applied

sciences
Article
Optimal Solution of Environmental Economic Dispatch
Problems Using QPGPSO-ω
Umair Ahmad Salaria 1 , Muhammad Ilyas Menhas 1 , Sohaib Manzoor 1 , Faisal Mehmood Butt 2 ,
Manzoor Ellahi 3 , Nouman Ali 4 , Orazbekov Zhassulan 5 and Heba G. Mohamed 6, *

1 Department of Electrical Engineering, Mirpur University of Science & Technology (MUST),

Mirpur 10250, Azad Kashmir, Pakistan; [email protected] (S.M.)
2 Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir,
Muzaffarabad 13100, Azad Kashmir, Pakistan
3 Department of Electrical Engineering, The Superior University, Lahore 54000, Punjab, Pakistan
4 Department of Software Engineering, Mirpur University of Science and Technology (MUST),
Mirpur 10250, Azad Kashmir, Pakistan
5 Department of Special Education, Abai Kazakh National Pedagogical University, Almaty 050010, Kazakhstan
6 Department of Electrical Engineering, College of Engineering, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University,
P.O. Box 84428, Riyadh 11671, Saudi Arabia
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The renewable energy sources (RESs)-based economic dispatch problem (EDP) is of vital
importance for modern power systems. Environmental pollution, climatic degradation, and rapidly
growing prices of continuously depleting fossil fuels have encouraged researchers to consider mech-
anisms for RES implementation and optimal operations. This paper presents a quasi-oppositional
population-based global particle swarm optimizer with inertial weights (QPGPSO-ω) to solve en-
vironment friendly EDPs. The optimization technique is applied to solve the EDP under different
scenarios including cases where only renewable energy sources (RESs) are used and the cases where
combined emission–economic dispatch (CEED) problem is taken into account. The scenario for RESs
includes a combination of six wind, five solar PV, and four biofuel systems for power generation.
Citation: Salaria, U.A.; Menhas, M.I.; EDPs are considered without any constraints, and the variability of resources is depicted over time,
Manzoor, S.; Butt, F.M.; Ellahi, M.; Ali, along with the regional load-sharing dispatch (RLSD). The case of CEED considers ten thermal
N.; Zhassulan, O.; Mohamed, H.G. units with the valve point loading (VPL) effect and transmission losses. The results obtained by the
Optimal Solution of Environmental proposed QPGPSO-ω algorithm are better than the reported results employing other optimization
Economic Dispatch Problems Using methods. This is shown by the lower costs achieved up to USD 8026.1439 for the case of only RES-
QPGPSO-ω. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6867. based EDPs, USD 1346.8 for the case of RES-based EDPs with RLSD, and USD 111,533.59 for the case
https://doi.org/10.3390/
of CEED. Thus, the proposed QPGPSO-ω algorithm was effective in solving the various adopted
app13126867
power dispatch problems in power system.
Academic Editor: Nikolaos
Koukouzas Keywords: economic dispatch problem (EDP); quasi-oppositional population; renewable energy
sources (RESs); valve point loading (VPL)
Received: 31 March 2023
Revised: 30 May 2023
Accepted: 31 May 2023
Published: 6 June 2023
1. Introduction
1.1. Background and Motivation
Environmental sustainability, rapid depletion and constantly fluctuating prices of
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
fossil fuels are currently forcing the incorporation of renewable energy sources (RESs)
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
into power grids [1,2]. The recent research predominantly focused on exploring energy
This article is an open access article
generation using various renewable resources [3–5]. However, these RESs present their
distributed under the terms and
own limitations, both climatic and technical, as their resource availability is subject to
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
variations caused by climate conditions. In addition, the extraction of bulk power from
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
major renewable energy sources (such as solar and wind) is primarily feasible in locations
4.0/).
that are situated far away from major load centers. Thus, there is a requirement for properly

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6867. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13126867 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6867 2 of 20

designed dispatch mechanisms to transmit the produced power from the source to the load
in an efficient and economically effective manner [6,7].
RESs have issues; however, they still manage to produce good results in their power
generation performance, such as wind; biofuel and solar systems produced approximately
700, 671, and 659 GWs of installed capacity till 2020 [8,9]. However, the high variability
of resource availability requires a well-designed metaheuristic optimization algorithm for
the calculation of economic dispatch (ED) [10]. The developed ED algorithm should not
only provide the efficient dispatch of power, but also account for the penalties imposed as
a result of resource variability.
Pakistan presents a significant potential for RESs and there is a growing trend towards
utilizing these emission-free resources for power generation. The authors conducted an
extensive survey of the availability of wind resources in the southern regions of Pakistan,
as documented in [11,12]. A detailed survey of the regions rich in solar-based power
generation in Pakistan and the prospects of its hybridization with wind energy sources
was presented in [13,14]. In [15–17], the authors deliberated on the potential of extractable
bio-fuel-based energy in the country and examined various scenarios for extracting energy
from waste materials. The authors in [18–20] provided a comprehensive analysis of several
renewable energy-based projects that were executed in various appropriate locations to
generate environment friendly electricity.
The ED problem (EDP) is a computational mechanism used to determine the optimal
distribution of generated electric power in order to meet the load demand, while mini-
mizing the production cost [21]. Obtaining the optimum solution for EDPs is a critical
requirement for a sustainable power network, while considering various operational con-
straints. The developed algorithm should not only consider the operational limitations
of RESs, but also the constraints of thermal systems, such as ramp rate limits (RRLs), and
prohibited operating zones (POZs) should be taken into account [22,23].

1.2. Literature Review

Initially, deterministic techniques were employed to achieve the optimal solution for
basic EDPs. These classical techniques were effective in optimizing small- to medium-scale
thermal power systems, without taking into account the operational constraints [24–26].
However, the shortcomings of these deterministic algorithms became evident when attempt-
ing to solve complex dispatch problems that involved operational constraints. Modern
power systems comprise a significant number of generating units and necessitate the con-
sideration of several operational constraints, such as RRL, POZ, losses, and multiple fuel
cost functions. Accomplishing feasible solutions in such systems mandates the utilization
of sophisticated optimization algorithms.
The researchers worked on the development of metaheuristic optimization algorithms
for achieving the optimal solution of constraints-based EDPs incorporating thermal and
hybrid power systems. The utilization of the genetic algorithm (GA) and its variants for
obtaining optimal solutions to various categories of EDPs was surveyed by the authors
in [27,28], and they also compared the performance of these algorithms. In [29,30], the
authors presented a review and application of the artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm
and its hybridized variant for solving the multi-area economic dispatch (MAED) problem.
They also considered factors, such as of POZ, losses, VPL effects, tie-line constraints, and
multiple fuel scenario.
A comprehensive analysis of the utilization of the standard PSO and its various
variants for obtaining optimal solutions to both constrained and unconstrained EDPs was
presented in [24–26,31–34]. Additionally, the authors also compared the performance of
these algorithms with other notable metaheuristic techniques. However, the focus was
primarily on achieving optimal solutions for EDPs based on thermal power plants (TPPs).
The application of the bat algorithm (BA) and its variants for solving different instances
of EDPs, while taking into account the integration of wind power systems, was presented
in [35,36]. The developed algorithms were evaluated on 25 benchmark standard functions,
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6867 3 of 20

and the outcomes were compared with other metaheuristic techniques for the selected test
cases [37].
Due to the escalating power demand (PD) and the high rate of carbon emissions from
TPPs, the integration of RESs into existing power networks is of utmost importance [38,39].
According to the research, load frequency control is challenging because of uncertain
power generation and variable load demands [40–42]. The designed version of the PSO
approach was utilized to attain an optimal solution for various categories of EDPs that
involved both TPPs and RESs. In [43], the authors addressed the optimization of EDPs by
taking into account the concept of virtual power plants (VPPs) comprising wind farms and
hybridized TPPs. However, they did not consider the penalty costs associated with under-
and overestimations of the wind power framework. The resolution of EDPs that involve
wind and PV frameworks, as well as TPP combinations, was presented in [44], with the
consideration of penalty functions only for the wind power system. In [45], the authors
presented the mathematical expressions for calculating the costs of power systems that
integrate wind and solar PVs with conventional TPPs. EDPs involving a combination of a
PV system and a biofuel plant as an alternative to fossil fuels was solved in [46].
The extensive utilization of TPPs leads to a high emission rate of hazardous substances
that cause severe environmental pollution and negatively impact the health of the general
public [47]. In addition to the integration of RESs, the researchers also emphasized the
importance of developing mechanisms for the optimal calculation of emissions with the goal
of reducing them [48–52]. The incorporation of economic and environmental considerations
is essential to attain eco-friendly power-generation and dispatch mechanisms, which can
be achieved through a combined CEED approach.

1.3. Research Focus

Global particle swarm optimizer with inertial weights (GPSO-ω) is a variant of PSO
algorithm, which is a stochastic optimization technique used to solve complex optimization
problems. QPGPSO-ω, which is an extension of GPSO-ω, was utilized in [53] for the
solution of ED-IEEE standard (3, 6, 13, 15, 40, and 140) units for Korean grid thermal
test systems under various constraints. QPGPSO-ω outperformed several other methods
in solving the EDP, showcasing superior results. However, in this study, QPGPSO-ω is
applied to address the challenges of EDPs specifically related to the integration of RESs
and the consideration of CEED. The main focus of this study is as follows:
• Validation of the QPGPSO-ω methodology for solving only RES-based EDs with
resource variability.
• Validation of the QPGPSO-ω methodology for solving regional load sharing dispatch.
• Utilization of QPGPSO-ω to solve the CEED problem for ten-unit TPPs, which is a
significant challenge in power systems due to various constraints, such as VPL effects
and losses.

1.4. Paper Organization

The study is structured in the following sections. Section 2 provides the mathematical
formulations of the EDPs under consideration. In Section 3, the proposed methodology
is described in detail, including a flowchart and pseudocode. The results and their im-
plications are discussed in Section 4, whereas the concluding remarks are mentioned in
Section 5.

2. Mathematical Formulations
RESs are considered as the future of electric power generation systems due to several
factors, such as environmental concerns caused by conventional resources, their rapid
depletion, and fluctuating prices. The primary challenge for the large-scale implementation
of RES-based power generation, especially in developing countries, is the considerable
distance between major load centers and optimal sites for large-scale RES-based power
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6867 4 of 20

generation. The objective function and mathematical formulations for the operational
limitations of the considered power systems are presented in the following sub-sections.

2.1. Objective Function

The cost function for the power framework comprising only RESs is presented in (1):
" #
N Nwi Nsi Nbi
Cost Total = ∑ ∑ f wij ( Pwij ) + ∑ f sij ( Psij ) + ∑ f bij ( Pbij ) (1)
i =1 j =1 j =1 j =1

The objective function in (1) was designed by the total cost incurred in generating

electric


power from wind, PV, and biofuel-based plants, and is taken from [54]. f wij Pwij , f sij Psij ,
 
f bij Pbij in (1) represent the cost functions of jth wind, PV, and biofuel-based plants in
region i. The mathematical relations for the computation of extractable power and its
respective cost from the mentioned RESs are presented in the proceeding sub-section.

2.2. Formulations for the Consideration of Resource Variability

RESs, due to their intermittent nature, require the consideration of over- and un-
derestimations of the resources and corresponding power availability. Overestimation
occurs when the estimated power and its corresponding costs are lower than the actual
available resource and the resulting power and cost from wind sources. On the other hand,
underestimation refers to a situation where the extracted power and its associated costs are
higher than the predicted values. The mathematical representations for the overestimation,
underestimation, and the direct generation cost of wind resources are provided in (2)–(4)
respectively:

   

f wij Pwij = C pwij Pwav,ij − Pwsh,ij + Crwij Pwsh,ij − Pwav,ij × k wij × Pwav,ij (2)

Pwsh,ij
  Z
Crwij Pwsh,ij − Pwav,ij = krwij × ( Piwsh,ij − wij ) f wij (wij )dwij (3)
0

Pwr,ij
  Z
C pwij Pwav,ij − Pwsh,ij = k pwij × (wij − Piwsh,ij ) f wij (wij )dwij (4)
Pwsh,ij

where the power generated by the jth wind turbine in region i is represented as Pwij .
Additionally, the coefficients representing the direct, penalty, and reserve costs of the jth
wind turbine in region i are denoted as k wij , k pwij , and krwij , respectively. The cut-in, cut-
out, and rated speeds of wind are represented as vcut-in , vcut-out , and vr , respectively [55].
Similarly, the penalties for over- (reserve) and underestimations, as well as the direct cost
associated with PV-based generation, are presented in (5)–(7):

   
f sij Psij = k sij × Psav,ij + C psij Psav,ij − Pssh,ij + Crsij Pssh,ij − Psav,ij (5)

    h  i
Crsij Pssh,ij − Psav,ij = f s Psav,ij < Pssh,ij × E Psav,ij < Pssh,ij × krsij (6)

  h   i  
C psij Psav,ij − Pssh,ij = k psij × E Psav,ij > Pssh,ij − Pssh,ij × f s Psav,ij > Pssh,ij (7)

The power output extracted from the solar PV system, generated by the jth solar
plant in the designated i region, is represented as Psij . The coefficients associated with the
costs for direct, penalty, and reserve expenses for the jth PV plant in the I region are spec-
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6867 5 of 20

   
ified as k sij , k psij , and krsij , respectively. The terms f s Psav,ij > Pssh,ij , f s Psav,ij < Pssh,ij
taken from Equations (6) and (7), respectively, represent thehpotential  for the excess
 and i
deficiency of scheduled power from the PV source. Also, E Psav,ij > Pssh,ij − Pssh,ij ,
h  i
E Psav,ij < Pssh,ij indicate the anticipated PV power that exceeds or falls below the
planned corresponding output [56].
The third RES considered for power supply was biofuel. To determine the compu-
tational cost of power generation from biofuel, a quadratic cost function is employed, as
described in (8) [34,57]:  
f bij Pbij = a × Pi2 + b × Pi + c (8)

where a, b, and c represent the coefficients for the quadratic cost function.

2.3. Regional Load Sharing Dispatch (RLSD)

RLSD is classified as the exchange or sharing of available energy from multiple sources,
which are distributed across different regions. Numerically it is presented as (9):

Nareas N N N
∑ PNi,max ≥ ∑ PBi + ∑ PWi + ∑ PSi (9)
i =1 i =1 i =1 i =1

where PN , PB , PW , and PS represent the power values from the entire system, biofuel,
wind, and PV sources, respectively, which can be mutually used according to the regional
requirements. Variable N represents the region of the power production resources [58].

