See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/364602602

Allocation of optimal energy from storage systems using solar energy

Article  in  Energy Reports · November 2022

DOI: 10.1016/j.egyr.2022.10.033

CITATIONS READS

0 27

9 authors, including:

Abhishek Madduri Manickam Ravichandran

Duke University K.Ramakrishnan College of Engineering, Samayapuram, Trichy – 621112
9 PUBLICATIONS   84 CITATIONS    380 PUBLICATIONS   3,792 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ravishankar Sathyamurthy Mohanavel Vinayagam

King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals Bharath University
328 PUBLICATIONS   7,226 CITATIONS    319 PUBLICATIONS   3,001 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

WELDING View project

Biofuels View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abhishek Madduri on 25 October 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect

Energy Reports 8 (2022) 836–846

www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

2022 International Conference on Energy Storage Technology and Power Systems (ESPS 2022),
February 25–27, 2022, Guilin,China

Allocation of optimal energy from storage systems using solar energy

Kasiprasad Mannepallia , Vinoth K.b , Saumendra Kumar Mohapatrac , Rahul R.d ,
Durga Prasad Gangodkare , Abhishek Maddurif , M. Ravichandrang ,∗,
Ravishankar Sathyamurthyh,i , V. Mohanavelj,k
a Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation, Vaddeswaram, Guntur, Andhra
Pradesh 522502, India
b Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Vel Tech Rangarajan Dr. Sagunthala R&D Institute of Science and Technology, Avadi,

Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600062, India

c School of Information Technology, SRM University Sikkim, India
d Department of Mathematics, BMS College of Engineering, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560019, India
e Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Graphic Era Deemed to be University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248002, India
f Department of Engineering Management, Duke University, 305 Teer Engineering Building Box, North Carolina 27708, USA
g Department of Mechanical Engineering, K. Ramakrishnan College of Engineering, Samayapuram, Tamil Nadu 621112, India
h Department of Mechanical Engineering, KPR Institute of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore, Arasur 641407, Tamil Nadu, India
i Department of Mechanical Engineering, University Centre for Research & Development, Chandigarh University, Gharuan,

Mohali, Punjab, India

j Centre for Materials Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai 600073, Tamil

Nadu, India
k Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Technology, Glocal University, Delhi-Yamunotri Marg, Uttar Pradesh, 247121, India

Received 28 September 2022; accepted 3 October 2022

Available online xxxx

Abstract
In order to reduce carbon emissions, a growing reliance on renewable energy sources such as solar energy is required. As a
result of their ability to store excess solar electricity that may be used at a later time to reduce waste and increase utility profits,
battery energy storage systems (BESSs) have emerged as a factor for power systems that integrates solar power system. BESSs
are traditionally put on buses in solar farms, allowing extra electricity via solar to be stored instantaneously and transmission line
losses to be kept to an absolute minimum. According to this placement strategy, BESS is exclusively built in the proximity of
solar power plants. In this way, deployment of BESS without network topology consideration, and collaboration among BESSs
is limited with capacity pooling to store excess electricity from photo voltaic (PV) panels. In this paper, we develop an optimal
deployment of BESSs and it is associated with the estimation of the capacity using a multi-objective constraint modelling. The
soft margin classifier minimize the curtailment associated with solar energy that considers both the power flow constraint and
network topology. The results of entire model shows that the proposed soft margin classifier is efficient in storing the surplus
power in the batter devices than other methods.

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: smravichandran@hotmail.com (M. Ravichandran).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.10.033
2352-4847/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:
//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Energy Storage Technology and Power Systems
ESPS 2022.
K. Mannepalli, Vinoth K., S.K. Mohapatra et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 836–846

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Energy Storage Technology and Power Systems ESPS
2022.

