You are on page 1of 20

Integrating Renewables and CHP

into the UK Electricity System:


Investigation of the impact of network faults
on the stability of large offshore wind farms

Xueguang Wu, Lee Holdsworth, Nick Jenkins


and Goran Strbac

April 2003

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 32


Integrating Renewables
and CHP into the UK
Electricity System:
Investigation of the impact of network faults
on the stability of large offshore wind farms

Xueguang Wu
Lee Holdsworth
Nick Jenkins
Goran Strbac

The Manchester Centre for Electrical Energy (MCEE)


UMIST
UK

Email: w.xueguang@umist.ac.uk
l.holdsworth@umist.ac.uk
n.jenkins@umist.ac.uk
g.strbac@umist.ac.uk

Tyndall Centre Working Paper no. 32


April 2003
SUMMARY

Simulations have been performed to investigate the impact of network faults on the
stability of large offshore wind farms. Results are presented for balanced 3-phase
faults applied on the GB 400 kV transmission system.

The studies indicate that faults on the GB transmission system (close to the wind
farm) may cause instability of the large offshore wind farms. The voltage drop
investigations show that for a 100% voltage drop at a 400 kV connection point (such
as Norwich Main), a very fast clearance time (less than 90 ms) is required to maintain
stable operation of a 120MW offshore wind farm. However, when the voltage drops
are less than or equal to 60%, the critical clearance times are longer than 140ms. The
contours of voltage drop for the GB transmission system illustrate that for a 60%
voltage drop the 3-phase fault would have to occur close to the connection point.
Therefore the stability of the offshore wind farms may only be effected by relatively
local faults. Possible remedial measures include the use of fast acting reactive power
support, e.g. a Static Reactive Power Compensator (STATCOM).
SUMMARY
Simulations have been performed to investigate the impact of network faults on the
stability of large offshore wind farms. Results are presented for balanced 3-phase
faults applied on the GB 400 kV transmission system.

The studies indicate that faults on the GB transmission system (close to the wind
farm) may cause instability of the large offshore wind farms. The voltage drop
investigations show that for a 100% voltage drop at a 400 kV connection point (such
as Norwich Main), a very fast clearance time (less than 90 ms) is required to maintain
stable operation of a 120MW offshore wind farm. However, when the voltage drops
are less than or equal to 60%, the critical clearance times are longer than 140ms. The
contours of voltage drop for the GB transmission system illustrate that for a 60%
voltage drop the 3-phase fault would have to occur close to the connection point.
Therefore the stability of the offshore wind farms may only be effected by relatively
local faults. Possible remedial measures include the use of fast acting reactive power
support, e.g. a Static Reactive Power Compensator (STATCOM).

CONTENTS

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3
2. Studies and assumptions ...................................................................................... 4
2.1 Assumptions of the voltage drop calculations................................................ 4
2.2 Assumptions of the dynamic stability calculations ........................................ 4
3. Zones of voltage drop influence of faults............................................................. 5
4. Dynamic stability of large offshore wind farms ................................................ 11
4.1 Dynamic performance of large offshore wind farms................................... 11
4.2 Critical clearing times of large offshore wind farms ................................... 12
5. Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 14
6. References........................................................................................................... 15

2
1. Introduction

The generation of electrical power using sustainable sources of energy is developing


rapidly with the worldwide installed capacity of wind generation now exceeding 25
GW. For the UK, a target of 10% of electrical energy to be supplied by renewables by
2010 implies a capacity of renewable generating plant of up to 8 – 10 GW, of which
some 60 % might be wind turbines. In the UK the Crown Estate has granted licenses
to 18 consortia to investigate large offshore wind farm sites with a potential of at least
1500 MW [1]. There are also suggestions that a target as high as 20 % of UK
electricity from renewables might be achievable by 2020 [2], with similar ambitious
targets existing in many European countries.

