigate the essential
components that work together to create a self-sufficient and intelligent power system.
Mathematics 2025, 13, 985 4 of 27

Generation Sources: MGs integrate two primary types of generation sources: dispatch-
able and non-dispatchable sources. Dispatchable sources, such as natural gas generators
and combined heat and power units, can be turned on or off to meet fluctuating electricity
demand. Conversely, non-dispatchable sources, such as solar, wind, hydro, and biofuels,
rely heavily on weather conditions and cannot be easily controlled to match immediate
electricity requirements [17].
Energy Storage Systems (ESSs): ESSs serve as vital components within MGs, perform-
ing numerous essential functions. They act as buffers to ensure consistent power quality
by mitigating fluctuations and dips in electricity supply. Furthermore, ESSs aid in manag-
ing peak demand by “shaving” energy usage during high-consumption periods, thereby
enhancing efficiency and potentially lowering energy costs for the MGs [18]. In essence,
ESSs play a crucial role in maintaining operational stability, a reliable power supply, and
the efficient utilization of renewable energy resources.
Electrical Loads: MGs supply two principal categories of electrical loads: critical
and deferrable loads. Critical loads are essential for public safety and well-being and
must be prioritized at all times. Examples include hospitals, data centers, and emergency
response facilities. MGs design ensures a reliable and uninterrupted power supply for
these critical loads, even during outages or islanding from the main grid. Unlike critical
loads, deferrable loads are non-essential and can be adjusted or temporarily suspended
to maintain MG stability and optimize power generation economics. Examples include
electric vehicle charging stations, irrigation pumps, and air conditioning systems. By
strategically managing deferrable loads, the MG control system can maximize resource
efficiency while potentially reducing energy costs. MGs provide reliable and cost-effective
power solutions for homes, businesses, and communities by prioritizing critical loads and
strategically managing deferrable loads.
Energy Management System (EMS): The EMS acts as the intelligent control center of a
microgrid. It utilizes data collected from energy meters and communication tools to make
real-time decisions about power generation and load distribution. This decision-making
process considers both economic and reliability factors [19]. The EMS is akin to the brain of
the MG. It continuously monitors energy production from various sources, analyzes power
consumption demands, and directs the system accordingly. Its goal is to optimize the entire
MG operation, balancing two key objectives.
Economic Efficiency—The EMS aims to generate and distribute power in the most
cost-effective way possible. This may involve factors such as fuel prices and time-of-use
electricity rates, as well as maximizing the use of renewable energy sources.
Reliability—Ensuring a reliable and uninterrupted power supply is paramount. The
EMS considers factors such as weather forecasts, potential equipment failures, and grid
stability to maintain a constant flow of electricity within the MG.
The EMS optimizes MG performance by addressing economic and reliability aspects,
ensuring efficient power generation, cost-effectiveness, and reliable electricity delivery
to users.
This study examines a stand-alone MG using two renewable sources (PV and WT),
driven by the growing deployment of RES capacity to minimize carbon footprints [20],
an energy storage unit (battery), a backup diesel generator, and two types of loads. The
MG features a DC bus, where the PV system, dump load and battery are connected
via bidirectional converters. The wind turbine, diesel generator, and loads, are directly
connected to the single-phase AC bus. As depicted in Figure 1, this low-voltage distribution
network operates at 220 V and 50 Hz, supplying power to a single-phase AC and a dump
load of DC system.
Mathematics 2025,13,
Mathematics2025, 13,985
x FOR PEER REVIEW 55 of 27
28

Figure1.1.Stand-alone
Figure Stand-alonemicrogrid
microgridsystem
systemcomponents
componentsand
andconfiguration.
configuration.

2.2.
2.2. Modeling
Modeling of
of aa Hybrid
Hybrid Microgrid
Microgrid
2.2.1. Photovoltaic Array
2.2.1. Photovoltaic Array
Solar
Solar energy
energy isis aahighly
highly promising
promising renewable
renewable resource,
resource, with with PV PV systems
systems playing
playing aa
central
central role in harnessing this potential [21]. The performance and output of PVsystems
role in harnessing this potential [21]. The performance and output of PV systems
have been extensively studied in the literature. The energy output
have been extensively studied in the literature. The energy output of a PV panel is influ- of a PV panel is in-
fluenced
enced by several factors, including construction density, shading from vegetation or
by several factors, including construction density, shading from vegetation or
neighboring buildings, and maintenance practices, particularly
neighboring buildings, and maintenance practices, particularly the accumulation of dustthe accumulation of dust
on
onthe
thepanels
panels[22].
[22]. The
The output
output ofof PV
PV panel
panel isis also
also influenced
influenced by by amount
amount of of solar
solar irradiation
irradiation
that
that it receives [23]. This irradiation level is determined by various factors, includinglocal
it receives [23]. This irradiation level is determined by various factors, including local
climate conditions, the installation method, and the module type [24]. Individual PV cells
climate conditions, the installation method, and the module type [24]. Individual PV cells
are connected in series to form a string in order to achieve the desired output voltage. Con-
are connected in series to form a string in order to achieve the desired output voltage.
versely, multiple strings are connected in parallel to enhance the output current capacity.
Conversely, multiple strings are connected in parallel to enhance the output current ca-
This arrangement results in a complete PV panel or module, whose output power rating is
pacity. This arrangement results in a complete PV panel or module, whose output power
calculated by multiplying the output voltage and current [14,25,26]. The output of a PV
rating is calculated by multiplying the output voltage and current [14,25,26]. The output
system can be estimated by considering its rated power, actual irradiance, and ambient
of a PV system can be estimated by considering its rated power, actual irradiance, and
temperature [27] as
ambient temperature [27] as
( ) h
PPV 𝑃
(t) (𝑡)
= P= 𝑃 G×(t) ××1 1++αt𝛼 TC𝑇(t(𝑡) ) −−TCre𝑇
 i
re f × f ,, (1)
(1)
Gre f
where 𝑃 (𝑡) is the output power of the PV module in Watts (W); 𝑃 is the rated power
of the P
where (t) is theunder
PV module
PV outputstandard
power oftesttheconditions
PV moduleininWatts Watts(W); Pre f isisthe
(W); 𝐺(𝑡) therated power
real solar of
irra-
the PV module
diance in Wattsunder standard
per square test conditions
meter (W/m2) on in theWatts
tilted(W); G (t) of
surface is the
therealPV solar
panelsirradiance
; 𝐺 is
in Watts per square meter (W/m 2 ) on the tilted surface of the PV panels; G
the standard solar irradiance, typically 1000 watts per square meter (1000 re f W/m2);standard
is the 𝑇 is
solar irradiance, 2 ); T
the standard testtypically
condition1000 watts per square
temperature, usually meter (1000 W/m
25 degrees Celsius Cre f is𝛼theisstandard
(°C); the tem-
test ◦
perature coefficient of the PV module, typically around −3.7 × 10−3 (1/°C) for coefficient
condition temperature, usually 25 degrees Celsius ( C); α t is the temperature the mono-
and polycrystalline (Si) solar cells [28]; and 𝑇 is the ambient temperature (°C).
𝑇 (𝑡) = 𝑇 (𝑡) + (0.0256 × 𝐺(𝑡)), (2)
Mathematics 2025, 13, 985 6 of 27

of the PV module, typically around −3.7 × 10−3 (1/◦ C) for the mono- and polycrystalline
(Si) solar cells [28]; and Tamb is the ambient temperature (◦ C).

TC (t) = Tamb (t) + (0.0256 × G (t)), (2)

Figure 2 demonstrates the relationship between solar irradiance and the performance
of the PV array, emphasizing key trends such as voltage, current, and power output across
varying irradiance levels.

Figure 2. Characteristic curves of PV array under changing solar irradiance (G).

2.2.2. Wind Turbine

The output power of a WT generator is directly dependent on the wind speed at its
hub height. In real-world applications, the location of the WT is of critical importance,
as it must be positioned away from obstacles such as buildings, trees, or uneven terrain
that could interfere with wind flow and adversely affect its performance. The wind speed
Mathematics 2025, 13, 985 7 of 27

can be estimated from the measured wind speed at the anemometer height using a power
law [29–31]. The turbine’s power output is modeled as a piecewise function, with different
equations governing wind speed intervals. When the wind speed reaches the cut-in speed,
the turbine generates electricity. The wind density determines the output power, blade
swept area, and efficiency coefficient. Once the rated speed is reached, the turbine produces
its maximum rated power. If the wind speed exceeds the cut-out speed, then the turbine
is shut down for safety. A mathematical representation of the wind speed profile using a
power law is given in [32,33]:  γ
V2 h2
= , (3)
V1 h1
where V1 is the wind speed at the reference height h1 (m/s), V2 is the speed at the hub
height h2 (m/s), and γ denotes the friction coefficient. γ is influenced by various factors
such as wind speed, terrain roughness, height above ground, temperature, time of day, and
year. While it can vary, the commonly accepted values are 0.11 for extreme wind conditions
and 0.2 for normal conditions, according to IEC 61400-1 [34,35]. However, a value of 1/7 is
frequently used in practice [27]. The output power of the WT generator is determined by
using the following equation [36–38]:

PWT
(t)
 0
     , V ≤ Vcut−in
 3
Vcut

 V3
 Pr −in
3
Vrated 3
−Vcut
− Pr V 3 −V 3 , Vcut−in < V < Vrated (4)
= −in rated cut−in ,
Pr , Vrated ≤ V ≤ Vcut−out





 0 , V ≥ Vcut−out

where Pr is the rated power (kW); V is the wind speed (m/s); and Vcut−in , Vrated , and
Vcut−out denote the cut-in, rated, and cut-out wind speed (m/s) of the WT, respectively.
Pr of the wind turbine generator can be expressed as a function of the area swept by
the blades Awind , the maximum power coefficient C p , the air density ρ air , and the rated
wind speed, as described in [38].

1 3
Pr = C p × ρ air × Awind × Vrated (5)
2
We can also use the cut-in ratio (CIR) to calculate the output of the WT. The CIR is a
dimensionless number that represents the ratio of the cut-in wind speed (Vcut−in ) to the
rated wind speed (Vrated ) as follows:

V − Vcut−in
CIR = (6)
Vrated − Vcut−in

Equation (7) presents the CIR-based model for the wind turbine power output [39,40].
This is utilized to model the output of the WT in this study as


 0 , 0 ≤ V ≤ Vcut−in

 P × CIR
r , Vcut−in ≤ V ≤ Vrated
PWT (t) = (7)

 Pr , Vrated ≤ V ≤ Vcut−out

0 , V ≥ Vcut−out


Figure 3 highlights the relationship between wind speed and the WT’s power genera-
tion, showcasing how power output increases with wind speed up to the rated capacity
and stabilizes thereafter.
Mathematics 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 28
Mathematics 2025, 13, 985 8 of 27

Figure 3. WT power output with varying wind speeds.

2.2.3. Diesel Generator

2.2.3. Diesel Generator
The DGs function as a backup power source when renewable energy and battery
The DGs function as a backup power source when renewable energy and battery
storage are insufficient to meet the load demand. The following equation determines the
storage are insufficient to meet the load demand. The following equation determines the
hourly fuel consumption of the DG [39,40]:
hourly fuel consumption of the DG [39,40]:
𝐹 (t)(𝑡)
FDG DG ( t(𝑡)
= =αP𝛼𝑃 ) ++βP
𝛽𝑃
DGR , , (8)
(8)

where F𝐹 ((𝑡) represents the fuel consumption of the generator (L/hr), 𝑃 (𝑡) denotes
where DG t ) represents the fuel consumption of the generator (L/hr), PDG ( t ) denotes the
the generated
generated power power
(kW), PDGR𝑃 is the
(kW), is generator’s
the generator’s capacity
capacity (kW),
(kW), 𝛼 isfuel
α is the thecurve
fuel curve
slope
slope coefficient (L/hr/kW output), and 𝛽 is the fuel intercept coefficient (L/hr/kWrated). In this
coefficient (L/hr/kWoutput ), and β is the fuel intercept coefficient (L/hr/kWrated ). In this
study, the α𝛼and
study, the andβ 𝛽values
values
arearesetset
toto 0.246and
0.246 and0.08415,
0.08415,respectively
respectively[39,40].
[39,40]. The
The DG’s
DG’s fuel
fuel
cost
cost C𝐶 (𝑡) is described by
DG ( t ) is described by
t=8760
CDG (t) = C f
𝐶 (𝑡) = 𝐶 ∑ FDG (t)
𝐹 (𝑡)
(9)
(9)
t =1

2.2.4. Battery Bank

2.2.4.In
Battery Bank microgrid, the battery system plays a pivotal role by ensuring con-
a standalone
tinuous
In apower delivery
standalone to the load,
microgrid, even during
the battery systemperiods of insufficient
plays a pivotal role by renewable energy
ensuring continu-
generation. The battery capacity can be determined using the following formula [41,42]:
ous power delivery to the load, even during periods of insufficient renewable energy gen-
eration. The battery capacity can be determined using the following formula [41,42]:
AD × PLoad
CBATT = × , (10)
𝐶 η I NV
= × ηBATT × DOD , (10)
× ×

where P𝑃Load represents

representsthe
theload
loadpower
powerdemand;
demand; 𝜂 and
η I NV and 𝜂 denote
ηBATT denotethethe
efficiencies
efficiencies of
of the inverter and the battery, respectively; 𝐷𝑂𝐷 signifies the battery depth discharge;
the inverter and the battery, respectively; DOD signifies the battery depth of discharge;
and AD𝐴𝐷 refers
refers to
to the
the autonomy
autonomy days,
days, which
which is the duration (in days) for which the battery
can sustain the load’s power demand before complete depletion. depletion.
Renewable energy
energy sources
sources(PV(PVand
andWT)WT)are inherently
are inherently intermittent, with
intermittent, their
with energy
their en-
output depending on wind speed and solar radiation. To address potential
ergy output depending on wind speed and solar radiation. To address potential power power deficits
from these
deficits fromsources, autonomy
these sources, days aredays
autonomy crucial
are for sizing
crucial forthe battery
sizing bank. Excess
the battery bank. energy
Excess
can be accumulated within the battery for future consumption. The power
energy can be accumulated within the battery for future consumption. The power output output from the
battery
from thebank is calculated
battery as followsas[43]:
bank is calculated follows [43]:
( )
𝑃 (𝑡) = [𝑃 (𝑡) + 𝑃 (𝑡)] −P (t) , (11)
PBATT (t) = [ PPV (t) + PWT (t)] − Load , (11)
η I NV
Mathematics 2025, 13, 985 9 of 27

where PPV (t), PWT (t), and PLoad (t) denote the power outputs of the PV, WT, and load
power demand, respectively.
A negative PBATT (t) value signifies an energy generation deficit, while a positive value
indicates surplus energy. When PBATT (t) equals zero, the renewable energy generation
perfectly matches the load demand. Evaluating a battery bank’s condition critically relies
on its state of charge (SOC), a key indicator that mirrors its current capacity and directly
impacts its performance. The SOC can be determined by analyzing both charging and
discharging cycles [40,41]:
Charging cycle: when PPV (t) + PWT (t) > PLoad (t),
 
P (t)
SOC (t) = SOC (t − 1) × (1 − σ ) + ( PPV (t) + PWT (t)) − Load × ηBATT (12)
η I NV

Discharging cycle: when PPV (t) + PWT (t) < PLoad (t),
 
PLoad (t)
SOC (t) = SOC (t − 1) × (1 − σ ) + − ( PPV (t) + PWT (t)) × ηBATT (13)
η I NV

2.2.5. Power Converter Modeling

Power conversion is essential in systems with both AC and DC components. Solar
PV panels and batteries generate DC power, while many loads operate on AC. DC/AC
and AC/DC power converters are necessary to interface these components. The peak load
demand determines the size of these converters. The inverter rating is calculated as follows:
m (t)
PLoad
PI NV (t) = , (14)
η I NV
m ( t ) is the peak load demand.
where PI NV (t) is the inverter rating, and PLoad

2.3. Objective Functions

The sizing optimization of HESs prioritizes minimizing cost while maintaining reliable
power delivery. This inherently involves trade-offs, with system investment and reliability
being key considerations. This study employs the ACS and the LPSP as the primary
objective functions to quantify these competing goals.

