0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

24 просмотров60 страницEconomic dispatch of power

Feb 17, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

DOC, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

Economic dispatch of power

© All Rights Reserved

0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

24 просмотров60 страницEconomic dispatch of power

© All Rights Reserved

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 60

SYSC-505

Table of Contents

Abstract

Introduction

Economic Dispatch Common Formulae

1.0

Cost of Generating Electrical Power

1.1

Monitoring System efficiency via Turbine Heat Rate (THR) Test

1.2

Typical Power Plant showing heat rate calculation

1.3

Analyzing the THR process

1.3.1 Heat Rate Verification & Validation Using Calculus

1.3.2 Matlab Software Code & Fuel Cost Curve

2.0

Power Flow and Economic Dispatch

2.1

Economic Dispatch System One generator Concept

2.2

Incremental Cost (IC)

2.2.1 System-2 (Two Generator Concept)

2.3

System-3 Three Generators Economic Dispatch Applications

2.3.1 Matlab Software Code for Three Generators Lambda (Cost)

2.3.3 Economic Dispatch with Generator Limits

3.0

System Modeling

3.1

Computer Modeling & Simulation

3.2

Computer simulation of a two bus 1-generator system

3.3

Two generator economic dispatch modeling

4.0

Conclusion

Appendix

References

List of Figures & Tables

Figure 1.0

Input/Output (I/O) Curve

Figure 1.1

Calculating Heat Rate

Figure 1.2

THR Test

Figure 1.3

Applying THR Loading

Figure 1.4

Heat Rate vs. Power

Figure 1.5

Typical Operating Cost Curve

Figure 2.1

Single Generator Concept

Figure 2.2

Power Flow System

Figure 2.3

Two Generator Concept

Figure 2.4

Gauss Seidel Method

Figure 2.5

Three Generator Economic Dispatch Application

Figure 3.1

Modeling Two Bus System

Figure 3.2

Bus Modeling

Figure 3.3

Modeling 7-Bus System

Figure 3.4

Modeling A Single Generator

Figure 3.5

Modeling A Two Bus Power Flow System

Table-1.1

Fuel Cost

Table-1.2

Cost of Electricity Generation

Table-2.1

Voltage Iteration Summary

Table-2.2

Voltage Iteration

1

Page

2

2

3

4

7

11

12

13

14

17

18

24

24

32

36

38

41

45

47

48

50

52

55

Page

7

11

12

12

13

15

18

20

24

29

37

42

44

45

47

48

4

5

22

30

Abstract

This paper describes several efficient and practical methods to formulate and analyze the economic

dispatch of a power system, while taking into consideration the constraint of the transmission line

and load. Some of the practical approaches used are Lagrange method, Matlab software code, Powerworld modeling software, and fuel cost curve sometimes referred to as the input and output curve

(I/O). Iterative techniques for power flow are represented by Gauss-Seidel methods.

Introduction

In economic dispatch practices there are many choices for setting the operating points of generators.

The main aim of the economic dispatch paper is to include variables that affect operational costs,

such as the generator distance from the load, type of fuel, load capacity and transmission line losses.

By including these variables one will be able to perform economic dispatch and inter-connect

generators to minimize operating cost and functions. The generator cost is typically represented by

four curves, namely: Input/Output (I/O), heat rate, fuel cost and incremental cost curve. Generator

cost curves are not smooth, and they are generally represented by quadratic functions and piecewise

linear functions. Each plant uses a quadratic cost function such as the Fuel Cost Curve:

Ci ( PGi ) PGi PGi2 .

Where i = generator i, one of the number of units

Ci = operating cost of unit in $/h

PGi = electrical power output of a generator i in per unit on a common power base

Alpha, Beta & Gamma are in units of dollars ( $/h)

This fuel cost curve allows us to look at a wide range of economic dispatch practice such as total

operating cost of a system, incremental cost and minute by minute loading of a generator. Power flow

concept is a major component of economic dispatch and this paper briefly covers the basic concepts

that will help us to look at power and power losses from the view point of power dynamics. The

power system modeling and economic dispatch used in this paper helps to drive home the fact that

power grid system is fast becoming a computerized control system. For example, small incremental

changes can be simulated on one input parameter at a time while looking at all the affected output

parameters in the system. By taking this approach, we are aiming at a much higher operating

precision and less human error which can be caused by countless pages of mathematical calculations

done by hand.

Economic Dispatch Common Formulae

2

Fuel Cost Curve: Ci ( PGi ) PGi PGi

2

Cost function: Ci ( PGi ) PGi PGi

Ci ( PGi )

PGi

Constraints:

Ci ( PG1 )

C ( P )

C ( P )

* L1 i G 2 * L2 ......... i Gi * Li

PG1

PG 2

PGi

G PG PL 0 in1 PGi PL 0

n

Ignore losses: L C ( i 1 PGi P )

Ci

2 i PGi i

PGi

2

Ignoring losses: Ci i PGi PGi i = incremental cost per unit

n

Lagrange is: L C ( i 1 PGi PL )

Incremental Cost:

Ci

L

C

(1)

0

PGi PGi

PGi

i 1, 2,...., n

Ci

2 i PGi i

PGi

i i

or = dCi/dPi = i + 2iPi

2 i

1.0

The three main sources that are used to determine the cost of electrical energy (MW) generation are

facility construction, ownership cost and operating costs. Please note that energy sources, such as

solar, wind, nuclear, and hydro are not included in the cost components. Since operating cost is the

most significant of the three main sources, the focus will be on the economics of the operation. The

operating cost is dominated by the fuel cost, although labour is also a key component. The goal of

power system economic dispatch is to maximize system efficiency and minimize system losses that

cannot be billed or pass on to customers. Table-1.1 and Table-1.2 below the average costs of fuel

such as coal, petroleum and natural gas. The cost of uranium is around $0.65/MBTU or $0.65 per

Million British Terminal Unit (MBTU).

Table 1.1 Fuel Cost

Receipts, Average Cost, and Quality of Fossil Fuels for the Electric Power Industry,

1991 through 2002, obtained from

All

Fossil

Fuels

Avg. Receipts Average CostR Avg. Receipts Average Average

Period Receipts

Average Cost

Cost

CostR

Sulfur

Sulfur

Percent

Percent

(cents/

(thousand (cents/

(thousand

(dollars/ by (thousand (cents/ (cents/

6

by

(dollars/ton)

10

tons) 106 Btu)

Mcf)

106 Btu) 106 Btu)

Weight barrels) Btu) barrel) WeightR

Coal

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

769,923 144.7

775,963 141.2

769,152 138.5

831,929 135.5

826,860 131.8

862,701 128.9

880,588 127.3

929,448 125.2

908,232 121.6

790,274 120.0

762,815 123.2R

884,287 125.5

Petroleum

30.0

29.4

28.6

28.0

27.0

26.5

26.2

25.6

24.7

24.3

24.7

25.5

1.3

1.3

1.2

1.2

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.9

172,051

147,825

154,144

149,258

89,908

113,678

128,749

181,276

145,939

108,272

124,618

120,851

252.7

251.4

237.3

242.3

256.6

302.6

273

202.1

235.9

417.9

369.3

334.3

15.9

15.9

14.9

15.2

16.1

18.9

17.28

12.7

14.8

26.3

23.2

20.8

Natural Gas

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.2

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.5

1.3

1.4

1.6

2,630,818

2,637,678

2,574,523

2,863,904

3,023,327

2,604,663

2,764,734

2,922,957

2,809,455

2,629,986

2,152,366

5,607,737

215.3

232.8

256

223

198.4

264.1

276

238.1

257.4

430.2

448.7R

356

160.2

158.9

159.4

152.5

145.2

151.8

152

143.5

143.8

173.5

173

151.5

Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-423, Monthly Cost and Quality of Fuel for

Electric Plants Report,

Table- 1.2

Technology 1

(cents/KWh)

(2003) data, cent/KWh

Hydroelectric

Nuclear

Coal

Natural Gas

Solar

Wind

0.31 to 4.4

2.5

1.9 to 2.3

2.5 to 11.7

16.4 to 30.5

7.6

0.25 to 2.7

1.4 to 1.9

1.8 to 20

5.2 to 15.9

13.5 to 15.9

4.6

http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/comparative_costs_vl.html

All values are in 2003 dollars. Nuclear costs do not include decommissioning cost, which is < 0.1

cents/KWh. Please see Appendix for more current energy cost.

