IMPLEMENTATION AND ANALYSIS BASED ON POWER GRID ON ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM QUALITY: A REVIEW
Vikash Kumar
Research Scholar, Energy Technology, Gyan Ganga Institute of Technology and Science, Jabalpur, MP, India
Dr. Ruchi Pandey
Associate Professor, Gyan Ganga Institute of Technology and Science, Jabalpur, MP, India Abstract- With an increasing need to install variable renewable energy sources to the grid, energy storage (ES) has become a key component for electrical grids to maintain stability.
Various methods have been developed to optimize siting of ES systems to benefit a certain actor in the power grid, such as consumers, system operators, or power generators, or to optimize a particular variable, such as frequency, voltage, investment profits, or operator costs. In this project, a new method has been developed to maximize the efficiency of the grid by determining optimal ES siting and to evaluate the impact of grid structure on ES performance. The method is able to decouple the impact of grid structure on grid performance from other factors to show which grid structure is best for ES performance.
Inspired by a centrality concept known as net ability that determines the importance of transmission lines, the net ability equation was modified to include ES within the grid. This paper introduces a weighted topological method called ES net ability that considers capacity, impedance, power transfer distribution factor (PTDF), and node type.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Importance of ES within Electrical Grid Networks
This shows our primer work on the sun oriented energy demonstrating and BS energy distribution in cell networks dependent on 27-year sun powered radiation information. We present the measurable qualities of sun oriented energy appearances and give a straightforward and general approach to anticipate future's sun based energy appearances. To assess the presentation of different calculations, we accept a covetous source information traffic and utilize a utility capacity. In view of straightforward suppositions, recreation results show that our proposed forecast and streamlining calculation significantly works on the utility contrasted and other online heuristics. Future work may incorporate the sun oriented energy designation issue thinking about both sun powered energy expectation and information traffic model.
1.2 Current Methods to Determine Optimal Siting of ES
Since ES will be a significant part of things to come framework foundation, ES area and limit has been the focal point of broad and continuous examination. Ideal ES siting, as it is brought in flow research, targets tracking down the ideal
area for ES inside an electrical organization [13]. The monetary issues for electrical lattices encompass the transmission expenses and power across an organization. The more effective an organization is in communicating power, the more force that can be conveyed from power plant to client. Different strategies have been created to decide the siting of ES by zeroing in on a variable of force stream, like further developing framework dependability, managing voltage, or by limiting working or speculation costs [13- 17]. Zidar et al. gives a thorough survey of various techniques to decide the size and area and subtleties the various variables that impact the coordination of ES into the network. There is a wide scope of streamlining objectives for ES, and can zero in on profiting generators, clients, or transmission and appropriation network administrations [18]. The improvement objectives can incorporate exchange, keeping away from reduction, voltage guideline, and limiting venture and working expenses [18]. The vast majority of the papers checked on by Zidar et al.
just spotlight on the size of ESS, with few resolving the issue of advancing the area.
The strategies used to address the issue of ES advancement incorporate logical
techniques (AM), numerical programming (MP), thorough inquiry (ES) and heuristic techniques (HM) [18]. Since the distributing of [18], there have been a few exchange papers on the ideal siting and measuring of ES. Fernandez-Blanco et al.
utilizes a straight programming technique to limit the working and venture costs while performing exchange and deciding the ideal size of ES [13]. Their technique was applied toward the Western Interconnection Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) interconnection and their examination verified that the most clogged transports were the best contender to introduce ESS.
The blockage was ordinarily a consequence of environmentally friendly power age or non-dispatchable age introduced close clogged transports. This was an exhaustive examination and strategy to decide ideal ES siting, and their method can be acclimated to reflect changes in monetary or legislative approaches.
1.3 Concept of Centrality and How Net Ability Can be Used for Optimal ES Siting
The idea of centrality was made by Bavelas in 1948 as a manner to analyze the significance of every hub inside an informal community to research its various aspects, like productivity, work fulfillment, and using time effectively [22].
From that point forward, centrality has been utilized to tackle a large group of issues, like the political organization of India, metropolitan improvement in archaic Russian urban communities, and appropriation of mechanical developments in the steel business [23]. An overall meaning of centrality is that it decides the most significant or focal hubs inside an organization. It is generally settled upon in scholarly community that the fundamental unit of centrality is a hub [22], and that centrality is a fundamental idea in networks [23], however the similitudes between various organizations and the strategies to assess centrality commonly end there. Because of organizations having various properties, for example, unique stream designs, it has been hard to total a solitary condition or strategy to assess the centrality of hubs in an organization. While trying to classify the various kinds of
organizations, Borgatti separated organizations by their stream way type and the technique for spread [24]. He takes note of that off-the-rack equations can be applied to the issue of centrality, however it is significant to decide the right stream measure or, more than likely the outcomes will be wrong [24]. The kind of stream measure in electrical lattices as demonstrated by different papers have shown that electrical matrix networks follow the examples of little world organizations [19]. A little world organization is an assortment of hubs where every hub just has a couple of associations, yet most hubs inside the organization can be reached by going through few hubs. Latora et al. had the option to additional the idea of little world organizations by estimating the productivity of an organization as the capacity to trade data through the organization [25]. The proficiency of an organization, as characterized by Latora et al., is relative to the amount of the reverse of the briefest distance for all hub sets converse in the organization. In any case, as indicated by Latora et al., the organization model can be changed from an unweighted model to a weighted model. A weighted model will actually want to represent the diverse actual properties that impact the exchange of data inside the organization.
2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1 Methodology
This segment will momentarily clarify the hypothesis of net capacity and how to alter the net capacity condition for computing ideal ES siting. The essential conditions to compute the impedance and limit between any generator-ES pair and ES-load pair will be presented and clarified. The DC power stream segment depends on work from Van cave Bergh et al. [27]. Despite the fact that the force stream in standard force frameworks is AC, the force stream model will be improved down to DC to diminish computational weight.
2.2 DC Power Flow
To figure the force stream dissemination in this paper, it will be rearranged down to a DC power stream. Despite the fact that this task will utilize AC power organizations, DC power stream
conditions will be utilized to assess power stream in the organization. Working on lattice power stream by accepting DC power stream gives a rearranged at this point precise technique. For a framework with N hubs, ascertaining AC power stream for every hub will require 2 conditions with 4 questions (2N conditions with 4N questions) [27]. To address these conditions, 2N should be known preceding computation. To dodge this issue, an iterative strategy is needed to decide the excess 2N factors. This cycle is profoundly exact, however it has been contended that the exactness got through emphasis may not offset the computational exertion [27]. Linearization of the force stream examination is performed by expecting power stream inside the network is DC. All together for DC power stream to be a reasonable choice to demonstrate AC power stream, a couple of suppositions are made. The voltage misfortunes through the transmission are thought to be zero, along these lines the obstruction in the transmission line is likewise thought to be zero.
The permission of every transmission line can be rearranged to the opposite of the reactance. The conductance can be improved to nothing, and the susceptance is rearranged to the opposite of the reactance. This suspicion will be utilized to transform the corner to corner induction network into an askew susceptance grid [27], as displayed in condition 4.
2.3 Power Transfer Distribution Factor Any electrical network will have similar fundamental highlights; generator transports, load transports, and the transmission lines associating each transport. A framework can have different generators and loads, and to observe the commitment or impact of force stream from any generator or burden can be hard to determine because of the numerous generators, burdens, and potential ways the power can take inside the lattice.
Luckily, the commitment of every transmission line according to the energy evacuation or infusion by each transport can be processed, known as the force move appropriation factor (PTDF). For any infusion or evacuation of energy inside the framework by any generator-load pair,
the PTDF in actuality can numerically address the force stream dissemination inside the organization. The accompanying condition consolidates conditions 9 and 11 to frame the PTDF lattice.
The PTDF matrix is a LN matrix,
and shows the power change within any transmission line for any injection or removal of power at any node. Equation 11 is not linearly dependent, which means the inverse of the matrix cannot be calculated. Therefore, one column has to be removed, referred to as the reference node. Generally, in power flow analysis, the slack bus is designated as the reference node. For matrix 𝒑𝒑𝑳𝑳, the slack bus column is removed, forming a LN-1 (line x node – 1) matrix. In order to multiply the node flow (𝒑𝒑𝑵𝑵) and line flow (𝒑𝒑𝑳𝑳) matrices, the slack bus column and row in the 𝒑𝒑𝑵𝑵 matrix also has to be removed. Once the PTDF matrix has been calculated, it will be a LN-1 matrix. The slack bus will be added to the PTDF matrix as a column of zeros. This process of calculating the PTDF can be more visually apparent and will be more clearly shown in figure 5 in the method section.
2.4 Capacity
The components in the PTDF network can likewise be utilized to ascertain a framework called the circulation factor (DF), made out of components 𝑎𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑔𝑔𝑔 which address the force change in transmission line l because of force infusion at generator g and force evacuation at load d. Since every component in the PTDF network shows the adjustment of force inside a line because of a force change at any hub, the distinction in power change in a line because of two hubs can be determined.
As per Bompard et al, the DF network is a GDL (generator x burden x line) lattice, however this paper will utilize condition 14 to ascertain the DF framework, which will make a NNL (hub x hub x line) grid. Bompard et al's. DF network depicts the force change in each line for power expulsion and infusion for every generator-load pair, yet this present paper's DF framework is performed for every hub pair. The new DF framework can in any case assess any generator-load
pair, however there will be circumstances where a generator-generator pair or burden load pair should be assessed, in this manner the DF lattice should be changed and extended. This change to utilize NNL measurements for the DF lattice is an important change for computing net capacity, and will be additionally clarified in the net capacity area. With the DF framework determined, the limit of the matrix for every hub pair can be determined.
The limit or line stream limit is a significant thought and fundamental to the security of the organization.
2.5 Equivalent Impedance
The impedance utilized by Bompard et al.
to compute net capacity is called identical impedance, and is determined from the impedance framework. The same impedance will be utilized as the load to divert the net capacity model from an unadulterated topological model to a weighted topological model. To ascertain the same impedance, the permission network is shaped from just the impedance, and the opposition is thought to be zero.
2.6 ES Net Ability
The first net capacity condition created by Bompard et al. furthermore, Arianos et al.
was made to track down the most weak transmission lines in an organization, yet this paper will alter the net capacity condition to track down the ideal site for ES. Net capacity, as clarified by Bompard et al., is an approach to quantify its capacity to work under typical working conditions, and is impacted by the impedance of the transmission lines, the force conveyance inside the organization, and the force stream cutoff points of the transmission lines.
2.7 Betweenness
Very much like the net capacity condition, the betweenness condition was initially made by Bompard et al. to decide the most significant transmission lines in an electrical organization, yet will be altered to decide the ideal ES site in an electrical lattice. The idea of betweenness centrality was initially evolved by Freeman and depends on the most brief way between two hubs. The briefest way between a couple of hubs is known as a geodesic
way. Assuming a hub is situated on a geodesic, the transmission of data between a couple of hubs. The more geodesics that pass through a hub, then, at that point the more focal the hub is in the organization. Freeman fostered a condition to quantify the betweenness centrality of a hub, and is displayed underneath.
(27) The above equation calculates the geodesics that pass-through node n and determine the likelihood node n is along line 𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖. Another way of defining Freeman’s definition of betweenness of a node is to say the probability of a geodesic passing through a node.
Figure 2.4 Diagram to explain betweenness
In figure 2.4, accepting each line has an equivalent distance, focuses P1 and P4 has two geodesic ways. Focuses P2 and P3 are situated along one of the geodesics. As indicated by condition 27 and since there are an aggregate of two geodesics, focuses P2 and P3 have the equivalent betweenness worth of 0.5.
From a natural sense, P2 and P3 are indispensable in the correspondence between focuses P1 and P4. They likewise have a similar worth of betweenness on the grounds that the distance between every hub is equivalent. The worth of the distance between two hubs should be reevaluated since it doesn't mirror the electrical distance. The electrical distance can be applied in a manner to display the progression of power which gives a load to the model. Freeman's meaning of betweenness doesn't think about any of the electrical properties of the matrix, hence betweenness should be changed in
accordance with represent the actual attributes of the electrical lattice.
Bompard et al. proposed another betweenness centrality to decide the most urgent hubs and transports inside an electrical organization [19][20]. The primary distinction between the unadulterated topological methodology presented by Freeman and weighted betweenness centrality proposed by Bompard et al. is the geodesic ways.
According to a topological viewpoint, there is an unmistakable number of geodesics between two focuses that can be handily estimated. Said in another manner, there must be a fixed number of courses between two hubs. For a weighted betweenness, this strategy should think about the progression of power in an organization. There are an over the top number of ways that power can move from a generator to stack. To show this progression of power, the PTDF was utilized to weight the model since it numerically addresses the stream circulation of power in an electrical framework. As referenced before, the PTDF can be changed to show the stream in any line because of stream of power between any generator-load pair, called the conveyance factor (DF). A component of a PTDF lattice addresses the adjustment of force stream in a line because of the infusion or evacuation of force at any hub. The distinction between any two components in the PTDF network will give the stream along the relating line because of the force stream between any generator-load pair. The DF will be utilized on the grounds that the PTDF just shows the adjustment of force because of a unit change in power for a hub, while DF shows the force stream circulation in a line for a generator-load pair. To additionally clarify expanded betweenness, Bompard et al's. condition is displayed underneath in condition 28.
The betweenness condition that will be utilized for this undertaking will be changed, and is displayed in condition 29.
The last term of condition 28 is the amount of the DFs of the multitude of lines associated with transport v when force is added [19][20]. The summation is identical to the force in and power out for
every hub, very much like adding the flows for a hub utilizing Kirchhoff's present law. Adding the absolute force streaming into and out of the hub will be twofold the power moving through the hub, in this manner partitioning the summation by two gives the power that moves through the hub. The limit with regards to every generator-load pair is duplicated into the condition to represent the way that the organization can't surpass its own ability. The factor of the summation of DF for every hub and the limit of the individual generator-load pair is added together to deliver the betweenness of every hub.
The betweenness condition will be adjusted to analyze the network betweenness of various frameworks.
Lattice betweenness is the normal betweenness of each hub in an organization, and will be clarified in additional detail in area 3.4. Similarly as in the ES net capacity condition, the betweenness condition will represent the quantity of generators and burdens in the organization by isolating by the result of the quantity of generators and burdens in the organization. The betweenness condition to be utilized is displayed underneath in condition .
3 CONCLUSION
The net capacity condition from Bompard et al. furthermore, Arianos et al. was changed to represent ES inside an electrical matrix to decide ideal ES siting, and to gauge the effect of framework structure on ES execution. The net capacity condition was initially planned to decide the significance of every transmission line inside an organization, however by altering the limit and impedance in the net capacity condition to represent ES in a lattice, it very well may be applied to decide the ideal transport or site for ES, and decouple the framework structure from different components to measure which network is better for ES execution. The betweenness condition was additionally expected to decide the significance of various transmission lines and hubs in an organization, yet didn't should be adjusted to decide ideal ES siting.
REFERENCES
1. International Energy Agency. Technology Roadmap - Energy storage. March, 2014.
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublic ations/publication/TechnologyRoadmapEner gystorage.pdf
2. International Energy Agency. Key World Energy Statistics. September 2017.
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublic ations/publication/KeyWorld2017.pdf 3. International Energy Agency. Renewables.
2017.
https://www.iea.org/topics/renewables/
4. International Energy Agency. Next Generation Wind And Solar Power. October 2016.
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublic ations/publication/NextGenerationWindandS olarPower.pdf
5. Massachusetts Department of Energy. State of Charge. September 16, 2016.
https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/201 6/09/oy/state-of-charge-report.pdf
6. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Eastern Renewable Generation Integration
Study. August 2016.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/64472.p df
7. Bullis, K. Western U.S. Grid Can Handle More Renewable. MIT Technology Review. May 27, 2010.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/41910 2/western-us-grid-can-handle-more- renewables/
8. Tongia, R. The Indian Power Grid: If Renewables are the Answer, what was the Question?. Brookings Institute. January, 2015.https://www.brookings.edu/wp- content/uploads/2015/01/Renewable- energy_Ch3.pdf
9. US Department of Energy. Grid Energy
Storage. December 2013.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/20 13/12/f5/Grid%20Energy%20Storage%20De cember%202013.pdf
10. Matek, B., Gawell, K. The Benefits of Baseload Renewables: A Misunderstood Energy Technology. The Electricity Journal.
