A Computationally Efficient Benders Decomposition for Energy Systems Planning Problems with Detailed Operations and Time-Coupling Constraints

References

• An K (2020) Battery electric bus infrastructure planning under demand uncertainty. Transportation Res. Part C Emerg. Tech. 111:572–587.Google Scholar
• Bezanson J, Edelman A, Karpinski S, Shah VB (2017) Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing. SIAM Rev. 59(1):65–98.Google Scholar
• Bistline J, Abhyankar N, Blanford G, Clarke L, Fakhry R, McJeon H, Reilly J, et al. (2022) Actions for reducing us emissions at least 50% by 2030. Science 376(6596):922–924.Google Scholar
• Brown T, Schlachtberger D, Kies A, Schramm S, Greiner M (2018) Synergies of sector coupling and transmission reinforcement in a cost-optimised, highly renewable European energy system. Energy 160:720–739.Google Scholar
• Cho S, Li C, Grossmann IE (2022) Recent advances and challenges in optimization models for expansion planning of power systems and reliability optimization. Comput. Chemical Engrg. 165:107924.Google Scholar
• Donohoo-Vallett PE (2014) Design of wide-area electric transmission networks under uncertainty: Methods for dimensionality reduction. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Dunning I, Huchette J, Lubin M (2017) JuMP: A modeling language for mathematical optimization. SIAM Rev. 59(2):295–320.Google Scholar
• Frew BA, Jacobson MZ (2016) Temporal and spatial tradeoffs in power system modeling with assumptions about storage: An application of the power model. Energy 117:198–213.Google Scholar
• Frysztacki MM, Recht G, Brown T (2022) A comparison of clustering methods for the spatial reduction of renewable electricity optimisation models of Europe. Energy Inform. 5(1):4.Google Scholar
• Han P, Xiong X, Zeng D, Feng Y, Zhao L, Yan Z (2021) Comprehensive evaluation of various linear programming solvers for SCED in power systems. 2021 IEEE 5th Conf. Energy Internet Energy System Integration (EI2) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ), 1058–1062.Google Scholar
• He G, Mallapragada DS, Bose A, Heuberger-Austin CF, Gençer E (2021) Sector coupling via hydrogen to lower the cost of energy system decarbonization. Energy Environ. Sci. 14(9):4635–4646.Google Scholar
• Helistö N, Kiviluoma J, Morales-España G, O’Dwyer C (2021) Impact of operational details and temporal representations on investment planning in energy systems dominated by wind and solar. Appl. Energy 290:116712.Google Scholar
• Lara CL, Mallapragada DS, Papageorgiou DJ, Venkatesh A, Grossmann IE (2018) Deterministic electric power infrastructure planning: Mixed-integer programming model and nested decomposition algorithm. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 271(3):1037–1054.Google Scholar
• Larson E, Greig C, Jenkins J, Mayfield E, Pascale A, Zhang C, Drossman J, et al. (2021) Net zero America: Potential pathways, infrastructure, and impacts. Final report summary, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
• Li C, Conejo AJ, Liu P, Omell BP, Siirola JD, Grossmann IE (2022) Mixed-integer linear programming models and algorithms for generation and transmission expansion planning of power systems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 297(3):1071–1082.Google Scholar
• Lohmann T, Rebennack S (2017) Tailored benders decomposition for a long-term power expansion model with short-term demand response. Management Sci. 63(6):2027–2048.Link, Google Scholar
• Mallapragada DS, Sepulveda NA, Jenkins JD (2020) Long-run system value of battery energy storage in future grids with increasing wind and solar generation. Appl. Energy 275:115390.Google Scholar
• Mallapragada DS, Papageorgiou DJ, Venkatesh A, Lara CL, Grossmann IE (2018) Impact of model resolution on scenario outcomes for electricity sector system expansion. Energy 163:1231–1244.Google Scholar
• Mittelmann H (2023) Benchmarks for optimization software. Accessed May 1, 2023, http://plato.asu.edu/bench.html.Google Scholar
• Munoz FD, Hobbs BF, Watson JP (2016) New bounding and decomposition approaches for MILP investment problems: Multi-area transmission and generation planning under policy constraints. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 248(3):888–898.Google Scholar
• Naderi MJ, Pishvaee MS (2017) A stochastic programming approach to integrated water supply and wastewater collection network design problem. Comput. Chemical Engrg. 104:107–127.Google Scholar
• Neumann F, Hagenmeyer V, Brown T (2022) Assessments of linear power flow and transmission loss approximations in coordinated capacity expansion problems. Appl. Energy 314:118859.Google Scholar
• Palmintier BS, Webster MD (2013) Heterogeneous unit clustering for efficient operational flexibility modeling. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 29(3):1089–1098.Google Scholar
• Palmintier BS, Webster MD (2015) Impact of operational flexibility on electricity generation planning with renewable and carbon targets. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy. 7(2):672–684.Google Scholar
• Patankar N, Jenkins J (2020) Land use, transmission expansion, and supply chain scale-up implications of alternative scenarios for 100% carbon-free electricity generation in the American west. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, 2020:GC080-08.Google Scholar
• Pfenninger S (2017) Dealing with multiple decades of hourly wind and PV time series in energy models: A comparison of methods to reduce time resolution and the planning implications of inter-annual variability. Appl. Energy 197:1–13.Google Scholar
• Poncelet K, Delarue E, D’haeseleer W (2020) Unit commitment constraints in long-term planning models: Relevance, pitfalls and the role of assumptions on flexibility. Appl. Energy 258:113843.Google Scholar
• Poncelet K, Delarue E, Six D, Duerinck J, D’haeseleer W (2016) Impact of the level of temporal and operational detail in energy-system planning models. Appl. Energy 162:631–643.Google Scholar
• Ricks W, Norbeck J, Jenkins J (2022) The value of in-reservoir energy storage for flexible dispatch of geothermal power. Appl. Energy 313:118807.Google Scholar
• Ricks W, Xu Q, Jenkins JD (2023) Minimizing emissions from grid-based hydrogen production in the United States. Environ. Res. Lett. 18(1):014025.Google Scholar
• Ringkjøb HK, Haugan PM, Solbrekke IM (2018) A review of modelling tools for energy and electricity systems with large shares of variable renewables. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 96:440–459.Google Scholar
• Schivley G, Welty E, Patankar N (2021) Powergenome/powergenome: v0.4.0 (v0.4.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4426097.Google Scholar
• Sepulveda NA (2020) Decarbonization of power systems, multi-stage decision-making with policy and technology uncertainty. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Shah NK, Ierapetritou MG (2012) Integrated production planning and scheduling optimization of multisite, multiproduct process industry. Comput. Chemical Engrg. 37:214–226.Google Scholar
• Siala K, Mahfouz MY (2019) Impact of the choice of regions on energy system models. Energy Strategy Rev. 25:75–85.Google Scholar
• Victoria M, Zeyen E, Brown T (2022) Speed of technological transformations required in Europe to achieve different climate goals. Joule 6(5):1066–1086.Google Scholar
• Victoria M, Zhu K, Brown T, Andresen GB, Greiner M (2020) The role of photovoltaics in a sustainable European energy system under variable CO2 emissions targets, transmission capacities, and costs assumptions. Prog Photovoltaics Res. Appl. 28(6):483–492.Google Scholar
• Xu Q, Hobbs BF (2019) Value of model enhancements: Quantifying the benefit of improved transmission planning models. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 13(13):2836–2845.Google Scholar