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

net/publication/343549194

Power Resilience Enhancement of a Residential Electricity User Using

Photovoltaics and a Battery Energy Storage System Under Uncertainty
Conditions

Article in Energies · August 2020

DOI: 10.3390/en13164193

CITATIONS READS

54 1,820

3 authors:

Nallapaneni Manoj Kumar Aritra Ghosh

City University of Hong Kong University of Exeter
263 PUBLICATIONS 5,921 CITATIONS 153 PUBLICATIONS 5,671 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Shauhrat S. Chopra
City University of Hong Kong
109 PUBLICATIONS 2,524 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Nallapaneni Manoj Kumar on 14 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 energies
Article
Power Resilience Enhancement of a Residential
Electricity User Using Photovoltaics and a Battery
Energy Storage System under Uncertainty Conditions
Nallapaneni Manoj Kumar 1 , Aritra Ghosh 2,3, * and Shauhrat S. Chopra 1, *
1 School of Energy and Environment, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong;
mnallapan2-c@my.cityu.edu.hk
2 Environment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter, Penryn, Cornwall TR10 9FE, UK
3 College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, Renewable Energy, University of Exeter,
Cornwall TR10 9FE, UK
* Correspondence: a.ghosh@exeter.ac.uk (A.G.); sschopra@cityu.edu.hk (S.S.C.)




Received: 30 June 2020; Accepted: 10 August 2020; Published: 13 August 2020


Abstract: Even in today’s modern electric grid infrastructure, the uncertainty in the power supply
is more often seen and is mainly due to power outages. The reasons for power outages might be
any of the following: extreme weather events, asset failure, natural disasters, power surges, acute
accidents, and even operational errors by the workforce. Such uncertain situations are permitting us
to think of it as a resilience problem. In most cases, the power outages may last from a few minutes
to a few weeks, depending on the nature of the resilience issue and the power supply system (PSS)
configuration. Therefore, it is imperative to understand and improve the resilience of a PSS. In this
paper, a four-component resilience framework is proposed to study and compare the resilience of
three different PSS configurations of residential electricity users (REUs) considering the realistic
power outage conditions in the humid subtropical ecosystem. The proposed PSS configurations
contain electric grid (EG), natural gas power generator (NGPG), battery energy storage (BES), and
photovoltaics (PV) as the assets. The three PSS configurations of a REUs are EG + BES, EG + NGPG +
BES, and EG + PV + BES, respectively, and in these, one REU is only the consumer and the other
two REUs are prosumers. By using the proposed framework, simulations are performed on the
three PSS configuration to understand the increasing load resiliency in the event of a power outage.
Also, a comparative techno-economic and life cycle based environmental assessment is performed
to select the most resilient PSS configuration among the EG + BES, EG + NGPG + BES, and EG +
PV + BES for an REU. From the results, it was established that EG + PV + BES configuration would
enhance the power resilience of an REU better than the other two PSS configurations. Besides, it is
also observed that the identified resilient PSS configuration is cost-effective and environmentally
efficient. Overall, the proposed framework will enable the REUs to opt for the PSS configuration that
is resilient and affordable.

Keywords: energy resilience; four components of resilience; power outages; power supply system;
photovoltaics; battery energy storage; techno-economic modeling; environmental analysis; microgrid;
prosumer; resilience framework

1. Introduction
In general, the conventional electric grid is a centralized system that connects the power output
from many fossil and non-fossil fuel-based power plants to one and transmits the power steadily to
electricity users. The most commonly seen electricity users are residential ones. The electric grid
(EG) transmits power from remote areas (where the power plants are located) over a long distance to

Energies 2020, 13, 4193; doi:10.3390/en13164193 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2020, 13, 4193 2 of 27

the residential electricity demand centers. This allows power flow only in one direction from high
voltage to a low voltage level, and then it is distributed to the electricity consumers, who are typically
called residential electricity users (REUs), but in today’s trend, the role of renewable energy (RE) has
become very crucial in EG. RE, in most cases, is localized, and the power generation capacities vary
from small to megawatt-scale. In most cases, the generated voltages from the RE-based power plants
are small relative to those of conventional power plants. Even though RE-based power plants are
feasible for local power generation, their integration into a large and highly centralized grid poses
a limitation to their use and overall, it is understood that this is challenging [1]. This is due to the
frequent fluctuation and, as a result, frequent loss of generation occasioned by the intermittent nature
and variability of RE. Besides, it is further compounded by the reverse power flow that may occur in
a conventional EG that was originally designed to allow power flow only in one direction, but later,
with the advancements seen in distributed energy resources (DERs) and grid integration regulations,
the deployment of RE into EG has become a feasible option [1,2]. Today, the trend for the use of
DERs, particularly RE for electric power generation both at the off-site and on-site load centers, has
increased exponentially across the globe. The growth in RE use is due to the need for decarbonization
in the power sector. Besides, environmental friendliness and energy security, as well as consistent
improvement in technology and falling cost of RE are also favoring this growth [3].
Now with the support of DERs and other improvements seen in energy-related technologies like
power electronics and power system control and operations, the conventional EG has taken a paradigm
shift towards modernization. Even after modernization, the EG continues to experience uncertainties
that directly or indirectly affect the energy consumption patterns of REUs [4]. The uncertainty in
supplying power to REUs is more often seen and is mainly due to power outages. The reasons for power
outages might be any of the following: extreme weather events, asset failure, natural disasters, power
surges, acute accidents, and even the operational errors by the workforce [5]. Such uncertain situations
are permitting us to think of this as a resilience problem. In most cases, the power outages may last
from a few minutes to weeks, depending on the nature of the resilience issue and the power supply
system (PSS) configuration. Thus, the power outage situations result in the complete unavailability of
the power to REUs. From the resilient PSS point of view during the power outages, power availability
has to be ensured, and it can be done in many ways.
Indeed, there are numerous ways to understand resilience, and these would depend on the
nature of the system. Recent studies, for this reason, have called for engineering greater resilience
especially in the power and other industrial systems. A few studies have employed network analysis
to understand the resilience and sustainability of industrial symbiosis system that facilitates energy,
water and material flows [6,7]. The network analysis is further extended and applied in few critical
infrastructures in the United States of America (USA) and United Kingdom (UK) (for e.g.,: energy
resources and power sector, information technology and communication, finance, healthcare and public
health, transportation, and food and agriculture) to understand the implications of interconnectedness
and interdependencies on resilience [8,9]. But when it comes to power sector, metrics-based approaches
are used [10]. More often the mitigation strategies for enhancing the resilience of power systems are
based on short term and long-term measures adopted [11].
However, in the literature, many authors have varying opinions on the way to ensure resilience,
and it is often considered as an issue of reliability. Few studies exist in the literature where researchers
have discussed the difference between reliability and resilience of the power supply system (PSS).
Reliability more often deals with component failure, but the resilience of PSS is different, and it often
deals with the capability of a PSS to sustain and bounce back to normal operation after any unseen or
unexpected uncertainty [12]. This means the resilience assessment admits the possibility of PSS failure
and focuses on its recovery and adaptation, thereby ensures continuous power supply to the REUs.
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences defines resilience as the ability to plan for, recover from, and
adapt to adverse events over time [13], but the most recent definition of resilience from the literature is
the ability of a system to sustain, to rapidly recover, and learn to adapt its structure to unexpected
Energies 2020, 13, 4193 3 of 27
Energies 2020, 13, x 3 of 26
Energies 2020, 13, x 3 of 26
unexpectedevents
disruptive disruptive
[14]. events
Based[14].
on theBased
aboveon the above definitions
definitions of resilience,
of resilience, it is clearitthat,
is clear
for that,
any for any
sought
unexpected
sought of disruptive the
disruption, events
PSS [14]. Based
should be on
ablethetoabove definitions
recover soon and ofprovide
resilience,
the itpower
is cleartothat, for any
REUs, but
of disruption, the PSS should be able to recover soon and provide the power to REUs, but ensuring
sought of
ensuring is disruption,
resilience the PSS
is quite should be able to recover soon and provide the power to REUs, but
resilience quite difficult withdifficult with aPSS.
a conventional conventional PSS. Even
Even with modern with modern
electricity electricity
infrastructure, the
ensuring resilience
infrastructure, the is quite events
disruptive difficultarewith
still a conventional
occurring, and PSS. Even
resilience is a with
big modern
question. Forelectricity
instance,
disruptive events are still occurring, and resilience is a big question. For instance, irrespective of
infrastructure,
irrespective ofthe disruptive
whether eventsisaredeveloped
a nation still occurring,developing,
and resilience
theispower
a big question. For instance,
whether a nation is developed or developing, the or power outage incidents outage incidents
are happening are
across the
irrespective
happening of whether a nation is developed or developing, the powerofoutage incidents are
globe. Fromacross
1960 the globe.
to 2019, Fromthe
across 1960 to 2019,
globe, across
thousands the globe, thousands
of power outage events power outage
were recorded, events
and
happening across
were recorded, the
andare globe.
among From 1960 to 2019, across the globe, thousands of power outage events
among these, a few very these,
massive a few
eventsarethat
verylasted
massive events
for more that
than lasted for
a month. In more
Figurethan a month.
1, a heat map
were
In recorded,
Figure 1, a andmap
heat among these,the
showing a few are very
locations wheremassive
power events thatevents
outages lastedhave
for more thanacross
occurred a month.
the
showing the locations where power outages events have occurred across the globe is indicated [15].
In Figure 1, a heat map
globe is indicated [15]. showing the locations where power outages events have occurred across the
globe is indicated [15].

Figure
Figure 1.
1. Heat
Heat map
map highlighting
highlighting locations
locations where
where power
power outages
outages occurred across the
occurred across the globe
globe [15].
[15].
Figure 1. Heat map highlighting locations where power outages occurred across the globe [15].
From the
From the heat
heat map
map shown
shown inin Figure
Figure 1, 1, it
it is
is understood
understood that
that the
the USA.’s
USA.’s EG
EG experiences
experiences these
these
From the
power outages heat
outages most map
most often.shown
often. A in Figure 1, it is understood that the USA.’s EG experiences these
power A recent
recent study, on significant
study, on power outages
significant power outages across
across the
the USA,
USA, also
also reported
reported
power
the outages
data on most
power often. A
outages recentand
events study,
the on significant
affected power[16].
population outages
A across
list of the USA,
power also
outage reported
events due
the data on power outages events and the affected population [16]. A list of power outage events due
the data on
to numerous power outages
numerous resilience events
resilience issues and
issues across the
across the affected
the USA
USA are population
are shown
shown in [16].
in Figure A list
Figure 22 [17].
[17]. of power outage events due
to
to numerous resilience issues across the USA are shown in Figure 2 [17].

Figure 2. The number of power outage events in each state of the USA [17].
Figure
Figure 2.
2. The
The number
number of
of power
power outage
outage events
events in
in each
each state
state of
of the
the USA
USA [17].
[17].
From Figure 2, it can be seen that the number of power outage events occurred are different for
From
each state inFigure 2, it can
the USA Thebe seen
least that theofnumber
number of power
power outage outage
events events are
occurred occurred areRhode
eight in different for
Island,
each state in the USA The least number of power outage events occurred are eight in
and the maximum number of power outage events occurred are 537 in California. As per the United Rhode Island,
and theDepartment
States maximum number
of Energy of(US
power outage
DoE) events
statistics, occurred
during are 537
one such in California.
major As per
power outage, the United
at least 50,000
States Department of Energy (US DoE) statistics, during one such major power outage, at least 50,000
Energies 2020, 13, 4193 4 of 27

From Figure 2, it can be seen that the number of power outage events occurred are different
for each state in the USA The least number of power outage events occurred are eight in Rhode
Island, and the maximum number of power outage events occurred are 537 in California. As per the
United States Department of Energy (US DoE) statistics, during one such major power outage, at
least 50,000 customers have been impacted, and approximately 300 MW unplanned firm load loss is
experienced [17]. Moreover, these power outages will have a significant impact on society, residential,
and industrial operations. The effect would depend upon the frequency of power outage occurrence
at a particular location. From Figure 2, it is clear there is a significant impact in most states of the
USA, and hence there is scope for researching on improving the resilience of PSS, so that, the REUs are
ensured with adequate power supply.
In order to ensure and improve the resilience of PSS, many solutions have been proposed in
the literature. The most suggested and preferred solution in the literature is the use of a backup
power facility, either as a storage or generation option [18]. For residential houses, microgrids are
mostly recommended. For instance, a microgrid is modeled for powering 100% of electrical loads
using a renewable-based power system. It is suggested that the RE-based power system is only
capable of powering the houses based on the nature of resilient issues and also depends on the
intensity of the power outage [19]. On the other hand, diesel generator (DG)-based studies are also
presented by a few researchers, and they suggest that continuous power supply is possible during
power outages [20]. Later with the advancement seen in DERs, the use of battery energy storage (BES)
systems has become more popular. Few studies have shown any evidence on ensuring resilience;
if the PSS configuration has the combination of BES with RE or DG based backup facilities or any
RE-based hybrid configuration [21,22]. In a study conducted for the USA, for providing improved
power resilience, Anderson et al. suggested the use of hybrid renewable energy-based microgrid
composed of solar photovoltaics (PV), DG, and BES [22]. In addition, few studies conducted for the
USA were mainly concentrated methods to assess and enhance resilience. For instance, a probabilistic
method is developed to assess the resilience of the PSS considering the disruptive event caused due to
a hurricane [23]. In another study, the concept of survivability through microgrids is introduced for
enhancing the power resilience of PSS.
From the brief literature review, it is understood that there is a thrust to carry out research on
power resilience, but so far, although many different PSS configurations have been proposed, none have
been compared based on their feasibilities [24,25]. In addition, the studies related to the resilience of
PSS, highlighting of the techno-economic and environmental indicators is very limited. Hence, different
PSS configurations that are location-specific were proposed by considering a resilience framework
embedding techno-economic and environmental indicators. These PSS configurations include; electric
grid + battery energy storage, electric grid + battery energy storage + natural gas power generator,
electric grid + battery energy storage + photovoltaics. The proposed resilience framework is based
on being prepared, sustaining, recovery, and learning to adapt. Based on the proposed framework,
realistic and meaning full indicators are explored from the techno-economic-environmental point of
view. The main contributions of this manuscript are as follows:

• A four-component resilience framework with techno-economic and environmental indicators to

understand the resilience of residential electricity user (REU) power supply system (PSS).
• A battery energy storage (BES) as a preparedness measure that is not considered in most of the
literature is considered here while modeling the proposed PSS configurations.
• The proposed three different REUs are modeled considering power outage duration as well as the
electric load conditions of the New York-based residential multi-story building as a case study.
• Evaluation of unmet and compensated electric loads for resilience comparison between the three
PSS configurations of an REU.

This paper has a total of six sections; Section 2 presents the four-component resilience framework
and the considered indicators; in Section 3, the description of the proposed three PSS configurations for
Energies 2020, 13, 4193 5 of 27

REUs along with modeling is given; in Section 4, data collection, techno-economic and environmental
modeling and simulation for the proposed three PSS configuration is shown along with control
strategies. In Section 5, the results are presented, and a thorough discussion is made, and in Section 6,
conclusions
Energies 2020, are
13, xprovided. 5 of 26

2.2.Resilience
ResilienceFramework
Framework
For
Forunderstanding
understanding thethe
resilience of theofPSS
resilience theconfiguration, a well-structured
PSS configuration, frameworkframework
a well-structured is necessary.is
The
necessary. The proposed framework should ensure that the system can sustain, recover,the
proposed framework should ensure that the system can sustain, recover, and adapt to andpower
adapt
outages or any other disruptive events. In this study, the proposed framework has four
to the power outages or any other disruptive events. In this study, the proposed framework has fourcomponents,
namely; preparedness,
components, namely;robustness, recovery,
preparedness, and adaptation
robustness, [13,14].
recovery, andThese four components
adaptation are clearly
[13,14]. These four
presented and depicted in Figure 3.
components are clearly presented and depicted in Figure 3.

