22
PDCWG Report to ROS March 11, 2010 Sydney Niemeyer

PDCWG Report to ROS

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

PDCWG Report to ROS. March 11, 2010 Sydney Niemeyer. PDCWG Activities. Will meet March 10. Review February and remaining January disturbances. Operating Guide and Protocol synchronization. Review and prepare report on Wind Event January 28, 2010. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: PDCWG Report to ROS

PDCWG Report to ROS

March 11, 2010

Sydney Niemeyer

Page 2: PDCWG Report to ROS

PDCWG Activities

• Will meet March 10.– Review February and remaining January

disturbances.– Operating Guide and Protocol synchronization.– Review and prepare report on Wind Event January

28, 2010.– PRR833 Primary Frequency Response Requirement

from Existing WGRs. – Submitted recommendation to the ROS.

– Updated Scope.

• Next meeting April 7.

Page 3: PDCWG Report to ROS

ERCOT CPS1 15 Minute Average - Monthly Score

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Interval Ending

February-10 CPS1 = 150.46*

*Unofficial score.

Page 4: PDCWG Report to ROS

*ERCOT CPS1 By Day - February 2010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Day

0

3500

7000

10500

14000

17500

21000

24500

28000

31500

35000

38500

42000

45500

49000

52500

56000

59500

63000

66500

70000

SCPS1 Avg SCPS1 ERCOT Pk Load

150.46 Monthly CPS1 for ERCOT*

Page 5: PDCWG Report to ROS

*ERCOT CPS2 - February 2010

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Day

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

SCPS2 Avg SCPS2

90.60

Page 6: PDCWG Report to ROS

Daily RMS1

0.0100

0.0150

0.0200

0.0250

0.0300

0.0350

0.0400

1/1/2

000

7/1/2

000

1/1/2

001

7/1/2

001

1/1/2

002

7/1/2

002

1/1/2

003

7/1/2

003

1/1/2

004

7/1/2

004

1/1/2

005

7/1/2

005

1/1/2

006

7/1/2

006

1/1/2

007

7/1/2

007

1/1/2

008

7/1/2

008

1/1/2

009

7/1/2

009

1/1/2

010

of ERCOT Frequency

January 28, 2010June 1, 2004

April 17, 2006

Page 7: PDCWG Report to ROS

Daily RMS1

0.0100

0.0150

0.0200

0.0250

0.0300

0.0350

0.0400

1/1/

2004

4/1/

2004

7/1/

2004

10/1

/200

4

1/1/

2005

4/1/

2005

7/1/

2005

10/1

/200

5

1/1/

2006

4/1/

2006

7/1/

2006

10/1

/200

6

1/1/

2007

4/1/

2007

7/1/

2007

10/1

/200

7

1/1/

2008

4/1/

2008

7/1/

2008

10/1

/200

8

1/1/

2009

4/1/

2009

7/1/

2009

10/1

/200

9

1/1/

2010

February 18, 2010

Page 8: PDCWG Report to ROS

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

CPS1

Ave

rage

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

Monthly Average 12 Month Rolling Average Trend

ERCOT CPS1 Score

CPS1 12 Month Rolling Average = 142.35*

*Unofficial score

Page 9: PDCWG Report to ROS

ERCOT CPS2 Score*

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Oct-04

Jan-05A

pr-05Jul-05O

ct-05Jan-06A

pr-06Jul-06O

ct-06Jan-07A

pr-07Jul-07O

ct-07Jan-08A

pr-08Jul-08O

ct-08Jan-09A

pr-09Jul-09O

ct-09Jan-10

Month

CP

S2

Series1 Trend (Monthly CPS2 Score)

*ERCOT as a single control area is exempt from CPS2. These scores are For Information Only

90.60

Page 10: PDCWG Report to ROS

Comparing January 2009 vs January 2010 profile of frequency in 5 mHz bins

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

59.90

0

59.91

0

59.92

0

59.93

0

59.94

0

59.95

0

59.96

0

59.97

0

59.98

0

59.99

0

60.00

0

60.01

0

60.02

0

60.03

0

60.04

0

60.05

0

60.06

0

60.07

0

60.08

0

60.09

0

60.10

0

Jan-09Jan-10

Page 11: PDCWG Report to ROS

Comparing February 2009 vs February 2010 profile of frequency in 5 mHz bins

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

59.90

0

59.91

0

59.92

0

59.93

0

59.94

0

59.95

0

59.96

0

59.97

0

59.98

0

59.99

0

60.00

0

60.01

0

60.02

0

60.03

0

60.04

0

60.05

0

60.06

0

60.07

0

60.08

0

60.09

0

60.10

0

Feb-09Feb-10

Page 12: PDCWG Report to ROS

Comparison of Governor Deadband & Droop Settings of a

Single 600 MW UnitA 0.01666 Hz Deadband with a Straight Line Proportional 5% Droop Curve Compared to a 0.036 Hz Deadband with a “Step” Straight Line Proportional 5% Droop Curve from

the Deadband.

Sydney Niemeyer – February 9, 2010

Page 13: PDCWG Report to ROS

Governor Settings Prior to November 2008

• 2008 Had Ten Months of Operation with no Governor setting changes.– ERCOT Operating Guides called for a maximum +/-

0.036 Hz deadband on Governors.– 5% Droop Setting with no clarification as to

implementation. With or without a step function at the deadband.

– To meet the 5% droop performance, Governors were encouraged to “step” into the 5% droop curve at the deadband.

Page 14: PDCWG Report to ROS

Governor Settings After November 3, 2008

• Deadbands were decreased to +/-0.0166 Hz (1 rpm on a 3600 rpm turbine).

• The Droop curve implemented was a straight line proportional curve from the deadband eliminating any “step” function.

• Initially only 4 Unit’s Governors were changed. Total Capacity of 2486 MW or approximately 82.8 MW/0.1 Hz of Primary Frequency Response.

• The coordinated Boiler Control System implemented the same Droop curve and deadband as the turbine Governor.

• Additional Units changed their Governor settings throughout 2009 and 2010, mostly after July 2009.

Page 15: PDCWG Report to ROS

Status as of March 1, 2010

• Units with Governors presently set with an intentional deadband less than or equal to +/-0.01666 Hz and droop curve with no step function.– 11,767 MW Total Capacity Identified by PDCWG

members.• 1690 MW Lignite• 4139 MW Coal• 3780 MW Combustion Turbine Combined Cycle• 1519 MW Combustion Turbine Simple Cycle• 399 MW Steam Turbine – natural gas fired• 240 MW Hydro

Page 16: PDCWG Report to ROS

2008 Jan thru Oct

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

59.9

59.9

159

.9259

.9359

.9459

.9559

.9659

.9759

.9859

.99 60

60.0

160

.0260

.0360

.0460

.0560

.0660

.0760

.0860

.09

60.1

MW

2008 MW Response of 0.036 db 2008 MW Response of 0.0166 db

591324.0

782765.9 MW Response of 0.0166 db

MW Response of 0.036 db

32.38% Increase in MW movement with lower deadband.

MW-Minute Primary Frequency Response of a 600 MW Unit To All Frequency Deviations During The First 10 Months of 2008

Min

ute

This compares the difference a single 600 MW unit would have experienced as a result of Primary Frequency Response if on-line the first 10 months of 2008 and had margin to move.

Page 17: PDCWG Report to ROS

2008 Jan thru Dec

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

59.9

59.9

159

.9259

.9359

.9459

.9559

.9659

.9759

.9859

.99 60

60.0

160

.0260

.0360

.0460

.0560

.0660

.0760

.0860

.09

60.1

MW

2008 MW Response of 0.036 db 2008 MW Response of 0.0166 db

662574.0

893164.2 MW Response of 0.0166 db

MW Response of 0.036 db

34.80% Increase in MW movement with lower deadband.

MW-Minute Primary Frequency Response of a 600 MW Unit To All Frequency Deviations in 2008

Min

ute

This compares the difference a single 600 MW unit would have experienced as a result of Primary Frequency Response if on-line all of 2008 and had margin to move.

Page 18: PDCWG Report to ROS

2009 Jan thru Dec

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

MW

2009 MW Response of 0.036 db 2009 MW Response of 0.0166 db

446244.0

692039.8 MW Response of 0.0166 db

MW Response of 0.036 db

55.08% Increase in MW movement with lower deadband.

However, the 692039.8 MW Response of the 0.0166 db unit is only 29465.8 MW more than the 2008 MW Response of the 0.036 db unit (662574.0 MW). A 4.45% increase with the benefit of the improved frequency profile.

The MW response of the 0.036 db unit decreased 216330.0 MW in 2009 from 2008. This is a 32.645% decrease in movement.

MW-Minute Primary Frequency Response of a 600 MW Unit To All Frequency Deviations in 2009

Min

ute

The MW response of the 0.0166 db unit decreased 201124.4 MW in 2009 from 2008. This is a 22.518% decrease in movement.

Page 19: PDCWG Report to ROS

ERCOT Frequency Profile Comparison

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

On

e M

inu

te O

ccu

ran

ces

2009 2008

525,600 One Minute Periods per Year 2009 Frequency Profile more “Normal” than 2008. Note: 2008 had two months of operation at the lower governor deadband settings (Nov & Dec).

ERCOT Frequency Profile 2008 and 2009

Page 20: PDCWG Report to ROS

ERCOT Frequency Profile Comparison

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

59.9

59.9

159

.92

59.9

359

.94

59.9

559

.96

59.9

759

.98

59.9

9 6060

.01

60.0

260

.03

60.0

460

.05

60.0

660

.07

60.0

860

.09

60.1

On

e M

inu

te O

ccu

ran

ces

December 2009 January 2010 November 2009

December 2009 and January 2010 improved over typical (November 2009) performance.Several additional units changed their deadbands in

December 2009 and January 2010.

ERCOT Frequency Profile Had Additional Improvement in December 2009 and January 2010

Page 21: PDCWG Report to ROS

MW-Minute Primary Frequency Response of a 600 MW Unit To All Frequency Deviations During January 2010

January 2010 Primary Frequency Response

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

59.9

59.9

159

.92

59.9

359

.94

59.9

559

.96

59.9

759

.98

59.9

9 60

60.0

160

.02

60.0

360

.04

60.0

560

.06

60.0

760

.08

60.0

960

.1

MW

Min

ute

s

MW Response of 0.036 db MW Response of 0.0166 db

53656.4

37384.0

MW Response of 0.0166 db

MW Response of 0.036 db

As the frequency profile continues to improve, the lower deadband unit provides 43.538% more MW movement than the larger deadband unit, but overall MW movement is less as the frequency deviations decrease in magnitude.

Page 22: PDCWG Report to ROS

Conclusions

• Clearly the MW-Minute Movement of a Unit with a lower deadband setting is more than that of a larger deadband.

• The MW-Minute movement of the lower deadband has a gradual injection of Primary Frequency Response compared to the “step” implementation of the larger deadband.– Better Unit stability– Better Frequency stability

• As more Units implement the lower deadband and non-”step” droop curve, the frequency profile improves and the total MW-Minute movement of the grid decreases.