Loading...
Community presentation
Create exactly 15 slides in English for a 15-minute university engineering presentation. TITLE Design and Economic Assessment of a Wind–Biomass–Battery System near Reykjavík AUT…
Create your own version
Use this visual direction as inspiration for a new Presenton deck.
Use this designCreator prompt
Create exactly 15 slides in English for a 15-minute university engineering presentation. TITLE Design and Economic Assessment of a Wind–Biomass–Battery System near Reykjavík AUTHORS Anas Rachdi and Karim El Boury Université Internationale de Rabat Course: Energy Processes and Vectors — Topic 7 PURPOSE Explain our HOMER Pro study clearly to an audience unfamiliar with hybrid energy systems. Compare two feasible configurations and explain why configuration A is preferred under the modeled assumptions. DESIGN - Editable PowerPoint, widescreen 16:9. - Professional engineering style: navy, white, orange for wind, green for biomass. - Large readable text, maximum 4 short bullets per slide. - Use editable charts, tables and system diagrams. - Add speaker notes for approximately 60 seconds per slide. - Use authentic supplied screenshots without modifying their numbers. - Use our landscape photograph only as regional context. - Do not invent numerical results, maps, equipment specifications or sources. - Follow the attached Word brief for detailed explanations and qualifications. - Do not turn the Word document’s instruction page into a slide. EXACT SLIDE STRUCTURE 1. TITLE Introduce the project, location and authors. Use the supplied landscape photograph if its location is confirmed. 2. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE Study a hypothetical autonomous electricity system for 20 households. Compare reliability, equipment sizes and lifetime costs. Exclude space heating. Clarify that Kjalarnes already has electricity distribution; this is an academic scenario. 3. WHY KJALARNES Rural setting near Reykjavík. Wind exposure and terrain effects. Strong gusts make turbine siting important. Local biomass supply remains unverified. Use a geographically accurate location map if available; mark only the approximate study area. 4. COMMUNITY ELECTRICITY DEMAND 20 hypothetical households. Annual demand: 90,009 kWh. Daily demand: 246.60 kWh. Average power: approximately 10.28 kW. Synthetic residential demand profile; actual household meter data unavailable. Do not invent an hourly demand curve. 5. WIND RESOURCE HOMER labels the dataset “NASA POWER (Hourly) – 2025.” Time step: 60 minutes. Wind resource reference height: 50 m. Generic turbine hub height: 20 m. Use the supplied Wind Resource screenshot. Explain that this is modeled weather data, not on-site measurements. The original downloaded wind file was not independently audited. 6. SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE Create a clear editable electrical diagram: Wind turbines, biomass generator and household load connected to an AC bus. Battery connected to a DC bus. Bidirectional converter between AC and DC. Explain each component’s role. The battery stores energy; it does not generate primary energy. 7. HOMER MODELING AND SELECTION Inputs → candidate component sizes → hourly simulation → reliability screening → NPC comparison. Select alternatives with zero capacity shortage and negligible numerical unmet load. State that the ranking applies to the tested exported alternatives. Both selected designs use Cycle Charging. Explain Cycle Charging simply: generator operation may also charge the battery when economical. 8. ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS Project lifetime: 20 years. Nominal discount rate: 6%. Inflation: 2%. Real discount rate: approximately 3.92%. Baseline biomass price: $150/tonne. Define NPC, LCOE and LCOS in plain language. Equipment costs are provisional assumptions. 9. TWO FEASIBLE CONFIGURATIONS Use an editable comparison table: A B Wind capacity 40 kW 30 kW Biomass generator 30 kW 40 kW Battery nominal 150 kWh 75 kWh Battery usable 120 kWh 60 kWh Converter 20 kW 20 kW Dispatch Cycle Charging for both Wind turbines are generic 10 kW units. 10. ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION AND RELIABILITY Create an editable stacked generation chart: Configuration A: Wind: 86,660 kWh/year — 64.0% of generation. Biomass: 48,778 kWh/year — 36.0%. Biomass consumption: 51.36 tonnes/year. Excess electricity: 39,537 kWh/year — 29.2%. Configuration B: Wind: 64,995 kWh/year — 53.6%. Biomass: 56,226 kWh/year — 46.4%. Biomass consumption: 59.78 tonnes/year. Excess electricity: 24,696 kWh/year — 20.4%. Both supply 90,009 kWh/year, with zero displayed unmet load and capacity shortage. Do not add battery discharge to primary generation. Use the supplied Electrical screenshots as evidence. Renewable fraction includes biomass and does not imply zero lifecycle emissions. 