18 views

Uploaded by azamwandar

elllllo

- Distributed Generation Optimization
- MicroGrid Test System
- Microgrid Presentation
- Presentation - Power Electronics Arrangements in Distributed Systems
- CS2010
- Report Base
- How to Measure Roll Quality
- Microgrids-Benefits-Models-Barriers-and-Suggested-Policy-Initiatives-for-the-Commonwealth-of-Massachusetts.pdf1874040306.pdf
- Akbari, Tavakoli Bina - 2014 - A Linearized Formulation of AC Multi-year Transmission Expansion Planning a Mixed-Integer Linear Programm
- Genetic Algorithm Based Optimal Distributed Generation Allocation and Sizing for Voltage Stability Improvement and Loss Minimization
- Cooperative Control of DC Microgrid Storage for Energy Balancing and Equal Power Sharing
- BARTONSCHNEIDERIDEA-Microgrid-Schneider-Electric-Philip-Barton-2.pdf
- Cn 4301514523
- Optimal Placement of Multi DG Unit in Distribution Systems Using Evolutionary Algorithms
- researc tez.docx
- 01707402.pdf
- NLSC Lecture Notes 2016 Sufficient Conditions Chapter
- Chapter 2
- Distributed Generation
- Abdirahman Et Al 2014

You are on page 1of 8

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijepes

dispatch problem of microgrid

Faisal A. Mohamed a,, Heikki N. Koivo b

a

b

Department of Electrical Engineering, Omar Al-Mukhtar University, P.O. Box 919, El-Bieda, Libya

Department of Automation and Systems Technology, Aalto University, P.O. Box 15500, 00076 Aalto, Finland

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:

Received 8 August 2010

Received in revised form 4 September 2011

Accepted 16 September 2011

Available online 22 June 2012

Keywords:

Microgrid

Multiobjective optimization

Load management

Mesh Adaptive Direct Search

a b s t r a c t

This paper presents a generalized formulation for determining the optimal operating strategy and cost

optimization scheme and reduction of emissions of a MicroGrid (MG). Multiobjective (MO) optimization

is applied to the environmental economic problem of the MG. The proposed problem is formulated as a

nonlinear constrained MO optimization problem. The proposed problem takes into consideration the

operation and maintenance costs as well as the emission reduction of NOx, SO2, and CO2. The MG considered in this paper consists of a wind turbine, a micro turbine, a diesel generator, a photovoltaic array, a

fuel cell, and a battery storage. The Multiobjective Mesh Adaptive Direct Search (MOMADS) is employed

to minimize the cost function of the system while constraining it to meet the costumer demand and

safety of the system. A comparison is made with Multiobjective Sequential Quadratic Programming

(MOSQP). The results demonstrate the efciency of the proposed approach to satisfy the load and to

reduce the cost and the emissions.

2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The need for more exible electric systems, changing regulatory

and economic scenarios, energy savings and environmental impact

are providing impetus to the development of MGs, which are predicted to play an increasing role in future power systems [1]. One

of the important applications of the MG units is the utilization of

small-modular residential or commercial units for onsite service.

The MG units can be chosen so that they satisfy the customer load

demand at compromise cost and emissions all the time.

The management of the MG units requires an accurate environmental economic model to describe the operating problem taking

into account the output power production. Such a model is discrete

and nonlinear in nature, hence optimizations tools are needed to

extract the best compromise solution between the operating costs

and emission.

The environmental/economic problem is conicting in nature.

In reality, the environmental/economic problem is a multiobjective

Search; MOSQP, multiobjective sequential quadratic programming; MO, multiobjective; DG, diesel generator; FC, fuel cell; MT, microturbine; WT, wind turbine; PV,

fotovoltaic; PCC, point common coupling; SD, static switch.

Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: mohamed.faisal@hut., elabdli@hotmail.com (F.A. Mohamed),

heikki.koivo@hut. (H.N. Koivo).

0142-0615/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2011.09.006

conicting to minimum cost of generation.

Multiobjective optimization (MO) has a very wide range of successful applications in engineering and economics. Such applying

multiobjective optimization for power system problems [2], applications can be found in optimal control systems [3], engineering

design [4], and communication [5], in [6] a new formulation of

multi-objective reactive power and voltage control is presented

for power System basis of the fuzzy sets theory and particle swarm

optimization (PSO). In [7] a multi-objective approach based on the

BellmanZadeh algorithm and fuzzy logic is used to determine

appropriate DG sites. The MO optimization is applied to nd the

optimal solution which is a compromise between multiple and

contradicting objectives. In MO optimization we are mostly interested in the Pareto optimal set which contains all non-inferior

solutions. The decision maker can then select the most preferred

solution out of the Pareto optimal set. The weighted sum method

to handle MO optimization is applied in this paper. Furthermore,

the weighted sum is a simple and straightforward method to handle MO optimization problems.

