This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been

fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2587665, IEEE Access

Optimizing Combined Emission Economic Dispatch

for Solar Integrated Power Systems
Naveed Ahmed Khan, Guftaar Ahmad Sardar Sidhu, and Feifei Gao

Abstract—The dispatch of power at minimum operational smooth convex cost functions and efficient solutions were
cost of thermal energy sources has been a significant part proposed [6]. However, the complex nature of the commonly
of research since decades. Recently with increasing interests used generation facilities has made the cost functions essen-
in renewable energy resources, the optimal economic dispatch
has become a challenging issue. This paper presents combined tially non-convex [7]. For instance, thermal units equipped
emission economic dispatch (CEED) model for a solar photo with multi-valve steam turbines produce ripples in the cost
voltaic (PV) integrated power system with multiple solar and functions. These ripples like effects are originated due to
thermal generating plants. We formulate mixed integer binary opening or closing of valves at various stages, and are known
programming problem (MIBP) subject to various practical con- as the valve point effects (VPEs). In addition to VPEs, the
straints. A decomposition framework is proposed where the
original problem is split into two sub-problems. Particle swarm aspect of multiple fuel options also results in non-smooth ob-
optimization (PSO), Newton-Raphson method, and binary integer jective functions for ED optimization [8]. In literature, various
programming (BIP) techniques are exploited to find the joint artificial intelligence (AI) based optimization techniques were
optimization solution. The proposed model is tested on IEEE 30 proposed to address the complex ED problem e.g., genetic
bus system. The simulation results demonstrate the effectiveness algorithm (GA) [9], particle swarm optimization (PSO) [10],
of the proposed model.
Index Terms—Economic Dispatch, Power Systems, Photo neural network (NN) [11], evolutionary programming (EP)
Voltaic, PSO [12] and tabu search (TS) [13].
PSO has been the most popular technique to address ED
I. I NTRODUCTION optimization due to its simplicity and ability to solve the
In recent decades, deployment of renewable energy sources complex problems [14]. In [15], the authors addressed non-
in place of thermal generation has received a lot of attention. convex problem by a hybrid scheme which combines PSO and
This shift of momentum took place due to the rapidly depleting sequential quadratic programming (SQP). The constraints like
reserves of fossil fuels, the dramatic increase in fuel prices, and power balance, security, power generation limits, ramp rate
the environmental concerns associated with thermal fuels [1]. limits, and spinning reserve were involved. PSO was used as
Economic dispatch (ED) is a well known optimization problem a main optimization tool and SQP as a local optimizer for
that aims to find an appropriate combination of power shares further tuning of the obtained solution. In [16], constriction
from committed generating units that results in minimum factor PSO (CFPSO) had been proposed for non-convex ED
cost. There are numerous constraints involved in ED problem under various constraints such as generator limits and power
such as power limits of generators, power balance, prohibited balance. The inclusion of constriction factor ensured fast con-
operating zones, ramp rate limits etc. Various optimization vergence of the algorithm by gradually reducing the velocities.
techniques have been reported in literature to solve the ED Considering more complex cost function under the prohibited
problem [2]. operating zones and VPEs, a technique named ‘iteration PSO
ED with thermal generating units has been one of the most with time varying acceleration coefficients (IPSO-TVAC)’ was
frequently investigated problems in power system optimization proposed in [17]. The iteration term in the velocity equation
[3]– [4]. The structure of fuel cost functions for thermal enhanced the memorizing ability of PSO whereas the time
generating units plays a significant role in ED problem [5]. varying acceleration coefficients resulted in better balance
Traditionally, the problem had been extensively studied with between social and local components.
Thermal generating units produce emissions that result in
This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation serious environmental impacts [18]. Therefore, along with the
of China under Grant 61422109 amd Higher Education Commission (HEC) cost minimization, a significant intention has been paid to
Pakistan.
N. A. Khan is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, COMSATS keep the emissions at minimum level. A multi-objective ED
Institute of Information Technology, Park Road, Chak Shahzad, Islamabad, problem, which involves both the fuel cost and emissions
Pakistan (Email: [email protected]). is known as combined emission economic dispatch (CEED).
G. A. S. Sidhu (Corresponding Author) is with the Department of Electrical
Engineering, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Park Road, Selvakumar et al. [19] solved the CEED problem under the
Chak Shahzad, Islamabad, Pakistan (Email: [email protected]). constraints of power balance and power generation capacity
F. Gao is with Department of Automation, Tsinghua University, State Key limits using PSO. The authors of work in [20] proposed
Lab of Intelligent Technologies and Systems, Tsinghua National Laboratory
for Information Science and Technology (TNList) Beijing, P. R. China, (email: multi-objective particle swarm optimization (MOPSO) and
[email protected]). used a diversity-preserving mechanism to find the wide range

