Assignment 3: Preliminary design Storage subsystem of a renewable

Assignment 3: Preliminary design Storage subsystem of a renewable

energy system for Yea

Submission A report (pdf format) submitted

A completed House of Quality spreadsheet in excel format, submitted through the portal on the course Wattle site

Referencing and citation Harvard or IEEE style

2030Yea

Australia boasts the highest installed capacity of rooftop solar photovoltaics (PV) in the world, with the Victorian town of Yea surpassing even the national average. In response, the local community energy group, 2030Yea, is ambitiously aiming to supply the town with 100% renewable electricity by 2030. This plan includes an integrated system of rooftop solar and solar farms along with battery systems to ensure continuous and efficient energy supply. Yea primarily uses electricity for hot water heating, cooking, and household heating, as it lacks access to the gas reticulation network. The town experiences its maximum daily peak electricity load at 1am, primarily due to hot water heating. Within Australia's privatised electricity system, where regulated monopoly companies manage the physical electricity network and retail companies handle billing, Ausnet serves as the local network service provider for Yea, with AGL as the predominant electricity retailer. This multi-faceted approach aims to meet the communitys power needs sustainably and reliably.

The customer needs have been identified as:

N 1. System needs to supply electricity to Yea township 24 hours per day, 7 days/week, 365 days per year.

N 2. System needs to have backup capability for essential services.

N 3. System needs to integrate with National Grid and operate as directed by the AEMO. N 4. System needs to be maintainable/supportable with current technology and skillsets. N 5. System needs to use power generated from renewable energy sources.

N 6. System needs to use existing distribution infrastructure with appropriate upgrades possible.

N 7. System needs to be safe for users to use.

N 8.System needs to cater for Yeas needs for at least 25 years.

N 9.System needs to deliver energy in form that currently connected devices use. N 10. System needs to support natural environment health.

N 11. System needs to support regional sustainability. N 12. System needs to comply with relevant standards.

N 13. System needs to be affordable to the user and community. N 14. System needs to be affordable to the government.

Requirements Specifications

The requirements specification for the project are as follows:

ID Description Importance

R1 Capability R1.1 The system shall provide a minimum power output of 6GWh per year. 0.7%

R1.2 The system shall fail at most once per year. 0.2%

R1.3 The system shall have an energy storage capacity of 7MWh. 0.7%

R1.4 The system output shall grow at a rate of 2% per year from the year 2023. 0.2%

R1.5 The system shall supply a voltage of 230V (+10%, -6%) to the customer 2.2%

R1.6 The system shall deliver power to the customer at a frequency of 50 0.5Hz. 2.2%

R1.7 The system shall be planned for operation for at least 25 years from the date of installation 0.7%

R2 National Grid R2.1 The system shall import power from the National Grid as required. 6.4%

R2.2 The system shall export excess power to the National Grid. 0.7%

R3 Utility R3.1 The system shall support smart grid operation 2.1%

R3.2 The system shall support Demand Response 2.1%

R3.3 The system shall support EV Smart charging 0.7%

R3.4 The system shall enable the user to generate and consume their own local energy 2.1%

R4 Maintainability R4.1 The system shall be maintainable by local power provider technicians 16.1%

R4.2 The system shall be supportable with readily available materials 5.4%

R5 Energy Source R5.1 The system shall generate electricity from renewable energy sources 21.4%

R6 Infrastructure and Safety R6.1 The system shall distribute electricity via the currently installed distribution network 1.8%

R6.2 New infrastructure required by the system shall be integrated into the existing distribution network. 5.4%

Safety R7.1 The system shall comply with EMC emission limits for MV and HV power systems 7.1%

R7.2 All new components of the system shall meet Australian safety standards 7.1%

R7.3 The system shall have adequate fault protection 7.1%

Economics and Environment R8.1 The system shall not impact negatively on the health of the local environment 2.3%

R8.2 The systems installation and operation shall support the regional economy. 0.8%

R8.3 The system must be affordable by the Yea Community 2.3%

R8.4 The system shall support social equity through energy sharing 0.8%

R8.5 The system shall employ local businesses for its installation 0.3%

R8.6 The system shall employ local businesses for its maintenance 0.8%

System Concept

The system concept sketch developed in the concept design phase proposes distributed solar collection primarily based on existing and expanded rooftop solar augmented by local solar farms. These power sources will be interconnected to the existing distribution grid through inverters and a new network of smart microgrid controllers. The microcontrollers are a major infrastructure investment that will regulate and stabilise power in the grid in a distributed manner at each power node. This will ensure that the grid frequency and voltage requirements are met by distributed control as long as sufficient supply and storage capacity is available. Power storage for the system will be provided by battery systems based on Lithium-Ion technology due to its established technology to remove risk from the system deployment.

