A CVaR-Robust Risk Aversion Scheduling Model for Virtual Power Plants Connected with Wind-Photovoltaic-Hydropower-Energy Storage Systems, Conventional Gas Turbines and Incentive-Based Demand Responses
Liwei Ju,Peng Li,Qinliang Tan,Zhongfu Tan,GejiriFu De
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en11112903
IF: 3.2
2018-10-25
Energies
Abstract:To make full use of distributed energy resources to meet load demand, this study aggregated wind power plants (WPPs), photovoltaic power generation (PV), small hydropower stations (SHSs), energy storage systems (ESSs), conventional gas turbines (CGTs) and incentive-based demand responses (IBDRs) into a virtual power plant (VPP) with price-based demand response (PBDR). Firstly, a basic scheduling model for the VPP was proposed in this study with the objective of the maximum operation revenue. Secondly, a risk aversion model for the VPP was constructed based on the conditional value at risk (CVaR) method and robust optimization theory considering the operating risk from WPP and PV. Thirdly, a solution methodology was constructed and three cases were considered for comparative analyses. Finally, an independent micro-grid on an industrial park in East China was utilized for an example analysis. The results show the following: (1) the proposed risk aversion scheduling model could cope with the uncertainty risk via a reasonable confidence degree β and robust coefficient Γ. When Γ ≤ 0.85 or Γ ≥ 0.95, a small uncertainty brought great risk, indicating that the risk attitude of the decision maker will affect the scheduling scheme of the VPP, and the decision maker belongs to the risk extreme aversion type. When Γ ∈ (0.85, 0.95), the decision-making scheme was in a stable state, the growth of β lead to the increase of CVaR, but the magnitude was not large. When the prediction error e was higher, the value of CVaR increased more when Γ increased by the same magnitude, which indicates that a lower prediction accuracy will amplify the uncertainty risk. (2) when the capacity ratio of (WPP, PV): ESS was higher than 1.5:1 and the peak-to-valley price gap was higher than 3:1, the values of revenue, VaR, and CVaR changed slower, indicating that both ESS and PBDR can improve the operating revenue, but the capacity scale of ESS and the peak-valley price gap need to be set properly, considering both economic benefits and operating risks. Therefore, the proposed risk aversion model could maximize the utilization of clean energy to obtain higher economic benefits while rationally controlling risks and provide reliable decision support for developing optimal operation plans for the VPP.
energy & fuels