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
Ribution network. Size/@Bus Case#1 Case#2 Case#3 PHEV 1 2000/@12 PHEV two 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 outcomes of PV and PHEV sizing and placement within the 33-bus distribution network involve the cost of energy loss, price in the grid, price of PHEVs, price of WTs, total price, voltage deviation, and also the voltage minimum, which are presented in Table 4. The outcomes show that the cost of losses in case 1 as a single-objective OSPF with the aim of minimizing the power losses is Nimbolide site Reduce than the other instances. In addition, the voltage deviation in case two using the objective of voltage deviation minimization is significantly less than circumstances 1 and three as a single-objective OSPF. The results show that by taking into consideration the price within the objective function because the third case (total objective function), the system’s total expense is much less than the other instances, and also the price of power bought from the principal grid is significantly decreased compared to cases 1 and two. The cost of grid power in instances 1, two, and three is USD 47,012, USD 45,876, and USD 29,271. The total cost in the multi-objective OSPF in case three is found at USD 31,123, though this cost is USD 48,584 and USD 47,291 in instances 1 and two, respectively. So, the multi-objective OSPF is definitely the optimal case to enhance the network performance.Table 4. Numerical outcomes of PV and PHEV sizing and placement inside the 33-bus distribution network. Item/Case Cost of power loss (USD) Expense of grid (USD) Cost of PHEV (USD) Cost 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.three. Comparison with the Final results four.three.1. Power Loss Within the base network without wind resources and parking, the quantity of network losses within the 24-h peak period is equal to 950.39 kW, and immediately after the sizing and placement of electric parking lots and wind sources in case three, the value of losses is decreased to 743.33 kW (21.78 reduction). The variation in the active energy loss per hour can also be plotted in Figure ten. It can be noticed that with all the optimal use of electric parking lots and wind sources, the amount of losses in peak load hour has been decreased from 202.67 kW to 101.30 kW.Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER Overview Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEWEnergies 2021, 14,250 250 200 200 150 150 one hundred 100 50 50 0 0 0 0 five 5 10 ten 15 20 20 25 Reduce from 202.67 kW to 101.30 kW in peak load Lower from 202.67 kW to 101.30 kW in peak loadWith WTs and PHEVs Without having WTs and PHEVs With WTs and PHEVs With no WTs and PHEVs17 of 22 17 of16 ofTime (hour)Figure 10. Energy losses with and devoid of OSPF through the AOA for 24 h. Time (hour)four.three.2. Compound 48/80 In Vivo minimum Voltage four.3.2. Minimum Voltage curve of the 33-bus network is shown in Figure 11, which The minimum voltage 4.three.two. Minimum Voltage shows that the minimum voltage from the the 33-bus network is shown andFigure 11, which buses is out of range at 16:00 this voltage will be 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, employing the OSPF, theat 16:00 and this voltage is voltage is placed in the shows that the minimum voltage the buses is out of range at shows that the minimum voltage ofof the buses is out of variety 16:00 and this voltage is allowable range at all Accordin.