Keywords: Allocation; Energy; Storage systems; Solar energy; PV modules

1. Introduction
The idea of renewable energy (RE) has increased since decades [1]. The intermittent nature of the supply of
renewable energy (RE) increases the volatility of power generation at its sudden absence [2]. Consequently, the
reliability of renewable energy-integrated power systems is a challenge, as most current generators are incapable
of responding rapidly enough to compensate for intermittent losses of renewable energy. However, if no storage
facilities are available, excess renewable energy must be curtailed, reducing the potential earnings of renewable
energy farm owners [3–5]. When confronted with these difficulties, ESS as in Fig. 1 emerges as one of the most
promising solutions with its ability of RE time shift at real-time requirements [6]. That is to say, any excess RE can
be kept for future use. Because of this innovation, intermittent electricity and waste are no longer a concern in the
renewable energy sector. Aside from the fact that they are expensive and have poor conversion efficiency, ESSs have
not been widely used in the past. The dynamic thermal rating system have taken precedence over other technologies,
such as demand response programmes [7]. Recent scientific and economic developments in ESS technology, on the
other hand, have made it more viable than previous generations of technologies [8].

Fig. 1. ESS models.

The reliability of renewable energy-integrated power systems improves when ESS is implemented, but the nature
of this improvement is not fully understood. Price arbitrage, peak shaving, and postponing the upgrade of grid assets
837
K. Mannepalli, Vinoth K., S.K. Mohapatra et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 836–846

are all advantages of using energy storage systems (ESSs), in addition to lowering the intermittency of renewable
energy (RE) [9]. As a result of the intricate interactions across ESS-powered power networks, numerous studies
have been conducted in an attempt to forecast and optimize them. Optimized ESS placements have resulted in peak
reduction, energy arbitrage, and the deferral of grid asset upgrades, among other benefits in the aforementioned
applications [10].
However, despite the aforementioned contributions, the studies described above have revealed significant
inadequacies that are shared by all of the studies included.
• Their first focus was on the integration and optimization of BESS-provided applications. This research has
never been considered in this research, nor has it been determined how much of an influence it could have
on renewable energy intermittency, which limits the amount of money that renewable energy farm owners can
earn.
• The variability and timing of ESS and RE in electricity networks are ignored, resulting in a negative
influence on power flows. Therefore, outcomes are frequently inflated, thereby increasing the operational risk
in real-world situations.
• Given the fact that all of the meta-heuristic studies we have looked at have employed sub-optimal ESS sizing
and locations, there a significant possibility that we will end up in local minima optimality at some point. As
a result of the difficulties of dealing with both site selection and equipment sizing issues at the same time,
this has resulted in this outcome. Premature convergence is a risk that must be avoided in order to prevent
solutions from becoming less optimum.
• Because most prior research concentrated on distribution grids, the published power flow formulas are not
instantly applicable to mesh transmission grids for the fourth time in a row. This is the method by which
active power flows are identified. Because distribution networks can only handle smaller RE networks.

2. Related works
Analysis and meta-heuristic techniques are employed to maximize these benefits, which include direct numerical
computation via thorough mathematical modelling, random and iterative procedures instead of ESS placement, and
direct numerical computation through detailed mathematical modelling as in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Optimization techniques for ESS placement.

The authors in [11] describes how the authors employed an index approach for measuring loss sensitivity to
optimize the location of their distribution network, utilizing the parameters of battery ESS (BESS) to improve their
placements of distribution network. LSEI is defined as the total power loss, and the BESS parameter is defined as
the generated power by BESS. The authors [12] used stochastic MILP to determine the appropriate capacity and
838
K. Mannepalli, Vinoth K., S.K. Mohapatra et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 836–846

placement of BESS in order to maximize the energy and reduce the cost, hence lowering the overall cost of the
system. The authors of [13,14] demonstrate how to optimize battery allocation as a transmission line compensator
by combining an economic dispatch with mixed-integer unit.
Using modified impedance matrix analysis, the authors of [14] propose a new analytic-based optimization
technique that may be used to replace the recursive load flow algorithm by predicting the power exchange between
BESS and PV deployments and so reducing energy consumption. The optimal allocation problem must first be
decomposed, and then the solutions generated via Bender decomposition [15] and bi-level MILP [16] must be
subjected to an operational assessment that improves the solution feasibility using decomposition techniques.
According to the authors in [17], Bender decomposition can be used to optimize the size and placement of
compressed air energy storage (CAES) and battery energy storage systems (BESS), respectively. In transmission
grids, a combination of RE and BESS, as well as transmission reinforcement, is used, according to [17], a bi-level
MILP developed by the IEEE.
In contrast to the authors of [18], who have a single-stage optimization framework. The authors of [19] have a
three-stage optimization framework that gradually conducts optimum allocation, load aggregation, and power flow
in a coordinated manner over time. The authors of [20] proposed a bi-objective optimization framework that makes
use of the m-constraint model in order to discover the most cost-effective trade-off solutions. In order to reduce the
amount of computing required, the number of viable solutions was reduced by a factor of 100.

