4.7 Article

Hybrid assessment for a hybrid microgrid: A novel methodology to critically analyse generation technologies for hybrid microgrids

Journal

RENEWABLE ENERGY
Volume 157, Issue -, Pages 874-887

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2020.05.095

Keywords

Hybrid microgrids; Renewable energy; ANP; Rural electrification

Funding

  1. Spanish public administration [FPU2016/00962]
  2. regional public administration of Valencia [ACIF/2018/106]
  3. Food and Agriculture Organisation [332412]
  4. Catedra de Transicion Energetica Urbana (Las Naves-UPV)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Eighty per cent of the people without access to electricity live in rural areas. Due to high investment costs in the grid, the solution to providing electricity to these people will mainly rely on the installation of islanded hybrid microgrids. Designers need to consider a variety of factors for the optimal design of hybrid microgrids. However, many of these criteria are qualitative or uncertain. This paper provides a novel methodology to assess the influence of such criteria in the design of a Hybrid Microgrid of Renewable Energy Sources (HRES). The method combines context analysis, literature review and the Analytic Network Process (ANP) through panels of experts and surveys. The methodology ranked the criteria and helped to design a HRES in an isolated Honduran rural community in the Mesoamerican Dry Corridor. The study presents a review and classification of the main criteria and energy technologies considered for the design of HRESs in rural communities. The most influential factors turned out to be the institutional support, the possible expansion of the grid to the community and the availability of local energy resources. Regarding energy technologies, photovoltaic and wind power ranked as the preferred followed by a biomass gasifier as backup. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available