First IEEE International Conference on Energy Internet
Multi-objective Optimization of Hybrid Renewable
Energy System with Load Forecasting
Mengjun Ming, Rui Wang, Yabing Zha, Tao Zhang
College of Information System and Management
National University of Defense Technology
Changsha, Hunan Province, China
mmengjun@gmail.com, ruiwangnudt@gmail.com
Abstract—Load forecasting is crucial to schedule energy in
advance with meeting the load demand of users. This study
proposes a hybrid model in which the multiple linear regression
(MLR) and the autoregressive integrated moving average (ARI-
MA) method are used to perform load forecasting. The proposed
method enhances the forecasting accuracy by emphasizing more
on the previous forecasting results that have smaller deviations.
In addition, Kalman filter is used to estimate parameters of
the hybrid model. By taking the forecasted load as input, the
paper further considers multi-objective optimal design of a
hybrid renewable energy system (HRES). The HRES consists
of photovoltaic (PV) panels, wind turbines, batteries and diesel
generators. The design is to minimize the HRES cost, pollutant
emission, as well as to satisfy the load demand as much as
possible. The problem is solved by a multi-objective evolutionary
algorithm (MOEA) by which a set of approximated Pareto
optimal (trade-off) solutions are found. By further integrating
the preference of a decision maker, the best configuration of
the HRES is identified.
Index Terms—load forecasting, the multiple linear regression,
ARIMA, hybrid renewable energy system, multi-objective evo-
lutionary algorithm
I. I NTRODUCTION
Load forecasting is important to power system planning,
operation, and control. Knowing the load demand in advance
can reduce the redundant production, and can also avoid the
lack of energy [1], [2]. Hence, improving the accuracy of load
forecasting can increase the appropriateness of scheduling
and planning and reduce operational costs of power systems.
Many load forecasting methods have been developed re-
cently. These methods can be classified into three categories:
conventional approaches, such as linear regression method
[3], [4]; artificial intelligence (AI)-based techniques including
neural network models [5]; and hybrid methods [6].
As reported in [7], load is strongly correlated with tem-
perature and the time series. Given the fact that the multiple
linear regression (MLR) model performs well in analyzing
the linear correlation between the load and the weather
condition as well as time, and the autoregressive integrated
moving average (ARIMA) model is good at dealing with
time series [8], both of which are demonstrated to be more
978-1-5090-5759-7/17 $31.00 © 2017 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/ICEI.2017.27
effective than other methods such as the neural network [1],
[8], this work proposes a new method for load forecasting by
integrating the above two models. The proposed predication
model combines the past loads, dominant weather variables
and time variables to predict the future load wherein the
Kalman filter is applied to estimate the parameters of the
model. By comparing the forecasting load and the true load,
the proposed method can automatically adjust the emphasis
on the two basic models with the help of Kalman filter.
The load forecasting is implemented in the design of
a power system, i.e., the hybrid renewable energy system
(HRES) that integrates PV panels, wind turbines, batteries
and diesel generators. This hybrid system is aimed at bringing
low cost, less pollution and high reliability. To solve this
multi-objective optimization problem (MOP), the preference-
inspired coevolutionary algorithm using goal vectors, denoted
as PICEA-g, is adopted due to its simplicity and effectiveness
[9], [10]. Each of the Pareto optimal solutions corresponds
to a feasible configuration. By further considering the pref-
erence of a decision maker, a satisfactory configuration can
be identified.
The remainder is organized as follows. Sections II shows
the process of data cleaning and selection before forecasting.
Section III elaborates two classic forecasting methods and the
novel method. Section IV introduces the experimental back-
ground about the HRES. Experimental results are presented
in Section V. Section VI concludes the paper.
II. P RE - PROCESSING
A. Data cleaning
In an attempt to overcome the challenge of load forecasting
before the design of the HRES, the data from Global Energy
Forecasting Competition 2014 (GEFCom2014) is adopted in
which hourly load and temperature in 25 stations from 2007
to 2010 are provided. The data set will be used to examine
the applied forecasting algorithm and the model of the hybrid
system.
The process of data cleaning starts with the benchmark
model in (1). It is a multiple linear regression (MLR) model
with the following main and cross effects [11]:
112
113
 200 0.15
actual individual weather station
regress combined weather stations
180 0.14

160 Top - 21
0.13

140
Load

0.12

MAPE
120
0.11
100

0.1
80

0.09 0.082
60
150 200 250 300 350
Hours
0.08

W 3
23

W 8

21
12

20
16

W 4
24

W0
W5
W2

W1

15

19
17

9
8

1
1

1
1
2
2

4
5

3
W
W

W
W

W
W

W
W

W
W
W

W
W

W
W

W
Fig. 1. Hourly actual and regress loads Weather stations

Fig. 2. Weather stations ranked by ascending individual MAPE

∙ main effects: the chronological trend variable (𝑌 𝑒𝑎𝑟),

the variables 𝑀 𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ, 𝑊 𝑒𝑒𝑘𝑑𝑎𝑦 and 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟, and the 1st
to 3rd polynomials of the temperature (𝑇𝑝 , 𝑇𝑝2 , 𝑇𝑝3 ).
∙ cross effects: 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟 × 𝑊 𝑒𝑒𝑘𝑑𝑎𝑦, 𝑇𝑝 × 𝑀 𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ, 𝑇𝑝 ×
2 in-sample fit results and sort the weather stations by MAPE
3 2
𝑀 𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ, 𝑇𝑝 × 𝑀 𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ, 𝑇𝑝 × 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟, 𝑇𝑝 × 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟 and
𝑇𝑝3 × 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟.
Assuming that the regress vector is b = (𝑏0 , 𝑏1 , . . . , 𝑏14 )T ,
the MLR model can be written as follows.
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 𝑏0 + 𝑏1 × 𝑌 𝑒𝑎𝑟 + 𝑏2 × 𝑇𝑝 + 𝑏3 × 𝑇𝑝2 + 𝑏4 × 𝑇𝑝3
+ 𝑏5 × 𝑀 𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ + 𝑏6 × 𝑊 𝑒𝑒𝑘𝑑𝑎𝑦 + 𝑏7 × ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟
+ 𝑏8 × 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟 × 𝑊 𝑒𝑒𝑘𝑑𝑎𝑦 + 𝑏9 × 𝑇𝑝 × 𝑀 𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ
+ 𝑏10 × 𝑇𝑝2 × 𝑀 𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ + 𝑏11 × 𝑇𝑝3 × 𝑀 𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ
+ 𝑏12 × 𝑇𝑝 × 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟 + 𝑏13 × 𝑇𝑝2 × 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟
+ 𝑏14 × 𝑇𝑝3 × 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟
where the independent variable vector is x =
(1, 𝑌 𝑒𝑎𝑟, 𝑇𝑝 , . . . , 𝑇𝑝3 × 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟) whose dimension is 15.
After estimating the benchmark model using all the histor-
ical data, we calculate the absolute percentage error (APE)
for each hourly load observation. The observations with
APE values of greater than 50% are treated as outliers.
For these outliers, we replace the original observations with
the predicted values from the benchmark model. This data-
cleaning process modifies about 0.05% of the historical data.
As an example, Fig. 1 demonstrates the difference between
the actual values and the regress values over a period.
B. Weather station selection
Hourly temperatures from 25 anonymous weather stations
(W1–W25) are provided. However, there is no geographic
information for the individual weather stations. Thus, we
select the appropriate weather stations for the utility by the
weather station selection method provided in [12]. As a
start, the temperature series from the 25 weather stations
are input into the benchmark model. Estimating the model
using the provided data, we obtain 25 sets of in-sample fit
results, one from each of the 25 weather stations. We then
calculate the mean absolute percentage errors (MAPE) of the
values in ascending order (see the blue line in Fig. 2). The
identification of the weather stations is marked on the X-axis.
By averaging the hourly temperature series of the top-𝑛
weather stations, we obtain combined weather stations, de-
noted by 𝐶𝑊𝑛 . For example, 𝐶𝑊3 is the hourly temperature
series created by averaging the hourly temperatures of W24,
W10 and W25 (which rank the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, respectively).
We then apply the benchmark model with each of the 25
combined temperature series in turn. Using the data from the
years 2007–2009 to estimate the model, we can forecast load
in 2010. Fig. 2 also shows the MAPE values of the combined
weather stations for the year 2010. The best accuracy occurs
(1)
for 𝐶𝑊21 (i.e., the average temperature of the top 21 weather
stations), which yields the lowest MAPE value of 0.082.
III. L OAD FORECASTING
A. Basic forecasting models
Based on the above weather selection, the data from the
top-21 stations is adopted to perform load forecasting.
The load in the next year is predicted by using the MLR
model and the ARIMA model in the first stage. Initially,
we follow the model selection process, which starts with the
benchmark model in (1), except for the first day of the month.
On the first day, the benchmark model is expanded to include
the load with a 24-hour lag, as shown in (2).
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑡 = 𝜅 ⋅ xt ⋅ b + (1 − 𝜅) ⋅ 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑡−24 (2)
where 𝜅 is a coefficient and xt = (1, 𝑌 𝑒𝑎𝑟, 𝑇𝑝 , . . . , 𝑇𝑝3 ×
𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟) at the ordinal number of 𝑡. It then includes special
effects one by one, such as the recency effect. Depending
on the performance of these effects on the validation data
set, different combinations of the aforementioned modelling
effects are selected for different validation data sets in turn.
Finally the selected model is estimated using the weighted
least squares (WLS) method.