2.4. Combined Emissions Economic Dispatch (CEED)

The calculation for the CEED problem is performed through (10) and (11), given
in [48,49].
N
Emissions = E( Pi ) = ∑ (αi + βi Pi + γi Pi2 ) + ζ i exp(λi Pi ) (10)
i =1
" #
N ai + bi Pi + ai Pi2 + |ei sin ( f i ( Pimin − Pi ) )|
CEED = ∑ + PPFi × (αi + β i Pi + γi Pi2 ) + ζ i exp(λi Pi )
(11)
I =1

The emission coefficients for the ith generating unit are represented by αi , β i , γi , ζ i , and
λi . The price-penalty factor (PPF) associated with the emissions is provided in (12) [48]:

f th,max ( P i )
PPFi = (12)
Emax ( P i )

3. Description of the Proposed Algorithm

3.1. Overview of GPSO-ω
GPSO-ω was suggested in [59] by expanding the functionality of PSO. GPSO-ω initial-
izes N distinctive solutions with N distinctive velocity vectors. In order to identify the most
optimum point in each situation, the GPSO-ω search begins with exploring random loca-
tions as a possible solution to the problem. Evaluating these random locations/solutions
for the desired objective sets directions for developing new solutions, often referred to as
updated solutions [60]. The updated solutions further recursively undergo an evaluation
process till a termination criterion is reached.
The equation presented below demonstrates that positioning vectors are upgraded
towards the most optimum solution on the basis of their personal positioning along with
the positioning of the best possible solution. c1 and c2 can be used to control an individual’s
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6867 6 of 20

share to the total propagation of solutions. The solutions are updated using velocity and
position updates based on the following equations:

Vi (k) = ω (k) × Vi (k − 1) + c1 r1 (k) × [ PB (k − 1) − Xi (k − 1)

(13)
+c2 r2 (k) × [ GB (k − 1) − Xi (k − 1)]

Xi (k) = Xi (k − 1) + Vi (k) (14)

where c1 and c2 denote accelerating constants, r1 (k) and r2 (k) denote two random numbers,
ω indicates inertial weight, PB describes the particle’s personal best position, GB shows the
particle’s best position within the whole swarm, and Vi (k) and Xi (k) denote the velocity
and positioning of the ith solution in kth iteration, respectively.

3.2. Overview of QPGPSO-ω

Opposition-based learning (OBL) was, at first, suggested by Tizhoosh in 2005 for
initiating the population to improve the convergence speed of existent meta-heuristic
optimization methodologies [61]. The quasi-opposition population (QOP) strategy is based
on quasi-opposition initialization and quasi-opposition generation jumping, which allow
optimal starting candidate arrangements to be obtained by utilizing inverse points, even
when past data about the solutions are not available. The QOP technique considers both
the population, at present, and its quasi-inverse population, simultaneously, in order
to attain an optimal candidate arrangement. An equivalent strategy can be constantly
applied to each solution in the present population [62]. This methodology has been widely
incorporated into many optimization techniques to enhance their optimization potential.
QPGPSO-ω is a variant of PSO that incorporates an opposition-based mechanism,
which aids in avoiding local minima and enhances the possibility to find a global optimal
solution. QPGPSO-ω divides the swarm’s particles into two categories: explorer and oppo-
nent particles. Explorer particles move towards the global optimum, while the opponent
particles move away from it. The quasi-opposite population advances in the following
manner:
An inverse number is defined for each configuration in the population as follows:

X0 = min + max − Xi (15)

 
(min + max)
Xqoi = rand , ( X0 ) (16)
2
where Xi is the ith d-dimensional solution at a specific iteration. X0 denotes the inverse
number of this ith solution and Xqoi represents the respective opposite population [53].
In Equation (15), the inverse number is calculated by subtracting the original number
from the sum of the minimum and maximum values in the range. Essentially, it transforms
the original number in such a way that the closer the original number is to the maximum
value, the closer the inverse number will be to the minimum value, and vice versa.
The difference between GPSO-ω and QPGPSO-ω lies in their update mechanisms that
are elaborated below:
• In GPSO-ω, the velocity and position of each particle are updated based on the global
best solution found to date by the entire swarm. On the other hand, in QPGPSO-ω,
the velocity and position of each particle are updated based on the quasi-best solution
found by a subset of particles, called the quasi-population, randomly selected from
the entire swarm.
• The quasi-population is updated in each iteration by selecting the best particles from
the entire swarm.
• In QPGPSO-ω, the velocity update includes three components:
1. The inertia component that helps the particle maintain its previous velocity.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6867 7 of 20

2. The cognitive component that encourages the particle to move towards its per-
sonal best solution.
3. The social component that causes the particle to move towards the quasi-best
solution found by the quasi-population.
• By using a subset of particles to update the velocity and position of each particle,
QPGPSO-ω reduces the computational cost and enhances the exploration capability
of the algorithm.
• Moreover, by incorporating the quasi best solution found by the quasi population,
QPGPSO-ω is able to avoid premature convergence and achieve better solutions in
terms of cost and emissions.
The flowchart of the proposed QPGPSO-ω is presented in Figure 1.
The decision-making block illustrated in Figure 1 shows the process of updating the
best-position value (Pbest) in each iteration. If the recently calculated value of Pbest is found
to be better than the previous value, it is adopted as the current best value (represented
by the branch “yes”). On the other hand, if the recently calculated value is not better, the
previous value is retained as the Pbest (represented by the branch “no”).
In the final decision block of the algorithm, a similar approach is followed. If the Gbest
value is achieved, the algorithm will terminate and the final solution will be displayed
(case of the branch “yes”). Otherwise, the velocity of each particle is updated based on
its current velocity, Pbest and Gbest values, followed by the position update (case of the
branch “no”). The iterative process continues until the termination criterion is satisfied and
the algorithm provides the most optimal solution for the considered dispatch problem.
The QPGPSO-ω methodology is demonstrated through a pseudocode [53] (Algorithm 1).

Algorithm 1. QPGPSO-ω Pseudocode

Initialize N, d-dimensional velocity vectors Vi ( j), and solutions Xi ( j) within the specified range of the search space.
Initialize iteration j = 0
for 1st iteration do
initialize G pi (0) = Xi (0)
end for
for i = 1:N do
Calculate the initialfitness of each
 particle
f it( G B (0)) = min f it( G pi (0) )
GB (0) corresponding to index f it( GB (0))
end for
for j = 1:maxiter do
Compute w( j) = 0.9 − 0.5/maxiter
Update Vi ( j) and Xi ( j)
Calculate the opposite number X0 andgenerate corresponding quasi-opposite population Xqoi
(
Xqoi i f f it Xqoi < f it( Xi ( j))
Update Xi ( j) =
Xi ( j ) else
(  
Xi ( j) i f f it( X i ( j)) < f it G pi ( j − 1)
Update G pi ( j) =
G pi ( j − 1) else
 
Update f it( G B ( j)) = min f it( G pi ( j) )
Update GB ( j) corresponding to f it( G B ( j))
end for
Print best solution GB (maxiter ) and best fitness f it( G B (maxiter ))
Appl.
Appl. Sci.
Sci.2023,
2023,13,
13,x6867
FOR PEER REVIEW 8 8ofof20
20

Figure
Figure 1.
1. Flowchart
Flowchartof
ofthe
theproposed
proposed QPGPSO-ω.
QPGPSO-ω.

4. Results and Discussion

The QPGPSO-ω methodology is demonstrated through a pseudocode [53] (Algo-
rithmThe1). QPGPSO-ω algorithm proposed in this study was utilized to tackle environmen-
tally significant EDPs. The EDP scenarios considered include power systems comprising
Algorithm 1. QPGPSO-ω Pseudocode
solely RESs, as well as thermal systems incorporating CEED. The simulation parameters
employed
Initialize N, d-dimensional velocity for the
vectors 𝑉 algorithm throughout
(𝑗), and solutions thewithin
𝑋 (𝑗) paperthe
are specified
specified in Table
range of1,the
unless mentioned
search space.
otherwise.
Initialize iteration j = 0
for 1st iteration do
initialize 𝐺 (0) = 𝑋 (0)
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6867 9 of 20

Table 1. Parameters and their corresponding values for QPGPSO-ω.

