energies
Case Report
Optimal Design of a Hybrid Energy System for Economic and
Environmental Sustainability of Onshore Oil and Gas Fields
Deepika Bishnoi and Harsh Chaturvedi *






Citation: Bishnoi, D.; Chaturvedi, H.
Optimal Design of a Hybrid Energy
System for Economic and
Environmental Sustainability of
Onshore Oil and Gas Fields. Energies
2022, 15, 2063. https://doi.org/
10.3390/en15062063
Academic Editors: Victor
Fernão Pires, Ilhami Colak and
Fujio Kurokawa
Received: 21 January 2022
Accepted: 6 March 2022
Published: 11 March 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 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 (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Energies 2022, 15, 2063. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15062063
School of Energy Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati 781039, Assam,
India; deepika2016@iitg.ac.in
* Correspondence: harshc@iitg.ac.in
Abstract: The pollution caused by gas flaring is hazardous to the health of flora, fauna, and humans
settled around the flaring site. Gas flaring also incurs economic loss as natural gas, an energy source,
is wasted in flares. Furthermore, the unreliable electrical infrastructure is a roadblock for oil and
gas companies attempting to achieve their production targets. This paper presents a framework to
design hybrid energy systems (HES) which utilize the gas flare waste along with the locally available
renewable energy sources to generate electricity. A novel dispatch strategy to suit the requirements
of the oil and gas fields has been used for real-time simulations and optimization of the HES. As a
test case, six different hybrid energy configurations, modelled for two gas flaring sites, Lakwa and
Geleky in Assam—India, were analyzed and compared on the basis of economic and environmental
factors. The best suitable configuration comprised 2000 kW solar photovoltaic (PV) panel sets, one
200 kW gas microturbine, two 30 kW gas microturbines, and grid connection. The proposed system
economically outperformed the existing power system in the area by 35.52% in terms of the net
present cost. Moreover, it could save 850 tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually, and it has a
renewable fraction of 93.7% in the total energy generation. Owing to these merits, the presented
technique would be a promising option for generation of electricity from flare gas waste and to
mitigate pollution.
Keywords: modelling; simulation; optimization; cost analysis; hybrid renewable energy system;
HOMER
1. Introduction
Gas flaring poses a severe environmental threat not only in oil and gas fields but also
in natural gas industries, petroleum refineries, and petrochemical plants. Apart from eco-
logical damage, severe health abnormalities such as cardiovascular diseases are common
in humans and animals living near gas flaring sites [1]. The emission levels for onshore
oil and gas fields are much higher than those from other mentioned sources. Globally,
more than 100 billion cubic meters of gas are flared annually in onshore oil and gas fields,
which is associated with 400 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions per year
along with oxides of nitrogen, sulfur, carbon monoxide, benzene, toluene, xylene, styrene,
naphthalene, and black carbon formaldehyde emissions [2,3]. Approximately 20 million
dollars are wasted due to flaring of natural gas produced at oil and gas fields across the
globe. Numerous gas flaring reduction technologies have been adopted worldwide; they
are mainly applied for either power generation (popularly known as gas-to-wire) or stor-
age by liquefaction (viz.-pipeline natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, liquefied natural
gas, compressed natural gas, natural gas hydrates, gas-to-liquid, and methanol–ammonia
production). Nevertheless, there is limited research on integrating the methods used for
power generation (gas to wire) with the emerging renewable generation methods to limit
carbon emissions due to flaring and meet the local community’s electricity demands. It
can be seen that combining renewables like solar and wind introduces intermittencies and
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2022, 15, 2063 2 of 21

stochasticity in the system due to dependence on the dynamic weather parameters. How-
ever, studies [4,5] have proven that a mixture of multiple energy resources can effectively
overcome the problems of randomness, unpredictability, and variability of solar or wind
energy [6]. Hybrid (multiple source-based) energy systems significantly reduce the net
present cost, increase energy efficiency, and provide a more reliable supply of electricity as
compared to a single energy source system [7].
Numerous studies have been conducted on modelling, simulation, unit size opti-
mization, and techno–economic assessment of hybrid energy systems (HES). The primary
objective identified from those studies was maximizing the renewable fraction while min-
imizing the overall cost of the system design. For the design optimization of the hybrid
renewable energy system (HRES), a number of metaheuristic optimization techniques and
software are used. In [8], Mo et al. used a branch and bound method and radial basis
function artificial neural network (RBF ANN) algorithm to a maximize renewable fraction
at a low cost while designing an HRES using the Modelica language. The capital and
cost of energy are minimized in [9] using cuckoo search and compared with a genetic
algorithm and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO). Ref. [10] compared results for PSO
and a Hybrid Optimizer for Multiple Energy Resources (HOMER) and found that the sys-
tem designed by HOMER provides a sufficient sizing margin while designing the system
components, which leads to less load loss. The authors of [11] compare the microgrid
design using HOMER and an analytical method and conclude that the HOMER designs
are techno–economically more suitable as the analytical method produces exaggerated
component sizes. Meta-heuristic computational approaches do not produce reasonable
results when the hybrid system complexity is higher. Moreover, PSO and HOMER give
similar results with less than 1% variability between them. Therefore, HOMER is more
popular in the research community to reduce the computation time, improve the accuracy
of results, and produce a thorough techno–commercial analysis of the production mix, and
effective comparison of all possible system designs. Sen et al. [12] were among the first few
to use HOMER to design an off-grid HRES comprising small-scale hydropower, solar pho-
tovoltaic systems, wind turbines, and bio-diesel generators for remote rural areas village
in Chhattisgarh, India. It is to be noted that 79.34% of studies in the existing literature are
purely based on ‘off-grid/islanded’ solutions [6]. In a similar grid independent study [13],
Wondwossen et al. designed a wind turbine generator, diesel generator, and solar panel-
based hybrid renewable energy system for a remote rural community in Ethiopia. In
another grid-independent study, Murthy et al. [14] designed a stand-alone polygeneration
microgrid catering to the electrical, thermal, and hydrogen needs of a typical 50-household
remote Indian village. Shahzad et al. [15] designed a grid-independent PV/biomass for a
remote agricultural farm in Punjab, Pakistan. Similarly, Rezk and Dousoky [16] presented a
feasibility study of a stand-alone photovoltaic, a battery, a fuel-cell, wind-based HRES for a
remote agricultural area in Egypt. In [17], Gonzalez et al. used small wind turbines (SWT)
for off-grid electrification of 2000 kWh load in two different rural Venezuelan communities.
In a similar rural context in West Africa, Ayodele et al. [11] designed an optimal hybrid
configuration comprising WT, PVG, gasoline generators, and BESS for a microfinance bank.
In a similar Malaysian study, wind turbine and PV-based off-grid HRES were designed
by Shezan et al. [18]. Multiple researchers have explored off-grid HRES for remote rural
areas as well as islands. In a feasibility study for Lakshadweep islands, Singh et al. [19]
found that PVG, WT, and BESS is the best combination to lower the emission, cost of
energy, and dummy load of the existing diesel operated electricity production system in
the region. In a similar study, Fazelpour et al. [20] declared that a wind–diesel hybrid
system with BESS is ideal for supplying power to a hotel in Kish islands, Iran. Bhakta
and Mukherjee [21] studied the feasibility of a PVG–BESS powered system for a single
household load in Andaman and Nicobar Island. Similarly, Tsai et al. [22], and M B Khan
et al. [23] also proposed HRES over diesel generators for the Batan Island, Philippines,
and a resort island in the South China sea, respectively. Later on, Tsai et al. analyzed the
impact of increasing the renewable fraction on system cost for a PVG/DG/BESS system
Energies 2022, 15, 2063 3 of 21

in a Chinese island [24]. Some microgrid system design studies have been conducted for
academic institutions/university buildings. In [25], Kumar et al. used HOMER to design a
microgrid system for an educational institution that utilizes the biogas from the institute’s
food waste to generate electricity. Similarly, Sarkar et al. [26] designed and implemented
a microgrid comprising solar PV, wind, biomass, vanadium redox flow battery storage
for Indian Institute of Engineering science and technology (IIEST) Shibpur. Bhattacharjee
et al. [27] analyzed the contribution of PV and wind in a PV–wind-based HRES for an
educational building in Tripura, India. Meanwhile, Saiprasad et al. [28] performed optimal
sizing and an HRES feasibility study for Victoria University at the St Albans campus in
Melbourne. Ghenai et al. [29] analyzed the performance of an off-grid PV–FC–DG-based
HRES using HOMER software for a university building. A few studies for urban residential
buildings can also be highlighted. Liu et al. [30] performed a techno–economic feasibility
analysis of hybrid renewable energy power systems for high-rise buildings in an urban
location. Similarly, Al-Ammar et al. [31] designed a stand-alone HRES for a residential
area and compared nine different PV/Wind/diesel/battery combinations using HOMER
software to determine the most economical and environmentally safe configuration. Lv
et al. [32] used HOMER to perform a techno–economic feasibility analysis of a 100% renew-
able energy-based residential household in China in a similar context. Tiwary et al. [33]
devised a biomass-based community-scale hybrid energy management system for waste
and energy management in the UK and Bulgaria urban areas. Rad et al. [34] designed a
hybrid PV/wind/biogas/fuel-cell-based system for stand-alone and on-grid applications.
In all these studies [11–17,19–22,26,28,30], there was no mention of the strategy used to
schedule the dispatch of various HRES components. Table 1 presents a brief comparison of
some of the recent research papers that focused on HRES design.

Table 1. Comparison of HRES designs from the literature.

Performance
Ref HRES Mix Load Type Grid Connection Dispatch Strategy
Measure
[13] Wind, Solar, Diesel Rural community Off-grid No mention cost
[15] Solar, Biomass Agricultural Off-grid No mention
Wind, PV, Battery Remote Agricultural
[16] Grid No mention
storage, Fuel cell Area
[17] Wind Dessert and mountain Off-grid No Mention LCOE
Wind, Diesel, Battery,
[18] Daily load Off-grid CC NPC, COE
PV
[19] PV, Battery Islands Grid No Mention NPC, COE
[20] Wind, Diesel, Battery Hotel Grid No Mention COE
[21] PV, Battery Island Off-grid COE, NPC, RF
[22] PV, Diesel, Wind, Battery Island Off-grid No mention COE
Diesel, PV, Wind, Hydro,
[23] Island Grid LF, CC COE, NPC, RF
Battery
[24] Diesel, PV, Battery Island Off-grid LF, CC COE, NPC, RF
[25] PV, Battery IIT Guwahati campus Grid/Off-Grid LF, CC COE, NPC
PV, Wind, Biomass,
[26] Vanadium redox flow IIEST Off-Grid No mention COE
battery (VRFB)
[28] PV, Wind Campus Off-Grid No Mention NPC, COE, RF
[29] PV, Fuel cell Commercial Building Off-Grid LF, CC COE
[30] PV, Wind High-rise building Grid No Mention LCOE
[33] PV, Wind Residential Area Off grid CD COE, NOC
[34] Wind, PV, Biogas City Grid No Mention LCOE
LF: Load following; CC: Cycle charging; CD: Combined dispatch; PV: Photovoltaic; NPC: Net present Cost; COE:
Cost of energy; RF: Renewable fraction.

