00 голосов за00 голосов против

1 просмотров6 стр.Rekha 2013

Nov 10, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

Rekha 2013

© All Rights Reserved

1 просмотров

00 голосов за00 голосов против

Rekha 2013

© All Rights Reserved

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

Deregulated Power System

Rekha R, PG Scholar

Sri Muthukumaran Institute of Technology

Chennai, India

rekha2489@gmail.com

Sri Muthukumaran Institute of Technology

Chennai, India

ganapathykannan@yahoo.com

transmission line design is limited by technological and

economical constraints. Therefore, in order to maximize the

amount of real power, reactive power flows must be minimized.

Consequently, sufficient reactive power should be provided

locally in the system to keep the bus voltages within nominal

ranges in order to satisfy customers equipments voltage ratings.

In this paper, a mathematical model of reactive power

optimization and its algorithm are set up and studied, and

algorithms like GA and PSO are proposed for reactive power

optimization in deregulated electricity market. Gauss-seidel

method for the power is used in conjunction with PSO to obtain

the optimal value of reactive power. To enhance the voltage

profile of the overall power system, FACTS devices are used. The

effectiveness of the proposed method is demonstrated on an IEEE

30-bus benchmark system in MATLAB. Results are also

compared with those value obtained using GA.

Keywords Genetic Algorithm; Particle Swarm Optimization;

Deregulation; Ancillary services; Reactive power cost.

I.

INTRODUCTION

optimization problems in power system. Reactive power plays

an important role in supporting the real power transfer by

maintaining voltage stability and system reliability. Power

system operators/planners are always faced with the problem

of how to minimize the transmission losses. The optimal

reactive power dispatch problem is a nonlinear optimization

problem with several constraints.

To improve the voltage profile and to decrease the

active power losses along the transmission lines under various

operating conditions, power system operator can select a

number of control tools such as switching reactive power

sources, charging generator voltages and adjusting transformer

tap settings.

The application of PSO in the reactive power optimization

is carried out in an IEEE-6 Bus system [8]. The optimal

reactive power along with the voltage stability enhancement for

2010[10]. The reactive power minimization in deregulation

scenario for a test bus system was done by Syamasree Biswas

in 2011[13]. The model for opportunity cost was explained in

[7] & [11]. The best control setting of the system is determined

in order to minimize the reactive power and to improve the

voltage profile through optimal adjustment of reactive source

from generators. It is a reactive power optimization problem.

The reactive power minimization is carried out along with the

improvement of bus voltages using Genetic Algorithm

technique. The proposed methodology is tested on the IEEE

30- bus systems [5].

II.

industry, the problem of establishing an equitable and

effective reactive power market had become urgent for power

system operators and researchers. It proposed two kinds of

reactive power pricing structure, with compensation of

generators capability for reactive power support taken in to

account. In depth discussion on applying marginal cost

concept for real time reactive power pricing, detailed cost

models of reactive compensators were incorporated in the

objective function of the OPF problem.

This proposal, while relying on the basic concepts of

opportunity cost and reactive compensators remunerations,

addresses the problem of reactive power support optimization

along with the power market systems. The primary promise of

deregulation of electric power is that it will promote greater

economic efficiency in electricity generation, transmission,

distribution, and use than will occur under a regulated

environment. Deregulation aims are to enable competition in

electricity market, to lower the consumer prices, to maintain

system reliability, to disable monopoly control, to disable

market imperfections, to use interconnected transmission and

generation system efficiently.

A. Ancillary Services

Ancillary services are those functions performed by

electrical generating, transmission, system-control, and

1341

services of generating capacity, energy supply, and power

delivery.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC

1995) defined ancillary services as those services necessary

to support the transmission of electric power from seller to

purchaser given the obligations of control areas and

transmitting utilities within those control areas to maintain

reliable operations of the interconnected transmission system.

FERC identified six ancillary services: reactive power and

voltage control, loss compensation, scheduling and dispatch,

load following, system protection, and energy imbalance.

iteration of the algorithm.

Commonly, the algorithm terminates when either a

maximum number of generations has been produced, or a

satisfactory fitness level has been reached for the population. If

the algorithm has terminated due to a maximum number of

generations, a satisfactory solution may or may not have been

reached. Genetic algorithms find application in bioinformatics,

phylogenetics, computational science, engineering, economics,

chemistry, manufacturing, mathematics, physics and other

fields.

In vertically integrated electricity system, reactive power

support was part of the system operators activities and the

expenses incurred in providing for such services were

included within the electricity tariff charged to customers.

Among the ancillary services, the reactive power support is

essential for the system operator to maintain an acceptable

system voltage profile by setting the voltage magnitudes at the

controllable buses so as to keep the voltage magnitudes at the

other buses within the ranges. Since it is not desirable to

transport reactive power over the network, procurement of

reactive power services should be done taking into account the

perceived demand conditions and availability of reactive

power resources.

