Sustainable Power Grid Expansion: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Rita Xu and Version 1 by Salman Mohagheghi.

Electric demand is steadily increasing, hence requiring continuous investments in modernizing, and expanding power grids worldwide. Traditionally, power system planning projects have considered minimizing the costs of capacity expansion and minimizing the amount of energy not served as the main objectives. With climate change policies enforcing the decommissioning of fossil-fuel-based generation, new clean and renewable generation technologies are being considered for power system capacity expansion projects. However, every generation and transmission technology can potentially have negative impacts on the environment. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool that allows us to evaluate the impacts of these technologies on the environment and society over its entire lifetime.

  • capacity expansion planning
  • generation planning
  • greenhouse gas emissions
  • life cycle assessment
  • sustainability

1. Introduction

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that, assuming no significant changes in policy or technology, world energy consumption will grow by nearly 50% between 2020 and 2050 [1], attributed mainly to global population and economic growth. Increased deployment of electrification projects in developing countries and a general demand for higher quality of life are key contributors, particularly energy demand for space cooling, which, absent policy interventions, is expected to triple by 2050 [2]. Other trends, such as electrification of the transportation fleet, are expected to shift energy consumption from primary fuels to electricity. It is estimated that by 2030, electric vehicles (EVs) in the U.S. will account for 4% of total final electricity consumption under the Sustainable Development Scenario [3]. Being able to respond to this increase in demand requires investment in modernizing power grids and expanding their generation and transmission capacities.
In the most general sense, power grid capacity expansion can be formulated as an optimization model that tries to find the lowest cost solution to meet the expected electric demand over a long-term forecast horizon of typically 10–20 years. When it comes to devising generation capacity expansion, decision variables of the model may include additional generation capacity to be added to a subset of existing power plants and new power plants to be constructed at a subset of candidate locations. Because the added generation capacity needs to be transmitted to demand areas, often there is a need to construct new transmission lines or expand the capacities of the existing ones. Combining the two problems of generation and transmission expansion is beneficial because, when it comes to renewable energy resources, many times, the energy resource is available at a location from which proper connections to the main grid may not be available.
Traditionally, the objective functions of the optimization model have included terms for deployment and operation costs to be minimized, energy not served to be minimized, or social welfare, often defined as the difference between the demand profile and production profile, to be minimized. Not surprisingly, the cost of grid expansion, which could include the cost of investment, operation, and maintenance, is the most important objective function considered [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. In [11[11][20],20], an objective function was defined related to the salvage value of the installed resources at the end of the planning horizon to be maximized. Demand response, defined as voluntary demand curtailment targeting residential, commercial, and/or the industrial sector, can also be considered as virtual generation, in which case the costs associated with it need to be accounted for [11]. Authors in [17] also considered the cost of the worst-case imbalance between load and generation. Some have also included a cost term associated with involuntary load shed due to discrepancies between demand and generation, to be minimized [7,9,13,15][7][9][13][15]. In addition to the cost of generation and transmission enhancement, costs associated with repairs due to natural disasters can also be modeled [21]. Because the ultimate goal of grid capacity expansion planning is to ensure that demand is met, improvement in system reliability, for instance, in the form of minimizing the interrupted load and/or energy not served, can also be considered as an objective [5,11,12][5][11][12]. Other constraints have been considered, for instance, authors in [5] modeled the absorption of private investment for transmission lines as one of their objective functions to be maximized.
The optimization model above is subject to a variety of budgetary and operational constraints. The most common constraints that have been considered in the literature are the overall load balance, power balance equations at individual buses, power flow equations, line flow limits, and limits on generation capacity [4,5,6,7,9,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,20][4][5][6][7][9][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][20]. Other constraints may include limits on the investment budget [4,14[4][14][16],16], commissioning time and installation constraints [11[11][19],19], fuel demand [4[4][6][16],6,16], and fuel transportation [16]. Moreover, authors in [6] included a constraint to ensure that no islanding occurs during normal or contingency operations. This impacts the numbers and locations of new transmission lines to be installed. Conversely, authors in [9] allowed for islanding formation by recommending the deployment of black start capable units such as battery energy storage systems.
The changing climate and the rise in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events have created a consensus among the scientific community that materials and energy resources must be used in a sustainable fashion with minimal environmental impacts. In 2015, nations around the world signed the Paris Agreement pledging to combat climate change. To meet the strict goals developed in the agreement, many countries have begun transitioning their electric generation resources and grids away from fossil fuel-based technologies and instead, adopting clean and renewable energy generation alternatives such as hydropower, wind, or solar generation. With the pressure to decrease carbon emissions, many appliances and systems are being converted to utilize electricity as their primary energy source, e.g., EVs and electric heating. This trend is expected to continue, increasing the burden on electricity networks.
The United Nation’s 7th sustainable development goal (SDG) is to ensure access to “affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy”, worldwide [22]. To meet this goal, the implementation of renewable generation and energy-efficient systems is expected to increase. Furthermore, the goal calls for sustainable electrification of underdeveloped and unelectrified areas. With the decommissioning of carbon-based generation, the increased electrification of systems, and the expansion of access to electricity, reliance on electricity is going to increase greatly beyond what is standard for population growth in the years to come. Renewable and clean energy generation is going to have to provide a significant portion of electric demand to consumers. However, the environmental impacts of energy resources are not limited to carbon emissions and their contribution to global warming. In fact, every power generation technology can result in several undesired impacts during its entire life cycle, which could negatively affect air quality, water resources, material resources, and/or human health. As power networks worldwide are expanded to accommodate the rise in demand, the sustainability of these projects must be assessed in a comprehensive and fair fashion and their negative impacts minimized. This is the only way to ensure that the autonomy of future generations is not sacrificed by our actions today.

2. Modeling Sustainability through LCA

LCA is a sustainability modeling tool that quantifies the environmental impacts of a product or service over the course of its lifetime. It evaluates the environmental footprint by considering the inputs acquired from nature (e.g., material, energy, water) and the outputs to nature (e.g., waste, emissions to soil/water/air, etc.). LCA is meant to be utilized during the design and development of a product or service to identify environmentally harmful materials, processes, or activities associated with that product or service [23]. After the identification of environmental harms, developers and engineers can consider alternate methods of design to ensure minimal impact on the environment. Alternatively, LCA can be used to compare two or more products in terms of their environmental footprints. Here, it is essential to define a functional unit to be used as the basis of comparison. The international standards organization (ISO) series 14,040 defines and outlines the four phases of life cycle assessment [23], which include goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation. To clearly define the goal and scope of the assessment, the product system must be defined, the system boundary developed, and data categories chosen. Some LCA studies are reported as cradle-to-gate, which means that they only include impacts up to the point where the product is pushed out of the gate of the factory and do not consider negative effects that may arise from the product’s use or disposal. Other studies may focus on cradle-to-grave, which offers a comprehensive assessment of the impacts during manufacturing and production (upstream), operation, and disposal (downstream) of the product (see Figure 1). Alternatively, an LCA study may only investigate the impacts associated with one process within the chain of production and use—an approach known as gate-to-gate.
Sustainability 15 08788 g001
Figure 1. LCA boundaries.
Inventory analysis is the section that calculates the amount of output materials or processes related to the inputs to the system through a unit process. Impact assessment evaluates the findings from the inventory analysis phase. The results are classified into midpoint impact categories that may include acidification, freshwater eutrophication, ozone depletion, global warming potential, particulate matter, freshwater toxicity, land use, and mineral and fossil resources. These categories are then associated with endpoint impact categories of damage to ecosystems, damage to human health, and damage to resource availability (see Figure 2). The findings from LCA can be normalized or weighted depending on the scope of the study. Results can then be interpreted. An important aspect of interpretation of the results is an analysis of inconsistencies and key issues and limitations within data [23].
Sustainability 15 08788 g002
Figure 2. Common midpoint and endpoint impact categories considered in LCA studies. Not all categories are included in all LCA studies. Moreover, some studies define new categories, which may be a combination of one or more categories listed above.
LCA can be process-based, which uses inventory data for individual processes to methodically analyze material and energy flows at every stage of the life cycle, or economic input-output-based (EIO), which uses economic data to assess impacts, for instance, identifying the level of emissions for $1M of sales in a particular industry [24]. Generally speaking, process-based LCA is more appropriate for simpler and contained systems and studies, whereas EIO LCA is more suited for complex systems in which detailed environmental data about different processes may not be available with a high level of accuracy. A hybrid approach is also possible, where wresearchers start with one model as the baseline and then fill the gaps with the second model to refine the analysis. LCA can also be categorized as attributional or consequential. Attributional LCA (ALCA) uses current and historical data that is measurable/known to model the impacts and assumes that changes within the LCA system do not impact the overall techno-sphere [24]. It models the system based on how things are and does not consider the effects of outside systems and policies on the system under study. Consequential LCA (CLCA), on the other hand, models the environmental impacts that might occur in the future in response to changes in technology, policy, or market. It performs a what-if analysis of the consequences of changes in the way a product is produced, used, and/or disposed of. CLCA analyses are more appropriate for large-scale studies.

3. Sustainable Power Grids: Capacity Expansion Models

To ensure sustainability in design and capacity expansion, some researchers have used the findings from LCA studies to inform, critique, and compare energy policies and decisions. For instance, authors in [40][25] analyzed the effectiveness of energy transition plans of UK’s largest utility. Authors in [70][26] adopted a similar approach but compared proposed grid mixes in 2030 versus 2010. In [49][27], an LCA-based method was developed to help policymakers with deploying energy storage systems. In another study, authors in [71][28] developed an LCA-based methodology for determining carbon tax incentives that only considered environmental impacts and not cost. Lastly, LCA can help influence policies and regulations within electricity markets by coupling with other models such as optimization, geospatial informatics, net energy analysis, building information, and network theory [44,50,54,58,65,72][29][30][31][32][33][34]. Alternatively, many researchers have proposed sustainability-focused power grid capacity expansion planning with embedded objectives and/or constraints that model environmental impacts. These can be designed to encourage renewable generation technologies or to place limits on non-renewable alternatives (Figure 3). Naturally, one of the easiest ways to expand the power grid in a sustainable fashion is to limit generation options to only renewables and disregard higher-polluting ones. This approach has been adopted by some authors, for instance, in [10,63,73,74][10][35][36][37]. Alternatively, authors in [75][38] proposed to incorporate the external costs of energy generation and transmission (e.g., costs due to environmental and societal damages) into the marginal production costs so that it impacts the supply and demand equilibrium. Authors in [76,77,78,79][39][40][41][42] incorporated a cost term in the objective function to reflect emissions. In [80][43], a carbon tax term was added to the cost objective function.
Sustainability 15 08788 g003
Figure 3. Sustainability-focused grid expansion planning model. Components highlighted in yellow represent objective functions and constraints that target sustainability goals.