2169-3536 (c) 2016 IEEE. Translations and content mining are permitted for academic research only. Personal use is also permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2587665, IEEE Access

of pareto-optimal solutions. Moreover, [20] considered the generator limits, renewable energy limits, and the ramp rate
practical security constraints which were missing in [19]. In limits. However, the practical security and the network losses
[21], the authors enhanced MOPSO procedure by redefining constraints were missing and the authors did not test the pro-
the local and global best individuals resulting in significant posed solution on any real network. More recently, the work in
improvements. In [22], multi-objective CEED problem was [32] developed a rule-based power management algorithm to
converted into a single objective optimization by introducing achieve dispatch characteristics similar to conventional thermal
a price penalty factor. The problem was solved using the generating units. However, the study was limited to only a
artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm. Further, a modified single PV plant without implementation on real network. Thus,
harmony search algorithm to solve the combined economic various constrains of practical power system were absent.
and emission load dispatch (CEELD) problem was designed In this paper, we present a joint CEED optimization problem
in [23]. which aims to 1) minimize the thermal fuel cost, the emissions,
and the cost of solar generation, 2) maximize the share of
The ED of renewable integrated power system becomes the solar power and the number of participating solar units1 .
more complex due to intermittent and uncontrollable nature We consider various practical network and security constraints
of the renewable energy. The work in [24] proposed a two- i.e. power balance, generator bounds, bus voltage bounds,
step framework to evaluate the energy storage in a wind aided reactive power limits, line thermal capacity limits, available
power system. The authors dealt with the wind intermittency solar power, and upper bound on solar penetration. It should
using reserve generation. However, this work was limited to be noted that the existing works in literature may only have
battery storage scenario and the actual network constraints some of these constraints. The contributions of this paper are
were missing. In [25], the authors studied short term planning summarized as:
of virtual power plants (VPP) under the objectives of max- • A joint multi-objective integer optimization problem
imizing economic profit and minimizing deviations between is formulated to minimize the overall operational
actual and contracted energy. The scope of this paper was cost/emissions and to maximize the total share/number
little to propose bid based operation of VPPs connected to a of solar power plants.
very small network. The authors in [26] presented a stochastic • A decomposition framework is first adopted to split the
model to solve an optimal power flow (OPF) problem for original problem into two sub-problems. Then, a mixed
wind integrated power systems. In this paper, the level of optimization scheme is proposed which exploits the PSO,
wind penetration was determined based on the demand-side the Newton-Raphson method, and the binary integer
flexibility. The work [24]– [26] did not consider the emissions programming.
and important constraints like voltage limits, tap limits, reac- • The proposed model is employed to IEEE 30-bus network
tive power limits etc., were also ignored. In [27], the authors to verify its practical application.
provided economic environmental dispatch (EED) model by • Through simulations, we show the better performance of
integrating the renewable energy sources in conventional grid. the proposed algorithm in terms of cost minimization and
The test system involved six thermal machines, one photo maximization of the solar share.
voltaic (PV) plant, and a single wind turbine. The problem
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: system
was formulated subject to power balance, generator limits,
model and joint optimization problem are presented in section
and renewable energy limit constraints. A strength pareto
II. Section III elaborates the proposed solution. Simulation
evolutionary algorithm (SPEA) was used as an optimization
results and discussions are given in section IV, and finally the
tool. This work was extended in [28] and a dynamic economic
conclusion is presented in section V.
emission dispatch (DEED) model was proposed considering
the additional constraints of security, ramp rate limits, and line II. S YSTEM M ODEL AND P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
capacity. However, the considered test system was very small, A. System Model
with a limited penetration of renewable energy share and had
We consider a power generation supply system consisting
only six buses. Moreover, the constraints such as reactive
of n number of thermal and m number of solar generating
power limits, bus voltage limits, and tap changer limits were
plants2 , supplying N B number of loads as shown in Fig. 1.
neglected. The work [29] proposed a hybrid model for off-grid
Let Pi be the power generated by the ith thermal generating
applications to minimize the fuel and the battery wear costs
unit, the fuel cost in $/h is expressed as [8]:
subject to various constraints like availability of the PV power,
the battery bank charge, and the load power demand. In [30], Fi (Pi ) = ai Pi2 + bi Pi + ci + |ei sin(fi × (Pimin − Pi ))|,
the authors investigated ED with high penetration of renewable (1)
energy resources and evaluated the effects of uncertainties and
1 Maximizing the number of participating solar plants minimizes the prob-
network congestion on the dispatch strategies. Further, [31]
considered the solar integrated power system and proposed an ability of failure due to intermittent nature of solar radiation.
2 We assume that a feasible solution always exists in terms of demand and
efficient PSO based solution to a more general CEED opti- supply, that is to say the generating plants are assumed to satisfy the demands
mization problem subject to the constraints of power balance, of users in the entire system.

