Multidisciplinary design optimization of distributed energy generation systems: The trade-offs between life cycle environmental and economic impacts

被引:27
作者
Yan, Junchen [1 ]
Broesicke, Osvaldo A. [1 ]
Tong, Xin [1 ]
Wang, Dong [1 ]
Li, Duo [2 ]
Crittenden, John C. [1 ]
机构
[1] Georgia Inst Technol, Brook Byers Inst Sustainable Syst, Sch Civil & Environm Engn, 828 West Peachtree St,Suite 320, Atlanta, GA 30332 USA
[2] Rice Univ, Nanosyst Engn Ctr Nanotechnol Enabled Water Treat, 6100 Main St, Houston, TX 77005 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Distributed energy systems; Multidisciplinary design optimization; Renewable energy; Parametric modelling; Life cycle assessment; Life cycle cost;
D O I
10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116197
中图分类号
TE [石油、天然气工业]; TK [能源与动力工程];
学科分类号
0807 ; 0820 ;
摘要
Distributed energy systems (DES) are the focus of increasing attention because they have the potential to enhance the sustainability performance of energy generation. Previous DES researches evaluated various distributed energy technologies and systems from different aspects. However, there is still a research gap to evaluate and compare the multiple technology combinations and sizes for finding optimal energy solutions under various scenarios. This study aims to determine the best combination of technologies and their corresponding sizes for DES for various building types and climate zones in terms of life cycle environmental and economic impact. We developed parametric models (which considers dynamic hour by hour energy demand) for six commercially available distributed energy technologies and simulated the performance of them under various conditions. Then, we used a novel approach - multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) to examine the billions of options (e.g., technologies, sizes, climate zone, Etc.) and identified the Pareto front with the optimal environmental and economic impact. According to MDO simulations, the microturbine-solar PVs-lithium ion battery and solid oxide fuel cells-solar PVs-lithium ion battery are two optimal combinations of technologies for three commercial building types for five climate zones. The DES can primarily reduce the environmental impact compared to conventional centralized energy production (CCEP) by 16-61% in all scenarios. However, the life cycle cost of DES is higher than CCEP, especially for SOFC-based DES. The microturbine-based DES is more cost-competitive and economical (about 65%, 32%, and 64% lower than SOFC-based DES for the small, medium, and large office, respectively).
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 38 条
[1]   Stochastic Scheduling of Renewable and CHP-Based Microgrids [J].
Alipour, Manijeh ;
Mohammadi-Ivatloo, Behnam ;
Zare, Kazem .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS, 2015, 11 (05) :1049-1058
[2]   Experimental results of a micro-trigeneration installation [J].
Angrisani, G. ;
Rosato, A. ;
Roselli, C. ;
Sasso, M. ;
Sibilio, S. .
APPLIED THERMAL ENGINEERING, 2012, 38 :78-90
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2018, MATH WORKS
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2016, Emissions Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID)
[5]   Modeling and optimization of building mix and energy supply technology for urban districts [J].
Best, Robert E. ;
Flager, Forest ;
Lepech, Michael D. .
APPLIED ENERGY, 2015, 159 :161-177
[6]   Necessary and sufficient conditions for Pareto efficiency in robust multiobjective optimization [J].
Bokrantz, Rasmus ;
Fredriksson, Albin .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2017, 262 (02) :682-692
[7]   A review on compressed air energy storage: Basic principles, past milestones and recent developments [J].
Budt, Marcus ;
Wolf, Daniel ;
Span, Roland ;
Yan, Jinyue .
APPLIED ENERGY, 2016, 170 :250-268
[8]   Proton exchange membrane fuel cell for cooperating households: A convenient combined heat and power solution for residential applications [J].
Cappa, Francesco ;
Facci, Andrea Luigi ;
Ubertini, Stefano .
ENERGY, 2015, 90 :1229-1238
[9]  
Capuano L., 2018, INT ENERGY OUTLOOK 2, P21
[10]   Optimal placement and sizing of photovoltaics and battery storage in distribution networks [J].
Chedid, Riad ;
Sawwas, Ahmad .
ENERGY STORAGE, 2019, 1 (04)