Figure3.3.Four
Figure Fourcomponent
componentresilience
resilienceframework.
framework.

FromFigure
From Figure3,3,ititisisunderstood
understoodthat
thatthe
thehighlighted
highlighteddepictions
depictionsofofthe
thedisruptive
disruptiveevents
events(Level-1
(Level-1
andLevel-2)
and Level-2)and
andthe
thevariation
variationininPSS
PSSfunctionality
functionalityasasper
perthe
thedisruptive
disruptiveevents
eventsmatches
matchesthetheresilience
resilience
definition.Each
definition. Eachcomponent
componentof ofthe
theproposed
proposedresilience
resiliencecycle
cycleisisdifferent
differentbased
basedon
onits
itsnature,
nature,and
andthe
the
four components are briefly explained
four components are briefly explained below: below:
Preparedness: This component suggests the preparedness level of the PSS configuration for power
Preparedness: This component suggests the preparedness level of the PSS configuration for power
outages. Here, an assumption is made that each REU is already prepared for power outages by
outages. Here, an assumption is made that each REU is already prepared for power outages by
employing backup energy storage.
employing backup energy storage.
•• As
As aa preparedness
preparednessmeasure,
measure,battery
batteryenergy
energystorage
storageisisused.
used.
Robustness:This
Robustness: Thiscomponent
componentsuggests
suggeststhe
thelevel
levelto
towhich
whichthe
thePSS
PSSconfiguration
configurationcan
cansustain
sustainand
and
will be able to supply power to REUs in the event of a power outage.
will be able to supply power to REUs in the event of a power outage.
• For understanding this component, an indicator, i.e., an increase in unmet electric load, is
• For understanding this component, an indicator, i.e., an increase in unmet electric load,
considered.
is considered.
Recovery: This component suggests the level to which the PSS configuration was recovered and
Recovery:
able to supplyThis component
power suggests
back to the REUs. the level to which the PSS configuration was recovered and
able to supply power back to the REUs.
• Here compensated load by the PSS configuration during the event of a power outage is
• considered
Here as an indicator.
compensated load by the PSS configuration during the event of a power outage is considered
as an indicator.
Adaptation: This component suggests the level of learning by the PSS configuration based on the
experienced power outages. More or less, it will give information on how the preparedness levels are
improved based on the learning from previous power outages incidents.
• The adaptation step demands the renovation and modernization of the energy infrastructure.
Here, based on the above four-component resilience cycle, and for each component, indicators
were identified, which were further used as constraints during techno-economic and environmental
optimization of PSS configurations. These indicators include the; unmet electric load, compensated
Energies 2020, 13, 4193 6 of 27

Adaptation: This component suggests the level of learning by the PSS configuration based on the
experienced power outages. More or less, it will give information on how the preparedness levels are
improved based on the learning from previous power outages incidents.

• The adaptation step demands the renovation and modernization of the energy infrastructure.

Here, based on the above four-component resilience cycle, and for each component, indicators
were identified, which were further used as constraints during techno-economic and environmental
optimization of PSS configurations. These indicators include the; unmet electric load, compensated
loads, power supplied by the PSS configuration, the cost of energy, net present value, initial capital
investments,
Energies 2020, 13,and
x the emissions (carbon dioxide; sulfur dioxide; nitrogen oxides). 6 of 26

3.
3. Power
Power Supply
Supply System
System (PSS)
(PSS) Modelling
Modelling for for Residential
Residential Electricity
Electricity Users
Users (REUs)
(REUs)
The
ThePSSPSSis is
a network
a network of various electrical
of various and electronic
electrical equipments
and electronic that are that
equipments deployed to generate,
are deployed to
transfer,
generate, transfer, and distribute electrical energy. A typical example of such PSS is the EG most
and distribute electrical energy. A typical example of such PSS is the EG upon which upon
electricity
which most users depend.users
electricity Here, a case of
depend. REUs
Here, aloneofisREUs
a case considered.
alone isInconsidered.
the context In
of the
REUs, the examples
context of REUs,
of
thethe PSS would
examples fallPSS
of the broadly
wouldunder two categories;
fall broadly under twooff-grid and on-grid.
categories; Here,
off-grid andthe PSS configurations
on-grid. Here, the PSS
that fall under on-grid
configurations mode
that fall is considered.
under This section
on-grid mode briefly describes
is considered. the considered
This section briefly three different
describes the
PSS configurations for REUs along with the modeling.
considered three different PSS configurations for REUs along with the modeling.
3.1. PSS Configurations for REUs
3.1. PSS Configurations for REUs
As mentioned above, in this study, three different PSS configurations are chosen to serve the electric
As mentioned above, in this study, three different PSS configurations are chosen to serve the
load demand for REUs. The considered PSS configuration has both renewable and non-renewable
electric load demand for REUs. The considered PSS configuration has both renewable and non-
power generating sources, and each PSS configuration has an energy storage component. Among
renewable power generating sources, and each PSS configuration has an energy storage component.
these three, PSS configuration, one is a consumer, and the other two are prosumers. In Figure 4, the
Among these three, PSS configuration, one is a consumer, and the other two are prosumers. In Figure
schematic view of studied PSS for REUs is shown, and in the below subsections, the configurations are
4, the schematic view of studied PSS for REUs is shown, and in the below subsections, the
described briefly for individual REUs.
configurations are described briefly for individual REUs.

Figure4.4. Schematic
Figure Schematic view
view of
of the
the proposed
proposedthree
threepower
powersupply
supplysystem
systemconfigurations
configurations for
forresidential
residential
electricity users [Note: EG—Electric grid; BES—Battery energy storage; NGPG—Natural
electricity users [Note: EG—Electric grid; BES—Battery energy storage; NGPG—Natural gas gas power
power
generator; PV—Photovoltaics.]
generator; PV—Photovoltaics].

The energy governance function is shown in Equation (1), and this describes the variation in PSS
functionality (as shown in Figure 3) for an REU within the specified PSS configuration:
= ( , ) (1)
where, is the energy demanded by the REU in kWh; is the energy supplied by the PSS
configuration in kWh; and the is the energy available or supplied by the battery energy storage
in kWh.
Energies 2020, 13, 4193 7 of 27

The energy governance function is shown in Equation (1), and this describes the variation in PSS
functionality (as shown in Figure 3) for an REU within the specified PSS configuration:

EREU = f (EPSS , EBES ) (1)

where, EREU is the energy demanded by the REU in kWh; EPSS is the energy supplied by the PSS
configuration in kWh; and the EBES is the energy available or supplied by the battery energy storage
in kWh.

3.1.1. REU with EG + BES Based PSS Configuration

In Figure 5, a PSS configuration for a REU under the consumer-only category is shown. In this
PSS configuration, the REU will only consume electricity that is coming from the electric grid for
operating the residential electrical loads (which means there is no on-site energy generation facility).
The main equipment in this configuration are the electrical loads, power converter, BES, and EG.
These components are connected in the PSS network of an REU, considering both the alternating
Energies 2020, 13, x 7 of 26
current (AC) bus and direct current (DC) bus. The AC load bus was linked to electrical loads and EG,
while
whilethetheDCDCloadloadbus
buswas
waslinked
linkedto to
BES. Both
BES. thethe
Both ACACandand
DCDC load buses
load were
buses connected
were through
connected the
through
power converter.
the power Here,
converter. the the
Here, power converter
power is mainly
converter is mainlyused toto
used regulate
regulateand
andconvert
convertthe
theDC
DCpower
power
outputs to AC and vice versa. From the resilience point of view, the main aim
outputs to AC and vice versa. From the resilience point of view, the main aim of each REU of each REU is to prepare
is to
for powerfor
prepare outages. In this PSS
power outages. configuration,
In this the REU
PSS configuration, is REU
the already prepared
is already for power
prepared outages.
for power As a
outages.
preparedness
As a preparednessmeasure, a backup
measure, power facility
a backup power employing a BES within
facility employing a BESthe electricity
within supply network
the electricity supply
of an REU is taken.
network of an REU is taken.

Figure5.5.Schematic
Figure Schematicview
viewof
ofEG
EG++ BES
BES based
based power
powersupply
supplysystem
systemconfiguration
configuration[Note:
[Note:EG—Electric
EG—Electric
grid; BES—Battery energy storage; DC—Direct current; AC—Alternating current.]
grid; BES—Battery energy storage; DC—Direct current; AC—Alternating current.]

3.1.2.
3.1.2. REU
REU with EG++ NGPG +
withEG Based PSS
+ BES based PSS Configuration
Configuration
In
InFigure
Figure6,6,aaPSS
PSS configuration
configurationforforREU
REU under
under the
the fossil
fossil fuel-based
fuel-based prosumer
prosumer category
category is
is shown.
shown.
In
In this PSS configuration, the REU will buy the electricity from the EG. At the same time,excess
this PSS configuration, the REU will buy the electricity from the EG. At the same time, excess
electricity
electricityproduced
producedat atthe
thefacility
facilitywill
willbe
besold
soldto
tothe
theEG.
EG.The
Theconditions
conditionsforforbuying
buyingand andselling
sellingwill
will
depend
dependon onthe
theREU
REUandandthe
thedeployed
deployedcontrol
controlstrategy.
strategy.Here,
Here,thetheEG
EGisisgiven
giventhe
theprimary
primarypriority
priorityfor
for
serving the residential electrical loads and the BES facility. In the event of power outage
serving the residential electrical loads and the BES facility. In the event of power outage condition, condition,
the
theelectrical
electricalloads
loadsare
areoperated
operatedthrough
throughBES.
BES.IfIfstill
stillthe
theEGEGisisnot
notrepaired,
repaired,then
thenthethebackup
backuppower
power
generation
generationfacility
facilitywill
willcome
comeinto
intoconnection
connectionand
andserves
servesthetheresidential
residentialelectrical
electricalloads.
loads.
In this PSS configuration, the REU will buy the electricity from the EG. At the same time, excess
electricity produced at the facility will be sold to the EG. The conditions for buying and selling will
depend on the REU and the deployed control strategy. Here, the EG is given the primary priority for
serving the residential electrical loads and the BES facility. In the event of power outage condition,
the electrical
Energies 2020, 13, loads
4193 are operated through BES. If still the EG is not repaired, then the backup power
8 of 27
generation facility will come into connection and serves the residential electrical loads.

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Schematic
Schematicview
viewofofEG
EG+ NGPG
+ NGPG+ BES based
+ BES power
based supply
power system
supply configuration
system [Note:[Note:
configuration EG—
Electric grid; BES—Battery energy storage; NGPG—Natural gas power generator; DC—Direct
EG—Electric grid; BES—Battery energy storage; NGPG—Natural gas power generator; DC—Direct
current; AC—Alternating
current; AC—Alternating current].
current].

The main equipment in this configuration are the electrical loads, power converter, BES, natural
gas power generator (NGPG), and EG. These components are connected to the PSS network of an REU,
considering both the AC bus and the DC bus. The AC load bus was linked to electrical loads, NGPG,
and the EG, while the DC load bus was linked to BES. Both the AC and DC load buses were connected
through the power converter, which is mainly used to regulate and convert the DC power outputs to
AC and vice versa. From the resilience point of view, the main aim of each REU is to prepare for power
outages. In this particular PSS configuration also, the REU is already prepared for power outages. As a
preparedness measure, a backup power facility employing a BES and NGPG within the electricity
supply network of an REU is taken.

3.1.3. REU with EG + PV + BES Based PSS Configuration

In Figure 7, a PSS configuration for REU under the renewable-based prosumer category is shown.
In this PSS configuration, the REU will buy the electricity from the EG. At the same time, excess
electricity produced at the facility will be sold to the EG. The conditions for buying and selling will
depend on the deployed control strategy. Here, the electrical loads are served by taking power from
the PV system and the EG. In the event of a power outage condition, the electrical loads are operated
entirely on the PV system. If there is variation in the output power produced by the PV system, then
the loads are served by taking power from the BES. If still the EG is not repaired, then the backup power
generation facility will come into connection and serves the residential electrical loads. The main
equipment in this configuration are the electrical loads, power converter, BES, PV, and EG. These
components are connected to the PSS network of an REU, considering both the AC bus and the DC
bus. The AC load bus was linked to electrical loads and the EG, while the DC load bus was linked to
BES directly and to the PV system through maximum power point tracking (MPPT) enabled DC-DC
converter [26]. Both the AC and DC load buses were connected through the power converter, which is
mainly used to regulate and convert the DC power outputs to AC and vice versa. From the resilience
point of view, the main aim of each REU is to prepare for power outages. In this particular PSS
configuration also, the REU is already prepared for power outages. As a preparedness measure, a
backup power facility employing a BES and PV system within the electricity supply network of an
REU is taken.
 enabled DC-DC converter [26]. Both the AC and DC load buses were connected through the power
converter, which is mainly used to regulate and convert the DC power outputs to AC and vice versa.
From the resilience point of view, the main aim of each REU is to prepare for power outages. In this
particular PSS configuration also, the REU is already prepared for power outages. As a preparedness
measure, a backup power facility employing a BES and PV system within the electricity supply
Energies 2020, 13, 4193 9 of 27
network of an REU is taken.

