Microsoft Word - ETASR_V11_N5_pp7585-7590 Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 11, No. 5, 2021, 7585-7590 7585 www.etasr.com Alshammari et al.: A New Particle Swarm Optimization Based Strategy for the Economic Emission … A New Particle Swarm Optimization Based Strategy for the Economic Emission Dispatch Problem Including Wind Energy Sources Gharbi A. Alshammari Department of Electrical Engineering University of Hail Hail, Saudi Arabia gharbi.a.alshammari@gmail.com Badr M. Alshammari Department of Electrical Engineering University of Hail Hail, Saudi Arabia bms.alshammari@uoh.edu.sa Fahd A. Alshammari Department of Electrical Engineering University of Hail Hail, Saudi Arabia fahad.a.s.alshammari@gmail.com Ahmed S. Alshammari Department of Electrical Engineering University of Hail Hail, Saudi Arabia ahm.alshammari@uoh.edu.sa Tawfik Guesmi Department of Electrical Engineering University of Hail Hail, Saudi Arabia tawfik.guesmi@istmt.rnu.tn Naif A. Alshammari Department of Electrical Engineering University of Hail Hail, Saudi Arabia naif.a.s.alshammari@gmail.com Abstract-Power dispatch has become an important issue due to the high integration of Wind Power (WP) in power grids. Within this context, this paper presents a new Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) based strategy for solving the stochastic Economic Emission Dispatch Problem (EEDP). This problem was solved considering several constraints such as power balance, generation limits, and Valve Point Loading Effects (VPLEs). The power balance constraint is described by a chance constraint to consider the impact of WP intermittency on the EEDP solution. In this study, the chance constraint represents the tolerance that the power balance constraint cannot meet. The suggested framework was successfully evaluated on a ten-unit system. The problem was solved for various threshold tolerances to study further the impact of WP penetration. Keywords-economic emission dispatch; wind energy; stochastic optimization; particle swarm optimization I. INTRODUCTION Wind energy has expanded rapidly the recent years at a global level. Wind power is becoming more and more economically competitive compared to conventional energy production methods due to improvements in turbine efficiency and rising fuel prices [1]. In addition, wind energy sources are growing at a rapid pace reaching a technical maturity that allows them to become important components of the energy industry. On the other hand, the inclusion of wind energy in power grids introduced new challenges. The high penetration of wind energy has a significant impact on system security due to its intermittent characteristics [2]. One of these challenges is the power dispatch problem. In general, the dispatch problem aims to find the optimal generation of all generators and sources minimizing energy production cost and system losses. In addition, global warming and increased initiatives to protect the environment are forcing producers to reduce the gas emissions produced by fossil fuel combustion in power stations. The fuels used in thermal power stations (coal, fuel oil, natural gas, etc.) produce harmful gases like carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxides (NOx) which are toxic and cause the greenhouse effect. Thus, the reduction of the emission of these gases during electricity production has become a primordial task [3]. Several studies combined the economic and environmental aspects in one problem called Economic Emission Dispatch Problem (EEDP) [4-5], considering several constraints such as generation capacity, power balance, and Valve Point Loading Effects (VPLE) [4-5]. Various methods have been suggested in the past two decades to solve this nonlinear and nonconvex problem. For instance, classical techniques such as dynamic programming [6], linear programming [7], lambda iteration [8], and interior-point [9] have been widely used for solving the dispatch problem. However, in these techniques, the fuel cost was approximated by a quadratic, and VPLE constraints were neglected. In addition, these conventional methods were iterative and required an initial solution which may affect the convergence of the employed method and produce only local solutions. Various intelligent optimization methods were presented to overcome the limitations of classical methods, like the Genetic Algorithm (GA) [10], Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) [11], Bacterial Foraging Algorithm (BFA) [12], Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) [13], Differential Evolution (DE) [14], and Simulated Annealing (SA) [15]. In general, these meta- heuristic techniques have achieve good results in solving Corresponding author: Tawfik Guesmi Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 11, No. 5, 2021, 7585-7590 7586 www.etasr.com Alshammari et al.: A New Particle Swarm Optimization Based Strategy for the Economic Emission … various engineering problems. However, the aforementioned techniques minimized fuel cost and emissions by seeking the optimal production of the existing thermal units. At the moment, wind energy has attracted much attention in the power sector due to its zero fuel cost and emissions. Hence, the inclusion of wind power in the EEDP formulation has gained wide attention. In [16], a new mathematical formulation was developed based on the here-and-now approach for the stochastic EEDP integrating WP sources. The intermittency of wind power was described by the Weibull distribution function. The same approach was extended for the dynamic EEDP in [17]. Various fuzzy membership functions were suggested in [18], taking into account that system security may be affected by the randomness of wind power, to describe the dispatcher’s attitude regarding WP penetration. Two objective functions, based on operational cost and risk level, were considered and minimized using a PSO-based method, but emissions were not included in the problem formulation. The risk level of WP uncertainty was considered in [19], incorporating VPLE in the cost function. Fuzzy quadratic functions that described dispatcher’s attitudes were investigated in [20] to determine the quantity of additional WP to minimize generation cost without affecting system security. The effect of fluctuations of WP on the EEDP was modeled in [21] by over- and under-estimation costs of available WP, where a hybrid algorithm combining PSO and gravitational search was used to minimize the objective functions. In [22], the under- and over-estimation costs of uncertain WP were also included in the total production cost, using an improved fireworks algorithm to find the optimal generation. The randomness of WP was modeled by a chance constraint in the dispatch problem formulation to avoid the over- and under-estimation costs in [23], where WP was represented by a Weibull distribution function, and the impact of WP penetration on the total fuel cost and emissions was studied and analyzed. In recent years, PSO-based techniques have been favored by researchers due to their low parameter number, convergence rate, and easy implementation. PSO was introduced in [24] as an efficient optimization tool for complex optimization problems. This study presents a new PSO-based strategy for solving the stochastic EEDP incorporating a wind farm. At first, the problem is formulated as a stochastic optimization problem. Then, the stochastic constraint, which describes power balance, was converted to a deterministic constraint. The Weibull distribution function was used to describe the randomness of WP. The PSO algorithm was used to solve the obtained deterministic problem. The effectiveness of the proposed method was tested on a 10-unit system, investigating the cases with and without WP sources. Moreover, the impact of WP penetration rate was studied. II. PROBLEM FORMULATION The EEDP is treated as a multi-objective mathematical programming problem that attempts to minimize both cost and emissions simultaneously while satisfying equality and inequality constraints. The following objectives and constraints were taken into account in the EEDP problem formulation: A. Objective Functions The thermal units with multi-steam admission valves that work sequentially to cover the ever-increasing generation increase the nonlinearity order of the total fuel cost due to the VPLE, as illustrated in Figure 1. Fig. 1. Fuel cost function with five valves (A, B, C, D, E). The fuel cost function of a thermal generator, considering the VPLE, is expressed as the sum of a quadratic and a sinusoidal function. Thus, the total fuel cost in terms of real power output can be expressed as [23]: �� = ∑ �� + �� � + � ���� � + ��� ������� ���� − ���� (1) where ai, bi, ci, di, and ei are the cost coefficients of the i-th unit, Pi is the output power in MW, and the total cost CT is in $/h. The second objective function considered is the atmospheric pollutants such as sulfur (SOx) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) caused by fossil-fueled generator units. This can be modeled as the summation of a quadratic polynomial and an exponential function [23]: �� = ∑ �� + �� � + �� �!� + "� �#$ %� �!�� � (2) where ai, βι, γi, ηι , and ξi are the emission coefficients, and the total emission is in ton/h. In several works, the bi-objective EEDPs were converted into a mono-objective optimization problem [3], and the Price Penalty Factor (PPF) based method was adopted. Thus, the combined economic-emission objective function can be described by: &� = '�� + 1 − '!)�� (3) where, ' = rand 0,1! , FT will be minimized for each generated value of µ to obtain the optimal solution that can be a nominee solution in the Pareto front, and λ is the average of the PPF thermal units. As shown in (4), the PPF of the i-th unit is the rate between its fuel cost and its emission for maximum generation capacity, and (5) gives the expression of λ. )� = 0123451234 (4) ) = �� ∑ )��� � (5) B. Problem Constraints The EEDP can be solved by minimizing the FT defined in (3) for the following constraints [23]: Generation (MW) F u e l c o s t ($ /h ) Without VPLE With VPLE E C A B D Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 11, No. 5, 2021, 7585-7590 7587 www.etasr.com Alshammari et al.: A New Particle Swarm Optimization Based Strategy for the Economic Emission … • Generation Capacity: Because of the unit design, the real power output of each unit i should be within its minimum ���� and maximum limit ��78: ���� ≤ � ≤ ��78 � = 1, … , ; (6) • Real power balance constraints: The total of real power generation must balance the predicted power demand Pd plus the real power losses PL in the transmission lines, at each time interval over the scheduling horizon: ∑ �< − =< − ><�� � = 0 ? = 1, . . . , A (7) PL can be calculated using a constant loss formula [4]: >< = ∑ ∑ �B�C C + ∑ BD� � + BDD�� ��C ��� � (8) where Bij, Boi, and Boo are the loss parameters also called B- coefficients. • Prohibited Operating Zones (POZ) constraints: The POZ constraints are described as: �< ∈ F � ��� ≤ � ≤ �,�GDH� �,IJ�KL ≤ � ≤ �,IGDH�  , N = 2, . . . , P� �,Q1KL ≤ � ≤ ��78 (9) where �,IGDH� and �,IKL are the down and up bounds of POZ number k, and iz is the number of POZ for the i-th unit due to the vibrations in the shaft or other mechanical faults. Therefore, the machine has discontinuous input-output characteristics [4]. C. Description of WP Randomness A major challenge in integrating wind power output into a power network is its uncertainty, fluctuation, and intermittent nature. Hence, WP output should be expressed as a stochastic variable utilizing a transformation from wind speed to power output. A simplified linear piecewise function can describe the actual relationship between them when ignoring some minor nonlinear factors. This study adopts the two-factor Weibull distribution [16]. The main advantage of this distribution type is that if its parameters are specified at a given altitude, they can be found for another one. The Probability Density Function (PDF) and the Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) of wind speed are described by (10) and (11), respectively: RS T! = IU VWUXIJ� �#$ Y− VWUXIZ (10) &S T! = [ RS \!W] �\ = 1 − �#$ ^− VWUXI_ ,   T ≥ 0 (11) where, k and c are positive parameters called shape and scale factors for a given location, respectively. The speed-power characteristic of the wind turbine can be described by: a = b c! = 0,  if  c < T��  or  c > TDK< (12) ( ) ( ) ifφ − = = ≤ < − in r in r r in V v w W V v V v v v (13) ( ) , ifφ= = ≤ } ≤ s} (16) where Pr(x) is the probability of event x, W is the WP output of the wind farm, and σ is the tolerance that power balance between total generation, load, and total system losses cannot meet. III. THE PSO ALGORITHM PSO is considered an efficient and robust method that can be applied to nonlinear optimization problems and more particularly on electrical systems [25-26]. This algorithm ignores several conditions, such as differentiability and continuity regardless of the objective functions and the constraints to be optimized or respected. For an optimization problem with n decision variables, the i-th particle at iteration k is presented by its position t�I = �t��I , … , t��I � that is considered as a candidate solution and velocity c�I =�c��I, … , c��I �. At the next generation k+1, the velocity and the position of this particle will be updated according to: c�Iu� = gc�I + �h� �$���?�I − t�I � + �h� �v���?I − t�I � (17) t�Iu� = t�I + c�Iu� (18) where, w, c1, and c2 are the PSO parameters, r1 and r2 are random numbers in the range [0,1], and $���?�I and v���?I are the best solution of the i-th particle and the overall population at the k-th iteration respectively. At each iteration k, the inertia weight w used for balancing between local and global searches can be calculated as: g = g�78 − H 234 JH 21p I234 ∗ N (19) where N�78 is the maximum number of iterations, and g�78 and g��� are the upper and lower bounds of w. From (19), it is clear that g�78 is the initial value of the inertia weight while g��� is its final value. IV. SIMULATION AND RESULTS Two cases were studied to verify the effectiveness of the suggested strategy for solving the EEDP including a wind farm. Simulations were carried out on MATLAB R2009a installed on a PC with an i7-4510U@2.60GHz CPU. The studied cases were: A ten-unit system without a wind farm Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 11, No. 5, 2021, 7585-7590 7588 www.etasr.com Alshammari et al.: A New Particle Swarm Optimization Based Strategy for the Economic Emission … (Case 1) and a ten-unit system with a wind farm (Case 2). All data of both systems were taken from [3, 23]. The wind parameters are shown in Table I. TABLE I. WIND PARAMETERS K C vin vout vr 1.7 15 5 45 15 A. Case 1 Since the EEDP is a multi-objective optimization problem, a set of non-dominated solutions is required. Table II shows a list of non-dominated solutions obtained for various values of µ ranging from 0 to 1. From Table II, it can be noted that as µ increases, the total production cost decreases and the total emissions increase. The convergence characteristics of the proposed PSO-based technique for the economic (µ=1) and the emission (µ=0) dispatch problems are shown in Figure 2. The Pareto-front resulted from the PSO-based strategy is depicted in Figure 3. The best economic dispatch solution correspond to 111498.49$/h fuel cost and 4567.27ton/h total emissions, while the best emission dispatch solution corresponds to 3932.24ton/h total emissions and 116412.49 $/h total fuel cost. Το further test the effectiveness of the proposed method, the simulation results obtained using the proposed PSO-based method were compared with various algorithms. From Table III, it is clear that the proposed PSO method outperforms the others in solving power dispatch problems. (a) for µ=1 (b) for µ=0 Fig. 2. Convergence characteristics of the proposed method (case 1). TABLE II. PARETO SOLUTIONS FOR VARIOUS VALUES OF µ (CASE 1). λλλλ 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 P1 55.0000 55.0000 55.0000 55.0000 55.0000 55.0000 55.0000 55.0000 55.0000 55.0000 54.9736 P2 80.0000 80.0000 79.9999 80.0000 80.0000 80.0000 80.0000 80.0000 80.0000 79.9980 80.0000 P3 81.1292 81.1079 81.0693 81.8332 83.0377 84.7423 86.7683 88.4989 90.57678 98.1322 106.2337 P4 81.3701 81.1322 80.8085 81.2860 82.1286 83.4244 84.9239 85.9500 87.2575 93.1849 100.3274 P5 160.0000 160.0000 160.0000 160.0000 160.0000 143.7728 126.1284 109.9550 96.7236 88.4957 82.5885 P6 240.0000 240.0000 240.0000 219.5599 189.0966 164.2697 142.7271 121.8599 103.5178 92.2169 82.98739 P7 294.4776 292.2409 289.7346 291.3277 294.5846 299.5123 300.0000 300.0000 300.0000 299.9786 299.9923 P8 297.2982 296.9563 296.5578 300.8168 307.3015 315.4370 321.2987 327.2378 333.8038 340.0000 340.0000 P9 396.7566 398.0034 399.4279 406.0273 415.3302 427.8233 442.3925 456.2269 469.9842 470.0000 469.9574 P10 395.5627 397.2015 399.1011 406.2881 416.3488 429.8128 445.6171 461.2196 469.9878 469.9907 469.9736 CT 116412.49 116399.01 116384.25 115599.76 114608.47 113504.92 112644.77 112023.28 111650.66 111530.31 111498.49 ET 3932.2432 3932.3162 3932.5799 3961.3722 4014.4321 4105.6762 4210.6645 4325.7406 4434.2593 4501.6670 4567.2691 PL 81.5947 81.6424 81.6993 82.1394 82.8283 83.7950 84.8563 85.9483 86.8517 86.9972 87.0343 Fig. 3. Pareto-front (case 1). TABLE III. SIMULATION RESULTS OBTAINED FOR CASE 1. Best cost Best emission Cost ($/h) Emission (ton/h) Cost ($/h) Emission (ton/h) PSO 111498.49 4567.27 116412.49 3932.24 DE 111565.71 4572.68 116418.34 3946.24 FA 111500.79 4581.00 116443.05 3932.62 B. Case 2 In this case, a wind farm with a rated power of wr=1.0pu on a 100MVA base was incorporated in the ten-unit system. The problem was solved for various values of the tolerance σ to investigate the impact of the penetration level of WP on the EEDP solutions. Figure 4 shows the convergence characteristics of production cost (µ=1) and emissions (µ=0) for σ=0.3. B e st C o st ( $ /h ) Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 11, No. 5, 2021, 7585-7590 7589 www.etasr.com Alshammari et al.: A New Particle Swarm Optimization Based Strategy for the Economic Emission … TABLE IV. PARETO SOLUTIONS FOR VARIOUS VALUES OF µ (CASE 2 – σ = 0.3). λλλλ 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 P1 55.0000 55.0000 55.0000 54.9927 54.9975 55.0000 55.0000 55.0000 55.0000 55.0000 55.0000 P2 79.3793 79.0572 79.2443 80.0000 79.9935 80.0000 80.0000 80.0000 80.0000 80.0000 79.9671 P3 79.2368 79.1410 79.1944 95.6866 89.4404 87.6390 86.3276 84.6486 83.0527 81.3265 80.1881 P4 79.4393 78.8639 79.1835 87.6092 85.3617 84.0826 83.7210 82.7481 81.6908 80.3916 79.6187 P5 160.0000 160.0000 160.0000 71.2762 80.4537 91.7389 105.7879 120.9868 138.6410 158.8935 160.0000 P6 240.0000 240.0000 240.0000 70.2414 82.0695 97.1504 116.1033 135.7649 157.5176 180.8750 210.0817 P7 283.2762 278.7705 281.1587 299.6879 296.3502 294.8372 296.4263 2.9430731 290.9290 285.5700 282.3278 P8 285.6298 285.0466 285.3679 337.1601 327.7143 319.2092 316.2059 314.8193 306.9338 297.6583 291.2683 P9 384.6910 387.3684 385.9387 470.0000 469.9934 459.1521 444.9970 431.0097 418.3983 405.4202 396.0864 P10 383.5466 387.0554 385.1589 469.9973 469.9908 466.8807 450.0184 434.2659 420.3902 406.4300 396.3520 CT 113553.68 113527.38 113541.18 108361.08 108398.65 108566.61 108947.91 109504.42 110317.96 111457.33 112401.88 ET 3752.5080 3752.8219 3752.5756 4411.1741 4341.4299 4251.0979 4136.8332 4033.7302 3934.7089 3841.9554 3791.0480 PL 77.4441 77.5478 77.4915 83.8963 83.6103 82.9351 81.8324 80.7956 79.7983 78.8100 78.1351 (a) µ=1 (b) µ=0 Fig. 4. Convergence characteristics for case 2 (σ=0.3). The Pareto solutions for various values of the weight factor, ranging from 0 to 1, are presented in Table IV. Meanwhile, the Pareto-front for this case is shown in Figure 5. Figure 6 illustrates the impact of the variation of the tolerance on the minimum fuel cost and the total emission functions. From this Figure, it is obvious that the more the tolerance that power balance constraint cannot meet is, the less the cost and emissions are because the more the tolerance is, the more the WP penetration is. V. CONCLUSION This study presented a PSO-based strategy for solving the multi-objective EEDP incorporating wind energy sources. The power balance constraint was converted into a chance constraint and the intermittency of WP was described by the Weibull distribution to consider the stochastic characteristic of WP. This chance constraint represents the probability that the power balance constraint cannot meet. Fig. 5. Pareto-front for case 2 (σ=0.3). Fig. 6. Impact of the tolerance on the EEDP solutions (case 2). Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 11, No. 5, 2021, 7585-7590 7590 www.etasr.com Alshammari et al.: A New Particle Swarm Optimization Based Strategy for the Economic Emission … The EEDP was solved using a PSO-based method depending on several operating constraints such as generators, limits, valve point loading effects, and real power losses. Simulation results, performed on a 69-bus ten-unit system, showed that the level of available wind power (WP) was highly dependent on the threshold tolerance. The results also showed the effectiveness of the proposed optimization method for solving the non-convex EEDP. REFERENCES [1] P. D. Chung, "Evaluation of Reactive Power Support Capability of Wind Turbines," Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 5211–5216, Feb. 2020, https://doi.org/10.48084/ etasr.3260. [2] J. Jin, D. Zhou, P. Zhou, and Z. Miao, "Environmental/economic power dispatch with wind power," Renewable Energy, vol. 71, pp. 234–242, Nov. 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.05.045. [3] R. Dong and S. Wang, "New Optimization Algorithm Inspired by Kernel Tricks for the Economic Emission Dispatch Problem With Valve Point," IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 16584–16594, 2020, https://doi.org/ 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2965725. [4] M. Basu, "Dynamic economic emission dispatch using nondominated sorting genetic algorithm-II," International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 140–149, Feb. 2008, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2007.06.009. [5] D. Zou, S. Li, Z. Li, and X. Kong, "A new global particle swarm optimization for the economic emission dispatch with or without transmission losses," Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 139, pp. 45–70, May 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.02.035. [6] Z. X. Liang and J. D. Glover, "A zoom feature for a dynamic programming solution to economic dispatch including transmission losses," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 544– 550, May 1992, https://doi.org/10.1109/59.141757. [7] G. W. Chang et al., "Experiences with mixed integer linear programming based approaches on short-term hydro scheduling," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 743–749, Nov. 2001, https://doi.org/10.1109/59.962421. [8] J. B. Park, K. S. Lee, J. R. Shin, and K. Y. Lee, "A particle swarm optimization for economic dispatch with nonsmooth cost functions," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 34–42, Feb. 2005, https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2004.831275. [9] G. L. Torres and V. H. Quintana, "On a nonlinear multiple-centrality- corrections interior-point method for optimal power flow," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 222–228, May 2001, https://doi.org/10.1109/59.918290. [10] P. Jain, K. K. Swarnkar, and S. Wadhwani, "Prohibited Operating Zones Constraint with Economic Load Dispatch Using Genetic Algorithm," International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 179–183, Jan. 2012. [11] Ι. Marouani, A. Boudjemline, T. Guesmi, and H. H. Abdallah, "A Modified Artificial Bee Colony for the Non-Smooth Dynamic Economic/Environmental Dispatch," Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 3321–3328, Oct. 2018, https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.2098. [12] N. Pandit, A. Tripathi, S. Tapaswi, and M. Pandit, "An improved bacterial foraging algorithm for combined static/dynamic environmental economic dispatch," Applied Soft Computing, vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 3500– 3513, Nov. 2012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2012.06.011. [13] K. Tlijani, T. Guesmi, and H. H. Abdallah, "Extended Dynamic Economic Environmental Dispatch using Multi-Objective Particle Swarm Optimization," International Journal on Electrical Engineering and Informatics, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 117–131, Mar. 2016, https://doi.org/ 10.15676/ijeei.2016.8.1.9. [14] A. Srinivasa Reddy and K. Vaisakh, "Shuffled differential evolution for economic dispatch with valve point loading effects," International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 46, pp. 342–352, Mar. 2013, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2012.10.012. [15] I. Ziane, F. Benhamida, A. Graa, "Simulated annealing algorithm for combined economic and emission power dispatch using max/max price penalty factor," Neural Comput Appl, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 197–205, 2017. [16] X. Liu and W. Xu, "Economic Load Dispatch Constrained by Wind Power Availability: A Here-and-Now Approach," IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 2–9, Apr. 2010, https://doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2010.2044817. [17] M. H. Alham, M. Elshahed, D. K. Ibrahim, and E. E. D. Abo El Zahab, "A dynamic economic emission dispatch considering wind power uncertainty incorporating energy storage system and demand side management," Renewable Energy, vol. 96, pp. 800–811, Oct. 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.05.012. [18] L. Wang and C. Singh, "Balancing risk and cost in fuzzy economic dispatch including wind power penetration based on particle swarm optimization," Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 78, no. 8, pp. 1361–1368, Aug. 2008, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2007.12.005. [19] F. Yao, Z. Y. Dong, K. Meng, Z. Xu, H. H.-C. Iu, and K. P. Wong, "Quantum-Inspired Particle Swarm Optimization for Power System Operations Considering Wind Power Uncertainty and Carbon Tax in Australia," IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 880–888, Nov. 2012, https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2012.2210431. [20] M. H. Aliabadi, S. Javadi, E. Tafehi, and A. Bakhtiari, "Risk Analysis and Economic Load Dispatch Evaluation of Network with High Wind Power Penetration," International Journal of Smart Electrical Engineering, vol. 3, no. 02, pp. 79–85, Apr. 2014. [21] S. Jiang, C. Zhang, W. Wu, and S. Chen, "Combined Economic and Emission Dispatch Problem of Wind-Thermal Power System Using Gravitational Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2019, Nov. 2019, Art. no. e5679361, https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5679361. [22] V. K. Jadoun, V. C. Pandey, N. Gupta, K. R. Niazi, and A. Swarnkar, "Integration of renewable energy sources in dynamic economic load dispatch problem using an improved fireworks algorithm," IET Renewable Power Generation, vol. 12, no. 9, pp. 1004–1011, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-rpg.2017.0744. [23] T. Guesmi, A. Farah, I. Marouani, B. Alshammari, and H. H. Abdallah, "Chaotic sine–cosine algorithm for chance-constrained economic emission dispatch problem including wind energy," IET Renewable Power Generation, vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 1808–1821, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-rpg.2019.1081. [24] J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart, "Particle swarm optimization," in Proceedings of ICNN’95 - International Conference on Neural Networks, Nov. 1995, vol. 4, pp. 1942–1948 vol.4, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICNN.1995.488968. [25] Z. Bo and C. Yi-jia, "Multiple objective particle swarm optimization technique for economic load dispatch," Journal of Zhejiang University- SCIENCE A, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 420–427, May 2005, https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.2005.A0420. [26] A. Mahor, V. Prasad, and S. Rangnekar, "Economic dispatch using particle swarm optimization: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 2134–2141, Oct. 2009, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.03.007.