In: Statistics and Probability
Aggie Power Generation supplies electrical power to residential customers for many U.S. cities. Its main power generation plants are located in Los Angeles, Tulsa, and Seattle. The following table shows Aggie Power Generation's major residential markets, the annual demand in each market (in megawatts or MW), and the cost to supply electricity to each market from each power generation plant (in $/MW).
City | Distribution Costs ($/MW) | Demand (MW) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Los AngelesL | TulsaT | SeattleS | ||
Seattle1 | 356.25 | 593.75 | 59.38 | 950.00 |
Portland2 | 356.25 | 593.75 | 178.13 | 831.25 |
San Francisco3 | 178.13 | 475.00 | 296.88 | 2,375.00 |
Boise4 | 356.25 | 475.00 | 296.88 | 593.75 |
Reno5 | 237.50 | 475.00 | 356.25 | 950.00 |
Bozeman6 | 415.63 | 415.63 | 296.88 | 593.75 |
Laramie7 | 356.25 | 415.63 | 356.25 | 1,187.50 |
Park City8 | 356.25 | 356.25 | 475.00 | 712.50 |
Flagstaff9 | 178.13 | 475.00 | 593.75 | 1,187.50 |
Durango10 | 356.25 | 296.88 | 593.75 | 1,543.75 |
(a)
If there are no restrictions on the amount of power that can be supplied by any of the power plants, what is the optimal solution to this problem?
(i)
Which cities should be supplied by which power plants? (Enter your optimal solution as a comma-separated list of ordered triples for the amount of power each power plant supplies to each city. Report electrical power in MW.)
(L1, T1, S1), (L2, T2, S2), …, (L10, T10, S10) =
(ii)
What is the total annual power distribution cost for this solution? (Round your answer to the nearest whole dollar.)
$
(b)
If at most 4,000 MW of power can be supplied by any one of the power plants, what is the optimal solution? (Enter your optimal solution as a comma-separated list of ordered triples for the amount of power each power plant supplies to each city. Report electrical power in MW. Round your answers to two decimal places.)
(L1, T1, S1), (L2, T2, S2), …, (L10, T10, S10) =
What is the annual increase in power distribution cost that results from adding these constraints to the original formulation? (Round your answer to the nearest whole dollar.)
$
Given the following data
City | Los Angeles(($/MW) | Tulsa T($/MW) | Seattle($/MW) | Demand(MW) |
Seattle 1 | 356.25 | 593.75 | 59.38 | 950 |
Portland 2 | 356.25 | 593.75 | 178.13 | 831.25 |
San Fransisco | 178.13 | 475 | 296.88 | 2375 |
Boise 4 | 356.25 | 475 | 296.88 | 593.75 |
Reno5 | 237.5 | 475 | 356.25 | 950 |
Bozeman 6 | 415.63 | 415.63 | 296.88 | 593.75 |
Laramie 7 | 356.25 | 415.63 | 356.25 | 1187.5 |
Park City 8 | 356.25 | 356.25 | 475 | 712.5 |
Flagstaff 9 | 178.13 | 475 | 593.75 | 1187.5 |
Durango 10 | 356.25 | 296.88 | 593.75 | 1543.75 |
a)
If there are no restrictions on the amount of power that can be supplied by any of the power plants. Then The optimal solution will be based on the minimum cost of supply among the three power station.
i.e The station from where the cost of supply is least will be selected.
