Sei sulla pagina 1di 8




A Framework for Portfolio Management of Renewable Hybrid Energy Sources

Tommer R. Ender, Member, IEEE, Jonathan Murphy, and Comas Lamar Haynes
AbstractAn energy systems modeling tool must address variability of ecological and socio-economic sensitivities in order to practically guide policy and budget related decisions. The aim of this effort is to produce an advisory and design tool geared toward aiding entities with robust planning of effective renewable energy solutions based on trusted models. A tool was developed that enables tradeoffs between various energy systems, based on neural network surrogate models of a publicly available power systems modeling tool. These surrogate models enable the higher-level decision-making tool to manipulate surrogate representations of actual engineering models, as opposed to relying on static data or static simulation results. This research will present a decision-maker with the ability to determine which various renewable and nonrenewable energy systems meet annual energy load requirements, acquisition and operation costs, and individual solution attributes. Index TermsEnergy systems portfolio management, modeling, system analysis and design, systems engineering.


HANGES in lifestyle, especially regarding production and consumption, will eventually be forced on populations by ecological and economic pressures. Technical, societal, and economic insights and preparedness will facilitate this requisite transition towards sustainable energy systems. The goal of this pilot research is to develop an initial decision support tool for distributed hybrid renewable energy system design which characterizes viable candidate renewable energy, nonrenewable energy, and storage technologies. Through direct integration with modeling and simulation, the concept tool presented in this paper enables the selection of an appropriate sustainable energy portfolio given various requirements and constraints. Existing hybrid energy simulation and design tools allow the selection of systems based on economic objectives [1][3] or combinations of performance and economic objectives [4], [5], but produce static results; any changes in assumptions, cost, or requirements require entirely new analysis, or require separate

sensitivity analysis executions. In addition, in order to be practical for guiding policy and/or decision-makers investment in energy resources, an energy systems modeling tool has to address variability of ecological and socio-economic sensitivities. Such factors are commonly considered in the eld of energy decision-making using multiattribute decision making (MADM) methods [6], [7]. However, the inputs to these decision processes are static; whether they are based on expert opinion, on data, or on a set of simulation results, they must consider a limited subset of options. The aim of this effort is to combine fast-running dynamic representations of trusted energy models with MADM methods to produce an advisory and design tool that allows rapid planning of effective energy solutions. The dynamic nature of the models allows for consideration of a much wider range of options within the design space. Nontechnical objectives are translated into technical objectives through the use of a dynamic quality function deployment (QFD). The end result is a tool which enables a decision-maker to quickly select the best energy portfolio purchasing strategy over several years, while making changes to assumptions about load growth, annual budget, technical and cost assumptions, and top-level objectives such as social or sustainability metrics. B. Case Study: Remote Area Electrication In many developing countries, especially in rural or remote areas, connectivity to an electricity grid is often rudimentary or nonexistent. For many of these areas the only potential method of electricity generation is through stand-alone sources, such as diesel generators. However, the logistics of transporting fuel to far-remote areas means that even this option is impractical and uneconomical for many areas of the world. Therefore, stand-alone energy generation based on renewable sources is appealing; for example, the use of solar photovoltaics is growing rapidly in developing countries for pumping water [8]. The proof-of-concept presented in this paper shows the application of systems engineering tools and methods to an energy systems analysis of a rural or remote area that does not have grid connectivity. It is assumed that the area may experience some load growth over time. Therefore, a problem will be explored in which an investor (or investment group) has a given amount of capital to purchase and operate a given portfolio of energy producing sources over a number of years. A given group of stakeholders also may have a list of requirements for this rural electrication, many of which may be qualitative in nature (i.e., not measurable by standard metrics). The case study will therefore show how the methods introduced in this paper can be used to guide investors and requirements developers as to which portfolio of energy systems to invest in over a given time frame.

Manuscript received June 15, 2009; revised June 09, 2010; accepted July 12, 2010. Date of publication August 19, 2010; date of current version September 01, 2010. This work was supported by the Georgia Tech Research Institute. T. R. Ender and C. L. Haynes are with the Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA 30332-0840 USA (e-mail:; J. Murphy is with the Aerospace Systems Design Laboratory, School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332 USA (e-mail: Digital Object Identier 10.1109/JSYST.2010.2059230

1932-8184/$26.00 2010 IEEE



and subject to further ltering, or ranked according to a MADM process, as introduced later in this paper. These methods are used to identify hybrid energy solutions that meet dynamic requirements. Dynamic analysis is enabled by surrogate models, which are bounded regression-equation representations of more complex modeling tools that offer measurable but acceptable loss of delity. These surrogate models (in this case neural networks) can be executed thousands of times in fractions of a second, enabling on-the-y tradeoffs and sensitivity studies. II. PARAMETRIC MODELING AND SIMULATION
Fig. 1. Energy systems design considerations.

C. Hybrid Energy Systems Design Considerations The design of a hybrid renewable energy system involves a unique set of considerations. As shown in Fig. 1, there are many parameters which may be considered. For example multiple forms of energy generation units may be considered simultaneously, such as wind turbines, solar photovoltaics, and fossil fuel based generators. The location of an energy system that uses energy generation based on natural elements will affect operation and performance. Additionally, given that renewable generation units rely on intermittent sources, such as wind and solar irradiance, an energy storage device may be considered. Sensitivity to variability in environmental conditions must be considered, as well as uncertainty in fuel and life-cycle costs. An energy system will be designed to meet various objectives which must be traded against each other. Objectives such as availability of power must be traded against minimization of fuel costs and reduction of environmental footprint, and specic projects may have a variety of specialized objectives. D. Novelty of Approach The methods described in this paper use elements from the eld of systems-of-systems research, specically elements of capability-focused design. In the systems-of-systems context, capabilities are dened at a higher level than requirements, and may be met through any combination of specic requirements at the individual system level. This helps give an understanding of how requirements may be traded off between individual systems, which are individually operated and managed, but work together to meet a higher level purpose in meeting a capability. For example, a high-level requirement, or capability may be dened to state that an energy system produce sufcient power to meet a given load demand. This is a level of abstraction higher than identifying the specic rated power of an individual wind turbine or photovoltaic system, or the capacity of an individual storage system. There will exist multiple, nonunique solutions that identify different combinations of required rated power of wind turbines and photovoltaic systems that satisfy the required load demand; one would expect that those two would be inversely proportional. An inverse design process, given in [9] and [10], introduces and applies an approach which populates a design space with many combinations of individual system solutions through modeling and simulation, and then lters out those system combinations which do not meet the higher level capability desired. The remaining system solutions are considered feasible,

One objective of this effort is to integrate dynamic engineering models into a decision-making environment. In order for this to be possible, the models must execute very rapidly. If available energy system analysis models are computationally expensive, a surrogate modeling technique may be used to create bounded regression representations of existing models that can be executed very rapidly, with some measurable but acceptable loss of accuracy. A. Simulation Environment The modeling process begins with the selection of a modeling and simulation tool that gives appropriate system performance results with acceptable delity and run-time. In this case study, the authors have used HOMER as the modeling and simulation backbone. HOMER is a design tool for grid-connected or off-grid power systems developed by and available freely through the U.S. Department of Energys National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) [11]. Given a desired energy load prole, climate conditions such as wind patterns and available sunlight, and an array of energy sources, for example diesel generators, wind turbines, and photovoltaic arrays, among many other options, HOMER determines the lower-cost energy solution, and provides sensitivities to changes in costs and resources. With its large database of components and performance models, HOMER signicantly simplies the design process. However, its trade space analysis has a strong reliance on a computationally intensive combinatorial design process. Furthermore, HOMER selects systems based exclusively on the levelized cost of energy of the system, and cannot rank designs based on any other criteria. However, the authors decided that the analysis capacity within HOMER could be captured in a form usable by a higher level decision-making tool. A notional scenario was created using a sample load prole and sample wind and solar radiation data for a location in central Asia representative of a remote location not conducive to grid connectivity. The system conguration was that of a stand-alone renewable/fossil power system, with scalable/optional components. Components modeled included nontracking photovoltaic (PV) arrays, a wind turbine with a xed steady-state wind/power curve [Fig. 2(a)], a diesel generator modeled as a steady-state device [Fig. 2(b)], and lead-acid batteries. In the next step, a set of control variables are selected, corresponding to system component sizes as well as sensitivity variables. Sensitivity variables for this case study included average solar insolation, average wind speed, the hub height of the wind turbine, the efciency of the dc to ac inverter, and the required operating reserve.



