Fuel poverty and low carbon emissions: a comparative study of the feasibility of the hybrid renewable energy systems incorporating combined heat and power technology
Dorota RZETELSKA, Madeleine COMBRINCK()
Department of Mechanical and Construction Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Environment, Northumbria University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE1 8ST, UK
Fuel poverty is most prevalent in North East England with 14.4% of fuel poor households in Newcastle upon Tyne. The aim of this paper was to identify a grid connected renewable energy system coupled with natural gas reciprocating combined heat and power unit, that is cost-effective and technically feasible with a potential to generate a profit from selling energy excess to the grid to help alleviate fuel poverty. The system was also aimed at low carbon emissions. Fourteen models were designed and optimized with the aid of the HOMER Pro software. Models were compared with respect to their economic, technical, and environmental performance. A solution was proposed where restrictions were placed on the size of renewable energy components. This configuration consists of 150 kW CHP, 300 kW PV cells, and 30 kW wind turbines. The renewable fraction is 5.10% and the system yields a carbon saving of 7.9% in comparison with conventional systems. The initial capital investment is $1.24 million which enables the system to have grid sales of 582689 kWh/a. A conservative calculation determined that 40% of the sales can be used to reduce the energy cost of fuel poor households by $706 per annum. This solution has the potential to eliminate fuel poverty at the site analyzed.
. [J]. Frontiers in Energy, 2022, 16(2): 336-356.
Dorota RZETELSKA, Madeleine COMBRINCK. Fuel poverty and low carbon emissions: a comparative study of the feasibility of the hybrid renewable energy systems incorporating combined heat and power technology. Front. Energy, 2022, 16(2): 336-356.
Capacity of renewable energy technologies Model number
Unrestricted
Restricted
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
National grid
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
CHP
–
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Solar PV
–
–
√
√
–
–
√
√
√
√
–
–
√
√
Wind turbine
–
–
–
–
√
√
√
√
–
–
√
√
√
√
Battery storage
–
–
–
√
–
√
–
√
–
√
–
√
–
√
Tab.1
Fig.2
Components
Model details
Unrestricted
Restricted
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Boiler/kW
2205(a)
2058(a)
2058(a)
2058(a)
2205(a)
2205(a)
2058(a)
2058(a)
2058(a)
2058(a)
2058(a)
2058(a)
2058(a)
2058(a)
CHP/kW
–
150(b)
150(b)
150(b)
150(b)
150(b)
150(b)
150(b)
150(b)
150(b)
150(b)
150(b)
150(b)
150(b)
Solar PV/kW
–
–
2597(a)
2593(a)
–
–
2575(a)
2715(a)
300(b)
300(b)
–
–
300(b)
300(b)
Converter/kW
–
–
1801(a)
1832(a)
–
266(a)
1855(a)
1508(a)
144(a)
148(a)
–
4.48(a)
144(a)
148(a)
Wind turbine/kW
–
–
–
–
1496(a)
1328(a)
9(a)
15(a)
–
–
30(b)
30(b)
30(b)
30(b)
Batteries/kWh
–
–
–
37(a)
–
129(a)
–
5(a)
–
18(a)
–
18(a)
–
18(a)
Tab.2
Fig.3
Fig.4
Model number
Model architecture
Size of renewable energy components/kW
PV
Wind
1
No renewables (NO CHP)
–
–
2
No renewables (CHP)
–
–
3
PV (CHP)
2597
–
4
PV+ battery (CHP)
2593
–
5
Wind (CHP)
–
1496
6
Wind+ battery (CHP)
–
1328
7
PV+ wind (CHP)
2575
9
8
PV+ wind+ battery (CHP)
2715
15
Tab.3
Model
Model architecture
Costs/$
NPC
COE
OC
IC
1
No renewables (NO CHP)
2.93M
0.100
226812
0.00
2
No renewables (CHP)
3.62M
0.103
262391
0.225M
3
PV (CHP)
9.70M
0.172
188535
7.26M
4
PV+ battery (CHP)
9.73M
0.173
189563
7.28M
5
Wind (CHP)
15.3M
0.323
357981
10.7M
6
Wind+ battery (CHP)
13.8M
0.379
316609
9.67M
7
PV+ wind (CHP)
9.73M
0.173
189725
7.28M
8
PV+ wind+ battery (CHP)
10.0M
0.179
188721
7.57M
Tab.4
Fig.5
Model number
Model architecture (CHP)
Costs/$
NPC
COE
OC
IC
9
PV
4.30M
0.123
253639
1.02M
10
PV+ battery
4.31M
0.124
253991
1.03M
11
Wind
3.85M
0.114
263914
0.435M
12
Wind+ battery
3.86M
0.115
264394
0.446M
13
PV+ wind
4.53M
0.132
255323
1.23M
14
PV+ wind+ battery
4.54M
0.132
255675
1.24M
Tab.5
Fig.6
Model number
Model architecture
Energy sold to the grid/kWh
Total power generated/kWh
Percentage of total power/%
1
No renewables (NO CHP)
0.0
1017600
0.0
2
No renewables (CHP)
335468
1353068
24.8
3
PV (CHP)
2526229
3543829
71.3
4
PV+ battery (CHP)
2527966
3545566
71.3
5
Wind (CHP)
