MCDM008

Renewable Energy 179 (2021) 885e910
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene
Multi-criteria decision-making model for optimal planning of on/off

grid hybrid solar, wind, hydro, biomass clean electricity supply
Zia Ullah a, b, *, M.R. Elkadeem c, Kotb M. Kotb c, Ibrahim B.M. Taha d, Shaorong Wang a
a
State Key Laboratory of Advanced Electromagnetic Engineering and Technology, School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Huazhong University of
Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430074, China
b
School of Optical and Electronic Information, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430074, China
c
Electrical Power and Machines Engineering Dept., Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta, 31521, Egypt
d
Electrical Engineering Dept., College of Engineering, Taif University, P. O. Box. 11099, Taif, 21944, Saudi Arabia
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Worldwide, the emerging trend of hybrid renewable energy sources integration in modern power sys-
Received 3 April 2021 tems is increasing due to privileged prices and clean electricity supply. However, the optimal planning of
Received in revised form rural hybrid systems is a challenging and complex task, especially when different alternatives and
25 June 2021
sustainability aspects are considered. This paper develops an integrated decision-making approach for
Accepted 12 July 2021
Available online 18 July 2021
the optimal planning of a 100% renewable energy supply system comprising solar, wind, hydro, and
biomass sources in a rural area located in Pakistan. An hourly-based design optimization analysis of
twelve on/off-grid electrification alternatives is performed. The optimization model simultaneously
Keywords:
Hybrid clean electricity supply
addresses five sustainability criteria related to economy, reliability, ecology, society, and topography
100% renewable Energy aspects. Furthermore, a novel hybrid decision-making model has developed to identify the unique best
Feasibility analysis configuration with on-grid and off-grid options. The proposed model combines fuzzy analytic hierarchy
Optimal planning process, multi-objective optimization based on ratio analysis technique for order of preference by sim-
Multi-criteria decision-making ilarity to an ideal solution, and evaluation based on distance from average solution methods. The results
Rural electrification reveal that the solar-hydro-biomass battery with a life cycle cost of 10.9 M$ is the top-ranking off-grid
system. When the hybrid system is connected to the grid, the solar-hydro-battery has found the most
appropriate design with a life cycle cost of 12.96 M$. Both scenarios have a negligible capacity shortage of
0.09%. Ecologically, the optimal off-grid system produces only 408.37 kg/yr of CO2 due to the significant
energy share of solar and hydro sources (99.3%). The optimal on-grid system produced the minimum CO2
with 29,177.89 kg/yr compared to other alternatives. Also, employing the optimal on/off-grid designs
require land area and jobs of 96.6 m2, 14 jobs, and 118 m2, 15 jobs, respectively. Overall, the developed
approach with the presented case study offers a valuable benchmark and guidelines for investors and
stakeholders to create realistic investment plans for the energy industry looking to push efficient in-
ducements to encourage the high dissemination of renewables.
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction serious threat to economies, energy security, and sustainable

development [1]. Moreover, the large dependency on conventional
1.1. Background and centralized generation significantly accelerates the depletion of
fossil fuel reserves and environmental degradation as well as in-
In recent years, global energy demand has risen substantially as creases global warming potential, thus threatening civilization [2].
a result of fast population expansion and industrialization, posing a Unequivocally, the consequences of these issues are reaching
beyond a single nation and into the entire world. In the face of this,
* Corresponding author. State Key Laboratory of Advanced Electromagnetic En- UN initiatives such as Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL),1 the
gineering and Technology, School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Huaz- Seventh Sustainable Development Goal (SDG7)2 have declared that
hong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430074, China.
E-mail addresses: ziaullah@hust.edu.cn (Z. Ullah), mohammad.elkadim@f-eng.
1
tanta.edu.eg (M.R. Elkadeem), kotb.mohamed@f-eng.tanta.edu.eg (K.M. Kotb), i. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/commitments_se4all.html.
2
taha@tu.edu.sa (I.B.M. Taha), wsrwy96@vip.sina.com (S. Wang). https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.07.063
0960-1481/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Z. Ullah, M.R. Elkadeem, K.M. Kotb et al. Renewable Energy 179 (2021) 885e910
Nomenclatures HRES Hybrid Renewable Energy System

HydT Hydropower Turbine
AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process JOBC Job Creation Potential
AREA Required Land Area MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making
BDC Bidirectional Converter NDA Negative Distances from Average
BES Battery Energy Storage PDA Positive Distances from Average
BioGen Biogas Generator PV Photovoltaic
BWM Best Worst Method RERs Renewable Energy Resources
CAPS Capacity Shortage SOC State of Charge
CODAS Combinative Distance-Based Assessment TLCC Total Life Cycle Cost
DMs Decision Makers TODIM Acronym in Portuguese for Interactive and
EDAS Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution Multicriteria Decision-Making
F-AHP Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process TOPSIS Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to
FPROMETHEE Fuzzy Preference Ranking Organization METHod Ideal Solution
for Enrichment Evaluation VIKOR VIseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno
GHGE Greenhouse Gases Emission Resenje
GHI Global Horizontal Irradiance WASPAS Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment
HCES Hybrid Clean Electricity Supply WS Wind Speed
HOMER Hybrid Optimization Model for Electric Renewables WT Wind Turbine
renewable energy sources (RESs) are key driver of the global (HRESs) can provide an excellent solution to the previous issues
transition towards affordable, clean and sustainable energy service associated with the CESs and RESs, as they can be deployed with
compared to the rest of conventional energy sources (CESs) [3]. In various technical, economic, and environmental benefits [14]. En-
this regard, it has become an imperative strategy to strengthen and ergy storages can mitigate weather fluctuation, but it significantly
augment the significant use of RESs, in particular solar and wind contributes to increasing the system cost and power management
power sources [4,5]. By the end of 2019, both solar and wind were complexity [15]. Generally, HRES comprises various RESs (e.g.,
accounted for the most rapid growth in RESs, with nearly 90% of all Photovoltaic (PV), Wind Turbine (WT, and Hydropower Turbine
net renewable capacity additions [6]. Furthermore, with the (HydT)), and CESs (e.g., diesel generator, natural gas turbine) be-
continuous cost reductions and sustained policy support, employ- sides energy storage systems (ESSs) [16]. It can mitigate the
ing RESs for generating electricity has grown by almost 7% in 2020 excessive sizing of single RESs; thus, decrease the overall system
in sharp contrast to all other fuels,3 which has a vital role in cost and helps significantly in emission savings. The complemen-
achieving global climate and sustainability goals [6]. tary between multiple sources can avoid hindering the supply
Although Pakistan is importing nearly a third of its energy de- reliability [17].
mand and struggles to support the country's energy security [7],
people are still deprived of electricity owing to the weak reliability 1.2. Literature survey
of the electrical network [8]. According to International Renewable
Energy Agency, the rate of access to electricity (% of the population) Given its importance, there is a wide range of research to study
in Pakistan recorded at 78.8% in2017.4 Therefore, the policymakers the techno-economic implementation feasibility of different HRESs
and investor's appetite for cost-effective and sustainable sources to meet the increasing electricity demand in different locations
has become strong to meet the existing electricity crises without worldwide, according to the large reviews by Lian et al. [18] and
affecting the environmental situation [9]. With the indigenous Weinand et al. [19]. In Ref. [20], HOMER was utilized to analyze the
potential of renewable energy sources (RESs) in Pakistan such as techno-economic feasibility of solar/diesel-based rural HRES to
solar, wind, biomass, and hydro, the implementation of RESs offers fulfill district Dera's peak-load demand in Ismail Khan, Pakistan.
the best way to strengthen energy efficiency, supply reliability, and The results showed that the PV-batteries-diesel-converter system,
environmental protection, as well as the attainment of 100% which sells 313,277 kWh/year to the grid, is the optimum alter-
renewable energy generation goal by 2050 [10]. native with the lowest per-unit cost. In Ref. [21], an integrative
However, even though renewables offer tremendous benefits approach for optimizing an autonomous solar/wind/diesel HRES
for climate mitigation, they also have significant drawbacks that was proposed for supplying cultivation areas in Sudan considering
hamper their large-scale and individual use. These disadvantages the RESs uncertainty, interest rate, and diesel fuel price. The
include the unreliable supply of electricity imposed by the fluctu- research findings revealed that the PV/WT/diesel/battery system is
ating weather resources (e.g., solar irradiation and wind speed), the optimal design, achieving the minimum costs. Further, the
resulting in low customer satisfaction [11]; high upfront cost and viability of grid-connected diesel-PV-battery HRES was examined
long return on investment [12]; geographic limitations related to in Ref. [22] under an unscheduled grid outage scenario to meet
the need to the large area of land in order to capture sufficient industrial parks' demand power in three climate regions in
sunshine and wind energy for producing the amount of electricity Ethiopia. Results showed the feasibility of the proposed system for
that is desired [13]. Therefore, the combined integration of more all regions with an energy cost of 0.044e0.048 $/kWh. In Ref. [23], a
than single RES in so-called Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems methodology based on mixed-integer linear programming was
applied to find the optimal capacities of PV/WT/battery system to
satisfy the demand of remote mountain lodges in Italy to minimize
3
IEA (2020), Renewables 2020, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/
the overall system cost. In Ref. [24], the economic feasibility of
renewables-2020. hybrid energy transition via on-shore/off-shore wave solar for
4
https://irena.org/Statistics/Statistical-Profiles. Tenerife touristic island (Canary Islands). The proposed hybrid
886
system aims to locally supply a 2 MW reverse osmosis desalination AHP was utilized for the sustainable assessment of 29 energy op-
plan achieving maximum exploitation of available renewables. tions for the microgrid design, considering four key criteria (social,
Results declare that the optimal combination has 54 V/MWh for technical, environmental, and economic). In the second level,
solar and 261 V/MWh for wave; in addition, it attained a payback HOMER was used to carry out the feasibility analysis of alternatives
period of 39 years, which can be declined to 17 years with gov- for the final microgrid design considering the annual load growth.
ernment subsidies (e.g., feed-in-tariff). Authors in Ref. [25] devel- The results showed that the PV/hydrokinetic turbine/diesel gener-
oped a stochastic multi-objective decision-support approach for ator/pump hydroelectric storage system was found the optimal
the optimal design of solar/wind/biomass HRES with biochar pro- solution to electrify the target unelectrified village and having a
duction in Carabao Island, Philippines. Results revealed that the significant low component size compared to other viable alterna-
optimal system had significant negative emission capability and tives. Seddiki and Bennadji [83] proposed a decision aid method to
good profitability. Similarly, numerous studies have been con- select the best RE alternatives for electricity generation in a resi-
ducted from different countries contributing to the HRES imple- dential building in Algeria. In this work, the Delphi method was
mentation in Peru [26]; Uganda [27]; India [28e31]; Benin [32]; used to determine a preliminary set of RE alternatives, fuzzy (F)-
Iran [33e38]; Nigeria [39,40]; Morocco [41,42]; China [43e46]; AHP method was implemented to obtain the weights of the criteria
Algeria [47,48]; Germany [49]; Taiwan [50]; Australia [51e53]; considering uncertainties in expert's judgments, and FPROMETHEE
Spain [54,55]; Pakistan [56,57]; UAE [58]; UK [59]; Egypt [60e66]; was performed to get a complete ranking of the RE alternatives.
Bulgaria [67]; KSA [68], Ecuador [69], Taiwan [70], Viet Nam [71], Furthermore, Mastrocinque et al. [84] applied the AHP method
and Greece [72]. to find the suitable locations of sustainable supply chain develop-
To augment the level of sustainability as the paramount policy ment of the solar PV sector in seven European countries, taking into
goal of the nations, energy concerns are no longer considered in account economic, social and environmental dimensions. Results
isolation but rather in conjunction with other development chal- demonstrate that Germany represented the highest-rated alterna-
lenges (e.g., economic, environmental, social, and policy) [73]. The tive, while UK and Belgium were the lowest in every studied sce-
relevance and multidimensionality of hybrid energy systems are nario. Supciller and Toprak [85] developed a systematic method for
highlighted by this expanded understanding of sustainable energy selecting the best WTs for energy-producing companies. In this
development and the cross-cutting effects of energy [74]. Accord- study, a total of 21 criteria were weighted by Step-Wise Weight
ingly, the correct planning paradigm of the HRES involves multiple Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA) method, while TOPSIS and
different assessment criteria and alternatives, which complicate EDAS methods were combined with Single-Valued Neutrosophic
the system's design optimization and make it a completely multi- Numbers (SVNS) concept and used for ranking of 6 turbine alter-
dimensional decision-making problem [75]. The undersized and natives. Zhou et al. [86] presented a practical model based on
oversized element sizes compel the HRES to perform poorly in Geographic Information System (GIS) and MCDM tools for the ur-
relation to financial cost and load supply [76]. In this regard, Multi- ban PV charging station's location decision in Beijing, China. In this
Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) approaches can tackle these work, BWM was used for determining subjective weights of
challenging tasks, including contradictory criteria and different different social, technical, economic, and natural factors, then
objectives in energy planning decisions [77e79]. For example, T. Ali extended TOmada de Decisao Interativa e Multicriterio (TODIM)
et al. [80] provided a detailed analysis based on Analytic Hierarchy method was employed for ranking alternative sites selected by GIS.
Process (AHP) and Combinative Distance-Based Assessment (CO- Elkadeem et al. [87] developed a two-stage MCDM model to find
DAS) MCDM methods to justify the suitability of different RE-based the optimal electrification plan for a mid-rise building in Egypt. The
energy systems in Bangladesh considering a mixture of qualitative authors used HOMER to investigate the feasibility of eleven con-
and quantitative criteria. The results reveal that the solar-wind figurations and then applied post-optimality analysis using VIseK-
HRES is the best technology with the highest appraisal score riterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR), CODAS,
among solar and wind mini-grids. Diemuodeke et al. [40] applied Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS) methods
HOMER for the optimal configuration of solar/wind/diesel/battery to find the final single design. The research findings show that PV/
HRES for household electrification in six different locations in WT/BES mini-grid system is the most sustainable alternative
Nigeria. The ranking of various HRES configurations was assessed against stand-alone diesel and grid-extension options. Deveci et al.
using Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal So- [88] developed a modified interval-valued intuitionistic F-CODAS
lution (TOPSIS) method considering economic, financial, environ- method for ranking renewable energy power plants in Turkey.
mental, and socio-cultural attributes. The results showed that the Results showed that RE alternatives' best ranking order was
energy cost of the designed systems was ranged from 0.459 to onshore wind/solar PVs/biomass/geothermal/hydropower. Men-
0.562 US$/kWh, which compares well with similar literature. sour et al. [89] investigated the optimum sites for solar PV farms
Similarly, Amin et al. [33] used a combination of HOMER-TOPSIS to placement Souss-Massa, Morocco based on climate, economic, and
perform techno-enviro-economic optimization of PV/WT//fuel cell/ environmental aspects through the GIS and AHP technique. The
Biogas Generator (BioGen) rural supply in Iran considering both on- findings confirmed that 24.08% of the studied area offers suitable
grid and stand-alone modes. Ramezanzade et al. [81] presented a sites to host the PV farms. Considering various 21 indicators
new hybrid MCDM framework to select the best HRES option for covering resource, technical, economic, social, and environmental
supplying a government institution's load demand in Iran. The sustainability aspects, Wu et al. [90] presented a decision-making
feasibility analysis of different alternatives was firstly performed model for site selection of wind farms in hilly areas, Eastern
using HOMER software, then Best Worst Method (BWM), AHP, and China, where TIFN-DEMATEL was used to determine the indicator
Full Consistency Method (FUCOM) methods were for criteria weights, and TODIM was applied to rank alternative sites. The
weighting, while TOPSIS and Evaluation Based on Distance from ranking of the five alternative sites showed that Nanchang and
Average Solution (EDAS) were applied for ranking alternatives. The Xuancheng cities were the best and worst WT installation choices.
authors demonstrated that the best option was 40 kW PV, 40 KW Most recently, Rosso-Cero n et al. [91] developed a novel soft
WT, 40 kW BES, and 130 kW bidirectional converter (BDC) along computing tool for multi-objective optimization of HRESs based on
with the grid under the bad economic situation. Kumar et al. [82] GAMS and MATLAB. The authors established a fuzzy decision
proposed a bi-level framework based on integrating MCDM and analysis model is used to classify the Pareto alternatives based on a
HOMER tool for a rural microgrid design in India. In the first level, set of quantitative and qualitative evaluation factors related to
887
social, environmental, and technical aspects. The tool was tested on subjectivity in the uncertainty conditions for obtaining the criteria
Puerto Guzma n town (Colombia), and results reveal that HydT/PV/ weights and ranking, we implemented the F-AHP/MOORA/TOPSIS/
BioGen/diesel was found the most the one with the highest sus- EDAS decision-making model. Later advantage for the current work
tainability index at NPC of 0.57 M$. is that the findings are predominantly useful for researchers, en-
ergy utilities, and policy-drafters, and decision-makers to establish
1.3. Research significance and contributions financially viable, technically reliable, socially accepted, and eco-
friendly sustainable energy access. The main contributions that
From the above literature, the simultaneous evaluation of on- differentiate this study from the existing literature are:
grid and off-grid hybrid energy systems for rural electrification is
a new area of application for MCDM methods and rarely reported. ⁃ The present work is the maiden paper on design optimization
Therefore, this study aims to fill this gap by proposing a multidis- and assessment of solar/wind/hydro/biomass HCES in the
ciplinary design optimization method to comprehensively investi- context of the Pakistani energy sector. The model addresses the
gate the feasibility of an on/off grid hybrid clean electricity supply feasibility investigation of both on/off-grid rural electrification
(HCES) with 100% renewables (solar, wind, hydro, and biogas). The scenarios. In each scenario, six hybrid configurations are
method combines a design optimization model with the aid of modeled, optimized, analyzed, and compared.
HOMER Pro software and a proposed hybrid F-AHP/MOORA/TOP- ⁃ Unlike most of the existing studies that focus on a partial and
SIS/EDAS decision-making model. A new representative case study system-specific design analysis (economic, technical or techno-
on a rural township named Ghulam Shah in Pakistan is taken to test economic) [18], without revealing the influence of other sus-
and validate the research method. The proposed research method tainability dimensions. This work introduces a multi-
features its integrative and coherence in remediation of the dimensional decision-making design model which simulta-
multidisciplinary problem of sustainable rural electrification neously addresses five quantitative and main sustainability
through 100% renewables based HCES. Also, it can uncover a better pillars related to economy, reliability, ecology, society, and
understanding and highlight to which extent the HCES can exert on topography criteria.
the development of the sustainable energy sector by simultaneous ⁃ To the best of the authors' knowledge, no significant attempts
consideration of a comprehensive set of sustainability criteria and have been conducted in the utilization of MCDM to cope with
different on-grid/off-grid energy access alternatives. Furthermore, the mutually conflicting aspects of HCES design. Therefore, apart
what makes the applied method appropriate is that the F-AHP/ from the originality of this paper comes from the application of a
MOORA/TOPSIS/EDAS decision-making model has significant ad- proposed integrated hybrid F-AHP/MOORA/TOPSIS/EDAS model
vantages over prior studies. The AHP method has the advantages of for HCES design. In this model, the F-AHP method was used to
universality, a decrease of subjectivity owing to the human influ- prioritize the criteria characterizing the sustainability perfor-
ence consideration, fast calculation speed, has a comprehensible mance of different HCES alternatives, while MOORA, TOPSIS,
logic, and provide authentication of data inconsistency before so- and EDAS methods were applied for comparative analysis about
lution. Also, integrating the fuzzy environment to the AHP method the ranking of the alternatives and decide on the optimal HCES
facilitates the assessment done by human experts since they can design. Thus, the proposed MCDM model in HCES design makes
assess the criteria in a linguistic manner before the fuzzification a major difference from the existing attempts.
process [92]. Besides, this integration increases the precision of the
obtained weights. Moreover, the TOPSIS method was considered a
benchmark technique [93] in the MCDM field due to its simplicity 1.4. Research content
of application, fast computations rate, universality, and its consid-
eration of distances to the ideal solution feature [94]. However, a The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides
substantial deviation in one indicator from the ideal solution the research method's details, including resources and load
strongly influences the results. Besides, the TOPSIS method suffers assessment, MCDM-based design optimization approach, and
from high subjectivity. Thus, two up-to-date techniques (MOORA evaluation criteria and components modeling. In Section 3, the
and EDAS) have been implemented for alternative raking in addi- obtained results are demonstrated and discussed, including the
tion to the TOPSIS method. The MOORA, which uses a statistical design optimization and MCDM results with deep analyses
method, characterizes by simultaneously optimizing two or more regarding optimal systems. Finally, the conclusions and future
conflicting objectives subject to certain constraints in which the recommendations are presented in section 4.
values of these objectives are measured for every decision alter-
native [95]. This affords the foundation of comparison of selections 2. Research method
and therefore simplifies the assortment of the best option. Hence,
the MOORA method does not suffer from the subjectivity issue. In this study, an HCES based on 100% RE is proposed to provide
Besides, the MOORA method requires very minimal number of sustainable and secure electricity for a total of 27,808 residents in
mathematical calculations and hence its computational speed is too Ghulam Shah township, Pakistan. The HCES comprises PV-WT-
fast [96]. The recently-developed EDAS method is very useful in HydT-BioGen-BES as in Fig. 1. The four RE supplies are adopted
MCDM problems that include contradictory criteria due to based on the availability and intensity of the energy resources in
simplicity and comprehensiveness. In this method, the optimal the investigated locality, such as solar radiation, wind speed (WS),
option depends on the distance from the average solution. Unlike canal waterway, and animal manures. The BES is implemented to
the TOPSIS method which the distance from ideal solutions are complement the supply deficit, and the converter is used for ac-dc
considered in determining the best alternative, the EDAS calcula- energy conversion and vice versa. Although most Pakistan regions
tions evaluate the alternative ranking based on the distance from are connected to the national grid, a significant number of pop-
the average solution; hence, decision-makers are not required to ulations are deprived of electricity access supply because they are
determine ideal and worst solutions [97], and it proved to be more living in remote locations. Consequently, the current work pro-
efficient among the recently introduced methods [98]. Considering posed a systemic and integrated approach to the optimal design of
the above-mentioned advantages and disadvantages of chosen PV/WT/HydT/BioGen considering on/off-grid hybridizations. In
decision-making methods and with the aim of lessening each scenario, the feasibility of six hybridization cases is
888
Fig. 1. The proposed 100% renewable system: (a) schematic diagram (b) HOMER model.
comprehensively investigated considering five criteria, including ensure continuous and green electricity supply for the township.
system total life cycle cost (TLCC), capacity shortage (CAPS), The total demand of the township is assessed based on the
greenhouse gases emission (GHGE), job creation potential (JOBC), energy requirements of the local residents. The load profile in Fig. 4
and required land area (AREA), simultaneously. Consequently, the is constructed considering the electricity needs by small/medium
proposed approach can decide the optimal design based on the five and large households, public activities of the township, and the
addressed criteria. agricultural use for crop growing and farms. The detailed load list of
Fig. 2 demonstrates the developed approach for optimum sizing reference locality, including the time of use and energy consump-
and performance evaluation of HCES in two modes viz (i) on-grid tion of each device, is given in section-S1 in the supplementary
and (ii) off-grid. First, a pre-feasibility study is conducted via as- material. The total average daily consumption is 22.422 MWh/day
sessments of the available resources data, load type and corre- with an hourly peak of 2.76 MW and an average hourly load of
sponding profile, energy constraints, and project financial data. 0.934 MW with a 34% load factor. It is worth mentioning that the
Second, an hourly-based simulation and optimization analysis of randomness of the load power of the investigated area is modeled
different HCES structures are performed utilizing a HOMER opti- and synthesized by adding randomness factors on the estimated
mizer. The software applies a proprietary derivative-free algorithm load profile. The considered random variability factors are Day-To-
for simulating all feasible hybridizations and searches the optimal Day and Time-Step-To-Time-Step, which are assumed to be 10% to
components' sizes to minimize the total life cycle cost. Third, a create a realistic-looking load profile [99].
multi-criteria decision-making analysis is employed to determine
the most sustainable HCES. The decision-making model is made 2.2. Assessment of renewable resources and grid rate schedule
using a combination of F-AHP, MOORA, TOPSIS, EDAS techniques.
The F-AHP is applied to determine the weights of performance Pakistan has a good potential for RERs, particularly solar, wind,
criteria while MOORA, TOPSIS, and EDAS are utilized for the final and hydro (see Fig. S1 in the supplementary material). With such
ranking of the feasible systems; accordingly, the system with the ample resources, the country can satisfy its current and future
first rank is nominated as optimal design. Fourth, the optimal on/ energy demand if effectively harnessed such resources [8]. How-
off-grid designs with plausible performance and adequate consis- ever, due to many obstacles and hurdles, including fiscal, political,
tency levels are comprehensively assessed. technical, and social barriers, it is a developing country and not
primarily known for its sponsorship of RERs, and the country relies
2.1. Geographical feature and assessment of load demand primarily on fossil fuels for energy production [7]. Fig. S2 in sup-
plementary material shows the electricity generation profile in
The addressed township coordinates are 27 36.80 N latitude, 2017e18 based on Pakistan's national energy database8. The total
68 50.50 E longitude, as given in Fig. 3. The township has a total energy generation accounts for 131,275 GWh with a larger share
land area of 8763 acres with 27,808 residents5 (~6 people/house- from fossil fuels of 75.7%, followed by hydroelectricity of 21.3% and
hold). The township is currently electrified by the national grid only 3% from renewables (768 GWh solar, 2101 GWh wind, and
supply under the jurisdiction of Sukkur Electric Power distribution 988 GWh biomass). The domestic economy is severely burdened by
company which is massively unreliable and has an outage duration expensive fossil fuels being imported to produce electricity. The
up to 16 h/day and an outage frequency of 126/yr.6 Therefore, weak economy of Pakistan cannot withstand such a burden.
providing an insight into the practical feasibility of 100% RE can Consequently, there is a severe energy crisis in the country [100].
Recently, the Government of Pakistan has put in place a national
5
Pakistan Bureau of Statistics. Pakistan census 2017 (http://www.pbs.gov.pk/).
6 8
National Electric Power Regulatory Authority of Islamic Republic of Pakistan Ministry of Energy, Hydrocarbon Development Institute. Pakistan Energy
(https://www.nepra.org.pk/). Yearbook 2018 (https://hdip.com.pk/).
889
Fig. 2. Flow diagram of the proposed design approach of 100% renewable electricity supply.
strategy for efficient utilization and faster uptake of RERs to achieve 154.9 m3/s, and the highest flows of 218.0 and 240.3 m3/s are
sustainable development [101,102]. Therefore, the main objective of recorded in September and October, respectively. On the contrary,
this work is to emphasize the feasibility and importance of the use the lowest values of 108 and 98 m3/s are belonged to January and
of RESs, where the lessons learned from this study can assist other February, respectively.
developing countries and emerging economies when devising Biomass is also a promising clean energy source in Ghulam Shah
strategies and policies regarding RESs deployment. The potentiality township due to the richness of the land in crop residues and an-
of various resources of Ghulam Shah township have been explored imal dung. Through the gasification process of biomass feed-stocks,
in the form of solar irradiance (kWh/m2/day), wind speed (m/s), the output biogas is utilized as a fuel for electricity production
ambient temperature (oC), supply of biomass (tonnes/day), and [105]. Because the township has a sufficient number of cattle which
water stream flow (m3/s). considered the primary biomass feed-stock in this work. The
For the studied area, based on Reference [103]; Fig. 5(aeb) number of animals available in the township depends on their feed-
demonstrates the monthly average solar radiation and WS, clear- land fertility and on the economic condition. Table 1 shows the
ness index, and the site's ambient temperature. Furthermore, potential of biomass recourses assessed based on animal dung
Fig. 5(ced) demonstrates the cumulative distribution function of availability in the investigated site. Based on the livestock census
solar irradiance and wind speed. It is observed that the analyzed and if 70% of the animal droppings are recoverable to produce
location exhibits cumulative frequencies larger than 60% and 50% biogas, the total dung yield is estimated at 214tones/day. Giving
for solar data more than 0.2 kW/m2 and wind data more than that 1 kg of dung can deliver 0.036 m3 of biogas [106], the total
4.0 m/s, respectively. This is a very optimistic result for the devel- biogas yield is reported 7,475m3/day. When considering 1 kW of
opment of PV and WT in the case study area. Besides, water re- electricity by the BioGen requires 32 kg of dung [107], the
sources being one of the cheapest and green supplies can maximum allowable capacity of BioGen is estimated as 6.7 MW.
effectively eradicate the demand-supply disparity in Pakistan [104]. In Pakistan, the government has adopted time of use (ToU)
In the selected site, to harness the hydropower potential of the consumer-end tariff structure to encourage customers to utilize
Rohri Canal, a micro-hydro power turbine can be employed based energy at off-peak times. Fig. 6-a demonstrates the grid power
on a run-of-canal scheme with no water storage. The Private Power purchase prices. The data represents the electricity tariff schedule
and Infrastructure Board of Pakistan9 have estimated that a hydro of SEPCO service territory, approved by the National Electric Power
project of 16 MW capacity can be installed based on the abundant Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) [109]. At the off-peak hours (night),
stream flow of the canal; however, no hydel projects are currently the power price is set at a lower value of 17.51 PKR/kWh (0.123
in operation. Due to the absence of the gauging station at the $/kWh). In the on-peak hours, which corresponding to morning
designated location, the stream flow regime is estimated based on and afternoon time, the power demand increases, and accordingly,
historical discharge data available from Pakistan Water&Power its price goes up to 23.46 PKR/kWh (0.164 $/kWh). On the other
Development Authority10 and Pakistan Meteorological Depart- hand, given the government's national strategy to boost the share
ment11 as in Fig. 5-c. The annual streams flow rate is averaged at of renewables, it is assumed that the responsibility of installing
RESs lies with the Ministry of Energy (Power Division); thus, the
grid sellback is assumed to be zero, meaning the surplus electricity
9
Private Power & Infrastructure Board, Government of Pakistan. Pakistan Hydel generated by the HCES is not sold back to the grid. Also, Fig. 6-b
Power Potential (http://www.ppib.gov.pk/). shows random grid outages assuming mean outage frequency of
10
www.wapda.gov.pk. 125/yr and mean repair time of 16 h.
11
https://www.pmd.gov.pk/en/.
890
Fig. 3. Map and location of the investigated area.71
891
Fig. 4. Heat map of the demand power consumption in the reference locality.
2.3. Design optimization model

