Article

Hybrid Pumped Hydro Storage Energy Solutions

towards Wind and PV Integration: Improvement on
Flexibility, Reliability and Energy Costs
Mariana Simão * and Helena M. Ramos
Civil Engineering, Architecture and Georesources Department, CERIS, Instituto Superior Técnico,
Universidade de Lisboa, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal; [Link]@[Link] or
[Link]@[Link]
* Correspondence: [Link]@[Link]

Received: 16 June 2020; Accepted: 29 August 2020; Published: 1 September 2020

Abstract: This study presents a technique based on a multi-criteria evaluation, for a sustainable
technical solution based on renewable sources integration. It explores the combined production of
hydro, solar and wind, for the best challenge of energy storage flexibility, reliability and
sustainability. Mathematical simulations of hybrid solutions are developed together with different
operating principles and restrictions. An electrical generating system composed primarily by wind
and solar technologies, with pumped-storage hydropower schemes, is defined, predicting how
much renewable power and storage capacity should be installed to satisfy renewables-only
generation solutions. The three sources were combined considering different pump/turbine (P/T)
capacities of 2, 4 and 6 MW, wind and PV solar powers of 4–5 MW and 0.54–1.60 MW, respectively
and different reservoir volume capacities. The chosen hybrid hydro-wind and PV solar power
solution, with installed capacities of 4, 5 and 0.54 MW, respectively, of integrated pumped storage
and a reservoir volume of 378,000 m3, ensures 72% annual consumption satisfaction offering the
best technical alternative at the lowest cost, with less return on the investment. The results
demonstrate that technically the pumped hydro storage with wind and PV is an ideal solution to
achieve energy autonomy and to increase its flexibility and reliability.

Keywords: pumped hydro storage (PHS); hybrid hydro-wind-solar solutions; technical feasibility;
new power generation

1. Introduction
Hydropower plays an important role today and will become even more important in the coming
decades, since hydropower can be a catalyst for the energy transition in Europe [1]. The ambitious
plan for energy transition in Europe seeks to achieve a low-carbon climate-resilient future in a safe
and cost-effective way, serving as a worldwide example [2]. The key role of electricity will be strongly
reinforced in this energy transition. In many European countries, the phase out of nuclear and coal
generation has started with a transition to new renewable sources comprising mainly of solar and
wind for electricity generation. However, solar and wind are variable energy sources and difficult to
align with demand. Hydropower already supports integration of wind and solar energy into the
supply grid through flexibility in generation as well as its potential for storage capacity. These
services will be in much greater demand in order to achieve the energy transition in Europe, and
worldwide [1,2].
Hydropower, with its untapped potential, has all the characteristics to serve as an excellent
catalyst for a successful energy transition. However, this will require a more flexible, efficient,

Water 2020, 12, 2457; doi:10.3390/w12092457 [Link]/journal/water

Water 2020, 12, 2457 2 of 25

environmentally and socially acceptable approach to increasing hydropower production to

complement wind and solar energy production. In particular, (a) increasing hydropower production
through the implementation of new environmentally friendly, multipurpose hydropower schemes
and by using the hidden potential in existing infrastructure; (b) increasing the flexibility of generation
from existing hydropower plants by adaptation and optimization of infrastructure and equipment
combined with innovative solutions for the mitigation of environmental impacts and (c) increasing
storage by the heightening of existing dams and the construction of new reservoirs, which have to
ensure not only flexible energy supply but also support food and water [2]. Therefore, a hybrid
system between several renewable energy resources, a complementary nature among other sources
in an integrated and flexible way is of utmost importance in the electric producer system and energy
management. The most traditional and mature storage technology, pumped hydro storage, is
adopted to support both the grid connection, as well as the standalone hybrid hydro-wind-solar grid
system.
Energy and water are closely interlinked. These interconnections intensify as the demand for
resources increases with population growth and changing consumption patterns [3]. Due to the
growing awareness about environment, climate changes, pollution and waste footprint, clean and
renewable sources of energy are being encouraged and used globally. With these growing trends of
using intermittent renewable sources of energy, there will be a greater need to make flexible the
modern energy production and distribution systems. The challenge of using renewable sources such
as hydro, wind and solar energies is their variability, intermittency, non-predictability and under-
weather dependency [4]. Kapsali and Kaldellis [5] assessed the techno-economic viability of a system
incorporating simultaneous wind farms with pumped storage and hydro turbines for remote islands
and determined that the contribution of renewable energy was increased by 15%. Castronuovo et al.
[6] worked on optimum operation and hydro storage sizing of a wind and hydro hybrid power plant
and calculated an annual profit of 11.91% by purchasing energy during periods of low demand and
selling during periods of high demand. Vieira et al. [7] studied optimization and operational planning
of wind and hydro hybrid water supply systems and concluded that up to 47% of energy costs can
be saved in the optimization mode compared to normal operating mode. More detailed information
can be found in [8–11] on feasibility, optimal design and operation of pumped-hydro hybrid systems.
Combining renewable energy resources is the best way to overcome energy shortcomings, which
not only provides more reliable power systems increasing the storage capacity but also leads to the
reduction in climate change effects [1,12]. In addition, renewable-based technologies can make water
accessible for domestic, industry and agricultural purposes, improving supply security while
decoupling growth in water from fossil fuels. Renewable energy technologies offer opportunities to
address trade-offs and to leverage on synergies between sectors to enhance water and energy nexus.
However, connecting renewable power plants to the grid can cause dynamic controlling problems if
the electricity network is not prepared for handling such variations due to the intermittency of
renewable sources availability [13]. Therefore, a continuous and reliable power supply is hardly
possible without energy storage. Using an energy storage system, the surplus energy can be stored
when the power generation exceeds the demand and then released to cover the periods when the net
load exists, providing a robust flexible back-up for intermittent renewable energy sources [14,15].
This has the advantage in increasing the system flexibility and reliability, decreasing the variability
of renewable sources availability, since the variable power output can be levelled out due to a
complementary nature between renewable resources through their integration in the hydropower by
a pumped storage solution.
Although an oversized hybrid system satisfies the load demand, it can be an unnecessarily
expensive solution. An undersized hybrid system is more cost-effective but may not be able to meet
the load demand. The optimum size of the hybrid renewable energy power system depends on
several simulations based on specific mathematical models and system components management
towards the best solution [16]. This study discusses the implications of a water–energy nexus focusing
on renewable energy technologies, a cost-effective and environmentally sustainable supply of energy.
It examines a specific case to highlight how renewable energy can address the trade-offs, helping to
Water 2020, 12, 2457 3 of 25

state the world’s pressing water and energy challenges towards an optimization model development
and application.
This work presents a consistent framework for optimizing the availability and storage of
renewable resources and to evaluate how the system behaves with changing the power capacity, in
order to facilitate such complementarity in a flexible and multi-variable process. Different solutions
are analyzed, according to the demand and the installed power, for different storage volumes, and
different available characteristics for pump/hydro, wind and solar energy sources. The
complementarity and the system flexibility to satisfy the consumption is a complex solution with
several characteristic parameters that need to be solved simultaneously using different time series for
the available sources.

2. Hybrid and Pumped Storage Technologies

2.1. Characterization
Pumped hydropower storage (PHS) accounts over 94% of installed global energy storage
capacity and retains several advantages such as lifetime cost, levels of sustainability and scale. The
existing 161,000 megawatts (MW) of pumped storage capacity support power grid stability, as
significant water batteries, reducing overall system costs and sector emissions [1]. PHS operations
and technology are adapting to the changing power system requirements incurred by variable
renewable energy (VRE) sources as a new energy transition solution. Variable-speed and ternary PHS
systems allow for faster and wider operating ranges, providing additional flexibility, enabling higher
penetrations of VRE at lower system costs at high reliable levels. As traditional revenue streams
become more unpredictable and markets are volatiles, PHS is seen to secure long-term revenue in
order to attract investment, particularly in liberalized energy markets [1,2].
Different energy resources can be combined building an integrated hybrid energy system that
complements the drawbacks existing in each individual energy solution. Therefore, the design goals
for hybrid power systems are the minimization of power production cost, purchasing energy from
the grid (if it is connected), the reduction of emissions, the total life cycle cost and increasing the
reliability and flexibility of the power generation system [17–19]. The pumped storage can be seen as
the most promising technology to increase renewable energy levels in power systems. Hydro, wind,
solar and pumped hydro storage (PHS), as hybrid power solutions, constitute a realistic and feasible
option to achieve high renewable levels, considering that their components are properly sized. In
some locations, the solar and wind resources have an anti-correlation, complementing each other and
giving a combined less variable output than independently [20].
Pumped-storage schemes currently provide the most commercially important means of large-
scale grid energy storage and improve the daily capacity factor of the generation system. Pumped
hydropower energy storage stores energy in the form of potential energy that is pumped from a lower
reservoir to a higher one putting the water source available to turbine to fit the energy demand. In
this type of system, low cost electric power (electricity in off-peak time) is used to run the pumps to
raise the water from the lower reservoir to the upper one [21]. During the periods of high power
demand, the stored water is released through hydro turbines to produce power. Reversible turbine-
generator groups act as pump or turbine, when necessary. A typical conceptual pumped hydro
storage system with wind and solar power options for transferring water from lower to upper
reservoir is represented in Figure 1.
Water 2020, 12, 2457 4 of 25

Figure 1. A hybrid hydro-wind-solar system with pumped storage system.

This system is equipped with a photovoltaic (PV) system array, a wind turbine, an energy
storage system (pumped-hydro storage), a control station and an end-user (load). This whole system
can be isolated from the grid, i.e., a standalone system or in a grid connection where the control
station can be the grid inertia capacity. This is currently the most cost-effective means of storing large
amounts of renewable energy, based on decisive factors, such as, capital costs, suitable topography
and climate changes challenges [22].

2.2. Optimal Design of a Hybrid System

2.2.1. Dispatch Optimization Model

The purposed mathematical model can predict how much wind, solar power and pumped
hydro-storage energy capacity should be installed to satisfy a hybrid renewable solution. Wind is
highly fluctuating meteorological parameter changing every hour and annually. Therefore, to
connect wind power with the grid and assure quality power supply, large energy storage systems
are required. Nevertheless, different types of wind turbines may output different power due to their
difference in the power curve characteristics. Therefore, the model used to describe the performance
should be different [23–26]. As for solar energy although less fluctuating, it only works during day
light hours. It offers more reliable power and can be committed and managed, using relatively
smaller energy storage systems to provide continuous and quality power [27]. According to [19],
pumped hydropower storage plants have several advantages, such as (1) flexible start/stop and fast
response speed, (2) ability to track load variations and adapt to severe load changes, (3) capacity to
modulate the frequency and maintain voltage stability and face climate change and reduce footprint
effects on an integrated solution.
The optimal design of a hybrid solar–wind-system supported by a pumped-based hydro scheme
can significantly enhance the technical and economic performance for efficient energy harnessing.
The multi-variable techniques are also known for their accuracy and simplicity when encountering
complicated optimization problems. The optimization approaches in hybrid hydro-solar-wind
systems is presented in Figure 2. The main objective is to analyze the capacity of such a system to be
able to store the excess of wind/solar energy, at times when energy demand is lower, and provide
reserves in the form of hydropower at times when consumption exceeds the wind/solar production
or, alternatively, making the system self-sufficient. This model was developed for a time scale of one
average year, assuming hourly variations, i.e., 8760 iterations, where dimensional data regarding
variations in electricity demand and wind/solar energy production.
Figure 2 depicts the proposed framework to coordinate pumped-storage and wind-solar
renewable energies, with a closed-loop dispatch process as follows.
Water 2020, 12, 2457 5 of 25

Start
= 1 to n
Input demand data of energy demand (D),
wind (W) and solar (S) along the time
e.g.,
Use dimensionless values, depending on the Wind = i (1, 2 … )
arbitrated peak consumption and the installed
Solar = i (0.1, 0.5, … )
wind and solar power (using peak factors ( ))
Storage = i (1, 2 … )

Calculate the wind/solar

hybrid power/energy
No No
= + < available: = − >
= +
=0 =0
=0 =0
No Yes Yes
Yes If >

No No
> ⁄ > ⁄
, ⟹

Yes Yes
− = = −
= − +
= ⁄ × 3600 = ⁄ × 3600

Figure 2. Flowchart to find optimal hybrid system. V is for water volume, E is for energy, D is the
demand, H is for hybrid power/energy available, S is the solar energy and W is for wind energy. The
superscripts (p, t, res) are assigned for pump, turbine and reservoir.

The pumped hydro storage (PHS) is the energy storage solution in this study, consisting on a
separated pump/motor unit and a turbine/generator unit to manage the other renewable sources
inputs to face the energy demand [28]. The turbine generating coefficient (kWh/m3) in Equation (1)
and the water pumping coefficient (m3/kWh) in Equation (2) are two key parameters of the PHS
elements. According to [29,30] the following equation describes the total stored energy (in kWh)
in the active volume of a reservoir:

= × × × × = × ( ℎ), (1)

where is the net head (m), the overall efficiency of the turbine/generator unit (%), the
storage capacity (m3), is the turbine generating coefficient (kWh/m3), is the acceleration due to
gravity (m/s2), is the density of the water (kg/m3).
The energy used to pump the water volume to a specific height, with a specific pumping
efficiency is given by
× × ×
= = × ( ℎ), (2)

where is the pumping head (m), is the overall pumping efficiency (%), and is the water
pumping coefficient of the pump/motor unit (m3/k Wh).
In the case of energy deficits, water is drawn from the upper reservoir in order to operate the
hydro turbines.
Finally, the proposed dispatch model selects the best combination of peak factors to reach the
optimal solution in terms of efficiency, energy exploitation, cost, and footprint. The peak factor is the
ratio of the total flow to the average daily flow in a water system and is important in the study of a
water system to determine potential water consumption values. The ratio of the total flow for large
water systems generally varies from 1.2 to 3.0 or even higher for specific small systems [31].

2.2.2. Operating Principles and Important Restrictions

The pumping process is done during the empty hours (i.e., of lower demand) and the
hydroelectric generation through peak hours (i.e., for highest demand). Thus, the consumption
during the off-peak hours was satisfied exclusively by wind/solar, while in the remaining period, the
Water 2020, 12, 2457 6 of 25

power generation is complemented by hydro, if insufficient wind/solar production is verified. Excess

wind/solar energy that is not used for consumption in the system is used for pumping. In this way,
it is possible to reduce the purchase costs of electricity from the grid. The respective operating
conditions Equation (3) and restrictions Equation (4) are described below:

Operating conditions:

> 0.15

= + −
(3)
≥ , ≥

∆ = −

Restrictions considered:

≥ → =0

= ⁄( ) × 3600

≤ → =0
(4)
=( )⁄( ) × 3600

= → = , =0

=0, = −∆

2.2.3. Daily Cycle for Electricity Supply

According to Figure 2, , depend on the tri-time tariff (Table 1). As the pumping system
works in the early hours of the day (0–7 h) the system presents sufficient reserves to be able to assist
intermittent renewable energy production failures during the remaining period. The daily cycle for
electricity supply, dictated by the tri-time tariff applied in mainland Portugal, is described in Table
1.

Table 1. Time-of-day tariff periods (weekly cycle).

Days Tarif Period Winter Summer

Peak 5 h/day 3 h/day

Half-peak 12 h/day 14 h/day

Workdays
Normal off-peak 3 h/day 3 h/day

Super off-peak 4 h/day 4 h/day

Half-peak 7 h/day

Saturdays Normal off-peak 13 h/day

Super off-peak 4 h/day

Normal off-peak 20 h/day

Sundays
Super off-peak 4 h/day
Water 2020, 12, 2457 7 of 25

3. Case Study

3.1. Modelling Assumptions

The benefit in using medium-head pumped-storage plants is to shorten transmission lines from
the alternative energy sources to the hydro storage facility, thus minimizing grid overloading due to
energy transfer across a country [32]. Moreover, it has the advantage of locating wind or solar farms
close to hydropower schemes, which are usually installed in higher topographic zones [33–36].
The proposed solution focuses on a converter connected to a motor/generator. The mostly used
is the pump as turbine (PAT) type that allows variable speed to cover the required operating range
in both modes of operation. The efficiency considered can vary between 70% and 80% for
pump/turbine mode, respectively. The overall energy storage system efficiency is 56%,
corresponding to a water pumping and turbine generating coefficients of 1.837 m3/kWh and 0.305
kWh/m3, respectively. The energy converter pump as turbine is of variable speed, which allows the
exploitation of excess energy produced by PV arrays and wind turbines and also allows covering
medium load by a remaining part of hydropower, to improve the overall energy system efficiency.
For both designs, the load profiles and the meteorological data were collected from [37], where
the wind power distribution and the solar radiation are presented in Figures 3 and 4, respectively.
Data were collected from meteorological records at a wind and solar power stations located at the
geographical coordinates of 38°47′4″ N (latitude) and 9°29′26″ W (longitude), for an average year.
Then, dimensionless values were used, depending on the arbitrated peak consumption values and
the installed wind and solar energies.

Figure 3. Average wind power distribution during an average year [28].

Figure 4. Average solar power distribution during an average year [28].

To demonstrate the contributions when combining pumped hydro storage (PHS) and hydro-
wind-solar power system, several analyses were made, considering a peak consumption of 4 MW,
and pump/turbine of 2, 4 and 6 MW, respectively. Hence, Figure 5 shows the schematic diagram of
all different combinations used: total satisfied consumption and what part is supplied only by the
PHS (depending on the installed power for each renewable sources), through wind + hydro and solar
+ hydro for different storage volumes. Analyzing wind + hydro, it is clear that the storage values
considerably influence the satisfaction of demand. For the combination of solar and hydropower, this
is not so visible, especially for higher storage values.
Water 2020, 12, 2457 8 of 25

(a)

(b)
Figure 5. Hybrid solution: shematic diagram of different combinations used (a); satisfied demand
(wind + hydro; solar + hydro; hydro) for different pump as turbine (PAT)’s power (b).

The use of wind or solar power as the source of energy supply may not be sufficient to meet the
demand without a PHS. On the contrary, the higher the ratio between the installed wind energy and
the peak consumption, the higher the satisfied consumption. However, although the wind energy
proved to be more effective with a significant increase in the consumption satisfaction, it also
translated into a greater surplus and from there the need to integrate a storage system capable of
harnessing unused energy [37–39]. Combining the three sources (Figure 6) with an installed PAT of
4 MW allows to reach levels of satisfied consumption of 70 to 85%, with high annual
complementarity, against 60–80%, when using P/Ts with 6 MW and 40–60% for P/Ts with 2 MW.
Water 2020, 12, 2457 9 of 25

90% 6

80%
5
70%
Satisfied Consumption (%)

Installed power (MW)

60% 4

50%
3
40%

30% 2

20%
1
10%

0% 0
100,000 190,000 378,000 756,000
Volume (m3)
Total Satisfied consumption 6MW (%) Total Satisfied consumption 4MW (%) Total Satisfied consumption 2MW (%)
Satisfied by Hydro 6MW (%) Satisfied by Hydro 4MW (%) Satisfied by Hydro 2MW (%)
Wind Power (MW) Solar Power (MW)

Figure 6. Satisfied consumption (wind + solar + hydro; hydro) using P/Ts with 6, 4 and 2 MW.

According to Figure 6, four scenarios related to each P/T stand out based on the best combination
between the three available renewable sources (Table 2). For these, an estimation of costs and
associated profits as a function of the installed power was made where it was assumed that the
turbomachines cost corresponds to 35% of the total PHS and that the cost related to the wind presents
a linear variation of about 583 €/MW of installed power. The profit from the purchase and sale of
electricity to the national grid was accounted through the relative data of the tri-time price rate
applied in Portugal mainland (Table 3).

Table 2 shows the investment costs and gross benefit estimation depending on each selected
solution presented in Figure 6.

Table 2. Estimation of costs and associated profits as a function of the installed power.

Pw PP/T Return
V (m3) Cw (€) CP/T (€) CPHS (€) Total (€) Profit (€)
(MW) (MW) (years)
378,000 4 2,333,320 3,168,864 282,336 11.2
378,000 5 2,916,650 3,752,194 299,948 12.5
6 303,834 835,544
756,000 4 2,333,320 3,168,864 281,997 11.2
756,000 5 2,916,650 3,752,194 299,601 12.5
378,000 4 2,333,320 2,883,414 357,336 8.1
378,000 5 2,916,650 3,466,744 365,525 9.5
4 200,034 550,094
756,000 4 2,333,320 2,883,414 360,530 8.0
756,000 5 2,916,650 3,466,744 366,695 9.5
Pw—Wind Power; PP/T—Pump/Turbine Power.

Table 3. Tariff rate applied in Portugal mainland (€).

Peak Half-Peak Off-Peak Super Off-Peak

0.097 0.0406 0.0115 0.0115
Water 2020, 12, 2457 10 of 25

The results from Table 3, reveal that the use of P/Ts with 6 MW do not present any advantage
over the P/Ts with 4 MW, using the same wind energies. Concluding, P/TS with 4 MW are
economically viable, offering the best technical alternative at the lowest cost, with less return on the
investment.
Nevertheless, to understand the relevant aspects of the joint action of these three solutions in
consumer satisfaction needs, the energy contribution of four hybrid solutions (based on Table 3) over
an average year was studied, assuming the characteristics described in Table 4.

Table 4. Selected scenarios.

Peak Wind Solar Pump/

Scenarios Storage
Consumption Power Power Turbine
Scenario 1 4 MW 0.54 MW 4 MW 144 MWh (378,000 m3)
Scenario 2 5 MW 0.54 MW 4 MW 144 MWh (378,000 m3)
4 MW
Scenario 3 5 MW 0.54 MW 4 MW 240 MWh (755,685 m3)
Scenario 4 5 MW 1.60 MW 4 MW 144 MWh (755,685 m3)

In all cases, two reservoirs (i.e., upper and lower reservoirs) were considered, with the initial
volume of the upper reservoir at 50% of its maximum capacity to allow the system to pump or turbine
within the first hour.

3.2. Results

3.2.1. Scenario 1
The power grid and energy storage in Figure 7 (for winter months of February and March) and
Figure 8 (for summer months August and September) represent the power and energy variables for
the time-line modelled: (i) curves of power demand, wind, solar, hydro and pump (left y-axis); (ii)
curve for the storage volume by water pumped into the upper reservoir (right y-axis). Herein, the
storage water volume was designed for 1.5 days peak demand power. It can be observed the
contribution of renewable sources fulfils the energy demand with more or less effect of pump-storage
solution to harmonize the available energy at each instant depending on the summer or winter period
analyzed.

Demand Wind Solar Hydro Pump Store

4500 400,000

4000 350,000

3500
300,000

3000
250,000
Power (KW)

2500
Volume (m3)

200,000
2000

150,000
1500

100,000
1000

500 50,000

0 0
1/Feb 2/Feb 3/Feb 4/Feb 6/Feb 7/Feb 8/Feb 9/Feb 11/Feb 12/Feb 13/Feb 14/Feb 16/Feb 17/Feb 18/Feb 19/Feb 21/Feb 22/Feb 23/Feb 24/Feb 26/Feb 27/Feb 28/Feb
Demand 4MW. Wind 4MW. Solar 0.54MW. Pumped-storage 144MWh

(a)
Water 2020, 12, 2457 11 of 25

Demand Wind Solar Hydro Pump Store

4500 400,000

4000 350,000

3500
300,000

3000
250,000
Power (KW)

2500

Volume (m3)
200,000
2000

150,000
1500

100,000
1000

500 50,000

0 0
1/mar 2/mar 3/mar 4/mar 6/mar 7/mar 8/mar 9/mar 11/mar 12/mar 13/mar 14/mar 16/mar 17/mar 18/mar 19/mar 21/mar 22/mar 23/mar 24/mar 26/mar 27/mar 28/mar 29/mar 31/mar

Demand 4MW. Wind 4MW. Solar 0.54MW. Pumped-storage 144MWh

(b)

Figure 7. Electricity generation (Wind, PV and Pumped-Storage Hydro) between February (a) and
March (b).

Demand Wind Solar Hydro Pump Store

4500 400,000

4000 350,000

3500
300,000

3000
250,000

Volume (m3)
Power (KW)

2500
200,000
2000

150,000
1500

100,000
1000

500 50,000

0 0
1/Aug 2/Aug 3/Aug 4/Aug 6/Aug 7/Aug 8/Aug 9/Aug 11/Aug 12/Aug 13/Aug 14/Aug 16/Aug 17/Aug 18/Aug 19/Aug 21/Aug 22/Aug 23/Aug 24/Aug 26/Aug 27/Aug 28/Aug 29/Aug 31/Aug
Demand 4MW. Wind 4MW. Solar 0.54MW. Pumped-storage 144MWh

(a)

Demand Wind Solar Hydro Pump Store

4500 400,000

4000 350,000

3500
300,000

3000
250,000

2500
Power (KW)

200,000
Volume (m3)

2000

150,000
1500

100,000
1000

500 50,000

0 0
1/Sep

2/Sep

3/Sep

4/Sep

6/Sep

7/Sep

8/Sep

9/Sep

11/Sep

12/Sep

13/Sep

14/Sep

16/Sep

17/Sep

18/Sep

19/Sep

21/Sep

22/Sep

23/Sep

24/Sep

26/Sep

27/Sep

28/Sep

29/Sep

Demand 4MW. Wind 4MW. Solar 0.54MW. Pumped-storage 144MWh

(b)

Figure 8. Electricity generation (Wind, PV and Pumped-Storage Hydro) between August (a) and
September (b).
Water 2020, 12, 2457 12 of 25

For the characteristics defined in Table 4, the system satisfies 15.37 GWh, where 19% comes from
hydro and 49% from wind and solar, with an annual maximum wind power of 1.25 × peak demand
and solar power of 0.135 × peak demand. The sources pattern varies, and the consumption satisfaction
adapts to the sources’ availability as function of the power selected to be installed. Even if it seems to
have a low share of hydro level source, it is essential to keep flexibility and sustainability performance
levels.

3.2.2. Scenario 2
The next power grid and energy storage timelines (Figures 9 and 10) illustrate when the wind
power is 5 MW. Herein, the system produces 3.41 GWh of hydropower responsible for satisfying 15%
from the 72% of the total satisfied consumption; the remaining power is guaranteed through wind
and solar energies.

Demand Wind Solar Hydro Pump Store

5000 400,000

4500
350,000

4000
300,000
3500

250,000
3000
Power (KW)

Volume (m3)
2500 200,000

2000
150,000

1500
100,000
1000

50,000
500

0 0
1/Feb 2/Feb 3/Feb 4/Feb 6/Feb 7/Feb 8/Feb 9/Feb 11/Feb 12/Feb 13/Feb 14/Feb 16/Feb 17/Feb 18/Feb 19/Feb 21/Feb 22/Feb 23/Feb 24/Feb 26/Feb 27/Feb 28/Feb
Demand 4MW. Wind 5MW. Solar 0.54MW. Pumped-storage 144MWh

(a)
Demand Wind Solar Hydro Pump Store
6000 400,000

350,000
5000

300,000

4000
250,000
Power (KW)

Volume (m3)

3000 200,000

150,000
2000

100,000

1000
50,000

0 0
1/mar 2/mar 3/mar 4/mar 6/mar 7/mar 8/mar 9/mar 11/mar 12/mar 13/mar 14/mar 16/mar 17/mar 18/mar 19/mar 21/mar 22/mar 23/mar 24/mar 26/mar 27/mar 28/mar 29/mar 31/mar

Demand 4MW. Wind 5MW. Solar 0.54MW. Pumped-storage 144MWh

(b)

Figure 9. Electricity generation and stored in scenario 2 between February (a) and March (b).
Water 2020, 12, 2457 13 of 25

Demand Wind Solar Hydro Pump Store

4500 400,000

4000 350,000

3500
300,000

3000
250,000

Volume (m3)
Power (KW)

2500
200,000
2000

150,000
1500

100,000
1000

500 50,000

0 0
1/Aug 2/Aug 3/Aug 4/Aug 6/Aug 7/Aug 8/Aug 9/Aug 11/Aug 12/Aug 13/Aug 14/Aug 16/Aug 17/Aug 18/Aug 19/Aug 21/Aug 22/Aug 23/Aug 24/Aug 26/Aug 27/Aug 28/Aug 29/Aug 31/Aug
Demand 4MW. Wind 5MW. Solar 0.54MW. Pumped-storage 144MWh

(a)

Demand Wind Solar Hydro Pump Store

4500 400,000

4000 350,000

3500
300,000

3000
250,000

2500
Power (KW)

200,000

Volume (m3)
2000

150,000
1500

100,000
1000

500 50,000

0 0
1/Sep

2/Sep

3/Sep

4/Sep

6/Sep

7/Sep

8/Sep

9/Sep

11/Sep

12/Sep

13/Sep

14/Sep

16/Sep

17/Sep

18/Sep

19/Sep

21/Sep

22/Sep

23/Sep

24/Sep

26/Sep

27/Sep

28/Sep

29/Sep

Demand 4MW. Wind 5MW. Solar 0.54MW. Pumped-storage 144MWh

(b)
Figure 10. Electricity generation and stored in scenario 2 between August (a) and September (b).

It is notable that increasing the wind power, the hydropower production decreases accordingly.
Figure 11 shows the total amount of energy that could be easily harnessed through hydropower in
scenario 2, the use of this energy to overcome the wind failures and how excess of wind production
in some periods can be used for pumping, creating water reserve for the period of highest
consumption. The uniformity of the available sources and storage capacity makes the system more
robust.

(a)
Water 2020, 12, 2457 14 of 25

(b)
Figure 11. Total amount of hydropower when using wind energy with 5 MW, between February and
March (a) and August-September (b).

Thus, by increasing the installed maximum wind power from 4 MW up to 5 MW, it is possible
to take advantage of a few hours more efficiently, if the power line transmission capacity between
the wind generators and the pumps exceeds the peak demand. The storage is adapted to the wind
power availability allowing a better compensation between resources.

3.2.3. Scenario 3
In scenario 3, the volume of storage was increased up to 755,685 m3 (2 times the initial one). The
amount of energy that is satisfied by hydro is practically the same, comparing to scenario 2 since the
volume used depends on the demand that was kept constant. With this scenario, it is possible to feel
the influence or not in some parameters depending on how the intervenient variables are optimized
and integrated in a more flexible solution (Figure 12).

Demand Wind Solar Hydro Pump Store

6000 800,000

700,000
5000

600,000

4000
500,000
Power (KW)

3000 400,000

300,000
2000

200,000

1000
100,000

0 0
10/fev
11/fev
12/fev
12/fev
13/fev
14/fev
15/fev
16/fev
17/fev
18/fev
19/fev
20/fev
21/fev
22/fev
23/fev
23/fev
24/fev
25/fev
26/fev
27/fev
28/fev
1/mar
2/mar
3/mar
4/mar
5/mar
6/mar
6/mar
7/mar
8/mar
9/mar
10/mar
11/mar
12/mar
13/mar
14/mar
15/mar
16/mar
17/mar
17/mar
18/mar
19/mar
20/mar
21/mar
22/mar
23/mar
24/mar
25/mar
26/mar
27/mar
28/mar
28/mar
29/mar
30/mar
31/mar
1/fev
1/fev
2/fev
3/fev
4/fev
5/fev
6/fev
7/fev
8/fev
9/fev

Demand 4MW. Wind 5MW. Solar 0.54MW. Pumped-storage 288Wh

(a)
Water 2020, 12, 2457 15 of 25

Demand Wind Solar Hydro Pump Store

4500 800,000

4000 700,000

3500
600,000

3000
500,000

2500
Power (KW)

400,000

Volume (m3)
2000

300,000
1500

200,000
1000

500 100,000

0 0
1/Aug
2/Aug
3/Aug
4/Aug
6/Aug
7/Aug
8/Aug
9/Aug
11/Aug
12/Aug
13/Aug
14/Aug
16/Aug
17/Aug
18/Aug
19/Aug
21/Aug
22/Aug
23/Aug
24/Aug
26/Aug
27/Aug
28/Aug
29/Aug
31/Aug
1/Sep
2/Sep
3/Sep
5/Sep
6/Sep
7/Sep
8/Sep
10/Sep
11/Sep
12/Sep
13/Sep
15/Sep
16/Sep
17/Sep
18/Sep
20/Sep
21/Sep
22/Sep
23/Sep
25/Sep
26/Sep
27/Sep
28/Sep
30/Sep
Demand 4MW. Wind 5MW. Solar 0.54MW. Pumped-storage 288MWh

(b)
Figure 12. Electricity generation and stored in scenario 3, between February and March (a) and
August and September (b).

Thus, the increasing of the volume storage does not contribute significantly, only 0.56% of the
hybrid energy is used to pump. Thus, a balance needs to be made between the total energy that is
needed for the best functioning of the PHS, in terms of sources management and the technical level,
as well as the investment cost, operation and maintenance cost of this system and also the risk-return
profile, in terms of economic performance.

3.2.4. Scenario 4
In Scenario 4 the PV power is increased up to 1.6, i.e., using a peak factor of 2.96 times the
previous one (0.135) (Figure 13).

(a)
Water 2020, 12, 2457 16 of 25

(b)

Figure 13. Total amount of energy stored vs demand in scenario 4, between February and March (a)
and August and September (b).

The total energy used for consumption was 16.42GWh, representing 73%, where only 8% comes
from hydro and the remaining from wind and solar solutions. However, by increasing the solar
energy, 11% of this energy is wasted (i.e., 2% more comparing with scenario 2), and only 1% more
contributes to the satisfied consumption. Again, the evidence of this sensitivity analysis focused on
the increasing power for some resources does not mean a better solution because this multivariate
optimization requires several interpretations depending on the main use made of the available
sources in each instant and for the analysed period. Having more solar energy imposes a reduction
on the use of hydro, because hydro is available when it is more essential not depending on the
intermittency of wind and solar, making an interesting balance between the use of sources.

4. Energy Balance
The chosen hybrid hydro-wind and solar power solution with installed capacities of 5 and 0.54
MW, respectively, 4 MW of integrated pumped storage and V = 378,000 m3 would ensure 72% annual
consumption satisfaction. Figures 13 and 14 show for each scenario the energy contribution of the
three renewable sources for typical summer and winter days, respectively. Although it is considered
a relatively low installed solar power (1/5 wind), this source can be very useful on summer days,
especially in the middle of the day, when the wind slows and the solar radiation increases. However,
although increasing the PV installed capacity ensures 65% of the consumption through wind + solar
(Figures 14d and 15d), comparing with scenario 2 (Figures 14b and 15b), the hydropower can cover
that difference with the pump/hydro power solution. For the majority of winter days, there is a
surplus of wind production at the beginning of the day, taking advantage of reducing the energy
costs for scheduled pumping in the morning. Additionally, for a storage capacity of 144 MWh and
288 MWh, there is practically no significant contribution when comparing to other scenarios (Figures
14c and 15c).
Water 2020, 12, 2457 17 of 25

Wind Solar Hydro Pump Demand Store

Wind Solar Hydro Pump Demand Store
5,000 390,000
5,000 400,000
4,500 380,000
4,500 350,000
4,000 370,000
4,000
300,000 360,000
3,500 3,500
250,000 350,000

Volume (m3)
3,000

Volume (m3)
3,000

Energy (kW )
340,000
Energy (kW)

2,500 200,000 2,500

330,000
2,000 2,000
150,000 320,000
1,500 1,500
100,000 310,000
1,000 1,000 300,000
500 50,000
500 290,000
0 - 0 280,000
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00

0:00
1:00

10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00

0:00
1:00
Time (h)
Time (h)

(a) (b)
Wind Solar Hydro Pump Demand Store Wind Solar Hydro Pump Demand Store

5,000 770,000 5,000 760,000

4,500 760,000 4,500 755,000

4,000 750,000 4,000 750,000

740,000 3,500
3,500
745,000
730,000

Volume (m3)
3,000
Volume (m3) 3,000
740,000

Energy (kW )
Energy (kW )

720,000
2,500 2,500
710,000 735,000
2,000 2,000
700,000
730,000
1,500 1,500
690,000
1,000 1,000 725,000
680,000
500 670,000 500 720,000
0 660,000 0 715,000
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00

0:00
1:00

10:0 0
11:0 0
12:0 0
13:0 0
14:0 0
15:0 0
16:0 0
17:0 0
18:0 0
19:0 0
20:0 0
21:0 0
22:0 0
23:0 0
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00

0:00
1:00
Time (h) Time (h)

(c) (d)

Figure 14. Energy contribution on summer day: (a) scenario 1; (b) scenario 2; (c) scenario 3; (d)
scenario 4.

Wind Solar Hydro Demand Pump Store

Wind Solar Hydro Demand Pump Store
5,000 400,000 5,000 400,000
4,500 4,500
350,000 350,000
4,000 4,000
300,000 300,000
3,500 3,500
250,000 250,000
Volume (m3)

Volume (m3)
3,000 3,000
Energy (KW )

Energy (KW)

2,500 200,000 2,500 200,000

2,000 2,000
150,000 150,000
1,500 1,500
100,000 100,000
1,000 1,000
50,000 500 50,000
500
0 - 0 -
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00

0:00
1:00
10:0 0
11:0 0
12:0 0
13:0 0
14:0 0
15:0 0
16:0 0
17:0 0
18:0 0
19:0 0
20:0 0
21:0 0
22:0 0
23:0 0
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00

0:00
1:00

Time (h)
Time (h)

(a) (b)
Wind Solar Hydro Demand Pump Store Wind Solar Hydro Demand Pump Store

5,000 660,000 5,000 660,000

4,500 4,500
640,000 640,000
4,000 4,000
620,000
3,500 3,500 620,000
600,000
Volume (m3)
Volume (m3)

3,000 3,000
600,000
Energy (KW )
Energy (KW )

2,500 580,000 2,500

580,000
2,000 560,000 2,000
1,500 1,500 560,000
540,000
1,000 1,000
520,000 540,000
500 500
0 500,000 0 520,000
10:0 0
11:0 0
12:0 0
13:0 0
14:0 0
15:0 0
16:0 0
17:0 0
18:0 0
19:0 0
20:0 0
21:0 0
22:0 0
23:0 0
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00

0:00
1:00

10:0 0
11:0 0
12:0 0
13:0 0
14:0 0
15:0 0
16:0 0
17:0 0
18:0 0
19:0 0
20:0 0
21:0 0
22:0 0
23:0 0
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00

0:00
1:00

Time (h) Time (h)

(c) (d)

Figure 15. Energy contribution on a winter day: (a) scenario 1; (b) scenario 2; (c) scenario 3; (d) scenario
4.
Water 2020, 12, 2457 18 of 25