Energies 2020, Figure

13, x 7. Schematic view of EG 9 ofEG—
26
Figure 7. Schematic view of +EG
PV +
+ BES
PV based
+ BESpower supply
based powersystem configuration
supply [Note:
system configuration
ElectricEG—Electric
[Note: grid; BES—Battery
grid; energy storage;energy
BES—Battery PV—Photovoltaics; DC—Direct current;
storage; PV—Photovoltaics; AC—Alternating
DC—Direct current;
3.2.1. Electrical Loads
current; and Electric Grid
MPPT—Maximum (EG)
power point tracking].
AC—Alternating current; MPPT—Maximum power point tracking].
Energies 2020, 13, x 9 of 26
The electrical loads that consume energy are the most common type of equipment that we see
3.2.
3.2. REUs
REUs PSS PSS Equipment
EquipmentModelling
Modelling
in REUs. TheElectrical
3.2.1. most seen electrical
Loads loads are
and Electric Grid broadly
(EG) categorized based on their nature that may be
In
Inthetheabove
resistive, inductive, anddiscussed
above discussedthree
capacitive. The PSS
three PSSconfigurations,
typical examples of they
configurations, areare
residential
they different
electrical
different types
loads
typesof equipment
areequipment
of related
lights, fans, to
related
power
computers, The
cooking
to power electrical
generation, loads
power
facilities,
generation, thatconversion,
heaters,
power consume
conversion,
pumps, and energy
airenergy are
conditioners,
and energy thestorage.
storage. most
etc. common
Overall,
In this in type
three
study,
Overall, inwe ofhave
equipment
configurations,
three that
considered wethe
the main
configurations, see
in
the realisticREUs.
equipment The
electrical
main equipment most
are theloads
are seen
electrical
the electrical
loads and
of electrical
a residential loads
loads EG, are
NGPG,
building
and broadly
EG,located
NGPG, categorized
PV, power in based
PV,a converter,
humidconverter,
power on
and BES.
subtropical their
and nature
This that
section
ecosystem
BES. may
Thisisbriefly
section be
resistive,
dealt
considered. with
briefly The
dealtinductive,
the
data
with theand
equipment
related capacitive.
tomodeling,
equipmentelectrical The
and
loads
modeling, typical
the are
and examples
detailstheare
obtained given
details ofare
from residential
below.
the
givenOpen electrical
below. EI Database loadsfor areload
lights, fans,
computers, cooking facilities, heaters, pumps, air
profiles [27]. The detailed load profile and its discussion is given in Section 4. conditioners, etc. In this study, we have considered
3.2.1.
Thethe Electrical
EGrealistic Loads
that is electrical and
chosen inloads Electric
this study Grid (EG)
of a residential
is the national building
power located
grid. In in general,
a humidthe subtropical
national powerecosystem is
considered.
grid is a combinational The data
network related to electrical loads are obtained from the Open EI Database for load
The electrical loads thatthat unitesenergy
consume the power are the producers
most common and consumers.
type of equipment Here both thatthewe see
profiles
powerinproducers [27].
andThe detailed
consumers load profile and
are interconnected, its discussion
and categorizedis given
mostly the produced in Section 4.
REUs. The most seen electrical loads are broadly based on power comesthat
their nature from may be
both the The
renewables EG that is chosen
and non-renewables. in this study
In most is the national
countries, power grid. In general, the national
EG, power
resistive, inductive, and capacitive. The typical examplesREUs are connected
of residential to the
electrical national
loads are lights, fans,
and they grid is a combinational
assumed to have facilities, network
a continuous that unites
supply of energy. the Although
power producersthe and consumers. Here both the
computers, cooking heaters, pumps, air conditioners, etc.EGInsuffers
this study,fromwe thehave
blackouts
considered
that leadpower producers and consumers arelevel,
interconnected, and mostly the produced powertocomesthe from
the to power
realistic outages
electrical atloads
the residential
of a residential still the residential
building located inbuildings
a humidare connected
subtropical ecosystem is
bothstudy,
the renewables
EG. Inconsidered.
this three and non-renewables.
different PSS In most considered,
countries, REUs are connected tothe
the EGnational EG,
The data related to configurations
electrical loadsare are obtained from and thein allOpenthe three,
EI Database is load
for
and they assumed to have a continuous supply of energy. Although the EG suffers from the blackouts
used. profiles [27]. The detailed load profile and its discussion is given in Section 4.
that lead to power outages at the residential level, still the residential buildings are connected to the
The EG that is chosen in this study is the national power grid. In general, the national power grid
EG. In Gas
3.2.2. Natural this Power
study, Generator
three different (NGPG) PSS configurations are considered, and in all the three, the EG is
is a combinational network that unites the power producers and consumers. Here both the power
used.
Aproducers and consumers
fossil fuel-powered generatorare interconnected,
that uses natural andgas mostly the produced
as a fuel for powerpower comes
generation is from
used both
as the
renewables
one of the backup and non-renewables.
facilities in one In most
of the considered countries, REUs are connected to the national EG, and they
3.2.2. Natural Gas Power Generator (NGPG) PSS configurations. The electrical output from
assumed
the NGPG to have aof
is a function continuous
the fuel burned,supply and of energy.
it can be Although
estimated theusing
EG suffers
Equation from(2) the[28]:
blackouts that lead
to power A fossil
outages fuel-powered
at the residential generator
level,thatstilluses natural gasbuildings
the residential as a fuelare forconnected
power generationto the EG. is In
used
thisas
Ꞃ × 𝑚 × 𝐻𝑉
one of
study, the different
three backup facilities in
𝑃
PSS configurationsone = of the
are considered
considered, PSS
and configurations.
in all the three, The
the electrical
EG is used. output
(2) from
the NGPG is a function of the fuel burned, and3.6 it can be estimated using Equation (2) [28]:
where, 𝑃 Natural
3.2.2. is theGas Powerpower
electrical Generatoroutput in kW; Ꞃ
(NGPG) is the efficiency of the NGPG in %; 𝑚
Ꞃ × 𝑚 × 𝐻𝑉
is the massA flowfossilrate of the natural gas that 𝑃 is = natural
burned forgaspower generation in kg/h; 𝐻𝑉 is the (2)
fuel-powered generator that uses 3.6as a fuel for power generation is used as one
heatingof value
the backupof the facilities
natural gas in MJ/kg.
in one of the considered PSS configurations. The electrical output from the
where, 𝑃 is the electrical power output in kW; Ꞃ is the efficiency of the NGPG in %; 𝑚
NGPG is a function of the fuel burned, and it can be estimated using Equation (2) [28]:
is the mass flow rate of the natural gas that is burned for power generation in kg/h; 𝐻𝑉 is the
heating value of the natural gas in MJ/kg. Ꞃ
× mNG × HVNG
PNGPG = NGPG (2)
3.6

where,
The mass PNGPG
flow is the
rate of the natural
electrical
gaspower
in m3output
is giveninby
kW; Ꞃ NGPG
using is the (3),
Equation efficiency of the
and it is NGPG in %; mNG is
the multiplication
the mass
of natural flow density
gas fuel rate of the natural
to the gas that
amount is burned
of fuel for power
consumed. generation
The natural gas in kg/h;
fuel HVNG is the
consumption heating
can
value
also be of the using
estimated natural gas in MJ/kg.
Equation (4):
The mass flow rate of the natural gas in m3 is given by using Equation (3), and it is the multiplication
of natural gas fuel density to the 𝑚 amount= 𝜌 of × 𝐹𝐶consumed. The natural gas fuel consumption
fuel (3) can
also be estimated using Equation (4):
𝐹𝐶 = (𝐹 × 𝑃 ) + (𝐹 × 𝑃 ) (4)
𝑚 = 𝜌3 × 𝐹𝐶 (3)
where, 𝜌 is the density of the natural gas fuel (kg/m ); 𝐹𝐶 is natural gas fuel consumption in
m3/h; 𝑃 is the rated capacity of the natural gas power generator in kW; and 𝐹 and 𝐹 are the (4)
 9 of 26
The electrical
The electricalloads that loads consume
that consume energyenergy are theare most thecommon
most common type oftype equipment
of equipmentthat wethat seewe see
3.2.1. Electrical Loads and Electric Grid (EG)
n REUs. in REUs.
The most Theseen mostelectrical
seen electricalloads are loadsbroadly
are broadly
categorized categorizedbased on based theironnature
their nature
that may thatbemay be
oads and Electric Grid (EG) TheThe electrical
resistive, resistive,
inductive, inductive,
and capacitive.
and capacitive. The loads
typical typical
examples that consume
examples
of residential energy
of residential areelectrical
electrical the mostare
loads common
loadslights, type of
are fans,
lights, equipment that we see
fans,
al loadscomputers,
computers, thatcooking
consume energy
cooking
facilities,in REUs.
facilities,
heaters, The
are theheaters,
most most
pumps, common seen
pumps, electrical
type
air conditioners,
air loads
of equipment
conditioners, are
etc. In this broadly
etc.thatstudy,we we
In this categorized
see have
study, have considered nature that may be
based
weconsidered on their
st seen
he electrical
realistic
the realistic
electrical loads are
electrical
loads resistive,
broadly inductive,
categorized and capacitive.
based on their The atypical
innature inthata examples
may be of residential electrical isloads 10
are lights, fans,
Energies 2020,of loads
13,a4193residential
of a residential
building building
located located humid humid
subtropical subtropical
ecosystem ecosystem
is of 27
ve, andconsidered.
considered. capacitive.
The data The typical
Therelated computers,
data related examples
to electrical cooking
to electrical
loads arefacilities,
of residential loadsobtainedheaters,
electrical
are obtained pumps,
loads the
from are
from air
lights,
Open conditioners,
the fans,
EI
Open Database etc.
EI Database In
for loadthis study,
for load we have considered
ng facilities,
profiles profiles heaters,
[27]. The [27].
detailed
Thepumps, theairrealistic
detailed
load profile
load profile
andelectrical
conditioners, itsand loads
etc.its
discussion thisofis
In discussion agiven
study, residential
we
is in have
given
Section building
inconsidered
Section
4. located
4. in a humid subtropical ecosystem is
considered. The data related to 3 is given
electrical loads are obtained
ricalTheloads of
EGThe a
thatEG is that The
residential
chosen mass
is chosen flow
building
in this in rate
study of
located
this is the
study natural
in a
the national humid gas
is the national in m
subtropical
power power grid. Ingrid. by using
ecosystem
general, Equation
is
In general, thefrom
the national (3), and the
national
power it isOpen
power EI Database for load
the multiplication
data isrelated
grid grid is to
a combinational of natural
electricalnetwork
a combinational profiles
gas
loadsnetworkfuel
are [27].
thatdensityThe
obtained
unites detailed
to the
frompower
that unites
the load
amount
the
theOpen profile
of
power fuel
producers and
EIproducers
Databaseits
consumed. discussion
The
for
andload
and consumers. is
natural
consumers.givengas
Here both in
fuelSection
Herethe 4.
consumption
both the can also
detailed
power loadproducers
power
producers profilebe estimated
and and
consumers
and The
using
its discussion
consumersareEG that
Equation
is
are is
given
interconnected, chosen
(4):
in Section
interconnected, in this
and 4.
mostlystudy
and is produced
mostly
the thethe national
produced
powerpower powergrid.comes
comes In general,
from from the national power
is chosen
both the both in this
renewables study
the renewables is grid
the is a
national
and non-renewables. combinational
and non-renewables. power grid. network
In mostIncountries,In m
general,
most countries, that= the
REUs are
NG ρ
unites ×
national
REUs
NG FCthe
connected
are power
NGconnected producers
to the national and
to the national
EG, EG,consumers. Here (3) both the
ational
and they network
andassumed
they assumed that
to haveunites power
toa have
continuous producers
the apowercontinuous
supply and
producers supplyconsumers
and
of energy. of = energy.
Although
 are
consumers. interconnected,
Although
theHere

EG the bothEGthe
suffers and
suffers mostly
from the from the
blackouts produced
the blackouts power comes from
FCNG Fo × P rNGPG + (F1 × PNGPG ) (4)
shatandlead
consumers
thattolead
power toarepower
outages both
at thethe
interconnected,
outages atrenewables
and
residential
the mostly
residential
level,and thenon-renewables.
stillproduced
level, thestill thepower
residential In
residential mostbuildings
comes
buildings countries,
from
are connectedREUs
are are
connected
to theconnected
to the to the national EG,
bles and
EG. In EG. non-renewables.
this In this where,
study, study, ρthree
Inand most they
NG isdifferent
three different thePSS assumed
countries,
density to
REUs have are
ofconfigurations
the natural
configurations
PSS a continuous
connected
aregas to supply
the
fuelconsidered,
considered,
are (kg/mand 3 of
national
); FC energy.
inNG EG,
allisthe
and Although
natural
in all thegas
three, the the
fuel
three, EG
is suffers
EG is from
EGconsumption
the in m 3 /h;
the blackouts
d to have
used. a continuous
used. PrNGPG is that
supply the of lead to power
energy.
rated capacity ofoutages
Although the the at the
EG
natural residential
suffers
gas powerfromgenerator
thelevel, still
blackouts the residential
in kW; and Fo andbuildings F1 are theare connected
natural gas to the
er outages at the residential fuel curve EG.level,In still
intercept this andstudy,
the three
residential
slope in m /h/kW. PSS
3buildings
different areconfigurations
connected to the are considered, and in all the three, the EG is
3.2.2.
y, three Natural
3.2.2. Natural
differentGasPSS PowerGas used.
Power
Generator
configurations
The supplied Generator
(NGPG) (NGPG)
are considered,
energy by the natural and ingas all power
the three, the EG represented
generator is using ENGPG is given by
multiplying the electrical power output with the operating time, t in h, see Equation (5).
A fossilAfuel-powered
fossil fuel-powered generator generator
that uses that natural
uses natural
gas as agas fuel as for
a fuelpower for power
generation generation
is usedisasused as
3.2.2. Natural Gas Power Generator (NGPG)
one of one the backup
of the backup facilities facilities
in one in of one
the considered
of the considered PSS configurations.
PSS configurations.
n The electrical
The electrical
outputoutput from from
s Power Generator (NGPG) X
he NGPG the NGPG
is a functionis a function
of the fuel ofAthefossil
fuelfuel-powered
burned, burned,
and it can andbe generator
it can
estimated
ENGPG =that
be estimatedusinguses
PNGPG natural
Equation
using gas
× tEquation as a(2)fuel
(2) [28]: [28]:for power generation(5)is used as
-powered generator that uses onenatural
of the backupgas as afacilities
fuel for in one of
power thet=1considered
generation is usedPSS as configurations. The electrical output from
Ꞃ ×Ꞃ𝑚 × 𝑚 𝐻𝑉 × 𝐻𝑉
p facilities in one of the considered the NGPG 𝑃PSS =𝑃
is aconfigurations.
function = of the The fuel electrical
burned, and outputit canfrombe estimated using (2) Equation
(2) (2) [28]:
3.2.3. Photovoltaics (PV) 3.6 3.6
nction of the fuel burned, and it can be estimated using Equation (2) [28]: Ꞃ × 𝑚 × 𝐻𝑉
where,where, 𝑃 𝑃 the electrical
is is In
thethiselectrical
powerthe power
outputoutputin kW; inꞂkW; Ꞃ is the𝑃 efficiency
= efficiency
is the of thebackup
NGPG in %; 𝑚
of the NGPG in %; 𝑚 facilities in (2)
Ꞃ study, × 𝑚 solar × 𝐻𝑉PV system is also used as one of the3.6 power generation
s the mass
is theflowmassrate 𝑃
flow of =
rate
the natural
of the
one of the PSS configurations. natural
gas thatgas is that
burned is burned
for power for power
generation generation
in
(2) kg/h;
In the solar PV system, the PV modules and other energy conversion in 𝐻𝑉
kg/h; 𝐻𝑉
is the is the
heatingheating
value of value
the natural
of thehelpwhere,
natural
gasin 𝑃 3.6in MJ/kg.
inconverting
MJ/kg.
gas is the electrical power output in kW; Ꞃ is the efficiency of the NGPG in %; 𝑚
devices the incident solar irradiance into useful electricity. The electrical output
the electrical power outputisinthe kW; massꞂ flowisrate of the natural
the efficiency of thegas NGPGthat in %; 𝑚 for power generation in kg/h; 𝐻𝑉 is the
is burned
from the PV system is given by using Equation (6) [24,29]:
rate of the natural gas that heating
is burned valuefor of the
power natural gas in MJ/kg.
generation in kg/h; 𝐻𝑉 is the
the natural gas in MJ/kg. P = Ꞃ × Ꞃ × A × G × (1 + γ(T − T ))
PV PV PC PV PV PV ref (6)

