See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236141586

Analysis on Techno-Economic Benefits of a Strategically Placed Distributed

Generator in a Radial Distribution System

Article in International Journal of Computer Applications · January 2012

DOI: 10.5120/9585-4064

CITATION READS

1 550

2 authors, including:

Dr. Satish Kumar Injeti

National Institute of Technology, Warangal
45 PUBLICATIONS 1,093 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dr. Satish Kumar Injeti on 06 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 59– No.10, December 2012

Analysis on Techno-Economic Benefits of a

Strategically Placed Distributed Generator in a
Radial Distribution System
S. Rama Krishna Injeti S. Kumar
P.G. Scholar Associate Professor
Electrical and Electronics Engineering Electrical and Electronics Engineering
Sir C R Reddy College of Engineering, Eluru, Sir C R Reddy College of Engineering, Eluru,
Andhra Pradesh, India-534007. Andhra Pradesh, India-534007.

ABSTRACT capacity around the world will be as DG [2]. Several DG

Integration of alternative sources of energy into a network for technologies have reached in a developed stage allowing for a
distributed generation (DG) requires small-scale power large scale implementation within existing electric utility
generation technologies located close to the loads served. The system [3]. The development and growing interest in
move toward on-site distributed power generation has been renewable sources of energy such as wind, solar, geothermal,
accelerated because of deregulation and restructuring of the biomass, small hydro etc, all over the world, make these
utility industry and the feasibility of alternative energy technologies suitable for integration into distribution network
sources. DG technologies can improve power quality, boost [4]. In the last few years, there has been significant
system reliability, reduce energy costs, and defray utility contribution to research in DG resource planning. Normally,
capital investment. This paper presents techno economic DGs are integrated in the existing distribution system, and the
analysis of optimally located and sized various DG planning studies have to be performed for optimal location
technologies in a radial distribution system. The impact of DG and sizing of DGs to achieve maximum benefits.
on the system voltage profile and line losses is also evaluated. Inappropriate selection of the location and size of DG may
This has been accomplished by two parts, part one examine lead to greater system loss than the loss without DG [5]. The
technical benefits of integration of a DG unit to different contribution of DG on loss reduction is presented with the DG
buses of distribution system and varying DG unit size in a 30 capacity, location and operating power factor [6]. A power
bus radial distribution system. Part two examine the flow algorithm has been developed based on the summation
implementation viability of the project; a detailed financial of currents backward-forward sweep technique [7].
evaluation has been carried out for various DG technologies Reconfiguration problem is solved through a heuristic
which are available in the market for commercial use. The methodology and loss allocation function based on the Z-bus
results show that there is significant improvement in voltage method, is presented. A technique for evaluation of optimal
profile, reduction in line loss and consequently the utility can power flow for the connection of DG is presented in [8]. The
gain financial benefits when DG is incorporated into the Genetic Algorithm (GA) based method to determine size and
system. location is used in [9]. GA's are suitable for multi-objective
problems like DG allocation, and can give near optimal
Keywords results. A new heuristic approach for DG capacity investment
Distributed generation, emission, optimum location and planning from the perspective of a distribution company is
sizing, techno-economic analysis etc... presented [10]. Optimal sitting and sizing decisions for DG
capacity is obtained through cost-benefit analysis approach
1. INTRODUCTION based on a new optimization model. The model aims to
Studies have showed that as much as 13% of total power
minimize the distribution companies’ investment and
generated is wasted as losses at the distribution level [1]. As a
operating costs as well as payment towards loss
result, loss reduction in distribution system is one great
compensation. A value based planning of DG placement
challenge to many utilities around the world. Reconfiguration
method considering different constraint is presented in [11].
and capacitor placement is the two major methods for loss
Optimal placement of DG considering economic operational
reduction in distribution systems. Advances in generation
limitations of DG is presented in [12]. A technique has been
technology, new directions in electric industry regulation and
proposed in [13] to identify the impact of DG on power
environmental emissions have favored a significant increase
system. The analysis shows the optimal DG mix at various
of DG. It is reported that 25%-30% newly built generation
facility outage costs with and without emission restriction.

26
 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 59– No.10, December 2012

Table 1. Variation of line loss with DG capacity and DG position

Capacity of DG in percentage of total load plus losses

Bus
No. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2 0.88188 0.86280 0.84562 0.83033 0.81692 0.80538 0.79569 0.78785 0.78184 0.77766 0.77529

3 0.88188 0.84581 0.81359 0.78517 0.76051 0.73956 0.72229 0.70863 0.69858 0.69208 0.68909

4 0.88188 0.82049 0.76628 0.71912 0.67884 0.64532 0.61842 0.59800 0.58394 0.57611 0.57440

5 0.88188 0.79826 0.72524 0.66251 0.60975 0.56669 0.53304 0.50853 0.49293 0.48599 0.48748

6 0.88188 0.77696 0.68637 0.60957 0.54601 0.49519 0.45664 0.42992 0.41462 0.41035 0.41674

7 0.88188 0.76444 0.66794 0.59123 0.53323 0.49297 0.46955 0.46216 0.47004 0.49249 0.52888

8 0.88188 0.75823 0.65994 0.58531 0.53284 0.50118 0.48909 0.49547 0.51933 0.55974 0.61587

9 0.88188 0.75165 0.65326 0.58411 0.54192 0.52470 0.53069 0.55834 0.60625 0.67318 0.75802

10 0.88188 0.74909 0.65230 0.58823 0.55405 0.54730 0.56588 0.60792 0.67178 0.75600 0.85927

11 0.88188 0.74858 0.65376 0.59368 0.56516 0.56547 0.59227 0.64352 0.71742 0.81240 0.92704

12 0.88188 0.74907 0.65659 0.60035 0.57687 0.58324 0.61693 0.67577 0.75784 0.86148 0.98520

13 0.88188 0.84612 0.81677 0.79369 0.77676 0.76589 0.76095 0.76183 0.76843 0.78067 0.79843

14 0.88188 0.84695 0.82176 0.80605 0.79954 0.80198 0.81313 0.83276 0.86064 0.89656 0.94033

15 0.88188 0.84756 0.82464 0.81273 0.81149 0.82056 0.83963 0.86838 0.90654 0.95381 1.00994

16 0.88188 0.84797 0.82627 0.81634 0.81779 0.83021 0.85324 0.88654 0.92978 0.98264 1.44085

17 0.88188 0.76011 0.65709 0.57188 0.50360 0.45145 0.41469 0.39263 0.38464 0.39015 0.40858

18 0.88188 0.74608 0.63326 0.54201 0.47108 0.41932 0.38571 0.36930 0.36924 0.38472 0.41502

19 0.88188 0.73028 0.60715 0.51037 0.43811 0.38875 0.36082 0.35302 0.36417 0.39321 0.43918

20 0.88188 0.71770 0.58705 0.48709 0.41537 0.36975 0.34835 0.34952 0.37177 0.41379 0.47439

21 0.88188 0.70695 0.57064 0.46924 0.39964 0.35915 0.34544 0.35649 0.39053 0.44598 0.52144

22 0.88188 0.69474 0.55315 0.45211 0.38745 0.35572 0.35394 0.37959 0.43049 0.50471 0.60058

23 0.88188 0.68520 0.54086 0.44237 0.38450 0.36295 0.37413 0.41502 0.48303 0.57595 0.69182

24 0.88188 0.67703 0.53229 0.43928 0.39145 0.38349 0.41109 0.47067 0.55919 0.67411 0.81320

25 0.88188 0.67376 0.53059 0.44271 0.40265 0.40452 0.44352 0.51572 0.61785 0.74715 0.90124