It is important to verify that in all scenarios mostly in Figure 14d, between 12:00–23:00, the
turbine volume is below the minimum turbine volume allowed; consequently, the system cannot
operate during these hours even with a greater PV energy. Since this system does not depend on the
excess of wind and solar energy, a better use of hydropower can be detected in scenario 1 (Figures
14a and 15a). However, it is important to remember that this operating solution needs to be connected
to the grid, as the system cannot always be powered by wind/solar energy to perform pumping.
Thus, knowing that the peak demand and the average power is 4 MW and therefore average
daily usage only 24 h × 4.0 MW = 96 MWh, for an optimized system, the hydropower energy capacity
needed would be 1.5 times the maximum daily energy usage, assuming that the maximum wind and
solar power is 0.056 per hour x max daily energy usage. Thus, the annual maximum wind and solar
power should be 5.4 MWh and the energy store capacity 144 MWh (i.e. 1.5 × 96 MWh). Increasing the
store capacity to 288 MWh, which is still a factor of 2 times more energy storage than the previous
one (i.e., 1.5), does not contribute significantly to the operation of the system. This means that the
reservoir may be oversized, as a large amount of reserves is not required to satisfy the consumption.
Thus, this system depends not only on the maximum daily energy usage of the system but also on
the hydropower system. Peak power demand does not completely specify a system’s generation and
storage requirements since both peak power and maximum daily energy usage are important design
considerations.
The contribution of each energy source to the demand satisfaction was assessed (Figure 16) for
the four scenarios (i.e., scenario 1, scenario 2, scenarios 3 and 4). It is clear that the storage values
(between wind-hydro) considerably influence the satisfaction of consumption. In the combination of
solar and hydropower, this is not so visible, especially for higher storage values. In each scenario, the
wind energy demonstrates superior efficiency as there is not a large discrepancy between the
maximum and minimum generation values. For scenario 1 (Figure 16a), the hydropower contribution
presents a greater contribution compared with other scenarios, translating into a bigger unsatisfied
demand, with less wind/solar energy impact. In scenario 2, by increasing the wind/solar power, the
satisfied consumption through this energy source increases up to 4% compared to the previous one.
Still, a water reserve storage system with a capacity twice the initial one brings no advantage (Figure
16c). Nevertheless, comparing with scenario 4 (Figure 16d), increasing the installed solar does not
contribute to the balance of the system or to consumer satisfaction. Thus, increasing the energy
storage system, capable of holding water reserve, is not advantageous to assist the consumption, it
being oversized for matching energy sources to periods of high demand (Figure 16c).

20% 17%
26%
30%
Hydro Hydro
Wind Wind
Solar 5% Solar
5% Unsatisfied demand Unsatisfied demand

44% 52%

(a) 3
scenario (b) 4
scenario
9%
17%
26% 26%
Hydro Hydro

Wind Wind

Solar Solar
5%
Unsatisfied demand 15%
Unsatisfied demand
50%

52%

(c) (d)

Figure 16. Satisfied consumption by different energy sources and unsatisfied consumption in (a)
scenario 1; (b) scenario 2; (c) scenario 3; (d) scenario 4.
Water 2020, 12, 2457 19 of 25

Thus, scenarios 1 and 2 highlight the major concern of renewables. If some of the surplus energy
from renewables produced at times of low demand (e.g., solar power in the summer) could be stored
and ready for release when demand raises, many of the problems of renewable supply would be
solved. However, from the economic point of view, comparing scenario 2 with scenario 1 (Figure
16b), this solution is more expensive, needing estimation costs for the viability of this system.
Thus, a brief economic analysis was conducted, using key financial parameters such as basic
payback period (BPP), net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR) presented in
Equations (5)–(7) [40,41].

= ( ) (5)

−
= (€) (6)
(1 + )

= ∑( )
= ∑( )
(%), (7)

where BPP is the minimum time to recover the total investment (in years), NPV is the presented value
of all future income (€), and expenditure flows and IRR is the rate (%) that makes the NPV zero [41,42].
Regarding C, it is the total investment cost; AS is the net annual saving; B is the benefit, C the cost,
r—the discount rate and n—the lifecycle of the project (years). In this study, as suggested by many
turbine manufacturers, the lifespan of the project was assumed to be 20 years, and the overall annual
interest rate, r, is assumed to be 2.5%. The economic analysis results of the hybrid system are
presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Economic analysis results.

Parameters Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Investment Cost (€) −3,198,412 −3,781,742 −3,781,742 −4,400,072
Total annual cost savings and income (€) 479,762 415,992 415,992 352,006
NPV (€) 4,611,564 5,452,627 5,452,627 6,344,153
IRR (%) 30.63 25.51 25.51 20.24
BPP (years) 6.7 9.1 9.1 12.5

Scenario 1 has a relatively basic pay-back period of approximately 7 years with a lower initial
capital cost when compared to the other scenarios. Thus, the results yield that scenario 1 is the most
economical and reliable solution.
As renewable energy investments represent a significant subset of the infrastructure sector,
where PV and wind power investments have already become well established in the asset allocations
of institutional investors, hydropower, by contrast, has a more difficult investment opportunity, since
it requires significantly higher up-front investment per capacity unit, making it less scalable than
wind power or photovoltaic plants [39–42]. Although, operating pumped-storage power plants is
economically viable because electricity can be produced and sold depending on spot market prices,
the technical know-how required for hydropower investments is more challenging since the success
depends not only on technical and structural components but also on active management.

5. Water–Energy Nexus
This research studied a pumped hydro storage serving for on-grid hybrid energy solutions. The
complementary characteristics between solar and wind energy output were presented. Results reveal
that the wind turbines have a relatively higher share of energy production than PV since the wind
energy resource matches better with the load pattern. Peak factors and power capacity were
discussed to calculate the overall energy efficiency of the energy storage system. The case study
shows that if wind and solar energies are adopted, with power capacities slightly higher than the
peak consumption, a better satisfied demand is guaranteed (Figure 17).
Water 2020, 12, 2457 20 of 25

Figure 17. Total satisfied consumption through renewable energy (RE) in each scenario.

In scenarios 2, 3 and 4, the total satisfied consumption is around 74%, against 69% of scenario 1,
where the wind/solar capacity of 5/0.54 MW becomes attractive to compensate the load (Scenarios 2
and 3).
Moreover, the potential impact of renewables was estimated (Figure 18), illustrating the
greenhouse gas emissions avoided as a result of the renewable energies deployment in each scenario
in a complementary way, taking as the base stability the pumped-hydro component. Figure 18b is
the result of the mitigation of climate change effects.

(a) (b)

Figure 18. Electricity generated from renewables (GWh) in each scenario (a); total avoided emissions
by each scenario (b).

In scenario 1, there is a lower CO2 emission and water withdrawal, and a cost-optimal market
solution also serves to improve the performance (Table 6). Regarding CO2 and water withdrawal, it
remains approximately the same between scenarios 3 and 4. This shows that storage actions taken in
the water infrastructure between these scenarios can serve to improve the electric power
infrastructure when the two or more sources are coupled together in a water–energy nexus.

Table 6. Cross comparison of cost, CO2 emissions and water withdrawal in each scenario.

Scenario Cost (M€) CO2 (Mtonnes) Water Withdrawal (m3)

1 3.20 2.01 169,920
2 3.78 2.72 165,304
3 3.78 2.76 354,304
4 4.40 2.74 357,831

These results suggest an interaction between different renewable sources, which obeys the
following pattern: solar energy reduces CO2 emissions but exacerbates the night ramp in energy
demand; in contrast, wind energy may bridge this gap, but it is usually intermittent, unpredictable
and weather dependent. By employing an energy storage system, the surplus energy can be stored
when power generation exceeds demand and then be released to cover the periods when net load
exists, providing a robust back-up to intermittent renewable energy. Thus, water and energy storage
 Water 2020, 12, 2457 21 of 25

presents a promising solution to these two problems, as it allows flattening demand curves and
significantly reducing costs.

6. Conclusions
This work demonstrates that technically the pumped-storage hydropower system integrating
other renewable sources is an attractive energy solution. The dynamic contribution of individual
sources follows different patterns, due to the stability of hydro by pumping and random variability
of other energy sources and the energy demand. Employing the three technologies in a
complementary and balanced manner, the hybrid system could generate and store electricity at low
cost, facing climate changes and reducing the footprint of electricity in a self-sufficient solution. Thus,
a consistent multi-criteria framework was developed to optimize the availability and storage of
renewable energy, selecting the best combination of peak factors to achieve the optimum solution in
terms of efficiency, energy use, costs and footprint. Important considerations are highlighted and
summarized from this multi-variable process:
(a) The optimization showed that in a hybrid solution, turbines and pumps can be used at the same
time depending on the intermittency, availability and optimized variables, which include
different renewable sources, the storage capacity and the load demand. The pumping system
can be supplied by intermittent renewable sources when available, and at the same time, can be
guaranteed a constant power production by hydraulic turbines. The only one pipe for the P/T
solution requires different hours for each operation or the use of separate pipes, which can offer
more operating flexibility, where one is kept running when the other is stopped or in operation,
depending on the sources’ availability, constancy or intermittency, type of storage or type of
grid connection;
(b) Three sources were combined considering different pump/turbine installations, wind/solar
powers and different water batteries as volume capacities. The analysis revealed that P/Ts with
4 MW are economically viable compared to 6 MW and 2 MW, with 70% to 85% satisfaction of
consumption levels;
(c) After selecting the best installation power for P/Ts, four scenarios were tested, changing the
wind/solar powers and the water storage capacity. Three types of analyses were performed from
the point of view of energy, economy and CO2 emissions. The results obtained show the process
of selecting the best scenario is not straightforward, depending on the final goal. Therefore, this
analysis unfolds in important points:
i. Scenario 1 stands out from the point of view of reliability and flexibility, where there is a better
use of hydropower (Figures 14 and 15), specifically to accommodate the largest shares of other
intermittent renewable (solar and wind) energies with a better bridge and compensation
between these energy sources;
ii. Scenario 2 showed a 4% increase in satisfied consumption from an operational point of view,
maintaining the same characteristics as scenario 1 but requiring an increase in the installed wind
power;
iii. In scenario 3, increasing storage capacity to 288 MWh does not make a significant contribution
to the best operation of the system. As a result, the reservoir is oversized to meet the satisfied
consumption, i.e., there is a dependency not only on the maximum daily energy use of the
system but also on the hydropower system;
iv. In both scenarios 1 and 2, surplus energy from renewables produced at times of low demand
(e.g., solar power in summer) can be stored and ready for release when demand rises;
v. Scenario 1 offers more advantages and greater economic viability also in terms of CO2 emissions.
This hybrid solution is less expensive, with an interesting pay-back period of 7 years,
considering the powers installed, with a lower initial capital cost than that of the other scenarios.
Additionally, it can be concluded that replacing fossil fuels by renewable energies requires (i)
distributing installations (e.g., wind turbines) widely; (ii) using a range of different intermittent
energy sources, especially those that are partially complementary (e.g., sunny weather often means
Water 2020, 12, 2457 22 of 25

light winds and vice versa); (iii) matching with suitable management of energy sources in periods of
high demand. Still, there is clear evidence of how all these modern integrated techniques for
complementarity between renewable sources can significantly reduce electricity tariffs and increase
the reliability of the energy supply as main targets of hybrid-energy solutions.

Author Contributions: The author M.S. has been involved in the mathematical modelling, in writing the paper,
as well as in the analysis of the results. H.M.R. has contributed with the idea, the revision of the document, the
supervision of the whole research, and the analyses of the head drop in each system component. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research is supported by the project REDAWN (Reducing Energy Dependency in Atlantic Area
Water Networks) EAPA_198/2016 from INTERREG ATLANTIC AREA PROGRAMME 2014–2020.

Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank to the project REDAWN (Reducing Energy Dependency in
Atlantic Area Water Networks) EAPA_198/2016 from INTERREG ATLANTIC AREA PROGRAMME 2014–2020
and CERIS (CEHIDRO-IST).

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Nomenclature
AS net annual saving (€)
B benefit (€)
BPP basic payback period (years)
coefficient of the pump/motor unit (m3/kWh)
turbine generating coefficient (kWh/m3)
C total investment cost (€)
CP/T pump/turbine energy solution cost (€)
CPHS Pump hydro system cost (€)
Cw wind energy solution cost (€)
Pump power installed (MW)
Turbine power installed (MW)
G acceleration due to gravity (m/s2)
H hybrid power/energy available (MW)
H net head (m)
IRR internal rate of return (%)
N lifecycle of the project (years)
NPV net present value (€)
pf peak factors
Ps solar power (MW)
PHS pumped hydro storage
Pw wind power (MW)
Qp pump flow (m3/s)
Qt turbine flow (m3/s)
R the discount rate (%)
S solar energy (MW)
V storage capacity (m3)
Vp pump volume (m3)
Vres volume of the reservoir (m3)
maximum volume of the reservoir (m3)
minimum volume of the reservoir (m3)
Vt turbine volume (m3)
W wind energy (MW)
Greek letters
pumping efficiency (%)
efficiency of the turbine/generator unit (%)
density of the water (kg/m3)
Water 2020, 12, 2457 23 of 25

References
1. IHA. The World’s Water Battery: Pumped Hydropower Storage and the Clean Energy Transition; International
Hydropower Association, IHA Working Paper: London, UK, 2018.
2. IHA. Pumped Storage Hydropower has ‘Crucial Role’ in Europe’s Energy Strategy; International Hydropower
Association, IHA Working Paper: London, UK, 2020.
3. Bhandari, B.; Poudel, S.R.; Lee, K.-T.; Ahn, S.-H. Mathematical modeling of hybrid renewable energy
system: A review on small hydro-solar-wind power generation. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. Technol. 2014, 1,
157–173, doi:10.1007/s40684-014-0021-4.
4. Hong, C.-M.; Ou, T.-C.; Lu, K.-H. Development of intelligent MPPT (maximum power point tracking)
control for a grid-connected hybrid power generation system. Energy 2013, 50, 270–279,
doi:10.1016/[Link].2012.12.017.
5. Kapsali, M.; Kaldellis, J. Combining hydro and variable wind power generation by means of pumped-
storage under economically viable terms. Appl. Energy 2010, 87, 3475–3485,
doi:10.1016/[Link].2010.05.026.
6. Xu, B.; Chen, D.; Venkateshkumar, M.; Xiao, Y.; Yue, Y.; Xing, Y.; Li, P. Modeling a pumped storage
hydropower integrated to a hybrid power system with solar-wind power and its stability analysis. Appl.
Energy 2019, 248, 446–462, doi:10.1016/[Link].2019.04.125.
7. Vieira, F.; Ramos, H.M. Optimization of operational planning for wind/hydro hybrid water supply systems.
Renew. Energy 2009, 34, 928–936, doi:10.1016/[Link].2008.05.031.
8. Kocaman, A.S.; Modi, V. Value of pumped hydro storage in a hybrid energy generation and allocation
system. Appl. Energy 2017, 205, 1202–1215, doi:10.1016/[Link].2017.08.129.
9. Kapsali, M.; Anagnostopoulos, J.; Kaldellis, J. Wind powered pumped-hydro storage systems for remote
islands: A complete sensitivity analysis based on economic perspectives. Appl. Energy 2012, 99, 430–444,
doi:10.1016/[Link].2012.05.054.
10. Deason, W. Comparison of 100% renewable energy system scenarios with a focus on flexibility and cost.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 3168–3178, doi:10.1016/[Link].2017.10.026.
11. Jaramillo-Duque, Á.; Castronuovo, E.D.; Sánchez, I.; Usaola, J. Optimal operation of a pumped-storage
hydro plant that compensates the imbalances of a wind power producer. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2011, 81,
1767–1777, doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.04.008.
12. Yang, W.; Yang, J. Advantage of variable-speed pumped storage plants for mitigating wind power
variations: Integrated modelling and performance assessment. Appl. Energy 2019, 237, 720–732,
doi:10.1016/[Link].2018.12.090.
13. Li, J.; Wang, S.; Ye, L.; Fang, J. A coordinated dispatch method with pumped-storage and battery-storage
for compensating the variation of wind power. Prot. Control. Mod. Power Syst. 2018, 3, 2, doi:10.1186/s41601-
017-0074-9.
14. Nema, P.; Nema, R.; Rangnekar, S. A current and future state of art development of hybrid energy system
using wind and PV-solar: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 2096–2103,
doi:10.1016/[Link].2008.10.006.
15. Van Meerwijk, A.J.H.; Benders, R.M.J.; Davila-Martinez, A.; Laugs, G.A.H. Swiss pumped hydro storage
potential for Germany’s electricity system under high penetration of intermittent renewable energy. J. Mod.
Power Syst. Clean Energy 2016, 4, 542–553, doi:10.1007/s40565-016-0239-y.
16. Ramli, M.A.M.; Bouchekara, H.R.E.H.; Alghamdi, A.S. Optimal sizing of PV/wind/diesel hybrid microgrid
system using multi-objective self-adaptive differential evolution algorithm. Renew. Energy 2018, 121, 400–
411, doi:10.1016/[Link].2018.01.058.
17. Ashok, S. Optimised model for community-based hybrid energy system. Renew. Energy 2007, 32, 1155–1164,
doi:10.1016/[Link].2006.04.008.
18. Sawle, Y.; Gupta, S.; Bohre, A.K. Review of hybrid renewable energy systems with comparative analysis of
off-grid hybrid system. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 2217–2235, doi:10.1016/[Link].2017.06.033.
19. Diaf, S.; Notton, G.; Belhamel, M.; Haddadi, M.; Louche, A. Design and techno-economical optimization
for hybrid PV/wind system under various meteorological conditions. Appl. Energy 2008, 85, 968–987,
doi:10.1016/[Link].2008.02.012.
20. Kusakana, K. Optimal scheduling for distributed hybrid system with pumped hydro storage. Energy
Convers. Manag. 2016, 111, 253–260, doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.12.081.
Water 2020, 12, 2457 24 of 25

