A distributed photovoltaic power station operation state evaluation method and evaluation system

Abstract

This invention discloses a method and system for evaluating the operational status of a distributed photovoltaic (PV) power station. The method includes: decomposing evaluation indicators based on the evaluation objectives of the power station's operational status and setting scoring thresholds and directions for each indicator to construct an operational status evaluation system for the distributed PV power station; acquiring actual operational data of the power station; performing standardized preprocessing on the actual operational data to obtain standardized operational scores that conform to the operational status evaluation system; calculating the weight of each scoring indicator; performing weighted fusion calculation based on the scoring indicator weights and the standardized operational scores to obtain a comprehensive evaluation total score for the power station; comparing the comprehensive evaluation total score with a preset operational status level; classifying the actual operational status level of the power station based on the comparison results; and generating an operational status evaluation result for the power station. This method offers the advantages of multi-dimensional comprehensive evaluation and accurate quantification of the power station's operational status.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the technical field of power plant operation evaluation, and in particular to a method and system for evaluating the operation status of distributed photovoltaic power plants. Background Technology

[0002] Currently, with the deepening of the "dual carbon" goal and the acceleration of the construction of new power systems, distributed photovoltaics has become a core component of the new power group's energy transformation and terminal business layout.

[0003] Distributed photovoltaic power stations are characterized by small individual capacity, large number, scattered geographical locations, complex operating environment, and close coupling with load. Their operating status is affected by multiple factors such as solar resources, equipment performance, operation and maintenance level, and power grid environment. Traditional operation and maintenance management models mainly rely on manual inspection and single power index assessment, which have prominent problems such as one-sided evaluation dimensions, lagging status perception, and insufficient decision support, making it difficult to achieve lean operation of assets and maximize value. Summary of the Invention

[0004] To address the problems of one-sided evaluation dimensions, lagging status perception, and insufficient decision support in existing technologies, this application provides a method and system for evaluating the operational status of distributed photovoltaic power plants. This system can accurately profile the health of distributed photovoltaic power plants throughout their entire lifecycle, from "planning blueprint" to "operational reality." It not only provides core decision-making tools for post-planning evaluation, operation and maintenance strategy formulation, and resource optimization, but also lays a solid technical foundation for value-added business development in the distributed energy field, such as investment risk assessment, asset performance benchmarking, and electricity market services.

[0005] Firstly, the above-mentioned inventive objective of this application is achieved through the following technical solution: A method for evaluating the operational status of a distributed photovoltaic power station, the method comprising: Based on the evaluation objectives of power plant operation status, the evaluation indicators are decomposed and a scoring threshold and scoring direction are set for each evaluation indicator to construct an operation status evaluation system for distributed photovoltaic power plants. Obtain actual operating data of the power plant, perform standardized preprocessing on the actual operating data, and obtain an operating standardized score that conforms to the operating status evaluation system; Calculate the weight of each scoring indicator, and perform a weighted fusion calculation based on the weight of the scoring indicator and the standardized operation score to obtain the overall evaluation score of the power station; The overall evaluation score is compared with the preset operating status level. Based on the comparison result, the actual operating status level of the power station is divided, and the operating status evaluation result of the power station is generated.

[0006] In a preferred embodiment, this application can be further configured as follows: the evaluation index decomposition based on the power plant operation status evaluation target and the setting of a scoring threshold and scoring direction for each evaluation index to construct an operation status evaluation system for distributed photovoltaic power plants specifically includes: The evaluation targets for the power plant's operational status are decomposed into multi-dimensional evaluation indicators, resulting in the decomposition of multiple evaluation indicators for each dimension. Based on the decomposition results of the multiple evaluation indicators, combined with the power plant's historical operating data and industry standards, a scoring threshold is set for each evaluation indicator, and the scoring direction is limited based on the indicator's performance characteristics, thereby constructing a power plant operation status evaluation system.

[0007] In a preferred embodiment, this application can be further configured as follows: acquiring actual operating data of the power plant, performing standardized preprocessing on the actual operating data, and obtaining an operating standardized score that conforms to the operating status evaluation system, specifically includes: Evaluation indicators are assigned according to the data type of the actual operating data. Based on the evaluation indicator assignment results, the actual operating data is converted into a standardized operating score that conforms to the operating status evaluation system. The calculation expression for the standardized operating score is as follows: (1) in, Indicates the first The standardized score of each indicator. Indicates the first The actual measured values ​​of each indicator are obtained from actual operational data. They represent the first The upper and lower thresholds for each indicator.

[0008] In a preferred embodiment, this application can be further configured as follows: the calculation of the weight of each scoring indicator, and the weighted fusion calculation based on the scoring indicator weights and the operational standardization score to obtain the overall evaluation score of the power station, specifically includes: Calculate the weight of each rating indicator, and calculate the weighted score for all rating indicators of the same rating dimension to obtain the weighted score for the rating dimension. A comprehensive scoring weight allocation is performed for each scoring dimension, and the weighted score of each scoring dimension is weighted and fused with the comprehensive scoring weight to obtain the total comprehensive evaluation score of the power station.

