4.6 Article

Individual Thermal Generator and Battery Storage Bidding Strategies Based on Robust Optimization

期刊

IEEE ACCESS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 66829-66838

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3076872

关键词

Generators; Uncertainty; Optimization; Batteries; Power generation; Stochastic processes; Schedules; Optimal bidding; thermal generator; battery storage; robust optimization

资金

  1. European Union [863876]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study focuses on establishing robust optimization-based optimal bidding models for thermal generators and battery storage, examining their expected profit by applying them to actual realizations of uncertainty. The impact of input scenario selection on the range of uncertainty is also investigated.
Bidding in the day-ahead market encompasses uncertainty on market prices. To properly address this issue, dedicated optimal bidding models are constructed. Traditionally, these models have been derived for generating units, in particular thermal generators. Recently, optimal bidding models have been updated to account for specifics of energy storage, foremost battery storage. Batteries are significantly different devices than generators. On one hand, a battery can both purchase and sell electricity with practically instant change in its output power. On the other hand, a battery is energy-limited, which makes its profit very sensitive to optimal scheduling. In this paper, we examine the existing and derive new robust optimization-based optimal bidding models individually for a thermal generator and a battery storage. The models are examined in terms of the expected profit by applying the obtained bidding curves and (dis)charging schedules to actual realizations of uncertainty. Moreover, we examine the effect of the range of uncertainty caused by the selection of input scenarios. Based on the presented case studies, we form conclusions on the effectiveness of the robust optimization approach for this type of problems.

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