Solving the environmental/economic problem in the power

generation has received considerable attention. In [8], the problem

has been investigated as a single objective problem by treating the

emissions as constraints in which the total annual emissions were

limited by a certain amount. Moreover, in [1] the optimization is

aimed at reducing the fuel consumption rate of the system while

constraining it to full the local energy demand (both electrical

F.A. Mohamed, H.N. Koivo / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 42 (2012) 728735

problem has been treated as a single objective problem by neither

considering the emission nor the operation and maintenance costs.

In [9], the problem is also solved as s single objective optimization.

The formulation, however, has a severe difculty in getting the

trade-off relation between the operating costs and emission level.

The problems have been effectively solved by goal programming

[10], classical technique [11], and fuzzy satisfaction-maximizing

approach [12]. The computing speed of these solutions, however,

limits their online applications.

The second objective of this paper deals with solving the optimization problem to explore the benets of having optimal management of the MG. The exploration is based on the

minimization of running costs and reducing the emissions. It is

then extended to cover a load demand scenario in the MG. It will

be shown that by developing a good system model, we can use

an optimization technique to solve the optimization problem accurately and efciently.

or equal to zero.

3. Proposed objective function

The major concern in the design of an electrical system that utilizes MG sources is the accurate selection of output power that can

economically satisfy the load demand, while minimizing the emissions. Therefore the system components are required to:

1. Minimize the operation cost ($/h).

2. Minimize the emissions (kg/h).

3. Ensure that the load is served according to the constraints.

3.1. Operating cost

As Shown in Fig. 1, the main utility balances the difference between the load demand and the generated output power from

microsources. Then, the cost function takes the form [14]:

2. Optimization model

CFP

The power optimization model is highlighting the following

points. The output is the optimal conguration of a MG that takes

into account technical performance of supply options, locally available energy resources, demand characteristics, and environmental

levels. Small-scale power generating technologies under consideration include PV, WT, DG, and FC. To run the model, the following

items have to be dened:

The power demand by the load.

Locally available energy information: This includes solar irradiation data (W/m2), temperature (C), wind speed (m/s), as well

as cost of fuels ($/l) for the DG and natural gas price for supplying the FC and MT ($/kWh).

Daily purchased and sold power tariffs in ($/kWh).

Start up costs in ($/h).

Technical and economic performance of supply options: These

characteristics include, for example, rated power for PV, power

curve for WT, fuel consumption characteristics DG and FC.

Operating and maintenance costs and the total emission: Operating and maintenance costs must be given ($/h) for all emissions; the total emission must be given in kg/h for DG, FC, and

MT.

Multiobjective optimization is a method to nd the best solution between different, usually conicting objectives. In the MO

optimization problem we have a vector of objective functions. Each

objective function is a function of the decision (variable) vector

[13]. Mathematically the environmental/economic problem is formulated as follows:

Find the output generator power vector P = [P1, P2, . . . , PN]0 that

minimizes the function:

FP fCFP; EPg

Subject to

729

N

X

C i F i Pi OMi Pi STC i DCPEi IPSEi

i1

where

F(Pi)

Ci

Fi

OMi

STCi

Pi

DCPEi

IPSEi

Fuel costs of the generating unit i in $/l for the DG, and

in $/kWh for FC and MT

Fuel consumption rate of a generator unit i

Operation and maintenance cost of a generating unit i

in $/h

Start up cost of the generating unit i in $/h

Decision variables, representing the real power output

from generating unit i in kW

Purchased electricity of unit i if the load demand

exceeds the generated power in $/h

Income for sold electricity of unit i if the output

generated power exceeds the load demand in $/h

To model the purchased and sold power, two different conditions are considered. The following equations dene these

conditions:

X

DCPEi C p max PL

Pi ; 0

X

IPSEi C s max

Pi PL ; 0

where Cp and Cs are the tariffs of the purchased and sold power

respectively in ($/kWh).

3.1.1. Objective constraints

Power balance constraints: To meet the active power balance, an

equality constraint is imposed

N

X

Pi PL P PV P WT Pbatt 0

i1

hk Pi 0

k 1; . . . ; q

g j P i 6 0

j 1; . . . ; p

6 Pi 6 Pmax

;

Pmin

i

i

8i 1; . . . ; N

The vector of objective functions is denoted by F(P) = (F(P1),

F(P2), . . . , F(Pk))T. The decision variable vector P = (P1, P2, . . . , PN)T

consists of all the design variables and may be bounded. The collection of the equality constraints, H(P) = (h1(P1), h2(P2), . . . , hq(PN))T, is

a q-dimensional equality constraint vector, and similarly the

where

PL

PPV

PWT

Pbatt

The

The

The

The

output power of the photovoltaic cell in kW

output power of the wind turbine in kW

output power of the battery storage kW

output of each generator is restricted by lower and upper limits as

follows:

