Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
L Goel
elkgoel@ntu.edu.sg
1
Outline
2
Power System Reliability
An electric power system serves the basic function of supplying customers, both
large and small, with electrical energy as economically and as reliably as
possible. The reliability associated with a power system is a measure of its ability
to provide an adequate supply of electrical energy for the period of time intended
under the operating conditions encountered.
Modern society, because of its pattern of social and working habits, has come to
expect the power supply to be continuously available on demand - this, however,
is not physically possible in reality due to random system failures which are
generally outside the control of power system engineers, operators and planners.
3
Power System Reliability
4
Power System Reliability
The criteria and techniques first used in practical applications were basically
deterministic (rule-of-thumb) ones, for instance
• Planning generating capacity - installed capacity equals the expected
maximum demand plus a fixed percentage of the expected maximum demand;
• Operating capacity - spinning capacity equals the expected load demand plus
a reserve equal to one or more largest units;
• Planning network capacity - construct a minimum number of circuits to a load
group, the minimum number being dependent on the maximum demand of the
group.
5
Power System Reliability
Although the above-mentioned three and other criteria have been developed to
account for randomly occurring failures, they are inherently deterministic. The
essential weakness of these methods is that they do not account for the
probabilistic/stochastic nature of system behavior, customer load demands and/or
of component failures. Such aspects can be considered only through probabilistic
criteria.
6
Power System Reliability
7
Power System Reliability
8
Power System Reliability
9
Adequacy and Security
The concept of power system reliability, i.e., the overall ability of the system to
satisfy the customer load requirements economically and reliably, is extremely
broad. For the sake of simplicity, power system reliability can be divided into the
two basic aspects of
• system adequacy, and
• system security.
Adequacy relates to the existence of sufficient facilities within the system to
satisfy customer load demands. These include the facilities to generate power,
and the associated transmission and distribution facilities required to transport the
generated energy to the load points. Adequacy, therefore, relates to static system
conditions.
10
Adequacy and Security
11
Adequacy and Security
Power system functional zones Hierarchical levels
12
Adequacy and Security
13
Adequacy and Security
14
Adequacy and Security
15
Adequacy and Security
16
Generating System (HLI) Reliability
Assessment
17
Generating System (HLI) Reliability
Assessment
18
Generating System (HLI) Reliability
Assessment
19
Generating System (HLI) Reliability
Assessment
LOLP
This is the oldest and the most basic probabilistic index. It is defined as the
probability that the load will exceed the available generation. Its weakness is that
it defines the likelihood of encountering trouble (loss of load) but not the severity;
for the same value of LOLP, the degree of trouble may be less than 1 MW or
greater than 1000 MW or more. Therefore it cannot recognize the degree of
capacity or energy shortage.
This index has been superseded by one of the following expected values in most
planning applications because LOLP has less physical significance and is difficult
to interpret.
20
Generating System (HLI) Reliability
Assessment
LOLE
This is now the most widely used probabilistic index in deciding future generation
capacity. It is generally defined as the average number of days (or hours) on
which the daily peak load is expected to exceed the available capacity. It
therefore indicates the expected number of days (or hours) for which a load loss
or deficiency may occur. This concept implies a physical significance not
forthcoming from the LOLP, although the two values are directly related.
It has the same weaknesses that exist in the LOLP.
21
Generating System (HLI) Reliability
Assessment
LOEE
This index is defined as the expected energy not supplied (EENS) due to those
occasions when the load exceeds the available generation. It is presently less
used than LOLE but is a more appealing index since it encompasses severity of
the deficiencies as well as their likelihood. It therefore reflects risk more truly and
is likely to gain popularity as power systems become more energy-limited due to
reduced prime energy and increased environmental controls.
22
Generating System (HLI) Reliability
Assessment
These are directly related to LOEE which is normalized by dividing by the total
energy demanded. This basically ensures that large and small systems can be
compared on an equal basis and chronological changes in a system can be
tracked.
23
Generating System (HLI) Reliability
Assessment
24
Composite System (HLII) Reliability
Assessment
Objective
• Composite generating and transmission system evaluation is concerned with
the total problem of assessing the ability of the generation and transmission
system to supply adequate and suitable electrical energy to the major system
load points (Hierarchical level II - HL II)
• The problem of calculating reliability indices is equivalent to assessing the
expected value of a test function F(x), i.e., :
Basic models
• G&T Equipment : Markovian or not; Two or multi-states.
Up
Down
26
Composite System (HLII) Reliability
Assessment
Basic models
• Load : Chronological or not; • System : AC or DC network
Markovian or not; Correlated or not. representation.
27
Composite System (HLII) Reliability
Assessment
Reliability Measures (Conventional)
28
Composite System (HLII) Reliability
Assessment
Reliability Measures (Well-Being)
System indices
•Prob {H} = Probability of healthy state
•Prob {M} = Probability of marginal state Success
•Prob {R} = Probability of at risk state (LOLP) Healthy
•Freq {H} = Frequency of healthy state (occ./year)
•Freq {M} = Frequency of marginal state (occ./year)
•Freq {R} = Frequency of at risk state (LOLF) (occ./year) Marginal
•Dur {H} = Duration of healthy state (h)
•Dur {M} = Duration of marginal state (h)
•Dur {R} = Duration of at risk state (LOLD) (h) At Risk
Load point indices
•Prob {H}, Freq {H}, etc.
29
Composite System (HLII) Reliability
Assessment
Assessment Tools
30
Distribution System Reliability Assessment
• failure rate,
• average outage time, r
• average annual unavailability, U = .r
• average load disconnected, L
• expected energy not supplied, E = U.L
31
Distribution System Reliability Assessment
State Space (Markov) Model
State Probability (P) Visiting frequency (f) Residence time (r)
0 P0 = q2q1 f0 = P0/r0 r0 = 1/(1 + 2)
1 P1 = q2p1 f1 = P1/r1 r1 = 1/(1 + 2)
2 P2 = p2q1 f2 = P2/r2 r2 = 1/(2 + 1)
3 P3 = p2p1 f3 = P3/r3 r3 = 1/(1 + 2)
1 1
i 0 1
pi
i i 2 2
State space diagram for
qi = 1 - pi two-component, four-state
2 2 model
1 1
2 3
32
Distribution System Reliability Assessment
n i ri n 1
Interruptionfrequencyfs =8760 [Interruptions/year]
i=1 8760 i=1 ri
1
Interruptiondurationrs = n
[hours/interruption]
1
r
i=1 i
n
i ri
Annual downtimeUs =8760 [hours/year]
i=1
8760
Us
Unavailabilityqs =
8760
34
Distribution System Reliability Assessment
System Oriented Reliability Indices, Number of Interruptions
• Weighting by number of customers
– System Average
Interruption Frequency Index :
n
fi Ni
SAIFI =i=1
n
(interruptions/year)
tot
Ni
i=1
36
Distribution System Reliability Assessment
System Oriented Reliability Indices, Average Interruption Duration
• Weighting by number of customers
– Customer Average Interruption Duration Index :
n
Ui Ni
CAIDI =i=1
n
(hours/interruption)
tot
fi Ni
i=1
n n n n
fi Ni Ui Ni Ui Ni fi ri Ni
SAIFI CAIDI = SAIDI i=1
n tot
i=1
n tot
= i=1
n tot
= i=1
n tot
Ni fi Ni Ni Ni
i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1
37
Distribution System Reliability Assessment
38
Distribution System Reliability Assessment
UK System Indices
39
Cost-Benefit Considerations
40
Cost-Benefit Considerations
Due to the complex and integrated nature of a power system, failures in any part
of the system can cause interruptions which range from inconveniencing a small
number of local residents to a major and widespread catastrophic disruption of
supply.
The economic impact of these outages is not necessarily restricted to loss of
revenue by the utility or loss of energy utilization by the customer but, in order to
estimate the true costs, should also include indirect costs imposed on customers,
society, and the environment due to the outage.
41
Cost-Benefit Considerations
For instance, in the case of the 1977 New York blackout, 84% of the total costs
of the blackout were attributed to indirect costs. In order to reduce the frequency
and duration of these events, it is necessary to invest either in the design phase,
the operating phase, or both. A whole series of questions come to mind:
• how much should be spent?
• is it worth spending any money?
• should the reliability be increased, maintained at existing levels, or allowed to
degrade?
• who should decide - the utility, a regulator, the customer?
• on what basis should the decision be made?
42
Cost-Benefit Considerations
The underlying trend in all these questions is the need to determine the worth of
reliability in a power system, who should contribute to this worth, and who should
decide the levels of reliability and investment required to achieve them.
The basic questions that therefore need to be answered are “Is it worth it?” and
“Where or on what should the next dollar be invested in the system to achieve the
maximum reliability benefit?”.
43
Cost-Benefit Considerations
The first step in answering the above questions is illustrated in the figure below,
which shows how the reliability of a product/system is related to the investment
cost, i.e., increased investment is required in order to improve reliability. This
clearly shows the general trend that the incremental cost C to achieve a given
increase in reliability R increases as the reliability level increases. Alternatively,
a given increase in investment produces a decreasing increment in reliability as
the reliability is increased. In either case, high reliability is expensive to achieve.
44
Cost-Benefit Considerations
45
Cost-Benefit Considerations
The basic concept of reliability cost/reliability worth evaluation is relatively simple
and can be presented by the curves of the figure shown below. These curves
show that the investment cost generally increases with higher reliability. On the
other hand, the customer costs associated with failures decrease as the reliability
increases.
46
Cost-Benefit Considerations
The total costs are the sum of these two individual costs. This total cost exhibits
a minimum, and so an “optimum” or target level of reliability is achieved. Two
difficulties usually arise in the total cost assessment.
Firstly, the calculated indices are usually derived only from approximate models.
Secondly, there are significant problems in assessing customer perceptions of
system failure costs.
47
Cost-Benefit Considerations
The disparity between the calculated indices and the monetary costs associated
with supply interruptions is shown in the figure. The left hand side of the figure
shows the calculated indices at the various hierarchical levels. The right hand
side indicates the interruption cost data obtained by user studies.
It can be seen that the relative disparity between the calculated indices at the
three hierarchical levels and the data available for worth assessment decreases
as the consumer load points are approached.
48
Cost-Benefit Considerations
There have been many studies concerning interruption and outage costs. These
studies show that, although trends are similar in virtually all cases, the costs vary
over a wide range and depend on the country of origin and the type of customer.
It is apparent therefore that considerable research still needs to be conducted on
the subject of interruption costs.
The evaluation of reliability cost through the identification and analysis of criteria
and methods used to predict and quantify reliability has progressed significantly
during the past two decades. By comparison, the assessment of reliability worth
is not as well developed. This is due to the fact that the societal worth of electric
service reliability is an extremely complex task.
49
Cost-Benefit Considerations
50
Cost-Benefit Considerations
The theoretical basis for the measurement of outage cost is the loss of consumer
welfare as a consequence of an outage. Several approaches have emerged in
the literature over the past few decades. One approach is to estimate outage
costs on the basis of estimated willingness-to-pay for planned electricity
consumption. In another approach, electric supply rates (tariffs) are used to
derive the Value-based reliability (VBR) estimates. Many attempts are made on
the use of a ratio of gross economic measure (e.g. GNP) and a suitable energy
consumption measure to yield a $/kWh value that is assumed to be the cost of
unsupplied energy during interruptions. While most of these approaches are
reasonably straightforward to apply, their disadvantages are that they are based
on severely limiting assumptions.
51
Cost-Benefit Considerations
The most fundamental and methodological approach that has been used to
assess direct, short-term customer outage costs is the customer survey method.
This approach appears to find favors with electric utilities for estimating the
outage costs to be used for planning purposes. It is based on the premise that
the customer is in the best position to assess his/her monetary losses associated
with power failures. The surveys ask the monetary losses that would be
sustained by them under certain specified scenarios of interruptions, and also
their willingness to pay in order to avoid having those interruptions. A very
important consideration in determining the interruption cost through surveys is
the choice of the valuation method. Three types of approaches have been
undertaken in this regard.
52
Cost-Benefit Considerations
1. The first and the most obvious approach is a direct solicitation of the outage
costs for given outage conditions. The approach provides reasonable and
consistent results in situations where losses can be directly identified.
2. The second approach seeks the customers' opinions on what they would be
willing to pay to avoid having the interruption(s), or conversely what amount
they would be willing to accept for having to experience the outage
(willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept theories). This is based on the
theory that incremental willingness to pay (accept) gives the corresponding
marginal increments (decrements) in service reliability.
53
Cost-Benefit Considerations
3. The third and final approach is that of indirect worth evaluation, where
customers' responses to indirect questions are used to derive a monetary
figure. This approach includes the respondents' selection of
interruptible/curtailable options, their predictions of what preparatory actions
they might take in the event of recurring interruptions, their ranking of a set
of reliability/rate alternatives and selecting an option most suitable for their
needs, etc. This approach has been used in major Canadian surveys, and
has also been used by many utilities and governmental agencies to estimate
the costs of interruptions.
54
Cost-Benefit Considerations
55
Cost-Benefit Considerations
56
Cost-Benefit Considerations
57
Cost-Benefit Considerations
58
Concluding Remarks
• Probabilistic, as opposed to deterministic, indices are more popular in
reliability evaluation of electric power systems.
• Fundamental reliability indices are those of probability, frequency and duration
of failures, regardless of whether the system study is at HLI, HLII or HLIII
system levels.
• There should be some conformity between the reliability of various parts of the
power system. It is pointless to reinforce quite arbitrarily a strong part of the
system where weak areas still exist. Consequently, a balance is required
between generation, transmission and distribution - this does not mean that
the reliability of each should be equal. The reliability of different zones will, in
general, be different since HLII failures can cause widespread outages
whereas distribution failures are very localized.
59
Concluding Remarks
60
For your time and patience...
61