reference group meeting hamburg, germany 29 … · 2020. 10. 2. · • entso-e guideline for cost...

© PROMOTioN – Progress on Meshed HVDC Offshore Transmission Networks This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 691714.

REFERENCE GROUP MEETINGHAMBURG, GERMANY29 SEPTEMBER 2016


Drafting a roadmap for the evacuation of offshore renewable generation inthe context of the PROMOTioN projectSeptember 29, 2016


CONTENT

• WP1, WP12 & Task 1.4• Purpose of the draft roadmap• Methodology• Discussion

14.04.2020 2


WP1, WP12 & Task 1.4



Work Package Structure

03.05.16 4



WP 1 - Requirements for meshed offshore grids

03.05.16 5

Partners: TenneT (WP Leader), DNV GL, EIRGRID, SGI, DWG, GE, RTE, TU Delft, Statoil, SOW, DTU, RWTH Aachen, FGH, Dong Energy, Carbon Trust, Tractebel, Iberdrola, T&D Europe, USTRAT, Energinet, SHE Trans

Objectives:• Definition of a common set of equal requirements for all the WPs to ensure the compatibility of

results• Definition of fundamental topologies to align the language used within the PROMOTioN project

(e.g. radial multi-terminal, meshed, etc.)• Analyze past studies in the area of offshore grids to form a starting point for the PROMOTioN

project• Assess and evaluate the operational, financial and technical aspects of existing offshore

connections and grids• Define reference scenarios for the development of offshore wind in the North Seas and the

evolution of the load/generation in the surrounding countries• Derivation of an initial roadmap for the evacuation of offshore renewable generation• Identify under which circumstances a certain fundamental topology will claim its existence



WP 12 – Deployment plan for future European offshore grid development

03.05.16 6

Partners: TenneT (WP Leader), DNV GL, ABB, RTE, Statoil, SOW, FGH, Carbon Trust, Tractebel, Iberdrola, T&D Europe, Energinet, SHE Trans

Objectives:• The key objective is to produce a Deployment Plan for European future offshore grid

development. This plan will clearly define all required technical, regulatory, economic, financial, legal, governmental and market actions.

Further objectives:• To evaluate results of all work packages and to identify key required technical, regulatory,

economic, financial, legal, governmental and market barriers;• To collect relevant data and underlying grid development scenario’s to identify a ‘optimal

scenario’ for the development of a future European offshore grid and its integration with the on-shore grid;

• To analyse the economic and financial viability of results and recommendations of the different work packages and to develop a business case;

• To integrate the current PROMOTION project and past project results in a final deployment plan for future European offshore grid development.


• Objectives• Derivation of a draft roadmap, taking into account technical and

economical factors, and the development pace of total installed offshore wind energy capacity, including its location

• Detailed study considering the economic viability of offshore grids• Presentation of the draft roadmap and some typical flows on a

geographic map through an interactive presentation tool• Deliverable 1.6 due end of March 2017) – Report and computer

demonstration with a draft roadmap and reference off-shore grid expansion plan

• This initial roadmap will be enriched by WP12


Task 1.4 – Initial roadmap for the evacuation of offshore renewable generation

03.05.16 7


Purpose of the draft roadmap


• What PROMOTioN will do• Alleviate the remaining technical, financial & regulatory barriers for the

development of an offshore meshed grid in the North Seas• (Re-)Demonstrate the economic viability of such a grid

• What PROMOTioN will not do• Define precisely the infrastructure that must be built in the North Seas in

the upcoming decades – nevertheless everything must be ready at the end of the project to allow TSOs to do so


Scope of PROMOTioN

03.05.16 9


• We must be sure that all relevant questions are on the table at the beginning of the project, such that WPs will bring all needed answers

• E.g. in which cases a DRU can be used• We must understand when critical technologies will be needed

• E.g. DC CBs• We must understand the successive steps towards the

development of an offshore grid, because the grid must be technically viable during each step

• We must understand the critical factors influencing the offshore grid topology

• E.g. development pace of offshore wind energy, costs of components, but also the planning time horizon


Why a roadmap in that context?

03.05.16 10


• Purpose: to show how an offshore meshed grid could be developed (one of the likely ways) in the upcoming decade 2020-2030 (“reference offshore grid expansion plan” – temporal evolution) such that

• We raise all unclear points about the technical way to develop such a grid (components to use)

• We can show the impact of several factors on the likely development• But the purpose is not to say what should be actually

implemented in the North Seas


Proposed purpose for the roadmap

03.05.16 11


Methodology


• The offshore grid expansion plan must make sense from an economic point of view

• Idea of economic optimum• But impossible to develop an optimization problem considering all

details• Need of a pragmatic approach to reach a “near-optimum”, based on

several steps• The output of Task 1.4 is a draft, that will be reworked in WP12

• Feedback on assumptions, methodology from the stakeholders can imply changes

• Limited time horizon in Task 1.4: 2030 (probably 2050 in WP12)• Output: draft grid expansion plan, but not development of wind

generation (we do not have anymore a vertically integrated power sector in Europe) → we will only study how, where and when to put cables, converters, etc.

Methodology

Global philosophy

03.05.16 13


• Main steps to draft a roadmap• Optimization of the global topology

• “Macro-level”: how much transfer capacity we need between hubs/countries and when (too complex to include too much details in the optimization problem)

• Possibility to create new substations (hubs) in the North Seas (or to use existing platforms)

• Analysis of the possible technological solutions to realize the global topology

• Consideration of requirements (e.g. maximum loss of power infeed)• Possible iteration with the previous step (e.g. costs)

• Assessment of the economic viability of the different possible technological solutions

• Derivation of the final roadmap

Methodology

Decomposition in steps

03.05.16 14


• How do we connect optimally (least cost) the wind farms with the shores (and together) such that we can evacuate all the offshore wind energy?

• Possibility to create substations• Similar to e-Highway2050, but

with a limited scope (North Sea)• Example of WindSpeed project →• It gives rough indications of what

makes sense from an economic point of view, but that’s it

Methodology

Optimisation of the global topology: explanation

03.05.16 15


• Preliminary problem• Objective function

• Minimization of the offshore grid cost (CAPEX), but the grid must be able to transmit onshore all the generated offshore energy (if no transmission outage)

• Nodes• Some are predefined (OWF, onshore connection points), but candidates based on

a sampling• Connection of nodes

• Discrete capacities (e.g. four types of cables are used – 500 MW, 700 MW, 1000 MW, 1200 MW)

• Linearized version of the power flow equations

Methodology

Optimisation of the global topology: example

7-Sep-2016 16


Methodology

Optimisation of the global topology: example

03.05.16 17

Map for 6 consecutive years (distances in km)Red dots: OWFs; Blue dots: onshore connection points; Hollow dots: possible substations


• Once we have the transfer capacities, how do we do that concretely to reach a solution that satisfies requirements

• For each step (evolving grid)• Example of ISLES project

• We have to know what kind of converters/CB/… we put where, how and when

• Several solutions can be possible (see next step)

Methodology

Analysis of technological solutions: explanation

03.05.16 18


• The previous step will give transfer capacities (capacities of cables) between nodes and will indicate the need for new substation

• What technologies must be used in which way to satisfy the requirements imposed on offshore HVDC grids?

• Use of DRU/VSC, DCCBs• Analysis of technological solutions: detailed design

Methodology

Analysis of technological solutions: explanation

7-Sep-2016 19


• Techno-economic simulation of the behaviour of the power systems (generation/failures/flows/prices/…) for the different possible configurations to conclude on the draft roadmap and its economic viability

• Similar to what was done in e-Highway2050

Methodology

Assessment of the economic viability: explanation

03.05.16 20


Discussion


• What is the primary purpose of an offshore grid?• What could be a typical planning time horizon for such a grid?

• Planning time horizon: we know more or less what will happen• 5 years?

• Do we need a N-1 security rule in an offshore grid?• Interpretation of the N-1 security in that context?

Discussion

Main discussion points

03.05.16 22


Functional Requirements from AC and DC grids to DC grid protection Dirk Van HertemKU Leuven and EnergyVille29-09-2016

© T

enne

TTS

O G

mbH


CONTENT

• DC grid protection and WP4 of promotion

• System and Components Constraints

• Expected performance

• Request for feedback

03.05.16 2

© T

enne

TTS

O G

mbH


↗HVDC is receiving massive attention from industrie, especiallyfor offshore connections and interconnectors

↗DC grids are seen as a logical evolution↗Offering redundancy↗Possible cost savings

↗DC grids require protection↗Current HVDC protection: at the AC side

↗ not a good solution for the future pan-European grid

DC grids and DC grid protection

03.05.16 3


↗to develop a set of functional requirements for various DC grids: from small scale to large overlay grids and for a variety of system configurations and converter topologies

↗to analyse a wide range of DC grid protection philosophies on a common set of metrics

↗to identify the best performing methods for the systems under study

↗to develop detailed protection methodologies for the selected methods

↗to develop configurable multi-purpose HVDC protection IEDs to enable testing of the methodologies

↗to investigate the key influencing parameters of protection systems on the cost-benefit evaluation

WP4: develop multi-vendor protection systems

03.05.16 4


↗Protection system: What to protect?↗Humans↗System ↗Components

↗For the AC system:↗After single fault, selective protection system clears fault↗Backup protection if that fails↗Protection operates in 60 – 200 ms↗Operated N-1: no single credible fault/contingency causes large

sustained outage↗Expected behavior at a single line fault↗Expected behavior at busbar fault↗Expected behavior at fault at lower levels (e.g. distribution)↗Fault ride through behavior of wind farm

↗3 GW / 1.8 GW / … maximum loss of infeed

What are our expectations of DC gridprotection?

03.05.16 5


↗What about the DC grid?↗Same as AC?↗Which reliability?↗Are the limits (delays, power loss,…) the same?↗What are relevant faults at the DC side

↗Pole to pole?↗Pole to ground?↗Busbar?

↗What is the accepted behavior at the DC side↗AND the connecting AC systems

↗Continental Europe, Ireland, offshore wind, offshore load↗Do we expect the same for all systems?

↗Small --> medium --> large

What are our expectations of DC gridprotection?

03.05.16 6


↗Type (a) line protection : impact only on the faulty line↗Type (b) line+ protection : impact on the faulty line and on the closest

MMC converter ↗Type (c) open grid protection : impact of all the breakers at a bus ↗Type (d) grid splitting protection : impact only on the faulty zone↗Type (e) low-speed HVDC grid protection : impact on the entire grid

Overview: Fault clearing strategies (zones-impact)


Functional requirements?

03.05.16 8

System and components constraints

Expected performance for DC grids (small, medium and large)• Various DC faults

Functional requirements for DC grids

• Current technology• Foreseeable limit

(2030→2050)


Components of DC grid protection: influencing eachother

03.05.16 9

Protection equipment

Control equipment

Power system componentsConvertersSwitchgearFault current limiters

System controlsCommunications

Relays/AlgorithmsMeasurements

Communications

Restoration


↗Selectivity & speed↗E.g., maximum portion of the

grid which can be disconnected↗Maximum time for which grid

can be disconnected↗Backup protection

↗Lower probability, but higher impact

↗Robustness towards system changes

System functional requirements lead to requirements for protection

↗Suitable protection philosophies↗Selective↗Partly selective↗Non-selective

↗Suitable fault clearing strategies


↗Protection algorithms↗Speed↗Selectivity↗Sensitivity↗Reliability

↗Breakers↗Speed↗Interruption capability↗Energy absorption capability

↗Fault current limiters↗Di/dt …

Protection requirements lead to requirements for protection components

↗Suitable candidates↗Protection algorithms

↗Non-unit↗Unit/Pilot

↗Breakers: Mechanical, Hybrid

↗Inductors/SFCL/…


• Potential Faults/events:• AC faults (single-phase-to-ground, three-phase-to-ground)• Outage of a converter• DC line faults (pole-to-ground, pole-to-pole)• DC busbar faults

• Potential effects on the AC & DC systems:• DC system: overvoltage, under voltage, overcurrent, DC grid

instability, DC overload• AC system: overvoltage, under voltage, overcurrent, AC grid

instability (transient stability, small signal stability, frequency stability), AC overload

• what is acceptable?