No. Parameter Range Value

1 C1 , C2 [1.5–3] 2.5
Uniform pdf (probability
2 [0–1] 0.5
density function), r

The values of the unique parameter r and cognitive and social components c1 and c2
are given in Table 1. The simulation for the accomplishment of the optimum cost values for
the considered EDPs was performed in MATLAB with versatile characteristics [63].
QPGPSO-ω was employed for solving various EDPs of RESs, along with the CEED
problem. The combinations of sources for the test cases are given below:
• Only RES-based EDPs solved through QPGPSO-ω (15 units);
• Only RES-based EDPs with time-varying loads solved through QPGPSO-ω (hourly
variation);
• Only RES-based EDPs with MAED/RLSD solved through QPGPSO-ω;
• TPPs of ten units with CEED, losses, and VPL solved through QPGPSO-ω.
To obtain the optimal cost values and identify the best solution among the compared
optimization techniques, the algorithm was utilized to solve the mentioned EDPs. Multiple
trials were conducted, amounting to up to thirty iterations, with varying values of the
parameters listed in Table 1.
Throughout these trials, the algorithm aimed to minimize costs while considering
the operational constraints imposed by the EDPs. The algorithm’s performance was
evaluated based on the achieved cost and emission values, ensuring that both economic
and environmental factors were taken into account.

4.1. Case 1 of Only RESs without Constraints

In case 1, QPGPSO-ω was employed to solve the EDP for the power system comprising
only RESs without considering any constraints.
The simulation was conducted using specific power plants located in different regions
of Pakistan. Four biofuel power plants located in Rahim Yar Khan (RYK), Punjab; five PV
plants commissioned in Bahawalnagar and Sahiwal, Punjab; and six wind-based frame-
works deployed in Jhimpir, Sindh, were selected for the study. The climatic conditions and
applied requisites of the considered resources were taken from [20,64,65] and presented in
Table 2.

Table 2. Parameters for the RESs utilized for test case 1.

Regional Capacity Irradiance/Rated

Project Area
Distribution (MW) Velocity
M/S R.Y.K Mills Limited 30 Rahim Yar Khan
M/S Hamza-Sugar Mills Limited 15 Rahim Yar Khan
Region 1 NA
M/S J.D.W Sugar-Mills (Unit II) 26.4 Rahim Yar Khan
M/S Cheniot-Power Limited 62.4 Rahim Yar Khan
Harrapa Solar (private) Limited 18 Sahiwal Rad min = 150
Adam-jee Power-Generation (private) Rad max = 1000
10 Noorsar, Bahawalnagr P.V Mean = 5.2
Limited.
Region 2 P.V Std. Dev. = 0.6
Asia-Petroleum Limited. 30 Noorsar, Bahawalnagr
P.V Reserve = 3
M/S Safe Solar Power (private) Limited 10.3 Bahawalnagr P.V Over est. = 1.5
P.V direct cost = 1.6
Asia-Petroleum Limited. 30 Bahawalnagr
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6867 10 of 20

Table 2. Cont.

Regional Capacity Irradiance/Rated

Project Area
Distribution (MW) Velocity
Three Gorgeous Wind-Farm (private)
49.5 Jhimpir
Limited
Sapphire Wind-Power Company Vcut-in = 05 m/s
52.8 Jhimpir
Limited Vcut-out = 25 m/s
Region 3 FFC Energy Limited 49.5 Jhimpir Overestimation = 5
Underestimation = 1
Zorla Energi Pakistan (private) Limited 56.4 Jhimpir
Kp factor = 1
Yunus Energy Limited 50 Jhimpir
Metro Power Co., Limited 50 Jhimpir

The QPGPSO-ω algorithm was simulated for 30 sequential trials, and the average
results obtained from these trials are presented in Figure 2. The figure illustrates the
convergence behavior of the algorithm, indicating the progressive improvement in cost
values for the same power demand (PD) as the iteration’s progress. The 17th iteration is
identified as the point of convergence where the algorithm achieves optimal cost values.
Table 3 provides a comprehensive power and cost comparison between the QPGPSO-
ω algorithm and other prominent optimization techniques implemented for the case of
RES-only systems [66].

Table 3. Produced powers with the corresponding costs of each source for case 1.

QPGPSO-ω QPGPSO-ω HPSO_BA HPSO_BA MHPSO_BAAC MHPSO_BAAC MHPSO_BAAC_χ MHPSO_BAAC_χ

RES
(MW) (USD) (MW) Cost (USD) (MW) Cost (USD) (MW) Cost (USD)
P1 26.35 1168.798 23.715 1169.7981 26.35 1168.798 26.35 1168.7981
P2 62.4 2734.124 62.4 2739.1242 62.4 2734.124 62.4 2734.1242
P3 30 1355.04 30 1358.04 30 1355.04 30 1355.04
P4 15 1050.702 15 1056.7025 15 1050.7025 15 1050.7025
P5 7.1176 54.9 7.29 54.9 9 54.9 8.9617 54.9
P6 1.4425 30.5 8 30.9 0.4289 30.5 4.9123 30.5
P7 15 91.5 15 91.8 15 91.5 15 91.5
P8 4.9421 31.3589 3.2018 31.8589 5.0209 31.3589 3.4607 31.3589
P9 15 91.5 15 91.8 15 91.5 15 91.5
P10 13.86 227.7 12.471 227.7 12.474 227.7 8.8787 227.7
P11 15.792 259.44 14.0002 259.44 14.4174 259.44 15.2875 259.44
P12 13.86 227.7 11.4819 227.7 13.86 227.7 13.3501 227.7
P13 13.915 242.88 14.784 242.88 13.9812 242.88 14.784 242.88
P14 11.4 230 14 230 14 230 14 230
P15 14 230 14 230 14 230 14 230
PTotal 260 8026.1429 260 8046.1438 260 8026.1435 260 8026.1438

4.2. Case 2 of Only RESs with Resource Variability

For the mentioned case, resource and load variations within a day were taken into
account. Table 4 provides an overview of different time periods, along with the cor-
responding PD, average solar irradiance, and wind speed values during those specific
periods [20,64,65].
 P11 15.792 259.44 14.0002 259.44 14.4174 259.44 15.2875 259.44
P12 13.86 227.7 11.4819 227.7 13.86 227.7 13.3501 227.7
P13 13.915 242.88 14.784 242.88 13.9812 242.88 14.784 242.88
P14 11.4 230 14 230 14 230 14 230
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13,14
P15 6867 230 14 230 14 230 14 230 11 of 20
PTotal 260 8026.1429 260 8046.1438 260 8026.1435 260 8026.1438

Figure
Figure 2. Cost
2. Cost convergence
convergence curve
curve of RES-based
of RES-based EDPs
EDPs without
without constraints.
constraints.

Table 4. Time slots and the system parametric values for case 2.

Period (h) Power Demand (MW) Solar Irradiance (W/m2 ) Wind Speed (m/s)
00–01 200 000 8.7
01–02 195 000 8.5
02–03 190 000 8.4
03–04 180 000 8.3
04–05 185 000 8.2
05–06 190 100 8.1
06–07 200 150 8.0
07–08 210 200 7.9
08–09 215 250 7.5
09–10 220 325 7.1
10–11 225 360 7.3
11–12 230 400 7.1
12–13 235 450 6.7
13–14 242 510 6.8
14–15 249 600 6.7
15–16 260 660 6.9
16–17 250 525 7.1
17–18 246 400 7.4
18–19 243 290 7.6
19–20 245 200 7.8
20–21 231 000 8
21–22 225 000 8.3
22–23 216 000 8.5
23–00 205 000 8.7

The results presented in Table 5 indicate that the power generation from wind and PV
resources exhibits variations throughout the day, due to the availability of these resources.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6867 12 of 20

As wind speed and solar irradiance fluctuate, the power output from these renewable
sources also varies accordingly. On the other hand, the power generation from the biofuel
resource remains relatively constant, as its supply is less prone to variations. The results
obtained through the QPGPSO-ω algorithm for the cost of power production were com-
pared with the techniques introduced in [66]. As observed in the comparison, the results
obtained using QPGPSO-ω exhibit a slight improvement.

Table 5. Comparative analysis of QPGPSO-ω with prominent methodologies for test case 2.

