integrating wind resources: siting decisions in the midwest
DESCRIPTION
Integrating wind resources: siting decisions in the Midwest. Julian Lamy (speaker) Ines Azevedo Paulina Jaramillo. The Midwest has ambitious renewable targets. Illinois RPS: 25% by 2025, 60 to 75% from wind 30 TWh (10 GW) of wind needed for this target - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Integrating wind resources: siting decisions in the MidwestJulian Lamy (speaker)Ines AzevedoPaulina Jaramillo
2
The Midwest has ambitious renewable targets• Illinois RPS: 25% by 2025, 60 to 75% from wind
• 30 TWh (10 GW) of wind needed for this target • RPSs in MN, MO, WI, and MI add another 30
TWh (10 GW)• Currently MISO has about 10 GW
• Research question: in an ideal world, if we could choose to build the farms anywhere in MISO, where would we build them?
• What metrics to consider?
3
Cap
acity
Fac
tor
30%
32%
34%
36%
38%
40%
42%
44%
46%
Annual average capacity factor
EWITS (2012), 2006
4
Variability is also a big concern, even for the highest capacity resources
1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 85 92 990%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
First 100 hours of 2006
Hou
rly
Cap
acity
Fac
tor
Illinois farm (293 MW)CF 44%COV: 0.52
5
Coe
ffici
ent o
f var
iatio
n (C
OV
)
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
Coefficient of Variation (CoV) in hourly output
EWITS (2012), 2006
𝐶𝑂𝑉=𝜎𝜇
6
Transmission: hard to say…
MTEP 2012, pg. 49
7
Data on available existing transmission capacity is limited, what about generation?
17%
61%
22%
(eGRID, 2012), % of generation in 2009 by area
26%
8
Past research suggests that building around Illinois is best
• Hoppock and Patiño-Echeverri (2010) • Evaluated wind farms using capacity factors for
hypothetical sites using EWITS data (2008)• Remote wind farms were required to build transmission
lines for delivery to Illinois (with sensitivities)
• This paper add to the literature by:
1. In addition to capacity factors, we include a metric to account for the temporal variability of each farm using a simple dispatch model
2. Delivery must be to some node cluster within MISO, not necessarily to Illinois
9
Generation cost for each non-wind generator (i)
ramp cost for each non-wind generator (i)
Capital costs incurred for each wind farm
marginal gen cost for non-wind generator i
Generation in hour t by non-wind generator i
Change in generation from hour (t-1) to t
Binary variable : b=1: build farm kb=0: don’t build farm k
Annualized wind capital cost + annualized transmission capital cost
Ramp cost ($/MWh) incurred by non-wind generator i
Modeling Approach
10
Modeling Approach
Market Clearing (wind “must-run”)
Annual wind generation target
Generator capacity and ramp limits
ramp cost for each non-wind generator (i)
Capital costs incurred for each wind farm
Generation cost for each non-wind generator (i)
11
Assumptions: Ramping Cost• DeCarolis and Keith (2006)
• Increasing wind power to serve 50% of demand adds about $10-20/MWh due to intermittency + transmission costs
• Lueken et al. (2012) • Analyzed the variability of 20 wind farms in ERCOT over one year and
concluded that costs due to variability are on average $4/MWh • Hirst (2001)
• 100 MW wind farm in MN for delivery to PJM• Intra-hour balance cost: $7 to 28/MWh • regulation costs: $5 to $30/MWh
• Very uncertain so we used a parametric analysis and tested the sensitivity to the results:
• $0, $5, $10, $30, and $100/MWh • Incurred during hourly changes in dispatchable generation
12
Transmission Assumptions
$/MW-km Year $$ Source
$200-900 $2001 Fertig and Apt (2011)
$100 – 1,300 Parameterized Denholm (2009)
$1,200-4,200 $2009 Hoppock & Patino (2010)
Case $/MW-km
Base $1,000
High $2,000
Costs
Distance required per site
x
To account for additional transmission needed along the grid:100%, 200%, 300%, 400%
13
MISO LMP map, accessed July 3, 2013https://www.misoenergy.org/MarketsOperations/RealTimeMarketData/Pages/LMPContourMap.aspx
Selection of transmission node clusters
14
MISO Delivery $1,000/ MW-km - 200% - $10/MWh
Cap
acity
Fac
tor
44%
44%
45%
45%
46%
15
Cap
acity
Fac
tor
44%
44%
45%
45%
46%
MISO Delivery $1,000/ MW-km - 200% - $10/MWh
~ 50 km each from node cluster
~ 10 km from node cluster
How does the answer change under different ramping cost assumptions?
16
0 5 10 30 1000%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
82% 76% 72%56%
45%
18% 24%24%
29%
29%
4%15%
26%
Ramping Cost Assumption ($/MWh)
MISO Delivery - $1,000/ MW-km – 200%
~8 GW built in MISO
% of totalMW built
17
Summary of Scenarios Considered
Distance Scenario Transmission needed (% of distance)
Transmission Costs ($/MW-km)
Ramp Costs($/MWh)
Illinois delivery 50%, 100%$1,000, $2,000
$0, $5, $10, $30, $100MISO delivery
100%, 200%, 300%, 400%
18
Conclusions• In most scenarios, remote wind is optimal
even when not accounting for variability ($0/MWh)
• When ramping costs ≥$10/MWh, the optimal portfolio of wind farm locations changes
19
Next Steps• Refine scenario to better represent the necessary
transmission capacity to connect farms to MISO’s grid• MISO’s historical Impact Studies• Find someone with a detailed dispatch/ power flow model
…unlikely but I’m hopeful…• Other ideas??
