Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 24 January 2012
Received in revised form
24 July 2012
Accepted 10 August 2012
Available online 15 September 2012
Smart Grids are expected to help facilitate a better integration of distributed storage and demand
response options into power systems and markets. Quantifying the associated system benets may
provide valuable design and policy insights. Yet many existing energy system models are not able to
depict various critical features associated with Smart Grids in a single comprehensive framework. These
features may for example include grid stability issues in a system with several exible demand types and
storage options to help balance a high penetration of renewable energy. Flexible and accessible tools
have the potential to ll this niche. This paper expands on the Open Source Energy Modelling System
(OSeMOSYS). It describes how blocks of functionality may be added to represent variability in electricity
generation, a prioritisation of demand types, shifting demand, and storage options. The paper demonstrates the exibility and ease-of-use of OSeMOSYS with regard to modications of its code. It may
therefore serve as a useful test-bed for new functionality in tools with wide-spread use and larger
applications, such as MESSAGE, TIMES, MARKAL, or LEAP. As with the core code of OSeMOSYS, the
functional blocks described in this paper are available in the public domain.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Energy modelling
Smart Grids
Demand side management
Storage
1. Introduction
1.1. Rationale
The Smart Grid concept is broad and covers the entire electricity
supply chain [1e8]. It is characterised by the proposed use of technologies to intelligently integrate the generation, transmission and
consumption of electricity [9]. Ultimately, the associated benets
include lower costs, improved service quality and reduced environmental impact [10]. In this paper, we build on and expand an open
source energy model in order to assess the potential contribution of
selected Smart Grid options to meet the objectives specied above.
Specically, we focus on the ability of Smart Grids to enable
increased demand response and help facilitate the integration of
non-dispatchable generation combined with storage options [11].
Smart Grids may be composed of a suite of approaches, tools and
technologies. Selecting the most appropriate option requires
informed choices based on multi-criteria decision making [10].
Energy modelling has a long history of providing support for such
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: manuel.welsch@energy.kth.se (M. Welsch).
0360-5442/$ e see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.08.017
338
7
Examples may include the popular MESSAGE [20,21], TIMES [22] or MARKAL
[23] models.
8
For an explanation of elements of the core model code refer to Howells et al. [57].
339
9
The storage Equations S1 e S6 of the core code require the user to exactly know
at what times extremes in the storage levels will occur. Further, they dont allow for
an accurate calculation of storage costs and an optimisation of the overall available
storage capacity.
10
For consistency, this new time resolution is also applied for the Prioritising
Demand Types addition, even though not explicitly required.
11
340
15
14
In the U.S., 22% of the peak demand equalling 170 GW is available in the form of
consumer backup generators. This includes generators of up to 60 MW, but 98% of
them are smaller than 100 kW [71].
As opposed to energy.
Consider as an example a refrigerator which is shut down when power is
expensive, drawing on its cold storage inertia to meet its cooling needs at a later or
earlier stage, but at a lower cost.
16
2.4. Storage
As renewable electricity portfolios expand in many countries,
the importance of gaining a better understanding of storage options
is increasing [78]. System planners not only need to optimise the
overall storage capacity, but also the mix of different technologies,
from bulk to distributed storage, and from electricity to fuel and
heat storage [79].
The methodology to model storage is straightforward. The
model allows either storing or discharging energy during a time
slice as long as storage levels remain within their prescribed
minimum and maximum values. If these storage boundaries dont
sufce, the model will investigate if new storage capacities should
be added at a given cost of investment per unit of storage capacity.
In contrast to an hourly model like EnergyPLAN [80], storage
calculations in medium- to long-term models are strongly characterised by the time slices the analyst chooses. Time slices represent
fractions of the year with a specic load characteristic, for example,
morning hours of weekdays in autumn. All model input parameters
are dened as being constant within each time slice. Therefore,
during each day within a specic day-type and each week within
a season, exactly the same conditions for all generation and
demand prevail. Charging and discharging patterns are consequently identical during such periods and repeat themselves until
a new day-type or a new season starts. As illustrated with dashed
circles and capital letters in Fig. 2, extreme values can therefore
only occur during the rst and last week of a specic season, and
during the rst and last occurrence of a specic day-type. In order
to avoid having to analyse if storage levels are within their
boundaries at every instant throughout the year, only these times
where extreme values may occur are assessed.17 This is done by
adding up all energy charged and discharged throughout the
modelling period up to this point.
The accuracy of the storage calculations e and the model in
general e is strongly dependent on the careful denition of time
slices by the analyst. In general, an increased number of time
slices will lead to an increased accuracy, but at the cost of a more
complex model, both with regard to data handling and computational performance requirements. Should more detailed insights
into yearly storage operations and strategies be required, an hourly
model as described and applied in [81] might be preferable to
a medium- to long-term investment optimisation model like
OSeMOSYS.
Storage is implemented in OSeMOSYS in a similar fashion to
other models such as MESSAGE [20,21], TIMES [22,82] or MARKAL
[23,82]. For simplicity, several potential characteristics of storage
options are not taken into account. For example, when considering
a hydro power plant connected to a reservoir, such characteristics
could include evaporation and a dependency of the electrical
output on the reservoir water level. When considering battery
storage systems, such characteristics could include a dependency of
the battery lifetime on the depth of discharge and of the storage
capacity on the rate of discharge, i.e., the amount of energy which is
17
For example, in Fig. 2, weekdays and weekends are the only two day-types
dened within a season. The storage content is lower on Monday evening than
on Monday morning of the rst week in this season. Therefore, the storage levels
have to be even lower on the Friday of this rst week, as storage patterns are
repeated during one day-type. Weekdays in-between do consequently not require
any consideration with regard to their storage levels. Further, the storage levels are
lower on Sunday evening than on Monday evening of the rst week. Considering
that also the overall weekly patterns are repeated within one season, they have to
be even lower on the last Sunday in this season. Consequently, the storage levels of
the last Sunday within the rst week do not need to be assessed, and neither do the
storage levels in the weeks in-between.
341
withdrawn within a certain timespan. This is for example considered in other modelling tools such as HOMER [83]. When vehicleto-grid (V2G) storage should be modelled, e.g., as with EnergyPLAN
in [84], such characteristics would include the availability of the
maximum storage capacity as a function of the daytime. When
modelling heat storage, such characteristics include heat transfer as
modelled in [85]. Most of the outlined characteristics can easily be
added to the model as needed, as long as the algebraic formulation
complies with the requirements of linear optimisation.
A storage facility can be charged during the operation of one or
more technologies in a specied mode of operation and discharged
in another mode.18 Allowing to link more than one technology to
a storage option allows modelling a variety of technical options and
management practises. For example, a simplied representation of
compressed air energy storage (CAES) with constant isentropic
efciencies could be modelled by dening a technology which uses
electricity to store air, while another technology produces electricity by withdrawing air and consuming natural gas. This would
also allow modelling a simultaneous operation of compressor and
expander when electricity prices are high, as assessed in [86].
Further, a pumped storage hydro power plant could be modelled as
a technology linked to a reservoir. This technology would store
energy with associated pumping efciencies in one mode of operation, while withdrawing energy with associated turbine efciencies in another mode of operation. A second technology could be
added to represent water withdrawals for irrigation purposes,
reducing the stored energy available for electricity generation. As
such, at least a basic representation of the water, energy and food
security nexus can easily be implemented in OSeMOSYS [87].
The storage charges are constrained to be within a predened
minimum and maximum rate (SC5 & SC6). Multiplying the rate of
activity of a technology with the efciencies of storing or discharging energy with this technology will give the actual charge or
discharge rate19 (S1 & S2). The parameters to describe these efciencies are referred to as TechnologyToStorage and TechnologyFromStorage. These parameters also serve to dene which
technologies are linked to which storage facilities. The net charge
within a time slice is obtained through multiplication of the
charging minus the discharging rate with the duration of that time
slice (S3 & S4).
The storage levels at the beginning and end of each year, season
and day-type are calculated by summing up the net charges overall
preceding time slices (S5eS15), starting from a specied level at
the beginning of the rst year of the modelling period. This allows
calculating the storage levels indicated as [A, F, K, P] in Fig. 2. The
net charge is added to these levels during one daily time bracket
after another throughout the following day to verify if the storage
levels are within their minimum and maximum (SC1 & SC4)
[A, B, C, F, G, H, K, L, M]. Similarly, the net charge is subtracted to
assess storage levels in the previous day (SC2 & SC3) [F, E, D, K, J, I,
P, O, N].
The maximum capacity (SI1) is composed of the accumulated
storage additions minus retirements based on the lifetime of the
storage (SI3), plus all exogenously given capacities. Exogenous
capacities may be composed of residual capacities from before the
18
Consider for example a pumped storage hydro power plant. When the power
plant is operating in discharge mode, the rate at which the storage level drops is
a function of the generated electricity. If there is more than one turbine discharging
water the cumulative effect of all turbines is used to calculate the storage discharge.
