International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications
Distributed Energy Generation in Smart Cities
C. F. Calvillo, A. Sánchez, J. Villar
Institute for Research in Technology (IIT)
Comillas Pontifical University
Madrid, Spain.
christian.calvillo@iit.upcomillas.es, alvaro.sanchez@iit.upcomillas.es, jose.villar@iit.upcomillas.es
Abstract— The smart city is a sustainable and efficient urban
center that provides high quality of life to its inhabitants with an
optimal management of its resources, where clean and cost
effective energy generation is a key issue. Under this setting,
distributed generation can provide an adequate tool to deal with
energy reliability and to successfully implement renewable
sources; nevertheless, selection and scaling of energy systems,
considering location, is not a trivial task. Frequently, the
stakeholders analyze only one or two “popular” generation
systems, and then calculate the output and return of investment
in a simplified and approximated approach. This practice could
lead the stakeholder to an inadequate technology mix.
To tackle this problem, this paper reviews and models most
common energy sources for distributed generation in a smart city
context. Then, a technical economic analysis is developed for 2
cases, a household and a district, considering not only renewable
sources but also efficient non-renewable technologies. The results
of the numerical analysis help to assess the more adequate
generation systems for a given application, energetic demand,
and geographical characteristics. A well-developed analysis is
essential for a better understanding of the available technologies
and their synergies; as a result, the investors can choose the
appropriate solutions, maximizing overall benefits.
Keywords-smart city; distributed generation; renewable
sources;
I. INTRODUCTION
Smart City (SC) is a relatively new concept, defined and
used by many entities. Nonetheless, the conceptualization of
the smart city is still emerging [1]. Energy plays a leading role
in SC, as most of our everyday activities and most of our
environment is related to some sort of energy source
(electricity, fossil fuels, heat …), even when not explicitly
displayed. In the new SC paradigm, energy should be “clean
and sustainable”, as well as “available for all, all the time”
keeping in mind the economic feasibility. In this sense, two
main research lines are attracting most efforts. On the one
hand, renewable energy sources are a mid-long term
investment for energy self-sufficiency without compromising
future generations [2], although other non-renewable sources
can also be a suitable short-term alternative to reduce
emissions and meet the energy demand [3]. On the other hand,
Distributed Generation (DG) is gaining interest to increase
efficiency, and support grid’s reliability and resiliency [4].
Benefits of this decentralized scheme have been studied
widely. DG, managed inside a microgrid, addresses important
issues such as intermittency and security of supply,
‹,(((
ICRERA 2013
Madrid, Spain, 20-23 October 2013
contributing significantly to penetration of renewable sources,
while increasing overall energy efficiency [5].
Many examples of DG with renewable sources can be
found in literature. Solar power is a well-adapted cost-
effective technology for thermal and electric generation in
buildings, as demonstrated in [6] and [7]; despite that the latter
also analyses Geothermal Heat Pumps (GHP), they do not
consider other applicable sources, and their cost estimations
are arbitrary. Natural gas fueled polygeneration is studied in
[8], proposing a general model to measure the energy and CO2
emission performance, but lacking economic aspects or
comparison with other technologies. Other schemes contain
hybrid DG systems with more than one renewable source; for
instance, reference [9] presents a feasibility analysis of GHP
and other cogeneration technologies for buildings;
nevertheless, the level of detail in system models, demand
profiles and energy production calculation can be arguable. In
[10] a residential wind-photovoltaic system is presented and
the technical/economic feasibility is analyzed with an
appropriate level of detail; however, it only considers electric
energy, and lacks comparison with other technologies.
Regardless of the large number of research available, most
work considers only one or two different sources and only few
implements an economic feasibility analysis; moreover, in
some cases, the models used do not have the appropriate level
of detail. Therefore, the choice of an optimal cost-effective
solution cannot be proven.
This paper first reviews and models numerous generation
technologies, then proposes a comprehensive technical-
economic feasibility analysis. Different scenarios are
considered to determine the most suitable energy source for
each case. Unlike previous works ([7][9][10]), the resulting
information permits adequate sizing of the system and
technology comparison; this assist the stakeholders in taking a
better investment decision.
The paper is organized as follows. Section II briefly
reviews several generation technologies and suitable
applications. Section III presents the generator models
considered for this study. Scenarios and system scaling are
proposed in Section IV. The economic feasibility analysis can
be found in Section IV.C. Finally, Section V contains
conclusions and future work.
II. GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES AND APPLICATIONS
Different solutions can be successfully implemented in a
smart city; table I summarizes the differences and advantages
of the studied technologies.
161
International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications Madrid, Spain, 20-23 October 2013

