Modelling of an Intelligent Microgrid System in a Smart Grid Network

Community-Based Microgrids: Literature Review and Pathways to Decarbonise the Local Electricity Network

“…In the distributed structure, D1 follows almost similar attributes compared to C2 except for the difference in the structural design [36]. D2 on the other hand appears to be less complex, with scalability features and lower DER monopoly and a moderate level of engagement among community members [37,38,40]. However, D3 is a promising structure in a distributed paradigm, as it is highly scalable, has low DER monopoly and has more peer engagement except for its high complex implementation design [40,41].…”

“…Examples include sets of PV panels and ESS supplying energy to specific loads (emergency, auxiliary) in the room/house/building/community [36]. However, in both of these categories, it must be ensured that the DERs and loads are not located distantly so that the system losses can be minimised and network efficiency can be maintained [36,38].…”

“…D2: Distributed individual DERs, scattered loads This subcategory includes a structure in which DERs are distributed independently of each other but supply loads in their vicinity [36,38]. It can facilitate energy exchanges within a home (DER to household load) or neighbouring homes.…”

“…However, the DERs are likely to have a monopoly while the community engagement can be very low [36,37]. In contrast, category C2 is more complex compared to C1 but has other features, such as easy scalability, the possibility of lower monopoly and more community engagement compared to C1 [36,38]. In the distributed structure, D1 follows almost similar attributes compared to C2 except for the difference in the structural design [36].…”