2.3.1. Annualized Cost of System

To calculate the annualized cost of a HESs, it is essential to conduct a thorough assess-
ment of the initial investment costs; ongoing expenses, such as replacement, operation, and
maintenance costs; and fuel costs of each component.
The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) is a critical metric used to evaluate the economic
viability of long-term energy projects, providing a standardized measure of the average
cost per unit of electricity generated over the project’s lifespan. It denotes the cost per unit
of energy generated by the HES (measured in USD/kWh). The following equations can be
employed to evaluate the LCOE of each component within the MGs [14,44]:

CPV = NPV [ ICPV + CO&MPV × CRF ], (15)

CWT = NWT [ ICWT + CO&MWT × CRF ], (16)

n −1 !
n BATT
1
CBATT = NBATT [ ICBATT + CO&MBATT × CRF ] + RCBATT × ∑ 1+
(1 + i )nBATT
, (17)
j =1
Mathematics 2025, 13, 985 10 of 27

!
n −1 1
CDG = NDG [ ICDG + CO&MDG × CRF ] + RCDG × ∑ j=1
n DG
1+ , (18)
(1 + i )nDG
C I NV = PI NV [ IC I NV + CO&M I NV × CRF ], (19)
i × (1 + i ) n
CRF = , (20)
(1 + i ) n − 1
where CPV , CWT , CBATT , CDG , and C I NV are the energy costs of the PV system, WT system,
battery bank, diesel generator, and inverter, respectively; ICPV , ICWT , ICBATT , ICDG , and
IC I NV represent the costs invested into these sources of energy, respectively; CO&MPV ,
CO&MWT , CO&MBATT , CO&MDG , and CO&M I NV are the operation and maintenance
costs of the PV, WT, battery bank, DGs, and inverter, respectively; RCBATT and RCDG are
the replacement costs of the battery bank and the DG, respectively; i is the annual interest;
n is the system lifetime; n BATT and n DG are the lifetime of the battery bank and the diesel
generator, respectively; and CRF is the capital recovery factor.
The calculation of the net cost of the four sources proceeds as follows:

ASC = CPV + CWT + CBATT + CDG + C I NV (21)

The LCOE is given by

1
LCOE = ASC × CRF × , (22)
∑8760
h =1 PG

where PG is the hourly power generation.

2.3.2. Loss of Power Supply Probability

The LPSP is a statistical metric assessing the risk of a power system failing to meet the
electricity demand at a given point. This value falls between 0 and 1, where 0 represents
perfect reliability, and 1 signifies complete unreliability. Factors influencing the LPSP
include system capacity, load demand, component reliability, maintenance schedules, and
natural disasters. The LPSP analysis is crucial for various applications, such as MG design,
power system planning, renewable energy integration, and emergency response planning.
By understanding the probability of power outages, engineers and policymakers can make
informed decisions to enhance the reliability and resilience of power systems [45].

∑8760
t=1 [ PLoad ( t ) − PG ( t )]
LPSP = , (23)
∑8760
t=1 PLoad ( t )

where PLoad (t) and PG (t) are the hourly load demand and the hourly system output or
generation, respectively.

2.4. Constraints
The renewable factor (RF) is a metric used to assess the extent to which a microgrid
relies on renewable energy sources. It quantifies the proportion of power generated from
renewable resources (such as solar and wind) compared to non-renewable sources (such as
DGs). This factor is expressed as follows [46]:

∑ PDG
RF = 1 − × 100% (24)
∑ PV + ∑ PWT
P

An RF of 100% signifies that the system is entirely powered by renewable energy

sources, representing an ideal scenario of complete reliance on clean energy. Conversely,
Mathematics 2025, 13, 985 11 of 27

RF of 0% indicates that the power from renewable sources exactly matches the power
supplied by the diesel generator, implying an equal contribution from both renewable and
non-renewable sources.

2.4.1. Design Variables

This study investigates the impact of four design variables: the number of PV modules
(NPV ), WT (NWT ), DGs (NDG ), and battery systems (NBATT ). The constraints associated
with these proposed design variables are outlined as follows:

1 ≤ NPV ≤ max
NPV
1 ≤ NWT ≤ max
NWT
max (25)
1 ≤ NDG ≤ NDG
1 ≤ NBATT ≤ max
NBATT

2.4.2. Generation Unit Boundaries

The output of each generation unit must fall within the prescribed range, defined by
the minimum and maximum permissible values [39]:

min
PPV ≤ PPV (t) ≤ max
PPV
min
PWT ≤ PWT (t) ≤ max
PWT (26)
min
PDG ≤ PDG (t) ≤ max
PDG

2.4.3. Supply–Demand Balance

The microgrid system must maintain power output in continuous equilibrium with
the fluctuating load demand [43]:
PG (t) = Pl (t) (27)

2.4.4. Battery Storage System (BSS) Constraints

The state of charge (SOC) of the BSS consistently falls within the established minimum
and maximum thresholds, expressed as follows [43]:

SOCmin ≤ SOC (t) ≤ SOCmax (28)

SOCmin = (1 − DOD ) × SOCmax (29)

2.5. Energy Management Strategy of Hybrid Microgrid System

Hybrid microgrids elegantly combine diverse energy sources, such as renewable
power (solar and wind), traditional generators, and energy storage (batteries). A robust
EMS is essential to ensure dependable and efficient power delivery. The key objectives of
an effective EMS include the following:
• Maximize renewable energy utilization by prioritizing clean and sustainable energy
sources to reduce fossil fuel dependence and minimize greenhouse gas emissions.
• Minimize operating costs by optimizing renewable energy source operation to reduce
fuel consumption and maintenance costs.
• Ensure power quality by maintaining the voltage and frequency within acceptable
limits to guarantee quality power supply to the load.
• Enhance system reliability by developing strategies to mitigate the impact of intermit-
tent renewable energy sources and ensure an uninterrupted power supply.
• Optimize energy storage system operation by managing ESS charging and discharging
to maximize utilization and lifespan.
In this study, four energy management scenarios are implemented:
Mathematics 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 28

Mathematics 2025, 13, 985 12 of 27

• Scenario 1: Renewable energy sources (PV and WT) generate sufficient power to meet
• the load demand
Scenario 1: Renewable(𝑃 ).energy
Excess sources
energy is(PV storedandinWT)the battery
generate bank or usedpower
sufficient to chargeto
the battery
meet the load(𝑃 demand
); this is (P
given
Load by
). 𝑃
Excess(𝑡) =
energy [𝑃 (𝑡)
is − 𝑃
stored (𝑡)]𝑢
in the + 𝑃
battery (𝑡)bankif the
or wind
used
turbine
to chargepower exceeds
the battery (Pchthe loadispower
); this given by andPch by(t)𝑃=(𝑡) =𝑃
[ PWT (t) −(𝑡)P−L ([𝑃
t)]u(𝑡) −+
conv (𝑡)]/
𝑃 PPV (t)
if𝑢 the if it does
wind not exceed
turbine power where 𝑢the load
it, exceeds is thepower
converterandefficiency.
by Pch (t) = PPV (t) −
• [Scenario
PL (t) − P2:
WTWhen renewable
(t)]/uconv if it does energy generation
not exceed it, whereexceeds thethe
uconv is load demand
converter and the
efficiency.
• battery is2:fully
Scenario When charged, surplus
renewable energy
energy is dissipated
generation through
exceeds a dump
the load load 𝐸and the
demand .
• Scenario
battery is 3: If renewable
fully energy generation
charged, surplus falls shortthrough
energy is dissipated of the load demand,
a dump loadthe battery
Edump .
• bank (𝑃 ) supplies the deficit to meet the load requirement.
Scenario 3: If renewable energy generation falls short of the load demand, the battery This is given by
𝑃
bank (𝑡) =𝑃
(Pdisch (𝑡)/𝜂
) supplies −the (𝑡) − 𝑃to meet
𝑃 deficit (𝑡). the load requirement. This is given by
• Pdisch (t) = PL (t)/η I NV − PPV (t) − PWTgeneration
Scenario 4: When renewable energy ( t ). is insufficient to meet the load de-
• mand and
Scenario 4: the
When battery bank’senergy
renewable storage level is low,
generation the DG operates
is insufficient to meettothecover
loadthe deficit
demand
and recharge the battery bank.
and the battery bank’s storage level is low, the DG operates to cover the deficit and
recharge
Figure 4 the batteryabank.
illustrates flowchart of the operating strategy of the proposed hybrid en-
ergyFigure
system. In the figure,
4 illustrates 𝐸 (𝑡) of
a flowchart represents the strategy
the operating battery energy 𝑡 ; 𝐸 energy
at time hybrid
of the proposed and
𝐸 are the maximum and minimum battery energy, respectively, which are related
system. In the figure, Eb (t) represents the battery energy at time t; Ebmax and Ebmin are the us-
ing (29); and
maximum and𝐸minimum
(𝑡) and battery
𝐸 (𝑡)energy,
denoterespectively,
the chargingwhich
and discharging energy,
are related using respec-
(29); and
tively.
Ech (t) and Edisch (t) denote the charging and discharging energy, respectively.