730

F.A. Mohamed, H.N. Koivo / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 42 (2012) 728735

MicroGrid Central

Controller

PCC

SD

Feeder 3

Feeder 2

Feeder 1

Load

LC

LC

LC

Load

Load

Wind

Turbine

Load

Diesel

Engine

Load

LC

LC

Fuel

Cell

Load

Load

Load

PV

array

Heat

load

Charger

Controller

LC

Load

Micro

Turbine

Battery

Pmin

6 Pi 6 Pmax

;

i

i

i 1; . . . ; N

where

Pmin

i

Pmax

i

EP

(MUT/MDT) time limits, once the generating unit is switched on,

it has to operate continuously for a certain minimum time before

switching it off again. On the other hand, a certain stop time has

to be terminated before starting the unit. The violation of such constraints can cause shortness in the life time of the unit. These constraints are formulated as continuous running/stop time constraint

as follows [14]:

on

T off

t1;i =T t1;i is the unit off/on time, while ut1,i denotes the unit off/on

[0, 1] status.

The number of starts and stops (estartstop) should not exceed a

certain number (Nmax).

estartstop 6 Nmax

N

X

102 ai bi Pi ci P2i fi expki P i

11

i1

T on

t1;i MUT i ut1;i ut;i P 0

T off

t1;i MDT i ut1;i ut;i P 0

these pollutants can be expressed as [15]:

10

The atmospheric pollutants such as sulfur oxides SO2, carbon

oxides CO2, and nitrogen oxides NOx caused by fossil-fueled ther-

the ith generator emission characteristics.

For the emission model introduced in [15,16], we propose to

evaluate the parameters a, b, c, f, and k using the data available

in [17]. Thus, the emissions per day for the DG, FC, and MT is estimated, and the characteristics of each generator will be detached

accordingly.

4. System model

The MG architecture studied is shown in Fig. 1. It consists of a

group of radial feeders, which could be part of a distribution system. There is a single point of connection to the utility called Point

of Common Coupling (PCC). The feeders 1 and 2 have sensitive

loads which should be supplied during the events. The feeders also

have the microsources consisting of a photovoltaic (PV), a wind

turbine (WT), a fuel cell (FC), a microturbine (MT), a diesel generator, and a battery storage. The third feeder has only traditional

loads. The static switch (SD) is used to island the feeders 1 and 2

from the utility when events happened. The fuel input is needed

only for the DG, FC, and MT as the fuel for the WT and PV comes

from nature. To serve the load demand and charge the battery,

electrical power can be produced either directly by PV, WT, DG,

MT, or FC. Each component of the MG system is modeled separately based on its characteristics and constraints. The characteristics of some equipment like wind turbines and diesel generators

731

F.A. Mohamed, H.N. Koivo / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 42 (2012) 728735

are available from the manufacturer. A charger controller is required to limit the depth of discharge of the battery, to limit the

charging current supplied to the battery, and to prevent overcharging, while making use of the power from the other microsources

when it is available.

The MADS class of algorithms, introduced in [18], is designed

for nonsmooth optimization problems. The convergence analysis

of MADS ensured necessary optimality conditions of the rst [18]

and second [19] orders under certain assumptions.

A general optimization problem may be stated as,

minP2X CFP

12

real matrix, l; u 2 R [ f1gn , and l 6 u. Each iteration k of the

MADS algorithm is characterized by two steps. First, an optional

search step over the space of variables is carried out, as long as it

is a nite process and all trial points lie on a mesh. If no better point

is found or no global search is used, the algorithm goes to a mandatory local exploration step (mandatory because it ensures convergence). Second is the poll step, at most 2n trial mesh points near

the incumbent solution are selected (the poll set) and evaluated.

If no better neighbor is found, the mesh is rened. If an improved

mesh point Pk+1 2 X is found, the mesh is kept the same or coarsened, and then Pk+1 is the next incumbent. The exploration directions vary at each iteration, and become dense with probability 1.

This is the main difference between the pattern search and MADS

algorithms. General constraints are handled with a barrier approach, which redenes the objective as follows:

CF X

CFP if P 2 X

1

otherwise

13

minP CF X P

14

The feasible region X can be nonlinear, non-convex, non-differentiable, or disjoint. There are no hypotheses made on the domain, except that the initial point must be feasible. The convergence

results depend on the local smoothness of CF (and not CFX, which

is obviously discontinuous on the boundary of X). They also depend

on the tangent cone at the limit point produced by the algorithm.

The proposed optimization method is compared with the results obtained in [2022]. It also incorporates an explicit cost minimization criterion applied to the MG architecture as well as

minimizing the emission. The formulation in this work seeks the

most environmental/economical generation to satisfy the load demand and the constraints. The problem is decomposed into two

stages, starting with building the system model, which is an important stage to understand the problem. The next stage is the application of the algorithm developed. The algorithm consists of

determining at each iteration the optimal use of the resources

available, such as wind speed, temperature, and irradiation as they

are the inputs to the model. If the produced power from the wind

turbine and the photovoltaic cell is less than the load demand, then

the algorithm goes to the next stage which is the use of the other

alternative sources according to the load and the objective function

of each one.

When designing MGs, several goals could be set, including

reduction in emissions and generation cost. To achieve this, it is

important to highlight all factors inuencing the main goal. The

following items summarize the key characteristics of the implemented strategy:

Power output of WT is calculated according to the relation

between the wind speed and the output power.

Power output of PV is calculated according to the effect of the

temperature and the solar radiation that are different from

the standard test condition.

We assume that the WT and PV deliver free cost power in terms

of running as well being emission free. Furthermore, their output power is treated as a negative load, determine the different

between the actual load and WT and PV output power. If the

output from PV and WT is greater than the load, the excess

power is directed to charge the battery.

The power from the battery is needed whenever the PV and WT

are insufcient to serve the load. Meanwhile the charge and discharge of the battery is monitored.

The net load is calculated if the output from PV and WT is smaller than the total load demand and the battery is discharged.

Choose serving the load by other sources (FC or MT or DG)

according to the objective functions.

proposed in [18]. This is then specialized to a specic algorithmic

implementation.The main steps of the algorithm are summarized

as follows:

Fig. 2 which is rescaled from [23,24]. The load demand varies from

14

full load

load remined from the PV,WT

12

Load (KW)

Initialization

The user denes the starting point and the initial mesh size.

The algorithm initializes other parameters for subsequent steps.

Quest for an improved mesh point

Global search (optional): evaluation of CF over a nite subset of

points dened by the mesh.

Local poll (mandatory): denition of a poll set and evaluation of

CF over points in that set.

Parameter update

Parameters are updated.

Termination

If some stopping criterion is reached, stop; if not, go back to step

2.

10

8

6

4

2

10

12

14

Time (hour)

Fig. 2. Hourly load.

16

18

20

22

24

732

F.A. Mohamed, H.N. Koivo / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 42 (2012) 728735

2

Emission

1.2

1.5

Cost

0.8

0.5

0.6

Cost [$/h]

1.2

Emission

1.15

Cost

1.1

1.2

1

10

15

1.05

25

20

10

15

20

4

3.5

Fig. 3. Convergence of cost and emission objective functions using MOSQP and

MOMADS.

Emission [kg/h]

MOSQP

MOMADS

2.5

2

1.5

Cost [$]

Iteration

Time [hour]

Emission [kg/h]

1.25

1.4

1.6

Iteration

1.8

MOSQP

MOMADS

Emission [kg]

Cost [$/h]

1.4

Emission [kg/h]

1

0.5

2

3

Operating Cost [$/h]

Fig. 6. Trade-off in cost and emission using MOSQP and for P = 0.12 and S = 0.

10

15

20

Time [hour]

Fig. 4. Hourly operating cost using the MOSQP and MOMADS.

used rst.

The best results of the cost and emission functions, when optimized individually, are given in Table 1. Convergence of the operation cost and emission objectives for both approaches, when the

purchased tariff is 0.12 $/kWh and the sold tariff 0.07 $/kWh, is

shown in Fig. 3.

Figs. 4 and 5 illustrate the hourly operating costs and emissions

for the two proposed techniques. However, the costs and emissions

are high when the generators are on and the load is high.

Then the problem is solved as a MO optimization problem

where both operation cost and emissions are optimized simultaneously. Considering the diversity of the Pareto optimal set over

the trade-off surface, the trade-off relation can be obtained by minimizing the function [16]:

CP hCFP 1 hEP

15

subject to power balance, and upper and lower limits on the generation. Here h 2 [0, 1]. Value h = 1.0 implies minimum operating cost

and full emissions. We obtain the optimum solution of the operating cost objective. The importance of the emission objective increases when h decreases. Then the optimum solution will move

toward the optimal emission objective value h = 0.0, which implies

minimum emission with no attention being paid to operating costs.

The optimum solution of the emission objective is now obtained.

Function C is minimized for successive values of h to cover the entire range from 0 to 1, the two objectives are given the same

weights. For non-dominated solution points, an improvement in

one objective requires degradation of the other objective. The proposed model is highly nonlinear. Since each generator has different

behavior that inuences the operating cost, the solutions are diverse and acceptably distributed over the trade-off curve.

