Impact of Integrating Renewables and CHP into the UK Transmission Network

Xueguang Wu, Nick Jenkins and Goran Strbac

November 2002

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research

Working Paper 24

Impact of Integrating Renewables and CHP into the UK Transmission Network

Xueguang Wu, Nick Jenkins and Goran Strbac
The Manchester Centre for Electrical Energy (MCEE) UMIST UK and Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Emails contact: w.xueguang@umist.ac.uk n.jenkins@umist.ac.uk g.strbac@umist.ac.uk

Tyndall Centre Working Paper No. 24 November 2002

This working paper draws on findings from Tyndall Project IT1.30

Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................2 2. SCENARIOS.................................................................................................................3
2.1 SCENARIOS FOR RENEWABLES ........................................................................................................3 2.2 SCENARIOS FOR CHP ......................................................................................................................5

3. REGIONAL RENEWABLES AND CHP .........................................................................5
3.1 REGIONAL RENEWABLES ................................................................................................................5 3.1.1 Regional Renewables in 2000................................................................................................5 3.1.2 Regional Renewables by 2010...............................................................................................6 3.2 REGIONAL CHP.............................................................................................................................10 3.2.1 Regional CHP in 2000 .........................................................................................................10 3.2.2 Regional CHP by 2010 ........................................................................................................11

4. IMPACT ON THE UK ELECTRICITY NETWORK ........................................................12
4.1 THE CURRENT SITUATION ..............................................................................................................12 4.1.1 Transmission in the UK ......................................................................................................12 4.1.2 Power flow patterns in 2000................................................................................................13 4.2 INTEGRATING GOVERNMENT’S TARGETS INTO THE UK ELECTRICITY NETWORK ..........................17 4.2.1 Assumptions .........................................................................................................................17 4.2.2 Winter peak in 2010 ............................................................................................................17 4.2.3 Summer valley in 2010 ........................................................................................................22

5. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ...................................................................................27 6. CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................................................27 7. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................28

1

1. Introduction The Government has reconfirmed the targets that 10% of the UK electricity should be supplied from Renewables by 2010 and for Combined Heat and Power (CHP) capacity to rise to 10GWe by the same date [1]. These targets require that a total of some 14GW of additional generating plant will need to be embedded in the UK electricity system. This is approximately equal to 67% of the present (2001) minimum demand, 20.8GW (NGC: 18.6GW, ScottishPower: 1.6GW, Scottish Hydro-Electric: 0.6GW) in summer, on the UK power system (excluding Northern Ireland Electricity) and 24% of the peak load, 57GW (NGC: 51GW, ScottishPower: 4.4GW, Scottish Hydro-Electric: 1.6GW) in winter [2, 3, 4]. In 2000, renewable generation amounted to about 1.9GW (excluding large-scale hydro) [5]. The 10% objective for 2010 implies an additional installed UK capacity for renewable generation of up to 8.4GW. CHP generation was about 4.6GWe in 2000 [6]. For achievement of the 10GWe of Government’s target by 2010, the UK capacity for CHP has to be increased by about 5.4GWe. Against this background, UMIST is taking part in a research project to study how these Government targets may be embedded into the UK power system. The research is funded by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and is being conducted in collaboration with SPRU Environment and Energy Programme, Sussex University. The work includes investigation of the impacts on the UK central generating system, transmission and distribution networks based on scenarios for the use of renewable energy and CHP over the next 10 years [5]. This report is to provide an understanding of the significant technical issues for the transmission system that would be associated with the replacement of a substantial proportion of existing generation by Renewables and CHP. This has involved an examination of the voltage profiles and power flows that may occur, together with an examination of reactive power compensation that may be required. An investigation of the likely development of various types of Renewables and CHP has been made, particularly in terms of regional distribution of generators for each type of energy. The considerable volume of information that has been generated at SPRU has been brought together to provide a comprehensive overview of the potential of Renewables and CHP generation. Using this information the possible effects of integrating the Government’s 2010 Renewable and CHP targets into the UK network, in terms of steady state operation of the UK transmission system, have been investigated based on typical operation cases, i.e. winter peak and summer valley loads. The results of the studies indicate that the UK transmission network can accommodate the 10% target for renewables and the 10GWe of CHP by 2010, but only with appropriate reduction in the output of existing conventional generation. Clearly, the changes in output of central generation are critical for the stable operation of the transmission network. The studies indicate that power losses and transfer of power across system boundaries, particularly between North and South, may be decreased due to introduction of significant quantities of Renewables and CHP generation in the

2

South of the UK. In the studies, the voltage profiles were improved by installation of shunt reactive power compensators in the network. Looking ahead, for a low carbon future in the UK, the PIU Energy Report suggested that a target as high as 20% of electricity coming from Renewables should be achieved by 2020 [7]. This condition is not addressed in the present report, but is likely to be challenging. 2. Scenarios 2.1 Scenarios for Renewables Scenarios are views of the future, defined by specifying a set of policies and characteristics of energy technology. Three basic scenarios for Renewables were presented by ETSU [8]. The scenarios are: • “Trends continued”. This case is based on the MARKAL runs [8, Annex E] but decrease the contribution from onshore wind, taking into account some non-technical barriers, such as public opinion and the related planning system. • “High wind”. This case assumes a greater contribution from both onshore and offshore wind. • “Constrained wind”. The case not only assumes that wind energy is more constrained, but also that large-scale deployment of biomass (particularly in the form of energy crops) can be accelerated. The scenarios specify the potential share of a range of renewable energy sources to UK electricity generation. In order to determine likely electricity outputs, an assessment has been made of the load factor of each type of energy. For this purpose, a load factor is defined as: Load Factor = Annual Energy Output (GWh) × 1000 Capacity ( MW ) × 8760

Based on development of the scenarios at SPRU [5] and data in [6], the full estimates of the plant capacity are summarised in Tables 1, 2 and 3 as follows.

3

Table 1 “High wind” scenario “High wind” Electricity Electricity Capacity (GWh) (%) (MW) 0.80 1150 5 164 Energy crops 0.34 6850 18 2300 Offshore wind 0.30 9900 26 3767 Onshore wind 0.35 400 1 130 Small hydro 4950 13 649 Waste incineration 0.87 0.80 1150 3 164 Other biomass 0.85 4950 13 665 Landfill gas 0.23 1150 3 571 Other 0.44 7600 20 1972 Existing Total 38,100 100 10,382 Table 2 “Trends continued” scenario “Trends continued” Technology Load factor Electricity Electricity Capacity (GWh) (%) (MW) 0.80 1900 5 271 Energy crops 0.34 4950 13 1662 Offshore wind 0.30 8000 21 3044 Onshore wind 0.35 400 1 130 Small hydro 6100 16 800 Waste incineration 0.87 0.80 1900 5 271 Other biomass 0.85 6100 16 819 Landfill gas 0.23 1900 3 943 Other 0.44 7600 20 1972 Existing Total 38,850 100 9,912 Table 3 “Constrained wind” scenario “Constrained wind” Technology Load factor Electricity Electricity Capacity (GWh) (%) (MW) 0.80 6100 16 870 Energy crops 0.34 3050 8 1024 Offshore wind 0.30 4950 13 1883 Onshore wind 0.35 400 1 130 Small hydro 6500 17 853 Waste incineration 0.87 0.80 1900 5 271 Other biomass 0.85 6500 17 873 Landfill gas 0.23 1150 3 571 Other 0.44 7600 20 1972 Existing Total 38,150 100 8,447 Source(s): Calculations from (1) SPRU, Renewable Energy and Combined Heat and Power Resources in the UK, July 2001. (2) DTI, Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2001, 26 July 2001. (3) Other is PV, tidal and wave technologies. Technology Load factor

4

2.2 Scenarios for CHP The future potential for CHP in the UK was calculated by ETSU in 1997 for three scenarios, a Base case, a High case and a Low case [5]. The estimated potential for CHP in 2010 is shown in Table 4. The fuel prices using in the scenarios were based on the values of four years ago, and the results look more optimistic than current trends. Table 4 Future potential of UK CHP in the 2010 High case Base case Potential output 16810 14720 (MWe) Low case 10005

For the Government’s target of 10GWe total capacity in 2010, a DTI-ETSU report [9] projected the proportion of CHP based on trends in the numbers of various types of CHP for the years 1978 to 1998. This indicated a dominant contribution coming from combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT) CHP plants. However, in the future, the number of CHP schemes are likely to be significantly increased by micro-CHP [10]. Therefore, in this report, the development of CHP was assumed to be such that its contribution comes mainly from a large number of schemes of small size (less than 9.9MWe). At the present time, there is some 4,600MWe of CHP at work in the UK from 1,556 schemes. These figures imply that a further 540MWe of new CHP capacity will have to be commissioned each year for the next 10 years – a doubling of the average rate of commissioning witnessed over the past five years. 3. Regional Renewables and CHP Renewables and CHP are different from conventional generation in many ways. Aside from their low- or no-carbon emissions profile and sustainable fuel source, a major characteristic common to both these technologies is that they are dispersed in geography and are smaller in scale. A number of regional assessments of renewable energy resources in the UK have been carried out by DTI, DETR, ETSU, CHPA, BWEA etc. The main results of those regional assessments, that are already available, have been summarised by SPRU [5] and OXERA [11]. For the purpose of this report, it is necessary to estimate the reasonable regional distributions of Renewables and CHP in the UK by 2010. 3.1 Regional Renewables 3.1.1 Regional Renewables in 2000 Based on SPRU’s results [5], we have calculated how each region of the UK, using the data published by DTI [6] and NGC [2], contributed to the UK renewable capacity in 2000. Table 5 gives information for each regional capacity. The first column indicates the regional share of the Renewables. This was calculated in the SPRU report.

5

Table 5 Existing renewable capacity in 2000 Region Regional capacity share (%) North East 4.9 North West 9.6 Yorkshire & Humber 3.2 East Midland 5.6 West Midland 8.9 East of England 14.7 South West 1.7 South East 6.9 London 5.8 61 England 29 Wales 8 Scotland 2 Northern Ireland UK total 100

Capacity (MW) 96.6 189.3 63.1 110.4 175.5 289.8 39.4 136.1 114.4 1208.8 571.8 153.8 37.5 1,972

Source(s): Calculations from (1) SPRU, Renewable Energy and Combined Heat and Power Resources in the UK, July 2001. (2) DTI, Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2001, 26 July 2001. (3) NGC, Seven Year Statement - Embedded Generation (Table 4.1), May 2001, http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/. 3.1.2 Regional Renewables by 2010 For the 10% target by 2010, in each region, the estimated resources were considered on a technology-by-technology basis, and then all of the renewables in the region were summed as a target for this area. The regional renewable energy assessments for each type of technologies were thought to generate the proportion of electricity from renewables by 2010 as the assumptions presented in [5]. The regional studies for the 10 % target by 2010 have been calculated and shown in the Tables 6, 7 and 8 under three scenarios.

6

Table 6 Regional renewable energy for 2010 target under “High wind” scenario Region Regional capacity share Capacity (%) (MW) North East 3.6 309.8 North West 7.3 616.6 Yorkshire & Humber 7.3 616.7 East Midland 7.4 625.4 West Midland 2.7 233.0 East of England 13.1 1102.5 South West 7.1 601.5 South East 10.5 886.5 London 0.5 40.8 59.8 5032.8 England 12.3 1031.1 Wales 23.5 1977.9 Scotland 4.4 368.7 Northern Ireland UK total 100 8,410 (excludes existing)

Table 7 Regional renewable energy for 2010 target under “Trends continued” scenario Region Regional capacity share Capacity (%) (MW) North East 3.7 299.0 North West 8.1 643.1 Yorkshire & Humber 7.0 557.5 East Midland 6.9 550.6 West Midland 2.9 234.6 East of England 15.0 1191.6 South West 7.3 583.1 South East 11.8 936.3 London 0.6 50.8 63.6 5048.6 England 11.9 945.5 Wales 20.6 1632.4 Scotland 3.9 307.0 Northern Ireland UK total 100 7,940 (excludes existing)

7

Table 8 Regional renewable energy for 2010 target under “Constrained wind” scenario Region Region capacity share Capacity (%) (MW) North East 4.2 273.9 North West 9.1 590.9 Yorkshire & Humber 7.2 467.6 East Midland 6.0 390.4 West Midland 2.9 191.3 East of England 19.0 1234.9 South West 7.0 455.1 South East 11.9 774.0 London 0.8 52.9 68.4 4432.3 England 10.6 689.8 Wales 17.7 1146.2 Scotland 3.2 205.9 Northern Ireland UK total 100 6476 (excludes existing) Source(s): Calculations from (1) SPRU, Renewable Energy and Combined Heat and Power Resources in the UK, July 2001. (2) British BioGen, UK Biomass Electricity Plants, http://www.britishbiogen.co.uk/bioenergy/map.htm. (3) BWEA, Planning for wind Energy – A Guide for Regional Targets, www.bwea.com (4) BWEA, Location Map of Operating Onshore Wind Farms,
http://www.britishwindenergy.co.uk/map/map.html

(5) BWEA, Operating Offshore Wind Farms, http://www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk/devs.html (6) DTI, Hydro Power Products and Services from Britain,
http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewable/site/pdf/hydro.pdf

(7) EfW, Current & Projected EfW capacity in UK (as at December 2000), http://www.efw.org.uk/html/a_capacities.htm. (8) UBA, Landfill Gas Projects in operation (as of end of April 1999), http://www.biogas.org.uk/projlist.htm. (9) DTI/ETSU, Update of the Database of Photovoltaic Installations in the UK, http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewable/pdf/sp2301.pdf. (10) BPA, Map of PV projects in different parts of the UK, http://www.pvuk.org.uk/uk/index.html. (11) DTI/ETSU, A Brief Review of Wave Energy,
http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewable/site/pdf.html#wave

(12) NGC, Seven Year Statement - Wind, Tidal & Wave Power Areas in the UK (Figure 4.1), May 2001, http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/. In addition, the results were then compared with similar work done by OXERA [11]. This study utilised regional renewable energy assessments based on a high scenario of the regional targets. The renewable obligation (RO) target for Great British (GB) 10% target was assumed to be 32.3TWh/yr electricity supplied from renewable energy sources. The regional assessments under the high target scenario quote energy from renewable electricity and capacity in 2010, which are listed in Table 9.

8

Table 9 Regional renewable energy for 2010 target under a high scenario of the regional targets (OXERA) Region Regional electricity share Electricity Capacity (%) (GWh/yr) (MW) North East 6.3 2,034 581 North West 9.7 3,151 679 Yorkshire & Humber 11.0 3,579 769 East Midland 6.1 1,991 406 West Midland 8.9 2,891 717 East of England 13.3 4,300 1,188 South West 7.8 2,534 569 South East 10.1 3,262 607 London 1.9 600 90 24,400 5,606 England 13.4 4,354 1,230 Wales 11.1 3,589 1,333 Scotland UK total 100 32,343 8,169 3 1,095 281 Northern Ireland Source(s): (1) OXERA, Regional Renewable Energy Assessments, a report to the DTI and DTLR, 6 February 2002. (2) Circa 1 GW of offshore wind capacity is not included in Scotland regional assessment. (3) Northern Ireland will count towards the EU indicative target (281MW, 3% of the 38TWh/yr) but not the GB RO. The data above, which have been taken directly from OXERA report, were compared to our “High wind” scenario results, Table 6. The capacity figures, shown in MW, for each region are close and consistent except for the East Midland and the West Midland figures. To compare the differences in the East Midland and the West Midland between OXERA and UMIST, the technology targets for the East Midland and the West Midland were summarised in Table 10.

9

Table 10 Technology target comparisons for the East and the West Midlands between OXERA and UMIST East Midlands Capacity West Midlands Capacity (MW) (MW) Technology OXERA UMIST OXERA UMIST Onshore wind 121 121.5 521 142.5 Offshore wind 100 360.0 Landfill gas 56 54.5 111 64.5 Small hydro 12 3 Biomass 68 38.9 18 19.5 Energy from crops 25 53 PV 5 28.5 4 6.5 Wave and tidal 22.0 Total 406 625.4 717 233.0 Source(s): (1) OXERA, Regional Renewable Energy Assessments, a report to the DTI and DTLR, 6 February 2002. (2) The technology of energy from crops is equal to the energy from biodegradable waste in OXERA report. (3) The biomass includes agriculture, forestry and industry waste. Table 10 shown that the major differences for targets of the East Midlands and the West Midlands between OXERA and UMIST are offshore wind and onshore wind. The East Midlands is richly endowed with renewable energy resources, in particular offshore wind around the Wash. It is likely, the offshore wind resource will be developed significantly by 2010. The capacity figure of offshore wind for the East Midland in OXERA report looks quite conservative. The contribution to the national target from the West Midlands is predominantly onshore wind. However, recent experience has indicated that development of large-scale onshore wind farms will face a number of difficulties, such as environment constraints and public opinion. The figure of onshore wind capacity for the West Midland in OXERA report is more optimistic. 3.2 Regional CHP Combined heat and power (CHP), or cogeneration, is the simultaneous generation of electricity and usable heat from the same plant, to produce higher energy efficiencies compared to conventional power stations, through the recovery of otherwise wasted heat. CHP provides environmental benefits due to this improved efficiency and lower overall fuel consumption. Consequently the Government strongly supports the development of CHP as a key contribution to sustainable development, and promotes its use wherever economic. 3.2.1 Regional CHP in 2000 The total existing CHP generating capacity in the UK is 4632MWe from 1556 installations [6] shown in Table 11.