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Conceptual
Conceptual framework
framework of
of proposed
proposed rule-based
rule-basedenergy
energymanagement
managementsystem.
system.
Mathematics 2025, 13, 985 13 of 27

3. Optimization of Hybrid Microgrids

3.1. Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II)
With the surge in the demand for sustainable energy solutions, HMGs have emerged as
a promising approach to enhance energy resilience, reduce carbon emissions, and improve
overall system efficiency. However, designing and operating these complex systems require
careful consideration of multiple, often conflicting, objectives. This is where NSGA-II
comes into play. NSGA-II is a popular and powerful metaheuristic algorithm used to solve
multi-objective optimization problems. It is designed to find a diverse set of solutions
that efficiently balance multiple conflicting objectives. The key features of NSGA-II are
as follows:
• Non-Dominated Sorting: NSGA-II employs a fast, non-dominated sorting approach
to rank solutions based on their dominance relationships. Solutions that are not
dominated by any other solution are assigned to the first front, and the process
continues iteratively.
• Crowding Distance: To maintain diversity among solutions, NSGA-II calculates the
crowding distance for each solution. This metric measures the density of solutions in
the objective space. Solutions with higher crowding distances are more likely to be
selected for the next generation, ensuring a well-distributed Pareto front.
• Elitism: NSGA-II incorporates an elitism mechanism to preserve the best solutions
from the current generation. This helps to maintain the quality of the population
over time.
• Genetic Operators: NSGA-II uses standard genetic operators such as crossover and
mutation to generate new solutions. These operators help explore the solution space
and find better solutions.
More details regarding this algorithm can be found in [47]. The results of an NSGA-II
run typically consist of a set of non-dominated solutions, often referred to as the Pareto
front. These solutions represent a trade-off between the two objectives being optimized.

3.2. Optimization of Hybrid Microgrid Using the HGA

As previously mentioned, there is an inherent conflict between achieving good ASCs
and a reliable LPSP in a HMSs. Each point on the Pareto front represents a non-dominated
solution that offers an optimal trade-off between the two conflicting objectives. This means
that no other solution exists that can improve one objective without worsening the other.
For example, a point on the Pareto front might represent a solution that has moderately
high ASCs but offers a highly reliable LPSP. Another point might represent lower ASCs
with a lower reliability of the LPSP. The Pareto front helps decision-makers visualize the
range of possible solutions and the trade-offs involved. Decision-makers choose a solution
that offers an optimal trade-off between the two conflicting objectives.
This process ends up being the same problem as combining two objective functions
into a single objective function and then optimizing it. To achieve this, we assign a weight
to an objective function as

Mimimise f (x) = LPSP(x) + w· ASC (x), (30a)

n o
( L) (U )
s.t. S = x x j ≤ x j ≤ x j (1 ≤ j ≤ n ), (30b)

where f : S ⊂ R4 → R is an objective function to be minimized; S is a set of feasible vectors

in a search space called the search space; the vector x = [ NPV , NWT , NDG , NBATT ]T ∈ S;
( L) (U )
x j and x j are the lower and upper limits of the jth variable, respectively; and w is the
weighting coefficient that determines the relative importance of two objective functions.
Mathematics 2025, 13, 985 14 of 27

Increasing the weight of one performance might necessitate sacrificing another performance.
For this study, w is set to 0.001.
To solve this single-objective function optimization, we use the HGA, which is based
on affine combination-based reproduction and non-uniform mutation [48]. Potential solu-
tions in the HGA are represented as real numbers. The HGA is implemented through a
three-step process:
Let P(t) be a population of N individuals at generation t:

P(t) = [ x1 (t) · · · xi (t) · · · xn (t)] T , (31)

where xi (t) = [ Ni,PV , Ni,WT , Ni,DG , Ni,BATT ] T (1 ≤ i ≤ N ) is the ith individual. The
function value f (xi (t)), simply as f i (t), of each individual is evaluated from the
objective function.
Step 1. The global best and the local best and worst are determined from the
population:
f best (t) = min { f i (t)}, (32a)
1≤ i ≤ N

f worst (t) = max { f i (t)}, (32b)

1≤ i ≤ N

f global (t) = min { f best (1), f best (2), · · · , f best (t)}, (32c)
1≤ i ≤ N
n o
xglobal (t) = arg f global (t) , (32d)

where f best (t) and f worst (t) are the local best and worst function values found in the current
population, respectively; xglobal (t) and f global (t) are the global best and its function value,
respectively, which give the best value ever explored in the population; and t is the current
generation. The values found in Equation (32) are used to guide the movement of all
individuals towards the global solution.
Step 2. Each individual is updated based on the global best, the local worst, and its
own function value. The following formula assigns a new value to the ith individual:
h i
xi (t + 1) = xi (t) + ηi γi (t) xglobal (t) − xi (t) , (33a)

f global (t) − f i (t)

γi ( t ) = , (33b)
f global (t) − f worst (t)
where ηi is a positive constant, empirically chosen to ensure a significant improvement in
the performance of the HGA, and γi (t) is the ratio of the difference between f global (t) and
f i (t) to that between f global (t) and f worst (t). The value of γi (t) is between 0 and 1, inclusive.
ηi is sampled from a Gaussian distribution, N η, σ2 , with mean η and standard deviation

σ. This results in each individual being assigned a value that is likely to be near η, with
some variation.
Step 3. The formula for reproduction in Equation (34) contributes to exploration by
numerically modifying individuals, but mutation plays a critical role not only in introducing
genetic diversity but also in preventing the algorithm from converging too quickly to a local
optimum. In the HGA, non-uniform mutation is employed. When a gene (or variable) is
selected for mutation, it is altered by a random amount, as described in Equation (34) [48]:
  
 x j + ∆ t, x (U ) − x j if q = 0
j
x ′j =   ′ (34a)
 x j − ∆ t, x j − x ( L) if q = 1
j
Mathematics 2025, 13, 985 15 of 27

 b

t
∆(t, y) = y 1 − r (1− tmax ) , (34b)

where x j is the selected gene, x ′j is the result, q is a random digit (0 or 1), r is a uniform
random number, r ∈ [0, 1], tmax is the maximum number of generations, and b is the
shape parameter. The mutation rate pm governs how frequently mutations occur; a low
pm leads to a more conservative search strategy, whereas a high pm encourages a more
exploratory approach. Additionally, the shape parameter b influences the distribution of
mutations: increasing b results in a narrower distribution, while decreasing b produces a
broader distribution.
Regarding the parameter settings of the HGA, the population size was set to 40.
Previous research results showed good performance at a reproduction constant of η = 1.8,
with σ = 0.01, a mutation rate of pm = 0.05, and a shape parameter of b = 6 [48].

4. Simulation Results and Discussion

4.1. Case Study Site and System Specifications
This section details the specific site selected for the case study and outlines the technical
specifications of the system under investigation.

4.1.1. Location and Meteorological Conditions

The proposed standalone MG for the HRES is located at the Adama Science and
Technology University, at 8.56295◦ N and 39.28978◦ E, in the Oromia region of Ethiopia.
Adama is characterized by a semi-arid climate with distinct wet and dry seasons. The
average annual temperatures range from approximately 15 ◦ C (59 ◦ F) to 30 ◦ C (86 ◦ F), with
warm daytime conditions and cooler nights. Rainfall is concentrated primarily from June
to September, peaking in July and August, with annual averages typically between 600
and 800 mm (23 and 31 inches), though this can vary significantly. Humidity levels are
generally moderate, increasing during the rainy season. Wind speeds are typically mild but
may intensify during specific periods, especially in the dry season. Adama benefits from
abundant sunshine, which is ideal for solar power generation. Accurate meteorological
data are essential for successful renewable energy projects, especially solar and wind.
Wind speed, solar radiation, and ambient temperature data for the simulations were
obtained from NASA [49] at the coordinates of Adama city (8.5145◦ N, 39.2693◦ E). At the
selected location for the specified year, the average solar radiation was 0.2357 kW/m2 , the
average wind speed was 3.206 m/s, and the average ambient temperature was
Mathematics 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of293.4010
28 K.
Figures 4–6 illustrate the hourly solar radiation profile, the wind speed at a height of 10 m
above ground level, and the ambient temperature over a year (8760 h).

Figure
Figure 5. 5. NSGA-II
NSGA-II procedure.
procedure.

Figures 7–9 display the monthly profiles of solar radiation, wind speed measured at
10 m, and ambient temperature over a year.

4
 Figure 5. NSGA-II procedure.

Mathematics 2025, 13, 985 Figures 7–9 display the monthly profiles of solar radiation, wind speed measured at
16 of 27
10 m, and ambient temperature over a year.

10 4 NSGA II Pareto Front

4.3

4.25

4.2

4.15

4.1

4.05
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
LPSP(%)
Figure6.6.Pareto
Figure Paretofront
frontof
ofhybrid
hybridmicrogrid
microgridoptimization
optimizationproblem.
problem.

Figures 7–9 display the monthly profiles of solar radiation, wind speed measured at
10 m, and ambient temperature over a year.

Figure 7. Annual wind speed recorded at research site.

Figure 8. Annual ambient temperature recorded at research site.

Mathematics 2025, 13, 985 17 of 27

Figure 9. Annual solar radiation recorded at research site.

