## 4 Results and Discussions
### The Results Obtained by the Two Algorithms in Case 3
In addition, the amount of active power supplied to the grid of WTs found by the two applied methods is also distinct. In particular, the active power resulting from the OOA is 2236.179 kW for WT1 and 2212.905 kW for WT2, while those found by the WOA are 445.827 kW for WT1 and only 390.508 kW for WT2. In terms of reactive power, the results achieved by both the OOA and WOA indicate that it is better to reach the best value of power loss if WTs consume reactive power from the grid. Figure 12: The comparison between the two algorithms on different criteria in Case 3. Figure 13: The voltage profile with and without the presence of WTs in Case 3. According to the data from Table 3, WTs found by WOA consume more reactive power than those of OOA. On top of that, the larger reactive power consumed by WTs led to a better enhancement of the voltage magnitude of buses, which can be observed in Figure 9:0  
The position of WTs in Table 3 is investigated in Case 3, where WTs are operated with a broader range of power factors, which is \(-\)0.95 to 0.95. The power loss values obtained by the two applied methods are presented in Figure 9:1 In the table, the active power loss values given by OOA and WOA are 0.097 and 1.665 kW, respectively. The difference in power loss values between the two applied methods is only 1.568 kW, which is very small from a practical point of view. However, while considering both data from Figure 12 and Table 3, several terms can be found as follows:  
* The total active power supplied of WTs found by the WOA is only 836.335 kW, while the similarity of the OOA is up to 4449.084 kW, but the WOA results in a lower power loss value. Due to the low capacity of WTs connected to the grid, finding the same nodes for the two WTs in the grid, like the OOA, is infeasible. * The lower the active power output, the less capital cost is required to place WTs in the grid. If the WOA is employed in practice, the economic benefit for investors will be more optimized. * The WT's positions found by the WOA consumed more reactive power from the grid than the OOA, but the voltage improvement at many nodes is slightly better than OOA. Although the difference is not much and can be ignored, the WOA has one more time shown its higher effectiveness than the OOA. Moreover, both the OOA and WOA offer a considerable enhancement of voltage profile when compared to the Base case, where WTs are not connected to the grid. Figure 14 provides a brief graphical comparison of placing WTs in the IEEE 85-node RDPG in Cases 1, 2, and 3. As mentioned earlier, WTs can only supply active power to the grid in Case 1, while WTs in Case 2 and Case 3 offer the capability to supply active and reactive power to the grid. At first glance, both the OOA and WOA result in better power losses in Case 2 and Case 3 compared to Case 1. For instance, the power losses found by the OOA and WOA are 115.5637 kW and 115.5636 kW in Case 1, and 30.7289 kW and 30.6548 kW in Case 2. In Case 3, the power loss values found by the OOA and WOA are 1.665 kW and 0.097 kW. The improvement is massive compared to both Case 2 and Case 1. The results found by the WOA reduce the power loss by 63.4% in Case 1, 90.3% in Case 2, and 99.96% in Case 3 compared to the original configuration of RPDG. Moreover, the results indicate that the placement of wind turbines can reduce power losses significantly, and the placement of wind turbines with active and reactive generations can reduce the most significant power loss for radial distribution power systems. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Method** & **WT1** & **WT2** \\
**Location—P (kW)—Q (kvar)** & **Location—P (kW)—Q (kvar)** \\ \hline OOA & 50; 2336.179; \(-\)12,417.083 & 59; 2212.905; \(-\)1335.138 \\ WOA & 13; 445.827; \(-\)4212.145 & 60; 390.508; \(-\)88,362.216 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: The optimal location, active and reactive power, determined by the two algorithms in Case 3.