Figs. 69 show the relationship (trade-off curves) of the operating cost and emission objectives of the non-dominated solutions

obtained by MOSQP and MOMADS approaches for different purchased and sold tariffs. Considering the denition of the multiobjective problems, a non-dominated solution becomes a feasible

solution. Then at least one of the objective values is better than

Table 1

The objective functions when optimized individually.

PL (kW/day)

Case 1

Case 2

171.4009

171.4009

TE (kg/day)

TC ($/day)

OG (kW/day)

SP (kW/day)

PP (kW/day)

MOSQP

MOMADS

MOSQP

MOMADS

MOSQP

MOMADS

MOSQP

MOMADS

MOSQP

MOMADS

149.9198

12.3885

68.6616

13.0826

76.1973

124.6914

61.3615

113.7293

241.9197

36.0860

144.3805

42.5693

70.5188

00.0000

17.8455

00.0000

14.8635

135.3149

27.0204

128.8316

Where TE, total emissions; TC, total operating cost; OG, total optimal generated power; SP, total sold power; PP, total purchased power.

733

F.A. Mohamed, H.N. Koivo / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 42 (2012) 728735

14

Load

Optimal Generation Case 1

12

10

Power [kW]

Emission [kg/h]

8

6

4

2

0

4

Operating Cost [$/h]

10

15

20

Time [hour]

Fig. 7. Trade-off in cost and emission using MOMADS and for P = 0.12 and S = 0.

Fig. 10. Effect of purchased power tariffs on the MG optimal operation using

MOMADS.

14

Load

12

Power [kW]

Emission [kg/h]

10

3

2

8

6

4

2

0

10

Fig. 8. Trade-off in cost and emission using MOSQP and for P = 0.16 and S = 0.1.

15

20

Fig. 11. Effect of purchased power tariffs on the MG optimal operation using

MOSQP.

3.5

MT

FC

DG

2.5

Power [kW]

Emission [kg/h]

10

Time [hour]

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

4

6

Operating Cost [$/h]

10

Fig. 9. Trade-off in cost and emission using MOMADS at scenario 3 and for P = 0.16

and S = 0.1

non-dominated solutions are those from which the multi-objective

decision algorithm attempts to select the best compromise solution according to the preferences of the decision makers. Consequently, the two objectives of all the non-dominated solutions

10

15

20

Time [hour]

Fig. 12. Power generation distribution using MOSQP.

are located along the left and lower boundaries of the feasible domain as minimization is desired. The operating costs of the nondominated solutions thus appear to be inversely proportional to

their emissions, as illustrated in Figs. 69.

Table 2 and Figs. 10 and 11 show the effect of changing the purchased and sold tariffs on the optimal setting of the MG. There are

734

F.A. Mohamed, H.N. Koivo / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 42 (2012) 728735

Table 2

The effect of the purchased and sold tariffs on the optimal generation.

Load (kW/day)

Case

Case

Case

Case

1

2

3

4

171.4009

171.4009

171.4009

171.4009

MOSQP

MOMADS

MOSQP

MOMADS

MOSQP

MOMADS

112.5081

127.1114

117.7365

117.7365

110.7196

112.4749

111.2769

111.2769

58.5862

61.3490

60.4168

60.4168

51.0058

64.5349

56.3351

56.3351

40.3235

49.4893

44.6083

44.6083

47.3697

47.1226

47.5260

47.5260

Table 3

Cost savings and emissions reductions of the MG using multiobjective optimization Scenario 3.

Average cost and emissions

Case

Case

Case

Case

A

B

C

D

MOSQP

MOMADS

Cost ($/day)

Emissions (kg/day)

Cost ($/day)

Emissions (kg/day)

Cost (%)

Emissions (%)

95.3091

68.6616

113.7293

53.5643

229.4895

61.3615

13.0826

58.9397

47.0079

20.3604

65.4281

53.5643

187.6880

19.5600

28.7189

11.7628

97.32

42.15

135.46

10.90

449.00

46.79

68.70

28.14

49.3980

48.3012

44.0851

41.8015

1.0968

00.0000

2.2836

00.0000

2.27

0

5.46

0

all together four cases. In case 1, the effect of the changing the purchased tariffs is studied. The sold power is rst 0.04 $/kWh and the

purchased tariff is 0.1 $/kWh. In Case 2 the value of the purchased

tariff is increased to 0.16 $/kWh and the sold is the same as in Case

1. Considering the purchased tariff values, it was noticed that when

the tariff is low, it was preferable to buy as much power from the

main grid as possible. However, when the tariffs were higher, it

was more economic to generate the required power from the MG

according to MOSQP and MOMADS approaches.

