Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 186 (2023) 113671

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Optimal design method and benefits research for a regional integrated

energy system
Di Wu a, Jiacheng Guo b, *
a
Department of Power Engineering, School of Energy, Power and Mechanical Engineering, North China Electric Power University, Baoding, 071003, Hebei, China
b
College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha, 410082, Hunan, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Regional integrated energy systems (RIES) have garnered increased attention because they highly utilize
Regional integrated energy system renewable energy, comprehensive efficiency, and flexible operation. However, the current research on RIESs is
Various renewable energy sources mainly based on burning natural gas and supplemented by renewable energy, which will consumes much pri­
Energy sharing
mary energy and generates corresponding carbon emissions. Therefore, a RIES contained various renewable
Energy conservation and carbon reduction
Interactive power
energy sources and station energy sharing was constructed in this paper. Both the collaborative optimization
Long-short term analysis model, which considered the operating parameters and system configuration, and the hierarchical optimization
model, which optimizes the equipment configuration at the upper layer and the operational parameters at the
underlayer, were constructed, respectively. Taking a multi-function low-carbon park as an example, the isolated
integrated energy system (IIES) and RIES performances were explored. Finally, the operation cost, carbon
emission, and interactive power in the separated production system, IIES and RIES were analyzed and discussed
from a long-short time scale perspective. The results showed that the carbon emission, interactive power, and
energy supply cost of the RIES’s unit area are 7.62 kg/m2, 10.07 kWh/m2, and 40.55 CNY/m2, respectively. Long
time scale perspective (Years or months), RIESs could significantly reduce carbon emissions and interactive
power. However, on a short time scale viewpoint (Hours), the system’s instantaneous energy conservation and
carbon reduction effect was general; meanwhile, the maximum grid-connected power in IIES and RIES was
2617.7 and 2712.0 kW, respectively.

energy. Few studies consider the complementarities of multiple renew­

1. Introduction
1.1. Background
In September 2020, the Chinese government proposed a two-carbon
goal of “carbon peaking” by 2030 and “carbon neutrality” by 2060 [1].
However, according to the China Association of Building Energy Effi­
ciency statistics [2], in 2020, the energy consumption and carbon
emissions from the building operation stage in China accounted for
21.3% (1.06 billion tce) and 21.7% (2.16 billion tCO2) of the country’s
total, respectively. To achieve the goal of zero energy and zero carbon in
the architecture field, the regional integrated energy system (RIES) has
been receiving increasing attention due to its high utilization of
renewable energy, comprehensive efficiency, and flexible operation [3].
Many scholars have studied the RIES from modeling, planning, sched­
uling, and other aspects [4–6]. However, the current research on RIESs
is mainly based on burning natural gas and supplemented by renewable
able energy sources as the core. With the rapid development of renew­
able energy technology and countries’ attention to energy conservation
and carbon reduction, the position of renewable energy in the RIESs has
become increasingly important. Therefore, there needs to be further
research launched on RIESs with renewable energy as the core.
1.2. Literature review
In modeling studies, most of the literature combines renewable en­
ergy utilization, energy storage, and co-generation systems to form the
RIES [7,8]. As shown in Li et al. [9], a RIES containing photovoltaic
(PV), wind power (WP), storage battery, thermal storage, internal
combustion engine, and other equipment was constructed. Liu et al. [10]
set up a RIES with photovoltaic, co-generation, storage battery, ice
cooling storage, and thermal storage as the core. Fu et al. [11] built a
RIES based on photovoltaic, gas turbine, electricity storage, and thermal
storage and considered the interaction between electric vehicles and the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: guojiacheng35@163.com (J. Guo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113671
Received 9 June 2023; Received in revised form 3 August 2023; Accepted 20 August 2023
Available online 23 August 2023
1364-0321/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Wu and J. Guo
Abbreviations
AHP absorption heat pump
ASHP air source heat pump
HE heat exchanger
ICE internal combustion engine
IIES isolated integrated energy system
IIES-ICE isolated integrated energy system with internal
combustion engine
Li-ion battery lithium battery
PV photovoltaic
RIES regional integrated energy system
RIES-ICE regional integrated energy system with internal
combustion engine
SP separated production system
STC solar thermal collector
Water tank thermal storage water tank
WP wind power
system. Zhang et al. [12] sets up a RIES with wind power, photovoltaic,
gas turbine, battery, and air source heat pump as the core, and consid­
ered the influence of building thermal inertia.
At the same time, some studies consider the influence of the power
grid or heating network on the energy supply efficiency of RIESs [13]. As
shown in Gao et al. [14], a RIES based on gas turbine, photovoltaic,
electricity storage, gas storage, and thermal storage was established, and
the influence of the distributed heating network on system energy sup­
ply was considered. Ma et al. [15] constructed a RIES that considered
gas turbines, photovoltaic, distributed heating networks, heat storage,
electricity storage, and gas storage. Wang et al. [16] established a RIES
based on wind power, co-generation, and distributed heating networks
and adopted a distributed heating network for thermal storage. How­
ever, most of the current research on RIES modeling is mainly based on
the energy supply mode of burning natural gas and is supplemented by
renewable energy. Few modeling studies consider the complementar­
ities of multiple renewable energy sources as the core. In addition, most
studies do not consider the sharing of electricity and thermal between
energy stations within the system.
There is a mutual influence between RIES operation optimization
and equipment configuration optimization, and the current research
usually considers the two as a whole. Two solutions are mainly adopted:
First, collaborative optimization of operation parameters and configu­
ration parameters [17]. Second, hierarchical optimization is developed
based on different parameter types [18]. Among them, the collaborative
optimization method is used to establish the linear programming model
[19] and mixed integer (non-) linear programming model [20] of the
system to determine the hourly power output of the equipment. For
example, Xiao et al. [21] proposed a collaborative optimization model of
the RIES considering multiple uncertainties of source and load,
multi-energy complementarity, and demand-side response. In Li et al.
[22], a multi-agent collaborative optimization model based on Nash
equilibrium was proposed, considering factors such as comprehensive
demand response and carbon trading constraints to ensure the
maximum benefit of the RIES. Gao et al. [23] proposed a collaborative
optimization method for predicting photovoltaics and wind power
output. The results show that the RIES can operate reliably and
economically under multiple uncertainties.
In order to avoid the problem of time-consuming solutions and
falling into optimal local solutions caused by the “one-off optimization”
of the collaborative optimization method, a two-level or three-level
optimization model have been established in the literature. Usually,
the upper layer is used for the optimization layer of equipment config­
uration, and the middle or under layer is serves as the optimization layer
2
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 186 (2023) 113671
of system operation [24]. In Lin et al. [25], a multi-objective dual-layer
optimization model was established considering system configuration,
operation, investment, and maintenance to optimize the design of the
RIES. Yan et al. [26] proposed an integrated design method based on a
three-layer optimization model for the RIES containing compressed air
energy storage to improve the utilization level of renewable energy. Li
et al. [27] adopted the two-layer collaborative optimization method to
optimize the RIES containing multiple energy storage. However, for the
RIES with various renewable energy sources as the core, problems such
as complex system structure and source-load considerable uncertainties
ariset. Therefore, it is urgent to conduct optimization design research on
the system to obtain the optimal configuration.
Regarding comprehensive benefit research, the current literature has
researched the aspects of the RIES economy, energy conservation and
carbon reduction, independence and reliability, etc. [28–30]. For
example, in Yao et al. [31], an optimization model aimed at energy
utilization efficiency, exergy efficiency, etc., was established, and they
studied the influence of seven key parameters on system benefits. The
results showed that carbon emissions of the system were reduced by
3.06 kg/MWh, and exergy efficiency was increased by 2.70%. Ghamari
et al. [32] constructed an optimization model of the RIES with multiple
energy storage, analyzing the system’s total annual and typical daily
operation and maintenance costs. Zheng et al. [33] discussed the energy
utilization rate, carbon emission reduction rate, and economic benefits
of zero-carbon RIES under different operation strategies. Li et al. [34]
simulated an actual RIES, and analyzed the system’s economy, renew­
able energy utilization rate, and computational efficiency under
different demand response strategies. For RIESs, Siqing et al. [35] pro­
posed a distributed robust optimal scheduling model that considers
energy sharing and demand-side response among communities, and
analyzed the economy and reliability of the operation during typical
days. However, current studies mainly examine the typical annual or
daily benefits of RIESs, and few studies consider the transient benefits of
the system, such as transiently carbon emission intensity, interactive
power with the municipal power grid.
1.3. Motivation and contribution
In summary, current modeling studies on RIESs were mainly based
on burning natural gas and were supplemented by renewable energy.
Few literatures carried out investigations on renewable energy as the
core and seldom considered the sharing of thermal and power between
stations. Moreover, the RIES with various renewable energy sources and
energy sharing between stations presented many problems, such as
complex structure, source-load multiple uncertainties, and many pa­
rameters to be optimized, so a new optimization method was needed.
Finally, the benefits of the RIESs focused mainly on the benefits of
typical years or days, and few studies considered the instantaneous
benefits of the system.
Therefore, this paper first constructed the RIES, including various
renewable energy utilization technologies and station energy sharing.
Then, the collaborative optimization model, which considered the sys­
tem configuration and operating parameters, and the hierarchical opti­
mization model, which optimized the equipment configuration at the
upper layer and the operating parameters at the underlayer, were con­
structed, respectively. Afterwards, a multi-functional low-carbon park
was taken as a case study to study various energy systems. Finally, each
system’s operation and maintenance cost, carbon emission, and inter­
active power were analyzed and discussed from long-short time scales.
The main innovations of this paper were as follows:
1. Aiming at an RIES of burning natural gas that had the problem of low
Energy conservation and carbon reduction efficiency. A RIES con­
taining various renewable energy utilization technologies and sta­
tions for energy sharing was constructed to improve the Energy
conservation and carbon reduction benefits of the RIES.
D. Wu and J. Guo
2. Aim at the difficult problem of RIES optimization containing multi­
ple renewable energy sources. A hierarchical optimization model
was established, which includes upper-layer optimization configu­
ration and underlayer optimization operation parameters, to
improve the accuracy of RIES optimization results.
3. Aiming at the problem of not considering the transient benefit for the
energy supply system. This paper analyzed and discussed each sys­
tem’s operation and maintenance costs, carbon emissions, and
interactive power from the long-short time scales perspective and
revealed the long-short-term comprehensive benefits of each energy
supply system.
2. Methods
2.1. System description
2.1.1. Reference system
In China, most industrial parks purchased electricity from the
municipal grid to meet their electric demand. Central heating or air
source heat pump heating was used to meet theheating load of the park.
Chillers or air source heat pumps suppled the cooling load in most parks.
The park’s cooling, heating, and electricity loads were provided sepa­
rately by different energy supply systems, called a separated production
system (SP). The separated production system offered various energy for
the park with primary energy as the core, and was the most commonly
used energy supply method in Chinese parks. The separated production
system was used as the reference system. The system used the municipal
power grid to meet the requirements of the air source heat pump and the
electric load of the user. Cooling and heating working conditions of the
air source heat pump (ASHP) met users’ cooling and heating load re­
quirements. It was assumed that thermal power plants supply all the
electricity purchased from the municipal power grid. The real-time
balance of cooling, heating, and electric power for the SP is shown in
Equations (1)-(3). In addition, the modeling of the air source heat pump
was depicted in the team’s previous work [36].
Electric power balance:
Egrid,buy,i (t) ≥ Euser,i (t) + PASHP,heat,i (t) + PASHP,cold,i (t)
Where: t is the moment t, h; i is the ith energy station; Egrid,buy,i(t) is the
purchased electricity quantity of the energy station, kW; Euser,i(t) is the
electricity load of the user, kW; PASHP, cold,i(t) and PASHP, heat,i(t) are the
electricity power of the cooling and heating working conditions for the
air source heat pump, respectively, kW.
Heat power balance:
QASHP,i (t) ≥ Quser,i (t)
Fig. 1. Structure diagram for the IIES.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 186 (2023) 113671
Where, QASHP,i(t) is the heating power of the air source heat pump, kW;
Quser,i(t) is the user heating load, kW.
Cooling power balance:
CASHP,i (t) ≥ Cuser,i (t) (3)
Where, CASHP,i(t) is the cooling power of the air source heat pump, kW;
Cuser,i(t) is the user cooling load, kW.
2.1.2. Isolated integrated energy system
The isolated integrated energy system (IIES) structure is shown in
Fig. 1. The IIES included an absorption heat pump (AHP), air source heat
pump, solar thermal collector (STC), thermal storage water tank (Water
tank), photovoltaic, lithium battery (Li-ion battery), wind power (WP),
and other equipment. Among them, the cooling load of the user was
preferentially satisfied by the refrigeration of the absorption heat pump,
and the gap is supplemented by refrigeration from the air source heat
pump. The user heating load (including park and absorption heat pump)
was met preferentially by the heat-collecting quantity from the solar
thermal collector. The rest of the heat-collecting quantity was stored in
the thermal storage water tank. When the solar thermal collector cannot
meet users’ needs, the thermal storage water tank is used for heat. When
the thermal storage water tank cannot meet the requirements, the heat
of the air source heat pump was started to meet the requirements (Not
considering the absorption heat pump). In addition, the thermal
requirement of the absorption heat pump was provided by the solar
thermal collector and thermal storage water tank. The electricity that
was generated by wind power and photovoltaics were prioritized to
meet the users’ electricity load demand (including park and air source
heat pumps). The surplus was stored in lithium-ion batteries, which,
when full, were merged into the municipal power grid. The electricity
load gap was met first by the lithium battery discharge, and when the
lithium battery cannot meet, it was supplemented by the purchase of
electricity from the municipal power grid. The IIES’s real-time cooling,
heating, and electric power balance constraints are shown in Equations
(4)-(6). Equipment detailed modeling was depicted in the team’s pre­
liminary work [7,36].
(1) This study constructed an isolated integrated energy system with
internal combustion engine (IIES-ICE) as the core, as shown in Fig. S1.
The system prioritized using internal combustion engines (ICE) to
generate electricity to provide electrical loads to the park, and heat
exchangers recovered the corresponding waste heat. The internal com­
bustion engine generated electricity by burning natural gas in
conjunction with the electric motor and the generator to provide users
with an electrical load. At the same time, the internal combustion engine
(2) was operated with the following electric load operating strategy. The
remaining operation strategy was consistent with IIESs.
3
D. Wu and J. Guo Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 186 (2023) 113671

Electric power balance:
Egrid,buy,i (t) + PPV,i (t) + PWP,i (t) + PLi− ion,out,i (t) ≥ Euser,i (t)
+PASHP,heat,i (t) + PASHP,cold,i (t) + PLi− ion,in,i (t) + Egrid,syn,i (t)
Where: PPV,i(t), PWP,i(t), and PLi-ion,out,i(t) represent photovoltaic, wind
power, and lithium battery discharge power, respectively, kW; PLi-ion,in,
i(t) and Egrid,syn,i(t) represent lithium battery charge and grid-connected
power, respectively, kW.
Heat power balance:
QSTC,i (t) + QASHP,i (t) + Ptank,out,i (t) ≥ Quser,i (t) + QAHP,i (t) + Ptank,in,i (t)
Where, QSTC,i(t) and Ptank,out,i(t) represent the heat collecting power of
the solar thermal collector and the thermal releasing power of the
thermal storage water tank, respectively, kW; QAHP,i(t) and Ptank,in,i(t)
represent the heat demand of absorption heat pump and the thermal
storage power of thermal storage water tank, respectively, kW.
Cooling power balance:
CAHP,i (t) + CASHP,i (t) ≥ Cuser,i (t)
Where: CAHP,i(t) is the cooling power of the absorption heat pump, kW.
waste heat. At the same time, the internal combustion engine was
operated with the following electric load operating strategy. The
(4) remaining operation strategy was consistent with RIESs.
Electric power balance:
Egrid,buy,i (t) + PPV,i (t) + PWP,i (t) + PLi− ion,out,i (t) + Eother,in (t) ≥ Euser,i (t)
(7)
+PASHP,heat,i (t) + PASHP,cold,i (t) + PLi− ion,in,i (t) + Eother,out (t) + Egrid,syn,i (t)
Where, Eother,in(t) is the electric power obtained from other energy sta­
tions, kW; Eother,out(t), is the electric power supplied to other power
stations, kW.
(5)
Heat power balance:
QSTC,i (t) + QASHP,i (t) + Ptank,out,i (t) + Qother,in (t)
≥ Quser,i (t) + QAHP,i (t) + Qother,out (t) + Ptank,in,i (t) (8)
Where: Qother,in(t) is the heat power obtained from other energy stations,
kW; Qother,out(t) is the heat power supplied to other energy stations, kW.
Cooling power balance:
(6)
CAHP,i (t) + CASHP,i (t) ≥ Cuser,i (t) (9)

