I want to have an OLTC at slack bus only in order to control centrally the network voltage (active network) as below figure. How can I compare the results with and without OLTC? with changing tap ratio or with changing voltage setpoints?
[image: image.png] Best Wishes Silvio Miceli On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 20:43, Ray Zimmerman <[email protected]> wrote: > In order to understand clearly what you are trying to compare, I would > need to see the network topology. > > But, it both cases include the OLTC in the topology and in one case you > are modifying the tap ratio to control voltage and in the other you are > simply modifying the generator voltage setpoints, then the two solutions > will not be equivalent. > > -- > Ray Zimmerman > Senior Research Associate > 419A Warren Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 > phone: (607) 255-9645 > > > > > On Feb 10, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Silvio Miceli wrote: > > Dear Ray, > > As far as I know, taking into account the voltage at slack bus as > optimization variable is equal to have an OLTC. So, how can I compare the > results with and without voltage control at slack? Can it be done either by > changing the tap ratio or voltage limits? > Best Wishes > > Silvio Miceli > > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 18:57, Silvio Miceli <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Dear Ray, >> >> 1. Can I say MATPOWER's OPF considers the power factor angle of >> generators as optimization variable? If not, how can I consider as >> optimization variable? >> >> 2. Also, according to one of your replies to a post with regards to >> considering the slack bus voltage as optimization variable, why you want to >> implement OLTC in MATPOWER? In my idea, considering the slack bus as >> optimization variable is equal to have an OLTC and consequently considering >> the secondary voltage as optimization variable. Because usually the OLTC is >> used in order to control the voltage of slack bus and in MATPOWER is >> already considered as optimization variable. If I am not right, please let >> me know? >> >> Best Wishes >> >> Silvio >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 17:47, Ray Zimmerman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Feb 8, 2012, at 10:01 AM, Silvio Miceli wrote: >>> >>> 1. What kind of generator has been taken into account in MATPOWER in >>> Section 5.4.3 of MANUAL in order to consider the capability curve? >>> >>> >>> It is simply intended to be a piecewise linear approximation to the kind >>> of capability curve exhibited by many types of conventional generators, >>> such as this >>> one<http://images.pennnet.com/articles/hrm/cap/cap_coord%2003.gif> from >>> Figure 2 in [1]. >>> >>> 2. I want to minimize losses instead of maximizing social welfare >>> considering offers and bids. How can I do it in MATPOWER? >>> >>> >>> The answer to this one is readily available in the list archives ... >>> e.g. >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00817.html >>> >>> 3. How can I maximize profit for generators in MATPOWER instead of >>> maximizing Social welfare? >>> Also, by which formula I can obtain profits (for generators), revenue >>> and cost in MATPOWER? Could you please address it? >>> >>> >>> I'm not aware of a method to maximize profits, since that would involve >>> an objective that is a function of price, a very unconventional type of >>> optimization problem. You can compute revenue directly as the product of >>> quantity and price, and the cost is available in the dispatch matrix >>> returned by runmarket. See help idx_disp for a description of each column >>> of the dispatch matrix. >>> >>> - Ray >>> >>> [1] >>> http://www.hydroworld.com/index/display/article-display/353952/articles/hydro-review/volume-28/issue-2/feature-articles/system-protection/coordinating-generator-protection-and-controls-an-overview.html >>> >>> -- >>> Ray Zimmerman >>> Senior Research Associate >>> 419A Warren Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 >>> phone: (607) 255-9645 >>> >>> >> >> > >
<<image.png>>
