Comprehensive evaluation method for optimal configuration scheme of comprehensive energy system

Abstract

The invention relates to the technical field of comprehensive energy system evaluation, in particular to a comprehensive evaluation method for an optimal configuration scheme of a comprehensive energy system, which comprises the following steps of: constructing a comprehensive evaluation index system of the comprehensive energy system; calculating the combined weight of the evaluation indexes based on an IAHP-entropy weight method; carrying out comprehensive evaluation and scheme sorting based on a combined weight-TOPSIS method; according to the method, the system covering multi-dimensional evaluation indexes is constructed, the problem that a traditional evaluation method is single in view angle is solved, and comprehensive evaluation of the comprehensive energy system configuration scheme is achieved; a combined weighting mode of an IAHP-entropy weight method is adopted, expert experience and data objective information are effectively fused, and index weight distribution conforms to engineering practice and data rules; through deep coupling of the combination weight and the TOPSIS method, accurate quantification of the distance between each configuration scheme and the ideal solution is realized, the scheme sorting result is more accurate and visual, and the scientificity and reliability of decision making are greatly improved.

Description

TECHNICAL FIELD

[0001] The present application relates to the technical field of comprehensive energy system evaluation, and is a comprehensive evaluation method for an optimal configuration scheme of a comprehensive energy system. BACKGROUND

[0002] The current evaluation method for a comprehensive energy system has obvious deficiencies. On the one hand, the evaluation index system constructed is generally one-sided, mostly focusing on the economy, operation stability or reliability of a single energy of the system, failing to organically integrate the economy, reliability of multi-energy supply and energy efficiency of renewable energy, resulting in a single evaluation perspective and an inability to comprehensively measure the overall performance of the system. On the other hand, in the key link of determining the index weight, the existing weighting methods have significant defects: subjective weighting methods such as the analytic hierarchy process rely too much on expert experience, resulting in strong subjectivity and insufficient stability of the weight results; and objective weighting methods such as the entropy weight method are completely data-driven and may deviate from the importance judgment of the engineering practice; more importantly, the existing technology fails to effectively combine subjective and objective weighting methods, failing to form a scientific combined weight that can take into account both expert experience and data information. In addition, in the final evaluation model, the existing methods mostly use a single evaluation method and fail to deeply couple advanced weight determination methods with multi-attribute decision-making methods such as TOPSIS, making it difficult to accurately quantify the closeness of each configuration scheme to the ideal solution, and ultimately affecting the accuracy of the scheme ranking and the effectiveness of the decision support. Therefore, the existing technology lacks a comprehensive, scientific weighting and accurate evaluation method, making it difficult to reliably support the decision of the optimal configuration scheme of a comprehensive energy system. SUMMARY

[0003] The present application aims to provide a comprehensive evaluation method for an optimal configuration scheme of a comprehensive energy system to solve the problems of one-sided evaluation indexes, unscientific weighting methods and single evaluation model in the prior art. The present application realizes scientific and accurate ranking and optimization of different configuration schemes of a comprehensive energy system by constructing a comprehensive and multi-dimensional evaluation index system and using a combined weighting and decision-making model that deeply integrates subjective and objective information.

[0004] The technical solution of the present application is realized by the following measures:

[0005] A comprehensive evaluation method for an optimal configuration scheme of a comprehensive energy system, comprising the following steps:

[0006] Step 1: Constructing a comprehensive evaluation index system for a comprehensive energy system: based on the fishbone diagram analysis method, a multi-dimensional evaluation system covering three attribute layers and six specific indexes is extracted and established from the key factors affecting the sustainable development of a comprehensive energy system;

[0007] Step two: calculating the combined weight of the evaluation index based on the IAHP-entropy weight method: a combined weighting method combining the improved analytic hierarchy process (IAHP) and the entropy weight method is adopted to give consideration to the tendency of expert experience decision-making and the objective law of data itself;

[0008] Step three: comprehensive evaluation and scheme ranking based on the combined weight-TOPSIS method: the combined weight in step two is deeply coupled with the TOPSIS decision-making model to realize accurate quantification of the closeness degree of each scheme to the ideal solution.

