Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
156 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Multi-Objective Transmission Expansion: An Offshore Wind Power Integration Case Study (2311.09563v3)

Published 16 Nov 2023 in eess.SY and cs.SY

Abstract: Despite ambitious offshore wind targets in the U.S. and globally, offshore grid planning guidance remains notably scarce, contrasting with well-established frameworks for onshore grids. This gap, alongside the increasing penetration of offshore wind and other clean-energy resources in onshore grids, highlights the urgent need for a coordinated planning framework. Our paper describes a multi-objective, multistage generation, storage and transmission expansion planning model to facilitate efficient and resilient large-scale adoption of offshore wind power. Recognizing regulatory emphasis and, in some cases, requirements to consider externalities, this model explicitly accounts for negative externalities: greenhouse gas emissions and local emission-induced air pollution. Utilizing an 8-zone ISO-NE test system and a 9-zone PJM test system, we explore grid expansion sensitivities such as impacts of optimizing Points of Interconnection (POIs) versus fixed POIs, negative externalities, and consideration of extreme operational scenarios resulting from offshore wind integration. Our results indicate that accounting for negative externalities necessitates greater upfront investment in clean generation and storage (balanced by lower expected operational costs). Optimizing POIs could significantly reshape offshore topology or POIs, and lower total cost. Finally, accounting for extreme operational scenarios typically results in greater operational costs and sometimes may alter onshore line investment.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (60)
  1. Jenkins et al, “Mission net-zero america: The nation-building path to a prosperous, net-zero emissions economy,” Joule, vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 2755–2761, 2021.
  2. Brinkman et al, “The north american renewable integration study (naris): A canadian perspective,” NREL, Tech. Rep., 2021.
  3. P. R. Brown and A. Botterud, “The value of inter-regional coordination and transmission in decarbonizing the us electricity system,” Joule, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 115–134, 2021.
  4. C. Morehouse, “Cost allocation remains key challenge for ferc ahead of transmission reform, glick says,” 7 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/cost-allocation-remains-key-challenge-for-ferc-ahead-of-transmission-reform/603597/
  5. A. Conejo et al, “Investment in electricity generation and transmission,” Switzerland: Springer, vol. 119, 2016.
  6. J. Pfeifenberger et al, “The Benefit and Cost of Preserving the Option to Create a Meshed Offshore Grid for New York,” Brattle Group, Inc, Tech. Rep., Dec 2021, prepared for NYSERDA.
  7. FERC, “Building for the future through electric regional transmission planning and cost allocation and generator interconnection,” pp. 26 504–26 611, 5 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/05/04/2022-08973/building-for-the-future-through-electric-regional-transmission-planning-and-cost-allocation-and
  8. “Pathway to 2030: A holistic network design to support offshore wind deployment for net zero,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.nationalgrideso.com/document/262676/download
  9. L. Gacitua, P. Gallegos, R. Henriquez-Auba, Á. Lorca, M. Negrete-Pincetic, D. Olivares, A. Valenzuela, and G. Wenzel, “A comprehensive review on expansion planning: Models and tools for energy policy analysis,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 98, pp. 346–360, 2018.
  10. A. Papavasiliou, S. S. Oren, and R. P. O’Neill, “Reserve requirements for wind power integration: A scenario-based stochastic programming framework,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 2197–2206, 2011.
  11. C. R. d. S. Costa and P. Ferreira, “A review on the internalization of externalities in electricity generation expansion planning,” Energies, vol. 16, no. 4, p. 1840, 2023.
  12. E. Gies, “The real cost of energy: All energy production has environmental and societal effects. but calculating them - and pricing energy accordingly - is no easy task,” Nature, vol. 551, pp. S145–S147, 2017.
  13. F. Munoz et al, “An engineering-economic approach to transmission planning under market and regulatory uncertainties: Wecc case study,” IEEE Trans. Pwr. Syst., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 307–317, 2013.
  14. T. Qiu et al, “Stochastic multistage coplanning of transmission expansion and storage,” IEEE Trans. Pwr. Syst., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 643–651, 2016.
  15. P. Rafaj and S. Kypreos, “Internalisation of external cost in the power generation sector: Analysis with global multi-regional markal model,” Energy Policy, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 828–843, 2007.
  16. S. Chen, Z. Guo, P. Liu, and Z. Li, “Advances in clean and low-carbon power generation planning,” Computers & Chemical Engineering, vol. 116, pp. 296–305, 2018.