2169-3536 (c) 2016 IEEE. Translations and content mining are permitted for academic research only. Personal use is also permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2587665, IEEE Access

At any time during operation, the voltage magnitude Vk at any

bus k should remain within specified limits,

Vkmin ≤ Vk ≤ Vkmax ∀ k = 1, 2, .., N B, (7)

where N B are the total number of buses. The unknown

parameters of network are found from standard power flow
equations:

NB
X
Pk = |Vk ||Vs ||Yk,s |cos(θk,s − ζk + ζs ), (8)
s=1
NB
X
Qk = |Vk ||Vs ||Yk,s |sin(θk,s − ζk + ζs ), (9)
s=1

Fig. 1: System Model. where P k and Qk are the real and reactive power injections at
th
bus k, respectively, Yk,s is the (k, s) element of admittance
matrix Y , θk,s is the angle of the admittance element Yk,s ,
where ai , bi , ci , ei , and fi are fuel cost coefficients of ith ζ. is the angle of respective voltage, and |.| represents the
generating unit. Pimin is the minimum power limit of ith magnitude. Tap changing transformers for voltage adjustments
generating unit. Thermal generating units produce emissions are equipped with limited number of taps. Therefore the
which can be presented in kg/h by: selected tap Tt of tth transformer should be within the range
of available taps:
Ei (Pi ) = αi Pi2 + βi Pi + γi + εi exp(δi × Pi ), (2)

where αi , βi , γi , εi , and δi are emission coefficients of the Ttmin ≤ Tt ≤ Ttmax ∀ t = 1, 2, ...., N T, (10)
ith generating unit. The sine and exponential terms in (1) and
(2) represent VPEs. with N T be the total number of transformers. Also the power
Let P gsj be the power generated by the j th solar plant, the flow Slz (k, s) at any line z connected between buses k and s
cost of operation in $/h is given by following expression, should not exceed its capacity, i.e.,
Gj (P gsj ) = P U Costj × P gsj , (3)
Slz (k, s) ≤ Slzmax (k, s) ∀ z = 1, 2, ...., N Z, (11)
th
where P U Costj is the per unit cost in $/M W h of j solar
plant. P gsj is given by [27]:
where N Z is total number of lines. Slz (k, s) can be obtained
Si as:
P gsj = P ratedj{1 + (Tamb − Tref )× α pvj }× , (4)
1000
with P ratedj being the rated power of j th solar plant, Slz (k, s) =Vk × (Vk − Vs )∗ × (Yk,s )∗
Tamb the ambient temperature, Tref the reference temperature, + Yk,0 × Vk2 , (12)
α pvj the temperature coefficient, and Si the incident solar
radiation.
Each thermal generating unit has its own range of real power where (x)∗ represents the complex conjugate of x.
generation Pi and reactive power generation Qi , i.e.,

Pimin ≤ Pi ≤ Pimax ∀i = 1, 2, ..., n, (5) B. Problem Formulation

Qmin ≤ Qi ≤ Qmax ∀i = 1, 2, ..., n, (6) This work deals with the CEED problem incorporating both
i i
the thermal and solar power generations. It aims to reduce the
where Pimax , Qmin
i , and Qmax
i are the maximum real power overall costs and the thermal emissions. Another target is to
limit, minimum reactive power limit, and maximum reactive get the maximum benefits from the installed solar capacity by
power limit of the ith generating unit, respectively. maximizing the solar share and to decrease the probability of
All the generating plants and loads are assumed to be con- solar failure by increasing the number of participating solar
nected to IEEE 30-bus network, which has its own limitations. units. The multi-objective optimization can be formulated,

2169-3536 (c) 2016 IEEE. Translations and content mining are permitted for academic research only. Personal use is also permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2587665, IEEE Access

