Stochastic optimization of cost-risk for integrated energy system considering wind and solar power correlated
- 594 Downloads
Abstract
Due to the growing penetration of renewable energies (REs) in integrated energy system (IES), it is imperative to assess and reduce the negative impacts caused by the uncertain REs. In this paper, an unscented transformation-based mean-standard (UT-MS) deviation model is proposed for the stochastic optimization of cost-risk for IES operation considering wind and solar power correlated. The unscented transformation (UT) sampling method is adopted to characterize the uncertainties of wind and solar power considering the correlated relationship between them. Based on the UT, a mean-standard (MS) deviation model is formulated to depict the trade-off between the cost and risk of stochastic optimization for the IES optimal operation problem. Then the UT-MS model is tackled by a multi-objective group search optimizer with adaptive covariance and Lévy flights embedded with a multiple constraints handling technique (MGSO-ACL-CHT) to ensure the feasibility of Perato-optimal solutions. Furthermore, a decision making method, improve entropy weight (IEW), is developed to select a final operation point from the set of Perato-optimal solutions. In order to verify the feasibility and efficiency of the proposed UT-MS model in dealing with the uncertainties of correlative wind and solar power, simulation studies are conducted on a test IES. Simulation results show that the UT-MS model is capable of handling the uncertainties of correlative wind and solar power within much less samples and less computational burden. Moreover, the MGSO-ACL-CHT and IEW are also demonstrated to be effective in solving the multi-objective UT-MS model of the IES optimal operation problem.
Keywords
Integrated energy system Renewable energies Unscented transformation Mean-standard deviation Multi-objective optimization Decision making1 Introduction
In recent years, due to the fast depletion and severe pollution of fossil fuels, there is a massive stimulation to integrate the renewable energies (REs) such as wind and solar into integrated energy system (IES) [1]. However, the growing penetration of wind and solar power imposes challenges to the reliability and efficiency of IES operation since these resources are neither schedulable nor fully predictable [2, 3]. In this regard, it is necessary to consider the uncertainties aroused by REs and to minimize the stochastic impact in the IES optimal operation problem [4].
In the aspect of accommodating the uncertainties of REs in the IES operation, there are two main kinds of stochastic approaches, namely, the fuzzy approach and the probabilistic approach [5]. Among the fuzzy optimization approaches [6, 7, 8], the wind and solar power are depicted in fuzzy set notations using membership functions [9]. Although the fuzzy approach is easy to implement, it might be subjected to the dispatchers’ attitude and trapped in selecting suitable membership functions [10, 11]. In terms of the probabilistic approach, it can be generally divided into scenario-based programming [12, 13, 14, 15, 16], robust optimization [17, 18], chance-constrained optimization [19, 20] and risk-based optimization [21, 22].
Among these approaches, the scenario-based stochastic optimization method is quite cost-effective. It considers the system uncertainties as random input variables and represents their probability distributions by scenarios generated by Monte Carlo sampling (MCS) [23] or Latin hypercube sampling (LHS) [24]. Each scenario is characterized as a deterministic problem that can be solved by mathematical programming methods or evolutionary optimization algorithms [25]. However, the computation burden of the original problem increases along with the number of scenarios. Although the scenario reduction (SR) method [26] that aggregates similar scenarios can reduce the computation burden, it also reduces the accuracy in calculating the actual operating cost.
To relieve the computational burden of scenario-based stochastic optimization, it is necessary to select the representative scenarios that can fully reflect the properties of input variables’ probabilistic uncertainties. The unscented transformation (UT) sampling method, which is raised for nonlinear transformation in filters and estimators [27], is adopted to characterize the uncertainties of wind and solar power considering the correlated relationship between them [28]. The UT is a reliable method for calculating the statistic information of output variables through a set of nonlinear transformations. This method handles nonlinear systems well since no linearization process is needed. By constructing a set of sample points known as sigma points to exhibit specific properties of input variables, the UT is able to obtain the means and variances of output variables with limited numbers of calculation by treating the sample points as representative scenarios.
Based on the UT, this paper attempts to formulate the mean-standard deviation (MS) model to depict trade-off between the cost and risk of stochastic optimization for the microgrid optimal operation problem. The MS model is similar to the mean-variance model proposed by Markowitz for portfolio optimization problem which considers both the cost and risk in the uncertain environment [29]. However, the UT-MS model requires less sample points compared with the mean-variance model, which will reduce numbers of repetitive computation and relieve the computational burden for the IES optimal operation problem.