The data in Table-1.2 shows that a renewable energy source such as solar and wind are still very

expensive in contrast to all the other traditional methods of generating electricity. In short, the cost of

producing electricity by Solar or Wind Turbine system is not economically feasible to supply.

Therefore, it is yet to be determined if the initial implementation cost will drop low enough to make it

the source of choice for the future electricity market.

Major Components in Economic Dispatch

The three major components in economic dispatch are system efficiency, heat rate and power output

in megawatts. Moreover, in order to understand the concept of economic dispatch, we should start

with the cost of fuel. Table-1.1 and Table-1.2 show that the cost of fuel varies significantly with

different types of fuel.

Economic dispatch allows us to look at the cost of the fuel, labour cost, power generation cost and

transmission line losses. Therefore, the power generated will be PG = PL + PTL

Where PL = total system load

PTL = total system transmission losses per unit

Knowing PL + PTL can allow us to predict the total PG required for an area demand and various bus

and substation commitments. This information provides no insight in how the individual area

generator will share information on a common grid to meet the regional grid demand at various hours

such as peak and off-peak window. Furthermore, it is not economically feasible to run fossil fuel

systems when there is very low demand for power. Therefore, the process of load scheduling

becomes a major process in how a power system operates to stay economically feasible. In

minimizing cost without compromising system reliability and market security, one must take into

account one basic constraint of each generator which is Pmin PGi Pmax where the upper boundary

Pmax is directly related to upper rating of the generator. On the other hand, the lower boundary Pmin is

directly linked to thermal consideration that is required to maintain the boiler steam which drives the

turbine.

Power plants measure results in terms of efficiency, as seen in the equation below.

sec

watts

*106 *

hr

MW

BTU

lb

joules

12, 000

* 2000

*1054.85

* ytons

lb

ton

BTU

P * T * 3600

efficiency of 34% which is very

good for this type of industry. Plant efficiency varies as a function of the generator power level. The

efficiency level shown in the above equation is power output in megawatt hour (MWHR) divided by

the energy input in British Thermal Unit (BTU). The graph of MWHR versus power output, as seen

in Figure 1.4 on page 14, is used to monitor the health of the system. For example, if the heat rate is

high then the system is running inefficiently because a high heat rate will produce a low efficiency.

1.1 Monitoring System efficiency via Turbine Heat Rate (THR) Test:

The THR test was originally designed as a diagnostic type of test. This test provides a broad range of

data on the thermal efficiency and operating costs of the turbine steam cycle, and consequently of the

entire unit. Moreover, it is standard practice to run a THR test in order to determine the overall

efficiency of the system (since efficiency is the reciprocal of heat rate). Figure 1.0 below shows the

I/O curve for a 500 MW system after a major a boiler and turbine overhaul. The post overhaul test

was done over the entire load range. A minimum of four test points are required to monitor the I/O

curve for design compliance. This test is normally done at 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the

maximum capacity (MC) rate. In cases where it is not feasible or possible to run tests in the 25%

range, the heat input from the latest I/O curve is added to the data points and used in curve fitting.

Test readings are taken over periods ranging from 1 hour to 2 hours of steady run.

5000

4500

4000

3500

R2 = 1.0000

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

100

150

200

250

300

Net Output MW

350

400

450

500

In the real world, pre and post overhaul turbine heat rate tests are performed to monitor the system

efficiency at different levels of power output. In addition, heat rate tests are periodically run to look

at the unit efficiency throughout the year. The system condenser cooling process can allow an

additional 1.5% to 2% change in efficiency due to the change in temperature. Furthermore, 2%

change in efficiency can be the deciding factor that will determine if the generating plant will make

or lose money.

The Heat Rate (H) equation shown below shows that the efficiency is inversely proportional to the

heat rate. A typical coal fired plant heat rate (HR) is about 10.5 * 10^6 BTU/MW.h. The operating

cost of a generating plant or unit includes cost of fuel, labour, supplies, and maintenance is

commonly known as Ci = Fi Pi

Where Ci = operation cost of unit in $/h

Fi = operation cost of unit in $/MBTU

Pi = input unit power in MBTU/h

12, 000

BTU

lb

1BTU

2000

* ytons

lb

ton

106 BTU

P *T

3600

3.41

1054.85

The cost of fuel can be highly volatile and since Fi depends on the type of fuel such as coal, oil, gas

and nuclear it is very hard to empirically determine a fixed price per MBTU. A rough average for

Fi in the power industry is about $1.50 per MBTU. In the power industry, the fuel cost curve is the

standard that is the most accurate to analyze cost as it relates to heat rate. The cost is given as a

2

second order expression shown as: Fuel Cost Curve: Ci ( PGi ) PGi PGi

Ci = operating cost of unit in $/h

PGi = electrical power output of a generator i in per unit on a common power base

Alpha, Beta & Gamma are in units of dollars ( $/h)

The cost curve is commonly called the I/O curve. However, Fuel Cost Curve is the I/O Curve

multiplied by the cost of fuel. For example, if the cost fuel is $1.90 per MBtu

then (A + B*MWn + C* MWn2) * 1.90 would be the Fuel cost curve. The concept of I/O will be

explained below, and coefficients A, B & C are given by design manufacture to determine the heat

rate.

Input & Output tests and calculations were used to provide system performance data, in the form of

input and output equation. I/O curves were primarily used in the calculation of the total incremental

cost. The following two methods were used to establish the I/O curve for a given unit.

(1) Direct I/O Method of Measurement: This is the most commonly used method because it only

requires measurements of fuel flow, calorific value of fuel samples taken during tests of net unit

output and reference operating conditions. The test is ideally suitable for gas and oil-fired units.

However, this test is not ideal for coal-fired units.

(2) Indirect I/O Method of Calculation: This method of calculating I/O curves are more complex than

the direct method. However, it is much more accurate for coal fired unit. I/O results are derived from

two sets of separate performance tests namely: Thermal Heat Rate Test (THR) and Steam Generator

efficiency test. Both tests require at least four test points, ranging from 25% to 100% of the

maximum capacity Rate (MCR) to calculate the heat inputs for given net outputs. Results are then

curve-fitted to yield the desired format of I/O equations, where the required input is expressed as a

function of the net load desired:

I = A + B*MWn + C* MWn2

Where I

A, B, C

MWn

Currently, there is no set frequency for updating I/O curves applicable to all units. The main reason is

the large variation in Capacity Factors of individual power plants and units. Instead, I/O curves are

typically updated after major system overhauls, or when there are indications of measureable changes

in thermal efficiency of individual turbines, or steam generators. Generally, I/O tests have been free

by-products of diagnostic and optimization testing of turbines and boilers.

