k sir. and how to represent a dummy generator.when i include a generator at one bus,it is also scheduled as per opf formulation.and how the load will be curtailed by using this.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:07 PM, Ray Zimmerman <[email protected]> wrote: > I’m afraid I can’t answer the question of whether or not your particular > problem formulation implements the “time of use” program you intend. > > Ray > > > On Mar 17, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Mounika Vanjarapu < > [email protected]> wrote: > > thanx for replying sir and i will try this. one more clarification i need > from you. > I implement time of use program for congestion > management.ie for different periods the price will be different .for > example peak and off peak,valley periods. > 1.I take the case of ieee14 bus system and i create congestion by > decreasing the line flow limit at 3rd bus to 30MW where the actual power > flow is 39.77MW.so <http://39.77mw.so/> there will be congestion > occured.therefore the LMP values will increase. > 2.In order to mitigate this condition I use the scale load function and > scale the load into peak ,off peak and valley periods in the ratio of > 0.55,0.3,0.15 resp. at all buses. > 3.Now i use price sensitive loads concept where I assume the marginal > benefit is 28.5$/MWh,above that pirce the load should be curtailed. > 4.In peak periods the load is curtailed and I show the gencost,objective > function,demand cost comparisons by not applying time of use. > My question is am i using the price sensitive loads in > a correct way in my context of time of use program are I am violating.I > mean that, is my approach for implementing time of use program using price > sensitive loads is in a correct way. > Please suggest me,i need advice from you. > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Ray Zimmerman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I can think of two essentially equivalent ways to do this. >> >> (1) Model the loads as fixed loads at their nominal values plus a dummy >> generator that represents curtailment. The cost of curtailment is then >> included directly as a positive cost for these curtailment dummy generators. >> >> (2) Model your load as a dispatchable load with a benefit function equal >> to the benefit to the load minus the curtailment payment from the ISO. >> >> For a DC OPF there should be no difference between the two approaches. >> For an AC OPF the only difference is that (1) affects real power only, but >> (2) forces the power factor of the load to remain constant, so reactive >> power is curtailed in proportion to the real power curtailed. >> >> Ray >> >> >> >> >> On Mar 16, 2016, at 10:10 PM, Mounika Vanjarapu < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> sir >> coming to direct load control program where the case is to give >> incentives to the customers for load reduction,the objective function >> should includes the incentives payment along with the generators >> cost.whereas showing the price sensitive loads the objective function >> removes the payment by the loads.presently in matpower the runopf does this. >> my question is can we change our objective >> function according to our problem in matpower.why because ISO have to pay >> money to the people for their curtailment.so i want to includes this money >> in my objective function. >> >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Ray Zimmerman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Since MATPOWER represents dispatchable demand as negative generation >>> with negative cost, the objective function ends up being the negative of >>> net benefits. Normally you want to maximize net benefits (total benefit to >>> demand minus total cost of supply). MATPOWER does this by minimizing the >>> negative of net benefits. So a negative objective function silly means that >>> the benefits to the loads is greater than the cost to generators … which is >>> what you normally expect. >>> >>> Ray >>> >>> >>> > On Mar 16, 2016, at 5:13 AM, Mounika Vanjarapu < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > sir >>> > >>> > what does it means a negative objective function. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