Authors in [81][44] introduced cost and revenue functions associated with carbon capture and storage (CSS) for non-renewable technologies. The cost was associated with the installation of the CSS technology, which also uses a nonnegligible portion of the electricity produced by the plant. The revenue was modeled to reflect selling the captured CO2 as a commodity or tax credits received for capturing carbon. If financial incentives are allocated to new renewable technologies, their costs need to be included in the model as well. For instance, authors in [82][45] included a term in their cost function to reflect the incentive payments made by the utility. This term was a linear function of the level of demand reduction (in MW) and energy conservation (in MWh). The former variable was then included in the adequacy constraint, whereas the latter was included in the energy balance constraint. The authors argued that this enables the planning authority to design optimal rates of renewable integration and energy conservation targets. Alternatively, installing new renewable plants can be incentivized indirectly by enforcing limits on emissions. Authors in [79,83,84][42][46][47] modeled the problem as minimizing the cost of new technologies to be installed and introduced an additional constraint to limit the emissions from generation. However, as pointed out in the previous section, emissions only account for one aspect of the environmental impacts of new technologies, and an LCA-based approach is the only viable option to model all important undesired impacts. This has been the focus of some researchers in recent years. For instance, authors in [72][34] developed an optimization framework for a case study in China to allocate energy resources that can supply the load with lower environmental impacts than the business as usual (BAU) model. They considered material input, GWP, and water deprivation as the impact categories. Their objective function was defined as the sum of environmental impacts per unit of each energy resource used to supply the demand, and the model was solved subject to constraints listed as the entire demand being met (overall power balance with no network constraints), limits on the levels of each of the environmental impact categories, and each environmental impact must reduce compared to BAU. The environmental factors for each technology were determined based on a cradle-to-grave LCA analysis. Authors in [71][28] compared the cost-optimal study of the European power system based on carbon tax incentives with one in which the goal was to minimize environmental impacts, modeled based on a total of 18 indicators. They calculated the annual emissions as a function of the energy mix for 12 representative days in the year and concluded that shifting from an economic to an environment-focused model increased the share of renewables by 2.65% and decreased the overall emissions by 9%. Further, it resulted in upgrading the power grid to accommodate the renewables, leading to a 1.5% increase in the overall cost of the power system. In [85][48], GHG emissions were incorporated into the grid capacity expansion planning by introducing a new objective function alongside the traditional cost minimization objective. Emission categories were calculated using LCA and combined into investment (for new generation capacity) and operation (for new and existing generation) categories. In their case study, the authors noted an 82% reduction in emissions at the expense of a 63% increase in cost. A similar approach was proposed in [86][49], where generation expansion planning was combined with LCA into a multi-objective optimization framework. The impacts of the energy supply were divided into a fixed portion, reflecting the costs and impacts associated with the infrastructure construction as well as the upstream processes necessary, and a variable portion, which included costs and impacts associated with the production of electricity. The model was solved subject to constraints associated with power balance, unit capacity limits, and shutdown and start-up of generators, to name a few. Sometimes the push towards sustainability is guided by a renewable energy target to be met. Authors in [79][42] introduced constraints that reflected the desired renewable installed capacity and lower/upper bounds for regional expansion of capacity. A similar target for the actual (not nominal) renewable energy capacity was adopted as a constraint in [78][41]. Authors in [10] introduced a constraint in their model to reflect the wind energy target to be met each year: In each year, the capacity of each wind farm multiplied by its capacity factor, summed over all wind farms, must exceed that year’s wind penetration requirement. Renewable energy resources are intermittent and stochastic in nature, making them different from fossil fuel plants from a reliability perspective. The capacity value of a generation resource, which is defined as the fraction of its rated capacity that is considered firm, should be included in the calculations for determining the amount of reserve margin and/or energy storage capacity needed. To address this, authors in [79][42] modeled constraints that ensured that secured capacity was higher than peak load of the year. Authors in [87][50] incorporated the capacity value of variable generation in the form of resource adequacy constraints. Alternatively, the uncertainties of the renewable energy resources can also be modeled in the form of stochastic-based optimization, where first-stage variables indicate installation decisions and second-stage variables concern the operation of the resource under different scenarios. One such example is reported in [15]. Some researchers have also studied the suitability of various generation technologies. For instance, authors in [79][42] included a suitability objective function modeled as distance to the river for cooling purposes of steam power plants, infrastructure for gas distribution/storage for gas turbines, etc. As another example, authors in [88][51] developed a fuzzy logic model to rank various green energy alternatives for capacity expansion. They considered social (number of jobs created, balanced development across regions), technical (technology maturity, production capacity), environmental (land requirement, emission reduction), and economic factors (investment cost, affordability of cost of energy). Other incentives have also been included in the capacity expansion model. As an example, authors in [89][52] considered the potential of DERs (general resources, not focused on renewables) in reducing the peak load, which could allow for avoiding or delaying the need for capacity expansion (referred to as non-wire alternatives (NWAs)). They considered the timing of grid expansion as a variable, which could be affected by the contribution of those DERs, and investigated whether delaying or avoiding capacity expansion investments would balance the costs of NWAs. Finally, as the modern distribution grid becomes equipped with a larger number of distributed energy resources, some authors argue that transmission and distribution planning problems need to be combined because, if solved in isolation, the solutions to each one would likely be suboptimal. Such approaches have been proposed, for instance, in [15,90][15][53].