CRFðr; nÞ ¼ r , ð1 þ rÞn ð1 þ rÞn 1 & r ¼ ðd fÞ ð1 þ f Þ
In this study, the components' designs and appropriate, feasible (3)
configurations of on-grid and off-grid solar-wind-hydro-biomass where, TAC ¼ total annual cost of the hybrid energy system ($/year),
HCESs are determined based on an hourly-based simulation and CRF is the capital recovery factor, r is the real discount rate (%), n is
optimization analysis with the aid of HOMER Pro optimizer. It has the system life cycle (years), d is the nominal interest rate (%), and f
been recognized as the world's leading tool for optimizing hybrid is the inflation rate (%). While ACC, AMC. ARC, and ASC are the total
energy systems [110] and has been utilized by several scholars over annualized capital, maintenance, replacement, and salvage costs of
the global [111]. Fig. 7 illustrates the procedure of the conducted different components ($/year), respectively and x is the subscript to
design optimization. Initially, a pre-HOMER evaluation of the site describe the component type.
metrological and resources data, project financial parameters, and
load demands is established. Also, the cost and technical specifi- Criterion-2 (CAPS): the probability of unmet load over the total
cations of different technologies are acquired and defined for the energy produced [16]. It is ranged from 0 to 1, where zero in-
optimizer. Next, to explore all potential configurations, HOMER dicates that the energy system is fully reliable, while one implies
starts creating several hybridization options to maintain the load that the load is never supplied [61].
demand, then verifying the system feasibility through annual en-
ergy balance calculation over 8760 h. For each optimization loop of CAPS ¼ ELoad Egen ELoad (4)
the algorithm, the design optimization is conducted using the
proprietary derivative-free optimization algorithm (i.e., HOMER where Eload ¼ annual load demand, and Egen ¼ annual energy
optimizer) to minimize the TLCC. The decision variables are the production by the power supplies (kWh/year).
sizes of PV, BioGen, HydT, BDC and the number of WTs and BESs
and the power purchase from the grid in the case of on-grid sce- Criterion-3 (GHGE): refers to the total amount of CO2 emitted by
nario). Once the precision convergence of fitness function is the system and mainly depends on the rate of fuel consumption
reached and all feasible systems are checked, the optimization is [66].
completed, and a list of feasible designs was then obtained. The
GHGE ¼ TCO2 Enonren (5)
selection of the winning on/off grid HCES is then performed via the
developed MCDM approach considering the adopted criteria. X
TCO2 ¼ fuelcons;g f emission;g (6)
Criterion-1 (TLCC): the net present worth of all the expenses g2nonren gen
incurred by the system through the system life cycle, including

the fixed capital, variable maintenance, replacement, and where, TCO2 is the total CO2 produced (kg/kWh), and Enon-ren is
salvage costs [32]. total energy produced by the non-renewable sources (kWh), fuel-
cons,g is the total fuel consumption (liter), and femission,g is emission
!, factor (kg of pollutant emitted per unit of fuel consumed).
X
TLCC ¼ TACx CRFðr; nÞ (1) Criterion-4 (AREA): The total area required to install the system
x2comp
components and associated facilities as indicated in Eq-7 [69].
The hybrid system configuration with lower area usage is
TACx ¼ ACCx þ AMCx þ AFCx þ ARCx ASCx (2) preferable.
X
AREA ¼ areax Pgen;x (7)
x2comp
7
Map source: https://www.mapsofworld.com/pakistan/pakistan-political-map. where, areax and are the land area required for establishing
html & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandiaro_Taluka. component of type x (m2/kW) as illustrated in the component
892
Fig. 5. Resources estimation for Ghulam Shah township. (a) Monthly average GHI and clearness index [103]; (b) Monthly average wind speed and ambient temperature [103]; (c)
Cumulative density function solar irradiance, (d) Cumulative density function of wind speed (e) Monthly average streams flow estimated for the Rori canal.
Table 1
Assessment of biogas yield and energy in Ghulam Shah township.
Livestock Census* (heads) Manure availability (kg/head/day) [106e108] Total dung (kg/day) Total gas (m3/kg) Estimated max power capacity of BioG (kW)
Buffalo 9269 15 97,328 3504 3042

Cows 13,904 10 97,328 3504 3042
Sheep 9269 2 6489 467 406
Goat 4635 2 3244 234 203
Total 37,077 e 214,122 7475 6691
* Data are estimated from Pakistan Bureau of Statis: https://www.pbs.gov.pk/
893
Fig. 6. Grid modelling applied in this study (a) power purchase ToU tariffs (b) Grid reliability.
datasheet provided by the manufacturer. Pn,x is the nominal power EDAS methods are provided in section-S2 in the supplementary
of a component of type x (kW), respectively. material. Fig. 8 shows the flow diagram of the MCDM analysis
performed in this study. The inputs of the MCDM model are the
Criterion-5 (JOBC): the number of manpower directly engaged calculated values of the five sustainability criteria using HOMER.
for installation and operation of the various system components The necessary goals of the MCDM model are lower TLCC over the
is adopted as a measure for the social acceptability and project lifetime, lower CAPS in load supplying, higher JOBC po-
employment potential of the hybrid energy system as expressed tential for the social welfare, lesser AREA usage for the geographical
in Eq-8 [31]. constraints, lesser GHGE release for the green environment. The
X output represents the ranking score of each feasible on-grid and
JOBC ¼ jobx Egen;x (8) off-grid HCES alternatives. According to the comparative analysis
x2comp between the three ranking methods, the best HCES configuration
for supplying the reference locality is determined.
where, jobx is the number of jobs created by the installing of a
component of type x (Job/kWh/year) as collected from Ref. [31].
Egen,x the energy output of a component of type x (kWh/year). 2.5. Components description and power equations
2.4. Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model This section presents the studied system's mathematical for-
mulations. The output power from each source provided in hourly
The evaluation of the finest hybrid energy design among several temporal resolution was calculated based on technological and
possible alternatives is a complex decision-making problem that meteorological data. It worth mentioning that for attaining realistic
has multiple sustainability aspects and various conflicting criteria. modeling and accurate results while designing HRES, the un-
It is almost impossible to find a global optimum that optimizes all certainties of solar irradiance and resources are represented by Beta
criteria simultaneously [110]. To handle this dilemma, the MCDM and Weibull probability distribution functions according to the
approach is introduced as a potential tool because of the inherit- mathematical formulas presented in Ref. [21]. Further cost and
ability to judge various alternatives regarding the relative impor- technical specifications are listed in Section-S4 in the supplemen-
tance of objectives [112]. In this work, a two layers-based MCDM tary material.
model was established. In the first layer, the F-AHP is used to
calculate the weights of different performance criteria. In the sec-
ond layer, three ranking MCDM methods named MOORA, TOPSIS, 2.5.1. Photovoltaic
and EDAS are applied to determine the best compromise HCES For the PV model, the hourly output power depends on solar
configuration among feasible alternatives. Detailed information irradiance and temperature (see Eq-9 [22]). Also, the actual PV cell
about the mathematical formulas of F-AHP, MOORA, TOPSIS, and temperature is expressed as in Eq-10 [21].
894
Fig. 7. Flow chart of the design optimization algorithm of 100% renewable electricity supply.

TPV ¼ Tamb þ IT ðtÞ ðTNOCT 20Þ IT; STC (10)

PPV ðtÞ ¼ PPV;r f PV IT ðtÞ IT; STC 1 þ m TPV ðtÞ TPV; STC Where PPV,r ¼ panel rated power (kW), IT ¼ the hourly solar irra-
diance (kW/m2), IT,STC ¼ solar irradiance under the standard test
(9)
conditions, fPV ¼ derating factor (%), m ¼ temperature coefficient of
power (%/ C), TPV ¼ real temperature of the PV cell ( C), TPV,STC¼PV
895
Fig. 8. The framework of the developed hybrid MCDM approach.
temperature at standard test conditions, Tamb ¼ ambient air tem-

h . . . i
perature, and TNOCT ¼ nominal PV cell operating temperature.
vhub ðtÞ ¼ vref ln hhub hoÞ ln href hoÞ (11)
2.5.2. Wind turbine

In this study, the wind speed at the turbine hub height is PWT ðtÞ ¼ PWT; STP ðtÞ ðr = ro Þ (12)
calculated using Eq-11 [54]. Then, the wind turbine power curve is
used for measuring the predicted wind turbine power output under where PWTr ¼ rated output power of the WT [kW], PWT ¼ hourly
standard temperature and pressure conditions (PWT, STP). Finally, for output power of the WT [kW], WT,STP ¼ output power of the WT at
the real air density, the power output value is determined using Eq- standard conditions [kW], vc-in ¼ cut-in wind speed [m/s], vco-
12, [99]. The power-curve of the utilized WT is provided in Fig. S4-1 ff ¼ cut-off wind speed [m/s], vr ¼ rated wind speed [m/s],
in the supplementary material. vhub ¼ WS at hub height of the turbine [m/s], vref ¼ WS at
896
anemometer height [m/s], hhub ¼ actual turbine hub height from sustainable energy generation [116]. This technology's primary
the ground [m], href ¼ reference height from the ground [m], advantage over other conventional battery types is that power and
ho ¼ surface roughness length [m], ho is the surface roughness energy rating design can be done independently and higher cycle
length [m], ro is the air density at standard temperature and life, which makes it the most appropriate storage for stationary
pressure [1.225 kg/m3], and r is the actual air-density [kg/m3]. RESs applications [117]. Also, it has good power quality, peak load-
leveling with high storage capacity, and the ability to be deep
2.5.3. Biogas generator charged without affecting the cycle life [118]. The battery capacity is

EVRFB ðt 1Þ Egen ðtÞ ðELoad ðtÞ=hINV Þ hVRFB for charging mode
EVRFB ðtÞ ¼ (18)
EVRFB ðt 1Þ þ Egen ðtÞ ðELoad ðtÞ=hINV Þ hVRFB for discharging mode
The biogas can be obtained through the anaerobic digestion estimated by Eq-17 [62]. The hourly battery energy during charge/
process and then used as a fuel for BioGen to produce eco- discharge processes is determined using Eq-18 [44].
electricity [113]. The biogas yields from the available animal dung
is determine using Eq-13 [106]. The hourly electrical output power CVRFB ¼ ELoad; d DA ðhINV hVRFB DODÞ (17)
of the BioGen is calculated using Eq-14 [57]. Also, the generator's
electrical performance efficiency is defined according to Eq-15 [31].
The fuel consumption-power plot and the efficiency-power curve Where CVRFB ¼ battery capacity [kWh], ELoad,d ¼ daily load con-
for the biomass generator are presented in Fig. S4-2 in the sup- sumption [kWh/day], DA ¼ daily autonomy, DOD ¼ battery depth of
plementary material. discharge, hINV ¼ inverter efficiency [%], and hVRFB ¼ battery effi-
ciency [%].
X
n
Q Bio ¼ 0:036 Nh m h (13)
2.5.6. Bidirectional power converter
h¼1
A generic bi-directional converter model, which consists of the
inverter and the rectifier assembly, is used to allow the energy flow
PBio ¼ Q Bio CVBio hsys ð860 DOHBio Þ (14)
between DC and AC buses. The converter capacity which equates to
.h i the load side power is represented by Eq-19 [69].
hBio ¼ 3:6 PBio rBiof ðPBior F0 þ PBio F1 Þ LHVBiof
PBDCout ðtÞ ¼ PBDCin ðtÞ hINV (19)
(15)
where PBDC-out ¼ the inverter power output [kW] and PBDC-in ¼ the
where QBio ¼ biogas availability [m3/day], Nh ¼ total number of inverter power input [kW].
animal heads in hth category, mh ¼ dung available/head [kg/day],
n ¼ number of specified categories of animals, CVBio ¼ biogas 3. Simulation results and discussion
digester calorific value [4700 kcal/m3], hsys ¼ overall efficiency of
the biomass system, DOHBio ¼ daily operating hours of the BioGen, Herein, the design optimization results for on/off-grid HCES
PBio,r ¼ rated power of the biomass generator [kW], rBiof ¼ density possible electrification scenarios for Ghulam Shah township are
of the biomass fuel [kg/m3], F0 ¼ fuel curve intercept co-efficient presented and analyzed. Also, the obtained results on selecting the
(no-load fuel consumption) [kg/hr/kWrated], F1 ¼ fuel curve slope optimal configuration of each scenario using MCDM approaches,
(marginal fuel consumption) [kg/hr/kW output], and considering evaluations of four experts are also discussed.
LHVBiof ¼ lower heating values of producer gas (MJ/kg).
3.1. Design optimization results
2.5.4. Hydropower turbine
The hydropower turbine model is implemented to exploit the The study investigates the feasibility and design optimization of
water potential of the Rohri canal and deliver electricity in an six HCESs with and without grid connection. Therefore, an hourly-
ecologically sustainable, socially acceptable way. The turbine based simulation, done by HOMER, was achieved as described in
output power is varying with the water-flow speed and turbine section 2.3 and considering 25 years project lifetime, 8.20% infla-
specifications as in Eq-16 [114,115]. tion rate, and 11.15% nominal discount rate. The results of optimal
HCES alternatives for both on-grid and off-grid scenarios are pre-
PHT ¼ hHT rwater g Heff Q HT (16) sented in Tables 2e3. For a more evident analogy among the
different feasible HCES alternatives, the radar web shown in Fig. 9
where PHT ¼ output power of the hydro turbine [kW], displays a comparison among the on/off-grid configurations in
hHT ¼ efficiency of the hydro turbine [%], rwater ¼ water density terms of TLCC, CAPS, GHGE, AREA, and JOBC. The on-grid category
[1000 kg/m3], g ¼ gravity acceleration constant [9.81 m/s2], shown in Fig. 9-a clearly recognizes that A1 has the least TLCC,
Heff ¼ effective water head [m], and QHT ¼ flow rate of water which makes this combination the most cost-effective alternative
through the turbine [m3/s]. among the on-grid systems. However, from the reliability point of
view, A1 has the 2nd highest annual CAPS with 8077.93 kWh. The
2.5.5. Battery energy storage third configuration (A3) has the highest CPAS ratio with
Vanadium redox flow batteries are used to maintain system 8131.62 kWh each year (0.0987%). However, this small value is still
reliability and increase the self-consumption of renewables. These considered insignificant and should not impact the system reli-
batteries have emerged as relevant candidates to address ability performance. Ecologically, since the biogas generator
897
Table 2
Summary of the design optimization results of different HCES configurations.
Name Scenario Component sizes

Configuration
PV (kW) WT x 10 kW HydT (kW) BioGen (kW) BES x 130 kWh BDC (kW)
solar-wind-hydro-biogas-battery-converter-grid A1 on-grid 2072.54 76 526.46 700 153 1132.47

solar-hydro-biogas-battery-converter-grid A2 3255.26 e 526.46 1200 102 1214.18
solar-hydro-battery-converter-grid A3 4752.62 - 526.46 - 129 3897.5
solar-wind-biogas-battery-converter-grid A4 5068.46 65 e 1200 257 1688.28
solar-wind-hydro-biogas-converter-grid A5 1620.15 56 526.46 1700 e 819.84
wind-hydro-biogas-grid A6 e 98 526.46 1700 e e
solar-wind-hydro-biogas-battery-converter A7 off-grid 2122.80 66 526.46 300 209 1896.12
solar-hydro-biogas-battery-converter A8 4182.22 - 526.46 500 297 1563.15
solar-hydro-battery-converter A9 4648.83 e 526.46 e 252 2926.61
solar-wind-biogas-battery-converter A10 5422.73 57 e 300 327 2027.72
solar-wind-hydro-biogas-converter A11 2670.23 219 526.46 1700 e 1020.27
wind-hydro-biogas A12 e 269 526.46 1700 e e
Table 3
Summary of the assessment criteria results of different HCES configurations.
Name Scenario Assessment criteria

Configuration
TLCC (million $) JOBC (jobs/yr) CAPS (kWh/yr) GHGE (kg/yr) AREA (km2)
solar-wind-hydro-biogas-battery-converter-grid A1 on-grid 9.8 0.590 8077.93 44405.98 1.56

solar-hydro-biogas-battery-converter-grid A2 10.34 0.687 7803.27 166112.2 0.088
solar-hydro-battery-converter-grid A3 12.96 0.543 8131.62 29177.89 0.118
solar-wind-biogas-battery-converter-grid A4 14.04 0.159 7781.71 114330.8 1.314
solar-wind-hydro-biogas-converter-grid A5 15.88 1.278 5072.47 875219 1.167
wind-hydro-biogas-grid A6 16.71 1.492 4784 1146223 1.968
solar-wind-hydro-biogas-battery-converter A7 off-grid 10.23 0.662 7398.37 754.60 1.372
solar-hydro-biogas-battery-converter A8 10.91 0.607 8062.24 408.37 0.096
solar-hydro-battery-converter A9 12.09 0.543 6481.61 0 0.109
solar-wind-biogas-battery-converter A10 13.74 0.221 7802.6 1134.73 1.161
solar-wind-hydro-biogas-converter A11 25.74 2.408 8182.46 11479.99 4.348
wind-hydro-biogas A12 28.15 3.324 8136.06 17225.78 5.298
consumes 3619.716 tons/year to produce annual electricity of from the economic point of view, it has the highest TLCC among the
1,156,146 kWh, A6 produces the highest GHGE amount. Conversely, off-grid alternatives. Besides, A9 is the best eco-friendly energy
A3 produces the least emissions (29,177.89 kg/year), making it the system with zero emissions since it combines only RESs.
most eco-friendly energy alternative. A6 provides the highest JOBC Geographically, A8 requires the minimum area to set up the system
with 37 jobs during the project lifetime from the employment with only 96 m2; contrary, A12 requires the largest AREA to
potential point of view. Moreover, since the land requirement is establish the project with (5.2 km2).
considered one of the critical obligations to establish any project, The main highlights from the previous analysis are (i) several at-
A2 offers the smallest land requirement to set up the project since tributes (economical, ecological, topographical, and social) influence
this alternative does not contain WTs, which require the largest the optimal design, (ii) there is no single configuration that has opti-
area (19,471.920 m2) for each EO10 wind turbine of 15.8m diameter. mum performance in all attributes, and (iii) evaluation of decision-
Similar to the on-grid energy alternatives, the off-grid plans makers (DMs) are strongly required to assess each configuration.
compared in Fig. 9-b recognize A7 as the most economical option Consequently, MCDM analysis is essential to select the optimal energy
with only 10.23 M$ due to its low capital and operating costs and system with the best performance. The developed MCDM model re-
the low capacities components. Besides, A7 has a CAPS ratio of sults based on the combination of F-AHP, MOORA, TOPSIS, and EDAS
7398.377 (0.090%), requires moderate land requirement with are presented in the following subsections.
1.37 km2, and provides only 0.66 jobs/year. On the other hand, A12
offers the highest JOBC with 83 jobs during the project lifetime. 3.2. Multi-criteria decision-making results
However, from the economic point of view, A12 has the highest
TLCC among all off-grid alternatives. Due to the absence of emis- 3.2.1. F-AHP results
sions producers in A9, it has the best eco-friendly performance with The weight of each criterion is obtained by employing the F-AHP
zero emissions. Moreover, A9 requires a small area (the 2nd method based on four DMs’ evaluations. The pairwise comparison
smallest) to establish the project due to the needless of employing matrix of each DM and the synthesized matrices are indicated in
WTs in supplying the load. Geographically, A8 requires the mini- Tables S3-S6 in the supplementary material. The aggregated fuzzy
mum area to set up the system with only 96 m2; contrary, A12 pairwise comparison matrix of all DMs is presented in Table 4 in
requires the largest AREA to establish the project with (5.2 km2). which it can be recognized that the TLCC has the highest weight at
For the off-grid configurations, it can be recognized that A7 has 29.5%, followed by CAPS and JOBC with 23.3% and 23%, respectively.
the least TLCC while A12 has the highest value. Hence, from the The GHE ranked 4th with 18.1%, while the AREA has the least
economic point of view, A7 is the best off-grid energy solution; weight with only 6.1%.
however, it has high CAPS, ranked 3rd in the AREA with 1.37 km2,
and provides only 0.66 jobs/year. On the other hand, A12 offers the
3.2.2. TOPSIS results
highest JOBC with 83 jobs during the project lifetime. However,
For the TOPSIS method, the decision matrices, normalized
898
Fig. 9. Comparison among feasible alternatives (a) on-grid plans, (b) off-grid plans.
Table 4
Aggregated fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix and weights of performance criteria.
TLCC CAPS GHGE AREA JOBC Weight Rank
TLCC (1.000,1.000,1.000) (1.000,3.976,6.000) (1.000,1.316,4.000) (1.000,2.213,5.000) (5.000,6.481,8.000) 0.295 1

CAPS (0.167,0.252,1.000) (1.000,1.000,1.000) (1.000,2.000,5.000) (2.000,4.121,9.000) (0.250,0.760,1.000) 0.233 2
GHE (0.250,0.760,1.000) (0.200,0.500,1.000) (1.000,1.000,1.000) (1.000,3.130,7.000) (0.111,0.289,1.000) 0.181 4
JOBC (0.125,0.154,0.200) (1.000,1.316,4.000) (1.000,3.464,9.000) (1.000,1.682,3.000) (1.000,1.000,1.000) 0.23 3
AREA (0.200,0.452,1.000) (0.111,0.243,0.500) (0.143,0.319,1.000) (1.000,1.000,1.000) (0.333,0.595,1.000) 0.061 5
Table 5
þ ve ideal and -ve ideal solution of each criteria using the TOPSIS method.
TLCC CAPS GHGE AREA JOBC
on-grid þve best 0.077094434 0.109127269 0.0036243 0.001760403 0.004350775

-ve best 0.130413512 0.064201883 0.14237691 0.039123488 0.040689507
off-grid þve best 0.059043972 0.101076803 0 0.000831388 0.003183929
-ve best 0.162469048 0.080066536 0.15026228 0.045599966 0.047793407
matrices of the assessment criteria against the energy alternatives, 3.2.3. MOORA results
and the weighted normalized matrices of both on/off-grid plans are In the MOORA method, the decision matrices and normalized
given in Tables S7-S11 in the supplementary material. Besides, matrices are the same as in the TOPSIS method. In contrast, the
the þve best and -ve best vectors are shown in Table 5 while the Sþ, weighted normalized matrices and assessment values of the on/off-
S-, final TOPSIS score, and ranking of both categories are shown in grid plans are shown in the supplementary material, Tables S12-
Table 6. S14. The MOORA score and the final ranking of alternatives are
shown in Table 7.
899
Table 6
Sþ, S-, TOPSIS score, and final rank of all feasible configurations.
Config. name type Sþ S- TOPSIS Score Final Rank
A1 on-grid 0.031583881 0.155559276 0.831231443 3

A2 0.023006761 0.144259874 0.862454573 1 (winner)
A3 0.026288656 0.155387563 0.855299409 2
A4 0.042205239 0.141321778 0.770032556 4
A5 0.127743662 0.038434 0.231282588 5
A6 0.163798673 0 0 6
A7 off-grid 0.017261993 0.184593184 0.914483278 2
A8 0.007829551 0.187952396 0.96000882 1 (winner)
A9 0.024058752 0.186431099 0.885701132 3
A10 0.024800798 0.173608216 0.875001659 4
A11 0.142706264 0.058205879 0.28970812 5
A12 0.193054548 0.020437144 0.095728053 6
Table 7
Assessment value (B), MOORA score, and final ranking of alternatives.
Config. name B MOORA Score Final Rank Config. name B MOORA Score Final Rank
A1 On-grid 0.108407 0.076614147 2 A7 Off-grid 0.091391 0.03018531 4

A2 0.104721 0.080320441 4 A8 0.099592 0.009470919 1
A3 0.109127 0.068022479 1 A9 0.080067 0.029842683 2
A4 0.104431 0.077081976 3 A10 0.096384 0.025860009 2
A5 0.068073 0.336514821 5 A11 0.101077 0.336215608 5
A6 0.064202 0.419258456 6 A12 0.100504 0.460614832 6
Table 8
The normalized PDA and NDA, EDAS score and ranking of all feasible systems.
Config. name type Weighted Weighted Weighted Normalized PDA Weighted Normalized NDA EDAS Score Final Rank
Sum of PDA Sum of NDA
A1 on-grid 0.09538956 0.030858516 0.673354303 0.880855729 0.777105016 4

A2 0.120368691 0 0.849681833 1 0.924840916 2
A3 0.141663251 0 1 1 1 1
A4 0.099476617 0.019738843 0.702204814 0.92378862 0.812996717 3
A5 0 0.147299505 0 0.431278801 0.215639401 5
A6 0 0.259001256 0 0 0 6
A7 off-grid 0.002215633 0.002215633 0.736786719 0.99408671 0.865436714 4
A8 0 0 0.999420729 1 0.999710365 1
A9 0.009499811 0.009499811 1 0.974646008 0.987323004 2
A10 0 0 0.799790276 1 0.899895138 3
A11 0.226861741 0.226861741 0.023439009 0.394530018 0.208984513 5
A12 0.374687016 0.374687016 0.021286579 0 0.010643289 6
3.2.4. EDAS results 3.3.1. Optimal on-grid system (solar-hydro-battery-converter-grid

In the EDAS method, the decision matrices are the same as in the “A3”)
TOPSIS and MOORA methods, while the PDA and NDA matrices are
listed in Tables S15-S18 in the supplementary material. The 3.3.1.1. Economic analysis. For the grid/battery/converter system,
weighted, weighted normalized PDA and NDA, EDAS score, and the investigated locality's electric requirements can be met with
final ranking values are shown in Table 8. 77,870 kWh of battery capacity, and the operating costs are $1.56M/
yr. Due to adding 4753 kW of PV modules and 526 kW HydT, the
operating costs were reduced to $236,752/yr (saving around 85%).
3.2.5. Comparative analysis of the MCDM results Table 9 reveals the detailed cost results, in which the cost of PV
Based on the above-discussed results, Fig. 10 is generated to modules dominates the highest portion among all components
realize the optimal energy configuration in both on-grid (Fig. 10-a) with $7 M (almost 54.21%) of overall system cost due to their high
and off-grid (Fig. 10-b) configurations. It can be seen that both EDAS capital cost. Besides, due to the quick progress in material science
and MOORA methods nominated the solar-hydro-battery- and power electronics, the batteries are counted as the inexpensive
converter-grid (A3) as the optimal on-grid system while the TOP- component in the system, excluding the main grid, with a share of
SIS picked out the solar-hydro-biogas-battery-converter-grid (A2). $355,067.32 (2.7%). Since the project's value is decided by the net
Conversely, the three methods nominated the solar-hydro-biogas- present value of its future cash flows, evaluating the project's cash
battery-converter (A8) as the optimal off-grid energy solution. flow statistics, such as net cash flow and cumulative cash flow,
helps to predict the future cash flows of the project. HOMER offers
3.3. Performance evaluation of optimum on/off-grid systems to compare the economics of any alternative with a chosen base-
case in which the cumulative cash flow can be emphasized, and
In this subsection, the distinct performances (e.g., economic, the payback period can be determined. The payback period is the
reliability, Ecological, social, and topographical) of the optimal on/ number of years at which the cumulative cash flow of the difference
off-grid energy systems is comprehensively discussed. between a certain system and the base-case system moves from
900
with a maximum production arises in October. The HydT worked

unstoppably along with the PV system for 8760 h with a relatively
yearly electricity production of 4,470,475 kWh/yr. Besides, the main
grid supported the system to fulfill the load demand in four months
during the year, as in Fig. 13. In August, the energy purchased from
the grid was the maximum with 22,534 kWh, while the minimum
energy purchased occurred in May with 2320 kWh. According to
Table 10, A3 produces 12,701,529 kWh/yr with the highest portion
goes to the PV system, which produces 8,184,886 kWh/yr (64.4%) of
the total supplied power while the residual power fitted to the
HydT (35.2%) and the grid (0.363). Furthermore, the system has
only 6606 kWh/yr unmet load and generates excess electricity of
3,096,288 kWh/yr (24.4%), which is higher enough to sustain the
future load growth represented in the expansion of building de-
mands and their usage periods. The storage system's useable
nominal capacity is 16,770 kWh, while the annual throughput is
2,643,613 kWh/yr. Further, Fig. 14 portrays the batteries' SOC ac-
tivity throughout a complete year in which it can be recognized that
there is not enough power to fully charge the batteries during the
summer (from June to September) since the energy production
from both the PV and HydT systems become insufficient and
therefore, less amount of extra power produced. This justifies
purchasing energy from the grid during this period, as addressed in
the explanation of Fig. 13. Moreover, to provide a more focused
overview of energy exchange in the optimal on-grid system, Fig. 15
shows the optimal system performance during three consecutive
days in terms of generation, consumption, shortage, surplus power,
and batteries' performance. It can be seen that the HydT generator
operates continuously at its nominal capacity (526.46 kW) while
the PV system operates only during the daytime. Also, it can also be
recognized that for the intervals have generated power larger than
the demand needs; the extra power is stored in the batteries to be
Fig. 10. Comparison among the employed MCDM method (a) on-grid (b) off-grid.
negative to positive. The payback is also a sign of how long the

project would take to recoup the divergence in investment costs
between a certain system and the base-case system. To figure out
the pervious on the system under study, Fig. 11 depicts the cumu-
lative cash flows for A3 compared to the grid/battery/converter
system (the chosen base-case system) in which A3 will revenue a
simple payback period of 4.36 years to recover the investments
with an internal rate of return of 24.8%.
3.3.1.2. Energy analysis. The average monthly electric power pro-

duction of A3 is exemplified in Fig. 12. Fueled by the superb
accessibility of solar energy in Pakistan, the findings revealed the
massive share from the PV modules throughout the year by total
operating hours of 4356 h (only in daytimes from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.) Fig. 11. Cumulative nominal cash flow of the optimal on-grid system.
Table 9
Summary of the TLCC breakdown by cost type.
Component Capital ($) Replacement ($) O&M ($) Salvage ($) Total ($)
BES $296,700.00 $169,483.77 $0.00 $111,116.44 $355,067.32

PV $6,178,416.80 $0.00 $853,384.74 $0.00 $7,031,801.54
HydT $684,411.00 $269,298.30 $945,332.63 $176,556.55 $1,722,485.38
SEPCO grid $0.00 $0.00 $125,492.07 $0.00 $125,492.07
BDC $1,559,000.49 $1,041,389.41 $1,399,675.23 $265,258.82 $3,734,806.3
901
Fig. 12. Average monthly power production of the optimal on-grid plan.
technology's excessive capital cost. Conversely, the BioG cost is the

cheapest component with only $692,646.2 (6.3%) due to the low
O&M cost and the zero-replacement cost. Since the number of
necessary batteries is high (297 units), the batteries cost represents
7.48% of the total cost due to their high capital and replacement
costs. The HydT and BDC cost portion is close and represents 15.77%
and 13.71%, respectively. Fig. 16 indicates the nominal cash flow
summary of A8 by cost type in which the highest portion of the
system cost goes to the capital cost due to the high capacity of the
solar PV system, which requires many PV units. The capital cost is
followed by the O&M cost since that both Hydro and PV systems
require regular and frequent maintenance during the project life-
time. Besides, the replacement cost comes in the 3rd place since A8
contains three main components (batteries, HydT, and the BDC)
that need to be replaced during the project lifetime. Similar to
Fig. 11, the cumulative cash flow of the optimal off-grid system and
the stand-alone BioGen system (the chosen base-case) is demon-
Fig. 13. Contribution of the main-grid in the optimal on-grid plan. strated in Fig. 17. Notably, only 2.1 years will be required by the
optimal design to retrieve the spent cash with an internal rate of
return of 71%.
used later during the nighttime.
3.3.2.2. Energy analysis. Fig. 18 depicts the monthly average elec-

3.3.2. Optimal off-grid system (solar-hydro-biogas-battery- tricity generation of A8 in which the PV modules and the HydT
converter “A8”) dominate nearly the total portion of whole system production with
3.3.2.1. Economic analysis. Table 11 provides a summary of the 61.3% and 38% from the PV modules and the HydT, respectively,
yearly cost calculations of the optimal off-grid design (A8). The PV while the BioGen shares the rest portion (0.675%). The electricity
cost leads to the greatest ratio of 56.67% ($6,187,860.7) from the production summary of A8 is shown in Table 12 in which it can be
total system expenditure. This is mainly attributed to the PV recognized that A8 has an insignificant unmet load ratio
Table 10
Summary of energy results of the optimal on-grid plan.
Component kWh/yr (%) Component kWh/yr (%)
Jin365 PV 8,184,886 64.4 Excess electricity 3,096,288 24.4

Natel526 HydT 4,470,475 35.2 Unmet electric Load 6606 0.0807
Grid purchases 46,168 0.363 Capacity shortage 8132 0.0994
AC primary load 8,177,424 100 Converter losses 245,688 kWh/yr
Total 12,701,529 100 Batteries losses 1,188,126 kWh/yr
Fig. 14. Performance of the batteries during the whole year in the optimal grid-on system.
902
Fig. 15. Optimal grid-on system performance during three consecutive days.
Table 11
Summary of the annual cost breakdown of the optimal off-grid plan.
Element Capital ($) Replacement ($) O&M ($) Fuel ($) Salvage ($) Total ($) Share
BioGen 750,000.00 0.00 26,664.75 156,685.98 240,704.44 692,646.2 6.3%

BES 683,100.00 390,206.81 0.00 0.00 255,826.23 817,480.5 7.48%
PV 5,436,897.31 0.00 750,963.45 0.00 0.00 6,187,860.7 56.67%
HydT 684,411.00 269,298.30 945,332.63 0.00 176,556.55 1,722,485.3 15.77%
BDC 625,261.56 417,665.53 561,361.67 0.00 106,386.21 1,497,902.5 13.71%
System 8,179,669.87 1,077,170.64 2,284,322.50 156,685.98 779,473.43 10,918,375.5 100%
Fig. 16. Nominal cash flow summary results of the optimal off-grid system.
(3466 kWh/year, 0.0424%), a negligible CAPS (8062 kWh/year,

Fig. 17. Cumulative cash flow of the optimal off-grid system.
0.0985%), and surplus energy of 2,166,240 kWh/year (18.4% of total
served load). Further, Similar to the optimal on-grid plan, Fig. 19
demonstrates the energy dispatching during three consecutive extra power usually occurs during daytimes where the production
days in June in which it can be authorized that the HydT generator from both the PV system and the HydT generator is beyond the load
runs at its rated capacity (526.46 kW) throughout the month while requirement; thus, this surplus power is stored in the batteries, as
the PV system produces electricity only during the daytime. The seen in the lower part of Fig. 19. From the same figure, it can also be
903
Fig. 18. Average monthly electric power production of the optimal off-grid plan.
Table 12
Yearly generation summary of the optimal off-grid system.
Component Generation (kWh/yr) % Quantity kWh/yr %
PV 7,202,555 61.3 Excess electricity 2,166,240 18.4

BioGen 79,365 0.675 Unmet load 3466 0.0424
HydT 4,470,475 38.0 CAPS 8062 0.0985
Total 11,752,394 100 Renewable fraction 100%
Fig. 19. Energy scheduling of the optimal off-grid system through three consecutive days.
realized that the load demand hits its maximum value at the energy. Hence, both the BioGas generator and the batteries support
beginning of the nighttime in which the PV system cannot provide the HydT generator to overcome any energy shortage, and
904
therefore, the optimal system can efficiently fulfill the load demand social benefits, and the environment. Besides, Fig. 21-b shows the
at any time. For further focus on the batteries SOC, Fig. 20 portrays same comparison but among the examined off-grid alternatives. It
the batteries' SOC during the whole year, highlighting the frequent can be acknowledged that A8 produces the 2nd lowest amount of
necessity of battery power during the summer. For the rest of the GHGE with only 408.3718 kg/yr behind A9 of zero emissions. Also,
months, the batteries remain almost charged since the load is ful- A8 requires the minimum AREA to establish the project with only
filled by the different generators in the system. 0.0966 km2; however, it offers about 15 jobs/25 years.
3.3.2.3. Ecological, social, and topographical analysis of the optimal 3.4. Model evaluation compared with similar case studies
on/off-grid systems. Fig. 21-a demonstrates a comparison among
the on-grid systems regarding the amount of emitted CO2 each Since the analysis of the current study was challenging to be
year, JOBC, and AREA. Due to the presence of the grid, A3 produces a compared with similar literature owing to the alterations in the
GHGE of 29,177.89 kg/yr; however, this the least amount among all case studies' structure, location, weather conditions, and load na-
on-grid plans. Besides, A3 requires the 2nd smallest AREA to ture, the financial criteria (e.g., TLCC and cost of energy cost “COE”)
establish the system (only 0.11 km2); however, it offers the 2nd have been chosen for evaluating and contrasting the obtained re-
lowest JOBC with nearly 14 jobs/25 years. The obtained results sults with similar case studies’ findings. Moreover, the addressed
confirm the superior and attractive impact of A3 on public health, key objectives, the weighting techniques, and the ranking methods
Fig. 20. Performance of the batteries during the whole year in the optimal stand-alone system.
Fig. 21. Ecological, social, and topographical comparison (a) on-grid plans (b) off-grid plan.
905
Z. Ullah, M.R. Elkadeem, K.M. Kotb et al.
Table 13
Validation of the proposed model findings with similar case studies.
Ref-year Location Load type Energy System elements Topology MCDM Analysis Evaluation criteria Economic metrics
Off- On- Weighting Ranking method Cost Emissions Reliability Social Topographical TLCC COE
grid grid methods (M$) ($/kWh)
-off-grid -off-grid
-on-grid -on-grid
[33]-2020 Iran Remote rural Solar-Wind- BioGas- Fuel cells- Electrolyzer- C C NA TOPSIS C ✕ C ✕ ✕ 0.396 0.164
village Reformer- Battery e0.708 e0.293
0.226 0.096
e0.322 e0.139
[80]- 2020 Bangladesh Small island Solar-Wind C ✕ AHP EDAS -WASPAS - C C C C ✕ 5.172 1.12e2.38
MOORA e10.98
[65]-2020 Iran University campus Solar-Wind- Diesel- Battery C ✕ AHP -BWM TOPSIS - EDAS C C C C ✕ 1.19 0.059
-FUCOM
906
e14.88 e0.733
[66]-2019 Algeria Residential Solar- Biomass ✕ C Fuzzy AHP FPROMETHEE C C ✕ C ✕ 0.187 NR
household e0.270
[68]-2020 Egypt Mid-rise family Solar-Wind- Diesel- Natural gas- Battery C ✕ AHP TOPSIS C C C C ✕ 0.752 0.2374
building VIKOR
CODAS WASPAS
[69]-2021 Egypt Beach resort Solar-Wind- Diesel- Battery- Pumped-Hydro C ✕ Fuzzy AHP Fuzzy-VIKOR C C C ✕ C 1.048 0.101
[70]-2021 Taiwan Typical residential Solar-Wind- Battery C C DIWS IMFO C C C ✕ ✕ 1.3075 0.2430
load 1.2943 0.2405
[71]-2021 Viet Nam Typical residential Solar-Wind- Battery ✕ C NA NA C C C ✕ ✕ 1.286 NR
load
[40]-2019 Benin Household Solar-Wind- Diesel- Battery C ✕ NA TOPSIS C C C C ✕ 0.014621 0.464
Current Pakistan Rural township Solar-Wind- Hydro- BioGas- Battery C C Fuzzy AHP TOPSIS - EDAS - C C C C C 10.9 0.074
study MOORA 12.96 0.088
Abbreviations: NA: Not applicable; NR: Not recorded, TOPSIS: Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution, AHP: Analytic Hierarchy Process, EDAS: Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution,
WASPAS: Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment, MOORA: Multi-Objective Optimization on the basis of Ratio Analysis, BWM: Best Worst Method, FUCOM: Full Consistency Method, FPROMETHEE: Preference Ranking
Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation, VIKOR: VIseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (Multicriteria Optimization and Compromise Solution), DIWS: Decreasing Inertia Weight Strategy, IMFO:
Improved Moth Flame Optimization.
Renewable Energy 179 (2021) 885e910

