1 / 17

Hydro Data Update

Hydro Data Update. Hydro Data sets. 2022 – Complete 2011/High hydro case used some scaled monthly generation values due to incomplete EIA data 2010 Model Case – Complete, initial runs and validating in progress

marlo
Télécharger la présentation

Hydro Data Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Hydro Data Update

  2. Hydro Data sets • 2022 – Complete • 2011/High hydro case used some scaled monthly generation values due to incomplete EIA data • 2010 Model Case – Complete, initial runs and validating in progress • 2010 HD Comparison Case – Initial data sets complete, may revise based on lack of confidence in RC data for some plants

  3. 2011 Monthly Net scaling • Missing monthly energies for many plants • Calculated scaling factors for each plant based on the 2011 EIA data that was available (large plants) and 2005 EIA data for the same plants • Calculated scaling factors based on 2011 and 2005 unregulated flows for large rivers in each region for comparison

  4. Flow/Generation Comparison

  5. Flow/Generation Comparison

  6. Summary • Makes sense to use the generation scaling factors • Average regional scaling factor • Heavily favors large plants in NW and East, since that was the EIA data available • East 2001 Anomaly?

  7. 2011 Scaling Factors

  8. 2010 Model Case Results • NW - HTC Validation satisfactory • Monthly energies agree with input energy • Differ from PLF • Have higher standard deviation than PLF • Compare well with historical shapes - from a source mix of COE and RC

  9. 2010 Model Case Results • CA - HTC Validation satisfactory • Monthly energies agree with input energy • Differ from PLF • Have higher standard deviation than PLF • Large plants compare well with historical shapes, smaller plants don’t - from a source of mostly RC with some PAC and aggregate-derived shapes • Need to revise some plants ‘ flexibility

  10. Flexibility Adjustments

  11. 2010 Model Case Results • East - HTC Validation satisfactory • Monthly energies agree with input energy • Differ from PLF • Have higher standard deviation than PLF • Compare well with historical shapes - from source WAPA

  12. Regional Energy

  13. Regional Energies

  14. Items for Thought • Make flexibility adjustments? • EIA data unreliable? • More sources for monthly energy data? • CEC, etc. • Metrics for comparing 2010 model case to 2010 datacentric case

  15. Extra slides

More Related