mathematically, as: A. Sub-Problem I

n
X m
X The first sub-problem aims to minimize the cost of thermal
min (Fi (Pi ) + Ei (Pi )) + Gj U sj share and maximize the solar share subject to corresponding
Pi ,U sj
i=1 j=1 constraints. Thus the optimization becomes
m m
X X n NB
− P gsj U sj − U sj (13)
X X
F1 = min (Fi (Pi ) + Ei (Pi )) − P sk (22)
j=1 j=1 Pi ,P sk
i=1 k
NB NL n
X X X s.t., (5), (6), (7), (10), (11), (18), and (19). (23)
s.t., P dk + P lz − Pi
k=1 z=1 i=1 To transform Ei (Pi ) into emission cost, we introduce a price
m
X penalty factor hi such that [22]
− P gsj U sj = 0, (14)
j=1 hi =
2
m NB ai Pimax + bi Pimax + ci + |ei × sin(fi × (Pimin − Pimax ))|
.
X X
P gsj U sj ≤ Γ P dk , (15) 2
αi Pimax + βi Pimax + γi + εi × exp(δi × Pimax )
j=1 k=1
Further, for tractability of solution we replace P sk with P s2k ,
(5), (6), (7), (10), and (11), (16)
since for P sk ≥ 0 minimizing P sk is equivalent to minimizing
where U sj is a binary variable that represents ON or OFF state P s2k . Thus we have
of the j th solar plant, P dk represents the power demand at the n
X NB
X
k th bus, P lz is power loss over the z th line, and Γ defines the F1 = min (Fi (Pi ) + hi Ei (Pi )) − P s2k (24)
Pi ,P sk
maximum limit of the solar power based on available reserve i=1 k
capacity. The constraint in equation (14) is known as power s.t., (5), (6), (7), (10), (11), (18), and (19). (25)
balance and states that the total generated power must cope
To solve this problem, we propose a mixed optimization
with the total demands plus network losses; whereas according
scheme based on the PSO and the Newton Raphson method.
to constraint (15), the share of the solar power should be less
The steps in the proposed algorithm are:
than or equal to the maximum limit.
(1) Initialize swarm size, ωmin , ωmax , ω y = ωmax , itermax ,
III. P ROPOSED S OLUTION vxmin , and vxmax ; where y = 1 is the current iteration
number, ωmin and ωmax are the minimum and the
The optimization in (13) is a mixed integer binary program- maximum limits of inertia weight, respectively, ω y is the
ming problem (MIBP). To facilitate the solution, we define a inertia weight at current iteration, and vxmin and vxmax
variable P sk that denotes the total share of solar power over are the minimum and maximum limits of the velocity.
the bus k. With this, the optimization problem (13) can be Randomly generate P̂i , P̂ sk , and v̂i such that:
reformulated as
Pimin ≤ P̂i ≤ Pimax ∀i = 1, 2, ..., n, (26)
n
X m
X  
NB m NB
min (Fi (Pi ) + Ei (Pi )) + Gj U sj X X X
Pi ,U sj ,P sk
i=1 j=1
0≤ P̂ sk ≤ min  P gsj , Γ P dk  , (27)
NB m k j=1 k=1
X X
− P sk − U sj (17) vimin ≤ v̂i ≤ vimax ∀i = 1, 2, ..., n. (28)
k j=1
NB NL n NB
(2) For a problem with n thermal units and S solar shares,
X X X X generate the position Pyswarm and velocity vswarm
y
of
s.t., P dk + P lz − Pi − P sk = 0, (18)
k=1 z=1 i=1 k
each particle in swarm such that:
 
NB
X Xm NB
X Pyswarm =[Pts1 Pts2 ... Ptsx ... PtsSS ]T , (29)
0≤ P sk ≤ min  P gsj , Γ P dk, (19) y
vswarm =[vt1 vt2 ... vtx ... vtSS ] , T
(30)
k j=1 k=1
m
X NB
X where Ptsx and vtsx are the position and velocity
P gsj ×U sj = P sk , ∀ U sj ∈ {0, 1}, (20) vectors of xth particle and are given by:
j=1 k
Ptsx = [P1 P2 ... Pn P s1 P s2 ... P sS ], (31)
(5), (6), (7), (10), and (11). (21)
vtsx = [vt1 vt2 ... vtn vs1 vs2 ... vsS ]. (32)
The structure of the problem in (17) allows to decompose it
into two independent sub-problems without loss of optimality. Ptsx is a vector of decision variables in sub-problem I.
The two sub-problems and their corresponding solutions are (3) Obtain the power flows (bus voltage magnitudes, line
given in the following subsections. power flows, and line losses) for each generated Ptsx

2169-3536 (c) 2016 IEEE. Translations and content mining are permitted for academic research only. Personal use is also permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2587665, IEEE Access

using Newton Raphson method such that the constraints where

in (6), (7), and (10) are satisfied. Evaluate the fitness
PTBx = [Pxswarm Pxbest ], ∀ x, (42)
function as
indg = arg min(Fyswarm , Fgbest ), (43)
Fyswarm = [F̂(Pts1 ) F̂(Pts2 ) ... F̂(Ptsx ) ... indxp = x
arg min(Fswarm x
, Fpbest ), ∀ x. (44)
F̂(PtsSS )]T , (33)
(7) Update the inertia weight and increment the iteration
where F̂ is given by number, accordingly, as
n
X NB
X ω y+1 = ωmax − (ωmax − ωmin )/itermax × y,
F̂ = (Fi (P̂i ) + hi Ei (P̂i )) − P̂ s2k . (34) y = y + 1.
i=1 k
(8) Repeat steps (4) to (7) until convergence.
Set Pbest = Pyswarm , gbest = Pswarm (indg ), Fpbest =
Fyswarm , and Fgbest = minx (Fyswarm ), where Fyswarm , B. Sub-Problem II
Pbest , gbest , Fpbest , and Fgbest are the fitness eval- The objective of second problem is to minimize the cost of
uation at current position, personal best position of indi- the solar power along with the maximization of the number
vidual particles, global best position, fitness evaluation at of solar plants. The problem can be written as:
personal best position, and fitness evaluation at global m m
best position, respectively. The indg is the index of F2 = min
X
P U Costj × P gsj × U sj −
X
U sj (45)
minimum value in Fyswarm i.e., U sj
j=1 j=1
m NB
indg = (arg min (Fyswarm )). (35) X X
x s.t., P gsj × U sj = P sk .
j=1 k
(4) Update the velocity of each particle as:

vtsy+1 The problem can be rewritten as:

x
max(xvy+1 , vxmin ), if xvy+1 < vxmax ,

F2 = min c1 UsT − I1 UsT , (46)
= Us
min(xvy+1 , vxmax ), if xvy+1 > vxmax ,
(36) s.t., c2 UsT = I1 cT
3, (47)

with
where c1 is a vector of cost coefficients, I1 is identity vector,
xvy+1 =ω y vtsyx + C1 r1 (Pbestyx − Ptsyx )+ and c2 is a vector of solar powers. This is a standard inte-
C2 r2 (gbesty − Ptsyx ), (37) ger programming problem and Binary Integer Programming
toolbox in MATLAB is used to obtain the solution. The
where xvy+1 is velocity of xth particle at iteration y +1, toolbox takes the coefficients of objective function as well
ω y is a parameter known as inertia weight at iteration y, as of constraints as input and provides the binary decision
C1 and C2 are acceleration coefficients, whereas r1 and variables and the corresponding fitness evaluation as output.
r2 are two random numbers between 0 and 1. This completes the solution of optimization in (13). For
(5) Update the position of each particle as more clarity, the detailed steps of proposed joint optimization
solution are summarized in algorithm 1.
Ptsy+1
x
max(xxy+1 , Ptsmin
x ), if xxy+1 < Ptsmax
x , Algorithm 1 Proposed Joint Optimization Solution
=
min(xxy+1 , Ptsmax
x ), if xx y+1
> Ptsmax
x , 1: Initialize swarm size, ωmin , ωmax , ω y = ωmax , itermax ,
(38) vxmin , and vxmax . Generate P̂i , Pˆsk , and vˆi according to
the equations (26), (27), and (28). Set y = 1.
where xxy+1 is given by, 2: Generate Pyswarm and vswarmy
, such that the equations
xx y+1
= Ptsyx + vtsy+1 . (39) (5), (19), and (28) are satisfied.
x
3: Obtain the initial power flows from Newton Raphson
(6) Find the power flows and evaluate the fitness method as discussed in III-A.
Fyswarm = F1 (Pts) and update Fgbest = 4: After step 8 of the solution proposed in III-A, set Pi∗ = P̂i
minx (Fyswarm ). Obtain gbest and pbest as and P s∗k = Pˆsk .
5: For the obtained P s∗k , solve the sub-problem II in (46)
using Binary Integer Programming toolbox of MATLAB.
gbest =Pyswarm (indg ), (40) 6: Terminate the procedure and display the results.
Pxbest =PTBx (indxp ), (41)

2169-3536 (c) 2016 IEEE. Translations and content mining are permitted for academic research only. Personal use is also permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2587665, IEEE Access

IV. T EST S YSTEM AND S IMULATION R ESULTS x 10

4

9
The proposed model is implemented on standard IEEE 30 10:00 Hrs.
11:00 Hrs.
bus system with 6 thermal machines and 13 solar plants. The 8 12:00 Hrs.
data for the thermal units and the power demand, for the 13:00 Hrs.
IEEE 30 bus system, and for the solar plants are taken from 7 14:00 Hrs.

Fitness Evaluation "F1"

15:00 Hrs.
[31], [33], and Table I, respectively. The bus number 1 in
6

TABLE I: Power ratings and PU costs of solar plants.