26 0.88188 0.67307 0.53197 0.44813 0.41358 0.42204 0.46848 0.54876 0.65946 0.79772 0.96109

27 0.88188 0.67360 0.53498 0.45502 0.42537 0.43948 0.49212 0.57904 0.69671 0.84217 1.01295

28 0.88188 0.76437 0.67071 0.59943 0.54914 0.51863 0.50679 0.51262 0.53519 0.57366 0.62727

29 0.88188 0.76483 0.67447 0.60896 0.56662 0.54595 0.54564 0.56448 0.60138 0.65537 0.72554

30 0.88188 0.76581 0.67919 0.61979 0.58558 0.57483 0.58597 0.61761 0.66849 0.73749 0.82359

27
 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 59– No.10, December 2012

An improved analytical method is proposed in [14] to find the locations are plotted in Fig 1 and Fig 2 for illustration. It is
optimal sizes, optimal locations of various types of DG. It also observed that there is an appreciable reduction in line loss and
presents the importance of operating DGs that are capable of significant improvement in voltage profile.
delivering both real and reactive power at the proper power
factor to achieve minimum loss. Hedayati.et.al. [15] proposed Table 2. Summary of minimal line losses for variation of
a method based on continuous power flow. In this method DG capacity and DG location
they first determine the most sensitive buses to voltage % DG DG Line
collapse. After that, the DG units with certain capacity will be Method
capacity location loss (MW)
installed in buses via an objective function and an iterative
algorithm. However, these works does not discuss about 0% ---- 0.88188
viability of project implementation in terms of economics as
well as environmental benefits. 10% 27 0.67360

2. IDENTIFICATION OF OPTIMAL 20% 25 0.53059

LOCATION AND CAPACITY OF DG
To assess the impact of DG, the DG unit is connected to one 30% 24 0.43928
of the buses at a time and its effect on bus voltage and line
losses (real power) are studied. The location of DG is varied 40% 23 0.38450
from bus 2 to bus 30 except bus 1, since it is the source bus or
sub-station bus. Note that addition of DG at bus 1 has no Analytical 50% 22 0.35572
effect. Keeping the output DG capacity constant, the position
of the DG is changed from bus 2 to bus 30 and the effects on 60% 21 0.34544
the above parameters are observed. Then the DG capacity is
increased in steps of 10% and the same procedure is carried 70% 20 0.34952
out for each variation of the capacity (i.e. capacity of DG is
equal to percentage of total load plus line loss). The optimal 80% 19 0.36417
location of DG in terms of bus number is determined by the
bus that yields minimum line loss. For each variation of DG 90% 18 0.38472
capacity, line loss has been calculated. This procedure creates
a set of solutions, out of all solutions the one that is optimal is 100% 17 0.40858
chosen as the final solution (location and capacity of DG).
The line losses for the system with variation of DG capacity
are given in Table. 1. The effects of integration of DG were 4. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
analyzed in the next section. The approximate daily load curve of the test system is given
in Fig 3. The load curve shows the amount of load in MW that
the test system supplies throughout a day and is plotted in
3. INTEGRATION OF DG MW verses hours. From the curve the load demand varies
The location of DG is varied from bus 2 to bus 30 except bus
from 5.5 MW during midnight hours, 10 MW during day time
1, since it is the source bus or sub-station bus. Note that
to 13 MW during evening hours. The average load demand
addition of DG at bus 1 has no effect. For each location from
found to be 8.7163 MW.
bus 2 to bus 30 rated MW DG capacities is varied from 10%
to 100% of the total load in steps of 10%. For each case the
Table 3. Summary of selected DG capacities and line losses
total line loss in terms of percentage of total load and
improvement in bus voltage is calculated. The results such as DG size in DG Line loss in
line loss for the test system with DG capacity for 10% to DG capacity
MW location MW
100% of total load plus losses are given in Table. 1. It is
observed that there is an appreciable reduction in line loss at WODG ---- ---- 0.88180
the initial stages of DG addition, i.e., at 10% and 30% range
and the losses further decreased as the size reaches to 60%.
30% 2.61489 24 0.46046
Hence for optimal utilization, a DG should be so chosen that it
has to operate within the range of 0% to 60% of total load
50% 4.35815 22 0.36600
plus losses. Optimal size and location of DG is also calculated
for the test system is 60% of the total load plus losses and bus
21. Then the total line loss (in terms of total load) and 60%(optimal) 5.75688 21 0.34544
improvement in voltage profile (p.u) are calculated. The
results such as optimal capacity, optimal location and Average load of the test system = ∑ load in MW in each hour
reduction in line loss for the test system are given in Table 2. /24
Improvement in voltage profile and line loss profile for the =(6+5.19+5.5+5.5+5.5+6.5+6.5+6.5+8.5+8.5+10.5+10.5+10.
test system with and without DG with respect to their 5+10.5+10.5+10.5+9+10 +12+13+13+11+8+6)/24

28
 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 59– No.10, December 2012

= 209.19/24 = 8.7163 MW the above selected DG capacities which are in Table 3 being
connected to their respective optimal locations. For base case
Size of DG = (8.7163+0.88180) * 60% = 5.75688 MW NPV analysis fixed cost of 1 MW DG plant is assumed at the
rate of 20, 00,000 $/MW. When DG is connected to the
The cost benefit analysis is carried out (without considering system it is not run at 100% of rated capacity throughout the
environmental emissions and percentage of outage rate) for day.

Fig 1: Impact of DG on voltage profile

Fig 2: Impact of DG on line loss profile

Fig 3: Daily load curve of the test system

29
 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 59– No.10, December 2012

The hourly loading pattern for 24 hours of a day on DG may and is used for capital budgeting to measure the excess or
be scheduled as shortfall of cash flows in present value terms once financing
charges are met [16]. In this case, the financial benefit to
 22 hr to 24 hr and 00 hr to 04 hr (06 hrs) 30% of LDCs of increased DG uptake at strategic locations on the
rated capacity distribution feeder is evaluated using NPV analysis. The NPV
 04 hr to 08 hr and 12 hr to 17 hr (09 hrs) 50% of of a sequence of cash flows takes as input the cash flows and
rated capacity a discount rate or function and outputs a price; the converse
 08 hr to 12 hr and 17 hr to 22 hr (09 hrs) 100% of process in DCF analysis – taking a sequence of cash flows
rated capacity and a price as input and inferring as output a discount rate
Plant load factor (PLF) for a day = ∑ (Duration in (e.g. “break even” discount rate which would yield the given
hours*percentage of rated capacity utilization)/24 = price as NPV) is called the yield, and is more commonly used
(6*0.30+9*0.50+9*1)/24 = 63.75% in finance, e.g. bond trading [17]. In this paper, a planning
The pattern of loading may vary but it will consider the PLF period of twenty years was used to standardize the time
as 63.75% throughout all other calculations horizon so that a NPV analysis can be performed and the
financial benefits can be compared in present value terms.
DGkWh = PDG *24*PLF (1.1) Below are the expressions used in the NPV analysis.

KWh loading of DG = rating of DG in KW * hours of the day CDGO&M= COMDG* DGkWh*365 (1.3)
* PLF
CDGinstcost = PDG *CDGcapcost (1.4)
= 5.75688(60%)*1000*24*0.637 = 88011 KWh or units/day
CDGenvcost = DGkWh *Cemiscost*365 (1.5)
DG income has the two aspects, one is income from energy
generated and the other is from saving of energy due to line Coutage = DG aninc *Routage (1.6)
loss reduction. The calculation procedure for those incomes as
follow: Cdep = Rdep * CDGinstcost (1.7)

DG a.inc = Celect*365(DGkWh + PLLR *PLF*24) (1.2) DGinbtax = DG a.inc - CDGO&M - Coutage – Cdep (1.8)

Calculation procedure for optimal DG capacity:- DGinaftax = DGinbtax - Rtax(DGinbtax) (1.9)

1. From above, 93278 units/day, calculated@ 0.088 DGNPV = - CDGinstcost + (DGinaftax) (1.10)
$/unit which is the assumed fixed tariff at prevailing
rate of Distribution Company for domestic For base case NPV analysis, it is assumed that the operation
consumers for a year. and maintenance cost (O&M) and depreciation cost is 5% of
= $ 0.088*88011*365 = $ 2826913 DG installation/investment cost. The equipment cost will be
PLLR = Line loss without DG – Line loss with DG written off to depreciation over a project life of 20 years. The
= 0.88180 – 0.34544 = 0.5355 MW = 536.3 KW tax on income is assumed as 10% per annum and a 10% rate
2. Note that above KW saving is when the DG runs at of return per annum is expected as minimum but which may
full load. Calculating the income in the same be nullified by the hike of electricity tariff at the same rate. To
manner as in (1) for a year evaluate the impact of DG capacity on financial benefits, NPV
= $ 0.088*536.3*0.637*24*365 = $ 263350 analysis has been performed on 30%, 50% and 60% DG
Annual income from DG = $ 2826913 + 263350 = $ capacities. The financial analysis results for 30%, 50% and
3090263 60% DG capacities are given in Fig 4and Fig 5. From Fig 4
Above procedure is repeated for 30% and 50% DG capacities. and Fig 5 it is observed that the year of cost recovery and
return on investment is varying with variation of DG capacity,
Fundamental to finance is the concept of “time value of which represents a profitable operation.
money,” where the assumption is that money is worth more in
your hand today then tomorrow. For example, money 5. SELECTION OF SUITABLE DG
available now can be invested to generate interest and revenue TECHNOLOGY
which is a lost opportunity if one has to wait for money to DG technologies can be classified as renewable and non-
have at their disposal. The NPV, or net present worth (NPW), renewable. Renewable include photovoltaic, wind,
of a time series of cash flows, both incoming (positive) and geothermal, tidal, ocean. Nonrenewable include internal
outgoing (negative), is defined as the sum of the present combustion engine (gas or diesel or heavy oil), micro turbine,
values (PVs) of the individual cash flows [16]. If all future fuel cells [18]. Almost all renewable DG technologies are non
cash flows are incoming and the only outflow of cash is the dispatchable. For example wind turbine cannot be installed in
purchase price, the NPV is simply the PV of future cash flows
minus the purchase price [16]. NPV is a valuable tool in
discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis, is a standard method for
using the time value of money to appraise long-term projects

30
 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 59– No.10, December 2012

Fig 4: Illustration for return on investment with DG

Fig 5: Summary of cost benefit analysis with DG

Table 4. Economic summary of some DG technologies [17- areas where there is no steady wind or in hurricane or cyclone
23] prone areas, same with the case of photovoltaic. So all DG
technologies have not yet proven to be cheap, clean and
Life Cycle reliable for field application. The economics and currently
Average Life
Type of Emission available DG technologies are summarized in Table 4. In the
Cycle present study assuming the presumed benefits of DG
Generation gCO2eq/ kWhe
Emission in technologies, a selection process is carried out for the
Technology
gCO2eq/ kWhe implementation of project based on NPV analysis. Significant
Min ~ Max emission cost of each DG technology has been calculated
based on [26] and presented in Table 4, where emission
F.F. Coal 800~1000 900 includes pollutants like Co2, So2, Co, Nox. Based on Table 4,
NPV analysis has been carried out for various DG
Oil Fired 700~800 750 technologies including environmental costs, and results are
illustrated in Fig 6 and Fig 7. From Fig 6 and Fig 7, it is
Natural Gas Fired 360~575 467 noticed that all DG Technologies doesn’t yield financial
benefits during the project period even though the emission
cost is negligible for technologies like WT and PV (this is due
PV 50~73 61.5
to their higher initial investment cost as compared to other DG
technologies). Table 5. sets out typical life-cycle CO2
WT 8~30 19
emissions of the major forms of electric power generation
technologies. Through the data in this table, it is found that
Hydro 1~34 17.5 CO2 emissions from coal and biomass technologies are far
exceeded those of renewable energy technologies.
Bio-Mass 35~99 67