Several studies have declared renewable-based systems to be more economical and

environmentally friendly than only-diesel or only-grid systems. In a grid-connected HRES
Energies 2022, 15, 2063 4 of 21

study by Rad et al. [34], it was observed that the system cost of a stand-alone system
was higher than the cost of a system with the same components and a grid connection.
Therefore, renewable fraction and cost decrease by introducing grid connection in the same
set of system components. Maximizing renewable penetration in grid-connected systems at
the lowest possible cost is challenging, as most of the system’s energy requirements will be
met by the grid if a connection is available. However, it is crucial to improve the renewable
percentage in the production mix to curb environmental pollution.
It is observed that most of the hybrid system design studies were non-grid-connected
and for remote rural locations. Furthermore, several studies can be found for cattle
farms [35,36], agricultural lands [18,19], hilly regions [18], government organisations [37],
microfinance institutions [11], office buildings [8], or islands [22–27]. Nevertheless, there is
a lack of hybrid energy system design specifically for the oil and gas field area, supplement-
ing the existing grid connection. Most of the concurrent studies are either designed using
the default LF and CC dispatch strategies or there is no mention of the dispatch or design
method at all. There is a lack of studies focused on design and development of the dispatch
method customized for gas microturbine-, solar-, and river turbine-based grid connected
systems. Accordingly, the present study focused on a grid-connected design, optimization,
and modelling of HRES for oil and gas field areas utilizing the waste gas flares to produce
power, thus minimizing environmental pollution from oil and gas production sites at the
lowest possible cost. A novel dispatch strategy specifically designed to suit the require-
ments of oil and gas fields has been proposed. The presented research has the potential to
convert oil and gas production sites from power-consuming and emission-causing sites
to integrated energy companies. For the analysis, modelling, process and operation of a
flare gas-based microgrid power management systems in the onshore oil and gas fields of
Nazira-Assam, India, is discussed.
The rest of the paper is organized into following sections. Section 2 describes the
mathematical models of all the components used in the HES design. This section forms the
basic infrastructure of the study, as the HES installation locations and the previous studies
on which the current study is based are briefly discussed in this section. Section 3 discusses
the load profile of the area, and Section 4 presents the economic model, objective function,
and environmental suitability indicators mathematically. In Section 5, the dispatch strategy
customized to suit the case specific requirements is presented. Section 6 discusses various
optimization constraints taken into account while designing the HES. Section 7 presents
a technical, commercial, and ecological performance comparison of six different HESs
designed for the two gas flare locations. Finally, the conclusion is given in Section 8.

2. Model Development and Design Specifications of HES Components

In [38], the authors selected two locations, namely Lakwa GGS5 and Geleky GGS2
to install HRES at the oil and gas field region of Nazira, Assam (27◦ 1.80 N, 94◦ 52.40 E),
India. They concluded that Lakwa GGS5 was most suitable for installing any combination
of HRES with a gas microturbine (GMT), whereas Geleky GGS2 was ideal for installing
any combination of HRES with GMT and without a river turbine (RT). Based on those
results, the current study proposed different combinations of retrofit hybrid energy systems
(HES) for Lakwa GGS5 and Geleky GGS2. A 200 kW GMT is already installed at Lakwa
GGS5 [39]. Therefore, as an extension to the previous studies [38,40], a techno–economic
feasibility analysis for a retrofit system with the following general structure was performed
for the two locations:
(1) Geleky GGS2: GMT, Solar PV and Battery Energy Storage System (BESS);
(2) Lakwa GGS5: GMT, Solar PV, RT, and BESS.
These components were selected as feasible preliminary technologies for the proposed
case. In general, since the study area has abundant gas flare waste, as well as solar and
water resources, a mixture of a gas microturbine, solar PV and a river turbine was consid-
ered for the HRES installations. Figure 1 mentions all the input parameters required to
 Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 21
Energies 2022, 15, 2063 5 of 21

considered for the HRES installations. Figure 1 mentions all the input parameters required
model various
to model HESHES
various components, thethe
components, optimization constraints
optimization and
constraints thethe
and overall configuration
overall configu-
design plan.
ration design plan.

Figure 1. Framework for optimal design, planning, and techno-commercial analysis of hybrid re-
Figure 1. Framework for optimal design, planning, and techno-commercial analysis of hybrid
newable energy systems.
renewable energy systems.
2.1.Solar
2.1. SolarPhotovoltaic
Photovoltaic
SolarPV
Solar PV panels
panels were
wereused
usedtotogenerate
generate DCDC electricity, which
electricity, was then
which was fed
then into
fedthe ACthe
into
system via power converters. To select the right PV panel, cost efficiency, tolerance to
AC system via power converters. To select the right PV panel, cost efficiency, tolerance to
variation in power, conversion efficiency, and temperature coefficient are crucial factors.
variation in power, conversion efficiency, and temperature coefficient are crucial factors. To
To estimate the performance of PV generators, IEC standard 61,724 and international en-
estimate the performance of PV generators, IEC standard 61,724 and international energy
ergy agency PVPS task II guidelines were used [21]. Accordingly, CanadianSolar Max-
agency PVPS task II guidelines were used [21]. Accordingly, CanadianSolar MaxPower
Power CS6X-325P PV modules were chosen for the current study. As quoted by the seller
CS6X-325P PV modules were chosen for the current study. As quoted by the seller and
and verified from the literature [41], the capital cost, replacement cost, and operation and
verified from the literature [41], the capital cost, replacement cost, and operation and
maintenance cost of the PV panels were estimated to be 714 USD/kW, 700 USD/kW, and
maintenance cost of the PV panels were estimated to be 714 USD/kW, 700 USD/kW, and
14 USD/kW, respectively. The capital cost is more than the replacement cost, as it includes
14the
USD/kW, respectively.
cost of cables, inverters, The capital cost
installation, andis substation
more thancharges.
the replacement cost,
The selected PVasmodules
it includes
the cost of cables, inverters, installation, and substation charges. The selected
had a derating factor of 88%, efficiency of 16.94%, and a nominal operating cell tempera- PV modules
had
turea derating
(NOCT) of factor of 88%,
45 °C [41]. efficiency
The deratingof 16.94%, and a nominal
factor compensates foroperating
losses in cell
the temperature
solar PV
(NOCT) of 45 ◦ C [41]. The derating factor compensates for losses in the solar PV caused by
caused by dust, elevation, and drop in temperature, cable losses, etc., and makes the per-
dust, elevation,
formance andPV
of rated drop in temperature,
close cable losses,
to real-life operation [42]. etc.,
The and makesofthe
efficiency a PVperformance
panel de- of
rated PV close to real-life operation [42]. The efficiency of a PV panel decreases
creases linearly with an increase in temperature [43]. The manufacturer’s rated perfor- linearly with
anmance
increase ◦
was tested at 25 °C with NOCT of 45 °C, and the resultant 20 °C increase causes a C
in temperature [43]. The manufacturer’s rated performance was tested at 25
with NOCTinofrated ◦
45 C, and the resultant ◦
20 C increase causes a reduction in were
ratedcon-power
reduction power output [44]. Therefore, ambient temperature effects
output
sidered while calculating the power output of the PV generation system using Equationthe
[44]. Therefore, ambient temperature effects were considered while calculating
power output of the PV generation system using Equation (1) [45]:
(1) [45]:

IT  
PPV = YPV × d × × 1 + αp (Tc − Tc,STC ) (1)
IT,STC
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 21

Energies 2022, 15, 2063 6 of 21

I
P =Y × d× × [1 + α T − T , ] (1)
I ,

where YY is
where the rated capacity of the PV module (kW), d is the derating factor, I is the
PV is the rated capacity of the PV module (kW), d is the derating factor, IT is the
incident
incident solar radiations
solar radiations at
at the
the current conditions, IIT,STC
current conditions, , is the
is the solar
solar insolationon
insolationon the
the PV
PV
panel at standard test conditions (STC) (1 kW/m 2). α is the temperature coefficient of
2
panel at standard test conditions (STC) (1 kW/m ). αp is the temperature coefficient of
power (%/°C),
power (%/◦ C),which
whichaccounts
accountsfor
forthe
theambient
ambienttemperature
temperatureeffects, andTTc and
effects,and and TTc,STC
, are
are
the
the PV cell temperatures
PV cell temperatures (°C)
( C) at
◦ at real-time
real-time and
and at
at STC,
STC, respectively.
respectively. The
The real-time
real-time PVPV cell
cell
temperature
temperature cancan be
be calculated
calculated using
using the
the following
following equation
equation [42]:
[42]:
 I   η
ηmp

T = T + T , − T ,
TC = Ta + (TC,NOCT − Ta,NOCT ) × × IT × 1 −
× 1 − τα (2)
I ,
IT,STC τα
(2)

 T 
η = η , × [1 + α × TC ] (3)

ηmp = ηmp,STC × 1 + αp × T, (3)
TC,STC
where T is the ambient air temperature (°C), T , is the nominal operating cell tem-
where Ta is the ambient air temperature (◦ C), TC,NOCT is the nominal operating cell tem-
perature, T , is the ambient temperature at which T , is calculated (°C), T , is
perature, Ta,NOCT is the ambient temperature at which TC,NOCT is calculated (◦ C), TC,STC is
the PV cell temperature at STC of 25 °C and η and η , are maximum power point
the PV cell temperature at STC of 25 ◦ C and ηmp and ηmp,STC are maximum power point
efficiencies
efficiencies (in
(in %)
%) of
of the
the PV
PV array
array at
at real-time
real-time and
and STC, respectively, 𝛼
STC,respectively, is the
α is the coefficient
coefficient
of absorption of PV panel (%), and 𝜏 is the transmittance associated
of absorption of PV panel (%), and τ is the transmittance associated with the PV with the PV panel
panel
cover (%).
cover (%).

Solar
Solar Irradiance
Irradiance
The global
global horizontal
horizontalirradiance
irradiance(GHI),
(GHI),whichwhichis is
thethe total
total daily
daily solarsolar radiation
radiation inci-
incident
dent on a horizontal
on a horizontal surface,
surface, for theforchosen
the chosen
location ◦
location
(27 1.8 0
(27°1.8′ ◦
N, 94 N, 0
94°52.4′
52.4 E) wasE)obtained
was obtained
from
from
NASA NASA surface
surface meteorology
meteorology and and
solarsolar energy
energy website
website [46].The
[46]. Theannual
annual average
average solar
radiation in the region
region isis 3.92 kWh/m22/day.
3.92 kWh/m /day.Figure
Figure2a 2ashows
shows thethe average
average monthly values
of the
the Clearness
Clearnessindex
index(left
(leftaxis)
axis)and
and GHIGHI (right
(right axis)
axis) forfor 22 years
22 years (July (July 1983–June
1983–June 2005).
2005). The
The clearness
clearness indexindex (surface
(surface radiation
radiation divided divided by the extraterrestrial
by the extraterrestrial radiation)radiation) is the
is the measure
measure of the
of the clarity ofclarity of the atmosphere
the atmosphere and is a dimensionless
and is a dimensionless quantityquantity
varying varying
betweenbetween
0 and 1.
The
0 andclearness
1. The index is high
clearness indexin winter,
is highwhereas
in winter, GHI is higher
whereas in the
GHI summer
is higher inmonths. Both
the summer
these indices
months. Bothare used
these to calculate
indices are used thetoflat-plate
calculatePV theoutput.
flat-plate PV output.

Clearness Index
GHI
0.7 4.6

0.6
4.4

0.5
GHI (kw/m2/day)
Clearness Index

4.2

0.4
4
0.3

3.8
0.2

3.6
0.1

0 3.4
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 2.
2. (a)
(a) Global
Global horizontal
horizontal index
index and
and clearness
clearness index
index of
of solar
solar photovoltaics.
photovoltaics. (b)
(b) Monthly
Monthly average
average
streamflow of the river. Year: 2018, Location: Nazira (27°1.8′
◦ 0 N, 94°52.4′
◦ 0 E).
streamflow of the river. Year: 2018, Location: Nazira (27 1.8 N, 94 52.4 E).

2.2. River Turbine

Hydrokinetic River Turbines (HKRT) require a smaller amount of civil engineering
and construction works as compared to hydel power stations and dams [47]. The planned
installation locations (Lakwa GGS5 and Geleky GGS2) are swept by rivers Dikhow and
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21

Energies 2022, 15, 2063 2.2. River Turbine 7 of 21

Hydrokinetic River Turbines (HKRT) require a smaller amount of civil engineering
and construction works as compared to hydel power stations and dams [47]. The planned
installation
Disang, whichlocations (Lakwa GGS5
are tributaries of theand Geleky
river GGS2) are
Brahmaputra andswept
havebyaverage
rivers Dikhow
river headsand
Disang, which are tributaries of the river Brahmaputra and have
varying from 2 to 5 m [48]. The most common problem with such low river heads is the average river heads var-
ying from
rotor blockage2 to 5due
m [48]. The most
to debris common
deposition; problem
axial with suchwith
flow turbines lowblades
river heads is the rotor
that swing back
blockage
and shed offduethetodebris
debrisaredeposition;
consideredaxial to beflow
mostturbines
effectivewith bladeswith
in dealing thatthis
swing back [49].
problem and
shed off the debris
Deployment are considered
of an HKRT becomestodifficult
be mostineffective
deep and in dealing
high flow with this problem
velocity rivers, [49].
and
Deployment
darreius of an are
turbines HKRT becomes
a good fit fordifficult in deep
such cases and
[49]. highthe
Since flow velocity
river headrivers,
in theand dar-
present
reius turbines are a good fit for such cases [49]. Since
case is low (2 to 5 m), and flow velocity is is as low as 3.152 m/s the river head in the present
summers andcase is
low
as (2 toas519.8
high m), m/s
and flow
in thevelocity is is as(Figure
rainy season low as 3.152
2b), them/saxial
in the
flowsummers
Schotteland as high as
hydrokinetic
19.8 m/smanufactured
turbine in the rainy season (Figure
by GmbH 2b), the axial
Germany is theflow
most Schottel
suitable hydrokinetic turbine
fit [49,50]. It has a man-
rotor
ufacturedof
diameter by3GmbH
m, rated Germany
power is ofthe
70 most suitable
kW, rated fit [49,50].
water velocityIt of
has3.8a rotor
m/s, diameter
cut-in speedof 3
of
m, 0.9 m/s,
rated and of
power a cut-out speedwater
70 kW, rated of 6.75 m/s [51].
velocity of 3.8Them/s,lifetime of the of
cut-in speed selected
0.9 m/s, turbine
and a
is 25 years
cut-out speed [51]. The m/s
of 6.75 hydrokinetic turbineofpower
[51]. The lifetime curve in
the selected Figure
turbine is 3a derived from
25 years[51]. The the
hy-
manufacturer’s datasheet [50] shows that the maximum output
drokinetic turbine power curve in Figure 3a derived from the manufacturer’s datasheet is obtained if the water
speed is between
[50] shows that the 3.75 and 6.75output
maximum m/s, and a water speed
is obtained above speed
if the water 0.89 m/s will start
is between giving
3.75 and
exponentially
6.75 m/s, and increasing
a water speed power output.
above Figure
0.89 m/s will3bstart
shows the installation
giving exponentially of increasing
a schottel
hydrokinetic
power output. turbine.
Figure 3b shows the installation of a schottel hydrokinetic turbine.

80 0.89 ~ 0.9 0.9 ~ 1.5 1.5 ~ 2.5 2.5 ~ 3 3 ~ 3.15 3.15 ~ 3.4 3.4 ~ 3.7 3.7 ~ 6.74

70

60
Power Output (kW)

50

40 Maximum Power
Output Speed
30

20
Sp t-in

10
d
u

Cut-Out
ee
C

Speed
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0.89

3.7

6.75

Water Speed (m/s)

(a) (b)
Figure 3.
Figure 3. (a)
(a) Power
Power output
output vs.
vs. water
water speed curve for
speed curve for aa hydrokinetic
hydrokinetic river
river turbine.
turbine. (b)
(b) Installation
Installation of
of
the Schottel hydrokinetic river turbine [49].
the Schottel hydrokinetic river turbine [49].

The hydro
The hydro turbine’s
turbine’s nominal
nominal power
power output
output is
is given
given by
by Equation
Equation (4)
(4) [42].
[42].
P = η ρ gh Q (4)
Phyd = ηhyd ρwater ghnet Qturbine (4)
where η is the turbine efficiency, ρ is the density of water, g is the gravitational
where ηhyd ishthe turbine
acceleration, efficiency,
is the net head, and Q is theisdensity
ρwater the flowofrate
water, g is the
through thegravitational
turbine [51]
acceleration, h
expressed as, net is the net head, and Q turbine is the flow rate through the turbine [51]
expressed as,
Q 1 1C ∁. A.
. A.v3v
Qturbine = = .2 .T g. h (5)
(5)
2 g. hnet
where C∁T isisthe
where thecoefficient
coefficientofofpower
powerofof the
the hydrokinetic
hydrokinetic turbine, A isA the
turbine, is the swept
swept by tur-
by turbine
bine blades,
blades, and vand v is
is the the velocity
velocity ofwater
of river river water
in m/sin[47].
m/s Therefore,
[47]. Therefore,
1
P =1 . η . ρ . ∁ . A. v (6)
2
Phyd = .η .ρ . CT . A. v3 (6)
2 hyd water
Energies2022,
Energies 2022,15,
15,2063
x FOR PEER REVIEW 88 of 21
of 21

2.3. Converter
2.3. Converter
The converter
The converter works
works asas aa coupling
coupling between
between DCDC and
and AC
AC systems
systems and
and can
can facilitate
facilitate
the bidirectional power flow. Since the proposed model has a solar PV and
the bidirectional power flow. Since the proposed model has a solar PV and river turbine river turbine
modeled on the DC bus, and a gas microturbine, grid, and load modeled
modeled on the DC bus, and a gas microturbine, grid, and load modeled on the AC bus, on the AC bus,
a
a bidirectional
bidirectional converter
converter withwith an input
an input efficiency
efficiency of 95%
of 95% and and rectifier
rectifier inputinput efficiency
efficiency of
of 97%
97%considered
was was considered
[40]. [40].

2.4.
2.4. Gas
Gas Microturbine
Microturbine
The average annual
The average annualflaring
flaringof of natural
natural gas gas in area
in the the under
area under consideration
consideration is 2958.25is
2958.25
MMSCM MMSCM
(million(million
metricmetric standard
standard cubiccubic
meters)meters)
dailydaily
[40].[40].
TheThegasgas flaring
flaring amounts
amounts to
to 11.833
11.833 million
million tons
tons of CO
of CO 2 emissions
2 emissions and and a loss
a loss of USDof USD
59,16559,165 annually
annually [3]. The[3].aim
The ofaim
this
of this was
study study to was to utilize
utilize the waste the flare
wastegasflare gas to produce
to produce electricity,
electricity, therebythereby
reducing reducing
carbon
carbon emissions and the electricity problem in an economically optimal
emissions and the electricity problem in an economically optimal way. Therefore, three way. Therefore,
three Capstone
Capstone gas microturbines
gas microturbines werewere employed
employed for hybrid
for the the hybrid renewable
renewable energyenergy system
system de-
design: two 30 kW gas MTs with a fuel curve intercept of 1.50 m 3 /h and a 200 kW gas MT
sign: two 30 kW gas MTs with a fuel curve intercept of 1.50 m3/h and a 200 kW gas MT
with 3
withaafuel
fuelcurve
curveintercept
interceptof of10.0
10.0mm3/h. Both types
/h. Both types of
of gas
gas MTs
MTs have
have aa fuel
fuel curve
curve slope
slope ofof
0.29 m 3 /h/kW (Figure 4) [40].
0.29 m /h/kW (Figure 4) [40].
3

Fuel Consumption for 30 kW turbine

Fuel Consumption for 200 kW turbine

Fuel Consumption for 200 kW turbine (m3/hr)

Fuel Consumption for 30 kW turbine (m3/hr)

12 11.65 120
11 111.5
110
10.2
10 100
8.75 97
9 90
8 82.5 80
7.3
7 70
5.85 68
6 Slope = 0.29 60
5 4.4 53.5 50
4 Slope = 0.29 40
2.95 39
3 30
2 1.5 24.5 20
1 10
10
0 0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

Power Output (kW)

Figure4.
Figure 4. Fuel
Fuel consumption
consumption curves
curves for
for30
30kW
kWand
and200
200kW
kWgas
gasmicroturbines.
microturbines.

