energies

Article
A Smart Hybrid Energy System Grid for Energy
Efficiency in Remote Areas for the Army
Umberto Berardi 1, * , Elisa Tomassoni 1,2 and Khaled Khaled 1
1 Department of Architectural Science, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada;
[email protected] (E.T.); [email protected] (K.K.)
2 Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Edile e Architettura DICEA, Universita’ Politecnica delle Marche,
60131 Ancona, Italy
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-416-979-5000 (ext. 553263)




Received: 14 March 2020; Accepted: 1 May 2020; Published: 5 May 2020


Abstract: The current energy inefficiencies in relocatable temporary camps of the Armed Force troops
create logistic challenges associated with fuel supply. The energy needs of these camps are primarily
satisfied by diesel engine generators, which imply that a significant amount of fuel needs to be
continuously provided to these camps, often built in remote areas. This paper presents an alternative
solution, named Smart Hybrid Energy System (SHES), aiming towards significantly reducing the
amount of fuel needed and minimizing transportation logistics while meeting camp energy demands.
The SHES combines the existing diesel generators with solar power generation, energy storage,
and waste heat recovery technologies, all connected to a microgrid, ensuring uninterrupted electricity
and hot water supplies. All components are controlled by an energy management system that
prioritizes output and switches between different power generators, ensuring operation at optimum
efficiencies. The SHES components have been selected to be easily transportable in standard shipping
20 ft containers. The modularity of the solution, scalable from the base camp for 150 people, is designed
according to available on-site renewable sources, allowing for energy optimization of different camp
sizes in different climates.

Keywords: hybrid energy system; energy efficiency; microgrid; military applications; renewable
energy; remote areas

1. Introduction
The Armed Forces operate in remote locations for training and military operations, even under
natural disaster conditions or in foreign territories during conflicts, and must be ready to deploy on
short notices, in any climate and for prolonged periods. As such, they currently rely on relocatable
temporary camps (RTCs) for their deployments through extreme operational and environmental
conditions. To sustain operations, as there is no utility grid, RTCs depend on logistics for the
continuous supply of fossil fuel (primarily diesel) as the main source of energy. Inefficiencies in current
practices lead to vulnerabilities in energy infrastructures, such as shortfalls in power generation and
higher requirements for fuel resupply, with the knock-on effect of greatly increasing the transportation
logistics during operations. Moreover, RTCs typically use spot generation by connecting loads to
a common set of generators, where each generator is oversized to satisfy peak loads, even when
these loads are infrequent. Consequently, generators typically are selected at a significantly higher
capacity, resulting in an inefficient and costly source of power, increased maintenance, and wet sacking,
a condition resulting from poor fuel combustion.
In recent years, military engineers have therefore encountered several operational challenges
associated with energy logistic convoys and infrastructure, limited supplies, and climate change.

Energies 2020, 13, 2279; doi:10.3390/en13092279 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2020, 13, 2279 2 of 22

Scientific literature identified a spectrum of approaches and technologies to address energy consumption
under these conditions. Few combinations of components have been proposed according to the
site-specific characteristics [1–3], however, the definition of further integrated configurations remains
rarely investigated, although it is evident that the Armed Forces could benefit from holistically assessing
these approaches as integrated systems.
Significant gains in the efficiencies of RTC utility systems (renewable energy systems; improved
generators and energy storage or grid efficiency) and energy conservation measures (e.g., insulation of
the camp tent fabric, building controls, etc.) would have an overall increasing benefit on the deployed
operations. Meanwhile, stand-alone hybrid energy systems have been proposed as valuable means of
supplying energy to remote areas, such as isolated rural villages [4–7], and for various other purposes,
such as medical clinic practices [8] or military operations [9–11].
Some researchers investigated solutions aiming at reducing the dependency on fossil fuels during
prolonged emergencies by proposing self-contained demonstration units that make use of hybrid
generation from solar, wind, and biomass and, minimally, fossil sources [12]. Some of these systems
have already been introduced to the market, as described below. Besides microgrids, clusters of
electricity sources and load operating systems are being used to improve the reliability of electrical
grids, manage the addition of distributed clean energy resources like wind and solar photovoltaic
generation, reduce fossil fuel emissions, and provide electricity in areas not served by centralized
electrical infrastructure [13].
Some models described the components of a microgrid [5,9,14,15], but not much is known about
its behavior as a whole system. Some studies aimed to model microgrids at steady-state and study their
transient responses to changing inputs [16]. However, researchers have built a full-scale microgrid
model, including the power sources, power electronics, and load and mains models [5].
One of the main challenges towards the development of isolated microgrids is the management of
various devices and energy flows to optimize their operations, particularly regarding the hourly loads
and the availability of power produced by renewable energy systems. Energy management systems
could be a solution to tackle these issues [16–18]. Regarding the provision of energy services with
modular and transportable systems by making use of microgrid technology, some examples can be
found in the market. For example, examples of possible technical solutions include the following:

• Power Box Containers by Out of the Box Energy Solutions (http://www.outofthebox.energy/power-

box/powerbox-containers/)
• Energy Containers by Intech Clean Energy (https://www.intechcleanenergy.ca/energy-container/)
• Hybrid Smart Total by Golden Peniel Limited (http://gplnigeria.com/hybrid.html)
• Container Box Systems by Hakai Energy Solutions (https://www.hakaienergysolutions.com/
services/container-box-systems/)
• Multi Box Microgrid by BoxPower (https://boxpower.io/products/multi-box-microgrid/)
• PowerPlus Hybrid Power Generator by Firefly (https://www.fireflyhybridpower.com/products/
powerplus/)
• ES Box by Schneider Electric (https://solar.schneider-electric.com/product/es-box/)

The Cross-Power unit, e.g., uses modular hybrid wind and solar systems, integrated with battery
storage, to produce electricity in remote locations. However, most of the existing solutions use black
box intelligent energy management systems to ensure a continuous supply and avoid shortfalls in
power generation.
This paper presents a scalable and transportable solution, named Smart Hybrid Energy System
(SHES), for providing energy-efficient services to soldiers in protracted displacement situations.
The SHES combines the existing diesel generators with solar power generation, energy storage, and
waste heat recovery technologies, all connected to a microgrid, ensuring uninterrupted electricity
and hot water supplies. The reliable and energy-efficient system helps to manage generator output.
By transforming an independently operating system of generators into a demand-managed microgrid,
Energies 2020, 13, 2279 3 of 22

SHES provides power only where and when it is needed, instead of completely relying on fuel-burning
generators. The system also provides the Armed Forces with critically needed power surety by utilizing
intelligent load management technologies to prevent grid collapse in the event of generator fault,
as the SHES prevents a stoppage of energy flow by shifting demand onto supporting generators if
one generator fails. The system is designed to manage the energy needs of a 150 to 1500-person RTC,
operating in a temperate climate zone and allowing for the occasional deployment to extremely hot or
cold climatic zones. Finally, this paper considers the energy savings achievable through technologies
that improve the accommodation’s insulation, such as a thermoreflective multilayer system developed
for emergency architecture, or that provide additional layers of solar protection, reducing the heat
transfer through the shelter exterior thus reducing the daily air conditioning loads and reliance on
diesel fuel [19,20].

2. Methodology
Regarding the design criteria of the RTCs solution, different technologies for energy production and
storage concerning containerized solutions for emergencies were analyzed for the SHES. The equipment
was selected from a range of commercial products based on sizing calculations and container space.
The travel weight and volume, logistical support, required maintenance, and any hazards associated
with the systems were also considered. Finally, for each of the selected technologies, detailed design
work was conducted.
The system was proposed to the Canadian Armed Forces, and as such, the annual energy
performance reported in this study was analyzed for the temperate climate zone of Brandon (Manitoba,
Canada) at 49.85◦ N. Through dynamic energy and energy management simulations with a combination
of software including the DoE Energy Plus and HOMER Pro software, the performance of the SHES
system was analyzed.
First, an energy model reproducing the existing baseline 150-person military camp was created
using Energy Plus, and data related to geometry, constructions, occupancy, HVAC, lighting, equipment,
operation, climate, and energy management system (EMS) was assigned. Furthermore, the energy
model was calibrated to match the actual net energy and heating energy consumptions of the RTCs
and deriving and collating data from past RTC deployments as a reference for the design process.
For this purpose, the net energy consumption was described as the combined energy consumptions
of electricity generation and diesel-heating equipment. Second, the Energy Plus-generated electric
and thermal hourly load profiles were imported to HOMER Pro, a microgrid design, simulation, and
optimization tool, used for the purposes as a design and investment decision support tool for selecting
the optimal portfolio, sizing, placement, and dispatch of the multiple energy sources feeding the
decentralized energy system and serving the camp loads. HOMER Pro was also used in performing
sensitivity analyses to identify the most cost-effective system configuration at various fuel costs and
nominal discount rates.
The dynamic studies made it possible to conduct comparisons between different utility systems
scenarios, comprising multiple distributed energy resources and energy conservation measures (i.e.,
advanced insulation materials), over the current base camp practices. Further simulations were
subsequently made on the most cost-effective proposed solution to estimate the annual fuel use and
energy savings for different climate zones.
In order to evaluate the economic and technical feasibility of the many options and to account for
variations in technology costs and energy resource availability, the operation of the different system
configurations was simulated in HOMER Pro by performing dynamic energy balance. For each time
step and for each system configuration considered, HOMER Pro compared the electric and thermal
demand to the energy that the system can supply and calculated the flow of energy to and from each
component of the system. In each time step, the analyses focused on how to operate the generators
and whether to charge or discharge the batteries and determined whether a configuration is feasible.
The study also looked at the system cost calculations in terms of capital, replacement, operation and
Energies 2020, 13, 2279 4 of 22

maintenance, fuel, and interest rates. Furthermore, HOMER Pro used optimization algorithms to
search for the most cost-effective system configuration in terms of net present cost (life cycle cost).
Details about the calculations are available in the HOMER Pro user manual [21].
It is important to note that the lowest net present cost did not necessarily indicate the lowest
energy consumption; however, incorporating the operational costs in the calculation, it was used to
find the optimal system design rather than net energy consumptions.

2.1. Case Study

RTCs provide accommodations, administration shelters, ablutions, maintenance, storage, hangar,
and kitchen facilities. RTCs generally include tents identical to those deployed by militaries throughout
the world (Figure 1). The population supported by RTCs can vary considerably from day to day,
depending on operational activities as well as surges due to the rotation of personnel. Deployed
personnel are provided a bed space in a tent that holds 4–10 people. The accommodations are located
in a condensed area adjacent to the ablutions. Ablutions units are composed of a shower, a toilet, and a
sink, each unit serving 10 members of the camp population.

Figure 1. Tent demonstration unit in Toronto, ON, built within Ryerson University (left) and full
assembly of relocatable temporary camp (RTC) (right).

Multiple, independent systems are in place for electrical power generation and distribution,
heating and cooling, storage and distribution of fuel and water, and waste disposal. These systems are
not designed to promote energy efficiency. The current energy management approach in RTCs relies
on diesel-powered generators for electricity production. Electrical energy is provided to the camp via
multiple single-speed generator farms that incorporate variants of 300, 350, and 500 kW generators.
To avoid low load operation, load banks are employed to keep the generators running at optimal
conditions and efficiency points. Excess electricity not required in the camp is ultimately diverted
to a load bank where it is converted to waste heat. In the current “baseline” scenario, diesel-fired
space heaters are used for heating. Cooling is provided by electric environmental conditioning units.
Heating and cooling units are attached to each tent and are controlled by individual users.

2.2. Energy Modeling

The virtual model reproducing the existing base camp (baseline) was sized for accommodating
150-persons and included 15 accommodations, each hosting 10 persons, 15 ablutions, administration,
maintenance, laundry and storage hangar, kitchen, and dining facilities (Table 1). Each accommodation
tent was 5.80 m length and 5.10 m width, with a medium internal height of 2.30 m. Data have
been obtained in line with the technical sheet of the model by Montana 29 tent, Ferrino (Figure 2).
Energies 2020, 13, 2279 5 of 22

The relative U-values of the envelope reported in Table 2 were estimated assuming that the standard
shelter system was a canvas tent with low thermal resistance, in agreement with the literature [19].

Table 1. Modeled zone properties of the military base camp.

Exhaust Air Heating/Cooling Target

Occupancy Plug Loads
Zone Rate Set Point Illuminance
(m2 /Person) (W/m2 ) (m3 /s) (◦ C) (Lux)
Accommodation 4 5 – 20/24 300
Kitchen 9 100 0.21 17/21 500
Dining hall 1.4 20 – 20/24 300
Ablution 2.4 2 0.0125 20/24 200
Admin office 20 15 – 20/24 400
Maintenance 20 10 3.15 NA/24 400
Storage 3 - – NA/24 200
Laundry 10 70 – 20/24 300

Figure 2. Geometric characteristic of the modeled tent.

