SpringerLink
Log in

Game Theory Application for Finding Optimal Operating Point of Multi-production System Under Fluctuations of Renewable and Various Load Levels

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Integration of Clean and Sustainable Energy Resources and Storage in Multi-Generation Systems

  • 502 Accesses

Abstract

In order to implement sustainable and efficient energy supply, precise mathematical tools are needed to determine an appropriate strategy at different levels of planning and operation. To this end, oligopoly equilibrium models, such as Cournot models, Bertrand models, and supply function equilibrium (SFE) models, draw the attention in the analysis of power system recently. The decision variables in SFE models are the parameters of supply functions rather than quantity and price as in the Cournot and Bertrand models. In this chapter, we first study different game theory models and their applications in power system. Then, an appropriate model is selected to formulate the optimization problem for finding the optimal operating point of the multi-production system. The study includes fluctuations of renewable energy resources, various load levels, and the market environment. Two game models based on deterministic and stochastic approaches are proposed, formulated, and investigated. Finally, the results and numerical study are presented to verify the efficiency of game models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Singh, H. (1999). Introduction to game theory and its application in electric power markets. IEEE Computer Applications in Power, 12, 18–20.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Myerson, R. B. (1991). Game theory: Analysis of conflict (p. 1). Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press. Chapter-preview links, pp. vii–xi.

    Google Scholar 

  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory#cite_note-Myerson-1.

  4. Fadlullah, M. D., et al. (2011). A survey of game theoretic approaches in smart grid, International Conference on Wireless Communications and Signal Processing, Nan**g, China.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Murphy, F. H., et al. (2005). Generation capacity expansion in imperfectly competitive restructured electricity markets. Operation Research, 53, 646–661.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Kaymaz, P., et al. (2007). Transmission congestion and competition on power generation expansion. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 22, 156–163.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Botterrud, A., et al. (2005). Optimal investments in power generation under centralized and decentralized decision making. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 20, 254–263.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kazempour, S. J., et al. (2013). Generation investment equilibria with strategic producers-part I: Formulation. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 28, 2613–2622.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ruiz, C., et al. (2009). Pool strategy of a producer with endogenous formation of locational marginal prices. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 24, 1855–1866.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kazempour, S. J., et al. (2011). Strategic generation investment using a complementarity approach. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 26, 940–948.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kazempour, S. J., et al. (2012). Strategic generation investment under uncertainty via benders decomposition. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 27, 424–432.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Barforoushi, T., et al. (2010). Evaluation of regulatory impacts on dynamic behavior of investments in electricity markets: A new hybrid DP/GAME framework. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 25, 1978–1986.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sarjiya, et al. (2019). Game theory for multi-objective and multi-period framework generation expansion planning in deregulated markets. Energy, 174, 323–330.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Salarkheili, S., et al. (2016). Capacity withholding analysis in transmission-constrained electricity markets. IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, 10, 487–495.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Latorre, M. D. L., et al. (2003). The Stackelberg equilibrium applied to AC power systems-a non-interior point algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 18, 611–618.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Chen, H., et al. (2006). A coevolutionary approach to analyzing supply function equilibrium model. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 21, 1019–1028.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hasan, E., et al. (2008). Electricity markets cleared by merit order – Part II: Strategic offer and market power. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 23, 372–379.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ruiz, C., et al. (2008). Some analytical results pertaining to Cournot models for short-term electricity markets. Electric Power Systems Research, 78, 1672–1678.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bushnell, J. B. (2003). Looking for trouble competition policy in the US electricity industry. Center for the Study of Energy Markets: Univ. California Energy Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Baldick, R., et al. (2004). Theory and application of linear supply function equilibrium in electricity markets. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 25, 143–167.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Helman, U., et al. (2010). Large-scale market power modeling: Analyzing of the U. S. eastern interconnection and regulatory applications. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 25, 1434–1448.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Yu, C. W., et al. (2010). Modeling and analysis of strategic forward contracting in transmission constrained power markets. Electric Power Systems Research, 80, 354–361.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cunningham, L. B., et al. (2002). An empirical study of applied game theory: Transmission constrained Cournot behavior. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 17, 166–172.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Yang, Y., et al. (2012). Computing all Nash equilibria of multiplayer games in electricity markets by solving polynomial equations. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 27, 81–91.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Arasteh, H., et al. (2019). Stochastic system of systems architecture for adaptive expansion of smart distribution grids. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 15, 377–389.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Arasteh, H., et al. (2016). SoS-based multiobjective distribution system expansion planning. Electric Power Systems Research, 141, 392–406.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Arasteh, H., et al. (2016). An aggregated model for coordinated planning and reconfiguration of electric distribution networks. Energy, 94, 786–798.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Chuang, A. S., et al. (2001). A game-theoretic model for generation expansion planning: Problem formulation and numerical comparisons. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 16, 885–891.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jenabi, M., et al. (2013). Bi-level game approaches for coordination of generation and transmission expansion planning within a market environment. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 28, 2639–2650.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mei, S., et al. (2012). Game approaches for hybrid power system planning. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 3, 506–517.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Mei, S., et al. (2014). Robust optimization of static reserve planning with large-scale integration of wind power: A game theoretic approach. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 5, 535–545.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Green, R. (1991). Resha** the CEGB: Electricity privatization in the UK. Utilities Policy, 1, 245–254.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Yu, Z., et al. (2000). A Stackelberg price leadership model with application to deregulated electricity markets, IEEE Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting, Conference Proceedings (Cat. No. 00CH37077).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hogan, W. W. (1997). A market power model with strategic interaction in electricity networks. The Energy Journal, 19, 107–141.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cardell, J. B., et al. (1997). Market power and strategic interaction in electricity networks. Resource and Energy Economics, 19, 109–137.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Borenstein, S., et al. (1999). An empirical analysis of the potential for market power in California’s electricity industry. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 47, 285–323.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Yao, J., et al. (2008). Modeling and computing two-settlement oligopolistic equilibrium in a congested electricity network. Operations Research, 56, 34–47.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Zhang, S., et al. (2009). Analyzing two-settlement electricity market equilibrium by coevolutionary computation approach. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 24, 1155–1164.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Green, R. J., et al. (1992). Competition in the British electricity spot market. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 929–953.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Green, R. (1996). Increasing competition in the British electricity spot market. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 44, 205–216.

