Abstract
The optimal energy management in energy hubs has recently attracted a great deal of attention around the world. The energy hub consists of several inputs (energy resources) and outputs (energy consumptions) and also some energy conversion/storage devices. The energy hub can be a home, large consumer, power plant, etc. The objective is to minimize the energy procurement costs (fuel/electricity/environmental aspects) subject to a set of technical constraints. One of the popular options to be served as the input resource is renewable energy like wind or solar power. Using the renewable energy has various benefits such as low marginal costs and zero environmental pollution. On the other hand, the uncertainties associated with them make the operation of the energy hub a difficult and risky task. Besides, there are other resources of uncertainties such as the hourly electricity prices and demand values. Hence, it is important to determine an economic schedule for energy hubs, with an acceptable level of energy procurement risk. Thus, in this chapter a comprehensive multiobjective model is proposed to minimize both the energy procurement cost and risk level in energy hub. For controlling the pernicious effects of the uncertainties, conditional value at risk (CVaR) is used as risk management tool. The proposed model is formulated as a mixed integer nonlinear programming (MINLP) problem and solved using GAMS. Simulation results on an illustrative test system are carried out to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed method.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Krause T, Andersson G, Frohlich K, Vaccaro A (2011) Multiple-energy carriers: modeling of production, delivery, and consumption. Proc IEEE 99(1):15–27
Koeppel G, Andersson G (2009) Reliability modeling of multi-carrier energy systems. Energy 34(3):235–244
del Real AJ, Arce A, Bordons C (2009) Optimization strategy for element sizing in hybrid power systems. J Power Sources 193(1):315–321
Kienzle F, Ahcin P, Andersson G (2011) Valuing investments in multi-energy conversion, storage, and demand-side management systems under uncertainty. IEEE Trans Sustain Energy 2(2):194–202
Kienzle F, Andersson G (2010) Location-dependent valuation of energy hubs with storage in multi-carrier energy systems. In: IEEE 7th International Conference on the European Energy Market (EEM). pp 1–6
Fabrizio E, Corrado V, Filippi M (2010) A model to design and optimize multi-energy systems in buildings at the design concept stage. Renew Energy 35(3):644–655
Arnold M, Andersson G (2011) Model predictive control of energy storage including uncertain forecasts. In: Power Systems Computation Conference (PSCC). Stockholm, Sweden
Almassalkhi M, Hiskens I (2011) Optimization framework for the analysis of large-scale networks of energy hubs. In: Power Systems Computation Conference (PSCC). Stockholm, Sweden
Krause T, Kienzle F, Art S, Andersson G (2010) Maximizing exergy efficiency in multi-carrier energy systems. In: IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting. pp 1–8
Morales J, Conejo A, Perez-Ruiz J (2010) Short-term trading for a wind power producer. IEEE Trans Power Syst 25(1):554–564
Catalao JP, Pousinho HM, Mendes VM (2012) Optimal offering strategies for wind power producers considering uncertainty and risk. IEEE Syst J 6(2):270–277
Rabiee A, Soroudi A (2013) Stochastic multiperiod OPF model of power systems with HVDC-connected intermittent wind power generation. IEEE Trans Power Delivery 99:1–1 (Early access)
Soroudi A, Ehsan M (2011) A possibilistic-probabilistic tool for evaluating the impact of stochastic renewable and controllable power generation on energy losses in distribution networks–a case study. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15(1):794–800
Wang Y, Xia Q, Kang C (2011) Unit commitment with volatile node injections by using interval optimization. IEEE Trans Power Syst 26(3):1705–1713
Wu L, Shahidehpour M, Li Z (2012) Comparison of scenario-based and interval optimization approaches to stochastic SCUC. IEEE Trans Power Syst 27(2):913–921
Koonce A, Apostolakis G, Cook B (2008) Bulk power risk analysis: ranking infrastructure elements according to their risk significance. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 30(3):169–183
Soroudi A, Amraee T (2013) Decision making under uncertainty in energy systems: state of the art. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 28:376–384
Soroudi A (2012) Possibilistic-scenario model for DG impact assessment on distribution networks in an uncertain environment. IEEE Trans Power Syst 27(3):1283–1293
Soroudi A, Afrasiab M (2012) Binary PSO-based dynamic multi-objective model for distributed generation planning under uncertainty. IET Renew Power Gener 6(2):67–78
Soroudi A, Caire R, Hadjsaid N, Ehsan M (2011) Probabilistic dynamic multi-objective model for renewable and non-renewable distributed generation planning. IET Gener Transm Distrib 5(11):1173–1182
Soroudi A, Aien M, Ehsan M (2012) A probabilistic modelling of photo voltaic modules and wind power generation impact on distribution networks. IEEE Syst J 6(2):254–259
Mohammadi-Ivatloo B, Zareipour H, Amjady N, Ehsan M (2013) Application of information-gap decision theory to risk-constrained self-scheduling of GenCos. IEEE Trans Power Syst 28(2):1093–1102
Soroudi A, Ehsan M (2012) IGDT based robust decision making tool for DNOs in load procurement under severe uncertainty. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 4(2):886–895
Soroudi A (2013) Smart self-scheduling of GenCos with thermal and energy storage units under price uncertainty. Int Trans Electr Energy Syst 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etep.1780
Conejo AJ, Carrion M, Morales JM (2010) Decision making under uncertainty in electricity markets. Springer, New York
Albrecht P (1993) Shortfall returns and shortfall risk. Institut für Versicherungswissenschaft
Whitmore GA, Findlay MC (1978) Stochastic dominance: an approach to decision-making under risk. Lexington Books, Lexington
Linsmeier TJ, Pearson ND (2000) Value at risk. Financ Anal J 56:47–67
Rockafellar RT, Uryasev S (2000) Optimization of conditional value-at-risk. J Risk 2:21–42
Agarwal V, Naik NY (2004) Risks and portfolio decisions involving hedge funds. Rev Financ Stud 17(1):63–98
Mohammadi-Ivatloo B, Zareipour H, Ehsan M, Amjady N (2011) Economic impact of price forecasting inaccuracies on self-scheduling of generation companies. Electr Power Syst Res 81(2):617–624
Mohammadi-Ivatloo B, Rabiee A, Soroudi A (2013) Nonconvex dynamic economic power dispatch problems solution using hybrid immune genetic algorithm. IEEE Syst J 7(4):777–785
Ding Y, Wang P, Goel L, Loh PC, Wu Q (2011) Long-term reserve expansion of power systems with high wind power penetration using universal generating function methods. IEEE Trans Power Syst 26(2):766–774
Atwa Y, El-Saadany E (2011) Probabilistic approach for optimal allocation of wind-based distributed generation in distribution systems. IET Renew Power Gener 5(1):79–88
Patel MR (2005) Wind and solar power systems: design, analysis, and operation. CRC, Boca Raton
Stiebler M (2008) Wind energy systems for electric power generation. Springer, Heidelberg
Windpro http://www.enercon.de/p/downloads/ENProduktuebersicht0710.pdf. Accessed Feb 2013
Brooke AMA, Kendrick D, Roman R (1998) GAMS: a user’s guide. GAMS development corporation. Washington
Mohammadi-ivatloo B, Rabiee A, Soroudi A, Ehsan M (2012) Imperialist competitive algorithm for solving non-convex dynamic economic power dispatch. Energy 44(1):228–240
Pineda S, Conejo A (2010) Scenario reduction for risk-averse electricity trading. IET Gener Transm Distrib 4(6):694–705
Soroudi A, Ehsan M, Caire R, Hadjsaid N (2011) Hybrid immune-genetic algorithm method for benefit maximisation of distribution network operators and distributed generation owners in a deregulated environment. IET Gener Transm Distrib 5(9):961–972
Rabiee A, Soroudi A (2013) Optimal multi-area generation schedule considering renewable resources mix: a real-time approach. IET Gener Transm Distrib 7(9):1011–1026
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix-I
1.1 Scenario Reduction Technique
Suppose that the original set of the scenarios is denoted by \( \varOmega_{J} \) and we want to reduce the number of scenarios to \( N_{{\varOmega_{S} }} \). Hence, scenario reduction proposes a method for selection of a set, i.e., \( \varOmega_{S} \), with the cardinality of \( N_{{\varOmega_{S} }} \), from \( \varOmega_{J} \). The number of the reduced scenarios should be selected in a way that the computation burden reduced while not drastically reducing the accuracy [25]. The scenario reduction technique used in this chapter can be carried out using the following steps [40]: [step. 1]
-
1.