[0009] The multi-dimensional evaluation system established in step one includes:

[0010] The economic index specifically includes the system annual comprehensive cost and the purchased energy cost;

[0011] The reliability index specifically includes the system energy supply shortage rate and the system energy supply reliability rate;

[0012] The energy efficiency index specifically includes the renewable energy penetration rate and the renewable energy utilization rate;

[0013] The index system comprehensively reflects the comprehensive performance of the integrated energy system in terms of investment operation, user satisfaction and green low carbon.

[0014] Step two includes:

[0015] Subjective weight calculation: the improved analytic hierarchy process (IAHP) is adopted to construct a judgment matrix through an improved scaling method, and the subjective weight vector of each index is calculated; this method effectively reduces the subjective judgment error of the traditional analytic hierarchy process, and makes the subjective weighting result more reasonable;

[0016] Objective weight calculation: the entropy weight method is adopted to calculate the objective weight vector of each index according to the dispersion degree of the index values under the three different configuration schemes; the greater the dispersion degree of the index values, the greater the entropy weight, which means that the index provides more information in distinguishing the advantages and disadvantages of the schemes;

[0017] Combined weight determination: the subjective and objective weights are fused through linear weighting to obtain the combined weight vector used for evaluation.

[0018] Step three specifically includes the following steps: (1) constructing a weighted normalized decision matrix: the original index data obtained in step one is standardized to eliminate the influence of dimensions, and then the combined weight obtained in step two is used to weight the standardized matrix to form a weighted normalized matrix;

[0019] (2) determining the ideal solution and the negative ideal solution: in the weighted normalized matrix, the optimal value of each index is found to form the positive ideal solution, and the worst value of each index is found to form the negative ideal solution;

[0020] (3) Calculate the distance and relative closeness: calculate the Euclidean distance of each comprehensive energy system configuration scheme to be evaluated and the positive ideal solution and the negative ideal solution respectively; then, calculate the relative closeness of each scheme, the value is between 0 and 1, and the greater the value, the closer the scheme to the optimal level;

[0021] (4) Output the evaluation result: according to the relative closeness of each scheme calculated in descending order, the order of all comprehensive energy system configuration schemes can be obtained, which provides intuitive and reliable basis for final decision.

[0022] The improved scale method represents the relative importance between elements by a fractional form of scale value, and the specific scale value and meaning are as follows: scale value 7 / 7 represents that element i is equally important as element j; 7 / 5 represents that element i is slightly important than element j; 7 / 3 represents that element i is obviously important than element j; 7 / 1 represents that element i is strongly important than element j; 7 / 6, 7 / 4 and 7 / 2 are intermediate scale values of adjacent judgments; if the scale value of element i to element j is a ij , then the scale value of element j to element i is a ji , that is, the reciprocal relationship.

[0023] The innovation of the present application lies in:

[0024] The comprehensive energy system evaluation index system covering six indexes of three attribute layers of economy (annual comprehensive cost, purchased energy cost), reliability (system energy shortage rate, system energy supply reliability rate) and energy efficiency (renewable energy penetration rate, renewable energy utilization rate) is constructed; the index weight is calculated by using the combination weighting method combining the improved analytic hierarchy process (IAHP) and the entropy weight method; and the combination weight is coupled with the TOPSIS method, and the comprehensive evaluation model of scheme sorting is realized by constructing the weighted normalized decision matrix, determining the ideal solution and the negative ideal solution, calculating the distance and the relative closeness.

[0025] In order to effectively and reasonably evaluate the comprehensive energy system, by Figure 1 analyzing the factors that have greater influence on the comprehensive energy system, Figure 2 the IAHP-entropy weight TOPSIS method comprehensive evaluation flowchart is established as follows on the basis of meeting the feasibility, scientificity, independence and comprehensiveness:

[0026] As shown in Table 1:

[0027] Table 1 Index evaluation system

[0028]

[0029] The comprehensive energy system wants to be sustainable in production, and the impact on the environment should be considered when considering the economy and energy efficiency of system operation: in terms of system economy, the annual comprehensive cost of the system is considered, and the cost of energy during system operation is also considered; in terms of humanistic care, the satisfaction of user power consumption is also very important, so the user power supply shortage rate and the user power supply reliability rate must be considered; in terms of ecological environment, greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced, and the utilization rate and penetration rate of renewable energy should be improved.