    Google Scholar 

  41. García-Alcalde, A., et al. Fitting electricity market models: A conjectural variations approach. Proc. 14th PSCC 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Day, C. J., et al. (2002). Oligopolistic competition in power networks: A conjectured supply function approach. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 17, 597–607.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Mei, S.-W., et al. (Eds.). (2011). Development of an industrial non-linear robust power system stabiliser and its improved frequency-domain testing method. IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, 5, 1201–1210.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Chen, H., et al. (2014). Cooperative control of power system load and frequency by using differential games. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 23, 882–897.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Zugno, M., et al. (2013). A Bilevel model for electricity retailers’ participation in a demand response market environment. Energy Economics, 36, 182–197.

    Google Scholar 

  46. López-Lezama, J. M., et al. (2010). Optimal contract pricing of distributed generation in distribution networks. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 26, 128–136.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Mei, S., et al. (2013). A game model for robust optimization of power systems and its application. Proceedings of the CSEE, 33, 47–56.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Zhao, L., et al. (2012). Robust unit commitment problem with demand response and wind energy. IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, San Diego, CA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Jiang, R., et al. (2011). Robust unit commitment with wind power and pumped storage hydro. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 27, 800–810.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Bertsimas, D., et al. (2012). Adaptive robust optimization for the security constrained unit commitment problem. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 28, 52–63.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Wei, W., et al. (2016). Convexification of the Nash bargaining based environmental-economic dispatch. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 31, 5208–5209.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Wei, W., et al. (2014). Nash bargain and complementarity approach based environmental/economic dispatch. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 30, 1548–1549.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Mohsenian-Rad, A.-H., et al. (2010). Autonomous demand-side management based on game-theoretic energy consumption scheduling for the future smart grid. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 1, 320–331.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Atzeni, I., et al. (2014). Noncooperative day-ahead bidding strategies for demand-side expected cost minimization with real-time adjustments: A GNEP approach. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 62, 2397–2412.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  55. Maharjan, S., et al. (2013). Dependable demand response management in the smart grid: A Stackelberg game approach. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 4, 120–132.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Zhao, B., et al. (2014). Short-term operation scheduling in renewable-powered microgrids: A duality-based approach. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 5, 209–217.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Palma-Behnke, R., et al. (2013). A microgrid energy management system based on the rolling horizon strategy. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 4, 996–1006.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Nguyen, D. T., et al. (2014). Optimal bidding strategy for microgrids considering renewable energy and building thermal dynamics. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 5, 1608–1620.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Nguyen, D. T., et al. (2015). Risk-constrained profit maximization for microgrid aggregators with demand response. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 6, 135–146.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Liu, G., et al. (2016). Bidding strategy for microgrid in day-ahead market based on hybrid stochastic/robust optimization. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 7, 227–237.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Nguyen, T. A., et al. (2016). Stochastic optimization of renewable-based microgrid operation incorporating battery operating cost. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 31, 2289–2296.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Wang, Y., et al. (2016). Interactive dispatch modes and bidding strategy of multiple virtual power plants based on demand response and game theory. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 7, 510–519.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Peik-Herfeh, M., et al. (2013). Decision making of a virtual power plant under uncertainties for bidding in a day-ahead market using point estimate method. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 44, 88–98.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Peik-herfeh, M., et al. (2014). Two-stage approach for optimal dispatch of distributed energy resources in distribution networks considering virtual power plant concept. International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems, 24, 43–63.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Pandžić, H., et al. (2013). Offering model for a virtual power plant based on stochastic programming. Applied Energy, 105, 282–292.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Kardakos, E. G., et al. (2016). Optimal offering strategy of a virtual power plant: A stochastic bi-level approach. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 7, 794–806.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Asimakopoulou, G. E., et al. (2013). Leader-follower strategies for energy management of multi-microgrids. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 4, 1909–1916.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Dielmann, K., et al. (2003). Virtual power plants (Vpp)-A new perspective for energy generation?. In Proceedings of the 9th international scientific and practical conference of students, post-graduates and young scientists. Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Caldon, R., et al. (2004). Optimal control of a distribution system with a virtual power plant. In Bulk power system dynamics and control. Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Nezamabadi, H., et al. (2011). Participation of virtual power plants in energy market with optimal bidding based on Nash-SFE equilibrium strategy and considering interruptible load. In Proceedings of the 3rd conference on thermal power plants (CTPP). Iran.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Nezamabadi, H. et al. (2015). Two stage decision making of technical virtual power plants in electricity market via Nash-SFE equilibrium. In 3rd International Istanbul smart grid congress and fair (ICSG). Turkey.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Mashhour, E., et al. (2011). Bidding strategy of virtual power plant for participating in energy and spinning reserve markets—Part I: Problem formulation. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 26, 949–956.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Mashhour, E., et al. (2011). Bidding strategy of virtual power plant for participating in energy and spinning reserve markets—Part II: Numerical analysis. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 26, 957–964.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Nezamabadi, H., et al. (2016). Arbitrage strategy of virtual power plants in energy, spinning reserve and reactive power markets. IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, 10, 750–763.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Wu, T., et al. (2013). Coordinated energy dispatching in microgrid with wind power generation and plug-in electric vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 4, 1453–1463.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Kekatos, V., et al. (2015). Stochastic reactive power management in microgrids with renewables. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 30, 3386–3395.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Rahimiyan, M., et al. (2014). Energy management of a cluster of interconnected price-responsive demands. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 29, 645–655.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Guan, X., et al. (2010). Energy-efficient buildings facilitated by microgrid. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 1, 243–252.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Rahimiyan, M., et al. (2015). Strategic bidding for a virtual power plant in the day-ahead and real-time markets: A price-taker robust optimization approach. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 31, 2676–2687.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Dabbagh, S. R., et al. (2015). Risk assessment of virtual power plants offering in energy and reserve markets. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 31, 3572–3582.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Giuntoli, M., et al. (2013). Optimized thermal and electrical scheduling of a large scale virtual power plant in the presence of energy storages. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 4, 942–955.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Mohammadi, J., et al. (2011). Aggregated wind power and flexible load offering strategy. IET Renewable Power Generation, 5, 439–447.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Zhao, Q., et al. (2016). Control and bidding strategy for virtual power plants with renewable generation and inelastic demand in electricity markets. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 7, 562–575.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Nezamabadi, H., et al. (2019). Market bidding strategy of the microgrids considering demand response and energy storage potential flexibilities. IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, 13, 1346–1357.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Manshadi, S. D., et al. (2015). Resilient operation of multiple energy carrier microgrids. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 6, 2283–2292.

    Google Scholar 

  86. You, S., et al. (2009). A market-based virtual power plant. In International conference on clean electrical power Capri. Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Ruiz, N., et al. (2009). A direct load control model for virtual power plant management. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 24, 959–966.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Shi, L., et al. (2014). Bidding strategy of microgrid with consideration of uncertainty for participating in power market. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 59, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Derakhshandeh, S. Y., et al. (2013). Coordination of generation scheduling with PEVs charging in industrial microgrids. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 28, 3451–3461.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Hawkes, A., et al. (2009). Modelling high level system design and unit commitment for a microgrid. Applied Energy, 86, 1253–1265.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Khodaei, A. (2014). Microgrid optimal scheduling with multi-period islanding constraints. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 29, 1383–1392.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Liu, Y., et al. (2015). Control of virtual power plant in microgrids: A coordinated approach based on photovoltaic systems and controllable loads. IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, 9, 921–928.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Logenthiran, T., et al. (2011). Multi-agent system for energy resource scheduling of integrated microgrids in a distributed system. Electric Power Systems Research, 81, 138–148.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Mohammadi, S., et al. (2014). Scenario-based stochastic operation management of microgrid including wind, photovoltaic, micro-turbine, fuel cell and energy storage devices. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 54, 525–535.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Rabiee, A., et al. (2016). Optimal operation of microgrids through simultaneous scheduling of electrical vehicles and responsive loads considering wind and PV units uncertainties. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 57, 721–739.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Zhang, L., et al. (2014). Energy management in a microgrid with distributed energy resources. Energy Conversion and Management, 78, 297–305.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Lasseter, B. (2001). Microgrids [distributed power generation], Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Awerbuch, S., et al. (1997). The virtual utility: Accounting, technology & competitive aspects of the emerging industry. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Boyd, S., et al. (2004). Convex optimization. New York, Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Electrical Engineering, Abbaspour School of Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

    Hossein Nezamabadi, Vahid Vahidinasab & Saeed Salarkheili

  2. Tehran Regional Electric Company (TREC), Tehran, Iran

    Saeed Salarkheili

  3. University of Salerno, Salerno, Italy

    Vahid Hosseinnezhad

  4. Niroo Research Institute (NRI), Tehran, Iran

    Hamidreza Arasteh

Authors
  1. Hossein Nezamabadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vahid Vahidinasab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Saeed Salarkheili
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vahid Hosseinnezhad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hamidreza Arasteh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saeed Salarkheili .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Power System Operation and Planning, Niroo Research Institute (NRI), Tehran, Iran

    Farkhondeh Jabari

  2. Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Department of Energy Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

    Behnam Mohammadi-Ivatloo

  3. Faculty of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

    Mousa Mohammadpourfard

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Nezamabadi, H., Vahidinasab, V., Salarkheili, S., Hosseinnezhad, V., Arasteh, H. (2020). Game Theory Application for Finding Optimal Operating Point of Multi-production System Under Fluctuations of Renewable and Various Load Levels. In: Jabari, F., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., Mohammadpourfard, M. (eds) Integration of Clean and Sustainable Energy Resources and Storage in Multi-Generation Systems. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42420-6_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42420-6_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-42419-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-42420-6

  • eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation