Review of progress and future work SQSS Sub Group 2 August 2006 DTI / OFGEM OFFSHORE TRANSMISSION EXPERTS GROUP
Dec 25, 2015
Review of progress and future work
SQSS Sub Group
2 August 2006
DTI / OFGEM OFFSHORE TRANSMISSION EXPERTS GROUP
Content
• Review of likely boundary between Offshore Generator and Offshore TO
• Cost benefit analysis • Work plan• Data availability and transparency • Other issues
Offshore Ownership Boundary•Reason for review
–Need to understand the scope of the offshore transmission system to understand the required scope of the offshore security standards
• This assessment has taken into account 4 options • Each option has been compared to existing onshore
arrangements, and existing CUSC, STC and charging methodology definitions.
• More detailed paper to be made available for wider consultation.
Option 1; TO to own up to the transmission voltage busbar clamps on the platform transformer circuitOffshore
transmission system
132kV assets
Option 4; TO to own up to the individual wind turbine generator transformer.
Windfarm electrical system
33kV assets
Option 2; TO to own up to the transformer LV disconnectors
Option 3; TO to own up to the disconnector on the busbar side of the circuit breaker on the incoming windfarm circuit
Windfarm electrical system
Single offshore platform
Options considered
Initial Thoughts
• Option 3 is recommended as it:– Best facilitates competition in generation– Simplifies ownership of offshore platforms– Allows the offshore TO to provide Users with
a consistent level of security
• Option 1 could be considered but provides less benefits than Option 3 if more than one Offshore Generator is connected
• Options 2 and 4 are not recommended
Initial Thoughts
• Sub-group intends to develop a detailed paper explaining the recommendation
• Sub-group has assumed that the default offshore ownership boundary will be as its recommendation (Option 3)
• Main Impacts:– Transformer circuits will be included within the
security standards for offshore transmission– Assumption will require a review of the consequential
impact on Grid Code, access rights and charging methodology
Cost-Benefit Analysis
•Concept
•Scope
•Example configurations
•Work progress and key results
•Proposed format of SQSS for offshore transmission
Concept of cost-benefit analysis
Network Capacity and Redundancy
Cost
Investment&Maintenance Costs
Cost of curtailed wind energy and losses
Total Cost
Optimal network
Scope of cost-benefit analysis• Offshore networks
– Switchgear reliability, installation cost, platform cost, ratings, maintenance requirements
– Cable reliability, installation cost, maintenance requirements, ratings, electrical parameters
• Transmission mode (AC vs DC)– Compensation requirements – Losses
• Windfarms– Wind resource characteristics– Typical turbine ratings, availability, cost– Windfarm size– Windfarm distances from shore
• Future value of energy and ROCs • Impact on onshore system operation
– Additional reserve costs
Examples of single AC connections
132 kV
33 kV
Onshore network
132 kV
220kV
33 kV
220 kV
Onshore network
Windfarm electrical system Windfarm electrical system
Shoreline
Example of a shared AC connections
132 kV
33 kV
400 kV
132 kV
Onshore transmission network
400 kV
132 kV
33 kV
132 kV
33 kV
132 kV
33 kV
400 kV
132 kV
On-shore transmission network
400 kV
132 kV
33 kV
132 kV
33 kV
AC DC
AC DC
AC DC
DC AC
DC AC
DC AC
275 or 400 kV
Example of a shared DC connection
Progress and key results• Methodology for the evaluation of cost and reliability
performance of alternative offshore transmission configurations has been developed
• Key differences between offshore and onshore networks– Significantly higher capex requirements – Technology constraints– Wind generation operates at lower load factors than
conventional plant• Analysis of a range of connection types suggests that
generally lower levels of redundancy can be justified for offshore transmission networks when compared with onshore transmission networks– Justifiable levels of redundancy will be influenced by the size of
the wind farm and its distance from shore– Initial analysis suggests significant benefits in providing flexibility
at the platform and interconnections between offshore platforms in close proximity
Illustrative results
• Numerical values shown are indicative ONLY.
• Studies are NOT complete and key assumptions and electrical, reliability and cost data need validation.
• Comprehensive sensitivity studies are yet to be carried out
Wind farm size (MW)
150
300
450
Distance to shore (km)10 50
600
One circuit
Two circuits
Three circuits
Numerical values are
indicative ONLY
Proposed Table form of SQSS for Offshore Networks/1
Distance from Shore: 10 km
Wind Farm Capacity
Network Capability to be Restored
Range of Power Available Network Capacity Following First Circuit Outage
Available Network Capacity Following Second Circuit Outage
Up to
150MW
0 NIL
Between 150MW and 300MW
X1 NIL
Between 300MW and 450MW
Y1 Z1
Above 450MW U1 V1
Numerical values are
indicative ONLY
Proposed Table form of SQSS for Offshore Networks/2
Distance from Shore 50kM
Wind Farm Capacity
Network Capability to be Restored
Range of Power Available Network Capacity Following First Circuit Outage
Available Network Capacity Following Second Circuit Outage
Up to
300MW
0 NIL
Between 300MW and 450MW
X1 NIL
Between 450MW and 800MW
Y1 Z1
Above 800MW U1 V1
Work plan
Work plan and key dates• Further develop the cost-benefit evaluation models (by 14
August)– Take account of the impact of losses– Quantify the impact of diversity in the windfarm output– Take account of the impact of reactive power effects– Develop models further and carry out sensitivity analysis
• Carry out cost-benefit studies and propose Draft Tables and Processes for forming SQSS for offshore transmission networks for review by the sub-group (by 24 August)
• Submit draft SQSS Generation Connection Criteria for offshore transmission networks to OTEG for consideration (31 August)
• Carry out detailed sensitivity analysis.• Re-assess and refine draft SQSS Generation Connection
Criteria for offshore transmission networks (30 September)• Proposed workplan discussed at subgroup meeting on
28/07/06
Data Availability and Transparency
Data availability
• The study work is conditional on receipt of all data from suppliers and developers
• The sub-group has defined the data requirements and highlighted the data that has not yet been provided
• There is risk that the timescales in the work plan will not be met if this data required is not provided– The current work plan is contingent on all data being
provided by 14th August.
Transparency of data• All results of the cost-benefits evaluations should
be re-producible• All data used in the analysis should be visible• Some of the cost information and wind data is only
being provided to the DTI Centre for Distributed Generation and Sustainable Electrical Energy (under confidentiality agreements).– It is hoped that suitable anonymous, generic,
representative data can be produced from project specific data
• Concern is that the sub-group may not be able to make a recommendation based on the results of the analysis work if the input data was not available to them.
Other Issues
Other issues• Offshore TO/DNO/GBSO Interface
– Sub-group is concerned by the possible implications on the security of an offshore transmission network connected to the onshore transmission network via a distribution network.
– Particular concern relates to differences between the design standards applicable to transmission and distribution networks.
– Sub-group will investigate and provide feedback to OTEG• HVDC
– Sub-group is considering DC connection options as part of the cost benefit analysis work
• Paralleling main onshore GB transmission network through offshore transmission network– The subgroup is un-aware of any proposed windfarm connection that
will parallel any nodes of the GB transmission system.• Islands
– National Grid currently developing Commercial Charging arrangements for Islands connections. Sub group work to concentrate on establishing optimum offshore network technical solution with any commercial arrangements to follow.