Preliminary design question

The storage subsystem is a crucial component of the system. A unique characteristic of 100% renewable energy systems is the interconnected nature of the storage and generation components of the network. A key aspect of the design is the location of the battery storage. Three options are under consideration in the preliminary design phase.

Option A is a regional battery storage similar to the Hornsdale Power Reserve in South Australia. This storage would be located outside of the urban centre and be interconnected into the existing grid to charge and discharge as required.

2435479123823

Option B is a network of community battery storage systems each servicing in the order of 20 to 200 homes to be determined. The proposed concept is based on recent research into communitybatterysystemssuchashttps://suburbanland.act.gov.au/docs/default- source/default-document-library/attachment-c---feasibility-study- report.pdf?sfvrsn=ca5e378c_1.

2241804141059

Option C is based on using existing household battery technology. All households would be provided with single household batteries located on the property.

Part 1: Design Criteria and Technical Performance Measures

Develop 6 design criteria for the system. These design criteria should be targeted towards evaluating the trade-off in designing the battery storage system. Describe the background research you undertook for each design criterion and justify the criteria is a good choice.

Choosing design criteria appropriate to evaluate the trade-off between different storage solutions is a key aspect of the assessment along with the quality and justification of the design criteria. You do not need to choose design criteria for all aspects of the customer needs and requirements focus only on those necessary for this specific trade-off. (In a real system design you would provide design criteria for all requirements the restriction to 6 targeted design criteria is purely to make the scope of this assignment accessible).

For each design criteria develop a technical performance measure (TPM). This measure should include the standard indicators; Direction of Improvement (DoI), minimum marginal value (Min), maximum marginal value (Max), and target range (Target). (Note that not all criterions will require all of DoI, Min, Max and Target, include only what is required.) Explain and justify your choices of marginal and target values based on desktop research and benchmarking. Where appropriate, design a formal technical performance metric (TPM) graph for each metric. The graphs may be included in the appendix.

Part 2: Construct a House of Quality

Complete a House of Quality for the design question. To do this you will need to complete the requirements matrix that links requirements to design criteria.

Note that you are not required to complete a requirements allocation. In particular, it is expected that 6 design criteria are not sufficient to fully account for all the system requirements. The requirement matrix will be sparse and some requirements may not be coupled to the specific design criteria that you have chosen.

Justify and document your choices. Explain why your requirements matrix allocations do allow the House of Quality to be used for the design trade-off analysis you are undertaking.

Part 3: Trade-off analysis

For the three Options outlined above estimate values for the design criteria based on desktop research, benchmarking, or other analysis. Provide justification for your choices where possible.

Use these Design Criteria estimates in a tradeoff analysis of the different options. Provide a discussion of the trade-off analysis; is the decision clearcut, should there be any further analysis, what is the sensitivity of the decision.

Please submit a single report as well as your completed House of Quality spreadsheet

REPORT (suggested structure)

Executive Summary [indicative length 1/2 pages]

1. An overview of the process taken and the recommendation for which Option should be implemented and why.

PART 1 [indicative length 1.5 - 2 pages]

Outline each design criteria [roughly to 1/3 page per criteria]. Provide a short discussion justifying the choice based on desktop research and analysis.

PART 2 [1 page]

Provide a figure of the house of the requirements matrix allocations from the house of quality.

Provide a justification for the choices made in the requirements matrix allocations and any other choices made in constructing the House of Quality.

PART 3 [1.5 page]

Document the evaluation of the design criteria for the three options. Provide justification and evidence for the values assigned.

Provide the scores obtained from the House of Quality. [the full HoQ is submitted separately see below. Only include the scores generated in the report document.]

Document your trade-off analysis. How confident are you in the results. Did you undertake any sensitivity analysis.

Provide a short recommendation. APPENDICIES [as required]

Any supporting material or analysis required for the definition of the design criteria.

Any supporting material or analysis required for defining the requirements matrix.

Any supporting material or analysis required for evaluating the design criteria for the three options.

Any supporting material or analysis required for evaluating sensitivity of the trade-off analysis.

References

House of Quality spreadsheet: (suggested structure uses the provided excel spreadsheet)

Learning Outcomes

1125537112069Understanddifferenttypesofrequirements,constraints,andassumptions encountered during systems design.

Gather, analyse, and communicate requirements to technical and non-technical audiences.

Identify, analyse, and objectively resolve design trade-offs.

Understand the importance of systems engineering management in the design process.

Critically evaluate engineering case studies and apply the findings to guide and inform the engineering design process.

Understanddifferenttypesofrequirements,constraints,andassumptions encountered during systems design.

Gather, analyse, and communicate requirements to technical and non-technical audiences.

Identify, analyse, and objectively resolve design trade-offs.

Understand the importance of systems engineering management in the design process.

Critically evaluate engineering case studies and apply the findings to guide and inform the engineering design process.

Marking rubric for assignment A3

Weight F P CR D HD

C1 35 Design Criteria & TPM Design criteria are too general and not appropriate for the desired tradeoff .Very litte or no research provided to justify Design criteria.

TPM graphs are incorrect or do not correspond to designcriteria. Design criteria are in the general area for the desired tradeoff analysis but could be better targeted.

Some research provided to justify Design criteria.

TPM graphs are reasonably associated with designcriteria. Reasonable choice of design criteria for desired tradeoff analysis.

Research provided to justify Design criteria. Choices of DoI, Min, Max and Target appear reasonable.

TPM graphs areappropriate. Appropriate choice of design criteria that capture desired tradeoff analysis. Design criteria are based on research and analysis with appropriate choices of DoI, Min, Max and Target.

TPM graphs areappropriate. Excellent choice of design criteria that comprehensively capture desired tradeoff analysis.

Design criteria are provided with strongly founded in credible research and analysis with appropriate choices of DoI, Min, Max and Target.

TPM graphs are carefullytailored to the design criteria.

C2 15 House of Quality House of Quality missing substantive components Requirements matrix is not appropriate.

Scores for all three options

are not provided. House of Quality has some errors and incorrect parts. Requirements matrix does not capture the key aspects of the tradeoff.

Scores for all three options

provided. House of Quality fully populated with no errors. Requirements matrix is appropriate.

Scores for all three options

provided. House of Quality fully populated with no errors. Requirements matrix is well structured providing good coverage of key tradeoff question.

Scores for all three options provided.

Justification provided for the choice of requirements matrix focusing on

addressing key tradeoff. House of Quality fully populated with no errors.

Requirements matrix is well structured providing good coverage of key tradeoff question.

Scores for all three options provided.

Strong and well argued justification provided for the choice of requirements matrix focusing on addressing key

tradeoff.

C3 35 Trade-off analysis Evaluation of design criteria poor and not supported by evidence.

Missing or inconclusive recommendation.

No consideration of

sensitivity of the decision. Evaluation of design criteria appears reasonable but not strongly supported by evidence or analysis.

A recommendation provided based on analysis of HoQ. Poor consideration of

sensitivity of the decision. Reasonable evaluation of design criteria based on some evidence and rough analysis.

A clear recommendation provided based on analysis of HoQ.

Sensitivity of the recommendation is considered and discussed. Good evaluation of design criteria based on research evidence and analysis.

A clear recommendation provided based on analysis of HoQ.

Sensitivity Analysis of the tradeoff is provided and discussed in the

recommendation. Excellent evaluation of design criteria based on research evidence and strong analysis. A clear recommendation provided based on analysis of HoQ.

Sensitivity Analysis of the tradeoff is provided and discussed in the

recommendation.

C4 15 Quality of writing unintelligablepoorly written but intelligable. Doesn't follow the proposed structure. Easy to read but not well structured for an engineering report. A well structured engineering report but with ommission - missing structure, lack of references,

etcA well structured well written report with appropriate references and appendicies.