[0009] In a preferred embodiment, this application can be further configured as follows: calculating the weight of each rating indicator and performing a weighted score calculation on all rating indicators of the same rating dimension to obtain a weighted score for the rating dimension specifically includes: The weight of each scoring indicator is calculated using formula (2), which is shown below: (2) in, For the first The weight vector after normalization of each indicator; Represents the judgment matrix The order of; Indicates the first The unnormalized eigenvector components corresponding to each indicator; Weighted scores are calculated for all rating indicators within the same rating dimension to obtain a weighted score for each rating dimension. The calculation expression for the weighted score is as follows: (3) in, , , These represent the scores for the planning objective adaptability dimension, the safe operation reliability dimension, and the value function realization dimension, respectively. Indicates the first The standardized score of each indicator.

[0010] In a preferred embodiment, this application can be further configured as follows: the calculation of the weight of each rating indicator, and the weighted score calculation of all rating indicators of the same rating dimension to obtain the weighted score of the rating dimension, further includes: Construct the judgment matrix of the operation status evaluation system, as shown below: (4) in, The first part represents the operational status evaluation system. The evaluation factor is relative to the first one. The comparison results of the evaluation factors This indicates the number of evaluation factors in the operational status evaluation system. =1, ; Calculate the largest eigenvalue of the judgment matrix, and calculate the consistency index coefficient of the judgment matrix based on the largest eigenvalue; The expression for calculating the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix is ​​as follows: (5) in, Represents the judgment matrix The largest eigenvalue, Represents the judgment matrix The order of; Indicates the first The weight vector of each indicator; Represents the weight vector, consisting of all Composition 3D column vector; Represents the product vector The Each component, i.e., the matrix With weight vector The product of.

[0011] The consistency index is calculated as follows: (6) in, This represents the consistency index coefficient; Obtain the random consistency index coefficient of the judgment matrix, calculate the consistency ratio coefficient based on the consistency index coefficient and the random consistency index coefficient, and perform consistency verification on the judgment matrix based on the consistency ratio coefficient; The formula for calculating the consistency ratio coefficient is as follows: (7) in, This represents the consistency ratio coefficient. This represents the coefficient of the random consistency index.

[0012] In a preferred embodiment, this application can be further configured as follows: the comprehensive scoring weight allocation for each scoring dimension, and the weighted fusion calculation of the weighted score of each scoring dimension with the comprehensive scoring weight to obtain the total comprehensive evaluation score of the power station, specifically includes: Each of the scoring dimensions of the operational status evaluation system is compared pairwise to construct a comprehensive scoring judgment matrix, and the comprehensive scoring weight of each scoring dimension is calculated. The consistency of the scoring judgment matrix is ​​checked, and the rationality of the allocation of the comprehensive scoring weights is determined based on the check results. When the allocation of the comprehensive scoring weights is deemed reasonable, the weighted score of each scoring dimension is weighted and added to the corresponding comprehensive scoring weight to obtain the total comprehensive evaluation score of the power station.

[0013] Secondly, the above-mentioned inventive objective of this application is achieved through the following technical solutions: A distributed photovoltaic power station operation status evaluation system, the system comprising: The system construction module is used to decompose the evaluation indicators based on the power plant operation status evaluation objectives and set the scoring threshold and scoring direction for each evaluation indicator to build an operation status evaluation system for distributed photovoltaic power plants. The data preprocessing module is used to acquire the actual operating data of the power plant, perform standardized preprocessing on the actual operating data, and obtain an operating standardized score that conforms to the operating status evaluation system. The weighted scoring calculation module is used to calculate the weight of each scoring indicator, and perform weighted fusion calculation based on the weight of the scoring indicator and the standardized operation score to obtain the overall evaluation score of the power station. The operation status evaluation module is used to compare the total comprehensive evaluation score with the preset operation status level, classify the actual operation status level of the power station based on the comparison result, and generate the operation status evaluation result of the power station.

[0014] Thirdly, the above-mentioned objectives of this application are achieved through the following technical solutions: A computer device includes a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor. When the processor executes the computer program, it implements the above-described method for evaluating the operating status of a distributed photovoltaic power station.

[0015] Fourthly, the above-mentioned objectives of this application are achieved through the following technical solutions: A computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program that, when executed by a processor, implements the above-described method for evaluating the operating status of a distributed photovoltaic power station.

[0016] In summary, this application includes at least one of the following beneficial technical effects: 1. This application constructs a scientific, comprehensive, quantitative, and operable integrated evaluation system for the operation status. Through the integration of multi-dimensional indicators and the application of intelligent algorithms, it achieves a precise profile of the health status of distributed photovoltaic power stations throughout their entire life cycle, from "planning blueprint" to "operational reality." This not only provides core decision-making tools for post-planning evaluation, operation and maintenance strategy formulation, and resource optimization of power stations, but also lays a solid technical foundation for the expansion of value-added services such as investment risk assessment, asset performance benchmarking, and electricity market services in the field of distributed energy. 2. Unlike traditional single-power-oriented approaches, this application constructs three core evaluation dimensions from the perspective of the entire power plant value chain: planning target fit, safe operation reliability, and value function realization. The planning target fit dimension can objectively reflect the level of resource expectation and power generation capacity realization. The safe operation reliability dimension comprehensively depicts the health status of power plant equipment, system controllability, and fault response efficiency. The value function realization dimension accurately explains the performance and long-term degradation trend of the entire process from light energy capture to power output, thus meeting the comprehensive evaluation needs of the operation status of distributed photovoltaic power plants under the new power system. 3. The physical values ​​of the actual operating data of the power station are transformed into unified standard scores that can be mathematically calculated through the comprehensive evaluation system of operating status. The rationality of the weight allocation is verified by the consistency check of the judgment matrix, which further ensures the reliability of the calculation of the total comprehensive evaluation score. Then, different operating statuses are classified into levels and evaluation score intervals, and the operating status of the power station is quantitatively represented according to the actual scores. Attached Figure Description

