Operation of A High Renewable Penetrated Power System With CSP Plants A Look-Ahead Stochastic Unit Commitment Model

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2018.2866486, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
Operation of a High Renewable Penetrated Power

System with CSP plants: A Look-ahead Stochastic
Unit Commitment Model
Ershun Du, Student Member, IEEE, Ning Zhang, Senior Member, IEEE, Bri-Mathias Hodge, Senior Member,
IEEE, Qin Wang, Member, IEEE, Zongxiang Lu, Member, IEEE, Chongqing Kang, Fellow, IEEE, Benjamin
Kroposki, Fellow, IEEE and Qing Xia, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—The integration of variable renewable energy (VRE) B. Superscripts

generation, i.e. wind power and solar photovoltaic, brings G, B, PV ,W , CSP Representing conventional thermal units,
significant uncertainty for the power system operation. Different battery storage devices, photovoltaic stations,
with VRE techniques, concentrating solar power (CSP) is an
wind farms and CSP units, respectively
appealing renewable generation technology due to its
dispatch-ability through the use of thermal energy storage (TES) TES , PB, SF , EH Denoting thermal energy storage, power
and is thus expected to play a significant role in high renewable block, solar field and electric heater in CSP
energy penetrated power systems. In this paper, we propose a plants, respectively.
look-ahead stochastic unit commitment model to operate power C. Parameters
systems with CSP under high renewable energy penetration. It C Generating cost of a power plant [$/MW-e]
has a three-stage structure. The first stage optimizes the
D Forecasting load [MW-e]
operational decisions in a day-ahead framework based on
forecasts; the second stage minimizes the expected generation cost DF Branch power flow distribution factor
for possible realizations in the real-time; and the third stage E PB , SU Start-up power of CSP plants [MWh-t]
accounts for look-ahead operation in future operating days. This
paper has a dual purpose: 1) exploring how CSP plants operate in E TES , E TES Max/min state-of-charge of TES [MWh-t]
high renewable penetrated power systems and 2) analyzing the Max
benefits of CSP in accommodating VRE generation. A case study F Line capacity [MW-e]
on a modified IEEE RTS-79 system with actual solar and wind B
power data is provided to validate the proposed method.
H Energy storage time [h]
Max Min
P ,P Max/min generation limits [MW-e]
Index Terms—concentrating solar power, energy storage, high
Fore
share of renewable energy, operational flexibility, stochastic unit P Forecasting generation of PV/Wind [MW-e]
commitment. Ru , Sys Rd , Sys
R ,R System up/down reserve requirement[MW-e]
NOMENCLATURE Fore
SF Forecasting solar thermal power [MW-t]
A. Subscripts SU Starting up cost of a power plant [$]
b Index of storage device from 1 to N B On
Tmin Off
, Tmin Minimum on/off times of a power plant [h]
c Index of CSP plant from 1 to N CSP
P , P Ru Rd
Up/down ramping rate [MW-e/h]
g Index of conventional unit from 1 to N G
t Time interval of dispatching
k Index of time period from 1 to N K for the
 VoLL Penalty cost of load shedding [$/MWh]
third-stage model
 Occurrence probability
l Index of transmission line from 1 to N L
m Index of third-stage scenario from 1 to N M  cha , dis Charging/discharging efficiency
n Index of node bus from 1 to N N  , PB EH
PB/EH efficiency
s Index of second-stage scenario from 1 to N S  TES
Heat dissipation factor of TES
t Index of time period from 1 to NT  CSP
() Feasible operation space of a CSP plant
v Index of photovoltaic station from 1 to N PV
D. Variables
w Index of wind farm from 1 to NW Variables with tilde ( ) denote the ones in the second-stage
model, those with hat ( ˆ ) denote the ones in the third-stage
This work was supported in part by National Key Research and Development
model, and the rest without accents are the ones in the first
Program of China (No.2016YFB0900100), the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (No.51677096) and Scientific & Technical Project of State Grid. stage model.
Corresponding author: Ning Zhang (ningzhang@tsinghua.edu.cn) and E TES / E B State-of-charge (SOC) of TES [MWh-t] /
Zongxiang Lu (luzongxiang98@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn).
E. Du, N. Zhang, Z. Lu, C. Kang and Q. Xia are with State Key Lab of Power SOC of battery storage devices [MWh-e]
Systems; Electrical Engineering Dept.; Tsinghua University; Beijing, China, 10084. f Power flow of transmission line [MW-e]
Q. Wang, B. Hodge, and B. Kroposki are with National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, U.S., 80401 I cha / I dis Charging / discharging binary variables
0885-8950 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2018.2866486, IEEE
P Electricity Power output [MW-e] Currently, many researches are concerning about the
P Cur Cur
/L Renewable energy /load curtailment [MW-e] strategic operation of CSP plants and analyzing the
cost-benefits of CSP [11]-[13]. Majority of them consider the
R/r Scheduled / deployed reserves [MW-e] strategic operation of CSP to maximize its profit in an
x ,u Unit status/ start-up binary variables electricity market as a price-taker [14],[15] or in co-operation
with VRE [16],[17]. Fewer studies analyze the CSP behaviors
I. INTRODUCTION from the prospective of power system operation. Chen et al. [18]
A. Background reformulated the power system scheduling model to take CSP
into consideration and analyzed the benefits of CSP in reducing
Global warming and fossil fuel depleting are pushing electric system operating costs and VRE curtailment, but the
energy power systems to be transformed from being thermal uncertainties of VRE and CSP were not considered. Jin et al.
generator dominated into renewable dominated systems [1]. [19] proposed a multi-day stochastic operation model for power
Some countries like Denmark and Ireland are already operating systems with CSP to make full use of TES. Xu and Zhang [20]
a power grid with more than 20% annual electricity generation utilized a stochastic unit commitment (SUC) and a look-ahead
from wind power and solar photovoltaics (PV). However, economic dispatch (ED) with considering wind/CSP
renewable energy production highly depends on the weather uncertainty to simulate the operation of a power system with
condition and thus is associated with large variability and CSP and quantify the value of CSP for the provision of energy
uncertainty[2]. This brings great challenges for the power and reserve services. Denholm et al. [21] compared the
system operation and necessitates considerable operational economic value among CSP, base-load units and PV, based on
flexibility. a whole year production simulation for the California power
In this light, concentrating solar power (CSP) is an appealing system with 33% renewable portfolio standard. Dominguez et
renewable generation technology due to its dispatch-ability al. [22] simulated the CSP operation in a fully renewable power
through the use of thermal energy storage (TES) and is thus system and illustrated the significant role of CSP to hedge the
expected to play a significant role in high renewable energy variability and uncertainty of VRE generation.
penetrated power systems [3]. Specifically, CSP transforms One of key challenges of operating a high penetrated power
solar irradiation into heat that can be stored in TES during the system is how to strategically schedule flexible generating
daytime and generates electricity as needed. Even if little solar sources under large scale uncertain renewable energy
irradiation is available on some cloudy days, a large enough generation supply. Zheng et al. [23] summarized the SUC
TES system allows CSP to shift electric production between approaches to operate power systems under uncertainty and
different days. Besides, TES also allows CSP to cooperate with illustrated the benefits of stochastic optimization. Morales et al.
electric heaters (EH) to convert electricity from the grid into [24] proposed a stochastic scheduling approach with
thermal energy that is re-used at a later time. Generally, CSP co-optimizing energy and reserves, and evaluated the economic
equipped with TES and EH provides an alternative choice to value of operating reserves in power systems with high wind
supply operational flexibility in power systems to help the power penetration. Bakirtzis et al. [25] proposed a multiple
balance between load and generation in an uncertainty time resolution unit commitment (UC) model to optimize the
environment. These attributes will help to facilitate the short-term generation schedule under high renewable enegy
integration of variable renewable energy (VRE) such as wind penetration. Denholm and Hand [26] analyzed the role of
power and PV in high renewable penetrated power systems. storage in renewable dominated power systems. Pozo et al. [27]
In this paper, we focus on the short-term operation of a high addressed how to incorporate a generic energy storage model
renewable penetrated power system with CSP plants and into the SUC model, considering the use of energy storage for
analyze the role of CSP in accommodating VRE generation. shifting generation and providing reserves. The look-ahead
B. Literature review scheduling model is widely used to manage the state-of- charge
Operation of high renewable energy penetrated power (SOC) of the storage [28],[29].
systems is attracting increasing attentions[4]-[7]. The National C. Contributions
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in U.S. has presented a In this paper, we propose an improved stochastic scheduling
report Renewable Electricity Future Study [8] to analyze the model to strategically operate a power system with CSP plants
scenario where a large part of electricity load demand is under high renewable energy penetrations. The proposed model
supplied by renewable energy sources for the U.S. power simultaneously optimizes energy and reserve scheduling
system in 2050. This study concludes that it is feasible to decisions, considering the uncertainties of wind speed and solar
achieve a renewable-dominated power system with 80% irradiation which are modeled by multiple scenarios. The CSP
generation capacity from renewable sources in 2050, and CSP plant equipped with TES and EH is modeled in detail and
is expected to be a significant part in the generation portfolio. operates strategically to provide both dispatchable generation
Another NREL report [9] specifically analyzed the value of and operating reserves to facilitate the integration of VRE.
CSP in integrating large scale renewable energy generation Compared with a co-located VRE and storage design, CSP
through a case study on the U.S. southwestern electric system. essentially can be regarded as a storage with a variable and
Dominguez et al. [10] explored whether it is possible to achieve uncertain charging source. TES can be built large enough to
a fully renewable power system. The results show that CSP will allow CSP to shift generation between different days to hedge
play a significant role to ensure the power balance. the intermittency of solar irradiation. Hence, the day-ahead
operation schedule of CSP should not only consider the
operation situation of the next operating day, but also take into
account how much energy should be stored in the TES at the
end of next operating day for the operation at future days. Electric Heater
In order to address the above issue, a look-ahead SUC model
is proposed. It has a three-stage structure. The first stage Curtailment Loss
Solar
optimizes the scheduling decisions including both energy and power Solar Field Power Block Electricity
reserves at the day-ahead time scale. The second stage employs HTF
(SF) Thermal Thermal (PB)
a real-time re-dispatch process to eliminate the power power power
releasing storing
imbalance between day-ahead schedules and RT actuals for
each realizable scenario. The third-stage accounts for Thermal Energy
Storage (TES)
look-ahead operation in future operating days to optimize the
SOC of TES in each scenario at the end of next operating day. Heat loss
Compared with existing multi-stage stochastic programming
Fig. 2. Simplified energy flow in CSP with TES and EH
methods to optimize the operation of energy storage devices,
such as [30] and [31], the proposed model is more of an Many references have presented various CSP operation
extension of a two-stage SUC model considering look-ahead models. Detailed CSP operation model for the self-operation/
operation. control study can be found in [32]. Simplified steady-state
Taking into account the above background and literature dispatch model of CSP is proposed in [15] and [22]. Based on
review, the contributions of this paper are three-fold: these results, a more generic and comprehensive dispatch
1) Proposing a generic operation model of CSP with TES and model of CSP is proposed and can be easily incorporated into
EH towards the short-term power system operation scheduling. power system scheduling problems. A configuration of CSP
2) Incorporating the CSP operation model into a look-ahead equipped with TES and EH is considered.
stochastic unit commitment model that makes full use of the Through analyzing the thermal energy balance in each
flexibility of CSP in high renewable penetrated systems. encapsulated block in CSP, a mixed-integer linear constraint set
3) Analyzing the benefits of CSP in facilitating the is proposed to describe the feasible operating space of CSP.
integration of VRE generation.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II
CSP
c 
SFcFore CSP EH
 
,t , t  Pc ,t , Pc ,t , Pc ,t
TES , cha
, PcTES
,t
, dis
,t , xc ,t , t
, EcTES CSP
describes the operation model of CSP with TES and EH.  SF Fore
c ,t  PcCSP
,t
,Cur
/cPB   cEH PcEH
,t =
Section III formulates the proposed look-ahead stochastic unit ,t (1)
commitment model. A case study on a modified IEEE RTS-79 P TES , cha
c ,t / cTES ,cha  PcTES
,t c
, dis TES , dis
  PcPB,t ,in
system is provided in section IV to verify the effectiveness of
PcPB ,t )  Pc ,t /c +uc ,t Ec
 f ( PcCSP ,t (2)
,in CSP PB PB PB , SU
proposed model. Section V concludes the paper. ,t
,t  (1   c ) Ec ,t -1   Pc ,t
EcTES  PcTES  t ,t  1 (3)
TES TES TES , cha , dis
II. CSP MODEL WITH TES AND EH ,t
Fig.1 provides a general configuration for CSP plants, EcTES  EcTES

,t  Ec
TES
,t (4)
including four encapsulated blocks, namely solar field (SF),
TES system, power block (PB) and electric heater (EH). Heat 0  PcTES
,t
, dis
 I cTES
,t
, dis TES , Max
Pc ,t (5)
transfer fluid (HTF) flows through these blocks to deliver 0P TES , cha
c ,t I TES , cha TES , Max
c ,t c P ,t (6)
thermal energy. The SF concentrates solar irradiation and heats
the HTF. Then high-temperature HTF can flow into the power I TES , cha
c ,t I TES , dis
c ,t 1; x PB
c ,t I TES , dis
c ,t ,t (7)
block to generate high-temperature steam that is used to drive a
stream turbine to produce electricity. HTF can also flow into xcPB,t PcPB , Min  PcCSP
,t  xcPB,t PcPB , Max ,t (8)
t 1
x ,t 1  Tc ,min
the TES system to store or release thermal energy. EH can be
equipped with CSP to expand the feasible range of CSP outputs
PB
c ,t  xcPB On ,CSP
  ,  0
xcPB ,t  1 (9)
  t Tc,min
On ,CSP
1
and allows for CSP to convert electricity from the grid into
t 1
thermal energy for use at a later time. Fig.2 illustrates the
schematic energy flow framework in a CSP plant equipped with x PB
c ,t 1 ,t  Tc ,min
 xcPB Off ,CSP
  1  x   0 ,t  1 (10)
PB
c ,
  t Tc,min
Off ,CSP
1
TES and EH systems.
xcPB,t  xcPB,t 1  ucPB,t , ucPB,t  xcPB,t , ucPB,t  1  xcPB,t 1 ,t  1 (11)
Solar field Thermal Electric Power block
energy storage heater Transformer PcCSP  PcCSP
,t 1  xc ,t 1 ( Pc
PB PB , Min
 PcRu , PB )
,t  1 (12)
,t
 xcPB,t ( PcPB , Max  PcPB , Min )  PcPB , Max

Pump
Generator
,t 1  Pc ,t
PcCSP  xcPB,t ( PcPB , Min  PcRd , PB )
Hot tank CSP
,t  1 (13)
Pump
 xcPB,t 1 ( PcPB , Max  PcPB , Min )  PcPB , Max
Pump Pump
Pump
Cold tank
0  PcEH
,t  Pc
PB , Max
,t (14)
Air cooled condenser
Net
P =P
c ,t
CSP
c ,t P EH
c ,t ,t (15)
Fig. 1. Configuration of a CSP plant
Constraint (1) represents the instantaneous thermal power scenario at the end of next operating day. The SUC model is
balance in CSP plants. The total thermal energy input is equal optimized to minimize the overall expected operating cost.
to the sum of thermal energy absorbed from the SF( SFcFore
,t
) and Only the decisions for the coming operating day are put into
the thermal energy transferred from EH( cEH PcEH ). The possible practice. The decisions for future operating days are for
,t
look-ahead operation evaluation.
spill is modeled by variable PcCSP ,t
,Cur
. The thermal energy is The variables associated with each stage are explained as
consumed via the energy exchange in TES and the consumption follows. For the first stage, variables include 1) the start-up and
by PB ( PcPB ,in
). Constraint (2) denotes the function between the shut-down decisions of each unit, 2) scheduled power output of
,t
each unit, 3) scheduled down/up spinning reserve of each unit
thermal energy input in PB ( PcPB ,in
) and the electricity output of
,t and 4) power flow on each branch. These variables are called
PB ( PcCSP
,t
)[15] . This function can be approximated by here and now decisions and do not depend on any particular
piece-wise linear functions. For simplicity, a constant scenario realization. For the second stage, the variables pertain
generating efficiency cPB is assumed, and EcPB , SU denotes the to each particular scenario for real-time re-dispatch, including:
1) the deployment of down/up spinning reserve of each unit, 2)
start-up energy needed to begin generating electricity[22].
the renewable energy curtailment, 3) the load shedding at each
Constraint (3) models the thermal energy balance in the TES
node bus, 4) actual power flow on each branch. These variables
system. The heat dissipation of TES is modeled by introducing
are called wait and see decisions. For the third stage, the
a dissipation factor  cTES [18]. Constraint (4) depicts the feasible variables also pertain to each particular scenario but are related
operation interval of the SOC of TES. Constraints (5) and (6) to the look-ahead operation in future days, including: 1)
set the charging and discharging rates within the operation generation schedule of each unit, 2) power flow on each branch.
bound 0, PcTES , Max  if only if the corresponding state variable is These variables are called look-ahead decisions.
1. Constraint (7) guarantees that the charging and discharging
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
states will not occur simultaneously and that the discharging
state will occur only when the PB is on. The PB module has
similar operational constraints as a conventional unit [33]. Realizable scenarios
Real-time realizable
Specifically, constraints (8) and (9) formulate the minimum s1.m1 for future days
scenarios
on/off time limit. Constraint (10) describes the relationship
s1 s1.m2
between the on/off state variables and the starting-up variable.
Constraint (11) sets the generation output within the operation
s2.m1
bound  PcPB, Min , PcPB, Max  if only if the PB is on-line. Constraints Day-ahead s2
(12) and (13), respectively, formulate the up/down ramping rate point forecasts s2.m2
limits. Constraint (14) assumes that the electricity consumption
s3 s3.m1
of EH is not more than the electricity generation capacity of
CSP. Constraint (15) formulates the net output of CSP with s3.m2
Net Day-ahead Real-time
TES and EH, Pc ,t , which locates in the interval Schedule Dispatch Look-ahead Operation
  P
c
PB , Max
,P
c
PB , Max
 .
Fig. 3. Uncertainty representation: a three-stage scenario tree.
The produced thermal energy in the SF, SFcFore , is modeled as
,t
B. Model Formulation
the input parameter. If given the value of solar irradiation,
1) Objective function
software tool SAM (Solar Advisor Model, developed by NREL)
[34] can be used to convert solar irradiation into produced solar minimize Cost Sys =Cost DA  Cost RT  Cost LA
thermal power in SF ( SFcFore
,t
) for CSP plants. where:
NT N G
III. UNIT-COMMITMENT MODEL FORMULATION 
Cost DA   SU gG u gG,t +C gG PgG,t +C Ru
g Rg ,t  C g Rg ,t
Ru Rd Rd

t 1 g 1
A. Model Framework
N  T  G N N NCSP

Cost RT    s   C gG RgRu,t , s  RgRd,t , s   C
S
A look-ahead SUC model is proposed to optimize the CSP CSP
c P
c ,t , s
generation schedule of high renewable penetrated power s 1  t 1  g 1 c 1
systems with CSP plants. The proposed model simultaneously N

  VoLL  LCur
N
optimizes energy and reserve scheduling decisions, considering n ,t , s 
the uncertainties of wind speed and solar irradiation. These n 1 
uncertain inputs are modeled by a three-stage scenario tree NS  N M  K  G
N N NCSP
shown in Fig.3. The proposed model has a three-stage structure. Cost LA    s   s , m   C gG PˆgG, k , s , m   C CSP ˆ CSP
c Pc , k , s , m
The first stage optimizes the UC decisions in a day-ahead s 1  m 1  k 1  g 1 c 1
framework based on point forecasting results, the second stage
NN

eliminates the imbalance power for all possible realizations in   VoLL  LˆCur
n , k , s , m 
the real-time based on economic dispatch (ED) operation, and n1 
the third stage accounts for the look-ahead ED operation in (16)
future operating days to optimize the SOC of TES in each The objective function (16) minimizes the overall expected
operating cost, Cost Sys . The first part is the day-ahead 0  PbB,t,dis  1  IbB,t,cha  PbB, Max ,0  PbB,t,cha  IbB,t,cha PbB,Max ,t ,b (26)
generation scheduling cost Cost DA , including the start-up cost,
fuel cost, and up/down spinning reserve scheduling cost for all EbB,t  EbB,t 1   PbB,t,cha / bB,cha  PbB,t,disbB,dis  t ,t  1,b (27)
conventional units. The second part is the expected real-time
EbB,t  EbB,ini   PbB,t,cha / bB,cha  PbB,t,disbB,dis  t ,t =1,b (28)
dispatch cost Cost RT , including reserve deployment cost of
conventional units, the generating cost of CSP plants, and the 0  EbB,t  H bB PbB , Max ,t ,b (29)
penalty cost of involuntary load shedding. The third part is the
PbB,t,cha  PbB,t, dis  RbB,t, Ru  PbB , Max ; RbB,t, Ru  0 ,t ,b (30)
expected look-ahead operating cost Cost LA in future days.
2) First-stage constraints P B , dis
b ,t P B , cha
b ,t R B , Rd
b ,t P
,t ,b (31)
b
B , Max
;R
B , Rd
b ,t 0
First-stage constraints are formulated with day-ahead point For each CSP plant, the operating position should be located
forecasts of wind power and solar power. Constraint (17)
ensures the system load-generation balance at each time slot.
in the feasible operation space CSP
c SFcFore
,t , t , formulated  
NG NW N PV NB by constraint (32). Constraints (33) to (36) formulate the
P G
g ,t   PwW,t   PvPV
,t   Pb ,t
B , dis
 PbB,t,cha   up/down spinning reserve scheduling constraints. Specifically,
g 1 w 1 v 1 b 1 shown in constraint (33), when the PB is on-line, the up reserve
,t (17)
 PcCSP
NCSP NN
   D ,
provided by the PB is not more than the room ( PcPB , Max
)
 P CSP
c ,t P EH
c ,t n ,t L Cur
n ,t L Cur
n ,t  [0, Dn,t ] ,t ,t
c 1 n 1 and the room of available TES discharging. Constraint (34) sets

For each conventional thermal unit, constraints (18) and (19) the up reserve provided by EH not more than the generation
represent the ramping up/down rate limit. The minimum on/off schedule of EH. Similarly, down reserves provided by the PB
time limit for each unit is considered by constraints (20) and and EH can be formulated by constraints (35) and (36).
(21). Constraint (22) describes the relationship between the unit
status and the starting-up action. Constraint (23) ensures that
P CSP
c ,t ,t   c
, PcEH CSP
SF Fore
c ,t , t  ,t ,c (32)
the online conventional unit is scheduled to offer both energy 0  RcPB,t , Ru  xcPB,t * min PcPB
,t 
, Max
,t ,  Ec ,t  Ec
 PcCSP TES TES
cPB ,t ,c (33) 
PgG,t and up (down) reserve RgRu,t ( RgRd,t ) without violating its
0  RcEH,t , Ru  PcEH
,t ,t ,c (34)
operating bound  P  .
 ,  EcTES  EcTES
,t c 
G , Min G , Max
,P g g 0  RcPB,t , Rd  xcPB,t * min PcCSP  PcPB , Min PB
,t ,c (35)
,t ,t
PgG,t  PgG,t 1  xgG,t 1 ( PgG , Min  PgG , Ru ) 

