Optimal placement of FACTS devices and power‐flow solutions for a power network system integrated with stochastic renewable energy resources using new metaheuristic optimization techniques
Khaled Nusair,Feras Alasali,Ali Hayajneh,William Holderbaum
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/er.6997
IF: 4.6
2021-07-04
International Journal of Energy Research
Abstract:<p>Flexible AC transmission systems (FACTS) and optimal power-flow (OPF) solutions play an important role in solving power operation problems. The volatile nature of the power generation profiles from renewable energy sources, solar and wind systems, and determining the optimal locations and sizes of FACTS devices increase the complexity of the OPF problems in modern power network models, such as transmission power loss, power generation operation cost and voltage deviation, as a highly nonlinear-nonconvex optimization problem. Therefore, this article introduces and employs four new independent, reliable and efficient optimization algorithms inspired by nature and biological nature, namely: Slime Mould Algorithm (SMA), Artificial Ecosystem-based Optimization (AEO), Marine Predators Algorithm (MPA) and Jellyfish Search (JS), for solving both multi- and single-OPF objective problems for a power network incorporating FACTS and stochastic renewable energy sources. The proposed new metaheuristic optimization techniques are compared to the common and available alternatives in the literature, Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), Moth Flame Optimization (MFO) and Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO), using IEEE 30-bus test system. To consider and address the challenges of the OPF in modern power network models, the proposed optimization techniques tested under different operation cases such as an increasing in the load, with and without FCTAS and renewable energy sources, different renewable energy sources locations on the network. The result showed that the MPA, SMA, JS and AEO algorithms are more effective solvers for the OPF problems cases compared to the PSO, GWO and MFO algorithms. For example, the AEO obtained 0.0844 p.u. in case of minimizing the voltage deviation compared to 0.1155 p.u. for PSO, which means that the AEO algorithm improved the voltage deviation term by 27% compared to the PSO algorithm.</p>
energy & fuels,nuclear science & technology