4.1.2. Load Assessment

A load assessment is crucial in designing and sizing standalone MGs powered by
renewable energy systems and in analyzing any electrical system. It involves calculating
the total power consumption of all electrical devices and equipment within a study area
or facility. This research used direct measurement and load estimation methods for load
assessments. The type of load considered in this area is given in Table 1, and the daily load
profile is given in Figure 10.

Figure 10. Daily load profile of ASTU ICT center.

Mathematics 2025, 13, 985 18 of 27

Table 1. Analysis of power consumption and appliance utilization at ASTU-ICT center.

Qty Rating Total P

Rooms and Load Hrs./Day Energy/Day
(pcs) (W) (kW)
Office room 12
Lighting 16 25 0.4 1 0.4
Socket outlets 8 50 0.4 1 0.4
Socket outlets 16 50 0.8 6 4.8
Ventilators 8 25 0.2 4 0.8
Refrigerator 8 200 1.6 18 28.8
Printer 8 100 0.8 2 1.6
Scanner 8 50 0.4 1 0.4
Copier 8 1000 8 1 8
Conference room 2
Lighting 8 25 0.2 1 0.2
Socket outlet 4 50 0.2 2 0.4
LCD projector 2 100 0.2 5 1
TV set 2 150 0.3 2 0.6
Air conditioner 4 250 1 5 5
Labs 8
Lighting 64 25 1.6 3 4.8
Socket outlet/PCs 400 50 20 11 220
Projector 8 100 0.8 6 4.8
Air conditioner 16 250 4 6 24
Switches (Nw) 8 25 0.2 24 4.8
Switches (Nw) 4 50 0.2 24 4.8
Server room 1
Lighting 4 25 0.1 3 0.3
Socket outlets 6 50 0.3 4 1.2
Servers 4 500 2 24 48
Ventilators 4 60 0.24 12 2.88
Air conditioner 2 500 1 24 24
Library/smart room 1
Lighting 10 25 0.25 3 0.75
Socket outlets 40 50 2 8 16
Printing 2 100 0.2 2 0.8
Scanner 2 50 0.1 1 0.1
Copier (Xerox) 1 1000 1 1 1
Ventilators 10 60 0.6 8 4.8
Air conditioner 4 250 0.1 7 0.7
TV set (room) 4 150 0.6 4 2.4
TV set corridor 1 500 0.5 24 12
Rest rooms 12
Lighting 24 25 0.6 2 1.2
Socket outlets 12 50 - - -
Corridors 12
Lighting 18 25 0.45 1 0.45
Lighting 8 25 0.2 12 2.4
Socket outlets 12 50 - - -
Total (kW) = 51.54 kW Total = 434.58 kWh/d

4.1.3. Specifications of Hybrid Microgrid System Components

To guarantee system reliability, components with adequate rated capacities must be
selected to prevent widespread power outages or MGs collapse due to equipment failure.
Table 2 presents the economic and technical specifications of the key components.
Mathematics 2025, 13, 985 19 of 27

Table 2. Technical and economic specifications of hybrid microgrid components.

Component/Sources Parameter Value Units

Lifespan 20 Years
Rated capacity 1 kW
Photovoltaic (PV) Efficiency 95 %
Initial cost 1200 USD/kW
Running cost 2 %
Lifespan 20 Years
Rated capacity 1 kW
Efficiency 95 %
Initial cost 3200 USD/kW
Wind turbine (WT)
Running cost 2 %
Cut-in speed 2.5 m/s
Cut-out speed 18 m/s
Rated speed 12 m/s
Lifespan 20 Years
Rated capacity 100 kW
Diesel generator Efficiency 90 %
(DG) Initial cost 1000 USD/kW
Fuel cost 1.8 USD/kWh
Running cost 2 %
Lifespan 5 Years
Rated capacity 100 kW
Battery storage
Efficiency 92 %
system (BSS)
Initial cost 750 USD/kW
Running cost 2 %

4.2. Results and Discussion

This study presents an optimized design for a standalone HMSs that incorporates PV,
WT, a battery bank, and a DG as a backup power source. The primary goal was to meet the
energy demand of the ICT center, estimated at 51.4 kW. The HGA was employed to tackle
the constrained optimization problem outlined in (30). This study uses a weighting factor
value of w = 0.001. The results were compared with those of the MATLAB R2021a particle
swarm and genetic algorithm functions. Henceforth, MATLAB particle swarm optimization
and the MATLAB genetic algorithm are abbreviated as “M-PSO” and “M-GA”, respectively.
The parameters utilized for the three algorithms are listed in the Table 3.

Table 3. Parameter settings for the three algorithms.

Algorithms Parameters
Particle size: 50
Number of iterations: 100
Inertia weight w: 0.4
M-PSO
Individual confidence factor c1: 2
Swarm confidence factor c2: 2
Uniform mutation percentage: 0.5
Population size: 50
M-GA
Number of generations: 100
Population size: 50
Number of generations: 100
HGA Reproduction constant η: 1.8
Mutation rate Pm: 0.05
Shape parameter b: 6
 Mathematics 2025, 13, 985 20 of 27
Mathematics 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21

The convergence of the objective function value over generations for HGA is illustrated
in Figure 11.

Objective function value

Figure
Figure Convergence ofof
11.Convergence
11. objective function
objective value value
function over generations for HGA. for HGA.
over generations
The comparison of solutions obtained using HGA, M-PSO and M-GA is illustrated in
The
Table 4. comparison of solutions obtained using HGA, M-PSO and M-GA is illust
in Table 4. study conducted a detailed comparison of three optimization algorithms, namely,
This
the HGA, M-GA, and M-PSO, specifically for the optimal design of hybrid microgrids. The
assessment
Table was based
4. Comparison ofon various performance
solutions metrics,
obtained using HGA, including
M-PSO, theand
ASC, LCOE, dumped
M-GA.
energy, convergence time, and LPSP.
Estimated
Regarding theComponents HGA
ASC, the results were as follows: the HGA obtained M-PSO
USD 42,104, M-GA M-GA
obtained USD 42,104,
Number of Wind Turbines and M-PSO obtained USD 42,104.
0.002052 Here, all three algorithms
1 obtained 11.7672
almost the same results. The HGA recorded USD 0.2546/kWh for the LOCE, while M-
Number of PV Modules 99.285063 100 90.5829
GA obtained USD 0.2665/kWh, and M-PSO returned USD 0.2623/kWh. Here, the HGA
Number of Diesel Generators 20.508859 27.0511 25.3139
demonstrated superior performance with the lowest LCOE, suggesting better economic
Number
viabilityofover
Battery Units lifespan.
the system’s 23.039927 21.9769 21.2232
Annualized System
Regarding Cost
the convergence 42.104013
time, the HGA took 197.2889 s, M-GA 42.104013
took 333.6378 s, and 42.10401
Loss of Power
M-PSO Supply
took 2327.2 Probability
s. This shows that the HGA 0.579535
exhibited the fastest 0.002563
convergence time,0.007883
significantly
Renewable reducing
Energy computational effort compared
Factor 87.6453 to M-GA and87.7059M-PSO. Regarding 89.0158
renewable energy penetration, the results were as follows: the HGA obtained a rate of
Levelized Cost of Energy 0.2546 0.2623 0.2665
87.6453%, M-GA obtained a rate of 89.0158%, and M-PSO obtained a rate of 87.7059%. Here,
Total Load (kWh) 1.6309 × 10 5 1.6309 × 10 5 1.6309 × 1
M-GA enabled a higher integration of renewable resources, promoting sustainability.
Total Load Loss
Overall, the(kWh)
results indicate that the HGA945.1387
outperformed both 4.1805 M-GA and M-PSO.12.8560
Total
TheDischarging
HGA minimized (kWh) 3.6824
costs, enhanced reliability, and × 10 4 3.6645 computational
showed superior × 104 3.3952 × 1
Total Charging
efficiency. These(kWh)
findings suggest that the HGA 4.0947is a× strong
10 candidate
4 4.0744for × 10 4
the optimal3.7764 × 1
design of HMSs,
Total Solar Energy offering a well-rounded approach to
1.9130 × 10 cost-effectiveness,
5 reliability,
1.9268 × 10 5 and
1.7454 × 1
sustainability.
Total Wind Energy Figure 12 shows the annual power generation
3.4499 profile of the hybrid
1.6812 × 10 3 energy
1.9784 × 1
system optimized using the HGA.
Total DG Energy Generation 4 2.3635 × 10 2.3895 × 10
4 2.1345 × 1
Minimum DG Size Required (kW) 20.5089 27.0511 25.3139
Total Dump Energy 3.2287 × 104 3.4471 × 104 3.3701 × 1
Annual Cost 4.1524 × 104 4.2778 × 104 4.3457 × 1
Wind Cost 0.7777 378.9906 4.4597 × 1
Solar Cost 1.0784 × 104 1.0862 × 104 9.8392 × 1
DG Cost 1.5522 × 104 1.6418 × 104 1.5240 × 1
Mathematics 2025,2025,
Mathematics 13, x13,
FOR985PEER REVIEW 22 of 28
21 of 27

Table 4. Comparison of solutions obtained using HGA, M-PSO, and M-GA.