,t  1,g (18) 0  RcEH
,t
, Rd
 PcPB , Max  PcEH
,t ,c (36) ,t
x (PG
g ,t g
G , Max
P g
G , Min
)P g
G , Max
Constraint (37) formulates the branch power flow limit.
PgG,t 1  PgG,t  xgG,t ( PgG , Min  PgG , Rd )  Constraints (38) and (39) form the minimum system up and
,t  1,g (19) down reserve requirements.
xgG,t 1 ( PgG , Max  PgG , Min )  PgG , Max NG NW N PV
t 1
f l ,t   DFl , g PgG,t   DFl , w PwW,t   DFl ,v PvPV
,t 
x G
g ,t 
 xgG,t 1 TgOn
,min 
,G
 xgG,  0 ,t  1,g (20)
NB
g 1 w 1
NCSP
v 1
 DF  P  PbB,t,cha    DF  P ,t 
 t TgOn
,min 1
,t ,l (37)
,G
l ,b
B , dis
b ,t l ,c
CSP
c ,t  PcEH
t 1
x G
g ,t 1  xgG,t TgOff 
,min 
,G
 1  x    0 G
g,
,t  1,g (21) b 1
NN
c 1
  t TgOff
,min 1
 DFl , n  Dn ,t  LCur
n ,t   [  Fl
,G
Max
, Fl Max ]
xgG,t  xgG,t 1  ugG,t , ugG,t  xgG,t , ugG,t  1  xgG,t 1 ,t  1,g (22) NG
n 1
NB NCSP
P R x P
G
g ,t
Rd
g ,t
G G , Min
g ,t g ; gG,tP R x P Ru
g ,t
G G , Max
g ,t g ; R , R  0 , t ,g (23)
Ru
g ,t
Rd
g ,t  RgG,,tRu   RbB,t, Ru 
g 1 b 1
 R
c 1
PB , Ru
c ,t  RcEH
,t
, Ru
  R Ru,Sys ,t (38)
As for renewable generating units, constraints (24) and (25) NG NB NCSP
limit the schedule of a wind or PV plant not more than its
forecasting output value.
 RgG,,tRd   RbB,t, Rd 
g 1 b 1
 R
c 1
PB , Rd
c ,t  RcEH
,t
, Rd
  R Rd ,Sys ,t (39)
PwW,t  PwW,t,Cur  PwW,t, Fore ; PwW,t , PwW,t,Cur  0 ,t ,w (24) 3) Second-stage constraints
To represent the wind and solar power uncertainty, N S
,t  Pv ,t
PvPV  PvPV  0 ,t ,v (25)
PV , Cur , Fore PV PV ,Cur
,t ; Pv ,t , Pv ,t
scenarios representing real-time possible realizations of
For energy storage systems (ESS), constraint (26) limits the renewable energy production are considered in second-stage
charging and discharging rates within the operation bound constraints. These constraints describe how the scheduled
0, PcB, Max  . Constraints (27) and (28) formulate the energy reserves in the first stage are deployed to eliminate the power
balance in ESS. Constraint (29) limits the SOC level not more imbalance between day-ahead schedules and real-time actuals.
B B , Max
than the energy storage capacity ( H b Pb ). The ESS is able Specifically, constraint (40) represents the load-generation
balance in each scenario. The branch power flow constraint in
to provide operating reserves. Constraints (30) and (31), (41) is the same as constraint (37) but modified for the second
respectively, schedule the up/down reserves provided by ESS stage variables.
with not violating the charging/discharging power capacity.
NG NW N PV NB Modified versions of (24), (25) and (37) (57)

P G
g ,t , s   PwW,t , s   PvPV
,t , s   Pb ,t , s  Pb ,t , s
B , dis B ,cha
  For conventional thermal units, the on/off state variables are
g 1 w 1 v 1 b 1
,t ,s (40) neglected, and the feasible generation output is from 0 to its
NCSP NN
  PcCSP   
,t , s  Pc ,t , s   Dn ,t  Ln ,t , s , Ln ,t , s  [0, Dn ,t ]
EH Cur Cur
 power capacity, shown in constraint (58). Constraints (59) and
(60) formulate the up/down ramping rate limit.
c 1 n 1
Modified version of (37) (41) 0  PˆgG,k , s,m  PgG, Max ,k ,g , s, m (58)
For each conventional unit, the operating constraints are the
same as those in the first-stage. The dispatched power output is PgG, Rd  PˆgG,k , s,m  PˆgG,k -1,s ,m  PgG, Rd ,k  1,g , s, m (59)
equal to its day-ahead scheduled output plus the real-time
deployed reserves. PgG, Rd  PˆgG,k , s,m  PgG,t T , s  PgG , Rd ,k =1,g , s, m (60)
Modified versions of (18) and (19) (42) Constraints (61)-(68) formulate a simplified operational
xgG,t PgG , Min  PgG,t , s  xgG,t PgG , Max , t ,g ,s (43) model for CSP plants. Specifically, constraints (61)-(64)
simulate the operation of the power block and EH. Constraints
PgG,t , s =PgG,t  rgG,t,,Ru
s  rg ,t , s
G , Rd
, t ,g ,s (44)
(65) formulates the thermal energy balance in TES. The
0  rgG,t,,Ru
s  Rg ,t ,0  rg ,t , s  Rg ,t
G , Ru G , Rd G , Rd
, t ,g ,s (45) discharging rate of TES is related to the electricity generation
For each wind and PV plant: of CSP PˆcCSP
, k , s , m , while the charging rate of TES includes the
Modified versions of (24)-(25) (46) absorbed solar thermal energy from SF and the transferred
For each EES, the operating constraints are the same as those thermal energy from EH. Constraint (66) links the SOC of TES
in the first-stage. Constraints (48) and (49) link the scheduled in the second-stage with that in the third stage. The SOC of TES
ESS operation and actual ESS operation. is limited within [ EcTES , EcTES ] via constraint (67). Constraint
Modified versions of (26)-(28) (47)
(68) ensures the SOC of TES to go back to its initial value
, s  pb ,t , s  Pb , t
pbB,t, dis  PbB,t,cha  rbB,t,,Ru
s  rb , t , s , t ,b,s (48)
B , cha B , dis B , Rd
EcTES , Ini at the end of the simulating time horizon.
0  rbB,t,,Ru
s  Rb ,t ,0  rb ,t , s  Rb ,t
B , Ru B , Rd B , Rd
, t ,b,s (49)
PcRd  PˆcCSP ˆ CSP
, k , s , m  Pc , k -1, s , m  Pc
Rd
,k  1,c, s, m (61)
For each CSP unit, the PB status is fixed. The real-time
dispatch position should be located in the feasible operation PcRd  PˆcCSP
, k , s , m  Pc ,t  NT , s  Pc
CSP Rd
,k =1,c, s, m (62)
space. The dispatched power output is equal to the day-ahead
scheduled output plus the real-time deployed reserves. 0  PˆcCSP
, k , s , m  Pc
PB , Max
,k ,c, s, m (63)
Deployed reserves from the power block and EH are limited not
exceeding the scheduled values in the first stage.
0  Pˆ EH
c,k , s ,m P c
PB , Max
,k ,c, s, m (64)
P CSP
c ,t , s 
,t , s  c
, PcEH CSP
SF Fore
c ,t , s 
, t ,t ,c, s (50) Eˆ TES
c,k , s ,m  EˆTES
c , k -1, s , m 
 Pˆ CSP
c ,k , s ,m / PB
c  t /  TES , dis
c 
,t , s  xc ,t
xcCSP CSP
,t ,c, s (51)  SF Fore
c,k , s,m  PˆcCSP ,Cur PB ˆ EH
, k , s , m / c  Pc , k , s , m /  EH c
TES , cha
t 
P CSP
c ,t , s P CSP
c ,t rPB , Ru
c ,t , s r PB , Rd
c ,t , s ,t ,c, s (52) ,k  1,c, s, m (65)
0  rcPB
,t , s
, Ru
 RcPB
,t
, Ru
,0  rcPB
,t , s
, Rd
 RcPB
,t
, Rd
,t ,c, s (53) EˆTES
c,k , s ,m E TES
c ,t  NT , s 
 Pˆ CSP
c ,k , s ,m / PB
c  t /  TES , dis
c 
,t , s  Pc ,t  rc ,t , s
PcEH EH EH , Ru
 rcEH
,t , s
, Rd
,t ,c, s (54)  SF Fore
c,k , s,m  PˆcCSP
, k , s , m / c
,Cur PB
 PˆcEH
, k , s , m /  EH c
TES , cha
t 
0  rcEH
,t , s
, Ru
 RcEH
,t
, Ru
,0  rcEH
,t , s
, Rd
 RcEH
,t
, Rd
,t ,c, s (55) ,k =1,c, s, m (66)
4) Third-stage constraints E TES
c  Eˆ TES
c,k , s,m E TES
c ,k ,c, s, m (67)
The third-stage model simulates the look-ahead operation for
future days, and the generation schedule is not put into practice. Eˆ E TES
c,k , s,m,k =N K ,c, s, m (68)
TES , Ini
c
Thus, a simplified linear operation model is employed and Constraints (69)-(73) formulate a simplified operational
binary UC decisions are not considered, in order to improve the model for ESS. Specifically, constraint (69) limits the
computation performance. Specifically, ED operational charging/discharging rate of ESS. Constraints (70) formulates
constraints are incorporated in the third-stage to optimize the the energy balance in ESS. Constraint (71) links the SOC of
residual SOC of TES and ESS at the end of the next operating ESS in the second-stage with that in the third stage. The SOC of
day for each scenario. B B , Max
ESS is limited within [0, H b Pb ] via constraint (72).
Constraint (56) represents the system load-generation
Constraint (73) ensures that the SOC of ESS will go back to its
balance. Constraint (57) includes the branch power flow limit B , Ini
and the operating constraints for VRE units. initial value Eb at the end of the simulating time horizon.
ˆ , Pˆ B,cha  P B, Max
  0P ,k ,b, s, m (69)
NG NW N PV NB B , dis
 Pˆ G
  PˆwW, k , s , m   PˆvPV
, k , s , m   Pb , k , s , m  Pb , k , s , m
ˆ B ,dis ˆ B ,cha b, k , s , m b, k , s , m b
 