City | Los Angeles(($/MW) | Tulsa T($/MW) | Seattle($/MW) | Demand(MW) | Minimum Cost Electricity supply($/MW) |
Seattle 1 | 356.25 | 593.75 | 59.38 | 950 | 59.38 |
Portland 2 | 356.25 | 593.75 | 178.13 | 831.25 | 178.13 |
San Fransisco | 178.13 | 475 | 296.88 | 2375 | 178.13 |
Boise 4 | 356.25 | 475 | 296.88 | 593.75 | 296.88 |
Reno5 | 237.5 | 475 | 356.25 | 950 | 237.5 |
Bozeman 6 | 415.63 | 415.63 | 296.88 | 593.75 | 296.88 |
Laramie 7 | 356.25 | 415.63 | 356.25 | 1187.5 | 356.25 |
Park City 8 | 356.25 | 356.25 | 475 | 712.5 | 356.25 |
Flagstaff 9 | 178.13 | 475 | 593.75 | 1187.5 | 178.13 |
Durango 10 | 356.25 | 296.88 | 593.75 | 1543.75 | 296.88 |
Hence the optimal solution
City | Minimum Cost Electricity supply($/MW) | Power Generation Plant |
Seattle 1 | 59.38 | SeattleS |
Portland 2 | 178.13 | SeattleS |
San Fransisco | 178.13 | Los AngelesL |
Boise 4 | 296.88 | SeattleS |
Reno5 | 237.5 | Los AngelesL |
Bozeman 6 | 296.88 | SeattleS |
Laramie 7 | 356.25 | Los AngelesL/SeattleS |
Park City 8 | 356.25 | Los AngelesL/TulsaT |
Flagstaff 9 | 178.13 | Los AngelesL |
Durango 10 | 296.88 | TulsaT |
i) City Supply paatern if the sypply is not a constraint
{(0,0,950),(0,0,831.25),(2375,0,0),(0,0,593.75),(950,0,0),(0,0,593.75),(593.75,0,593.75),(356.25,356.25,0),(1187.5,0,0),(0,1543.75,0)}
II) total annual power distribution cost for this solution= Cost of Electricity Supply * Demand
=950*59.38+831.25*178.13+......+1543.75*296.88
=$ 2552423
b)
If the power supply constraint is =4000MW
This is the optimization problem where we will try to minimize the total cost
Minimization function = Cost of supply from ith Plant * Power supplied to the jth City
i=1,2,3
j= 1to 10
Constraints
Demand for each city is given
So total Supply from each plant for a city is fixed
i.e Supply for Seattle = SLos-Seatle +STulsa-Seatle+SSeattle-Seatle= 950
Supply for Port land = SLos-Portland +STulsa-Portland+SSeattle-Portland= 831.25
Similarly we can list all the supply to the demand
Also
Sum of all supplies to the city from each plant <=4000
i.e
SLos-Seatle+SLos-Portland+.........<=4000
Supply cost table
City | Los Angeles(($/MW) | Tulsa T($/MW) | Seattle($/MW) | Demand(MW) |
Seattle 1 | 356.25 | 593.75 | 59.38 | 950 |
Portland 2 | 356.25 | 593.75 | 178.13 | 831.25 |
San Fransisco | 178.13 | 475 | 296.88 | 2375 |
Boise 4 | 356.25 | 475 | 296.88 | 593.75 |
Reno5 | 237.5 | 475 | 356.25 | 950 |
Bozeman 6 | 415.63 | 415.63 | 296.88 | 593.75 |
Laramie 7 | 356.25 | 415.63 | 356.25 | 1187.5 |
Park City 8 | 356.25 | 356.25 | 475 | 712.5 |
Flagstaff 9 | 178.13 | 475 | 593.75 | 1187.5 |
Durango 10 | 356.25 | 296.88 | 593.75 | 1543.75 |
Optimized Supply Table
City | Los Angeles((MW) | Tulsa T(MW) | Seattle(MW) | Sum |
Seattle 1 | 0 | 0 | 950 | 950 |
Portland 2 | 0 | 0 | 831.25 | 831.25 |
San Fransisco | 2066.721127 | 0 | 308.2788735 | 2375.000001 |
Boise 4 | 0 | 0 | 593.75 | 593.75 |
Reno5 | 745.7788727 | 0 | 204.2211273 | 950 |
Bozeman 6 | 3.55271E-15 | 7.10543E-15 | 593.75 | 593.75 |
Laramie 7 | 0 | 668.7500008 | 518.7499992 | 1187.5 |
Park City 8 | 0 | 712.5 | 0 | 712.5 |
Flagstaff 9 | 1187.5 | 0 | 0 | 1187.5 |
Durango 10 | 0 | 1543.75 | 0 | 1543.75 |
Total Sum | 4000 | 2925.000001 | 4000 |
Cost Table
Seattle 1 | 0 | 0 | 56411 |
Portland 2 | 0 | 0 | 148070.5625 |
San Fransisco | 368145.0344 | 0 | 91521.83197 |
Boise 4 | 0 | 0 | 176272.5 |
Reno5 | 177122.4823 | 0 | 72753.77661 |
Bozeman 6 | 1.47661E-12 | 2.95323E-12 | 176272.5 |
Laramie 7 | 0 | 277952.5628 | 184804.6872 |
Park City 8 | 0 | 253828.125 | 0 |
Flagstaff 9 | 211529.375 | 0 | 0 |
Durango 10 | 0 | 458308.5 | 0 |
Total Cost | 2652992.938 |
Optimal Solution
{(0,0,950),(0,0,831.25),(2066.72,0,308.27),(0,0,593.75),(745.78,0,204.22),(0,0,593.75),(0,668.75,518.75),(0,712.5,0),(1187.5,0,0),(0,1543.75,0)}
ii)
Now the Total cost = $2652993
Earlier Cost= $2552423
Difference=$100570
Increase=(New-Earlier)*100/Earlier
3.94% equivalent to 4%