TABLE I. COMPARISON OF MOST COMMON DISTRIBUTED ENERGY SOURCES. area and efficiency. Finally, system losses include estimated
Power † Dispatch Efficiency Common losses due to temperature, low irradiance, angular reflectance
Generator -able * application ‡
e t effects, and other losses related to cables, inverter, etc. The
Solar PV X - No L Hh, B total effective energy produced by the PV system can be
Solar TC - X No M Hh, B,
calculated with (1). In the following, energy and power units
Solar CSP X' X Yes M (D)t/(D, P)e
Solar PV/T X X No M-H Hh, B, D are expressed in kWh and kW respectively.
Windpower X - No M D, P power peak § losses% · (1)
Poly-gen. X X Yes H B, D energy PV (t ) * DNI (t ) * T * ¨1  ¸
G © 100 ¹
Biomass X X Yes M (Hh, B, D)t/ (D, P)e
Geothermal X' X Yes H (Hh, B, D)t/(D, P)e Where:
' Indirect production; † e: electric, t: thermal
* L: Low(<30%), M: Moderate (<=60%), H: High (>60%); x T is the duration of the period. For this research, T
‡Hh: Household, B: Building, D: District, P: Power plant. will always be 1hour.
x G is the global irradiation received on a horizontal
Starting with solar power, PhotoVoltaic (PV) panels has plane = 1000 W/m2.
been extensively studied and highly preferred in low scale
generation; however they have low efficiency, and they still B. Thermal Collector (TC) Model
are expensive at utility scale [10]. Then, Thermal Collectors The thermal collector model used for domestic hot water
(TC) have been proved as a reliable source to heat water or (DHW) and heating purposes comprises the collector, thermal
other heat transfer fluid for any kind of applications [11]. TCs storage and connections. The inputs of the model are the DNI,
have affordable prices at low scale, and could be implemented the peak power, which is a function of the fluid inlet and
as Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) plants for electricity ambient temperatures, and the system losses. The output of the
generation [12]. Additionally, the photovoltaic-thermal system is the thermal energy produced as described in (2).
collectors (PV/T) work as regular PV cells, but also profit power peak p § losses% · (2)
from the thermal energy delivered by the sun, using it to heat energy TC (t ) * DNI (t ) * T * ¨1  ¸
water or other fluid. PV/Ts have higher efficiency; but there G © 100 ¹
are few commercial modules and only in small scale [13]. Where:
Wind Turbine (WT) is a mature technology with a wide x p is the difference between the fluid inlet temperature
variety in system sizes, producing cheap energy at utility and ambient temperature: p = Ti – Ta.
scale. The main drawbacks are that they can be expensive at x powerpeak(p) is a non-linear function of p. the
small scale, and that wind is highly unpredictable [14]. manufacturer usually provides a table with power
Biomass is a topic of increasing importance in recent years. values for different p. Table II [18] provides an
It is a very versatile energy source capable of providing heat, example of typical power values for a TC.
electricity and gaseous or liquids fuels at competitive prices.
However, farming of biomass crops needs to be done TABLE II. EXAMPLE OF OUTPUT POWER VALUES FOR TC.
responsibly in order to be sustainable [15]. Ti – Ta (°C) 0 10 30 50 70
Geothermal energy derives from the thermal energy flux Power (W) 1350 1276 1101 892 649
flowing from the center of the earth. It can be used for thermal
only production (low-medium temperatures) or cogeneration Using the data from table II, the power curve can be
(high temperatures). Geothermal electricity is very cheap approximated with (3), where a, b, and c must be fitted. Fig.
when the proper ground conditions are met; nonetheless, many 1a, shows the resulting curve for the TC previously described.
cities do not have those soil characteristics [16]. power peak ( p) a  b * p  c * p 2 (3)
Finally, poly-generation or multi-generation appeared as an
effort to use fossil fuels more efficiently: they deliver different C. Wind Turbine (WT) Model
kinds of energy vectors from a single source of fuel (usually Wind energy conversion systems include the wind turbine,
natural gas), reducing CO2 emissions by this increased overall electronic converter, gear box (if necessary) and connections.
efficiency [3]. The main disadvantage is the elevated cost at a The model inputs are the wind speed, the power curve which
very small scale [17]. is a function of the wind speed, and the system losses, which
include the electrical and mechanical losses of the generator,
III. GENERATOR MODEL DESCRIPTIONS and the converter and connection losses. The energy
A. Photovoltaic (PV) Model production of the WT system is computed with (4).
Photovoltaic systems include the panel, mounting structure, The rotor power curve considers many attributes of the
inverter and connections. The input data required are: the wind turbine and the wind itself. Very often, manufacturers do
Direct Normal Irradiance (DNI), the peak power, and the not provide all the required information to calculate the output
losses. The first refers to the energy provided by the sun power accurately. Therefore, it may be more adequate to
related to the geographical characteristics, PV panel approximate the power curve using the data from the
inclination and orientation. The second is usually provided by manufacturer and following a Weibull distribution (5). FIG.
the fabricant, but it can also be calculated with the module 1b, shows an example of an approximated power curve.

