Advertisement

Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 274, Issue 1–2, pp 241–265 | Cite as

Fix-and-optimize procedures for solving the long-term unit commitment problem with pumped storages

  • Alexander FranzEmail author
  • Julia Rieck
  • Jürgen Zimmermann
Original Research
First Online:
  • 117 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, we consider a long-term unit commitment problem with thermal and renewable energy sources, where system operating costs have to be minimized. The problem is enhanced by adding pumped storages, where water is stored in reservoirs, being turbinated or pumped up if it is beneficial in terms of reducing the operating costs. We present a tight mixed-integer linear programming model with a redefinition of decision variables and a reformulation of constraints, e.g., for the spinning reserve. The model serves as a basis for a new decomposition method, where fix-and-optimize schemes are used. In particular, a time-oriented, a unit-oriented, and a generic fix-and-optimize procedure are presented. A computational performance analysis shows that the mixed-integer linear model is efficient in supporting the solution process for small- and medium-scale instances. Furthermore, the fix-and-optimize procedures are able to tackle even large-scale instances. Particularly, problem instances with real-world energy demands, power plant-specific characteristics, and a one-year planning horizon with hourly time steps are solved to near-optimality in reasonable time.

Keywords

Unit commitment problem Pumped storages Hydrothermal coordination Volatile residual demand patterns Mixed-integer linear programming model Fix-and-optimize procedure 

JEL Classification

C61 Q41 Q42 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 50 Hertz Transmission (2015). Renewable feed-in of market operator 50 Hertz Transmission GmbH in Germany, available at http://www.50hertz.com.
  2. Afkousi-Paqaleh, M., Rashidinejad, M., & Pourakbari-Kasmaei, M. (2010). An implementation of harmony search algorithm to unit commitment problem. Electrical Engineering, 92, 215–225.Google Scholar
  3. Álvarez López, J., Ceciliano-Meza, J. L., & Guillén Moya, I. (2015). The challenges of the unit commitment problem for real-life small-scale power systems. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 71, 112–122.Google Scholar
  4. Álvarez López, J., Ceciliano-Meza, J. L., Guillén Moya, I., & Nieva Gómez, R. (2012). A MIQCP formulation to solve the unit commitment problem for large-scale power systems. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 36(1), 68–75.Google Scholar
  5. Amprion (2015). Renewable feed-in of market operator Amprion GmbH in Germany, available at http://www.amprion.net.
  6. Bai, Y., Zhong, H., Xia, Q., Xin, Y., & Kang, C. (2014). Inducing-objective-function-based method for long-term SCUC with energy constraints. Electrical Power and Energy Systems, 63, 971–978.Google Scholar
  7. Barnett, D., & Bjoronsgaard, K. (2000). Electric power generation: A nontechnical guide. Oklahoma, Penn-Well: Tulsa.Google Scholar
  8. Bendotti, P., Fouilhoux, P., & Rottner, C. (2017). On the complexity of the unit commitment problem. Optimization online, http://www.optimization-online.org/DB_HTML/2017/06/6061.html (pp. 1–9).
  9. Borghetti, A., Frangioni, A., Lacalandra, F., & Nucci, C. (2003). Lagrangian heuristics based on disaggregated bundle methods for hydrothermal unit commitment. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 18(1), 313–323.Google Scholar
  10. Cardozo, C., Capely, L., & Dessante, P. (2017). Frequency constrained unit commitment. Energy Systems, 8(1), 31–56.Google Scholar
  11. Cardozo Arteaga, C. (2016). Optimisation of power system security with high share of variable renewables: Consideration of the primary reserve deployment dynamics on a Frequency Constrained Unit Commitment model. Theses: Université Paris-Saclay.Google Scholar
  12. Carrión, M., & Arroyo, J. M. (2006). A computationally efficient mixed-integer linear formulation for the thermal unit commitment problem. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 21, 1371–1378.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, A., & Sherkat, V. (1987). Optimization-based methods for operations scheduling. Proceedings of the IEEE, 75, 1574–1591.Google Scholar
  14. Dai, H., Zhang, N., & Su, W. (2015). A literature review of stochastic programming and unit commitment. Journal of Power and Energy Engineering, 3, 206–214.Google Scholar
  15. Delarue, E., Cattrysse, D., & D’Haeseleer, W. (2013). Enhanced priority list unit commitment method for power systems with a high share of renewables. Electric Power Systems Research, 105, 115–123.Google Scholar
  16. Dentcheva, D., Gollmer, R., Möller, A., Römisch, W., & Schultz, R. (1997). Solving the unit commitment problem in power generation by Primal and Dual methods (pp. 332–339). Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Dorneles, Á . P., De Araújo, O. C . B., & Buriol, L . S. (2014). A fix-and-optimize heuristic for the high school timetabling problem. Computers and Operations Research, 52(PART A), 29–38.Google Scholar
  18. Droste-Franke, B., Carrier, M., Kaiser, M., Schreurs, M., Weber, C., & Ziesemer, T. (2015). Improving energy decisions: Towards better scientific policy advice for a safe and secure future energy system. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. ENTSO-E (2015). ENTSO-E central information transparency platform, available at https://www.entsoe.eu.
  20. Farhat, I. A., & El-Hawary, M. E. (2009). Interior point methods application in optimum operational scheduling of electric power systems. IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, 11, 1020–1029.Google Scholar
  21. Frangioni, A., Gentile, C., & Lacalandra, F. (2008). Solving unit commitment problems with general ramp constraints. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems, 30(5), 316–326.Google Scholar
  22. Frangioni, A., Gentile, C., & Lacalandra, F. (2011). Sequential Lagrangian-MILP approaches for unit commitment problems. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems, 33(3), 585–593.Google Scholar
  23. Fu, Y., Shahidehpour, M., & Li, Z. (2005). Long-term security-constrained unit commitment: Hybrid dantzig-wolfe decomposition and subgradient approach. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 20, 2093–2106.Google Scholar
  24. Gollmer, R., Möller, A., Nowak, M. P., Römisch, W., & Schultz, R. (1999). Primal and dual methods for unit commitment in a hydro-thermal power system. In 13th power system computation conference (Trondheim 1999) (vol. 2, pp. 724–730).Google Scholar
  25. Gollmer, R., Nowak, M. P., Römisch, W., & Schultz, R. (2000). Unit commitment in power generation—a basic model and some extensions. Annals of Operations Research, 96, 167–189.Google Scholar
  26. Hashimoto, H., Hirano, H., Hirose, K., Isaji, K., & Takahashi, J. (2014). Long-term generation scheduling method with constrained numbers of unit commitment and fuel constraints on thermal units. Electrical Engineering in Japan, 187, 18–28.Google Scholar
  27. Helber, S., & Sahling, F. (2010). A fix-and-optimize approach for the multi-level capacitated lot sizing problem. International Journal of Production Economics, 123, 247–256.Google Scholar
