4.7 Article

Equilibrium of Interdependent Gas and Electricity Markets With Marginal Price Based Bilateral Energy Trading

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS
卷 33, 期 5, 页码 4854-4867

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TPWRS.2018.2796179

关键词

Interdependency; nodal energy price; natural gas network; optimal energy flow; power distribution network

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51725702, 51627811]
  2. 111 project [B08013]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2018MS002]
  4. Foundation for Innovative Research Groups of the National Natural Science Foundation of China [51621065]
  5. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)'s Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
  6. U.S. National Science Foundation [CMMI-1635339]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The increasing interdependencies between natural gas systems and power systems create new business opportunities in coupled energy distribution markets. This paper studies the marginal price based bilateral energy trading on the equilibrium of coupled natural gas and electricity distribution markets. Convex relaxation is employed to solve a multiperiod optimal power flow problem, which is used to clear the electricity market. A successive second-order cone programming approach is utilized to solve a multiperiod optimal gas flow problem, which is used to clear the gas market. In addition, the line pack effect in the gas network is considered, which can offer storage capacity and provide extra operation flexibility for both networks. In both problems, locational marginal energy prices are recovered from the Lagrangian multipliers associated with nodal balancing equations. Furthermore, a best-response decomposition algorithm is developed to identify the equilibrium of the coupled energy markets with bilateral gas and electricity trading, which leverages the computational superiority of SOCPs. Cases studies on two test systems validate the proposed methodology.

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