Accordingly, the IES optimal operation problem is mathematically formulated as a multi-objective optimization problem. Moreover, the problem also contains a variety of constraints to satisfy the operation requirements of IES. Then, an algorithm named multi-objective group search optimizer with adaptive covariance and Lévy flights (MGSO-ACL) [30] is employed to find the Pareto-optimal solutions. In addition, a multiple constraints handling technique is embedded to the MGSO-ACL in this paper (MGSO-ACL-CHT) to overcome the deficiency of MGSO-ACL in dealing with multiple constraints. The constraint handling method regards the overall constraint violation degree as an objective and modifies the Pareto dominated rule accordingly. To the end, a decision making method named improved entropy weight (IEW) is applied to determine the final operation point from the set of Pareto-optimal solutions.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 formulates the uncertainty characterization of wind and solar power using the UT-MS model for the IES optimal operation problem. Section 3 presents the multi-objective optimization algorithm MGSO-ACL-CHT to optimization the UT-MS model, and develops the decision making method named IEW to select a final operation point for he IES optimal operation problem. Simulation studies are conducted in Section 4 to verify the effectiveness of the proposed method. Finally, the conclusions are drawn in Section 5.
2 Uncertainty characterization using UT-MS model
Due to the stochastic nature of wind and solar power, it is required to model these variables within a probabilistic environment in the optimal operation of IES. And the system operator should be able to acquire the statistic information of output variables, such as the operation cost and state variables, through the statistic information of the input random variables, such as wind and solar power.
The correlation coefficient is in the range of [−1,1], indicating the degree of linear dependence between two variables. The correlation of wind and solar power is reasonable since they are all influenced by the weather conditions. It is shown that wind and solar power are negatively correlated on all time scales, and the hourly correlation coefficient of wind and solar power is evaluated to be −0.2 [35]. This suggests that more windy time are less sunny, and vice versa. Note that the assumption on the correlation of wind and solar power is based on the geographical location closely enough under the similar weather pattern. Accordingly, the correlation coefficient in (5) is suitable for the distributed network in a regional IES.
From the above procedure, it is clear that the UT method is very easy to implement and computationally efficient since it only needs \(2n+1\) sample points to characterize n uncertain variables, while MCS and LHS always needs hundreds of sample points. Furthermore, the UT owns the additional advantage in tackling the correlation of random variables. To accomplish the correlation treatment task, the UT method only need to conduct Choeskely decomposition on \(\varvec{C_{\text {zz}}}\) and substitute \(\sqrt{\varvec{C_{\text {zz}}}}\) into (6) and (7), avoiding the complicated processes such as orthogonal transformation which is necessary for MCS and LHS.
In (16), the vector \(\varvec{u}\) consists of control variables which include the real power of each generator \(P_{\mathrm{G}}\) (excluding the power of slack bus \(P_{\mathrm{G_{1}}}\)), the voltages of generator bus \(V_{\mathrm{G}}\), the tap ratios of transformers \(T_{m}\) and the reactive power generation of voltampere reactive (var) sources \(Q_{\mathrm{C}}\). The vector \(\varvec{x}_{k}\) consists of state variables in the k^{th} sample \(\varvec{s}_k\), and the state variables include the slack bus power \(P_{\mathrm{G_{{1}}}}\), the voltage of load bus \(V_{\mathrm{L}}\), the generator reactive power \(Q_{\mathrm{G}}\) and the apparent power flow \(S_{\mathrm{L}}\). It should be noted that the uncertainty of input variables causes all the state variables to be uncertainty, hence these constraints must be satisfied in all scenarios represented by sigma points.
It should be noted that the control variables which are scenario-independent can be initialized within their boundary limits, while the uncertainty of input variables causes all the state variables to be uncertainty, hence these constraints must be satisfied in all scenarios represented by sigma points. The detailed constraint handling method for the state variables will be introduced in the following section.
3 Methodology and implementation
With the related work done in Section 2, the MGSO-ACL-CHT optimization algorithm for optimizing the UT-MS model and the IEW decision making method for selecting the best compromise solution of Pareto-optimal front are described in this section.
3.1 Multi-objective optimization
The proposed UT-MS model is a multi-objective optimization problem which has a set of non-dominated, alternative solutions, known as the Pareto-optimal set, instead of a single global optimal solution. The traditional mathematical method is a serial algorithm characterized with single point search, thus cannot utilize the concept of Pareto-optimality to evaluate solutions [36]. Multi-objective evolutionary algorithms proposed in recent decades, such as the non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II (NSGA-II) [37], multi-objective particle swarm optimizer [38], multi-objective differential evolution algorithm, MGSO-ACL [30] can search for multiple solutions in parallel and are insensitive to the shape of the objective functions such as discontinuity, non-convexity, multiple modality, non-uniformity of the search space [39], and they have been successfully applied in power system. Considering the good performance of MGSO-ACL, it is utilized by this paper to optimize the proposed model. The detailed description of its mechanism can refer to the previous work in [30].
A common feature of evolutionary algorithms is that it is convenient for them to tackle the boundary limits of individuals composed by control variables, however, as to the constraints given by the state variables, the penalty method is frequently employed [40]. Nonetheless, the penalty is always added to one of the many objectives of MOP and the penalty factor terms are required to be set sufficiently large, which might hinder the evolutionary process of the objective being punished. What’s more, in the stochastic multi-objective optimization problem, the valid trail solution must be feasible for all constraints in all scenarios, which is difficulty for the penalty method to satisfy. Therefore, a multiple constraints handling technique is proposed to tackle the boundary limits of state variables.
Then \({\overline{f}}^{\text {viol}}\) is regarded as an independent objective in the optimization process, and this constraint handling method can guide the individuals to evolve towards the feasible regions more effectively compared with penalty method.
The original Pareto dominated rule should be modified accordingly to promote the priority of constraints. The constrained Pareto-dominance principle [41] is described as follows: The feasible individual always dominates the infeasible one, the individual with small violation always dominates the one with big violation. For two individuals \(X_1\) and \(X_2\), there is \(X_1\succ X_2\) if and only if one of the following conditions is satisfied, \(\textcircled {1}\,\, f^{\text {viol}}(X_1)=0, \,f^{\text {viol}}(X_2)>0\); \(\textcircled {2}\,\, f^{\text {viol}}(X_1)>f^{\text {viol}}(X_2)>0\); \(\textcircled {3}\,\, f^{\text {viol}}(X_1)=f^{\text {viol}}(X_2)=0\) and for each objective i, \(f_{i}(X_1)<f_{i}(X_2)\).
Pseudo code of fitness evaluation
Pseudo code of MGSO-ACL-CHT for the UT-MS model
3.2 IEW method and its decision making model
Entropy is originally the concept in thermodynamics, and it is C. E. Shannon that introduced this concept into the area of information theory [42]. Utilizing the characteristic of entropy that it can measure the quantity of the useful information provided by the data, the entropy weight (EW) method can be used to assign objective weights. However, the EW method would endow the wrong weights when all the entropy values of attributes are close to 1. To overcome the disadvantages of the original EW method, we propose an IEW method and apply it to assess the solutions with multiple objective (attribute) values. The detailed illustration of IEW method is given as follows:
1) Denote the Pareto-optimal set obtained by multi-objective optimization algorithms as \({{X}_{nm}}\), it contains n solutions represented by rows and m objectives represented by columns. Normalize \({{x}_{nm}}\) into \({{r}_{nm}}\) as below.
5) Rank solutions according to the aggregation assessment values, and a larger value indicates a better solution.
4 Simulation studies
4.1 System description and parameter settings
Parameters of WT and PV generators
Generator | Node | \(\mu _{\mathrm{w}}\) (MW) | \(\sigma _{\mathrm{s}}\) (MW) |
---|---|---|---|
WT generators | 5 | 12.7 | 1.27 |
11 | 30 | 3.0 | |
13 | 20.9 | 2.09 | |
PV generators | 2 | 12.5 | 2.50 |
17 | 6.7 | 1.34 | |
23 | 8.4 | 1.68 |
4.2 Case 1: The uncorrelated input variables
Metrics comparisons of Pareto-optimal fronts obtained by MGSO-ACL and NSGA-II
Algorithm | HV | MED | Spacing | NPS |
---|---|---|---|---|
MGSO-ACL | 97.8 | 15.9 | 11.9 | 437 |
NSGA-II | 90.3 | 28.8 | 16.2 | 50 |
4.3 Case 2: Correlated input variables
In this case the correlation between wind and solar power are taken into consideration to investigate what effects can be imposed to system by their negative correlation. Based on the statistical results in [35], the correlation coefficient of wind and solar power is set to be −0.2.
