IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/energy/v131y2017icp125-136.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explicit cost-risk tradeoff for renewable portfolio standard constrained regional power system expansion: A case study of Guangdong Province, China

Author

Listed:
  • Ji, Ling
  • Huang, Guo-He
  • Xie, Yu-Lei
  • Niu, Dong-Xiao
  • Song, Yi-Hang

Abstract

In this paper, a risk explicit interval two-stage programming (REITSP) model was proposed for supporting the regional electricity generation expansion with renewable portfolio standard (RPS) constraint. It could effectively tackle multiple uncertainties expressed as interval numbers. But unlike the traditional interval two-stage programming model, the proposed REITSP model could provide an explicit trade-off information between system cost and risk for decision makers with different risk preferences. It could minimize the total system cost, as well as the decision risk according to the aspiration risk level of decision maker. The developed REITSP model was applied to the case study in Guangdong Province, China for its long-term electricity system planning. Crisp solutions under different aspiration risk levels for varying RPS targets were obtained and analyzed. The results showed that according to the current available renewable energy and affordable construction speed, the maximum RPS target for Guangzhou Province during 2016–2025 should be 17%. Higher RPS level would promote the renewable energy generation, especially solar power; meanwhile, it would reduce the CO2 emission and the imported electricity, but with greater investment cost. The obtained results and trade-off information would be valuable for the optimal long-term electricity system expansion planning when facing future uncertain situation.

Suggested Citation

  • Ji, Ling & Huang, Guo-He & Xie, Yu-Lei & Niu, Dong-Xiao & Song, Yi-Hang, 2017. "Explicit cost-risk tradeoff for renewable portfolio standard constrained regional power system expansion: A case study of Guangdong Province, China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 125-136.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:131:y:2017:i:c:p:125-136
    DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.05.017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544217307636
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.energy.2017.05.017?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Koltsaklis, Nikolaos E. & Liu, Pei & Georgiadis, Michael C., 2015. "An integrated stochastic multi-regional long-term energy planning model incorporating autonomous power systems and demand response," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 865-888.
    2. Siddiqui, Afzal S. & Tanaka, Makoto & Chen, Yihsu, 2016. "Are targets for renewable portfolio standards too low? The impact of market structure on energy policy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 328-341.
    3. Huang, Guo H. & Baetz, Brian W. & Patry, Gilles G., 1995. "Grey integer programming: An application to waste management planning under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 83(3), pages 594-620, June.
    4. Xie, Kaigui & Dong, Jizhe & Singh, Chanan & Hu, Bo, 2016. "Optimal capacity and type planning of generating units in a bundled wind–thermal generation system," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 200-210.
    5. Farooq, Muhammad Khalid & Kumar, S. & Shrestha, Ram M., 2013. "Energy, environmental and economic effects of Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) in a Developing Country," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 989-1001.
    6. Walmsley, Michael R.W. & Walmsley, Timothy G. & Atkins, Martin J., 2015. "Achieving 33% renewable electricity generation by 2020 in California," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 92(P3), pages 260-269.
    7. Santos, Maria João & Ferreira, Paula & Araújo, Madalena, 2016. "A methodology to incorporate risk and uncertainty in electricity power planning," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 115(P2), pages 1400-1411.
    8. Wang, Tan & Gong, Yu & Jiang, Chuanwen, 2014. "A review on promoting share of renewable energy by green-trading mechanisms in power system," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 923-929.
    9. Koltsaklis, Nikolaos E. & Georgiadis, Michael C., 2015. "A multi-period, multi-regional generation expansion planning model incorporating unit commitment constraints," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 310-331.
    10. Zhou, Feng & Huang, Gordon H. & Chen, Guo-Xian & Guo, Huai-Cheng, 2009. "Enhanced-interval linear programming," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 199(2), pages 323-333, December.
    11. Gitizadeh, Mohsen & Kaji, Mahdi & Aghaei, Jamshid, 2013. "Risk based multiobjective generation expansion planning considering renewable energy sources," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 74-82.
    12. Huang, G. H. & Baetz, B. W. & Patry, G. G., 1995. "Grey fuzzy integer programming: An application to regional waste management planning under uncertainty," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 17-38, March.
    13. Soroudi, Alireza & Ehsan, Mehdi, 2010. "A distribution network expansion planning model considering distributed generation options and techo-economical issues," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 3364-3374.
    14. Bai, Linquan & Li, Fangxing & Cui, Hantao & Jiang, Tao & Sun, Hongbin & Zhu, Jinxiang, 2016. "Interval optimization based operating strategy for gas-electricity integrated energy systems considering demand response and wind uncertainty," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 270-279.
    15. Ji, L. & Niu, D.X. & Huang, G.H., 2014. "An inexact two-stage stochastic robust programming for residential micro-grid management-based on random demand," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 186-199.
    16. Hemmati, Reza & Saboori, Hedayat & Jirdehi, Mehdi Ahmadi, 2016. "Multistage generation expansion planning incorporating large scale energy storage systems and environmental pollution," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 636-645.
    17. Wierzbowski, Michal & Lyzwa, Wojciech & Musial, Izabela, 2016. "MILP model for long-term energy mix planning with consideration of power system reserves," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 93-111.
    18. Li, Y.F. & Li, Y.P. & Huang, G.H. & Chen, X., 2010. "Energy and environmental systems planning under uncertainty--An inexact fuzzy-stochastic programming approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(10), pages 3189-3211, October.
    19. Li, Francis G.N. & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2017. "Investment appraisal of cost-optimal and near-optimal pathways for the UK electricity sector transition to 2050," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 89-109.
    20. Aghaei, Jamshid & Muttaqi, Kashem M. & Azizivahed, Ali & Gitizadeh, Mohsen, 2014. "Distribution expansion planning considering reliability and security of energy using modified PSO (Particle Swarm Optimization) algorithm," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 398-411.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xu, Jiuping & Yang, Guocan & Wang, Fengjuan & Shu, Kejing, 2022. "A provincial renewable portfolio standards-based distribution strategy for both power plant and user: A case study from Guangdong, China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    2. Rodgers, Mark D. & Coit, David W. & Felder, Frank A. & Carlton, Annmarie, 2018. "Generation expansion planning considering health and societal damages – A simulation-based optimization approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 951-963.
    3. Xu, Jie & Lv, Tao & Hou, Xiaoran & Deng, Xu & Li, Na & Liu, Feng, 2022. "Spatiotemporal characteristics and influencing factors of renewable energy production in China: A spatial econometric analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    4. Dagoumas, Athanasios S. & Koltsaklis, Nikolaos E., 2019. "Review of models for integrating renewable energy in the generation expansion planning," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 242(C), pages 1573-1587.
    5. Li, Wei & Lu, Can & Zhang, Yan-Wu, 2019. "Prospective exploration of future renewable portfolio standard schemes in China via a multi-sector CGE model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 45-56.
    6. Yin, J.N. & Huang, G.H. & Xie, Y.L. & An, Y.K., 2021. "Carbon-subsidized inter-regional electric power system planning under cost-risk tradeoff and uncertainty: A case study of Inner Mongolia, China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    7. Koltsaklis, Nikolaos E. & Dagoumas, Athanasios S., 2018. "State-of-the-art generation expansion planning: A review," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 230(C), pages 563-589.
    8. Zhou, Xianyang & Zhou, Dequn & Ding, Hao & Zhao, Siqi & Wang, Qunwei, 2023. "Low-carbon transition of China's provincial power sector under renewable portfolio standards and carbon cap," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 283(C).
    9. Xu, Jie & Lv, Tao & Hou, Xiaoran & Deng, Xu & Liu, Feng, 2021. "Provincial allocation of renewable portfolio standard in China based on efficiency and fairness principles," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 1233-1245.
    10. Ji, Ling & Zhang, Bei-Bei & Huang, Guo-He & Xie, Yu-Lei & Niu, Dong-Xiao, 2018. "Explicit cost-risk tradeoff for optimal energy management in CCHP microgrid system under fuzzy-risk preferences," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 525-535.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Koltsaklis, Nikolaos E. & Dagoumas, Athanasios S., 2018. "State-of-the-art generation expansion planning: A review," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 230(C), pages 563-589.
    2. Radhanon Diewvilai & Kulyos Audomvongseree, 2022. "Optimal Loss of Load Expectation for Generation Expansion Planning Considering Fuel Unavailability," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-17, October.
    3. Carlos Roberto de Sousa Costa & Paula Ferreira, 2023. "A Review on the Internalization of Externalities in Electricity Generation Expansion Planning," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-19, February.
    4. Chang-Gi Min & Mun-Kyeom Kim, 2017. "Net Load Carrying Capability of Generating Units in Power Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-13, August.
    5. Radhanon Diewvilai & Kulyos Audomvongseree, 2021. "Generation Expansion Planning with Energy Storage Systems Considering Renewable Energy Generation Profiles and Full-Year Hourly Power Balance Constraints," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-25, September.
    6. Majid Dehghani & Mohammad Taghipour & Saleh Sadeghi Gougheri & Amirhossein Nikoofard & Gevork B. Gharehpetian & Mahdi Khosravy, 2021. "A Deep Learning-Based Approach for Generation Expansion Planning Considering Power Plants Lifetime," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-21, December.
    7. Koltsaklis, Nikolaos E. & Nazos, Konstantinos, 2017. "A stochastic MILP energy planning model incorporating power market dynamics," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 1364-1383.
    8. Dagoumas, Athanasios S. & Koltsaklis, Nikolaos E., 2019. "Review of models for integrating renewable energy in the generation expansion planning," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 242(C), pages 1573-1587.
    9. Ioannou, Anastasia & Angus, Andrew & Brennan, Feargal, 2017. "Risk-based methods for sustainable energy system planning: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 602-615.
    10. Rode, David C. & Fischbeck, Paul S., 2018. "Reduced-form models for power market risk analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 1640-1655.
    11. Nikolaos E. Koltsaklis & Athanasios S. Dagoumas, 2021. "A power system scheduling model with carbon intensity and ramping capacity constraints," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 647-687, March.
    12. Dong, C. & Huang, G.H. & Cai, Y.P. & Xu, Y., 2011. "An interval-parameter minimax regret programming approach for power management systems planning under uncertainty," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(8), pages 2835-2845, August.
    13. H. Mishmast Nehi & H. A. Ashayerinasab & M. Allahdadi, 2020. "Solving methods for interval linear programming problem: a review and an improved method," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 1205-1229, September.
    14. Chen, C. & Li, Y.P. & Huang, G.H. & Zhu, Y., 2012. "An inexact robust nonlinear optimization method for energy systems planning under uncertainty," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 55-66.
    15. Piao, M.J. & Li, Y.P. & Huang, G.H. & Nie, S., 2015. "Risk analysis for Shanghai's electric power system under multiple uncertainties," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 104-119.
    16. Li, Y.P. & Huang, G.H. & Chen, X., 2011. "An interval-valued minimax-regret analysis approach for the identification of optimal greenhouse-gas abatement strategies under uncertainty," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 4313-4324, July.
    17. Changyu Zhou & Guohe Huang & Jiapei Chen, 2019. "A Type-2 Fuzzy Chance-Constrained Fractional Integrated Modeling Method for Energy System Management of Uncertainties and Risks," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-21, June.
    18. Farrokhifar, Meisam & Nie, Yinghui & Pozo, David, 2020. "Energy systems planning: A survey on models for integrated power and natural gas networks coordination," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).
    19. Chunguang Bai & Joseph Sarkis, 2013. "Green information technology strategic justification and evaluation," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 15(5), pages 831-847, November.
    20. Yong Zeng & Yanpeng Cai & Guohe Huang & Jing Dai, 2011. "A Review on Optimization Modeling of Energy Systems Planning and GHG Emission Mitigation under Uncertainty," Energies, MDPI, vol. 4(10), pages 1-33, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:131:y:2017:i:c:p:125-136. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/energy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.