Why relevant? Fault occur and they influence the total system


DC Line (pole-to-ground) fault: example 1

13

Test system: 3-terminal bipolar with metallic return DC Power during and after pole-to-ground fault

Utilizing fast selective DC protection (fault clearing ~5ms): DC system:

• Possible overload post fault clearing AC system:

• Very short transients

Time [ms]

0 50 100 150

Pow

er [M

W]

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500Pdcp3 Pdcp2 Pdcp1

Conv1

Conv3

Conv2

100km

150km



03.05.16 14

Utilizing AC circuit breaker for fault clearing (fault clearing 2~3 cycles): DC system:

• Outage of the whole DC system• Possible large fault currents depending on grounding configuration

AC system:• See multiple short-circuit faults once converters are blocked• Possible instability

AC2AC1

Conv1

Conv2

Conv3

Conv4

Conv5

Fault

Conv blkAC sees SC faults

Fault cleared

DC restart

t

P PAC1

some ms

40~60 ms

hundreds ms



03.05.16 15

Utilizing converters with fault blocking capability: DC system:

• Outage of the whole DC system AC system:

• Short interruption• Possible instability

o Asynchronous AC systemso Synchronous AC systems

Synchronized AC systems

ωω

AC2AC1

Conv1

Conv2

Conv3

Conv4

Conv5

FaultConv Blk

DC restart

t

P PAC1

some ms

tens ms?


HVDC converter outage: influence on ac frequency and generator rotor angles

03.05.16 16

Simplified representation of ac system:• Equivalent synchronous generator (SGeq) with inertia constant H• Droop control action is neglected within the considered time frame (0-0.2s)• HVDC converter outage = Load step on synchronous generator

© PROMOTioN – Progress on Meshed HVDC Offshore Transmission Networks This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 691714. 03.05.16 17

13

579

47,548

48,549

49,550

H [s

]

Freq

uenc

y [H

z]

ΔP [pu]

For ΔT = 0.1 s

47,5-48 48-48,5 48,5-49 49-49,5 49,5-50

12345678910

00,

10,

20,

30,

40,

50,

60,

70,

80,

9 1

H [s

]

Freq

uenc

y [H

z ]

ΔP [pu]

00.25

0.50.75

1

4949,249,449,649,8

50

ΔP [p

u]

Freq

uenc

y [H

z]

ΔT [s]

For H = 5s

49-49,2 49,2-49,4 49,4-49,6 49,6-49,8 49,8-50

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91

00,

020,

040,

060,

08 0,1

0,12

0,14

0,16

0,18 0,2

ΔP [p

u]

Freq

uenc

y [H

z]

ΔT [s]


↗Maximum loss of power infeed and duration:

Constraints from synchronous AC Systems

03.05.16 18

∆P

t

Pmax

fewms

> hundreds ms

Maximum allowed

permanent loss

Tens -100 ms

P1

P2

Pzone2 < Pmax

Pzone1 < P2

Zone 1FB

Zone 2ACCB

DC Disconnector

DC circuit breaker

Full bridge MMC

AC

AC

AC circuit breaker

Half bridge MMC


↗Maximum temporary power loss and duration↗at a node↗to a synchronous zone↗to a control area

↗Voltage support requirement

Constraints from asynchronous AC Systems

03.05.16 19


↗Point-to-point HVDC offshore links↗AC fault ride-through: hundreds ms (e.g. 384 ms for 30% Vremaining GB [1])↗DC faults are protected using AC circuit breakers: 2~3 cycles

↗Constraints to DC grids:↗Fault interruption: within 2 ~3 cycles↗Converter DC LVRT capability?

Constraints from wind farms

03.05.16 20

F1

DC chopper

F2ACCBACCB

F2

[1] A. J. Beddard and U. Oj, “Factors Affecting the Reliability of VSC-HVDC for the Connection of Offshore Windfarms,” PhD thesis, 2014.


↗Converter (for all types of converters): ↗Udc at the converter terminal

↗Normal operation: 90% - 110%↗Minimum voltage and duration for a converter has to stay unblocked: 0.8pu

hundreds ms?↗Iarm of the converter

↗IGBT (maximum instantaneous current limit):↗2 [pu] on maximum dc value allowed by IGBT↗Future technology: SiC, GaN?

↗Diode/thyristors ↗Surge withstand capability [kA2t]

Constraints from DC grid components

03.05.16 21

DC fault ride through capability

Udc/Udcn

t

tUV,blkUmin,blk

100%110%

90%

When a converter is allowed to be blocked and tripped


↗DC Circuit Breakers: constraints to relay speed


03.05.16 22

Energy absorption branch

Auxiliary branch

Main branchRCBCurrent limiter

Imax

tbr,otbr,t tint tc

∆tbr,t ∆tbr,int ∆tbr,rcb

Parameter Unit Typical valueForeseeablevalues(2030-2050)

Breaker tripping delay [ms]Hybrid: 2-3 ms, Mechanical: 5-10 ms

Fault current interruption capability [kA]

Hybrid: 5-10 kA, Mechanical: 10-16 kA

Energy absorption capability [MJ] ~ 10 MJ

Bypass delay [ms] ?Residual current interruption capability [kA] 0.1 kA

Maximum current rate of rise [kA/s] 3-5 kA/s

Maximum breaker surge arrestor voltage [pu] 1.5

Rated voltage [kV] 320 500?

Structure of a DC circuit breaker

Fault interruption process


↗Cable constraints [3]:

WP4.1 Investigation and evaluation of fault detection and selectivity methods, towards functional requirements


03.05.16 23

Parameter Unit Typical value

Foreseeablevalues(2030-2050)

Remarks

Lightning impulse withstand level [pu] 2,1 (same

polarity) Lightning impulse withstand level

Switching impulse withstand level [pu] 1,2 (opposite

polarity) Switching impulse withstand level

Maximum continuous dc voltage (applied during type and routine test)

[pu] 1,85Maximum continuous dc voltage (applied during type and routine test for 15minutes)

Thermal overload limit [pu] ?

[3] Cigre WG B1.32 - Recommendations for testing DC extruded cable systems for power transmission at a rated voltage up to 500 kV

t

U0

2.1 [pu]

t

U0

-1.2 [pu]


• Stress on AC and DC system

• AC side system fault ridethrough capability

• DC side voltage capability• Chicken and egg problem:

DC grid design depends on what we expect from itsoperations and operationalexpectations depend on the system in place

• What do we want as behavior? What is acceptable?