Thermal heat rate is required by a turbine-generator system to produce power at the generator

terminal. Heat rate is measured in kilojoules per kilowatt (KJ/KWh). The lower the heat rate, the

more efficient the turbine cycle, the more cost effective it is to operate, and the longer life cycle

expectancy. The turbine efficiency is the reciprocal value of the THR, which is the cycle Eff.

100 * (3600/THR) where 3600 KJ/h = 1KW. Figure 1.1 shows the operating points for the

calculation.

There are several different approaches to measure and analyze THR. However, the method used for

coal, gas and nuclear plants is shown in the equation below.

THR was calculated using the following equation:

GJ/h

KWH

P + PB

Where:

Kg/h

Kg/h

H1 = Enthalpy of Steam Supplied to the High Pressure Turbine Stop Valve (KW/Kg)

hr = Enthalpy of Steam Supplied to the Intermediate Pressure (IP)Turbine before

Interceptor Valve (KW/Kg)

h1 = Enthalpy at the Feed-water at HP outlet (KW/Kg)

hr = Enthalpy of Steam at HP Turbine Exhaust (KW/Kg)

P = Net Generated Output

(KW)

In addition, other methods are used to measure THR, such as the Input and Output (I/O) method and

the condensate flow measurement test. The I/O method can be linked to a computerized software

that is programmed to do live trend mathematical analysis of the THR through a non-linear equation

such as:

Input (GJ/h) = A + B * MWnet + C*MWnet^2.

The result of I/O is generally analyzed in terms of the R-Square value.

10

1.2 Typical Power Plant showing the required data for heat rate calculation

Figure-1.1

GJ/h

KWH

P + PB

1250.446(2790.6 750.8) + 59.93(2790.6 -1135.0) * 3600)

935300

Thermal Heat-Rate

10199 KJ/KWh

This method of calculating heat rate is common to Group-1 (Coal Fire), Group-2 (Gas Fire, and

Group-3 Nuclear. Flow diagrams are often used to navigate the decision process. See Figure 1.2 and

Figure 1.3 below.

11

1.3

Method

12

1.3.1

Minute by minute loading also known as Incremental Heat Rate (IHR) is used to analyze the station

Operation Efficiency Factor from the ratio of

Actual Net Unit Heat Rate (KJ/KWh) or MWHR/MBTU to the Reference Net Unit Heat Rate

(KJ/KWh). The graph in Figure-1.4 shows the typical behaviour pattern for heat rate.

Actual Net Unit Heat Rate (KJ/KWh)

This can be verified from the equation shown below:

dI

b 2CW 3dW 2

dW

Substituting W for L

IHR

dI ( IHR ) dL

II 12 dI I 2 I1 ll12 ( IHR )dL

The minute by minute loading allows us to observe and analyze the heat rate that is required between

selected points shown below. By using calculus one can verify and validate the heat rate used

between selected points with reference to the manufacturer design heat rate. A five point test will be

used to check and analyze how much deviation is present after a major unit overhaul. For example, a

generating unit rated at 610 MW could experience a planned maintenance system reliability test to

13

see if the heat rate is within the range of the manufacturer design specifications. See the 5-point test

below.

5-Point calculated steps are:

2

610

450 [421.3 8.0l 0.00192l ]dl =

832756 BTU/hr

610

350

[421.3 8.0l 0.00192l 2 ]dl =

1.22577E6 BTU/hr

2

610

250 [421.3 8.0l 0.00192l ]dl =

1.52534E6 BTU/hr

610

100

[421.3 8.0l 0.00192l 2 ]dl =

1.80789E6 BTU/hr

950683 BTU/hr

The numbers shown in Table-1.1 reflect only the cost of fuel to operate the generator(s), and they do

not reflect the actual cost of generating electricity because the actual outputs from the process of

producing electrical energy is subjected to a substantial loss of about 66%. Therefore, any power

plant that is running above 34% is considered to be very efficient.

1.3.2

Matlab software is an indispensable tool that is often used to solve power system problems. By

choosing four points in the system power output and the associated cost related to each points, the

result is the input and output curve shown below in Figure-1.5.

EDU>> p=[40 60 80 100]';

c=[650 850 930 1200]';

X=[ones(size(p)) p p.^2];

a = X\c

T = (0:1:100)';

Y = [ones(size(T)) T T.^2]* a;

plot(T,Y,'-',T,Y,'o'),grid on

a=

494.5000

2.5250

0.0438

Where a = the quadratic equation that represent the cost curve shown in C1 below.

14

Typical operating cost curve

1200

1100

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

10

20

30

40

50

60

Output Power (MW)

70

80

90

100

In addition, the code creates the Quadratic equation for the cost curve, this curve is critical to

the lifecycle of the system, because all future curves will be taken with reference to the date

and time when this curve was generated. Below is a practical example that will allow one to

understand how to go from the fuel cost curve to the cost of generating power by including

input and output parameters.

2

Fuel Cost Curve: Ci ( PGi ) PGi PGi . For example, the cost curve at 100 MW is

15

In addition, one can see how to implement the Incremental cost: ICi

Ci ( PGi )

=

PGi

Another example, if a generating unit fuel input in millions of BTU/h is expressed as a function of

the output PG in megawatts as 0.032P2G + 5.8PG + 100), then as a System Engineer your duty is to

determine the following:

(a) The incremental cost equation in dollars per megawatt hour as function of the generating

power (PG) based on the fuel cost of $2.00 per million BTU

(b) The cost of fuel per megawatt hour if the (PG) = 150 MW.

(c) The additional fuel cost per hour to raise the output of the unit from 150 MW to 151 MW.

Solution:

(a) The fuel cost curve in dollars per MWh is

FC

= 0.064 P2G + 11.6PG + 200$/MWh

Ci ( PGi )

= 0.128 PG + 11.6 $/MWh

PGi

(b) The cost of fuel when PG = 150 MW is:

Incremental cost: ICi

(c) The Approximate ICi that is required to raise the power by 1MW from 150 MW to 151 MW is =

0.128 (150) + 11.6 = $30.8 $/MWh

Therefore, by using the Incremental Cost (CI) equation, one can formulate the equations into

computer code to automate the process to minimize potential error when making hard and explicit

decisions.

16

2.0

This section covers several mock-up scenarios, examples and concepts that deal with a single

generator, two generator and three generator concepts and applications. In order to continue exploring

economic dispatch, the basics of power flow will be covered since it is directly linked to the topic of

economic dispatch. The study of power flow is an indispensable process in planning and designing

the future expansion of power systems as well as determining the best operating system. The general

information obtained from the study of power flow is the voltage magnitude and phase angle at each

bus in conjunction with real and real and reactive power flowing in the line.

There are three types of buses: load, voltage-controlled and slack. Each non-generator bus is called

the load bus where both Pgi and qi are at zero and the real and reactive bus Pdi and Qdi are power

and reactive bust respectively, their associated loads drawn are negatively input into the system.