31
 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 59– No.10, December 2012

Fig 6: Summary of cost benefit analysis for various DG Technologies

Fig 7: Illustration for return on investment for various DG Technologies

Fig 8: Cumulative reduction of CO2 over project period in the presence of various DG Technologies

32
 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 59– No.10, December 2012

Fig 9: Cumulative production of CO2 over project period in the presence of various DG Technologies

Table 5. GHG (CO2) Emissions from Different Generation DG capacities of 30%, 50% and 60% of total load plus losses,
Technologies the voltage profile and the real power loss has been analyzed
and significant improvement in voltage profile and reduction
Life Cycle in line loss is observed. For optimal utilization, a DG capacity
Type of Emission Average Life Cycle should be chosen that it has to operate with the capacity of
Generation Emission in 60% of total load plus losses. Profits have been estimated in
gCO2eq/ kWhe
financial terms by performing NPV analysis for 20 years of
Technology gCO2eq/ kWhe
project period. It can be concluded that a distribution
Min ~ Max company will definitely make profit only if a suitable size DG
plant is strategically placed in the distribution system. For the
F.F. Coal 800~1000 900 implementation of project, a selection process is carried out
for suitable DG Technology and estimated the financial
Oil Fired 700~800 750 benefits by considering emission cost and outage cost of DG.
It is recognized that selection of technology represents only a
Natural Gas technical option. The underlying economic reality and
360~575 467 financial benefits will determine whether this option is used or
Fired
not. In view of financial benefits not all DG technologies are
suitable for implementation of the project. It is observed that
PV 50~73 61.5 greater use of renewable energy DG technologies can
significantly reduce the carbon intensity (CO2 emission) of
WT 8~30 19 electricity generation in power sectors that are dominated by
fossil fuel power plants. Please note that, while the underlying
Hydro 1~34 17.5 method and evaluation of DG in a radial distribution system
can be applied elsewhere. But, the financial results and
Bio-Mass 35~99 67 environmental benefits obtained in this study are purely
subjected to literature which cannot be generalized.

Meanwhile it is observed that PV, WT, MH and FC 6. REFERENCES

technologies are being regarded as an environmentally [1] Y H Song, G S Wang, A T Johns, PY Wang. Distribution
friendly generation type. Cumulative reduction of CO2 over Network Reconfiguration for Loss Reduction using
the project period has been calculated based on [27, 28]. Fuzzy Controlled Evolutionary Programming. IEE Proc.
Cumulative reduction as well as production of CO2 over the Gene. Trans. Dist., 1997; 144: 345-350.
project period in the presence of different DG technologies is [2] YG Hejaz, MMA Salaam, AY Chicano. Adequacy
illustrated in Fig 8 and Fig 9. Assessment of Distributed Generation Systems using
Monte Carlo Simulation. IEEE Trans. On Power
6. CONCLUSIONS Systems 2003; 18: 48–52.
In this paper, impact of DG on techno economic benefits has
been studied. Using 30-bus radial distribution test system and

33
 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 59– No.10, December 2012

[3] W EI-Khatan, MMA Salaam. Distributed generation [15] H Hedayati, SA Nabaviniaki, A Akbarimajd. A method
technologies, definitions and benefits. Electric Power for placement of DG units in distribution networks.
System Research 2004; 71:119-128. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery 2008; 23:1620-28.
[4] A Poullikkas. Implementation of distributed generation [16] Net Present Analysis.
technologies in isolated power systems. Renewable and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value
Sustainable energy 2007; 11:30-56.
[17] IEEE Application Guide for IEEE Std. 1547, IEEE
[5] T Griffin, K Osmotic, D Secrets, A Low. Placement of Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with
dispersed generation systems for reduced losses. In Proc. Electric Power Systems (2008).
IEEE 33rd Annul. Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sciences
(HICSS) 2000; 1446 -1454. [18] N Jenkins, R Allan, P Crossley, D Kirschen, G Strbac.
Embedded generation. IEE Power and Energy. Series 31.
[6] P Chiradeja. Benefit of distributed generation: a line loss London; 2000.
reduction analysis. T&D Conference and Exhibition:
Asia and Pacific 2005; 3:1401-1407. [19] AGL. Comparison of large central and small
decentralized power generation in India. Golden, CO:
[7] SS Pati, PK Modi. Loss minimization of distribution Antres Group Ltd. And NREL; 1997.
system using distributed generation. Cogeneration and
Distributed Generation 2009; 24: 23-47. [20] EIA. Energy Information Administration. U.S
Department of energy. Annual Energy Outlook; 2002.
[8] GP Harrison, AR Wallace. Optimal power flow
evaluation of distribution network capacity for the [21] J Gregory, S Silveira, A Derrick, P Cowley, C Allinson,
connection of distributed generation. IEE Proc. Gen. O Paish. Financing Renewable Energy Projects: A Guide
Trans. and Dist., 2005; 152: 115-122. for Development workers. Intermediate Technology
Publications. London; 1997.
[9] A Silvestri, A Berizzi, S Buonanno. Distributed
generation planning using genetic algorithms. In [22] Morris, Ellen. Analyses of Renewable Energy retrofit
Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Options to Existing Diesel Mini Grids. APEC.
Electric Power Engineering, Power Tech., Budapest Singapore; 1998.
1999; 99. [23] EM Petrie, HL Willis, M Takahashi. Distributed Power
[10] W EI-Khatan, K Bhattacharya, Y Hegazy, MMA Salaam. Generation in Developing Countries. 2002. Available on
Optimal investment planning for distributed generation www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/em/distribution-abb.pdf.
in a competitive electricity market. IEEE Tans. On [24] N Ravindranath, DO Hall. Biomass Energy and the
Power Systems 2004; 19: 1674-1684. Environment: A Developing Country Perspective from
[11] Jeo-Hao, Teng, Yi-Hwa, Liu, Chia-Yen, Chi-Fa Chen. India. Oxford University Press, oxford; 1995.
Value based distributed generation placements for [25] UN. Energy Issues and Options for Developing
service quality improvements. Electrical Power and Countries: Taylor and Francis. New York; 1989.
Energy Systems 2007; 29: 268-274.
[26] K Qian, C Zhou, Y Yuan, X Shi, M Allan. Analysis of
[12] W Rosehart, E Nowicki. Optimal placement of the Environmental Benefits of Distributed Generation.
distributed generation. In 14th Power Systems IEEE Power and Energy Society Meeting- Conversion
Computation Conference 2002; 11: 1-5. and Delivery of electrical energy in the 21st century
[13] BA Desouza, JMC De Albuquerque. Optimal placement 2008; 1-5.
of distributed generators in network using evolutionary [27] D Weisser. A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG)
programming. In proc. Of Trans. And Dist. Conference, emissions from electric supply technologies Energy
Latin America, IEEE/PES 2006: 1-6. 2007; 32:19; 1543– 1559.
[14] DQ Hung, N Mithulanathan, RC Bansal. Analytical [28] IEA. CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion Highlights,
expressions for DG allocation in primary distribution IEA Statistics, 2011 edition. Available on
networks. IEEE Trans. on Energy Conversion 2010; 25: www.iea.org/co2highlights.
814-820.

34

View publication stats