## 4 Example Analysis
### Benefit Analysis of Multi-Energy Coordinated Control  
Take the uncertainty set as 25%, calculate the scheduling cost of the proposed robust method and the traditional method, and compare the advantages of the proposed method with the traditional method [28; 35].  
The difference in Table 2 is obtained by the traditional method minus the robust method, so the positive value represents the cost advantage of the robust method, and the negative value represents the cost disadvantage of the robust method.  
Compared with the traditional method, the method proposed in this paper has an economic advantage of 15,945.3Y, and the comprehensive cost is the sum of risk, environment and power generation cost, so the reasons can be described from the above three aspects:  
(A) Risk cost: the core idea of the multi-energy coordinated dispatching method proposed in this paper is to deal with the fluctuation of new energy by setting uncertain sets, which leads to the dispatch plan having obvious advantages in risk cost, which is reflected in the fact that the cutting load is much lower than the traditional method. Wind/light curtailment volume is slightly larger than the traditional method, but this is because the load cutting cost is very high and the wind/light curtailment cost is low.  
(B) Environmental cost: environmental cost is caused by coal-fired power, while the environmental cost of coal-fired power is much higher than that of gas power. The traditional law does not consider the fluctuation of new energy but pursues the economy of power generation cost. Due to the high cost of gas and electricity output, the traditional scheduling scheme stops the gas and electricity output, and more of it is coal-fired power output, so its environmental cost is higher.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Wind/Light** & **Cutting** & **The Cost of** & **Environmental Power Generation** & **Comprehensive** \\  & **Curtailment** & **Load** & **Risk** & **Costs** & **Cost** & **Cost** \\  & **(MWh)** & **(MWh)** & **(RMB)** & **(RMB)** & **(RMB)** & **(RMB)** \\ \hline The traditional method & 141.6 & 0.685 & 66,889.8 & 1,999,128.1 & 8,202,832.4 & 10,268,850.3 \\ \hline The robust method & 141.6 & 0.078 & 36,682.1 & 1,988,924.1 & 8,227,298.8 & 10,252,905 \\ \hline Difference & 0.023 & 0.606 & 30,207.7 & 10,204 & \(-\)24,466.4 & 15,945.3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Comparison between different methods when the uncertainty set is 25%.  
Figure 4: Energy output diagram of each type on a typical day.  
(C) Power generation cost: as described in the environmental cost, the traditional method does not consider the fluctuation of new energy, but pursues the economy of power generation cost. Therefore, most of its units operate at the economic operation point of rated output, and the high-energy consuming units (gas power) are not started, so the traditional method has advantages in power generation cost.  
The economic advantage of the method proposed in this paper is the results of combining the above three kinds of cost, and it can be predicted that the advantage of multi-energy coordinated scheduling method in risk cost will be more obvious with the increase of new energy penetrance.