5
Plant # Prated (MW) Unit Rate ($/KWh)
4
1 80 0.22
2 25 0.23
3 25 0.23 3
4 30 0.24
5 30 0.24 2
6 35 0.25
7 35 0.26
1
8 40 0.27 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
9 40 0.27 iteration
10 40 0.275
11 40 0.28
12 40 0.28
Fig. 2: Convergence curves for different hours.
13 40 0.28

model. In this figure, the convergence is shown in terms of

IEEE network is considered as the slack bus. The machine
fitness value versus iterations. It is evident that the algorithm
number 5, which is the largest machine, is connected to bus
is well converged within few number of iterations i.e., 120
1. The machines 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 are connected to buses 2,
iterations at the maximum. Further, Fig. 3 shows the capacity
5, 6, 8, and 11, respectively. The solar units are collectively
violation of lines at different hours. It is clear from the results
connected to bus 15. The value of Γ is set to 0.3 [27] and the
that there exists considerably large remaining capacity (i.e.,
constants C1 and C2 in cognitive and social components of
line capacity minus line power flows) on all the lines, having
velocity equation are selected to be 2. Furthermore, maximum
small violations at few lines. The violation at line 13 is due
number of iterations and swarm size are taken to be 200 and
to the algorithmic dictation to have a relatively larger share
50 respectively. The results are presented for 6 hours of the
from the thermal unit connected to bus 11 to get the minimum
day from 10:00 to 15:00 hours.
fitness evaluation. The objective of solar share maximization
Table II presents the obtained thermal generation, solar
at bus 15 results in small violations at the lines 22 and 30.
share, cost, emissions, and network losses etc., for the hours
under consideration. Thermal generation includes individual TABLE III: Status of solar plants at hours under consideration.
powers of thermal units that result in minimum value of
the fitness function. Solar generation illustrates the maximum Time of the day (h)
10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00
possible share that can be obtained subject to the considered
constraints. It can be observed that the obtained power gen- U s1 0 0 0 0 0 0
U s2 0 0 0 1 1 1
erations from all the thermal units are within their lower and U s3 0 0 1 1 1 1
upper bounds. The fuel cost varies with the share of thermal U s4 1 1 1 0 1 1
generation i.e., a large share results in higher cost and vice U s5 1 1 1 1 1 1
U s6 1 1 1 1 1 1
versa. Similarly, the same happens for the case of emissions. It U s7 1 0 1 1 0 1
is also evident from the table that the power mismatch values U s8 1 1 1 1 1 1
are significantly small. This in turn reveals the satisfactory U s9 1 1 1 1 1 1
U s10 1 1 0 1 1 1
performance of the proposed model in terms of power balance. U s11 1 0 0 0 1 1
Moreover, the table III shows the ON/OFF status of the solar U s12 0 0 0 0 0 0
power plants at different hours. It is worth noting that solar U s13 1 1 0 0 0 1
plant 1 is the largest and the least expensive plant (table I)
among all the 13 solar plants. Hence it should be the first Figure 4 presents results of bus voltages versus iterations
choice to minimize the overall cost. Surprisingly, on the other for 12:00 hours. Despite the little variations, the voltage
hand it is OFF in all the hours. This is because of the objective magnitudes are always within specified limits (0.95 pu to 1.10
of maximizing the number of solar plants i.e., selecting the pu) at each iteration. This is guaranteed by the nested Newton-
largest solar plant will result in decreasing the number of Raphson method within each iteration of the PSO. The bus
plants. voltages exhibit similar behavior for other hours and are not
Figure 2 depicts the convergence properties of the proposed given for simplicity.

2169-3536 (c) 2016 IEEE. Translations and content mining are permitted for academic research only. Personal use is also permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2587665, IEEE Access

TABLE II: Results computed for the time under consideration.

Time of the day 10:00 hrs 11:00 hrs 12:00 hrs 13:00 hrs 14:00 hrs 15:00 hrs
P1 (10 MW-125 MW) 69.4351 49.8071 69.1978 56.0319 91.1074 48.7134
P2 (10 MW-150 MW) 105.9139 77.6055 104.7843 85.9219 124.5472 74.9303
Thermal Generation P3 (40 MW-250 MW) 229.9159 166.0272 228.24 184.5236 214.4405 160.7362
P4 (35 MW-210 MW) 192.184 171.8485 191.6207 178.3799 210 169.2724
P5 (130 MW-325 MW) 223.4905 185.4724 222.8431 197.2717 263.5748 184.0694
P6 (125 MW-315 MW) 195.6107 195.4755 195.5971 195.5166 195.8192 195.4356

Solar Generation Ps (MW) 250.5754 262.7725 250.7985 259.0267 244.0533 261.5668

Fuel Cost ($/h) 5.28E+04 4.38E+04 5.26E+04 4.64E+04 5.75E+04 4.31E+04

Cost Solar Cost ($/h) 6.6151E+04 6.8563E+04 6.3396E+04 6.5879E+04 6.2549E+04 6.7456E+04
Total Cost ($/h) 1.19E+05 1.12E+05 1.16E+05 1.12E+05 1.20E+05 1.11E+05

Emissions (Kg/h) 894.178 617.0894 886.0768 691.4097 1.01E+03 598.4498

Others Network Losses 23.1255 21.0088 23.0815 21.6723 25.5425 20.7241
Power Mismatch (MW) 1.14E-13 2.27E-13 1.95E-13 -7.46E-14 3.16E-13 3.55E-14

