sustainability

Article
Source-Grid-Load Cross-Area Coordinated Optimization Model
Based on IGDT and Wind-Photovoltaic-Photothermal System
Yilin Xu 1 and Zeping Hu 2, *

1 School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, North China Electric Power University,
Baoding 071003, China; 220201010924@ncepu.edu.cn
2 School of Economics and Management, North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China
* Correspondence: hzp1473634026@163.com

Abstract: A source-grid-load cross-area coordinated optimal dispatch model based on IGDT and a
wind-photovoltaic-photothermal system is suggested to handle the problem of renewable energy
consumption under large-scale wind power and photovoltaic grid connections. Firstly, the peak
flexibility of a wind-photovoltaic-photothermal co-generation system is investigated to improve the
utilization rate of wind and solar resources. To increase the model’s efficiency and accuracy, the
alternating direction multiplier method (ADMM) is used. Finally, arithmetic examples are utilized
to examine and contrast how the system dispatch cost changed under risk-averse and risk-seeking
strategies. It also examines how the installed ratio of concentrated solar power plants affects the
overall cost of the system. The findings demonstrate that the suggested model may achieve a
coordinated optimization of the source, grid and load while lowering system operation costs.

Keywords: renewable energy; cross-regional consumption; power system optimization; concentrated

solar power plant; IGDT; ADMM

1. Introduction
Climate change, environmental pollution, and other issues are receiving more and
Citation: Xu, Y.; Hu, Z. more attention. The traditional energy structure based on fossil energy has made it difficult
Source-Grid-Load Cross-Area to meet the growing global energy demand. At the same time, due to the extensive use of
Coordinated Optimization Model traditional mineral energy, the problem of environmental pollution has become increasingly
Based on IGDT and severe, posing a serious challenge to the sustainable development of human society. Since
Wind-Photovoltaic-Photothermal
the CO2 emissions of the power industry account for 40% of total national emissions, it
System. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2056.
is necessary to fully use renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and photothermal
https://doi.org/10.3390/su16052056
energy to achieve low-carbon, economical operation of the power system [1,2].
Academic Editor: Gaetano Zizzo The concentrated solar power (CSP) plant is a new technology that converts solar
energy into electricity [3]. It can focus solar energy on to a vast mirror, reflect it on to the
Received: 20 January 2024
collector of the solar power station, and then convert it into heat energy. Such plants are now
Revised: 22 February 2024
widely used in power system scheduling studies. Okundamiya M. S. [4] described the size
Accepted: 26 February 2024
Published: 1 March 2024
optimization of a hybrid photovoltaic/fuel cell grid-connected power generation system,
including hydrogen storage. L. Pilotti et al. [5] constructed a mixed CSP-PV power plant.
They designed the system architecture of a CSP plant with a high degree of integration,
which improves the economics of the power system. To alleviate the negative influence
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. from the “power determined by heat” of CHP, Xin Li et al. [6] proposed an integrated
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. energy system with a CSP plant and combined heat and power (CHP), which enhances
This article is an open access article the flexibility and low-carbon operation of the power system. Hydrogen production from
distributed under the terms and renewable energy is also an essential means to improve solar energy utilization. Hongji
conditions of the Creative Commons Yang et al. [7] used high-temperature electrolytic hydrogen production technology to
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
convert the heat collected from a CSP plant into hydrogen, thus realizing the coupled use
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
of electricity-heat-hydrogen. To reduce the carbon emissions of the system, Jianwei Gao
4.0/).

Sustainability 2024, 16, 2056. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16052056 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2024, 16, 2056 2 of 15

et al. [8] used carbon capture technology and electricity-to-gas technology to improve the
energy utilization of PV power plants. In summary, using PV power plants can improve
the economy, lower carbon levels, and improve the flexibility of a power system. However,
the above literature only considers the optimization of a single integrated energy system
and does not consider the impact of energy trading between two integrated energy systems
on system scheduling.
Various heuristic algorithms are widely used to solve the problem of economical
low-carbon dispatch of units in complex power systems. Devarapalli Ramesh and Biplab
Bhattacharyya [9] proposed a hybrid improved grey wolf optimization sine–cosine algo-
rithm for adjusting the parameters of the power system stabilizer to realize the optimal
parameter adjustment. Zhang Junbo et al. [10] proposed a data-driven reactive power
and voltage sequence control optimization method. Ruan Guangchun et al. [11] paid
special attention to the coordination between machine learning methods and optimization
models and carefully evaluated how this data-driven analysis can improve rule-based
optimization. Srivastava Abhishek et al. [12] proposed a new meta-heuristic optimization
technology based on AI: enhanced top-of-class optimization. It was used to solve the power
system’s large and complex economic load distribution and combined emission economic
dispatch problems. To address the problem of uncertainty in load and renewable energy
sources in power systems, Ahmad Alzahrani et al. [13] used the Lyapunov optimization
technique (LOT) to solve the real-time energy management problem of power systems.
The methods proposed in the above literature can achieve solutions in models to a high
degree. Nonetheless, they do not apply to the trading game problem involving multiple
power systems.
To achieve the safe and stable operation of an integrated energy system, it is imperative
to consider the uncertainty of many components in the context of a significant proportion of
renewable energy being linked to the grid. Xiao Xu et al. [14] categorized the uncertainties
based on the characteristics of electricity price, load, and customer behaviour and used a
hybrid stochastic model and distributed robust optimization model to measure the uncer-
tainties of the two types of factors, which balanced the economy and conservatism of the
system. Junjie Hu et al. [15] considered the uncertainties of wind power and photovoltaic
power and measured system uncertainty using the conditional risk price-value method to
achieve stable operation. The uncertainty of the system is measured using the dependent
risk-value method, and the regular operation of the power system is performed. In addition
to the uncertainty of load and unit active power, reactive power control is also a meaningful
way to ensure the system’s stable operation. Hao Zuo et al. [16] determined the reactive
power of a system based on the energy status of the system and the boundary of safe oper-
ation and established a reactive power optimization simulation model of a multi-energy
system, which improved the voltage stability of the integrated energy system. Yujia Song
et al. [17] used an interval optimization model to measure the multiple uncertainties of
a hydrogen-based integrated energy system to achieve the safe and stable operation of
the system. User energy behaviour is also an uncertainty factor facing system scheduling;
Xidong Zheng et al. [18] developed a machine learning model to identify the behavioural
states of users participating in demand response, established a special relationship between
the power demand response and the dynamic adjustment of the model, and improved the
efficiency of the model solution. The above literature considered the impact of multiple
uncertainties on systems but did not consider the impact of system uncertainty on the
scheduling results under the influence of uncertainties.
The preceding literature is significant for identifying ways of increasing the level of
renewable energy consumption. However, there are still several issues that need to be thor-
oughly addressed: (1) no in-depth analysis of the complementary peaking capacity of wind
turbines, photovoltaic power plants and photothermal power plants; (2) no consideration
of the risks brought by source–load bilateral uncertainty to the system and no combination
of the system manager’s risk appetite to formulate an optimal scheduling strategy; and
 thoroughly addressed: (1) no in-depth analysis of the complementary peaking capacity of
wind turbines, photovoltaic power plants and photothermal power plants; (2) no consid-
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2056 3 of 15
eration of the risks brought by source–load bilateral uncertainty to the system and no
combination of the system manager’s risk appetite to formulate an optimal scheduling
strategy; and (3) the optimal scheduling model of the complex power system needs to be
(3) the optimal scheduling model of the complex power system needs to be improved in
improved in terms of the rate of solving.
terms of the rate of solving.
In summary, this paper proposes a source-grid-load cross-area coordinated optimi-
In summary, this paper proposes a source-grid-load cross-area coordinated optimiza-
zation model based on IGDT and a wind-photovoltaic-photothermal system to mitigate
tion model based on IGDT and a wind-photovoltaic-photothermal system to mitigate the
the effects of load, wind, and PV uncertainty on system scheduling. In addition, the
effects of load, wind, and PV uncertainty on system scheduling. In addition, the ADMM
ADMM algorithm is implemented to minimize the total cost of solving the problem. Fol-
algorithm is implemented to minimize the total cost of solving the problem. Following
lowing this, an arithmetic example analysis is conducted to validate the efficacy of the
this, an arithmetic example analysis is conducted to validate the efficacy of the scheduling
scheduling method described in the paper.
method described in the paper.