10

Table 11 Existing CHP in 2000 Regional distributions England Less than 100kWe 100kWe-999kWe 1MWe-9.9MWe Greater than 10MWe Total Scotland Less than 100kWe 100kWe-999kWe 1MWe-9.9MWe Greater than 10MWe Total Wales Less than 100kWe 100kWe-999kWe 1MWe-9.9MWe Greater than 10Mwe Total Northern Ireland Less than 1Mwe Greater than 1Mwe Total Number of schemes 689 514 174 65 1,442 9 19 12 8 48 24 17 8 3 52 11 3 14 Share of total UK scheme (%) 44.3 33.0 11.2 4.2 92.7 0.6 1.2 0.8 0.5 3.1 1.5 1.1 0.5 0.2 3.3 0.7 0.2 0.9 Capacity (MWe) 38.9 126.4 719.4 2,969.9 3,854.6 0.6 4.3 44.4 580.7 630.0 1.6 5.1 44.1 75.9 126.8 2.3 18.7 21.0 Share of total UK capacity (%) 0.8 2.7 15.5 64.1 83.2 0.0 0.1 1.0 12.5 13.6 0.0 0.1 1.0 1.6 2.7 0.4 0.4

UK total 1,556 100.0 4,632.3 100.0 Source(s): Calculations from (1) DTI, Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2001, 26 July 2001,
http://www.dti.gov.uk/epa/dukes.htm

(2) DTI, CHP in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, http://www.dti.gov.uk/energytrends/et9_01.htm. 3.2.2 Regional CHP by 2010 CHP plant covers a very wide range of size from hundreds of MWe to a few kWe. By far the most common in terms of numbers connected to the system are those under 9.9 MWe as shown in Table 11. The number of plants above 10 MWe in rating are few, and many more are unlikely to be developed quickly. As stated [10], in the future, the number of CHP schemes will be significantly increased by micro-CHP. Therefore, the regional distribution of CHP by 2010 was assumed to be in proportion to the number of schemes of small size (less than 9.9MWe). Certain details of the CHP schemes are made available from Ofgem’s database [12]. Calculations of the regional CHP proportion and capacity are presented in Table 12.

11

Table 12 Regional CHP by 2010 Region Proportional to number of schemes of existing CHP less than 9.9 MWe (%) North East 8.6 North West 10 Yorkshire & Humber 7.8 East Midlands 8.7 West Midlands 12.8 Eastern of England 10.7 South West 4.7 South East 16.5 London 8.5 England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland UK total 88.4 5.3 5 1.3 100

Capacity (MWe) 461.6 536.8 418.7 467.0 687.1 574.3 252.3 885.7 456.3 4745.0 284.5 268.4 69.8 5367.7 (excludes existing)

Source(s): Calculations from (1) Ofgem, CHP Database- Publication, November 2001,
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/renewables/chp_index.htm

(2) DTI, Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2001, 26 July 2001,
http://www.dti.gov.uk/epa/dukes.htm

4. Impact on the UK electricity network The Government wishes to increase the contribution of renewable electricity and CHP to UK energy supplies. Most of these plants will be small-scale and less predictable than conventional gas, coal-fires or nuclear power stations. For achievement of Government’s 10% Renewables and 10GWe CHP targets by 2010, the configuration, operation and regulation of current national electricity networks may therefore need examination and modification. 4.1 The current situation 4.1.1 Transmission in the UK At present, there are four transmission systems in the UK – one in England and Wales, two in Scotland, and one in Northern Ireland. Each is separately operated and owned. The largest, in terms of line length and share of total transmission, is the National Grid Company (NGC) system covering England and Wales. Scottish Power and Scottish and Southern Energy operation transmission network in the South and North parts of Scotland, respectively. Northern Ireland Electricity has been connected to Scottish Power by two monopolar submarine HVDC cables (2× 250MW, 275kV) linked to operate in parallel on the both side ac systems [13]. In addition, the NGC also operates electricity ‘interconnectors’ – overhead lines connecting the transmission networks in England and Wales to Scotland, and an undersea link that

12

connects France and England. The transmission operators have a role in balancing generation and demand at all times, and maintain the security of the network through electricity trading and by purchasing ancillary services from generators and some consumers. 4.1.2 Power flow patterns in 2000 There are a number of power flow patterns on the UK transmission system. Figures 1 and 2 illustrated two typical power flow patterns, winter peak case and summer valley, in the NGC transmission network. Under the winter peak case, high power flows (more than 8GW) are transferred from the North, through the Midlands, to the South. These transfers are based on the expected contribution of generating plants and demand of the loads in the network. At off-peak, summer valley case, less generation capacity is needed to meet the reduced demand. Thus the power flows around the system not only change as result of the lower demand levels but also because of the changes in the generation disposition. Studies showed that the voltages of the primary transmission system (400kV) were adequate varying from 0.986 to 1.031 (see Figures 1 and 2). The main transmission system “ boundaries”, which impose technical limit on power flows together with an indication of boundary “thermal” capacity, were defined as follow: (1) Z-1, boundary between Scottish Power and England; (2) Z-2, boundary between Upper North and North, and the same as B1-NGC; (3) Z-3, boundary between North and Midlands, and the same as B2-NGC; (4) Z-4, boundary between Midlands and South, and the same as B3-NGC; (5) Z-5, boundary between South and South West, and the same as B7-NGC; (6) Z-6, boundary between South and South East. According to [2, 16], the possible maximum thermal limits of the boundaries above are summarised in Table 13. Table 13 Thermal limit of the boundaries Boundary Thermal limit (MW) 2780 (2) Z-1 3900 (1) Z-2 11667 (1) Z-3 14001 (1) Z-4 4177 (1) Z-5 2000 (2) Z-6 Source(s): (1) NGC, Seven Year Statement-Chapter 8, May 2001, http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/. (2) PB Power/ETSU, Concept Study – Western Offshore Transmission Grid, February 2002. For a clear comparison, the boundary capabilities (“thermal” limits) and the transfer powers under wind peak and summer valley cases have been shown in Figures 1 and 2.
13

Clearly, if additional power flows were to be superimposed, due to the connection of significant amounts of renewable generation to the perimeter of the transmission system, particularly in the North, reinforcement of the existing transmission network may be required. This contrasts with the connection of generation in the South West of England where capacity exists to accept significant additional generation, i.e. boundary Z-5. However, the level of transmission reinforcement will be determined to a large extent by the location of generation output displaced by the renewable capacity. If the displaced generation is located in the North of England, then the increase in power flows to the Midlands and South may be minimal.

14

Figure 1 NGC primary 400 kV network power flows without 2010 Renewables & CHP targets (Winter peak in 2000)
Key: Power flow/Thermal limit HAKB4A

Scottish Power
STWB4A, B

1249/2780
HARKER

(523) 1.004 0.990

(726)

Z-1

1. Generation: (MW) 45,716.8 2. Load: (MW) 44,797.8 3. Power Losses: (MW+jMvar) 919.0+j7162.2 4. Slack: (MW) 26.39

STELLA WEST HAWTHORN PIT

NORTON

LACKENBY

2129/3900

HUTTON

1.015 (830) (677)
OSBALDWICK

1.011 (622)

(0) Z-2

QUER FIDDLERS FERRY PENWORTHAM

1.012
THORNTON CREYKE BECK

1.009 0.987 0.988

DRAX

PADIHAM WYLFA

1.011
EGGBOROUGH

0.991
DAINES DEESIDE

FERRYBRIDGE

1.010 (1992)
COTTAM

KEADBY

KILLINGHOLME GRIMSBY WEST

0.991

STOCKSBRIDGE

(1125 1.004

Z-3 (1391

MACCLESFIELD

WEST BURTON

PENTIR

(1597)

0.991
LEAGCY

CELLARHEAD RATCLIFFE ON SOAR 0.987 RUGELEY

1.016 (1178)

Z-4

(2094)
TRAWSFYNYDD DRAKELOW

(1610) (1106) (1030)
EATON SOCON

SPLN

WALPOLE KING’S LYNN

0.991

STAYTHORPE

1.014

NORWICH MAIN

IRONBRIDGE

1.000 0.986 (925) (1729)
ENDERBY

1.012

8199/11667
FECKENHAM

(896) 9364/14001
WALHAM

(890)

GRENDON (slack)

EAST CLAYDON

0.994

0.995
SUNDON

1.028

1.001
PELHAM

BRAMFORD

1.018

WYMONDLEY

0.996
RASSAU

0.999
COWLEY CITY ROAD

0.999

BRAINTREE

RAYLEIGH MAIN GRAIN

1.003

MINETY

0.997
DIDCOT

Z-6 (811)
CANTERBURY

CILFYNYDD SEABANK SWANSEA MELKSHAM

0.996
BRAMLEY

LONDON AREA

KINGSNORTH

KEMSLEY

1.000 (380)

1.005 0.997

PEMBROKE

1.012

Z-5
HINKLEY POINT

TAUNTON ALVERDISCOT EXETER

NURSLING

0.998
LOVEDEAN

BOLNEY

DUNGENESS

(718)
SELLINDGE

0.996
NINFIELD

MANNINGTON

(614)

0.999
CHICKERELL FAWLEY NORTH

E de F (France)

1529/2000

ABHAM

1.000
INDIAN QUEENS LANDULPH

994/4177 15

Figure 2 NGC primary 400 kV network power flows without 2010 Renewables & CHP targets (Summer valley in 2000)
Key: Power flow/Thermal limit

Scottish Power
HAKB4A STWB4A, B

873/2780
HARKER

(343) 1.007 1.000

(530)

Z-1

1. Generation: (MW) 23,089.5 2. Load: (MW) 22,744.4

STELLA WEST HAWTHORN PIT

NORTON

2302/3900

HUTTON

1.015 (864) (735)
OSBALDWICK

1.007 (703)

3. Power losses: (MW+jMvar) 345.09-j6048.26 LACKENBY
(0) Z-2

4. Slack: (MW) -6.06

QUER FIDDLERS FERRY PENWORTHAM

1.006
DRAX THORNTON CREYKE BECK

1.013 0.998 0.996

PADIHAM WYLFA

1.002
EGGBOROUGH

1.002
DAINES DEESIDE

FERRYBRIDGE

1.011 (1312) 1.018

KEADBY

KILLINGHOLME GRIMSBY WEST

1.001

STOCKSBRIDGE

(374)
COTTAM

Z-3 (1089 1.008 (223)

MACCLESFIELD CELLARHEAD

WEST BURTON

PENTIR

(639)
RATCLIFFE ON SOAR

Z-4

1.020
LEAGCY

(1290
TRAWSFYNYDD RUGELEY DRAKELOW

1.000

(587) (365)

(372)

SPLN WALPOLE KING’S LYNN NORWICH MAIN

0.998 (377)

1.024
EATON SOCON

IRONBRIDGE

1.017 1.009 (505)

1.026

4704/11667
FECKENHAM

(275) 2929/14001
WALHAM

(225)

ENDERBY

GRENDON (slack)

EAST CLAYDON

1.008

1.009
SUNDON

1.017
WYMONDLEY

BRAMFORD

1.026
SIZEWELL

1.016
PELHAM

1.031

1.012
RASSAU

1.012
COWLEY CITY ROAD

1.014

BRAINTREE

RAYLEIGH MAIN GRAIN KINGSNORTH KEMSLEY

1.022

MINETY

1.010
DIDCOT

1.032 1.006
BRAMLEY LONDON AREA

Z-6 (1017
CANTERBURY

CILFYNYDD SEABANK SWANSEA MELKSHAM

1.010 (220)

1.011 1.000

PEMBROKE

1.030

Z-5
HINKLEY POINT

TAUNTON ALVERDISCOT EXETER

NURSLING

1.000
LOVEDEAN

BOLNEY

DUNGENESS

(234)
SELLINDGE

0.993
NINFIELD

MANNINGTON

(377)

1.000
CHICKERELL FAWLEY NORTH

E de F (France)

1251/2000

ABHAM

1.000
INDIAN QUEENS LANDULPH

597/4177 16

4.2 Integrating Government’s targets into the UK electricity network When an application is made for the connection of Renewables and CHP to the network, there are a number of planning, operational and system performance issues for transmission system that must be considered. It is important to clearly understand the impact of the Renewables and CHP on the electricity supply to customers connected to the system, and also on the development of conventional generation. In this section we briefly described the impact of the system voltages and power flows on the NGC transmission network. 4.2.1 Assumptions In order to assess the effect of increasing numbers of Renewables and CHP on the technical characteristics of the UK electricity system, it is necessary to examine the transmission system. In this section, the basic assumptions have been made that: (1) Study cases were winter peak and summer valley. (2) The Scottish power system was connected to the NGC network at the boundary between Scotland and England, Z-1. (3) The Northern Ireland electric system have been neglected due to its small capacity (4) The Renewables and CHP would tend to be located in areas close to favourable transmission system connection points. (5) The scenarios for Renewables were “High wind”, “Trends continued” and “Constrained wind”, and for CHP was 5.4GWe contribution from small size plants (less than 9.9MW). A computer program, PowerWorld Simulator, was used to analyse the UK power system behaviour and performance and give the forecast power flows loading on the 400 kV transmission system under the winter peak and summer valley cases in 2010. 4.2.2 Winter peak in 2010 Considering the winter peak case, for “High wind”, “Trends continued” and “Constrained wind” scenarios, the regional proportions of Renewables and CHP are shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5. The displaced generation and system power losses were summarised in Tables 14 and 15. Table 14 Displaced generation under winter peak case Displaced conventional generation (MW) Power plant “High wind” “Trends continued” “Constrained wind” SCOTLAND 1,000 1,000 1,000 EGGBOROUGH 791 791 791 DRAX 2,576 2,576 2,576 KEADBY 467 237 237 WEST BURTON 1,940 1,940 1,940 COTTAM 1,515 1,515 1,515 RATCLIFFE ON 1,000 1,000 1,000 SOAR DRAKELOW 666 666 666 WYLFA 1,075 1,075 1,075 DIDCOT 2,065 2,065 Total 13,095 12,865 11,444
17

Table 15 System power losses under winter peak case Without With 2010 Renewables and CHP Targets System power Targets “High wind” “Trends “Constrained losses continued” wind” (MW + j 919.0 + j 856.8 + j 826.1 + j 710.6 + j MVAr) 7162.2 4880.2 4515.9 3084.9 The primary 400kV busbar voltages were kept within a range of 0.980 to 1.037 by adding 400 MVAr shunt reactive power compensation at Padiham and Ferrybridge, respectively, shown in Table 16. Table 16 Additional reactive power compensation under winter peak case Reactive power compensation (MVAr) Installed place “High wind” “Trends “Constrained continued” wind” PADIHAM 400 400 400 FERRYBRIDGE 400 400 400 Total 800 800 800 The results of transmission system ‘N-1’ security contingency analysis for Government’s 2010 Renewables and CHP targets under winter peak case showed that no components had any violation with the exception of one 400kV transformer in Killingholme power plant, shown in Table 17. Table 17 System ‘N-1’ contingency examination under winter peak case ‘N-1’ Without With 2010 Renewables and CHP targets contingency Targets “High wind” “Trends “Constrained violation continued” wind” None None None (excepting one (excepting one (excepting one None Branch 400kV transformer 400kV transformer 400kV transformer MVA in Killingholme, in Killingholme, in Killingholme, KILL40/KILL8U) KILL40/KILL8U) KILL40/KILL8U) Branch None None None None AMP None None None None Bus voltage Interface None None None None

Simulation results showed that the UK transmission system was able to accommodate the Government’s 2010 Renewables and CHP targets without requiring network reinforcement in the winter peak case. Generation, old conventional power plants mainly located in the North, was reduced. The power transfers across the boundaries Z-3 and Z-4 were decreased by Renewables and CHP displacement of the conventional generation in the North. However, it was noted that the boundaries Z-1 and Z-2 should be reinforced if a greater capacity of Renewables, particularly in Scotland, would be developed beyond 2010.

