Power Systems

Vahid Vahidinasab
Behnam Mohammadi-Ivatloo Editors

Whole
Energy
Systems
Bridging the Gap via Vector-Coupling
Technologies
Power Systems
Electrical power has been the technological foundation of industrial societies
for many years. Although the systems designed to provide and apply electrical
energy have reached a high degree of maturity, unforeseen problems are constantly
encountered, necessitating the design of more efficient and reliable systems based on
novel technologies. The book series Power Systems is aimed at providing detailed,
accurate and sound technical information about these new developments in electrical
power engineering. It includes topics on power generation, storage and transmission
as well as electrical machines. The monographs and advanced textbooks in this
series address researchers, lecturers, industrial engineers and senior students in
electrical engineering.
**Power Systems is indexed in Scopus**

More information about this series at https://link.springer.com/bookseries/4622

Vahid Vahidinasab • Behnam Mohammadi-Ivatloo
Editors

Whole Energy Systems

Bridging the Gap via Vector-Coupling
Technologies
Editors
Vahid Vahidinasab Behnam Mohammadi-Ivatloo
Department of Engineering, School of Department of Electrical and Electronics
Science and Technology Engineering
Nottingham Trent University Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University
Nottingham, UK Muğla, Turkey
Faculty of Electrical and Computer
Engineering
University of Tabriz
Tabriz, Iran

ISSN 1612-1287 ISSN 1860-4676 (electronic)

Power Systems
ISBN 978-3-030-87652-4 ISBN 978-3-030-87653-1 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87653-1

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland
AG 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse
of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface

Whole Energy System is an approach to face conflicting challenges of security,

affordability and sustainability, which is often referred to as the energy trilemma and
it is a necessity for shaping the transition to decarbonization targets. This field of
study addresses the interactions and inter-dependencies within the energy landscape
and its connections with other sectors and systems and Integrating social, economic,
technical and environmental issues. Considering the important role of the electricity
(power) industry in the future of energy and especially its share in clean energy
production, make the power sector a focal point of the whole energy system.
All the stakeholders and active players of this area emphasize not seeing the
power sector in isolation and they all believe that the interaction of the electricity
sector with other sectors of the economy, including the heat, gas, hydrogen and
transport, is of great importance to successfully meet the Trilemma with the least
costs to the customers.
This book introduces an overview of the concept of the whole energy system and
related vector-coupling technologies for coupling the power sector with others while
covering a comprehensive and in-depth analysis of each technology for bridging the
gap and meeting energy trilemma.
Chapter 1, entitled “Concept, Definition, Enabling Technologies, and Challenges
of Energy Integration in Whole Energy Systems To Create Integrated Energy
Systems”, the concept and definition of the vector coupling concept in the whole
energy systems are discussed in detail. Also, enabling technologies and challenges
associated with integrating energy vectors are discussed.
Chapter 2, entitled “Power-to-X for Renewable-Based Hybrid Energy Systems”,
introduces the Power-to-X approach and its significantly substantial technologies
and the limitations and benefits of each. This route has received much attention
in recent years to overcome the shortcomings of existing energy systems. A
deep understanding of Power-to-X technologies with improving its challenges will
contribute to the development and improvement of sustainable energy systems.
Chapter 3, entitled “Whole Energy Systems Evaluation: A Methodological
Framework and Case Study”, presents a methodological framework for whole
energy systems evaluation with underpinning principles, demonstrated through a

v
vi Preface

case study. The framework provides a socio-technical approach for evaluation by

combining stakeholders’ requirements with the system components and functions
through a system-of-systems architecture methodology. The framework application
involves three stages: scenario formulation, conceptual modelling and quantitative
modelling, in an iterative process of feedback between the stages. The case study
demonstrates the framework application and presents evidence on the potential of
energy systems integration in the region via vector-coupling technologies, including
Combined Heat and Power, Power-to-Gas and Heat Pumps, under different scenar-
ios.
Chapter 4, entitled “Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through
Total Site Integration Approach”, starts with explaining the perspective of energy
integration in the Total Site approach. Then, the introduction and modelling of
thermal network components in the Total Site will be examined. After describing
the various components of a thermal network, the method of targeting and coupling
heat and power will be examined. After setting a thermal network and targeting
power and heat, targeting, coupling, and modelling refrigeration and desalination
systems methods will be assessed. Ultimately, the methods of evaluating a Total
Site will be introduced, and each of them will be examined separately.
Chapter 5, entitled “Investigating the Effective Methods in Improving the
Resilience of Electricity and Gas Systems”, demonstrates the importance of
resilience in the electricity and gas network’s cooperation and investigates the
different strategies and methods to increase resilience. For every engineering
system (here, gas and electricity systems infrastructure), many definitions of similar
essence have been proposed, focusing on the ability to deal with disruptions. Taking
the importance of actions prior, during, and afterwards of an adverse event in mind,
resilience is defined as a system’s ability to anticipate, resist, absorb, respond to,
adapt to, and recover from a disturbance.
Chapter 6, entitled “Optimal Placement of Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
Systems Considering the Cost of Environmental Pollutants”, discusses the impor-
tance of environmental issues, environmental pollutants as one of the crucial
factors in the long-term planning of various CHP technologies should always be
considered. A comprehensive model for the optimal planning and allocation of CHP
technologies such as microturbines, fuel cells, and internal combustion engines with
environmental pollutants was presented and the results analysed.
Chapter 7, entitled “Optimal Coalition Operation of Interconnected Hybrid
Energy Systems Containing Local Energy Conversion Technologies, Renewable
Energy Resources, and Energy Storage Systems”, investigates the optimal coalition
operation of interconnected hybrid energy systems (IHESs) to mitigate operation
and CO2 emission costs. The aim is to improve the whole system’s optimal
performance by different renewable and non-renewable facilities’ interactions inside
each hybrid energy system.
Chapter 8, entitled “Optimal Co-generation of Electric and Heat Energy Systems
Considering Heat Energy Storage Systems and CHP Units”, is a co-generation
approach between the two of the most important energy system including heat and
electricity to analyze the two in a simultaneous operation considering both systems’
Preface vii

topologies. The main focus is on heat systems which the authors have considered
the whole pipeline of the system. Further, CHP and a heat energy storage system
are also considered. The objective, here, is to minimize the total cost of the hybrid
system and the result is interesting. Using the mentioned strategy, the authors have
gained a cost-saving approach of more than 15% overall.
Chapter 9, entitled “Investigating the Role of Flexibility Options in Multi-vector
Energy Systems”, introduces the different types of flexibility options like storage
systems, bi-directional compressors, and power-to-gas (P2G) systems to cope with
the imposed intermittency to the energy system. Specifically, the contribution
of these components in mitigating the intermittency and variability of RES is
investigated based on previous projects and studies.
Chapter 10, entitled “Impact of Demand Response Programs on the Operation of
Power and Gas Systems”, is an effort to answer the following questions: (i) What
are the types of demand responses in energy systems? (ii) How can the efficiency
of the energy system be increased by implementing the demand response correctly?
(iii) What is the role of demand response modelling in improving line capacity and
reducing costs in energy systems?
Chapter 11, entitled “Two-Stage Stochastic Market Clearing of Energy and
Reserve in the Presence of Coupled Fuel Cell-Based Hydrogen Storage System
with Renewable Resources”, explains how the integration of renewable energy
resources, especially wind energy sources, brings technical challenges to the power
system. It highlights that the emerging of the hydrogen storage system as a
novel facility in energy platforms is one of the viable solutions. Therefore, the
fuel cell-based hydrogen storage system technology with wind energy sources
could increase the system’s flexibility and reliability. Furthermore, providing more
operational flexibility has been obtained from taking into account both energy and
reserve markets. In line with this issue, presenting a two-stage stochastic network-
constrained market-clearing approach to obtain optimal scheduling and provide
energy and reserve services could pave the way for the integration of fuel cell-based
hydrogen storage system and wind energy sources.
Chapter 12, entitled “Polygeneration Systems in Fossil Fuel Power Plants: The
Role of Power-to-X in CO2 Mitigation”, tries to evaluate the concept of polygen-
eration operation for future power plants with the aim of not only minimizing
emission but also sustaining profitability. The current dependence on fossil fuel
power generation and its developed infrastructure make fossil fuel still a crucial
energy source. However, sustainable power generation is a critical need. The
integrated power generation and CO2 utilization process are a power-to-X system
for simultaneous power and chemical production. The well-outlined benefits and
the flexibility in energy and chemical conversion give this process an encouraging
technical and theoretical perspective.
Chapter 13, entitled “The Role of Distributed Multi-vector Energy Assets in
Economic Decarbonisation: Early Findings of a UK Demonstrator”, outlines the
initial findings of a smart local energy system demonstrator that sought to deploy
renewable generation and storage, EV charging, heat pumps and a Proton Exchange
Membrane H2 electrolyser to be collectively controlled as a Virtual Power Plant.
viii Preface

The greatest challenges were observed in the multi-sectoral integration, optimisation

(and modelling) of assets, ownership and management of real-time data, contract
formations and achieving sustainable smart local energy system business models
and revenue streams.
The provided material in this book fits the needs of advanced undergraduate
or graduate modules and courses on energy systems. The book offers an adequate
mixture of technology and engineering background and modelling approaches that
makes it a suitable reference for the students as well as researchers and engineers in
academia and industry who are active in the field.
To conclude, we would like to sincerely thank all of the authors who contributed
to this book. Also, the editors would like to extend their deep gratitude to the
following reviewers (sorted alphabetically) for their thoughtful comments on all
the submitted book chapters including those that were accepted and published in
this book: Ali El Hadi Berjawi, Alireza Akbari Dibavar, Amin Mansour-Saatloo,
Amir Mirzapour-Kamanaj, Amir Talebi, Arash Moradzadeh, Ayşe Aybike Şeker,
Behzad Motallebi Azar, Hadi Rostamzadeh, Mahdi Habibi, Masoud Agabalaye-
Rahvar, Mohammad Hemmati, Morteza Nazari-Heris, Seyed Mohsen Hashemi, and
Yasin Pezhmani.
The editors, authors, and reviewers of this book have dedicated their time and
enthusiasm to creating it to the hope that it will be useful to researchers, graduate
students, and practitioners interested in this field.

Nottingham, UK Vahid Vahidinasab

Muğla, Turkey Behnam Mohammadi-Ivatloo

Contents

1 Concept, Definition, Enabling Technologies, and Challenges

of Energy Integration in Whole Energy Systems To Create
Integrated Energy Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Omid Sadeghian, Arman Oshnoei, Behnam Mohammadi-Ivatloo,
and Vahid Vahidinasab
2 Power-to-X for Renewable-Based Hybrid Energy Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Sahar Davoudi, Amirhosein Khalili-Garakani, and Kazem Kashefi
3 Whole Energy Systems Evaluation: A Methodological
Framework and Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Ali El Hadi Berjawi, Adib Allahham, Sara Louise Walker,
Charalampos Patsios, and Seyed Hamid Reza Hosseini
4 Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through
Total Site Integration Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Matin Karbasioun, Arash Esmaeilzadeh, and Majid Amidpour
5 Investigating the Effective Methods in Improving
the Resilience of Electricity and Gas Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Mohammad Mehdi Amiri, Hossein Ameli, Mohammad Taghi Ameli,
and Goran Strbac
6 Optimal Placement of Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
Systems Considering the Cost of Environmental Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Sasan Azad, Mohammad Mehdi Amiri, and Mohammad Taghi Ameli
7 Optimal Coalition Operation of Interconnected Hybrid
Energy Systems Containing Local Energy Conversion
Technologies, Renewable Energy Resources, and Energy
Storage Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Behzad Motallebi Azar, Amir Mirzapour-Kamanaj,
Rasool Kazemzadeh, Behnam Mohammadi-Ivatloo, and Kazem Zare

ix
x Contents

8 Optimal Co-Generation of Electric and Heat Energy

Systems Considering Heat Energy Storage Systems
and CHP Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Sasan Azad, Khezr Sanjani, and Mohammad Taghi Ameli
9 Investigating the Role of Flexibility Options in Multi-vector
Energy Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Vahid Shabazbegian, Hossein Ameli, and Mohammad Taghi Ameli
10 Impact of Demand Response Programs on the Operation
of Power and Gas Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Mohammad Mehdi Davary, Mohammad Taghi Ameli,
and Hossein Ameli
11 Two-Stage Stochastic Market Clearing of Energy
and Reserve in the Presence of Coupled Fuel Cell-Based
Hydrogen Storage System with Renewable Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
Masoud Agabalaye-Rahvar, Amin Mansour-Saatloo,
Mohammad Amin Mirazaei, Behnam Mohammadi-Ivatloo,
Kazem Zare, and Amjad Anvari-Moghaddam
12 Polygeneration Systems in Fossil Fuel Power Plants: The
Role of Power-to-X in CO2 Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
Amirhossein Khalili-Garakani, Leila Samiee, and Kazem Kashefi
13 The Role of Distributed Multi-vector Energy Assets in
Economic Decarbonisation: Early Findings of a UK
Demonstrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
Mohammad Royapoor, Kunpeng Wang, Robin Wardle,
and Vahid Vahidinasab

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
Contributors

Masoud Agabalaye-Rahvar Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering,

University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
Adib Allahham School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon
Tyne, UK
Hossein Ameli Control and Power Group, Imperial College London, London, UK
Mohammad Taghi Ameli Department of Electrical Engineering, Shahid Beheshti
University, Tehran, Iran
Majid Amidpour Energy Systems Department, K. N. Toosi University of Technol-
ogy, Tehran, Iran
Mohammad Mehdi Amiri Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
Amjad Anvari-Moghaddam Department of Energy Technology, Aalborg Univer-
sity, Aalborg, Denmark
Sasan Azad Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
Behzad Motallebi Azar Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Sahand University of
Technology, Tabriz, Iran
Ali El Hadi Berjawi School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon
Tyne, UK
Mohammad Mehdi Davary Department of Electrical Engineering, Shahid
Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
Sahar Davoudi Chemistry & Process Engineering Department, Niroo Research
Institute (NRI), Tehran, Iran
Arash Esmaeilzadeh Energy Systems Department, K. N. Toosi University of
Technology, Tehran, Iran

xi
xii Contributors

Seyed Hamid Reza Hosseini School of Engineering, Newcastle University, New-

castle upon Tyne, UK
Matin Karbasioun Energy Systems Department, K. N. Toosi University of Tech-
nology, Tehran, Iran
Kazem Kashefi Development & Optimization of Energy Technologies Research
Division, Research Institute of Petroleum Industries (RIPI), Tehran, Iran
Rasool Kazemzadeh Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Sahand University of
Technology, Tabriz, Iran
Amirhossein Khalili-Garakani Chemistry & Process Engineering Department,
Niroo Research Institute (NRI), Tehran, Iran
Amin Mansour-Saatloo Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Univer-
sity of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
Mohammad Amin Mirazaei Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
Amir Mirzapour-Kamanaj Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Uni-
versity of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
Behnam Mohammadi-Ivatloo Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineer-
ing, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Muğla, Turkey
Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
Arman Oshnoei Department of Energy, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
Charalampos Patsios School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle
upon Tyne, UK
Mohammad Royapoor School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle
upon Tyne, UK
Omid Sadeghian Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of
Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
Leila Samiee Development & Optimization of Energy Technologies Research
Division, Research Institute of Petroleum Industries (RIPI), Tehran, Iran
Khezr Sanjani Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
Vahid Shabazbegian Faculty of Power Engineering, Tehran, Iran
Goran Strbac Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial
College London, London, UK
Vahid Vahidinasab Department of Engineering, School of Science and Technol-
ogy, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
Sara Louise Walker School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon
Tyne, UK
Contributors xiii

Kunpeng Wang School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon

Tyne, UK
Robin Wardle School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne,
UK
Kazem Zare Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Tabriz,
Tabriz, Iran
Chapter 1
Concept, Definition, Enabling
Technologies, and Challenges of Energy
Integration in Whole Energy Systems To
Create Integrated Energy Systems

Omid Sadeghian, Arman Oshnoei, Behnam Mohammadi-Ivatloo ,

and Vahid Vahidinasab

Status Quo, Challenges, and Outlook

The energy crisis and environmental issues have led to the need for integration of
energy systems with the aim of efficient use of energy sources to supply different
energy demands. For this aim, optimal switching among different conventional and
renewable energy sources should be scheduled to enable different energy systems
to efficiently meet the energy demands in every sector of the whole energy system.
The vector coupling of energy systems is challenging due to technical and economic
barriers. Therefore, the first stage is to answer the question: What is the concept and
definition of vector coupling of energy systems and related challenges to achieve
whole energy systems? And what enabling technologies are required to integrate
different energy systems?

O. Sadeghian ()
Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
e-mail: [email protected]
A. Oshnoei
Department of Energy, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Muğla,
Turkey
Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
e-mail: [email protected]
V. Vahidinasab
Department of Engineering, School of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University,
Nottingham, UK

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 1

V. Vahidinasab, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo (eds.), Whole Energy Systems, Power
Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87653-1_1
2 O. Sadeghian et al.

1.1 Introduction

Nowadays, vector coupling of energy systems, i.e., integration of different energy

systems to achieve comprehensive energy-efficient systems, is ongoing [38]. The
energy crisis and air pollution issues [69] and also restraining the uncertainty
and intermittency of renewable energy sources in a high penetration [11] are the
main reasons for the transition from conventional single-carrier energy systems
toward integrated (or coupled) energy systems [48]. Attaining energy sustainability
can also be accelerated by the integration of energy systems [47]. Furthermore,
the uninterrupted and reliable energy supply is an advantage of integrated energy
systems [71]. By vector coupling of energy systems, in addition to improving the
energy efficiency, the system flexibility is also improved [26]. This results in a
reduction in load interruption in case of failure in the conventional generators [65].
Figure 1.1 illustrates the Sankey diagram of the energy exchange in an integrated
energy system.
Multi-energy systems are mainly based on synergy among different energy
carriers such as electricity, gas, heat, and hydrogen carriers [59]. In such systems,
there are degrees of freedom for both the supply and demand sides [79], where
the much energy-efficient way to meet the load is optimal scheduling of the
energy sources [34]. The vector coupling in energy systems is accomplished with
different goals such as improving energy saving, operational costs, reliability, or
carbon emission. Due to the abovementioned advantages, the planning and operation
of integrated energy systems instead of single-carrier energy systems have been
increasing in recent years [18].
Integration of several multi-carrier energy systems is affordable via coupling
technologies such as combined heat and power (CHP) [66]; combined cooling,
heating, and power (CCHP) [36]; heat pump [77]; electric boiler [9]; and gas boiler
[88] systems. The characteristics of the coupling points among the multi-energy
systems for improving the operation and efficiency of the overall system can be

Fig. 1.1 Sankey diagram of some components in integrated energy systems

1 Concept, Definition, Enabling Technologies, and Challenges of Energy. . . 3

Fig. 1.2 The role of energy conversion units in the coupling of energy systems

studied from the viewpoint of dynamic and static features. In Fig. 1.2, a schematic
diagram of the energy conversion among gas, electric, and heat networks using
coupling components (i.e., energy conversion systems) is presented.
A key concept for energy integration is the distributed generation concept since
a large amount of energy losses has occurred in the generation, transmission, and
distribution parts of the electricity systems (respectively, generation, distribution,
and transmission), which requires “on-site” and “near-site” power generation to
overcome [14]. One important type of distributed generation units is renewable
energy sources, which are critical to meet energy crisis and decarbonization [4].
Among renewable energy sources, variable renewable sources, including solar pho-
tovoltaic and wind turbines, are the most promising ones due to having no operation
cost [86]. However, renewable sources are largely dependent on environmental
conditions and exhibit intermittent and uncertain behavior [67]. Integrating these
generation units can, therefore, compromise the system’s security if effective energy
management approaches are not used in the case of the high penetration of such
renewable energy systems [73]. Energy conversion [76], energy-vector shifting
among resources [13], utilizing energy storage systems [7], and demand flexibility
[54] are available solutions to meet the surplus energy of variable renewable sources,
for a case when the conventional generators are not able to accommodate the
uncertainty of variable renewable sources.
There are two major kinds of vector coupling in the energy sector, including
end-use sector coupling and cross-sector coupling [26]. Examples for the first
4 O. Sadeghian et al.

one are using a heat pump to electrify the heating system [52] and using CHP
units for cogeneration of heat and power [66]. The second vector-coupling type is
energy integration in main networks, such as the integration of electricity, gas, and
heat networks. For example, power-gas networks have attracted a lot of attention
in recent years [45]. Vector coupling between supply and demand in renewable-
based systems with high penetration [58] and power-to-X technologies [29] are
some other approaches of the vector coupling of energy systems. From another
point of view, vector coupling of energy systems is divided into two categories of
multi-energy systems and distributed multi-energy systems [57]. Vector coupling
of energy systems can be considered for integrating multi-energy systems on every
scale, such as individual dwellings, buildings, district, city, region, or country level
[42]. A wide number of energy systems and sectors can be integrated to attain the
mentioned advantages of vector coupling of energy systems such as residential,
commercial, industrial, transportation, agricultural, etc. The increasing penetration
level of renewable sources, energy storage systems, and CHP energy units have
evolved both supply and demand sides and contribute to the implementation of
sector coupling of energy systems [53].
The energy vectors imported from the boundaries of the whole system could be
electricity from conventional or renewable sources, natural gas, waste heat from
the industrial processes, etc. [22]. The grid parameters influence on performance
and efficiency of integrated energy systems, for instance, the parameters of the
electricity, heat, and gas networks [37] and parameters of conversion components
(like CHP, heat pump, energy storage systems, and diesel generators). On the
other hand, the output of integrated energy systems can be the nodes’ voltage,
active/reactive power, and power losses (for electrical grids); heat power, supply
and return temperatures, mass flow rates, and losses (for district heat networks); and
nodal pressures, gas flow rates, and losses (for gas networks) [37]. In Fig. 1.3, the
schematic diagram of an integrated energy system is given.
In integrated systems, in low-demand hours, when the RES’s generation is
additional, the surplus electrical energy is adopted to generate hydrogen from water,
in which the produced hydrogen is taken into account as renewable energy. The
surplus energy could be used in transportation, gas grid, and even chemical industry
to generate high-temperature thermal energy such as hydrogen usage in the steam
reforming process. In addition, hydrogen usage in the aviation and marine sectors
is an appropriate choice due to the problems of using electricity. However, more
flexible consumption and energy storage systems can also be employed to meet the
surplus generation of variable renewable sources (i.e., solar photovoltaic system and
wind turbine) [82].
Despite the complexity of integrated multi-energy systems, they have received
significant attention in terms of research and practical aspects. There are a lot of
cases implemented in practice, such as a Euro project in [27], the University of
Parma Campus in Northern Italy [89], the CCHP systems located in eastern Tehran
[3], and the decentralized micro-CHP systems in the UK [44]. China’s energy policy
with social capital supports the construction of integrated multi-energy systems,
which are increasingly developing [38]. Furthermore, in [17], the multi-vector
1 Concept, Definition, Enabling Technologies, and Challenges of Energy. . . 5

Fig. 1.3 Schematic diagram of an integrated energy system

6 O. Sadeghian et al.

Fig. 1.4 The main keywords of the previous works regarding the integrated energy systems

energy analysis has been accomplished for interconnected power and gas systems
of Great Britain and Ireland, both containing a high penetration level of wind power,
whereas the Ireland systems depend on gas import from Great Britain. The analysis
has revealed that the hybrid gas and power system of Great Britain is more resilient
compared to the Ireland system.
The main keywords of the previous works related to the understudy context
associated with the temporal relationship among them are outlined in Fig. 1.4. This
graph has been created in VOSviewer software using the “Web of Science” research
tool.
In this chapter, the prerequisites for the integration of energy vectors to cre-
ate integrated energy systems that is critical to achieve whole energy systems
are discussed. For this aim, the vector-coupling definition related to integrating
energy systems is given. In addition, the enabling technologies, including energy
technologies (coupling and non-coupling energy technologies) and information
and communication technology (ICT), are reviewed. The barriers and challenges
for coupling energy systems are also discussed in this chapter. Furthermore, the
role of demand flexibility in developing such systems is given. Moreover, the
decarbonization of energy systems with electrification approaches as a goal for
integrating energy systems is described in this study.
The chapter is continued as follows: The definition of vector coupling in
multi-energy systems is given in Sect. 1.2. Enabling technologies for coupling
energy systems are enumerated in the next section. Section 1.4 discusses the
demand-side management programs. The electrification options and their role in
the decarbonization of the whole energy system are outlined in Secti. 1.5. The next
section relates to the challenges and barriers for integrating energy systems. Finally,
the paper is concluded in Sect. 1.7.
1 Concept, Definition, Enabling Technologies, and Challenges of Energy. . . 7

1.2 Definition

Integration of all the energy carriers has been stated as the definition of the vector
coupling of energy systems [62]. In addition, sector coupling has been defined as
converting the surplus power to other forms of energy to be used efficiently in high-
demand hours or used in other applications such as the industrial sector [55]. This
is while the waste or excess heat of power stations or distributed generation units
and the waste heat from industrial processes is not generally considered as a vector-
coupling action in energy systems and only considered as multi-energy systems
[62]. Some distinctions between multi-carrier energy systems and integrated energy
systems can be found in the literature [62]. Therefore, there is not a widely accepted
standard for the vector coupling of energy systems.
In this chapter, the vector coupling of energy systems is defined as follows:
Vector coupling of energy systems is integration/combination of different fuels (such as
fossil fuels, coal, natural gas, hydrogen, biogas, and biomass), different energy systems
(such as electricity, gas, hydrogen, and district heat networks), different energy sectors
(such as residential, transport, commercial, industrial, and agricultural) or energy systems
(such as energy hubs, microgrids, virtual power plants, and building) to coordinate the
centralized and distributed energy supply systems (such as power stations, renewable
sources, diesel generators, CHP plants, and fuel cells) and energy storage systems (such as
battery, thermal, cooling, hydrogen, and compressed air energy storage systems) with every
purpose (such as improving the environmental performance, economic operation, energy
efficiency, flexibility, and reliability/availability) via suitable coupling technologies (such as
CHP, heat pumps, electric and gas boilers, chillers, microturbines, and fuel cell) to supply
different energy demands (like electrical, heating, lighting, cooling and every combination
of them), by optimal interaction/linkage and switching among energy sources in order to
handling a considerable share of renewable sources and better managing sudden failures.

1.3 Enabling Technologies

Vector coupling of the current energy systems will be affordable by respective

enabling technologies [62]. These technologies include energy technologies as well
as information and communication technology (ICT), which are discussed. These
technologies are categorized in Fig. 1.5.

1.3.1 Energy Technologies

The energy technologies that are required for coupling energy systems are divided
into two categories, including coupling elements and non-coupling elements.
Coupling components locate in inter-network locations [37]. For instance, the CHP
systems are located among gas, electrical, and district heat networks, or electric
heat pumps are located among electricity and heat networks [28]. On the other
8 O. Sadeghian et al.

Fig. 1.5 Required technologies for integrating energy systems

hand, the non-coupling components deal with one type of energy. For instance, the
battery storage is located in the electricity network, or thermal storage is situated
in the district heat network. In the following, the enabling energy technologies and
approaches required for vector coupling of energy systems are discussed.

1.3.1.1 Coupling Energy Technologies (Energy-Converting Systems)

The vector coupling of different energy systems needs combination and manage-
ment of multi-energy together. Coupling components (or conversion systems) relate
to different energy carriers to efficiently use the energy sources. The most known
conversion systems to couple energy systems are CHP, CCHP, heat pump, boiler,
diesel generator, and fuel cell. Among them, CHP plants and heat pumps are seen
as the key components for integrating energy systems.
The most noticeable technology for integrated multi-energy systems is the CHP
system, which is capable to efficiently generate heat and power, simultaneously [13].
Mainly, CHP systems are gas-fired and coal-fired systems. A CHP system could be
1 Concept, Definition, Enabling Technologies, and Challenges of Energy. . . 9

a gas turbine with a corresponding efficiency and heat-to-power ratio [37]. The CHP
units are mainly integrated with an auxiliary boiler, which the fuel for such boiler is
supplied from various sources like electricity. In addition, gas- and hydrogen-based
fuel cells are also seen as promising cogeneration systems for the implementation of
whole energy systems. Fuel cells are new but nonrenewable energy systems that, in
addition to environment-friendly generation, can be fueled by hydrogen or different
gases, which is another advantage of such generation systems. Cogeneration
systems have various advantages containing 30% decarbonization, efficiency over
80%, increasing supply security, 30% saving on energy bills, and loss reduction in
both the distribution and transmission levels [90].
CCHP systems or so-called trigeneration systems are another coupling facility
to generate cooling, heat, and power, simultaneously. CCHP is mainly a developed
form of CHP. Accordingly, CHP systems can be a trigeneration system when they
are associated with heat-to-cooling equipment, which are absorption/adsorption
machines [43]. By using CHP and CCHP systems, 30–50% energy saving is
achieved [35] in comparison to separate production of heat and power, which
have about 30% energy efficiency [14]. In other words, using cogeneration and
trigeneration systems, 75–80% of the input fuel is converted into useful energy [14].
These systems mainly contain gas engines and gas turbines [35].
Heat pumps (generally means electric heat pumps) are another technology
effective on vector coupling of energy systems used to transfer the heat from a
colder source (such as the external environment of building or water) to a hotter
sink (such as indoor air) for heating aims [39]. Based on their application, the heat
pumps are divided into three types containing water-source [56], air-source [80], and
ground-source [25] heat pumps. Heat pumps can also operate as chillers for cooling
aims. However, chillers can operate in cogeneration mode by producing cooling and
heating through using a heat recovery condenser integrated with the chiller. There
is also another type of heat pump called gas-fired heat pumps, which are located
between gas and heat networks.
Based on the literature [37], a system with CHP systems and heat pumps has the
lowest carbon emission, whereas the same system with gas boilers has the highest
carbon emission. The most effectiveness of the presence of CHP or heat pump on the
total emission depends on the emission of the electricity grid. In addition, a system
with heat pumps has the least energy cost, whereas the same system with gas boilers
results in the highest energy cost. The most effectiveness of the presence of CHP or
heat pump on the total energy cost depends on the energy cost of the electricity grid.
By using a combination of technologies such as CHP systems and heat pumps, the
balance between techno-economic and carbon emission aspects might be in place.
Boilers as steam-generating systems are other technologies to enable the energy
systems to be efficiently integrated [72]. Such conversion systems are responsible
for a significant portion of energy use in the world. Heating water or steam is
the result of using boilers for heating aims by consuming natural gas, oil, coal,
electricity, etc. [75]. The energy efficiency of boilers is about 75–90% [6]. In
industrial processes, the generated heat is used by steam turbines to generate
electricity.
10 O. Sadeghian et al.

The microturbine (or so-called micro-gas turbine), as another coupling compo-

nent, is a high-speed and small gas turbine. Such systems generate electricity by
consuming different kinds of fuels. The electrical efficiency of a microturbine is
about 20–30% and its heat-to-power ratio is about 1.3–2 [61].

1.3.1.2 Non-coupling Energy Technologies

Non-coupling components play critical roles in coupled energy systems. These

components include renewable sources and energy storage systems. As mentioned,
increasing the penetration/share of renewable sources is the main reason for
integrating energy systems, particularly the variable renewable sources, including
solar systems and wind turbines, because of their zero generation cost. However,
other renewable sources such as geothermal, biomass, hydro energy, and tidal
energy are developing. Apart from grid connection of renewable sources, the surplus
power of a decentralized photovoltaic system can directly electrify transport or
indirectly supply a heat pump to supply the heating loads. Hydrogen or methane
may also be stored by using the surplus electricity of renewable sources or fed into
the natural gas network [90].
Energy storage systems are critical facilities for vector coupling of energy
systems to increase the degree of freedom in such systems. Using such systems can
significantly reduce wind and photovoltaic curtailment and also operation costs [68].
There are different types of energy storage systems for storing energy. Electricity
storage has different types such as battery storage, electric vehicles, supercapacitor,
flywheel, pumped storage, and compressed air energy storage [46]. The other types
of energy storage systems include heat storage, cold water storage, and hydrogen
storage tank. There is also another energy storage system called seasonal energy
storage systems, which are able to meet the seasonal intermittency of renewable
sources. Such systems can play a backup role in the case of system failure. Hybrid
energy storage systems have also been focused in recent years. These storage
systems are the combination of two or more storage technologies to utilize the
advantage of different storage technology such as the combination of high-power
and high-energy battery storage technologies [70].

1.3.2 Information and Communication Technologies

Information and communication technology (ICT) is another enabling technology

for integrating energy systems. ICT is a diverse set of electronic technologies
and related approaches used to store, create, manipulate, receive, share, exchange,
manage, and transmit information from one place to another by using gadgets
such as cell phones, the wireless network, and the Internet. Through ICT, the
message delivery is accomplished faster, more convenient, and easy to access. ICT
tools include software, hardware, services, and communications. Smart meters,
1 Concept, Definition, Enabling Technologies, and Challenges of Energy. . . 11

controllers, wireless technologies, and the Internet of Things technology are

examples of ICT. Internet of Things technology as a novel ICT form (from 2009) is
a developed form of the radio-frequency identification technology (from the 1980s)
and the wireless sensor networks (from the 1990s) [16]. Although the ICT concept
was first born in the 1940s, still there is not a uniform definition for this concept
[85].
This technology is essential for linking and coordinating energy systems,
especially in the presence of variable renewable energy sources. The optimal
switching among energy sources to efficiently save energy consumption considering
the comfort level of energy customers is not possible without ICT equipment and
related services. This technology provides intelligent monitoring and management
systems for energy saving as well as energy efficiency by automation of energy
management [5]. The role of ICT is critical in the intelligent management of
connecting modern energy networks, in which the coordination of distributed energy
resources for enabling collaborative storage and demand response scenarios should
be accomplished by this technology for increasing the share of renewable energy
resources [31]. The management of grid stability and power quality issues in
integrated energy systems are guaranteed by ICT [81]. The ICT contributed to
accumulating information from every point of an integrated energy system for
demand forecasting, control, protection, and optimal operation of the grid. This
technology has increased the requirement for DC power since the equipment of such
technology utilized DC power to accomplish related tasks [84]. Energy trading in
regional markets is also possible with ICT infrastructures and equipment [60]. Self-
healing, energy loss minimization, and emission control are some other applications
of ICT in power systems [41]. Through the ICT, the observability of the energy grid
is significantly enhanced by real-time monitoring. The ICT has an important role in
the automation of load management with switching among energy sources based on
the customers’ behavior. For instance, the comfort requirement in a smart building
includes indoor air quality, visual comfort, and thermal comfort [2].

1.4 Importance of Demand-Side Management in Developing

Integrated Energy Systems

In addition to using technologies, demand-side management is also effective in

developing integrated energy systems [74]. Energy efficiency and demand flexibility
as the roles of demand-side management are essential for integrating energy
systems. This is because the aim of developing integrated systems is energy
conservation as well as enhancing the share of renewable energy sources in
supplying the energy demands. Accordingly, the demand-side management concept
is divided into energy efficiency and demand response programs. Energy efficiency
means using less energy for a typical task and covers several subjects, including
the use of new energy-efficient technologies instead of conventional ones, energy
12 O. Sadeghian et al.

Fig. 1.6 Demand-side management approaches and related subcategories

saving, and energy transition, whereas demand-side response programs enable the
responsive loads to participate in demand flexibility programs. Demand response
programs in integrated energy systems have been focused on in research studies
[54]. For effective implementation of such programs, load forecasting for different
load kinds of demands [49] is an indispensable action to manage different load
types for optimal participation in demand response programs. However, in the
existing research studies regarding load forecasting, a few of them are consistent
with integrated energy systems [38]. The demand-side management approaches and
related subcategories are listed in Fig. 1.6.

1.5 Role of Electrification in Decarbonizing Energy Systems

Coal and oil are responsible for 80% of carbon emission, and therefore, using
renewable sources and electrification of the transport sector are the main steps
toward decarbonization [4], which is one of the major aims of integrating energy
systems [1]. Among the energy sectors, more than two-thirds of all energy is used
in cities, whereas urbanization is increasing that accelerates the role of cities in
carbonization [40]. Decarbonization is not limited to a specific sector of energy
systems and is related to the whole energy system. By efficient use of energy
sources, the higher efficiency of integrated energy systems can be achieved, which
results in lower fuel use and carbon emission [8]. Like renewable sources, the fuel
1 Concept, Definition, Enabling Technologies, and Challenges of Energy. . . 13

Fig. 1.7 Electrification options to decarbonize integrated energy systems

cell systems generate zero/negligible greenhouse gas emissions and are seen as a
clean combined energy system since it enables direct electrification by electrolytes
[62]. Energy storage systems are other effective facilities for decarbonization
by reducing the peak load to reduce the power generation of the high-emission
conventional generators or diesel-based and gas-based distributed generators [33].
Electric heat pumps, electric boilers, solar heat, and geothermal are also effective
in decarbonization by heat generation without carbon emission. In such units,
the electricity directly converts to thermal energy for space heating or hot water,
whereas some other distributed generators such as gas boilers convert fossil fuel to
thermal energy by producing carbon dioxide. Figure 1.7 depicts the main actions for
electrification in integrated energy systems [78].
As mentioned, electrification is an action to move toward low-carbon technolo-
gies [13]. Electrification needs additional electricity to meet the new electricity
demands. The required electricity is mainly supplied via renewable sources, biomass
gas, and nuclear facilities. Among energy sectors, the heat, industry, and transport
sectors are the most fossil-based sectors [64]. However, electrification of heat and
transport is more expected due to their impact on optimizing energy use in low-
demand time periods that lead to improvement of the energy efficiency [32]. The
electrification for fossil-based heating systems is recognized as an appropriate
option to produce low-temperature heat. This is while there is not a commercially
feasible option for electrification of high-temperature applications. Electrification
for many industries seems difficult as they need high-temperature and high-rate
heat processes [10]. Renewable sources, specially biomass-based renewable energy
sources, are mentioned as the only solution for electrification of some processes in
literature [87].

1.6 Challenges and Barriers

Despite the advantages of vector coupling of energy systems, there are a lot of
challenges and barriers against the coupling of energy vectors [51]. Optimal design
and management of coupled multi-energy systems is a great challenge to move
14 O. Sadeghian et al.

toward such integrated systems [22] [89]. The energy conversion facilities, in
addition to coordination with other facilities, should also be coordinated with the
transmission and distribution networks of energy networks to establish the balance
between the load and supply side [22]. In addition, there is a lack of synergy
potential for optimal planning and scheduling of the energy sectors. To overcome
this barrier, using an appropriate approach for optimal cooperation between all
energy systems and energy sectors is inevitable. The investment strategies may
be influenced with time. For instance, long-term gas CHP and boiler investments
decrease with increasing strategic behavior, which leads to an increase in gas
price 2.6 times more than the case of gas price without strategic behavior [24].
Moreover, the combination of higher gas and CO2 prices increases power prices
and fosters renewable investments [24]. For another challenge, the transition of
classical single-carrier systems toward distributed multi-energy systems introduces
complex physical and commercial interactions between different energy vectors.
Optimal sizing of coupling elements is another challenge for moving toward such
systems.
Integrating energy systems leads to complex systems, in which the planning and
scheduling problem of such systems needs specific approaches [4]. Available com-
puter tools to simulate and analyze the integrated multi-energy systems combined
with renewable sources have been discussed in [15]. Most of the available tools
that can be used for individual energy systems are not capable of being used for
integrated energy systems [37]. To solve the resulted model in such systems, agent-
based models or model coupling are required [30]. A lot of approaches for optimal
management and operation of integrated energy systems have been introduced in
the literature [83]. Load flow in integrated energy systems requires hybrid load flow
methods. It has been stated in the previous studies that no systematic framework has,
so far, been developed for techno-economic analysis of complex and distributed
coupled energy systems [21]. For every integrated energy system, a coordinated
scheduling model is required to optimally use all the components for demands
supply [90]. Temporal and spatial resolutions are the major specific challenges for
modeling the energy infrastructure [30], which need a fundamental understanding
of the modeling, dynamics, and interdependency among the systems [90].
One other barrier is the need to further innovation in technologies. For instance,
a combination of renewable sources with energy storage systems is not still
competitive with other existing solutions due to the high price of battery energy
storage systems. For another sample, converting electricity in low-demand hours
into hydrogen and methane as usable gases will be 20% more expensive compared
to fossil-based fuels in 2050. Therefore, the cost efficiency of transforming power
to other forms of energy such as hydrogen is important for developing integrated
energy systems. Since the existing technologies vary in each region, a comprehen-
sive study regarding the understudy region is required before the energy integration.
Energy is produced, stored, and transported over distances in one of the three
basic forms containing thermal, electric, and chemical. For instance, the energy
in the form of natural gas is transmitted to be used in power stations to generate
electricity or used in buildings to generate heat by boilers or gas-based CHP
1 Concept, Definition, Enabling Technologies, and Challenges of Energy. . . 15

systems [22]. The case of Denmark shows that district heating and the gas network
have much more capacity than the electricity grid, both in terms of distribution
and storage [22], but this capacity is not available elsewhere. Reinforcement and
extension of energy networks may be required for vector coupling of energy
systems. Development of distributed generation systems and electrification of
heating systems influence line flows in electricity systems. In addition, there is a
need for investment in heat networks, which have not been developed compared to
gas and electricity grids. District heating systems are uncompetitive with existing
decentralized heating systems. However, it is expected that the building space heat-
ing demand is 20% lower in 2050 compared to 2016, due to improvement in building
energy efficiency measures in the future [4]. Although electricity networks are more
developed compared to the other energy networks, grid expansion to maximize the
usage of renewable sources’ generation is an alternative for developing integrated
systems. The authors in [63] have revealed that the second solution only costs 30%
of an electrolyzer having the same capacity. However, the hydrogen can be sold
without re-electrification in a competitive environment, and transmission expansion
can also be economically beneficial. For the most efficient way for the supply
of demand in integrated energy systems, the best network topology/configuration
should be adopted. The energy losses and cost of such networks are effective factors
in the adoption and construction of multi-energy-based network configuration [12].
A new concept of transmission network has been introduced for integrated energy
systems as combined transmission or interconnector concept with the aim of
transmitting electrical, thermal, and chemical energy in one underground device
[19]. This layout seems to be a hollow conductor with the capability of carrying gas
inside. The advantage of using this layout is efficiency improvement by storing the
heat generated by conductors in the carried gas. The efficiency of such transmission
lines is increased when the stored heat in the gas is used at the end of the link [20].
The integration of energy systems may lead to congestion in the capacity of the
individual energy systems. For instance, using the CHP units increased the used
capacity of gas networks in Germany [23]. However, distributed generation units in
integrated energy systems can solve the congestion according to their location in the
network.
Another barrier in integrating the energy systems is regarding the market
condition, which can restrict the development of technologies with small scales such
as electric-to-gas technologies like hydrogen generation from surplus electricity.
For another example, low-scale biomass in distributed areas is not expected to be
exploited. Another challenge is the possibility that low electricity prices may lead
to direct electrification instead of power-to-gas and power-to-heat transformations
in low-price time intervals [62].
Uncertainty is another challenge in such systems. The uncertainty sources may
be load demand, generation of renewable energy sources, fuel (or energy) price,
etc. One important uncertainty source is the power generation of variable renewable
sources. The transformation mechanisms are associated with uncertainty in the long
term. For instance, global warming can change the demand from heating to cooling.
To overcome this challenge, using low-temperature district heat systems can enable
16 O. Sadeghian et al.

the system for cogeneration of heating and cooling [62]. Another challenge for
integrated energy systems is that a threatening factor to one energy system may
endanger the security of all the integrated energy systems by rising mismatch issues
between demand and supply sides.
The current limitation in using ICT equipment and approaches is another
challenge of developing integrated energy systems. A limited number of companies
currently exist that have restricted this development. However, nowadays, new
emerging and promising ICT approaches such as the Internet of Things technology
are increasingly developing [50].

1.7 Conclusions

In this chapter, the integration of the energy systems, which is ongoing with the aim
of improving energy efficiency, climate protection, and also enhancing reliability
in supplying energy demands, was discussed. Firstly, the concept and definition of
vector coupling in whole energy systems was discussed. In addition, the coupling
technologies, including energy (coupling and non-coupling energy technologies)
and the information and communication technology (ICT), were enumerated in
this chapter. Furthermore, the challenges and barriers related to integrated energy
systems and available solutions to overcome them were explained. Demand-side
management and decarbonization as the main steps toward energy integration were
also outlined. The conducted study showed that there is still a need for a lot of
actions to couple the energy systems in order to achieve the whole energy system.

Acknowledgements This publication was partially supported by award NPRP12S-0125-190013

from the QNRF-Qatar National Research Fund, a member of The Qatar Foundation. The
information and views set out in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the official opinion of the QNRF.

References

1. Abeysekera, M., & Wu, J. (2015). Method for simultaneous power flow analysis in coupled
multi-vector energy networks. Energy Procedia, 75, 1165–1171.
2. Aduda, K. O., Zeiler, W., Boxem, G., & Labeodan, T. (2014). On defining information and
communication technology requirements and associated challenges for ‘energy and comfort
active’ buildings. Procedia Computer Science, 32, 979–984.
3. Ameri, M., & Besharati, Z. (2016). Optimal design and operation of district heating and
cooling networks with CCHP systems in a residential complex (Vol. 110). Elsevier B.V.
4. Arabzadeh, V., Mikkola, J., Jasiūnas, J., & Lund, P. D. (2020). Deep decarbonization of urban
energy systems through renewable energy and sector-coupling flexibility strategies. Journal of
Environmental Management, 260(January).
5. Asare-Bediako, B., Ribeiro, P. F., & Kling, W. L. (2012). Integrated energy optimization with
smart home energy management systems. In IEEE PES innovative smart grid technologies
conference Europe (pp. 1–8).
1 Concept, Definition, Enabling Technologies, and Challenges of Energy. . . 17

6. Barma, M. C., Saidur, R., Rahman, S. M. A., Allouhi, A., Akash, B. A., & Sait, S. M. (2017).
A review on boilers energy use, energy savings, and emissions reductions. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 79, 970–983.
7. Bartolini, A., Carducci, F., Muñoz, C. B., & Comodi, G. (2020). Energy storage and
multi energy systems in local energy communities with high renewable energy penetration.
Renewable Energy, 159, 595–609.
8. Brown, M. A., & Li, Y. (2019). Carbon pricing and energy efficiency: Pathways to deep
decarbonization of the US electric sector. Energy Efficiency, 12(2), 463–481.
9. Bühler, F., Zühlsdorf, B., Van Nguyen, T., & Elmegaard, B. (2019). A comparative assessment
of electrification strategies for industrial sites: Case of milk powder production. Applied
Energy, 250(April), 1383–1401.
10. Bühler, F., Holm, F. M., & Elmegaard, B. (2019). Potentials for the electrification of industrial
processes in Denmark. In ECOS 2019 - proceedings of the 32nd international conference
on efficiency, cost, optimization, simulation and environmental impact of energy systems (pp.
2137–2152).
11. Canale, L., Rita, A., Fazio, D., Russo, M., & Frattolillo, A. (2021). An overview on functional
integration of hybrid renewable energy systems in Multi-Energy Buildings. Energies, 14(4),
1078.
12. Carradore, L., & Turri, R. (2009). Modeling and simulation of multi-vector energy systems. In
2009 IEEE Bucharest PowerTech: Innovative ideas toward the electrical grid of the future.
13. Chicco, G., Riaz, S., Mazza, A., & Mancarella, P. (2020). Flexibility from distributed
multienergy systems. Proceedings of the IEEE, 108(9), 1496–1517.
14. Cho, H., Smith, A. D., & Mago, P. (2014). Combined cooling, heating and power: A review of
performance improvement and optimization. Applied Energy, 136, 168–185.
15. Connolly, D., Lund, H., Mathiesen, B. V., & Leahy, M. (2010). A review of computer tools
for analysing the integration of renewable energy into various energy systems. Applied Energy,
87(4), 1059–1082.
16. Da Xu, L., He, W., & Li, S. (2014). Internet of things in industries: A survey. IEEE Transactions
on Industrial Informatics, 10(4), 2233–2243.
17. Devlin, J., Li, K., Higgins, P., & Foley, A. (2017). A multi vector energy analysis for
interconnected power and gas systems. Applied Energy, 192, 315–328.
18. Dolatabadi, A., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., Abapour, M., & Tohidi, S. (2017). Optimal stochastic
design of wind integrated energy hub. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 13(5).
19. Favre-Perrod, P., Kienzle, F., & Andersson, G. (2010). Modeling and design of future multi-
energy generation and transmission systems. European Transactions on Electrical Power,
20(8), 994–1008.
20. Geidl, M., Koeppel, G., Favre-Perrod, P., Klöckl, B., Andersson, G., & Fröhlich, K. (2007).
Energy hubs for the future. IEEE Power & Energy Magazine, 5(1), 24–30.
21. Good, N., Martínez Ceseña, E. A., Zhang, L., & Mancarella, P. (2016). Techno-economic
and business case assessment of low carbon technologies in distributed multi-energy systems.
Applied Energy, 167, 158–172.
22. Guelpa, E., Bischi, A., Verda, V., Chertkov, M., & Lund, H. (2019). Towards future infrastruc-
tures for sustainable multi-energy systems: A review. Energy, 184, 2–21.
23. Hauser, P., Heidari, S., Weber, C., & Möst, D. (2019). Does increasing natural gas demand
in the power sector pose a threat of congestion to the German gas grid? A model-coupling
approach. Energies, 12(11), 1–22.
24. Heidari, S. (2020). How strategic behavior of natural gas exporters can affect the sectors of
electricity, heating, and emission trading during the European energy transition. Energies,
13(19).
25. Huang, J., Fan, J., & Furbo, S. (2020). Demonstration and optimization of a solar district
heating system with ground source heat pumps. Solar Energy, 202, 171–189.
26. Ilo, A. (2020). Use cases in sector coupling as part of the link -based holistic architecture
to increase the grid flexibility. In Proceedings of the CIRED 2020 Berlin workshop, Berlin,
Germany (pp. 22–23).
18 O. Sadeghian et al.

27. Jacobs, T., et al. (2016). Increasing the utilization ratio of photovoltaic energy by network
hybridization. In Proceedings - 2016 IEEE international conferences on big data and
cloud computing, BDCloud 2016, social computing and networking, SocialCom 2016 and
sustainable computing and communications, SustainCom 2016 (pp. 445–452).
28. Khezri, R., Oshnoei, A., Hagh, M. T., & Muyeen, S. M. (2018). Coordination of heat pumps,
electric vehicles and AGC for efficient LFC in a smart hybrid power system via SCA-based
optimized FOPID controllers. Energies, 11(2).
29. Koj, J. C., Wulf, C., & Zapp, P. (2019). Environmental impacts of power-to-X systems - a
review of technological and methodological choices in life cycle assessments. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 112, 865–879.
30. Kriechbaum, L., Scheiber, G., & Kienberger, T. (2018). Grid-based multi-energy systems-
modelling, assessment, open source modelling frameworks and challenges. Energy, Sustain-
ability and Society, 8(1).
31. Lazzaro, M., et al. (2019., no. 731268). Smart ICT framework for the intelligent management
of different modern energy systems. In Proceedings - 2019 IEEE international conference
on environment and electrical engineering and 2019 IEEE industrial and commercial power
systems Europe, EEEIC/I and CPS Europe 2019 (pp. 1–6).
32. Lechtenböhmer, S., Nilsson, L. J., Åhman, M., & Schneider, C. (2016). Decarbonising the
energy intensive basic materials industry through electrification – Implications for future EU
electricity demand. Energy, 115, 1623–1631.
33. Lee, H., Jung, S., Cho, Y., Yoon, D., & Jang, G. (2013). Peak power reduction and energy
efficiency improvement with the superconducting flywheel energy storage in electric railway
system. Physica C: Superconductivity and its Applications, 494, 246–249.
34. Li, B., & Roche, R. (2020). Optimal scheduling of multiple multi-energy supply microgrids
considering future prediction impacts based on model predictive control. Energy, 197, 117180.
35. Li, H., Fu, L., Geng, K., & Jiang, Y. (2006). Energy utilization evaluation of CCHP systems.
Energy and Buildings, 38(3), 253–257.
36. Li, G., et al. (2017). Optimal dispatch strategy for integrated energy systems with CCHP and
wind power. Applied Energy, 192, 408–419.
37. Liu, X., & Mancarella, P. (2016). Modelling, assessment and Sankey diagrams of integrated
electricity-heat-gas networks in multi-vector district energy systems. Applied Energy, 167,
336–352.
38. Liu, D., Wang, L., Qin, G., & Liu, M. (2020). Power load demand forecasting model and
method based on multi-energy coupling. Applied Sciences, 10(2), 1–24.
39. Lo Basso, G., de Santoli, L., Paiolo, R., & Losi, C. (2021). The potential role of trans-critical
CO2 heat pumps within a solar cooling system for building services: The hybridised system
energy analysis by a dynamic simulation model. Renewable Energy, 164, 472–490.
40. Lund, P. D., Mikkola, J., & Ypyä, J. (2015). Smart energy system design for large clean power
schemes in urban areas. Journal of Cleaner Production, 103, 437–445.
41. Mallikarjuna, M., Khanam, A., & Poonia, A. (2018). Smart grids: A perspective on the
integration and encapsulation of power energy systems with ICT systems-new research
directions and challenges. In Proceedings of the 2017 international conference on smart
Technology for Smart Nation, SmartTechCon 2017 (pp. 648–654).
42. Mancarella, P. (2014). MES (multi-energy systems): An overview of concepts and evaluation
models. Energy, 65, 1–17.
43. Mancarella, P., & Chicco, G. (2013). Real-time demand response from energy shifting in
distributed multi-generation. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 4(4), 1928–1938.
44. Merkel, E., McKenna, R., & Fichtner, W. (2015). Optimisation of the capacity and the dispatch
of decentralised micro-CHP systems: A case study for the UK. Applied Energy, 140, 120–134.
45. Mirzaei, M. A., Nazari-Heris, M., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., Zare, K., Marzband, M., & Anvari-
Moghaddam, A. (2020). A novel hybrid framework for co-optimization of power and natural
gas networks integrated with emerging technologies. IEEE Systems Journal, 14(3), 3598–
3608.
1 Concept, Definition, Enabling Technologies, and Challenges of Energy. . . 19

46. Mirzaei, M. A., et al. (2020). Integrated energy hub system based on power-to-gas and
compressed air energy storage technologies in the presence of multiple shiftable loads. IET
Generation Transmission and Distribution, 14(13), 2510–2519.
47. Mohammadi, M., Noorollahi, Y., Mohammadi-ivatloo, B., & Yousefi, H. (2017). Energy hub:
From a model to a concept – A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 80.
48. Mohammadi, M., Noorollahi, Y., Mohammadi-ivatloo, B., Hosseinzadeh, M., Yousefi, H., &
Khorasani, S. T. (2018). Optimal management of energy hubs and smart energy hubs – A
review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 89.
49. Moradzadeh, A., Mansour-Saatloo, A., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., & Anvari-Moghaddam, A.
(2020). Performance evaluation of two machine learning techniques in heating and cooling
loads forecasting of residential buildings. Applied Sciences, 10(11), 3829.
50. Motlagh, N. H., Mohammadrezaei, M., Hunt, J., & Zakeri, B. (2020). Internet of things (IoT)
and the energy sector. Energies, 13(2), 1–27.
51. Nazari-heris, M., Jabari, F., Mohammadi-ivatloo, B., Asadi, S., & Habibnezhad, M. (2020). An
updated review on multi-carrier energy systems with electricity, gas, and water energy sources.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 123136.
52. Neirotti, F., Noussan, M., & Simonetti, M. (2020). Towards the electrification of buildings
heating - real heat pumps electricity mixes based on high resolution operational profiles.
Energy, 195, 116974.
53. Ni, L., et al. (2018). Optimal operation of electricity, natural gas and heat systems considering
integrated demand responses and diversified storage devices. Journal of Modern Power Systems
and Clean Energy, 6(3), 423–437.
54. Niu, J., Tian, Z., Zhu, J., & Yue, L. (2020). Implementation of a price-driven demand response
in a distributed energy system with multi-energy flexibility measures. Energy Conversion and
Management, 208(February), 112575.
55. Noussan, M. (2018). Performance based approach for electricity generation in smart grids.
Applied Energy, 220(December 2017), 231–241.
56. Oshnoei, A., Khezri, R., & Muyeen, S. M. (2019). Model predictive-based secondary frequency
control considering heat pump water heaters. Energies, 12(3).
57. Pan, Z. J., & Zhang, Y. (2016). A novel centralized charging station planning strategy
considering urban power network structure strength. Electric Power Systems Research, 136,
100–109.
58. Pandžić, H. (2018). Optimal battery energy storage investment in buildings. Energy and
Buildings, 175, 189–198.
59. Petkov, I., & Gabrielli, P. (2020). Power-to-hydrogen as seasonal energy storage: An uncer-
tainty analysis for optimal design of low-carbon multi-energy systems. Applied Energy,
274(April), 115197.
60. Pouttu, A., et al. (2017). P2P model for distributed energy trading, grid control and ICT for
local smart grids. In EuCNC 2017 - European conference on networks and communications.
61. Qiu, J., Zhao, J., Yang, H., Wang, D., & Dong, Z. Y. (2018). Planning of solar photovoltaics,
battery energy storage system and gas micro turbine for coupled micro energy grids. Applied
Energy, 219, 361–369.
62. Ramsebner, J., Haas, R., Ajanovic, A., & Wietschel, M. (2021). The sector coupling concept:
A critical review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, (January), 1–27.
63. Robinius, M., et al. (2018). Power-to-gas: Electrolyzers as an alternative to network expan-
sion – An example from a distribution system operator. Applied Energy, 210, 182–197.
64. Ruhnau, O., Bannik, S., Otten, S., Praktiknjo, A., & Robinius, M. (2019). Direct or indirect
electrification? A review of heat generation and road transport decarbonisation scenarios for
Germany 2050. Energy, 166, 989–999.
65. Sadeghian, O., Mohammadpour Shotorbani, A., & Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B. (2019). Risk-based
stochastic short-term maintenance scheduling of GenCos in an oligopolistic electricity market
considering the long-term plan. Electric Power Systems Research, 175, 105908.
66. Sadeghian, O., Moradzadeh, A., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., Abapour, M., & Marquez, F. P. G.
(2020). Generation units maintenance in combined heat and power integrated systems using
the mixed integer quadratic programming approach. Energies, 13(11), 2840.
20 O. Sadeghian et al.

67. Sadeghian, O., Oshnoei, A., Kheradmandi, M., Khezri, R., & Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B. (2020).
A robust data clustering method for probabilistic load flow in wind integrated radial distribution
networks. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 115, 105392.
68. Sadeghian, O., Oshnoei, A., Khezri, R., & Muyeen, S. M. (2020). Risk-constrained stochastic
optimal allocation of energy storage system in virtual power plants. Journal of Energy Storage,
31, 101732.
69. Sadeghian, O., et al. (2021). A comprehensive review on energy saving options and saving
potential in low voltage electricity distribution networks: Building and public lighting.
Sustainable Cities and Society, 72, 103064.
70. Serpi, A., Porru, M., & Damiano, A. (2017). An optimal power and energy management by
hybrid energy storage systems in microgrids. Energies, 10(11).
71. Shariatkhah, M. H., Haghifam, M. R., Chicco, G., & Parsa-Moghaddam, M. (2016). Adequacy
modeling and evaluation of multi-carrier energy systems to supply energy services from
different infrastructures. Energy, 109, 1095–1106.
72. Sinha, R., Bak-Jensen, B., Pillai, J. R., & Zareipour, H. (2019). Flexibility from electric boiler
and thermal storage for multi energy system interaction. Energies, 13(1), 1–21.
73. Sinsel, S. R., Riemke, R. L., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2020). Challenges and solution technologies
for the integration of variable renewable energy sources—A review. Renewable Energy, 145,
2271–2285.
74. Strbac, G. (2008). Demand side management: Benefits and challenges. Energy Policy, 36(12),
4419–4426.
75. Syrodoy, S. V., Kostoreva, J. A., Kostoreva, A. A., & Asadullina, L. I. (2020). Ignition of wood
and coal particle mixtures in conditions of steam and water boiler furnaces. Journal of the
Energy Institute, 93(2), 443–449.
76. Tabar, V. S., & Abbasi, V. (2019). Energy management in microgrid with considering high
penetration of renewable resources and surplus power generation problem. Energy, 189.
77. Thygesen, R., & Karlsson, B. (2013). Economic and energy analysis of three solar assisted heat
pump systems in near zero energy buildings. Energy and Buildings, 66, 77–87.
78. Vahidinasab, V., Ardalan, C., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., Giaouris, D., & Walker, S. L. (2021).
Active building as an energy system: Concept, challenges, and outlook. IEEE Access, 9,
58009–58024.
79. Van Beuzekom, I., Gibescu, M., & Slootweg, J. G. (2015). A review of multi-energy system
planning and optimization tools for sustainable urban development. In 2015 IEEE Eindhoven
PowerTech, PowerTech 2015 (pp. 1–7).
80. Vivian, J., Prataviera, E., Cunsolo, F., & Pau, M. (2020). Demand side management of a pool
of air source heat pumps for space heating and domestic hot water production in a residential
district. Energy Conversion and Management, 225, 113457.
81. Vrba, P., et al. (2014). A review of agent and service-oriented concepts applied to intelligent
energy systems. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 10(3), 1890–1903.
82. Wang, A., Liu, J., & Wang, W. (2018). Flexibility-based improved model of multi-energy hubs
using linear weighted sum algorithm. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 10(1).
83. Wei, C., Xu, X., Zhang, Y., Li, X., & Bai, X. (2019). A survey on optimal control and operation
of integrated energy systems. Complexity, 2019.
84. Wikstrom, R. (2017). Innovative energy management to utilize energy efficient solutions
in the ICT infrastructure. In INTELEC, international telecommunications energy conference
(proceedings) (Vol. 2017, pp. 570–573).
85. Yang, T. (2018). ICT technologies standards and protocols for active distribution network. In
Smart power distribution systems: Control, communication, and optimization (pp. 205–230).
Elsevier.
86. Yang, J., Dong, Z. Y., Wen, F., Chen, G., & Qiao, Y. (2020). A decentralized distribution
market mechanism considering renewable generation units with zero marginal costs. IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid, 11(2), 1724–1736.
1 Concept, Definition, Enabling Technologies, and Challenges of Energy. . . 21

87. Zailan, R., Lim, J. S., Manan, Z. A., Alwi, S. R. W., Mohammadi-ivatloo, B., & Jamaluddin,
K. (2021). Malaysia scenario of biomass supply chain-cogeneration system and optimization
modeling development: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 148, 111289.
88. Zare Oskouei, M., Mirzaei, M. A., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., Shafiee, M., Marzband, M., &
Anvari-Moghaddam, A. (2021). A hybrid robust-stochastic approach to evaluate the profit of a
multi-energy retailer in tri-layer energy markets. Energy, 214.
89. Zatti, M., Gabba, M., Rossi, M., Morini, M., Gambarotta, A., & Martelli, E. (2018). Towards
the optimal design and operation of multi-energy systems: The ‘efficity’ project. Environmental
Engineering and Management Journal, 17(10), 2409–2419.
90. Zhu, F., Fu, J., Zhao, P., & Xie, D. (2020). Robust energy hub optimization with cross-vector
demand response. International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems, 30(10), 1–14.
Chapter 2
Power-to-X for Renewable-Based Hybrid
Energy Systems

Sahar Davoudi , Amirhosein Khalili-Garakani , and Kazem Kashefi

2.1 Introduction

Reduced reserves [1], and also economic and political issues generated by the
unequal distribution of fossil fuels in the world [2], have led to the development
of sustainable energy systems. Furthermore, the combustion of fossil fuels and
consequent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, such as carbon dioxide (CO2 ), is
a much more important and worrying issue [3]. Since, according to reports [4],
CO2 net emissions in the entire energy segment must be close to zero to avoid
◦
global mean temperature from rising above 1.5 C. That is why CO2 -free power
generation is needed [5]. As a result, climate change and global warming are also
major reasons for developing new, clean, and renewable energy production systems
like wind turbines (WT) and photovoltaic panels (PV) [6, 7].
Shortcomings and problems in large-scale systems of renewable electricity
generation have led to the insecurity and inflexibility of these energy systems [8].
One of these barriers is the mismatch between supply and electrical demand, which
leads to fluctuations and intermittency of renewable energy sources (RES) [9]. Grid
congestions occur due to the shutdown of wind and solar generators. As a result,
energy cannot be fed into the transmission grid. This energy is called surplus energy.
Therefore, when the production rate is high, the transmission and distribution of
renewable energy to consumers face challenges [10]. Electrical energy storage
(EES) can be a good solution to overcome these challenges [11]. This system stores

S. Davoudi · A. Khalili-Garakani ()

Chemistry & Process Engineering Department, Niroo Research Institute (NRI), Tehran, Iran
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
K. Kashefi
Development & Optimization of Energy Technologies Research Division, Research Institute of
Petroleum Industries (RIPI), Tehran, Iran
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 23

V. Vahidinasab, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo (eds.), Whole Energy Systems, Power
Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87653-1_2
24 S. Davoudi et al.

surplus energy and makes it available when needed [12]. There are different types of
EES technologies depending on the form of energy. In EES technologies, electrical
energy is converted into another storable and transportable form of energy carrier
[13].
Another major obstacle to the use of renewable energy is the fuel necessities
of the whole transportation segment, in fact, the electrification of passenger jets,
heavy working machines, and so on. One solution to this problem is to electrify
them indirectly by the application of hydrogen or to use hydrocarbons as fuel.
Chemical production is also a barrier. The feedstock in the production of plastics
and nitrogen-based fertilizers are oil and gas. Therefore, the chemical industry must
use renewable sources to produce chemicals [14].
The power-to-X (PtX) concepts have been developed in recent years. It is pre-
sented as an effective and efficient strategy to increase the flexibility and application
of the RES [15]. The PtX method allows renewable energy to become a potential
alternative to fossil fuels and reduces GHG emissions [16]. PtX technology, as a
new and potential approach for chemical renewable energy storage [14, 17], is a
state-of-the-art transformation technology to convert renewable electricity (power)
into various chemical products (X): gases, liquids, and chemicals [16].
In PtX, excess renewable energies are used to produce energy carriers, i.e., green,
gaseous, or liquid fuels and chemicals. In other words, the PtX is a sustainable
platform for storing surplus electrons from the electricity network and creating
a decarbonization route to produce hydrogen, methane, CO, syngas, formic acid,
oxy-hydrocarbons, hydrogen peroxide (H2 O2 ), and ammonia [2, 12]. The use of
this technology and its products reduces the need for fossil fuels and helps to use
renewable energy in sectors such as agriculture, transportation, and manufacturing
[7].
Today, there is a strong interest in carbon dioxide capture and utilization (CCU)
technology, due to global climate change. The concept of the circular economy,
which refers to the use of CO2 emissions to produce valuable products, is a
promising new perspective. If the CCU technology integrates with PtX technologies,
the CO2 cycle closes and prevents CO2 from being released directly into the
atmosphere. The development of PtX technology is much needed to use the
recovered CO2 emissions as feedstock for industrial production processes. Flue
gases from power plants and industrial plants are a rich source of CO2 and potential
candidates for carbon dioxide capture. Combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil,
and natural gas in boilers and furnaces to generate power, the exhaust gas from
industrial plants such as cement production, biomass or biogas plants, and waste
incineration plants emit CO2 . Ambient air is also a source of CO2 that can be
directly utilized to produce materials and fuels [3, 18]. From the production of fuel
using waste CO2 emissions and renewable energy, it can mention the production of
kerosene and other heavy fuels. They can be used for indirect electrification of the
aviation and heavy-duty transportation areas [14].
Since the potential sources of waste CO2 emissions are enormous, the production
of CO2 -based products for environmental protection must be developed. Using CO2
2 Power-to-X for Renewable-Based Hybrid Energy Systems 25

emissions shortly could be a great opportunity to produce carbon-neutral fuels as an

alternative to fossil carbon sources.
There is promoting interest in PtX technologies since they have many positive
effects on the environment [3]. This technology includes various methods that
decrease the volume of atmospheric CO2 by using electricity in two ways. One
is that it uses atmospheric CO2 directly to produce chemicals, and the other is
to reduce CO2 by using hydrogen. The development and application of these
technologies, which are based on renewable energy, can have a tremendous impact
on the environment. Therefore, it is necessary to carefully examine and identify the
various processes and technologies of this method and investigate the problems and
opportunities of existing routes.
To develop future renewable energy systems, the PtX chain has attracted
significant interest during the last decade, and this technology has gained more and
more popularity. A variety of pathways exist in the PtX chain, which denote the
methods of transforming renewable energy into different energy carriers such as gas
or liquid fuels and chemicals.
The elements of the future energy system, which are considered as PtX pathways,
can be divided into the following categories:
• Power-to-gas (PtG).
• Power-to-liquid (PtL) [10].
The scheme of the process chain of the PtX concept is shown in Fig. 2.1. There
is a strong need to store energy and produce green fuels without carbon emissions
and alternatives to fossil fuels.
Therefore, studying these methods and identifying the PtX chain and these routes
is essential and could be key to provide a more feasible future energy supply.

Fig. 2.1 Schematic of the process chain of power-to-X (PtX) technology

26 S. Davoudi et al.

In the following, each of these segments will be discussed separately, and

their characteristics will be investigated to better understand and implement these
infrastructures.

2.2 Power-to-Gas (PtG)

The power-to-gas route, also known as PtG and P2G, is a new energy storage system
that was first introduced by Koji et al. in 1994 [9]. The technological chain of PtG
refers to the conversion of excess renewable energy into clean gaseous substances
such as hydrogen or methane. The main purpose of this concept is to store electrical
energy in the form of gas, which is an excellent energy carrier for storage. Because
without wasting energy content, it is easy to store for a long time and in large
quantities. The production of renewable fuels for transportation and the production
of chemicals is also one of the goals of PtG. The main phase of this route is the
production of hydrogen by the process of electrolysis of water. This hydrogen has
many applications as a carrier of clean energy. It can be stored and used directly as a
final and alternative energy carrier in the transportation segment or as raw material
for the chemical production. Also, hydrogen can be converted to methane, synthesis
gas, liquid fuels like diesel, and chemicals using waste carbon dioxide. It can also
be utilized to create electrical energy in a fuel cell [19, 20].
The combination of water electrolysis, which is operated by renewable electric-
ity, with the methanation process, forms the PtG section of the PtX route. PtG
technology is a key segment of the future energy storage systems. Because it has
many advantages over other storage processes and provides new possibilities for
energy transfer, in addition to long-term storage, it creates capacity transfer between
energy networks. PtG systems are currently being developed, but more research is
needed to implement them industrially and apply them to existing infrastructure.

2.2.1 Power-to-Hydrogen (PtH2 )

Hydrogen (H2 ) is the clean and sustainable energy carrier and is produced from
water without GHG emissions [21]. Its density as a gas (0.0899 kg/Nm3 ) is 15
times lower than that of air. The flammable range of hydrogen fuel is in the air,
from 4 to 75 vol. %, and in oxygen, from 4 to 95 vol. % [22]. It is also fuel with a
high energy density (140 MJ/kg) [23]. Currently, a total of about 500 billion cubic
meters (b m3 ) of hydrogen is produced per year worldwide [24], that about 96% of
this value of fossil fuels [25, 26]. This is especially done through a well-established
technology called steam methane reforming (SMR), which is currently the main
method to produce hydrogen on an industrial scale. In this mature process, hydrogen
production is achieved through the reaction of fossil fuel with water vapor at a
temperature in the range of 700 to 1100 ◦ C and a pressure in the range of 3 to
2 Power-to-X for Renewable-Based Hybrid Energy Systems 27

25 bar (1 bar = 14.5 psi) in the presence of a metal-based catalyst (usually nickel)
[27, 28]. However, the hydrogen produced by this method is less pure, and it is
associated with the production of a high concentration of harmful GHGs [29, 30].
Steam methane reforming is described by Eq. (2.1) [20]:

CH 4 + H2 O  CO + 3H2 (2.1)

In PtX, hydrogen is the simplest carrier of energy. Power-to-hydrogen (PtH2 ) is

part of the general concept of PtX, which deals with the production of renewable
hydrogen chemical fuels [13]. Renewable hydrogen production is a good way to
effectively decarbonize. Electrolysis is at the core of PtX technologies as well as the
main technology for converting power into this type of energy carrier. Electrolysis is
an electrochemical process in which, using renewable electricity, water or seawater
split into its elementary components, i.e., hydrogen and oxygen. It can also be
split by electrolysis, NOx into ammonia and carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide,
syngas, and formic acid [12].
Renewable hydrogen as the main product of the water electrolysis process can
be used to produce many hydrocarbon products in processes such as methanation,
hydrogenation, and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (FTS). Hydrogen can also be used for
ammonia production in the Haber-Bosch process [31–33]. To store energy, hydrogen
produced through electrolysis and CO2 can be used to produce fuels and chemicals
such as synthetic natural gas, methanol, polymers, and so on [14].
Oxygen as a by-product of the water electrolysis process can be used in many
industrial and civil applications, in order to the economic profitability of PtX
applications [34]. These include the steel industry, pharmaceutical applications, as
the oxidant in combustion, and so on [35].
The coupling between electrolysis and geothermal plants has been suggested in
a study by Baccioli et al. [34]. They proposed a solution that would make it possible
to use CO2 emitted from geothermal plants, as well as hydrogen and oxygen from an
electrolysis plant, to produce liquefied synthetic natural gas (LSNG) and liquefied
oxygen (LOx). Geothermal power plants operate more than 8000 hours a year
[34], and over 12 GW [36] of geothermal systems are existing around the world.
Therefore, large amounts of carbon dioxide are extracted from the fluids used in
the plants, which are rich sources for the production of SNG. Liquefaction of these
chemicals makes them easy to store and transport from remote areas, and they can
be used in various industries and applications [34].
Currently, storage and cost challenges have led to the limitation of hydrogen
production through electrolysis [28].
Hydrogen production through electrolysis is affected by the availability of water.
The volume of water theoretically required to produce 1 kilogram of hydrogen is 8
liters. But usually, for reasons such as losses in the water purification process, this
amount increases to 15 liters [37]. Lack of freshwater can be a problem. The use of
seawater and wastewater can solve this crisis. It is also very effective in reducing
the cost of the hydrogen production through electrolysis. Due to the presence of
many impurities in seawater, its direct use can cause problems for electrodes and
28 S. Davoudi et al.

membranes. Therefore, a combination of purification and electrolysis processes can

be used to solve this problem. Further research is needed to develop this area [38].
But some commercial systems can electrolyze the wastewater to produce hydrogen
[39]. The water crisis for hydrogen production by electrolysis can be solved by
studying and examining these technologies.

2.2.1.1 Water Electrolysis Technologies

Sustainable hydrogen can be produced through water electrolysis technology using

renewable sources without emitting GHG. That is why this technology has attracted
a lot of attention today [40, 41]. At present, due to economic problems, only about
4% of hydrogen is gained by water electrolysis [42]. However, to make more use of
renewable energy, which is an alternative to fossil fuels, and with the development
of electrolysis technology, this amount is expected to increase.
Water electrolysis is a critical section in the development of the PtX technology.
The well-known electrolysis process was discovered by Troostwijk et al. in 1789. In
this process, water is decomposed into hydrogen and oxygen inside an electrolysis
cell using an electric current and electrocatalyst (Eq. (2.2)) [43]:

H2 O → H2 + 1/2O2 (2.2)

ΔH0 298,15 = − 285.8 kJ/mol [44].

In the cell, the electrodes, i.e., anode and cathode, are disconnected by a
diaphragm or membrane with high electrical resistance and ionic conductivity. The
electrodes are immersed in an electrolyte to increase ionic conductivity. The role of
the electrolyte in the electrolysis process is to enable ion exchange and to separate
the two reactions that occur at the electrodes. Depending on the type of electrolyte,
materials, and operating conditions used in this process, there are different types
of electrolysis technologies [45]. Three major and conventional technologies of
the water electrolysis process are alkaline electrolysis (AEL), polymer electrolyte
membrane (PEM), and solid oxide electrolysis (SOE).
The main characteristics of the fundamental technologies for water electrolysis
are provided in Table 2.1, and the schematic of their operating principle is shown in
Fig. 2.2. However, a more detailed description of these technologies is mentioned
below.

2.3 Alkaline Electrolysis (AEL)

Alkaline electrolysis is the developed knowledge in hydrogen production and is

the most widely used cost-effective electrolytic technology worldwide [45, 46].
Therefore, it has been used to produce hydrogen on a large scale in the early
twentieth century [47]. Audi e-gas, the largest power-to-gas plant around the world,
2 Power-to-X for Renewable-Based Hybrid Energy Systems 29

Table 2.1 Characteristic of the three main electrolysis technologies, AEL, PEM, and SOE [2, 7,
20, 28, 43]
AEL PEM SOE
Electrolyte Aqueous alkaline Solid polymer Yttria
solution (NaOH or membrane, e.g., (Y2O3)-stabilized
20–40 wt% KOH) fumapem, Nafion™ zirconia (ZrO2) ceramic
thickness ~ 20–300 μm (YSZ)
◦ ◦ ◦
Cell 40–90 C 20–150 C 600–1000 C
temperature
Cell 1–200 bar 1–350 bar <25 bar
pressure
Cell voltage 1.8–2.4 V 1.8–2.2 V 0.7–1.5 V
Efficiency 54–85% 52–79% Up to 100%
range
Cell area <4 m2 <0.3 m2 <0.01 m2
Production 1–760 Nm3 /h 1–100 Nm3 /h <40 Nm3 /h
rate
Advantages • Most mature • Almost mature. • High efficiency.
technology. • No corrosive material. • Waste heat recovery
• Cost-effective. • High hydrogen purity. possible.
• Possibility of use in • Flexible integration • Less power
the large plant. with other systems. consumption.
• High durability. • Rapid system • Possible application of
• Non-noble catalysts. response. heat sources such as
• Use of mature stack • More efficient at a nuclear or geothermal
components. high current density. power.
• Good partial load • Non-noble catalysts.
range.
Disadvantages • Low current density. • High cost due to fast • Not mature.
• Low partial load degradation of • Short lifetime.
range. membranes and • Low durability due to
• Short lifetime. application of expensive the application of brittle
• Hydrogen purity less catalyst. ceramics.
than other technologies.
• High maintenance
costs due to the
application of corrosive
electrolyte solution.

also used AEL to produce hydrogen [48]. Hydrogen production by AEL electrolyzer
is also used in the PtG plant under the development BioCat Project [49].
Alkaline electrolysis uses a liquid alkaline electrolyte, usually a 20–40 wt%
aquatic KOH or NaOH solution [35, 50]. An asbestos diaphragm is used to
disconnect the electrodes, which are usually made of nickel [51]. These electrodes
are immersed in the electrolyte solution. At the cathode, electrons, current from the
anode to the cathode, combine with two molecules of water to form a hydrogen
30 S. Davoudi et al.

Cathode: 2 2 + 2 − → 2+2 − 2 ++ 2 − → 2 2 + 2 − → 2+ 2−
−
Anode: 2 → 1/ 2 2 + 2 + 2 − 2 → 1/ 2 2 + 2 + + 2 − 2−
→ 1/ 2 2 + 2 −

Total: 2 → 2 + 1/ 2 2 2 → 2 + 1/ 2 2 2 → 2 + 1/ 2 2

Fig. 2.2 Schematic of the operating principle of the main technologies for water electrolysis

molecule. OH− ions are transferred through the diaphragm from the cathode to
the anode. At the anode, these ions are oxidized into oxygen and water [52]. The
relevant partial electrochemical reaction at the cathode and anode is given by [16]:

2H2 O + 2e− → H2 + 2OH − Cathode (2.3)

2OH − → 1/2O2 + H2 O + 2e− Anode (2.4)

The purity range of 99.5–99.9% of the produced hydrogen can be obtained with
the AEL technology. The purity range of the produced O2 is also 99–99.8%, which
can be increased to 99.999% using a deoxidizer [16]. Despite all the advantages of
AEL technology, it also has its drawbacks. Among them, we can mention limited
current density and dynamic operation, etc., which lead to a reduction in process
productivity and increase the cost of hydrogen production [28, 53]. Researchers
have recently conducted research on the use of novel diaphragms as well as
electrodes to increase the AEL electrolysis efficiency and issues such as cost and
health risks [54]. Adding slits and holes on the surface of the electrode and thus
physical modification of the surface, as well as the use of alloys and noble metals,
such as platinum (Pt) and ruthenium (Ru), can improve the activity of the electrode
and reduce ohmic losses [52].
2 Power-to-X for Renewable-Based Hybrid Energy Systems 31

2.4 Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM) Electrolysis

To overcome the shortcomings of the AEL electrolysis system, a promising

technology called PEM was developed [55]. In this system, a proton exchange
membrane or a polymer electrolyte membrane (including Nafion® , fumapem® )
is used to place between two half-cells [28]. Water is electrochemically split into
oxygen (O2 ), protons (H+ ), and electrons (e− ). Protons are moved from the anode
to the cathode. Electrons also flow to the cathode through an external direct current
(DC). H+ and e− then combine to produce hydrogen (H2 ) [56].
PEM technology is a promising option for the PTX chain, as it is better
coupled with intermittent systems than other systems [49]. The advantages of
PEM electrolysis include compact system design, high operating current density
compared to the AEL method, high proton conductivity, high operational pressure
capability (equal or differential across the electrolyte), etc. [23]. The capability to
operate at very great current densities in a PEM electrolyzer reduces the overall cost
of operation [28]. Electrochemical compression of hydrogen can be provided in an
electrolyzer under high-pressure operation, which results in less energy being used
to store hydrogen [57].
Despite the advantages of PEM electrolysis under high operating pressure, this
system also has its drawbacks. Among them is the need for thicker membranes at
pressures greater than 100 bar, which reduces the penetration of gas [58]. Another
problem with this type of electrolysis system is that the highly corrosion-resistant
materials should be used that are stable in harsh conditions. Also, due to the low pH
conditions and the high overvoltages, its components and materials are resistant to
these conditions [28].
Catalytic activity and long-term stability are two key parameters in evaluating the
performance and quality of electrocatalysts in the PEM water electrolysis and water
splitting in general. To develop electrocatalysts in hydrogen (HER) and oxygen
evolution reactions (OER), studies were performed on the use of nanostructured
electrocatalysts [23]. However, in addition to the noble and expensive metal-based
electrocatalysts used, such as platinum-group metals (PGM), e.g., Pt, iridium (Ir),
and Ru, other components, including current collectors and separator plates, must
also be improved [28]. Hence, the PEM electrolysis process is more expensive than
the AEL system. If this process is to be used to produce hydrogen on a large scale,
costs must be reduced. So, researchers are looking for ways to use more suitable
and low-cost electrode materials [23].
To replace expensive precious metals, the use of non-precious-metal electro-
catalysts was proposed, which can be prepared through transition-metal materials
such as iron and nickel phosphides, cobalt, iron, molybdenum and tungsten sulfides,
nickel-molybdenum alloys, etc. It was also proposed that costs could be decreased
by decreasing the precious-metal loading [59]. Various synthesis methods for the
development of cost-effective, high-quality alternative electrocatalysts are being
studied by researchers to reduce noble metal contents and significantly reduce
capital costs. The production of mixed oxides was proposed by adding cheap oxides
32 S. Davoudi et al.

such as a tin oxide (SnO2 ), niobium oxide (Nb2 O5 ), tantalum oxide (Ta2 O5 ), or
titanium oxide (TiO2 ) to precious-metal-based electrocatalysts such as IrO2 and
RuO2 while preserving properties [60].
Therefore, to commercialize and implement this technology on a large scale,
it is necessary to remove some limitations, including the replacement of expensive
catalysts and components of this system with cheap ones, while maintaining quality.

2.5 Solid Oxide Electrolysis (SOE)

One of the best options for achieving a hydrogen economy and efficient hydrogen
production is solid oxide electrolysis (SOE) technology that operates at high
◦
operating temperatures (600–1000 C). This thermal energy comes from an external
energy source [45]. The efficiency of high-temperature SOE water electrolysis
technology is more than 90% [61] since the acceleration of the reaction kinetics
occurs due to high heat [45].
High temperatures in SOE systems have advantages. Among them, it can be
mentioned that the cell will need low voltage, which leads to a decrease in
electricity demand and low energy consumption and increases electrical efficiency
[49]. This process can also be integrated with exothermic systems (such as methanol
production) that use the heat released by these processes in the SEO system. SEO
can also be used to produce syngas and consequently liquid fuels [16].
However, it also has challenges such as the need to use heat-resistant materials
and lots of space. This technology also uses water vapor, so a re-treatment process
is needed to separate the water vapor from the hydrogen to increase the purity of
the hydrogen [28]. Therefore, since SOEC technology has many capabilities and is
very attractive and promising, it should continue to be developed due to problems.

2.5.1 Power-to-Methane (PtM)

The term power-to-methane (PtM) refers to the sustainable production of synthetic

or substitute natural gas (SNG). It is a sector of the PtG system, which uses
carbon dioxide and renewable energy to produce methane (CH4 ) [62]. Methane
is one of the most important energy carriers that has a higher volumetric energy
content than hydrogen [63]. In the PtM method, also called the “Sabatier process,”
CH4 and H2 O are produced by the reaction of hydrogen and CO2 (Eq. (2.5)).
CO2 is electrochemically reduced to CH4 in the methanation, so it is a promising
technology with great potential for reducing GHG:

CO 2 + 4H2  CH4 + 2H2 O (2.5)

ΔH0 298 = − 165.0 kJ/mol [62].

2 Power-to-X for Renewable-Based Hybrid Energy Systems 33

There are two different pathways for producing methane in PtG technology:
catalytic and biological methanation.

2.5.1.1 Catalytic Methanation

One most common and flexible route for renewable PtM is the thermochemical
catalytic methanation of CO2 . This process operates at temperatures around 300
◦
to 550 C and high pressure [49]. Mostly nickel-based catalysts are used in the
catalytic methanation process because of their cost-effectiveness, suitable activity,
and high methane selectivity [62]. However, other catalysts based on different
metals such as Ru, Co, and Pd were also examined, and Ru-based catalysts showed
the highest activity [43]. The researchers examined the use of copper electrodes
to improve process performance. According to studies, nanoparticles supported on
glassy carbon performed better than copper foils and increased the efficiency of the
system [64].
The Sabatier reaction is highly exergonic. Therefore, temperature control is very
important in reactor design. Researches on different types of reactors have shown
that fixed-bed, fluidized-bed, multichannel, three-phase, and structured reactors are
the most widely used for the catalytic methanation process [65]. However, usually,
fixed-bed reactors are utilized that operate at a pressure of 20–25 bar [66]. One of
the problems with this route is the low solubility of CO2 in water, as well as the
development of catalysts to increase the methane selectivity [67]. Measures have
been taken in these areas. For example, Kaneco et al. [68] examined the use of
sodium salts, such as NaCl, NaNO3 , NaH2 PO4 , NaBr, NaHCO3 , NaF, Na2 SO4 ,
NaSCNm, and NaClO4 to improve the solubility of carbon dioxide in methanol.
They used methanol because it is a better solvent for carbon dioxide than H2 O.
Therefore, sodium salts increased the solubility of carbon dioxide in methanol,
and NaClO4 obtained the highest efficiency and produced the highest amount of
methane. The process flow diagram of the PtM part of a PtX plant is shown in Fig.
2.3.
To produce methane, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide, gases are used as inlet flows,
which reach the desired pressure, and then heated, before entering the reactor.
Inside the fixed-bed reactor, a Sabatier reaction occurs and methane and water
are produced. The outflow from the reactor includes CH4 and H2 O as the main
products, unreacted components (H2 , CO2 ), and CO as the by-products. To separate
water from this gas mixture, the outflow from the reactor enters a condenser. It then
enters a fractionating column to separate the methane. The efficiency of the whole
PtM section is highly dependent on the efficiency of this process. The output of the
column is reached by the compressor at a certain inlet pressure and enters the reactor
to react unreacted materials [43].
34 S. Davoudi et al.

Fig. 2.3 Schematic diagram of the PtM part of a PtX plant

2.5.1.2 Biological Methanation

Biological methanation is obtained through organic matter. In it, autotrophic

hydrogenotrophic methanogens (the main class of methanogens) act as autocatalysts
and produce methane through metabolic processes [69]. This route of methanation
is a cost-effective process due to the simplicity of reactor design (trickle-bed or
◦
stirred tank reactor [70]) and the use of low temperature (below 70 C) and pressure
compared to catalytic methanation [71]. Also, the biogas process can be combined
with the biological methanation system. Since the biogas produced by this method
has a high calorific value, it reduces the cost of improving biogas quality [72].
Therefore, biological methanation can be implemented in all biogas plants. Despite
the advantages mentioned, this process also faces challenges, such as a low reaction
rate, which makes this process still in the pilot phase of the plant [73].
There are two pathways for biological methanation: in situ and ex situ methana-
tion. In situ methanation is to add H2 directly to a biogas digester as a rich source of
carbon dioxide [70]. Ex situ methanation takes place through the parallel injection
of carbon dioxide and hydrogen into an adjacent external reactor [72, 74].

2.6 Power-to-Liquid (PtL)

Transport systems on the road, aviation, and navigation sectors play a key role
in emitting GHG, by consuming fossil fuels such as diesel and petrol. To solve
this fundamental problem, constructive solutions need to be put on the agenda.
Electric cars and biofuels have been proposed to replace fossil fuels and reduce
GHG emissions, but they are still new technologies and need to be developed
[75]. The goal of the power-to-liquid (PtL) way is to use renewable electricity,
2 Power-to-X for Renewable-Based Hybrid Energy Systems 35

carbon dioxide, and hydrogen to produce promising substitute liquid fuels, including
ethanol, diesel for transportation, and the production of chemicals such as methanol.
Liquid fuels are produced by PtL technologies, using the two main processes of
modified Fischer-Tropsch synthesis and methanol synthesis [3, 7].
FTS is a highly exothermal process [76] in which liquid hydrocarbons are
synthesized using H2 and CO2 . These hydrocarbons have the highest volumetric
energy density among all energy carriers [77] and can be upgraded to fuels, for
example, gasoline (C5 -C11 hydrocarbons), diesel, and jet fuel using hydrocracking,
isomerization, or distillation upgrading processes [78]. State of the art of modified
FTS pathway is a two-step process consisting of the reduction of carbon dioxide
by the reverse water-gas-shift (RWGS) reaction ((Eq. (2.6)) at temperatures above
◦
800 C and then CO hydrogenation to liquid hydrocarbons by FTS ((Eq. (2.7)) [79]:

CO 2 + H2 → CO + H2 O (2.6)

CO + 2H2 → – (CH2 ) – + H2 O (2.7)

A multi-tubular fixed-bed reactor is commonly used for the FTS reaction [77].
Various catalysts are used, including ruthenium, iron, and cobalt-based catalysts
[10]. Syngas usually contains CO2 as a by-product due to the thermodynamic
limitations in the RWGS reactor and the resulting incomplete conversion of CO2 .
The high contents of CO2 can affect the FTS reaction kinetics and conversion of
CO. Cobalt-catalyzed fixed-bed reactor for FTS is recommended, as it produces no
or very low amounts of CO2 [77].
Production of methanol through direct hydrogenation of CO2 is one of the
simplest methods to produce alternative liquid hydrocarbon fuels such as olefins,
dimethyl ether, biodiesel, diesel, kerosene, etc. Moreover, methanol (CH3 OH) is a
promising alternative to fossil fuels that can be stored easily and cost-effectively
[75]. The catalytic hydrogenation of CO2 to produce methanol is shown by Eq. 2.8:

CO 2 + 3H2  CH3 OH + H2 O (2.8)

ΔH0 298 = − 49.2 kJ/mol [7].

To investigate the possibility of expanding and developing power-to-methanol
technology on a large scale, research was conducted [80, 81]. To implement this
key pathway in industrial projects, evaluation of economic performance potentials
and further studies is required.
Power-to-ammonia (PtA) technology produces ammonia (NH3 ) as a potential
alternative and green fuel to renewable hydrogen, which helps reduce GHG
emissions. For this reason, it has attracted a lot of attention in renewable energy
systems. In this immature technology, NH3 is produced under high pressure and
temperature through the Haber-Bosch process. The benefits of using ammonia as a
sustainable fuel include low storage costs and no CO2 emissions, and disadvantages
include toxicity, which is not a big problem in energy systems [82].
36 S. Davoudi et al.

Other potential carriers of liquid hydrogen include formic acid (HCOOH) and
formaldehyde (CH2 O), which are synthesized using renewable electricity and CO2
through various processes such as hydrogenation of CO2 [7].

2.7 Status Quo, Challenges, and Outlook

This chapter discusses power-to-X technology and its great potential for overcoming
the limitations of renewable electricity generation. It is hoped to help develop
sustainable energy systems and fill research shortcomings in this area. Power-
to-X (PtX) pathway has been developed in recent years to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, especially CO2 . This approach is designed to produce sustainable
carbon-neutral fuels as well as to close the CO2 cycle.
Key technologies for PtX fall into two general categories: power-to-gas (PtG)
and power-to-liquid (PtL), each of which involves a variety of conversion pro-
cesses. These promising processes generate sustainable energy carriers, directly
or indirectly, using renewable power. The goals of the PtX chains are to develop
renewable energy infrastructures with different applications of power-to-hydrogen,
power-to-methane, power-to-methanol, power-to-ammonia, and so on. Integrating
the PtX chains with carbon capture processes can be a promising way to reduce
environmental impact. Therefore, these approaches have received much attention in
recent years.
Despite all the potential benefits that PtX technology has for modifying energy
systems and thus the favorable impact it has on the environment, as well as the
progress that has been made in recent years, it also has its limitations. Successful
implementation of the PtX methods requires addressing these challenges. The main
problems are high costs of capital and production using these methods. In addition
to the economic problems, technical problems such as the low efficiency of some of
these processes have also prevented scaling up and application of these approaches
in the existing energy systems. Therefore, technological advancement using more
research is needed to widely implement this approach. Challenges need to be further
explored to reduce costs as well as significantly improve efficiency.

References

1. Van de Krol, R., & Grätzel, M. (2012). Photoelectrochemical hydrogen production. Springer.
2. Khalilpour, K. R. (2019). Interconnected electricity and natural gas supply chains: The roles
of power to gas and gas to power. In Polygeneration with Polystorage for chemical and energy
hubs (pp. 133–155). Elsevier.
3. Koj, J. C., Wulf, C., & Zapp, P. (2019). Environmental impacts of power-to-X systems-a
review of technological and methodological choices in life cycle assessments. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 112, 865–879.
4. Fuss, S., et al. (2014). Betting on negative emissions. Nature Climate Change, 4(10), 850–853.
2 Power-to-X for Renewable-Based Hybrid Energy Systems 37

5. Pleßmann, G., Erdmann, M., Hlusiak, M., & Breyer, C. (2014). Global energy storage demand
for a 100% renewable electricity supply. Energy Procedia, 46(0), 22–31.
6. Bosman, A., & Van Daal, H. (1970). Small-polaron versus band conduction in some transition-
metal oxides. Advances in Physics, 19(77), 1–117.
7. de Rego Vasconcelos, B., & Lavoie, J.-M. (2019). Recent advances in power-to-X technology
for the production of fuels and chemicals. Frontiers in Chemistry, 7, 392.
8. Buffo, G., Ferrero, D., Santarelli, M., & Lanzini, A. (2019). Reversible solid oxide cell
(ReSOC) as flexible polygeneration plant integrated with CO2 capture and reuse. E3S Web
of Conferences, 113, 02009. EDP Sciences.
9. Bailera, M., Lisbona, P., Romeo, L. M., & Espatolero, S. (2017). Power to gas projects review:
Lab, pilot and demo plants for storing renewable energy and CO2. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 69, 292–312.
10. Schnuelle, C., Thoeming, J., Wassermann, T., Thier, P., von Gleich, A., & Goessling-
Reisemann, S. (2019). Socio-technical-economic assessment of power-to-X: Potentials and
limitations for an integration into the German energy system. Energy Research & Social
Science, 51, 187–197.
11. Storage, E. E. (2011). International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). White Paper, Geneva,
Switzerland.
12. Daiyan, R., MacGill, I., & Amal, R. (2020). Opportunities and challenges for renewable
power-to-X. ACS Publications.
13. Buffo, G., Marocco, P., Ferrero, D., Lanzini, A., & Santarelli, M. (2019). Power-to-X and
power-to-power routes. In Solar hydrogen production (pp. 529–557). Elsevier.
14. Vázquez, F. V., et al. (2018). Power-to-X technology using renewable electricity and carbon
dioxide from ambient air: SOLETAIR proof-of-concept and improved process concept. Journal
of CO2 Utilization, 28, 235–246.
15. Gür, T. M. (2018). Review of electrical energy storage technologies, materials and systems:
Challenges and prospects for large-scale grid storage. Energy & Environmental Science,
11(10), 2696–2767.
16. Buttler, A., & Spliethoff, H. (2018). Current status of water electrolysis for energy storage, grid
balancing and sector coupling via power-to-gas and power-to-liquids: A review. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82, 2440–2454.
17. Sternberg, A., & Bardow, A. (2015). Power-to-what?–environmental assessment of energy
storage systems. Energy & Environmental Science, 8(2), 389–400.
18. Naims, H. (2016). Economics of carbon dioxide capture and utilization—A supply and demand
perspective. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23(22), 22226–22241.
19. Wulf, C., Linssen, J., & Zapp, P. (2018). Power-to-gas—Concepts, demonstration, and
prospects. In Hydrogen supply chains (pp. 309–345). Elsevier.
20. Lewandowska-Bernat, A., & Desideri, U. (2017). Opportunities of power-to-gas technology.
Energy Procedia, 105, 4569–4574.
21. Kumar, S. S., & Himabindu, V. (2019). Hydrogen production by PEM water electrolysis–a
review. Materials Science for Energy Technologies, 2(3), 442–454.
22. Rajeshwar, K., McConnell, R., & Licht, S. (2008). Solar hydrogen generation. Springer.
23. Chi, J., & Yu, H. (2018). Water electrolysis based on renewable energy for hydrogen
production. Chinese Journal of Catalysis, 39(3), 390–394.
24. Acar, C., & Dincer, I. (2014). Comparative assessment of hydrogen production methods from
renewable and non-renewable sources. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 39(1), 1–12.
25. Lee, B., et al. (2018). Economic feasibility studies of high pressure PEM water electrolysis for
distributed H2 refueling stations. Energy Conversion and Management, 162, 139–144.
26. Borgschulte, A. (2016). The hydrogen grand challenge. Frontiers in Energy Research, 4, 11.
27. Ferreira-Aparicio, P., Benito, M., & Sanz, J. (2005). New trends in reforming technologies:
From hydrogen industrial plants to multifuel microreformers. Catalysis Reviews, 47(4), 491–
588.
28. Carmo, M., Fritz, D. L., Mergel, J., & Stolten, D. (2013). A comprehensive review on PEM
water electrolysis. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 38(12), 4901–4934.
38 S. Davoudi et al.

29. Rashid, M. M., Al Mesfer, M. K., Naseem, H., & Danish, M. (2015). Hydrogen production
by water electrolysis: A review of alkaline water electrolysis, PEM water electrolysis and
high temperature water electrolysis. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced
Technology, 4(3), 2249–8958.
30. Damyanova, S., Pawelec, B., Arishtirova, K., & Fierro, J. (2012). Ni-based catalysts for
reforming of methane with CO2. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 37(21), 15966–
15975.
31. Iida, S., & Sakata, K. (2019). Hydrogen technologies and developments in Japan. Clean
Energy, 3(2), 105–113.
32. Bruce, S., et al. (2018). National hydrogen roadmap. CSIRO.
33. FCH, J. (2019). Hydrogen roadmap Europe: A sustainable pathway for the European energy
transition. Bietlot.
34. Baccioli, A., et al. (2020). Cost effective power-to-X plant using carbon dioxide from a geother-
mal plant to increase renewable energy penetration. Energy Conversion and Management, 226,
113494.
35. Lehner, M., Tichler, R., Steinmüller, H., & Koppe, M. (2014). Power-to-gas: Technology and
business models. Springer.
36. Dhabi, A. (2017). Geothermal power: Technology brief. IRENA.
37. Tractebel, H. (2017). Study of early business cases for H2 in energy Storage and more broadly
power to H2 applications. In Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH JU): Brussels,
Belgium.
38. Dresp, S. R., Dionigi, F., Klingenhof, M., & Strasser, P. (2019). Direct electrolytic splitting of
seawater: Opportunities and challenges. ACS Energy Letters, 4(4), 933–942.
39. Paudel, S., Kang, Y., Yoo, Y.-S., & Seo, G. T. (2015). Hydrogen production in the anaerobic
treatment of domestic-grade synthetic wastewater. Sustainability, 7(12), 16260–16272.
40. Leaver, J. D., Gillingham, K. T., & Leaver, L. H. (2009). Assessment of primary impacts of a
hydrogen economy in New Zealand using UniSyD. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy,
34(7), 2855–2865.
41. Balat, M. (2008). Potential importance of hydrogen as a future solution to environmental and
transportation problems. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 33(15), 4013–4029.
42. Cipriani, G., et al. (2014). Perspective on hydrogen energy carrier and its automotive
applications. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 39(16), 8482–8494.
43. Hermesmann, M., Grübel, K., Scherotzki, L., & Müller, T. Promising pathways: The geo-
graphic and energetic potential of power-to-x technologies based on regeneratively obtained
hydrogen. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 138, 110644.
44. Reich, G., & Reppich, M. (2013). Regenerative Energietechnik. Springer.
45. Ursua, A., Gandia, L. M., & Sanchis, P. (2011). Hydrogen production from water electrolysis:
Current status and future trends. Proceedings of the IEEE, 100(2), 410–426.
46. Holladay, J. D., Hu, J., King, D. L., & Wang, Y. (2009). An overview of hydrogen production
technologies. Catalysis Today, 139(4), 244–260.
47. Yan, X. L., & Hino, R. (2016). Nuclear hydrogen production handbook. CRC press.
48. Lambert, M. ( 2018). Power-to-Gas: linking electricity and gas in a decarbonising world.
Online OIES, available at: https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2018/
10/Power-to-Gas-Linking-Electricity-and-Gas-in-a-Decarbonising-World-Insight-39.pdf.
Accessed 9 Oct 2019.
49. Götz, M., et al. (2016). Renewable power-to-gas: A technological and economic review.
Renewable Energy, 85, 1371–1390.
50. Steinmüller, H., Tichler, R., & Reiter, G. (2014). Power-to-gas–eine Systemanalyse. In Markt-
und Technologiescouting und–analyse. Energieinstitut an der Johannes Kepler Universität
Linz, TU Wien, MU Leoben, JKU Linz.
51. Shiva Kumar, S., Ramakrishna, S., Srinivasulu Reddy, D., Bhagawan, D., & Himabindu, V.
(2017). Synthesis of polysulfone and zirconium oxide coated asbestos composite separators for
alkaline water electrolysis. Journal of Chemical Engineering & Process Technology, 3(1035),
1–1035.
2 Power-to-X for Renewable-Based Hybrid Energy Systems 39

52. Zeng, K., & Zhang, D. (2010). Recent progress in alkaline water electrolysis for hydrogen
production and applications. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 36(3), 307–326.
53. Schmidt, O., Gambhir, A., Staffell, I., Hawkes, A., Nelson, J., & Few, S. (2017). Future cost
and performance of water electrolysis: An expert elicitation study. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy, 42(52), 30470–30492.
54. Coutanceau, C., Baranton, S., & Audichon, T. (2018). Hydrogen production from water
electrolysis. Hydrogen Electrochemical Production, 17–62.
55. Russell, J., Nuttall, L., & Fickett, A. (1973). Hydrogen generation by solid polymer electrolyte
water electrolysis. American Chemical Society and Division of Fuel Chemistry Preprints, 18,
24–40.
56. Martinson, C. A., Van Schoor, G., Uren, K., & Bessarabov, D. (2014). Characterisation of
a PEM electrolyser using the current interrupt method. International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy, 39(36), 20865–20878.
57. Grigor’ev, S., Khaliullin, M., Kuleshov, N., & Fateev, V. (2001). Electrolysis of water in a sys-
tem with a solid polymer electrolyte at elevated pressure. Russian Journal of Electrochemistry,
37(8), 819–822.
58. Millet, P., Ngameni, R., Grigoriev, S., & Fateev, V. (2011). Scientific and engineering issues
related to PEM technology: Water electrolysers, fuel cells and unitized regenerative systems.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 36(6), 4156–4163.
59. Giovanni, C. D., et al. (2016). Low-cost nanostructured iron sulfide electrocatalysts for PEM
water electrolysis. ACS Catalysis, 6(4), 2626–2631.
60. Datta, M. K., et al. (2013). High performance robust F-doped tin oxide based oxygen evolution
electro-catalysts for PEM based water electrolysis. Journal of Materials Chemistry A, 1(12),
4026–4037.
61. Brisse, A., Schefold, J., & Zahid, M. (2008). High temperature water electrolysis in solid oxide
cells. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 33(20), 5375–5382.
62. Huynh, H. L., & Yu, Z. (2020). CO2 Methanation on Hydrotalcite-derived catalysts and
structured reactors: A review. Energy Technology, 8(5), 1901475.
63. De Saint Jean, M., Baurens, P., Bouallou, C., & Couturier, K. (2015). Economic assessment
of a power-to-substitute-natural-gas process including high-temperature steam electrolysis.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 40(20), 6487–6500.
64. Manthiram, K., Beberwyck, B. J., & Alivisatos, A. P. (2014). Enhanced electrochemical
methanation of carbon dioxide with a dispersible nanoscale copper catalyst. Journal of the
American Chemical Society, 136(38), 13319–13325.
65. Thema, M., Bauer, F., & Sterner, M. (2019). Power-to-gas: Electrolysis and methanation status
review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 112, 775–787.
66. Lewandowska-Bernat, A., & Desideri, U. (2018). Opportunities of power-to-gas technology in
different energy systems architectures. Applied Energy, 228, 57–67.
67. Machado, A. S. R., Nunes, A. V., & da Ponte, M. N. (2018). Carbon dioxide utilization—
Electrochemical reduction to fuels and synthesis of polycarbonates. The Journal of Supercriti-
cal Fluids, 134, 150–156.
68. Kaneco, S., Katsumata, H., Suzuki, T., & Ohta, K. (2006). Electrochemical reduction of CO2
to methane at the cu electrode in methanol with sodium supporting salts and its comparison
with other alkaline salts. Energy & Fuels, 20(1), 409–414.
69. Taubner, R.-S., Schleper, C., Firneis, M. G., & Rittmann, S. K.-M. (2015). Assessing the
ecophysiology of methanogens in the context of recent astrobiological and planetological
studies. Life, 5(4), 1652–1686.
70. Rittmann, S., Seifert, A., & Herwig, C. (2015). Essential prerequisites for successful bioprocess
development of biological CH4 production from CO2 and H2. Critical Reviews in Biotechnol-
ogy, 35(2), 141–151.
71. Van Dael, M., et al. (2018). Techno-economic assessment of a microbial power-to-gas plant–
case study in Belgium. Applied Energy, 215, 416–425.
72. Lecker, B., Illi, L., Lemmer, A., & Oechsner, H. (2017). Biological hydrogen methanation–a
review. Bioresource Technology, 245, 1220–1228.
40 S. Davoudi et al.

73. Seifert, A., Rittmann, S., Bernacchi, S., & Herwig, C. (2013). Method for assessing the impact
of emission gasses on physiology and productivity in biological methanogenesis. Bioresource
Technology, 136, 747–751.
74. Voelklein, M., Rusmanis, D., & Murphy, J. (2019). Biological methanation: Strategies for in-
situ and ex-situ upgrading in anaerobic digestion. Applied Energy, 235, 1061–1071.
75. Schmidt, P., Batteiger, V., Roth, A., Weindorf, W., & Raksha, T. (2018). Power-to-liquids as
renewable fuel option for aviation: A review. Chemie Ingenieur Technik, 90(1–2), 127–140.
76. Kasten, P., Blanck, R., Loreck, C., & Hacker, F. (2013). Strombasierte Kraftstoffe im Vergleich-
Stand heute und die Langfristperspektive. Öko-Institut Working Paper, 1, 2013.
77. Kaiser, P., Pöhlmann, F., & Jess, A. (2014). Intrinsic and effective kinetics of cobalt-catalyzed
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis in view of a power-to-liquid process based on renewable energy.
Chemical Engineering & Technology, 37(6), 964–972.
78. Schmidt, P., Weindorf, W., Roth, A., Batteiger, V., & Riegel, F. (2016). Power-to-liquids: Poten-
tials and perspectives for the future supply of renewable aviation fuel. German Environment
Agency.
79. Panzone, C., Philippe, R., Chappaz, A., Fongarland, P., & Bengaouer, A. (2020). Power-to-
liquid catalytic CO2 valorization into fuels and chemicals: Focus on the Fischer-Tropsch route.
Journal of CO2 Utilization, 38, 314–347.
80. Hank, C., et al. (2018). Economics & carbon dioxide avoidance cost of methanol production
based on renewable hydrogen and recycled carbon dioxide–power-to-methanol. Sustainable
Energy & Fuels, 2(6), 1244–1261.
81. Bellotti, D., Rivarolo, M., Magistri, L., & Massardo, A. (2017). Feasibility study of methanol
production plant from hydrogen and captured carbon dioxide. Journal of CO2 Utilization, 21,
132–138.
82. Ikäheimo, J., Kiviluoma, J., Weiss, R., & Holttinen, H. (2018). Power-to-ammonia in future
north European 100% renewable power and heat system. International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy, 43(36), 17295–17308.
Chapter 3
Whole Energy Systems Evaluation:
A Methodological Framework and Case
Study

Ali El Hadi Berjawi, Adib Allahham, Sara Louise Walker,

Charalampos Patsios, and Seyed Hamid Reza Hosseini

3.1 Introduction

The transition to a net-zero carbon society requires a deep transformation of the

energy system. The transformation is expected to affect not only the electricity
system but also other energy systems including gas, heat and transport, due to
the need to decarbonise those sectors as well as exploiting flexibility measures
across them to manage future uncertainties [1]. The energy transition is therefore
anticipated to bring major changes to the energy system architecture, with changes
in the planning and operations paradigm, the market structure and the regulatory
framework [2]. This calls for a whole energy systems (WES) approach that spans
multiple energy vectors (electricity, gas, heat, transport), different levels of the
energy supply chain from generation to end use through infrastructure and markets
and the various stakeholders involved from different domains (social, technical,
economic, environmental, political, etc.).
Originating from the WES approach is the concept of energy systems integration
(ESI), which aims to connect energy systems physically and virtually across
infrastructure and markets and exploit synergies among them [3]. ESI is enabled
by vector-coupling technologies such as combined heat and power (CHP), power-
to-gas (P2G), heat pumps (HPs) and electric vehicles (EVs) [4]. Hence, the WES
approach has been applied for the integrated energy systems planning and operation
[5], but gaps have been identified with its application for evaluation of those
systems. This includes the need for evaluation methodologies that incorporate a
WES approach to provide evidence on the effectiveness of ESI while capturing the
interdependencies and emergent complexity of integrated energy systems [6–8].

A. E. H. Berjawi () · A. Allahham · S. L. Walker · C. Patsios · S. H. R. Hosseini

School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 41

V. Vahidinasab, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo (eds.), Whole Energy Systems, Power
Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87653-1_3
42 A. E. H. Berjawi et al.

A novel methodological framework that exhibits the WES evaluation principles

has been developed by the authors to address these gaps [9], which is first
summarised in this chapter. Building on this work, this chapter presents a practical
approach for the implementation of the framework demonstrated by a case study,
with a focus on the interaction and feedback between the methodological stages
making up the framework. The stages are, namely, the scenario formulation,
conceptual modelling and quantitative modelling.
The evaluation principles are identified in correspondence to the WES approach
definition being multidimensional, multivectoral and systemic. Additionally, the
evaluation should be futuristic, systematic and applicable. The framework pro-
vides a socio-technical approach for evaluation by incorporating stakeholders’
requirements and the energy system technical components and functions through a
system-of-systems architecture methodology. This is done through abstraction and
decomposing the integrated energy system under study to facilitate its evaluation
using a set of indicators. Indicators are deduced through systems analysis using
model-based systems engineering techniques.
The evaluation framework is demonstrated through a case study of a local energy
system in the North of Tyne region in the UK, analysing scenarios with different
system configurations under varying energy supply and demand conditions. The
analysis is supported by an optimisation model for integrated energy networks
operation. The case study demonstrates the framework application and presents
evidence on the value of energy systems integration in the region via vector-coupling
technologies, including CHP, P2G and HPs under different scenarios. Figure 3.1
shows a graphical summary of the work presented in this chapter.
Section 3.2 presents a brief discussion around WES analysis and evaluation.
Section 3.3 provides an overview of the WES evaluation principles and a description
of the evaluation framework design and implementation. Section 3.4 presents
the case study to demonstrate the evaluation framework in practice. Section 3.5
discusses the contributions and limitations of this chapter, and Sect. 3.6 summarises
the chapter and concludes with future work.

Fig. 3.1 Graphical summary of this chapter

3 Whole Energy Systems Evaluation: A Methodological Framework and Case Study 43

3.2 Status Quo, Challenges and Outlook

Previous work has been presented in recent years to explore ESI in terms of
the overall concept and potential benefits [6–8, 10–12], modelling for planning
and operation of integrated energy systems [5, 13, 14], enabling technologies [4],
flexibility provision [1, 15, 16] and economics and policy [3, 17]. This is a selection
of papers that summarise the state of the art in different areas of ESI research, which
is based on a WES approach to the modelling and analysis of multivector energy
networks.
In terms of evaluation of ESI, previous reviews on ESI have identified gaps
around evaluation and suggested research recommendations. Specifically, while ESI
provides an opportunity to improve the system performance in terms of the energy
trilemma, there is still a need for (i) more quantified evidence to validate this claim
and support decision-making in this direction, (ii) new tools and metrics to identify
the full range of benefits of ESI under different situations and (iii) comprehensive
assessment methodologies to capture the interdependencies across energy systems
and the emergent complexity of the whole system [6–8, 11]. Evaluation has been
since considered in some studies yet not in a holistic manner, that is, focusing on
particular technologies [18, 19] or looking at a limited scope of indicators [20, 21].
Therefore, the literature still lacks methodologies that address the identified gaps in
the evaluation of ESI as a pathway to achieve the energy transition objectives. In
this regard, a WES approach for evaluation is needed to evaluate the overall system
benefits and drawbacks, identify the interdependencies among the different energy
systems and adapt to future changes.
A multidisciplinary approach is required to investigate ESI and to achieve the
energy transition to a net-zero carbon society [3, 4, 6, 8]. One approach for
multidisciplinary research is based on systems thinking that addresses complexity in
systems with multiple and interacting factors [22]. Systems thinking is a broad set of
principles spanning diverse fields of physical and social sciences, engineering and
management useful for considering interrelationships between system elements and
their effect on the wider system behaviour [23]. A number of tools and techniques
use a systems thinking approach to solve complex problems such as those devel-
oped in systems engineering, which itself is a discipline that integrates multiple
disciplines to enable the realisation of successful systems across its lifecycle [23].
Given the complexity of the energy system, a systems thinking approach is valuable
to understand system change and reflect the interactions between its heterogeneous
elements [24].
Going one step beyond is the notion of whole systems thinking, which extends
the systems thinking to look at interrelationships within and between systems due
to the increasing prospects of systems integration [24]. Accordingly, the concept
of SoS has emerged to study large-scale interdisciplinary problems that span mul-
tiple, distributed systems [23]. Systems thinking also provides an interdisciplinary
approach for the evaluation of systems [25]. This can be used to inform planning and
decision-making while ensuring that the evaluation is not focused on a single aspect
44 A. E. H. Berjawi et al.

of the system [23]. In this chapter, a WES approach for evaluation is considered as
it is closely related to the concept of ESI. Moreover, concepts and methods from
systems engineering are used, mainly the SoS and system architecture, to develop a
methodological framework for ESI evaluation that is demonstrated through a case
study of a regional energy system.

3.3 Whole Energy Systems Evaluation

This section describes the proposed WES approach to evaluate integrated energy
systems. The WES evaluation principles are first identified before describing the
developed evaluation framework.

3.3.1 Evaluation Principles

The WES approach for evaluation is defined through a number of principles. Three
principles correspond directly to the WES definition, and three other principles
are related to the nature of the evaluation framework in the scope of the energy
transition. The six principles are identified and elaborated further in [9].
The six principles are important for the evaluation of future integrated energy
system towards achieving the energy transition objectives, where:
• A multidimensional evaluation is essential to investigate trade-offs and synergies
between the different perspectives and objectives required by multiple stakehold-
ers.
• A multivectoral evaluation is necessary to account for interactions and interde-
pendencies between the coupled energy vectors.
• A systemic evaluation is needed to cover the energy system supply chain from
generation through networks and markets to end use, in order to capture emerging
properties, such as flexibility and resilience, at different system levels.
• The evaluation should be futuristic as well to accommodate major future changes
to the energy system structure and function, which would alter the way it is
evaluated.
• The evaluation must be systematic with regard to the procedures for the deduction
and interpretation of the evaluation criteria and indicators, which is relevant for
the transparency, validity and replicability of the evaluation in different contexts.
• It is important for the evaluation framework to be applicable as a useful means to
provide support for decision-making in practice.
3 Whole Energy Systems Evaluation: A Methodological Framework and Case Study 45

3.3.2 Evaluation Framework

To address the identified gaps, an evaluation framework that exhibits the six
principles is developed. The framework design and implementation procedure are
described below.

3.3.2.1 Framework Design

The framework is based on a system-of-systems architecture methodology which is

developed using concepts and methods from systems engineering for the purpose of
evaluation. Those are summarised as follows:
• System architecture, which outlines the principles and guidelines governing the
system structure, functions, the relationships between its components and with
its environment and how the system will meet its requirements [26].
• System requirements, which refer to the functions and capabilities that the system
needs to fulfil or acquire and are mainly related to the needs of stakeholders [27].
• System-of-systems (SoS), which is defined as integration of independent systems
that act jointly towards a common goal, through synergies, to collectively offer
emergent functionality that cannot be provided by constituent systems alone, as
a modelling approach [28].
• Model-based systems engineering (MBSE) is the formalised application of
modelling to support system design, architecture, analysis and evaluation [29].
• Architectural framework is a structured practice specifying the system views
required to describe a system architecture [30].
Figure 3.2 shows the concepts and methods in relation to the evaluation
principles.

Fig. 3.2 The proposed conceptual framework for whole energy systems evaluation
46 A. E. H. Berjawi et al.

The main aim of adopting those concepts and methods is to develop a conceptual
system model of the energy system, whereby the system structure, function and
requirements are identified and combined into a system architecture description.
This allows for a socio-technical evaluation by assessing the system performance
against system requirements. System performance is realised from actual system
datasets or data from quantitative models, while system requirements typically
correspond to stakeholders’ needs and objectives. This is carried out by tracing
the system requirements to the relevant functionalities delivered by the system
and the capabilities it acquires. This will facilitate the deduction of appropriate
evaluation criteria and indicators that represent the level of satisfaction of the
system requirements. This delivers on the evaluation principles identified for being
multidimensional and futuristic.
Using a SoS modelling approach allows the evaluation to be multivectoral
and systemic, where the energy system is modelled at different system levels
and decomposed into different constituent systems (CSs). This will highlight the
interactions, interdependencies and emergent behaviour between different energy
vectors (electricity, gas, heat) and system components (supply, networks, storage,
demand).
MBSE is the method used to develop conceptual models that represent the system
architecture, including its structure, functions and requirements. MBSE is supported
by the Systems Modelling Language (SysML), which is a graphical modelling
language for designing and analysing complex systems [31]. An architectural frame-
work is needed to systematically guide the system modelling in order to capture
different perspectives and viewpoints critical for the analysis. The architectural
framework reflects the designated system architecture such as the SoS.
The evaluation is conducted using an indicator-based approach, where indicators
are the final means for the evaluation. The applicability principle of the evaluation
mainly depends on the availability and suitability of the data used for the indicator
quantification.

3.3.2.2 Framework Implementation

In order to implement the framework, three methodological stages are considered

as shown in Fig. 3.3.
The scenario formulation describes the system under study bearing in mind the
scope and objective of the evaluation. This includes specifying the system config-
urations (combination of energy networks and technologies) and the conditions of
energy supply and demand, in addition to any other assumptions to the conditions
surrounding the energy system such as for policies, markets, demographics and
behavioural changes. For example, scenarios could be formulated to investigate the
impact of adopting ESI as a pathway for the energy transition, under exogenous
constraints such as delivering net-zero carbon emissions or under varying conditions
of energy supply and demand. Those conditions can be affected by changes to
the RES capacity or the peak demand levels. Thus, the scenario formulation stage
3 Whole Energy Systems Evaluation: A Methodological Framework and Case Study 47

Fig. 3.3 Whole energy systems evaluation framework implementation

provides the description of the system that is then modelled conceptually and
quantitatively.
The conceptual system model portrays the WES through its stakeholders and
CSs, the structural and functional relationships within and across its CSs and
the measures of effectiveness for evaluation. Measures of effectiveness are the
indicators used eventually for the social, technical, economic, environmental and/or
political evaluation. The conceptual model is developed following a new archi-
tectural framework established for the purposes of this analysis, applying a SoS
modelling approach and using MBSE techniques. The architectural framework
employed in this analysis is a modified version of the system-of-systems approach
to context-based requirements engineering (SoS-ACRE) framework [29, 32], which
is presented in Table 3.1. This architectural framework is used as it allows
decomposing the system under study into different levels for the SoS approach,
in addition to showing the structural and functional interactions between different
components at different levels. In this case, the integrated energy system is divided
into four levels: the context, SoS, CS and whole system levels. On each level, several
views are developed as specified in the architectural framework to show the system
structure, composition, stakeholders, requirements and measures of effectiveness
using SysML diagrams. Those are further demonstrated in Sect. 3.4.
Accordingly, appropriate evaluation criteria are deduced based on the systems
analysis, and corresponding indicators are assigned to measure the state of the
criteria. The evaluation criteria are related to system requirements at different levels
and are traced to the relevant system components or functions that contribute to
its satisfaction or fulfilment. Indicators are then assigned by considering what
parameters are indicative to measure this extent of satisfaction. Evaluation reflects
both contextual objectives at the SoS level and the functional requirements at the
CSs level. This shows the performance of the energy systems in delivering capabil-
ities independently and as a whole. This approach enables evaluation considering
48 A. E. H. Berjawi et al.

Table 3.1 Modified SoS-ACRE architectural framework

Level View SysML diagram
Context Context definition:Constituent systems and stakeholders Block definition
System-of-systems Structure Internal block
Requirements description Requirements
Requirements context Use case
Constituent systems Composition Block definition
Structure Internal block
Requirements context interaction Use case
Whole system Traceability Requirements
Measures of effectiveness Parametric

different system levels and multiple perspectives. Thus, this stage identifies the
indicators and the underpinning relationships to be quantified by the quantitative
model.
The quantitative model, in turn, combines inputs from the two stages with the
given system topology and physical constraints in mathematical terms, to identify
the technical feasibility and provide quantified output parameters. The output
parameters from the quantitative model are those needed to calculate the indicators
as assigned in the conceptual model. Upon quantification, indicators are analysed
and combined in a dashboard to present and compare findings without masking
trade-offs. The effectiveness of ESI is evaluated either absolutely against set targets
or relatively as improvements to a baseline scenario, for example, one with no
integration between energy systems.
This is an iterative process with feedback loops between the three stages. For
instance, during the conceptual modelling, scenarios could be modified to ensure
variability between scenarios while maintaining comparability. Also, scenarios
could be modified if deemed infeasible in the quantitative model. Essentially,
assumptions across the three activities should be checked for compatibility. More-
over, the feedback between the conceptual model and the quantitative model is
mainly around the input and output parameters required to calculate the indicators.
This could be affected by the data available, the exogenous variables set to the quan-
titative model and the nature of the model itself. Therefore, early communication
between the two models is essential to ensure common understanding of what is
available and possible and what changes might need to be done.

3.4 Case Study

A case study is presented in this section to demonstrate the application of the

developed evaluation framework. The case study is based on the local energy system
in the North of Tyne (NoT) region in the UK. The case study aims to explore the
value of ESI as a future pathway for the energy transition in the region. The scenario
3 Whole Energy Systems Evaluation: A Methodological Framework and Case Study 49

analysis is carried out with different network configurations (electricity, heat, gas)
and vector-coupling technologies (CHP, P2G, HPs) and under varying conditions of
energy supply and demand. Note that the transport system and the use of EVs are
excluded from this analysis. The analysis is supported by an optimisation model for
integrated energy networks operation.

3.4.1 Case Study Area Description

The NoT region is a recently established combined authority that covers the local
authority areas of Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside, and Northumberland in the
North East of England, UK. The region covers an area adding up to around 5277 km2
and has an estimated population of 833,000 with more than 360,000 households.
The region has a variety of features in terms of energy such as a legacy of high
rates of fuel poverty, high proportion of off-gas properties, above-average domestic
gas consumption per meter, a number of existing district heating schemes and a
significant RES capacity expansion. The region houses a number of energy research
and demonstration facilities [33]. Moreover, the region represents an urban energy
system with different sectors for energy demand (residential, commercial, industrial,
transport).
The total energy consumption in the region for the domestic, commercial,
industrial and transport sectors was estimated to be 1486.4 ktoe in 2018, which
is around 17.3 TWh. This is around 1% of the UK total energy consumption in
2018. The commercial and industrial demand makes up around 37% of the total
consumption, the domestic sector consumes 35%, while the transport demand stands
at 28%. The domestic consumption is mainly supplied by gas (75%) followed by
electricity (20%) and other fuels (5%). Similarly, the commercial and industrial
sectors are mainly supplied by gas (43%) followed by electricity (35%) and other
fuels (22%) [34].
The renewable energy capacity has increased in the region by around 240% from
245 MW in 2014 to 837 MW in 2019, while generation from RES has increased
by around 121% from around 517 GWh in 2014 to around 1146 GWh in 2019.
The increase in both RES capacity and generation has been dominated by the
expansion of solar PV, onshore wind and offshore wind in Northumberland [35].
Accordingly, carbon emissions in the region have seen a decrease between the
years 2014 and 2018 by around 15%. The wider North East region experienced the
largest percentage reduction in carbon emissions in the UK from 2005 to 2018, in
part due to industrial closures. In 2005, the industrial and commercial sectors were
responsible for the majority of carbon emissions in the region with 58.2% compared
to 23.9% by the domestic sector and 17.9% from transport. In 2018, the transport
sector takes the lead by 34.7%, while the industrial and commercial sectors come
next with 33.5% followed by the domestic sector with 31.9% of emissions [36].
This overview of energy figures highlights the need to decarbonise heating in
the region, which makes up the majority of gas use in residential consumption, in
50 A. E. H. Berjawi et al.

addition to the commercial and industrial consumption. This could benefit from the
potential for RES expansion in the region as well as for district heating. Again,
this raises the prospects of ESI as a pathway to achieve net-zero carbon emissions
targets through coupling the multiple vectors of electricity, gas and heat present
in the region. It is worth noting that the transport sector is another priority for
decarbonisation as evident by the carbon emissions figures, which can be boosted
by ESI as well, but this is outside the scope of this chapter.

3.4.2 Scenario Formulation

The case study scenarios are designed to capture the value of integration under
extreme conditions of change and constraint to the whole energy system, assuming
no major network upgrade is made. Therefore, the baseline was chosen to be the
coldest day recorded in November 2019, where the total energy demand was at its
annual peak. Other scenarios consider higher RES supply and higher daily electric
load peak due to the penetration of HPs.
The scenario analysis here does not aim to make projections based on the local
authorities’ plans or to critique them, but rather is explorative to consider the
possible impact of ESI as a direction for the energy transition to decarbonisation.
While we aim for a whole systems approach to the evaluation, it is still not possible
to model the whole economy in this case. Scenarios are not designed to consider
the temporal dynamics of the transition over the years up to 2030 or 2050, but as
a steady-state snapshot of the energy system at one point of time. This study is
focused on the physical system architecture, and thus the scenario analysis reflects
technical changes without considering different aspects related to governance and
markets that may be necessary for the transition.
The case study is designed to investigate the impacts of integration between the
electricity and gas systems through CHP and P2G and the increased electrification
of heat through HPs on the whole energy system. Six scenarios were formulated as
a combination of different configurations and supply and demand conditions. The
different system configurations are:
• Unidirectional integration via CHP.
• Unidirectional integration via CHP + HPs.
• Bidirectional integration via CHP and P2G.
• Bidirectional integration via CHP and P2G + HPs.
Note that unidirectional integration refers to the vector shifting capability from
one network to another, in this case from the gas network to the electricity network
through CHP. On the other hand, bidirectional integration indicates the capability of
the system to shift the energy vector in both directions, i.e. from the gas network to
the electricity network and vice versa, as in the case with both CHP and P2G.
For each configuration, different cases of supply and demand conditions are
explored:
3 Whole Energy Systems Evaluation: A Methodological Framework and Case Study 51

Table 3.2 North of Tyne scenario formulation

Scenario Configuration Supply and demand conditions
1 Unidirectional integration Baseline RES, baseline load
2 Unidirectional integration + HPs Baseline RES, high load
3 Bidirectional integration Baseline RES, baseline load
4 Bidirectional integration + HPs Baseline RES, high load
5 Bidirectional integration High RES, baseline load, high P2G
6 Bidirectional integration + HPs High RES, high load, high P2G

• Baseline RES: current supply conditions in the area.

• High RES: increase in available wind generation output, 700% increase.
• Baseline Load: current demand conditions in the area.
• High Load: increase of total electric load (15%) and peak electric load (20%) due
to the penetration of HPs.
• High P2G: wide expansion of P2G capacity.
Table 3.2 summarises the six scenarios.
A number of assumptions have been considered as follows:
• The change in the high load scenarios is assumed to reflect a 20% increase in
HPs use in the domestic sector [37].
• The 700% increase in the high RES scenarios is assumed given the huge potential
for offshore RES in the region, the increase the region has seen in RES capacity
in recent years (240%) and the region’s decarbonisation ambitions.
• The changes in supply and demand conditions are assumed to apply uniformly
to the region’s local authorities.
• The actual NoT system has three gas-fired generators with total capacity of
110 MW. In our scenarios, those are replaced by three CHP plants with the same
capacity increasing the total capacity of CHP in the region to 120 MW.
• Getting higher rates of RES generation into the system was not possible without
much higher P2G capacity due to local network constraints, thus scenarios 5
and 6.
• The additional P2G assets in scenarios 5 and 6 are placed next to the wind farms
which are added into the model to increase the penetration level of the renewable
energy.
• Single vector storage technologies are not included in this analysis.

3.4.3 Conceptual Modelling

As mentioned in Sect. 3.3.2, the core of the evaluation framework is in developing

the conceptual system model for the different scenarios formulated leading up to a
set of indicators for evaluation. Eventually, the conceptual system model provides a
set of indicators along with a traceability diagram that reflects the structural and
52 A. E. H. Berjawi et al.

functional interactions between different system components at different levels.

This helps reduce the complexity of the WES for the purposes of the evaluation
and allows for a socio-technical evaluation of the system against stakeholders’
requirements.
In this case study, four configurations are considered with different combinations
of vector-coupling technologies. Accordingly, four system models are required
to carry out the analysis. All four models have the same CSs (electricity, gas,
heat, coupling system) but have different coupling system components. This would
mainly affect the structure, composition and traceability views of the architectural
framework described in Table 3.1. Otherwise, the context definition, requirements
and measures of effectiveness diagrams are similar across all configurations and
scenarios. The scale of integration is considered at the distribution network level,
and accordingly the system boundaries are determined to be the local energy system.
The conceptual system model is developed using SysML stencils on Microsoft
Visio, and colour coding was used for facilitating traceability.

3.4.3.1 Context Level

At this level, the system CSs and stakeholders are specified. The CSs in this case
include the electricity, heat and gas systems, in addition to the coupling system
defined as the system that includes vector-coupling technologies (Fig. 3.4). It should
be noted here that the vector-coupling technologies are grouped into one CS, which
is the coupling system, given that they share similar functionalities that contribute to
the higher system level or the WES. The system stakeholders are defined as groups
of those who directly influence the system planning and operations of the local
energy system, including in this case the local government, system operators, end
users, prosumers and local community (Fig. 3.5). The detailed composition of those

bdd SoS Constituent Systems

«block»
System-of-Systems

«block»
Constituent Systems

«block» «block» «block» «block»

Electricity System Heat System Gas System Coupling System

Fig. 3.4 North of Tyne context level: constituent systems

3 Whole Energy Systems Evaluation: A Methodological Framework and Case Study 53

bdd SoS Stakeholders

«block»
System-of-Systems

«block»
Stakeholders

«actor» «actor» «actor»

«actor» «actor»
(Local) Network Local
End-users Prosumers
Government Operator(s) Community

Fig. 3.5 North of Tyne context level: stakeholder groups

groups is out of the scope of this chapter. Other stakeholders such as developers,
vendors, manufacturers, media and research are not considered. Moreover, since the
market layer is not considered in this analysis, stakeholders such as the regulator
and other market players are not included.

3.4.3.2 System-of-Systems Level

The next level in the architectural framework is the SoS level, where the structure
and requirements of the system are identified. Figure 3.6 shows the structural
relationships at the SoS level (highest level of abstraction) for all configurations.
The diagram simply shows that the electricity, gas and heat CSs are linked through
the coupling system in this case, while each of those energy CSs still also operates
separately to satisfy energy demand, electrical and heat.
The system requirements for all scenarios are defined in the requirements
description diagram in Fig. 3.7 and are then related to the corresponding stakehold-
ers in Fig. 3.8. The requirements follow from the energy trilemma notion, including
objectives for environmental sustainability, social and economic acceptability and
technical security. These objectives are requirements typically sought by the local
council representing the government, the local community pushing for environmen-
tal and social values, the network operators working to maintain a secure energy
system and end users aiming for an affordable and reliable service. Additionally,
prosumers require access to the grid and a requirement to retain their comfort and
convenience. Requirements can be extended or constrained as shown in Fig. 3.8.
The requirements at this level are the same across all scenarios given that the system
stakeholders are the same.
54 A. E. H. Berjawi et al.

Fig. 3.6 North of Tyne SoS level: structure

req Name
«requirement» «requirement»
Environmental Acceptability
Sustainability

«requirement» «requirement» «requirement»

Decarbonisation Cost Comfort/Convience

«requirement» «requirement» «requirement» «requirement» «requirement»

RE Integration CO2 Emissions Overall Efficiency Cost to the system Cost effectiveness

«requirement»
Security

«requirement» «requirement» «requirement»

Reliability Flexibility Resilience

«requirement» «requirement» «requirement» «requirement» «requirement»

Generation Adequacy Grid Stability Flexible Connections Vector-shifting Capability Self-Sufficiency

Fig. 3.7 North of Tyne SoS level: requirements description

3.4.3.3 Constituent System Level

The differences between scenarios are realised at this level, where the coupling
system composition is different across the given scenarios. The composition of the
electricity, gas and heat systems shown in Fig. 3.9 is the same across all scenarios.
The upstream component in the electricity and gas system relates to the respective
national transmission networks.
The coupling system composition for the different scenarios is presented in Fig.
3.10 as follows:
3 Whole Energy Systems Evaluation: A Methodological Framework and Case Study 55

uc SoS perspective

Name
Reduce carbon
Integrate RES Maintain
emissions
«extend» «extend» Comfort/
Improve Convinience
«extend» efficiency
Achieve
Community decarbonisation
«include» Prosumers
Access to Grid
Deliver policy «constrain»
objectives
«include»
Reduce/
Optimise costs «constrain»
Government «include»
Deliver energy

Maintain secure «constrain»

energy End-users

«extend» «extend» «extend»

Deliver Deliver
Operator(s)
Maintain Respond to Deliver Electricity Heat
reliability extreme events Flexibility

Fig. 3.8 North of Tyne SoS level: requirements context

a
bdd Electricity System
b
«block» bdd Heat System
Electricity System

«block»
Heat System

«block» «block»
Upstream Downstream
«block»
Distribution

«block» «block» c
Generation Distribution
bdd Gas System

«block»
Gas System
«block»
«block»
«block» «block» Distributed
Distribution
Wind Solar Energy
Network
Resources

«block» «block» «block»

Upstream Distribution Gas Boiler

«block» «block»
On-site Demand Side
Generation Response

Fig. 3.9 North of Tyne CS level: composition of (a) electricity system, (b) heat system and (c)
gas system

• Scenario 1: only CHP is included (Fig. 3.10-a).

• Scenario 2: CHP and HPs (Fig. 3.10-b).
• Scenarios 3 and 5: CHP and P2G (Fig. 3.10-c).
• Scenarios 4 and 6: CHP, P2G and HPs (Fig. 3.10-d).
56 A. E. H. Berjawi et al.

bdd Coupling System bdd Coupling System

a «block» b «block»
Coupling System Coupling System

«block» «block»
Combined Heat «block»
Combined Heat
and Power Heat Pumps
and Power

bdd Coupling System bdd Coupling System

c «block»
d «block»
Coupling System Coupling System

«block» «block»
«block» «block» «block»
Combined Heat Combined Heat
Power-to-Gas Power-to-Gas Heat Pumps
and Power and Power

Fig. 3.10 North of Tyne CS level: composition of the coupling system for scenarios (a) 1, (b) 2,
(c) 3 and 5 and (d) 4 and 6

ibd CS Level Structure

«block»
Coupling System
«block» «block»
Electricity System Gas System
«block»
Combined Heat
and Power «block»
«block»
Upstream Upstream

«block»
«block» Distribution «block»
Generation Network Heat System «block» «block»
Distribution Gas Boiler

«block» «block»
Distributed Distribution
Energy
Resources

«block» «block»
Electricity Demand Heat Demand

Fig. 3.11 North of Tyne CS level: structure for scenario 1

The system structure at the CS level is meant to show the structural relations
between components identified in Figs. 3.9 and 3.10, within CSs and across CSs, in
line with the structure at the higher SoS level. Accordingly, Figs. 3.11, 3.12, 3.13
and 3.14 show the system structure for the four different configurations. The main
difference between the four diagrams is the connection between the energy CSs
through the different available vector-coupling technologies.
3 Whole Energy Systems Evaluation: A Methodological Framework and Case Study 57

ibd CS Level Structure

«block»
Coupling System
«block» «block»
Electricity System Gas System
«block»
Combined Heat
and Power «block»
«block»
Upstream Upstream

«block»
«block» Distribution
Generation Network «block» «block» «block»
Heat Pumps Distribution Gas Boiler

«block»
Distributed
Energy «block»
Resources Heat System

«block»
Distribution

«block» «block»
Electricity Demand Heat Demand

Fig. 3.12 North of Tyne CS level: structure for scenario 2

ibd CS Level Structure

«block»
Coupling System
«block» «block»
Electricity System Gas System
«block»
Combined Heat
and Power «block»
«block»
Upstream Upstream

«block»
«block» Distribution
Generation Network «block» «block» «block»
Power-to-Gas Distribution Gas Boiler

«block»
Distributed
Energy «block»
Resources Heat System

«block»
Distribution

«block» «block»
Electricity Demand Heat Demand

Fig. 3.13 North of Tyne CS level: structure for scenarios 3 and 5

The requirements context interaction view for the CS level for all scenarios is
presented in Fig. 3.15. This diagram shows the functional interactions between the
CSs and with the SoS to fulfil the system requirements. The CSs and the SoS
are presented as actors in this case. The electricity, gas and heat systems mainly
have the requirement to deliver their respective services to satisfy energy demand.
The coupling system receives electricity and gas as inputs from the other CSs,
58 A. E. H. Berjawi et al.

ibd CS Level Structure

«block»
Coupling System
«block» «block»
Electricity System Gas System
«block»
Combined Heat
and Power «block»
«block»
Upstream Upstream

«block»
«block» Distribution
Generation Network «block» «block» «block»
Power-to-Gas Distribution Gas Boiler

«block»
Distributed «block»
Energy Heat Pumps
Resources

«block»
Heat System

«block»
Distribution

«block» «block»
Electricity Demand Heat Demand

Fig. 3.14 North of Tyne CS level: structure for scenarios 4 and 6

for CHP and P2G, and in return provides functions that support the higher SoS
requirements identified in Figs. 3.7 and 3.8. These include reducing the energy use
that improves the overall system efficiency, providing grid services that supports
the system reliability (particularly for the electricity system) and shifting energy
vectors that provides flexibility to the whole system. As mentioned previously,
vector-coupling technologies are grouped into the coupling system given that they
share similar functionalities with respect to the higher-level requirements. Shifting
energy vectors also contributes to the delivery of energy services by the energy CSs,
for instance, through CHP feeding into the electricity system, P2G feeding into the
gas system and HPs feeding into the heat system.

3.4.3.4 Whole System Level

Finally, on the whole system level, the traceability and measures of effectiveness
views are presented. The traceability view presented in Fig. 3.16 combines different
system components and functions from different levels to trace their contributions
in satisfying system requirements and measuring this level of satisfaction. The
traceability view can therefore support the realisation of possible trade-offs and
synergies between the different system components. Accordingly, measures of
effectiveness are shown in Fig. 3.17. This again applies to all scenarios, which is
important for comparability in this case.
3 Whole Energy Systems Evaluation: A Methodological Framework and Case Study 59

uc Electricity System Perspective uc Gas System Perspective

Coupling System
Deliver Deliver Gas
Electricity

uc Heat System Perspective

SoS

uc Coupling System Perspective Deliver Heat

Reduce Energy
Use

Gas System Shift Energy

Vector

Provide Grid
Services
Electricity System
Heat System

Fig. 3.15 North of Tyne CS level: requirements context interaction

Moving from the traceability diagram to assigning the measures of effectiveness

is not an automatic step. It involves looking at suitable indicators that are used
to measure the state of the evaluation criteria guided by the traceability view and
considering the data availability required to calculate those indicators supported
by the quantitative model. Accordingly, indicators presented in the measures of
effectiveness view in Fig. 3.17 are believed to be suitable for the evaluation in this
case, although they do not present an exhaustive or restricted list. The indicators and
relevant output parameters are discussed further in Tables 3.3 and 3.5.
As mentioned previously, the evaluation criteria reflect multiple stakeholders’
requirements and functional requirements at different levels, allowing for a socio-
technical evaluation of the WES. This also provides a flexible, modular approach
for the evaluation where if new stakeholders or different requirements are realised,
this is reflected throughout the conceptual model diagrams. In this context, note that
some elements included in earlier views are omitted from the analysis presented
later, such as distributed energy resources, due to the lack of data around it in this
case.

3.4.4 Quantitative Modelling

3.4.4.1 Network Model

The analysis is supported by an optimal power and gas flow simulation model for
the operation of the integrated electricity and gas networks with different coupling
60 A. E. H. Berjawi et al.

«satisfy»

«satisfy»

«trace»

«satisfy» «satisfy»
«satisfy» «trace»

«constrain»

«trace»
«satisfy» «trace»

«constrain»
«trace»

«satisfy» «trace»

«trace» Fig. 3.16 North of Tyne whole system level: traceability

«constrain»

«trace»

«trace»

«satisfy»

«trace»
3 Whole Energy Systems Evaluation: A Methodological Framework and Case Study 61

par Name
«requirement» «requirement»
Environmental Acceptability
Sustainability

«requirement» «requirement»
«requirement» Cost Comfort/Convience
Decarbonisation

«requirement» «requirement» : Willingness to

Cost to the system Cost effectiveness shift behaviour
«requirement» «requirement» «requirement»
RES Integration CO2 Emissions Overall Efficiency

: Abatement
: Energy Saving : Total Costs
: Share of RES : CO2 Emissions Cost of CO2
Ratio

: Cost of Energy : Cost of : Total : CO2

Import Integration Costs Emissions

«requirement»
Security

«requirement» «requirement» «requirement»

Reliability Flexibility Resilience

«requirement» «requirement» «requirement»

Generation Adequacy Grid Stability : Availability of Self-Sufficiency
components

: % of time V & P : % of energy

: Capacity Margin
are within range locally generated

Fig. 3.17 North of Tyne whole system level: measure of effectiveness

components at the transmission and distribution levels. This type of model is chosen
to evaluate the impact of the optimal operational settings for integrated energy
networks under different scenarios of generation and load profiles and considering
multidimensional aspects. This model is an updated version of the models developed
by the authors and presented in [19, 38, 39]. The model used in this chapter
considers the optimal operation of the network, while the models developed
in the previous works are only operational aiming at evaluating the economic,
technical, environmental parameters of the integrated energy systems. This model
also outperforms other models in the literature [5] by facilitating the consideration of
all the parameters affecting the optimal operation of integrated energy systems, such
as different gas mixtures, gas temperature, pipeline characteristics and the electricity
network topology. The model is developed in MATLAB and includes a set of
nonlinear equations constrained by voltage and pressure balances for electric and
gas network nodes, respectively. The optimisation is based on a cost minimisation
objective function subject to physical constraints. The cost function includes the
cost of electricity generation from different sources and the cost of gas supply from
upstream networks. The inputs, outputs and mathematical formulations of the model
are described in Fig. 3.18.
62 A. E. H. Berjawi et al.

Table 3.3 Simulation model output parameters

Load (MWh/MW) Total final heat load
Total final electric load
Total final energy load
Peak heat load
Peak electric load
Peak total load
Renewable energy generation (MWh) Total wind generation
Total wind wasted
Maximum wind available
Total solar generation
Total solar wasted
Maximum solar available
CHP (MWh/MW) Total heat production
Total electricity produced
Maximum capacity
P2G (MWh/MW) Total input
Total output
Total waste
Maximum capacity
HPs (MWh/MW) Energy consumption
Capacity
Upstream energy Energy imported from upstream (MWh)
(gas network, electricity network, total)
CO2 emissions from upstream (tCO2 )
Cost of import from upstream (£)

The mathematical formulation of the gas and electricity optimal power flow can
be expressed as follows:

Min (cost of nongas electric generation + cost of gas electric generators

supplied from another gas network + cost of gas supply) (3.1)

subject to:

h (x) = 0 (3.2)

g (x) ≤ 0 (3.3)

where x is the state vector which includes the angle and amplitude of the voltage
of all the electrical network buses, the active and reactive power of all the generators
including the renewable resources and CHP, the power set points of the considered
P2G assets, the pressure of the different nodes in the gas networks and the amount
3 Whole Energy Systems Evaluation: A Methodological Framework and Case Study 63

Fig. 3.18 Quantitative model inputs, outputs and algorithms

of the gas imported from upstream networks and h(x) and g(x) are the equality and
inequality constraints, respectively.
The equality constraints are given by eqs. (3.4), (3.5), (3.6), (3.7), (3.8), (3.9),
(3.10), (3.11) and (3.12):

Aqp + W = 0 (3.4)

where
qp Vector of flow rate through pipelines
A Branch-nodal incidence matrix.
W Vector of gas supply and demand at each node.
The vector of gas injections W is obtained by

W = WS − WL (3.5)

where
WS A vector of gas supplies at each node
WL A vector of gas demands at each node.
The flow rate through a pipeline is calculated using the generalised gas flow
equation used for calculation of flow of the branch based on the pressures of the two
ends of the branch, neglecting the elevation difference, as follows. Note that more
details on the gas flow model and the algorithms developed to solve the gas flow
balance equations are provided by the authors in ref. [39]:
64 A. E. H. Berjawi et al.

  
Rair Tn p21 − p22 × D5
q=π × × (3.6)
8 pn f.Smix .L.T.zmix

where
q Gas flow in standard temperature and pressure (STP) conditions
Rair Air constant
Tn Standard temperature
pn Standard pressure
p1 Absolute gas pressure at the sending end of the pipe
p2 Absolute gas pressure at the receiving end of the pipe
D Pipe diameter
f Friction factor
Smix Specific gravity of the gas
L Length of the pipe
T Gas temperature
zmix Compressibility factor.
Friction factor (f ) is calculated based on the value of the Reynolds number (Re):

D.v.ρmix
Re = (3.7)
μmix

where the value of the velocity of the gas flow (v) is calculated using the pipe cross-
sectional area (A) as
q q
v= = (3.8)
A (π/4) .D 2

and the value of density of the gas mixture (ρ mix ) is calculated using

ρmix = Smix × ρair (3.9)

where the specific gravity of the gas mixture (Smix ) is as follows:

 c
zair . Ni=1 (yi .Mi )
Smix = (3.10)
Mair .zmix

and the value of compressibility factor of the gas mixture (zmix ) is obtained by
N 2
 c
zmix = 1 − (yi .ci ) (3.11)
i=1

Also, the value of dynamic viscosity of the gas mixture (μmix ) is computed as
follows [my paper with hamid]:
3 Whole Energy Systems Evaluation: A Methodological Framework and Case Study 65

Nc  0.5

i=1 yi .μi .Mi
μmix = Nc   (3.12)
0.5
i=1 yi .Mi

The explanation of the parameters of the above formulations is as follows:

Re Reynolds number of the gas flow
v Velocity of the gas flow
ρ mix Density of the gas mixture
μmix Dynamic viscosity of the gas mixture
A Cross-sectional area of the pipe
ρ air Density of air in STP condition
zair Compressibility factor of air in STP condition
Nc Number of components of the gas mixture
yi Molar fraction of the component i in the gas mixture
Mi Molar mass of the component i in the gas mixture
Mair Molar mass of air
ci Summation factor (on page 11 of the standard ISO 6976:1995 [3])
μi Dynamic viscosity of the component i in the gas mixture.
Substituting the eqs. (3.10) and (3.11) in (9) and replacing the eqs. (3.8), (3.9)
and (3.11) in (7), the equation for calculation of Reynolds number will be equal to
Nc  0.5

ρair q.Smix i=1 yi .Mi
Re = . . N   (3.13)
(π/4) D c
yi .μi .M 0.5
i=1 i

Once the value of the Reynolds number is calculated, the value of the friction
factor (f ) can be calculated based on the regime of the flow as follows:
• Laminar flow (Re < 2300):

64
f = (3.14)
Re

• Turbulent flow (Re > 4000):

In this case, which frequently happens in the gas networks, the friction factor
is calculated using Colebrook’s equation, which has empirically been developed
based on Moody chart:

1 /D 2.51
√ = −2 × log10 + √ (3.15)
f 3.7 Re. f
66 A. E. H. Berjawi et al.

in which  is the roughness of the internal surface of the pipe. The equality
constraints also include

PGi − PLi − Pi (V , θ ) = 0 (3.16)

QGi − QLi − Qi (V , θ ) = 0 (3.17)

where
PGi Real power generation at bus i
PLi Real power load at bus i
QGi Reactive power generation at bus i
QLi Reactive power load at bus i
Pi Real power injection at bus i
Qi Reactive power injection at bus i
V Bus voltage magnitude vector
θ Bus voltage angle vector.
In addition to these equations, the following equality equations are used to
calculate the amount of gas input to CHP estimated in m3 and the amount of gas
output from the P2G also estimated in m3 .
– Amount of gas input to CHP coupling the gas node k and the electric bus i:

P (i) ∗ 3600
WL (k) = (3.18)
ζCH P ∗ GCV

where
WL (k) Amount of the gas input to the CHP connected to the gas node k
P(i) Amount of the output power from the CHP connected to the bus i
ζ CHP Efficiency of the CHP
GCV Gas caloric value.
Amount of gas out from the P2G coupling the gas node k and the electric bus i:

P (i) ∗ 3600
WS (k) = (3.19)
GCV
where
WS (k) Amount of the gas output from the P2G connected to the gas node k
P(i) Amount of the input power to the P2G connected to the bus i
GCV Gas caloric value.
3 Whole Energy Systems Evaluation: A Methodological Framework and Case Study 67

The inequality constraints g(x) are

Vi min ≤ Vi ≤ Vi max
Ik max2 ≥ Ik ∗ Ik∗
PGi min ≤ PG i ≤ PGi max
QGi min ≤ QG i ≤ QGi max (3.20)
1 ≤ P(p2g,k) ≤ Pp2g,max,k
pi min ≤ pi ≤ pi max
W s i min ≤ W s i ≤ W s i max

where
Vi Voltage magnitude at bus i
Vi min , Vi max Minimum and maximum voltage magnitude at bus i, respectively
Ik , Ikmax Current through branch k and the maximum value of this current
PGi , QGi Active and reactive power of the generator Gi
PGi min , PGi max Minimum and maximum active power generated by the generator
Gi
QGi min , QGi max Minimum and maximum reactive power generated by the generator
Gi
Pp2g, k , Pp2g, max , k Power set point of P2G k and the maximum value of this set
point, respectively
pi Pressure at node i
pi min , pi max Minimum and maximum pressure at node i
Wsi Supplied flow from gas source i
Wsi min , Wsi max Minimum and maximum flow supplied from the source i, respec-
tively.
The model represents the same energy system topology abstracted for the
conceptual system model. Note, however, that the jurisdictional boundaries of the
NoT combined authority district may not be the same as the area covered by
the energy networks. For instance, the network extends into parts of Gateshead
and County Durham, which are not officially within the jurisdiction of the NoT
combined authority.
The coupling components considered in the model are CHP and P2G, while
HPs are considered as additional electric load without considering the provision of
demand-side response (DSR). District heating networks are not explicitly modelled
in the system, but heat output from CHP is assumed to feed into those. Furthermore,
energy storage technologies are not considered in the model. In fact, the region
currently lacks energy storage assets due to the relatively limited amount of RES
generation.
68 A. E. H. Berjawi et al.

3.4.4.2 Network Data

The model is populated by actual data from the NoT energy system for energy
supply and load profiles and network flows. For the gas network, Northern Gas
Networks, the gas distribution network operator in the region, has provided data of
the hourly demand at each network node for a set of typical days. For this study,
the demand data for a cold winter day is interpolated to get the half-hourly demand
dataset. For the electricity network, Northern Powergrid, the electricity distribution
network operator in the region, has provided datasets of half-hourly metered data
for the primary substations on the network. The data provided covered the period
from January 2016 to June 2020, of which the 15th of November 2019 was chosen
for this study showing the peak demand. Along with the gas network data on the
typical cold winter day, this day is expected to be a time of system stress.
Figures 3.19 and 3.20 show the load profiles for the electric and gas demands
for the baseline and high load scenarios, aggregated at the electric substation level.
That is considering the effect of the increased electric demand for heating through
HPs on the electric substation rather than individual households. The change in the
electricity load profile for the high load scenarios represents a 20% increase in the
peak load and involves a shift in the morning peak hours as estimated in ref. [37].
Figure 3.21 shows the profiles of the total wind generation for the baseline RES
and high RES scenarios, while Fig. 3.22 shows the profile of the total PV generation
for all scenarios. Baseline data were provided by Northern Powergrid.

Electric Load Profile

450

400

350
Load
300
(MW)
250

200

150
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47
Timestep

Baseline load profile High electrification load profile

Fig. 3.19 Electricity load profiles for the baseline and high load scenarios
3 Whole Energy Systems Evaluation: A Methodological Framework and Case Study 69

Gas Load Profile

1400

1200

1000

Load 800
(MW) 600

400

200

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Timestep

Baseline Gas load profile (MW) High decarbonisation Gas load profile (MW)

Fig. 3.20 Gas load profiles for the baseline and high load scenarios

a Wind_Baseline
b Wind_Decarbonisation Pathway
60 450
400
Generated Power (MW)

50
350
40
300
30
250
20
200
10 150
0 100
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47
Timestep Timestep

Fig. 3.21 Wind generation profile for (a) baseline and (b) high RES scenarios

3.4.4.3 Model Parameters

After running the simulations for each scenario, parameters related to the heat and
electric loads, renewable energy generation, vector-coupling components outputs
and capacity, electricity and gas upstream imports are obtained (Table 3.3). Those
are the output parameters required to calculate the identified indicators described
in detail in Table 3.5. The numerical values of the model output parameters for all
scenarios are provided in ref. [40].
In addition to those parameters, the following factors for cost and carbon
emissions are considered (Table 3.4).
The cost of energy import from upstream reflects an annual average of the
sum of network charges on the customer for the electricity and gas transmission
networks [41]. This is the cost accounted for in the optimisation as operational
cost for electricity generation and gas supply, while capital and carbon costs are
70 A. E. H. Berjawi et al.

Solar PV_Baseline
9
8
7
Generated Power (MW)

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47
Timestep

Fig. 3.22 Solar PV generation profile for all scenarios

Table 3.4 Cost and emission factors

Cost of upstream import(£/MWh) Electricity network 28.06 [41]
Gas network 9.42
Carbon emissions of upstream import (kgCO2 eq/MWh) Electricity network 253 [42]
Gas network 203
Cost of coupling components (£/MWh) CHP 25 [43]
P2G 55 [44]
HP (air-sourced) 36 [45]

not included. The carbon emission factors are published average values for the
UK supply of electricity (including T&D losses) and natural gas (including limited
amount of biogas) [42]. The cost of coupling components reflects the levelised cost
of energy for those technologies excluding the fuel cost (electricity or gas), which
is already accounted for in upstream costs and is taken to be minimal for local RES
generation. This was used here to be in line with operational costs accounted for in
the model as the cost of upstream energy import.

3.4.5 Case Study Results

After running the simulations for each scenario, indicators are quantified as
described in Table 3.5. Note that reliability indicators are not included in this case
as this is a condition for convergence in the quantitative model used in this analysis.
Firstly, the values of all indicators for all scenarios are presented in Table 3.6.
3 Whole Energy Systems Evaluation: A Methodological Framework and Case Study 71

Table 3.5 Indicators description

Dimension Indicator Description Model parameters
Environmental CO2 emissions intensity Amount of CO2 Total CO2
emissions per energy emission/total energy
supplied (kg-eq/MWh) input
RES integration % of RES supply from Total used RES/total
total final energy load final energy load
Overall efficiency % of total final energy Total final energy
load to total energy load/total energy input
input (100 – Losses) and waste RES
Economic Total cost Cost of energy import Total cost of energy
and integration assets import from upstream
(CHP, P2G, HPs) + costs of CHP, P2G,
HPs
Resilience Self-sufficiency % of local energy Local energy
generation from total generation/total energy
energy supply input
Flexibility Flexible capacity % of maximum (maximum capacities of
available capacity of CHP, P2G, HPs)/peak
flexible assets (CHP, total load
P2G, HPs) from total
peak load

A radar chart is produced to compare the different scenarios with respect to the
six indicators (Fig. 3.23). To do this, the indicators values were normalised to fit
into the uniform scale of the radar chart. This is based on the mean normalisation
method given as x = max(x)−min(x)
x−average(x)
. Normalised values are available on [40].
It can be noticed from Table 3.5 and Fig. 3.23 that scenarios 1 and 3 and
scenarios 2 and 4 show very similar values. This means that adding P2G to the
system with small capacity has a very minimal impact in all terms including
RES integration. This conclusion has been reached earlier in the analysis, and as
mentioned previously it is due to local network constraints that prevent getting
more RES into the system. Conversely, scenarios 5 and 6 with major increase
in P2G capacity and consequently in flexible capacity have shown an increase in
RES integration that affected other indicators such as carbon emissions and self-
sufficiency. This can be explained by the fact that electricity is more expensive
than gas; thus drawing electricity to convert into gas is not economic. However,
in the case where RES is abundant, using the surplus low-cost electricity becomes
competitive.
To realise the impact of HPs, scenarios 1 and 2, 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 are compared.
For scenarios 1 and 2 and scenarios 3 and 4, similar trends are noticed with HPs
increasing the total system cost, reducing the overall system efficiency, while not
showing major improvements in terms of RES integration, self-sufficiency and CO2
emissions despite the increase in flexible capacity. On the other hand, comparing
scenarios 5 and 6 shows improvements in most indicators including RES integration,
but with higher costs and lower efficiency.
 72

Table 3.6 Indicators values for all scenarios

Scenario CO2 emissions (kg-eq/MWh) RES integration (%) Efficiency (%) Total cost (£) Self-sufficiency (%) Flexible capacity (%)
1 201.65 2.72 94.99 506,995.64 16.43 7.39
2 202.97 2.88 94.58 551,015.41 17.82 12.47
3 201.65 2.72 94.97 508,806.05 16.49 7.89
4 203.05 2.89 94.52 554,291.41 17.98 12.99
5 167.26 18.59 93.07 394,723.89 27.30 17.25
6 164.37 20.35 92.64 448,491.90 31.99 22.81
A. E. H. Berjawi et al.
3 Whole Energy Systems Evaluation: A Methodological Framework and Case Study 73

Indicators for all Scenarios

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6
CO2 Emissions

Flexible Capacity RES Integraon

Self-Sufficiency Efficiency

Total Cost

Fig. 3.23 Radar chart of indicators for all scenarios

To draw a better picture on the relations between indicators and the different
system components, some indicators were further broken down and shown relative
to other indicators following from the relations in the traceability view in Fig. 3.16.

3.4.5.1 Environmental Indicators

The first indicator is the intensity of carbon emissions that is calculated as the ratio
of the total CO2 emissions over the total energy input to the system. The latter in this
case includes generation from RES (solar and wind), generation from CHP plants
and imported energy from upstream. In addition to the carbon intensity value, we are
interested in tracing the contribution of different vectors, and thus we compare the
carbon emissions and intensity of electricity and that coming from gas (Fig. 3.24).
For electricity, scenarios 1–4 show slight variations for the amount of emissions
and the carbon intensity, while for scenarios 5 and 6, the amount of emissions
becomes negligible (Fig. 3.24-a), and the intensity sees a steep decrease (Fig.
3.24-b). This is clearly due to the major increase in RES supply. On the contrary,
the amount of emissions from gas encounters a decrease for scenarios with HPs
(2,4,6), but the intensity stays the same across all scenarios. The absolute decrease
74 A. E. H. Berjawi et al.

a b

Fig. 3.24 Electricity and gas (a) CO2 emissions and (b) CO2 intensity for all scenarios

a b

Fig. 3.25 (a) Overall system efficiency values and (b) total energy input compared with system
components for all scenarios

in emissions is mainly due to a fraction of heating being satisfied by electric heating

(around 12%), which means that the amount of gas imported from upstream is
decreased. Note that the decrease in scenario 5 emissions is due to the lower CHP
generation with more electricity demand being met by RES. However, the intensity
stays the same across all scenarios because the amount of renewable gas produced
via P2G is still minimal (around 2%) compared to the amount of upstream gas used
for heating or for generation through CHP plants. Note that the combined CO2
intensity for electricity sources becomes lower than that of gas when combined
with local RES generation, again highlighting the prospects of heat decarbonisation
through ESI.
The second key indicator is RES integration, which is calculated as the % of
energy supply from RES over the total final energy load. The total final energy load
is defined by the load profiles described earlier. This indicator is presented on its
own, but is also shown in correlation with other indicators including efficiency and
flexibility (Figs. 3.25 and 3.27).
The third environmental indicator is the overall efficiency, which represents the
system losses due to RES curtailment, network losses and technology efficiencies.
To understand the sources of losses to which it could be traced to, this indicator is
shown in relation with the percentages of RES, CHP, P2G and HPs from the total
final energy load (Fig. 3.25).
3 Whole Energy Systems Evaluation: A Methodological Framework and Case Study 75

From Fig. 3.25-a, it could be said that system losses increase slightly with the
expansion of HPs, RES, CHP and P2G. However, this is not to be confused with the
expected requirement of HPs and CHP to reduce the overall energy use as evident
in Fig. 3.25-b, while delivering the same energy service, which in this case is heat.
Thus, the system losses can be attributed to the electricity network losses driven
by more flow from the increased RES supply and the increased HPs demand, in
addition to losses from RES curtailment and P2G efficiency losses.

3.4.5.2 Acceptability Indicators

The cost to the system is calculated as the sum of energy imported from upstream
(electricity and gas) and the cost incurred by the coupling components (CHP, P2G,
HPs). The cost breakdown is shown in Fig. 3.26. Note that the cost is limited to the
operational costs, since the analysis is based on an operational model that doesn’t
account for capital and carbon costs. Thus, the total cost is dominated by the cost of
energy imported from upstream.
Another indicator of cost is the abatement cost of CO2 , which relates economic
and environmental aspects and represents cost-effectiveness, which is typically
important for decision-making. It is calculated as the ratio of additional costs
incurred to the amount of CO2 reduced in a scenario compared to the baseline
scenario. However, this indicator faces two limitations in this case. First, the cost
calculated includes only the operational costs and doesn’t include the capital costs,
which are significant when considering the implementation of P2G, for example.
Although cost unit factors used for coupling components take into account the
levelised cost of those technologies, this cost although indicative would still not be
sufficiently representative in this analysis for decision-making on cost-effectiveness.
Second, some scenarios show an increase in emissions from the baseline scenario

Cost Breakdown
600,000.00

500,000.00

400,000.00
Cost (£)

300,000.00

200,000.00

100,000.00

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6
Scenario
Cost of Energy Import Cost of Integraon

Fig. 3.26 Cost breakdown for all scenarios

76 A. E. H. Berjawi et al.

or at least no change. Thus, it is not sensible to compare the cost-effectiveness of

reducing emissions between scenarios with different directions.
Note also that an indicator for comfort and convenience, such as the willingness
to shift behaviour, was not realised in this analysis. This is important to evaluate
the quality of the energy service, such as heat, when it is being delivered in
different forms. However, such indicators are typically qualitative and require direct
involvement with consumers and prosumers on the ground through surveys or
interviews in the region, which is outside the scope of this project.

3.4.5.3 Security Indicators

Reliability indicators, such as generation capacity margin and networks capacity,

are not applicable in this case given that reliability constraints are a condition for
the model convergence. The requirement of providing grid services was therefore
not evaluated since DSR was not considered in the model.
Self-sufficiency is calculated as the % of local generation to the total energy input
and is considered an indicator of resilience to supply disruptions.
The system flexibility is considered as the ratio of the maximum available
capacity of flexibility assets to the peak energy load. In this case, flexibility assets are
limited to the coupling components since there is no electric or gas storage and no
DSR. To trace the contribution of the different coupling components, the capacities
are broken down and shown in relation to the RES integration indicator (Fig. 3.27).
As mentioned previously, P2G is the main contributor to flexibility and RES
integration as evident in Fig. 3.27. A major expansion in P2G capacity is necessary
to realise the impact. On the other hand, HPs on its own seem to have a limited

Flexibility Contribuons
400.00 25
350.00
Maximum Capacity (MW)

20
300.00
250.00 15
% of RE

200.00
150.00 10

100.00
5
50.00
0.00 0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Scenarios
CHP capacity P2G capacity HP capacity %RE from total load

Fig. 3.27 Flexibility contributions by coupling components for all scenarios

3 Whole Energy Systems Evaluation: A Methodological Framework and Case Study 77

impact on RES integration. This is due to how the technology is accounted for in
the model as a load component without the provision of DSR. However, when HPs
are used in combination with high P2G capacity as in scenario 6, HPs are able to
absorb more of the RES into the system and to reduce curtailment.
Finally, an indicator that was not included in this analysis is the % of heat
electrification (uptake of HPs) since it is an exogenous variable to the model.
However, given that net-zero plans typically set objectives for electrification of heat
(and transport), then this is an indicator to consider in other cases where technology
diffusion and adoption is considered dynamically.

3.5 Discussion

3.5.1 Findings

The results of the case study presented in Sect. 3.4.5 show that ESI provides
a direction towards achieving the energy transition objectives. The results are
evaluated in line with the traceability view presented in Fig. 3.16, which includes the
system requirements at both the SoS and CSs levels. Thus, the level of satisfaction
of the identified system requirements at different levels indicates the level of ESI
effectiveness. This is only relative in this case comparing between scenarios rather
than with respect to an absolute target.
Overall, the scenario analysis has shown that integration through vector-coupling
technologies, particularly P2G, is an effective measure to enable more RES into the
system while providing means for a viable network management. Scenarios 5 and
6 with high P2G capacity have seen improvements in all indicators to achieve the
set objectives, except for overall efficiency. This is still an acceptable reduction of
around 2% and is to be expected with the increased electrification, given that losses
from the electricity network are naturally greater than those associated with the gas
network.
In terms of system requirements and starting with the requirement to deliver
energy in different forms to end users, this requirement was physically satisfied
within the quantitative model. In terms of the requirements to achieve the trilemma
policy objectives, with regard to environmental sustainability, the requirement to
integrate RES into the system was delivered with increased system integration,
particularly with high capacity of P2G. In terms of overall efficiency, the overall
energy use of the system was lower due to CHP and HPs despite increasing the
system losses relative to the total energy input to the system. This was reflected
numerically with the CO2 emissions reduction in scenario 5 with bidirectional
integration and even lower in scenario 6 with the addition of HPs.
Getting more RES generation to cover the electric load including for heating
also reduces the cost to the system, being dominated by upstream energy imports.
This is allowed by the flexible capacity to shift energy vectors provided by the
78 A. E. H. Berjawi et al.

vector-coupling technologies, mainly P2G. While the reliability and resilience of

the system were not examined in response to sudden, extreme events, those criteria
were physically satisfied in the simulation model under conditions of system stress.
As mentioned earlier, prospects of DSR are not included in the quantitative
model; thus the requirements of prosumers in relation to comfort and convenience
and access to the grid can’t be evaluated.

3.5.2 Complexity

The developed framework, particularly the conceptual system modelling stage, aims
to facilitate the understanding of the integrated energy system and the deduction of
criteria and indicators leading up to the evaluation. In this regard, the framework
delivers on this objective in a complex energy system like in the NoT region. This
is done through the abstraction and decomposition of this system into its different
levels and components and focusing on the interaction across the different levels
and components.
During the framework implementation and while dealing with the scenarios and
modelling, it was clear the high level of detail involved in the NoT case study.
The framework aims to reduce complexity by abstracting the system at high levels,
but in practice lower-level challenges should still be considered. For instance, with
increasing RES, local network constraints were realised and had to be dealt with in
the quantitative model by adding P2G close to the point of wind generation. This
highlights the importance of communication and feedback between the conceptual
system model and the quantitative model to manage technical complexities.
In terms of results, the dashboard approach for presenting results is supported by
the traceability view to realise the contribution of different system components to
different system requirements. The traceability view is a condensed representation
of the interactions within the system and a reference point to the other system
diagrams that show the structural and functional relationships in more detail.
Having the traceability view and the complete conceptual system model behind the
indicators set also reduces the system complexity that would otherwise be reflected
in the results.

3.5.3 Limitations

The work presented in this chapter shows a number of limitations. First, the
quantitative model used in this analysis is an optimal operation model. This
type of modelling is valuable for ensuring the system operation on the short
term, but planning features are also needed to realise the optimal sizing, costing
and localisation of assets for energy generation as well as the vector-coupling
technologies. Second, energy storage and DSR are not considered in this analysis
3 Whole Energy Systems Evaluation: A Methodological Framework and Case Study 79

as other forms of flexibility provision to the WES. While the presented framework
can account for energy storage and DSR due to its flexible nature, the challenge
here is around data availability for those technologies in this particular case study.
Finally, this work has started before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the data involved
are precedent to the times of COVID, which has caused disruption to the energy
generation and demand patterns. It is yet to be seen if the energy system goes back
to the normal pre-COVID patterns or if the pandemic will have a lasting impact on
the energy system.
Due to the aforementioned limitations and the number of assumptions included
in the analysis, the findings discussed are deemed applicable to the case study under
the stated conditions and assumptions and might not be necessarily generalisable.
However, in relation to the developed methodological framework, the case study
demonstrates its applicability and usefulness to a complex, local energy system
given its generic nature and the modular approach it provides.

3.6 Conclusion

In summary, this chapter presents a methodological framework to evaluate whole

energy systems (WES), which is demonstrated through a case study for a local
energy system. The framework is based on the identified WES evaluation principles,
namely, being multidimensional, multivectoral, systemic, futuristic, systematic and
applicable. The framework provides a socio-technical approach for the evaluation at
different levels, combining the system stakeholders’ requirements with the system
components and functions in a system-of-systems architecture methodology.
The framework involves three methodological stages. First, the scenario for-
mulation describes the system under study in terms of system configurations,
conditions of energy demand and supply and any other assumptions. Second,
the conceptual system modelling represents the system architecture at different
levels of abstraction and decomposes the system into its different components.
The conceptual system model shows the system stakeholders and constituents, the
structural and functional relationships and measures of effectiveness. Finally, the
quantitative system modelling includes the mathematical formulations representing
the system topology and technical feasibility.
The three stages interact iteratively. Scenarios are first specified to be modelled
conceptually and quantitatively. Those scenarios could be modified upon the
conceptual modelling to ensure variability between scenarios while maintaining
comparability or if deemed infeasible in the quantitative model. The final outcome
of the conceptual modelling stage is the measures of effectiveness, which make the
set of indicators used for the evaluation. Accordingly, parameters and relationships
that need to be quantified by the quantitative model are identified. The feedback
between the conceptual and quantitative models is thus around those parameters,
which could be affected by the data availability, the exogenous variables and the
nature of the quantitative model. The described framework for the WES evaluation
80 A. E. H. Berjawi et al.

is demonstrated through a case study for the local energy system in the North of
Tyne region in the UK. This includes the provision of energy systems integration
(ESI) through vector-coupling technologies, such as combined heat and power,
power-to-x and heat pumps. Hence, scenarios include different system configura-
tions (combinations of energy networks and vector-coupling technologies) under
different conditions of energy supply and demand. The case study demonstrates the
applicability of the evaluation framework on a complex energy system and shows
the potential of ESI as a direction to achieve the energy transition objectives at a
regional level.
Further improvements to the work presented in this chapter can be realised
in future work. First is investigating the impact of uncertainty on the evaluation.
Sources of uncertainty could include system parameters (performance and proper-
ties), unit factors (cost and carbon), load and generation data and environmental
effects (e.g. ambient temperature). Second is incorporating investments and carbon
costs to the quantitative model optimisation function. This is to account for energy
systems planning features and the future interaction between the local and the
national energy systems, which would partly depend on the electricity and gas
networks emission factors and decarbonisation efforts at the national level. Finally,
it is involving stakeholders with the evaluation in practice by directly eliciting
their requirements and getting their feedback as part of the iteration between the
framework stages.

References

1. Lund, P. D., Lindgren, J., Mikkola, J., & Salpakari, J. (2015). Review of energy system
flexibility measures to enable high levels of variable renewable electricity. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 45, 785–807.
2. Singh, H. V., Bocca, R., Gomez, P., et al. (2019). The energy transitions index: An analytic
framework for understanding the evolving global energy system. Energy Strategy Reviews, 26,
100382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.100382
3. Jamasb, T., & Llorca, M. (2019). Energy systems integration: Economics of a new paradigm.
Economics of Energy and Environmental Policy, 8, 7–28. https://doi.org/10.5547/2160-
5890.8.2.tjam
4. Guelpa, E., Bischi, A., Verda, V., et al. (2019). Towards future infrastructures for
sustainable multi-energy systems: A review. Energy, 184, 2–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2019.05.057
5. Hosseini, S. H. R., Allahham, A., Walker, S. L., & Taylor, P. (2020). Optimal planning and
operation of multi-vector energy networks: A systematic review. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 133, 110216.
6. Hanna, R., Gazis, E., Edge, J., et al. (2018). Unlocking the potential of Energy Systems Inte-
gration. https://imperialcollegelondon.app.box.com/s/0sil57fndc5tn9gfy6ypzp8v61qnv3mg
7. Mancarella, P. (2014). MES (multi-energy systems): An overview of concepts and evaluation
models. Energy, 65, 1–17.
8. Abeysekera, M., Wu, J., Jenkins, N. (2016). Integrated energy systems: An overview of benefits,
analysis methods, research gaps and opportunities. In: HubNET position Pap. Ser. https://
orca.cf.ac.uk/133441/1/HubNET Position paper-Multi Energy-Revised version.pdf.
3 Whole Energy Systems Evaluation: A Methodological Framework and Case Study 81

9. Berjawi, A. E. H., Walker, S. L., Patsios, C., & Hosseini, S. H. R. (2021). An evaluation
framework for future integrated energy systems: A whole energy systems approach. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 145, 111163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111163
10. Kroposki, B., Garrett, B., Macmillan, S., et al. (2012). Energy Systems Integration: A
Convergence of Ideas.
11. O’Malley, M., Kroposki, B., Hannegan, B., et al. (2016) Energy systems integration: Defin-
ing and describing the value proposition. Nrel/Tp-5D00–66616 9. https://doi.org/10.2172/
1257674.
12. Ramsebner, J., Haas, R., Ajanovic, A., & Wietschel, M. (2021). The sector coupling concept:
A critical review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, 10.
13. Kriechbaum, L., Scheiber, G., & Kienberger, T. (2018). Grid-based multi-energy systems-
modelling, assessment, open source modelling frameworks and challenges. Energy, Sustain-
ability and Society, 8.
14. Heendeniya, C. B., Sumper, A., & Eicker, U. (2020). The multi-energy system co-planning of
nearly zero-energy districts – Status-quo and future research potential. Applied Energy, 267.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114953
15. Wang, J., Zong, Y., You, S., & Træholt, C. (2017). A review of Danish integrated multi-energy
system flexibility options for high wind power penetration. Clean Energy, 1, 23–35.
16. Witkowski, K., Haering, P., Seidelt, S., & Pini, N. (2020). Role of thermal technologies for
enhancing flexibility in multi-energy systems through sector coupling: Technical suitability and
expected developments. IET Energy Systems Integration, 2, 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-
esi.2019.0061
17. Cambini, C., Congiu, R., Jamasb, T., et al. (2020). Energy systems integration: Implications
for public policy. Energy Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111609
18. Leitner, B., Widl, E., Gawlik, W., & Hofmann, R. (2019). A method for technical assessment of
power-to-heat use cases to couple local district heating and electrical distribution grids. Energy,
182, 729–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.06.016
19. Hosseini, S. H. R., Allahham, A., & Adams, C. (2021). Techno-economic-environmental
analysis of a smart multi-energy grid utilising geothermal energy storage for meeting heat
demand. IET Smart Grid, 4, 224–240. https://doi.org/10.1049/stg2.12020
20. Mancarella, P., Chicco, G., & Capuder, T. (2018). Arbitrage opportunities for distributed multi-
energy systems in providing power system ancillary services. Energy, 161, 381–395. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.07.111
21. Moslehi, S., & Reddy, T. A. (2018). Sustainability of integrated energy systems: A
performance-based resilience assessment methodology. Applied Energy, 228, 487–498. https:/
/doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.06.075
22. Neely, K., Bortz, M., & Bice, S. (2021). Using collaborative conceptual modelling
as a tool for transdisciplinarity. Evid Policy, 17, 161–172. https://doi.org/10.1332/
174426419X15468578119304
23. Energy Systems Catapult (2019). Systems thinking in the energy system: A primer to a complex
world. https://es.catapult.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/System-thinking-in-the-energy-
system-dec-final.pdf. Accessed 28 Aug 2020.
24. Bale, C. S. E., Varga, L., & Foxon, T. J. (2015). Energy and complexity: New ways forward.
Applied Energy, 138, 150–159.
25. Mangoyana, R. B., Smith, T. F., & Simpson, R. (2013). A systems approach to evaluating
sustainability of biofuel systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 371–380.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.05.003
26. Ingram, C., Payne, R., Perry, S., et al. (2014). Modelling patterns for systems of systems
architectures. In 8th annual IEEE international systems conference, SysCon 2014 - proceedings
(pp. 146–153).
27. Geyer, P., & Buchholz, M. (2012). Parametric systems modeling for sustainable energy and
resource flows in buildings and their urban environment. In Automation in construction (pp.
70–80).
82 A. E. H. Berjawi et al.

28. Nielsen, C. B., Larsen, P. G., Fitzgerald, J., et al. (2015). Systems of Systems Engineering:
Basic concepts, model-based techniques, and research directions. ACM Computing Surveys,
48, 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1145/2794381
29. Holt, J., Perry, S., Payne, R., et al. (2015). A model-based approach for require-
ments engineering for systems of systems. IEEE Systems Journal. https://doi.org/10.1109/
JSYST.2014.2312051
30. Perry, S., Holt, J. (2014). Definition of the COMPASS Architectural Framework Framework.
http://www.compass-research.eu/Project/Deliverables/D21.5b.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2020.
31. Holt, J., Perry, S. (2011). SysML for Systems Engineering.
32. Holt, J., Perry, S., Hansen, F. O., Hallerstede, S. (2012). Report on guidelines for sos require-
ments. In: COMPASS Deliv. http://www.compass-research.eu/Project/Deliverables/D211.pdf
33. North East LEP (2019). North East Energy for Growth. https://www.northeastlep.co.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2019/09/full-strategy-energy-for-growth-strategy.pdf. Accessed 8 Mar 2021.
34. BEIS (2020). Sub-national electricity consumption data - GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/
government/collections/sub-national-electricity-consumption-data. Accessed 8 Mar 2021.
35. BEIS (2020). Regional Renewable Statistics - GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/
statistics/regional-renewable-statistics. Accessed 8 Mar 2021.
36. BEIS (2020). UK local authority and regional carbon dioxide emissions national statistics:
2005 to 2018 - GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-local-authority-and-
regional-carbon-dioxide-emissions-national-statistics-2005-to-2018. Accessed 10 Mar 2021.
37. Love, J., Smith, A. Z. P., Watson, S., et al. (2017). The addition of heat pump electricity load
profiles to GB electricity demand: Evidence from a heat pump field trial. Applied Energy, 204,
332–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.07.026
38. Hosseini, S. H. R., Allahham, A., & Taylor, P. (2018). Techno-economic-environmental
analysis of integrated operation of gas and electricity networks. In Proceedings - IEEE
international symposium on circuits and systems.
39. Hosseini, S. H. R., Allahham, A., Vahidinasab, V., et al. (2021). Techno-economic-
environmental evaluation framework for integrated gas and electricity distribution networks
considering impact of different storage configurations. International Journal of Electrical
Power & Energy Systems, 125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2020.106481
40. Berjawi, A. E. H, Allahham, A. (2021) NoT Parameters. https://doi.org/10.25405/
data.ncl.14614179
41. OFGEM (2021). Estimated network costs per domestic customer (GB average) | Ofgem.
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/estimated-network-costs-domestic-customer-gb-
average. Accessed 12 Apr 2021.
42. BEIS (2020). Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion factors 2020 - GOV.UK. https://
www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2020.
Accessed 12 Apr 2021.
43. BEIS (2020). BEIS Electricity Generation Costs (2020) - GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/
government/publications/beis-electricity-generation-costs-2020. Accessed 12 Apr 2021.
44. McDonagh, S., O’Shea, R., Wall, D. M., et al. (2018). Modelling of a power-to-gas system to
predict the levelised cost of energy of an advanced renewable gaseous transport fuel. Applied
Energy, 215, 444–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.02.019
45. Hansen, K. (2019). Decision-making based on energy costs: Comparing levelized cost of
energy and energy system costs. Energy Strategy Reviews, 24, 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.esr.2019.02.003
Chapter 4
Targeting and Design Multigeneration
System Through Total Site Integration
Approach

Matin Karbasioun, Arash Esmaeilzadeh, and Majid Amidpour

Table of Variables

Variables Sign Unit

◦
Temperature T C, K
Pressure P bar
Heat load Q kW
◦
Shifted temperature T∗ C
◦
Minimum temperature difference Tmin C
Enthalpy H kJ
Enthalpy per mass h kJ. kg−1
Specific heat capacity at constant pressure CP kJ. K−1 . kg−1
Heat capacity rate CP kJ. K−1
Mass flow ṁ, m kg. s−1
Power W kW
Willan line slope, polytropic coefficient n –
Willan line Y-axis intercept point WINT kW
Willan line coefficients a, b, c –
The boiler discharge flow to the output flow ratio RBD –
Steam preheater enthalpy to steam enthalpy ratio RPH –
The site power consumption to heat consumption ratio R –
Net calorific value NCV MJ. kg−1
Gross calorific value GCV MJ. kg−1
(continued)

M. Karbasioun · A. Esmaeilzadeh · M. Amidpour ()

Energy Systems Department, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 83

V. Vahidinasab, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo (eds.), Whole Energy Systems, Power
Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87653-1_4
84 M. Karbasioun et al.

Variables Sign Unit

Lower heating value LHV MJ. kg−1
Carbon emission factor per unit EF tCO2 .t−1
fuel
Greenhouse gases GHG tCO2 . year−1
Rate of steam utilized by process Usteam t. h−1
Compensatory water Wmakeup t. year−1
Number of hours the system operates in a year time h
Condensate return rate CRR –
Vent rate VR –
Blowdown rate BR –
Annualized factor AF –
Annualized capital costs ACC m$
Interest rate IR –
Maintenance cost MC m$
Capital cost CC m$
Ratio of the price CI –
Total annualized cost TAC m$
Concentration C ppm

Table of Greek Signs

Variables Signs Unit

Efficiency η –
Volume per mass ν m3 . kg−1
Steam discharge rate α –
Density ρ kg. m−3
Heat capacity ratio γ –

4.1 Status Quo, Challenges, and Outlook

The annual increase in population and human desire to make the most of technology
to improve life quality has led to an increase in energy consumption in recent years.
On the other hand, limited resources, especially fossil fuels (which play a major
role in energy supply), as well as increasing environmental concerns such as global
warming and climate change (which cause storms, floods, and droughts), have led
4 Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through Total Site. . . 85

us to resources crisis in the future. Hence, efforts in recent years to find a way out of
the current path have increased. These efforts can be divided into three categories:
first, efforts to find new energy sources such as renewable energy, nuclear energy,
biomass, and so on; second, efforts to reduce consumption through culture building,
such as encouraging the use of bicycles, taxing for carbon emission, and holding
international conferences to raise public awareness; and, last, efforts to reduce
consumption through optimization and increase productivity and efficiency. This is
done in two ways: one is the use of new technologies to reduce energy consumption
and increase equipment efficiency, and the other is by exploring and finding new
ways for interaction between equipment such as utility systems.
In the field of optimization and improving efficiency, cogeneration systems can
be named. The Total Site approach is one of the various methods that got attention
in recent years as an answer to the energy crisis in the future. In general, the basis
of this method is the use of waste energy of industrial units, including waste energy
in oil industries or power plants.
Due to the tendency of countries to decentralization today, cogeneration systems
will also change due to lack of massive energy resources with significant losses;
instead, smaller amounts of energy in decentralized units will be seen more in which
energy is found in different forms, such as systems in clouding solar energy, fuel
cells, and water desalination systems. These changes increase system interactions
and thus the complexity of the analysis while improving efficiency to whole new
levels.

4.2 The Role of Efficiency

Energy and water consumption, climatic changes and global warming, hunger and
poverty, pollutant emissions, and environmental changes are introduced as the
most fundamental problems of the modern world in various scientific, political,
and cultural assemblies. These problems have led to the establishment of many
international organizations and contracts to investigate different impacts and aspects
of these phenomena and uncover approaches for confronting their hazards. That is
why numerous researchers in the world addressed energy production and consump-
tion optimization, energy efficiency enhancement, water, and pollution reduction.
The outcome is many papers, standards, rules, and agreements in most countries
concerning water and energy consumption improvement toward sustainable devel-
opment and the prevention of environmental destruction and climatic changes.
Thus, the significance of optimizing and reducing energy and water consumption
and the necessity of improving the environment has become more serious over
time. According to specialists and policy-makers’ opinions, the energy, water, and
environmental problems have been pounded as serious crises in the world.
According to the reports presented by the International Energy Agency [6], the
world faced a severe reduction in energy consumption during the corona pandemic
in the first season of 2020. This event declined energy consumption demand by
86 M. Karbasioun et al.

Fig. 4.1 The growing trend of global CO2 emission based on World Bank data [22]

6%, being the most significant percentage in the past 70 years and the largest value
until the present. Demand reduction has influenced the consumption of diverse fuels,
among which we can refer to an 8% reduction in coal and a 5–10% electricity use
reduction, leading to a decline in gas consumption in some areas. An 8% reduction,
approximating 209 billion tonnes (Gt), is expected for the global emission of CO2
based on inspections of the International Energy Agency. These numbers depict
a direct relationship between energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions,
giving rise to global warming.
On the other hand, based on the published data of the International Energy
Agency in 2019 [4, 5] and the World Bank data indicators [22], as illustrated in
Fig. 4.1, fossil resources emit the maximum CO2 , two-thirds of which relate to
the power generation sector. This emission rise is associated with the upsurge of
energy consumption due to global economic growth and climatic changes in some
parts of the world. The degressive slope of CO2 emission since 2014 is linked to
the enhancement of low-carbon technologies and improvement in energy efficiency,
resulting in a reduction in carbon consumption.
Concerning the growing trend of global CO2 emission in Figure 4.2, the global
production and emission rate of CO2 should have increased by 3.8% from 2017
to 2018, owing to economic growth. However, due to the fulfillment of diverse
approaches, such as changing coal power plants to gas burner ones, increasing
energy efficiency, developing nuclear power plants, increasing the renewable ener-
gies contribution to electricity generation, and so forth, this rate has decreased to
2.9%. Among the implemented approaches, increasing the efficiency of energy con-
sumption has maximally contributed to reducing greenhouse gases. This indicates
4 Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through Total Site. . . 87

Fig. 4.2 Compare emission trends of 2017 vs. 2018 based on the IEA report [4]

the importance of efficiency enhancement in the industry and power generation

sectors.
Now that the significance of optimization and its role in improving the environ-
mental quality and greenhouse gas emission reduction has been illuminated, we
need to determine the energy-consuming sectors wherein optimization has been
more influential and has further decreased fossil fuels and resources consumption
leading to reduce CO2 emission.
As shown in Fig. 4.3, the reports of the International Energy Agency in 2020
[6] indicated that the industry sector had globally allocated the maximum share
of energy consumption to itself in 2018. Hence, we can perceive that the biggest
energy consumer in the world is the industry sector, including the industries of iron,
steel, chemicals, petrochemistry, minerals, and so on, which constitute about 73%
of the entire world total energy consumption. Among these industries, the largest
share belongs to the process industries wherein physical and chemical processes are
applied to convert raw materials to worthy final products or exploitable in other
industrial sectors. These industries encompass a significant part of the industry
sector. Hence, it can be conceived that the process industry optimization crucially
affects the energy consumption and the global emission rate of CO2 gas.
Today, in addition to considering the society’s needs for different process
industries and the production of various products, it is necessary to pay attention to
the initial costs associated with an industry establishment and current costs during
88 M. Karbasioun et al.

Fig. 4.3 Emission of 2018 by sectors (million tonnes of oil equivalent) [5]

its life. Many process industries have suffered a loss owing to their extreme energy
requirements and energy cost fluctuations. These losses, especially during special
periods, the same as economic stagnation in 2009 and the pandemic and quarantines
in 2020, were more evident than ever due to the shutdown of many small and
big industries due to the unprofitability of their production costs. Besides paying
attention to the process industry economy, environmental factors and the generation
rate of pollutant emissions are other determinant parameters in the industry life.
As mentioned, the maximum portion of energy consumption and, as a result, the
significant share in the global emission of CO2 belong to the industry sector in
the world. Based on the rules of some countries, environmental parameters also
influence the industry’s economy through taxes and penalties determined by central
governments. From the perspectives of experts and researchers of this field, global
warming due to greenhouse gas emissions has endangered the life of organisms on
the one hand and reduced drinking water besides extending droughts in many parts
of the world on the other hand. For this reason, it is evidently necessary to decrease
the consumption of fossil fuels and modify industries to minimize the production of
greenhouse gases.
Various approaches have been posed for developing industries sustainably in
all aspects so far. An example is employing renewable clean fuels instead of the
current fossil fuels. However, these fuels do not enjoy the requisite and sufficient
potential of energy generation in initiating and implementing the present processes
in the process industries; moreover, the current equipment of renewable power
generation cannot supply the required energy of a process industry sustainably and
at a minimum time. Hence, the employment of fossil fuels to supply the needed
energy of the process industries is still prevalent. The consumption upsurge of these
fuels is proportionally related to increases in costs, pollutants, and greenhouse gases.
4 Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through Total Site. . . 89

For this purpose, different methods are introduced for energy consumption reduction
in diverse process industries.
Among the presented methods for decreasing energy consumption in the process
industries, we can refer to consumption reduction and optimization resultant from
implementing energy management standards and online energy management in the
process industries, employing energy and thermal insulation in different industrial
sectors, updating the technologies and equipment used in the existing industry,
modifying the present thermal network and implementing heat integration in the
considered process industry, and establishing and initiating a cogeneration network
of heat and power for sustainable supply and reduction in the generation costs of
the process industries. These methods are different in terms of their capital cost
and difficulty of implementation. However, the more are the expenses of these
methods, the higher is the optimization rate in terms of fuel consumption. Based
on the fuel price, current cost, capital cost, and the present risks and contributions in
every process industry, we can choose the most suitable method for optimizing fuel
consumption.

4.3 What Is the Utility System?

The most fundamental requirements of a process industry are its units’ needs for
power, heating, and cooling. For example, a processing unit burns fuel to supply
the needed heating consumptions in different processes by transferring heat from
fuel combustion. However, this heat transfer is not easily fulfilled because heat is
consumed in different sectors of a process unit, and it is impossible to situate a heat-
generator device, like a boiler, in every sector. Likewise, the materials needed for the
direct heat transfer of the combustion-stemming gases to varying heat flows are very
costly, and it is impossible to implement them in the whole unit. In small process
units, heat is transferred within these units by average- or low-pressure steam or
hot water. However, heat is supplied differently in large process sites, consisting of
several small and big units. These are the required services that are jointly supplied
by a unit, called the utility unit, which is in charge of supplying power, heating, and
cooling utilities, and some other requirements for other sites.
Looking at process industries, we encounter various production processes asso-
ciated with one or more utility systems. When it comes to the design of utility
systems, we are faced with a lack of fundamental views. Often, there is a single
approach to each production process in designing and modifying utility systems.
Each production process has its business plan, independently of other processes.
Using a strategic view for all production processes, the importance of facing the
whole system in one picture becomes more transparent. Therefore, it can be said that
the importance of having a more comprehensive view and designing all production
processes based on meeting these strategic needs is a necessity. The following
reasons can be named as the importance of studying a utility system when designing
processes:
90 M. Karbasioun et al.

• Need for retrofit because of changes in one or more processes or adding/removing

some processes.
• Usually, studying the utility system is needed to determining the value of saving
before implantation of energy conservation projects.
• Revamp an old utility system with new equipment.
• Changing utility system might lead to a reduction in operation cost.
• Studying the utility system is important to calculate the energy costs associated
with a production expansion.
• Need for modification of an existing system (retrofit) or designing a new system
(grass roots).
For designing a utility system, some questions should be asked, including:
• The amount of power required by different processes
• Existing potential for power generation, import, or export
• The potential of steam production
• Available steam at different pressure levels
• Refrigerator and water-cooling systems
• The requirements of each process
For answering these questions, various cases should be considered among the
processes available on the site, including the following:
• The amount of steam and power required for each process
• How processes interact with the utility system
• How each process interacts with the generated steam levels
• Simultaneous production of energy and heat
• The efficiency of each process in interaction with each other
• The amount of heat production and consumption in each process
All of these factors make studying and designing a utility system a complex
problem. Therefore, more complex and flexible methods are needed to meet this
need.
Various methods have been proposed for studying and designing a utility system,
each with its strengths and weaknesses.
In some studies, they are analyzing the energy and exergy of utility systems
based on the defined needs by modeling ready-made cycles using various software
packages and combining them. In these methods, the main purpose of optimizing
the developed models is based on the efficiency of the first law and the second
law of thermodynamics, the developed cycle does not accept much flexibility in
terms of structure, and only the operating conditions are optimized in most cases.
In completing these methods, the use of economic and environmental parameters in
the optimization of exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental of these models helps
to develop more accurate models of the operating conditions of the operating cycles
of a utility system [1].
4 Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through Total Site. . . 91

The advantages of these methods are the accurate design of process performance,
optimization of all components participating in the processes, the inclusion of user
and designer opinions, and high design accuracy.
The limitation of these methods is in the analysis of complex utility systems and
their time compared to the method presented in this chapter. Also, it is not easy to
get an overview of all processes and systems in previous methods. Also, structural
optimization in these methods is difficult to apply. On the other hand, optimization
methods in this type of modeling are often nonlinear, which increases the cost. These
methods can be easily used to design utility systems with smaller scale and less
complexity.
Another method for designing utility systems is to create superstructures and
consider all possible scenarios for different relations between power and heat
generation and production processes. A superstructure of all possible states is
created in these methods, and after simplification, the resulting superstructure is
optimized using nonlinear optimization methods. As a result, an optimal network is
developed [14].
One of the advantages of this method is that it is automated and the fact that the
final network will be optimal in terms of modeling. In contrast to these advantages,
the complexities of designing a mathematical model and its optimization, the
lack of convergence problems in optimization due to the nature of its nonlinear
optimization, and the lack of participation of designers and decision-makers in
designing networks can be considered as its disadvantages.
The designing method, which employs the Total Site approach, uses conceptual
design to target the potentials in the utility system based on the potential of heat
production and consumption and needs assessments performed in each process.
In this method, first, all units are optimized based on pinch technology or another
method like that, and then considering the general interactions between all separate
processes, an optimal utility system is designed using linear optimization [7].
This approach uses another form of the second law of thermodynamic named
R-ratio, and, as Kenney [8] said: “although it does not use the available energy
concept directly, is a direct practical application of the second law thinking. As fuel
utilization increases, less fuel (with its attendant losses of available energy) is fired.”
The advantages of the proposed method are simplicity of modeling and using
linear optimization instead of nonlinear, considering all interactions independent of
the type of processes in each unit, flexibility in adding complexity, and changing
the design structure of the system. Also, in this method, the designer’s decision is
effective in designing the system. It is also practical to use this method to target and
design cogeneration systems in utility systems. Another feature of this method is
considering root changes and observing the second law of thermodynamics in the
design of structures. Furthermore, in this approach, the designer can use exergoeco-
nomical and exergoenvironmental indicators to optimize the whole system [9].
Some of the disadvantages of this method, such as accuracy and attention to
conditions of each process separately and user feedback in the design process, have
been improved by using designers’ decisions and combination of this method with
other methods, which leads the results closer to reality.
92 M. Karbasioun et al.

Fig. 4.4 Schematic view of power, heating, and cooling utilities in a process site

Power utility employs power generation components, such as steam turbines,

gas turbines, small and medium internal combustion engines, and other power-
generating equipment, to generate power, and direct drivers transfer the power
generated in the form of electricity. The important point is that the heating and
cooling utilities, themselves, fall into several categories.
We can observe the schematic views of different utilities present in a processing
unit. As Fig. 4.4 illustrates, the heating utilities in a unit involve high-pressure (HP),
medium-pressure (MP), and low-pressure (LP) steam, condensates, hot water, flue
gas, gas turbine exhaust, hot oil, and heat pump reject. Furthermore, the cooling
utilities of the site include cooling water, cooling air, air preheat, boiler feedwater
(BFW) preheat, heat pump heat sink, molten salt, and refrigeration.
As stated in the utility explanations, among the present hot utilities, the exploita-
tion of steam at various pressure levels is one of the most typical methods for heat
transfer. Of the most important reasons for the prevalence of using steam in the
process industries are the following unique features of steam:
• High latent heat (high thermal capacity)
• High operating temperature range
• Generating heat at one point and transferring it to another point
• Generating power in the steam turbine and steam ejector
• Cheap equipment for production and distribution
• Being nonpoisonous and the controllability of the steam temperature
4 Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through Total Site. . . 93

One of the remarkable points concerning the steam used as a utility at a site
level is its superheated temperature. The use of superheated steam prevents droplets
and liquid creation due to pressure drops inside the steam tubes. If this steam is
employed for power generation, the steam in the tube should be superheated by
10–20 degrees before it enters the turbine; otherwise, the moisture can damage the
turbine.

4.4 What Is the Energy and Process Integration?

One of the methods for optimizing thermal cycles in the process industry is the
integration of its existing processes and equipment with other processes. Based on
Smith [18], integration in the process industries means the aggregation of producers
and consumers within a system. For example, many flows and equipment in process
industries generate heat or transfer it from an environment to a water cooler.
Opposite to these heat generators, there are heat consumers as heat sinks in the
same industries and need to receive heat. If the temperature of the heat source is
higher than that of the heat sink and if other parameters like spatial proximity, heat
transfer, heat exchanger for heat recovery designing, and cross the pinch point are
appropriately possible, the system can transfer heat from the heat source to the heat
sink. This makes the supply of the requisite heat for the heat sink by the system itself
rather than the excess fuel, and the total rate of the unit’s fuel consumption reduces.
Thus, the heat integration of different processes can decrease utility consumption
within the system and consumed fuel.
Likewise, besides the integration of the processes, another operational approach
to reducing fuel consumption and pollutants and increasing efficiency in the process
industries is to employ cogeneration systems.

4.5 What Is the Cogeneration of Heat and Power?

An approach to increasing the site’s efficiency and reducing fuel consumption

and costs is establishing a cogeneration system based on the site context. The
cogeneration system means the simultaneous generation of power and heat from
a joint heat resource. In a cogeneration system, the required consumed power of
a site can be supplied in two ways. The power generated in a process site can be
supplied indirectly either by a generator connected to gas and steam turbines or by
connecting a direct drive to rotary equipment like compressors. Meanwhile, another
benefit of the cogeneration systems is a reduction in the emission of pollutant gases.
This subject should be examined against power generation in power plants outside
the site.
94 M. Karbasioun et al.

To raise efficiency and reduce fuel consumption, we can simultaneously imple-

ment all these methods more favorably and optimally. The Total Site view has also
been developed based on these principles.

4.6 What Is the Total Site Integration?

A Total Site, whose framework is illustrated in Fig. 4.5, consists of several isolated
sites and a conventional utility unit. By relying on this approach and employing
energy integration among the unit of a Total Site, we can enhance energy efficiency
and storage. By developing a Total Site, we can supply the required heat of the
consumer units by exchanging the heat between them and heat-generator units via
a thermal network and decrease fuel consumption accordingly. Moreover, another
crucial advantage of a Total Site is implementing cogeneration systems and supply
of power utility by the site itself.
When introducing a Total Site, we should first assume that several process units
come together. Based on the nature of the processes of every unit, some units are
endothermic, and some are exothermic. In designing an independent process unit by
methods like pinch technology, engineers embark on optimizing process flows and
creating heat exchanges between their flows. Thus, the units that come together in a
Total Site are optimized in terms of energy consumption. Now, heating and cooling
utilities are required to supply heat and its removal from some of these units.
At first sight, we can assume that we consider an independent heat generator,
like a boiler, for every one of the units and supply the heat of each internally. Hence,
we should have considerable expenditure for establishing boilers and heat removal
systems per site. Some of these units need heat with high quality and temperature,
and some require heat with medium quality and temperature. Therefore, we have to

Fig. 4.5 General scheme of a Total Site

4 Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through Total Site. . . 95

prepare several kinds of heat generation systems with varying dimensions. Except
for the high expenses of this method, its complex maintenance and overhaul and
inflexibility of changes in the capacity of every unit cause this approach not to seem
optimal.
In another approach mentioned above, to reduce costs and enhance the efficiency
and stability of the heat supply for process units, a heat network, which is usually
a steam grid, is developed among the process units. Accordingly, heat is transferred
to other units by the heat network in an integrated way in a generation utility unit
instead of being produced in different sectors. Considering different requirements
of every unit in terms of the required heat quality, temperature, and steam pressure
and precluding the multiplicity of boilers with various pressures, we must generate
steam at the highest pressure required for heat transfer and thermal need of each unit.
After that, we should employ pressure-reducing equipment, such as letdown stations
to transfer heat in varying pressures and temperatures. Therefore, an integrated heat
network flows among different units in a Total Site, wherein heat is produced and
consumed by different sectors with varying needs in an integrated way. However, is
heat generation at high pressure and its consumption at low pressure cost-effective?
Is it possible to use this network more optimally? Can we reduce fuel consumption
by this network?
To answer these questions, we should state that one of the main potentials
of developing a joint heat network is to make the heat exchange between heat-
producing and heat-consuming units possible. Thus, all heat-producing units give
their heat to the heat network. This decreases the heat load rate of heat-generating
systems of the utility unit and, in turn, increases the efficiency of the Total Site and
reduces fuel consumption. However, we can explain that generating heat at high
pressure and temperature and diminishing its pressure to medium and low pressures
destroys the steam exergy and ruins its work generation potential. Therefore, this
approach is still far from the ideal condition regarding the optimality of energy
generation and consumption. On the other hand, one of the most paramount needs
of the process units is power. Now, we should ask from where is the power of a Total
Site supplied?
To answer this question, we should also claim that one of the approaches to
supplying power is buying electricity from the national and local networks or
generating power by the non-concentrated or concentrated generation systems inside
the site itself. However, we can express that the power generation cost surpasses
the heat generation cost with the same energy capacity. Hence, the provision of
power from national and local networks or producing it inside the site, in addition
to imposing a high capital cost, increases fuel consumption and the rate of pollutants
having roots in the Total Site processes.
Here, we can refer to one of the most important potentials of a Total Site. The
development of a joint heat network, generation of heat at high temperature and
pressure, and heat consumption at low temperature pave the way for employing
pressure-reducing equipment such as steam turbines rather than the ones that destroy
steam exergy. Thus, by decreasing steam pressure and setting it to the desired rate
of every consumer, we can generate power through the existing energy in the steam
96 M. Karbasioun et al.

of higher quality. This kind of power and heat generation is called power and heat
cogeneration due to the commonality of the consumed fuel, reducing the costs of a
Total Site and increasing its efficiency.
Among important features of the cogeneration systems are having consumption-
based flexibility in their capacity rate, needing repairs in the unit, and changing the
capacities of other units. Furthermore, another advantage of cogeneration systems is
the entry and exit of power to the system. This enables us to sell the excess power of
a Total Site to the distribution or local networks or supply the requisite power from
the national or local networks when it lacks.
Two approaches are examined to designing a heat network and generating the
power of a Total Site. The first approach, known as the grass roots, is to optimally
design a heat network and cogeneration system for a Total Site assuming that this
system does not exist in the Total Site. The second, known as the retrofit approach,
deals with modifying the heat network and cogeneration system present in the Total
Site. This chapter suffices to explain the grassroots approach to present a designing
method for a cogeneration system in a Total Site.
Concerning optimizing the process units, the following section deals with
technology introduction and pinch analysis, as well as fuel consumption and power
generation targeting in a Total Site. Afterward, it discusses the instruments needed
for evaluating the efficiency and designing a Total Site and explains the designing
of cooling and desalter systems and their integration in a Total Site.

4.7 What Is Pinch Analysis?

One of the conventional methods for conducting integration in heat networks is to

employ pinch technology. This method was introduced by Linhoff in 1993 [11]. The
introduced tools in this method help recognize thermal flows, increase recovery, and
reduce fuel consumption. Pinch analysis is currently the most widely used process
integration approach in the industry. As it has certain limitations as also all other
approaches (pure heuristic-based, insights-based, optimization-based, and hybrid
approaches combining heuristics, thermodynamics, and/or optimization), it has been
beneficial to combine various approaches in a way to take the best from each of them
[3, 7].
For the design and integration of a heat network, the processes posed in a site
are first identified, as shown in Fig. 4.6. Then, every process flow that needs heat
exchange is specified, and the rate of exchangeable heat and its transfer direction is
determined. Next, after the exchangeable heat among the process flows is specified,
the minimum allowable temperature is determined for the transfer of heat among
flows by considering the intra-unit exchangers’ structures and the economy of a
process unit.
Next, the minimum heating and cooling consumptions of a system are deter-
mined by the problem table. Later, via analytical-graphical tools of grand composite
curve (GCC), the hot and cold flows are delineated compositely by considering the
4 Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through Total Site. . . 97

Fig. 4.6 Process flows in the flow diagram map (PFD) of a process unit

constraints related to the allowable heat transfer or pinch temperatures. Another

analytical-graphical instrument, called composite curve (CC), wherein hot and cold
flows are drawn separately by considering the minimum allowable heat transfer
temperature, is used. Accordingly, the heat recovery potentials in the system are
identified, and the interaction manner of the components of the process industries
with existent flows is determined in the considered industry. Figure 4.7 shows an
example of a composite curve.
The purpose of using the pinch technology in designing a process unit is to reduce
heat exchanger costs by optimally designing or modifying a heat exchange network
and increasing heat recovery among the unit flows. Various instruments are used
for analyzing a site by pinch analysis; however, since designing a service-providing
unit and a Total Site necessitates dominance over the pinch analysis rules, the next
part of the chapter reviews these rules.

4.7.1 Targeting Steam Consumption and Generation

As mentioned in the previous section about cogeneration systems, after extracting

the flow data related to every process inside a process unit, we can study the targeting
of the utility generation and consumption in a Total Site in two ways. The first
method is to draw the Total Site composite curve (TSCC) for all units together and
98 M. Karbasioun et al.

Fig. 4.7 An example of a composite curve

target the heating and cooling services in this site. The second method is to draw
the site composite curve (SCC) separately for every site and aggregate the targeting
accomplished for the heating services [7].
As Khoshgoftar Manesh et al. [12] clarify in their study, separate targeting
of every site often displays the consumption of fuel and heating and cooling
services higher or equal to the targeting in the TSCC drawing condition. However,
the important point in this relation is disregarding the existing constraints in the
targeting based on the TSCC graph. The reason is the accumulation of the present
flows in every thermal range, leading to the aggregation of even two spatially far
flows and their simultaneous generation and consumption targeting. For example, if
generation targeting is based on the aggregation of two flows, the generation of a
heating service may practically be fulfilled by the flows of two distant units, which
may be impossible.
The methods for drawing the TSCC and SCC graphs are similar. The mere
difference is that the method is used for all units of a Total Site in TSCC designing,
and a single graph is developed for a Total Site, while, in the SCC method, the
drawing process is implemented separately for every site, and the SCC graph of that
site is delineated. Hence, for every process unit in a site, an SCC graph is drawn,
and all SCC graphs are aggregated for the TSCC graph production.
4 Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through Total Site. . . 99

4.7.1.1 Drawing and Analyzing TSCC and SCC Graphs

To draw TSCC and SCC graphs, we have to exploit the GCC or CC tools in pinch
technology. Since the present study aims to present a designing method, it needs
to use the GCC graph for designing based on the explanations posed in the pinch
analysis section when optimizing a heating system.
After extracting the data of the flows in a unit, solving the problem table
associated with that unit, and drawing the GCC graph, we first specify all possible
recoveries in a site according to the GCC graph of that site. Next to considering
all possible recoveries, we omit the recovered flows from the GCC graph. The
noticeable point respecting recovery is the presence of large energy pockets in the
GCC graph. Based on the explained principles in the pinch analysis section, similar
to Fig. 4.8, we have to heed the generation and consumption targeting of heating
services according to the temperatures of the regarded services and remove other
remaining parts from the graph for recovery.
All cold and hot flows are separated after thermal recoveries. All temperatures
of the hot flows in GCC are transferred in the negative direction as much as half
of the minimum allowable temperature difference. It means that hot flows are
transferred in a negative direction at their real temperatures as much as half of
the allowable temperature difference. Likewise, all cold flows are transferred in a
positive direction in the same size. The reason for this topic is the use of the real
temperature of the heating and cooling services and observance of the minimum
allowable temperature difference between exchangers at the time of generation and
consumption targeting of the heating and cooling services considered in the Total
Site of a unit.
After transferring the temperatures of the flows in positive and negative direc-
tions, we should draw cold flows at the right side of the vertical axis of the SCC
graph and hot flows at the left side of the vertical axis of this graph. The horizontal
axis of the SCC graph shows enthalpy, and the vertical axis depicts temperature.
Thus, hot flows are drawn in negative enthalpies, and cold flows are drawn in
positive enthalpies. The reason is that the thermal capacity of the hot flows is
considered negative in the SCC graph. Figure 4.9 illustrates an example of an SCC
graph.
Now, to draw the TSCC graph, we have to implement this process for all existing
units. Thus, we first draw the GCC graph of all units. Then, after carrying out the
available recoveries of every unit, similar to Fig. 4.9, separating hot and cold flows
from each other, and transferring the real temperatures of the flows as much as half
of the minimum value of the allowable temperature difference in every unit, we add
them up in every thermal range in teams of their thermal capacity. The noticeable
point in the formation of the TSCC graph is the possibility of varying the value of
minimum allowable temperature difference in every site compared to others.
Hence, a site’s hot and cold flows are transferred in relation to the minimum
value of the allowable temperature difference of that site, and then their thermal
capacities are added in every thermal range.
100 M. Karbasioun et al.

Fig. 4.8 Heat recovery in large pockets

4 Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through Total Site. . . 101

Fig. 4.9 Site composite curve for a sample site

4.7.1.2 Targeting the Generation and Consumption of Heating

and Cooling Services Using SCC and TSCC Graphs

The most important application of the SCC and TSCC graphs is to target the
generation and consumption of the utilities required for a unit and Total Site. As
mentioned at the first of chapter, the most significant heating service valuable
for heat transference between the flows of a Total Site or power generation from
this site is aqueous water at various temperatures. In the present study, the sole
heating service used for designing a Total Site is also aqueous water at various
temperatures. The generation and consumption of aqueous water were targeted at
saturation temperature in the past. This method lacked the necessary accuracy for
determining the rate of the produced aqueous water and the final consumed fuel.
In 2015, Sun [20] introduced a modified method for targeting the rate of generated
and consumed steam. In this new method, the boiler feedwater preheats, the phasic
change from saturated liquid to saturated steam, and steam preheat are considered at
targeting time. However, for computational simplicity and acceleration in targeting,
the thermal capacity of steam is also considered constant.
Furthermore, during the targeting of cooling and heating services in the SCC and
TSCC graphs, it should be remembered that the real temperatures of the cooling and
102 M. Karbasioun et al.

heating services should be employed, and the temperatures of these services should
not be transferred.

4.7.1.3 Targeting Steam Generation via SCC and TSCC Graphs

To target the generation of steam by the excess heat of the Total Site, we should first
identify the pressures required for the generation and consumption of the heating
steam service and then specify the input water temperature and its superheated
temperature per pressure. The important point is the selection of the highest pressure
and superheated temperature, determined according to hardware limitations in terms
of equipment such as a boiler in the system. Other water pressures, except for being
generated by the boiler, heat recovery in that pressure, or use of heat recovery steam
generator in gas turbines, are produced by the steam with the highest pressure and
pressure-reducing equipment.
To embark on targeting steam generation in the SCC and TSCC graphs, we have
to choose the steam of consideration based on the highest temperature of the graph’s
hot flows and then specify and draw the magnitude of the produced mass of steam
using try and error. To determine the steam points, we specify the contact point
upon the hot flows’ graph at the boiler feedwater temperature. Later, by using try
and error regarding the generated mass, other contact points are identified based on
their temperatures and enthalpies. The target of steam generation is to maximize
generation mass. After targeting steam generation at a single pressure, we can also
examine the steam generation in other pressures using the reminiscent of the hot
flows’ graph. To discharge the thermal load of the flows at temperatures lower than
the boiler feedwater at its minimum pressure, we should exploit cooling water,
air, or refrigeration systems at temperatures below the environment. Figure 4.10
shows examples of steam generation targeting in a saturated condition irrespective
of the preheated boiler water and superheated steam, and Fig. 4.11 displays steam
generation targeting regarding the preheated boiler water and superheated steam.
As observed, steam generation targeting in a saturated condition reveals a larger
rate of generated mass flow compared to the other condition.

4.7.1.4 TSCC and SCC Targeting of the Consumption of Heating Services

Using Graphs

Cold flows need heat; thus, steam consumption targeting, as a heat transfer factor, is
another purpose of using the TSCC and SCC graphs in a unit or Total Site. Targeting
steam consumption is not as simple as targeting steam generation. It is because of
the presence of various entries for the losses of steam transfer per pressure. In a
cogeneration network, different components such as the passing flow of the top-
down loss, steam turbine inputs, steam inputs produced by the processes, boiler
input, and heat recovery steam generator in that pressure and other inputs enter
the head, and every one of them differs in its enthalpy and entrance temperature
4 Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through Total Site. . . 103

Fig. 4.10 Targeting steam generation and consumption by not preheating the boiler water and
superheating the steam

at a similar pressure. Hence, every loss’ enthalpy magnitude and temperature are
determined with respect to the mixed enthalpy of the input flows per loss. Therefore,
depending on the mass flow imported by every input, the temperature of the losses
differs, and the consumption is targeted based on the existing temperature. For
network analysis in terms of consumption, it is necessary to perform several try
and error or numerical computations in every system condition.
Another intricacy of the consumption targeting relates to the aqueous water
conditions regarding heat transfer with the system’s cold flows. As shown in Fig.
4.10, steam consumption was targeted in a saturated condition in the past. However,
Sun et al. also modified the type of steam consumption targeting and examined it
in several conditions. On the consumption side, each steam can exchange heat with
cold flows in four conditions:
• By considering the superheated, saturated, and subcooling parts of the aqueous
water
• By considering the superheated and saturated parts of the aqueous water
• By considering the saturated and subcooling parts of the aqueous water
• By considering the mere saturated part of the aqueous water
104 M. Karbasioun et al.

Fig. 4.11 Targeting steam generation and consumption by preheating water and superheating
steam

After steam consumption targeting, the remaining cold water is supplied by the
highest steam pressure directly obtained via heat transfer to the boiler-entering
water. Likewise, the other targeted consumption steam is integrated; the rate of the
generation steam, targeted from the graph, is subtracted from the consumption rate;
and the minimum rate of consumption fuel is estimated in a full recovery condition.
Sun targeted the steam consumption, power generation by a cogeneration system,
fuel consumption, and mass flow rate passing from the passage port between two
losses in different scenarios and in two decomposed and integrated conditions for a
model site by considering heat transfer between the steam and cold flows of a site.
Table 4.1 displays the results of their investigation. As the table shows, the best kind
of heat transfer for the decomposed and integrated conditions is considering the
superheated and saturation conditions and disregarding the heat transfer condition
for condensed steam. The reason is the addition of the compensating water to the
deaerator for the purpose of making up the reduced condensed steam return to the
deaerator, needing to be heated by direct heat transfer from the inlet temperature to
the saturation point. On the other hand, due to the upsurge of the mass flow rate of
the condensed steam in the network, the loss rate of the system increases after the
steam fulfills its heating responsibilities within the network.
4 Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through Total Site. . . 105

Table 4.1 Targeting heat and power in Sun et al. research [20]
Power generation
Boiler flow rate Letdown flow rate Power generation per unit boiler
Unit [kg. s−1 ] [kg. s−1 ] [MW] [MW. kg−1 s]
Integrated Superheated steam use + condensate heat recovery
options
50.29 3.6 20.83 0.414
Superheated steam use + condensate heat recovery
49.95 3.9 22.68 0.454
Superheated steam use + condensate heat recovery
52.66 3.3 21.35 0.405
Superheated steam use + condensate heat recovery
52.06 3.7 23.10 0.444
Decomposed Superheated steam use + condensate heat recovery
options
53.35 3.1 21.48 0.403
Superheated steam use + condensate heat recovery
53.25 2.8 23.18 0.435
Superheated steam use + condensate heat recovery
55.95 2.8 21.84 0.390
Superheated steam use + condensate heat recovery
55.48 2.6 23.68 0.427

4.8 Cogeneration System

Targeting fuel consumption in cogeneration systems based on the generation and

consumption of heating and cooling services cannot render a true picture of
fuel consumption in a cogeneration system. It is because the power generation
components and their effects are neglected in system targeting.
Therefore, for the targeting of a cogeneration system, suitable models are needed
for modeling the components of a cogeneration system.

4.8.1 Modeling Heat and Power Components

Since all power and heat components do not have ideal efficiency in every condition,
we need to accurately model a system’s components and consider its efficiency
variations owing to the changes in the heat load and mass flow of the system
to obtain a proper picture of a cogeneration system. This section deals with
modeling power components, including steam turbines, gas turbines, as well as heat
components, such as boilers and heat recovery steam generators.
106 M. Karbasioun et al.

4.8.1.1 Modeling Steam Turbine

The steam turbine is the most paramount component of power generation in a

cogeneration system. Steam turbines fall into different categories, the most prevalent
of which are associated with the kind of turbine and the number of its outlets. Steam
turbines have two condensing and back-pressure kinds in terms of the type of output
pressure. In a condensing turbine, the output carries a trivial value of the steam
mass fraction while it changes into a saturated liquid in the ideal condition. These
turbines can have more than one input and output and are called extraction and
induction turbines, respectively. Figure 4.12 shows the different kinds of extraction
and induction turbines.
Equation (4.1) can be used to calculate the passing flow through each turbine
where ṁ is in [kg. s−1 ]. The efficiency of the steam turbine changes according to the
designing and passing mass flow rate. The maximum efficiency of a steam turbine
happens when its mass flow is maximal.
 
ṁlevel i = ṁsteam turbine,input − ṁj,output + ṁj,input (4.1)
j <i j <i

Fig. 4.12 (a) Extraction steam turbine, (b) induction steam turbine
4 Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through Total Site. . . 107

In a design of a steam network, the efficiency variations of the steam turbine are
extremely influential and lead to a change in the efficiency of the whole network.
Thus, the design of a cogeneration network needs more accurate modeling of the
steam turbine based on the mass flow variations.
In 2004, Varbanov et al. [21] used an Eq. (4.2), known as the Willan line equation,
to present an equation for modeling the variable efficiency of the steam turbine.
The Willan line equation is used as a linear model for modeling steam turbines
and can show the behavior of efficiency changes and generation power of the steam
turbine according to the mass flow variations.

W = nm − WINT (4.2)

In this equation, W is in [kW], and WINT [kW] is the intercept of the fitted line
on the efficiency points of the steam turbine, and its value is calculated according to
Eq. (4.3). Likewise, n shows the graph slope of the Willan line and is calculated by
Eq. (4.4).
c
WINT = (mmax H IS − b) (4.3)
a

(1 + c) b
n= H IS − (4.4)
a mmax

In 2015, Sun and Smith [19] updated the a, b, and c coefficients by investigating
the data of 70 back-pressure turbines with 1–35 MW sizes in 214 operational
conditions, between 40% and 100% loading, and 104 condensing turbines with 8–
60 MW sizes in 335 operational conditions between 40% and 100% loading.
According to the obtained coefficients, the developed model has a maximum of
2.71% of the mean error in the equation to its real magnitude. The constants of the
Willan line equation for a steam turbine can be computed by Eqs. (4.5), (4.6), and
(4.7). The constant coefficients are listed in Table 4.2.

a = a1 + a2 Pin + a3 Pout (4.5)

b = b1 + b2 Pin + b3 Pout (4.6)

c = c1 + c2 Pin + c3 Pout (4.7)

The isentropic efficiency of the steam turbine is also computed based on Eq.
(4.8), where H is enthalpy in [kJ]. Thus, having the steam turbine’s mechanical
efficiency, whose value is often considered at 97% to 99% at hand, we can compute
the isentropic efficiency of the steam turbine based on Eq. (4.9).
108 M. Karbasioun et al.

Table 4.2 Coefficients of Constants Back-pressure turbines Condensing turbine

Willan line equation for
simulating a steam turbine a1 1.1880 1.3150
[19] a2 −2.9564 × 10−4 −1.6347 × 10−3
a3 4.6473 × 10–3 −0.36798
b1 449.98 −437.77
b2 5.6702 29.007
b3 −11.505 10.359
c1 0.20515 7.8863 × 10−2
c2 −6.9517 × 10−4 5.2833 × 10−4
c3 2.8446 × 10−3 −0.70315

Hin − Hout H
ηIS = = (4.8)
Hin − HIS H IS

H W nm − WINT
ηIS = = = (4.9)
H IS ηMECH mH IS ηMECH mH IS

Furthermore, the efficiency of the steam turbine can be shown by the use of Eqs.
(4.10) and (4.11), where m unit is [kg. s−1 ].

H W W
ηST = = = (4.10)
H IS WIS mH IS

ηST = ηMECH ηIS (4.11)

The output enthalpy of the steam turbine can also be calculated by Eq. (4.12).

W
Hout = Hin − (4.12)
ηMECH m

In 1985, according to data of the available turbines, Peterson and Man revealed
that the efficiency of the turbines operating in their maximum possible loading
enhances as the input pressure turbine power rise provided that the output pressure
is constant. Varbanov et al. also showed that a linear relationship was established
between the shaft and isentropic powers of turbines with different sizes when
they operate in their maximum loading. Equation (4.13) is established between the
maximum isentropic power and shaft power of a turbine in its maximum loading in
[kW].

WIS,max = aWmax + b (4.13)

Accordingly, we can explain the efficiency of the steam turbine in its maximum
loading as Eq. (4.14).
4 Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through Total Site. . . 109

1
ηST,max = (4.14)
a+ b
Wmax

This equation is used for designing a turbine. Moreover, we can also explain the
efficiency of a steam turbine as Eq. (4.15) in case the steam turbine-passing mass
flow is known instead of the required power. This equation discloses the efficiency
of a steam turbine based on the maximum mass flow passing the steam turbine.

1 b
ηST,max = 1− (4.15)
a mmax H IS

A very important point in modeling a steam turbine by the Willan line method is
that the changes in the output enthalpy of the turbine in every stage accord with the
output loss enthalpy connected to it. This variation is most significant in simulating
extraction turbines since the input enthalpy to other parts of the turbine varies due
to the changes in the output enthalpy of the preceding parts. To model an extraction
steam turbine, we should first guess an enthalpy for the output of a steam turbine
and then modify the guessed enthalpy by try and error and compute the generation
power by the remaining parts of the turbine.

4.8.1.2 Modeling a Gas Turbine

Similar to a steam turbine, a gas turbine has variable efficiency proportionate to

loading on it. Varbanov et al. modeled a gas turbine linearly using Willan line.
Moreover, several models have been introduced by other scholars for modeling a
gas turbine. However, this study employs the model introduced by Maninand and
Zhou [13] due to the lack of documentable information from the manufacturers of
gas turbines. It is worth mentioning that the data of the mentioned model enjoys
acceptable conformity with the results of the explained model in the nominal power
condition.
For industrial and aerodynamic gas turbines applied in the aerospace industry,
Maninand and Zhou presented some equations to explain fuel consumption accord-
ing to the turbine power, the ratio of power to the mass passing and exiting from the
turbine, and the output temperature of the gas turbine. To investigate and target the
rate of generation power of a gas turbine, by having the magnitude of the required
steam at hand, we first guess the primary mass is exiting the gas turbine. The
nominal power for the flow passing from a gas turbine is computed by Eq. (4.16).
Then, the magnitude of the temperature of output gases in [K] is also estimated by
Eq. (4.17).

Mex
WGT = (4.16)
2.9
110 M. Karbasioun et al.

Tex = 0.4 × WGT + 493.42 (4.17)

Afterward, by possessing the temperature of the acidic point of output gases

(Tadp ), the temperature of the output gases of the turbine, the specific heat of the
output gases, the temperature of the input and output gases of the heat recovery
steam generator, and steam mass targeted for the steam header, we can examine the
rate of the required generation and consumption heat using Eqs. (4.18) and (4.19)
and modify the gas turbine in case of mass inequality. This process continues until
the generation and consumption of heat become equivalent where Q and h are in
[kW] and [kJ. kg−1 ], respectively.
 
QHRSG = Mex CP,ex Tex − Tadp (4.18)

 
QSteam = MSteam,out hSteam,out − hBFW (4.19)

According to Eq. (4.20), the magnitude of the specific heat can be estimated for
a large number of fuels and in an acceptable thermal range [18].
◦
CP,ex = 1.1 kJ · kg · C−1 (4.20)

4.8.1.3 Modeling a Boiler

The most applied equipment used in the process industries for the supply of the
heat needed by the processes is boilers and furnaces. Similar to steam turbines,
boilers have variable efficiency in heat loadings. Thus, the selection of a suitable
boiler according to the heat load variations in a cogeneration network is one of the
most important decision variables under investigation. Figure 4.13 illustrates the
schematic view of a sample boiler.
In a boiler, there is a tributary flow called the blowdown flow, which is used for
venting precipitations and reminiscent of the previous flows of the boiler. This flow,
which exits the boiler by its controller, is saturated. The ratio of the output tributary
flow to the output steam flow of a boiler is called the blowdown rate. This rate is 5–
10% for low-pressure boilers, 2–5% for high-pressure boilers, and <2% for boilers
with extremely high pressure and net input.
The calorific value of a fuel is calculated based on the net calorific value (NCV)
or gross calorific value (GCV). GCV is the rate of heat released from a certain
amount of fuel in full combustion, at a standard temperature (15–25 ◦ C), and at
standard pressure (1.01325 bar), such that water is in a primary condition and fuel
products take liquid forms. NCV resembles GCV, and it is assumed that the latent
heat of the aqueous water is not recoverable, and water takes a steam form initially
and in combustion products. The NCV and GCV equations can be explained as Eq.
(4.21).
4 Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through Total Site. . . 111

TExhaust

Boiler
Feedwater
TBF
Casing Heat Losses

TSuperhetead

Fuel
TBlowdown

Fig. 4.13 Schematic view of a boiler

NCV = GCV − mCOND HVAP (4.21)

The rate of input heat to a boiler can be estimated by Eq. (4.22), wherein GCV
[MJ. kg−1 ] can be used instead of NCV [MJ. kg−1 ] for the heat transfer rate.

QINPUT = mFUEL NCV (4.22)

Some part of the boiler-entering heat is used for water evaporation, and another
part is introduced as losses. In Fig. 4.14, we can observe the consumption of the
input heat to the boiler on the enthalpy-temperature graph.
The efficiency of a boiler indicates the rate of useful energy consumed from the
fuel in a boiler and is explained as Eq. (4.23).

QOUTPUT mSTEAM (HSTEAM − HBFW )

ηBoiler = = (4.23)
QINPUT mFUEL NCV

In a boiler, the useful energy of the fuel is used for evaporating the boiler
feedwater until the considered steam temperature. Meanwhile, we can depict the
efficiency of a boiler as Eq. (4.24) according to the rate of its losses.

QLOSS
ηBoiler = 1 − (4.24)
QINPUT
112 M. Karbasioun et al.

Fig. 4.14 The enthalpy-temperature graph of a boiler

The considerable point about the efficiency of boilers is their variability vis-à-
vis the rate of steam generation. Thus, the efficiency is also considered variable
according to the mass flow of the generated steam for boilers. Two kinds of
maximum loading are heeded for a boiler [18]:
• Maximum continuous rating (MCR) when the boiler operates continuously; a
boiler can operate above the MCR point in a short temporal period.
• Economic continuous rating (ECR) is considered as the maximum point of the
boiler. ECR can be heeded as 0.6 to 0.8 of the MCR value. The best possible
value for ECR equals 0.8 of the MCR value.
The fuel consumption of a boiler with constant efficiency can be calculated by
Eq. (4.25).

1
QFuel = · mSteam · hSteam (4.25)
ηBoiler

Concerning model, a boiler based on variable loading, Shang [17] presented

the modified equation of fuel consumption as Eq. (4.26) where RBD is the boiler
discharge flow to the output flow ratio.
4 Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through Total Site. . . 113

QFuel = Q Steam

HSteam mSteam  ηBoiler 

= ηBoiler HSteam (bBoiler + 1) mSteam + aBoiler mSteam,MAX (4.26)
+ RBD · mSteam · hpre

Moreover, based on the presented equation, we can use Eq. (4.27) to calculate the
boiler efficiency in a variable loading condition where RPH is the steam preheater
enthalpy to steam enthalpy ratio [21].
mSteam,0
ηBoiler = (4.27)
aBoiler + mSteam,0 · (bboiler + 1) + RPH · RBD · mSteam,0

And
mSteam
mSteam,0 = (4.28)
mSteam,max

hpre
RPH = (4.29)
hSteam

Coefficients a and b are determined for every boiler according to the type of its
design, efficiency, and maintenance. However, Shang considered the proposed value
of the coefficients for modeling the variable efficiency in a boiler as Eq. (4.30) [10].

aBoiler = 0.0126
(4.30)
bBoiler = 0.2156

4.8.1.4 Modeling Letdown Station of a Header

The presence of a letdown station between two steam headers is among the
exigencies of designing a steam network. Although we can import all the mass
that passes from a header to another to steam turbines to generate power, we can
never zero the rate of mass passing from every letdown station. It is because of
the importance of superheated steam inside every header. Due to the presence of
pressure drops in tubes within headers, a small amount of steam can condense
into liquid and thus destroy the turbine after its entrance. Hence, the temperature
of headers should always be 10–20 degrees superheated for the preclusion of this
event. Thus, to conserve this constraint for all headers, the steam passing the letdown
station between two headers cannot be zero. Due to the existence of a pressure
difference between the two headers, there is a pressure-reducing valve. Moreover,
before the entrance of the flow to the pressure-reducing valve, we can import a
desuperheater, which is actually the boiler feedwater, with a control valve to reduce
the steam temperature. In Fig. 4.15, we can observe the scheme of a sample letdown
station without a desuperheater.
114 M. Karbasioun et al.

Fig. 4.15 Scheme of a

sample letdown station

Equation (4.31) can be used for modeling a letdown station.

ṁInput = ṁOutput
(4.31)
hInput = hOutput

4.8.2 Targeting a Cogeneration System

As described in Sun et al. [20] and Ren et al. [16], it is important to target the
cogeneration potential of utility systems in the process of designing or retrofitting
Total Site utility systems. To target the minimum fuel consumption, maximum
power generation potential, and thermodynamic properties of every steam header
in a cogeneration system, we need to access suitable models for designing a
steam network and cogeneration system. Afterward, the steam headers’ pressure,
superheated temperature, boiler feedwater temperature in that pressure, and ideal
or primary efficiencies are considered. Since targeting using ideal efficiency is too
far from reality, we estimate steam turbine efficiency more accurately using the
equations presented in the steam turbine modeling section instead of considering
ideal efficiency to increase targeting precision. After entertaining the input assump-
tions, we should develop a network of turbines, similar to Fig. 4.16 or Fig. 4.17,
in combination with letdown stations between headers. Thus, we consider steam
generators and consumers to obtain the maximum power generation potential of the
network and fuel consumption.
After developing the network, we maximize the mass passing rate through
every turbine and consider the rate of mass passing the letdowns between two
headers at zero. For fuel consumption targeting, the power generation potential
should be examined in a condition wherein the power generation network operates
appropriately. For this purpose, the mass variations in every header should be
4 Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through Total Site. . . 115

Fig. 4.16 Targeting network of a cogeneration system regardless of a condenser turbine

adjusted to its superheating rate, so the moisture formation owing to pressure drop in
tubes is prevented. Moisture destroys the blades of turbines. Thus, if the last header
is superheated, the superheating of other headers is also guaranteed. Hence, as the
targeting constraints of a power generation network, we consider that the last header
is superheated (10–20 degrees over the saturation temperature) or the specific mass
fraction is about 10% of the steam mass fraction in the header of the saturated water.
Then, the mass rate calculation passing the turbine starts from the last header. This
mass can be estimated by the header-surrounding mass balance, similar to Eq. (4.32)
in every header targeting.
 
ṁTurbine + ṁLetdown Station + ṁSteam Generation − ṁSteam Use = 0 (4.32)

When the generation and consumption rates are known in a header, we can obtain
the rate of turbine-passing mass using the mass balance around the header with
lower pressure. Using the energy balance around the header with lower pressure,
according to Eq. (4.33), we determine the rate of enthalpy exiting the turbine and
entering the header with lower pressure. The enthalpy of the header with lower
116 M. Karbasioun et al.

Fig. 4.17 Targeting network of a cogeneration system by regarding a condenser turbine

pressure at given pressure and temperature is obtained from previous stages or its
targeting assumption.

hTurbine,input ṁTurbine,input + hLetdown Station,input ṁLetdown Station,input

+ hSteam Generation ṁSteam Generation
 
= hheader ṁSteam Generation + ṁTurbine,input + ṁLetdown Station,input
(4.33)

We can compute the maximum efficiency of the turbine by accessing the header
enthalpy entering the steam turbine, according to Eq. (4.15), and the mass flow of
4 Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through Total Site. . . 117

the steam passing through the steam turbine. Next, we use Eq. (4.12) to calculate
the rates of the steam turbine-exiting enthalpy and generation power of the steam
turbine.
To estimate the enthalpy of the unknown header, we can use numerical methods
and conjectures for the initial rate of enthalpy and modify it until it equals the output
header enthalpy. We can also estimate its temperature by having the enthalpy and
pressure of the unknown header. Then, the steam consumption targeting should be
repeated, so the new steam generation rate is acquired according to the new header
temperature. This process continues until all conditions of headers are observed.
After calculating steam temperature in the header with the highest pressure, we
should modify the primary steam temperature, allow the passage of less mass flow
from the turbines, and maintain some part of it for the header output letdowns if
the temperature exceeds the bearable temperature, which should be about <600 ◦ C,
for a steam distribution system. Accordingly, we observe the term of superheating
headers by injecting steam directly from high-pressure headers. This process should
continue by try and error until all system constraints are observed. We can see Fig.
4.18 depicts the targeting process briefly.

4.9 Criteria for Design and Optimization of the Total Site

Utility System

According to the subjects presented in the last sections, selecting the most optimal
cogeneration system in terms of its structure and efficiency needs some criteria
for system evaluation. This section introduces some criteria for the design and
optimization of the Total Site utility system.

4.9.1 Evaluating Cogeneration Systems

The essential criterion in optimizing a cogeneration system is that the system should
be economical besides supplying the anticipated needs of the system. The efficiency
of a system can be opted for as a criterion for its selection. However, system
efficiency, by itself, cannot suffice the selection of the most optimal system or the
most optimal condition of the existing system. For example, several fuels may be
present in some systems, leading to lower efficiency due to their lower calorific value
while optimizing the system economy more. Likewise, optimal fuel consumption
is related to the better efficiency of a system. However, in some systems, newer
technologies, which raise system costs, are employed for increasing efficiency.
The efficiency of a cogeneration system can be explained by Eq. (4.34) [8, 10].
118 M. Karbasioun et al.

Fig. 4.18 Algorithm for targeting steam network

4 Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through Total Site. . . 119

Fig. 4.19 R-curve graph for a power generation network

WSite + QSite
ηCogen = (4.34)
QFuel

In this equation, Qfuel refers to the consumed fuel of the service-provider unit.
It includes both the fuel consumed for heat generation and the one used for
power generation. Furthermore, all heat recoveries within the system are thermally
integrated as a fuel with other system-entering fuels.
To determine the most optimal structure in terms of the system components’
arrangement, we can utilize another criterion, namely, the R-curve graph. In this
graph, shown in Fig. 4.19, the R-value is obtained by Eq. (4.35).

WSite
RSite = (4.35)
QSite

To draw this graph, we assume that the input and generated power needed by the
site equals zero. Then, the R-value rises with an increase in the workload needed
by the site. The system efficiency equals the thermal efficiency of the system at first
when power is zero. Thereafter, we can raise the system efficiency to its maximum
by increasing R and employing the full potential of steam for power generation.
This efficiency is achieved due to the full recovery and use of steam potential in
the system. In this condition, the R-value is called RPinch since heat recovery is at
its maximum level. Next, an increase in the site power demand leads to further fuel
injection for power generation.
The considerable point regarding the use of R-curve is the designation of
the point of getting electricity from the local or national distribution network. If
measured economically, the importation of electricity from the national network is
120 M. Karbasioun et al.

Fig. 4.20 R-curve graph for comparing different structures to supply the required power of the
site

cost-effective when the utilization of the national network electricity is cheaper than
electricity generation at the Total Site location in terms of expenses. Other reasons,
strategical approach to power generation, risk appetite, and other relevant noneco-
nomic reasons can economize electricity generation at the site location. However,
the importation of electricity from the national network is cost-effective when the
cogeneration efficiency in the site equals the efficiency of power generation in the
national electricity distribution network.
Figure 4.20 compares different structures for supplying the site’s excess power
in relation to the RPinch condition. Accordingly, we can do as Fig. 4.20 for selecting
the optimal structure of a considered cogeneration system to supply the requisite
excess power [8].

4.9.2 Evaluating and Modeling the System Economically

The most important target respecting designing a Total Site and supplying the
expected need is its analysis and optimization with an economic approach. Some
factors, such as being strategic politically and martially besides other noneconomic
factors, can blur the economic factors. However, designing a system, it is ultimately
its economy that forms an important factor after need supply. In designing a
4 Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through Total Site. . . 121

Total Site, the economy can be reckoned as the most significant factor in system
optimization due to the efficiency variability of heat and power generation and
other system conditions. The present study also adopts an economical approach to
investigate the posed theory in targeting heat and power generation and refrigeration
systems.
The economic objective function in this research is the total annualized cost
(TAC). Based on this objective function, the whole equipment prices spent for
the network and its efficiency and maintenance in a year are equalized. Then, a
minimization of the value of the economic objective function is needed for network
optimization.
The costs of the network equipment constitute the following cases in the present
study:
• Back-pressure steam turbines
• Condensing steam turbines
• Gas turbine package
• Heat recovery steam generator
• Generators applied in the refrigeration network, including the condenser, evapo-
rator, and intermediate coolers
• Boilers utilized in the network
• Deaerator cost
• Generator cost for electricity generation
For the total annualized price of the equipment used in network designing, we can
employ the total annualized factor (AF), shown in Eq. (4.36), and annualized capital
costs (ACC [m$]), in Eq. (4.37), to equalize the capital needed for all equipment
according to their efficiency longevity and interest rate where C is capital cost [m$]
[15].

IR × (1 + IR)n
AF = (4.36)
(1 + IR)n − 1


ACC = AF × CCComponents (4.37)

Likewise, to calculate and apply the maintenance cost (MC) to the system,
according to references, we can consider 6% of the equipment investment as the
annual maintenance costs. On the other hand, the cost of installing power equipment
equals 14% of the equipment costs according to reference.
Since the capital cost of equipment is not up to date in different references,
we can use the method presented in Baakeem et al. paper and apply Eq. (4.38)
to estimate the present prices of the equipment resorting to its base price in the past
and multiplying it by the price change index presented by varying references, like
Marshall and Swift [2], as a reference for measuring price changes. In this equation,
the α value differs for varying equipment; however, we can find it out using various
122 M. Karbasioun et al.

references. According to a general law, namely, the law of one-sixth, the value of α
is usually considered at 0.6.
α
Capacitynew
CCnew = CCbase CI (4.38)
Capacitybase

Where the CI value indicates the ratio of the price stated by some references,
such as Marshall and Swift, this value can be calculated by Eq. (4.39).

Cost index for required year

CI = (4.39)
Cost index for redrence year

The current expenses in the discussed network of a Total Site comprise the below
cases:
• The cost of consumed fuel
• The cost of supplying and refining consumed water
• The cost of the cooling water in the system
• The cost of the electricity purchased from the national network
• The cost of electricity sold to the national network
• The cost of the tax on the carbon produced by the burned fuel in the system
We can employ the equations presented by different references to estimate the
equipment prices of a cogeneration system.
We can also use Eq. (4.40) to calculate the rate of carbon produced by the fuel in a
cogeneration system and the rate of tax over the emitted carbon where GHG, EF, and
M are greenhouse gases [tCO2 . year−1 ], carbon emission factor per unit [tCO2 .t−1
fuel ],
and mass flow [t. h−1 ], respectively, and time is the number of hours the system
operates in a year. Moreover, the compensatory water of the system Wmakeup [t.
year−1 ] can be computed by Eq. (4.41), wherein Usteam [t. h−1 ] is the rate of steam
utilized by the existing processes of a Total Site and CRR and BR are condensate
return rate and vent rate, respectively.

GHG = Mfuel · EF fuel · time (4.40)

Wmakeup = Usteam · (1 − CRR + BR) · time (4.41)

After calculating the equipment prices, operating costs, and other expenses of the
system, we can use Eq. (4.42) to estimate the total annualized cost [m$] of a system
to exploit it as an optimization objective function.

TAC = AF × Capital Cost + Operating Cost + Maintenance Cost + Environmental Cost

(4.42)
4 Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through Total Site. . . 123

4.10 Refrigeration and Steam Network Coupling Through

Total Site Integration

The energies required by every process site include mechanical, electrical, heating,
and cooling energies. The cooling energy is, in fact, a kind of thermal energy with
a negative potential. Due to being emphasized in the present book, it is called
refrigeration.
Today, refrigeration networks and systems are extensively employed in many
process industries. Some or entire parts of many process industries operate below the
environment temperature and need refrigeration networks and systems to transfer
heat. Among the refrigeration network applications, we can refer to the processes
of liquidation and separation of gases (for instance, liquidation of natural gas,
separation of ethylene, and so forth.), gas condensations, crystallization of solids,
control of reactions, preservation of foods, and air conditioning.
Except for thermal, mechanical, and electrical energies that give rise to the
low to high costs, respectively, one of the most expensive consumed energies is
refrigeration. It is because refrigeration supply within the thermal range required
by the process industries needs complicated conditions and equipment. For the
supply of refrigeration, the temperature of the refrigerant is reduced by pressure-
reducing equipment. With a decrease in temperature, the refrigerant can absorb the
thermal energy from the heat source at temperatures significantly lower than the
environment temperature and give this heat to the environment or another flow, like
cooling water, using a compressor or absorption pressure-increasing cycles. The
supply of energy needed by compressors for pressure enhancement is very costly
in terms of investment and consumption. That is why the expenses of a process
industry with refrigeration networks and systems are very high. Thus, numerous
papers and studies have attempted to optimize energy consumption by refrigeration
networks and systems and design fewer consuming cycles; therefore, this topic has
been changed to a challenge in designing these industries. This chapter explains
some methods for targeting, designing, and evaluating power generation systems in
Total Sites.

4.10.1 Refrigeration Networks

The refrigeration cycle and system aim to create cooling below the environment
temperature. It is because it can supply cooling at temperatures equal to and above
the environment. Thermodynamically, a cooling cycle is in charge of taking heat
from the low-temperature heat source and transferring it to a high-temperature heat
sink, which can be a flow with a higher temperature, air, or cooling water. Heat
pumps also have structures similar to refrigeration systems. The mere difference is
that their target is to receive heat from a low-temperature source and transfer it to a
high-temperature one.
124 M. Karbasioun et al.

Fig. 4.21 Schematic view of a mechanical compression refrigeration cycle

Cooling cycles can be categorized into mechanical compression refrigeration,

absorption refrigeration, adsorption refrigeration, desiccant refrigeration, and steam
jet systems. Due to their ability to supply a wider range of temperatures lower than
the environment temperature and temperatures significantly below the environment,
mechanical compression refrigeration is used in low-temperature industries more.
Figure 4.21 shows a simple example of a compression cycle. As it is clear from
the figure, mechanical compression refrigeration consists of four main parts:
• An operator, which receives heat from a low-temperature heat source and
saturates the refrigerant
• A compressor, which raises the pressure of the refrigerant from the pressures of
the operator and condenser
• A condenser, which decreases the temperature of the superheated refrigerant to
the saturated liquid condition
• An expansion valve, which reduces the pressure of the refrigerant to the pressure
of the operator
The refrigeration temperature and cooling rate are among the crucial factors in
designing a mechanical compression refrigeration cycle. The lower is the tempera-
ture of refrigeration, the higher is the ratio of pressure required by the compressor.
This increase raises the power consumption of the compressor. Likewise, as the
required cooling rate enhances, the amount of power consumed by the compressor
increases due to the upsurge of the mass flow of the refrigerant in the refrigeration
cycle. In low-temperature process industries, multistage or cascade cooling cycles
are exploited due to a reduction in refrigeration compressors’ consumed power or a
need for multistage cooling.
4 Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through Total Site. . . 125

4.10.2 Types of Mechanical Compression Refrigeration

Mechanical compression refrigeration cycles are themselves categorized into sev-

eral groups in terms of their cycle structures. The simplest type is a single-stage
refrigeration cycle, whose scheme is shown in Fig. 4.21. These cycles are suitable
for supplying cooling up to −40 ◦ C; however, more complex structures are used for
developing lower thermal or different ranges in a cooling cycle. Different structures
of the refrigeration cycle are as follows:
• Multistage mechanical compression refrigeration in combination with a separator
or economizer
• Multistage mechanical compression refrigeration in combination with a steam
cooler or pre-saturator
• Cascade mechanical compression refrigeration
• Integrated refrigeration
The schemes of multistage mechanical compression refrigeration cycles resem-
ble the scheme displayed in Fig. 4.22. As observed, these cycles consist of more
than a compressor and generate cooling in more than one pressure. In these cycles,
the refrigerant enters a separator after passing through an expansion valve. In this
stage, the separator separates the steam in the refrigerant and lets it move toward the
next pressure-reducing valve or operator while it is a saturated liquid.
An important point in designing these cycles is to reduce the operational work of
the compressor by venting the steam in the refrigerant passing through the pressure-

Fig. 4.22 Multistage mechanical compression refrigeration cycle, the pressure-enthalpy graph of
a multistage mechanical compression refrigeration cycle
126 M. Karbasioun et al.

reducing valve. Since the refrigerant’s steam is ineffective in absorbing heat from
low-temperature flow, it’s venting before it passes through the pressure-reducing
valve decreases the operational work of the lower-pressure compressor. That is
why the operation coefficient of these cycles increases. An approach to reducing
the operation consumption rate in multistage cycles with separators is to use an
intercooler, which reduces the temperature of the compressor-leaving refrigerant.
Thus, the operation rate required for the next-stage compressor declines due to
a decrease in temperature and an increase in the liquid phase in the refrigerant.
Furthermore, another benefit of these cycles is the exploitation of many generators
compared to the simple state. For example, the evaporation and boiling of the
refrigerant can accompany some problems in finned plate generators.
Another type of multistage cycle is the one in combination with a pre-saturator.
This cycle also operates with a separator. The difference is that the pre-saturator
acts differently in this cycle. Furthermore, the compressor output in every stage
enters the pre-saturator of the precedent stage. The superheated steam leaving a
low-pressure compressor enters the pre-saturator, contacts the refrigerant entering
from the pressure-reducing valve, and separates its pressure. Likewise, some part of
the compressor-exiting steam, taking a form of a saturated liquid, moves toward the
next pressure-reducing valve accompanied by the refrigerant. On the other hand,
unlike multistage cycles with separators, only saturated steam moves toward the
high-pressure compressor. This issue reduces the operation work of high-pressure
and low-pressure compressors.
Cascade cycles are among other complex types of refrigeration cycles. These
cycles are formed by the integration of several generation cycles of refrigeration.
The scheme of this cycle is shown in Fig. 4.23. The purpose of using these cycles
is the limitations of refrigerants in supplying large thermal ranges. Multistage
cycles are employed whenever cooling is needed at very low temperatures in low-
temperature process industries, and a refrigerant is incapable of supplying it. An
effective parameter introduced as the degree of freedom of cascade cycles is the
juncture temperature of them with the next cycle. This temperature, called partition
temperature, is obtained based on the temperature of the cycle operator with a higher
temperature.
Furthermore, to develop and fabricate refrigeration networks, we can obtain more
complex cycles and higher thermal ranges by combining different cycles [18].

4.10.3 Selecting a Refrigerant

In refrigeration cycles, selecting a suitable refrigerant is a key parameter after its

design in terms of the network structure. In respect to the selection of a suitable
refrigerant, it is essential to notice three properties of a refrigerant. The first
is its freezing point. A refrigerant cannot supply cooling at temperatures below
its freezing point. Thus, the operator’s temperature should be higher than the
refrigerant’s freezing point temperature, which should be examined in the operative
4 Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through Total Site. . . 127

Fig. 4.23 (a) Scheme of a cascade mechanical compression refrigeration cycle, (b) pressure-
enthalpy graph of a cascade mechanical compression refrigeration cycle

pressure of the operator. The second very crucial property in selecting a refrigerant is
its rate of latent heat. Increases in the rate of the latent heat of a refrigerant minimize
its need for mass flow to absorb heat from low-temperature flows owing to the
upsurge of its heat absorption capacity. Another influential parameter in selecting
a refrigerant is preventing vacuum pressure in the operator. For this purpose, the
refrigerant’s pressure should be above the atmospheric pressure at the operating
temperature to preclude effusion hazards. The scheme in Fig. 4.24 depicts thermal
ranges for the selection of a suitable refrigerant.
In selecting a suitable refrigerant, other general points should also be considered.
For example, it is being nonpoisonous, inflammable, and noncorrosive, as well as
enjoying low potentiality in global warming and destroying the ozone layer [18].
128 M. Karbasioun et al.

Fig. 4.24 Thermal ranges of common refrigerants for selecting the suitable refrigerant

4.10.4 Targeting and Modeling Refrigeration Systems

The most important target in modeling refrigeration systems is calculating and

estimating the rate of power consumed by a refrigeration system. Thus, different
methods have been developed for the modeling of these systems. In more accurate
methods, the presence of the initial structure of a refrigeration network is significant
to estimate or compute the network’s power. Hence, to investigate this theory, the
present study examines just a single kind of refrigeration system by considering its
structure. Modeling of refrigeration systems was introduced by Smith [18].
The modeling of a refrigeration system initially needs the system’s thermal
targeting in terms of cooling. This issue can be fulfilled by the GCC graph. To
this end, we can consider evaporation temperatures and condensation temperatures
as cold and hot utility in the GCC graph, respectively, similar to Fig. 4.25, and then
calculate the refrigeration load based on the heat surplus and deficit of streams of
the site.

4.11 Total Site Integration Approach for Coupling

Desalination and Steam Network

Concerning the conducted predictions, the need for water will considerably increase
in the future years. This will impose further pressure on water resources. One of
the introduced solutions is to use water desalination systems, in which energy is
4 Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through Total Site. . . 129

Fig. 4.25 Targeting the required cooling by GCC graph

reckoned as a key parameter in their design. It is because a large-scale consumption

of energy can lead to problems in the energy sector. Total Site integration is one
of the approaches to meeting two energy and water constraints while increasing
efficiency and decreasing utility consumption.
130 M. Karbasioun et al.

4.11.1 Types of Desalination Systems

Numerous purification methods have been introduced for desalinating seawater.

Different approaches to classifying these systems can be used, for example,
classified based on the type of consumed energy, which itself is categorized into
two groups, including thermal energy and electric energy.

4.12 Thermal Desalination Systems

The driving force behind these desalination systems for producing freshwater is
heat or heat transfer. Thus, the combination of these systems with industrial devices
and designs, such as power plants that lose heat to the environment, seems very
useful. Thermal desalination systems generally fall into two groups. The first group,
founded on evaporation and distillation, is combined with a thermal or mechanical
compressor, and the second group is based on freezing and thaw. The multi-effect
distillation (MED), multi-stage flash (MSF), and humidification-dehumidification
(HDH) systems are examples of this group.

4.13 Membrane Desalination Systems

The fundamental of this system is the passage of the input flow from a set of
membranes for the separation of its components. The reverse osmosis (RO) and
electrodialysis (ED) methods are instances of this category.

4.14 Hybrid Desalination Systems

Today, the combination of thermal and membrane desalination systems has been
noticed, especially in the heat and power cogeneration systems.
Considering the energy and water crises in the future and due to the high
energy consumption of desalination installations, utilizing the lost energies of other
industrial centers and coupling energy-centered establishments, like power plants,
can be introduced as a solution for water shortage. In this condition, desalination
processes can use the energy resultant from heat recoveries or be integrated with the
system and lead to the economization of energy consumption.
Of course, it should be noted that the establishment of desalination systems
necessitates meticulous analysis and investigation due to the presence of some
factors, such as fuel price, the price of energy carriers, price of generated water,
4 Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through Total Site. . . 131

environmental and water security costs, and so on. The ignorance of these factors
makes it impossible to justify the final system establishment economically.
Along with some factors such as the reception rate of input salts and concentra-
tion of the output water, energy supply is among the paramount factors in selecting
a desalination system to be integrated with a Total Site. Reliance on a single
type of energy not only limits balance development in a power-heat cogeneration
system but also reduces the system’s accessibility. In contrast, the utilization of a
coupled system dependent on power and heat, in addition to increasing flexibility
in designing and receiving energy, facilitates system integration. Hence, in new
systems, it is attempted to use a desalination-coupled system.
In the meantime, exploiting water pinch and Total Site as instruments used
for integrating a desalination unit with an energy supply system reduces the
water consumption of the process units and also has noticeable effects on energy
consumption.

4.14.1 Targeting Process Consumption

Water pinch can be used as an approach to reducing water consumption. In

this method, the minimum need of the system for a high-quality water supply
is determined with respect to the system’s rate of flexibility capacity in using
regeneration, reuse, and recovery waters. The feedwater of the system should
observe some constraints, including the maximum input and output concentrations
and minimum flow rate. For this purpose, some methods are determined so that
the establishment of these terms is assured. To determine the minimum feedwater
using the water pinch method, we first consider the minimum water flow rate and
maximum input and output concentrations of every process. Then, all processes
are drawn in the concentration-mass graph of contamination, and the concentration
ranges are determined. In the next stage, the water flow rate required in every
concentration range is estimated from the sum of the flows within that range. The
important point is the uniformity of the contamination material of the processes,
and it should be noted that processes with varying contaminations should not be
put together, and a separate pinch examination should be considered for every
contamination. In fact, in a process site, there are water pinch analysis graphs whose
numbers equal the numbers of contamination groups, and the rate of minimum
feedwater is calculated by the addition of each one’s minimum. After drawing
the water limiting composite curve, we draw a line from the point whose length
equals the contamination mass (which is zero for the feedwater) and width equals
the concentration of input water. Then, the line slope gradually increases until it
contacts the water limiting composite curve. The slope of the resultant line equals
the minimum consumption water of the site for a contaminator with a specific
material (Fig. 4.26).
132 M. Karbasioun et al.

Fig. 4.26 Water pinch

analysis algorithm
4 Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through Total Site. . . 133

4.14.2 The Effect of Desalination Systems on Analyzing

Cogeneration Potential

So far, we have dealt with the significance of desalination systems, their roles
in cogeneration, and targeting water consumption. It should be noted that water
pinch enables the determination of the minimum water required for process units.
Now, if water generation and its sale to the network are economically justified,
the generation of freshwater will increase to meet the other existing constraints,
including the total economy.
The inclusion of desalination systems at the heart of cogeneration systems makes
changes in the energy graphs and some network measurement tools. Among them,
we can refer to the CC, GCC, TSCC, R-curve, and cogeneration efficiency (ηcogen )
graphs.
The use of steam utility makes changes in the system equilibrium and takes the
system to a new balance point regarding the level it is employed.
As a result of these alterations, the generation and consumption rates of the utility
undergo some changes at various levels.
However, the exploitation of membrane desalination systems exerts their impact
on the network not through utility consumption, but power consumption. Conse-
quently, in both cases, the utilization of thermal or membrane desalination systems
leads to changes in the rates of power and heat generation and consumption, which
in turn alters the cogeneration efficiency. On the other hand, variations in the system
equilibrium make the R-curve, which indicates the optimal states of the network for
power and heat cogeneration, change. The magnitude of these changes depends on
the energy consumption share of desalination systems out of the total energy in the
utility network flow.

4.14.3 Environmental Effects

Besides the changes desalination systems bring about in heat and power cogener-
ation networks, their roles in the surrounding environment should also be inves-
tigated. Today, the consideration of every system’s effect on the environment is
noticed more than ever due to excess attention given to environmental problems
compared to the past.
As Fig. 4.27 depicts, one of the most important effects of desalination systems is
their brine discharge. Every desalination system encompasses one input and two
output flows, one of which is freshwater flow, and the other is brine discharge
with a high rate of salts. The entrance of this flow, regardless of any constraint,
causes negative changes in the surrounding environment. Similarly, the entrance
of uncontrolled wastewater flow increases the salinity of water resources and soil,
directly affecting the lives of waterfowls, as well as agriculture. One of the suggested
solutions is to treat the wastewater flow and generate usable products, such as
134 M. Karbasioun et al.

Fig. 4.27 General scheme of desalination systems

consumption salt. However, this approach itself increases the cost and complexity
of a total system.

4.15 Conclusion

Concerning the pounded subjects proved to the world that the industry sectors,
especially the process industries, play a significant role in producing environmental
contaminators and altering the climate. Also, by having the biggest share in energy
consumption, even the slightest changes in this sector cause a huge impact on world
economics. On the other hand, the most important factor, which reduces energy
consumption and thus leads to decreases in generation costs and environmental
contaminators, is to improve and modify the efficiency of energy systems. In order
to know the importance of this need in the process industries, this chapter presented
the Total Site integration approach and delineated the targeting and modeling of
different components in designing the heat and power network of a Total Site. Next,
how a Total Site interacted with refrigeration networks and desalination systems
was explored.

References

1. Ahmadi, P., & Dincer, I. (2011). Thermodynamic analysis and thermoeconomic opti-
mization of a dual pressure combined cycle power plant with a supplementary fir-
ing unit. Energy Conversion and Management, 52(5), 2296–2308. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.ENCONMAN.2010.12.023
2. CoreLogic, I. (2021). Inventory Index Factors 2021.
3. Čuček, L., Boldyryev, S., Klemeš, J. J., Kravanja, Z., Krajačić, G., Varbanov, P. S., & Duić, N.
(2019). Approaches for retrofitting heat exchanger networks within processes and Total Sites.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 211, 884–894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.129
4. IEA. (2020). Energy efficiency 2019. https://doi.org/10.1787/ef14df7a-en
5. IEA. (2020). Global energy & CO2 status report 2019. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-
energy-co2-status-report-2019
4 Targeting and Design Multigeneration System Through Total Site. . . 135

6. IEA. (2021). World energy outlook 2020. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-

2020
7. Kemp, I. C. (2007). Pinch analysis and process integration: A user guide on process integration
for the efficient use of energy (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. https://www.elsevier.com/
books/pinch-analysis-and-process-integration/kemp/978-0-7506-8260-2
8. Kenney, W. F. (1984). Energy conservation in the process industries. Academic Press.
9. Khoshgoftar Manesh, M. H., Navid, P., Blanco Marigorta, A. M., Amidpour, M., & Hamedi,
M. H. (2013). New procedure for optimal design and evaluation of cogeneration system based
on advanced exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental analyses. Energy, 59, 314–333. https:/
/doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.06.017
10. Kimura, H., & Zhu, X. X. (2000). R-curve concept and its application for industrial energy
management. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 39(7), 2315–2335.
11. Linhoff, B. (1993). Pinch analysis: A state-of-the-art overview: Techno-economic analysis.
Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 71(A5), 503–522.
12. Manesh, M. H. K., Navid, P., Marigorta, A. M. B., Amidpour, M., & Hamedi, M. H. (2013).
New procedure for optimal design and evaluation of cogeneration system based on advanced
exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental analyses. Energy, 59, 314–333.
13. Manninen, J. (1999). Flowsheet synthesis and optimisation of power plants. UMIST.
14. Mencarelli, L., Chen, Q., Pagot, A., & Grossmann, I. E. (2020). A review on superstructure
optimization approaches in process system engineering. Computers & Chemical Engineering,
136, 106808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2020.106808
15. Oluleye, G., Jobson, M., & Smith, R. (2016). Process integration of waste heat upgrading
technologies. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 103, 315–333.
16. Ren, X.-Y., Jia, X.-X., Varbanov, P. S., & Klemes, J. J. (2018). Targeting the cogeneration
potential for Total Site utility systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 170, 625–635.
17. Shang, Z. (2000). Analysis and optimisation of total site utility systems. UMIST.
18. Smith, R. (2016). Chemical process: Design and integration. Wiley.
19. Sun, L., & Smith, R. (2015). Performance modeling of new and existing steam turbines.
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 54(6), 1908–1915.
20. Sun, L., Doyle, S., & Smith, R. (2015). Heat recovery and power targeting in utility systems.
Energy, 84, 196–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2015.02.087
21. Varbanov, P. S., Doyle, S., & Smith, R. (2004). Modelling and optimization of utility systems.
Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 82(5), 561–578.
22. World Bank. (2021). World development indicators. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/
EN.ATM.CO2E.KT?end=2018&start=1990&view=chart
Chapter 5
Investigating the Effective Methods
in Improving the Resilience of Electricity
and Gas Systems

Mohammad Mehdi Amiri , Hossein Ameli , Mohammad Taghi Ameli ,

and Goran Strbac

5.1 Introduction

One way to use existing infrastructure more efficiently is to consider an integrated

energy system (IES) from planning and operation perspectives. Integrating the
system and the cooperation between different energy vectors can lead to better
management of system challenges. Researchers believe that collaboration between
different energy carriers plays a positive role in improving the grid performance.
IES can be defined as a whole system for the transmission and storage of
various energy vectors, an intermediary between the supplier, the consumer, and
the energy transmission infrastructure. This concept can realize optimization for the
operation of multi-vector energy systems. IES is an infrastructure system combined
with subsystems such as electricity, heat/cooling, and gas/hydrogen. An IES is
considered a pivotal option to create more flexibility in energy system operation and
improving the overall efficiency for suppliers and consumers. Typically, the energy
vectors are operated independently. In Fig. 5.1, an IES consisting of electricity, gas,
cooling, and heating systems is presented [27].
The impressive increase in electricity production from gas has had extraordinary
consequences for both the electricity and gas industries. This interdependence
between the two industries requires a simultaneous operation of these two systems,
which increases the energy system’s efficiency.

M. M. Amiri () · M. T. Ameli

Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: [email protected]
H. Ameli
Control and Power Group, Imperial College London, London, UK
G. Strbac
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 137
V. Vahidinasab, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo (eds.), Whole Energy Systems, Power
Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87653-1_5
138 M. M Amiri et al.

Natural
Electricity Heat
Gas

Power Gas Heat

MT/CHP Boiler
Storage Pipelines Exchanger

Electricity Heat
Network Network
Balance Balance

DGs Compressor Absorpon Heat

Chiller Chiller Storage

Power Demand Gas Demand Cooling Demand Heang Demand

Fig. 5.1 Integrated energy system (IES)

In addition to benefits such as relatively low carbon emissions, low investment

costs, and high efficiency, gas-fired power plants respond fast. It is expected that
by increased use of renewable energy, the rapid response of these power plants
will be able to maintain the balance between demand and supply. With renewable
energy and gas-fired power plants development, the electricity and gas network
(EGN) operation becomes significantly interdependent. Therefore, the simultaneous
operation of EGN is of particular importance [46].
In recent years, the interdependency of EGNs has significantly increased from
the transmission level to the distribution level from techno-economic perspectives
due to the role of distributed gas production units [4, 18, 19, 48].
Environmental considerations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce con-
struction time and investment costs of combined cycle production units, and increase
the installed capacity of renewable generation have led to advances in gas-fired
generators (GFG) technology in power grids. In some countries, gas/hydrogen is
used as the primary source of electricity. Increasing the installed capacity of this
technology highlights the importance of interdependence between EGNs. Due to the
connection between EGNs, the lack of gas supply can pose risks to the electricity
supply [3]. Disconnection of gas pipelines and extreme weather conditions can
hinder the gas network’s regular operation. Reducing the existing GFG capacity
further endangers the security and reliability of electricity systems [34].
In this study, after examining the need for communication between system
operators of EGNs, the concept of resilience and its difference with reliability in
EGNs will be introduced. This study aims to investigate the methods of improving
resilience and comparing these methods in EGNs.
5 Investigating the Effective Methods in Improving the Resilience. . . 139

5.2 The Resilience of Electricity and Gas Networks (EGNs)

5.2.1 Resilience Concept

Although the purpose of defining this chapter is to examine the concept and methods
of increasing the resilience of EGNs, due to the simplicity of the resilience concept
and the stability of its definition, first definitions and general concepts of resilience
and then electricity network resilience have been proposed.
In large systems with critical equipment, which can be disconnected from the
network at any time, contingency analysis studies are performed continuously to
ensure system security. Maintaining the security of an infrastructure system and
making its performance resistant to low-impact and high-probability (LIHP) events
has been familiar as a necessity of operation.
Power grids have been vulnerable to natural disasters, and also, the rate of these
events has been lower in the past (due to global warming). Human life’s dependence
on electricity services’ reliability has not been as significant as it is today. Currently,
urban and even rural life is so tied to access to electricity that the occurrence
of widespread blackouts, albeit short-term, has serious economic, social, cultural,
and human consequences. Also, due to the dependence of the correct operation
of infrastructure systems on each other, with the blackout occurrence for several
hours in a specific area, the performance of other infrastructure systems such as
gas/hydrogen networks, water supply networks, and telecommunication systems is
disrupted, and the consequences of electricity blackouts become broader and more
intense.
Obviously, in such a situation, maintaining the security of a power system in the
event of low impact and high probability is no longer sufficient, and another feature
of this system that reflects its behavior to high-impact and low-probability events
should be considered. This feature of the system is called resilience, which indicates
the degree of robustness, vulnerability, and recoverability of an infrastructure system
in the event of a severe accident [16, 56].
In order to better define the resilience concept and its difference with the two
concepts of system security and reliability, possible accidents and hazards can be
divided into three categories based on the events probability of occurrence and
impact [1]:
1. White Swan Events
A white swan is an extraordinary festive event with three principal character-
istics: it is inevitable, its effect is predictable, and after the event, we provide an
explanation that confirms the certainty. However, the white swan again shifts its
focus to misjudgment or other forms of human cause.
2. Gray Swan Events
The gray swan is a potentially significant event that, while unlikely to occur,
is not impossible. Therefore, although the probability of occurrence is very low, it
140 M. M Amiri et al.

should not be ignored. It can cause a crisis in the world, the economy, and the stock
market if it happens.
3. Black Swan Events
A black swan is said to be an event that is unpredictable and goes beyond what is
expected from a situation. The consequences can be potentially severe. Black swan
events are characterized by extreme rarity, intense impact, and persistence; however,
they can only be understood only after they occur.
The power system reliability indicates the possibility of its long-term satisfactory
performance. It indicates the ability to provide adequate electrical services almost
continuously and with short interruptions over a long period.
Security is the ability of electrical systems to withstand sudden disruptions such
as unforeseen outage of system components or short circuits. A power system’s
security refers to the danger level in its capability to survive impending disruptions
(unforeseen events) without interrupting demand and supply.
The difference between the reliability and security of power systems is summa-
rized below:
• The overall goal in designing and planning a power system is system reliability.
For a system to be reliable, it must be secure most of the time.
• Security is a time-varying attribute that could be investigated by studying the
power system’s operation in different specific set of conditions. On the other
side, reliability is a function of the power system’s time-average operation; it can
only be analyzed by considering the system’s performance over a considerable
time.
It should be noted that network security analysis considers only single events
(and perhaps some possible or dangerous dual events). Also, the reliability assess-
ment examines only events that are likely to occur. Therefore, it can be concluded
that the events studied in security analysis and reliability assessment are limited
to the first category of events, namely, white swan events, which have both
the probability of occurrence and the consequences of their occurrence that are
essential.
Resilience has been introduced in the social, economic, and managerial fields
before being introduced in engineering. In social systems, resilience refers to
a society’s ability to withstand the pressures and events caused by political,
economic, and social changes in that society ([33]). Different companies can protect
themselves from some economic losses in the market. In the field of management,
the ability of an entity to identify various risks and manage events is called resilience
[14]. As can be seen, the main emphasis of these definitions is on the lack of
vulnerability to these events. These events in the power systems are the same as
the second and third category events, namely, gray swan events and black swan
events. These events, which can be of natural or human origin, occur infrequently
or have never been experienced.
In a power system whose equipment is prone to failure and various inherent,
natural, and human factors constantly threaten the equipment’s health, one cannot
5 Investigating the Effective Methods in Improving the Resilience. . . 141

hope for the system’s correct operation only with preventive measures. In these
systems, maintenance and repair of equipment are among the main pillars of
the operation process. After an accident and system failure, service recovery
and network structure repair are inevitable and, of course, practically possible.
Therefore, the definition of resilience in infrastructure systems should include both
accident endurance and rapid postaccident recovery.

5.2.2 Resilience Definitions

Since 2016, the definition of power system resilience has converged around a
combination of concepts such as absorption, adaption, anticipation, and recovery
from HILF events. Some definitions of resilience are discussed below. According to
the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), resilience means prevention, recovery,
and survival [31]. The National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) considers
resilience to mean preparedness, planning, recruitment, recovery, and adaptation to
disasters [13]. The UK Energy Research Center (UKERC) [10] calls “the ability
of an energy system to withstand error and continue to provide low-cost energy
services to consumers.”
The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR)
defines resilience as the ability of a system to maintain its performance in the
event of an accident through learning from previous events [54]. The recovery
and endurance characteristics of a system during and after the fault from the US
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) perspective
is called resilience [23, 38]. A system’s resilience is defined as the prediction and
rapid recovery from low-frequency high-impact events in Panteli and Mancarella
[39, 40].
Resourcefulness, robustness, adaptability, and rapid recovery characteristics of
a system have been defined as resilience [45]. In Hollnagel et al. [14], resilience
is defined through three characteristics: predicting, understanding, and responding.
From Espinoza et al. [15] and Haimes [57] perspective, resilience means resistance,
rapid recovery, and system adaptability in a disaster. In National Research Council
[35], resilience has been defined as the planning, complete preparedness, recovery,
and adaptation to adverse events. Resilience has also been identified as:
• Anticipate, perceive, respond, and adapt in Stevens [51], Rieger [47], and
McJunkin and Rieger [32].
• The system’s ability to reduce the magnitude and duration of the disruption [5].
• Being “the maintenance of the nominated state of security” [52].
• The ability to sustain and recover from extreme and severe disturbances [7].
• Avoidance, survival, recovery to a high-impact rare event [17].
• The ability of a system to degrade gracefully under extreme perturbations and
recover rapidly [21].
• The ability of a system to anticipate and withstand external shocks [41, 42].
Other definitions of resilience are listed in reference [8].
142 M. M Amiri et al.

5.2.3 The Importance of Resilience Assessment in EGNs

As we know, the issue of resilience is fundamental in various fields. “There have also
been many research” on the issue of resilience in power grids. Now, let us consider
an IES with different infrastructures instead of electricity networks, for example,
EGNs. We are facing a new problem: the concept of the resilience of EGNs.
Assessing the overall resilience and increasing the resilience of IES has com-
plexities due to different infrastructures’ connections. The response of energy
infrastructure to unforeseen events is mainly examined by each energy system
separately. The importance of simultaneously examining the resilience of EGNs can
be indicated by an example, in which after an accident in the gas network and the
dependence between the gas network and power plants, the electricity system may
suffer severe damage and finally blackout. Increasing the interdependence between
different infrastructures can increase the system failure risks [9]. These crashes can
be divided into two categories [11]:
1. Chain failures: Occur when a failure in one infrastructure will impact the other
infrastructures (i.e., failure of one or more components in other infrastructures).
2. Common cause failures: Occur when two or more infrastructures are simultane-
ously affected by a common accident.
Considering the above and the importance of resilience in IES, resilience and
increasing it in IES (e.g., EGNs) are investigated in this study.

5.3 The Resilience Enhancement Methods of EGNs

5.3.1 The Concept of Resilience Triangle and Trapezoid

The two fundamental concepts in resilience analysis of IES are the concepts of
triangle and trapezoid resilience, which are used for modeling and resilience studies.
It can be said that the resilience triangle is only able to evaluate the single-phase
resilience and, in particular, to evaluate the recovery performance of a network after
an accident, which is shown in Fig. 5.2. The resistance triangle cannot be used for
all events, such as a tornado that may last from a few minutes to several days. Also,
in this approach, if the accident lasts like an earthquake for a few seconds, it is
indicated as a sharp decrease in the system’s resilience level [11, 37].
In contrast to the resilience triangle is the resilience trapezoid shown in Fig. 5.3.
The phases of the network and the time sequence of these phases and related events
and the type of actions available are shown. Dividing events into three phases makes
it possible to evaluate multistage resilience. Another advantage of a trapezoid is that
it can be used for any danger or accident, regardless of its nature. Other differences
between the resilience triangle and trapezoid are also shown in Table 5.1 [41, 42].
5 Investigating the Effective Methods in Improving the Resilience. . . 143

Resilience
Triangle

R0

to
Time

Fig. 5.2 Resilience triangle

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Pre-disturbance Post-disturbance Restorative Post-restoration
Disturbance progress

R0
Resilience Trapezoid

to Time

Fig. 5.3 Resilience trapezoid

Table 5.1 Differences between the resilience triangle and trapezoid

Resilience triangle Resilience trapezoid
Assessment of single-phase resilience Dynamic, multiphase resilience assessment
Lack of corrective actions throughout the Corrective actions
event progress
Absence of damaged condition after an Post-disturbance degraded state and its
accident duration consideration
Threat-specific Applicable for any type of threats

5.3.2 Increasing the Resilience of EGNs

The vulnerability of EGNs is eliminated by identifying vulnerable components in

electricity and gas/hydrogen infrastructure. The methods of increasing resilience
used in articles can be divided into two categories including hardening and
operational.
Hardening methods focus on creating network development plans to tighten
transmission and distribution systems in future severe disasters. In contrast, oper-
144 M. M Amiri et al.

Table 5.2 Several hardening and operational methods

Hardening measures: boosting the Operational strategies: boosting the
infrastructure resilience operational resilience
Black-start capabilities Accurate weather estimation and forecast
Installation of DER Demand-side management
Vegetation management Operation of microgrid island
Undergrounding the Decentralized control and preventive control
distribution/transmission lines (e.g., preventive generation rescheduling)
Upgrading poles with more substantial, more Disaster assessment and priority setting
robust materials
Elevating substations and relocating Risk assessment and management for
facilities evaluating and preparation
Redundancy in transmission and distribution Network reconfiguration
system
Distributed energy systems and energy storage
(including gas storage)
Restoration
Advanced visualization and situation
awareness systems

ational methods focus on optimization-based strategies for using existing assets

against failures. In some articles, hardening methods have been introduced as
planning methods. It should be noted that according to Preston et al. [45], retrofitting
methods may make the system more resilient to operational measures but are not
economically viable. Table 5.2 shows some hardening and operational methods [39,
40, 45].
It can be mentioned that most of the studies are related to increasing the resilience
in the electricity networks, and fewer studies have considered EGNs simultaneously.
References Jufri et al. [22], Li et al. [24, 26], Barnes et al. [6], and Nazemi et al.
[36] are among the studies that have used hardening or planning methods to increase
power system resilience. In contrast, several references such Poudel and Dubey [44],
Li et al. [24, 26], Panwar et al. [43], Shi et al. [50], and Hussain et al. [20] have used
operational methods to increase the resilience of EGNs.
Authors in Aldarajee et al. [2] introduce a new planner-disaster-risk framework
for integrated planning of gas networks in major disaster events. The proposed
approach takes into account the various components of vulnerable areas in EGNs
as potential catastrophic events. It prioritizes diverse areas based on the associated
vulnerabilities further to strengthen the resilience of the IES. Also, a new parameter
(i.e., resiliency budget) is introduced to control the level of resilience in an IES
based on an information-gap decision theory (IGDT) multi-incident, and multi-zone
resilience is introduced.
The proposed framework using a three-level algorithm includes:
• Level 1: The problem of planning under normal circumstances.
• Level 2: Assessing resilience in the event of a severe accident.
5 Investigating the Effective Methods in Improving the Resilience. . . 145

• Level 3: Risk-free rescheduling in the event of a significant accident using the

IGDT concept is resolved.
Reference Lv et al. [30] has proposed a multi-stage planning strategy to increase
resilience, which as an emergency response source, heat storage is taken into
account. The designed resilient planning framework consists of three steps:
• Rolling reserve optimization stage
• Day-ahead economic dispatch stage
• Fault restoration stage
In Shao et al. [49] as a method of hardening, the optimal planning of EGNs has
been used. This programming is done with a two-stage robust optimization problem
method:
Stage 1: Modeling the uncertainties and presenting a robust proposed model
considering the constraints of the problem.
Stage 2: In the second stage, investment decisions are assessed using conditional
events.
The proposed planning problem’s objective is to minimize the total costs for the
integrated operation and planning of EGNs.
In He et al. [18, 19], an effective hardening method is considered to increase
the resilience of EGNs. For this purpose, a three-step robust optimization method
is used. To solve this problem, the studied gas network’s nonlinear constraints are
modeled linearly by Taylor series expansion. In this paper, DGs and gas storage
devices are considered as emergency response sources to supply high-priority
gas/electricity demands during incidents. Reference Yan et al. [58] has used a
coordinated regional-district operation model of IES with three-stage optimization
and with two phases (i.e., preventive, corrective) in order to increase the resilience
of EGNs. The steps of robust optimization could be summarized as follows:
• Extreme level: The extreme level minimizes the unit commitment cost (e.g., start-
up and shutdown cost of thermal units).
• Middle level: The middle level finds the scenario in which the largest load
curtailment occurred (worst-case scenario).
• Inner level: In this level, the committed units in the preventive stage will be
employed to reduce/remove load curtailment in the worst-case scenario.
Another robust optimization method is presented in the reference Cong et al.
[12]. The basis of this method and its purpose is to minimize the loads that are cut
during the accident. This paper’s resilience assessment is modeled as three stages or
DAD (defender-attacker-defender) and is formulated as a min-max-min problem:
• Step 1: The defender optimizes the reinforcement in the transmission lines to
reduce the damage caused by unexpected events.
• Step 2: Attackers create the worst type of attack by disrupting the system.
• Step 3: Defender responds to damage from attacks to optimize grid performance.
146 M. M Amiri et al.

Reference Liu et al. [29] has used optimization methods to increase the resilience
of EGNs. The method used in this study is the use of two-stage data-based
optimization. The problem formulation consists of three levels.
• Lower level: At this level, the constraints of EGNs are presented.
• Middle level: The uncertainty set is built by combination of the data-based
method with the hurricane’s Markov property.
• Upper level: As a preventive action, system planners reinforce in the critical
components in order to avoid outages.
In Tian et al. [53], an optimal allocation method for gas turbines and storage
facilities in an IES is presented. Resilience assessment modeling in this paper is
also based on defender-attacker-defender. The algorithm used to solve this problem
is the progressive hedging algorithm (PHA). It should be noted that the power flow
model used in this study is DC power flow.
One of the operational measures to increase resilience of EGNs is introduced in
the reference Lin et al. [28]. In this study, by taking into account reconfiguration and
DG islanding, a combined repair crew dispatch problem is introduced. This study
assumes that EGN connection is through gas-fired DGs and electrically driven gas
compressors.
The constraints considered for the power grid are:
• Nodal power balance
• Branch flow constraints
• Load shedding constraints
• Voltage constraints
• DG output constraints
Gas network constraints include the following:
• Gas well capacity constraint
• Nodal gas flow balance
• Active gas pipeline/compressor constraints
• Inactive gas pipeline constraints
It is also possible to write the connection constraints of the two electricity and
gas networks as follows:
• DG gas consumption as a gas demand
• The compressor as an electric load
In Li et al. [25], for enhancing the resilience of the integrated distribution of
EGNs, a minimax-regret robust resilience-constrained unit commitment model is
developed. The problem of three-level robust optimization is used in this study, and
to solve it the SOC (second-order conic)-based column-and-constraint generation
algorithm is used.
Finally, reference Wang et al. [55] provides a method for identifying vulnerable
components in EGNs and ensuring the network’s resilient operation. The three-
level optimization used in this study is solved using a nested column-and-constraint
generation (C&CG).
5 Investigating the Effective Methods in Improving the Resilience. . . 147

5.3.3 Discussion

In the previous section, studies and methods to increase resilience of EGNs were
reviewed. It is observed that the method used in previous studies is often based on
optimization methods. Therefore, mastering optimization methods and algorithms
in this regard seems to be inevitable. Simultaneous consideration of EGN constraints
complicates the issue.
To linearize the problem’s constraints and equations, each of the previous
studies has used a specific method (e.g., Taylor series expansion). Therefore, it
seems that the study of linearization methods and mastery of the mathematical
part of the problem seems to be essential and vital. The model considered in
EGN resilience studies could be DAD (defender-attacker-defender), ADA (attacker-
defender-attacker), or DA (defender-attacker).
In general, it can be said that the differences in the constraints of the problem,
adding the constraints of connecting the two EGNs, the method of solving the
optimization problem, and the linearization of the equations are among the differ-
ences between the studies. Hence, in this chapter, after introducing the methods
and algorithms used to increase the resilience of EGNs, we present a simple model
used in most previous studies with basic constraints on the problem. This provides a
better understanding and acquaintance with the mathematical nature of the problem.

5.3.4 Objective Function of Problem

The basis of objective function used in most studies is as follows:

OF = Investment Cost (IC) + Operational Cost (OC) (5.1)

For example, IC and OC in Shao et al. [49] are modeled as (5.2) and (5.3).
     
IC = cgi,t ugi,t − ugi,t−1 + cpl,t upl,t − upl,t−1
gi,t   pl,t   (5.2)
+ cgs,t ugs,t − ugs,t−1 + cgp,t ugp,t − ugp,t−1
gs,t gp,t

where ugi, t is the expansion state of generators, upl, t is the expansion state of power
lines, ugs, t is the expansion state of gas sources, and ugp, t is the expansion state of
gas pipelines.
⎛ ⎞
       
OC = ct Δb ⎝ 0
fgi pgi,b,t + 0
fgs ggs,b,t ⎠ (5.3)
t b gi∈N GF G gs
148 M. M Amiri et al.

where fgi is the operation cost function of generators, fgs is the operation cost
function of gas sources, pgi, b, t is the power output of generators, ggs, b, t is the gas
output of gas sources, and NGFG means non- gas-fired generators.
It can be said that the studies performed so far using different optimization
algorithms and different methods satisfy the above objective function. In this
section, the example of problem objective function formulation was simply stated.
The purpose of presenting the formulation is to present the basis of the problem
and to provide a mathematical perspective of resiliency in EGNs. It should be noted
that in studies on the resilience of EGNs, the authors may have presented different
objective functions from what is presented in this chapter.
In summary, some of the differences between previous studies can be highlighted
as follows:
• Gas network constraints.
• Electricity network constraints.
• Considering or not taking into account the connection constraints between
electricity and gas networks.
• Differences in objective function.
• Differences in the definition of the optimization problem.
• Differences in linearization method of network equations.
• The optimization algorithm is used to solve the problem.

5.4 Remarks

According to studies, it can be said that methods to increase resilience can be

divided into two categories, namely, hardening and operational. Many articles have
covered the evaluation and enhancement of power grid resilience, while this is not
the case for interconnected networks (electricity and gas/hydrogen). The issue of
resilience and its concept and definitions were presented in the second part. Also, the
importance of simultaneous operation of EGNs and the vital role of the mentioned
systems’ resilience were examined in the following.
Finally, studies to increase the resilience of EGNs were reviewed and analyzed,
and a simple mathematical model of the problem was expressed. It can be said that
all the articles in question have solved the problem using different optimization
methods and algorithms, and the main difference between them is the type of
linearization of gas and power equations and the algorithm used. Attention to the
model and its development, along with innovation in mathematical methods, can be
a future task.
A summary of studies that investigated the possibility of increasing the resilience
of electricity and gas systems is demonstrated in Table 5.3.
5 Investigating the Effective Methods in Improving the Resilience. . . 149

Table 5.3 Methods for improving the resilience of EGNs

References Method
Aldarajee et al. [2] A new planner-disaster-risk framework
Lv et al. [30] A multistage planning strategy
Rolling reserve optimization stage
Day-ahead economic dispatch stage
Fault restoration stage
Shao et al. [49] Optimal planning of EGNs using a two-stage robust optimization
problem
He et al. [18, 19] A three-step robust optimization method
Yan et al. [58] The coordinated regional-district operation model of IES with
three-stage optimization
Cong et al. [12] DAD (defender-attacker-defender) model with min-max-min problem
formulation
Liu et al. [29] Two-stage data-based optimization
Tian et al. [53] An optimal allocation method for gas turbines and storage systems in
integrated model for EGNs
Lin et al. [28] A combined repair crew dispatch problem considering reconfiguration
and DG islanding
Li et al. [24, 26] A minimax-regret robust resilience-constrained unit commitment model
Wang et al. [55] “Present a method for” identifying vulnerable components in EGNs and
ensuring the network’s resilient operation using the three-level
optimization

References

1. Accendo Reliability. (2021). Reliability engineering professional development. Accessible in

2021, https://accendoreliability.com/
2. Aldarajee, A. H., Hosseinian, S. H., Vahidi, B., & Dehghan, S. (2020). A coordinated planner-
disaster-risk-averse-planner investment model for enhancing the resilience of integrated
electric power and natural gas networks. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy
Systems, 119, 105948.
3. Ameli, H., Qadrdan, M., & Strbac, G. (2019). Coordinated operation strategies for natural gas
and power systems in presence of gas-related flexibilities. IET Energy Systems Integration,
1(1), 3–13.
4. Ameli, H., Qadrdan, M., Strbac, G., & Ameli, M. T. (2020). Investing in flexibility in an
integrated planning of natural gas and power systems. IET Energy Systems Integration, 2(2),
101–111.
5. Arghandeh, R., Von Meier, A., Mehrmanesh, L., & Mili, L. (2016). On the definition of cyber-
physical resilience in power systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 58, 1060–
1069.
6. Barnes, A., Nagarajan, H., Yamangil, E., Bent, R., & Backhaus, S. (2019). Resilient design of
large-scale distribution feeders with networked microgrids. Electric Power Systems Research,
171, 150–157.
7. Baros, S., Shiltz, D., Jaipuria, P., Hussain, A., & Annaswamy, A. M. (2017). Towards resilient
cyber-physical energy systems. IEEE.
8. Bhusal, N., Abdelmalak, M., Kamruzzaman, M., & Benidris, M. (2020). Power system
resilience: Current practices, challenges, and future directions. IEEE Access, 8, 18064–18086.
150 M. M Amiri et al.

9. Buldyrev, S. V., Parshani, R., Paul, G., Stanley, H. E., & Havlin, S. (2010). Catastrophic cascade
of failures in interdependent networks. Nature, 464(7291), 1025–1028.
10. Chaudry, M., Ekins, P., Ramachandran, K., Shakoor, A., Skea, J., Strbac, G., Wang, X., &
Whitaker, J. (2011). Building a resilient UK energy system (p. UKERC).
11. Cimellaro, G. P., Reinhorn, A. M., & Bruneau, M. (2010). Framework for analytical quantifi-
cation of disaster resilience. Engineering Structures, 32(11), 3639–3649.
12. Cong, H., He, Y., Wang, X., & Jiang, C. (2018). Robust optimization for improving resilience
of integrated energy systems with electricity and natural gas infrastructures. Journal of Modern
Power Systems and Clean Energy, 6(5), 1066–1078.
13. Council. (2009). Critical infrastructure resilience final report and recommendations. National
Infrastructure Advisory Council. Tech. Rep.
14. Hollnagel, E., Woods, D. D., & Leveson, N. (2006). Resilience engineering: Concepts and
precepts. Ashgate Publishing.
15. Espinoza, S., Panteli, M., Mancarella, P., & Rudnick, H. (2016). Multi-phase assessment and
adaptation of power systems resilience to natural hazards. Electric Power Systems Research,
136, 352–361.
16. Gholami, A., Aminifar, F., & Shahidehpour, M. (2016). Front lines against the darkness:
Enhancing the resilience of the electricity grid through microgrid facilities. IEEE Electrifi-
cation Magazine, 4(1), 18–24.
17. Gholami, A., Shekari, T., Amirioun, M. H., Aminifar, F., Amini, M. H., & Sargolzaei, A.
(2018). Toward a consensus on the definition and taxonomy of power system resilience. IEEE
Access, 6, 32035–32053.
18. He, C., Dai, C., Wu, L., & Liu, T. (2018). Robust network hardening strategy for enhancing
resilience of integrated electricity and natural gas distribution systems against natural disasters.
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 33(5), 5787–5798.
19. He, C., Zhang, X., Liu, T., Wu, L., & Shahidehpour, M. (2018). Coordination of interdependent
electricity grid and natural gas network—A review. Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy
Reports, 5(1), 23–36.
20. Hussain, A., Oulis Rousis, A., Konstantelos, I., Strbac, G., Jeon, J., & Kim, H. (2019, January).
Impact of uncertainties on resilient operation of microgrids: A data-driven approach. IEEE
Access, 7, 1492414937.
21. Jackson, M., & Fitzgerald, J. (2016). Resilience profiling in the model-based design of cyber-
physical systems. In 14th overture workshop: Towards analytical tool chains, technical report
ECE-TR-28 (pp. 1–15).
22. Jufri, F. H., Widiputra, V., & Jung, J. (2019). State-of-the-art review on power grid resilience to
extreme weather events: Definitions, frameworks, quantitative assessment methodologies, and
enhancement strategies. Applied Energy, 239, 1049–1065.
23. Keogh, M., & Cody, C. (2013, November). Resilience in regulated utilities. National Associ-
ation of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. Accessible at: www.naruc.org/Grants/Documents/
Resilience% 20in%20Regulated% 20Utilities% 20ONLINE% 2011_12.pdf
24. Li, W., Li, Y., Tan, Y., Cao, Y., Chen, C., Cai, Y., Kwang, Y. L., & Pecht, M. (2019).
Maximizing network resilience against malicious attacks. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1–9.
25. Li, Y., Li, Z., Wen, F., & Shahidehpour, M. (2018). Minimax-regret robust co-optimization
for enhancing the resilience of integrated power distribution and natural gas systems. IEEE
Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 11(1), 61–71.
26. Li, Y., Xie, K., Wang, L., & Xiang, Y. (2019). Exploiting network topology optimization and
demand side management to improve bulk power system resilience under windstorms. Electric
Power Systems Research, 171, 127–140.
27. Lin, Y., & Bie, Z. (2016). Study on the resilience of the integrated energy system. Energy
Procedia, 103, 171–176.
28. Lin, Y., Chen, B., Wang, J., & Bie, Z. (2019). A combined repair crew dispatch problem for
resilient electric and natural gas system considering reconfiguration and DG islanding. IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, 34(4), 2755–2767.
5 Investigating the Effective Methods in Improving the Resilience. . . 151

29. Liu, R. P., Lei, S., Peng, C., Sun, W., & Hou, Y. (2020). Data-based resilience enhancement
strategies for electric-gas systems against sequential extreme weather events. IEEE Transac-
tions on Smart Grid, 11(6), 5383–5395.
30. Lv, C., Yu, H., Li, P., Zhao, K., Li, H., & Li, S. (2020). Coordinated operation and planning of
integrated electricity and gas community energy system with enhanced operational resilience.
IEEE Access, 8, 59257–59277.
31. McGranaghan, M., Olearczyk, M., & Gellings, C. (2013). Enhancing distribution resiliency:
Opportunities for applying innovative technologies. Electricity Today, 28(1), 46–48.
32. McJunkin, T. R., & Rieger, C. G. (2017, September). Electricity distribution system resilient
control system metrics. In 2017 resilience week (RWS) (pp. 103–112). IEEE.
33. Mezzadra, S., & Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: Are they related?
Progress in Human Geography, 24(3), 347–364.
34. Mi, J., & Khodayar, M. E. (2019). Operation of natural gas and electricity networks with line
pack. Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy, 7(5), 1056–1070.
35. National Research Council. (2012). Disaster resilience: A national imperative. National
Research Council.
36. Nazemi, M., Moeini-Aghtaie, M., Fotuhi-Firuzabad, M., & Dehghanian, P. (2019). Energy
storage planning for enhanced resilience of power distribution networks against earthquakes.
IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 11(2), 795–806.
37. Ouyang, M., Dueñas-Osorio, L., & Min, X. (2012). A three-stage resilience analysis framework
for urban infrastructure systems. Structural Safety, 36, 23–31.
38. Stockton, P. (2014). Resilience for black sky days. National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners, , Tech. Rep.
39. Panteli, M., & Mancarella, P. (2015). Modeling and evaluating the resilience of critical
electrical power infrastructure to extreme weather events. IEEE Systems Journal, 11(3), 1733–
1742.
40. Panteli, M., & Mancarella, P. (2015). The grid: Stronger, bigger, smarter?: Presenting a
conceptual framework of power system resilience. IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, 13(3),
58–66.
41. Panteli, M., Mancarella, P., Trakas, D. N., Kyriakides, E., & Hatziargyriou, N. D. (2017).
Metrics and quantification of operational and infrastructure resilience in power systems. IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, 32(6), 4732–4742.
42. Panteli, M., Trakas, D. N., Mancarella, P., & Hatziargyriou, N. D. (2017). Power systems
resilience assessment: Hardening and smart operational enhancement strategies. Proceedings
of the IEEE, 105(7), 1202–1213.
43. Panwar, M., Chanda, S., Mohanpurkar, M., Luo, Y., Dias, F., Hovsapian, R., & Srivastava,
A. K. (2019). Integration of flow battery for resilience enhancement of advanced distribution
grids. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 109, 314–324.
44. Poudel, S., & Dubey, A. (2018). Critical load restoration using distributed energy resources for
resilient power distribution system. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 34(1), 52–63.
45. Preston, B. L., Backhaus, S. N., Ewers, M., Phillips, J. A., Silva-Monroy, C. A., Dagle, J. E.,
Tarditi, A. G., Looney, J., & King, T. J., Jr. (2016). Resilience of the US electricity system: A
multi-hazard perspective. US Department of Energy Office of Policy.
46. Qadrdan, M., Ameli, H., Strbac, G., & Jenkins, N. (2017). Efficacy of options to address
balancing challenges: Integrated gas and electricity perspectives. Applied Energy, 190, 181–
190.
47. Rieger, C. G. (2014, August). Resilient control systems practical metrics basis for defining
mission impact. In 2014 7th international symposium on resilient control systems (ISRCS) (pp.
1–10). IEEE.
48. Shabazbegian, V., Ameli, H., Ameli, M. T., & Strbac, G. (2020). Stochastic optimization model
for coordinated operation of natural gas and electricity networks. Computers & Chemical
Engineering, 142, 107060.
152 M. M Amiri et al.

49. Shao, C., Shahidehpour, M., Wang, X., Wang, X., & Wang, B. (2017). Integrated planning of
electricity and natural gas transportation systems for enhancing the power grid resilience. IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, 32(6), 4418–4429.
50. Shi, Q., Li, F., Kuruganti, T., Olama, M., Dong, J., Wang, X., & Winstead, C. (2020).
Resilience-oriented DG siting and sizing considering stochastic scenario reduction. IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, 36(4), 3715–3727.
51. Stevens, L. M. (2010). HTGR resilient control system strategy (No. INL/EXT–10-19645).
Idaho National Laboratory (United States). Funding organisation: DOE-NE (United States).
52. Thompson, M. A., Ryan, M. J., Slay, J., & McLucas, A. C. (2016, July). A new resilience
taxonomy. In INCOSE international symposium (Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 1318–1330).
53. Tian, H., Huang, G., Chen, Y., Li, G., Li, X., & Bie, Z. (2020, November). Resilience-
based optimal placement method for integrated electricity and gas energy system. In 2020
4th international conference on HVDC (HVDC) (pp. 1188–1194). IEEE.
54. UNISDR. (2005). Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters: Hyogo
framework for action 2005–2015. UNISDR.
55. Wang, C., Wei, W., Wang, J., Liu, F., Qiu, F., Correa-Posada, C. M., & Mei, S. (2016). Robust
defense strategy for gas–electric systems against malicious attacks. IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, 32(4), 2953–2965.
56. Wang, Y., Chen, C., Wang, J., & Baldick, R. (2015). Research on resilience of power systems
under natural disasters—A review. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 31(2), 1604–1613.
57. Haimes, Y. Y. (2018). On the definition of resilience in systems. Risk Analysis, 29(4), 498–501.
58. Yan, M., He, Y., Shahidehpour, M., Ai, X., Li, Z., & Wen, J. (2018). Coordinated regional-
district operation of integrated energy systems for resilience enhancement in natural disasters.
IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 10(5), 4881–4892.
Chapter 6
Optimal Placement of Combined Heat
and Power (CHP) Systems Considering
the Cost of Environmental Pollutants

Sasan Azad , Mohammad Mehdi Amiri , and Mohammad Taghi Ameli

6.1 Introduction

Advances in technology have led to many changes in energy production, and

countries worldwide are looking to use more efficient and environmentally friendly
technologies to produce energy. The use of distributed generation sources, espe-
cially (CHP), is one of the technologies and methods that has attracted more
attention in recent years. At this regard, cogeneration of energy system has been
so appealing to the researchers, scholars, and operators. In smart energy systems,
a couple of cogeneration approaches have been considered including gas and
electricity [1–5], cool and electricity [6], heat and electricity [7], and so on.
Combined heat and power (CHP) systems are a part of smart energy systems and
have been enjoyed in the hybrid systems so far. Hence the CHPs are so effective, but
there are several difficulties to use, including technical, environmental, operational,
and location problems, and it needs a proper procedure. Here the CHP owners
prospective and grid point of view should be considered as well. Planning at the
first place and operational problems then should be considered as well. Planning
for the use of CHP in the network should be considered from various technical,
environmental, economic, etc. aspects, and the benefits of the owners of CHP and the
network should be considered simultaneously [8]. The profit from installing CHP
in the power and heating network depends on various parameters such as type of
technology used, location and size of CHP unit, heat-to-power ratio (HPR), planning
horizon, and physical, environmental, and operational constraints [8–11]. Today,

S. Azad · M. M. Amiri
Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
M. T. Ameli ()
Faculty of Power Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 153
V. Vahidinasab, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo (eds.), Whole Energy Systems, Power
Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87653-1_6
154 S. Azad et al.

fuel cells (FC) [12–17], microturbines (MTs) [18, 19], and internal combustion
engines (ICEs) [19, 20] are mostly used as CHP. ICE and MT technologies are
more efficient than FC, but FC has better conditions for CO2 production and
environmental pollutants [21]. In locating and determining the optimal size of CHP,
in addition to the desired technical goals, economic goals for the optimal sale of heat
and heat are also considered. Therefore, university centers and hospitals, etc., which
have constant heat and heat consumption, can be suitable places to install CHP.
There are several methods to locate and determine the optimal CHP size. These
methods can be divided into two categories: analytical methods and random search
methods [22]. In the following, several research types focusing on the optimal
placement and sizing of CHP will be briefly reviewed.
The basis for using analytical methods is based on mathematical methods. In
[23], the authors have investigated the optimal capacity of CHP of the fuel cell type
for installation in the heating network using mathematical methods. In this article,
the aim is to reduce operating costs and environmental pollutants. Also, the issue
for the 24-hour time horizon has been investigated. In [8], the FC, ICE, and MT
location and optimal size for CHP networks in the 5-year time horizon have been
studied. This paper’s objective function is a multi-objective function and considers
the problem from CHP owners and network operators perspective. In this paper,
the effect of voltage stability index on placement planning and determining the
optimal CHP size is investigated in this paper. The model presented in this paper
is an MINLP model. In [24], the authors have examined the optimal size of CHP
for different technologies in the power and heating distribution network, regardless
of the optimal location. In this study, environmental and economic constraints have
been considered. The model presented in this paper for problem optimization is
an integer linear programming model. The goal is to minimize the annual costs of
operating the system, maintenance, and resource owners’ costs. In [25], an optimal
programming method is proposed to determine the optimal CHP size. In this paper,
based on a mathematical theory, the optimal CHP size is determined to minimize
the system’s annual cost. The problem studied in this paper is modeled as a mixed
non-integer programming problem. In [11], the optimal size of CHP for home use is
determined. This paper uses a nonlinear mixed-integer model that aims to minimize
the annual cost to a customer. Next, the optimal placement and sizing of CHP is
examined using random search methods.
Authors [26] have presented a method that uses particle swarm optimization
to select the optimal allocation for CHP systems considering maximum allowable
capacity with power loss reduction, voltage profile, and reliability improvement
of microgrids considering network loading conditions. This problem presents as a
multi-objective problem based on the weight factors method. The decision variables
are the location and capacity of the CHP systems that determine optimally. The
results in this paper confirm that the proposed method can select the optimal location
and size for CHP systems by improving the customer’s reliability and voltage
profile and reducing power losses in an effective and rapid approach. In this study,
the PSO algorithm’s superiority is confirmed compared to the genetic algorithm
(GA). In [15], the location of fuel cell units has been investigated by considering
environmental pollutants and excluding the heating network. In this paper, a new
6 Optimal Placement of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Systems. . . 155

fuzzy adaptive modified particle swarm optimization (FAMPSO) algorithm is used.

This paper also uses Pareto optimization to obtain a set of optimal solutions to a
multi-objective problem. In [21], the optimal placement and sizing of CHP units in
power and heating networks for a 5-year time horizon has been developed. In this
study, the planning of various renewable and nonrenewable technologies with an
improved particle swarm algorithm is solved. In [27] for determining the optimal
size of CHP, a possible method for the long-term time horizon is presented. In this
paper, a two-step stochastic optimization algorithm is developed using Monte Carlo
to solve the optimization problem. A hospital in Italy has been used as a case study.
Authors [28] developed a model to optimize the capacity and long-term operations
of CHP. This planning approach is solved using particle swarm optimization (PSO).
The long-term optimization results show that there are changes in the installed
capacity and operation. In [20], regardless of environmental pollutants, the optimal
size of CHP units in microgrids has been investigated using the PSO algorithm. In
this article, the aim is to determine the ratio of profit to cost. The technologies used
in this paper are gas turbines, MTs, and ICEs. The results show that the highest profit
ratio to cost is obtained in MT technology. To select the optimal CHP location, the
loss sensitivity index in each bus was used.
In the optimal placement of CHP, taking into account the effects of environmental
pollutants and using different types of CHP technologies can play an essential
role in the planning and implementing of these systems. In fact, the release of
environmental pollutants can change their owners’ profits and the type of technology
they use. In this chapter, the optimal placement of CHP systems considering
environmental pollutants is studied. Features are presented in this chapter, providing
a comprehensive model for CHP optimal placement systems, considering nonre-
newable sources, including electrical and heat energy networks, annual planning for
horizon which is 5 years, and the cost of environmental pollutants.
The structure of the chapter is as follows: in Sect. 6.2 to present and formulate the
problem, in Sect. 6.3 to present the study network and information needed to solve
the problem, in Sect. 6.4 to discuss and simulate the results, and finally in Sect. 6.5
to discuss the general result overview of the chapter.

6.2 Problem Formulation

In this section, the objective function and constraints used in the problem of optimal
placement of different CHP technologies for a 5-year time horizon are stated.

6.2.1 Objective Function

The objective function of the problem, which is the profit of the network operator
from the optimal allocation of CHP, consists of two terms of revenue and cost, which
are mentioned in Eq. (6.1):
156 S. Azad et al.

BenefitCHP = RevenueCHP − CostCHP (6.1)

where RevenueCHP and CostCHP are obtained using Eqs. (6.2) and (6.3), respec-
tively:


Nh 
Ny  T
Ns N
RevenueCHP = s n,y,s +
H S Ht
βy,s
n=1 y=1 s=1 t=1

Nb 
Ny  T
Ns N 
Ny Ns  
s i,y,s + Ploss,y,s − Ploss,y,s
E S Pt
βy,s E S
βy,s CHP (6.2)
s
i=1 y=1 s=1 t=1 y=1 s=1

Ny
+ URCy
y=1

In which the first term is the CHP units revenue from the sale of heat energy,
the second term is the CHP units revenue from the sale of electrical energy, the
third term is the network operator’s revenue from the reduction of electrical energy
losses, and the fourth semester is the revenue from the reduction of investment
costs for equipment upgrades. The amount of investment reduction depends on CHP
networks’ structure, which is considered a fixed annual number here [20]:


Nb 
Ny  T
Ns N
CostCHP = t
Pi,y,s MOCt Ss +
i=1 y=1 s=1 t=1

Nb 
Ny  T
Ns N
t
Pi,y,s ERCHP
t Ss EtCO2 (6.3)
i=1 y=1 s=1 t=1
Nb  T
Ny N
+ I C CHP
t
CHP
Ii,y,t − I C CHP
t
CHP
Ii,y,t−1
i=1 y=1 t=1

In which the first term shows the cost of maintenance of CHP units. Maintenance
cost is expressed as a linear function of generated electrical power [29]. The second
term shows the cost of carbon dioxide emissions as environmental pollutants [30].
The third term shows the cost of installing different CHP units in the electricity and
heat network.

6.2.2 Problem Constraints

In this section, the constraints related to the location and optimal size of different
CHP units in electrical and heat networks are expressed to maximize the problem’s
objective function, which is the network operator’s profit from different CHP
technologies.
6 Optimal Placement of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Systems. . . 157

6.2.2.1 Power Flow Constraints in the Electrical Network

The objective function of the problem is optimized with equality and inequality
constraints as follows:


NG 
Nt 
Nb
 
G
Pi,y,s + t
Pi,y,s − Pi,y,s
L
= Vi,y,s Vj,y,s Yij cos ϕij + θj,y,s − θi,y,s
i=1 t=1 j =1
(6.4)

NG 
Nb
 
i,y,s − Qi,y,s = −
QG Vi,y,s Vj,y,s Yij sin ϕij + θj,y,s − θi,y,s
L
(6.5)
i=1 j =1

Vimin ≤ Vi ≤ Vimax (6.6)

Gi
Pmin ≤ P Gi ≤ Pmax
Gi
(6.7)

min ≤ Q ≤ Qmax
QGi Gi Gi
(6.8)

Sij,y,s ≤ Sij,y,s
max
(6.9)

In which Eqs. (6.4) and (6.5) are the power flow equality constraints, Eq. (6.6)
is allowable voltage limits for the operation of the electrical network, Eqs. (6.7)
and (6.8) are the minimum and maximum limits of active and reactive power of
generators, and Eq. (6.9) is apparent allowable power passing through the lines.

6.2.2.2 Heat Network Constraints

In this section, the relations related to the thermal network to solve the problem are
modeled as follows:


Nt  
CHP
Hm,y,s,t + Hm,y,s
boil
+ fkn = fnk + Hm,y,s
L
(6.10)
t=1 k∈Nk k∈Nk

  t    
fnk = sng pn,y,s − pk,y,s Cnk sng pn,y,s − pk,y,s p2 n,y,s − p2 k,y,s
(6.11)
158 S. Azad et al.

pnmin ≤ pn ≤ pnmax (6.12)

fkm ≤ fkm
max
(6.13)

In which Eq. (6.10) shows the thermal equilibrium in the heat network [31]. Eq.
(6.11) shows the heat flow through the lines. Equations (6.12) and (6.13) show the
pressure limits at the heating network’s buses and the limits of the thermal power
passing through the heating network, respectively.

6.2.2.3 Conversion of Electrical Power to Heat

According to the following equation, electrical power is converted to heat in the

proposed problem [31]:

CHP
Hi,y,s,t
i,y,s,t =
HPRCHP CHP
(6.14)
Pi,y,s,t

6.2.2.4 CHP Various Technologies Investment Constraint

The binary variable determining the CHP unit’s status will not change by installing
different CHP units in the power and heat network during the planning period. It
means that this unit will be operated in the years after the installation time:
CHP
Ii,y,t−1 ≤ Ii,y,t
CHP
(6.15)

6.2.2.5 Limitation of Electrical and Heat Power of Various CHP

Technologies

t,min t,max
Pi,y,s × Ii,y,t
CHP
≤ Pi,y,s
t
≤ Pi,y,s × Ii,y,t
CHP
(6.16)

t,min t,max
Hi,y,s × Ii,y,t
CHP
≤ Hi,y,s
t
≤ Hi,y,s × Ii,y,t
CHP
(6.17)

6.2.3 Prices and Loads of Electrical and Heat Energy

In the issue of placement and determining the optimal size of CHP in the long run,
attention to price and the electrical load is of particular importance. Also, since the
6 Optimal Placement of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Systems. . . 159

price and amount of electric and heat load are different for different seasons of the
year (spring and autumn are assumed to be the same), so in this issue, three patterns
of load and price for the year are considered. In this modeling, increasing the load
and price of electrical and heat energy are also considered:

L
Pi,y,s = (1 + α)y−1 × coefE
s ×P
L
(6.18)

i,y,s = (1 + α)
QL × coefE
s ×Q
y−1 L
(6.19)

L
Hn,y,s = (1 + α)y−1 × coefH
s ×H
L
(6.20)

E
βy,s = (1 + β)y−1 × coefE
s × βy=1
E
(6.21)

H
βy,s = (1 + β)y−1 × coefH
s × βy=1
H
(6.22)

6.3 Study Network and Problem Required Data

The electrical and heat network studied in Fig. 6.1 is considered based on the
standard 14-bus IEEE network [20]. As shown in Fig. 6.1, electrical and heat
networks have a similar structure, and energy is transmitted to the place of
consumption through electrical and heat lines. In the studied network, each bus has
different electrical and heat loads [20]. The CHP units are placed in the network
to supply the heat loads in the best technical and economical way. Also, electrical
loads are supplied by preinstalled units, and the electrical power of CHP units is
provided in a better technical and economic condition. Figure 6.2 shows a general
schematic of the system under study. The electrical and heat loads of the various bus
networks under study in the first year of operation are shown in Fig. 6.3.
In the following, the data is required for CHP placement with environmental
pollutants. The required information is presented in Tables 6.1 and 6.2, respectively.
Table 6.1 provides information on CHP systems for fuel cell technologies, microtur-
bines, and internal combustion engines as nonrenewable systems. This information
includes installation, maintenance costs, HPR value, unit capacity, and emission
rate of environmental pollutants [21]. The efficiency of FC units is 98%. Other
parameters required to solve the optimization problem are presented in Table 6.2.
160 S. Azad et al.

L12 L13 L14

12 13 14

L11 L10 L9 G8 L8

11 10 9 8

G1
L7

1 6 7

L5
G6 L4
L6
5 4

2 3

G2 L2 G3 L3

Fig. 6.1 Electrical and heat network studied

Fig. 6.2 General schematic of the studied network

6 Optimal Placement of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Systems. . . 161

Fig. 6.3 Electrical and heat loads of the studied network in the first year of operation

Table 6.1 CHP data [8, 26]

Technology Capacity (MW) HPR I C CH
t
P MOCt ER CH
t
P Hmax Pmin Pmax
ICE 5 0.95 2900 0.025 790 1.1 0 1.1
FC 20 1.5 6500 0.038 20 1.1 0 1.1
MT 1 0.6 4300 0.013 150 1.1 0.2 1.1

Table 6.2 Different parameters [8, 26]

Parameter Value Parameter Value
coef E
s=1 1 α 0.1
coef E
s=2 1.3 β 0.1
coef E
s=3 0.8 Vmin 0.9
coef H
s=1 1 Vimax 1.05
coef H
s=2 0.7 E CO2 0.0029 $/kg
coef H
s=3 1.4 URC 120 $/MWh
βyH 50 $/MWh βyE 80$/MWh

6.4 Simulation and Analysis of Results

As mentioned, the network in question is based on the IEEE 14-bus network. This
network has five preinstalled units to supply electrical charges. With the addition
of heat loads, CHP units that are optimally installed in the network are used to
supply them. Electric and heat loads and the price of energy increase each year
of operation according to coefficients α and β. It should be noted that during the
operation period, there is always a balance in the electrical and heat networks with
the optimal operation of the CHP units, while the goal is the maximum profit of
the network operator. Loads and the price of electrical and heat energy change in
each season of the operation period based on coefficients coef E h
s and coef s . In the
following, the optimal placement of CHP systems based on fuel cell, microturbine,
162 S. Azad et al.

Fig. 6.4 Profit changes on the planning horizon

Table 6.3 Optimal CHP allocation with considering environmental pollution

Electricity Heat Cost of
Year of unit capacity capacity environmental
Type Bus number installation (MW) (MW) Profit (k$) Pollution ($)
FC 4 1 20 30 69,358 10,232
14 1 20 30
MT 9 1 1 0.6 3467.9 3875.2
10 1 1 0.6
ICE 9 1 5 4.75 17339 100,264
10 1 5 4.75

and internal combustion engine technologies is examined considering the cost of

environmental pollution.
First, the results of the implementation of the problem are examined according
to the input data. Figure 6.4 shows the changes in network operator profits from
different CHP technologies over a 5-year horizon. Examination of Fig. 6.4 shows
that the operating profit increases over the operating time. The simulation results
show that the highest revenue is related to the sale of renewable energy, and the
highest cost is related to the installation of these technologies. In total, the profit
from the installation of CHP technologies in the network is $ 90,165,000.
The results of optimal location and size of nonrenewable resources are shown
in Table 6.3. The results show that the profit ratio to environmental pollutants’ cost
due to fuel cell is more than two technologies. Therefore, this technology can be an
excellent option to increase the profit of the network operator. Also, the emission
of environmental pollutants from fuel cells is less than the other two technologies,
so it is also environmentally friendly. The cost of environmental pollution and the
amount of pollution produced by the internal combustion engine is higher than
the other two technologies. Therefore, due to increasing environmental concerns,
this technology’s installation is not suitable in terms of environment and pollution.
6 Optimal Placement of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Systems. . . 163

Fig. 6.5 CHP units heat power

However, suppose the cost of environmental pollutants is excluded, considering that

the cost of maintenance and installation of fuel cell technology is more than the other
two technologies. In that case, the internal combustion engine and microturbine
are economical for the network operator and their owners. One of the issues that
shows the importance of long-term planning is the cost of installing various CHP
technologies. The greater the planning horizon, the more economical the installation
of technologies will be with the higher installation costs. In general, as the planning
horizon increases, the installation of technologies is more appropriate with less
environmental emissions and lower maintenance costs.
The amount of heat power output of the three technologies discussed in this
chapter increases with decreasing winter temperature. In the cold season, the amount
of heat load increases, and the price coefficient of electrical energy is 0.8, and the
price coefficient of thermal energy is 1.3. Therefore, increasing the heat output of
the units in the cold season can be justified. Figure 6.5 shows the heat output of
all three technologies for the planning horizon. As it is known, the amount of heat
power in the cold season is higher due to profitability.
In the following, the sensitivity of the operator’s final profit of the CHP
installation to HPR is examined. To do this, the HPR value is the same for all three
technologies and varies from 0.5 to 1.5. The total profit for different HPRs is shown
in Fig. 6.6. Examination of Fig. 6.6 shows that with increasing HPR, the amount
of profit decreases. That is because the price of thermal energy is lower than that
of electricity. For example, a 50% increase in the amount of HPR (from 0.5 to 1)
will result in a 6% decrease in profit. Therefore, it can be said that determining the
appropriate value for HPR is of particular importance.
In order to investigate the effect of heat loads on the operating profit, the
electrical network is omitted. In this way, CHP units and other sources already
installed in the network supply electrical loads. Figure 6.7 shows the operating
164 S. Azad et al.

Fig. 6.6 Investigating the effect of HPR value on operating profit due to CHP installation

Fig. 6.7 Profit changes in the planning horizon without heat network

profit from the installation of CHP units. Examination of the figure shows that the
operator benefited significantly from the supply of thermal loads, and this shows the
importance of the heating network in increasing the operator’s profit.
In this case, by removing the electrical network, the CHP units are placed in bus
11 with the maximum possible value. It can be seen that there is only one unit of
each technology, which is less than the case with the electrical network because of
the elimination of the heat network.
Finally, the effect of eliminating environmental pollutants on the optimal allo-
cation of CHP technologies is investigated. Given the importance of environmental
issues in long-term and medium-term planning, this issue must be considered. The
results for CHP systems’ placement based on nonrenewable technologies without
6 Optimal Placement of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Systems. . . 165

Table 6.4 Optimal CHP Type Bus number Year of unit installation
placement
FC 4 1
14 1
MT 4 1
12 1
ICE 9 1
14 1

considering environmental pollutants are shown in Table 6.4. According to Table

6.4, due to eliminating the cost of environmental pollutants, the profit of network
operators and resource owners will increase. The profit margin is $ 576,624. Also,
the installation location of different technologies has been affected by this issue, as
shown in Table 6.4.

6.5 Conclusion

The increasing population of the world and, naturally, the increasing need for
electrical and heat energy have caused more attention and expansion of CHP
systems globally. Given the importance of environmental issues, environmental
pollutants as one of the crucial factors in the long-term planning of various CHP
technologies should always be considered. In this chapter, a comprehensive model
for the optimal planning and allocation of CHP technologies such as microturbines,
fuel cells, and internal combustion engines with environmental pollutants was
presented. The amount of load and price of electrical and heat energy during the
planning period have had seasonal and annual changes in the studied model. The
proposed model was implemented and tested on an IEEE 14-bus network with
electric and heat loads over a 5-year time horizon. The simulation results showed
that increasing the HPR reduces the operating profit. Also, fuel cell technology was
the most suitable, and the internal combustion engine the worst technology in terms
of environmental pollutants. In addition to affecting the profits of network operators
and resource owners, environmental pollutants caused changes in the installation
location of various CHP technologies. On the other hand, it was found that the
presence of thermal loads has increased the profit of the network operator. One of
the things that can be considered in the optimal allocation planning of CHP is the
planning horizon’s effect on the optimal allocation and profitability of the network
operator. The use of electrical and heat storage can also be considered to increase
operating profits.
166 S. Azad et al.

Nomenclature
Sets

Nb Number of network Vi min /Vi maxn Minimum/maximum bus

buses voltage
NT Number of CHP Ploss,y,s Network loss before CHP
technology allocation (MW)
NS Number of seasons CHP
Ploss,y,s Network loss after CHP
allocation (MW)
Ny Number of time for Ss The total number of hours
the planning in season s
Ng Number of H , βE
βy,s Heat/electricity price in
y,s
generating units year y at season s
Indices t
Hn,y,s t
, Pi,y,s Heat/electricity produced
by CHP unit type t (MW)
i,j Electric network MOCt Maintenance and operation
buses cost of CHP units
($/MWh)
n,k Heat network buses ERCHP
t Rate of CO2 emissions by
CHP unit type t (kg/MWh)
y Index of years EtCO2 Cost for each kg of CO2
($/kg)
T Types of CHP I C CHP
t Investment cost of CHP
technologies units ($/kW)
s Index of seasons CHP
Ii,y,t−1 A binary variable for the
place of CHP(0,1)
Variables and HPRCHP
i,y,s,t Heat-to-power ratio of
parameters CHP units
UCRy Upgrade cost boil
Hm,y,s Heat power of boiler
reduction in year y
Pl i,y,s Active load of fnk Heat power flow
electricity system
α Load growth rate pn Heat network buses
pressure
β Price growth rate pnmax , pnmin Maximum/minimum heat
network buses pressure
coefE H
s , coefs Electricity/heat load t
Cnk Coefficient of heat
and price coefficient network’s branches loss
in each season
Gi /P Gi , QGi /QGi
Pmax Maximum/minimum G , QG
Pi,y,s Active/reactive power
min max min i,y,s
active/reactive power generation of preinstalled
generation of generation units
preinstalled (MW/MVAr)
generation units
(MW/MVAr)
(continued)
6 Optimal Placement of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Systems. . . 167

Hmax , Hmin Maximum/minimum Pmax , Pmin Maximum/minimum

acceptable of heat acceptable of electricity
produced by CHP produced by CHP unit
unit
L , QL
Pi,y,s Active/reactive load L
Hm,y,s Heat load of heat network
i,y,s
of electricity network (MW)
(MW/MVAr)
Vi, y, s θ i, y, s Voltage phasor at bus Yij ϕij Polar form of ijth element
i at year y and season of admittance matrix
s
Si, j, y, s Apparent power flow max
Sij,y,s Maximum apparent power
in feeder i–j at year y flow in feeder i–j at year y
and season s and season s

References

1. Shabazbegian, V., Ameli, H., Ameli, M. T., Strbac, G., & Qadrdan, M. (2021). Co-optimization
of resilient gas and electricity networks; a novel possibilistic chance-constrained programming
approach. Applied Energy, 284, 116284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116284
2. Shabazbegian, V., Ameli, H., Ameli, M. T., & Strbac, G. (2020). Stochastic optimization
model for coordinated operation of natural gas and electricity networks. Computers Chemical
Engineering, 142, 107060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2020.107060
3. Beigvand, S. D., Abdi, H., & La Scala, M. (2017). Economic dispatch of multiple energy
carriers. Energy, 138.
4. Beigvand, S. D., Abdi, H., & La Scala, M. (2017). A general model for energy hub economic
dispatch. Applied Energy, 190, 1090–1111.
5. Sanjani, K., et al. (2019). A robust-stochastic approach for energy transaction in energy hub
under uncertainty. In Robust optimal planning and operation of electrical energy systems (pp.
219–232). Springer.
6. Dargahi, A., et al. (2020). Scheduling of air conditioning and thermal energy storage systems
considering demand response programs. Sustainability, 12(18), 7311.
7. Aunedi, M., et al. Modelling of national and local interactions between heat and electricity
networks in low-carbon energy systems. Applied Energy, 276(2020), 115522.
8. Yadegari, S., Abdi, H., & Nikkhah, S. (2020). Risk-averse multi-objective optimal combined
heat and power planning considering voltage security constraints. Energy, 212, 118754.
9. Boljevic, S., & Conlon, M. F. (2011). Optimal sizing of combined heat & power (CHP)
generation in urban distribution network (UDN). In 46th International Universities’ Power
Engineering Conference (UPEC). VDE.
10. Sadeghian, H. R., & Ardehali, M. M. (2016). A novel approach for optimal economic dispatch
scheduling of integrated combined heat and power systems for maximum economic profit and
minimum environmental emissions based on Benders decomposition. Energy, 102, 10–23.
11. Ren, H., Gao, W., & Ruan, Y. (2008). Optimal sizing for residential CHP system. Applied
Thermal Engineering, 28(5–6), 514–523.
12. Briguglio, N., et al. (2011). Evaluation of a low temperature fuel cell system for residential
CHP. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 36(13), 8023–8029.
13. Asl, S. M. S., Rowshanzamir, S., & Eikani, M. H. (2010). Modelling and simulation of the
steady-state and dynamic behaviour of a PEM fuel cell. Energy, 35(4), 1633–1646.
168 S. Azad et al.

14. Moradi, M. H., & Abedini, M. (2012). A combination of genetic algorithm and particle swarm
optimization for optimal DG location and sizing in distribution systems. International Journal
of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 34(1), 66–74.
15. Farjah, E., et al. (2012). Placement of combined heat, power and hydrogen production fuel cell
power plants in a distribution network. Energies, 5(3), 790–814.
16. El-Sharkh, M. Y., et al. (2010). Economics of hydrogen production and utilization strategies
for the optimal operation of a grid-parallel PEM fuel cell power plant. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy, 35(16), 8804–8814.
17. Adam, A., Fraga, E. S., & Brett, D. J. L. (2015). Options for residential building services design
using fuel cell based micro-CHP and the potential for heat integration. Applied Energy, 138,
685–694.
18. Tichi, S. G., Ardehali, M. M., & Nazari, M. E. (2010). Examination of energy price policies
in Iran for optimal configuration of CHP and CCHP systems based on particle swarm
optimization algorithm. Energy Policy, 38(10), 6240–6250.
19. Buoro, D., Pinamonti, P., & Reini, M. (2014). Optimization of a DISTRIBUTED COGENER-
ATION SYSTEM with solar district heating. Applied Energy, 124, 298–308.
20. Basu, A. K., Chowdhury, S., & Chowdhury, S. P. (2010). Impact of strategic deployment of
CHP-based DERs on microgrid reliability. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 25(3), 1697–
1705.
21. Arandian, B., & Ardehali, M. M. (2017). Effects of environmental emissions on optimal
combination and allocation of renewable and non-renewable CHP technologies in heat and
electricity distribution networks based on improved particle swarm optimization algorithm.
Energy, 140, 466–480.
22. Arandian, B., & Ardehali, M. M. (2017). Renewable photovoltaic-thermal combined heat and
power allocation optimization in radial and meshed integrated heat and electricity distribution
networks with storages based on newly developed hybrid shuffled frog leaping algorithm.
Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 9(3), 033503.
23. Adam, A., Fraga, E. S., & Brett, D. J. L. (2015). Options for residential building services design
using fuel cell based micro-CHP and the potential for heat integration. Applied Energy, 138,
685–694.
24. Buoro, D., Pinamonti, P., & Reini, M. (2014). Optimization of a distributed cogeneration
system with solar district heating. Applied Energy, 124, 298–308.
25. Beihong, Z., & Weiding, L. (2006). An optimal sizing method for cogeneration plants. Energy
and Buildings, 38(3), 189–195.
26. Naderipour, A., et al. Optimal allocation for combined heat and power system with respect to
maximum allowable capacity for reduced losses and improved voltage profile and reliability of
microgrids considering loading condition. Energy, 196(2020), 117124.
27. Urbanucci, L., & Testi, D. (2018). Optimal integrated sizing and operation of a CHP
system with Monte Carlo risk analysis for long-term uncertainty in energy demands. Energy
Conversion and Management, 157, 307–316.
28. Takada, K., & Ikegami, T. (2018). Long-term Planning model for a CHP system using particle
swarm optimization algorithm and mixed integer linear programming. In 2018 International
conference on Smart Energy Systems and Technologies (SEST). IEEE.
29. Wang, H., et al. (2015). Modelling and optimization of CHP based district heating system with
renewable energy production and energy storage. Applied Energy, 159, 401–421.
30. Gharavi, H., Ardehali, M. M., & Tichi, S. G. (2015). Imperial competitive algorithm optimiza-
tion of fuzzy multi-objective design of a hybrid green power system with considerations for
economics, reliability, and environmental emissions. Renewable Energy, 78, 427–437.
31. Amirnekooei, K., Ardehali, M. M., & Sadri, A. (2017). Optimal energy pricing for integrated
natural gas and electric power network with considerations for techno-economic constraints.
Energy, 123, 693–709.
Chapter 7
Optimal Coalition Operation
of Interconnected Hybrid Energy
Systems Containing Local Energy
Conversion Technologies, Renewable
Energy Resources, and Energy Storage
Systems

Behzad Motallebi Azar , Amir Mirzapour-Kamanaj ,

Rasool Kazemzadeh , Behnam Mohammadi-Ivatloo , and Kazem Zare

7.1 Introduction

The issue of energy is one of the main challenges of human beings in the
present century. Nowadays, due to the advent of various technologies and human-
life dependency on energy, these challenges have become more apparent. These
challenges appear in multiple forms, such as energy supply, trade, and consumption.
For decades fossil fuels have been the main primary fuel for power plants, which was
not cost-effective due to the low efficiency of primary energy production. In recent
years, due to increasing energy demand, economic and environmental challenges,
energy security, depleting fossil fuels, and high penetration of renewable energy
resources (RERs), the utilization of hybrid energy systems (HESs) has become
more regarded by stakeholders. HES can use multiple types of energy as input, and
after converting, storing, and conditioning, the various types of energy demands
can be supplied [1]. The use of HESs highlights the concept of whole energy

B. Motallebi Azar () · R. Kazemzadeh

Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Sahand University of Technology, Tabriz, Iran
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
A. Mirzapour-Kamanaj · K. Zare
Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Muğla,
Turkey
e-mail: [email protected]
Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 169
V. Vahidinasab, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo (eds.), Whole Energy Systems, Power
Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87653-1_7
170 B. Motallebi Azar et al.

systems, which means the coordination of electricity, gas, heat, traffic, and water
systems [2] in order to transform clean and techno-economic energy to customers.
Also, exchanging energy between interconnected hybrid energy systems (IHESs)
can be an effective way to improve the energy systems’ performance. Therefore,
some research needs to investigate the optimal operation of IHESs to overcome the
mentioned challenges.
In 2005, researchers at the Zurich Laboratory in Switzerland came up with a new
definition of vision of future energy networks (VOFEN) as a novel move toward
more efficient and optimized energy systems [3]. In 2007, authors of [4] used the
energy hub for the first time, which was a continuation of the VOFEN project.
Mathematical equations of the energy hub concept are also present in [5], which
are utilized for optimizing energy carriers’ integration. The energy hub concept
expansion is a promising option for optimal management of multiple energy systems
and attaining a comprehensive sustainable energy system model. The energy hub
concept is defined as the linkage between consumers, manufacturers, storage, and
transmission devices that manage one or more carriers directly or with converters’
aid. A comprehensive review regarding different concepts and models for energy
hubs is investigated in [1]. In this paper, strengths, weaknesses, and challenges
toward dominant structures of energy hubs are identified, and sufficient explanations
are expressed.
In general, energy hub studies can be classified into two groups: The first
group includes the financial aspects of energy hubs development. The second
group includes various methods of control and optimal operation of energy hubs
[6]. In this study, the optimal operation of energy hubs is discussed. In reference
[7], the optimal performance of an energy hub is investigated utilizing nonlinear
programming. A robust optimization approach for managing the energy hub’s
operation is also presented in [8]. The authors of [4] provided a framework for
networked energy systems with multiple energy carriers within a single energy
hub. In [9], a probabilistic economic dispatch optimization model for the optimal
performance of multiple energy systems is developed by the multi-agent genetic
algorithm optimization method. The authors of [10] also presented a multi-period
optimization method to solve an energy hub’s power flow by considering biomass
energy for regional heating with multiple energy carriers. Developing a cluster
of energy hubs is an effective strategy to mitigate system costs and greenhouse
gas emissions. In [11], a complex energy hub network is modeled and optimized
under different scenarios, and both financial variables and the potential reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions are tested. In this research, two case studies, including two
and three energy hubs in a network, have been considered, and the multi-objective
optimization method has been used to obtain the Pareto curve. Despite most
researchers’ interest in studying energy resources’ optimal operation, some studies
aim to determine the optimal size of energy resources’ internal components. The
authors of [12] presented an optimal planning model based on reliability for energy
hubs connections. The proposed model calculates the minimum cost of transmission
lines network and natural gas pipelines. To obtain the coupling matrix and mitigate
the computational burden, a smart modeling and optimization method is illustrated
for the energy hub in [13], in which the complex energy hub model separates into
7 Optimal Coalition Operation of Interconnected Hybrid Energy Systems. . . 171

several simple energy hubs. The authors of [14] presented an integrated energy
hub system based on power-to-gas and compressed air energy storage technologies.
The main contribution of this paper focuses on the conditional value-at-risk-based
stochastic model and a demand response programming to determine day-ahead
optimal scheduling and load shifting in the energy hub system with introduced
technologies. A multi-objective stochastic unit commitment problem with battery-
based energy storage and demand response programming is also presented in [15] to
minimize the system’s operating costs and decrease CO2 emissions of the electricity
grid. The authors of [16] presented a combined methodology of decomposed particle
swarm optimization (PSO) and the interior point method to solve multiple energy
hubs’ optimal programming problems considering battery lifetime. The authors of
[17] proposed a micro-energy grid (MEG) architecture based on the energy hub.
An optimal operation model for MEG is also presented to minimize the cost of
daily operation. The results show that the proposed MEG model reduces operating
costs, reduces CO2 emissions, and improves energy efficiency. The authors of [18]
presented an efficient model for the energy hub concept based on graph theory. In
the current research, a proposed multistage modeling method is used to mitigate
the computational burden to develop the coupling matrix, which is obtained by
converting nonlinear model equations to linear model equations without losing
any information. The results show a significant reduction in the operating costs
of the multiple energy system (MES). The authors of [19] presented a strategic
optimization framework for the optimal operation of interconnected energy hub
systems in the distribution network. The bi-level optimization problem is converted
to a MILP problem using the KKT terms and then investigated in the 33-bus
network. The results indicate that the system’s total cost, which is proportional to
the whole power purchased from the upstream network and energy exchanged with
energy hubs, has decreased.
The electrical energy supply of power grids, buildings, vehicle charging stations,
water desalination, and concerns about increased CO2 emissions are among the
reasons for renewable energy resource utilization. Hydrogen as a green energy
carrier is an essential factor in supplying energy for different energy sectors due to
its high energy density and ease of storage and transportation. Although hydrogen
is known as clean energy, hydrogen-based products have rarely been used in energy
systems. Therefore, some studies have attempted to investigate hydrogen storage
systems’ coordination and renewable sources for hydrogen production for use in
hydrogen-based industries, supplying the fuel of hydrogen vehicles, and converting
to electricity if necessary [20]. Power-to-gas (P2G) technology has provided a new
route for the optimized utilization of distributed renewable energies. With the aid
of renewable energies (wind and solar energies in this study), water is converted to
hydrogen and oxygen using electrolyzer devices. In this process, the wind turbine’s
electrical power is utilized to electrolyze water to O2 and H2 . Water electrolysis is an
environmentally friendly reaction through the H2 O + 2F → H2 + 12 O2 . F represents
the Faraday constant that measures one mole of electricity. The generated hydrogen
is either stored in the hydrogen tank or used to generate electrical power in fuel cells,
which is presented as H2 + 12 O2 → H2 O + 2F, to compensate electricity in case of
power generation shortage [21]. In [22], a planning model for the joint optimization
172 B. Motallebi Azar et al.

of the wind power transmission project and the hydrogen system is investigated. The
transmission project’s optimal values and the hydrogen system are obtained under
different hydrogen production modes, hydrogen exchange, and hydrogen demand
levels. The results show that it is challenging to supply hydrogen in real time due
to wind power’s intermittent nature. In such cases, the power grid can be used to
eliminate hydrogen deficiency. The optimal size of hydrogen systems and wind
farms in excessive wind power to produce hydrogen in an isolated power system
based on different wind power penetration and wind curtailment level is investigated
in [23]. In [24], a robust technique is proposed for the day-ahead scheduling of
a smart micro-energy hub (SMEH) integrated with hydrogen-to-power conversion
technology, along with an incentive-based integrated demand response to control
the load pattern of consumers. The proposed model was formulated as a mix-
integer linear programming (MILP) problem. Wind energy is converted to hydrogen
and stored as clean energy at low-cost hours. Stored hydrogen can be converted
to electricity at high price hours. The robust optimization method was also
implemented to consider the electricity price uncertainty. The presented results
ensure that the proposed procedure for SMEH planning is optimal, economical, and
robust. The authors of [25] evaluated the impact of P2G technology on improving
wind energy regulation capability and illustrate that P2G technology improves wind
flexibility. In [26], energy management of an energy hub is proposed to minimize
operation and emission costs in the presence of wind turbines and demand response.
This problem is solved as a dual-objective MILP optimization problem. In some
cases, produced hydrogen is utilized in refueling stations to provide energy to
the hydrogen/electric-based vehicles charging process. The authors in [27] have
determined the optimal performance of a network of hydrogen refueling stations
supplied by renewable electricity, based on population density and renewable energy
supply. A significant advantage of hydrogen refueling stations is that they can
separate refueling demand from electrolyzer operation. By doing so, they can
help integrate renewable electricity and take advantage of the electricity market’s
functioning. Therefore, in [28], an optimization method is applied to determine an
electrolyzer-based hydrogen refueling station’s optimal performance in an advanced
manufacturing park in Rotherham, England. The authors of [29] also established a
stochastic model for integrating the Markov chain process into refueling hydrogen
fuel vehicle and driver behavior patterns in the South African transport sector.
The authors of [30] presented an energy management approach for determining
retailers’ selling prices in the presence of renewable energy sources and plug-in
electric vehicles (PEVs). The outcomes indicate that flexible energy management of
PEVs and hydrogen storage systems leads to an increase in expected profit and
reduced selling price for the end-user customers. In [31], an optimal algorithm
for designing and adjusting the charging station of off-grid electric and hydrogen
vehicles by the solar system, diesel generator, and fuel cell is presented. The
obtained results represent that increasing solar energy profile and diesel generator
optimal performance reduces the cost of the whole system significantly.
According to the previous literature review, there is no focus on the optimal
collation operation of IHESs with considering P2X technologies, RERs, and energy
7 Optimal Coalition Operation of Interconnected Hybrid Energy Systems. . . 173

storage systems (EESs), so some research gaps can be expressed for previous works
as follows:
• In some of the studies such as [4, 7, 8, 19, 32, 33, 34], and [35], the cooling and
hydrogen demands are not taken into account, while the coordination of state-of-
the-art P2X technologies with other facilities in HES or multi-carrier system to
supplying cooling and hydrogen demands is essential.
• The interconnected operation of HES is not considered in many studies such as
[7, 8, 17, 24, 36], and [37], while IHESs can be an effective way to improve the
energy systems’ performance.
• In [19, 24, 31, 32, 35], and [36], co-optimization of energy and emission cost is
not investigated, where due to environmental challenges, considering emission
cost in the optimal operation of IHESs is imperative.
According to mentioned research gaps, in this chapter, the optimal coalition
operation of IHESs with considering P2X technologies, renewable and nonrenew-
able energy resources, and EESs to supplying various types of energy demands
is investigated. The aim is to improve the whole system’s optimal performance
with different facilities’ interactions inside each HES and deplete CO2 emissions
to minimize this coalition’s operational costs. The main contributions of this work
are summarized as follows:
• As shown in Fig. 7.1, optimal coalition operation is a novel framework in the
integration of interconnected hybrid energy systems. So, along with the optimal
operation of each subsystem, minimizing the whole system costs is considered
in this method. In this case, the main priority is to meet the demands of each
subsystem by adjacent subsystems.
• Due to the intermittent nature of wind and solar energies, the presence of power-
to-hydrogen (P2Hy) technology helps convert electrical power to hydrogen
energy for consumption by loads or storage in the hydrogen tank. Also, during
peak hours, hydrogen can be converted into electrical energy utilizing the fuel
cell.

Fig. 7.1 Optimal coalition operation framework

174 B. Motallebi Azar et al.

In the following, in Sect. 7.2, the general modeling of IHESs is introduced. Sec-
tion 7.3 also presents the mathematical equations for the optimization constraints.
Section 7.4 deals with the results of the simulations. Section 7.5 is a brief discussion
about the status quo, challenges, and outlook. Finally, Sect. 7.6 is the general
summary.

7.2 Modeling

As shown in Fig. 7.2, the proposed energy system includes two IHESs that exchange
electrical, thermal, and hydrogen energies together. System energy inputs include
electricity and natural gas grids. The IHESs outputs contain electricity, heating,
cooling, and hydrogen demands. Electricity demand is supplying by the CHP unit’s

Fig. 7.2 Proposed interconnected hybrid energy system

7 Optimal Coalition Operation of Interconnected Hybrid Energy Systems. . . 175

Fig. 7.3 General scheme of hydrogen system

electrical output, renewable energies, fuel cell, and electrical energy imported from
the power grid. Heating demands are also provided by the CHP unit’s thermal
output, gas boiler, and electric heater (P2H technology), which supplies through
natural gas and electrical energy in the hybrid system. For cooling applications,
absorption chiller and electric chiller (P2C technology) are exploited to increase
the system’s flexibility in supplying cooling energy at different hours of the day.
Hydrogen demands are obtained by the electrolyzer, which generates hydrogen
by water electrolysis. In this regard, renewable energy outputs (wind and solar in
this paper), due to their intermittent nature along with system excess power, are
participating in generating hydrogen by the electrolyzer. The general scheme of the
hydrogen system is shown in Fig. 7.3. The storage systems utilized in this study also
contain the battery electrical storage system (BESS), heat energy storage system
(HESS), and hydrogen tank storage system (HTSS), in which by storing energy at
low-load periods, they can use the stored energy at peak-load periods.

7.3 Problem Formulation

In this section, linear equations of the proposed model optimal operation are
investigated in singular and coalition operation modes, which are as follows.

7.3.1 Individual Operation of Each HES

In individual operation, each hybrid system operates individually in interaction with

the main grid and trades no energy with each other.

7.3.1.1 Objective Function

The considered objective function in this study is to minimize the total cost of HES,
which includes expenses of purchased energy from power network, natural gas grid,
and costs related to CO2 emissions:
176 B. Motallebi Azar et al.

CostTotal
h = CostElectric
h + CostGas
h + Costh
Emission
(7.1)


T
CostElectric
h = Grid
Pt,h × γtElectric (7.2)
t


T

h =
CostGas t,h × γ
GGrid Gas
(7.3)
t

T 
 
CostEmission
h =κ× Grid
Pt,h × μElectric + GGrid
t,h × μ
Gas
(7.4)
t

In which CostTotal
h is the total cost of each HES. CostElectric
h , CostGas
h , andCosth
Emission

are the HES’s electric, gas, and emission costs, respectively. Equations (7.2) and
(7.3) are problem formulation of electricity and natural gas costs, which are equal to
the purchased electric power (PGrid Grid
t,h ) and natural gas (Gt,h ) from the primary grid
multiplied by electricity price (γtElectric ) and natural gas price (γGas ), respectively.
Equation (7.4) also indicates emission costs, in which the first term is the amount of
released emission by purchasing power from the grid and the second term is related
to the amount of released emission by gas consumption of devices inside the HES.
Here κ is the factor of emission cost. μElectric and μGas are emission factors for
electricity and natural gas, respectively.

7.3.1.2 Energy Balance Equations

Energy balance equations for electrical, heating, and cooling loads include the
coequality of the total energy of the supply side with the demand side, which should
be guaranteed at any scheduled time horizon:

BESS,dch
ηhT × Pt,h
Grid
+ Pt,h
CHP
+ Pt,h + Pt,h
FC
+ Pt,h
PV
+ Pt,h
Wind
= Pt,h
Load

BESS,ch
+Pt,h + Pt,h
EC
+ Pt,h=2
EH
+ Pt,h
EL
(7.5)

HESS,dch HESS,ch
CHP
Ht,h + Ht,h=1
Bo
+ Ht,h=2
EH
+ Ht,h = Ht,h
Load
+ Ht,h
AC
+ Ht,h (7.6)

EC
Ct,h + Ct,h
AC
= Ct,h
Load
(7.7)

According to the Eq. (7.5), to meet consumers’ electrical load (PLoad

t,h ), BESS
charging (PBESS,ch
t,h ), and electrical demands of P2X devices, including electric
7 Optimal Coalition Operation of Interconnected Hybrid Energy Systems. . . 177

chiller (PEC EL EH
t,h ), electrolyzer (Pt,h ), and electric heater (Pt,h ), a combination of
generated power by renewable energy sources (PWind PV CHP
t,h and Pt,h ), CHP unit (Pt,h ),
BESS,dch
and BESS discharge (Pt,h ) is used along with purchased electric power from
the grid with efficiencyηhT at the time t and HES h. The produced heat power
by CHP unit (HCHP Bo EH
t,h ), boiler (Ht,h ), electric heater (Ht,h ), and discharging of
HESS (HHESS,dch
t,h ) illustrated in Eq. (7.6) supplies the heating load (HLoad
t,h ), heating
HESS,ch
requirements of the absorption chiller (HAC
t,h ), and HESS charging (Ht,h ) at the
Load
time t and HES h. Equation (7.7) also indicates that the cooling load (Ct,h ) can be
provided by absorption chiller (CAC EC
t,h ) and electric chiller (Ct,h ) cooling outputs at
the time t and HES h.
The purchased natural gas flows into both the CHP units and the gas boiler. Let
GCHP Bo
t,h and Gt,h be the natural gas consumed by the CHP unit and gas boiler at the
time t and HES h, respectively. So consumed natural gas amount can be described
as follows:

t,h = Gt,h + Gt,h

GGrid CHP Bo
(7.8)

7.3.1.3 Facilities Equations

Equations (7.9, 7.10, 7.11, 7.12, 7.13, 7.14, 7.15, and 7.16) represent the output
energy of installed facilities in the HESs, which is utilized to supply electrical,
heating, and cooling energies:

E,CHP
CHP
Pt,h = GCHP
t,h × ηh (7.9)

H,CHP
CHP
Ht,h = GCHP
t,h × ηh (7.10)

Bo
Ht,h = GBo
t,h × ηh
Bo
(7.11)

EH
Ht,h = Pt,h
EH
× ηhEH (7.12)

EC
Ct,h = Pt,h
EC
× COPEC
h (7.13)

AC
Ct,h = Ht,h
AC
× COPAC
h (7.14)
178 B. Motallebi Azar et al.

t,h = ηh × Pt,h
HyEL EL EL
(7.15)

FC
Pt,h = ηhFC × HyFC
t,h (7.16)

Equations (7.9) and (7.10) describe CHP unit outputs, including electrical energy
and heating energy contributions. ηhE,CHP and ηhH,CHP are electrical and heating
efficiencies of the CHP unit in HES h, respectively. Equations (7.11) and (7.12)
demonstrate the heat generated by the combustion of natural gas in the gas boiler and
electricity consumption in the electric heater, along with multiplying their efficiency
(ηhBo and ηhEH ), respectively. Equations (7.13) and (7.14) are related to meet the
cooling demands of the electric/absorption chillers. Here COPEC h and COPh are
AC

coefficients of performance of the electric/absorption chillers in HES h, respectively.

In the P2Hy process, in Eq. (7.15), HyEL t,h is the hydrogen produced by the
electrolyzer at the time t and HES h, and ηEL h is the efficiency of the electrolyzer.
Equation (7.16) also illustrates the fuel cell output power. In this equation, the
produced hydrogen by electrolyzer or stored in the hydrogen tank is utilized to
generate electricity with the efficiency ηFC
h .

7.3.1.4 The Energy Level of Storages

Energy storages are vital facilities of the HESs, which elevate the flexibility
and reliability of such systems. The energy level of each storage system can be
formulated as follows:

  BESS,dch
Pt,h
BESS,ch
Et,h = Et−1,h × 1 − ϕh
BESS BESS BESS
+ Pt,h ×η BESS,ch
− BESS,dch
η
(7.17)


  HESS,dch
Pt,h
HESS,ch
HESS
Et,h = Et−1,h × 1 − ϕh
HESS HESS
+ Pt,h ×η HESS,ch
− HESS,dch
η
(7.18)
   
HTSS
Et,h = Et−1,h
HTSS
× 1 − ϕhHTSS + HyEL
t,h − Hyt,h − Hyt,h
FC Load
(7.19)

In which EBESS HESS HTSS are energy levels of BESS, HESS, and HTSS
t,h , Et,h , and Et,h
at time t and the HES h, respectively. Et − 1, h in each equation represents the energy
level of storages at the time t − 1 and HES h. ϕh is the energy loss ratio of the
energy storage in HES h.ηch and ηch are also charging and discharging efficiencies
of energy storages, respectively. Furthermore, in Eq. (7.19), we assumed no loss in
the HTSS charge/discharge process.
7 Optimal Coalition Operation of Interconnected Hybrid Energy Systems. . . 179

To prevent possible errors in the state of stored energy at the end of the scheduled
period in storage systems, we assumed that end of the dispatch period equal to the
initial values. These assumptions are shown in Eqs. (7.20, 7.21, 7.22):

BESS
Et=24,h = EhBESS,Initial (7.20)

HESS
Et=24,h = EhHESS,Initial (7.21)

HTSS
Et=24,h = EhHTSS,Initial (7.22)

7.3.1.5 Constraints

The main power and natural gas grids’ upper and lower constraints for the whole
system are expressed as:

0 ≤ Pt,h
Grid
≤ PhGrid,Max (7.23)

Grid,Max
0 ≤ GGrid
t,h ≤ Gh (7.24)

Constraint terms related to Eqs. (7.9, 7.10, 7.11, 7.12, 7.13, 7.14, 7.15, and 7.16)
for installed facilities in the hybrid system are listed below, respectively, which
demonstrate the upper and lower limitations:

0 ≤ Pt,h
CHP
≤ PhCHP,Max (7.25)

0 ≤ Ht,h
Bo
≤ HhBo,Max (7.26)

0 ≤ Ht,h
EH
≤ HhEH,Max (7.27)

0 ≤ Ct,h
EC
≤ ChEC,Max (7.28)

0 ≤ Ct,h
AC
≤ ChAC,Max (7.29)

0 ≤ Pt,h
EL
≤ PhEL,Max (7.30)
180 B. Motallebi Azar et al.

0 ≤ Pt,h
FC
≤ PhFC,Max (7.31)

The following equations indicate the charge/discharge ranges and upper and
lower limitations of the stored energy of BESS:

BESS,dch
0 ≤ Pt,h ≤ PhBESS,dch,Max (7.32)

BESS,ch
0 ≤ Pt,h ≤ PhBESS,ch,Max (7.33)

EhBESS,Min ≤ Et,h
BESS
≤ EhBESS,Max (7.34)

Similar to BESS, the HESS constraints are defined as follows:

HESS,dch
0 ≤ Ht,h ≤ HhHESS,dch,Max (7.35)

HESS,dch
0 ≤ Ht,h ≤ HhHESS,dch,Max (7.36)

EhHESS,Min ≤ Et,h
HESS
≤ EhHESS,Max (7.37)

Upper and lower limitations for HTSS also are given in Eq. (7.38):

EhHTSS,Min ≤ Et,h
HTSS
≤ EhHTSS,Max (7.38)

7.3.2 Coalition Operation of IHES

In coalition operation, hybrid energy systems are interconnected and can trade
electricity, heat, and hydrogen. The aim is to consider the whole IHESs as a unique
system to attain global optimization.

7.3.2.1 Objective Function

The whole system objective function to obtain global optimization is obtained

by summation of all new costs in coalition operation status (CostTotal
h,new ), which is
described as follows:

CostInterconnected = CostTotal
h,new (7.39)
h
7 Optimal Coalition Operation of Interconnected Hybrid Energy Systems. . . 181

7.3.2.2 Interconnection Equations

Equations (7.40, 7.41, and 7.42) are applied to calculate the quantity of energy
exchange and establish the trade balance between energy import and export in the
IHES:

Exc
Pt,h,g =0 (7.40)
t g


Exc
Ht,h,g =0 (7.41)
t g


t,h,g = 0
HyExc (7.42)
t g

Exc , H Exc , and HyExc are traded energy (electricity, heat, and hydrogen,
Pt,h,g t,h,g t,h,g
respectively) at the time t between HESs h and g. These constraints represent that
all imported energy at the time t and HES h must be equal to exported energy at that
time and HES g.

7.3.2.3 Energy Balance Equations

In interconnected coalition operation, with inserting trade parameters, Eqs. (7.5) and
(7.6) are changed as follows:

BESS,dch

ηhT × Pt,h
Grid
+ Pt,h
CHP
+ Pt,h + Pt,h
FC
+ Pt,h
PV
+ Pt,h
Wind
+ Exc
Pg,h = Pt,h
Load

BESS,ch

+Pt,h + Pt,h
EC
+ Pt,h=2
EH
+ Exc
Ph,g + Pt,h
EL

g
(7.43)

HESS,dch
 HESS,ch
CHP
Ht,h + Ht,h=1
Bo
+ Ht,h=2
EH
+ Ht,h + Exc
Ht,g,h = Ht,h
Load
+ Ht,h
AC
+ Ht,h
g

+ Exc
Ht,h,g
g
(7.44)
182 B. Motallebi Azar et al.

7.3.2.4 Constraints

To achieve optimal solutions in coalition operation, we assume coalition operation

costs of the IHESs should be less than singular operation costs:
Total
Costh,new ≤ Costh,old
Total
(7.45)

In addition, the energy-level equation of HTSS in the interconnected coalition

mode can be written as below by adding exchange summations:
    
HTSS
Et,h = Et−1,h
HTSS
× 1 − ϕhHTSS + HyEL
t,h − Hyt,h − Hyt,h −
FC Load
HyExc
t,h,g
g

+ HyExc
t,g,h
g
(7.46)

The energy exchange between IHESs depends on each energy transaction state,
which is illustrated by the following equations:

Exc,Max Exc,Max
−Pt,h,g ≤ Pt,h,g
Exc
≤ Pt,h,g (7.47)

Exc,Max Exc,Max
−Ht,h,g ≤ Ht,h,g
Exc
≤ Ht,h,g (7.48)

−HyExc,Max
t,h,g ≤ HyExc Exc,Max
t,h,g ≤ Hyt,h,g (7.49)

7.4 Simulation and Numerical Results

In this section, in the first part, the input data used in this chapter are introduced.
Then, in the second subsection, the obtained results of the simulations are displayed
in the form of tables and figures. And the obligatory explanations are expressed.

7.4.1 Input Data

This study’s proposed methodology contains two interconnected hybrid energy

systems with coalition correlation in electrical, thermal, and hydrogen loads to
demonstrate the proficiency of the presented model. Considered renewable energies
7 Optimal Coalition Operation of Interconnected Hybrid Energy Systems. . . 183

180
Wind PV
160
140
Produced Power (kW)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (h)

Fig. 7.4 Wind turbine and PV panel output power

Electricity Natural gas

16

14

12
Price (Cent/kWh)

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (h)

Fig. 7.5 The electricity and natural gas pricing diagram

include wind turbine and PV panel, in which their output power is shown in Fig. 7.4.
Real-time electricity pricing and constant natural gas pricing diagrams are illustrated
in Fig. 7.5. Parameters of CHP units are indicated in Table 7.1. Heating and cooling
facilities data are given in Table 7.2. Characteristics of hydrogen systems are
represented in Table 7.3, and energy storage system parameters are demonstrated
in Table 7.4. Furthermore, CO2 emission parameters are added in Table 7.5. Figures
7.6 and 7.7 are related to the electrical, thermal, and cooling demands of HES1 and
HES2, respectively. Hydrogen demand information is also shown in Fig. 7.8. All
renewable outputs and HES1 parameters are adopted from [17], and energy prices
184 B. Motallebi Azar et al.

Table 7.1 CHP units characteristics

Units Capacity (kW) Electrical efficiency (%) Thermal efficiency (%)
CHP 1 1000 30 40
CHP 2 900 35 40

Table 7.2 Heating and cooling facilities data

Facilities Capacity (kW) Efficiency (%) COP
Gas boiler 1000 90 –
Electric heater 1000 90 –
Electric chiller (HES1 and 2) 2000/1400 – 4/3.5
Absorption chiller (HES1 and 2) 1200/1100 – 1.2/1.1

Table 7.3 Hydrogen system Devices Capacity (kW) Efficiency (%)

characteristics
Electrolyzer 500 70
Fuel cell 500 80

Table 7.4 Energy storage system parameters

Range/stdby
Storage systems Min/max energy level (kW) Max Ch/Dch range (kW) efficiency (%)
BESS (HES1) 400/1800 500/700 96/2
BESS (HES2) 35/700 100/100 92/2
HESS (HES1) 400/1800 800/800 98/2
HESS (HES2) 35/700 100/100 92/2
HTSS (HES1 and 2) 100/1000 – –/2

Table 7.5 Emission parameters

Electricity emission coefficient
Penalty cost (κ) (μElectric ) Natural gas emission coefficient (μGas )
0.5 (cent/kWh) 0.972 (kg/kWh) 0.23 (kg/kWh)

and HES2 parameters are taken from [38]. HES1 and HES2 hydrogen demands are
adopted from [24] and [36], respectively.
In order to solve the proposed problems, under the CPLEX solver in GAMS
software, the mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) optimization method is
accomplished to minimize the objective function value. All of the simulations have
been done on a computer equipped with Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-7700k CPU 4.2GHZ
and 16GB RAM. Also, the computational time for all simulations were less than 0.5
seconds.
7 Optimal Coalition Operation of Interconnected Hybrid Energy Systems. . . 185

Electric Heating Cooling

2500

2000
Demand (kW)

1500

1000

500

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (h)

Fig. 7.6 The HES1 demand loads

Electric Heating Cooling

1800
1600
1400
1200
Demand (kW)

1000
800
600
400
200
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (h)

Fig. 7.7 The HES2 demand loads

7.4.2 Simulation Results and Discussion

In this subsection, in order to validate the effectiveness of the proposed model in the
optimal operation of hybrid energy systems, two test cases are introduced.
For the first case, we assume that hybrid energy systems are isolated and only
have interaction with the primary grid. Each of the hybrid system components
has a different generation pattern according to its energy demands. In the second
case, hybrid systems are interconnected and trade electricity, thermal energy, and
hydrogen. Indeed, in this case, trade operation type is considered as the coalition.
This means that each hybrid system has prior responsibility in meeting the shortage
of energy demands.
186 B. Motallebi Azar et al.

HES 1 HES 2
250

200
Hydrogen Demand (kW)

150

100

50

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (h)

Fig. 7.8 Hydrogen demand loads

Table 7.6 Numeral results in case 1

System Electrical cost ($) Natural gas cost ($) Emission penalty cost ($) Total cost ($)
HES1 968.862 1749.707 118.857 2837.426
HES2 1188.204 1871.969 127.805 3187.978
Total costs 2157.066 3621.676 246.662 6065.404

The numerical results of the first case are tabulated in Table 7.6. Figures 7.9a,
7.10, 7.11, and 7.12b belong to the optimal energy flow curves in the first case. As
seen from the optimal power curves (Fig. 7.9), most electrical power is purchased
during low-price periods. Therefore, in Fig. 7.9a, most of the purchasing power
from the primary grid occurs between hours 4–8 and 18–20, while in Fig. 7.9b,
this occurs between hours 4 and 8. Furthermore, the BESSs are also charged during
these periods. At the rest of the hours, CHP units play a significant role in meeting
the electrical demands in both HESs.
Gas boiler, electric heater, and CHP units are responsible for supplying load
demands for optimal heating energy flow, as demonstrated in Fig. 7.10a, b. Because
CHP units do not have output during low-price electricity hours, gas boiler and
electrical heater fulfill heat demands during these periods. For optimal cooling flow,
the majority of demands are provided by electric chiller in both hybrid systems (Fig.
7.11a, b).
In the hydrogen system shown in Fig. 7.3, the electrolyzer converts renewable
and excess powers to hydrogen. So, the optimal hydrogen flow indicated in Fig. 7.12
includes generation and consumption of hydrogen and the HTSS state of charge. As
formerly explained, electrolyzer generates hydrogen in low-price electricity periods
in both HESs. In Fig. 7.12a, the fuel cell has no power generation due to the
high demand for hydrogen and desirable electrical power supply in this subsystem.
7 Optimal Coalition Operation of Interconnected Hybrid Energy Systems. . . 187

a
Grid CHP BESS Discharging
FC Wind PV
Load EC BESS Charging
EL Price
2000 20
1500 15
1000 10

Price (Cent/Kwh)
Energy (kWh)

500 5
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
-500 -5
-1000 -10
-1500 -15
-2000 -20
Time (h)

b
Grid CHP BESS Discharging
FC Wind PV
Load EC BESS Charging
EL EH Price
2500 20
2000 15
1500
10

Price (Cent/Kwh)
1000
Energy (kWh)

500 5
0 0
-500 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
-5
-1000
-10
-1500
-2000 -15
-2500 Time (h) -20

Fig. 7.9 (a) The HES1 electrical optimal power flow in case 1. (b) The HES2 electrical optimal
power flow in case 1

However, the HES2 fuel cell generates electrical power in three different hours (Fig.
7.12b).
Table 7.7 also tabulated the second case numerical results. As it can be seen
from the obtained results comparison in this table and Table 7.6, the costs related
to electricity have decreased from $ 2157.066 to $ 2022.773, although this cost has
increased for HES2 in the second case. In the natural gas cost section, we see a
decrease in the total cost from $ 3621.676 in the first case to $ 3590.759 in the
second case, while the HES1 natural gas cost in the second case (due to more use of
gas burn facilities) is more than in the first case. The cost of emissions in HES1 for
the first case is $ 118.805, while in the second case, it is $ 114,249. However, the
188 B. Motallebi Azar et al.

a GB CHP HESS Discharging Load AC HESS charging

1500

1000

500
Energy (kWh)

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
-500

-1000

-1500
Time (h)

b EH CHP HESS Discharging Load AC HESS charging

1000

800

600

400
Energy (kWh)

200

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
-200

-400

-600

-800

-1000
Time (h)

Fig. 7.10 (a) The HES1 optimal heating flow in case 1. (b) The HES2 optimal heating flow in
case 1

natural gas consumed in the second case is higher. In the first case, the amount of
electricity purchased from the primary grid is more than in the second case, which
is the reason for the increase in emission costs. The same conditions are valid for
HES2 (see Eq. 7.4). The total energy costs in HES1 for both cases are $ 2837.426
due to the existence of Eq. (7.45) (see Subsect. 7.3.2.4 for more details). Finally, in
the second test case, the total value of the objective function compared with the first
test case has a 2.7% decrease.
7 Optimal Coalition Operation of Interconnected Hybrid Energy Systems. . . 189

a
AC EC Load
2500

2000

1500

1000
Energy (kWh)

500

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
-500

-1000

-1500

-2000

-2500
Time (h)

b
AC EC Load
2000

1500

1000

500
Energy (kWh)

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
-500

-1000

-1500

-2000
Time (h)

Fig. 7.11 (a) The HES1 optimal cooling flow in case 1. (b) The HES2 optimal cooling flow in
case 1

Figure 7.13a, b demonstrates optimal dispatch of electrical power under inter-

connected coalition operation. In Fig. 7.13a, b, similar to Fig. 7.9a, b, grid power
purchasing accrue in low-price periods, and the CHP units are off in these intervals
either. Besides, from the power trading point of view, during the daytime, IHES2
imports more electrical power, while during the night, IHES1 is the one that receives
more electrical power.
190 B. Motallebi Azar et al.

a EL Load SOC
400
900
300

200

Level of Energy (Kw)

400
Energy (kWh)

100

-100
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
-100
-600
-200

-300 -1100
Time (h)

b EL FC Load SOC

400
1000
300
200 500

100

Level of Energy (Kwh)

0
Energy (kWh)

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
-100 -500
-200

-300 -1000

-400
-1500
-500

-600 Time (h) -2000

Fig. 7.12 (a) The HES1 optimal hydrogen flow in case 1. (b) The HES2 optimal hydrogen flow
in case 1

Table 7.7 Numeral results in case 2

System Electrical cost ($) Natural gas cost ($) Emission penalty cost ($) Total cost ($)
HES1 822.234 1900.943 114.249 2837.426
HES2 1200.539 1689.816 135.852 3026.208
Total costs 2022.773 3590.759 250.101 5863.634
7 Optimal Coalition Operation of Interconnected Hybrid Energy Systems. . . 191

a
Grid CHP BESS Discharging
FC Wind PV
Load EC BESS Charging
2500 EL EXC Price 20
2000 15
1500
10

Price (Cent/Kwh)
1000
Energy (kWh)

500 5
0 0
-500 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
-5
-1000
-10
-1500
-2000 -15
-2500 -20
Time (h)

b Grid CHP BESS Discharging

FC Wind PV
Load EC BESS Charging
EL EH EXC
Price
2500 20
2000 15
1500
10

Price (Cent/Kwh)
1000
Energy (kWh)

500 5
0 0
-500 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 -5
-1000
-10
-1500
-2000 -15
-2500 -20
Time (h)

Fig. 7.13 (a) Optimal dispatch of electrical power in IHES1 in case 2. (b) Optimal dispatch of
electrical power in IHES2 in case 2

As it is evident from Fig. 7.14a, b, heat generation devices’ outputs (especially

gas boiler) are diminished due to thermal energy exchange. Despite the fact that
there are significant variations in thermal balance values in interconnected coalition
operation compared to the individual operation, there is little change in the optimal
dispatch of cooling energy (Fig. 7.15a, b).
The optimal hydrogen dispatch of the IHESs presented in Fig. 7.16a, b represents
the reduction in the hourly rate of hydrogen production compared to the first case,
mainly due to hydrogen exchanges. In this system, IHES1 acts more as a hydrogen
192 B. Motallebi Azar et al.

a
2000 GB CHP HESS Discharging Load AC HESS Charging EXC

1500

1000
Energy (kWh)

500

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
-500

-1000

-1500

-2000
Time (h)

b EH CHP HESS Discharging Load AC HESS Charging EXC

1500

1000

500
Energy (kWh)

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
-500

-1000

-1500
Time (h)

Fig. 7.14 (a) Optimal dispatch of heating energy in IHES1 in case 2. (b) Optimal dispatch of
heating energy in IHES2 in case 2

transporter most of the time. Likewise, the amount of electricity generated by the
fuel cell in IHES2 has increased.

7.5 Status Quo, Challenges, and Outlook

This chapter focuses on the optimal coalition operation of interconnected multi-

carrier energy systems and P2X technologies. Currently, plenty of research work has
7 Optimal Coalition Operation of Interconnected Hybrid Energy Systems. . . 193

a
2500
AC EC Load
2000
1500
1000
Energy (kWh)

500
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
Time (h)

b
2000
AC EC Load
1500

1000
Energy (kWh)

500

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
-500

-1000

-1500

-2000
Time (h)

Fig. 7.15 (a) Optimal dispatch of cooling energy in IHES1 in case 2. (b) Optimal dispatch of
cooling energy in IHES2 in case 2

been performed in these fields. The overall objective is to achieve a comprehensive

situation of future energy systems. In the case of interconnected operation of hybrid
energy systems, the majority of the methods are conceptual, and less consideration
has been paid to practical schemas and prototypes. The overall structure of these
systems is a set of generation, storage, and consumption devices along with
energy converters to achieve optimal performance. For P2X technologies, which are
considered almost new technologies, the focus is more on using these technologies
to achieve more optimal operation in modern energy systems. A brief explanation of
the conducted researches on these topics is provided in the Introduction Sect. (7.1).
194 B. Motallebi Azar et al.

a
EL Load FC EXC SOC
500 1000

400 800

300 600

Level of Energy (KWh)

400
200
Energy (kWh)

200
100
0
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 -200
-100
-400
-200 -600
-300 -800

-400 -1000
Time (h)

b
EL FC Load EXC SOC

500 1500

400

300 1000

Level of Energy (Kwh)

200
Energy (kWh)

500
100

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 0
-100

-200 -500
-300

-400 -1000
Time (h)

Fig. 7.16 (a) Optimal dispatch of hydrogen energy in IHES1 in case 2. (b) Optimal dispatch of
hydrogen energy in IHES2 in case 2

The biggest challenges, which are related to all research in the field of mod-
ern energy systems, are the convergence and adaptability of these systems with
conventional infrastructures. Therefore, most research efforts are to resolving
these challenges. In the field of interconnected operation of multi-carrier energy
systems, most of the challenges affiliate with modeling, optimization algorithms,
and economic issues. In this regard, this chapter discusses the optimal coalition
operation of hybrid energy systems. In the subject of P2X technologies, in which
7 Optimal Coalition Operation of Interconnected Hybrid Energy Systems. . . 195

converters play a crucial role, these devices’ efficiency and optimal performance
are the main challenges for researchers in this field. In most projects, researchers
have tried to significantly reduce energy loss by using local energy converters.
But the main question is whether energy converters in all forms of energy can
work optimally or not. In the present study, the main focus is on the power-to-
hydrogen technology, which has been introduced in recent years and still faces
many challenges. However, most of the proposed projects are currently more
conceptual but are expected to be operational in the near future. In the context
of the interconnected operation of local energy systems, it is necessary to focus
more on economic issues, and new business plans need to be adopted to ensure the
participants’ profitability according to different circumstances. In P2X technologies,
it is essential to design a comprehensive pattern to help manage the energy allocation
for conversions and whether such conversion technologies can be used efficiently in
practice.

7.6 Conclusion

This study developed a methodology about the optimal coalition operation of

interconnected hybrid energy systems containing local energy conversion (power-
to-X) technologies, renewable energies, and energy storage systems. This problem is
considered centralized, and the project aims to mitigate the operation and emission
costs of the whole system in the presented approach, even though individual benefits
of subsystems may be ignored. In this regard, to validate the proposed model, two
test cases are considered. In the first case, hybrid energy systems are isolated and
only interact with the primary grid. In this case study, the total operation cost of
the HES1 and HES2 obtained $ 2737.42 and $ 3187.97, respectively. In the second
case, system operation is based on the interconnected coalition, and hybrid energy
systems trade electricity, thermal energy, and hydrogen. In this case study, the total
operation costs of the HES1 and HES2 are, respectively, $ 2737.42 and $ 3026.2.
The obtained numerical results indicate that in the central coalition operation of
IHESs, the cost reduction for HES2 is $ 161.7, while the operation cost of HES1 is
equal to case 1. It means that HES2 has more opportunities to reduce its operation
cost under the collation operation of IHESs. However, the optimal energy dispatch
cost in the IHES operation compared to the individual HES operation is more
beneficial and decreases the entire system operational cost by up to 2.7%. This
outcome proves the expediency and effectiveness of the proposed model. In future
works, the uncertainty of some parameters such as renewable generation, electricity
price, and energy demands can be modeled by different uncertainty approaches
to evaluate their impacts on the optimal operation of IHESs. Also, demand-side
management (DSM) services can be implemented to reduce operation costs and
change customers’ consumption patterns in the HES studies.
196 B. Motallebi Azar et al.

Acknowledgements This publication was partially supported by award NPRP12S-0125-190013

from the QNRF-Qatar National Research Fund, a member of The Qatar Foundation. The
information and views set out in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the official opinion of the QNRF.

References

1. Mohammadi, M., Noorollahi, Y., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., & Yousefi, H. (2017). Energy hub:
From a model to a concept–a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 80, 1512–
1527.
2. Berjawi, A., Walker, S., Patsios, C., & Hosseini, S. (2021). An evaluation framework for future
integrated energy systems: A whole energy systems approach. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 145, 111163.
3. Favre-Perrod, P. (2005). A vision of future energy networks. In 2005 IEEE power engineering
society inaugural conference and exposition in Africa, IEEE, pp. 13–17.
4. Geidl, M., Koeppel, G., Favre-Perrod, P., Klockl, B., Andersson, G., & Frohlich, K. (2006).
Energy hubs for the future. IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, 5(1), 24–30.
5. Geidl, M. (2007). Integrated modeling and optimization of multi-carrier energy systems. ETH
Zurich.
6. Sheikhi, A., Rayati, M., Bahrami, S., Ranjbar, A. M., & Sattari, S. (2015). A cloud computing
framework on demand side management game in smart energy hubs. International Journal of
Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 64, 1007–1016.
7. Sheikhi, A., Mozafari, B., & Ranjbar, A. M. (2011). CHP optimized selection methodology for
a multi-carrier energy system. In 2011 IEEE Trondheim PowerTech, IEEE, pp. 1–7.
8. Parisio, A., Del Vecchio, C., & Vaccaro, A. (2012). A robust optimization approach to energy
hub management. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 42(1), 98–104.
9. Moeini-Aghtaie, M., Dehghanian, P., Fotuhi-Firuzabad, M., & Abbaspour, A. (2013). Multi-
agent genetic algorithm: an online probabilistic view on economic dispatch of energy hubs
constrained by wind availability. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 5(2), 699–708.
10. Schulze, M., & Del Granado, P. C. (2009). Multi-period optimization of cogeneration systems:
Considering biomass energy for district heating. In 2nd Power systems modeling conference
(vol. 126).
11. Maroufmashat, A., et al. (2015). Modeling and optimization of a network of energy hubs to
improve economic and emission considerations. Energy, 93, 2546–2558.
12. Tian, M.-W., et al. (2019). Risk-based stochastic scheduling of energy hub system in the
presence of heating network and thermal energy management. Applied Thermal Engineering,
159, 113825.
13. Liu, T., Zhang, D., Dai, H., & Wu, T. (2019). Intelligent modeling and optimization for smart
energy hub. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 66(12), 9898–9908.
14. Mirzaei, M. A., et al. (2020). Integrated energy hub system based on power-to-gas and
compressed air energy storage technologies in the presence of multiple shiftable loads. IET
Generation, Transmission & Distribution, 14(13), 2510–2519.
15. Ebadi, R., Yazdankhah, A. S., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., & Kazemzadeh, R. (2020). Coordi-
nated power and train transportation system with transportable battery-based energy storage
and demand response: A multi-objective stochastic approach. Journal of Cleaner Production,
275, 123923.
16. Chamandoust, H., Derakhshan, G., Hakimi, S. M., & Bahramara, S. (2019). Tri-objective
optimal scheduling of smart energy hub system with schedulable loads. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 236, 117584.
17. Ma, T., Wu, J., & Hao, L. (2017). Energy flow modeling and optimal operation analysis of the
micro energy grid based on energy hub. Energy Conversion and Management, 133, 292–306.
7 Optimal Coalition Operation of Interconnected Hybrid Energy Systems. . . 197

18. Liu, T., Zhang, D., Wang, S., & Wu, T. (2019). Standardized modelling and economic
optimization of multi-carrier energy systems considering energy storage and demand response.
Energy Conversion and Management, 182, 126–142.
19. Mirzapour-Kamanaj, A., Majidi, M., Zare, K., & Kazemzadeh, R. (2020). Optimal strategic
coordination of distribution networks and interconnected energy hubs: A linear multi-follower
bi-level optimization model. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 119,
105925.
20. Fasihi, M., & Breyer, C. (2020). Baseload electricity and hydrogen supply based on hybrid
PV-wind power plants. Journal of Cleaner Production, 243, 118466.
21. Bianchini, C., & Barbaro, P. (2009). Catalysis for sustainable energy production. Wiley.
22. Deng, Z., & Jiang, Y. (2020). Optimal sizing of wind-hydrogen system considering hydrogen
demand and trading modes. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 45(20), 11527–11537.
23. Troncoso, E., & Newborough, M. (2011). Electrolyzers for mitigating wind curtailment and
producing ‘green’ merchant hydrogen. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 36(1), 120–
134.
24. Mansour-Saatloo, A., Agabalaye-Rahvar, M., Mirzaei, M. A., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B.,
Abapour, M., & Zare, K. (2020). Robust scheduling of hydrogen based smart micro energy
hub with integrated demand response. Journal of Cleaner Production, 267, 122041.
25. Syed, F. (2011). Analysis of a clean energy hub interfaced with a fleet of plug-in fuel cell
vehicles. University of Waterloo.
26. Kholardi, F., Assili, M., Lasemi, M. A., & Hajizadeh, A. (2018). Optimal management of
energy hub with considering hydrogen network. In 2018 International conference on Smart
Energy Systems and Technologies (SEST), IEEE, pp. 1–6.
27. Dagdougui, H., Ouammi, A., & Sacile, R. (2012). Modelling and control of hydrogen and
energy flows in a network of green hydrogen refuelling stations powered by mixed renewable
energy systems. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 37(6), 5360–5371.
28. Carr, S., Zhang, F., Liu, F., Du, Z., & Maddy, J. (2016). Optimal operation of a hydrogen
refuelling station combined with wind power in the electricity market. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy, 41(46), 21057–21066.
29. Isaac, N., & Saha, A. (2021). Analysis of refueling behavior of hydrogen fuel vehicles through
a stochastic model using Markov Chain Process. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
141, 110761.
30. Nojavan, S., Zare, K., & Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B. (2017). Application of fuel cell and
electrolyzer as hydrogen energy storage system in energy management of electricity energy
retailer in the presence of the renewable energy sources and plug-in electric vehicles. Energy
Conversion and Management, 136, 404–417.
31. Mehrjerdi, H. (2019). Off-grid solar powered charging station for electric and hydrogen
vehicles including fuel cell and hydrogen storage. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy,
44(23), 11574–11583.
32. Majidi, M., & Zare, K. (2018). Integration of smart energy hubs in distribution networks under
uncertainties and demand response concept. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 34(1), 566–
574.
33. Mohammadi, M., Noorollahi, Y., & Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B. (2020). Fuzzy-based scheduling
of wind integrated multi-energy systems under multiple uncertainties. Sustainable Energy
Technologies and Assessments, 37, 100602.
34. Jin, X., Mu, Y., Jia, H., Wu, J., Xu, X., & Yu, X. (2016). Optimal day-ahead scheduling of
integrated urban energy systems. Applied Energy, 180, 1–13.
198 B. Motallebi Azar et al.

35. Jadidbonab, M., Madadi, S., & Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B. (2018). Hybrid strategy for optimal
scheduling of renewable integrated energy hub based on stochastic/robust approach. Journal of
Energy Management and Technology, 2(4), 29–38.
36. Mansour-Saatloo, A., Mirzaei, M. A., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., & Zare, K. (2020). A risk-
averse hybrid approach for optimal participation of power-to-hydrogen technology-based
multi-energy microgrid in multi-energy markets. Sustainable Cities and Society, 63, 102421.
37. Najafi-Ghalelou, A., Nojavan, S., Zare, K., & Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B. (2019). Robust schedul-
ing of thermal, cooling and electrical hub energy system under market price uncertainty.
Applied Thermal Engineering, 149, 862–880.
38. Rakipour, D., & Barati, H. (2019). Probabilistic optimization in operation of energy hub with
participation of renewable energy resources and demand response. Energy, 173, 384–399.
Chapter 8
Optimal Co-Generation of Electric and
Heat Energy Systems Considering Heat
Energy Storage Systems and CHP Units

Sasan Azad , Khezr Sanjani, and Mohammad Taghi Ameli

8.1 Introduction

As a solution to overcome the environmental issues, hybrid energy systems are to

dominate the conventional separate systems, because of its numerous opportunities.
Hybrid energy systems are also on the focus in which the energy usage is
increasing so fast in the new smart grid platforms. Every energy sector is been
facing huge increase in demand recently [1]. To solve the energy commitment
problem considering the renewable and emission challenges, the operators have
been practicing the hybrid systems. In different works different energy systems have
been considered to pair and build a hybrid system, e.g., water and power [2–4], gas
and electricity [5–9], heat, cool, and fresh water [10], energy and food [11, 12],
heat and electricity [13, 14], and so on. Figure 8.1 represents a schematic of the
co-generation of heat and electricity for a proposed user.
Electric and heat systems, as the two of the biggest and most important energy
systems, have been considered to study in this chapter. Electricity is to provide a
vast energy demand types directly and indirectly. Heat is one of the biggest demand
of electric system, and it is crucial to be committed well. As long as the systems get
smarter, the electric demand is exponentially increasing and it gets harder to deal
with. This is why if we could decline a part of this demand, it would work best
for the electric system. Combining electric and heat systems to decline a part of
these demand is so applicable. Combined heat and power systems are playing a key
role in the hybrid electric and heat system by providing the electric and heat energy

S. Azad · K. Sanjani · M. T. Ameli ()

Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 199
V. Vahidinasab, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo (eds.), Whole Energy Systems, Power
Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87653-1_8
200 S. Azad et al.

Fig. 8.1 A graphical schematic co-generation between heat and electricity networks

simultaneously. Such components are so necessary and effective in the system which
makes the system operation much easier to handle. Because of that, the system
operator is willing to use and enjoy such a hybrid energy sources.
Combined heat and power (CHP) systems are a part of HRESs and have been
practiced, due to its features, in the heat and electric systems recently. Hence the
CHPs are so useful, but there are some difficulties to use, including technical,
environmental, operational, and location problems, and it needs a proper procedure.
Here the CHP owners prospective and grid point of view should be considered as
well. Planning at the first place and operational problems then should be considered
as well. The authors in [15] have considered a multi-objective problem for planning
of CHPs in their work. In addition to that, in the [16, 17] the optimal planning of
CHP units has been investigated optimally. The [17] had considered a probabilistic
optimization of molten carbonate fuel cell-CHP and renewable energy sources in
microgrids considering hydrogen storage with point estimate method. Operation at
the second place is an important and huge task which needs to be handled well.
In the [18], the role of centralized combined heat and power systems has been
analyzed in a European decarbonized power system. Some review papers have
comprehensively analyzed CHPs [19–21]. The most common types of renewable
and non-renewable CHP units integrated into power systems and their impacts on
system characteristics have been investigated in [22], including the fuel cells (FCs),
internal combustion engines (ICEs), and micro-turbines (MTs). For more research,
detailed information of CHP systems could be found in [23–25]. The current chapter
focuses on operational issues of CHPs by considering heat energy storage systems.
The authors have considered three types of renewable and non-renewable CHP units
including fuel cells (FCs), internal combustion engine (ICE), and micro-turbines
(MTs), as considered in [22]. Hence the ICE and MT are strong to use as CHP; the
emission output of such CHPs is not applicable in the environmental emission point
of view which they produce 0.79 and 0.15 kgCO2 /kWh, respectively, compared to
the FC units which produce 0.02 kgCO2 /kWh. FC-CHP systems been presented
as useful and effective technologies which been widely employed in small/large-
scale co-generation applications because of high power density, high co-generation
performance, and fast startup time due to its low operation temperature.
8 Optimal Co-Generation of Electric and Heat Energy Systems Considering. . . 201

Thermal energy storage systems, on the other hand, have been practicing in
the energy systems to relax the operation problem and shift a part of heat/cool
loads from the peak to the valleys. For some, energy storage systems (ESS) are
economically beneficial and for the others ESSs have technical benefit to overcome
the system issues. Both of these features could be obtained using ESSs in the
systems, and here the authors employed heat energy storage systems to overcome
heat load issues during the high winter peaks. Using PSO optimization algorithm,
the authors in [26] have investigated the optimal sizing design and operation of
electric/heat storage systems in smart buildings. A latent design of heat energy
storage systems for large solar plants has been presented in [27]. To reduce the
summer peak load using thermal energy storage systems, Dargahi et al. have utilized
a thermal energy storage for air-conditioning system in [28]. In the [29, 30] planning
problem of thermal energy storages had been analyzed. In [29] a cost-effective
and large-scale planning design for hot water thermal energy storage in Renewable
District heating systems has been presented. More planning design for TES units
could be find in the following references [31–34]. At this work, we have chosen
the HESSs to couple with CHPs considering the electric and heat interconnected
systems to optimize the net loads and minimize the total cost of the whole system.
The electric and heat systems are considered to co-optimize. This chapter’s points
and contributions are as follows:
• The authors addressed both electric and heat systems through a complex
topology of both regarding the heat pipelines and electric transmission lines,
simultaneously.
• The net cost of the combined system is minimized through the model. Con-
sidering the combined electric and heat systems, the system cost is lower than
summation of both systems separately operating.
• The combined heat and power systems will be analyzed in both heat and
electricity point of views. Here the operator point of view has been considered to
analyze the CHP impacts on the system operation performance.
• Heat energy storage systems have been considered as a proper auxiliary unit for
heat system specifically. Using HESSs, the heat system load will be much easier
to commit.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In the second section the problem
description has been presented. After that and in the third section the problem
formulation has been discussed. Then in the fourth section discussion and results
are described. Finally, the conclusion is been presented in the fifth section.

8.2 Challenges and Outlook

Greenhouse gas emission and energy related issues have been the top priority of the
science, now, for quiet sometime since we are facing huge problems for the future
of the world. The more highlighted issue here is that the situation is getting worse
every year and the world is facing huge issues right now. Energy, as one of the
202 S. Azad et al.

main factors of the greenhouse and climate change challenges, plays a key role and
the scientists have employed various applications to handle the energy generation,
transmission, and consumption in a more green way. Hybrid energy systems are
one of the mentioned applications that have been tested successfully through the
energy systems all around the world. Utilizing the hybrid systems, the operator
could optimize the fuel consumption and decrease the percentage of greenhouse
gas emission then.
The authors proposed a hybrid energy system including heat and electricity to
analyze how much it could save the total cost of generation. The different objectives
could be employed in different works, though. Total cost of the system is one of the
most effective factors for the operator, and if we could save a percentage of it, then,
we could use the saved cost in other application to improve more of the climate
problems. This cost saving has some direct and some indirect effects and as much
as we save of it, the system’s performance would improve more. With improving the
systems performance, scientists aim to control greenhouse gas emission challenges
and if we could overcome all these performance issues with new application and
approaches, we could get everything in control.

8.3 Problem Description

The general problem related to the chapter is to co-optimize the electric and heat
systems simultaneously in which to reduce total cost of the system. In fact, co-
optimizing energy systems together has vast opportunities for the system operators
including operation performance, load commitment, technical improvements, and
so on. For some, hybrid energy systems are to increase the economical benefits,
and for others, these systems are to enhance the system’s overall performance.
Both of these features could be obtained from the hybrid energy systems. In one
hand, technical features like voltage stability, reliability, higher energy commitment
performance, and so on could be achieved using the co-operation of the energy
systems. On the other hand, co-operation of the energy systems would significantly
decrease the net cost of the system. Actually, a part of heat and cool energy demand
is being provided by the electric system directly and co-operation of, for instance,
heat and electric systems together would alleviate the demand pressure on the heat
system in which the electric system is to provide a part of the heat loads indirectly.
The combined heat and power (CHP) systems are to provide both electric and heat
energies at the same time and to commit both systems. This means that the operator
could count on the CHP units to provide the heat system with extra heat energy.
At this regard, not only the system has a higher performance in providing heat load
units with a high quality demand, but also this will decrease the heat systems cost
and overall system costs. In the electric system’s point of view, using the renewable
and non-renewable CHP units would have the same impacts on both technical and
economical features of the system. As such, having the hybrid energy systems would
improve the overall energy system’s performance in both technical and economical
point of views.
8 Optimal Co-Generation of Electric and Heat Energy Systems Considering. . . 203

2
L12 HESS L13 L14

12 13 14

L9
ICE
L11 L10 G8 L8

11 10 9 8

HESS G1
L7 ICE

1 6 7

FC L5
HESS
G6 L4
L6
4 MT
5

FC

MT
2 3

G2 L2 G3 L3

Fig. 8.2 The combined electric/heat system’s schematic

Table 8.1 The HPR values CHP type HPR

for all CHP types used in the
chapter [35] FC 1.5
MT 0.6
ICE 0.95

Generally, considering the heat system along with electric system needs the heat
pipelines to be considered and modeled through the system as the authors have
included heat pipelines in the chapter. The heat and electric systems have been
comprehensively depicted in the Fig. 8.2. The red lines are the heat pipelines, and the
black lines are the electric transmission lines. Here, the HESSs have been simulated
with a red-dashed circle in node No. 1, 5, 12. Moreover, the CHP units have been
also simulated in the chart with a black circle around in the bus No. 4, 5, 7, and 9.
The maximum output value for the CHP units are 0.2, 0.01, and 0.05, respectively.
The heat power ratio (HPR) values for the CHP types, including fuel cell, micro-
turbine, and internal combustion engine used in the model have been written in the
following Table 8.1.
After combining these two and creating a hybrid energy system, now, the
objective of the new hybrid system, at the current work, is to minimize the net
energy costs. The objective is the summation of the electric and heat system costs
without any weighting factors for both. Having the CHP units in the system as an
extra source of power and heat generators not only provides the two systems with
extra energy but also it will decline the market prices and would lead to decline
in energy costs in both systems and in the hybrid energy system compared to the
separated systems. Considering the heat energy storage systems is also decreasing
the heat system costs by shifting the heat loads from peak times to the other low
204 S. Azad et al.

costs time intervals. This is how a hybrid energy system decreases the net energy
costs for the operators. This should be mentioned that the technical features of the
hybrid energy systems have been ignored here and considering the technical features
would make the hybrid systems applicable even more.

8.4 Problem Formulation

Generally, the problem is about energy commitment and environmental challenges

of generating energy in which the world has been struggled with, recently. In fact,
as much as the time passing by, the issue of energy demand and its environmental
problems gets worse and the world requires more energy demand. This means that
the energy systems have to use better applications and make better application over
the energy loads. This means the energy problems could be controlled having a
good control on the energy usage. From the generation units to consumption units,
the system needs to have a better control over the energy [36]. One of the most
effective and crucial solutions is to co-optimize the energy sectors and to minimize
the total cost and emissions, simultaneously. And since a decade ago, the combined
energy systems have been increased so fast and these combined systems’ impact on
the environmental issues is notable.
Hybrid energy systems are to couple two or more energy systems together and to
co-optimize these systems altogether. These led to minimize the total system costs
and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Since these systems are interconnected, co-
optimizing leads to a better energy management and the costs and GHG values
notably decrease. Electric and heat systems are the examples of the energy systems
which are interdependent and co-optimizing these systems would led to a better
energy management. That is why the system operators are willing to use the hybrid
energy systems.
The graphical chart of coupled system of electric and heat systems is figured in
the Fig. 8.2. The black lines are the electric transmission lines and the red lines are
the heat pipelines. It should be mentioned that the HESS units have been considered
in the node NO.1, 5, 12.
In the hybrid energy system works, different energy sectors could be employed
and the objective could be whether economy or emission or both. These different
objectives can be employed based on the work’s vision whether it is in the operator
point of view or the facility owner’s side. It is worth to mention that the operator
objective is to maximize the social welfare and at the same time, the owner’s
objective is to maximize its own profit. At the current chapter, the authors have
employed electric and heat energy sectors, and the objective is to minimize the total
costs of the combined energy systems. The objective function is modeled through
(8.1).
   
TC = λE ×Pg,t
G
+ λH ×hboil
n,t + λH ×hCH
c,t
P
+ λE ×Pc,t
CH P
(8.1)
8 Optimal Co-Generation of Electric and Heat Energy Systems Considering. . . 205

Here, the objective consists of four terms including the cost of conventional
G ) at the first term, the cost of heat generators (hboil ) at the
electric generators (Pg,t n,t
second term, the cost of heat generation from the CHP units (hCH c,t
P ) in the third

term, and the cost of electric generation from CHP units (Pc,t CH P ) in the last term.

λE and λH are the electricity and heat market price. The electric and heat systems
are co-optimizing without considering weight for any. Constraints of the two electric
and heat systems are described separately as follows:

8.4.1 The Electricity System’s Constraints

The most important constraint in every system is about the equality constraint.
The equality constraint poses the equilibrium criteria among the value of generated
energy and energy demand value. Here, the (8.2) presents the electricity equality
constraint.
   
G
Pg,t − L
Pl,t + CH P
Pc,t = Pi,j,t (8.2)
G L CH P j

The equality constraint consists of conventional generation units (Pg,t G ), load

units (Pl,tL ), CHP units (P CH P ), and the exchanged power through lines i and j
c,t
(Pi,j,t ). The other constraints of the electric system are presented below:

CH P ,max
0 ≤ Pc,t
CH P
≤ Pc,t (8.3)

G,min G,max
Pg,t ≤ Pg,t
G
≤ Pg,t (8.4)

− Pi,j,t
max
≤ Pi,j,t ≤ Pi,j,t
max
(8.5)

The last constraints including (8.3, 8.4, 8.5) are presenting the CHP units
up/down limitation, conventional generation up/down limitations, and the transmit-
ted power between lines, respectively.

8.4.2 The Heat System’s Constraints

The heat system’s equality constraint has been modeled through (8.6) including all
the heat energy sectors: traditional boiling units, CHP units and, charge/discharge
of HESS units (Hs,t dch , H ch ). As mentioned, here, the heat pipelines have been
s,t
considered and the heat transfer between pipelines has been modeled here, too. The
fm,n,t is responsible for the heat transfer between lines (8.7, 8.9).
206 S. Azad et al.

 
boil
Hn,t + Hc,t
CH P
− Hn,t
load
+ Hs,t
dch
− Hs,t
ch
= fm,n,t − fn,m,t (8.6)
m m

The rest of constraints of the heat system are presented below:


fm,n = sgn(prn,t −prm,t )×Cn,m
K
× sgn(prn,t − prm,t )(prn,t
2 − pr 2 )
m,t (8.7)

min
prn,t ≤ prn,t ≤ prn,t
max
(8.8)

− fn,m
max
≤ fn,m ≤ fn,m
max
(8.9)

CH P
Hi,t,k = Hi,t,k
CH P
× H P RkCH P (8.10)

The pressure limit in heat system is modeled through (8.8). And the heat output
is calculated using the power level of the CHP and a HPR ratio in (8.10).

8.4.3 Heat Energy Storage System’s Constraints

The heat energy storage system is modeled as follows:

Es,t = Es,t−1 + Hs,t

ch
− Hs,t
dch
(8.11)

ch,max
0 ≤ Hs,t
ch
≤ Hs,t × Us,t
ch
(8.12)

dch,max
0 ≤ Hs,t
dch
≤ Hs,t × Us,t
dch
(8.13)

dch
Us,t + Us,t
ch
≤1 (8.14)

The (8.11) is presenting the energy level of the HESS and the (8.12, 8.13) are
presenting the charge and discharge limitations of the HESS. The last constraint is
to limit the storage function to whether charge or discharge at a certain time interval.
ch and U dch are the storage’s binary variables.
It should be noted that the Us,t s,t

8.5 Discussion and Results

Modeling a mixed integer non-linear programming problem in GAMS, here, we

are discussing the simulation results. The system considered in this chapter is
a combination of electric and heat systems operating together. The proposed
8 Optimal Co-Generation of Electric and Heat Energy Systems Considering. . . 207

combined system has been graphically illustrated in the Fig. 8.2. As shown in the
Fig. 8.2, the heat pipelines have been taken into account. The heat system consists
of 14 nodes and the electric system is the IEEE 14-bus test system. Both systems are
operating at the same time, and a co-optimization strategy is considered to minimize
the total system costs. The CHP units and HESSs are also functioning through the
system to decrease the system costs and provide the operator with more heat and
electricity generations. The net total cost of the system is now equal to 6.0159 × 105
where the system costs for the electric and heat systems in a separate operation
mode are 5.7303 × 105 and 1.1295 × 105 , respectively. Here the difference between
co-generation and separated modes of the system is evident. With co-generating
the electric and heat systems, the operator could save almost $100,000, which is
a considerable value. On the other hand, the operation reliability is higher and the
system could provide the consumption units with a reliable energy source. Such a
methodology is practical and this could be implemented in real systems.
Normalized and standard load curves have been considered for both electricity
and heat consumption units. Table 8.2 and Fig. 8.3 show the consumption values of
electricity and heat systems. In Fig. 8.3, the heat load values have been multiplied
by 10 to become more comparable with electric values. From the Table 8.2, it is
clear that the load curve has a high peak from time interval 10 to time interval 19.
Moreover, the low peak (valley) is from time interval 3 to time interval 6.
Figure 8.3 is demonstrating the peak and valley of both heat and electricity
curves.
The day-ahead electricity and heat price curves are shown in the Fig. 8.4. The red
line is the heat price and black curve is for the electricity price. A part from the most
published works that the heat price curve is dismissed, the authors have considered
day-ahead price curves for both heat and electric systems.
The HESS units, as shown in Fig. 8.5, are relaxing the problem by declining the
high peak values of heat load curve. Moreover, the energy level of the first HESS,
which is installed in node No.1, has been shown in the Fig. 8.6. Here, three different

Table 8.2 Electricity and Hour Electricity Heat Hour Electricity Heat
heat day-ahead demand
values 1 1.66 0.124 13 2.57 0.193
2 1.65 0.123 14 2.60 0.195
3 1.50 0.113 15 2.60 0.195
4 1.45 0.109 16 2.52 0.189
5 1.45 0.109 17 2.49 0.187
6 1.50 0.113 18 2.49 0.187
7 1.66 0.124 19 2.41 0.181
8 1.98 0.148 20 2.39 0.179
9 2.26 0.169 21 2.39 0.179
10 2.47 0.185 22 2.41 0.181
11 2.57 0.193 23 2.26 0.169
12 2.60 0.195 24 1.87 0.140
208 S. Azad et al.

3
Heat load [MWth]
Electric load [MW]

2.5
Load

*10
1.5

1
5 10 15 20
Time [Hours]

Fig. 8.3 Electric and heat loads (heat load values have been multiplied by 10 to become
comparable to electric load)

Electricity price [$/MW]

80 Heat price [$/MWth]

70

60
Price

50

40

30

20

10
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time [Hours]

Fig. 8.4 Day-ahead electricity and heat market prices

HESSs have been considered with different maximum of charge/discharge power. It

should be mentioned in all three HESSs, the energy level at the start and at the end
of operation are the same and equal to 0.25 p.u.
Figure 8.5 is presenting the charge and discharge spots of the HESS along with
the heat load curve. Here, we plot just the first HESS as a test case and the other
HESS units could be plotted just the same. The heat load curve has two peak times
8 Optimal Co-Generation of Electric and Heat Energy Systems Considering. . . 209

0.12

0.1

0.08
Charged power
Energy [MWh]

Discharged power
0.06 Basic load data

0.04

0.02

-0.02
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time [Hours]

Fig. 8.5 Heat load curve with charge/discharge of the HESS figure

0.4
Energy level
Charged power
Discharged power
0.3
Energy [MWh]

0.2

0.1

-0.1
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time [Hours]

Fig. 8.6 HESS No.1 energy level with charge and discharge time spots and values

one from 10 to 18 and the other is in 22 time intervals. Further, there is a valley at
the beginning of the day from 0 to almost 9 time intervals. The HESS schedule is to
relax the heat load curve by charging in the valley and discharging the power in the
high peak time intervals.
Like Fig. 8.5, Fig. 8.6 presents the day-ahead charge and discharge power time
spots of the HESS. This figure is also for the HESS unit No.1 along with its energy
level. The blue line is for its day-ahead energy level and the blue bars are the
210 S. Azad et al.

0.25

0.2
Power [MW]

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
MicroTurbine Fuell cell ICE
CHP type

Fig. 8.7 The CHP units output by different types

charging power and the red bars are the discharged power from the HESS No.1.
The initial and final energy level times of the storage are fixed in 0.25 p.u. The
maximum energy level and the minimum possible energy level of the HESS are
0.5 and 0.05, respectively. For the other HESS units, we obtained almost the same
outputs and here the unit No.1 has been analyzed and reported well.
The CHP units are running constantly due to the systems need and its low-cost
heat generation. Here, we considered three different type of renewable and non-
renewable CHPs including fuel cell, micro-turbine, internal combustion engine.
Figure 8.7 is showing the CHP units output graphically.
Finally, the conventional generators of both electric and heat systems have been
demonstrated in the Fig. 8.8. The heat generation unit in node No.5 is depicted in
red line, and the electricity generator is curved with black line. It should be noted
that the heat energy storage impact could be investigated from the figure in which
the peak generation in heat is under the electricity and it is higher than electricity
generation in valley intervals. That is what storage systems do in the model and it
has been investigated well.

8.6 Conclusion

This chapter presented a co-optimization technique for electric and heat systems
together. Co-operation of the energy systems has some positive impacts on the
whole energy systems including enhancing the reliability of load commitment level,
reducing the total operation costs, and so on. Here, the authors have analyzed the co-
optimization of the electric and heat systems, simultaneously. In addition to that, the
CHP units, both renewable and non-renewables including fuel cell, micro-turbine,
8 Optimal Co-Generation of Electric and Heat Energy Systems Considering. . . 211

4
Heat generationNo.5
Electricity generation No.1
3.5

3
Power [MW]

2.5

1.5

1
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time [Hours]

Fig. 8.8 The heat and electricity conventional generators

and internal combustion engine, and HESSs have been considered to the model to
enhance the operation output in the model. The HESSs are considered to improve
the heat operation system and the CHP units are considered in both systems in
which they are generating both heat and electricity at the same time. Three different
heat storage systems and three different CHP units have been included through
the model. The simulation results have proved the mentioned performance of the
combined electric and heat system. Co-generating the electric and heat systems had
reduced the operation net cost by approximately $ 100,000 which is over 15% and
it is quite huge. Having such effective impacts on the energy systems, it is practical
to implement these co-generation systems in real energy systems.

References

1. International Energy Agency. [Online] Available: https://www.iea.org/.

2. Jurasz, J., & Ciapała, B. (2018). Solar—hydro hybrid power station as a way to smooth power
output and increase water retention. Solar Energy, 173, 675–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2018.07.087. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X18307527.
3. Al-Nimr, M. A., & Qananba, K. S. (2018). A solar hybrid system for power generation and
water distillation. Solar Energy, 171, 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.06.019.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X18305590.
4. Valenzuela, C., Mata-Torres, C., Cardemil, J. M., & Escobar, R. A. (2017). Csp+pv hybrid
solar plants for power and water cogeneration in northern Chile. Solar Energy, 157, 713–726.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.08.081. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S0038092X17307624.
212 S. Azad et al.

5. Shabazbegian, V., Ameli, H., Ameli, M. T., Strbac, G., & Qadrdan, M. (2021). Co-optimization
of resilient gas and electricity networks; a novel possibilistic chance-constrained programming
approach. Applied Energy, 284, 116284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116284.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192031672X.
6. Shabazbegian, V., Ameli, H., Ameli, M. T., & Strbac, G. (2020). Stochastic optimization model
for coordinated operation of natural gas and electricity networks. Computers & Chemical
Engineering, 142, 107060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2020.107060. https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0098135420300533.
7. Zeng, Q., Zhang, B., Fang, J., & Chen, Z. (2017). A bi-level programming for multistage
co-expansion planning of the integrated gas and electricity system. Applied Energy, 200, 192–
203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.022. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0306261917305123.
8. Yildirim, N., & Bilir, L. (2017). Evaluation of a hybrid system for a nearly zero
energy greenhouse. Energy Conversion and Management, 148, 1278–1290. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.06.068. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0196890417306131.
9. Sanjani, K., Vahabzad, N., Nazari-Heris, M., & Mohammadi-ivatloo, B. (2019). A robust-
stochastic approach for energy transaction in energy hub under uncertainty (pp. 219–232).
Cham: Springer International Publishing.
10. Calise, F., d’Accadia, M. D., & Vicidomini, M. (2019). Optimization and dynamic analysis
of a novel polygeneration system producing heat, cool and fresh water. Renewable Energy,
143, 1331–1347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.05.051. https://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0960148119307116.
11. Zeng, X., Zhang, J., Yu, L., Zhu, J., Li, Z., & Tang, L. (2019). A sustainable water-food-energy
plan to confront climatic and socioeconomic changes using simulation-optimization approach.
Applied Energy, 236, 743–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.11.086. https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261918318038.
12. Xydis, G. A., Liaros, S., & Botsis, K. (2017). Energy demand analysis via small scale
hydroponic systems in suburban areas—an integrated energy-food nexus solution. Science
of The Total Environment, 593-594, 610–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.170.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969717306915.
13. Liu, N., Wang, J., & Wang, L. (2019). Hybrid energy sharing for multiple microgrids in an
integrated heat—electricity energy system. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 10(3),
1139–1151. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2018.2861986.
14. Das, B. K., & Hasan, M. (2021). Optimal sizing of a stand-alone hybrid system for
electric and thermal loads using excess energy and waste heat. Energy, 214, 119036.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119036. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S0360544220321435.
15. Yadegari, S., Hamdi Abdi, & Nikkhah, S. (2020). Risk-averse multi-objective optimal com-
bined heat and power planning considering voltage security constraints. Energy, 212, 118754.
[Online] Available: https://www.eia.gov/.
16. Wang, H., Gu, C., Zhang, X., & Li, F. (2020). Optimal chp planning in integrated energy
systems considering network charges. IEEE Systems Journal, 14(2), 2684–2693. https://doi.
org/10.1109/JSYST.2019.2921218.
17. Bornapour, M., Hemmati, R., Pourbehzadi, M., Dastranj, A., & Niknam, T. (2020). Probabilis-
tic optimal coordinated planning of molten carbonate fuel cell-CHP and renewable energy
sources in microgrids considering hydrogen storage with point estimate method. Energy
Conversion and Management, 206, 112495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112495.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196890420300315.
18. Jimenez-Navarro, J.-P., Kavvadias, K., Filippidou, F., Pavičević, M., & Quoilin, S. (2020).
Coupling the heating and power sectors: The role of centralised combined heat and power
plants and district heat in a European decarbonised power system. Applied Energy, 270,
115134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115134. https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0306261920306462.
8 Optimal Co-Generation of Electric and Heat Energy Systems Considering. . . 213

19. Newborough, A. M. (2005). Impact of micro-chp systems on domestic sector co2 emissions.
Applied Thermal Engineering, 25, 2653–2676.
20. Martinez, S., Michaux, G., Salagnac, P., & Bouvier, J.-L. (2017). Micro-combined heat and
power systems (micro-CHP) based on renewable energy sources. Energy Conversion and
Management, 154, 262–285.
21. Radenahmad, N., Azad, A. T., Saghir, M., Taweekun, J., Bakar, M. S. A., Reza, M. S., & Azad,
A. K. (2020). A review on biomass derived syngas for SOFC based combined heat and power
application. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 119, 109560. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2019.109560. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032119307683.
22. Shao, Z., Ahangarnejad, A. H., Monazzah, A., Rao, Y., Rodriguez, D. (2019). Increasing of
fuel cell economic benefits by optimal participation strategy with energy storages and other
distributed resources and considering uncertainties and various markets. International Journal
of Hydrogen Energy, 44, 1839–1850.
23. Horlock, J. H. (1987). Combined heat and power.
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5433836.
24. Hawkes, A., & Leach, M. (2007). Cost-effective operating strategy for residential micro-
combined heat and power. Energy, 32(5), 711–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2006.06.
001. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544206001277.
25. Alipour, M., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., & Zare, K. (2015). Stochastic scheduling of renewable
and CHP-based microgrids. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 11(5), 1049–1058.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2015.2462296.
26. Baniasadi, A., Habibi, D., Al-Saedi, W., Masoum, M. A., Das, C. K., & Mousavi, N. (2020).
Optimal sizing design and operation of electrical and thermal energy storage systems in smart
buildings. Journal of Energy Storage, 28, 101186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2019.101186.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352152X19311545.
27. Liu, M., Riahi, S., Jacob, R., Belusko, M., & Bruno, F. (2020). Design of sensible and latent
heat thermal energy storage systems for concentrated solar power plants: Thermal performance
analysis. Renewable Energy, 151, 1286–1297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.11.115.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148119318099.
28. Dargahi, A., Sanjani, K., Nazari-Heris, M., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., Tohidi, S., & Marzband,
M. (2020). Scheduling of air conditioning and thermal energy storage systems considering
demand response programs. Sustainability, 12(18), 7311. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187311.
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/18/7311.
29. Ochs, F., Dahash, A., Tosatto, A., & Bianchi Janetti, M. (2020). Techno-economic planning
and construction of cost-effective large-scale hot water thermal energy storage for renewable
district heating systems. Renewable Energy, 150, 1165–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.
2019.11.017. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148119316982.
30. Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Huang, Y., Li, F., Zeng, M., Li, J., Wang, X., & Zhang, F. (2019).
Planning and operation method of the regional integrated energy system considering economy
and environment. Energy, 171, 731–750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.01.036. https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544219300386.
31. Garmabdari, R., Moghimi, M., Yang, F., & Lu, J. (2020). Multi-objective optimisation and
planning of grid-connected cogeneration systems in presence of grid power fluctuations and
energy storage dynamics. Energy, 212, 118589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118589.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544220316972.
32. Liu, Z., Zhao, Y., & Wang, X. (2020). Long-term economic planning of combined cooling
heating and power systems considering energy storage and demand response. Applied Energy,
279, 115819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115819. https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0306261920312976.
33. Marczinkowski, H. M., & Østergaard, P. A. (2019). Evaluation of electricity storage versus
thermal storage as part of two different energy planning approaches for the islands Samsø and
Orkney. Energy, 175, 505–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.03.103. https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544219305079.
214 S. Azad et al.

34. Dahash, A., Ochs, F., Tosatto, A., & Streicher, W. (2020). Toward efficient numerical
modeling and analysis of large-scale thermal energy storage for renewable district heating.
Applied Energy, 279, 115840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115840. https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261920313179.
35. Arandian, B., & Ardehali, M. (2017). Effects of environmental emissions on optimal combina-
tion and allocation of renewable and non-renewable CHP technologies in heat and electricity
distribution networks based on improved particle swarm optimization algorithm. Energy,
140, 466–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.08.101. https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0360544217314767.
36. Energy Information Aministration. [Online] Available: https://www.eia.gov/.
Chapter 9
Investigating the Role of Flexibility
Options in Multi-vector Energy Systems

Vahid Shabazbegian, Hossein Ameli , and Mohammad Taghi Ameli

9.1 Introduction

Energy systems (e.g., gas and electricity systems) include all components designed
to supply and deliver energy to the demand centers. Gas and electricity systems
deliver a major share of energy to consumers and play a vital role in people’s lives
all around the world. On the other hand, these two sectors produce a considerable
share of the total greenhouse gasses [1]. Therefore, there is a need to take a few
corrective measures to curve this trend and decrease the potential consequences. To
meet this purpose, a high number of studies introduced investing more in renewable
energies as a solution to mitigate the proposed concern [2].
The share of renewable energy sources (RES) to supply energy is increasing,
in order to meet the future carbon targets. The renewable resources are expanded
to replace the power plants with high carbon intensity, such as coal plants. Gas-
fired power plants are the main linkage between these two networks. Due to their
characteristics, such as fast ramping rate, these plants complement the lack of
renewables [3], and hence the intermittent nature of RES in the power system will
be reflected in the gas network demand. As a solution, flexibility options, such
as storage systems, bidirectional compressors, and power-to-gas (P2G) systems,
are employed to cope with the imposed intermittency to the energy system. More
precisely, storage systems provide both upward and downward reserve, discharging
energy when there is a higher amount of demand and charging on the contrary case.
In energy systems, various sort of storage systems, such as batteries and gas storage

V. Shabazbegian () · M. T. Ameli ()

Faculty of Power Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: [email protected]
H. Ameli
Control and Power group, Imperial College London, London, UK

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 215
V. Vahidinasab, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo (eds.), Whole Energy Systems, Power
Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87653-1_9
216 V. Shabazbegian et al.

systems, can play different roles depending on the time scale [4]. Multidirectional
compressors redirect the gas flow and boost the gas pressure in different direction
to ensure gas demand is met [5]. Besides, P2G systems are employed to prevent the
curtailment of renewable electricity. These components produce hydrogen via the
electrolysis process from the excess power of renewables and can be injected to the
gas system or be utilized for different purposes [6].
Aside from that, in energy systems, reliability is defined as “designing, running,
and maintaining energy supply resources, transmission, and distribution systems to
provide an adequate, safe, and stable flow of energy” [7]. Meanwhile, resiliency is
linked to the concept of reliability which is defined as “the capacity of an energy
system to tolerate disturbance and to continue to deliver affordable energy services
to consumers” [8]. Therefore, considering the ability of the flexibility options in
order to cope with numerous issues in energy systems, such as mitigating renewable
units output power fluctuations and peak load management, these components can
be employed to enhance the reliability and resiliency of the energy systems.
Taking into account the proposed issues, in this chapter, different types of flexi-
bility options are firstly introduced, including their uses and mathematical models.
After that, the contribution of these components in mitigating the intermittency and
variability of RES is investigated based on previous projects and studies. Moreover,
some analyses are conducted to assist the decision-makers to choose the options and
solve the problems more efficiently.

9.2 Flexibility Options

The electricity network delivers electricity from power plants to consumers. After
producing electricity at power plants, transformers in step-up substations are
employed to boost the voltage and transmit power to industrial units and step-down
substations. Then, through employing the transformers in step-down substations
that are located near the consumers, the power transmits to demand places, such
as houses and small industries (Fig. 9.1) [9]. It is noteworthy to mention that the
changes in the voltage level are conducted to reduce the loss of power.
The electricity is mainly generated in three ways, including (i) combustion
of fossil fuels in power plants, such as coal and natural gas, (ii) nuclear fission
in power plants, and (iii) other no fossil-fuel-based sources, such as wind and
solar power. In recent years, however, the share of RES is increasing due to
the emissions produced through fossil fuels, causing climate change and global
warming [10]. Although these resources produce electricity without emissions,
their output power is variable and depends on different parameters, mainly weather
conditions. Different flexibility options in the electricity systems can be employed to
cope with the intermittent nature of renewables, such as energy storage systems and
flexible gas-fired power plants [11]. The energy storage systems store electricity
during peak hours and recharge the electricity during peak hours to facilitate
addressing the supply-demand balance. Moreover, owing to some characteristics
9 Investigating the Role of Flexibility Options in Multi-vector Energy Systems 217

Power plants HVSs LVSs DGs

High-voltage Low-voltage Low-voltage

electrical lines electrical lines electrical lines

Industrial consumers Consumers

Fig. 9.1 Electricity network from suppliers to consumers

of gas-fired power plants (e.g., fast ramp up/down and short starting up and shutting
down times), the power plant can be opted to deal with the variability of RES.
However, it leads to transmitting the variability from the electricity system to the
gas system. To mitigate the issue, some flexibility options are employed in gas
networks, such as flexible compressors and gas storage facilities. The compressors
are employed to boost the pressure within the pipelines, and gas storage facilities
inject/withdraw gas (e.g., natural gas or hydrogen) to facilitate supply-demand
balance in the gas networks. The P2G systems as a cross vector flexibility can be
installed to produce hydrogen in order to utilize or inject to the gas network by using
the excess of renewables. The characteristics and performance of the flexibility
options will be explained more precisely in the following.
Due to the interdependency of gas and electricity network operation, it is
worthwhile to explain the gas network operation in this section. The main layers of
gas networks include gas terminals, gas transmission systems, and gas distributions
systems [12]. In a natural gas system, the natural gas is supplied through the
terminals, such as liquefied natural gas carriers, onshore/offshore gas fields, and
interconnectors. In a hydrogen system, the hydrogen will be produced through
fossil fuels (e.g., brown and blue hydrogen) and through electrolysis process (i.e.,
green hydrogen). In the transmission gas network, the gas is transmitted within the
pipelines at high pressures. By using high pressures, more compressed gas can be
transmitted through long distances which also reduces the cost of pipelines (i.e.,
due to the fact that smaller diameter is necessary to transmit more compressed
gas). It should be noted that heavy industrial demands and power plants are
directly supplied by the gas transmission systems. Finally, in order to deliver
the gas to residential, commercial, and small industrial plants, the pressure is
reduced through the regulator stations, and the consumers are supplied through the
distribution systems. The performance and mathematical formulation to simulate the
main components in natural gas system, including the gas pipelines, compressors,
storages, and regulators, are illustrated in Fig. 9.2.
218 V. Shabazbegian et al.

Fig. 9.2 Gas network from suppliers to consumers

9.2.1 Storage Systems

Storage system refers to devices that convert a form of energy into another form
which can be stored and converted back when it is necessary. Energy storage
systems, which are employed in electricity networks, can mainly categorize into
four different groups, including mechanical (e.g., compressed air energy storages,
pumped hydro storages, and flywheel energy storage systems), electrochemical
(e.g., battery energy storage systems), and electrical (e.g., superconducting magnet
energy storage system and electric double-layer capacitors or supercapacitors) [13].
However, in the gas network, gas storage systems (overground and underground)
are also employed to support the supply-demand balance and provide security of
supply [14].
The pumped storage systems can facilitate the storage of energy in off-peak hours
and inject to the grid during peak hours [15]. This technology operates by pumping
water to a higher altitude, while the compressed air energy storage systems compress
the air and release it for combustion and power generation [16]. The flywheel energy
storages store kinetic energy mechanically in a flywheel [17]. Furthermore, the
battery storage systems store energy in the electrochemical form [18]. Aside from
that, the superconducting magnet energy storages store electricity within a coil, and
the capacitors store and discharge electricity benefiting from the electrolyte, placed
between the conductors [19]. Moreover, in the gas network, the natural gas is stored
in tankers underground, high-pressure holders, and low-pressure holders or liquefied
to be stored (the characteristic of each technology is presented in Table 9.1) [20].
The model formulation for energy storage systems and gas storage systems is
presented in this subsection. In Eqs. (9.1), (9.2), (9.3), and (9.4), the energy storage
systems in the electricity system are formulated [21].
 
Er,t = Er,t + Pr,t
ch
.ηch − Pr,t
dch
/ηdch ∀r, ∀t (9.1)

Ermin ≤ Er,t ≤ Ermax ∀r, ∀t (9.2)

9 Investigating the Role of Flexibility Options in Multi-vector Energy Systems 219

Table 9.1 Characteristics of different storage systems

Category Type Range Response time Efficiency
Mechanical Pumped hydro 110 MW–2 GW sec–mins 70–80%
storages
Compressed air energy 110 MW–290 MW 1–15 mins 90%
storages
Flywheel energy 5 kW–90 MW sec 80–95%
storage systems
Electrochemical Battery energy storage 100 W–100 MW 20 ms-sec 60–80%
systems
Electrical Superconducting 170 kW–100 MW <100 ms 95%
magnet energy storage
system
Supercapacitors <1 MW 8 msec >95%

Prch,min ≤ Pr,t
ch
≤ Prch,max ∀r, ∀t (9.3)

dch,min dch,max
Pr,t ≤ Pr,t
dch
≤ Pr,t ∀r, ∀t (9.4)

In Eqs. (9.1) and (9.2), the changes in the energy level of batteries and the
limitation of the state of charge are presented, respectively. In Eqs. (9.3) and (9.4),
the charging/discharging power limitation for these systems are indicated. In these
equations, r represents the set of energy storage systems. The energy level of energy
storage systems is also shown by Er, t . Moreover, the efficiency of charge/discharge
ch/dch
is depicted by ηch/dch , and Pr,t demonstrates the charging/discharging power of
energy storage systems.
Aside from the already mentioned, in Eqs. (9.5), (9.6), (9.7), (9.8), (9.9), and
((9.10), the model formulation for gas storage systems is presented [22].
 
inj
Gl q,t = Gl q,t−1 + Qwd
q,t .η − Qq,t /η
ch dch
∀q, ∀t (9.5)

q ≤ Gl q,t ≤ Gl q
Gl min ∀q, ∀t
max
(9.6)

wd,max
q,t ≤ Qq,t
0 ≤ Qwd ∀q, ∀t (9.7)

inj inj,max
0 ≤ Qq,t ≤ Qq,t ∀q, ∀t (9.8)


Qwd,max
q,t = Kq . Glq,t ∀q, ∀t (9.9)
220 V. Shabazbegian et al.


inj,max 1
Qq,t = −Kq1 . + Kq2 ∀q, ∀t (9.10)
Glq,t + Gl cush
q,t

In Eqs. (9.5) and (9.6), the changes in the gas level of the storages and
the limitation of gas level are presented, respectively. In Eqs. (9.7) and (9.8),
the limitation of withdrawal and injected gas of these systems are indicated.
Furthermore, in Eqs. (9.9) and (9.10), it is indicated that maximum withdrawal
and injected gas are proportional to the gas level in the system. In the represented
model and formulation, q shows the set of gas storages, and Glq, t indicates the
gas level within the storages. The amount of withdrawal/injected natural gas is also
wd/inj
demonstrated byQq,t .

9.2.2 Flexible Power Plant

While a low-carbon energy system has various benefits (e.g., low environmental
impact and employment), the main problem with these resources is the intermittency
in their output power [23]. In comparison with conventional fossil fuel-fired power
plants, such as gas-fired power plants, the renewable ones cannot provide firm
generation [24]. As a result, the fossil fuel-fired power plants, planned to supply
baseload, should participate to deal with the changes and supply peak load. For this
purpose, these power plants must turn on and off and ramp up and down although
it could have some negative impacts (e.g., increase in forced outage rate). However,
other options to cope with this problem, such as demand response, have still their
downsides. The demand response programs need smart frameworks in order to
address the challenges associated with RES to maintain the supply-demand balance.
The flexibility level of different type of power plants can be categorized into three
different groups, including inflexible technologies, flexible technologies, and highly
flexible technologies [25]. Relatively inflexible generation technologies include
nuclear1 , coal, wind, photovoltaic, oil, and geothermal power plants. The flexible
technologies include gas-fired, flexible coal-fired, combined-cycle turbine, biomass,
and biogas power plants. Some technologies, such as hydropower plants, are also
categorized as highly flexible power plants. In Table 9.2 (extracted from [11, 25]),
the characteristics of all these technologies are represented.
According to Table 9.2, the flexible gas-fired power plants provide maximum
ramping (up/down) rate and minimum start-up time. Furthermore, there is a
considerable share of these power plants in the electricity networks all over the
world (e.g., around 40% in the United States of America and Great Britain) [26]. As
a result, the technology is one of the most commonly used options to deal with the

1 Although nuclear plants can be flexible as well, but due to the fact that these plants usually

provide the baseload, it is categorized as a relatively inflexible generation technology.

9 Investigating the Role of Flexibility Options in Multi-vector Energy Systems 221

Table 9.2 Characteristics of different generating units’ technologies

Technology Minimum load (%) Ramping rate (%) Hot start-up time (%)
Nuclear 60 2 24
Oil 40 30 3
Geothermal 15 30 1.5
Gas-fired 40 60 0.16
Flexible coal-fired 40 60 3
Combined-cycle turbine 40 60 2
Biomass 50 40 3
Biogas 50 40 3
Hydro 5 100 0.1

intermittent nature of RES, such as wind and photovoltaic power plants. The model
formulation of the gas-fired power plants is demonstrated in Eqs. (9.11), (9.12),
(9.13), (9.14), (9.15), (9.16), (9.17), and (9.18) [27].
  
Cost = bi .Pi,t + su
Wi,t + sd
Wi,t (9.11)
t i t i t i

Pimin ≤ Pi,t ≤ Pimax ∀i, ∀t (9.12)

Pi,t − Pi,t−1 ≤ RU max

i ∀i, ∀t (9.13)

Pi,t−1 − Pi,t ≤ RD max

i ∀i, ∀t (9.14)

 
λi,t ’ − λi,t ’−1 ≤ λi,t ∀i, ∀t ’ ∈ t − T on + 1, t − 1 (9.15)

λi,t ’−1 − λi,t ’ ≤ 1 − λi,t ∀i, ∀t ’ ∈ t − T off + 1, t − 1 (9.16)

 
su
Wi,t = Cisu . max λi,t − λi,t−1 , 0 ∀i, ∀t (9.17)

 
sd
Wi,t = Cisd . max λi,t−1 − λi,t , 0 ∀i, ∀t (9.18)

As depicted, three terms are added into objective functions that represent the cost
of generating power, start-up cost, and shutdown cost, respectively (Eq. (9.11)).
Furthermore, a few constraints are added, including maximum/minimum stable
output power (Eq. (9.12)), ramp up/down (Eqs. (9.13) and (9.14)), minimum up-
/downtime (Eqs. (9.15) and (9.16)), and startup/shutdown costs (Eqs. (9.17) and
(9.18)). In the model, i indicates the set of generating units. Furthermore, Pi, t ,
222 V. Shabazbegian et al.

RUi /RDi , and λi, t demonstrate output power of generating units, ramp up/down,
and status of generating unit (on or off).

