4.7 Article

Adequacy of time-series reduction for renewable energy systems

期刊

ENERGY
卷 238, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.121701

关键词

Time-series reduction; Macro-energy systems; Open access modeling; Renewable energy; Power storage

资金

  1. European Union [773406]
  2. German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy under the project acronym LKD-EU [FKZ 03 ET4028C]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The adequacy of time-series reduction depends on the length of the reduced time-series and how it is implemented into the model. Implementing the time-series as a chronological sequence with re-scaled time-steps prevents loss of load best, but results in overestimation of system costs for seasonal storage. Grouped periods require more time to solve for the same number of time-steps compared to chronological sequences.
To reduce computational complexity, macro-energy system models commonly implement reduced time series data. For renewable energy systems dependent on seasonal storage and characterized by intermittent renewables, like wind and solar, adequacy of time-series reduction is in question. Using a capacity expansion model, we evaluate different methods for creating and implementing reduced time series regarding loss of load and system costs. Results show that adequacy greatly depends on the length of the reduced time-series and how it is implemented into the model. Implementation as a chronological sequence with re-scaled time-steps prevents loss of load best but imposes a positive bias on seasonal storage resulting in an overestimation of system costs. Compared to chronological sequences, grouped periods require more time so solve for the same number of time-steps, because the approach requires additional variables and constraints. Overall, results suggest further efforts to improve time series reduction and other methods for reducing computational complexity. (c) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据