were also included in the comparison to recognize the discrepancy example, A3 has RF of 99.43% and produced 29,177.89 kg/yr,
among the different case studies. Table 13 summarizes a validation while A8 has only 408.37 kg/yr.
comparison among the presented study and relative research Furthermore, A3 requires only 0.11 km2 to establish the system
works. and offers 14 jobs during the project lifetime. Conversely, A8
As described in subsection 2.3, the TLCC reckon with elements' necessitates the minimum area in the off-grid category with
sizes and the initial expenditures. Thus, its impact was significantly only 0.096 km2 and offers 15 jobs every 25 years.
unfair and differed from a location to another. Alternatively, the
value of the COE metric should be remarked as a coherent cost In our opinion, the proposed research method and results are in
gauge of the current trend of sustainability. By evaluating the COE line with the requirements of the SDG7 and SE4ALL initiatives, and
values tabulated in Table 13, it can be observed that the current therefore can essentially be regarded as a prelude benchmark
study offers a COE below the average for both off and on-grid op- coupled with instrumental guidelines for stakeholders, the energy
tions. This indicates a vigorous uniformity with the other case industry and policymakers for (i) determining the best hybrid rural
studies and should broaden the alertness to the economic practi- electrification design among a set of feasible alternatives to obtain
cality of the presented HCES in Pakistan. Besides, only two of nine modern and sustainable energy service; (ii) creating a priority in-
case studies appointed the fuzzy environment for attaining the vestment plan to boost renewable energy dissemination in
weights of criteria. Also, it can be acknowledged that the five Pakistan, and it can also be appropriately modified and applied for
evaluation criteria have not been examined simultaneously in any other locations and other load categories particularly in developing
of the assessed studies, contrary to what the current study pro- countries with poor electricity access level; and (iii) incentivizing
vides. Obviously, the current study features addressing the design the development of green growth policies and initiatives by
optimization for both on/off-grid hybrid energy systems with countries for carbon mitigation by dropping nonrenewable energy
purely renewable energy sources (solar/wind/hydro/biomass). In use.
contrast, most of the previous investigations have studied either Future research is warranted to expand the energy systems
on-grid or off-grid except [33e70]. Besides, the majority of these analysis by involving other RESs (e.g., geothermal heat and wave
case studies did not employ 100% renewable energy alternatives; power). Further, it is recommended to investigate the uncertainty
instead, they consider the inclusion of fuel-based diesel generators and forecasting of the load power and studying their impact on the
as an auxiliary supply. design results of HCES [119,120]. In addition, demand-side man-
agement can be considered to strengthen the system efficiency and
cost [121]. Lately, it would also be interesting to utilize more recent
4. Conclusions MCDM methods to increase the model accuracy [122,123].
The utilization tendency of hybrid renewable sources is CRediT authorship contribution statement
increasing day-by-day due to the requirements of economic power
and clean electric supply. However, the integration of hybrid Zia Ullah: Conceptualization, Investigation, Validation, Writing
renewable energy sources poses the critical challenges of optimal e original draft, Writing e review & editing. M.R. Elkadeem:
planning and design optimization that need to be solved. Such Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Investigation, Writing
challenges include data collection and availability, in addition to the e original draft, Writing e review & editing. Kotb M. Kotb:
resources’ estimation (e.g., wind speed, solar irradiance, and load Methodology, Visualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Valida-
profile). Furthermore, handling the appropriate evaluation criteria tion, Writing e original draft, Writing e review & editing. Ibrahim
and selecting the proper MCDM approach necessitate compre- B.M. Taha: Validation, Writing e original draft, Writing e review &
hensive and accurate appraisal of methods features in order to editing, Funding acquisition. Shaorong Wang: Project administra-
accomplish the study goals. This paper proposes an integrated tion, Supervision, Funding acquisition.
MCDM-based design optimization model for evaluating the feasi-
bility of different HCES alternatives for supplying Ghulam Shah Declaration of competing interest
Township in Pakistan. The proposed planning model optimized the
integrated design of simultaneous hybrid renewable sources, The authors declare that they have no known competing
including solar, wind, hydro, biomass, and storage systems. The financial interests or personal relationships that could have
proposed method was validated for both on/off-grid connection appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
and investigated twelve specific configuration scenarios consid-
ering mutually conflicting criteria of economy, reliability, ecology, Acknowledgment
society, and topography. The obtained results refer to the following
outcomes: This research is based upon work sponsored by the National Key
Research and Development Program of China under Grant
The optimization results showed that the solar-hydro-battery- 2017YFB0902800. Also, the authors would like to acknowledge the
grid system (A3) is the best economic on-grid configuration financial support received from Taif University Researchers Sup-
with TLCC and COE of $12.96 M and 0.088 $/kWhr, respectively. porting Project Number (TURSP-2020/61), Taif University, Taif,
Besides, the solar-hydro-biogas-battery (A8) is the most eco- Saudi Arabia. Further, this is to acknowledge that this research work
nomic off-grid system with TLCC and COE of $10.9 M and 0.074 is the part of post-doctorate of the first author Dr. Zia Ullah, who
$/kWhr, respectively. appreciate the immense support from Prof. Wu Guoan, School of
The MCDM results revealed that A3 offers a proper trade-off Optical and Electronic Information, and Prof. Shaorong Wang,
solution for supplying the township facilities. This configura- School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, at Huazhong Uni-
tion was ranked 1st among the six on-grid systems using EDAS versity of Science and Technology, China.
and MOORA methods. Moreover, A8 was nominated as the
optimal system by EDAS, MOORA, and TOPSIS methods. Appendix A. Supplementary data
Ecologically, the proposed on/off-grid HCESs showed a superior
performance due to their high renewable penetration level. For Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
907
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.07.063. techno-economic design of grid-isolated hybrid renewable energy system

for electrification of agriculture and irrigation area: a case study in Dongola,
Sudan, Energy Convers. Manag. 196 (2019) 1453e1478, https://doi.org/
References 10.1016/j.enconman.2019.06.085.
[22] T.M. Azerefegn, R. Bhandari, A.V. Ramayya, Techno-economic analysis of
[1] B.F. Giannetti, F. Agostinho, J.J.C. Eras, Z. Yang, C.M.V.B. Almeida, Cleaner grid-integrated PV/wind systems for electricity reliability enhancement in
production for achieving the sustainable development goals, J. Clean. Prod. Ethiopian industrial park, Sustain, Cities Soc. 53 (2020) 101915, https://
271 (2020) 122127, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122127. doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101915.
[2] M. Ikram, Q. Zhang, R. Sroufe, S.Z.A. Shah, Towards a sustainable environ- [23] J.C. Alberizzi, M. Rossi, M. Renzi, A MILP algorithm for the optimal sizing of an
ment: the nexus between ISO 14001, renewable energy consumption, access off-grid hybrid renewable energy system in South Tyrol, Energy Rep. 6
to electricity, agriculture and CO2 emissions in SAARC countries, Sustain. (2020) 21e26, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2019.08.012.
Prod. Consum. 22 (2020) 218e230, https://doi.org/10.1016/ [24] E. Dallavalle, M. Cipolletta, V. Casson Moreno, V. Cozzani, B. Zanuttigh, To-
j.spc.2020.03.011. wards green transition of touristic islands through hybrid renewable energy
[3] D. Bogdanov, M. Ram, A. Aghahosseini, A. Gulagi, A.S. Oyewo, M. Child, systems. A case study in Tenerife, Canary Islands, Renew. Energy 174 (2021)
U. Caldera, K. Sadovskaia, J. Farfan, L. De Souza Noel Simas Barbosa, M. Fasihi, 426e443, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.04.044.
S. Khalili, T. Traber, C. Breyer, Low-cost renewable electricity as the key [25] L. Li, Z. Yao, S. You, C.-H. Wang, C. Chong, X. Wang, Optimal design of
driver of the global energy transition towards sustainability, Energy 227 negative emission hybrid renewable energy systems with biochar produc-
(2021) 120467, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120467. tion, Appl. Energy 243 (2019) 233e249, https://doi.org/10.1016/
[4] P. Fragkos, H. Laura van Soest, R. Schaeffer, L. Reedman, A.C. Ko €berle, j.apenergy.2019.03.183.
N. Macaluso, S. Evangelopoulou, A. De Vita, F. Sha, C. Qimin, J. Kejun, [26] F. Rinaldi, F. Moghaddampoor, B. Najafi, R. Marchesi, Economic feasibility
R. Mathur, S. Shekhar, R.G. Dewi, D.S. Herran, K. Oshiro, S. Fujimori, C. Park, analysis and optimization of hybrid renewable energy systems for rural
G. Safonov, G. Iyer, Energy system transitions and low-carbon pathways in electrification in Peru, Clean Technol. Environ. Policy (2020), https://doi.org/
Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, EU-28, India, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of 10.1007/s10098-020-01906-y.
Korea, Russia and the United States, Energy 216 (2021) 119385, https:// [27] D. Fioriti, S. Pintus, G. Lutzemberger, D. Poli, Economic multi-objective
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119385. approach to design off-grid microgrids: a support for business decision
[5] G. Mutezo, J. Mulopo, A review of Africa's transition from fossil fuels to making, Renew. Energy 159 (2020) 693e704, https://doi.org/10.1016/
renewable energy using circular economy principles, Renew. Sustain. Energy j.renene.2020.05.154.
Rev. 137 (2021) 110609, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110609. [28] O. Krishan, S. Suhag, Techno-economic analysis of a hybrid renewable energy
[6] Y. Zhang, Y. Liu, S. Shu, F. Zheng, Z. Huang, A data-driven distributionally system for an energy poor rural community, J. Energy Storage. 23 (2019)
robust optimization model for multi-energy coupled system considering the 305e319, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2019.04.002.
temporal-spatial correlation and distribution uncertainty of renewable en- [29] M. Ramesh, R.P. Saini, Dispatch strategies based performance analysis of a
ergy sources, Energy (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119171. hybrid renewable energy system for a remote rural area in India, J. Clean.
[7] S. Malik, M. Qasim, H. Saeed, Y. Chang, F. Taghizadeh-Hesary, Energy security Prod. 259 (2020) 120697, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120697.
in Pakistan: perspectives and policy implications from a quantitative anal- [30] M. Das, M.A.K. Singh, A. Biswas, Techno-economic optimization of an off-grid
ysis, Energy Pol. 144 (2020) 111552, https://doi.org/10.1016/ hybrid renewable energy system using metaheuristic optimization ap-
j.enpol.2020.111552. proaches e case of a radio transmitter station in India, Energy Convers.
[8] M. Kamran, M.R. Fazal, M. Mudassar, Towards empowerment of the Manag. 185 (2019) 339e352, https://doi.org/10.1016/
renewable energy sector in Pakistan for sustainable energy evolution: SWOT j.enconman.2019.01.107.
analysis, Renew. Energy 146 (2020) 543e558, https://doi.org/10.1016/ [31] A. Baruah, M. Basu, D. Amuley, Modeling of an autonomous hybrid renew-
j.renene.2019.06.165. able energy system for electrification of a township: a case study for Sikkim,
[9] M. Ikram, P. Zhou, S.A.A. Shah, G.Q. Liu, Do environmental management India, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 135 (2021) 110158, https://doi.org/
systems help improve corporate sustainable development? Evidence from 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110158.
manufacturing companies in Pakistan, J. Clean. Prod. (2019), https://doi.org/ [32] O. Delano, T. Odou, R. Bhandari, R. Adamou, Hybrid off-grid renewable power
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.265. system for sustainable rural electrification in Benin, Renew. Energy 145
[10] M. Kamran, Current status and future success of renewable energy in (2020) 1266e1279, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.032.
Pakistan, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82 (2018) 609e617, https://doi.org/ [33] M. Amin, V. Rad, R. Ghasempour, P. Rahdan, S. Mousavi, Techno-economic
10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.049. analysis of a hybrid power system based on the cost-effective hydrogen
[11] A. Zakaria, F.B. Ismail, M.S.H. Lipu, M.A. Hannan, Uncertainty models for production method for rural electrification , a case study in Iran, Energy
stochastic optimization in renewable energy applications, Renew. Energy (2019) 116421, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116421.
145 (2020) 1543e1571, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.07.081. [34] A. Ghaffari, A. Askarzadeh, Design optimization of a hybrid system subject to
[12] J. Hu, R. Harmsen, W. Crijns-Graus, E. Worrell, Barriers to investment in reliability level and renewable energy penetration, Energy 193 (2020)
utility-scale variable renewable electricity (VRE) generation projects, Renew. 116754, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116754.
Energy 121 (2018) 730e744, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.01.092. [35] W. Zhang, A. Maleki, M.A. Rosen, J. Liu, Sizing a stand-alone solar-wind-
[13] R. Madurai Elavarasan, S. Afridhis, R.R. Vijayaraghavan, U. Subramaniam, hydrogen energy system using weather forecasting and a hybrid search
M. Nurunnabi, SWOT analysis: a framework for comprehensive evaluation of optimization algorithm, Energy Convers. Manag. 180 (2019) 609e621,
drivers and barriers for renewable energy development in significant https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.08.102.
countries, Energy Rep. 6 (2020) 1838e1864, https://doi.org/10.1016/ [36] M.R. Akhtari, M. Baneshi, Techno-economic assessment and optimization of
j.egyr.2020.07.007. a hybrid renewable co-supply of electricity, heat and hydrogen system to
[14] D. Mazzeo, N. Matera, P. De Luca, C. Baglivo, P.M. Congedo, G. Oliveti, enhance performance by recovering excess electricity for a large energy
A literature review and statistical analysis of photovoltaic-wind hybrid consumer, Energy Convers. Manag. 188 (2019) 131e141, https://doi.org/
renewable system research by considering the most relevant 550 articles: an 10.1016/j.enconman.2019.03.067.
upgradable matrix literature database, J. Clean. Prod. 295 (2021) 126070, [37] M.R. Akhtari, I. Shayegh, N. Karimi, Techno-economic assessment and opti-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126070. mization of a hybrid renewable earth - air heat exchanger coupled with
[15] N. McIlwaine, A.M. Foley, D.J. Morrow, D. Al Kez, C. Zhang, X. Lu, R.J. Best, electric boiler, hydrogen, wind and PV configurations, Renew. Energy 148
A state-of-the-art techno-economic review of distributed and embedded (2020) 839e851, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.10.169.
energy storage for energy systems, Energy 229 (2021) 120461, https:// [38] M.J. Hadidian Moghaddam, A. Kalam, S.A. Nowdeh, A. Ahmadi,
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120461. M. Babanezhad, S. Saha, M. Jafar, H. Moghaddam, A. Kalam, S. Arabi, Optimal
[16] M.D.A. Al-falahi, S.D.G. Jayasinghe, H. Enshaei, A review on recent size sizing and energy management of stand-alone hybrid photovoltaic/wind
optimization methodologies for standalone solar and wind hybrid renewable system based on hydrogen storage considering LOEE and LOLE reliability
energy system, Energy Convers. Manag. 143 (2017) 252e274, https:// indices using flower pollination algorithm, Renew. Energy 135 (2019)
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.04.019. 1412e1434, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.09.078.
[17] R. Antunes Campos, L. Rafael do Nascimento, R. Rüther, The complementary [39] S. Salisu, M. Wazir, L. Olatomiwa, M.W. Mustafa, L. Olatomiwa,
nature between wind and photovoltaic generation in Brazil and the role of O.O. Mohammed, Assessment of technical and economic feasibility for a
energy storage in utility-scale hybrid power plants, Energy Convers. Manag. hybrid PV-wind-diesel-battery energy system in a remote community of
221 (2020) 113160, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113160. north central Nigeria, Alexandria Eng. J. 58 (2019) 1103e1118, https://
[18] J. Lian, Y. Zhang, C. Ma, Y. Yang, E. Chaima, A review on recent sizing doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2019.09.013.
methodologies of hybrid renewable energy systems, Energy Convers. Manag. [40] E.O. Diemuodeke, A. Addo, C.O.C. Oko, Y. Mulugetta, M.M. Ojapah, Optimal
199 (2019) 112027, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112027. mapping of hybrid renewable energy systems for locations using multi-
[19] J.M. Weinand, F. Scheller, R. McKenna, Reviewing energy system modelling criteria decision-making algorithm, Renew. Energy 134 (2019) 461e477,
of decentralized energy autonomy, Energy 203 (2020) 117817, https:// https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.11.055.
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117817. [41] H. El-houari, A. Allouhi, S. Rehman, M.S. Buker, T. Kousksou, A. Jamil, B. El
[20] F. Ali, M. Ahmar, Y. Jiang, M. AlAhmad, A techno-economic assessment of Amrani, Feasibility evaluation of a hybrid renewable power generation
hybrid energy systems in rural Pakistan, Energy 215 (2021) 119103, https:// system for sustainable electricity supply in a Moroccan remote site, J. Clean.
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119103. Prod. 277 (2020) 123534, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123534.
[21] M.R. Elkadeem, S. Wang, S.W. Sharshir, E.G. Atia, Feasibility analysis and [42] L. Mellouk, M. Ghazi, A. Aaroud, M. Boulmalf, D. Benhaddou, K. Zine-Dine,
908
Design and energy management optimization for hybrid renewable energy (2020) 116615, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116615.
system- case study: laayoune region, Renew. Energy 139 (2019) 621e634, [64] M.R. Elkadeem, K.M. Kotb, K. Elmaadawy, Z. Ullah, E. Elmolla, B. Liu, S. Wang,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.02.066. A. D an, S.W. Sharshir, Feasibility analysis and optimization of an energy-
[43] M.S. Javed, D. Zhong, T. Ma, A. Song, S. Ahmed, Hybrid pumped hydro and water-heat nexus supplied by an autonomous hybrid renewable power
battery storage for renewable energy based power supply system, Appl. generation system: an empirical study on airport facilities, Desalination 504
Energy 257 (2020) 114026, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114026. (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2021.114952.
[44] R. Wang, J. Xiong, M. He, L. Gao, L. Wang, Multi-objective optimal design of [65] M.M. Samy, S. Barakat, H.S. Ramadan, Techno-economic analysis for rustic
hybrid renewable energy system under multiple scenarios, Renew. Energy electrification in Egypt using multi-source renewable energy based on PV/
151 (2020) 226e237, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.11.015. wind/FC, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/
[45] J. Liu, M. Wang, J. Peng, X. Chen, S. Cao, H. Yang, Techno-economic design j.ijhydene.2019.04.038.
optimization of hybrid renewable energy applications for high-rise resi- [66] K. Elmaadawy, K.M. Kotb, M.R. Elkadeem, S.W. Sharshir, A. Da n, A. Moawad,
dential buildings, Energy Convers. Manag. 213 (2020) 112868, https:// B. Liu, Optimal sizing and techno-enviro-economic feasibility assessment of
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112868. large-scale reverse osmosis desalination powered with hybrid renewable
[46] C. Li, D. Zhou, H. Wang, H. Cheng, D. Li, Feasibility assessment of a hybrid PV/ energy sources, Energy Convers. Manag. 224 (2020) 113377, https://doi.org/
diesel/battery power system for a housing estate in the severe cold zoneda 10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113377.
case study of Harbin, China, Energy 185 (2019) 671e681, https://doi.org/ [67] A. Tiwary, S. Spasova, I.D. Williams, A community-scale hybrid energy sys-
10.1016/j.energy.2019.07.079. tem integrating biomass for localised solid waste and renewable energy
[47] B. Berbaoui, R. Dehini, M. Hatti, An applied methodology for optimal sizing solution: evaluations in UK and Bulgaria, Renew. Energy (2019), https://
and placement of hybrid power source in remote area of South Algeria, doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.02.129.
Renew. Energy 146 (2020) 2785e2796, https://doi.org/10.1016/ [68] M.A. Baseer, A. Alqahtani, S. Rehman, Techno-economic design and evalua-
j.renene.2019.04.011. tion of hybrid energy systems for residential communities: case study of
[48] C. Mokhtara, B. Negrou, A. Bouferrouk, Y. Yao, N. Settou, M. Ramadan, Inte- Jubail industrial city, J. Clean. Prod. 237 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/
grated supplyedemand energy management for optimal design of off-grid j.jclepro.2019.117806.
hybrid renewable energy systems for residential electrification in arid cli- [69] P. Arevalo, D. Benavides, J. Lata-García, F. Jurado, Energy control and size
mates, Energy Convers. Manag. 221 (2020) 113192, https://doi.org/10.1016/ optimization of a hybrid system (photovoltaic-hidrokinetic) using various
j.enconman.2020.113192. storage technologies, Sustain. Cities Soc. 52 (2020) 101773, https://doi.org/
[49] A.A. Eras-Almeida, M.A. Egido-Aguilera, P. Blechinger, S. Berendes, 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101773.
E. Caaman ~ o, E. García-Alcalde, Decarbonizing the galapagos islands: techno- [70] H.K. Xing-Min Lin, Natalia Kireeva, A.V. Timoshin, Amirreza Naderipour,
economic perspectives for the hybrid renewable mini-grid baltra-santa cruz, zulkurnain Abdul- Malek, A Multi-Criteria Framework for Designing of
Sustain. Times 12 (2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062282. Stand-Alone and Grid-Connected Photovoltaic, Wind, Battery Clean Energy
[50] C. Tsai, T.M. Beza, E.M. Molla, C. Kuo, Analysis and sizing of mini-grid hybrid System Considering Reliability and Economic Assessment, Energy, 2021,
renewable energy system for islands, IEEE Access 8 (2020), https://doi.org/ p. 135907, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120154.
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2983172, 70013e7002. [71] S. Arabi-Nowdeh, S. Nasri, P.B. Saftjani, A. Naderipour, Z. Abdul-Malek,
[51] F. Dawood, G.M. Shafiullah, M. Anda, Stand-alone microgrid with 100% H. Kamyab, A. Jafar-Nowdeh, Multi-criteria optimal design of hybrid clean
renewable energy: a case study with hybrid solar pv-battery-hydrogen, energy system with battery storage considering off- and on-grid application,
Sustain. Times 12 (2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/su12052047. J. Clean. Prod. 290 (2021) 125808, https://doi.org/10.1016/
[52] E.L.V. Eriksson, E.M.A. Gray, Optimization of renewable hybrid energy sys- j.jclepro.2021.125808.
tems e a multi-objective approach, Renew. Energy 133 (2019) 971e999, [72] S. Skroufouta, E. Baltas, Investigation of hybrid renewable energy system
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.10.053. (HRES) for covering energy and water needs on the Island of Karpathos in
[53] A.M. Delgado-Torres, L. García-Rodríguez, M.J. del Moral, Preliminary Aegean Sea, Renew. Energy 173 (2021) 141e150, https://doi.org/10.1016/
assessment of innovative seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) desalination j.renene.2021.03.113.
powered by a hybrid solar photovoltaic (PV) - tidal range energy system, [73] I. Gunnarsdottir, B. Davidsdottir, E. Worrell, S. Sigurgeirsdottir, Review of
Desalination 477 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2019.114247. indicators for sustainable energy development, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
[54] M.J. Mayer, A. Szila gyi, G. Gro
f, Environmental and economic multi-objective 133 (2020) 110294, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110294.
optimization of a household level hybrid renewable energy system by ge- [74] I. Gunnarsdottir, B. Davidsdottir, E. Worrell, S. Sigurgeirsdottir, Sustainable
netic algorithm, Appl. Energy 269 (2020) 115058, https://doi.org/10.1016/ energy development: history of the concept and emerging themes, Renew.
j.apenergy.2020.115058. Sustain. Energy Rev. 141 (2021) 110770, https://doi.org/10.1016/
[55] I. Padro n, D. Avila, G.N. Marichal, J.A. Rodríguez, Assessment of hybrid j.rser.2021.110770.
renewable energy systems to supplied energy to autonomous desalination [75] A. Kumar, B. Sah, A.R. Singh, Y. Deng, X. He, P. Kumar, R.C. Bansal, A review of
systems in two islands of the canary archipelago, Renew. Sustain. Energy multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable en-
Rev. 101 (2019) 221e230, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.11.009. ergy development, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 69 (2017) 596e609, https://
[56] M. Kamran, R. Asghar, M. Mudassar, M.I. Abid, Designing and economic as- doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.191.
pects of run-of-canal based micro-hydro system on Balloki-Sulaimanki Link [76] P. Ciller, S. Lumbreras, Electricity for all: the contribution of large-scale
Canal-I for remote villages in Punjab, Pakistan, Renew. Energy 141 (2019) planning tools to the energy-access problem, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
76e87, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.03.126. 120 (2020) 109624, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109624.
[57] M.K. Shahzad, A. Zahid, T. Rashid, M.A. Rehan, M. Ali, M. Ahmad, Techno- [77] R. Alizadeh, L. Soltanisehat, P.D. Lund, H. Zamanisabzi, Improving renewable
economic feasibility analysis of a solar-biomass off grid system for the energy policy planning and decision-making through a hybrid MCDM
electrification of remote rural areas in Pakistan using HOMER software, method, Energy Pol. 137 (2020) 111174, https://doi.org/10.1016/
Renew. Energy 106 (2017) 264e273, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.enpol.2019.111174.
j.renene.2017.01.033. [78] I. Siksnelyte-Butkiene, E.K. Zavadskas, S. Dalia, D. Streimikiene, Multi-criteria
[58] C. Ghenai, M. Bettayeb, Modelling and performance analysis of a stand-alone decision-making (MCDM) for the assessment of renewable energy technol-
hybrid solar PV/Fuel Cell/Diesel Generator power system for university ogies in a household: a review, Energies 13 (2020) 1164. https://www.mdpi.
building, Energy (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.01.019. com/1996-1073/13/5/1164.
[59] Q. Li, J. Loy-Benitez, K.J. Nam, S. Hwangbo, J. Rashidi, C.K. Yoo, Sustainable [79] H.M. Ridha, C. Gomes, H. Hizam, M. Ahmadipour, A.A. Heidari, H. Chen,
and reliable design of reverse osmosis desalination with hybrid renewable Multi-objective optimization and multi-criteria decision-making methods
energy systems through supply chain forecasting using recurrent neural for optimal design of standalone photovoltaic system: a comprehensive re-
networks, Energy 178 (2019) 277e292, https://doi.org/10.1016/ view, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 135 (2021) 110202, https://doi.org/
j.energy.2019.04.114. 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110202.
[60] M. Osman, M.A. Farahat, M. Elsayed, M.O. Atallah, M.A. Farahat, M.E. Lotfy, [80] T. Ali, A.J. Nahian, H. Ma, A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach
T. Senjyu, Operation of conventional and unconventional energy sources to to solve renewable energy technology selection problem for Rohingya ref-
drive a reverse osmosis desalination plant in Sinai Peninsula, Egypt, Renew. ugees in Bangladesh, J. Clean. Prod. 273 (2020) 122967, https://doi.org/
Energy 145 (2020) 141e152, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.05.138. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122967.
[61] K.M. Kotb, M.R. Elkadeem, M.F. Elmorshedy, A. D an, Coordinated power [81] M. Ramezanzade, J. Saebi, H. Karimi, A. Mostafaeipour, A new hybrid
management and optimized techno-enviro-economic design of an autono- decision-making framework to rank power supply systems for government
mous hybrid renewable microgrid: a case study in Egypt, Energy Convers. organizations: a real case study, Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments. 41
Manag. 221 (2020) 113185, https://doi.org/10.1016/ (2020) 100779, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2020.100779.
j.enconman.2020.113185. [82] A. Kumar, A.R. Singh, Y. Deng, X. He, P. Kumar, R.C. Bansal, Integrated
[62] M.R. Elkadeem, S. Wang, A.M. Azmy, E.G. Atiya, Z. Ullah, S.W. Sharshir, assessment of a sustainable microgrid for a remote village in hilly region,
A systematic decision-making approach for planning and assessment of Energy Convers. Manag. 180 (2019) 442e472, https://doi.org/10.1016/
hybrid renewable energy-based microgrid with techno-economic optimi- j.enconman.2018.10.084.
zation: a case study on an urban community in Egypt, Sustain. Cities Soc. 54 [83] M. Seddiki, A. Bennadji, Multi-criteria evaluation of renewable energy al-
(2020) 102013, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.102013. ternatives for electricity generation in a residential building, Renew. Sustain.
[63] A.M. Abdelshafy, J. Jurasz, H. Hassan, A.M. Mohamed, Optimized energy Energy Rev. 110 (2019) 101e117, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.046.
management strategy for grid connected double storage (pumped storage- [84] E. Mastrocinque, F.J. Ramírez, A. Honrubia-escribano, D.T. Pham, An AHP-
battery) system powered by renewable energy resources, Energy 192 based multi-criteria model for sustainable supply chain development in
909
the renewable energy sector, Expert Syst. Appl. 150 (2020) 113321, https:// 120729, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120729.
doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113321. [105] A. Bhatt, M.P. Sharma, R.P. Saini, Feasibility and sensitivity analysis of an off-
[85] A.A. Supciller, F. Toprak, Selection of wind turbines with multi-criteria de- grid micro hydro-photovoltaic-biomass and biogas-diesel-battery hybrid
cision making techniques involving neutrosophic numbers: a case from energy system for a remote area in Uttarakhand state, India, Renew. Sustain.
Turkey, Energy 207 (2020) 118237, https://doi.org/10.1016/ Energy Rev. 61 (2016) 53e69, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.03.030.
j.energy.2020.118237. [106] S.A. Mousavi, R.A. Zarchi, F.R. Astaraei, R. Ghasempour, F.M. Khaninezhad,
[86] J. Zhou, Y. Wu, C. Wu, F. He, B. Zhang, F. Liu, A geographical information Decision-making between renewable energy configurations and grid
system based multi-criteria decision-making approach for location analysis extension to simultaneously supply electrical power and fresh water in
and evaluation of urban photovoltaic charging station: a case study in Bei- remote villages for five different climate zones, J. Clean. Prod. 279 (2021)
jing, Energy Convers. Manag. 205 (2020) 112340, https://doi.org/10.1016/ 123617, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123617.
j.enconman.2019.112340. [107] W. Uddin, B. Khan, N. Shaukat, M. Majid, G. Mujtaba, A. Mehmood, S.M. Ali,
[87] M.R. Elkadeem, K.M. Kotb, Z. Ullah, E.G. Atiya, A. Da n, S. Wang, A two-stage U. Younas, M. Anwar, A.M. Almeshal, Biogas potential for electric power
multi-attribute analysis method for city-integrated hybrid mini-grid design, generation in Pakistan: a survey, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 54 (2016)
Sustain. Cities Soc. 65 (2020) 102603, https://doi.org/10.1016/ 25e33, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.083.
j.scs.2020.102603. [108] R. Jamil, Hydroelectricity consumption forecast for Pakistan using ARIMA
[88] K. Deveci, R. Cin, A. Kag ızman, A modified interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy modeling and supply-demand analysis for the year 2030, Renew. Energy 154
CODAS method and its application to multi-criteria selection among (2020) 1e10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.02.117.
renewable energy alternatives in Turkey, Appl, Soft Comput. J. 96 (2020) [109] I.R. of P. NEPRA, Tariff Standards and Procedure. Recommendation of the
106660, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106660. Consumer-End Tariff, 2019. Https://Nepra.Org.Pk/Tariff/Distribution%
[89] O.N. Mensour, B. El Ghazzani, B. Hlimi, A. Ihlal, A geographical information 20SEPCO.Php.
system-based multi-criteria method for the evaluation of solar farms loca- [110] M.A. Cuesta, C.E. Borges, A critical analysis on hybrid renewable energy
tions: a case study in Souss-Massa area, southern Morocco, Energy 182 modeling tools : an emerging opportunity to include social indicators to
(2019) 900e919, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.06.063. optimise systems in small communities, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 122
[90] Y. Wu, M. Liao, M. Hu, J. Lin, J. Zhou, B. Zhang, C. Xu, A decision framework of (2020) 109691, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109691.
low-speed wind farm projects in hilly areas based on DEMATEL-entropy- [111] S. Bahramara, M.P. Moghaddam, M.R. Haghifam, Optimal planning of hybrid
TODIM method from the sustainability perspective: a case in China, Energy renewable energy systems using HOMER: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy
213 (2020) 119014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119014. Rev. 62 (2016) 609e620, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.039.
[91] A.M. Rosso-Cero n, D.F. Leo
n-Cardona, V. Kafarov, Soft computing tool for [112] M. Shao, Z. Han, J. Sun, C. Xiao, S. Zhang, Y. Zhao, A review of multi-criteria
aiding the integration of hybrid sustainable renewable energy systems, case decision making applications for renewable energy site selection, Renew.
of Putumayo, Colombia, Renew. Energy 174 (2021) 616e634, https://doi.org/ Energy 157 (2020) 377e403, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.04.137.
10.1016/j.renene.2021.04.106. [113] B. Khoshnevisan, N. Duan, P. Tsapekos, M.K. Awasthi, Z. Liu, A. Mohammadi,
[92] Y. Liu, C.M. Eckert, C. Earl, A review of fuzzy AHP methods for decision- I. Angelidaki, D.C. Tsang, Z. Zhang, J. Pan, L. Ma, M. Aghbashlo, M. Tabatabaei,
making with subjective judgements, Expert Syst. Appl. 161 (2020) 113738, H. Liu, A critical review on livestock manure biorefinery technologies: sus-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113738. tainability, challenges, and future perspectives, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
[93] M. Behzadian, S. Khanmohammadi Otaghsara, M. Yazdani, J. Ignatius, A state- 135 (2021) 110033, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110033.
of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications, Expert Syst. Appl. 39 (2012), https:// [114] A.Y. Hatata, M.M. El-Saadawi, S. Saad, A feasibility study of small hydro
doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.056. power for selected locations in Egypt, Energy Strateg. Rev. 24 (2019)
[94] D. Yu, T. Pan, Tracing knowledge diffusion of TOPSIS: a historical perspective 300e313, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.04.013.
from citation network, Expert Syst. Appl. 168 (2021) 114238, https://doi.org/ [115] S. Mohseni, A.C. Brent, D. Burmester, A comparison of metaheuristics for the
10.1016/j.eswa.2020.114238. optimal capacity planning of an isolated, battery-less, hydrogen-based mi-
[95] P.K. Patnaik, P.T.R. Swain, S.K. Mishra, A. Purohit, S. Biswas, Composite ma- cro-grid, Appl. Energy 259 (2020) 114224, https://doi.org/10.1016/
terial selection for structural applications based on AHP-MOORA approach, j.apenergy.2019.114224.
Mater. Today Proc. 33 (2020) 5659e5663, https://doi.org/10.1016/ [116] E. Sanchez-Díez, E. Ventosa, M. Guarnieri, A. Trovo , C. Flox, R. Marcilla,
j.matpr.2020.04.063. F. Soavi, P. Mazur, E. Aranzabe, R. Ferret, Redox flow batteries: status and
[96] P. Karande, S. Chakraborty, A fuzzy-MOORA approach for ERP system se- perspective towards sustainable stationary energy storage, J. Power Sources
lection, Decis. Sci. Lett. 1 (2012) 11e22, https://doi.org/10.5267/ 481 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.228804.
j.dsl.2012.07.001. [117] M.M. Rahman, A.O. Oni, E. Gemechu, A. Kumar, Assessment of Energy Stor-
[97] M.K. Ghorabaee, E.K. Zavadskas, L. Olfat, Z. Turskis, Multi-criteria inventory age Technologies: A Review, Elsevier Ltd, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/
classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from j.enconman.2020.113295.
average solution (EDAS), Inform 26 (2015) 435e451, https://doi.org/ [118] M.A. Hannan, M. Faisal, P. Jern Ker, R.A. Begum, Z.Y. Dong, C. Zhang, Review
10.15388/Informatica.2015.57. of optimal methods and algorithms for sizing energy storage systems to
[98] M. Behzad, S. Hashemkhani Zolfani, D. Pamucar, M. Behzad, A comparative achieve decarbonization in microgrid applications, Renew. Sustain. Energy
assessment of solid waste management performance in the Nordic countries Rev. 131 (2020) 110022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110022.
based on BWM-EDAS, J. Clean. Prod. 266 (2020) 122008, https://doi.org/ [119] L. Xu, S. Wang, R. Tang, Probabilistic load forecasting for buildings consid-
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122008. ering weather forecasting uncertainty and uncertain peak load, Appl. Energy
[99] HOMER Pro version. 3.14, Technical User Manual (2020) (n.d.), https://users. 237 (2019) 180e195, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.01.022.
homerenergy.com. [120] Q. Tan, X. Wen, Y. Sun, X. Lei, Z. Wang, G. Qin, Evaluation of the risk and
[100] M. Irfan, Y. Hao, M. Ikram, H. Wu, R. Akram, A. Rauf, Assessment of the public benefit of the complementary operation of the large wind-photovoltaic-
acceptance and utilization of renewable energy in Pakistan, Sustain. Prod. hydropower system considering forecast uncertainty, Appl. Energy 285
Consum. 27 (2020) 312e324, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.10.031. (2021) 116442, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116442.
[101] M. Shahid, K. Ullah, K. Imran, I. Mahmood, A. Mahmood, Electricity supply [121] U.G.K. Mulleriyawage, W.X. Shen, Impact of demand side management on
pathways based on renewable resources: a sustainable energy future for optimal sizing of residential battery energy storage system, Renew. Energy
Pakistan, J. Clean. Prod. 263 (2020) 121511, https://doi.org/10.1016/ 172 (2021) 1250e1266, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.03.122.
j.jclepro.2020.121511. [122] W. Xie, Z. Xu, Z. Ren, E. Herrera-Viedma, A new multi-criteria decision model
[102] A. Sadiqa, A. Gulagi, C. Breyer, Energy transition roadmap towards 100% based on incomplete dual probabilistic linguistic preference relations, Appl.
renewable energy and role of storage technologies for Pakistan by 2050, Soft Comput. J. 91 (2020) 106237, https://doi.org/10.1016/
Energy 147 (2018) 518e533, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.027. j.asoc.2020.106237.
[103] NASA Prediction of Worldwide Energy Resources (n.d.), https://power.larc. [123] S.P. Wan, W.B. Huang Cheng, J.Y. Dong, Interactive multi-criteria group
nasa.gov/. decision-making with probabilistic linguistic information for emergency
[104] S. Ali, T. Fazal, F. Javed, A. Hafeez, M. Akhtar, B. Haider, M. Saif ur Rehman, assistance of COVID-19, Appl. Soft Comput. 107 (2021) 107383, https://
W.B. Zimmerman, F. Rehman, Investigating biodiesel production strategies doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2021.107383.
as a sustainable energy resource for Pakistan, J. Clean. Prod. 259 (2020)
910

MCDM008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MCDM008

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MCDM008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Renewable Energy 179 (2021) 885e910

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Multi-criteria decision-making model for optimal planning of on/off

1. Introduction serious threat to economies, energy security, and sustainable

Nomenclatures HRES Hybrid Renewable Energy System

Fig. 3. Map and location of the investigated area.71

2.3. Design optimization model

incurred by the system through the system life cycle, including

Buffalo 9269 15 97,328 3504 3042

Fig. 8. The framework of the developed hybrid MCDM approach.

temperature at standard test conditions, Tamb ¼ ambient air tem-

2.5.2. Wind turbine

Name Scenario Component sizes

solar-wind-hydro-biogas-battery-converter-grid A1 on-grid 2072.54 76 526.46 700 153 1132.47

Name Scenario Assessment criteria

solar-wind-hydro-biogas-battery-converter-grid A1 on-grid 9.8 0.590 8077.93 44405.98 1.56

TLCC CAPS GHGE AREA JOBC Weight Rank

TLCC (1.000,1.000,1.000) (1.000,3.976,6.000) (1.000,1.316,4.000) (1.000,2.213,5.000) (5.000,6.481,8.000) 0.295 1

TLCC CAPS GHGE AREA JOBC

on-grid þve best 0.077094434 0.109127269 0.0036243 0.001760403 0.004350775

Conﬁg. name type Sþ S- TOPSIS Score Final Rank

A1 on-grid 0.031583881 0.155559276 0.831231443 3

A1 On-grid 0.108407 0.076614147 2 A7 Off-grid 0.091391 0.03018531 4

A1 on-grid 0.09538956 0.030858516 0.673354303 0.880855729 0.777105016 4

3.2.4. EDAS results 3.3.1. Optimal on-grid system (solar-hydro-battery-converter-grid

with a maximum production arises in October. The HydT worked

negative to positive. The payback is also a sign of how long the

3.3.1.2. Energy analysis. The average monthly electric power pro-

BES $296,700.00 $169,483.77 $0.00 $111,116.44 $355,067.32

technology's excessive capital cost. Conversely, the BioG cost is the

3.3.2.2. Energy analysis. Fig. 18 depicts the monthly average elec-

Component kWh/yr (%) Component kWh/yr (%)

Jin365 PV 8,184,886 64.4 Excess electricity 3,096,288 24.4

BioGen 750,000.00 0.00 26,664.75 156,685.98 240,704.44 692,646.2 6.3%

(3466 kWh/year, 0.0424%), a negligible CAPS (8062 kWh/year,

Component Generation (kWh/yr) % Quantity kWh/yr %

PV 7,202,555 61.3 Excess electricity 2,166,240 18.4

Renewable Energy 179 (2021) 885e910

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.07.063. techno-economic design of grid-isolated hybrid renewable energy system

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.