FINANCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF ENERGY UTILITIES SYSTEMS: OPTIMIZATION OF HYBRID CCHP SYSTEMS IN A CASE STUDY IN NORTHEAST BRAZIL
Optimization, Multi-objective, Utility System, Renewable Energy
The design of an energy utility system must adequately meet the energy demands of a consumer center. There are several pieces of equipment that can be considered, and several ways to connect them to each other and operate them. Additionally, when considering energy resources, there will be seasonality and intermittence. In addition to variations in energy demands, tariffs may also vary over time, differing in peak and off-peak periods, and throughout the year. To cover the complexity of this problem, this work had as main objective to develop a methodology to help the decision making of utility systems, considering the financial and environmental metrics, in present and future scenarios. Two evaluations are carried out in this work, one purely financial and one financial and environmental. The financial optimization solution indicated that the best utility system, called the base case, was a conventional system, without renewable energy. However, the base case was not robust enough to support variations in energy tariffs: with an increase of only 3% in the electricity tariff, the financial solution changed and used renewable energies, increasing the complexity of the system. The base case also presented a high investment risk, while more complex systems, with different types of equipment and energy sources, were better adapted to the uncertainties of the future to reduce investment risk. The results of the financial optimization by tariff range corroborated the results of the parametric and investment risk studies of the one-off financial optimization, indicating a more complex optimal utility system during its 20 years of operation over a predetermined tariff variation. The results of the multi-objective financial-environmental optimization showed that it is possible to find solutions that provide a significant environmental result (less emissions) without large cost increases for the financial value. The solution indicated by the proposed decision-making method presented a 73% reduction in emissions with a 9% increase in financial costs compared to purely financial solution. This solution is a more complex system and presented a lower investment risk than simpler systems. Therefore, the results of this work indicate that simple financial optimization, when performed in isolation, can result in non-resilient solutions with high investment risks. The results also indicate that considering the environmental criterion in the optimization can also be a good alternative from a financial point of view, as the solutions become more complex, with renewable sources, and more resilient, reducing the investment cost.