1 / 17

Offshore Wind Integration Studies at PJM September 13, 2012

This document outlines the Offshore Wind Integration Studies conducted by PJM, illustrating various scenarios for integrating offshore wind energy into the grid. The studies evaluate four key injection points—Hudson, Larrabee, Indian River, and Fentress—considering scenarios with no wind, and 10 GW, 20 GW, and 30 GW wind capacity. The analysis highlights market efficiency, curtailment impacts, and the need for significant transmission investment to accommodate wind energy, focusing on achieving Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirements for a sustainable energy future.

wirt
Télécharger la présentation

Offshore Wind Integration Studies at PJM September 13, 2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Offshore Wind Integration Studies at PJMSeptember 13, 2012 Steven Herling Vice President, Planning PJM Interconnection

  2. 2010 RTEP - Conceptual Offshore Wind Study • Reliability + Market Efficiency • Entirely Offshore Wind • Injected at 4 locations • Hudson, Larrabee, Indian River, Fentress • 4 Scenarios • No wind • 10 GW, 20 GW, 30 GW • Conclusion • Market efficiency simulated almost no wind curtailment at 10GW peneteration. • Moderate curtailment at 20GW penetration • Major curtailment at 30GW penetration www.pjm.com

  3. 2011 RTEP RPS Scenario Studies • Satisfy RPS needs with PJM resources • Multiple sourcing scenarios for ~ 40 GW total of wind • 20 GW offshore • 4 GW offshore • Study identified congestion at the injection points that would require significant transmission investment.

  4. 2012 RTEP Analysis

  5. 2012 RTEP • Building off the work done in the 2011 RTEP • Evaluating three sourcing scenarios to meet PJM RPS requirements in 2027 • 36 GW wind and 3.6 GW solar • Scenario 1 – source all RPS from within PJM with 7 GW offshore wind and 29 GW from land-based wind • Scenario 2 – source all RPS from land-based resources • Scenario 3 – wind sourced 60% internal to PJM and 40% from MISO / SPP

  6. 2012 RTEP – Preliminary Analysis • Purpose • Initial modeling and analyses focused on validating the ability of the production cost simulation tools to model a system similar to the AWC project including offshore wind resources interconnected via HVDC. • Leveraged modeling and analysis done as part of the 2011 RTEP

  7. Input Assumptions • Preliminary set of PROMOD runs using last year’s base case: • Study year 2016 • PJM Deactivations not modeled • 2011 RTEP power flow case (no MAPP, PATH) • Gas forecast: Henry Hub ~7 $/MMBtu • HVDC Terminals & Wind Injection Points: • Hudson1 (PSEG) • Cardiff (Atlantic Electric) • Indian River (DP&L) • Navy (Dominion) • Offshore wind profile parameters (NREL data) : • CF 47% • Annual Total Energy ~16,401 GWh for 4000 MW nameplate • HVDC lines modeled with no losses, no operating restrictions.

  8. AWC Scenarios Overview

  9. Offshore Flows – HVDC Tie Flows

  10. Onshore Flows (Net Flow from HVDC terminals) • Results shows that the flows going onshore, out from the HVDC terminals, are indifferent to the wind injection point - PROMOD yields the optimal onshore injection pattern no matter of the particular position of the wind farm on the HVDC. • Indian River appears to be the preferred injection point - may be a factor of the number of flow gates (or lack thereof) modeled for Delmarva peninsula. • There is no wind curtailment, the wind profile is used at full capacity. • Flows from Navy HVDC terminal always heavy into the HVDC line, going north. • The total net flows toward shore, in the base case, is not zero, due to a small amount of bus load at the injection points.

  11. LMP Impacts The charts show the incremental LMP impact (On-Peak and Off-Peak) of adding the stand-alone HVDC system to the Base Case, then adding the Offshore Wind to the HVDC System.

  12. LMP Impacts – Radial Injection vs. HVDC

  13. LMP Impacts – Radial Injection vs. HVDC

  14. Next Steps • Update modeling consistent with 2012 RTEP Assumptions • Footprint includes PJM, MISO • 2017 updated power flow topology • Updated Gas forecast: Henry Hub ~4.9 $/MMBtu • PJM Announced Deactivations • Installed Renewable Resources consistent with the RPS requirements of PJM states. • Consider the states request requirements: • 7000MW Offshore Wind • AWC HVDC System modeled as controllable system to optimize the wind injection. • Study year 2023 • Customized outputs reports by state: production cost savings; avoided congestion savings; pollution reduction benefits, etc.

  15. 2012 RTEP – 7GW Radial Injection www.pjm.com

  16. 2012 RTEP – 7GW Offshore with HVDC Interconnection www.pjm.com

  17. Offshore Wind Joint Study – NCTPC • PJM is also engaged in a joint study with the North Carolina Transmission Planning Collaborative. • Evaluating three scenarios • 1000 MW injection at Landstowne, Morehead City and Southport • 2000 MW injection at Landstowne and 1500 MW injection at Morehead City and Southport • 4500 MW injection at Landstowne and a 3500 MW injection at Morehead City and a 2000 MW injection at Southport • Reliability analysis of the three scenarios is in-progress www.pjm.com

More Related