Construct the matrix containing the distance between each pair of scenarios \( c(w,w^{\prime}) \)
-
2.
Select the fist scenario \( w_{1} \) as follows:
$$ w_{1} = { \arg }\left\{ {\mathop {min}\limits_{{w^{\prime} \in \varOmega_{J} }} \sum\limits_{{w \in \varOmega_{J} }} {\pi_{w} c(w,w^{\prime})} } \right\} $$$$ \varOmega_{S} = \left\{ {w_{1} } \right\},\varOmega_{J} = \varOmega_{J} - \varOmega_{S} $$ -
3.
Select the next scenario to be added to \( \varOmega_{S} \) as follows:
$$ w_{n} = \arg \left\{ {\mathop {\hbox{min} }\limits_{{w^{\prime} \in \varOmega_{J} }} \sum\limits_{{w \in \varOmega_{J} - \left\{ {w^{\prime}} \right\}}} \pi_{w} \mathop {\hbox{min} }\limits_{{w^{\prime\prime} \in \varOmega_{S} \cup \left\{ w \right\}}} c\left( {w,w^{\prime\prime}} \right)} \right\} $$$$ \varOmega_{S} = \varOmega_{S} \cup \left\{ {w_{n} } \right\},\varOmega_{J} = \varOmega_{J} - \varOmega_{S} $$ -
4.
If the number of selected set is sufficient then end and go to step 2; else continue.
-
5.
The probabilities of each nonselected scenario will be added to its closest scenario in the selected set.
-
6.
End.
Appendix-II
2.1 Pareto Optimality
Assume \( F(X) \) is the vector of objective functions, and \( H(X) \) and \( G(X) \) represent equality and inequality constraints, respectively. A multiobjective minimization problem can be formulated as follows [41]:
\( X_{1} \) dominates \( X_{2} \) if:
Any solution which is not dominated by any other is called to belong to a Pareto optimal front which is referred to as the first Pareto front or optimal front or nondominated front.
Appendix-III
3.1 Fuzzy Satisfying Method
Fuzzy satisfying (or max(min)) method is a popular technique for selection of the best solution among the obtained \( N_{p} \) Pareto optimal solutions [20]. Suppose we have a problem with \( N \) objectives to be minimized. The linear membership function for the \( n \)th solution of the \( k \)th objective function is defined as [42]:
where \( f_{k}^{ \hbox{max} } \) and \( f_{k}^{ \hbox{min} } \) are maximum and minimum values of the objective function \( k \) in solutions of Pareto optimal set. \( \mu_{k}^{n} \) represents the optimality degree of the \( n \)th solution of the \( k \)th objective function. The membership function of \( n \)th solution can be calculated using the following equation:
The solution with the maximum weakest membership function is the best solution. The corresponding membership function of this solution (\( \mu^{ \hbox{max} } \)), is calculated as follows:
.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Soroudi, A., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., Rabiee, A. (2014). Energy Hub Management with Intermittent Wind Power. In: Hossain, J., Mahmud, A. (eds) Large Scale Renewable Power Generation. Green Energy and Technology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4585-30-9_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4585-30-9_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-4585-29-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-4585-30-9
eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)