Time Period QPGPSO-ω HPSOBA MHPSO-BAAC MHPSO-BAAC-χ

Hours (h) (MW) (USD) (MW) (USD) (MW) (USD) (MW) (USD)
00–01 200 8029.8 200 8030 200.2 8030 202.15 8030
01–02 195.7 8060 195.7 8060.78 195.87 8060.8 196.04 8060.8
02–03 190.51 8076 190.51 8076.2 193.07 8076.2 190.47 8076.2
03–04 181.14 8075.9 181.14 8076.2 185.3 8076.2 181.61 8076.2
04–05 193.97 8090.8 193.97 8091.6 190.4 8091.6 187.57 8091.6
05–06 190.64 8093.5 190.64 8094 195.3 8093.8 190.16 8094
06–07 204.84 8094.3 204.84 8095.1 203.5 8095 201.03 8095.1
07–08 212.20 8095.1 212.20 8096.2 212.14 8092.6 210.4 8096.2
08–09 217.31 8143.3 217.31 8143.6 220.25 8143.6 215.07 8143.6
09–10 221.28 8175.8 221.28 8176.2 220.14 8176.1 221.02 8176.2
10–11 226.51 8142.9 226.51 8143.1 225.26 8143 226.55 8143.1
11–12 227.12 8162.5 227.12 8162.5 230.67 8162.5 223.72 8162.5
12–13 226.11 8171.4 226.11 8171.9 232.7 8179.1 230.52 8179.1
13–14 230.32 8177.1 230.32 8177.4 232.75 8176.7 229.30 8177.4
14–15 228.27 8159.4 228.27 8159.4 231.42 8158.8 238.72 8160
15–16 245.38 8119.2 245.38 8119.2 248.31 8119.2 248.68 8119.2
16–17 237.42 8119 237.42 8119.2 243.54 8119.15 242.79 8119.2
17–18 229.4 8115.8 229.4 8116.3 242.37 8116.2 238.16 8116.2
18–19 226.45 8116.3 226.45 8116.8 229.76 8116.7 234.43 8116.43
19–20 231.65 8111.2 231.65 8111.6 230.62 8111.5 229.78 8111.6
20–21 219.35 8137.3 219.35 8137.8 224.57 8137.8 224.55 8137.8
21–22 225.48 8091.3 225.48 8091.6 225 8091.6 225.11 8091.6
22–23 216.13 8060 216.13 8060.8 217.76 8060.7 216.30 8060.8
23–00 207.06 8030 207.06 8030 205.92 8030 205.12 8030

In Table 5, a comparison is provided between the developed algorithm and techniques

utilized for solving RES-based EDPs [63]. The table demonstrates that the developed
algorithm exhibits slightly superior results in terms of cost reduction across nearly half of
the time slots.
Furthermore, Figure 3 showcases the convergence curves for case 2, illustrating the
progressive reduction in costs over the 23 time slots of the day. The graph visually represents
the algorithm’s ability to optimize power generation and achieve cost efficiency throughout
the different time periods.
 niques utilized for solving RES-based EDPs [63]. The table demonstrates that the devel-
oped algorithm exhibits slightly superior results in terms of cost reduction across nearly
half of the time slots.
Furthermore, Figure 3 showcases the convergence curves for case 2, illustrating the
progressive reduction in costs over the 23 time slots of the day. The graph visually repre-
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6867 13 of 20
sents the algorithm’s ability to optimize power generation and achieve cost efficiency
throughout the different time periods.

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 20

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Cost convergence curve of RES-based
RES-based EDPs
EDPs with
with resource
resource variability.
variability.
Figure 4 illustrates the variations in cost during the peak (16–20) and low (00–04) load
Figure
hours. 4 illustrates
The cost of powerthegeneration
variations fluctuated
in cost during the peak
during these(16–20) and primarily
time slots, low (00–04)
dueload
to
hours. The cost
the changes of power
in solar generation fluctuated during these time slots, primarily due to
radiation.
the changes in solar radiation.

Figure 4. Cost
Figure 4. Cost convergence
convergence curve
curve of
of RES-based
RES-based EDPs
EDPs with
with load
load and
and supply
supply variations
variations for
for 24
24 h.
h.

4.3. Case 3 of RESs with RLSD

The QPGPSO-ω algorithm utilizes a set of variables for simulation purposes, and
their specifications are provided in Table 1. On the other hand, Table 2 presents the para-
metric values assigned to RESs considered in the study. The scientific calculations for the
case of RLSD were performed according to (10). Furthermore, Table 6 showcases the
power production results and their associated costs when considering regional availabil-
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6867 14 of 20

4.3. Case 3 of RESs with RLSD

The QPGPSO-ω algorithm utilizes a set of variables for simulation purposes, and
their specifications are provided in Table 1. On the other hand, Table 2 presents the
parametric values assigned to RESs considered in the study. The scientific calculations for
the case of RLSD were performed according to (10). Furthermore, Table 6 showcases the
power production results and their associated costs when considering regional availability
constraints. The table provides insights into the performance of different resources when
meeting both individual and collective power demands using RESs.

Table 6. QPGPSO-ω cost calculations for EDPs of RESs with RLSD in case 3.

Power Values of the Biofuel, Wind, and PV Sources

Biofuel Wind PV All RESs
PG
and PC BF BF W W PV PV
MW USD MW USD MW USD
(MW) (USD) (MW) (USD) (MW) (USD)
P1 26.15 26.35 18.92 157.4 14 42.37 26.15 26.5 28.92 158.4 14 42.7
P2 62.4 62.4 26.55 180 8.933 23.54 62.4 62.4 26.55 180.9 8.933 23.4
P3 29 30 27.72 157.4 22.2 70.62 29 30 29.72 158 12.2 70.2
P4 13.5 14 23.54 167.96 6.847 23.20 13.5 14 28.54 168.9 6.87 24.20
P5 - - 27.99 159 22.2 70.62 - - 27.99 158 18.2 70.2
P6 - - 27 158 - - - - 27.9 159 - -
PT 131.05 - 151.72 - 74.18 - 131.05 - 169.62 - 60.2 -
CT - 132.75 - 979.76 - 230.35 - 132.9 - 983.2 - 230.7
PD 130 150 80 130 150 80
Pavailable 1.05 1.72 −5.82 0.87
PD overall 360 360.87@ 1346.8

The given values presented in Table 6 were obtained by taking the average values for
the 30 trials. Once the PD was met, any surplus power in the region was denoted as Pavailable ,
which could be distributed and shared with other regions. However, power sharing among
regions was only possible when the value of Pavailable was positive, indicating that there was
a surplus power available after fulfilling the PD. Conversely, a negative value of Pavailable
signified that the resource was inadequate to meet the power demands, and thus power
sharing was not feasible. Figure 5 illustrates the cost convergence curves for both the
individual regional resource supply and mutual power sharing scenarios.
Table 7 presents a comparative analysis of the cost calculation for EDPs of RESs with
RLSD using different techniques for the case of ED.

Table 7. Comparison table for cost calculations for EDPs of RESs with RLSD.

Methods Generated Power (MW) Min. Cost (USD)

HPSOBA [66] 361.977 1351.344
MHPSO-BAAC [66] 360.139 1350.448
MHPSO-BAAC-χ [66] 360.567 1350.344
QPGPSO-ω 360.870 1346.800

Table 7 validated the efficacy of QPGPSO-ω compared to various methodologies

presented in the literature.
 which could be distributed and shared with other regions. However, power sharing
among regions was only possible when the value of Pavailable was positive, indicating that
there was a surplus power available after fulfilling the PD. Conversely, a negative value
of Pavailable signified that the resource was inadequate to meet the power demands, and thus
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6867 power sharing was not feasible. Figure 5 illustrates the cost convergence curves for15both
of 20
the individual regional resource supply and mutual power sharing scenarios.

Figure 5.
Figure Cost convergence
5. Cost convergence curve
curve of
of RES-based
RES-based EDPs
EDPs with
with RLSD.
RLSD.

4.4. Case
Table4 7ofpresents
Ten Thermal Units (CEED
a comparative + VPL of
analysis + Losses)
the cost calculation for EDPs of RESs with
RLSDThe testdifferent
using scenario techniques
involved ten forthermal-based
the case of ED.generating units, taking into account the
VPL and power losses, as well as the combined emission economic dispatch (CEED). The
specifications
Table and parameters
7. Comparison ofcalculations
table for cost the thermalforTPPs,
EDPsasofwell
RESsaswith
theirRLSD.
corresponding emissions,
were obtained from [49]. The mathematical expressions used in the analysis are given by
(11) and (12).Methods
Furthermore, Table 8 Generated
presents thePower
power(MW)
production and Min. Cost (USD) costs
corresponding
for each ofHPSOBA [66] plants when simulated
the considered 361.977using the QPGPSO-ω1351.344 algorithm.
MHPSO-BAAC [66] 360.139 1350.448
8. Produced powers[66]
Table MHPSO-BAAC-χ and their corresponding costs of the individual plants
360.567 for case 4.
1350.344
QPGPSO-ω
Plant No. QPGPSO-ω (MW) 360.870 QPGPSO-ω ($) 1346.800 (lb)
QPGPSO-ω
P1 55 3645.188 307.474
Table 7 validated the efficacy of QPGPSO-ω compared to various methodologies pre-
P2 literature.
sented in the 80 4837.056 332.4252
P3 94.1025 5460.377 302.58
4.4. Case 4 Pof4 Ten Thermal Units (CEED
111.10 + VPL + Losses)6752.469 314.458
The test
P5 scenario involved81.09
ten thermal-based generating
4897.367 units, taking 57.87
into account
the VPL and power losses, as well as the combined emission economic dispatch (CEED).
P6 82.215 5158.461 60.396
The specifications and parameters of the thermal TPPs, as well as their corresponding
emissions,Pwere
7 obtained from 300 15,936.28
[49]. The mathematical 466.1098
expressions used in the analysis
P8 340 18,034.35 655.8089
P9 470 23,455.1 905.7544
P10 470 23,356.94 902.882
PT 2083.5 - -
CT - 111,533.59 -
Ploss 83.402 - -
E (lb) - - 4305.76
PPF 25.903 - -

Figure 6 illustrates the cost convergence curve for the CEED case, showing the pro-
gression of cost values as the algorithm iteratively updated and refined the solutions.
 Ploss 83.402 - -
E (lb) - - 4305.76
PPF 25.903 - -

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6867 Figure 6 illustrates the cost convergence curve for the CEED case, showing the16 pro-
of 20
gression of cost values as the algorithm iteratively updated and refined the solutions.

Costconvergence
Figure6.6.Cost
Figure convergencecurve
curveofofEDP
EDPproblem.
problem.

Table99presents
Table presentsaacomprehensive
comprehensivecomparative
comparativeanalysis
analysisofofthe
thecost,
cost,emissions,
emissions,and
and
computational time for various prominent techniques used to solve the EDPs.
computational time for various prominent techniques used to solve the EDPs.

Table 9. Comparison of QPSPSO-ω for CEED case.

Methods Min. Cost (USD) Average Cost (USD) E (lb) CPU Time (s)
EMOCA [49] 113,444.8500 - 4113.9800 2.90
MSA [51] 113,350.0000 - 4102.4000
QPSO [53] 119,005.3000 121,621.7500 4041.9171 -
GQPSO [53] 112,429.7444 113,102.4627 4032.9320 -
LAPO [67] 113,412.3500 - 4115.5730 3.109
SMA [68] 113,490.0000 - 4108.6000 -
PDE [68] 113,510.0000 - 4111.4000 4.23
ABC-PSO [68] 113,420.0000 - 4120.1000 -
MODE [68] 113,484.0000 - 4124.9000 3.82
NSGAII [68] 113,539.0000 - 4130.2000 6.02
SPEA-2 [68] 113,520.0000 - 4109.1000 7.53
BSA-WSM [69] 112,559.8061 - 4223.7248 -
GWO [70] 111,729.4238 - 4247.5200 -
MHPSO-BAAC [66] 106,278.0500 109,728.0500 4318.8900 2.242
MHPSO-BAAC-χ [66] 106,236.1500 109,632.1500 4310.9500 2.362
QPGPSO-ω 111,533.5900 111,649.8210 4305.7600 2.358

Overall, the combination of the quasi-population-based approach and the inertial

weight parameter in QPGPSO-ω results in an effective exploration of the search space, a
balanced trade-off between exploration and exploitation, and convergence to favorable
solutions. Comparisons with other techniques validated the superior performance of
QPGPSO-ω in terms of cost and emissions reduction, with slightly improved computational
times. Therefore, QPGPSO-ω stood out as a promising optimization approach for similar
problems, offering efficient and effective solutions.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6867 17 of 20

5. Conclusions
The paper presented the implementation of QPGPSO-ω to solve environmentally
significant EDPs consisting of scenarios of only RESs and a case of a thermal system with
a CEED problem. The RES-based system comprised three cases: (i) without constraints,
(ii) with resource and load variability, and (iii) RLSD. The scenario of thermal system
consisted of ten thermal-based generating units having VPLs, losses, and CEED. The
comparative analysis of the QPGPSO-ω with several reported methods has shown the
efficacy of the proposed technique in terms of cost minimization and achieving a fast
convergence. Our research findings suggest that the incorporation of RESs can be an
effective way to tackle the challenges of the CEED problem as it offers an economical and
environmental friendly solution for an optimal power dispatch. We are of the opinion that
the optimization based methods can serve as an effective tool for power system operators
and planners to optimize power system operations while minimizing costs and reducing
emissions. Future research can explore the applicability of QPGPSO-ω in other energy
optimization problems and investigate the practicality of implementing the proposed
approach in real-world power systems.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, U.A.S. and M.I.M.; methodology, U.A.S.; software, S.M.
and N.A.; validation, U.A.S., M.I.M. and S.M.; formal analysis, U.A.S.; investigation, U.A.S.; data
curation, U.A.S. and M.E.; writing—original draft preparation, U.A.S.; writing—review and editing,
M.E. and F.M.B.; supervision, M.I.M.; funding acquisition, H.G.M. and O.Z. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University Researchers Supporting Project number
(PNURSP2023TR140), Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Fossil Fuel and Other Nonrenewable Material Depletion. Available online: https://edepot.wur.nl/558072#:~:text=Fossil%20
fuel%20depletion%20is%20the,inputs%2C%20such%20as%20mineral%20fertilizer (accessed on 20 February 2023).
2. Consequences of Depletion of Natural Resources. Available online: https://www.theworldcounts.com/stories/consequences-of-
depletion-of-natural-resources (accessed on 2 March 2023).
3. Wu, Z.; Luo, G.; Yang, Z.; Guo, Y.; Li, K.; Xue, Y. A Comprehensive Review on Deep Learning Approaches in Wind Forecasting
Applications. CAAI Trans. Intell. Technol. 2022, 7, 129–143. [CrossRef]
4. Zheng, J.; Du, J.; Wang, B.; Klemeš, J.J.; Liao, Q.; Liang, Y. A Hybrid Framework for Forecasting Power Generation of Multiple
Renewable Energy Sources. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 172, 113046. [CrossRef]
5. Yan, R.; Lin, Y.; Yu, N.; Wu, Y. A Low-Carbon Economic Dispatch Model for Electricity Market with Wind Power Based on
Improved Ant-Lion Optimization Algorithm. CAAI Trans. Intell. Technol. 2023, 8, 29–39. [CrossRef]
6. Ela, E.; O’Malley, M. Studying the Variability and Uncertainty Impacts of Variable Generation at Multiple Timescales. IEEE Trans.
Power Syst. 2012, 27, 1324–1333. [CrossRef]
7. Widén, J.; Carpman, N.; Castellucci, V.; Lingfors, D.; Olauson, J.; Remouit, F.; Bergkvist, M.; Grabbe, M.; Waters, R. Variability
Assessment and Forecasting of Renewables: A Review for Solar, Wind, Wave and Tidal Resources. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2015, 44, 356–375. [CrossRef]
8. Wind Energy and Solar|Installed GW Capacity—Worldwide and by Country. Available online: http://www.fi-powerweb.com/
Renewable-Energy.html (accessed on 6 October 2020).
9. WBA Global Bioenergy Statistics 2018. Available online: https://worldbioenergy.org/uploads/181203%20WBA%20GBS%202018
_hq.pdf (accessed on 6 October 2020).
10. Milligan, M.; Kirby, B. Calculating Wind Integration Costs: Separating Wind Energy Value from Integration Cost Impacts; NREL/TP-550-
46275; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2009. [CrossRef]
11. Ghafoor, A.; Rehman, T.U.; Munir, A.; Ahmad, M.; Iqbal, M. Current Status and Overview of Renewable Energy Potential in
Pakistan for Continuous Energy Sustainability. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 60, 1332–1342. [CrossRef]
12. Shami, S.H.; Ahmad, J.; Zafar, R.; Haris, M.; Bashir, S. Evaluating Wind Energy Potential in Pakistan’s Three Provinces, with
Proposal for Integration into National Power Grid. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 53, 408–421. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6867 18 of 20

13. Ashfaq, A.; Ianakiev, A. Features of Fully Integrated Renewable Energy Atlas for Pakistan; Wind, Solar and Cooling. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 97, 14–27. [CrossRef]
14. Latif, M.H.; Aslam, A.; Mahmood, T. Prospects and implementation of solar energy potential in Pakistan: Based on hybrid grid
station employing incremental conductance technique. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Electrical Engineering Conference
(IEEC 2018), Karachi, Pakistan, 25–27 October 2018.
15. Naqvi, S.R.; Jamshaid, S.; Naqvi, M.; Farooq, W.; Niazi, M.B.K.; Aman, Z.; Zubair, M.; Ali, M.; Shahbaz, M.; Inayat, A.; et al.
Potential of Biomass for Bioenergy in Pakistan Based on Present Case and Future Perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018,
81, 1247–1258. [CrossRef]
16. Khan, M.T.; Khan, I.A.; Yasmeen, S.; Nizamani, G.S.; Afghan, S. Sugarcane Biofuels and Bioenergy Production in Pakistan:
Current Scenario, Potential, and Future Avenues. In Sugarcane Biofuels: Status, Potential, and Prospects of the Sweet Crop to Fuel the
World; Khan, M.T., Khan, I.A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 175–202. [CrossRef]
17. Kamran, M. Current Status and Future Success of Renewable Energy in Pakistan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 609–617.
[CrossRef]
18. Wind Current Status. Available online: http://www.aedb.org/ae-technologies/wind-power/wind-current-status (accessed on
1 November 2020).
19. Solar Current Status. Available online: http://www.aedb.org/ae-technologies/solar-power/solar-current-status (accessed on
1 November 2020).
20. Current Status. Available online: http://www.aedb.org/ae-technologies/biomass-waste-to-energy/current-status (accessed on
1 November 2020).
21. Chap2. Available online: http://home.iitk.ac.in/~saikatc/EE632_files/chap2.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2023).
22. Li, X.; Fang, L.; Lu, Z.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, H. A Line Flow Granular Computing Approach for Economic Dispatch with Line
Constraints. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2017, 32, 4832–4842. [CrossRef]
23. Jayabarathi, T.; Raghunathan, T.; Adarsh, B.R.; Suganthan, P.N. Economic Dispatch Using Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimizer. Energy
2016, 111, 630–641. [CrossRef]
24. Gaing, Z.-L. Particle Swarm Optimization to Solving the Economic Dispatch Considering the Generator Constraints. IEEE Trans.
Power Syst. 2003, 18, 1187–1195. [CrossRef]
25. Qin, Q.; Cheng, S.; Chu, X.; Lei, X.; Shi, Y. Solving Non-Convex/Non-Smooth Economic Load Dispatch Problems via an Enhanced
Particle Swarm Optimization. Appl. Soft Comput. 2017, 59, 229–242. [CrossRef]
26. Al Bahrani, L.T.; Patra, J.C. Orthogonal PSO Algorithm for Economic Dispatch of Thermal Generating Units under Various Power
Constraints in Smart Power Grid. Appl. Soft Comput. 2017, 58, 401–426. [CrossRef]
27. Walters, D.C.; Sheble, G.B. Genetic Algorithm Solution of Economic Dispatch with Valve Point Loading. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
1993, 8, 1325–1332. [CrossRef]
28. Chiang, C.-L. Improved Genetic Algorithm for Power Economic Dispatch of Units with Valve-Point Effects and Multiple Fuels.
IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2005, 20, 1690–1699. [CrossRef]
29. Basu, M. Artificial Bee Colony Optimization for Multi-area Economic Dispatch. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2013, 49, 181–187.
[CrossRef]
30. Sen, T.; Mathur, H.D. A New Approach to Solve Economic Dispatch Problem Using a Hybrid ACO–ABC–HS Optimization
Algorithm. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2016, 78, 735–744. [CrossRef]
31. Victoire, T.A.A.; Jeyakumar, A.E. Hybrid PSO–SQP for Economic Dispatch with Valve-Point Effect. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2004,
71, 51–59. [CrossRef]
32. Abbas, G.; Gu, J.; Farooq, U.; Asad, M.U.; El-Hawary, M. Solution of an Economic Dispatch Problem Through Particle Swarm
Optimization: A Detailed Survey—Part I. IEEE Access 2017, 5, 15105–15141. [CrossRef]
33. Abbas, G.; Gu, J.; Farooq, U.; Raza, A.; Asad, M.U.; El-Hawary, M.E. Solution of an Economic Dispatch Problem Through Particle
Swarm Optimization: A Detailed Survey—Part II. IEEE Access 2017, 5, 24426–24445. [CrossRef]
34. Ellahi, M.; Abbas, G.; Khan, I.; Koola, P.M.; Nasir, M.; Raza, A.; Farooq, U. Recent Approaches of Forecasting and Optimal
Economic Dispatch to Overcome Intermittency of Wind and Photovoltaic (PV) Systems: A Review. Energies 2019, 12, 4392.
[CrossRef]
35. Liang, H.; Liu, Y.; Shen, Y.; Li, F.; Man, Y. A Hybrid Bat Algorithm for Economic Dispatch with Random Wind Power. IEEE Trans.
Power Syst. 2018, 33, 5052–5061. [CrossRef]
36. Al-Betar, M.A.; Awadallah, M.A. Island Bat Algorithm for Optimization. Expert Syst. Appl. 2018, 107, 126–145. [CrossRef]
37. Adarsh, B.R.; Raghunathan, T.; Jayabarathi, T.; Yang, X.-S. Economic Dispatch using Chaotic Bat Algorithm. Energy 2016, 96,
666–675. [CrossRef]
38. Global CO2 Emissions Rebounded to Their Highest Level in History in 2021. Available online: https://www.iea.org/news/
global-co2-emissions-rebounded-to-their-highest-level-in-history-in-2021 (accessed on 15 January 2023).
39. Global Energy Review: CO2 Emissions in 2021. Available online: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/c3086240-732b-4f6a-
89d7-db01be018f5e/GlobalEnergyReviewCO2Emissionsin2021.pdf (accessed on 4 December 2022).
40. Mohamed, M.; Marei, M.I.; Mariam; Sameh, A.; Attia, M.A. An Adaptive Load Frequency Control for Power Systems with
Renewable Energy Sources. Energies 2022, 15, 573.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6867 19 of 20