19
Note that the rate of storage charge or discharge is a function of the technologies linked to the storage and their parameters, as opposed to storage parameters.
Again, considering the pumped storage example, the capacity of the turbine (e.g., in
MW) limits the rate at which electricity may be generated, while the upper minus
the minimum level of the dam constrains the storage capacity (e.g., in MWh).
342
Fig. 2. Storage levels in the rst and last week of a season. The capital letters [A] e [P], equations (S10eS14), constraints (SC1eSC4) and vertically aligned variables are cross
referenced to text within this section and the algebraic formulation (refer as well to the online supplement). The storage boundaries are assessed for those levels which are referred
to by capital letters.
20
For example, the construction of a reservoir of a pumped storage hydro power
plant is decided years before its actual implementation. If such an investment is
dened exogenously, it will not be part of the optimisation and its costs will not be
accounted for in the model.
21
This is only required if the model should have the capability to optimise storage
capacity additions. Alternatively, all storage capacities and their lower and upper
limits could be dened exogenously as parameters.
22
However, in this case there is no need to modify any demand related calculations of the core code.
both occur at the same time. For this purpose it is simply assumed
that whatever is greater, the maximum share of the demand which
may be shifted or the maximum share of the unmet demand,
determines the minimum amount which has to be met instantly.
For example, if 10% are allowed to remain unmet and 30% may be
shifted, then 70% have to be supplied at exactly the time when the
demand occurs (D4 & D5).
The remaining modications of the core code are similar to the
previous additions: the rate of demand of the core code is adjusted
to include exible demand types (UD1, EQ_rev D2) and the new
cost components are integrated to allow for their minimisation as
part of the objective function (OBJ_rev, Acc4_rev, TDC1_rev &
TDC2). As Equation (D3) denes exible demand for both, prioritisation of demand and demand shifting, it only needs to be added
once. With these nal steps, OSeMOSYS will be able to model
variable electricity generation and nd the optimal mix between
storing energy and shifting certain demand types while considering their different priorities.
3. Algebraic formulation
3.1. General
This section explains the mathematical formulation used to
model variability in electricity generation and the prioritisation of
demand types.23 Refer to the online supplement for explanations
regarding the algebra for modelling demand shifting and storage,
as well as the combined integration of all blocks into the core code
of OSeMOSYS24 [58].
Box 1 provides a brief explanation of all indexes used in the
algebraic formulation.
23
This section strongly relates to the nomenclature used in the core code of
OSeMOSYS [57]. provides a more conceptual understanding for how the core code
is set up.
24
Adding all the combined blocks to the original code does not require each of
them to be used in a model run. The blocks that actually have to be used are dened
by the data le.
343
.
.
l
ls
ld
lh
lhlh
.
.
.
.
.
r
f
fdt
t
s
m
.
.
.
.
.
.
of
flexible
Exogenously
defined
25
344
cy;t;r :
X
l
RateOfTotalActivityy;l;t;r *YearSplity;l
TotalCapacityAnnualy;t;r *CapacityFactory;t;l;r *
YearSplity;l *AvailabilityFactory;t;r *
CapacityToActivityUnitt;r
(CAb1-rev)
CapacityFactory;t;l;r *CapacityToActivityUnitt;r
(CAa4-rev)
With these changes, variable electricity generation can be
modelled as an integral part of OSeMOSYS.
cy;t;r :
RateOfTotalActivityy;l;t;r *YearSplity;l
cfdt;y;ls;ld;lh;f ;r : RateOfDailyFlexibleDemandfdt;y;ls;ld;lh;f ;r
SpecifiedDailyFlexibleDemandfdt;y;ls;ld;f ;r *
(D3)
SpecifiedDailyFlexibleDemandProfilefdt;y;ls;ld;lh;f ;r
=DaySplity;lh
cfdt;y;ls;ld;lh;f ;r : RateOfUnmetDemandfdt;y;ls;ld;lh;f ;r
TotalCapacityAnnualy;t;r *CapacityFactory;t;r *
MaxShareUnmetDemandfdt;y;f ;r *
AvailabilityFactory;t;r *CapacityToActivityUnitt;r
RateOfDailyFlexibleDemandfdt;y;ls;ld;lh;f ;r
(UD1)
(CAb1)
In order to calculate the unmet demand, its rate is converted back
from seasons, day-types and daily time brackets to time slices (UD2).