2.2.Cross-Area
Cross-AreaInterconnection
InterconnectionSystem
SystemModel
Model
Sending-EndPower
Sending-End PowerSystem
System
Inan
In anenvironment
environmentwithwithaahigh
highproportion
proportionofofrenewable
renewableenergy
energyatatthe
thesending
sendingandand
receivingend,
receiving end,the
thewind-photo-thermal-fire
wind-photo-thermal-fireco-generation
co-generationsystem
systemisisconstructed
constructedas asshown
shown
ininFigure
Figure1.1.The
Thesystem
systemconsists
consistsofofthe
thewind
windturbine
turbine(WT),
(WT),photovoltaic
photovoltaic(PV),
(PV),gas
gasturbine
turbine
(GT),gas
(GT), gasboiler
boiler(GB),
(GB),electric
electricboiler
boiler(EB),
(EB),thermal
thermalpower
powerunit
unit(TP),
(TP),electric
electricstorage
storagesystem
system
(ESS),thermal
(ESS), thermalstorage
storagesystem
system(TSS),
(TSS),and
andother
otherequipment.
equipment.

Electric
Busbar
Sending- end system Receiving- end system

ESS ESS

Coal TP TP Coal

Wind PW station PW station Wind

Electricity
Solar PV station trading PV station Solar

CSP EB GT GT EB CSP

Thermal cycle Thermal cycle

Thermal loss
Thermal
TSS Thermal loss TSS
Busbar

Natural gas GB
GB Natural gas

Electric energy flow Thermal energy flow

Figure1.1.Energy
Figure Energyflow
flowdiagram
diagramofofthe
thesending
sendingsystem
systemand
andreceiving
receivingsystem.
system.

When
Whenwind
windpower
powerisissignificant,
significant,the
theelectric
electricheating
heatingdevice
devicecan
canconvert
convertpart
partofofthe
the
surplus
surplus wind power energy into heat energy stored in the heat storage link. In thepeak
wind power energy into heat energy stored in the heat storage link. In the peak
load
loadperiod,
period,the
theheat
heatenergy
energystored
storedininthe
theheat
heatstorage
storagelink
linkcan
canbe
beconverted
convertedintointoelectricity
electricity
totoincrease
increase the power generation of the CSP plant, which promotes the consumptionofof
the power generation of the CSP plant, which promotes the consumption
wind
windpower
powerandandcompletes
completesthetheenergy
energytime
timeshift
shiftatatthe
thesame
sametime.
time.The
Theenergy
energytime-shift
time-shift
characteristics
characteristics of the wind-photothermal joint complementary effect andthe
of the wind-photothermal joint complementary effect and theaddition
additionofof
thermal
thermalpower
powerunits
unitswill further
will enhance
further enhance thethe
stability of the
stability system
of the operation
system to ensure
operation the
to ensure
delivery of power adequacy. In addition to supplying power to the loads at the sending
end, the surplus power is transmitted to the receiving end through the DC contact line.
The receiving system is fed power by DC tie lines and local thermal power units to
meet the load demand. The structure of the receiving system is the same as that of the
sending system and will not be described again here.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2056 4 of 15

The delivery-end system is centred on a CSP plant equipped with an electric heating
device. The CSP plant consists of three parts: heat collection, power generation, and
storage. The thermal collector converts solar energy into thermal energy and then uses
the thermal conductive mass to transmit the thermal energy. The transmitted thermal
energy is converted into electric energy through the power generation link, completing
the conversion of light-heat-electricity. In the heat storage link, the thermal conductive
mass can carry out a two-way flow of energy, and its stored thermal energy can be used for
power generation at any time.
The thermal energy collected in the heat collection link of the CSP plant can be
expressed as:
h
PCSP,t = ηsh SCSP Is,t (1)
The formula for the electrical energy output of the CSP plant is as follows:
e he
PCSP,t = ηhe PCSP,t (2)

