assessing the impact of low carbon technologies on great ... · technologies on great britain’s...
TRANSCRIPT
Work Stream 3 – Phase 2
Assessing the Impact of Low Carbon
Technologies on Great Britain’s
Power Distribution Network
1. Development and Considerations
12th November 2012
WS3-Ph2: A consortium-led approach on behalf of the GB Smart Grid Forum (Work Stream 3)
2
Project Partners..
Working with..
Why WS3 initiated Phase 2
• GB network uncertainties
• The case for using innovative solutions to address the new challenges
• Irregular country-wide spread
• Different technologies pose different challenges to different networks
• Significant increase in number of potential solutions
3
What best to use, and When to use it… ? WS3 - Phase 1 report
Two Smart Grid Forum workstreams focus on the evaluation of smart grids
4
WS1: Assumptions and scenarios
Aims to establish the assumptions and scenarios necessary for the network companies to produce business plans that are consistent with DECC’s low carbon transition. Led by DECC.
WS1
WS2: Evaluation Framework
WS3: Developing Networks for Low Carbon
WS4: Closing Doors
WS5: Ways of Working
WS6: Commercial and Regulatory
Aims to develop an evaluation framework that can assess, at high level, alternative network development options. Led by Ofgem.
Aims to assess the network impacts of the assumptions and scenarios from WS1. Led by the DNOs.
Aims to identify credible risks to the development of smart grids as a consequence of forthcoming policy decisions which might fail to take full account of the necessary enablers for smart grid development.
Looks at how the Forum can best pursue its objectives and communicate effectively with stakeholders.
Brings together stakeholders to investigate the commercial and regulatory challenges of implementing the smart grid solutions.
WS3 builds on the framework developed in WS2
5
WS2: Evaluation Framework
WS3: Developing Networks for Low Carbon
• Real options-based evaluation framework.
• Flexible and transparent model, available from Ofgem
• More network types and network technologies.
• DNO-specific modelling
• Real-options elements not included
Not all networks are equal: The headroom of the networks differ throughout GB
Factors include:
Build specification
Customer type and customer density
Local geography
8
There is no such thing as an ‘average’ network
• 6 x EHV • 7 x HV • 19 x LV
To increase the numbers and types of networks to make the model more representative of the GB system
Network Geographical Area
Customer Density
Network Construction
Topology
EHV 1 Urban High Underground Radial
EHV 2 Urban High Underground Meshed
EHV 3 Suburban Medium Mixed Radial
EHV 4 Suburban Medium Mixed Meshed
EHV 5 Rural Low Overhead Radial
EHV 6 Rural Low Mixed Radial
Network Geographical Area
Customer Density
Network Construction
Topology
HV 1 Urban High Underground Radial
HV 2 Urban High Underground Meshed
HV 3 Suburban Medium Underground Radial
HV 4 Suburban Medium Underground Meshed
HV 5 Suburban Medium Mixed Radial
HV 6 Rural Low Overhead Radial
HV 7 Rural Low Mixed Radial
9
There is no such thing as an ‘average’ customer
CONSUMPTION PROFILE
ENVIRONMENT •Temperature •Solar Flux
BUILDING •Size •Heat loss •Glazing
APPLIANCES/EQUIPMENT •Power Rating
• On/Standby •Efficiency •Programme/Cycle
USERS •Number •Activity Profile •Energy Efficiency Attitude
10
Domestic Heat Pump
Point load demand profiles differ according to in-home technology and geography
• Winter Peak, Winter & Summer Average • Weekday • Temperature Sensitivity • Appliance Type & Efficiency • Validation
Standard Tariff Domestic Domestic E7 Storage Heaters
Temperature Sensitivity
11
Hence, the mix of customers along a feeder has a significant impact on its overall demand profile
LV feeder demand profile
12
An uncertain world: Different mixes of large-scale generation will place different challenges on the conventional network design and operation
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
GW
of i
nsta
lled
capa
city
CCGT Coal CCGT CCS
Coal CCS Nuclear Onshore wind
Offshore wind Other renewable