g ,k , s,m
g 1 w 1 v 1 b 1
Eˆ bB, k , s , m  EˆbB, k -1, s ,m  PˆbB,k,cha
, s , m / b
B , cha
 PˆbB,k,dis
, s , mb
B , dis
t
   
NCSP NN
 , k , s , m  Pc , k , s , m   Dn , k , s , m  Ln , k , s , m , Ln , k , s , m  [0, Dn , k , s , m ]
PˆcCSP ˆ EH ˆCur ˆCur ,k  1,b, s, m (70)
c 1 n 1
,k , s, m (56)

Eˆ bB, k , s , m  EbB,t  NT , s  PˆbB,k,cha
, s , m / b
B , cha
 PˆbB,k, dis
, s , mb
B , dis

t SUC model and the simplified look-ahead SUC model.
Value of Look-ahead Operation:
,k =1,b, s, m (71)
   
(77)
C Three arg min C Three (u, p)  C Three arg min C Two
Full (u, p)
0  Eˆ
Full Full Full
B
b, k , s , m H P B B , Max
b b ,k ,b, s, m (72)
Cost of Simplification:
Eˆ cB, k , s , m  EbB , Ini ,k =N K ,b, s, m (73)
   
(78)
C Three
Full arg min C Three
Full (u, p)  C Three
Full arg min C Three
Simp (u, p)
Overall, constraints (16) to (73) compose the proposed
look-ahead three-stage stochastic operation model, which is a
stochastic mixed integer linear programming (MILP) model. IV. CASE STUDY
C. Model Discussion A. Test System

The proposed model is compactly formulated by the The proposed approach has been tested on a modified IEEE
simplified look-ahead stochastic optimization (74), where RTS-79 system which contains 24 nodes, 34 lines, and 24
generators, shown in Fig.4. Day-ahead UC decision making is
(u, p) denotes the optimized UC decisions for the next-day
processed with considering a three-day look-ahead operation.
operation scheduling. The first stage is a MILP UC model, and The generation mix is given in Table I. Conventional generator
both the second stage and the third stage are based on LP ED data and transmission network data are extracted from [35].
model. Since the accurate look-ahead operation for future days Technical parameters of CSP units are listed in Table II. The SF
should employ the MILP UC model, the proposed SUC capacity in CSP plants is measured by solar multiple (SM),
approach is a simplified one. The full look-ahead SUC model is which is the ratio of SF capacity to the thermal power required
formulated by the optimization (75), in which the look-ahead to operate the PB at rated capacity. The TES capacity is
UC operation constraints are formulated as the modified measured by the hours of operating the PB at rated capacity.
version of equations (17)-(39) with neglecting the reserve The wind and solar data are from NREL database[34]. The load
schedule. This model is formulated as a MILP problem which and renewable forecasting results are shown in Fig. 5. 10
contains much more binary variables than the simplified one real-time scenarios in the second stage and 10 look-ahead
and thus is time-consuming. Without considering the scenarios in the third stage are considered. Computations are
look-ahead operation of future days, the look-ahead SUC performed using the solver of CPLEX 12.5 on a PC with a 2.90
model is degraded to be a normal two-stage SUC optimization GHz Intel processor and 128 GB RAM.
(76). The storage level of TES systems and storage devices U400
B18
reverts to the initial value at the end of next operating day. B21 500MW Wind
Simplified_LA_SUC 
B17 B22
500MW PV
U155 B23 U350 100MW CSP
minimize C Three
Simp (u, p )=Cost
DA
 Cost RT  Cost LA
uU ,pP B16 B19 B20
subject to：Day-ahead UC scheduling constraints (17)-(39) (74) B15
U155 B14
Real-time ED operation constraints (40)-(55) 2*U197
Look-ahead ED operation constraints (56)-(73) B13

 Full_LA_SUC  B24 B11 B12
minimize C Three
Full (u, p)=Cost DA  Cost RT  Cost LA B3 B9 B10
uU ,pP
subject to：Day-ahead UC scheduling constraints (17)-(39) (75)

B4
Real-time ED operation constraints (40)-(55) B5
Look-ahead UC operation constraints B7
 Two_Stage_SUC  B1 B2
U350
4*U76
4*U76
minimize C Two
Full (u, p )=Cost
DA
 Cost RT
uU , pP Fig. 4 Modified IEEE 24-node system
TABLE I
subject to：Day-ahead UC scheduling constraints (17)-(39) (76) GENERATOR MIX OF THE MODIFIED IEEE RTS-96 SYSTEM
Real-time ED operation constraints (40)-(55) Max Load CG CSP Wind PV
E TES
c , t T , s =E TES , Ini
c , c, t ; E B
b , t T , s =EB , Ini
b , b, t Capacity/ MW 2850 2412 300 1500 1500
The benefit of considering the look-ahead operation of future TABLE II

days can be evaluated as the cost difference of UC solution PARAMETERS OF CSP UNIT
between the full look-ahead SUC model and the two-stage SUC Parameter Value Parameter Value
model, shown in (77). The true cost performance of a UC P Ru , P Rd 40% P Max Initial SOC 50% E TES
solution can be estimated as the cost tested on the full On
Tmin ( Tmin
Off
) 2(2) hours E PB , SU 50 MW-t
look-ahead SUC model. Similarly, shown in (78), the cost of
employing the simplified model in future days is estimated as
Solar multiple 2.4  PB
38%
the cost difference of UC solution between the full look-ahead TES capacity 8 hours  dis (  cha ) 98% (98%)
Wind Power Scenarios PV Power Scenarios the variability of wind power and PV generation. Fig. 6(b)
depicts the operating schedule of CSP plants. The absorbed
solar thermal energy during the daytime is stored in the TES,
instead of generating electricity. The TES system allows CSP
to shift generation to the periods of sunrise and sunset.
3000
Conventional Unit
CSP
CSP Solar Thermal Power Scenarios Load Scenarios 2500 Wind Power
PV
Generation / MW
2000 RES_Cur
Load
1500
1000
Time / Hour Time / Hour

