SQSS Industry Workshop 21 June 2012

Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight line.

Welcome
Health and Safety Introductions Agenda for rest of the day

Agenda
10:10 - 10:20 10:20 - 11:15 SQSS governance Recent SQSS developments and update on ongoing modifications ENTSO-E interaction with SQSS Future SMARTer Transmission Networks and Impact on SQSS Interconnector Workgroup Progress Industry Input / open discussion
3

11:15 11:35 11:35 12:15

12:15 12:30 12:30 13:00

SQSS Governance

Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight line.

Thomas Derry (National Grid)

Presentation outline
Brief Background Current SQSS Review Panel Modification Process SQSS Website

Brief Background
Review Panel developed governance proposals in 2011 Industry Consultation (15 July 05 September 2011) Five supportive responses received Refined and developed proposals further based on comments Produced final conclusions document (05 March 2012) Terminology alignment with industry codes New Panel members Revised SQSS Objectives with new European Objective Clarification of Panel Functions New governance arrangements went live 31 March 2012
6

Current SQSS Review Panel

Chair David Wright Secretary James Cooper Members Distribution Alan Creighton Generation Simon Lord NGET Andrew Hiorns, Xiaoyao Zhou OFTOs Sean Kelly, Geoff Singleton SHETL Brian Punton, Bless Kuri SPT Cornel Brozio, Dave Carson Authority Sheona Mackenzie
7

Modification Process
Available online in the Industry Governance Framework document

Modification Process
Modification Proposal
Proposal

SQSS Panel Review Modification Register

Agenda, Minutes & Papers

SQSS Panel determine progression

Workgroup

Agenda & Minutes

Industry Consultation

Consultation & Response Proforma

Produce and submit Modification Report

Report

Modification Register

Authority review and make determination

Authority Decision Documentation available online

SQSS Website
Expect future changes What can I find here?
SQSS Review Panel information (contact details, meeting dates) Modification Register Associated documents

Address: http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Codes/gbsqss code/

10

Questions?
Contact: Thomas Derry thomas.derry@nationalgrid.com 01926 65 4208

11

Recent SQSS developments: GSR008

Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight line.

Regional Variations and Wider Issues Vandad Hamidi (National Grid)

GSR008 - Regional Variations and Wider Issues

Recommendations: The requirement to consider an N-1-1 condition at peak demand in design studies in England and Wales should be relaxed The use of dynamic ratings in operational timescales should be explicitly referred to Flexibility should be allowed in setting the reactive output of generators in background conditions across GB, as is currently permitted in Scotland Changes to the degree to which embedded generation is considered when assessing demand security should be made to align the NETS SQSS more closely with P2/6 Presentational changes should be made to demand security table to better align with P2/6 Clarifications on the applicability of demand and generation criteria to composite groups should be made Generation trips should be considered when assessing compliance with the standard Flexibility should be introduced into voltage limits to allow more efficient system design and operation where there is no impact on customers

13

GSR008 - Regional Variations and Wider Issues

Progress:

Report submitted to Ofgem Autumn 2011

Ofgem consultation recently completed

4 consultation responses currently being considered

14

SQSS Workgroup Updates GSR010

Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight line.

Generator Connections Workgroup Cornel Brozio (SPT)

Generation Connections
Customer Choice
Problem with current arrangements
Many smaller connecting customers exercise customer choice to choose a nonSQSS compliant connection.
lowers their connection charge potentially facilitate an earlier connection to the grid

TO required to design and document a bespoke connection arrangement for each customer Complex for the customer to enable them to understand the options available. No explicit Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) justification as to what may be considered appropriate.