[0017] To more clearly illustrate the specific embodiments of the present invention or the technical solutions in the prior art, the accompanying drawings used in the description of the specific embodiments or the prior art will be briefly introduced below. In all the drawings, similar elements or parts are generally identified by similar reference numerals. In the drawings, the elements or parts are not necessarily drawn to scale.

[0018] Figure 1 This is a flowchart illustrating the implementation of the distributed photovoltaic power station operation status evaluation method in this embodiment.

[0019] Figure 2 This is a flowchart illustrating the implementation of step S1 of the distributed photovoltaic power station operation status evaluation method in this embodiment.

[0020] Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of the operation status evaluation system of the distributed photovoltaic power station operation status evaluation method in this embodiment.

[0021] Figure 4 This is a flowchart illustrating the implementation of step S3 in the distributed photovoltaic power station operation status evaluation method of this embodiment.

[0022] Figure 5 This is a flowchart illustrating the implementation of step S32 of the distributed photovoltaic power station operation status evaluation method in this embodiment.

[0023] Figure 6 This is a structural block diagram of the distributed photovoltaic power station operation status evaluation system in this embodiment.

[0024] Figure 7 This is a schematic diagram of the internal structure of a computer device used to implement a method for evaluating the operational status of distributed photovoltaic power plants. Detailed Implementation

[0025] The technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some, not all, of the embodiments of the present invention. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0026] It should be understood that, when used in this specification and the appended claims, the terms "comprising" and "including" indicate the presence of the described features, integrals, steps, operations, elements and / or components, but do not exclude the presence or addition of one or more other features, integrals, steps, operations, elements, components and / or collections thereof.

[0027] It should also be understood that the terminology used in this specification is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments only and is not intended to limit the invention. As used in this specification and the appended claims, the singular forms “a,” “an,” and “the” are intended to include the plural forms unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

[0028] It should also be further understood that the term "and / or" as used in this specification and the appended claims refers to any combination of one or more of the associated listed items and all possible combinations, and includes such combinations.

[0029] In one embodiment, such as Figure 1 As shown, this application discloses a method for evaluating the operating status of a distributed photovoltaic power station, which specifically includes the following steps: S1: Based on the evaluation objectives of power plant operation status, the evaluation indicators are decomposed and a scoring threshold and scoring direction are set for each evaluation indicator to construct an operation status evaluation system for distributed photovoltaic power plants.

[0030] Specifically, such as Figure 2 As shown, step S1 includes: S11: Decompose the power plant operation status evaluation target into multi-dimensional evaluation indicators to obtain the multi-evaluation indicator decomposition results for each dimension.

[0031] Specifically, based on the power plant operation status evaluation objectives, a multi-dimensional evaluation index is broken down with the objectives as the guide. This includes the planning objective adaptability dimension, the safe operation reliability dimension, and the value function realization dimension. Among them, the planning objective adaptability dimension is used to quantitatively evaluate the degree of consistency between the actual operating efficiency of the power plant and the initial planning and design objectives. It is the key to verifying the scientific nature of investment decisions and the quality of project implementation. It includes: equivalent utilization hours, total radiation on the inclined surface, sunshine hours, and maximum output, objectively reflecting the level of resource expectations and power generation capacity realization. The safe operation reliability dimension focuses on ensuring the core capabilities of the power plant as a power asset to operate continuously, stably, and compliantly. It is essential for maintaining asset security. The cornerstones of grid stability include: equipment availability, inverter online rate, voltage qualification rate, mean time between failures (MTBF), and mean time to recovery (MTBF), comprehensively depicting the health status of power plant equipment, system controllability, and fault response efficiency. The value function realization dimension focuses on the power plant's energy conversion efficiency, loss control, and long-term performance maintenance capabilities during its operating cycle, directly determining the power plant's economic benefits and asset value. This includes: overall system efficiency, overall photovoltaic power plant efficiency, curtailment rate, inverter conversion efficiency, photovoltaic array efficiency, comprehensive plant power consumption rate, and average annual degradation rate of modules, accurately revealing the performance and long-term performance degradation trend of the entire process from light capture to power output.

[0032] S12: Based on the decomposition results of multiple evaluation indicators, combined with the power plant's historical operating data and industry standards, a scoring threshold is set for each evaluation indicator, and the scoring direction is limited based on the performance characteristics of the indicators, thereby constructing an evaluation system for the power plant's operating status.

[0033] Specifically, based on the decomposition results of multiple evaluation indicators, combined with historical operating data of the power plant and industry standards, including: normative basis: technical guarantee values ​​of equipment manufacturers, international (IEC), national (GB), or industry-issued technical performance standards; contractual basis: theoretical expected performance values ​​specified in project feasibility study reports and design documents; and empirical basis: statistical analysis results (such as average values ​​and higher quantiles) of long-term operating historical data of similar power plants in the same region within the group, a comprehensive scoring threshold is set for each evaluation indicator, including an upper and lower threshold. A piecewise linear scoring function is established between the upper and lower thresholds, and the actual measured values ​​of the indicators are converted into a unified standardized score through interpolation calculation, laying the foundation for subsequent comprehensive weighted calculation with AHP weights. Among them, the upper threshold corresponds to the excellent value of the indicator, serving as the benchmark for a score of 100; the lower threshold corresponds to the qualified value of the indicator, serving as the benchmark for a score of 60.

[0034] In this embodiment, the scoring direction of each evaluation indicator is limited according to its performance characteristics, including two categories: positive indicators and negative indicators. The larger the value of a positive indicator, the better the performance; the smaller the value of a negative indicator, the better the performance. Specifically, the threshold settings in this embodiment are shown in Table 1 below: Table 1 The operational status evaluation system in this embodiment decomposes the evaluation objectives of the power plant's operational status using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Based on the attributes and inherent logic of the evaluation indicators, the evaluation objectives are broken down into several interconnected and ordered levels from top to bottom, thereby constructing a well-structured and hierarchical evaluation system. This system includes an objective layer, a criterion layer, and an indicator layer. The objective layer is at the top level and represents the evaluation objective. The criterion layer, as the intermediate layer, contains multiple evaluation dimensions or criteria required to achieve the evaluation objective. The indicator layer is at the bottom level and consists of various specific and operable evaluation indicators or alternative solutions, used to directly reflect or achieve the evaluation dimensions or criteria at the upper level.

[0035] In the operational status evaluation system, there is a clear dominance and support relationship between adjacent levels: the factors at the upper level dominate and lead the factors at the lower level, while the factors at the lower level are subordinate to the upper level, providing them with specific evaluation criteria and measurement support. The operational status evaluation system in this embodiment is as follows: Figure 3 As shown.

[0036] S2: Obtain the actual operating data of the power plant, perform standardized preprocessing on the actual operating data, and obtain the standardized operating score that conforms to the operating status evaluation system.

[0037] Specifically, evaluation indicators are allocated according to the data type of the actual operational data. Based on the allocation results, the actual operational data is converted into a standardized operational score that conforms to the operational status evaluation system. The calculation expression for the standardized operational score is as follows: (1) in, The sequence number represents the range of values. , used to identify the location of the indicator; Indicates the first The standardized score of each indicator. Indicates the first The actual measured values ​​of each indicator are obtained from actual operational data. They represent the first The upper and lower thresholds for each indicator.

[0038] The calculation example is shown below: Taking power plant equipment availability as an example, suppose the equipment availability of a certain power plant is 98.8%. Looking up the threshold table, this indicator is a positive indicator, with an upper threshold of 99.5% and a lower threshold of 98%. Substituting these values ​​into the positive indicator formula, the calculation is as follows: That is, the standard score for this indicator is 81.3 points.

[0039] In this embodiment, for positive indicators, the actual value exceeds... Part The increase in value is calculated based on the contribution factor; for inverse indicators, the actual value is lower than... Part The increase in contribution score based on the proportional coefficient.

[0040] S3: Calculate the weight of each scoring indicator, and perform a weighted fusion calculation based on the weight of the scoring indicator and the standardized operation score to obtain the overall evaluation score of the power station.

[0041] Specifically, such as Figure 4 As shown, step S3 includes: S31: Calculate the weight of each rating indicator, and calculate the weighted score for all rating indicators of the same rating dimension to obtain the weighted score of the rating dimension.

[0042] Specifically, the eigenvector corresponding to the largest eigenvalue of the judgment matrix is ​​determined by solving the characteristic equation. The eigenvector is then normalized so that the sum of all components of the eigenvector is 1, thus obtaining the weight of each indicator. The weight of each scoring indicator is calculated using formula (2), as shown below: (2) in, For the first The weight vector after normalization of each indicator; Represents the judgment matrix The order of; Indicates the first The unnormalized eigenvector components corresponding to each indicator are calculated as follows: [The text abruptly ends here, likely due to an incomplete sentence or a formatting error.] Multiply the elements in the row together, and then take the nth root of the product.

[0043] Weighted scores are calculated for all rating indicators within the same rating dimension to obtain the weighted score for each rating dimension. The formula for calculating the weighted score is as follows: (3) in, , , These represent the scores for the planning objective adaptability dimension, the safe operation reliability dimension, and the value function realization dimension, respectively. Indicates the first The standardized score of each indicator.

[0044] In this embodiment, the rationality of the weight allocation is determined by constructing a judgment matrix to perform a consistency index check, specifically including: Construct the judgment matrix for the operational status evaluation system. The judgment matrix is ​​shown below: (4) in, The first part represents the operational status evaluation system. The evaluation factor is relative to the first one. The comparison results of the evaluation factors This indicates the number of evaluation factors in the operational status evaluation system, where, =1, .

[0045] In this embodiment The possible values ​​are shown in Table 2: Table 2 Calculate the largest eigenvalue of the judgment matrix, and then calculate the consistency index coefficient of the judgment matrix based on the largest eigenvalue.