This study conducted a detailed comparison of three optimization algorithms,
namely, the HGA, M-GA,
Estimated Components HGA and M-PSO, specifically M-PSO for the optimal design M-GA of hybrid mi-
Number of Wind Turbinescrogrids. The assessment 0.002052 was based on various1 performance metrics, including the ASC,
11.7672
Number of PV Modules LCOE, dumped energy, 99.285063convergence time, and 100LPSP. 90.5829
Number of Diesel Generators Regarding the20.508859 27.0511 25.3139
ASC, the results were as follows: the HGA obtained USD 42,104, M-
Number of Battery Units 23.039927 21.9769 21.2232
Annualized System Cost GA obtained USD42.104013 42,104, and M-PSO obtained 42.104013USD 42,104. Here, all three algorithms
42.104013
obtained almost the
Loss of Power Supply Probability same results. The HGA
0.579535 recorded USD 0.2546/kWh
0.002563 0.007883for the LOCE,
Renewable Energy Factor while M-GA obtained 87.6453
USD 0.2665/kWh, and87.7059 89.0158
M-PSO returned USD 0.2623/kWh. Here, the
Levelized Cost of Energy 0.2546 0.2623 0.2665
HGA demonstrated superior performance with the 5lowest LCOE, suggesting better eco-
Total Load (kWh) 1.6309 × 105 1.6309 × 10 1.6309 × 105
Total Load Loss (kWh) nomic viability over945.1387the system’s lifespan. 4.1805 12.8560
Total Discharging (kWh) Regarding the 3.6824 × 104
convergence time, the3.6645
HGA×took 104 197.2889 s, 3.3952
M-GA×took 104 333.6378 s,
Total Charging (kWh) 4.0947 s. 4
× This
10 shows that 4.0744 4
× 10exhibited the fastest × 104
3.7764convergence
and M-PSO took 2327.2 the HGA time,
Total Solar Energy 1.9130 × 10 5 1.9268 × 10 5 1.7454 × 105
significantly reducing computational effort compared to M-GA and M-PSO. Regarding
Total Wind Energy 3.4499 1.6812 × 103 1.9784 × 104
renewable energy2.3635
Total DG Energy Generation penetration,
× 104 the results2.3895
were×as 104follows: the HGA
2.1345obtained
× 104 a rate of
Minimum DG Size Required 87.6453%,
(kW) M-GA obtained
20.5089 a rate of 89.0158%, and M-PSO obtained
27.0511 a rate of 87.7059%.
25.3139
Total Dump Energy Here, M-GA enabled 3.2287 × 104 integration3.4471
a higher × 104 resources,3.3701
of renewable × 104 sustainabil-
promoting
Annual Cost 4.1524 × 10 4 4.2778 × 10 4 4.3457 × 104
ity.
Wind Cost 0.7777 378.9906 4.4597 × 103
Solar Cost Overall, the results indicate
1.0784 × 10 4 that the HGA outperformed
1.0862 × 10 4 both M-GA×and
9.8392 103 M-PSO. The
DG Cost HGA minimized 1.5522 104
costs,×enhanced reliability,
1.6418and 4
× 10showed superior 1.5240 × 104
computational effi-
Battery Cost 3.9009 × 103 3.7210 × 103 3.5933 × 103
ciency. These findings suggest that the HGA is a strong candidate for the optimal design
Inverter Total Cost
of HMSs, offering1.1317 × 104
a well-rounded approach1.1398 × 104
to cost-effectiveness, 1.0325 × 104
reliability, and sustain-
Bin 4.0947 × 10 4 4.0744 × 10 4 3.7764 × 104
Bout ability. Figure 12 shows
3.6824 ×the 104annual power3.6645
generation
× 104 profile of the hybrid
3.3952 × 10energy
4 system
Time Elapsed (S) optimized using the197.2889
HGA. 2.3272 × 103 333.6378
Energy(KWh)

Figure 12. Monthly electricity generation from a hybrid system.

Figure 12. Monthly electricity generation from a hybrid system.

Figure 13 illustrates the power generation and investment percentages of different

components within the hybrid energy system. The PV panels contributed 76% of the total
power output, with an investment of 25.25%. The WT generated almost 0% of the power,
requiring a 0% investment. The BSS and DGs contributed 15% and 9%, respectively, with
 Mathematics 2025, 13, 985 22 of 27

Figure 13 illustrates the power generation and investment percentages of different

Mathematics 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 28
components within the hybrid energy system. The PV panels contributed 76% of the total
power output, with an investment of 25.25%. The WT generated almost 0% of the power,
Mathematics 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 28
requiring a 0% investment. The BSS and DGs contributed 15% and 9%, respectively, with
investments of 9.40% and 37.38%.
Contribution of each generating unit ASC percentage of each component
Contribution of each generating unit ASC percentage of each component
9% 15% 25.97%
27.25%
0% 0.0018%
9% 15% 25.97%
76% 27.25%
0% 37.38% 0.0018%
76% 9.40% 37.38%
9.40%

PV WT DG BATT PV WT DG BATT Inverter

PV WT DG BATT PV WT DG BATT Inverter
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 13. (a) Generation percentages; (b) ASC percentages.
Figure
Figure13.
13.(a)
(a)Generation percentages;(b)
Generation percentages; (b)ASC
ASCpercentages.
percentages.
The total annualized system cost and individual component costs of a microgrid sys-
tem are The
The totalannualized
total annualized
illustrated in Figure system
system
14. costcostand
andindividual
individualcomponent
component costs
costsof
ofaamicrogrid
microgridsys-
system
tem are illustrated
are illustrated in Figure
in Figure 14.14.
Annualized Cost of components in USD
Annualized Cost of components in USD

C st st er t st
ASSC coost coost ertter ost cost
A r y c G c Innvver larccos nddco
tte ry DG I Solar Wn i
BBaatte D So Wi

Figure 14.
Figure
Figure Annualized
14.
14. Annualizedcost
Annualized cost and
cost and individual
and individual component
individualcomponent
component costs
costs aofmicrogrid
of of
costs aamicrogrid
microgrid system.
system.
system.

The energy contributions of wind, solar, diesel generator, and battery over a year are
The
Theenergy
energycontributions
contributions of
of wind,
wind, solar, diesel generator,
solar, diesel generator,and
andbattery
batteryover
overa ayear
year are
are
illustrated in Figure 15.
illustrated
illustratedininFigure
Figure15.
15.
The
The solar and windpower
solar and wind power contribution
contribution to load
load demand,
demand,thetheenergy
energybalance
balanceandandbat-
bat-
tery
terystate
stateofofcharge
charge(SOC)
(SOC)are
are depicted
depicted in Figure
Figure 16.
16.
 Mathematics 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 28
Mathematics 2025, 13, 985 23 of 27

Mathematics 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 28

(a) (b)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 15. Energy contribution of each generating unit over a year:

year: (a)
(a) wind;
wind; (b)
(b) solar;
solar; (c)
(c) diesel
diesel
(c) Figure 15. Energy contribution of each generating unit over a(d)
generator;(d)
generator; (d)battery.
battery.
Figure 15. Energy contribution of each generating unit over a year: (a) wind; (b) solar; (c) diesel
The(d)
generator; solar and wind power contribution to load demand, the energy balance and
battery.
battery state of charge (SOC) are depicted in Figure 16.

(b)
(a)
(b) (b) energy balance and battery
Figure 16. (a) Solar and wind power contribution to load demand;
(a)
state of charge (SOC).
Figure
Figure16.
16.(a)(a)Solar
Solarand
andwind
windpower
powercontribution
contributiontotoload
loaddemand;
demand;(b)
(b)energy
energybalance
balanceand
andbattery
battery
4.3.
state Microgrid
of charge Energy
(SOC).
state of charge (SOC).
Storage with Fluctuating Renewable Energy
As renewable energy generation such as solar or wind power is inherently variable,
4.3. Microgrid
energy Energy
storage Storage
systems with
such as Fluctuating Renewable
batteries play a crucialEnergy
role in ensuring a stable and relia-
bleAs
power supply.energy
renewable In thisgeneration
scenario, the battery
such is charged
as solar or windduring
powerexcess renewable
is inherently energy
variable,
energy storage systems such as batteries play a crucial role in ensuring a stable and relia-
ble power supply. In this scenario, the battery is charged during excess renewable energy
 Mathematics 2025, 13, 985 24 of 27

Mathematics 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 28

4.3. Microgrid Energy Storage with Fluctuating Renewable Energy
As renewable energy generation such as solar or wind power is inherently variable,
energy storage
generation systems
periods, such as
storing batteries
energy forplay a crucial
later role in the
use. When ensuring a stableenergy
renewable and reliable
output is
power supply. In this scenario, the battery is charged during excess renewable
insufficient to meet the load demand, the battery discharges to bridge the gap. This ability energy
togeneration periods,
balance supply storing
and energy
demand for later
enables use.
the When
MGs the renewable
to operate energy output
independently and isreduce
insufficient to meet the load demand, the battery discharges to bridge the gap. This ability
reliance on the traditional grid. By effectively managing energy storage, MGs can enhance
to balance supply and demand enables the MGs to operate independently and reduce
the integration of renewable energy sources, improve grid resilience, and contribute to a
reliance on the traditional grid. By effectively managing energy storage, MGs can enhance
more sustainable energy future. Figure 17 illustrates the dynamic interplay between en-
the integration of renewable energy sources, improve grid resilience, and contribute to a
ergy
morestorage and renewable
sustainable energy
energy future. Figuresources in a MG
17 illustrates system. interplay between energy
the dynamic
storage and renewable energy sources in a MG system.
Energy(KWh)

Figure
Figure Batterycharging
17.Battery
17. charging and
anddischarging
dischargingpatterns in hybrid
patterns microgrids.
in hybrid microgrids.

5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
This study investigated the design and optimization of a standalone HRES for the
ICTThis study
center investigated
at Adama the Technology
Science and design andUniversity.
optimization of a standalone
By integrating HRES
PV panels, WT,for the
ICT center
battery at Adama
banks, Science
and DGs, and Technology
the system aims to provideUniversity. By and
a reliable integrating PV power
sustainable panels, WT,
battery
supply.banks, and DGs, the
A comprehensive system aims
mathematical to provide
model simulateda reliable and sustainable
the system’s performance power
while sup-
accounting for the stochastic nature of renewable energy sources
ply. A comprehensive mathematical model simulated the system’s performance while ac- and the load demand.
The optimization
counting problem nature
for the stochastic was formulated
of renewableas a multi-objective
energy sourceschallenge,
and the load focusing on The
demand.
minimizing the ASC and LPSP. To tackle this complex problem, we employed
optimization problem was formulated as a multi-objective challenge, focusing on mini- an HGA. The
simulation results show that the HGA achieved the optimal system configuration, with a
mizing the ASC and LPSP. To tackle this complex problem, we employed an HGA. The
LCOE of 0.2546 USD/kWh, an LPSP of 0.58%, and a convergence time of 197.2889 s. These
simulation results show that the HGA achieved the optimal system configuration, with a
findings demonstrate that the HGA exhibits the fastest convergence time, significantly
LCOE of 0.2546 USD/kWh, an LPSP of 0.58%, and a convergence time of 197.2889 s. These
reducing computational effort compared to both M-GA and M-PSO. Furthermore, the
findings demonstrate
optimization that the
results provide HGA
a set exhibits
of design the fastest
solutions convergence
for the HRES, assistingtime, significantly
designers in
reducing
selectingcomputational
the most effective effort comparedThe
configurations. to both M-GA
proposed HRESandeffectively
M-PSO. meets
Furthermore,
the energythe op-
timization
demands of results
the ICT provide a set of design
center, significantly solutions
reducing for the
the reliance onHRES, assisting
fossil fuels designers in
and lowering
selecting the most
overall energy effective
costs. configurations.
These findings underscoreThe the proposed
potential ofHRES
HRES effectively
in providingmeets
reliablethe en-
anddemands
ergy sustainableofpower
the ICT for remote
center,and off-grid locations.
significantly reducing the reliance on fossil fuels and
Despite the promising outcomes of the
lowering overall energy costs. These findings underscoreproposed method, the
its data dependency
potential of HRESpresents
in provid-
a significant limitation. The optimization’s accuracy
ing reliable and sustainable power for remote and off-grid locations. is critically reliant on the quality

Despite the promising outcomes of the proposed method, its data dependency pre-
sents a significant limitation. The optimization’s accuracy is critically reliant on the quality
and availability of input data, such as solar irradiance, wind speed, and load profiles. De-
ficiencies in this data can negatively impact both system performance and reliability.
Mathematics 2025, 13, 985 25 of 27

and availability of input data, such as solar irradiance, wind speed, and load profiles.
Deficiencies in this data can negatively impact both system performance and reliability.
Future research directions may include exploring advanced energy management
strategies to further enhance system performance, integrating additional renewable energy
sources such as biomass, and assessing the impacts of climate change on system design
and operation.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization and methodology, A.K.J.; software, A.K.J. and G.J.;
writing—original draft preparation, A.K.J. and J.A.; writing—review and editing, A.K.J., G.J. and
J.A.; supervision, G.J. and J.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.

Funding: This research was supported by Korea Institute of Marine Science & Technology Promotion
(KIMST) funded by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (RS-2021-KS211489).

Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in this study are included in the
article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

ASC annualized system cost

COE cost of energy
DERs distributed energy resources
DGs diesel generators
EMS energy management system
ESSs energy storage systems
HESs hybrid energy systems
HGA hybrid genetic algorithm
HMSs hybrid microgrid systems
HRES hybrid renewable energy system
LCOE levelized cost of energy
LPSP loss of power supply probability
M-GA MATLAB genetic algorithm
MGs microgrids
M-PSO MATLAB particle swarm
NSGA-II non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II
PV photovoltaic
WT wind turbines

References
1. Fekik, A.; Azar, A.T.; Hameed, I.A.; Hamida, M.L.; Amara, K.; Denoun, H.; Kamal, N.A. Enhancing Photovoltaic Efficiency with
the Optimized Steepest Gradient Method and Serial Multi-Cellular Converters. Electronics 2023, 12, 2283. [CrossRef]
2. Fekik, A.; Hamida, M.L.; Azar, A.T.; Ghanes, M.; Hakim, A.; Denoun, H.; Hameed, I.A. Robust Power Control for PV and Battery
Systems: Integrating Sliding Mode MPPT with Dual Buck Converters. Front. Energy Res. 2024, 12, 1380387. [CrossRef]
3. Luna-Rubio, R.; Trejo-Perea, M.; Vargas-Vázquez, D.; Ríos-Moreno, G.J. Optimal Sizing of Renewable Hybrids Energy Systems: A
Review of Methodologies. Sol. Energy 2012, 86, 1077–1088. [CrossRef]
4. Potrč, S.; Čuček, L.; Martin, M.; Kravanja, Z. Sustainable Renewable Energy Supply Networks Optimization—The Gradual
Transition to a Renewable Energy System within the European Union by 2050. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 146, 111186.
[CrossRef]
5. Thango, B.A.; Obokoh, L. Techno-Economic Analysis of Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems for Power Interruptions: A Systematic
Review. Eng 2024, 5, 2108–2156. [CrossRef]
Mathematics 2025, 13, 985 26 of 27

