| Literature DB >> 36236547 |
Liu Fei1, Muhammad Shahzad2, Fazal Abbas2, Hafiz Abdul Muqeet3, Muhammad Majid Hussain4, Li Bin5.
Abstract
In the energy system, various sources are used to fulfill the energy demand of large buildings. The energy management of large-scale buildings is very important. The proposed system comprises solar PVs, energy storage systems, and electric vehicles. Demand response (DR) schemes are considered in various studies, but the analysis of the impact of dynamic DR on operational cost has been ignored. So, in this paper, renewable energy resources and storages are integrated considering the demand response strategies such as real-time pricing (RTP), critical peak pricing (CPP), and time of use (ToU). The proposed system is mapped in a linear model and simulated in MATLAB using linear programming (LP). Different case studies are investigated considering the dynamic demand response schemes. Among different schemes, results based on real-time pricing (58% saving) show more saving as compared to the CPP and ToU. The obtained results reduced the operational cost and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which shows the efficacy of the model.Entities:
Keywords: demand response; electric vehicle; energy management system; energy storage system; microgrids; smart grid
Year: 2022 PMID: 36236547 PMCID: PMC9573154 DOI: 10.3390/s22197448
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1General system architecture.
Figure 2Proposed system architecture.
Figure 3Three pricing schemes.
Figure 4Solar PV output power patter.
Figure 5Building energy demand pattern.
Case studies and different proposed scenarios.
| Scenarios | Grid Availability | Solar PV | BESS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case (01) RTP | ✓ | - | - |
| ✓ | ✓ | - | |
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Proposed Scheduling | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Figure 6Cost behavior without and with solar PV.
Results of case study RTP scenarios.
| Scenarios | Cost Grid Availability (USD) | Cost Solar PV (USD) | BESS | Saving (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case (01) RTP | i. | 797.31 | - | - | - |
| ii. | 394 | - | 50 | ||
| iii. | 354 | 55 | |||
| Proposed Scheduling | 717 | 355 | 301 | 58 | |
Figure 7Scheduling based analysis in the RTP scheme.
Figure 8Cost analysis without and with solar PV.
Results of case study CPP scenarios.
| Scenarios | Cost Grid Availability (USD) | Cost Solar PV (USD) | BESS | Saving (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case (02) CPP | i. | 1002 | - | - | - |
| ii. | 489 | - | 51 | ||
| iii. | 480 | 52 | |||
| Proposed Scheduling | 902 | 440 | 451 | 55 | |
Figure 9Scheduling-based analysis in CPP.
Figure 10Cost analysis grid and solar PV.
Results of case study ToU scenarios.
| Scenarios | Cost Grid Availability (USD) | Cost Solar PV (USD) | BESS | Saving (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| i. | 918.54 | - | - | - |
| ii. | 565 | - | 38 | ||
| iii. | 526 | 42 | |||
| Proposed Scheduling | 826 | 508 | 498 | 45 | |
Figure 11Scheduling-based analysis in ToU.
Comparison of existing and proposed costs.
| Ref. | Year | Application | Technique | Remarks | Savings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | 2018 | Campus µG | MILP | Peak demand | 5.32% |
| [ | 2018 | Residential Level | MILP | Frequency-based regulation | 7% |
| [ | 2019 | Residential µG | LP | Grid for the mode of outage | 16% |
| [ | 2020 | Campus µG | MILP | Peak mitigation | 23% |
| [ | 2021 | Campus µG | MILP | ESS degradation cost, peak demand | 5.27% |
| Proposed Model | 2022 | Campus µG | LP | ESS, Demand response, EV | 58% |