References

  1. U.S. Energy Information Administration. International Energy Outlook. 2021. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/IEO2021_Narrative.pdf (accessed on 29 April 2023).
  2. International Energy Agency. The Future of Cooling–Opportunities for Energy-Efficient Air Conditioning. May 2018. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/the-future-of-cooling (accessed on 29 April 2023).
  3. International Energy Agency. Global EV Outlook 2020. 2020. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2020 (accessed on 1 May 2023).
  4. Meza, J.L.C.; Yildirim, M.B.; Masud, A.S.M. A Model for the Multiperiod Multiobjective Power Generation Expansion Problem. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2007, 22, 871–878.
  5. Arabali, A.; Ghofrani, M.; Etezadi-Amoli, M.; Fadali, M.S.; Moeini-Aghtaie, M. A Multi-Objective Transmission Expansion Planning Framework in Deregulated Power Systems With Wind Generation. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2014, 29, 3003–3011.
  6. Sepasian, M.S.; Seifi, H.; Foroud, A.A.; Hatami, A.R. A Multiyear Security Constrained Hybrid Generation-Transmission Expansion Planning Algorithm Including Fuel Supply Costs. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2009, 24, 1609–1618.
  7. Baringo, L.; Baringo, A. A Stochastic Adaptive Robust Optimization Approach for the Generation and Transmission Expansion Planning. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2018, 33, 792–802.
  8. Pozo, D.; Sauma, E.E.; Contreras, J. A Three-Level Static MILP Model for Generation and Transmission Expansion Planning. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2012, 28, 202–210.
  9. Yao, F.; Chau, T.K.; Zhang, X.; Iu, H.H.-C.; Fernando, T. An Integrated Transmission Expansion and Sectionalizing-Based Black Start Allocation of BESS Planning Strategy for Enhanced Power Grid Resilience. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 148968–148979.
  10. Gu, Y.; McCalley, J.D.; Ni, M. Coordinating Large-Scale Wind Integration and Transmission Planning. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2012, 3, 652–659.
  11. Khodaei, A.; Shahidehpour, M.; Wu, L.; Li, Z. Coordination of Short-Term Operation Constraints in Multi-Area Expansion Planning. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2012, 27, 2242–2250.
  12. Aghaei, J.; Amjady, N.; Baharvandi, A.; Akbari, M.-A. Generation and Transmission Expansion Planning: MILP–Based Probabilistic Model. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2014, 29, 1592–1601.
  13. Yin, S.; Wang, J. Generation and Transmission Expansion Planning Towards a 100% Renewable Future. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2020, 37, 3274–3285.
  14. López, J.Á.; Ponnambalam, K.; Quintana, V.H. Generation and Transmission Expansion Under Risk Using Stochastic Programming. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2007, 22, 1369–1378.
  15. Munoz-Delgado, G.; Contreras, J.; Arroyo, J.M.; de la Nieta, A.S.; Gibescu, M. Integrated Transmission and Distribution System Expansion Planning Under Uncertainty. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2021, 12, 4113–4125.
  16. Mavalizadeh, H.; Ahmadi, A.; Gandoman, F.H.; Siano, P.; Shayanfar, H.A. Multiobjective Robust Power System Expansion Planning Considering Generation Units Retirement. IEEE Syst. J. 2017, 12, 2664–2675.
  17. Moreira, A.; Pozo, D.; Street, A.; Sauma, E. Reliable Renewable Generation and Transmission Expansion Planning: Co-Optimizing System’s Resources for Meeting Renewable Targets. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2016, 32, 3246–3257.
  18. Hong, S.; Cheng, H.; Zeng, P. N-K Constrained Composite Generation and Transmission Expansion Planning With Interval Load. IEEE Access 2017, 5, 2779–2789.
  19. Li, J.; Li, Z.; Liu, F.; Ye, H.; Zhang, X.; Mei, S.; Chang, N. Robust Coordinated Transmission and Generation Expansion Planning Considering Ramping Requirements and Construction Periods. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2017, 33, 268–280.
  20. Shu, J.; Wu, L.; Zhang, L.; Han, B. Spatial Power Network Expansion Planning Considering Generation Expansion. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2014, 30, 1815–1824.
  21. Romero, N.R.; Nozick, L.K.; Dobson, I.D.; Xu, N.; Jones, D.A. Transmission and Generation Expansion to Mitigate Seismic Risk. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2013, 28, 3692–3701.
  22. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 19 March 2023).
  23. Finkbeiner, M.; Inaba, A.; Tan, R.; Christiansen, K.; Klüppel, H.-J. The New International Standards for Life Cycle Assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2006, 11, 80–85.
  24. Simonen, K. Life Cycle Assessment; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
  25. Raugei, M.; Kamran, M.; Hutchinson, A. A Prospective Net Energy and Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment of the UK Electricity Grid. Energies 2020, 13, 2207.
  26. Turconi, R.; Tonini, D.; Nielsen, C.F.; Simonsen, C.G.; Astrup, T. Environmental impacts of future low-carbon electricity systems: Detailed life cycle assessment of a Danish case study. Appl. Energy 2014, 132, 66–73.
  27. Elzein, H.; Dandres, T.; Levasseur, A.; Samson, R. How can an optimized life cycle assessment method help evaluate the use phase of energy storage systems? J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 209, 1624–1636.
  28. Louis, J.-N.; Allard, S.; Debusschere, V.; Mima, S.; Tran-Quoc, T.; Hadjsaid, N. Environmental impact indicators for the electricity mix and network development planning towards 2050–A POLES and EUTGRID model. Energy 2018, 163, 618–628.
  29. Walzberg, J.; Dandres, T.; Merveille, N.; Cheriet, M.; Samson, R. Accounting for fluctuating demand in the life cycle assess-ments of residential electricity consumption and demand-side management strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 240, 118251.
  30. Colett, J.S.; Kelly, J.C.; Keoleian, G.A. Using Nested Average Electricity Allocation Protocols to Characterize Electrical Grids in Life Cycle Assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 2015, 20, 29–41.
  31. Harrison, G.P.; Maclean, E.J.; Karamanlis, S.; Ochoa, L.F. Life cycle assessment of the transmission network in Great Britain. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 3622–3631.
  32. Kim, H.; Holme, P. Network Theory Integrated Life Cycle Assessment for an Electric Power System. Sustainability 2015, 7, 10961–10975.
  33. Munné-Collado, I.; Aprà, F.M.; Olivella-Rosell, P.; Villafáfila-Robles, R. The Potential Role of Flexibility During Peak Hours on Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Life Cycle Assessment of Five Targeted National Electricity Grid Mixes. Energies 2019, 12, 4443.
  34. Ding, N.; Pan, J.; Liu, J.; Yang, J. An optimization method for energy structures based on life cycle assessment and its ap-plication to the power grid in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 238, 18–24.
  35. Tumiran; Sarjiya; Putranto, L.M.; Putra, E.N.; Budi, R.F.S.; Nugraha, C.F. Generation and Transmission Expansion Planning in Remote Areas by considering Renewable Energy Policy and Local Energy Resources: The Case Study of Jayapura Power System. In Proceedings of the 2021 3rd International Conference on High Voltage Engineering and Power Systems (ICHVEPS), Bandung, Indonesia, 5–6 October 2021; pp. 143–148.
  36. Obushevs, A.; Oleinikova, I. Transmission expansion planning considering wholesale electricity market and integration of renewable generation. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on the European Energy Market (EEM14), Krakow, Poland, 28–30 May 2014; pp. 1–6.
  37. Wang, R.; Zhao, Y.; Xiao, Y.; Xie, H. Coordinated Planning of Renewable Energy and Grid Expansion Based on Scenario Trees. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Sustainable Power and Energy Conference (iSPEC), Chengdu, China, 23–25 November 2020; pp. 485–490.