2.2. Optimization model

2.1.3. Regional integrated energy system
The power grid and heating network connected IIESs with different
2.2.1. Decision variables
functions to form RIES. Its schematic diagram is shown in Fig. 2. The
The suitable capacity for renewable energy utilization equipment
structure of the energy station is shown in Fig. 3. Based on the IIES, the
could improve the comprehensive benefits of the energy supply system.
energy station prefered to transfers the remaining energy to other en­
If the renewable energy utilization equipment capacity was too large,
ergy stations through the power grid and heating network. If there was
the utilization efficiency of renewable energy in the energy supply sys­
any energy left, it was stored using lithium batteries and thermal storage
tem may have been lower. If it was too small, unable to give full play to
water tank. When the energy station has an energy gap, the remaining
the advantages of renewable energy in energy conservation and carbon
energy of other energy stations was used to supplement. If there was still
reduction. Reasonable energy storage capacity could further improve
a load gap, the lithium battery and thermal storage water tank released
the overall performance of the energy supply system. Suppose the en­
energy to meet it. The remaining operation strategy was consistent with
ergy storage capacity was too large, the initial investment of the energy
IIESs. The RIES’s real-time cooling, heating, and electric power balance
supply system would have been increased, and the equipment would
constraints are shown in Equations (7)-(9). In addition, the detailed
have been empty. If the energy storage capacity was too small, it could
modeling process for the power grid and heating network was described
not give the advantages of energy storage in peak cutting and valley
in the team’s preliminary work [37,38].
filling full play. The operating parameters of energy storage equipment
In this study, a regional integrated energy system including internal
are important in improving the energy supply system’s renewable en­
combustion engines (RIES-ICE) was constructed, and its energy station
ergy utilization level. The energy storage capacity will be wasted if the
structure is shown in Fig. S2. The system prioritized using internal
charge/discharge power was too small. If the charge/discharge power
combustion engines (ICE) to generate electricity to provide electrical
was too large, it would have led to idle charge/discharge power and
loads to the park, and heat exchangers recovered the corresponding
increased the system’s initial investment. Therefore, the capacity of

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram for the regional energy sharing.

4
D. Wu and J. Guo Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 186 (2023) 113671

Fig. 3. Structure diagram for the energy station.

thermal storage water tank (Qtank,max,i, kWh), the capacity of lithium
battery (ELi-ion,max,i, kWh), the rated power of wind power (PWP,nom,i,
kW), the number of the solar thermal collector (nSTC,i, pcs), the number
of photovoltaic (nPV,i, pcs), charge power of lithium battery (PLi-ion,char,
max,i, kW), discharge power of lithium battery (PLi-ion,disc,max,i, kW),
thermal storage power of thermal storage water tank (Ptank, char,max,i,
kW), and thermal release power of the thermal storage water tank (Ptank,
disc,max,i, kW) were the variables to be optimized.
emission of the unit area can accurately reflect the carbon emission in­
tensity of the energy supply system. The carbon abatement rate can well
evaluate the carbon reduction potential of the energy supply system
relative to the reference system. Therefore, carbon emissions of the unit
area (CEUA, kg/m2) and carbon abatement rate (CAR, %) are selected as
environmental protection indicators of the energy supply system. For
detailed calculations, see the team’s previous work [39].

[ ]
X = nPV,i , nSTC,i , PWP,nom,i , ELi− ion,max,i , Qtank,max,i , PLi− ion,char,max,i , PLi− ion,disc,max,i , Ptank,in,char,max,i , Ptank,disc,max,i (10)

CEsystem
CEUA = (13)
Abuilding
2.2.2. Evaluation index
The advantages and disadvantages of economic benefits play a vital CEref − CEsystem
CAR = × 100% (14)
role in applying and popularizing energy supply systems. From the CEref
users’ perspective, the better the economic benefits of the energy supply
system, the higher the users’ acceptability. Among them, the energy Where, CEref and CEsystem represent carbon emission of the reference
supply cost of the unit area can intuitively and accurately represent the system and energy supply system, respectively, kg.
cost to be borne by the unit building area. The annual value saving rate Among various indexes used to evaluate energy supply systems, the
(ACSR) can directly compare the economic saving potential of the en­ energy efficiency index based on thermodynamic performance is also
ergy supply system relative to the reference system. Therefore, the en­ relatively common. Among them, the primary energy consumption of
ergy supply cost of the unit area (ESCUA, CNY/m2) and annual value the unit area can better reflect the energy consumption intensity of the
saving rate (ACSR, %) were selected as the economic evaluation indexes energy supply system. The primary energy-saving rate can accurately
of the energy supply system. The team’s preliminary work showed the evaluate the energy-saving potential of the energy supply system rela­
detailed calculation process [39]. tive to the reference system. Therefore, the primary energy consumption
of the unit area (PECUA, kWh/m2)and primary energy saving rate (PESR,
ACsystem %) are selected as indicators to evaluate the energy supply system’s
ESCUA = (11)
Abuilding energy efficiency. For detailed calculations, see the team’s previous
work [39].
ACref − ACsystem
ACSR = × 100% (12)
ACref PECsystem
PECUA = (15)
Abuilding
Where, ACref and ACsystem are the annual cost of the reference system
and the energy supply system, respectively, CNY. The SP is the reference PECref − PECsystem
PESR = × 100% (16)
system in this paper. Abuilding is the energy supply area of the energy PECref
supply system, m2.
With increasingly severe global problems such as environmental Where, PECref and PECsystem are the primary energy consumption of the
pollution and temperature rise, increasingly people pay attention to the reference and energy supply system, respectively, kWh.
carbon reduction of energy supply systems. Among them, the carbon With the high proportion of photovoltaic, wind power, and other

5
D. Wu and J. Guo Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 186 (2023) 113671

renewable energy penetration, the energy supply reliability of the en­

SIPref − SIPsystem
ergy system has proposed increasingly high requirements. The system IPRR = × 100% (18)
SIPref
constructed in this paper only has interaction power with the external
network. The system interactive power of the unit area (SIPUA, kWh/m2) Where, SIPref and SIPsystem are the interactive electric quantity of the
and the interactive power reduction rate (IPRR, %) are selected as in­ reference system and energy supply system, respectively, kWh.
dicators to evaluate the reliability of the energy system [39].
SIPsystem 2.3. Solution method
SIPUA = (17)
Abuilding
2.3.1. Collaborative optimization method
This study’s energy supply cost, carbon emission, and interactive
power of the unit area were taken as the optimization objectives. The

Fig. 4. Flow chart for the collaborative optimization method.

6
D. Wu and J. Guo
device’s output, energy balance, etc., constraints were considered. Non-
dominated sorting genetic algorithm II (NSGA-II) [40] and ideal point
method (TOPSIS method) [41] were used as optimization and
decision-making tools, respectively. Adopted the collaborative optimi­
zation method to optimize the IIES and RIES. The detailed optimization
process is shown as follows (Fig. 4):
Step 1: Set correlation parameters.
The imported each energy station’s hourly cooling, heating, and
electric loads. Imported local hourly ambient temperature, solar radia­
tion intensity, and wind speed. Determine the IIES and RIES structure
and operation strategy. Determine the equipment’s economic, technical,
and environmental parameters. Determine the optimization objective
and evaluation index of the IIES and RIES. Determine the range of de­
cision variables to be optimized. They determined the population size,
iteration number, crossover probability, and mutation probability of
NSGA-II. Determine the weight of the TOPSIS method decisions.
Step 2: Hourly calculation.
The calculation for power generation of photovoltaic and wind
power and heat collection quantity of solar thermal collector. The
calculation for the power output of the air source heat pump, absorption
heat pump, etc. Calculate the interactive power quantity between the
system and the municipal power grid. Calculate the primary energy
consumption and carbon emissions. Calculate the amount of electricity
and thermal shared by each energy station and the maintenance cost of
the power grid and heating network (For RIESs).
Step 3: System benefit calculation.
Calculate annual maintenance, energy purchase, carbon tax, and
penalty costs. Calculate the annual cost, primary energy consumption,
carbon emission, and interactive power for the IIES and RIES. Calculate
the unit area’s energy supply cost, carbon emission, and interactive
power for the IIES and RIES. Calculate the IIES and RIES annual value-
saving rate, primary energy-saving rate, carbon abatement rate, and
interactive power reduction rate.
Step 4: Update iteration.
Each individual’s fitness value (energy supply cost, carbon emission,
and interactive power of the unit area) was calculated in turn. The
progeny population was obtained using the competitive bidding method
for selection, an analog binary method for cross-operation, and the
polynomial function for variation operation. The parent and child
populations were combined, and the new population was sorted by the
Fig. 5. Flow chart for the hierarchical optimization method.
7
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 186 (2023) 113671
fast non-dominant sorting method and simultaneously calculated the
crowding degree of individuals in each non-dominant layer. The
appropriate individuals were selected to form the new parent population
according to the non-dominant relationship and the crowding degree of
individuals. Iterate successively until the last generation and obtain the
Pareto optimal frontier.
Step 5: Obtain optimization results.
TOPSIS method was used to make decisions on Pareto optimal
frontier. Firstly, input the Pareto optimal frontier obtained through
optimization and carry out the forward transformation. Secondly, the
weight of each optimization objective was set. This paper sets the weight
of energy supply cost, carbon emission, and interactive power of the unit
area as 1/3 [40]. Then, the objective matrix with weighted weights was
normalized. Then, the maximum and minimum distance of the objective
function matrix and the corresponding score were calculated. Finally,
the scheme with the highest score was selected as the “optimal” scheme,
and the corresponding IIES and RIES configuration and equipment
hourly running state were obtained.
2.3.2. Hierarchical optimization method
Based on the collaborative optimization method, this paper takes the
unit area’s energy supply cost, carbon emission, and interactive power as
optimization objectives. It adopts NSGA-II and TOPSIS methods as opti­
mization and decision-making tools, respectively. A hierarchical optimi­
zation method [26] was proposed to optimize for the RIES. The upper
layer optimizes each device’s capacity in the RIES, and the underlayer
optimizes the energy storage operation parameters. The detailed process of
the hierarchical optimization method is shown in Fig. 5.
Step 1: Set initial parameters.
Import the local outdoor meteorological parameters and each user
load. Set the relevant parameters of NSGA-II and TOPSIS method.
Determine the economic, technical, and environmental parameters of
each equipment. Determine the optimization range of the capacity of
thermal storage water tank, the capacity of lithium battery, the rated
power of wind power, the number of solar thermal collectors, and the
number of photovoltaic in the upper optimization process. Determine
the optimization range of charge/discharge power of the lithium battery
and thermal storage/release power of the thermal storage water tank
when the underlayer is optimized. See Step 1 of the collaborative opti­
mization method for detailed parameter settings.
D. Wu and J. Guo Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 186 (2023) 113671

