EVALUATION

Recommendations

Info

AN INDEPENDENT <strong>EVALUATION</strong> OF THE LCNF Has a Direct Impact on the operation of a DNO’s Distribution System Generates knowledge that can be shared amongst all DNOs Focuses on network methods that are at the trialling stage 4 5 4 Assessment: The project has been /is ready to roll out into BAU or be used in follow on projects. The project has a high likelihood of being replicated by other DNOs. Evidence: Learning from the operation of this project will inform SHEPD on the use of batteries in terms of BAU. The outputs of the project are intended to feed into a future BAU solution. The closedown report states that commercial considerations will play a large part in determining the optimum mix of varying technologies within a future BAU solution. The project is a precursor to the ‘Northern Isles New Energy Solutions’ NINES project. Without the NINES project, no new renewable generation would have been connected to the Shetland network and the island renewables would continue to be constrained by the technical limitations of an ageing oil fired power station. 8MW of renewables has displaced up to 15GWhrs of oil fired generation each year. References: • 1MW Battery, Shetland closedown report; July 2014. Assessment: Specific replication report(s) exist or is covered in a good level of detail in the closedown report. These cover the main technical / commercial / stakeholder aspects as applicable. A learning dissemination event or webinar was held. Evidence: A project closedown report exists, which provides technical specification for the battery. The project feeds into the Northern Isles New Energy Solutions (NINES2) project. In early 2012, SHEPD and EATL jointly instigated the Energy Storage Operators Forum (ESOF). This forum is now well established - the group was responsible for presenting a breakout session on energy storage dissemination at the 2013 LCNF conference. References: • 1MW Battery, Shetland closedown report; July 2014. Assessment: Solution moved to TRL8 (complete and qualified by end of trial), or commercial solution developed suitable for roll out. Evidence: The project closedown report states that: “Assessment against the TRL levels would indicate the TRL of the lead-acid BESS to be between 8 and 9.” The TRL in the project application was stated as 7. Project considered to have been move to TRL8. References: • 1MW Battery, Shetland closedown report; July 2014 PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING October 2016 713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx 270
AN INDEPENDENT <strong>EVALUATION</strong> OF THE LCNF Orkney Energy Storage Park Project Title Orkney Energy Storage Park Tier 1 DNO SSE Status Complete LCNF project funding £175k Project objectives The scope of this project is the creation of commercial incentives to encourage an Energy Storage Provider (ESP) to locate an Energy Storage System (ESS) where it would provide real benefits to a DNO. Objectives: 1 - Create commercial contracts that will incentivise 3rd Party ESPs to locate on a constrained distribution network. 2 - Prepare a tender process that will ensure that the ESPs selected will fulfil the success criteria. 3 - Design up to 2 connection points for ESSs outside KPS. 4 - Award up to 2 ESPs. Assessment Criteria Accelerates the development of a low carbon energy sector Score (1-5) 4 Overview of assessment, sources of evidence and comments Assessment: The project clearly facilitates the connection of low carbon generation or demand. Evidence: The project looked at commercial incentives for the connection of Energy Storage Systems. An additional benefit was to provide an appraisal of the suitability of the connection process for storage devices. The project highlighted there are potential benefits to be realised, in terms of network operation, by devising a new connection process which incentivises connection by specific customer types in specific locations. The project looks at methods to facilitate the connection of new generation or demand. Carbon benefits are not specifically quantified. References: • Orkney Energy Storage Park; Tier 1 Close-Down Report; November 2012. PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING October 2016 713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx 271
Page 1 and 2:
AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224: AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
Page 273: AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
show all

EVALUATION

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?