AUTHOR=Hafeez Abdul , Ali Aamir , Keerio M. U. , Mugheri Noor Hussain , Abbas Ghulam , Khan Aamir , Mirsaeidi Sohrab , Yousef Amr , Touti Ezzeddine , Bouzguenda Mounir TITLE=Optimal site and size of FACTS devices with the integration of uncertain wind generation on a solution of stochastic multi-objective optimal power flow problem JOURNAL=Frontiers in Energy Research VOLUME=11 YEAR=2023 URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/energy-research/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2023.1293870 DOI=10.3389/fenrg.2023.1293870 ISSN=2296-598X ABSTRACT=

To reduce the Carbon footprint and reduce emissions from the globe, the world has kicked-off to leave reliance of fossil fuels and generate electrical energy from renewable energy sources. The MOOPF problem is becoming more complex, and the number of decision variables is increasing, with the introduction of power electronics-based Flexible AC Transmission Systems (FACTS) devices. These power system components can all be used to increase controllability, effectiveness, stability, and sustainability. The added uncertainty and variability that FACTS devices and wind generation provide to the power system makes it challenging to find the right solution to MOOPF issues. In order to determine the best combination of control and state variables for the MOOPF problem, this paper develops three cases of competing objective functions. These cases include minimizing the total cost of power produced as well as over- and underestimating the cost of wind generation, emission rate, and the cost of power loss caused by transmission lines. In the case studies, power system optimization is done while dealing with both fixed and variable load scenarios. The proposed algorithm was tested on three different cases with different objective functions. The algorithm achieved an expected cost of $833.014/h and an emission rate of conventional thermal generators of 0.665 t/h in the case 1. In Case 2, the algorithm obtained a minimum cost of $731.419/h for active power generation and a cost of power loss is 124.498 $/h for energy loss. In Case 3, three objective functions were minimized simultaneously, leading to costs of $806.6/h for emissions, 0.647 t/h, and $214.9/h for power loss.