greennet-eu27 results on wp5: case studies on res-e grid integration 1 res-e case study analyses and...
Post on 21-Dec-2015
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
GreenNet-EU27Results on WP5: Case studies
on RES-E grid integration
1
RES-E Case Study Analyses and Synthesis of Results
Dr.-Ing. Derk J. Swider
Institute of Energy Economics and the Rational Use of Energy (IER)Universität Stuttgart, Germany
Coordinator of WP2 and WP5 of the GreenNet-EU27 project, financially supported by the European Commission (Contract No.
EIE/04/049/S07.38561).
Legal Disclaimer: The sole responsibility for the content of this work lies with the authors. It does not represent the opinion of the European Communities. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
GreenNet-EU27Results on WP5: Case studies
on RES-E grid integration
2
OutlineRES-E Case Study Analyses and Synthesis of Results
1. Introduction
2. Description of electricity systems
3. Conditions for RES-E grid integration
4. Costs for RES-E grid integration
5. Best-practice cases for RES-E grid integration
6. Conclusions
GreenNet-EU27Results on WP5: Case studies
on RES-E grid integration
3
Motivation
Proposition: The costs of integrating RES-E in an existing grid can form a significant barrier for the deployment of RES-E.
• Just starts to get into the focus of energy policy makers as it gains importance if wind offshore is considered.
• The allocation of grid reinforcement and extension costs may lead to first-mover disadvantages.
• This may reduce the willingness to invest and may thus hamper the deployment of RES-E.
GreenNet-EU27Results on WP5: Case studies
on RES-E grid integration
4
Country specific analysisFor different European countries the questions
What conditions apply for RES-E grid integration? Who has to pay for any additional costs?
are answered based on literature reviews and stakeholder interviews.
Wind power Country
Onshore Offshore Biomass Photovoltaic
Germany
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Sweden
Austria
Lithuania
Slovenia
GreenNet-EU27Results on WP5: Case studies
on RES-E grid integration
5
Electricity systems (I)
• Considered electricity systems differ in terms of their respective size but are similar in consumption per capita.
GreenNet-EU27Results on WP5: Case studies
on RES-E grid integration
6
Electricity systems (II)
2010 targets (EU Directive 2001/77/EC)
GreenNet-EU27Results on WP5: Case studies
on RES-E grid integration
7
Supporting schemes (I)
Feed-in tariff
Are characterized by a defined price paid to the RES-E generators. Any arising additional costs are passed through to the consumers by way of a premium on the price. Has the advantage of investment security but also the disadvantage of a risk of over-funding.
Quota
Are characterized by selling RES-E at market prices. The financing of additional costs is remunerated by all consumers (in some countries producers) obliged to purchase a certain number of certificates from RES-E producers. Has the advantage of a market-based instrument but also the disadvantage of risks for investors.
GreenNet-EU27Results on WP5: Case studies
on RES-E grid integration
8
Supporting schemes (II)
• Most of the countries decided to use the feed-in tariff as a supporting scheme for the development of RES-E.
• The implementation of these schemes is different from country to country which effects the RES-E development.
Supporting Scheme Country
Feed-in tariff Quota Incentives
Germany
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Sweden
Austria*
Lithuania
Slovenia
* The supporting scheme is currently under revision. The most important change will be a cap on the financial support for the various RES-E generation technologies.
GreenNet-EU27Results on WP5: Case studies
on RES-E grid integration
9
Grid connection (I)
• In general, national governments demand RES-E to be connected with priority compared to conventional generation.
• They are usually connected to the next available connection point of the existing grid with the procedure defined in grid codes.
• Normally, RES-E does not have the same requirements as conventional plants regarding the provision of system services.
GreenNet-EU27Results on WP5: Case studies
on RES-E grid integration
10
Grid connection (II)Distribution grid
Transmission grid
taken from WP6 presentation
taken from WP6 presentation
GreenNet-EU27Results on WP5: Case studies
on RES-E grid integration
11
Grid related costs
• In the case studies three cost categories are distinguished:
1) Shallow grid integration costs;
2) Deep grid integration costs;
3) Other fixed and variable costs.
• Costs related to the central connection point of a RES-E site are considered as shallow grid integration costs
• All expenses in the existing grid related to the connection of the new RES-E site are considered to be deep grid integration costs.
GreenNet-EU27Results on WP5: Case studies
on RES-E grid integration
12
Cost allocation (I)
Shallow approach
Advantage: reasonable incentive
Deep approach
Advantage: reflects real costs
Super-shallow approach
Advantage: high incentive to invest
All these approaches may lead to an inefficient systemas they do not sufficiently provide locational signals.
taken from WP6 presentation
GreenNet-EU27Results on WP5: Case studies
on RES-E grid integration
13
Cost allocation (II)
• It can be seen that there is no consensus, due to the fact that there are many different stakeholders involved.
