Unit Commitment
Daniel Kirschen
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
Washington
1
Economic Dispatch: Problem
Definition
Given load
Given set of units on-line
How much should each unit generate to
meet this load at minimum cost?
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
Typical summer and winter
loads
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of Washington
Unit Commitment
Given load profile
(e.g. values of the load for each hour of
a day)
Given set of units available
When should each unit be started,
stopped and how much should it
generate to meet the load at minimum
?
?
?
cost?
Load Profile
G
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
A Simple Example
Unit 1:
PMin = 250 MW, PMax = 600 MW
C1 = 510.0 + 7.9 P1 + 0.00172 P12 $/h
Unit 2:
PMin = 200 MW, PMax = 400 MW
C2 = 310.0 + 7.85 P2 + 0.00194 P22 $/h
Unit 3:
PMin = 150 MW, PMax = 500 MW
C3 = 78.0 + 9.56 P3 + 0.00694 P32 $/h
What combination of units 1, 2 and 3 will produce 550
MW at minimum cost?
How much should each unit in that combination
generate?
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
Cost of the various
combinations
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of Washington
Observations on the example:
Far too few units committed:
Cant meet the demand
Not enough units committed:
Some units operate above optimum
Too many units committed:
Some units below optimum
Far too many units committed:
Minimum generation exceeds demand
No-load cost affects choice of optimal
combination
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
A more ambitious example
Optimal generation
schedule for a load profile
Load
Decompose the profile
into a set of period
Assume load is constant 1000
over each period
For each time period,
500
which units should be
committed to generate at
minimum cost during that
0
period?
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
Time
6
12
18
24
Optimal combination for each
hour
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
Matching the combinations to the load
Load
Unit 3
Unit 2
Unit 1
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of Washington
12
18
24
Time
10
Issues
Must consider constraints
Unit constraints
System constraints
Some constraints create a link between
periods
Start-up costs
Cost incurred when we start a generating
unit
Different units have different start-up costs
Curse of dimensionality
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
11
Unit Constraints
Constraints that affect each unit
individually:
Maximum generating capacity
Minimum stable generation
Minimum up time
Minimum down time
Ramp rate
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
12
Notations
u(i,t) :
Status of unit i at period t
u(i,t) 1: Unit i is on during period t
u(i,t) 0 : Unit i is off during period t
x(i,t) :
Power produced by unit i during period t
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of Washington
13
Minimum up- and down-time
Minimum up time
Once a unit is running it may not be shut
down immediately:
If u(i,t) 1 and tiup tiup,min then u(i,t 1) 1
Minimum down time
Once a unit is shut down, it may not be
started immediately
If u(i,t) 0 and tidown tidown,min then u(i,t 1) 0
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
14
Ramp rates
Maximum ramp rates
To avoid damaging the turbine, the electrical output
of a unit cannot change by more than a certain
amount over a period of time:
Maximum ramp up rate constraint:
x i,t 1 x i,t Pi up,max
Maximum ramp down rate constraint:
x(i,t) x(i,t 1) Pi down,max
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
15
System Constraints
Constraints that affect more than one
unit
Load/generation balance
Reserve generation capacity
Emission constraints
Network constraints
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
16
Load/Generation Balance Constraint
u(i,t)x(i,t) L(t)
i1
N : Set of available units
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of Washington
17
Reserve Capacity Constraint
Unanticipated loss of a generating unit or an
interconnection causes unacceptable frequency drop
if not corrected rapidly
Need to increase production from other units to keep
frequency drop within acceptable limits
Rapid increase in production only possible if
committed
units are not all operating at their
N
maximum capacitymax
u(i,t)P
L(t) R(t)
i1
R(t): Reserve requirement at time t
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
18
How much reserve?
