Block 2 - Nando Ochoa - OPF and DER-rich Distribution Networks v1

PhD-Level Short Course “Advanced Modelling of DER-Rich Active Distribution Networks”
Day 3 “Orchestration of Distributed Energy Resources (DER) and Active Distribution Networks”
OPF and DER-Rich Distribution Networks

Day 3 Block 2
Prof Luis(Nando) Ochoa

Professor of Smart Grids and Power Systems
The University of Melbourne

July, 2021
© 2021 L. Ochoa - The University of Melbourne Advanced Modelling of DER-Rich Active Distribution Networks – Day 3 Block 2, July 2021 1
Outline
▪ DER1 Hosting Capacity
▪ (Balanced) AC OPF for Planning

– Maximisation of DG Installed Capacity
– Minimisation of Losses
▪ Interactive session using a balanced OPF tool developed in AIMMS
1 DER = Distributed Energy Resources

2 DG = Distributed Generation
… Some Definitions
▪ DER Hosting Capacity

– The maximum amount of DER that a given distribution network (or part of it) can host
without negatively affecting its normal operation at any point in time.
▪ Normal Operation
– Voltages (statutory limits), asset utilisation (no congestion), protection, etc.
▪ Amount of DER (DER Penetration)

– Number (or %) of customers with DER, kW of total DER capacity, etc.
▪ Solutions
– Traditional or implementable solutions that distribution companies use or can use to
increase hosting capacity without significant complexity.
– Non-traditional solutions that distribution companies could use to increase hosting
capacity, albeit with some added complexity.
AC OPF for Planning (1f)
Embedding Operation into DER Planning
▪ Output: DER Hosting Capacity (size and location)
DER installed capacity,

Max/Min Objective Function
DER installations, etc.
Subject to:
Multi- • 1f parameters (Z, P, Q, etc.)

Period • 1f variables (V, I, etc.)
1f • 1f equality constraints (KCL, KVL)
AC OPF • 1f inequality constraints (network V and I limits)
• Controllable DER → Settings

• Non-controllable DER
DER and Smart Grid Schemes
• Controllable network assets (OLTCs) → Settings
Network • Non-controllable network assets
(Constraints and
• Other considerations: N-1 security, fault levels, power controllability)
factors, curtailment, dynamic ratings, etc.
Applied on a worst-case scenario or over a horizon (weeks to years)
AC OPF for Planning (1f)
Maximising DER Installed Capacity
▪ Objective Function
max ෍ 𝑝𝑔
𝑔∈𝐺
▪ Constraints for DG units

2
𝑝𝑔2 + 𝑞𝑔2 ≤ 𝑆𝑔+
▪ Constraints for voltages
𝑉𝑏− ≤ 𝑉𝑏 ≤ 𝑉𝑏+
▪ Constraints for lines

2 2
1,2 1,2 2
𝑝𝑙 + 𝑞𝑙 ≤ 𝑠𝑙
AC OPF for Planning – Examples 1/10
Multi-Periods: Handling the Variability
Wind Demand
1.0
0.8
0.6
(p.u.)
0.4
0.2
0.0
1 25 49 73 97 121 145 169
1.0 d0.7-w0.0
0.8
0.6
(p.u.)
0.4
0.2
0.0
1 25 49 Winter:731st Week of97January 121 145 169
Multi-Periods: Handling the Variability
Period m : Scenario with 70%

peak demand and 90% of
generation capacity, tm =956hrs
Period n : Scenario with 100%
peak demand and 0% of
1000
generation capacity, tn =0hrs
Hours/year
500
0
0
30
0
% of
30 70 Generation
Capacity
% of Peak 70
Demand 100
100
Case Study: UK GDS Simplified EHV1
Coordinated
Voltage 2 3
Control
(1.93, 0.39) LEGEND
16 Node Index
(P, Q) Demand (MW, MVAr)
GSP 4 5
(18.4, 3.74)
1
(0.06, 0.01)
6 7 (1.9, 0.39)
10 11
OLTC (2.85, 0.58)
(1.96, 0.4)
8 9 (2.7, 0.55)
12 (0.81, 0.16)
(5.41, 1.09)
(0.55, 011)
VR
(1.01, 0.2)
13
15
16
33/11 kV, 16 buses

Peak demand:
14
DG
Power
38.2MW
(0.58, 0.12)
Curtailment
Energy Losses:
3.6% Adaptive Power
Factor Control
Maximising Wind Farm Capacity
Maximum 17.4 Units Lost (%)

DG Capacity
(MW) 15.2 14.9 5
20
12.9 12.7 11.9 4
15
10.8 10.1 10.0
3 Maximum Capacity Usage (%)
8.1
10 8.7 8.5 100 no CVC CVCUnity 2%
0.98 (c) 5% 10%
6.8 0.98 (i)
no Curt aPF CVC+
5.3 7.3 Curtailment
5
5.5 10%
4.5 75
0 4.6 5%
aPF 3.7
2% CVC+
0.98 (i) Curtailment
3.1 50
CVC
Unity no CVC CVC 2% 5% 10%
0.98 (c) no CVC no CVC+
no Curtailment Curt Curtailment
➔ CVC + adaptive PF control + 2% curtailment:

DG penetration of 34% (relative to peak demand)
Case Study: UK GDS EHV1
302 331 332 333 334 1118 328 342 325 1113
DG
322 324 1112
Coordinated 329 337 335 336

1114 Adaptive
Voltage
interconnector
Power
DG
Control
320 326 1115
Flow
327 330 1117 DG
304 VR 321 1111

328 1116
Control
subsea cable
GSP
100 338 318 319 1110
317 1109
341 311
314 316
OLTC 301 1101
340
313 1107 315 1108
DG
303
1102
312
Power
33/11 kV, 61 buses LEGEND Curtailment
Peak demand: 339 310 1106
DG
1113 Node Index
38.2MW 305 307 309 1105

Energy Losses: DG
4.7% 306 1103 308 1104
Maximum
DG Capacity 56.8
1108
1106
1105
1113
1114
1115
(MW)
50.8 55.9
CVC, aPF
47.5
60 50.0 CVC, 0.98 (c)
40.0 46.5 no CVC, aPF

45
no CVC, 0.98 (c)
32.1 39.0
30
0 10 20 30 (MW) 40
15
26.1
10% Locational Breakdown
0 5% Mainland / Island
aPF (no curtailment)
2% CVC+
0.98 (i) Curtailment
CVC
Unity
0.98 (c) no CVC

no Curtailment

Energy Dependence from the

Units Lost (%)
Transmission Bulk Supply (%)
15
0.98 (c) Unity
0.98 (i) aPF
50 10
25 5
0 0
no CVC CVC 2% 5% 10% no CVC CVC 2% 5% 10%
no Curt CVC+ no Curt CVC+
Curtailment Curtailment

9.7% of losses and only 22% dependence
Minimising Energy Losses with Wind Farms
3.04
Energy
Losses
2.81 (MW)
21.2 21.2
2.51 20.9
(%) 2.79 21
CVC
3 20.9
2.26
2.69 20.4
2.16 19 19.0
2
no CVC 18.7
2.14
1 0.98 (i) 18.0
17
Unity aPF 0.98 (c) Unity 0.98 (i)
0
no CVC 0.98 (c)
CVC aPF
➔ CVC + adaptive PF control:

From 4.7% of energy losses to 2.1%
Maximising Wind Farm Capacity with Dynamic Ratings
GSP
1 2 3
The 5km-long feeder is DG

composed by ACSR 2/0 OLTC
conductors.
Peak demand 5MW. (5.00, 1.64)
2 x 30MVA 15.5MVA, winter

132/33 kV 14.7MVA, spring/autumn
13.5MVA, summer
% of Wind Speed
(with respect to the
maximum value)
0
Spring / 10
Winter Autumn Summer 20
...
0 0 0 90
0
30 30
0
30 100
0
30 70 30 70 30 70
70 70 70
100 100 100
100 100 100
Maximising Wind Farm Capacity with Dynamic Ratings
34.7 Average seasonal temperatures

Maximum are also adopted.
Generation 37.1
30.1
(MW)
Capacity 40
Dynamic Ratings + CVC
35.4 38.5
(MW)
36.8
22.2 30 36.0 37.1
15.1 35.4
34.7
16.4 20 Average Seasonal
17.8 Temperatures
0.95 (i) 10 30
15.8 0.95 (i) Static Seasonal Ratings,
Unity 0.95 (c)no CVC
20
Unity 0 (MW) 17.0
16.4
15.6
0.95 (c) CVC 16.4 15.8
15.1
no CVC
ER P27
no CVC Dynamic Ratings
10
Static Seasonal Ratings
0.95 (i) Unity 0.95 (c)
ER P27 temperatures
are adopted.
➔ Dynamic Ratings + CVC + unity PF:
DG penetration doubles that without ANM
Conclusions
▪ DER Orchestration: We need to control DER and networks in the best way possible
▪ AC OPF for Planning can be used to:

– Demonstrate the potential from adopting new DER control strategies
– Demonstrate that DER Hosting Capacity can be significantly increased
– Calculate/Estimate DER Hosting Capacity of a given network
… however, the granularity used in planning should reflect operation → big challenge!
… now let’s play with AIMMS ☺
Further Reading
▪ Technical Reports and Papers (most publicly available):
https://sites.google.com/view/luisfochoa/publications
▪ Webinars:
IEEE PES Resource Center (search: Ochoa)
IEEE Smart Grid Resource Center (search: Ochoa)
Thanks!
Questions?
luis.ochoa@unimelb.edu.au
Acknowledgement
◦ Dr Michael Liu Research Fellow

Block 2 - Nando Ochoa - OPF and DER-rich Distribution Networks v1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Block 2 - Nando Ochoa - OPF and DER-rich Distribution Networks v1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PhD-Level Short Course “Advanced Modelling of DER-Rich Active Distribution Networks”

OPF and DER-Rich Distribution Networks

Prof Luis(Nando) Ochoa

The University of Melbourne

▪ DER1 Hosting Capacity

▪ (Balanced) AC OPF for Planning

▪ Interactive session using a balanced OPF tool developed in AIMMS

1 DER = Distributed Energy Resources

▪ DER Hosting Capacity

▪ Amount of DER (DER Penetration)

▪ Output: DER Hosting Capacity (size and location)

DER installed capacity,

Multi- • 1f parameters (Z, P, Q, etc.)

• Controllable DER → Settings

Applied on a worst-case scenario or over a horizon (weeks to years)

▪ Constraints for DG units

▪ Constraints for voltages

▪ Constraints for lines

Period m : Scenario with 70%

33/11 kV, 16 buses

Maximum 17.4 Units Lost (%)

➔ CVC + adaptive PF control + 2% curtailment:

Coordinated 329 337 335 336

304 VR 321 1111

38.2MW 305 307 309 1105

4.7% 306 1103 308 1104

40.0 46.5 no CVC, aPF

0.98 (c) no CVC

➔ CVC + adaptive PF control + 2% curtailment:

Energy Dependence from the

➔ CVC + adaptive PF control + 2% curtailment:

➔ CVC + adaptive PF control:

The 5km-long feeder is DG

2 x 30MVA 15.5MVA, winter

34.7 Average seasonal temperatures

▪ AC OPF for Planning can be used to:

… now let’s play with AIMMS ☺

▪ Technical Reports and Papers (most publicly available):

IEEE Smart Grid Resource Center (search: Ochoa)

◦ Dr Michael Liu Research Fellow

You might also like