6. Dufo-López, R.; Bernal-Agustín, J.L. Design and Control Strategies of PV-Diesel Systems Using Genetic Algorithms. Solar Energy
2005, 79, 33–46. [CrossRef]
7. Al-falahi, M.D.A.; Jayasinghe, S.D.G.; Enshaei, H. A Review on Recent Size Optimization Methodologies for Standalone Solar
and Wind Hybrid Renewable Energy System. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 143, 252–274. [CrossRef]
8. Bashir, N.; Modu, B.; Bahru, J. Techno-Economic Analysis of Off-Grid Renewable Energy Systems for Rural Electrification in
North-Eastern Nigeria. Int. J. Renew. Energy Res. 2018, 8, 1217–1228.
9. Ajlan, A.; Tan, C.W.; Abdilahi, A.M. Assessment of Environmental and Economic Perspectives for Renewable-Based Hybrid
Power System in Yemen. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 75, 559–570. [CrossRef]
10. Sinha, S.; Chandel, S.S. Review of Software Tools for Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 32,
192–205. [CrossRef]
11. Bernal-Agustín, J.L.; Dufo-López, R. Simulation and Optimization of Stand-Alone Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 2111–2118. [CrossRef]
12. Seedahmed, M.M.A.; Ramli, M.A.M.; Bouchekara, H.R.E.H.; Milyani, A.H.; Rawa, M.; Nur Budiman, F.; Firmansyah Muktiadji,
R.; Mahboob Ul Hassan, S. Optimal Sizing of Grid-Connected Photovoltaic System for a Large Commercial Load in Saudi Arabia.
Alex. Eng. J. 2022, 61, 6523–6540. [CrossRef]
13. Tozzi, P.; Jo, J.H. A Comparative Analysis of Renewable Energy Simulation Tools: Performance Simulation Model vs. System
Optimization. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 80, 390–398. [CrossRef]
14. Fathy, A.; Kaaniche, K.; Alanazi, T.M. Recent Approach Based Social Spider Optimizer for Optimal Sizing of Hybrid
PV/Wind/Battery/Diesel Integrated Microgrid in Aljouf Region. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 57630–57645. [CrossRef]
15. Bukar, A.L.; Tan, C.W.; 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]
16. Farh, H.M.H.; Al-Shamma’a, A.A.; Al-Shaalan, A.M.; Alkuhayli, A.; Noman, A.M.; Kandil, T. Technical and Economic Evaluation
for Off-Grid Hybrid Renewable Energy System Using Novel Bonobo Optimizer. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1533. [CrossRef]
17. Mariam, L.; Basu, M.; Conlon, M.F. A Review of Existing Microgrid Architectures. J. Eng. 2013, 2013, 937614. [CrossRef]
18. Alegria, E.; Brown, T.; Minear, E.; Lasseter, R.H. CERTS Microgrid Demonstration with Large-Scale Energy Storage and Renewable
Generation. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2014, 5, 937–943. [CrossRef]
19. Lidula, N.W.A.; Rajapakse, A.D. Microgrids Research: A Review of Experimental Microgrids and Test Systems. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 186–202. [CrossRef]
20. Bramm, A.M.; Eroshenko, S.A.; Khalyasmaa, A.I.; Matrenin, P.V. Grey Wolf Optimizer for RES Capacity Factor Maximization at
the Placement Planning Stage. Mathematics 2023, 11, 2545. [CrossRef]
21. Lei, X. A Photovoltaic Prediction Model with Integrated Attention Mechanism. Mathematics 2024, 12, 2103. [CrossRef]
22. Bamisile, O.; Acen, C.; Cai, D.; Huang, Q.; Staffell, I. The environmental factors affecting solar photovoltaic output. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2025, 208, 115073. [CrossRef]
23. Huld, T.; Gottschalg, R.; Beyer, H.G.; Topič, M. Mapping the Performance of PV Modules, Effects of Module Type and Data
Averaging. Sol. Energy 2010, 84, 324–338. [CrossRef]
24. Skoplaki, E.; Palyvos, J.A. On the Temperature Dependence of Photovoltaic Module Electrical Performance: A Review of
Efficiency/Power Correlations. Sol. Energy 2009, 83, 614–624. [CrossRef]
25. Ayop, R.; Isa, N.M.; Tan, C.W. Components Sizing of Photovoltaic Stand-Alone System Based on Loss of Power Supply Probability.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 2731–2743. [CrossRef]
26. Fathy, A. Reliable and Efficient Approach for Mitigating the Shading Effect on Photovoltaic Module Based on Modified Artificial
Bee Colony Algorithm. Renew. Energy 2015, 81, 78–88. [CrossRef]
27. Borhanazad, H.; Mekhilef, S.; Ganapathy, V.G.; Modiri-Delshad, M.; Mirtaheri, A. Optimization of micro-grid system using
MOPSO. Renew. Energy 2014, 71, 295–306. [CrossRef]
28. Sukamongkol, Y.; Chungpaibulpatana, S.; Ongsakul, W. A Simulation Model for Predicting the Performance of a Solar Photovoltaic
System with Alternating Current Loads. Renew. Energy 2002, 27, 237–258. [CrossRef]
29. Nadjemi, O.; Nacer, T.; Hamidat, A.; Salhi, H. Optimal Hybrid PV/Wind Energy System Sizing: Application of Cuckoo Search
Algorithm for Algerian Dairy Farms. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 70, 1352–1365. [CrossRef]
30. Wang, L.; Tan, A.C.C.; Cholette, M.; Gu, Y. Comparison of the Effectiveness of Analytical Wake Models for Wind Farm with
Constant and Variable Hub Heights. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 124, 189–202. [CrossRef]
31. Justus, C.G. Wind Energy Statistics for Large Arrays of Wind Turbines (New England and Central U.S. Regions). Sol. Energy 1978,
20, 379–386. [CrossRef]
32. Bhandari, B.; Lee, K.T.; Lee, G.Y.; Cho, Y.M.; Ahn, S.H. Optimization of Hybrid Renewable Energy Power Systems: A Review. Int.
J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. Green Technol. 2015, 2, 99–112. [CrossRef]
33. Shin, J.; Lee, J.H.; Realff, M.J. Operational Planning and Optimal Sizing of Microgrid Considering Multi-Scale Wind Uncertainty.
Appl. Energy 2017, 195, 616–633. [CrossRef]
Mathematics 2025, 13, 985 27 of 27

34. Rehman, S.; Al-Abbadi, N.M. Wind Shear Coefficients and Energy Yield for Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Renew. Energy 2007, 32,
738–749. [CrossRef]
35. Wind Turbines—Part 1: Design Requirements. 2005. Available online: https://dlbargh.ir/mbayat/46.pdf (accessed on 19
April 2024).
36. Kharrich, M.; Kamel, S.; Alghamdi, A.S.; Eid, A.; Mosaad, M.I.; Akherraz, M.; Abdel-Akher, M. Optimal Design of an Isolated
Hybrid Microgrid for Enhanced Deployment of Renewable Energy Sources in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4708.
[CrossRef]
37. Wang, L.; Singh, C. PSO-Based Multi-Criteria Optimum Design of A Grid-Connected Hybrid Power System With Multiple
Renewable Sources of Energy. In Proceedings of the IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symposium, Honolulu, HI, USA, 1–5 April 2007.
[CrossRef]
38. Guangqian, D.; Bekhrad, K.; Azarikhah, P.; Maleki, A. A Hybrid Algorithm Based Optimization on Modeling of Grid Independent
Biodiesel-Based Hybrid Solar/Wind Systems. Renew. Energy 2018, 122, 551–560. [CrossRef]
39. Skarstein, O.; Uhlen, K. Design Considerations with Respect to Long-Term Diesel Saving in Wind/Diesel Plants. Wind Eng. 1989,
13, 72–87.
40. Azoumah, Y.; Yamegueu, D.; Ginies, P.; Coulibaly, Y.; Girard, P. Sustainable Electricity Generation for Rural and Peri-Urban
Populations of Sub-Saharan Africa: The “Flexy-Energy” Concept. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 131–141. [CrossRef]
41. Mahmoud, M.M.; Ibrik, I.H. Techno-Economic Feasibility of Energy Supply of Remote Villages in Palestine by PV-Systems, Diesel
Generators and Electric Grid. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2006, 10, 128–138. [CrossRef]
42. Jayachandran, M.; Ravi, G. Design and Optimization of Hybrid Micro-Grid System. Energy Procedia 2017, 117, 95–103. [CrossRef]
43. Zhu, W.; Guo, J.; Zhao, G.; Zeng, B. Optimal Sizing of an Island Hybrid Microgrid Based on Improved Multi-Objective Grey Wolf
Optimizer. Processes 2020, 8, 1581. [CrossRef]
44. Fathy, A. A Reliable Methodology Based on Mine Blast Optimization Algorithm for Optimal Sizing of Hybrid PV-Wind-FC
System for Remote Area in Egypt. Renew. Energy 2016, 95, 367–380. [CrossRef]
45. Ndwali, K.; Njiri, J.G.; Wanjiru, E.M. Multi-Objective Optimal Sizing of Grid Connected Photovoltaic Batteryless System
Minimizing the Total Life Cycle Cost and the Grid Energy. Renew. Energy 2020, 148, 1256–1265. [CrossRef]
46. Bouchekara, H.R.E.H.; Javaid, M.S.; Shaaban, Y.A.; Shahriar, M.S.; Ramli, M.A.M.; Latreche, Y. Decomposition Based Multiobjec-
tive Evolutionary Algorithm for PV/Wind/Diesel Hybrid Microgrid System Design Considering Load Uncertainty. Energy Rep.
2021, 7, 52–69. [CrossRef]
47. Deb, K.; Pratap, A.; Agarwal, S.; Meyarivan, T. A Fast and Elitist Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol.
Comput. 2002, 6, 182–197. [CrossRef]
48. Jin, G.G.; Jarso, A.K. An Improved Hybrid Genetic Algorithm Using the Affine Combination-Based Reproduction. Commun. Stat.
Simul. Comput. 2024, 1–27. [CrossRef]
49. NASA. NASA POWER Data Access Viewer. 2021. Available online: https://power.larc.nasa.gov/data-access-viewer/ (accessed
on 1 January 2021).

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.