The thermal storage model for the CSP plant is as follows:

h,d
c h,c
PTSS,t
QTSS,t = (1 − ε TSS ) QTSS,t−1 + ηTSS PTSS,t ∆t − d
∆t (3)
ηTSS

The internal thermal cycle of the CSP plant satisfies:

h h h,d h,c h he
PCSP,t + PEB,t + PTSS,t = PTSS,t + PCSP,loss,t + PCSP,t (4)

e
where PCSP,t represents the power generated by the CSP plant; PCSP,t h is the thermal energy
collected by the light field collector at time t; ηsh is the photothermal conversion efficiency of
the CSP plant; SCSP is the effective area of the light-field concentrating mirror; Is,t is the light
intensity at the time; ηhe is the efficiency of the conversion of thermal energy to electrical
he
energy in the CSP plant; PCSP,t is the thermal energy consumed by the CSP plant to drive
the turbine to generate electricity at time t; QTSS,t , QTSS,t−1 are the heat storage capacity of
the TSS at time t, t − 1, respectively; ε TSS is the rate of self-loss of heat from the TSS; ηTSSc ,
d are the heat storage and heat release efficiencies of the TSS, respectively; Ph,c , Ph,d
ηTSS TSS,t TSS,t
are the heat storage and exothermic power of the TSS at time t, respectively; PCSP,loss,th is
h
the heat loss of the CSP plant; PEB,t is the heat energy produced by the EB at time t.

3. Economic Dispatch Model of a Cross-Regional Interconnected System

3.1. Objective Function
A source-grid-load cross-area coordinated optimization model based on IGDT and
a wind-photovoltaic-photothermal system is proposed to achieve the lowest total system
operation cost. The objective functions of the sending and receiving systems are the same.
The optimization goal of the system operation can be formulated as follows:


 minF = Fom + Ftrade
 T
Fom = ∑ λy,om Py,t


t =1 (5)

 T T
 Fbuy = ∑ λebuy,t Pbuy,t
e − ∑ λesell,t Psell,t
e


t =1 t =1

where Fom and Ftrade are the unit operation and maintenance cost and the electricity trans-
action cost, respectively; λy,om is the operation and maintenance cost coefficient of unit y;
λebuy,t and λesell,t are the power purchase price at time t, respectively; and Pbuy,t
e e
/Psell,t is the
purchased/sold electricity from the primary grid.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2056 5 of 15

3.2. Constraints
(1) Sending-end system constraints
(a) Energy balance constraints

e e e e e e
 µGB PGB,t + Pg,t + Pbuy,t + Pv,t + Pw,t +

e d e e c h /η h
PCSP,t + PESS,t = Lt + Psell,t + PESS,t + PEB,t (6)
EB,t
 µh Ph + Ph
 h
GB GB,t CSP,t = Lt

e , Pe , Pe , Pe , and Pe
where PGB,t g,t w,t v,t CSP,t represent the electric power output of the
GB, TP, WT, PV and CSP plant at time t, respectively; PGB,t h , Ph h
EB,t and PCSP,t repre-
sent the heating power output of the GB, EB and CSP plant at time t, respectively;
h
and ηEB,t is the EB’s electrical heat transfer coefficient.
(b) The upper and lower output constraints of other units
pre

0 < Pw,te < P
w,t


e < Ppre

0 < Pv,t



 v,t


 e
PGB,min e
≤ PGB,t e
≤ PGB,max

e e e




 Pg,min ≤ Pg,t ≤ Pg,max

 e
PCSP,min e
≤ PCSP,t e
≤ PCSP,max
h h h (7)

 PCSP,min ≤ PCSP,t ≤ PCSP,max


 h
PGB,min h
≤ PGB,t h
≤ PGB,max




 h h h
PEB,min ≤ PEB,t ≤ PEB,max



 e
Pbuy,min e
≤ Pbuy,t e
≤ Pbuy,max



 e
Psell,min e
≤ Psell,t e
≤ Psell,max
pre pre e
where Pw,t and Pv,t are the predicted output of WT and PV, respectively; PGB,max ,
e e e e
Pbuy,max , Pg,max , PCSP,max and Psell,max represent the maximum electric power of
the GB, purchased electricity, TP, CSP plant, and sold electricity respectively;
h
PGB,max h
, PEB,max h
, and PCSP,max represent the full electric power of GB, EB and
e
CSP plant respectively; PGB,min e
, Pbuy,min e
, Pg,min e
, PCSP,min e
and Psell,min represent
the minimum heat power of the GB, purchased electricity, TP, CSP plant, and sold
h
electricity respectively; and PGB,min h
, PEB,min h
, and PCSP,min represent the minimum
heat power of GB, EB and CSP plant respectively.
(c) Energy storage device constraints
This paper uses generalized energy storage modelling for the electric storage and
thermal storage of the CSP plant. The energy storage charge state and power constraints
are as follows: 
c η c uc ∆t − Ps,t us,t ∆t
d d
Qs,t = Qs,t−1 (1 − ε s ) + Ps,t

s s,t ηsd (8)
s,min ≤ Qs,t ≤ Qs,max
 Q


 0 ≤ ucs,t + uds,t ≤ 1
c c c c c
 us,t Ps,min ≤ Ps,t ≤ us,t Ps,max



d d d d d
us,t Ps,min ≤ Ps,t ≤ us,t Ps,max (9)
T T Pd ∆t


c η c ∆t =
 ∑ Ps,t ∑ s,t


s

ηd s
t =1 t =1

where s represents the type of energy storage devices; s = 1, 2 represents ESS and TSS,
respectively; ucs,t and uds,t are binary variables, which refer to the charging and discharging
state parameters of the energy storage device s at time t, respectively; Qs,t is the capacity
of the energy storage device s at time t; ε s is the self-discharge rate of energy storage
device s; ηsc and ηsd are the charging and discharging power of energy storage device s,
respectively; Qs,max and Qs,min are the charging and discharging power of energy storage
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2056 6 of 15

c
device s, respectively; Ps,min c
and Ps,max are the maximum and minimum charging power of
d
energy storage device s, respectively; and Ps,min d
and Ps,max are the maximum and minimum
discharging power of energy storage device s, respectively.
(d) Network security constraints

N
− Ll,max ≤ Ll,t = ∑ Gl,n Pt,n ≤ Ll,max (10)
n =1

where Ll,t is the DC power flow of the power system at time t; Ll,max is the
maximum transmission capacity of line l; Gl,n is the transfer distribution factor of
node n to line l; Pt,n is the active power injection power of node n at time t; and N
is the total number of nodes.
(2) Receiving-end system constraints
The receiving-end system’s balancing restrictions, unit output constraints, energy
storage constraints, and cybersecurity constraints are all identical to those of the sending-
end system. The limitations on the receiving-end system are not stated here.

3.3. Optimization Model Based on IGDT

Information gap decision theory (IGDT) is an optimization technique that may success-
fully deal with system uncertainties. In this sense, information refers to data that introduce
uncertainty into a system and impact the system’s aim. The gap is the difference between
the projected and actual values of the uncertainty. When the system’s uncertain parameters
are difficult to define in terms of probability, the information gap model can be used. The
uncertainty parameter, x, is expressed as follows:

x ∈ U (α, x ∗ n
(
)
x−x∗
o (11)
U (α, x ∗ ) = x: x∗ ⩽α

where x ∗ is the predicted value of x; α represents the uncertainty radius of the parameter
and α ≥ 0; and U represents the fluctuation range of the parameter. The maximum
fluctuation range of x ∗ is ±αx ∗ .
The scheduling models for the sending- and receiving-end systems are the same. Based
on the IGDT theory, the model is reconstructed using the delivery-end system as an example:

 minF ( x, v)
s.t. H ( x, v) = 0 (12)
G ( x, v) ⩽ 0


where F is the objective function; v represents the decision variable; H ( x, v) is the model
equation constraint; and G ( x, v) is the model inequality constraint.
In this paper, the uncertainty in electrical and thermal loads is modelled using envelope
constraints. The expressions are as follows:

Lt ∈ U (αL , Let ∗ ), 0 ⩽ αL
 e

L h∗

h L
 Lt ∈ U (α , Ltn), 0 ⩽ αe e∗



−
o
L L
U (αL , Let ∗ ) = Let : t Le∗ t ⩽ αL (13)
  t 
Lht − Lht ∗


L h ∗
 U (α , Lt ) = Lt :

 h ⩽α L
h∗Lt

where αL is the uncertainty of the load, i.e., the gap between the actual and predicted values
of the load. The maximum variations between the real and anticipated values of the electric
and thermal loads are denoted by the letters ±αL Let ∗ and ±αL Lht ∗ .
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2056 7 of 15

Based on the decision maker’s risk bias, the following expressions are used to build
an opportunity model (OM) and a robustness model (RM):

minαL


s.t.minF ( Let ∗ , Lht ∗ , v) ≤ (1 − βOM ) F0


(14)

 ∀ x ∈ U (αL , Let ∗ , Lht ∗ )
Equation (1) − Equation (10)


maxαL


s.t.maxF ( Let ∗ , Lht ∗ , v) ≤ (1 + βRM ) F0


(15)
 ∀ x ∈ U (αL , Let ∗ , Lht ∗ )

Equation (1) − Equation (10)


Equation (14) is the OM, which transforms the deterministic model’s optimization
objective Equation (8) into a minimum uncertainty radius, αL , that meets the target cost
of less than (1 − βOM ) F0 . The smaller the αL obtained by the OM, the more likely the
corresponding decision scheme will have a positive result.
Equation (15) is the RM. The RM transforms the optimization objective of the deter-
ministic model Equation (8) into finding the maximum uncertainty radius αL that satisfies
the target cost no larger than (1 + βOM ) F0 . The bigger
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17 L
α obtained by the RM shows
that the model is less susceptible to parameter uncertainty, i.e., the better the resilience
βRM and
is. Equation OMOM,
(14) isβthe are cost
which deviation
transforms factorsmodel’s
the deterministic created by the decision maker to indicate
optimization
objective Equation (8) into a minimum uncertainty radius, α , that meets the target cost L
the level of permissible deviation of the predicted cost above or below the benchmark
of less than (1 − β ) F . The smaller the α obtained by the OM, the more likely the
OM L
0
value, respectively.
corresponding decision scheme will have a positive result.
Equation (15) is the RM. The RM transforms the optimization objective of the deter-
ministic model Equation (8) into finding the maximum uncertainty radius α that satis- L
3.4. Model Solution
fies the target cost no larger than . The bigger α obtained by the RM shows L
(1 + β O M ) F0
that theIn thisis less
model paper, thetoADMM
susceptible algorithm
parameter uncertainty, is used
i.e., the better theto solveis.the problem. The advantage of
resilience
and β
OM
β RM ADMM
the are cost deviation
algorithm isfactors
that created
it canbymake
the decision
fullmaker
usetoof indicate
the the
decomposability of the objective
level of permissible deviation of the predicted cost above or below the benchmark value,
function,
respectively. and then alternately optimize the multivariate variables in the objective function
to improve the feasibility of the solution. The ADMM algorithm consists of the original
3.4. Model Solution
residuals and the dyadic residuals as the two convergence parameters. When the actual
In this paper, the ADMM algorithm is used to solve the problem. The advantage of
residuals and the
the ADMM algorithm pairwise
is that it can makeresiduals
full use of theof the transaction
decomposability volume of the sending system and
of the objective
function, and then alternately optimize the multivariate variables in the objective function
the receiving system satisfy the convergence accuracy,
to improve the feasibility of the solution. The ADMM algorithm consists of the original
the model exits the iteration and
obtains
residuals andthe
the optimal
dyadic residualssolution. The computational
as the two convergence parameters. Whenprinciple
the actual of the ADMM algorithm is
residuals and the pairwise residuals of the transaction volume of the sending system and
described in the literature [15] and will not be repeated
the receiving system satisfy the convergence accuracy, the model exits the iteration and
in this paper.
obtainsConsidering
the optimal solution.theThe system’s
computationalpreference for risk,
principle of the ADMM thisis paper
algorithm de- constructs an IGDT-based
scribed in the literature [15] and will not be repeated in this paper.
inter-area dispatch model of a power system to balance the economy and stability of the
Considering the system’s preference for risk, this paper constructs an IGDT-based
two systems.
inter-area The ofmodel
dispatch model a power solution process
system to balance is shown
the economy in Figure
and stability of the 2.
two systems. The model solution process is shown in Figure 2.

