4.8 Article

Research on day-ahead transactions between multi-microgrid based on cooperative game model

期刊

APPLIED ENERGY
卷 316, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119106

关键词

Multi-microgrid; Power trading; Cooperative game; Nash bargaining

资金

  1. National Social Science Foundation of China [19CGL006]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71373173]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrates that cooperative game among microgrids can achieve flexible consumption of renewable energy in the region and reduce operating costs. Nash bargaining helps alliance members to get satisfactory trading power and tariff, while effectively improving overall operational efficiency and market competitiveness of microgrid systems.
Microgrids are one of the most common forms of distributed energy participation in the electricity market. This paper discusses the lack of market competition among independent microgrids as a factor in setting up a cooperative alliance among microgrids. Independent microgrids aim to minimize the system's overall operating costs. The first principle is to maximize scenery output and consumption. We develop and solve an optimization model to obtain the interactive power with the distribution network and the charging and discharging power arrangement for the energy storage module. We then construct a cooperative game model among multiple microgrids on this basis. Nash bargaining is used to coordinate the distribution of benefits among microgrids, as well as to analyze the optimal trading power and tariffs among microgrids. The research proves that the cooperative game among microgrids can realize the flexible consumption of renewable energy in the region. Microgrids also have lower operating costs. The Nash bargaining helps the members in the coalition to get satisfactory trading power and tariff. Additionally, it effectively improves the overall operational efficiency and market competitiveness of microgrid systems.

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

4.8
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