[0046] The expression for calculating the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix is ​​as follows: (5) in, Represents the judgment matrix The largest eigenvalue, Represents the judgment matrix The order of; Indicates the first The weight vector of each indicator; Represents the weight vector, consisting of all Composition 3D column vector; Represents the product vector The Each component, i.e., the matrix With weight vector The product of.

[0047] The consistency index is calculated as follows: (6) in, This represents the consistency index coefficient.

[0048] Obtain the random consistency index coefficient of the judgment matrix, calculate the consistency ratio coefficient based on the consistency index coefficient and the random consistency index coefficient, and perform consistency verification on the judgment matrix based on the consistency ratio coefficient.

[0049] The formula for calculating the consistency ratio coefficient is as follows: (7) in, This represents the consistency ratio coefficient. This represents the coefficient of the random consistency index.

[0050] In this embodiment, the random consistency index coefficient is selected based on the order of the judgment matrix. The larger the order of the matrix, the greater the possibility of random deviation from consistency. The corresponding relationship is shown in Table 3 below: Table 3 If the consistency ratio coefficient is less than 0.1, the judgment matrix is ​​considered to have passed the consistency test and the weight allocation is reasonable. If the consistency ratio coefficient is greater than or equal to 0.1, the judgment matrix needs to be readjusted.

[0051] S32: Allocate comprehensive scoring weights for each scoring dimension, and calculate the weighted score of each scoring dimension with the comprehensive scoring weight to obtain the total comprehensive evaluation score of the power station.

[0052] Specifically, such as Figure 5 As shown, step S32 includes: S321: Perform pairwise comparisons on all scoring dimensions of the operational status evaluation system, construct a comprehensive scoring judgment matrix, and calculate the comprehensive scoring weight for each scoring dimension.

[0053] Specifically, the importance of each rating dimension is compared pairwise using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), a judgment matrix for the rating dimensions is constructed, and the overall rating weight is calculated. The judgment matrix and weights based on the overall rating dimensions are shown in Table 4. Table 4 The judgment matrix and indicator weights based on the planning objective adaptability dimension are shown in Table 5: Table 5 The judgment matrix and index weights based on the reliability dimension of safe operation are shown in Table 6: Table 6 The judgment matrix and indicator weights based on the value function realization dimension are shown in Table 7: Table 7 S322: Perform consistency verification on the scoring judgment matrix, and determine the rationality of the allocation of comprehensive scoring weights based on the verification results.

[0054] In one embodiment, the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix based on the comprehensive scoring dimension is calculated to be 3.018, and the consistency ratio (CR) is 0.017, which is lower than the critical standard of 0.10. The consistency test is passed, verifying the rationality of the comprehensive scoring weight allocation.

[0055] The weighting results show that in the evaluation of power plant operation status, the value function realization degree (0.533) has the highest weight, reflecting the evaluation system's core focus on the power plant's economic benefits and energy conversion efficiency; the safety operation reliability (0.350) is the second highest, reflecting the basic requirements for the power plant's continuous and stable operation capability; the planning target adaptability (0.117) has a relatively low weight, indicating that the evaluation focus is more inclined to the continuous performance and value creation during the operation phase.

[0056] Furthermore, the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix based on the planning objective adaptability dimension. The value was 5.126, and the consistency ratio (CR) was 0.028, which is lower than the standard threshold of 0.10. Therefore, the consistency test was passed, verifying the rationality of the weight allocation.

[0057] The maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix based on the reliability dimension of safe operation The value was 5.126, and the consistency ratio (CR) was 0.028, which is lower than the standard threshold of 0.10. Therefore, the consistency test was passed, verifying the rationality of the weight allocation.

[0058] The maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix based on the value function realization dimension The value was 7.352, and the consistency ratio (CR) was 0.045, which is lower than the standard threshold of 0.10. Therefore, the consistency test was passed, verifying the rationality of the weight allocation.

[0059] S323: When the allocation of the comprehensive scoring weights is deemed reasonable, the weighted score of each scoring dimension is weighted and added to the corresponding comprehensive scoring weight to obtain the total comprehensive evaluation score of the power station.

[0060] Specifically, when the allocation of the comprehensive scoring weights is deemed reasonable (i.e., the consistency check score is below 0.1), the weighted score of each scoring dimension is weighted and added to the corresponding comprehensive scoring weight to obtain the total comprehensive evaluation score of the power plant. From the above calculation, the comprehensive scoring weight for the rule-target adaptability dimension is 0.117, the comprehensive scoring weight for the safe operation reliability dimension is 0.35, and the comprehensive scoring weight for the value function realization dimension is 0.533. The calculation expression for the total comprehensive evaluation score is as follows: (8) S4: Compare the total comprehensive evaluation score with the preset operating status level, classify the actual operating status level of the power station based on the comparison results, and generate the power station operating status evaluation result.

[0061] This embodiment divides the power plant's operating status into four distinct levels based on the Comprehensive Evaluation Score (CSI). Each level has a corresponding score range, status characteristics, and recommended management measures, as shown in Table 8 below: Table 8 Based on the total comprehensive evaluation score obtained from actual calculations, the current operating status of the power station is classified into different levels according to the CSI intervals of different status levels, and the power station operating status evaluation results are generated.