3. Proposed method
This model develops an optimal deployment of BESSs and it is associated with the estimation of the capacity
using a multi-objective constraint modelling. The soft margin classifier minimize the curtailment associated with
solar energy that considers both the power flow constraint and network topology and shown as schematic in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3. ESS models.

3.1. PV system

To construct a PV module, PV cells are interconnected in series and parallel, with a PV cell serving as the basic
building block between each connection. The output power of PV is shown to be mostly reliant on the operating
839
K. Mannepalli, Vinoth K., S.K. Mohapatra et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 836–846

parameters indicated by temperature and solar irradiation in Eq. (1).

( )
W (
Ph = M P V PP R 1 + Tco f f (25 − Tambient ) η0 η R
)
W0
where
Ph — PV output
P P R — PV rated power output
M P V — Total PV units.
W — Global irradiance
W0 — Standard solar irradiance under STC
Tco f f — Temperature coefficient when PV is at its maximum power
Tambient — Ambient temperature
ηv — Inverter efficiency
η R — Relative efficiency.

3.2. Problem formulation

A detailed discussion of ESSs and PV operation techniques is provided in this section, which also explains a
two-stage optimization approach for optimizing ESS allocation and PV operation in order to maximize SCR, boost
HC, and minimize PV operating costs as much as possible. There is no other work that we are aware of that proposes
the objective functions that we present in this study! Consider this mathematical statement of the problem under
consideration:
To formulate the objective function (OF), there are two processes that must be completed. At this point, the
following BESS allocation decisions were made in order to boost PV self-consumption rates in the following ways:
H (
E RES (s, h)
∑ )
OF (i) = max ψ (x) =
h=1
Rates
E RES (s, h)
where
ψ(x) — self-consumption rate of batteries.
The optimal operation strategies for the PV were developed in accordance with the outcomes of the first stage
(size, position, and total BESSs), and they were as follows:
H (
∑ )
grid
OF = min Tcos t (x) = Ph + Ph + PhP V + B SC D
h=1
where
Tcost (x) — operational cost ($/kWh), Generation costs of PV ($/kWh), and overall cost per day of BESSs ($/day).
E R E S s, h — total energy of PV generated at a time instant h
E rated
R E S s, h — total rated energy of PV generated at a time instant h
h — total number of time step per hour, and
H — 24 h horizon.
grid
Ph — grid output power at a time instant h
PhP V — PV output power at a time instant h
grid
Bh — market price of PV at a time instant h
PV
bh — bidding price of PV at a time instant h
It is required to first compute the total number of cycles completed by the BESS (Bcycles ) in order to establish the
battery lifetime before applying Equations (9 and 10) to determine the BESS capital cost (B SC ). This is necessary
since the BESS capital cost is dependent as in following equation.
n B (h, j) = ya(h) − ya(h−1) ya(h) ∀h ∈ H, ∀j ∈ D
( )

D ∑
∑ H
Bc = n B (h, j)
j=1 h=1
840
K. Mannepalli, Vinoth K., S.K. Mohapatra et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 836–846

As a result, based on the battery life cycle (B Li f e ) and the number of BC , the following is the predicted lifetime
of BESS (Life B S ), in terms of battery cycles:
Bli f e
Li f e B S =
BC
where
n B (h, j) — cycles as a function of h and j,
j — Working day and j ∈ D
D — total working days i.e. D = 365.
ya (h) — binary variable of BESS at j and h, ya = 0.
Over the duration of the project, a total of ten replacements will be made.
Z
R BB S =
Li f e B S
It is therefore possible to calculate the BSCD ($/day) as below:
i (i + 1)z
( )
1
BSCD = × B Sc × R N B S
D (i + 1)z − 1
where
i — interest rate for financing the BESS.