[0030] Construct the mathematical model of the index:

[0031] (1) System annual comprehensive cost:

[0032] Defined as the annual comprehensive cost of the system, which includes annual investment cost and annual operation cost.

[0033]

[0034] In the formula, A1 is the annual comprehensive cost of the system; S ntz is the annual investment cost; S runcost is the annual operation cost. D is the number of days of operation, and d represents each day.

[0035] (2) Energy purchase cost:

[0036] Defined as the cost of energy purchased by the system from the outside world, including electricity purchase cost and natural gas purchase cost.

[0037]

[0038] In the formula, A2 is the energy purchase cost of the system. c e (t), c g (t) are the electricity price and natural gas price at t period, respectively; P e (t) is the electricity purchase power of the system from the outside at t period; G g (t) is the natural gas volume purchased by the system from the outside at t period; T is the total number of time periods.

[0039] (3) System energy supply shortage rate:

[0040] Defined as the ratio of the total amount of different load statistics during the system shortage to the total amount of load demand.

[0041]

[0042] In the formula, B1 is the system supply shortage rate. P D , P R , P L are the electricity load, heat load and cold load, respectively. Load ele , Load heatLoad cool respectively are the demand of electricity load, heat load, cold load after demand response at time t; D is the running days, d represents each day.

[0043] (4) System energy supply reliability

[0044] defined as the ratio of the total amount of different load energy supply time obtained by the consumer during the statistical period and the total energy supply time, this index can reflect the reliability level of the system, the higher the ratio, the better the reliability level of the system.

[0045]

[0046] In the formula, T D , T R , T L respectively are the system power shortage, heat shortage, cold shortage time; T Z is the statistical time.

[0047] (5) Renewable energy penetration rate

[0048] defined as the ratio of photovoltaic and wind power generation to the total power generation of the system.

[0049]

[0050] In the formula, C1 is the renewable energy penetration rate; P ZDL is the total power. P PV is the photovoltaic power generation, P PW is the wind power generation.

[0051] (6) Renewable energy utilization rate

[0052] defined as the ratio of abandoned wind and light power generation to photovoltaic and wind power generation.

[0053]

[0054] In the formula, C2 is the renewable energy utilization rate; Q PV , Q PW respectively are the abandoned light and wind power.

[0055] Analytic hierarchy process is a kind of qualitative and quantitative analysis is combined organically through the decision maker's experience, to determine the weight of each kind of decision scheme index, and according to the weight to determine the priority of different evaluation index, so as to solve some problems with quantization method, has strong practicability.

[0056] AHP steps:

[0057] Through subjective analysis of the decision maker, the framework of system AHP is established.

[0058] Through scale method, comparative analysis is made.

[0059] Table 2 Scale method

[0060]

[0061] According to Table 2, the judgment matrix is established:

[0062]

[0063] In the formula, the main diagonal elements of the matrix are all 1 and the rest elements are greater than 1, and the elements on both sides of the main diagonal are reciprocal.

[0064] Judge whether it passes the consistency test:

[0065] A: Multiply the row elements in the matrix:

[0066]

[0067] B: Find the nth root of M i

[0068]

[0069] C: Normalize the nth root of M i

[0070]

[0071] D: Find the maximum eigenvalue:

[0072]

[0073] E: Consistency test:

[0074]

[0075] Among them, the RI parameter value is shown in Table 3:

[0076] Table 3 RI value

[0077]

[0078] IAHP improvement:

[0079] ​​The improved scale method represents the relative importance between elements by scale values in fractional form, and the specific scale values and meanings are as follows: scale value 7 / 7 represents that element i is equally important as element j; 7 / 5 represents that element i is slightly important than element j; 7 / 3 represents that element i is obviously important than element j; 7 / 1 represents that element i is strongly important than element j; 7 / 6, 7 / 4 and 7 / 2 are intermediate scale values of the above adjacent judgments. If the scale value of element i to element j is a ij , then the scale value of element j to element i is a ji , that is, the reciprocal relationship.