Towards Functional Requirements of DC Grids

24

∆P

t

Pmax

5ms Few hundreds ms

Allowed power outage – time requirementPmax: allowed maximum permanent loss

Allowed voltage deviations(source: cigre B4-56)


↗Feedback on the approach↗DC requirements are fundamentally different than AC

requirements, and we need to/can choose before designingprotection systems

↗Availability of DC grids: expectation or requirements?↗What is a “small” grid↗What is a “medium” grid↗What is a “large” grid

↗What is an acceptable outage?↗Is 3000 MW for continental Europe a fixed value? Likely to change?↗Will we need to define LVRT grid codes for the DC grid to enable a

multi-vendor grid↗Can a dc grid be “shut-down” for a short amount of time: tens ms?

WP4.1 Investigation and evaluation of fault detection and selectivity methods, towards functional requirements

Constraints/Expected performance from DC grids: Input requested

03.05.16 25


Questions?

26

COPYRIGHTPROMOTioN – Progress on Meshed HVDC Offshore Transmission Networks MAIL [email protected] WEB www.promotion-offshore.net

The opinions in this presentation are those of the author and do not commit in any way the European Commission

PROJECT COORDINATORDNV GL, Kema Nederland BVUtrechtseweg 310, 6812 AR Arnhem, The NetherlandsTel +31 26 3 56 9111Web www.dnvgl.com/energy

CONTACT

PARTNERSKema Nederland BV, ABB AB, KU Leuven, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, EirGrid plc, SuperGrid Institute, Deutsche WindGuard GmbH, Mitsubishi Electric Europe B.V., Affärsverket Svenska kraftnät, Alstom Grid UK Ltd (Trading as GE Grid Solutions), University of Aberdeen, Réseau de Transport d‘Électricité, Technische UniversiteitDelft, Statoil ASA, TenneT TSO B.V., German OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY Foundation, Siemens AG, DanmarksTekniske Universitet, Rheinisch-Westfälische TechnischeHochschule Aachen, Universitat Politècnica de València, Forschungsgemeinschaft für. Elektrische Anlagen und Stromwirtschaft e.V., Dong Energy Wind Power A/S, The Carbon Trust, Tractebel Engineering S.A., European University Institute, Iberdrola Renovables Energía, S.A., European Association of the Electricity Transmission & Distribution Equipment and Services Industry, University of Strathclyde, ADWEN Offshore, S.L., Prysmian, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, MHI Vestas Offshore Wind AS, Energinet.dk, Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission plc

APPENDIX


DISCLAIMER & PARTNERS

03.05.16 27

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.promotion-offshore.net/

http://www.dnvgl.com/energy


Work package 7Regulation & FinancingCBA in the offshore contextPresentation Reference Group Meeting, 29 September 2016, Hamburg

Building blocks

Offshore grid planning

Offshore grid investment/ construction

Offshore grid operation

Legal framework

Spatial planning Jurisdictional

constraints (e.g support scheme)

Joint planning instruments

Licensing regimesConnection

responsibility

Access rulesBalancing responsibilityGrid code compliancy

Economic framework

CBA MethodOffshore-onshore

coordinationParticipation of grid

users

(Joint) support schemeRevenue models/ tariff

designInvestment and

efficiency incentivesCBCA methods

Connection / access charging

Rules on ancillaryservices

Capacity allocation

Financial framework

Risk analysis in offshore grid planning

Ownership & governance

Investor participation and fundingmechanisms

Analysis risk perceptioncapital providers (ROIC)

Compensation and liability

REGULATION FINANCING

WP7 Setup 1st intermediate deliverable

2

CBA in the EU– why relevant for a meshed offshore grid

3

2nd PCI list (2015) – NSOG and BEMIP corridor *Yellow connections are potentially competing projects

Selection of energy infrastructure projects evolved from:

Political decision economic assessment (CBA)

There a several ways to perform a good CBA:

Agreement on a common method is crucial

ENTSO-E’s CBA 1.0, 2.0 methodologies are pushing for a common method

Evolution of a meshed grid?

VS

FSR analytical framework for a robust CBA

Input1/ Accounting for project interaction2/ Common high quality dataset3/ Disaggregated cost reporting

Calculation4/ Concentrate on a reduced list of effects5/ Distributional concerns should be disregarded6/ Model should be explicitly stated7/ A common discount factor should be used8/ Uncertainty should be addressed

Output9/ (Geographically) disaggregated benefit reporting10/ Ranking should be based on monetisation

4

Assessment of the CBA methodology

5

Status of implementationENTSO-E 1.0

(approved by the ECin 2015)

ENTSO-E 2.0 (version for ACER opinion)

ENTSO-E Market design - balancing

Significantly more important in the

offshore context?

INPUT(1) Project interaction must be taken into account in the project and baseline definition

One baseline (TOOT). Arbitrary clustering rules

One baseline (TOOT), ambiguous update of the clustering rule

Harder applicable but dealt with. Almost greenfield

development

INPUT(2) Data consistency and quality should be ensured TYNDP TYNDP TYDNP

INPUT(3) Costs should be reported in disaggregated form Not clear Not clear Not clear

Immature technology

CALCULATION(4) CBA should concentrate on a reduced list of effects

Reduced list Reduced list Reduced list

CALCULATION(5) Distributional concers should not be addressed in the calculation of net benefits

OK OK OK

CALCULATION(6) The model used to monetise the production cost savings and gross consumer surplus needs to be explicitly stated

Explicit model available Explicit model available Explicit model available

CALCULATION(7) A common discount factor should be used for all projects

4 % for all 4 % for all Uniform; aligned with TYNDP & PCI

CALCULATION(8) A stochastic approach/scenario analysis should be used to address uncertainty

OK The need is mentioned, but not specified how to apply the tools

OK

OUTPUT(9) Benefits should be reported in disaggregated form

Not clear Not clear Regional and country effects should be reported Various

winners/losers

OUTPUT(10) Ranking should be based on monetisation Multi-criteria analysis Multi-criteria analysis, additional monetization of losses

Monetized ranking is suggested Various significant

externalities

TRAN

SPAR

ANCY

COORDINATION

COMPARABILITY

Selection of case studies: projects/ national regulatory frame or plan

Dynamic picture,idea on the longterm is that projectsget interconnectedto form a meshednetwork

6

Assessment of case studiesEWIC

(IRL-UK)COBRA CABLE

(NL-DK)ISLES

(SCO-IRL- N-IRL)Concern in the

ENTSO-E 1.0 and2.0 methodology

Phase Commissioned in September 2012 Final investment decision taken, expected to be in operation by 2019

In the study phase

EU funding “Project of European Interest”, included in (TEN-E) Priority Interconnection Plan. Received significant EEPR funding (110 m€)

On the 2013 and 2015 PCI list. EEPR funding received/allocated for studies and construction (86.5 m€)

On the 2013 and 2015 PCI list. The EU INTERREG IVa Program funded 1.6 m£ for ISLES I one and 0.9 m£ for ISLES II

INPUT(1) Project interaction must be taken into account in the project and baseline definition

No project interaction taken intoaccount

TOOT approach is applied and change incongestion rent of other interconnectorsis calculated

No interaction with other PCI projects istaken into account. Interaction betweenISLES clusters is analyzed partially.