3.3. Soft margin classifier

It is improbable that you will be able to obtain an exact line splitting of the data in a real-world circumstance.
It is possible that our selection border has become distorted. If the data contains noise, it may not be advantageous
to use a hyperplane that fully separates the data from one another. It is preferable to avoid curves or loops around
outliers than it is to ignore some data points entirely. The term slack variables is used to characterize the situation
in this case. Currently, as of right now,
yi (w′ x + b) ≥ 1 − Sk .
This permits a point to be a very small distance (Sk ) away from the hyperplane without causing the restriction to
be broken. As a result, in the event that we wind up with a high number of slack variables, we get the Lagrangian
variable, which penalizes the large slack variables.
∑ ( ( ∑
min L = 0.5ww ′ − λk yk w′ xk + b + sk − 1 + α
) )
sk
k k

When data is reduced, data that falls on the erroneous side of the hyperplane is identified as outliers, resulting
in a more smooth decision boundary.

4. Results and discussions

In this optimization, we are aiming to improve the performance of the IEEE 24-bus RTN, which has 38
transmission lines and 32 CGUs distributed between 10 generating buses and 17 load buses. Another way to say
it is that Region 1 has a greater voltage rating than Region 3, which indicates that it is positioned at the top of
the network, while Region 3, which is located at the bottom, has a lower voltage rating. Region 2, which connects
Regions 1 and 3, is the nerve centre of the network.
The study period is of 15 year period of data spanning between 2015 and 2021 with a resolution of one hour.
This generation system has a fixed solar penetration level making it the most energy efficient system available. This
figure has been chosen based on the optimal solar power penetration, as determined by our previous study findings.
Network constraints have not been taken into consideration. Detailed information about the RTN solar farm buses
and their carrying capacities is provided in Table 1.
According to the two-step optimizations proposed, the second and third columns of Table 2 demonstrate the ideal
locations of the buses in which BESSs should be positioned, respectively, for the proposed two-step optimizations.
841
K. Mannepalli, Vinoth K., S.K. Mohapatra et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 836–846

Table 1. Solar farm buses and capacity.

Bus Capacity (MW)
1 172
2 76
13 394
15 12
18 400
20 100
22 100
23 505

Table 2. BESS capacity and placement.

Bus Real capacity (MW) PV capacity (%)
1 172 75
2 76 3
13 394 3
15 12 9
18 400 7
20 100 2
22 100 2
23 505 2

Taking into consideration that RTN is large, multiple potential BESS deployments were discovered in the first
section of the optimization, resulting in solutions 1, 2, and 3 in the table. Every solution uses a BESS that is
put on eight buses, with six of those buses (buses 1, 2, 8, 13, 15 and 16) being shared between the two options.
Additionally, there are two buses that are exclusive to each solution: buses 18 and 23, 18 and 19, and 17 and 23,
in solutions 1, 2, and 3. There are also two buses that are specific to each solution: buses 18 & 23, 18 & 19, and
17 & 23, in solution 3. It is impossible to meet this restriction if any of the three solution six common buses are
deleted, as this would result in some buses losing direct connections to deployed BESSs. When placing BESSs on
buses with solar farms, such as those represented in Table 1, a conventional way is to adopt a technique known as
partial optimization.
A better-named option is one that takes advantage of the ideal distribution of BESS capacity that is achieved by
the usual deployment method. Even with the ideal capacity distribution of BESSs, bus 1, which is located in RTN
area 3, is the focal point for more than 70% of the BESS capacity. This is due to the fact that the bulk of solar farms
are located in RTN e regions 1 and 2, whilst the majority of the load is placed in the bottom half of RTN e region
3. Network congestion is therefore more likely to occur in Region 3, decreasing power flow and necessitating more
frequent blackouts at the region solar farms as a result of the increased demand.
By looking at the distribution of BESS capacity in Table 2, it is possible to explain the inconsistencies between
these three solutions, which were determined based on their individual BESS placements. According to the table,
buses 1 and 2 (solutions 1, 2, and 3) account for 78%, 85%, and 84% of the total BESS capacity, respectively. This
is owing to the fact that buses 1 and 2 are located in the RTN region, which is susceptible to network congestion
as a result of the same variables described previously, which explains why BESS capacity is concentrated on these
two buses.
Additionally, as illustrated in Fig. 4a, these buses are equipped with two solar farms, which together account for
38% of the RTN total solar curtailment level prior to the deployment of BESSs. Given that buses 1 and 2 have the
highest BESS capacity, a considerable surplus of solar energy can be kept without the need to be carried elsewhere,
lowering losses during transmission and increasing the solar energy retained. Therefore, it has the lowest ESEC of
the options 1 to 3 because of the increased BESS capacity on buses 1 and 2. As shown in Fig. 4b, the ESEC of
solution 2 is 1.91% lower than the 681 MWh/year supplied by partial optimization when compared to the ESEC of
solution 1. It is important to note that even though both solutions have an optimal distribution of BESS capacity.
As a matter of fact, it is even worse than the partial optimization solution, which has a lowered ESEC 1.5% lower
than the worst-performing methods.
842
K. Mannepalli, Vinoth K., S.K. Mohapatra et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 836–846