Source-grid-load cross-area coordinated optimization model

based on IGDT and wind-photovoltaic-photothermal system
Start
② Source-grid-load cross-area coordinated
optimization model based on IGDT
Input data Construct the IGDT model
containing uncertainty variables

① Deterministic model of cross-regional RM OM

power system transactions Use ADMM algorithm to solve

Set initial parameters

Objective function
(initial values of Lagrange multiplier and
• Power Constraint
purchase/sell cost • Power balance
Uncertain interactive electric charge)
factors
• Operation and • Purchase and sell
• Load k=1
maintenance electricity
costs Optimize scheduling according to the objective
function to obtain the optimal scheduling plan, and
Electricity update the sub-microgrid interactive power
Receiving trading Delivery
power system Game power system Update global interactive power
k=k+1
Update the Lagrange multiplier and NO
Solve the optimal solution of deterministic optimization model Compute dual residuals
（Use ADMM algorithm to solve)
Convergence or not
Yes
Defined as the baseline value of the IGDT model
End

③ Optimization Results

RM • α
OM • Cross-region trading power purchase strategy
Deterministic model • The optimal cost of the system at both the sending and receiving ends

Figure 2. Calculation flowchart of system scheduling model.

Figure 2. Calculation flowchart of system scheduling model.
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 17

Sustainability 2024, 16, 2056 8 of 15

4. Example Analysis
4. Example
4.1. Analysis
Input Data and Scenario Setup
(1) Input data and Scenario Setup
4.1. Input Data
(1) This
Input data is based on the power grid development plan of a region. According to
example
the planning data, each
This example region’s
is based on theinstalled capacity
power grid and installed
development plan share are as According
of a region. shown in
Table
to the1.planning
The day-ahead forecast
data, each values
region’s of WTcapacity
installed and PVand
output and load
installed sharefor a as
are typical
shownday
in
are as shown in Figure 3.
Table 1. The day-ahead forecast values of WT and PV output and load for a typical day are
as shown in Figure 3.
Table 1. Power supply installation data of the sending end system.
Table 1. Power supply installation data of the sending end system.
Installation Capacity Proportion
Wind Power
Installation 1200
Capacity 23.24%
Proportion
Photovoltaic
Wind Power 900
1200 17.43%23.24%
Photothermal
Photovoltaic 1800
900 34.86%17.43%
Photothermal
Thermal Power 1800
1163 22.53%34.86%
Thermal Power
Gas boilers 1163
100 1.94%22.53%
Gas boilers 100 1.94%
FinalAssembly
Final Assembly Machine
Machine 5163
5163 100.00%
100.00%

(a)

(b)

Figure 3. Basic data. (a) Forecast value of electricity/heat load in the sending and receiving areas;
(b) Forecast value of PV/WT output in the sending and receiving areas.
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 17

Sustainability 2024, 16, 2056 9 of(b)

Figure 3. Basic data. (a) Forecast value of electricity/heat load in the sending and receiving areas; 15
Forecast value of PV/WT output in the sending and receiving areas.

(2) Scenario
Scenariosetup
setup
Three
Three scenarios
scenarios were
were investigated
investigated to
to analyze
analyze the
the optimization
optimization effect
effect of
of the
the proposed
proposed
system scheduling model. The scenario details are listed in Table 2.

Table
Table 2.
2. Scenario
Scenario classification.
classification.

Scenario Scenario 1 12 2 3 3
CSP plant √ √√ √ √ √
CSP plant
IGDT
IGDT
× ×√ √ √
√
(risk-seeking
(risk-seeking strategy) strategy)
IGDT IGDT √
× ×× × √
(risk-averse strategy)
(risk-averse strategy)

4.2. Operation
4.2. Operation Analysis
Analysis
(1) Scheduling
(1) Schedulingresults
results
traded, the total dispatch cost
The amount of electricity traded, cost of the receiving system, and
the total dispatch cost of the sending system for the three scenarios are shown in Table
Table 3.
3.

Table 3. Optimization results of the power system in 3 scenarios.

Scenario
Scenario ScenarioScenario
1 1 Scenario
Scenario
2 2 Scenario
Scenario 3 3
Electricity
Electricity Trading
Trading Volume/MW 2875.44 2875.44
Volume/MW 2114.40
2114.40 1304.11
1304.11
Sending-end
Sending-end systemsystem cost/CNY 28,766 28,766
cost/CNY 17,690
17,690 32,854
32,854
Receiving-end
Receiving-end system cost/CNY 128,662 128,662
system cost/CNY 81,03081,030 72,297
72,297

The load demand

demand is determined
determined under
under Scenario
Scenario 1,
1, and
and the CSP plant is introduced
into
into both the sending and receiving systems to enhance the
both the sending and receiving systems to enhance the utilization
utilization of
of light
lightenergy.
energy.
Using
Using the receiving system
receiving system asas an example, Figure
example, Figure 4 depicts the scheduling
scheduling result of the
CSP
CSP plant. During
During the
the 11:00–17:00
11:00–17:00 time
time period,
period, when
when the
the light
light is
is intense,
intense, the
the CSP plant
transforms the extra light into heat and stores it in the thermal storage system, increasing
the system’s
system’s energy efficiency.
efficiency. The receiving system has acquired 2875.442875.44 MW of power
from the transmitting system. The The receiving
receiving system
system has
has a high power
power buy cost due to the
purchased power, costing 128,662 CNY.CNY.
Power/MW

Figure 4.
Figure Scheduling results
4. Scheduling results of
of the
the CSP
CSP plant
plant for
for the
the receiving
receiving system.
system.

Compared to Scenario 1, Scenario 2 employs the information gap decision theory to

assess load uncertainty. Scenario 2 uses the opportunity pursuit method, and the system
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17