Comparing Fig. 5 with Fig. 2, it reveals that the negative correlation relationship of wind and solar power reduces the STD of fuel cost while has little influence on the mean value of fuel cost. As for the Pareto-optimal solutions obtained by MGSO-ACL in this case, the IEW is also applied to determine the final dispatch solution (533.4, 13.3). In order to further illustrate the effects imposed to regional IES by the negative correlation of wind and solar power, the final solutions obtained in the two cases are substituted into their sample points respectively, and the fuel cost in each sample are calculated using the nonlinear transformation process in Fig. 1. Figure 6 gives the fuel cost deviations from the mean cost in 13 sample points for each case.
Means and STDs obtained in Case 1 and Case 2
Objective | Case 1 | Case 2 | Original | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | STD | Mean | STD | ||
F | 534.0 | 15.0 | 533.4 | 13.3 | 802.3 |
\(E_{\mathrm{CO_2}}\) | 0.1527 | 0.0006 | 0.1525 | 0.0005 | 0.2842 |
\(E_{{\mathrm{NO}_{ x }}}\) | 0.1236 | 0.0053 | 0.1240 | 0.0047 | 0.3623 |
\(E_{\mathrm{SO_2}}\) | 0.0292 | 0.0010 | 0.0296 | 0.0009 | 0.0859 |
VD | 0.8297 | 0.0132 | 0.8025 | 0.0103 | 0.7926 |
\(L_{\text {index}}\) | 0.1543 | 0.0018 | 0.1557 | 0.0014 | 0.1387 |
To investigate the impact of the integration of REs on power system risk indices, the means and STDs of voltage deviations (VD) and voltage stability index (\(L_{\text {index}}\)) corresponding to the final dispatch solutions of Case 1 and Case 2 are also calculated. The obtained values are listed in Table 3, and the original values for these objectives are also given for comparison. Here, the original values are obtained by minimizing the fuel cost in the original regional IES and the best individual is used to calculate the other objective values. From Table 3, it can be seen that integrating REs can effectively improve the economic and environmental benefits, but it also increases the risk of IES. Moreover, the uncertainty caused by the REs is also the risk that should be assessed. In addition, the STDs of the objective values of Case 2 are all smaller than those of Case 1, which again verifies that the complementary nature of wind and solar power can reduce the uncertainty of the overall system.
5 Conclusion
This paper has provided a UT-MS model for the IES optimal operation problem considering correlative wind and solar power. The MGSO-ACL algorithm is applied along with a constraint handling method to deal with the UT-MS model. By comparing all the Pareto-optimal solutions using the decision making method, IEW, a final dispatch solution is then determined. The following conclusions have been drawn via the simulation studies conducted on a test IES.
First, the UT is more efficient than the LHS method since it uses much less sample points, and more accurate than the SR method in calculating the statistical properties of output variables, while having the ability to handle correlated input variables.
Secondly, the MGSO-ACL-CHT algorithm can obtain superior Pareto-optimal solutions in terms of convergence and diversity, and the constraint handling technique can ensure the Pareto-optimal solutions satisfy all the constraints for all scenarios.
Thirdly, the impact of correlation among the random input variables on systems has also been investigated in this paper, and the results have shown that the negative correlated relationship between wind and solar power reduces the STDs of system variables but has little influence on the mean values of system variables.
Furthermore, we have also compared the fuel costs, emissions of \(\mathrm{CO_2}\), \({{\mathrm{NO}_{ x }}}\) and \(\mathrm{SO_2}\), voltage deviations and voltage stability indices corresponding to the dispatch solutions of the modified and original regional IES, and it reveals that integrating REs can effectively improve the economic and environmental benefits, but also increase the risk for the IES optimal operation problem.
In our future work, we will apply the proposed UT-MS model to tackle the problem of \(N-k\) security constrained unit commitment considering renewable energy resources penetrating into IES, so as to increase the proportion of renewable energy consumption while guaranteeing the economy and stability of the IES operation.
Notes
Acknowledgements
This project was supported by the State Key Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51437006), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No. 2017M622690).
References
- [1]Bahmani-Firouzi B, Farjah E, Azizipanah-Abarghooee R (2013) An efficient scenario-based and fuzzy self-adaptive learning particle swarm optimization approach for dynamic economic emission dispatch considering load and wind power uncertainties. Energy 50:232–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [2]Zhang X, Shahidehpour M, Alabdulwahab A et al (2016) Hourly electricity demand response in the stochastic day-ahead scheduling of coordinated electricity and natural gas networks. IEEE Trans Power Syst 31(1):592–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [3]Reddy SS, Bijwe P, Abhyankar A (2015) Real-time economic dispatch considering renewable power generation variability and uncertainty over scheduling period. IEEE Syst J 9(4):1440–1451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [4]Wu L, Shahidehpour M, Li Z (2012) Comparison of scenario-based and interval optimization approaches to stochastic SCUC. IEEE Trans Power Syst 27(2):913–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [5]Reddy SS, Sandeep V, Jung CM (2017) Review of stochastic optimization methods for smart grid. Front Energy 11(2):197–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [6]Miranda V, Hang PS (2005) Economic dispatch model with fuzzy wind constraints and attitudes of dispatchers. IEEE Trans Power Syst 20(4):2143–2145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [7]Liang RH, Liao JH (2007) A fuzzy-optimization approach for generation scheduling with wind and solar energy systems. IEEE Trans Power Syst 22(4):1665–1674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [8]Liang RH, Tsai SR, Chen YT et al (2011) Optimal power flow by a fuzzy based hybrid particle swarm optimization approach. Electr Power Syst Res 81(7):1466–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [9]Momoh A, Reddy SS (2014) Review of optimization techniques for renewable energy resources. In: Proceedings of 2014 IEEE symposium on power electronics and machines for wind and water applications, Milwaukee, USA, 24–26 July 2014, pp 1–8Google Scholar
- [10]Li YZ, Wu QH, Jiang L et al (2016) Optimal power system dispatch with wind power integrated using nonlinear interval optimization and evidential reasoning approach. IEEE Trans Power Syst 31(3):2246–2254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [11]Reddy SS, Park JY, Jung CM (2016) Optimal operation of microgrid using hybrid differential evolution and harmony search algorithm. Front Energy 10(3):355–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [12]Fu YM, Liu MB, Li LC (2016) Multi-objective stochastic economic dispatch with variable wind generation using scenario-based decomposition and asynchronous block iteration. IEEE Trans Sustain Energy 7(1):139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [13]Reddy SS, Momoh A (2015) Realistic and transparent optimum scheduling strategy for hybrid power system. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 6(6):3114–3125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [14]Aghaei J, Niknam T, Azizipanah-Abarghooee R et al (2013) Scenario-based dynamic economic emission dispatch considering load and wind power uncertainties. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 47:351–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [15]Li YZ, Li MS, Wu QH (2014) Optimal reactive power dispatch with wind power integrated using group search optimizer with intraspecific competition and lévy walk. J Mod Power Syst Clean Energy 2(4):308–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [16]Li J, Ye L, Zeng Y et al (2016) A scenario-based robust transmission network expansion planning method for consideration of wind power uncertainties. CSEE J Power Energy Syst 2(1):11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [17]Lubin M, Dvorkin Y, Backhaus S (2015) A robust approach to chance constrained optimal power flow with renewable generation. IEEE Trans Power Syst 31(5):3840–3849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [18]Bai XQ, Qu TY, Qiao W (2015) Robust AC optimal power flow for power networks with wind power generation. IEEE Trans Power Syst 31(5):4163–4164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [19]Xiang Y, Liu YB, Liu JY et al (2016) A chance-constrained optimization model for determining renewables penetration limit in power systems. Electr Power Compos Syst 44(7):701–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [20]Zhang H, Li P (2011) Chance constrained programming for optimal power flow under uncertainty. IEEE Trans Power Syst 26(4):2417–2424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [21]Zhang N, Kang CQ, Xia Q et al (2015) A convex model of risk-based unit commitment for day-ahead market clearing considering wind power uncertainty. IEEE Trans Power Syst 30(3):1582–1592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [22]Wang Q, Yang M, Wen FH et al (2013) Risk-based security-constrained economic dispatch in power systems. J Mod Power Syst Clean Energy 1(2):142–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [23]Shaha R, Kothari DP, Chandrakar VS (2016) Optimization of renewable energy sources for hybrid power generation. In: Proceedings of 2016 biennial international conference on power and energy systems: towards sustainable energy (PESTSE), Bangalore, India, 21–23 January 2016, pp 1–5Google Scholar
