4.8 Article

Risk-aware short term hydro-wind-thermal scheduling using a probability interval optimization model

期刊

APPLIED ENERGY
卷 189, 期 -, 页码 534-554

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.12.031

关键词

Hydro-wind-thermal scheduling (HWTS); Risk-aware; Probability interval optimization (PIO); Evolutionary predator and prey strategy (EPPS); Distribution probability

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province of China [ZR2016EEQ21]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Due to the uncertainty of wind power and complex constraints of available hydro, short term hydro wind -thermal scheduling (HWTS) is one of the most difficult optimization problems in the operational planning of power systems. This paper presents a risk-aware optimization model, named probability interval optimization (PIO), to reliably evaluate the HWTS from the perspective of risk and profit. In PIO, the uncertain wind power is deemed as a probability interval variable, the risk of wind power is assessed by its probability distribution, and the profit is manifested by the decrease of generation cost between the same system with and without wind power integrated. For solving the PIO model, an evolutionary predator and prey strategy (EPPS) is proposed in this paper. The EPPS focuses on dynamically adjusting the algorithm's exploration and exploitation abilities by introducing an escaping mechanism and a classification mechanism. In addition, a heuristic repair mechanism, instead of penalty function approach, is applied to handle the complex equality and inequality constraints of HWTS. Simulation studies based on three HWTS systems demonstrate that the risk-aware PIO model is well reliable and applicable to solve HWTS considering the uncertain wind power integrated, the EPPS algorithm can obtain superior solutions in comparison with other recently developed algorithms, and the heuristic repair mechanism is efficient for dealing with complex constraints of HWTS. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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