Critical

INPUT(2) Data consistency and quality should be ensured

Ok Ok No TYNDP by local data is utilizedalthough from respected sources. /

INPUT(3) Costs should be reported in disaggregated form

Ok Ok Ok Harmonisationneeded

CALCULATION(4) CBA should concentrate on a reduced list of effects

Ok Ok Ok for the 2015 analysis. However, notthe ENTSO-E CBA 1.0. list is applied. /

CALCULATION(5) Distributional concerns should not be addressed in the calculation of net benefits

Ok Ok Ok/

CALCULATION(6) The model used to monetize the production cost savings and gross consumer surplus needs to be explicitly stated

Explicitly stated but not detailedmarket and network model used

Ok, explicitly stated and detailed marketand network model is used(details are not public)

Ok, explicitly stated and detailed marketand network model is used

/

CALCULATION(7) A common discount factor should be used for all projects

Ok, there was no common discountfactor determined thus the allowedWACC of EirGrid was used

Ok A very low discount factor is applied inthe 2012 analysis (2%) and no value isprovided in the 2015 analysis

/

CALCULATION(8) A stochastic approach/scenario analysis should be used to address uncertainty

Uncertainty is disregarded, noscenario or sensitivity analysis applied

Ok, 2 scenarios are applied plussensitivity analysis by varying total costand discount factor

Scenario and sensitivity analysis isapplied, although not using the TYNDPscenarios.

/

OUTPUT(9) Benefits should be reported in disaggregated form

Only the benefits for Ireland areconsidered

Ok, benefits are reported disaggregated Ok, benefits are reported disaggregated OkOUTPUT(10) Ranking should be based on monetization

Ok, full monetisation is applied Partial monetisation is applied, but a finalNPV value of the project is underlined.Additional indicators in non-monetarymetrics are mentioned more forinformational purposes

Both quantitative as qualitative cost andbenefit indicators are reported. No fullmonetization is conducted.

Harmonisationneeded

7

Conclusions

• Coordination: how to deal with project interaction?We (EU) do not want the best (individual) projects but the best project portfolio to be developed

How to deal with coordination/project interaction? - In the current institutional setting: application of 2 baselines

- Changing the institutional setting: a more regional approach is required⇒ Project promoters do not have the resources/information/incentives(?) to deal with this issue⇒ Regional group selecting the PCI projects should get more responsibility/resources

• Transparency (costs and benefits): raising trust and public acceptanceCases perform good but harmonisation in the reporting needed

• Comparability (monetization): where do the experts stop and politics start?A common method (≠ value) for the determination of indicators (e.g. SoS) is needed

8

Thank you for your attention, questions?

Contact:[email protected]

Statements/questions for the audience

- Some PCI projects receive generous public support (up to 75% funding inexceptional cases), shouldn’t these CBA documents be easier accessible andmore transparent?

- How high is the cost for a “pure” interconnector project to make anticipatoryinvestment in order to facilitate it’s inclusion in a meshed network later? Is thisstrongly technology dependent?

- How do you (project promoters) deal with interactions among PCI projects?Especially relevant in the case of merchant interconnectors.

- Would it be a good idea to ask for a ‘light’ CBA to access funding for studies anda ‘full’ CBA for funding for construction works?

- What about the idea to create a “North Seas ISO” in charge of the operation andlong term planning of the offshore (meshed) grid and then organize tenders forthe construction and ownership of individual lines making part of the plan of thisISO? This idea is based on experiences in the US and would be a way to tacklethe coordination problem, but radically changes the governance. 10

References

11

• The Union list of PCIs published in the official Journal of the European Union (27/01/2016) -COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2016/89

• THINK report 10- Cost Benefit Analysis in the Context of the Energy Infrastructure Package (01/2013) led by N.-H. von der Fehr

• THINK report 5 - Offshore Grids: Towards a Least Regret EU Policy (01/2012) led by F. Lévêque• NSCOGI – Final report – Working group 1: Grid configuration (11/2012)• ENTSO-E Guideline for Cost Benefit Analysis of Grid Development Projects – CBA 1.0 (02/2015,

approved by EC)• ENTSO-E Guideline for Cost Benefit Analysis of Grid Development Projects – CBA 2.0

(04/2016,draft for public consultation)• STORY - CBA for projects at distribution level, lessons learned from the transmission level

(05/2016, draft) by N. Keyaerts• Examples of collaboration and best practice in offshore grid connectivity to enable offshore

renewables (June 2015), sub report for ISLES II• Innovating grid regulation to regulate grid innovation: from Orkney Isles to Kriegers Flak via Italy

(2011) published in Renewable energy by L. Meeuws and M. Saguan• An offshore wind union? Diversity and convergence in European offshore wind governance (2015)

published in Climate Policy by O.Fitch-Roy• A Review of the North Seas Offshore Grid Modelling: Current and Future Research (2016)

published in Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews by J. Gorenstein Dedecca and R. Hakvoort

Annexes

12

Reduced list of effects

13

Assessement of the 4 methodologies

14

Coordination

Value of a projects is a function of the realisation of other projects

Captured by the baseline definition of a CBA analysis:ENTSO-E: one baseline (only TOOT, on voluntarity basis >1)ENTSOG: two baselines (TOOT and PINT)

Arguments against multiple baselines:Computational powerUncertainty about realisation other projects (information)

Pathways for improvement:Short-term: two baselines as minimum requirement by ENTSO-ELong-term: European institution could perform this (complex) analysis

Clustering vs complementary projects: improvement in ENTSO-E CBA 1.0 -> 2.0

ENTSO-E 1.0-2.0

ENTSOG ENTSO-E formarket design

# of baselines 1 2 Not applicable

15

Transparency

No explicity requirement to report: Disaggregated cost componentsGeographically disaggregated benefits

Why important:Checking the efficiency of the investment (disaggregated cost components)Comparing uncertain cost estimates easier when disaggregated, plus build-up of cost

databaseAid for CBCA decisions (cost components and geographically disaggregated benefits)

Arguments against disaggregation:Sensitive cost information? Potential disadvantage for project promotor in future auctions?

=> We do not argue to publish this information publiclyPolitically sensitive to disclose expected geographically disagreggated benefits?

Degree of disaggregation? Starting point: cost components already enumerated in themethodologies

ENTSO-E 1.0-2.0 ENTSOG ENTSO-E formarket design

Cost components X X X

Benefits per jurisdiction X X V

16

Comparability

Goal is to assess the net benefit and to rank projects -> One dimensional output needed (monetary)

We argue to go from non-transparent implicit weighting of indicators to full explicit monetisation

How?Union-wide methods should be agreed upon to estimate the monetary value of hard to quantify indicators (most prominently the VOLL1) ≠ one EU wide value for VOLL throughout the year. Who takes this responsability?

Additionally reporting the indicators (eg CO2 reduction of RES integration) possibly using othermetrics is still advised, but cautiousness should be excercised to avoid double counting

1Example: Guidelines of Good Practice on Estimation of Costs due to Electricity Interruptions and Voltage Disturbances, CEER, December 2010.

ENTSO-E 1.0-2.0

ENTSOG ENTSO-E formarket design

Type of CBA MCA MCA Pure CBA

17

owerontrol

Research Group&

Technical Perspective on Benefits of

Meshed DC Grids

Tim Green

owerontrol

Research Group&

2

Opening Thoughts

• Is it possible to consider technical perspective separate from

economic perspective?

• Grids need an investment case for their assets. Do DC Grids

have sufficient economic benefit from their technical features?

• Which way around do we want to view the problem?

• Are we looking for benefits of technical solution?

• Or do we have a problem and we are looking for the best solution?

owerontrol

Research Group&

3

Differences Between Transmission

Networks and Distribution Networks

BSP Primary

Transmission

• Role is bulk transfer of energy• Routes are all double circuits• Network is meshed to provide multiple

routes to loads and generators• EHV low loss network• Large degree of redundancy –

extremely low interruption rate

Distribution

• Role is to serve loads• Some generators, and increasing quickly• Structure is radial not meshed• Alternative routes available through switching • Double circuits used at higher levels, single circuits

at lower levels• Lower voltages than transmission and higher

losses.• Smaller degree of redundancy – low interruption

rate

Slide from

under-

graduate

module

owerontrol

Research Group&

4

Why build an offshore DC grid?

• No demand customers to supply within the grid• So what is resilience of a grid used for?• What is the value to a wind farm of a resilient connection?• What is the value to the host AC network? (Services as well as Energy)• What redundancy / asset-utilisation is implied by resilience provision?

• What is the “option value” of a grid?

owerontrol

Research Group&

5

Issues for Integration with Host AC Grid

• At times of high renewable energy

production, conventional generators

are stood down and the real physical

inertia of the AC system is reduced.

• Rates of change of frequency become

higher and frequency deviations larger

owerontrol

Research Group&

6

AC Grid Strength

• South East England is where several HVDC interconnectors land and is a region that has little synchronous plant and even that is being displaced by offshore wind farms.

• The short circuit ratio is low and reactive current during a fault is sought.

• Control interactions possible in weak grid

• Cascading failure through failure to ride-through network faults is a risk.

Source: System Operability Framework 2014, National Grid

owerontrol

Research Group&

7

Loss of In-feed Mitigation

Here, one of two 2.5GW DC-links

suffers an outage

Overload capability (set at 30%) of

the other link is used to reduce the

loss of in-feed and reduce the

frequency error

This action gives time for further

action to be planned

120.104.88.072.056.040.0 [s]

6000.

4700.

3400.

2100.

800.0

-500.0

3.18 GW With Overload

2.5 GW No Overload

DC Power Flows in HVDC LinksLink A Outage (-2.5 GW)

[MW]

DIg

SIL

EN

T

120.104.88.072.056.040.0 [s]

51.0

50.6

50.2

49.8

49.4

49.0

49.36 Hz

49.53 Hz

Grid FrequencyLink A Outage (-2.5 GW)

[Hz]

DIg

SIL

EN

T

owerontrol

Research Group&

8

• Device junction temperatures may become

an issue during overload.

• Dynamic Rating should be used to provide

large amount of extra power during start of

system events then reduce to a steady-

state overload rating

Thermal Implications of

Converter Overload

owerontrol

Research Group&

9

MMC Converter Ratings

Siemens MMC Technology

at 864 MW at ±320 kV

Alstom Sub-Module

at circa 1,000 A and 1,700 V

Voltage ripple on sub-

module capacitor

Commutation current

limit of IGBTs

Temperature of

IGBTs

Modulation

limit Available arm

voltage

owerontrol

Research Group&

10

Fault Management

• Need effective management of faults to

• provide continuity of export of wind farm

• avoid loss-of-infeed problems

• Lots of work done on various ideas but

are we reaching consensus?

• Possibly some interesting trade-offs

between speed and cost

Breaker from GEIRI (Beijing), has:nominal current of 1.5 kA;breaking current of 15 kA; nominal voltage of 200 kV

owerontrol

Research Group&

11

Control of Fault and Re-charge Conditions

Concerns are:

• Limit current to protect converters themselves

• Limit current for breaker / isolator to operate

• Recharge network and re-establish power flow

• Avoid loss penalty in normal use

• Keep equipment size small

• Ensure stability of host AC network

owerontrol

Research Group&

12

How quickly can fault

clearance occur?

What are the best

strategies for current

control?

Example six terminal

network

(i) fault detected,

(ii) disconnect ordered,

(iii) disconnect

complete

(iv) recharge start,

(v) recharge end.

owerontrol

Research Group&

13

Simulated network recovery timings for a fault at the NOR terminal of the

NOR-KIL cable on the six terminal network, varying the number of bipolar

AACs available to recharge the network

owerontrol

Research Group&

14

Impact of DC Fault Clearance on AC Grid

Frequency and voltage at points across the GB transmission system

following a 200 ms momentary outage of the HVDC study systems

owerontrol

Research Group&

15

Closing Remarks

• Clarity is needed over how technical features of DC grids create

economic benefits to balance cost

• Always need to look at counter-factual – how else could the same

benefits be provided?

• How are additional technical benefits of DC Grids (beyond energy

transfer and resilience) recognised in economic terms?

• Cost-effective provision of fault management within DC grid is

important step

• Benefits of services to host AC system are important for small AC

systems but will they become important for lager systems?

29/09/2016

sustainable energy for everyoneBenefits of a meshed offshore grid in the

North Seas Region

Edwin Haesen

© ECOFYS | |

Ecofys domains of expertise across the energy value chain

29/09/20162

Energy

Policies

Energy

Systems

and Markets

Urban

Energy

Climate

Strategies

and Policies

Sustainable

Industries

and Services

Policy & StrategyProduction, Trading,

Transport & DistributionProsumers, Industries

and Financiers

© L

ichtm

eist

er/F

oto

lia;

Vik

tor/

Foto

lia;

Did

iLav

chie

va/T

hin

ksto

ckphoto

s; E

yetr

onic

/Foto

lia;

Andre

y Arm

yagov/

Foto

lia

PWC/Tractebel/Ecofys study on North Seas meshed offshore grid

© ECOFYS | |

Our expertise areas across the entire energy value chain

29/09/20163

Business Areas

• Energy Policies• Climate Strategies and

Policies

• Energy Systems and Markets• WTTS

• Urban Energy• Sustainable Industries and

Services

Clients • Governments and non-profits

• Development banks• Increasingly corporates

aiming to adapt climate policies

• Energy supply companies, TSOs and DSOs and bio-energy suppliers

• Governments and authorities• Financial institutions

• Energy-intensive manufacturing, equipment, agro-food industries

• Corporations and financial institutions

• Branch organisations, governments and authorities

Services • Policy development, deployment and evaluation

• Strategy and regulation studies

• Energy and climate strategy design

• Conceptual energy solutions• Scenario and feasibility

studies• Emission trading system

and carbon pricing mechanism design

• Market design studies• Demand & production

forecasting• Energy and carbon asset

assessment• Risk assessment and

mitigation• Policy & strategy impact

assessment• Revenue model development• Operational consultancy

activities

• Design of implementation strategies

• CO2 emission reduction assistance

• Certification and labelling• Purchasing advice• Funding and subsidy advice• Energy knowledge transfer,

training and capacity building• Risk assessment and

mitigation

100% renewable energy, upscaling of climate initiatives

Policy & StrategyProduction, Trading,

Transport & Distribution

Prosumers, Industries and Financiers


© ECOFYS | |

EC studies on North Seas energy system

29/09/2016 PWC/Tractebel/Ecofys study on North Seas meshed offshore grid4

Benefits of a Meshed Offshore Grid in the Northern Seas Region• Compares the costs and benefits of a “meshed” offshore grid

with separate radial connections to shore for each wind farm

2014 • PWC • Tractebel• Ecofys

Regulatory matters concerning the development of the North Sea offshore energy potential • Identifies the existing regulatory barriers • Delivered a set of regulatory models, which would enable a

coordinated development of an offshore grid

2015/2016 • PWC • Tractebel• Ecofys

Baseline Environmental Assessment for the Grid in the Irish and North Seas• Give guidance on how to assess the adequacy of

environmental considerations of the aggregated energy plan at regional level

• Provide recommendations on how negative effects can be minimized and how positive effects can be optimized

2016 (ongoing)

• Ecofys• RPS

© ECOFYS | |

Scenario Definition

> Scenario 1: ENTSO-E Vision 4 Scenario 2030*

> Scenario 2: PRIMES reference scenario 2030

> Scenario 3: NSCOGI scenario

29/09/2016 PWC/Tractebel/Ecofys study on North Seas meshed offshore grid

Country Scenario 1 (based on

ENTSO-E Vision 4)

Scenario 2 (based on

PRIMES reference)

Scenario 3 (based

on NSCOGI)

Belgium 4.00 2.65 3.10

Germany 23.60 20.10 16.70

Denmark 5.54 3.00 1.20

France 9.94 11.77 4.49

Great Britain 40.19 22.86 17.00

Ireland 1.85 0.15 1.63

Netherlands 6.80 4.85 6.00

Norway 6.40 1.00 0.70

Sweden 1.40 0.34 0.33

TOTAL 100 67 51

* In 2016 BEAGINS project updated with EWEA High scenario and EC High RES scenario (80.8 GW)

7

© ECOFYS | |

Spatial Allocation of Offshore Wind

> Offshore wind capacity assigned to specific areas within each country zone based on following priorities:

1. Sites in operation & under construction in 2014 (same capacity)

2. Permitted sites, starting with lowest Levelised Cost of Energy (calculated with Ecofys Offshore Wind Cost Model)

3. Other planned sites, such as designated areas by national governments, starting with lowest LCoE (calculated with Ecofys Offshore Wind Cost Model)

4. Additional areas as needed – aiming for least constrained areas.


CAPEX Wind Turbine Supply

CAPEX Installation

CAPEX Electrical Supply

CAPEX FoundationSupply

Levelis

ed

Co

st o

f En

erg

y[€

/ M

Wh

]

Valu

e m

ap

pin

g

OPEX

Energy Yield

8

© ECOFYS | |

Identification of Grid Connection Points and Capacity

> Connection capacity is calculated using the tool SCANNER (Tractebel)

– Incorporation of ENTSO-E’s 2030 reference grid (TYNDP2012)

– The hosting capacity is the maximum injection capacity of a node, taking into account the N-1 criterion.

– Hourly differences, yearly average used.

> Optimal hosting capacity for scenario 1 is not sufficient in Belgium and Germany and in specific import areas.

> The obtained values not strictly binding for the installed capacity of offshore wind farms. Impact of interconnectors not taken into account.


Region Optimal hosting capacity

Belgium 2.2 GW

France 28.23 GW

Germany 21.53 GW

Great-Britain 49.27 GW

Ireland 4.06 GW

Netherlands 19.01 GW

10

© ECOFYS | |

Definition of Connection Routes Based on Radial and Meshed Configurations

> Radial: No coordination, each project is developed independently. Point-to-point connection of offshore wind farms from offshore substation to a suitable onshore substation and shore-to-shore interconnectors.

> Meshed: A coordinated onshore, offshore and interconnection development is considered using anticipated technology

> Meshed variants: The proposed meshed design for the whole of the Northern Seas region includes all of the solution variants.

> An iterative process was included to optimise the meshed grid capacities


© ECOFYS | |

Results Electrical Design: Capex/Opex optimisation


Scatter plot of the technology choice based on the rated power and

transmission length of each link considered for the radial scenario 1

15

© ECOFYS | |

Energy Densities and hourly wind profiles

> Representative PPC is used and scaled to size of each wind farm


Average wind speeds at 10 m for the

Northern Seas region (MERRA dataset)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 1001 2001 3001 4001 5001 6001 7001 8001

Win

d S

peed

(m

/s)

Hour of Year

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 1001 2001 3001 4001 5001 6001 7001 8001

Po

wer O

utp

ut

(M

W)

Hour of Year

16

© ECOFYS | |

Generation operational cost savings

> Figures including the cost of losses, reduction of CO2 costs (avoided wind curtailment) and the generation savings

> Key drivers for the reduction of the total annual cost of electricity supply :

– Level of offshore wind capacity

– Opportunities for energy exchanges


Generation cost reduction

Scenario 1 -5.1 b€



© ECOFYS | |

Generation investment cost savings

> Increased transfer capacities between power systems allow reducing the total installed capacity while keeping the same reliability level

> Avoided investments in new peaking units for all three scenarios

> Higher gains possible in scenarios with less intermittent production units


Investment cost reduction




© ECOFYS | |

Summary of the study

> Costs 4.9 to 10.3 B€ higher for meshed grids

> Important annual operational savings from 1.5b€ to 5.1 b€ thanks to optimized energy exchanges and offshore wind integration through a meshed grid

> Possibility of generation investment cost savings requiring coordination between Member States


CAPEXAnnual

operational costreduction

Investment cost reduction

Scenario 1 +7.8 B€ -5.1 b€ -3.4 b€

Scenario 2 +4.9 B€ -1.5 b€ -4.8 b€

Scenario 3 +10.3 B€ -3.4 b€ -7.8 b€

© ECOFYS | |

Regulatory matters concerning the development of the North Sea offshore energy potential


Overall project plan and

definition of responsibilities

Pilot projects

Cooperation agreement for allocation of

costs

Financing, realizing and

putting the grid into operation

Development of the RES plants and connecting them to the grid

© ECOFYS | |

Next?

Energy

•Overall RES ambition RES

•Security of (onshore) Supply

Economy

•Investment opportunities

•R&D•Business model transition (ports, logistics)

•Jobs and global export

Environment

•Integrated maritime planning

•Marine bio-diversity areas

•Sustainable fisheries


Do we understand all benefit categories of a North Seas energy system?

Do we agree on the need for action?

© ECOFYS | |

Find us

Virtually:

29/09/201625

Personally:

Ecofys GroupKanaalweg 15-G3526 KL Utrecht – The Netherlands

Ecofys Germany (Cologne)Am Wassermann 3650829 Cologne – Germany

Ecofys Germany (Berlin)Albrechtstraße 10 c10117 Berlin – Germany

Ecofys UK1 Alie StreetLondon E1 8DE – United Kingdom

Ecofys BelgiumPericles Building23, Rue de la ScienceWetenschapsstraat 231040 Brussels – Belgium


© ECOFYS | |

> Edwin Haesen (PhD)

> Senior Consultant

> Energy Systems & Markets

> [email protected]

> +32 (0) 2 880 41 05


© ECOFYS | |

Belgium

> Belgium

Note: Scenario 3 > Scenario 2

> Operational + Permitted + Planned = 2.8 GW

> New area is proposed for additional 1.2 GW (6.5 MW/km²) outside of shipping routes and other constraints

29/09/20

GW Scen 1 Scen 2 Scen 3

Operational 0.7 0.7 0.7

Permitted 1.1 1.1 1.1

Planned 1.0 1.0 1.0

New 1.1 0.3

Total 4.0 2.8 3.2

PWC/Tractebel/Ecofys study on North Seas meshed offshore grid28

© ECOFYS | |

Germany

> Germany

> 2.9 GW currently operational, 8 GW permitted & 25 GW in early planning phase, so sufficient capacity for all scenarios




Planned 13.0 9.4 5.8

New

Total 23.9 20.3 16.7


© ECOFYS | |

Denmark

> Denmark

> 1.2 GW currently operational & 5.5 GW in early planning phase, so sufficient capacity for all scenarios



Permitted

Planned 4.5 2.0

New

Total 5.7 3.2 1.2


© ECOFYS | |

France

> France


> Only considering English Channel

> 2 GW in early planning stage

> Additional areas proposed by France Energie Éolienne (up to 15 GW fixed platforms), divided into parcels (5 MW/km²)


Operational

Permitted

Planned 2.0 2.0 2.0

New 6.2 7.9 1.6

Total 8.2 9.9 3.6


© ECOFYS | |

Ireland

> Ireland

Note: Scenario 1 = Scenario 3

> Only considering Irish Sea & St. George’s Channel

> 25 MW permitted, 1.5 GW permitted & 1+ GW in planning stages, so sufficient capacity for all scenarios




Planned 1.0 1.0

New

Total 2.5 1.0 2.5


© ECOFYS | |

The Netherlands

> The Netherlands


> 0.2 GW operational, 3.2 GW permitted & large areas allocated by government, which were allocated into parcels (5 MW/km²)




Planned

New 3.6 1.5 2.7

Total 7.1 4.9 6.1


© ECOFYS | |

Norway

> Norway


> Only considering southern North Sea

> No large-scale operational or permitted sites

> Proposed areas from Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate, which were allocated into parcels (5 MW/km²)


Operational

Permitted

Planned

New 6.9 1.2 1.2

Total 6.9 1.2 1.2


© ECOFYS | |

Sweden

> Sweden


> Only considering western Baltic

> 110 MW operational & 1.8 GW permitted, so sufficient capacity for all scenarios




Planned

New

Total 1.6 0.8 0.8


© ECOFYS | |

United Kingdom

> United Kingdom

> Excluding Atlantic Ocean (Scotland)

> 3.6 GW operational, 2.8 GW permitted, 18 GW planned & 16+ GW possible (within Round 3 commitments, and territorial waters of Isle of Man, Northern Ireland & Scotland), so sufficient capacity for all scenarios




Planned 18.1 16.8 11.2

New 15.9

Total 40.4 23.2 17.7


reference group meeting hamburg, germany 29 … · 2020. 10. 2. · • entso-e guideline for cost...

Documents