4.6 Article

Heat-electricity joint bidding strategies for intelligent buildings in intelligent building cluster

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijepes.2021.106891

关键词

IB integrated energy system; Heat-electricity joint bidding strategy; Intelligent buildings; Intelligent building cluster; Energy management

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2018YFB0905000]
  2. Science and Technology Project of the State Grid Corporation of China [SGTJDK00DWJS1800232]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paper addresses the challenge of energy trading in intelligent building clusters, proposing a heat-electricity joint bidding strategy for IBs in IBC. The results show that this method can improve the overall operating economy of IBC by 2.4% compared to independent bidding strategies.
With the improvement of intelligent buildings (IBs), the problem of energy consumption in IB integrated energy system is becoming more and more serious. Multiple IBs form an intelligent building cluster (IBC) through energy coordination and complementation and energy mutual gathering. How to promote the sustainability and flexibility of energy trading and improve the initiative of IBs to participate in energy trading in the IBC is very challenging. It is necessary to study the operation framework of energy trading in IBC and the bidding strategies of IBs. To this end, this paper proposes a heat-electricity joint bidding strategy for IBs in IBC. First, we put forward an operating framework of heat-electricity joint trading for IBC, including the basic operation structure and the organization process of heat-electricity joint trading. Secondly, a heat-electricity joint bidding model for IBs in IBC is established. Finally, the effectiveness of the trading mode and the impact of joint and independent heat-electricity trading on the trading results are analyzed. The results show that the proposed method can improve the overall operating economy of IBC by 2.4% comparing to the heat-electricity independent bidding.

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

4.6
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