In Cases 3 and 4, the purchase power tariff is kept constant at

0.12 $/kWh, while the sold tariff was 0.0 $/kWh in Case 3 and

0.04 $/kWh in Case 4. It is noticeable that the MG generates more

power when the sold tariffs are increased and MOMADS optimization algorithm is applied. In the MOSQP, the small variation of the

sold power tariff has no signicant effect This leads to conclude

that the MOMADS is more effective when the variation of the sold

tariffs is small. The higher values of the sold power tariff make it

possible to produce more power to meet the load demand in

MOMADS.

Table 3 illustrates the cost savings and emission reductions of

the MG using different cases and compares them with the proposed MOMADS technique. The results obtained using the proposed technique to minimize the total cost and total emissions is

5

MT

FC

Power [kW]

DG

Minimize

P

xCFP 1 xkEP

16

where k is the scaling factor and x is the weighting factor. The scaling factor k is used to balance the two objectives. The increase of the

scaling factor favors the predominance of the total emission objective function over the total operating cost objective function. The

value of k = 3000 was found to be the best compromise between

the two objectives. In this study the weighting factor x is selected

to vary randomly x = rand[0, 1] and k is chosen to be 3000. With the

proposed MOMADS method, the total operating cost and emissions

are reduced to 48.3012 $/day and 41.8015 kg/day respectively compared to MOSQP. MOMADS is more capable of handling the multiobjective optimization problem of the MG when the problem

becomes more complex, e.g, when more constraints and purchased

and sold power are considered.

It is also noticeable from Figs. 12 and 13 that MOMADS has a

good distribution of the powers given to the micro-sources.

8. Conclusion

DG, FC, and MT operate at their rated power for the whole day

(Case A). In the second case costs are optimized individually (Case

B). In the third scenario emissions objective function is optimized

individually (Case C). Case A gives a higher operating cost and

higher emissions which indicates that it is not acceptable. Larger

generating power, larger costs and emissions are attained. In Case

B, the cost is somewhat reduced, while the emissions increase. In

the third case, the cost increased while the emissions decreased

and the optimal choice was to purchase more power from the main

grid. For achieving the completeness and checking the effectiveness of the proposed cost function and proposed solution, the

problem is also treated as a single objective optimization problem:

[25] (case D):

10

15

20

Time [hour]

Fig. 13. Power generation distribution using MOMADS.

MG with respect to the load demand and environmental requirements are constructed and presented in a new form. The optimization problem includes a variety of energy sources that are likely to

be found in a microgrid: fuel cells, diesel engines, microturbines,

PV arrays, wind generators, and battery storages. Constraint functions are added to the optimization problem to reect some of the

F.A. Mohamed, H.N. Koivo / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 42 (2012) 728735

system. The results of the optimal power operating costs and emission curves for the MG ensure that the optimization works very

well and can give the optimal power to the generators after taking

the operating costs and emissions into account. The effectiveness

of the suggested approach is conrmed through the agreement between the optimized settings and the output from the algorithm.

The responses are effected by several variables such as weather

conditions, sold and purchased tariffs, and the actual power demand. The results show the capability of the proposed system

model and the proposed algorithm to achieve both reduction in

the operating costs and meeting the load demand. The proposed

procedure can be implemented with different loads and for periods

more than one day.

References

[1] Hernandez-Aramburo CA, Green TC, Mugniot N. Fuel consumption

minimization of a microgrid. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 2005;41(3):67381.

[2] Kothari DP, Dhillon JS. Power system optimization. second ed. Prentice Hall of

India Private Limited; 2011.

[3] Liu G, Yang J, Whidborne J. Multiobjective optimisation and

control. Baldock: Research Studies Press Ltd.; 2003.

[4] Andersson J. A survey of multiobjective optimization in engineering design.

Technical report, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Linkoping

University, LiTH-IKP-R-1097, 2000.

[5] Elmusrati M, Riku J, Koivo H. Multiobjective distributed power control

algorithm for CDMA wireless communication systems. IEEE Trans Vehicular

Technol 2007;56(2):77988.

[6] Zhang W, Liu Y. Multi-objective reactive power and voltage control based on

fuzzy optimization strategy and fuzzy adaptive particle swarm. Int J Electr

Power Energy Syst 2008;30(9):52532.

[7] Barin A, Pozzatti LF, Canha LN, Machado RQ, Abaide AR, Arend G. Multiobjective analysis of impacts of distributed generation placement on the

operational characteristics of networks for distribution system planning. Int J

Electr Power Energy Syst 2010;32(10):115764.

[8] Manisa Pipattanasomporn. A study of remote area internet access with

embedded power generation. Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute

and State University, PhD-thesis, December 2004.

735

[9] Mohamed Faisal A, Koivo Heikki. System modelling and online optimal

management of microgrid using mesh adaptive direct search. Int J Electr

Power Energy Syst 2010;32(5):398407.

[10] Nanda J, Kothari DP, Lingamurthy KS. Economic emission load dispatch

through goal programming technique. IEEE Trans Energy Conv 1988;3:2632.