Sustainability 2024, 16, 2056 Compared to Scenario 1, Scenario 2 employs the information gap decision theory 10 ofto
15
assess load uncertainty. Scenario 2 uses the opportunity pursuit method, and the system
can handle multi-source collaborative scheduling under certain conditions. In Scenario 2,
the
canpower
handlepurchased
multi-source by the receiving system
collaborative schedulingfell by 36.00%.
under Theconditions.
certain load curve In shifted after2,
Scenario
the
themodel
poweradded IGDT
purchased bytothe
measure
receiving thesystem
uncertainty
fell by of electric
36.00%. and
The heating
load curveloads.
shiftedTo mini-
after the
mize
model theadded
total IGDT
cost oftothe receiving
measure the system, the power
uncertainty purchased
of electric and heatingwas reduced,
loads. To resulting
minimize
in a 58.78%
the total costcost
of reduction. Although
the receiving system,the thedelivery system’s energy
power purchased sales revenue
was reduced, has de-
resulting in a
58.78%unit
clined, costoperation
reduction.and Although the delivery
maintenance system’s
costs have energy
decreased duesales revenue
to low load has declined,
during spe-
unitperiods.
cific operation andthe
Thus, maintenance
OM improves coststhe
have decreased
economics of due
both to
thelow load during
sending specific
and receiving
periods. Thus, the OM improves the economics of both the sending and receiving systems.
systems.
InScenario
In Scenario3,3,thethesystem
systematatboth
boththethesending
sendingand andreceiving
receivingends
endsisiswilling
willingtotosacrifice
sacrifice
partof
part ofthe
thesystem’s
system’seconomy
economywhen whenloadloadfluctuations
fluctuationsare aresevere
severeand andto toadjust
adjustthe
theunit’s
unit’s
outputto
output toensure
ensuresystem
systemstability.
stability. The
TheADMM
ADMMtechnique
techniqueisisused
usedin inthis
thispaper
paperto tosolve
solvethe
the
problem efficiently. The model finishes the iteration for the 32nd time,
problem efficiently. The model finishes the iteration for the 32nd time, and the iteration and the iteration
curveisisillustrated
curve illustratedin inFigure
Figure5.5.

Figure
Figure5.5.Iteration
Iterationcurve
curveofofthe
theADMM
ADMMmodel.
model.

Underthe
Under therisk-averse
risk-aversestrategy,
strategy,the
thesending
sendingsystem
systemadjusts
adjuststhe
theoutput
outputof ofspecific
specificunits
units
tomaintain
to maintainelectric
electricand
andthermal
thermalbalance
balanceandandminimize
minimizethetheimpact
impactof ofload
loadfluctuation
fluctuationon on
the system. In this scenario, the cost of the sending system experiences an
the system. In this scenario, the cost of the sending system experiences an increase of 85.72% increase of
85.72% while the system becomes more resilient. The receiving system
while the system becomes more resilient. The receiving system unit can satisfy the loadunit can satisfy the
load demand
demand with
with its its output.
output. Figure Figure 6 displays
6 displays the outcomes
the outcomes of theofload
the load balance
balance analysis
analysis for
both the electric and thermal aspects of the receiving system. The gas boiler units, WT,units,
for both the electric and thermal aspects of the receiving system. The gas boiler PV,
WT,the
and PV,CSP
and the CSP
plant allplant
have all have positive
positive power. power. Co-dispatching
Co-dispatching the different
the different types oftypes
unitsof
units maximizes
maximizes their outputs
their outputs to meet tothe
meet theand
heat heat and electricity
electricity demand demand
of the of the system
system while while
min-
minimizing the overall cost of the system. Simultaneously, the thermal
imizing the overall cost of the system. Simultaneously, the thermal and electric energyand electric energy
storage tanks
storage tanks accomplish
accomplish aa transfer
transferofofpower
powerininboth
bothspace
spaceand
andtime, thereby
time, therebyincreasing
increasingthe
efficiency of energy use.
the efficiency of energy use.
Figure 7 shows the charging and discharging outcomes of the energy storage in the
receiving-end system. Energy storage undergoes charging during periods of low demand
and discharging during periods of high demand, thereby minimizing the disparity between
peak and low load levels. Furthermore, to enhance the system’s economy, the receiving
system implemented a further reduction in the quantity of electric energy procured, result-
ing in a 12.08% decrease in system cost. Consequently, implementing the RM improves the
sending system’s resilience and enhances the receiving system’s efficiency.
Sustainability 2024,
Sustainability 2024, 16,
16,x2056
FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 1711 of 15

2000 PV TP ESS(Charge) Electric load

WT GB ESS(Discharge)
Purchased electricity CSP EB
1500

Power/MW
1000

500

-500
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time/h

(a)

800
GB CSP EB Heat load
700
600
Power/MW

500
400
300
200
100

0 5 10 15 20 25
Time/h
(b)
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Figure 13Ther-
of 17
Figure6.6.Optimized
Optimizedscheduling results
scheduling in in
results Scenario 3; (a)
Scenario Electricity
3; (a) balance
Electricity in Scenario
balance 3; (b)
in Scenario 3; (b) Thermal
mal balance
balance in in Scenario
Scenario 3. 3.

Figure 7 shows the charging and discharging outcomes of the energy storage in the
800
receiving-end system. Energy storage undergoes charging
SOC during periods of low demand
and discharging during periods of high demand,ESS(Discharge)
thereby minimizing the disparity be-
tween600 ESS(Charge)
peak and low load levels. Furthermore, to enhance the system’s economy, the re-
ceiving system implemented a further reduction in the quantity of electric energy pro-
cured,400
resulting in a 12.08% decrease in system cost. Consequently, implementing the RM
improves the sending system’s resilience and enhances the receiving system’s efficiency.
200

-200

-400
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time/h
Chargingand
Figure7.7.Charging
Figure and discharging
discharging power
power of ESS
of ESS in Scenario
in Scenario 3. 3.

The amount of electricity traded at each moment under the three scenarios is shown
in Figure 8. Under the deterministic model, the amount of power purchased by the end-
system is more significant than that in Scenario 2 and Scenario 3 for the periods 0:00–8:00
and 22:00–24:00, which indicates that the load of the system is reduced in these two time
periods after the model applies the IGDT to measure load uncertainty, and the end system
 -400
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time/h
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2056 12 of 15
Figure 7. Charging and discharging power of ESS in Scenario 3.

The amount of electricity traded at each moment under the three scenarios is shown
The amount of electricity traded at each moment under the three scenarios is shown
in Figure 8. Under the deterministic model, the amount of power purchased by the end-
in Figure 8. Under the deterministic model, the amount of power purchased by the end-
system is more significant than that in Scenario 2 and Scenario 3 for the periods 0:00–8:00
system is more significant than that in Scenario 2 and Scenario 3 for the periods 0:00–8:00
and 22:00–24:00, which indicates that the load of the system is reduced in these two time
and 22:00–24:00, which indicates that the load of the system is reduced in these two time
periods after the model applies the IGDT to measure load uncertainty, and the end system
periods after the model applies the IGDT to measure load uncertainty, and the end system
doesnot
does not have to bear
have to bear the
the high
highcost
costofofpurchasing
purchasingpower. Except
power. for for
Except 10:00–12:00, the pur-
10:00–12:00, the
chased power of the recipient system in Scenario 2 is more significant than
purchased power of the recipient system in Scenario 2 is more significant than that inthat in Scenario
3. Under3.the
Scenario risk-averse
Under strategy,strategy,
the risk-averse the recipient system system
the recipient reducesreduces
the amount of energy
the amount of
traded. It increases the output of various types of units to balance the economy
energy traded. It increases the output of various types of units to balance the economy andand
sta-
bility ofof
stability the system.
the system.

