IEEE Access (Jan 2021)

Intelligent Optimization Framework for Efficient Demand-Side Management in Renewable Energy Integrated Smart Grid

  • Hassan Wasim Khan,
  • Muhammad Usman,
  • Ghulam Hafeez,
  • Fahad R. Albogamy,
  • Imran Khan,
  • Zeeshan Shafiq,
  • Mohammad Usman Ali Khan,
  • Hend I. Alkhammash

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3109136
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 9
pp. 124235 – 124252

Abstract

Read online

The implementation of real-time price-based demand response program and integration of renewable energy resources (RESs) improves efficiency and ensure stability of electric grid. This paper proposes a novel intelligent optimization based demand-side management (DSM) framework for smart grid integrated with RESs. In the intelligent DSM framework the artificial neural network (ANN) forecasts energy usage behavior of consumers and real-time price-based demand response program (RTPDRP) of electric utility company (EUC). The smart energy management controller of the proposed intelligent DSM framework adapts forecasted energy usage behavior of consumers using forecasted RTPDRP to create operation schedule. The consumers implement the created schedule to minimize energy cost, peak load, carbon emission subjected to improving user comfort and avoiding rebound peaks. Simulations are conducted using our proposed hybrid genetic ant colony (HGAC) optimization algorithm to create schedule for three cases: EUC without RESs, EUC with RESs, and EUC with both RESs and storage technologies. To endorse the applicability and productivity of the proposed DSM framework based on HGAC optimization algorithm with five existing algorithms based frameworks. Simulation results show that the proposed DSM framework is superior compared with the existing frameworks in terms of energy cost minimization, peak load mitigation, carbon emission alleviation, and user discomfort minimization. The proposed HGAC optimization algorithm reduced electricity cost, carbon emission, and peak load by 12.16%, 4.00%, and 19.44% in case I; by 26.8%, 20.71%, and 33.3% in case II; and by 24.4%, 16.44%, and 37.08% in case III, respectively, compared to without scheduling.

Keywords