  17. M. Rodgers, D. Coit, F. Felder, and A. Carlton, “Assessing the effects of power grid expansion on human health externalities,” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, vol. 66, pp. 92–104, 2019.
  18. D. Quiroga, E. Sauma, and D. Pozo, “Power system expansion planning under global and local emission mitigation policies,” Applied Energy, vol. 239, pp. 1250–1264, 2019.
  19. S. Chen, P. Liu, and Z. Li, “Multi-regional power generation expansion planning with air pollutants emission constraints,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 112, pp. 382–394, 2019.
  20. M.-C. Chiu, H.-W. Hsu, M.-C. Wu, and M.-Y. Lee, “Future thinking on power planning: A balanced model of regions, seasons and environment with a case of taiwan,” Futures, vol. 122, p. 102599, 2020.
  21. T. Lv, Q. Yang, X. Deng, J. Xu, and J. Gao, “Generation expansion planning considering the output and flexibility requirement of renewable energy: the case of jiangsu province,” Frontiers in Energy Research, vol. 8, p. 39, 2020.
  22. A. Pereira and E. Sauma, “Power systems expansion planning with time-varying co2 tax,” Energy Policy, vol. 144, p. 111630, 2020.
  23. S. L. Gbadamosi and N. I. Nwulu, “A multi-period composite generation and transmission expansion planning model incorporating renewable energy sources and demand response,” Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, vol. 39, p. 100726, 2020.
  24. D. Z. Fitiwi, M. Lynch, and V. Bertsch, “Enhanced network effects and stochastic modelling in generation expansion planning: Insights from an insular power system,” Socio-economic planning sciences, vol. 71, p. 100859, 2020.
  25. L. Sani, D. Khatiwada, F. Harahap, and S. Silveira, “Decarbonization pathways for the power sector in sumatra, indonesia,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 150, p. 111507, 2021.
  26. F. Verástegui, Á. Lorca, D. Olivares, and M. Negrete-Pincetic, “Optimization-based analysis of decarbonization pathways and flexibility requirements in highly renewable power systems,” Energy, vol. 234, p. 121242, 2021.
  27. F. Ribeiro, P. Ferreira, and M. Araújo, “Evaluating future scenarios for the power generation sector using a multi-criteria decision analysis (mcda) tool: The portuguese case,” Energy, vol. 52, pp. 126–136, 2013.
  28. M. Santos, P. Ferreira, M. Araújo, J. Portugal-Pereira, A. Lucena, and R. Schaeffer, “Scenarios for the future brazilian power sector based on a multi-criteria assessment,” Journal of cleaner production, vol. 167, pp. 938–950, 2017.
  29. W. Musial et al, “Offshore wind market report: 2021 edition,” National Renewable Energy Lab., Tech. Rep., 2021.
  30. ——, “Offshore wind market report: 2022 edition,” National Renewable Energy Lab., Tech. Rep., 2022.
  31. Y. Liu, Y. Fu, L.-l. Huang, Z.-x. Ren, and F. Jia, “Optimization of offshore grid planning considering onshore network expansions,” Renewable Energy, vol. 181, pp. 91–104, 2022.
  32. K. Meng et al, “Offshore transmission network planning for wind integration considering ac and dc transmission options,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 4258–4268, 2019.
  33. P. Taylor et al, “Wind farm array cable layout optimisation for complex offshore sites—a decomposition based heuristic approach,” IET Renewable Power Generation, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 243–259, 2023.
  34. M. Mehrtash, A. Kargarian, and A. J. Conejo, “Graph-based second-order cone programming model for resilient feeder routing using gis data,” IEEE Trans. Pwr. Del., vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 1999–2010, 2019.
  35. R. Jin et al, “Cable routing optimization for offshore wind power plants via wind scenarios considering power loss cost model,” Applied Energy, vol. 254, p. 113719, 2019.
  36. T. L. T. Nguyen, B. Laratte, B. Guillaume, and A. Hua, “Quantifying environmental externalities with a view to internalizing them in the price of products, using different monetization models,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 109, pp. 13–23, 2016.
  37. US EPA, “Report on the social cost of greenhouse gases: Estimates incorporating recent scientific advances,” National Center for Environmental Economics, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/epa_scghg_2023_report_final.pdf
  38. C. W. Tessum, J. D. Hill, and J. D. Marshall, “InMAP: A model for air pollution interventions,” PLOS ONE, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1–26, 2017.
  39. US EPA, “Mortality risk valuation,” 2023, accessed on: Oct 25, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/mortality-risk-valuation
  40. Y. Dvorkin, R. Fernandez-Blanco, Y. Wang, B. Xu, D. S. Kirschen, H. Pandžić, J.-P. Watson, and C. A. Silva-Monroy, “Co-planning of investments in transmission and merchant energy storage,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 245–256, 2017.
  41. J. M. Arroyo, L. Baringo, A. Baringo, R. Bolaños, N. Alguacil, and N. G. Cobos, “On the use of a convex model for bulk storage in mip-based power system operation and planning,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 4964–4967, 2020.
  42. B. Hobbs et al, “Improved transmission representations in oligopolistic market models: quadratic losses, phase shifters, and dc lines,” IEEE Trans. Pwr. Syst., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1018–1029, 2008.
  43. D. Krishnamurthy, W. Li, and L. Tesfatsion, “An 8-zone test system based on iso new england data: Development and application,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 234–246, 2015.
  44. US EIA, “Form eia-860 detailed data with previous form data (eia-860a/860b), 2021 form eia-860 data.”
  45. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), “Innovation landscape brief: Flexibility in conventional power plants,” https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2019/Sep/IRENA_Flexibility_in_CPPs_2019.pdf, Abu Dhabi, 2019, accessed: Nov 12, 2023.
  46. “ISO New England Website,” https://www.iso-ne.com/, 2023, accessed: Nov 1, 2023.
  47. Department of Energy, “Open Energy Data Initiative (OEDI),” https://data.openei.org/s3_viewer?bucket=nrel-pds-wtk&prefix=wtk-techno-economic%2Fpywtk-data%2F, accessed: Nov 1, 2023.
  48. I. J. Scott, P. M. Carvalho, A. Botterud, and C. A. Silva, “Clustering representative days for power systems generation expansion planning: Capturing the effects of variable renewables and energy storage,” Applied Energy, vol. 253, p. 113603, 2019.
  49. J. H. Merrick, “On representation of temporal variability in electricity capacity planning models,” Energy Economics, vol. 59, pp. 261–274, 2016.
  50. J. L. et al, “Chronic Exposure to Fine Particles and Mortality: An Extended Follow-up of the Harvard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009,” Env. Health Pers., vol. 120, no. 7, pp. 965–970, 2012.
  51. US EPA, “Power sector emissions data,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/power-sector/power-sector-emissions-data
  52. S&P Global Market Intelligence, “New england renewable policies to drive 12,500 mw of renewable capacity by 2030,” 2023, accessed on: Oct. 24, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/research/new-england-renewable-policies-to-drive-12500-mw-of-renewable-capacity-by-2030
  53. L. Vimmerstedt, S. Akar, B. Mirletz, A. Sekar, D. Stright, C. Augustine, P. Beiter, P. Bhaskar, N. Blair, S. Cohen et al., “Annual technology baseline: The 2022 electricity update,” National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States), Tech. Rep., 2022.
  54. J. Ho et al, “Regional energy deployment system (reeds) model documentation (2020),” National Renewable Energy Lab, Tech. Rep., 2021.
  55. X. Xiang et al, “Comparison of cost-effective distances for lfac with hvac and hvdc in their connections for offshore and remote onshore wind,” CSEE J. of Pwr. & En. Syst., vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 954–975, 2021.
  56. X. Xiang, M. M. Merlin, and T. C. Green, “Cost analysis and comparison of hvac, lfac and hvdc for offshore wind power connection,” 2016.
  57. Catapult Offshore Renewable Energy, “Wind farm costs,” https://guidetoanoffshorewindfarm.com/wind-farm-costs, 2024, accessed: 2024-02-26.
  58. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Epa’s power sector modeling platform v6 using ipm,” https://www.epa.gov/power-sector-modeling, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. EPA, 2024, accessed: 2024-03-01.
  59. E. Grubert, “Fossil electricity retirement deadlines for a just transition,” Science, vol. 370, no. 6521, pp. 1171–1173, 2020.
  60. PJM, “Energy transition in pjm: Resource retirements, replacements & risks,” https://www.pjm.com/-/media/library/reports-notices/special-reports/2023/energy-transition-in-pjm-resource-retirements-replacements-and-risks.ashx, Feb 2023, accessed March 1, 2024.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now