500
Fig. 5 Load and renewable forecasting results
0
B. Verifying the Proposed Model
t10
t11
t12
t13
t14
t15
t16
t17
t18
t19
t20
t21
t22
t23
t24
t1
t2
t3
t4
t5
t6
t7
t8
t9
Three models, respectively represented by formulations (74) Time / Hour
to (76), are tested on the above test system. Results are (a) generation schedule
summarized in Table III. The estimated performance is the CSP generation from SF CSP generation from TES
results coming out of the model itself. The true cost Stored Energy from SF Storage Level of TES
500 8000
Storage level of TES / MWh-t

performance is the results of testing the solution on the full
450 7000
look-ahead SUC model. Obviously, full look-ahead SUC 400
6000
Generation / MW
model involves the minimum overall cost and drives the best 350
UC solution. However, the solving time is too long to be 300 5000
acceptable. The conventional two-stage SUC model has much 250 4000
200
better computational performance, but involves the worst 3000
150
solution, since the look-ahead future operation is not 100
2000
considered. The economic loss of not considering future 50 1000
operation is quantified as $83.0k. Compared with these two 0 0
models, our proposed simplified look-ahead SUC model t1 t5 t9 t13 t17 t21
Time / Hour
incorporates an optimistic estimation of look-ahead future (b) operation schedule of CSP plants
operation. The solving time dramatically drops to the level Fig. 6 Day-ahead generation schedules optimized by proposed method
similar with the two-stage SUC model.
The storage curves of TES in each scenario for different
According to the formulations (77) and (78), the saved
methods are compared in Fig.7. Obviously, for the two-stage
benefit of considering future operation is $28.8k, and the cost
SUC method, the storage level of TES in every scenario goes
of the simplification of employing look-ahead ED operation for
back to the initial level at the end of next operating day. For two
future days in the third-stage is $54.2k.
look-ahead SUC models, the residual SOC of TES at the end of
TABLE III next operating day is pertained to each scenario and optimized
PERFORMANCE COMPARISON AMONG THREE MODELS through considering the look-ahead future operation.
Simplified Full
Two-stage
Compared with two-stage SUC method, this brings a multi-day
look-ahead Look-ahead operation coordination.
SUC
SUC SUC
Expected Operating Residual SOC of TES
Estim- 216.05 221.12 222.42 Two Stage SUC
Cost in Day1 (k$) at the end of day1 /
ated
Expected Cost MWh-t
Perfor- 739.20 801.26 0
in Day2-Day4 (k$)
mance
Overall Cost 955.25 1022.4 222.42
SOC of TES / MWh-t
Expected Operating
216.05 221.12 222.42
True Cost in Day1 (k$)
Perfor- Expected Cost in Simplified Look-ahead SUC
860.56 801.26 882.98
mance Day2-Day4 (k$)
Overall Cost 1076.6 1022.4 1105.4
Benefits of Look-ahead (k$) 28.8 83.0 -
Cost of Simplification (k$) 54.2 - -
Solving Time (s) 136.2 32844 80.1
Full Look-ahead SUC
According the results from proposed SUC method, Fig. 6(a)
shows how generation units are scheduled to supply demand on
day-ahead stage. The renewable energy penetration level
reaches up to 51.1%. The production of CSP is limited by the Time / Hour
available solar irradiation, but is flexible in compensating for Fig. 7 Storage level of TES in each scenarios
C. Evaluating the Benefits of CSP Plants replaced by 710MW PV with keeping the same renewable
In this section, a whole year of simulation is made to quantify energy penetration level), the total investment cost of CSP in
the benefit of incorporating look-ahead operation in the SUC case 1 is higher than the investment cost of PV in case 3 by
model and to preliminarily analyze the cost-effectiveness of $11.20M-yr, while the save annual operating cost is $22.34M.
CSP plants. From this regard, investing CSP is cost-efficient. Detailed
Case 1 (Base case): CSP plants are equipped with TES. The analysis method for evaluating the investment economy of CSP
proposed look-ahead UC model is performed to strategically is left for the future study.
operate CSP to obtain a minimum-cost generation schedule. D. Sensitivity Analysis
Case 2 (no LA): Conventional two-stage SUC model is used.
1) Impact of the CSP flexibility
Thus, the look-ahead (LA) future operation is not considered.
The operating flexibility of CSP varies with the capacity of
Case 3 (no CSP): Compared with case 1, CSP plants are
the TES system. Table V shows the results of cases with
removed.
different TES capacity. With the increase in TES capacity, the
Case 4 (PV): Compared with case 1, 300MW CSP plants are
operational flexibility of CSP is enhanced, and both the overall
replaced by 710MW PV, keeping the same annual available
operating cost and the ratio of renewable energy curtailment
electricity generation.
decrease. Fig.8 demonstrates that the benefit of considering
Case 5 (with EH): Compared with case 1, CSP plants are
look-ahead operation and the benefit of incorporating EH are
equipped with EH to enhance the operational flexibility and
both increased with the increase of TES capacity.
make use of curtailed renewable energy generation. The TABLE V
transfer efficiency HE of EH is assumed to be 90%. PERFORMANCE COMPARISON WITH DIFFERENT TES CAPACITY
Case 6 (Storage): Compared with case 1, CSP plants are TES Capacity 0 Hour 4 Hour 8 Hour 12Hour
replaced by ESS with the same capacity. The cycle efficiency Case 1 (Base case) 88.06 69.24 65.72 64.50
Operating
of ESS is assumed to be 75%, a typical cycle efficiency of large Cost (M$)
Case 2 (no LA) 88.06 70.18 66.93 65.95
pumped hydro station. Case 5 (with EH) 88.06 69.03 65.25 63.84
The operating cost and renewable energy curtailment during Case 1 (Base case) 19.89% 14.56% 11.68% 10.70%
Renewable
a whole year in each case are compared in Table IV. Several Curtailment
Case 2 (no LA) 19.89% 14.69% 11.99% 11.10%
findings are summarized. 1) Comparing case 1 with case 2, Case 5 (with EH) 19.89% 12.90% 9.24% 7.56%
considering look-ahead future operation brings $0.91M saving
on operating cost and reduces renewable energy curtailment by Reduction on renewable
1.60 Reduction on operating cost 3.50%
0.028TWh. 2) Comparing case 1 with case 3, the introduction curtailment
Reduced Operation Cost / k$
Reduced Renewable Shedding

1.40 0 hour 3.00% 0 hour
of CSP plants brings $27.04M savings on operating cost, but 1.20 4 hour 4 hour
8 hour 2.50% 8 hour
increases renewable energy curtailment by 0.282TWh. It 1.00 12 hour 12 hour
2.00%
should be noted that the renewable energy penetration level 0.80
also increases. 3) In order to quantify the benefits of CSP’s 0.60
1.50%
flexibility, we compare case 1 with case 4. Results show that 0.40 1.00%
the flexibility of CSP brings $22.34M savings and 0.772TWh 0.20 0.50%
reduction on renewable energy curtailment. 4) Comparing case 0.00

