## 4 Results
### Results of the Proposed Model
#### 4.2.3 The Unit Commitment Results Considering CSP and EH  
Based on the proposed model concerning CSP and EH, the unit commitment solution is shown in Table 3, the system operating costs are shown in Table 4 and the CSP reserve planning results are illustrated in Figure 6.  
The thermal unit 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 with minor capacity of 76 MW have shut down in the test time period which decreases the fuel cost greatly, the other eight thermal units planning are listed in Table 3. The power vacancy arises from the reduced thermal units could be compensated by the CSP station and the increase CSP generating cost is compensated by the decline on fuel cost as shown in Table 4. Additionally, Table 3 records the fact that only four start-up processes happen to thermal unit 4 (76 MW), 10 (197 MW), 12 (155 MW) and 13 (155 MW) respectively. The less start-up times due to the flexibility of CSP with EH and the low start-up cost owing to the medium capacity of thermal units both lead to the reduction on system start-up cost illustrated in Table 4. Furthermore, the thermal unit 9 (350 MW), 14 (400 MW) and 15 (350 MW) with a large capacity keep working in the operating period to provide base-load capacity. At last, it is clear that the power system owns high reliability. The load shedding value is 0 which means that the power system with CSP and EH equipment has sufficient generating capacity to meet the peak load requirements at any time during the test period.  
Figure 6a,b illustrate the results of the reserve planning in CSP station, including the overall scheduled up/down reserves in CSP stations and the actual reserve deployment in the stochastic scenario 3. Clearly, CSP is verified to provide reserve services owing to the employment of the large-capacity TES system. The optimized reserve solution could effectively reduce the economic cost  
Figure 5: The power dispatch results including: (**a**) the coordinated operation of the multiple resources; (**b**) the dispatch strategy of the TES system.  
by diminishing the up/down reserve during the valley load period. However, during the peak load period, more up reserves are provided to decrease the load shedding (e.g., results from 9:00-11:00 and results from 19:00-21:00). Meanwhile, the up reserve deployment and down reserve deployment could operate within the scheduled reserves. To sum up, the capability of the CSP station to provide reserve services could reduce the requirement of thermal unit reserve, thus promoting the penetration of renewable energy.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**System Operating Costs (5)** & **Value** \\ \hline Fuel cost & 558,906.38 \\ Start-up cost & 2300 \\ Generating cost for CSP and EH & 50,701.16 \\ Penalty cost for load shedding & 0.00 \\ Penalty cost for renewables spillage & 1432.59 \\ Cost for thermal unit reserve scheduling & 13,756.84 \\ Cost for thermal unit reserve deploying & 1717.01 \\ Total system cost & 644,287.84 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Results for system costs with CSP and EH equipment.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Time/h** & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**Thermal Unit Number**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **4** & **9** & **10** & **11** & **12** & **13** & **14** & **15** \\ \hline
2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
3 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
4 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
5 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
6 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
7 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
8 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
9 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
10 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
11 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
12 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
13 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\
14 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1