Table 2. Modeled envelope construction: thermal properties of the fabric tent of the military shelters.

Overall U-Value
Component Construction
(W/m2 ·K)
Floor 50.8 mm OSB + RSI-0.175 standard insulation 1.32
Window 6 mm clear sheet 5.78
Wall, roof, door RSI-0.175 standard insulation 5.71

Camp electric power capacity was sized for 1.5 kW/person, considering data related to past RTC
deployments. Specific electrical load profiles were also taken into consideration. Generators were
sized with a 10% overload and a further 10% expansion capability factor.
Typical fuel consumption for a 1.5 kW/person load provision was approximately 2000 L of diesel
per person per year. Besides, it was assumed that 500 L of diesel fuel per person per year was used
for direct combustion, which after accounting for an 80% efficiency, provided 15 GJ of energy for
space heating.
Figure 3 shows the detailed HVAC system and power generation scheme of the base camp, which,
for a 150-person camp size, has a total diesel consumption including heating of 2500 L/person*year,
has a heating diesel consumption of 500 L/person*year, and allows a hot water consumption of
30 L/person*day.
Energies 2020, 13, 2279 6 of 22

Figure 3. Baseline camp: HVAC system and power generation scheme for a base camp.

Solution designs were also conceived to operate for prolonged periods in extremely hot (up
to 50 ◦ C) or cold (down to −40 ◦ C) climates, as well as in all the temperate climatic conditions.
Temperature, precipitation, daylight, and wind data of a temperate climate zone, Brandon, Manitoba,
Canada, was used for all design calculations as required by the Canadian Defense Department. Further
simulations were made to analyze the proposed system performance in different climate zones with
severe conditions, including: Vancouver (British Columbia, Canada), Kanoya (Japan), Churchill
(Manitoba, Canada), and Changi (Singapore).

3. Results

3.1. Smart Hybrid Energy System (SHES) Design

The SHES is designed to work in stand-alone mode or connected to the local grid. The SHES
combines into a single, integrated system of the following technologies: (a) photovoltaic (PV) array,
(b) an energy storage system, (c) existing diesel generators, (d) waste-to-heat energy recovery system
(WHRU) for space heating, (e) solar hot water (SHW) system for domestic hot water, and (f) energy
management system (EMS) that actively monitors and manages base camp equipment and zones.
Figure 4 shows the SHES schematic configuration of the energy vectors, while Figure 5 shows the
detailed HVAC system and power generation scheme of the SHES.
Energies 2020, 13, 2279 7 of 22

Figure 4. Smart Hybrid Energy System (SHES) schematic configuration of the energy vectors.
Energies 2020, 13, 2279 8 of 22

Figure 5. Smart Hybrid Energy System (SHES): detailed HVAC system and power generation scheme.

In particular, the SHES system was composed of the following components:

• PV modules, with a 21% efficiency (SPR-X21-345) and a combined power output of 100 kW with a
surface of 446 m2 , are strung together. Each array is south-oriented with an optimized tilt angle,
which varies by location, anchored to the ground with a mounting aluminum system. As the base
camp loads use alternating current (AC), inverters are used to transform the direct current (DC)
produced from PV. It is important to note that to satisfy the entire energy demand of the camp,
the PV configuration would have employed a larger system (about four times larger); however,
considering the army requirements for continuous transportation and reinstallation in addition
to the high initial costs of the system and the spatial limitations, the PV system was sized to
sufficiently cover the peak electric loads except for cooling; thus, only systems up to 100 kW
were considered.
• Energy storage allows overcoming the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources. When
PV systems have a peak above the load, the surplus energy is stored in sodium–sulfur batteries.
On the other hand, when there is a high energy demand and the electricity generated by the PVs
is insufficient, the batteries are discharged. The cells are monitored and protected by a battery
management system (BMS). Various battery models were considered, and the most cost-effective
model was selected. In particular, containerized NAS lithium-ion energy storage system by BASF
was found to be a cost-effective solution for this project purposes due to its relatively large capacity
(1250 kWh), discharge output (286.1 kW max), long duration (4.4 h), long lifespan (20 years or
6,250,000 kWh), reasonable warranty periods (10 years), and physical sizing considerations. A 40%
minimum state of charge was assumed, while an 80% state of charge setpoint was found to be the
most cost-effective strategy, as discussed later.
• Existing internal combustion diesel generator was integrated into the microgrid to ensure
continuous power supply. A 15% minimum part-load ratio was assumed.
• WHRU allows recovering the waste heat from generators to use it for space heating (combined
heat and power), which is supplemented by an efficient (89%) diesel boiler. The WHRU consisted
Energies 2020, 13, 2279 9 of 22

of counter-flow heat exchangers and water-distribution systems, delivering hot water to terminal
heating equipment. The terminal heating equipment was modeled as fan–coil units.
• SHW system used has a surface of 90 m2 and a power of 63 kW that supplies a significant fraction
of the base camp domestic hot water (DHW) requirements, while the remaining portion is satisfied
by the existing electric water heater. The strategy undertaken allows a 10,000 L storage tank to
reach a higher temperature (80 ◦ C) to increase the efficiency of the SHW system.
• EMS controls all components and ensures grid stability, continuously balancing energy generation,
and consumption. It maximizes the power output by establishing a hierarchy of sources and
prioritizing the use of renewable energy while optimizing the interactions between different
components. The EMS is equipped with real-time remote monitoring and controls the base camp
parameters, enabling central and informed decisions.

The selection of equipment from a range of commercial products was made based on 20 ft container
space (Table 3) in addition to sizing calculations (Table 4) to optimize the annual energy production.

Table 3. Key components dimensions of the Smart Hybrid Energy System (SHES).

Equipment Example of Possible Component Models Quantity Size (mm)*

PV panels SunPower (SPR-X21-345) 290 1559 × 1046 × 46
Inverter SUNSYS PCS2 IM-200kVA-TL 1 805 × 806 × 2150
Battery NAS 1 6100 × 2400 × 2400
PV/SHW mounting
Fast-Rack (GMX Caribou Ground) 2 Various
systems
SHW panels Ritter Solar (CPC45 Star Azzurro) 20 2426 × 2032 × 121
2032 height × 1016
Insulated storage tank Niles Steel Tank (JS-36-072) 10
diameter
Heat exchanger Doucette Industries (CUI 35M5) 1 1346 × 873 × 533
* ISO 6346 [22]: 20 ft container: length = 20 ft (6096 mm); width = 8 ft (2438 mm); height = 8 ft 6” (2590 mm).

