nikhilgupta10
commented
8 years ago nikhilgupta10 imported these comments from Sourceforge: The user dchassin does not exist anymore. Therefore assigning this to afisher1. "dchassin":Some important data for scaling load shapes from 1990 ELCAP to 2010:
// pu.kW pu.kW
// End use EF change 1990 2010
// --------------- ---------- ------ ------
// Refrigerator 207% 1.00 0.33
// Dishwasher 114% 1.00 0.47
// Clotheswasher 102% 1.00 0.50
// Freezer 65% 1.00 0.61
// Air conditioner 46% 1.00 0.68
// -------------------------------------------
// Source: American Enterprise Institute, 2014
~~~~~,
"dchassin":- **status**: new --> accepted
- **Milestone**: Version 3.1 Stable --> Knothole Interim
,
"dchassin":Another important aspect of this that is not well understood by users is that the analog loadshapes are only valid for aggregate load models. For individual loads they are wrong in the sense that they only provide the average load at any given time and do not accurately represent more realistic instantaneous loads that are observed in reality.
This is related to ticket:799.,
"dchassin":With the exception of including the new RBSA data, the problem of updating loadshapes and enduses is not going to get addressed before the knothole.,
"dchassin":- **Milestone**: Knothole Interim --> Version 4.0 RC1
,
The load shapes are based on ELCAP data which is given in kWh/h. Therefore the power should be 1 kW (or energy 1 kWh) for 1 hour analog samples given no improvement in efficiency relative to the original ELCAP data. If an improvement in efficiency is desired (which is recommended for many appliances) then lower powers should be used, e.g., 800 W for a 20% improvement. If an increase is enduse demand is desired (which is possible for things like plugs), then higher powers should be used, e.g., 1200 W for a 20% increase.,