1 Introduction
2 Related studies
Year of publication
|
Hybrid resources
|
Storage and support system
|
Cellular generation
|
Case study
|
---|---|---|---|---|
2009 [14] | Photovoltaic | Battery | GSM | India |
Wind | Fuel cell | |||
Diesel generator | ||||
2010 [9] | Photovoltaic | Battery | GSM | India |
Wind | Diesel generator | UMTS | ||
2012 [8] | Photovoltaic | Battery | GSM | India |
Wind | Polar DC generator | CDMA | ||
2012 [2] | Photovoltaic | Battery | GSM | Congo |
Wind | Diesel generator | |||
2012 [12] | Photovoltaic | Battery | GSM | Bangladesh |
Diesel generator | ||||
2013 [10] | Photovoltaic | Battery | GSM | Nigeria |
Diesel generator | ||||
2013 [13] | Photovoltaic | Battery | GSM | Spain |
Wind | Diesel generator | |||
2013 [6] | Photovoltaic | Battery | GSM | Nepal |
Wind | Fuel cell | CDMA | ||
Diesel generator | ||||
2013 [15] | Photovoltaic | Battery | GSM | Nigeria |
Hydro turbine | Diesel generator | |||
2013 [11] | Photovoltaic | Battery | GSM | Pakistan |
Diesel generator |
3 Potential for applying renewable energy as the energy supply for BSs in remote sites in Malaysia
4 Solar energy in Malaysia
4.1 Barriers to using SPV panels for remote areas in Malaysia
5 System architecture
5.1 Base station subsystem
Item
|
Notation
|
Unit
|
Macro
|
---|---|---|---|
PA | Max transmit (rms) power, P
max
| W | 39.8 |
Max transmit (rms) power | dBm | 46.0 | |
PAPR | dB | 8.0 | |
Peak output power | dBm | 54.0 | |
PA efficiency, μ
| % | 38.8 | |
Total PA (P
PA) = \( \frac{{\mathrm{P}}_{max}}{\upmu} \)
| W | 102.6 | |
TRX |
P
TX
| W | 5.7 |
P
RX
| W | 5.2 | |
Total RF (P
RF) | W | 10.9 | |
BB | Radio (inner Rx/Tx) | W | 5.4 |
Turbo code (outer Rx/Tx) | W | 4.4 | |
Processor | W | 5.0 | |
Total BB (P
BB) | W | 14.8 | |
DC-DC loss, σ
DC
| % | 6.0 | |
Cooling loss, σ
cool
| % | 9.0 | |
AC-DC (main supply) loss, σ
MS
| % | 7.0 | |
Total per TRX = \( \frac{{\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{P}\mathrm{A}}+{\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{RF}}+{\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{BB}}}{\left(1-{\upsigma}_{\mathrm{DC}}\right)\left(1-{\upsigma}_{\mathrm{cool}}\right)\left(1-{\upsigma}_{\mathrm{MS}}\right)} \)
| W | 160.8 | |
Number of sectors | # | 3 | |
Number of antennas | # | 2 | |
Number of carriers | # | 1 | |
Total number of transceivers (N
TRX) | # | 6 | |
Total number of N
TRX chains, Pin = N
TRX × Total per TRX | W | 964.9 s |
5.2 Hybrid energy source subsystem
6 Mathematical model
6.1 Photovoltaic system
6.2 Diesel generator
6.3 Battery model
6.4 DC/AC inverter
7 HOMER hybrid power system modelling software
8 Simulation configuration
System components
|
Parameters
|
Value
|
---|---|---|
Control parameters | Annual real interest rate | 3.25% |
Project lifetime | 20 years | |
Dispatch strategy | Cyclic charging | |
Apply set point state of charge | 80% | |
Operating reserve: as percent of load, hourly load | 10% | |
Carbon emission penalty | $2.25/t | |
Diesel price | $0.7/L | |
SPV | Sizes considered | 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5 kW |
Operational lifetime | 20 years | |
Efficiency | 90% | |
System tracking | Two axis | |
Capital cost | $4/W | |
Replacement cost | $4/W | |
O&M cost per year | $0.01/W | |
DG | Sizes considered | 1, 2, 3, 4 kW |
Operational lifetime | 25,000 h | |
Intercept coeff. | 0.08 L/h/kW | |
Capital cost | $0.66/W | |
Replacement cost | $0.66/W | |
O&M cost | $0.05/h | |
Inverter | Sizes considered | 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2 kW |
Efficiency | 90% | |
Operational lifetime | 15 years | |
Capital cost | $0.9/W | |
Replacement cost | $0.9/W | |
O&M cost per year | $0.01/W | |
Trojan L16P battery | Number of batteries | 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 |
Round trip efficiency | 85% | |
Minimum state of charge | 30% | |
Nominal voltage | 6 V | |
Nominal current | 360 Ah at 20 h | |
Nominal capacity | 6 V × 360 Ah = 2.16 kWh | |
Lifetime throughput | 1,075 kWh | |
Max. charge rate | 1 A/Ah | |
Max. charge current | 18 A | |
Self-discharge rate | 0.1% per hour | |
Min. operational lifetime | 5 years | |
Capital cost | $300 | |
Replacement cost | $300 | |
O&M cost per year | $10 |
9 Results and discussion
9.1 Optimisation criteria
Energy model
|
Economic factors
|
DG factors
| |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Daily solar
|
SPV
|
DG
|
Battery
|
Inverter
|
Initial
|
Operating
|
NPC
|
Diesel
|
DG
|
(kWh/m
2
)
|
(kW)
|
(kW)
|
(unit)
|
(kW)
|
Capital
|
($/year)
|
($)
|
(L)
|
(h)
|
5.1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1.5 | $11,210 | 1,993 | 40,188 | 1,880 | 6,091 |
5.2 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1.5 | $11,210 | 1,980 | 40,000 | 1,866 | 6,039 |
5.3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1.5 | $11,210 | 1,968 | 39,820 | 1,854 | 5,999 |
5.4 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1.5 | $11,210 | 1,956 | 39,653 | 1,840 | 5,954 |
5.5 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1.5 | $11,210 | 1,946 | 39,497 | 1,830 | 5,923 |
9.2 Energy yield analysis
9.3 Economic analysis
9.4 GHG emissions
10 Comparison of the feasibility of using the solar energy approach between Germany and Malaysia
Energy model
|
Economic factors
|
DG factors
| |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Daily solar
|
SPV
|
DG
|
Battery
|
Inverter
|
Initial
|
Operating ($/year)
|
NPC ($)
|
Diesel
|
DG
|
(kWh/m
2
)
|
(kW)
|
(kW)
|
(unit)
|
(kW)
|
Capital
|
(L)
|
(h)
| ||
5.1 (Malaysia) | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1.5 | $11,210 | 1,993 | 40,188 | 1,880 | 6,091 |
3 (Germany) | 3.5 | 1 | 6 | 1.5 | $10,750 | 4,436 | 80,044 | 1,886 | 5,862 |