mdh.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The Influence of Photovoltaic Models and Battery Models in System Simulation and Optimization
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden.
Mälardalen University, School of Business, Society and Engineering, Future Energy Center.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1351-9245
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden.
Chongqing University, Chongqing, China.
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: Energy Procedia, ISSN 1876-6102, E-ISSN 1876-6102, Vol. 105, 1184-1191 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Selecting accurate and robust models is important for simulation and optimization of a clean energy system. This paper compares two photovoltaic (PV) models and two battery models in an open-source code, Opti-CE. The PV models are single diode model and its simplified model. The battery models are Improved Shepherd model and energy balance model. The models are compared from a perspective of overall system simulation and optimization in particular on both accuracy and computational time. The results indicate that simplified PV model causes 0.86% normalized root mean square error (nRMSE) compared with the single diode model, while decreases the simulation time from more than 800s to less than 0.01s. The energy balance battery model reduces simulation time from more than 5s to less than 0.03s. The energy balance model tends to underestimate the battery State of Charge (SOC) compared with the Improved Shepherd model. However, the error is not accumulative during the simulation. Compared to the Pareto front with single diode model and Improved Shepherd model, the simplified PV model increases the Pareto front values and result in both higher Self Sufficiency Ratio (SSR) and Net Present Value (NPV), while the energy balance battery model decreases the part of Pareto front, where individuals have low NPV. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier Ltd , 2017. Vol. 105, 1184-1191 p.
National Category
Energy Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-36003DOI: 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.409Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85020711221OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mdh-36003DiVA: diva2:1117905
Conference
8th International Conference on Applied Energy, ICAE 2016, 8 October 2016 through 11 October 2016
Available from: 2017-06-29 Created: 2017-06-29 Last updated: 2017-06-29Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Campana, Pietro EliaYan, Jinyue
By organisation
Future Energy Center
In the same journal
Energy Procedia
Energy Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf