Carbon-Emission Minimization in Nigerian Thermal Generation: Station-Level Drivers and Cost-Emission Trade-offs under Alternative Dispatch Priorities

Author

Zakka Barnabas , Chimen Sabo Jamous


Abstract

 Reducing the environmental burden of thermal generation requires dispatch decisions that account explicitly for unit-specific emission characteristics rather than treating emissions as a by-product of least-cost scheduling. This paper extracts and analyses the carbon-emission evidence from a Nigerian economic-emission dispatch dataset containing twenty-one thermal stations and a stated 2,500 MW demand. Three reported schedules are examined: economic emphasis (ω=1), emission emphasis (ω=0) and equal economic-emission weighting (ω=0.5). Carbon dioxide decreases from 120,480 kg/h in the economic schedule to 114,930 kg/h in the emission-oriented schedule, a reduction of 4.607%, while reported fuel cost increases by 4.483%. The equal-weight case reports 117,960 kg/h of CO₂ and occupies an intermediate cost-emission position. The emissions are highly concentrated: in the combined case, Geregu contributes 35.75% of total CO₂ and Geregu NIPP contributes 12.77%; together they account for 48.52%. Olorunsogo and Sapele steam station raise the four-station cumulative share to about 66.58%. Emission reduction is achieved through substantial redispatch, including a 342.5722 MW reduction at Geregu and large increases at Egbin, Okpai and Omotosho. The results demonstrate that environmental dispatch changes the generation merit order and that system-wide conclusions depend disproportionately on the quality of data for a small number of high-impact units. Because the coefficient headings, source equation and station-to-bus mapping are incomplete, the paper treats reported emission totals as empirical outputs rather than independently reconstructed stack emissions. The study concludes that credible Nigerian carbon-aware OPF requires verified pollutant definitions, station measurements and AC network-feasibility checks.



Keywords

carbon dioxide; emission dispatch; Nigerian thermal generation; economic-emission trade-off; environmental dispatch; optimal power flow; power-system emissions



Full Text:

Download Paper PDF


References


  • Al-Kaabi, M., Dumbrava, V., & Eremia, M. (2022). Single and multi-objective optimal power flow based on Hunger Games Search with Pareto concept optimization. Energies, 15(22), 8328. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15228328
  • Alencar, M. V., da Silva, D. N., Nepomuceno, L., Martins, A. C. P., Balbo, A. R., & Soler, E. M. (2024). Discrete optimal power flow with prohibited zones, multiple-fuel options, and practical operational rules for control devices. Applied Energy, 358, 122545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.122545
  • Bayraktar, Z., & Komurcu, M. (2010). Wind Driven Optimization: A novel nature-inspired optimization algorithm and its application to electromagnetics. In 2010 IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium (pp. 1–4). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/APS.2010.5562213
  • Bayraktar, Z., Komurcu, M., Bossard, J. A., & Werner, D. H. (2013). The wind driven optimization technique and its application in electromagnetics. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 61(5), 2745–2757. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAP.2013.2238654
  • Ghasemi, M., Ghavidel, S., Ghanbarian, M. M., Gharibzadeh, M., & Azizi Vahed, A. (2014). Multi-objective optimal power flow considering the cost, emission, voltage deviation and power losses using multi-objective modified imperialist competitive algorithm. Energy, 78, 276–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.10.007
  • Huy, T. H. B., Kim, D., & Vo, D. N. (2022). Multiobjective optimal power flow using multiobjective search group algorithm. IEEE Access, 10, 77837–77856. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3193371
  • Islam, M. Z., Wahab, N. I. A., Veerasamy, V., Hizam, H., Mailah, N. F., Guerrero, J. M., & Mohd Nasir, M. N. (2020). A Harris Hawks optimization based single- and multi-objective optimal power flow considering environmental emission. Sustainability, 12(13), 5248. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135248
  • Jevtić, M., Jovanović, N., & Radosavljević, J. (2018). Solving a combined economic emission dispatch problem using adaptive Wind Driven Optimization. Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences, 26(4), 1747–1758. https://doi.org/10.3906/elk-1711-339
  • Kahraman, H. T., Akbel, M., & Duman, S. (2022). Optimization of optimal power flow problem using multi-objective manta ray foraging optimizer. Applied Soft Computing, 116, 108334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2021.108334
  • Khunkitti, S., Siritaratiwat, A., & Premrudeepreechacharn, S. (2021). Multi-objective optimal power flow problems based on slime mould algorithm. Sustainability, 13(13), 7448. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137448
  • Mao, L.-L., Zain, A. M., Zhou, K.-Q., Qin, F., & Wang, F.-L. (2024). A systematic review of Wind Driven Optimization algorithms and their variants. IEEE Access, 12, 120023–120063. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3449998
  • Mezhoud, N., Ayachi, B., & Bahri, A. (2022). Wind Driven Optimization approach based multi-objective optimal power flow and emission index optimization. International Research Journal of Multidisciplinary Technovation, 4(2), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.54392/irjmt2223
  • Tang, Z., Tao, S., Wang, K., Lu, B., Todo, Y., & Gao, S. (2022). Chaotic Wind Driven Optimization with fitness distance balance strategy. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 15, Article 46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44196-022-00099-0
  • Warid, W., Hizam, H., Mariun, N., & Abdul Wahab, N. I. (2018). A novel quasi-oppositional modified Jaya algorithm for multi-objective optimal power flow solution. Applied Soft Computing, 65, 360–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.01.039
  • Wood, A. J., Wollenberg, B. F., & Sheblé, G. B. (2013). Power generation, operation, and control (3rd ed.). Wiley.
  • Yuan, X., Zhang, B., Wang, P., Liang, J., Yuan, Y., Huang, Y., & Lei, X. (2017). Multi-objective optimal power flow based on improved strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm. Energy, 122, 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.01.071
  • Zimmerman, R. D., Murillo-Sánchez, C. E., & Thomas, R. J. (2011). MATPOWER: Steady-state operations, planning, and analysis tools for power systems research and education. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 26(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2010.2051168

Share your valuable work from Social Media Buttons