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
GW
of i
nsta
lled
capa
city
CCGT Coal CCGT CCS
Coal CCS Nuclear Other renewable
Onshore wind Offshore wind
Installed capacity: medium decarbonisation scenario
Installed capacity: low decarbonisation scenario
14
Source: Redpoint analysis for the ENA based on National Grid ‘Slow Progress’ scenario to 2030 and extrapolated to 2050
Source: Redpoint analysis for the ENA, based on National Grid ‘Gone Green’ scenario
With disruptive technologies having scope to create significant challenge to LV networks
15
Heat Pumps
Photovoltaic
Electric Vehicles Source: SGF, WS1, DECC, Dec 2011
A
B
C
A B
C
PV uptake example
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Q1 2010
Q2 2010
Q3 2010
Q4 2010
Q1 2011
Q2 2011
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
MicroCHP pilot
Wind
Photovoltaics
Hydro
Anaerobic digestion
2002
PV = 0MW
2012
PV = 600+ MW
16
There are clear differences between the technologies adopted in different parts of the UK
17
Regional breakdown of installed capacity by
technology (MW)
Source: FiTs Annual Review 2010-11, Ofgem E-Serve, 2012
Regional breakdown of current wind projects
Regionalisation within the model
18
• Regional variation in terms of housing stock and temperature allowances for different building loads
• “Attractiveness” of various LCTs differs across regions – PV can be selected to be more attractive in South and East
England than Scotland if desired, for example
Region 1 Scotland
Region 2
North West North East Yorkshire and the Humber West Midlands East Midlands
Region 3 Wales (incl Merseyside and Cheshire)
Region 4 South West South East East of England
Region 5 London
From GB to regional uptakes - examples
From national to regional uptakes
• Regionalisation performed for all technologies;
• Distinction between rural / suburban and urban areas
19
Mapping of technology uptakes by region and area character to the LV feeders • Multi-step approach based on DNO data, DECC projections, National Statistics and EE uptake models
DNO data
House Condition Survey & Rateable Value data
21
PV installations have clustered in different parts of GB
22
Percentage of network
Percentage of low-carbon technology installations
1% 9%
4% 17%
25% 48%
30% 22%
40% 5%
Number of domestic PV installations per 10,000 households by Local Authority, end of December 2011
Source: www.azure.eco.co.uk
Source: DECC
Fixing the problem: Selecting solutions with an increasing solution set
25
Conventional Solutions Conventional
Solutions
‘Business-As-Usual’ Investment
‘Smart’ Investment
Smart Solutions
Solution Enablers
“Lumpy” - high upfront costs, minimal running costs, long lives, produce step change in headroom
“Flexible” - lower upfront costs, some running costs, shorter lifetimes, smaller impact on headroom
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
00:00
01:30
03:00
04:30
06:00
07:30
09:00
10:30
12:00
13:30
15:00
16:30
18:00
19:30
21:00
22:30
Two methods to release headroom
0102030405060708090
100
00:00
01:30
03:00
04:30
06:00
07:30
09:00
10:30
12:00
13:30
15:00
16:30
18:00
19:30
21:00
22:30
Demand constant Increase capacity
Increase headroom e.g. RTTR
Reduce demand Capacity constant Increase headroom
e.g. DSR
26
Outlining the solution options, and making the link to LCN Fund projects
• Refined ‘conventional’ solution set • Expanded ‘smart’ solution set • Agreed a common language • Populated an initial digest of
solutions
Solution Category Count Representative 21 Variants 74 Enablers 108
Total: 203
27
Can consider up to four scenarios (present day to 2050)
29
Scenario 1: Domestic decarbonisation to meet carbon budgets
Scenario 2: Domestic decarbonisation to meet carbon budgets, with less DSR
Scenario 3: Less domestic decarbonisation (purchase of credits)
● Medium transport electrification (WS1)
● High heat electrification (WS1)
● “Gone Green” generation mix (National Grid )
● Medium levels of customer engagement with DSR
● Medium transport electrification (WS1)
● High heat electrification (WS1)
● “Gone Green” generation mix (National Grid )
● Low levels of customer engagement with DSR
