-
ELIZABETH GIRAUT RUSO
Grid Integration Manager
EWEA WG on Grid Code Requirements
Contact: [email protected]
EWEC 2010, Warsaw
Side Event on Grid Code Requirements
Grid Codes Requirements:Grid Codes Requirements:
THE DEVELOPERS DILEMMATHE DEVELOPERS DILEMMA
-
2Warsaw, April 2010 EWEC 2010, Side Event GCR
EWEA WG on Grid Code Requirements
Developer’s Responsibility
TSO / REGULATORS / MEMBER STATES
GCR
Developers Responsible for Compliance on Design and Operation of
WPP
WTG Manufacturer
Manufacturer of Additional Equipment
Associations
Elaborate and enforce
Demonstrate compliance
Provides solutiontotal / partial
Provides complementary solution (if needed)
Collaborate through consultation processesSUCCESSFUL SO FAR!
Considers in design
-
3Warsaw, April 2010 EWEC 2010, Side Event GCR
EWEA WG on Grid Code Requirements
Turbine (WTG) Selection
SITE
Which is the network?
How is the resource?
Which is the best WTG?
Which Grid Code applies?
WTG “X”
DOES “X”FULFILL
GC?
(technical info)
-
4Warsaw, April 2010 EWEC 2010, Side Event GCR
EWEA WG on Grid Code Requirements
Developer’s Situation
• GCR development shall be linked to system needs, but this
is
not the most common scenario: since in immature markets it
is not easy to determine them, variations in requirements in
the same country is common over time, becoming harder
(and sometimes falling in retroactivity and undesirable
retrofits)
-
5Warsaw, April 2010 EWEC 2010, Side Event GCR
EWEA WG on Grid Code Requirements
Example: Evolution ofSpanish GCR
1st WTG installed in 1981 (100 kW)
1st WPP installed in mid-eighties
44 GW
in 2020?
1997 1998 2009-
2010
20072006200520041999 20082000 2001 2002 2003
> 400 MW
installed
> 800 MW installed, mostly in
distribution system => low impact on system operation
Generation Record of 12.916 MW in February
2010
Evolution to Ancillary Services
> 18.6 GW
Wind power covered 11.5 % of demand, over 40%
occasionally
Forecasting mandatory
Reactive power and FRT capability optional and with
bonus
> 8.5 GW installed, mostly in transport system =>
increasingimpact on system operation
Remote Control Centers (RCC) mandatory
> 10 GW installed => collaboration among REE and sector to
improve
operation
CECRE inaugurated
PO 3.7 & PO 9 RCC
PO 12.3 FRT Capability
PVVC & RCC developed jointly by sector and REE
Mandatory: Reactive power (with bonus) and
FRT capability (with bonus for retrofit)
> 15 GW installed
-
6Warsaw, April 2010 EWEC 2010, Side Event GCR
EWEA WG on Grid Code Requirements
Developer’s Situation
• GCR development shall be linked to system needs, but this is
not
the most common scenario: since in immature markets it is
not
easy to determine them, variations in requirements in the
same
country is common over time, becoming harder (and sometimes
falling in retroactivity and undesirable retrofits)
• The main criteria to choose a WTG is rarely Grid Code
compliance
(power curve, etc.)
• WTGs manufacturers focus their developments in their
“star”
markets, thus adapting their product to specific GCs
• Consequently, the chosen WTG can be inadequate for
complying
the required GC, because it is “too simple” or “excessively
capable”
HENCE, THE MORE VARIATED AND DIFFERENT THE GRID CODES, THE MORE
DIFFICULT TO STANDARDISE SOLUTIONS
-
7Warsaw, April 2010 EWEC 2010, Side Event GCR
EWEA WG on Grid Code Requirements
How to fulfill requirements?
• If the grid integration engineer has to develop solutions for
GC fulfillment:
– Machine level solutions
• Adapt additional equipment (capacitors, STATCOMS)
• Work with manufacturer to develop new control systems
– Substation/plant level solutions
• Develop additional high level control systems
• Install cap banks
• Install STATCOMS or FACTS
-
8Warsaw, April 2010 EWEC 2010, Side Event GCR
EWEA WG on Grid Code Requirements
Example: Voltage Dips
For instance, System Operators around the world impose FRT
requirements that are significantly diverse:
-
9Warsaw, April 2010 EWEC 2010, Side Event GCR
EWEA WG on Grid Code Requirements
Example: Q & Voltage control
A similar situation is experienced regarding reactive and
voltage control worldwide, as these examples show:
WPP following a defined PQ characteristic for “absorbed” and
“produced” Q
Q controlDK
WPP operating within a “V” curve of PQ control with a total
dynamic capability of ±30% of Qnominal (at Pnominal).
Dynamic Q controlCanada
Automatic control system capable of operating to a setpoint
voltageDynamic V controlUSA
WPP operating within specific “V” curves for lagging (0.835 max
at 50% Pnominal) and leading (0.95 max at Pnominal)
PF controlIR
SpecificationVoltage Regulation requirement
Country
WPP may function in lagging (0.925) or leading (0.95) power
factor in case of voltages outside permissible limits
PF controlDE
Automatic control system shall be capable of operating to a
setpointvoltage between 95% and 105% with a resolution of 0.25% of
the nominal voltage and defined slope profiles
Dynamic V controlUK
Following a PF table defined for peak, off-peak and valley
conditions (in the near future, dynamic V control)
Q scheduleES
WPP following a defined PQ characteristic for “absorbed” and
“produced” Q
Q controlDK
WPP operating within a “V” curve of PQ control with a total
dynamic capability of ±30% of Qnominal (at Pnominal).
Dynamic Q controlCanada
Automatic control system capable of operating to a setpoint
voltageDynamic V controlUSA
WPP operating within specific “V” curves for lagging (0.835 max
at 50% Pnominal) and leading (0.95 max at Pnominal)
PF controlIR
SpecificationVoltage Regulation requirement
Country
WPP may function in lagging (0.925) or leading (0.95) power
factor in case of voltages outside permissible limits
PF controlDE
Automatic control system shall be capable of operating to a
setpointvoltage between 95% and 105% with a resolution of 0.25% of
the nominal voltage and defined slope profiles
Dynamic V controlUK
Following a PF table defined for peak, off-peak and valley
conditions (in the near future, dynamic V control)
Q scheduleES
-
10Warsaw, April 2010 EWEC 2010, Side Event GCR
EWEA WG on Grid Code Requirements
Dilemmas
• Can I standardize solutions?
• Can I always use the same WTG?
• Or the same design for my WPP?
• Or the same additional equipment?
• Or the same control solution?
-
11Warsaw, April 2010 EWEC 2010, Side Event GCR
EWEA WG on Grid Code Requirements
Conclusions
Differences in CGR lead to:
• Different solutions are applied on different systems
• No standardization is possible on:
– Design of Wind Power Plant
– O&M processes
– Procurement processes (e.g. provider's homologation for spare
parts)
– Control systems
– SCADA & Communications
~> Costs increase and optimization is not possible
-
12Warsaw, April 2010 EWEC 2010, Side Event GCR
EWEA WG on Grid Code Requirements
Conclusions
• As well as manufacturers, it is essential for developers to
count on harmonization whenever possible: Concepts, definitions,
format, functionalities, numbers.
• It eases the interpretation of requirements if we have those
for wind separated from those for other generators
• It sets the proper frame for keeping consultation processes
going on with industry and MS
• It will allow developers to design WPP that provide a better
product: higher quality of service with reduced costs
-
ELIZABETH GIRAUT RUSO
Grid Integration Manager
EWEA WG on Grid Code Requirements
Contact: [email protected]
EWEC 2010, Warsaw
Side Event on Grid Code Requirements
Thank you for your attentionThank you for your attention
Questions? Comments?Questions? Comments?