Until recently, wind farms connected within the UK network had been limited to
small sized installations, connected at distribution voltage levels. The connection
standards [3] do not currently require wind farms to support the power system during
a network disturbance. During a network fault the wind turbines were disconnected
from the system and then subsequently reconnected when the fault has been cleared.
However, the network design grid codes are now being revised for the increased
penetration of wind generators. The wind farms will now have to continue to operate
during system disturbances.

A fixed speed wind turbine consists of a squirrel cage induction generator coupled to
the wind turbine rotor via a gearbox. The induction generator consumes reactive
power and requires compensation capacitors at the terminals in order to achieve unity
power factor. The growth in fixed speed wind farms with large MW capacity
connected to the UK transmission network will have a significance impact on the
technical and operational characteristics of the electricity system. The connection
requirements of large wind farms therefore require reviewing to ensure continuing
network security.

The objective of this work was to investigate network faults and stability issues that
need to be taken into account in order for high penetrations of large offshore wind
farms to be connected to the network. These must be investigated and resolved in
order to build the required confidence that a high penetration of wind generators
connected to the network is both feasible and safe.

The methods used in this study are based on modelling of the Great Britain (GB)
network and the dynamic stability of a typical large offshore fixed speed wind farm.

The aim of the study was firstly to assess zone influence of faults in the GB network
and secondly to explore potential dynamic impacts of the faults on the large offshore
wind farms.

This report presents the main results of this work. The main areas of focus for this
work are as follows:
(1) Studies and assumptions

(2) Zones of voltage drop influence of faults

(2) Dynamic stability of large offshore wind farms

3
A detailed description of the work performed under each of the above headings is
provided below.

2. Studies and assumptions

For high penetrations of the large offshore, fixed speed, wind farms to be connected to
the network, the effect of voltage drops at their 400 kV connection points and the
dynamic stability of the wind farms have been investigated. The results shown in this
study were based on the following assumptions.

2.1 Assumptions of the voltage drop calculations

(1) The study case was the GB network operating under the winter-peak load of 2002.
(2) The offshore wind farms were connected to the 400 kV transmission system at
Deeside, Penwortham, Walpole, and Norwich Main substations [4].
(3) The sub-transient reactances of all synchronous generators were 0.2 per-unit.
(4) The type of fault was a balanced three-phase short circuit.
(5) The fault levels at the 400 kV substations were calculated from the three-phase
short circuit currents using PowerWorld.
(6) PowerWorld was also used to calculate the voltage drops at the connection points
for faults in the network.

2.2 Assumptions of the dynamic stability calculations

(1) The study cases were based on the network shown in Figures 1 and 2. The short-
circuit ratios (SCR) at the 33 kV busbars of the offshore wind farm substations
were 6.
(2) The 400 kV system was represented for the dynamic stability simulation by a
voltage source in series with an impedance. The voltage of the source was 1 p.u.
The impedance was calculated from PowerWorld and is shown in Table 1.
(3) The offshore wind farm consisted of the same type of wind turbines, each of 2
MW. These were represented by a single equivalent coherent fixed-speed
induction generator. The data of the 2 MW wind turbine induction generator is
shown in Table 2 [5].
(4) The distance from the offshore wind turbines to shore was 5 km.
(5) A lumped 33kV/0.69kV wind turbine terminal transformer with 5% impedance
was used to connect the offshore wind farm to the 132kV/33kV onshore
substation through the 33 kV submarine cables.
(6) Each of the 33 kV submarine cables was 185 mm2, multicore copper, and paper
insulated distribution cable with rated current 360 A, resistance 0.118 ohms/km,
reactance 0.101 ohms/km and capacitance 0.4 µF/km [6].
(7) The number of parallel submarine cables was 4 for the 60 MW offshore wind farm
and 8 for the 120 MW.
(8) An earthing zigzag transformer with rated current 1000 A was used to provide an
earthed point on the 33 kV network.
(9) A 132kV/33kV transformer with 15% impedance was connected to the
400kV/132kV system substation through the 132 kV overhead lines.
(10) Each of the 132 kV overhead lines was 20 km long and 258 mm2 aluminum
conductor steel reinforced (ACSR) conductor with rated capacity 115 MVA,

4
resistance 0.068 ohms/km, and reactance 0.404 ohms/km [7].
(11) The number of parallel overhead lines was 1 for the 60 MW offshore wind farm
and 2 for the 120 MW.
(12) The 400kV/132kV system substation had a transformer with 15% impedance [8].
(13) The computer program, PSCAD/EMTDC, was used to simulate dynamic stability.