III.

GENETIC ALGORITHM

mimics the process of natural evolution. This heuristic is

routinely used to generate useful solutions to optimization and

search problems. Genetic algorithms belong to the larger class

of evolutionary algorithms (EA), which generate solutions to

optimization problems using techniques inspired by natural

evolution, such as inheritance, mutation, selection, and

crossover.

In a genetic algorithm, a population of strings (called

chromosomes or the genotype of the genome), which encode

candidate solutions (called individuals, creatures, or

phenotypes) to an optimization problem, is evolved toward

A. Initialization of Population

The strategy used to determine the initial population

consists of randomly generating non-dominated feasible

solutions only. This strategy produced better results when

compared with strategies that randomly generate solutions of

any type (feasible or non-feasible) or feasible solutions

(dominated or non-dominated) only.

B. Genetic Operators

The genetic operators are section, crossover and mutation.

The operator selection involves the process of selecting best

population of individuals for new generation. During each

successive generation, a proportion of the existing population

is selected to breed a new generation.

In the crossover, the values are going to change according

to the objective function by comparing two successive values.

Two-point crossover has been used, because it produced better

results than one-point and uniform crossover. The mutation

indicates the self changing of values to solve the problem.

1342

based on the objective function. This is an important operator

in Genetic Algorithm.

IV.

stochastic optimization technique developed by Dr. Eberhart

and Dr. Kennedy in 1995, inspired by social behavior of bird

flocking or fish schooling. PSO shares many similarities with

evolutionary computation techniques such as Genetic

Algorithms (GA).

The system is initialized with a population of random

solutions and searches for optima by updating generations.

However, unlike GA, PSO has no evolution operators such as

crossover and mutation. In PSO, the potential solutions, called

particles, fly through the problem space by following the

current optimum particles.

Each particle represents a potential solution to the

numerical problem. The best previously visited position of

particle i is noted as its individual best position Pi = (Pi1, Pi2,. . .

, Pin ). The position of the best individual of the whole swarm

is noted as the global best position. V(t+1) i from equation

(given below) is used to calculate the velocity of particle

according to its previous velocity and to the distance of its

current position and from both its own best historical position

and the best position of entire population or its neighborhood.

Let us define search space S is n-dimension and the swarm

consists of N particles. Each particle i, has its position defined

by

Xt i= Position of particle i at generation t

A. Selection of PSO Parameters

Suitable selection of weight factor w i.e. Inertia weight

helps in quick convergence. A large weight factor facilitates

global exploration (i.e. Searching of new area) while small

weight factor facilitate local exploration. The w adjusts the

PSO dynamic behavior during searching procedures, where

w= 1 guaranties the PSO to converge by iterations.

High values of w put particles to fly over the local minima,

however, low values allow particles to intensify searching

local areas.

Generally, the w decreases linearly from about 0.9 to 0.4

during the run, according to the following equation. Therefore

it is wiser to choose large weight factor for initial iterations

and gradually reduce weight factor in successive iterations as

follows:

w = wmax

wmax wmin

iter

itermax

iteration number.

With no restriction on the maximum velocity of the

particles, velocity may increase to infinity. If V max is very

low particle may not explore sufficiently and if V max is very

high it may oscillate about optimal solution. Velocity

clamping effect has been introduced to avoid the phenomenon

of "swarm explosion". In the proposed, method the velocity is

controlled within a band as:

(1)

Vmax,t = Vmax

(2)

Position and velocity of each particle change with time.

Velocity and position of each particle in the next generation

(time step) can be calculated as:

X (it +1) = X ti + V(it +1)

Where:

N = Number of particle in the swarm

w = Inertia weight of the particle

t = Generation number

C1, C2= Acceleration Constant

Rand (), Rand () uniform random value in the range [0, 1]

(3)

(4)

(5)

Vmax Vmin

iter

itermax

(6)

each particle towards local best position whereas constant C2

(social parameter) pulls the particle towards global best

position.

Usually C1 equals to

values allow particles to

before being tugged back.

result in abrupt movement

the target regions.

roam far from the target regions

On the other hand, the high values

towards, or, backwards, away from

Algorithm (GA) and the searching points gradually get close

to the global optimal point using its pbest and gbest.

The flow chart of PSO technique for the reactive power

optimization which explains the algorithm is given as follows

1343

reactive cost of generator and reactive cost of compensators

provided for the reactive power optimization.

A. Reactive Cost of Generator

Generators provide reactive support by producing or

consuming reactive power when operating at lagging or

leading power factors respectively. Unlike fuel costs that

represent the operating cost of active power production, there

is only a small operating cost in the case of reactive power

production and this can be ignored. Hence in the proposed

work, the opportunity cost of generator reactive power

production is considered.

The opportunity cost of using a resource for certain

purpose is defined as the benefit lost by not using it in an

alternative way. For example, a generator has to decrease

active power production because of capacity constraints which

will in turn reduce the opportunity of obtaining profits from

the active power market.

V.

capability curve considering real and reactive power

relationship. Capability curve is derived by the generating

Operating limits in terms of PQ relationship under constant

voltage V. This is called capability curve. Qbase is the reactive

power required by the generator for its auxiliary equipment. if

the operating point lies inside the limiting curves, say

at(Pa,Qbase),then the unit can increase reactive power

generation from Qbase to Qa without requiring re-adjustment of

Path is will however, result in increased losses in the windings

and hence increase the cost of loss.

If the generator is operating on the limiting curve, any

increase in Q will require a decrease in P so as to adhere to the

winding heating limits. Consider the operating point A on

the curve defined by (Pa,Qa).If more reactive power is required

from the unit, say Qb, the operating point requires shifting

back along the curve to point B (Pb,Qb),where Pb<Pa.

This signifies that the unit has to reduce its real power

output to adhere to field heating limits when higher reactive

power is demanded. The continuous reactive power output

capability is limited by three considerations, namely Armature

current limit, Field current limit and End region limit as given

in the figure below.

modeled as the reactive power opportunity cost. The following

simple model for opportunity cost is considered.

(7)

Sgi,max is the apparent power of generator gi, Cgpi is the active

power cost which is modeled as a quadratic function.

2

C gpi ( Pgpi ) = aPgpi

+ bPgpi + c

(8)

assumed profit rate for active power generation at buses i.

B. Reactive Cost of Compensator

The cost of the reactive power compensator can be

calculated by using the formula given below

(9)

C shj (Qshj ) = rshj Qshj

where rshj is the price of the reactive power per MVAr,

which depends on different factors, such as capital investment

of the compensator, its period of lifetime and average

utilization factor. For example, STATCOM, a FACTS device

with an investment cost of $48,000/MVAr, a lifetime of 30

years and an average use of 2/3, has its rshj as

rsh j =

48000

2

30 365 24

3

= 0 .2 7 3 9

($MVAr)

1344

VI.

PROBLEM FORMULATION

A. Nomenclature

Nb- Set of numbers of total buses

Nt- Set of numbers of tap-setting transformer

branches

Nc- Set of numbers of possible reactive power source

installation buses.

Npv- Set of numbers of PV buses

No- the swing bus

Pgi- ith bus real power supply

Qgi- ith bus reactive power supply

Pdi- ith bus real power load

Qdi- ith bus reactive power load

Vi- ith bus voltage magnitude

i- ith bus voltage phase angle

ij- Phase angle difference between bus i and j

Gij- mutual conductance between bus i and j

Bij- mutual susceptance between bus i and j

Gii- ith bus self conductance

Bii- ith bus self susceptance

Qci- reactive power source

Tk- Transformer k taps

ij

In this section, the reactive power is simulated using IEEE30 bus test system and the results obtained for optimal reactive

power are presented. The performance of reactive power is

studied for two different techniques. In the first case, Genetic

Algorithm is used to optimize the reactive power. In the

second case, Particle Swarm Optimization technique is used to

optimize the reactive power. The co-efficient for the cost

function to calculate the reactive power cost are given in the

table below

TABLE1. Coefficient Factors of Equation (8)

(10)

V j ]}

j =1

ji

V erro r ( i ) =

(11)

(1 .0 V m ( i ))

Ti-min Ti Ti-max, i NT

VII. SYSTEM STUDIES AND RESULTS

B. Objective Function

The objective function is to minimize the reactive power

which is given as follows:

Q i = i {V i * [ V i Y i i +

GEN

a($/ MW2)

b($/MW)

c($)

Kg

GEN1

GEN2

GEN13

GEN22

GEN23

GEN27

0.02

0.0175

0.0625

0.0083

0.025

0.025

2

1.75

1

1.25

3

3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

The base case given by American Electric Power does not

contain any compensators. First the load flow result is

obtained then the STATCOM is connected for the weak buses

which are identified based on their voltage profile. The GA

and PSO are implemented to reduce the reactive power by

some value. The load flow is performed for the given IEEE-30

system. The voltage comparison of all buses is given as

follows

i =1

follows

Where - Acceleration factor

(12)

Fig5. Voltage comparison chart for all buses

C. Equality Constraint

Pi (V , ) =

V V (G

i

ij

j =1

(13)

Q i (V , ) =

V V (G

i

j =1

ij

sin ij + B ij cos ij )

D. Inequality Constraints

Vi-min Vi Vi-max, iN

QGi-min QGi QGi-max, i {N pv, No}

qci-min qci qci-max, iNc

(14)

0.9813 and 0.9785p.u respectively. Therefore the buses 26 and

30 are considered as weak buses.