350 1.12
10:00 Hours
11:00 Hours 1.1
300 12:00 Hours

Bus voltage (magnitude)

13:00 Hours 1.08
14:00 Hours
Line Capacity−Line Flows

250
15:00 Hours 1.06

200 1.04

1.02
150
1
100
0.98

50 0.96

0.94
0 0 50 100 150 200
Iteration
−50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Fig. 4: Voltage magnitude vs iterations for the demand at time
Line Number
12:00 hours.
Fig. 3: Capacities and power flows of the lines.
V. C ONCLUSION
This work presented a new CEED model for a solar PV
integrated power system which could minimize the fuel cost,
emissions, solar cost, and could maximize the solar share
and the number of solar plants. The constraints of power
Figure 5 shows the total solar cost, the solar share, and the balance and the bounds on generators, renewable energy,
number of selected plants in different hours. It can be noticed voltage magnitudes, transformer taps, and line capacities were
that the total solar cost may come out to be different for the considered in the joint optimization problem. The amount
same number of solar plants and is directly proportional to of solar share was subject to various network constraints,
the solar share. For instance, the number of solar plants at renewable energy limit, and available solar power. A hybrid
11:00 hours and 12:00 hours are same; however, the cost at optimization scheme was proposed using the PSO, the Newton
the 12:00 hours is less as compared to 11:00 hours. This is method, and the binary integer programming. The results
because of the selection of different solar plants (i.e., 3, 4, 5, showed the promising performance of the proposed algorithm
6, 7, 8, and 9 instead of 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 13 ) resulting satisfying all constraints with an acceptable complexity in
in different total share. Lastly, we analyze the generation of terms of convergence.
emissions with the variations in solar and the thermal shares in
Fig. 6. As expected, the emissions increase with the increase in R EFERENCES
thermal share and vice verse. Similarly, the emissions decrease
[1] B. Bose, “Global energy scenario and impact of power electronics in
with an increase in solar share, i.e., the amount of emission is 21st century,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 2638–2651,
inversely proportional to the total solar share. 2013.

2169-3536 (c) 2016 IEEE. Translations and content mining are permitted for academic research only. Personal use is also permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2587665, IEEE Access

[6] S. Yang, S. Tan, and J.-X. Xu, “Consensus based approach for economic
dispatch problem in a smart grid,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 28,
300 no. 4, pp. 4416–4426, 2013.
Solar Share
(MW)

[7] A. S. Reddy and K. Vaisakh, “Shuffled differential evolution for large

200
scale economic dispatch,” Electr. Power Syst. Res., vol. 96, pp. 237–245,
2013.
100
[8] A. Mahor, V. Prasad, and S. Rangnekar, “Economic dispatch using
0
particle swarm optimization: a review,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.,
10 11 12 13 14 15 vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 2134–2141, 2009.
[9] C. L. Chiang, “Genetic-based algorithm for power economic load
15
dispatch,” IET Gener. Transm. Distrb., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 261–269, 2007.
solar plants

[10] D. Jeyakumar, T. Jayabarathi, and T. Raghunathan, “Particle swarm

Number of
selected

10
optimization for various types of economic dispatch problems,” Int. J.
5 Electr. Power Energy Syst., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 36–42, 2006.
[11] K. Y. Lee, A. Sode-Yome, and J. H. Park, “Adaptive hopfield neural
0 networks for economic load dispatch,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 13,
10 11 12 13 14 15 no. 2, pp. 519–526, 1998.
4
x 10
[12] Y. M. Park, J. R. Won, and J. B. Park, “A new approach to economic load
10 dispatch based on improved evolutionary programming,” Eng. Intell.
Syst. Elect. Eng. Commun., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 103–110, 1998.
Solar Cost

[13] A. Mantawy, S. Soliman, and M. El-Hawary, “A new tabu search algo-

($/h)

5 rithm for the long-term hydro scheduling problem,” in LESCOPE’02.

2002 Large Eng. Syst. Conf. Power Eng. Conf. Proc. IEEE, 2002, pp.
29–34.
0 [14] K. Thanushkodi et al., “A new particle swarm optimization solution
10 11 12 13 14 15
Time of the day (h) to nonconvex economic dispatch problems,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 42–51, 2007.
[15] T. Victoire et al., “Reserve constrained dynamic dispatch of units with
valve-point effects,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1273–
Fig. 5: Effects of solar share and selected solar plants on solar 1282, 2005.
cost. [16] S. Y. Lim, M. Montakhab, and H. Nouri, “Economic dispatch of power
system using particle swarm optimization with constriction factor,”
International Journal of Innovations in Energy Systems and Power,
vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 29–34, 2009.
1500 [17] B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, A. Rabiee, A. Soroudi, and M. Ehsan, “Iteration
Thermal share

pso with time varying acceleration coefficients for solving non-convex

1000
(MW)

economic dispatch problems,” Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., vol. 42,
500 no. 1, pp. 508–516, 2012.
[18] M. Brown and S. Ulgiati, “Emergy evaluations and environmental
0 loading of electricity production systems,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 10, no. 4,
10 11 12 13 14 15
pp. 321–334, 2002.
300
[19] A. I. S. Kumar, K. Dhanushkodi, J. J. Kumar, and C. K. C. Paul, “Par-
Solar share