400kV 400kV/132kV 132kV/33kV 30*2MW, 0.69kV


20km, 132kV 5km, 33kV SCR = 6 large offshore wind farm
300MVA, 15% 100MVA, 15%
one overhead line four submarine cables
G WT

system 132kV 33kV 60MW


impedance earthing 33kV/0.69kV capacitor
transformer 80MVA, 5% banks

fault resistance

Figure 1 A 60MW offshore wind farm connected to the 400 kV busbar

400kV 400kV/132kV 132kV/33kV 60*2MW, 0.69kV


1000MVA, 15% 20km, 132kV 150MVA, 15% 5km, 33kV SCR = 6 large offshore wind farm
two overhead lines eight submarine cables
G WT

system 132kV 33kV 120MW


impedance earthing 33kV/0.69kV capacitor
transformer 150MVA, 5% banks

fault resistance

Figure 2 A 120MW offshore wind farm connected to the 400 kV busbar


Table 1 System data
400kV Short-circuit level Impedance X/R Frequency
substation (MVA) (ohms) (Hz)
Deeside 19,514 8.20 10.2 50
Penwortham 18,785 8.52 10.6 50
Walpole 19,142 8.36 10.4 50
Norwich Main 12,006 13.33 11.9 50

Table 2 Wind turbine induction generator data (on its own base)
Capacity Vol. f R1 X1 Xm R2 X2 Lumped inertia
(MW) (kV) (Hz) (p.u) (p.u) (p.u) (p.u) (p.u) constant (sec.)
2 0.69 50 0.0049 0.0924 3.9528 0.0055 0.0995 3.5

3. Zones of voltage drop influence of faults

Voltage drops at the 400 kV busbars at substations (Deeside, Penwortham, Walpole


and Norwich Main) were calculated. The results are shown in Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6.
The retained voltage is shown at the location of the fault. For example, when a three-

5
phase fault was applied at Harker, the retained voltage at Deeside 400 kV busbar was
0.88 as shown at Harker.

Figure 3 shows the retained voltages at Deeside for faults on each busbar in the GB
network. Contours of the voltage drop were drawn from the retained voltages. The
30% voltage drop contour only extends over North Wales, the West Midlands, and the
Manchester area.

Figures 4-6 show similar results for Penwortham, Walpole and Norwich Main
substations.

6
Figure 3 Retained voltages at Deeside 400kV substation for faults in the GB network

BEAULY NORTH WEST-SSE


1.00 KEITH
PETERHEAD

KINTORE
FOYERS 1.00
CRUACHAN ABERDEEN
1.00
NORTH SOUTH-SSE

TEALING
INVERKIP WINDYHILL BONNYBRIDGE 0.99
400kV
SSE & SP
LONGANNET
275kV
NEILSTON
0.98
COCKENZIE Power flow
HUNTERSTON
0.99 boundary
STRATHHAVEN
KILMARNOCK 0.95 TORNESS
SOUTH
0.97
Voltage
5% ECCLES
0.98 drop range
SP & NGC

STELLA WEST
HARKER
0.98
0.88 HAWTHORN PIT
NORTON 0.95
HUTTON 10 0.93 B1-NGC
0.85
%
THORNTON
PENWORTHAM DRAX
0.88 CREYKE
0.65 0.81 BECK
EGGBORO
0.87 B2-NGC
WYLFA 30 KEADBY
UGH0.81
0.63 % 0.90
MACCLESFIELD
0.66 COTTAM WEST BURTON
PENTIR DEESIDE 0.91 0.89
0.49 50 CELLARHEA RATCLIFFE
B3-NGC
0.67
D
ON SOAR 0.89
0.00 % WALPOLE
TRAWSFYNYDD LEAGCY DRAKELOW NORWICH MAIN
0.30 0.76 0.94 0.98
0.53 IRONBRIDGE
30
% 0.61 FECKENHAM ENDERB
10 0.81 0.92
Y BRAMFOR SIZEWELL
WYMONDL 0.99
D 0.98
% EAST SUNDON 0.95
EY PELHAM
CLAYDON 0.94 0.94 B9-NGC
0.94 BRAINTREE
WALHAM
5% 0.94 COWLEY RAYLEIGH0.99
MAIN
0.94 CITY ROAD 0.98
1.00
SWANSEA KEMSLEY
CILFYNYDD MELKSHAM LONDON AREA
0.99 BRAMLEY
0.99
0.97
0.94 0.96 CANTERBURY
PEMBROKE BOLNEY 0.99
0.99 HINKLEY POINT DUNGENESS
LOVEDEAN 1.00 SELLIN
0.99 1.00
MANNINGTON 0.99 NINFIELD 1.00
DGE
ALVERDISCOTT
1.00 1.00 E de F
1.01 EXETER CHICKERELL
FAWLEY NORTH (France)
1.00
1.00 1.01
B7-NGC
INDIAN QUEENS LANDULPH
1.01 1.01
7
Figure 4 Retained voltages at Penwortham 400kV substation for faults in the GB network

BEAULY NORTH WEST-SSE


0.99 KEITH
PETERHEAD

KINTORE
FOYERS 0.97
CRUACHAN ABERDEEN
0.97
NORTH SOUTH-SSE
5%
TEALING
INVERKIP WINDYHILL BONNYBRIDGE 0.95
400kV
SSE & SP
LONGANNET 275kV
NEILSTON
0.92 Power flow
COCKENZIE
0.95 boundary
HUNTERSTON
STRATHHAVEN
KILMARNOCK 0.86 TORNESS
SOUTH Voltage
0.90 drop range
10 ECCLES
% 0.94
SP & NGC

STELLA WEST
HARKER
0.93
0.67 HAWTHORN PIT
30 NORTON 0.90
HUTTON 0.86 B1-NGC
0.57 %

40 THORNTON
PENWORTHAM % DRAX
0.81 CREYKE BECK
0.00 0.71 0.83
EGGBOROUGH B2-NGC
WYLFA 0.70 KEADBY
0.84 0.88
30 MACCLESFIELD
COTTAM WEST BURTON
PENTIR %DEESIDE
0.66
CELLARHEAD 0.91 0.88 B3-NGC
0.78 RATCLIFFE
0.70 ON SOAR 0.91
0.64
LEAGCY WALPOLE
TRAWSFYNYDD NORWICH MAIN
0.69 DRAKELOW
0.93
0.84 0.97
0.80 IRONBRIDGE
10 0.81 FECKENHAM ENDERBY
% 0.90 0.94 BRAMFOR SIZEWELL
5% EAST SUNDON
WYMONDL
PELHAM 0.98
D 0.98
0.95
EY
B9-NGC
CLAYDON 0.95 0.95 BRAINTREE
WALHAM
0.95
COWLEY
0.99
RAYLEIGH MAIN
0.97
0.96 CITY ROAD 0.99
1.00
SWANSEA KEMSLEY
CILFYNYDD MELKSHAM LONDON AREA
1.00 BRAMLEY 0.99
0.99
0.98 0.98 CANTERBURY
PEMBROKE BOLNEY 1.00
HINKLEY POINT DUNGENESS
1.00 LOVEDEAN 1.01 SELLIND
1.00 1.00
MANNINGTON 1.00 NINFIELD 1.00
GE
ALVERDISCOTT
1.01 1.01 E de F
1.01 FAWLEY NORTH (France)
EXETER CHICKERELL 1.01
1.01 1.01
B7-NGC
INDIAN QUEENS LANDULPH
1.01 1.01
8
Figure 5 Retained voltages at Walpole 400kV substation for faults in the GB network