Proposed solution
Reference connection methodologies for 9 classes of generation

16

Generation Connections
Connection Methodologies

Connection method 1 For 0 50 MW generation

Connection method 4 For 100 MW 300 MW wind generation

It is recommended these changes become the 9 standard onshore connections for different generation sizes CUSC Panel to separately consider any charging changes
17

Generation Connections
Onshore Required Connection Methodologies
Generation Group A B C D E F G H Min 0 50 100 300 700 1320* 1800** 3600*** Max 49 99 299 699 1319 1799 3599 <40% e.g. Wind 1 4 4 5 6 7 8 9 40-70% e.g. biomass 1 2 5 6 6 7 8 9 >70% e.g. CCGT 1 2 5 6 7 7 8 9

* Normal infeed loss ** Infrequent infeed loss *** 2 x infrequent infeed loss

18

Generation Connections
Consultation
Industry Consultation launched 18th June Response deadline 17th August Consultation documents available on National Grid website:
http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Codes/gbsqsscode/Modifications/GSR010/index.htm

19

Generation Connections
Consultation Questions
1.

Minimum System Connections for Generation Connections do you agree that the proposed modification meets the principles and/or objectives of the SQSS?

2. Minimum System Connections for Generation Connections do you have any comments on possible commercial implications that you would wish the CUSC Panel to take into consideration? Which CUSC option would be preferable - redefine when compensation should be paid (but with potentially higher TNUoS) or maintain the existing arrangements? 3. System Resilience for generation at single circuit risk do you agree that the proposals are appropriate and satisfy the principles and/or objectives of the SQSS? 4. Revision of Selected Definitions - do you agree that the proposed modification provide clarity and better meets the principles and/or objectives of the SQSS? 5. Standard Connection Schemes - do you agree that the proposed modification provide useful guidance and transparency and satisfy the principles and/or objectives of the SQSS? 6. Location of Grid Entry Points are you satisfied that the proposals further the principles and/or objectives of the SQSS?

20

SQSS Workgroup Updates GSR011

Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight line.

Offshore Workgroup Vandad Hamidi (National Grid)

GSR011 Offshore workgroup

Conclusions: Economics of Round 3 connections similar to those of Rounds 1 and 2 No justification to change standard Connection capacity of 100% TEC is appropriate The recommendations of GSR009 - wind scaled to 70% in infrastructure analysis can be applied to networks with high volumes of offshore wind generation In designing the transmission system the following should be considered as secured events: an N-1 outage of an offshore circuit an N-1-1 outage involving an offshore circuit on prior outage followed by either an offshore circuit or an onshore circuit fault outage an N-1-1 condition with an onshore circuit containing a cable section on prior outage, followed by an offshore circuit fault outage. This is consistent with the GSR008 proposals for considering N-1-1 events in planning. Short duration losses of a DC link carrying more than the Infrequent Infeed Loss can be tolerated where parallel routes can increase their flows
22

GSR011 Offshore working group

Progress:

Draft working group report submitted to May 12 Review Panel Final report to be submitted to July 12 Review Panel Industry consultation August / September

23

Infeed losses
Response held to cover limit freq fall to 0.8Hz for 1.8GW generation loss (from 2014) For loss above 1.8 GW, can contain fall using same response if restore some generation quickly enough Amount of restoration required increases with greater time delay

24

Loss of 2GW for limited time

Loss of 2 GW wind (27 GW system - high wind FFR)

5 4.5 Maximum Allowed Time (s) 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 200 300 400 500 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Wind Reconnected (MW)

25

SQSS Workgroup Updates - GSR013

Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight line.

Offshore Infeed Loss Risk Xiaoyao Zhou (National Grid)

Offshore infeed loss risk

Normal and infrequent infeed loss HVDC Converter fault HVDC converter failure rate Power infeed loss after HVDC fault Mitigation factor offshore cable failure Cable failure rate Multiple cable failure due to anchor dragging Mitigation factor

27

SQSS infeed loss risk limits post 2014

The Security and Quality of Supply Standard considers two infeed loss risk limits Normal: 1320 MW, to avoid a deviation of system frequency by more than 0.5Hz. Infrequent: 1800 MW, to avoid a deviation of system frequency outside the range 49.5Hz to 50.5Hz for more than 60 seconds.

28

Normal Limit Count of Events

Electricity Act requires: maintain the frequency within 49.5 to 50.5Hz, save in exceptional circumstances
CEGB reckoned (legal opinion) that the man in the street would regard up to 2 events pa as exceptional circumstances N.Grid in 1994, re-judged that 4 events pa could be exceptional circumstances

29

Beyond the Infrequent Limit

For instantaneous losses >1800MW, we have the Defence Measure of Low Frequency (LF) relays; which shed demand in 5% blocks Operated once in anger on 26/May/2008 (restoration ~ 40 minutes) What is instantaneous? N.Grid have no formal policy on this: as fast as practicable; without incurring costs prior to the first fault Certainly we do not restore Response within 5 minutes of a first 1000+MW Loss On average, given Fast Reserve used, we restore Response upto 20 minutes of a first Loss

30

HVDC Forced Outage Rates (FOR)

Frequency of converter fault
Typical limit based on CIGRE report = 1.4 per year Normal infeed loss risk limit applies

Frequency of cable faults

Assume 1 forced outage/10 years Infrequent infeed loss risk limit applies

31

Symmetrical monopole

converter outage incurs 100% energy unavailability 1800MW lose instantaneously; does not meet SQSS requirements (Normal infeed loss risk limit applies)

32

Bipole with neutral return via third conductor

Pole outage incurs 50% energy unavailability 900MW lose instantaneously, within the normal infeed loss risk Third conductor represents significant additional cost to the project
33

Bipole with neutral return via sea electrodes

Pole outage incurs 50% energy unavailability 900MW lose instantaneously, within the normal infeed lose risk Short duration ground return current until reconfiguration Metallic return transfer breaker (MRTB) commutates current back to cable following reconfiguration Environmental issues under investigation, not been used in UK system
34

Bipole with no neutral return

Pole outage incurs 100% energy unavailability until dc side reconfigured 1800MW lose instantaneously and 900MW recovered following reconfiguration For 1800MW HVDC, if the DC reconfiguration can be done within 1.35s second and recover half of the capacity (900MW); the system frequency can be kept above 49.5HZ; if not can not meet the SQSS requirement
35

Bipole with no return with quick reconfiguration

50.00

49.90

Frequency [Hz]

49.80

49.70

49.60

900MW back at 2.35s 900MW back at 2.4s 900MW back at 2.45s

49.50

49.40 1.00 1.99 3.00 4.01 5.02 6.03 7.04 8.05 9.06 10.07 11.08 12.08 13.08 14.08 15.08 Time [s] Note: Fault is at 1s

36

SQSS recommendation for HVDC converter fault

The Converter fault remains at a frequency which should be covered down to the Normal Infeed risk Two configurations can meet the SQSS requirements No change to current SQSS

37

Cable Separation Risk

N.Grid prefers that identifiable events do not lose Infeed > 1800MW Near-adjacent losses of infeed within 10-15 minutes pose a risk of a low frequency incident IF: we want to cover the Ship Dropping Anchor risk (speed 10-20 knots), we have to separate cables by 10-20 knots x 0.17-0.25hr = 3.1 to 9.3 km This must be completely impracticable for most large offshore windfarms
If the risk is only 1 in 100year per cable-route, x 0.35 (probability that offshore wind output > 50% of rating) = 1 in 300year, the risk is certainly not worth covering

IF: we want to cover the Ship Dragging Anchor risk (speed 0.5knots), we have to separate cables by 0.5 knots x 0.17-0.25hr = 150-250m
This appear a more reasonable proposal If the risk is 1 in 20year per cable-route, 0.35 (probability that offshore wind output > 50% of rating) = 1 in 60year, this approaches credible
38

SQSS review recommendation on cable separation

Possible proposal to separate the cable by 250m but it is not recommended by working group for the following reasons: There are a number of ~ 1-in-100year onshore Infeed loss risks of 2000-5000MW. A few extra offshore risks would not give an overwhelming case for mitigation. OFTOs are already under incentives to minimise downtimes of valuable wind connection assets. It is not clear that an SQSS requirement adds much, to what OFTOs will strive towards anyway. Good practice on laying offshore cables already typically leaves a separation of 100-200m, in order to gain unfettered access to a cable in case of fault. Hence a requirement of 250m separation adds little. Circumstances along individual cable routes will vary. Difficult seabed conditions may naturally drive a section of route towards close cable separation. A blanket requirement for 250m separation does not respect such individual considerations.
39

ENTSO-E Network Code Development and SQSS

Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight line.

Vandad Hamidi SMARTer System Performance Manager National Grid SQSS Public Workshop June 2012

European Network Code Development

Grid Code Requirement Variations between different TSOs

41

European Network Code Development

European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E) 41 TSO Members:
serving 525 million citizens, 880 GW generation, 270,000 km transmission lines, (over 220 kV) 3,300 TWh/Year Demand, 400 TWh/ Year Exchange.

42

European Network Code Development

Main tasks:
Establishment of network codes Ensure coordination of network operation by common network operation tools Develop a ten-year network development plan Planning Standard (Project Evaluation Rules) Publish annual work programme, annual report and annual summer and winter generation adequacy outlooks

43

European Network Code Development

A generic grid code format; the structure, designations, figures, method of specification, definitions and units are fixed and agreed upon. Technical requirements which will maximise efficiency for all parties and in particular benefit for:
Manufacturers, who will be required only to develop common hardware and software platforms; Developers, who will benefit from reduced development costs (connection cost, cost of particular type of turbine, etc.); Consumers, who will benefit from lower costs; System operators, especially those who have yet to develop their own grid code requirements for new technologies.

44

ENTSO-Es Ultimate Goal

Facilitating Integration of Renewables Maintaining Security of Supply Facilitating the Market

45

European Network Code Development

Grid Connection Framework Guidelines result in the following Network Codes:
Requirements for Generators (RfG) Demand Connection Code (DCC) HVDC Connection Code (HCC)
Priority (expected at the end of 2012) Starting in 2013 To Follow on shortly thereafter

Connection Procedures Code (CPC)

46

NC RfG Harmonization Principles

Rather than complete harmonization of all requirements for all generating units which is neither pragmatic nor cost effective, the document provides a consistent set of requirements for all generation under 4 categories and allows for regional differences across 5 areas. Four Categories of NC RfG General and Specific Requirements
General Requirements Apply to all Synchronous Specific Requirements Non-synchronous Offshore (AC Connection)*

Five Regional Requirements

Continental Europe Nordic States Great Britain Ireland Baltic States

In addition, Power Generating Modules (PGM) are divided into 4 Types ranging from Type A (down to 0.8 kW) up to Type D with units above 30 MW or connected at or above 110kV.
* All offshore DC Connections will be Discussed in HVDC Connection Code 47

RfG- Offshore CP Interaction with SQSS

Onshore Cable

Sub-Sea Cable

AC Grid

Intertidal Cable

WTG

WTG

WTG

WTG

0.95 PF Lead/Lag No Change

Unity PF No Change

WTG WTG

WTG

WTG

WTG

WTG

48

RfG- Offshore CP Interaction with SQSS

This Arrangement is currently not allowed under the existing Grid Code
WTG WTG WTG WTG WTG WTG WTG WTG WTG WTG WTG WTG WTG WTG WTG WTG WTG WTG

AC Grid

0.95 PF Lead/Lag

0.98 PF Lead/Lag
49

WTG WTG

Demand Connection Code Interaction with SQSS

Frequency Response Frequency Reserve Reactive Power
MVAR exchange between T & D & power factor limits

Voltage withstand capabilities Frequency withstand capabilities

50

ENTSO-E Network Codes, and SQSS

Conclusions ENTSO-E Network Codes do not have any direct influence on HOW European TSOs design their own Network The impact will be mainly through changes on the Grid Connection Codes and may require updating the national design standards (i.e. SQSS in GB) RfG Code will have very little material impact on SQSS (Chapter 2 Studies mainly intended for Generation Connection) Future Codes: DCC Code is still under development (the impact on SQSS is likely to be on Chapter 3 Studies and how Demand is treated i.e. Distinguishing between Responsive and Non-Responsive, Voltage withstand Capability etc.) Also the reactive power exchange between T&D network may require slight modification of Chapter 4 study Procedure. HVDC Connection Code is yet to be drafted; it is expected that it will mainly cover System Performance issues.
51

Discussion & Questions?