The work of C. F. Calvillo was supported through an Erasmus Mundus

Ph.D. Fellowship.

ICRERA 2013 162

International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications Madrid, Spain, 20-23 October 2013

§ losses% · (4) generated by the input steam. The non-used heat in the CHP
energyWT (t ) powerrotor (Vwind ) * T * ¨1  ¸ unit can still be used as thermal energy. The cogenerated
© 100 ¹
§ §V b·
energy output is modeled in (9).
¨ ¨ wind ·¸ ¸
b 1
energy Geo (t ) P t  Q t
c * §¨ wind ·¸
V ¨ ©
©
a¹ ¸
¹ (5)
powerrotor (Vwind ) *e (9)
© a¹ § losses% ·
K e * einlet t  eexhaust t * T * ¨1  ¸
a) Example power curve for TC © 100 ¹
1500 Where:
x ηe = efficiency ratio, which measures how efficiently
Power (W)

1000 the turbine extracts electric power from the steam.

500
x einlet = internal energy of the steam at period t. Related
to the temperature, pressure and volume of the steam.
0 x eexhaust = internal energy of the steam after passing
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
p(Ti-Ta) through the turbine. This is can be directly used for
b) Example power curve for WT heating purposes.
1000 eexhaust 1  K e * einlet (10)
x P(t) is the electrical energy output.
Power (W)

500 § lossese % · (11)

P t K e * einlet * T * ¨1  ¸
© 100 ¹
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
x Q(t) is the thermal energy output.
Vwind (m/s)
§ lossest % · (12)
Q t eexhaust * T * ¨1  ¸
Fig. 1. Approximated power curves. © 100 ¹
For small size applications, geothermal systems are used for
D. Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Model thermal power generation. The system invests electric energy
The cogeneration CHP model used for thermal and electric in a heat pump to extract more heat and use it for
purposes includes the generator, inverter, thermal storage and heating/cooling purposes. The Coefficient of Performance
connections. Equation (6) defines the typical CHP model [17]. (CoP) is required to approximate the produced heat since the
From the input data side, the system efficiencies, fuel electricity employed E(t) by the heat pump, as given in (13).
specification, and losses are required; the first depend on the § lossest % ·
energy Geo (t ) CoP * E t * T * ¨1  ¸ (13)
size and type of the CHP unit, and the second refers to the 100 ¹
energy density and quantity of the fuel. From the output side, ©
two energy vectors can be found: electric and thermal. IV. CASE STUDIES AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
§ losses% · (6) Generation systems are treated and compared independently
energyCHP t P t Q t K total * F (t ) * T * ¨1  ¸
© 100 ¹ in this study. Table III summarizes installed and operational
cost of the reviewed technologies, collected from [17], [19]–
Where: [22]. The rule of thumb in the cost ranges is: the smaller the
x η = efficiency ratios. Usually provided by the size of the system, the higher the cost, and vice versa.
manufacturer.
x F(t) = power provided by the input fuel in period t: TABLE III. GENERATION SYSTEM COSTS AND EXPECTED LIFETIME.
F(t) = energy_density * fuel_mass. Technology Installed Fixed Variable Lifetime
x P(t) = electric energy output: cost O&M cost O&M cost (years)
(USD/W) (USD/kW) (Us¢/kWh)
§ losses e % · (7)
P t K e * F (t ) * T * ¨1  ¸ Solar PV 3.7 - 6.8 16 – 110 N/A 25
© 100 ¹ Solar TC 3 - 7,5 60 – 80 N/A 25
x Q(t) = thermal energy output: Solar PV/T 4.6 – 8.5 20 – 137 N/A 25
Wind power 1,3 - 8 N/A 2-4 25
§ losses t % · (8) 0,35 - 6,5
Q t K t * F (t ) * T * ¨1  ¸ Poly
© 100 ¹ generation 1,78- 10,35* 54 – 80 1,1 - 5 8 - 30
0,43 - 9,8
E. Geothermal Model Biomass 0,45 - 1,8* 18 – 87 0,4 - 5 20
Geothermal 1,8 - 5,2 150 – 190 N/A 30
There are two approaches for the geothermal system: N/A: non-applicable; *Fuel cost (US¢/kWh)
cogeneration or thermal only. While the former is usually
found in large scale applications, the latter stays in the small to A. Study case A: 1 household in Madrid, Spain.
medium scales for heating and domestic hot water purposes. The objective of this scenario is to develop an accurate
The geothermal cogeneration plant can be modeled as a generation analysis for a very small scale application (1
steam turbine CHP system. The electrical efficiency of the household), considering solar, wind, ground, and demand
steam turbine is needed to calculate the electric energy characteristics in Madrid, Spain. Average annual energy

ICRERA 2013 163

International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications Madrid, Spain, 20-23 October 2013

consumption per household in Spain, with the corresponding distribution parameters for every season [26]. The WT system
electrical and thermal shares, is presented in table IV [23]. is scaled to produce approximately 250W (considering losses)
at the average wind speed. This dimensioning approach
TABLE IV. AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD IN implements 2u1kW small wind turbines instead of a larger one
SPAIN (2011).
Consumption Electric Thermal (t): Thermal: Total
capable of the same output in summer time; this produces
per Household (e) DHW/Heating Others significant non-used energy in summer at valley hours, but
Energy (kWh) 3698.13 6384.85 438 10.521 minimizes energy waste in winter, as demonstrated in FIG. 4.
Percentage (%) 35.15% 60.68% 4.16% 100%
TABLE V. AVERAGE WIND CHARACTERISTICS FOR MADRID.
In this study electric storage is not considered. Although Wind Values Spring Summer Autumn Winter
Wind speed (m/s) 4.99 4.68 5.28 5.24
new regulation will permit excess energy to be sold to the
Weibull C (m/s) 5.53 5.07 5.9 5.82
Spanish national grid, the presented study considers the Weibull K 1.707 1.803 1.846 1.731
produced energy to be used for self-sufficiency only.
Electric demand curves are used to calculate the capacity to 0.8 August demand
be installed. FIG. 2a, show typical daily demand curves for 0.7 January demand
summer and winter time. FIG. 2b, describes electric demand August WT prod.
0.6 January WT prod.

