1,206
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Optimal design and techno-economic analysis of hybrid renewable energy systems: A case study of Thala city, Tunisia

, , &

Figures & data

Table 1. Previous research, system architecture, and key findings summary.

Figure 1. Methodology of the research work.

Figure 1. Methodology of the research work.

Figure 2. Simplified flowchart of HOMER pro optimization algorithm.

Figure 2. Simplified flowchart of HOMER pro optimization algorithm.

Figure 3. Single-line diagram of the renewable energy system.

Figure 3. Single-line diagram of the renewable energy system.

Figure 4. Geographic location of Thala.

Figure 4. Geographic location of Thala.

Table 2. Case study characteristics.

Table 3. Monthly climate data of Thala.

Figure 5. Hourly power demand pattern on two days of maximum power consumption during 2019 and 2020 in Thala city (A.R.C. Citation2009).

Figure 5. Hourly power demand pattern on two days of maximum power consumption during 2019 and 2020 in Thala city (A.R.C. Citation2009).

Table 4. Average demand of Thala city (Llc Citation2022).

Table 5. The power rating of different appliances in Thala city (Power Consumption Table Citation2003).

Figure 6. Annual mean wind speed (Elamouri et al. Citation2008).

Figure 6. Annual mean wind speed (Elamouri et al. Citation2008).

Figure 7. Hourly wind speed in Thala city over 30 years (1990‒2020).

Figure 7. Hourly wind speed in Thala city over 30 years (1990‒2020).

Figure 8. Monthly average wind speed variation with elevation.

Figure 8. Monthly average wind speed variation with elevation.

Figure 9. Modern three-phase extraction process of olive oil.

Figure 9. Modern three-phase extraction process of olive oil.

Table 6. Properties of olive mill by-products (Al-Najjar et al. Citation2022).

Table 7. Biomass availability and biogas yield production in Thala city (Milanese et al. Citation2014; Shakeri et al. Citation2017).

Figure 10. Simplified lead-acid battery charging profile.

Figure 10. Simplified lead-acid battery charging profile.

Figure 11. Carbon footprint from different processes within the olive oil production cycle (Feliciano, Maia, and Gonçalves Citation2014).

Figure 11. Carbon footprint from different processes within the olive oil production cycle (Feliciano, Maia, and Gonçalves Citation2014).

Table 8. Technical properties of the selected components.

Figure 12. The power curve of the selected wind turbine (eocycle Citation2023).

Figure 12. The power curve of the selected wind turbine (eocycle Citation2023).

Figure 13. Pumped storage hydropower technology.

Figure 13. Pumped storage hydropower technology.

Table 9. Simulation scenarios.

Table 10. Optimization results - architecture, costs, and environmental impacts.

Figure 14. Cost-optimal configurations design for the On-grid_BATT scenario: left (Wind/Batteries/Grid/Converter); right (Wind/BG/Batteries/Grid/converter).

Figure 14. Cost-optimal configurations design for the On-grid_BATT scenario: left (Wind/Batteries/Grid/Converter); right (Wind/BG/Batteries/Grid/converter).

Figure 15. Monthly average electric production: (A) Wind/Batteries/Grid/converter, (B) Biomass/Batteries/Grid/converter.

Figure 15. Monthly average electric production: (A) Wind/Batteries/Grid/converter, (B) Biomass/Batteries/Grid/converter.

Figure 16. (A) energy purchased from the grid and (B) energy sold to the grid for the first configuration of Wind/Batteries/grid/Converter.

Figure 16. (A) energy purchased from the grid and (B) energy sold to the grid for the first configuration of Wind/Batteries/grid/Converter.

Figure 17. (A) energy purchased from the grid and (B) energy sold to the grid for the second scenario BG/Batteries/grid/Converter.

Figure 17. (A) energy purchased from the grid and (B) energy sold to the grid for the second scenario BG/Batteries/grid/Converter.

Figure 18. Cost-optimal configurations design for the On-grid_PHS scenario left (Wind/BG/PHS/Grid/Converter); right (Bg/phs/grid/converter).

Figure 18. Cost-optimal configurations design for the On-grid_PHS scenario left (Wind/BG/PHS/Grid/Converter); right (Bg/phs/grid/converter).

Figure 19. Monthly average electric production: (A) Wind/Biomass/PHS/Grid/converter (B) Biomass/PHS/Grid/converter.

Figure 19. Monthly average electric production: (A) Wind/Biomass/PHS/Grid/converter (B) Biomass/PHS/Grid/converter.

Figure 20. Renewable energy integration: Wind/BG/PHS/Grid/Converter.

Figure 20. Renewable energy integration: Wind/BG/PHS/Grid/Converter.

Figure 21. Cost-optimal configurations designed for the On-grid without storage scenario, left (Wind/BG/Grid/Converter); right (Wind/Grid/converter).

Figure 21. Cost-optimal configurations designed for the On-grid without storage scenario, left (Wind/BG/Grid/Converter); right (Wind/Grid/converter).

Figure 22. Monthly average electric production: (A) Wind/BG/Grid, (B) Wind/Grid.

Figure 22. Monthly average electric production: (A) Wind/BG/Grid, (B) Wind/Grid.

Figure 23. Electricity sold to the grid.

Figure 23. Electricity sold to the grid.

Figure 24. Cost-optimal configurations design for the off-grid _BATT scenario, left (Wind/BG/Batteries/Converter); right (Bg/batteries/converter).

Figure 24. Cost-optimal configurations design for the off-grid _BATT scenario, left (Wind/BG/Batteries/Converter); right (Bg/batteries/converter).

Figure 25. Monthly average electric production of Wind/BG/Batteries/converter.

Figure 25. Monthly average electric production of Wind/BG/Batteries/converter.

Figure 26. Hourly electric production, (A) generic 100 kW biogas gasifier, (B) EOX M-21 kW wind turbine.

Figure 26. Hourly electric production, (A) generic 100 kW biogas gasifier, (B) EOX M-21 kW wind turbine.

Figure 27. Cost-optimal configurations design for the off-grid _PHS scenario, left (Wind/BG/PHS/Converter); right (Bg/phs/converter).

Figure 27. Cost-optimal configurations design for the off-grid _PHS scenario, left (Wind/BG/PHS/Converter); right (Bg/phs/converter).

Figure 28. Monthly average electric production of Wind/BG/PHS/Converter configuration.

Figure 28. Monthly average electric production of Wind/BG/PHS/Converter configuration.

Figure 29. NPC (left) and LCOE (right) comparison of all the studied systems.

Figure 29. NPC (left) and LCOE (right) comparison of all the studied systems.

Table 11. Economic comparison with the base system.

Table 12. Sensitivity analysis variables.

Table 13. Impacts of NDR and project lifetime on the optimal configuration.

Figure 30. Sensitivity analysis: electric load average vs. biomass availability, NDR= 8%, project lifetime=25 years, surface plot: NPC, superimposed: LCOE.

Figure 30. Sensitivity analysis: electric load average vs. biomass availability, NDR= 8%, project lifetime=25 years, surface plot: NPC, superimposed: LCOE.