  28. IBM (2015). Continuous CPLEX MIP optimizer performance improvement since 2000, available at http://ibm.com/software/commerce/optimization/cplex-performance.
  29. Jebaraja, S., & Iniyan, S. (2006). A review of energy models. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 10, 281–311.Google Scholar
  30. Kallrath, J., Pardalos, P. M., Rebennack, S., & Scheidt, M. (2005). Optimization in the energy industry. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Kazarlis, S., Bakirtzis, J. M., & Petridis, V. (1996). A genetic algorithm solution to the unit commitment problem. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 11, 83–92.Google Scholar
  32. Kjeldsen, N. H., & Chiarandini, M. (2012). Heuristic solutions to the long-term unit commitment problem with cogeneration plants. Computers and Operations Research, 39, 269–282.Google Scholar
  33. Lemaréchal, C., Sagastizábal, C., Pellegrino, F., & Renaud, A. (1996). Bundle methods applied to the unit-commitment problem. Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Li, C., Svoboda, A. J., Tseng, C. L., Johnson, R. B., & Hsu, E. (1997). Hydro unit commitment in hydro-thermal optimization. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 12, 764–769.Google Scholar
  35. Li, X., Li, T., Wei, J., Wang, G., & Yeh, W. W.-G. (2014). Hydro unit commitment via mixed integer linear programming: A case study of the three gorges project, China. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 29, 1232–1241.Google Scholar
  36. Liao, G.-C. (2006). Application of an immune algorithm to the short-term unit commitment problem in power system operation. IEE Proceedings Generation, Transmission and Distribution, 153, 309–320.Google Scholar
  37. Luh, P. B., Zhang, D., & Tomastik, R. N. (1998). An algorithm for solving the dual problem of hydrothermal scheduling. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 13(2), 593–600.Google Scholar
  38. Martinéz, M. G. Diniz, A. L., & Sagastizábal, C. (2008). A comparative study of two forward dynamic programming techniques for solving local thermal unit commitment problems. In 16th PSCC conference, Glasgow, Scotland (pp. 1–8).Google Scholar
  39. Martinez Diaz, D. J. (2008). Production cost models with regard to liberalised electricity markets. Ph.D. thesis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  40. Maubach, K.-D. (1994). Mittelfristige Energieeinsatzoptimierung in Versorgungssystemen mit Kraft-Wärme-Kopplung. Ph.D. thesis, Bergische Universität-Gesamthochschule Wuppertal.Google Scholar
  41. Morales-España, G., Latorre, J. M., & Ramos, A. (2013). Tight and compact MILP formulation for the thermal unit commitment problem. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 28, 4897–4908.Google Scholar
  42. Möst, D., & Keles, D. (2010). A survey of stochastic modelling approaches for liberalised electricity markets. European Journal of Operational Research, 207, 543–556.Google Scholar
  43. Nicolosi, M. (2012). The economics of renewable electricity market integration. An empirical and model-based analysis of regulatory frameworks and their impacts on the power market. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cologne.Google Scholar
  44. Niknam, T., Khodaei, A., & Fallahi, F. (2009). A new decomposition approach for the thermal unit commitment problem. Applied Energy, 86(9), 1667–1674.Google Scholar
  45. Ongsakul, W., & Petcharaks, N. (2004). Unit commitment by enhanced adaptive lagrangian relaxation. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 19, 620–628.Google Scholar
  46. Ordoudis, C., Pinson, P., Zugno, M., & Morales, J. M. (2015). Stochastic unit commitment via progressive hedging—extensive analysis of solution methods. IEEE Eindhoven, PowerTech, 2015 (pp. 1–6).Google Scholar
  47. Ostrowski, J., Anjos, M. F., & Vannelli, A. (2012). Tight mixed integer linear programming formulations for the unit commitment problem. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 27, 39–46.Google Scholar
  48. Padhy, N. P. (2004). Unit commitment–a bibliographical survey. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 19, 1196–1205.Google Scholar
  49. Pang, C . K., Sheble, G . B., & Albuyeh, F. (1981). Evaluation of dynamic programming based methods and multiple area representation for thermal unit commitments. IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, PAS–100(3), 1212–1218.Google Scholar
  50. Raglend, I. J., & Padhy, N. P. (2006). Solutions to practical unit commitment problems with operational, power flow and environmental constraints. In IEEE power engineering society general meeting, Montreal, Canada (pp. 1–8).Google Scholar
  51. Rajan, D., & Takriti, S. (2005). Minimum up/down polytopes of the unit commitment problem with start-up costs. IBM Research Report, RC23628, 1–14.Google Scholar
  52. Redondo, N. J., & Conejo, A. J. (1999). Short-term hydro-thermal coordination by Lagrangian relaxation: Solution of the dual problem. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 14(1), 89–95.Google Scholar
  53. Rieck, J., Ehrenberg, C., & Zimmermann, J. (2014). Many-to-many location-routing with inter-hub transport and multi-commodity pickup-and-delivery. European Journal of Operational Research, 236, 863–878.Google Scholar
  54. Rockafellar, R. T., & Wets, R. J.-B. (1991). Scenarios and policy aggregation in optimization under uncertainty. Mathematics of Operations Research, 16, 119–147.Google Scholar
  55. Saravanan, B., Das, S., Sikri, S., & Kothari, D. P. (2013a). A solution to the unit commitment problem–a review. Frontiers in Energy, 7, 223–236.Google Scholar