Power (kW)
variations throughout a regular year [24].
0.5
a) Typical electric demand curves 0.4

0.3
Demand percentage

Summer
6
Winter 0.2

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

2 Fig. 4. Wind power production for 2 x 1kW turbines at average Vwind.

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Hour 2) System dimensioning for thermal generation
b) Annual demand evolution
Thermal requirements vary greatly along the year.
Nevertheless, thermal generation systems are normally scaled
Demand percentage

100
to meet 100% of summer demand, giving support to
conventional generation in winter. Heating is not used in
50
Madrid during summer; thus, the expected demand only
comprises DHW, which can be calculated with (14).
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Demand summer DHW * c * 'T (14)
Month
Where:
Fig. 2 Demand curves and annual evolution for residential sector in
Spain.
x c = specific heat of water @20°C = 4.182 kJ/K*kg =
0.0012kWh/K*liter.
1) System dimensioning for electric generation x ΔT = temperature change = Tin - Tout.
From FIG. 2b, it can be seen that the lower demand point
correspond to the month of august, which is contrastingly, one Considering 100 liters of DHW per person and a
of the months with greatest solar production [25]. Therefore, temperature increase of 30°C; the thermal energy requirement
scaling of the PV system is made considering this scenario, in an average household (4 persons) is 13.94kWh. Unlike
implementing a 440Wpeak PV module capable of producing previous electric systems, TC and GHP generation include
energy without exceeding the demand, as shown in FIG. 3. water tanks as thermal storage; consequently, dimensioning of
the thermal system can be developed in a straightforward
0.5
PV production manner. The chosen 2.2kWpeak solar thermal collector
0.4
E. Demand provides enough thermal energy (allowing p = 20°C) to meet
Power (kW)

0.3
summer DHW requirements. On the other hand, geothermal
0.2 heat pumps provides more flexible operation and can be sized
0.1 to meet both summer and winter demands; a 500We heat
0 pump (considering CoP = 2.4) is selected to this purpose.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Hour

Fig. 3. Electric production of a 440W PV system.

3) System dimensioning for cogeneration
Cogeneration units are more flexible elements that can be
For the wind turbine case, a standard wind production chosen and configured to meet thermal/electric demand in
profile is difficult to formulate due to high variability of wind; both summer and winter time. In order to avoid a low capacity
thus, average wind speed values for the selected location are factor, an 800W fuel cell is selected to meet the mean electric
used to approximate the energetic production of the device. demand in winter time. Finally, table VI summarizes the
Table V presents the average wind speed and the Weibull selected technologies for the 1 household case.

ICRERA 2013 164

International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications Madrid, Spain, 20-23 October 2013