The voltage controlled bus is any bus in the system at which the voltage magnitude is kept constant

and controlled. In short, the control is done with the generator excitation unit. Therefore, for each bus

where there is a generator, the generator must meet the condition of the power flow network to

maintain the credibility of the grid. This means that a generator must stay within a very tight window

of variance such as 5% tolerance in term of voltage swing. At the slack bus, the voltage angle of the

slack serves as reference for all the other buses, and mismatches are not defined. P and Q are not

scheduled at the slack bus, and the power loss at each bus in the system is given as:

N

PLoss Pi

i 1

Re al power loss

Pgi

i 1

P

i 1

Total Generation

di

Total load

Maximum and minimum generated reactive power is ignored at the slack bus.

Figure-2.1 shows a single generator system with a general concept of power flow that leads us into

power system economic dispatch. The examples shown will also briefly overview the topic of perunit system and how it relates to power system.

17

2.1

Figure-2.1

(1)

Assume the generator below voltage is set at 10% above its rate value, and the load

connected to bus D is equal to 5 MW at a pf 0.9 lagging. Compute the per unit model for

the system shown below.

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Solution:

Per-Unit System

In many engineering applications, it is useful to scale, or normalize quantities and dimensions. This

practice is commonly used in the power system industry, and the standard used is called per-unit

system. It is common for impedance value to convert from an old base to a new base, and in order to

do so we must take into consideration the other components in the system such as Voltage (V),

Current (I) and Power (W).

The formulae below will give a brief overview of the concept. It is very common practice to express

per-unit (pu) values as percentage such as 1pu =100%.

18

Per-unit value = (percent value/100).

(1) Solution

base value identical SI units

)

newbase value

(base voltage, KV ) 2 *1000

Z base

I base

Vbase

I base

base KVgiven

base KVnew

)2 (

base KVAnew

)

base KVAgiven

V 2 base

Sbase

S base

Vbase

Transmission line in power system operates in units of kilovolt (KV), megawatts, kilovolt-amperes,

megavolt-amperes and ohms. These quantities are often expressed as per-unit value with respect to a

given base or reference base. For example, the base voltage is given as 120 KV in a system where

other voltages such as 108 KV, 120 KV and 126 KV become 0.90, 1.00 and 1.05 respectively. On the

other hand pu values can also be expressed as 90%, 100% and 1.05%. The pu value of any given

quantity is defined as the ratio of value expressed as a decimal or percentage.

Figure-2.2 below shows a typical generating system with the basic component that will allow one to

understand the basic concept of power flow. Economic dispatch is an integral part of power flow,

where one can look at economic dispatch without including the power flow components.

19

Figure-2.2

20

13.2

69

Sb 10 MVA, chooseVb, A 132( ) 13.2KV ,Vb ,D 132( ) 66 KV

132

138

Zb, BC

1322

1742.4

10

Z

10

10 100i

Z AB 0.10i( ) 0.2i, Z BC line

0.006 0.06i

5

Zb, BC 1742.4

X T 2 0.08(

Sload

6910

) 0.087i

6910

5

cos 1 0.9 5.5625.8 MVA 5 MW 2.42 MVar

0.9

Sload , pu 0.55625.8

(2)

Z CD X T 2 0.087i

Y

1

Ztotal

21

(3)

Solution Below

Y11 Y12

YBUS

Y21 Y22

V2 (i 1)

v2

S

1

[ 2 Y21V1 ]

Y 22 V2 (i )

( 0.05 2.87960i)

( 1.0 0i)

v2 1.013 0.172i

v2a

v2b

22

v2c

Iteration # V2

0

1.013- 0.172i

1

0.988- 0.151i

2

0.988- 0.157i

3

0.987- 0.1562i

Where V2 converges at 0.987-0.156i

23

(4) Solution

S1 = V1(Y11 *V1 * + Y12 *V2*)

= 0.5017 + j0.3492

Active power P1 = 0.5017 x 10 = 5.017MW

Reactive power Q1 = 0.3492 x 10 = 3.492MVar

Active power Ploss = P1 - P2 = 0.5017 - 5 = 0.017MW

Reactive loss Qloss = Q1 Q2 = 3.492 2.42 = 1.072 MVar

(5) Solution Economic loss based on active power

Active power Ploss = P1 - P2 = 0.5017 - 5 = 0.017MW

= 0.17 MW

Assuming the cost of generating electricity is: $25 per MWh

Therefore an annual economic loss would be: 0.017 MW * $25 *24hr * 365days = $3723

In addition, if the shareholder initial investment cost is $10 M and there was no power loss, then the

$3723 would be cash flow.

Now we can evaluate the economic dispatch process in terms of NPV

1 (1 rp ) n

NPV [

]R Investment Cost

rp

Where rP = % Return for the project

R = Cash Flow

N = Number of years

` NPV

1 ( 1.05) 5

0.05

3723 10 10 9.984 10

Accept a project if its NPV > 0

24

Indifferent where NPV = 0

25

Incremental cost is the slope of the fuel cost curve, and the unit of IC is in dollars per megawatt hour

(MWh). IC tells us how much it will cost to operate a generator to produce an additional 1MW of

power.

Let us assume a case where there is two generators no line losses, no generator limit and IC1 > IC2.

This means that for an additional 1MW, generator-1 operating cost is more than generating-2

operating cost. If our objective is to minimize operation cost, which always the business case, then it

is reasonable to reduce power output at generator-1 and, in return, increase the output of generator-2.

Then the optimal condition would be that the operation cost from generator-1 and generator-2 should

be the same. See example below in Figure-2.3.

2.2.1

System-2

Figure-2.3

26

Two Generator fuel cost curve equations are used to set Generator-1 & Generator -2 economic

dispatch optimum loading.

Optimal Power Condition without line loss

C1 (PG1) = 500 + 45PG1 + 0.01P2G1

IC1

C1 PG1

PG1

45 0.02 PG1

IC2

IC1 = IC2 = 45 + 0.02 PG1 = 43 + 0.006 (500 - PG1)

PG1 = 38.4615 MW

PG2 = 461.539 MW

IC1 = 45 + 0.02 PG1 = 45 + 0.02 * 38.4615 = 45.769

IC2 = 43 0.006 PG 2 = 43 + 0.006 * 461.539 = 45.769

IC1 = C2 = $45.769/MWh

27

C2 PG 2

43 0.006 PG 2

PG 2

On the other hand, if we have a scenario where the fuel cost curve is given as:

C1(PG1) = 600 + 15 * PG1 + 0.05 * (PG1)2

C2(PG2) = 800 + 20 * PG2 + 0.03 * (PG2)2

Assume the penalty factor for the first generator (slack bus) is set to1, and the second generator (PG2)

Plosses

0.05 .

partial derivative of the losses is given as

PG 2

The Systems Engineer is required to calculate the dispatch values of PG1 and PG2 for

load + Losses of 1000 MW.

Solution:

Power Loss is

Li

2C1

15 0.1P1

2 PG1

2C2

20 0.06 P2

2 PG 2

2C1

L1

2 PG1

L1

1

P

1 loss

PGi

2C2

L2

2 PG 2

1

1

2 PLoss 1 0

1

2 PG1

15 0.01 PG1

L2

1

1

1.0526

2 PLoss 1 0.05

1

2 PG 2

15

0.1

0.95 20

20)

1.0526

0.06

0.06

14.25 0.095 PG1 20 0.06(1000 PG1 )

PG1 424.194 MW

PG 2 575.806 MW

28

By using the same cost curve given in the first scenario shown above, one can analyze the system to

show the potential cost saving that is possible without losses. See the tabulated results below.

C1(PG1) = 600 + 15 * PG1 + 0.05 * (PG1)2

C2(PG2) = 800 + 20 * PG2 + 0.03 * (PG2)2

2C1

15 0.1P1

2 PG1

2C2

20 0.06 P2

2 PG 2

PG1= 406.25 MW

1C1 = 15 + 0.1 * 406.25 = $55.625/MW

1C2 = 20 + 0.06 * 593.75 = $55.625/MW

In contrast, the cost associated power loss in scenario-1is shown below:

1C1 = 15 + 0.1 * 424.194 = $57.419/MWh

1C2 = 20 + 0.06 * 575.806 = $54.548/MWh

1C1 cost per megawatt shows an increase of $1.8 Per MWh when losses at generator-2 were set to

5%.

Another Method used to set the incremental cost (IC) is the Lagrange Multiplier (2.2.3). This method

uses the matrix approach that will result in a $-value for Lambda. With this $-value the aim is to get

IC1 for generator one equal to IC2 for generator two even when the two generators may not be the

same. This approach offers the most optimum cost benefit when (IC1 = IC2).

29

System PD = PG1 + PG2 = 1000MW

And C1(Pg1) = 1500 + 20PG1 + 0.01P2g1

C2(Pg2) = 500 + 15Pg2 + 0.03P2g2

Using the Lagrange multiplier method, we know:

dc1(Pg1) = 20 + 0.02Pg1 = 0

dc2(Pg2) = 15 + 0.06Pg2 = 0

1000 PG1 PG2 = 0

Solve three linear equations:

20 + 0.02Pg1 = 0

15 + 0.06 Pg2 = 0

1000 Pg1 Pg2 = 0

Pg2 = 312.5 MW

= $33.75/MWh

Comparing the results with previous method used, yield similar results

IC1 = IC2 = 20 + 0.02Pg1 = 15 + 0.06(1000- Pg1),

Pg1 = 687.5

Pg2 = 1000- 687.5) = 312.5

Cost = 20 + 0.02 * 687.5 = 15 + 0.06 * 312.50 = $ 33.75

30

Two Generator (GEN) Power Flow & Economic Dispatch System Example

The example shown in Figure 2-4 below covers the general concept of how we go from power flow

to economic dispatch

Figure-2.4

Gauss-Seidel-Method

Schedule power at Bus 2 is 1.2 pu

Schedule power at Bus 3 is 1.5 pu

Calculate:

1.

YBus model

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Assume there was no loss, what would be the additional revenue for this system over a 5year period @ 5% and $20/MW

Solution

31

(1)

11

12

13

22

12

23

33

14 4 10

Y

Y21 Y22 Y23 4 9 5

BUS

(2)

Vk (i 1)

k 1

n

1 S k

[

Y

V

(

i

1)

kn n

YknVn (i)]

Ykk Vk (i ) n 1

n k 1

V2 (i 1)

S

1

[ 2 Y21V1 (i 1) Y23V3 (i )]

Y 22 V2 (i )

V3 (i 1)

S

1

[ 3 Y31V1 (i 1) Y32V2 (i 1)]

Y 33 V3 (i )

Iteration

0

1

2

3

4

5

Voltage (V2)

1

1.1333

1.0621

1.0885

1.0784

1.0781

Voltage (V3)

1

0.9

0.9333

0.9224

0.9180

0.917

S2 = V2 (Y21 * V1* Y22 * V2 * + Y23 * V3 *)

= 1.078(-4x1 + 9 x1.078-5.0917)

=

1.2041

32

23

13

=

= 1.4993

S2 = S2cal S2sch = 1.2041 1.2 = 0.041

P2 = P2cal P2 = 1.2041 1.2 = 0.041

Q2 = Q2cal Q2sch = 0 0 = 0

Power mismatch at Bus 3

S3 = S3cal S3sch = 1.4993 (-1.5) = 0.0007

P3 = P3cal P3 = 1.4993 (-1.5) = 0.0007

Q3 = Q3cal Q3sch = 0 0 = 0

(4) Power supply by swing bus

S1 = V1 (Y11* V1 * Y12 * V2 * +Y13 * V3 *)

P2 = 1 (14 1-4 1.078-10 0.917)

= 0.518

For a resistive power system, P1=S1=0.518, Q1=0.

(5) Power loss of transmission lines:

S loss = P loss = S1 + S2 + S3

= 0.518 + 1.2041 1.4993

= 0.223

(6)

1 (1 rp ) n

NPV [

]R Investment Cost

rp

Where rP = %Return for the project

R = Cash Flow

N = Number of years

33

Given: 5% interest rate, $20/MW and a power loss of 0.233 pu (22.3 MW)

Cash flow = 20 * 22.3 * 24 * 365 = 3,906,960

1 ( 1.05) 5

0.05

NPV

In economic dispatch systems where there are more than 2-generating units, two pieces of data will

be available for us to work with. They are total load and IC curves of each unit. By using the Lambda

Iteration Method, we can find Lambda which is the cost that will produce optimum condition. This

approach is carried out by using an iterative procedure that will allow us to:

(1) pick an initial value for Lambda

(2) find the corresponding output power each generating unit.

(3) Check if output power is less required load

In addition, if the total power is less than the load, then we would increase Lambda and go step two,

Else, condition met (stop).

Lambda Iteration Method & Example

Pick L and H Such that

m

P

i 1

Gi

( L ) PD 0

P

i 1

( H ) PD 0

Gi

While H L Do

( H L )

2

If

P

i 1

Gi

( M ) PD 0 Then H M

Else L M

IC1 (PG1) = 15 + 0.02PG1 =

$/MWh

34

$/MWh

and with a constraint PG1 + PG2 + PG3 = 1000 MW.

Rearranging the equations as a function of , PGi (), to allow

PG1 () =

PG3 () =

15

PG2 () =

0.02

18

20

0.01

0.025

Now the task is to find what value of Lambda that will allow us to meet the system demand (1000

MW).

Pick L so that

Gi

i 1

Pick H so that

( L ) 1000 0 and

P

i 1

( H ) 1000 0

Gi

i 1

Gi

15 20 18

1000 650

0.02

0.01

0.025

m

i 1

Gi

15 20 18

1000 1610

0.02

0.01

0.025

Assume convergence tolerance 0.05 $ / MWh

M

2

L

and

M

P

i 1

0.05

18 32

25

2

Then since

Gi

L H

2

18 25

21.5

2

35

P

i 1

Gi

The convergence value of lambda ( ) is 23.53 $/MWh

Upon knowing we can calculate the PGi

PG1 (23.5)

(23.5)

23.53 15

426.5 MW

0.02

23.53 20

353 MW

0.01

PG 3 (23.5)

23.53 18

221.2 MW

0.025

PG1 PG 2 PG 3 1000 MW

PG 3 1000 MW

This method starts with a Lambda valve below and above the optimal value shown here.

The main disadvantages of this approach in comparison to the direct method are: (a) more

challenging (b) more time consuming. The main advantage in using this method is that it works for

both linear and non linear application. While on the other hand, the direct method is only accurate for

linear applications.

