136 IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. 10, No.

4, December 1995

DESIGN SCENARIOS FOR INTEGRATED RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS

R.Ramakumar LAbouzahr K. Krishnan K. Ashenayi

Fellow, IEEE Member, IEEE Student Member, IEEE Member, IEEE
Director Research Associate Research Assistant Associate professor

Engineering Energy Laboratory Department of EE

Oklahoma State University The University of Tulsa
Stillwater, OK USA 74078 Tulsa, OK USA 74 104

KEYWORDS reasons, it is prudent to use a variety of locally available

Integrated Renewable Energy Systems (IRES), IRES Design resources to supply the needs by employing Integrated
Scenarios, IRES Design Examples, IRES Design Tradeoffs, Renewable Energy Systems (IRES) [8]. As the "renewables-
Photovoltaic systems, Wind-Electric Conversion Systems, intensive global energy scenario" [9] moves towards reality, the
Hybrid Systems, Biogas Usage, Renewable Energy System question of designing IRES to optimize an objective function
Design, Stand Alone Energy System Design, Artificial such as capital cost or cost of energy takes on an increasing
Intelligence Applications, Knowledge Based Design Approach. importance.
Several approaches have been proposed to design IRES.
ABSTRACT These include linear programming [10,11], goal programming
The wide variety of renewable energy resowces and their [12], probabilistic approach involving loss of power supply
highly site-specific and variable nature, coupled with different probability [13], trade off methods [14], and knowledge-based
types and qualities of energy needs, pose a challenging problem approach [151.
to the designers of Integrated Renewable Energy Systems The purpose of this paper is to discuss various design
(IRES). This paper discusses some typical design scenarios and scenarios for IRES by employing the knowledge-based design
the formulation of designs using the knowledge-based design tool IRES-KB presented in Reference 15. This design tool has
tool IRES-KB with the aid of KAPPA@-PC development tools. been implemented using KAPPA@-PC development tools. The
A remote village with no electrical grid connection is chosen for example m a r i o s considered and the subsequent discussion of
this study since renewables are most likely to make their the results bring out the versatility of IRES-KB.
greatest impact in such locations. The versatility of IRES-KB is
brought out in the discussion of the results. DESiGN CONSIDERATIONS
The outputs of an IRES are in several forms: biogas for
INTRODUCTION cooking, digested sludge from biogas digesters for fertilizer,
Interest in renewable energy sources is at its highest level potable and domestic water supply, low-grade thermal energy
since the period immediately following the oil embargo of 1973. for water and space heating, and electricity for lighting,
In additipn to the realization of the economic and geopolitical educational and communication devices and refrigeration.
implications of conventional nonrenewable energy sources, Depending on the circumstances, irrigation water supply could
environmental concems are playing an important role in this also be an output. This makes the quantification of benefits
resurgence [l]. Economic aspects of renewable energy rather difficult on a common basis such as energy. Although
technologies are sufficiently promising at present to include the life-cycle costs, including operation and maintenance (O&M)
development of markets in-par with the traditional technological costs, will be the ultimate measure of the economic viability of
push [ 2 4 . IRES, because of the capital-intensive nature of many of the
One of the most promising markets for renewables exist in hardware, "tion of capital cost is considered to be a
supplying energy to remote areas, especially in developing worthwhile goal. Developing countries, which stand to benefit
countries [5-71. For technical, economic, and enviromental the most by employing IRES, are typically capital-short and this
provides additional justification for minimizing the total capital
cost. Finally, with well-designed systems employing appropriate
95 WM 089-3 EC A paper recommended and approved technologies as much as possible , O&M costs are expected to
by t h e IEEE Energy Development and Power Generation be reasonably low m developing countries where labor is fairly
Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society f o r inexpensive.
p r e s e n t a t i o n a t t h e 1995 IEEE/PES Winter Meeting, The interaction among different technologies and the
January 29, t o February 2 , 1995, New York, NY.
Manuscript submitted December 20, 7993; made a v a i l a b l e alternate uses of resources also require careful consideration. In
f o r p r i n t i n g November 23,1994. the case of biomass, its widespread use as a fuel for cooking by
buming is very damaging to the environment and human health.
Use of biogas digesters allows the biomass to be used for
cooking in the form of biogas and the left over sludge can be
used as fertilizer to retum the nutrients back to the soil.
Installation of small wind energy conversion systems will not
encroach much on the land use since the area surrounding them

