Do we need an additional flexibility market in the electricity system? - Joachim Bertsch, Christian Growitsch, Stefan Lorenczik, Stephan Nagl - TU ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Do we need an additional flexibility market in the
electricity system?
Joachim Bertsch, Christian Growitsch, Stefan Lorenczik, Stephan Nagl
Institute of Energy Economics, University of CologneBackground
• EU goal: 80 % of renewables in 2050
• Majority: Wind and photovoltaics
Stochastic electricity generation
Two major impacts:
• Capacity mix has to be flexible enough
• Sufficient backup capacities neededBackground
Discussion of implications for backup capacities and capacity
mechanisms (e.g. Cramton and Stoft 2008, Joskow 2008 etc.)
Lamadrid et al. (2011) propose a
“new market for ramping services”
CAISO discusses ramping product (Xu and Threteway 2012)
Is there a need for an additional flexibility market?Methodological approach (I) Integrated system modelling • Contribution of all parts of the electricity system, leading to interdependencies between different flexibility sources • Inter-temporal dependencies (dispatch and investments) Previous research • Changes in optimal capacity mix from base to peak-load capacities (Nicolosi 2010, De Jonghe et al. 2011 etc.) • Utilization rate rather than operational constraints determine investments into peak-load capacities (Nicolosi 2012)
Methodological approach (II) Linear dispatch and investment model DIMENSION • Object function minimizing total system costs • Cost-efficient capacity and generation mix Additions to previous literature • Considering large deployment of renewables (EU goals) • Renewables-dependent balancing power • Demand side reactions • CCS power plants with detachable CCS unit
Flexibility within the model Ramping / Start-up constraints (depending on characteristics of technology) Positive and negative balancing power provision (depending on expected wind and photovoltaics feed-in) positive negative - Ramping of thermal power plants in part load - Thermal power plants in operation (ramping operation down) - Start-up of technologies (OCGT) - Storage technologies - Utilization of stored energy or stop of storage - Curtailment of wind power - Shifting through demand side management - Shifting through demand side management (reduction) (increase) - Utilization of previously curtailed wind power - Switching off CCS unit to increase power output
Results: ChangesGWin residual load
GW Residual load duration Hourly changes of residual load
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-20 -20
-40 -40
0 4380 8760 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000
h MW
DE 2050 DE 2020Results: volatility of residual load
Positive Negative
2006 2011 2020 2050 2006 2011 2020 2050
Mean 2230 2242 3083 4105 -1753 -1853 -2604 -3656
Standard deviation 2092 2148 2572 3373 1332 1420 1922 2727
Max 11052 11396 14106 22775 -6273 -8016 -12069 -18984Results: European capacity and
GW
generation mix TWh
2.500 5.000
4.500
2.000 4.000
3.500
1.500 3.000
2.500
1.000 2.000
1.500
500 1.000
500
0 0
2000 2008 2020 2030 2040 2050 2000 2008 2020 2030 2040 2050Results: Availability of balancing power
MW
Positive balancing power availability in June 2020, Germany
30.000
25.000
20.000
15.000
10.000
5.000
0
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
OCGT Storage Thermal plants DSM Wind availability CCS Flexibility requirement
MW Negative balancing power availability in June 2020, Germany
50.000
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
0
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Storage Thermal plants DSM Wind availability CCS Flexibility requirementConclusion
• Main trigger for investments are backup capacities
• Cost-efficient backup capacities are flexible (e.g. gas turbines)
• Under system adequacy, flexibility never poses a challenge in a
cost-minimal capacity mix
Any Market design providing incentives in cost-efficient
generation technologies provides flexibility as an inevitable
complement.Backup
Literature
• Capros, P., Mantzos, L., Tasios., N., DeVita, A., Kouvaritakis, N., 2010. Energy Trends to 2030
— Update 2009. Tech. rep., Institute of Communication and Computer Systems of the
National Technical University of Athens.
• Cramton, P., Stoft, S., 2008. Forward reliability markets: Less risk, less market power, more
efficiency. Utilities Policy 16, 194–201.
• Davison, J., 2009. The need for flexibility in power plants with ccs.
• De Jonghe, C., Delarue, E., Belmans, R., D’haeseleer, W., 2011. Determining optimal
electricity technology mix with high level of wind power penetration. Applied Energy 88,
2231–2238.
• Denholm, P., Hand, M., 2011. Grid flexibility and storage required to achieve very high
penetration of variable renewable electricity. Energy Policy 39, 1817–1830.
• ENTSO-E, 2011. Yearly electricity consumption data for Europe. URL
https://www.entsoe.eu/index.php?id=92
• EWI, 2011. Roadmap 2050 - a closer look. Cost-efficient RES-E penetration and the role of
grid extensions. Tech. rep., M. Fürsch, S. Hagspiel, C. Jägemann, S. Nagl, D. Lindenberger
(Institute of Energy Economics at the University of Cologne) L. Glotzbach, E. Tröster and T.
Ackermann (energynautics).Literature
• Finkenrath, M., 2011. Cost and performance of carbon dioxide capture from power
generation. IEA Working Paper.
• Fürsch, M., Hagspiel, S., Jägemann, C., Nagl, S., Lindenberger, D., Tröster, E., 2012. The
role of grid extensions in a cost-efficient transformation of the European electricity system
until 2050 (Working Paper No. 12/04) Institute of Energy Economics at the University of
Cologne.
• Giebel, G., Brownsword, R., Kariniotakis, G., Denhard, M., Draxl, C., 2011. The state-of-the-art
in short-term prediction of wind power. Tech. rep., ANEMOS.plus, project funded by the
European Commission under the 6th Framework Program, Priority 6.1: Sustainable Energy
Systems.
• Holttinen, H., 2005. Impact of hourly wind power variations on the system operation in the
nordic countries. Wind energy 8 (2), 197–218.
• Holttinen, H., Horvinen, H., 2005. Power system requirement for wind power. T. John Wiley &
Sons Ltd, Ch. 8, pp. 144–167.
• IEA, 2011. World energy outlook 2011. Tech. rep., International Energy Agency.
• J¨ägemann, C., Fürsch, M., Hagspiel, S., Nagl, S., 2012. Decarbonizing Europe’s power sector
by 2050 - Analyzing the implications of alternative decarbonization pathways (Working Paper
No. 12/13) Institute of Energy Economics at the University of Cologne.Literature
• Joskow, P., 2008. Capacity payments in imperfect electricity markets: Need and design.
Utilities Policy 16, 159–170.
• Lamadrid, A., Mount, T., Thomas, R., 2011. Integration of Stochastic Power Generation,
Geographical Averaging and Load Response. WP 2011-09, Charles H. Dyson School.
• Luickx, P. J., Delarue, E., D’haeseleer, W., 2008. Considerations on the backup of wind power:
Operational backup. Applied Energy 85, 787–799.
• Martens, P., Delarue, E., D’haeseleer, W., 2011. A Mixed Integer Linear Programming Model
for A Pulverized Coal Plant With Post-Combustion Carbon Capture. WP EN2011-01, TME
Working Paper - Energy and Environment, KU Leuven Energy Institute.
• Möst, D., Fichtner, W., 2010. Renewable energy sources in european energy supply and
interactions with emission trading. Energy Policy 38, 2898–2910.
• Nagl, S., Fürsch, M., Jägemann, C., Bettzüge, M., 2011. The economic value of storage in
renewable power systems - the case of thermal energy storage in concentrating solar plants
(Working Paper No. 11/08) Institute of Energy Economics at the University of Cologne.
• Nicolosi, M., 2010. Wind power integration and power system flexibility - an empirical
analysis of extreme events in germany under the new negative price regime. Energy Policy
38, 7257–7268.Literature
• Nicolosi, M., 2012. The economics of electricity market integration - an empirical and
model-based analysis of regulatory frameworks and their impacts on the power market,
Dissertation. Ph.D. thesis, Universität zu Köln.
• Prognos/EWI/GWS, 2010. Energieszenarien für ein Energiekonzept der Bundesregierung.
Tech. rep., M. Schlesinger, P. Hofer, A. Kemmler, A. Kirchner and S. Strassburg (all Prognos
AG); D. Lindenberger, M. Fürsch, S. Nagl, M. Paulus, J. Richter and J. Trüby (all EWI); C. Lutz, O.
Khorushun, U. Lehr and I. Thobe (GWS mbH).
• Richter, J., 2011. DIMENSION - A Dispatch and Investment Model for European Electricity
Markets (Working Paper No. 11/03) Institute of Energy Economics at the University of
Cologne.
• Ummels, B., Gibescu, M., Pelgrum, E., Kling, W., 2006. System Integration of Large-Scale Wind
Power in the Netherlands. Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2006. IEEE.
• Xu, L., Threteway, D., 2012. Flexible ramping products - second revised draft final
proposal. Tech. rep., California ISO (CAISO).Methodological approach: Linear Investment
and Dispatch model DIMENSION
Installed capacities;
Demand
commissioning and
decommissioning of generating
and transmission capacities
Fuel and CO2-Prices
Annual generation structure
Existing generating and
transmission capacities Plant dispatch by load level
Technical and Economic Import and export streams(trade
parameters of generating and European
OUTPUT
Investment and and physical flows)
INPUT
transmission capacities
Dispatch Model
for Electricity RES-E curtailment
Transmission loss
Markets
Utilization rates
Feed-in profiles of RES-E plants
Including:
per region
Fuel consumption
• Coventional,
Potentials of RES-E plants storage and
nuclear plants CO2-emissions
• RES-E plants
Political restrictions, i.e.: • transmission
- RES-E quota expansion Fixed, variable and average
- Nuclear Policy between countries generation costs
17
Source: EWI.You can also read