where, PPV is power produced from the PV system in kW; Ꞃ PV is the power conversion efficiency PV
The mass Theflow
mass rate
flowof rate
module the natural
of
inthe Ꞃgas
%; natural in m 3 isin
gas given
m3 isby given
using byEquation
using Equation (3), and(3), it isand
theitmultiplication
PC is the efficiency of the power converter in %; APV is the area of the PV array in
is the multiplication
of natural
of natural
gas fuelgas
mdensity
2 ;fuel
GPVdensity
istothe
thesolar
amount
to the amount
of fuelincident
irradiance of
consumed.
fuel consumed. Theplane
on the natural
Theofnatural
gas PV
the fuel gasconsumption
array fuel
in consumption
kW/m2can cantemperature
; γ is the
also bealso
estimated
be estimated
using The
Equation
using mass
Equation
(4): flow rate
(4): of the natural gas in m 3 is
co-efficient of the PV module; TPV is the PV module temperature in C; and Tref is the given by using Equation
◦ (3), and it is reference
the multiplication
te of the natural gas in m 3 isof
temperature in C. natural
given ◦ by gas
using fuel density
Equation to
(3), the
and amount
it is the of fuel consumed.
multiplication The natural gas fuel consumption can
also be estimated 𝑚 using=𝑚 𝜌 Equation
×=𝐹𝐶 𝜌 ×(4): 𝐹𝐶 (3) (3)
el density to the amount TheofPV fuel consumed.
module The natural
temperature is onegas fuelmost
of the consumption
crucial factorscan that need to be considered while
using Equation (4): 𝐹𝐶 =of 𝐹𝐶(𝐹
PV×application.
=𝑃(𝐹 ×)𝑃+ (𝐹In)× +𝑃(𝐹 ×) 𝑚𝑃 ) 𝜌 ×the (4) (4) temperature
modeling any sought the literature, =mostly 𝐹𝐶nominal operating cell (3)
(NOCT) model is used, which is widely accepted and can be more appropriate for open rack-mounting
is the𝑚density = 𝜌 natural
of × 𝐹𝐶natural (3)
𝜌 is 𝜌the density
where,where, of the the gas fuel gas(kg/m
fuel3); 𝐹𝐶
(kg/m
𝐹𝐶 ); is
3
=𝐹𝐶 natural
(𝐹 ×is𝑃have
natural
gas )fuel+gas
(𝐹consumption
fuel consumption
× 𝑃rooftop ) PV. in in (4)
installations [29]. But in this study, the considered REUs opted for So accordingly for
m /h; 𝑃m /h; 𝑃
3 3 is the rated
is thecapacity
rated capacity
of the natural
of the natural
gas power gas power
generator generator
in kW; in andkW; 𝐹 and
and 𝐹 𝐹 and
are 𝐹
the are the
𝐹𝐶the = (𝐹 with
REU × 𝑃 rooftop, ) + (𝐹the ×𝑃 TPV is) calculated by using the arbitrary (4) temperature model, as shown in
naturalnatural
gas fuelgascurve
fuelintercept
curve where, and𝜌slope
intercept is the
and mdensity
inslope in m3of
3/h/kW. the natural gas fuel (kg/m3); 𝐹𝐶 is natural gas fuel consumption in
/h/kW.
Equation (7) [30]:
3/h; 𝑃
e density ofThe
thesupplied
natural
energygas mfuel (kg/mthe3); 𝐹𝐶
isgas
thepower
rated capacity
is natural gasofrepresented
the consumption
fuel natural gas power
𝐸 generator
𝐸 givenisin kW; by and 𝐹 and 𝐹 are the
The supplied energy
by the bynatural natural gas power
generator generator 0.32using in
 represented using is by
given
he rated
multiplyingcapacity
multiplying of the
the electrical natural
natural
the electrical
power powergas gas
powerfuel
outputoutput curve
generator
with the with T
intercept
PVin
operating =kW;Tand
the operating and
amb + m
slope𝐹
time, t time, c
in h,in
and m
see 𝐹
3/h/kW.
are
t in+Equation
h, see G
the PV (7)
8.91 2W s Equation
(5). (5).
urve intercept and slope in m /h/kW. 3 The supplied energy by the natural gas power generator represented using 𝐸 is given by
where, Tamb is the ambient temperature in ◦ C; mc is the mounting co-efficient; and Ws is the wind
d energy by the natural gas multiplying
power generator the
𝐸 electrical power
represented
𝐸
= 𝑃= ×𝑃𝑡 output
using ×𝑡𝐸 with the
is operating
given by time, t in h,
(5)see Equation
(5) (5).
speed in m/s.
lectrical power output with the operating time, t in h, see Equation (5).
The supplied energy by the photovoltaic power generation system is represented by multiplying
𝐸 = 𝑃 ×𝑡 (5)
the electrical power output with the operating time, t in h, see in Equation (8):
3.2.3. Photovoltaics (PV)𝐸 (PV)
3.2.3. Photovoltaics = 𝑃 ×𝑡 (5)
Xn
In this In
study,
this study,
the solar thePV solar
system
PV system
is also isused
alsoasusedone asof one
the=backup
EPV of the PPV backup
power
× t powergeneration generation
facilitiesfacilities (8)
3.2.3. Photovoltaics (PV)
n one ofin the
onePSS
of the
configurations.
PSS configurations. In the solar
In thePV solar
system,
PV system,
the PV themodulesPVt=1modules
and other andenergy
other energy
conversion
conversion
cs (PV) In this study, the solar PV system is also used as one of the backup power generation facilities
3.2.4.isPower
y, the solar PV system also Converter
in one
usedofas
the PSSofconfigurations.
one In the
the backup power solar PV system,
generation facilitiesthe PV modules and other energy conversion
configurations. In the solar PVstudy,
In this system,inthe
all PV
the modules
three PSSand other energyas
configuration, conversion
a preparedness measure, we have used the
BES. In general, the battery stores electrical energy in the form of chemical energy, but during the
charging and discharging conditions, it only operates with the direct current electricity, but the REUs
use alternating current electricity, hence, to facilitate this conversion of power from DC to AC and vice
versa, a power converter is used. Here, the power converter is crucial to facilitate a continuous flow of
 one ofused. the backup used. facilities in one of the considered PSS configurations. The electrical output from
A fossil fuel-powered
the NGPG is a functionEnergies of thegenerator
fuel 13, burned,that uses and natural
it can begas as a fuelusing
estimated for powerEquation generation
(2) [28]: is used as
2020,Energies x 2020, 13, x 9
one of3.2.2.the backup
Natural3.2.2. facilities
Gas Power
Naturalin one Generator
Gas of Power
the considered
(NGPG)
Generator PSS configurations. The electrical output from
Ꞃ × 𝑚 (NGPG) × 𝐻𝑉
the NGPG is a function3.2.1. of theElectrical
fuel3.2.1. 𝑃 Loads
burned, =and
Electrical and itLoads
can
Electric beand estimated
Grid Electric
(EG) using
Grid Equation (2) [28]: (2)
A fossil fuel-powered A fossil fuel-powered
generator that generator
uses 3.6
natural that uses
gas as a fuel(EG)
natural gas
for power
as a fuel generation
for powerisgeneration used as is used as
Ꞃ × 𝑚 × 𝐻𝑉
where, 𝑃
Energiesone of
2020, the
13, 4193backup
one
is theEnergies of facilities
electrical theThe
2020, backup in
13,electrical
power one
x 𝑃 output facilities
of
The loads the
electrical
= in kW;inconsidered
one
that loadsꞂ of
consume the PSS
that considered
configurations.
energy
is theconsume PSS
areenergy
efficiency configurations.
theofmost The
areNGPG
the electrical
common
the most The
in type output
11
common
%; 𝑚 electrical
of
of27
(2) from
typeoutput
equipment of equipme 9 from
that ofwe26
the NGPG is the
a function
NGPG is
of athefunction
fuel burned,
of the fuel
and 3.6
burned,
it can be and
estimatedit can be
usingestimated
Equation using(2) Equation
[28]: (2) [28]:
is the mass flow rate of the natural gas that is burned for power generation in kg/h; 𝐻𝑉 is the
in REUs. The
in REUs.
most seen
The most
electrical seen loads
electrical are broadly
loads are categorized
broadly categorized
based on their
based nature
on theirthat natur
ma
where, 𝑃 the3.2.1.
is the Electrical
electrical power Loads output and in kW;Ꞃ Ꞃ
Electric Gridcapacitive.
(EG)
×The𝑚is the Ꞃ×efficiency
𝐻𝑉The ×𝑚 of the NGPG of 𝑚
in residential
%;
the × 𝐻𝑉
heating resistive, inductive,
inresistive, inductive,
and capacitive. and typical examples
typical of
examples
residential electrical loads
electrical
are lights,
loads fa
energyvalue between of thenatural
PSS and gas the MJ/kg.
REUs. The
𝑃 power = flow
𝑃 conditions
= for power converter, acting (2)
is the mass flow rate of the
computers, natural
The electrical computers,gas
cooking that
loadsusing is
facilities,
cooking
that consumeburned heaters, for
facilities, power
pumps,
3.6 heaters, generation
air pumps,
conditioners,
3.6 in
air kg/h; 𝐻𝑉
conditioners,
etc. In this is the
etc.
study,In this
we study,
have we(2)
conside ha
both as inverter and rectifier are modeled Equationsenergy (9) andare (10) the[29,31]:
most common type of equipment that we see
heating
Energies 2020, 13, x value of the in natural
the gas
realistic inthe MJ/kg.
electrical
realistic loads
electrical of a loads
residentialof a residential
building located
building in located
a humid in subtropical
a humid
9 of 26on their nature that may be subtropica
ecosystem
where, 𝑃 isREUs.
where, 𝑃 The most
the electrical is the powerseen electrical
electrical
output power
in kW; loads Ꞃare broadly
output in is kW; the Ꞃ categorized
efficiency is the of based
efficiency
the NGPG ofinthe 𝑚
%; NGPG in %; 𝑚
considered.
resistive, inductive, considered.
Theand data related
The
capacitive. Ꞃ data to Therelated
electrical
typical to loads
electrical
examples are loads
obtained
of are
residential from
obtained the Open
electrical from the
EI are
Database
Open EI fans,
for
Dat
is the mass flow is therate mass of flowthe natural ratePPC_Inv the=that
of gas natural is burned
PC_Inv × Pthat
gas DCforispower burnedgenerationfor poweringeneration kg/h; 𝐻𝑉 loads(9)is
in the 𝐻𝑉
kg/h; lights, is the
3.2.1. Electrical Loads and Electric Grid
profiles (EG)
[27].profiles
The detailed
[27]. The load
detailed profile loadand profile
its discussion
and its discussion
is given in is
Section
given in
4. Section 4.
heating valuecomputers,heating
of the natural
value cooking
ofgas thein facilities,
natural
MJ/kg.gas heaters,
in MJ/kg. pumps, air conditioners, etc. In this study, we have considered
the realisticThe EG
electrical thatThe
P is EG
chosen
loads that
= of Ꞃain
is chosen
this
residential ×study
Pin this
is of the
building studynationalis thepower
located national
in awe grid.
humidpower Insubtropical
general,
grid.
(10) Inthe general,
national
ecosystem thepo n
is
The electrical loads that consume energy are the most common PC_Rec PC_Rec type
AC equipment that see
in REUs.The Themassmost flow
seenrate of the grid
considered. is aThe
natural combinational
grid
gasdata inism arelated
3 combinational
network
iscategorized
given to by using
electrical that
network unites
Equation
loads thatthe
are (3),unites
power
and itthe
obtained producers
is power
the
from beproducers
and consumers.
multiplication
the Open and consumers.
EI Database Here for bothload
where PPC_Inv iselectrical
the power power
loads
converter are
producers
power
broadly
output inconsumers
producers
and kW when and
based
it is acting
consumers
are
on theiras
interconnected,
are
nature
aninterconnected,
inverter;and
that may
Pmostly
PC_Rec and is
the the
mostly power
produced the produced
power comes powe f
of natural gas fuel density
profiles The to the
[27].typical amount
The detailed of fuel
load consumed.
ofprofile The natural gas fuel consumption can
resistive, inductive, and capacitive.
converter
The mass output
flow rate inof kWthe when
natural it is
gas acting
in
examples
m 3as
is a rectifier;
given
residential
by Ꞃ and
using
its discussion
electrical
and
Equation
loadsisare
Ꞃ (3), and
given
areit
lights,
the
is the
in Section
fans, 4.
efficiencies
multiplication of the
computers, alsocooking
be estimated
facilities,using both
Equation
The
heaters, the
EG renewables
pumps, both
(4):isair
that the renewables
chosen andinnon-renewables.
conditioners, this and etc. non-renewables.
study PC_Inv
Inisthis Innational
thestudy, mostwe
PC_Reccountries,
In most
power
have countries,
REUsInare
grid.
considered connected
REUs the
general, are national
connected
to the national to th
power
ofpower
natural converter
gas fuelingrid inverter
densityand to
theyandthe rectifier
amount
assumed
and they modes,
to of fuel
assumed
have a respectively;
consumed.
continuous
to have a PDCnatural
The
continuous
supply and of Penergy.
gas
supply arefuel the
of input feeds
consumption
Although
energy. the
Although
EG incankWthe EG
suffers from
the realistic electrical loads of aisresidential a combinational building 𝑚 networklocated
= 𝜌modes, ×that
in aunites
humidthe
𝐹𝐶respectively.
AC
power producers
subtropical ecosystem and is consumers. (3) Here bothfrom
suffers
the blackthe
for the
also power converter
be estimated using thatin lead
inverter
Equation to (4):
that and
power lead rectifier
outages
to power at outages
the residential
at the residential
level, still the
level, residential
still the residential
buildings are
buildings
connected are co
to
considered. The The data
mass related
flow power
The tomass
rate producers
electrical
of the flow loads
natural
rate and
ofgas consumers
are obtained
m is given
theinnatural 3 gasare
from interconnected,
inby mthe is Open
using
3 given Equation
by and
EI using
Databasemostly
andfor
(3),Equation the
it isload produced
the
(3),multiplication power comes
and it is the multiplication from
EG. In this𝐹𝐶 EG.study, In=andthis
three
(𝐹 ×study,
𝑃 differentthree
)×amount
+𝐹𝐶 (𝐹PSS
different
configurations
× In𝑃 PSS
)The configurations
are considered, areconnected
considered,
and(3) in all the and
the three,
in all the th E
profiles [27].
3.2.5.The detailed
Battery
of natural Energy
gas both
load
offuel the
profile
Storage
natural renewables
density and
(BES)
gas toits
fuel the 𝑚 non-renewables.
discussion
density
amount =tois 𝜌of
thegiven
fuel in
consumed. of most
Section fuel 4. countries,
natural REUs
consumed. gas
Thefuel are
natural gas(4)
consumption fueltoconsumption
can national EG, can
The EG that is chosen and
in thisused.
they assumed
study used.
is the tonational
have a continuous
power supply of energy. the Although the EG suffers from the blackouts
where,As also
𝜌 a be isestimated also
the density be
usingestimated
oftothe Equationnatural using (4):
gasEquation
fuel (kg/m(4):grid.
3); 𝐹𝐶
In general,
is )natural
national power
gas
preparedness that measure,
lead 𝐹𝐶
power a backup= (𝐹
outages ×energy
𝑃
at the storage
) + (𝐹
residential ×facility
𝑃 level, using
still BES
the isfuel
residential consumption
considered in all(4)the
buildings inare connected to the
grid is a combinational
3/h; 𝑃
network that unites the power producers and consumers. Here both the
mthree is the EG.
PSS configurations. rated In capacity
3.2.2. As
this Natural
per
study, of
3.2.2.
the the
Gas
three natural
Natural
Power
resilience 𝑚 =PSS
Gas
different gas
Generatorpower
Power
conditions, ×𝑚
𝜌 configurations
𝐹𝐶 = 𝜌 ×are
generator
Generator
(NGPG)
it is always in
(NGPG) kW;
better and
to be 𝐹
𝐹𝐶 considered, and in all the (3)
and
prepared 𝐹 for are the
power three, the EG (3)is
power producers
where, 𝜌 and consumers
isinthe are interconnected, and mostly 3);the 𝐹𝐶 produced power comes from
natural
outages, gasandfuel thedensity
curve event
used. A fossil
ofathe
intercept
of and
power naturalslope
outage, gas
in m fuel
the 3/h/kW.
BES(kg/m will serve the isREUs.
natural In gas
order fuel to consumption
facilitate this, in
we
both the m renewables
3/h; 𝑃 and non-renewables. In fuel-powered
A fossil
most fuel-powered
countries, generator
REUs are generator
that uses in
connected natural
that to uses
the gas natural
as
𝐹 aand
national fuel
gasfor
EG, asarepower
a fuel for
generation
power genera is (4)
use
allow The is the
thesupplied
batteries rated
energy
to charge capacity
by while
the naturalofthe the 𝐹𝐶REUgas=
natural (𝐹
ispower gas ×𝐹𝐶
connected 𝑃
power
generator =to) (𝐹
+ (𝐹×
generator
PSS 𝑃× 𝑃 ) +
represented
configuration. ) (𝐹
kW; × 𝑃𝐸
and
using ) is𝐹given by (4)
the
and theynatural
assumed gasto havecurve one of the
a continuous one
supply backup ofofthe facilities
inbackup
energy. infacilities
Although one ofthe the
inEG one
considered
of thefrom
suffers considered
PSS theconfigurations.
blackoutsPSS configurations. The electrical The output
electrica f
thisfuel intercept and slope m 3/h/kW.
multiplying
In
where, the
𝜌 electrical
study, inthe
is all
3.2.2.
where, power
three
density isoutput
𝜌 configurations,
Natural Gas
ofthe thePower with
density
natural the
the
Generator
of gas operating
BES
the fuel will
(NGPG)
natural be
(kg/m time,
charged,
gas t𝐹𝐶
3); fuel in h, see
which
(kg/m
is Equation
3);means
natural 𝐹𝐶 gas (5).
whenever
is fuel
natural there
consumption
gas is consumption
fuel in in
that lead to power outages
Theelectricity
suppliedinenergy at thethe NGPG
residential
bybatteries the
is
the natural a NGPG
function
level, is
still
gas power aof
the function
the fuel
residential
generator of
burned,
the fuel
buildingsand burned,
represented it can
are and
be estimated
connected
using it can be
to
𝐸 load when estimated
using
the
is given Equation
by using (2)
Equation
[28]: (2)
excess m3/h; 𝑃 different misPSS,
3/h;
the the
𝑃PSS
rated is thewill
capacity ofstore
rated the the excess
capacity
natural ofgas the portion
power
natural and provide
generator
gas power into the
generator
kW; and kW;power
𝐹inispower
and 𝐹
and are𝐹 theand 𝐹 are the
EG. In this study,
multiplying three
the electrical A fossil configurations
fuel-powered are considered,
generator that and
uses in all
natural the
t inꞂh, see×Equationgasthree,
𝑚Ꞃ × 𝐻𝑉
as a the×(5).
fuel EG
𝑚 × 𝐻𝑉 (5)
for generation is used as
outages or any sought ofpower disruption output 𝐸with the
occurs. = operating
𝑃 × time,
𝑡
𝑃 considered
used. natural gas fuel natural
one curve
of thegas intercept
fuel curve
backup andintercept
slopeininone
facilities m /h/kW.
and 3
ofslope
the in m=/h/kW.
3 𝑃 PSS=configurations. The electrical output from
In BES, the conditions for charging and discharging are mostly dependent 3.6 on power 3.6 generation
The supplied the NGPG The
energy supplied
is aby the
function energy
natural
of bygas
the the
fuel power
natural
burned, generator
gas
and power
it represented
can generator
be estimated using
represented
using𝐸 Equation using
is given 𝐸
(2)by[28]:is given by
availability and Generator
REUswhere, consumption 𝑃the where, 𝐸𝑃 electrical
patterns
isoutput
the =isallthe
in 𝑃power
the three
electrical× output
𝑡PSS configurations. Ꞃ see These Ꞃconditions (5)are
3.2.2. Natural Gas Power
multiplying the
multiplying
electrical(NGPG) power electrical power
with the output operatingwithpower thetime,in kW;
output
operating
t in h, in
time,kW; ist the
Equation in h,efficiency
see
(5).isEquation
the efficiency
of the(5).NGPG of the in %;NG
modeled using the Equations
is the mass (11) and
is flow
the mass(12).
rate ofEquation
flow therate (11)
natural of therepresents
gas Ꞃ
natural
that isgasthe× 𝑚
state
burned ×of
that is 𝐻𝑉charge
forburned condition,
powerfor generation and
power generationin kg/h; 𝐻𝑉 in kg/h
3.2.3. Photovoltaics (PV)
A fossil fuel-powered generator that uses natural gas as a𝑃in
fuel = power generation is used as
for (2)is
Equation (12) represents the depth
heating value ofofthe
heating the discharge
value
natural of the condition.
gas natural MJ/kg. gasIn both
in MJ/kg. 3.6
conditions, a self-discharge rate
one of the In thisfacilities
study, the solarofPV thesystem is alsoPSS 𝐸used = one𝑃𝐸
as of the×= 𝑡 electrical
backup 𝑃 power × 𝑡output
generation from facilities (5) (5)
isbackup
3.2.3. Photovoltaics
considered in
[29,32,33]:(PV)
where,
one
𝑃
considered
isthethesolar electrical
configurations.
powerthe output
The
in kW; Ꞃ is the efficiency of the NGPG in %; 𝑚
in one of the PSS configurations. In
the NGPG is a function of the fuel burned, and it can be estimated using Equation (2) [28]: PV system, PV modules and other energy conversion
In this study, n the is the solarmass
n PV h flow system rateis of alsotheused natural as one gasofthat the is backupburned powerfor power generation generationfacilities in kg/h; 𝐻𝑉 is the
Ꞃ × 𝑚 × 𝐻𝑉 Ꞃ Ꞃ
X X i
in one 3.2.3.
of thePhotovoltaics Eheating
PSS configurations. = value ( E Inof (the
t
the − natural
1 )
solar × ( 1
PV − gasS
system, in
)) MJ/kg.
+ (
theE PV − E
modules ) × and other × energy conversion (11)
3.2.3. 𝑃 BES
BES Photovoltaics
(PV) = (PV) dr PSS REU PC_Inv BES (2)
t=1 t=1 3.6
In this study,Inthe this solarstudy, PV the system solarisPV also system
used as is also
one of used theas backup
one ofpower the backup generation powerfacilitiesgeneration facilities
where, 𝑃 is the electrical n power X output
n h in kW; Ꞃ is the efficiency of the NGPG in i%; 𝑚
in one of theX PSS
in one configurations.
The ofmass
the PSS Theconfigurations.
flow In the
mass
rate of solar
flow
the rate PVInofsystem,
natural the
thegassolar
inthe
natural mPV 3PV system,
isgas modules
given
in m the
by is and
PV
using
given modules
other
Equation
by energy
using and (3), other
conversion
Equation
and energy
it is
(3),
the
andconversion
multiplica
it is the
EREU × Ꞃ PC_Inv
3
is the mass flow rate of the natural EBES = gas (that EBESis (t burned
− 1) × (1for − Spower
dr )) + generation in kg/h; − E𝐻𝑉 PSS is the (12)
of natural of
gas natural
fuel density
gas fuel to density
the amount to theofamount fuel consumed. of fuel consumed. The natural The gasnatural
fuel consumption
gas fuel con
heating value of the natural t=1gas in MJ/kg. t=1
also be estimated also be estimatedusing Equation using(4): Equation (4):
where EBES , EPSS , and EREU are the energy stored in a battery in kWh, energy generated by the PSS
configuration in kWh, The mass and flow energy raterequired
of the natural by the gas REU in min 3 is given by using Equation (3), and it is the multiplication
kWh,𝑚 = 𝜌 𝑚× 𝐹𝐶= 𝜌 Sdr×represents
respectively; 𝐹𝐶 the
of natural gas fuel density Ꞃ to the amount of fuel consumed. The natural gas fuel consumption can
self-discharging rate of the battery in %; BES is the efficiency of the BES system in %; and t is the time
also be estimated using Equation (4):𝐹𝐶 = (𝐹𝐹𝐶 × 𝑃 = (𝐹) +×(𝐹 𝑃 × 𝑃) + (𝐹 ) ×𝑃 )
represented in h.
where, 𝜌 where, is the 𝜌density is the ofdensity
the natural 𝑚 the
of =natural
gas 𝜌fuel×(kg/m 𝐹𝐶gas fuel 3); 𝐹𝐶 (kg/m 𝐹𝐶 is
is3);natural gasnatural
fuel consumptio
gas fuel (3)co
The mass 4. Data
flow rateInputs
of theand natural Simulation
gas in mof 3 isProposed
given by PSS usingConfigurations
Equation (3), and it is the multiplication
m /h; 𝑃 m /h;
3 3 is the𝑃 ratedis capacity the ratedofcapacity the natural of the gasnatural
powergas generator in kW; andin𝐹kW;
power generator and and 𝐹 𝐹area
of natural gas fuel density to the amount of fuel consumed.𝐹𝐶 The = (𝐹for
natural × and𝑃gas 3fuel ) +consumption
(𝐹 ×3resilience
𝑃 ) can (4)
This section provides naturalinformation
gasnaturalfuel regarding
curve
gas fuelinterceptthe
curve data and used
intercept
slope performing
in mslope/h/kW. inthem /h/kW. simulations
also be estimated using Equation (4):
and the techno-economic where, and 𝜌Theenvironmental
issupplied Theenergy
the density assessments.
supplied
of the byenergy
the natural
natural In
by addition,
gas thegas
fuel natural
power the gas
(kg/m ); 𝐹𝐶
simulation
3generator
powerisgeneratorprocedure
represented
natural gas used
represented
using 𝐸 using
fuel consumption 𝐸 in
is given
in PSS configurations m3/h; 𝑃
is briefly
multiplying is𝑚 the=rated
presented.
multiplying
the 𝜌 ×
electrical 𝐹𝐶power
the
capacity electrical
of output
thepowernaturalwith outputthe power
gas operating
with the operating
time, t(3)
generator in h, time,
kW; seeand t in𝐹h, see
Equation and(5). 𝐹 are the
Equation (5
natural gas fuel curve intercept and slope in m3/h/kW.
4.1. Data Inputs 𝐹𝐶 supplied
The = (𝐹 × energy
𝑃 )+by(𝐹the×natural
𝑃 ) gas𝐸 power 𝐸 𝑃 =×represented
= generator 𝑡 𝑃
(4)
× 𝑡 using 𝐸 is given by
where, 𝜌 4.1.1.
is the multiplying
densityLoad
Electrical of the naturalthe
Profile gaselectrical
fuel (kg/m power
3 ); 𝐹𝐶
output is with
natural thegas
operating time, t in h, in
fuel consumption see Equation (5).
m3/h; 𝑃 is the rated capacity of the natural gas power generator in kW; and 𝐹 and 𝐹 are the
In this study, the resilience assessment
(PV) of (PV) three different PSS configurations, and their
natural gas fuel curve intercept3.2.3. Photovoltaics
and slope 3.2.3.
in m3Photovoltaics
/h/kW. 𝐸 = 𝑃 ×𝑡 (5)
techno-economic and environmental feasibility is carried out. As a case study, a multi-floor residential
The supplied energy by the natural gas
In this power
study,
In this
the generator
study,
solar PV represented
thesystem
solarhumid
PV using
is also
system
used 𝐸
is as
also
one is
usedgiven
of the by
as one
backup
of the
power
backup
generation
power gener
facil
building located in New York, (NY, USA), that experiences subtropical climates is considered.
multiplying the electrical powerinoutput with the operating time, t in h, see Equation (5).
The most critical data forone theofREUs
the
in PSS
one of
configurations.
is the the PSS configurations.
electrical In the
load’s solarInconsumption
energy PV
thesystem,
solar PVthesystem,
PV modules
pattern, the PVand
modules
as shown other
in energy
and other
conver
ener
3.2.3. Photovoltaics (PV)
Figure 8. The data on energy consumption patterns are obtained from the Open EI Database for load
profiles [27].
𝐸
In this study, =
the solar𝑃 PV×system𝑡 is also used as one of the backup (5) power generation facilities
in one of the PSS configurations. In the solar PV system, the PV modules and other energy conversion

