Javier García González, Comillas-IIT
EWEA, Brussels, 11 June, 2013
WP15 Economic impacts of the
demonstrations, barriers towards scaling up
and solutions
2
Objectives
The main goals of WP15 were to assess the economic (TF1 & TF3) and
technical (TF2) impact of each demo tested in the Twenties project, in
order to identify barriers and to propose regulatory recommendations
to overcome those barriers.
www.twenties-project.eu
3
TF1: SYSERWIND
www.twenties-project.eu
2020 Input data
www.twenties-project.eu
Energy [TWh] 331 Winter Peak [MW] 58000
Summer Peak [MW] 53000 Min Load [MW] 19246
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
1
17
4
34
7
52
0
69
3
86
6
10
39
12
12
13
85
15
58
17
31
19
04
20
77
22
50
24
23
25
96
27
69
29
42
31
15
32
88
34
61
36
34
38
07
39
80
41
53
43
26
44
99
46
72
48
45
50
18
51
91
53
64
55
37
57
10
58
83
60
56
62
29
64
02
65
75
67
48
69
21
70
94
72
67
74
40
76
13
77
86
79
59
81
32
83
05
84
78
86
51
6% 6%
21%
0%
9% 4%
2%
30%
5% 3%
9%
4%
Nuclear
Coal
CCGT
Gas/Oil
Max Hydro Output
Pure Pumped Storage Hydro
Combined Pumped Storage Hydro
Wind Generation
Solar PV
CSP
Cogeneration
Other RES
4
2020 Results
CASE A CASE B Difference Difference [%] Operating Costs [M€] 7444 7361 83 1,1% CO2 emissions [MTCO2] 48,9 49,0 -0,1 -0,2% Wind generation [TWh] 72,9 72,80 0,14 0,2%
www.twenties-project.eu
16,82% (1113 GWh)
55,51% (3675 GWh)
11,75% (778 GWh)
15,92% (1054 GWh)
Thermal Dw Reserve
Hydro Dw Reserve
Wind Dw Reserve
Pump Dw Reserve
5
The economic impact increases with increasing wind power capacity
www.twenties-project.eu
0,95% (80 M€) 1,11% (83 M€)
6,45% (444 M€)
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
7.00%
WG Capacity = 27856 MW WG Capacity = 34820 MW WG Capacity = 38302 MW
OPEXA - OPEX B (Wind Generation Capacity)
WG Capacity= 38302 MW Unit CASE A CASE B Difference [%]
Wind Output % 92,8% 94,9% -2,1%
Wind Spillage % 7,2% 5,1% 2,1%
CO2 Emissions MtCO2 43,3 42,2 2.4%
6 www.twenties-project.eu
1 2 4
Nuclear 58587.2 58587.2 58587.2
Coal_Old_NoScrubber 24724.7 10768.9 1904.6
Gas_GT 0.0 0.0 0.0
Gas_CCGT 58095.3 24151.4 3589.8
Oil 2.0 2.4 0.7
Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hydro 27429.3 27425.4 27270.3
PS_Hydro_Pure 680.7 1232.0 1996.2
PS_Hydro_Combined 619.3 962.5 1354.1
Thermal_Cost [M€] 6595.2 2901.7 671.0
Emission [MtCO2] 46.3 19.5 3.1
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
1
17
4
34
7
52
0
69
3
86
6
10
39
12
12
13
85
15
58
17
31
19
04
20
77
22
50
24
23
25
96
27
69
29
42
31
15
32
88
34
61
36
34
38
07
39
80
41
53
43
26
44
99
46
72
48
45
50
18
51
91
53
64
55
37
57
10
58
83
60
56
62
29
64
02
65
75
67
48
69
21
70
94
72
67
74
40
76
13
77
86
79
59
81
32
83
05
84
78
86
51
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
1
17
4
34
7
52
0
69
3
86
6
10
39
12
12
13
85
15
58
17
31
19
04
20
77
22
50
24
23
25
96
27
69
29
42
31
15
32
88
34
61
36
34
38
07
39
80
41
53
43
26
44
99
46
72
48
45
50
18
51
91
53
64
55
37
57
10
58
83
60
56
62
29
64
02
65
75
67
48
69
21
70
94
72
67
74
40
76
13
77
86
79
59
81
32
83
05
84
78
86
51
X2
X4
•Twenties has overcome a major technical barrier
preventing better use of WG
• Other barriers remain to be addressed: primary regulation,
inertia, …
Figures per year
What if
X2 X4 X1
7 www.twenties-project.eu
Impact of the voltage control provision on the power losses
• Active voltage control
• Increases slightly Proportional
control
current situation
• Minimizes
Optimal control
(OPF)
8
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 35000.94
0.95
0.96
0.97
0.98
0.99
1
1.01
1.02
V (
p.u
.)