The
The fuel
fuel curve,
curve, as
as shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 4,
4, is
is aa straight
straight line
line with
with aa y-intercept,
y-intercept, and
and itit uses
uses
the
the following
following equation
equationfor
forthe
thefuel
fuelconsumption
consumptionof ofthe
thegenerator:
generator:
𝐹=
F= 𝐹 Y ++
F0 Y F1𝐹 P
Pgen (7)
(7)
gen
where 𝐹 is the fuel curve intercept coefficient, 𝐹 is the fuel curve slope, and 𝑌 is the
where F0 is the fuel curve intercept coefficient, F1 is the fuel curve slope, and Ygen is the
rated capacity of the generator (in kW).
rated capacity of the generator (in kW).
The fixed and marginal energy costs of the generator estimated by Equations (8) and
The fixed and marginal energy costs of the generator estimated by Equations (8) and
(9), respectively, were used for simulation of the system operation. The fixed cost is simply
(9), respectively, were used for simulation of the system operation. The fixed cost is simply
the cost of running a generator without generating electricity, whereas the marginal cost
the cost of running a generator without generating electricity, whereas the marginal cost is
is the additional cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced by the generator:
the additional cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced by the generator:
C ,
C , = C , + Crep,gen + F Y C , (8)
Cgen,fixed = Com,gen + R + F0 Ygen Cfuel,eff (8)
Rgen
where C , is the operation and maintenance cost (in USD per hour), C , is the
where Com,gencost
replacement is the
in USD, R
operation andlifetime
the maintenance cost (in USD
of the generator 𝐹 isCthe
per hour),
(in hours), fuelis
rep,gen the
curve
replacement cost in USD, Rgen the lifetime of the generator (in hours), F0 is the fuel curve
Energies 2022, 15, 2063 9 of 21

intercept coefficient or the quantity of fuel per hour per kilowatt, Ygen is the capacity of the
generator (in kW), Cfuel,eff is the valid fuel price (in USD per quantity of fuel).

Cgen,mar = F1 Cfuel,eff (9)

where F1 is the fuel curve slope in the quantity of fuel/h/kW, and Cfuel,eff is the effective
price of fuel in USD/quantity of the fuel.

2.5. Grid
The grid was modeled as a component that allows micro power systems to purchase
and sell AC electricity in case of a power shortage or surplus production. Whether the
power will be sold to the utility or purchased from it is decided using the dispatch strategy
discussed in Section 5. The rate of selling back power to the grid was set as 0.108 USD/kWh,
and the power purchase price was set to 0.081 USD/kWh [52]. The capacity ratings and
cost specifications of various components used are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Various costs, lifetime, type, and rating details of various components involved in the HES
design [40].

Component Replacement
Type Rating Quantity Capital Cost O&M Cost Lifetime
Name Cost
0.005
Gas 200 kW 1 USD 200,000 USD 200,000 USD/operational 40,000 h
Capstone
Microturbine h
0.005
30 kW 2 USD 30,000 USD 30,000 USD/operational 40,000 h
h
PV arrays
Solar Photo- CanadianSolar arranged in 0.08 0.08
2000 kW - 25 years
voltaics MaxPower series and USD/kWh USD/kWh
parallel
Hydrokinetic USD USD
Schottel 70 kW 1 USD 6,290,000 25 years
River Turbine 57,000,000 57,000,000
Converter Free size 10,455 kW 1 1 USD 375 USD 375 USD 10 25 years
1 Fixed after optimization.

3. Load Demand Estimation

The Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL) supplies power to resi-
dential customers, commercial customers, and industries in the study area. Hence, the site
has a mixed hourly load profile as shown in Figure 5. The average annualized load demand
of the Nazira oil and gas field region is 16,500 kWh/day, with a peak load of 2040.49 kW for
the year 2019 as obtained from APDCL. The regional power grid operates on a power factor
of 0.85 and a load factor of 0.34. To make the load data more accurate, typical daily load
profiles for all months were specified, and then the randomness was added to synthesize
the data. A daily variability of 10% was selected at every 20% variation in time-step [53].
It can be seen from Figure 5 that loading occurs mostly between 7:00 a.m. and around
11:00 p.m., and peak load occurs between 6:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. The remaining hours of
the day experience light loads. The grid-connected Microgrid power management system
has to be scheduled accordingly.
Energies 2022,15,
Energies2022, 15,2063
x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of
10 of 21
21

Load

1000 Maximum
956.52

800

Load (kW)
600 Mean
562.12

400

200 Minimum
159.42

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Hours

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Annual
Annual average
average hourly
hourly load
load profile
profileof
of the
the Nazira
Naziraoil
oiland
andgas
gasfield.
field.

4.
4. Economic Modelling
Modelling and and Objective
Objective Function
Function
The
The net
net present
present cost
cost (NPC)
(NPC) incurred
incurred during
during the
the project
project lifetime
lifetime is
is the
the best
best indicator
indicator
of
of the suitability of a given HRES design. The NPC calculation takes all possible factors
the suitability of a given HRES design. The NPC calculation takes all possible factors
into
into account:
account:interest
interestrate,
rate,inflation, discount
inflation, discountrate, capital
rate, costs,
capital operation
costs, and maintenance
operation and mainte-
costs,
nancereplacement, and salvation
costs, replacement, costs. costs.
and salvation The objective function
The objective minimizes
function the NPC,
minimizes the
the NPC,
expression for which
the expression is given
for which by Equation
is given (10) (10)
by Equation [54]:[54]:

CCtot,ann
 
,
𝑂𝑏𝑗 𝐹𝑛 = min(NPC)
Obj Fn = min(NPC) = min = min (10)
(10)
CRF(d,
CRF (𝑑,τ𝜏))
where C , is the total annualized cost of the system (USD/year) and CRF is the capital
where Ctot,ann is the total annualized cost of the system (USD/year) and CRF is the capital
recovery factor,
recovery factor, which
which depends
dependson ondiscount
discountrate
rate(𝑑)
(d)and
andproject lifetime
project (𝜏, (τ,
lifetime years) as ex-
years) as
pressed by Equations (11) and (12):
expressed by Equations (11) and (12):
( )
CRF (𝑑, 𝜏) = 𝑑 × (11)
(1[( + d))τ ]
CRF (d, τ ) = d ×   (11)
where 𝑑 is expressed as, (1 + d ) τ − 1

where d is expressed as, (𝑑 − 𝑓)

𝑑= 0 (12)
(d (1−+f )𝑓)
d= (12)
(1 + f )
where 𝑑 is the nominal discount rate, and 𝑓 is the expected inflation rate.
d0 iscapital
whereThe cost of discount
the nominal rate, andisf converted
each component to theinflation
is the expected annual cost
rate. by amortizing it
overThe capital cost oflife
the component’s each component
using is discount
the actual convertedrate.
to the
Theannual cost by amortizing
total annualized it
cost of the
over thewas
system component’s
estimated life using the(13):
by Equation actual discount rate. The total annualized cost of the
system was estimated by Equation (13):
C , = C , +C & , +C , −C , (13)
Ctot,ann = ∈ , ∑, , , Ccap,k + CO&M,k + Crepl,k − Csalv,k (13)
k∈PV, GMT1, GMT2,RT, Converter
where Csalv is the salvage cost, Ccap is the capital cost, CO&M is the operation and mainte-
where cost,
nance CsalvCisrepl
theis the replacement
salvage cost, Ccapcost, and
is the k denotes
capital cost,the system
CO&M components—PV,
is the GMT,
operation and mainte-
RT, and
nance converter.
cost, Crepl is the replacement cost, and k denotes the system components—PV, GMT,
Theconverter.
RT, and salvage cost of a system component is directly proportional to its remaining life
and is dependent on the component’s replacement cost rather than capital investment
cost. The salvage cost is given by Equation (14) [40].
T ,
C , =C , (14)
T ,
Energies 2022, 15, 2063 11 of 21

The salvage cost of a system component is directly proportional to its remaining life
and is dependent on the component’s replacement cost rather than capital investment cost.
The salvage cost is given by Equation (14) [40].
 
Trem,k
Csalv,k = Crepl,k (14)
Tcom,k

Here, Trem is the remaining life of the component in years, and Tcom is the component
lifetime in years. The system with a minimum life-cycle cost ultimately results in a system
with a minimum Levelized cost of energy (LCOE). LCOE is the average cost per kWh of
the useful electricity generated by the system and is given by Equation (15) [40].

Ctot,ann
LCOE = (15)
Etot,ann

Etot,ann is the total amount of energy used in meeting the load demands per year
(kWh/year). Additionally, the return on investment (ROI) is another crucial indicator,
which determines the profitability or economic viability of the HES as an investment as
expressed in Equation (16) [54]:

∑τi=1 (Ci,ref − Ci,sel )

ROI =   (16)
τ × Ccap,sel − Ccap, ref

where, Ci,ref and Ci,sel are the nominal annual cash flow of the base/reference and selected
systems, respectively, and Ccap,ref and Ccap,sel are the corresponding capital costs.

Environmental Suitability Indicators

The renewable fraction (RF) and amount of CO2 emitted (ACO2 ) were chosen as the
sustainability indicators as expressed by Equations (17) [55] and (18) [54], respectively:

Enon_ren
RF = 1 − (17)
Etot, ann

where Enon_ren is the non-renewable generation in kWh/yr, and Etot, ann is the total
electrical load served (in kWh/yr), which included the gas MT and Grid in the present case.

ACO2 = 3.667 × mf × LHVf × CEFf × Xc (18)

where mf is the amount of diesel fuel (L), LHVf is the fuel heating value (MJ/L), CEFf is the
factor related to carbon emission (ton carbon/TJ), and Xc is the oxidized carbon fraction,
where each 3.667 gm of CO2 includes 1 gm of carbon.

5. Dispatch Strategy
A dispatch strategy is a logical sequence of instructions that govern the operation
and flow of energy between various HRES components. After accounting for the current
power/energy status of the component, it determines which equipment must operate
at that instant. HOMER Pro software uses cycle-charging (CC) and load-following (LF)
strategies by default [42]. In both strategies, renewable-source-based generators are given
top priority while meeting the load. The basic difference between CC and LF is that, in
CC, the generator is used to meet the load as well as charge the battery, while it is used
only to meet the load in LF. The battery is charged using surplus renewables in the case
of LF depending on the renewable availability [56]. Since the use of the generator is less
in LF, it is more effective in minimizing the environmental pollution and overall system
operating cost (as the cost of fuel will be reduced) [57]. However, in the current case,
as the natural-gas-based generator uses flare gas waste to generate electricity, the gas-
microturbines are considered equivalent to renewable-source-based generators. Therefore,
Energies 2022, 15, 2063 12 of 21

the dispatch strategy was customized to suit the requirements of the presented case study.
Equations (19) and (20) form the starting points of the dispatch strategy calculations.

Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW PRen = PPV + PRT + PMT 12 of 21
(19)

PX = PL − PRen (20)
where PPRen isis the
where the total renewable
renewable generation,
generation,which whichisisthe thesum
sum ofof
thethe
power
powerproduced
produced by
solar
by PVPV
solar (P (P),PV
hydrokinetic
), hydrokineticriver turbine
river (P (P
turbine ), RT
and gas microturbine
), and gas microturbine (P (P P );isPthe
); MT X isout-
the
outstanding
standing power power requirement
requirement after
after utilizing P PRen
utilizing to meet
to meet thethe
loadload demand
demand (P ).(PThus,
L ). Thus,
de-
cisions must be made depending on the value of P , as
decisions must be made depending on the value of P X illustrated in Figure 6. P =X0 in-
, as illustrated in Figure 6. P = 0
dicates PPLwas
indicates wasfully
fullymet
metby byrenewables,
renewables,whilewhile P PX>>00 meansmeans there is outstanding power power
requirement,
requirement,which whichhas hastotobe
bemet
metfrom
fromthe thegrid. However,PXP <<00indicates
grid.However, indicates the availability
the availabil-
of
itysurplus renewable
of surplus renewablepower, which
power, can can
which be fed
be tofedtheto grid.
the grid.
The
The algorithm
algorithmshownshownininFigure
Figure 6 runs
6 runsforfor
thethe
entire year
entire andand
year makes hourly
makes calculations
hourly calcula-
for
tions for real-time dynamic power dispatch between various components (8760a hyear).
real-time dynamic power dispatch between various components (8760 h in in a
Whenever the system
year). Whenever is deficient
the system in power,
is deficient it can itfetch
in power, power
can fetch from from
power local local
generation
generationand
the
andgrid usingusing
the grid the proposed dispatch
the proposed strategy,
dispatch making
strategy, the system
making robust
the system and reliable.
robust and reliable.

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Flowchart
Flowchart of
of the
the dispatch
dispatch strategy
strategy used
used for
for the
the modeled
modeled hybrid
hybrid energy
energysystem.
system.

6.
6. Optimization
Optimization Constraints
Constraints
The
The following
following constraints
constraints and
and assumptions
assumptions were
werefollowed
followedin
inthe
thepresent
presentcase
casestudy:
study:
(1) Resource constraints:
(1) Resource constraints: thetheselected
selected study
study location
location hashas annual
annual solar
solar radiation
radiation of
of 3.14
3.14 kWh/m 2 /dayand
[46],annual
and annual average
kWh/m 2/day [46], average river river flow
flow of of 3.152
3.152 m/s19.8
m/s and and m/s
19.8in
m/s
sum-in
summers and winters, respectively.
mers and winters, respectively.
(2) Economic: the
(2) Economic: thenominal
nominaldiscount
discountrate
ratedetermines
determines thethe present
present lump
lump sumsum value
value of
of fu-
future cash flows. A nominal discount rate of 8% was considered for the present
ture cash flows. A nominal discount rate of 8% was considered for the present study. study.
Considering the scale of the current operational project in ONGC Nazira [39] and the
availability of the natural gas reserves in the area [58], a project lifetime of 25 years
was considered.
(3) Technical: an operating reserve of 10% was selected as a percentage of the load. This
Energies 2022, 15, 2063 13 of 21

Considering the scale of the current operational project in ONGC Nazira [39] and the
availability of the natural gas reserves in the area [58], a project lifetime of 25 years
was considered.
(3) Technical: an operating reserve of 10% was selected as a percentage of the load. This
accounts for abrupt changes in load patterns, and an active operating reserve of 50%
was considered for solar photovoltaic to deal with the intermittent weather conditions.
(4) Reliability: to ensure high levels of power supply reliability, the ‘caidi’ index—the
average number of interruptions per year—was considered 0%.
(5) Emission: currently, there is no law on emission penalties in Assam. Therefore, the
emission penalties for CO2 , nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, particulate matter,
sulphur dioxides, were assumed to be zero.

7. Results and Discussion

Six configurations of HES were selected for two different locations: Lakwa and Geleky.
Since Geleky GGS2 is away from the river stream, configurations devoid of hydrokinetic
river turbines were selected for Geleky GGS2, while configurations with a river turbine
were suggested for Lakwa GGS4 owing to its vicinity to the river stream. The six configu-
rations were compared on the basis of (a) cost: NPC, LCOE, operating expenses, and (b)
environmental suitability: total fuel consumption, renewable fraction, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Comparison of the selected HES based on cost and environmental sustainability.

Cost Parameters Environmental Sustainability

# Configuration Operating Renewable Total Fuel Suggested
NPC LCOE
Cost Fraction (%) Consumption (m3 /yr) Location
1 PV/GMT/RT/G USD −2.32B USD −2.72 USD −187M 93.8 774,384 Lakwa
2 GMT/RT/G USD 571B USD 7.16 USD 39.8M 1.99 774,384 Lakwa
3 PV/RT/G USD −2.14B USD −2.56 USD −173M 95.6 0 Lakwa
4 PV/GMT/G USD −2.45B USD −2.87 USD −192M 93.7 774,384 Geleky
5 GMT/G USD 445M USD 5.61 USD 34.4M 0 774,384 Geleky
6 PV/G USD −2.27B USD −2.72 USD −178M 95.5 0 Geleky

System numbers 2 and 5—GMT/RT/G and GMT/G have exorbitant net present,
operating costs as well as levelized cost of energy (LCOE) (NPC USD 571B and USD 445M,
operating cost: USD 39.8M and USD 34.4M, LCOE: USD 7.16 and USD 5.61). It can be
observed from Table 3 that all systems except GMT/RT/G and GMT/G (G denotes grid)
are profitable as they have negative cash flows. Lower cost values (less positive and more
negative) imply more grid exports [59]. Furthermore, the renewable fraction available in
these two systems is negligible (1.99% and 0%). Therefore, GMT/RT/G and GMT/G were
excluded from the viable options, and a cost comparison of the remaining four systems was
made, as shown in Figure 7. The NPC represents the overall lifecycle cost of the system
with all the future cashflows discounted back to the present [40]. Out of all four systems,
PV/GMT/G has the lowest NPC. It may be noted from Table 3 that all four systems have
almost equally renewable fractions. Therefore, PV/GMT/G is the best suitable system
economically and environmentally for the considered oil and gas field location.
Energies 2022,15,
Energies2022, 15,2063
x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of
14 of 21
21

PV, GMT, RT, G PV, RT, G PV, GMT, G PV, G

0.4
0.2
0
-0.2

Billion $ for NPC and $ for LCOE

-0.4
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW -0.6 14 of 21
-0.8
-1
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6 PV, GMT, RT, G PV, RT, G PV, GMT, G PV, G
-1.8
0.4
-2
0.2
-2.2 -2.14
-2.40 -2.32 -2.27
-0.2
-2.6 -2.45
Billion $ for NPC and $ for LCOE

-0.4
-2.56
-2.8 -2.72 -2.72
-0.6
-3 -2.87
-0.8 NPC LCOE
-1
-1.2
Figure-1.4
Figure 7. Cost
7. Cost comparison
comparison of of PV/GMT/RT/G,
PV/GMT/RT/G, PV/RT/G,
PV/RT/G, PV/GMT/G,
PV/GMT/G, andandPV/G configurations.
PV/G configurations.
-1.6
-1.8
Furthermore,
Furthermore,
-2
an
an analysis
analysis of of the
thecomponent-wise
component-wise electrical
electrical power
power consumption
consumption and and
emissions
emissions
-2.2 from
from thethe
-2.14operation
operation of
of the
the six
six HES
HES for
for a
a lifetime
lifetime of
of 25
25 years
years was
was performed,
performed, and
and
the -2.4
the results
results -2.32
are
are shown
shown in -2.27 8–10,
in Figures
Figures 8–10, respectively.
respectively.Figure
Figure88shows
shows that
that the
the presence
presence of of RT
RT
-2.6 -2.45
does not
not have
does-2.8 have any
any significant
significant impact
impact on -2.56
on the
the share
share of of emissions
emissions in in any
any HES.
HES. ItIt also
also depicts
depicts
-2.72 -2.72
that
thatthe-3 proportion
the proportionofofCO CO2 2, ,CO,
CO,and
andnitrogen
nitrogenoxides
-2.87 isisalmost
oxides almostconstant
constantforforPV/G–PV/RT/G,
PV/G–PV/RT/G,
GMT/G–GMT/RT/G,
GMT/G–GMT/RT/G, andPV/GMT/G–PV/GMT/RT/G.
NPCand PV/GMT/G–PV/GMT/RT/G.
LCOE
It can also be observed from Figure 8 that the electrical power production from RT in
the systems
Figure 7. Costwith RT is negligible,
comparison whereas PV/RT/G,
of PV/GMT/RT/G, the distribution of power
PV/GMT/G, produced
and PV/G by GMT, PV,
configurations.
RT, and G is almost constant for PV/G–PV/RT/G, GMT/G–GMT/RT/G, and PV/GMT/G–
PV/GMT/RT/G
Furthermore, systems. A detailed
an analysis of theanalysis of emissions
component-wise from the
electrical six systems
power is provided
consumption and
in Figure 9. It is observed that both GMT, G and GMT, RT, G cause the highest
emissions from the operation of the six HES for a lifetime of 25 years was performed, and amount
of
theoverall
resultsemissions,
are shown in making
Figuresthem
8–10,unfit for the environment.
respectively. Figure 8 showsWith
that respect to overall
the presence of RT
emissions, PV, GMT, G, and PV, GMT, RT, G produced the lowest values.
does not have any significant impact on the share of emissions in any HES. It also depictsHowever, by
considering the nominal contribution of RT in the total electrical power production,
that the proportion of CO2, CO, and nitrogen oxides is almost constant for PV/G–PV/RT/G, PV,
GMT, G could be finalized
GMT/G–GMT/RT/G, as the most viable configuration for both the locations.
and PV/GMT/G–PV/GMT/RT/G.