Fig. 2. Component performance curves. (a) Wind turbine steady-state power curve. (b) Diesel generator efciency curve. TABLE I TECHNICAL ASSUMPTION AND SENSITIVITY VARIABLES

C. Surrogate Models The primary enabler of rapid manipulation of complex modeling and simulation is through the use of surrogate models. Surrogate models, based on response surface methodology [12], are equation regression representations of more complex modeling and simulation tools. The surrogate models are then created through regression of the DoE. Because surrogate models are equations, albeit with possibly complex functional form, they can be analyzed almost instantaneously using any standard desktop computer. Once these surrogate models are created, a design space can be explored by rapidly generating thousands of cases, each with small (but measurable) loss in delity from the original M&S environment. The surrogates can be used to create dynamic multidimensional plots, to quickly assess the effects of changing constraints or assumptions, or for rapid optimization. The process used to create the neural network based surrogate models in this study is similar to that described by one of the authors of this paper in a similar application to ballistic missile defense analysis [13]. In this case study, the performance data collected from HOMER was used for regression of single-hidden-layer neural network surrogate models that represented key performance variables as a function of the ve sensitivity and four component size variables. The neural networks were regressed using a LevenbergMarquardt algorithm with Bayesian regression. A table of the responses collected and a description of their corresponding neural network is shown in Table III. Percentage errors are relative to the mean of the response. The use of surrogate models enables a degree of insight into the problem that is not possible with the simulation code by itself, or with raw data output. An example of a useful visualization can be seen in Fig. 3. The dark surface represents a boundary between a feasible region (acceptably small capacity shortage) and an infeasible region (unacceptable capacity shortage). A plot is shown with three axes, each axis representing the size of a system component (diesel generator, wind turbine, or PV). In the background, all sensitivity variables are held constant, notably the requirement that sufcient power be delivered such that all load demand is met (in other words, no capacity shortage is tolerated). From the left-most plot to the right-most plot, the size of the battery bank is gradually increased. In Fig. 3(a), the battery capacity value is too low to remove any dependency on diesel generators while still meeting load demand, given any combination of wind turbine or photovoltaic


Next, ranges are selected for the inputs. The selected variables and their ranges for this case study are shown in Table I (technical assumption and sensitivity variables) and Table II (component size variables). B. Design of Experiments After ranges have been set for all variables of interest, the design space is explored through a partial factorial design of experiments (DoE), which selects a subset of points from within the space to extract as much information about the behavior of the system with as few runs as possible. For this case study, the sensitivity and technical assumption variables (Table I) were explored via a 5-factor central composite design of 43 runs with 55 additional random cases used mostly for validation. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the HOMER tool as it was run, the system component sizes could not be varied independently in the DoE. Instead, for every point in the DoE, a full-factorial set of component sizes was evaluated, with four levels for each component (Table II), resulting in nearly 73 000 simulation executions. Consequently, though component sizes were treated as continuous variables in later stages, in the design of experiments they were considered only in discrete sizes. After all runs were complete, the resulting system performance data was compiled and used to generate surrogate models of the system.




Fig. 3. Neural network surrogate models. (a) No battery present. (b) Battery

capacity = 90 kWh. (c) Battery capacity = 180 kWh.

rated powers within the bounds of what was examined. In Fig. 3(b), the battery capacity is sufciently increased such that a clear tradeoff emerges between the rated powers of the two renewable power sources to meet load demand without the use of diesel generation. The dashed line indicates any combination of required wind turbine and photovoltaic rated powers that meet the overall load demand capability. With even greater battery capacity shown in Fig. 3(c), the tradeoff region between wind and solar sources retreats to even lower values needed to maintain load demand met without the need to use diesel fuel. By using these three plots (by dynamically adjusting the plot, in practice), an engineer can visualize the tradeoff between photovoltaics, wind turbines, diesel generators, and batteries to achieve a desired low value of capacity shortage. It can be seen that with no batteries, some size of diesel generator is required; but as the size of the battery bank increases, there emerges a tradeoff between wind turbines and photovoltaics to enable a generator-free system. These plots were generated using the JMP software by SAS [14]. D. Uncertainty Quantication Through Monte Carlo Analysis Given that the use of surrogate models enables modeling and simulation cases to be evaluated very quickly, Monte Carlo investigations comprising hundreds of thousands of runs can be conducted within several seconds on a standard desktop PC. An example of a sensitivity study is shown in Figs. 4 and 5. A given number of variables are treated as noise variables in this study, meaning that operationally the decision maker has no control over their uctuations. As an example, atmospheric data

Fig. 4. Uncertainly distributions on noise variables.