TABLE VI. INSTALLED POWER AND EXPECTED DEMAND COVERED BY k

GENERATOR (CASE A). savings(k ) E year * 1  d
* priceenergy k  (16)
100
Technology Peak %demand covered* Capacity factor
Power* Summer Winter Sum. Win.
fuel E year , k  O & M fix  O & M var E year
PV module 440We 37.65%e 8.071%e 0.304 0.148 Finally, Net Present Value (NPV) is computed with (17),
Wind Turbine 2000We 70.10%e 63.19%e 0.148 0.237 obtaining the expected time of return of investment. Where N
TC 2200Wt 100%t 30.65%t 0.273 0.133 is the projected lifetime, and l is the discount rate; for this
Geo-heatpump 500We’ 100%t 100%t 0.558 0.783
exercise, l=0.05. Table VIII presents the generators required
CHP – fuel 800We 100%e/ 100%e/ 0.458 0.887
cell 64.04%t 88.57%t data for the economic analysis. Energy input prices considered
*e: electric energy; t: thermal energy; ‘max. electric input. in USD/kWh are 0.1864 for electricity and 0.0641 for natural
gas; assuming 7% of price increment per year.
B. Study case B: 1 district in Madrid, Spain N
savings l
The district study case considers 50 houses with similar NPV r , N investment  ¦ l
l 1 1 r (17)
characteristics to the previous scenario. PV and TC
technologies do not suffer considerable changes related to TABLE VIII. GENERATORS COSTS AND DEGRADATION CHARACTERISTICS.
system size and can be directly scaled for the new demand. On Tech. Cost/W Initial O&Mfix O&Mvar d
the contrary, WT, geothermal and cogeneration systems have (USD/ Wp) investment (USD/ (US¢/ (%)
(USD) kW) kWh)
wider portfolio of technologies in the medium scale. Hence, Hh D Hh D Hh D Hh D
20u5kW wind turbines were selected in order to reduce the PV 4.2 3.8 1848 83.6k 63 45 - - 1
price per installed Watt. For the geothermal scheme, a medium WT 5.2 3.4 10400 340k - - 3.5 2.8 0.5
scale steam turbine (50kWe) cogeneration system is proposed, TC 2.7 2.0 5940 220k 50 35 - - 0.5
Geo 5.01 4.12 25001 205k2 150 180 - - 1
achieving important cost reduction; the drawback is that
CHP 8.93 3.14 71203 93k4 70 65 3.2 3.0 2
commercial steam turbines are considerably outsized for the 1
heat pump; 2 steam turbine; 3 fuel cell; 4 microturbine.
intended application. Finally, the fuel cell is replaced with a Hh: household; D: district.

30kW microturbine CHP unit, which is conveniently scaled to 4000

meet most of the district demand. Technologies selected for 2000

the district scenario are summarized in table VII. 0

-2000
TABLE VII. INSTALLED POWER AND EXPECTED DEMAND COVERED BY
USD

GENERATOR (CASE B). -4000

Technology Peak %demand covered* Capacity factor -6000 PV
Power* Sum. Win. Sum. Win. WT
-8000
PV module 22kWe 37.65%e 8.071%e 0.304 0.148 TC
WT 100kWe 83.75%e 55.74%e 0.157 0. 206 -10000 Geo
CHP
TC 110kWt 100%t 30.65%t 0.273 0.133 -12000
Geo-steam 50kWe’ 13.51%e/ 9.59%e/ 0.0405 0.0567 0 5 10 15 20 25
turbine 100%t 100%t Years

CHP – 30kWe 100%e/ 81.68%e/ 0.4995 0.8046 Fig. 5. Net Present Value curves for the reviewed generators (Case A).
microturbine 86.91%t 100%t
*e: electric energy; t: thermal energy; ‘max. electric output. 5
x 10
6
C. Economic Feasibility Analysis PV
WT
An economic analysis is developed considering the different 4
TC
systems defined for both cases and geographical characteristics Geo
of Madrid; this is a first step for implementing an optimization 2 CHP
USD

problem for DG planning. Using the equations established in

0
section III, and assuming all years behave similarly during the
project lifetime, the expected annual energy output is first
-2
calculated with (15). Where generation(i, j) is the amount of
energy produced at hour i given the characteristics of month j.

