(2021) Low Carbon Elec System in 2030 - Multi-Obj, Multi-Criteria Assessment

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135 (2021) 110356
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/rser
Low carbon electricity system for India in 2030 based on multi-objective

multi-criteria assessment
Priyanka Laha, Basab Chakraborty *
Rajendra Mishra School of Engineering Entrepreneurship, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, 721302, India
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Renewable energy is considered crucial for climate change mitigation that can limit global warming to 1.5–2 ◦ C.
Energy scenarios However, the impact of capacity expansion of renewables on the sustainability dimensions has not been rigor
EnergyPLAN ously assessed for the Indian scenario. In this perspective, the present research investigates the optimal capacity
EPLANopt
installation of renewables using a proposed modelling framework. The framework encompasses a multi-objective
MOEA
Multi-metric sustainability criteria
optimization model interlinked to a sustainability model. This work develops a simplified temporally resolved
India electricity model of India to explore nine broad scenarios. The Pareto front solutions are ranked under a set of
decision-maker preference scenarios across six sustainability metrics, including economic dispatchability,
emission, water-use, land-use, safety, and employment. Results indicate a possibility of 25.5%–41.2% of
renewable penetration by 2030. The Pareto frontiers with a higher share of onshore wind, utility solar photo
voltaic, and dammed hydro are among the top-ranked solutions. High river hydro supported by high levels of
offshore wind can significantly contribute to low carbon generation without overshooting the upfront cost.
Overall, the electricity mix with the least coal power generation of 1175 TWh/yr estimates to be the most
sustainable solution. This paper addresses the sensitivity to changes in input lifetime year and cost assumptions;
output shows considerable robustness of annual system costs to the lifetime of technologies and higher sensitivity
to utility solar and onshore wind costs.
added to the rapid RES growth. Research projects an addition of 15.8

1. Introduction GW of RES capacity in 2019 [11]. Regarding storage, India has 2.6 GW
of operational pumped hydroelectricity energy storage (PHES) along
India accounts for 2.1 Gt CO2eq [1] of greenhouse gas (GHG) emis with 3.1 GW under construction and 8.9 GW awaiting approval [12].
sion from the gross annual electricity generation of 1486 TWh in 2017 India’s National Energy Storage Mission emphasizes the growth of
[2]. A recent study suggests that India’s CO2 emission from energy lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries usage [13,14]. However, the optimal
generation would reach 3.8 Gt - 3.9 Gt [3] by 2030. The Indian elec structure of the future energy mix for India remains an open question.
tricity sector has been built around fossil fuels, with coal generation In the following section, research centered around decarbonization
contributing about 75.9% [4]. However, the sector is undergoing a of energy system is reviewed. Special attention has been given to studies
pronounced drift toward renewable energy sources (RES). Abundant centered around the Indian context.
RES potential- 850 GW–3400 GW of wind potential, 1300GW–5200GW
solar photovoltaic (PV), and 160 GW–620 GW concentrated solar power 1.1. Literature review
(CSP)- lies within India [5]. To date, solar power plant capacity has a
tenfold increase with wind capacity increasing by three times over the This paper summarizes a systematic literature review that has been
past ten years [4]. Wind and solar have seen substantial cost reductions conducted screening the peer-reviewed journals of energy research and
that have hastened the growth. The cumulative capacity of policy documents. The current state-of-the-art emphasizes RES as cen
grid-interactive ground-mounted solar power has reached 27.9 GW, tral to transition to a sustainable future [15–19]. International Renew
solar rooftop 2.1 GW, wind power 36.6 GW, river hydro 4.6 GW, able Energy Agency (IRENA) estimates the global share of RES to be 25%
biomass and bagasse cogeneration of 9.9 GW by July 2019 [6]. Support of the total final energy consumption by 2030 [20]. Projections suggest
of financial schemes and initiatives by the government [7–10] have RES contributes about 73% by 2050 [21] in India. Experts at Shell
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (B. Chakraborty).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110356
Received 3 October 2019; Received in revised form 1 September 2020; Accepted 5 September 2020
Available online 25 September 2020
1364-0321/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Laha and B. Chakraborty Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135 (2021) 110356
Nomenclature IRENA International Renewable Energy Agency

MOEA Multi-objective Evolutionary Algorithm
μHydro Efficiency of dammed hydro power plant NLDC National Load
ccon_source Fuel consumption (GJ) PES Primary Energy Supply (TWh/yr)
Cdam_Hydro Installed capacity of dammed hydro (MW) Pfix_source Fixed operation and maintenance cost (%)
CEA Central Electricity Authority PHES Pumped hydroelectricity energy storage
Cpump Capacity of PHES pump (MW) Pper_con_source Fuel cost per unit source (Rs/GJ)
Csource Installed capacity of power plant (MW) Punit_source Investment cost per unit of the plant (Rs Million/MW)
CSP Concentrated Solar Power PV Photovoltaic
Cstor Capacity of PHES storage (GWh) Pvoc_source Variable opm cost(Rs/MWh)
CTurbine Capacity of turbine in electricity storage (MW) RES Renewable Energy Sources
dRES Hourly distribution profile (MWh/yr) SHydro Water storage capacity (GWh)
eCEEP Hourly critical excess electricity production (MWh) SPHES Current volume of energy stored in PHES (GWh)
edam_hyd Dammed hydro production (MWh) TERI The Energy and Resources Institute
ePP Hourly power plant production (MWh) WHydro Annual water input (TWh)
epump Hourly PHES pump electricity consumption (MWh) ηGen Generation efficiency (from storage output to electricity)
eRES Final RES generation (MWh) ηpump Pump efficiency in electricity storage (from electricity to
eTurbine Houlry PHES turbine electricity production (MWh) storage input)
FacRES Correction factor μRES Capacity factor of RES power plant
Hstor_content Hydro storage content (GWh)
Fig. 1. Flow of analysis adopted in this paper. Electricity model (indicated by A), multi-objective optimization model (indicated by B) and multi-metric sustainability
model (indicated by C).
reckon that compound annual growth rates (CAGR) of PV would be [31] proposed a 100% feasible renewable energy system by 2030. Anasis
16.1%, solar thermal 12.0%, and wind 12.8% for India in 2025–2030 et al. [32] estimated an optimal energy mix for the US and China using
[22]. Combined Energy and Geoengineering Optimization Model. Portfolio
Researchers have applied various techniques to explore the possi theory was implemented by Zhang et al. [33] to analyze China’s power
bility of higher RES integration in the power sector [23–28]. Zapp et al. generation mix. Davis et al. [34] explored the resource mix for Canada
[29] used the PLEXOS tool for suggesting a least-cost European power using an accounting framework, LEAP. European low-carbon mix has
system. Brouwer AS et al. [30] analyzed the least-cost RES options based been analyzed based on cost and risk minimization using portfolio
on mixed-integer programming imbedded in PLEXOS tool. Esteban et al. theory [35]. Mathiesen et al. [36] coined the concept of smart energy
2
Fig. 2. Distribution plot of hourly load profile of India in 2016 (Data collected from National Load Despatch Centre).
systems to identify least-cost solutions for higher RES integration. high time resolution. Single year optimization for multiple scenarios are
Ringkjøb et al. [37] looked at 75 models specific for RE integration in repeated for the year 2030., The research questions answered in this
energy systems. research are as follows:
Few papers categorically addressed the needed change in the
resource mix for the Indian electricity sector. Johansson et al. [38] a. What is the impact on the total annualized cost with the increase in
estimated the annual change in the primary supply mix for India to RES share?
analyze the impact of economic and energy systems under climate b. What is the optimal generation mix of India?
change. Can et al. [39] evaluated the annual energy consumption and c. Does the optimal generation mix lead to sustainable development?
CO2 emission implementing LEAP. Anandarajah and Gambhir [40]
explored the role of RES for mitigation of CO2 emission, by imple The novelty of the work presented here is a systematic evaluation of
menting a linear programming partial-equilibrium model. An the electricity model with the following considerations:
energy-economic model was developed by Reddy [41] to conclude
energy-efficient and ‘green’ technologies would lead to energy savings. 1) The model is optimized for the least-cost technology options as a
Vazhayil and Balasubramanian [42] implemented a portfolio optimi function of RES share.
zation technique to propose the generation mix. 2) A multi-objective multi-criteria model is presented for the identifi
The observations made from the literature specific to the Indian cation of optimal generation mix.
scenario are as follows:
In the interest of the researchers, free and open-source tools have
(i) The transformation of the electricity sector has been viewed as a been implemented for transparency and reproducibility.
single objective problem focusing primarily on cost
minimization, 2. Methodology
(ii) The endogenous scenario development approach has been
adopted rather than high temporal resolution modelling, The research framework of this study is illustrated in Fig. 1. The flow
(iii) Sustainability indicators of the proposed optimal scenario have of analysis considers the “soft-linking” of the information from an
not been concurrently assessed. electricity model to a multi-objective optimization model, the output of
which is integrated into a multi-metric sustainability model. The choice
Limitation of the first approach is that the single objective function of the optimization objectives is consistent with India’s INDC [4,43].
tries to minimize total annualized cost providing a unique solution. Such The proposed sustainability model is structured to analyze the eco
a solution may get converged at local minima. A multi-objective nomic, environmental, and social impact of the optimal energy system.
formulation can provide a global perspective. About the second obser
vation, it overlooks the fundamental hourly analysis of the electricity
system, which is challenging to capture through annual approximation. 2.1. Analysis of load and generation profile
Lack of high temporal resolution modelling leaves many questions
unanswered, particularly while assessing higher integration of variable The objective in this section is to analyze the current load and gen
RES. Lastly, to identify the most sustainable energy options, assessment eration profile to gain an understanding of the present demand and
of the sustainability indices is imperative. Thus, as per the authors’ production pattern. Information about the electricity load profile has
knowledge, an Indian electricity model developed at an hourly resolu been collected from the Indian National Load Dispatch Centre (NLDC),
tion for a full year focused on multiple objectives and prioritizing sus while the remaining data, including all power plant production, elec
tainability indicators has not yet been evaluated. trical efficiency, capacity factors, transmission limits, export/import,
In this paper, the aim is to identify the optimal generation mix for the and storage capacity, are taken from Central Electricity Authority (CEA)
future Indian electricity system. The electricity system is modelled at [44], annual statistical reports [45] and regional load dispatch centers.
The distribution profile of electricity demand is developed using
3
Fig. 3. Month-wise box plot of load profile of India in 2016 (Data collected from National Load Despatch Centre).
4
Table 2
Range of values of all the technologies assumed in this study.
Technology (Unit) Low Mediuma High
Rooftop Solar (GW) 0.66–25 0.66–40

Utility Solar (GW) 8.1–154 8.1–257
CSP (GW) 0.2–1 0.2–3
Onshore Wind (GW) 28.7–100 28.7–272
Offshore Wind (GW) 0–10 0–30
Dammed Hydro (GW) 43.2–60 43.2–100
River Hydro (GW) 4.3–6 4.3–15
Biomass (GW) 4.88–10 4.88–15 4.88–24
Nuclear (GW) 5.78–8 5.78–16 5.78–24
Coal (GW) 200 240 260
Battery (GWh) 1–2 10–20 10–500
Hydro Storage (GWh) 10–30 20–50 20–100
PHES (GW) 3.7–20 3.7–40 3.7–96
a
Base in case of Coal.
Table 3
Fig. 4. Electricity Production and Installed Capacity of all the Indian power Selected sustainability criteria applied in this paper.
plants for 2016 [45]. Sustainability Description Units
Criteria
Economic Ratio of annual investment cost to the total %

Dispatchability levelised cost
Emission Emission of CO2 due to generation gCO2/kWh
Water Use Water withdrawn by power plant during l/MWh
operation, not returned to the same water
source
Land Use Land use for renewable and conventional fuel m2/MWh
cycles
Fatality Deaths Fatalities/
GWh
Employment Full-time equivalent (FTE) employment FTE/GWh
during construction, manufacturing,
operation stages.
2016 hourly data (shown in Fig. 2). The total annual electricity demand
measures about 1145 TWh. A month-wise hourly boxplot is plotted in
Fig. 3. In Fig. 3, a variation in demand profile for every month can be
noted. The hourly demand profile exhibits a distinct pattern for each
month. September shows the highest demand for the year. The reason
for this could be that September is the time of festivals in India where the
consumption of electricity soars high. The highest winter temperatures
are generally observed from mid-December to mid-January and slowly
turn warmer by the end of January, which gives rise to the high variation
in the demand for January (Fig. 2). Likewise, April is an entire summer
month with almost constant temperature throughout the day. This re
sults in a very concentrated demand profile for April, with less variation
(Fig. 3). An increase in peak demand and energy shortage issues have
been managed through load shedding when capacity, supplies, or flex
Fig. 5. Monthly generation profiles of different power plants in 2016 [45]. ibility ran short [46]. However, the recent Indian Electricity Grid Code
proposes that load shedding may be carried out as a last resort and
mandates for round the clock supply to all consumer categories [47].
The demand variation must be captured while modelling the electricity
Table 1
Structure of the nine scenarios.
Rooftop Utility CSP Onshore Offshore Biomass Nuclear Dammed River Coal Battery Hydro PHES
Solar Solar Wind Wind Hydro Hydro Storage Storage
SC1 Medium Medium Medium High High Medium Medium High Medium Base Medium Medium Medium
SC2 Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Low High High High Low High High
SC3 High High High High High Medium Medium Medium Medium Base High High High
SC4 High High High High High Medium Medium High Medium Base Low Low Low
SC5 High High High High High Medium Low High High Base High High High
SC6 High High High High High Medium High Medium Medium Base Medium Medium Medium
SC7 High High High High High High Medium High Medium Low Medium Medium Medium
SC8 High High High High High Low Low High High Low High High High
SC9 High High High High High High High High High Base High High High
5
Table 4
Data related to emission, land, and water use for each of the considered technology [84,85].
Technology g-CO2/kWh Land use (m2/MWh) Water Withdrawal (m3/MWh) Water Consumption (m3/MWh)
Coal 886.8 0.39 3.5 2.57

Natural Gas 477.9 0.31 1.62 1.17
Nuclear 12 0.12 6.42 3.82
Wind 4.7 2.76 (offshore), 1.57(onshore) 0.004 0.004
PV 12.4 0.33 0.08 0.2
Biomass 35 12.65 3.32 2.09
CSP 13.6 0.46 0.2 2.67
Hydro 3.7 4.1 (dammed), 0.02 0 17
Table 5
Calculated weight values of preference scenarios used for sustainability criteria. The largest weight is indicated in bold.
Preference Scenario Economic Dispatchability CO2 Emission Water Use Land Use Fatality Employment
Equal 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17

Economic 0.90 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Climate Change 0.02 0.90 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Climate Change-Economic 0.45 0.45 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Environment 0.03 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.03 0.03
Employment 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.90
Employment- Climate change 0.03 0.45 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.45
Employment-Economy 0.45 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.45
Socio-Environmental 0.10 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18
sector; henceforth, the authors of this paper have opted for developing power (vi) river hydro installed power, (vii) biomass power plants ca
an hourly-resolved model. pacity, (viii) nuclear power capacity (ix) dammed hydropower capacity
The installed capacity and annual production of all technologies are (x) PHES capacity (xi) battery capacity (xii) coal plant generation ca
shown in Fig. 4. Electricity generated from coal has the highest share in pacity. In this work, two types of storage technologies are considered:
the energy mix for the baseline year 2016. The plant load factor of coal- PHES and Li-ion battery.
based power plants is reported to be 60.3% [48], that of nuclear 66.5% The optimization of the model is subjected to several constraints:
[49] and gas 20.7% [50]. Dammed hydro, river hydro and wind pro
duction contribute a large fraction of the supply; however, their gen • Hourly demand must be supplied by the domestic generators, storage
eration is much less than coal. PV and biomass capacity have the least technologies or imported from neighbouring countries.
share. The capacity utilization factor1 measures nearly 0.33 for biomass, • No new oil or natural gas-based power plant is installed after 2016.
0.18 for wind, 0.2 for river hydro, and 0.16 for PV. Fig. 5 shows the • A cap on transmission line capacity is applied. It is under the
monthly share of electricity supply. An increase in dammed hydro declaration made by Central Transmission Utility [52].
production is seen from June to September which is the monsoon season • About 30% of power generation is pulled from the conventional and
in India. Wind generation is observed to be high between June and dammed hydro plant in each hour to maintain grid stability.
October. Low PV and biomass generation are indicative of their limited
utilization. For emission reduction from electricity generation it is Optimization of each scenario has required around 14–15 h to pro
important that RES is increased. In the present work, the endeavor is to duce a stable Pareto front, using a 4-crore processor (Intel ® Xeon ®
investigate the optimal mix to increase RES proportion. Processor E3-1225 v5) of 32 GB memory. Due to computational limi
tations, each scenario is solved for a single year.
2.2. Formulation of objective function, decision variables, and constraints

2.3. Design of scenarios
The optimization objective, that is, minimization of the total annual
system cost and maximization of RES share in primary energy supply Nine scenarios looking out to the year 2030 are developed. The
(PES) is calculated as given in Eq. (1): scenarios are designed to span a plausible range of technologies that are
[ ]
Total Annual Cost
Obj Function = minx (1) Table 6
100 − RES% in Primary Energy Supply(PES) Cost and lifetime values assumed in the model for year 2030 [53].
Subject to xl ≤ x ≤ xu, x is the vector of decision variables with xl and Power Source/ Investment Cost (M O & M Cost (M Lifetime
xu being the lower and upper limits, respectively. Interconnection INR/MW) INR/MW) (years)
The decision variables include the following: (i) rooftop solar Rooftop_Solar 89.6 0.96 25
photovoltaic installed power, (ii) utility-scale photovoltaic installed Utility_Solar 64 0.77 25
power, (iii) concentrated solar power (without storage) installed ca CSP 211.2 2.112 40
Onshore_Wind 102.4 5.12 30
pacity, (iv) onshore wind installed power, (v) offshore wind installed
Offshore_Wind 183.68 11.904 25
River Hydro 128 2.56 30
Dammed Hydro 96 1.92 30
1
Capacity utilization factor (CUF): It is evaluated as real output of the plant Nuclear 274 5.48 40
compared to theoretical maximum output of the plant. CUF = Energy Condensing Power 89.6 2.84 40
Plant
measured/(365 *24* installed capacity of the plant) [51]. CUF has been
Interconnection 0.5 0.01 40
calculated using data from [45].
6
Fig. 6. Optimization analysis results of Scenario 1 to Scenario 4. Future electricity system configurations for India (blue dots) and Pareto fronts of best configurations
(red dots). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
likely to feature prominently in India’s 2030 electricity sector. Before Scenario 2 (SC2): In this scenario, the medium level of solar and wind
constructing the scenarios, the authors have scrutinized the scenarios potential is considered. High level of coal, dammed hydro, and PHES
published by IRENA, International Energy Agency (IEA), and The En with a low level of the battery is assumed.
ergy and Resources Institute (TERI). This study has helped to establish Scenario 3 (SC3): High level of solar, wind, and storage technologies
an understanding of expectations for RES growth. Installation of vast are investigated.
capacities of RES, especially wind and solar photovoltaics, is one of the Scenario 4 (SC4): Along similar lines as Scenario 3, except that
prominent strategies adopted for low CO2 emission. The significant drop Scenario 4 assumes low storage availability.
in generation costs of RES technologies over the next decades would Scenario 5 (SC5): It explores a combination of high solar, wind,
allow RES supply to have a substantial share in the electricity demand. dammed, river hydro with low nuclear generation. A higher level of
As the cost assumptions (data taken from Ref. [53], refer to Table 1) storage is assumed available for integration.
influence the optimization output, the sensitivity to cost assumptions is Scenario 6 (SC6): A combination of a high level of solar, wind, and
also quantified in this paper. For natural gas, its production capacity is nuclear are explored along with medium storage.
assumed to be fixed at the base year level. Lowering the use of coal-fired Scenario 7 (SC7): This scenario explores high solar, wind, biomass,
power plants is an essential approach to decarbonizing the power sector. and dammed hydro combination with a medium level of storage. No
According to Shearer et al. [54] and Pfeiffer et al. [55] new investment new coal power plant is assumed to be installed.
in coal-fired electricity generation should not be made from the year Scenario 8 (SC8): It tests the low level of biomass, nuclear and coal
2017 to meet the 1.5–2.0◦ global warming targets. Additionally, refer generation along with a high level of solar, wind, dammed hydro, river
ring to recent reports and articles [54,56–58], the installed capacity of hydro, and storage.
coal has been assumed to be 240 GW for most of the scenarios. Scenario 9 (SC9): This scenario explores a combination of a high
Li-ion cell is selected for this study based on its continuous tech level of all technologies with coal restricted at base value.
nology advancement [59]. The target year is 2030; technologies that are
far from commercialization in the next decade are omitted. The elec 2.4. Electricity model description
tricity demand for 2030 is estimated to be 2426 TWh [44].
Table 1 contains the detailed structure of the nine scenarios. As the For the development of discussed scenarios, the Indian electricity
focus of this work is to increase RES share, wind, solar, and hydropower system is modelled using the EnergyPLAN tool. This tool takes a static
plants are the preferred technologies of electricity generation in most bottom-up simulation approach [65]. The electricity model calculates
scenarios. Only the differences with the scenario are explained to avoid energy supplied by each technology, under the constraint that demand is
repeated statements. Study of reports by PwC [60], TERI [61], Ministry satisfied for every hour. Aalborg University has designed the Ener
of Power [62–64], and discussion with experts of this field have helped gyPLAN tool for an hour-by-hour simulation. It is an analytically pro
estimate the range of this decision variable (refer Table 2 for the values). grammed deterministic model that simulates the system’s behavior for a
Scenario 1 (SC1): It explores the high level of wind and dammed particular configuration, giving more priority to the fuel-efficient units
hydro potential with medium storage support. [66].
7
Fig. 7. Optimization analysis results of Scenario 5 to Scenario 8. Future electricity system configurations for India (blue dots) and Pareto fronts of best configurations
(red dots). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
Hourly hydro production data is difficult to gather in India. Instead,

the daily generation of all the dammed hydropower plants is collected to
validate the simulated output. Data of annual water input (WHydro), ef
ficiency (μHydro), water storage capacity (SHydro), and installed capacity
(Cdam_Hydro) are collected to estimate the average hydro production
(edam_hyd_avg) given in Eq. (2). Fluctuation in hydro storage content
(Hstor_content) is updated using Eq. (3). Final dammed hydro production
edam_hyd is calculated considering the distribution of the water supply,
the limitations on the water storage capacity, and the installed capacity
(given in Eq. (4) -Eq. (5)) [65].
/
edam hyd avg = μHydro *WHydro 8784 (2)
Hstor content = Hstor content + WHydro (3)

[ ( ) ]
edam hyd = max edam hyd avg , Hstor content − SHydro * μHydro (4)
edam hyd ≤ Cdam Hydro (5)
Fig. 8. Optimization analysis results of Scenario 9. Future electricity system

PHES is the largest electricity storage in India [72]. Let us discuss the
configurations for India (blue dots) and Pareto fronts of best configurations (red charge and discharge patterns of PHES. It is being considered that PHES
dots). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the gets charged when there is excess electricity production in the system.
reader is referred to the Web version of this article.) The electricity demand of PHES pump epump is calculated (Eq. (6))
considering the critical excess electricity production (eCEEP), available
Additionally, it permits to generate scenario file, simulate and save storage (Cstor - SPHES)2, and capacity of pump in electricity storage
results from outside the actual EnergyPLAN simulation environment. (Cpump). After operating the pump, the energy finally stored in the PHES
EnergyPLAN has been applied for solving various scales of problems, to (SPHES_new) is calculated by Eq. (7) where ηpump is PHES pump efficiency.
list a few include: modelling near-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emission PHES is discharged when a generation from the power plant can be
city [67], evaluating battery and thermal energy storage systems [68], replaced by PHES electricity. Electricity produced by PHES turbine
assessing the impact of electric vehicles [69], implementing cleaner
district heating solutions [70], integrating RES and demand response
technologies [71]. In the rest of this section, the steps implemented to 2
Cstor is the capacity of PHES storage (GWh), SPHES is the current volume of
model the Indian electricity system are discussed. energy stored in PHES (GWh).
8
Fig. 9. Comparison among different Pareto front solutions in terms of RES share of PES and total annual costs. Red line indicates median and black line for mean.
Par_1 indicates Pareto front of Scenario 1 and similar for the rest. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web
version of this article.)
Table 7
Summary statistics of 9 Pareto front solutions.
Mean Median Min Max 1Q 3Q SD
Par_1 RES_share_of_PES 31.3 31.5 26.9 34.4 29.6 33.2 2.1

Total_Annual_Cost 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.53 1.50 1.50 0.01
eTurbine is expressed in Eq. (8) where ePP is power plant production, ηGen
eRES = (μRES * dRES ) / [1 − FacRES * (1 − μRES * dRES )] (10)
is generation efficiency, and CTurbine is the capacity of the turbine in
electricity storage. The final energy remaining in the PHES is updated The total annual system cost estimation includes annual investment
using Eq. (9). cost (Tinv), annual fixed operation and maintenance cost (Tfopm), annual
[ ] variable operation and maintenance cost (Tvopm), and fuel cost (Tfcost).
Cstor − SPHES
epump = min eCEEP , , Cpump (6)
ηpump Tinv = (Punit source * Csource )*r / (1 − (1 + r)− t ) (11)
[ ]
SPHES new = SPHES + epump * ηpump (7) Tfopm = Pfix source *(Punitsource * Csource ) (12)
eTurbine = min[ePP , (SPHES * ηGen ), CTurbine ] (8) Tvopm = Pvoc source *esource (13)
eTurbine Tf = Pper con source *ccon source (14)

SPHES new = SPHES − (9) cos t
ηGen
Tinv (in Eq. (11)) is calculated considering investment cost per unit of
Based on the time series data of 29 Indian states obtained from the plant (Punit_source), installed capacity (Csource), rate of interest (r) and
Ref. [62], the solar and wind generation profiles have been estimated. a lifetime of investment (t). To estimate Tfopm (given in Eq. (12)), data
This distribution profile is adjusted against the actual monthly genera for fixed operation and maintenance (opm) cost Pfix_source3, Punit_source
tion data using a correction factor, FacRES. The final generation (eRES) of and Csource are collected. Referring to Eq. 13 and 14, Pvoc_source is variable
solar and wind is calculated as in Eq. (10). dRES is an hourly distribution
profile, and μRES is the capacity factor.
3
Pfix_source unit is in percentage of the investment cost.
9
Fig. 10. Sustainability Scores of optimal Pareto front solutions under Equal, Economic, Climate Change, Climate Change-Economic Preference Scenarios (refer
Table 5 for Preference Scenarios. Px_y denotes yth scenario of xth Pareto. For interpretation of the references to colour in the figure legend, the reader is referred to
the web version of this paper. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
opm cost, esource is electricity produced from the respective source, to 50%) followed by mutation. Mutation operators, ‘mutUniformInt’ and
Pper_con_source is the fuel cost per unit source, and ccon_source is the fuel ‘mutPolynomialBounded’, prevent generating a uniform population that
consumption of the source. is unable to evolve [73,75,76]. Specifically, it enables to obtain a pop
ulation with a higher fitness value and is continued till a stopping cri
terion is met.
2.5. Multi-objective optimization model This approach of EPLANopt, combining the MOEA with the output
from EnergyPLAN, allows obtaining the Pareto front of solutions for all
The multi-objective optimization problem is solved using EPLANopt the scenarios. These results are presented in Section 3.1. The Pareto
model [73]. EPLANopt is an open-source code that links the output from front solutions are finally ranked based on sustainability indices.
EnergyPLAN to a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm (MOEA). The
MOEA is based on the Python library DEAP (Distributed Evolutionary 2.6. Sustainability evaluation
Algorithms in Python). It works for both linear as well as non-linear
optimization problems. MOEA is capable of handling large search The Pareto front solutions are ranked using a multi-metric sustain
spaces, which is highly valuable in the context of optimizing the elec ability model (MMSM). The literature on MMSM is extensive; however,
tricity system. In this paper, the genetic algorithm (GA) identifies the this paper is inspired by the works of Nock and Baker [77], and Klein and
optimal scenario by minimizing costs and fossil-fuel based generation. Whalley [78]. For the calculation of the sustainability indices, the
For this work, 12 decision variables, 100 individuals, and 200 genera required energy generation and production capacity of each Pareto front
tions are considered. The combination of multiple objectives of mutual solution are evaluated using a set of MATLAB functions [79]. The
contrast and various scenarios would enable it to explore maximum MMSM involves the subsequent steps:
solution space, which is essential to have a holistic insight into the future
electricity system. (1) Selecting the sustainability criteria
The general structure of the algorithm is explained in brief. First, a (2) Computing raw scores of each criterion for the Pareto front
population of individuals is created through randomly generated solu solutions
tions. Each individual from the population is assessed for its fitness, from (3) Normalizing the raw scores
the obtained objective function value. These individuals are ranked (4) Defining preference scenario reflecting possible future
according to the fitness values. Subsequent steps include parent selec (5) Calculating weights of the preference scenarios against each
tion, crossover, and mutation to reproduce the ‘next generation’. Parent sustainability criteria
selection is based on the NGSA-II algorithm to evaluate the non- (6) Combing the normalized score with weights results in the ranking
dominated solutions of a population [74]. A crossover takes between of the Pareto front solutions.
the values of decision variables (referred to as ‘genes’) of the best in
dividuals using a uniform crossover operator (crossover probability set
10
Fig. 11. Sustainability Scores of optimal Pareto front solutions under Environment, Employment, Employment-Climate Change, Employment-Economic Preference
Scenarios (refer Table 5 for Preference Scenarios). Px_y denotes yth scenario of xth Pareto. For interpretation of the references to colour in the figure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this paper. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of
this article.)
Fig. 12. Sustainability Scores of optimal Pareto front solutions Socio-Environmental Preference Scenario (refer Table 5 for Preference Scenario). Px_y denotes yth
scenario of xth Pareto. For interpretation of the references to colour in the figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this paper. (For interpretation of
the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
To note that the Pareto front obtained by running the optimization sustainability assessment. The fuel diversity index is estimated using the
algorithm contains numerous optimal solutions that are a significant Shannon–Wiener index (SWI) [80] expressed in Eq. (15).
improvement in RES share without a relevant increase in annual system ∑
costs. Out of these solutions, 2 non-dominated solutions from each of the SWI = − pi ln pi (15)
i
9 Pareto optimal fronts, first based on the least total annual cost and
second evaluating the fuel diversity factor [33], are extracted to rank where pi represents the share of fuel ‘i’ in the energy mix and ‘ln’ the
them using MMSM. Thus, a total of 18 solutions are culled for
11
Table 8 1 − wmax
Ranking of the optimal Pareto front solutions based on Sustainability Scores wO = (20)
nO
evaluated under the nine Preference Scenarios. Highest rank is underlined and in
Italic. Lowest rank is marked in bold.
where wmax is the maximum weight which is equal to 0.9.
Pareto Front Equal EC CC CC- EV EM EM- EM- SC- Using the weight matrix w (given in Table 5) and the normalized
Scenarios EC CC CC- EV scores x (obtained using Eq. (16) and Eq. (17)), the Pareto solutions are
EC
ranked using Eq. (21) [77]. Matrix y represents the rank order of Pareto
P1_51 12 10 8 16 7 18 14 18 11 front solutions with ‘c’ as the number of sustainability criteria, ‘s’ being
P1_6 16 11 7 6 10 14 7 16 16
the number of Pareto front solutions to rank, and ‘I’ is the number of
P2_17 14 1 18 2 15 17 18 3 15
P2_4 18 2 14 3 18 16 17 2 18 preference scenarios of MMSM.
P3_104 2 14 6 12 1 5 6 14 1 [ ] [ ] [ ]
P3_58 7 3 16 13 13 12 13 1 10 w11 w12 ……… w1c x x12 ……… x1s y y12 ……… y1s
× 11 = 11
P4_107 6 15 4 8 3 3 4 11 6 wI1 wI2 ……… wIc xc1 xc2 ……… xcs yI1 yI2 ……… yIs
P4_8 9 4 15 17 11 15 15 9 12 (21)
P5_26 15 12 17 18 16 11 16 17 14
P5_9 13 18 5 11 9 2 2 10 9
P6_101 10 5 13 14 14 13 12 7 13 3. Results: India in 2030
P6_97 4 16 3 7 2 4 3 13 3
P7_12 17 7 9 5 17 7 8 5 17 The optimization analysis results in a Pareto front of the best
P7_4 3 8 11 9 8 10 10 12 4
configuration for each Scenario 1 to Scenario 9. The cost and lifetime
P8_38 5 13 2 4 5 6 5 15 5
P8_69 1 9 10 10 6 8 9 8 2 values assumed for scenario development are summarized in Table 6.
P9_60 8 6 12 15 12 9 11 6 8 The electricity model developed using EnergyPLAN has been validated
P9_77 11 17 1 1 4 1 1 4 7 using the 2016 data collected from the State Load Despatch Centre
(SLDC) and POSOCO [86]. Upon model validation, similar energy con
tributions have been reported on a per technology basis and have been
natural logarithm.
published in Ref. [58].
The sustainability criteria are described in Section 2.6.1 and the
ranking method in Section 2.6.2.
3.1. Multi-objective optimization results
2.6.1. Sustainability criteria
The sustainability criteria selected are enlisted in Table 3. The se Fig. 6, Fig. 7, and Fig. 8 show the Pareto fronts of nine scenarios4. In
lection of the criteria is driven by sustainable concerns of electricity the figures, the annualized system cost of each system configuration is
systems and national energy policy. Economic dispatchability is evalu plotted as a function of the RES share of PES. The Pareto front repre
ated as a measure of economic sustainability [81]. CO2 emission, water sented in red dots is the best alternatives to the energy mix. All the
withdrawal and consumption, and land use due to electricity generation optimal solutions in the Pareto fronts are very informative for devel
are included as the environmental sustainability criteria using the co oping a future low carbon energy system. From the set of optimal so
efficients summarized in Table 4. Fatality and employment parameters lutions, the most appropriate system configuration can be identified for
are selected as social sustainability criteria. The fatality data is retrieved any defined RES target, assuring that the selected solution is in the set of
from IPCC documentation [82] and full-time equivalent employment the best solutions for the optimization objectives.
values from Ref. [83]. In Fig. 6, Scenario 1 shows a possibility of 34.4% of RES integration if
To combine the raw score that is obtained against the selected sus the high installation of wind and dammed hydropower plants are carried
tainability criteria, it is normalized as given in Eq. (16) and Eq. (17) out along with medium storage growth. Scenario 2, which relies heavily
[78], on coal, shows an increase in annual cost by 8.2% over Scenario 1 for
25.5% RES integration. This scenario is a contrast to the remaining
pj k − pmin
xj k = where pmax is preferred (16) scenarios for its limited solar, wind, and biomass supply. It has been
pmax − pmin
studied for comparability with other Pareto fronts solutions that include
pmax − pj k higher non-fossil generations. Scenario 3, primarily representing wind
xj k = where pmin is preferred (17) and solar-based decarbonization, shows a maximum possibility of 40.3%
pmax − pmin
RES share. Referring to Scenario 4 of Fig. 6 and Scenario 5 of Fig. 7,
where xj_k and pj_k are the normalized score and raw score respectively almost similar Pareto fronts are achieved with a maximum RES share of
for the ‘j’th sustainability criteria and ‘k’th Pareto front solution. 40.4%. Comparing the system costs of both Pareto fronts solutions, it is
seen that the inclusion of high-cost battery storage in Scenario 5 in
2.6.2. Multi-metric sustainability model analysis creases its cost by 3.9% over Scenario 4. Scenario 6 (Fig. 7) shows a cost-
In this section, the preference scenarios are discussed, which are efficient combination to achieve a 40.2% RES share. For the same value
created to analyze the impact of preference on the final MMSM ranking of RES integration, its annual system cost is approximately 3% less in
of the optimal scenarios. The first preference scenario applies equal comparison to Scenario 5. Scenario 7 shows the second-highest annual
weight to all sustainability criteria. This equal weight wE is calculated as system cost after Scenario 2 for a maximum RES integration of 30.7%.
given in Eq. (18). One strong result of this scenario is that it shows the importance of the
inclusion of storage, which can increase RES share and reduce the
1
wE = (18) overall system cost, given their lower costs in 2030. It is possible to
c
notice a shift in the Pareto front of Scenario 8 (Fig. 7), increasing the
where ‘c’ is the number of criteria. proportion of RES to 41.2%. Results of Scenario 8 show that it is possible
For the rest of the preference scenarios, the preferred criteria weight to achieve similar RES share at less cost if compared to Scenario 6
wP is calculated by Eq. (19) and other criteria weight wO by Eq. (20).
wmax
wP = (19) 4
In this paper, the implemented multi-objective function minimizes ‘Total
nP
annual costs’ and ‘(100-RES share of PES) [%]’, but to ease the visual burden of
the readers, ‘Total annual cost’ is plotted versus ‘RES share of PES’.
12
Fig. 13. Sensitivity run results showing the percentage change in annual system cost for different lifetime value of technologies.
configurations. Pareto front of Scenario 9 shows a similar trend as Sce complement each other in the RES integration role in a way that, for a
nario 8 but shows a possibility of 40.5% RES integration. similar annual cost, the RES share is enhanced. For Par_2 solutions, it
Fig. 9 is developed to show a comparison between all the non- can be noticed that the system cost is the highest, showing the impact of
dominating solutions, illustrating the RES share of PES and the corre coal dependency. For Par_6, the distribution of RES share shows the
sponding annualized cost evaluated for each scenario. The summary most extensive interquartile range, varying between 29.4% and 37.8%.
statistics of these Pareto fronts solutions are presented in Table 7.
Table 7 shows that six out of nine Pareto front solutions (Par_3 to Par_6,
Par_8, and Par_9) show a maximum possibility of around 40% RES share 3.2. Multi-metric sustainability assessment results
by 2030. Referring to the statistics of the distribution of RES share of
Pareto 1 (indicated by PAR_1 in Table 7), it is noticed that most of the The multi-metric assessment is based on the method discussed in
solutions achieve a value between 29.6% and 33.2% representing the Section 2.6. Among all the Pareto optimal solutions, P1_6, P2_4, P3_104,
interquartile range, with a Gaussian distribution centered in the mean P4_107, P5_9, P6_97, P7_12, P8_38, and P9_77 are selected based on the
value of 31.3% indicating RES proportion to be around 31.3% for 2030. highest diversity index using SWI (Eq. (16)). Next, when the priority is
From the statistics of the annual cost distribution, the difference be given to the least annual system cost criteria, the list of optimal scenarios
tween its minimum and the maximum value is relatively less as selected include P1_51, P2_17, P3_58, P4_8, P5_26, P6_101, P7_4, P8_69,
compared to the corresponding RES share. This highlights the impor P9_60. For sustainability assessment, the production capacity and elec
tance of the choice of an optimal mix; the technologies should be able to tricity generation of the solutions are first evaluated. The sustainability
scores are calculated using Eq. (21). Fig. 10 to Fig. 12 are developed to
13
Table 9
Investment and fixed O &M costs for technologies assumed for sensitivity analysis.
Technology Investment Cost (M INR/MW) O&M % Ref Technology Investment Cost (M INR/MW) O&M % Ref
Rooftop_1 60.9 2 [99] Onshorewind_1 76.4 3.3 [99]

Rooftop_2 81.6 1.74 [100] Onshorewind_2 130 0.83 [100]
Rooftop_4 92.4 1 [102] Onshorewind_4 109.2 5 [102]
Rooftop_5 91.1 1 [103] Onshorewind_5 103.5 5 [103]
Utility_1 35.7 3 [99] Offshorewind_1 210.5 3 [99]
Utility_2 65 1.93 [100] Offshorewind_2 207.7 3.76 [100]
Utility_3 84.6 2.4 [104] Offshorewind_3 116.7 1.9 [101]
CSP_1 288 2.9 [100]
CSP_2 319 4 [108]
CSP_3 215 1 [103]
CSP_4 291.6 0 [104]
CSP_5 629 1 [109]
CSP_6 610.5 1 [110]
have a more in-depth intuition into the result. A higher sustainability fatalities.
score is represented by a more extended bar in the figures. To note that
none of 18 Pareto optimal scenarios dominates across all individual 3.3. Sensitivity analysis
sustainability metrics. A key finding is that in most of the scenarios with
high sustainability score, utility solar and onshore wind play a promi In this section, the sensitivity of the electricity model to lifetime year
nent role. Energy planners and policymakers may debate over nuclear and technology costs are examined. -For sensitivity analysis, the multi-
capacity expansion; however, results show that its share can contribute objective problem is resolved for Scenario 1 using lifespan values and
to increasing the sustainability score depending on the choice of pref technology costs from different sources. For PV, the technical lifetime
erence scenario. considered for modelling power supply by Gils et al. [87] is 20 years,
Referring to Fig. 10, the results implementing ‘Equal’ scaling co while Köberle et al. [88] and Bamisile et al. [89] have assumed 30 years
efficients of 0.17 (see Table 5) to the six sustainability criteria shows and 40 years, respectively. CSP is modelled at 30 years by Parrado et al.
scenario P8_69 has the highest score. It represents an energy mix of 256 [90]. Zhao et al. [91] and Bamisile et al. [89] have reported assuming a
GW utility solar, 115 GW onshore, 25 GW offshore wind with base-level lifespan of 25 years and 8.2 years for CSP. The lifetimes of the onshore
nuclear and dammed hydro capacity. P2_17 scores the highest under the and offshore wind farms are typically 20–30 years [92,93]. The authors
‘Economic’ scenario with 153 GW utility solar, 99 GW onshore, and 15 in Ref. [87,94] have considered 50 years and 60 years for modelling
GW of river hydro with biomass fixed at the base year level. In the river and dammed hydro, respectively. The nuclear power plant is
‘Climate Change’ scenario, P9_77 dominates while P2_17 scores the assumed to have a lifespan of 30 years [95], 32 years [96] or 60 years
least. A significant observation is the contribution of coal generation in [97]. Most published literature have considered a lifetime of 30–40
both solutions. Coal generation provides 1175 TWh/yr of electricity in years for the transmission system assets [98].
P9_77 and 1820 TWh/yr for P2_17. Considering ‘Employment’ and The sensitivity runs show that the RES share of PES remains the same
‘Employment-Climate Change’, P9_77 again scores the highest. This with changing values of a lifetime; however, variation in the annual
scenario has a high level of utility solar, onshore wind, nuclear, and system cost is observed. The percentage change in the system cost with
dammed hydro, showing a sustainable energy mix can be achieved with respect to the value assumed for this paper is plotted in Fig. 13.
an increased level of nuclear alongside onshore wind and dammed Observing the figure, it can be seen that the annual system cost changes
hydro as a backup. Scoring high for ‘Employment’ and ‘Employment- for changing lifetime values for rooftop solar by 0.003% to − 0.004%,
Climate Change’, also signifies that P9_77 is one of the best options if the utility solar by 0.03% to − 0.05%, CSP by 0.0025%–0.03%, onshore by
rate of employment is to be enhanced in the energy sector. In Fig. 11, 0.18% to − 0.12%, offshore by 0.0006% to − 0.0004%, river hydro by
‘Climate_Change-Economic’ gives preference to economic dispatch − 0.058% to − 0.046%, dammed hydro by − 0.43% to − 0.35%, nuclear
ability and CO2 emission. P7_4 stands out as the highest-ranked scenario by − 0.44% to − 0.084%, condensing power plant by − 0.42% to − 0.77%
with 257 GW utility solar, 100 GW onshore wind, 15 GW river hydro, and transmission line by 0.0007%. Thus, despite different lifespan
and 16 GW nuclear. For ‘Environment’ (refer Fig. 11) and ‘Socio-Envi values, the level of deviation of annual system cost with respect to the
ronmental’ (see Fig. 12), P3_104 remains the non-dominated scenario, reference value is negligible.
having the highest installed capacity of utility solar and onshore wind as Figs. 14–15 depicts the changes in annual system costs for varying
compared to the rest. For ‘Employment-Economy’, economic dispatch cost assumptions for rooftop solar, utility solar, CSP, onshore and
ability and employment are given a weight of 0.45 (refer to Table 5), offshore wind. The costs assumed are tabulated in Table 9. The cost
indicating cost and employment are of highest priority, shows that P2_4 values have been selected, such that a wide range of optimistic values for
outranks other. Table 8 summarizes the sustainability ranking of the wind and solar technologies for the year 2030 are explored.
optimal solutions under each preference scenario. The ranking shows Fig. 14 shows the effect of variation in costs (investment and fixed O
the impact of energy diversity; thus, the decision maker’s preference &M) of onshore and offshore wind with respect to the reference cost
would lead to different technology mix. From the table, it is evident that (Table 6). Simulations show that the total annual system cost varies up
P9_77 has the best sustainability ranking under four preference sce to a maximum of 6.68% with variation in onshore wind cost (when cost
narios. P3_104 has the highest rank under two scenarios. P2_17, P3_58, inputs tabulated in Table 9 are considered). The reference cost of
and P8_69 rank highest under one preference scenario. Overall, the offshore wind technology is almost in the vicinity of other foreseen cost
higher ranks are associated with the optimal scenarios that include high values for the year 2030. This explains the lower percentage of deviation
utility solar, onshore, and offshore wind, river hydro, and nuclear, of the annual system costs for variation in offshore wind costs. Fig. 15
which result in emission savings, increased employment, and low depicts the sensitivity of costs of solar technologies-rooftop, utility solar,
14
Fig. 14. Sensitivity runs results showing the percentage change in annual system cost for different wind technology cost (investment and fixed O & M) value.
and CSP. The cost variation in utility solar has the highest impact on 4. Discussion and conclusion
total annual system costs in comparison to rooftop solar and CSP. A
maximum increase of 3.63% in annual costs is observed for utility solar, From the results, it is clear there is no single best solution for a
0.99% for rooftop solar, and 0.29% for CSP. The lesser sensitivity of sustainable future. In comparison to the energy mix reported in Refs.
costs for rooftop solar and CSP explains their lower proportion in the [20,61] for India in 2030, the optimal scenarios presented in this paper
optimal generation mix. have a lesser dependency on fossil-based generation. Resources like
Overall, the sensitivity analysis shows the impact of the initial as biomass and river hydro, which may play a crucial role in developing a
sumptions (in terms of lifetime years and costs) on the results. The total more sustainability power system, seem to have been overlooked in
system cost result is found to be not so sensitive to the lifetime values; Ref. [61]. However, the authors acknowledge that technological options
however, to the authors’ understanding, the LCOE of individual tech come with drawbacks that require further in-depth analysis. Gulagi et al.
nologies may be impacted, which could be included for future study. [111] have investigated the storage requirements of the Indian energy
Lower costs in 2030 for onshore wind and utility solar can bring down sector using the single objective function, but the study lacks analysis for
the annual system costs by a more considerable margin as compared to the evaluation of the sustainability of the technology mix. Can et al. [39]
rooftop solar, CSP, and offshore wind. have concluded that a 32% share of electricity generation would be from
non-fossil fuel by 2030. Their result is within the range of possible
output evaluated by the present study, i.e., 25.5%–41.2% RES share.
Rhythm Singh [112] estimates a 29% RES growth by 2030–31, which
15
Fig. 15. Sensitivity runs results showing the percentage change in annual system cost for different solar technology cost (investment and fixed O & M) value.
also falls within the range estimated by this paper. stakeholder preferences. Referring to the resulting ranks, scenario P9_77
Summarizing, this paper implements a novel combination of multi- having the least coal consumption (48% of total generation) majorly
objective and multi-criteria assessment for a national-scale electricity outranks other scenarios. This scenario is as per the INDC working to
system model using high-resolution RES and electricity demand data. It wards achieving 40% electric power from non-fossil fuel. It also scores
analyzes nine scenarios by optimizing the model multiple times with high in terms of the employment factor, which is a significant concern in
changed parameters so that the entire decision space is explored. The India. Considering equal weighting of sustainability indicators, scenario
results show a variety of feasible optimal configurations for 2030. P8_69 scores the highest. However, it includes 1628 TWh/yr of gener
Figs. 6, Fig.7, Fig.8, and Fig. 9 show the optimal systems in terms of ation from a coal plant (65% of total production). Results in Table 8
RES share of PES and annual cost across the range of scenarios. show that with the inclusion of a higher share of coal or biomass (as in
Figs. 10–12 display the sustainability scores of the selected optimal scenarios P2_17 and P2_4, respectively), the scenarios score high under
configurations, ranking them under various preference scenarios. To economic preference. Utility solar and onshore wind are to be prioritized
calculate the scores, the authors conduct a multimeric (including eco for climate change mitigation scenarios (as in P6_97). Nuclear, offshore
nomic dispatchability, emission, land-use, water-use, safety, and wind, and river hydro are least preferred if both climate change and
employment index) analysis based on the understanding that sustain economic scenarios are preferred. The employment rate estimates to be
ability is multi-dimensional and ranked the solutions under a variety of high for a combination of utility solar, onshore wind, and dammed
16
hydro. For employment and climate change preferred scenario, a higher [12] Buckley T, Shah K. Pumped hydro storage in India. IEEFA; 2019.
[13] India’s energy storage mission: a make-in-India opportunity for globally
share of nuclear along with utility solar and onshore wind have scored
competitive battery manufacturing. NITI Aayog and Rocky Mountain Institute;
high. 2017.
A sensitivity analysis on lifetime year and technology costs have also [14] Schmidt O, Hawkes A, Gambhir A, Staffell I. The future cost of electrical energy
been implemented to inspect how the annual system costs can change storage based on experience rates. Nat Energy 2017;2. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nenergy.2017.110.
with respect to the variation in these input parameters. This sensitivity [15] Price J, Zeyringer M, Konadu D, Sobral Mourão Z, Moore A, Sharp E. Low carbon
analysis firstly highlights that the lifetime year does not hugely vary the electricity systems for Great Britain in 2050: an energy-land-water perspective.
overall costs of the system. Secondly, a reduction in utility solar and Appl Energy 2018;228:928–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2018.06.127.
onshore wind costs by 2030 can lower the system costs to a great extent. [16] Lombardi F, Balderrama S, Quoilin S, Colombo E. Generating high-resolution
It has been shown that for achieving ambitious RES targets in India, multi-energy load profiles for remote areas with an open-source stochastic model.
the energy planners have a choice from a wide range of configurations. Energy 2019;177:433–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.04.097.
[17] Gabrielli P, Gazzani M, Martelli E, Mazzotti M. Optimal design of multi-energy
The technology mix solution can be selected based on the priority of the systems with seasonal storage. Appl Energy 2018;219:408–24. https://doi.org/
stakeholder. The energy policy with clear goals of specific technological 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.07.142.
growth and investment support would undoubtedly be beneficial in [18] Laha P, Chakraborty B. Energy model – a tool for preventing energy dysfunction.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;73:95–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
narrowing down the number of feasible options. rser.2017.01.106.
[19] Vidadili N, Suleymanov E, Bulut C, Mahmudlu C. Transition to renewable energy
CRediT author contribution statement and sustainable energy development in Azerbaijan. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2017;80:1153–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.168.
[20] IRENA. REmap: roadmap for a renewable energy future, 2016 edition. Int Renew
Priyanka Laha: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Energy Agency; 2016. p. 172.
Modelling, Formal Analysis, Visualization, Writing - original draft, [21] Global energy transformation - a roadmap to 2050. Abu Dhabi: International
Renewable Energy Agency; 2018.
Writing – review and editing. Basab Chakraborty: Conceptualization, [22] Shell. Energy transition report. Shell; 2018.
Interpretation, Writing – review and editing, Supervision. [23] Vaillancourt K, Bahn O, Frenette E, Sigvaldason O. Exploring deep
decarbonization pathways to 2050 for Canada using an optimization energy
model framework. Appl Energy 2017;195:774–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Declaration of competing interest apenergy.2017.03.104.
[24] Zhang Q, Ishihara KN, Mclellan BC, Tezuka T. Scenario analysis on future
electricity supply and demand in Japan. Energy 2012;38:376–85. https://doi.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.11.046.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence [25] Davis M, Ahiduzzaman Md, Kumar A. How will Canada’s greenhouse gas
the work reported in this paper. emissions change by 2050? A disaggregated analysis of past and future
greenhouse gas emissions using bottom-up energy modelling and Sankey
diagrams. Appl Energy 2018;220:754–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Acknowledgements apenergy.2018.03.064.
[26] Yi B-W, Xu J-H, Fan Y. Inter-regional power grid planning up to 2030 in China
considering renewable energy development and regional pollutant control: a
We gratefully acknowledge Matteo Giacomo Prina (Institute for multi-region bottom-up optimization model. Appl Energy 2016;184:641–58.
Renewable Energy, EURAC Research) for providing analysis guidance https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.11.021.
and fruitful discussions. The authors would like to thank Pedro J. Cab [27] Handayani K, Krozer Y, Filatova T. Trade-offs between electrification and climate
change mitigation: an analysis of the Java-Bali power system in Indonesia. Appl
rera Santana (University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria) for assistance Energy 2017;208:1020–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.09.048.
with the MATLAB Toolbox for EnergyPLAN. The authors wish to thank [28] Dominković DF, Dobravec V, Jiang Y, Nielsen PS, Krajačić G. Modelling smart
Shri Surajit Banerjee (DGM, ERLDC) for his support in collecting the energy systems in tropical regions. Energy 2018;155:592–609. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2018.05.007.
data. Priyanka Laha acknowledges the support received from the Indian [29] Zappa W, Junginger M, van den Broek M. Is a 100% renewable European power
Institute of Technology Kharagpur in the form of Ph.D. scholarship to system feasible by 2050? Appl Energy 2019;233–234:1027–50. https://doi.org/
carry out the work presented in this paper. We declare that the re 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.08.109.
[30] Brouwer AS, van den Broek M, Zappa W, Turkenburg WC, Faaij A. Least-cost
sponsibility for the contents lies solely with the authors.
options for integrating intermittent renewables in low-carbon power systems.
Appl Energy 2016;161:48–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.09.090.
References [31] Esteban M, Portugal-Pereira J, Mclellan BC, Bricker J, Farzaneh H, Djalilova N,
et al. 100% renewable energy system in Japan: smoothening and ancillary
services. Appl Energy 2018;224:698–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[1] IEA. World energy outlook 2018. Int Energy Agency; 2018. https://www.iea.
apenergy.2018.04.067.
org/weo/. [Accessed 14 March 2019]. accessed.
[32] Anasis JG, Khalil MAK, Butenhoff C, Bluffstone R, Lendaris GG. Optimal energy
[2] Executive CEA. Summary for the month of january 2018. 2018. New Delhi, India.
resource mix for the US and China to meet emissions pledges. Appl Energy 2019;
[3] Dubash NK, Khosla R, Rao ND, Bhardwaj A. India’s energy and emissions future:
238:92–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.01.072.
an interpretive analysis of model scenarios. Environ Res Lett 2018;13:074018.
[33] Zhang S, Zhao T, Xie B-C. What is the optimal power generation mix of China? An
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aacc74.
empirical analysis using portfolio theory. Appl Energy 2018;229:522–36. https://
[4] Central Electricity Authority of India. Growth of electricity sector in India. 2018.
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.08.028.
http://www.cea.nic.in/reports/others/planning/pdm/growth_2018.pdf.
[34] How will Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions change by 2050? A disaggregated
[Accessed 14 March 2019]. accessed.
analysis of past and future greenhouse gas emissions using bottom-up energy
[5] Deshmukh R, Wu GC, Callaway DS, Phadke A. Geospatial and techno-economic
modelling and Sankey diagrams. Appl Energy 2018;220:754–86. https://doi.org/
analysis of wind and solar resources in India. Renew Energy 2019;134:947–60.
10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.03.064.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.11.073.
[35] deLlano-Paz F, Calvo-Silvosa A, Iglesias Antelo S, Soares I. The European low-
[6] MNRE. Physical progress (achievements) | Ministry of new and renewable energy
carbon mix for 2030: the role of renewable energy sources in an environmentally
| government of India. Minist new renew energy. 2019. https://mnre.gov.in/ph
and socially efficient approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;48:49–61.
ysical-progress-achievements (accessed August 31, 2019).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.032.
[7] WISE. Renewables India 2017: towards grid parity, status of RE development in
[36] Mathiesen BV, Lund H, Connolly D, Wenzel H, Østergaard PA, Möller B, et al.
India. Pune, India: Shakti Sustainable Energy Foundation; 2017.
Smart Energy Systems for coherent 100% renewable energy and transport
[8] MNRE. New and renewable energy sector. New Delhi, India: Ministry of New and
solutions. Appl Energy 2015;145:139–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Renewable Energy, India; 2017.
apenergy.2015.01.075.
[9] MoEFCC. Government releases comprehensive publication on various initiatives
[37] Ringkjøb H-K, Haugan PM, Solbrekke IM. A review of modelling tools for energy
taken towards combating and adapting to climate change. Press Inf Bur Gov
and electricity systems with large shares of variable renewables. Renew Sustain
India; 2019. http://www.pib.nic.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1564033.
Energy Rev 2018;96:440–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.08.002.
[Accessed 2 April 2019]. accessed.
[38] Johansson DJA, Lucas PL, Weitzel M, Ahlgren EO, Bazaz AB, Chen W, et al. Multi-
[10] Year end review 2018 – MNRE. Press Inf Bur Gov India; 2018. http://www.pib.
model comparison of the economic and energy implications for China and India
nic.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1555373. [Accessed 1 April 2019].
in an international climate regime. Mitig Adapt Strategies Glob Change 2015;20:
accessed.
1335–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-014-9549-4.
[11] Saran A, Sardana T, Rustagi V. India-RE-Outlook-2019.pdf. Gurgaon, India:
BRIDGE TO INDIA Energy Private Limited; 2019.
17
[39] de la Rue du Can S, Khandekar A, Abhyankar N, Phadke A, Khanna NZ, Fridley D, [70] Thellufsen JZ, Nielsen S, Lund H. Implementing cleaner heating solutions towards
et al. Modeling India’s energy future using a bottom-up approach. Appl Energy a future low-carbon scenario in Ireland. J Clean Prod 2019;214:377–88. https://
2019;238:1108–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.01.065. doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.303.
[40] Anandarajah G, Gambhir A. India’s CO2 emission pathways to 2050: what role [71] Pfeifer A, Dobravec V, Pavlinek L, Krajačić G, Duić N. Integration of renewable
can renewables play? Appl Energy 2014;131:79–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. energy and demand response technologies in interconnected energy systems.
apenergy.2014.06.026. Energy 2018;161:447–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.07.134.
[41] Reddy BS. India’s energy system transition—survival of the greenest. Renew [72] Sivakumar N, Das D, Padhy NP, Senthil Kumar AR, Bisoyi N. Status of pumped
Energy 2016;92:293–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.02.027. hydro-storage schemes and its future in India. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;
[42] Vazhayil JP, Balasubramanian R. Optimization of India’s electricity generation 19:208–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.001.
portfolio using intelligent Pareto-search genetic algorithm. Int J Electr Power [73] Prina MG, Cozzini M, Garegnani G, Manzolini G, Moser D, Filippi Oberegger U,
Energy Syst 2014;55:13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2013.08.024. et al. Multi-objective optimization algorithm coupled to EnergyPLAN software:
[43] Ministry of Environment. Forest and climate change. India’s intended nationally the EPLANopt model. Energy 2018;149:213–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
determined contribution is balanced and comprehensive: environment minister. energy.2018.02.050.
2015. http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=128403. [Accessed 14 [74] Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T. A fast and elitist multi-objective genetic
March 2019]. accessed. algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 2002;6:182–97. https://doi.org/
[44] National CEA. Energy plan (volume I). New Delhi, India: Government of India 10.1109/4235.996017.
Ministry of Power Central Electricity Authority; 2018. [75] Prina MG, Lionetti M, Manzolini G, Sparber W, Moser D. Transition pathways
[45] Reports MoSPI. Government Of India. Minist Stat Program Implement; 2018. htt optimization methodology through EnergyPLAN software for long-term energy
p://mospi.nic.in/download-reports?main_cat=NzIy&cat=All&sub_category=All. planning. Appl Energy 2019;235:356–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[Accessed 6 May 2019]. accessed. apenergy.2018.10.099.
[46] Udetanshu Pierpont B, Khurana S, Nelson D. Developing a roadmap to a flexible, [76] Prina MG, Fanali L, Manzolini G, Moser D, Sparber W. Incorporating combined
low-carbon Indian electricity system: interim findings. New Delhi, India: Climate cycle gas turbine flexibility constraints and additional costs into the EPLANopt
Policy Initiative; 2019. model: the Italian case study. Energy 2018;160:33–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/
[47] Report CEA. Of the expert group: review of Indian electricity grid code. Central j.energy.2018.07.007.
Electricity Authority of India; 2020. [77] Nock D, Baker E. Holistic multi-criteria decision analysis evaluation of sustainable
[48] Energywise CEA. Performance status all India. New Delhi, India: Central electric generation portfolios: new England case study. Appl Energy 2019;242:
Electricity Authority of India; 2016. 655–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.019.
[49] Regionwise CEA. Energywise performance status all India. New Delhi, India: [78] Klein SJW, Whalley S. Comparing the sustainability of U.S. electricity options
Central Electricity Authority of India; 2016. through multi-criteria decision analysis. Energy Pol 2015;79:127–49. https://doi.
[50] CEA. Energy generation report-gas based stations. Central Electricity Authority of org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.01.007.
India; 2016. [79] Cabrera Pedro, Lund Henrik, Thellufsen Zinck Jakob, Sorknæs Peter. The
[51] Shiva Kumar B, Sudhakar K. Performance evaluation of 10 MW grid connected MATLAB Toolbox for EnergyPLAN: A tool to extend energy planning studies.
solar photovoltaic power plant in India. Energy Rep 2015;1:184–92. https://doi. Science of Computer Programming 2020;191:102405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
org/10.1016/j.egyr.2015.10.001. scico.2020.102405. In this issue, https://www.energyplan.eu/useful_resource
[52] National CEA. Electricity plan-transmission. New Delhi, India: GoI, Ministry of s/matlab-toolbox-for-energyplan/. [Accessed 21 September 2020]. accessed.
Power; 2017. [80] Strong WL. Biased richness and evenness relationships within Shannon–Wiener
[53] Gielen D, Saygin D, Wagner N, Ghosh A, Chawla K. REmap: renewable energy index values. Ecol Indicat 2016;67:703–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
prospects for India. International Renewable Energy Agency; 2017. ecolind.2016.03.043.
[54] Shearer C, Fofrich R, Davis SJ. Future CO2 emissions and electricity generation [81] Aryanpur V, Atabaki MS, Marzband M, Siano P, Ghayoumi K. An overview of
from proposed coal-fired power plants in India. Earths Future 2017;5:408–16. energy planning in Iran and transition pathways towards sustainable electricity
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000542. supply sector. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;112:58–74. https://doi.org/
[55] Pfeiffer A, Millar R, Hepburn C, Beinhocker E. The ‘2◦ C capital stock’ for 10.1016/j.rser.2019.05.047.
electricity generation: committed cumulative carbon emissions from the [82] Sathaye J, Lucon O, Rahman A, Christensen J, Denton F, Fujino J, et al.
electricity generation sector and the transition to a green economy. Appl Energy Renewable energy in the context of sustainable development. In: Edenhofer O,
2016;179:1395–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.093. Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Seyboth K, Matschoss P, Kadner S, et al., editors.
[56] Report CEA. On optimal generation capacity mix for 2029-30. Central Electricity Renew. Energy sources clim. Change mitig. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Authority of India; 2019. Press; 2011. p. 707–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139151153.013.
[57] Pachouri R, Alfstad T, Renjith G. Exploring electricity supply-mix scenarios to [83] Dominish E, Briggs C, Teske S, Mey F. Just transition: employment projections for
2030. New Delhi, India: TERI; 2019. the 2.0 ◦ C and 1.5 ◦ C scenarios. In: Teske S, editor. Achiev. Paris clim. Agreem.
[58] Laha P, Chakraborty B, Østergaard PA. Electricity system scenario development Goals glob. Reg. 100 renew. Energy scenar. Non-energy GHG pathw. 15◦ C 2◦ C.
of India with import independence in 2030. Renew Energy 2020;151:627–39. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. p. 413–35. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.11.059. 10.1007/978-3-030-05843-2_10.
[59] A comparison of methodologies for the non-invasive characterisation of [84] Goel V, Varun Bhat IK, Prakash R. LCA of renewable energy for electricity
commercial Li-ion cells - ScienceDirect n.d. https://www.sciencedirect. generation systems—a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:1067–73.
com/science/article/pii/S0360128518300996#!. [Accessed 17 May 2019]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2008.08.004.
accessed. [85] WRI. Water use in India’s power generation: impact of renewables and improved
[60] Daruka Y, Ray Datta S. Hydropower in India - key enablers for a better tomorrow. cooling technologies to 2030. World Resources Institute; 2018.
India: PwC India; 2014. [86] POSOCO. National load Despatch center. POWER Syst Oper Corp Ltd; 2019. http
[61] Saxena MrAK, Gopal Ishita, Ramanathan K, Jayakumar Meghana, Prasad NS, s://posoco.in/. [Accessed 4 June 2019]. accessed.
Sharma Prerna, et al. Transitions in Indian electricity sector (2017 - 2030). [87] Gils HC, Scholz Y, Pregger T, Luca de Tena D, Heide D. Integrated modelling of
Energy Resour Inst; 2017. p. 28. variable renewable energy-based power supply in Europe. Energy 2017;123:
[62] MNRE. Thirty ninth report standing committee on energy. New Delhi, India: 173–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.01.115.
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy; 2018. [88] Köberle AC, Gernaat DEHJ, van Vuuren DP. Assessing current and future techno-
[63] MoP. Committee on optimal energy mix in power generation on medium and long economic potential of concentrated solar power and photovoltaic electricity
term basis. Minist Power India 2018:47. generation. Energy 2015;89:739–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[64] Power MNRE. From renewables - grid interactive and off-grid renewable power. energy.2015.05.145.
New Delhi, India: Ministry of New and Renewable Energy India; 2017. [89] Bamisile O, Huang Q, Xu X, Hu W, Liu W, Liu Z, et al. An approach for sustainable
[65] Lund H, Thellufsen JZ, Sorkn P, Connolly D, Mathiesen BV, Østergaard PA, et al. energy planning towards 100 % electrification of Nigeria by 2030. Energy 2020:
Sustainable energy planning research group n.d. 117172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117172.
[66] Østergaard PA, Jantzen J, Marczinkowski HM, Kristensen M. Business and [90] Parrado C, Girard A, Simon F, Fuentealba E. 2050 LCOE (Levelized Cost of
socioeconomic assessment of introducing heat pumps with heat storage in small- Energy) projection for a hybrid PV (photovoltaic)-CSP (concentrated solar power)
scale district heating systems. Renew Energy 2019;139:904–14. https://doi.org/ plant in the Atacama Desert, Chile. Energy 2016;94:422–30. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2019.02.140. 10.1016/j.energy.2015.11.015.
[67] De Luca G, Fabozzi S, Massarotti N, Vanoli L. A renewable energy system for a [91] Zhao Z-Y, Chen Y-L, Thomson JD. Levelized cost of energy modeling for
nearly zero greenhouse city: case study of a small city in southern Italy. Energy concentrated solar power projects: a China study. Energy 2017;120:117–27.
2018;143:347–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.07.004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.12.122.
[68] Marczinkowski HM, Østergaard PA. Evaluation of electricity storage versus [92] Hdidouan D, Staffell I. The impact of climate change on the levelised cost of wind
thermal storage as part of two different energy planning approaches for the energy. Renew Energy 2017;101:575–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
islands Samsø and Orkney. Energy 2019;175:505–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. renene.2016.09.003.
energy.2019.03.103. [93] Costoya X, deCastro M, Carvalho D, Gómez-Gesteira M. On the suitability of
[69] Bellocchi S, Gambini M, Manno M, Stilo T, Vellini M. Positive interactions offshore wind energy resource in the United States of America for the 21st
between electric vehicles and renewable energy sources in CO2-reduced energy century. Appl Energy 2020;262:114537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scenarios: the Italian case. Energy 2018;161:172–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. apenergy.2020.114537.
energy.2018.07.068. [94] Verán-Leigh D, Vázquez-Rowe I. Life cycle assessment of run-of-river hydropower
plants in the Peruvian Andes: a policy support perspective. Int J Life Cycle Assess
2019;24:1376–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-01579-2.
18
[95] Pfenninger S, Keirstead J. Comparing concentrating solar and nuclear power as [104] Pfenninger S, Keirstead J. Renewables, nuclear, or fossil fuels? Scenarios for Great
baseload providers using the example of South Africa. Energy 2015;87:303–14. Britain’s power system considering costs, emissions and energy security. Appl
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.04.077. Energy 2015;152:83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.04.102.
[96] Cherp A, Vinichenko V, Jewell J, Suzuki M, Antal M. Comparing electricity [105] Impact of weighted average cost of capital, capital expenditure, and other
transitions: a historical analysis of nuclear, wind and solar power in Germany and parameters on future utility-scale PV levelised cost of electricity - vartiainen -
Japan. Energy Pol 2017;101:612–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 2020 - Progress in photovoltaics: research and applications - Wiley Online Library
enpol.2016.10.044. n.d. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pip.3189 (accessed June
[97] Pilpola S, Lund PD. Analyzing the effects of uncertainties on the modelling of low- 26, 2020).
carbon energy system pathways. Energy 2020;201:117652. https://doi.org/ [106] Ram M, Child M, Aghahosseini A, Bogdanov D, Lohrmann A, Breyer C.
10.1016/j.energy.2020.117652. A comparative analysis of electricity generation costs from renewable, fossil fuel
[98] Gorenstein Dedecca J, Hakvoort RA. A review of the North Seas offshore grid and nuclear sources in G20 countries for the period 2015-2030. J Clean Prod
modeling: current and future research. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;60: 2018;199:687–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.159.
129–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.112. [107] Victoria M, Zhu K, Brown T, Andresen GB, Greiner M. Early decarbonisation of
[99] Victoria M, Zhu K, Brown T, Andresen GB, Greiner M. The role of storage the European energy system pays off. preprint 2020. https://arxiv.org/abs/2
technologies throughout the decarbonisation of the sector-coupled European 004.11009.
energy system. Energy Conversion and Management 2019;201. https://doi.org/ [108] Cost Database. EnergyPLAN 2014. https://www.energyplan.eu/useful_resources/
10.1016/j.enconman.2019.111977. costdatabase/. [Accessed 19 July 2020]. accessed.
[100] Peter J. How does climate change affect electricity system planning and optimal [109] Dranka GG, Ferreira P. Planning for a renewable future in the Brazilian power
allocation of variable renewable energy? Appl Energy 2019;252:113397. https:// system. Energy 2018;164:496–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113397. energy.2018.08.164.
[101] Bellocchi S, Manno M, Noussan M, Prina MG, Vellini M. Electrification of [110] Mena R, Escobar R, Lorca Á, Negrete-Pincetic M, Olivares D. The impact of
transport and residential heating sectors in support of renewable penetration: concentrated solar power in electric power systems: a Chilean case study. Appl
scenarios for the Italian energy system. Energy 2020;196:117062. https://doi. Energy 2019;235:258–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.10.088.
org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117062. [111] Gulagi A, Bogdanov D, Breyer C. The role of storage technologies in energy
[102] De Rosa L, Castro R. Forecasting and assessment of the 2030 australian electricity transition pathways towards achieving a fully sustainable energy system for India.
mix paths towards energy transition. Energy 2020:118020. https://doi.org/ J Energy Storage 2018;17:525–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2017.11.012.
10.1016/j.energy.2020.118020. [112] Singh R. Energy sufficiency aspirations of India and the role of renewable
[103] Knopf B, Nahmmacher P, Schmid E. The European renewable energy target for resources: scenarios for future. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;81:2783–95.
2030 – an impact assessment of the electricity sector. Energy Pol 2015;85:50–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.083.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.05.010.
19

(2021) Low Carbon Elec System in 2030 - Multi-Obj, Multi-Criteria Assessment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(2021) Low Carbon Elec System in 2030 - Multi-Obj, Multi-Criteria Assessment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(2021) Low Carbon Elec System in 2030 - Multi-Obj, Multi-Criteria Assessment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135 (2021) 110356

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

Low carbon electricity system for India in 2030 based on multi-objective

added to the rapid RES growth. Research projects an addition of 15.8

Nomenclature IRENA International Renewable Energy Agency

Rooftop Solar (GW) 0.66–25 0.66–40

Economic Ratio of annual investment cost to the total %

Coal 886.8 0.39 3.5 2.57

Equal 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17

2.2. Formulation of objective function, decision variables, and constraints

Hourly hydro production data is difficult to gather in India. Instead,

Hstor content = Hstor content + WHydro (3)

edam hyd ≤ Cdam Hydro (5)

Fig. 8. Optimization analysis results of Scenario 9. Future electricity system

Par_1 RES_share_of_PES 31.3 31.5 26.9 34.4 29.6 33.2 2.1

eTurbine Tf = Pper con source *ccon source (14)

Rooftop_1 60.9 2 [99] Onshorewind_1 76.4 3.3 [99]

You might also like