21. Ma, T.; Yang, H.; Lu, L.; Peng, J. Technical feasibility study on a standalone hybrid solar-wind system with
pumped hydro storage for a remote island in Hong Kong. Renew. Energy 2014, 69, 7–15,
doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.03.028.
22. Ma, T.; Yang, H.; Lu, L.; Peng, J. Optimal design of an autonomous solar–wind-pumped storage power
supply system. Appl. Energy 2015, 160, 728–736, doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.11.026.
23. Bajpai, P.; Dash, V. Hybrid renewable energy systems for power generation in stand-alone applications: A
review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 2926–2939, doi:10.1016/[Link].2012.02.009.
24. Hana, A.M.H.A.; Zakaria, A.; Jani, J.; Seyajah, N. Optimization Techniques and Multi-Objective Analysis
in Hybrid Solar-Wind Power Systems for Grid-Connected Supply. IOP Conf. Series Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019,
538, 012040, doi:10.1088/1757-899x/538/1/012040.
25. Rehman, S.; Al-Hadhrami, L.M.; Alam, M. Pumped hydro energy storage system: A technological review.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 44, 586–598, doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.12.040.
26. Paska, J.; Biczel, P.; Kłos, M. Hybrid power systems – An effective way of utilising primary energy sources.
Renew. Energy 2009, 34, 2414–2421, doi:10.1016/[Link].2009.02.018.
27. Zhang, L.; Xin, H.; Wu, J.; Ju, L.; Tan, Z. A Multiobjective Robust Scheduling Optimization Mode for
Multienergy Hybrid System Integrated by Wind Power, Solar Photovoltaic Power, and Pumped Storage
Power. Math. Probl. Eng. 2017, 2017, 1–15, doi:10.1155/2017/9485127.
28. Amaro, G.; Ramos, H.M. Solução Energética Híbrida com Armazenamento por Bombagem: Modelação, Análises de
Sensibilidade e caso de Estudo Mestrado Integrado em Engenharia Civil Júri; Instituto Superior Técnico—
Universidade de Lisboa: Lisboa, Portugal, 2018.
29. Mohanraj, K.; Bharathnarayanan, S. Three Level SEPIC For Hybrid Wind-Solar Energy Systems. Energy
Procedia 2017, 117, 120–127, doi:10.1016/[Link].2017.05.114.
30. El-Jamal, G.; Ghandour, M.; Ibrahim, H.; Assi, A. Technical feasibility study of solar-pumped hydro storage
in Lebanon. In Proceedings of 2014 International Conference on Renewable Energies for Developing
Countries, Beirut, Lebanon, 26–27 November 2014; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE):
Beirut, Lebanon, 2014; pp. 23–28.
31. Canales, F.A.; Beluco, A. Modeling pumped hydro storage with the micropower optimization model
(HOMER). J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2014, 6, 43131, doi:10.1063/1.4893077.
32. Li, J.; Fang, J.; Wen, I.; Pan, Y.; Ding, Q. Optimal trade-off between regulation and wind curtailment in the
economic dispatch problem. CSEE J. Power Energy Syst. 2015, 1, 37–45, doi:10.17775/cseejpes.2015.00048.
33. Canales, F.A.; Beluco, A.; Mendes, C.A.B. Modelling a hydropower plant with reservoir with the
micropower optimisation model (HOMER). Int. J. Sustain. Energy 2015, 36, 654–667,
doi:10.1080/14786451.2015.1080706.
34. Katsaprakakis, D.A.; Christakis, D.G.; Stefanakis, I.; Spanos, P.; Stefanakis, N. Technical details regarding
the design, the construction and the operation of seawater pumped storage systems. Energy 2013, 55, 619–
630, doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.01.031.
35. Li, S.; Sun, F.; He, H.; Chen, Y. Optimization for a Grid-connected Hybrid PV-wind-retired HEV Battery
Microgrid System. Energy Procedia 2017, 105, 1634–1643, doi:10.1016/[Link].2017.03.532.
36. Schmidt, J.; Kemmetmüller, W.; Kugi, A. Modeling and static optimization of a variable speed pumped
storage power plant. Renew. Energy 2017, 111, 38–51, doi:10.1016/[Link].2017.03.055.
37. Carravetta, S.A.; Ramos, H.M.; Houreh, S.D. Pumps as Turbines, Fundamentals and Applications; Springer
International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018.
38. Bilal, B.O.; Sambou, V.; Ndiaye, P.; Kébé, C.; Ndongo, M. Optimal design of a hybrid solar–wind-battery
system using the minimization of the annualized cost system and the minimization of the loss of power
supply probability (LPSP). Renew. Energy 2010, 35, 2388–2390, doi:10.1016/[Link].2010.03.004.
39. Goyena, R. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2013—The Physical Science Basis;
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2019;
Volume 53, pp. 1–30.
40. Luo, W.; Jiang, J.; Liu, H. Frequency-adaptive modified comb-filter-based phase-locked loop for a doubly-
fed adjustable-speed pumped-storage hydropower plant under distorted grid conditions. Energies 2017, 10,
737.
Water 2020, 12, 2457 25 of 25

41. Kose, F.; Kaya, M.N.; Ozgoren. M. Use of Pumped Hydro Energy Storage to Complement Wind Energy—
A case study. Therm. Sci. 2020, 24, 777–785.
42. Nikolaou, T.; Stavrakakis, G.; Tsamoudalis. K. Modeling and optimal dimensioning of a pumped- 2 hydro
energy storage system for the exploitation of 3 the rejected wind energy in the non—Interconnected 4
electrical power system of the Crete island, Greece. Energies 2020, 13, doi: 10.3390/en13112705

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license ([Link]