Wind Active power [MW]
x/r=30 with control
x/r=30 without control
www.twenties-project.eu
Wind power penetration limits without voltage control
from the voltage point of view
Wind penetration increment
1
Wind Active power [MW]
Low voltages
9
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
V (
p.u
.)
Wind Active power [MW]
x/r=2 with control
x/r=2 without control
www.twenties-project.eu
Wind power penetration limits without voltage control
from the voltage point of view
Wind penetration increment
2 High voltages
10 www.twenties-project.eu
Wind power penetration limits without voltage control
from the voltage point of view
In the majority of the buses the wind penetration will not be limited
because of voltage reasons.
In these cases the wind penetration will be limited because of
transmission capacity constraints.
In the event that the wind power is limited because of voltage reason
the voltage control allows avoid this limitation
11
TF2
www.twenties-project.eu
Radial offshore single
connections with and without new
inter-area interconnectors
Analysis of European
system operation and
power flows with ANTARES
tool
Multiterminal meshed offshore
network
European network model
12
TF2
www.twenties-project.eu
Results suggest that new offshore network capacity to allow increased
exchange of power between different countries will be important for
realising the full potential of new wind power developments.
Local surpluses of wind power to be used elsewhere but it also
facilitates reserve power to be held remote from a particular area.
However, it might also allow cheap generation with high carbon
emissions in remote areas to be used instead of lower carbon fossil
fuelled plant in a local area.
In addition, as offshore wind power is concentrated in relatively small
geographical areas, critical weather conditions can lead to large
variations in offshore wind power production.
The New Storm Control can help to diminish reserve requirements,
reducing the maximum reserve to approximately 50% of the one
corresponding to the old control case.
13
TF 3 Main findings
Scaling-up of Demo 5 NETFLEX (Elia) in CWE
PFC and DLR bring benefits for the system with lower implementation costs and
time than conventional assets
• Smart-controller of PFC in Belgium borders could reduce system costs by
50 M€ (250 M€ if fully deployed in CWE)
• Broad DLR deployment in CWE would reduce system operational costs in
125 M€
www.twenties-project.eu
14
TF 3 - Economic impact of FACTS and DLR in Spain Demo #6 – GRIDFLEX (REE)
www.twenties-project.eu
Avoided Conventional Generation Redispatch / year
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10% 20% 30%
FACTS Step ΔCapacity DLR
Savi
ngs
(G
Wh
/yr)
EAST AREA
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10% 20% 30%
FACTS Step ΔCapacity DLR
Savi
ngs
(GW
h/y
r)
SOUTH AREA
Case Study: 5 critical areas (500 GWh/year: 5% of total redispatch in Spain)
Examples
15
11.4
11.6
11.8
12.0
12.2
12.4
12.6
Without FACTS &
DLR
Using FACTS
Min with DLR
Max with DLR
Ene
rgy
Re
dis
pat
ch (
TWh
)
TF 3 - Economic impact of FACTS and DLR in Spain Demo #6 – GRIDFLEX (REE)
www.twenties-project.eu
Annual Generation Redispatch in Spain (TWh)
Net Benefit (M€ / year)
FACTS 32
DLR (Average ΔCapacity = 10%) 39
4.9% 5.3% 5.6%
16
Main source of regulatory barriers for each TF
TF 1: market arrangements
Do not favor the participation of RES and (at least small) consumers in
electricity markets
TF 2: network and market arrangements
National frameworks for transmission planning, financing & operation
Offshore generation: support schemes, priority access, curtailment, etc.
Market designs: CACM, balancing
TF 3: network arrangements
National frameworks for infrastructure planning, financing & operation
www.twenties-project.eu
17
Recommendations & some initiatives
www.twenties-project.eu
• Day-ahead markets for minimum services
• Flexible market adapted to RES & loads TF 1
• Common framework for offshore generation
• Role of offshore generation
• Harmonize market designs
• Framework for balancing sharing
TF 2
• Definition of roles & responsibilities
• Coordination for planning infrastructure
• Harmonization of network codes for grid operation
• Development of joint support mechanisms for grid financing
TF 2 &
TF 3
Twenties
REserviceS
EU Target Model
ENTSOE NC
NSCOGI Initiative
ENTSOE NC
NSCOGI Initiative