Port shore power resource scheduling management method and system based on time-sharing pricing

Abstract

The invention discloses a port shore power resource scheduling management method and system based on time-sharing pricing, and the method comprises the steps: 1, determining a micro-grid and shore power planning model based on a hybrid incentive policy, and determining the current port micro-grid and shore power installation number based on the model; step 2, the intelligent monitoring platform obtains micro-grid and shore power installation data and use states based on port information, displays the data and the use states on a monitoring display interface, and obtains time-of-use electricity price information in combination with an incentive policy; 3, the user selects a charging demand at the user side based on the interface information, the time-of-use electricity price information and the charging demand of the ship; 4, the intelligent monitoring platform supplies power based on the demand, the ship is parked to a designated charging point to be charged, the monitoring platform monitors charging data in real time, and the charging cost is calculated; and step 5, the user terminal pays after charging is completed, and a charging task is completed.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the technical field of electric power engineering, and in particular to a method and system for scheduling and managing port shore power resources based on time-sharing pricing. Background Art

[0002] To address climate change and reduce environmental impact, the international community has placed higher demands on energy conservation and emissions reduction in the shipping and port industries, leading to the emergence of shore power systems. Onshore Power Supply (OPS) technology allows berthed vessels to shut down their auxiliary engines and meet their power needs by connecting to the shore power grid. This technology can significantly reduce pollutant emissions generated by ships while berthing and help reduce noise pollution.

[0003] Shore power technology can shut down auxiliary engines on docked ships, but its energy efficiency is limited. Using microgrids for shore power can fundamentally reduce port pollution and optimize the port's energy system. Therefore, developing a method for charging and billing docked ships, replacing onboard auxiliary engines with shore power systems and replacing traditional grid power with microgrids, is a key challenge to further improve the efficiency of shore power equipment. Summary of the Invention

[0004] In view of the above problems existing in the prior art, the purpose of the present invention is to provide a port shore power resource scheduling and management method based on time-sharing pricing.

[0005] Another object of the present invention is to provide a port shore power resource management system based on time-sharing pricing.

[0006] To solve the above problems, the present invention adopts the following technical solution: a method for scheduling and managing port shore power resources based on time-sharing pricing, comprising the following steps:

[0007] Step 1: Determine a microgrid and shore power planning model based on the hybrid incentive policy, and decide the current number of port microgrids and shore power installations based on the model;

[0008] Step 2: The intelligent monitoring platform obtains microgrid and shore power installation data and usage status based on port information and displays them on the monitoring display interface. It also obtains time-of-use electricity price information based on incentive policies.

[0009] Step 3: The user selects the charging requirement on the user side based on the interface information and time-of-use electricity price information;

[0010] Step 4: The intelligent monitoring platform provides power based on the demand. The ship docks at a designated charging point for charging. The monitoring platform monitors the charging data in real time and calculates the charging cost.

[0011] Step 5: After the user completes charging, he / she pays the fee and completes the charging task.

[0012] The decision described in step 1 is specifically to iteratively obtain the optimal solution using the column and constraint generation algorithm.

[0013] In some embodiments, the decision-making method based on the hybrid incentive policy comprises the steps of:

[0014] S1. Construct a three-layer model of government, port, and ship, and establish a microgrid and shore power configuration plan.

[0015] (1-1)

[0016] Where, is the total emission of the port, where R is the port load superscript, f is the actual emission level superscript, h, d, y represent the hour / day / year index respectively, and all combinations are covered by triple summation. G is the set of dispatchable units, W is the set of non-dispatchable units, is the microgrid pollution emission coefficient, Indexing microgrid devices, The pollution emission coefficient for power generation for the main grid, At a specific time h, day d, and year y, the microgrid device i is the rated power value for the port load R, and M is the subscript related to the main grid. is the probability of power outage in the main grid at a specific time h, day d, and year y; 1- For the normal working efficiency of the main power grid, The power value purchased from the main grid to meet the port load demand at a specific time h, day d, year y;

[0017] (1-2)

[0018] Where, is the total emission of the ship, V is the ship load superscript, f is the actual emission level superscript, , , where A and V are is the total power generation of the auxiliary equipment, is the total shore power consumption of the ship, It is the amount of electricity purchased from the main grid for use on board the ship (shore power);

[0019] (1-3)

[0020] Where, represents the total emissions from the port area, represents the discharge of a typical load at the port, is the comprehensive emission of the ship under the conditions of load V and actual emission level f;

[0021] Formulas (1-1), (1-2) and (1-3) express the total emissions of the port area, ships and ports respectively;

[0022] (1-4)

[0023] Where, represents the upper limit of port emissions, is the emission cap, is the proportion of the port's emission cap;

[0024] (1-5)

[0025] Where, represents the upper limit of ship emissions, is the emission cap, The percentage of the emission cap for ships;

[0026] (1-6)

[0027] The government allocates emission caps to ports and ships through equations (1-4), (1-5), and (1-6);

[0028] (1-7)

[0029] Where, For economic incentives / carbon tax penalties for ports, The value depends on the base value and Port emission caps, A linear function of the difference between the actual port emission levels;

[0030] (1-8)

[0031] Where, For economic incentives / carbon tax penalties for ships, The value depends on the base value and Ship emission caps, A linear function of the difference between the actual emission levels of the ship and the

[0032] (1-9)

[0033] Where, For additional subsidies,

[0034] Formula (1-9) is the additional subsidy given to the port based on the shipping company’s emission reduction effect;

[0035] (1-10)

[0036] Formula (1-10) is the total economic incentive given by the government to ports and shipping companies in the emission reduction work, where: Expressed as the total economic incentive / carbon tax penalty for ports and ships, Expressed as economic incentives / carbon tax penalties for ports, Expressed as economic incentives / carbon tax penalties for ships, Expressed as additional economic incentives / carbon tax penalties for ports;

[0037] S2. Specifically, the government model is expressed as:

[0038] (1-11)

[0039] Where, Expressed as the government objective function Actual emission levels in the port area and the weight of the actual emission cap for the port area;

[0040] (1-12)

[0041] (1-13)

[0042] Where, is the actual emission cap, is the lower bound of the emission ceiling, is the upper bound of the emission ceiling;

[0043] Wherein, Equation (1-11) is the government's objective function, i.e., minimizing the weighted value of the port area's actual emissions and the emission cap; Equation (1-12), B is the government's emission reduction budget, i.e., the total economic incentives / carbon tax penalties for ports and ships cannot exceed the budget; Equation (1-13) is the upper and lower bound constraints of the port area's total emission cap, i.e., the port area's minimum emissions are less than or equal to the port area's total emissions and the port area's maximum emissions are less than or equal to the port area's total emissions;

[0044] S3. The port model is specifically expressed as follows:

[0045] (1-14)

[0046] Where, is the expected value under different scenarios;

[0047] st

[0048] (1-15)

[0049] Where F1 is the objective function, which represents the total cost of the system. represents the present value coefficient, is the annualized investment cost per unit power of the i-th power generation equipment in year y, is the annualized investment cost per unit power of the i-th energy storage device in year y, For the capacity of microgrid power generation equipment and energy storage equipment, It is a 0-1 variable, 1 means the device i is installed, otherwise not;

[0050] (1-16)

[0051] Where F2 represents the shore power investment cost, j represents the shore power index, is the j-type shore power capacity, CVjy is the annualized investment cost of shore power, is a 0-1 variable, If it is equal to 1, it means that shore power is installed, otherwise it is not;

[0052] (1-17)

[0053] Where F3 represents the power generation cost of the dispatchable equipment, P is the rated power of the equipment, The electricity generation cost of the power generation equipment;

[0054] (1-18)

[0055] Where F4 represents the total cost of energy exchange with the main grid, CM represents the main grid market electricity price, Expressed as the amount of electricity purchased from the main grid, The amount of electricity traded back to the main grid;

[0056] (1-19)

[0057] Where F5 is the cost of reducing conventional load at the port. represents the unit cost of load shedding, LS represents load shedding for the port;

[0058] (1-20)

[0059] Where F6 is the income from providing shore power services to ships, CO is the shore power service price, Indicates the amount of electricity that the ship needs to purchase from shore power;

[0060] (1-21)

[0061] Where D represents the power demand of the main power grid. It is the power demand of the port. It is expressed as the power demand of the ship;

[0062] (1-22)

[0063] Where, Indicates the maximum power supply of the main power grid, For the capacity of microgrid power generation equipment and energy storage equipment, The maximum capacity of the shore power equipment;

[0064] (1-23)

[0065] Where, The maximum number of shore power installations is The minimum number of shore power installations;

[0066] (1-24)

[0067] In the formula, ch is the superscript of energy storage device charging, dch is the superscript of energy storage device discharging, To purchase electricity from the main power grid for use in the port area;

[0068] (1-25)

[0069] Where, Expressed as the total shore power consumption of the ship, Expressed as the amount of electricity purchased from the main grid for use on board the ship (shore power);

[0070] (1-26)

[0071] Where, Indicates the amount of electricity allocated to the port (the upper limit of available shore power), Indicates the amount of electricity the ship needs to purchase from shore power, and M is a subscript related to the main power grid;

[0072] (1-27)

[0073] Formula (1-22) stipulates that a sufficient number of microgrid devices should be installed to meet the annual peak demand of the port and the shore power demand of berthed ships to ensure the normal supply of microgrid power;

[0074] Constraints (1-23) ensure that the number of berths with shore power installed is within a given range;

[0075] Constraints (1-24) and (1-25) determine the hourly power balance required for the port's conventional load and the ship's berthing load, respectively. The port's conventional load and the ship's berthing load can be met by the power provided by the microgrid, the power purchased from the main grid, and the power released from the storage device.