26
E.g., while a power plant is generating electricity to meet demand instantly, an
oil renery might only need to be designed to meet the yearly demand for oil. This
would require enough storage capacities to balance yearly uctuations as
a precondition.
27
E.g., to relate MW of capacity to GWh of production.
cfdt;y;l;f ;r : UnmetDemandfdt;y;l;f ;r
X
RateOfUnmetDemandfdt;y;ls;ld;lh;f ;r *Conversionl;ls *
s;d;h
Conversionl;ld *Conversionl;lh *YearSplity;l
(UD2)
The unmet demand is summed up over all time slices to get the
annual unmet demand (UD3).
cfdt;y;f ;r : UnmetDemandAnnualfdt;y;f ;r
X
RateOfUnmetDemandfdt;y;l;f ;r
l
(UD3)
Its cost is calculated (UD4) and discounted back to the rst year,
assuming they would be incurred at approximately the middle of
each year (UD5).
(UD4)
PriceOfUnmetDemandfdt;y;f ;r
CostOfUnmetDemandfdt;y;r
(UD5)
cr : ModelPeriodCostByRegionr
X
TotalDiscountedCosty;r
cy;t;r : TotalDiscountedCosty;t;r
DiscountedOperatingCosty;t;r
DiscountedCaptialInvestmenty;t;r
DiscountedTechnologyEmissionsPenaltyy;t;r
DiscountedSalvageValuey;t;r
(TDC1)
cs;y;r : TotalDiscountedCostByTechnologyy;t;r
DiscountedOperatingCosty;t;r
DiscountedCapitalInvestmenty;t;r
DiscountedSalvageValuey;t;r
(TDC1 rev)
(D1a)
The terms in the demand equation of the core code (EQ) have to
be renamed to differentiate the overall demand, which includes
exible demand, from the demand as dened in the core code. This
demand as dened previously is now called standard demand
(EQ_rev D2).
cy;l;f ;r : RateOfStandardDemandy;l;f ;r
SpecifiedAnnualStandardDemandProfiley;l;f ;r
=YearSplity;l
= D2)
y;t;r
TotalDiscountedCosty;t;r
cs;r : TotalDiscountedCosty;r
X
TotalDiscountedCostByTechnologyy;t;r
t
X
(TDC2a)
DiscountedCostOfUnmetDemandfdt;y;r
fdt
With this nal step, the cost for not meeting any demand will be
minimised as part of the objective function.
4. Application
SpecifiedAnnualStandardDemandy;f ;r *
(EQ rev
(Acc4rev)
DiscountedTechnologyEmissionsPenaltyy;t;r
RateOfUnmetDemandfdt;y;ls;ld;lh;f ;r *
(Acc4)
minimise
(OBJ rev)
cr : ModelPeriodCostByRegionr
X
TotalDiscountedCosty;t;r
yminy0:5
fdt;ls;ld;lh
TotalDiscountedCosty;r
y;r
y;t
cfdt;y;r : DiscountedCostOfUnmetDemandfdt;y;r
1 DiscountRateDemand
cfdt;y;r : CostOfUnmetDemandfdt;y;r
X
UnmetDemandAnnualfdt;y;f ;r *
minimise
345
(OBJ)
346
28
32
The VoLL can actually be signicantly higher if calculated by dividing Gross
Value Added by electricity consumed in a sector. For the Republic of Ireland, it was
4 EUR/kWh for the industrial sector, 14 EUR/kWh for the commercial sector, and 24.
6 EUR/kWh for households [68].
347
Fig. 5. Prioritising demand types e results for 2020 (a) Demand; (b) Production.
Fig. 6. Demand shifting e results for 2020 (a) Demand; (b) Production.
of the loads, while the dashed line shows again the original demand
as entered into the model (blue plus green bars). The lines close to
the x-axis indicate which loads have been met in advance (black
line) or delayed (orange line), compared to the original prole.
Negative values indicate periods when loads were reduced, i.e., the
initial demand was shifted away from these periods. Positive
values indicate when loads were increased, i.e., these are the
periods in which additional electricity was provided to meet shifted
demand.
By way of illustration, some of the exible demand is not met
during hour 13:00, as the blue line cuts into the green bars during
hour 13:00. The orange line has an associated negative value during
this time, indicating that the demand will not be met then, but
shifted to a later period. Similarly, demand is shifted from hour
22:00 to 23:00. Equivalently, demand is shifted at hour 10:00 as
well as 17:00 to be met earlier. This is indicated by the black line.
