Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:51 pm
QUOTE(Fapper @ Oct 26 2006, 12:10 PM) CDR!!!!!! "Simple" factorials that's a new term? you better pray to your God to make that true "32!=528"
yes, simple factorials, for excel compared to my general workload. hehe
you should see some of the hard stuff we do. Like this:
-----------
You have 183 power schedulings from New York, each lasting 1 hour, all scheduled through the Midwest Independent System Operator (MISO) on the same day, and from there onto California, where you are going to help serve base load for California, and get alternative energy emissions credits for the wind farms you just bought. There are four open control areas to deliver the power, and every one of the 390 participants in the MISO region have available capacity storage to prevent congestion. How can you arrange 183 schedulings through four control areas, composed of 12 plants and two transmission specialists, while minimalizing capacity payments to the owners of those plants (the payment to store your energy while the lines are "full"), and keep energy loss below 3.2% (stored energy bleeds out of the capacitors).
AND also, don't forget to make sure that your own production for these orders doesn't exceed the general capacity of the three plants you have in New York, or amp their emissions to where Environmental regulations are violated.
(The answer is rather simple) buy the power locally, and offer the offset of the ancillaries to the counterparty in order for them to serve your load to the local grid, take the power you normally bring in for local energy comissions, and serve the special orders.
your profit stays acceptable to federal oversight and standard market practices, all the while making sure you don't burn anymore fuel than the Dept of Energy will allow (which was an unseen cost in this equation, at first glance), and your emissions credits with the EPA are not compromised.
And so, of the 390 participants in that market, who is available for that daily scheduling, and which is most cost effective? (The answer is generally the person who owes you the most through net total and interest, as this will just offset the month end reconciliation you recieve from them at the end of the month, aside from daily accruals.)
-----------------
So, in the case of the Midwest, this would be anyone who has purchased actual plant level assets from the company on installment, and in the case of multiple purchases outstanding the one with the lowest interest rate or highest balance, accordingly.
-----------------
i.e. if you need a ride from someone in order to get to work. call the guy who still owes you for the car you sold him, that he is paying off in installments, and offest the vehicle price by the gas money he would normally ask you for. that works better than paying him for the gas, and still waiting for full payment on the car.
but then someone really has to ask "is it really cheaper in terms of cost effect to schedule them all with third-parties?" and at that point, you have to evaluate each of the 183 schedulings, with and without any or all of the rest, and evaluate the variances due to at least three conflicting weather conditions and other process indicators. and they want the answer from you in 45 minutes...
Omnia est Sum,
Ch
BTW: in a world of 100 people, not a damn one of them could be a Sr energy settlement coordinator...
yes, simple factorials, for excel compared to my general workload. hehe
you should see some of the hard stuff we do. Like this:
-----------
You have 183 power schedulings from New York, each lasting 1 hour, all scheduled through the Midwest Independent System Operator (MISO) on the same day, and from there onto California, where you are going to help serve base load for California, and get alternative energy emissions credits for the wind farms you just bought. There are four open control areas to deliver the power, and every one of the 390 participants in the MISO region have available capacity storage to prevent congestion. How can you arrange 183 schedulings through four control areas, composed of 12 plants and two transmission specialists, while minimalizing capacity payments to the owners of those plants (the payment to store your energy while the lines are "full"), and keep energy loss below 3.2% (stored energy bleeds out of the capacitors).
AND also, don't forget to make sure that your own production for these orders doesn't exceed the general capacity of the three plants you have in New York, or amp their emissions to where Environmental regulations are violated.
(The answer is rather simple) buy the power locally, and offer the offset of the ancillaries to the counterparty in order for them to serve your load to the local grid, take the power you normally bring in for local energy comissions, and serve the special orders.
your profit stays acceptable to federal oversight and standard market practices, all the while making sure you don't burn anymore fuel than the Dept of Energy will allow (which was an unseen cost in this equation, at first glance), and your emissions credits with the EPA are not compromised.
And so, of the 390 participants in that market, who is available for that daily scheduling, and which is most cost effective? (The answer is generally the person who owes you the most through net total and interest, as this will just offset the month end reconciliation you recieve from them at the end of the month, aside from daily accruals.)
-----------------
So, in the case of the Midwest, this would be anyone who has purchased actual plant level assets from the company on installment, and in the case of multiple purchases outstanding the one with the lowest interest rate or highest balance, accordingly.
-----------------
i.e. if you need a ride from someone in order to get to work. call the guy who still owes you for the car you sold him, that he is paying off in installments, and offest the vehicle price by the gas money he would normally ask you for. that works better than paying him for the gas, and still waiting for full payment on the car.
but then someone really has to ask "is it really cheaper in terms of cost effect to schedule them all with third-parties?" and at that point, you have to evaluate each of the 183 schedulings, with and without any or all of the rest, and evaluate the variances due to at least three conflicting weather conditions and other process indicators. and they want the answer from you in 45 minutes...
Omnia est Sum,
Ch
BTW: in a world of 100 people, not a damn one of them could be a Sr energy settlement coordinator...