[0076] As shown in (1-24), when the power of the microgrid is unbalanced, the only way to achieve balance is to reduce the conventional load of the port;

[0077] Equation (1-26) indicates that if the power required by a ship is lower than the capacity of its allocated shore power facility, this power mismatch is called overgeneration, and the excess power will be traded to the main grid;

[0078] Constraints (1-27) indicate that the decision variables related to installing microgrids and shore power are 0-1 variables;

[0079] (1-28)

[0080] (1-29)

[0081] (1-30)

[0082] (1-31)

[0083] (1-32)

[0084] Where LS is the port load reduction, It is expressed as the maximum proportion of load reduction at the port;

[0085] (1-33)

[0086] (1-34)

[0087] Equation (1-28) represents the energy exchange boundary between the main grid and the microgrid;

[0088] Equations (1-29) and (1-30) represent the prediction of the microgrid's power generation capacity;

[0089] Formula (1-31) indicates that when a berth is allocated to a ship, the port entity should ensure that the shore power capacity of the berth is greater than or equal to the power demand of the ship;

[0090] Constraints (1-32) are used to limit the port load that can be reduced;

[0091] Constraints (1-33) are emission caps assigned to ports and ships;

[0092] Formula (1-34) indicates that the economic incentives related to ports and ships are provided by the government;

[0093] (1-35)

[0094] (1-36)

[0095] (1-37)

[0096] Constraints (1-35), (1-36), and (1-37) give the charge and discharge limits of the storage unit and the volume of available storage energy per hour.

[0097] Formulas (1-38) to (1-42) give the value ranges of each variable;

[0098] (1-38)

[0099] (1-39)

[0100] (1-40)

[0101] (1-41)

[0102] (1-42)

[0103] S4. The ship model is expressed as:

[0104] Equation (1-43) is used to minimize the cost of energy demand by ships at berth while avoiding potential taxes and obtaining more economic incentives;

[0105] (1-43)

[0106] Where, is the present value coefficient, CA is the auxiliary power generation price, CO is the shore power service price, represents financial incentives / carbon tax penalties for ships;

[0107]

[0108] (1-44)

[0109] (1-45)

[0110] (1-46)

[0111] Where O is the candidate station group for shore power supply, is the total power generation of the auxiliary equipment;

[0112] Formula (1-43) is the objective function of the ship model, which is to minimize the net cost of the ship when berthing;

[0113] Constraints (1-44) ensure that the power demand of berthed ships can be met by auxiliary engines or shore power at every point in time;

[0114] Constraint (1-45) indicates that the ship's power usage will not exceed the shore power capacity;

[0115] Equation (1-46) requires that the power be non-negative.

[0116] The steps of the microgrid and shore power planning model under the hybrid incentive policy described in step 1 include:

[0117] The first step is to convert the government model and the port model into a single-layer model, and use the KKT condition to replace the ship model, so that the government model, the port model and the ship model are converted into a two-layer model;

[0118] In the second step, the C&CG algorithm is used to solve the two-layer model described in the first step;

[0119] The KKT conditions of the ship model include a set of stationary constraints, original feasibility constraints, dual feasibility constraints and complementary relaxation conditions; the Lagrangian factors (4-44), (4-45) and (4-46) are introduced into the constraints of the original ship model respectively. , and and Taking partial derivatives, we get equations (4-47) and (4-48), which give all and Stability constraints in the case;

[0120] (4-47)

[0121] (4-48)

[0122] Equations (4-44) and (4-45) describe the original feasibility constraints of the equations. Equations (4-49) and (4-50) are the dual feasibility constraints, and they also set the feasible regions of the dual variables. Finally, the complementary slack conditions in the KKT conditions are shown in equations (4-51), (4-52), and (4-53).

[0123] (4-49)

[0124] (4-50)

[0125] (4-51)

[0126] (4-52)

[0127] (4-53) Through the above transformation, the three-layer model is converted into a two-layer model, and the C&CG decomposition strategy is used to divide the main and sub-problems and solve the two-layer model.

[0128] Another object of the present invention is to provide a port shore power resource scheduling and management system based on time-sharing pricing, the system comprising:

[0129] At the presentation layer, users access the functions and services provided by the system through user terminals and obtain microgrid shore power data and usage status;

[0130] The application layer includes a backend management web terminal and a user applet terminal. The backend management web terminal is used for administrator operations to perform user monitoring, power box monitoring, shoreline power box data monitoring, and shore power service information monitoring;

[0131] The user applet is used for user operations, including user registration / login, shore power information reporting, power outage settlement, QR code scanning for charging, real-time monitoring, and order payment.

[0132] The support layer communicates with external systems through the TOS interface, defines data transmission standards and rules based on the communication protocol, and also provides message delegation for message delivery and notification;

[0133] The data layer is used to store and manage the data involved in the system, including structured data, real-time data, backup data and cached data.

[0134] The cockpit visualization module of the backend management web terminal uses a microgrid and shore power configuration planning and scheduling algorithm under government hybrid incentives.

[0135] The data layer includes:

[0136] Data extraction, used to extract data;

[0137] Data addition, used to add new data records;

[0138] Data conversion, used to clean and convert raw data to make it suitable for subsequent application requirements;

[0139] Data cache, temporarily storing frequently used data.

[0140] The charging process of the system includes the following steps:

[0141] 100. The ship system is connected to the TOS system. One shore power box is connected to one ship. The user enters the QR code scanning charging process through the mini program on the user terminal, registers the user information, and obtains the matching shore power box information.

[0142] 200. After the ship is connected to the shore power box, charging begins. The intelligent management platform monitors the charging status in real time. After charging is completed, the charging power and amount are generated and displayed on the user terminal;

[0143] 300. The vessel leaves the shore after payment is completed.

[0144] The TOS system includes a user terminal, a mini-program terminal, a backend management terminal, a power box access center, and a power box device terminal; the TOS system realizes the interaction between the user and the management system through the mini-program on the user terminal and the web page of the backend management;

[0145] The power box access center is connected to the mini program, backend management web and power box device respectively. The mini program and backend management web control whether the power box device is powered or not through the power box access center.

[0146] In step 200, the ship starts charging after being connected to the shore power box. The intelligent management platform monitors the charging status in real time. After charging is completed, the charging power and amount are generated and displayed on the user terminal.

[0147] The platform records the ship's electricity consumption and generates bills based on it, setting differentiated electricity prices according to different time periods.

[0148] Compared with the prior art, the beneficial technical effects of the present invention are:

[0149] 1. Use a centralized remote reservation system to facilitate ships to reserve shore power, reduce waiting time, and improve facility utilization.

[0150] 2. Leveraging intelligent platforms and algorithms, shore power can be configured based on ship needs, avoiding resource waste and energy consumption.

[0151] 3. Rely on digital platforms for remote monitoring to understand shore power status in real time, improving system transparency and dispatch efficiency.

[0152] 4. By integrating multi-functional applications and automatic billing systems, the shore power usage process is simplified and the payment experience is improved.

[0153] 5. Improve the utilization rate of shore power, reduce pollution emissions from ships, and use data to assist in the formulation of environmental protection policies.

[0154] 6. With a user-friendly app and time-sharing pricing, crew members can make reservations quickly, save costs, and improve their experience.

[0155] 7. Comprehensively consider berth allocation and microgrid scheduling to optimize the overall operational efficiency and economy of the port.

[0156] 8. Dynamically adjust berths and microgrid scheduling based on real-time data to enhance the ability to respond to emergencies.

[0157] 9. Rationally arrange berths and services, utilize local resources, and reduce peak electricity load and costs.