9.2.3 Bidirectional Compressors

Compressors are deployed in the gas infrastructure to boost the pressure within
the pipelines to keep the pressure of the gas in an acceptable range and avoid
pressure drop over a long distance. More precisely, the transmission of gas reduces
the movements as a result of the fraction. Therefore, the compressors increase
the pressure by reducing the volume. This is noteworthy to mention that when
the gas is compressed, its pressure rises. This is the main reason that compressor
stations mainly have cooler facilities. There are different types of compressors
based on prime movers, including gas turbines/engines, electric motors, and steam
turbines [28]. Although a portion of gas flow is mainly used in compressor units,
some countries use electrically driven compressors for security and environmental
reasons. Hence, suitable type of prime movers should be employed based on
economic and environmental factors. The model and formulation of compressors
are presented in Eqs. (9.19), (9.20), (9.21), and (9.22) [29].
⎡ 1 ⎤
in .Q comp out βcomp
βcomp .πp,t πp,t
.⎣ − 1⎦
comp c,t
Pc,t = in
∀c, ∀t (9.19)
ηcomp πp,t

out
πp,t
1≤ in
≤ PRmax ∀c, ∀t (9.20)
πp,t
comp comp,max
Qc,t ≤ Qc,t ∀c, ∀t (9.21)

comp comp,max
Pc,t ≤ Pc,t ∀c, ∀t (9.22)

In the model, the required power to drive compressors is calculated in Eq. (9.19).
The ratio of output/input pressure is limited in Eq. (9.20). The limitations of gas flow
through compressors and electricity consumption of the component are addressed in
Eqs. (9.21) and (9.22), respectively. In the model, c stands for the set of compressor
comp comp in/out
units. Moreover, Pc,t , Qc,t , and πp,t demonstrate electricity consumption,
gas flow, and input/output pressure of compressors, respectively.
9 Investigating the Role of Flexibility Options in Multi-vector Energy Systems 223

9.2.4 Power-to-Gas Systems

This technology uses electricity to produce hydrogen. Hydrogen has a high energy
density and application in industries like steel making. Furthermore, the combustion
of hydrogen produces water and energy (2H2 (g) + O2 (g) → 2H2 O + 572kj of
thermal energy where H2: hydrogen, H2 O : water, and O2 : oxygen) [30]. The gas
can be injected into the gas system or stored to either be used for other purposes
or burned to produce electricity in peak hours. It can also be used in fuel cells
to produce energy without combustion in the presence of an oxidizing agent (e.g.,
oxygen) [31].
For a cost-effective transition to a low-/zero-carbon energy system, different
methods have been invented that can couple this technology with RES [32]. Among
the methods, the electrolysis process is the most popular one in which hydrogen and
oxygen are produced via electrochemical conversion of water. However, based on
the electrolyte, different methods have been invented that can be categorized, includ-
ing (a) proton exchange membrane electrolyzer (PEM), (b) alkaline electrolyzer, and
(c) solid oxide electrolyzer (SOEC). In Eqs. (9.23), (9.24), and (9.25), the model and
formulation for the technology are demonstrated.

p2g p2g
Pd,t = v H2 .ηp2g .Qd,t ∀d, ∀t (9.23)

p2g p2g,max
Pd,t ≤ Pd,t ∀d, ∀t (9.24)

p2g p2g,max
Qd,t ≤ ϕ.Qd,t ∀d, ∀t (9.25)

In this model, the relation between the consumed power and the produced
hydrogen is indicated in Eq. (9.23). Furthermore, the limitation of power con-
sumption and gas production are addressed in Eqs. (9.24) and (9.25). In the
p2g p2g
equations, d demonstrates the set of P2G systems. Moreover, Pd,t and Qd,t present
the injected power into the systems and withdrawal gas, respectively. Constant
for converting hydrogen energy to gas volume, efficiency of electrolyzers, and
maximum allowance hydrogen injection to the natural gas system are indicated by
vH2 , ηp2g , and ϕ, respectively.

9.2.5 Integrated Operation of Gas and Electricity Networks

Aside from the components, the integrated operation of gas and electricity networks
is a strategy that is beneficial for numerous reasons. It can be said that, in a power
system with high penetration of renewable power sources, gas-fired units can be
considered as a back-up option to improve the balance between generation and
224 V. Shabazbegian et al.

Fig. 9.3 Optimizing the integrated operation of gas and electricity networks

consumption in short-term scheduling [33]. For this purpose, in the mathematical

model, the objective function is the sum of gas network operation’s objective
function and electricity network’s objective function that is optimized subject to
both networks’ constraints, whereas, in an iterative strategy, initially the operation
for electricity network is optimized. After that, by calculating the required amount
of gas demand for the power plants, the gas network operation is optimized. The
drawback of this strategy is that due to much lower speed of gas transport within
the infrastructure, the required gas for power generation (i.e., output of electricity
network optimization) may not be delivered on time. As a result, the gas-fired power
plants should limit their output power that reduces the flexibility in the electricity
network.
The integrated operation strategy facilitates the supply-demand balance in each
node of the gas network, leading to an efficient operation of gas-fired power plants,
which are helpful in dealing with intermittency of RES. The objective function and
associated constraints of the optimization problem are depicted in Fig. 9.3.
It is noteworthy to mention that the objective function is demonstrated in the
central part, and peripheral parts indicate the constraints (e.g., linepack2 limit).

2 Linepack refers to the amount of stored gas within the pipelines.

9 Investigating the Role of Flexibility Options in Multi-vector Energy Systems 225

9.2.6 Other Flexibility Options

Other measures are available to improve the flexibility that is mainly related to the
electricity network, including (a) demand response, (b) allowing RES to provide
reserves, (c) reducing the minimum generation level of coal power plants, and (d)
increasing the transmission capacity [34].
Demand response provides the capability to shift the demand in order to maintain
the supply-demand balance. On the other hand, a minimum level of thermal
generation is due to providing the reserve requirements. A large share of RES
in the grid provides the capability to supply the reserve and reduce curtailment.
Besides, the reduction in the minimum generation level of thermal units increases
the flexibility as a result of the increase in the overall operating range of the power
plants. The transmission expansion also provides the capability to import and export
power (i.e., creating market opportunity) as well as scheduling the generation units
by a central system that improves flexibility.

9.3 Analyses and Managerial Insights

In this section, different benefits of the options are examined considering the
previous studies and projects. After that, some useful insights are provided for
decision-makers and investors.

9.3.1 Flexibility Analyses in the Integrated Gas and Electricity

Networks

Different projects were conducted in the world, focusing on the role of flexibility
options in multi-vector energy systems. Among the projects, the research and
analysis that was implemented on natural gas and electricity networks in Great
Britain was a comprehensive one [35]. This study investigated the value of
flexibility (flexible power plants, energy storage systems, adding interconnections,
and demand response) for the United Kingdom’s decarbonized gas and electricity
systems for future horizons. The result of this project shows that the cost of
operation with low-carbon technologies and RES highly depends on the level of
flexibility in the network. In Fig. 9.4, costs and emissions of a fully flexible system
in the United Kingdom are compared with an inflexible one.
As demonstrated, the increase in the level of flexibility reduces the disadvantage
of wind generation versus nuclear ones from 14$/MWh greater to 1.3$/MWh lower.
In comparison with the photovoltaic generation, it also reduces the cost from
2.3$/MWh higher than nuclear to 10.7$/MWh lower than nuclear. Therefore, a
considerable amount of cost saving occurs as a result of the increase in the level of
226 V. Shabazbegian et al.

100
Cost of low-flexible technologies

90
(flexible versus low-flexible
technologies) ($/MWh)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Nuclear Photovoltaic Wind

low-flexible Flexible

Fig. 9.4 Costs of low-flexible technologies in different flexibility level

Table 9.3 Characteristics of different generating units’ technologies

Ref. Flexibility options Results
Qadrdan et al. (2017) [36] Flexible gas-fired generation, Cost reduction and better
P2G, electricity storage systems performance of energy
storage systems
Ameli et al. (2017) [37] Flexible gas-fired generation and Cost reduction
multidirectional compressor
systems
Strbac et al. (2020) [38] Flexible gas-fired generations, Cost and emission reduction
storage systems,
interconnections, and
demand-side management
Fu et al. (2020) [39] Different types of storage Cost and emission reduction
systems

flexibility. Aside from the already mentioned, the flexibility reduces the emissions
50% (100 g/kWh to 50 g/kWh). The main reason is the participation of RES in the
generation mix as a result of flexible networks.
After this project, different studies on the role of flexibility options in the
operation of Great Britain’s gas and electricity networks were conducted. The main
characteristics of the recent studies are indicated in Table 9.3, including the aims,
the employed flexibility options, and the main results. In Fig. 9.5, the benefits of
employing flexibility options were also quantified.
It is noteworthy to explain the scenarios and level of flexibility options in these
studies. For instance, in [36], four cases are examined, including a reference case
(i.e., no considerable flexibility), flexible gas-fired power plants, electricity storages,
and P2G systems. The result shows that the integration of these options reduces
9 Investigating the Role of Flexibility Options in Multi-vector Energy Systems 227

700

600
Anual operaon saving (M$)

500

400

300

200

100

0
10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Share of solar energy

Demand response 1500MW storage 6000MW storage Export

Fig. 9.5 Annual operation cost saving versus the increase in the share of photovoltaic systems in
the presence of different flexibility options

the amount of curtailed wind and operating costs. Furthermore, the energy storage
systems work more efficiently compared to others. In [37], however, three cases are
examined, including flexible multidirectional compressors, optimizing the operation
of both networks simultaneously, and combining the first and the second scenarios.
The cost and emission reduction are less in the last case compared to others. Besides,
in [38], flexible generation, interconnections, demand response, and energy storage
systems are examined as flexibility options. In [39], the researchers focused on
different types of P2G and power-to-power storage systems. The result of these
studies shows that the flexibility option employment reduces the operation cost. For
instance, in [36], employment of flexible gas-fired power plants, P2G systems, and
electricity storage systems leads to 4% cost reduction. In [37], the potential of gas-
fired power plants and multidirectional compressors are examined that indicates the
cost reduction by 83%. However, in [38, 39], the decrease in the cost of operation
was 10% and 21%, respectively. It should be noted that the case studies and level of
flexibility option employment are different in these studies.

9.3.2 Flexibility Studies in Gas or Electricity Networks

Among the previous projects, some studies examined the impact of flexibility
options only in gas or electricity network. For instance, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) focused on the benefits of different options to enhance the grid
flexibility in three regions of the United States of America (California, Florida, and
central parts) [40]. For this purpose, the role of different flexibility options was
228 V. Shabazbegian et al.

1.8
1.6
1.4
Profit ($/MWh)

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
2020 2030 2050 2070
Year

Fast adopon Slow adopon

Fig. 9.6 Profit as a result of employing two scenarios for flexibility options adoption

examined considering different shares of photovoltaic generation. In Fig. 9.5, the

results of this study are demonstrated in which it is evident that employing energy
storage systems is the best option to reduce the costs and address supply-demand
balance.
Eurogas also studied the role of flexibility options in the gas network and
investigated different projects in different countries with a focus on gas storage
systems and P2G systems [41]. This study employs two scenarios for the integration
of the flexibility options, indicated in Fig. 9.6, where the profit of each scenario for
future gas systems in a planned period is evident.

9.3.3 Managerial Insights

Flexibility refers to the ability of energy systems to respond to the variability of

supply and demand. Previously used approaches for planning energy systems have
supported flexibility that is sufficient to meet load reliably. However, the growing
share of RES, such as photovoltaic systems and wind turbines, makes the planning
methods inadequate to ensure sufficient flexibility in the future. Therefore, the
flexibility of energy systems depends on its ability to accommodate renewable
resources to maintain a reliable balance of supply and demand at a reasonable
cost. Increasing flexibility is a low-regret option (option value), reducing the overall
energy system cost (operation and reinforcement) while maintaining the security
of supply. Our analyses of previous studies show the benefits. Based on the
analyses, it is feasible to manage deeply decarbonized future energy systems by
high penetration of RES. Therefore, achieving cost-effective deep decarbonization
9 Investigating the Role of Flexibility Options in Multi-vector Energy Systems 229

requires expansion of low-carbon capacity, along with increased level of system-

wide flexibility (from the current levels).

9.4 Summary

This chapter addressed the role of flexibility options in future energy systems.
For this purpose, at first, different types of flexibility options were demonstrated,
including storage systems, P2G systems, flexible generation, integrated operation
strategy, allowing RES to provide reserves, reducing minimum generation level of
coal power plants, and increase in the transmission capacity. Furthermore, the model
and formulation for the components, which are employed for this purpose, were
presented more precisely. Afterward, results and analyses were conducted based on
the previous studies, and managerial insights were provided to assist the decision-
makers. All in all, it is addressed that employment of flexible components and
flexible strategy (e.g., integrated operation strategy) reduce the cost of operation and
could provide “option value,” which could avoid/reduce additional reinforcements
in the energy system infrastructure.
Based on the research and analysis that were conducted in this chapter, future
research can focus on the economic analyses of each technology in the integrated
operation of gas and electricity systems. The analyses can provide fundamental
evidence to policy makers in regard of future energy system decarbonization. Aside
from that, a couple of state-of-the-art technologies, including power-to-gas systems
or electric vehicles, can be investigated in detail. The share of power-to-gas systems
are increasing benefiting from storing energy in the form of gas (e.g., hydrogen).
Therefore, this can be beneficial in order to facilitate a clean energy system.
Moreover, using the storage capacity of electric vehicles in an optimal scheduling
paradigm has a great potential that can get the attention of researchers in this field.

References

1. Hosseini, S. H. R., Allahham, A., Walker, S. L., & Taylor, P. (2020). Optimal planning and
operation of multi-vector energy networks: A systematic review. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 133, 110216.
2. Adedeji, A. R., Zaini, F., Mathew, S., Dagar, L., Petra, M. I., & De Silva, L. C. (2020). Sus-
tainable energy towards air pollution and climate change mitigation. Journal of environmental
management, 260, 109978.
3. Shabazbegian, V., Ameli, H., Ameli, M. T., & Strbac, G. (2020). Stochastic optimization model
for coordinated operation of natural gas and electricity networks. Computers & Chemical
Engineering, 142, 107060.
4. Mirzaei, M. A., Nazari-Heris, M., Zare, K., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., Marzband, M., Asadi,
S., & Anvari-Moghaddam, A. (2020). Evaluating the impact of multi-carrier energy storage
systems in optimal operation of integrated electricity, gas and district heating networks. Applied
Thermal Engineering, 176, 115413.
230 V. Shabazbegian et al.

5. Ameli, H., Qadrdan, M., & Strbac, G. (2020). Coordinated operation of gas and electricity
systems for flexibility study. Frontiers in Energy Research, 8.
6. Wang, S., & Yuan, S. (2020). Interval optimization for integrated electrical and natural-gas
systems with power to gas considering uncertainties. International Journal of Electrical Power
& Energy Systems, 119, 105906.
7. Chen, F., & Wu, C. (2020). A novel methodology for forecasting gas supply reliability of
natural gas pipeline systems. Frontiers in Energy, 14(2), 213–223.
8. Shabazbegian, V., Ameli, H., Ameli, M. T., Strbac, G., & Qadrdan, M. (2021). Co-optimization
of resilient gas and electricity networks; a novel possibilistic chance-constrained programming
approach. Applied Energy, 284, 116284.
9. Golpîra, H., Sadeghi, H., & Bahramara, S. (2021). Electricity supply chain coordination:
Newsvendor model for optimal contract design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 278, 123368.
10. Kang, J. N., Wei, Y. M., Liu, L. C., Han, R., Yu, B. Y., & Wang, J. W. (2020). Energy systems
for climate change mitigation: A systematic review. Applied Energy, 263, 114602.
11. Ameli, H., Qadrdan, M., Strbac, G., & Ameli, M. T. (2020). Investing in flexibility in an
integrated planning of natural gas and power systems. IET Energy Systems Integration, 2(2),
101–111.
12. Qadrdan, M., Abeysekera, M., Wu, J., Jenkins, N., & Winter, B. (2020). The future of gas
networks. In The future of gas networks (pp. 49–68). Springer.
13. Rahman, M. M., Oni, A. O., Gemechu, E., & Kumar, A. (2020). Assessment of energy storage
technologies: A review. Energy Conversion and Management, 223, 113295.
14. Weihe, H. U. A. N. G., Honglong, Z. H. E. N. G., & Mingfei, L. (2019). Development history
and prospect of oil & gas storage and transportation industry in China. Oil Gas Storage
Transportation, 38(1), 1–11.
15. Smallbone, A., Jülch, V., Wardle, R., & Roskilly, A. P. (2017). Levelised Cost of Storage for
Pumped Heat Energy Storage in comparison with other energy storage technologies. Energy
Conversion and Management, 152, 221–228.
16. Bartela, Ł. (2020). A hybrid energy storage system using compressed air and hydrogen as the
energy carrier. Energy, 196, 117088.
17. Amiryar, M. E., & Pullen, K. R. (2017). A review of flywheel energy storage system
technologies and their applications. Applied Sciences, 7(3), 286.
18. Amirante, R., Cassone, E., Distaso, E., & Tamburrano, P. (2017). Overview on recent
developments in energy storage: Mechanical, electrochemical and hydrogen technologies.
Energy Conversion and Management, 132, 372–387.
19. Mukherjee, P., & Rao, V. V. (2019). Superconducting magnetic energy storage for stabilizing
grid integrated with wind power generation systems. Journal of Modern Power Systems and
Clean Energy, 7(2), 400–411.
20. Verma, H., Gambhir, J., & Goyal, S. (2013). Energy storage: A review. International Journal
of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 3(1), 9.
21. Mehrjerdi, H., & Hemmati, R. (2019). Modeling and optimal scheduling of battery energy
storage systems in electric power distribution networks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 234,
810–821.
22. Chaudry, M., Jenkins, N., & Strbac, G. (2008). Multi-time period combined gas and electricity
network optimisation. Electric power systems Research, 78(7), 1265–1279.
23. Abujarad, S. Y., Mustafa, M. W., & Jamian, J. J. (2017). Recent approaches of unit commit-
ment in the presence of intermittent renewable energy resources: A review. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 215–223.
24. Kryzia, D., Kopacz, M., & Kryzia, K. (2020). The valuation of the operational flexibility of the
energy investment project based on a gas-fired power plant. Energies, 13(7), 1567.
25. Gonzalez-Salazar, M. A., Kirsten, T., & Prchlik, L. (2018). Review of the operational flexibility
and emissions of gas-and coal-fired power plants in a future with growing renewables.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82, 1497–1513.
26. Sequeira, T. N., & Santos, M. S. (2018). Renewable energy and politics: A systematic review
and new evidence. Journal of Cleaner Production, 192, 553–568.
9 Investigating the Role of Flexibility Options in Multi-vector Energy Systems 231

27. Mirzaei, M. A., Nazari-Heris, M., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., Zare, K., Marzband, M., &
Pourmousavi, S. A. (2020). Robust Flexible Unit Commitment in Network-Constrained
Multicarrier Energy Systems. IEEE Systems Journal, 1–10.
28. Hendryx, M., & Luo, J. (2020). Natural gas pipeline compressor stations: VOC emissions and
mortality rates. The Extractive Industries and Society, 7(3), 864–869.
29. Zhao, Y., Xu, X., Qadrdan, M., & Wu, J. (2021). Optimal operation of compressor units in gas
networks to provide flexibility to power systems. Applied Energy, 290, 116740.
30. Buttler, A., & Spliethoff, H. (2018). Current status of water electrolysis for energy storage, grid
balancing and sector coupling via power-to-gas and power-to-liquids: A review. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82, 2440–2454.
31. Staffell, I., Scamman, D., Abad, A. V., Balcombe, P., Dodds, P. E., Ekins, P., . . . Ward,
K. R. (2019). The role of hydrogen and fuel cells in the global energy system. Energy &
Environmental Science, 12(2), 463–491.
32. Nazari-Heris, M., Mirzaei, M. A., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., Marzband, M., & Asadi, S. (2020).
Economic-environmental effect of power to gas technology in coupled electricity and gas
systems with price-responsive shiftable loads. Journal of Cleaner Production, 244, 118769.
33. Mirzaei, M. A., Nazari-Heris, M., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., Zare, K., Marzband, M., & Anvari-
Moghaddam, A. (2020). A novel hybrid framework for co-optimization of power and natural
gas networks integrated with emerging technologies. IEEE Systems Journal, 14(3), 3598–
3608.
34. Sinsel, S. R., Riemke, R. L., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2020). Challenges and solution technologies
for the integration of variable renewable energy sources—A review. Renewable Energy, 145,
2271–2285.
35. Strbac, G., Aunedi, M., Pudjianto, D., et al. (2015). Value of flexibility in a decarbonized grid
and system externalities of low-carbon generation technologies for the committee on Climate
Change. Imperial College of London.
36. Qadrdan, M., Ameli, H., Strbac, G., & Jenkins, N. (2017). Efficacy of options to address
balancing challenges: Integrated gas and electricity perspectives. Applied Energy, 190, 181–
190.
37. Ameli, H., Qadrdan, M., & Strbac, G. (2017). Value of gas network infrastructure flexibility in
supporting cost effective operation of power systems. Applied Energy, 202, 571–580.
38. Strbac, G., Pudjianto, D., Aunedi, M., Djapic, P., Teng, F., Zhang, X., . . . Brandon, N. (2020).
Role and value of flexibility in facilitating cost-effective energy system decarbonisation.
Progress in Energy, 2(4), 042001.
39. Fu, P., Pudjianto, D., Zhang, X., & Strbac, G. (2020). Integration of Hydrogen into Multi-
Energy Systems Optimisation. Energies, 13(7), 1606. Online: https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2015/10/CCC_Externalities_report_Imperial_Final_21Oct20151.pdf
40. Denholm, P., Novacheck, J., Jorgenson, J., and O’Connell, M. (2016). Impact of flexibility
options on grid economic carrying capacity of solar and wind: three case studies. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. : https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/66854.pdf
41. Eurogas. (2017). Flexibility in the energy transition: a toolbox for gas DSOs. Online.: https:/
/www.edsoforsmartgrids.eu/wp-content/uploads/Flexibility-in-the-energy-transition-A-tool-
for-electricity-DSOs-2018-HD.pdf
Chapter 10
Impact of Demand Response Programs
on the Operation of Power and Gas
Systems

Mohammad Mehdi Davary , Mohammad Taghi Ameli ,

and Hossein Ameli

10.1 Introduction

The goal of all components designed in energy systems (e.g., power and gas
systems) is to provide sustainable and economical energy to consumers. Power
and gas systems have a significant share in energy consumption and play a vital
role in people’s lives [1]. On the other hand, with the unbalanced growth of
consumption and the existence of demand peaks in limited hours of the year, a
high investment cost is required to meet the demand peak. Therefore, to increase
the efficiency of the energy system, consumption management is considered.
Therefore, to reduce this process and its possible consequences, it is necessary to
take corrective measures [2], such as demand response. The US Energy Agency
defines demand response (DR) as a change in the pattern of energy consumption
by consumers in response to changes in power prices over time with economic
programs designed to discourage the use of power when market prices are high
or when network reliability is compromised [3]. The use of demand response
programs (DRPs) offers numerous benefits to consumers, the market, and the
network. Consumer benefits include the continuity of power and the economics of
these programs. Responsive market benefits include preventing price fluctuations
and helping to stabilize the retail and wholesale markets. Also, DRP implementation
saves investment and operation costs, postponing the construction of power plants

M. M. Davary
Department of Electrical Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
M. T. Ameli ()
Faculty of Power Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: [email protected]
H. Ameli
Control and Power Group, Imperial College London, London, UK

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 233
V. Vahidinasab, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo (eds.), Whole Energy Systems, Power
Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87653-1_10
234 M. M. Davary et al.

and new lines and smoothing the network load curve [4]. DR is a developed model of
demand management. Changing prices and different rewards encourage consumers
to improve their consumption patterns to increase network reliability and efficiency.
Restructuring and deregulation of the power industry have created new challenges
for consumption management. Sufficient and accurate information is required for
proper DR implementation. Due to lack of equipment, it is sometimes not possible
to access enough information. In [44], to cover the lack of information about the
local demand on the network, random periodic multiplicative method is used for the
design of distributed algorithms.
With the increase in the power market’s competitiveness, the importance of
consumption management programs is felt more than ever. DRPs are divided into
two main categories: (1) incentive-based programs and (2) price-based programs.
Each program includes subprograms which are described in the third section.
Modeling these programs to plan production and load forecasting is of great
importance for power and gas companies. Modeling DR programs using demand
elasticity matrices is one of the most robust and most common methods in this
field. In this chapter, various modeling of DRPs based on incentives and price are
modeled. On the other hand, as shown below, sometimes considering only a linear
DR model can lead to load forecasting errors and impose huge costs that make
planning challenging. Therefore, in this chapter, in addition to the linear model,
nonlinear models (power, exponential, and logarithmic) are also considered [5].
Given the nature of the problem of economic distribution and demand response,
which are related to the producer and consumer, respectively, the simultaneous study
of these two issues is very beneficial. One of the most critical issues in DRP is
determining the optimal incentive or price rate. If incentive or price is inappropriate
set in DRP, then it may, in addition to incurring additional costs, create a new peak at
other times. A suitable solution to determine the optimal rate in this research is the
simultaneous implementation of the economic dispatch and DRP in the integrated
operation, in which the cost of implementing the DRP is added as an additional
term to the economic dispatch program. As a result, the new objective function
also determines the incentive or optimal price while minimizing the fuel cost and
pollution function [6]. In [7], in addition to DR, hydrogen storage systems are
employed in the operation of electricity and gas systems. The hydrogen storage
system can help the electricity grid operation by storing electricity in the form of
hydrogen during off-peak hours and by inversely converting hydrogen to electricity
during peak hours. In addition, the stored hydrogen can be used directly in the gas
system.
The importance of implementing demand response in gas and electricity systems
is to maintain the supply-demand balance in both systems. For example, by
implementing load response in the power grid, gas consumption of gas-fired power
plants is reduced. Consequently, the need for boosting the pressure is decreased,
and hence the gas consumption of the compressors is reduced. On the other hand,
load response in the gas network reduces the required power for electrically driven
compressors (i.e., linkage between gas and electricity systems, which is a demand
in the electricity system). On the other hand, using this tool can act as a storage
10 Impact of Demand Response Programs on the Operation of Power and Gas. . . 235

device in the operation of the integrated network. Nowadays, despite the high
investment cost of creating electric or gas storage or hybrid, familiarity and use
of this method has become very important. Therefore, this chapter has been paid to
this issue. According to the subjects mentioned above, this chapter aims to answers
the following questions:
• What are the types of demand responses in energy systems?
• How can the efficiency of the energy system be increased by properly implement-
ing the demand response?
• What is the role of DR modeling in improving line capacity and reducing costs
in energy systems?
The remainder of this chapter is divided into six main sections. In the second part,
previous research on DR and operation of the integrated power and gas systems will
be presented. Section 10.3 describes the types of DRPs, and in Sect. 10.4, types of
linear and nonlinear DR modeling as well as an integrated model of the incentive-
based program (emergency demand response) and price-based program using the
problem of economic distribution of load and cost of pollution are developed for the
simultaneous operation of power and gas systems. In Sect. 10.4, the solution method
is presented, and in Sect. 10.5, the results and numerical studies will be presented
to determine the applicability and reliability of the proposed model. Finally, the
conclusions and summary of this chapter will be presented in Sect. 10.6.

10.1.1 Status Quo, Challenges, and Outlook

Currently, the operation for electricity and gas networks is carried out by two differ-
ent entities. In addition, a limited load response program has been implemented only
in the electricity network. Some of the main challenges that prevent simultaneous
operation and load response in both networks are as follows: (i) organizational
bureaucracy, (ii) software problems, and (iii) lack of comprehensive expansion of
intelligent measurement infrastructure to implement load response.
However, due the expansion of renewable power plants due to international
agreements to reduce air pollution, which imposes challenges to the energy system
(i.e., high uncertainties associated with the production of renewable power plants),
the share of flexible gas-fired power plants as one of the main sources to complement
the lack of renewables will increase. These issues accelerate the importance of
integrating the operation of electricity and gas networks. On the other hand, due
to the benefits of load response, the development of smart grids, and the economic
inefficiency of developing production and transmission infrastructure for limited
hours of the year, demand response on both networks will be implemented soon.
236 M. M. Davary et al.

10.2 Literature Survey

In this section, some articles on the simultaneous operation of power and gas
systems and DR are reviewed. Several references have examined the issue of optimal
operation of power and gas systems asynchronously, and many articles optimize
this issue synchronously. In asynchronous operation, first, the problem of optimal
operation of the power system is solved. After obtaining the production rate of gas-
fired power plants, the total gas consumption is calculated. The consumption of
gas-fired power plants is added to the demand for gas, and consequently the problem
of optimal operation of the gas network is solved. The obtained results are checked
so that there is no unloading in the gas network due to the increased demand for
gas-fired power plants. At this stage, if there is load shedding, the subproblem of
operation of the power system is limited until the amount of load shedding in the
gas network is zero due to the demand for gas-fired generators. In simultaneous
optimal operation, the objective function is the sum of the objective functions of
power and gas systems, and the constraints of both networks are taken into account
in the optimization problem. The following is a review of published articles on
demand response. Most research on DR included a review of types of DRPs, the
simultaneous study of DRPs with distributed generation and renewable energy, and
discussion of the effects of DR on improving network reliability.

10.2.1 Asynchronous Operation

Reference [8] has introduced and examined the effect of the gas network on the
problem of unit commitment with the asynchronous operation of power and gas sys-
tems, considering the transient characteristics of the gas flow. The results obtained
from this study show that models that consider only the steady state of natural
gas flow cannot model the properties of gas transmission lines well and cause the
obtained results to be unusable. In another study, in addition to providing accurate
modeling of power and gas systems and optimizing performance simultaneously
with asynchronous strategy, the efficiency of elements such as flexible gas power
plants and electrical energy storage devices in balancing production and demand
was investigated [9]. The results of this study show that the use of electrical storage
systems can have the most significant cost reduction in the operation of power
and gas systems. Also, in this study, the British power and gas systems have been
proposed as a case study, and the results show that there is a reduction in costs in
the accidental case compared to the definitive case. In other studies, a stochastic
model for simultaneous operation of power and gas systems has been introduced
[10, 11]. In these studies, scenarios based on the line and generator outages have
been investigated. The models proposed in these studies are optimized under
asynchronous strategy and linearization of nonlinear constraints. The results show
the effect of random programming in reducing the consequences of possible outputs
10 Impact of Demand Response Programs on the Operation of Power and Gas. . . 237

and the effect of hourly DR on reducing operating costs, respectively. In another

study, a robust optimization model is introduced to optimize the asynchronous
operation of power and gas systems [12]. In this case, the operating costs for the
worst-case scenario are minimized. In addition, a relaxation method is used to solve
this complex problem, and the power system subproblem and the gas grid problem
are solved asynchronously. In this study, the nonlinear problem of the gas network is
approximated as a linear fragment. Finally, a case study shows the effects of the gas
network on the problem of unit commitment and shows the positive effect of flexible
network equipment, such as storage devices, against the random and variable nature
of wind generators.

10.2.2 Simultaneous Operation

A number of articles have optimized the problem of simultaneous operation of the

power system simultaneously. For example, in [13], a multi-period model for the
simultaneous operation of power and gas systems is presented. In this model, the
variable nature of gas flows, reservoirs, and the characteristics of power generation
output changes are considered, and the costs related to gas supply, gas volume
management within pipelines (linepack), storage performance, power generation,
and loading are minimized. The results obtained from this study show that in case
of an outage of several gas terminals, there is less loading in the simultaneous
operation strategy. In this paper, due to the dependence of the Irish gas network on
the British gas network, the operation of power and gas systems of the two countries
is studied simultaneously [14]. Also, the effect of gas storage on improving the
operation of the electrical network has been introduced as a turning point in this
research. In reference [15], in addition to providing accurate modeling of power and
gas systems, the advantages of using multidirectional compressors and operation
under simultaneous strategy have been studied. This study defines a number of
scenarios for the UK power and gas systems in 2030 to fully identify the benefits
of simultaneous operating strategy over the asynchronous operation. The obtained
results also show a significant improvement in the simultaneous strategy. Another
article published in this field has introduced a model for optimizing the simultaneous
operation of power and gas systems, and because the gas network subproblem is a
complex problem of non-convex and nonlinear integers, a linearization method has
been used in this study. In reference [16], a variable relaxation method is used to
calculate accurate and fast responses during the simultaneous operation of power
and gas systems. In another study, a new economic distribution model for power and
gas systems is proposed in which the Wilmouth Equation is relaxed. The results of
the relaxation of the inaccurate mixed problem are compared with the results of the
complex integer programming approximated as linear fractions. The results show
that performing relaxation calculates the results faster and more accurately than
linearization [17]. A number of articles have addressed the uncertainty surrounding
the simultaneous operation of power and gas systems. In [18], in order to optimize
238 M. M. Davary et al.

the operation of power and gas systems, which includes the uncertainty of DR
and wind energy, it has used interval optimization. In [19], a robust optimization
model is introduced for the simultaneous operation of power and gas systems. The
nonlinear equations of the gas network are modeled as linear fractions, and the
operation is solved under the worst-case scenario of demand and production of
wind generators using the decomposition method. The results obtained in this study
show the effectiveness of a robust model for situations where the load and output of
renewable generators differ from the predicted value.

10.2.3 Demand Response Concepts

In [20], various aspects of demand response, including participants, challenges,

and potential demand response ability to control frequency and voltage on a
large scale, are investigated. In [21] a new DR algorithm is introduced. In this
algorithm, the price expected by the customer as an index of pricing and the
use of smart grid infrastructure to respond to these price changes are presented.
This algorithm automatically programs the performance of home appliances. The
algorithm also manages the home energy storage system in such a way that the
extra energy is stored at low-cost hours and consumed at high-price hours. The
simulation results show that the implementation of the proposed algorithm has
been able to reduce power consumption during peak hours in a way that ultimately
leads to a reduction in the total cost of household energy to 39%. Reference [22]
examines and analyzes DRPs under smart grids and renewable resources. In this
paper, with a new approach, renewable energy planning with DRP is examined.
Reference [23] provides plausible models for renewable energy generation that
include unforeseen errors due to wind speed and sunlight by possible distribution
functions. In this model, all loads, including domestic, industrial, and commercial
loads, are considered to implement the DRPs. A two-step objective function is
also used to minimize costs. In [24], a stochastic operational planning model for
energy resources and storage in the smart distribution system is introduced. In the
introduced model, the demand is met by the generators, storage devices, and loads
participating in the DRPs. The simulation results in [24] show that the introduced
model reduces the costs of generation and consumption of power in the network. In
[25] different types of response programs, their benefits, and main applications are
stated separately. Next, the mathematical model for tariff-based response programs
and incentives is presented and compared and prioritized the effects of various
programs on Iran’s peak curve in 2007 in terms of cost reduction and reliability
using strategy success indicators. In [26] a variety of linear and nonlinear models of
price-based programs such as time of use (TOU) is presented, and the effect of each
model on reducing costs and increasing network reliability is examined. Then the
effect of different elastic values and prices on cost and load curve is investigated.
The model in [26] is only suitable for price-based programs and does not apply to
incentive-based programs. As mentioned earlier, responsive programs fall into two
10 Impact of Demand Response Programs on the Operation of Power and Gas. . . 239

general categories: price-based and incentive-based. One of the important issues in

incentive-based programs is determining the optimal incentive rate, and in price-
based programs, determining the optimal price rate. If the incentive rate or price is
set inappropriately, it may impose additional costs on the production side and create
a new peak in other hours [27]. The focus of dynamic economic emission dispatch
(DEED) issue is on generating power plants without considering the consumer side.
On the other hand, DRPs can change consumption patterns to improve productivity
and reduce price volatility. The main focus of the DRPs is consumption control.
Therefore, for a more comprehensive study, the combination of these two seems
very useful. However, so far, few studies have been done on the optimal combination
of DRPs and the problem of economic load distribution [28]. A complete work
has been done to optimally model the DRP and the problem of economic cost-
dynamic load distribution in the reference [29]. The main drawback of their work
is the ambiguity of the final model. In the proposed model, customers are rewarded
throughout the day (even during off-peak hours) to reduce demand. This approach
is not feasible from practical, accuracy, and economic perspectives. Furthermore, in
this work, shiftable loads are excluded, and only reducible and disconnected loads
are considered [29].

10.3 Types of Demand Response Programs

10.3.1 Price-Based Programs

10.3.1.1 Time of Use (TOU) Program

In the TOU program, the hours of the day are divided into several fixed time
intervals, each of which has a different price. This price difference serves as an
incentive for the consumer to reduce some of his expenses or move them to other
time periods. These prices can change for hours of a day, days of a week, or
different seasons of a year [30]. Today, in most countries, the price of energy has
a fixed rate at all times. This has many disadvantages. With stable energy prices,
it makes no difference to consumers because they have no incentive to consume
energy differently (peak, medium, and low load), while they can easily reduce their
load from peak load times or transfer it to low load times with medium load by
modifying the consumption pattern. Also, the fixed energy rate does not differentiate
between the high prices of energy produced at peak times and low and medium
periods. In this case, customers with low consumption during peak times actually
incur additional costs of energy consumption by customers during peak times [31].
240 M. M. Davary et al.

10.3.1.2 Real-Time Pricing (RTP) Program

In this program, the selling price of energy per hour depends on the production costs
at the same time; therefore, the price will be low at low demand period, medium at
medium demand period, and expensive at peak demand period. The implementation
of this program causes the consumers (especially the consumers who can move
their power consumption) to adapt their consumption to the price, and as a result,
the system load is reduced, and they are often transferred from peak hours to other
hours [32]. Also, in this plan, energy consumption is recorded by consumers on an
hourly basis by a power meter, and their bills are calculated based on the current
price of energy in the market [33]. The time period for updating the energy price is
crucial. The shorter the time for updating the energy price, the higher the efficiency
and effectiveness of the response program [42]. Pricing and usage periods of TOU
program are determined in advance. In other words, TOU program is not effective
in emergencies when the network load needs to be reduced. In other words, suppose
the network load needs to be reduced at a time other than peak load, in which case
there is no incentive for customers to reduce their load. RTP, on the other hand, has
a dynamic pricing process with an update time of 1 hour or less [29]. The RTP is
highly dependent on the energy market model. Although this program is one of the
best response methods, it has a complex execution process. The RTP method is most
widely used by large consumers, as it is difficult for home consumers to deal with
these real wholesale market prices in practice [46].

10.3.1.3 Critical Peak Pricing (CPP)

In this program, in some hours during the year when energy consumption is high,
a very high price is set for energy, the hours that this program runs are less than
1% of the hours of the year, and consumers are notified at least 1 day in advance
[29]. While RTP is an ideal pricing method, CPP is much more effective in critical
times. In this method, in supercritical times, by considering prices many times the
average energy price, they lead customers to reduce the load in these periods [20,
34]. This program runs only on limited days of the year and for a few hours. At
CPP, in noncritical times, customers receive discounts. In order to meet the need
to reduce consumption during the critical hours of the year when the hours of
energy consumption are very high (e.g., due to extreme heat) or the reliability of
the system is at risk (the occurrence of an accident), using critical time pricing is
a good solution. Consumers are usually notified of this price increase from the day
before.
10 Impact of Demand Response Programs on the Operation of Power and Gas. . . 241

10.3.2 Incentive-Based Programs

10.3.2.1 Emergency Demand Response Program (EDRP)

When the independent power system operator forecasts a short-term load for the
network under its management or after a load or price jump, it is likely that price
jumps will be repeated, using the emergency demand response program (EDRP)
to try to reduce peak consumption and prevent price jumps. Major consumers who
wish to cut part of their load participate when independent system operator (ISO)
announces in the program and receive a significant amount of reward as a reward
for this reduction [35]. Of course, participation in the program is voluntary, and
there will always be consumers who will not reduce their consumption regardless of
the amount of the prize. This uncertainty in reducing the demand will make market
management difficult [43]. Nevertheless, because the amount of the incentive prize
is determined in advance and the consumers will be fined if they do not participate,
the program has been very popular in the energy markets [24]. In the EDRP, in case
of emergency, the energy distribution company sends warning signals and invites
consumers to reduce or stop consumption. Participation in this program is generally
optional for consumers, and they will not be penalized if they do not reduce their
consumption. Participants who reduce their consumption at the request of the energy
distribution company are encouraged.

10.3.2.2 Interruptible/Curtailable (IC) Program

In this method, consumers contract with the energy distribution company or operator
to reduce or cut off their energy consumption whenever the energy distribution
company or operator wants. In other words, in this way, consumers provide a
kind of rotating storage for the system. Customers who participate in the program
receive energy credit or a discount for reducing their consumption at the time of
the accident, and participants who do not reduce their consumption when necessary
are penalized. This DRP can be implemented in two cases by the customer or by
the energy distribution company. In the first case, the energy distribution company
sends an alert signal through the AMI system to the consumers who have already
expressed their consent to participate in this plan. Consumers must reduce their
consumption to the amount promised in the contract after receiving the signal.
Otherwise, they will be fined according to the provisions of the contract. In the
second case, according to the option of remote disconnection of meters, the energy
distribution company will directly cut off the energy desired by the consumers. Of
course, they warn customers in advance about the time and period of the outage.
The second case has higher reliability for the distribution company because it will
know the exact amount of reduced load [35].
242 M. M. Davary et al.

10.3.2.3 Demand Bidding (DB) Program

Auction or repurchase is a mechanism in which consumers are enabled to receive

discounts from a distribution company in exchange for bids based on consumption
pattern modification. In this method, which is known as the demand bidding method,
major consumers offer a reduced amount of cargo along with their desired price to
the network operator, and after the market operation, if the offer is accepted, the
subscriber is obliged to execute the contract, and if the request is not fulfilled, the
subscriber will be fined. In other words, consumers can sell the purchased energy at
a higher price [36].

10.3.2.4 Capacity Market (CM) Program

The operator must always maintain some of its production capacity as a reserve
so that in the event of an event in the system, it can compensate for the power
shortage. System storage can also be provided from the consumption side. This
means that the energy distribution company has already signed a contract with the
consumer that wants to participate in these programs, and they undertake to reduce
their consumption by the amount of power or energy specified in the contract in the
event of an event in the network. This program is like insurance, which may not
need to be reduced in practice, but the incentive amount for consumers’ readiness to
disconnect will always be paid. In this program, consumers will be fined if they do
not reduce their consumption on time [37].

10.3.2.5 Ancillary Service (AS) Program

In the ancillary service program, consumers offer their disconnection or reduction

of load to the ISO as a reserve in the market. If their offers are accepted, they will
receive a market-clearing price to keep their interrupted demand ready. Also, if the
load of these consumers needs to be reduced, participants will be called by ISO. In
this case, they will also be paid the current market price of energy. These types of
loads must have a high response speed so that they can act quickly when an event
occurs. Ancillary service participants can be industrial consumers whose energy
consumption goes down very quickly and without damaging the equipment. These
loads in the power system can be large water pumps, electric arc furnaces, and air
compressors.

10.3.2.6 Direct Load Control (DLC) Program

In the direct load control program, the remote network operator turns off or controls
the customers’ electrical devices. These include household appliances such as air
conditioners and water heaters, as well as small commercial appliances that do not
10 Impact of Demand Response Programs on the Operation of Power and Gas. . . 243

cause much damage to the quality of the system if the consumption is stopped.
Incentives are paid to customers in proportion to the time period selected for load
control. This program has been successfully implemented for decades in the United
States and the Russian heating system [23].

10.4 Method of Determining the Incentive or Price

of the Demand Response Program in the Operation
of Power and Gas Systems

10.4.1 Demand Response Modeling

Modeling incentive-based DRPs to price in order to accurately predict the load curve
is very important for ISO; therefore, in modeling, in addition to the linear model, a
variety of nonlinear models of DRP, including power, exponential, and logarithmic
models, should be considered. Since the problem of optimizing customer profits is a
nonlinear problem, therefore it is necessary to develop nonlinear economic models
of responsive loads in order to bring the final models closer to reality. Among
the introduced models, the linear model is the simplest and most common model
introduced but consequently has more errors than the real model [45]. The power
model is a concave and nondecreasing model that is used in many modelings and
is closer to reality [3]. There are small differences in load changes with the power
system during execution, which are ignored in this section.
By using a variety of linear and nonlinear models and considering a variety of
conditions such as maximum changes and predicted peak load, the power company
will be able to predict the amount of load consumption with the least error and
with higher reliability. By doing this, the power company will gain a deeper and
better understanding of the behavior of the power system and will be able to better
provide the required reservation supplies. In other words, the developed models can
be used for the company in such a way that they choose the conservative model in
order to predict the characteristics of the load curve with the least error (especially
peak load changes and energy consumption). Simply put, any model that has the
most peak load and changes is used as a suitable model for load prediction. In
general, nonlinear response models have a more conservative and reliable behavior
than other models [4].
DR modeling based on price elasticity matrix (PEM) is one of the most common
and powerful methods in this field. Also, to achieve optimal consumption on the
demand side, elasticity is defined as the sensitivity of demand to price changes
according to (10.1) [38, 47]:
    
   ρ0 t  ∂d(t) E t, t  ≤ 0 t = t
E t, t = ×   (10.1)
d0 (t) ∂ρ (t  ) E t, t  ≥ 0 t = t
244 M. M. Davary et al.

In the above relation, E is the price elasticity matrix, d(t) and d0 (t) are consumer
demand after and before DRP implementation, and p(t’ ) and p0 (t’ ) are power prices
after and before implementation during the time t.
For 24 h a day, internal and reciprocal elasticity can be represented as a 24 × 24
matrix according to (10.2):
⎡ Δd(1) ⎤ ⎡ Δρ(1)
⎤
d0 (1) ⎡ ⎤ ρ0 (1)
⎢ ⎥ E (1, 1) . . . E (1, 24) ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Δd(2) ⎥ ⎢ Δρ(2) ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ . .. . ⎥ ⎢ ρ0 (2) ⎥
⎢.d0 (2)
⎥=⎣ .. . .. ⎦×⎢ ⎥ (10.2)
⎢. ⎥ ⎢ .. ⎥
⎣. ⎦ E (24, 1) · · · E (24, 24) ⎣ . ⎦
Δd(24) Δρ(24)
d0 (24) ρ0 (24)

10.4.1.1 Linear Modeling of Demand Response

Incentive response programs provide incentives for consumers to reduce their

consumption during peak hours. The total payment incentive to consumers per hour
is equal to (10.3) [35, 37]:

INC (Δd(t)) = inc(t) × [Δd(t)] (10.3)

where inc(t) is the rate of reward paid to consumers over a period of time; in some
DRPs, customers who are committed to participating in the program but do not
reduce or transfer their load during the specified hours, contrary to the contract, are
penalized by (10.4):

PEN (Δd (t)) = pen (t) × {IC (t) − [Δd (t)]} (10.4)

where IC(t) is the amount of load that the consumer is committed to reducing or
shifting; the total benefit of the consumer is obtained in relation (10.5):

NP(t) = B (d(t)) − d(t)p(t) + INC (Δd(t)) − PEN (Δd(t)) (10.5)

where B is the profit that customers make by consuming the load; to maximize
profits, the derivative of (10.5) must be zero:

∂NP ∂B (d(t)) ∂INC ∂PEN

= − ρ(t) + − =0 (10.6)
∂d(t) ∂d(t) ∂d(t) ∂d(t)

∂B (d(t))
= ρ(t) + pen(t) − inc(t) (10.7)
∂d(t)
10 Impact of Demand Response Programs on the Operation of Power and Gas. . . 245

To determine the optimal consumption by which consumers get the maximum

benefit, we have according to (10.8) the B Taylor series :

∂B (d0 (t)) 1 ∂ 2 B (d0 (t))

B (d(t)) = B (d0 (t)) + [d(t) − d0 (t)] + [d(t) − d0 (t)]2
∂d(t) 2 ∂d 2 (t)
(10.8)

By deriving from (10.8):

∂B (d0 (t)) 1 ∂ 2 B (d(t))

B (d(t)) = B (d0 (t)) + [d(t) − d0 (t)] + [d(t) − d0 (t)]2
∂d(t) 2 ∂d 2 (t)
(10.9)

By combining (10.7) and (10.9), the single-period load model (loads that can
be reduced or interrupted, taking into account only diameter elements (PEM)) is
calculated according to (10.10):
! "
ρ(t) − ρ0 (t) + inc(t) − pen(t)
d(t) = d0 (t) × 1 + (10.10)
ρ0 (t)

Also, the multi-period load model (transferable loads considering only non-
diagonal elements (PEM)) is calculated according to (10.11):
⎡ ⎤
⎢        ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 24 ρ t ’ − ρ0 t ’ + inc t ’ − pen t ’ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
d(t) = d0 (t) × ⎢1 +   ⎥
⎢ ρ0 t ’ ⎥
⎢ ’ ⎥
⎣ t =1 ⎦
’
t =t
(10.11)

Finally, the hybrid model is calculated according to (10.12) with respect to

(10.10) and (10.11), which include single-period and multi-period load models:
⎡        ⎤
 24 ρ t ’ − ρ0 t ’ + inc t ’ − pen t ’
d(t) = d0 (t) × ⎣1 +   ⎦ (10.12)
ρ t ’
t ’=1 0
246 M. M. Davary et al.

10.4.1.2 Power Modeling of Demand Response

For power modeling, according to (10.8) [33, 35]:

⎡ ⎤
  E −1 t,t ’
ρ0 (t) × dpow (t) ⎢ dpow (t) ⎥
B dpow (t) = B (d0 (t)) +   ×⎣ − 1⎦
1 + E −1 t, t ’ d0 (t)

(10.13)

By deriving from (10.13):

 
∂B dpow (t) ρ0 (t)
=  
∂d(t) 1 + E −1 t, t ’
⎡ ⎤ (10.14)
E −1 t,t ’   E −1 t,t ’
⎢ dpow (t) dpow (t) ⎥
×⎣ − 1 + E −1 t, t ’ × ⎦
d0 (t) d0 (t)

By combining (10.7) and (10.14):

ρ0 (t)
ρ(t) + inc(t) − pen(t) =  
1 + E −1 t, t ’
⎡ ⎤ (10.15)
E −1 t,t ’   E −1 t,t ’
⎢ dpow (t) −1 dpow (t) ⎥
×⎣ −1+E t, t ’ × ⎦
d0 (t) d0 (t)

With simplification:
⎡ ⎤
E −1 t,t ’
ρ(t) + inc(t) − pen(t) ⎢ dpow (t) 1 ⎥
=⎣ −  ⎦ (10.16)
ρ0 (t) d0 (t) 1 + E −1 t, t ’

The second term of (10.16) is very small and negligible. According to (10.16)
and for the single-period model as (10.17):

E t,t ’
ρ(t) + inc(t) − pen(t)
dpow (t) = d0 (t) × (10.17)
ρ0 (t)
10 Impact of Demand Response Programs on the Operation of Power and Gas. . . 247

Also, the multi-period model is (10.18):

⎛       ⎞E (t,t  )
#
24 ρ t ’ + inc t  − pen t 
dpow (t) = d0 (t) × ⎝ ⎠ (10.18)
ρ0 (t  )
t =1
t = t

Finally, the hybrid model with respect to (10.17) and (10.18) is obtained as
follows:
       E (t,t  )
#
24
ρ t  + inc t  − pen t 
dpow (t) = d0 (t) × (10.19)
ρ0 (t  )
t  =1

10.4.1.3 Exponential Modeling of Demand Response

In a similar way to power modeling, exponential modeling with respect to (10.8) is

as follows [33, 35]:
! "
    dexp (t)
B dexp (t) = B (d0 (t)) + ρ0 (t) × dexp (t) × 1 + E −1 t, t  × Ln −1
d0 (t)
(10.20)

With calculating the derivative:

  ! "
∂B dexp (t)   dexp (t)
= ρ0 (t) × 1 + E −1 t, t  × Ln −1
∂dexp (t) d0 (t)
! "
1
+ρ0 (t) × dexp (t) × E −1 (t, t) × (10.21)
dexp (t)

By combining (10.21) and (10.22):

! "
  dexp (t)
ρ(t) − ρ0 (t) + inc(t) − pen(t) = ρ0 (t) × 1 + E −1 t, t  × Ln −1
d0 (t)
+ρ0 (t) × E −1 (t, t)
(10.22)

With simplification:

ρ(t) − ρ0 (t) + inc(t) − pen(t)   dexp (t)

× E t, t  = Ln (10.23)
ρ0 (t) d0 (t)
248 M. M. Davary et al.

The single-period model is obtained as (10.24):

ρ(t) − ρ0 (t) + inc(t) − pen(t)  

dexp (t) = d0 (t) × exp × E t, t 
ρ0 (t)
(10.24)

Moreover, the multi-period model is calculated as (10.25):

⎛⎛        ⎞ ⎞

24
ρ t  − ρ0 t  + inc t  − pen t   
dexp (t) = d0 (t) × exp ⎝⎝   ⎠ × E t, t ⎠
ρ0 t ’
t’ = 1
t’ = t
(10.25)

Finally, the hybrid model, which is obtained as (10.26) with respect to single-
period and multi-period models, is:
⎛⎛        ⎞ ⎞

24
ρ t  − ρ0 t  + inc t  − pen t   
dexp (t) = d0 (t) × exp ⎝⎝   ⎠ × E t, t ⎠
ρ t ’
t ’=1 0
(10.26)

10.4.1.4 Logarithmic Modeling of Demand Response

Finally, the logarithmic model with respect to (10.8) is obtained as (10.27) [33, 35]:

  dlog (t) − d0 (t)

B dlog (t) = B (d0 (t)) + ρ0 (t) × d0 (t) × E (t, t) × exp −1
d0 (t) × E (t, t)
(10.27)

By deriving from expression (10.27):

  ⎛ ⎞
∂B dlog (t)   1 dlog (t) − d0 (t)
’
= ρ0 (t) × d0 (t) × E t, t ×   exp ⎝  ⎠
∂d(t) d0 (t) × E t, t ’ d0 (t) × E t, t ’
(10.28)

Combining (10.7) and (10.28):

ρ(t) + inc(t) − pen(t) dlog (t) − d0 (t)

= exp (10.29)
ρ0 (t) d0 (t) × E (t, t  )

With simplification:
10 Impact of Demand Response Programs on the Operation of Power and Gas. . . 249

dlog (t) − d0 (t) ρ(t) + inc(t) − pen(t)

= Ln (10.30)
d0 (t) × E (t, t  ) ρ0 (t)

Therefore, the single-period model is obtained as (10.31):

ρ(t) + inc(t) − pen(t)  

dlog (t) = d0 (t) × 1 + Ln × E t, t  (10.31)
ρ0 (t)

The multi-period model is calculated as (10.32):

⎛ ⎞
⎜        ⎟
⎜  ⎟
⎜ 24
ρ t  + inc t  − pen t    ⎟
⎜
dlog (t) = d0 (t) × ⎜1 + Ln × E t, t ⎟
ρ0 (t  ) ⎟
⎜  ⎟
⎝ t =1 ⎠
t = t
(10.32)

Finally, the hybrid model is obtained as (10.33):

⎛        ⎞

24
ρ t  + inc t  − pen t   
dlog (t) = d0 (t) × ⎝1 + Ln × E t, t ⎠
ρ0 (t  )
t ’=1
(10.33)

10.4.2 The Simultaneous Operation Model of Power and Gas

Systems

This section describes the indicators, parameters, and decision variables used in the
model of optimal operation of power and gas systems in Table 10.1. In the following,
the objective functions and constraints are described [15, 39].
In this section, the constraints on the simultaneous operation of power and gas
systems are explained in detail.

10.4.2.1 Gas Flow Along a Pipe

Gas flow modeling is based on the movement of gas flow in one dimension, because
the changes in gas properties along the radius are much less than the changes in the
pipeline path. The following conditions are assumed when modeling gas flow:
• The tube is horizontal.
• The speed and temperature are constant along the pipe.
250 M. M. Davary et al.

Table 10.1 Nomenclature

Index s Terminal nodes index
c Compressors index t Time index
g Generator index p Pipelines index
i Bus index q Storage index
j Bus index Parameters
l Transmission lines index ag , bg , cg Cost coefficients for
generator g
n Nodes index Bl Susceptance of line l ((
statup/shutdown comp max / min
cos tg Startup/shutdown cost of Qc Maximum/minimum gas
generating unit g ($) flow rate to compressor c
(m3 /h)
pipe min / max
dg , eg Coefficients point-valve Qp Maximum/minimum
effect for generator g bounds for gas flow within
pipeline p (m3 /h)
gas output max
d0n,t Initial demand of n node Qq Maximum output of the q
and t time at the gas gas storage (m3 /h)
system (mcm)
max / min
delec
0i,t Initial demand of i bus and Qs Maximum/minimum
t time at the power system capacity of gas flow rate of
(MW) terminal s (8.5*106 m3 /h)
Diameterp Diameter of pipe p (mm) R Gas constant for natural
gas (518 J/kg.K)
Hv Gas heating value RDg Ramp-down of the
generator g (MW/h)
min / max
GLq Max/min gas level of RPmax The maximum ratio of the
storage q (m3 ) inlet to outlet pressure in
compressors (1.5)
Lenghtp Length of pipe p (m) RUg Ramp-up of the generator
g (MW/h)
LP 0p,t Initial gas stored in the p SURg Startup ramp of the
pipe at time t (mcm) generator g (MW/h)
ng Number of POZs for the SDRg Shutdown ramp of the
unit g generator g (MW/h)
max / min
Pl Thermal limit line l at time Tnormal Gas temperature under
t (MW) standard condition (288◦ K)
max / min on/off
Pg Maximum/minimum Tg Minimum on/off time of
output power for generator thermal power plant g (h)
g (MW)
PWi, t Output power of wind TLl, i Transfer limitation related
power plant bus i at time t to line l and bus i (MW)
(MW)
R
PU
g Upper limits of the Rth Z Compressibility factor for
POZ (MW) natural gas (0.95)
R
PL
g Lower limits of the Rth βcomp Polytrophic exponent of a
POZ (MW) gas compressor
min / max
Prn Maximum/minimum ηp Pipeline efficiency (80%)
pressures at node n (Pa)
(continued)
10 Impact of Demand Response Programs on the Operation of Power and Gas. . . 251

Table 10.1 (continued)

Index s Terminal nodes index
comp max
Prc Maximum pressures of ηcomp Compressor efficiency
compressor c (Pa) (80%)
average
ρ 0 (t) Initial power price at hour t Prp,t The average pressure
($) inside the pipe p at time t
)Pa)
ρ(t) Power price at hour t ($) Prn, t Pressure of node n at time t
)Pa)
σ Thermal efficiency of the Prout
c,t Outlet gas pressure from
gas generator compressor c at time t (Pa)
χ normal Gas density under standard PLl, t Power flow of the
condition (0.713 kg/m3 ) transmission line l at time t
(MW)
Variables Prin
c,t Inlet gas pressure to
compressor c at time t (Pa)
gas
Costt Gas price at time t ($/mcm) pen(t) Penalty for non-execution
of DR at time t ($)
Costelec
EDRP Cost of implementing Qin
q,t Inlet gas from storage q at
EDRP in the power system time t (m3 /h)
($)
elec/gas pipe
Cos tTOU Cost of implementing TOU Qp,t Gas flow of the pipeline p
in the power/gas system ($) at time t (m3 /h)
delec
i,t Power demand at node i, Qout
q,t Outlet gas from storage q
time t (MW) at time t (m3 /h)
gas comp
dn,t Gas demand at node n, Qc,t Gas flow through c
time t (mcm) compressor at time t
(m3 /h)
sup
GLq, t Gas level of storage q at Qs,t Gas flow rate of terminal at
time t (m3 ) node s time t (m3 /h)
out.pipe
incelec
t Incentives applied to the Qp,t Outlet gas flow from the
power system at time t pipeline p at time t (m3 /h)
($/MW)
gas gen
inct Gas incentives at time t Qg,t Gas demand of thermal
($/mcm) generator g at time t (m3 /h)
in.pipe
Ig, t Commitment status of Qp,t Inlet gas flow to the
power plant g at time t (0 pipeline p at time t (m3 /h)
OR 1)
LPp, t Linepack pipeline p at time SRPTt Spinning reserve
t (m3 /h) requirement at time t
(MW)
Pg, t Generated power of the g TOF Total objective function
generator at the time t
(MW)
comp
Pc,t Consumption power of c Vp, t Volume of gas at pipeline p
compressor at time t (MW) at time t (m3 )
Pi Change of power in bus i θl, t Voltage angle line l at time
(MW) t (rad)
Pl Change of power in line l
(MW)
252 M. M. Davary et al.

• The diameter of the pipe is small compared to the radius of curvature.

• Changes in the pipe cross-sectional area along the gas flow path are negligible
[40].
The gas flow along a pipe is calculated by Equation (10.36). Equation (10.36)
is calculated by combining the equations of continuity (10.34) and the equations of
motion (10.35):

∂Q A ∂ Pr
=− × (10.34)
∂x ρZRTg ∂t

 2  
∂ Pr ∂υ ∂υ 2 × f × ρ × υ2
= −ρ × −ρ× − (10.35)
∂x ∂t ∂x D

Q=υ ×A (10.36)

By combining and simplifying (10.35, 10.36, and 10.37), the flow of gas in a
horizontal tube with (10.38) is calculated:

M = ρ × Q = ρstd × Qstd (10.37)

& &
∂ Pr 2 × f × ρstd × Qstd × &Qstd &
=− (10.38)
∂x A2 × D

In order to represent the derivatives of (10.34) and (10.38), a finite difference

approach has been applied [40]. The steady-state average pressure of a pipeline and
the average gas flow in a pipeline are formulated in (10.39, 10.40, and 10.41):

1
Pravg = × (Pr +PrX ) (10.39)
2

avg 1  
PrT = × PrT + PrT ,X (10.40)
2

avg 1  
QT = × QT + QT ,X (10.41)
2
By applying (10.39, 10.40, and 10.41) and the gas equation of state (10.42)
[40], (10.34) and (10.38) are converted to ordinary differential equations used for
calculating gas flow through a pipe (10.43) and (10.44):
10 Impact of Demand Response Programs on the Operation of Power and Gas. . . 253

p pstd
Z×R = = (10.42)
ρ × Tg ρ × Tgstd

 std std   avg avg 

QX.T -QT A PrT - Pr
= - std × (10.43)
Δx ρ × Z × R × Tg Δt

 2 avg,std
(PrX.T − PrT ) 2 × f × ρstd × Z × R × Tg × QT
=− avg (10.44)
Δx A2 × D × pT

In this research, Panhandle A method is used to calculate the gas flow in high
pressure networks. Therefore, friction is defined in (10.45) [40]:

1
= 6.872 × Re0.073 × ηpipe (10.45)
f

ρ×υ ×D
Re = (10.46)
μp

On the other hand, the gas flow can be calculated through (10.47):

π × D2 4×Q×ρ
Q=A×υ = ×υ ⇒υ = (10.47)
4 π × D2

By substituting (10.47) into (10.46), (10.48) is obtained, and by assuming the

physical parameters of gas are constant, (10.49) is achieved:

4×Q×ρ
Re =   (10.48)
μp × D × π

Q
Re = C × (10.49)
D
where C is constant. Thus, through combining (10.45, 10.46, 10.47, 10.48, and
10.49), the friction factor is simplified (10.50):

1 6.872 × C0.073 × Q0.073 × ηpipe
= (10.50)
f D 0.073

In a natural gas network, (10.44) can be written as follows (10.51):

254 M. M. Davary et al.

 2  avg 2
l.t −Prl.t
Prout in 2 × f × ρstd × Z × R × Tg × Ql.t
=−    (10.51)
Lel A2 × D × 1 Prout + Prin2 l.t l.t

Finally, by substituting (10.50) for (10.51), a relation (10.52) is obtained:

 
avg 1.854
 2  2 18.43 × Le l × Q l,t
Prin
l,t − Prout
l,t =  2 (10.52)
pipe
ηl × Dl4.854

10.4.2.2 Gas Network Constraints

In (10.53), the gas injection limit is introduced. Equation (10.54) shows the amount
of gas consumed by each gas-fired power plant in relation to the production of
electrical power. Equation (10.55) shows the equilibrium constraint for the gas
network. Equation (10.56) shows the flow rate of gas along the pipelines by the
pressure difference between the two nodes (Panhandle A equation [40]). To get
acquainted with the method of calculating Panhandle A, it is necessary to refer
to Sect. (6.4.2.1). Compressors are also used to increase the pressure of the gas
network. Equation (10.57) shows the driving power of these compressors, which
should be considered as load in the equilibrium of the power system. In this
equation, the in and out superscripts represent the input and output flows. In fact, the
performance of compressors is limited by the ratio of output flow to input pressure,
maximum flow rate, and maximum power used (Eqs. (10.58 and 10.59)). In addition,
Eqs. (10.60 and 10.61) show the constraints on the pressure limit at the nodes and the
flow of gas passing through the lines, and the constraints on the gas storage facilities
are listed in (10.62, 10.63, 10.64, 10.65, and 10.66) [15, 39]. The volume of gas
within the pipelines must also be considered in the gas network. Equation (10.67)
shows that the linepack of the lines is proportional to the average line pressure.
Under dynamic conditions, the gas flow enters, and the output changes in proportion
to changes in injection and demand. According to the law of density of materials,
the change in the total volume of gas is equal to the change between the flow in and
out of the pipeline; thus, (10.67) is replaced by (10.68) [40]:
sup
Qmin
s ≤ Qs,t ≤ Qmax
s (10.53)

GLmin max
q < GLq,t < GLq (10.54)

 
output input
GLq,t = GLq,t−1 + Qq,t − Qq,t (10.55)
10 Impact of Demand Response Programs on the Operation of Power and Gas. . . 255

max output
0 < Qout
q,t < Qq (10.56)

max input
0 < Qin
q,t < Qq (10.57)

gen
Qg,t = σ × Hv × Pg,t (10.58)

 sup
 pipe
 comp
  gas
 gen

Qs,t − Qp,t − Qc,t + q,t =
Qin dn,t + Qg,t + Qout
q,t
s p c q n g q
(10.59)

 2  2 18.43 × Lenghtp  
pipe 1.854
Prout
p,t − Prin
p,t =  2 × Qp,t (10.60)
ηp × Diameter4.854
p

⎡ 1 ⎤
comp βcomp
βcomp × Qc,t Prout
comp
Prc,t = ⎣ c,t
− 1⎦ (10.61)
ηcomp Prin
c,t


Prout
c,t
1≤ ≤ RPmax (10.62)
Prin
c,t

comp compmax
0 ≤ Qc,t ≤ Qc (10.63)

comp compmax
0 ≤ Prc,t ≤ Prc (10.64)

n ≤ Prn,t ≤ Prn
Prmin max
(10.65)

pipe min pipe pipe max

Qp ≤ Qp,t ≤ Qp (10.66)

average
Prp,t × Vp,t
LPp,t = (10.67)
χ normal × ZTRnormal

t 
 
pipe.in pipe.out
LPp,t = LP0p,t + Qp,t − Qp,t (10.68)
0
256 M. M. Davary et al.

10.4.2.3 Power System Constraints

In the power system, Eqs. (10.69) and (10.70) show the minimum on/off time limits
for thermal units. The power supply-demand balance constraint is shown in (10.71).
The limitation of production capacity of the thermal units is indicated in (10.72).
Also, the rate limitation of increase/decrease generation of the generator is indicated
in constraints (10.73 and 10.74), respectively. The power passing through the lines is
shown in (10.75). The capacity limit passing through each line is indicated (10.76).
Also, the reservations required per hour during the planning period is presented
in (10.77). The amount of rotating storage of the power system is shown (10.78).
The prohibited operating zones (POZs) constraint of power plant g is expressed
in (10.79). It is worth mentioning that the incentive range of each network is
considered from 0.1 to 10 times the initial price in the same network [21, 26]:
  
Ig,t ≥ Ton
g Ig,t − Ig,t−1 (10.69)
t

   
1 − Ig,t ≥ Toff
g Ig,t−1 − Ig,t (10.70)
t

    comp
Pg,t + P w i,t = elec
di,t + Pc,t (10.71)
g i i c

Ig,t × Pmin
g ≤ Pg,t ≤ Ig,t × Pg
max
(10.72)

 
Pg,t − Pg,t−1 ≤ RUg Ig,t−1 + SURg Ig,t − Ig,t−1 (10.73)

 
Pg,t−1 − Pg,t ≤ RDg Ig,t + SDRg Ig,t−1 − Ig,t (10.74)

 
PLL,t = BL θL,t
in
− θL,t
out
(10.75)

L ≤ PL,t ≤ PL
Pmin max
(10.76)

    comp
Ig,t × Pt,g
max + P w i,t ≥ SRPTt + elec +
di,t Pc,t
g i i c (10.77)
10 Impact of Demand Response Programs on the Operation of Power and Gas. . . 257


SRPTt = 0.1 × elec
di,t (10.78)
i

⎧
⎪ L1
⎨ Pg ≤ Pg,t ≤ Pg g = 1, 2, . . . , Ng
min
R−1 R
PgU ≤ Pg,t ≤ PgL t = 1, 2, . . . , 24 (10.79)
⎪
⎩ U ng
Pg ≤ Pg,t ≤ Pgmax R = 2, 3, . . . , ng

10.4.2.4 Simultaneous Implementation of EDRP and DEED Models

in Power and Gas Systems

In this section, the formulation of the optimal integrated model of DEED and EDRP
is presented, in which DR is implemented in the power system and gas network.
Implementing multiple responses simultaneously reduces production and pollution
costs and determines the average optimal reward rate simultaneously [3, 5]. The fuel
cost of power generation units is usually approximated by a quadratic function. By
applying the point-valve effect to the problem because of the steam power plants,
a sine function is added to the fuel cost of the steam power plant. The general
expression for the total fuel cost over the entire 24-hour distribution period is shown
in Eq. (10.80):

TOF

⎧ Ng    &   &    
⎪ ωF ×  ag + bg Pg,t + cg Pg,t 2 + &dg sin eg Pmin − Pg,t & × Ig,t + cos tgstartup Ig,t − Ig,t−1 + cos t shutdown Ig,t−1 − Ig,t
⎪
24 ⎪ (10.80)
 ⎨ g
g=1
=
⎪ 
Ng  2  
t=1 ⎪
⎪ ωE × ppf(g) × αg + βg Pg,t + γg Pg,t + ηg exp δg Pg,t + ωF × Costelec
gas gas
⎩ EDRP + cos tt + ωF F × CostEDRP
g=1

All the terms and conditions introduced in the previous section must also be met
in this section.

10.4.2.5 Implementation of Integrated TOU and DEED Models in Both

Power and Gas Systems

In combining TOU and DEED, instead of the optimal reward, the optimal price is
obtained in different periods. For this purpose, the parameter is used to change the
price in different periods according to (10.81). In other words, one of the main goals
of the optimization algorithm is to determine the optimal value of the parameter. The
optimal pricing of TOU program can be defined according to (10.81). By definition,
the designing method of load program is to change the selling price of power in
different periods. Therefore, we define the price matrix of peak and valley periods
by variables as (10.81):
258 M. M. Davary et al.

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
ρpeak ρ0peak + σ
⎣ ρoff −peak ⎦ = ⎢
⎣ ρ0off-peak ⎦
⎥
(10.81)
ρvalley ρ0valley − σ

where ρ0peak , ρ0off-peak , and ρ0valley are the price of power before the implementation
of TOU program in the peak-, medium-, and low-load periods of the power system,
respectively. In the gas network, the price of the peak, medium, and low load hours
after the implementation of TOU program will be similar to the power system, with
the difference that the price variable is σ , instead of γ in the gas network. Price-
based DRPs provide incentives for consumers to reduce their consumption during
peak hours and shift their consumption to nonpeak hours. As there is no direct
payment as a reward or as a penalty in TOU program, there is no executive cost.
However, to examine the economic viability of the program, we must apply the cost
through (10.82) in the form of reducing the revenue of the power company in the
ultimate goal function. In other words, the cost of implementing TOU program, in
this case, is according to (10.82). This cost is the cost of an opportunity to shift
consumption for the power utility company per hour [34, 35]:

elec
Cos tTOU = ρ0 (t) × d0 (t) − ρ(t) × d(t) (10.82)
t

All the terms and conditions introduced in the previous section in this chapter
must also be met. In (10.83), the parameter limits σ are defined. The parameter can
be increased as much as the price in the period of low load. Because if it is more
than this value, according to (10.81), the price in the low-load period is negative,
which is not a logical approach and is contrary to the definition of TOU program:

0 ≤ σ ≤ ρvalley
0
(10.83)

10.5 Method of Solving the Integrated Operation Model

of Power and Gas Systems

The model of simultaneous operation of power and gas systems to solve the
combined problem of DRPs and DEED is using mixed integer and nonlinear pro-
gramming. Figure 10.1 shows the flowchart of how to integrate the DRP and DEED.
The method of determining the optimal incentive or tariff for DR in the simultaneous
operation of power and gas systems is based on power and gas supply costs, which
is shown in the flowchart of Fig. 10.1. First, in network management, input data
are defined, including the production cost of each generator, the DR model and gas
supply cost of each terminal, and gas and power transmission network constraints.
Integrated network management then performs simultaneous optimization of the
objective function by observing the constraints. After optimization, the share of
10 Impact of Demand Response Programs on the Operation of Power and Gas. . . 259

Production side

Determining the optimal

Cost of operation of
output of the power
generators and gas terminals
generator and gas terminal in
in the integrated network
24 hours

Network management side

Determining the optimal
output of the power
generator and gas terminal

Electricity and gas

Combined problem
network
Determining the optimal solving
constraints
reward rate in the electricity
and gas network

Consumer side
The optimal reward rate in
the electricity and gas
network

Daily electricity
and gas demand
Economic model of demand
response (linear and
nonlinear)

Fig. 10.1 How production and consumption are related in the optimal incentive/price determina-
tion algorithm

each generator and gas terminal in meeting the demand of the integrated network
and the amount of incentives or tariffs for DR is determined. It should be noted that
due to asynchronous optimization, if the demand for the gas network is not met, the
consumption of generators will be reduced first. Therefore, as the production of gas-
fired generators decreases, so does the production of other non-gas-fired generators.
In simultaneous operation, the non-power supply-demand of the gas network is
added as a penalty coefficient to the objective function.

10.6 Discussion

In this section, a comparison is made between the effects of execution and non-
execution of DR in power and gas systems during the simultaneous operation of
the integrated power and gas systems. In this section, the linear DR model is
260 M. M. Davary et al.

Connection between gas

and electricity networks
+ - Energy storage
Gas injection
2
18 21 22
23 Wind farm
+ - 1

4 Gas compressor
17
+ - 20
16 19 G.S. Gas storage

G.S.
3 13
15 14
13
6
24 5
11 12 7
G.S.
8 10
9 10
6 9
3
4 5 12

8
15 11

1 2 7

14
Electricity network Gas network

Fig. 10.2 The studied integrated electricity and gas systems [41]

Table 10.2 PEM values and state of hours in electricity and gas systems [41]
Valley Off-peak Peak
Electricity system 1–8 (8–11) and (16–20) (12–15) and (21–24)
Gas system 1–6 (10–16) and (22–24) (7–9) and (17–21)
Valley −0.1 0.01 0.012
Off-peak 0.01 −0.1 0.016
Peak 0.012 0.016 −0.1

implemented. The studied system is shown in Fig. 10.2, and the load response PEM
coefficients are in Table 10.2 (more details are provided in [41]).
Figures 10.3 and 10.4 show the gas and power consumption profiles of the
network when performing EDRP in both networks, respectively. As shown in Figs.
10.3 and 10.4, linear modeling is the best model in terms of peak reduction. Figure
10.5 shows the status of total linepack changes over 24 h in different scenarios.
According to Figs. 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, DR implementation reduces the demand peak
in power and gas systems. This reduces the distance between the peak and the valley
and smoothes the gas network consumption curve, and as a result, the linepack
changes in the gas network pipelines are reduced.
According to Table 10.3, it can be seen that the implementation of the EDRP in
the simultaneous operation of power and gas systems reduces the total operational
cost of these networks. This reduction is not only due to the reduction of gas costs
due to the implementation of DR in the gas network but also the cost of the entire
power system. The further reduction of the total cost of the power system is due
to the fact that reducing the peak consumption of the gas network removes the gas
10 Impact of Demand Response Programs on the Operation of Power and Gas. . . 261

400000
Gas demand (mcm)

350000

300000

250000

200000

150000

100000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
hour
Non-EDRP With EDRP

Fig. 10.3 Gas consumption curve due to emergency demand response in both networks [41]

2800
2600
Power demand (MW)

2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
hour
Non-EDEP With EDRP

Fig. 10.4 Power consumption curve due to emergency demand response in both networks [41]

1.3
1.25
Total linepack (mcm)

1.2
1.15
1.1
1.05
1
0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
hour
Non-EDRP With EDRP

Fig. 10.5 Linepack changes of gas pipelines due to emergency demand response in both networks
[41]
262 M. M. Davary et al.

Table 10.3 Different modes of demand response execution in terms of cost [41]
Demand response model Non-EDRP Linear EDRP
Power incentive rate ($/MW) 0 24.92
Cost of operating the power system (M$) 1.147 0.965
Cost of power system incentives ($) 0 98,643
Cost of pollution (M$) 0.969 0.750
The total cost of the power system (M$) 1.058 0.956
Gas incentive rate ($/mcm) 0 278,410
Gas cost (M$) 2.941 1.976
Cost of gas incentives ($) 0 47,987
The cost of the entire gas network (M$) 2.941 2.024
Total cost (M$) 3.998 2.980

network peak limitations and allows the power system to use more gas-fired power
plants that have lower operating costs.

10.7 Summary

Due to the increasing attention to environmental issues, the production capacity of

renewable power plants in the power grid will be increased, significantly. However,
despite the uncertainty in the production of renewable power plants, the use of
flexible power plants such as gas power plants to compensate for the lack of potential
production is inevitable. In other words, flexible gas power plants are intermediaries
between power and natural gas networks and necessitate the simultaneous operation
of power and natural gas networks. On the other hand, with the unbalanced
growth of power consumption and, consequently, the rise of energy prices and the
aggregation of grid lines during peak hours, DR implementation has become an
important and effective method. Therefore, in this chapter, modeling of different
demand responses types during the simultaneous operation of these two networks
has been considered. Modeling the DRP based on the PEM is one of the best
methods in this field. Therefore, in this chapter, various models based on PEM for
DR implementation are investigated, and the optimal energy incentive or tariff in
each network is determined from the simultaneous combination of DR modeling
and integrated economic dispatch. The proposed model also deals with the role of
linepack as storage in the gas network to deal with rapid changes in gas demand,
which can be used at specific times to ensure the security of supply in the gas
network. Based on the simulation results, the implementation of DR in power and
gas systems has improved the consumption profiles in both networks. Finally, the
improved consumption profile has reduced the total cost and congestion of pipes
and lines. However, ISO should consider the characteristics of each model when
selecting a demand response model. Because if the estimator is chosen incorrectly
according to the consumer behavior, the integrated operation will suffer from a lack
10 Impact of Demand Response Programs on the Operation of Power and Gas. . . 263

of production and an increase in the final cost, which is contrary to the purpose
of demand response. Furthermore, due to importance of reducing the amount of
unsupplied energy for ISO, it is necessary to use a conservative demand estimation
model (lower estimate in reducing peak demand) such as the power model.

References

1. Zantye, M. S., Arora, A., & Hasan, M. F. (2019). Operational power plant scheduling
with flexible carbon capture: A multistage stochastic optimization approach. Computers &
Chemical Engineering, 130, 106544.
2. Ameli, H., Ameli, M. T., & Hosseinian, S. H. (2017a). Multi-stage frequency control of a
microgrid in the presence of renewable energy units. Electric Power Components and Systems,
45(2), 159–170.
3. Moshari, A., Yousefi, G. R., Ebrahimi, A., & Haghbin, S. (2010). Demand-side behavior in
grid environment. In IEEE innovative smart grid technologies, conference on 2010.
4. Smith, V., & Kiesling, L. (2015, August). A market-based model for ISO-sponsored demand
response programs. A white paper prepared for the multi-client study.
5. Siano, P. (2014). Demand response and smart grids-A survey. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 30, 461–478.
6. Sun, J., Palade, V., Wu, X. J., Fang, W., & Wang, Z. (2014, February). Solving the
power economic dispatch problem with generator constraints by random drift particle swarm
optimization. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 10(1), 222–231.
7. Mansour-Saatloo, A., Agabalaye-Rahvar, M., Mirzaei, M. A., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B.,
Abapour, M., & Zare, K. (2020). Robust scheduling of hydrogen based smart micro energy
hub with integrated demand response. Journal of Cleaner Production, 267, 122041.
8. Qadrdan, M., et al. (2017). Efficacy of options to address balancing challenges: Integrated gas
and electricity perspectives. Applied Energy, 190, 181–190.
9. Liu, C., Shahidehpour, M., & Wang, J. (2011). Coordinated scheduling of electricity and natu-
ral gas infrastructures with a transient model for natural gas flow. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary
Journal of Nonlinear Science, 21(2), 025102.
10. Alabdulwahab, A., et al. (2015). Stochastic security-constrained scheduling of coordinated
electricity and natural gas infrastructures. IEEE Systems Journal, 11(3), 1674–1683.
11. Zhang, X., et al. (2016). Hourly electricity demand response in the stochastic day-ahead
scheduling of coordinated electricity and natural gas networks. IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, 31(1), 592–601.
12. He, C., et al. (2017). Robust co-optimization scheduling of electricity and natural gas systems
via ADMM. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 8(2), 658–670.
13. Ahmadi, A., Nezhad, A. E., & Hredzak, B. (2019). Security-constrained unit commitment
in presence of lithium-ion battery storage units using information-gap decision theory. IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 15(1), 148–157.
14. Ringkjøb, H. K., Haugan, P. M., & Solbrekke, I. M. (2018). A review of modelling tools
for energy and electricity systems with large shares of variable renewables. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 96, 440–459.
15. Ameli, H., Qadrdan, M., & Strbac, G. (2017). Value of gas network infrastructure flexibility in
supporting cost effective operation of power systems. Applied Energy, 202, 571–580.
16. Joung, M., & Kim, J. (2016). Assessing demand response and smart metering impacts on long-
term electricity market prices and system reliability. Applied Energy, 101, 441–448.
264 M. M. Davary et al.

17. Ameli, H., Qadrdan, M., & Strbac, G. (2019). Coordinated operation strategies for natural gas
and power systems in presence of gas-related flexibilities. Energy Systems Integration, 1(1),
313.
18. Bai, L., et al. (2016). Interval optimization based operating strategy for gas-electricity
integrated energy systems considering demand response and wind uncertainty. Applied Energy,
167, 270–279.
19. Chuan, H., et al. (2017). Robust coordination of interdependent electricity and natural gas
systems in day-ahead scheduling for facilitating volatile renewable generations via power to-
gas technology. Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy, 5(3), 375–388.
20. Hansen, J., Knudsen, J., & Annaswamy, A. M. (2014). Demand response in smart grids:
Participants, challenges, and a taxonomy. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Available
at: http://web.mit.edu/aaclab/pdfs/ij-cdc2014.pdf.
21. Li, X. H., & Ho Hong, S. (2014). User-expected price-based demand response algorithm for a
home to-grid system. Energy, 64, 437–449.
22. Aghaei, J., & Alizadeh, M. I. (2013). Demand response in smart electricity grids equipped with
renewable energy sources: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 64–72.
23. Mazidi, M., Zakariazadeh, A., Jadid, S., & Siano, P. (2017). Integrated scheduling of
renewable generation and demand response programs in a microgrid. Energy Conversion and
Management, 86, 1118–1127.
24. Zakariazadeh, A., Jadid, S., & Siano, P. (2017). Stochastic operational scheduling of smart
distribution system considering wind generation and demand response programs. Electrical
Power and Energy Systems, 218–225.
25. Parsa Moghaddam, M., Abdollahi, A., & Rashidinejad, M. (2012). Flexible demand response
programs modeling in competitive electricity markets. Applied Energy, 88, 3257–3269.
26. Aalami, H. A., Parsa Moghaddam, M., & Yousefi, G. R. (2015). Evaluation of nonlinear models
for time-based rates demand response programs. Electrical Power and Energy Systems, 65,
282290.
27. Elaiwa, A. M., Xia, X., & Shehata, A. M. (2012). Solving dynamic economic emission
dispatch problem with valve-point effects using hybrid DE-SQP. In Power engineering society
conference and exposition in Africa (Power Africa), IEEE Johannesburg, 9–13 July 2012.
28. Alipour, M., Zare, K., & Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B. (2014). Short-term scheduling of combined
heat and power generation units in the presence of demand response programs. Energy, 1–13.
29. Nwulu, N. I., & Xia, X. (2015). Multi-objective dynamic economic emission dispatch of
electric power generation integrated with game theory based demand response programs.
Energy Conversion and Management, 89, 963–974.
30. Falsafi, H., Zakariazadeh, A., & Jadid, S. (2013). “The role of demand response in single and
multi-objective wind-thermal generation scheduling”: A stochastic programing. Energy, 64,
853867.
31. Mandala, K. K., Mandalb, S., Bhattacharyac, B., & Chakraborty, N. (2015). Non-convex
emission constrained economic dispatch using a new self-adaptive particle swarm optimization
technique. Applied Soft Computing, 28, 188–195.
32. Behrangrad, M. (2015). A review of demand side management business models in the
electricity market. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 47, 270–283.
33. Ashfaq, A., Yingyun, S., & Zia Khan, A. (2014). Optimization of economic dispatch problem
integrated with stochastic demand side response. In IEEE international conference on Intelli-
gent Energy and Power Systems (IEPS).
34. Nikzad, M., & Mozafari, B. (2014). Reliability assessment of incentive- and priced-based
demand response programs in restructured power systems. Electrical Power and Energy
Systems, 56, 83–96.
35. Devlin, J., et al. (2017). A multi vector energy analysis for interconnected power and gas
systems. Applied Energy, 192, 315–328.
36. Benasla, L., Belmadani, A., & Rahli, M. (2016). Spiral optimization algorithm for solving
combined economic and emission dispatch. International Journal of Electrical Power &
Energy Systems, 62, 163–174.
10 Impact of Demand Response Programs on the Operation of Power and Gas. . . 265

37. Jiang, S., Ji, Z., & Shen, Y. (2017). A novel hybrid particle swarm optimization and
gravitational search algorithm for solving economic emission load dispatch Problems with
various practical constraints. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 55,
623–644.
38. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. (2008, December). Assessment of demand response
and advanced metering staff report. [Online]. Available: http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-
reports/12-08-demand-response.pdf
39. Ameli, H., Qadrdan, M., & Strbac, G. (2017). Value of gas network infrastructure flexibility
in supporting cost effective operation of power systems. Journal of Applied Energy, 202, 571–
580.
40. Ameli, H. (2018). Value of flexibility options in transition to lower carbon natural gas and
power systems. Thesis for doctor of philosophy, Imperial College London.
41. Davary, M. M. (2021, February). Optimal Modeling of demand response in the integrated
network of electricity and gas for minimizing fuel costs and emission of greenhouse units.
Master’s thesis, Department of Electrical Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran,
Iran.
42. Cui, H., Xia, W., Yang, S., & Wang, X. (2020). Real-time emergency demand response strategy
for optimal load dispatch of heat and power micro-grids. International Journal of Electrical
Power & Energy Systems, 121, 106127.
43. Wang, F., Ge, X., Yang, P., Li, K., Mi, Z., Siano, P., & Duić, N. (2020, December). Day-
ahead optimal bidding and scheduling strategies for DER aggregator considering responsive
uncertainty under real-time pricing. Energy, 213, 118765.
44. Zhong, W., Xie, K., Liu, Y., Yang, C., Xie, S., & Zhang, Y. (2021, January). Distributed
demand response for multienergy residential communities with incomplete information. IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 17(1), 547–557.
45. Wang, F., Xiang, B., Li, K., Ge, X., Lu, H., Lai, J., & Dehghanian, P. (2020, March).
Smart households’ aggregated capacity forecasting for load aggregators under incentive-based
demand response programs. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Applications, 56(2), 1086–1097.
46. Real-time emergency demand response strategy for optimal load dispatch of heat and power
micro-grids. (2020). IJEPES.
47. The impact of customers’ participation level and various incentive values on implementing
emergency demand response program in micro grid operation (2020). IJEPES.
Chapter 11
Two-Stage Stochastic Market Clearing
of Energy and Reserve in the Presence
of Coupled Fuel Cell-Based Hydrogen
Storage System with Renewable
Resources

Masoud Agabalaye-Rahvar, Amin Mansour-Saatloo,

Mohammad Amin Mirazaei, Behnam Mohammadi-Ivatloo ,
Kazem Zare , and Amjad Anvari-Moghaddam

11.1 Introduction

Environmental issues compelled managers to generate the required electricity with

a minimal level of emission production. Related to the International Renewable
Energy Agency (IRENA) reports, renewable’s contribution would set nearly 86%
of the whole power production by 2050 [1]. Among the renewable energy sources
(RESs), wind energy sources (WESs) are the prominent technology that supplies
more than one-third of the whole electricity demand by 2050 to decarbonize energy
systems in the subsequent three decades. However, deploying WESs at a high
penetration level leads to some challenges in power system scheduling. Variability
and uncertainty nature are the crucial challenges of WESs to system operators,
which require considerable flexibility [2, 3]. As Fig. 11.1 highlighted the importance
of integrating WES by coupling hydrogen storage system (HSS) technology as much

M. Agabalaye-Rahvar () · A. Mansour-Saatloo · M. A. Mirazaei · K. Zare

Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Muğla,
Turkey
Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
e-mail: [email protected]
A. Anvari-Moghaddam
Department of Energy Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 267
V. Vahidinasab, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo (eds.), Whole Energy Systems, Power
Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87653-1_11
268 M. Agabalaye-Rahvar et al.

Day-ahead market Real-me market

Forecasted Wind Power

Forecasted market prices

Operational Characteristics of Various Units

Electricity

Electricity Nework
O2 H2

Electrolyte
Anode

Cathode
H2 O Hydrogen Flow
Fuel Cell

Wind energy
+
-
source
O
2 H2
H H 2
2

Small Hydrogen
Manufacture Electrolyzer
Storage

Residential
Commercial Generation Generation
Customer
Customer unit unit

Outputs:

Optimal Transaction
Optimal Operation & Operation Cost
Scheduling with Markets

Optimal Commitment of Resource

Up and down reserves
Supply

Optimal Scheduling of Hydrogen

Load shedding
Storage Unit

Fig. 11.1 The graphical representation for the whole integration of the hydrogen storage system
into the electric power system

as possible into the electric power systems, achieving optimal scheduling in various
energy markets is being indispensable.
The target of operational flexibility is supporting the mentioned challenges in a
secure way with the least expenditures by deploying sufficient flexible resources.
Generic solutions could be categorized into two main groups as novel market mech-
anism design and incorporation of flexible facilities. The first group emphasizes
designing modern market mechanisms to provide flexibility procurement in system
operation and management [4–6]. The second one is related to the integration
of flexible facilities like environmental-friendly energy storages (EFESs), demand
response programs (DRPs), and plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) into the generation
structure [7–10]. It is worth noting that the interest in applying these flexible
11 Two-Stage Stochastic Market Clearing of Energy and Reserve in the. . . 269

technologies worldwide is more considerable in recent decades. In [9], authors have

proposed optimal energy management for a renewable-based microgrid (RMG) by
considering PEVs as a flexible load to take part in DRPs to achieve maximum benefit
in both energy and reserve markets. So, in [10], the integration of HSS technology
as a clean energy source (CES) with WES by the interaction of DRP in the day-
ahead energy market has been investigated. The novel HSS technology has become
widely utilized due to its capability to support several critical energy challenges and
also provides tremendous participation to RESs.
In recent decades, various researchers have studied the structure and implemen-
tation of HSS technology in power system optimization problems. In the power
system integrated with HSS and WES introduced by [11], a risk-averse strategy
accompanied by proposed downside risk constraint is analyzed. A modern power
to hydrogen technology has been proposed in [12] for the optimal operation
of multi-energy microgrids (MGs) in multi-energy markets. A robust scheduling
methodology has been presented in [13] for a micro-energy hub (mEH), which is
integrated with HSS and integrated demand response program (IDR) technologies.
A bi-objective scheduling framework specified applying HSS in both economic and
environmental aspects [14]. Also, in real operating projects, the interest of deploying
HSS in a coordinated path has grown rapidly, similar to the research viewpoint.
For instance, German transmission and gas net operators have represented an
investment-ready scheme for a 100 MW electrolyzer and hydrogen pipeline,
which could get online by 2023 [15]. In South Australia, a 30 MW electrolyzer
incorporated with ammonia storage is organized in 2018 [16].
A lot of researches have centralized on the day-ahead security-constrained
scheduling of electricity networks. All reviewed papers are separated into two
principal groups. The first group is denoted the schedule of a day-ahead energy
market problem. A bi-level programming approach is proposed in [17] to minimize
consumer payment in the pool-based electricity market. In this approach, the
generation’s scheduling with a decreasing of the total consumer payment is stated
in the upper level; however, the lower level included the determination of local
marginal prices (LMPs) with a multi-period optimal power flow (MOPF). The
hourly scheduling of centralized and decentralized energy storage systems (ESSs)
for day-ahead electricity markets has been analyzed through [18]. Ref [19] has
indicated the robust optimal strategy of the introduced energy system integrated
with power-to-gas (P2G), gas-fired units, and WESs in energy markets. In [20],
the authors have presented the optimal hourly network-constrained and dispatch
of producing units in the day-ahead optimization problem by considering the
charging/discharging schedule of EV batteries and user driving essentials. Two-
stage network-constrained unit-commitment programming for the day-ahead energy
market scheduling with DRPs is presented in [21]. In this paper, the first stage
determines a network-constrained unit-commitment problem with DRP, whereas
the second stage is relevant to the specification of the demand shifting/curtailment
during the time horizon based on netload changes. Ref [20] has outlined an effec-
tive solution methodology called Benders’ decomposition to solve the stochastic
security-constrained AC unit-commitment problem. The proposed problem in [20]
270 M. Agabalaye-Rahvar et al.

is modeled as a two-stage stochastic programming problem, in which the first

stage denotes the day-ahead energy market and the second stage demonstrates
real-time operation. In [22], an optimal hourly day-ahead scheduling of combined
heat and power (CHP) units and electrical/thermal energy storages (EESs/TESs),
taking into account security constraints, have been addressed. Two-stage stochastic
mixed-integer linear programming (SMILP) is deployed to solve the problem
described in [22]. The coordinated multi-carrier energy system (MCES) with a
robust/information gap decision theory (IGDT) methodology has been developed
in [23] by considering the TESs facility. The second group of papers is relevant
to the scheduling problem in day-ahead energy and reserve markets. Various time-
based rate DRPs (TBRDRPs) are investigated in [24] to identify these effects on the
day-ahead energy and reserve scheduling in the islanded residential MGs equipped
with RESs and EVs. A novel predicted interval (PI) called adjustable intervals (AIs)
is introduced in [25] to handle the wind power uncertainties and proposed an AI
optimization method for energy and reserve market clearing accompanied by WES.
Co-optimization of daily security-constrained energy and reserve markets under
WES has been addressed in [26], which is formulated as a two-stage risk-averse
optimization technique. To consideration of gas network besides the electricity
network, a two-stage stochastic security-constrained model in energy and reserve
markets with the integration of ESS and WES is represented by [27]. Most of the
analyzed papers in the literature are not considered the integration of EFES and
WES in the scheduling problem. Therefore, the importance of integrating HSS and
WES in the energy and reserve market-clearing problem is much more indispensable
and should be taken into account.
As the investigation and analysis of related works in the literature, a research gap
is the coordination operation of integrated HSS and WES in the energy and reserve
market-clearing process as the two-stage stochastic network-constrained energy and
reserve scheduling. Thus, the present chapter concentrated on the proposed problem,
along with consideration of fluctuations dependent on WES and electrical demand.
Also, the effects of coupled HSS and WES on the load shedding and wind power
curtailment are investigated to obtain minimal curtailments of the system. A suitable
scenario decrement methodology is deployed to prevent the presentation of all
produced scenarios and decrease the computational time. Finally, a comprehension
illustrative of the proposed framework is demonstrated in Fig. 11.2. Thus, the
principal contributions of the current chapter could be stated in the following:
1. A set of flexibility suppliers, including HSS technology and reserve services, is
considered to increment the system’s operational flexibility.
2. The integrated fuel cell-based HSS and WES are taken into account in the
presented system to reduce the load shedding and wind power curtailment.
3. A two-stage stochastic network-constrained energy and reserve scheduling
approach is proposed that the energy expenditure, scheduled and deployed
reserves, load shedding, and wind power curtailment are considered.
4. The Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) algorithm is applied to satisfy the variability
characteristic of electrical demand and WES to determine the system’s hourly
required reserve.
11 Two-Stage Stochastic Market Clearing of Energy and Reserve in the. . . 271

Required input data

Wind power Conventional Fuel cell-based Electrical
turbine generation units HSS demand

Price& Price& Price& Price&

Price& Price& Price& quantity Price&
quantity quantity
quantity offer quantity offer quantity offer schedule quantity offer quantity
schedule schedule schedule

First-Stage (here-and-now )
Wind power realization

Electrical demand
Two-stage stochastic network-constrained
energy and reserve scheduling

relization
Energy market Reserve market
decisions decisions

Second-Stage (wait-and-see )

Real-time energy market

Wind power Deployed up/down

Load shedding
curtailment reserves
Output data

Fig. 11.2 The comprehension illustrative of the presented framework

The remainder of this chapter is categorized as the following: Sect. 11.2

presents the mechanism and impacts of HSS technology on system flexibility. The
mathematical problem formulation is introduced in Sect. 11.3. Various case studies
and simulation results are presented in Sect. 11.4. Eventually, in Sect. 11.5 is
performed the conclusion such that Sect. 11.6 denotes the status quo, challenges,
and outlooks.

11.2 Hydrogen Storage System Technology

11.2.1 Mechanism of HSS

Although more previous papers mainly focused on metal hydrides and carbon
materials [28, 29], the other storing hydrogen substances like chemical storage and
272 M. Agabalaye-Rahvar et al.

physisorption are introduced in subsequent years [30, 31]. Hydrogen is produced

through a chemical reaction by storing hydrogen materials such as ammonia,
formic acid, carbohydrates, and liquid organic hydrogen carriers (LOHC) in the
chemical-type storages. The other procedure to generate hydrogen is physisorption,
which is a process that hydrogen molecules get adsorbed at the exterior of the
substance. To preserve the molecular individuality of hydrogen could be achieved
from porous materials as zeolites, metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), clathrates,
and organotransition element associations.
The best standard energy conversion technologies are electrolysis and fuel cells
(FCs). A clean procedure called electrolysis produces no utilizable greenhouse
gases. Three fundamental types of water electrolyzer have existed as alkaline,
polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM), and solid oxide [32]. However, FCs have
a high electricity conversion efficiency from hydrogen energy, to nearly 50% [32].
It can be stated that FCs provide more advantages like covering the power system,
decreasing air emissions, and enhancing the dependability of the system which are
clarified in [33].

11.2.2 Facilitating the Accretion of RESs

Implementation of large-scale hydrogen energy could increment the request for

RESs power generation. IRENA predicted a universal economic capability for 19
EJ of hydrogen from RESs power in the whole energy utilization up to 2050 [15].
Also, approximately 4–16 TW of solar and wind power capacity must be installed
to procreate hydrogen and hydrogen-based products in 2050 [15]. Consequently,
applying hydrogen energy at an appropriate scale of power system could provide
remarkable outcomes for the power section and allocate further opportunities for
RESs development.

11.2.3 Impacts of HSS on Increasing System Flexibility

Hydrogen electrolyzers could construct extra flexibility to a network-constrained

power system. Modernized electrolyzers have the ability to ramp up and down
in a few minutes or even seconds. PEM electrolyzers, in contrast to alkaline, are
capable of responding faster, which is the one reason why they are prominent
in the forthcoming studies. The problems related to power grid congestion and
RESs electricity curtailment are solved by locating strategically electrolyzers. For
instance, considering such strategic electrolyzers could be settled in the North sea
area by developing offshore wind energy [15]. Thus, the countries have a selection
to transfer RESs electricity through a copper wire or embedded in the form of
hydrogen.
11 Two-Stage Stochastic Market Clearing of Energy and Reserve in the. . . 273

Fig. 11.3 The schematic composition of HSS technology

By these explanations, hydrogen energy could be generated from extra electricity

production of other energy reservoirs, especially WES power production during low
electricity demand or price via utilizing electrolyzers. The stored hydrogen in tanks
could be reconverted to power through fuel cell-based HSS to satisfy peak demand.
Therefore, a schematic structure of HSS technology has been illustrated in Fig. 11.3.

11.3 Problem Formulation

11.3.1 Modeling of Uncertain Nature

To tackle the fluctuations of WES and electrical demand, various methodologies

have been studied and investigated by researchers [34, 35]. Wind power production
has an undetermined characteristic due to variable wind speed data. The most
practical approach to wind speed scenario generation is the Weibull probability
density function (PDF) presented in Eq. (11.1). Finally, the output wind power
production is calculated through Eq. (11.2). Besides, normal PDF is deployed to
model the unpredictability of electrical demand, and this relation is defined as Eq.
(11.3).
By these formulations, a vast quantity of scenarios is generated through the
executing MCS algorithm. Thus, the fast backward forward selection approach is
utilized to decrement the generated scenarios.
274 M. Agabalaye-Rahvar et al.


k̂  vt k̂−1   v k̂
t
PDF (vt ) = exp − (11.1)
sf sf sf

⎧
⎪
⎨0 if vt ≤ v CI or vt ≥ v CO
−v CI
FWT
Pw,t (vt ) = vt
PwWT,R if v CI ≤ vt ≤ v R (11.2)
⎪ R −v CI
⎩ v WT,R
Pw if v R ≤ vt ≤ v CO

⎡  2 ⎤
  d,t − μd
PDEL EL
1 ⎢ ⎥
d,t = 
PDF PDEL exp ⎣−  2 ⎦ (11.3)
2π σ EL
d
2 σdEL

where k̂, sf are the shape and scale factors of the Weibull PDF; vCI ,vCO , and vR are
FWT , P WT,R are
the cut-in, cut-out, and rated speed required for wind turbine w; Pw,t w
the forecasted and rated power of wind power turbine w; PDEL d,t is the forecasted
electrical demand d at time t; and μEL EL
d and σd are the mean value and standard
deviation of the electrical demand d.

11.3.2 Objective Function

The proposed energy and reserve scheduling problem includes the objective func-
tion, conventional generating units, and integrated fuel cell-based HSS with WES
in both the first and second stages. The objective function in (11.4) minimizes the
system’s entire operation expenditure in the attendance of uncertainties by modeling
the day-ahead and real-time market clearings. The power generation of conventional
units contains energy costs, start-up costs, and scheduled up and down capacity
reserve costs, which are indicated in the first line (11.4). The energy costs related to
conventional units are considered the piecewise linear fuel costs function, located
in the first term of the first line. The second line of (11.4) shows the costs relevant
to discharging power and up and down capacity reserve via fuel cell-based HSS.
The third line of (11.4) models the real-time market costs, which are denoted by the
restorative conductions embedded in scenarios. Some principal actions that can be
used to overcome the uncertainty of the electrical demand and WES are deployed up
and down reserves by the traditional units and fuel cell-based HSS. The costs related
to the load shedding and wind power curtailment in any scenario are presented in
the third line’s last two terms.
11 Two-Stage Stochastic Market Clearing of Energy and Reserve in the. . . 275

Minimize
 
NT NCU
CUEg CUSUP CUSUP CUSDN CUSDN
CU C
Pg,t g,t + SUCCU
g,t + Rg,t Cg,t + Rg,t Cg,t
t=1 g=1
 
NT NHS
HSEg HSSUP HSSUP HSSDN HSSDN
+ dis C
Ph,t h,t + Rh,t Ch,t + Rh,t Ch,t
t=1 h=1 ⎡ NCU   ⎤
 CUDUP CUDUP CUDDN CUDDN
⎢ rg,t,k Cg,t − rg,t,k Cg,t ⎥
⎢ g=1 ⎥
  ⎢ 
 HSDUP HSDUP  ⎥
NT NK
⎢ NHS
HSDDN HSDDN ⎥
+ pk ⎢ + rh,t,k Ch,t − rh,t,k Ch,t ⎥
⎢ h=1 ⎥
t=1 k=1 ⎢ ⎥
⎣  WPCurt WPCurt ND
NW  ⎦
+ Pw,t,k Cw,t + VollEL
d,t LS EL
d,t,k
w=1 d=1

(11.4)

where t, g, h, k, w, and d are indices of the time periods, conventional units, hydrogen
storage systems, scenarios, wind power turbines, and electrical demands, respec-
CUEg CUSUP CUSDN
tively; Cg,t ,Cg,t , and Cg,t denote the offer costs of energy, scheduled
upward reserve, and scheduled downward reserve for the conventional unit g at time
t, respectively; SUCCU CU
g,t is the start-up cost for the conventional unit g at time t; Pg,t ,
CUSUP CUSDN
Rg,t , and Rg,t are the power production, scheduled upward reserve, and
scheduled downward reserve for the conventional units g at time t, respectively;
dis , R HSSUP , and R HSSDN are the discharge power, scheduled upward reserve,
Ph,t h,t h,t
HSEg
and scheduled downward reserve for the HSS unit h at time t, respectively; Ch,t ,
HSSUP HSSDN
Ch,t , and Ch,t are the offer costs of energy, scheduled upward reserve, and
CUDUP
scheduled downward reserve for the HSS unit h at time t, respectively; rg,t,k and
CUDDN
rg,t,k represent the deployed upward and downward reserves for the conventional
HSDUP HSDDN
unit g at time t in scenario k, while rh,t,k and rh,t,k represent for the HSS unit
CUDUP CUDDN
h at time t in scenario k; Cg,t and Cg,t are the offer costs of deployed
HSDUP
upward and downward reserves for the conventional unit g at time t, while Ch,t
HSDDN WPCurt
and Ch,t are for the HSS unit h at time t; Cw,t and VollEL
d,t are the costs
of the wind power curtailment in wind turbine w at time t and load shedding of
WPCurt
electrical demand d at time t; and Pw,t,k and LSEL d,t,k are the amount of wind
power curtailment w at time t in scenario k and load shedding of electrical demand
d at time t in scenario k.
276 M. Agabalaye-Rahvar et al.

11.3.3 First Stage

In the first stage of the proposed problem, the electric system constraints include
conventional units, fuel cell-based HSS, WES, and transmission network constraints
that are represented in (11.5, 11.6, 11.7, 11.8, 11.9, 11.10, 11.11, 11.12, 11.13,
11.14, 11.15, 11.16, 11.17, 11.18, 11.19, 11.20, 11.21, 11.22, 11.23, 11.24, 11.25,
11.26, and 11.27). The offered up and down reserve capacity through the con-
ventional units in the day-ahead reserve market is influenced by the generation
units’ maximum reserve capacity, expressed by (11.5 and 11.6). The best feature
of adding up and down reserve to the dispatched power units is to offer maximum
and minimum power capacity into the energy and reserve markets, as stated in (11.7
and 11.8). The conventional units’ up and down ramp rate constraints between two
sequential hours are introduced in (11.9, 11.10, 11.11, and 11.12). In addition, these
units must be turned on or off for specific hours before switching the status to off or
on, respectively, which are presented by (11.13 and 11.14).

CUSUP
0 ≤ Rg,t ≤ RgMax UP (11.5)

CUSDN
0 ≤ Rg,t ≤ RgMax DN (11.6)

CUSUP
CU
Pg,t + Rg,t ≤ PgMax Ig,t (11.7)

CUSDN
CU
Pg,t − Rg,t ≥ PgMin Ig,t (11.8)

 
CU
Pg,t − Pg,t−1
CU
≤ 1 − Xg,t RgRU + Xg,t PgMin (11.9)

 
CU
Pg,t−1 − Pg,t
CU
≤ 1 − Yg,t RgRD + Yg,t PgMin (11.10)

Xg,t − Yg,t ≤ Ig,t − Ig,t−1 (11.11)

Xg,t + Yg,t ≤ 1 (11.12)

  
UPT
Zg,t−1 − TgUPT Ig,t−1 − Ig,t ≥ 0 (11.13)

  
DNT
Zg,t−1 − TgDNT Ig,t − Ig,t−1 ≥ 0 (11.14)
11 Two-Stage Stochastic Market Clearing of Energy and Reserve in the. . . 277

where RgMax UP , RgMax DN are the maximum upward and downward reserve capaci-
ties of the conventional unit g; PgMax , PgMin are the maximum and minimum power
capacity of the conventional unit g; RgRU , RgRD are the ramp-up and ramp-down rates
of the conventional unit g; Xg, t , Yg, t are the start-up and shutdown binary decision
variables of the conventional unit g at time t, while Zg,t−1UPT , Z DNT are the up-time
g,t−1
and down-time of conventional unit g before at time t; TgUPT , TgDNT represent the
minimum up-time and down-time of the conventional unit g; and Ig, t is the binary
decision variable for the commitment status of the conventional unit g at time t.
HSS, like other energy storages, has two operating modes. The hourly scheduled
up and down reserves offered by the fuel cell-based HSS in the day-ahead markets
are indicated by (11.15 and 11.16). These reserves depend on the maximum reserve
capability of these units. Constraints (11.17 and 11.18) are limited to the discharge
and charge power of the HSS facility to the corresponding maximum values to
take part in both energy and reserve markets. Constraint (11.19) is applied to avoid
operating both modes of HSS simultaneously. The amount of hydrogen cumulative
in the hydrogen tanks in every hour is calculated through (11.20), and the minimum
and maximum capacity of HSS tanks restricted the hydrogen stored as expressed
in (11.21). Besides, (11.22) determines the definite initial value of stored hydrogen
in containers, and also, the initial and final stored hydrogen must be equal in each
day, which is denoted by Eq. (11.23). Constraint (11.24) is deployed to consider the
WES coupled with HSS technology.

HSSUP
0 ≤ Rh,t ≤ RhMax UP (11.15)

HSSDN
0 ≤ Rh,t ≤ RhMax DN (11.16)

HSSUP
0 ≤ Ph,t
dis
+ Rh,t ≤ PhMax,dis udis
h,t (11.17)

HSSDN
0 ≤ Ph,t
ch
+ Rh,t ≤ PhMax,ch uch
h,t (11.18)

h,t + uh,t ≤ 1
udis ch
(11.19)

dis
Ph,t
Eh,t = Eh,t−1 + Ph,t ηh −
ch ch
(11.20)
ηhdis

EhMin ≤ Eh,t ≤ EhMax (11.21)

278 M. Agabalaye-Rahvar et al.

Eh,0 = EhIni (11.22)

Eh,0 = Eh,NT (11.23)

0 ≤ Pw,t
WT
≤ Pw,t
FWT
(11.24)

where RhMax UP ,RhMax DN are the maximum upward and downward reserve capacities
of the HSS unit h; PhMax,dis , PhMax,ch are the maximum discharging and charging
power capacities of the HSS unit h; ηhdis , ηhch are the efficiencies of the discharging
and charging power of the HSS unit h; udis ch
h,t , uh,t are discharging and charging
binary decision variables of the HSS unit h at time t; EhMax , EhMin , and EhIni are
the maximum, minimum, and initial energy of the HSS unit h, respectively; Eh, 0 ,
Eh, NT are the existing energy in the beginning and ending time of the HSS unit h;
WT is the dispatched power of wind turbine w at time t; and P ch is the charge
Pw,t h,t
power for the HSS unit h at time t.
In the following equations, the system constraints are taken into account. For
each bus of the system, the power balance is provided with Eq. (11.25), DC power
flow in each line is determined via Eq. (11.26), and also, constraint (11.27) limited
the line power transmission to the line capacity limitations.

b
NCU b
NW b
NHS b
NHS b
ND 
NLb
CU
Pg,t + WT
Pw,t + dis
Ph,t − ch
Ph,t − d,t =
PDEL PTl,t
g=1 w=1 h=1 h=1 d=1 l=1
(11.25)

δb,t − δb̃,t
PTl,t = (11.26)
Xl

−PTMax
l ≤ PTl,t ≤ PTMax
l (11.27)

where PTl, t , δ b, t are the power transmitted of the line l at time t and the voltage angle
of the bus b at time t and PTMax l ,Xl are the maximum capacity and the reactance of
transmission line l.

11.3.4 Second Stage

In this stage of the proposed problem, the uncertainty and forecasted errors related
to the electrical demand and WES are considered by deploying the decreased
scenarios. Meanwhile, the scheduled up and down hourly reserves in the first stage
11 Two-Stage Stochastic Market Clearing of Energy and Reserve in the. . . 279

are changing to meet the variations of electrical demand and WES fluctuations.
In constraints (11.28, 11.29, 11.30, and 11.31), the interconnection relationships
among the deployed and scheduled hourly reserves from the first and second stages
are indicated. In each considered scenario, the deployed up and down reserves
cannot transgress the scheduled reserves from the conventional units and also from
fuel cell-based HSS technology. Consequently, Eqs. (11.32, 11.33, and 11.34) are
expressing the power produced by conventional units and HSS facility in a per
scenario, which is obtained through the summation of scheduled power from the
first stage and deployed reserves from the second stage. The up and down ramp
rate limitations of conventional units between sequential hours for each scenario
are defined as (11.35 and 11.36). Constraint (11.37) is described as considering
the hydrogen stored in HSS in each hour and scenario in which the amount of
hydrogen stored is restricted by (11.38). In addition, the initial and final values
should be equal with each other in each scenario and per day, as denoted in (11.39).
When the deployed reserves in each scenario could not maintain the power balance,
the system’s indispensable load shedding must be applied. So, the wind power
curtailment and load shedding in each scenario are limited by (11.40 and 11.41).
Finally, the real-time power balance constraint is shown in (11.42), and each line
power transferred in any scenario is specified as (11.43 and 11.44).

CUDUP CUSUP
0 ≤ rg,t,k ≤ Rg,t (11.28)

CUDDN CUSDN
0 ≤ rg,t,k ≤ Rg,t (11.29)

HSDUP HSSUP
0 ≤ rh,t,k ≤ Rh,t (11.30)

HSDDN HSSDN
0 ≤ rh,t,k ≤ Rh,t (11.31)

CUDUP CUDDN
CU
Pg,t,k = Pg,t
CU
+ rg,t,k − rg,t,k (11.32)

HSDUP
dis
Ph,t,k = Ph,t
dis
+ rh,t,k (11.33)

HSDDN
ch
Ph,t,k = Ph,t
ch
+ rh,t,k (11.34)

 
CU
Pg,t,k − Pg,t−1,k
CU
≤ 1 − Xg,t RgRU + Xg,t PgMin (11.35)
280 M. Agabalaye-Rahvar et al.

 
CU
Pg,t−1,k − Pg,t,k
CU
≤ 1 − Yg,t RgRD + Yg,t PgMin (11.36)

dis
Ph,t,k
Eh,t,k = Eh,t−1,k + Ph,t,k
ch
ηhch − (11.37)
ηhdis

EhMin ≤ Eh,t,k ≤ EhMax (11.38)

Eh,0,k = Eh,NT,k = Eh,0 (11.39)

WPCurt
0 ≤ Pw,t,k ≤ Pw,t,k
WT
(11.40)

d,t,k ≤ PDd,t,k
0 ≤ LS EL EL
(11.41)

b b   NHSb
WT − P WPCurt +  P dis −  P ch
NCU NW NHSb
CU +
Pg,t,k Pw,t,k w,t,k h,t,k h,t,k
g=1 w=1 h=1 h=1
  NL (11.42)
b
ND b
− PDEL
d,t,k − LS d,t,k =
EL
PTl,t,k
d=1 l=1

δb,t,k − δb̃,t,k
PTl,t,k = (11.43)
Xl

−PTMax
l ≤ PTl,t,k ≤ PTMax
l (11.44)

CU is the power production of the conventional unit g at time t in scenario

where Pg,t,k
dis ch are the discharging and charging power of the HSS unit h at time t
k; Ph,t,k ,Ph,t,k
in scenario k; Eh, t, k is the stored hydrogen energy of the HSS unit h at time t in
WT is the dispatched wind power turbine w at time t in scenario k;
scenario k; Pw,t,k
PDELd,t,k is the electrical power demand d at time t in scenario k; and PTl, t, k , δ b, t, k
are the power transmitted of the line l at time t in scenario k and the voltage angle
of the bus b at time t in scenario k.
11 Two-Stage Stochastic Market Clearing of Energy and Reserve in the. . . 281

11.4 Case Studies

11.4.1 Test System and Data

The modified six-bus test system, as illustrated in Fig. 11.4, is composed of three
gas-fueled generation units at buses 1, 2, and 6 and three electrical demands at
buses 3, 4, and 5. Buses are linked to each other via seven transportation lines.
All techno-economic data of the system is taken from [36]. The system is modified
by using the hydrogen storage system and wind turbine with a power capacity of
30MW on bus 5. HSS technical data are reported in Table 11.1. Also, wind power
curtailment and load shedding costs are 50$/MWh and 400$/MWh, respectively.
Expenditures of up and down scheduled reserves for G1, G2, and G3 units are equal
to 8, 10, and 11 $/MW, respectively. The start-up expenditure of these conventional
units is equal to 500$/MW. Besides, the providing energy cost by the HSS unit
is equal to 2$/MWh, and the scheduled reserve capacity costs by this unit are
equivalent to 50% of the energy proposed cost. To deal with system uncertainties,
1000 scenarios were generated for both wind power and electrical demand based on
the MCS approach using Weibull and normal PDFs, respectively. Thus, the number
of scenarios was reduced to 10, utilizing the SCENRED tool in General Algebraic
Modeling System (GAMS) software. The forecasted electrical demand and wind
power production profiles are indicated in Fig. 11.5. According to the final reduced
scenarios introduced in Table 11.2, the realization of the forecasted parameters can
be accomplished.

G1
L1

L2 L3

HSS Wind G3

Fig. 11.4 The proposed six-bus electrical test system with WES and HSS units

Table 11.1 HSS technical data

Parameter EhMin (MW) EhMax (MW) EhIni (MW) PhMax,dis (MW) PhMax,ch (MW) ηhdis (%) ηhch (%)
Value 40 180 70 30 30 80 80
282 M. Agabalaye-Rahvar et al.

300 35
load wind
270 32/5
30
240
27/5
210 25
Electrical load (MW)

Wind power (MW)

22/5
180
20
150 17/5

120 15
12/5
90 10
60 7/5
5
30
2/5
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 22 23 24
Time (h)

Fig. 11.5 The forecasted electrical load and wind power production profiles

Table 11.2 The probability Scenario no. Probability Variations

and variations of each
selected scenario 1 0.26 −0.0176
2 0.12 +0.0442
3 0.08 +0.0507
4 0.07 +0.0087
5 0.14 −0.01198
6 0.09 −0.0305
7 0.02 +0.0532
8 0.07 −0.0021
9 0.07 −0.0182
10 0.08 +0.0532

11.4.2 Simulation and Analysis of Results

In this chapter, according to the above described two subsections, an electric

six-bus test system along with a WES and fuel cell-based HSS is taken into
account for investigating the application of the introduced model. The effects of
the proposed coupled fuel cell-based HSS technology with WES on the costs of
energy, reserve, wind power curtailment, and load shedding have been analyzed. To
model the system uncertainties, i.e., the error of forecasting electrical demand and
WES production, the MCS algorithm has been applied to generate the acceptable
scenario sets. The presented problem formulation is modeled as a mixed-integer
linear programming (MILP) model to implement in GAMS software, which is
11 Two-Stage Stochastic Market Clearing of Energy and Reserve in the. . . 283

225
P_1 P_2 P_3
200
175
150
Power (MW)

125
100
75
50
25
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (h)

Fig. 11.6 Hourly power generation in Case 1

solved using CPLEX 12.9.0 solver. CPLEX solver especially utilizes branch and
cut methodology and assigns the optimal solutions [37].
To study and analyze the obtained results of the presented problem, two case
studies are taken into account as the following:
Case 1: Synchronous clearing of energy and reserve markets without consideration
of fuel cell-based HSS technology
Case 2: Synchronous clearing of energy and reserve markets with consideration of
fuel cell-based HSS technology
Case 1 In this case, all transmission line capacity restrictions are applied except the
effects of fuel cell-based HSS on energy and reserve markets. As depicted in Fig.
11.6, the low-cost unit G1 is committed during the whole scheduling time horizon,
whereas the high-cost unit G2 is committed only in peak hours, i.e., hours 15–17.
The medium-cost unit G3 dispatches between hours 11 and 22 to meet the rest of the
electrical demand in these hours. Table 11.3 reports all local marginal prices (LMPs)
each hour to specify LMPs in the proposed modified test system with the mentioned
techno-economic data. The provided LMPs are obtained via the joint energy and
reserve market-clearing methodology. As reported in Table 11.3, the LMPs of all
buses except bus 1 during hours 11, 14, and 18, which these rows highlighted in
black, reached the maximum values, i.e., about 107 $/MWh. In reality, due to the
transmission line restrictions, congestion of lines, and the obtained optimal power
generations of conventional units, nearly all of the load shedding has occurred in
hours 11, 14, and 18. As it can be seen in these three hours, the LMP of bus 4
has achieved the highest quantity of price compared to the rest buses. In the last
column of Table 11.3, the average LMPs (Avg.LMPs) are increased by the growth
of demand except in hours 11, 14, and 18.
284 M. Agabalaye-Rahvar et al.

Table 11.3 LMPs of all six buses in Case 1

Time (h) Bus_1 Bus_2 Bus_3 Bus_4 Bus_5 Bus_6 Avg.LMPs
LMP($/MWh)
1 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51
2 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51
3 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51
4 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51
5 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51
6 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51
7 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51
8 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51
9 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51
10 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51
11 13.51 95.36 126.3 140.7 134.9 132.1 107.2
12 13.51 15.09 15.61 15.90 15.88 15.80 15.32
13 13.51 26.53 31.46 33.75 32.83 32.83 28.41
14 13.51 95.86 127.0 141.5 135.7 132.8 107.7
15 13.51 23.92 27.86 29.70 28.96 28.60 25.43
16 13.51 32.63 39.86 43.23 41.88 41.22 35.39
17 13.51 32.63 39.86 43.23 41.88 41.22 35.39
18 13.51 95.86 127.0 141.5 135.7 132.8 107.7
19 13.51 44.23 55.86 61.28 59.10 58.04 48.67
20 13.51 15.09 15.69 15.97 15.85 15.80 15.32
21 13.51 15.69 16.52 16.91 16.75 16.68 16.02
22 13.51 25.76 30.40 32.56 31.69 31.27 27.53
23 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51
24 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51

Besides the conventional units providing the required energy, these units are
supported up and down reserve capacities. Therefore, Figs. 11.7 and 11.8 indicated
the scheduled up and down reserves provided by three generation units, respectively.
During peak hours, the high-cost generation unit G2 nearly is provided all of up and
down reserve capacity. However, the two other generation units are rendered up and
down reserve capability during off-peak hours, which are clarified in these figures.
As stated before, the almost load shedding has taken place in hours 11, 14,
and 18, which has caused to curtail demands instead of starting and contributing
more expensive generation units in the reserve market. In reality, due to much-low
scenario occurrence probability, an independent system operator (ISO) prefers to
lessen demands to decrease energy and reserve expenditures. So, the expected load
shedding and wind power curtailment are 3.838 MWh and 6.668 MWh, respectively.
The related expenditures of providing energy and scheduled reserve capacity are
67833.987$ and 2679.2$, respectively, in which summation of them could report
11 Two-Stage Stochastic Market Clearing of Energy and Reserve in the. . . 285

16
FRU_1 FRU_2 FRU_3
14

12
Up reserve (MW)

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (h)

Fig. 11.7 Up scheduled reserve presented by generation units in Case 1

6
FRD_1 FRD_2 FRD_3

5
Down reserve (MW)

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (h)

Fig. 11.8 Down scheduled reserve presented by generation units in Case 1

the entire operating cost. Besides, load shedding and wind power curtailment costs
are precisely equivalent to 1533.870$ and 333.380$, respectively.
Case 2 In this case, HSS technology is considered and added to the discussed units
in Case 1. The scheduled charge and discharge power of HSS is demonstrated in
Fig. 11.9. As shown in this figure, during peak periods (i.e., hours 15–17), the
discharging mode has happened due to reducing the costs, while the charging mode
286 M. Agabalaye-Rahvar et al.

20

15

10
Hydrogen (MW)

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
-5

-10

-15
Time (h)

Fig. 11.9 The scheduled charge/discharge power of HSS

takes place during off-peak times (i.e., hours 1–6 and 23–24). Furthermore, the
presence of HSS in the power dispatch of conventional units has a significant effect
on decreasing power generation of high- and medium-cost units. Thus, according to
Fig. 11.10, the generated power of high-cost unit G2 is reduced to zero, and also the
generated power of medium-cost unit G3 is diminished compared to Case 1 during
peak hours; however, produced power of unit G3 increases a relative little during
off-peak hours. It is noteworthy that the power generation of low-cost unit G1 is
increased a little minor in some peak and off-peak periods compared to Case 1. To
analyze the effects of the participation HSS on the up and down reserve capacities
provided by conventional generation units, Figs. 11.11 and 11.12 are presented. In
the charging mode of HSS, the scheduled down reserve capacity is presented by
this facility. Moreover, in this mode and off-peak times, the scheduled down reserve
capacity by conventional units has been reduced to zero compared to Case 1, which
is depicted in Fig. 11.11. On another side, almost all of the required up reserve
capacity is supplied by the HSS unit, and the scheduled up reserve capacity by
high-cost unit G2 is decreased to nearly zero during peak hours, as demonstrated in
Fig. 11.12.
As well as committing the HSS facility to investigate the noticeable effects on
the scheduling energy and reserve of units and their related costs, LMPs in each
hour have been affected by this added unit. Therefore, all LMPs in the presence
of the HSS unit are listed in Table 11.4. Similar to Case 1, the maximum value of
LMPs has happened in hours 11, 14, and 18 that are highlighted in black, which are
directly dependent on the congestion of transmission lines. And also, between these
three congested hours, the LMP of bus 4 is the highest one compared to the other
buses. In addition, in this case, LMPs of some buses are decreased compared to Case
1, in which Fig. 11.13 shows the Avg.LMPs and the reduction level in comparison
with Avg.LMPs of Case 1. As it is evident in Fig. 11.13, Avg.LMPs of Case 2 during
peak times, i.e., hours 15–17, approximately are reduced by 40% than Case 1.
11 Two-Stage Stochastic Market Clearing of Energy and Reserve in the. . . 287

250
With HSS_G1 Without HSS_G1 With HSS_G2
225 Without HSS_G2 With HSS_G3 Without HSS_G3
Power generations of all units (MW)

200

175

150

125

100

75

50

25

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (h)

Fig. 11.10 Comparison of hourly power generation in Case 1 and Case 2 for all units

25
FRD_1 FRD_2 FRD_3 FRD_HSS Discharge power Charge power
20

15
Power generation (MW)

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
-5

-10

-15
Time (h)

Fig. 11.11 Down scheduled reserve capacity from various units in Case 2

Finally, Table 11.5 is reported and compared the optimal obtained results with
Case 1 to investigate the effects of adding HSS unit into the proposed system in
terms of total operating cost, including energy and reserve costs, load shedding cost,
and wind power curtailment cost. In this case, wind power curtailment has been
reduced to 4.357 MWh due to the HSS unit’s obligation in providing charge and
discharge reserves. Also, the load shedding in this case is equivalent to 3.735 MWh.
288 M. Agabalaye-Rahvar et al.

35
FRU_1 FRU_2 FRU_3 FRU_HSS Discharge power Charge power
30

25
Power generation (MW)

20

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
-5

-10

-15
Time (h)

Fig. 11.12 Up scheduled reserve capacity from various units in Case 2

11.5 Conclusions

This chapter proposed a two-stage stochastic network-constrained market-clearing

model by considering the integrated fuel cell-based HSS and WES technologies
to supply optimal energy and reserve services. In addition, to cover the system
uncertainties, i.e., forecasting electrical demand and WES power production errors,
the MCS method has been utilized to realize the scheduling problem. In the
represented model, both day-ahead and real-time markets are considered a two-
stage stochastic programming structure and the determination of energy cost, up and
down reserve costs, load shedding, and wind power curtailment. Simulation results
indicated that incorporating the HSS facility in the considered six-bus modified
electric test system has noticeable effects on the decrement of energy and reserve
costs and also in the load shedding and wind power curtailment. So, the percentage
reduced levels of total daily scheduling cost, energy cost, and reserve cost are
about 3%, 1.4%, and 5.9%, respectively, in the presence of the HSS unit. Besides,
electricity prices in peak hours are decreased by 40% by contributing HSS unit.
Another significant effect is that it leads to a 35% and 3% reduction in wind power
curtailment and electrical load shedding, respectively.

11.6 Status Quo, Challenges, and Outlooks

The status quo of the HSS facility integration into the electric power systems
in a coordinated-based approach is about those finite countries such as Canada,
11 Two-Stage Stochastic Market Clearing of Energy and Reserve in the. . . 289

Table 11.4 LMPs of all six buses in Case 2

Time (h) Bus_1 Bus_2 Bus_3 Bus_4 Bus_5 Bus_6 Avg.LMPs
LMP($/MWh)
1 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51
2 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51
3 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51
4 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51
5 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51
6 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51
7 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51
8 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51
9 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51
10 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51
11 13.51 95.34 126.3 140.8 134.2 132.5 107.2
12 13.51 15.02 15.61 15.90 15.88 15.83 15.32
13 13.51 26.53 31.40 33.79 32.85 32.85 28.42
14 13.51 95.83 127.3 141.5 135.2 132.8 107.7
15 13.51 19.21 21.36 22.46 22.00 21.82 20.06
16 13.51 19.97 22.42 23.59 23.19 22.86 20.92
17 13.51 19.99 22.47 23.59 23.19 22.86 20.92
18 13.51 95.86 127.3 141.5 135.7 132.8 107.7
19 13.51 44.23 55.83 61.26 59.15 58.04 48.67
20 13.51 15.02 15.61 15.90 15.88 15.83 15.32
21 13.51 15.69 16.58 16.94 16.79 16.63 16.01
22 13.51 25.75 30.41 32.54 31.64 31.21 27.53
23 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51
24 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51 13.51

China, France, Germany, Japan, Norway, South Korea, and the USA that are
taking part in developing and implementing. With regard to the International
Energy Agency’s Hydrogen Projects Database, approximately 320 green hydrogen
production demonstration projects have been declared globally which have a whole
200 MW electrolyzer capacity. However, some technical challenges have been seen
and should be eliminated or reduced significantly to improve as much as possible
the full and large-scale integration of HSS technology in various power grids. These
challenges and obstacles are efficiency, durability, and investment costs.
The hydrogen’s long-term potential and a development roadmap predicted that
18% of global final energy demand could be supplied by hydrogen energy sources
until 2050. Decarbonizing transportation is the first realization of HSS that indicates
the fuel cell PEVs, high-utilization road vehicles (trucks, buses), ferry boats, and
forklifts. The other applications contribute to decarbonizing rail transport, shipping,
and aviation in the longer term. In the short term, the injection of hydrogen energy
into the natural gas network provides a potential revenue to improve the power-to-
290 M. Agabalaye-Rahvar et al.

120 Avg.LMP in Case 1 Avg.LMP in Case 2

105
Average LMPs ($/MWh)

90

75

60

45

30

15

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (h)

Fig. 11.13 Comparison of Avg.LMPs in Case 1 and Case 2

Table 11.5 Various costs of the proposed system in Case 1 and Case 2
Total Load shedding Wind curtailment
Cases scheduling cost Energy cost Reserve cost cost cost
Costs($)
Case 1 73184.201 67833.98 2678.17 1533.870 333.380
Case 2 71463.84 66900.41 2521.09 1503.530 217.859

hydrogen’s (P2H) economics however that keeps the promise of storing a major
amount of RESs in the long term which decarbonizes demand for natural gas.

Acknowledgements This publication was partially supported by award NPRP12S-0125-190013

from the QNRF-Qatar National Research Fund, a member of The Qatar Foundation. The
information and views set out in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the official opinion of the QNRF.

References

1. IRENA (2019) and Abu Dhabi, Future of wind: Deployment, investment, technology, grid inte-
gration and socio – Economic aspects (A Global Energy Transformation paper) International
Renewable Energy Agency.
2. Heydarian-Forushani, E., Golshan, M. E. H., & Shafie-khah, M. (2016). Flexible interaction of
plug-in electric vehicle parking lots for efficient wind integration. Applied Energy, 179, 338–
349.
11 Two-Stage Stochastic Market Clearing of Energy and Reserve in the. . . 291

3. Wang, S., Yang, H., Pham, Q. B., Khoi, D. N., & Nhi, P. T. T. (2020). An ensemble framework
to investigate wind energy sustainability considering climate change impacts. Sustainability,
12(3), 876.
4. Ela, E., et al. (2016). Wholesale electricity market design with increasing levels of renewable
generation: Incentivizing flexibility in system operations. The Electricity Journal, 29(4), 51–
60.
5. Alipour, M., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., Moradi-Dalvand, M., & Zare, K. (2017). Stochastic
scheduling of aggregators of plug-in electric vehicles for participation in energy and ancillary
service markets. Energy, 118, 1168–1179.
6. Daneshvar, M., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., Zare, K., & Asadi, S. (2020). Two-stage stochastic
programming model for optimal scheduling of the wind-thermal-hydropower-pumped storage
system considering the flexibility assessment. Energy, 193.
7. García-Garre, A., Gabaldón, A., Álvarez-Bel, C., Ruiz-Abellón, M. D. C., & Guillamón, A.
(2018). Integration of demand response and photovoltaic resources in residential segments.
Sustainability, 10(9), 3030.
8. Xu, Q., Ding, Y., & Zheng, A. (2017). An optimal dispatch model of wind-integrated power
system considering demand response and reliability. Sustainability, 9(5), 758.
9. Aliasghari, P., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., Alipour, M., Abapour, M., & Zare, K. (2018). Optimal
scheduling of plug-in electric vehicles and renewable micro-grid in energy and reserve markets
considering demand response program. Journal of Cleaner Production, 186, 293–303.
10. Mirzaei, M. A., Sadeghi Yazdankhah, A., & Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B. (2019). Stochastic
security-constrained operation of wind and hydrogen energy storage systems integrated with
price-based demand response. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 44(27), 14217–
14227.
11. Yu, D., Wang, J., Li, D., Jermsittiparsert, K., & Nojavan, S. (2019). Risk-averse stochastic
operation of a power system integrated with hydrogen storage system and wind generation in
the presence of demand response program. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 44(59),
31204–31215.
12. Mansour-Saatloo, A., Mirzaei, M. A., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., & Zare, K. (2020). A risk-
averse hybrid approach for optimal participation of power-to-hydrogen technology-based
multi-energy Microgrid in multi-energy markets. Sustainable Cities and Society, 63.
13. Mansour-Saatloo, A., Agabalaye-Rahvar, M., Mirzaei, M. A., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B.,
Abapour, M., & Zare, K. (2020). Robust scheduling of hydrogen based smart micro energy
hub with integrated demand response. Journal of Cleaner Production, 267.
14. Seyyedeh-Barhagh, S., Majidi, M., Nojavan, S., & Zare, K. (2019). Optimal scheduling of
hydrogen storage under economic and environmental priorities in the presence of renewable
units and demand response. Sustainable Cities and Society, 46.
15. Dhabi, A. (2019). Hydrogen: A renewable energy perspective. IRENA, International Renew-
able Energy Agency.
16. ThyssenKrupp’s “green hydrogen and renewable ammonia value chain. Ammon. Ind. ammo-
niaindustry.com/thyssenkrupps-green-hydrogen-and-renewable-ammonia-value-chain/.”
17. Fernandez-Blanco, R., Arroyo, J. M., & Alguacil, N. (2014). Network-constrained day-ahead
auction for consumer payment minimization. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 29(2),
526–536.
18. Parvania, M., Fotuhi-Firuzabad, M., & Shahidehpour, M. (2014). Comparative hourly schedul-
ing of centralized and distributed storage in day-ahead markets. IEEE Transactions on
Sustainable Energy, 5(3), 729–737.
19. Agabalaye-Rahvar, M., Mansour-Saatloo, A., Mirzaei, M. A., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., Zare,
K., & Anvari-Moghaddam, A. (2020). Robust optimal operation strategy for a hybrid energy
system based on gas-fired unit, power-to-gas facility and wind power in energy markets.
Energies, 13(22).
20. Nasri, A., Kazempour, S. J., Conejo, A. J., & Ghandhari, M. (2016). Network-constrained AC
unit commitment under uncertainty: A benders’ decomposition approach. IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems, 31(1), 412–422.
292 M. Agabalaye-Rahvar et al.

21. Tumuluru, V. K., & Tsang, D. H. K. (2018). A two-stage approach for network constrained
unit commitment problem with demand response. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 9(2),
1175–1183.
22. Kia, M., Nazar, M. S., Sepasian, M. S., Heidari, A., & Siano, P. (2017). Optimal day ahead
scheduling of combined heat and power units with electrical and thermal storage considering
security constraint of power system. Energy, 120, 241–252.
23. Nazari-Heris, M., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., & Asadi, S. (2020). Optimal operation of multi-
carrier energy networks considering uncertain parameters and thermal energy storage. Sustain-
ability, 12(12), 5158.
24. Vahedipour-Dahraie, M., Najafi, H., Anvari-Moghaddam, A., & Guerrero, J. (2017). Study of
the effect of time-based rate demand response programs on stochastic day-ahead energy and
reserve scheduling in islanded residential Microgrids. Applied Sciences, 7(4).
25. Doostizadeh, M., Aminifar, F., Ghasemi, H., & Lesani, H. (2016). Energy and reserve
scheduling under wind power uncertainty: An adjustable interval approach. IEEE Transactions
on Smart Grid, 7(6), 2943–2952.
26. Cobos, N. G., Arroyo, J. M., Alguacil, N., & Wang, J. (2018). Robust energy and reserve
scheduling considering bulk energy storage units and wind uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, 33(5), 5206–5216.
27. Mirzaei, M. A., Yazdankhah, A. S., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., Marzband, M., Shafie-khah,
M., & Catalão, J. P. S. (2019). Stochastic network-constrained co-optimization of energy and
reserve products in renewable energy integrated power and gas networks with energy storage
system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 223, 747–758.
28. Jain, I. P., Jain, P., & Jain, A. (2010). Novel hydrogen storage materials: A review of lightweight
complex hydrides. Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 503(2), 303–339.
29. Meregalli, V., & Parrinello, M. (2001). Review of theoretical calculations of hydrogen storage
in carbon-based materials. Applied Physics A Materials Science & Processing, 72(2), 143–146.
30. Demirci, U. B. (2017). Ammonia borane, a material with exceptional properties for chemical
hydrogen storage. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 42(15), 9978–10013.
31. Heo, Y.-J., Yeon, S.-H., & Park, S.-J. (2019). Defining contribution of micropore size to
hydrogen physisorption behaviors: A new approach based on DFT pore volumes. Carbon,
143, 288–293.
32. Maniyali, Y., Almansoori, A., Fowler, M., & Elkamel, A. (2013). Energy hub based on nuclear
energy and hydrogen energy storage. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 52(22),
7470–7481.
33. Mansour-Satloo, A., Agabalaye-Rahvar, M., Mirazaei, M. A., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., Zare,
K., & Anvari-Moghaddam, A. (2021). A hybrid robust-stochastic approach for optimal
scheduling of interconnected hydrogen-based energy hubs. IET Smart Grid, 4(2), 241–254.
34. Soroudi, A., Aien, M., & Ehsan, M. (2012). A probabilistic modeling of photo voltaic modules
and wind power generation impact on distribution networks. IEEE Systems Journal, 6(2), 254–
259.
35. Mansour-Saatloo, A., Agabalaye-Rahvar, M., Mirzaei, M. A., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., & Zare,
K. (2021). Chapter 9 – Economic analysis of energy storage systems in multicarrier microgrids.
In B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, A. Mohammadpour Shotorbani, & A. Anvari-Moghaddam (Eds.),
Energy storage in energy markets (pp. 173–190). Academic Press.
36. Alabdulwahab, A., Abusorrah, A., Zhang, X., & Shahidehpour, M. J. I. S. J. (2015). Stochastic
security-constrained scheduling of coordinated electricity and natural gas infrastructures. IEEE
Systems Journal, 11(3), 1674–1683.
37. Sun, W. L. L., Xu, B., & Chai, T. (2010). The scheduling of steel-making and continuous
casting process using branch and cut method via CPLEX optimization. In 5th International
conference on computer sciences and convergence information technology, pp. 716–721.
Chapter 12
Polygeneration Systems in Fossil Fuel
Power Plants: The Role of Power-to-X
in CO2 Mitigation

Amirhossein Khalili-Garakani , Leila Samiee , and Kazem Kashefi

12.1 Introduction

The industries development and the rapid growth of the population due to the
increase in consumables and the consequent increase in industrial waste are among
the issues that have recently created huge crises in human societies. The severity of
environmental pollution caused by gaseous wastes in industrial assembly centers
is such that it has attracted the attention of scientific and executive resources
of the world to the principled recycling of these materials. Over the past few
decades, society has faced one of the most important consequences of industrial
development, the recycling of gaseous waste, which accounts for a large share of
total environmental pollution and global warming, and its destructive effects in
creating environmental crises are quite evident.
One of the most important pollution in the energy sector based on climate,
type of activity and natural resources in the region, etc. is air pollution due to
the release and leakage of pollutants due to the combustion of fossil fuels. Sulfur
oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter
(PM), hydrocarbons (CH), and carbon dioxide (CO2 ) are among the pollutants and
greenhouse gases due to the energy activities of the energy sector which are released
in the atmosphere [1]. Among them, greenhouse gases such as CO2 cause climate
change and global warming and are important.

A. Khalili-Garakani ()
Chemistry & Process Engineering Department, Niroo Research Institute (NRI), Tehran, Iran
e-mail: [email protected]
L. Samiee · K. Kashefi
Development & Optimization of Energy Technologies Research Division, Research Institute of
Petroleum Industries (RIPI), Tehran, Iran
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 293
V. Vahidinasab, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo (eds.), Whole Energy Systems, Power
Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87653-1_12
294 A. Khalili-Garakani et al.

Fig. 12.1 Power-to-X process overview in a power plant

Many countries have tried to use appropriate technologies and scientific methods
to utilize CO2 as one of the main reasons of global warming. However, CO2
utilization technologies are still developing. Our country is no exception to this rule
and it is necessary to control pollution in line with the development of industries.
The overview of the power-to-X approach with using renewable energy as the
source of electricity generation and CO2 component of the flue gas has been
illustrated in Fig. 12.1. This approach is now being used for hydrocarbon synthesis
such as methane, methanol, DME, urea, etc.

12.1.1 Power Generation, Fuel Consumption, and CO2

Generation in Iran

The amount of gross power generation in Iranian power plants in the period 2009–
2019 is shown in Fig. 12.2. As can be seen, thermal power plants that produce
power with fossil fuels are responsible for a major part of power generation in the
country. There are four types of fossil fuel power plants in Iran: gas turbine cycle,
steam cycle, combined cycle, and diesel power plants. However, due to the small
share of diesel power plants in this study, they have been omitted. In Iran power
generation industry, natural gas, diesel, and fuel oil are commonly used as fuels.
According to the detailed statistics published by the Ministry of Energy, the amount
of fuel consumption separately in the years 2009–2019 is according to Fig. 12.3 [1].
As can be seen, most of the fuel consumed in the country in recent years has been
supplied from natural gas. Figure 12.4 shows the share of each fuel in the specific
production of thermal power plants in 2019.
The table below shows the amount of CO2 emission of each of these fuels based
on the type of power plant [2]. The emission factor is presented in terms of the mass
of pollutants produced from combustion of fuels in terms of the electricity generated
or the thermal energy used.
12 Polygeneration Systems in Fossil Fuel Power Plants: The Role of Power-. . . 295

0.00035
Millions

0.0003

0.00025
Gross power (MWh)

0.0002

0.00015

0.0001

0.00005

0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Steam Gas turbine Combined cycle Diesel Hydropower Renewables

Fig. 12.2 The amount of special production in Iranian power plants during 2009–2019

90 350
Billions

Millions
80
300
70
250

Gross power (MWh)

Fuel Consumption

60
50 200

40 150
30
100
20
50
10
0 0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Gas (m3) Gas oil (lit) Heavy oil (lit) Gross power (MWh)

Fig. 12.3 Amount of fuel consumption and special production in thermal power plants in Iran
during 2009–2019

Using the fuel consumption information and production capacity of each power
plant and the emission factors reported in Table 12.1, the amount of CO2 emissions
can be calculated for each power plant. Figure 12.5 indicates the total amount of
emission in three categories of steam turbine, gas turbine, and combined cycle power
plants. The volume and the amount of CO2 production play a key role in selecting
the recovery and utilization process for thermal power plants. The country’s power
plants vary in production and CO2 emissions from 11.5 million tons per year to
296 A. Khalili-Garakani et al.

100
Billions

80

60

40
Combined cycle
20 Gas turbine
Steam turbine
0
Gas Gas oil Heavy oil

Steam turbine Gas turbine Combined cycle

Fig. 12.4 The share of each fuel in the special production of Iranian thermal power plants

Table 12.1 The average Fuel type Steam turbine Gas turbine Combined cycle
CO2 emission factor of
combustion gases in steam, Gas 0.633 0.782 0.450
gas, and combined cycle Gas oil 0.860 1.048 0.622
power plants (kg/kWh) [2] Heavy oil 1.025 – –

100,000 tons per year. Therefore, power plants that have a higher CO2 emission rate
than other power plants are preferred, and this difference in the amount of power
plant smoke in the number of power plant units and their fuel type, etc. has occurred.
The less smoke is removed from the power plant for recycling, the less efficiency
the power plant will suffer.
The nominal power of the biggest combustion power plant is presented in Fig.
12.6. Besides, the rate of change in CO2 emissions from the three index power
plants in all three categories of steam turbine, gas turbine, and combined cycle
during 2009–2019 is shown in Fig. 12.7. As can be seen, due to the consumption of
liquid fuels in heating power plants, the amount of emissions is higher than others.
However, as illustrated in Fig. 12.5, due to the lower efficiency of gas turbine power
plants and the greater number of these power plants, the total emissions of these
power plants account for the largest share of CO2 production.
12 Polygeneration Systems in Fossil Fuel Power Plants: The Role of Power-. . . 297

200
Billions
180
Total CO2 Emmision (kg/year)

160
140
120 Combined cycle
100 Gas turbine
80 Steam
60
40
20
0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fig. 12.5 Emission rate of carbon oxides during 2009–2019

3500 Combined Cycle Gas Turbine Steam Turbine

3000
Nominal Power (MW)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

Fig. 12.6 The nominal power of the biggest combustion power plant in different categories

12.1.2 CO2 Mitigation Techniques

In this section, the CO2 mitigation options have been evaluated. There are three
different mitigation options: (1) energy intensity reduction, (2) carbon intensity
reduction, and (3) carbon sequestration.
Energy intensity reduction means increasing energy efficiency by applying
energy-saving devices or using methodologies which reduce the energy consump-
tion. A decrease in the carbon intensity of the power generation results in a reduction
in the CO2 emission per unit power generation. For example, fuel cells as a novel
power generation process which has a high efficiency could be included in this
category.
298 A. Khalili-Garakani et al.

a
120
x 100000
CO2 Emmision (kg/year)

100

80
Montazeri
60 Neka

40 Ramin

20

0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Steam turbine
b
60
x 100000
CO2 Emmision (kg/year)

50

40
Persian Gulf
30 Asaluyeh

20 Hafez

10

0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Gas turbine
c 60
x 100000
CO2 Emmision (kg/year)

50

40
Damavand
30 Kerman

20 Gilan

10

0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Combined cycle

Fig. 12.7 The amount of CO2 emitted by the biggest Iranian combustion power plant during
2009–2019

Using renewable energy resources instead of fossil fuels could reduce the carbon
intensity of the process. Also, the nuclear energy resources could be included in this
classification. Moreover, in the fossil fuels division, shifting fuels with high carbon
contents, like coal and heavy fuel oil, to ones with low carbon contents, like natural
12 Polygeneration Systems in Fossil Fuel Power Plants: The Role of Power-. . . 299

gas, could further reduce the carbon intensity. These two classifications are very
promising options as by which not only the global warming is alleviated, but also a
more sustainable society can be established.
The third classification is the sequestration of carbon. Two types of options are
included in this classification: the natural sinking process improvement and the
direct discharging of CO2 into the ocean or underground.
Unfortunately, there is a big difference between the expected reduction potential
of CO2 emissions in the Kyoto Protocol and what is really achieved. According to
oil crisis, there is a fast progress in the early stages, the technological developments
in energy saving have somewhat matured, but due to the high cost and the lack
of infrastructures of the renewable energies, its use was limited. So, probably,
the consumption of fossil fuels will continue, due to which the CO2 emissions
will increase for about at least the next hundred years. Therefore, applying the
sequestration of CO2 should be considered in the future, while according to the
IPCC (intergovernmental panel on climate change) report, only a limited amount is
estimated in the present level.
The active research works on carbon sequestration issue really began in the
1990s. There are a lot of documents and presentations for different conferences and
workshops in the field of carbon sequestration, besides a large number of papers and
reviews which have been published till today.
Regarding to carbon, the earth is a closed system: the total amount of carbon
is constant, but circulates among different levels in the biosphere, atmosphere,
lithosphere, and the ocean (Fig. 12.8). The amount of CO2 released into the
atmosphere by humans (anthropogenic) is fixed and circulated. Instead, the CO2
concentration in the atmosphere is increasing. The fundamental of the carbon
sequestration comes from increasing the sinking flux of CO2 generated by human
activities to avoid accumulating the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The CO2
sequestration alternative is separated into two ways:
1. Enhancement of natural sinking processes of CO2 in order to fix CO2 .
2. Artificial processes for direct CO2 sequestration.
The fossil fuels formation through photosynthesis and rock weathering natu-
ral sinking processes of CO2 . The ocean fertilization, mineral carbonation, and
afforestation are among the main routes which are being concerned. Here, the
CO2 in the atmosphere would be fixed by conversion to more stable forms such
as organic matter or carbonates. In the direct sequestration, the CO2 is transported
to an appropriate location and then injected in the form of CO2 either in the ocean
or underground. According to the global carbon cycle, by passing a certain period
of time, the sequestered CO2 could be emitted back into the atmosphere. This time
period based on the location, method of sequestration, and form of CO2 could be
changed. The feasible sequestration process must have these specifications:
• Large potential capacity for CO2 sequestration.
• Net reduction of CO2 emission.
• Long-term CO2 isolation (at least several hundred years).
300 A. Khalili-Garakani et al.

Fig. 12.8 Global carbon cycle, units: Gt-C and Gt-C/year

• Modest cost and energy consumption.

• Minimal environmental impact.
From the process design aspect in order to precisely estimate the amount of
carbon sequestrated and the energy requirement, a life cycle assessment would be
necessary [3].
Except the above discussed CO2 mitigation options, there is another important
approach which is carbon capture and utilization (CCU). The closed-loop carbon
cycle idea is back to the 1970s and starts with electrolytic hydrogen generation
utilizing nuclear power and carbon capture [4]. More recently, a “methanol econ-
omy” has been presented by Nobel laureate [5, 6] which proposes a new cycle
containing direct carbon capture from the air and hydrogen generation utilizing
renewable energy resources with the purpose of methanol (MeOH) production to
use in mobility. There is an optimistic perspective about the future of CCU among
scientific literature reviews [7, 8]. Some expressions like “teraton challenge” or “a
carbon dioxide-neutral world” are stated and related to CO2 conversion utilizing
renewable energy like catalytic photoreactors. Different research programs are
supported by public and private R&D about CCU concepts at different scales from
pilot to industrial scale [9, 10]. Besides, there is another route called thermochemical
energy storage process which tries to present a chemical closed loop of carbon (as
CO2 or fuels) in caverns or reservoirs.
Generating carbon-free energy is the main motivation of the CO2 conversion
to fuels. The replacement fuel can be utilized in different sector, power, heat, or
mobility and decrease the fossil carbon extraction. Aresta et al. summarize these
routes in a recent review and claimed that each atom of carbon recycled is the
replacement of the fossil atom of carbon, which remains in the underground for
the future and does not emit to the atmosphere [10].
The CO2 utilization process could have different products through thermochem-
ical, biochemical, and electrochemical conversions [11]. The technologies have
12 Polygeneration Systems in Fossil Fuel Power Plants: The Role of Power-. . . 301

different advantages, according to the amount of carbon mitigated, economic and

market size of the product, and the fixation time of carbon. Carbon capture and
storage (CCS) has the potential to store large volume of carbon in underground
reservoirs for more than hundred years. But, it is not an economical process unless
it is utilized as enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Another option is to produce cement
and minerals which not only have any value but also can fix the large volume of
carbon. Instead chemicals have more financial values, yet have differently mitigated
capabilities and different fixation time periods, like plastics which is stable for many
decades or fuels that fix the CO2 emission till they are burned. Nevertheless, their
production is a kind of energy storage for renewable energy resources and can
guarantee the energy security in the countries which import foreign sources of fuel
[12].
Polygeneration process is another CCU solution which focuses on the efficient
generation of different products like electricity, chemicals, fuels, etc. from the
specific amount of feedstock which is discussed in more detail in the next parts
[13].

12.2 Polygeneration in Industry

In recent years, polygeneration processes convert feedstocks like coal, natural gas,
etc. to a variety of products such as power, liquid fuels, chemicals, etc. [14].
These systems not only enhance the achieved efficiency by integrating different
processes together to use benefits of synergies among them (as an instance the
exothermic heat of one process can be used to provide the required heat in another
endothermic reaction) but also have the flexibility to alter the amount of feed
and products according to the fluctuation in the market [15]. Different studies
investigate the design, simulation, thermal studies, and economic analysis [16].
The polygeneration systems have higher efficiency due to the multi-in/multi-out
configuration in comparison to the process with one feedstock [17, 18].
Combined heat and power (CHP) process is an instance of polygeneration
systems. In this process not only electricity but also the required heat of nearby
consumers is generated. Changes in heat requirement during the year make it
possible to utilize the excess heat in other processes like integrating fluidized bed
combustor of the CHP system with a fluidized bed gasifier in a biomass process
[19]. Hyene et al. proposed another sample of CHP-biomass integrated plant and
concluded that the efficiency improvement of the new process is dependent on the
capacity of not only the boiler of the CHP system but also the gasification facility
in the biomass process [20]. Gustavsson et al. presented an enhanced and efficient
CHP-biomass integrated process for generating biofuels like methanol and Fischer-
Tropsch fuel [21].
The municipal solid waste, commercial and industrial organic waste, and agri-
cultural waste called the refuse-derived fuel (RDF) are a source which, according
to the waste management directives 2006/12/EC in Europe, must be utilized for
302 A. Khalili-Garakani et al.

energy generation. Only municipal solid waste reach 338 million tons by 2020 in
Europe [21]. Initially, RDF waste combustion is suggested as a simple solution
which could be applied to larger scales and generate heat and electrical power.
Besides, it is proposed that RDF waste can be converted to biofuels through
biological or thermochemical processes. But, in biological processes like digestion
or fermentation, not only the separation of biodegradable waste from RDF but also
long process time is required. On the other hand, gasification is suggested as the
most appropriate way of RDF conversion to biofuels [21]. In most of the researches,
biomethane or hydrogen is considered, but recently other liquid biofuels such as
DME are presented as potential products of the CHP-biomass integrated plant [22].
The water-gas shift (WGS) reaction is applied currently in most of the polygen-
eration plants to intensify the H2 content of syngas product. But, it is confirmed
that WGS reaction is conducted to shortcoming in the plants: first, low heat
generation due to the exothermic WGS reaction which is lost in the plants and,
second, additional CO2 emission which followed by the increasing in the capacity
of the downstream carbon capture unit. Additionally, the carbon capture unit
required itself has consequential energy losses. This unit is needed for separating
CO2 from the generated syngas and flue gas of the plant. So, by the side of
effect on efficiency, the shortcoming of negative environmental impact must be
considered [18]. The flexible nature of polygeneration process can help to overcome
these consequences. According to the literature, different integrated flowsheets of
polygeneration-carbon capture processes are proposed. Besides, these integrated
designs permit the alteration of the amount of products according to the fluctuation
in the markets [18].
As an instance, Li et al. proposed an integrated plant which can generate power
and synthetic natural gas [23]. The new design has not only a lower life cycle
energy use but also lower GHG emission compared to an ultra-supercritical coal
power plant. Another cost-effective example is a polygeneration plant of urea and
power which is combined with a CCS unit [23]. Also, Jana et al. through life cycle
assessment analysis proposed a sustainable power, ethanol, heating, and cooling
polygeneration plant which used rice straw as feedstock [24]. Besides, Huang et al.
presented an efficient coal-based polygeneration plant for producing methanol and
power [25]. A new chemical looping combustion plant is proposed by Khojasteh
Salkuyeh which can generate methanol, DME, and power simultaneously from coal
and natural gas [18].
Most of the proposed polygeneration systems are based on coal as feedstock
[13], but recently, the oxyfuel combustion process which uses natural gas and
biomethane as fuels is considered as the low emission technologies (LETs) [26].
In addition, some novel ways for improving the utilization of natural gas in high
efficient combined cycle power plants (as high as 57%) are proposed [27].
Chemical looping due to CO2 /H2 O splitting using methane to generate syngas
(CO/H2 ) is one of the novel approaches [26]. This method is a fascinating option to
substitute the solar thermochemical redox cycle, which is applied to generate syngas
through water splitting by oxygen careers (OC) [28]. In the solar thermochemical
redox cycle, OC is a metal oxide, which required a very concentrated heat to pass
12 Polygeneration Systems in Fossil Fuel Power Plants: The Role of Power-. . . 303

endothermic thermal reduction (TR) stage. This concentrated heat is provided by

solar energy under a very high vacuum pressure [29, 30]. In the next stage, the
reduced OC goes through an oxidation process by the incoming CO2 /H2 O and
generating syngas and fulfills the continuous cycle. This step is exothermic and has
atmospheric and a lower temperature operating condition compared to reduction
stage. So, temperature and pressure swing among the two stages is possible. The
process of reduction of fuel with methane proceeds not only near atmospheric
operating conditions which prevent pressure swing but also lower the temperature
of reduction stage, which avoids a large temperature swing among the two stages
[26]. Another advantage of applying the methane reduction (or biomethane) stage
in chemical looping is the ability to operate day and night unlike the technology
utilized solar energy resources.
Recently, dimethyl ether (DME) is mostly considered as future synthetic fuel
through resemblance with diesel. In spite of the fact that DME has a lower latent
heat of vaporization (LHV) compared to diesel and pressurization which is required
to store in liquid state at ambient conditions, some futures like its physical properties
and chemical structure provide an interesting fuel. The other advantage of DME
is low emissions (such as NOx , hydrocarbon (HC), SOx , and particulate) during
combustion. However, there are some drawbacks like the redesign of the injector
and fuel pump systems and analysis of the compatibility of sealant materials which
make the fuel switching from diesel to DME fairly challenging task. As a short-
term solution to extend the applicability and economic perspective of DME usage,
the blending of DME with conventional mobility fuel is proposed [31]. The similar
physicochemical properties of DME to liquid petroleum gas (LPG) make it possible
to be used in the LPG-based mobility sector. Besides being used as fuel, DME can
be utilized as feedstock in the synthesis of aromatics, gasoline, olefins, and other
chemicals or applied as a refrigerant [32]. However, the cost of the feed (commonly
natural gas) has the main role in constraining the price of DME for its usage as
synthetic fuel. The future outlook illustrates the equal rise of the diesel and natural
gas prices. So, DME relative economic competitiveness to diesel fuel in the future
would be tainted as its production cost would be increased. Considering this issue,
investigation for the new source of methane from biomass or other feedstocks like
associated gas could possibly enhance not only economical but also environmental
perspective of DME synthesis process [33, 34].
Hankin and Shah proposed a process of DME and methanol synthesis from CO2
and H2 O [35]. In their process, syngas is generated by water electrolysis and solid
oxide electrolysis for CO. Also, Khojasteh Salkuyeh and Adam II presented a new
chemical looping configuration which integrates the coal gasification and natural
gas reforming to produce power, methanol, and DME [18]. Moreover, producing
DME utilizing syngas generated from CO2 /H2 O splitting can be a fascinating route
of clean fuel production [36].
304 A. Khalili-Garakani et al.

12.2.1 Power-to-X and CO2 Mitigation

Power-to-X process can help large-scale industries and technologies such as

mobility, manufacturing, and chemicals to get rid of fossil fuels as feedstock or
energy delivery. This applies to energy carriers like hydrogen and hydrocarbons,
besides the available raw materials, like methanol, etc.
As an instance the hydrogen use in production of synthetic fertilizers, reforming
process, and chemical industry surpass 70 million metric tons annually. It is
anticipated that according to extended applicability of hydrogen as an energy carrier,
its demand grows faster and stronger in the near future.
Besides, the opportunity to grow considerable attention to the application of
CO2 as a carbonaceous material increases the demand for hydrogen. Nowadays,
hydrogen is mainly produced through steam methane reforming, which utilizes
methane and water to generate syngas and CO2 . However, electrolysis process
provides hydrogen production without CO2 emission. As a matter of fact, extension
of renewable and other carbon-free energy resources makes available the carbon-
free hydrogen production. Furthermore, it is a route to reserve excess electricity
generated through renewable energy resources.
Likewise, renewable electricity can be applied to generate routine hydrocarbons
which commonly derived from coal or petroleum. These carbon-free generated
hydrocarbons may be utilized as fuels or feedstock to produce an extensive variety of
everyday products. For instance, carbon monoxide generated from carbon dioxide
can be utilized as feedstock of Fischer-Tropsch process and substitute the routine
syngas produced from fossil resources.
For example, the configuration of a power-to-X concept in a combustion power
plants (CPP) is presented in Fig. 12.9. It contains an amine-based scrubber, CO2
purification, water electrolysis and hydrogen storage and hydrocarbon synthesis
(such as methanol, etc.), and at last product upgrading and storage. Several
companies presented different demo plants in the last 30 years. The direct CO2 -
based methanol synthesis of the Lurgi or RITE and indirect CAMERE process
present a separate reverse water-gas shift reactor in the 1990s. Besides, Mitsui and
CRI after 2000 utilize renewable energy resources for higher capacities [37]. For
example, the CO2 -based methanol plant in Iceland has the capacity of 4000 t/a [23].
Another sample of power-to-X plant is illustrated in Fig. 12.10. It contains
fluidized-bed steam drying of lignite, gasification, syngas scrubber, acid gas removal
unit and hydrocarbon synthesis (such as methanol, etc.) and supplementary plants
called air separation unit (ASU), and optional water electrolysis unit. Gasification
is one of the favored technologies which is fully investigated by many researchers.
Some issues like investment and operating cost reduction and flexibility enhance-
ment must be considered for improvement of the applicability of this technology.
The high cost of the technology is due to some supplementary units such as gas
purification, solids handling, and effluent streams treatment.
The growing interest in polygeneration power plants is focused on product
flexibility and resource utilization for higher overall efficiency and improving the
12 Polygeneration Systems in Fossil Fuel Power Plants: The Role of Power-. . . 305

Fig. 12.9 Process flow sheet “power-to-X” concept

Fig. 12.10 Process flow sheet; AGR, acid gas removal; ASU, air separation unit

overall power plant economy. Polygeneration plants which combine gasification and
synthesis can utilize excess electricity in supplement units like water electrolysis.
Clausen et al. proposed a power-to-X plant which utilizes biomass gasification,
water electrolysis, and autothermal reforming of natural gas or biogas for methanol
synthesis [33]. The other plant is presented by Herdem et al. which combined
gasification and alkaline water electrolysis in order to generate hydrogen with low
CO2 emissions [38].
Besides, there is an investigation which has the support and fund of the European
Union’s Horizon 2020. The project has 9 participants with different specializations
and an 11 million Euro budget. The purpose of the plant is the methanol synthesis
with low carbon dioxide/carbon monoxide ratios as the feedstock. The unit must be
306 A. Khalili-Garakani et al.

flexible in both operation and feedstock and can utilize high CO2 streams as feed
which in this project is provided from a fossil fuel power plant [39].
This technology is also deliberated for use in existing biomass combustion
and gasification units, which operate to generate electrical/thermal energy, in
comparison with chemical synthesis. The hydrogen is the other reactant of the
hydrocarbon synthesis generated through water hydrolysis utilizing excess energy
which will be difficult to return to the network grid. The main advantages of the
projects are listed below [39]:
1. Alternative validation for CO2 capture, which helps create a more attractive
business case for CCS.
2. Flexibility in hydrogen production through water electrolysis comes up with
efficient utilization of excess renewable power generation and supplying valuable
auxiliary services.
3. The use of renewable methanol in fuels can play a role in achieving the European
Commission’s ambitious goals of using renewable energy in 2020 and 2030 and
improve energy security and governance by reducing fossil fuel imports.
However, the accurate technical data and details of this process have not been
reported yet.

12.3 Suggested Power-to-X in Power Plants

CO2 as a raw material for chemical production offers many opportunities both com-
mercially (as a low-cost alternative raw material, to produce new valuable materials
and to reduce the impact of production) and in terms of innovation (discovering new
concepts and opportunities for catalysts and industrial chemistry). Comprehensive
evaluation of CO2 technologies should be done from three dimensions: technical,
economic, and environment [40].
– Technical Evaluation.
Technology maturity, geographical constraints, and the degree of independence
from fossil fuels are important criteria for the technical evaluation of CO2 technolo-
gies. In the technical review, two important questions must be answered: (1) Will
the technology be operational within the next 10 years? (2) What is the level of
readiness of the technology and has it been operational at least on a pilot scale?
To assess the level of readiness (TRL) or maturity of a technology, the whole sys-
tem must be considered comprehensively. For example, in the methanol production
process, the CO2 uptake system, water electrolysis, and CO2 catalytic conversion are
involved. Therefore, to evaluate the TRL of CO2 to methanol conversion technology,
the TRL of all three components must be identified. Finally, the TRL of the whole
system is equal to the lowest TRL detected.
Geographical constraints are another important factor in the technical study of a
technology. This index is separate from the “technological maturity” index. TRL,
12 Polygeneration Systems in Fossil Fuel Power Plants: The Role of Power-. . . 307

for example, has a CO2 methanol production technology of around 8–9, especially
since a company in Iceland is producing renewable methanol. In this particular case,
most of the conditions (cheap and low carbon energy (H2 emissions), CO2 source)
were provided for the deployment of technology, which may not currently be the
case in other parts of the world despite the maturity of technology.
Independence from fossil fuels is another important factor in the technical review
of a CO2 technology. This index refers to reactants involved in technology such as
H2 , etc. (can be considered for ease of study of auxiliary and catalyst factors) and
determines whether independence from fossil sources is possible. It is acceptable.
Independence from fossil fuels can be direct or indirect. Indirect independence
from fossil fuels relates to the cases where (i) the reactants necessary for the
synthesis of a particular substance can be produced from a CO2 -based pathway,
for example, dimethyl carbonate can be produced from methanol from the CO2
reaction. Produced with H2 (from renewable energy), it is obtained that (ii) H2 is
the only reactive agent (except CO2 ) and can be produced from renewable energy
[40].
– Economic Evaluation.
“Market size” is an important indicator of economic goals and provides informa-
tion to the decision-maker on how large the potential market for targeted products
is. This is one of the first questions for artisans to explore the potential for CO2 use.
Market size is often the driving force behind (economic/industrial), for example,
larger markets create greater incentives for emerging technologies and make more
profit when selling. “Market size” is an index that has been referred to several times
in CCU sources as the “economic index” [40].
“Relative added value” is an indicator of the economic availability of a process.
This index is obtained from the difference between the product price and the
variable operating cost (materials, electricity, and heat required) and is expressed as
a percentage by dividing the variable operating cost. Relative value added between
50 and 100% indicates the economic feasibility of a process and close to its
profitability. Relative value added between 100 and 200% indicates the commercial
and economic availability of the product.
“Competition with other technologies” is an indicator to answer the question of
whether CO2 technology is competitively priced with other alternative processes,
products, or technologies and has similar output, low technologies or products.
Carbon, such as hybrid and electric vehicles and other green construction products,
are among these alternatives. This indicator complements “relative value added”
because a process may be economically viable, but not necessarily competitive with
other options. In addition, competitiveness is a conceptual economic value, while
“relative value added” is an economic indicator that shows the value of CO2 output
[40].
Both economic sustainability and competitiveness are required for the long-term
sustainability of CO2 -using technologies. Depending on how the “Competition with
Other Technologies” index is evaluated, it gives more indications to the decision-
maker in the market through the use of the SWOT matrix [40].
308 A. Khalili-Garakani et al.

– Environmental, Health, and Safety Evaluation.

“CO2 uptake potential” is an indicator to determine the maximum use potential
of CO2 (based on stoichiometry) for a particular product. This index is measured
by the amount of CO2 required to produce one unit of product, multiplied by the
production volume. “CO2 uptake potential” is an indicator that has been mentioned
several times in CCU sources under the heading “Environmental Indicator.” It is
worth noting that this is not a CO2 reduction potential because CO2 reduction
depends on the whole process and not just how many moles of CO2 can be modified
by the reaction [40].
The “Environmental Potential” index adds more information to the previous
index because it takes into account global warming and the effects of fossil fuel
depletion. Since the goal of the CCU is to reduce CO2 and the independence of fossil
resources, this indicator must be considered in CCU environmental evaluation. The
reduction in fossil fuels also indicates that a CO2 -based alternative consumes more
or less fossil fuels than the conventional method. The reduction in the use of fossil
fuel equivalents is calculated as equivalent to oil [40].
There are certain risks associated with CCU processes. The main risk is the
incidental distribution of volatile or hazardous components during operations or
conversion reactions. In addition, safety in the workplace is becoming increasingly
important for employees. Safety and health are intertwined with emerging tech-
nologies. Thus, in addition to the environmental contribution of the processes, the
“safety and health” issues that may arise with the deployment of such technologies
are explored, even if they are largely described in the proposed framework [40].
In this report, chemical, mineralization, and biological conversion technologies
of CO2 into several current products have been evaluated based on the mentioned
index and available information and documents.