Protect the system against credible
outages
Deterministic criteria:
Capacity of largest unit or interconnection
Percentage of peak load
Probabilistic criteria:
Takes into account the number and size of
the committed units as well as their outage
rate
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
19
Types of Reserve
Spinning reserve
Primary
Quick response for a short time
Secondary
Slower response for a longer time
Tertiary reserve
Replace primary and secondary reserve to
protect against another outage
Provided by units that can start quickly (e.g.
open cycle gas turbines)
Also called scheduled or off-line reserve
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
20
Types of Reserve
Positive reserve
Increase output when generation < load
Negative reserve
Decrease output when generation > load
Other sources of reserve:
Pumped hydro plants
Demand reduction (e.g. voluntary load shedding)
Reserve must be spread around the network
Must be able to deploy reserve even if the
network is congested
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
21
Cost of Reserve
Reserve has a cost even when it is not
called
More units scheduled than required
Units not operated at their maximum
efficiency
Extra start up costs
Must build units capable of rapid
response
Cost of reserve proportionally larger in
small systems
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
22
Environmental constraints
Scheduling of generating units may be
affected by environmental constraints
Constraints on pollutants such SO2, NOx
Various forms:
Limit on each plant at each hour
Limit on plant over a year
Limit on a group of plants over a year
Constraints on hydro generation
Protection of wildlife
Navigation, recreation
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
23
Network Constraints
Transmission network may have an
effect on the commitment of units
Some units must run to provide voltage
support
The output of some units may be limited
because their output would exceed the
B
A
transmission
capacity of the network
Cheap generators
May be constrained off
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
More expensive generator
May be constrained on
24
Start-up Costs
Thermal units must be warmed up
before they can be brought on-line
Warming up a unit costs money
Start-up cost depends on time unit has
OFF
t
been off
i
i )
SCi (tOFF
)
(1
e
i
i
i
i + i
i
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
25
tiOFF
Start-up Costs
Need to balance start-up costs and running
costs
Example:
Diesel generator: low start-up cost, high running cost
Coal plant: high start-up cost, low running cost
Issues:
How long should a unit run to recover its start-up
cost?
Start-up one more large unit or a diesel generator to
cover the peak?
Shutdown one more unit at night or run several units
part-loaded?
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
26
Summary
Some constraints link periods together
Minimizing the total cost (start-up +
running) must be done over the whole
period of study
Generation scheduling or unit
commitment is a more general problem
than economic dispatch
Economic dispatch is a sub-problem of
generation scheduling
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
27
Flexible Plants
Power output can be adjusted (within
limits)
Examples:
Coal-fired
Thermal units
Oil-fired
Open cycle gas turbines
Combined cycle gas turbines
Hydro plants with storage
Status and power output can be
optimized
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
28
Inflexible Plants
Power output cannot be adjusted for
technical or commercial reasons
Examples:
Nuclear
Run-of-the-river hydro
Renewables (wind, solar,)
Combined heat and power (CHP,
cogeneration)
Output treated as given when optimizing
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
29
Solving the Unit Commitment
Problem
Decision variables:
Status of each unit at each period:
u(i,t) 0,1
i,t
Output of each unit at each period:
x(i,t) 0, Pi min ; Pi max
i,t
Combination of integer and continuous
variables
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
30
Optimization with integer
variables
Continuous variables
Can follow the gradients or use LP
Any value within the feasible set is OK
Discrete variables
There is no gradient
Can only take a finite number of values
Problem is not convex
Must try combinations of discrete values
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
31
How many combinations are
there?
111
110
101
100
Examples
3 units: 8 possible states
N units: 2N possible
states
011
010
001
000
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of Washington
32
How many solutions are there anyway?
T=
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of Washington
Optimization over a
time horizon divided
into intervals
A solution is a path
linking one
combination at each
interval
How many such
paths are there?
33
How many solutions are there anyway?
T=
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of Washington
Optimization over a
time horizon divided
into intervals
A solution is a path
linking one
combination at each
interval
N
N
N
N T
2
2
2
How many
such
path
are there?
Answer:
34
The Curse of Dimensionality
Example: 5 units, 24 hours
2 2
N T
5 24
6.2 10
35
combinations
Processing 109 combinations/second, this
would take 1.9 1019 years to solve
There are 100s of units in large power
systems...