114
113
 The ARIMA model is popular amongst the statistical
models for time series analysis and forecasting applications
S
[13]. It originates from the autoregressive (AR) model and
the moving average (MA) model. The ARIMA(𝑝, 𝑑, 𝑞) model PV panel
is obtained as follows: Sp
𝑑 𝑑
Δ 𝑧𝑡 = (1 − 𝐵) 𝑧𝑡 (3)
h D
𝜙𝑝 (𝐵) Δ𝑑 𝑧𝑡 = 𝜃𝑞 (𝐵) 𝑎𝑡 (4)
where 𝑑 is the order of differencing, 𝑧𝑡 is the predicted load at Fig. 3. Diagram of solar radiation
time 𝑡 and 𝑎𝑡 is the random shock in a normal distribution.
𝐵 is the backshift operator which defines 𝑧𝑡−1 = 𝐵𝑧𝑡 . In
addition, 𝜙𝑝 (𝐵) and 𝜃𝑞 (𝐵) are the operators expressed as are repeated until the prediction time period is achieved. By
2 𝑝
this method, the hourly load in future is predicted on a rolling
𝜙𝑝 (𝐵) = 1 − 𝜙1 𝐵 − 𝜙2 𝐵 − ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ − 𝜙𝑝 𝐵 (5) basis. Through the constant correction, the final results are
𝜃𝑞 (𝐵) = 1 − 𝜃1 𝐵 − 𝜃2 𝐵 2 − ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ − 𝜃𝑞 𝐵 𝑞 (6) obtained and the total error can be reduced.

where 𝜙1 , . . . , 𝜙𝑝 are the parameters of the AR(𝑝) and

IV. O PTIMIZATION D ESCRIPTION
𝜃1 , . . . , 𝜃𝑞 are the parameters of the MA(𝑞).
The two models are used to generate a point load forecast The forecasting load is applied into the HRES consisting
and the residuals that are fed to the following stage. of PV panels, wind turbines, diesel generators and batteries.
Based on the load demand, the best configuration of HRES
can be designed. The mathematical models of the HRES
B. Combined model using Kalman filter
components considered in this study are described below.
In order to take advantages of the above two methods, this First, assuming that the output power of the PV panel
section proposes a hybrid method where the two methods mainly depends upon the solar radiation on the tilted surface
are both considered. In addition, the Kalman algorithm is whose inclination is 𝛼, the effective solar radiation (𝑆𝑝 ) is
applied to filter the noise by tracking the hourly comparative the perpendicular component as shown in Fig. 3.
results of the two models. The main feature of the proposed The 𝑆𝑝 is defined in (11) when the total incident radiation
method is that it can reduce the emphasis on the less accurate intensity is 𝑆 and the solar elevation angle is ℎ [15].
one based on the dynamic information of the load. The
forecasting results from the MLR and the ARIMA methods 𝑆𝑝 = 𝑆 × sin (ℎ + 𝛼) (11)
are denoted 𝑌1 and 𝑌2 , respectively.
In the initialization, the APEs of 𝑌1 and 𝑌2 at 𝑡 = 1 are By 𝑆𝑝 , the temperature and the electric current of the PV
calculated, defined as 𝑃 and 𝑅. Following that, the equations panel can be determined, respectively. 𝑇0 is the temperature
for the discrete Kalman filter algorithm are addressed [14]. in the surrounding environment and 𝑇𝑁 𝑂𝐶 is the nominal
Assuming that the current time is 𝑡 = 2, the current load can operating cell temperature. 𝐼𝑆𝐶 denotes the short-circuit
be predicted based on the 𝑌1 and 𝑌2 according to the model. current and 𝐾1 is the corresponding temperature coefficient.
𝑇𝑁 𝑂𝐶 − 20
𝑌 (𝑡) = 𝑌1 (𝑡) + 𝐾𝑔 (𝑡)(𝑌2 (𝑡) − 𝑌1 (𝑡)) (7) 𝑇𝑃 𝑉 = 𝑇0 + × 𝑆𝑝 (12)
800
with
𝑅(𝑡 − 1) 𝐼𝑃 𝑉 = [𝐼𝑆𝐶 + 𝐾1 (𝑇𝑃 𝑉 − 25)] × 𝑆𝑝 (13)
𝐾𝑔(𝑡) = (8)
𝑃 (𝑡 − 1) + 𝑅(𝑡 − 1)
Assuming that the PV array is grouped by 𝑁𝑆 in series
where 𝐾𝑔 is the Kalman gain. and 𝑁𝑃 in parallel of PV panels, the maximum output power
In the following steps, the 𝑃 and 𝑅 are updated according is computed as (14) where 𝛽 is the filling factor [16].
to the newly predicted value (𝑌 ).
√ 𝑃𝑃 𝑉 = 𝛽 ⋅ 𝑁𝑆 ⋅ 𝑁𝑃 ⋅ 𝐼𝑃 𝑉 (14)
((𝑌1 (𝑡) − 𝑌 (𝑡))/𝑌 (𝑡))2 + 𝑃 (𝑡 − 1)2 (9)
𝑃 (𝑡) =
2 Second, the output power from a wind turbine is obtained
√ with the wind speed 𝑣 in (15) [17].
((𝑌2 (𝑡) − 𝑌 (𝑡))/𝑌 (𝑡))2 + 𝑅(𝑡 − 1)2 ⎧
𝑅(𝑡) = (10)
2 
 0 𝑣 < 𝑉𝑐

⎨ 1 𝐶 𝜌𝐴 𝑣 3 𝑉 ⩽ 𝑣 < 𝑉
To make the Kalman filter continue running until the end of 𝑝 𝑤𝑔 𝑐 𝑟
𝑃𝑊 𝐺 (𝑣) = 2 (15)
the process, 𝑃 (𝑡) and 𝑅(𝑡) come to 𝑃 (𝑡 − 1) and 𝑅(𝑡 − 1) of 𝑃𝑤𝑔𝑟
 𝑉 𝑟 ⩽ 𝑣 < 𝑉 𝑓