Figure8.8.Volume
Figure Volumeofofelectricity
electricitytraded
tradedininthe
thethree
threescenarios.
scenarios.

(2)
(2) Analysis
Analysisof
ofCSP
CSPplants’
plants’capacity
capacity
The
Theproportion
proportionofofPV PVaccess
accesstotothe
thegrid
gridwill
willfurther
furtherexpand
expandininthe
thefuture,
future,and
andthe
the
system
systemcost
costwill
willfluctuate
fluctuatewith
withthe
thechange
changeininthe
theinstalled
installedproportion
proportionof ofthe
theCSP
CSPplant,
plant,
which
whichaffects
affectsthe
thesystem
systempeaking
peakingeffect.
effect.Assuming
Assumingthatthatthe
theregulating
regulatingcapacity
capacityofofthe
theunit
unit
remains
remainsunchanged,
unchanged,Scenario
Scenario33isisused
usedasasthe
thebase
basescenario
scenariototoexplore
explorethe
theimpact
impactofofthe
the
installed
installedproportion
proportionofofthe
theCSP
CSPplant
plantononthe
thesystem
systemcost
costofofthe
therecipient
recipientsystem.
system.The
Thetotal
total
cost
costofofthe
therecipient
recipientsystem
systemunder
underdifferent
differentestablished
establishedproportions
proportionsofofthe
theCSP
CSPplant
plantisis
shown in Figure 9. When the installed proportion of the CSP plant is in the interval of
[20%, 30%], the system’s total cost gradually increases with the increase in the installed
proportion of the CSP plant. When the installed proportion of CSP plants is in the interval
of (30%, 50%], the total cost of the system gradually decreases with the increase in the
installed proportion of the CSP plant. The reason is that at the initial stage of CSP plant
installation, the O&M cost of the CSP plant increases with the rise of its installed proportion,
which leads to an increase in total system cost. When the proportion of the CSP plant
is increased to more than 30%, the CSP plant can fully absorb excess light energy and
maintain the system’s stability through photothermal conversion, which improves the rate
of renewable energy consumption.
(3) Impact of IGDT on scheduling results
This paper investigates the impact of electric and heating load uncertainty on the
system. It provides decision-making solutions under various risk attitudes by varying the
chance/robust deviation factor range. Figures 10 and 11 show the change diagrams for
total system scheduling costs under OM and RM, respectively. Figure 10 shows that under
OM, as the deviation factor increases, the total cost of the receiving-end system decreases
while the total cost of the sending-end system gradually increases. As a result, under the
opportunity pursuit strategy, an increase in the deviation factor has a more significant
positive impact on the economics of the receiving system.
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 17

shown in Figure 9. When the installed proportion of the CSP plant is in the interval of
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2056 [20%, 30%], the system’s total cost gradually increases with the increase in the installed 13 of 15
proportion of the CSP plant. When the installed proportion of CSP plants is in the interval
of (30%, 50%], the total cost of the system gradually decreases with the increase in the
Figure
installed 11 shows
proportion of that the RM’s
the CSP plant. sending-
The reason and
is receiving-end systems
that at the initial areCSP
stage of relatively
plant
robust. As the
installation, thedeviation
O&M costfactor
of theincreases,
CSP plantthe receiving
increases system
with mustofpurchase
the rise more
its installed power
propor-
to maintain
tion, system
which leads stability,
to an increaseincreasing the receiving
in total system system’s
cost. When cost over time.
the proportion The
of the CSPsending-
plant
is increased to more than 30%, the CSP plant can fully absorb excess light energyresult,
end system benefits from electric energy trading, gradually reducing its cost. As a and
under thethe
maintain risk-averse
system’s strategy, an increase
stability through in the deviation
photothermal factor improves
conversion, the sending
which improves the
system’s
rate economics.
of renewable energy consumption.

Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 17

Figure
Figure9.9.Total
Totalcost
costof
ofthe
thereceiving-end
receiving-endsystem
systemfor
fordifferent
differentCSP
CSPplants’
plants’installation
installationratios.
ratios.

(3) Impact of IGDT on scheduling results

This paper investigates the impact of electric and heating load uncertainty on the
system. It provides decision-making solutions under various risk attitudes by varying the
chance/robust deviation factor range. Figures 10 and 11 show the change diagrams for
total system scheduling costs under OM and RM, respectively. Figure 10 shows that under
OM, as the deviation factor increases, the total cost of the receiving-end system decreases
while the total cost of the sending-end system gradually increases. As a result, under the
opportunity pursuit strategy, an increase in the deviation factor has a more significant
positive impact on the economics of the receiving system.
Figure 11 shows that the RM’s sending- and receiving-end systems are relatively ro-
bust. As the deviation factor increases, the receiving system must purchase more power
to maintain system stability, increasing the receiving system’s cost over time. The sending-
end system benefits from electric energy trading, gradually reducing its cost. As a result,
under the risk-averse strategy, an increase in the deviation factor improves the sending
system’s economics.

Figure 10. System costs under risk-averse strategies (OM).

Figure 10. System costs under risk-averse strategies (OM).
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2056 14 of 15
Figure 10. System costs under risk-averse strategies (OM).

Figure
Figure11.
11.System
Systemcosts
costsunder
underrisk-seeking
risk-seekingstrategies
strategies(RM).
(RM).

