Integration of Wind power and Energy Storage

in SCUC Problem

Ali Daneshi
Islamic Azad University of Tehran, South Branch
a.daneshi@daryapala.com
Nima Sadrmomtazi
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
nimasm@kth.se
Mojtaba Khederzadeh, Senior Member
Power and Water University, Tehran.Iran
kheder@pwut.ac.ir
Javad Olamaei
Islamic Azad University of Tehran, South Branch
olamaee1345@yahoo.com

Abstract Global concerns over climate change and
sustainability have led to a recent worldwide push
towards electricity derived from renewable and
sustainable resources. Wind power is one of the fastest
growing renewable sources of energy generation in the
U.S. and many other countries. Wind energy is a desirable
resource because its cheap and clean. However, its
intermittent, and the profile of energy generation does not
correlate with the demand cycle. Basically, wind energy is
available when the wind blows, and the power level
depends on wind speed. Therefore, they are not
dispatchable in the traditional sense. As installed wind
capacity grows in a region, the intermittency of wind
energy becomes a significant issue. One possibility to
achieve higher system flexibility and security is energy
storage investment. In this paper, Compressed Air Energy
Storage (CAES) is considered to store electricity. This
study presents a formulation of Security-Constrained Unit
Commitment (SCUC) with integration of a compressed air
energy storage (CAES) and wind generation. A case study
is presented to validate the proposed model.
Keywords renewable energy; compress air energy storage;
wind power generation; security constrained unit
commitment
I. NOMENCLATURE
T: Number of hours for the scheduling period
I: Set of thermal units
N
b
: Number of buses
L: Number of lines
i: Denote a thermal unit
k: Denote a CAES unit
w: Denote a wind unit
t: Time index
l: Line index
bs: Bus index
u
i,t
: Unit status indicator (1 is ON and 0 is OFF)
y
i,t
: Startup indicator
z
i,t
: Shutdown indicator
F
i,t
Production cost function of unit i
P
i,t
: Generation of a unit
,P
i,min
, P
i,max
:Minimum/maximum generating capacity
MU
i
, MD
i
:Minimum up/down time of a unit
RU
i
, RD
i
:Ramping up/down limit of a unit
SD
i,t
: Shutdown cost of unit i at time t
SZT
i,t
: Startup cost of unit i at time t
rs
i,t
: Spinning reserve of a unit
or
i,t
: Operating reserve of a unit
TU
i,0
, TC
i,0
:Number of hours a unit has been on/off at
the beginning of the scheduling period
UT
i
, DT
i
:Number of hours a unit needs to remain on/off
at the beginning of the scheduling period
P
D
(t): Forecasted load at time t
W(t): Forecasted wind power at time t
P
L
(t): System losses at time t
R
S
(t): System spinning reserve requirement at time t
R
O
(t): Line flow at line l
max
l
FL : Maximum line flow
A
k,t+1
: Inventory level at time t+1
A
k,t
: Inventory level at time t
A
max
(h): Maximum capacity of the carven in MWh
A
min
(h): Minimum capacity of the carven in MWh
inj
t k,
v : Amount of injected air in MW at hour t
w
t k,
v : Amount of released air in MW at hour t
w
k
v
min ,
: Minimum amount of released air in MW
w
k
v
max ,
: Maximum amount of released air in MW
inj
k
v
min ,
: Minimum amount of injected air in MW
inj
k
v
max ,
: Maximum amount of injected air in MW
w
k
o : Efficiency factor for producing power
inj
k
o : Efficiency factor for injecting air
II. INTRODUCTION
One of the major reasons for global warming, air
pollution and green house phenomena is an enormous
increase in consumption of fossil fuels. These concerns
result in a worldwide push toward renewable energy
resources.
978-1-4244-8921-3/10/$26.00 2010 IEEE
Increasing electricity generation from an intermittent
and unpredictable renewable resource has caused the
power system to face new obstacles such as power
quality for customers and reliability issues. In recent
years, installation of wind power generation has grown
considerably in comparison to other renewable
resources. Higher variability, lower controllability and
predictability are some of the most challenging issues
that wind power generation faces. Ensuring the
reliability of the network, great flexibility is required
when using wind generation. To overcome the impact
of wind generation on unit commitment and dispatching,
a reserve must be allocated to guarantee the operational
reliability and enhance the security of the system.
Worldwide installed wind power generation is
growing very fast. In 2006, 15.2 GW new wind
generators were installed worldwide, bringing the total
to 74.2 GW of installed wind generation [2]. In 2005, in
the United States, the total capacity increased by 37GW.
By the end of 2009, some good examples of wind
power generation were Texas and Alberta with their
respective 1995 MW and 284.5MW of installed
capacity in early 2006 [3]. In Germany, the total
installed capacity of wind generation was 19300 MW
(June 2006) with new installation of about 900 MW in
the first 3 months of 2006 [4]. Denmark has a total
capacity of a little more than 3,200 MW of wind power
- approximately 2,800 MW from land turbines and 400
MW offshore [5].
Using storage technologies in combination with
green powers is one of the proven solutions for
reducing the negative effects of wind resource on power
systems. Energy storage is able to balance the
fluctuation of power generation and consumption, and
can also be used as a complement to primary generation.
In other words, it can play a multi conception-role in
the efficient management of power generation. In
addition, deriving electricity from storage in load peak
times would lead to a drop in the energy generation
costs, due to the low cost of energy generation.
III. COMPRESSED AIR ENERGY STORAGE
In this paper, Compressed Air Energy Storage
(CAES) is being used as the storage device.
Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) is a proven
technology that has existed nearly 30 years with a
number of successful facilities in the world. CAES uses
low-cost, off-peak energy to store air into an
underground reservoir by means of powering a motor
connected to a compressor. Energy is recaptured after
expansion of the compressed air through a high-
pressure air turbine. During the process, natural gas is
mixed with the air and finally, their mixture is fired in a
low-pressure natural gas turbine. To improve the
efficiency of the system, waste heat is used to preheat
the turbine inlet air by a heat exchanger. Typical
capacities for a CAES system are around 50-300 MW.
The storage period is also the longest due to the fact
that its losses are very small.
The first commercial CAES was a 290 MW unit built
in Hundorf, Germany in 1978. The second commercial
CAES was a 110 MW unit built in McIntosh, Alabama
in 1991 [6]. The third commercial CAES, the largest
ever, is a 2700 MW plant that is planned for
construction in Norton, Ohio. This 9-unit plant will
compress air to 1500 psi in an existing limestone mine
some 2200 feet underground [7].
IV. SCUC FORMULATION
The objective of SCUC in a power system is to
obtain a commitment schedule at a minimum
production cost and observing various unit/system
constraints.
This paper presents a formulation of mixed integer
programming (MIP) for solving the SCUC problem
with emphasis on wind power and CAES. It is assumed
that an appropriate forecasting tool in available to
forecast wind power generation. An optimization model
is developed to determine how an integration of a wind
and CAES facility can decrease cost by allowing the
wind energy to be stored when its not needed or
profitable to use. The advantages of MIP formulation
are:
- A global optimum, instead of a near-global
optimum
- More accurate measure of optimum
- Improved modeling of constraints.
- Capability and adaptability of modeling.
- No heuristic approach.
Furthermore, adding more constraints is easy.
Nonlinearities of the problem can be accurately
incorporated by using piecewise linear approximation,
and no significant efforts are needed to change the
algorithm. In using an MIP formulation, the developers
focus is on the problem definition rather than the
algorithm development.
The main obstacle for applying MIP to large-scale
practical problems has been the required computational
effort. However, recent advances in both computer
hardware and software have revived the application of
MIP to large-scale power system problems as discussed
later in this paper.
As we mentioned, in power systems there is always a
tendency to minimize the costs of supplying energy and
ancillary services. Spinning and non-spinning reserves
are modeled in this paper, while other types of ancillary
services such as regulation up/down and placement
services can be modeled similarly [8]. Generation
scheduling is formulated based on forecasted wind
energy and AS as follows.
The objective function is formulated:

= = = )
`

+ + +
T
t
I
i
K
k
t k t i t i t i
P C SD ST P C Min
1 1 1
, , , ,
) ( ] ) ( [
(1)
The objective is to minimize generation cost. The first
term represents thermal operating costs including fuel,
startup and shutdown costs; the second term represents
the operating cost of CAES units over the given period.
The list of symbols is presented in the Nomenclature
section.
The optimization problem is subject to unit
constraints and network constraints. The constraints
listed, include:
- system real power balance (2),
- system spinning reserve requirement (3),
- system operating reserve requirement (4),
- ramping limits (5-a),(5-b),
- minimum on time limits (6-a),(6-b),
- minimum off time limited (7-a),(7-b),
- active power generation limits (8),
- transmission line flow limit (9).
All other constraints that we may need to consider
can be modeled easily utilizing the generator and
network, which is not the scope of this paper.
t t P t P t W P P
L D
K
k
t k
I
i
t i
+ = + +

= =
) ( ) ( ) (
1
,
1
,
(2)
t t R rs rs
S
K
k
t k
I
i
t i
> +

= =
) (
1
,
1
,
(3)
T ,..., t ) t ( R or or
O
K
k
t , k
I
i
t , i
1
1 1
= > +

= =
(4)
t , i , y P ) y ( RU P P
t , i min , i t , i i t , i t , i
+ s
+
1
1
(5-a)
t , i , z P ) z ( RD P P
t , i min , i t , i i t , i t , i
+ s
+
1
1
(5-b)
i ]}, u ) TU MU ( , T [ MIN , { MAX UT
, i , i i i
=
0 0
0 (6-a)

=
+
=
=
+ = >
+ + = >
=
T
t m
t i m i
MU t
t m
i i t i i m i
UT
t
t i
T MUi T t y U
MU T UT t y MU U
b U
i
i
,......., 2 0 ) (
1 ,......, 1
) 6 ( 0 ) 1 (
, ,
1
, ,
1
,

i u TD MD T MIN MAX DT
i i i i
= )]}, 1 )( ( , [ , 0 {
0 , 0 ,
(7-a)

=
+
=
=
+ = >
+ + = >
=
T
t m
i t i m i
MD t
t m
i i t i i m i
DT
t
t i
T MD T t z U
MD T DT t z MD U
b U
i
i
,......., 2 0 ) 1 (
1 ,......, 1 ) 1 (
) 7 ( 0
, ,
1
, ,
1
,

t , i , u . P P u . P
t , i max , i t , i t , i min , i
s s (8)
T ,..., t FL FL FL
max
l t , l
max
l
1 = s s (9)
Detail formulation of objective function and
constraints are presented in [8] and [9-10]. In this paper,
we focus on the CAES model and its integration with
wind power. In our proposed optimization model the
following modes for CAES are considered:
- Idling: when the CAES is not operating, either as
generator or compressor
- Compressor: when the system load is low, then
electricity is used to compress air into an
underground storage cavern
- Generator: when electricity demand is high, the
compressed air is returned to the surface, heated
by natural gas in combustors and run through
turbine to power the generator and produce
electricity
To include all mentioned modes in our model, the
following integer variables and constraints are
introduced:
u
k,t
: 1 is generation mode and 0 is either idle or
compressor mode.
c
t k
u
,
: 1 is compressor mode and 0 is idle mode.
t k u u
c
t k t k
s + , 1
, ,
(10)
In the case of minimizing the total production cost,
the cost of compression is not really necessary. The
amount of compressed air is indirectly taken care of by
the amount of injection as an additional demand.
Minimization of the total production cost to meet the
demand including compression loads will automatically
impact injection and withdrawal. The cost related to
compression is reflected in generation cost and the
efficiency through co-optimization.
Cost of producing P
k,t
MW of electricity is equal to
the gas price multiplied by the heat rate value for
generating P
k,t
. It can be represented as follows:
w
t k
w
k t k
v P
, ,
=o (11)
inj
t k
inj
k t k
v P
, ,
= o (12)
t k
w
k
w
t k t k
w
k
u v v u v
, max , , , min ,
. . s s (13)
c
t k
inj
k
inj
t k
c
t k
inj
k
u v v u v
, max , , , min ,
. . s s (14)
In compressing mode, the amount of compressed air
is limited to the maximum capacity of the cavern,
minus the current inventory level.
t k v v A A
w
t k
inj
t k t k t k
+ =
+
, ,
, , , 1 ,
(15)
t k k A A k A
t k
s s , , ) ( ) (
max , min
(16)
Mathematically, SCUC is a decision problem with an
objective to be minimized with respect to a series of
prevailing equality and inequality constraints. The
problem is a mixed-integer problem and includes a
large number of integers and continuous variables. A
common way of solving MIP problems is to relax some
coupling constraints and decompose it into several sub
problems. In this paper we used CPLEX package to
solve the problem.
V. CASE STUDY
We used the Modified IEEE 30-Bus system [9] for
simulation as shown in Fig. 1. There are 9 thermal units
(G1G9), one wind unit, a CAES unit, and 41
transmission lines. The wind unit and CAES are located
at bus 10 and 21, respectively; the line between bus 10
and 21 is a short line and has low impedance. The
parameters of generators, buses, transmission lines and
24-hour system load and forecasted wind power are
listed in Tables 2, 3 and 4. The following scenarios are
discussed in this paper:
- Case 1: This is the base case without CAES and
wind units.
- Case 2: In this case, the impact of wind on
system operation is observed. In addition,
generation dispatch and total system operating
cost with and without CAES are compared.
- Case 3: In this case, the impact of CAES on
system operation is observed. In addition,
generation dispatch and total system operating
cost with CAES and wind are discussed.


Fig 1. Modified IEEE 30-Bus system
TABLE 1. PARAMETERS OF CAES
Unit Bus
min
A
max
A
w
v
min

w
v
max

inj
v
min
inj
v
max
CAES 1 100 1000 5 100 5 100

TABLE 2. FORECASTED LOAD DEMAND AND WIND POWER
Hour
Wind
(MW)
Load
(MW)
Hour
Wind
(MW)
Load
(MW)
1
50 320
13
80 369
2
45 310
14
75 358
3
40 302
15
60 354
4
45 304
16
60 351
5
50 323
17
65 356
6
70 346
18
65 364
7
75 363
19
75 373
8
80 373
20
65 359
9
85 379
21
60 347
10
90 386
22
55 338
11
85 381
23
50 328
12
80 377
24
50 324

A. Case 1: SCUC result without wind and CAES
In this case, we assume there is no CAES and wind
power generation. The 24-hour system load and wind
profile are listed in Table 2. We solve the SCUC and
determine the commitment and dispatch of units given
in Table 5 and 8, respectively. It is assumed that the
fuel price is $1/MMBtu and spinning reserve is 7% of
the load. We also consider the transmission line limit.
The cheaper units G4, G5, G6, G7, and G9 are
always committed. The more expensive units G1, G2
and G3 not dispatched and G8 is committed between
hours 6 and 24 to supply the required generating
capacity. Total operating cost is $151,119.09.



TABLE 3. PARAMETERS OF THERMAL UNITS
UNIT G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9
BUS 30 24 11 2 8 5 1 13 15
A 0.0243 0.0163 0.0143 0.0061 0.0089 0.0087 0.0046 0.0103 0.0071
B 49.327 39.889 37.889 18.100 13.353 13.327 10.694 19.327 18.300
C 187.364 128.820 118.820 218.335 81.298 81.136 142.734 287.136 230.00
PMIN 10 5 5 10 10 10 20 10 10
PMAX 20 20 20 80 50 50 100 70 60
ST 70 30 30 100 80 80 200 95 95
RAMP
UP
20 20 20 40 25 25 50 35 30
MIN
ON
3 1 1 4 3 3 5 4 4
MIN
OFF
-2 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -3 -2 -2
INIT -2 -1 -1 -2 3 3 5 -2 4


TABLE 4. TRANSMISSION LINE PARAMETERS
Line
No
From
Bus
To
Bus
X
(p.u.)
Line Flow
Limit (MW)
1 1 2 0.0575 200
2 1 3 0.1852 200
3 2 4 0.1737 200
4 3 4 0.0379 200
5 2 5 0.1983 200
6 2 6 0.1763 200
7 4 6 0.0414 200
8 5 7 0.116 200
9 6 7 0.082 200
10 6 8 0.042 200
11 6 9 0.208 200
12 6 10 0.556 200
13 9 11 0.208 200
14 9 10 0.11 200
15 4 12 0.256 450
16 12 13 0.14 450
17 12 14 0.2559 210
18 12 15 0.1304 210
19 12 16 0.1987 210
20 14 15 0.1997 106
21 16 17 0.1932 106
22 15 18 0.2185 106
23 18 19 0.1292 106
24 19 20 0.068 210
25 10 20 0.209 210
26 10 17 0.0845 210
27 10 21 0.0749 200
28 10 22 0.1499 200
29 21 22 0.0236 200
30 15 23 0.202 106
31 22 24 0.179 200
32 23 24 0.27 106
33 24 25 0.3292 200
34 25 26 0.38 200
35 25 27 0.2087 200
36 28 27 0.396 200
37 27 29 0.4153 200
38 27 30 0.6027 200
39 29 30 0.4533 200
40 8 28 0.2 200
41 6 28 0.0599 200


TABLE 5. SCUC RESULT WITHOUT WIND AND CAES
Total Cost = 151119.09 $
Unit Hours (0-24)
G1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
G5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
G6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
G7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
G8 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
G9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
TABLE 6. SCUC RESULT WITH WIND WITHOUT CAES
Total Cost = 118263.92 $
Unit Hours (0-24)
G1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
G5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
G6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
G7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
G8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G9 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
TABLE 7. SCUC RESULT WITH WIND WITH CAES
Total Cost = 119340.26 $
Unit Hours (0-24)
G1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
G5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
G6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
G7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
G8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G9 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B. Case 2: SCUC result with wind and without CAES
In this case, we assume there is wind power in the
network without CAES. We assumed wind power is
located in the bus 10. Forecasted wind power is
presented in Table 2. We solved the SCUC and
determined the commitment and dispatch of units given
in Table 6 and 9, respectively. The result shows when
we used wind power in the network, generation cost
decreased and the expensive units (G1, G2, G3, and G8)
were not dispatched, Therefore, generation cost is lower
($118,263.92), but using the wind power causes the
reduction of reliability and power quality for customers
than for solving the problem of using CAES with wind
power (Case 3).
C. Case 3: SCUC result with wind and CAES
To observe the impact of CAES, we added a CAES
unit at bus 21. The line between bus 10 and 21 is a short
line and has low impedance. The characteristic of
CAES is presented in Table 1. The maximum power
output from CAES is 100 MW. The efficiency factors
(
w
k
o
,
inj
k
o
) for compression and discharge are 1and 0.9,
respectively. The load and wind profile are the same as
in Case 1and 2. The scheduling results of the CAES
unit are shown in Table 10. In this table, the negative
numbers correspond to periods for compressing air,
while the positive numbers are the discharging or
generating periods. According to the daily load profile,
the CAES and power grid will compress the air during
the off-peak times, when the hourly loads are relatively
low. Then during the peak load times, the CAES will
supply the load.
In this case, the expensive units G1, G2, and G3,
never dispatched, G8 and G9 were usually not
dispatched and the operating cost is $119,340.26. In
this case, the generation cost is more than Case 2. The
difference of the generation cost in Case 2 and Case 3 is
low, however when we used the CAES, the reliability
and power quality improved and this is important. In
our analysis, we are not considering the comparative
capital investment for the installation of CAES.

TABLE 8. GENERATION DISPATCH WITHOUT WIND AND CAES
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9
1 0 0 0 60.4 50 50 100 0 60
2 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 93.7 0 60
3 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 87.3 0 58.3
4 0 0 0 56.5 50 50 87.7 0 60
5 0 0 0 63.4 50 50 100 0 60
6 0 0 0 76.4 50 50 100 10 60
7 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 100 46.7 60
8 0 0 0 63.4 50 50 100 50 60
9 0 0 0 69.4 50 50 100 50 60
10 0 0 0 76.4 50 50 100 50 60
11 0 0 0 71.4 50 50 100 50 60
12 0 0 0 67.4 50 50 100 50 60
13 0 0 0 59.4 50 50 100 50 60
14 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 100 41.7 60
15 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 100 37.7 60
16 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 100 34.7 60
17 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 100 39.7 60
18 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 100 47.7 60
19 0 0 0 63.4 50 50 100 50 60
20 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 100 42.7 60
21 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 100 30.7 60
22 0 0 0 80 50 50 100 48.4 10
23 0 0 0 78.4 50 50 100 50 0
24 0 0 0 74.4 50 50 100 50 0

TABLE 9. GENERATION DISPATCH WITH WIND AND WITHOUT CAES
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9
1 0 0 0 56.6 47.1 50 73.4 0 43.3
2 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 98.7 0 10
3 0 0 0 62.3 50 50 100 0 0
4 0 0 0 59.3 50 50 100 0 0
5 0 0 0 63.4 50 50 100 0 10
6 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 76.4 0 43.3
7 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 80.3 0 51.4
8 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 79.3 0 57.4
9 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 78.3 0 59.4
10 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 79.8 0 60
11 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 79.8 0 60
12 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 80.8 0 60
13 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 80.3 0 52.4
14 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 80.3 0 46.4
15 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 81.3 0 56.4
16 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 82.3 0 52.4
17 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 82.3 0 52.4
18 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 82.7 0 60
19 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 81.8 0 60
20 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 80.3 0 57.4
21 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 82.3 0 48.4
22 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 83.3 0 43.2
23 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 78.4 0 44.3
24 0 0 0 56.6 50 50 74.4 0 44.3

TABLE 10. GENERATION DISPATCH WITH WIND AND CAES
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 CAES
1 0 0 0 80 50 50 100 18.4 60 -88
2 0 0 0 75.5 50 50 100 10 43.3 -63.5
3 0 0 0 80 50 50 100 0 43.3 -60.9
4 0 0 0 44.3 50 50 100 0 10 5
5 0 0 0 68.4 50 50 100 0 0 5
6 0 0 0 71.4 50 50 100 0 0 5
7 0 0 0 80 50 50 100 0 0 8.4
8 0 0 0 80 50 50 100 0 0 13.4
9 0 0 0 80 50 50 100 0 0 14.4
10 0 0 0 80 50 50 100 0 0 16.4
11 0 0 0 80 50 50 100 0 0 16.4
12 0 0 0 80 50 50 100 0 0 17.4
13 0 0 0 80 50 50 100 37.4 60 -88
14 0 0 0 80 50 50 100 10 59.4 -65.9
15 0 0 0 80 50 50 100 0 60 -45.4
16 0 0 0 76.4 50 50 100 0 10 5
17 0 0 0 80 50 50 100 0 0 11.4
18 0 0 0 80 50 50 100 0 0 19.4
19 0 0 0 80 50 50 100 0 0 18.4
20 0 0 0 80 50 50 100 0 0 14.4
21 0 0 0 80 50 50 100 0 0 7.4
22 0 0 0 78.4 50 50 100 0 0 5
23 0 0 0 73.4 50 50 100 0 0 5
24 0 0 0 69.4 50 50 100 0 0 5
V. CONCLUSION
A MIIP-based SCUC problem including wind and a
CAES unit is described in this paper. The case studies
based on the Modified IEEE 30-Bus system indicate
that the application of CAES can impact peak load
reduction, system operating costs, commitment and
dispatch of the units. Much of the benefits listed here
will depend on the MW size of the CAES. Also, the
results show that when we used the CAES in the
network, the reliability and power quality was increased,
and generation cost was reduced.
VI. REFERENCES
[1] A. J. Wood, and B. F. Wollenberg, Power Generation
Operation and Control, John Wiley and Sons, 1996.
[2] E. Spahic, G. Balzer, B. Hellmich, and W. Munch, Wind
energy storage possibilities , Power Tech, IEEE Lausanne,
1-5 July 2007, pp: 615 620.
[3] F. Bouffard, and F. D. Galiana, Stochastic security for
operation planning with significant wind power generation,
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 23, No. 2, March
2008.
[4] P. Siemens, H. J. Haubrich, H. Vennegeerts, and S. Ohrem,
Concepts for the improved integration of wind power into the
German interconnected system, Published in IET Renewable
Power Generation, 2008,Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 2633.
[5] http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/home--about-the-
project.html
[6] BINE informationsdienst, Compressed air energy storage
power plants, projektinfo 05/2007, FIZ Karlsruhe GmbH,
Buro Bonn Kaiserstrabe 185-197
[7] http://electricitystorage.org/tech/technologies_technologies_ca
es.htm
[8] Z. Li, and M. Shahidehpour, Security-constrained unit
commitment for simultaneous clearing of energy and ancillary
services markets, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol.
20, No. 2, May 2005.
[9] M. Shahidehpour, H. Yamin, and Z. Li, Market operations in
electric power systems, John Wiley and Sons, 2002.
[10] T. Li, and M. Shahidehpour, Price-based unit commitment: A
case of Lagrangian relaxation versus mixed integer
programming, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 20,
November 2005.