Integrating Southwest Power Pool Wind to Southeast Electricity ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

is consistent with balancing costs seen in other wind integration studies, if somewhat on the low side. Table 5-12: Difference** in average generation for Scenario 1 vs. Scenario 1 Proxy Change in GW EES TVA SoCo SPP SERC W SERC E Total CC (0.03) (0.04) (0.09) (0.93) 0.02 0.03 (1.05) GT (0.00) 0.01 (0.02) (0.38) 0.02 0.03 (0.34) Hydro - (0.00) 0.00 - - 0.00 (0.00) Nuclear 0.00 - - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 Steam Coal 0.02 0.08 0.12 0.82 0.24 0.15 1.42 GasOil (0.03) - (0.00) (0.01) - 0.00 (0.04) Wind - - - - - - - Other 0.00 0.00 0.01 (0.02) 0.00 0.02 0.01 Total (0.04) 0.04 0.02 (0.53) 0.29 0.22 (0.00) **Positive value represents increase in generation in Scenario #1 Proxy relative to Scenario #1. Reserve Requirements and Provision One of the significant differences in each of the High Wind Transfer scenarios is how reserves are carried across the footprint. The changes in reserve requirements for each scenario are presented in Chapter 3. This section examines how those reserves are provided in each of the scenarios. Regulation up requirements and spinning reserve requirements were seen to be the significant, and are examined here, together with total reserve requirements. Regulation Up The analysis of reserve requirements presented in Chapter 3 show that moving to larger areas decreased regulation requirements, from an average of 2.2 GW in Scenario 1 to 2.1 GW in Scenario 2 to 1.9 GW in Scenarios 3 and 4. Figure 5-13 shows the average allocation of regulating up reserve by unit type for each of the scenarios. The first conclusion from this is the importance of CC units to providing the regulating reserve needed, especially considering the earlier point that some of these CCs may not be built if 48 GW of wind were to be installed. Hydro units are also shown to be important, however, these are probably going to remain in operation. Coal units provide less regulation in Scenario 3 as they provide more energy with the reduced reserve requirements resulting in fewer online CCs. It can be seen that GTs are needed in Scenario 2 to provide regulation offsetting some of the benefits of moving Scenario 1 regulation from SPP to other regions. 5-20
Figure 5-13: Average Regulation up provision by unit type Figure 5-14: Average regulation up provision by region Figure 5-14 shows the regulation provision by region. While total Entergy generation was shown to remain approximately the same throughout the scenarios, it can be seen that it provides significantly more regulation from its CCs in 3 and 4 as they tend to be less expensive based on the inputs to this model. This means that the SBA and TVA units which provide reserve in Scenario 2, modeled as more expensive than the Entergy units, are turned down. SPP can be seen to carry far less regulation in Scenarios 2 and 3 versus Scenario 1, with some increase for Scenario 4. 5-21
Page 1:
DOE: Integrating Southwest Power Po
Page 4 and 5:
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITA
Page 6 and 7:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This DOE-funded p
Page 8 and 9:
Summary of average regulation requi
Page 10 and 11:
generation in the 2022 Non-RES case
Page 12 and 13: System and Cost Impacts of High Win
Page 14 and 15: Figure 6-6: Individual Coal Capacit
Page 17 and 18: 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Proje
Page 19 and 20: 2 REPRESENTATION OF TRANSMISSION NE
Page 21 and 22: participants the possibility of a r
Page 23: assumption is affecting specific di
Page 26 and 27: Table 3-1 Wind energy targets for e
Page 28 and 29: site selection could have congregat
Page 30 and 31: Wind Production (MW) Wind Productio
Page 32 and 33: Wind Delivery (MW) 12000 10000 8000
Page 34 and 35: 1. Regulation is required to cover
Page 36 and 37: The polynomial shown in Equation 3
Page 38 and 39: Regulation (MW) Figure 3-12 Summary
Page 41 and 42: 4 HIGH WIND TRANSFER SCENARIO DECRI
Page 43 and 44: 5 HIGH WIND TRANSFER CASE RESULTS T
Page 45 and 46: decreasing smaller amounts. It is i
Page 47 and 48: Coal 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 GasOil 0.7
Page 49 and 50: Figure 5-3 Average hourly generatio
Page 51 and 52: Figure 5-6: Average hourly generati
Page 53 and 54: SBA. More details on these types of
Page 55 and 56: Figure 5-8: Total production costs
Page 57 and 58: The flow chart shown in Figure 5-9
Page 59 and 60: Table 5-10 shows the difference in
Page 61: more likely to be turned off during
Page 65 and 66: Figure 5-16: Average Spinning reser
Page 67 and 68: Figure 5-18: SBA Capacity Factors b
Page 69 and 70: Figure 5-20: Capacity Factors for S
Page 71 and 72: Unit Startups Changing the balancin
Page 73 and 74: Gas Price Sensitivity Case Results
Page 75 and 76: 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED NEXT
Page 77 and 78: generation characteristics across r
Page 79: overstates the ability of the syste
Page 82 and 83: Figure 6-2: Individual coal capacit
Page 84 and 85: in the 22% to 50% in Scenario 2. Th
Page 86 and 87: Figure 6-8: individual coal capacit
Page 88 and 89: able to carry some of the reserve t
Page 90: Export Control Restrictions Access
show all

Integrating Southwest Power Pool Wind to Southeast Electricity ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?