3.2.3. Photovoltaics (PV)

In this study, the solar PV system is also used as one of the backup power generation facilities
in one of the PSS configurations. In the solar PV system, the PV modules and other energy conversion
 In this study, the resilience assessment of three different PSS configurations, and their techno-
economic and environmental feasibility is carried out. As a case study, a multi-floor residential
building located in New York, (NY, USA), that experiences humid subtropical climates is considered.
The most critical data for the REUs is the electrical load’s energy consumption pattern, as shown in
Energies
Figure2020, 13, 4193
8. The data on energy consumption patterns are obtained from the Open EI Database for 12 load
of 27

profiles [27].

Figure8.
Figure 8. Electricity
Electricity load
load profile
profile of
of aa multi
multi stair
stair residential
residential building
building located
located in
in New
New York,
York, USA
USA [Note:
[Note:
REU—Residential electricity users; USA—United States of
REU—Residential electricity users; USA—United States of America). America).

FromFigure
From Figure8,8,ititisisobserved
observed thatthat the
the load
load profile
profileisistime-dependent,
time-dependent,withwithaamaximum
maximumvariation
variation
observedin
observed inthe
themonths
months(from (fromMay May to to October).
October). The
The maximum
maximum load
load consumption
consumption waswas recorded
recorded in
in the
the month of July, making it the month of peak energy demand, which is around
month of July, making it the month of peak energy demand, which is around 59.04 kW. The observed 59.04 kW. The
observed
average average
load is 25.4load
kW, and is 25.4
thekW, and daily
average the average
energy daily
requiredenergy required
by the by thekWh.
REU is 610.5 REUThe
is 610.5 kWh.
estimated
The estimated
annual annual
AC primary load ACisprimary load is 222,834 kWh/y.
222,834 kWh/y.

4.1.2.
4.1.2. Electric
Electric Grid
Grid Power
Power Outage
Outage and
and Tariff
TariffData
Data
Even
Evenin
in the
the days
days of
of modern
modern electric
electric grid
grid infrastructure,
infrastructure, uncertainty
uncertaintyin
in the
the power
power supply
supplyis
is more
more
often
often seen, especially in the studied location, and is mainly due to power outages. The reasons for
seen, especially in the studied location, and is mainly due to power outages. The reasons for
power outages might be any of the following: extreme weather events, asset failure, natural disasters,
power surges, acute accidents, and even the operational errors by the workforce. Here the studied
location is New York (NY, USA). Based on the recent data article by Mukherjee et al. 2018 [16]. It is
understood that the considered location has frequent power outages, and at times, power outages were
last from a few minutes to weeks. Here, for carrying out the simulation study and understanding the
resilience of PSS, the power outages that occurred in the year 2016 were considered [16]. In 2016, alone,
three major power outage events occurred in New York, and the details are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Data on power outages in New York, USA.

Start Time Restoration Time Outage Duration Reason Notation

7:49 AM on 7 May 9:02 AM on 7 May 1.21 h Intentional attack Outage-1
9:29 PM on 26 May 12:40 AM on 27 May 3.18 h System disruption Outage-2
7:30 AM on 31 May 7:27 AM on 13 June 311.95 h Fuel supply issue Outage-3
Note: USA—United States of America; h—hours.

In the USA, the electricity tariff rates vary from state to state, but when compared to other states,
the REUs in New York pay 44% more for electricity than the average USA residential price [34,35].
In New York State, the average electricity tariff rate for REUs is 17.42 cents/kWh, which is roughly
0.1742 US$/kWh [34,35].
Energies 2020, 13, 4193 13 of 27

4.1.3. Power Supply Systems Equipment Cost

In this study, three different PSS configurations are simulated for understanding resilience.
The proposed PSS configurations contain EG, NGPG, BES, and PV as the primary assets or the
equipment. The cost details, along with the technical specifications each equipment used in PSS
configuration, are given Tables 2 and 3 respectively.

Table 2. Cost details of the most important equipments used in power supply systems [24,29,36,37].

Power Natural Gas

Cost Parameters Photovoltaics Battery
Converter Power Generator
Capital cost 3100 $/kW 137.5 $/kW 156 $/kWh 500 $/kW
Replacement cost 3100 $/kW 137.5 $/kW 156 $/kWh 500 $/kW
Operation & maintenance cost 310 $/y 13.7 $/y 15.6 $/y 0.03 $/op. h
Note: kW—kilo watt; y—year; kWh—kilo watt hour; op. h—Operational hours; $—United States Dollars.

Table 3. Technical specifications of the power supply systems equipment.

Parameter Values with Units

Photovoltaics (PV)
Peak power 1 kW
Temperature coefficient −0.3%/◦ C
Nominal operating temperature 47 ◦ C
Efficiency at the standard test condition 21%
Lifetime 25 y
Battery Energy Storage (BES)
Type Lithium-ion
Nominal capacity 16.7 kWh
Nominal voltage 12 V
The initial state of charge 100%
Minimum state of charge 20%
Self-discharge rate (including the safety circuit) 5%/day
Lifetime 15 y
Natural Gas Power Generator (NGPG)
Input fuel Natural gas
Capacity 65 kW
Efficiency 95%
Lifetime 15,000 h
Power Converter (PC)
Capacity 60 kW
Efficiency 95%
Lifetime 15 y
Note: kW-kilo watt; %—Percentage; ◦ C—Degree centigrade; y—year; kWh-kilo watt hour; V—Volts; h—hours.

4.1.4. Data Inputs on Natural Gas Fuel and Emission Factors

In the considered three PSS configurations, in only one configuration, the NGPG is used. In this
PSS configuration, natural gas is burnt to produce electricity in the event of grid failure. While modeling
 Efficiency 95%
Lifetime 15 y
Note: kW-kilo watt; %—Percentage; °C—Degree centigrade; y—year; kWh-kilo watt hour; V—Volts; h—hours.

4.1.4. Data Inputs on Natural Gas Fuel and Emission Factors

Energies 2020, 13, 4193 14 of 27
In the considered three PSS configurations, in only one configuration, the NGPG is used. In this
PSS configuration, natural gas is burnt to produce electricity in the event of grid failure. While
the study,the
modeling thestudy,
data related to related
the data naturaltogas pricesgas
natural specific
pricestospecific
New York are considered.
to New The variation
York are considered. The
trend in natural gas prices over the last 10 years in New York is shown in Figure 9.
variation trend in natural gas prices over the last 10 years in New York is shown in Figure 9.

Trendsin
Figure9.9.Trends
Figure innatural
naturalgas
gasprice
pricevariation.
variation.

InNew
In NewYork,
York, natural
natural gas
gas can
can be
be purchased
purchased for
for an
an average
average price
priceof
of12.68$/thousand
12.68$/thousandcu.
cu.ftft[38].
[38].
This value is converted in $/cu.m and is around 0.44779 %/cu.m. While modelling, the data related
This value is converted in $/cu.m and is around 0.44779 %/cu.m. While modelling, the data related to to
naturalgas
natural gasfuel
fuelproperties
properties are
are considered,
considered, and
and they
they are
are given
given in
in Table
Table 4.
4.

Propertiesof
Table4.4.Properties
Table ofthe
thenatural
naturalgas
gasfuel
fuelused
usedin
inaanatural
naturalgas
gaspower
powergenerator.
generator.

Parameters
Parameters ValueValue
with Units
with Units
Lower
Lower heating
heating value
value 45 MJ/kg
45 MJ/kg
Density
Density 0.793kg/m3
0.79 kg/m
Carbon
Carboncontent
content 67% 67%
Sulfur content
Sulfur content 0% 0%
Note: MJ-mega
Note: joules;
MJ-mega kg—kilo
joules; gram; m33—Cubic
kg—kilogram; —Cubicmeter;
meter; %—Percentage.
%—Percentage.

For theenvironmental
For the environmentalassessment
assessment of PSS
of the the configurations,
PSS configurations, the emission
the emission factors
factors data data is
is considered.
considered. The considered emission factors are based on life cycle assessments.
The considered emission factors are based on life cycle assessments. As the REUs are located andAs the REUs are
located
connectedandtoconnected to the
the national EGnational
in NewEG in New
York, York,
the EG the EGfactors
emission emissionforfactors
CO2 , SOfor2 ,CO
and2, SO2, and
NOx are
NOx are considered
considered as 287 g/kWh,
as 287 g/kWh, 0.36 g/kWh,
0.36 g/kWh, and 0.20and 0.20 g/kWh,
g/kWh, respectively
respectively [39].the
[39]. From From the literature,
literature, it was
itidentified
was identified that a crystalline
that a crystalline PV technology
PV technology based
based solar solar emits
module module55 emits
g CO255/kWh,
g CO 2/kWh,
0.38 /kWh,
g SO20.38 g
SO
and2/kWh,
0.2 g NO /kWh
and20.2 g NO 2/kWh
[40]. The [40]. The BES
BES was was considered
considered to emit
to emit 338 kg CO 2 /kWh based on its life cycle, in
338 kg CO2/kWh based on its life
addition to CO2 , the batteries SO2 emissions were 2.23 g/kWh [41]. The emissions related to NGPG are
modeled within the simulation tool.

4.2. Simulation of PSS Configurations

Here, the hybrid optimization model for electric renewables (HOMER) simulation tool used
to model different PSS configurations. This tool allows us to model any of the conceptual PSS
configurations, along with multiple constraints. The database of this tool provides us with numerous
inbuilt power conversion devices and DERs.
The simulation is carried out for the steps presented in the form of a flow chart depicted in
Figure 10. The simulation has proceeded for three different PSS configurations that are discussed
in the previous section. While performing the simulations, in the first step, the pre-assessment of
collected residential electrical load profiles, resources such as solar irradiance and natural gas fuel,
model different PSS configurations. This tool allows us to model any of the conceptual PSS
configurations, along with multiple constraints. The database of this tool provides us with numerous
inbuilt power conversion devices and DERs.
The simulation is carried out for the steps presented in the form of a flow chart depicted in Figure
Energies
10. The2020, 13, 4193 has proceeded for three different PSS configurations that are discussed 15
simulation in ofthe
27
previous section. While performing the simulations, in the first step, the pre-assessment of collected
residential electrical load profiles, resources such as solar irradiance and natural gas fuel, and system
and system design is done. Here, the selection of meteorological data for the study location using the
design is done. Here, the selection of meteorological data for the study location using the pre-built
pre-built data sets is made for evaluating PV performance. After preparing the input datasets ready,
data sets is made for evaluating PV performance. After preparing the input datasets ready, the PSS
the PSS configuration models are built by selecting the appropriate electric power components from
configuration models are built by selecting the appropriate electric power components from the
the HOMER library. In a similar way, all three PSS configuration models were built.
HOMER library. In a similar way, all three PSS configuration models were built.

Figure 10.
Figure 10.Flowchart for simulation
Flowchart modeling
for simulation of powerofsupply
modeling powersystem configurations.
supply [Notes: EG-
system configurations.
Electric grid; BES-Battery energy storage; NGPG—Natural gas power generator; PV—Photovoltaics.].
[Notes: EG-Electric grid; BES-Battery energy storage; NGPG—Natural gas power generator;
PV—Photovoltaics.].
In the second step, the resilience and techno-economic and environmental analysis is carried out.
Here,Inwhile modeling
the second step,each component
the resilience andof techno-economic
PSS configuration, their
and technical andanalysis
environmental cost parameters
is carried and
out.
optimum
Here, whilesizing search
modeling eachspaces are enabled
component of PSSalong with the their
configuration, specific constraints
technical and costto achieve
parameterstechno-
and
economicsizing
optimum and environmentally
search spaces arefeasible
enabled configuration
along with the and, at the
specific same time,
constraints that ensures
to achieve resilience.
techno-economic
At this
and stage of the simulation,
environmentally the power outage
feasible configuration scenarios
and, at the samearetime,
applied
that for each PSS
ensures configuration,
resilience. At this
and the
stage of indicators considered
the simulation, for resilience
the power are quantified.
outage scenarios In addition,
are applied for eachthePSS
sensitivity analysisand
configuration, is also
the
carried outconsidered
indicators by considering the sensitive
for resilience parameters In
are quantified. in addition,
order to achieve a lower analysis
the sensitivity net present costcarried
is also (NPC)
and by
out theconsidering
cost of energy (CoE). Here,
the sensitive in each
parameters PSS, the
in order applicable
to achieve sensitive
a lower parameters
net present like solar
cost (NPC) and
irradiance,
the discount
cost of energy rates,Here,
(CoE). and natural
in each gas
PSS,prices are considered.
the applicable sensitive parameters like solar irradiance,
discount rates, and natural gas prices are considered.
The cost parameters are based on the following approach: Among them, the NPC that represents
the overall costs of the PSS configuration considered capital, operation, and maintenance (O & M),
replacement cost, etc. for its lifetime is calculated as per Equation (13) [29,31]:

TC
NPC = 0 n (13)
i×(1+ i1+−FF )
0 n−1
(1+ i1+−FF )

where TC, n, i, i’, and F represent the total cost, number of years the annual real interest rate, real
interest rate, nominal interest rate, and annual inflation rate, respectively.
replacement cost, etc. for its lifetime is calculated as per Equation (13) [29,31]:
TC
NPC =
−F
× (1 + ) (13)
1+F
−F
Energies 2020, 13, 4193 (1 + ) 16 of 27
1+F
where TC, n, i, i’, and F represent the total cost, number of years the annual real interest rate, real
interest
Costrate, nominal
of energy interest
(CoE) rate, andas
is calculated annual
giveninflation rate,(14)
in Equation respectively.
[29,31]:
Cost of energy (CoE) is calculated as given in Equation (14) [29,31]:
TC
CoE = TC (14)
CoE =Lprim,AC + Lprim,DC (14)
, + ,
where Lprim,AC, and Lprim,DC are the AC primary load and the DC primary load, respectively.
where Lprim,AC, and Lprim,DC are the AC primary load and the DC primary load, respectively.
In the third step, the obtained results for three PSS configurations were analyzed and
In the third step, the obtained results for three PSS configurations were analyzed and compared
compared based on the selected indicators for resilience and techno-economic and life cycle based
based on the selected indicators for resilience and techno-economic and life cycle based
environmental feasibility.
environmental feasibility.
5. Results and Discussion
5. Results and Discussion
The results of three PSS configurations under grid outages are presented briefly along with the
The results of three PSS configurations under grid outages are presented briefly along with the
resilience assessment. In addition, the three PSS configurations are compared based on techno-economic
resilience assessment. In addition, the three PSS configurations are compared based on techno-
and life cycle based environmental indicators. Grid outage modeling is the common result of the three
economic and life cycle based environmental indicators. Grid outage modeling is the common result
PSS configurations. Based on the power outage data, the disruption in the power supply to the REUs
of the three PSS configurations. Based on the power outage data, the disruption in the power supply
is evaluated and presented in Figure 11.
to the REUs is evaluated and presented in Figure 11.

Figure 11. Electricity purchased from grid highlighting on the power outage duration for the year.
Figure 11. Electricity purchased from grid highlighting on the power outage duration for the year.

From Figure 11, it is understood that a total of three power outages occurred, and the duration of
From Figure 11, it is understood that a total of three power outages occurred, and the duration
the outages lasted from 1.21 h to 311.95 h. The first power outage was an intentional attack and is
of the outages lasted from 1.21 h to 311.95 h. The first power outage was an intentional attack and is
shorter, and within 1.21 h, the grid restoration has taken place. The second power outage is due to
shorter, and within 1.21 h, the grid restoration has taken place. The second power outage is due to
system operational error, and however, the grid restoration happened within 3.18 h. These two power
system operational error, and however, the grid restoration happened within 3.18 h. These two power
outages were shorter compared to the third incident that took almost 311.95 h to restore. The third
outages were shorter compared to the third incident that took almost 311.95 h to restore. The third
power outage was the major one, and it happened due to the shortage of fuel resources on the grid
power outage was the major one, and it happened due to the shortage of fuel resources on the grid
side. Due to the power outages, the unmet electric load at the REUs is increased in each power outage
side. Due to the power outages, the unmet electric load at the REUs is increased in each power outage
incident, see in Figure 12.
incident, see in Figure 12.
From Figure 12, it is understood that the unmet electric load will increase if the EG is not restored
within the specified time. The cumulative unmet electric load for the duration of power outage events is
31.211 kW (outage-1), 98.2 kW (outage-2), and 7676.08 kW (outage-3), respectively. If no backup power
facility is available (either energy storage or generation), the REUs have to face the emergency, and this
clearly shows that the preparedness towards grid outages from the REUs side is nil. As a result, REUs
will have to experience deficit energy that is around 7805.49 kWh/y. In this case, the PSS configurations
are not resilient. The indicators for resilience and the techno-economic and environmental feasibility of
PSS configuration without any backup energy storage and generation are presented in Table 5.
Energies 2020, 13, 4193 17 of 27
Energies 2020, 13, x 16 of 26

Figure 12. The increasing trends of unmet electric load profile vs. electric grid restoration time:
Figure 12. The increasing trends of unmet electric load profile vs. electric grid restoration time: (a)
(a) outage-1 (intentional attack); (b). outage-2 (system operational error); (c). outage-3 (fuel
outage-1 (intentional attack); (b). outage-2 (system operational error); (c). outage-3 (fuel supply issue).
supply issue).
From Figure
Table 5. 12, it is understood
Techno-economic that the unmet
and environmental electric
indicators load will
of a power increase
supply systemifwithout
the EGany
is not restored
backup
within the specified
energy storage ortime. The cumulative
generation facility. unmet electric load for the duration of power outage events
is 31.211 kW (outage-1), 98.2 kW (outage-2), and 7676.08 kW (outage-3), respectively. If no backup
Parameters
power facility is available (either energy storage or generation),Value withhave
the REUs Unitsto face the emergency,
and this clearly shows that Initial
thecapital cost
preparedness towards grid0 (the user does
outages fromnot
theinvest)
REUs side is nil. As a
Operation cost
result, REUs will have to experience deficit energy that is around 37,458.05 $/y
7805.49 kWh/y. In this case, the PSS
Cost of energy 0.1742 $/kWh
configurations are not resilient. The indicators for resilience and the techno-economic and
Total load demand 222,834 kWh/y
environmental feasibilityLoad of PSS configuration without any backup
consumption 215,029energy
kWh/ystorage and generation
are presented inPurchase
Table 5.value of electricity from grid 37,458.05 $/y
Grid sales 0 (there is no provision)
Unmet electric load 7805 supply
Table 5. Techno-economic and environmental indicators of a power kWh/y system without any
CO 2 emissions
backup energy storage or generation facility. 61,713,323.00 g/y
SO2 emissions 77,410.44 g/y
NO x emissions
Parameters 43,005.80
Value withg/y
Units
Note:Initial capital
$—United costdollar; y—year; kWh—kilo
States 0 (the
wattuser
hour;does not invest)
g—grams.
Operation cost 37,458.05 $/y
Cost of energy 0.1742 $/kWh
However, when it comes to a practical situation, the REUs will be prepared for a certain level
Total load demand 222,834 kWh/y
of emergencies, and aligns with the assumption made under the preparedness component of the
Load consumption 215,029 kWh/y
proposed resilience framework. Here, the REUs are already prepared
Purchase value of electricity from grid
for power outages, and as a
37,458.05 $/y
result, in each PSS configuration, BES
Grid sales is considered. Hence, by considering the grid uncertainty, the
0 (there is no provision)
proposed three PSS configurations forload
Unmet electric REUs were studied to understand which configuration is more
7805 kWh/y
resilient. In the below subsections, the results of proposed PSS configurations
CO2 emissions are briefly presented.
61,713,323.00 g/y
SO2 emissions 77,410.44 g/y
5.1. REU with EG + BES BasedNOx PSS Configuration
emissions 43,005.80 g/y
In EG + BES Note:
based$—United States dollar;
PSS configuration, they—year; kWh—kilo
REUs load watt hour;
is directly g—grams.
connected to the EG. Since REUs
are connected to the grid, the power supply will obviously be disrupted in the event of a power outage.
However, when it comes to a practical situation, the REUs will be prepared for a certain level of
But as per the proposed resilience framework, preparedness measure is already considered. So, the
emergencies, and aligns with the assumption made under the preparedness component of the
REUs are already prepared for power outage emergencies with backup power facilities using a BES.
proposed resilience framework. Here, the REUs are already prepared for power outages, and as a
result, in each PSS configuration, BES is considered. Hence, by considering the grid uncertainty, the
Energies 2020, 13, 4193 18 of 27

In general, the REUs will not have sufficient information to decide the battery storage capacity specific
to unmet electric load during power outage events. Here, to have an understanding of the feasibility of
EG + BES configuration, irrespective of the REUs ability to afford the BES, we modeled the battery
capacity considering the maximum possible power outage duration as battery autonomy, i.e., roughly
13.18 days. Simulation is carried out with the power outage events during the usual conditions, where
the REUs draw power from the EG, and at the same, the batteries are fully charged. Here, when the
power outage occurred, the battery starts discharging for meeting the REUs electric load requirements.
As batteries are charged to 100%, they can power the REUs for the complete blackout duration and thus
meet the required load. The PSS configuration with EG + BES was able to supply power and can be
one of the resilient solutions. The indicators for resilience and the techno-economic and environmental
feasibility of PSS configuration are presented in Table 6. However, when it comes to the practical
situation, an individual REU may not be able to afford a BES with 13.18 days of battery autonomy.

Table 6. Techno-economic and environmental indicators of EG+BES based power supply system.