BEAULY NORTH WEST-SSE


1.01 KEITH
PETERHEAD

KINTORE
FOYERS 1.01
CRUACHAN ABERDEEN
1.01
NORTH SOUTH-SSE

TEALING
INVERKIP WINDYHILL BONNYBRIDGE 1.00
400kV
SSE & SP
LONGANNET
275kV
NEILSTON
1.00
COCKENZIE Power flow
HUNTERSTON
1.00 boundary
STRATHHAVEN
KILMARNOCK 0.99 TORNESS
SOUTH Voltage
0.99 ECCLES
1.00 drop range
SP & NGC

STELLA WEST
HARKER
0.99 5%
0.97 HAWTHORN PIT
NORTON 0.95
HUTTON 0.91 B1-NGC
0.96
10
THORNTON %
PENWORTHAM DRAX
0.85 CREYKE
0.90 0.75 0.75
BECK
B2-NGC
EGGBOROUGH
WYLFA 0.79 KEADB
0.97 Y 0.76 30
MACCLESFIELD
DEESIDE 0.88 COTTAM WEST BURTON %
PENTIR 0.76 0.61 B3-NGC
0.91 CELLARHEAD
0.95 RATCLIFFE
0.87 ON SOAR 0.85
LEAGCY WALPOLE
TRAWSFYNYDD DRAKELOW NORWICH MAIN
0.92 0.92 0.00 0.54
0.95 IRONBRIDGE 50
0.92 FECKENHAM ENDERB %
0.92 0.85
Y BRAMFOR SIZEWELL
EAST SUNDON
WYMONDL
PELHAM 0.67
D 0.67 30
0.63
EY
B9-NGC %
CLAYDON 0.68 0.41 BRAINTREE
WALHAM 0.76 0.76
0.94 COWLEY RAYLEIGH MAIN
0.79 CITY ROAD 0.72
0.86
SWANSEA KEMSLEY
CILFYNYDD MELKSHAM LONDON AREA
0.98 BRAMLEY 0.79
0.96
0.90 0.85 CANTERBURY
PEMBROKE BOLNEY 0.85
HINKLEY POINT DUNGENESS
0.98 LOVEDEAN 0.93
0.96 0.90 SELLIN
MANNINGTON 0.91 NINFIELD 0.88
DGE
ALVERDISCOTT
0.96 0.92 10 E de F
1.00 EXETER CHICKERELL
FAWLEY NORTH
% (France)
0.98 0.99 0.94
B7-NGC 5%
INDIAN QUEENS LANDULPH
1.00 1.00
9
Figure 6 Retained voltages at Norwich Main 400kV substation for faults in the GB network

BEAULY NORTH WEST-SSE


1.00 KEITH
PETERHEAD

KINTORE
FOYERS 1.00
CRUACHAN ABERDEEN
1.00
NORTH SOUTH-SSE

TEALING
INVERKIP WINDYHILL BONNYBRIDGE
1.00
400kV
SSE & SP
LONGANNET
275kV
NEILSTON
0.99
COCKENZIE Power flow
HUNTERSTON 0.99 boundary
STRATHHAVEN
KILMARNOCK 0.98 TORNESS
SOUTH Voltage
0.99 ECCLES
0.99 drop range
SP & NGC

STELLA WEST
0.99 5%
HARKER
0.96 HAWTHORN PIT
NORTON 0.95
HUTTON 0.92 B1-NGC
0.96
10
THORNTON %
PENWORTHAM DRAX
0.87 CREYKE
0.91 0.80 0.78
BECK
EGGBOROUGH B2-NGC
WYLFA KEADBY 30
0.83
0.97 MACCLESFIELD 0.78 %
DEESIDE 0.89 COTTAM WEST BURTON
PENTIR 0.76 0.67 B3-NGC
0.92 CELLARHEA
0.95 RATCLIFFE
0.88
D
ON SOAR 0.85 50
LEAGCY WALPOLE
TRAWSFYNYDD DRAKELOW NORWICH
% MAIN
0.92 0.92 0.23 0.00
0.95 IRONBRIDGE
0.92 FECKENHAM ENDERB
0.91 0.85
Y BRAMFORD SIZEWELL
WYMONDL 0.36 0.38
EAST SUNDON 0.61
EY PELHAM
CLAYDON 0.67 0.39 B9-NGC
BRAINTREE
WALHAM 0.74 0.58
0.93 COWLEY RAYLEIGH MAIN
0.77 CITY ROAD 0.59 30
0.81 %
SWANSEA KEMSLEY
CILFYNYDD MELKSHAM LONDON AREA
0.97 BRAMLEY
0.71
0.94
0.89 0.82 CANTERBURY
PEMBROKE BOLNEY 0.79
HINKLEY POINT DUNGENESS
0.97 LOVEDEAN 0.90
0.95 0.86 SELLIN
MANNINGTON 0.89 NINFIELD 0.83
DGE
ALVERDISCOTT
0.95 0.89 E de F
0.99 FAWLEY NORTH (France)
EXETER CHICKERELL
0.96 0.97 0.91
B7-NGC 5% 10
INDIAN QUEENS LANDULPH
0.98 0.99 %
10
4. Dynamic stability of large offshore wind farms

4.1 Dynamic performance of large offshore wind farms

The dynamic performance of a 60 MW offshore wind farm connected to 400 kV


substations at Deeside and Norwich Main was simulated. The results are shown in
Figures 7 and 8.

Figure 7 shows the dynamic performance of the wind farm at Deeside for a fault on
the 400 kV busbar. The fault was applied at 2 second and cleared after 110 ms (the
critical clearing time). During the fault, the 400 kV busbar voltage approaches zero.
The terminal voltage of the wind turbines goes from 1p.u to 0.32 p.u. When the fault
is cleared, the voltage and speed of the wind turbines return to their initial values in
about 1.8 seconds. During this period, the wind farm absorbs a significant amount of
reactive power from the network.

Figure 8 shows a similar result for Norwich Main.

The short-circuit levels on the 400 kV busbars at Penwortham and Walpole are almost
the same as that at Deeside (see Table 1). Hence, the dynamic performance of a wind
farm connected to Penwortham and Walpole will be similar to one connected to
Deeside.

Figure 7 Dynamic performance of a 60 MW offshore wind farm connected to


Deeside 400 kV busbar

11
Figure 8 Dynamic performance of a 60 MW offshore wind farm connected to
Norwich Main 400 kV busbar

4.2 Critical clearing times of large offshore wind farms

Figures 9 and 10 show the variations of critical clearing time with voltage drops on
the 400 kV busbars for 60 MW and 120 MW offshore wind farms at Deeside and
Norwich Main. The voltage drop is defined as:
voltage drop = [1 − retained voltage ( p.u.)]× 100% .

The different voltage drops on the 400 kV busbar were obtained by changing the
fault resistance.

12
Figure 9 Variations of the critical clearing time with voltage drop at Deeside

Figure 10 Variations of the critical clearing time with voltage drop at Norwich Main

13
From the “Technical and Operational Characteristics of the NGC Transmission
System” [9], the normal clearance time for faults on the 400 kV transmission system
is between 60-120 ms.

Figure 9 shows the critical clearing times for the 60 MW and 120 MW offshore wind
farms at Deeside. The critical clearing times are less than 120 ms when the voltage
drops are larger than 90% for the 60 MW and 82% for the 120 MW. Hence for the
100% voltage drop, a fast clearing time (less than 100 ms) is required to maintain
stable operation of a wind farm connected to Deeside.

Figure 10 shows the critical clearing times of the offshore wind farm at Norwich
Main. The critical clearing times are much lower than at Deeside due to the smaller
short-circuit capacity at Norwich Main. The critical clearing times are less than 120
ms if the voltage drops are larger than 90% for the 60 MW wind farm and 75% for the
120 MW wind farm. So for a 100% voltage drop, a very fast clearing time (less than
90 ms) is required to prevent instability of the large offshore wind farm at Norwich
Main.

5. Conclusions

Simulations have been performed to investigate the impact of network faults on the
stability of large offshore wind farms. Results are presented for balanced 3-phase
faults applied on the GB 400 kV transmission system. This investigates a worst case
scenario as the fraction of this type of fault occurring on the 400 kV transmission
system is less than 5% of all faults [9]. The number of incidents of overhead-line
faults, on the British system 132kV and above, is typically about 1 fault per 100km
per year. The most common fault is the single line to earth fault which accounts for
75-85 % of all faults [9]. The impact of 1-phase faults upon the stability of fixed
speed wind farms will be much less severe.

The studies indicate that faults on the GB transmission system (close to the wind
farm) may cause instability. The voltage drop investigations at Norwich Main (Figure
10) show that for a 100% voltage drop at the 400 kV connection point, a very fast
clearance time (less than 90 ms) is required to maintain stable operation of a 120MW
offshore wind farm. However, when the voltage drops are less than or equal to 60%
on the 400 kV busbar at Norwich Main, the critical clearance times are longer than
140ms. The contours given in Figure 6 for the GB transmission system illustrate that
for a 60% voltage drop the 3-phase fault would have to occur close to Norwich Main.
Therefore the stability of the offshore wind farms may only be effected by relatively
local faults. Possible remedial measures include the use of fast acting reactive power
support as discussed in [10].

14
6. References

1. The Crown Estate, Potential Offshore Wind Farm Sites Announced by the Crown
Estate, 5 April 2001, http://www.crownestate.co.uk/news/pr20010405.shtml.
2. PIU, The Energy Review, 14 February 2002, http://www.piu.gov.uk
3. EA, Engineering Recommendation G.59/1, Recommendations for the Connection
of Embedded Generating Plant to the Regional Electricity Companies’
Distribution Systems, 1991.
4. BWEA, Offshore Wind Farm Developers and Locations of Sites,
http://www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk/sites.html.
5. Vestas, Generator data 2MW- 690V-50Hz.
6. Bungay E.W.G., McAllister D., Electric Cables Handbook (second edition), BSP
Professional Books, 1990.
7. Weedy B.M., Electric Power System (book), John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 1992.
8. Alstom, Protective Relays Application Guide, GEC Alstom T&D, Protection &
Control Limited.
9. NGC, Technical and Operational Characteristics of the Transmission System,
April 2000.
10. Wu X. Arulampalam A., Zhan C. Jenkins N., Application of a Static Reactive
Power Compensator (STATCOM) and a Dynamic Braking Resistor (DBR) to
Stability Enhancement of a Large Wind Farm, Accepted for publication in Wind
Engineering, Vol.27, Issue 2, 2003.

15
The trans-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 decision-
makers 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 Gough, C., Taylor, I. and Shackley, S.


Country-by-Country Analysis of Past (2001). Burying Carbon under the
and Future Warming Rates, Tyndall Sea: An Initial Exploration of Public
Centre Working Paper 1. Opinions, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 10.
Hulme, M. (2001). Integrated
Assessment Models, Tyndall Centre Barker, T. (2001). Representing the
Working Paper 2. Integrated Assessment of Climate
Change, Adaptation and Mitigation,
Berkhout, F, Hertin, J. and Jordan, A. J.
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 11.
(2001). Socio-economic futures in
climate change impact assessment: Dessai, S., (2001). The climate
using scenarios as 'learning regime from The Hague to
machines', Tyndall Centre Working Marrakech: Saving or sinking the
Paper 3. Kyoto Protocol?, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 12.
Barker, T. and Ekins, P. (2001). How
High are the Costs of Kyoto for the Dewick, P., Green K., Miozzo, M.,
US Economy?, Tyndall Centre Working (2002). Technological Change,
Paper 4. Industry Structure and the
Environment, Tyndall Centre Working
Barnett, J. (2001). The issue of
Paper 13.
'Adverse Effects and the Impacts of
Response Measures' in the UNFCCC, Shackley, S. and Gough, C., (2002).
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 5. The Use of Integrated Assessment:
An Institutional Analysis
Goodess, C.M., Hulme, M. and Osborn,
Perspective , Tyndall Centre Working
T. (2001). The identification and
Paper 14.
evaluation of suitable scenario
development methods for the Köhler, J.H., (2002). Long run
estimation of future probabilities of technical change in an energy-
extreme weather events, Tyndall environment-economy (E3) model
Centre Working Paper 6. for an IA system: A model of
Kondratiev waves, Tyndall Centre
Barnett, J. (2001). Security and
Working Paper 15.
Climate Change , Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 7. Adger, W.N., Huq, S., Brown, K.,
Conway, D. and Hulme, M. (2002).
Adger, W. N. (2001). Social Capital
Adaptation to climate change:
and Climate Change , Tyndall Centre
Setting the Agenda for Development
Working Paper 8.
Policy and Research, Tyndall Centre
Barnett, J. and Adger, W. N. (2001). Working Paper 16.
Climate Dangers and Atoll
Dutton, G., (2002). Hydrogen Energy
Countries, Tyndall Centre Working
Technology, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 9.
Paper 17.
Watson, J. (2002). The development Tompkins, E.L. and Adger, W.N. (2003).
of large technical systems: Building resilience to climate
implications for hydrogen, Tyndall change through adaptive
Centre Working Paper 18. management of natural resources,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 27
Pridmore, A. and Bristow, A., (2002).
The role of hydrogen in powering Dessai, S., Adger, W.N., Hulme, M.,
road transport , Tyndall Centre Köhler, J.H., Turnpenny, J. and Warren,
Working Paper 19. R. (2003). Defining and experiencing
dangerous climate change, Tyndall
Turnpenny, J. (2002). Reviewing
Centre Working Paper 28
organisational use of scenarios:
Case study - evaluating UK energy Brown, K. and Corbera, E. (2003). A
policy options, Tyndall Centre Working Multi-Criteria Assessment
Paper 20. Framework for Carbon-Mitigation
Projects: Putting “development” in
Watson, W. J. (2002). Renewables
the centre of decision-making,
and CHP Deployment in the UK to
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 29
2020, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 21.
Hulme, M. (2003). Abrupt climate
Watson, W.J., Hertin, J., Randall, T.,
change: can society cope?, Tyndall
Gough, C. (2002). Renewable Energy
Centre Working Paper 30
and Combined Heat and Power
Resources in the UK, Tyndall Centre Turnpenny, J., Haxeltine A. and
Working Paper 22. O’Riordan, T. A scoping study of UK
user needs for managing climate
Paavola, J. and Adger, W.N. (2002).
futures. Part 1 of the pilot-phase
Justice and adaptation to climate
interactive integrated assessment
change , Tyndall Centre Working Paper
23. process (Aurion Project). Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 31
Xueguang Wu, Jenkins, N. and Strbac,
Xueguang Wu, Jenkins, N. and Strbac, G.
G. (2002). Impact of Integrating
(2003). Integrating Renewables and
Renewables and CHP into the UK
CHP into the UK Electricity System:
Transmission Network, Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 24 Investigation of the impact of
network faults on the stability of
Xueguang Wu, Mutale, J., Jenkins, N. large offshore wind farms, Tyndall
and Strbac, G. (2003). An Centre Working Paper 32
investigation of Network Splitting
for Fault Level Reduction, Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 25
Brooks, N. and Adger W.N. (2003).
Country level risk measures of
climate-related natural disasters
and implications for adaptation to
climate change , Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 26

You might also like