Reformulating a simple cost function - combining 2 variables

bradyj7
Messages
117
Reaction score
0
Hi there,

I have an equation below for the cost of energy for a house per hour. The house has an energy storage system (i.e.a very large battery) installed. You can charge the battery up and energy from the battery can be used to power the building. For example you can charge the battery when electricity prices are low and then you can use the energy in the battery to supply energy to the building when electricity prices are high so that the building does not have to purchase electricity at expensive times.

The equation is written in terms of the price of electricity, the energy consumed, efficiency constant and the variables energy_in and energy_out of the battery.

c(t) = Price(t) * (Energy_consumed(t) - eff*Energy_out + (1/eff)*Energy_out)

In a single hour energy can only enter of or be discharged from the battery. Therefore, when energy_in is positive, energy_out will always be zero and vice versa. You'll notice that this equation is written in terms of energy_in and energy_out, both variables can only be positive.

My question is as follows: I'd like to reformulate the equation to be only written in terms of the variable "energy" instead of as it is currently with energy_in and nergy_out. The new variable will be >0 when energy is discharged (out) and <0 when it is charged (in).

I was hoping if somebody could tell me if this possible?

Thank you for reading this.

Sincerely
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
bradyj7 said:
Hi there,

I have an equation below for the cost of energy for a house per hour. The house has an energy storage system (i.e.a very large battery) installed. You can charge the battery up and energy from the battery can be used to power the building. For example you can charge the battery when electricity prices are low and then you can use the energy in the battery to supply energy to the building when electricity prices are high so that the building does not have to purchase electricity at expensive times.

The equation is written in terms of the price of electricity, the energy consumed, efficiency constant and the variables energy_in and energy_out of the battery.

c(t) = Price(t) * (Energy_consumed(t) - eff*Energy_out + (1/eff)*Energy_out)

In a single hour energy can only enter of or be discharged from the battery. Therefore, when energy_in is positive, energy_out will always be zero and vice versa. You'll notice that this equation is written in terms of energy_in and energy_out, both variables can only be positive.

My question is as follows: I'd like to reformulate the equation to be only written in terms of the variable "energy" instead of as it is currently with energy_in and energy_out. The new variable will be >0 when energy is discharged (out) and <0 when it is charged (in).

I was hoping if somebody could tell me if this possible?
Sure, you can write the definition of the function using cases.
$$c(t) = \begin{cases} \text{Price(t)} * (\text{E}_{\text{ext}}(t) -\text{eff} * \text{E}_{\text{batt}}) & \text{if E}_{\text{batt}} \ge 0 \\
\text{Price(t)} * (\text{E}_{\text{ext}}(t) + \frac 1 {\text{eff}} * \text{E}_{\text{batt}}) & \text{if E}_{\text{batt}} \lt 0 \end{cases}$$

For the sake of simplifying the equation, I replaced Energy_consumed by Eext, and Energy by Ebatt.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top