Ribution network. Size/@Bus Case#1 Case#2 Case#3 PHEV 1 2000/@12 PHEV two 2000/@15 1601/@17 1059/@8 PHEV 3 2000/@17 PHEV
Ribution network. Size/@Bus Case#1 Case#2 Case#3 PHEV 1 2000/@12 PHEV 2 2000/@15 1601/@17 1059/@8 PHEV three 2000/@17 PHEV 4 2000/@28 1974/@21 1789/@16 PHEV five 2000/@32 PHEV six 2000/@21 1697/@24 1195/@28 PHEV 7 1059/@32 PHEV eight 2000/@24 1204/@32 The numerical benefits of PV and PHEV sizing and placement inside the 33-bus distribution network incorporate the price of energy loss, cost with the grid, expense of PHEVs, cost of WTs, total expense, voltage deviation, as well as the voltage minimum, that are DNQX disodium salt Autophagy presented in Table 4. The outcomes show that the cost of losses in case 1 as a single-objective OSPF using the aim of minimizing the energy losses is decrease than the other cases. On top of that, the voltage deviation in case two with the objective of voltage deviation minimization is less than situations 1 and three as a single-objective OSPF. The outcomes show that by taking into consideration the cost within the objective function because the third case (total objective function), the system’s total cost is much less than the other cases, as well as the price of power bought in the key grid is significantly reduced in comparison with cases 1 and 2. The price of grid power in circumstances 1, 2, and 3 is USD 47,012, USD 45,876, and USD 29,271. The total price in the multi-objective OSPF in case three is found at USD 31,123, when this cost is USD 48,584 and USD 47,291 in circumstances 1 and 2, respectively. So, the multi-objective OSPF may be the optimal case to enhance the network functionality.Table four. Numerical outcomes of PV and PHEV sizing and placement in the 33-bus distribution network. Item/Case Cost of power loss (USD) Cost of grid (USD) Expense of PHEV (USD) Expense of WTs (USD) Total expense (USD) Voltage deviation (p.u) Case#1 29.68 47012 547.16 995.17 48,584 0.1779 Case#2 31.25 45,876 312.84 1071.22 47,291 0.0504 Case#3 44.60 29,271 201.28 1606.84 31,123 0.four.3. Comparison with the Results 4.3.1. Power Loss Within the base network without wind sources and parking, the quantity of network losses in the 24-h peak period is equal to 950.39 kW, and after the sizing and placement of electric parking lots and wind resources in case 3, the value of losses is decreased to 743.33 kW (21.78 reduction). The variation within the active power loss per hour is also plotted in Figure 10. It may be seen that with all the optimal use of electric parking lots and wind sources, the amount of losses in peak load hour has been lowered from 202.67 kW to 101.30 kW.Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER Review Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEWEnergies 2021, 14,250 250 200 200 150 150 one hundred 100 50 50 0 0 0 0 5 5 10 10 15 20 20 25 Reduce from 202.67 kW to 101.30 kW in peak load Reduce from 202.67 kW to 101.30 kW in peak loadWith WTs and PHEVs Without the need of WTs and PHEVs With WTs and PHEVs With out WTs and PHEVs17 of 22 17 of16 ofTime (hour)Figure ten. Energy losses with and devoid of OSPF by means of the AOA for 24 h. Time (hour)4.3.two. Minimum Voltage four.three.2. Minimum Voltage curve of the 33-bus network is shown in Figure 11, which The minimum voltage four.three.2. Minimum Voltage shows that the minimum voltage on the the 33-bus network is shown andFigure 11, which buses is out of range at 16:00 this voltage is definitely the minimum voltage curve the The minimum voltage curve ofof 33-bus network is shown inin Figure 11, which equal to 0.9134 p.u. In line with Figure 11, utilizing the OSPF, theat 16:00 and this voltage is voltage is placed within the shows that the minimum voltage the buses is out of Thromboxane B2 Biological Activity variety at shows that the minimum voltage ofof the buses is out of range 16:00 and this voltage is allowable variety at all Accordin.