[0158] 10. Optimize scheduling strategies, reduce power consumption and carbon emissions, and help build a green port. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0159] Figure 1 This is a flowchart of the power-on business in the embodiment of the present application;

[0160] Figure 2 This is a diagram of the technical architecture of the system of the embodiment of this application;

[0161] Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of the functional module division of the mini program in the embodiment of the present application;

[0162] Figure 4 This is a schematic diagram of the management backend module division of the embodiment of the present application;

[0163] Figure 5 This is a structural design diagram of the TOS system based on the embodiment of the present application;

[0164] Figure 6 This is a payment flow chart for an embodiment of the present application;

[0165] Figure 7 This is an architectural diagram of step 1 of the embodiment of the present application;

[0166] Figure 8 This is a comparison chart of actual emissions from ports and ships under different government budgets in the embodiment of this application;

[0167] Figure 9 Line graphs of port and shipping economies under different government budgets;

[0168] Figure 10 Line charts of port and ship indicators at different shore power prices;

[0169] Figure 11 It is a line graph of port environmental indicators under different emission reduction target values;

[0170] Figure 12 It is a line graph of ship environmental indicators under different emission reduction target values;

[0171] Figure 13 The following is a line graph of the net costs of ports and ships under different emission reduction targets;

[0172] Figure 14 It is a line graph of port economic indicators under different emission reduction target values;

[0173] Figure 15 This is a line chart of ship economic indicators under different emission reduction target values. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0174] The technical solution of the present invention will be further described in detail below with reference to the embodiments and drawings.

[0175] Example

[0176] See also Figure 1 、 Figure 7 A port shore power resource scheduling and management method based on time-sharing pricing is provided, comprising the following steps:

[0177] Step 1: Determine a microgrid and shore power planning model based on the hybrid incentive policy, and decide and execute the current port microgrid and shore power installation plan based on the model;

[0178] Step 2: The intelligent monitoring platform obtains microgrid and shore power installation data and usage status based on port information and displays them on the monitoring display interface. It also obtains time-of-use electricity price information based on incentive policies and displays it on the monitoring platform interface.

[0179] Step 3: The user selects charging requirements on the user side based on the interface information and time-of-use electricity price information. For example, the user can select a charging time based on electricity price information or based on the characteristics of the cargo on board, such as the freshness of food.

[0180] Step 4: The intelligent monitoring platform provides power based on the demand. The ship docks at a designated charging point for charging. The monitoring platform monitors the charging data in real time and calculates the charging cost.

[0181] Step 5: After the user completes charging, he / she pays the fee and completes the charging task.

[0182] It should be noted that the application of shore power technology can shut down the ship's auxiliary engines, but it cannot achieve clean energy. Using microgrids to supply shore power will fundamentally reduce the level of pollution emissions in the port area and further optimize the port's energy system. This application uses the port shore power system to replace the ship's auxiliary engines and the microgrid to replace the traditional grid for shore power supply. The main significance of this application is as follows:

[0183] (1) Improve port environment: Direct shore power supply reduces pollution caused by ships at port, and microgrid power supply reduces port emissions from the source; (2) Save ship costs: Avoid high-priced fuel and oil price fluctuations, reduce the need for auxiliary engine maintenance, and reduce fuel and maintenance costs; (3) Innovative research perspective: In response to the problems of low shore power utilization and secondary pollution, a hybrid incentive-based shore power and microgrid installation decision is proposed to optimize the port energy system; (4) Multi-role decision-making reference: Considering the interaction between the government, ports, and ships, as well as emission reduction budgets, emission caps and other factors, new ideas are provided for complex decision-making; (5) Technology promotion support: Through a hybrid incentive policy (carbon tax penalties and economic incentives), the problem of insufficient initiative in emission reduction by ports and ships is solved, and the application of microgrid and shore power technologies is promoted.

[0184] In some embodiments, the port shore power resource scheduling and management method includes the following process: after a vessel docks, the user enters the charging reservation process through the user terminal. New users must register and provide shore power information such as vessel name and MMSI. Once completed, the user terminal displays the matching shore power box information and initiates the charging order. After the user connects the cable plug, charging is initiated on the user terminal, and the shore power box automatically closes. The intelligent monitoring platform monitors data and calculates charges in real time. After charging is complete, the user terminal displays the completion status. After the user settles the payment, the order is completed, the shore power box automatically opens, the user disconnects the cable, and the vessel departs.

[0185] The ship energy management system, centered around the power consumption module, consists of a mini-program and a web management platform. The mini-program supports online user information submission, remote power consumption control, real-time monitoring, bill generation, online payment, data query, and TOS data interaction. The web management platform offers real-time monitoring of power boxes, TOS data processing, report generation, order exception handling, and user and power box management.

[0186] This application requires crew members to scan the QR code on their mobile phones to enter the mini program after docking. After the first registration, fill in the ship information, enter the function interface and select the shore power module. After verifying the information, manually click to open the gate to connect to the shore power. Before leaving the berth, click to end charging and pay online. The management end records the bill and generates a report, which effectively improves the charging efficiency and the real-time electricity billing, and improves the utilization rate of port shore power resources.

[0187] like Figure 2 As shown in the technical architecture diagram of the system of this application, the architecture of the intelligent monitoring platform is divided into four main layers: presentation layer, application layer, support layer and data layer. Each layer contains different components and functions, which together constitute the operating mechanism of the entire platform.

[0188] The presentation layer is located at the top of the architecture and mainly includes various terminal devices, which are used to provide users with a visual interface and interactive experience.

[0189] Specifically include:

[0190] The presentation layer, including devices such as desktops, smartphones, laptops and tablets, allows users to access various functions and services of the platform. Administrators and ordinary users can log in and use applications through these devices.

[0191] The application layer is used to process business logic and data management. The application layer is specifically divided into: backend management web terminal and user applets.

[0192] The backend management web terminal is mainly used for administrator operations and includes the following sub-modules: user management module, which is responsible for adding, deleting, modifying and checking users and controlling permissions; electrical box management module, which is responsible for electrical box information maintenance and controlling permissions; cockpit visualization module, which provides real-time monitoring of electrical box data along the entire shoreline; report analysis module, which analyzes information charts related to shore power services.

[0193] User mini program, which is aimed at ordinary users and provides a convenient service interface, including: user registration / login, shore power information filling, power outage settlement, QR code scanning and charging, real-time monitoring, and order payment.

[0194] The support layer provides underlying support services to ensure the normal operation of the application layer. These include: TOS interface: provides an interface for communicating with external systems; communication protocol: defines the standards and rules for data transmission; message service: used for message delivery and notification.

[0195] The data layer is responsible for storing and managing all data, including structured data, real-time data, backup data, and cached data. This includes: data extraction (extracting data from various sources); data addition (adding new data records); data transformation (cleaning and converting raw data); and data caching (temporarily storing frequently used data to speed up access). This data is stored in the database for access and query by other layers.

[0196] Among them, the cockpit visualization module on the backend management web terminal uses the microgrid and shore power configuration planning and optimization scheduling method under government hybrid incentives.

[0197] The present application provides a decision-making method based on a suitable incentive policy, the method comprising the steps of:

[0198] S1. Construct a three-layer model of government, port, and ship, and establish a microgrid and shore power configuration plan.

[0199] (1-1)

[0200] Where, is the total emission of the port, where R is the port load superscript, f is the actual emission level superscript, h, d, y are the hour / day / year indexes, respectively, and all combinations are covered by triple summation. G is the set of dispatchable units, and W is the set of non-dispatched units. is the microgrid pollution emission coefficient, Indexing microgrid devices, The pollution emission coefficient for power generation for the main grid, At a specific time h, day d, and year y, the microgrid device i is the rated power value for the port load R, and M is the subscript related to the main grid. is the probability of power outage in the main grid at a specific time h, day d, and year y; 1- For the normal working efficiency of the main power grid, The power value purchased from the main grid to meet the port load demand at a specific time h, day d, year y;

[0201] (1-2)

[0202] Where, is the total emission of the ship, V is the ship load superscript, f is the actual emission level superscript, , , where A and V are is the total power generation of the auxiliary equipment, is the total shore power consumption of the ship, It is the amount of electricity purchased from the main grid for use on board the ship (shore power);

[0203] (1-3)

[0204] Where, represents the total emissions from the port area, represents the discharge of a typical load at the port, is the comprehensive emission of the ship under the conditions of load V and actual emission level f;

[0205] Formulas (1-1), (1-2) and (1-3) express the total emissions of the port area, ships and ports respectively;

[0206] (1-4)

[0207] Where, represents the upper limit of port emissions, is the emission cap, is the proportion of the port's emission cap;

[0208] (1-5)

[0209] Where, represents the upper limit of ship emissions, is the emission cap, The percentage of the emission cap for ships;

[0210] (1-6)

[0211] The government allocates emission caps to ports and ships through equations (1-4), (1-5), and (1-6);

[0212] (1-7)

[0213] Where, For economic incentives / carbon tax penalties for ports, The value depends on the base value and Port emission caps, A linear function of the difference between the actual port emission levels;

[0214] (1-8)

[0215] Where, For economic incentives / carbon tax penalties for ships, The value depends on the base value and Ship emission caps, A linear function of the difference between the actual emission levels of the ship and the

[0216] Here, the economic incentive is set as a linear function of the difference between the set emission cap and the actual emission level, i.e., equations (1-7) and (1-8). If the actual emissions of ports and shipping companies are higher than the allocated emission cap, the corresponding negative incentives obtained by equations (1-7) and (1-8) are the payment of carbon tax to the government, and otherwise, economic subsidies.

[0217] (1-9)

[0218] Where, For additional subsidies,

[0219] Formula (1-9) is the additional subsidy given to the port based on the shipping company’s emission reduction effect;

[0220] (1-10)

[0221] Formula (1-10) is the total economic incentive given by the government to ports and shipping companies in the emission reduction work, where: Expressed as the total economic incentive / carbon tax penalty for ports and ships, Expressed as economic incentives / carbon tax penalties for ports, Expressed as economic incentives / carbon tax penalties for ships, Expressed as additional economic incentives / carbon tax penalties for ports;

[0222] S2. Specifically, the government model is expressed as:

[0223] (1-11)

[0224] Where, Expressed as the government objective function Actual emission levels in the port area and the weight of the actual emission cap for the port area;

[0225] (1-12)

[0226] (1-13)

[0227] Where, is the actual emission cap, is the lower bound of the emission ceiling, is the upper bound of the emission ceiling;

[0228] Among them, Equation (1-11) is the government's objective function, namely, minimizing the weighted value of the port area's actual emissions and the emission cap; Equation (1-12) is used to ensure that the economic incentives obtained by ports and shipping companies are constrained by the government's total fiscal subsidies; B is the government's emission reduction budget, that is, the total economic incentives / carbon tax penalties for ports and ships cannot exceed the budget; Equation (1-13) shows the upper and lower bounds of the port area's total emission cap, that is, the port area's minimum emissions are less than or equal to the port area's total emissions are less than or equal to the port area's maximum emissions;

[0229] S3. The port model is specifically expressed as follows:

[0230] (1-14)

[0231] Where, is the expected value under different scenarios;

[0232] st

[0233] (1-15)

[0234] Where F1 is the objective function, which represents the total cost of the system. represents the present value factor (the discount rate of money), is the annualized investment cost per unit power of the i-th power generation equipment in year y, is the annualized investment cost per unit power of the i-th energy storage device in year y, For the capacity of microgrid power generation equipment and energy storage equipment, is a 0-1 decision variable, 1 means that device i is installed, otherwise not;

[0235] (1-16)

[0236] Where F2 represents the shore power investment cost, j represents the shore power index, is the j-type shore power capacity, CVjy is the annualized investment cost of shore power, is a 0-1 decision variable, If it is equal to 1, it means that shore power is installed, otherwise it is not;

[0237] (1-17)

[0238] Where F3 represents the power generation cost of the dispatchable equipment, P is the rated power of the equipment, The electricity generation cost of the power generation equipment;

[0239] (1-18)

[0240] Where F4 represents the total cost of energy exchange with the main grid, CM represents the main grid market electricity price, Expressed as the amount of electricity purchased from the main grid, The amount of electricity traded back to the main grid;

[0241] (1-19)

[0242] Where F5 is the cost of reducing conventional load at the port. represents the unit cost of load shedding, LS represents load shedding for the port;

[0243] (1-20)

[0244] Where F6 is the income from providing shore power services to ships, CO is the shore power service price, Indicates the amount of electricity that the ship needs to purchase from shore power;

[0245] (1-21)

[0246] Where D represents the power demand of the main power grid. It is the power demand of the port. It is expressed as the power demand of the ship;

[0247] (1-22)

[0248] Where, Indicates the maximum power supply of the main power grid, For the capacity of microgrid power generation equipment and energy storage equipment, The maximum capacity of the shore power equipment;

[0249] (1-23)

[0250] Where, The maximum number of shore power installations is The minimum number of shore power installations;

[0251] (1-24)

[0252] In the formula, ch is the superscript of energy storage device charging, dch is the superscript of energy storage device discharging, To purchase electricity from the main power grid for use in the port area;

[0253] (1-25)

[0254] Where, Expressed as the total shore power consumption of the ship, Expressed as the amount of electricity purchased from the main grid for use on board the ship (shore power);

[0255] (1-26)

[0256] Where, Indicates the amount of electricity allocated to the port (the upper limit of available shore power), Indicates the amount of electricity the ship needs to purchase from shore power, and M is a subscript related to the main power grid;

[0257] (1-27)

[0258] Where, is a 0-1 decision variable, If it is equal to 1, it means that the device i is installed, otherwise it is not;

[0259] Formula (1-22) stipulates that a sufficient number of microgrid devices should be installed to meet the annual peak demand of the port and the shore power demand of berthed ships to ensure the normal supply of microgrid power;

[0260] Constraints (1-23) ensure that the number of berths with shore power installed is within a given range;

[0261] Constraints (1-24) and (1-25) determine the hourly power balance required for the port's conventional load and the ship's berthing load, respectively. The port's conventional load and the ship's berthing load can be met by the power provided by the microgrid, the power purchased from the main grid, and the power released from the storage device.

[0262] As shown in (1-24), when the power of the microgrid is unbalanced, the only way to achieve balance is to reduce the conventional load of the port;

[0263] Equation (1-26) indicates that if the power required by a ship is lower than the capacity of its allocated shore power facility, this power mismatch is called overgeneration, and the excess power will be traded to the main grid;

[0264] Constraints (1-27) indicate that the decision variables related to installing microgrids and shore power are 0-1 variables;

[0265] (1-28)

[0266] (1-29)

[0267] (1-30)

[0268] (1-31)

[0269] (1-32)

[0270] Where LS is the port load reduction, It is expressed as the maximum proportion of load reduction at the port;

[0271] (1-33)

[0272] (1-34)

[0273] Equation (1-28) represents the energy exchange boundary between the main grid and the microgrid;

[0274] Equations (1-29) and (1-30) represent the prediction of the microgrid's power generation capacity;

[0275] Formula (1-31) indicates that when a berth is allocated to a ship, the port entity should ensure that the shore power capacity of the berth is greater than or equal to the power demand of the ship;

[0276] Constraints (1-32) are used to limit the port load that can be reduced;

[0277] Constraints (1-33) are emission caps assigned to ports and ships;

[0278] Formula (1-34) indicates that the economic incentives related to ports and ships are provided by the government;

[0279] (1-35)

[0280] (1-36)

[0281] (1-37)

[0282] In the formula, ch represents the superscript of the energy storage device charging, dch represents the superscript of the energy storage device discharging, and the constraints (1-35), (1-36), and (1-37) give the charge and discharge limits of the storage unit and the volume of available storage energy per hour.

[0283] Formulas (1-38) to (1-42) give the value ranges of each variable;

[0284] (1-38)

[0285] (1-39)

[0286] (1-40)

[0287] (1-41)

[0288] (1-42)

[0289] S4. The ship model is expressed as:

[0290] Used to minimize the cost of energy requirements of ships at berth while avoiding potential taxes and obtaining more economic incentives (Equation (1-43));

[0291] (1-43)

[0292] Where, is the present value coefficient, CA is the auxiliary power generation price, CO is the shore power service price, represents financial incentives / carbon tax penalties for ships;

[0293]

[0294] (1-44)

[0295] (1-45)

[0296] (1-46)

[0297] Where O is the candidate station group for shore power supply, is the total power generation of the auxiliary equipment;

[0298] Formula (1-43) is the objective function of the ship model, which is to minimize the net cost of the ship when berthing;

[0299] Constraints (1-44) ensure that the power demand of berthed ships can be met by auxiliary engines or shore power at every point in time;

[0300] Constraint (1-45) indicates that the ship's power usage will not exceed the shore power capacity;

[0301] Equation (1-46) requires that the power be non-negative.

[0302] The steps of the microgrid and shore power planning model under the hybrid incentive policy described in step 1 include:

[0303] The first step is to convert the government model and the port model into a single-layer model, and use the KKT condition to replace the ship model, so that the government model, the port model and the ship model are converted into a two-layer model;

[0304] In the second step, the C&CG algorithm is used to solve the two-layer model described in the first step;

[0305] The KKT conditions of the ship model include a set of stationary constraints, original feasibility constraints, dual feasibility constraints and complementary relaxation conditions; the Lagrangian factors (4-44), (4-45) and (4-46) are introduced into the constraints of the original ship model respectively. , and and Taking partial derivatives, we get equations (4-47) and (4-48), which give all and Stability constraints in the case;

[0306] (4-47)

[0307] (4-48)

[0308] Equations (4-44) and (4-45) describe the original feasibility constraints of the equations. Equations (4-49) and (4-50) are the dual feasibility constraints, and they also set the feasible regions of the dual variables. Finally, the complementary slack conditions in the KKT conditions are shown in equations (4-51), (4-52), and (4-53).

[0309] (4-49)

[0310] (4-50)

[0311] (4-51)

[0312] (4-52)

[0313] (4-53)

[0314] Through the above transformation, the three-layer model is converted into a two-layer model, and the C&CG decomposition strategy is used to divide the main and sub-problems and solve the two-layer model.

[0315] It should be noted that the implementation of the C&CG algorithm relies on three optimization problems: the main problem: which contains the objective function of the upper model, a set of iteratively generated constraints, and the feasible domain of the two-layer model; sub-problem 1: the lower model of the two-layer model; sub-problem 2: the objective function is the actual emission level of the port and a modified set of lower-level constraints, as follows:

[0316] (1) Main question

[0317] The main problem is a nonlinear mixed integer optimization problem. The specific objective function and constraints are as follows: (4-54)

[0318] (4-12)

[0319] (4-13) Wherein, Equation (4-11) is the government's objective function, which is to minimize the weighted value of the port area's actual emissions and the emission cap; Equation (4-12) ensures that the economic incentives obtained by ports and shipping companies are constrained by the government's total fiscal subsidies; Equation (4-13) shows the upper and lower bounds of the port area's total emission cap;

[0320] (4-21)

[0321] (4-22)

[0322] (4-23)

[0323] (4-24)

[0324] (4-25)

[0325] (4-26)

[0326] (4-27) Equation (4-21) indicates that the microgrid must simultaneously meet the needs of the port's conventional load and the need to provide shore power services to berthed ships. Equation (4-22) stipulates that a sufficient number of microgrid devices should be installed to meet the port's annual peak demand and the shore power needs of berthed ships, ensuring the normal supply of microgrid power. Constraint (4-23) ensures that the number of berths installed with shore power is within a given range. Constraints (4-24) and (4-25) ensure that the port's conventional load and the hourly power required by ships at port are balanced, respectively. The port's conventional load and the ship's berthing load can be met by the power provided by the microgrid, the power purchased from the main grid, and the power released from storage devices. As shown in (4-24), when the microgrid's power is unbalanced, the only way to achieve balance is to reduce the port's conventional load. Equation (4-26) indicates that if the power required by a ship is lower than the capacity of its allocated shore power facilities, this power mismatch is called overgeneration, and the excess power will be traded to the main grid. Constraint (4-27) indicates that the variables related to the installation of microgrids and shore power are 0-1 variables.

[0327] (4-28)

[0328] (4-29)

[0329] (4-30)

[0330] (4-31)

[0331] (4-32)

[0332] (4-33)

[0333] (4-34) Equation (4-28) is the boundary of power exchange between the main grid and the microgrid; Equations (4-29) and (4-30) are predictions of the microgrid's power generation capacity; Equation (4-31) indicates that when a berth is allocated to a ship, the port entity should ensure that the berth's shore power capacity is greater than or equal to the ship's power demand, while constraint (4-32) limits the port load that can be reduced; constraint (4-33) is the emission cap assigned to the port and ship, and Equation (4-34) indicates that the economic incentives related to the port and ship are all provided by the government;

[0334] (4-35)

[0335] (4-36)

[0336] (4-37) Constraints (4-35), (4-36), and (4-37) give the charge and discharge limits of the storage unit and the volume of available stored energy per hour; equations (4-38) to (4-42) give the range of values ​​for each variable;

[0337] (4-38)

[0338] (4-39)

[0339] (4-40)

[0340] (4-41)

[0341] (4-42)

[0342] (4-47) ~ (4-53)

[0343] (4-55) (4-56) (4-57) The objective function (4-54) of the main problem is the same as the objective function of the government; the constraints of the main problem include the constraints of the two-layer model (i.e., Equations (4-12) to (4-13), (4-21) to (4-42), and (4-47) to (4-53)) and the new constraints introduced in each iteration (Equations (4-55) to (4-57)); the main problem is generated by copying the variables and constraints of the lower model, and Equation (4-55) ensures that given any When , the optimal solution of the lower model is ; In Equation (4-55), the left side is the objective function of the lower model, and the right side is the given integer variable ( ) is the integer part of the objective function of the port model, and the objective function of the dual problem of the linear part of the port model; Equation (4-56) represents the dual constraint of the linear part of the port model, and Equation (4-57) is used to ensure that the dual variable is positive and continuous;

[0344] (2) Sub-problem SP1

[0345] By solving the main problem, we can obtain the emission cap set by the government , will be used as the input parameter of subproblem SP1, then the objective function value of subproblem SP1 is ; Subproblem SP1 is the lower model of the newly converted two-layer model, as follows:

[0346] (4-58)

[0347] (4-21) to (4-42), (4-47) to (4-53)

[0348] (3) Sub-problem SP2

[0349] (4-59)

[0350] (4-60)

[0351] (4-21) to (4-42), (4-47) to (4-53)

[0352] Subproblem SP2 is a mixed integer model, and its objective function is to minimize the actual emission level of the port (Equation (4-59)). The minimization process will be constrained by the optimization decision of the lower model (Equation 4-60). In the case of ; At the same time, this subproblem is also subject to the feasible region constraints of the port model, namely equations (4-21) to (4-42) and (4-47) to (4-53);

[0353] The newly transformed two-layer model is decomposed into the main problem, subproblem SP1 and subproblem SP2, and solved according to the following C&CG algorithm implementation steps:

[0354] Step 1 Initialize the settings, the maximum number of iterations is T, and the upper and lower bound errors are , the upper bound of the model , the lower bound , number of iterations ;

[0355] Step 2: Solve the main problem and use the objective function value of the main problem to update LB. The solution set of the main problem is: ;

[0356] Step 3 If (set error value), then the UB value and the corresponding microgrid and shore power installation plan are returned, and the algorithm terminates; otherwise, proceed to Step 4;

[0357] Step 4 Solve subproblem SP1, the emission limit given by the main problem , as the input parameter of sub-problem SP1;

[0358] Step 5 Solve subproblem SP2. The optimal solution is , the result of SP2 is used to update the upper bound UB (Equation (4-61));

[0359] (4-61)

[0360] Step 6: , , create a variable , add the constraints (Equations (4-55) to (4-57)) to the main problem and proceed to Step 2.

[0361] This application verifies the feasibility of the microgrid and shore power planning configuration model based on port simulation data. For all cases, we consider a five-year investment plan and select CO2 as the pollutant to be reduced by the port. The lower limit of its emission cap is set at 70 kilotons (reduction ratio of about 54%) and the upper limit is set at 120 kilotons (reduction ratio of about 20%). In the allocation formula of emission caps between ports and shipping companies, we set At the same time, we give priority to the role of the government in promoting emission reduction through mixed incentives, so the weight in the government objective function is set to .

[0362] This study identifies six berths as candidate sites for shore power installation, three of which have a capacity of 1 MW and the remaining 2 MW. The cost of generating electricity for ship auxiliary engines is $90 / MW, and the annual investment cost of installing shore power at each berth is $100,000 / MW. In this case study, it is assumed that all ship power needs can be met at the berths and that ship demand will not decrease as long as shore power is installed. The port microgrid consists of 10 dispatchable units, 2 non-dispatchable units, and 3 storage units. Their rated power and power generation prices are shown in Tables 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4, respectively.

[0363] Table 4-2 Scheduling unit attributes

[0364]

[0365] Table 4-3 Unschedulable unit attributes

[0366]

[0367] Table 4-4 Storage unit attributes

[0368]

[0369] This article specifically considers the following four representative cases, and the specific results are shown in Tables 4-5, 4-6, and 4-7:

[0370] Case 1: (Baseline) Without considering government hybrid incentives, the port does not install microgrids and shore power, and the port energy system operates normally;

[0371] Case 2: (Microgrid) Considering the mixed incentives of the government, the port only installs microgrids, and the operation of the port energy system ( );

[0372] Case 3: (Shore Power) Considering the mixed incentives of the government, the port only installs shore power, and the operation of the port energy system ( );

[0373] Case 4: (Microgrid and shore power) Considering the government's mixed incentives, the port installed microgrids and shore power at the same time. The operation of the port energy system under the combined effect of the two ( ).

[0374] In summary, the results of the four cases are shown in Tables 4-5, 4-6 and 4-7 below.

[0375] Table 4-5 Microgrid and shore power installation results: Environment

[0376]

[0377] Table 4-6 Results of microgrid and shore power installation in ports: Economic

[0378]

[0379] Table 4-7 Results of microgrid and shore power installation on ships: Economic

[0380]

[0381] In Case 1, due to a lack of economic incentives and government regulations, neither the port nor the ship invested in emission reduction facilities to reduce pollution. Pollution emissions for the entire port area were approximately 870 kilotons, with the port and the ship contributing 520 kilotons and 350 kilotons, respectively. The port's net cost, also its operating cost, was US$29.95 million, which was spent on purchasing electricity from the main grid. Furthermore, without shore power, the ship had to rely on its auxiliary engine to generate electricity for its own power needs (388,800 MW). The cost of the auxiliary engine, and therefore the net cost of the ship, was US$35.69 million.