52

Future SMARTer Transmission Networks and Impact on SQSS

Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight line.

Vandad Hamidi SMARTer System Performance National Grid Warwick UK

Outline
Challenges for GB Power System The issue of Transmission Constraint Integrated Offshore Networks Western / Eastern HVDC Project Series Compensation Dynamic Thermal Rating Phasor Measurement Unit (PMU) Automation of QBs

54

Chart example
What are the targets: 1990 593 Mt CO2 2020 438 Mt CO2 2030 332 Mt CO2

So far 19% reduction achieved equivalent of removing 22m passenger vehicles from the UK

55

Offshore Windfarm Development

N NS

Offshore wind capacity

To meet 2020 targets* Already contracted

* against Gone Green scenario

16GW 27GW

le Moy

Dogger Bank

EW IC

Hornsea

or N

fo

lk

Round 1 Round 2 Round 2+ Round 3

itN Br

ed

Nemo
IFA

56

NORWAY

Stepwise evolution to a European supergrid

N NS

DENMARK

GERMANY

THE NETHERLANDS,
it Br d Ne

Nemo
IFA

BELGIUM,

57
FRANCE

Transmission Constraint
Historic power flows generally north south Future power flows vary in time and direction

58

Key Development Areas

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM REINFORCEMENTS
D ounreay T hurso Mybster

REINFORCED NETWORK
400kV Sub stations 275kV Substations 400kV CIRCUITS 275kV CIRCUITS Major Generatin g Sites Including Pum ped Storage

Stornoway

C as sley D unbeath

Lairg

THE SHETLAND ISLANDS

Brora

Shin

Grudie Bridge Conon Ardmore D eanie Dunvegan Luichart

M ossford Alness Orrin D ingwall Elgin Macduff Fras erburgh St. Fergus

Culligran Aigas

Keith Keith N airn Blackhillock

Kilmorack Beauly F asnakyle

Inverness

Strichen Peterhead

Connected at 400kV Connected at 275kV Hydro G eneration

Scotland
Driven by onshore/offshore renewables

Dy ce Broadford Ceannacroc Glen M orrison Foyers Fort Augustus Inv ergarry Boat of Garten Tarland Quoich C raigiebuckler Kintore Woodhill Persley W illowdale Clay hills Redm oss

Under Construction or ready to start Construction subject to consents

F iddes Fort W illiam Rannoch Erroc hty Tumm el Bridge Cashlie Lochay T ay nuilt C ruachan Nant Inveraray Sloy
Devonsi de W his tlefield Sti rl ing K inc ardine Dunferm li ne Longannet Iverk eithing G rangem outh Tel for d Rd. B rox burn Gor gi e B athgate Li vi ngston Cl ydes M il l B usby W hitelee Ki lm arnoc k Town Newar thil l Curri e

Errochty Pow er Station Clunie Lunanhead T ealing Dudhope Arbroath Milton of Craigie Bridge of D un

Reinforcements in Developm ent. Pre - Constru ction Activities only

Lyndhurs t D almally Killin Finlarig Charleston Burghmuir

G lenagnes

D udhope

Series Capacitors

Clachan

St. Fillans SCO TTISH H YDR O-ELECT RIC TRAN SMISSION Glenrothes

Cupar

Lev en

W estfield
Redhous e Gl enni ston M oss morr an

Port Ann Dunoon

S pango V all ey Dev ol M oor Hel ens burgh S trathleven E rsk ine

B onny bridge

S hrubhi ll Coc kenzie Por tobell o W hi tehouse Kai mes

Dunbar

Torness

Inverkip

Cumbernauld Lam bhi ll E asterhous e

Hunter ston Farm

Nei l ston

Berwi ck W is haw S tr athaven East Ki lbri de South B l ac kl aw Linm il l G al ashiel s

