Dynamic economic and emission dispatch of large
scale renewable integrated microgrids for varying
loads and seasons
Bishwajit Dey
Electrical Engineering Department
Indian Institute of Technology (ISM)
Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India
sonu.aec2007@gmail.com
Abstract—Optimal sizing of distributed generation sources for a
microgrid is very essential for proper functioning of the microgrid
when minimization of the energy cost and pollutants emission are
of prime concern. This paper deals with three different cases of
cost and emission minimization each for two microgrid test
systems consisting of fuel cell, micro-turbine, storage devices and
renewable energy sources. A proposed symbiotic organism search
algorithm is used as the optimization tool to minimize the
microgrid operating cost and emission abiding by the various
equality and inequality constraints and considering load
uncertainties and market bids. A comparative study is then made
to prove the efficiency of the proposed algorithm with various
other techniques used in literature.
Keywords—Microgrid, dynamic load dispatch, PV, wind, symbiotic
organisms search
I. INTRODUCTION
Electric power grid is by far the largest and the most
complex innovation of mankind. The upliftment in the quality
of human life and advancement of industrialization is especially
because of the modern power system. High voltage alternating
current (HVAC) transmission of power is used widely due to its
efficiency and reliability. Distributed Energy Resources
(DERs) like wind and solar are used to generate electric power
by integrating them into the utility distribution system [1]. They
have many advantages such as energy efficiency, power quality
improvement, reliability and the utilization of transmission and
distribution assets etc.[2]. The microgrid has been developed to
provide bidirectional and controlled power flow to the active
distribution networks.
Microgrid comprises of a low voltage system along with
DERs, storage devices and flexible loads. The DERs such as
micro-turbines, fuel cells, renewable energy sources (RES) like
wind turbines and photo voltaic (PV) system along with storage
devices such as flywheel, battery, energy capacitor etc. all are
used in a microgrid. A microgrid has two modes of operation
viz. islanded and grid connected mode and hence it is of benefit
to both the grid and customer. The primary microgrid control,
also known as the coordinated control, is used to optimize the
allocation of power among DER, cost of producing the energy
and emission. There are several methods for optimal sizing of
978-1-5386-4769-1/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
Dr. Biplab Bhattacharyya
Electrical Engineering Department
Indian Institute of Technology (ISM)
Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India
biplabrec@yahoo.com
microgrids. Some of the author uses artificial intelligence (AI)
techniques such as Genetic Algorithm (GA) and Particle Swarm
Optimization (PSO) while other uses the rule-based method and
optimal global methods available. [3] uses iterative and AI
based methods for optimizing a hybrid PV system. Similarly in
[4] and [5] GA finds the optimal configuration of the hybrid
system as well as optimizes the operation strategy using each of
the optimal configuration. [6] uses PSO to minimize the
microgrid cost comprising of a micro-turbine fuel cell, PV,
wind turbine and battery storage. The forecasted value of PV
and wind turbine and also the real time market prices were
considered while minimizing the microgrid cost in [7] and both
emission and microgrid cost in [8]. Likewise, [9] used hybrid
fireworks algorithm to minimize both microgrid costs and
emission consisting of RES effected by real time market price.
This paper uses a dedicated and powerful Symbiotic
Organisms Search algorithm to minimize the operating cost and
emissions of two test microgrids consisting of PV, Wind
Turbine, Fuel cell and micro turbine. Section 2 of this paper
discusses the formation of objective functions of the microgrid
including the constraints involved. Section 3 gives a detailed
knowledge about the Symbiotic organisms search algorithm
used in the paper. Furthermore section 4 discusses the results
obtained and a comparative study among the results of other
literatures is made. The paper concludes in section 5.
II. ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROBLEM
FORMULATION
The microgrid considered in this work is a LV grid-
connected microgrid. It consists of a micro-turbine, a wind
turbine, a proton exchange membrane fuel cell and a PV system.
The overall operating cost of a microgrid comprises of the sum
of DG fuel costs only. Hence the cost objective function
emphasizes on optimal sizing of power from DG sources. Such
objective function can be defined as follows:
24 n
Min F(x) =  a P(t )
t =1 k =1
k
2
k + bk P(t ) k + ck (1.1)
24 n
Min E ( x) =  Pk / Grid (t )ek / Grid (t ) (1.2)
t =1 k =1
where ek / Grid (t ) = CO2k /Grid (t ) + SO2k /Grid (t ) + NOxk /Grid (t )
 where k = 1,2,3,….n and t = 1,2,3,…24 are the total number
of DG sources and hours of operation respectively. P(t) is the
power output of the DG source at tth hour and ak, bk, ck are the
fuel cost coefficients of the kth DG source respectively. Eq. (1.2)
is the emission objective where ek / Grid (t ) is the emission
coefficient of the DG sources and grid.
The above mentioned objective function in (1) is bound to
some equality and inequality constraints as explained below:
A. Generation Limit
The hourly power outputs of all the DG sources including
the storage device and utility should lie between its maximum
and minimum limits.
P k / Grid ,min (t ) ≤ Pk / Grid (t ) ≤ Pk / Grid ,max
Where Pk,min(t) are the minimum output powers and Pk,max(t)
are the maximum output powers of the DG sources at the tth
hour respectively.
B. Storage device limits
The charge and discharge rates of storage device of test system
2 for each time interval are limited as follows
1 make use of several parameters that need to be adjusted to the
Wess,t = Wess ,t −1 + η ch arg e Pch arg e Δt −
η disch arg e
Wess ,min ≤ Wess ,t ≤ Wess ,max
 least one of the participating species with a nutritional
 Pch arg e ,t ≤ Pch arg e , max
 are of three types, viz. mutualism, commensalism and
 Pdisch arg e ,t ≤ Pdisch arg e ,max
Where Wess,t and Wess,t-1 are the energy stored in the battery at tth
and (t-1)th hour respectively. Pcharge and Pdischarge are the
allowable rate of charge and discharge during a definite period
say ∆t. The suffix ‘min’ and ‘max’ denotes the minimum and
maximum of the respective parameter.
C. Power Supply-Demand Balance Equation
The total generation of power from the DGs in the microgrid
during every hour including the RES must fulfill the total load
demand of the grid. Transmission losses are neglected as the
microgrid considered is a small LV one. Therefore
n where Xi is an organism of the ith member of the ecosystem and
P
k =1
k / Grid (t ) + PPV (t ) + PWT (t ) = Pload (t )
Three different cases for two different microgrid test
systems are studied to exploit the availability and the
dependency on the renewable energy sources that are acting as
DG sources for the microgrid. For microgrid test system 1,
these cases are nothing but the variation of load demand for
three different seasons viz. winter, summer and spring. The
variation in the power generation of the RES were also
considered for these seasons. For microgrid test system 2, the
three cases are described as below:
Case 1: In this case it is taken into consideration that all of
the DG sources including the storage device and the utility
operates within their maximum and minimum limits to satisfy
the load demand throughout each hour of the day.
Case 2: Here the renewable sources (WT and PV) delivers
their maximum available power outputs throughout the day
whereas the rest of the DG sources including the MT, FC,
battery and even the utility operates within their bounded limits.
The significance of this case is to utilize maximum of the
available renewable energy sources and reduce the dependency
on the distribution grid (utility) thus helping in selling the
excess power to the grid and maintain an economic balance.
Case 3: The utility in this case is made unconstrained. In
other words all the DG sources shall be operating in their
maximum and minimum limits whereas the utility is allowed to
exchange any amount of power with the microgrid. This case is
also known as “Infinite Energy Exchange”.
The proposed SOS-based approach is implemented to find
the optimal sizing of the DG sources in all the three different
(2) cases.
III. SYMBIOTIC ORGANISMS SEARCH
Symbiotic organisms search (SOS) is a relatively new,
powerful and meta-heuristic algorithm applied to optimize
many mathematical and engineering problems [10]. It works by
simulating the symbiotic strategies acquired by the organisms
among themselves to survive and sustain in the ecosystem.
Almost all the meta-heuristic algorithms available in the
literature share some common characteristics such as: they are
inspired from the nature, make use of random variables and they
Pdisch arg e Δt
problem. The fact that SOS doesn’t require any algorithm
(3)
specific tuning parameters makes it superior to many other
meta-heuristic algorithms. Symbiotic relationships provide at
advantage. The symbiotic relationships that are found in nature
(4) parasitism. These three relationships are mathematically
speculated and the SOS algorithm is developed as a result.
Mutualism phase: In the mutualism phase of SOS, both the
species involved are benefitted. One common example is the
relationship between honey bees and flowers. This phase can be
mathematically developed by the following equations:
Xi + X j
Mutual_Vector= (6)
2
X inew = X i + rand(0,1) * ( X best − Mutual_ Vector* BF1 ) (7)
X jnew = X j + rand (0,1) * ( X best − Mutual _ Vector * BF2 ) (8)
(5)
Xj is randomly selected from the ecosystem to interact with Xi.
rand(0,1) denote a vector of random numbers. BF1 and BF2
denote the benefit factors and are kept either at 1 or 2.
Mutual_Vector represents the mutual relation between the
organisms Xi an Xj.
Commensalism phase: Commensalism is a relationship
existing in nature between individual of two species where one
species gather its food or other benefits from the other without
harming or benefitting the latter. Similar to the mutualism
phase, Xj is selected randomly to interact with Xi and a new
organism Xinew can be calculated as:
X inew = X i + rand (−1,1)*( X best − X j )
(9)
 Where (Xbest – Xj) portrays the beneficial advantage
provided by Xj to help Xi increasing its survival advantage in
ecosystem to the highest degree Xbest in current organism.
Parasitism phase: Parasitism is the name given to the
relationship between two organisms in the ecosystem where
one is harmed and the other gets benefitted. The organism that
gets benefitted is called ‘parasite’ and the one that faces the
harm is called the ‘host’.
In SOS, Xj is selected randomly to act as the host.
Parasite_Vector is an artificial organism created in the search
space. If fitness value of Parasite_Vector is better than Xj, it
will replace organism Xj. And if the fitness value of Xj is better,
it will have immunity and the Parasite_Vector will no longer
survive in that ecosystem.
The algorithm for optimal power management and sizing of
DG sources with SOS are summarized as follows:-
Step 1: Formation of Ecosystem – The parameters
considered for microgrid energy management include fuel cost-
coefficients of generators, power generation limits, power
demand of various types of loads and limits of forecasted wind
power. Also the size of ecosystem i.e. the total number of
organisms in the ecosystem (eco_size) and maximum iteration
(max_iter) is set in this step.
Step 2: The particles of the population is initialized in a
random manner according to the limits of each unit including
individual dimensions. These initial particles must be feasible
candidate solutions that satisfy the practical operating
constraints. Let Vi be the trial vector designating the ith particle
of the initial population where Vi consists the power outputs of
micro-turbine, fuel cell, photo voltaic array and wind turbine
for 24 hours respectively. Hence Pi can be represented as
Vi=[Pk1, Pk2, Pk3….Pk24];
Now for k number of DG sources and m number of particles
i varies from i=1, 2, 3….m. Hence the population matrix can be
represented by equation (8)
V = [ P1 , P2 , P3 ...Pm ]T (10)
Step 3: Mutualism phase: Here i is initially set at 1, organism
X1 is matched to Xi and organism Xj is formed randomly from
the ecosystem. In this case, X2 is selected as Xj. Mutual_Vector
is calculated using (4). Benefit Factors (BF1 and BF2) are set
at 2. Organism Xi and Xj are modified based on their mutual
relationship using (5) and (6) and the constraints checking is
done. Once it is found that Xi and Xj abides by the constraints,
the fitness value is then accounted for, which if found better
than the initial fitness value, we go to next step else we reject
the modified organism and proceed to next step with the initial
solution.
Step 4: Commensalism phase: Organism Xj (Xj≠Xi) is generated
from the ecosystem on random basis. New candidate solutions
Xi,new are calculated using (7). Constraint checking is done and
fitness value is calculated. Like the previous step, if fitness
value of the modified organism in this step is better than the
previous value then we go to the next step else the modified
organism is rejected and the previous solution is kept and
proceeded to the next step.
Step 5: Parasitism phase: Organism Xj (Xj≠Xi) is randomly
selected from the ecosystem. Parasite_Vector is formed by
mutating Xi in random dimensions using a random number
within a given range. Constraint checking is done and fitness
value is calculated. If Parasite_Vector is found better than the