Step 2: Upper-layer configurations optimization. Table 1

The equipment power output, operation and maintenance cost, and Basic information for each low-carbon community [39].
carbon emission of the RIES were calculated hourly. Calculate annual Layer Number Built- Roof Total Total
cost, carbon emissions, primary energy consumption, etc. Calculate the number up area area building roof
unit area’s energy supply cost, carbon emission, and interactive power. (m2) (m2) area (× area (×
104 m2) 104 m2)
Completed each individual calculation in turn, and the fitness values of
all individuals were obtained. The selection, crossover, variation, non- Office 10 7 14,300 1500 10.01 1.05
dominant ordering, and crowding degree calculation obtained new Residential 6 34 2900 500 9.86 1.70
School 6 15 6600 1100 9.90 1.65
populations. The Pareto optimal frontier with multiple objectives was
obtained by completing the iterations. Adopts the TOPSIS method to get
the optimal value and record. Compare the optimization result with the need for summer cooling, and winter heating. At the same time, the
historical optimal value. If the optimization result was better than the region is rich in solar and wind energy resources, which is suitable for
historical optimal value, the historical optimal value will be updated. developing renewable energy utilization technologies represented by
The parameter corresponding to the historical best value was brought photovoltaic, solar thermal, and wind power.
into the underlayer. The detailed process was described in Steps 2–5 of This paper adopts building energy consumption simulation software
the collaborative optimization method. to obtain hourly cooling, heating, and electric loads in residential
Step 3: Underlayer operation parameter optimization. community, office park, and school community of low carbon. The
Replace the corresponding configuration parameters in the under­ construction of basic information is shown in Table 1; details show this
layer. The RIES’s energy balance, equipment power output, energy team in the early work [39]. Each low-carbon community’s hourly
sharing between stations, and so on, were calculated hourly. Calculate cooling, heating, and electric load are shown in Fig. 7.
the annual operation and maintenance cost, interactive electricity, etc. The corresponding energy stations of each low-carbon community
Calculate the RIES’s annual value-saving, carbon abatement, and were as follows:
interactive power reduction rates. After optimization and decision- Energy station 1: Low carbon residential community;
making of the NSGA-II and TOPSIS methods, the optimal operation Energy station 2: Low carbon office park;
parameters of energy storage were obtained. Compare the optimization Energy station 3: Low carbon school community.
result with the historical optimal value. If the optimization result was The technical, economic, and environmental parameters of each
better than the historical optimal value, it will update the historical equipment are shown in Table 2, and the detailed parameter explanation
optimal value. The energy storage operation parameters corresponding is shown in Refs. [7,36–39]. The hourly purchase price of different users
to the optimal historical value were brought into the upper layer. The is shown in Table 3.
detailed process was described in Steps 2–5 of the collaborative opti­ The optimization range of each decision variable is shown in
mization method. Table S1. The photovoltaic and solar thermal collectors could be ar­
Step 4: Update iteration and obtain optimal system configuration. ranged on all roofs at most, and could arrange the maximum area of
Replace the corresponding energy storage operating parameters in photovoltaic and solar thermal collectors in half. This paper assumes
the upper layer. Optimize the process according to Fig. 6, and repeat that the maximum deployable power of wind power was half that of
Steps 2 and 3 to complete all iterations of the main program. After all photovoltaics. The lithium battery’s maximum layout capacity can meet
system iterations were completed, the optimal combination of consid­ users’ electricity demand for one day (Excluding the air source heat
ered the RIES’s economy, carbon reduction, and reliability was ob­ pump). The thermal storage water tank can store up to 4 h of heat
tained. The optimal equipment configuration and energy storage collected quantity by the solar thermal collector. In addition, the rated
operation parameters were obtained. energy charge/discharge power was between 1 and 10 h. The fastest and
slowest could be stored in 1 h and 10 h, respectively.
2.4. Case studies
3. Results and discussion
The hourly meteorological parameters for Beijing in typical years are
shown in Fig. 6. This region belongs to the cooling climate zone, the The IIES by the collaborative optimization method was optimized.

Fig. 6. Hourly outdoor meteorological parameters for the Beijing.

8
D. Wu and J. Guo Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 186 (2023) 113671

Fig. 7. Hourly cooling, heating, and electric loads for each energy station.

Table 2 Table 3
Technical, economic, and environmental parameters of each equipment [7, Electricity prices for different users.
36–39].
User types Prices (CNY/kWh) Periods
Equipment Parameters
Office 0.2671 23:00–7:00
ICE Cini,ICE = 6800 CNY/kW, Cmc,ICE = 0.0558 CNY/kWh, cegrid = 0.7405 7:00–10:00, 15:00–18:00, 20:00–22:00
315.26 g/kWh 1.2662 10:00–15:00, 18:00–20:00
PV fdust = 0.98; fmis = 0.95; foher = 0.98; Rad0 = 1000 W/m2; Isc0 = Residential 0.7883 0:00–23:00
7.91 A; Imp0 = 7.45 A; Vmp0 = 36.1 V; TPV,ref = 25 ◦ C; APV = 2.00 School 0.7883 0:00–23:00
m2; Cini,PV = 2360 CNY/pcs; Cmc,PV = 0.023 CNY/kWh; cePV =
61.00 g/kWh
STC fSTC,0 = 0.70; uSTC = 1.5 W/(m2⋅K); mSTC, water = 0.06 kg/s; ASTC = SP, the primary energy consumption and carbon emission of IIES-ICE
3.76 m2; cp,water = 4.187 kJ/(kg⋅K); Cini,STC = 1500 CNY/pcs; Cmc, and RIES-ICE were reduced by 16.51 kWh/m2 and 18.66 kWh/m2,
STC = 0.022 CNY/kWh
WP vci = 3 m/s; vco = 10 m/s; Cini,WP = 12,000 CNY/kWh; Cmc,WP =
4.23 kg/m2, and 4.99 kg/m2, respectively. However, the primary energy
0.024 CNY/kWh; ceWP = 31.36 g/kWh consumption and carbon emissions of IIES-ICE and RIES-ICE are much
HP COPAHP = 0.75; Cini,AHP = 1200 CNY/kW; Cmc,AHP = 0.020 CNY/ higher than those of IIES, RIES (Method 1), and RIES (Method 1). For
kWh example, the carbon emissions and primary energy consumption of
ASHP COPASHP, heat = 3.5; COPASHP, cooling = 3.5; Cini, ASHP = 970 CNY/
RIES-ICE were 7.01 kg/m2 and 20.03 kWh/m2 higher than those of RIES
kW; Cmc,ASHP = 0.021 CNY/kWh
Water tank ftank, loss = 0.01; ftank, char = 0.90; ftank, disc = 0.90; Cini, tank = 200 (Method 2), respectively. Compared with IIES-ICE, the primary energy
CNY/kWh; Cini, tank,char = 260 CNY/kW; Cini, tank,disc = 260 CNY/ saving rate and carbon abatement rate of IIES were increased by 30.3%
kW; Cmc,tank = 0.021 CNY/kWh (18.23 kWh/m2) and 32.7% (6.42 kg/m2), respectively. When the en­
Li-ion battery fLi-ion,in = 0.95; fLi-ion,out = 0.95; Cini,Li-ion = 3100 CNY/kWh; Cini,Li- ergy supply of the park is changed from mainly purchasing electricity
ion,in = 600 CNY/kW; Cini,Li-ion,out = 600 CNY/kW; Cmc,Li-ion =
0.024 CNY/kWh
from the municipal power grid to burning natural gas as the core, the
HE fHE = 0.80; Cini,HE = 200 CNY/kW; Cmc,HE = 0.021 CNY/kWh energy conservation and carbon reduction effects of the integrated en­
Heating L12 = 500 m; L23 = 600 m; L31 = 700 m; fHN,loss = 5.0%/1000 m; ergy system can be brought into play to a certain extent. However,
network Cini,HN = 1200 CNY/m, Cmc,HN = 0.075 CNY/kWh burning natural gas will bring corresponding primary energy con­
Municipal grid L12 = 500 m; L23 = 600 m; L31 = 700 m; fTPP = 40%; fgrid = 92%;
sumption and carbon emissions. When the integrated energy system
Cini, grid = 800 CNY/m; Cmc,grid = 0.021 CNY/kWh; cegrid = 886.60
g/kWh mainly uses renewable energy, it can significantly reduce its carbon
emissions (renewable energy does not produce carbon emissions). The
system interaction power of IIES-ICE and RIES-ICE was only 3.55 kWh/
The RIES by collaborative optimization method (Method 1) and hier­ m2 and 3.61 kWh/m2, respectively, but this was at the cost of consuming
archical optimization method (Method 2) was optimized, respectively. It natural gas, and the purchased natural gas was 36.52 kWh/m2 and
can be seen from the optimization results in Section 3.1 that the benefit 35.29 kWh/m2, respectively. Therefore, compared with the integrated
of the hierarchical optimization method is higher than that of the energy system in which natural gas is the primary energy source, the
collaborative optimization method for the RIES. Starting from Section integrated energy system using a high proportion of renewable energy
3.2, the benefit analysis between RIESs results from optimizing adopting has excellent energy-saving and carbon-reducing benefits while basi­
the hierarchical optimization method. cally not increasing the system operation cost.
The IIES and RIES can effectively improve energy conservation and
3.1. Optimization result carbon reduction benefits compared to the SP. IIES and RIES (Method 2)
reduced carbon emissions per unit area by 10.65 kg/m2 and 12.00 kg/
The benefit value of each system is shown in Table 4. Compared with