0885-8969/95/$04.00 0 1995 IEEE

 737
can be used for other purposes such as grazing and agriculture. IRES will most likely alter the energy consumption patterns and
Storing water in elevated storage tanks and releasing it later for best estimates of the modified energy needs are the ones that are
potable and domestic consumption can only have beneficial required as inputs for the design of an IRES.
impacts. Cyclic use of water in an elevated storagdrelease The designer should be aware of evaluating not only the
mode using mini- and micro-hydro systems in conjunction with quantity, but also the quality of energy needs. A-priori matching
photovoltaic- and wind-driven water pumps will not impact of some of the critical needs and cost-effective energy converters
irrigation related use of water from other sources. Solar can significantly aid the design process. Where the available
collectors and photovoltaic panels will require some land use financial resources are limited, the designer must prioritize the
area, but the small-scale nature of these devices required for needs as appropriate an& try to satisfy as many of them as
rural use will result in only minimal impact. With this possible. Whether to supply energy to improve the basic living
background, the flexibility of the approach presented can only be environment or to "productive" uses such as agriculture and
an asset. small-scale industries is one of many socioeconomic issues that
will have to be resolved.
DESIGN TRADEOFFS
The highly-variable and seasonal nature of renewable IRES-KB
resources and needs pose many challenges to the designer. First IRES-IU3 is user interactive. It starts by asking the user
of all, the year should be divided into several time segments (or the number of seasons per year to be employed. Each season is
seasons) to enable the use of one model (deterministic or characterized by a combination of a certain set of energy
probabilistic) for each of the resources and needs for each resources and energy needs which constitute the inputs to the
season. Thus, it is imperative that the first step in the design program [21]. For many of the inputs, the user has to choose
procedure is to arrive at seasonal designs. The difficult task of values that are provided by the program interface. Typical
formulating one design applicable for the entire year can be screens from IRES-KB are shown in Figures 1 and 2.
approached is several ways. One could assemble the largest Figure 1 shows a part of the energy sources for season 1.
design values in each categoly into the final system The 0's indicate the minimum value that can be entered. The
configuration. Obviously, this will lead to the most expensive user has the option to choose from a list of choices as shown for
system and will result in excess energy generation over a large the wind regime. It can also be seen that the volume of falling
fraction of the year. Unless this excess energy can be water available per day is 110 m3.
"productively" utilized, such a conservative design cannot be Figure 2 shows the energy needs for season 1. The screen
justified. An alternative approach is to use the largest design indicates a need of 20 kwh for communication, 300 kwh for
value for the least expensive subsystem and work backwards to cooking, 30 kwh for lighting, 20 kwh for refrigeration, and 100
see whether any of the other subsystems can be down-sized and kwh for low grade heating. The user need to go into each slot
still be able to satis@ all the energy needs throughout the year. and enter the requirements.
If that is not possible, then the largest design values for two of
the least expensive subsystems are selected and the procedure is DESIGN EXAMPLES AND DISCUSSION
repeated. Even with this approach, some excess energy A remote agricultural village with no electrical grid
generation cannot be avoided during some of the seasons. Once connection and a population of 300 is chosen as an example to
again, seasonal loads should be introduced to take advantage of discuss the various design scenarios for the application of IRES-
the availability of energy. Yet another alternative is to down- KB. In all the cases the year is divided into four seasons. It is
size some of the non-critical needs during some of the seasons to assumed that there are 250 cows, 300 sheep, 500 chicken and
match the energy needs with the energy that would be generated 200 swine in the village. It is also assumed that animal wastes
by a trial and error process. are not seasonal while crop residues are. The animal wastes and
crop residues are converted to biogas through proper conversion
DESIGN SCENARIOS devices. The amount of biogas produced per kg of wet animal
Remote areas, where renewable energy systems can make waste and crop residues and the energy content of biogas are
their greatest impact, for the most part will not have data on the tabulated in Appendix I [22]. The collection efficiencies for all
available resources. This is especially true in developing animal wastes and crop residues are set at 0.85, but the user of
countries. Often, the designer has to estimate the resources IRES-Kl3 has the option to choose different values if necessary.
either based on data available at similar or nearby locations or Nightsoil is not considered as a source of biogas in the following
rely on qualitative information, which may be of the form: highly scenarios. The water head for pumped water is assumed to be
windy, highly variable, calm, mostly cloudy, etc. 10 m. The efficiencies associated with the various resource-
Instrumentation is available to obtain information on wind and need combinations are taken as in Reference 15. The assumed
insolation over a short period of time if needed quickly. But, values for costs [23-251 of components are tabulated in
such information is only a snapshot and does not represent long- Appendix E. The different scenarios considered are:
term averages that are needed for system design.
Depending on the geographic location, remote areas may 0 Scenario I: the village has all the resources (biomass, wind,
be blessed with abundance of some resources and total lack of insolation and falling water) available for use during all the
some others. IRES-Kl3 can handle all such cases as long as seasons.
proper resource inputs are used. 0 Scenario II: wind speed is too low to be used during one
Estimation of needs is fairly straight-forwardin the case of season.
renewable energy systems dedicated to specific purposes such as 0 Scenario III: biomass resources are not available and are
cathodic protection, remote communication systems, etc. Rural not to be used in the design.
energy needs in developing countries are quite difficult to 0 Scenario IV:PV cost is down to $0.60 per peak watt.
estimate [16-20]. Detailed discussions with local populace will
be needed to arrive at realistic values. Also, introduction of
738
IRES-KB gives two separate WECSPV values.
Enter L e source for L e season 1
WECSPVI is the design for seasons 2 to 4, and WECSRV2 is
for season # I . WECSPV2 consists only of PV with battery
.. storage. The total cost of the system increases as expected to
CROPRESIDUES Kg P" aalr 100
1 0
$ 157,652.00 . In this kind of situations the user has to make
FIRELOG Kg Por ddY 11 n I 0 ..
decisions based on requirements and economics. Out of the two
PV areas the user can choose the larger one so that the needs
WIND REGIME w4
during a l l the seasons can be satisfied. The PV area required is
(FMmwinddectWOj 286 mz.The design program IRES-KB is amenable to these
FRACTIONOF DAYTIME 0.3 Situations.
VOLUMEBF FALLIHG WATER PER 110
DAY 1 3 Scenario III
In this scenario, biomass is not available. By setting 'the
biomass resource values to zero, the user can obtain an optimum
design which does not include biomass. Naturally the system
Figure 1. Energy Resources cost goes up as the needs have to be satisfied by alternate
means. The optimum design values are summarized in Table 3 .
Low grade heat requirements are satisfied by solar
Enter the input needs per day in kWh for season #l collectors as they are the only economical alternative. Pumping
water is satisfied by the wind mechanical conversion system.
0 .. The total system cost now jumps to $ 268,063.00 which is
COMMUNICATION 120 I higher than those for Scenario I and Scenario II.
COOKING 1300 I 0 ..
Scenario IV
LIGHTING
30 I 0 ..
This scenario considers the futuristic case in which the
REFRIGERATION 20 I 0 .. cost of PV modules drops to $ 0.60 per peak watt. Because of
the high cost of PV, scenarios I and III exclude PV in the final
design. By " i n g a low PV cost of $0.60 per peak watt the
resulting design includes PV in its mix. The total system cost
becomes $ 29,470.00 which is the lowest of all the four
scenarios considered. For the same design, in scenario I the
system cost was $ 29,837.00 . The various cases discussed
Figure 2. Energy Needs clearly show the versatility of the knowledge-based design
program.
The characteristics and the amounts of resources available The comparitive cost figures for the four different
during each season for each of the four scenarios discussed are scenarios considered are tabulated in Table 5.
listed in Table 1. The daily energy needs are shown in Table 2 .
These values are best estimates based on available published CONCLUDING REMARKS
work for a small village of this type. The optimal resourceneed Some typical scenarios for designing stand alone
combinations for the four scenarios obtained using the design renewable energy systems have been presented using IRES-KB.
procedure are tabulated in Table 3 . The ratings of the wind The user-friendly design tool IRES-KB can be effectively used
electric conversion system (WECS) and photovoltaic system to design multi-input multi-output renewable energy systems. It
(PV) and the total system cost for the four scenarios considered has been tested under many different design constraints with
are as shown in Table 4. satisfactory results. These constraints include cases where one
or more of the resources are not viable (either economically or
Scenario I technidy or both) and cases requiring different combinations
In this scenario, cooking and low grade heat requirements of energy needs. IRES-IU3 provides a listing of the types and
are satisfied completely by biogas because of the availability of amounts of resources to be used for different energy needs along
biomass resources and their low cost. Solar collectors are not with the design values for the energy conversion and energy
used to satisfy low grade heat requirements. The total volume storage devices. Obviously, these values will have to be
of biogas produced in each season is also indicated in Table 3. roundd-off to conform to readily available hardware. Typically,
Communication and educational devices, lighting and the user enters his or her own sets of inputs to initiate the design
refrigeration are satisfied by electricity. Falling water process. In the absence of such inputs, default values have been
contributes very little to electricity generation and hence it is not built into the program. Even the default values can be adjusted
considered. The optimum design consists of a WECS rating of to suit the circumstances. This design tool can be used in the
10 kW, a battery storage of 94.74 kwh at a cost of $ 23,459.00 field (remote locations) with the possibility of active interaction
(WECS and storage). The total system cost is $29,837.00. with the local populace [26]. In this case, IRES-KJ3 doubles as a
planning tool. As renewables penetrate the global
Scenario 11 KB can play an important role to promote their enlightened use.
In this scenario one season is chosen to have a very poor
wind regime so that WECS and WMCS cannot be used during ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
that season. The corresponding wind regime for season#l is set This work was supported by the Oklahoma Center for the
to regime WO corresponding to wind speeds near zero as shown Advancement of Science and Technology (OCAST) under
in Table 1. project No. AR 2-045, Contract No. 4618. The support of the
 739

regional electric utilities through the Oklahoma State University -

K. Ashenayi and R. Ramakumar, "IRES A Program to
Engineering Energy Laboratory is also gratefully acknowledged. Design Integrated Renewable Energy systems," Enera,
Additional support came from the Power Application Research vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 1143-1152, 1990.
Center (PARC) at the University of Tulsa. E. S. Gavanidou and A. G. Bakirtzis, "Design of a Stand
Alone System with Renewable Energy Sources Using
NOMENCLATURE Trade off Methods," IEEE Trans. on Energv Conv., vol.
ccx cloud cover regime x. x=O corresponds to cloudless 7, no. 1, pp. 4248, March 1992.
regime and x=10 to total cloud cover. See Reference R. Ramakumar, I. Abouzahr, and K. Ashenayi, "A
15. KnowledgeBased Approach to the Design of Integrated
LPSP loss of power supply probability Renewable Energy Systems," IEEE Trans. on Energy
LGH low grade heat Conv.. vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 648-659, December 1992.
PV photovoltaic system C. L. Gupta, K. Usha Rao, and V. A. Vasudevaraju,
PR WECS rating "Domestic Energy Consumption in India (Pondicherry
WECS wind electric conversion system Region)," Energy, vol. 5, no. 12 ,pp. 1213-1222, 1980.
WMCS wind mechanical conversion system S. Siwatibau, Urban Energv in Fiii, Technical study 59e.
wind regime x. x=O corresponds to wind speed near Ottawa, C a n a k International development Research
zero and x=10 to high wind speeds. See Reference 15. Centre, 1987.
V. B. Amatya, M.Chandrashekar, and J. B. Robinson,
REFERENCES "Residential Sector Energy-Supply-Demand Analysis: A
U. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Modelling Approach for Developing Countries and
Changing bv Demees: Stem to Reduce Greenhouse Fuelwood-Supply Sustainability in Nepal," Energv, vol.
-
Gases, OTA-0-482, Washington, DC:U. S. Government 18, no. 4, pp. 341-354, 1993
Printing Office, February 1991. F. Zhen, "A Model of the Energy-Supply and Demand
J. Douglas, "Renewables on the Rise," EPRI Journal, vol. System at the Village Level," Energv, vol. 18, no. 4, pp.
16, no. 4, pp. 16-25, June 1991. 365-369, 1993.
R. W. Larson, F. Vignola, andR. West, Eds. Economics R. Ramakumar, "Technical and Socio-Economic Aspects
of Solar Energv Technologies, Boulder, Colorado: of Solar Energy and Rural Development in Developing
American Solar Energy Society, December 1992. Countries," Solar E n e r a vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 643-647,
R. Ramakumar, et al., "Economic Aspects of Advanced 1976.
Energy Technologies," Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 81, R. Rmakumar, et al., "IRES-KB: A Design Tool for
no. 3, pp. 318-332, March 1993. Integrated Renewable Energy Systems," Proc. 7th
R. Ramakumar, "Renewable Energy Sources and Oklahoma Svmmsium on Artificial Intelligence,
Developing Countries," IEEE Trans. on Power AUP. h Stillwater, Oklahoma, pp. 149-155, November 1993.
Svstems, vol. PAS-102, no. 2, pp. 502-510, February, Methane Generation from Human, Animal and
1983. Agricultural Wastes, Report of an adhoc panel of the
R. D. Perlack, H. G. Jones, and D. B. Waddle, "A Survey advisory commitee on technology innovation of the board
of Renewable Energy Technologies for Rural on Science and Technology for International
Applications," Energv, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 1119-1127, Development, National Academy of Sciences,
1990. Washington D.C., 1977.
U. S. Congress, Ofice of Technology Assessment, The Potential of Renewable Energy, An Interlaboratory
Energv in DeveloDing Countries, OTA-E486, White Paper, Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI),
Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, March 1990.
January 1991. R. Ramakumar and J. E. Bigger, "Photovoltaic Systems,"
R. Ramakumar and W. L. Hughes, "Renewable Energy Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 365-377,
Sources and Rural Development in Developing March 1993.
Countries," IEEE Trans. on Education, vol. E-24, no. 3, R. D. Richardson and G. M. McNemey, "Wind Energy
pp. 242-252, August 1981. Systems," Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 81, no. 3, pp.
T. B. Johansson, et al. , "Renewable Fuels and 378-389, March 1993.
Electricity for a Growing World Economy," Chapter 1, H. Khatib, "Electrification for Developing Countries,"
pp. 1-71, Renewable Energv: Sources of Fuels and EPRI Journal, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 28-32, September 1993.
Electricitv, Washington, DC:Island Press, 1993.
A. K. N. Reddy and D. K. Subramanian, "The Design of
Rural Energy Centers," in Rural Technologv, pp. 109-
130, Bangalore, India: Indian Academy of Sciences,
1980.
R. Ramakumar, P. S. Shetty and K. Ashenayi, "A Linear
Programming Approach to the Design of Integrated
Renewable Energy Systems for Developing Countries,"
E E E Trans. on Energv Conv., vol. EC-1, no. 4, pp. 18-
24, December 1986.
K. M. Clietty, ODtimization Techniaues Amlied to the
Design of Integrated Rural Energv Centers, Ph.D.
Dissertation, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore,
India, February 1989.
740
Table 1

ENERGY RESOURCES

Scenario I thru

Table 2

Energy Needs
Volume of Water
Pumped Daily, m3
Communication &
Educational
Devices k W d a y
cooking
kWhlda;
Lighting
kWday
Refrigeration
kWday
Low Grade Heat
kWday
 741

Table 3

RESOURCE-NEED ALLOCATION

Allocation Season 1 Season 2 Season 3 Season 4

Cooking k W d a y
satisfied by
Biogas Scenario I 300 300 300 300
scenario II 300 300 300 300
scenario m 0 0 0 0
Scenario IV 300 300 300 300
Firelog scenario I 0 0 0 0
Scenario II 0 0 0 0
Scenario III 0.03 0.30 0.09 0.06
Scenario IV 0 0 0 0
Electricity Scenario I 0 0 0 0
Scenario 11 0 0 0 0
scenario m 299.97 299.70 299.91 299.94
scenario N 0 0 0 0
Volume of Biogas Scenario I 83.33 83.33 83.33 83.33
m3/day used for Scenario 11 83.33 83.33 83.33 83.33
cooking scenario m 0 0 0 0
Scenario IV 83.33 83.33 83.33 83.33
Low Grade Heat
k W d a y Satisfied
bY
Biogas Scenario I 100 150 300 300
Scenario II 100 150 300 300
scenario III 0 0 0 0
Scenario IV 100 150 300 300
Firelog scenario I thru 0 0 0 0
IV
Solar Collector Scenario I 0 0 0 0
Scenario II 0 0 0 0
Scenario m 100 150 300 300
Scenario IV 0 0 0 0
Electricity Scenario I thru 0 0 0 0
Iv
Volume of Biogas Scenario I 27.78 41.67 83.33 83.33
m3/day satisfying Scenario II 27.78 41.67 83.33 83.33
LGH scenario m 0 0 0 0
scenario Iv 27.78 41.67 83.33 83.33
Solar Collector Scenario I 0 0 0 0
Area, m2 Scenario II 0 0 0 0
Scenario JJI 73.54 96.52 514.76 772.14
Scenario IV 0 0 0 0
Communication & Scenario I thru 20 20 20 20
Educational N
devices satisfied by
Electricity
kWdav
Refrigeration Scenario I thru 20 20 20 20
satisfied by IV
Electricity
kWday
Lighting satisfied Scenario I thru 30 30 35 35
by Electricity IV
kWday
Electricity satisfied scenario I thru 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.09
by falling water Iv
kWday
742
'able 3 (continued)

Water Pumping

Volume of Water
m3, Pumped by
Biogas scenario I 5.93 5.72 4.82 4.72
ScenarioII 5.93 5.72 4.82 4.72
scenario m 0 0 0 0
scenario Iv 5.93 5.72 4.82 4.72
WMCS Scenario I 124.07 124.28 95.18 85.28
scenario II 0 124.28 95.18 85.28
scenario m 130 130 100 90
Scenario IV 124.07 124.28 95.18 85.28
Electricity Scenario I 0 0 0 0
scenario II 124.07 0 0 0
scenario m 0 0 0 0
Scenario IV 0 0 0 0
Volume of Biogas scenario I 387.63 373.74 315.07 308.27
m3/c1ay for water scenario II 387.63 373.74 315.07 308.27
pumping scenario m 0 0 0 0
scenario Iv 387.63 373.74 315.07 308.27
WMCS Rating, kW scenario I 0.32 0.65 0.11 0.11
scenario II 0 0.65 0.11 0.11
scenario III 0.34 0.68 0.12 0.12
Scenario Iv 0.32 0.65 0.11 0.11
Data for WECSPV