previously calculated fitness value, then the previous fitness
value is replaced with the Parasite_Vector else the
Parasite_Vector is rejected and we proceed to the next step.
Step 6: We proceed to step 2 if the current Xi is not the last
member of the ecosystem; otherwise we proceed to the next
step.
Step 7: We stop if one of the termination criteria i.e. the
maximum number of iterations is reached; otherwise we return
to step 2 and start the next iteration
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Description of the system: A strong and powerful Symbiotic
organisms search is used to evaluate its performance in optimal
sizing of a microgrid and minimize its operating cost. The
microgrid considered in this work is a LV islanded microgrid.
The microgrid test system 1 consists of three micro-turbines, a
wind turbine, fifteen proton exchange membrane fuel cells and
a PV system. The time span for calculating the optimal sizing
is considered to be 24 hours. The complete system data which
includes the maximum and minimum capacity of the DGs, their
fuel cost coefficients, load demand profile for 24 hours for
various seasons and the RES output for those seasons are
gathered from [12]. MATLAB R2013a platform is used to code
and execute the algorithm in a personal computer with 2.53GHz
core i3 processor and 2GB RAM. The program is run with 30
population and 1000 iterations for 20 trials. The weightage
factor (f_weight) is set at 0.7 and crossover probability constant
(f_cr) is set at 0.2 for the DE algorithm.
The microgrid test system 2 is a LV grid connected
microgrid consisting of MT, FC, PV, WT and a battery as
storage device. The system data which includes the DG
parameters, load demand and the real time market price are
taken from [7]. The personal computer configuration and the
tuning parameters of DE algorithm were maintained the same
as of microgrid test system 1. The program is run with 30
population and 1500 iterations for 20 trials.
Comparative Analysis:
For Microgrid Test system 1: The optimal sizing of the DG
sources is done to give a minimized microgrid cost for all the
three seasons using a proposed SOS method. The costs are then
compared with three other algorithms such as Genetic
Algorithm, Particle Swarm Optimization and Differential
Evolution with local global neighborhood [11]. Table 1 does the
detailed comparative analysis of the fuel costs obtained using
the four algorithms. It also highlights the statistical analysis of
the algorithms and the computational time taken to obtain the
optimum value. It can be clearly seen that for all the three
seasons SOS yielded the least fuel costs. The fuel costs of the
DG sources was $6783.0102 in winter as evaluated by SOS.
This price is pretty less compared to $6799.4304 by GA,
$6790.0648 by PSO and $6787.8858 by DEGL. For summer
too, SOS minimized the fuel cost to as low as $6836.8722
compared to $6878.7290 by GA, $6854.2558 by PSO and
$6841.5104 by SOS. Likewise the fuel costs for the loads and
RES of spring season was minimized by SOS to a low value of
$5924.3871. This value was much better than $5947.4138 by
GA, $5943.3537 by PSO and $5930.0844 by SOS. Figure 1, 2
and 3 shows the convergence characteristics of the proposed
SOS method along with the other algorithms used. The
steepness of the curves in the figures, the lowest values of
standard deviation and the decreasing order of computational
time for 1000 iterations in Table 2 clearly indicate about the fast
convergence criteria and robustness of the proposed algorithm
to attain such a minimal value.
For Microgrid Test system 2: Three optimization techniques
viz. DE, DEGL & SOS were implemented to minimize the
emission objective for microgrid test system 2. The
optimization techniques were run for 1500 iterations each to
match with the literature for comparative analysis. Table 2
gives a detailed statistical and comparative analysis for the Fig 2: Convergence characteristics of minimal micro grid fuel costs in
summer
minimized emission objective along with various algorithms
from literature. It can be clearly seen that for all the three cases
SOS yielded the least emission of pollutants among all the
algorithms used so far. The least value of standard deviation
from table 2 along with simulation time shows the fast
convergence property of SOS compared to DE and DEGL. SOS
gave the minimized result 18 to 19 times out of 20 trials thus
increasing its robustness to 90-95%. Figure 4 through 6 shows
the convergence characteristics of the emission objective for all
the three cases. Figure 7 through 9 are the hourly outputs of the
DG sources for the emission objective using SOS.