[11] Nanda J, Lakshman H, Kothari ML. Economic emission load dispatch with line

ow constraints using a classical technique. IEE Proc Gen Inst Transm Distrib

1994;141(1):110.

[12] Huang CM, Yang HT, Huang CL. Bi-objective power dispatch using fuzzy

satisfaction-maximizing decision approach. IEEE Trans Power Syst

1997;12:171521.

[13] Miettinen K. Nonlinear multiobjective optimization. Boston: Kluwer Academic

Publishers; 1998.

[14] Azmy AM, Erlich I. Online optimal management of PEM fuel cells using neural

networks. IEEE Trans Power Deliv 2005;29(2):10518.

[15] Abido MA. Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms for power dispatch

problem. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 2006;10(3):31529.

[16] Talaq JH, El-Hawary F, El-Hawary ME. A summary of environmental/economic

dispatch algorithms. IEEE Trans Power Syst 1994;9:150816.

[17] Morgantown W. Emission rates for new DG technologies. The regulatory

assistance project. <http://www.raponline.org/ProjDocs/DREmsRul/Collle/

DGEmissionsMay2001.pdf>.

[18] Audet C, Dennis Jr JE. Mesh adaptive direct search algorithms for constrained

optimization. SIAM J Optim 2006;17(1):188217.

[19] Abramson MA, Audet C. Convergence of mesh adaptive direct search to second

order stationary points. SIAM J Optimi 2006;17(2):60619.

[20] Mohamed F, Koivo H. Online management of microgrid with battery storage

using multiobjective optimization. In: The rst international conference on

power engineering, energy and electrical drives (POWERENG07), 1214 April

2007, Setubal, Portugal.

[21] Mohamed F, H Koivo. System modelling and online optimal management of

microgrid with battery storage. In: 6th international conference on renewable

energies and power quality (ICREPQ07), 2628 March 2007, Sevilla, Spain.

[22] Mohamed F, Koivo H. Microgrid online management and balancing using

multiobjective optimization. In: Proceedings of IEEE power tech, 2007, 15

July 2007, Lausanne, Switzerland.

[23] Michel V, Sascha B, Britta B, Herve C, Nipon K, Franz K, et al. Expandable hybrid

systems for multi-user mini-grids. In: Proceedings of 17th European

photovoltaic solar energy conference, October 2001, Munich, Germany. p.

23305

[24] Zahedi A, Kalam A. Balancing cost and performance in a PV /wind/battery

hybrid power system. In: Proceedings of Australasian universities power

engineering conference (AUPEC00), Brisbane, Australia, 2000. p. 2803

[25] Abido MA. Environmental/economic power dispatch using multiobjective

evolutionary algorithms. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2003;18(4):152937.

- Distributed Generation OptimizationUploaded bySufi Shah Hamid Jalali
- MicroGrid Test SystemUploaded byBo Chen
- Microgrid PresentationUploaded byShahab khan
- Presentation - Power Electronics Arrangements in Distributed SystemsUploaded bymaherej
- CS2010Uploaded byjarameli
- Report BaseUploaded byIsaías Tavares
- How to Measure Roll QualityUploaded byDeming
- Microgrids-Benefits-Models-Barriers-and-Suggested-Policy-Initiatives-for-the-Commonwealth-of-Massachusetts.pdf1874040306.pdfUploaded byEren Baharözü
- Akbari, Tavakoli Bina - 2014 - A Linearized Formulation of AC Multi-year Transmission Expansion Planning a Mixed-Integer Linear ProgrammUploaded bycar
- Genetic Algorithm Based Optimal Distributed Generation Allocation and Sizing for Voltage Stability Improvement and Loss MinimizationUploaded byIASC
- Cooperative Control of DC Microgrid Storage for Energy Balancing and Equal Power SharingUploaded bysurya
- BARTONSCHNEIDERIDEA-Microgrid-Schneider-Electric-Philip-Barton-2.pdfUploaded byДимитър Диманов
- Cn 4301514523Uploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- Optimal Placement of Multi DG Unit in Distribution Systems Using Evolutionary AlgorithmsUploaded byInternational Organization of Scientific Research (IOSR)
- researc tez.docxUploaded bySerkanurdan Taşay
- 01707402.pdfUploaded byBasil
- NLSC Lecture Notes 2016 Sufficient Conditions ChapterUploaded bysalim
- Chapter 2Uploaded byFickri Hafriz
- Distributed GenerationUploaded bysdiaman
- Abdirahman Et Al 2014Uploaded byFitiwi Gnigus
- dg reportUploaded bychaitanyadath
- 1-s2.0-S1110016817302934-mainUploaded byjay ian gerona
- 6c. Practice Examples- Construction Process OptimizationUploaded byAbdelhadi Sharawneh
- 05743048.pdfUploaded byJonathan Villota
- A Diagnostic Method for Micro Grids and DistributedUploaded byMonique Prillagia Nurzhafarina
- 29 IEEE comu magazineUploaded byPedro Morris
- Commissioner Esty Testimony Two Storm Panel FinalUploaded byJordan Fenster
- POETS-EDO-v1.pptxUploaded byFaraz
- 10.1.1.89.7177(2)Uploaded byanalytic
- Choosing Batch SizeUploaded byestadi