¦ >numDays( j ) * ¦
12
E year
24
generation (i, j )
i 1
j 1
Then, expected economic savings for year k can be
calculated with (16). Where d is the annual performance
degradation of the system; priceenergy(k) is the cost per kWh of
equivalent energy at year k; fuel(E,k) is the cost of fuel used in
energy production at year k; and O&M stands for the fixed and
variable operation and maintenance costs per year. It is
important to remark that the savings from thermal generation is
compared with the cost of producing the same amount of
energy with a conventional gas boiler (80% efficiency).
@
-4
0 5 10 15 20 25
(15) Years
Fig. 6. Net Present Value curves for the reviewed generators (Case B).
The obtained VPN curves for the reviewed technologies
are found in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6. Table IX includes the return of
investment results. It can be clearly seen that PV system has
the most discreet production; however, it has the fastest
investment return in case A. On the other hand, the low price
of natural gas makes the TC and geothermal heat pump not as
attractive; yet, they are profitable thermal solutions. On the
contrary, wind turbine systems are still expensive at the very

ICRERA 2013 165

International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications Madrid, Spain, 20-23 October 2013

small scale, not being able to obtain profit under this scenario; [4] Chiradeja, P. “Benefit of Distributed Generation: A Line Loss Reduction
Analysis.” In Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exhibition:
moreover, the elevated cost and low lifetime of the CHP fuel Asia and Pacific, 2005 IEEE/PES, 1–5, 2005.
cell makes it a solution that can hardly be considered. [5] Yang, Wang, Ai Xin, and Gao Yang. “Microgrid’s Operation-
For the second case, the increase of application size management Containing Distributed Generation System.” In 2011 4th
provides reduction in prices and the opportunity of more International Conference on Electric Utility Deregulation and
profitable technologies. The geothermal steam turbine and the Restructuring and Power Technologies (DRPT), 703–707, 2011.
CHP microturbine are examples of the former. [6] Tennakoon, S.M., W. W L Keerthipala, and W.B. Lawrance. “Solar
Energy for Development of a Cost-effective Building Energy System.”
In International Conference on Power System Technology, 2000.
TABLE IX. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RESULTS. Proceedings. PowerCon 2000, 1:55–59 vol.1, 2000.
Technology 1st year expected output Investment Exp.
[7] Adhikari, R.S., M. Buzzetti, and S. Magelli. “Solar Photovoltaic and
return (years) lifetime
Thermal Systems for Electricity Generation, Space Heating and
Hh (kWh) D (MWh) Hh D (years)
Domestic Hot Water in a Residential Building.” In 2011 International
PV module 718.812e 35.940e 15.83 14.02 25 Conference on Clean Electrical Power (ICCEP), 461 –465, 2011.
Wind Turbine 2639.058e 122.965e 21.21 15.65 20
[8] Chicco, Gianfranco, and Pierluigi Mancarella. “A Unified Model for
TC 3623.728t 181.186t 23.93 17.71 25
Energy and Environmental Performance Assessment of Natural Gas-
Geothermal 6384.859t 22.267e/ 19.46 9.58 25Hh fueled Poly-generation Systems.” Energy Conversion and Management
319.242t 30D 49, no. 8 (August 2008): 2069–2077.
CHP unit 3698.131e/ 164.817e/ 24.68 19.48 8Hh
4314.486t 319.242t 25D [9] Manfroi, G., M. Maistrello, and L. C. Tagliabue. “Synergy of
Hh: household; D: district. Geothermal Heat Pumps and PV Plant for Buildings Block.” In 2011
International Conf. on Clean Electrical Power (ICCEP), 466–473, 2011.
V. CONCLUSIONS [10] Giraud, F., and Z.M. Salameh. “Steady-state Performance of a Grid-
connected Rooftop Hybrid Wind-photovoltaic Power System with
This paper first analyzed and modeled generator systems Battery Storage.” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion 16, no. 1
usually found in a smart city context. Then, an economic (March 2001): 1 –7.
analysis was developed for small and medium size [11] Kalogirou, Soteris A. “Solar Thermal Collectors and Applications.”