Fig. 6b shows that this exibility allows using almost all available base load from hour 09:00 to 23:00 (dark green bars), while
drawing on PV whenever it is available (light green bars). This helps
reduce the need for peak supply (shown in red) by 16% as compared
to the reference scenario.33
33
Note that the peak capacity of 100 MW is not reduced, as peak electricity is simply
bought from the larger national grid without any capacity constraints. In this model
there is a cost reduction associated with reducing peak generation (i.e., the cumulative
length of the red bars in Fig. 6), but not peak capacity. If the local utility would have had
to invest in new local capacity additions, peak capacity would have been a cost factor and
the model would have used the available exibility to minimise such capacity additions.
4.4. Storage
In order to demonstrate the functionality provided by the
storage code addition, all PV generation was assumed to be connected to batteries with an efciency of 90% and a capacity of
10 MWh.
Fig. 7 indicates the base and peak load supply from the national
grid, as well as battery use and PV generation by the local utility. PV
is used to its maximum capacity throughout the day (dashed line)
and base load from hour 9:00 to 22:00. As indicated by comparing
the dashed line to the light green bars (in web version), not all of the
PV electricity generated during the hours 8:00, 11:00, 14:00, 15:00,
16:00 and 18:00 is used immediately. Such electricity is stored in
batteries to be discharged during the morning and evening peak.
This reduces the need for peak supply from the national grid (red
bars)34 by 9% as compared to the reference scenario.
34
Note that the model does not take into account at what time peak generation is
reduced, as this does not affect overall costs. This leads to, e.g., high peak generation
at hour 18:00 and reduced peak generation in the following hour. However, the
other way round would be an equally valid solution for the model.
348
Fig. 8. Getting it all together e results for 2020 (a) Demand; (b) Production.
1 h (green) and the remaining demand has to be met instantaneously (dark blue). As in the previous code addition, all PV is
connected to 10 MWh of storage.
The continuous blue line in Fig. 8 indicates how electricity is
supplied by OSeMOSYS after utilizing all the exibility the system
provides. The light blue bars in Fig. 8a show the demand which may
remain unmet. The hatched fraction of these bars is demand which
the model decided not to meet. For example, during the hours
18:00e21:00 none of the light blue demand is met (all light blue
bars are hatched). At the hour 20:00 no demand is shifted, as the
dark blue line is identical with the dark blue plus the green bar, and
both the orange and the black line are zero. At the hour 21:00,
however, some of the green demand is shifted (the dark blue line is
below the green bar) to be met later (orange line has an associated
negative value).
Fig. 8b shows that PV is used to its maximum capacity (dashed
green line). Not all PV generation is used immediately. For example,
at hour 8:00 all electricity from PV is used to charge the batteries,
which are then discharged later (light green bars). During the hours
8:00e23:00 as much base load generation (dark green bars) as
available is used. Almost no peak supply from the national grid (red
bars) is required. It was reduced by 92% as compared to the reference
scenario, while 96% of the overall demand (dashed blue line) is met.
35
Valuable work in this direction has been accomplished with the model EnergyPLAN, e.g., as outlined in [75,76,84], but with a focus on a shorter time frame of
one year, and without the intention of optimising technology investments over the
coming decades.
349
Table 1
Computational requirements of individual model runs.
Model run
Matrix size
Initial
Variability in generation
Prioritising demand types
Demand shifting
Storage
Getting it all together
a
115,260
128,135
149,885
124,010
169,660
112,908
125,783
143,933
115,683
154,133
16,804
18,004
24,297
22,324
30,492
14,255
16,055
21,196
17,751
25,967
153.4
172.1
236.9
164.9
262.1
Totala
3.4
3.9
6.6
11.1
12.4
6.4
8.7
17.0
14.7
24.3
The total running time includes the matrix generation, pre-processing, optimisation and writing of the output le.
References
[1] EPRI. Report to NIST on the smart grid interoperability standards roadmap;
2009.
[2] ETP SmartGrids. Vision and strategy for Europes electricity networks of the
future; 2006.
[3] DOE. The smart grid: an introduction; 2008.
[4] Larsen K. Smart grids e a smart idea? Renewable Energy Focus 2009;10(5):
62e7.
[5] ROA. Introduction to smart grid e latest developments in the U.S., Europe and
South Korea; 2009.