• Better represent transmission capacity needs within Illinois. Currently, assume that 0 km need to be built
20
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the center for Climate and Energy Decision Making (SES-
0949710), through a cooperative agreement between the National Science Foundation and
Carnegie Mellon University, and by the RenewElec project.
21
Appendix
22
MISO Delivery - $1,000/ MW-km – 100%
0 5 10 30 1000%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
32% 32% 31% 25% 19%
55% 55% 55%55%
54%
13% 13% 14% 20%22%
6%
Ramping Cost Assumption ($/MWh)~8 GW built in MISO
23
MISO Delivery - $1,000/ MW-km – 300%
0 5 10 30 1000%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100% 99% 99%
75%
53%
1% 1%17% 22%
8%
24%
Ramping Cost Assumption ($/MWh)~8 GW built in MISO
24
MISO Delivery - $1,000/ MW-km – 400%
0 5 10 30 1000%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100% 100% 100%84%
61%
16%23%
14%
2%
Ramping Cost Assumption ($/MWh)~8 GW built in MISO
25
Illinois Delivery - $1,000/ MW-km – 100%
~8 GW built in MISO
0 5 10 30 1000%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Ramping Cost Assumption ($/MWh)
26
Illinois Delivery - $1,000/ MW-km – 50%
~8 GW built in MISO
0 5 10 30 1000%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
99% 99% 99% 92%76%
1% 1% 1% 4%20%
4% 4%
Ramping Cost Assumption ($/MWh)
27
Different sites within Illinois are chosen!Ramping Cost Assumption ($/MWh)
Site ID CF COV 0 5 10 30 1004022 45% 0.68 IL IL IL IL IL4208 44% 0.72 IL IL IL IL IL4327 44% 0.70 IL IL IL IL IL4214 44% 0.73 IL IL IL IL IL4397 44% 0.71 IL IL IL IL IL4640 44% 0.71 IL IL IL IL IL4140 44% 0.72 IL IL IL IL IL4474 44% 0.69 IL IL IL IL IL4659 43% 0.72 IL IL IL IL IL4242 43% 0.71 IL IL IL IL IL4431 44% 0.71 IL IL IL IL IL4662 43% 0.72 IL IL IL IL IL4241 43% 0.72 IL IL IL IL IL4667 43% 0.70 IL IL IL IL4519 43% 0.69 IL IL IL IL4603 43% 0.70 IL IL IL IL4554 43% 0.71 IL IL4435 43% 0.73 IL IL4635 43% 0.70 IL4636 43% 0.72 IL4605 43% 0.73 IL4606 43% 0.73 IL
Strange pattern likely because of optimal “grouping” of farms to decrease variability
Red represent < 100% capacity of the wind farm was built (i.e., 0 < bk <1)
28
Assumptions: Dispatchable Generators• Nuclear, hydro, and existing wind are “must-run”• Gas + Coal are aggregated into one representative
dispatchable unit• Model has to dispatch 1 generator to support the new wind
Tech Type GW $/MWhv Capacity Factor Ramp limit per hour(% of max MW)
Must-run Nuclear 8.5 $12 90% -Wind_existii 8.1 $0 ‘Varied’ -
Wind_newiv ‘Varied’ $0 ‘Varied’ -Hydro 3.5 $0 95% -Otheri 7.1 $50 90% 60%
Dispatchiii Coal 70 $25 90% 60%Gas 35 $37 90% 100%
Coal + Gas 105 $30 90% 100%
i: includes residual fuel oil, biomass, and other generationii: wind data from MISO ( 2012a)iii: total load data is from MISO (201b)
iv: not currently included, scenarios to be included in final reportv: Computed using $/mmbtu from AEO (2013), and mmbtu/kwh from EGrid (2009)
29
Conclusions• MISO delivery scenarios
• In most scenarios, remote wind is optimal even when not accounting for variability ($0/MWh)
• When ramping costs ≥$10/MWh, the optimal portfolio of wind farm locations changes
• Illinois delivery scenarios• Probably too pessimistic for remote wind• For 100% transmission case, Illinois is always optimal• For the 50% transmission case, adjoining states such as MO
and IA are competitive when ramping costs ≥ $30/MWh• Even with Illinois only wind development, accounting for
ramping costs ≥ $30/MWh affects siting within Illinois
30
Xcel Energy RFP
31
Impact Study Assessment for ND
32
30%
32%
34%
36%
38%
40%
42%
44%
46%
remote local + adj lakes
capa
city
fact
or
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
remote local + adj lakesco
effic
ient
of v
aria
tion
RemoteND, SD, MN, NE
LocalIL, IN, IA,
MO
LakesMI, WI
RemoteND, SD, MN, NE
LocalIL, IN, IA,
MO
LakesMI, WI
Box Plots of CF and COV by region
33
MW
h
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
x 106
State TWhs Perc.remote ND 35 5% SD 12 2% MN 53 8% NE 36 6%local IL 199 31% IN 122 19% IA 56 9% MO 95 15%lakes WI 63 10% MI 109 17%
Existing Generators in MISO (eGRID, 2012)
34
100% 99% 99%
75%
53%
8%
24%
1% 1%17% 22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 5 10 30 100Ramping Cost Assumption ($/MWh)
32% 32% 31% 25% 19%
55% 55% 55%55%
54%
13% 13% 14% 20%22%
6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 5 10 30 100Ramping Cost Assumption ($/MWh)
100%
200%
100%
400%
300%
82% 76% 72%56%
45%
18% 24%24%
29%
29%
4%15%
26%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 5 10 30 100Ramping Cost Assumption ($/MWh)
100% 100% 100%84%
61%
14%
16%23%
2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 5 10 30 100Ramping Cost Assumption ($/MWh)Ramping Cost Assumptions ($/MWh)