4.7 Article

An optimal allocation and sizing strategy of distributed energy storage systems to improve performance of distribution networks

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENERGY STORAGE
卷 26, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.est.2019.100847

关键词

Energy storage system; Voltage profile; Optimal sizing; Power loss; Line loading; Optimal placement; DER; Asset management; Network planning; Artificial bee colony; DIgSILENT PowerFactory

资金

  1. Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) scholarship - Australia
  2. Edith Cowan University (ECU) - Australia
  3. DIgSILENT GmbH, Gomaringen, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The allocation of grid-scale energy storage systems (ESSs) can play a significant role in solving distribution network issues and improving overall network performance. This paper presents a strategy for optimal allocation and sizing of distributed ESSs through P and Q injection by the ESSs to a distribution network. The investigation is carried out in a renewable-penetrated (wind and solar) medium voltage IEEE-33 bus distribution network for two different scenarios: (1) using a uniform ESS size and (2) using non-uniform ESS sizes. DIgSILENT PowerFactory is used for system modeling and testing, and simulation events are automated using Python scripting. A hybrid meta-heuristic optimization algorithm such as the fitness-scaled chaotic artificial bee colony algorithm is applied to optimize parameters of the objective function. The artificial bee colony algorithm is also applied to justify the results attained from the fitness-scaled chaotic artificial bee colony algorithm. A performance comparison, in relation to proposed PQ injection approach with previously applied P injection technique, is presented. The obtained results suggest that the proposed PQ injection-based ESS placement strategy performs better than the P injection-based approach, which can significantly improve distribution network performance by minimizing voltage deviation, power losses, and line loading.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据