A framework for joint management of regional water-energy ... - Orbit

More documents

Recommendations

Info

80 30 Price [EUR/MWh] 60 40 20 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 15 Figure 5. Monthly production and price in the MIBEL, 2008 – 2012 (OMIE, 2012). Finally, Figure 5 shows power production and prices from January 2008 – December 2012. Some patterns are visible, for instance, generation always increases during the winter in order to cover winter demands. However, the patterns are less clear because of the economic crisis in Spain and Portugal, which lowered power demand considerably, and the low oil prices during 2009, which lowered electricity prices. The following sub-sections describe how the power demand and supply were simulated in the model. 3.3.1 Power demand The power demand was assumed inelastic and was calculated through the heating and cooling degree-day approach presented by Valor et al. (2001). The method uses linear regressions to estimate daily power demand based on population and daily temperature data. Population data were obtained from LandScan (Bright et al., 2008), mean daily temperature from E-Obs’ gridded product (Haylock et al., 2008), and electricity demand from OMIE (2012). More details can be found in Pereira-Cardenal et al. I. 3.3.2 Power supply Two different representations of the power supply function were used according to the research objectives. In Pereira-Cardenal et al. I, which assesses the impact of potential climate change on the power system, power generation was simulated as four different technologies with a constant marginal cost obtained from CNE (2008). In Pereira-Cardenal et al. II and III, which consider economic resource allocation, a more detailed power supply function was empirically constructed from the hourly market results (clearing price and production), as explained in Pereira-Cardenal et al. II. The power supply Price Production 25 20 Production [1000 GWh/month] 16
Table 4. Characteristics of generation technologies Installed capacity [MW] Marginal costs [€/MWh] Observed production [GWh/yr] Emission factor [ton CO2/MWh] Nuclear 6 392 18 57 864 (17.8%) 0 Coal + CCGT 40 242 57 129 443 (40.4%) 0.584 Hydropower 19 490 - 37 880 (11.6%) 0 Special regime* 28 519 - 98 393 (30.2%) 0.107 *: Special regime is a group of technologies (60% renewable) in the MIBEL that are always cleared regardless of the price. functions are shown in Table 4 and Table 5. Further details can be found in the corresponding papers. Table 5. Supply function excluding hydropower and special regime Generation segment Marginal costs [€/MWh] Gen. capacity [MWh/week] 1 0.00 500 000 2 17.61 500 000 3 39.39 500 000 4 46.15 500 000 5 50.50 500 000 6 59.36 500 000 7 63.99 500 000 8 67.76 500 000 9 70.50 500 000 10 75.49 500 000 3.4 Climate change A climate change scenario was developed to assess the impact of possible climate change on the Iberian power system. The scenario included a description of future inflows, irrigation demand, and power demand; and was created by recomputing these datasets using climate change estimates of precipitation, temperature and reference evapotraspiration. Precipitation and temperature time series under the climate change scenario were generated through the delta-change method, in which the average monthly change (or change factor, CF) in climate model output between control and future simulation periods is used to scale observed daily precipitation and temperature data (Fowler et al., 2007). The reservoir optimization algorithm is run in weekly time steps (Section 0); therefore, more sophisticated methods that better represent extreme values were not used because these values would be averaged out. CFs were calculated for three regional climate models (RCM) from the EN- SEMBLES Project (van der Linden and Mitchell, 2012). The RCMs from this project use the A1B emissions scenario, which assumes a world of very rapid economic growth, a population that peaks by 2050, quick spread of new and efficient technologies, and a balanced emphasis on energy sources (Nakiâcenoviâc et al., 2000). The three RCMs that perform best over the IP (Herrera et al., 2010) were used (Table 6). 17
Page 1: A framework for joint management of
Page 4 and 5: Silvio Javier Pereira-Cardenal A fr
Page 7 and 8: Acknowledgements I will always be g
Page 9 and 10: with the highest price, which can o
Page 11 and 12: og dermed værdien af vandkraft på
Page 13: Table of contents 1 Introduction ..
Page 16 and 17: xii
Page 18 and 19: Recognizing the problem’s complex
Page 20 and 21: whereas medium- and long-term tradi
Page 22 and 23: allocations contribute to the compe
Page 25 and 26: 3 Case study: The Iberian Peninsula
Page 27 and 28: Production of biofuels, which is en
Page 29 and 30: Figure 2. Mean annual irrigation re
Page 31: Price [EUR/MWh] 80 60 40 20 Price P
Page 35: Figure 7. Temperature change factor
Page 38 and 39: The constraints are mathematical ex
Page 40 and 41: The weekly transition probability m
Page 42 and 43: values θ (€/MWh) for each inflow
Page 44 and 45: generate the backward openings (see
Page 46 and 47: The change in the objective functio
Page 48 and 49: where represents the standard dev
Page 51 and 52: 5 Results and Discussion The main f
Page 53 and 54: ment decision (and their constraint
Page 55 and 56: 15000 a Power market 20000 a Power
Page 57 and 58: Relative storage 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 Tajo
Page 59: eservoirs, although some level of a
Page 62 and 63: The suggested method relies on math
Page 65 and 66: 8 References Al-Sunaidy A, Green R
Page 67 and 68: Hoffman AR (2010) The Water-Energy
Page 69 and 70: Schaefli B, Hingray B, Musy A (2007
Page 71: 9 Papers I. Pereira-Cardenal, S.J.,

A framework for joint management of regional water-energy ... - Orbit

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?