The figure shows the breakdown of how short-term (STS), medium-term (MTS), and long-term (LTS) scheduling models are organized and communicate with each other in the three classified toolchains.
As a result of the comparison, three different toolchains operational planning were classified: Centralized (Brazil), decentralized (Norway/Nordic) and multi-purpose (CRS in the US). The comparison was also used to identify several research challenges that are common to the three systems. These are described in more detail in the published article from the study.
The study points to several similarities between the toolchains for hydropower scheduling in Norway and Brazil, despite significant differences in market conditions. The model chain for CRS in the US, on the other hand, differs from the other two, mostly because the operational planning here considers that the water has several other uses than just energy production.
Useful for the development of future methods
The classification made in the study gives a good insight into the organization of hydropower scheduling and can be useful for seeing which methods and model links are used to solve different challenges. As a result, this can make it easier to anchor further research when it comes to the development and use of new models and methods in the future.