Table 4. Components of the Smart Hybrid Energy System (SHES) for a 150-person relocatable temporary
camp (RTC) in Brandon, MB.

Smart Hybrid Energy System

Technology Sizing Based On
(150-Persons Base Camp)
80 kW peak (excluding cooling) electric
Number of collectors = 290
loads
PV panels Total collectors aperture/Gross area = 446/465 m2 Spatial limitations
System size = 100 kW Logistic requirements
Optimal collector tilt = 45◦ , Azimuth =0◦ S Spatial limitations
Selected PV size
Converter 175 kW (Eff. 96%)
Net present cost
1250 kWh, Max. discharge output = 286.1 kW Selected PV size
Battery
Duration =4.4 h Net present cost
Generator Existing 300 kW diesel generator Existing
Number of collectors = 20 30 L/Day. Person
Total collectors aperture/Gross area= 90/98.8 m2 60 ◦ C HW temp.
SHW panels System size = 63 kW 4 ◦ C supply temp.
Optimal collector tilt = 45◦ , Azimuth = 0◦ S 70% solar fraction for sunniest
Required hot water storage volume = 10,000 L Month
Backed-up by existing electric heater (Eff. 65%)
Waste heat recovery 1.25 L/s design heat recovery water flow
Counter-flow fluid heat exchangers
unit rate

The system is adaptable to different installation and climates, and it was designed such that some
existing equipment could be incorporated into the system, thus reducing investment costs for the Army.
At the same time, individual components could be integrated without being tied to one manufacturer
Energies 2020, 13, 2279 10 of 22

too. Consequently, the models of the components reported in Table 3 are only indications of possible
solutions, as the system could integrate alternative components with comparable performances.
Other renewables can also be optionally integrated into the microgrid according to their on-site
availability. The SHES is fully scalable for electric power outputs of 270 kW up to 2.7 MW to meet the
varying energy needs from 150 to 1500-persons base camps. Several units of the system, eventually
centralized at each tent, can be interconnected to complement the system provided for a 150-person
base camp with a larger operational power range. The scaling options include the deployment of
additional PV arrays, supplementary battery units, larger power generators, a large-scale WHRU, and
a large-scale SHW system.
The SHES design architecture provides redundancy to ensure continuous operation through any
subsystem failure, while the microgrid supply power guarantees the longer service and lifespans.
The hybrid power generation design prioritizes renewable, followed by battery power, resulting in
less generator runtime, thus requiring less maintenance. The EMS allows for identifying operations
and maintenance issues before they become problematic, improving problem response time while
contributing to the overall system reliability. Furthermore, the central and remote monitoring of the
system parameters improves the maintenance supervision, scheduling, and management control.
The proposed solution is provided with fire protection and security functions. The SHES incorporates
existing technologies and state-of-the-art components; therefore, eventual replacements parts are
widely available in the market. The system is prewired, preconfigured, and designed to be rapidly
deployed as a plug and play system, following minor on-site assembly.

3.2. Energy Simulation Results

Energy simulations were conducted to quantify the reduced energy demand of the combination
of microgrid, renewable resources, and energy recovery measures.
Figure 6 shows the results obtained using different software for the baseline scenario in different
climate zones. Maximum differences of 6% and 8% were obtained for the heating and net energy
consumptions in Vancouver (BC), respectively. This confirmed the validity of the approaches followed
in modeling.

Figure 6. Comparison between Energy Plus and HOMER Pro software for the current base camp
practice (Baseline) for a 150-persons base camp in different climate zones.
Energies 2020, 13, 2279 11 of 22

Table 5 reports the simulation results for the annual energy consumption of a 150-persons RTC in
Brandon (MB) according to different scenarios: Baseline, Solar Hot Water, Microgrid: generators +
battery, Microgrid with a Waste Heat Recovery (a counter-flow fluid heat exchanger), Microgrid with a
PV array (100 kW PV system to cover peak electric loads excluding cooling), and the scenario with all
SHES technologies integrated.

Table 5. Simulation results of the annual energy consumption for a 150-persons RTC in Brandon, MB,
for the various scenarios with new technology solutions incrementally adopted.

Sc. Technology Equipment Annual Energy Consumptions

1- Diesel Generator 300 kW + Fluid Cooler

2- Electric Water Heater (Eff. 65%) for DHW Net Energy Consumption = 13041 GJ/year
3- Packaged Terminal AC Unit for: Space Heating Energy Consumption = 3034 GJ/year
1 Baseline
Space Cooling Energy Consumption = 377 GJ/year
A- Electric Space Cooling (COP 2) DHW Energy Consumption = 529 GJ/year
B- Diesel Space Heating (Eff. 80%)

1- Diesel Generator 300 kW + Fluid Cooler

2- SHW System + Back-up Existing Electric
Net Energy Consumption = 13041 GJ/year (−1%)
Water Heater (Eff. 65%) for DHW
Space Heating Energy Consumption = 3034 GJ/year
2 Solar Hot Water 3- Packaged Terminal AC Unit for:
Space Cooling Energy Consumption = 377 GJ/year
DHW Energy Consumption = 99 GJ/year (−81%)
A- Electric Space Cooling (COP 2)
B- Diesel Space Heating (Eff. 80%)

1- Diesel Generator 300 kW + Fluid Cooler

2- Electric Water Heater (Eff. 65%) for DHW
Net Energy Consumption = 13139 GJ/year
Microgrid: 3- Energy Storage System (1 NAS Battery)
Space Heating Energy Consumption = 3034 GJ/year
3 generators + 4- Packaged Terminal AC Unit for:
Space Cooling Energy Consumption = 377 GJ/year
battery
DHW Energy Consumption = 529 GJ/year
A- Electric Space Cooling (COP 2)
B- Diesel Space Heating (Eff. 80%)

1- Diesel Generator 300 kW (0.5 Thermal to

Electric Power Ratio) + Fluid Cooler
2- Counter-flow Fluid Heat Exchanger Net Energy Consumption = 13639 GJ/year (−16%)
Microgrid: 3- Electric Water Heater (Eff. 65%) for DHW Space Heating Energy Consumption = 913 GJ/year
4 Waste Heat 4- Packaged Terminal AC Unit for: (−70%)
Recovery Space Cooling Energy Consumption = 377 GJ/year
A- Electric Space Cooling (COP 2) DHW Energy Consumption = 529 GJ/year
B- Space Heating Using Recovered
Heat (Eff. 89%)

