On the Selection of Intermediate Length Representative Periods for Capacity Expansion (2401.02888v1)
Abstract: As the decarbonization of power systems accelerates, there has been increasing interest in capacity expansion models for their role in guiding this transition. Representative period selection is an important component of capacity expansion modeling, enabling computational tractability of optimization while ensuring fidelity between the representative periods and the full year. However, little attention has been devoted to selecting representative periods longer than a single day. This prevents the capacity expansion model from directly simulating interday energy sharing, which is of key importance as energy generation becomes more variable and storage more important. To this end, we propose a novel method for selecting representative periods of any length. The method is validated using a capacity expansion model and production cost model based on California's decarbonization goals. We demonstrate that the representative period length has a substantial impact in the results of the capacity expansion investment plan.
- L. Gill, A. Gutierrez, and T. Weeks, “2021 SB 100 joint agency report: Achieving 100 percent clean electricity in California: An initial assessment,” tech. rep., California Energy Commission, 2021.
- H. Teichgraeber and A. R. Brandt, “Clustering methods to find representative periods for the optimization of energy systems: An initial framework and comparison,” Appl. Energy, vol. 239, pp. 1283–1293, 2019.
- S. Pfenninger, “Dealing with multiple decades of hourly wind and PV time series in energy models: A comparison of methods to reduce time resolution and the planning implications of inter-annual variability,” Appl. Energy, vol. 197, pp. 1–13, 2017.
- W. W. Tso, C. D. Demirhan, C. F. Heuberger, J. B. Powell, and E. N. Pistikopoulos, “A hierarchical clustering decomposition algorithm for optimizing renewable power systems with storage,” Appl. Energy, vol. 270, p. 115190, 2020.
- Y. Liu, R. Sioshansi, and A. J. Conejo, “Hierarchical clustering to find representative operating periods for capacity-expansion modeling,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 3029–3039, 2018.
- D. A. Tejada-Arango, M. Domeshek, S. Wogrin, and E. Centeno, “Enhanced representative days and system states modeling for energy storage investment analysis,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 6534–6544, 2018.
- S. Pineda and J. M. Morales, “Chronological time-period clustering for optimal capacity expansion planning with storage,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 7162–7170, 2018.
- E. Keogh, J. Lin, and W. Truppel, “Clustering of time series subsequences is meaningless: implications for previous and future research,” in Third IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, pp. 115–122, 2003.
- S. Imani, F. Madrid, W. Ding, S. Crouter, and E. Keogh, “Matrix profile XIII: Time series snippets: A new primitive for time series data mining,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Knowledge (ICBK), pp. 382–389, 2018.
- S. Gharghabi, S. Imani, A. Bagnall, A. Darvishzadeh, and E. Keogh, “Matrix profile XII: Mpdist: A novel time series distance measure to allow data mining in more challenging scenarios,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), pp. 965–970, 2018.
- C.-C. M. Yeh, Y. Zhu, L. Ulanova, N. Begum, Y. Ding, H. A. Dau, D. F. Silva, A. Mueen, and E. Keogh, “Matrix profile I: All pairs similarity joins for time series: A unifying view that includes motifs, discords and shapelets,” in 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), pp. 1317–1322, 2016.
- Energy + Environmental Economics, “Inputs & Assumptions: 2019-2020 Integrated Resource Planning ,” 2019.
- O. Anderson, N. Yu, and M. Bragin, “Optimize deep decarbonization pathways in california with power system planning using surrogate level-based lagrangian relaxation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.07202, 2023.