Fig. 4a. Optimum capacity distribution scenario.

Fig. 4b. ESEC solutions in optimized scenario.

As illustrated in Fig. 5, a decrease in the DOD of storage results in an increase in the total cost of PV operation.
By decreasing DOD from 100% to 50%, PV total operating expenses would climb from $132,122.2 to $157,170.2
at 95% efficiency, resulting in a $132,122.2 increase in total operating costs. This is seen in the same image by the
fact that the fraction of saving decreases as the DOD of storage decreases. At 95% efficiency, reducing DOD from
100% to 50% would result in a 18.6% point reduction in the proportion of savings, for a total reduction of 18.6%
points. Fig. 5 further demonstrates that the NaS battery, with an efficiency of 95% and a DOD of 100%, had the
lowest operating expenses of all the batteries tested.
When the solar panels are operating at different levels of efficiency and DOD, the total power lost by the solar
panels is illustrated in Fig. 6. The total daily power losses of the PV system are reduced as a result of the increase in
storage efficiency indicated in Fig. 6. While the PV is operating at 100% DOD, each % point increase in efficiency
results in a reduction in daily power losses from 1632.8 kW to 1500.5 kW. According to the same figure, the overall
power losses of the PV system per day decrease when the DOD of the storage falls in most cases. According to one
estimate, reducing DOD from 100% to 50% would result in a daily reduction of PV power losses of 1500.5 kW to
1364.9 kW when operating at 95% efficiency. Depending on whether storage efficiency improves or decreases, the
total power losses of the PV system every day may be readily seen in the figure.
843
K. Mannepalli, Vinoth K., S.K. Mohapatra et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 836–846

Fig. 5. Total saved energy.

Fig. 6. Losses.

5. Conclusions

In this study, a soft margin classifier is recommended in this study in order to extract the maximum benefit from
BESSs in networks. The initial section of the structure is intended to limit BESS deployment while still guaranteeing
that all buses have the maximum amount of connectivity. In the event of network limits, a range of fair deployment
choices may be accessible to you.
When existing methods for all optimal locations are used instead of traditional procedures, placement costs are
reduced by an average of 8.85% when compared to traditional approaches. That is, even though the proposed soft
margin classifier capacity distribution has not yet been optimized, the suggested placement strategy has an advantage
over the conventional method in that it ensures that all buses are connected to at least one BESS. Furthermore, the
present study focused on the capacity distributions by an average of 86% in regions with lower line capacity.
844
K. Mannepalli, Vinoth K., S.K. Mohapatra et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 836–846

This is consistent with previous findings. According to the results of this comparison, optimizing the available
BESS capacity reduces ESEC by an average of 29% across all solutions when compared to the situation where the
available BESS capacity is distributed evenly across all installed BESSs. The conclusions drawn from the research
presented in this study confirm the importance of the optimization method we advocated for the deployment and
allocation of BESS capacity.
Next-generation research should concentrate on generating batteries with accurate characteristics of their
performance and longevity while sacrificing the computational time reductions that would otherwise be achieved.
This will be beneficial to both the short-term scheduling and the network planning processes.

Funding statement
This research work is not funded from any organization.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could
have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.