Volume 28. Issue 2. 2015. Pages 101-112.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/articl e/pii/S104061901500024X
11. California Energy Commission. Installed Electric Capacity and Generation. August 2018.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/tracki ng_progress/documents/installed_capacity.p df
12. State of California – Public Utilities Commission. Order Instituting Rulemaking Pursuant to Assembly Bill 2514 to Consider the Adoption of Procurement Targets for Viable and Cost-Effective Energy Storage Systems. October 17, 2013.
http://101.96.10.63/docs.cpuc.ca.gov/Publis hedDocs/Published/G000/M078/K929/7892 9853.pdf
13. R. Fernández-Blanco, Y. Dvorkin, B. Xu, Y.
Wang and D. S. Kirschen, "Optimal Energy Storage Siting and Sizing: A WECC Case Study," in IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 733-743, April 2017.
14. L. Fiorini, G. A. Pagani, P. Pelacchi, D. Poli and M. Aiello, "Sizing and Siting of Large-
Scale Batteries in Transmission Grids to Optimize the Use of Renewables," in IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and Systems, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 285- 294, June 2017.
15. N. Jayasekara, M. A. S. Masoum and P. J.
Wolfs, "Optimal Operation of Distributed Energy Storage Systems to Improve Distribution Network Load and Generation Hosting Capability," in IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 250- 261, Jan. 2016.
16. A. Giannitrapani, S. Paoletti, A. Vicino and D.
Zarrilli, "Optimal Allocation of Energy Storage Systems for Voltage Control in LV Distribution Networks," in IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 2859-2870, Nov. 2017.
17. C. A. Sepulveda Rangel, L. Canha, M.
Sperandio and R. Severiano, "Methodology for ESS-type selection and optimal energy management in distribution system with DG considering reverse flow limitations and cost penalties," in IET Generation, Transmission &
Distribution, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 1164-1170, 13 3 2018.
18. M. Zidar, P. S. Georgilakis, N. D.
Hatziargyriou, T. Capuder and D. Škrlec,
"Review of energy storage allocation in power distribution networks: applications, methods and future research," in IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 645-652, 18 2 2016.
19. E. Bompard, E. Pons and D. Wu, "Extended Topological Metrics for the Analysis of Power Grid Vulnerability", in IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 481-487, Sept. 2012.
20. E. Bompard, R. Napoli and F. Xue, "Extended topological approach for the assessment of structural vulnerability in transmission networks," in IET Generation, Transmission &
Distribution, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 716-724, June 2010.
21. Arianos, S, Bompard, E, Carbone, A., Xue, F.
Power Grid Vulnerability: A Complex Network Approach. Chaos. April, 2009.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2 4247054_Power_grid_vulnerability_A_complex _network_approach
22. Borgatti, S., Everett, M. A Graph-theoretic perspective on centrality. Social Networks.
Volume 28. Issue 4. 2006. Pages 466-484.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/artic le/pii/S0378873305000833
23. Freeman L. Centrality in Social Networks Conceptual Clarification. Social Networks.
Volume 1. Issue 3. 1978. Pages 215-239.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/artic le/pii/0378873378900217
24. Borgatti, S. Centrality and Network Flow.
Social Networks. Volume 27. Issue 1. 2005.
Pages 55-71.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/artic le/pii/S0378873304000693=91
25. Latora, V., Marchiori, M. Efficient Behavior of Small-World Networks. Physical Review Letters. vol. 87, no. 19, pp. 716-724,
November 5, 2001.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3 08881997_Efficient_Behavior_of_Small- World_Networks
26. Freeman, L.C., A Set of Measures of Centrality Based on Betweenness.
27. Van den Bergh, K., Delarue, E., D'haeseleer, W. DC power flow in unit commitment models. May 2014. KU Leuven Energy Institute.
28. University of Washington. Power Systems
Test Case Archive. 1993.
http://www.ee.washington.edu/research/pst ca/
29. Russia Department of Energy – Komi Science
Center. Test Cases. 2008.
http://energy.komisc.ru/dev/test_cases