[0062] It should be understood that the sequence number of each step in the above embodiments does not imply the order of execution. The execution order of each process should be determined by its function and internal logic, and should not constitute any limitation on the implementation process of the embodiments of this application.

[0063] In one embodiment, a distributed photovoltaic power station operation status evaluation system is provided, which corresponds one-to-one with the distributed photovoltaic power station operation status evaluation method described in the above embodiments. For example... Figure 6 As shown, the distributed photovoltaic power station operation status evaluation system includes a system construction module, a data preprocessing module, a weighted scoring calculation module, and an operation status evaluation module. Detailed descriptions of each functional module are as follows: The system construction module is used to decompose the evaluation indicators based on the power plant operation status evaluation objectives and set the scoring threshold and scoring direction for each evaluation indicator to build an operation status evaluation system for distributed photovoltaic power plants. The data preprocessing module is used to acquire the actual operating data of the power plant, perform standardized preprocessing on the actual operating data, and obtain the standardized operating score that conforms to the operating status evaluation system. The weighted scoring calculation module is used to calculate the weight of each scoring indicator, and performs a weighted fusion calculation based on the weight of the scoring indicator and the standardized operation score to obtain the overall evaluation score of the power plant. The operation status evaluation module is used to compare the total comprehensive evaluation score with the preset operation status level, classify the actual operation status level of the power station based on the comparison result, and generate the operation status evaluation result of the power station.

[0064] Preferably, the system construction modules specifically include: The indicator decomposition submodule is used to decompose the power plant operation status evaluation target into multi-dimensional evaluation indicators, and obtain the multi-evaluation indicator decomposition results for each dimension. The indicator limitation submodule is used to limit the scoring threshold for each evaluation indicator based on the decomposition results of multiple evaluation indicators, combined with the power plant's historical operating data and industry standards, and to limit the scoring direction based on the performance characteristics of the indicators, thereby constructing an evaluation system for the power plant's operating status.

[0065] Preferably, the data preprocessing module specifically includes: Evaluation indicators are assigned according to the data type of the actual operational data. Based on the results of the evaluation indicator assignment, the actual operational data is converted into a standardized operational score that conforms to the operational status evaluation system. The calculation expression for the standardized operational score is as follows: (1) in, The sequence number represents the range of values. , used to identify the location of the indicator; Indicates the first The standardized score of each indicator. Indicates the first The actual measured values ​​of each indicator are obtained from actual operational data. They represent the first The upper and lower thresholds for each indicator.

[0066] Preferably, the weighted scoring calculation module specifically includes: The weighted score calculation submodule is used to calculate the weight of each rating indicator, calculate the weighted score of all rating indicators in the same rating dimension, and obtain the weighted score of the rating dimension. The comprehensive score calculation submodule is used to allocate comprehensive score weights for each scoring dimension, and to perform weighted fusion calculation of the weighted score of each scoring dimension with the comprehensive score weight to obtain the total comprehensive evaluation score of the power station.

[0067] Preferably, the weighted score calculation submodule specifically includes: The weight of each scoring indicator is calculated using formula (2), which is shown below: (2) in, For the first The weight vector after normalization of each indicator; Represents the judgment matrix The order of; Indicates the first The unnormalized eigenvector components corresponding to each indicator are calculated as follows: [The text abruptly ends here, likely due to an incomplete sentence or a formatting error.] Multiply the elements in the row together, and then take the nth root of the product.

[0068] Weighted scores are calculated for all rating indicators within the same rating dimension to obtain the weighted score for each rating dimension. The formula for calculating the weighted score is as follows: (3) in, , , These represent the scores for the planning objective adaptability dimension, the safe operation reliability dimension, and the value function realization dimension, respectively. Indicates the first The standardized score of each indicator.

[0069] Preferably, the weighted score calculation submodule also includes: Construct the judgment matrix for the operational status evaluation system. The judgment matrix is ​​shown below: (4) in, The first part represents the operational status evaluation system. The evaluation factor is relative to the first one. The comparison results of the evaluation factors This indicates the number of evaluation factors in the operational status evaluation system. =1, ; Calculate the largest eigenvalue of the judgment matrix, and then calculate the consistency index coefficient of the judgment matrix based on the largest eigenvalue. The expression for calculating the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix is ​​as follows: (5) in, Represents the judgment matrix The largest eigenvalue, Represents the judgment matrix The order of; Indicates the first The weight vector of each indicator; Represents the weight vector, consisting of all Composition 3D column vector; Represents the product vector The Each component, i.e., the matrix With weight vector The product of.

[0070] The consistency index is calculated as follows: (6) in, This represents the consistency index coefficient; Obtain the random consistency index coefficient of the judgment matrix, calculate the consistency ratio coefficient based on the consistency index coefficient and the random consistency index coefficient, and perform consistency verification on the judgment matrix based on the consistency ratio coefficient; The formula for calculating the consistency ratio coefficient is as follows: (7) in, This represents the consistency ratio coefficient. This represents the coefficient of the random consistency index.

