4.7 Article

Large blackouts in North America: Historical trends and policy implications

期刊

ENERGY POLICY
卷 37, 期 12, 页码 5249-5259

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.049

关键词

Electricity reliability; Power system blackouts; Cascading failures

资金

  1. DOE Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
  2. RDS [DE-AC26-04NT41817]
  3. National Science Foundation [ECCS-0848247]
  4. US National Science Foundation [SES0345798, CNS-0428404]
  5. Div Of Electrical, Commun & Cyber Sys
  6. Directorate For Engineering [0848247] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using data from the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) for 1984-2006, we find several trends. We find that the frequency of large blackouts in the United States has not decreased over time, that there is a statistically significant increase in blackout frequency during peak hours of the day and during late summer and mid-winter months (although non-storm-related risk is nearly constant through the year) and that there is strong statistical support for the previously observed power-law statistical relationship between blackout size and frequency. We do not find that blackout sizes and blackout durations are significantly correlated. These trends hold even after controlling for increasing demand and population and after eliminating small events, for which the data may be skewed by spotty reporting. Trends in blackout occurrences, such as those observed in the North American data, have important implications for those who make investment and policy decisions in the electricity industry. We provide a number of examples that illustrate how these trends can inform benefit-cost analysis calculations. Also, following procedures used in natural disaster planning we use the observed statistical trends to calculate the size of the 100-year blackout, which for North America is 186,000 MW. (C) 2009 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