Energy generated Scenario I 88.93 89.91 132.81 141.48

by WECSRV scenario II
kWday WEcs/Pv 1 71.18 171.22 163.32 161.82
WECSPV 2 25.88 29.55 11.09 7.39
scenario m 444.65 449.56 664.04 707.38
scenario lv 84.08 86.68 111.79 116.88

Table 4

RATINGS AND COST TABLE

Scenario I scenarioII Smario m

WECSRV 1 WEcs/Pv 2
I
LPSP 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
WECS, kW 10 10 0 50
PV, kW 0 22 8 0
PV Area, mL 0 286 104 0
Batten, I I I I
 743
Table 5

COMPARISON OF THE TOTAL SYSTEM COST FOR THE FOUR SCENARIOS

scenario I $ 29,837.00

scenario II $ 157,652.00

scenario m $268,063.00

I ScenarioIV I$ 29,470.00 I

ASSUMED BIOGAS PRODUCTION

Resource Amount of biogas that Amount of Manure

can be obtained, that can be obtained
m3kg per, kg.

Cattle d: 0.35 d: 2.50

cc: 0.20 to 0.50 steps of 0.05 cc: 0.50 to 5.00 steps of 0.50

Crop residues d 0.40 available crop residue

cc: 0.30 to 0.50 steps of 0.05

Human (night soil) d: 0.35 d: 0.40

cc: 0.30 to 0.40 steps of 0.05 cc: 0.20 to 1.00 steps of 0.20

Poultry d: 0.40 d 0.04

cc: 0.30 to 0.55 steps of 0.05 cc:0.02 to 0.10 steps of 0.02

Swine d: 0.85 d: 1.00

cc: 0.60 to 1.05 steps of 0.05 cc: 0.20 to 2.00 steps of 0.20

Sheep d 0.50 d: 1.00

cc: 0.35 to 0.65 steps of 0.05 cc: 0.20 to 2.00 steps of 0.20

d default value.
cc: can choose, these range of values in steps of the given quantity.

APPENDIX II

ASSUMED CAPITAL COSTS FOR THE IRES-- DESIGN

Flat Plate Solar Collector 1OO$/m2

Wind Mechanical Converter System 2000$/kW
Biogas Digester lO$/kwh
Water Turbine 1500$/kW

The cost figures for battery storage, PV array and WECS are as given below:
The cost of battery storage Cs, is assumed linear at lOO$/kwh
The cost of PV panels, is linear at 5000$/kW
The cost of WECS, is linear for large WECS at 900$/kW. The WECS used in the design are of small size and the cost is assumed as
follows,
PR, kw 2 4 5 6 8 10 12 14 15 16 18 20
Cost/kW, $ 3,600 6,800 7,675 8,550 10,300 12,907 13,880 15,670 16,565 17,460 19,250 21,040

PR, k w 22 25 30 35 40 45 50
CostkW, $ 22,830 25,515 29,990 34,465 38,940 43,415 47,880
 ~