[0382] In Case 2, under a hybrid government incentive program, the port installed a microgrid but not shore power. Pollutant emissions for the entire port area were 420 kilotons, a 51.72% reduction compared to Case 1. The microgrid installation cost the port $14.82 million in investment, while operating costs dropped to $39.46 million. The port also received $79.84 million in government incentives for significantly reducing emissions. Combined with an additional $6.55 million in ship emissions reduction incentives, the net cost was -$32.11 million. This meant the port not only incurred no costs but actually gained $32.11 million. Vessels continued to use their onboard auxiliary engines for energy needs, maintaining operating costs. The microgrid now primarily met the port's energy needs, essentially achieving energy independence.

[0383] In Case 3, under a hybrid government incentive program, the port installed shore power but not a microgrid. Ships no longer relied solely on auxiliary engines for power and could also use shore power for their own energy needs. This reduced port area emissions by 45.29% compared to Case 1. The port invested $4.59 million in shore power, received an additional $3.48 million in subsidies for ship emissions reductions, and received $19.74 million in shore power service fees from ships. Without a microgrid, all port power needs and ship shore power were purchased from the main grid (840,960 MW).

[0384] In Case 4, under a hybrid government incentive program, the port installed both shore power and a microgrid. The port and the ship met their emission reduction targets, achieving a total emission level of only 400 kilotons, a 54.02% reduction. The port received government incentives of US$39.25 million and US$47.38 million, respectively. The port invested in 10 dispatchable units, two non-dispatchable units, three storage units, and six shore power facilities, with an investment cost of US$34.46 million and operating costs of US$47.38 million. The ship met its energy needs through both shore power and auxiliary engines, incurring US$47.38 million in operating costs. Compared to the previous three cases, the simultaneous installation of a microgrid and shore power achieved the greatest emission reduction results. In this case, the ship not only avoided any costs but also received US$10.57 million in revenue, which was used to offset the initial cost of the ship modification. This increased ship motivation to use shore power and further promoted its adoption in ports.

[0385] In summary, Case 1 is a comparative case in which the microgrid and shore power are not installed. The specific installation plans for the microgrid and shore power in Cases 2, 3, and 4 are shown in Table 4-8.

[0386] Table 4-8 Microgrid and shore power installation in each case

[0387]

[0388] While shore power and microgrids offer significant advantages in port emissions reduction, the substantial investment required has raised concerns among profit-driven ports and shipping companies. This creates a "chicken and egg" dilemma for both parties: ports are reluctant to install shore power when there's insufficient demand for it, while shipping companies are reluctant to proactively retrofit their ships until ports are adequately equipped with shore power and microgrids.

[0389] At this juncture, government involvement is crucial. On the one hand, policy guidance can break the aforementioned impasse; on the other, the government can leverage its emission reduction budget to encourage ports and shipping companies to install and retrofit equipment, creating a hybrid incentive system that boosts both sides' enthusiasm for emission reductions. At the same time, government emission reduction budgets must balance overall budget constraints with emission reduction effectiveness. This application aims to analyze government emission reduction budgets to achieve high emission reduction benefits with a low budget. All sensitivity analyses are based on Case 4, which demonstrates the best emission reduction results.

[0390] In some embodiments, the government budget is set to be US$25 million to US$150 million. Table 4-9 lists the port area emission reduction effects under different government budgets. Figure 8 、 Figure 9 As a result, as government emission reduction budgets increase, actual emissions from ports and shipping companies decrease, leading to lower actual emissions in the port area. Of course, if we only consider emission reduction effectiveness, it follows that increasing government emission reduction efforts and budgets will lead to greater reductions. However, in the emission reduction process, government budgets clearly demonstrate the need to pursue both lower emissions levels and economic efficiency. Table 4-10 shows the economic indicators of port and ship emission reduction effectiveness under different government budgets.

[0391] Table 4-9 Comparison of emission reduction effects under different government budgets

[0392]

[0393] Table 4-10 Comparison of the economic benefits of port and ship emission reduction under different government budgets

[0394]

[0395] As the government budget increases, port and ship emissions decrease, and the resulting economic incentives gradually increase, significantly reducing the net costs for ports and ships. When the government budget ranges from $25 million to $75 million, port costs are significantly higher than the cost of not implementing any emission reduction measures ($29.95 million), and the port will not undertake any corresponding emission reduction activities. When the government budget ranges from $80 million to $100 million, the net costs for both ports and ships are highly attractive, allowing both parties to actively fulfill their social responsibilities without incurring additional costs. If the government budget continues to increase, both parties will even generate positive returns. As can be seen with a budget of $150 million, both parties will benefit by over $18 million. Of course, government emissions reductions are driven by economic efficiency, and the level of reductions does not change significantly with budget increases. $80 million to $100 million represents a relatively ideal emission reduction budget range.

[0396] To reduce emissions and avoid carbon taxes, ships often choose to shut down their auxiliary engines while berthing in ports and instead rely on shore power for their production and living needs. Consequently, ships using shore power must pay a fee to the port. This fee depends primarily on the power consumed by the ship and the price of shore power. Ports, on the other hand, prefer to offer shore power at a higher price to increase revenue and offset the investment costs of shore power and the cost of generating electricity from the main grid or microgrid. If the price is too low and investment is not recouped, ports will be reluctant to install shore power to reduce costs. Ships, on the other hand, prefer to use shore power at a lower price to reduce their energy costs while in port. However, if the shore power price is higher than the cost of generating electricity from auxiliary engines, it will be difficult to motivate ships to retrofit, hindering the widespread use of shore power. This application sets other parameters to a fixed shore power price range of $30-100 / MW, comparing the environmental and economic indicators of ports and ships.

[0397] like Figure 10 As shown, the increase in shore power prices has little impact on the actual emissions of ports and ships. The port's total emissions remain at 400 kilotons, but the change in shore power prices affects the actual emission share of ports and ships, causing significant fluctuations in the net costs of both parties. As the price of shore power increases, the net costs of ports and ships show completely opposite trends, with one increasing while the other decreases. However, it is worth noting that the difference between the two is small when the shore power price is between 50 and 70 $ / MW, and the costs are both below the cost upper bound, which is an effective pricing range. In other ranges, the net cost of the port is negative, which means that it generates revenue, and the cost of the ship exceeds the cost upper bound. In other words, ships will not use shore power, and therefore cannot promote the joint emission reduction of ports using shore power and microgrids.

[0398] In theory, different emission reduction targets correspond to different emission reduction decisions. Here we choose the government emission reduction target. A sensitivity analysis was conducted using the lower limit of the original port's total emissions of 870 kilotons. When the emission reduction target was between 300 and 600 kilotons, the impact of the lower limit of the emission reduction target on the results was analyzed. See Tables 4-11 and 4-12 for specific data.

[0399] from Figure 11 and Figure 12 It can be seen that when the lower limit of the emission reduction target is When the emission reduction target ranges from 300 to 600 kilotonnes, the government's emission reduction targets are relatively relaxed, and the emission reduction efforts of ports and ships gradually weaken. The upper limit of emissions reduction allocated to both increases linearly with the lower limit. Although actual emissions fluctuate, they also show an upward trend. For ports, when the lower limit of emissions reduction reaches 120 kilotonnes, the port's actual emissions will exceed the allocated upper limit. For ships, actual emissions will only fall below the allocated upper limit when the lower limit is between 80 and 100 kilotonnes and exceeds 120 kilotonnes. Otherwise, they will be required to pay carbon tax to the government.

[0400] From the perspective of environmental indicators for emission reduction, a lower limit of the emission reduction target between 80 and 100 kilotons will have a better emission reduction effect. Figure 13 The chart shows a comparison of the net costs of ports and ships under different emission reduction target values. Similar to the comparison of port and ship costs under different shore power prices, as the lower limit increases, the net costs of the two show completely opposite trends. Under the condition that the emission reduction budget and shore power prices remain unchanged, increasing the lower limit of the emission reduction target will not directly reduce the net costs of the two, but will cause large fluctuations. This is because changes in the lower limit will affect the decision of ports to install microgrids and shore power, as well as the decision of ships to use shore power. Figure 14 It can be seen that the impact of the lower limit on the port is mainly reflected in the port economic incentives, which in turn causes the port's net cost to fluctuate significantly; while the lower limit has little impact on the ship's economic incentives, but it affects the ship's net cost and operating cost in the same trend ( Figure 15 Overall, 80 to 100 kilotons is the ideal lower limit.

