## 3 Results
### Reliability and Availability, Monetary Flows and upper and lower Boundaries to Power Consumption  
The upper and lower boundaries are calculated by the methods explained in Section 2.5. When the upper and lower boundaries are exceeded by the power consumption, NA-fines occur, since the portfolio is not able to deliver the capacity required according to the corresponding bid size. This does not happen, since the bid size is chosen so that no fines will occur, leading to an availability of 100% with the 'always reliable' strategy. This is illustrated in Figure 5. The reliable bid size is therefore limited by the most extreme (upper or lower) values of the power consumption. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Bid Size (MW)** & **Revenue (f/week)** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Revenue/Household** \\ **(f/week/household)** \\ \end{tabular} & **Availability (\%)** & **NA-fines (f/week)** \\ \hline week22 & 1.4 & \(\xi\)4340,- & \(\xi\)0.22 & 100\% & \(\xi\)- \\ \hline week23 & 1.1 & \(\xi\)3300,- & \(\xi\)0.17 & 100\% & \(\xi\)- \\ \hline week24 & 1.3 & \(\xi\)3718,- & \(\xi\)0.19 & 100\% & \(\xi\)- \\ \hline week25 & 2.0 & \(\xi\)5320,- & \(\xi\)0.27 & 100\% & \(\xi\)- \\ \hline week26 & 0.4 & \(\xi\)964,- & \(\xi\)0.05 & 100\% & \(\xi\)- \\ \hline week27 & 0.8 & \(\xi\)1760,- & \(\xi\)0.09 & 100\% & \(\xi\)- \\ \hline week28 & 1.4 & \(\xi\)2954,- & \(\xi\)0.15 & 100\% & \(\xi\)- \\ \hline week29 & 2.3 & \(\xi\)4968,- & \(\xi\)0.25 & 100\% & \(\xi\)- \\ \hline week30 & 0.1 & \(\xi\)227,- & \(\xi\)0.01 & 100\% & \(\xi\)- \\ \hline
**Average** & **1.7** & **\(\xi\)4368,-** & **\(\xi\)0.22** & **100\%** & \(\xi\)- \\ \hline
**Total** & **N/A** & **\(\xi\)96,114,-** & **\(\xi\)4.81** & **N/A** & \(\xi\)- \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Bid Size (MW)** & **Revenue (f/week)** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Revenue/Household** \\ **(f/household/week)** \\ \end{tabular} & **Availability (\%)** & **NA-fines (f/week)** \\ \hline week01 & 1.8 & \(\xi\)3888,- & \(\xi\)0.19 & 61\% & \(\xi\)5025,- \\ week02 & 5.7 & \(\xi\)12,483,- & \(\xi\)0.62 & 0\% & \(\xi\)41,921,- \\ week03 & 5.8 & \(\xi\)13,630,- & \(\xi\)0.68 & 0\% & \(\xi\)59,075,- \\ week04 & 8.8 & \(\xi\)21,472,- & \(\xi\)1.07 & 0\% & \(\xi\)120,521,- \\ week05 & 7.0 & \(\xi\)17,920,- & \(\xi\)0.90 & 0\% & \(\xi\)81,932,- \\ week06 & 11.2 & \(\xi\)26,880,- & \(\xi\)1.34 & 0\% & \(\xi\)163,223,- \\ week07 & 11.3 & \(\xi\)26,216,- & \(\xi\)1.31 & 0\% & \(\xi\)160,418,- \\ week08 & 11.6 & \(\xi\)27,492,- & \(\xi\)1.37 & 0\% & \(\xi\)170,114,- \\ week09 & 10.4 & \(\xi\)24,856,- & \(\xi\)1.24 & 0\% & \(\xi\)142,704,- \\ week10 & 11.2 & \(\xi\)27,552,- & \(\xi\)1.38 & 0\% & \(\xi\)167,152,- \\ week11 & 8.5 & \(\xi\)20,485,- & \(\xi\)1.02 & 0\% & \(\xi\)99,575,- \\ week20 & 11.9 & \(\xi\)34,510,- & \(\xi\)1.73 & 0\% & \(\xi\)216,253,- \\ week21 & 9.8 & \(\xi\)31,458,- & \(\xi\)1.57 & 0\% & \(\xi\)179,374,- \\ week22 & 10.1 & \(\xi\)31,310,- & \(\xi\)1.57 & 0\% & \(\xi\)183,240,- \\ week23 & 4.9 & \(\xi\)14,700,- & \(\xi\)0.74 & 5\% & \(\xi\)14,330,- \\ week24 & 7.3 & \(\xi\)20,878,- & \(\xi\)1.04 & 0\% & \(\xi\)90,664,- \\ week25 & 7.0 & \(\xi\)18,620,- & \(\xi\)0.93 & 0\% & \(\xi\)81,174,- \\ week26 & 3.7 & \(\xi\)68917,- & \(\xi\)0.45 & 36\% & \(\xi\)16,668,- \\ week27 & 3.1 & \(\xi\)6820,- & \(\xi\)0.34 & 53\% & \(\xi\)8252,- \\ week28 & 8.2 & \(\xi\)17,302,- & \(\xi\)0.87 & 0\% & \(\xi\)91,692,- \\ week29 & 9.8 & \(\xi\)21,168,- & \(\xi\)1.06 & 0\% & \(\xi\)118,667,- \\ week30 & 4.3 & \(\xi\)9761,- & \(\xi\)0.49 & 46\% & \(\xi\)8423,- \\
**Average** & **7.9** & **\(\xi\)19,923,-** & **\(\xi\)1.00** & **9\%** & **\(\xi\)100,927,-** \\
**Total** & **N/A** & **\(\xi\)438,318,-** & **\(\xi\)21.92** & **N/A** & **\(\xi\)2,220,399,-** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Results for the ‘always reliable’ strategy.