2222502
3240102
68.6
6
Wind+ battery (CHP)
1425354
2442954
58.3
7
PV+ wind (CHP)
2527647
3545247
71.3
8
PV+ wind+ battery (CHP)
2535635
3553235
71.4
Tab.6
Fig.7
Model number
Model architecture(CHP)
Energy sold to the grid/kWh
Total power generated/kWh
Percentage of total power/%
9
PV
547560
1565160
35.0
10
PV+ battery
550021
1567621
35.1
11
Wind
364904
1382504
26.4
12
Wind+ battery
364904
1382504
26.4
13
PV+ wind
580222
1597822
36.3
14
PV+ wind+ battery
582689
1600289
36.4
Tab.7
Fig.8
Model number
Model architecture
Renewable fraction/%
CO2 emissions/(kg·a–1)
1
No renewables (NO CHP)
0.0
1452114
2
No renewables (CHP)
0.0
1358683
3
PV (CHP)
30.0
1329046
4
PV+ battery (CHP)
30.0
1329110
5
Wind (CHP)
30.1
1259105
6
Wind+ battery (CHP)
30.0
1198731
7
PV+ wind (CHP)
30.1
1327473
8
PV+ wind+ battery (CHP)
30.2
1326015
Tab.8
Fig.9
Model number
Model architecture (CHP)
Renewable fraction/%
CO2 emissions/(kg·a–1)
9
PV
4.30
1344185
10
PV+ battery
4.30
1344154
11
Wind
0.80
1350055
12
Wind+ battery
0.80
1350055
13
PV+ wind
5.00
1337592
14
PV+ wind+ battery
5.10
1337616
Tab.9
Fig.10
Performance
Category
Best performing model
Unrestricted renewables (excluding Models 1 & 2)
Restricted renewables
Best overall
First choice
Second choice
First choice
Second choice
Economic
Net present cost
3
4, 7, 8
11 (marginal)
12 (marginal)
3
Cost of energy
3
4, 7, 8
11 (marginal)
12 (marginal)
3
Operating cost
3
4, 7, 8
9 (marginal)
10 (marginal)
3
Initial capital
3
4, 7, 8
11 (marginal)
12 (marginal)
3
Grid sales
8
3, 4, 7
14 (marginal)
13 (marginal)
8
Environmental
Renewable fraction
3–8
–
14 (marginal)
13 (marginal)
3–8
CO2 emission
6
–
14 (marginal)
13 (marginal)
3–14
Overall preferred
8
14
14
Tab.10
Fig.11
Fig.12
Fig.13
Model architecture
Carbon savings/%
Unrestricted renewables
Restricted renewables
CHP+ grid
Model 2
6.4
N/A
CHP+ grid+ PV
Model 3
8.5
Model 9
7.4
CHP+ grid+ PV+ battery
Model 4
8.5
Model 10
7.4
CHP+ grid+ wind
Model 5
13.3
Model 11
7.0
CHP+ grid+ wind+ battery
Model 6
17.4
Model 12
7.0
CHP+ grid+ PV+ wind
Model 7
8.6
Model 13
7.9
CHP+ grid+ PV+ wind+ battery
Model 8
8.7
Model 14
7.9
Tab.11
1
Department for Business (UK). Energy & industrial strategy. Committee on fuel poverty annual report 2018. 2020–05–16, available at the website of UK government
2
Department for Business (UK). Energy & industrial strategy. Fuel poverty detailed tables 2018. 2019–03–29, available at the website of UK government
3
C Liddell, C Morris, S J P McKenzie, et al.. Measuring and monitoring fuel poverty in the UK: national and regional perspectives. Energy Policy, 2012, 49: 27–32 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.029
4
Newcastle City Council (UK). Newcastle upon Tyne warm homes, healthy lives. An affordable warmth strategy seeking your support & action. 2019–03–25, available at the website of newcastle
5
Committee on Climate Change (UK). UK housing: fit for the future? 2019–04–02, available at the website of theccc
6
Department for Business (UK). Energy & Industrial Strategy (2018–e): sub-regional fuel poverty, 2016 data. 2019–03–29, available at the website of UK government
7
Department for Business (UK). Energy & Industrial Strategy (2018–c): fuel poverty detailed tables 2018. 2019–03–29, available at the website of UK government
8
Ministry of Housing (UK). Communities & Local Government (no date): find energy grants and ways to improve your energy efficiency. 2019–05–10, available at the website of UK government
9
J Webb. Improvising innovation in UK urban district heating: the convergence of social and environmental agendas in Aberdeen. Energy Policy, 2015, 78: 265–272 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.12.003
10
Department of Energy & Climate Change. The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan: National strategy for climate and energy. 2019–03–29, available at the website of UK government
11
D Drysdale, B V Mathiesen, S Paardekooper. Transitioning to a 100% renewable energy system in Denmark by 2050: assessing the impact from expanding the building stock at the same time. Energy Efficiency, 2019, 12(1): 37–55 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-018-9649-1
12
Z Tian, A Seifi. Reliability analysis of hybrid energy system. International Journal of Reliability Quality and Safety Engineering, 2014, 21(3): 1450011 https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218539314500119
H Lund, S Werner, R Wiltshire, et al.. 4th Generation District Heating (4GDH): integrating smart thermal grids into future sustainable energy systems. Energy, 2014, 68: 1–11 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.02.089
15
A M Abdilahi, A H M Yatim, M W Mohd Mustafa, et al.. Feasibility study of renewable energy-based microgrid system in Somaliland’s urban centers. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2014, 40: 1048–1059 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.150
16
M T Islam, N Huda, R Saidur. Current energy mix and techno-economic analysis of concentrating solar power (CSP) technologies in Malaysia. Renewable Energy, 2019, 140: 789–806 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.03.107
17
Carbon Trust (UK). Introducing combined heat and power: a new generation of energy and carbon savings. 2019–03–07, available at the website of carbontrust
18
C Mokhtara, B Negrou, A Bouferrouk, et al.. Integrated supply–demand energy management for optimal design of off-grid hybrid renewable energy systems for residential electrification in arid climates. Energy Conversion and Management, 2020, 221: 113192 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113192
19
E L V Eriksson, E Mac , A Gray. Optimization of renewable hybrid energy systems – a multi-objective approach. Renewable Energy, 2019, 133: 971–999 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.10.053
20
F Yang, X Xia. Techno-economic and environmental optimization of a household photovoltaic-battery hybrid power system within demand side management. Renewable Energy, 2017, 108: 132–143 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.02.054
21
T Adefarati, R C Bansal. Reliability, economic and environmental analysis of a microgrid system in the presence of renewable energy resources. Applied Energy, 2019, 236: 1089–1114 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.12.050
22
Department for Business (UK). Energy & Industrial Strategy (2018–a): combined heat and power. 2019–05–02, available at the website of UK government
23
Department for Business (UK). Energy & Industrial Strategy (2019–a): combined heat and power incentives. 2019–04–20, available at the website of UK government
24
A Ataei, J Choi, N Ziabakhsh, et al.. Integration of a photovoltaic system and a combined heat and power generator in an educational building using eQuest and HOMER Models. American Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 2015, 1(3): 106–114
25
D Connolly, H Lund, B V Mathiesen, et al.. Heat roadmap Europe: combining district heating with heat savings to decarbonize the EU energy system. Energy Policy, 2014, 65: 475–489 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.035
26
B V Mathiesen, H Lund, D Connolly, et al.. Smart energy systems for coherent 100% renewable energy and transport solutions. Applied Energy, 2015, 145: 139–154 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.075
27
D Drysdale, B Vad Mathiesen, H Lund. From carbon calculators to energy system analysis in cities. Energies, 2019, 12(12): 2307 https://doi.org/10.3390/en12122307
28
HOMER Energy. Tour of HOMER Pro. 2019–04–15, available at the website of youtube
29
R Belu, R Chiou, K Ghaisas, et al.. Teaching renewable energy system design and analysis with HOMER. In: 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, USA, 2014
30
Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (UK). Typical domestic consumption values. 2019–04–20, available at the website of UK government
31
NASA Prediction of Worldwide Energy Resources. Surface meteorology and solar energy (SSE-release 6.0) databases. 2019–05–10, available at the website of NASA
32
D M Alotaibi, M Akrami, M Dibaj, et al.. Smart energy solution for an optimised sustainable hospital in the green city of NEOM. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 2019, 35: 32–40 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2019.05.017
33
M Gökçek, C Kale. Techno-economical evaluation of a hydrogen refuelling station powered by wind-PV hybrid power system: a case study for İzmir-Çeşme. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2018, 43(23): 10615–10625 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.01.082