Figure 8. Share of electrical power consumption by each component of the selected HES.

Figure8.8.Share
Figure Shareof
ofelectrical
electricalpower
powerconsumption
consumptionby
byeach
eachcomponent
componentof
ofthe
theselected
selectedHES.
HES.
Energies 2022,15,
Energies2022, 15,2063
x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21
15 21
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21

PV, GMT, RT, G GMT, RT, G PV, RT, G

PV, GMT,
PV, GMT, G
RT, G GMT, G
GMT, RT, G PV, G
PV, RT, G
1200
1200 PV, GMT, G GMT, G PV, G
1060
1034 1060
1000 1034
1000

800 780 796

800 780 796
Kg/yr

600
Kg/yr

600
497497 497497 496 506
497497 497497 496 506
400 388 394 381 389
400 388 394 381 389
264 266
264 266
200 180 184 155 129
200 180 184 140140 140140
155 129
128 129
140140 140140
128 129
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 CO2 CO SO2 NOx
COKg/yr) PM
(10,000 2 (x10CO
Kg/yr) PM (x10SO
Kg/yr)
2 NO
(x100 Kg/yr)
x
(10,000 Kg/yr) (x10 Kg/yr) (x10 Kg/yr) (x100 Kg/yr)
Pollutant
Pollutant
Figure9.
Figure 9. Comparison
Comparison of
of level
level of
of pollutants
pollutantsfrom
fromthe
thesix
sixsystems.
systems.
Figure 9. Comparison of level of pollutants from the six systems.

Figure 10. Share of pollutants by all HES during 25 years of operation.

Figure10.
Figure 10.Share
Shareof
ofpollutants
pollutantsby
byall
allHES
HESduring
during25
25years
yearsof
ofoperation.
operation.

It can also be observed from Figure 8 that the electrical power production from RT in
7.1. Production
It can alsoAnalysis
be observedof the from
Most Figure
Optimal8 Solution (PV/GMT/G)
that the electrical power production from RT in
the systems with RT is negligible, whereas the distribution of power produced by GMT,
the systems
A with RT
combination of issolar
negligible,
PV, two whereas
30 kW andtheone
distribution
200 kW of power
GMTs, and aproduced by GMT,
grid was observed
PV, RT, and G is almost constant for PV/G–PV/RT/G, GMT/G–GMT/RT/G, and
PV,
to be RT, most
the and optimal
G is almost constantFigure
configuration. for PV/G–PV/RT/G,
11 provides the GMT/G–GMT/RT/G,
monthly component-wise and
PV/GMT/G–PV/GMT/RT/G systems. A detailed analysis of emissions from the six sys-
PV/GMT/G–PV/GMT/RT/G
electrical power production summary systems. of A the
detailed
PV/GMT/Ganalysissystem.
of emissions
The maximumfrom thepower six sys-is
tems is provided in Figure 9. It is observed that both GMT,G and GMT, RT, G cause the
tems is provided in Figure 9. It is observed that both GMT,G
generated in August, followed by July, May, June, and January. Likewise, the maximum and GMT, RT, G cause the
highest amount of overall emissions, making them unfit for the environment. With respect
highestexchange
power amount of overall
with emissions,
the grid making
also occurs them unfit
in mid-year forJune
(i.e., the environment.
to August). The With respect
electrical
to overall emissions, PV, GMT, G, and PV, GMT, RT, G produced the lowest values. How-
to overall emissions,
penetration by PV in thePV,entire
GMT,system
G, and comes
PV, GMT, out RT, G produced
as 52.3%. Figure the lowest values.
12 depicts that theHow-load
ever, by considering the nominal contribution of RT in the total electrical power produc-
ever, by considering
consumes the nominal
79.8% of energy, whereas contribution
20.2% is soldof RT
off in
to the
the total electrical
utility power grid. power produc-
Figure 13
tion, PV, GMT, G could be finalized as the most viable configuration for both the locations.
provides a detailed
tion, PV, GMT, image
G could of the energy
be finalized as theexchange
most viable with the grid byfor
configuration thebothwinning system
the locations.
architecture. It can be observed that the load demand is comparatively less in winter
7.1. Production Analysis of the Most Optimal Solution (PV/GMT/G)
7.1. Production
months Analysis
(Nov, Dec, of thethan
Jan, Feb) MostinOptimal
the other Solution
months. (PV/GMT/G)
Therefore, surplus energy is sold to
A
the grid combination of
during the winter solar PV,
months. two 30 kW and one 200 kW GMTs, is theand a grid waskW ob-
A combination of solar PV, twoHowever,
30 kW and theone
peak200demand
kW GMTs, highest
and a grid (2036
was ob-
served
and 2093 to be the most optimal configuration. Figure 11 provides the monthly component-
served tokW) in most
be the the summer
optimalmonths (June–July).
configuration. FigureIt 11
canprovides
also be observed
the monthly thatcomponent-
the energy
wiseiselectrical
cost at its power in
maximum production
August. summary
Figure 14 of thethat
shows PV/GMT/G
power has system.
to be The maximum
purchased from
wise electrical power production summary of the PV/GMT/G system. The maximum
power
the istogenerated in August, followed by July, May, June, andp.m.January. Likewise, the
power is generated in August, followed by July, May, June, and January. Likewise,and
grid meet the surplus load mainly during night hours (5:00 to 11:00 p.m.), the
maximum
surplus power
energy exchange
is sold back towith the grid
the grid duringalsothe
occurs
daytimein mid-year
(6:00 a.m.(i.e.,
to 5:00June to August).
p.m.).
maximum power exchange with the grid also occurs in mid-year (i.e., June to August).
The electrical penetration by PV in the entire system comes out as 52.3%. Figure 12 depicts
The electrical penetration by PV in the entire system comes out as 52.3%. Figure 12 depicts
that the load consumes 79.8% of energy, whereas 20.2% is sold off to the utility power
that the load consumes 79.8% of energy, whereas 20.2% is sold off to the utility power
grid. Figure 13 provides a detailed image of the energy exchange with the grid by the
grid. Figure 13 provides a detailed image of the energy exchange with the grid by the
 winning system
less in winter architecture.
months (Nov, Dec,It can beFeb)
Jan, observed
than in that
thethe loadmonths.
other demandTherefore,
is comparatively
surplus
less in
less in winter
winter months
months (Nov,
(Nov, Dec,
Dec, Jan, Feb)
Feb) than in in the
the other
other months.
months. Therefore,
Therefore, surplus
surplus
energy is sold to the grid during Jan,
the winterthan
months. However, the peak demand is the
energy
energy is sold to the grid during the winter months. However, the peak demand is the
the
highest is soldkW
(2036 to and
the grid
2093 during winter months.
kW) in the summer months However,
(June–July). the peakalso
It can demand is
be observed
highest
highest (2036 kW and 2093 kW) in the summer months (June–July). It can also be observed
that the(2036
energykWcost
andis2093
at itskW) in the summer
maximum months
in August. (June–July).
Figure 14 showsIt that
can also
powerbe observed
has to be
that the
that the energy
energy cost
cost is
is at
at its
its maximum
maximum in in August.
August. Figure
Figure 14 14 shows
shows that
that power
power hashas toto be
be
purchased from the grid to meet the surplus load mainly during night hours (5:00 p.m. to
Energies 2022, 15, 2063 purchased
purchased from the grid to meet the surplus load mainly during night hours (5:00 p.m. to
16 of 21
11:00 p.m.),fromand the grid to
surplus meet is
energy thesold
surplus
back load
to themainly duringthe
grid during night hours (5:00
daytime (6:00 p.m.
a.m. to
11:00 p.m.),
11:00 p.m.), and
and surplus
surplus energy
energy is is sold
sold back
back to
to the
the grid
grid during
during the
the daytime
daytime (6:00
(6:00 a.m.
a.m. toto
5:00 p.m.).
5:00 p.m.).
5:00 p.m.).

Figure11.
Figure 11. Monthly
Monthly electrical
electrical production
productionof
ofthe
thedesigned
designedsystem
systemcomponents.
components.
Figure 11. Monthly electrical production of the designed system components.
Figure 11. Monthly electrical production of the designed system components.

Consumption
Consumption
(kWh/yr)
Consumption
(kWh/yr)
(kWh/yr)

0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50%
Consumption (kWh/yr) 100%
Consumption (kWh/yr)
AC Primary Load 6022500
Consumption (kWh/yr)
AC Primary Load 6022500
AC
GridPrimary
Sales Load 6022500
1520326
Grid Sales 1520326
Grid Sales 1520326
Figure 12. Electrical power consumption summary of the designed system.
Figure 12.Electrical
Electrical powerconsumption
consumption summaryof
of thedesigned
designed system.
Figure 12. Electrical power
Figure 12. power consumption summary
summary of the
the designedsystem.
system.
Energy purchased (kWh) Energy sold (kWh)
Energy
Peak purchased
demand (kWh)
(kW)(kWh) Energy charge
Energy sold (kWh)
(₹)
Energy purchased Energy sold (kWh)
Peak demand (kW) Energy charge (₹)
2200
Peak demand (kW) Energy charge (₹)
2200
222,000 300,000 2200
222,000 300,000 2,500,000
222,000 300,000 2,500,000
2000 2,500,000
2000
2000
185,000
185,000 250,000 2,000,000
185,000 250,000 2,000,000
250,000 1800 2,000,000
1800
1800
148,000
148,000 1,500,000
148,000 200,000 1600 1,500,000
200,000
200,000 1600 1,500,000
1600
111,000
111,000 1,000,000
111,000 150,000 1400 1,000,000
1400 1,000,000
150,000 1400
150,000
74,000
74,000 1200 500,000
74,000 1200 500,000
100,000 1200 500,000
100,000
100,000
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug

Nov
Dec
Sept
Oct
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug

Nov
Dec
Sept
Oct
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug

Nov
Dec
Sept
Oct

Figure 13. Annually averaged monthly energy metrics.

Figure 13. Annually averaged monthly energy metrics.
Figure 13.
Figure 13. Annually
Annually averaged
averaged monthly
monthly energy
energy metrics.
metrics.
Energies 2022,15,
Energies2022, 15,2063
x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 21
17 21

Figure14.
Figure 14.Annually
Annuallyaveraged
averagedhourly
hourlyenergy
energydensity
densitymap.
map.