such as the available solar irradiance and wind, as well as the price of fuel are treated as noise variables. These variables are assigned distributions, and thousands of cases are run through a neural network surrogate model of levelized cost of energy (as shown in Fig. 4). The results can be plotted in a cumulative distribution function (as shown in Fig. 5), allowing the engineer to quickly gauge, for example, the 90% condence upper bound on energy cost. Such methods enable the engineer to nd robust solutions which offer high likelihood of success. III. ELEMENTS OF DECISION MAKING This section will introduce the approach and methodology used to create the decision-making environment discussed in this paper. The methods will enable the decision-maker to identify critical engineering functions based on weighted requirements, and will incorporate modeling and simulation into a higher level decision making environment.




engineering attributes as given in (2), which may be used to guide a MADM process as described in the next section:
Fig. 5. Monte Carlo output.


(2) In a dynamic application such as this, QFD is used to map nontechnical objectives to measurable performance parameters. This results in performance parameters with importance weightings, which are then used in MADM. Since the impact weightings that feed into the QFD are subjective, the process of assigning them should be a collaborative exercise undertaken by experts in the eld. A notional QFD used for this exercise is shown in Table IV. B. Multiattribute Decision Making
Fig. 6. Quality function deployment.

A. Quality Function Deployment QFD is a formal technique for capturing the users requirements (voice of the customer) and mapping them to controllable product and process parameters or vehicle attributes (voice of the engineer) [15]. A traditional example of a QFD is shown in Fig. 6. The customer requirements are listed along the vertical column on the left-hand side of the QFD, and the engineering attributes are listed across the top row. The impact of each engineering attribute on each requirement is mapped qualitatively on a scale of 0 (no relationship) to 9 (strong relationship). Because these engineering attributes may have adverse impacts on various customer requirements, when used as part of the process introduced in this paper, these qualitative mappings may be positive or negative. Each requirement is assigned an importance weighting by the user, which may be done objectively on an arbitrary scale of 010, 0100, or any similar scale capturing the level of delity desired. The importance weighting of each engineering attribute is found by multiplying the requirements weightings vector by the impact vector of that engineering characteristic, given in (1). These attribute weightings are then normalized across all of the

Most optimization techniques for design are poorly suited to handle multiple and/or conicting objectives. The design of complex interacting systems requires holistic solutions that are valid in multiple dimensions, given that requirements can impact multiple design variables and measures of effectiveness may be conicting. Beginning in the 1950s and continuing all the way to the 1970s, the U.S. Department of Defense invested heavily in the development of mathematical techniques for decision making in the presence of many attributes which are valid for a large number of complex system design processes. These are referred to as MADM techniques [16]. The Technique for Ordered Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is one of many MADM tools available [17]. This uses a weighted series of criteria to identify the best and worst of each criterion and combines them into the theoretical best and worst points. Actual ranking is performed based on maximizing the normalized distance from the theoretical worst and minimizing the distance from the theoretical best. For the process used in this paper, these weighted series of criteria are identied through the QFD. The points, or designs evaluated through the TOPSIS process are produced by the previously generated surrogate models. Given that the surrogates can be executed very quickly, it is easy to see how changes in system sensitivity variables (such as mean annual insolation) affect the choice of best system. Alternately, it is possible to select systems that consistently rank high, under a range of sensitivity conditions.



Fig. 7. Screenshot of energy systems portfolio tool (Scenario A).

IV. PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT A. Interactive Tool The interactive tool developed through this research is shown for two use case scenarios in Figs. 7 and 8 below. Note that high level requirements (such as ease of integration, energy independence, etc.) are shown with slide bars which control the importance weightings. These are the importance weightings which are translated through the QFD to drive the importance of the various simulation specic attributes (for example capacity shortage, diesel fuel used, etc.). The user has the ability to control the desired load demand over time, as well as to limit the amount of investment dollars over time. Assumptions such as average insolation and average wind speed may be adjusted, as well as changes in equipment purchase and maintenance costs over the life of the project (not shown). The user may change any of the inputs and re-evaluate, and in a few seconds the system will assess thousands of portfolio options through the use of surrogate models, decide which options best meet the weighted requirements through the MADM process, and select annual equipment purchases for the life of the project. The tool rst evaluates about a thousand cases for the rst year of study, corresponding to a full-factorial assessment over the range of possible component sizes. Five components

are varied (PV, wind turbine, diesel generator, battery, and inverter) with four sizes considered for each component (including zero as a size). Six neural network surrogate models of system responses are evaluated for each case, for a total of about 6000 neural network evaluations. All responses are re-scaled according to the assumed load size, with the assumption that the component behavior scales linearly with size. Cases are rst screened to eliminate those that do not meet the cost constraint, and the remaining cases are fed into a TOPSIS multi-attribute decision-making algorithm to determine which case best meets the given objectives. This system is assumed to be purchased in the rst year. In the following year, the full-factorial trade-space now corresponds to all possible additional purchases, assuming that all components from the previous year are still installed, and this is repeated for all subsequent years. In all, ve years of purchases are determined sequentially. Because the tool does not plan ahead and consider all future purchases simultaneously, the selected purchase prole is not globally optimized. However, adopting a sequential approach signicantly reduces the size of the trade space, and makes the problem more tractable. The rapid execution time of the tool, combined with the ease of adjusting requirements, budgets, and assumptions, allows a decision-maker to answer a multitude of questions



Fig. 8. Screenshot of energy systems portfolio tool (Scenario B).

without having to execute the original M&S through a number of different cases. This eliminates the lag created when the decision-maker redirects the engineering analyst. The amount of visual information available helps the decision-maker better understand the nature of the problem, and the use of adjustable nontechnical requirements allows the decision-maker to treat these often unquantied (yet still important) factors in a more formal and considered manner. B. Case Study Findings for Notional Scenario An example of use is shown in Fig. 7 (Scenario A). The user has specied a load growth prole, starting at 20-kW average in 2007 and growing to 46-kW average by 2011. The user has also specied a capital investment budget, ranging from $50 000/yr in 2007 to $230 000/yr in 2008. It is assumed that the decision-maker has some load growth projections available, and has a pre-set budget; in the notional scenario, the growth prole and budget prole are selected arbitrarily. Most requirements in this scenario are given equal weighting, but the sustainability related requirements energy independence and environmental friendliness are set to zero, that is they do not factor into the decision. Under these conditions, the tool decides to purchase diesel generators, and thereafter to improve power quality with battery purchases. However, the fuel budget is large (note that

in this implementation, operations costs are separate from the purchase budget). In Fig. 8 (Scenario B), the requirements have been altered so that that sustainability measures are considered in the decision-making process, therefore energy independence and environmental friendliness are rated equally with other factors. All other assumptions and settings are kept the same as in Scenario A. When the user selects these greener requirements weightings, those weightings are instantaneously sent through the QFD which reprioritizes the engineering characteristics, and in turn selects a new best in class through the MADM process evaluation of the surrogate model results. For this Scenario B shown in Fig. 8 with the green requirements weightings, the tool still purchases diesel generators early on given rst year funding constraints, but once it has allowable budget it begins to purchase photovoltaics, batteries, and wind turbines. Noting the bottom-right plot in Fig. 8, the diesel fuel consumption drops signicantly after the rst year. V. CONCLUSIONS This study introduced an interactive tool for energy systems portfolio planning developed through a systems engineering process that enables real-time decision making through integration with rapid modeling and simulation. A structured process that combines elements of QFD, MADM, and surrogate