1- Diesel Generator 300 kW (Variable Eff.) +

Fluid Cooler
2- 100 kW PV System to Cover Peak Electric
Loads Except for Cooling + Energy Net Energy Consumption = 11593 GJ/year (−12%)
Storage System Space Heating Energy Consumption = 2865 GJ/year
5 Microgrid: PV
3- Electric Water Heater (Eff. 65%) for DHW Space Cooling Energy Consumption = 377 GJ/year
4- Packaged Terminal AC Unit for: DHW Energy Consumption = 516 GJ/year

A- Electric Space Cooling (COP 2)

B- Diesel Space Heating (Eff. 80%)

1- Diesel Generator 300 kW (0.5 Thermal to

Electric Power Ratio + Fluid Cooler
2- Counter-flow Fluid Heat Exchanger
3- 63 kW SHW System & Existing Electric
Back-up Water Heater (Eff. 65%) Net Energy Consumption = 8340 GJ/year (−37%)
Space Heating Energy Consumption = 2027 GJ/year
4- 100 kW PV System to Cover Peak Electric
All SHES (−33%)
6 Loads Except for Cooling + Energy
technologies Space Cooling Energy Consumption = 377
Storage System
GJ/yearDHW Energy Consumption = 100 GJ/year
5- Packaged Terminal AC Unit for:
(−81%)
A- Electric Space Cooling (COP 2)
B- Space Heating Using Recovered
Heat & Diesel Boiler (Eff. 89%)
Energies 2020, 13, 2279 12 of 22

The simulation results indicated that up to 37% fuel savings over current base camp configurations
are achieved when all the SHES technologies are implemented for accommodating 150-person in a
temperate climate (Brandon, MB) (Figure 7). Considered individually, the most impactful technology
was found to be the Microgrid with a Waste Heat Recovery system (scenario 4), as evident in both
Figure 7 and Tables 5 and 6.

Figure 7. Comparison between different utility systems scenarios: annual energy consumption savings
over the current base camp practice (Baseline) for a 150-persons base camp in Brandon, MB.

Table 6. Summary of simulation results for the various scenarios for a 150-person RTC in Brandon, MB.

Scenario Technology Consumptions Reduction Compared to the Baseline

Net Energy Consumption = 13985 GJ/year
Scenario 1 Baseline Space Heating Energy Consumption = 2866 GJ/year
DHW Energy Consumption = 529 GJ/year
1% reduction in net energy consumption
Scenario 2 Solar Hot Water
81% reduction in DHW energy consumption
Scenario 3 Microgrid: generators + battery -
16% reduction in net energy consumption
Scenario 4 Microgrid: Waste Heat Recovery
70% reduction in space heating energy consumption
Scenario 5 Microgrid: Photovoltaics 12% reduction in net energy consumption
37% reduction in net energy consumption
Scenario 6 All SHES technologies 33% reduction in space heating energy consumption
81% reduction in DHW energy consumption

The technoeconomic assessment indicated that the implementation of all SHES technologies
significantly reduced the net-present cost (life cycle cost), defined as the present value of all installation
and operation costs over the project lifetime, excluding the present value of all the revenues earned
over the same interval.
Actual components’ costs were used in the analysis. The project lifetime was assumed to be 25
years, while an 8% nominal discount rate, defined as the simple interest rate on borrowed capital
before factoring the inflation rates in, was assumed. The inflation rate was also assumed to be 2% over
the project lifetime, and it was used in combination with the nominal discount rate to calculate the
Energies 2020, 13, 2279 13 of 22

real discount rate, which is used to convert between one-time and annualized costs. Finally, the fuel
(diesel) cost was assumed to be $1.00 for each liter.
Results indicated that up to 32% reduction in net present value over current base camp
configurations are achieved when all the SHES technologies are implemented for accommodating
150-person in a temperate climate (Brandon, MB) (Figure 8). The levelized cost of energy was also
significantly reduced by 25%, as indicated. Figure 8 shows that the SHES acts as the most cost-effective
solution; thus, it is the optimal solution that maximizes the use of renewable-generated energy while
minimizing the project lifetime capital costs. More importantly, it is evident that the consideration of
individual technologies eliminated the benefits gained from the integrated solution, and in fact, most
technologies (except for WHRU), although reducing the net-present costs compared to the baseline,
produced increased levelized energy costs due to their high initial costs and limited energy savings
and utilization of all available energy resources when compared to SHES.

Figure 8. Comparison between different utility systems scenarios: net present cost and levelized energy
cost over the current base camp practice (Baseline) for a 150-persons base camp in Brandon, MB.

Diesel costs may vary overtime and by the region it is sold depending on the cost of crude
oil. Similarly, interest rates fluctuate overtime, being influenced by the economic growth, fiscal and
monetary policies, and inflation rates. Thus, it is critical to design an optimal system in terms of life
cycle costs at the expected fuel and interest rates.
A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the proposed system due to variations in the
nominal discount rates and diesel costs (Figure 9). As evident, SHES acts as the optimal system
design for the widest range of fuel and simple interest rates, assuming a constant inflation rate of
2%. In particular, the baseline configuration is only considered cost-effective at combined low fuel
rates and high simple interest rates. It is also evident that the SHES’s selected photovoltaics, energy
storage, and converter capacities are optimal at the specified fuel cost and interest rates of $1/L and 8%,
respectively. On the other hand, reducing these capacities would act as a more cost-effective solution
at combinations of low and high fuel and simple interest rates, respectively.
Energies 2020, 13, 2279 14 of 22

Figure 9. Optimal system design for variations in diesel price and nominal discount rate.

