eastern wind integration and transmission study overview january 28 th webinar dave corbus national...
TRANSCRIPT
Eastern Wind Integration and
Transmission Study Overview
January 28th Webinar
Dave CorbusNational Wind Technology CenterNational Renewable Energy Lab
Eastern Wind Integration& Transmission Study Objectives• Evaluate the power system impacts and transmission
associated with increasing wind capacity to 20% and 30% of retail electric energy sales in the study area by 2024 ;
• Impacts include operating due to variability and uncertainty of wind; reliability
• Build upon prior wind integration studies and related technical work;
• Coordinate with JCSP and current regional power system study work;
• Produce meaningful, broadly supported results through a technically rigorous, inclusive study process.
Region Definition
Study area includes:
• PJM
• Midwest ISO
• Mid-Continent Area Power Pool
• Southwest Power Pool
• TVA
• New York ISO
• ISO New England
• Other interested parties
Project OrganizationDOE
SponsorNRELProject
Manager
Technical Review
Committee
Stakeholders
AWS ScientificWind
Modeling
EnerNex TeamEnerNex/MISO/VentyxProject Team - Analysis
Key Issues & Questions include
• What system operational impacts and costs are imposed by wind generation variability and uncertainty?
• What are the benefits from long distance transmission that accesses multiple wind resources that are geographically diverse?
• What are the benefits from long distance transmission that move large quantities of remote wind energy to urban markets?
• How do remote wind resources compare to local wind resources?
Key Issues & Questions include
• How much does geographical diversity help reduce system variability and uncertainty?
• What is the role and value of wind forecasting?
• What benefit does balancing area cooperation or consolidation bring to wind variability and uncertainty management?
• How does wind generation capacity value affect reliability?
Joint Coordinated System Plan (JCSP)
• The 2007/2008 Joint Coordinated System plan included MISO, PJM, SPP,TVA, MAPP, NYISO,ISO-NE plus other interested parties
• The JCSP performed a long term planning study incorporating both economic (2024) and reliability (2018) analysis of system performance for the combined JCSP areas
• The EWITS uses some of the model assumptions including the generation expansion (EGEAS modeling)
• Final summary report in progress
Wind Integration Methods & Best Practices
• Capture system characteristics and response through operational simulations and modeling;
• Capture wind deployment scenario geographic diversity through synchronized weather simulation;
• Match with actual historic utility load and load forecasts;
• Use actual large wind plant power statistical data for short-term regulation and ramping;
• Examine wind variation in combination with load variations;
• Utilize wind forecasting best practice and combine wind forecast errors with load forecast errors;
• Examine actual costs independent of tariff design structure.
• Examine impacts of BA consolidation and fast markets.
Key Tasks- Eastern Wind Integration & Transmission Study
• Mesoscale modeling
• Transmission Study
• Integration Study
Key Tasks - Mesoscale Modeling
– Identify wind sites
– Develop high quality wind resource data sets for the wind integration study area• Mesoscale modeling• 3 years of time series data (2004-2006)• 10-minute data at 2 km spatial resolution
– Develop wind power plant outputs
Offshore Wind
• Great resource• Well correlated with
load and close to load centers
• More expensive!
Size Distribution• Maximum onshore plant sizes were
normally distributed between 100 MW and 1000 MW
• Additional “mega” sites (>1000MW)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
Num
ber o
f Sit
es
Rated Capacity (MW)
Plant Size Distribution
Power Conversion TestingApproach
• Power conversion takes into account– Turbine power curve for site IEC class– Air density, turbulence– Wake and non-wake losses– Time filtering to replicate the “spatial smoothing”
of the output of a real wind plant
Plant Name StateRated Capacity
(MW)Turbine Type
Hub Height (m)
Blue Canyon I Oklahoma 74.25 NM72 (1.65MW) 67 m
Lake Benton Minnesota 103.5 Zond 750 51.2 m
Storm Lake I Iowa 112.5 Zond 750 63 m
Validation Sites
Validation Example Diurnal Patterns
00.050.1
0.150.2
0.250.3
0.350.4
0.450.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Capa
city
Fac
tor
Local Time of Day
Blue Canyon I - 65M
MOD
OBS
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0 5 10 15 20 25
Capa
city
Fac
tor
Time of Day
Storm Lake - 65M - Z750
MOD
OBS
Validation Example Mean Ramps
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0 50 100 150 200
Mea
n A
bsol
ute
Dev
iati
on
Time Lapse (Minutes)
Storm Lake - 65M - Z750
MOD
OBS
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0 50 100 150 200
Mea
n A
bsol
ute
Devi
ation
Time Lapse (Minutes)
Blue Canyon I - 65M
MOD
OBS
Mesoscale Output/Power Conversion
47.02225 -68.80990
DATE TIME 80M SPEED DIRECTION DENSITY TKE
20040101 0010 4.89790 270.09622 1.25625 0.03305
20040101 0020 4.94108 268.34360 1.25527 0.02336
20040101 0030 4.81025 267.33597 1.25509 0.01175
20040101 0040 4.89001 267.15210 1.25468 0.00649
20040101 0050 4.55865 265.43286 1.25415 0.00473
20040101 0100 4.70651 265.82401 1.25480 0.00252
20040101 0110 4.84289 269.14575 1.25461 0.00214
20040101 0120 4.85045 266.78668 1.25462 0.00247
20040101 0130 4.76209 266.21219 1.25440 0.00268
20040101 0140 4.74387 263.26474 1.25424 0.00220
20040101 0150 4.89790 260.24161 1.25384 0.00246
20040101 0200 4.93185 256.34119 1.25321 0.00351
20040101 0210 4.87496 252.86868 1.25324 0.00413
….
Regional Wind Requirements
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
(MW
)
reference 20% Wind 30% wind
reference 16,000 0 0 0 27,000 5,000 3,000 12,000 0
20% Wind 50,000 11,000 13,000 20,000 63,000 46,000 13,000 12,000 12,000
30% wind 75,000 18,000 20,000 30,000 95,000 68,000 19,000 18,000 18,000
MISO and
MROSPP
Entergy
TVA PJM SERC NYISO NEISO IESO
Scenario Development and Siting• Four Different Scenarios
– Three 20% and one 30% wind scenarios• Scenario that emphasizes development of local resources with
lower capacity factors• Scenario that emphasizes high capacity factor wind
development in the Midwest with larger transmission component
• All of four scenarios require a lot of wind and transmission! – Some offshore wind required
• NREL/AWS provided 700 GWs of wind plants and wind sites for the scenarios were picked from these– Scenario sites were selected from the “Superset” of 700
GWs of sites
Four EWITS Scenarios
• Scenario 1, 20% wind penetration – “Lowest Cost Wind”: Utilizes high quality wind resources in the Great Plans, with other development in the east where good wind resources exist. Total capacity in MISO, MAPP, and SPP is approximately 185 GW
• Scenario 2, 20% wind penetration – “Hybrid, with Offshore”: Some wind generation in the Great Plains is moved east, with capacity increased in PJM, NYISO, and ISO-NE. Some offshore development in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic.
Four EWITS Scenarios
• Scenario 3, 20% wind penetration – “Load-weighted Wind Development, Aggressive Offshore”: More wind is moved east toward load centers, necessitating even more utilization of off-shore resources.
• Scenario 4, 30% wind penetration – “Aggressive On- and Off-shore”. Meeting the 30% energy penetration level uses a substantial amount of the higher quality wind resource. Lots of offshore is needed to reach the target energy level, and the capacity in MISO, MAPP, and SPP goes back up to 188 GW.
EWITS Scenario Installed Wind Capacity by Region
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
MISO/MAPP SPP TVA SERC PJM NYISO ISO-NE
Region
Inst
alle
d C
apac
ity
(MW
)
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
20% wind Scenarios
64,100230,29916,620225,902-223,609Total Capacity
11,04024,9275,00013,837-4,291ISO-NE
9,28023,1672,62016,507-7,742NYISO
3978078,7365,00033,192-22,669PJM
4,0005,0094,0005,009-1,009SERC
-1,247-1,247-1,247TVA
-39,328-69,804-66,576SPP
-57,885-86,306-120,075MISO/MAPP
Offshore (MW)Total (MW)Offshore
(MW)Total (MW)
Offshore (MW)
Total (MW)
3: Load-weighted Wind Development, Aggressive Offshore
2: Hybrid w/Offshore1: Lowest Cost Wind
Region
64,100230,29916,620225,902-223,609Total Capacity
11,04024,9275,00013,837-4,291ISO-NE
9,28023,1672,62016,507-7,742NYISO
3978078,7365,00033,192-22,669PJM
4,0005,0094,0005,009-1,009SERC
-1,247-1,247-1,247TVA
-39,328-69,804-66,576SPP
-57,885-86,306-120,075MISO/MAPP
Offshore (MW)Total (MW)Offshore
(MW)Total (MW)
Offshore (MW)
Total (MW)
3: Load-weighted Wind Development, Aggressive Offshore
2: Hybrid w/Offshore1: Lowest Cost Wind
Region
30% Wind Scenario
79,100337,708Total Capacity
11,04024,927ISO-NE
9,28023,167NYISO
54,78097,736PJM
4,0005,009SERC
-1,247TVA
-69,309SPP
-120,313MISO/MAPP
Offshore (MW)Total (MW)
4: Aggressive On- and Off-shore
Region
79,100337,708Total Capacity
11,04024,927ISO-NE
9,28023,167NYISO
54,78097,736PJM
4,0005,009SERC
-1,247TVA
-69,309SPP
-120,313MISO/MAPP
Offshore (MW)Total (MW)
4: Aggressive On- and Off-shore
Region
Scenarios and Siting Things to keep in mind during the study
• How much capacity can be reasonably exported (imported) at each area?
• Assume constant energy between scenarios rather than constant number of plants:– Typical Great Plains capacity factor/Ohio C.F.=
45/30 = 1.5– ~Roughly 2 MW of wind in Great Plains produces
the same energy as 3 MW of wind in Ohio.
Key Tasks- Develop Transmission Plan
– JCSP reference future and 20% wind and 30% wind scenarios
• Builds on JCSP work
– Analyze different transmission alternatives for different wind scenarios
• 765 AC and HVDC• High in-state wind
versus high wind exports
Develop Preliminary Transmission Plans
• Use JCSP 20% wind scenario transmission overlay as the starting point to develop initial plans for EWITS four scenarios
• Determine type, size and route of transmission lines
• Determine costs and land requirements
• Determine potential substation and DC terminal locations
Scenario 1 Top 24 Interfaces with Largest Annual Energy Difference
Scenario1
AMRN - IN 252,464 -17 28,856IN - OH 185,865 0 20,843OH - EPJM 180,721 -12 18,662AMRN - IOWA 0 -131,654 15,173SPP - SPS 248 -91,858 13,482SPP - EES 104,579 -3 12,551TVA - EES 95 -81,698 10,173WAPA - MINN 67,140 -11 9,243ISONE - NYISO 368 -63,842 9,128SOUTHERN - TVA 1 -76,910 9,045ATC - AMRN 76,404 -1 8,771MINN - ATC 74,025 0 8,647AECI - SPP 13 -68,241 8,565NYISO - PJM 876 -60,431 8,457IESO - NYISO 43,378 -11 4,971MICH - IN 160 -38,925 4,937AMRN - AECI 386 -24,081 4,585AMRN - TVA 39,604 0 4,571SPP - AMRN 37,948 -3 4,556WAPA - IOWA 30,887 -6 4,343MINN - IOWA 29,318 -111 4,102MICH - IESO 27,567 -479 4,070IOWA - SPP 1,594 -20,964 3,978AECI - EES 31,911 0 3,607
Coppersheet Minus Constrained
INTERFACETotal Positive Energy (GWh)
Total Negative Energy (GWh)
Additional Transfer Needed to Deliver 80%
Energy (MW)
4. Wind Integration Study• Evaluate operating impacts
– Regulation– Load Following– Unit Commitment
• Evaluate reliability impacts (ELCC/LOLP)• EWITS is first and foremost a wind
integration study– What are the integration costs and issues for 20
and 30% wind?– How is other generation affected?
Production Simulation Methodology
Case comparison approach– Actual wind vs. “ideal” wind– Objective is to determine relative value of two
resources providing same amount of annual/daily energy
Issues– Approach is established as best way to
accomplish objective– Not been attempted on this scale before
Hourly Modeling Objective– Chronological simulation of operational planning and power
system operation– Mimic
• Day-ahead unit commitment and scheduling based on load and wind generation forecasts
• Real-time operation with actual wind and load How do we simulate the Eastern Interconnection in 2024?
– Period-ahead planning (e.g. day-ahead unit commitment)– Real-time operations (at minimum of hourly granularity)– Operational structures
• Conventional control areas?• Existing markets?
Hourly Modeling PROMOD capabilities
– Reserve modeling• Types• Treatment (e.g. variable by hour?)
– Commit based on forecast, simulation based on actual quantities?
– Features for treatment of uncertainty?
Modeling Transactions– Day-ahead and “real time”– Relevant program features
Intra-Hour Impacts Objective
– Determine operating reserves required to manage control area with wind generation
– Feed requirements forward into hourly modeling
Variability of wind generation adds to existing variability, increasing requirements for RT ancillary services
Analytical approach– Based on high-resolution (< 10 min) load and
wind generation data
LOLP and ELCC Analysis
Objective– Determine contribution of wind generation to Eastern
Interconnection reliability
– Assess reliability value of transmission only(?)
Issues– Transmission overlay could have significant impact on existing
LOLE zones
– Transmission will serve as capacity resources for some zones; may make some zones very reliable, such that ELCC of wind would be minimal
Predecessor tasks– Requires PROMOD to determine new area import limits
– GE MARS model to be developed from PowerBase
– Resource constraints may necessitate staging
Reliability Analysis GE MARS
– Monte-Carlo based chronological reliability simulation
– Now in use at MISO
Objectives– Calculate ELCC for wind generation based on
comparative LOLE cases– Zone-by-zone basis
Input data– Network, resource, and load data input developed
from PowerBase– Wind as load modifier
Downloading EWITS Wind Data http://wind.nrel.gov/public/EWITS/
Download Time-series DataAll data (using ftp site)EWITS ftp site (ftp://ftp2.nrel.gov/pub/ewits) Instructions for ftp Data for individual sites using interactive websiteEWITS Interactive Website Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQs) about time-series
dataEWITS FAQ
Downloading EWITS Wind Data EWITS Interactive Website
/
Eastern Wind Integration & Transmission Study
Schedule• Nov 07 – Feb 08 Study Development
• March 2008 Award Wind Mesoscale Modeling Contract
• July 2008 Award Wind Integration Contract
• April – Oct 2008 Develop Wind Data Sets
• Sept 08 – June 2009 Evaluate Operating & Reliability Impacts; Develop Transmission
Plan
• August 2009 Complete Study
Your Input is Important!
• EWITS Website - http://wind.nrel.gov/public/EWITS/
• Suggestions on questions to address in study
or other comments/input
• Contact Dave Corbus at [email protected] (303-
384-6966) or Matt Schuerger at
[email protected] (651-699-4971)