2nd IEEE International Conference on Power and Energy (PECon 08), December 1-3, 2008, Johor Baharu, Malaysia

Thermal Unit Commitment Strategy with Solar

and Wind Energy Systems Using Genetic
Algorithm Operated Particle Swarm Optimization
Tomonobu Senjyu*, Shantanu Chakraborty*, Ahmed Yousuf Saber**, Hirofumi Toyama*, Atsushi Yona* and
Toshihisa Funabashi***
* University of the Ryukyus/Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Okinawa 903-0213, Japan. Email:
b985542@tec.u-ryukyu.ac.jp
** King Abdulaziz University/Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia. Email:

aysaber@yahoo.com
*** Meidensha Corporation, ThinkPark Tower, 2-1-1 Ohsaki, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo 141-6029, Japan. Email: funabashi-

t@mb.meidensha.co.jp

AbstractThis paper presents a methodology for solving
unit commitment problem for thermal units integrated with
wind and solar energy systems. The renewable energy
sources are included in this model due to their low
electricity cost and positive effect on environment. The unit
commitment problem is solved by a genetic algorithm
operated improved binary particle swarm optimization
(PSO) algorithm. Unlike trivial PSO, this algorithm runs the
refinement process of the solutions within multiple
populations. Some genetic algorithm operators such as
crossover, elitism, mutation are applied within the higher
potential solutions to generate new solutions for next
population. The PSO includes a new variable for updating
velocity in accordance with population best with particle
best and global best. The algorithm performs effectively in
various sized thermal power system with equivalent solar
and wind energy system and is able to produce high quality
(minimized production cost) solutions. The simulation
results show the effectiveness of this algorithm by
comparing the outcome with several established methods.
KeywordsUnit commitment; Renewable energy sources;
Particle swarm optimization; Genetic algorithm; Solar
energy; Wind energy.
I. INTRODUCTION
Thermal unit commitment in a power system requires
determining the on/off schedules of thermal units over a
particular schedule horizon. Apart from the determination
of on/off states, this problem also involves deciding the
hourly thermal output power (known as economic load
dispatch) as well as maintaining the spinning reserve
capacity while keeping the fuel cost as minimum as
possible. A good number of discrete (on/off status of
thermal units) and continuous (hourly thermal output
power) variables are required to be solved in unit
commitment (UC) problem. So UC is treated as one of the
most complex optimization problems in power system
economics due to higher dimensionality and non-linearity
[1].
A bibliographical survey on UC discloses that a good
amount of numerical optimization techniques [2-5] and
meta-heuristic methods [6-10] have been applied to
achieve efficient and near optimal solutions for UC
problem.
Renewable energy sources are receiving significant
importance in recent researches and studies due to lower
electricity generation price and positive effect on
environment. Among these energy sources, solar and wind
power are widely investigated and their integration with
thermal power systems has been studied [11-13]. Load
leveling can be achieved using renewable energy sources
with thermal units. This paper proposes a short term
thermal unit commitment strategy integrated with
renewable energy sources (solar and wind) by facilitating
a genetic algorithm (GA) operated binary particle swarm
optimization (PSO). In this model, a battery system is
incorporated with solar energy to supply power in case of
peak load shaving and also to facilitate the load leveling.
PSO is a popular swarm inspired optimization method
which usually refines a population by extending and
sharing its knowledge within a given search space [14,15].
Trivial PSO does not perform any operation within the
individuals and hence suffers from lack of diversity. In
this approach, PSO is combined with GA operators to
create new individuals from higher potential individuals
for providing an optimal final solution. The simulation
results will show this method's dominancy by comparing
the outcome over several established methods.
II. FORMULATION
To formulate the problem following notations and
objective function is derived. Moreover since the solution
of this problem requires satisfying several constraints,
these constraints are also be mentioned in subsections.
A. Notation
N number of generating units
T total scheduling period
Pi(t) generation of unit i at hour
t
Pw(t) generated wind power at
hour t
Ps(t) generated solar power at
hour t

1-4244-2405-4/08/$20.00 2008 IEEE 866

 2nd IEEE International Conference on Power and Energy (PECon 08), December 1-3, 2008, Johor Baharu, Malaysia

Ii(t) off/on [0,1] status of unit i and rated speed. The following equations are used for the
at hour t calculation
Tion/off minimum up/down time for
unit i
Xion/off duration of unit i being
0 : vw (t) v1or vw (t) > v3

continuously on/off Pw (t) = ( vw (t)) : v1 vw (t) v2 . (5)
hcost(i) hot start cost of unit i
P : v (t) v (t) v
ccost(i) cost start cost of unit i wn 2 w 3
cshour(i) cold start hour of unit i
where vw (t ) is forecasted wind speed at hour t; v1 ,
B. Objective Function v 2 and v3 are cut in, rated and cut out wind turbine
The objective function of thermal unit commitment speed; ( vw (t )) is wind to energy conversion function
problem is to minimize the total production cost (TC)
while satisfying several constraints. and Pwn is equivalent rated power output for wind power
generation.
T N
MinTC = Fi (Pi (t)) + SCi (t) . (1)
III. PROPOSED GA OPERATED PSO (PSO-GA) METHOD
t =1 i=1 Particle swarm optimization contains swarm of particles
flying through a search space by evolving themselves
through their own knowledge (pbest) and group best
Fi (Pi (t)) = ai + bi Pi (t) + ci pi2 (t) . (2) (gbest). Each individual contains a position (which is a
potential solution) and a velocity. In trivial PSO, each
solution is refined by a number of generations in order to
h costi : Tioff Xioff Hioff reach through the optimum solution. The solutions usually
SCi = modified based on pbest and gbest. However, since UC
c costi : X ioff > Tioff (3)
problem is highly non-linear in nature, trivial PSO may
fail to find optimal solution. In this study, PSO is
modified to operate in multi-population based
Hioff = Tioff + cshouri environment. Each population (except the initial one) is
inherited from previous population by applying GA
where Eq. (2) is the quadratic fuel cost function; a012 operators. The refinement process is applied on each
are the fuel coefficients and SCi is the startup cost for unit individual in a population. To incorporate this change in
i. The constraints considered in this paper are, the formulation of trivial PSO, a new variable (namely
1. System power balance population best), gbest is introduced in this method.
2. System reserve requirements Each individual i has position (Xi), which is a potential
3. Power generation limit solution and contains a dimension of NXT. The velocity
vector of i is represented by Vi. Therefore, if the
4. Minimum up/down time dimension index is represented by d and generation index
5. Ramp rate constraint is by k, the position and velocity will be updated for next
6. Solar power output limit [12] generation by following equations
7. Wind power output limit [12]
8. Battery constraint vidk +1 = w.vidk + 1.rand .( pbest id xidK )
9. Transmission line constraint [5]
Some important constraints are defined in following
+ 2 .rand .( popbest d xidK ) . (6)
subsection. + 3 .rand .( gbest d x ) K
id
1) Solar Power Output
Power output from solar energy system is expressed as
the following equation 1 if rand < sigmoid vidk +1
xidk +1 = .
( ) (7)
0 otherwise
Ppv (S(t)) pb (t) ps (t) = 0 . (4)
where w is inertia weight, 1 , 2 and 3 are the
where S(t) is forecasted solar radiation at hour t. Ppv is acceleration coefficients. rand is a uniform random
energy conversion function and defined as [12] and pb(t) is number generator within 0 and 1. The velocity is bounded
the battery output at hour t.
by a range ( vmax ) to prevent infeasible solutions.
2) Wind Power Output
The wind power generation is calculated from a A. Fitness Function
conditional quadratic function of forecasted wind speed To evaluate the performance of each solution, a fitness
and several wind turbine related speed such as cut in/out function is defined. Some penalty factor associated with
constraints violations are incorporated with the fitness

867
 2nd IEEE International Conference on Power and Energy (PECon 08), December 1-3, 2008, Johor Baharu, Malaysia
function. The penalty term will be used to discourage the
non-potential and erroneous solution and is defined by a
function of amount of violation of constraints. The UC
problem requires satisfying some equal and in-equal
constraints. Considering that scenario, the generalized
penalty function is
s M1
PF = C j .ECD 2
M 1 j =1
. (8)
s M2
+ C j . min(ULD, LLD ) 2
M 2 j =1
where M1 and M2 are the number of equality and
inequality constraints, respectively. ECD is the amount
violation for equality constraints, ULD is the upper limit
difference and LLD is the lower limit difference for
inequality constraints. Cj is the weight of associated
constraints and varies from 0 to 1. S is the combined
penalty factor associated with each population (g) and
expressed as
S = 100+ log(g + 1) . (9)
In this study, the penalty factor is comprised with
power balance, spinning reserve, transmission line
constraint and fuel constraints. So the fitness function for
an individual i is defined as
1 velocities in order to provide feasible regions for
Fiti = . (10)
TCi + PFi
B. Detailed Algorithm
The detailed steps for the algorithms are provided
below.
STEP 1. The wind power output is calculated in this step
by using forecasted wind speeds for 24-hours. Eqs. (4) and
(5) are used to calculate the wind power. Since wind
power source is independent of thermal unit generators,
the calculation is done only one time in the proposed
method.
STEP 2. In order to achieve higher feasible solutions,
sophisticate generation of initials population is required.
The initial population contains a number of solutions.
Each solution is treated as an individual which contains a
position (X) and velocity (V) matrices of T X N
dimensions. The position matrix X contains the on/off
status of thermal units. So this matrix can be treated as a
potential solution. The individuals in initial population are
created based on weighted priority list of the units. For
each hour the units are committed in the order of priority
list until the spinning reserve requirements are not met.
The achieved solution is called the base solution. The
priority list is created by the maximum power output and
minimum per unit cost. Best per unit cost is the function
of fuel cost coefficients and is expressed as (for unit i)
2 ai ci + bi . (11)
868
Multiple solutions are generated randomly committing
the intact units of base solution. More base solutions are
created by changing the weights of priority list attributes,
which are maximum power output and per unit cost.
STEP 3. The solutions generated in Step 2 needs to be
repaired for constraint violation. Minimum up/down
constraint violations for each solution are repaired in this
step. The loads for each hour are distributed among the
thermal units and renewable energy sources in ELD
calculation. ELD is calculated using extended system
lambda-iteration method. The detailed ELD procedure is
provided in Step 6. Then the fitness value of each solution
is evaluated using Eq. (9) by fixing g=0.
STEP 4. The best valued individual is linked as gbest
and popbest. And the fitness values for all individuals are
assigned to associative pbest. Performance and
convergence of PSO is highly dependable in chosen
parameters, such as inertia weight (w), acceleration
coefficients ( 123 ). Usually in trivial PSO, inertia weight
w is set as 0.9 which will decrease linearly to 0.4 in each
generation. However, for UC problem variable w results
non optimal solutions. After some trials, this method uses
a fixed w of 0.95. The values of coefficients 123
however changed as each generation confronted. Iteration
number is initialized.
STEP 5. In this step, each individual is evaluated by
refining its velocity and position. This process is run for
number of iterations by using Eqs. (14) and (15). To limit
the velocity within an acceptable range, a boundary is set
as vmax . Sigmoid function is used to narrow the
individuals.
STEP 6. After refining the individuals for this
generation, ELD should be performed to distribute the
loads among the units and to determine the solar power
output. The power output from PV cells connected with
controller and battery is also performed in this step. A
forward DP approach is applied to find the optimal PV
battery penetration [12]. The load demand is high in peak
hours and usually low in off-peak hours. In off-peak hour,
the battery is charged with the excess energy which is
provided by thermal units and wind system. In peak hours,
the shortage of energy is fulfilled by discharging the
battery. ELD is performed by extended system lambda
iteration method considering the network loss. Since ELD
is the most computational intensive part of UC problem, it
should be done efficiently to save execution time. In this
method, a flag vector is incorporated with each of the
individuals while calculating the ELD. The purpose of
flag vector is to keep track the changes in hourly schedule.
This vector is initialized with `zero'. Any changes in a
particular schedule hour will set the corresponding entry
to `one'. So the next time ELD will be performed to those
hours which contain `one' in flag vector. This
incorporation speeds up the performance of the method
significantly. Fitness value for each solution is then
calculated by incorporating the penalty factor for
constraints violations. According to Eq. (8), several equal
and in-equal constraints are considered except minimum
up/down time and ramp rate constraints. Ramp rate
constraint is managed while determining the ELD output.
The violation of minimum up/down constraint will be
considered in repair sub-routine prior of ELD calculation.
 2nd IEEE International Conference on Power and Energy (PECon 08), December 1-3, 2008, Johor Baharu, Malaysia

Now for each individuals, the best fitness valued one will The scheduling period is fixed as 24 hours. Size of the
be assigned as current popbest solution and the pbesti will population is fixed at 30. Number of population
contain the best fitness valued solution of individual i. If generation is set for 15 and number of iteration per
the popbest contains better value than existing gbest, generation for a solution is set as 60. Therefore, the
update value of gbest and corresponding schedule with proposed method can be treated as equivalent single
those ones in popbest. If the current iteration exceeds populated PSO with iteration number of 900. PSO
maximum iteration number, stop the algorithm. The gbest parameters play an important role in the performance of
contains the ultimate solution using this proposed method. the algorithm. The parameters are chosen after several
STEP 7. The refinement process in step 5 increases the trials to analyze their sensitivity. In the proposed method,
solutions' quality to achieve lower cost solutions. To inertia weight w is set as 0.95 unlike the trivial PSO where
further diversify the solutions, GA operators are applied w is linearly decreased. Instead of using fixed values for
on higher potential solutions. In this method, applied GA PSO coefficients, this method uses variable coefficients as
operators are elitism, crossover and mutation. The parents of result shown in Table I. Table I presents the parameter
for crossover operation are selected by roulette-wheel sensitivity of PSO and their associated best results after 5
selection where each solution is assigned a probability runs for each configuration considering only thermal units
according to its fitness. The probability of applying i.e. without any renewable energy sources. Static PSO
crossover operation is usually set high (in this method, parameters provide better result when w is in range of 0.8
0.9). A 2-points crossover is applied on selected parent to 1.0. So the variable PSO parameters were tried within
solutions. The points are taken randomly within each the vicinity of 0.9 to 1.0 of w. The best result achieved
halves of a solution. Since a solution has N X T when w=0.95 and PSO parameters are variable. The
dimensions, it can be considered as a vector of N X T selected combination is highlighted in Table I. This
length. So the first point is taken randomly in the range of provides the insight that, variable PSO parameters setting
provide better result for UC. Vmax is set to 4.0.
NT NT
0 to and the second one is on from + 1 to N X The simulation is performed considering the following
2 2 three cases
T. The process is shown in Fig. 1. The new solution is 1. thermal units only.
created by merging the 3 parts generated from the
crossover operation on parent solutions. Among the 3 2. thermal units with wind and solar (without battery)
parts in new solution, 2 parts are taken from the parent TABLE I.
which has higher fitness value. The new solutions created PSO PARAMETERS SENSITIVITY WITH VARIABLE COEFFICIENTS
SETTING
from this operation replace the low probable solutions of
current population. Mutation operator is applied by w 1 2 3 Cost (US$)
0.50 1.5 1.5 1.0 565782
Crossover point 1
0.60 1.6 1.4 1.0 565384
0.70 1.7 1.3 1.0 564837
0.85 1.8 1.2 1.0 564519
Solution #1 AAAAAA BBBBBB CCCCCC Higher fitness value 0.95 1.9 1.1 1.0 564376
1.00 2.0 1.0 1.0 564702
Solution #2 XXXXXX YYYYYY ZZZZZZ Lower fitness value 0.91 - - - 564310
0.93 - - - 5630.95
0.94 - - - 564235
New solution AAAAAA YYYYYY CCCCCC
0.95 - - - 563714
0.96 - - - 563825
Crossover point 2
0.99 - - - 564150
Figure 1. Two point crossover GA operator
TABLE II.
flipping a bit with a very low probability (in this method, THRMAL UNIT PRODUCTION COST (IN US$) FOR THREE CASES
0.01) in a random position of a randomly selected Units Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
solution.
10 563714.25 487929.29 475815.22
STEP 8. To achieve a quick convergence, the proposed 20 1119944.15 1067989.13 1041923.54
method uses dynamic parameter adjustment for PSO 40 2265851.81 2157358.46 2129755.76
method. Trivial PSO keeps the coefficients constant for
the entire generations. However since this the proposed
method applies a multi-population approach to find 3. thermal units with wind and solar (with battery)
optimal solution, static parameter usage may lead sub-
The unit production cost achieved for 10, 20 and 40
optimal solutions. The values of 123 are adjusted units considering the above three cases are presented in
randomly by keeping 123 = 4 . Then the process Table II. 20 and 40 units systems are extended by
multiplying the load demand and duplicating the units'
returns back to Step 5. parameters. Table II shows the best result achieved by
running the proposed method 10 times for each of the
IV. NUMERICAL SIMULATION cases. For Case 1, the method produces a higher cost since
The method is implemented in Visual C++ environment no renewable energy sources are incorporated with the
on an Intel Pentium IV machine with 512 MB of RAM. system. However, inclusion of solar and wind energy
The simulation is run considering a base ten units system sources for cases 2 and 3 (without and with battery
[10] and assuming 10% spinning reserve requirements. respectively), this method is able to achieve lower thermal

869
 2nd IEEE International Conference on Power and Energy (PECon 08), December 1-3, 2008, Johor Baharu, Malaysia

costs. Table III shows a comparison of costs with linear. So the method is capable of handling larger units
available popular UC methods for 10, 20, and 40 units and thus scalable.
system. The forecasted load demand for 20 and 40 units Fig. 3 shows the power output of test cases (1 and 3)
are achieved by multiplying base 10 units system's load along with forecasted load demand. The curve generated
demand. The comparing methods considered in this study for Case 1 is almost same as forecasted load. As for Case
are integer coded genetic algorithm (ICGA) penned on 3, the solar and wind energy sources are integrated with
[6], lagrangian relaxation and genetic algorithm (LRGA) the base thermal units with battery. Therefore, the thermal
penned on [7], genetic algorithm (GA), dynamic units are only required to provide minimum power and in
programming (DP) and lagrangian relaxation reported on a almost consistent level which ensures the load leveling.
[8]. Note that, the studies refereed for that comparison, The power output for renewable energy sources are shown
used the same unit and load data without any renewable in Fig. 4. The rated power of the battery is 200 MW.
energy sources were included on those studies. The results As the load demand is lower after midnight, the power
show the dominancy of the proposed method for different injected in solar system for charging the battery (from
scales of thermal unit commitment problem. This method hour 1 to 8 and at midnight). These stored powers are
also obtained better solutions than other methods even deployed in peak shaving and high demand hours.
without renewable energy sources, since for Case 1, the
total cost 563,714.25$ is better than corresponding case of
other methods. Fig. 2. shows the convergence rate of the
proposed method for 2 runs considering Case 3 for 10 TABLE III.
COMPARISONS OF TOTAL COST OF THE PROPOSED METHOD WITH
thermal units. The robustness of the proposed method is OTHER METHODS
shown in that figure which proves its ability to reach
optimum solution quickly. Investigating the several runs, Units PSO-GA ICGA[6] LRGA[7]
it is found that, optimal cost tends to be settled from 10-th 10 475815.22 566404 564800
to 12-th generation. From this figure, it is clear that the 20 1041923.54 1127244 1122622
solutions are always flying towards the optimal one. 40 2129755.76 2254123 2242178
Usually PSO suffers from the particle stagnation where Units GA[8 DP[8] LR[8]
the particles become idle and extra efforts (such as
resetting the particle by randomly setting the velocity) are 10 565825 564851 568825
20 1126243 1125494 1130660
required to make them move. Instead of refining a particle
40 2251911 2249093 2258503
for long time (e.g. 1000 iterations), the proposed PSO-GA
actually evolves a solution for a short time (60 iterations) V. CONCLUSION
and then applies GA operators to further improve the
solution. Therefore, the probability of a solution to An improved GA operated particle swarm optimization
become idle is reduced. method is presented in this paper to solve thermal unit
Execution time is an important factor to measure the commitment problem integrated with solar and wind
efficiency and scalability of a method. The comparison of power system. PSO is chosen over other popular methods
execution times of running different number of units using due to its quick reckoning on higher potential solutions.
the PSO-GA method with other methods is shown in TABLE IV.
Table III. The performance of the method is effectively COMPARISONS OF EXECUTION TIMES (IN SEC.) OF THE PSO-GA WITH
OTHER METHODS
better than LRGA[10] and GA methods. However ICGA
Units PSO-GA ICGA[6] LRGA[7] GA[8]
is better performer than PSO-GA in terms of time
10 25.54 7.40 518 221
complexity. The table shows that the execution time is 20 62.73 22.40 1147 733
quite acceptable since the amount is not grown 40 158.67 58.30 2165 2697
exponentially with the number of units. Rather the relation
between number of units and execution time is nearly
Incorporation of GA operators with PSO further boosts up

5
x 10
5

2000
Forcasted load
Power output (case #1)
Power output (case #3)
4.95 1800

1600

4.9
Cost (in US $)

1400
Power (MW)

1200
4.85

Run 1
1000
Run 2

4.8
800

600
4.75
0 5 10 15
No. of generations 400
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (Hour)
Figure 2. Convergence of the proposed method.
Figure 3. Power output for different test cases

870
 2nd IEEE International Conference on Power and Energy (PECon 08), December 1-3, 2008, Johor Baharu, Malaysia
300
250
200
150
Power (MW)
100
50
0
50
100
Solar energy power output (with battery)
Wind power output
150
0 5 10 15
Time (hour)
Figure 3. Power output from renewable energy sources
the speed of solution convergence. Trivial PSO is
extended by adding a new population based variable
(popbest) to tune the performance since the method
introduces multi populations unlike trivial PSO. GA
operators such as crossover, mutation, elitism are applied
to the higher potential solutions for next population. Quick
convergence is further ensured by careful adjustment of
inertia factors, accelerating constants for PSO and GA.
The mutation operator is applied as a GA operator with a
very low probability, since updating the binary positions
of each particle's dimension is analogous to mutation. The
basic thermal system model is integrated with
environment friendly renewable energy sources for
reducing the fuel cost significantly. The solar system,
integrated with battery provides peak shavings and load
leveling by optimizing the battery charge/discharge
schedule. Recent methods are compared with the proposed
one to demonstrate the solution quality. This method
assumes accurate forecasting on wind speed and solar
radiation. So the future study will focus on the inclusion
of wind and solar forecasting error with thermal unit
commitment strategy.
REFERENCES
[1] A. J. Wood and B. F. Wollenberg Power Generation, Operation,
and Control New York: Wiley, 1996.
[2] T. Senjyu, K. Shimabukuro, K. Uezato, and T. Funabashi, "A fast
technique for unit commitment problem by extended priority list,"
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 882-888, May 2003.
[3] Z. Ouyang and S. M. Shahidehpour, "An intelligent dynamic
programming for unit commitment application," IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1203-1209, Aug. 1991.
[4] A. J. Svoboda, C.-L. Tseng, C.-A. Li, and R. B. Johnson, "Shot-
term resource scheduling with ramp constraints [power generation
scheduling]," IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 77-83,
Feb. 1997.
[5] J. J. Shaw, "A direct method for security-constrained unit
commitment," IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1329-
1342, Aug. 1995.
[6] I. G. Damousis, A. G. Bakirtzis, and P. S. Dokopoulos, "A
solution to the unit-commitment problem using integer-coded
genetic algorithm," IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 19, no. 2, pp.
1165-1172, May 2004.
[7] C.-P. Cheng, C.-W. Liu, and C.-C. Liu, "Unit commitment by
Lagrangian relaxation and genetic algorithms," IEEE Trans.
20 25
Power Syst., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 707-714, May 2000.
[8] S. A. Kazarlis, A. G. Bakirtzis, and V. Petridis, "A genetic
algorithm solution to the unit commitment problem," IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 83-92, Feb. 1996.
[9] K. A. Juste, H. Kita, E. Tanaka, and J. Hasegawa, "An
evolutionary programming solution to the unit commitment
problem," IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1452-1459,
Nov. 1999.
[10] T. O. Ting, M. V. C. Rao, and C. K. Loo, "A novel approach for
unit commitment problem via an effective hybrid particle swarm
optimization," IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 411-
418, Feb. 2006.
[11] R-H. Liang and J-H Liao, "A fuzzy-optimization approach for
generation scheduling with wind and solar energy systems" IEEE
Trans. on Power Syst., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1665 - 1674, November
2007.
[12] M. K. C. Marwali , H. Ma , S. M. Shahidehpour, and K. H. Abdul-
Rahman "Short-term generation scheduling in photovoltaic-utility
grid with battery storage" IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 13, pp.
1057, Aug. 1998.
[13] Pavlos S. Georgilakis, "Technical challenges associated with the
integration of wind power into power systems" Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 852 - 863, April
2008.
[14] J. Kennedy and R. C. Eberhart, "Particle swarm optimization," in
Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Neural Networks, Perth, Australia, 1995, pp.
1942-1948.
[15] T. O. Ting, M. V. C. Rao, and C. K. Loo, "A novel approach for
unit commitment problem via an effective hybrid particle swarm
optimization" IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 411-
418, Feb. 2006.
871