Fig 3: Convergence characteristics of minimal micro grid fuel costs in spring

TABLE 1: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MICROGRID COST

Best Solution

No. of hits to
optimum
Time (in
Solution
Average

secs) for

solution
Method

Worst
(in $)

(in $)

(in $)

1000
S.D

Winter
GA 6799.4304 6800.3939 6801.3574 1.36 301 17
PSO 6790.0548 6791.0279 6792.0011 1.37 287 17
DEGL 6787.8858 6788.0025 6788.1193 0.16 254 18
Fig 1: Convergence characteristics of minimal micro grid fuel costs in winter SOS 6783.0102 6783.5054 6784.0006 0.70 251 19
Summer
GA 6878.7290 6880.0482 6881.3674 1.86 300 16
PSO 6854.2558 6854.7347 6855.2137 0.67 289 19
DEGL 6841.5104 6841.7924 6842.0744 0.39 253 18
SOS 6836.8722 6836.9354 6836.9987 0.08 249 20
Spring
GA 5947.4138 5947.7079 5948.0021 0.41 297 18
PSO 5943.3537 5943.6685 5943.9834 0.44 293 17
DEGL 5930.0844 5930.5995 5931.1147 0.72 246 19
SOS 5924.3871 5924.5284 5924.6698 0.19 219 19
Fig 4: Convergence characteristics of minimal micro grid emission (Case 1) Fig 7: Hourly outputs of DGs for emission objective using SOS (Case 1)

Fig 5: Convergence characteristics of minimal micro grid emission (Case 2) Fig 8: Hourly outputs of DGs for emission objective using SOS (Case 2)

Fig 6: Convergence characteristics of minimal micro grid emission (Case 3) Fig 9: Hourly outputs of DGs for emission objective using SOS (Case 3)
TABLE 2: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MICROGRID EMISSION emissions with varying loads and RES outputs throughout the
seasons. The results obtained are then compared to a few other

secs/1000
optimization algorithms found in the literature and SOS

iteration
Solution

Solution
Average
Method

(in kg.)

(in kg.)

(in kg.)
Worst
Best

S.D

No. of
outperformed them all. Due to its better computational speed

hits
and exploitability SOS can therefore be considered as one of the
Case 1 strongest optimization tool to solve various power system and
GA [7] 435.2363 445.3862 457.4680 14.2299 - - microgrid problem.
PSO [7] 4358227 445.1072 454.5917 13.9708 - -
FSAPSO [7] 435.0830 443.4396 451.3821 11.3525 - - REFERENCES
CPSO-T [7] 434.9973 440.1036 444.9398 6.9950 - - [1] A. S. Safigianni, G. N. Koutroumpezis, and V. C.
CPSO-L [7] 434.9354 439.2369 443.6383 6.1538 - - Poulios, “Mixed distributed generation technologies in
AMPSO-T [7] 434.8611 434.9983 435.1126 0.1786 - - a medium voltage network,” Electr. Power Syst. Res.,
vol. 96, pp. 75–80, 2013.
AMPSO-L [7] 434.8193 434.9235 435.0099 0.0681 - -
[2] D. K. Nichols, J. Stevens, R. H. Lasseter, J. H. Eto,
FA [9] 485.6731 562.2740 605.6592 30.4118 - - and H. T. Vollkommer, “Validation of the CERTS
GSA [9] 513.3899 530.7464 544.5167 8.9494 - - microgrid concept the CEC/CERTS microgrid
FAGSO [9] 415.8571 415.8667 415.8661 0.0020 - - testbed,” 2006 IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Gen. Meet., pp.
DE 376.9918 377.5523 378.1129 0.7927 86 18 1–3, 2006.
DEGL 375.4463 375.7676 376.0889 0.4543 86 18 [3] T. Khatib, A. Mohamed, and K. Sopian, “A review of
SOS 371.8503 371.9235 371.9967 0.1035 78 19 photovoltaic systems size optimization techniques,”
Case 2
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 22, pp. 454–465,
GA [7] 435.1308 441.2402 448.7740 5.2689 - - 2013.
[4] A. K. Daud and M. S. Ismail, “Design of isolated
PSO [7] 435.5555 436.5928 438.2212 1.2666 - -
hybrid systems minimizing costs and pollutant
FSAPSO [7] 435.0037 436.0913 437.1788 1.5380 - -
emissions,” Renew. Energy, vol. 44, pp. 215–224,
CPSO-T [7] 434.9814 435.9408 436.9001 1.3567 - - 2012.
CPSO-L [7] 434.9064 435.6447 436.3830 1.0441 - - [5] J. C. Hernández, A. Medina, and F. Jurado, “Optimal
AMPSO-T [7] 434.8611 434.9357 435.0102 0.1054 - - allocation and sizing for profitability and voltage
AMPSO-L [7] 434.8161 434.8920 434.9690 0.0586 - - enhancement of PV systems on feeders,” Renew.
FA [9] 482.9904 511.9287 555.5889 17.9446 - -
Energy, vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 1768–1789, 2007.
[6] J. Radosavljević, M. Jevtić, and D. Klimenta, “Energy
GSA [9] 477.0860 489.7806 504.3866 9.0922 - -
and operation management of a microgrid using
FAGSO [9] 415.8571 415.8571 415.8571 4.7*10-8 - - particle swarm optimization,” Eng. Optim., vol. 273,
DE 375.4475 375.8704 376.2933 0.5980 85 18 no. May, pp. 1–20, 2015.
DEGL 375.2321 375.7686 376.3052 0.7587 86 18 [7] T. Niknam, F. Golestaneh, and A. Malekpour,
SOS 374.6560 374.8280 375.0001 0.2433 80 18 “Probabilistic energy and operation management of a
Case 3 microgrid containing wind/photovoltaic/fuel cell
GA [7] 435.9708 447.3231 458.6008 7.0154 - - generation and energy storage devices based on point
PSO [7] 434.8319 440.9284 448.7398 4.8683 - - estimate method and self-adaptive gravitational search
FSAPSO [7] 434.8287 436.0913 438.2267 2.3211 - - algorithm,” Energy, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 427–437, 2012.
[8] A. A. Moghaddam, A. Seifi, T. Niknam, and M. R.
CPSO-T [7] 434.8263 435.9408 437.0801 1.5534 - -
Alizadeh Pahlavani, “Multi-objective operation
CPSO-L [7] 434.8204 435.6447 436.9937 1.5309 - - management of a renewable MG (micro-grid) with
AMPSO-T [7] 434.8190 434.9357 435.0100 0.1350 - - back-up micro-turbine/fuel cell/battery hybrid power
AMPSO-L [7] 434.8168 434.9038 434.9998 0.0604 - - source,” Energy, vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 6490–6507, 2011.
FA [9] 554.8896 617.6640 654.0684 28.3728 - - [9] Wang Z, Zhu Q, Huang M, Yang B. “Optimization of
GSA [9] 594.9877 635.3205 672.1839 19.3275 - - economic/environmental operation management for
FAGSO [9] 415.8571 415.8572 415.8574 5.3*10-5 - -
microgrids by using hybrid fireworks algorithm”. Int
Trans Electr Energ Syst. 2017;e2429
DE 398.7736 398.8681 398.9627 0.1337 83 19
[10] Cheng, M. Y., & Prayogo, D. “Symbiotic Organisms
DEGL 398.6660 398.8525 399.0391 0.2638 83 18 Search: A new metaheuristic optimization algorithm”.
SOS 397.6629 397.7649 397.8670 0.1443 81 19 Computers and Structures, vol. 139, pp. 98–112, 2014.
[11] S. Das, A. Abraham, U. K. Chakraborty, and A. Konar,
V. CONCLUSION “Differential evolution using a neighborhood-based
A SOS method was used in this paper for optimal sizing of mutation operator,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., vol.
13, no. 3, pp. 526–553, (2009)
two typical LV microgrids which included as many as twenty [12] Maulik, A. and Das, D., Optimal operation of
numbers of DG sources including storage devices, PV and wind microgrid using four different optimization
turbine. Three cases per test system were studied for the optimal techniques. Sustainable Energy Technologies and
sizing of DG sources so that the microgrid functions in the most Assessments, 21, pp.100-120, 2017
efficient as well as economical way by releasing minimal