  38. Papaemmanouil, A.; Andersson, G. Coordinated expansion planning based on a cost benefit analysis. In Proceedings of the 2009 6th International Conference on the European Energy Market, Leuven, Belgium, 27–29 May 2009; pp. 1–6.
  39. Bent, R.; Toole, G.L. Grid expansion planning for carbon emissions reduction. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, San Diego, CA, USA, 22–26 July 2012; pp. 1–8.
  40. Lei, J.; Xin, H.; Xie, J.; Gan, D. Optimization of distributed energy systems taking into account energy saving and emission reduction. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Sustainable Power Generation and Supply, Nanjing, China, 6–7 April 2009; pp. 1–6.
  41. Parizy, E.S.; Choi, S.; Bahrami, H.R. Grid-Specific Co-Optimization of Incentive for Generation Planning in Power Systems With Renewable Energy Sources. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2019, 11, 947–957.
  42. Özalay, B.; Müller, C.; Raths, S.; Schettler, A. Analysis of Future Power Generation Structures with a Multi-Period, Multi-Objective Expansion Model. In Proceedings of the 2014 49th International Universities Power Engineering Conference (UPEC), Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2–5 September 2014.
  43. Akbarzade, H.; Amraee, T. A Model for Generation Expansion Planning in Power Systems Considering Emission Costs. In Proceedings of the 2018 Smart Grid Conference (SGC), Sanandaj, Iran, 28–29 November 2018; pp. 1–5.
  44. Saboori, H.; Hemmati, R. Considering Carbon Capture and Storage in Electricity Generation Expansion Planning. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2016, 7, 1371–1378.
  45. Das, I.; Bhattacharya, K.; Canizares, C. Optimal Incentive Design for Targeted Penetration of Renewable Energy Sources. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2014, 5, 1213–1225.
  46. Nagothu, K.S.; Arroju, M.; Maheswarapu, S. A novel approach to sustainable Power System Expansion planning with inclusion of Renewable Energy. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 7th International Power Engineering and Optimization Conference (PEOCO), Langkawi, Malaysia, 3–4 June 2013; pp. 535–539.
  47. Muthahhari, A.A.; Putranto, L.M.; Sarjiya; Tumiran; Anugerah, F.S.; Priyanto, A.; Isnandar, S.; Savitri, I. Environmental Considerations in Long-Term Generation Expansion Planning with Emission Limitations: An Analysis of the Sulawesi Power System in Indonesia. In Proceedings of the 2020 FORTEI-International Conference on Electrical Engineering (FORTEI-ICEE), Bandung, Indonesia, 23–24 September 2020; pp. 29–34.
  48. Junne, T.; Cao, K.-K.; Miskiw, K.K.; Hottenroth, H.; Naegler, T. Considering Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Power System Expansion Planning for Europe and North Africa Using Multi-Objective Optimization. Energies 2021, 14, 1301.
  49. Rauner, S.; Budzinski, M. Holistic energy system modeling combining multi-objective optimization and life cycle assessment. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 12, 124005.
  50. Yuan, B.; Wu, S.; Zong, J. Multi-area generation expansion planning model of high variable generation penetration. In Proceedings of the 2017 2nd International Conference on Power and Renewable Energy (ICPRE), Chengdu, China, 20–23 September 2017; pp. 645–648.
  51. Babatunde, O.; Munda, J.; Hamam, Y. Renewable Energy Technologies for Generation Expansion Planning: A fuzzy modified similarity-based approach. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Renewable Energy and Power Engineering (REPE), Toronto, ON, Canada, 2–4 November 2019; pp. 216–220.
  52. Contreras-Ocana, J.E.; Chen, Y.; Siddiqi, U.; Zhang, B. Non-Wire Alternatives: An Additional Value Stream for Distributed Energy Resources. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2019, 11, 1287–1299.
  53. Zhang, Q.; Li, A.; Liu, L.; Cheng, H.; Liu, D.; Zhang, L.; Xu, T. Transmission Expansion Planning Coordinated with Distribution Networks Considering High Renewable Energy Penetration. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Sustainable Power and Energy Conference (iSPEC), Chengdu, China, 23–25 November 2020; pp. 415–422.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback