skip to main content
10.1145/3307772.3328302acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagese-energyConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Day-Ahead Optimization of Production Schedules for Saving Electrical Energy Costs

Published:15 June 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

The integration of weather-dependent renewable energy sources leads to an increased volatility of electrical energy supply. As a result, considerable intra-day price spreads can be observed at the spot markets for electrical energy. To benefit from variable energy prices, enterprises can use price forecasts for cost-optimized load scheduling. Thereby energy costs can be reduced by shifting energy-intensive processes to times with lower energy prices.

In this work, we propose a method to model an industrial unit including devices, storage units, dependencies, restrictions, and production targets as a mixed integer linear program (MILP). Along with a time series of energy prices, the MILP is used to compute optimal run times for the devices while complying with the specified restrictions.

We use the model of a cement plant as an example. We show potential savings compared to default schedules over individual day, weeks, or over the year 2018. We propose optimization with look-ahead, point out its benefits compared to optimization without look-ahead, and show the influence of storages sizes and price variance on the savings potential.

References

  1. Peter Bazan, David Steber, and Reinhard German. 2017. Hybrid Simulation and Energy Market Based Optimization of Cement Plants. Computer Science - Research and Development 32, 1 (2017), 65--77. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Pedro M. Castro, Iiro Harjunkoski, and Ignacio E. Grossmann. 2011. Optimal Scheduling of Continuous Plants with Energy Constraints. Computers & Chemical Engineering 35, 2 (2011), 372--387.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Christian Gahm, Florian Denz, Martin Dirr, and Axel Tuma. 2016. Energy-efficient scheduling in manufacturing companies: A review and research framework. European Journal of Operational Research 248, 3 (2016), 744--757.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Florian Heimgaertner, Uwe Ziegler, Bernd Thomas, and Michael Menth. 2018. A Distributed Control Architecture for a Loosely Coupled Virtual Power Plant. In Proceedings of the ICE/IEEE International Technology Management Conference (ICE/IEEE ITMC).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Marianthi G. Ierapetritou and Christodoulos A. Floudas. 1998. Effective Continuous-Time Formulation for Short-Term Scheduling. 2. Continuous and semicontinuous Processes. Industrial & engineering chemistry research 37, 11 (1998), 4360--4374.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Richard M. Karp. 1972. Reducibility Among Combinatorial Problems. In Proceedings of a symposium on the Complexity of Computer Computations. Yorktown Heights, New York, USA, 85--103.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Emilia Kondili, Nilay Shah, and Constantinos C. Pantelides. 1993. Production Planning for the Rational Use of Energy in Multiproduct Continuous Plants. Computers & Chemical Engineering 17 (1993), S123--S128.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Naseer Abboodi Madlool, Rahman Saidur, M. Shouquat Hossain, and Nasrudin Abd Rahim. 2011. A Critical Review on Energy Use and Savings in the Cement Industries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15, 4 (2011), 2042--2060.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Carlos Alberto Mendez and Jaime Cerda. 2002. An Efficient MILP Continuous-Time Formulation for Short-Term Scheduling of Multiproduct Continuous Facilities. Computers & Chemical Engineering 26, 4--5 (2002), 687--695.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Sumit Mitra, Ignacio E. Grossmann, Jose M. Pinto, and Nikhil Arora. 2012. Optimal Production Planning under Time-Sensitive Electricity Prices for Continuous Power-Intensive Processes. Computers & Chemical Engineering 38 (2012), 171--184.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Klaus Neumann, Christoph Schwindt, and Norbert Trautmann. 2005. Scheduling of Continuous and Discontinuous Material Flows with Intermediate Storage Restrictions. European Journal of Operational Research 165, 2 (2005), 495--509.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Nord Pool AS. 2018. Historical Market Data. https://www.nordpoolgroup.com/historical-market-data/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Munawar A Shaik and Christodoulos A Floudas. 2007. Improved Unit-Specific Event-Based Continuous-Time Model for Short-Term Scheduling of Continuous Processes: Rigorous Treatment of Storage Requirements. Industrial & engineering chemistry research 46, 6 (2007), 1764--1779.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Fadi Shrouf, Joaquin Ordieres-Meré, Alvaro García-Sánchez, and Miguel Ortega-Mier. 2014. Optimizing the Production Scheduling of a Single Machine to Minimize Total Energy Consumption Costs. Journal of Cleaner Production 67 (2014), 197--207.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Day-Ahead Optimization of Production Schedules for Saving Electrical Energy Costs

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          e-Energy '19: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Future Energy Systems
          June 2019
          589 pages
          ISBN:9781450366717
          DOI:10.1145/3307772

          Copyright © 2019 Owner/Author

          This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs International 4.0 License.

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 15 June 2019

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate160of446submissions,36%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader