thailand power system flexibility study - microsoft

Thailand power system flexibility study

Launch webinar, 4 June 2021

Renewable Integration and Secure Electricity Unit

IEA 2021. All rights reserved.

Background of Thailand Power System Flexibility study

• In 2018, the IEA conducted a RE grid integration study to understand integration

challenges (in collaboration with MoEN, EGAT, EPPO, DEDE). Key findings were:

- Much more ambitious wind and solar targets are possible from the operational aspect

- Flexibility is key to integrate more solar and wind (both technical and contract)

• ‘Grid flexibility’ is one of the main elements in the 2018 PDP

• 2020-21 In-depth flexibility analysis to understand the value and impact of flexibility options

• Two main avenues to enhance its flexibility: Technical and contractual.

Contractual flexibility

• Analyse impacts of existing power

purchase and fuel supply contract

structures on system flexibility.

• Identify appropriate options for the

existing and future contract structures,

both for fuel supply and offtake of electricity.

Technical flexibility

• Analyse the value of technical flexibility

options from technical and economic

perspectives

• Flexible resources include flexible power

plants, battery energy storage systems

(BESS) and pumped storage hydro

Interaction between

technical and

contractual flexibility is

important


Generation mix in Thailand

• 47 GW installed capacity and around 30 GW peak demand. Gas-fired is the largest generation source

• 4% annual share of VRE (variable renewables: Solar PV and Wind) in 2020

• The VRE target in PDP: 4% in 2025, 6% in 2030 and 8% in 2037.

2%13%

7%

9%

62%

1%3% 3%

Generation Capacity 2019 (MW)

Bioenergy

Coal

DomesticHydropower

ImportHydropower

Natural gas

Solar

Wind

Other

Share of RE generation according to PDP, 2019, 2025 and 2030

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2019 2025 2030 (PDP) 2030 (15% VRE)

Renew

able

genera

tion (

TW

h)

Domestic hydro Imported hydro Bioenergy

Solar Wind Other renewables


Technical flexibility


Scenario overview

• Assessment in both short- (2025) and medium-term (2030)

• Considers different flexibility options and accelerated deployment of renewables

• Includes technical (generation, transmission) and contractual (fuel supply) constraints

Modelling year

2025

2030

Renewable scenarios

PDP 2025: 4% VRE

• 3.6 GW solar PV, 1.7 GW wind

PDP 2030: 6% VRE

• 8 GW solar PV and 1.7 GW wind

Accelerated 2030: 15% VRE

• 18 GW solar PV, 6 GW wind

Flexibility options

Power plant flexibility

• Minimum stable level (MW)

• Fast ramp rate (MW/min)

• Short start-up time (Minutes)

Storage

• Pumped storage hydro (PSH)

• Battery energy storage (BESS)

Gas contract flexibility


0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

30 000

35 000

40 000

45 000

06May

07May

08May

09May

10May

11May

12May

MW

Total load Net load

2019

16Sep

17Sep

18Sep

19Sep

20Sep

21Sep

22Sep

2030 – PDP target (6% VRE)

Net demand profiles for Thailand during peak period

• Greater variability of demand with more VRE. Larger gap between daily minimum and peak demand

• Higher ramping requirement in the evening peak on Sundays and public holidays

09Sep

10Sep

11Sep

12Sep

13Sep

14Sep

15Sep

2030 – ASEAN RE target (15% VRE)

Load and net load profiles during the peak period with different share of VRE, 2019 and 2030


Flexibility requirements with more solar and wind power

The larger gap between minimum and peak demand leads to greater flexibility requirements and operational

challenges that result in more frequent cycling of conventional power plants.

Gap between daily minimum and peak demand with 15% share of VRE in 2030

0

2 000

4 000

6 000

8 000

10 000

12 000

14 000

16 000

18 000

20 000Ja

n

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

MW

2019 (3% VRE)

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

2030 (Accelerated 15% VRE)

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

2030 (PDP 6% VRE target)


Greater flexibility requirements with more solar and wind generation

Greater variability in net load profiles with more solar PV and wind but it is still manageable. Hydropower and CCGT

provide a large amount of ramping requirements to meet evening peak when solar generation reduces.

Generation output by technology during peak demand periods

0

10

20

30

40

50

09 Sep

00:00

10 Sep

00:00

11 Sep

00:00

12 Sep

00:00

13 Sep

00:00

14 Sep

00:00

15 Sep

00:00

GW

2030 Base (6% VRE)

SolarPV Wind Storage Hydro Bioenergy Gas

Oil Coal Geothermal VRE curtailment Load Net Load

0

10

20

30

40

50

09 Sep

00:00

10 Sep

00:00

11 Sep

00:00

12 Sep

00:00

13 Sep

00:00

14 Sep

00:00

15 Sep

00:00

2030 (15% VRE)


Flexible power plants provide small operational cost savings

• Key characteristics of flexible

power plants: low minimum stable level; high ramp rates; fast start-up time.

• Flexible power plants can result in operational cost

savings to the system, but very small (<0.1%)

• The main cost saving

components are fuel and start-up costs

• Greater operational cost savings with higher VRE but these savings are still small

Annual operational cost savings from power plant flexibility in 2025 and 2030

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

- 20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

MSL flex 2025 MSL flex_high RE

2025

MSL flex 2030 MSL flex_ASEAN

RE 2030

2025 2030

VR

E p

enetr

ation (%

)

Mill

ion T

HB

Fuel cost Ramp cost Start and shutdown cost VOM cost VRE penetration

PDP

(4% VRE)

Accelerated RE

(6% VRE)

PDP

(6% VRE)

Accelerated RE

(15% VRE)

2025 2030

Lowering minimum stable level leads to greater cost savings compared to higher

ramp rates and faster start-up time.


Economic impact of flexible power plants

The annualised cost of retrofits power plants to make them more flexible (i.e. lower the minimum stable level)

outweighs the operational cost savings. This is due to constraints in fuel and power purchase contracts.

Operational cost savings relative to plant retrofit costs with 15% VRE, 2030

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Investment Cost savings Increased costs Net cost

Mill

ion T

HB

Fuel cost VOM cost Start and shutdown cost

Retrofit cost Ramp cost Net cost


Potential role of storage in providing flexibility

• Storage (either PSH or batteries) can make the system flexible by allowing storage of cheap energy during

off-peak periods and generating during peak periods

• Storage reduces VRE curtailment, although curtailment levels are very low (only occurring during New Year holidays where demand is very low)

Generation output during period of minimum net load with and without storage

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

01 Jan

00:00

01 Jan

06:00

01 Jan

12:00

01 Jan

18:00

02 Jan

00:00

02 Jan

06:00

02 Jan

12:00

02 Jan

18:00

GW

BASE ASEAN RE 2030

Geothermal Coal Oil Gas Bioenergy Hydro

Storage Wind SolarPV VREcurtailment Load Net Load

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

01 Jan 00:00 01 Jan 12:00 02 Jan 00:00 02 Jan 12:00

GW

2030 (15% VRE) with battery storage


Flexible power plants and storage can become complementary options

• With 15% share of VRE in 2030, a combination of flexible power plants and storage can provide further

cost savings, but still modest compared to the overall cost.

- The investment cost plant retrofits and storage still outweigh the operational cost savings.

- The small cost savings due largely to inflexible fuel supply and power purchase contracts

- 50

0

50

100

150

200

250

Flexible powe plants 800 MW BESS Flexible plants and

BESS

Mill

ion T

HB

Fuel cost Ramp cost Start and shutdown cost VOM cost

Operational cost savings from combined flexibility options at 15% VRE share in 2030

Flexible power plants


The value of technical options depends on fuel supply contracts

• The operational cost savings from a

flexible fuel supply contract are

significantly greater than the savings from

flexible power plants and storage options

- Minimum take-or-pay obligations

• A significant reduction in operational

costs as system operators can access a

large amount of latent flexibility in the

system and dispatch the system in a

more cost-effective manner.

0

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

1 400

1 600

1 800

2 000

Flexible power plants and

storage

Flexible contracts

Mill

ion T

HB


Operational cost savings from a flexible fuel supply

contract in 2030


Summary - Technical Flexibility

• As the share of VRE increases, so the power system’s need for flexibility will grow

- Higher ramping requirements and larger gap between daily minimum and peak demand

- Operational practices and planning should take into consideration these flexibility requirements.

• Thailand’s system has inherent technical flexibility through gas & hydro generation and transmission network. The system can technically integrate up to 15% share of VRE by 2030 (19GW solar, 6GW wind)

• Power plant retrofits, pumped storage hydro and battery storage can provide flexibility services but they

are not a priority in the short- to medium-term under the current context of Thailand’s power sector

- Contractual constraints (fuel contract and PPA) limit mobilising this technical flexibility by preventing the use of otherwise available and cost-optimal resources in the system.

• As Thailand accelerates its clean energy transition with more renewables, flexible power plants, pumped storage and battery storagecan become a complementary and economically viable option

- This is subject to institutional changes to fuel supply and power purchase contracts

- Mobilising available technical flexibility may call for regulatory incentives to facilitate and promote

the use of flexibility options


The IEA's participation in this ev ent was made possible through the

Clean Energy Transitions in Emerging Economies programme has

receiv ed funding f rom the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research

and innov ation programme under grant agreement No 952363.


