The North Seas Countries' Offshore Grid Initiative - Initial ... - Benelux

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Circuit Length [km] 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 Line HVDC OFFshore - Line AC OFFshore Line HVDC ONshore Line AC ONshore BE DE DK FR GB IE LU NL NO SE 135 681 235 600 1,512 343 - 651 335 149 1 - - 406 527 73 - 110 - - 60 - - 634 - - - - - - 244 78 243 638 521 75 - 331 276 30 ure 5-4 Meshed Grid New Circuit Lengths for 2030 Reference Scenario ((additional to TYNDP projects) In comparison to the radial design, the meshed design shows a big reduction in Great Britain’s offshore circuit lengths. This is due to the replacement of the long Great Britain- Norway interconnection to a development of a power corridor from Scandinavia to Germany, through the continental systems and a meshed grid in the south west corner of the North Sea and Channel to Great Britain. Line HVDC OFFshore Line AC ONshore 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 - Line HVDC ONshore Line AC OFFshore RADIAL Network Design MESH Network Design Figure 5-5 Comparison in New Circuit Lengths between Radial and Meshed Designs The spider diagram in Figure 5-5 presents the differences in circuit lengths between the two designs in terms of each asset type. It shows that some of the AC offshore connections in the radial case are replaced in the meshed design by Offshore HVDC links. Page 38 of 142 Fig
5.1.2 Investment Costs for Grid Design Options The costs of both radial and meshed grid options were estimated based on information provided in the ENTSO-E Technology Report (2011)[5]. These costs are in addition to the investments costs for the region of 77 bn€ for projects included in the TYNDP [3] which were taken as a starting point for this evaluation. The grids have been designed to connect new conventional and renewable generation, to increase interconnection between markets and to provide the necessary reinforcement of the national onshore grids. Each country’s investment requirements were defined based on the additional assets that were identified as being necessary for each network design (i.e. radial and meshed). The capital cost estimates of investments for each case and for each country are categorised in the charts below by asset types, namely: Terminal HVDC costs relate to the investment in offshore HVDC hubs to connect offshore wind farms together and to interconnectors; costs of terminals of onshore HVDC links are also included ; Station AC costs relate to the investments in new AC substations, both onshore and offshore, and to enhancements of existing AC substations; LINE HVDC Offshore costs relate to new HVDC offshore cable links, but exclude costs of HVDC converter stations and offshore hubs; the cost of the onshore part of a mainly offshore cable is included here; LINE HVDC Onshore costs relate to new HVDC cables installed completely onshore, but exclude termination costs; LINE HVAC Offshore costs relate to new HVAC offshore cable links, but exclude substation termination costs; the cost of the onshore part of a mainly offshore cable is included here; LINE HVAC Onshore costs relate to new HVAC overhead lines and underground cables installed completely onshore, but exclude substation termination costs; The total investment cost of the optimised 2030 radial grid design is 30.9 € bn. These are displayed by country and asset type in Figure 5-6. As with the circuit length charts above, a simple assumption was made that the costs of offshore interconnectors are split 50:50 between the two connecting countries. Almost 40% of the cost of the radial design is related to new build in and around Great Britain. The French share is also high, especially due to the need for onshore internal grid development between the Normandy Coast and Paris area and from the north-eastern border to the south-eastern part. Page 39 of 142
Page 1 and 2: The North Seas Countries’ Offshor
Page 3 and 4: 5.1.5 Comparison of Costs and Calcu
Page 5 and 6: Executive Summary Recognising the i
Page 7 and 8: Approach adopted The process adopte
Page 9 and 10: Figure 0-3 Comparison of installed
Page 11 and 12: Figure 0-6 Meshed Grid Design for 2
Page 13 and 14: 1 Background and Context (Programme
Page 15 and 16: 1.1.2 Statement of Aims and Objecti
Page 17 and 18: Scope The information contained wit
Page 19 and 20: facilities using other primary reso
Page 21 and 22: The results of this study compare t
Page 23 and 24: 1.1.7 Scenario based planning and T
Page 25 and 26: 2 Methodology Overview 2.1 Overview
Page 27 and 28: 2.3 Market Modelling I System Adequ
Page 29 and 30: 3 Development of the 2030 Hypothesi
Page 31 and 32: In the use of data it is important
Page 33 and 34: than a best view approach. A scenar
Page 35 and 36: 3.4 Assumptions In addition to the
Page 37 and 38: Figure 3-6TYNDP Projects 2012 - 201
Page 39 and 40: References. All other generation /
Page 41 and 42: meets some portion of its demand us
Page 43 and 44: Figure 4-4 Import/Export Balance as
Page 45 and 46: 5 Grid designs 5.1 Grid Configurati
Page 47 and 48: Figure 5-1 Radial Grid Design for 2
Page 49: 5.1.1 Statistics for Grid Design Op
Page 53 and 54: CAPEX [€'m] 14,000 12,000 10,000
Page 55 and 56: CAPEX [€'m] 35,000 30,000 25,000
Page 57 and 58: 5.1.4.1 Annual Production Cost Savi
Page 59 and 60: increased interconnection, coal-fir
Page 61 and 62: There is a large increase in gross
Page 63 and 64: The costs and the benefits for the
Page 65 and 66: Figure 5-16 : Map of OWP locations
Page 67 and 68: Figure 5-18 : Map of meshed grid de
Page 69 and 70: To provide an indication of total c
Page 71 and 72: 6 Conclusions and Outlook 6.1 Discu
Page 73 and 74: Going forward, additional scenarios
Page 75 and 76: Therefore, if future targets are li
Page 77 and 78: Continuing this initiative will hel
Page 79 and 80: A 1 Detailed Description of Methodo
Page 81 and 82: Figure 7-2 High level Process overv
Page 83 and 84: In particular, PEMMDB generation an
Page 85 and 86: A 1.3 Grid Expansion Approach (Grid
Page 87 and 88: Table 7-1: Summary of the Model Par
Page 89 and 90: Technology choices that were consid
Page 91 and 92: configurations that typically consi
Page 93 and 94: A 2 NSCOGI reference scenario - det
Page 95 and 96: A 2.2 Details by country- Belgium I
Page 97 and 98: A 2.4 Details by country- France In
Page 99 and 100: A 2.6 Details by country- Great Bri
Page 101 and 102:
A 2.8 Details by country- Luxembour
Page 103 and 104:
A 2.10 Details by country- Netherla
Page 105 and 106:
A 2.12 Details by country- Sweden I
Page 107 and 108:
A 3 Country specific comments The f
Page 109 and 110:
to the Netherlands are much lower,
Page 111 and 112:
A 3.2 Country-specific comments - D
Page 113 and 114:
For the meshed design, only the int
Page 115 and 116:
Interconnectors The total France -
Page 117 and 118:
The main RES+ Scenario challenge fo
Page 119 and 120:
connected directly to the shore. On
Page 121 and 122:
A 3.5 Country-specific comments - G
Page 123 and 124:
RES+ commentary The RES+ sensitivit
Page 125 and 126:
Table 7-6 Offshore Generation level
Page 127 and 128:
A 3.7 Country-specific comments - L
Page 129 and 130:
There are no overloads on the cross
Page 131 and 132:
Table 7-7 Bottlenecks in the Dutch
Page 133 and 134:
Interconnectors The radial design i
Page 135 and 136:
In the meshed design the connection
Page 137 and 138:
A 5 Abbreviations ACER Agency for t
Page 139 and 140:
A 6 List of References Background M
Page 141 and 142:
National (Grid) Development Plans [
show all

The North Seas Countries' Offshore Grid Initiative - Initial ... - Benelux

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?