18

Figure 3 NGC primary 400 kV network power flows with 2010 Renewables & CHP targets (“High wind” in winter peak)
Renewable Energy (MW) CHP (MW) Shunt devices (MVAr) 2601/2780
HARKER Key: Power flow/Thermal limit HUTTON

Scottish Power
HAKB4A

Generation reduced: (MW)
(284.5)
STWB4A, B

(1950)

(2026) 0.980

(575)

Z-1

STELLA WEST HAWTHORN PIT

0.996

NORTON

(461.6) 0.989 (1001) Z-2

Renewable Energy: (MW) 8,013.0 OSBALDWICK CHP: (MW) (616.7) 0.980 FIDDLERS THORNTON FERRY 5,367.7 DRAX 0.994 (536.8) CREYKE BECK Power Losses: (MW +j Mvar) (400) (418.7) 0.980 PENWORTHAM 856.87 +j 4880.28 0.982 PADIHAM 0.981 EGGBOROUGH KEADBY Slack: (MW) (400) KILLINGHOLME WYLFA 0.998 (1482) -12.37 FERRYBRIDGE
(1995)
QUER DAINES DEESIDE

3892/3900

(616.6)

0.998

(309.8) (1012)

1 COTTAM: 1515 (3 units), 100% 2 RATCLIFFE ON SOAR: 1000 (2 units), 100% 3 DRAKELOW: 666 (2 units), 100% 4 WYLFA: 1075 (4 units), 100% 5 DRAX: 2576 (4 units), 64% 6 KEADBY: 467 (2 units), 64% 7 WEST BURTON: 1940 (4 units), 100% 8 EGGBOROUGH: 791 (2 units), 100% 9 DIDCOT: 2065 (8 units), 100% 10 SCOTLAND: 1000 TOTAL: 13,095

0.985

0.988

STOCKSBRIDGE

0.994 (625.4) Z-4 PENTIR (481) RATCLIFFE (467.0) 1.022 CELLARHEAD SPLN ON SOAR (134.2) (636) 0.988 WALPOLE KING’S LYNN (1980) (687.1) (963) NORWICH MAIN RUGELEY LEAGCY 0.990 TRAWSFYNYDD 1.019 (551.25) (731) (551.25) DRAKELOW 1.020 (515.55) 1.000 EATON (624) (1080) 7113/11667
IRONBRIDGE SOCON

MACCLESFIELD

COTTAM

(1930) (641)

Z-3

GRIMSBY WEST

WEST BURTON

0.995

FECKENHAM

(667) 5922/14001
WALHAM

0.992 (233) (569)

(1251
ENDERBY

GRENDON (slack)

0.997
EAST CLAYDON

1.000
SUNDON

1.003

WYMONDLEY

1.005 (574.2)
PELHAM

BRAMFORD

1.022 1.035
SIZEWELL

1.001
RASSAU

0.999
COWLEY

1.000 1.005
CITY ROAD

BRAINTREE

RAYLEIGH MAIN GRAIN

1.008 (134.2) (515.55)SWANSEA 1.017

MINETY

1.002
DIDCOT

(40.8) 1.000 (442.85)

(456.3)

CILFYNYDD MELKSHAM SEABANK

LONDON AREA

KINGSNORTH

Z-6 (1515) (442.85)
CANTERBURY NORTH

KEMSLEY

1.004 0.999

Z-5
HINKLEY POINT

1.005 (-246)

BRAMLEY

PEMBROKE

0.999
TAUNTON NURSLING LOVEDEAN MANNINGTON

BOLNEY

(886.5)

DUNGENESS

(456)

0.999
NINFIELD

SELLINDGE E de F (France)

ALVERDISCOT

(379)
FAWLEY NORTH

EXETER

(252.3) 1.000 CHICKERELL
ABHAM

1971/2000

(601.5) 0.999
INDIAN QUEENS

133/4177 19

LANDULPH

Figure 4 NGC primary 400 kV network power flows with 2010 Renewables & CHP targets (“Trends continued” in winter peak)
Renewable Energy (MW) CHP (MW) Shunt devices (MVAr) 2282/2780
Key: Power flow/Thermal limit HARKER HAKB4A

Scottish Power System
(1632.4) (284.5)

Generation reduced: (MW)

(1741)

1.001

HUTTON

3880/3900

(643.1)
QUER

1.004 (1908)

1 COTTAM: 1515 (3 units), 100% 2 RATCLIFFE ON SOAR: 1000 (2 units), STWB4A, B 100% (541) Z-1 3 DRAKELOW: 666 (2 units), 100% 4 WYLFA: 1075 (4 units), 100% STELLA WEST 5 DRAX: 2576 (4 units), 64% 0.984 HAWTHORN PIT KEADBY: 237 (1 unit), 33% 6 7 WEST BURTON: 1940 (4 units), 100% (461.6) 8 EGGBOROUGH: 791 (2 units), 100% NORTON 9 DIDCOT: 2065 (8 units), 100% 0.993 (299.0) 10 SCOTLAND: 1000 (981) TOTAL: 12,865 Z-2 (991) (557.5) 0.983

Renewable Energy: (MW) 7,633.0 FIDDLERS THORNTON FERRY CHP: (MW) DRAX 0.999 5,367.7 (536.8) CREYKE BECK (400) (418.7) 0.982 PENWORTHAM Power Losses: (MW +j Mvar) 0.986 PADIHAM EGGBOROUGH KEADBY 826.14 +j 4515.99 0.983 (400) WYLFA 0.995 (1523) KILLINGHOLME FERRYBRIDGE Z-3 (1912) 0.987 GRIMSBY WEST Slack: (MW) DAINES STOCKSBRIDGE 0.989 1.03 (625) 0.997
OSBALDWICK

0.995 (550.6) Z-4 PENTIR (449) RATCLIFFE (467.0) SPLN 1.023CELLARHEAD ON SOAR (134.2) (620) 0.989 WALPOLE KING’S LYNN (1986) (687.1) (947) NORWICH MAIN RUGELEY LEAGCY 0.991 TRAWSFYNYDD 1.020 (595.8) (721) (595.8) DRAKELOW 1.021 (472.75) 1.000 EATON (616)
DEESIDE

MACCLESFIELD

(1065)

COTTAM

WEST BURTON

7111/11667

IRONBRIDGE

SOCON

FECKENHAM

(669) 5821/14001
WALHAM

0.993 (1233) GRENDON (243.6) (slack) ENDERBY BRAMFORD 1.022 (566) 1.003 1.005(574.2) 0.999 1.035 WYMONDLEY 0.997 PELHAM
EAST CLAYDON SUNDON

SIZEWELL

1.001
RASSAU

1.000
COWLEY

1.001 1.005
CITY ROAD

BRAINTREE

RAYLEIGH MAIN GRAIN KINGSNORTH KEMSLEY

1.009 (134.2) (472.75) SWANSEA 1.017

MINETY

1.002
DIDCOT

(50.8) 1.000 (442.85)

(456.3)

Z-6 (1523) (442.85)
CANTERBURY NORTH

CILFYNYDD MELKSHAM SEABANK

LONDON AREA

1.004 0.999

Z-5
HINKLEY POINT

1.005 (-246)

BRAMLEY

PEMBROKE

0.999
TAUNTON NURSLING LOVEDEAN MANNINGTON

BOLNEY

(936.3)

DUNGENESS

(448)

0.999
NINFIELD

SELLINDGE E de F (France)

ALVERDISCOT

(398)
FAWLEY NORTH

EXETER

(252.3) 1.001 CHICKERELL
ABHAM

1971/2000

(583.1) 0.999
INDIAN QUEENS

152/4177
LANDULPH

20

Figure 5 NGC primary 400 kV network power flows with 2010 Renewables & CHP targets (“Constrained wind” in winter peak)
Renewable Energy (MW) CHP (MW) Shunt devices (MVAr) 1791/2780
Key: Power flow/Thermal limit HARKER

Scottish Power
HAKB4A

Generation reduced: (MW)
(284.5)

(1146.2)

(1321)

1.006

HUTTON

3775/3900

(590.9)
QUER

1.012 (1840)

1 COTTAM: 1515 (3 units), 100% 2 RATCLIFFE ON SOAR: 1000 (2 units), STWB4A, B 100% (470) 3 DRAKELOW: 666 (2 units), 100% Z-1 4 WYLFA: 1075 (4 units), 100% STELLA WEST 5 DRAX: 3220 (5 units), 80% 0.990 HAWTHORN PIT 6 KEADBY: 237 (1 unit), 33% 7 WEST BURTON: 1940 (4 units), 100% (461.6) 8 EGGBOROUGH: 791 (2 units), 100% NORTON 9 SCOTLAND: 1000 0.996 (273.9) TOTAL: 11,444 Z-2 (979) Renewable Energy: (MW) (956)