• RES-E cost allocation is of major importance and can adversely affect the economic viability of RES-E.
Cost allocation philosophy Country
Shallow Hybrid Deep
Germany
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Sweden
Austria
Lithuania
Slovenia
GreenNet-EU27Results on WP5: Case studies
on RES-E grid integration
14
Grid integration costs (I)• Grid integration costs are often not specified separately or it is not
always clear what they comprise.
• Grid integration costs are always site specific; influencing factors are most importantly distance, trajectory, etc.
Wind power Country
Onshore Offshore Biomass Photovoltaic
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Germany 45 170 185 600 - - - -
Netherlands 40 150 180 205 100 0 100
United Kingdom 95 130 - - - - 50 600
Sweden 85* - - - - - -
Austria 210* - - 30* - -
Lithuania 35* - - - - - -
Slovenia - - - - 15* 125 985
* One case study only. (EUR/kW)
GreenNet-EU27Results on WP5: Case studies
on RES-E grid integration
15
Grid integration costs (II)
GreenNet-EU27Results on WP5: Case studies
on RES-E grid integration
16
Unit generation costs (I)• Cost estimation based on the average lifetime levelized electricity
generation cost (EGC) approach as applied in the OECD study.
• The OECD study focused on calculating busbar costs, at the station, and did not include transmission and distribution costs.
With:It Investment expenditures in the year tMt Operations and maintenance expenditures in the year tFt Fuel expenditures in the year tEt Electricity generation in the year tr Discount rate
GreenNet-EU27Results on WP5: Case studies
on RES-E grid integration
17
Upper bound of normalized RES-E unit generation costs and respective feed-in tariff (in
EUR/MWh for 2004; lifetime assumed 20 years; interest rate 10%; full-load hours: 2100 h/y for
wind onshore, 3000 h/y for wind offshore, 6000 h/y for biomass and 800 h/y for photovoltaics).
Wind power Country
Onshore Offshore Biomass Photovoltaic
Costs Tariff Costs Tariff Costs Tariff Costs Tariff
Germany 85 87 120 91 - - - -
Netherlands* 90 65 130 97 145 97 830 97
Austria 95 78 - - 115 165 - -
* Premium on the market price
Unit generation costs (II)
• Feed-in tariffs for established RES-E technologies are usually well chosen and provide sufficient support to invest.
• Feed-in tariffs for newer RES-E technologies, as for example for wind offshore, do often not provide sufficient support to invest.
GreenNet-EU27Results on WP5: Case studies
on RES-E grid integration
18
Best practice cases (I)• For RES-E the most important and influencing actors in the energy
market are energy policy makers and associated regulators.
• Often two partly opposite aims are followed:
i. establishing an efficient and cost minimized market
ii. introduction of a defined share of RES-E generation
• Principally fixed RES-E investment incentives, like a feed-in tariff, reduce the developers’ exposure to risk.
• Regarding the past development of RES-E the situation in Germany seems to be the most favorable of all considered countries.
• However, for wind offshore the grid integration costs may constitute a significant barrier to invest (lead Germany to switch to a super-shallow approach).
GreenNet-EU27Results on WP5: Case studies
on RES-E grid integration
19
0
50.000
100.000
150.000
200.000
250.000
300.000
350.000
400.000
450.000
200
5
200
6
200
7
200
8
200
9
201
0
201
1
201
2
201
3
201
4
201
5
201
6
201
7
201
8
201
9
202
0
Win
d g
en
era
tio
n o
f n
ew p
lan
ts(i
ns
talle
d a
fter
20
04)
[GW
h/y
r]
Reference scenario
Super-shallow chargingscenarioDeep charging scenario
Best practice cases (II)
taken from WP6 presentation
GreenNet-EU27Results on WP5: Case studies
on RES-E grid integration
20
RecommendationsLarge-scale RES-E grid integration…
…may be hampered by barriers due to the chosen supporting scheme and cost allocation approach (first-mover disadvantages).
…requires clarification concerning the distribution of any additional expenses between the market actors (plant and grid operators).
Therefore…
…create mechanisms in grid regulation policies able to identify and remunerate investments caused by RES-E grid integration.
…try to have the major part of the grid integration costs, especially deep costs, covered by the grid operator (remunerate to society).
Then barriers for new RES-E deployment are reduced and ambitious goals can be met with minimal (extra) costs for society.
top related