[0071] Preferably, the comprehensive score calculation submodule specifically includes: The comprehensive weight allocation unit is used to compare each of the scoring dimensions of the operation status evaluation system pairwise, construct a comprehensive scoring judgment matrix, and calculate the comprehensive scoring weight of each scoring dimension. The consistency verification unit is used to verify the consistency of the scoring judgment matrix and determine the rationality of the allocation of the comprehensive scoring weights based on the verification results. The comprehensive scoring unit is used to add the weighted score of each scoring dimension to the corresponding comprehensive scoring weight when the allocation of comprehensive scoring weights is deemed reasonable, so as to obtain the total comprehensive evaluation score of the power station.

[0072] Specific limitations regarding the distributed photovoltaic (PV) power plant operation status evaluation system can be found in the limitations of the distributed PV power plant operation status evaluation method described above, and will not be repeated here. Each module in the aforementioned distributed PV power plant operation status evaluation system can be implemented entirely or partially through software, hardware, or a combination thereof. These modules can be embedded in or independent of the processor in a computer device, or stored in the memory of a computer device as software, so that the processor can call and execute the corresponding operations of each module.

[0073] In one embodiment, a computer device is provided, which may be a server, and its internal structure diagram may be as follows: Figure 7As shown, the computer device includes a processor, memory, network interface, and database connected via a system bus. The processor provides computing and control capabilities. The memory includes non-volatile storage media and internal memory. The non-volatile storage media stores the operating system, computer programs, and database. The internal memory provides an environment for the operation of the operating system and computer programs in the non-volatile storage media. The database stores power plant operation status evaluation data. The network interface communicates with external terminals via a network connection. When the processor executes the computer program, it implements a method for evaluating the operation status of a distributed photovoltaic power plant.

[0074] In one embodiment, a computer-readable storage medium is provided, on which a computer program is stored, which, when executed by a processor, implements a method for evaluating the operating status of a distributed photovoltaic power station.

[0075] Those skilled in the art will recognize that the units of the various examples described in connection with the embodiments disclosed herein can be implemented in electronic hardware, computer software, or a combination of both. To clearly illustrate the interchangeability of hardware and software, the components of the various examples have been generally described in terms of functionality in the foregoing description. Whether these functions are implemented in hardware or software depends on the specific application of the technical solution and the constraints involved. Those skilled in the art can use different methods to implement the described functions for each specific application, but such implementations should not be considered beyond the scope of the invention.

[0076] In the embodiments provided by the present invention, it should be understood that the division of units is only a logical functional division. In actual implementation, there may be other division methods, such as multiple units can be combined into one unit, one unit can be split into multiple units, or some features can be ignored.

[0077] Furthermore, the functional units in the various embodiments of the present invention can be integrated into one processing unit, or each unit can exist physically separately, or two or more units can be integrated into one unit. The integrated unit can be implemented in hardware or as a software functional unit.

[0078] If the integrated unit is implemented as a software functional unit and sold or used as an independent product, it can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium. Based on this understanding, the technical solution of the present invention, in essence, or the part that contributes to the prior art, or all or part of the technical solution, can be embodied in the form of a software product. This computer software product is stored in a storage medium and includes several instructions to cause a computer device (which may be a personal computer, server, or network device, etc.) to execute all or part of the steps of the methods described in the various embodiments of the present invention. The aforementioned storage medium includes various media capable of storing program code, such as USB flash drives, read-only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), portable hard drives, magnetic disks, or optical disks.

[0079] Finally, it should be noted that the above embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of the present invention, and not to limit them. Although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to the foregoing embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that modifications can still be made to the technical solutions described in the foregoing embodiments, or equivalent substitutions can be made to some or all of the technical features therein. Such modifications or substitutions do not cause the essence of the corresponding technical solutions to deviate from the scope of the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention, and they should all be covered within the scope of the claims and specification of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the operational status of a distributed photovoltaic power station, characterized in that, The method includes: Based on the evaluation objectives of power plant operation status, the evaluation indicators are decomposed and a scoring threshold and scoring direction are set for each evaluation indicator to construct an operation status evaluation system for distributed photovoltaic power plants. Obtain actual operating data of the power plant, perform standardized preprocessing on the actual operating data, and obtain an operating standardized score that conforms to the operating status evaluation system; Calculate the weight of each scoring indicator, and perform a weighted fusion calculation based on the weight of the scoring indicator and the standardized operation score to obtain the overall evaluation score of the power station; The overall evaluation score is compared with the preset operating status level. Based on the comparison result, the actual operating status level of the power station is divided, and the operating status evaluation result of the power station is generated.

2. The method for evaluating the operating status of a distributed photovoltaic power station according to claim 1, characterized in that, The evaluation system for the operation status of distributed photovoltaic power plants is constructed by breaking down evaluation indicators based on the power plant operation status evaluation objectives and setting scoring thresholds and scoring directions for each evaluation indicator. Specifically, this includes: The evaluation targets for the power plant's operational status are decomposed into multi-dimensional evaluation indicators, resulting in the decomposition of multiple evaluation indicators for each dimension. Based on the decomposition results of the multiple evaluation indicators, combined with the power plant's historical operating data and industry standards, a scoring threshold is set for each evaluation indicator, and the scoring direction is limited based on the indicator's performance characteristics, thereby constructing a power plant operation status evaluation system.

