Offshore Electricity Infrastructure in Europe - European Wind Energy ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

option was better. Following these results, all the split connections in the model were designed according to the 50/100% option. Step 2: Split design methodology – hub- to-hub and tee-in connections Step 2 tested whether there are any beneficial hubto-hub or tee-in connections. The connection of two hubs in different countries allows trade across the newly established interconnectors via the hubs. Trade is of course also possible via a tee-in connection. Accordingly the price differentials between the countries are used as indicators to identify potentially beneficial hub-to-hub or tee-in connections (compare Annex D.III.IV.). Several potentially beneficial hub-to-hub interconnections as identified in the Direct Design were tested with the market model. The infrastructure measure was regarded as beneficial when the generation costs reduction of the power system was higher than the infrastructure costs. (REd, RIGhT) (€ bN) Cumulative investment cost (blue) (€bn) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 OffshoreGrid – Final Report Cumulative investment costs Within step 2 the hub-to-hub cable connecting NL and GB was identified to be beneficial. That only one case was identified is due to the split wind farm connection of step 1 that already boosted the cross-border capacity between the countries and further reduced the price differences. Step 3: Split Design Methodology – Mesh Design Again sensitivities of mesh design were run in addition to the interconnections already identified in steps 1 and 2 above. The same topology of mesh design to the direct case was found to be most beneficial, with a ‘spine’ running from the Idunn hub in Norway, to the UK Dogger Bank, to the IJmuiden hub off the Netherlands 33 and then to Belgium. The mesh also includes an interconnector between the Dogger Bank and the German Gaia hub. The price differentials between the countries developed differently in the Split Design compared to the Direct Design. Therefore the cable capacities of the mesh FIGURE 4.28: SPlIT OFFShORE GRId dESIGN: cUMUlATIvE cAPEX INvESTMENT cOSTS (blUE, lEFT) ANd SYSTEM GENERATION cOSTS Base case SE-DE FI-EE SE-PL SE-DK SE-LV GB-FR SE-DE GB-BE GB-FR SE-PL SE-DK IE-FR IE-GB GB-BE NO-NL Annual system generation cost (red) (€bn) Direct interconnections Split interconnections Hub-to-hub and Tee-in Mesh Omitted as not bene�cial. Shown to compare with direct design SE-DK NL-GB GB-DE Annual system generation costs 33 As can be seen from Figure 4.23, some parts of this ‘spine’ already existed in the model. As a result of the hub-to-hub analysis, the Dogger Bank hub was already connected to the Gaia hub in Germany, and the Idunn hub was already connected directly to the IJmuiden hub. Belgium, France, and Sweden were already connected to the Netherlands and Norway respectively via onshore reinforcements in the base model. Mesh 100,5 100,0 99,5 99,0 98,5 98,0 67
esults configuration were rated differently than in the Direct Design in order to achieve the optimal design. Rating the Norway to Great Brian to Netherlands sections of the mesh at 2,000 MW was found to be most beneficial. With the direct and split mesh design having the same topology, it allows the benefit-to-CAPEX ratio to be compared. Results – Split Design The investment costs in the split wind farm designs are lower than for their direct interconnector counterparts in the Direct Design (see Figure 4.28). This is due to the fact that the split farm connection represents two-in-one: a direct connector and a wind farm-to-shore connection. When comparing the system costs in Figure 4.28 with Figure 4.24, it is also clear that reduction in overall system costs is smaller for the Split Design due to the higher trade constraints 34 . Some of the direct interconnectors that are not beneficial in the Direct Design, such as the second Great Britain to Belgium link, are now producing positive net Net bene�t (red) (€bn) 2,5 2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 Net bene�ts (across lifetime) benefits (Figure 4.29). This proves that the offshore grid design with the split wind farms reduces the system costs (and thus the price differences) with smaller steps due to the higher trade constraints on the interconnector. The higher price differences make the remaining direct interconnectors more beneficial. However, this does not mean that the split wind farm connections are less effective. As is shown below the split wind farm connections even generate a higher relative system cost reduction when put in relation to the investment costs (benefit-to- CAPEX ratio). The introduction of a mesh in step 3 also produces significant net benefits of €1.8 bn across 25 years for an investment of only €1 bn. Note that the mesh is less beneficial than in the Direct Design. The reason is that the mesh is now built between wind farms that are already connected to two countries with the split design concept identified in step 1. The split connection already leads to an increased utilisation of the cables, so that the actual mesh cables between the wind farm hubs are constrained more severely. This leads to a lower absolute reduction in system costs than in the Direct Design 35 . FIGURE 4.29: SPlIT OFFShORE GRId dESIGN:NET bENEFIT (REd, lEFT) ANd bENEFIT-TO-cAPEX RATIO (blUE, RIGhT) (€ bN). (PlEASE NOTE ThE dIFFERENcE bETWEEN bENEFITS ANd NET bENEFITS.) Base case SE-DE FI-EE SE-PL SE-DK SE-LV Direct interconnections GB-FR SE-DE GB-BE GB-FR SE-PL Bene�t-to-CAPEX ratio (blue) (€bn) 68 OffshoreGrid – Final Report SE-DK IE-FR Omitted as not bene�cial. Shown to compare with direct design IE-GB Split interconnections Hub-to-hub and Tee-in Mesh GB-BE NO-NL Direct Design Bene�t CAPEX ratio 34 Note that in the results the Finland–Estonia, Sweden–Latvia, Great Britain–France, Ireland–France, and Great Britain–Belgium links all remain as direct interconnectors. 35 Step 3 in the Split Design methodology is strongly based on step 3 in the Direct Design methodology for reasons of comparability. The specific development of a mesh design for the Split Design will probably yield higher net benefits. SE-DK NL-GB GB-DE Mesh 1600% 1400% 1200% 1000% 800% 600% 400% 200% 0%
Page 1 and 2:
OffshoreGrid: Offshore Electricity
Page 3 and 4:
PRINcIPAl AUThORS: Jan De Decker, P
Page 5 and 6:
Table of contents FOREWORd 6 EXEcUT
Page 7 and 8:
FOREWORD The OffshoreGrid project i
Page 9 and 10:
Executive Summary I. The OffshoreGr
Page 11 and 12:
Executive Summary and TYNDP interco
Page 13 and 14:
Executive Summary One of the keys t
Page 15 and 16:
Executive Summary Splitting wind fa
Page 17 and 18: Executive Summary 16 OffshoreGrid -
Page 19 and 20: introduction 1.1 Context and backgr
Page 21 and 22: introduction TAblE 1.1: STAkEhOldER
Page 23 and 24: Key Assumptions and Scenarios In th
Page 25 and 26: Key Assumptions and Scenarios FIGUR
Page 27 and 28: Key Assumptions and Scenarios Curre
Page 29 and 30: Methodology - Simulation inputs and
Page 31 and 32: Methodology - Simulation inputs and
Page 33 and 34: esults This chapter explains and su
Page 35 and 36: esults (figure to the right) in Nor
Page 37 and 38: esults 4.2.1 Hubs and individual co
Page 39 and 40: esults The Baltic Sea is still a ra
Page 41 and 42: esults connections to shore where t
Page 43 and 44: esults 4.2.4 Conclusion and discuss
Page 45 and 46: esults and NordSee Ost Group into t
Page 47 and 48: esults 1986 (the Cross Channel link
Page 49 and 50: esults UK-Germany connection are re
Page 51 and 52: esults tee-in solution becomes pref
Page 53 and 54: esults • Large wind farms (capaci
Page 55 and 56: esults • Very large wind farm hub
Page 57 and 58: esults • A three-leg interconnect
Page 59 and 60: esults 4.5 Overall grid design 4.5.
Page 61 and 62: esults connectors that were benefic
Page 63 and 64: esults connections were tested in m
Page 65 and 66: esults existing HVDC converters at
Page 67: esults direct and integrated) ident
Page 71 and 72: esults FIGURE 4.31: cOMPARISON OF c
Page 73 and 74: esults farm connections, the reduct
Page 75 and 76: esults Overall design comparison Fi
Page 77 and 78: esults • Costs and benefits of th
Page 79 and 80: esults • There are other connecti
Page 81 and 82: esults These merits also hold for t
Page 83 and 84: Towards an Offshore Grid - Further
Page 91 and 92: conclusions and recommendations The
Page 93 and 94: conclusions and recommendations •
Page 95 and 96: conclusions and recommendations •
Page 97 and 98: conclusions and recommendations 6.5
Page 99 and 100: conclusions and recommendations 98
Page 101 and 102: Acknowledgements and Funding The Of
Page 103 and 104: eferences [1] Weather Research and
Page 105 and 106: eferences [47] Observatoire Médite
Page 107 and 108: Annex A - Scenario details A.I Offs
Page 109 and 110: Annex A - Scenario details A.II Pri
Page 111 and 112: Annex A - Scenario details 2008 sce
Page 113 and 114: Annex A - Scenario details Due to t
Page 115 and 116: Annex B -technology Assumptions B.I
Page 117 and 118: Annex B -technology Assumptions tab
Page 119 and 120:
Annex c - details on Methodology an
Page 121 and 122:
Annex c - details on the Methodolog
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Annex d - details of results D.I Wi
Page 131 and 132:
Annex d - details of results FiGuRe
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Annex d - details of results infras
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Annex d - details of results table
Page 141 and 142:
Annex d - details of results table
Page 143 and 144:
Annexes coal and gas, there is a de
Page 145 and 146:
Annex e - regulatory Frameworks and
Page 147 and 148:
Annex F - transfer to the Mediterra
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
show all

Offshore Electricity Infrastructure in Europe - European Wind Energy ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?