⎩
(8) when system time steps forward to 𝑡 + 1. The above steps 0 𝑣 ⩾ 𝑉𝑓

115
114
with ( ) 17
𝐻𝑤𝑔 Battery storage
𝑣 = 𝑣𝑟 (16)
𝐻𝑟 Charge D.C.
regulator load
where 𝐶𝑝 is a coefficient defined as the ratio of the actual PV panel
power output divided by the maximum wind power, 𝜌 is the Rectifier Inverter
air density, 𝐴𝑤𝑔 is the cross section of the rotor, and 𝑃𝑤𝑔𝑟 is
A.C.
the wind turbine rated power. Besides, the cut-in wind speed load
𝑉𝑐 , the rated wind speed 𝑉𝑟 and the cut-off wind speed 𝑉𝑓 Wind turbine Diesel generator
are set as 4 𝑚/𝑠, 14 𝑚/𝑠 and 20 𝑚/𝑠, respectively. The wind
speed 𝑣 at the height of 𝐻𝑤𝑔 is transferred by the measurable Fig. 4. Illustration of a general HRES [10]
wind speed 𝑣𝑟 at the reference height 𝐻𝑟 .
Third, to ensure safety, most of the battery models con-
fine the battery state of charge (SOC) with maximum and turbine comprises the wind generator and the tower, its cost
minimum constraints. The change in SOC is based on the includes the two parts and the expense in tower is positively
renewable energy production and the load. We use (17) to related to its height.
calculate the SOC of the battery at each simulation step. ∑𝑇
𝐹𝑒 = 𝐹𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠 (𝑡) ⋅ 𝐸𝑓 (20)
(𝑃𝑏𝑎𝑡 (𝑡) /𝑉 ) ⋅ Δ𝑡 ⋅ 𝜂𝑏𝑎𝑡 𝑡=1
𝑆𝑂𝐶(𝑡 + 1) = 𝑆𝑂𝐶(𝑡) + (17) where 𝐸𝑓 is emission factor, depending on the property of
𝐶𝑛 ⋅ 𝑁𝑏𝑎𝑡
the diesel generator. The amount of emission accumulates
where 𝑃𝑏𝑎𝑡 (𝑡) is the battery input/output power (positive for
every time this device is powered [19].
charging models and negative for discharging models), 𝑉 is
∑𝑇
the DC voltage and Δ𝑡 is the simulation time, and is set to 1 logic (𝐸𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙 (𝑡) < 𝐸𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 (𝑡))
h. 𝜂𝑏𝑎𝑡 is the round-trip efficiency, and is set to 80% during 𝑃𝑢 = 𝑡=0 (21)
𝑇
charging and 100% during discharging, respectively. The 𝐶𝑛 where 𝐸𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙 (𝑡) and 𝐸𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 (𝑡) are respectively the available
denotes the nominal capacity of the battery. The 𝑁𝑏𝑎𝑡 denotes power supply and the load demand at time 𝑡. The value of
the total number of the battery. 𝑃𝑢 refers to the proportion of hours of power shortage in one
Ultimately, if a diesel generator is used, its fuel consump- year, within [0, 1].
tion 𝐹𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠 is assumed to be a linear function of the power
output [18] as (18). min 𝐹 = (𝐶𝑠 , 𝐹𝑒 , 𝑃𝑢 ) (22)
𝐹𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠 = 𝛾1 𝑃𝑑𝑔𝑟 + 𝛾2 𝑃𝑑𝑔 (18) Overall, as shown in (22), the design of a HRES is a
where 𝑃𝑑𝑔𝑟 is the rated power of diesel generator, 𝑃𝑑𝑔 is the multi-objective optimization problem (MOP) where three
actual output power, and 𝛾1 , 𝛾2 denote the coefficients of objectives are to be minimized. It is worth mentioning that
fuel consumption. since the objectives in an MOP are in conflict with each other,
The operating mechanism of HRES is depicted in Fig. 4. the optimal solution is in general not a single one, but a set
First the power produced by PV panels and wind turbines of trade-off (so-called Pareto optimal) solutions [20]. Multi-
directly supplies the load demand. The surplus power will objective evolutionary algorithms are particularly suited for
be saved into the battery storage till it is fully charged. On solving MOPs, since their population-based nature can lead
the contrary, when the load goes beyond the produced power, to a Pareto optimal solution set in a single run [9], [21].
the battery will supply power to the load. If the battery cannot
meet the demand, diesel generators will be used as emergency V. E XPERIMENTAL RESULTS
power-supply. In case that the diesel generators still cannot A. Load forecasting
cover the supply-load gap, the unmet load will be cut. In the above models, the regress vector b is estimated as
Evidently, it is always expected that the system cost and (0, 3.2, 0, 0, 0, 177.8, 0.6, 86.2, −0.04, −7.91, −0.1, 0, −3.1,
output pollution can be minimized. Also, the load demand 0.03, 0)𝑇 and the coefficient 𝜅 is set to 0.9. Parameters 𝑝, 𝑑,
can be met. In other words, for this real-world problem, the 𝑞 are 0, 1 and 1, respectively.
cost of system (𝐶𝑠 ), fuel emissions (𝐹𝑒 ) and the probability To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method,
of unsatisfying the load demand (𝑃𝑢 ) are to be minimized, different months of the load (e.g. July and October) in 2010
which are defined as follows. are predicted and the actual data acts as the reference. The
𝐶𝑠 = 𝐶𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 (𝑃 𝑉 + 𝑊 𝐺 + 𝑇 𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 + 𝐵𝐴𝑇 + 𝐷𝐺) forecasting results of the basic models and the combined
model are shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6.
+ 𝐶𝑟𝑒𝑝 (𝑃 𝑉 + 𝑊 𝐺 + 𝑇 𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 + 𝐵𝐴𝑇 + 𝐷𝐺)(19)
To evaluate the performance of load forecasting, the mean
where 𝐶𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 is the initial investment of devices and 𝐶𝑟𝑒𝑝 absolute percentage error (𝑀 𝐴𝑃 𝐸), maximum absolute per-
is the expenditure in repair and maintenance. Since the wind centage error (𝑀 𝐴𝑋𝑃 𝐸), and standard deviation of absolute

116
115
 300
Actual TABLE I
280 Combined ACCURACY INDICATORS FOR THE TWO BASIC MODELS
MLR
260 ARIMA

240
𝑀 𝐴𝑃 𝐸(%) 𝑀 𝐴𝑋𝑃 𝐸(%) 𝑆𝐷𝐴𝑃 𝐸(%)
MLR model 7.49 31.47 5.69
220
Load (kW)
ARIMA model 7.86 22.13 5.46
200
Combined model 5.78 21.44 4.51
180

160

140 TABLE II
120
T HE INITIAL COST AND THE ANNUAL REPAIR EXPENSES OF THE
COMPONENTS IN HRES
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
time (hour)
𝐶𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 ($) 𝐶𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑎𝑖𝑟 ($)
PV panel 3000 30
Fig. 5. Actual load and forecasting results of different models in July Wind turbine 3013 50
Wind tower 250/𝑚 2.5/𝑚
Battery 126 26.5
150 Diesel generator 1514 0.17/ℎ
140

130
and the historical data of wind speed and solar intensity are
120
also used as inputs.
Load (kW)

110
In addition, the required parameter settings in the above
100
equations are provided in Table II and Table III. Table
90
Actual II shows the initial investment cost and the annual repair
80
Combined
MLR
expense of the PV panel, wind turbine, wind tower, battery
70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
ARIMA
90 100
and diesel generator. All the other parameters about the
time (hour) HRES and the environment are summarized in Table III.
To solve this multi-objective problem described in (22),
Fig. 6. Actual load and forecasting results of different models in Oct
one of the state-of-the-art multi-objective evolutionary al-
gorithms, i.e., the preference-inspired coevolutionary algo-
rithm [9] is applied by which the Pareto optimal solution
percentage error (𝑆𝐷𝐴𝑃 𝐸) are used as the performance set is obtained. Note that the maximum generations and
indicators and are defined as follows. the population size of the algorithm are set to 100. Each
𝑛
1∑ candidate solution is composed of six variables in the form:
𝑀 𝐴𝑃 𝐸 = 𝑒(𝑡) (23) [𝑁𝑝𝑣 ∣𝑁𝑤𝑔 ∣𝑁𝑏𝑎𝑡 ∣𝑁𝑑𝑔 ∣𝐻𝑤𝑔 ∣𝛼] which respectively represent
𝑛 𝑡=1
the number of system components, the height of the wind
𝑀 𝐴𝑋𝑃 𝐸 = max {𝑒(𝑡)} (24) tower and the inclination angle of the tilted PV panel.
√ ∑𝑛 In the simulation, all constraints of this system are satis-
2
𝑡=1 (𝑒(𝑡) − 𝑀 𝐴𝑃 𝐸) (25) fied. By running the PICEA-g algorithm, the obtained non-
𝑆𝐷𝐴𝑃 𝐸 =
𝑛 dominated solutions (in objective space) are shown in Fig. 7.
with
𝑌𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 (𝑡) − 𝑌 (𝑡)
𝑒(𝑡) = ∣ ∣ × 100% (26) Having obtained the non-dominated solutions, a decision
𝑌𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 (𝑡) maker can choose his/her preferred solution. For example, if
where 𝑛 is the total number of the predicted periods, the decision maker would like to meet 99% of the energy
𝑌𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 (𝑡) is the actual load and 𝑌 (𝑡) is the predicted load demand at least and simultaneously confine the emission
at time 𝑡. The smaller the indicators, the more accurate they within 250kg, one can set 𝑃𝑢 < 1% and 𝐹𝑒 < 250. Then
are. four solutions are filtered as listed in Table IV. Amongst the
Table I shows the indicator values of the three forecasting
methods. It is observed that for each indicator the combined
model offers the smallest indicator value, and thus is the most TABLE III
PARAMETER SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE SYSTEM
effective one.
parameter value parameter value parameter value
ℎ(∘ ) -71 𝐶𝑝 0.4 𝐶𝑛 (Ah) 100
B. HRES design
𝑇𝑁 𝑂𝐶 (∘ C) 43 𝜌(g/L) 1.29 𝛾1 (/kWh) 0.08
To obtain the best configuration of the HRES, the process 𝐼𝑆𝐶 (A) 7.22 𝐴𝑤𝑔 (𝑚2 ) 12.59 𝛾2 (/kWh) 0.25
of power flow in the next year is simulated. Prior to to the 𝐾1 (𝐴/∘ C) 0.0038 𝐻𝑟 (𝑚) 10 𝐸𝑓 (kg) 2.5
design, the forecasting load is input into the hybrid system, 𝛽(V) 5.24 𝑉 (V) 12 – –

117
116
 R EFERENCES
12000
[1] C. M. Lee and C. N. Ko, “Short-term load forecasting using lifting
10000 scheme and arima models,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 38,
8000 no. 5, pp. 5902–5911, 2011.
[2] X. Zhang, R. Wang, T. Zhang, and Y. Zha, “Short-term load fore-
Cs ($)

6000
casting based on an improved deep belief network,” in International
4000 Conference on Smart Grid and Clean Energy Technologies. IEEE,
2000 2016, pp. 339–342.
0
[3] A. D. Papalexopoulos and T. C. Hesterberg, “A regression-based
4000
3000 100
approach to short-term system load forecasting,” IEEE Transactions
80
2000
40
60 on Power Systems, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1535–1547, 1990.
1000
Fe (kg) 0 0
20
Pu (%) [4] W. R. Christiaanse, “Short-term load forecasting using general ex-
ponential smoothing,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus &
Systems, vol. PAS-90, no. 2, pp. 900–911, 1971.
Fig. 7. Optimal objectives for HRES using the PICEA-g algorithm
[5] H. S. Hippert, C. E. Pedreira, and R. C. Souza, “Neural networks
for short-term load forecasting: A review and evaluation,” IEEE
TABLE IV Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 44–55, 2001.
S ELECTED RESULTS USING THE PICEA- G WITH SPECIFIED REFERENCE [6] N. Amjady, “Short-term bus load forecasting of power systems by a
new hybrid method,” vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 333–341, 2007.
solution 1 2 3 4 [7] N. Charlton and C. Singleton, “A refined parametric model for short
𝑁𝑝𝑣 29 30 30 29 term load forecasting,” International Journal of Forecasting, vol. 30,
𝑁𝑤𝑔 8 9 8 8 no. 2, pp. 364–368, 2013.
[8] T. Hong and S. Fan, “Probabilistic electric load forecasting: A tutorial
𝑁𝑏𝑎𝑡 29 29 29 29
review,” International Journal of Forecasting, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 914–
𝑁𝑑𝑔 1 1 1 1 938, 2016.
𝐻𝑤𝑔 24.41 17.59 17.19 17.19 [9] R. Wang, R. C. Purshouse, and P. J. Fleming, “Preference-inspired
𝛼 44.62 51.33 46.76 44.62 Co-evolutionary Algorithms for Many-objective Optimisation,” IEEE
𝐹𝑒 (kg) 185.01 188.44 216.56 241.25 Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 474–
𝑃𝑢 (%) 0.39 0.41 0.54 0.59 494, 2013.
𝐶𝑠 ($) 11285.15 11105.34 10589.76 10417.92 [10] Z. Shi, R. Wang, and T. Zhang, “Multi-objective optimal design of
hybrid renewable energy systems using preference-inspired coevolu-
tionary approach,” Solar Energy, vol. 118, pp. 96–106, 2015.
[11] J. Xie and T. Hong, “Gefcom2014 probabilistic electric load fore-
four solutions, the one that produces the minimum cost is casting: An integrated solution with forecast combination and residual
selected, i.e., the fourth one (in bold). simulation,” International Journal of Forecasting, vol. 32, no. 3, pp.
1012–1016, 2015.
[12] T. Hong, P. Wang, and L. White, “Weather station selection for electric
VI. C ONCLUSION load forecasting,” International Journal of Forecasting, vol. 31, no. 2,
pp. 286–295, 2015.
Load forecasting is crucial in energy management. Inspired [13] J. F. Chen, W. M. Wang, and C. M. Huang, “Analysis of an adaptive
by the advantages of the multiple linear regression (MLR) time-series autoregressive moving-average (arma) model for short-term
and the autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) load forecasting,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 34, no. 3, pp.
187–196, 1995.
methods on load forecasting, this study proposes to hybridize [14] H. M. Al-Hamadi and S. A. Soliman, “Short-term electric load
the two methods, and further apply the Kalman filter al- forecasting based on kalman filtering algorithm with moving window
gorithm to enhance the accuracy of load forecasting. The weather and load model,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 68,
no. 1, pp. 47–59, 2004.
effectiveness of the hybrid method is demonstrated on a set of [15] S. Abedi, A. Alimardani, G. B. Gharehpetian, G. H. Riahy, and S. H.
benchmarks. With a proper predication of the load demand, Hosseinian, “A comprehensive method for optimal power management
the multi-objective optimal design of hybrid renewable ener- and design of hybrid res-based autonomous energy systems,” Renew-
able & Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1577–1587,
gy system (HRES) is studied. The HRES is composed of PV 2012.
panels, wind turbines, batteries and diesel generators. The [16] E. Koutroulis, D. Kolokotsa, A. Potirakis, and K. Kalaitzakis, “Method-
design of HRES is to find the best configuration of these ology for optimal sizing of stand-alone photovoltaic/wind-generator
systems using genetic algorithms,” Solar Energy, vol. 80, no. 9, pp.
components such that the systems cost, the fuel emission 1072–1088, 2006.
are minimized, and the load demand is met. The state- [17] H. Yang, L. Lu, and W. Zhou, “A novel optimization sizing model for
of-the-art multi-objective evolutionary algorithm (MOEA), hybrid solar-wind power generation system,” Solar Energy, vol. 81,
no. 1, pp. 76–84, 2007.
i.e., the preference-inspired coevolutionary algorithm using [18] R. Dufo-Lpez and J. L. Bernal-Agustn, “Multi-objective design of
goal vectors (PICEA-g), is applied to solve this problem. pvindieselydrogenattery systems,” Renewable Energy, vol. 33, no. 12,
After obtaining a set of Pareto optimal solutions, the process pp. 2559–2572, 2008.
[19] H. Yang, W. Zhou, L. Lu, and Z. Fang, “Optimal sizing method for
of identifying a preferred solutions based on the decision stand-alone hybrid solarind system with lpsp technology by using
maker’s preference is illustrated. genetic algorithm,” Solar Energy, vol. 82, no. 4, pp. 354–367, 2008.
[20] R. Wang, P. J. Fleming, and R. C. Purshouse, “General framework
for localised multi-objective evolutionary algorithms,” Information
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Sciences An International Journal, vol. 258, no. 3, pp. 29–53, 2014.
The research leading to the results presented in this paper [21] K. Deb and D. Kalyanmoy, Multiobjective optimization using evolu-
tionary algorithms. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2001.
has received funding from the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Nos. 61403404 and 71571187).

118
117