OSBALDWICK

FIDDLERS FERRY

1.005 (536.8) (400)
FERRYBRIDGE DAINES

PENWORTHAM 0.991 PADIHAM WYLFA

6,270.0 CHP: (MW) (467.6) 0.985 5,367.7 THORNTON DRAX Power Losses: (MW +j Mvar) CREYKE BECK 710.60 +j 3084.95 (418.7) 0.983
KEADBY KILLINGHOLME GRIMSBY WEST

EGGBOROUGH

0.984

0.991

0.991

0.999 (390.4) Z-4 PENTIR (273) RATCLIFFE (467.0) 1.025 CELLARHEAD SPLN ON SOAR (134.2) (449) 0.992 WALPOLE KING’S LYNN (1696) (687.1) (737) NORWICH MAIN RUGELEY LEAGCY 0.993 TRAWSFYNYDD 1.023 (617.45) (556) DRAKELOW 1.024 (617.45) (344.9) 1.004 EATON SOCON (497) IRONBRIDGE 5901/11667 0.997 (849) GRENDON FECKENHAM (191.3) (slack) ENDERBY BRAMFORD 1.024 (371) (429) 1.005 1.007(574.2) 1.000 1.037 WYMONDLEY 0.999 PELHAM 4161/14001 SIZEWELL EAST CLAYDON SUNDON WALHAM
DEESIDE

MACCLESFIELD

0.998 (1294) (1580) Z-3 STOCKSBRIDGE (452) 0.999
COTTAM

(400)

Slack: (MW) -66.26

WEST BURTON

(882)

1.004
RASSAU

1.001
COWLEY

1.002 1.005
CITY ROAD

BRAINTREE

RAYLEIGH MAIN GRAIN

1.010 (134.2) (344.9)

MINETY

1.004
DIDCOT

(52.9) 1.001 (442.85)

(456.3)

CILFYNYDD MELKSHAM

LONDON AREA

KINGSNORTH

Z-6 (1559) (442.85)
CANTERBURY NORTH

KEMSLEY

SWANSEA SEABANK

1.005 0.999

PEMBROKE

1.019

Z-5
HINKLEY POINT

1.007 (-184)

BRAMLEY

1.000
TAUNTON NURSLING LOVEDEAN MANNINGTON

BOLNEY

(774.0)

DUNGENESS

(412)

0.999
NINFIELD

SELLINDGE E de F (France)

ALVERDISCOT

(463)
FAWLEY NORTH

EXETER

(252.3) 1.001 CHICKERELL
ABHAM

1971/2000

(455.1) 0.998
INDIAN QUEENS

279/4177 21

LANDULPH

4.2.3 Summer valley in 2010 Considering the summer valley case, for “High wind”, “Trends continued” and “Constrained wind” scenarios, the area proportions of the Renewables and CHP are shown in Figures 6, 7, and 8. The displaced generation and system power losses are summarised in Tables 18 and 19. Table 18 Displaced generation under summer valley case Displaced conventional generation (MW) Power plants “High wind” “Trends “Constrained continued” wind” SCOTLAND 800 800 800 HARTLEPOOL 1173 1173 1173 DRAX 1317 1317 1317 KEADBY 693 693 693 KILLINGHOLME 1444 1444 1444 WEST BURTON 320 320 320 COTTAM 318 318 318 SUTTON BRIDGE 768 768 768 LITTLE BARFORD 639 639 CORBY 345 345 345 CONNAHS QUAY 1245 1245 1245 DEESIDE 224 224 224 ROCKSAVAGE 700 700 700 WYLFA 500 500 500 HEYSHAM 1768 1768 1768 SELLAFIELD 111 DIDCOT 931 599 Total 13,296 12,853 11,615 Table 19 System power losses under summer valley case With 2010 Renewables and CHP Targets Without System power Targets “High wind” “Trends “Constrained losses continued” wind” (MW + j 345.0 – j 276.4 – 268.6 – j 246.1 – j MVAr) 6048.2 j8326.9 8432.3 8565.3 The primary 400kV busbar voltages were kept in a range of 0.985 to 1.036 by adding 300 MVAr shunt reactive power compensation at Padiham, Ferrybridge, and Stella West, respectively (see Table 20). Table 20 Additional reactive power compensation under summer valley case Reactive power compensations (MVAr) Installed places “High wind” “Trends “Constrained continued” wind” PADIHAM 300 300 300 FERRYBRIDGE 300 300 300 STELLA WEST 300 300 300 Total 900 900 900

22

The transmission system “N-1” security contingency analysis results showed that there were no violations (see Table 21). Table 21 System ‘N-1’ contingency examinations under summer valley case ‘N-1’ contingency Without With 2010 Renewables and CHP Targets Violations Targets “High wind” “Trends “Constrained continued” wind” None None None None Branch MVA Branch AMP Bus voltage Interface None None None None None None None None None None None None

Simulation results also showed that the UK transmission system was able to accommodate the Government’s 2010 Renewables and CHP targets without requiring network reinforcement in the summer valley case. Generation, mainly old conventional power plants located in the North and, was reduced. The power transfers across the boundaries Z-4 and Z-5 were decreased, and further reversed by the Renewables and CHP displacing the conventional generation in the North.

23

Figure 6 NGC primary 400 kV network power flows with 2010 Renewables & CHP targets (“High wind” in summer valley)
Renewable Energy (MW) CHP (MW) Shunt devices (MVAr) 2351/2780
HARKER Key: Power flow/Thermal limit SELLAFIELD

Scottish Power
(1950)
HAKB4A

Generation reduced: (MW)
(284.5)

(1881)

0.993

3770/3900

HUTTON

(616.6)
HEYSHAM

0.982 (2358)
QUER

FIDDLERS FERRY

(536.8) 0.985

PENWORTHAM

TRAWSFYNYDD

Renewable Energy: (MW) 8,013.0 KILLINGHOLME WYLFA CHP: (MW) GRIMSBY WEST 5,367.7 WEST BURTON MACCLESFIELD COTTAM PENTIR Power Losses: (MW +j Mvar) DEESIDE (209) 1.007 (625.4) 276.45 -j 8326.92 RATCLIFFE (467.0) 1.013 CELLARHEAD CONNAHS (-133) Z-4 SPLN ON SOAR QUAY (134.2) Slack: (MW) 0.997 (398) (687.1) (-51) 1.032 KING’S LYNN -1.4 NORWICH MAIN
LEAGCY RUGELEY

(300) 0.990 PADIHAM 0.990 EGGBOROUGH KEADBY (300) 1.001 (235) FERRYBRIDGE (382) Z-3 0.995 ROCKSAVAGE 0.997 STOCKSBRIDGE (-50) 0.999 DAINES

1 COTTAM: 318 (1 unit), 100% 2 KEADBY: 693 (3 units), 100% STWB4A, B 3 DRAX: 1317 (3 units), 100% (470) Z-1 4 WEST BURTON: 320 (1 unit), 100% 5 DEESIDE: 224 (2 units), 100% 0.989 STELLA WEST 6 WYLFA: 500 (2 units), 100% (300) HAWTHORN PIT 7 HARTLEPOOL: 1173 (2 units), 100% (461.6) 8 KILLINGHOLME: 1444 (4 units), 100% NORTON HARTLEPOOL 9 CORBY: 345 (3 units), 100% 10 HEYSHAM: 1768 (3 units), 100% 0.988 (309.8) 11 CONNAHS QUAY: 1245 (4 units), 100% (679) 12 SUTTON BRIDGE: 768 (3 units), 100% (733) Z-2 13 LITTLE BARFORD: 639 (3 units), 100% 14 ROCKSAVAGE: 700(3 units), 100% OSBALDWICK 0.990 15 SELLAFIELD: 111 (3 units), 72% THORNTON 16 DIDCOT: 931 (5 units), 100% 17 SCOTLAND: 800 DRAX (616.7) REYKE BECK Total: 13,296.0 C (418.7) 0.989

1.000

(226)

(515.55) 1174/11667

1.018
IRONBRIDGE FECKENHAM

DRAKELOW

CORBY

SUTTON WALPOLE BRIDGE (551.25) LITTLE BARFORD EATON SOCON

(205)

1.032

(551.25)

(-126) 105/14001
WALHAM

1.008 (233) (-231)

(154) (61)
ENDERBY GRENDON (slack)