References
[1] Ren H, Ma Z, Lin W, Fan W, Li W. Integrating photovoltaic thermal collectors and thermal energy storage systems using phase
change materials with rotary desiccant cooling systems. Sustainable Cities Soc 2018;36:131–43.
[2] Kucevic D, Tepe B, Englberger S, Parlikar A, Mühlbauer M, Bohlen O, et al. Standard battery energy storage system profiles: Analysis
of various applications for stationary energy storage systems using a holistic simulation framework. J Energy Storage 2020;28:101077.
[3] Mostafa MH, Aleem SHA, Ali SG, Ali ZM, Abdelaziz AY. Techno-economic assessment of energy storage systems using annualized
life cycle cost of storage (LCCOS) and levelized cost of energy (LCOE) metrics. J Energy Storage 2020;29:101345.
[4] Kumar PM, Saminathan R, Sumayli A, Mittal M, Abishek AS, Kumaar AA, et al. Experimental analysis of a heat sink for electronic
chipset cooling using a nano improved PCM (NIPCM). Mater Today: Proc 2022;56:1527–31.
[5] Rallabandi V, Akeyo OM, Jewell N, Ionel DM. Incorporating battery energy storage systems into multi-MW grid connected PV
systems. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 2018;55(1):638–47.
[6] Asgharian H, Baniasadi E. A review on modeling and simulation of solar energy storage systems based on phase change materials. J
Energy Storage 2019;21:186–201.
[7] Liu J, Chen X, Cao S, Yang H. Overview on hybrid solar photovoltaic-electrical energy storage technologies for power supply to
buildings. Energy Convers Manage 2019;187:103–21.
[8] Akbari H, Browne MC, Ortega A, Huang MJ, Hewitt NJ, Norton B, et al. Efficient energy storage technologies for photovoltaic
systems. Sol Energy 2019;192:144–68.
[9] Martins J, Spataru S, Sera D, Stroe DI, Lashab A. Comparative study of ramp-rate control algorithms for PV with energy storage
systems. Energies 2019;12(7):1342.
[10] Salim HK, Stewart RA, Sahin O, Dudley M. Drivers, barriers and enablers to end-of-life management of solar photovoltaic and battery
energy storage systems: A systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 2019;211:537–54.
[11] Karanki SB, Xu D, Venkatesh B, Singh BN. Optimal location of battery energy storage systems in power distribution network for
integrating renewable energy sources. In: 2013 IEEE energy conversion congress and exposition. IEEE; 2013, p. 4553–8.
[12] Fernández-Blanco R, Dvorkin Y, Xu B, Wang Y, Kirschen DS. Optimal energy storage siting and sizing: A WECC case study. IEEE
Trans Sustain Energy 2016;8(2):733–43.
[13] Krishnan V, Das T. Optimal allocation of energy storage in a co-optimized electricity market: Benefits assessment and deriving
indicators for economic storage ventures. Energy 2015;81:175–88.
[14] King MFL, Rao PN, Sivakumar A, Mamidi VK, Richard S, Vijayakumar M, et al. Thermal performance of a double-glazed window
integrated with a phase change material (PCM). Mater Today: Proc 2022;50:1516–21.
[15] Xiong P, Singh C. Optimal planning of storage in power systems integrated with wind power generation. IEEE Trans Sustain Energy
2015;7(1):232–40.
[16] Go RS, Munoz FD, Watson JP. Assessing the economic value of co-optimized grid-scale energy storage investments in supporting
high renewable portfolio standards. Appl Energy 2016;183:902–13.
[17] Fortenbacher P, Ulbig A, Andersson G. Optimal placement and sizing of distributed battery storage in low voltage grids using receding
horizon control strategies. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2017;33(3):2383–94.
845
K. Mannepalli, Vinoth K., S.K. Mohapatra et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 836–846

[18] Hozouri MA, Abbaspour A, Fotuhi-Firuzabad M, Moeini-Aghtaie M. On the use of pumped storage for wind energy maximization in
transmission-constrained power systems. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2014;30(2):1017–25.
[19] Saber H, Moeini-Aghtaie M, Ehsan M. Developing a multi-objective framework for expansion planning studies of distributed energy
storage systems (DESSs). Energy 2018;157:1079–89.
[20] Nojavan S, Majidi M, Esfetanaj NN. An efficient cost-reliability optimization model for optimal siting and sizing of energy storage
system in a microgrid in the presence of responsible load management. Energy 2017;139:89–97.

846

View publication stats