An Offshore Grid in Northern Europe: Techno-economic Design Considerations

Transcription

1 An Offshore Grid in Northern Europe: Techno-economic Design Considerations Achim Woyte, Jan De Decker (3E sa) Peter McGarley, Simon Cowdroy (Senergy Econnect Ltd.) Harald Svendsen, Leif Warland (Sintef Energy Research) EWEA 2011, Brussels, 16 March 2011

2 Outline The IEE project OffshoreGrid Modelling for cost-benefit analysis Cases and results Conclusions 2 Photos: C-Power

3 The IEE Project OffshoreGrid PROJECT INFO Techno-economic study (funding Intelligent Energy Europe) Coordinator 3E, 8 partners, consultancy & applied research May 2009 to October 2011 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES Recommendations on topology and capacity choices Guideline for investment decision & project execution Trigger a coordinated approach for the Mediterranean ring 3

4 Modelling for Cost Benefit Analysis 32 simulation cases have been analysed Detailed results for each case offshore grid infrastructure costs increasing with better interconnection (cost) operational costs of power generation decreasing with better interconnection (benefit) Costs and benefits compared to the Base Case 2030

5 Results: 3 Design Problems Hubs vs. Radial Interconnector Tee Integrated Hubs

6 Results cost-benefit analysis: Hubs vs radial GENERAL Hubs defined via hub assessment tool Most important countries: DE, UK, NL (UK Round 3: potential is big but lot of hubs will be built implicitly) 30 Infrastructure Cost [beur] Radial Connections & Direct Links Hubs where Adequate & Direct Links 0 Belgium Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany United Kingdom Ireland Latvia Lithuania Netherlands Norway Poland Russia Sweden

7 Results cost analysis: Hubs vs radial Hubs Show case study: 60 km Wind farms: 350 MW each hub radial Costs of stranded investment Costs of delay of wind farms Mio vs. Radial Show case study: 150 km Wind farms: 350 MW each Mio case 1 case 2 case 3 case 4 hub radial 0 case 1 case 2 case 3 case 4 Case 1: All wind farms built in t=0 Case 2: Only two wind farms built. Case 3: Only one wind farm built Case 4: Wind farm nr. 1 built in t=0 Wind farm nr. 2 and 3 built 10 years later

8 Results cost-benefit analysis: Hubs vs radial RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS When concession areas defined: => Adapt regularly framework to favour hubs where beneficial When no concession areas defined: => Aim for few areas with large wind farms or larger wind farm concentration Hubs can still be beneficial if not all wind farms are built right away Good coordination is needed to plan hubs and timing of installation Focus on a few hubs at a time, instead of building WF randomly

9 Interconnector Tee Norway BritNor I/C CSC Norway station +/- 500kV DC Bipole (Section B) Dogger Bank A (1000MW) OWF VSC station +/- 500kV DC Bipole (Section A) BritNor I/C CSC GB station GB

10 Base case (point-to-point) TWh Base case Interconnector capacity: 1.4 GW 1.61 TWh 4.01TWh Figures in orange show annual energy flow

11 Case 5 (T: 1.4 / 1.4 GW) 7.49 TWh Wind farm T-in Interconnector capacity: 1.4 GW both sides 1.50 TWh TWh 0.61TWh Figures in orange show annual energy flow

12 Results cost-benefit analysis: Tee-in WF General Cost-benefit analysis: evaluation of reduced costs vs reduced benefits (trade constraints) Results Possible with both technologies P Windfarm <1/2 P cable to limit constraints More beneficial if distance to shore is high Recommendations and conclusions Don t delay interconnectors for trade or security of supply When wind farms could be connected to interconnector make technology decision based on analysis of all costs & benefits If investment in wind farm along route is firm go for fully integrated solution

13 Results cost-benefit analysis: Tee-in WF Results Possible with both technologies (HVDC classic & HVDC VSC) P Windfarm <1/2 P cable to limit constraints More beneficial if distance to shore is high Recommendations and conclusions Don t delay interconnectors for trade or security of supply When wind farms could be connected to interconnector make technology decision based on analysis of all costs & benefits If investment in wind farm along route is firm go for fully integrated solution

14 Integrated WF vs Direct Lines

15 Integrated WF vs Direct Lines General Cost-benefit analysis: evaluation of reduced costs vs reduced benefits (trade constraints) Results P CableBetweenHubs ~<1/2 P ConnectionHubsToShore to limit constraints More beneficial if D WFToShore >> D BetweenHubs Recommendations and conclusions Integrated solution requires detailed economic analysis (task for TSOs) Good dimensioning could bring large benefits Good coordination is crucial! (TSO s, wind farm & hub developers) Regulatory frameworks should foster coordinated approach! (NSC OGI)

16 Results cost-benefit analysis Integrated WF Results P CableBetweenHubs ~<1/2 P ConnectionHubsToShore to limit constraints More beneficial if D WFToShore >> D BetweenHubs Recommendations and conclusions Integrated solution requires detailed economic analysis (task for TSOs) Good dimensioning could bring large benefits Good coordination is crucial! (TSO s, wind farm & hub developers) Regulatory frameworks should foster coordinated approach! (NSC OGI)

17 Conclusions APPROACH Infrastructure costs vs. benefits of interconnection HUBS Beneficial with large distance to shore Strategic siting and scheduling increase opportunities T-CONNECTIONS Considerable option in trade driven case Do not slow down interconnector development INTEGRATED OFFSHORE GRID HUBS Often beneficial, oversize the connection to shore Requires coordination between TSO & hub developer 17

18 Thank you for your attention! The OffshoreGrid project is funded by the European Commission Achim Woyte 3E sa, Brussels