1.006
EAST CLAYDON

1.005
SUNDON

1.003
WYMONDLEY

1.010 (574.2)
PELHAM

BRAMFORD

1.029 1.034
SIZEWELL

1.010
RASSAU

1.005
COWLEY

1.013 1.007
CITY ROAD

BRAINTREE

RAYLEIGH MAIN GRAIN

1.020 (134.2) (515.55)

MINETY

1.004

DIDCOT

(40.8) 1.003 (442.85)

(456.3)

Z-6 (1803) (442.85)
CANTERBURY NORTH SELLINDGE

CILFYNYDD MELKSHAM

LONDON AREA

KINGSNORTH

KEMSLEY

SWANSEA SEABANK

1.009 0.999

PEMBROKE

1.029

Z-5
HINKLEY POINT

1.005 (-408)

BRAMLEY

0.999
TAUNTON NURSLING LOVEDEAN MANNINGTON

BOLNEY

(886.5)

DUNGENESS

0.991
NINFIELD

(-110)
E de F (France)

ALVERDISCOT

(150)
FAWLEY NORTH

EXETER

(252.3) 0.999 CHICKERELL
ABHAM

1693/2000

(601.5)

0.997
LANDULPH

-258/4177 24

INDIAN QUEENS

Figure 7 NGC primary 400 kV network power flows with 2010 Renewables & CHP targets (“Trends continued” in summer valley)
Renewable Energy (MW)

Scottish Power
HAKB4A

1 COTTAM: 318 (1 unit), 100% 2 KEADBY: 693 (3 units), 100% STWB4A, B 3 DRAX: 1317 (3 units), 100% (1594) (442) 4 WEST BURTON: 320 (1 units), 100% Z-1 2036/2780 5 DEESIDE: 224 (2 units), 100% STELLA WEST HARKER 6 WYLFA: 500 (2 units), 100% 0.994 (300)HAWTHORN PIT 0.993 7 HARTLEPOOL: 1173 (2 units), 100% Key: (461.6) Power flow/Thermal limit 8 KILLINGHOLME: 1444 (4 units), 100% NORTON HARTLEPOOL 9 CORBY: 345 (3 units), 100% SELLAFIELD 10 HEYSHAM: 1768 (3 units), 100% 0.989 (299.0) HUTTON 11 CONNAHS QUAY: 1245 (4 units), Z-2 0.984 (610) (643.1) 100% 3511/3900 (670) 12 SUTTON BRIDGE: 768 (3 units), 100% (2231) HEYSHAM 13 LITTLE BARFORD: 639 (3 units), QUER OSBALDWICK 100% FIDDLERS (557.5) 0.990 14 ROCKSAVAGE: 700(3 units), 100% THORNTON (536.8) FERRY 16 DIDCOT: 599 (3), 70% DRAX 0.987 17 SCOTLAND: 800 PENWORTHAM CREYKE BECK (300) (418.7) 0.990 Total: 12,853.0 PADIHAM 0.992 0.991 Renewable Energy: (MW) (300) EGGBOROUGH KEADBY 7,633.0 WYLFA FERRYBRIDGE 1.001 (195) KILLINGHOLME CHP: (MW) (298) Z-3 GRIMSBY WEST 0.996 ROCKSAVAGE 0.997 STOCKSBRIDGE 5,367.7 1.000 DAINES (-104) WEST BURTON MACCLESFIELD COTTAM PENTIR Power Losses: (MW +j Mvar) DEESIDE (168) 1.008 (550.6) Z-4 268.66 -j 8432.33 RATCLIFFE (467.0) 1.014 CONNAHS (-196) SPLN ON SOAR CELLARHEAD QUAY (134.2) Slack: (MW) 0.998 (332) (687.1) 1.033 KING’S LYNN (-105) 5.30 NORWICH MAIN RUGELEY LEAGCY 1.000 SUTTON WALPOLE (171) TRAWSFYNYDD CORBY BRIDGE (595.8) (595.8) DRAKELOW 1.033 (472.75) 1.018 (163) LITTLE (122) IRONBRIDGE BARFORD 889/11667 1.008 EATON (21) SOCON GRENDON FECKENHAM (234.6) (slack) ENDERBY BRAMFORD 1.029 (-279) (-172) 1.011 1.017 (574.2) 1.006 1.034 WYMONDLEY 1.007 PELHAM -275/14001 EAST CLAYDON SUNDON SIZEWELL WALHAM (1632.4) Shunt devices (MVAr) (284.5) 1.011
RASSAU

CHP (MW)

Generation reduced: (MW)

1.008
COWLEY

1.013 1.007
CITY ROAD

BRAINTREE

RAYLEIGH MAIN GRAIN

1.021 (134.2) (472.75)SWANSEA
PEMBROKE

MINETY

1.006

DIDCOT

(50.8) 1.004 (442.85)

(456.3)

CILFYNYDD MELKSHAM SEABANK

LONDON AREA

KINGSNORTH

Z-6 (1836) (442.85)
CANTERBURY NORTH SELLINDGE

KEMSLEY

1.009 1.000

1.030

Z-5
HINKLEY POINT

1.006 (-414)

BRAMLEY

1.000
TAUNTON NURSLING LOVEDEAN MANNINGTON

BOLNEY

(936.3)

DUNGENESS

0.991
NINFIELD

(-142)
E de F (France)

ALVERDISCOT

(175)
FAWLEY NORTH

EXETER

(252.3) 0.999 CHICKERELL
ABHAM

1694/2000

(583.1) 0.997
INDIAN QUEENS

-239/4177 25

LANDULPH

Figure 8 NGC primary 400 kV network power flows with 2010 Renewables & CHP targets (“Constrained wind” in summer valley)
Renewable Energy (MW) CHP (MW) Shunt devices (MVAr)

Scottish Power
(1632.4)
HAKB4A

1 COTTAM: 318 (1 unit), 100% 2 KEADBY: 693 (3 units), 100% (1179) 3 DRAX: 1317 (3 units), 100% (364) Z-1 1543/2780 4 WEST BURTON: 320 (1 unit), 100% STELLA WEST 5 DEESIDE: 224 (2 units), 100% HARKER 1.001 6 WYLFA: 500 (2 units), 100% 0.999 Key: (300) HAWTHORN PIT 7 HARTLEPOOL: 1173 (2 units), 100% (461.6) Power flow/Thermal limit 8 KILLINGHOLME: 1444 (4 units), 100% NORTON HARTLEPOOL 9 CORBY: 345 (3 units), 100% SELLAFIELD 0.993 (299.0) 10 HEYSHAM: 1768 (3 units), 100% HUTTON Z-2 0.993 11 CONNAHS QUAY: 1245 (4 units), (537) 3032/3900 (643.1) (609) 100% (1886) 12 SUTTON BRIDGE: 768 (3 units), 100% HEYSHAM QUER OSBALDWICK 14 ROCKSAVAGE: 700(3 units), 100% FIDDLERS 0.993 17 SCOTLAND: 800 THORNTON Total: 11,615.0 (536.8) FERRY DRAX 0.994 (557.5) PENWORTHAM CREYKE BECKRenewable Energy: (MW) (300) (418.7) 0.992 6,270.0 0.997 PADIHAM 0.993 EGGBOROUGH KEADBY (300) CHP: (MW) KILLINGHOLME WYLFA FERRYBRIDGE 1.003 (165) 5,367.7 (66) GRIMSBY WEST Z-3 0.998 ROCKSAVAGE 0.999 STOCKSBRIDGE Power Losses: (MW +j Mvar) 1.000 DAINES (-185) WEST BURTON MACCLESFIELD PENTIR COTTAM 246.15 -j 8565.34 DEESIDE (91) 1.011 (550.6) Z-4 RATCLIFFE (467.0) 1.016 CELLARHEAD CONNAHS (-298) SPLN Slack: (MW) ON SOAR QUAY (134.2) 0.999 -19.34 (202) (687.1) (-105) 1.034 KING’S LYNN NORWICH MAIN RUGELEY LEAGCY 1.000 SUTTON WALPOLE (-89) TRAWSFYNYDD CORBY BRIDGE (595.8) (595.8) DRAKELOW 1.034 (472.75) 1.019 (77) LITTLE IRONBRIDGE BARFORD (89) 339/11667 1.009 EATON (-158) SOCON GRENDON FECKENHAM (234.6) (slack) ENDERBY BRAMFORD 1.031 (-340) (-255) 1.016 1.019 (574.2) 1.009 1.036 WYMONDLEY 1.009 PELHAM -1079/14001 EAST CLAYDON SUNDON SIZEWELL WALHAM
STWB4A, B

