| Literature DB >> 36188685 |
Zhaoyang Qu1, Shaohua Qin1,2, Genxin Xiong3, Xinpo Zhu3, Fan Ling3, Yukun Wang3, Juan Kong3.
Abstract
Photovoltaic power generation is greatly affected by weather factors. To improve the prediction accuracy of photovoltaic power generation, complete ensemble empirical mode decomposition with an adaptive noise algorithm (CEEMDAN) is proposed to preprocess the power sequence. Then, the full convolutional network (FCN) model optimized based on the sparrow search algorithm (SSA) is used to predict the short-term photovoltaic power. SSA can more reasonably determine the parameters of FCN and improve the prediction performance of FCN. Therefore, the FCN model optimized by the SSA algorithm is used to establish prediction models for subsequences and predict each subsequence, respectively. Finally, the predicted value of each subsequence is superimposed. Taking the actual data of a photovoltaic power station in Jiangsu province of China as an example, by comparing some different common prediction models, it is proved that the proposed method is reasonable and feasible.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36188685 PMCID: PMC9522494 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6486876
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Convolution diagram.
Figure 2Flowchart of FCN optimized based on SSA.
Figure 3SSA-CEEMDAN-FCN prediction flowchart.
Figure 4Photovoltaic power sequence diagram.
Figure 5Photovoltaic power decomposition sequence.
Single model prediction performance versus results.
| Dataset | Evaluating indicator (MW) | FCN | ARIMA | LSTM | ELM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MAE | 6.57 | 9.34 | 9.21 | 8.24 |
| RMSE | 7.20 | 9.21 | 8.76 | 8.61 | |
|
| |||||
| 2 | MAE | 5.47 | 9.87 | 8.87 | 8.17 |
| RMSE | 6.32 | 10.01 | 9.76 | 9.55 | |
Results of combined model prediction performance.
| Dataset | Evaluating indicator (MW) | SSA-CEEMDAN-FCN | CEEMDAN-FCN | CEEMDAN-ARIMA | CEEMDAN-LSTM | CEEMDAN-ELM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MAE | 2.57 | 3.47 | 5.34 | 5.21 | 4.24 |
| RMSE | 3.20 | 4.10 | 5.21 | 4.76 | 4.61 | |
|
| ||||||
| 2 | MAE | 1.47 | 3.27 | 5.87 | 4.87 | 4.17 |
| RMSE | 2.32 | 4.22 | 6.01 | 5.76 | 5.55 | |
Figure 6Comparison of prediction results of combined models of datasets 1 and 2.
Comparison of different optimization algorithms.
| Dataset | Evaluating indicator (MW) | FCN (SSA) | FCN (GA) | FCN (BHA) | FCN (GWO) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MAE | 6.57 | 7.38 | 9.19 | 7.99 |
| RMSE | 7.20 | 8.11 | 8.63 | 8.43 | |
|
| |||||
| 2 | MAE | 5.47 | 9.64 | 7.84 | 8.11 |
| RMSE | 6.32 | 9.87 | 8.33 | 9.35 | |