- [24]Alabdulwahab A, Abusorrah A, Zhang X et al (2015) Coordination of interdependent natural gas and electricity infrastructures for firming the variability of wind energy in stochastic day-ahead scheduling. IEEE Trans Power Syst 6(2):606–615Google Scholar
- [25]Reddy SS, Bijwe PR (2016) Day-ahead and real time optimal power flow considering renewable energy resources. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 82:400–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [26]Growe-Kuska N, Heitsch H, Romisch W (2003) Scenario reduction and scenario tree construction for power management problems. In: Proceedings of 2003 IEEE Bologna power tech conference, Bologna, Italy, 23–26 June 2003, pp 152–158Google Scholar
- [27]Julier SJ, Uhlmann JK (2004) Unscented filtering and nonlinear estimation. Proc IEEE 92(3):401–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [28]Aien M, Rashidinejad M, Firuz-Abad MF (2015) Probabilistic optimal power flow in correlated hybrid wind-power systems: a review and a new approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 41:1437–1446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [29]Li YZ, Wu QH, Li MS et al (2014) Mean-variance model for power system economic dispatch with wind power integrated. Energy 72:510–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [30]Zheng JH, Chen JJ, Wu QH et al (2015) Multi-objective optimization and decision making for power dispatch of a large-scale integrated energy system with distributed DHCS embedded. Appl Energy 154:369–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [31]Lange M (2005) On the uncertainty of wind power predictions-analysis of the forecast accuracy and statistical distribution of errors. J Sol Energy Eng 127(2):177–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [32]Bludszuweit H, Domnguez-Navarro JA, Llombart A (2008) Statistical analysis of wind power forecast error. IEEE Trans Power Syst 23(3):983–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [33]Ziadi Z, Oshiro M, Senjyu T et al (2014) Optimal voltage control using inverters interfaced with PV systems considering forecast error in a distribution system. IEEE Trans Sustain Energy 5(2):682–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [34]Li MS, Wu QH, Ji TY et al (2014) Stochastic multi-objective optimization for economic-emission dispatch with uncertain wind power and distributed loads. Electr Power Syst Res 116:367–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [35]Widén J (2011) Correlations between large-scale solar and wind power in a future scenario for Sweden. IEEE Trans Sustain Energy 2(2):177–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [36]Deb K (2002) Salient issues of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. Multi Object Optim Evolut Algorithms 8:347–348Google Scholar
- [37]Basu M (2008) Dynamic economic emission dispatch using nondominated sorting genetic algorithm-II. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 30(2):140–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [38]Niknam T, Narimani M, Aghaei J et al (2012) Improved particle swarm optimisation for multi-objective optimal power flow considering the cost, loss, emission and voltage stability index. IET Gen Transm Distrib 6(6):515–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [39]Ben Said L, Bechikh S, Ghedira K (2010) The r-dominance: a new dominance relation for interactive evolutionary multicriteria decision making. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 14(5):801–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [40]Roy R, Jadhav H (2015) Optimal power flow solution of power system incorporating stochastic wind power using Gbest guided artificial bee colony algorithm. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 64:562–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [41]Yuan XH, Tian H, Yuan YB et al (2015) An extended NSGA-III for solution multi-objective hydro-thermal-wind scheduling considering wind power cost. Energy Convers Manag 96:568–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [42]Shannon CE (2001) A mathematical theory of communication. ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Comput Commun Rev 5(1):3–55MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [43]Yu H, Chung CY, Wong KP et al (2009) Probabilistic load flow evaluation with hybrid latin hypercube samplingand cholesky decomposition. IEEE Trans Power Syst 24(2):661–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.