- Muhammad Azam Engineering CVUploaded byazamwandar
- Yar had hti h lkhUploaded byazamwandar
- Fazol Kam Intro Engineering MechanicsUploaded byazamwandar
- B.sc. (Agricultural Engineering) (Morning) LPCUploaded byazamwandar
- Deposit Slip NTS Muhammad AzamUploaded byazamwandar
- owas JANUUploaded byazamwandar
- 870+Kuldeep+Singh+(80741012)Uploaded byazamwandar
- Introduction to Jamman Shah LayyahUploaded byazamwandar
- National ICT Research and Development Awards 2013Uploaded byazamwandar
- ali hasan 08Uploaded byazamwandar
- 2 Op Amp ConceptsUploaded byShivam Gupta
- PEG_70_KAP_02Uploaded byMohit Kumar Chowdary
- PhD Rules and RegulationsUploaded byazamwandar
- Required Information for AllUploaded byazamwandar
- Mat Lab FunctionsUploaded byazamwandar
- ComComAp 2013 Presentation Mubashir [Compatibility Mode]Uploaded byazamwandar
- Communications OfficerUploaded byazamwandar
- Maktab Slide TemplateUploaded byazamwandar
- PhD Thesis Presentation MubashirUploaded byazamwandar
- Higher Education Commission Pakistan3.83Uploaded byazamwandar
- stock list 19-12-2013Uploaded byazamwandar
- defexclistUploaded bynellai kumar
- .. UetDownloads Examination Electronics 1stSemester Fall-2008Uploaded byazamwandar
- NLCAF2014Uploaded bymazharquick
- Saleem Ullah KhanUploaded byazamwandar
- 08-ect-21Uploaded byazamwandar
- azam12Uploaded byazamwandar
- Mudassar Bashir(08 Ect 11)Management ResponsibilitiesUploaded byazamwandar

- Industrial Instrumentation 2009Uploaded byextraincome108
- Icing SimulationUploaded byasdfgbugmenot
- Trivias about EarthUploaded byJibler
- Nuc EnergyUploaded bySukhwinder Singh Gill
- no-ph-cge-hexUploaded byapi-3750488
- Prevention of Energy CrisisUploaded byNaveen Idx
- 1. Newtons LawsUploaded bybevinj
- Deposition (Phase Transition)Uploaded byruin_2832
- ENG-1460-F07-TT1+solnUploaded bysamiralbayati
- Assessment of RegCM4.3 over the CORDEX South America domain: sensitivity analysis for physical parameterization schemesUploaded byAlexis Quiroz
- 19541Uploaded byaitormr
- Lecture 24 physicUploaded byAkshay Patel
- Growing Quality CrystalsUploaded byYang Li
- Http Www.sciencedirect.com Science Ob=MImg& Imagekey=B6V51-52T0C2T-2-1& Cdi=5773& User=10& Pii=S0927024811002443& Origin=& CoverDate=05!06!2011& Ie SdarticleUploaded bydanielsandria
- Boiler BookUploaded byarganesan
- why-tubesUploaded bySaptCahbaguz
- International Journal of Computational Engineering Research(IJCER)Uploaded byInternational Journal of computational Engineering research (IJCER)
- Geraas 1Uploaded byStefan Faculin Koortzen
- BOILER1.pdfUploaded bykhang10182
- EcologyUploaded bysmexiilori
- Physics Formula SheetUploaded byHannah K. Lee
- 40446.pdfUploaded byjfhmjmhfcnjcn
- 02. Licenta Disertatie 2018_ Geophysical Properties Soil.pdfUploaded byRenata Tatomir
- Power TransformersUploaded byAravinth Ramanathan
- GeotechInvestigation&AnalysesForDamsUploaded byYudhi Febrian
- Effect of Thermal Neutron Flux on v.l.s.i CircuitsUploaded byRitu Neeraj Pandit
- 142 exam 2 prep questions partII keyUploaded byjlehman
- Yearly Plan Science Year 5Uploaded byBurhan Abdullah
- Southern-California-Edison-Co-Schedule-TOU-GS-2-CPP---Time-of-Use---General-Service---Demand-MeteredUploaded byGenability
- Siloxane AdsorptionUploaded bySatish Shinde