Renewable Energy 145 (2020) 772e782

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Reducing the impact of wind farms on the electric power system by

the use of energy storage
Tomasz Simla*, Wojciech Stanek
Instytut Techniki Cieplnej, Konarskiego 22, 44-100, Gliwice, Poland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The deployment of wind power is rapidly growing worldwide. Intermittent, unpredictable availability of
Received 11 January 2019 wind energy destabilizes the work of the whole power system, which causes additional consumption of
Received in revised form resources. When fossil fuel power plants are affected by this phenomenon, they are forced to cycle
6 May 2019
(change their load) more often, which results in higher consumption of fuel. This negative effect,
Accepted 7 June 2019
expressed by means of thermo-ecological cost (TEC) can be significant in comparison to the TEC of
Available online 14 June 2019
construction phase of wind turbines. TEC is defined as the cumulative consumption of non-renewable
exergy connected with the fabrication of a particular product. Power plant cycling could be minimized
Keywords:
Electricity generation
by applying an energy storage system responding to variations in wind power availability. In the present
Energy storage work, several scheduling strategies for cooperation of an energy storage system with wind turbines are
Power plant cycling investigated. The effect is assessed in local and global balance boundaries. Employing energy storage
Thermo-ecological cost reduces the energy losses in thermal power plants, but at the same time, energy losses appear in the
Wind power plants storage itself. However, depending on the strategy of energy storage scheduling, in some cases the overall
consumption of primary exergy in the whole system may be lower.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction e renewable energy sources and energy
storage
Progressive depletion of reserves of fossil fuels as well as
worries of the global climate change are the main incentives for
replacing the existing fossil fuel based energy system with
renewable energy sources (RES). This finds reflection in energy
policies of various countries, for example in the Renewable Energy
Directive of the European Union. It obliges the EU to reach the level
of 20% of renewable energy in the energy mix by the year 2020 [1].
Currently, in the renewable electricity sector of the EU, hydropower
plants contribute to the greatest extent (38% in the year 2015).
Nonetheless, wind is the type of renewable energy source which
exhibits the quickest expansion in terms of installed power. Its
presence has more than quadrupled over the period 2004e2015. In
2015, it accounted for 31% share in renewable electricity genera-
tion, or 24.6 Mtoe in absolute terms. It is expected that in 2020 the
production of electricity from wind turbines and the production of
electricity from hydropower plants will level up [2].
The worldwide popularity of wind as a renewable energy source
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: tomasz.simla@polsl.pl (T. Simla), wojciech.stanek@polsl.pl
(W. Stanek).
stems mainly from the fact that wind energy can be harvested with
relatively little constraints regarding the location, when compared
with water or solar energy. Both mainland and offshore locations
are possible. For many regions, wind energy is the only renewable
source that can be utilized on a large scale comparable with con-
ventional energy sources [3,4]. The “energy payback time” of a
wind turbine, defined as the amount of time in which the device
produces the amount of energy used for its fabrication, is only a few
months [4,5]. While wind farms do not directly pollute the envi-
ronment with harmful gases, they still do have some negative
impact on the environment, such as generated noise, visual intru-
sion into the landscape or potential harmfulness for wildlife
(mostly flying animals) [4,6,7]. Nevertheless, the environmental
advantages of wind power plants generally outweigh their
drawbacks.
In the European Union, electric energy produced from RES is
provided guaranteed access or priority access to the grid [1]. It is an
important incentive for development of RES, but also a possible
threat to the stability of the electric power system. Power output of
RES such as wind farms or solar power plants depends on the
weather, and as such cannot be precisely predicted or controlled.
Wind turbines especially may exhibit strong transient fluctuations
of available power output. This effect becomes particularly visible
in power systems with high share of wind energy (high “wind
penetration”). From the perspective of the electric grid such

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.028
0960-1481/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 T. Simla, W. Stanek / Renewable Energy 145 (2020) 772e782
variability is very undesirable. In each moment the grid must
maintain the balance of supply and demand. When no energy
storage is used, the remaining power generation units (mostly fossil
fuel-based thermal units), have to be used for regulation purposes.
It results in more frequent changes in the power plants' load as well
as increases the number of shut-down/start-up procedures. This
phenomenon is referred to as “cycling” of power plants. Overall,
such working regime reduces the efficiency of power plants. This
issue is addressed in further sections of the paper.
The most desirable method of mitigation of cycling of thermal
power plants would be application of large-scale energy storage. It
would also improve the overall performance and efficiency of the
power system. Methods of energy storage can be categorized into
several main groups. Since it is difficult to directly store electric
energy (only capacitors and superconductors fall into this cate-
gory), the majority of methods rely on converting electric energy in
order to store it in a different form. The most common methods are
mechanical and chemical energy storage. Mechanical methods
include pumped hydro storage (PHS), compressed air storage
(CAES) and flywheels. Among chemical methods there are various
kinds of electrochemical batteries (BES), as well as electrolyzers/
fuel cells (for storing energy in the form of hydrogen). Other
methods utilize thermal energy storage (i.e. storing energy in
suitable materials at high or low temperatures and then utilizing it
in a heat engine, thus producing electricity). All these technologies
vary greatly in terms of main characteristics, which are: storage
capacity, power output, energy density, power density, response
time, charge/discharge duration, lifetime and round-trip efficiency.
Depending on these factors, different technological solutions are
applicable for various purposes that could be served for the energy
system. The purposes are associated with the possible duration of
energy storage and include: power quality support, load levelling,
spinning reserve, energy arbitrage and long-term energy storage
[8e10]. Table 1 presents a summary of the most common methods
of energy storage together with their main characteristics.
The problem of scheduling energy storage units cooperating
with renewable electric energy sources is widely studied in the
literature. Research in Refs. [11e15] focuses on use of energy stor-
age system (usually BES) to smoothen the output of a wind farm
and a solar photovoltaic plant, so that they can be dispatched on an
hourly basis like any other conventional generator and actively take
part in the market [16]. Similarly, studies [17e22] deal with optimal
scheduling of renewables-storage generation systems focusing
mainly on the technical constraints of various analysed storage
systems. Studies [23e25] investigate a control strategy for an en-
ergy storage system which aims to increase the RES penetration
level while improving the electric grid reliability and power gen-
eration scheduling. Since the grid imposes a set of requirements
regarding the quality of electric energy, it does not permit presence
of highly variable sources (such as wind) over a certain threshold.
Smoothening the power output from these sources would allow for
a better integration of renewables into the grid. Research in
Ref. [26] proves that due to their intermittent nature, renewable
Table 1
Comparison of technological solutions of energy storage [8e10].
Technology
Pumped hydro storage
Compressed air storage
Thermal energy storage
Electrolyzers þ fuel cells (hydrogen)
Lead-acid batteries
Lithium-ion batteries
Flywheels
Capacitors
Superconductors
773
sources alone cannot fully cover the system's demand for electric
energy. It would require an overscaled system of renewable sour-
ces, characterized by huge losses of energy (defined as forced
curtailment of production due to lack of demand). Such in-
vestments would therefore be not feasible. The required storage
capacity for various levels of renewable energy penetration in the
system is also determined in that study. Regarding the cooperation
of renewable sources with thermal power generators, scheduling of
an energy storage system for an isolated power system comprising
wind turbines and diesel engine is investigated in Ref. [27]. Study
[28] examines combining a wind farm and a conventional thermal
unit with a CAES unit in order to increase profits and reduce costs
for the owner of such system. A similar topic, but in a larger scale, is
investigated in Ref. [29]. Related research in Ref. [30] focuses on
optimizing the cost of energy in the network and investment-
operational costs of the storage units, considering their practical
characteristics as a design variable.
The abovementioned works focus mainly on the technical and
design aspects of energy storage units and/or economy, yet the
system effects, including the overall consumption of resources are
rarely investigated. The aim of this paper is to examine strategies
for system-scale cooperation of renewable electric energy sources,
energy storage units and conventional thermal power plants with
the focus on consumption of non-renewable primary energy. En-
ergy losses both in storage units and thermal power plants are
taken into account.
2. Losses induced by wind power intermittency
The performance of thermal power plants is the best if they
operate under their nominal, design conditions. It is possible to
reduce the load of these plants, in some cases even to a level as low
as 40%, but it comes at a cost of decreased efficiency. Efficiency
characteristic of a typical coal-fired power plant is presented in
Fig. 1. Efficiency drop affects not only the specific consumption of
fuel and emission of carbon dioxide, but also increases the specific
emissions of toxic gases such as SOX and NOX [5,31e34].
Introduction of highly variable wind sources to the grid imposes
additional cycling, causing power plants to operate with lower ef-
ficiency more often. In addition, it increases the number of shut-
down/start-up procedures. This is a problem especially in the
case of coal-fired power plants, because they have low flexibility
and high thermal inertia. The process of starting up a coal-fired
power plant may take up several hours and is associated with
considerable energy losses. Gas turbines perform much better in
such case; their start-up time is counted in minutes. However, in
the absence of such flexible generation units, there is a need to
maintain an extra spinning reserve, that is to keep some power
plants operating at low load, so that they can respond quickly to a
sudden shortage of power supply to the grid. The likelihood of
unexpected shortages increases with growing deployment of
intermittent, weather-dependent generation units, such as wind
turbines.
Round-trip efficiency, % Storage duration
70 e 85 Medium, long
45 e 85 Medium, long
40 e 80 Medium, long
20 e 50 Medium, long
70 e 90 Short, medium
85 e 95 Short, medium
85 e 95 Short
90 Short
90 e 98 Short
774 T. Simla, W. Stanek / Renewable Energy 145 (2020) 772e782
Fig. 1. Efficiency of a 260 MW coal-fired power plant.
Concluding, the presence of wind energy in a system dominated
by conventional coal-fired power plants contributes to cycling of
these plants. Since cycling has detrimental effects on the power
plants' performance as well as durability of their components, and
causes extra operational costs [5,31e34], it means that wind energy
is burdened with an additional negative environmental effect. In
other words, substituting 1 MW of electricity produced from fossil
fuels with 1 MW of electricity produced from wind does not fully
mitigate the adverse effects associated with that 1 MW of non-
renewable power [35,36]. An attempt to assess this effect was
done by the authors in their previous work [37], where the thermo-
ecological cost of electricity produced by wind turbines was com-
plemented with an additional portion resulting from the
compensation of hourly wind power variations. A summary of that
research is provided in the following paragraphs.
The thermo-ecological cost (TEC) of a particular product has
been defined by Szargut [38,39] as the cumulative consumption of
non-renewable exergy connected with the fabrication of this
product. The cumulative expenditures of exergy are calculated by
taking into account interrelations between various production
processes in the economy. TEC includes additionally the exergy
expenditures resulting from the necessity of compensating for
environmental losses caused by rejection of harmful waste sub-
stances to the environment which occurs during the analysed
production process.
The concept is therefore similar to cumulative exergy efficiency,
but taking into account only non-renewable resources. In partic-
ular, TEC of electricity can be considered as an inverse of cumulative
exergy efficiency of production of this form of energy. The TEC of
electricity based on non-renewable sources will be always higher
than 1. It includes the chemical exergy of fuel itself, exergy ex-
penditures for mining, processing and transportation, exergy losses
occurring in the power plant and additional consumption of exergy
related to treatment of harmful waste substances. For renewable
energy sources, usually only the use of exergy (and materials) in the
construction phase contributes to the TEC, so that its value is in
most cases lower than 1 (and close to 0).
Table 2 lists average thermo-ecological costs of electric energy
produced from various sources [40]. The typical coal-fired power
plant considered here is a 260 MW unit with efficiency character-
istic given in Fig. 1. The value listed in Table 2 corresponds to the
nominal efficiency of this plant.
In the previous work, authors proposed several approaches to
estimate the compensation part of TEC of electricity produced by
wind turbines. The one which will also be used here takes into
consideration the actual demand curve of the Polish power system
Table 2
Thermo-ecological cost of electric energy [40].
Technology TEC
Wind turbines 0.081
Photovoltaic panels 0.294
Biogas power plants 0.082
Coal-fired power plants (typical for Poland) 2.910
(based on data from PSE e the operator of Polish grid [41]). A
simplifying assumption employed in the model is that only one
type of coal-fired power plants exists in the system, namely units
with 240 MW net power (260 MW gross power) described by Fig. 1.
Their minimal load was assumed to be 60%. This assumption is not
very far from reality, as coal or lignite fired power plants provide
about 85% of electric energy produced in Poland, and the assumed
type of power plant is the most common one [41].
In each hour, the energy balance of the system must be main-
tained, so the total power output of the dispatchable coal-fired
plants has to be equal to the “net power demand” defined as the
system's demand decreased by the power generated by non-
dispatchable sources (sources not controlled by the system oper-
ator, such as most combined heat and power plants and RES). The
calculation performed in the model computes the number of coal
plants currently required to balance the system. Variations of the
net demand in the consecutive hours can primarily be handled by
changing the load of the already operating power plants. If the
change of net demand exceeds the threshold possible to be dealt
with these power plants (i.e. all of them already operate at mini-
mum or maximum load), only then a start-up or shut-down of a
power plant occurs. This method aims to limit the number of start-
up procedures, because they are associated with substantial losses
of energy. The value of these losses depends of several factors, most
importantly on the amount of time passed since last shutdown of
the unit. The value of energy losses was estimated at 1500e2500 GJ
[42]. The whole calculations were performed for two cases: for the
actual data on wind generation in the year 2015, and then under an
assumption that there are no wind energy sources in the system at
all. The simulations were also carried out for different wind pene-
trations (the data on wind electricity generation was scaled up and
down). The TEC of compensation (TECcomp) was calculated as the
additional consumption of exergy of coal due to off-design opera-
tion of power plants divided by the amount of electric energy
produced by wind turbines (see Equations (1)e(3)).
P
TECcoal  DEch
TECcomp ¼ (1)
Eel wind
!
X 1 1
DEch ¼ Eelwind
coal   (2)
hwind
el hno
el
wind
Eel coal
hel ¼ 8760 P (3)
P Ntpp ðtÞDt P
hel av ðtÞ þ Dn  DEch loss
t¼1
TECcoal thermo-ecological cost of coal burned in thermal power
units (a value of 1.12 MJ of non-renewable exergy per MJ of
chemical energy was adopted basing on [43]),
Eel wind total amount of electric energy provided by wind farms
during the year,
P
DEch additional amount of chemical energy consumed in
power plants due to part-load operation,
 T. Simla, W. Stanek / Renewable Energy 145 (2020) 772e782
hel yearly average efficiency of the system of thermal power
plants,
hel av ðtÞ hourly average electric efficiency of the system of
thermal units,
Eel coal total amount of electric energy produced by thermal
plants throughout the year,
SNtpp ðtÞ total output power of thermal power plants,
DEch loss chemical energy loss associated with a start-up pro-
cedure of a thermal unit,
P
Dn total number of start-up procedures per year,
Dt time step (1 h).
The superscript wind refers to the actual work of the system, and
the superscript no wind refers to the hypothetical situation when
there are no wind sources.
For the actual data for Poland from 2015 (with wind energy
covering 6.6% of the total demand), the result of TECcomp turned out
to be rather low (in the range of 0e0.03) [37]. However, the
simulation showed that if the wind penetration rises, its adverse
influence on the remaining part of the power system increases
correspondingly. For wind penetration exceeding 20% the value of
TECcomp reaches the level of 0.06e0.12, which is the same order of
magnitude as the value of “investment” TEC of wind turbines
(resulting from consumption of materials and energy in the con-
struction phase) presented in Table 2. Therefore, the discussed
phenomenon should not be neglected within evaluation of fossil
fuel based energy systems with high share of wind energy.
3. Methodology
The next phase of the above described research is introducing
energy storage units to the analysed system and examining stra-
tegies for system-scale cooperation of renewable electric energy
sources, energy storage units and conventional thermal power
plants. The aim of this research is not to determine the physical or
ownership structure of the energy storage system, but rather to test
the potential effects of large scale energy storage on the perfor-
mance of the power system as a whole. For this purpose, the model
contains as little constraints regarding the storage system as
possible: no specific energy storage technology is chosen and en-
ergy storage units are simply modelled as a “black box” with given
round-trip efficiency and no restrictions regarding storage capacity
or charge/discharge rate. Several heuristic methods for energy
storage scheduling are investigated. Results from these simulations
will serve as a base for further research with the use of optimization
methods. The round trip-efficiency was assumed in the range of
65e90% (compare with Table 1); calculations were repeated for
various values. The simulations of work of the power system were
based on the previously developed model, quoted above [37]. Cal-
culations were performed based on the actual hourly demand
profile of Polish power system and energy production of wind
turbines installed in the system (data from the year 2017) [41].
During the simulations, energy production from wind was scaled to
obtain results for various levels of penetration of wind energy into
the system (the actual value for year 2017 was 8.56%). The method
of scaling the wind power profile is described in Appendix A.
The total power output of the thermal power plants SNtpp ðtÞ in
each hour is calculated from the following balance:
SNtpp ðtÞ ¼ Ndem ðtÞ þ Nst ðtÞ
Ndem ðtÞ system's net demand for electric power, that is the total
demand reduced by the power generation by non-dispatchable
power sources, including wind farms.
Nst ðtÞ power of the storage; positive value means that storage is
775
charged and negative value means that storage is discharged.
Additionally, in order to avoid cumulation of energy in the
storage over time, the model assumes that the amount of energy
available in the storage Est at the end of the year must be the same
as at the beginning of the year:
Est ðt ¼ 0Þ ¼ Est ðt ¼ 8760Þ (5)
The amount of energy available in the storage at the beginning
of the year Est ðt ¼ 0Þ must be large enough so that Est ðtÞ does not
drop below zero throughout the year. Therefore, for each analysed
case it is determined as the lowest value which fulfils condition (6):
Est ðtÞ  0 (6)
3.1. Analysed variants
Several variants of controlling the charge/discharge schedule of
the energy storage subsystem were conceived and investigated;
they are described below. They differ in terms of determining Nst ðtÞ
appearing in balance (4).
3.1.1. Variant 1
This variant assumes that energy storage is unavailable and
therefore it can be treated as a reference for the other variants. It
contains an assumption regarding the need to ensure spinning
reserve in thermal units in case of a sudden drop of power output
from wind turbines. The required reserve was assumed to be equal
to the maximum assumed hourly decrease of the total wind power
output. This value is calculated from the actual data on the
observed hourly total wind power output, with an assumption that
the spinning reserve requirement must be met 99% of the time. Due
to the assumptions regarding scaling of wind profile, the required
spinning reserve will increase with increasing wind penetration.
The number of required reserve thermal power plants nreserve can
be calculated using the following formula:
DNwind max
nreserve ¼ (7)
Ntpp max  Ntpp min
DNwind max maximum assumed hourly decrease of the total wind
power output,
Ntpp max maximum power output of a thermal power plant
(equal to 240 MW),
Ntpp min minimum power output of a thermal power plant (equal
to 144 MW).
As a consequence, even if the net demand for power is lower
than the total power output from these reserve plants, they are not
shut down. In such case, an overproduction of electric energy in the
system Nsurplus ðtÞ appears:
 
Nsurplus ðtÞ ¼ max 0; nreserve  Ntpp min  Ndem ðtÞ (8)
Therefore, one of the aims of this variant is to estimate the
amount of “redundant” wind energy, production of which must be
curtailed in order to ensure the stability of the power system.
The presented assumption does not apply to the other variants,
(4)
since they employ energy storage, which can provide the power
reserve.
3.1.2. Variant 2
Variant 2 aims to equalize the power output from the wind
776 T. Simla, W. Stanek / Renewable Energy 145 (2020) 772e782

farms. In reality, it would correspond to an assumption that each nf ðtÞ number of operating thermal power plants in a given hour,
wind farm is equipped with an energy storage unit, which attempts according to the forecast of demand,
to ensure a constant power output from the wind farm. Therefore, nðtÞ actual number of operating thermal power plants in a given
energy storage is charged when wind power is greater than the hour.
average, and discharged when wind power is lower than average:
In this case, the number of operating thermal power plants in
Nst ðtÞ ¼ Nwind ðtÞ  Nwind av (9) the analysed hour is fixed according to the equation:
n h
Nwind ðtÞ total power output of the wind farms. nðtÞ ¼ min nðt  1Þ; max nf ðt þ 1Þ; nf ðt þ 2Þ; nf ðt þ 3Þ;
The “average” wind power used in calculations must be io
assumed in such a way, so that condition (5) is fulfilled. Therefore, it nf ðt þ 4Þ; nf ðt þ 5Þ; nf ðt þ 6Þ (13)
must be lower than the arithmetic average wind power, due to
energy losses during storage. For this reason, it is calculated
and the power directed to the storage is calculated using the
numerically for each simulated case.
formula:
 
3.1.3. Variant 3 Nst ðtÞ ¼ max 0; nðtÞ  Ntpp min  Ndem ðtÞ (14)
Here, the purpose of energy storage is to reduce the phenom-
enon of cycling by fixing a minimum and maximum number of Conversely, energy storage is discharged when condition (15) is
thermal units that can operate in the system. Energy storage will be fulfilled:
charged during periods of low power demand and discharged n o nh i h
during periods of high power demand, thus effectively relocating nf ðtÞ > nðt  1Þ ∧ nf ðt þ 1Þ  nðt  1Þ ∨ nf ðt þ 2Þ
the power demand from peaks to valleys. First, the distribution of i h
net demand throughout the year is determined. A value of mini-  nðt  1Þ ∨ nf ðt þ 3Þ
mum net demand Ndem min is assumed in such a way, that net de- i h
mand lower than Ndem min occurs only 10% of the time. (If the value  nðt  1Þ ∨ nf ðt þ 4Þ
of Ndem min would be negative, then 0 is assumed instead.) If the net i h
 nðt  1Þ ∨ nf ðt þ 5Þ
demand drops below Ndem min, the load of power plants is not
i h
further decreased and storage is charged instead:  nðt  1Þ ∨ nf ðt þ 6Þ
io
Nst ðtÞ ¼ Ndem min  Ndem ðtÞ (10)  nðt  1Þ (15)
Similarly, energy storage is discharged if the net demand is
higher than assumed maximum Ndem max : In this case, the number of operating thermal power plants in
the analysed hour is fixed according to the equation:
Nst ðtÞ ¼ Ndem max  Ndem ðtÞ (11) n h
nðtÞ ¼ max nðt  1Þ; min nf ðt þ 1Þ; nf ðt þ 2Þ; nf ðt þ 3Þ;
The value of Ndem max is calculated numerically for each simu-
io
lated case, so that condition (5) is fulfilled. nf ðt þ 4Þ; nf ðt þ 5Þ; nf ðt þ 6Þ (16)

3.1.4. Variant 4
and the power extracted from the storage is calculated using the
Variant 4 is similar to the previous one in terms of reducing
formula:
cycling. However, it bases on a forecast of net demand. The gross
demand of the system is easy to predict, as its nature does not  
Nst ðtÞ ¼  max 0; Ndem ðtÞ  nðtÞ  Ntpp max (17)
change much over years and there is extensive amount of historical
statistical data. Exact power output of wind turbines is difficult to Independently from the procedure described above, this variant
predict, but nevertheless, it was assumed that the grid operator contains two more assumptions. The first one makes sure that if the
knows the exact value of the net demand 6 h in advance. If it turns amount of wind energy exceeds the system's demand, or in other
out that in the forecasting horizon a thermal unit would need to be words, if the net energy demand of the system in a given hour is
started up and then quickly shut down (or the opposite e shut negative, the surplus energy is directed to the storage:
down and then started up), the energy storage intervenes to pre-
vent such situations. Therefore, local peaks and depressions of the Nst ðtÞ ¼ maxð0; Ndem ðtÞÞ (18)
net demand are smoothened. Additionally, as the simulations proved that this control strategy
Energy storage is charged when condition (12) is fulfilled: may result in cumulation of energy in storage over time, condition
n o nh i h (11) was also applied to this variant. The value of Ndem max is
nf ðtÞ < nðt  1Þ ∧ nf ðt þ 1Þ  nðt  1Þ ∨ nf ðt þ 2Þ calculated numerically for each simulated case, so that condition
i h (5) is fulfilled.
 nðt  1Þ ∨ nf ðt þ 3Þ
i h
 nðt  1Þ ∨ nf ðt þ 4Þ 3.2. Assessment indicators
i h
 nðt  1Þ ∨ nf ðt þ 5Þ System effects are assessed with a series of indicators, both
i h locally and globally. Local balance boundary includes only the
 nðt  1Þ ∨ nf ðt þ 6Þ thermal power plants and allows to determine whether introduc-
io tion of energy storage helps to reduce cycling of these plants and
 nðt  1Þ (12) improve their efficiency. Global balance boundary covers the whole
electric energy system and considers the additional use of primary
energy due to losses in storage. Comparing these two balance
 T. Simla, W. Stanek / Renewable Energy 145 (2020) 772e782
boundaries is essential, because employing energy storage to sta-
bilize the work of thermal power plants may not necessarily be
advantageous from the perspective of global savings of natural
resources. The size of energy storage system is also estimated for
each variant. The indicators are described below. The obtained
values for different variants will be compared with each other and
with the reference variant, which assumes no wind energy in the
system at all (further referred to as “Variant 0”).
3.2.1. Number of start-up procedures per annum (SDn)
This indicator sums the number of shut-downs/start-ups of
thermal power plants throughout the year. It allows to determine
whether the employed strategy for energy storage scheduling
helped to reduce cycling.
3.2.2. Average efficiency of thermal power plants (hel )
This is the average yearly efficiency of power plants, calculated
according to Eq. (2). It accounts both for the characteristic in Fig. 1
and start-up losses.
3.2.3. Thermo-ecological cost of compensation (TECcomp )
Calculated according to Eq. (1). If the value of this index is lower
than for Variant 1, it means that the employed strategy of energy
storage scheduling helped to reduce the losses in thermal power
plants induced by the presence of wind energy sources. It can be
considered as an assessment indicator in a local balance boundary.
3.2.4. Thermo-ecological cost of electricity delivered to the system
(TECgrid )
Consumption of non-renewable exergy per unit of electric en-
ergy delivered to the system. This indicator evaluates the effects of
presence of renewable energy sources in a global balance boundary.
It also takes into account the energy losses associated with con-
verting energy when charging or discharging the storage. It is
calculated according to Eq. (19). Note that this is not yet the “full”
thermo-ecological cost, because it does not account for the in-
vestment TEC of energy storage units. Calculating this component
of TEC is not possible if energy storage is modelled as a “black box”,
without choosing a specific technology.
SEch  TECcoal þ Eel wind  TECwind
TECgrid ¼ (19)
Eel dem
SEch total amount of chemical energy of coal used in power
plants during the year,
TECwind thermo-ecological cost of electricity produced by wind
turbines (according to Table 2),
Eel dem yearly demand for electric energy by the system.
3.2.5. Required power of energy storage (Nstorage )
This is the maximum total required charging/discharging
capability of energy storage system, expressed in MW:
Nstorage ¼ maxf  min½Nst ðtÞ; max½Nst ðtÞg (20)
3.2.6. Required storage capacity (Estorage )
This is the maximum required capacity of the energy storage
system, i.e. the maximum observed amount of energy stored at a
given hour (expressed in GWh):
777
Estorage ¼ max½Est ðtÞ (21)
4. Results and discussion
Values of the abovementioned indicators have been calculated
for various levels of wind penetration in the system. The simula-
tions were performed in the range of 8.56e42.8% (8.56% being the
actual wind penetration in the year 2017 and 42.8% being a value 5
times higher). The base value of energy storage round-trip effi-
ciency was assumed to be 75% and the value of power plant start-
up energy losses was 2250 GJ [42]. Sensitivity analysis of these two
parameters was carried out.
Fig. 2 presents the overproduction of energy relative to the
system's demand (Variant 1) plotted against wind penetration.
The overproduction of energy starts to rise rapidly when the
wind penetration exceeds 20%. However, even at high levels of
wind penetration in the system, the amount of surplus energy is
rather small. At 40% wind penetration, the overproduction would
be about 5714 GWh, which is less than 4% when compared to the
system's total yearly demand for energy. A conclusion from these
results is that energy storage would be rather useless if its sole
purpose was to absorb excess energy present in the system.
The results of the simulation of the work of the power system
under actual level of wind penetration are presented in Fig. 3. Hour
by hour changes (in a selected interval of 1000 h) of the number of
operating dispatchable power plants can be observed. The three
charts compare the reference Variant 1 with Variants 2, 3 and 4,
respectively. All of the investigated strategies of energy storage
scheduling allow to smoothen the variations in the deployment of
coal-fired plants.
Fig. 4 presents the distribution of the total power output of the
thermal power plants SNtpp ðtÞ, for wind penetration four times
higher than actual in year 2017. It illustrates the differences of load
shifting between the Variants.
Figs. 5 and 6 show the values SDn and hel respectively. Clearly,
increasing presence of wind energy in the system has an adverse
effect on the operation of thermal power plants. It turns out that all
the proposed strategies of energy storage scheduling help to reduce
the number of start-ups and the associated drop of efficiency. The
number of start-ups for high wind penetrations in Variant 1 is
limited by the spinning reserve requirement, so in such cases it is
not comparable with other Variants. Dotted line represents the
Fig. 2. Overproduction of electric energy in the system (represented as a line) and
required number of reserve power plants (represented as points) as a function of wind
penetration.
 (a)

(b)

(c)
Fig. 3. Comparison of work of the system: (a) between Variants 1 and 2, (b) between Variants 1 and 3, (c) between variants 1 and 4.
 T. Simla, W. Stanek / Renewable Energy 145 (2020) 772e782 779

Fig. 7. Required power of the energy storage system as a function of wind penetration.
Fig. 4. Comparison of load distribution curve of the system.

Figs. 7 and 8 present the values of Nstorage and Estorage respec-

tively. Both indicators increase with increasing wind penetration
for all analysed Variants. Variant 4 requires the smallest size of
energy storage system, both in terms of power and capacity. Variant
2 requires significantly larger capacity than the other Variants, but
is comparable with Variant 3 in terms of required power.
Figs. 9 and 10 present the values of TECcomp and TECgrid respec-
tively. As proven in the previous work, TECcomp increases with
increasing wind penetration. This is a direct consequence of the
trends presented in Fig. 6. However, from the perspective of the
thermo-ecological balance of the whole power system (TECgrid ),
wind power has a substantial positive impact, as it can be seen in
Fig. 10. All investigated strategies of energy storage scheduling
reduced the thermo-ecological cost of compensation. The inter-
pretation of negative values of TECcomp (as seen in Variant 2 for low
wind penetrations) is as following: the performance of the power
plants is even better than in the reference variant with no wind
energy in the system at all (Variant 0). However, in this case such
Fig. 5. Total yearly number of start-ups of thermal power plants as a function of wind results should be treated as pure coincidence. Regarding the
penetration. average TEC of electric energy delivered to the grid for low wind
penetrations, the differences between Variants 1, 3 and 4 are
minute, while Variant 2 is characterized by significantly higher
hypothetical number of start-ups for Variant 1 without the spin- TECgrid . However, only Variant 4 exhibits lower TECgrid than the
ning reserve requirement. reference Variant. The fact that for high wind penetrations the
TECgrid for Variant 1 is higher than in all other Variants is a result of

Fig. 6. Average efficiency of the system of thermal power plants as a function of wind Fig. 8. Required capacity of the energy storage system as a function of wind
penetration. penetration.
780 T. Simla, W. Stanek / Renewable Energy 145 (2020) 772e782

forced curtailment of wind power generation due to the spinning

Fig. 9. Thermo-ecological cost of compensation as a function of wind penetration.
Fig. 10. Average thermo-ecological cost of electricity in the grid as a function of wind
penetration.
reserve requirement.
Tables 3 and 4 contain a comparison of all assessment indicators
for all variants for two levels of wind penetration. The values
outside brackets were calculated for the base values of energy
storage round-trip efficiency and power plant start-up energy
losses. The values in brackets were calculated for the worst case
(energy storage round-trip efficiency equal to 65% and the value of
power plant start-up energy losses equal to 2750 GJ) and for the
best case (energy storage round-trip efficiency equal to 90% and the
value of power plant start-up energy losses equal to 1750 GJ)
respectively.
The value of the round-trip efficiency of storage influences the
TECgrid , but not TECcomp because the “local balance boundary” for
TECcomp does not include the energy storage system and does not
account for the losses during storage. The greatest influence of
storage efficiency on the TECgrid is observed for Variant 2, this is
because in this Variant much higher amounts of energy are pro-
cessed than in the other Variants. For the same reason Variant 4 is
affected the least. On the other hand, changing the value of start-up
losses has effect on both TECcomp and TECgrid . The difference of the
results of TECcomp for various values of start-up losses is in the range
of 0.01e0.03, which is relatively high compared to the value of this
index itself. The relationship is stronger for higher wind penetra-
tions. Similarly, for high wind penetrations, the start-up losses start
to play an important role for the value of TECgrid . This proves that in
order to accurately calculate the compensation part of TEC, the
value of power plant start-up losses should be estimated as pre-
cisely as possible, because they are a major constituent to the power
plant's overall efficiency.
Variant 2 is the best from the point of view of operators of
thermal power plants, because it does the best work stabilizing the
performance of these units, making them more efficient. However,
this comes at the cost of a large size of energy storage system. Also,
the losses of energy during storage drive up the overall consump-
tion of primary exergy. Both Variants 3 and 4 provide compensation
of the wind power intermittency. Variant 4 is better, because not
only it requires a smaller size of energy storage system, but also the
overall consumption of primary exergy is lower for this variant than
in the base case.

Table 3
Comparison of assessment indicators (for actual level of wind penetration in the year 2017).

Indicator Variant

0 1 2 3 4

SDn 743 2054 1233 (1202e1271) 836 (836e776) 1785

hel 37.41% (37.40e37.42%) 37.35% (37.32e37.39%) 37.41% (37.39e37.43%) 37.37% (37.37e37.41%) 37.37% (37.34e37.40%)
Nstorage , MW e e 3733 (3802e3643) 5730 1060
Estorage , GWh e e 1539.31 (1493.75e1592.36) 438.94 (407.29e483.73) 12.77 (11.8e14.31)
TECcomp e 0.0384 (0.0535e0.0234) 0.0018 (0.0063e0.0072) 0.0240 (0.0220e0.0052) 0.0250 (0.0371e0.0132)
TECgrid 2.9938 (2.9947e2.9929) 2.6731 (2.6756e2.6706) 2.6983 (2.7136e2.6781) 2.6784 (2.6818e2.6714) 2.6719 (2.6696e2.6704)

Table 4
Comparison of assessment indicators (for 4 times higher wind penetration than in 2017).

Indicator Variant

0 1 2 3 4

SDn 743 6463 5086 (4867e5375) 6020 (6118e5915) 5017 (5097e4934)

hel 37.41% (37.40e37.42%) 36.74% (36.58e36.90%) 37.06% (36.97e37.15%) 36.90% (36.71e37.07%) 36.99% (36.83e37.14%)
Nstorage , MW e e 11452 (11662e11174) 10185 8726
Estorage , GWh e e 4271.61 (4581.86e4884.33) 956.47 (880.73e1059.75) 489.15 (432.81e564.64)
TECcomp e 0.0707 (0.0870e0.0544) 0.0373 (0.0463e0.0275) 0.0521 (0.0704e0.0350) 0.0425 (0.0579e0.0283)
TECgrid 2.9938 (2.9947e2.9929) 1.7923 (1.8001e1.7845) 1.8004 (1.8478e1.7392) 1.7309 (1.7449e1.7145) 1.7239 (1.7357e1.7104)
 T. Simla, W. Stanek / Renewable Energy 145 (2020) 772e782
5. Summary and conclusions
In the present work, several scheduling strategies for coopera-
tion of an energy storage system with wind power sources and
thermal power plants were investigated. A thermo-ecological cost
was proposed and applied for the evaluation of local and global
performance of such system. The presence of intermittent wind
energy sources in the system was proven to induce losses in ther-
mal power plants which make the dominant part of the energy
system. Obtained results show that the compensation part of TEC
may have a significant value when compared to the TEC resulting
from life cycle assessment of wind turbines. For this reason, if a life
cycle (or similar) analysis of wind energy sources is performed, the
adverse effects induced on the thermal power plants cooperating
with these wind sources should be also considered, particularly for
systems with high share of wind energy. It was determined that
introducing energy storage may reduce these losses. Among the
analysed variants of energy storage scheduling, the one most
beneficial was based on forecasting of the system's net demand for
energy and smoothening the local peaks and depressions of the net
demand. Not only did it improve the performance of the thermal
power plants, but also decreased the overall consumption of non-
renewable resources in the system. However, as proven by the
other Variants, introduction of energy storage, while locally
improving the performance of thermal power plants, may increase
the overall consumption of non-renewable resources due to the
energy losses associated with storage. Nevertheless, the develop-
ment and application of large-scale energy storage is a necessity if
we want to achieve independency from fossil fuels and rely solely
on renewable energy. The necessity stems from weather-
dependent nature of most RES and the inability to dispatch these
sources according to the needs of the power system.
Next steps in the research include preparing a more detailed
model of the Polish power system and replacing the “black box”
model of energy storage with specific technologies. More detailed
model of the power system would distinguish between the
different types of centrally dispatched power plants present in
Poland (differentiating their capacity and efficiency characteristics).
Fig. A1. Correlation between the standard deviation of wind power output and the average wind power output.
781
It would also provide a better estimation of the losses of energy
during start-ups. Substituting the “black box” model of energy
storage with concrete technological solution would allow to
consider the actual efficiency characteristics of given energy stor-
age units. The results of simulations regarding the power and ca-
pacity of energy storage presented in this paper can be treated as
input assumptions to the developed model, to specify the scale of
the storage system. Optimization methods can then be applied to
find the most beneficial strategy of energy storage dispatching.
Additionally, performing a “full” thermo-ecological analysis
(including the “investment” TEC of energy storage units) will be
possible, especially in cases when electric energy is not the final
product of energy storage. An example of such situation is con-
verting the surplus energy to the form of hydrogen.
Finally, an economic analysis of various solutions of energy
storage systems can be performed. It would determine whether
such systems would be profitable and competitive on the market or
if they would require some form of support, similar to that offered
for renewable sources by governments in many countries. The TEC
methodology proposed in this paper can be used for objective
determination of subsidies for renewable power plants and energy
storage units.
Acknowledgements
The support from the statutory research fund of the Faculty of
Power and Environmental Engineering of SUT, Gliwice, Poland is
gratefully acknowledged.
Appendix A
Fig. A1 presents the weekly standard deviation of total power
output of the wind farms in Poland as a function of their weekly
average power output. The data covers three years of operation of
wind farms in Poland e 2016, 2017 and 2018 [41]. A correlation
between the two presented variables can be observed. The hourly
variations of the wind power profile (expressed by standard devi-
ation) increase with growing wind power output.
782 T. Simla, W. Stanek / Renewable Energy 145 (2020) 772e782
Scaling of the wind power profile, performed in order to simu-
late the work of the power system for various levels of wind
penetration, has been done by a combination of multiplying the
wind profile by a constant factor a and elevating it by a constant
value b:
Nwind ðtÞ ¼ a  Nwind 0 ðtÞ þ b (A.1)
The coefficients a and b have been determined in such way, so
that the following conditions are fulfilled:
N wind ¼ s  Nwind 0 (A.2)
 
s ¼ a  s  Nwind 0 þ b (A.3)
Nwind average yearly wind power,
s scaling factor,
s yearly standard deviation of the wind power,
a; b correlation coefficients for standard deviation, as seen in
Fig. A1,
The subscript 0 refers to the reference wind profile.
The used method is a tradeoff between simple scaling (a ¼ s and
b ¼ 0), which would overestimate the variations of wind profile,
and simple elevating (a ¼ 1 and b ¼ ðs  1Þ  Nwind 0 ), which would
not affect the variations of wind profile at all.
References
[1] Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament. Available at: <http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?q¼1487081346577&uri¼CELEX:
32009L0028> [accessed 14.2.2017].
[2] reportRenewable Energy Progress Report. Available at: <https://eur-lex.
europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid¼1531746737191&uri¼CELEX:
52017DC0057> [accessed 26.07.2018].
[3] Tabassum-Abbasi, M. Premalatha, T. Abbasi, S.A. Abbasi, Wind energy:
increasing deployment, rising environmental concerns, Renew. Sustain. En-
ergy Rev. 31 (Mar. 2014) 270e288.
[4] R. Saidur, N.A. Rahim, M.R. Islam, K.H. Solangi, Environmental impact of wind
energy, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (5) (Jun. 2011) 2423e2430.
[5] Y. Yang, H.S. Solgaard, W. Haider, Wind, hydro or mixed renewable energy
source: preference for electricity products when the share of renewable en-
ergy increases, Energy Policy 97 (Oct. 2016) 521e531.
[6] K. Dai, A. Bergot, C. Liang, W. Xiang, Z. Huang, Environmental issues associated
with wind energy e a review, Renew. Energy 75 (Mar. 2015) 911e921.
[7] D.Y.C. Leung, Y. Yang, Wind energy development and its environmental
impact: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (1) (Jan. 2012) 1031e1039.
[8] D. Akinyele, R. Rayudu, Review of energy storage technologies for sustainable
power networks, Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 8 (Dec. 2015) 74e91.
[9] A. Castillo, D.F. Gayme, Grid-scale energy storage applications in renewable
energy integration: a survey, Energy Convers. Manag. 87 (Nov. 2014)
885e894.
[10] M. Yekini Suberu, M. Wazir Mustafa, N. Bashir, Energy storage systems for
renewable energy power sector integration and mitigation of intermittency,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 35 (Jul) (2014) 499e514.
[11] S. Teleke, M. Baran, A.Q. Huang, S. Bhattacharya, L. Anderson, Control strate-
gies for battery energy storage for wind farm dispatching, IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers. 24 (3) (Sep. 2009) 725e732.
[12] S. Teleke, M.E. Baran, S. Bhattacharya, A.Q. Huang, Rule-based control of
battery energy storage for dispatching intermittent renewable sources, IEEE
Trans. Sustain. Energy 1 (3) (Oct. 2010) 117e124.
[13] J. Shi, W. Lee, X. Liu, Generation scheduling optimization of wind-energy
storage system based on wind power output fluctuation features, IEEE
Trans. Ind. Appl. 54 (1) (Jan. 2018) 10e17.
[14] S. Dutta, T.J. Overbye, Optimal storage scheduling for minimizing schedule
deviations considering variability of generated wind power, in: Proceedings of
2011 IEEE/PES Power Systems Conference and Exposition, 2011.
[15] D. Halamay, M. Antonishen, K. Lajoie, A. Bostrom, T.K.A. Brekken, Improving
wind farm dispatchability using model predictive control for optimal
operation of grid-scale energy storage, Energies 7 (9) (Sep. 2014) 5847e5862.
[16] M. Dicorato, G. Forte, M. Pisani, M. Trovato, Planning and operating combined
wind-storage system in electricity market, IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 3 (2)
(Apr. 2012) 209e217.
[17] D. Yang, J. Wen, K. Chan, G. Cai, Dispatching of wind/battery energy storage
hybrid systems using inner point method-based model predictive control,
Energies 9 (8) (Aug. 2016) 1e16.
[18] M. Xiong, F. Gao, K. Liu, S. Chen, J. Dong, Optimal real-time scheduling for
hybrid energy storage systems and wind farms based on model predictive
control, Energies 0 (8) (Aug. 2015) 8020e8051.
[19] A. Nottrott, J. Kleissl, B. Washom, Energy dispatch schedule optimization and
cost benefit analysis for grid-connected, photovoltaic-battery storage systems,
Renew. Energy 55 (Jul. 2013) 230e240.
[20] W.S. Ho, S. Macchietto, J.S. Lim, H. Hashim, Z.A. Muis, W.H. Liu, Optimal
scheduling of energy storage for renewable energy distributed energy gen-
eration system, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 58 (May 2016) 1100e1107.
[21] M. Khalid, A.V. Savkin, An optimal operation of wind energy storage system
for frequency control based on model predictive control, Renew. Energy 48
(Dec. 2012) 127e132.
[22] E. Reihani, M. Motalieb, R. Ghorbani, L.S. Saoud, Load peak shaving and power
smoothing of a distribution grid with high renewable energy penetration,
Renew. Energy 86 (Feb. 2016) 1372e1379.
[23] A. Damiano, G. Gatto, I. Marongiu, M. Porru, A. Serpi, Real-time control
strategy of energy storage systems for renewable energy sources exploitation,
IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 5 (2) (Apr. 2014) 567e576.
[24] J. Yi, P.F. Lyons, P.J. Davison, P. Wang, P.C. Taylor, Robust scheduling scheme
for energy storage to facilitate high penetration of renewables, IEEE Trans.
Sustain. Energy 7 (2) (Apr. 2016) 797e807.
[25] J. Zhu, W. pan, X. Li, Energy storage scheduling design on friendly grid wind
power, Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 25 (8) (Feb. 2018) 111e118.


[26] S.G. Goyena, O.A. S

adaba, Sizing and analysis of big scale and isolated electric
systems based on renewable sources with energy storage, in: Proceedings of
2009 IEEE PES/IAS Conference on Sustainable Alternative Energy, 2009.
[27] M. Ross, R. Hidalgo, C. Abbey, G. Joo
s, Energy storage system scheduling for an
isolated microgrid, IET Renew. Power Gener. 5 (Jul. 2010) 117e123.
[28] M. Abbaspour, M. Satkin, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, F. Hoseinzadeh Lotfi,
Y. Noorollahi, Optimal operation scheduling of wind power integrated with
compressed air energy storage (CAES), Renew. Energy 51 (Mar. 2013) 53e59.
[29] S. Reddy, Optimal scheduling of thermal-wind-solar power system with
storage, Renew. Energy 101 (Feb. 2017) 1357e1368.
[30] R. Hemmati, Optimal design and operation of energy storage systems and
generators in the network installed with wind turbines considering practical
characteristics of storage units as design variable, J. Clean. Prod. 185 (Jun.
2018) 680e693.
[31] N. Troy, E. Denny, M. O'Malley, Base-load cycling on a system with significant
wind penetration, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 25 (2) (May 2010) 1088e1097.


[32] F. Gutie
rrez-Martín, R.A. Da Silva-Alvarez, P. Montoro-Pintado, Effects of wind
intermittency on reduction of CO2 emissions: the case of the Spanish power
system, Energy 61 (Nov. 2013) 108e117.
[33] R. Turconi, C. O'Dwyer, D. Flynn, T. Astrup, Emissions from cycling of thermal
power plants in electricity systems with high penetration of wind power: life
cycle assessment for Ireland, Appl. Energy 131 (Oct. 2014) 1e8.
[34] D.L. Oates, P. Jaramillo, Production cost and air emissions impacts of coal
cycling in power systems with large-scale wind penetration, Environ. Res.
Lett. 8 (2) (May 2013) 1e7.
[35] H. Inhaber, Why wind power does not deliver the expected emissions re-
ductions, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (6) (Aug. 2011) 2557e2562.
[36] D. Wagman, Rethinking wind's impact on emissions and cycling costs, Power
Mag. 157 (Mar. 2013) 62e66.
[37] T. Simla, W. Stanek, L. Czarnowska, Thermo-ecological cost of electricity
generated in wind turbine systems, ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol. 141 (3)
(Oct. 2018), 031201-1-031201-7.
[38] J. Szargut, A. Zie˛ bik, W. Stanek, Depletion of the non-renewable natural exergy
resources as a measure of the ecological cost, Energy Convers. Manag. 43
(Issies 9e12) (Jun. 2002) 1149e1163.
[39] W. Stanek, Examples of application of exergy analysis for the evaluation of
ecological effects in thermal processes, Int. J. Thermodyn. 15 (2012) 11e16.
[40] W. Stanek, L. Czarnowska, W. Gazda, T. Simla, Thermo-ecological cost of
electricity from renewable energy sources, Renew. Energy 115 (Jan. 2018)
87e96.
[41] Polskie Sieci Energetyczne, Data on the Power System, Available at: https://
www.pse.pl/dane-systemowe/funkcjonowanie-kse/raporty-dobowe-z-pracy-
kse. (Accessed 26 July 2018).
[42] G. Dudek, Ekonomiczny Rozdział Obcia˛ ze _ n
Z Zastosowaniem Algorytmo
w
Ewolucyjnych, Cze˛ stochowa University of Technology, Cze˛ stochowa, 2002.
[43] L. Czarnowska, Thermo-ecological Cost of Products with Emphasis on External
Environmental Costs, Silesian University of Technology & National Technical
University of Athens, 2014.