12.3.1 Urea

Nowadays global food support completely depends on synthetic fertilizers. They

required to enhance soil restoration and increase the productivity in modern
agriculture [41]. The role of nitrogen synthetic fertilizers is more crucial as
nitrogen is commonly the restrictive nutrition which prohibits developing highly
concentrated farms [42]. According to the forecasted population expansion, food
scarcity is inevitable without such synthetic fertilizers [43, 44]. Due to these
concerns, incremental consumption of synthetic fertilizers within agriculture is
inescapable in the future.
– Method of Production.
In addition to the main challenges noted above, fertilizer production from non-
fossil feedstock is another concern. The solution is the integration of sustainable
inputs and utilization of renewable energy. For this purpose and in order to remove
12 Polygeneration Systems in Fossil Fuel Power Plants: The Role of Power-. . . 309

related CO2 emissions, the electrolysis process which utilized renewable energy
resources could be applied, instead of H2 generation by reforming process (Eq.
12.1). Then, this H2 reacted with externally sourced N2 (Eq. 12.2) and CO2 (Eqs.
12.3 and 12.4) to produced urea. As a result the urea production reduces CO2 or
carbon footprint and can be called carbon-neutral.

ΔHr =+286kJ mol −1 1

H2 O ←→ H2 + O2 (12.1)
2

ΔHr =−45.7kJ mol −1

3H2 + N2 ←→ 2NH3 (12.2)

ΔHr =−117kJ mol −1

2N H3 + CO2 ←→ NH2 COONH4 (12.3)

ΔHr =+16kJ mol −1

N H2 COONH4 ←→ CO(NH2 )2 + H2 O (12.4)

But the formal reaction conditions of urea generation are challenging (170–
220 ◦ C, 150 bar) [45]. Barzagli et al. proposed a new route with relatively mild
condition which not only utilized renewable resources but also reduced operating,
investment, and environmental cost which they called it blue urea process (referred
to electrolytic origins of the H2 ) [46].
– Environmental Evaluation.
According to the investigation, the blue urea production process as utilized
renewable energy and carbon capture systems has the capability to reduce CO2
emissions around 21% (or 17% when equipped with direct air capture) when
compared to the formal process. So, the blue urea process not only produces
synthetic fertilizers but also reduces GHG emissions [47].

12.3.1.1 Case Study of Petrochemical Plant for Urea Production

Assaluyeh region, with its vast natural gas resources, has become one of the hubs of
the country’s oil, gas, and petrochemical industry.
The existence of numerous gas processing units and petrochemical production
units has led to the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in this region. Currently, in
this region, due to the existence of the mentioned industries, about 14 million tons
of CO2 are emitted to the atmosphere annually.
In some of these industries, such as ethane extraction units, carbon dioxide
with a very high purity of more than 92% is produced and then released into the
atmosphere, while the carbon dioxide produced can be fed to some downstream
production units such as urea units. Production of urea chemical fertilizer or
310 A. Khalili-Garakani et al.

injection into oil wells can be used to increase the efficiency of extraction from
the reservoir, which not only has economical profits but also will prevent the entry
of CO2 into the atmosphere and its destructive environmental effects. Emissions
of greenhouse gases cause several problems, the most important consequence of
which is global warming and climate change. Studies show that if the current trend
of greenhouse gas emissions continues, world temperatures in 2100 will increase by
about 8.5 ◦ C.
In this regard, with the help of the National Petrochemical Company, which
has made efforts to reduce carbon dioxide in other petrochemical units, the plan
to produce urea chemical fertilizer from carbon dioxide sources in Assaluyeh
region while reducing greenhouse gases in the region also creates added value. In
petrochemical plant, the direct production of urea is done by absorbing the excess
ammonia of the existing units in the country.
– Environmental Evaluation.
The results show that with the use of the surplus ammonia, the need of ammonia
production units in the country, and carbon dioxide emissions from other units, urea
production units can be designed and built, and thus the release of CO2 into the
atmosphere can be significantly reduced.
With the construction of a urea unit with a capacity of 2330 tons per day, 570,000
tons of CO2 annually are absorbed from other sources of production such as ethane
extraction units and converted to urea. This capacity can be increased to a daily
production of 3250 tons of urea and the removal of 830,000 tons of carbon dioxide
by applying design changes [48].

12.3.2 Dimethyl Ether

Dimethyl ether (DME: CH3 OCH3 ) is the simplest aliphatic ether. It is a colorless,
odorless, and highly flammable gas under environmental conditions. DME can
be used as a propellant in aerosols; a precursor in the synthesis of other organic
compounds such as dimethyl sulfate, methyl acetate, and light olefins; and clean
fuel for combustion engines and turbines. It used a gas source of hydrogen for use
in fuel cells as well as a hydrogen carrier.
Due to the similarity of the physical properties of DME with LPG, this material
can be a good alternative to LPG fuel. On the other hand, DME can be used as diesel
fuel due to its cetane number and high oxygen content (35% by weight). It is worth
noting that this material, due to the lack of C-C bond in its structure, emits very little
soot in the exhaust gas of the diesel engine. As a result, DME can be used as fuel
in various sectors of the heat and power generation, mobility, and industry. Also,
due to the nontoxicity of dimethyl ether, this substance can be a good alternative
to methanol. DME can be converted to light and aromatic olefins in the presence
of zeolite catalysts. The comparison of DME and other fuels is illustrated in Table
12.2.
12 Polygeneration Systems in Fossil Fuel Power Plants: The Role of Power-. . . 311

Table 12.2 Comparison of DME and other fuels [1]

Properties DME Propane Methane Methanol Diesel
Chemical formula CH3 OCH3 C3 H8 CH4 CH3 OH C10 -C18
Boiling point (◦ C) −25.1 −42.0 −161.5 64.5 170–180
Liquid Vis. (kg/ms 0.12–0.15 0.2 – – 2–4
@25 ◦ C)
Sp. gravity 1.59 1.52 0.55 – –
Vapor press. (atm. 6.1 9.3 [email protected] ◦ C [email protected] ◦ C 0.035@21 ◦ C
@25 ◦ C)
Explosion limit 3.4–17 2.1–9.4 5–15 – 0.6–6.5
Auto ignition 350 504 632 470 –
temperature (◦ C)
Cetane number 55–60 5 0 5 40–50
Net calorific value 6900 11,100 12,000 5024 10,000
(kcal/kg)
Net calorific value 14,200 21,600 6600 – –
(kcal/m3 )
Energy density* 18.97 23.5 7.88 15.69 35.08
(MJ/lit)

Table 12.3 DME fuel-tested turbines in General Electric [49]

Gas turbine Combustion technology Nox emission, ppmvd @15% o2
6B, 6FA, 7EA, 7FA, 9E, 9FA Diffusion 37
6B, 7EA, 9E Dry low nox 25

General Electric has tested DME fuel in its products as illustrated in Table 12.3
[49]. According to the results, the company offers its E and F series to generate
electricity from DME. For example, the efficiency test and comparison with natural
gas performed by the BP Company in a combined cycle power plant with DME
fuel (8% methanol and 3% water) is given in Table 12.4. The combined cycle tested
consisted of three General Electric Frame 9A gas turbines and a heating turbine with
a total capacity of 1000 MW [49].
– Method of Production.
There are two methods for catalytic synthesis of DME in the gas phase: direct
and indirect. In the direct process, the synthesis gas (mixture of CO and H2 ) is
converted to DME by dual-acting catalysts. In the indirect process, first the synthesis
gas is converted to methanol by CuO/ZnO/Al2 O3 catalysts, and then in the next step,
DME is obtained from the methanol dehydration reaction by solid-acid catalysts. An
illustration of these two methods is shown in Fig. 12.11.
The indirect method, which is the common method of producing DME, takes
place in two catalytic steps. In the first reactor, the synthesized gas is converted
to methanol, and in the second reactor, methanol is converted to dimethyl ether by
dehydration. Nowadays, most companies like Haldor Topsoe, Lurgi, Mitsubishi Gas
312 A. Khalili-Garakani et al.

Table 12.4 BP test results in a 1000 MW combined cycle power plant [49]. (performed by Flour
Daniel (USA) and funded by BP using GE 9FA gas turbine)
Fuel Natural gas Fuel grade DME
Fuel feed to the plant gate Gas at 60 ◦ F and 500 psia Liquid at 60 ◦ F and 77 psia
Fuel flow, per gas turbine, lb./hr 103,401 190,010
Air flow per gas turbine, lb./hr 4806,227 4,806,227
Total gas turbine power output, MW 683.7 708.7
Total steam turbine power, MW 384.0 384.5
Total aux. Power consumption, MW 23.9 24.6
Net plant power output, MW 1043.8 1068.6
Net heat rate, Btu/kWh (LHV) 6278 6106
Power generation efficiency, LHV % 54.4 55.9
Flue gas stack temperature 205 189
CO2 generated, lb./MWh 819.5 959.9
LHV at 77 ◦ F, kcal/kg Natural gas, 11,800 Liquid DME, 6420

Fig. 12.11 Methods for synthesis of dimethyl ether

Chemical Company, China Southwestern Research Institute of Chemical Industry,

Toyo Engineering Corporation, and China Energy applied indirect processes.
The reaction is commonly performed with catalysts based on alumina in a
fixed-bed reactor. The temperature of this reactor is between 250 and 400 degree
Celsius, and the pressure can change between 10 and 25 bar. Under these conditions,
the conversion efficiency of methanol to DME is between 70 and 85% [50].
The selectivity is also usually high and only a small amount of formaldehyde is
produced. In the indirect method, the cost of production is closely related to the
price of methanol. Two-acting catalysts for single-stage synthesis are generally
a combination of catalysts for methanol production reactions from synthetic gas
(CuO/ZnO/Al2 O3 ) and synthesis of DME from methanol dewatering (solid-acid
catalysts) [51].

2CH 3 OH  CH 3 OCH3 + H2 O ΔH298 K = −23.5kJ /mol (12.5)

12 Polygeneration Systems in Fossil Fuel Power Plants: The Role of Power-. . . 313

In the direct method, which is a new method, methanol dehydration is performed

simultaneously with the hydrogenation of CO and CO2 in a reactor [51]. The
direct technology has been developed by companies like Haldor Topsoe, Japan
JFE Holdings Company, and Korea Gas Corporation. In the direct conversion, two
reactions perform simultaneously in the presence of a dual-function catalyst (hybrid
catalyst), first the methanol synthesis and second the methanol dehydration. The
hybrid catalysts were initially used to convert synthetic gases directly to DME [50].

CO 2 + 3H2  CH 3 OH + H2 O ΔH298 K = −49.4kJ /mol (12.6)

CO 2 + H2  CO + H2 O ΔH298 K = −41kJ /mol (12.7)

CO + 2H2  CH 3 OH ΔH298 K = −90.4kJ /mol (12.8)

2CH 3 OH  CH 3 OCH3 + H2 O ΔH298 K = −23kJ /mol (12.9)

DME production technology from CO2 hydrogenation is in development and

is expected to be commercialized in the next 10 years [52]. The polygeneration
plant for power and DME production is suggested by some other researchers like
Catizzone et al. [53], Khojasteh Salkuyeh and Adams [18], Farooqui et al. [36], and
Salman et al. [22].
– Environmental Evaluation.
For each ton of DME, 1.9 tons of CO2 are consumed, and considering the market
of 11.4 million tons of DME, the annual CO2 consumption is 21.78 million tons
[40]. Figure 12.12 shows the life cycle of DME production from methanol and its
use as fuel. If renewable energy is used in the production of H2 and the biological
system to absorb CO2 , since DME is a clean fuel, the process is a comprehensive
green process, and its emissions are very low. In the scheme below, the goal is to
generate DME using flue gas according to the cycle. In this process, by separating
CO2 from the chimneys of power plants, synthetic gas is produced, and then it is
used to produce DME.
– Economic Studies.
According to Marketsandmarkets, the DME market in 2014 was based on a
volume of 3.7 million tons and grew by 15.67% by 2020. The raw materials used to
produce DME are divided into natural gas, coal, methanol, and other sources such
as biological materials [54]. According to Transparency Market Research in 2016,
methanol accounted for 90% of total DME market demand. This is due to the ease
of synthesis and the cheap method of converting methanol to DME. After that, the
314 A. Khalili-Garakani et al.

Fig. 12.12 General scheme of the DME production process from the flue gas

Table 12.5 Power generation costs: comparison of gasoil, DME, and mazut
Feed Power generation potential FOB cost (March 2019) Power generation cost ($/kWh)
Gasoil 0.017 lit/kWh $/lit 0.49 0.008
DME 0.026 lit/kWh $/lit 0.43 0.011
Mazut 0.013 lit/kWh $/lit 0.34 0.004

Table 12.6 Power generation cost: comparison of direct and indirect synthesis
Feed Production cost ($/ton) Power generation cost ($/kWh)
Flue gas (indirect) 99 0.0017
Flue gas (direct) 150 0.0026

largest share related to coal, which has decreased its use due to pollution. Production
of DME with natural gas is also costly [55].
Based on the announced prices in the Persian Gulf for oil and petrochemical
products, the cost per kilowatt hour of electricity produced is as shown in Table
12.5.
The cost of domestic production of DME from flue gas (based on the product
price of FOB March 2019) is given in Table 12.6. The production cost is taken from
the Khalili-Garakani et al. [1].
As can be seen, if the DME is produced domestically, due to the reduction in the
cost of fuel produced, the resulting electricity cost is reduced and can compete with
other liquid fuels. Also, the cost of saved diesel can be provided to the investor in
line with part of the investment costs, which can increase the implementation of this
plan for the private sector.
12 Polygeneration Systems in Fossil Fuel Power Plants: The Role of Power-. . . 315

12.4 Status Quo, Challenges, and Outlook

In this work presented here, different CO2 mitigation techniques have been
explored. The most important categories are energy and carbon intensity reduction.
Another discussed method is carbon sequestration, which must be developed in
order to have more flexibility in options for suppressing the GHG emissions. The last
discussed option is captured and conversion of CO2 to the value-added materials.
In this regard, significant advances have been achieved, from both academic and
industrial research, in order to reduce as much as possible CO2 emissions and
conversion to the valuable materials. By using polygeneration approaches, the
multiple feeds can be converted to multiple products such as power, fuels, chemical
products, etc. In this review some of the applicable polygeneration systems for
production of DME, methanol, synthesis gas, etc. from CO2 emissions feed have
been studied. Furthermore, some polygeneration systems based on power-to-X have
been separately reviewed regarding its importance.
Finally, at the last part, some polygeneration case studies on methanol, urea, and
DME production with use of renewable-based electricity supply have been evaluated
in aspects of technical, emissions, and economy.
Of course there are still some barriers to the commercialization of these systems,
which are discussed in the following:
– The most important challenge is the high activation energy of the CO2 molecule
which is required to prepare it to react with protons or other molecules. As the
CO2 molecule is relatively stable.
– Utilization of renewable energy is another concern as the application of fossil
energy would eliminate the benefit of CO2 mitigation. But, according to intermit-
tent behavior of renewable energy resources, if put the hydroelectric energy apart,
CO2 mitigation process based on these resources is expensive. Polygeneration
process in power plant can solve this problem.
– A high-concentration CO2 source is required for the CO2 mitigation processes to
be economical.
– Regarding the conditions, the distributed or centralized production should be
optimized.
– New and consistent policies are required not only for helping these green
technologies to develop and grow but also to become established.

References

1. Khalili-Garakani A, Ghaseminezhad M., Davoudi, S. Applied processes to achieve optimal

methods of manufacturing value added products from power plant flue gas. 2021.
2. Nazari, S., Shahhoseini, O., Davari, S., & Paydar, R. (2010). Experimental determination and
analysis of CO2, SO2 and NOx emission factors in Iran’ s thermal power plants. Energy, 35,
2992–2998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.03.035
316 A. Khalili-Garakani et al.

3. Yamasaki, A. (2003). An overview of CO2 mitigation options for global warming-emphasizing

CO2 sequestration options. Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan, 36, 361–375.
4. Steinberg, M. (1978). Synthetic carbonaceous fuels and feedstocks from oxides of carbon and
nuclear power. Fuel, 57, 460–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-2361(78)90154-0
5. Olah, G. A., Prakash, G. K. S., & Goeppert, A. (2011). Anthropogenic chemical carbon cycle
for a sustainable future. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 133, 12881–12898. https:/
/doi.org/10.1021/ja202642y
6. Olah, G. A., Goeppert, A., & Prakash, G. K. S. (2009). Beyond oil and gas: The methanol
economy (2nd ed.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527627806
7. Aresta, M., Dibenedetto, A., & Angelini, A. (2014). Catalysis for the valorization of exhaust
carbon: From CO2 to chemicals, materials, and fuels. Technological use of CO2. Chemical
Reviews, 114, 1709–1742. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr4002758
8. Thomas, J. M., & Harris, K. D. M. (2016). Some of tomorrow’s catalysts for processing
renewable and non-renewable feedstocks, diminishing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and
increasing the production of energy. Energy & Environmental Science, 9, 687–708. https://
doi.org/10.1039/C5EE03461B
9. Lefebvre, J., Friedemann, M., Manuel, G., Graf, F., Bajohr, S., Reimert, R., et al. (2016).
Renewable power-to-gas : A technological and economic review. Renewable Energy, 85, 1371–
1390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.07.066
10. Aresta, M., Dibenedetto, A., & Quaranta, E. (2016). State of the art and perspectives in
catalytic processes for CO2 conversion into chemicals and fuels: The distinctive contribution of
chemical catalysis and biotechnology. Journal of Catalysis, 343, 2–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jcat.2016.04.003
11. Abanadesa, J. C., Rubinb, E. S., Mazzottic, M., & Herzog, H. J. (2017). On the climate change
mitigation potential of CO2 conversion to fuels. Energy & Environmental Science, 10, 2491–
2499. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7EE02819A
12. Agarwal, A. S., Rode, E., Sridhar, N., & Hill, D. (2015). Conversion of CO2 to value-
added chemicals: Opportunities and challenges. Handbook of Climate Change Mitigation and.
Adaption, 1–40.
13. Jana, K., Ray, A., Mansouri, M., Assadi, M., & De, S. (2017). Polygeneration as a future
sustainable energy solution – A comprehensive review. Applied Energy, 202, 88–111. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.129
14. Baliban, R. C., Elia, J. A., Weekman, V., & Floudas, C. A. (2012). Process synthesis of
hybrid coal, biomass, and natural gas to liquids via Fischer – Tropsch synthesis, ZSM-
5 catalytic conversion, methanol synthesis, methanol-to-gasoline, and methanol-to-olefins
/ distillate technologies. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 47, 29–56. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compchemeng.2012.06.032
15. Adams, T. A., & Barton, P. I. (2011). Combining coal gasification and natural gas reforming
for efficient polygeneration. Fuel Processing Technology, 92, 639–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.fuproc.2010.11.023
16. Chen, Y., Adams, T. A., & Barton, P. I. (2011). Optimal design and operation of static energy
Polygeneration systems. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 50, 5099–5113.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ie101568v
17. Chen, Y., Adams, T. A., & Barton, P. I. (2011). Optimal design and operation of flexible
energy polygeneration systems. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 50, 4553–
4566. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie1021267
18. Khojasteh Salkuyeh, Y., & Adams, T. A. (2014). A new power, methanol, and DME
polygeneration process using integrated chemical looping systems. Energy Conversion and
Management, 88, 411–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.08.039
19. Naqvi, M., Dahlquist, E., & Yan, J. (2017). Complementing existing CHP plants using biomass
for production of hydrogen and burning the residual gas in a CHP boiler. Biofuels, 8, 675–683.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2016.1153362
12 Polygeneration Systems in Fossil Fuel Power Plants: The Role of Power-. . . 317

20. Galanti, L., Franzoni, A., Traverso, A., & Massardo, A. F. (2011). Existing large steam power
plant upgraded for hydrogen production. Applied Energy, 88, 1510–1518. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.11.033
21. Gustavsson, C., & Hulteberg, C. (2016). Co-production of gasification based biofuels in
existing combined heat and power plants – Analysis of production capacity and integration
potential. Energy, 111, 830–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.06.027
22. Salman, C. A., Naqvi, M., Thorin, E., & Yan, J. (2017). A polygeneration process for heat,
power and DME production by integrating gasification with CHP plant: Modelling and simu-
lation study. Energy Procedia, 142, 1749–1758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.12.559
23. Li, S., Gao, L., & Jin, H. (2017). Realizing low life cycle energy use and GHG emissions in
coal based polygeneration with CO2 capture. Applied Energy, 194, 161–171. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.03.021
24. Jana, K., & De, S. (2017). Environmental impact of biomass based polygeneration – A case
study through life cycle assessment. Bioresource Technology, 227, 256–265. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2016.12.067
25. Huang, H., & Yang, S. (2017). Design concept for coal-based polygeneration processes of
chemicals and power with the lowest energy consumption for CO2 capture. Computer Aided
Chemical Engineering, 44, 1381–1386. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-64241-7.50225-1
26. Farooqui, A., Bose, A., Ferrero, D., Llorca, J., & Santarelli, M. (2018). Techno-economic
and exergetic assessment of an oxy-fuel power plant fueled by syngas produced by chemical
looping CO2 and H2O dissociation. Journal of CO2 Utilization, 27, 500–517. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jcou.2018.09.001
27. Stanger, R., Wall, T., Spörl, R., Paneru, M., Grathwohl, S., Weidmann, M., et al. (2015).
International journal of greenhouse gas control Oxyfuel combustion for CO2 capture in power
plants. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 40, 55–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijggc.2015.06.010
28. Nguyen, V. N., & Blum, L. (2015). Syngas and synfuels from H2O and CO2: Current status.
Chemie Ingenieur Technik, 87, 354–375. https://doi.org/10.1002/cite.201400090
29. Krenzke, P. T., Fosheim, J. R., & Davidson, J. H. (2017). Solar fuels via chemical-looping
reforming. Solar Energy, 156, 48–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.05.095
30. Yadav, D., & Banerjee, R. (2016). A review of solar thermochemical processes. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54, 497–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.026
31. Han, S., & Sik, C. (2014). Applicability of dimethyl ether (DME) in a compression ignition
engine as an alternative fuel. Energy Conversion and Management, 86, 848–863. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.06.051
32. Bakhtyari, A., & Rahimpour, M. R. (2018). Methanol to dimethyl ether. In D. ABF (Ed.),
Methanol (1st ed.). Elsevier.
33. Gadek,
˛ M., Kubica, R., & J˛edrysik, E. (2013). Production of methanol and dimethyl ether
from biomass derived syngas – A comparison of the different synthesis pathways by means
of flowsheet simulation. Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, 32, 55–60. https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-444-63234-0.50010-5
34. Ren, F., Wang, J., & Li, H. (2006). Direct mass production technique of dimethyl ether from
synthesis gas in a circulating slurry bed reactor. Studies in Surface Science and Catalysis, 159,
489–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2991(06)81640-X
35. Hankin, A., & Shah, N. (2017). Process exploration and assessment for the production of
methanol and dimethyl ether from carbon dioxide and water. Sustain Energy Fuels, 1, 1541–
1556. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7SE00206H
36. Farooqui, A., Di, F., Bose, A., Ferrero, D., Llorca, J., & Santarelli, M. (2019). Techno-
economic and exergy analysis of polygeneration plant for power and DME production with
the integration of chemical looping CO2/H2O splitting. Energy Conversion and Management,
186, 200–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.02.043
37. Wolfersdorf, C., Forman, C., Keller, F., & Gootz, M. (2017). CO2-to-X and coal-to-X concepts
in pulverized coal combustion power plants. Energy Procedia, 114, 7171–7185. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1821
318 A. Khalili-Garakani et al.

38. SacitHerdem, M., Farhad, S., Dincer, I., & Hamdullahpur, F. (2013). Thermodynamic modeling
and assessment of a combined coal gasification and alkaline water electrolysis system for
hydrogen production. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 39, 3061–3071. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.12.068
39. Samiee, L., & Gandzha, S. (2019). Power to methanol technologies via CO2 recovery: CO2
hydrogenation and electrocatalytic routes. Reviews in Chemical Engineering. https://doi.org/
10.1515/revce-2019-0012
40. Chauvy, R., Meunier, N., Thomas, D., & De Weireld, G. (2019). Selecting emerging CO2
utilization products for short- to mid-term deployment. Applied Energy, 236, 662–680. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.11.096
41. Yara Fertilizer Industry Handbook (2017). Oslo - Norway.
42. Dawson, C. J., & Hilton, J. (2011). Fertiliser availability in a resource-limited world:
Production and recycling of nitrogen and phosphorus q. Food Policy, 36, S14–S22. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.012
43. World Bank. Population Estimates and Predictions n.d.. https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/
dataset/population-estimates-andprojections. Accessed 27 Feb 2019.
44. Stewart, W. M., & Roberts, T. L. (2012). Food security and the role of fertilizer in supporting
it. Procedia Eng, 46, 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2012.09.448
45. Meessen, J. H., Petersen, H. (2010). Urea. Uhlmann’s Encycl. Ind. Chem., Wiley-VCH Verlag
CmbH & Co. KGaA; https://doi.org/10.1002/14356007.a27_333.
46. Barzagli, F., Mani, F., & Peruzzini, M. (2011). From greenhouse gas to feedstock: Formation
of ammonium carbamate from CO2 and NH3 in organic solvents and its catalytic conversion
into urea under mild conditions. Green Chemistry, 13, 1267–1274. https://doi.org/10.1039/
c0gc00674b
47. Driver, J. G., Owen, R. E., Makanyire, T., Lake, J. A., Mcgregor, J., & Styring, P. (2019). Blue
urea: Fertilizer with reduced environmental impact. Front Energy Research, 7, 1–15. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2019.00088
48. Technical and economic feasibility studies of Assaluyeh carbon dioxide collection project and
construction of urea production unit. 2019.
49. Basu, A., Gradassi, M., Sills, R., Technology, U., & Exploration, B. P. (2001). Use of DME as
a gas turbine fuel (pp. 1–6). ASME Turbo-Expo, New Orleans.
50. Matzen, M., & Demirel, Y. (2016). Methanol and dimethyl ether from renewable hydrogen
and carbon dioxide: Alternative fuels production and life-cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 139, 1068–1077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.163
51. Mevawala, C., Jiang, Y., & Bhattacharyya, D. (2019). Techno-economic optimization of shale
gas to dimethyl ether production processes via direct and indirect synthesis routes. Applied
Energy, 238, 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.01.044
52. Álvarez, A., Bansode, A., Urakawa, A., Bavykina, A. V., Wezendonk, T. A., & Makkee, J. G.
(2017). Challenges in the greener production of Formates/formic acid, methanol, and DME
by heterogeneously catalyzed CO2 hydrogenation processes. Chemical Reviews, 117, 9804–
9838.
53. Catizzone, E., Bonura, G., Migliori, M., Frusteri, F., & Giordano, G. (2018). CO2 recycling to
dimethyl ether : State-of-the-art and perspectives. Molecules, 23, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.3390/
molecules23010031
54. Marketsandmarkets. Dimethyl Ether Market by Raw Materials (Coal, Methanol, Natural
gas and Bio-based feedstock), by Applications (Aerosol Propellant, LPG Blending, Trans-
portation fuel and Others), and by Region - Trends & forecasts to 2020 n.d.. https://
www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/dimethyl-ether-market-1120.html.
12 Polygeneration Systems in Fossil Fuel Power Plants: The Role of Power-. . . 319

55. Transparency Market Research. Dimethyl Ether Market (Raw Material - Coal, Methanol,
and Natural Gas; Application - Aerosol Propellants, LPG Blending, Transportation Fuel,
Power Plant Fuel, and Chemical Feedstock) - Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth,
Trends, and Forecast 20 n.d.. https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/dimethyl-ether-
market.html.
Chapter 13
The Role of Distributed Multi-vector
Energy Assets in Economic
Decarbonisation: Early Findings of a UK
Demonstrator

Mohammad Royapoor, Kunpeng Wang, Robin Wardle,

and Vahid Vahidinasab

13.1 Introduction

Several market and regulatory forces have brought about the prospect of a new
age of small-scale, distributed low-carbon assets across wide geographical areas
working uniformly to provide multiple energy services. Given their geographically
distributed nature, the aggregation and optimum management of these distributed
assets are increasingly examined with virtual power plant (VPP) describing the over-
arching nature of such heterogeneous but controllable energy system assets. Several
features are forming an axiomatic foundation for these multi-site technologies to
be united under a VPP umbrella, first the flow of power and information between
stakeholders and energy entities [1], second the existence and exploitation of real
(i.e. batteries) or virtual (i.e. building inertia and deferable loads) energy storage,
third technologies that can add virtual inertia to the system and/or couple multiple
sectors and finally a single or a cascade of cloud-based VPP platforms/controllers
that can extract operational features from such active yet distributed energy assets
and guide the overall system towards its objectives (minimising cost and carbon,
maximising comfort, enhancing demand response (DR) capabilities and/or peer-
to-peer trading, etc.) [2]. In the following five sections and against a backdrop
of historical practices, techno-economic considerations for the design of VPP are
outlined before greater focus are brought on the specific attributes (and initial
learnings) of the case study Smart Local Energy System examined in this chapter.

M. Royapoor () · K. Wang · R. Wardle

School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
e-mail: [email protected]
V. Vahidinasab
Department of Engineering, School of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University,
Nottingham, UK

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 321
V. Vahidinasab, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo (eds.), Whole Energy Systems, Power
Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87653-1_13
322 M. Royapoor et al.

13.1.1 Status Quo, Challenges and Outlooks

The age of petroleum experienced its zenith in the twentieth century, where a boom
in industrialisation and spread of internal combustion engines created vast demands
for fossil fuels. Energy systems dominated government infrastructure programmes
that were planned centrally and, before the second and third generation of nuclear
power stations, were mostly reliant on oil and its derivatives [3]. The environmental
and safety legacy of the twentieth century energy systems is one of the prevailing
challenges of the twenty-first century, where emerging visions of the future are
dominated by decentralised yet interlinked energy systems enabled by renewable
generation and distributed storage that connect multiple sectors (transport, heat,
power, etc.). This approach has the benefit of exploiting all user flexibilities to
create virtual inertia, facilitate greater use of data to enable predictive controls and
notably transfer prosperity from energy giants to local communities [4]. Such ‘smart
energy systems’ (SES) will not make legacy utility infrastructures redundant but will
utilise them to interlink sectors and regions (even transnationally) and facilitate a
shift from single-sector thinking to coherent and integrated systems that achieves
greater resilience by exploiting synergies between sub-sectors. Importantly SES
are planned, designed and managed with host communities at heart. In addition to
their economic and social aspects, full realisation of SES is also heavily reliant on
integrated energy management that optimises the dispatch of a number of services
while taking heed of carbon, cost and human comfort constraints. Figure 13.1

Fig. 13.1 UK energy system outline comparing a 2019 baseline against an envisaged 2050 SES
(VPP virtual power plant, DHC district heating and cooling, DSR demand-side response, IoT
Internet of Things)
13 The Role of Distributed Multi-vector Energy Assets in Economic. . . 323

utilises 2019 UK energy mix statistics [5] and system architecture to provide a
simplified comparison between business as usual and a 2050 SES model.
It should be noted that Fig. 13.1 attempts to simplify an extremely complex
landscape with multiple actors engaged over a cascade of interactive layers; however
this illustration focuses on the emerging importance of interconnecting sectors and
exploiting system-level flexibilities to create a new platform for business models,
asset sharing and virtual inertia. The baseline (year 2019) involved total UK energy
consumption of 197.6 million tonnes of oil equivalent that resulted in 351.5 million
tonnes of equivalent CO2 (which is reported in this figure as a ‘carbon ratio’ of
33.2% against a 1990 baseline).

13.1.2 Smart Local Energy Systems, Rationale and Potentials

While the definitions of the term SES are evolving, a sharp increase in the use of
this term was pointed out by Lund et al. [4]. As noted, the fundamental feature
of SES is a transition from single-sector thinking with centralised assets to a
more integrated and holistic approach involving distributed assets. The crucial
difference between the term ‘smart energy systems’ and other similar terms such
as ‘smart grid’ is the holistic and cross-sectoral aspects where multiple services
(tri- or quad-generation, i.e. cooling, heating, power, hydrogen) are provided to the
hosting community. The transition to distributed local energy systems (involving
generation, storage and flexibility of control) provides a greater opportunity for
community engagement, and the centrality of the host community has led to the
term integrated community energy systems (ICESs) gaining traction in literature
[6]. ‘Self-provision’ and ‘system-support’ have also been viewed as axiomatic for
an ICES which offers the possibility of giving the power of change back to the
consumers. Note that system support refers to the ability of ICES to provide services
to the wider energy network beyond its own boundary. While technological, socio-
economic, environmental and institutional issues act as principal barriers to the
wider adaption of ICES, rising electricity prices and falling costs of generation
and storage are reported to make grid defection a widespread future reality in
Australia and the USA, where rich solar resources exist [7, 8]. However, under
current market mechanisms, the economics and system reliability of grid-defected
ICES were found to be poor in the Netherlands as a result of much larger capital
expenditure (CapEx) required for oversized DERs [9]. Being able to market surplus
generation to neighbouring communities might improve economic prospects of an
off-grid ICES, and the importance of existing grids in enabling efficient exchanges
of surplus resources between ICESs has been highlighted by several authors [10].
Nationwide and international driving forces behind the ambition to achieve a 100%
renewable energy system are examined by Young, J. et al. [11] who argue that in
addition to favourable national and local green policies, government guarantees are
also required to minimise investment risks and to steer energy systems devolution.
These clearly point to an evolving technical landscape that will lead to the formation
324 M. Royapoor et al.

of highly individual SLES platforms as a function of local regulatory regimes, site-

specific market mechanisms, availability of RES and forms of demand and level of
engagement from the hosting community.

13.1.3 Consumer Attitude Towards Shared Assets

and Monetising Flexibility

A study by Richter and Pollitt [12] discusses the findings from a 2015 survey of UK
energy consumers about what services are most important to them and what terms
of contracts they would be willing to accept. The authors break down the sample
into four main clusters of consumers, sorted by their risk aversion and openness
to having their data monitored. Across all four clusters, consumers highly valued
technical support and were willing to pay for it. They also find that on average,
consumers are willing to pay 34% of the gained energy bill savings from ICES
on platform providers that enable the realisation of energy savings. High levels
of fixed compensations do not usually entice consumers; rather it is the ongoing
energy savings that were the most important factor in their decisions. Richter and
Pollitt suggest that platform companies can add fees for technical support and data
privacy protection to recoup CapEx and operational costs. The biggest difference in
the customer clusters was found to be in the extent of control and monitoring by the
energy service/platform companies that customers would welcome at a certain price
point. A recent optimisation approach [13] suggested a deterministic/stochastic
model for transforming passive consumers with storage and/or PV into active
prosumers to participate in the day-ahead market. A two-step process was designed
for the aggregator to use clusters of prosumers and predict flexibility capacity to
then transform that flexibility into supply and demand bids. This centroid-based
clustering approach was found to save on average an additional 20% in energy costs
for prosumers and up to 40% in transaction and trading costs for the aggregator. The
model proved centroid-based clustering can limit uncertainty in prediction while
maintaining a high quality of energy bids. This predictive modelling can be almost
entirely automated to reduce costs further. Gissey et al. [14] use prisoners’ dilemma
(a scenario used to illustrate a key tenant of game theory, where rational individuals
will not cooperate, even though they would be better off in doing so) to support
their findings that most domestic PV and storage owners will set up their usage
patterns to their own advantage, regardless of system-wide priorities (and despite
system-wide efficiency leading to greater overall savings for individuals too). While
capital costs for storage are inversely related to size, ‘spikier’ residential loads offer
a larger opportunity for storage to provide efficiencies. This also means that a greater
number of players in the residential system are harder to control (as opposed to
a few large commercial participants). Authors note that if an aggregator were to
leave the control of energy assets entirely up to residential users, the volatility in the
system would be on average 2–3% higher, and energy prices would be 4–7% higher
13 The Role of Distributed Multi-vector Energy Assets in Economic. . . 325

than if the assets were centrally controlled. They call for regulators to alter pricing
structures and retail tariffs to follow wholesale costs more closely, hence tightening
the gap between system and individual priorities. They estimate the total cost to the
UK energy system to be £407 m per year if the flexibility resources are not centrally
controlled. Therefore, a wide range of regulatory and managerial space is left to be
occupied by either a new generation of enterprises or supportive policy to enable
niche technologies, business models and a completely new way of engaging the
users. Learning and adaption, reiteration and improvement is also an integral part of
the process for SLES as a novel and new approach that can be designed to deliver
against a wide range of outcomes, many of which may not be compatible [15].

13.1.4 The Role of District Heating

Even if the Northern European building portfolio can be all built to Passivhaus
levels, there is still a very strong case for district heating (DH) within smart
energy systems. This is reflected in the UK where a recent publication outlines
heat networks as a key part of UK plans to provide low cost and carbon heating
[16]. DH’s role in SLES is due to their ability to absorb surplus power generation
and waste industrial heat to provide domestic hot water (and space heating when
needed). Lund, H. et al. conducted an EnergyPro modelling examination of a 100%
renewable energy system in 2060 to identify the best future heating scenarios [17].
Danish district heating (currently serving 46% of Danish net heat demand) and
its expansion to neighbouring areas (to cover 53%, 63% and 70% of net heat
demand) was found to be the most cost- and carbon-effective solution, followed by
individual air-sourced heat pumps (ASHPs), while hydrogen-powered micro-CHPs
were found to suffer from low overall efficiencies and high costs, and natural gas-
powered micro-CHPs offer carbon effectiveness in the short run while becoming
more expensive than DH in the long run. In order to better plan for consumer
integration and expansion of DHs, creating and maintaining municipal heat Atlases
has been advocated by Karl and Möller who demonstrated via EnergyPLAN
software simulations that DH expansion in 2012 offered little improved efficiency
of the overall energy system against a business as usual scenario but will be most
cost and carbon efficient for a future scenario where increased power/heat/transport
energy exchanges will exist and are complimented by end-user demand reduction
[18]. The SLES case study examined in this chapter involved a 240 kWth marine-
source heat pump that would supply a base thermal demand via a fifth-generation
ambient temperature DH system to a number of commercial sites. Given the
seasonal variations of the heat source (seawater at the south coast of England), the
flow temperature was investigated to be between 8 and 15 ◦ C. This base thermal
energy would then be boosted at site level via water-to-water heat pumps to deliver
heating and domestic hot water (DHW) to reflect the requirements of the users at
each site.
326 M. Royapoor et al.

13.1.5 Hydrogen as a Vector Coupling Solution

Despite low round-trip efficiencies, hydrogen is unique in facilitating multi-vector

energy interchanges and short- and long-term storage capabilities. The power sector
can interact successfully with both heating and transport (via CHPs or EVs). But
heating and transport (both major primary energy consumers) are less able to share
capacity or load except with hydrogen deployment. Hydrogen is also capable of
delivering a power, heat or transport service with zero emissions at the point of
use and has been proposed as a means of creating additional resilience and inertia
in future power systems to counteract the potential instabilities that renewables
and their associated controls may cause [19]. Even at the single household level,
hydrogen has been investigated as a plausible hybrid solution with solar power
where the excess output of a 0.5 kWp PV array was used to feed a 0.1 kW proton
exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells to charge a storage tank that contributes
to the continuous power demand at domestic level [20]. However, it is at much
larger scales that hydrogen can begin to gain greater economic advantage as both
short- and long-term storage mechanism but also a multi-vector element within a
SLES. Despite the established nature of fuel cells and electrolysers, it is chiefly the
economics of hydrogen and its overall efficiencies that constitute the main barriers
to its wider adoption [21]. Additionally most of the hydrogen produced today is
heavily reliant on fossil fuels, with a staggering 96% derived from technologies that
reform fossil fuel feedstock [22]. This leaves only 4% of hydrogen production that is
a product of electrolysis technologies which currently forms the only segment of H2
production that can be considered low or zero carbon if wholly produced, processed
and stored by renewable technologies.
Current generation efficiencies of hydrogen range from 1.6% (photosynthesis)
[21] to reported values of between 43% and 53% (thermolysis in membrane reactors
[23]) with the highest figures reported for steam methane reforming (generally
around 85% with a theoretical limit of 93.8% also reported [24]). By the time
energy expenditures in the liquification or pressurisation of hydrogen are accounted
for and added to efficiency penalties in the final energy conversion mechanisms
(i.e. a hydrogen boiler, fuel cell, etc.), the overall round-trip efficiency of hydrogen
as an energy source remains notably low. Despite this, several justifications exist
that make hydrogen a convincing candidate in the future energy systems. These
include zero-emission credentials at point of use; extreme versatility across heat,
power, transport, chemical and potentially future aviation sectors [25]; facilitating
excess renewable diffusion across power and gas [26]; and being regarded as the
most efficient inter-seasonal energy storage mechanism [27]. Aug 2019 blackout
in the UK was noted as a unique stress test that exposed electrical grid fault
lines ensuing from excessive penetration of new equipment and controls associated
with renewables and smart grid technologies [19]. It is against this challenging
background that hydrogen has emerged as both a unique energy source and a
versatile storage mechanism that can bring much greater ‘virtual inertia’ and
stability across the entire energy system and enable its phased decarbonisation. The
13 The Role of Distributed Multi-vector Energy Assets in Economic. . . 327

demonstrator concerned in this chapter included a 36 kg/h electrolyser that utilised

proton exchange membrane (PEM) technology and was intended to be deployed
close to emergency services to facilitate an initial trial of hydrogen vehicle adaption
within public sector service providers.

13.2 The Case-Study Demonstrator

Referred to as SmartHubs SLES, this demonstrator was one of four UK energy

system demonstrator projects aimed at encouraging innovative low- or zero-carbon
energy solutions that could serve its host community with cheap and clean energy.
Additionally, these demonstrators (backed by over £100 m of government finance)
also aimed to encourage a new wave of entrepreneurial activities that would see
greater adoption of niche technologies, greater engagement of end users in energy
management and a broader emphasis of creating prosperity at local level through an
energy revolution. SmartHubs SLES demonstrator had a wide range of assets that in
combined form offered 1.96 MWp of renewable generation, 24 MWhp of household
and grid-level electrical storage, 3.87 MWp of EV charging, 3.49 MWth of air and
marine source heat pump thermal capacity and 36 kg/h of H2 production using
proton exchange membrane (PEM) technology. The platform for deploying these
assets was 250 homes and 40 commercial sites spread across a wide geographical
area in the South of England. Figure 13.2 attempts to offer an outline of the
magnitude of assets and their spread across heat, power and transport vectors.

Fig. 13.2 Overview of SmartHubs SLES assets where local and global optimisation of services
was pursued through a virtual asset manager (V2G vehicle to grid, FOM front of meter)
328 M. Royapoor et al.

Within the transport vector, a major global car manufacturer was to install 250
EV chargers, and 50 additional chargers with vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology
incorporated. A 2 MW proton exchange membrane was also intended to produce
36 kg/h of green hydrogen and stationed close to emergency services to support
a first generation of hydrogen vehicles commissioned for ambulance and police
service. The electrolyser had the ability to be turned on/off instantly with five
cycles per hour feasible; therefore it could participate in several ancillary services
as outlined in Table 13.1. Hydrogen would be produced at 20 bar and compressed
to pressures of 700–900 bars to support vehicle filling duties.
The heating vector involved the installation of 250 ASHP in domestic properties
that depending on the size would be fitted with either 5 kWth or 8 kWth units. These
units where all equipped with a machine learning algorithm that would extract
building thermal response and occupant heating preferences across its initial trial
period to then use the natural inertia of buildings to respond to grid signals and
provide several demand-side response services. A total thermal output of 240th was
to be met by one or several modularised marine-sourced heat pumps (MSHPs)
to feed an ambient temperature (8–15 ◦ C) district heating network supporting
commercial sites and schools. The baseload provided by the MSHP(s) would then be
boosted at site level via water-to-water heat pumps to deliver heating and domestic
hot water (DHW). The MSHP unit(s) were expected to be able to respond to a grid
signal immediately and therefore could engage in a number of auxiliary services
with the only constraint being a maximum of six starts per hour.
A more diverse range of assets were intended to be deployed on the power vector,
with both generation and storage at building and district levels (Fig. 13.2). This
included 600 kWp (1.2 MWh) of new Li-ion batteries deployed behind the meters at
250 homes and a total of 22.44 MWh of second-life lithium-ion batteries deployed at
multiple commercial sites. The VPP would supervise the charging and discharging
of these storage assets to fully exploit the project’s PV generation (with a peak
rate of 1.96 MWp from PV arrays deployed both at 40 commercial sites and also
5 car ports). Clearly in combination, the project contained a diverse portfolio of
generation and storage assets across heat, power and transport vectors that could
be configured to deliver against a multiplicity of outcomes. Figure 13.3 outlines
how the physical assets, the power/energy flow and data streams had to support
a static contractual but dynamic aggregation and market engagement layers. The
project data was also to be made available to Newcastle University to pursue two
overall research questions. First how the technical optimisation of the VPP could
be improved over a long project horizon as increasing high-frequency asset data
became available. The second was to quantify (against a business-as-usual (BaU)
scenario) the level of carbon mitigation that all assets in unity can realise, and how
VPP could enhance asset portfolio carbon mitigation even further.
Table 13.1 A list of local vs. centralised (VPP) optimisation actions that project asset portfolio had the potential to offer
Control action Data required Optimisation Services
FOM batteries Charge/discharge AS details VPP TA – CM – FR
BCS
BTM batteries Charge/discharge AS details Local/VPP TA – CM – FR
BCS
Car port PV and Charge/discharge AS details Local/VPP TA – CM – PA
battery battery – charge EV BCS
VPP

EV status
Solar irradiation
Distributed Zone heating AS details Local/VPP CM – TA
ASHPsa On/off Zone thermal requirement
Building thermal response
MSHP Zone heating Thermal demand Local/VPP CM – TA
On/off Thermal system inertia
H2 electrolyser On/off Electrolyser status VPP CM – TA – PA
Notes
(i) TA Triad avoidance
(ii) CM Constraint management
(iii) FR Frequency response
13 The Role of Distributed Multi-vector Energy Assets in Economic. . .

(iv) PA Price arbitrage

(v) AS Ancillary services (that include i to iv above)
(vi) BCS Battery charge status
(vii) BTM Behind the meter (battery)
a ASHPs have a long ramp time of 6 min and therefore are not suitable for FR
329
330 M. Royapoor et al.

Fig. 13.3 Overview of SLES assets where local and global optimisation of services was pursued
through a virtual asset manager performing VPP duties (SH stakeholder, DSO distribution system
operators)

13.3 Virtual Power Plant: Benefits and Challenges

Quite clearly a portfolio of distributed assets operating in or across interlinked

heat, power and transport vectors can be managed to satisfy a variety of different
objectives. Initially the funding of four UK demonstrators (of which SmartHubs
SLES was one) intended to deliver low cost and carbon energy to hosting com-
munities, showcase ancillary services and demand response from a heterogenous
RES asset base, encourage energy enterprise and green job creation and enhance
the level of engagement and interest of the host communities. The broader socio-
economic objectives of the project however are beyond the scope of this chapter.
VPP architecture is examined under commercial (CVPP) and technical (TVPP)
frameworks [28], and this chapter focuses primarily on the TVPP framework of
SmartHubs SLES demonstrator. Table 13.1 outlines the control actions that a TVPP
can undertake to execute on each class of assets and the data required from any asset
to enable a revenue-generating or carbon-mitigating flexibility service. In addition
to services provided by each individual asset class, the VPP design seeks to further
optimise the overall generation of value from the combined asset portfolio; however
the prioritisation of these services could only be finalised in consultation with the
250 domestic property occupants that was an original objective of this demonstrator.
A notable difficulty is that the performance of some asset classes can be opti-
mised locally (e.g. car port PVs can charge local battery or the EV), while others can
only be addressed by the VPP (H2 electrolyser or front of meter (FOM) batteries).
This remained a challenge within the project since a successful TVPP design
had to find ways of reconciling onboard control philosophies of each individual
13 The Role of Distributed Multi-vector Energy Assets in Economic. . . 331

asset entity with a system-level priority. While multi-objective optimisation and

prioritising actions using weight coefficients are a tried and tested control theory
subject, in the case of SmartHubs SLES, control design necessitated a completely
fresh approach that wasn’t addressed in the conventional global optimum of cost,
comfort and carbon solutions. A specific example of this was the onboard (and hence
distributed) machine learning (ML) algorithm that controlled ASHPs by extracting
building physics features from operational data to then dictate optimum starts, DR
services and avoidance of times of high grid carbon intensity while still delivering
occupant comfort. ML-derived control actions of 250 distributed ASHP that each
had developed a unique operational regime to reflect property thermal response and
occupant heating patterns therefore needed to be united with a centralised TVPP
seeking to perform an ancillary service. These aggregated vs. local control signals
required careful safeguards to avoid control conflicts, excessive plant cycling and
occupant discomfort.

13.4 Unlocking the Value of Data

Successful management of SmartHubs SLES assets through a VPP requires com-

munication, automation, analysis of historical data and dynamic engagement of
individual components that inevitably lead into the production of a substantial
amount of data. This requires a robust solution for data management and analysis
as well as cyber-security. As outlined in [29], one of the earliest steps taken within
the project was a Smart Energy Platform (SEP) architecture that was designed to
conduct data management and analysis for this demonstrator in order to provide
optimal planning and technical operation as well as socio-environmental and
financial research.
Figure 13.4 illustrates the data processing structure of the SEP which collects,
backhauls and stores data and enables near-real-time as well as retrospective
experimental data analysis. The SEP data processing program retrieves recorded
operational data and stores it in the database by calling Python REST APIs. These
include raw power network data, static asset and dynamic weather data and socio-
economic and policy data. Depending on the requirements, different datasets could
be selected to feed any specific analysis. For instance, SEP retrieves relevant data
to facilitate assessment of balancing energy supply and demand, explores the added
value that the flexibility of assets can provide and delivers cost and carbon benefits
for stakeholders, including businesses (on commercial sites) and residents of 250
homes as the asset portfolio continues generating data in a low-carbon future.
Given that the project asset portfolio was initially planned for installation in 2020,
SmartHubs SLES would have been operational from third to beyond fifth UK carbon
budgets (CB), where reductions of 8.6% (third CB), 23.3% (fourth CB) and 11.5%
(fifth CB) are enshrined in UK law as it moves towards a legislated 2050 net zero
carbon deadline [30].
332 M. Royapoor et al.

Fig. 13.4 Smart Energy Platform data analysis

The modularised multiple-layer design of the SEP also makes the interoperability
and reuse of existing implementations possible [31]. It can be easily maintained,
customised or extended in the future for different applications and research pur-
poses.
A greater perspective of data management needed to be taken by the project
partners to safeguard the communication infrastructure, VPP management, user
identity and information and supply of services against cyber incidents. Initial stages
of cyber-security arrangement required encryption of data, firewall protection for
devices and authentication of users via secure digital apps. Cyber-security of energy
systems however is a new and evolving discipline, and against a number of global
energy-related incidents, additional protection and ongoing learnings are required
to adequately protect energy system integrity and service offering [32].

13.5 Discussion, Challenges and Findings

Over an initial project timespan of 24 months, the team experienced four notable
challenges, first the procurement process (which remains beyond the scope of this
chapter), second design and specification of individual assets and their onboard
control, third the design of a TVPP while avoiding control conflict and finally the
challenge of honouring autonomy of choice in particular for residential buildings
while retaining full flexibility of the asset portfolio to deliver auxiliary and balancing
services. The Covid-19 pandemic presented substantial logistical limitations since
250 homes required energy system retrofits with PV, behind the meter Li-ion battery
and ASHPs. This has meant a temporary halt of project activities; however the
design stage socio-economic insights of the project team can be summarised as
follows:
(i) There is little existing guidance on the contractual format and extent of asset
control that could maximise consumer adoption of data collection and remote
asset management while simultaneously maximising financial returns for VPP
platform providers.
13 The Role of Distributed Multi-vector Energy Assets in Economic. . . 333

(ii) The UK has a clear decarbonisation pathway through five carbon budgets that
are designed to provide forward guidance to businesses and communities.
Yet the shape and speed of decarbonisation trajectory (and future cost) of
different primary fuels carry substantial uncertainty. For instance, annual rate
of decarbonisation of grid electricity or the penetration (and economics) of
hydrogen in transport or heating vector (via blending with natural gas) can
only be studied across a broad range of plausible scenarios. The wide spread of
these scenarios propagates into large uncertainties that can hinder conclusive
results. This appears to suggest that TVPP design involving a wide range
of assets across multiple energy vectors will have to incorporate an iterative
aspect whereby an initial design aimed at system robustness is improved and
adjusted periodically to reflect learnings accumulated through operational data
and socio-technical realities that emerge with advancing time.
(iii) The UK has attempted to ease the participation in electricity markets via
its New Electricity Trading Agreement. This includes (i) future, (ii) day
ahead, (iii) reserve and (iv) real-time balancing markets. Despite having an
aggregate capacity to dispatch services at magnitudes of multiples MWs,
SmartHubs SLES asset availability could not be confidently guaranteed at its
maximum capacity given the multiplicity of stakeholders, operational regimes
and asset types. This limited TVPP participation in mostly intraday, ancillary
and real-time balancing markets, which may limit the full realisation of asset
profitability and the formation of contracts that are in place prior to asset
deployment.
(iv) Existing data to benchmark the current carbon intensity of UK power, heating
and transport vectors are limited and sporadic. This creates difficulties in
establishing a business-as-usual baseline which in turn allows quantifying the
amount of carbon saving achieved via the deployment of assets in isolation
and finally the added value of VPP. This can underestimate the value of a VPP
managing low carbon and DR-ready assets given the large CapEx required to
displace legacy alternatives. This is despite future carbon risks, for instance,
a VPP platform managing a SLES may emerge as more profitable in a future
scenario where increasing levels of carbon taxations are levied, which then
justifies upfront SLES CapEx.
From a technical perspective, the main project findings and challenges of VPP
design and characterisation are as follows:
(i) Most thermal conversion energy assets (heat pumps, hybrid boilers, etc.) are
underutilised over their working life. For the existing generation of thermal
conversion assets, their lack of adaptability to being remotely controlled via
a VPP platform (and yet delivering their duties in a more dynamic manner)
presents technical challenges in unlocking their additional value. A case may
exist for regulatory interventions to mandate thermal conversion asset designs
to support active involvement with power (and energy) systems management to
replace existing manufacturing practice of design as siloed entities with static
onboard control solutions.
334 M. Royapoor et al.

(ii) Actual levels of flexibility available to a VPP operator from real-world assets
(i.e. marine or air source heat pumps, electrolysers) are still not very well
defined by plant manufacturers. For instance, the number of plausible cycling
(on/off) that a piece of plant can be subjected to each hour without jeopardising
its integrity and the duration that the plant needs to remain operational after a
DR event before the asset is ready to be deployed to perform another DR service
are little understood in particular for heating and hydrogen plants.
(iii) Modelling the interactions between assets from multiple energy vectors
(heat/power/transport/hydrogen) is quite challenging as these energy vectors
are represented by different parameters, for instance, voltage, current and
frequency (power), mass flow and temperature (DH and thermal plants) and
Kg of H2 production (H2 electrolyser). This (when combined with the two
previous points) reduces the ability to extract combined flexibility of a multi-
vector energy system and added value of a VPP at design stage.
(iv) Taking heed of uncertainties outlined in (i)–(iii) in the form of a bandwidth
poses limitations to VPP design and its global optimum. This is particularly
challenging as future VPPs will have to reconcile cost, carbon and comfort
optimums with occupant autonomy and energy asset characteristics.
(v) Prior to the availability of operational data, existing parametric modelling
solutions have a limited scope to extract system features particularly of a multi-
vector, multi-site energy system and at low temporal resolutions. This hinders
determination of what emergent properties may follow from aggregating the
control of all assets. Therefore, the confidence in the design of a VPP for a
SLES system that fully exploits dynamic interaction between participants and
energy assets remains limited and speculative during SLES design and prior to
the availability of operational data.

13.6 Conclusion

This chapter reported on the initial findings of a smart local energy system (SLES)
demonstrator part funded by UK government and referred to as SmartHubs SLES.
While a solitary low-carbon energy asset can deliver carbon savings against compar-
ative conventional technologies, this demonstrator sought to deliver a much broader
range of cost and carbon benefits from aggregating heterogeneous RES assets using
a VPP platform. These additional services relied on low-loss fifth-generation district
energy, distributed generation and storage, EV charging and hydrogen electrolyser
assets to offer ancillary services, increase self-consumption via BTM batteries and
VPP signals, increase system virtual inertia through exploiting deferable loads
in domestic and commercial buildings and encourage prosumer activity, niche
technology deployment and energy entrepreneurship. Except for power system
assets, technical knowledge on how to deploy hydrogen and thermal plants for DR
events were found to be in early stages. This resulted in a conservative magnitude
of services that the demonstrator could offer in response to grid signals, which in
13 The Role of Distributed Multi-vector Energy Assets in Economic. . . 335

turn limited project ability to arrive at conclusive remarks on the economics of a

VPP and reduced the confidence of quantifiable revenue streams (from future energy
markets).
Most SLES asset entities were manufactured with onboard controls tasked with
a local optimum. This local control could be terminated by the VPP in preference
for a global optimal service that needed to observe stringent cycling thresholds
particularly with thermal and hydrogen assets containing liquid refrigerants and
pressurised fluids. While the number of cycles to failure and operational robustness
of power system components are well characterised, more manufacturer data is
required to allow future VPP design to fully exploit non-power system assets. This
is instrumental for SLES design as the load magnitude of heating and transport class
of assets are often substantial.
At SLES design stage, arriving at clarity on the combined value of distributed
assets is hindered by the order of priority of services and weighting of objectives
(cost, comfort, carbon, system integrity), levels of prosumer engagement and full
knowledge of asset performance under a DR event together with the location- and
case-specific formation of SLES portfolios. This will mean that an optimal design
for the governing VPP is more likely to be mapped post inauguration of energy
entities and through data-driven approaches that can extract unique system features
from actual analytics. Therefore, next-generation SLESs need to be commissioned
for operational robustness and are only likely to realise their full potential as VPP
entities from observed operational flexibilities, asset responsiveness, data-driven
machine learning insights and participant activity levels. It is only with advancing
time that such SLES portfolios can mature into dynamic agents capable of delivering
seasonally and diurnally different outcomes against a changing demand and supply
landscape.

References

1. Adu-Kankam, K. O., & Camarinha-Matos, L. M. (2018). Towards collaborative virtual power

plants: Trends and convergence. Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks, 16, 217–230.
2. Rouzbahani, H. M., Karimipour, H., & Lei, L. (2021). A review on virtual power plant for
energy management. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 47, 101370.
3. Cleveland, C. J. (2004). Encyclopedia of energy. Boston University.
4. Lund, H., et al. (2017). Smart energy and smart energy systems. Energy, 137, 556–565.
5. Department for Business, E.I.S (2020). UK energy in brief (BEIS, Ed.). Crown.
6. Koirala, B. P., et al. (2016). Energetic communities for community energy: A review of key
issues and trends shaping integrated community energy systems. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 56, 722–744.
7. Bronski, P., et al. (2014). The economics of grid defection: When and where distributed solar
generation plus storage competes with traditional utility service (pp. 1–73). Rocky Mountain
Institute.
8. CSIRO. (2013). Change and choice: The future grid forums analysis of Australia’s potential
electricity pathways to 2050. CSIRO.
336 M. Royapoor et al.

9. Koirala, B. P., et al. (2016). Local alternative for energy supply: Performance assessment of
integrated community energy systems. Energies, 9(12), 981.
10. Bačeković, I., & Østergaard, P. A. (2018). Local smart energy systems and cross-system
integration. Energy, 151, 812–825.
11. Young, J., & Brans, M. (2017). Analysis of factors affecting a shift in a local energy system
towards 100% renewable energy community. Journal of Cleaner Production, 169, 117–124.
12. Richter, L.-L., & Pollitt, M. G. (2018). Which smart electricity service contracts will consumers
accept? The demand for compensation in a platform market. Energy Economics, 72, 436–450.
13. Iria, J., & Soares, F. (2019). A cluster-based optimization approach to support the participation
of an aggregator of a larger number of prosumers in the day-ahead energy market. Electric
Power Systems Research, 168, 324–335.
14. Castagneto Gissey, G., et al. (2019). Value of energy storage aggregation to the electricity
system. Energy Policy, 128, 685–696.
15. Ford, R., et al. (2021). Smart local energy systems (SLES): A framework for exploring
transition, context, and impacts. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 166, 120612.
16. Department for Business, E.I.S. (2020). Guidance on heat networks. Available from: https://
www.gov.uk/guidance/heat-networks-overview
17. Lund, H., et al. (2010). The role of district heating in future renewable energy systems. Energy,
35(3), 1381–1390.
18. Sperling, K., & Möller, B. (2012). End-use energy savings and district heating expansion in a
local renewable energy system – A short-term perspective. Applied Energy, 92, 831–842.
19. Bialek, J. (2020). What does the GB power outage on 9 August 2019 tell us about the current
state of decarbonised power systems? Energy Policy, 146, 111821.
20. Bayrak, Z. U., et al. (2016). A low-cost power management system design for residential
hydrogen & solar energy based power plants. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy,
41(29), 12569–12581.
21. Dawood, F., Anda, M., & Shafiullah, G. M. (2020). Hydrogen production for energy: An
overview. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 45(7), 3847–3869.
22. Fakeeha, A., Ibrahim, A. A., Khan, W. U., Seshan, K., Al Otaibi, R. L., & Al-Fatesh, A. S.
(2018). Hydrogen production via catalytic methane decomposition over alumina supported
iron catalyst. Arabian Journal of Chemistry, 11, 405–414.
23. Chiesa, P., Romano, M. C., & Kreutz, T. G. (2013). 10 – Use of membranes in systems for
electric energy and hydrogen production from fossil fuels. In A. Basile (Ed.), Handbook of
membrane reactors (pp. 416–455). Woodhead Publishing.
24. Peng, X. D. (2012). Analysis of the thermal efficiency limit of the steam methane reforming
process. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 51(50), 16385–16392.
25. Schmidt, O., et al. (2017). Future cost and performance of water electrolysis: An expert
elicitation study. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 42(52), 30470–30492.
26. Simonis, B., & Newborough, M. (2017). Sizing and operating power-to-gas systems to absorb
excess renewable electricity. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 42(34), 21635–21647.
27. International Energy Agency. (2014). Energy technology perspectives 2014. International
Energy Agency.
28. Naval, N., & Yusta, J. M. (2021). Virtual power plant models and electricity markets – A
review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 149, 111393.
29. Wang, K., & Wade, N. (2021). An integration platform for optimised design and real-time
control of smart local energy systems. In 2021 12th international renewable energy congress
(IREC).
30. Royapoor, M., et al. (2019). Carbon mitigation unit costs of building retrofits and the scope for
carbon tax, a case study. Energy and Buildings, 203, 109415.
31. Wang, K., Siebers, P.-O., & Robinson, D. (2017). Towards generalized co-simulation of urban
energy systems. Procedia Engineering, 198, 366–374.
32. Bhuiyan, E. A., et al. (2021). Towards next generation virtual power plant: Technology review
and frameworks. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 150, 111358.
Index

A Carbon-free energy, 300, 304

Acceptability indicators, 75–76 Cascade cycles, 126
Adjustable intervals (AIs), 270 Chemical production, 24
Air separation unit (ASU), 304 Clean energy source (CES), 269
Air-sourced heat pumps (ASHPs), 325 Climate change, 23
Alkaline electrolysis (AEL), 28 Cloud-based VPP platforms/controllers, 321
electrolysis efficiency and issues, 30 “CO2 uptake potential,” 308
hydrogen production, 28, 29 Coal plants, 215
liquid alkaline electrolyte, 29 Colebrook’s equation, 65
Ancillary service (AS) program, 242 Column-and-constraint 321 eneration (C&CG),
Architectural framework, 45 146
Asynchronous operation, 236–237 Combined cooling heating, and power (CCHP),
Audi e-gas, 28 2
Average LMPs (Avg.LMPs), 283, 284, 286, Combined heat and power (CHP) systems, 2,
289, 290 41, 153, 200, 202, 270, 301
fuel cell technology, 165
nomenclature, 166–167
B problem formulation, 155
Benders’ decomposition, 269 CHP various technologies investment
Bidirectional compressors, 222 constraint, 158
Bidirectional integration, 50 electrical and heat energy, prices and
Black swan events, 140 loads of, 158–159
Blowdown flow, 110 electrical network, power flow
Boiler modeling cogeneration system, 110–113 constraints in the, 157
Boiler-entering heat, 111 electrical power, conversion of, 158
heat network constraints, 157–158
limitation of electrical and heat power,
C 158
CAMERE process, 304 objective function, 155–156
Capacity market (CM) program, 242 optimal placement, 165
Capital expenditure (CapEx), 323, 324, 333 simulation and analysis, 161–165
Carbon capture and storage (CCS), 301 study network and problem required data,
Carbon capture and utilization (CCU), 300 159–161
Carbon intensity reduction, 297–299 Combustion power plants (CPP), 304
Carbon sequestration, 299 Commercial VPP (CVPP), 330

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 337
V. Vahidinasab, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo (eds.), Whole Energy Systems, Power
Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87653-1
338 Index

Composite curve (CC), 97 implementation of EDRP and DEED

Cooling cycles, 124 models, 257
Coupling energy technologies, 8–10 integrated DRP and DEED, 258, 259
Coupling system, 57 integrated TOU and DEED models,
COVID-19 pandemic, 78, 79, 332 257–258
CPLEX solver, 184, 283 optimal incentive or tariff for DR, 258,
Critical Peak Pricing (CPP), 240 259
power system constraints, 256–257
status quo, 235
D use, 233
Decarbonisation, 50 Demand-side management (DSM) services,
Decarbonizing energy systems, 12–13 11–12, 195
Defender-attacker-defender (DAD), 145 Demand-side response (DSR), 67
Demand bidding (DB) program, 242 Desalination systems, 130
Demand response modeling Dimethyl ether (DME), 303
linear modeling, 244–245 vs. fuels, 311
logarithmic modeling, 248–249 combined cycle power plant, 312
power modeling, 246–248 direct method production, 313
price elasticity matrix, 243 economic studies, 313–314
Demand response programs (DRPs), 268, 269 environmental evaluation, 313
asynchronous operation, 236–237 fixed-bed reactor, 312
categories, 234 fuel-tested turbines in General Electric, 311
challenges, 235 indirect method production, 311–312
critical issues, 234 power generation costs, 314
demand response concepts, 238–239 synthesis, 312
demand response modeling uses, 310
linear modeling, 244–245 Direct Load Control (DLC) Program, 242–243
logarithmic modeling, 248–249 District heating (DH), 325
power modeling, 246–248 Domestic hot water (DHW), 325, 328
price elasticity matrix, 243 Dynamic economic emission dispatch (DEED),
different modes, 261 239
gas consumption curve, 260, 261
incentive-based programs
ancillary service (AS) program, 242 E
capacity market (CM) program, 242 Economic continuous rating (ECR), 112
demand bidding (DB) program, 242 Economic index, 307
direct load control (DLC) program, Electric and heat systems, 199
242–243 challenges and, 201–202
EDRP, 241 CHP units output, 210
interruptible/curtailable (IC) program, day-ahead charge and discharge power
241 time, 209
integrated electricity and gas systems, 260 day-ahead electricity and heat price curves,
linepack changes of gas pipelines, 261 207–208
PEM coefficients, 260 electricity and heat day-ahead demand
power consumption curve, 260, 261 values, 207
price-based programs heat and electricity conventional generators,
CPP, 240 210–211
RTP program, 240 heat load curve with charge/discharge, 208,
TOU program, 239 209
simultaneous operation model, 237–238 normalized and standard load curves, 207
DRP and DEED, 258–259 problem description, 202–204
gas flow along a pipe, 249, 252–254 problem formulation, 204–205
gas network constraints, 254–255 electricity system’s constraints, 205
Index 339

heat system’s constraints, 205–206 flexible compressors, 217

simulation, 211 flexible power plant, 220–222
thermal energy storage systems, 201 gas network from suppliers to consumers,
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), 141 217–218
Electric vehicles (EVs), 41 gas networks layers, 217
Electrical energy storage (EES), 23, 24 in gas or electricity networks, 227–228
Electrical energy supply, 171 integrated gas and electricity networks
Electrical power conversion, 158 annual operation cost saving vs. the
Electrical/thermal energy storages increase in the share of photovoltaic
(EESs/TESs), 270 systems, 227
Electricity and gas networks (EGNs), 139 characteristics of different generating
resilience units’ technologies, 226
assessment, 142 costs of low-flexible technologies in
concept, 139–141 different flexibility level, 226
definitions, 141 integrated operation of gas and electricity
methods for, 148, 149 networks, 223–224
resilience enhancement methods, 147 managerial insights, 228–229
hardening methods, 143–144 power-to-gas systems, 223
objective function of problem, 147–148 storage system, 218–220
triangle and trapezoid, 142–143 transmission expansion, 225
Electricity demand, 174–175 Flexible power plant, 220–222
Electricity generation, 216 Friction factor, 64
Electricity system’s constraints, 205 Fuel cells (FCs), 200, 272
Electrification roles, 12–13 Fuel consumption, 93
Electrolysis technologies, 29 Fuzzy adaptive modified particle swarm
Emergency demand response program optimization (FAMPSO) algorithm,
(EDRP), 241 154–155
Enabling technologies, 6
Endothermic thermal reduction, 303
Energy G
balance equations, 176–177 Gas flow along a pipe, 249, 252–254
hub concept, 170 Gas network constraints, 254–255
integration, 3, 93 Gas storage system, 215–220, 228, 235, 237,
intensity reduction, 294, 296 254
transition, 50 Gas turbine modeling, 109–110
Energy storage systems (ESSs), 201, 269 Gas-fired generators (GFG) technology, 138
Energy systems integration (ESI), 41, 80 Gas-fired power plants, 138
Environmental indicator, 74 General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS)
Environmental pollution, 162, 293 software, 184, 206, 281, 282
“Environmental Potential” index, 308 General Electric, 311
Environmental-friendly energy storages Generalised gas flow equation, 63
(EFESs), 268, 270 Genetic algorithm (GA), 154
European Union’s Horizon 2020, 305 German transmission and gas net operators,
Every energy sector, 199 269
Global carbon cycle, 300
Global CO2 emission, 86
Global warming, 15, 23, 85, 86, 88, 127, 139,
F 293, 294, 299, 308, 310
Fast ramping rate, 215 Grand composite curve (GCC), 96–97
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (FTS), 27, 35 Gray swan events, 139–140
Flexibility options Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, 23, 201,
bidirectional compressors, 222 204
electricity from suppliers to consumers, Grid congestions, 23
216, 217 Gross calorific value (GCV), 110
340 Index

H up scheduled reserve capacity from

Haber-Bosch process, 27, 35 various units, 286, 288
Hardening methods, EGNs, 143–144 SMILP, 270
Header modeling, letdown station, 113–114 status quo, 288–289
Heat and power cogeneration, 93–94 TBRDRPs, 270
Heat network constraints, 157–158 test system and data, 281, 282
Heat power ratio (HPR) values, 153, 163, 203 Hydrogen system, 175, 184
Heat pumps (HPs), 41 Hydrogenation, 27
Heat system’s equality constraint, 205–206
Hybrid desalination systems, 130–131
analyzing cogeneration potential, effect of I
desalination systems, 133 Incentive-based programs, DRPs
environmental effects, 133–134 ancillary service (AS) program, 242
targeting process consumption, 131–132 capacity market (CM) program, 242
Hybrid energy systems (HESs), 169, 199, 202, demand bidding (DB) program, 242
204 direct load control (DLC) program,
Hydrogen production, 27 242–243
Hydrogen storage system (HSS) EDRP, 241
Avg.LMPs, 283, 284, 286, 289, 290 interruptible/curtailable (IC) program, 241
centralized and decentralized ESSs, 269 Independent system operator (ISO), 284
CES, 269 Indicators, 42
challenges, 289 Information and communication technology
comprehensive illustration, 271 (ICT), 10–11
DRPs, 268 Information-gap decision theory (IGDT), 144
EFESs, 268 Integrated community energy systems (ICESs),
facilitating the accretion of RESs, 272 323
first stage, 276–278 Integrated demand response program (IDR),
graphical representation for whole 269
integration, 268 Integrated energy system (IES), 2, 44, 137, 138
IDR, 269 challenges and barriers, 13–17
increasing system flexibility, 272–273 complex systems, 14
MCES, 270 coupling energy technologies, 8–10
mechanism, 271–272 demand-side management, 11–12
MGs, 269 electrification role, 12–13
modeling of uncertain nature, 273–274 information and communication technology
objective function, 274–275 (ICT), 10–11
PEVs, 268 keywords, 6
second stage, 278–280 in market condition, 15
simulation and analysis of results non-coupling energy technologies, 10
comparison of hourly power generation, required technologies, 8
286, 287 Sankey diagram, 2
costs of, 287, 290 schematic diagram, 5
CPLEX solver, 283 VOSviewer software, 6
down scheduled reserve capacity from Interconnected hybrid energy systems (IHESs),
various units, 286, 287 170
hourly power generation, 283 modeling, 174–175
ISO, 284 optimal coalition operation framework, 173
LMPs, 283, 284, 289 problem formulation
MILP, 282 coalition operation of, 180–182
scheduled charge/discharge power, 285, individual operation of HES, 175180
286 simulation and numerical
scheduled up and down reserves, 284, electrical power, optimal dispatch of,
285 191–192
Index 341

HES1 electrical optimal power flow, Market size, 307

187 MATLAB, 61
HES1 optimal cooling flow, 189 Maximum continuous rating (MCR), 112
HES1 optimal heating flow, 188 Mechanical compression refrigeration,
HES1 optimal hydrogen flow, 190 125–126
hydrogen demand loads, 186 Membrane desalination systems, 130
hydrogen system, 186 Methanation, 27
input data, 182–185 Methanol economy, 300
status quo, challenges, 192–195 Micro-energy grid (MEG) architecture, 171
Internal combustion engines (ICEs), 200 MINLP model, 154
International Energy Agency, 85–87 Mixed-integer linear programming (MILP)
International Energy Agency’s Hydrogen model, 282
Projects Database, 289 optimization, 184
International Renewable Energy Agency problem, 172
(IRENA), 267, 272 Model-based systems engineering (MBSE), 45
Interruptible/curtailable (IC) program, 241 Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) algorithm, 270
Iran, power plants Moody chart, 65
amount of CO2 emissions, 295, 296, 298 Multi-carrier energy system (MCES), 2, 270
amount of special production during Multidimensional evaluation, 44
2009–2019, 295 Multi-energy microgrids (MGs), 269
CO2 mitigation Multigeneration system
carbon intensity reduction, 297–299 cogeneration system, 105
carbon sequestration, 299 boiler, modeling, 110–113
CCS, 301 gas turbine, modeling, 109–110
CCU, 300 header, modeling letdown station of,
energy intensity reduction, 294, 296 113–114
feasible sequestration process, 299 modeling steam turbine, 106–109
emission rate of carbon oxides, 297 targeting, 114–117
fuel consumption during 2009–2019, 295 efficiency, role of, 85–89
nominal power of biggest combustion energy and process integration, 93
power plant, 297 Greek signs, 84
share of each fuel in special production, heat and power, cogeneration of, 93–94
294, 296 hybrid desalination systems, 130–131
analyzing cogeneration potential, effect
of desalination systems, 133
L environmental effects, 133–134
Laminar flow, 65 targeting process consumption,
Latent heat of vaporization (LHV), 303 131–132
Li-ion battery, 328, 332 membrane desalination systems, 130
Linear modeling, DR, 244–245 pinch analysis, TSCC and SCC graph,
Linear optimization, 91 96–98
Liquefied oxygen (LOx), 27 consumption of heating services using
Liquid organic hydrogen carriers (LOHC), 272 graphs, 102–105
Liquid petroleum gas (LPG), 303 drawing and analyzing, 99–101
Local marginal prices (LMPs), 269, 283, 284 generation and consumption of heating
Logarithmic modeling, DR, 248–249 and cooling services using, 101–102
Low-impact and high-probability (LIHP), 139 status quo, challenges and outlook, 84–85
thermal desalination systems, 130
total site integration, 94–96
for coupling desalination and steam
M network, 128–130
Machine learning (ML) algorithm, 331 mechanical compression refrigeration,
Managerial insights, 228–229 types of, 125–126
Marine-sourced heat pumps (MSHPs), 329 refrigerant, selecting, 126–128
342 Index

Multigeneration system (cont.) consumption of heating services using

refrigeration and steam network graphs, 102–105
coupling through, 123 drawing and analyzing, 99–101
refrigeration networks, 123–124 generation and consumption of heating
targeting and modeling, 128 and cooling services using, 101–102
Total Site Utility system, criteria for design Plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs), 172, 268
and optimization of, 117 Polygeneration
cogeneration system evaluation, challenges, 315
117–120 CHP process, 301
system economically, evaluating and CO2 mitigation, 304–306
modeling, 120–122 coal-based polygeneration plant, 302
utility system, 89–93 CO2 /H2 O splitting, 302, 303
variables, 83–84 DME, 303
Multi-period optimal power flow (MOPF), 269 power-to-X (see Power-to-X process)
Multiple energy system (MES), 171 RDF, 301
Multistage cycle, 126 status quo, 315
Multivectoral evaluation, 44 syngas, 302, 303
WGS reaction, 302
Polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM), 28,
N 31–32, 272
National Association of Regulatory Utility Power flow constraints, 157
Commissioners (NARUC), 141 Power grids, 139
National Infrastructure Advisory Council Power modeling, DR, 246–248
(NIAC), 141 Power system constraints, 256–257
Net calorific value (NCV), 110 Power utility, 92
Non-coupling energy technologies, 10 Power-to-gas (PtG), 36, 41, 171
North of Tyne (NoT) region electrolysis of water, 26
commercial and industrial consumption, 50 PtH2 (see Power-to-hydrogen (PtH2))
conceptual modelling systems, 223
constituent system level, 54–58 technological chain of, 26
context level, 52–53 Power-to-hydrogen (PtH2)
system-of-systems level, 53–54 electrolysis, 27
whole system level, 58–59 steam methane reforming (SMR), 26
decarbonise heating, 49 water electrolysis technologies, 28
energy transition, 48 Power-to-liquid (PtL), 34–36
measure of effectiveness, 61 Power-to-X (PtX) concepts
scenario formulation, 50–51 carbon dioxide capture and utilization
total energy consumption, 49 (CCU) technology, 24
traceability, 60 chemical renewable energy storage, 24
energy carriers, 24
power-to-gas (PtG)., 25
O power-to-liquid (PtL), 25
Optimal fuel consumption, 117 process chain of, 25
Optimal operation model, 78 Power-to-X process, 294
Oxygen careers (OC), 302 ASU, 304
CPP, 304
dimethyl ether
P vs. fuels, 311
Particle swarm optimization (PSO), 155, 171 combined cycle power plant, 312
Petrochemical plant, 309–310 direct method production, 313
Photovoltaic panels (PV), 23 economic studies, 313–314
Pinch analysis environmental evaluation, 313
TSCC and SCC graph, 96–98 fixed-bed reactor, 312
Index 343

fuel-tested turbines in General Electric, S

311 Sankey diagram, 2
indirect method production, 311–312 SCC and TSCC graphs
power generation costs, 314 consumption of heating services using
synthesis, 312 graphs, 102–105
uses, 310 drawing and analyzing, 99–101
economic evaluation, 307 generation and consumption of heating and
environmental, health, and safety cooling services using, 101–102
evaluation, 308 SCENRED tool, 281
process flow sheet, 305 Security, 140
technical evaluation, 306–307 Self-sufficiency, 76
urea Simulation model output parameters, 62
environmental evaluation, 309, 310 Simultaneous operation model, DRPs,
method of production, 308–309 237–238
petrochemical plant production, DRP and DEED, 258–259
309–310 gas flow along a pipe, 249, 252–254
Predicted interval (PI), 270 gas network constraints, 254–255
Presence of power-to-hydrogen (P2Hy) implementation of EDRP and DEED
technology, 173 models, 257
Price elasticity matrix (PEM), 243, 245, 260, integrated DRP and DEED, 258, 259
262 integrated TOU and DEED models,
Price-based programs, DRPs 257–258
CPP, 240 optimal incentive or tariff for DR, 258, 259
RTP program, 240 power system constraints, 256–257
TOU program, 239 Single-carrier energy systems, 2
Process industry, 89 Site composite curve (SCC), 98
Process integration, 93 consumption of heating services using
Progressive hedging algorithm (PHA), 146 graphs, 102–105
Proton exchange membrane (PEM) technology, drawing and analyzing, 99–101
326, 327 generation and consumption of heating and
P2X technologies, 172–173, 192, 193 cooling services using, 101–102
Smart energy platform (SEP), 331
Smart energy systems (SES), 322, 323
Q Smart local energy system (SLES), 324–327,
Quantitative model, 70, 78 330–331, 333–335
Smart micro-energy hub (SMEH), 172
SmartHubs SLES, 327, 330, 331, 333, 334
Socio-technical approach, 79
R Solid oxide electrolysis (SOE), 28
R-curve graph, 119 power-to-methane (PtM)
Real-Time Pricing (RTP) program, 240 biological methanation, 34
Refuse-derived fuel (RDF), 301 catalytic methanation, 33–34
Relative added value, 307 SoS-ACRE architectural framework, 47, 48
Reliability, 216 Steam turbine cogeneration system, 106–109
Reliability indicators, 76 Stochastic mixed-integer linear programming
Renewable District heating systems, 201 (SMILP), 270
Renewable energy generation, 69 Storage system, 218–220
Renewable energy resources (RERs), 169 Stored hydrogen, 172
Renewable energy sources (RES), 23 Substitute natural gas (SNG), 32
Renewable-based microgrid (RMG), 269 Supply and electrical demand, 23
RES integration, 69, 74 Swarm optimization, 154
Reverse water-gas-shift (RWGS) reaction, 35 SWOT matrix, 307
Robust optimization method, 145, 170 Syngas, 302, 303
344 Index

System United Nations International Strategy for

architecture, 45 Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), 141
performance, 46 Urea, 308–310
requirements, 45 US Energy Agency, 233
stakeholders’ requirements, 79 Utility multigeneration system, 89–93
thinking, 43
Systemic evaluation, 44
System-of-systems (SoS), 45 V
System-of-systems architecture methodology, Vector coupling
79 components, 69
in energy systems
advantages of, 13
T definition, 7
Technical VPP (TVPP), 330 energy sector, 3
Techno-economic energy, 170 integrating multi-energy systems, 4
Teraton challenge, 300 multi-energy systems, 6
Thermal desalination systems, 130 power-to-X technologies, 4
Thermal energy storage systems, 201 using CHP units, 4
Time of Use (TOU) program, 239 solution, 326–327
Time-based rate DRPs (TBRDRPs), 270 technologies, 7, 41, 52, 56
Total Site approach, 91 Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology, 328
Total Site composite curve (TSCC), 97–98 Virtual power plant (VPP)
consumption of heating services using 2019 UK energy mix statistics, 322, 323
graphs, 102–105 benefits, 330
drawing and analyzing, 99–101 challenges, 322, 330, 332–334
generation and consumption of heating and consumer attitude, shared assets and
cooling services using, 101–102 monetising flexibility, 324–325
Total Site integration, 94–96 design stage socio-economic insights,
for coupling desalination and steam 332–333
network, 128–130 district heating, 325
refrigeration and steam network coupling heating vector, 328
through, 123 hydrogen as vector coupling solution,
mechanical compression refrigeration, 326–327
types of, 125–126 local vs. centralised, 329
refrigerant, selecting, 126–128 MSHPs, 328
refrigeration networks, 123–124 power vector, 328
targeting and modeling, 128 SEP, 331
Total Site Utility system SES, 322–324
criteria for design and optimization of, 117 SmartHubs SLES, 327
cogeneration system evaluation, status quo, 322
117–120 transport vector, 328–330
system economically, evaluating and unlocking value of data, 331–332
modeling, 120–122 V2G technology, 328
Transformers, 216 Vision of future energy networks (VOFEN),
Trapezoid resilience, 142–143 170
Triangle resilience, 142–143
Turbine-passing mass, 115
Turbulent flow, 65 W
Water electrolysis, 30
Water pinch, 131–132
U Water-gas shift (WGS) reaction, 302
UK carbon budgets (CB), 331 Weibull probability density function (PDF),
UK Energy Research Center (UKERC), 141 273
Index 345

White swan events, 139 multidimensional, multivectoral and

Whole energy systems (WES) systemic, 42
approach, 41 quantitative modelling
acceptability indicators, 75–76 model parameters, 69–70
complexity, 78 network data, 67–68
environmental indicators, 73–75 network model, 59–67
evaluation framework security indicators, 76–77
framework design, 45–46 systems thinking, 43
framework implementation, 46–48 Willan line, 107, 109
evaluation principles, 42, 44 Wind energy sources (WESs), 267, 269, 270,
indicators, 42 273, 274, 276–279, 281, 282, 288
limitations, 78–79 Wind turbines (WT), 23