[0401] Table 4-11 is different Comparison of emission reduction effects of ports and ships under the lower limit

[0402]

[0403] Table 4-12 Different Comparison of port and ship economic indicators under the lower limit

[0404]

[0405] To further promote port emissions reduction, this application introduces microgrids, using them to power the port and shore power, further optimizing the port's energy system. This chapter presents four comparative cases. Comparison shows that the combined microgrid and shore power approach achieves the best emissions reduction results, reducing CO2 emissions by 54.02% compared to the original state. Furthermore, the emission reduction effects of varying government budgets, shore power prices, and emission reduction target lower limits are further explored. The conclusion is that when the government budget is between $80 million and $100 million, the shore power price is between $50 and $70 per MW, and the emission reduction target lower limit is between 80 and 100 kilotons, hybrid incentives are highly attractive to ports and shipping companies, resulting in the best emissions reduction results. This demonstrates that the microgrid and shore power configuration scheme, derived from the model and algorithm designed in this paper, can, firstly, reduce the port's overall emissions level; secondly, it effectively balances the conflicting interests among the government, port, and shipping companies during the emission reduction process; and thirdly, it provides a relatively flexible parameter space, providing a reference for emission reduction activities in different ports.

[0406] like Figure 3 As shown, the user end (mini program) includes the following functions: registration and login, users register and log in to the system; information filling, users fill in relevant information; scan code charging, users scan the QR code to perform charging operations; information verification, review the information submitted by the user; real-time monitoring, providing real-time monitoring of the battery box status; power outage end, disconnect the power supply after charging is completed; bill push, send bill information to the user; online payment, support online payment of electricity bills; bill record, record the user's bill information.

[0407] like Figure 6 As shown, in some embodiments, in order to meet different payment intentions, the present application provides multiple payment methods, such as personal payment and company payment, wherein personal payment can be completed after receiving the bill;

[0408] The company can choose to pay in cash or monthly. If you choose to pay in cash, you should pay immediately after receiving the bill; if you choose to pay monthly, you can settle the charging fees on a monthly basis. You need to provide relevant company invoicing information.

[0409] like Figure 4 As shown, the backend management (web) terminal includes the following functions: user management, managing user account information; power box management, managing the status and configuration of power box equipment; real-time monitoring, monitoring the real-time status of all power boxes; report analysis, generating various reports for data analysis; billing records, recording all billing information; operation records, recording the administrator's operation log.

[0410] like Figure 5 As shown in the figure, the architecture design based on the TOS system mainly includes the relationship between the user end (applet), background management (web), the power box access center and multiple power box devices; specifically:

[0411] User-side (mini program) registration and login: users register and log in to the system; information filling: users fill in relevant information; scan code charging: users scan the QR code to perform charging operations; information verification: review the information submitted by the user; real-time monitoring: provide real-time monitoring of the battery box status; power outage end: disconnect the power supply after charging is completed; bill push: send bill information to the user; online payment: support online payment of electricity bills; bill record: record the user's bill information.

[0412] Backend management (web): User management: manage user account information; Power box management: manage the status and configuration of power box equipment; Real-time monitoring: monitor the real-time status of all power boxes; Report analysis: generate various reports for data analysis; Billing records: record all billing information; Operation records: record the administrator's operation log;

[0413] The power box is connected to the central switch command communication to send the command to turn on and off the power box; the power box status is communicated in real time to obtain the real-time status information of the power box; power statistics are used to count the power consumption of the power box; billing and settlement are used to calculate and settle the electricity bill; data synchronization is used to synchronize the data of the power box to the server.

[0414] Multiple electrical box devices are connected to the electrical box access center respectively, receive control instructions from the electrical box access center, and feedback their own status information.

[0415] The system described in this application enables interaction between users and the management system through a user-side applet and a backend management web page. The power box access center connects the front-end application and underlying hardware devices, ensuring data transmission and command execution. This makes the system highly scalable and maintainable, while also providing a rich set of features to meet the needs of different scenarios.

Claims

1. A method for scheduling and managing port shore power resources based on time-sharing pricing, characterized in that: Including steps: Step 1: Determine a microgrid and shore power planning model based on the hybrid incentive policy, and decide and execute the current port microgrid and shore power installation plan based on the model; Step 2: The intelligent monitoring platform obtains the current port microgrid and shore power installation data and usage status based on the port information and displays them on the monitoring display interface. It also obtains time-of-use electricity price information based on the hybrid incentive policy and displays it on the interface. Step 3: The user selects the charging requirement on the user side based on the interface information, time-of-use electricity price information and the ship's own charging needs; Step 4: The intelligent monitoring platform provides power based on the user's needs. The ship docks at a designated charging point for charging. The monitoring platform monitors the charging data in real time and calculates the charging cost. Step 5: After the user completes charging, he / she pays the fee and completes the charging task.

2. The method for scheduling and managing port shore power resources based on time-sharing pricing according to claim 1, characterized in that: The decision-making method based on the hybrid incentive policy comprises the following steps: S1. Construct a three-layer model of government, port, and ship, and establish a microgrid and shore power configuration plan. （1-1） Where, is the total emission of the port, where R is the port load superscript, f is the actual emission level superscript, h, d, y are the hour / day / year indexes, respectively, and all combinations are covered by triple summation. G is the set of dispatchable units, and W is the set of non-dispatched units. is the microgrid pollution emission coefficient, Indexing microgrid devices, The pollution emission coefficient of power generation for the main grid, At a specific time h, day d, and year y, the microgrid device i is the rated power value for the port load R, and M is the subscript related to the main grid. is the probability of power outage in the main grid at a specific time h, day d, and year y; 1- For the normal working efficiency of the main power grid, The power value purchased from the main grid to meet the port load demand at a specific time h, day d, year y; （1-2） Where, is the total emission of the ship, V is the ship load superscript, f is the actual emission level superscript, , , where A and V are is the total power generation of the auxiliary equipment, is the total shore power consumption of the ship, It is the amount of electricity purchased from the main grid for use on board the ship (shore power); （1-3） Where, represents the total emissions from the port area, represents the discharge of a typical load at the port, is the comprehensive emission of the ship under the conditions of load V and actual emission level f; Formulas (1-1), (1-2) and (1-3) express the total emissions of the port area, ships and ports respectively; （1-4） Where, represents the upper limit of port emissions, is the emission cap, is the proportion of the port's emission cap; （1-5） Where, represents the upper limit of ship emissions, is the emission cap, The percentage of the emission cap for ships; （1-6） The government allocates emission caps to ports and ships through equations (1-4), (1-5), and (1-6); （1-7） Where, For economic incentives / carbon tax penalties for ports, The value depends on the base value and Port emission caps, A linear function of the difference between the actual port emission levels; （1-8） Where, For economic incentives / carbon tax penalties for ships, The value depends on the base value and Ship emission caps, A linear function of the difference between the actual emission levels of the ship and the Here, the economic incentive is set as a linear function of the difference between the set emission cap and the actual emission level, i.e., equations (1-7) and (1-8). If the actual emissions of ports and shipping companies are higher than the allocated emission cap, the corresponding negative incentives obtained by equations (1-7) and (1-8) are the payment of carbon tax to the government, and otherwise, economic subsidies. （1-9） Where, For additional subsidies, Formula (1-9) is the additional subsidy given to the port based on the shipping company’s emission reduction effect; （1-10） Formula (1-10) is the total economic incentive given by the government to ports and shipping companies in the emission reduction work, where: Expressed as the total economic incentive / carbon tax penalty for ports and ships, Expressed as economic incentives / carbon tax penalties for ports, Expressed as economic incentives / carbon tax penalties for ships, Expressed as additional economic incentives / carbon tax penalties for ports; S2. Specifically, the government model is expressed as: （1-11） Where, Expressed as the government objective function Actual emission levels in the port area and the weight of the actual emission cap for the port area; （1-12） （1-13） Where, is the actual emission cap, is the lower bound of the emission ceiling, is the upper bound of the emission ceiling; Among them, Equation (1-11) is the government's objective function, namely, minimizing the weighted value of the port area's actual emissions and the emission cap; Equation (1-12) is used to ensure that the economic incentives obtained by ports and shipping companies are constrained by the government's total fiscal subsidies; B is the government's emission reduction budget, that is, the total economic incentives / carbon tax penalties for ports and ships cannot exceed the budget; Equation (1-13) shows the upper and lower bounds of the port area's total emission cap, that is, the port area's minimum emissions are less than or equal to the port area's total emissions are less than or equal to the port area's maximum emissions; S3. The port model is specifically expressed as follows: （1-14） Where, is the expected value under different scenarios; st （1-15） Where F1 is the objective function, which represents the total cost of the system. represents the present value factor (the discount rate of money), is the annualized investment cost per unit power of the i-th power generation equipment in year y, is the annualized investment cost per unit power of the i-th energy storage device in year y, For the capacity of microgrid power generation equipment and energy storage equipment, is a 0-1 decision variable, 1 means that device i is installed, otherwise not; （1-16） Where F2 represents the shore power investment cost, j represents the shore power index, is the J-type shore power capacity, CV jy Expressed as the annualized investment cost of shore power, is a 0-1 decision variable, If it is equal to 1, it means that shore power is installed, otherwise it is not; （1-17） Where F3 represents the power generation cost of the dispatchable equipment, P is the rated power of the equipment, The electricity generation cost of the power generation equipment; （1-18） Where F4 represents the total cost of energy exchange with the main grid, CM represents the main grid market electricity price, Expressed as the amount of electricity purchased from the main grid, The amount of electricity traded back to the main grid; （1-19） Where F5 is the cost of reducing conventional load at the port, represents the unit cost of load shedding, LS represents load shedding for the port; （1-20） Where F6 is the income from providing shore power services to ships, CO is the shore power service price, Indicates the amount of electricity that the ship needs to purchase from shore power; （1-21） Where D represents the power demand of the main power grid. It is the power demand of the port. It is expressed as the power demand of the ship; （1-22） Where, Indicates the maximum power supply of the main power grid, For the capacity of microgrid power generation equipment and energy storage equipment, The maximum capacity of the shore power equipment; （1-23） Where, The maximum number of shore power installations is The minimum number of shore power installations; （1-24） In the formula, ch is the superscript of energy storage device charging, dch is the superscript of energy storage device discharging, To purchase electricity from the main power grid for use in the port area; （1-25） Where, Expressed as the total shore power consumption of the ship, Expressed as the amount of electricity purchased from the main grid for use on board the ship (shore power); （1-26） Where, Indicates the amount of electricity allocated to the port (the upper limit of available shore power), Indicates the amount of electricity the ship needs to purchase from shore power, and M is a subscript related to the main power grid; （1-27） Where, is a 0-1 decision variable, If it is equal to 1, it means that the device i is installed, otherwise it is not; Formula (1-22) stipulates that a sufficient number of microgrid devices should be installed to meet the annual peak demand of the port and the shore power demand of berthed ships to ensure the normal supply of microgrid power; Constraints (1-23) ensure that the number of berths with shore power installed is within a given range; Constraints (1-24) and (1-25) determine the hourly power balance required for the port's conventional load and the ship's berthing load, respectively. The port's conventional load and the ship's berthing load can be met by the power provided by the microgrid, the power purchased from the main grid, and the power released from the storage device. As shown in (1-24), when the power of the microgrid is unbalanced, the only way to achieve balance is to reduce the conventional load of the port; Equation (1-26) indicates that if the power required by a ship is lower than the capacity of its allocated shore power facility, this power mismatch is called overgeneration, and the excess power will be traded to the main grid; Constraints (1-27) indicate that the decision variables related to installing microgrids and shore power are 0-1 variables; （1-28） （1-29） （1-30） （1-31） （1-32） Where LS is the port load reduction, It is expressed as the maximum proportion of load reduction at the port; （1-33） （1-34） Equation (1-28) represents the energy exchange boundary between the main grid and the microgrid; Equations (1-29) and (1-30) represent the prediction of the microgrid's power generation capacity; Formula (1-31) indicates that when a berth is allocated to a ship, the port entity should ensure that the shore power capacity of the berth is greater than or equal to the power demand of the ship; Constraints (1-32) are used to limit the port load that can be reduced; Constraints (1-33) are emission caps assigned to ports and ships; Formula (1-34) indicates that the economic incentives related to ports and ships are provided by the government; （1-35） （1-36） （1-37） In the formula, ch represents the superscript of the energy storage device charging, dch represents the superscript of the energy storage device discharging, and the constraints (1-35), (1-36), and (1-37) give the charge and discharge limits of the storage unit and the volume of available storage energy per hour. Formulas (1-38) to (1-42) give the value ranges of each variable; （1-38） （1-39） （1-40） （1-41） （1-42） S4. The ship model is expressed as: Used to minimize the cost of energy requirements of ships at berth while avoiding potential taxes and obtaining more economic incentives (Equation (1-43)); （1-43） Where, is the present value coefficient, CA is the auxiliary power generation price, CO is the shore power service price, represents financial incentives / carbon tax penalties for ships; 3. （1-44） （1-45） （1-46） Where O is the candidate station group for shore power supply, is the total power generation of the auxiliary equipment; Formula (1-43) is the objective function of the ship model, which is to minimize the net cost of the ship when berthing; Constraints (1-44) ensure that the power demand of berthed ships can be met by auxiliary engines or shore power at every point in time; Constraint (1-45) indicates that the ship's power usage will not exceed the capacity of shore power; Equation (1-46) requires that the power be non-negative.

4. The method for scheduling and managing port shore power resources based on time-sharing pricing according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The steps of the microgrid and shore power planning model under the hybrid incentive policy described in step 1 include: The first step is to convert the government model and the port model into a single-layer model, and use the KKT condition to replace the ship model, so that the government model, the port model and the ship model are converted into a two-layer model; In the second step, the C&CG algorithm is used to solve the two-layer model described in the first step; The KKT conditions of the ship model include a set of stationary constraints, original feasibility constraints, dual feasibility constraints and complementary relaxation conditions; the Lagrangian factors (4-44), (4-45) and (4-46) are introduced into the constraints of the original ship model respectively. , and and Taking partial derivatives, we get equations (4-47) and (4-48), which give all and Stability constraints in the case; （4-47） （4-48） Equations (4-44) and (4-45) describe the original feasibility constraints of the equations. Equations (4-49) and (4-50) are the dual feasibility constraints, and they also set the feasible regions of the dual variables. Finally, the complementary slack conditions in the KKT conditions are shown in equations (4-51), (4-52), and (4-53). （4-49） （4-50） （4-51） （4-52） （4-53） Through the above transformation, the three-layer model is converted into a two-layer model, and the C&CG decomposition strategy is used to divide the main and sub-problems and solve the two-layer model.

5. A system for implementing the port shore power resource scheduling and management method based on time-sharing pricing as described in claim 1, characterized in that: The system comprises: At the presentation layer, users access the functions and services provided by the system through user terminals and obtain microgrid shore power data and usage status through port information; The application layer includes a backend management web terminal and a user applet terminal. The backend management web terminal is used for administrator operations to perform user monitoring, power box monitoring, shoreline power box data monitoring, and shore power service information monitoring; The user applet is used for user operations, including user registration / login, shore power information reporting, power outage settlement, QR code scanning for charging, real-time monitoring, and order payment. The support layer communicates with external systems through the TOS interface, defines data transmission standards and rules based on the communication protocol, and also provides message delegation for message delivery and notification; The data layer is used to store and manage the data involved in the system, including structured data, real-time data, backup data and cached data.

6. The port shore power resource scheduling and management system based on time-sharing pricing according to claim 4 is characterized in that: The cockpit visualization module of the backend management web terminal uses a microgrid and shore power configuration planning and scheduling algorithm under government hybrid incentives.

7. The port shore power resource scheduling and management system based on time-sharing pricing according to claim 4 is characterized in that: The data layer includes: Data extraction, used to extract data; Data addition, used to add new data records; Data conversion, used to clean and convert raw data to make it suitable for subsequent application requirements; Data cache, temporarily storing frequently used data.

8. The port shore power resource scheduling and management system based on time-sharing pricing according to claim 4 is characterized in that: The charging process of the system includes the following steps:

100. The ship system is connected to the TOS system. One shore power box is connected to one ship. The user enters the QR code scanning charging process through the mini program on the user terminal, registers the user information, and obtains the matching shore power box information.

200. After the ship is connected to the shore power box, charging begins. The intelligent management platform monitors the charging status in real time. After charging is completed, the charging power and amount are generated and displayed on the user end; 300. The vessel leaves the shore after payment is completed.

9. The port shore power resource scheduling and management system based on time-sharing pricing according to claim 4 is characterized in that: The TOS system includes a user terminal, a mini-program terminal, a backend management terminal, a power box access center, and a power box device terminal; the TOS system realizes the interaction between the user and the management system through the mini-program on the user terminal and the web page of the backend management; The power box access center is connected to the mini program, backend management web and power box device respectively. The mini program and backend management web control whether the power box device is powered or not through the power box access center.

10. The port shore power resource scheduling and management system based on time-sharing pricing according to claim 6, characterized in that: In step 200, the ship starts charging after being connected to the shore power box. The intelligent management platform monitors the charging status in real time. After charging is completed, the charging power and amount are generated and displayed on the user terminal. The platform records the ship's electricity consumption and generates bills based on it, setting differentiated electricity prices according to different time periods.

Images