eLMP比LMP更难预测吗?

Haojun Wang, Wenqian Jiang, Chenye Wu
{"title":"eLMP比LMP更难预测吗?","authors":"Haojun Wang, Wenqian Jiang, Chenye Wu","doi":"10.1109/iSPEC54162.2022.10033055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The integration of large-scale renewable energy poses significant challenge to the real-time supply-demand balancing in the power grid, which reshapes the landscape of electricity pricing. To handle the uncertainty in the renewable generation outputs, system operators need to start up and shut down conventional generators more frequently, whereas the widely adopted locational marginal price (LMP) scheme fails to recover these frequent start-up costs, which causes inadequate incentive issues in the markets. To this end, extended LMP (eLMP) was proposed, which employs the uplift payment to compensate for the start-up costs. As eLMP is more complicated than LMP, it is commonly believed that the eLMP prediction will be much harder than the LMP prediction. However, in this paper, we submit that this common belief is unfounded through comparative study. We compare the prediction performances for the two pricing schemes measured by various evaluation metrics, including MAE, RMSE, and MAPE. The results highlight that eLMP scheme is in fact easier to predict than the LMP scheme in terms of prediction accuracy, and the prediction models trained by LMP can be directly used to predict eLMP with remarkable performance. However, through the robustness test, we find that the robustness of eLMP prediction is not as good as that of LMP prediction, which implies the complexity of eLMP scheme.","PeriodicalId":129707,"journal":{"name":"2022 IEEE Sustainable Power and Energy Conference (iSPEC)","volume":"175 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is eLMP Harder to Predict than LMP?\",\"authors\":\"Haojun Wang, Wenqian Jiang, Chenye Wu\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/iSPEC54162.2022.10033055\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The integration of large-scale renewable energy poses significant challenge to the real-time supply-demand balancing in the power grid, which reshapes the landscape of electricity pricing. To handle the uncertainty in the renewable generation outputs, system operators need to start up and shut down conventional generators more frequently, whereas the widely adopted locational marginal price (LMP) scheme fails to recover these frequent start-up costs, which causes inadequate incentive issues in the markets. To this end, extended LMP (eLMP) was proposed, which employs the uplift payment to compensate for the start-up costs. As eLMP is more complicated than LMP, it is commonly believed that the eLMP prediction will be much harder than the LMP prediction. However, in this paper, we submit that this common belief is unfounded through comparative study. We compare the prediction performances for the two pricing schemes measured by various evaluation metrics, including MAE, RMSE, and MAPE. The results highlight that eLMP scheme is in fact easier to predict than the LMP scheme in terms of prediction accuracy, and the prediction models trained by LMP can be directly used to predict eLMP with remarkable performance. However, through the robustness test, we find that the robustness of eLMP prediction is not as good as that of LMP prediction, which implies the complexity of eLMP scheme.\",\"PeriodicalId\":129707,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2022 IEEE Sustainable Power and Energy Conference (iSPEC)\",\"volume\":\"175 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2022 IEEE Sustainable Power and Energy Conference (iSPEC)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/iSPEC54162.2022.10033055\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2022 IEEE Sustainable Power and Energy Conference (iSPEC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/iSPEC54162.2022.10033055","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

大规模可再生能源的并网对电网的实时供需平衡提出了重大挑战,从而改变了电价格局。为了应对可再生能源发电输出的不确定性,系统运营商需要更频繁地启动和关闭传统发电机,而广泛采用的位置边际价格(LMP)计划无法收回这些频繁的启动成本,从而导致市场激励不足的问题。为此,提出了扩展LMP (eLMP),它采用提升支付来补偿启动费用。由于eLMP比LMP更复杂,因此通常认为eLMP预测将比LMP预测困难得多。然而,在本文中,我们通过比较研究提出,这种普遍的信念是没有根据的。我们比较了两种定价方案的预测性能,评估指标包括MAE、RMSE和MAPE。结果表明,在预测精度方面,eLMP方案实际上比LMP方案更容易预测,并且LMP训练的预测模型可以直接用于预测eLMP,并且具有显著的性能。然而,通过鲁棒性检验,我们发现eLMP预测的鲁棒性不如LMP预测,这暗示了eLMP方案的复杂性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Is eLMP Harder to Predict than LMP?
The integration of large-scale renewable energy poses significant challenge to the real-time supply-demand balancing in the power grid, which reshapes the landscape of electricity pricing. To handle the uncertainty in the renewable generation outputs, system operators need to start up and shut down conventional generators more frequently, whereas the widely adopted locational marginal price (LMP) scheme fails to recover these frequent start-up costs, which causes inadequate incentive issues in the markets. To this end, extended LMP (eLMP) was proposed, which employs the uplift payment to compensate for the start-up costs. As eLMP is more complicated than LMP, it is commonly believed that the eLMP prediction will be much harder than the LMP prediction. However, in this paper, we submit that this common belief is unfounded through comparative study. We compare the prediction performances for the two pricing schemes measured by various evaluation metrics, including MAE, RMSE, and MAPE. The results highlight that eLMP scheme is in fact easier to predict than the LMP scheme in terms of prediction accuracy, and the prediction models trained by LMP can be directly used to predict eLMP with remarkable performance. However, through the robustness test, we find that the robustness of eLMP prediction is not as good as that of LMP prediction, which implies the complexity of eLMP scheme.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Optimization strategy for multi-area DC dispatching control considering frequency constraints Design and Application Research of Synchronous Temporary Block Function between Valve Groups on Modular Multilevel Converter Ultra High Voltage Direct Current System A Multi-Stack Vanadium Redox Flow Battery Model Considering Electrolyte Transfer Delay Analysis of Kuramoto models for AC microgrids based on droop control Nodal Pricing Comparison between DCOPF and ACOPF: Case Studies for the Power Systems in Iceland and Germany
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1