effect of thermal generation replacement on system frequency response enoch davies, pe staff...
Post on 11-Jan-2016
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C OU N C I L
Effect of Thermal Generation Replacement on System Frequency
ResponseEnoch Davies, PE
Staff Engineer
2
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C OU N C I L
Purpose of Study
• Changing carbon emission reduction policies– State Renewable Portfolio Standards– EPA has a number of existing and proposed
emission policies• EPA 111(d) is a proposal to reduce carbon emissions for
existing generators on a state-by-state basis
• Concern over affect of carbon emission reductions on system frequency response
3
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C OU N C I L
Study Assumptions
• Study ONLY considered system frequency response• 2023 Heavy Summer Base Case was used as the base
line for system frequency response– California once through cooling assumptions were largely
included• Generation replacements were based on
– Assumptions from Transmission Expansion Planning Policy Committee (TEPPC) Common Case
– Assumptions from the EPA 111(d) proposal• Units replaced were least efficient as identified through the
Common Case
4
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C OU N C I L
Study Assumptions (cont)
• Replacement generation was based on– The resource type with the most limited amount of
frequency response (inverter-based technologies)• Pseudo inertial or governor response was not considered
• No changes were made to base case area interchanges
• Double Palo Verde generator outage used for frequency response comparison
5
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C OU N C I L
Generator Type Frequency Response Comparison
0 5 10 15 20345
350
355
360
365
370
375
380
385
390
Base Load ThermalInverter Based Renewable Responsive Thermal
Time(sec)
Pow
er G
ener
ated
(MW
)
6
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C OU N C I L
Case Development
• Two scenarios were selected– 1: Used TEPPC common case assumptions for
initial thermal generation replacement followed by EPA 111(d) assumptions to achieve levels for the proposed rule
– 2: Focused on the southwest and reductions were based on task force provided assumptions of the EPA 111(d) proposed rule
7
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C OU N C I L
Case Development (cont)
• Case Changes– San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station (SONGS)• Turned off in case and generation replaced by existing
generation present in the case (~2100MW)
– Two scenarios examined – removed large amounts of thermal generation• Scenario 1: 7146 MW replaced• Scenario 2: 6369 MW replaced
8
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C OU N C I L
Case Development (cont)
• Scenario 1• Used inverter based generator model (WT4G)• Replaced the stability model for each of the thermal
generating units selected with out making any changes to the power flow data
• Scenario 2• The task force recommendations were
– Thermal units to replace– Location of replacement
9
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C OU N C I L
Scenario 1 Results
0 5 10 15 2059.75
59.8
59.85
59.9
59.95
60
60.05
2023 Base CaseScenario 1 Simulation
10
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C OU N C I L
Scenario 2 Results
0 5 10 15 2059.75
59.8
59.85
59.9
59.95
60
60.05
2023 Base CaseScenario 2 Simulation
11
W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C OU N C I L
Conclusions
• The two scenarios examined did not show a significant change in system frequency response from the original base case
• Thermal units replaced were primarily unresponsive to frequency deviations (blocked governor response)
• The generation replaced was a small portion of the total generation online in the case (~3.5%)
top related