4.8 Article

Distributionally robust optimization for peer-to-peer energy trading considering data-driven ambiguity sets

期刊

APPLIED ENERGY
卷 331, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.120436

关键词

Distributionally robust optimization; Deep Gaussian process; Data-driven ambiguity sets; Peer-to-peer energy trading

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Peer-to-peer (P2P) energy trading has economic benefits for prosumers, but the intermittency of photovoltaic (PV) poses challenges. This paper proposes a data-driven distributionally robust optimization (DRO) approach for P2P energy trading to minimize the operation cost and handle the randomness of PV generation.
Peer-to-peer (P2P) energy trading provides potential economic benefits to prosumers. The prosumers are re-sponsible for managing their own resources/reserves within the energy community, especially for photovoltaic (PV). However, the intermittency of PV leaves a major issue for the optimal operation of P2P energy trading. This paper proposes a fully data-driven distributionally robust optimization (DRO) for P2P energy trading. Specifically, both the optimization approach and the ambiguity set of DRO are formed in a data-driven fashion. The proposed formulation minimizes the expected operation cost of each prosumer, which is modeled as a DRO problem considering the operational constraints. A decentralized energy negotiation mechanism and market clearing algorithm are proposed for P2P energy trading based on the alternating direction multiplier method. Furthermore, the ambiguity set is formed by deep Gaussian process under the framework of bootstrap aggregating. Finally, the equivalent linear programming reformulations of the proposed DRO model are carried out and solved in a distributed manner. Numerical results demonstrate that the proposed DRO-based approach has superior performance for handling the randomness of PV generation compared with robust optimization, stochastic programming, and other DRO variants.

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