From the load flow analysis using Gauss Seidel method,

the value of reactive power is obtained before optimization as

24.862 MVAR. And the Opportunity cost is obtained for all

generators as $9.996.

B. Result Obtained After Optimization

The GA and PSO are implemented to reduce the reactive

power. Reactive power obtained after optimization using

Genetic Algorithm is 23.641MVAR. The Opportunity cost

value is $7.0320. The bus voltages of 26th and 30th buses are

improved to 1.062 and 1.053p.u. Reactive cost of compensator

1345

obtained as $11.8737.

Reactive power obtained after optimization using PSO is

23.106 MVAR. The Opportunity cost is calculated as

$7.05063. The bus voltages of 26th and 30th buses are

improved to 1.069 and 1.055p.u. Reactive cost of compensator

is obtained as $4.646. The total cost of reactive power is given

as $11.6966.

C. Q Loss Comparison

The chart shown here gives the Q loss comparison for the

base case based on the reactive power values before and after

optimization.

Economic Dispatch of Units with Valve-Point Effects and

Multiple Fuels", 2005, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER

SYSTEMS, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 1690-1699.

[5] Hadi Saadat, "Power System Analysis", 1998, McGraw-Hill

Publications.

[6] Leonardo Paucar, Reactive power pricing in deregulated

electricity markets using a methodology based on the theory of

marginal costs, 2001, IEEE 7803-7107.

[7] B. Mozafari, Particle Swarm Optimization method for Optimal

Reactive power Procurement considering voltage stability, 2007,

Science Iranica, Vol. 14, No.6, pp 534-545.

[8] Namami Krishna Sharma,Application of Particle Swarm

Optimization Technique for Reactive Power Optimization,

2012, IEEE-(ICAESM-2012). pp 88-93.

[9] Priti Kachore and Prof. Mrs. M. V. Palandurkar, "TTC and CBM

Calculation of IEEE-30 Bus System", 2009, Second ICETET-09,

pp.539-542.

reduction of 4.9% after optimization using GA and has a

reduction of 7.1% after optimization using PSO for the base

case.

VIII. CONCLUSION

Here the IEEE-30 bus system is taken as the test system.

The weak buses for the system are identified based on the

particular bus voltages. The STATCOM, FACTS devices are

given for the weak buses in order to improve the bus voltages.

GA and PSO are implemented to reduce the reactive power in

Deregulated electricity market. The fitness value for the

individuals are selected and based on that, the problem has

solved which has the objective function of minimization of

reactive power subjected to several constraints. On comparing

both the techniques, Particle Swarm Optimization gives more

optimized values over Genetic Algorithm technique.

REFERENCES

stability enhancement by optimal reactive power reserve

management with multiple TCSCs, 2010, International Journal

of Computer Applications, 0975-8887,

[11]Seyed Mohammad Hossein Nabavi, Using Tracing Method for

Calculation and Allocation of Reactive power cost,2011,

IJCA(0975-8887), vol 13, No.2, pp: 14-17.

[12]Sujin, Particle swarm optimization based reactive power

optimization, 2010, Journal of computing, ISSN 2151-9617.

[13]Syamasree Biswas, Reactive power generation minimization

aspect in deregulatory power scenario using particle swarm

optimization technique, 2011, IEEE 978-1-4673-0136-7.

[14]Yi-Tung Kao and Erwie Zahara, "A hybrid genetic algorithm and

particle swarm optimization for multimodal functions, 2008,

Applied Soft Computing, Elsevier, Issue.8, pp.849857.

[15]Abdelaziz, El-Sharkawy and Attia, "Optimal Allocation of TCSC

Devices Using Genetic Algorithms", 2010, Proceedings of the

14th International MEPCON10, Paper ID 195, pp. 428-432.

[16]C.-L. Chiang, "Genetic-based algorithm for power economic load

dispatch", 2010, IEEE Xplore, pp.261-269.

[17]Yuan Weiwei, "Reactive Power Optimization Based on Genetic

Algorithm of Improved Crossover Operation", 24th Chinese Control

and Decision Conference (CCDC), IEEE 2012. pp: 883-888.

14th International MEPCON10, Paper ID 195, pp. 428-432.

[2] Archana Singh, Design of reactive power procurement in

deregulated electricity market, 2011, IST 107-119.

[3] Chiang, "Genetic-based algorithm for power economic load

dispatch", 2010, IEEE Xplore, pp.261-269.

1346

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.