  56. Saravanan, B., Mishra, S., & Nag, D. (2014). A solution to stochastic unit commitment problem for a wind-thermal system coordination. Frontiers in Energy, 8, 192–200.Google Scholar
  57. Saravanan, B., Sikri, S., Swarup, K. S., & Kothari, D. P. (2013b). Unit commitment using dynamic programming—an exhaustive working of both classical and stochastic approach. Frontiers in Energy, 7, 333–341.Google Scholar
  58. Saravanan, B. & Vasudevan, E. R. (2014). Emission constrained unit commitment problem solution using invasive weed optimization algorithm, International conference on advances in electrical engineering, Vellore, India (pp. 1–6).Google Scholar
  59. Senjyu, T., Miyagim, T., Saber, A. Y., Urasaki, N., & Funabashi, T. (2006). Emerging solution of large-scale unit commitment problem by stochastic priority list. Electric Power Systems Research, 76, 283–292.Google Scholar
  60. Senjyu, T., Shimabukuro, K., Uezato, K., & Funabashi, T. (2003). A fast technique for unit commitment problem by extended priority list. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 18, 882–888.Google Scholar
  61. Sheble, G. B., & Fahd, G. N. (1994). Unit commitment literature synopsis. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 9, 128–135.Google Scholar
  62. Sifuentes, W. S., & Vargas, A. (2007). Hydrothermal scheduling using benders decomposition: Accelerating techniques. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 22, 1351–1359.Google Scholar
  63. Sioshansi, R., O’Neill, R., & Oren, S. S. (2008). Economic consequences of alternative solution methods for centralized unit commitment in day-ahead electricity markets. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 23(2), 344–352.Google Scholar
  64. Soliman, S. A., & Mantawy, A. H. (2012). Modern optimization techniques with applications in electric power systems. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  65. Streiffert, D., Philbrick, R., & Ott, A. (2005). A mixed integer programming solution for market clearing and reliability analysis. In IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2005, 2724–2731.Google Scholar
  66. Sun, N., Ellersdorfer, I., & Swider, D. J. (2014). Model-based long-term electricity generation system planning under uncertainty. In International conference on electric utility deregulation and restructuring and power technologies, Nanjuing, China (pp. 1298–1304).Google Scholar
  67. Tahanan, M., van Ackooij, W., Frangioni, A., & Lacalandra, F. (2015). Large-scale unit commitment under uncertainty. 4OR, 13, 115–171.Google Scholar
  68. Taktak, R., & D’Ambrosio, C. (2017). An overview on mathematical programming approaches for the deterministic unit commitment problem in hydro valleys. Energy Systems, 8, 57–79.Google Scholar
  69. TenneT TSO (2015). Renewable feed-in of market operator TenneT TSO GmbH in Germany, available at http://www.tennettso.de.
  70. TransnetBW (2015). Renewable feed-in of market operator TransnetBW GmbH in Germany, available at http://transnetbw.de.
  71. Trivedi, A., Sharma, D., & Srinivasan, D. (2012). Multi-objectivization of short-term unit commitment under uncertainty using evolutionary algorithm. IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, Brisbane, Australia (pp. 271–278).Google Scholar
  72. Tseng, C.-L. (1996). On Power System Generation Unit Commitment Problems. Ph.D. thesis, University of California.Google Scholar
  73. van Ackooij, W., & Malick, J. (2016). Decomposition algorithm for large-scale two-stage unit-commitment. Annals of Operations Research, 238, 587–613.Google Scholar
  74. Viana, A., Pinho de Sousa, J., & Matos, M. A. (2008). Fast solutions for UC problems by a new metaheuristic approach. Electric Power Systems Research, 78, 1385–1395.Google Scholar
  75. Viana, A. M. (2004). Metaheuristics for the Unit Commitment Problem: The Constraint Oriented Neighbourhoods Search Strategy. Ph.D. thesis, University of Porto.Google Scholar
  76. Viana, A. M., & Pedroso, J. P. (2013). A new MILP-based approach for unit commitment in power production planning. Electrical Power and Energy Systems, 44, 997–1005.Google Scholar
  77. Weber, C. (2005). Uncertainty in the electric power industry: Methods and models for decision support. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  78. Wood, A . J., Wollenberg, B . F., & Sheble, G . B. (2013). Power generation, operation and control (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  79. Zhai, D., Snyder, W., Waight, J., Farah, J., Gonzalez, A., & Vallejo, P. (2001). Fuel constrained unit commitment with fuel mixing and allocation. In IEEE power engineering society international conference on power industry computer applications, Sydney, Australia (pp. 11–16).Google Scholar
  80. Zheng, H., Jian, J., Yang, L., & Quan, R. (2016). A deterministic method for the unit commitment problem in power systems. Computers and Operations Research, 66, 241–247.Google Scholar
  81. Zugno, M., Morales, J. M., & Madsen, H. (2014). Robust management of combined heat and power systems via linear decision rules. In IEEE international energy conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia (pp. 479–486).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Franz
    • 1
    Email author
  • Julia Rieck
    • 2
  • Jürgen Zimmermann
    • 1
  1. 1.Operations Research Group, Institute of Management and EconomicsClausthal University of TechnologyClausthal-ZellerfeldGermany
  2. 2.Operations Research Group, Institute of Economics and Computer ScienceUniversity of HildesheimHildesheimGermany

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options