H unters ton
Ki lwi nni ng S altc oats

C arradale

M eadowhead

Ecc les

Kilmarnock South Ayr C oy lton

Coalburn SP TR AN SMISSION LTD. Elvanfoot

Hawic k

M ay bol e

HVDC Link increases capacity by up to 1.8 GW 2018

NGC Blyth Fourstones

East Coast
Driven by offshore renewables & Nuclear generation

Gretna Auchencrosh
Newton Stewart Dum fri es E cc lefechan

Chapelcros s
Gl enl uce

Harker

Tongland

Stella W est

Tynemouth South Shields West Boldon Offerton H aw thorne Pit H art Moor

Spennym oor Saltholme N orton

Hartlepool Tod Point Grangetown Greys tones

Lackenby

HVDC Link increases capacity by up to 1.8GW 2015

Heys ham

H utton

Re con ductor + Series Capa citors in cre ase B6 by 1GW 20 15

Quernmore

Poppleton Bradford W est Kirkstall Sk elton Grange

Osbaldwick Thornton

HVDC Link from Humb er to Walpole provides 3GW offshore wind/CCGT 2018
Creyke Beck Saltend North Saltend South Killingholm e H um ber Refinery Keadby South H umber Bank

Stanah

Advance asset replacement at Deeside 400kV substation.

Padiham Penwortham Rochdale

Monk Fry ston Drax Eggborough

Elland Ferrybridge

W ylfa

Additional 400kV double circuit to Pentir +3G W new g ene ration capacity offshore/Wylfa

Pentir D inorwig

W ashway Templeborough Thorpe W hitegate Kears ley Farm W es t Marsh Kirkby South M elton Stalybridge Lister Manches ter Pitsmoor Stock sbridge D rive R ainhill Aldwarke Bredbury Winco Bank Carrington Birkenhead Thurcroft Neepsend D aines F iddlers Sheffield City F erry Brins worth Jordanthorpe Frods ham C apenhurst N orton Lees M ac clesfield Chesterfield Deeside High M arnham Staythorpe

Grim sby W est

West Burton

Cottam

Complete Bramford Substation and new 400kV line to Braintree 2016 Capacity for 5GW wind/nuclear CCG T.
Bick er Fenn

South & West

Driven by nuclear / wind generation

Ffestiniog

Legacy

Cellarhead

Willington Trawsfynydd Ratcliffe W alpole Spalding North N orwich M ain

Rugeley Ironbridge

D rakelow

Shrew sbury

New Circuit for 710M W contracted onshore wind 2015

Bushbury W illenhall Bustleholm Penn Hams N ec hells H all Ocker Coventry H ill Oldbury Berks well Kitw ell

Enderby

Bishops W ood

Feckenham

Grendon Eaton Socon Patford Bridge East Claydon Leighton Buzzard Sundon W ym ondley

Burwell M ain

Siz ew ell

Bram ford

Pelham Braintree R ye H ouse W altham C ross

Rassau Im perial Park Cilfynydd U skm outh

Walham

Brimsdown Cow ley Amers ham M ain Culham Didcot Iver N.H yde Laleham M elksham W atford

Pem broke

Swansea North Baglan Bay M argam Pyle

W hitson Iron Ac ton Seabank

Upper Boat Alpha Steel Cow bridge Aberthaw

Minety

New 400kV CCT between Hinkley & Seabank provides capacity for offshore wind CCGT/Nuclear
Alv erdiscott