● Low transport electrification (WS1)
● Low heat electrification (WS1)
● “Slow Progression” generation mix (National Grid )
● Medium levels of customer engagement with DSR
As used for WS2
Scenario 0: High domestic decarbonisation
● High transport electrification (WS1)
● High heat electrification (WS1)
● “Gone Green” generation mix (National Grid )
● Medium levels of customer engagement with DSR
New for WS3
Three distribution network investment strategies
● Roll out of smart and conventional technologies, and associated control and communications architecture when required
Incremental smart grid investment
strategy
● Upfront investment in control and communications architecture
● Investment in smart and conventional technologies when required
Top-down smart grid investment
strategy
Key attributes
● High early investment ● Shorter asset lives
● Investments occur only when required ● Shorter asset lives
Description
The strategies determine the set of technologies available for deployment in each scenario
Under each scenario, technologies from each strategy will be deployed to fully accommodate supply and demand
Slide extracted from the SGF WS2 model 30
● Roll out of conventional technologies only, when required
Conventional investment
strategy
● Solutions tend to be more ‘lumpy’ (capital-intense and release more headroom)
● Longer asset lives
Solutions deployed on the basis of…
..headroom breaches:
31
Low Volts Lower Statutory limits
High Volts Upper Statutory limits
High Thermal limits Thermal limits of plant and circuits
High Fault Level Design fault level limits
Power quality issues The model could be expanded to include PQ against EU standards
Two Models: Two different purposes
32
Two models have been developed under this project, to reflect the different levels of granularity between GB and a DNO licence
*Transform™ is the supported framework developed by EA Technology to quantify the results described in the WS3-Ph2 report. It is available from EA Technology on a commercial basis; all funding Network Operators, DECC and Ofgem have a licence to use the software for future analysis
Dave A Roberts Future Networks Director EA Technology Ltd
e. [email protected] t. 0151 347 2318
Building on the foundations laid in WS2
37
Network Element WS2 WS3
Network Topologies 3 (1x EHV, 1x HV, 3x LV) 100 most likely combinations
Clustering Groups 5 10
Daily load profiles 3 (summer mean, winter mean, winter peak) 3 (as per WS2 model)
Headroom spread 1 (average only) 3 (symmetrical : low/average/high)
LCT Technology Types 17 17 No. of solutions and variants c20 c200
CBA Wrapper WS2 WS3
Processed scenarios 3 (Low, Medium 1, Medium 2)
4* (Low, Medium 1, Medium 2,
High)
Investment strategies 3
(Incremental, Top-down, Counterfactual)
3 (Incremental, Top-down,
Counterfactual)
Real options analysis Yes No
*Model will be configured to calculate one scenario and three investment strategies at a time
Scope of model
WS 2 established a framework for the evaluation of smart grids
Networks Generation Demand
Real options CBA 2012-2050
1 Value drivers and scenarios 2
EVs
HPs
PV
Wind
Efficiency
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Investment strategies 4 Assessment of option value 5
Top-down smart grid
Incremental smart grid
Business as usual
Different lifetimes, lead
times and levels of sunk
costs
Decision 1: Before state of world is
known
Decision 2: Options
constrained by previous
decision Information
Time
Representative smart grid technologies 3
Electric Energy Storage
Dynamic Thermal Ratings
Enhanced Automatic Voltage Control
DSR Dynamic network reconfig.
Placeholders
WS2 found a significant net benefit associated with smart investments
• The net benefits in the smart strategies are almost entirely driven by distribution network investment savings
• The roll out of low-carbon technologies from the 2020s is the most important driver of net benefits
• The results are sensitive to assumptions on clustering
• Differences between strategies between up to 2023 are very small – the net benefits of smart strategies are delivered in the 2020s and beyond
39