As discussed earlier, only PV capacities up to 100 kW, which sufficiently covers the camp peak
electric loads excluding the cooling loads, were considered to reduce initial costs and due to spatial
and logistics purposes. Also, various battery and converter models and capacities were considered,
and the most cost-effective configurations were selected considering the preselected PV size. Figure 9
shows that the optimal battery capacity is strictly influenced by the selected PV capacity, thus, using a
lower PV capacity would imply using a smaller battery capacity except in cases where the interest
rates are incredibly high, for which investing in energy storage would not be cost-effective at all.
Energies 2020, 13, 2279 15 of 22

Similarly, the converter capacity is dependent on the selected PV capacity. However, the rate of capacity
reduction is higher than that of the battery, particularly at moderate interest rates (8%–12%), driven by
high converter capital costs when compared to energy storage and PVs.
One of the main challenges towards the development of isolated microgrids is the management of
the various devices and energy flows to optimize their operations, particularly regarding the hourly
loads that must be served, and the availability of power produced by renewable energy systems
depending on daily and seasonal variations. The SHES combines the existing diesel generators with
solar power generation, energy storage, and waste heat recovery technologies, all connected to a
microgrid, ensuring uninterrupted electricity and hot water supplies. The reliable, energy-efficient
system helps to manage generator output. By transforming an independently operating system of
generators into a demand managed microgrid, SHES provides power only where and when it is needed,
instead of completely relying on fuel-burning generators. A critical part of designing SHES was
understanding the electric and thermal load and generation profiles to identify the most cost-effective
energy management strategy while maximizing the renewable generation, without significantly
increasing the initial costs of system while considering army spatial and logistic requirements. It is
crucial to identify the parts of the system that carry these loads at different times of the day and different
seasons, particularly at peak loads. The peak electric load typically occurs during the warmest period
of the year due to increased cooling loads, while thermal loads during the same period would be low
due to the absence of heating requirements. For these purposes, various dispatching strategies were
considered for energy management purposes of controlling generator and battery operation in periods
of insufficient renewable energy to supply the load, including “cycle charging” and “load following”
strategies. A cycle charging dispatching strategy was found to be the most cost-effective. The cycle
charging strategy implies that the generator runs at its maximum power output when it is needed to
serve the electrical loads, while any surplus electrical production is diverted towards charging the
battery until the battery setpoint state of charge of 80% is reached. This is accomplished by selecting
the optimal combination of power sources, based on fixed and marginal costs, to serve the electric
and thermal loads at the minimum cost and excess electricity production, while still satisfying the
operating reserve requirements. On the other hand, a load following strategy, which implies that the
generator produces enough power only to serve the load while the battery is charged by the renewable
sources, would be more cost-effective in situations where the renewable generation is comparable to
the magnitude of the served load.
The results of the control strategy can be observed in Figures 10 and 11, which show the electric
and thermal and the generation profiles for the summer and winter peak demand days, respectively.
The electric load served is initially constant and relatively low during early and late hours of the
summer days and in the absence of solar radiation (Figure 10). Thus, this low electric load is satisfied
solely by the energy stored in the battery while the generators are off. As the electric load starts to
increase, the generators are turned on to satisfy parts of these loads, while the remaining parts are
satisfied using the PV-generated power. To reduce the generator runtimes, at several intervals of the day,
the reliance of the generator is reduced and eventually eliminated. At the same time, the loads are still
being served by the energy stored in the battery during the previous hours. For the winter day, similar
trends can be seen. However, due to lower electrical loads and increased PV generation as a result of a
lower sun altitude, after the generators are turned on to serve partial loads and charge the battery, they
are turned off for extended periods of the day, thus significantly reducing fuel consumption by relying
on renewable resources. The generator’s runtime was reduced considerably to 4600 h (48% reduction)
compared to 8760 h for the baseline configuration. It is also evident that the system could benefit from
a greater PV size due to the high availability of solar radiation that is not being taken advantage of in
both summer and winter months.
Energies 2020, 13, 2279 16 of 22

Figure 10. SHES dynamic electric load management for a 150-persons base camp in Brandon, MB, in
summer and winter peak days.
Energies 2020, 13, 2279 17 of 22

Figure 11. SHES dynamic thermal load management for a 150-persons base camp in Brandon, MB, in
summer and winter peak days.

In Figure 11, the thermal loads are very low in summer due to the absence of heating requirements
while some heating is only required during night times, which suggested increasing the insulating
properties of the tent fabrics. In the winter, the peak thermal heating load is served mainly using the
diesel boiler, which is supplemented by the waste-to-heat recovery system that uses the generator’s
heat to warm up the water delivered to the terminal fan–coil units. This heat is drawn from the
generator only when it is running to serve the electrical loads during the winter; therefore, the WHRU
system can only serve a part of the daily thermal load, which highlights the importance of considering
Energies 2020, 13, 2279 18 of 22

synergies and differences between the different seasonal loads and designing a cost-optimal system in
regards to full-year expected loads and availability of resources. It is also evident that a significant
amount of excess heat is wasted in the summer months due to the absence of a simultaneous end use,
thus, a heat storage system might be beneficial to store the heat and allowing for its use when needed
in the colder months or in cold summer nights.
The SHES solution for the camp was also simulated in different geographic locations, to evaluate its
performance, feasibility, and expected energy savings outcomes in different climate zones. In particular,
the analysis involved the city of Vancouver (British Columbia, Canada), Kanoya (Japan), Churchill
(Manitoba, Canada), and Changi (Singapore). Results indicated that fuel reductions from 21% up
to 39% are also achievable for extremely hot and frigid climates when the solar collectors’ tilt and
orientation are optimized for the specific location (Table 7). It is important to note that the solution was
not reoptimized for different locations except for the PV and SHW tilt angles, and component and
system sizes were kept constant to satisfy the army requirements of standard sizing.

Table 7. Simulation results for extreme climatic zones when all SHES technologies are implemented.

Climates Scenario Technology Consumptions Reduction Compared to Baseline Optimal Angle

Net Energy Consumption = 11297 GJ/year
1 Baseline Space Heating Energy Consumption = 7408 GJ/year 33◦
Vancouver, DHW Energy Consumption = 529 GJ/year
BC 34% reduction in net energy consumption
All SHES
6 34% reduction in space heating energy consumption
technologies
66% reduction in DHW energy consumption
Net Energy Consumption = 11917 GJ/year
1 Baseline Space Heating Energy Consumption = 392 GJ/year 24◦
Kanoya, DHW Energy Consumption = 529 GJ/year
Japan 27% reduction in net energy consumption
All SHES
6 34% reduction in space heating energy consumption
technologies
83% reduction in DHW energy consumption
Net Energy Consumption = 14804 GJ/year
1 Baseline Space Heating Energy Consumption = 5355 GJ/year 55◦
Churchill, DHW Energy Consumption = 529 GJ/year
MB 39% reduction in net energy consumption
All SHES
6 29% reduction in space heating energy consumption
technologies
66% reduction in DHW energy consumption
Net Energy Consumption = 13461 GJ/year
1 Baseline 0◦
Changi, DHW Energy Consumption = 529 GJ/year
Singapore* All SHES 21% reduction in net energy consumption
6
technologies 98% reduction in DHW energy consumption
* The heat recovery system is not required for the Changi climate zone due to the extremely low heating demand.

3.3. Environmental Considerations

The SHES reduces the dependency on fossil fuel lowering the environmental footprint of RTCs
since the transportation logistics are minimized and the consumption of vehicle-fuel transporting fuel
to the base campsite is also reduced. The generators, rather than being fueled by diesel (as currently
done in Canadian Armed Forces), could be powered by LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) to produce
lower amounts of harmful greenhouse gases. However, the risks due to the transportation of more
hazardous materials must be considered.
Table 8 reports significant annual CO2 emissions savings compared to the baseline when all the
SHES technologies are implemented for accommodating 150-person in a temperate climate (Brandon,
MB). CO2 reductions up to 39% are also achievable with the deployment of the system in extreme hot
and cold climates (Table 8). The CO2 emissions were calculated based on the annual diesel consumption
to produce power by the generator and thermal energy by the boiler, assuming an emissions factor of
2.4 kg-CO2 e produced as a result of burning each liter of consumed diesel. It was also assumed that
diesel has a carbon content of 88%.
Energies 2020, 13, 2279 19 of 22

Table 8. CO2 annual emissions for different scenarios of a 150-person RTC operating in different climates.

Annual CO2 Emissions

Climates Scenario Technology
kg/Year
(1) Baseline 919,500
Brandon, MB
(6) All SHES technologies 583,270 (−37%)
(1) Baseline 788,879
Vancouver, BC
(6) All SHES technologies 517,335 (−35%)
(1) Baseline 831,462
Kanoya, Japan
(6) All SHES technologies 606,460 (−27%)
(1) Baseline 1036,790
Churchill, MB
(6) All SHES technologies 636,805 (−39%)
(1) Baseline 938,783
Changi, Singapore
(6) All SHES technologies 743,139 (−21%)

The SHES is designed to be easily integrated with other water and waste infrastructure systems,
e.g., it could be combined with deployable water purification systems (e.g., Aspen Water) powering
them as AC loads or using directly the solar energy of the photovoltaic panels or with deployable
waste-to-energy systems (e.g., Energos Technology and Eco Waste Solution), which convert wastes into
thermal energy (e.g., DWECX-TEEPS) that can be used locally. Moreover, the waste heat coming from
the waste converter exhaust of the waste-to-energy system could be captured and used to produce
space heating.

3.4. Enhanced RTC Construction

The existing standard RTCs are constructed with materials (canvas) that suffer from poor thermal
performance leading to higher heating and cooling energy consumptions to maintain the thermal
comfort of deployed soldiers. Consequently, the low thermal resistance of the existing shelter systems
requires the design of bigger HVAC systems. Standard tents are constructed of such materials mainly
due to their lightweight and waterproofing abilities, allowing for their easier transportation, installation,
and long service life. However, recent developments in innovative materials made it possible to
provide such properties combined with improved thermal performance to achieve higher energy
savings [23,24]. Notably, 13 mm aerogel-enhanced blankets were proposed to be integrated into
the existing construction to make significantly improved RSI-values of 0.625 m2 K/W compared to
0.175 m2 K/W as demonstrated in Table 2 earlier [23]. Such blankets have an extremely low thermal
conductivity of 0.015 W/m. K, while having low toxicity, low density of 200 kg/m3 , excellent fire
rating, and high recyclability. Figure 12 shows a recently patented aerogel blanket obtained at Ryerson
University using an ambient pressure drying (APD) process.
Energy simulations were conducted to assess the energy performance of the camp integrating
SHES and high-performance tents incorporating the aerogel blanket produced into the interior of the
existing canvas. Table 9 reports the results for different climate zones. The results show that enhancing
the thermal resistance of the RTCs has significant impacts on increasing the camp energy efficiency for
all climate zones. When compared to Scenario 6 results (SHES), it becomes clear that aerogel-enhanced
blankets have their highest energy reduction impacts in extreme climates as Churchill, while still
offering significant reductions in the other climate zones.
Energies 2020, 13, 2279 20 of 22

Figure 12. New aerogel-enhanced blanket obtained by the authors and used to enhance the tent
material fabric providing higher thermal resistance.

Table 9. Energy consumption and CO2 annual emissions results for different scenarios (SHES and
aerogel blanket are used) of a 150-person RTC operating in different climates.

Annual CO2
Climates Consumption Reduction Compared to the Baseline
Emissions, kg/Year
48% reduction in net energy consumption
Brandon, MB 85% reduction in space heating energy consumption 477,291 (−48%)
81% reduction in DHW energy consumption
47% reduction in net energy consumption
Vancouver, BC 90% reduction in space heating energy consumption 486,372 (−47%)
66% reduction in DHW energy consumption
31% reduction in net energy consumption
Kanoya, Japan 89% reduction in space heating energy consumption 570,357 (−31%)
83% reduction in DHW energy consumption
57% reduction in net energy consumption
Churchill, MB 84% reduction in space heating energy consumption 446,767 (−57%)
66% reduction in DHW energy consumption
29% reduction in net energy consumption
Changi,
26% reduction in space cooling energy consumption 664,548 (−29%)
Singapore
98% reduction in DHW energy consumption

4. Conclusions
This paper has described a new solution for a military army camp. The new approach shows
significant improvements over the existing solutions thanks to the combination of microgrid with
energy storage systems, renewable resources, and waste heat recovery technologies to reduce the fuel
supply to RTCs significantly. In particular:

• A properly sized SHW system can supply a significant fraction of a base camp water heating
requirements using solar energy;
• Modeling indicates that a combination of smart microgrid and renewable energy sources can
reduce base camp energy demand and fuel use significantly, in addition to a significant carbon
emission reduction. Considered individually, the technology with the lowest energy consumptions
(up to 16% reduction) is the microgrid connected waster heat recovery system (scenario 4);
Energies 2020, 13, 2279 21 of 22

