ertac egu mace/macw case study
DESCRIPTION
ERTAC EGU MACE/MACW Case Study. December 10, 2012. MACE/MACW: Unrealistic Growth of Coal. Issue: Discovered unrealistic creation of new coal units MACE: 4 new units MACW: 1 new units - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
ERTAC EGU MACE/MACW Case Study
December 10, 2012
DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE 1
MACE/MACW: Unrealistic Growth of CoalIssue: Discovered unrealistic
creation of new coal unitsMACE: 4 new unitsMACW: 1 new units
Reminder: “Proof of Concept” Run used 2010 growth rates that were predicted prior to boom in cheap gas
Preliminary sensitivity runs using AEO 2011 growth rates suggest that no new coal facilities will be built in the MACE and MACW regions
DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE 2
MACWLILC
NYC
New Units: Due to Peak or Base Growth?Important question to ask: Why are the new units generated? Two
possibilities:1 - A few high demand hours needing capacity, or:2 - Base load is lacking throughout the year
Useful reports for analysisCalc Generation Params CSV and;Hour Specific Growth Rate (HSGR) v. Average Future Year Growth Rate (AFYGR)
graphs• Contain all hours of the year for each region/fuel bin• Can identify hours with positive AFYGRs
Demand Generation Deficit CSV• Shows only hours with lacking capacity for a region/fuel bin and by how much the
generation lacks• For region/fuel bins that have a problem
– If it is during peak hours this file will have 20 or less entries– If it is a base load issue this file will have 1000’s of entries
DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE 3
HSGR v. AFYGR Explanation (MACW Coal Ex.)
DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE 4
Hours from 1/1 00:00-12/31 11:00
Hours from highest base year activity to lowest
Peak HoursTransition Hours
Non-peak Hours
Hourly Specific Growth Rates
Adjusted Future Year Growth Rate
MACE and MACW
2010 2011
Annual Growth Rates 0.958426 0.903495
Peak Growth Rates 1.065554 0.748965
DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE 5
Growth Rates
Base Fuel Switch
Retirement
New Units
Future
MACE 23 4 12 4 11
MACW 47 0 1 1 47
Planned Units
MACW Coal: HSGR v. AFYGR
DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE 6
HSGR consistently > AFYGR indicative of a lack of retirements
AFYGR > 1 at peak hint at, but don’t confirm generic unit creation
MACE Coal: HSGR v. AFYGR
DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE 7
AFYGR consistently > HSGR indicative of many retirements
AFYGR > 1 at peak hint at, but don’t confirm generic unit creation
DiagnosisHSGR v. AFYGR Graphs
MACE appears to be a base load problemMACW appears to be a peak problem
Demand Generation Deficit CSV confirmsHours needing additional coal generation
MACE: ~4,500 hoursMACW: 2 hours
New units were being generated inMACE due to base load lackingMACW due to a peak load problem
DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE 8
Sensitivity RunsConducted 4 sensitivity runs
Updated growth rates:2011 coal growth rates are substantially lower than 2010So we updated peak and base growth rates to 2011
Nominal heat rates:The software allows you to:
• manually input an annual unit level heat rate or; • use BY data to calculate unit level heat input
Many units had nominal heat rates that were higher than the calculated rates, meaning they ran less efficiently than they could have in the future year
So we removed all manually inputted nominal heat rates
DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE 9
Region Updated Growth Rate
Better Unit Efficiency Estimates
Both
MACE X X X
MACW X
ResultsNew generic coal units:
Better Unit Efficiency Estimates:Both regions can use existing plants to cover the generation of one new 600
MW plantGrowth rate impact:
Reduction in predicted growth of coal reduced the need for two new 600 MW plants
But wait… there is still 1 new coal unit… but there is more
DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE 10
Region V1.0 Updated Growth Rate
Better Unit Efficiency Estimates
Both
MACE 4 2 3 1
MACW 1 0
Regional boundaries changed from AEO 2010 to AEO 2011Essentially MACE expanded into MACWMACW has excess existing coal capacity since it only had a
peaking problemConclusion: We have preliminary results showing that
updating regional boundaries will remove the last generic coal plant
Regional Boundaries
DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE 11
2010 2011
LILCNYC
NYCW
NYLI
MACW
RFCE
ConclusionsUpdating inputs with newer and better information
cleans up the new coal unit issueRather than taking outputs as given ERTAC team used
the models traits to fix the problemState input: Determined that results were unrealisticTransparency: Determined cause of the problem – for
instance whether capacity was needed at peak or baseLow Operational Cost: Only staff and computing time
needed to conduct sensitivities to troubleshoot the problematic results, no high consulting fees are necessary
DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE 12