(284.5)

Generation reduced: (MW)

1.013
RASSAU

1.013
COWLEY

1.015 1.033
CITY ROAD

BRAINTREE

RAYLEIGH MAIN GRAIN

1.022 (134.2) (472.75)

MINETY

1.008

DIDCOT

(50.8) 1.006 (442.85)

(456.3)

Z-6 (1766) (442.85)
CANTERBURY NORTH SELLINDGE

CILFYNYDD MELKSHAM

LONDON AREA

KINGSNORTH

KEMSLEY

SWANSEA SEABANK

1.010 1.000

PEMBROKE

1.031

Z-5
HINKLEY POINT

1.007 (-344)

BRAMLEY

1.000
TAUNTON NURSLING LOVEDEAN MANNINGTON

BOLNEY

(936.3)

DUNGENESS

0.991
NINFIELD

(-72)
E de F (France)

ALVERDISCOT

(233)
FAWLEY NORTH

EXETER

(252.3) 1.000 CHICKERELL
ABHAM

1694/2000

(583.1) 0.997
INDIAN QUEENS

-111/4177
LANDULPH

26

5. Limitations of the study The study descried in this report was based on a number of assumptions: (1) The evaluation of Renewables and CHP generation capacity was based on the work of SPRU. (2) The Renewables and CHP generation would tend to be located in areas close to favourable transmission system connection points. (3) All Renewables and CHP generation was assumed to be operating at rated capacity. (4) The output of conventional generation plant was reduced by assuming a 30 year life for coal-fired plant and a 40 year life for nuclear plant and decreasing the output of the older generators located in the North. (5) Reactive compensation could be installed as required. (6) Only N-1 contingencies were considered. All there are open to discussion and challenge, but the study serves to give a general indication of the impact of the Renewables and CHP targets on the England and Wales Transmission System. 6. Conclusions The studies indicate that the England and Wales transmission system can accommodate 10% electricity delivered by Renewables and 10GWe CHP by 2010, and no significant technical issues of system voltage and power flow are likely to emerge. The result agrees with PIU Energy Review [7] and statements made by National Grid [14]. High penetration of Renewables and CHP in the UK network will displace the electrical energy produced by conventional power plants. In particular, operation of conventional plants in the North may be restricted by a large number of renewable sources connected in Scotland and the North of England. This could be dealt with by constraining-off or decommissioning old generation plant in the North of England. The connection of Renewables and CHP will tend to reduce system power losses providing that the generation is predominately located in Southern areas. Voltage levels can be maintained through adding some reactive power compensation. The ‘N-1’ security contingency analysis of the system also indicates that the UK transmission system is adequate to accommodate the Government’s targets for Renewables and CHP by 2010.

27

7. References 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 10 Downing Street, Speech by the Prime Minister: ‘Environment: the next steps’, 6 March 2001. NGC, Seven Year Statement, May 2001. Scottish Power UK plc, Transmission Seven Year Statement, April 2001, www.scottishpower.com/ps/2008/. Scottish Power, Impact of Renewable Generation on the electrical Transmission Network in Scotland, 31 October 2001, www.scottish-southern.co.uk/popups/PSKeyDocs.asp. SPRU, Integrating Renewables and CHP into the UK Electricity System – Renewable Energy and Combined Heat and Power Resources in the UK, July 2001. DTI, Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2001, 26 July 2001. PIU, The Energy Review, 14 February 2002. DTI, New and Renewable Energy: Prospects in the UK for the 21st Century: Supporting Analysis, March 1999. DTI, Technical, Standards and Control Issues of Embedded Generation, 2000. PIU, Working Paper on Energy Scenarios to 2020, 2001. OXREA, Regional Renewable Energy Assessments, a report to the DTI and the DTLR, 6 February 2002. Ofgem, CHP Database- Publication, November 2001,
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/renewables/chp_index.htm

13 SIEMENS, The Celtic Connection, Network Interconnection, June 2000. 14 NGC, Initial Response by National Grid - PIU energy policy review, 30 August 2001. 15 Goran Strbac and Nick Jenkins, Network Security of the Future UK Electricity System (report to PIU), December 2001. 16 PB Power/ETSU, Concept Study – Western Offshore Transmission Grid, February 2002.

28

The inter-disciplinary Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research undertakes integrated research into the long-term consequences of climate change for society and into the development of sustainable responses that governments, business-leaders and decisionmakers can evaluate and implement. Achieving these objectives brings together UK climate scientists, social scientists, engineers and economists in a unique collaborative research effort. Research at the Tyndall Centre is organised into four research themes that collectively contribute to all aspects of the climate change issue: Integrating Frameworks; Decarbonising Modern Societies; Adapting to Climate Change; and Sustaining the Coastal Zone. All thematic fields address a clear problem posed to society by climate change, and will generate results to guide the strategic development of climate change mitigation and adaptation policies at local, national and global scales. The Tyndall Centre is named after the 19th century UK scientist John Tyndall, who was the first to prove the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in atmospheric composition could bring about climate variations. In addition, he was committed to improving the quality of science education and knowledge. The Tyndall Centre is a partnership of the following institutions: University of East Anglia UMIST Southampton Oceanography Centre University of Southampton University of Cambridge Centre for Ecology and Hydrology SPRU – Science and Technology Policy Research (University of Sussex) Institute for Transport Studies (University of Leeds) Complex Systems Management Centre (Cranfield University) Energy Research Unit (CLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory) The Centre is core funded by the following organisations: Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC) Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) UK Government Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) For more information, visit the Tyndall Centre Web site (www.tyndall.ac.uk) or contact: External Communications Manager Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK Phone: +44 (0) 1603 59 3906; Fax: +44 (0) 1603 59 3901 Email: tyndall@uea.ac.uk

Recent Working Papers
Tyndall Working Papers are available online at http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/working_papers.shtml Mitchell, T. and Hulme, M. (2000). A Country-by-Country Analysis of Past and Future Warming Rates, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 1. Hulme, M. (2001). Integrated Assessment Models, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 2. Berkhout, F, Hertin, J. and Jordan, A. J. (2001). Socio-economic futures in climate change impact assessment: using scenarios as 'learning machines', Tyndall Centre Working Paper 3. Barker, T. and Ekins, P. (2001). How High are the Costs of Kyoto for the US Economy?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 4. Barnett, J. (2001). The issue of 'Adverse Effects and the Impacts of Response Measures' in the UNFCCC, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 5. Goodess, C.M., Hulme, M. and Osborn, T. (2001). The identification and evaluation of suitable scenario development methods for the estimation of future probabilities of extreme weather events, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 6. Barnett, J. (2001). Security and Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 7. Adger, W. N. (2001). Social Capital and Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 8. Barnett, J. and Adger, W. N. (2001). Climate Dangers and Atoll Countries, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 9. Gough, C., Taylor, I. and Shackley, S. (2001). Burying Carbon under the Sea: An Initial Exploration of Public Opinions, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 10. Barker, T. (2001). Representing the Integrated Assessment of Climate Change, Adaptation and Mitigation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 11. Dessai, S., (2001). The climate regime from The Hague to Marrakech: Saving or sinking the Kyoto Protocol?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 12. Dewick, P., Green K., Miozzo, M., (2002). Technological Change, Industry Structure and the Environment, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 13. Shackley, S. and Gough, C., (2002). The Use of Integrated Assessment: An Institutional Analysis Perspective, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 14. Köhler, J.H., (2002). Long run technical change in an energyenvironment-economy (E3) model for an IA system: A model of Kondratiev waves, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 15. Adger, W.N., Huq, S., Brown, K., Conway, D. and Hulme, M. (2002). Adaptation to climate change: Setting the Agenda for Development Policy and Research, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 16. Dutton, G., (2002). Hydrogen Energy Technology, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 17.

Watson, J. (2002). The development of large technical systems: implications for hydrogen, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 18. Pridmore, A. and Bristow, A., (2002). The role of hydrogen in powering road transport, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 19. Turnpenny, J. (2002). Reviewing organisational use of scenarios: Case study - evaluating UK energy policy options, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 20. Watson, W. J. (2002). Renewables and CHP Deployment in the UK to 2020, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 21.

Watson, W.J., Hertin, J., Randall, T., Gough, C. (2002). Renewable Energy and Combined Heat and Power Resources in the UK, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 22. Paavola, J. and Adger, W.N. (2002). Justice and adaptation to climate change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 23. Xueguang Wu, Jenkins, N. and Strbac, G. (2002). Impact of Integrating Renewables and CHP into the UK Transmission Network, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 24