[0080] Table 4 Improved scale method

[0081]

[0082] Solution process of entropy weight method:

[0083] Data standardization:

[0084] Construct evaluation matrix X, which contains m evaluation objects and n evaluation indexes:

[0085] X = (x ij ) m×n (14)

[0086] Then the obtained matrix is normalized, and the normalization of positive indexes is shown in the following formula:

[0087]

[0088] The normalization of reverse indexes is shown in the following formula:

[0089]

[0090] After normalization, Y = [y ij ]m × n is the normalized matrix.

[0091] Solution of information entropy:

[0092] Information entropy of the ith index:

[0093]

[0094] Calculation of index entropy weight:

[0095] The entropy weight of the ith index is:

[0096]

[0097] Finally, the result of the entropy weight method is W' = (w1', w'2,..., w' n ).

[0098] The formula for calculating the combined weights of the IAHP-entropy weight method is as follows:

[0099]

[0100] When d i Less than 0.5 indicates a relatively large objective weight; when d i A value greater than 0.5 indicates a higher subjective weight.

[0101] The IAHP-Entropy Weighted TOPSIS method comprises both the IAHP-Entropy Weighted method and the TOPSIS method. The IAHP-Entropy Weighted method calculates the combined weight values ​​of the evaluation indicators. These combined weight values ​​are then multiplied by the original data of the system to be evaluated, yielding new data. The system uses this new data to perform TOPSIS calculations, ultimately obtaining the "relative closeness" of each evaluation object. This "relative closeness" is used to rank all schemes in the system, and the results are then evaluated and analyzed.

[0102] Establish an IAHP-entropy weighted TOPSIS evaluation model:

[0103] The calculation steps and formulas for the TOPSIS evaluation method are as follows:

[0104]

[0105] Calculate the evaluation object and Y + Distance size and Y - Distance size d i - The previously calculated comprehensive weights are combined with the TOPSIS evaluation method to calculate and... The distance and the The distance is calculated using the following formula:

[0106]

[0107] In the formula, The smaller the value, the closer it is to the optimal solution. The larger the value, the further away it is from the worst-case solution.

[0108] Further calculate the relative similarity c between each evaluation object and the optimal solution. i

[0109]

[0110] In the formula, 0≤c i ≤1.

[0111] Further on c iThe final evaluation of the system is obtained by sorting.

[0112] Compared with the prior art, the present application solves the problem of single perspective of traditional evaluation method by constructing a multi-dimensional evaluation index system covering economy, reliability and energy efficiency, realizes comprehensive evaluation of the comprehensive energy system configuration scheme, effectively combines expert experience and data objective information by adopting the combination weighting method of IAHP-entropy weight, makes the index weight distribution conform to the engineering practice and respect the data law, significantly improves the scientificity and reliability of weight determination, realizes accurate quantization of the distance between each configuration scheme and ideal solution by deeply coupling the combination weight and TOPSIS method, makes the scheme sorting result more accurate and intuitive, greatly improves the scientificity and reliability of decision-making, and provides strong decision support for the optimized configuration and investment construction of the comprehensive energy system. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

[0113] Attached Figure 1 The fishbone diagram of the comprehensive energy system of the present application.

[0114] Attached Figure 2 The comprehensive evaluation flowchart of the IAHP-entropy weight TOPSIS method of the comprehensive energy system of the present application. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0115] The features and principles of the present application are described in detail below, and the examples are only used to explain the present application, and do not limit the protection scope of the present application.

[0116] The comprehensive evaluation method model establishment method of the comprehensive energy system optimization configuration scheme provided by the present application comprises:

[0117] Establishing an index system: according to the economy, energy efficiency and reliability that need to be considered during the operation of the comprehensive energy system, an index evaluation system is established. See Table 1.

[0118] The present application sets three scenes, and solves the system according to the set evaluation scheme. 1) The comprehensive energy system contains CHP, photovoltaic power generation, wind power generation, electric boiler, energy storage and other equipment, considers economy, and does not consider reliability and comprehensive demand response; 2) On the basis of scene 1, only consider reliability, the maximum allowable load loss is 0.01%; 3) On the basis of scene 2, consider comprehensive demand response.

[0119] According to the judgment matrix of the score scale, the judgment matrix of the first-level index and the second-level index of the system is established.

[0120] Table 5 first-level index judgment matrix

[0121]

[0122] λ max: 3.0014, Consistency ratio: 0.0014.

[0123] Table 6 Judgment matrix of secondary index-A

[0124]

[0125] λ max : 2.0000, Consistency ratio: 0.0000.

[0126] Table 7 Judgment matrix of secondary index-B

[0127]

[0128] λ max : 2.0000, Consistency ratio: 0.0000.

[0129] Table 8 Judgment matrix of secondary index-C

[0130]

[0131] λ max : 2.0000, Consistency ratio: 0.0000.

[0132] The index values of the three schemes are calculated.

[0133] Table 9 Index values of the three schemes

[0134]

[0135] It can be seen from Table 3 that the index performance of the S1 system is the worst in the economy and reliability, but the renewable energy penetration rate is the best in energy efficiency. The index of the S2 system is at an intermediate level, but the energy purchase fee index is the worst in economy; the renewable energy penetration rate index of the S3 system is the worst in energy efficiency, and the index of economy and reliability is the best. The index performance of the three schemes has advantages and disadvantages, and only according to the results of the calculation and evaluation index, the comprehensive evaluation of different aspects of the system cannot be made, so based on the IAHP-entropy weight method, the subjective and objective weights are obtained, and finally the combined weight of each index is obtained, and finally the optimal scheme is selected according to the result of the combined weight.

[0136] Data standardization.

[0137] According to formula (15) and formula (16), the positive index and the reverse index are standardized:

[0138] Table 10 Standardization of entropy weight method of each scheme

[0139]

[0140] Information entropy is obtained.

[0141] Table 11 Entropy of each scheme

[0142]

[0143] The weight of different indexes and the index value of different schemes of the system are shown in Table 10.

[0144] Table 12 Index weight

[0145]

[0146] According to the information entropy and the index weight of different indexes of the system, the different schemes of the system are ranked according to the formula (20)-formula (24) based on the comprehensive evaluation method, and the results are shown in Table 11.

[0147] Table 13 System evaluation results

[0148]

[0149] According to the system evaluation results and the index value of different schemes, when the reliability index, the economy index and the energy efficiency index of the system are comprehensively considered, the scheme S3 has the advantages in the annual comprehensive cost, the energy outsourcing cost and the system energy supply reliability rate, and the index proportion is large, so the evaluation value of the scheme S3 is the highest compared with other schemes, and the relative closeness to the optimal scheme is also the highest, and the ranking is first, and the scheme S3 is the optimal scheme considering the reliability, the economy and the energy efficiency of the three schemes.

[0150] The above technical features constitute the embodiments of the present application, which have strong adaptability and implementation effect, and unnecessary technical features can be added or reduced according to actual needs to meet the needs of different situations.

Claims

1. A comprehensive evaluation method of an optimal configuration scheme of an integrated energy system, characterized by The method comprises the following steps: Step one: constructing a comprehensive energy system comprehensive evaluation index system: based on the fishbone diagram analysis method, a multi-dimensional evaluation system covering three attribute layers and six specific indexes is extracted and established from the key factors affecting the sustainable development of the comprehensive energy system; Step two: calculating the combined weight of the evaluation indexes based on the IAHP-entropy weight method: the combined weighting method combining the improved analytic hierarchy process (IAHP) and the entropy weight method is adopted to give consideration to the tendency of expert experience decision and the objective law of data itself; Step three: comprehensive evaluation and scheme sorting based on the combined weight-TOPSIS method: the combined weight in step two is deeply coupled with the TOPSIS decision model to realize accurate quantification of the closeness degree of each scheme to the ideal solution.

2. The comprehensive evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The multi-dimensional evaluation system established in step one comprises: economic index: specifically including system annual comprehensive cost and purchased energy cost; reliability index: specifically including system energy shortage rate and system energy supply reliability rate; energy efficiency index: specifically including renewable energy penetration rate and renewable energy utilization rate; The index system comprehensively reflects the comprehensive performance of the comprehensive energy system in investment operation, user satisfaction and green low carbon.

