sir actually what do you mean by loads marginal benefit On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Ray Zimmerman <[email protected]> wrote:
> 1. It is no different than any other generator … by “dummy generator” I > just meant that it is not a real generator but is included to represent > something else. > 2. I’m sorry, you are correct. Even in this case the cost of the generator > needs to be set equal to the load’s marginal benefit minus the incentive. > > Ray > > > On Mar 17, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Mounika Vanjarapu <[email protected]> > wrote: > > sir > my questions are > 1.is there any special representations for dummy generator or just to add > a generator in the generator data and add the cost in gencost data. > 2.according to my concept,when the incentive is more or there is more bill > credit then the load should be curtailed.but in this case if the generator > is low cost then it is scheduled.if it is high cost then it is not > scheduled. > how it can meet my problem > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:29 PM, Mounika Vanjarapu < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I understand the concept behind that but my doubt is how to represent a >> dummy generator in matpower like coding or editing the code. >> >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:23 PM, Ray Zimmerman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Suppose a particular bus has a 100 MW load and a 100 MW generator that >>> is dispatched at 25 MW. That is equivalent to a 75 MW load and the cost of >>> the 25 MW of generation can be considered as the cost of curtailing 25 MW >>> of the nominal 100 MW load. >>> >>> Ray >>> >>> >>> On Mar 17, 2016, at 12:43 PM, Mounika Vanjarapu < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
