I was simply saying that maximizing welfare tends to result in solutions with low losses, since losses typically reduce welfare. If you attempt to reduce losses further once you've reached a welfare maximizing solution, you do it at the expense of decreased welfare.
To put it another way, the welfare maximizing solution is likely to have losses that are relatively close to the minimal losses. But the minimum loss solution could have a welfare that is much less than the maximum welfare. Hope that helps, -- Ray Zimmerman Senior Research Associate 419A Warren Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 phone: (607) 255-9645 On Dec 17, 2012, at 4:56 AM, Carlos Gonzalez Almeida <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Prof. Zimmerman, > > Could you please explain in detail how can I do both maximization of social > welfare and minimization of loss with only maximization of social welfare? I > understood that your mean is this. > > I will be grateful if you explain that how can I do maximize social welfare > and loss minimization with this in detail. > > > Best Wishes > > Carlos > > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Ray Zimmerman <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not sure what is meant by minimizing losses subject to maximize social > welfare. Maximizing social welfare will usually implicitly minimize losses > since, all other things being equal, reducing losses increases welfare. Once > you have maximized welfare, any further decrease in losses will by definition > decrease the social welfare. > > My guess is that simply maximizing the social welfare is already doing what > you want. > > -- > Ray Zimmerman > Senior Research Associate > 419A Warren Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 > phone: (607) 255-9645 > > > > > On Dec 12, 2012, at 12:25 PM, Carlos Gonzalez Almeida > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thank you. >> >> For instance I want to Minimize total active power losses and Maximize >> Social Welfare together in which : >> >> Minimize Total Losses >> >> Subject to >> >> Maximize Social Welfare >> >> Subject to >> Network Constraints >> >> >> How can I do this in Matpower? I want to solve both of the objective >> functions with one solver. >> >> Best Wishes >> >> Carlos >> >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Ray Zimmerman <[email protected]> wrote: >> 1) MATPOWER solves the extended optimal power flow problem described in >> section 5.3 in the User's Manual . Can you express the problem you want >> to solve in that form? (You haven't told me what your 2 objectives are) >> >> 2) I'm not sure that the term multi-period OPF has a widely agreed upon >> definition. Sequentially solving standard single period OPFs, using the >> output of one period to initialize and constrain the next period is one type >> of multi-period optimization, but I can't tell you if that is the problem >> you want to solve (or should want to solve). I can tell you that, using this >> approach, conditions in future periods will not be able to affect the >> solution for the current period, which may or may not be important for you >> application. >> >> -- >> Ray Zimmerman >> Senior Research Associate >> 419A Warren Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 >> phone: (607) 255-9645 >> >> >> >> >> On Dec 12, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Carlos Gonzalez Almeida >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dear Dr. Zimmerman, >>> >>> 1)I have two objective functions and I want to maximize together, i.e. one >>> of them should be the constraint of the other. How can I do this in >>> MATPOWER? >>> >>> 2) For implementing a Multi-period OPF, can I put the output of function >>> runmarket (f) in a for loop in order to implement multi-period OPF? Is it >>> correct this way of implemeting? >>> >>> Best Wishes >>> >>> >>> Carlos >> >> > >