T rem orfa Cardiff East Bram ley

H ac kney Els tree Rayleigh M ain Tottenham R edbridge W arley M ill Hill Willesden Coryton Barking W es t T hurroc k N orthfleet East Ealing Singlewell Grain T ilbury City R d W .Ham St J ohns New H urst W ood Kingsnorth C ross Rowdown Beddington W imbledon Littlebrook Kems ley Canterbury N orth

W est W ey bridge Chessington Fleet

H inkley Point Bridgwater Bolney Taunton Nurs ling Ninfield Dungeness Marchw ood Ax minster Exeter Mannington Faw ley Lovedean Botley W ood E de F Sellindge

C hickerell Langage Indian Queens Landulph

Abham

ISSUE A 02-12-08 41/177609

C Collins Bartholomew Ltd 1999

Plus extensive offshore Transmission required

59

Activity 1. Integrated Offshore Networks

60

Activity 1. Integrated Offshore Networks

61

Activity 1. Integrated Offshore Networks

Rapid power reversal possible (simply change the direction of current) No Filter Switching Time etc. G G Onshore Substation 1 Full Reactive Power Support Regardless of Direction Onshore Grid of Active Power Onshore Substation 1
62

Windfarm

Activity 1. Integrated Offshore Networks

System Performance
1.00
Cluster 3: Grid / Non-Frequency response H6; psie: 0.20 / 12.1 deg Cluster 4: Grid / SCCL-1; speed: 1.00 / 0.0 deg
DIgSILENT

Cluster 1: Grid / Induction Machine Load; speed: 0.47 / 0.9 deg Grid / Pump storage; speed: 0.46 / 0.8 deg Grid / Non-Frequency response H4; speed: 0.34 / 0.1 deg Grid / Non-Frequency response H6; speed: 1.00 / 0.0 deg

1.00

0.50

0.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.50

1.00

-1.00

-0.50

0.50

1.00

-0.50

-0.50

-1.00 Controllability of mode: -0.112 +0.126*j Magnitude: 0.168 1/s, Angle: 131.611 deg Period: 49.904 s, Frequency: 0.020 Hz Damping: 0.112 1/s, Ratio of Amplitudes: 265.250 Min. contribution: 0.100

-1.00 Controllability of mode: -0.283 +0.039*j Cluster 1: Magnitude: 0.286 1/s, Angle: 172.240 deg Grid / Non-Frequency response H4; speed: 0.14 / -167.1 deg Period: 162.944 s, Frequency: 0.006 Hz Damping: 0.283 1/s, Ratio of Amplitudes: 105904023741220360000.000 Cluster 2: Min. contribution: Grid / Non-Frequency response H6; speed: 0.53 / -162.2 deg 0.100

DIgSILENT

1.5178

DIgSILENT

1.5178

Damped Frequency [Hz]

Damped Frequency [Hz]

1.0342

1.0342

0.5507

0.5507

0.0671 -1.2570
0.0671 -1.2570 -0.9580 -0.6589 -0.3599 -0.0609 Neg. Damping [1/s] 0.2381

-0.9580

-0.6589

-0.3599

-0.0609

Neg. Damping [1/s]

0.2381

-0.4165

-0.4165

-0.9000
-0.9000 Stable Eigenvalues Unstable Eigenvalues

Stable Eigenvalues Unstable Eigenvalues

63

DIgSILENT

Activity 2. Western HVDC Project (Expected 2015/16)

2.2 GW Link Between Hunterston (Scotland) and Connahs Quay (North Wales) 420km - 600 kV Subsea Cable in the Irish Sea (the first of its kind in the world at this voltage level)

Key Characteristics: Based on Line Commutated Current (LCC) Technology Power Oscillation Damping (POD) Capability

Challenges Requires Minimum Fault Level (Network Strength) to Operate No Provision for Power Reversal (LCC Limitation) Harmonics and Sub Synchronous Resonance Issues

64

Activity 3. Proposed Eastern HVDC Project (Expected 2018) Around 2 GW HVDC Subsea link between Peterhead in Scotland and Hawthorne Pit in England VSC / LCC ? Potential for Multi-Terminal VSC-HVDC Links (we need DC breakers!) If VSC:
Dynamic Reactive Support to the Grid Power Reversal Capability No Harmonics / Resonance Issues
65