Parameters Value with Units

Initial capital cost $2,028,188.00
Operation cost 37,458.05 $/y
Cost of energy 0.1742 $/kWh
Net present cost $4,045,528.28
Total load demand 222,834 kWh/y
Load consumption 215,029 kWh/y
Purchase value of electricity from grid 37,458.05 $/y
Grid sales 0 (there is no provision)
Unmet electric load 0 kWh/y
CO2 emissions 64,351,413.00 g/y
SO2 emissions 94,815.59 g/y
NOx emissions 43,005.80 g/y
Note: EG—Electric grid; BES—Battery energy storage; $—United States dollar; y—year; kWh—kilo watt
hour; g—grams.

5.2. REU with EG + NGPG + BES Based PSS Configuration

In EG + NGPG + BES based PSS configuration, the REUs electric load is connected to the
NGPG and a BES. These two back up options will meet the electric loads in the case of emergencies.
This configuration is considered under the prosumer category, but the choice of operation of the NGPG
and power selling to the grid is more dependent on the REUs. The simulation is carried out, assuming
that the REUs will operate the NGPG only in emergency situations. As per the PSS configuration, a
simulation model is developed in the HOMER tool. The model based on sensitivity analysis showed
that the NGPG was able to generate the electricity for the gird outage durations. The compensated
load by NGPG during the power outage events is presented in Figures 13 and 14.
In Figure 15, the power produced by the NGPG and along with the power purchased from the
EG, is shown.
From Figure 15, it is clear that in the event of a grid outage, the NGPG able to restore the PSS thereby
provides continuous power supply to REU. The indicators for resilience and the techno-economic and
environmental feasibility of PSS configuration are presented in Table 7.
Energies 2020, 13, x 18 of 26

Energies 2020, 13, 4193 19 of 27

Energies 2020, 13, x 18 of 26
Energies 2020, 13, x 18 of 26

Figure 13. Time series graph showing the operation of the natural gas power generator.

Figure 13.
Figure 13. Time series graph
Time series graph showing
showing the
the operation
operation of
of the
the natural
natural gas
gas power
power generator.
generator.
Figure 13. Time series graph showing the operation of the natural gas power generator.

Figure 14. Power compensated by the natural gas power generator.

In Figure 15, the power produced by the NGPG and along with the power purchased from the
EG, is shown. 14. Power compensated by the natural gas power generator.
Figure 14. generator.
Figure 14. Power compensated by the natural gas power generator.

In Figure 15, the power produced by the NGPG and along with the power purchased from the
In Figure 15, the power produced by the NGPG and along with the power purchased from the
EG, is shown.
EG, is shown.

Figure 15. Share

Share of power production
production in EG +
in EG NGPG ++BES
+ NGPG BESbased
basedpower
power supply
supply system
system configuration
configuration
[Note: EG-Electric grid; NGPG-Natural gas power generator; BES-Battery energy storage].

Figure 15. Share of power production in EG + NGPG + BES based power supply system configuration
Figure 15. Share of power production in EG + NGPG + BES based power supply system configuration
[Note: EG-Electric grid; NGPG-Natural gas power generator; BES-Battery energy storage].
[Note: EG-Electric grid; NGPG-Natural gas power generator; BES-Battery energy storage].
Energies 2020, 13, x 19 of 26

From Figure 15, it is clear that in the event of a grid outage, the NGPG able to restore the PSS
thereby provides continuous power supply to REU. The indicators for resilience and the techno-
Energies 2020, 13, 4193 20 of 27
economic and environmental feasibility of PSS configuration are presented in Table 7.

Table
Table 7.
7. Techno-economic and
Techno-economic environmental
and indicators
environmental of EG
indicators of +EG
NGPG + BES +
+ NGPG based
BES power
based supply
power
system.
supply system.
Parameters Value with Units
Parameters Value with Units
Initial capital cost $38,741.09
Initial capital
Operation cost cost $38,741.09
39,857.95 $/y
Operation cost 39,857.95 $/y
Cost of energy 0.1903 $/kWh
Cost of energy 0.1903 $/kWh
Net present cost $634,431.83
Net present cost $634,431.83
TotalTotal
load load
demanddemand 222,834
222,834kWh/y
kWh/y
LoadLoad
consumption
consumption fromfrom
grid grid 215,029
215,029kWh/y
kWh/y
Purchase value of electricity from
Purchase value of electricity fromgrid grid 38,817.68
38,817.68$/y
$/y
GridGrid
salessales 00(there
(there is provisionbut
is provision but used
used as
as standby
standby option)
Unmet electric
Unmet load load
electric 00kWh/y
kWh/y
LoadLoad supplied
supplied by a by a natural
natural gas generator
gas generator 7805kWh/y
7805 kWh/y
Fuel
Fuel cost cost 1157.41 $/y
1,157.41 $/y
CO2 CO 2 emissions
emissions 65,741,000.00
65,741,000.00 g/yg/y
SO emissions
SO2 emissions
2 76,400.00 g/y
76,400.00 g/y
NO x emissions
NOx emissions 46,000.00g/y
46,000.00 g/y
Note: EG—Electric
Note: EG—Electricgrid; NGPG—Natural
grid; NGPG—Naturalgas power generator;
gas power BES—Battery
generator; energy storage;
BES—Battery energy$—United
storage;States
$—
dollar; y—year; kWh—kilo watt hour; g—grams.
United States dollar; y—year; kWh—kilo watt hour; g—grams.

5.3. REU with EG + PV + BES Based PSS Configuration

5.3. REU with EG + PV + BES based PSS Configuration
5.3.1. Weather Data for PV Modelling
5.3.1. Weather Data for PV Modelling
For the studied residential location, throughout the year, there exists a significant amount of solar
For the studied residential location, throughout the year, there exists a significant amount of
radiation potential but with varying capacities. The data on solar radiation potential is collected from
solar radiation potential but with varying capacities. The data on solar radiation potential is collected
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) databases using the data access provision
from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) databases using the data access
provided by the HOMER tool and presented in Figure 16.
provision provided by the HOMER tool and presented in Figure 16.

Figure
Figure 16.
16. Solar
Solar radiation
radiation potential
potential available
available in
in the
the location.
location.

From Figure
From Figure 16,
16,atatthe
theREUs,
REUs,thethe observed
observed solar
solar radiation
radiation power
power potential
potential varies
varies from from
0.02
0.02 kW/m 2 /day to 0.48 kW/m 2 /day, which is sufficient to power the REUs. In terms of energy potential,
kW/m 2/day to 0.48 kW/m2/day, which is sufficient to power the REUs. In terms of energy potential,
the daily
the dailypotential
potentialforfor
thethegiven month
given is varied
month between
is varied 1.67 to 5.67
between to 5.672 /day
1.67 kWh/m kWh/mrecording
2/day maximum
recording
in June andin minimum 2 /day, and
maximum June andin minimum
December. in The annual average
December. daily solar
The annual radiation
average dailyissolar
3.80 kWh/m
radiation is 3.80
the observed
kWh/m 2/day, clearness sky index clearness
and the observed is 0.4906, which is suitable
sky index for solar
is 0.4906, whichpower generation.
is suitable Apart
for solar from
power
solar radiation, in the PV system modeling, we used wind speed and ambient temperatures to estimate
the impact of module temperature on the total power produced. In the considered locations, the
Energies 2020, 13, x 20 of 26

generation.
Energies Apart
2020, 13, 4193 from solar radiation, in the PV system modeling, we used wind speed and ambient
21 of 27
temperatures to estimate the impact of module temperature on the total power produced. In the
considered locations, the observed annual average wind speed for the last ten years was around 5.7
observed annual average wind speed for the last ten years was around 5.7 m/s. The wind speeds are
m/s. The wind speeds are ranged between 4.60 to 6.68 m/s, with an average of 2.75 m/s. The annual
ranged between 4.60 to 6.68 m/s, with an average of 2.75 m/s. The annual average temperature is
average temperature is observed at 11.68°C. The monthly average daily temperatures were observed
observed at 11.68◦ C. The monthly average daily temperatures were observed to vary between −0.99 to
to vary between −0.99 to 23.89°C recording the minimum in January and maximum in July.
23.89◦ C recording the minimum in January and maximum in July.
5.3.2. Power
5.3.2. Power Performance
Performance of EG +
of EG + PV
PV ++BES
BESbased
BasedPSS
PSSConfiguration
Configuration
In EG
In EG ++ PV
PV ++ BES-based
BES-based PSS PSS configuration,
configuration, the
the electric
electric load
load is
is connected
connected to to an
an on-site
on-site solar PV
solar PV
power plant as well as the EG. This configuration is considered under the prosumer
power plant as well as the EG. This configuration is considered under the prosumer category, where category, where
the REUs
the REUs sell
sell the
the power
power toto the
the grid.
grid. The
The simulation
simulation is is carried
carried out
out by
by considering
considering the the local
local weather
weather
parameters, as
parameters, as discussed
discussed in in Section
Section 5.3.1. and power
5.3.1 and power outage
outage conditions,
conditions, as as shown
shown in in Table
Table 1.
1. In
In our
our
simulation, the effect of sensitive parameters on the overall power generation is also
simulation, the effect of sensitive parameters on the overall power generation is also observed. From the observed. From
the investigation,
investigation, it wasitunderstood
was understood
that the that the was
PV plant PV able
plantto was
meet able to meetload
the electrical the requirements
electrical loadof
requirements of REUs, and at the same time, it was able to sell power to the
REUs, and at the same time, it was able to sell power to the EG. The power generation profileEG. The power generation
under
profile
EG + PVunder EG + PVPSS
+ BES-based + BES-based
configurationPSSisconfiguration is depicted
depicted in Figure 17. Thein Figure 17.
indicators forThe indicators
resilience for
and the
resilience and theand
techno-economic techno-economic
environmentaland environmental
feasibility feasibility of PSS
of PSS configuration configuration
are presented are presented
in Table 8.
in Table 8.

Figure 17.
Figure 17. Share
Share of
of power
power production EG +
production EG + PV
PV ++BES
BESbased
basedpower
powersupply
supplysystem
systemconfiguration
configuration [Note:
[Note:
EG-Electric grid;
EG-Electric grid; PV-Photovoltaics;
PV-Photovoltaics; BES-Battery
BES-Battery energy
energystorage].
storage].

Table 8.8.Techno-economic
Table Techno-economic and environmental
and indicators
environmental indicators of+EG
of EG PV ++ PV
BES+based
BES power supply supply
based power system
considering only REUs
system considering onlyload.
REUs load.

Parameters
Parameters ValueValue with Units
with Units
Initial capitalcapital
Initial cost cost $83,078.76
$83,078.76
Operation cost cost
Operation 47,236.07
47,236.07 $/y $/y
Cost ofCost
energyof energy 0.05560 $/kWh$/kWh
0.05560
Net present cost cost
Net present $485,892.00
$485,892.00
Totaldemand
Total load load demand 222,834
222,834 kWh/ykWh/y
Load consumption
Load consumption from grid
from grid 26,515.00 kWh/ykWh/y
26,515.00
Purchase value of
Purchase electricity
value from the
of electricity grid
from the grid 4618.91 $/y $/y
4618.91
EnergyEnergy
fed to grid
fed tosales
grid sales 471,079 kWh/ykWh/y
471,079
Grid sales
Gridvalue
sales value 349,540.62 $/y $/y
349,540.62
Unmet electric load 0 kWh/y
Unmet electric load 0 kWh/y
CO2 emissions 18,407,350.00 g/y
CO2 emissions 18,407,350.00 g/y
SO2 emissions 84,146.62 g/y
SO2 emissions 84,146.62 g/y
NOx emissions 44,566.80 g/y
NOx emissions 44,566.80 g/y
Note: EG—Electric grid; PV—Photovoltaics; BES—Battery energy storage; $—United States dollar; y—year;
Note: EG—Electric
kWh—kilo grid; PV—Photovoltaics; BES—Battery energy storage; $—United States dollar;
watt hour; g-grams.
y—year; kWh—kilo watt hour; g-grams.
Energies 2020, 13, 4193 22 of 27

5.4. Comparison of PSS Configurations

In this section, the investigated three PSS configurations were compared based on their resilience,
and techno-economic and life cycle-based environmental feasibility indicators. The detailed comparison
of the indicators is presented in Table 9. In Table 10, the renewable-based prosumer category of the PSS
configuration (i.e., EG + PV + BES) results are compared considering the two conditions that are with
and without sales to EG.

Table 9. Comparison of resilience and techno-economic and life cycle based environmental feasibility
indicators for three PSS configurations.

Parameters EG + BES EG + NGPG + BES EG + PV + BES

Initial capital cost $2,028,188.00 $38,741.09 $83,078.76
Operation cost 37,458.05 $/y 39,857.95 $/y 47,236.07 $/y
Cost of energy 0.1742 $/kWh 0.1903 $/kWh 0.05560 $/kWh
Net present cost $4,045,528.28 $634,431.83 $485,892.90
Unmet electric load 0 kWh/y 0 kWh/y 0 kWh/y
CO2 emissions 64,351,413.00 g/y 65,741,000.00 g/y 44,316,890.00 g/y
SO2 emissions 94,815.59 g/y 76,400.00 g/y 263,161.24 g/y
NOx emissions 43,005.80 g/y 46,000.00 g/y 138,859.60 g/y
Note: EG—Electric grid; BES—Battery energy storage; NGPG—Natural gas power generator; PV—Photovoltaics;
$—United States dollar; y—year; kWh—kilo watt hour; g—grams.

Table 10. Comparison of resilience and techno-economic and life cycle based environmental feasibility
indicators for EG + PV + BES based power supply system configuration with and without sales to EG.

EG + PV + BES
Parameters
With Sales to EG Without Sales to EG
Initial capital cost $83,078.76 $83,078.76
Operation cost 47,236.07 $/y 47,236.07 $/y
Cost of energy 0.05560 $/kWh 0.05560 $/kWh
Net present cost $485,892.90 $485,892.90
Unmet electric load 0 kWh/y 0 kWh/y
CO2 emissions 44,316,890.00 g/y 18,407,350.00 g/y
SO2 emissions 263,161.24 g/y 84,146.62 g/y
NOx emissions 138,859.60 g/y 44,566.80 g/y
Note: EG—Electric grid; BES—Battery energy storage; PV—Photovoltaics; $—United States dollar; y—year;
kWh—kilo watt hour; g—grams.

Based on the obtained comparative results shown in Tables 9 and 10, it is understood that the
three configurations (EG + BES; EG + NGPG + BES; EG + PV + BES) were observed to be resilient and
were able to supply power during power outages. Here, the resilience was achieved with optimal
planning of energy infrastructure under each PSS configuration. In addition, based on the nature of
the PSS category, i.e., consumer or prosumer, we observed a significant effect on the techno-economic
and environmental indicators. For example, the initial capital cost was observed to be very high for
EG + BES configuration, and this is because of the battery capacity needed to meet the massive power
outage that lasts for almost 316 h. The initial capital cost for EG + NGPG + BES-based PSS configuration
is quite less, as it is only planned for emergency backup. If the NGPG is made to operate continuously
considering the grid sales, the capital cost will increase; also, the operating and maintenance cost
would be very high. The third PSS configuration, i.e., EG + PV + BES, can be operated in prosumer
mode, and in this configuration, the initial cost would be a little high but with almost zero investment
on fuel resources, which is better when compared to NGPG. In addition, the payback is also viable. PV,
when operated considering the REUs load consumption alone, has lower amounts of emission than
the operation with grid sales. Even from the CO2 emission point of view, the PSS with PV and BES
seems to have lower emissions. In addition, the observed CoE is lower for the PSS with PV and BES.
Energies 2020, 13, 4193 23 of 27

Overall, after a thorough quantification of the techno-economic and life cycle based environmental
indicators, the EG + PV + BES was able to perform well by satisfying the resilient condition and
ensuring the power supply.

5.5. Discussion on Ensuring Resilience and Future Research Directions

In this section, a brief discussion is provided on how the studied three PSS configurations
ensured the power resilience considering the four-component resilience framework. Besides, based
on the provided discussion, few unaddressed issues were identified, and accordingly, the future
research directions are proposed. In this study, the proposed three PSS configurations were resilient
enough in supplying power to the REUs in the grid outage events, but each configuration differed
in their techno-economic and life cycle-based environmental indicators as discussed in Section 5.4.
The resilience is investigated based on PSS functionality variation, which is the function of the available
power and the electricity demand at the REUs.
In the case of REU that is dependent only upon the EG (where there is no facility for on-site
generation and storage), due to grid outage, there is a sudden fall in PSS functionality to zero. The fall
to zero would happen immediately as there is no backup, thus low preparedness. The value of PSS
functionality will be maintained as zero until the grid restoration has taken place, making the system
not robust to grid outages. However, the recovery is observed to be 100%, but only after a dedicated
amount of time, i.e., the time taken for grid restoration. The fourth component, i.e., adaptation, is more
important. Based on the experiences, the REUs must learn and must adapt existing approaches that
make the system more resilient. The adaptation is more related to improving the system efficiency
and associated assets, which involves capital investment. With this, the PSS can adapt to previously
experienced situations and is able to enhance preparedness to deal with the outage in the future.
In the case of EG + BES-based PSS configuration, during the grid outage, the PSS functionality is
observed to vary. Here the resilience of PSS configuration is dependent upon the size of BES. If the
considered BES capacity can manage the unmet loads, there will not be any drop in PSS functionality,
and it is always maintained at maximum until and unless there is another disturbance at BES. The size
of BES would again influence capital investment. The four-components of resilience will be affected;
for instance, preparedness can be achieved even with low capacities of BES, which needs a lower
investment, whereas the PSS may not be robust enough if the grid restoration times are longer.
The recovery component is again dependent upon the capacity of the BES and grid restoration times.
The other two considered PSS configurations can generate on-site power generation. During the
grid outages, they provide continuous power supply making the PSS configurations more resilient.
In the case of EG + NGPG + BES, the PSS functionality is more dependent upon the NGPG operation
time and natural gas fuel availability at the REUs, whereas, in the case of EG + PV + BES, the PSS
functionality is more dependent upon the intermittent nature of the solar irradiance. In the considered
location, these two resources are available, hence the impact on PSS functionality and resilience
components is not much.
Based on the above-provided discussion, a few future research directions can be proposed.
These include:
• Investigation of the investments made in energy infrastructure and their impacts on improving
resilience can be considered as one of the research directions, as in our study. We observed the
variations in economic indicators based on the proposed energy infrastructure.
• Resilience framework incorporating islanding and other grid disturbance detection approaches
could be considered as one possible future research direction.
• Tools that support grid restoration can be beneficial in optimal scheduling of on-site power
generation facilities at REUs side, and in fact, they could influence the robustness component of
the resilience cycle.
• Modernization and re-design of PSS infrastructure by using advanced technologies like
Blockchain [42–44], Internet of Things [45], Energy Internet [46], Blockchain-based Internet
Energies 2020, 13, 4193 24 of 27

of Things (B-IoT) [47], and Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques such as Machine Learning (ML),
and Deep Learning (DL) [48] could favor in tracking the power outage events and thereby allows
us to have a data-driven solution. Hence, power sector digital transformation from the context of
resilience can be one of the possible future research directions.
• Location and ecosystem specific studies can be further modeled to evaluate the feasibilities of PSS
configurations in the context of the proposed resilience framework.

6. Conclusions
In this study, three different PSS configurations to meet the load demand of the REUs were
proposed. The main objective of this study was to understand the resilience of PSS configurations
during the power outages events. Besides, the resilient PSS configuration should be feasible from
the techno-economic and life-cycle environmental emission point of view. For understanding this, a
four-component resilience framework is proposed along with few indicators. As per the proposed
framework, we observed that all three PSS configurations (that include the EG + BES; EG + NGPS
+ BES; and EG + PV + BES) were found to provide power during the power outages events. In all the
three PSS, the resilience indicator, i.e., the unmet electric load, is observed to be zero. Even though
there is an equal improvement in resilience, but in the context of techno-economic and lifecycle-based
environmental indicators, each PSS differed. Based on this investigation, the following conclusions
were drawn:

• The configuration with the BES alone as a support option may not be feasible for longer power
outage scenarios.
• The configuration with fossil fuel-based PSS configuration (i.e., NGPG) would definitely be a
solution; however, it is not feasible from the perspective of the least cost of energy and lowest
life-cycle emissions.
• A PV plus BES-based PSS configuration would be much more feasible under the prosumer only
category, as it allows energy trade between the REUs and EG.
• The EG + PV + BES based PSS configuration is observed to enhance the overall resilience, thereby
help in improving the energy accessibility to REUs.

Overall, it is understood that the PSS configurations can be resilient as prosumers to the grid
outage conditions. At the same, the PSS can be feasible from the techno-economic and life cycle-based
environmental perspective.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, N.M.K., and S.S.C.; Data curation, N.M.K.; Formal analysis, N.M.K.;
Funding acquisition, A.G. (towards APC), and S.S.C.; Methodology, N.M.K., and S.S.C.; Resources, S.S.C.; Software,
N.M.K., and S.S.C.; Supervision, S.S.C.; Validation, N.M.K.; Visualization, N.M.K.; Writing—original draft, N.M.K.,
Writing—review and editing, N.M.K., A.G., and S.S.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Cifor, A.; Denholm, P.; Ela, E.; Hodge, B.M.; Reed, A. The policy and institutional challenges of grid
integration of renewable energy in the western United States. Utilities Policy 2015, 33, 34–41. [CrossRef]
2. Eid, C.; Codani, P.; Perez, Y.; Reneses, J.; Hakvoort, R. Managing electric flexibility from Distributed Energy
Resources: A review of incentives for market design. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 64, 237–247.
[CrossRef]
3. Hertwich, E.G.; Gibon, T.; Bouman, E.A.; Arvesen, A.; Suh, S.; Heath, G.A.; Bergesen, J.D.; Ramirez, A.;
Vega, M.I.; Shi, L. Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global
environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 6277–6282.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Energies 2020, 13, 4193 25 of 27

4. Bayati, N.; Aghaee, F.; Sadeghi, S.H. The Adaptive and Robust Power System Protection Schemes in the
Presence of DGs. Int. J. Renew. Energy Res. 2019, 9, 732–740.
5. Field, C.B.; Barros, V.R.; Stocker, T.F.; Dahe, Q.; Dokken, D.J.; Ebi, K.L.; Mastrandrea, M.D.; Mach, K.J.;
Plattner, G.; Allen, S.K.; et al. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate
Change Adaptation; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
6. Chopra, S.S.; Khanna, V. Toward a Network Perspective for Understanding Resilience and Sustainability in
Industrial Symbiotic Networks. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable
Systems and Technology (ISSST), Boston, MA, USA, 16–18 May 2012; pp. 1–6.
7. Chopra, S.S.; Khanna, V. Understanding resilience in industrial symbiosis networks: Insights from network
analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 141, 86–94. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Chopra, S.S.; Khanna, V. Interconnectedness and interdependencies of critical infrastructures in the US
economy: Implications for resilience. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Appl. 2015, 436, 865–877. [CrossRef]
9. Chopra, S.S.; Dillon, T.; Bilec, M.; Khanna, V. A network-based framework for assessing infrastructure
resilience: A case study of the London metro system. J. R. Soc. Interface 2016, 13, 20160113. [CrossRef]
10. Roege, P.E.; Collier, Z.A.; Mancillas, J.; McDonagh, J.A.; Linkov, I. Metrics for energy resilience. Energy Policy
2014, 72, 249–256. [CrossRef]
11. Panteli, M.; Mancarella, P. Influence of extreme weather and climate change on the resilience of power
systems: Impacts and possible mitigation strategies. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2015, 127, 259–270. [CrossRef]
12. Power Systems Engineering Center (PSERC). Engineering Resilient Cyber Physical Systems; Power Systems
Engineering Center (PSERC): Tempe, AZ, USA, 2011.
13. Linkov, I.; Bridges, T.S.; Creutzig, F.; Decker, J.; Foxlent, C.; Kroger, W.; Lambert, J.H.; Levermann, A.;
Montreuil, B.; Nathwani, J.; et al. Changing the resilience paradigm. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014, 4, 407–409.
[CrossRef]
14. Linkov, I.; Trump, B.D.; Keisler, J. Risk and resilience must be independently managed. Nature 2018, 555, 30.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Global Outage Tracker Powered by Machine Learning: DataCapable Adds Global Power Outage Maps to
Esri’s ArcGIS Marketplace. Available online: https://gisuser.com/2017/06/global-outage-tracker-powered-by-
machine-learning-datacapable-adds-global-power-outage-maps-to-esris-arcgis-marketplace/ (accessed on
29 June 2020).
16. Mukherjee, S.; Nateghi, R.; Hastak, M. Data on major power outage events in the continental US. Data Brief
2018, 19, 2079. [CrossRef]
17. USA Blackout Annual Report 2014. Eaton USA’s Blackout Tracker. Available online: http://pqlit.eaton.com/
ll_download_bylitcode.asp?doc_id=33333 (accessed on 15 June 2020).
18. Najafi, J.; Peiravi, A.; Anvari-Moghaddam, A.; Guerrero, J.M. Resilience improvement planning of
power-water distribution systems with multiple microgrids against hurricanes using clean strategies.
J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 223, 109–126. [CrossRef]
19. Rosales-Asensio, E.; de Simón-Martín, M.; Borge-Diez, D.; Blanes-Peiró, J.J.; Colmenar-Santos, A. Microgrids
with energy storage systems as a means to increase power resilience: An application to office buildings.
Energy 2019, 172, 1005–1015. [CrossRef]
20. Marqusee, J.; Don, D.J., II. Reliability of emergency and standby diesel generators: Impact on energy resiliency
solutions. Appl. Energy 2020, 268, 114918. [CrossRef]
21. Anderson, K.; Laws, N.D.; Marr, S.; Lisell, L.; Jimenez, T.; Case, T.; Li, X.; Lohmann, D.; Cutler, D. Quantifying
and Monetizing Renewable Energy Resiliency. Sustainability 2018, 10, 933. [CrossRef]
22. Balasubramaniam, K.; Saraf, P.; Hadidi, R.; Makram, E. Energy management system for enhanced resiliency
of microgrids during islanded operation. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2016, 137, 133–141. [CrossRef]
23. Ouyang, M.; Dueñas-Osorio, L. Multi-dimensional hurricane resilience assessment of electric power systems.
Struct. Saf. 2014, 48, 15–24. [CrossRef]
24. Faraji, J.; Babaei, M.; Bayati, N.; Hejazi, M.A. A comparative study between traditional backup generator
systems and renewable energy based microgrids for power resilience enhancement of a local clinic. Electronics
2019, 8, 1485. [CrossRef]
25. Li, J.; Niu, D.; Wu, M.; Wang, Y.; Li, F.; Dong, H. Research on Battery Energy Storage as Backup Power in the
Operation Optimization of a Regional Integrated Energy System. Energies 2018, 11, 2990. [CrossRef]
Energies 2020, 13, 4193 26 of 27

26. Kumar, N.M.; Subathra, M.S.P.; Moses, J.E. On-Grid Solar Photovoltaic System: Components, Design
Considerations, and Case Study. In Proceedings of the 2018 4th International Conference on Electrical Energy
Systems (ICEES), Chennai, India, 7–9 February 2018; pp. 616–619.
27. Open EI Database for Energy Load Profiles in USA. Available online: https://openei.org/wiki/Data (accessed on
12 June 2020).
28. HOMER Energy. Homer Pro Version 3.7 User Manual; HOMER Energy: Boulder, CO, USA, 2016;
Available online: https://www.homerenergy.com/pdf/HOMERHelpManual.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2020).
29. Kumar, N.M.; Chopra, S.S.; Chand, A.A.; Elavarasan, R.M.; Shafiullah, G.M. Hybrid renewable energy
microgrid for a residential community: A techno-economic and environmental perspective in the context of
the SDG7. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3944. [CrossRef]
30. Kumar, N.M.; Gupta, R.P.; Mathew, M.; Jayakumar, A.; Singh, N.K. Performance, energy loss, and degradation
prediction of roof-integrated crystalline solar PV system installed in Northern India. Case Stud. Therm. Eng.
2019, 13, 100409. [CrossRef]
31. Karmaker, A.K.; Hossain, M.A.; Manoj Kumar, N.; Jagadeesan, V.; Jayakumar, A.; Ray, B. Analysis of
Using Biogas Resources for Electric Vehicle Charging in Bangladesh: A Techno-Economic-Environmental
Perspective. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2579. [CrossRef]
32. Krishan, O.; Suhag, S. Techno-economic analysis of a hybrid renewable energy system for an energy poor
rural community. J. Energy Storage 2019, 23, 305–319. [CrossRef]
33. Adefarati, T.; Bansal, R.C. Reliability, economic and environmental analysis of a microgrid system in the
presence of renewable energy resources. Appl. Energy 2019, 236, 1089–1114. [CrossRef]
34. New York State Energy Profile. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=NY (accessed on
12 June 2020).
35. Electric Power Monthly. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?
t=epmt_5_6_a (accessed on 12 June 2020).
36. How Much do Solar Panels Cost in the U.S. in 2020? Available online: https://news.energysage.com/how-
much-does-the-average-solar-panel-installation-cost-in-the-u-s/ (accessed on 12 June 2020).
37. Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Battery Pack Prices Fall as Market Ramps up with Market Average at
$156/kWh in 2019. Available online: https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-pack-prices-fall-as-market-ramps-
up-with-market-average-at-156-kwh-in-2019/?sf113554299=1 (accessed on 12 June 2020).
38. Monthly Average Price of Natural Gas—Residential, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information
Administration “Natural Gas Navigator” Historic Price Series. Available online: http://eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/
hist/n3035ny3m.htm (accessed on 12 June 2020).
39. US Grid Emissions Factors. HOMER Pro Version 3.14; HOMER Energy: Boulder, CO, USA, 2020.
Available online: https://www.homerenergy.com/products/pro/docs/latest/us_grid_emissions_factors.html
(accessed on 12 June 2020).
40. Fthenakis, V.M.; Kim, H.C.; Alsema, E. Emissions from photovoltaic life cycles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008,
42, 2168–2174. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Liu, W.; Sang, J.; Chen, L.; Tian, J.; Zhang, H.; Palma, G.O. Life cycle assessment of lead-acid batteries used in
electric bicycles in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108, 1149–1156. [CrossRef]
42. Kumar, N.M. Blockchain: Enabling wide range of services in distributed energy system. BeniSuef Univ. J.
Basic Appl. Sci. 2018, 7, 701–704. [CrossRef]
43. Ahl, A.; Yarime, M.; Tanaka, K.; Tanaka, K.; Sagawa, D. Review of blockchain-based distributed energy:
Implications for institutional development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 107, 200–211. [CrossRef]
44. Ahl, A.; Yarime, M.; Goto, M.; Chopra, S.S.; Kumar, N.M.; Tanaka, K.; Sagawa, D. Exploring blockchain
for the energy transition: Opportunities and challenges based on a case study in Japan. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2020, 117, 109488. [CrossRef]
45. Kumar, N.M.; Dash, A.; Singh, N.K. Internet of Things (IoT): An Opportunity for Energy-Food-Water Nexus.
In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Power Energy, Environment and Intelligent Control
(PEEIC), Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India, 13–14 April 2018; pp. 68–72.
46. Kabalci, Y.; Kabalci, E.; Padmanaban, S.; Holm-Nielsen, J.B.; Blaabjerg, F. Internet of Things Applications as
Energy Internet in Smart Grids and Smart Environments. Electronics 2019, 8, 972. [CrossRef]
 Energies 2020, 13, 4193 27 of 27

47. Kumar, N.M.; Mallick, P.K. Blockchain technology for security issues and challenges in IoT. Procedia Comput.
Sci. 2018, 132, 1815–1823. [CrossRef]
48. Xu, Y.; Ahokangas, P.; Louis, J.-N.; Pongrácz, E. Electricity Market Empowered by Artificial Intelligence: A
Platform Approach. Energies 2019, 12, 4128. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

View publication stats