1. Assuming you do not have additional user-defined costs, it is simply the total cost of generation (no startup costs included). Since dispatchable loads are treated as negative generators with negative costs, if all loads are dispatchable with costs defined by their actual benefit functions, then the objective function is the negative of social welfare.
2. Yes. In this case the OFV is the total cost of energy + total cost of reserves. 3. I'm afraid I don't understand what you are proposing. However, this is not really the appropriate forum for the question of what is a good comparative study. If you know what you want to compare and are having difficulty figuring out from the documentation how to do that with MATPOWER, feel free to ask here. -- Ray Zimmerman Senior Research Associate 419A Warren Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 phone: (607) 255-9645 On Apr 3, 2013, at 10:55 AM, S. Mostafa F. Astaneh <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Professor Zimmerman, > 1. What does “objective function value (OFV)” represent when you do a > runopf? Is it system operation cost(sum of generation cost + startup cost) or > social welfare? > 2. What about the objective function value when you do a runopf_w_res? > Can it be concluded that the difference between the objective value of runopf > and runopf_w_res is the cost of reserve? > 3. I am trying to study the advantages that simultaneous scheduling of > energy and reserve offers over successive scheduling in scenes of optimality. > I am going to do this study by comparing OFVs of runopf and runopf_w_res. To > this end I aim to compare the OFVs of a runpof_w_res with the summation of > the OFV of runopf and OFV of runopf_w_res in which demand is set to zero and > generation and transmission capacities are upgraded according to the > scheduling of energy (successive manner). Please let me know how do you think > about comparative study? Is there anything that I should consider? Is there a > better way to do gain this goal by MATPOWER?... > Kind Regards, > Mostafa >