Activity 4. Series Compensation (Expected 2014) Increasing the Power Transfer from 3.3 GW (Stability Limit) to around 4.3 GW (Thermal Limit) To be installed at both Eastern and Western AC Power Corridors) Compensation Level around 35% Fixed vs TCSC Challenges:
Sub Synchronous Resonance Distance Protection
66

Activity 4. Series Compensation (TCSC)

Auxiliary Spark Gap

Benefits of Thyristor Controlled Series Compensation

Allows Variable Compensation Level (Dynamically) Mitigation Measure for SSR

Main Spark Gap

R
Damping circuit

CB

MOV

TCSC at Low Frequencies is Inductive Could Reduce the Compensation Level in case of Resonance
Better Power Oscillation Damping (POD)
L

67

Activity 5. Dynamic Thermal Rating

Humber Smart Zone:

Dynamic & real time ratings could temporarily enhance boundary capacity - particularly for intermittent generation Tools already employed Circuit Thermal Monitor (CTM) provides condition based ratings approx 20 ccts Met office rating enhancement (MORE) approx 30 ccts
68

Activity 6. Phasor Measurement Unit (PMU) (2012)

Synchronized measurements and sampling of voltage and current waveforms. Synchronization is achieved using timing signals from the GPS. Synchronized phasor measurements elevate the standards of power system monitoring, control, and protection to a new level.

69

Activity 7. Automated QB Tapping

Currently QBs are Tapped Individually to mitigate Local overloading (N-D condition) Optimized Automated Tapping of Multiple QBs to Allow further loading an Area

70

Activity 7. Automated QB Tapping

There are 10 QBs with a total of 12630 MVA operating at levels of 275kV and 400kV on the grid for power flow control. Each QB is controlled independently in operations and they play an important role in setting up a cardinal point in network operations. Current Operational procedure limits 6 times tap changes of single/pair of QBs for 10 mins overload condition and 15 times tap changes of single/pair of QBs for 20 min overload condition
71

Interaction with SQSS

SQSS ensures a reliable, and efficient network design procedure. New Technologies mainly enhance the capability of the Utilization of Existing Assets (i.e. Dynamic Thermal Rating), or Provide more Flexibility in Design/Operation (i.e. VSC HVDC by Providing Dynamic Reactive Power Response). Therefore, the existing SQSS as it stands today is currently fit for purpose. SQSS Working Group is constantly reviewing the SQSS, making required modifications (i.e. Working Group on Loss of infeed over 1800MW). Stakeholders are welcome to request modifications which will be considered in the working group.

72

Discussion & Questions?

73

Interconnector Workgroup GSR012

Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight line.

Andy Hiorns (National Grid)

SQSSR: Interconnector WG (1)

Presence, location and size of Interconnectors is out-of-scope Europe likes to treat Interconnectors as Transmission But GB still treats as Merchant; hence SQSS must take location and size of Interconnector as a given Connection for Interconnectors remains at maximum flow in either direction Largest issue wrt planning of Infrastructure for Interconnectors is the expected direction of flow GSR009 Security has set this to zero SQSS cannot specify this, for GSR009 Economy We will handle this via the Planned Status of each Interconnector We now treat all non-Irish Interconnectors as Planned Status = Float
75

SQSSR: Interconnector WG (2)

Only remaining issue for Interconnector WG is the weight to be given, in Planning studies, to the extremes of all Interconnectors importing into GB and all Interconnectors exporting from GB This needs forecast data of: Duration and Distribution of individual interconnector flows Correlation of same across multiple interconnectors History 2001-2011 is unlikely to be a good indicator of 2015 or 2025 There is no History for new Interconnectors, eg Belgium Norway Europe- wide merit orders have been prepared; but are of doubtful quality and are onerous to implement Can any in the Industry help us on this?
76