Another method is to use the direct formula for Lambda which will yield similar results. This direct

method works well if the incremental cost curves are linear and all the generators are below their

limits. See formula below.

ngen

Demand

i 1

ngen

i 1

i

2i

1

2 i

36

For example, if generating station has a three generator system with the following,

IC1 (PG1) = 15 + 0.02 PG1 =

$/MWh

$/MWh

$/MWh

ngen

Demand

i1

ngen

i

2i

1000

0.02

15

0.02

20

0.01

1

0.01

18

0.025

23.526

0.025

2 i

i 1

G1

G2

G3

( 23.53)

( 23.53)

P

1

P

2

( 23.53)

P

3

23.53 15

P 426.5

0.02

23.53 20

P 353

2

0.01

23.53 18

0.025

37

P 221.2

3

In addition, we can use software option to solve for lambda. This will take into account the complete

cost curve, and provide the option of setting the limit on each generator.

For example, if you choose the PG1 = 426.5 MW, PG2 = 253 MW and PG3 = 221.2 MW

with an operating cost of 1700, 1000, and 250 respectively, then Matlab code will allow you to find

the best value for Lambda. Bear in mind that the Lambda will not be the same since the total

operating cost is now factored in. See examples below.

38

2.3.1

EDU>> % Example 3-Generator Station

gendata = [1700, 15, 0.02; 1000, 20, 0.01; 250, 18, 0.025];

power = [426.5, 353, 221.2];

% find lambda0

n = length (gendata);

lambda0 = 0;

for i = 1:n

lambda0 = lambda0 + gendata (i,2) + 2*gendata(i,3)*power(i);

end

lambda0 = lambda0 / 3

clear x0

x0 = power, x0(n+1) = lambda0

%calculate the gradient

for k = 1 : 10

disp (k)

clear gradient

gradient = [];

pgen = 0, cost = 0;

for i = 1:n

gradient(i) = gendata(i,2) + 2 * gendata (i,3) * x0(i)- x0(n+i);

pgen = pgen + x0(i);

cost = cost + gendata (i,1) + gendata (i,2) * x0(i) + gendata (i,3) * x0(i) * x0(i);

end

gradient(n+1) = Pload - Pgen;

disp ([x0, Pgen, cost/1000])

x1 = x0 - gradient * alpha;

x0 = x1;

lambda0 =

29.3933

x0 =

426.5000 353.0000 221.2000

x0 =

426.5000 353.0000 221.2000 29.3933

39

Please see Matlab code examples for Lagrange Method and Kuhn-Tucker Conditions shown below.

Figure-2.5 Three Generator Economic Dispatch Application Using Lagrange Method & Matlab Code

EDU>> % Example 3-Generator Station

gendata = [1700, 23.76, 0.004686; 1000, 23.55, 0.00582; 250, 23.70, 0.01446];

power = [400, 200, 400];

% find lambda0

n = length (gendata);

lambda0 = 0;

for i = 1: n

lambda0 = lambda0 + gendata (i,2) + 2*gendata(i,3)*power(i);

end

lambda0 = lambda0 / 3

clear x0

x0 = power, x0(n+1) = lambda0

%calculate the gradient

for k = 1 : 10

disp (k)

clear gradient

gradient = [];

pgen = 0, cost = 0;

for i = 1:n

gradient(i) = gendata(i,2) + 2 * gendata (i,3) * x0(i)- x0(n+i);

pgen = pgen + x0(i);

cost = cost + gendata (i,1) + gendata (i,2) * x0(i) + gendata (i,3) * x0(i) * x0(i);

40

end

gradient(n+1) = Pload - Pgen;

Disp ([x0, Pgen, cost/1000])

x1 = x0 - gradient * alpha;

x0 = x1;

lambda0 = 29.5516

x0 =

Therefore the cost of generating power is $29.55 per MW/hr

2.3.2 Economic Dispatch with Generator Limits

The power output of any generator must not exceed its rating nor drop below a given value for stable

boiler operation. The Aim is to find the real power generated for each plant to minimize cost,

subject to:

(1) Meeting load demand - equality constraints

(2) Constrained by generator limits inequality constraints.

By using the Kuhn-Tucker Conditions we can formulate the equation that allows one work within

such limits. See equation below:

dCi/dPi =

dCi/dPi

Pi = Pi(max)

dCi/dPi

Pi = Pi(min)

In this example, if one ignores the system losses, the optimal dispatch and the total cost in $/hr for

three generators can be found from the following equations:

C1 = 1700 + 23.76 P1 + 0.00468P2 ($/MWhr)

C2 = 1000 + 23.76 P2 + 0.00468P2 ($/MWhr)

C3 = 250+ 23.76 P3 + 0.00468P2

($/MWhr)

200 P1 450

150 P2 350

100 P3 200

41

Total cost: C1 = (1700 + 23.76 * 450) + (0.00468 * 4502 ) = 13339.7

+ C2 = 1000 + (23.55 * 350) + (0.0058 2* 3502) = 9955.45

+ C3 = 250+ (23.70 * 200) + (0.00468 * 2002) = 5568.4

Total Cost = 28,863.6 $/hr

Setting Limits to Generators

In some applications the Systems Engineer will have to run the generators without limits and in other

applications limits must be enforced. An example using three generators will be used to explore the

concept of limits.

If the generator cost function of three generators are given as:

C1 = 472.8 + 7.47 P1 + 0.023 P12 ($/h/MW) 100 P1 400

C2 = 432.9 + 7.87 P2 + 0.020 P22 ($/h/MW)

150 P2 350

120 P3 400

(a) Find the optimal dispatch of the three generators without any limits

(b) What is the new dispatch if the generator limits are enforced?

42

Solution

ngen

Demand

i1

ngen

1800

2i

0.046

7.47

0.046

7.87

0.040

1

0.040

7.56

0.044

33.555

0.044

2 i

i 1

G1

G2

G3

( 33.555)

33.555 7.47

( 33.555)

P

P

33.555 7.87

( 33.555)

P 567.065

0.046

P 642.125

2

0.040

33.555 7.56

P 590.795

0.044

P

G2

350

ngen

Demand

i1

ngen

i 1

G1

G3

350

i

2i

0.046

0.046

2 i

15.387 7.47

0.046

7.47

15.387 7.56

0.044

172.109

177.886

43

7.56

0.044

1

0.044

15.387

44

3.0

System Modeling

This section explains how modeling is used in decision analysis as it relates to power system

economic dispatch. Modeling is the cog that drives the concept of decision making. It can be defined

as a process where the risk is measured and controlled by checks and balances such as planning,

assessment, action taken to mitigate risks, monitor the situation and report the findings.

Requisite decision modeling will be the focus as it is the answer to what if questions in decisionmaking. Modeling is also used for analyzing policy, alternative solution and strategy that helps in

making the right decisions with a high degree of confidence.

Requisite decision modeling requires a wide range of testing and no new intuitions emerge about the

problem the model set out to solve. By using a wide range of testing, one can verify the sensitivity

points or parameters that will affect the model. Therefore, by knowing the sensitivity limits on these

parameters, one can make decisions with less risks and less uncertainty. In addition, a requisite model

will provide the modeler or user with trade-off options between long-term returns and volatility.

Modeling in this case is used to ultimately replicate the historical performance of similar projects. It

is also very important that a model replicate the data for the right reasons while capturing the

underlying structure of the project. In addition, modeling is used to promote inquiry, expose hidden

assumptions, motivate the widest range of empirical tests, challenge preconceptions and support

multiple viewpoints. Modeling the power system economic dispatch with power world software

helps one to get reliable, useful and effective models to serve as virtual worlds to aid learning and

policy design. Furthermore, simulation models are always necessary for learning about dynamically

complex systems.

Figure 3.1 shows a system with 250 MW load and shunt of 50 Mvar with a line condition of 25.92

MW, -8.64 Mvar and 27.32 MVA. By using incremental modeling techniques, one can achieve the

condition that will minimize line loss and in return boost cash/NPV.

45

25.92 MW

-8.64 Mvar

27.32 MVA

50.0 Mvar

250 MW

250 MW

30.0 Mvar

100 MW

60 Mvar

slack

152 MW

43 Mvar

Figure 3.1

By applying Computerized Simulation using power world software to show power system and power

flow as it relates to economic dispatch, we obtain a wide range of power data. The above Figure-3.1

is used to generate the Ybus Sparse to give us the voltage magnitude and angle. The phase angles of

different substation or bus cannot be economically measured, but the voltage magnitude is constantly

monitored.

46

In order to effectively estimate the voltage magnitude and angle, one must choose a bus as reference,

and that bus will now become the standard by which all other bus angles will be measured. The

Matlab Software was used to generate voltage magnitude and angle from the above Figure-3.2. See

Ybus data below.

EDU>> j = sqrt (-1);

Ybus = sparse (3);

Ybus (

1,

1) =

Ybus(

1,

Ybus(

2,

Ybus(

2,

2) =

Ybus(

3,

3) =

0.0000+ j*(

0.0000);

V(

V(

2) = 1.000000 + j*(-0.017278);

V(

EDU>>

The voltage angle of the slack bus shown in Figure-3.2 at bus-1 is used as reference to all the other

bus voltages. The angle of the slack bus is not important because the voltage angle difference is used

to determine the power (Pi) and the imaginary (Qi) at the load. The slack bus also known as the

swing bus is a fictitious concept that is created and defined in the problem formulations. This process

allows us to address the I2R losses that are not known before the load flow calculation.

47

0.00 MW

0.00 Mvar

0.00 MVA

50.0 Mvar

250 MW

250 MW

30.0 Mvar

152 MW

42 Mvar

slack

100 MW

60 Mvar

Figure-3.2

Bus Modeling

By changing line conditions, we were able to eliminate the line loss during the simulation process.

Line loss is one of the key components of power system economic dispatch. For example, if we have

a scenario where the loss between buses resulted in 50 MW and the cost of generating power is $50

per MWh, then there will be a loss of $50 for every hour which results in $438,000 per year.

Therefore, by using modeling techniques, one can exponentially minimize the hours spent on various

power flow data such as Ybus, voltage magnitude/angle mismatches and power loss.

48

3.1

By using simulation process to design the system in Figure-3.3, one can learn about the system and

document the system behaviors from the view point of power flow and economic dispatch. The

approach used is to design a basic system with two generators with the per-unit voltage of the system

set 1.0 pu. A system of 1.0 pu is considered a perfect system. In power system design and planning

this method is known as a flat start.

After the flat start is achieved, the iteration technique is used to increment the system load while

documenting the system. Moreover, this process allows us to check the sensitivity of the system to

see when the system will collapse. The system collapses at bus 7 when the load of 220MW and 50

Mvar was applied.

99 MW

17 Mvar

300 MW

slack

Amps

MVA

30 Mvar

220 MW

50 Mvar

30 Mvar

A

MVA

Amps

Amps

A

99.45 MW

MVA

MVA

50 MW

0 Mvar

20 MW

Figure-3.3

7-Bus System

49

500 MW

100 Mvar

The data shown below is from the simulation process in Figure-3.3 and it provides us with the Ybus

record for each bus. In order to get the power system economic dispatch, one must deal with the

following power flow conditions:

(1)

Ybus model

(2)

Bus voltage

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Therefore, since our objective is power system economic dispatch, we must meet all the power flow

conditions in order get to the system economics, and there is no better way than simulation modeling

to eliminate the hundreds of hours in crunching numbers. Furthermore, when we factor in human

fatigue, errors and the duplications, simulation modeling will no doubt be the future of all power

system planning and economic dispatch

YBus Records

Number

Name

Bus

Bus

Bus

Bus

Bus

Bus

Bus

5.88 - j23.52

-2.94 + j11.76

-2.94 + j11.76

5.88 - j23.52

-2.94 + j11.76

-2.94 + j11.76

5.88 - j23.52

0.00 + j0.00

0.00 + j0.00

2.94 - j11.76

-2.94 + j11.76

-2.94 + j11.76

5.88 - j23.52

-2.94 + j11.76

-2.94 + j11.76

8.82 - j35.28

-2.94 + j11.76

-2.94 + j11.76

5.88 - j23.52

-2.94 + j11.76

-2.94 + j11.76

-2.94 + j11.76

50

-2.94 + j11.76

3.2

The Ybus matrix, voltage magnitude and angle are shown below for Figure-3.4. The transmission

line data that was used in simulation process came from Figure-2.2.

Using Gauss Seidel method of iteration for the problem associated with Figure-2.2 resulted in V2 =

0.987-0.156i, while on the other hand computer simulation yields

V2 = 0 979-0.173i for Figure 3.5 resulted in a difference of 0.008 pu. The acceptable tolerance is plus

or minus 5% of 100% where 100% = 1.0 pu.

j = sqrt(-1);

Ybus = sparse(2);

Ybus(

1,

1) =

0.0498+ j*(

-2.5910);

Ybus(

1,

2) =

-0.0498+ j*(

2.8810);

Ybus(

2,

1) =

-0.0498+ j*(

2.8810);

Ybus(

2,

2) =

0.0498+ j*(

-2.5910);

V(

1) =

V(

2) =

0.979153 + j*(-0.173715);

50 MW

-24 Mvar

slack

Figure 3.4

51

3.3

By using computer based simulating we were able to capture all the key components needed to meet

our economic dispatch requirements. For example, the bus record number, the bus sensitivity and the

bus mismatches provided data such as sensitivity limits and upper and lower per-unit voltage limits.

In addition, we can clearly see that under Gen Marginal Loss Sensitivities that there is no megawatt

loss or system sensitivity issues. Under bus sensitivities, we can see the assigned limits for each bus

for both MW & Mvar.

YBus

Records

Number

1

2

3

Name

1

2

3

Bus 1

1.85 - j24.80

-0.31 + j12.49

-1.54 + j12.31

Bus 2

-0.31 + j12.49

0.87 - j29.14

-0.55 + j16.65

Bus 3

-1.54 + j12.31

-0.55 + j16.65

2.09 - j28.96

150 MW

0 Mvar

slack

51 MW

0 Mvar

Figure 3.5

100 MW

7 Mvar

52

Bus Sensitivities

Number

Number

1

2

3

Area

Name

1

Name

1

2

3

Name

1

2

3

Area

Num

Area

Name

1

1

1

Monitor

Yes

Yes

Yes

P

Sensitivity

Q

Sensitivity

0

0.63929194

0.36759728

0.01529269

Limit

Group

Default

Default

Default

PU Volt

1

1

0.99507

Volt

(kV)

138

138

137.319

Limit Low

PU Volt

0.9

0.9

0.9

Limit High

PU Volt

1.1

1.1

1.1

Ctg Limit

Low PU

Volt

0.9

0.9

0.9

Ctg Limit

High PU

Volt

1.1

1.1

1.1

Max

MW

1000

1000

Gen

Mvar

0.42

7.49

Bus Mismatches

Number

1

2

3

Name

1

2

3

Area

Name

1

1

1

Mismatch

MW

Mismatch

Mvar

0

0

0

Mismatch

MVA

0

0

0

0

0

0

Sensitivities

Number

1

2

Name

1

2

ID

1

1

Status

Closed

Closed

Loss MW

Sens

Penalty

Factor

0

0

53

1

1

Gen

MW

50.52

100

Min MW

0

0

4.0 Conclusion

This paper has given me the opportunity to research and develop new techniques to simulate and

model power systems. For example, Figure 3.3, the 7-Bus System, was designed and developed to

meet the requirements of the North American power grid system. The simulated Y-bus data is shown

on page 46. In addition, I was able to successfully set the per-unit voltage limits to trip the circuit

breaker. If the per-unit voltage varies by +/- 5%, then this action will remove the system from the

grid.

The focus of this economic dispatch paper is to compare the different ways in which to analyze

power systems to get the best economic benefit while minimizing cost. The process of analyzing

began with the different fuel sources and their associated cost, and how to minimize cost by making

the system more efficient, because power plant measures result in terms of efficiency. In addition,

efficiency is output divided by input and in this case our input is heat rate (MWHR/MBTU) and our

output in power is MW. By using the input and output concept one can conclude that the system of

generating power will maximize profit when the heat is maintained as low as possible while

maximizing your output requirements. In the power industry, fuel cost curve provides the best

accuracy to effectively analyze heat rate. In fact, power system economic dispatch is driven by the

fuel cost curve:

Ci ( PGi ) PGi PGi2 and incremental cost which is a derivitive of the fuel cost.

Heat rate is widely used in the power industry to troubleshoot the system when the system efficiency

drops below optimum setting before or after major system repairs or overhaul. Furthermore after a

major overhaul, it is standard practice in this industry to apply minute by minute loading of the

system. This minute by minute loading process is shown here with the use of calculus as a source for

verification and validation. Matlab Software code was used to generate the fuel cost curve equation,

and graph the operational cost against the output power in MW.

This paper also focused on 1-generator, 2-generator operation and a 3-generator operation to look at

various methods used to determine the cost of power with and without power loss.

Although the focus of the paper is on economic dispatch, areas such as per-unit system and power

flow was briefly covered to allow one to complete the process from a typical scenarios such as

transformers, generators and z-line conditions. Gauss Seidel method of iteration was used to show

54

the overall concept of obtaining the bus voltage from the Ybus matrix and thus the economic

dispatch.

Moreover, from the power loss conditions this paper was able to obtain the equivalent cash flow

using NPV if the system was operating without power loss. Modeling and simulation process was

also used to show the effectiveness of using software as a tool to make quick, clear, accurate and

explicit decision when planning economic dispatch operation as a system engineer.

By using Powerworld software in modeling power system and economic dispatch, this paper shows

how to analyze the power loss and the per unit voltage limits to make the system economically

viable. For example, Figure 3.5 shows a complete power flow analysis and the data required to

perform economic dispatch. In addition, the analysis shows zero power loss and zero mismatches

which would result in a perfect system.

I would recommend modeling and simulation to be the first step in planning and assessing economic

dispatch. It is also an indispensable source for performing verification and validation of power

system economic dispatch.

55

Appendix

Total Electricity System Power

Fuel Type

Coal

In-State

Generation

(GWh)

Percent of

California In-State

Power

Northwest

Imports

Southwest

Imports

Total

System

Power

3,735

1.8%

N/A

N/A

N/A

Large Hydro

25,094

12.2%

N/A

N/A

N/A

Natural Gas

116,716

56.7%

N/A

N/A

N/A

31,509

15.3%

N/A

N/A

N/A

67

0.0%

N/A

N/A

N/A

0.0%

N/A

N/A

N/A

28,567

13.9%

N/A

N/A

N/A

5,685

2.8%

N/A

N/A

N/A

Geothermal

12,907

6.3%

N/A

N/A

N/A

Small Hydro

4,181

2.0%

N/A

N/A

N/A

Solar

846

0.4%

N/A

N/A

N/A

Wind

4,949

2.4%

N/A

N/A

N/A

Total

205,695

100.0%

19,929

71,201

296,827

Nuclear

Oil

Other

Renewables

Biomass

Source:

EIA, QFER, and SB 105 Reporting Requirements

Note: Due to legislative changes required by Assembly Bill 162 (2009), the California Air Resources Board is

currently undertaking the task of identifying the fuel sources associated with all imported power entering into

California.

1.

56

2008 Total System Power in Gigawatt Hours

Fuel Type

Coal*

In-State

Generation[1]

Northwest

Imports[2]

Southwest

Imports[2]

Total System

Power

Percent of Total

System Power

3,977

8,581

43,271

55,829

18.21%

Large Hydro

21,040

9,334

3,359

33,733

11.00%

Natural Gas

122,216

2,939

15,060

140,215

45.74%

Nuclear

32,482

747

11,039

44,268

14.44%

Renewables

28,804

2,344

1,384

32,532

10.61%

Biomass

5,720

654

6,377

2.08%

Geothermal

12,907

755

13,662

4.46%

Small Hydro

3,729

674

13

4,416

1.44%

Solar

724

22

746

0.24%

Wind

5,724

1,016

591

7,331

2.39%

208,519

23,945

74,113

306,577

100.0%

Total

Source:

2008 Net System Power Report - Staff Report,

Publication number CEC-200-2009-010, to be considered for adoption July 15, 2009. (PDF file, 26 pages, 650

kb)

EIA, QFER, and SB 105 Reporting Requirements

*Note: In earlier years the in-state coal number included coal-fired power plants owned by California utilities located

out-of-state.

1.

2.

Net electricity imports are based on metered power flows between California and out-of-state

balancing authorities.

The resource mix is based on utility power source disclosure claims, contract information, and

calculated estimates on the remaining balance of net imports.

57

Please see web links for energy source and cost information

http://greenecon.net/understanding-the-cost-of-solar-energy/energy_economics.html

http://greenecon.net/category/alternative-energy

http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/index.html#table

58

References

1. Florida State University 2002 and 2004 EEL 6266 Power System Economics and Control with

Matlab Software Code Lecture Notes

2. Tom Overbye, ECE 476, Power System Analysis Lecture 16 Economic Dispatch

3. Thomas J. Overbye, Powerworld Simulator Software

4. Ali. Keyhani, Power Flow Problem Tutorial and Course Notes and Matlab Software Codes

5. Robert T. Clement, Making Hard Decisions

6. Chanan Singh and Panida Jirutitijaroen Power System Control and Operation: Economic

Dispatch

7. Form E1A-423 Monthly Cost of Fuels for Electric Plants Report

8. Grainger Stevenson, Power System Analysis

9. Charles A. Gross Power System Analysis

10. http://greenecon.net/understanding-the-cost-of-solar-energy/energy_economics.html

11. http://greenecon.net/category/alternative-energy

12. http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/index.html#table

59