5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
In order to solve the new energy abandonment problem of the power system un-
In order to solve the new energy abandonment problem of the power system under
der large-scale wind and solar grid integration, this paper proposes a source-grid-load
large-scale wind and solar grid integration, this paper proposes a source-grid-load cross-
cross-area coordinated optimization method based on IGDT and a wind-photovoltaic-
area coordinated optimization method based on IGDT and a wind-photovoltaic-photo-
photothermal system, which reduces the impacts of the uncertainties of the source and load
thermal system, which reduces the impacts of the uncertainties of the source and load
sides on the scheduling of the system at both the sending and receiving ends.
sides on the scheduling of the system at both the sending and receiving ends.
(1) The source-grid-load coordinated scheduling can more reasonably formulate the
(1) The source-grid-load coordinated scheduling can more reasonably formulate the
scheduling plan according to the regulation period and regulation characteristics of
scheduling plan according to the regulation period and regulation characteristics of
the three sides of the peaking resources so as to effectively realize the coordination
the three sides of the peaking resources so as to effectively realize the coordination
and complementarity of the peaking resources on each side. At the same time, the
and complementarity of the peaking resources on each side. At the same time, the
comprehensive operating cost of the system is reduced.
comprehensive operating cost of the system is reduced.
(2) The introduction of information gap decision theory can reduce the impact of load
(2) The introduction
uncertainty of information
on the gap decision
system scheduling theory
results. canon
Based reduce
IGDTthe impact
theory, of paper
this load
uncertainty on the system scheduling results. Based on IGDT theory, this paper
proposes a coordinated inter-area scheduling strategy for source-network-load of pro-
the
poses a coordinated inter-area scheduling strategy for source-network-load
wind-photovoltaic-photothermal system, including both risk-seeking and risk-averse of the
wind-photovoltaic-photothermal system, including
strategies, which can provide decision-making bothfor
references risk-seeking andstrategy
the scheduling risk-
makers.
(3) The ADMM algorithm is introduced into the solution of the cross-area power trading
model, which can prevent the model from falling into the local optimal solution and
improve the solution efficiency.
However, the IGDT model does have some limitations. First, the baseline value deter-
mines the validity of the IGDT model. Future research should investigate a more scientific
method of establishing baseline values to improve the model’s effectiveness and rationality.
Second, the IGDT model’s efficiency may be low when considering uncertainty fluctuations.
Future research should compare and analyze the advantages and disadvantages of various
algorithms and the solving efficiency to improve the accuracy of the IGDT model solution.

Author Contributions: Y.X.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing; Z.H.: Data curation, Writing,
Formal analysis. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71774054),
the National Social Science Fund of China (22ZDA107), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the
Central Universities (2023FR001).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2056 15 of 15

Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Mang, L.; Chakrabortty, A. Optimization algorithms for catching data manipulators in power system estimation loops. IEEE
Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2018, 27, 1203–1218.
2. Duan, L.; Lu, H.; Yuan, M.; Lv, Z. Optimization and part-load performance analysis of MCFC/ST hybrid power system. Energy
2018, 152, 682–693. [CrossRef]
3. Darvish Falehi, A. Optimal robust disturbance observer based sliding mode controller using multi-objective grasshopper
optimization algorithm to enhance power system stability. J. Ambient. Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2020, 11, 5045–5063. [CrossRef]
4. Okundamiya, M.S. Size optimization of a hybrid photovoltaic/fuel cell grid connected power system including hydrogen storage.
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 46, 30539–30546. [CrossRef]
5. Pilotti, M.L.; Colombari, A.F.; Binotti, M.; Giaconia, A.; Martelli, E. Simultaneous design and operational optimization of hybrid
CSP-PV plants. Appl. Energy 2023, 331, 120369. [CrossRef]
6. Li, X.; Li, T.; Liu, L.; Wang, Z.; Li, X.; Huang, J.; Huang, J.; Guo, P.; Xiong, W. Operation optimization for integrated energy system
based on hybrid CSP-CHP considering power-to-gas technology and carbon capture system. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 391. [CrossRef]
7. Yang, H.; Zhou, M.; Wu, Z.; Zhang, M.; Liu, S.; Guo, Z.; Du, E. Exploiting the operational flexibility of a concentrated solar power
plant with hydrogen production. Sol. Energy 2022, 247, 158–170. [CrossRef]
8. Gao, J.; Wu, H.; Gao, F. Nearly-zero carbon optimal operation model of hybrid renewable power stations comprising multiple
energy storage systems using the improved CSO algorithm. J. Energy Storage 2024, 79, 110158. [CrossRef]
9. Devarapalli, R.; Bhattacharyya, B. A hybrid modified grey wolf optimization-sine cosine algorithm-based power system stabilizer
parameter tuning in a multimachine power system. Optim. Control Appl. Methods 2020, 41, 1143–1159. [CrossRef]
10. Zhang, J.; Chen, Z.; He, C.; Jiang, Z.; Guan, L. Data-Driven-Based Optimization for Power System Var-Voltage Sequential Control.
IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2018, 15, 2136–2145. [CrossRef]
11. Ruan, G.; Zhong, H.; Zhang, G.; He, Y.; Wang, X.; Pu, T. Review of learning-assisted power system optimization. CSEE J. Power
Energy Syst. 2020, 7, 221–231.
12. Srivastava, A.; Das, D.K. A new aggrandized class topper optimization algorithm to solve economic load dispatch problem in a
power system. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 2020, 52, 4187–4197. [CrossRef]
13. Alzahrani, A.; Sajjad, K.; Hafeez, G.; Murawwat, S.; Khan, S.; Khan, F.A. Real-time energy optimization and scheduling of
buildings integrated with renewable microgrid. Appl. Energy 2023, 335, 120640. [CrossRef]
14. Xu, X.; Hu, W.; Liu, W.; Du, Y.; Huang, Q.; Chen, Z. Robust energy management for an on-grid hybrid hydrogen refueling and
battery swapping station based on renewable energy. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 331, 129954. [CrossRef]
15. Hu, J.; Wang, Y.; Dong, L. Low carbon-oriented planning of shared energy storage station for multiple integrated energy systems
considering energy-carbon flow and carbon emission reduction. Energy 2024, 290, 130139. [CrossRef]
16. Zuo, H.; Xiao, W.; Ma, S.; Teng, Y.; Chen, Z. Reactive power optimization control for multi-energy system considering source-load
uncertainty. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2024, 228, 110044. [CrossRef]
17. Song, Y.; Mu, H.; Li, N.; Wang, H.; Kong, X. Optimal scheduling of zero-carbon integrated energy system considering long- and
short-term energy storages, demand response, and uncertainty. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 435, 140393. [CrossRef]
18. Zheng, X.; Chen, H.; Jin, T. A new optimization approach considering demand response management and mul-tistage energy
storage: A novel perspective for Fujian Province. Renew. Energy 2024, 220, 119621.

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.