Many of these combinations do not
satisfy the constraints
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
35
How do you Beat the Curse?
Brute force approach wont work!
Need to be smart
Try only a small subset of all
combinations
Cant guarantee optimality of the
solution
Try to get as close as possible within a
reasonable amount of time
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
36
Main Solution Techniques
Characteristics of a good technique
Solution close to the optimum
Reasonable computing time
Ability to model constraints
Priority list / heuristic approach
Dynamic programming
Lagrangian relaxation
Mixed Integer Programming State of the art
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
37
A Simple Unit Commitment
Example
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
Washington
38
Unit Data
Unit
Pmin
(MW)
Pmax
(MW)
Min
up
(h)
Min
down
(h)
Noload
cost
($)
Marginal
cost
($/MWh)
Startup
cost
($)
Initial
status
150
250
10
1,000
ON
50
100
12
600
OFF
10
50
20
100
OFF
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of Washington
39
Demand Data
Hourly Demand
350
300
250
200
Load
150
100
50
0
1
Hours
Reserve requirements are not considered
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of Washington
40
Feasible Unit Combinations
(states)
Combinations
Pmin
Pmax
210
400
200
350
160
300
150
250
60
150
50
100
10
50
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of Washington
150
300
200
41
Transitions between feasible combinations
1
A B C
1 1 1
1 1 0
1 0 1
1 0 0
Initial State
0 1 1
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of Washington
42
Infeasible transitions: Minimum down time
of unit A
1
A B C
1 1 1
1 1 0
1 0 1
Initial State
1 0 0
0 1 1
TD
TU
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of Washington
43
Infeasible transitions: Minimum up time of
unit B
1
A B C
1 1 1
1 1 0
1 0 1
Initial State
1 0 0
0 1 1
TD
TU
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of Washington
44
Feasible transitions
1
A B C
1 1 1
1 1 0
1 0 1
1 0 0
Initial State
0 1 1
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of Washington
45
Operating costs
1 1 1
1 1 0
1 0 1
1 0 0
1
5
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of Washington
46
Economic dispatch
State
Load
PA
PB
PC
Cost
150
150
1500
300
250
50
3500
300
250
50
3100
300
240
50
10
3200
200
200
2000
200
190
10
2100
200
150
50
2100
Unit
Pmin
Pmax
Noloadcost
Marginalcost
150
250
10
50
100
12
10
50
20
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of Washington
47
Operating costs
1 1 1
4
$3200
1 1 0
1 0 1
1 0 0
3
$3100
7
$2100
2
$3500
6
$2100
1
$1500
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of Washington
5
$2000
48
Start-up costs
1 1 1
4
$3200
1 1 0
$700
$600
1 0 1
$100
1 0 0
$0
1
$1500
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of Washington
3
$3100
$0
$0
7
$2100
$600
$0
2
$3500
6
$2100
$0
Unit
A
Startupcost
B
C
600
100
5
$2000
1000
49
Accumulated costs
$5400
4
$3200
1 1 1
1 1 0
$700
$600
1 0 1
1 0 0
$1500
$0
1
$1500
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of Washington
$100
$5200
3
$3100
$5100
2
$3500
$0
$7300
7
$2100
$7200
6
$2100
$0
$600
$0
$0
$7100
5
$2000
50
Total costs
1 1 1
1 1 0
1 0 1
1 0 0
$7300
7
$7200
6
$7100
5
Lowest total cost
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of Washington
51
Optimal solution
1 1 1
1 1 0
1 0 1
1 0 0
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of Washington
2
$7100
1
52
Notes
This example is intended to illustrate the
principles of unit commitment
Some constraints have been ignored and others
artificially tightened to simplify the problem and
make it solvable by hand
Therefore it does not illustrate the true
complexity of the problem
The solution method used in this example is
based on dynamic programming. This technique
is no longer used in industry because it only
works for small systems (< 20 units)
2011 Daniel Kirschen and the University of
53