3. The comprehensive evaluation method according to claim 1 or 2, characterized in that The step two comprises: subjective weight calculation: the IAHP (improved analytic hierarchy process) is adopted to construct a judgment matrix through an improved scaling method, and the subjective weight vector of each index is calculated; this method effectively reduces the subjective judgment error of the traditional analytic hierarchy process, and makes the subjective weighting result more reasonable; objective weight calculation: the entropy weight method is adopted to calculate the objective weight vector of each index according to the dispersion degree of the index values under three different configuration schemes; the greater the dispersion degree of the index values, the greater the entropy weight, which indicates that the index provides more information in distinguishing the advantages and disadvantages of the schemes; determination of combined weight: the subjective and objective weights are fused through linear weighting to obtain the combined weight vector used for evaluation.

4. The comprehensive evaluation method according to claim 1 or 2, characterized by The step three specifically comprises the following steps: (1) constructing a weighted normalized decision matrix: the original index data obtained in step one is standardized to eliminate the dimension influence, and then the combined weight obtained in step two is used to weight the standardized matrix to form a weighted normalized matrix; (2) determining the ideal solution and the negative ideal solution: in the weighted normalized matrix, the optimal value of each index is found to constitute the positive ideal solution, and the worst value of each index is found to constitute the negative ideal solution; (3) calculating the distance and the relative closeness: the Euclidean distance between each evaluated comprehensive energy system configuration scheme and the positive ideal solution and the negative ideal solution is calculated; then, the relative closeness of each scheme is calculated, which is between 0 and 1, and the greater the value, the closer the scheme to the optimal level; (4) outputting the evaluation result: the relative closeness of each scheme is arranged in descending order according to the calculation result, and the order of the advantages and disadvantages of all the comprehensive energy system configuration schemes is obtained, which provides an intuitive and reliable basis for the final decision.

5. The comprehensive evaluation method according to claim 3, characterized in that The step three specifically comprises the following steps: (1) constructing a weighted normalized decision matrix: the original index data obtained in step one is standardized to eliminate the influence of dimension, and the standardized matrix is weighted by the combination weight obtained in step two to form a weighted normalized matrix; (2) determining ideal solution and negative ideal solution: in the weighted normalized matrix, the optimal value of each index is found to constitute the positive ideal solution, and the worst value of each index is found to constitute the negative ideal solution; (3) calculating distance and relative closeness: the Euclidean distance between each comprehensive energy system configuration scheme to be evaluated and the positive ideal solution and the negative ideal solution is calculated respectively; then, the relative closeness of each scheme is calculated, which is between 0 and 1, and the greater the value, the closer the scheme to the optimal level; (4) outputting the evaluation result: according to the relative closeness of each scheme calculated, the descending order is arranged, and the order of all comprehensive energy system configuration schemes can be obtained, which provides an intuitive and reliable basis for the final decision.

6. The comprehensive evaluation method according to claim 3, characterized in that The improved scale method is to express the relative importance between elements by scale values in fractional form, and the specific scale values and meanings are as follows: scale value 7 / 7 represents that element i is equally important as element j; 7 / 5 represents that element i is slightly more important than element j; 7 / 3 represents that element i is obviously more important than element j; 7 / 1 represents that element i is strongly more important than element j; 7 / 6, 7 / 4 and 7 / 2 are intermediate scale values of the above adjacent judgments; if the scale value of element i to element j is a ij , then the scale value of element j to element i is a ji , that is, the reciprocal relationship.

7. The comprehensive evaluation method according to claim 5, characterized in that The improved scale method is to express the relative importance between elements by scale value in fractional form, and the specific scale value and meaning are as follows: scale value 7 / 7 represents that element i is equally important as element j; 7 / 5 represents that element i is slightly important than element j; 7 / 3 represents that element i is obviously important than element j; 7 / 1 represents that element i is strongly important than element j; 7 / 6, 7 / 4 and 7 / 2 are intermediate scale values of the above adjacent judgments; if the scale value of element i to element j is a ij , then the scale value of element j to element i is a ji , that is, the reciprocal relationship.

Images