Strategies to reduce transmission costs for solar …...Strategies to reduce transmission costs for solar plants in the National Electricity Market Ben Elliston and Iain MacGill School
Post on 17-Jun-2020
6 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Strategies to reduce transmission costs for solar plants in the National
Electricity Market
Ben Elliston and Iain MacGill
School of Electrical Engineering & TelecommunicationsCentre for Energy and Environmental Markets
UNSW
b.elliston@student.unsw.edu.au
In the news
An aerial impression of the Kogan Creek Solar Boost Project. Source: CS Energy
Outline
● Brief overview of plant technologies● Transmission investment goals● Transmission in the NEM● Solar plant output simulations● Analysis of results● Conclusions
Ground mounted PV plants
34MW PV plant in Arnedo, La Rioja, Spain. Source: Renewable Energy magazine
Two-axis tracking PV plants
1MW PV plant in Madera, California. Source: PROINSO
Concentrating Solar Power (CSP)
SEGS plant in Kramer Junction, California. Source: TRECUK
Concentrating Solar Power (CSP)
Andasol1 plant, Granada, Spain (7.5 hours TES). Source: German Aerospace Center
Transmission investment goals
● From Review of Energy Market Frameworks:– Timely processing of connection applications
– Cost-reflective pricing
– Efficient level of investment
● Main issues for renewable energy– Build in high quality locations (further from grid),
or lower quality locations (closer to grid)?
– Plants built faster than transmission2-3 years vs 8-12 years (Mills et al., Cavallo)
Transmission in the NEM
NEM regions (interconnectors in red)
Transmission in the NEM
● Open access to transmission network● Costs are recovered from loads, not generators
– “Under-signalling of network costs for new generators” (Frontier Economics)
● Shallow connection charging● Augmentation subject to RIT-T
– Net benefit (there may be cheaper measures)
– Evidence of intraregional mis-pricing
– May be slow: EIS, land title, build-out (8-12 yrs)
Rule change: Scale Efficient Network Extensions (June 2011)
● Proposed by MCE● Encourage efficient network development
– Identify regions with high renewable potential
– Forecast future generation
● A chicken and egg problem– One generator ready now, but more expected
● Risks for generators, TNSPs
– Risks building transmission to right scale● Stranded assets● Inefficient duplication
Rule change: Scale Efficient Network Extensions
● Generators are given option to connect● Once first generator connects, build● Shallow connection from generators to new
network nodes
Under current arrangements, generators ..
● may cluster around existing transmission● will minimise cost of grid connection● may form agreements with nearby loads ● may encounter constrained transmission
Transmission sizing strategies
● High capacity factor generators(e.g. coal-fired plants meeting base load)
– Size transmission line to rated output
– “Get all power to market”
● Low capacity factor generators(e.g. CCGT meeting peak load)
– Size transmission line to rated output
– “Get high value power to market”
● Solar generators?
Prior work
● Work on sizing in the wind sector– Cavallo (1995) – oversizing farms
– Boerema and MacGill (2010)
– Pattanariyankool & Lave (2010)
● Recent work on storage in CSP systems– Johnston (2009): CSP in the NEM
– Beyond Zero Emissions ZCA Plan (2010)
– Denholm, et al (2010): role of storage
– Wittmann, et al (2011): operation strategies
Solar plant output modelling
● System Advisor Model (NREL)● Modelled 100MW plants in Cobar, NSW
Source: Google Maps
Solar plant output modelling
● System Advisor Model (NREL)● Modelled 100MW plants in Cobar, NSW● 2009 weather data● Modelled systems
– PV
– 2-axis tracking PV
– CSP (w/ thermal storage)
● NEM spot price data (NSW, 2009) from AEMO– Half hourly, averaged to hourly
PV output (Jan. 1 & 2, 2009)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
Po
we
r (k
W)
PV output (every noon, 2009)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000kW
PV results
Transmissioncapacity (MW)
Annual yield (GWh)
Energy fraction
Revenue ($)
Revenue fraction
90 178.31 1.000 6,601,000 1.000
80 178.17 0.999 6,596,000 0.999
70 174.74 0.980 6,443,000 0.976
60 164.99 0.925 6,029,000 0.931
50 148.93 0.835 5,418,000 0.821
PV and 2-axis tracking PV output(Jan. 1 & 2, 2009)
-20000
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
PV2-axis PV
Po
we
r (k
W)
2-axis tracking PV results
Transmissioncapacity (MW)
Annual yield (GWh)
Energy fraction
Revenue fraction
90 251.70 1.00 1.00
80 242.71 0.96 0.97
70 223.58 0.89 0.89
60 198.07 0.79 0.79
50 168.98 0.67 0.67
Trough net outputJan. 1 & 2, 2009
-20000
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
PVCSP-2.5
Ne
t Po
we
r (k
W)
Trough net outputJan. 1 & 2, 2009
-20000
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
PVCSP-2.52h
Ne
t Po
we
r (k
W)
Trough net outputJan. 1 & 2, 2009
-20000
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
PVCSP-2.52h4h
Ne
t Po
we
r (k
W)
Trough net outputJan. 1 & 2, 2009
-20000
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
PVCSP-2.52h4h6hN
et P
ow
er
(kW
)
Trough plant energy yield
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0h TES2h TES4h TES6h TESPV
Constraint fraction
En
erg
y fr
act
ion
Trough plant revenue
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0h TES2h TES4h TES6h TESPV
Constraint fraction
Re
ven
ue
fra
cti o
n
“Ideal” generation curve
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
PV2-axis PVIdeal (no storage)
Hour
Ne
t po
we
r (k
W)
“Ideal” generation curve
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
PV2-axis PVIdeal (no storage)Ideal (some storage)
Hour
Ne
t po
we
r (k
W)
“Ideal” generation curve
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
PV2-axis PVIdeal (no storage)Ideal (some storage)Ideal (more storage)
Hour
Ne
t po
we
r (k
W)
“Ideal” generation curve
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
PV2-axis PVIdeal (no storage)Ideal (some storage)Ideal (more storage)Ideal (even more storage)
Hour
Ne
t po
we
r (k
W)
“Ideal” generation curve
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
PV2-axis PVIdeal (no storage)Ideal (some storage)Ideal (more storage)Ideal (even more storage)
Hour
Ne
t po
we
r (k
W)
80MW limit~20% less energy
Conclusions
● In restructured industries (NEM), transmission investment needs to be carefully directed
● Risk, not cost, the biggest problem● Modular construction a big advantage● Over-sizing fixed PV systems very effective● More CSP storage → higher impact of
constraint (just like fossil plants)● Better to match power block to available
transmission (less $, run at full load)
Questions?
Ben Elliston and Iain MacGill
School of Electrical Engineering & TelecommunicationsCentre for Energy and Environmental Markets
UNSW
b.elliston@student.unsw.edu.au
top related