7.2.
7.2.Comparison
Comparisonofofthe theProposed
ProposedSystem
Systemwith
withthe
theExisting
ExistingPower
PowerSystem
System
Compared
Comparedto tothe
theexisting
existingpower
powersystem,
system,the theproposed
proposedGMT/PV/G
GMT/PV/G designdesign isis 35.54%
35.54%
economically
economically(USD (USD5.9M 5.9Mreduction
reductioninin NPC)
NPC) and
and50%50%ecologically
ecologically(decrease of 850
(decrease tonnes
of 850 tonnesof
CO per
of 2CO year)
2 per more
year) sustainable.
more Figure
sustainable. 15 shows
Figure a comparison
15 shows of the cumulative
a comparison as well as
of the cumulative as
annualized cash flows by the two systems. The downward slope of the
well as annualized cash flows by the two systems. The downward slope of the cumulative cumulative nominal
cash flow cash
nominal graphflowindicates
graphexpenditures. A smaller negative
indicates expenditures. A smaller slope impliesslope
negative that setting
impliesup a
that
hybrid system in the Nazira area is more profitable than the existing
setting up a hybrid system in the Nazira area is more profitable than the existing grid grid power supply,
calculated
power supply,for 25calculated
years. for 25 years.
After
After aa payback
payback periodperiod of
of 7.8
7.8 years,
years, the
the designed
designed hybrid
hybrid system
system proves
proves out
out toto be
be
profitable with an ROI (return on investment) of 11%. The lifetime for
profitable with an ROI (return on investment) of 11%. The lifetime for GMT is 40,000 h,GMT is 40,000 h, and
hence there occurs
and hence a replacement
there occurs cost forcost
a replacement the gas
for microturbines after completing
the gas microturbines 40,000 h,
after completing
so there will be a replacement cost for GMT after this period (5th year). Therefore,
40,000 h, so there will be a replacement cost for GMT after this period (5th year). Therefore, there
would be a spike in the annual nominal cash flow for both the proposed
there would be a spike in the annual nominal cash flow for both the proposed and existing and existing
systems
systems in in the
the fifth
fifth year. The existing
year. The existingsystem’s
system’syearly
yearlycash
cashflow
flowbecomes
becomeshigher
higherasasINR INR40
40 million per year must be spent for operation and maintenance throughout
million per year must be spent for operation and maintenance throughout the lifetime of the lifetime
of the project (25 years). Consequently, the overall cost of the existing system supersedes
the project (25 years). Consequently, the overall cost of the existing system supersedes
that of the proposed hybrid system.
that of the proposed hybrid system.
Major emissions from the natural gas generators and the designed system include
Major emissions from the natural gas generators and the designed system include
CO2 , CO, unburnt hydrocarbons, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides.
CO2, CO, unburnt hydrocarbons, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides.
Figure 16 provides an exact statistical comparison of emissions from the hybrid system
Figure 16 provides an exact statistical comparison of emissions from the hybrid system
with the existing system. Compared to the existing system, the emissions of CO2 , CO,
with the existing system. Compared to the existing system, the emissions of CO2, CO, par-
particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides were reduced by 24.52%, 13.05%,
ticulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides were reduced by 24.52%, 13.05%,
12.90%, 41.21%, and 8.52%, respectively. The CO2 emissions from the proposed hybrid
12.90%, 41.21%, and 8.52%, respectively. The CO2 emissions from the proposed hybrid
system is up to 50% less than that from direct flaring (statistics of the CO2 emissions
system is up to 50% less than that from direct flaring (statistics of the CO2 emissions from
from direct flaring provided in [60]). Therefore, this study proves that the combination
direct flaring provided in [60]). Therefore, this study proves that the combination of gas
of gas micro turbines with PV, to generate electricity from natural gas, reduces emissions
micro
by turbines with PV, to generate electricity from natural gas, reduces emissions by 40–
40–50%.
50%.
Energies 2022,15,
Energies2022, 15,2063
x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 21
18 21
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 21

Figure15.
Figure 15. Comparison
Comparison of of annual
annual and
and cumulative
cumulative nominal
nominalcash
cash flows
flows of
of the
the proposed
proposed hybrid
hybrid energy
energy
Figure
system15.
and Comparison
the existingofsystem.
annual and cumulative nominal cash flows of the proposed hybrid energy
system
system and
and the
the existing
existing system.
system.

Figure 16. Pollutant-wise comparison of emissions from the proposed hybrid energy system and
Figure
Figure 16. Pollutant-wise
16.
the existingPollutant-wise
power system. comparisonofofemissions
comparison emissions from
from thethe proposed
proposed hybrid
hybrid energy
energy system
system and and
the
the existing power
existing power system.system.
8. Conclusions
8.
8. Conclusions
Conclusions
Due to gas flaring at oil and gas fields, the flora–fauna and human health of settle-
Due
Dueto togas
gasflaring
flaringatat
oiloil
and
and gasgas
fields, the the
fields, flora–fauna
flora–faunaand and
human health
human of settlements
health of settle-
ments around the flaring site are adversely affected. Another issue is the lack of a reliable
around the flaring
ments around site aresite
the flaring adversely affected.
are adversely Another
affected. issue issue
Another is theislack
theof a reliable
lack and
of a reliable
and robust power supply in the oil and gas field area. This research work proposed a
robust power
and robust supply
power in thein
supply oilthe
andoilgas
andfield
gasarea.
fieldThis research
area. work proposed
This research a hybrida
work proposed
hybrid energy system (HES) that utilizes waste gas flares to generate electricity, thereby
energy
hybrid system
energy (HES)
systemthat
(HES)utilizes waste gas
that utilizes flares
waste gastoflares
generate electricity,
to generate thereby solving
electricity, thereby
solving
both the both the aforementioned
aforementioned problems. problems.
A A systematic
systematic framework framework
was was established
established to suggestto
solving both the aforementioned problems. A systematic framework was established to
suggest
the the
optimal optimal size and design of the HES. A novel dispatch algorithm was used to
suggest the size and size
optimal design
andofdesign
the HES. A novel
of the HES.dispatch
A novel algorithm was usedwas
dispatch algorithm to simulate
used to
simulate
the the operation
real-time real-time operation
of the HES oftothe
suit HES
the to suit the requirements
requirements of the oil of gas
and the oil and gas
fields.
simulate the real-time operation of the HES to suit the requirements of the oil andThe
gas
fields. The techno–commercial
techno–commercial and environmentaland environmental
viability of six viability
HESs was of six HESs was
analyzed analyzed
for two for
different
fields. The techno–commercial and environmental viability of six HESs was analyzed for
two different
gas gas flaring sites. A system comprising two 30 kW gas microturbines, 2000
twoflaring
differentsites.
gasAflaring
system comprising
sites. A systemtwo 30 kW gas
comprising microturbines,
two 2000 kW solar2000
30 kW gas microturbines, PV
kW solar PV panel set, and grid connection could save 35.52% net present cost and reduce
kW solar PV panel set, and grid connection could save 35.52% net present cost and reduce
Energies 2022, 15, 2063 19 of 21

panel set, and grid connection could save 35.52% net present cost and reduce gas flaring by
up to 50%. This research is in line with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
and can be beneficial for the engineers and researchers who aim to improve productivity
while reducing gas flaring in oil and gas fields.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.B. and H.C.; methodology, D.B.; software, D.B.; vali-
dation, D.B.; formal analysis, D.B.; investigation, D.B.; resources, D.B.; data curation, D.B.; writing—
original draft preparation, D.B.; writing—review and editing, D.B. and H.C.; visualization, D.B.;
supervision, H.C.; project administration, H.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. Oghenemavwe, L.E.; Awoyemi, L.O. Cardiothoracic Ratio of Nigerians in Gas Flaring Communities. Am. J. Med. Med. Sci. 2020,
10, 279–283.
2. Soltanieh, M.; Zohrabian, A.; Gholipour, M.J.; Kalnay, E. A review of global gas flaring and venting and impact on the environment:
Case study of Iran. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2016, 49, 488–509. [CrossRef]
3. Ojijiagwo, E.N.; Oduoza, C.F.; Emekwuru, N. Technological and economic evaluation of conversion of potential flare gas to
electricity in Nigeria. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 17, 444–451. [CrossRef]
4. Fathima, A.H.; Palanisamy, K. Optimization in microgrids with hybrid energy systems—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2015, 45, 431–446. [CrossRef]
5. Iqbal, M.; Azam, M.; Naeem, M.; Khwaja, A.S.; Anpalagan, A. Optimization classification, algorithms and tools for renewable
energy: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 39, 640–654. [CrossRef]
6. Al-falahi, M.D.A.; Jayasinghe, S.D.G.; Enshaei, H. A review on recent size optimization methodologies for standalone solar and
wind hybrid renewable energy system. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 143, 252–274. [CrossRef]
7. Huang, Z.; Xie, Z.; Zhang, C.; Chan, S.H.; Milewski, J.; Xie, Y.; Yang, Y.; Hu, X. Modeling and multi-objective optimization of a
stand-alone PV-hydrogen-retired EV battery hybrid energy system. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 181, 80–92. [CrossRef]
8. Mo, Q.; Liu, F. Modeling and optimization for distributed microgrid based on Modelica language. Appl. Energy 2020, 279, 115766.
[CrossRef]
9. Singh, S.S.; Fernandez, E. Modeling, size optimization and sensitivity analysis of a remote hybrid renewable energy system.
Energy 2018, 143, 719–731. [CrossRef]
10. Fodhil, F.; Hamidat, A.; Nadjemi, O. Potential, optimization and sensitivity analysis of photovoltaic-diesel-battery hybrid energy
system for rural electrification in Algeria. Energy 2019, 169, 613–624. [CrossRef]
11. Ayodele, E.; Misra, S.; Damasevicius, R.; Maskeliunas, R. Hybrid microgrid for microfinance institutions in rural areas—A field
demonstration in West Africa. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2019, 35, 89–97. [CrossRef]
12. Sen, R.; Bhattacharyya, S.C. Off-grid electricity generation with renewable energy technologies inIndia: An application of HOMER.
Renew. Energy 2014, 62, 388–398. [CrossRef]
13. Astatike, W.; Chandrasekar, P. Design and performance analysis of hybrid micro-grid power supply system using HOMER
software for rural village in adama area, Ethiopia. Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res. 2019, 8, 267–275.
14. Murthy, S.S.; Dutta, P.; Rao, B.S.; Sharma, R. Performance analysis of a stand-alone polygeneration microgrid. Therm. Sci. Eng.
Prog. 2020, 19, 100623. [CrossRef]
15. Shahzad, M.K.; Zahid, A.; Rashid, T.; Rehan, M.A.; Ali, M.; Ahmad, M. Techno-economic feasibility analysis of a solar-biomass off
grid system for the electrification of remote rural areas in Pakistan using HOMER software. Renew. Energy 2017, 106, 264–273.
[CrossRef]
16. Rezk, H.; Dousoky, G.M. Technical and economic analysis of different configurations of stand-alone hybrid renewable power
systems—A case study. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 62, 941–953. [CrossRef]
17. López-González, A.; Ranaboldo, M.; Domenech, B.; Ferrer-Martí, L. Evaluation of small wind turbines for rural electrification:
Case studies from extreme climatic conditions in Venezuela. Energy 2020, 209, 118450. [CrossRef]
18. Shezan, S.A.; Julai, S.; Kibria, M.A.; Ullah, K.R.; Saidur, R.; Chong, W.T.; Akikur, R.K. Performance analysis of an off-grid wind-PV
(photovoltaic)-diesel-battery hybrid energy system feasible for remote areas. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 125, 121–132. [CrossRef]
19. Singh, G.; Baredar, P.; Singh, A.; Kurup, D. Optimal sizing and location of PV, wind and battery storage for electrification to an
island: A case study of Kavaratti, Lakshadweep. J. Energy Storage 2017, 12, 78–86. [CrossRef]
20. Fazelpour, F.; Soltani, N.; Rosen, M.A. Feasibility of satisfying electrical energy needs with hybrid systems for a medium-size
hotel on Kish Island, Iran. Energy 2014, 73, 856–865. [CrossRef]
21. Bhakta, S.; Mukherjee, V. Performance indices evaluation and techno economic analysis of photovoltaic power plant for the
application of isolated India’s island. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2017, 20, 9–24. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 2063 20 of 21

22. Tsai, C.T.; Beza, T.M.; Wu, W.B.; Kuo, C.C. Optimal configuration with capacity analysis of a hybrid renewable energy and storage
system for an island application. Energies 2019, 13, 8. [CrossRef]
23. Khan, M.R.B.; Jidin, R.; Pasupuleti, J.; Shaaya, S.A. Optimal combination of solar, wind, micro-hydro and diesel systems based on
actual seasonal load profiles for a resort island in the South China Sea. Energy 2015, 82, 80–97. [CrossRef]
24. Tsai, C.T.; Beza, T.M.; Molla, E.M.; Kuo, C.C. Analysis and Sizing of Mini-Grid Hybrid Renewable Energy System for Islands.
IEEE Access 2020, 8, 70013–70029. [CrossRef]
25. Kumar, A.; Singh, A.R.; Deng, Y.; He, X.; Kumar, P.; Bansal, R.C. Multiyear load growth based techno-financial evaluation of a
microgrid for an academic institution. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 37533–37555. [CrossRef]
26. Sarkar, T.; Bhattacharjee, A.; Samanta, H.; Bhattacharya, K.; Saha, H. Optimal design and implementation of solar PV-wind-
biogas-VRFB storage integrated smart hybrid microgrid for ensuring zero loss of power supply probability. Energy Convers.
Manag. 2019, 191, 102–118. [CrossRef]
27. Bhattacharjee, S.; Acharya, S. PV-wind hybrid power option for a low wind topography. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 89, 942–954.
[CrossRef]
28. Saiprasad, N.; Kalam, A.; Zayegh, A. Optimum Sizing and Economic Analysis of Renewable Energy System Integration into a Micro-grid
for an Academic Institution—A Case Study; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; p. 749.
29. Ghenai, C.; Bettayeb, M. Modelling and performance analysis of a stand-alone hybrid solar PV/Fuel Cell/Diesel Generator
power system for university building. Energy 2019, 171, 180–189. [CrossRef]
30. Liu, J.; Wang, M.; Peng, J.; Chen, X.; Cao, S.; Yang, H. Techno-economic design optimization of hybrid renewable energy
applications for high-rise residential buildings. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 213, 112868. [CrossRef]
31. Al-Ammar, E.A.; Habib, H.U.R.; Kotb, K.M.; Wang, S.; Ko, W.; Elmorshedy, M.F.; Waqar, A. Residential Community Load
Management Based on Optimal Design of Standalone HRES with Model Predictive Control. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 12542–12572.
[CrossRef]
32. Lv, Z.; Wang, Z.; Xu, W. A techno-economic study of 100% renewable energy for a residential household in China. Energies 2019,
12, 2109. [CrossRef]
33. Tiwary, A.; Spasova, S.; Williams, I.D. A community-scale hybrid energy system integrating biomass for localised solid waste and
renewable energy solution: Evaluations in UK and Bulgaria. Renew. Energy 2019, 139, 960–967. [CrossRef]
34. Rad, M.A.V.; Ghasempour, R.; Rahdan, P.; Mousavi, S.; Arastounia, M. Techno-economic analysis of a hybrid power system
based on the cost-effective hydrogen production method for rural electrification, a case study in Iran. Energy 2020, 190, 116421.
[CrossRef]
35. Velo, R.; Osorio, L.; Fernández, M.D.; Rodríguez, M.R. An economic analysis of a stand-alone and grid-connected cattle farm.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 39, 883–890. [CrossRef]
36. Maammeur, H.; Hamidat, A.; Loukarfi, L.; Missoum, M.; Abdeladim, K.; Nacer, T. Performance investigation of grid-connected
PV systems for family farms: Case study of North-West of Algeria. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 78, 1208–1220. [CrossRef]
37. Nyeche, E.N.; Diemuodeke, E.O. Modelling and optimisation of a hybrid PV-wind turbine-pumped hydro storage energy system
for mini-grid application in coastline communities. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 250, 119578. [CrossRef]
38. Deepika, C.H.B. Optimised Site Selection of Hybrid Renewable Installations for Flare Gas Reduction using Multi-Criteria Decision
Making. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021, X, 100181.
39. ONGC. ONGC Annual Report; ONGC: New Delhi, India, 2020.
40. Bishnoi, D.; Chaturvedi, H. Techno-economic analysis of hybrid energy system for efficient utilization of waste flare gas from oil
and gas fields. In Proceedings of the 2021 9th International Conference on Smart Grid (icSmartGrid), Setubal, Portugal, 29 June–1
July 2021; pp. 201–206.
41. Duman, A.C.; Güler, Ö. Techno-economic analysis of off-grid PV/wind/fuel cell hybrid system combinations with a comparison
of regularly and seasonally occupied households. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 42, 107–126. [CrossRef]
42. Gilman, P.; Lilienthal, P. Micropower System Modeling. Integr. Altern. Sources Energy 2006, 1, 379–418.
43. Demiroren, A.; Yilmaz, U. Analysis of change in electric energy cost with using renewable energy sources in Gökceada, Turkey:
An island example. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 323–333. [CrossRef]
44. Xu, Z.; Nthontho, M.; Chowdhury, S. Rural electrification implementation strategies through microgrid approach in South African
context. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2016, 82, 452–465. [CrossRef]
45. Al, H.Z.; Awasthi, A.; Ramli, M.A.M. Optimal design and analysis of grid-connected photovoltaic under di ff erent tracking
systems using HOMER. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 155, 42–57.
46. NASA. NASA Prediction of World Wide Energy Resources; NASA: Washington, DC, USA, 2021.
47. Kumar, A.; Singh, A.R.; Deng, Y.; He, X.; Kumar, P.; Bansal, R.C. Integrated assessment of a sustainable microgrid for a remote
village in hilly region. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 180, 442–472. [CrossRef]
48. Shodhganga. CHAPTER 4 River Brahmaputra; Shodhganga: Gandhinagar, India, 2014.
49. Kirke, B. Hydrokinetic Turbines for Moderate sized rivers. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2020, 58, 182–195. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50. Currents, C.P.F. Schottel Tidal Generator. 2014, p. 2014. Available online: http://www.blackrocktidalpower.com/fileadmin/
data_BRTP/pdf/STG-datasheet.pdf (accessed on 5 March 2022).
51. Givler, T.; Lilienthal, P. Using HOMER Software, NREL’s Micropower Optimization Model, to Explore the Role of Gen-Sets in Small Solar
Power Systems; Case Study: Sri Lanka; National Renewable Energy Lab.: Golden, CO, USA, 2005.
Energies 2022, 15, 2063 21 of 21

52. Assam Power Distribution Company Limited. Power Tariff in Assam; Assam Power Distribution Company Limited: Guwahati,
India, 2021.
53. Nadjemi, O.; Nacer, T.; Hamidat, A.; Salhi, H. Optimal hybrid PV/wind energy system sizing: Application of cuckoo search
algorithm for Algerian dairy farms. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 70, 1352–1365. [CrossRef]
54. Elkadeem, M.R.; Wang, S.; Sharshir, S.W.; Atia, E.G. Feasibility analysis and techno-economic design of grid-isolated hybrid
renewable energy system for electrification of agriculture and irrigation area: A case study in Dongola, Sudan. Energy Convers.
Manag. 2019, 196, 1453–1478. [CrossRef]
55. Elmaadawy, K.; Kotb, K.M.; Elkadeem, M.R.; Sharshir, S.W.; Dán, A.; Moawad, A.; Liu, B. Optimal sizing and techno-enviro-
economic feasibility assessment of large-scale reverse osmosis desalination powered with hybrid renewable energy sources.
Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 224, 113377. [CrossRef]
56. Aziz, A.S.; Tajuddin, M.F.N.; Adzman, M.R.; Ramli, M.A.M.; Mekhilef, S. Energy management and optimization of a
PV/diesel/battery hybrid energy system using a combined dispatch strategy. Sustainability 2019, 11, 683. [CrossRef]
57. Costa, T.S.; Villalva, M.G. Technical evaluation of a PV-diesel hybrid system with energy storage: Case study in the Tapajós-
Arapiuns Extractive Reserve, Amazon, Brazil. Energies 2020, 13, 2969. [CrossRef]
58. Bishnoi, D.; Prakash, O.; Chaturvedi, H. Current Trends in Renewable and Alternate Energy. In AIP Conference Proceedings; AIP
Publishing LLC: Melville, NY, USA, 2018; Volume 2091, p. 020007.
59. Dahiru, A.T.; Tan, C.W. Optimal sizing and techno-economic analysis of grid-connected nanogrid for tropical climates of the
Savannah. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 52, 101824. [CrossRef]
60. Bishnoi, D.; Prakash, O.; Chaturvedi, H. Utilizing flared gas for distributed generation: An optimization based approach. In AIP
Conference Proceedings; AIP Publishing LLC: Melville, NY, USA, 2019; Volume 2091.