Really? http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01261.html
(note the name of the person asking the question) What’s up with that? -- Ray Zimmerman Senior Research Associate B30 Warren Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 phone: (607) 255-9645 On Jan 13, 2014, at 5:23 AM, Carlos Gonzalez Almeida <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Dr. Zimmerman, > > Could please let know according to the below post how " cost minimization is > equivalent to loss minimization"? Could you please explain? > > > Best Wishes > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Ray Zimmerman <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:17 PM > Subject: Re: Question about objective function > To: Dailan Xu <[email protected]> > > > The purpose of runmarket is to implement a standard auction market such as > those used by the typical ISO. The objective of minimization of cost or > maximization of social welfare is consistent with such markets. > > Now, if you want to minimize losses using runmarket, simply put in equal > offer prices for all generators. Then cost minimization is equivalent to loss > minimization. > > -- > Ray Zimmerman > Senior Research Associate > 211 Warren Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 > phone: (607) 255-9645 > > > > On May 4, 2011, at 8:15 AM, Dailan Xu wrote: > > > Dear Prof. Zimmerman > > > > Could you please let me know why in the runmarket you have chosen the > > objective function as minimization of cost or maximization social welfare? > > what is the reason? > > > > For example, why you haven't chosen loss or other objectives? > > > > Best Regards > > > > D. Xu > > > >