[6] Battaglini A, Lilliestam J, Haas A, Patt A. Development of SuperSmart Grids for
a more efcient utilisation of electricity from renewable sources. Journal of
Cleaner Production 2009;17(10):911e8.
[7] Willrich M. Electricity transmission policy for America: enabling a smart grid,
end to end. Electricity Journal 2009;22(10):77e82.
[8] Doran K, Barnes F, Pasrich P, editors. Smart grid deployment in Colorado:
challenges and opportunities; 2010.
[9] MEF. Technology action plan: smart grids; 2009.
[10] Welsch M, Bazilian M, Divan D, Elzinga D, Strbac G, Howells M, et al. Smart
and just grids for sub-Saharan Africa: exploring options, submitted for
publication.
[11] IEA. Technology roadmap e smart grids. Paris: International Energy Agency;
2011.
[12] Huntington HG, Weyant JP, Sweeney JL. Modeling for insights, not numbers:
the experiences of the energy modeling forum [EMF PP6.5]. Omega 1982.
[13] Meier P. Energy modelling in practice: an application of spatial programming.
Omega 1982;10(5):483e91.
[14] Rath-Nagel S, Stocks K. Energy modelling for technology assessment: the
MARKAL approach. Omega 1982;10(5):493e505.
[15] Hfele W, Anderer J, McDonald A, Nakicenovic N. Energy in a nite world:
paths to a sustainable future. Cambridge, MA, USA: Ballinger Publishing
Company; 1981.
[16] IAEA. Expansion planning for electrical generating systems e a guidebook.
Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency; 1984.
[17] Baker P, Blundell R, Micklewright J. Modelling household energy expenditures
using micro-data. The Economic Journal 1989;99(397):720e38.
[18] Jebaraj S, Iniyan S. A review of energy models. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 2006;10(4):281e311.
[19] Swicher JN, Jannuzzi G, Redlinger RY. Tools and methods for integrated
resource planning. UNEP Collaborating Centre of Energy and Environment,
Riso National Laboratory; 1997.
[20] IIASA. Model for Energy Supply Strategy Alternatives and their General
Environmental Impact (MESSAGE), Available at: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/
Research/ENE/model/message.html [accessed December 22, 2011].
[21] IAEA. IAEA tools and methodologies for energy system planning and nuclear
energy system assessments; 2009.
[22] Loulou R, Labriet M. ETSAP-TIAM: the TIMES integrated assessment model
part I: model structure. Computational Management Science 2007;5:7e40.
[23] ETSAP, MARKAL. Available at: http://www.iea-etsap.org/web/Markal.asp
[accessed September 15, 2011].
[24] Hfele W, Manne AS. Strategies for a transition from fossil to nuclear fuels.
Energy Policy 1975;3(1):3e23.
[25] ADICA. Introduction to the WASP-IV model; 2001.
[26] Covarrubias AJ. Expansion planning for electric power systems. IAEA Bulletin
1979;21(2/3):55e64.
[27] IAEA. Capacity building for sustainable energy development; 2002.
350
[28] IAEA. Planning and Economic Studies Section (PESS): Analysis for Sustainable
Energy Development, Available at: http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/
Pess/capacitybuilding.html [accessed November 21, 2011].
[29] ETSAP, Energy Technology Systems Analysis Program e Workshops, Available
at: http://www.iea-etsap.org/web/Workshop.asp [accessed November 21,
2011].
[30] IEA, IEA Workshops, Available at: http://www.iea.org/work/workshopsearch.
asp?mevents [accessed November 21, 2011].
[31] IIASA. IIASA annual report 2010; 2011.
[32] Connolly D, Lund H, Mathiesen BV, Leahy M. A review of computer tools for
analysing the integration of renewable energy into various energy systems.
Applied Energy 2010;87(4):1059e82.
[33] Lund H, Dui
c N, Kraja
ci
c G, da Graa Carvalho M. Two energy system analysis
models: a comparison of methodologies and results. Energy 2007;32(6):948e54.
[34] NETL. Understanding the benets of the smart grid; 2010.
[35] Black M, Strbac G. Value of storage in providing balancing services for electricity generation systems with high wind penetration. Journal of Power
Sources 2006;162(2):949e53.
[36] Foley AM, Gallachir BP, Hur J, Baldick R, McKeogh EJ. A strategic review of
electricity systems models. Energy 2010;35(12):4522e30.
[37] Silva V, Stanojevic V, Aunedi M, Pudjianto D, Strbac G. Chapter 7: Smart
domestic appliances as enabling technology for demand-side integration:
modelling, value and drivers. In: The future of electricity demand: customers,
citizens and loads. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
[38] Mundaca L, Neij L. Energyeeconomy models and energy efciency policy
evaluation for the household sector e an analysis of modelling tools and
analytical approaches. Lund, Sweden: The International Institute for Industrial
Environmental Economics (IIIEE); 2009.
[39] Strbac G, Shakoor A, Black M, Pudjianto D, Bopp T. Impact of wind generation
on the operation and development of the UK electricity systems. Electric
Power Systems Research 2007;77(9):1214e27.
[40] Mazi N. A TIMES model of the Reunion Island for analysing the reliability of
electricity supply, presented at the 2011 International Energy Workshop
(IEW), Stanford, CA, USA; July 8, 2011.
[41] Lund H. Electric grid stability and the design of sustainable energy systems.
International Journal of Sustainable Energy 2005;24(1):45e54.
[42] Bazilian M, Sagar A, Detchon R, Yumkella K. More heat and light, energy
policy; 2010.
[43] Pachauri S. Scenarios for success in reducing energy poverty; 2010.
[44] Herran DS, Nakata T. Optimization of decentralized energy systems using
biomass resources for rural electrication in developing countries; 2009.
[45] Hiremath RB, Shikha S, Ravindranath NH. Decentralized energy planning;
modeling and applicationea review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 2007;11(5):729e52.
[46] Welsch M. Modelling elements of smart grids for sub-Saharan African countries, presented at the 2011 International Energy Workshop, Stanford, CA,
USA; 2011.
[47] Lund H. EnergyPLAN e advanced energy systems analysis computer model e
documentation version 9.0. Denmark: Aalborg University; 2011.
[48] Lund H, Mnster E. Integrated energy systems and local energy markets.
Energy Policy 2006;34(10):1152e60.
[49] Heaps C. An introduction to LEAP. Stockholm Environment Institute; 2008.
[50] Lund H, Andersen AN, stergaard PA, Mathiesen BV, Connolly D. From electricity smart grids to smart energy systems e a market operation based
approach and understanding. Energy 2012;42(1):96e102.
[51] Andersen AN, Lund H. New CHP partnerships offering balancing of uctuating
renewable electricity productions. Journal of Cleaner Production 2007;15(3):
288e93.
[52] Lund H. Large-scale integration of wind power into different energy systems.
Energy 2005;30(13):2402e12.
[53] Hong L, Lund H, Mller B. The importance of exible power plant operation
for Jiangsus wind integration. Energy 2012;41(1):499e507.
[54] Welsch M. Assessing new contributions to the system reserve, presented
at the 2012 International Energy Workshop, Cape Town, South Africa; 2012.
[55] Deane JP, Chiodi A, Gargiulo M, Gallachir BP. Soft-linking of
a power systems model to an energy systems model. Energy 2012;
42(1):303e12.
[56] Blumsack S, Fernandez A. Ready or not, here comes the smart grid! Energy
2012;37(1):61e8.
[57] Howells M, Rogner H, Strachan N, Heaps C, Huntington H, Kypreos S,
et al. OSeMOSYS: the open source energy modeling system: an introduction to its ethos, structure and development. Energy Policy 2011;
39(10):5850e70.
[58] Welsch M, Howells M, Bazilian M, DeCarolis J, Hermann S, Rogner HH.
Supplement to: modelling elements of smart grids e enhancing the OSeMOSYS code. Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology; 2012.
[59] GNU MathProg, Available at: http://lpsolve.sourceforge.net/5.5/MathProg.htm
[accessed January 11, 2012].
[60] Makhorin A. Modeling language GNU MathProg, draft edition for GLPK
version 4.34. Moscow: Moscow Aviation Institute; 2008.
[61] Makhorin A. GLPK (GNU Linear Programming Kit), Available at: http://www.
gnu.org/s/glpk/ [accessed November 21, 2011].
[62] Ceron R. The GNU Linear Programming Kit, Part 1: Introduction to linear
optimization, Available at: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/
library/l-glpk1/index.html [accessed November 21, 2011].
[63] Ceron R. The GNU Linear Programming Kit, Part 2: Intermediate problems in
linear programming, Available at: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/
linux/library/l-glpk2/index.html [accessed November 21, 2011].
[64] Ceron R. The GNU Linear Programming Kit, Part 3: Advanced problems and
elegant solutions, Available at: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/
library/l-glpk3/index.html [accessed November 21, 2011].
[65] GAMS Development Corporation, GAMS Home Page, Available at: http://
www.gams.com/ [accessed December 1, 2011].
[66] IEA. Energy technology perspectives 2010: scenarios and strategies to 2050.
Paris: International Energy Agency; 2010.
[67] Aponte EE, Nelson JK. Time optimal load shedding for distributed power
systems. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 2006;21(1):269e77.
[68] Leahy E, Tol RSJ. An estimate of the value of lost load for Ireland. Energy Policy
2011;39(3):1514e20.
[69] Carden K, Pfeifenberger J, Wintermantel N. The value of resource adequacy e
why reserve margins arent just about keeping the lights on, public utilities
fortnightly; March 2011. p. 34e40.
[70] Bose RK, Shukla M, Srivastava L, Yaron G. Cost of unserved power in Karnataka, India. Energy Policy 2006;34(12):1434e47.
[71] NETL. Backup generators (BUGS): the next smart grid peak resource. National
Energy Technology Laboratory; 2010.
[72] Heinen S, Elzinga D, Kim S-K, Ikeda Y. Impact of smart grid technologies on
peak load to 2050; 2011.
[73] Block C, Neumann D, Weinhardt C. A market mechanism for energy allocation
in micro-chp grids, In: Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii international conference on system sciences; 2008. p. 172e80.
[74] IEA. Modelling load shifting using electric vehicles in a smart grid environment. Paris: International Energy Agency; 2010.
[75] Blarke MB, Lund H. Large-scale heat pumps in sustainable energy systems:
system and project perspectives. Thermal Science 2007;11(3):143e52.
[76] Lund H, Mnster E. Integrated transportation and energy sector CO2 emission
control strategies. Transport Policy 2006;13(5):426e33.
[77] Bouckaert S. Flattening the load curve with demand response solutions:
a long-term analysis, presented at the ETSAP Workshop, Cape Town, South
Africa; 2012.
[78] Roberts BP, Sandberg C. The role of energy storage in development of smart
grids. Proceedings of the IEEE 2011;99(6):1139e44.
[79] stergaard PA. Comparing electricity, heat and biogas storages impacts on
renewable energy integration. Energy 2012;37(1):255e62.
[80] Connolly D. A users guide to EnergyPLAN. University of Limerick; 2010.
[81] Connolly D, Lund H, Finn P, Mathiesen BV, Leahy M. Practical operation
strategies for pumped hydroelectric energy storage (PHES) utilising electricity
price arbitrage. Energy Policy 2011;39(7):4189e96.
[82] Loulou R. ETSAP-TIAM: the TIMES integrated assessment model. part II: mathematical formulation. Computational Management Science 2008;5(1):41e66.
[83] Lambert T, Gilman P, Lilienthal P. Micropower system modeling with HOMER,
integration of alternative sources of energy. p. 379e418; 2006.
[84] Lund H, Kempton W. Integration of renewable energy into the transport and
electricity sectors through V2G. Energy Policy 2008;36(9):3578e87.
[85] Fitzgerald N, Foley AM, McKeogh E. Integrating wind power using intelligent
electric water heating, Energy, in press, corrected proof.
[86] Lund H, Salgi G, Elmegaard B, Andersen AN. Optimal operation strategies of
compressed air energy storage (CAES) on electricity spot markets with uctuating prices. Applied Thermal Engineering 2009;29(5):799e806.
[87] Howells M. Finding CLEWs e a new methodology for modelling the integrated
effects of climate, land use, energy and water interactions, Available at: http://
www.water-energy-food.org/en/initiatives/view__292/nding_clews_a_new_
methodology_for_modelling_the_integrated_effects_of_climate_land_use_
energy_and_water_interactions.html [accessed July 5, 2012].
[88] IEA, OECD, NEA. Projected costs of generating electricity. 2010th ed. Paris:
International Energy Agency; 2010.
[89] Kumar R. Assuring voltage stability in the smart grid. In: Innovative smart grid
technologies (ISGT), 2011 IEEE PES; 2011. p. 1e4.
[90] Keppo I, Strubegger M. Short term decisions for long term problems e the
effect of foresight on model based energy systems analysis. Energy 2010;
35(5):2033e42.
[91] Howells M, Welsch M. OSeMOSYS e The open source energy modelling
system, Available at: www.osemosys.org [accessed December 7, 2011].
[92] UK Department of Energy & Climate Change. Planning our electric future:
a white paper for secure, affordable and low-carbon electricity. London:
Stationery Ofce; 2011.