9
D. Wu and J. Guo
Table 4
Benefit values for each system.
PECUA (kWh/m2) CEUA (kg/m2) ESCUA (CNY/m2)
SP 60.13 19.62 35.61
IIES-ICE 43.62 15.39 42.40
IIES 25.39 8.97 44.00
RIES (Method 1) 22.50 7.93 42.04
RIES-ICE 41.47 14.63 41.61
RIES (Method 2) 21.44 7.62 40.55
Notes, GasUA is the amount of natural gas purchased per unit area in the system.
m2, respectively. By prioritizing the adoption of on-site renewable en­
ergy, IIES and RIES can effectively reduce the amount of electricity
purchased by the municipal power grid, thus reducing carbon dioxide
production. The IIES and RIES will increase the energy consumption
expenditure of users. For example, the energy supply cost per unit area
of the IIES was 8.39 CNY/m2, higher than that of the SP. The initial unit
investment of wind power and lithium batteries in IIES and RIES is
relatively expensive, and the purchase price of electricity in Beijing is
lower, leading to poor economic benefits. Therefore, reducing the unit
cost of lithium batteries and wind power is a critical technical means to
reduce initial investment and improve the economy of the IIES and RIES.
Compared with the SP, the interactive power reduction rates of IIES and
RIES (Method 2) were 45.9% and 54.5%, respectively. Through multi-
energy complementarity will improve the reliability of the IIES and
RIES. Compared with the collaborative optimization method, the carbon
emission, primary energy consumption, energy supply cost, and inter­
active power of the unit area of the RIES were reduced by 1.06 kWh/m2,
0.31 kg/m2, 1.49 CNY/m2, and 0.11 kWh/m2, respectively, after the
hierarchical optimization method. The hierarchical optimization
method can obtain better system configuration and benefit value by
reducing the number of decision variables and iterating multiple times.
In addition, it can further improve the efficiency of the RIES through
energy sharing between stations.
The equipment configuration for each system is shown in Table S2.
Compared with IIES and RIES, the scale of renewable energy utilization
in IIES-ICE and RIES-ICE was small. For example, IIES-ICE has 1879 pcs,
1703 pcs, and 1440 pcs fewer photovoltaics in Energy stations 1, 2, and
3 than IIES, respectively. The IIES-ICE and RIES-ICE prioritize using
natural gas, and the insufficient part was supplemented by renewable
energy, which limits the scale of renewable energy utilization in the
integrated energy system. The rated capacities of lithium batteries of
IIES-ICE, RIES-ICE, IIES, RIES (Method 1), and RIRS (Method 2) were
4674 kWh, 4076 kWh, 10,664 kWh, 9342 kWh, and 7167 kWh,
respectively. When natural gas is used as the primary source, the
renewable energy utilization scale of the system is small, and the energy
storage capacity of IIES-ICE and RIES-ICE will be smaller than that of
IIES and RIES.
IIES and RIES could used renewable energy on a large scale. For
example, the photovoltaic number of the IIES, RIES (Method 1), and
RIES (Method 2) was 7181 pcs (2549 kW), 7110 pcs (2524 kW), and
7877 pcs (2796 kW), respectively. Wind power was 705 kWh, 671 kWh,
and 704 kW, respectively, but wind power was less than photovoltaic
power. On the one hand, the unit cost of the photovoltaic (4225 CNY/
kW) was below that of the wind power (12,000 CNY/kW). On the other
hand, the photovoltaic utilization curve and user energy consumption
curve had higher consistency. Thus the installed power of the photo­
voltaics was higher than that of the wind power. RIES (Method 2) re­
duces lithium battery capacity by 3497 kWh and 2175 kWh compared to
IIES and RIES (Method 1).
Energy sharing can effectively reduce energy storage capacity, and
the hierarchical optimization method can further find more suitable
energy storage capacity for the RIES to improve the economic benefits of
the system. RIES (Method 1) energy storage operation parameters differ
quite from IIES and RIES (Method 2). When there are too many decision
variables in the optimization process of the collaborative optimization
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 186 (2023) 113671
SIPUA (kWh/m2) GasUA (kWh/m2) PESR (%) CAR (%) ACSR (%) IPRR (%)
22.13 / / / / /
3.55 36.52 27.5 21.6 − 19.1 84.0
11.96 / 57.8 54.3 − 23.6 45.9
10.18 / 62.6 59.6 − 18.1 54.0
3.61 35.39 30.7 25.4 − 16.8 83.7
10.07 / 64.3 61.2 − 13.9 54.5
method, parameters that have a big influence on the target value will
dominate other parameters. The energy storage operation parameters
have little influence on the RIES, so they belong to the dominant pa­
rameters. In addition, the power of the air source heat pump for the IIES
and RIES was 9134 kW.
The benefit value for each energy station is shown in Table S3. The
primary energy consumption and carbon emissions of IIES-ICE and RIES-
ICE at each energy station were much higher than those of IIES and RIES.
This was caused by IIES-ICE and RIES-ICE burning large amounts of
natural gas for internal combustion engine power generation. For
example, Energy stations 1, 2, and 3 of IIES-ICE consumed 3408.0 MWh,
5451.0 MWh, and 2011.6 MWh of natural gas, respectively. The inte­
grated energy system using natural gas as the primary energy source can
reduce the interactive power between the system and the municipal
grid. The interactive power between Energy stations 1, 2, and 3 of RIES-
ICE and the municipal grid was only 811.8 MWh, 1100.5 MWh, and
1083.0 MWh, respectively.
Overall, each energy station’s benefit value increases successively
under IIES, RIES (Method 1), and RIES (Method 2). It shows that the
energy sharing between stations could effectively improved the system’s
comprehensive benefit, and the system’s benefit value could be further
improved after the hierarchical optimization method. Both IIES and
RIES had general economic benefits. Only energy station 2 had an
annual saving rate of 4.2% under RIES (Method 2), which was higher
than the SP’s. The annual value saving rate of energy station 1 under
RIES (Method 1) was − 48.7%.
The energy conservation, carbon reduction, and reliability perfor­
mance of energy station 1 are higher than those of energy stations 2 and
3. Energy station 1 had energy demand all year round. Solar energy and
wind energy could be used day and night to improve energy conserva­
tion and carbon reduction for the energy station. At the same time, the
energy produced by renewable energy utilization equipment could be
used in time, so the reliability was good. Energy station 2 had the best
economy, low carbon office area used large energy, and the unit elec­
tricity purchase cost was high, so it had a good economy through
renewable energy.
3.2. Economic analyze
The monthly operation and maintenance costs and proportion for each
system are shown in Fig. 8. IIES and RIES could effectively reduced the
operation and maintenance cost of the system, and RIES is better than IIES
(Fig. 9 (a)). Relative to the SP, during the whole year, the operation and
maintenance cost of RIES and IIES decreased by 3.81 × 106 CNY (49.3%)
and 3.31 × 106 CNY (42.7%), respectively. In June, RIES and IIES reduced
their operation and maintenance costs by 5.31 × 105 CNY and 4.81 × 105
CNY, respectively. Through energy storage and renewable energy utili­
zation technology, the IIES and RIES can effectively reduce the energy
purchase cost for the system to reduce its operation and maintenance costs.
Compared with IIES, RIES reduces its annual operation and maintenance
cost by 5.12 × 105 CNY (11.5%). During the cooling peak in August, they
reduced RIES’s operation and maintenance cost by 27.2% (1.17 × 105
CNY). RIESs can further reduce the purchase of electricity from the
municipal grid and the cost of operation and maintenance by sharing
power and thermal between stations.
10
D. Wu and J. Guo
Fig. 8. Monthly operation and maintenance cost and proportion for each system.
IIES and RIES could change the expenditure structure of the operation
and maintenance costs of the system to some extent, and the change of
RIES is more apparent (Fig. 9 (b)–(d)). For example, the operation and
maintenance cost of RIES ‘energy station 3 in June accounted for 16.7% of
the year, which was 0.4% and 4.9% less than the SP and IIES, respectively.
RIES operation and maintenance costs increased by 6.3% and 1.7% in
December–February, respectively, compared with the SP and IIES.
Compared with IIES, RIES could transfer the power generation and heat
collection quantity of energy station 3 to energy stations 1 and 2 through
inter-station energy sharing from June–August, reducing RIES’s electricity
purchase and carbon tax expenditures. The further reduced RIES’s oper­
ation and maintenance costs from June–August by 2.73 × 105 CNY
(Accounted for the year’s 6.1%). At the same time, the operation and
maintenance costs of IIES and RIES in December–February were 1.26 ×
106 CNY and 1.32 × 106 CNY, respectively. The operation and
11
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 186 (2023) 113671
maintenance cost of RIES in winter was similar to that of IIES and less than
that of IIES in summer, which causes RIES to account for a large proportion
of IIES in December–February. The SP purchased a large amount of elec­
tricity from March–August and June–August for the park’s electric load
and air source heat pump cooling. The RIES can use renewable energy
through photovoltaic, wind power, and solar thermal collectors to reduce
electricity purchases and carbon taxes expenditure, thereby reducing
system operation and maintenance costs. From December–February, SP,
IIES, and RIES all need to purchase a large amount of natural gas for park
thermal, resulting in each system’s operation and maintenance costs being
divided into 1.26 × 106 CNY, 1.32 × 106 CNY, and 1.87 × 106 CNY. The
combination of the high proportion of renewable energy utilization, sea­
sonal changes in renewable energy resources, inter-station energy sharing,
and seasonal differences in user load demand has led to changes in the
system’s operation and maintenance cost structure.
D. Wu and J. Guo
Fig. 9. Hourly operation and maintenance costs for each system.
In summer and the transition season, the local solar energy resources
are abundant, and the solar energy utilization curve is consistent with
the user energy consumption curve, so the energy purchase cost, carbon
tax and grid connection penalty in this period are reduced. At the same
time, local solar energy resources in winter are common, and users have
a large amount of heat demand, so the cost of purchasing energy is
increased. On the other hand, energy sharing between stations can
improve the utilization rate of renewable energy and reduce the
12
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 186 (2023) 113671
operation and maintenance costs of the system. The above factors
change the structure of the IIES and RIES operation and maintenance
cost expenditure, and the change of RIES is greater.
Hourly operation and maintenance costs of each system are shown in
Fig. 9. The average hourly operation and maintenance cost of the SP,
IIES, and RIES were 884.6 CNY/h, 507.3 CNY/h, and 448.9 CNY/h,
respectively, and RIES was 435.7CNY/h and 58.4 CNY/h less than SP
and IIES, respectively. The IIES and RIES can effectively reduce the
D. Wu and J. Guo
operation and maintenance cost of the system and perform better
through energy sharing between stations. The maximum hourly opera­
tion and maintenance cost of the SP, IIES, and RIES reached 7177.1
CNY/h (4479 h), 5491.8 CNY/h (8409 h), and 5435 CNY/h (1209 h),
respectively. Energy sharing between stations can reduce the system’s
average operation and maintenance cost, but cannot reduce the peak
operation and maintenance cost. SP needs to purchase a large amount of
electricity to drive the air source heat pump for refrigeration in summer,
and spend a lot of energy purchase costs, while the IIES and RIES can
make full use of the abundant local renewable energy resources. In
winter, solar energy and wind energy resources in this region are com­
mon, and users have a large demand for heating load, so the IIES and
RIES need to purchase electricity for thermal.
Therefore, the hourly maximum operating costs for the SP and in­
tegrated energy systems occur in summer and winter, respectively. Both
Fig. 10. Monthly carbon emission and proportion for each system.
13
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 186 (2023) 113671
IIES and RIES experienced instantaneous spikes in operating and
maintenance expenses from February to May at their energy station 1.
Solar and wind energy resources were abundant in those months, but
consumers’ energy needs were small, so excess generation needed to be
incorporated into the municipal power grid, resulting in high penalty
costs. For this reason, when a high proportion of renewable energy is
used, it is necessary to be wary of the impact of a large amount of
electricity being incorporated into the municipal power grid.
As shown in Fig. 9, IIES and RIES could effectively reduced the
operation and maintenance cost of the system by using a high proportion
of renewable energy. For example, the operation and maintenance cost
of energy station 2 in IIES was 1.91 × 106 CNY, which is 1.51 × 106 CNY
(44.2% reduction) less than that of SP. The energy sharing between
stations could further reduce system operation and maintenance costs.
The annual operation and maintenance cost of energy station 2 in RIES
D. Wu and J. Guo
was 1.41 × 106 CNY, which was 58.7% (2.01 × 106 CNY) and 26.0%
(4.96 × 105 CNY) lower than SP and IIES, respectively. However, due to
seasonal differences in renewable energy and seasonal changes in park
load, the IIES and RIES have low operation and maintenance costs in
summer and transition seasons and vice versa in winter. Therefore, the
seasonal mismatch between renewable energy utilization and park loads
is a scientific problem that needs to be solved urgently.
Fig. 11. Hourly carbon emissions of each system.
14
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 186 (2023) 113671
3.3. Carbon reduction analyze
The monthly carbon emissions and proportion of each energy system
are shown in Fig. 10. The annual carbon emissions of the SP, IIES, and
RIES were 5840.1 t, 2669.7 t, and 2257.0 t, respectively, and RIES were
3583.1 t and 412.7 t less than SP and IIES, respectively. Preferential use
of renewable energy can effectively reduce the system’s carbon emis­
sions and further exploit RIES’s Energy conservation and carbon
reduction benefits through energy sharing between stations. At the same
D. Wu and J. Guo
time, inter-station energy sharing also changes the carbon emission
structure of energy stations. The carbon emission of energy station 2
under RIES accounts for 35.0% of the whole system, which was 8.0%
and 5.0% lower than the SP and IIES, respectively. The system’s carbon
emissions are mainly concentrated in the hot summer and cooling winter
months. In June, the carbon emissions of energy station 3 under the SP,
IIES, and RIES accounted for 21.3%, respectively 21.0%, and 20.7% of
the year. In that month, the available renewable energy is far from
enough to meet users’ needs. It needs to be supplemented by purchasing
electricity from the municipal power grid, resulting in high carbon
emissions. From March to May, IIES and RIES performed well in carbon
reduction, with carbon reduction rates of 77.1% and 83.3% in April,
respectively. Meanwhile, the carbon emissions of IIES and RIES from
February to May accounted for 13.2% and 12.3% of the annual total,
Fig. 12. Monthly interactive power and proportion for each system.
15
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 186 (2023) 113671
respectively, a decrease of 8.7% and 9.6% compared with the SP. The
local renewable resources are abundant in the above months, and the
users mainly are electric load demand. The electricity generated by
photovoltaic and wind power can basically meet users’ needs and thus
effectively reduce the carbon emission of the system. In addition, IIES
and RIES contribute a larger share of carbon emissions in winter.
Hourly carbon emissions of each system are shown in Fig. 11. IIES
and RIES could significantly reduce the carbon emission of the system,
whose average hourly carbon emission was 304.8 kg/h and 257.7 kg/h,
respectively, which was 361.9 kg/s and 409.0 kg/h less than the SP. The
high proportion of solar, wind, and other renewable resources effec­
tively reduces the system’s carbon emissions. However, the reductions
in the hourly maximum carbon emissions of IIES and RIES were modest
compared to average hourly carbon emissions. The maximum hourly
D. Wu and J. Guo
carbon emissions of the SP, IIES, and RIES reached 5081.3 kg/h (4481
h), 4237.4 kg/h (1209 h), and 4092.5 kg/h (8457 h), respectively. In
winter, the local solar and wind energy resources are general, and the
heating load demand of users at night needs to be meet by heating of the
air source heat pump. Meanwhile, the electricity consumption for
heating of the air source heat pump comes from the municipal grid,
resulting in the reduced effect general of the hourly maximum carbon
emissions of IIES and RIES. In addition, the carbon emission peaks of
each system occurred in the hot summer (June–August) and cooling
Fig. 13. Interactive power for each system.
16
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 186 (2023) 113671
winter (December–February) periods. Local renewable energy utiliza­
tion can well meet the energy demand in the transition season, but how
to meet the energy demand in extreme conditions is an urgent problem
to be solved.
3.4. Grid interactive power analyze
The monthly interactive power and proportion of each system are
shown in Fig. 12. Compared with the SP, the IIES and RIES reduce their
D. Wu and J. Guo
interactive power by 3064.8 MWh (45.9%) and 3561.1 MWh (54.5%),
respectively. Based on the SP, the maximum monthly interaction power
reduction rate of RIES and IIES is 58.9% (August) and 49.0%
(November), respectively. Using renewable energy to reduce the exter­
nally purchased electricity and energy storage peak cutting and valley
filling effect, can significantly reduce the system. At the same time,
energy sharing between stations is used to improve system reliability
further. During the December to January cooling months, SP, IIES, and
RIES accounted for 18.1%, 23.3%, and 24.4% of the year’s interactive
power, respectively. Summer and the transition season could make full
used of solar resources, which led to an increase in the proportion of
interactive power from December to January.
The interactive power of each system is shown in Fig. 13. Regarding
average hourly interaction electric quantity, IIES and RIES could
significantly reduce the interaction power quantity of the system, and
RIES is better than IIES. For example, the average hourly interactive
electricity of the SP was 752.0 kWh/h, while RIES and IIES were only
173.9 kWh/h and 228.0 kWh/h, respectively. However, IIES and RIES
interactive power reduction effect was modest from the perspective of
instantaneous interactive power. The maximum purchasing power of the
SP, IIES, and RIES is 5731.2 kW (4481 h), 4769.6 kW (1209 h), and
4511.3 kW (8457 h), respectively. The maximum grid-connected power
was 0 kW, 2617.7 kW (2511 h), and 2712.0 kW (2511 h), respectively.
At 2511 h (14:00, April 15), the total electric load of the user was 151.8
kW, and the battery was fully loaded. Meanwhile, the solar radiation
intensity and wind speed were 981.7 W/m2 and 14.7 m/s, respectively.
Photovoltaic and wind power used abundant solar and wind resources to
convert large amounts of electricity, but users have no demand for en­
ergy, and storage was already full, so all the electricity had to be
incorporated into the municipal power grid. However, containing such a
large amount of electricity in the municipal grid could greatly impact
the grid’s stability. IIES and RIES also need to buy large amounts of
electricity from the municipal power grid at some point, which could
also significantly impact the grid.
In energy Station 1, IIES and RIES grid-connected exceeding 400 kW
reached 89 h and 119 h, respectively. At energy Station 2, the grid-
connected ≥400 kW reached 233 h (IIES) and 266 h (RIES), respec­
tively. Energy station 3, must share all the electricity generated during
winter and summer vacations with other energy stations or incorporate
it into the municipal power grid. For the whole system, the grid-
connected capacity of IIES and RIES ≥400 kW is 694 h and 678 h,
respectively, and the purchased power capacity over 1000 kW was 792 h
and 651 h, respectively. The energy mismatch between the source-load
sides will lead to many renewable energy that needs to be connected to
the grid. The mismatch between the source-load sides could be allevi­
ated through energy storage and energy sharing between stations.
However, the current passive storage strategy of “surplus storage and
deficiency release” was adopted, which can not sharpen peaks in some
moments. Therefore, future studies should consider energy changes of
the source-load sides, and energy storage should be used to carry out
“active storage” to achieve peak cutting and valley filling and improve
the system’s reliability.
4. Conclusions
In this paper, a RIES containing various renewable energy comple­
mentary and inter-station energy sharing was constructed. The NSGA-II
and TOPSIS methods were used as optimization and decision-making
tools to establish collaborative and hierarchical optimization models.
The multi-functional low-carbon park was used as a case study to
analyze and explore the benefits of isolated (IIES) and regional (RIES)
integrated energy systems. Finally, each system’s characteristics of
operational and maintenance cost, carbon emission, and interactive
power were analyzed from a long-time (year and month) and short-time
(hour) scale, respectively. The main conclusions were as follows.
17
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 186 (2023) 113671
1. Compared with the separated production system (SP), both IIES and
RIES could effectively improve energy conservation and carbon
reduction efficiency and reduce the interaction power, and the RIES
was better. The carbon emission, energy supply cost, and interactive
power of the unit area in the RIES optimized by the hierarchical
collaborative optimization method were 7.62 kg/m2, 40.55 CNY/m2,
and 10.07 kWh/m2, respectively. Compared with the collaborative
optimization method, the carbon emission, primary energy con­
sumption, energy supply cost, and interactive power of the RIES’s
unit area were reduced by the hierarchical optimization method by
1.06 kWh/m2, 0.31 kg/m2, 1.49 CNY/m2, and 0.11 kWh/m2,
respectively.
2. The IIES and RIES could significantly reduce the system’s operation
and maintenance costs, carbon emissions, and interactive power
from a long time scale. Compared with the SP, the RIES’s annual
operation and maintenance costs, carbon emission, and interactive
power were reduced by 3.81 × 106 CNY (49.3%), 3583.1 t, and
3561.1 MWh (54.5%), respectively. Meanwhile, the annual average
hourly was decreased by 435.7 CNY/h, 409.0 kg/h, and 578.1 kWh/
h, respectively.
3. From the short time scale, the RIES’s transiently benefit was better
than the IIES’s, but generally showing. The RIES’s maximum
instantaneous operation and maintenance cost, carbon emission, and
power purchase were 5435.0 CNY/h (1209 h), 4092.5 kg/h (8457 h),
and 4511.3 kW (8457 h), respectively, which only reduce 1742.1
CNY/h, 988.8 kg/h, and 1219.9 kW, respectively, compared with the
SP. In addition, the RIES’s maximum grid-connected power reached
2712.0 kW (2511 h), and the grid-connected amount to ≥ 400 kW
reached 678 h.
The RIES constructed in this paper has excellent comprehensive
