4.7 Article

A stochastic tri-stage energy management for multi-energy systems considering electrical, thermal, and ice energy storage systems

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENERGY STORAGE
卷 55, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.est.2022.105393

关键词

Energy hub system; Power system flexibility; Tri-stage optimization; Energy storage systems; Uncertainty modeling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper proposes a tri-stage energy management framework for optimizing the operation planning of an energy hub system. The framework considers economic aspects, reliability, and thermal and electrical generation flexibility, and aims to address uncertainties by increasing system flexibility.
This paper proposes a tri-stage energy management framework to determine the best operation planning of an energy hub system (EHS) considering economic aspects, reliability, and thermal and electrical generation flex-ibility. The first stage of the suggested framework focuses on the economic operation planning of EHS. The operator of EHS handles the uncertainty of market prices and renewable resources to provide the primary scheduling from the economic point of view. In the second stage, the primary scheduling of EHS has been modified to enhance the thermal and electrical flexibility in order to cover the existing uncertainties. Increasing system flexibility is achieved by increasing system reservation, but maximizing flexibility should not lead to a lack of energy for consumers. Therefore, the third stage evaluates the operation scheduling of EHS from the electrical and thermal energy not supplied perspective. Also, the plug-in electric vehicle, electric storage, thermal storage, ice storage, electrical and thermal demand response programs are integrated into EHS to enhance the system flexibility. The proposed model is tested on a standard case stud and the simulation result shows that the proposed tri-stage framework improves the generation flexibility, and thermal load shedding by 46.74 and 58.85 %, respectively.

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