Impact of forecasting on energy system optimization

IF 13 Q1 ENERGY & FUELS
Florian Peterssen , Marlon Schlemminger , Clemens Lohr , Raphael Niepelt , Richard Hanke-Rauschenbach , Rolf Brendel
{"title":"Impact of forecasting on energy system optimization","authors":"Florian Peterssen ,&nbsp;Marlon Schlemminger ,&nbsp;Clemens Lohr ,&nbsp;Raphael Niepelt ,&nbsp;Richard Hanke-Rauschenbach ,&nbsp;Rolf Brendel","doi":"10.1016/j.adapen.2024.100181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Linear programs are frequently employed to optimize national energy system models, which are used to find a minimum-cost energy system. For the operation, they assume perfect forecasting of the weather and demands over the whole optimization horizon and can therefore perfectly fit the energy systems’ design and operation. Therefore, they will yield lower costs than any real energy system that only has partial forecasting available. We compare linear programming with a priority list, a heuristic operation strategy which uses no forecasting at all, in a model of a climate-neutral German energy system. We find a 28% more expensive energy system under the priority list. Optimizing the same energy system model with both strategies envelopes the cost and design of any energy system that has partial forecasting. We demonstrate this by incorporating some rudimentary forecasting into a modified priority list, which actually reduces the gap to 22%. This is thus an approach to find an upper bound for how much a linear program possibly underestimates the costs of a real energy system in Germany in regard to imperfect forecasting. We also find that the two approaches differ mainly in the dimensioning and operation of energy storage. The priority list yields 63% less batteries, 73% less thermal storage and 54% more hydrogen storage. The use of renewables and other components in the system is very similar.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34615,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Applied Energy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":13.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666792424000192/pdfft?md5=fbba7e83b4274182667c200c1582b508&pid=1-s2.0-S2666792424000192-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Applied Energy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666792424000192","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Linear programs are frequently employed to optimize national energy system models, which are used to find a minimum-cost energy system. For the operation, they assume perfect forecasting of the weather and demands over the whole optimization horizon and can therefore perfectly fit the energy systems’ design and operation. Therefore, they will yield lower costs than any real energy system that only has partial forecasting available. We compare linear programming with a priority list, a heuristic operation strategy which uses no forecasting at all, in a model of a climate-neutral German energy system. We find a 28% more expensive energy system under the priority list. Optimizing the same energy system model with both strategies envelopes the cost and design of any energy system that has partial forecasting. We demonstrate this by incorporating some rudimentary forecasting into a modified priority list, which actually reduces the gap to 22%. This is thus an approach to find an upper bound for how much a linear program possibly underestimates the costs of a real energy system in Germany in regard to imperfect forecasting. We also find that the two approaches differ mainly in the dimensioning and operation of energy storage. The priority list yields 63% less batteries, 73% less thermal storage and 54% more hydrogen storage. The use of renewables and other components in the system is very similar.

预测对能源系统优化的影响
线性程序经常被用于优化国家能源系统模型,以找到成本最低的能源系统。在运行过程中,它们假定在整个优化范围内对天气和需求都有完美的预测,因此可以完美地适应能源系统的设计和运行。因此,它们所产生的成本将低于任何只有部分预测功能的实际能源系统。在一个气候中和的德国能源系统模型中,我们比较了线性规划和优先列表(一种完全不使用预测的启发式运行策略)。我们发现,优先级列表下的能源系统成本要高出 28%。使用这两种策略对同一能源系统模型进行优化后,任何采用部分预测的能源系统的成本和设计都会大打折扣。我们通过在修改后的优先级列表中加入一些基本预测来证明这一点,这实际上将差距缩小到了 22%。因此,我们可以通过这种方法,找到线性规划在不完全预测的情况下可能低估德国实际能源系统成本的上限。我们还发现,这两种方法主要在储能的尺寸和操作方面存在差异。优先列表中的电池数量减少了 63%,热存储减少了 73%,氢存储增加了 54%。系统中可再生能源和其他组件的使用情况非常相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Advances in Applied Energy
Advances in Applied Energy Energy-General Energy
CiteScore
23.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
审稿时长
21 days
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信