4.7 Article

Cost-based siting and sizing of energy stations and pipeline networks in integrated energy system

期刊

ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT
卷 235, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2021.113958

关键词

Regional integrated energy system (RIES); Energy station (ES); Pipeline network (PN); Siting and sizing; Algorithms; Lowest annual cost (LAC)

资金

  1. Project of Beijing Social Science Fund [18GL042]
  2. State Grid Corporation Science and Technology Project [SGHEJY00JJJS1900017]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a synergy planning method for siting and sizing energy stations and pipeline networks, and verifies the effectiveness of the method in an experiment in a hypothetical region. The results show that synergy planning can save costs and reduce load peak-valley difference rate.
Siting and sizing of energy stations (ESs) and pipeline networks (PNs) significantly influence views on the economy of regional integrated energy system (RIES). In this paper, we present a synergy planning method for siting and sizing ESs and PNs. This study describes the basic structure of ESs and PNs in RIES, clearly points out influencing factors that should be considered in the planning model. Then, with flow velocity, pipe diameter, equipment capacity, and the location of ESs and PNs as variables, the cost-based function model is built based on many constraints. The Genetic Algorithm (GA) based heuristic algorithm and the PNs planning algorithm based on ?Dijkstra Algorithm (DA) + Simulated Annealing (SA)? are used to solve the problem proposed in this paper. In the results and discussion, the proposed model and method are verified by a hypothetical region from OpenStreetMap. The economic changes are studied in a basic scenario and three comparison scenarios. The results show that synergy planning can save 293,320 $ and reduce the load peak-valley difference rate by 3.24%. Moreover, optimizing the flow velocity can reduce 0?32.04% lowest annual cost (LAC).

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