4.8 Review

Optimal risk-constrained participation of industrial cogeneration systems in the day-ahead energy markets

期刊

RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS
卷 60, 期 -, 页码 421-432

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.136

关键词

Combined heat and power (CHP) system; Demand response programs; Feasible operation region of CHP units; CHP optimal bidding strategy; Information gap decision theory (IGDT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents an optimal bidding strategy for industrial consumers with cogeneration facilities, power-only and heat-only units to participate in day-ahead electricity market. A information gap decision theory (IGDT) technique is implemented for determining the optimal bidding strategies considering market price uncertainty. IGDT evaluates the robustness/opportunity of optimal bidding strategy under market price uncertainty considering the consumer choice of taking risk-averse or risk-taking decisions. It is confirmed that the risk-averse or risk-taking decisions might affect the expected profit and bidding curve of the consumers. Moreover, demand response (DR) program has been implemented in order to serve the power and heat demands of the consumer with minimum cost. In the proposed DR program, the total power and heat demand of consumer will be supplied without any curtailed load. The responsive load can vary in different time intervals. In addition, it is assumed that the consumer will pay (receive) for increased (reduced) consumption, which is proportional to the day-ahead market price. In this paper, the heat power dual dependency characteristic in different types of combined heat and power (CHP) units is taken into account and all technical constraints of generation units are satisfied. In addition, a heat buffer tank with the ability of heat storage is incorporated in the proposed framework. The verification of the proposed method is demonstrated using the simulation of a case study. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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