modeling together enable qualitative decision making based on quantitative modeling and simulation based tools. With traditional static approaches to decision-making, the decision-maker does not have access to the same ne-grained solution space. The example presented here, with a multiyear purchase prole and variable technical and environmental assumptions, would require a prohibitively large database of simulation cases. From the scenarios presented, it is clear that changes in requirements can lead to dramatically different optimal system congurations. The example involved only a change in two nontechnical requirements, though this proof-of-concept tool involves about thirty degrees of freedom which may be manipulated by the decision-maker. These methods aim to preserve as much exibility as possible as late as possible in the portfolio selection process, so that there is no need to go through an extensive re-modeling effort whenever an assumption or requirement is changed. The ultimate intent is that this will lead to better and informed decisions. The authors believe that the proof-of-concept tool developed in this study could be further developed to include more detailed economics analysis to better under the life cycle implications of various portfolio related decisions. For example, in an effort to enable the MADM selection process, the current tool separates initial and operations costs and does not directly consider levelized cost of energy. However, future work should enable a user to understand implications of, and include the quantication of cost savings over time in operations in the up front decision-making process. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors wish to thank D. Brady for developing the initial portfolio management framework and Dr. T. Fuller of the Georgia Tech Research Institute for guidance and direction. REFERENCES
[1] H. G. Beyer and C. Langer, A method for the identication of congurations of PV/wind hybrid systems for the reliable supply of small loads, Solar Energy, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 381391, 1996. [2] M. A. Habib, S. A. M. Said, M. A. El-Hadidy, and I. Al-Zaharna, Optimization procedure of a hybrid photovoltaic wind energy system, Energy, vol. 24, pp. 919929, 1999. [3] A. N. Celik, Techno-economic analysis of autonomous PV-wind hybrid energy systems using different sizing methods, Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 44, pp. 19511968, 2003. [4] J. Shi, X. Zhu, and G. Cao, Design and techno-economical optimization for stand-alone hybrid power systems with multi-objective evolutionary algorithms, Int. J. Energy Res., vol. 31, pp. 315328, 2007. [5] J. S. Anagnostopoulos and D. E. Papantonis, Simulation and size optimization of a pumped-storage power plant for the recovery of windfarms rejected energy, Renew. Energy, vol. 33, pp. 16851694, 2008. [6] J. J. Wang, Y. Y. Jing, C. F. Zhang, and J. H. Zhao, Review on multicriteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 13, pp. 22632270, 2009. [7] P. Zhou, B. W. Ang, and K. L. Poh, Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling: An update, Energy, vol. 31, pp. 26042622, 2006. [8] G. Boyle, Ed., Renewable Energy: Power for a Sustainable Future Oxford, U.K., Oxford Univ. Press, 1996. [9] T. R. Ender, A Top-Down, Hierarchical, System-of-Systems Approach to the Design of an Air Defense Weapon, Ph.D. dissertation, Georgia Inst. Technol., Atlanta, 2006.

[10] P. T. Biltgen, T. R. Ender, and D. N. Mavris, Development of a collaborative capability-based tradeoff environment for complex system architectures, in Proc. 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, Jan. 912, 2006, AIAA-2006-0728. [11] HOMER Analysis of Micropower System Options National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Dept. Energy [Online]. Available: www. [12] R. H. Myers and D. C. Montgomery, Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments. New York: Wiley, 1995. [13] T. Ender, R. Leurck, B. Weaver, P. Miceli, W. D. Blair, P. West, and D. Mavris, Systems-of-systems analysis of ballistic missile defense architecture effectiveness through surrogate modeling and simulation, in Proc. 2nd IEEE Int. Systems Conf., Montreal, QC, Canada, Apr. 2008, pp. 333340. [14] JMP 7.0. Software SAS Institute. Cary, NC, 2007. [15] Y. Akao, Development history of quality function deployment, in QFD, The Customer-Driven Approach to Quality Planning and Development, S. Mizuno and Y. Akao, Eds. Tokyo, Japan: Asian Productivity Organization, 1994, pp. 339351. [16] K. Yoon and C.-R. Hwang, Multiple Attribute Decision Making: An Introduction. Iowa City, IA: Sage, 1995. [17] C.-R. Hwang and K. Yoon, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer-Verlag, 1981. Tommer R. Ender (M10) received the B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in aerospace engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta. He is a Senior Research Engineer at the Electronic Systems Laboratory, Georgia Tech Research Institute, and serves as Associate Head of the Systems and Controls Branch of the Systems Technology and Analysis Division. He is also an Instructor and Course Developer for Georgia Techs Professional Masters in Applied Systems Engineering. His primary area of research includes development of systems engineering tools and methods as applied to complex systems-of-systems, concerned with supporting decision making through a holistic treatment of various problems, as well as the application of advanced design methods, uncertainty analysis, and multidisciplinary design optimization to defense related, hybrid energy, and other complex systems. Dr. Ender an active member of INCOSE and NDIA.

Jonathan Murphy received the B.S. degree in aerospace engineering from the University of Virginia, Blacksburg, in 2005 and the M.S. degree in aerospace engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, in 2007. He is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree in the Aerospace Systems Design Laboratory, School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology. His research includes system modeling and system sizing methods for hybrid renewable energy systems.

Comas Lamar Haynes received the B.S. degree from Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, and the Ph.D. degrees from Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, all in mechanical engineering. He is a Senior Research Engineer and Faculty Member of the Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta. His research includes modeling and managing fuel-cell behavior and the characterization and optimization of other advanced energy systems concepts. He has developed alternative energy systems lecture curricula and experimental laboratories. Additionally, he is the Co-Developer of the outreach initiative, Educators Leading Energy Conservation and Training Researchers of Diverse Ethnicities (ELECTRoDE).