744

R Ramakumar h a d Abouzahr
w62 - Ship75 - F'94) w 9 1 ) received his B.E.
received his B. E. degree degree in Electrical
from the university of Engineering fiom the
Madras, India, the M. American University of
Tech. degee from the Beirut in 1984, his M.S.
Indian Institute of degree in 1986, and Ph.D.
Technology, Khamgpur, degree in 1990 Gom
India, and the Ph. D. degree Oklahoma State University.
from Cornel1 University, Currently he is a Research
Ithaca, New York, all in Associate in the
Electrical Engineering. Engineering Energy
After serving a few years Laboratory in addition to
on the faculty of being a Teaching Associate
Coimbatore Institute of in the Department of
Technology, Coimbtore, Electronics and Computer
India, he came to Technology at OSU. His
Oklahoma State University research interests are in the
(OSU), Stillwater in 1967, where he has been a Professor since areas of modeling and design of conventional and renewable
1976. In addition, since 1987, he has been the Director of the energy system and in the development and application of expert
OSU Engineering Energy Laboratory. In 1991, he was named systems. He has published five papers in E E E Transactions on
the PSO/Albrecht Naeter Professor of Electrical and Computer Energy Conversion on his research work. Dr. Abouzahr is a
Engineering. Dr. Ramakumar's research interests are in the member of Eta Kappa Nu and Sigma Xi.
areas of conventional and unconventional energy conversion,
energy storage, power engineering, and renewable energy Kaushik Krishnan
sources and systems development and applications. He has been (Student M'93) was born in
a consultant to several national and supranational organizations Periyakulam, India on April
in the field of energy and has organized and presented short 5, 1971. He received his
courses on renewable energy topics and engineering reliability. B.E. degree in Electronics
His research involvement in the areas of energy and power and Communication
engineering has resulted in nearly 150 publications which Engineering f?om
include 4 US Patents, contributed chapters in 4 books md 4 Coimbatore Institute of
handbooks, and technical papers in various journals , Technology, Coimbatore,
transactions, and national and international conference India in 1992. Currently,
proceedings. Dr. Ramakumar's text book entitled "Engineaing he is a master's student in
Reliability: Fundamentals and Applications" was published by electrical engineering and a
Prentice Hall in 1993. research assistant in the
Dr. Ramakumar received the Halliburton Outstanding Engineering Energy
Faculty Award in the OSU College of Engineering, Architecture, Laboratory at Oklahoma
and Technology in 1992 and the university-wide Burlington State University. His
Northern Foundation Faculty Achievement Award in 1993. research interests are in the
As a member of the IEEE-PES Energy Development and areas of power electronics,
Power Generation Committee (ED&PGC), Dr. Ramakumar renewable energy systems, applications of expert systems, and
chairs its Awards Working Group. He is also a member of the industrial automation.
Energy Development Subcommittee, Photovoltaics Working
Group, PES Awards Committee, and the AdCom of ED&=. Kaveh Ashenayi
His other professional afiliations include American Sols (W86) received his B.S.
Energy Society, International Solar Energy Society, and the and Ph.D. degrees in
American Society for Engineering Education. He is a member Electrical Engineering from
of Eta Kappa Nu and Sigma Xi, listed in several Who's Whos, Oklahoma State University,
and is a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Stillwater, and joined the
Oklahoma faculty of the University of
Tulsa in 1986. Currently,
he is an Associate Professor
in the Electrical
Engineering Department.
In 1989, he became the
CO-Director of the Power
Applications Research
Center (PARC) at the
University of Tulsa.
Dr. Ashenayi established the center for Intelligent Systems in
1992. He has over 50 technical papers in various journals, and
conference proceedings.
 DISCUSSION caw88 to the endrwnent and human healnth. In such
situations, our study revealed b i ~ fievet
8 ~ atem cooking
D.P.KOTHARI,D.K.SHARMA AND V.DUTTAC Indian
Institute of Technology,Delhi):We wish t o cl-. A.$ $U& use of fixcwood for w b g in improved
commend the authors for their valuable devices should be properly W u w d into the KB.
contribution in an important area of The major portion of hiogas produced is used for
Integrated Renewable Energy Systems.Howevw
we would like to seek the authors' comment5 pumping water which inturn is stwed and latet wd to
on the followinp points. produce electrictty as a micro hydro s p t m . Tf such a
1.In addition t o the biogas and biomass system docs not need capital intensive stora8e support anly
digesters, Solar Cookers and Improved Wood then it should be used. Othztwk biagas can be used to
Stovest11 are also important cooking devices
in the rural areas.Briquetted fuels(wood or pump water, sfme it and later use It only for puposa af
charred biornass)are also popular.Therefore, in mpplying water for potable md dhea " a m i t y i m . The
one of the scenarios these,as a part of m " n g biogas can be s t
n a
i used to produce electticity
the cooking load,may also be incorporated. m aud when needed (as blow cm be stcmd and used at
Z.Biomasn(agro-based) gasif iersC23 and
incinerator?; for power generation may also be auy desired be).
incoporated in scenarios involving electrial Crop resid= seean to cdflbribute d y a d l
applications. hction of the totaI pIoduction of Mops. KB Should be
3.Producer gas may a150 be used in addition sble to identify such P situation and m o v e such a sauce
t o the biogas.
4.The design trade-off ha5 been considered for p"d biogas.
for obtaining the optimum mix, employing For a partidat 9~896n,wind a i r n t should be
largest design value for the least expensive uniform. Por seasan 1 and S"io IlI, it is taksn as WO,
system.However,the alternate design using the
largest design values for each source may whereas for the same seasun and scsnmios X, XI and IV it Is
also be considwed.The excess znwgy taken as W4. Wind regime need not be different for
generated can then be used to feed a local dif€cmt"arios ofthesame seaon. hsteadthe apicnraf
grid" interconnecting several neighbouring
villages.In fact,IRES can be used to design wind usage can be moved,
such clusters of villages which may have Siogas yield is season deipendcns even when the
different levels in the energy sources nature and levels of hputs remRin the "e.When cloud
available and which may be interconnected by covet pattan is CCI (season 3) land oc8 (seasan. 4), the
means o f a Iocal g r i d .
tmpan\res am a d y low so alsr, biogas yidd. This ham
not been ruflected in table 1.
REFERENCES The model developed and used In the p a w is
C13 National Programme on Improved
basically a multi input, multi output determhistic m e with
Chulha,Annual Report,Ministry of Non- sm@e objective. The possibilities should bc explored to
Conventional Energy Sources,pp.?-lO,New cmvcrt it to multiple objective problm even with
Del hi, 1993-94. qualitativedata an sources (like W y h d y , most cloudy)
E 2 3 Biomass Gassification Prograeme,Annual
Report, Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy
by tbe um af tools like hzzy line€#fff9gt-g 80 that
Sources,pp.23-24,New Delhi,1993-94. tha design of RES can be d e d out in a m m
Carnplrehensive manner without mu& mxifidng the UBCC
Manuscript received January 24, 1995. friendly and interactive n-0 of the d d g n tools dedopecl
and used in the paper-

" A L U I C A R " A CBET1"JI. WCE, Bmugdmu?and

D.K.SUBRAMA"p IISc, Braasnl<rre, b&; We RBFERENCES
coxnmcnd the authm far de!velupirtg uset-friendly
howledge bssed tool IRES-KE3 for the ddga of the
Xnxegmted Renewable fiwgy Systems. We wak th6 m h d
edightm& Go"- andlor ClariEiCatiaaS ofthe fouowing
po;nt9-
Based on our work M!the design &Integrated Rural
-
Energy Ck"s using single - and multiple objective 2. RRamahunar, I. Abouzaht, and K. Ashensyi, ' A
optimization techniques [I] and highlighted in our -
Knowledge based approach to the I3esim of htqttated
discussion [ZJ,cooking is the major energy need of d Rmewable Energy SySWm', XXititi ' I M l s on BlETgy Conv.
cmmdties in many developing c o " , often vol. 7. no 4, pp. 648439, Dec*mbar 1992.
awourhg for 70 to 85 percedu of the total energy
r e q u w af 8 villagG oh daily basis. Pirewwd cantinue-s 3. K.M.Che#y and D.K.SukarrmniRn, 'Rural Energy
to be the M or SOWW meeting the caaldng needs. no@" pattkms with Multi& Objsctived-
WoadHovet; with improved cfficiawies ASTRA Ole Intwnatiotral 3mrnal of Bnergy -arch, Vol, 12. No.3. pp
dsvdaped at the Indian W W t e of SCience, hngabe) if 361-567, JUIPSeptmk 1988.
used for cooki~gwill geatly reduce thc usage of firewood
and also the adverse impact its usage would asurwiSe Manuscript received February 27, 1995.
746

R. Ramakumar, I. Abouzahr, K. Krishnan and K. included as the situation warrants. It must be pointed .out
Ashenayi: The authors wish to express their sincere that the design approach used in IRES-KF3 does not simply
appreciation to all the discussers for their generous comments choose the largest design value for the least expensive
and insightful discussions. One comment that is common to system. The quality of the resources and needs are matched
both discussions is with regard to the inclusion of improved as much as possible to improve the overall efficiency of
wood stoves and the use of woody biomass (denoted as. resource utilization. One consequence of this is the use of
firelog in the paper) for cooking. The research and biogas for cooking -- the least expensive technology for the
development work done by ASTRA and others in India has largest need. As the discussers point out, improved wood
resulted in high efficiency wood stoves. In cases like these, stoves and briquetted fuels, when available, could easily
IRES-KB can be easily modified to incorporate this replace biogas for cooking.
possibility if the required woody biomass is available in
sufficient quantities. This will also release the available Professors Mallikarjuna Chetty and Subramanian's comment
biogas for other useful purposes such as water pumping and on the wind regimes used in the scenarios discussed deserve
electricity generation. The priority order will then be firelog clarification. The scenarios were chosen arbitrarily to
for cooking if available and, if not, use biogas. iz3ustrate the different results obtained using IRES-KB. They
are not meant to be for the same location. The variability of
Professor Kothari and his colleagues propose the possibility biogas yield with ambient temperature was not included in
of extracting as much energy as possible.from each of the the examples presented. However, we plan to include this in
available resources and using the excess energy to feed a future versions of IRES-KB. The possibility of using fuzzy
"local grid" interconnecting a cluster of villages. This is an hear programming to further improve the design process is
excellent idea as far as resource-limited techologies in our fuhm research plans.
(biomass, falling water, for example) are concerned.
However, resources such as insolation can be used to Finally, we once again thank all the discussers for pointing
generate as much energy as one wants by using, for example, out the need for continued research and improvements in this
larger area photovoltaic systems. If suitable wind regimes area and the possibility of applying new tools such as fuzzy
and proper terrain are present, a similar statement can be linear programming.
made about harnessing wind energy as well. The required
capital will then be the limiting factor. As far as gasifiers, Manuscript received April 7, 1995.
incinerators and producer gas are concerned, they csul also be