Additional slides


The role of pumped storage hydro and battery storage

• New PSH can reduce the operational costs (lower start-up costs from thermal plants). The difference in

the cost savings between fixed-speed and variable-speed PSH is almost negligible

• Investing in PSH and BESS is not a priority in the short to medium term given small cost savings

- 40

- 20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

PSH_FS 2030 PSH_VS 2030 400 BESS 2030 800 BESS 2030

Mill

ion T

HB


0

10

20

30

40

PSH_FS

2030

PSH_VS

2030

400 BESS

2030

800 BESS

2030

MW

h

Operational cost savings from storage options at 15% VRE share, 2030

PSH

(Fixed speed)

PSH

(Variable speed)

Battery

(400MW)

Battery

(800MW)

VRE curtailment with different storage options

PSH

(FS)

PSH

(VS)

Battery

(400MW)

Battery

(800MW)


Potential role of flexible power plants to the system

• Lower minimum generation levels of thermal fleet can allow the system to better accommodate the

daily swing in net demand

Generation by fuel type during period of minimum net demand with 15% VRE

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

01 Jan

00:00

01 Jan

06:00

01 Jan

12:00

01 Jan

18:00

02 Jan

00:00

02 Jan

06:00

02 Jan

12:00

02 Jan

18:00

GW

Base 2030 ASEAN RE

Geothermal Coal Oil Gas Bioenergy Hydro

Storage Wind SolarPV VREcurtailment Load Net Load

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

01 Jan

00:00

01 Jan

06:00

01 Jan

12:00

01 Jan

18:00

02 Jan

00:00

02 Jan

06:00

02 Jan

12:00

02 Jan

18:00

GW

MSL flex_ASEANRE 2030


Thailand’s power system is capable of handling variable renewables

Thailand’s power system can potentially handle 15% share of VRE in 2030. Very low levels of annual VRE curtailment,

with less than 0.1%. VRE curtailment only occurs during the New Year holidays with extremely low net demand

Generation output by technology during low demand periods

0

10

20

30

40

50

01 Jan 00:00 01 Jan 12:00 02 Jan 00:00 02 Jan 12:00

GW

2030 Base (6% RE)

SolarPV Wind Storage Hydro Bioenergy Gas

Oil Coal Geothermal VRE curtailment Load Net Load

0

10

20

30

40

50

01 Jan 00:00 01 Jan 12:00 02 Jan 00:00 02 Jan 12:00

GW

2030 (15% VRE)


Potential economic benefits of flexible power plants

• The benefit of lower minimum stable

level on operational costs outweighs those of faster ramp rates and shorter start-up times in the model

• The retrofit costs associated with improving the MSL are also

considerably lower than the costs to improve the start-up time and ramp rates

Operational cost savings relative to retrofit costs, 2025

- 50

0

50

100

150

200

MSL flex 2025 Plant flex 2025

Mill

ion T

HB

Fuel cost Ramp cost

Start and shutdown cost VOM cost

Retrofit cost Net cost


Storage and renewables can contribute in providing system services

Power systems need to reward and incentivise flexibility and capacity contributions of different technologies in

providing flexibility and stability services, which they are technically capable of

Share of different technologies in providing in energy and system services

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Thermal Hydro Geothermal Variable renewables Other renewables Storage

0% 50% 100%

Stability

Ramping

flexibility

Energy

2019 (4% VRE) 2030 (15% VRE)

Peak

capacity / adequacy


Greater flexibility requirements with more solar and wind power

The highest upward ramps occur in the holiday seasons. With 15% share of VRE, the highest 3-hour upward ramps

could reach 13.2 GW (~75 MW/minute) or 50% of daily peak demand in 2030

Daily peak 3-hour upward ramping as % of daily peak demand

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

% o

f daily

net peak

dem

and

2030 (6% VRE) 2030 (15% VRE)


The impact on power system stability depends on the level of VRE

• System inertia decreases with higher share of VRE due to the displacement of synchronous generator

• Inertial can be a key challenge for the system with a high instantaneous VRE infeed (>50%)

• Initial approximation shows reasonable levels of inertia in Thailand’s system (>40GW.s)

• Dynamic studies are required to determine inertial requirement to limit RoCoF to a certain level (e.g.

Texas, Ireland and GB)

020 00040 00060 00080 000

100 000120 000140 000160 000180 000200 000

25Dec

26Dec

27Dec

28Dec

29Dec

30Dec

31Dec

MWs2030 Base (6% VRE)

High to low rangeof inertia

020 00040 00060 00080 000

100 000120 000140 000160 000180 000200 000

25Dec

26Dec

27Dec

28Dec

29Dec

30Dec

31Dec

2030 (15% VRE)

A range of system inertia in Thailand based on high and low estimates

thailand power system flexibility study - microsoft

Documents