PowerMatcher: multiagent control in the electricity infrastructure
Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems
Agent-based micro-storage management for the Smart Grid
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: volume 1 - Volume 1
Trading agents for the smart electricity grid
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: volume 1 - Volume 1
A model-based online mechanism with pre-commitment and its application to electric vehicle charging
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 2
A proportional share allocation mechanism for coordination of plug-in electric vehiclecharging
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence
iCO2: multi-user eco-driving training environment based on distributed constraint optimization
Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems
Hi-index | 0.00 |
Intelligent electricity grids, or 'Smart Grids', are being introduced at a rapid pace. Smart grids allow the management of new distributed power generators such as solar panels and wind turbines, and innovative power consumers such as plug-in hybrid vehicles. One challenge in Smart Grids is to fulfill consumer demands while avoiding infrastructure overloads. Another challenge is to reduce imbalance costs: after ahead scheduling of production and consumption (the socalled 'load schedule'), unpredictable changes in production and consumption yield a cost for repairing this balance. To cope with these risks and costs, we propose a decentralized, multi-agent system solution for coordinated charging of PHEVs in a Smart Grid. Essentially, the MAS utilizes an "intention graph" for expressing the flexibility of a fleet of PHEVs. Based on this flexibility, charging of PHEVs can be rescheduled in real-time to reduce imbalances. We discuss and evaluate two scheduling strategies for reducing imbalance costs: reactive scheduling and proactive scheduling. Simulations show that reactive scheduling is able to reduce imbalance costs by 14%, while proactive scheduling yields the highest imbalance cost reduction of 44%.