41. Mu, C.; Wang, K.; Ma, S.; Chong, Z.; Ni, Z. Adaptive Composite Frequency Control of Power Systems using Reinforcement
Learning. CAAI Trans. Intell. Technol. 2022, 7, 671–684. [CrossRef]
42. Haes, A.H.; Hamedani-Golshan, M.-E.; Zamani, R.; Heydarian-Forushani, E.; Siano, P. Challenges and Opportunities of Load
Frequency Control in Conventional, Modern And Future Smart Power Systems: A Comprehensive Revie. Energies 2018, 11, 2497.
43. Li, M.; Hou, J.; Niu, Y.; Liu, J. Economic Dispatch of Wind-Thermal Power System by using Aggregated Output Characteristics
of Virtual Power Plants. In Proceedings of the 2016 12th IEEE International Conference on Control and Automation (ICCA),
Kathmandu, Nepal, 1–3 June 2016. [CrossRef]
44. Tyagi, N.; Dubey, H.M.; Pandit, M. Economic Load Dispatch of Wind-Solar-Thermal System using Backtracking Search Algorithm.
Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2016, 8, 16–21. [CrossRef]
45. Basu, M. Squirrel Search Algorithm for Multi-Region Combined Heat and Power Economic Dispatch Incorporating Renewable
Energy Sources. Energy 2019, 182, 296–305. [CrossRef]
46. Lai, C.S.; Jia, Y.; Xu, Z.; Lai, L.L.; Li, X.; Cao, J.; McCulloch, M.D. Levelized Cost of Electricity for Photovoltaic/Biogas Power
Plant Hybrid System with Electrical Energy Storage Degradation Costs. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 153, 34–47. [CrossRef]
47. Munawer, M.E. Human Health and Environmental Impacts of Coal Combustion and Post-Combustion Wastes. J. Sustain. Min.
2018, 17, 87–96. [CrossRef]
48. Abido, M.A. Environmental/Economic Power Dispatch using Multi-objective Evolutionary Algorithms. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
2003, 18, 1529–1537. [CrossRef]
49. Zhang, R.; Zhou, J.; Mo, L.; Ouyang, S.; Liao, X. Economic Environmental Dispatch using an Enhanced Multi-Objective Cultural
Algorithm. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2013, 99, 18–29. [CrossRef]
50. Pandit, N.; Tripathi, A.; Tapaswi, S.; Pandit, M. An Improved Bacterial Foraging Algorithm for Combined Static/Dynamic
Environmental Economic Dispatch. Appl. Soft Comput. 2012, 12, 3500–3513. [CrossRef]
51. Hussien, A.; Kamel, S.; Ebeed, M. Solution of Economic and Environmental Dispatch with Valve Point Effect using Moth Swarm
Algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2017 Nineteenth International Middle East Power Systems Conference (MEPCON), Cairo,
Egypt, 19–21 December 2017; pp. 941–946. [CrossRef]
52. Xin-gang, Z.; Ji, L.; Jin, M.; Ying, Z. An Improved Quantum Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm for Environmental Economic
Dispatch. Expert Syst. Appl. 2020, 152, 113370. [CrossRef]
53. Salaria, U.A.; Menhas, M.I.; Manzoor, S. Quasi Oppositional Population Based Global Particle Swarm Optimizer with Inertial
Weights (QPGPSO-W) for Solving Economic Load Dispatch Problem. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 134081–134095. [CrossRef]
54. Ellahi, M.; Abbas, G. A Hybrid Metaheuristic Approach for the Solution of Renewables-Incorporated Economic Dispatch
Problems. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 127608–127621. [CrossRef]
55. Hetzer, J.; Yu, D.C.; Bhattarai, K. An Economic Dispatch Model Incorporating Wind Power. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2008, 23,
603–611. [CrossRef]
56. Liang, R.-H.; Liao, J.-H. A Fuzzy-Optimization Approach for Generation Scheduling With Wind and Solar Energy Systems. IEEE
Trans. Power Syst. 2007, 22, 1665–1674. [CrossRef]
57. Sigarchian, S.G.; Paleta, R.; Malmquist, A.; Pina, A. Feasibility Study of using a Biogas Engine as Backup in a Decentralized
Hybrid (PV/Wind/Battery) Power Generation System—Case Study Kenya. Energy 2015, 90, 1830–1841. [CrossRef]
58. Shoults, R.R.; Chang, S.K.; Helmick, S.; Grady, W.M. A Practical Approach to Unit Commitment, Economic Dispatch and Savings
Allocation for Multiple-Area Pool Operation with Import/Export Constraints. IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. 1980, PAS-99,
625–635. [CrossRef]
59. Shi, Y.; Eberhart, R. A Modified Particle Swarm Optimizer. In 1998 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation
Proceedings, Proceedings of the IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence (Cat. No.98TH8360), Anchorage, AK, USA, 4–9 May
1998; pp. 69–73. [CrossRef]
60. García-Gonzalo, E.; Fernández-Martínez, J.L. A Brief Historical Review of Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO). J. Bioinforma. Intell.
Control 2012, 1, 3–16. [CrossRef]
61. Tizhoosh, H.R. Opposition-Based Learning: A New Scheme for Machine Intelligence. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Computational Intelligence for Modelling, Control and Automation and International Conference on Intelligent
Agents, Web Technologies and Internet Commerce (CIMCA-IAWTIC’06), Vienna, Austria, 28–30 November 2005; Volume 1, pp.
695–701. [CrossRef]
62. Nama, S.; Saha, A.K. An Ensemble Symbiosis Organisms Search Algorithm and its Application to Real World Problems. Decis.
Sci. Lett. 2018, 7, 103–118. [CrossRef]
63. Symbolic Math Toolbox—MATLAB. Available online: https://www.mathworks.com/products/symbolic.html (accessed on
2 September 2020).
64. Jhimpir Monthly Climate Averages. Available online: https://www.worldweatheronline.com/jhimpir-weather/sindh/pk.aspx
(accessed on 2 December 2020).
65. World Weather Online. Available online: https://www.worldweatheronline.com/ (accessed on 2 December 2020).
66. Ellahi, M.; Abbas, G.; Satrya, G.B.; Usman, M.R.; Gu, J. A Modified Hybrid Particle Swarm Optimization with Bat Algorithm
Parameter Inspired Acceleration Coefficients for Solving Eco-Friendly and Economic Dispatch Problems. IEEE Access 2021, 9,
82169–82187. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6867 20 of 20

67. Refai, A.; Ebeed, M.; Kamel, S. Combined Economic and Emission Dispatch Analysis using Lightning Attachment Procedure
Optimizer. In Proceedings of the 2019 21st International Middle East Power Systems Conference (MEPCON), Cairo, Egypt, 17–19
December 2019; pp. 748–753. [CrossRef]
68. Ebeed, M.; Refai, A.; Kamel, S. Solving Combined Economic and Emission Dispatch Problem using the Slime Mould Algorithm.
In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Science & Contemporary Technologies (ICSCT), Dhaka, Bangladesh, 5–7
August 2021. [CrossRef]
69. Modiri-delshad, M.; Rahim, N.A. Multi-objective Backtracking Search Algorithm for Economic Emission Dispatch Problem. Appl.
Soft Comput. J. 2016, 40, 479–494. [CrossRef]
70. Reddy, Y.V.K.; Reddy, M.D. Intelligent Systems and Applications in Engineering Solution of Multi Objective Environmental
Economic Dispatch by Grey Wolf Optimization Algorithm. Int. J. Intell. Syst. Appl. Eng. 2019, 7, 34–41. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.