4.4 Article

Technical and economic analysis of curative actions in distribution networks utilizing battery energy storage systems

期刊

IET GENERATION TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION
卷 16, 期 4, 页码 724-736

出版社

INST ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY-IET
DOI: 10.1049/gtd2.12323

关键词

-

资金

  1. Projekt DEAL

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the potential of curative actions as a substitute for renewable energy curtailment, introducing a novel pricing methodology and conducting simulations on different networks. The results indicate that curative actions can reduce operational costs and maximize renewable energy integration.
Renewable energy generation curtailment increases due to more frequently occurring congestions in power system operation. Post-contingency curative congestion management actions can reduce the necessity of renewable energy curtailment by enabling a more efficient utilization of transmission capacities. In this research, the potential of curative actions to substitute renewable energy curtailment is studied considering technical and economic criteria. Therefore, a novel pricing methodology for the market-based provision of curative actions is introduced. The method is based on the security constraint optimal power flow technique. Simulations are carried out on a modified version of the IEEE 14-bus network and a real-world 110 kV distribution network. Battery energy storage systems are implemented as an exemplary technology to provide curative actions. The developed method achieves a positive power system impact by reducing operational costs and maximizing renewable energy integration. Also, novel business models for merchant-owned battery energy storage systems are unveiled. The provision of curative actions further proves to be competitive to established battery storage applications. Additionally, results of different grid expansion scenarios of the 110 kV network reveal the need to coordinate power system planning and operation more extensively in the future.

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

4.4
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