[LDES-technology] [LDES-coremodel] Draft abstract for PVSC

Thu Jan 21 17:01:22 PST 2021

I think it looks great!
Something that we could discuss are the factors that are not being
considered (transmission, dispatch, optimal investment, storage params,
etc.), and ways in which we are expanding this work with the modeling
papers. To show the reviewers there's awareness of the limitations and
there are plans/methods on how to address some of these.
This could show a broader picture of our vision, and frame/motivate/support
the papers we are working with Pedro and Martin.

See you tomorrow!

Paty

*Patr**i**cia Hidalgo-Gonzalez*
Assistant Professor, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Director, Renewable Energy + Advanced Mathematics Laboratory
University of California San Diego
REAM Lab website <https://patyhidalgo.github.io>
(Pronouns: She/Her/Hers)

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 1:50 PM Kittner, Noah <kittner at unc.edu> wrote:

> Sounds good – I think the Friday meeting would be great.
>
>
>
> *From: *Sarah Kurtz <skurtz at ucmerced.edu>
> *Date: *Thursday, January 21, 2021 at 11:10 AM
> *To: *Kittner, Noah <kittner at unc.edu>
> *Cc: *Daniel M. KAMMEN <kammen at berkeley.edu>, Kenji Shiraishi <
> kenjis at berkeley.edu>, ldes-coremodel at lists.ucmerced.edu <
> ldes-coremodel at lists.ucmerced.edu>, ldes-technology at lists.ucmerced.edu <
> ldes-technology at lists.ucmerced.edu>
> *Subject: *Re: [LDES-technology] [LDES-coremodel] Draft abstract for PVSC
>
> Hi, Noah,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the useful comments.
>
>
>
> I neglected to give key information:  This abstract is limited to 3 pages.
>
>
>
> You’ve made a lot of good suggestions.  We should talk about how to
> coordinate - maybe at our meeting on Friday?  I haven’t sent the agenda yet
> for that meeting - I have some other questions I’d like to discuss on
> Friday, but we should have time to do both...
>
>
>
> Sarah
>
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2021, at 7:51 AM, Kittner, Noah <kittner at unc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Sarah,
>
>
>
> Thanks – depending on your vision for the paper or other output venues, we
> could add some more detailed information technology options to meet that
> seasonal demand and relate that with the effects of higher/lower efficiency
> of charging/discharging for storage devices – which will impact the amount
> of storage discussed in the paper.
>
>
>
> I have a few comments that I hope may help as well just as friendly
> suggestions – though I’m not sure about the space limitations for the
> methodology in this conference. For instance when using the phrase
> “straightforward approach” the methodology could be communicated a bit more
> clearly as that introduces ambiguity and lacks specificity. My
> understanding is that the analysis uses state-of-charge of
> storage+solar+wind as a way to meet resource adequacy. That could be
> written more explicitly. One question that may emerge where this approach
> differs from others is that solar, wind, and storage are effectively supply
> rather than changing the demand as is done in prior studies. Other minor
> point is does this study define resource adequacy as matching supply with
> demand or having some extra margin? The phrase inadequate resource adequacy
> sounds redundant to me.
>
>
>
> The other area that could be clarified and introduce questions is the
> statement “to simulate the grid of the future, the thermal, imports, and
> nuclear data were replaced with added solar generation.” I think many
> reviewers would want to know about the calculation on how that generation
> is replaced, i.e. on a capacity basis or on a generation basis? How many GW
> of solar to match existing “firm generation?” What is the capacity factor
> of the solar installed? It might help to include the installed solar/wind
> in a table or text. That would greatly influence the storage needed and
> results. It could also add some more specific information on how much solar
> you need to decrease the reservoir from 7.3 TWh to 6 TWh. It could be a
> trivial clarification to explain how much solar is included in these
> scenarios, but would be important so that someone can understand how much
> solar we are talking about and interpret the model.
>
>
>
> Just a few of my thoughts, so given the conference deadline don’t feel
> obligated to answer and maybe some of these questions are off-base, but I
> think some similar issues may come up in an expanded literature version of
> this paper.
>
>
>
> I also have a student that is developing a similar but different load
> duration + screening curve analysis for North Carolina where storage
> manipulates the load – if it would be interesting in the future (which is
> beyond) the code is well suited to read FERC 714 data and could compare
> results with California. That is probably a separate discussion, but could
> be good to compare at some point.
>
>
>
> Noah
>
>
>
> *From: *ldes-technology <ldes-technology-bounces at lists.ucmerced.edu>
> *Date: *Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 5:35 PM
> *To: *Sarah Kurtz <skurtz at ucmerced.edu>, Kenji Shiraishi <
> kenjis at berkeley.edu>
> *Cc: *ldes-coremodel at lists.ucmerced.edu <ldes-coremodel at lists.ucmerced.edu
> >, ldes-technology at lists.ucmerced.edu <ldes-technology at lists.ucmerced.edu>
> *Subject: *Re: [LDES-technology] [LDES-coremodel] Draft abstract for PVSC
>
> Fantastic start.
>
>
>
> Some edits attached, and Kenji and I could work on-shore vs. off-shore
> electricity and H2 integration...
>
>
>
> dan
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:12 PM Sarah Kurtz <skurtz at ucmerced.edu> wrote:
>
> Here is a draft of an abstract that Abido has been working on for
> submission to the PVSC. We welcome your comments. We are trying to decide
> who should be on the author list - if you would like to be listed as an
> author, please let us know along with what contributions you would like to
> make as we take this toward the final paper. We plan to submit a longer
> paper to a peer-reviewed journal while keeping a short paper in the PVSC
> proceedings.  Please return your comments by Jan. 24. sorry for the short
> turn around - if you need more time, we may be able to submit a revised
> version a little later.
>
>
>
> Sarah
>
> _______________________________________________
> LDES-coremodel mailing list
> LDES-coremodel at lists.ucmerced.edu
> https://lists.ucmerced.edu/mailman/listinfo/ldes-coremodel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LDES-coremodel mailing list
> LDES-coremodel at lists.ucmerced.edu
> https://lists.ucmerced.edu/mailman/listinfo/ldes-coremodel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucmerced.edu/pipermail/ldes-technology/attachments/20210121/0788ed71/attachment.html>