3. The method for evaluating the operating status of a distributed photovoltaic power station according to claim 1, characterized in that, The process of acquiring actual operating data of the power plant, performing standardized preprocessing on the actual operating data, and obtaining a standardized operating score that conforms to the operating status evaluation system specifically includes: Evaluation indicators are assigned according to the data type of the actual operating data. Based on the evaluation indicator assignment results, the actual operating data is converted into a standardized operating score that conforms to the operating status evaluation system. The calculation expression for the standardized operating score is as follows: （1） in, Indicates the first The standardized score of each indicator. Indicates the first The actual measured values ​​of each indicator are obtained from actual operational data. They represent the first The upper and lower thresholds for each indicator.

4. The method for evaluating the operating status of a distributed photovoltaic power station according to claim 1, characterized in that, The calculation of the weight of each scoring indicator, and the weighted fusion calculation based on the scoring indicator weights and the standardized operation score, yields the overall evaluation score of the power station, specifically including: Calculate the weight of each rating indicator, and calculate the weighted score for all rating indicators of the same rating dimension to obtain the weighted score for the rating dimension. A comprehensive scoring weight allocation is performed for each scoring dimension, and the weighted score of each scoring dimension is weighted and fused with the comprehensive scoring weight to obtain the total comprehensive evaluation score of the power station.

5. The method for evaluating the operating status of a distributed photovoltaic power station according to claim 4, characterized in that, The calculation of the weight of each rating indicator, and the weighted score calculation of all rating indicators in the same rating dimension to obtain the weighted score of the rating dimension, specifically includes: The weight of each scoring indicator is calculated using formula (2), which is shown below: （2） in, For the first The weight vector after normalization of each indicator; Represents the judgment matrix The order of; Indicates the first The unnormalized eigenvector components corresponding to each indicator; Weighted scores are calculated for all rating indicators within the same rating dimension to obtain a weighted score for each rating dimension. The calculation expression for the weighted score is as follows: （3） in, , , These represent the scores for the planning objective adaptability dimension, the safe operation reliability dimension, and the value function realization dimension, respectively. Indicates the first The standardized score of each indicator.

6. The method for evaluating the operating status of a distributed photovoltaic power station according to claim 5, characterized in that, The calculation of the weight of each rating indicator, and the weighted score calculation for all rating indicators of the same rating dimension, to obtain the weighted score of the rating dimension, also includes: Construct the judgment matrix of the operation status evaluation system, as shown below: （4） in, The first part represents the operational status evaluation system. The evaluation factor is relative to the first one. The comparison results of the evaluation factors This indicates the number of evaluation factors in the operational status evaluation system. =1, ; Calculate the largest eigenvalue of the judgment matrix, and calculate the consistency index coefficient of the judgment matrix based on the largest eigenvalue; The expression for calculating the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix is ​​as follows: （5） in, Represents the judgment matrix The largest eigenvalue, Represents the judgment matrix The order of; Indicates the first The weight vector of each indicator; Represents the weight vector, consisting of all Composition 3D column vector; Represents the product vector The One component; The consistency index is calculated as follows: （6） in, This represents the consistency index coefficient; Obtain the random consistency index coefficient of the judgment matrix, calculate the consistency ratio coefficient based on the consistency index coefficient and the random consistency index coefficient, and perform consistency verification on the judgment matrix based on the consistency ratio coefficient; The formula for calculating the consistency ratio coefficient is as follows: （7） in, This represents the consistency ratio coefficient. This represents the coefficient of the random consistency index.

7. The method for evaluating the operating status of a distributed photovoltaic power station according to claim 4, characterized in that, The process of assigning comprehensive scoring weights to each scoring dimension, and then weighting and fusing the weighted scores of each scoring dimension with the comprehensive scoring weights to obtain the overall evaluation score of the power station, specifically includes: Each of the scoring dimensions of the operational status evaluation system is compared pairwise to construct a comprehensive scoring judgment matrix, and the comprehensive scoring weight of each scoring dimension is calculated. The consistency of the scoring judgment matrix is ​​checked, and the rationality of the allocation of the comprehensive scoring weights is determined based on the check results. When the allocation of the comprehensive scoring weights is deemed reasonable, the weighted score of each scoring dimension is weighted and added to the corresponding comprehensive scoring weight to obtain the total comprehensive evaluation score of the power station.

8. A distributed photovoltaic power station operation status evaluation system, characterized in that, The system includes: The system construction module is used to decompose the evaluation indicators based on the power plant operation status evaluation objectives and set the scoring threshold and scoring direction for each evaluation indicator to build an operation status evaluation system for distributed photovoltaic power plants. The data preprocessing module is used to acquire the actual operating data of the power plant, perform standardized preprocessing on the actual operating data, and obtain an operating standardized score that conforms to the operating status evaluation system. The weighted scoring calculation module is used to calculate the weight of each scoring indicator, and perform weighted fusion calculation based on the weight of the scoring indicator and the standardized operation score to obtain the overall evaluation score of the power station. The operation status evaluation module is used to compare the total comprehensive evaluation score with the preset operation status level, classify the actual operation status level of the power station based on the comparison result, and generate the operation status evaluation result of the power station.

9. A computer device comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, characterized in that, When the processor executes the computer program, it implements the distributed photovoltaic power station operation status evaluation method as described in any one of claims 1 to 7.

10. A computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, characterized in that, When the computer program is executed by the processor, it implements the distributed photovoltaic power station operation status evaluation method as described in any one of claims 1 to 7.

Images