11. BATTERY PERFORMANCE Compare: A: 150 kWh nominal, 120 kWh usable, expected life 15 years. B: 75 kWh nominal, 60 kWh usable, expected life 7.14 years. Autonomy at average demand: A 11.7 hours; B 5.84 hours. Annual AC energy delivered from storage: A 25,646 kWh; B approximately 28,397 kWh. Explain that B’s smaller battery cycles more intensively. Autonomy is not a guaranteed outage duration. Use the supplied battery screenshots. 12. ECONOMIC COMPARISON AND WHY A Use an editable table and separate investment and NPC charts: A B Initial investment $307,500 $266,250 NPC $547,148.50 $560,593.00 LCOE $0.4442/kWh $0.4551/kWh Annualized operating cost $17,511.50 $21,508.12 A requires $41,250 more initially. A has approximately $3,997/year lower annualized operating cost. A has $13,444.50 lower lifetime NPC. B is attractive when initial budget is the main constraint. Explain the difference between upfront investment and lifetime cost. 13. ESTIMATED LCOS LCOS = discounted storage lifecycle costs / discounted AC energy delivered from storage. A B Excluding charging $0.406/kWh $0.313/kWh Including charging proxy $0.526/kWh $0.426/kWh Include battery, converter, replacements, maintenance and residual value. Clearly label LCOS as estimated. Charging costs use an approximate allocation, not a full generation lifecycle cost allocation. B has lower storage LCOS, while A has lower whole-system NPC and LCOE. Do not add LCOS and LCOE. 14. BIOMASS PRICE SENSITIVITY Create an editable line chart of biomass price versus LCOE: Price Lowest screened NPC LCOE $100/tonne $512,002.30 $0.4156567/kWh $150/tonne $547,148.50 $0.4441893/kWh $200/tonne $582,294.60 $0.4727218/kWh Configuration A remains preferred at all three tested prices. Higher biomass price increases electricity cost. Use only the final hourly-wind results, not earlier synthetic-wind results. 15. RECOMMENDATION AND LIMITATIONS Recommend A under the current assumptions: 40 kW wind + 30 kW biomass + 150 kWh battery + 20 kW converter. Reasons: Lower lifetime system cost. Lower biomass consumption. Longer expected battery life. Limitations: Estimated demand, provisional equipment costs and unverified local biomass supply. Regional wind data and one modeled year require further validation. Hourly adequacy does not demonstrate dynamic stability or redundancy. Future work: Investigate flexible loads to use surplus electricity. Assess biomass heat recovery with verified useful heat demand. Compare with existing grid supply. Close with: “Configuration A provides the lower lifetime cost among the screened alternatives under our assumptions. Local validation is required before implementation.” FINAL CHECK Exactly 15 slides. Keep units and configuration names consistent. Use sources from the attached brief as small footnotes. Do not claim that this is an existing installation or a construction-ready design. Keep detailed explanations in speaker notes.
Presentation overview
This community presentation was shared by Anas Richman as a complete 15-slide example. Create exactly 15 slides in English for a 15-minute university engineering presentation. TITLE Design and Economic Assessment of a Wind–Biomass–Battery System near Reykjavík AUT… The preview lets you review the full sequence in order, rather than judging the design from a single cover image.
Use it as a reference for planning your own deck: notice how the amount of information changes from slide to slide, where visual emphasis appears, and how repeated design choices help the presentation feel connected. Community examples are inspiration, not locked templates, so you can keep the ideas that fit your audience and replace anything that does not.
Learn from the example
Look at the job each slide performs. Identify where the deck introduces its subject, develops the main points, adds evidence or examples, and moves toward a conclusion.
Notice which element attracts attention first and how headings, supporting text, images, and data are separated. Strong hierarchy makes the intended reading order obvious.
Compare spacing, typography, color, and repeated components across the slides. Consistent rules help varied content feel like one presentation instead of unrelated screens.
Make it your own
Begin with your audience and the decision, lesson, or action the presentation should support. Replace the topic, examples, evidence, and visuals with material you can verify, then edit every slide for one clear takeaway. You can borrow the visual direction without copying the creator's wording or message. Presenton will use this community deck as a design reference while you develop content for your own purpose.
