4.6 Article

A stochastic methodology to exploit maximum flexibility of swimming pool heating systems

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijepes.2022.108643

关键词

Flexibility; Heat pumps; Scheduling; Regulation market; Stochastic MILP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a new approach is proposed to determine a group of contract hour sets to provide maximum flexibility of swimming pool heating systems. The proposed approach is validated through simulation studies and cost-benefit analysis.
Swimming pool heating systems are known as one of the best flexible resources in buildings. However, they can be flexible only for a certain number of hours throughout a day due to the comfort constraints of the users. In this study, a new approach is proposed to determine a group of contract hour sets to procure maximum flexibility of swimming pool heating systems supplied by heat pumps for trading in the regulation market while respecting the comfort of users. The main advantage of the contract hour sets is the certainty in response to flexibility requests. The proposed approach consists of three main steps. First, a stochastic mixed-integer linear program is proposed to find the optimal operation of a swimming pool heating system that has agreed to provide flexibility in a contract hours set. Then, a metric is proposed to evaluate the effectiveness of contract hour sets using the results obtained in the first step. Finally, an algorithm is proposed to identify a group of the most efficient contract hour sets using the calculated metric. The proposed approach is validated through comprehensive simulation studies for a summerhouse with an indoor pool heated by a heat pump. Also, a cost- benefit analysis is performed to examine the feasibility of these contract hour sets from financial viewpoint. Simulation results show that the maximum contract hours can vary from 2 to 12 h depending on the building occupation pattern and the minimum payment to owners is between 0.03 to 0.06 (Euro/kW).

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