benefits on the whole, but the instantaneous benefits need to be
improved. In the future, can use the prediction technology to obtain the
energy changes on the source and load sides in the future time domain
and use the multi-energy storage technology for “active storage”. To
achieve the real purpose in “peak-cutting and valley-filling” and thus
improve the RIES’s long-short term benefits.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Di Wu: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Funding
acquisition. Jiacheng Guo: Software, Writing – review & editing,
Methodology, Project administration, Conceptualization.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China
(No. 2022YFE0117200), National Natural Science Foundation of China
(No. 52206247), Beijing Natural Science Foundation (No. 3224069),
Key R&D program of Hebei Province (No. 22374501D), and Funda­
mental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 2022YQ001,
and 2022MS089).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
D. Wu and J. Guo
org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113671.
References
[1] Tan J, Pan W, Li Y, Hu H, Zhang C. Energy-sharing operation strategy of multi-
district integrated energy systems considering carbon and renewable energy
certificate trading. Appl Energy 2023;120835:339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2023.120835.
[2] China Association of Building Energy Efficiency. Research report of China building
energy consumption and carbon emissions. 2023. 2022.
[3] Li Y, Han M, Yang Z, Li G. Coordinating flexible demand response and renewable
uncertainties for scheduling of community integrated energy systems with an
electric vehicle charging station: a Bi-level approach. IEEE Trans Sustain Energy
2021;(12):2321–31. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2021.3090463.
[4] Jiang P, Dong J, Huang H. Optimal integrated demand response scheduling in
regional integrated energy system with concentrating solar power. Appl Therm Eng
2020;114754:166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.114754.
[5] Voropai N, Ukolova E, Gerasimov D, Suslov K, Lombardi P, Komarnicki P.
Simulation approach to integrated energy systems study based on energy hub
concept. 2019 IEEE Milan PowerTech 2019:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/
PTC.2019.8810666.
[6] Alirahmi SM, Rahmani Dabbagh S, Ahmadi P, Wongwises S. Multi-objective design
optimization of a multi-generation energy system based on geothermal and solar
energy. Energy Convers Manag 2020;112426:205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2019.112426.
[7] Wu D, Liu A, Ma L, Guo J, Ma F, Han Z, et al. Multi-parameter cooperative
optimization and solution method for regional integrated energy system. Sustain
Cities Soc 2023;104622:95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104622.
[8] Wang Q, Miao C, Tang Y. Power shortage support strategies considering unified
gas-thermal inertia in an integrated energy system. Appl Energy 2022;120229:328.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.120229.
[9] Li H, Zhang C, Sun B. Optimal design and operation method of integrated energy
system based on stochastic scenario iteration and energy storage attribute
evaluation. Sustain Cities Soc 2023;104585:95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scs.2023.104585.
[10] Liu Y, Zhou J, Zhou Q, Liu C, Yu F. Bidding strategy of integrated energy system
considering decision maker’s subjective risk aversion. Appl Energy 2023;121129:
341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121129.
[11] Fu Y, Lin H, Feng B, Ma C, Sun Q, Wennersten R. Off-design characteristics of
energy conversion equipment in integrated energy systems. J Clean Prod 2023;
136941:407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136941.
[12] Zhang J, Kong X, Shen J, Sun L. Day-ahead optimal scheduling of a standalone
solar-wind-gas based integrated energy system with and without considering
thermal inertia and user comfort. J Energy Storage 2023;106187:57. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.est.2022.106187.
[13] Chen L, Xiao K, Hu F, Li Y. Performance evaluation and optimization design of
integrated energy system based on thermodynamic, exergoeconomic, and
exergoenvironmental analyses. Appl Energy 2022;119987:326. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119987.
[14] Gao Y, Ai Q, He X, Fan S. Coordination for regional integrated energy system
through target cascade optimization. Energy 2023;127606:276. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2023.127606.
[15] Ma K, Zhang R, Yang J, Song D. Collaborative optimization scheduling of
integrated energy system considering user dissatisfaction. Energy 2023;127311:
274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.127311.
[16] Wang L, Zhao J, Xu Z, Zhao F, Song C, Yang C, et al. Integrated energy system
optimal operation using data-driven district heating network model. Energy Build
2023;113100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.113100.
[17] Wang Y, Ma Y, Song F, Ma Y, Qi C, Huang F, et al. Economic and efficient multi-
objective operation optimization of integrated energy system considering electro-
thermal demand response. Energy 2020;118022:205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2020.118022.
[18] Wang M, Zhang T, Wang P, Chen X. An improved harmony search algorithm for
solving day-ahead dispatch optimization problems of integrated energy systems
considering time-series constraints. Energy Build 2020;110477:229. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110477.
[19] Wang L, Lin J, Dong H, Wang Y, Zeng M. Demand response comprehensive
incentive mechanism-based multi-time scale optimization scheduling for park
integrated energy system. Energy 2023;126893:270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2023.126893.
[20] Yamchi HB, Safari A, Guerrero JM. A multi-objective mixed integer linear
programming model for integrated electricity-gas network expansion planning
considering the impact of photovoltaic generation. Energy 2021;119933:222.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.119933.
[21] Xiao H, Long F, Zeng L, Zhao W, Wang J, Li Y. Optimal scheduling of regional
integrated energy system considering multiple uncertainties and integrated
18
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 186 (2023) 113671
demand response. Elec Power Syst Res 2023;109169:217. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.epsr.2023.109169.
[22] Duan P, Zhao B, Zhang X, Fen M. A day-ahead optimal operation strategy for
integrated energy systems in multi-public buildings based on cooperative game.
Energy 2023;127395:275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.127395.
[23] Gao C, Lin J, Zeng J, Han F. Wind-photovoltaic co-generation prediction and
energy scheduling of low-carbon complex regional integrated energy system with
hydrogen industry chain based on copula-MILP. Appl Energy 2022;120205:328.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.120205.
[24] Li K, Wei X, Yan Y, Zhang C. Bi-level optimization design strategy for compressed
air energy storage of a combined cooling, heating, and power system. J Energy
Storage 2020;101642:31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2020.101642.
[25] Lin X, Zhang N, Zhong W, Kong F, Cong F. Regional integrated energy system long-
term planning optimization based on multi-energy complementarity
quantification. J Build Eng 2023;106046:68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jobe.2023.106046.
[26] Yan Y, Zhang C, Li K, Wang Z. An integrated design for hybrid combined cooling,
heating and power system with compressed air energy storage. Appl Energy 2018;
210:1151–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.07.005.
[27] Li F, Sun B, Zhang C, Liu C. A hybrid optimization-based scheduling strategy for
combined cooling, heating, and power system with thermal energy storage. Energy
2019;115948:188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.115948.
[28] Ren H, Jiang Z, Wu Q, Li Q, Yang Y. Integrated optimization of a regional
integrated energy system with thermal energy storage considering both resilience
and reliability. Energy 2022;125333:261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2022.125333.
[29] He J, Wu Y, Yong X, Tan Q, Liu F. Bi-level optimization of a near-zero-emission
integrated energy system considering electricity-hydrogen-gas nexus: a two-stage
framework aiming at economic and environmental benefits. Energy Convers
Manag 2022;116434:274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.116434.
[30] Wang J, Xue K, Guo Y, Ma J, Zhou X, Liu M, et al. Multi-objective capacity
programming and operation optimization of an integrated energy system
considering hydrogen energy storage for collective energy communities. Energy
Convers Manag 2022;116057:268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2022.116057.
[31] Yao E, Zhong L, Li R, Zhao C, Wang H, Xi G. 4E analysis and optimization of a novel
combined cooling, heating and power system integrating compressed air and
chemical energy storage with internal combustion engine. J Energy Storage 2023;
106777:62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2023.106777.
[32] Ghamari V, Hajabdollahi H, Shafiey Dehaj M, Saleh A. Investigating the effect of
energy storage tanks on thermoeconomic optimization of integrated combined
cooling, heating and power generation with desalination plant. J Energy Storage
2022;106120:56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2022.106120.
[33] Zheng W, Xu Z, Shao Z, Li J, Lei K, Li J. Optimal dispatch of nearly-zero carbon
integrated energy system considering waste incineration plant-carbon capture
system and market mechanisms. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.03.305; 2023.
[34] Li Y, Han M, Shahidehpour M, Li J, Long C. Data-driven distributionally robust
scheduling of community integrated energy systems with uncertain renewable
generations considering integrated demand response. Appl Energy 2023;120749:
335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.120749.
[35] Siqin Z, Niu D, Li M, Gao T, Lu Y, Xu X. Distributionally robust dispatching of
multi-community integrated energy system considering energy sharing and profit
allocation. Appl Energy 2022;119202:321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2022.119202.
[36] Guo J, Liu Z, Wu X, Wu D, Zhang S, Yang X, et al. Two-layer co-optimization
method for a distributed energy system combining multiple energy storages. Appl
Energy 2022;119486:322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119486.
[37] Wu D, Han Z, Liu Z, Li P, Ma F, Zhang H, et al. Comparative study of optimization
method and optimal operation strategy for multi-scenario integrated energy
system. Energy 2021;119311:217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2020.119311.
[38] Wu D, Han Z, Liu Z, Zhang H. Study on configuration optimization and economic
feasibility analysis for combined cooling, heating and power system. Energy
Convers Manag 2019;190:91–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2019.04.004.
[39] Guo J, Wu D, Wang Y, Wang L, Guo H. Co-optimization method research and
comprehensive benefits analysis of regional integrated energy system. Appl Energy
2023;121034:340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121034.
[40] Ren F, Wang J, Zhu S, Chen Y. Multi-objective optimization of combined cooling,
heating and power system integrated with solar and geothermal energies. Energy
Convers Manag 2019;111866:197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2019.111866.
[41] Zhang G, Wang J, Ren F, Liu Y, Dong F. Collaborative optimization for multiple
energy stations in distributed energy network based on electricity and heat
interchanges. Energy 2021;119987:222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2021.119987.