applications, considering solar, wind, and energetic demand Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 30, no. 3 (2004): 231–295.
characteristics in Madrid, Spain. The results found suggest [12] Usaola, J. “Operation of Concentrating Solar Power Plants with Storage
in Spot Electricity Markets.” IET Renewable Power Generation 6, no. 1
that many renewable sources, such as wind power, are not (January 2012): 59 –66.
profitable in the small scale; however, they might appear as an [13] Braunstein, A., and A. Kornfeld. “On the Development of the Solar
attractive solution in the medium scale. Comprehensive Photovoltaic and Thermal (PVT) Collector.” IEEE Transactions on
studies, like the one proposed, can assist investors in selecting Energy Conversion EC-1, no. 4 (December 1986): 31 –33.
the best system to meet their energetic needs in a cost- [14] Brenden, R.K., W. Hallaj, G. Subramanian, and S. Katoch. “Wind
Energy Roadmap.” In Portland International Conf. on Management of
effective way. Engineering Technology, 2009. PICMET 2009, 2548 –2562, 2009.
In future work, electric storage systems will be modeled [15] Karekezi S, Lata K, Coelho ST. Traditional biomass energy-improving
and included in the study. Additionally, linear programming its use and moving to modern energy use. In: Secretariat of the
methods will be implemented to find an optimal share of international conference for renewable energies, Bonn, June 1–4; 2004.
generation technologies and storage. [16] Hammons, T.J. “Geothermal Power Generation Worldwide.” In Power
Tech Conference Proceedings, 2003 IEEE Bologna, 1:8 pp. Vol.1, 2003.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT [17] EPA, US. “CHP Technologies.” Accessed April 24, 2013.
http://www.epa.gov/chp/technologies.html.
The authors would like to express their gratitude to all
[18] SRCC, “Solar Rating & Certification Corporation – Ratings”, Accessed
partner institutions within the Erasmus Mundus Joint April 25, 2013. http://www.solar-rating.org/ratings/index.html.
Doctorate Programme in Sustainable Energy Technologies [19] NREL, "2010 Solar Technologies Market Report: November 2011."
and Strategies (SETS) as well as to the European Commission (2011). 121 pp. NREL Report.
for their support. [20] IPCC. Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate
Change Mitigation. Edited by Ottmar Edenhofer, Rafael Pichs-Madruga,
Youba Sokona, Kristin Seyboth, Patrick Matschoss, Susanne Kadner,
REFERENCES Timm Zwickel, et al. United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA:
Cambridge University Press, 2011.
[21] Windustry, “How much do wind turbines cost?” Accessed April 24,
[1] Chourabi, H., Taewoo Nam, S. Walker, J.R. Gil-Garcia, S. Mellouli, K. 2013. http://www.windustry.org/resources/
Nahon, T.A. Pardo, and H.J. Scholl. “Understanding Smart Cities: An
[22] NUS Consulting Group. “2011 – 2012 International Electricity &
Integrative Framework.” In 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference
Natural Gas, Report & Price Survey,” June 2012.
on System Science (HICSS), 2289 –2297, 2012.
[23] IDAE Secretaría General Departamento de Planificación y Estudios,
[2] Parkinson, Simon, Dan Wang, and Ned Djilali. “Toward Low Carbon
“Análisis del consumo energético del sector residencial en España:
Energy Systems: The Convergence of Wind Power, Demand Response,
INFORME FINAL”, 16 de julio de 2011.
and the Electricity Grid.” In 2012 IEEE Innovative Smart Grid
Technologies - Asia (ISGT Asia), 1 –8, 2012. [24] RED Eléctrica de España, Proyecto INDEL: Atlas de la Demanda
Eléctrica Española, 1998.
[3] G.Chicco, P. Mancarella and. “CO2 Emission Reduction from
Sustainable Energy Systems: Benefits and Limits of Distributed Multi- [25] European Comission – Joint Research Centre, “Photovoltaic
Generation.” In: The Second International Conference on Geographical Information System - Interactive Maps.” Accessed April
Bioenvironment, Biodiversity and Renewable Energies; 22 May 2011-27 24, 2013. http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php
May 2011; Venice. 2011., 2011. [26] IDAE, “Atlas Eólico de España”, Accessed April 24, 2013.
http://atlaseolico.idae.es/meteosim

ICRERA 2013 166