• Smart microgrids with energy storage systems supply power with improved voltage and frequency
stability increased grid reliability and longer life of end use equipment;
• The EMS, equipped with real-time monitoring and control of base parameters, enables central
and informed decision making. Configurable automatic load distribution provides the potential
for reducing camp energy consumption for normal operations and unplanned events;
• The simulation results indicated that up to 37% of fuel savings and up to 37% annual CO2 emissions
savings over current base camp configurations are achieved when all the SHES technologies are
implemented in a temperate climate;
• Fuel and CO2 reductions from 21% up to 39% are also achievable for extremely hot and frigid
climates when the solar collectors’ tilts are optimized.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, U.B. and E.T.; methodology U.B., E.T., and K.K.; software, K.K.; data
curation, U.B. and E.T.; writing—review and editing, U.B.; and supervision, U.B. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The authors would like to thank the financial support provided by the Government of Canada through
the Pop-up City project. They would like to gratefully thank ISSNAF (Italian Scientists and Scholars in North
America Foundation) and Italian National Order of Engineers for funding a scholarship for allowing the second
author to dedicate time to this project.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Cioccolanti, L.; Fonti, A.; Comodi, G. Dynamic Modeling of Thermal and Electrical Microgrid of Multi-
Apartment in Different European Locations. In Proceedings of the 17th International Stirling Engine
Conference and Exhibition, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 24–26 August 2016.
2. Razmjoo, A.; Shirmohammadi, R.; Davarpanah, A.; Pourfayaz, F.; Aslani, A. Stand-alone hybrid energy
systems for remote area power generation. Energy Rep. 2019, 5, 231–241. [CrossRef]
3. Ismail, M.; Moghavvemi, M.; Mahlia, T.M.I. Techno-economic analysis of an optimized photovoltaic and
diesel generator hybrid power system for remote houses in a tropical climate. Energy Convers. Manag. 2013,
69, 163–173. [CrossRef]
4. Ghasemi, A.; Asrari, A.; Zarif, M.; Abdelwahed, S. Techno-economic analysis of stand-alone hybrid
photovoltaic–diesel–battery systems for rural electrification in eastern part of Iran—A step toward sustainable
rural development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 28, 456–462. [CrossRef]
5. Puglia, G.; Moroni, M.; Fagnani, R.; Comodi, G. A Design Approach of Off-grid Hybrid Electric Microgrids
in Isolated Villages: A Case Study in Uganda. Energy Procedia 2017, 105, 3089–3094. [CrossRef]
6. Daud, A.-K.; Ismail, M.S. Design of isolated hybrid systems minimizing costs and pollutant emissions. Renew.
Energy 2012, 44, 215–224. [CrossRef]
7. Zhai, H.; Dai, Y.; Wu, J.; Wang, R. Energy and exergy analyses on a novel hybrid solar heating, cooling and
power generation system for remote areas. Appl. Energy 2009, 86, 1395–1404. [CrossRef]
8. Higier, A.; Arbide, A.; Awaad, A.; Eiroa, J.; Miller, J.; Munroe, N.; Ravinet, A.; Redding, B. Design,
development and deployment of a hybrid renewable energy powered mobile medical clinic with automated
modular control system. Renew. Energy 2013, 50, 847–857. [CrossRef]
9. Kashem, S.B.A.; De Souza, S.; Iqbal, A.; Ahmed, J. Microgrid in military applications. In Proceedings of
the 2018 IEEE 12th International Conference on Compatibility, Power Electronics and Power Engineering
(CPE-POWERENG 2018), Doha, Qatar, 10–12 April 2018; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
(IEEE): New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 1–5. [CrossRef]
10. Van Broekhoven, S.B.; Judson, N.; Nguyen, S.V.; Ross, W.D. Microgrid Study: Energy Security for DoD
Installations. Lincoln Lab. 2012.
11. Skowronska-Kurec, A.G.; Eick, S.T.; Kallio, E.T. Demonstration of Microgrid technology at a military
installation. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, San Diego, CA,
USA, 22–26 July 2012; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE): New York, NY, USA, 2012;
pp. 1–2. [CrossRef]
Energies 2020, 13, 2279 22 of 22

12. Nerini, F.F.; Valentini, F.; Modi, A.; Upadhyay, G.; Abeysekera, M.; Salehin, S.; Appleyard, E. The Energy and
Water Emergency Module; A containerized solution for meeting the energy and water needs in protracted
displacement situations. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 93, 205–214. [CrossRef]
13. Hirsch, A.; Parag, Y.; Guerrero, J.M. Microgrids: A review of technologies, key drivers, and outstanding
issues. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 90, 402–411. [CrossRef]
14. Khmais, A.; Nasir, M.; Mohamed, A.; Shareef, H. Design and Simulation of Small Scale Microgrid Testbed.
In Proceedings of the 2011 Third International Conference on Computational Intelligence, Modelling &
Simulation, Langkawi, Malaysia, 20–22 September 2011; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
(IEEE): New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 288–292. [CrossRef]
15. Van Broekhoven, S.; Judson, N.; Galvin, J.; Marqusee, J. Leading the Charge: Microgrids for Domestic
Military Installations. IEEE Power Energy Mag. 2013, 11, 40–45. [CrossRef]
16. Julian, A.L.; Oriti, G.; Ji, C.; Zanchetta, P. Power Quality Improvement in a Single-Phase Energy Management
System Operating in Islanding Mode. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress
and Exposition (ECCE), Portland, OR, USA, 23–27 September 2018; Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE): New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 208–214. [CrossRef]
17. Anglani, N.; Oriti, G.; Colombini, M. Optimized Energy Management System to Reduce Fuel Consumption
in Remote Military Microgrids. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2017, 53, 5777–5785. [CrossRef]
18. Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Technology Transition Final Report: Smart Power Infrastructure
Demonstration for Energy Reliability and Security (SPIDERS); U.S. Department of Defense: Arlington, VA, USA,
2015.
19. Salvalai, G.; Imperadori, M.; Scaccabarozzi, D.; Pusceddu, C. Thermal performance measurement and
application of a multilayer insulator for emergency architecture. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2015, 82, 110–119.
[CrossRef]
20. Ghanmi, A. Energy management in military operational camps: A cost-benefit analysis. In Proceedings
of the 2014 5th International Renewable Energy Congress (IREC), Hammamet, Tunisia, 25–27 March 2014;
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE): New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
21. Software, HOMER Pro Version 3.13. 2020. Available online: https://www.homerenergy.com/products/pro/
version-history.html (accessed on 1 May 2020).
22. ISO 6346:1995 Freight Containers - Coding, Identification and Marking; International Organization for
Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1995.
23. Berardi, U.; Zaidi, M. Characterization of commercial aerogel-enhanced blankets obtained with supercritical
drying and of a new ambient pressure drying blanket. Energy Build. 2019, 198, 542–552. [CrossRef]
24. Zhang, L.; Menga, X.; Liu, F.; Xu, L.; Long, E. Effect of retro-reflective materials on temperature environment
in tents. Case Stud. Thermal Eng. 2017, 9, 122–127. [CrossRef]

© 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).