200 ticle swarm optimization solution to emission and economic dispatch

(MW)

problem,” in TENCON 2003. Conference on Convergent Technologies

100
for the Asia-Pacific Region, vol. 1. IEEE, 2003, pp. 435–439.
0 [20] Z. Bo and C. Yi-jia, “Multiple objective particle swarm optimization
10 11 12 13 14 15 technique for economic load dispatch,” J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci., vol. 6,
1500 no. 5, pp. 420–427, 2005.
Emissions

[21] M. Abido, “Multiobjective particle swarm optimization for environmen-

(Kg/h)

1000
tal/economic dispatch problem,” Electr. Power Syst. Res., vol. 79, no. 7,
500 pp. 1105–1113, 2009.
[22] Y. Sonmez, “Multi-objective environmental/economic dispatch solution
0
10 11 12 13 14 15 with penalty factor using artificial bee colony algorithm,” Scientific
Time of the day (h) Research and Essays, vol. 6, no. 13, pp. 2824–2831, 2011.
[23] B. Jeddi and V. Vahidinasab, “A modified harmony search method for
Fig. 6: Level of emissions for various thermal and solar shares. environmental/economic load dispatch of real-world power systems,”
Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 78, pp. 661–675, 2014.
[24] N. Li, C. Uckun, E. M. Constantinescu, J. R. Birge, K. W. Hedman, and
A. Botterud, “Flexible operation of batteries in power system scheduling
[2] A. J. Wood and B. F. Wollenberg, Power generation, operation, and with renewable energy,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 7, no. 2, pp.
control. John Wiley & Sons, 2012. 685–696, 2016.
[3] I. Farhat and M. El-Hawary, “Interior point methods application in [25] F. Luo, Z. Y. Dong, K. Meng, J. Qiu, J. Yang, and K. P. Wong, “Short-
optimum operational scheduling of electric power systems,” IET Gener. term operational planning framework for virtual power plants with high
Transm. Distrb., vol. 3, no. 11, pp. 1020–1029, 2009. renewable penetrations,” IET Renewable Power Generation, vol. 10,
[4] S. Kar, G. Hug, J. Mohammadi, and J. M. Moura, “Distributed state no. 5, pp. 623–633, 2016.
estimation and energy management in smart grids: A consensus innova- [26] W. A. Bukhsh, C. Zhang, and P. Pinson, “An integrated multiperiod opf
tions approach,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process., vol. 8, no. 6, pp. model with demand response and renewable generation uncertainty,”
1022–1038, 2014. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1495–1503, 2016.
[5] W. T. Elsayed and E. F. El-Saadany, “A fully decentralized approach [27] S. Brini, H. H. Abdallah, and A. Ouali, “Economic dispatch for power
for solving the economic dispatch problem,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., system included wind and solar thermal energy,” Leonardo J. Sci.,
vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 2179–2189, 2014. vol. 14, pp. 204–220, 2009.

2169-3536 (c) 2016 IEEE. Translations and content mining are permitted for academic research only. Personal use is also permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2587665, IEEE Access

[28] A. A. ElDesouky, “Security and stochastic economic dispatch of power

system including wind and solar resources with environmental consid-
eration,” Int. J. Renew. Energy Res., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 951–958, 2013.
[29] H. Tazvinga, B. Zhu, and X. Xia, “Optimal power flow management for
distributed energy resources with batteries,” Energy Convers. Manag.,
2015.
[30] B. Zhang, R. Rajagopal, and D. Tse, “Network risk limiting dispatch:
optimal control and price of uncertainty,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control,
vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 2442–2456, 2014.
[31] N. A. Khan, A. B. Awan, A. Mahmood, I. Member, S. Razzaq,
A. Zafar, and G. A. S. Sidhu, “Combined emission economic dispatch of
power system including solar photo voltaic generation,” Energy Convers.
Manag., vol. 92, pp. 82–91, 2015.
[32] G. Wang, M. Ciobotaru, and V. G. Agelidis, “Power management for
improved dispatch of utility-scale pv plants,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 2297–2306, 2016.
[33] H. Saadat, Power system analysis. WCB/McGraw-Hill, 1999.

2169-3536 (c) 2016 IEEE. Translations and content mining are permitted for academic research only. Personal use is also permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.