Benefit of LA Benefit of EH
0.00%
Benefit of LA Benefit of EH
1 with case 5, instead of curtailing surplus VRE generation, the
equipment of EH allows for CSP to convert surplus VRE into Fig. 8 Benefit of considering LA operation and benefit of equipping EH with
different TES capacities
thermal energy to be re-used in the future. This brings $0.47M
operating cost savings and decreases renewable energy 2) Impact of the VRE penetration
curtailment by 0.216TWh. 5) Compared with the same capacity With constant CSP capacity, we compare its performance
storage device, CSP is superior in reducing operating costs by under different renewable energy penetration levels. Table VI
$8.65M, but is inferior in reducing renewable energy shows the results of the cases with the capacity of VRE
curtailment, shedding 0.71GWh more. increased or decreased by 20%. Obviously, with increasing
TABLE IV
PERFORMANCE COMPARISON AMONG CASE 1 TO CASE 6
VRE capacity, overall operating cost decreases, but the ratio of
Overall Renewable renewable curtailment increases. Fig.9 demonstrates that the
Difference Difference benefit of considering look-ahead operation and the benefit of
Operating Curtailment
(M$) (TWh)
Cost (M$) (TWh) incorporating EH are both increased with the increase of VRE
Case 1 (Base case) 65.72 0.0 1.08(11.7%) 0.0 capacity.
Case 2 (no LA) 66.63 0.91 1.11(12.0%) 0.028 TABLE VI
Case 3 (no CSP) 92.75 27.04 0.79(10.2%) -0.282 PERFORMANCE COMPARISON WITH DIFFERENT VRE CAPACITY
Case 4 (PV) 88.06 22.34 1.85(19.9%) 0.772 20% 20%
VRE Capacity Base
Decrease Increase
Case 5 (with EH) 65.25 -0.47 0.86(9.24%) -0.216
Case 1 (Base case) 75.63 65.72 59.22
Case 6 (Storage) 74.37 8.65 0.36(4.69%) -0.711 Operating
Case 2 (no LA) 76.37 66.63 60.47
Cost (M$)
Case 5 (with EH) 75.22 65.25 58.68
Currently, the investment cost of CSP plants with TES is Case 1 (Base case) 5.86% 11.68% 18.67%
very expensive. The annualized investment cost for CSP with Renewable
Case 2 (no LA) 6.12% 11.99% 19.22%
2.4 SM and 8-hour TES is around 700$/kW-yr, while PV is Curtailment
Case 5 (with EH) 4.69% 9.24% 15.75%
280$/kW-yr [8]. Comparing case 1 and case 4 (300MW CSP is
Reduction on renewable [9] P Denholm and M. Mehos. “Enabling greater penetration of solar power
Reduction on operating cost via the use of csp with thermal energy storage,” NREL/TP-6A20-52978,
curtailment
1.40 3.50% Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2013.
20% Decrease 20% Decrease
nguez, A J. Conejo, and M. Carrión. “Toward fully renewable
Reduced Renewable Curtailment

[10] R Domí
Reduced Overall Cost / k$
1.20 Base 3.00% Base

20% Increase 2.50% 20% Increase electric energy systems,” IEEE Trans Power Syst, vol. 30, no. 1, pp:
1.00
316-326, 2015.
2.00%
0.80 [11] R. Sioshansi and P. Denholm. “The value of concentrating solar power
0.60 1.50% and thermal energy storage,” IEEE Trans Sust Ener, vol. 1, no. 3, pp:
0.40 1.00% 173-183, 2010.
0.50%
[12] B. Brand, A. B. Stambouli, and D. Zejli. “The value of dispatchability of
0.20
CSP plants in the electricity systems of Morocco and Algeria,” Energy
0.00 0.00%
Policy, vol.47, no.10, pp: 321-331, 2012.
Benefit of LA Benefit of EH Benefit of LA Benefit of EH
[13] E Du, N Zhang, B.M Hodge, et al. “The Role of Concentrating Solar
Fig. 9 Benefit of considering LA operation and benefit of equipping EH with Power Towards High Renewable Energy Penetrated Power Systems,”
different VRE capacities IEEE Trans Power Syst, 2018.(accepted)
[14] M.J. Vasallo and J. M. Bravo. “A MPC approach for optimal generation
scheduling in CSP plants,” Applied Energy. vol. 165, no.0, pp: 357-370,
V. CONCLUSION 2016.
[15] J. Usaola. “Operation of concentrating solar power plants with storage in
We address the short-term operation scheduling problem of a spot electricity markets,” IET Renewable Power Generation, vol.6, no.1,
high renewable energy penetrated power system with the pp: 59-66, 2012.
presence of CSP. A look-ahead stochastic programing model is [16] R. Sioshansi and P. Denholm.“Benefits of colocating concentrating solar
proposed that formulates the day-ahead schedule in the first power and wind,” IEEE Trans Sust Ener, vol.4, no.4, pp: 877-885, 2013.
[17] F. J. Santos-Alamillo, D. Pozo-Vazquez, J. A. Ruiz-Arias, et al.
stage, real-time dispatch with uncertainty revealed in the “Combining wind farms with concentrating solar plants to provide stable
second stage, and look-ahead operation in the third stage. renewable power,” Renewable Energy, vol. 76, no.0, pp: 539-550, 2015.
Several findings are summarized as follows: [18] R. Chen, H. Sun, Z. Li, Y. Liu. “Grid Dispatch Model and
(1) With the presence of large scale VRE integration, CSP Interconnection Benefit Analysis of Concentrating Solar Power Plants
with Thermal Storage,” Automation of Electric Power Systems, vol. 38,
plants with TES are dispatch-able and have significant impact no. 19, pp:1-7, 2014. (in Chinese).
on reducing the system operating cost and the renewable energy [19] H. Jin, H Sun, Q Guo, et al. Power system multi-day stochastic
curtailment. Specifically, CSP plants can operate strategically scheduling considering the uncertainty of CSP/wind plants, IEEE Power
to shift their generation for addressing the variability of VRE and Energy Society General Meeting. Boston, U.S., 2016.
[20] T Xu and N Zhang, “Coordinative Commitment and Dispatch of
generation and to provide reserves for compensating the Concentrated Solar Power and Wind Resources to Provide Energy and
forecast error of VRE generation. Reserve Services,” IEEE Trans Power Syst, vol. 32, no. 2, pp:1260 –
(2) Incorporating look-ahead future operation in day-ahead 1271, 2017.
UC problems can make full use of CSP’s flexibility and bring [21] P Denholm, Y Wan, M Hummon; and M Mehos. “Analysis of
Concentrating Solar Power with Thermal Energy Storage in a California
considerable economic benefits in reducing operating cost and 33% Renewable Scenario,” NREL/TP-6A20-58186. Golden, CO:
renewable energy curtailment. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2013.
(3) EH allows for CSP to convert surplus renewable energy [22] R Dominguez, A. J Conejo and M Carrion. “Operation of a fully
generation into thermal energy to be re-used in future periods. renewable electricity energy system with CSP plants,” Applied Energy,
vol 119, no. 0, pp: 417-430, 2014.
Equipping CSP with EH enhances the flexibility and the [23] Q. P Zheng, J Wang, and A. L Liu, “Stochastic optimization for unit
economy of CSP in high renewable penetrated power systems. commitment—a review.” IEEE Trans. Power Syst. Vol. 30, no. 4, pp.
1913-1924, 2015.
REFERENCES [24] J. M Morales, A. J Conejo and J. Perez-Ruiz. “Economic valuation of
reserves in power systems with high penetration of wind power,” IEEE
[1] B. Kroposki,B. Johnson,Y. Zhang, et al. “Achieving a 100% renewable Trans Power Syst, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 900-910, 2009.
grid: operating electric power systems with extremely high levels of [25] E. A Bakirtzis, P. N Biskas, D. P. Labridis, et al. “Multiple time
variable renewable energy,” IEEE Power & Energy Magazine, vol. 15, resolution unit commitment for short-term operations scheduling under
no. 2, pp. 61-73, 2017. high renewable penetration,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst. vol. 29, no. 1, pp.
[2] Y Wang, N Zhang, C Kang, et al. “An Efficient Approach to Power 149-159, 2013.
System Uncertainty Analysis with High-Dimensional Dependencies,” [26] P Denholm and M Hand. “Grid flexibility and storage required to
IEEE Trans Power Syst, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 2984-2994, May 2018. achieve very high penetration of variable renewable electricity,” Energy
[3] P. Denholm,Y. H. Wan, M. Hummon, et al. “The value of csp with Policy, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 1817-1830, 2011.
thermal energy storage in the western united states,” Energy Procedia, [27] D Pozo, J Contreras, E. E Sauma. “Unit Commitment with ideal and
vol 49, no. 0, pp.1622-1631, 2014. generic energy storage units,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol.29, no.6, pp.
[4] B Kroposki. “Integrating high levels of variable renewable energy into 2974-2984, 2014.
electric power systems”. Journal of Modern Power Systems & Clean [28] N Li, C Uçkun, E. M Constantinescu, et al. “Flexible operation of
Energy, vol.5, no.6, pp:831-837, 2017. batteries in power system scheduling with renewable energy”, IEEE
[5] A.J Conejo, Y Cheng, N Zhang, et al. “Long-term coordination of Trans. Sust Ener., vol.7, no.2, pp. 685-696, 2016.
transmission and storage to integrate wind power”. CSEE Journal of [29] B. Lu and M. Shahidehpour, “Short-term scheduling of battery in a
Power & Energy Systems, vol.3, no.1, pp:36-43, 2017. gridconnected PV/battery system,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 20, no.
[6] H Li, A. T Eseye, J Zhang, et al. “Optimal energy management for 20, pp. 1053–1061, May 2005.
industrial micro-grids with high-penetration renewables”. Protection & [30] A Bhattacharya, J Kharoufeh and B Zeng. “Managing Energy Storage in
Control of Modern Power Systems, vol.2, no.1, pp:1-12, 2017. Microgrids: A Multistage Stochastic Programming Approach”. IEEE
[7] Y Ding, C Shao, J Yan, et al. “Economical flexibility options for Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 128-138, 2018.
integrating fluctuating wind energy in power systems: The case of China,” [31] T Ding, Y Hu and Z Bie. “Multi-Stage Stochastic Programming with
Applied Energy. vol. 228, no.0, pp: 426-436, 2018. Nonanticipativity Constraints for Expansion of Combined Power and
[8] M. Hand, S. Baldwin, E. M. De, J. M Reilly, T. Mai, D Arent, et al. Natural Gas Systems”. IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 33, no. 1, pp.
“Renewable electricity futures study,” NREL/TP-6A20-52409. Golden, 317-328, 2018.
CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2012.
[32] M. J. Wagner and P. Gilmann, “Technical Manual for the SAM Physical Benjamin Kroposki (M’92, SM’00, F’14) received his
Trough Model,” NREL/TP-5500-51825. Golden, CO: National BS and MS in Electrical Engineering from Virginia Tech
Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2011. and PhD from the Colorado School of Mines. He is now
[33] M Mehrtash, M Raoofat, M Mohammadi, et al. “Fast stochastic the Director of the Power Systems Engineering Center at
security-constrained unit commitment using point estimation method”. the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). His
International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems, vol.26, no.3, expertise is in the design, testing, and integration of
pp:671-688, 2016. renewable and distributed power systems.
[34] System Advisor Model (SAM). National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
[EB/OL] https://sam.nrel.gov/
[35] Probability Methods Subcommittee, “IEEE reliability test system,”
IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol.PAS-98, no.6, pp.2047–2054, 1979. Qing Xia (M’01, SM’08) received his Ph.D. from the
Electrical Engineering Department of Tsinghua
Ershun Du (S’13) received both a B.S and Ph.D. from University, China in 1989. He is now a Professor at the
the Electrical Engineering Department of Tsinghua same university. His research interests include electricity
University in 2013 and 2018, respectively. His research markets, generation schedule optimization and power
interests include renewable energy uncertainty analysis, system planning.
power system operation and planning with wind power,
photovoltaic, and concentrating solar power.
Ning Zhang (M’12, SM’18) received both a B.S. and

Ph.D. from the Electrical Engineering Department of
Tsinghua University in China in 2007 and 2012,
respectively. He is now an Associate Professor at the
same university. His research interests include multiple
energy system integration power system planning, and
scheduling with renewable energy, and
stochastic analysis and simulation of renewable energy.
Bri-Mathias Hodge (M’09, SM’17) received the B.S.

degree in chemical engineering from Carnegie Mellon
University in 2004, the M.S. degree from the Process
Design and Systems Engineering Laboratory, Åbo
Akademi, Turku, Finland, in 2005, and the Ph.D. degree
in chemical engineering from Purdue University in 2010.
He is currently the Manager of the Power System Design
and Studies Group, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA.
Qin Wang (M’13) received the Ph.D. degree in the

Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at
Iowa State University, Ames, IA, in 2013. He is currently
a senior Engineer/Scientist at Electric Power Research
Institute in Palo Alto, California. His previous industry
experiences include positions at National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, Midcontinent ISO and ISO New
England. His research interests include power system
reliability and online security analysis, smart distribution
systems, transactive energy, transmission planning, and
electricity markets.
Chongqing Kang (M’01, SM’07, F’17) received his

Ph.D. from the Electrical Engineering Department of
Tsinghua University in 1997. He is now a Professor at the
same university. His research interests include
low-carbon electricity, power system planning,
renewable energy, power markets and power system load
forecasting.
Zongxiang Lu (M’02) received his B.S. and Ph.D. from

the Electrical Engineering Department of Tsinghua
University in 1998 and 2002, respectively. He is now an
Associate Professor at the same university. His research
interests include large-scale wind/PV integration analysis
and control, energy and electricity strategy planning,
power system reliability, DG and micro-grid.

Operation of A High Renewable Penetrated Power System With CSP Plants A Look-Ahead Stochastic Unit Commitment Model

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Operation of A High Renewable Penetrated Power System With CSP Plants A Look-Ahead Stochastic Unit Commitment Model

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been

Operation of a High Renewable Penetrated Power

Abstract—The integration of variable renewable energy (VRE) B. Superscripts

Fig.1 provides a general configuration for CSP plants, EcTES  EcTES

 xcPB,t ( PcPB , Max  PcPB , Min )  PcPB , Max

c 1 n 1 and the room of available TES discharging. Constraint (34) sets

PgG,t  PgG,t 1  xgG,t 1 ( PgG , Min  PgG , Ru ) 

NG NW N PV NB Modified versions of (24), (25) and (37) (57)

,k , s, m (56)

C. Model Discussion A. Test System

Look-ahead ED operation constraints (56)-(73) B13

subject to：Day-ahead UC scheduling constraints (17)-(39) (75)

The benefit of considering the look-ahead operation of future TABLE II

Time / Hour Time / Hour

Storage level of TES / MWh-t

Reduced Renewable Shedding

reduction on renewable energy curtailment. 4) Comparing case 0.00

Reduced Renewable Curtailment

1.20 Base 3.00% Base

Ning Zhang (M’12, SM’18) received both a B.S. and

Bri-Mathias Hodge (M’09, SM’17) received the B.S.

Qin Wang (M’13) received the Ph.D. degree in the

Chongqing Kang (M’01, SM’07, F’17) received his

Zongxiang Lu (M’02) received his B.S. and Ph.D. from

You might also like