1

Modeling Long-term Variability of Renewable

Energy in Generation Planning
D. Chattopadhyay and V. A. I. A. Potter van Loon

Decision variables
Abstract—Long term variability of solar and wind generation Capg,d,t,m,s Capacity, including solar PV, thermal
including inter- and intra-annual variability, as well as capacity and battery storage capacity
contingencies around low solar/wind availability periods are Surplusd,t,m,s Surplus generation (for solar rejection)
typically ignored in generation planning. This study explores
planning methodology to capture long term variability including Geng,d,t,m,s Generation of all sources
the computational challenges such a model presents. We use a case SpinRg,d,t,m,s Raise spinning reserves
study for Guinea-Bissau – a small country in Africa transitioning SpinLg,d,t,m,s Lower spinning reserves
from thermal to potentially high solar penetration in future. We USRd,t,m,s Unserved raise spinning reserves
show that long term variability and renewable contingency USLd,t,m,s Unserved lower spinning reserves
planning may have a strong impact on the selection of solar PV in StorInjr,d,t,y, Storage injection
such cases. We also show that batteries can increase the economic
viability of solar PV in light of the inter-annual variability. StorOutr,d,t,y, Storage withdrawal
BStorInjd,t,m,s Battery storage injection
Index Terms—Power system planning, Inter-annual variability BStorOutd,t,m,s Battery storage withdrawal
of renewable energy, Battery storage, Spinning reserve. BStoraged,t,m,s Battery storage

I. NOMENCLATURE II. INTRODUCTION

Indices
g
d
Generating units
Days
T RANSITIONING to higher shares of renewables in the
power mix comes with several advantages. Renewables
mitigate climate change, reduce import dependency,
t Time steps (hours) improve electricity access, and decrease the impact of fuel price
cont(t) Hours with high solar PV variability volatility. However, systems incorporating resources with
m Months variable output, require careful planning to fully reflect the
s Solar state (profiles from past years) renewable resource dynamics [1]. While there has been
tremendous progress in understanding the ramification of
Input parameters variability and importance of flexibility, the inter-annual
MaxCap Maximum capacity for generator g variability of variable renewable energy (VRE) and the
‘contingency’ associated with extreme low availability of these
Solarstated,m,s,t Past solar PV capacity factor or CF (hourly)
resources is incompletely understood [2]. Variability of
Demandd,m,t Demand
renewable energy (RE) has been approximated using Typical
Capexg Annualized capex of new generator g,
Meteorological Year (TMY) that may suppress critical impacts
including the battery in terms of additional back-up and spinning reserve
VOMg Annualized variable costs of generator g requirements. If variability is fully represented, these additional
θSL Unserved spinning lower penalty requirements may change the relative attractiveness of solar
θSR Unserved spinning raise penalty over other resources. As Potter Van Loon et al [3] discusses,
ηBattery Battery efficiency there is a dearth of models that explicitly model inter-annual
Solarfactor Share of solar generation that must be variability together with capacity and ancillary services to fully
covered by spinning reserves and/or battery explore these issues. These may be important especially for
reserves small developing country systems that typically have very little
Demandfactor Share of demand that must be covered by spinning reserve capability to counter variability.
spinning reserves and/or battery reserves Recent literature also points to the limitation of TMY based
MaxSpinR Maximum spinning raise in share of capacity models. Reference [4] finds that demand-supply mismatch is
MaxSpinL Maximum spinning lower in share of not fully represented using TMY based method. Low temporal
capacity resolution may typically lead to an overestimation of the VRE
uptake [5,6]. The strongest support for the current research
comes from Pfenninger [7] who demonstrates that there is high

D. Chattopadhyay is Adjunct Professor of Electrical Engineering,

University of Queensland, Australia. Albertine Potter van Loon is
with KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden..

978-1-7281-5508-1/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: Central Michigan University. Downloaded on May 14,2021 at 13:13:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 2

inter annual variability in solar PV and wind power output in subject to a set of constraints discussed in section B. Last,
the UK using a 25-year time-series data set. One of the key unserved spinning lower (USL) and unserved spinning raise
conclusions of [7] is that models with high VRE shares using (USR) are penalized. The objective function is stated as:
few input years are unreliable. However, the research done to
date does not consider a proper representation of multiple years 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 = ∑𝑔(𝐶𝐴𝑃𝐸𝑋 × 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑔 ) +
1
𝑛𝑠
∑𝑔,𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠(𝑉𝑂𝑀𝑔,𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 ×
of renewable resource data to guide selection of generators and 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑔,𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 ) +
1
∑𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠( 𝑈𝑆𝐿𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 × 𝜃𝑆𝐿 + 𝑈𝑆𝑅𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 × 𝜃𝑆𝑅 ) (1)
operational decisions (on storage, dispatch of generation as well 𝑛𝑠

as spinning reserve). Where, 𝜃𝑆𝐿 and 𝜃𝑆𝑅 represent the USL and USR penalties
Capacity expansion models have been extended to include respectively in USD per MW. The penalties are assigned 50 and
solar thermal plants and battery storage, including co- 100 USD per MW, respectively.
optimization of ancillary services in a previous research effort
at the World Bank as part of the development of the Electricity
Planning Model (EPM) [8]. This paper builds on the previous B. Constraints and balances
works [2-3,7-8] and extends EPM to consider multi-year VRE Maximum capacity is limited for both solar PV and new
profiles as part of a long-term capacity expansion model. thermal. The following capacity constraints ensure that
The paper discusses the ramifications of solar variability and generation does not exceed capacity:
“renewable contingency” [2] for a very small power system in
Guinea-Bissau that has less than 100 MW of committed 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑔,𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 ≤ 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑔 (2)
capacity but is expected to meet a significant part of its power 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟,𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 ≤ 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟 × 𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 (3)
requirements from solar by 2030. The analysis here presents a
contingency-constrained least-cost modeling framework to The model is constrained by the demand-supply balance,
assess the impact of variability using the capacity factor data where 𝜂𝐵𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑦 represents the battery efficiency, assumed to be
for the last 24 years with hourly resolution. A contingency- 85% in this study:
constrained model essentially follows the construct of a
stochastic program with multiple scenarios/contingencies. ∑𝑔(𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑔,𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 ) − 𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑝𝑙𝑢𝑠𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 + 𝐵𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 × 𝜂𝐵𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑦 ≥
There is however one difference in that all of these 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑑,𝑡,𝑚 + 𝐵𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑟𝐼𝑛𝑗𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 (4)
scenarios/contingencies are considered equally important and
must be met using a single capacity plan. The extended EPM Additional constraints on transmissions capacity constraints
model uses the principles of a contingency-constrained analysis or ramping rates, can also be included but are not imposed here
to cover multiple solar profiles as well as specific contingencies given the focus of the study.
around low solar availability. The analysis presented here C. Including contingency planning
compares the performance of a more comprehensive model
Three means of contingency planning were included:
with that of a TMY-centric approach and highlights how this
spinning reserves, battery spinning reserves and solar
may impact on selection of solar, battery and thermal resources.
contingency planning. When including spinning reserves, both
lower and raise spinning reserves must cover a minimum of
III. PLANNING MODEL INCORPORATING INTER-
20% of solar PV generation and 10% of demand:
ANNUAL VARIABILITY AND SOLAR CONTINGENCY
∑ (𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑅𝑔,𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 ) + 𝑈𝑆𝑅𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠
The model presented here minimizes the cost of generation 𝑔
= 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟,𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 × 𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟
capacity and storage capacity additions and system operating
+ 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑑,𝑡,𝑚 × 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟
costs, subject to meeting demand, spinning reserve (5a)
requirements, among other requirements. Environmental
∑ (𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛𝐿𝑔,𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 ) + 𝑈𝑆𝐿𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠
externalities are not considered in the present model. The model 𝑔
is cast as a contingency-constrained model to cover multiple = 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟,𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 × 𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟
solar states (set s) represented by hourly profiles of past years. + 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑑,𝑡,𝑚 × 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟
(5b)
It also considers solar contingencies, represented in this case as
When activating the battery spinning reserves option, battery
covering for a risk of 1-in-X year low solar irradiance. Put
spinning and spinning reserves, together must cover 20% of
differently, the model directly represents inter- and intra-annual
solar generation and 10% of demand:
variability of solar in determining the optimal solar and storage
capacity needed without having to rely on a TMY-centric
∑ (𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑅𝑔,𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 ) + 𝐵𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 + 𝐵𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑟𝐼𝑛𝑗𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 − 𝐵𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠
approach. We present the model as a static (single year) version, 𝑔
but the formulation lends itself to be extended to multiple years. + 𝑈𝑆𝑅𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠
= 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟,𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 × 𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟
A. Objective function + 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑑,𝑡,𝑚 × 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟
The system costs, which are minimized in the objective (6a)
function, include 3 types of costs: Capex, variable costs and ∑ (𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛𝐿𝑔,𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 ) + 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑏𝑎𝑡,𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 − 𝐵𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 − 𝐵𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑟𝐼𝑛𝑗𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠
𝑔
penalties. Capex, applies to new thermal, solar PV and batteries. + 𝐵𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 + 𝑈𝑆𝐿𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠
Generation costs i.e. variable costs apply to existing and new = 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟,𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 × 𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟
thermal. It should be noted that battery storage capacity is + 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑑,𝑡,𝑚 × 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟
modeled as an endogenous variable following [3,8] which is (6b)

Authorized licensed use limited to: Central Michigan University. Downloaded on May 14,2021 at 13:13:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 3

important for small systems that are more susceptible to major

Both battery storage and spinning reserves are constrained
throughout the model. Battery storage is limited to the installed
capacity and spinning raise and lower cannot exceed 15% of the
new thermal installed capacity based on 6-second capability of
typical oil/gas plants:
𝐵𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 ≤ 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑏𝑎𝑡 (7)
𝐵𝐼𝑛𝑗𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 ≤ 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑏𝑎𝑡 (8)
𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑅𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 ≤ 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑛𝑒𝑤𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑚 × 𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑅 (9a)
𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛𝐿𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 ≤ 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑛𝑒𝑤𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑚 × 𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛𝐿 (9b)
Moreover, the battery balance is regulated as follows for the
first hour:
𝐵𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 = 𝐵𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑟𝐼𝑛𝑗𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 − 𝐵𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠
For the following hours, previously stored power is taken
into account:
𝐵𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 = 𝐵𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑟𝐼𝑛𝑗𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 − 𝐵𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑑,𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 + 𝐵𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑑,𝑡−1,𝑚,𝑠
(10b)
The third option, the solar contingency plan, assumes
frequency excursions due to relatively small contingencies.
B. Sensitivity analysis: Impact of inter-annual variability
The impact of solar PV CF variability on the selection of
solar (and thermal) capacity is tested using the following three
cases: (a) selecting one year only (e.g., 1994), (b) using an
average over all the years, and (c) ‘All Years’ i.e., including all
solar states (1994-2017), i.e., the model must select capacity
considering the full 24-year variability,. The latter would be the
representative of TMY. Note that the average solar PV CF for
1994 is slightly below the average CF taken over all years.
Table 1 shows results for three scenarios, under the
assumption that all new thermal capacity will be LNG based.
(10a) We include spinning reserves and solar contingency for early
morning and later afternoon hours (SC).
TABLE I: Summary Results
1994* Average (TMY) All Years**
System 119.86 119.73 120.40
Cost $m

Cost
pessimistic solar PV CF values during hours with a high
Avg Cost 125.56 125.43 126.13
variability [2-3], i.e., if solar availability is restricted to the
minimum level observed over 24 years since its availability for Solar PV 56.30 62.98 0
New entry

capacity planning purposes may be highly risky and restricted New 133.55 132.99 138.87
(MW)

for these hours: Thermal

Battery 0 0 0
𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟,𝑑,𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 ≤ 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟 ∗ 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒(𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑,𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 ) (11) New 861.64 849.85 953.18
Thermal
Generation
(GWh)

Hence, during the contingency hours the model assumes the
solar PV CF to equal the 1-in-24 year or the lowest value
measured throughout the contingency hour data set.
IV. CASE STUDY: GUINEA-BISSAU
A. Input data: capacity addition options
The extended EPM model has been used to determine the
optimal level of solar PV, battery and thermal capacity in 2030.
The existing and committed capacity in the current system is
only 72 MW that runs on HFO with a high cost of $200/MWh.
Peak demand for 2030 is projected to reach 155 MW and can
be met through a combination of solar PV (annualized capital
cost of $157,000/MW/year) and/or thermal capacity
(annualized capex of $169,000/MW/year). The latter can either
run on heavy fuel oil (HFO) at $135/MWh due to higher
efficiency, or at a lower cost of $100/MWh on LNG, or a mixed
dual-fuel scenario with a blended (HFO+LNG) cost of
$115/MWh. Batteries are also considered in the mix to store
energy and provide spinning reserve at 500 $/kWh.
Solar PV capacity factor data for Guinea-Bissau shows a very
steady average CF over 1994-2017 at 18.3%, albeit there is
considerable variability within each year [3]. The levelized
cost of electricity for solar PV is 98 $/MWh, i.e., highly
competitive against HFO and just below the operating cost of
LNG-based thermal. Simulations were performed to see the
extent to which inter-annual variability and solar contingencies
impact the selection of solar PV. Under the assumed conditions,
any reduction in solar PV relative to a scenario that ignores
inter-annual variability would generally increase system cost
but render the system more secure. This trade-off is particularly
Solar PV 89.15 100.58 0
Existing 3.79 4.15 1.39
Thermal
* Only 1994 solar profile is used. ** Solar profiles for all years 1994-2017 are
considered as an input to EPM in a single optimization
We first show the difference between the optimal least cost
model design for three cases only 1994 profile, TMY, and All
(solar) Years. The results are shown in Table 2. System costs
are very close, varying between $119.7-120.4m. However, the
solar PV capacity amounts to 63, 56 and 0 MW for TMY, 1994
and All Years respectively. The variation in generation mix
(GWh) is significant. This scenario highlights in many ways the
significance of inter-annual variability in a system constrained
by solar contingency and spinning reserves. Conventional
wisdom would suggest solar to be more attractive not only
using a simple LCOE approach but a reasonably detailed
analysis considering TMY. However, the analysis here
demonstrates that the All Years scenario together with solar
contingency would eliminate solar and reduce system cost by
0.67 million $ (or 0.6% of the system cost). Solar may of course
be valuable if environmental externalities are considered. The
point is however to show that inter-annual variability can make
a difference to the least-cost generation capacity selection.
C. Sensitivity analysis: contingency planning
As part of the next set of experiments, we have focused on
the role of spinning reserve, and specifically the role battery can
play. The impact of contingency planning is tested for four
cases: (1) spinning reserve constraint is activated (S), (2)
spinning reserves and battery can also provide such reserve

Authorized licensed use limited to: Central Michigan University. Downloaded on May 14,2021 at 13:13:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 4

(SB), (3) spinning reserves and solar contingency (SC), and (4)
spinning reserves with contributions from battery reserve and
solar contingency constraint (equn 11) needs to be met (SBC).
All these cases consider All Years solar profile covering 24
years. Table 2 summarizes the results for the S, SB, SC and
SBC runs. Comparing S with SB shows the role battery can play
to support higher solar and reduce thermal requirements and
hence reduce system costs. Solar PV volume reduces to zero as
noted in Table-1 before in the SC scenario. This highlights the
HFO+LNG fuel mix, i.e. when new thermal variable costs
increase from $100/MWh to $115/MWh, solar PV is not phased
out. Optimal solar capacity is reduced by half when considering
all years, compared to merely 1994 (see Fig. 2). It should be
noted that incremental costs do diminish rapidly to more or less
stabilize after 12 out of 24 solar profiles are added, i.e., it can
still yield a reasonable reduction in the model size.
120.5 60
120.4

Solar PV Capacity (MW)

120.3 50
importance of the solar contingency that effectively requires

System Cost ($m)

120.2 40
substantially more thermal generation to cover for the low solar 120.1
availability periods. Adding battery (in scenario SBC) does not 120 30
119.9
help in this case to include solar, but battery does play a role to 119.8 20
reduce the requirement for thermal slightly that is needed to 119.7 10
provide spinning reserve and system cost. 119.6
119.5 0
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
TABLE II: Summary Results Impact Contingency Planning Year

S SB SC SBC Solar PV (MW) System Cost ($m)

System 119.78 119.11 120.40 119.74 Fig. 1. Accumulated years analysis for incremental variability: LNG scenario
Cost

Cost $m
Avg Cost 125.48 124.78 126.13 125.43 134.5 90
Solar 59.34 93.42 - - 134 80
New entry

Solar PV Capacity (MW)

New 133.55 122.06 138.87 127.40 70
(MW)

Thermal System Cost ($m) 133.5

60
Battery - 12.83 - 13.11 133 50
132.5 40
New 856.01 791.61 953.18 944.87 30
Generation (GWh)

Thermal 132
20
131.5 10
Solar PV 94.77 149.21 - 131 0
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Existing 3.80 17.37 1.39 12.73
Thermal Year

Solar PV (MW) System Cost ($m)

Note: S (Spinning Reserve Constraint Imposed but battery does not provide
any). SB (Scenario S with battery contributing spinning reserve). SC (Solar
contingency added but battery does not provide spinning reserve). SBC (SC
with battery contributing spinning reserve).
D. Model Simplification
1) Adding years incrementally
In order to reduce the computational burden of a model that
needs to consider multiple solar profiles (e.g., 24 in our All
Years scenario), we have examined a scheme, wherein solar
profiles/years are added incrementally. As more variability is
introduced with additional solar profiles, system cost would
increase but at some point, the incremental impact of years is
expected to diminish. The optimization is repetitively
performed, starting only for 1994, followed by 1994-1995,
1994-1996, etc. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the size of new entry
solar PV significantly diminish as the amount of years included
in the analysis increases and drops to 0 MW when the 2002
solar profile is added. System costs increase significantly but
stabilize as the optimal capacity plan does not change beyond a
point. This effectively suggests the marginal value of additional
solar profiles can potentially drop. In this specific instance, only
9 out of 24 years were necessary to get to the same solution as
one would get for the All Years scenario.
However, the outcome would naturally be sensitive to the
model parameters. In this case, analysis is relatively sensitive
to the new thermal variable costs as solar becomes more
competitive compared to thermal. When conducted for the
Fig. 2. Accumulated years analysis for variability: HFO+LNG scenario
The two experiments above suggest that by running these
cumulative years and noting the incremental costs, one may
reduce the model size by a factor of 2-3.
2) Incremental costs (LNG Scenario)
There is a further refinement to order the solar profiles/states
according to incremental costs to be used in cumulative year
analysis using incremental costs for each solar profile. The
following ‘incremental costs’ analysis illustrates this idea. In
order to derive the incremental costs (1) first, we optimized the
capacity expansion and dispatch for all individual ‘solar states’
from 1994 to 2017, (2) then, we have quantified the additional
i.e. incremental costs per ‘solar state’ compared to the most
economic ‘solar state’ and (3) finally, we have arranged them
according to additional system costs. The 2006 solar profile
yields the lowest system cost followed by 2017, etc. Fig. 3
shows the incremental cost for each year relative to 2006 as the
base year that has the least incremental cost. The most
‘expensive’ solar year 2015 has a $0.6m additional cost of
power generation when compared to 2006.
Since it is quite common to base capacity plans on a single
year, we also explored the implication of doing a simplistic
analysis. We ran a test forcing the solar capacity achieved in
2006 i.e., ‘the best solar year’ into the run for 2015 ‘the worst
solar year’. The system cost for this went up by $1.7m (or 1.3%
of system cost) to meet the same demand. This is essentially the

Authorized licensed use limited to: Central Michigan University. Downloaded on May 14,2021 at 13:13:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 5

sub-optimality in the capacity plan reflected in overcapacity of
solar that cannot generate enough in a bad solar year. The
incremental cost analysis can be useful to rank the solar years
and identify which years can be best used to determine the
optimal solar capacity. The worst three ‘solar state’ years
2015,1997 and 1998 results in only 18 MW of optimal solar
capacity. If we consider the worst five ‘solar state’ years brings
down the optimal solar capacity to 4 MW, which is very close
to the optimal system. The fundamental point is that once we
use incremental system costs based on single-year runs, it
provides a very good indication of the solar profiles/years that
matter more than others. This can be a useful way to reduce the
size of the planning model for large systems.
0.7
0.6
[Year 2006 = $119.42m set as base]
to the case batteries are not considered) (see Fig. 5), which
suggests that battery storage can be critical for the facilitation
of high solar PV penetration.
V. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Inter-annual variability of solar resources has traditionally
been captured using TMY. In this analysis, we have examined
the veracity of the TMY assumption by comparing, and
contrasting, it with a full-blown representation of inter-annual
variability for past 24 years (1994-2017) in an extended
capacity planning model. The mathematical formulation
follows the principles of a contingency constrained model
including the requirements to meet spinning reserve
115
requirements for all solar states, represented by past data.

110
In addition, the model explicitly considers the need to cover
0.5
for the worst solar performance for hours that exhibit extreme
105
Incremental Cost ($m)

Solar GWh in 2030

0.4
variability. The model also co-optimizes battery storage
100

0.3
capacity including the possibility that batteries can provide
95

0.2 90
substantial spinning reserve support to counter variability.
0.1 85
Testing the impact of inter-annual variability is important for
0 80
all systems transitioning to high VRE, but particularly so for
Year small systems. We have used the case of Guinea-Bissau which
Incremental Cost Solar GWh
represents a very small power system aspiring to add significant
solar capacity by 2030 in excess of its peak demand. Our
Fig. 3. Incremental cost analysis for variability: LNG.
analysis shows inter-annual variability can have a moderate to
E. Role played by batteries strong impact on selection of solar PV capacity including
extreme cases when no solar is selected at all when we consider
Finally, the role played by battery in terms of storage vs a
full representation of solar variability over the past 24 years.
spinning reserve provider is analyzed. As Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 show
This is a remarkable outcome considering that solar resources
system costs are reduced considerably with 0.5–1 $m
in Guinea-Bissau for all 24 years is reasonably good with
throughout the 24 ‘solar states’ when batteries are included.
capacity factor of 18.3% and very stable over all these years.
120.5
We also find that battery storage can render the system more
120 resilient to inter-annual variations. These are significant
conclusion in our view that requires further analysis and
System Cost ($m)

119.5

119
enhancement of models to explicitly consider inter-annual
variability and solar contingencies.
118.5

118 VI. REFERENCES

117.5 [1] G. Haydt, V. Leal, A. Pina, and C. A. Silva, "The relevance of the
1996
1997

2002
2003

2008
2009

2014
1994
1995

1998
1999
2000
2001

2004
2005
2006
2007

2010
2011
2012
2013

2015
2016
2017

energy resource dynamics in the mid/long-term energy planning

No battery ($m)
Fig. 4. Optimized system costs with and without battery storage.
Fig. 5. Solar PV capacity deployment with and without battery storage.
Availability of storage system also increased the optimal solar
capacity by approximately 60-80 % in most cases (i.e., relative
Year models," Renewable energy, vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 3068-3074, 2011.
[2] M. Chattopadhyay and D. Chattopadhyay, Renewable Energy
With battery ($m) Contingencies in Power Systems: Concept and Case Study,
forthcoming in Energy for Sustainable Development, 2019.
[3] A. Potter Van Loon, D. Chattopadhyay, M. Bazilian, Atypical
variability in TMY-based power system plans, forthcoming in
Energy for Sustainable Development, 2019.
[4] N. Johnson, et al, "A reduced-form approach for representing the
impacts of wind and solar PV deployment on the structure and
operation of the electricity system," Energy Economics, vol. 64, pp.
651-664, 2017.
[5] K. Poncelet, H. Höschle, E. Delarue, A. Virag, and W. D’haeseleer,
"Selecting representative days for capturing the implications of
integrating intermittent renewables in generation expansion
planning problems," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 32,
no. 3, pp. 1936-1948, 2017.
[6] P. Nahmmacher, E. Schmid, L. Hirth, and B. Knopf, "Carpe diem:
A novel approach to select representative days for long-term power
system modeling," Energy, vol. 112, pp. 430-442, 2016.
[7] S. Pfenninger, "Dealing with multiple decades of hourly wind and
PV time series in energy models: A comparison of methods to
reduce time resolution and the planning implications of inter-annual
variability," Applied Energy, vol. 197, pp. 1-13, 2017.
[8] D. Chattopadhyay et al, World Bank Electricity Planning Model
(EPM): Mathematical Formulation, 2019.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Central Michigan University. Downloaded on May 14,2021 at 13:13:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.