1

Generation Scheduling with Integration of Wind

Power and Compressed Air Energy Storage
H. Daneshi, Member, IEEE, A.K. Srivastava, Senior Member, IEEE, A. Daneshi

RU i , RDi Ramping up/down limit of a unit

Abstract— The use of energy storage integrated with wind SDi ,t Shutdown cost of unit i at time t
power is commonly considered in a system for increased
operational flexibility. In past years, a fast growth in STi ,t Startup cost of unit i at time t
development of wind generation has been experienced in power rs i ,t Spinning reserve of a unit
system, due to many factors including environment and depletion
of fossil fuel resources. With increasing installed wind capacity, ori ,t Operating reserve of a unit
the intermittency issues must be addressed. One way to mitigate TU i ,0 , TC i ,0 Number of hours a unit has been on/off at
the intermittency of wind generation is energy storage. In this
paper, we study compressed air energy storage (CAES) as an the beginning of the scheduling period
alternative solution to deal with intermittency in wind UTi , DTi Number of hours a unit need to remain on/off at
generation. We present a formulation of security-constrained the beginning of the scheduling period
unit commitment (SCUC) problem with emphasis on integration
PD ( t ) Forecasted load at time t
of wind power and CAES. Case studies with eight-bus system are
presented in detail to validate the proposed model. W(t ) Forecasted wind power at time t
PL (t ) System losses at time t
Index Terms— Security-constrained unit commitment
RS (t ) System spinning reserve requirement at time t
(SCUC), restructured power markets, wind energy, compressed
air energy storage (CAES), renewable energy, energy storage, RO (t ) System operating reserve requirement at time t
mixed integer programming (MIP). FLl ,t Line flow at line l

I. NOMENCLATURE FLmax
l Maximum line flow
T Number of hours for the scheduling period Vbbs ,t Voltage magnitude at bus bs
I Set of thermal units Vbbsmax , Vbbsmin Maximum/minimum voltage magnitude at bus bs
Nb Number of buses Ak ,t +1 Inventory level at time t+1
L Number of lines Ak ,t Inventory level at time t
i Denote a thermal unit
k Denote a CAES unit Amax (h) Maximum capacity of the carven in MWh
w Denote a wind unit Amin (h) Minimum capacity of the carven in MWh
t Time index ν kinj,t Amount of injected air in MW at hour t
l Line index
bs Bus index
ν kw,t Amount of released air in MW at hour t
w
u i ,t Unit status indicator (1 is ON and 0 is OFF) v k ,min Minimum amount of released air in MW
y i ,t Startup indicator vkw,max Maximum amount of released air in MW
z i ,t Shutdown indicator v inj
Minimum amount of injected air in MW
k ,min
Fi ,t Production cost function of unit i
vkinj,max Maximum amount of injected air in MW
Pi ,t Generation of a unit
α w
k Efficiency factor for producing power
Pi ,min , Pi ,max Minimum/maximum generating capacity
α inj
k Efficiency factor for injecting air
MU i , MDi Minimum up/down time of a unit
II. INTRODUCTION
Hossein Daneshi is with the Electric Power and Power Electronic Center
at Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, 60616, USA (e-mail:
danehos@iit.edu)
Anurag K Srivastava is with the Department of Electrical and Computer
M arket operators in various Independent System
Operators (ISO) apply the standard market design
(SMD) for scheduling a secure and economically
Engineering at Mississippi State University, USA (e-mail: viable power generation for the day-ahead electricity market.
srivastava@ece.msstate.edu) One of the key components of SMD is security-constrained

978-1-4244-6547-7/10/$26.00 © 2010 IEEE


unit commitment (SCUC). The objective of SCUC in a
restructured power system is to obtain a commitment schedule
at minimum production cost with several unit/system
constraints. Unit constraints include minimum on/off time,
ramping up/down, minimum/maximum generation limit, fuel
and emission limit. The system constraints include
transmission security constraints such as voltage limits on
buses, power flow limits on selected lines and selected
interfaces [1]-[7].
Due to general interest in renewable and green energy, wind
generation has grown substantially, and additional growth is
projected in future years. Integration of wind resources into
the power system brings new challenges to the planning,
operation, and control of power system in either short-term or
long-term time interval. It’s because of natural characteristics
of wind power plants which differ from conventional units.
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. Besides, utilities are
struggling to meet fluctuating demand and adding generators,
that they can not control causes more complexity to this
problem. This problem is magnified as the penetration level of
wind energy on the utility system increases. In particular,
optimal commitment and dispatch of other units need to be
revised. Additional reserves must be allocated to guarantee
operational reliability and enhance system security. Assessing
the impact of wind power on unit commitment and dispatch is
a fundamental issue when integrating more wind power into
power systems. The integration of intermittent wind power
into existing power systems may impact both, the technical
operation of the system and its development over time. Most
important is that to cope with wind’s intermittency, other
power units have to be operated more flexibly to maintain
system reliability.
One possibility to achieve higher system flexibility is
energy storage investment. In this paper, compressed air
energy storage (CAES) is considered to store electricity.
CAES is designed to draw excess power from other resources
off the grid and drive an electric air compressor. The
compressed air is stored in an underground storage cavern.
When electricity is needed, the compressed air is released,
heated and combusted with natural gas, and then expanded
through turbines to run a generator. A generator with CAES
plant produces approximately 3 times the amount of power as
in a simple gas turbine configuration. In effect, CAES stores
electricity for injecting power to the grid at a later time. This
represents the shaping or temporal arbitrage value of CAES.
Additionally, because it can be dispatched when needed (as
long as there is compressed air in storage) and has a quick
response time, CAES can also be valuable for providing
ancillary services. Figure 1 shows the layout of a CAES unit
[8].
This paper presents a formulation of mixed integer
programming (MIP) for solving the Security Constrained Unit
Commitment (SCUC) problem with emphasis on wind power
and CAES. The optimization model is developed to determine
how integration of wind and CAES facility can increase profit
by allowing the wind energy to be stored when it’s not needed
or profitable to use.
2
Fig. 1: layout of compressed air energy storage (CAES) unit
The rest of this paper is organized as follow: Section III
gives a background description of CAES including literature
review. The formulation and the model are presented in
section IV. The proposed model is validated in section V by
test case examples, and at the end the conclusions are drawn
in section VI.
III. BACKGROUND
One of the distinctive characteristics of the electric power
sector is that the amount of electricity that can be generated is
relatively fixed over short periods of time, although demand
for electricity fluctuates throughout the day. Besides, many
renewable energy systems produce intermittent power.
Developing efficient technology to store electrical energy, so
it can be available to meet demand whenever needed would
represent a major breakthrough in electricity distribution.
Electricity storage devices can provide the amount of power
required during peak load. These devices can also help in
making the power output of renewable energy smooth and
dispatchable. The following methods have been used to store
energy [8]:
Hydro pumped storage: stores energy in the form of water,
pumped from lower level into a higher level reservoir during
off-peak hours. During periods of high demand, stored water
is released through a hydraulic turbine to generate electricity.
It can be used as a large scale energy storage, but It is only
economically viable on sites where reservoirs at differential
elevations are available or can be constructed. Furthermore,
the environmental impact of large-scale pumped-storage
facilities is becoming more of an issue, especially where
existing reservoirs are not available. Environmental
considerations such as impacts on fisheries, recreation, water
quality, aesthetics and land use have sharply limited the
further development of this technology.
Flywheels: store kinetic energy by accelerating a rotor at a
very high speed and maintaining the energy in the system as
rotational energy. The faster it spins the more energy it can
stores. Energy can be converted back as needed by slowing
the flywheel. They have a fast response and are little affected
by temperature fluctuations. They need relatively little space,
have lower maintenance requirements than batteries, and have
a long life span. Losses are relatively high, and storage size is
limited.
Super capacitors: are electromechanical capacitors that have
high power density. They have a very fast charge and
discharge rate, and apparently are able to go through a large
 3

number of cycles without degradation. They are relatively
expensive compare to other energy storage technologies.
Superconducting magnetic energy storage (SMES): stores
energy in a magnetic field by direct current flowing in a
superconducting coil, that has been cryogenically cooled. The
advantage of SMES is its fast response, and short charge and
discharge time. Power is available almost instantaneously and
very high power output can be provided for a brief period of
time. The energy content of SMES systems is quite small and
the cryogenics (cold temperature technology) can be a
challenge.
Batteries: Batteries are made of stacked cells where-in
chemical energy is converted to electrical energy and vice
versa. The desired battery voltage and current requirements is
obtained by electrically connecting the cells in series and
parallel. The batteries are rated in terms of their energy,
capacity, efficiency, life span (stated in terms of number of
cycles), operating temperature, charge, and discharge rate.
Reference [9] discusses the present status of battery energy
storage technology and methods of assessing their economic
viability and impact on power system operation.
Compressed air energy storage (CAES): has been in use as
a peak shaving option since 1970s. It is a low cost technology
for storing large quantities of electrical energy in the form of
high-pressure air. CAES operates like a gas turbine except
that compression and expansion cycles occur at different
times. In a regular gas turbine two thirds of the output power
from the expansion is used to run the compressor.
The first CAES plant, a 290 MW facility, was started in
Huntorf, Germany in 1978. It was designed and built to
provide black-start services to nuclear units near the North
• High thermal efficiency in the production mode
• A CAES is able to ramp up 2 to 3 times faster than other
gas-fired plants because it is not restrained by
compression requirements.
IV. SCUC FORMULATION WITH CAES
As mentioned, the objective of SCUC is to determine an
optimum schedule of generating units for minimizing the cost
of supplying energy and ancillary services constrained by
security requirement. Spinning and non-spinning reserves are
modeled in this paper while other types of ancillary services
such as regulation up/down and placement services could be
modeled similarly [6]. The objective function is formulated as
follow:
T
⎧ I K
⎫
Min ∑ ⎨∑ [C ( Pi ,t ) + STi ,t + SDi ,t ] + ∑ C ( Pk ,t )⎬ (1)
t =1 ⎩ i =1 k =1 ⎭
Where the first term represents thermal operating cost
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 I.
The constraints listed next include the system energy
balance (2), required system spinning (3) and operating
reserve (4), ramping limits (5-a), (5-b), minimum On/Off time
limits (6-a), (6-b), and real and reactive power generation
limits (7), (8), transmission line flow limit (9), bus voltage
limit (10). Additional system and unit constraints can be
modeled easily, which is not the scope of this paper.
I K

Sea and provide peak power. It has the storage capacity to ∑P +∑P
i =1
i ,t
k =1
k ,t + W (t ) = PD (t ) + PL (t ) ∀t (2)
generate for 2-3 hours per cycle [10]. I K
A 110 MW plant commenced operation in McIntosh,
Alabama in 1991. The McIntosh plant made improvements to
∑ rs
i =1
i ,t + ∑ rs
k =1
k ,t ≥ RS (t ) ∀t (3)

the Huntorf design by incorporating a recuperator (air to air I K

heat exchanger) to preheat air from the cavern with waste heat ∑ ori ,t + ∑ ork ,t ≥ RO ( t ) t = 1,...,T (4)
i =1 k =1
from the turbines. Since overcoming some startup issues, the
Pi ,t +1 − Pi ,t ≤ RUi ( 1 − yi ,t ) + Pi ,min yi ,t , ∀i ,∀t (5-a)
plant has functioned with over 95% reliability. These facilities
are both used for peak shaving and load following, but could Pi ,t − Pi ,t +1 ≤ RDi ( 1 − zi ,t ) + Pi ,min zi ,t , ∀i ,∀t (5-b)
be used for wind integration as well. The McIntosh facility is UTi
a 110 MW facility with a storage capacity of 19 million cubic ∑( 1 − ui ,t ) = 0, ∀i
feet, which allows it to generate for 26 hours per charge [11]. t =1
max{T ,t +MUt −1 }
(6-a)
A proposal has been under development to convert an idle
limestone mine in Norton, Ohio into the storage reservoir for
yi ,t + ∑ zi , j ≤ 1, ∀i ,∀t = UTi + 1,...,T
j =t +1
a 2700MW CAES facility. The project, initially approved by
UTi = MAX{ 0, MIN [ T ,( MUi − TU i ,0 )ui ,0 ]}, ∀i (6-b)
the Ohio Power Siting Board in 2001, was granted a five-year
extension in 2006. Pi ,min .ui ,t ≤ Pi ,t ≤ Pi ,max .ui ,t , ∀i ,∀t (7)
The Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities is developing a Qi ,min .ui ,t ≤ Qi ,t ≤ Qi ,max .ui ,t , ∀i ,∀t (8)
CAES project in Dallas Center, Iowa that will be directly
− FLmax ≤ FLl ,t ≤ FLmax t = 1,...,T (9)
coupled to a wind farm. A 268 MW CAES plant coupled to l l

75 to 100 MW of wind farm was formally announced in min

Vbbs ≤ Vbs ,t ≤ Vbsmax t = 1,...,T ,i = 1,..., N bs (10)
December 2006 [12].
Detail formulation of objective function and constraints are
For a large-scale energy storage solution, CAES is a good
presented in [2] and [4]-[7]. In this paper, we focus on CAES
option with distinct advantages and disadvantages:
model and coordination with wind. In our proposed
• It can be dispatched when needed (as long as there is
compressed air in storage) optimization model the following modes for CAES are
considered:
• Quick response and ability to provide ancillary services
such as regulation and spinning or non-spinning reserve
 4

• Idling: when CAES is not operating as either generator or V. CASE STUDIES

compressor. In order to focus on key issues, a simple 8-bus system in
• Compressor: when system load is low, then electricity is Fig. 2 is used. There are four thermal units (G1…G4), one
used to compress air into an underground storage cavern. wind unit (W1), a CAES unit (S) and ten transmission lines.
• Generator: when electricity demand is high, the The wind unit and storage are located at bus 1. The
compressed air is returned to the surface, heated by characteristics of generators, buses, and transmission lines are
natural gas in combustors and run through turbine to
listed in Tables I-III, respectively. The study period is 24-
power the generator and produce electricity.
hours. The 24-hour system load and forecasted wind power
To include all mentioned modes in our model, the
are presented in Table IV. The following scenarios are
following integer variables and constraints are introduced:
discussed in this paper:
u k ,t : 1 is generation mode and 0 is either idle or compressor
Case 1: the base case without CAES unit. The example
mode. includes four thermal units and a wind.
c
u : 1 is compressor mode and 0 is idle mode.
k ,t Case 2: In this case, we observe the impact of CAES on
system operation and compare generation dispatch and
u k ,t + u kc,t ≤ 1 ∀k , ∀t (11) total system operating cost with and without CAES.
Case 3: Demonstrate the relationship between CAES size
In case of minimizing the total production cost, the cost of and system operating cost.
compression is not really necessary. The amount of
compressed air is indirectly taken care by the amount of All cases in this section are calculated using a Pentium IV,
injection as an additional demand. Minimization of the total 3 GHz personal computer with 1GB RAM.
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 Pk ,t MW of electricity is equal to gas
price multiplied by heat rate value for generating Pk ,t . It can
be represented as linear function:
Fig. 2: Eight-bus system
Pk ,t = α kw × vkw,t (12) TABLE I: PARAMETERS OF CAES

Unit Bus Amin Amax vmin

w w
vmax inj
vmin inj
vmax
Pk ,t = −α kinj × vkinj,t (13)
CAES 1 50 500 5 50 5 50

v w
k ,min .u k ,t ≤ v w
k ,t ≤v w
k ,max .u k ,t (14) TABLE II: PARAMETERS OF THERMAL UNITS
Unit G1 G2 G3 G4
v inj
.u c
≤v inj
≤v inj
.u c
(15) Bus 2 3 6 7
k ,min k ,t k ,t k ,max k ,t
A 0.012 0.0014 0.0085 0.0046
In compressing mode, the amount of compressed air is B 8.66 9.66 19 12.69
limited to the maximum capacity of the cavern minus the C 190 230 270 250
current inventory level. Pmin 50 50 10 20
Pmax 200 150 50 100
Ak ,t +1 = Ak ,t + vkinj,t − vkw,t , ∀k , ∀t (16) ST 1600 1500 500 500
Ramp up 0.83 0.83 1.66 2.92
Amin (k ) ≤ Ak ,t ≤ Amax (k ) , ∀k , ∀t (17) Min On 8 8 1 1
Min Off 8 8 1 1
Mathematically SCUC is a decision problem with an IniT 8 8 -1 -1
objective to be minimized with respect to a series of TABLE III: TRANSMISSION LINE PARAMETERS
prevailing equality and inequality constraints. The problem is Line From To Line Limit
a mixed-integer problem and includes a large number of X (pu)
No Bus Bus (MW)
integer and continuous variables. A common way of solving 1 1 2 0.03 200
MIP problem is to relax some coupling constraint and 2 1 4 0.03 200
decompose it into several sub problems. Many commercial 3 1 7 0.0065 200
4 2 3 0.011 200
packages such as CPLEX, LINDO, OSL and XPRESS-MP
5 5 1 0.03 200
exist in the market place have been successfully applied to UC 6 4 5 0.03 200
problems. In this paper, we use CPLEX to solve the problem. 7 5 6 0.02 200
8 6 7 0.025 200
9 7 8 0.015 200
10 8 3 0.022 200
 5

TABLE IV: FORECASTED LOAD DEMAND AND WIND POWER TABLE VI: GENERATION DISPATCH WITHOUT CAES
Wind Load Wind Load Without CAES
Hour Hour
(MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) Unit G1 G2 G3 G4
1 58.27 377.80 13 10.80 416.86 1 200 120.9 0 0
2 82.12 365.92 14 12.50 408.60 2 200 84.4 0 0
3 89.22 362.86 15 15.00 402.84 3 200 74.0 0 0
4 84.73 363.11 16 21.62 401.67 4 200 78.8 0 0
5 77.25 370.56 17 15.00 406.20 5 200 94.2 0 0
6 65.13 386.83 18 10.88 431.55 6 200 123.8 0 0
7 75.91 411.61 19 14.50 468.17 7 200 115.7 0 20
8 200 129.6 0 20
8 71.55 421.20 20 12.54 477.40
9 200 135.5 0 20
9 73.40 428.95 21 16.00 480.00
10 200 138.5 0 47.5
10 49.11 435.17 22 28.41 465.26 200 138.8 0 62.6
11
11 30.71 432.06 23 30.34 439.86 12 200 139.3 0 67.5
12 18.09 424.82 24 37.10 409.72 13 200 139.8 0 66.2
14 200 140.4 0 55.7
1) Case 1: SCUC result without CAES 15 200 140.8 0 47.0
16 200 140.9 0 39.2
In this case, we assume there is no CAES. The 24-hour 17 200 140.6 0 50.6
system load and wind profile are listed in Table IV in which 18 200 146.8 10 63.9
the peak load is 480 MW at hour 21. We solve the SCUC and 19 200 144.2 28.4 81
determine the commitment and dispatch of units given in 20 200 143.6 40.3 81
Table V and VI, respectively. It is assumed that the fuel price 21 200 143.4 39.6 81
is 1 $/MBtu and spinning reserve is 7% of the load, we also 22 200 144.4 11.4 81
exclude transmission line limit. 23 200 146.2 10 53.3
The cheaper units G1 and G2 are always committed. The 24 200 140.3 0 32.3
more expensive unit G3 is committed between hours 11 and
23 to supply the generating capacity requirement. Total TABLE VII: SCUC RESULT WITH CAES
Total Cost = $100,881.2
operating cost is $105,551.2.
Unit Hours (0-24)
2) Case 2: SCUC result with CAES G1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
G2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
To observe the impact of CAES, we add a CAES unit at bus 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 0
1 in which wind is located. The characteristic of CAES is G4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
presented in Table I. The maximum power output from CAES
TABLE VIII: GENERATION DISPATCH WITH CAES
is 50 MW. The efficiency factors ( α kw , α kinj ) for compress
With CAES
and discharge are 1. The load and wind profile are same as Unit G1 G2 G3 G4 S
Case 1. Table VII presents the unit commitment with CAES 1 200 121.0 0 0 0
for 24 hours. 2 200 125.0 0 0 -40.6
First, we take a look at the scheduling results of the CAES 3 200 124.0 0 0 -50.0
unit in Table VIII. In this table, positive numbers correspond 4 200 125.0 0 0 -46.2
to periods for compressing air, while negative numbers are 5 200 125.0 0 0 -30.8
discharging or generating periods. According to the daily load 6 200 123.8 0 0 0.0
profile with two peak loads, wind power and power from grid 7 200 125.0 0 0 14.5
will help in compressing the air during the off-peak, when 8 200 125.0 0 0 29.1
hourly loads are relatively low. Then during the peak load, 9 200 125.0 0 0 35.6
CAES will supply the load. 10 200 138.5 0 20.0 27.5
In this case, the expensive unit G3 is not dispatched. Lower 11 200 138.8 0 62.6 0.0
operating cost of $100,881.2 is obtained in Case 2 when 12 200 139.3 0 73.3 -5.9
CAES unit is added compared to higher cost in Case 1 before 13 200 139.8 0 73.3 -7.1
14 200 140.4 0 50.7 5.0
adding CAES. These results show the lower cost of using
15 200 140.8 0 52.0 -5.0
CAES for supplying the load in the system. In our analysis,
16 200 140.9 0 72.5 -33.3
we are not considering the comparative capital investment for 17 200 140.6 0 73.3 -22.7
the installation of CAES. 18 200 138.8 0 73.3 8.6
TABLE V: SCUC RESULT WITHOUT CAES 19 200 136.2 0 73.3 44.1
Total Cost = $105,551.2 20 200 135.6 0 79.3 50.0
Unit Hours (0-24) 21 200 135.4 0 78.6 50.0
G1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 200 136.4 0 73.3 27.1
22
G2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
23 200 138.2 0 71.3 0.0
G3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
24 200 140.3 0 32.3 0.0
G4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
 6

3) Case 3: Impact of CAES size

In this section, we study the sensitivity of SCUC results to
the size of CAES. For the same system we use different CAES
with several size options as shown in Table IX. It can be seen
that by increasing the size of CAES, the operating cost
decreases.
TABLE IX: SENSITIVITY TO CAES SIZE
CAES Size Total Cost ($)
20 103,340.62
30 102,626.09
40 102,038.97
50 100,881.20
60 100,722.63
100 100,718.78

VI. CONCLUSION
A MIP based SCUC problem including wind and CAES
unit is described in this paper. The case studies based on an 8-
bus test system indicate that the application of CAES can
impact the peak load reduction, system operating cost,
commitment and dispatch of the units. Much of the benefits
listed here will depend on the MW size of the CAES. The
example on 8-bus system showed the effectiveness of the
proposed model.

VII. REFERENCES
[1] J. Wood, F. Wollenberg, “Power Generation Operation and Control”,
John Wiley and Sons, 1996.
[2] M.Shahidehpour, H.Yamin, Z.Li, “Market Operations in Electric Power
Systems”, John Wiley and Sons, 2002.
[3] J. J. Shaw,“A direct method for security-constrained unit commitment”,
IEEE transactions on power systems, Vol.10, No.3, Aug 1995.
[4] Y. Fu, M. Shahidehpour, “Security-constrained unit commitment with
AC constraints”, IEEE transactions on power systems, Vol.20, No.2,
May 2005.
[5] H. Ma, M. Shahidehpour, “Unit commitment with transmission security
and voltage constraints”, IEEE transactions on power systems, Vol.14,
No.2, May 1999.
[6] Z. Li, 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.
[7] T. Li, M. Shahidehpour, “Price-based unit commitment: a case of
Lagrangian relaxation versus mixed integer programming”, IEEE
transactions on power systems, Vol.20, No.4, November 2005.
[8] US Department of Energy: http://www.eere.energy.gov
[9] K.C. Divya, Jacob Ostergaard, “Battery energy storage technology for
power systems – An overview”, Electric Power Systems Research, Dec
2008.
[10] O. Weber, "Air-Storage gas turbine power station at Huntorf," Brown
Boveri Review, vol. 62, 1975.
[11] V. De Biasi, "110 MW McIntosh CAES plant over 90% availability and
95% reliability," Gas Turbine World, vol. 28, 1998.
[12] Iowa Stored Energy Park. 2007. http://www.isepa.com
[13] D. J. Swinder, “Compressed air energy storage in an electricity system
with significant wind power generation”, IEEE transactions on energy
conversion, Vol.22, No.1, March 2007.
[14] L. A. Schienbein, “Energy storage and wind energy conversion
systems”, International Journal Global Energy Issues, Vol.9, No.3,
1997.