Presentation on theme: "Western Electricity Coordinating Council Renewable Energy Modeling Task Force Wind and Solar Modeling Update Contact: Abraham Ellis firstname.lastname@example.org."— Presentation transcript:
1 Western Electricity Coordinating Council Renewable Energy Modeling Task Force Wind and Solar Modeling Update Contact: Abraham Ellis Salt Lake City, UT March 21, 2012Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin Company, for the United States Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.
2 WECC REMTF Charter The Renewable Energy Modeling Task Force shall Develop and validate generic, non-proprietary, positive-sequence power flow and dynamic simulation models for solar (and wind) generation for use in bulk system studiesImplement models in commercial simulation softwareIssue guidelines, model documentationCoordinate with stakeholdersREMTF reports to the WECC Modeling & Validation Work Group (MVWG)Responsible for maintaining dynamic modeling in the Western Region, per NERC MOD standards
3 SOLAR MODELSCopper Mountain 48 MW PV plant in Nevada (Picture: inhabitat.com)
4 Solar (PV) Models Under Development REMTF working on three models for PV plantsPV Plants (full-featured and simple models)Distributed PVModelPurposeStatusPV1XLarge-scale PV platsSpecification completePVD1Stand-alone model for plant or aggregated distributed PVSpecification nearly completeCMPLDWgCMPLDW with DG for distributed PVVersion 3Options for PF representation under discussion
5 Large PV Plant Modeling In power flow, PV modeled explicitly as generatorShould include feeder or collector system equivalent per WECC guideIn dynamics, use stand-alone PVD1 model or PV1X modelPVD1 (stand alone)PV1XOR
6 PV1X Model StructureIdentical structure as WT4 model
7 PV1X P/Q and Plant Control Separate model for plant control, including power-frequency droopSimplify as indicated (items are WGT4-specific)
8 Generator/ConverterSimplify as indicated (item is WGT4-specific)
9 PVD1 Model 3 1 2 Change input to vterm + (iterm)(xcomp) Insert summation, + qrefInsert summation, + p_var
10 Distributed PV Generation In power flow, residential/commercial PV would be load-netted or represented explicitly (several options possible)In dynamics, represent with CMPLDWg modelCMPLDWg = CMPLDW + DGSimple version of PVD1
11 PV Portion of CMPLDWgSimplified version of PVD1: No p_var, no volt/var control, no P/Q priority
13 Specification of DG Fraction A1. In dynamic file only, as a fraction of loadBest alternative short termA2. In dynamic file only, as an absolute MW valueIn power flow, as a negative load associated with existing load through special IDCould be confusing to usersC. In power flow load recordWould require changes to power flow programsBest solution long termCMPLDWg prototype to support A1 and A2Consult with MVWG and SRWG on C (future)
14 Summary for Solar Models PV1X/PVD1 and CMPLDWgSpecifications working documentsPrototype for testing/validation under developmentCollecting lab/field data for model validation effort
16 WT1/WT2 Pitch Control Model REMTF consensus: need to re-design
17 WT1/WT2 Pitch Control Model Proposed new implementationPI Control, Rate Limiter, Lag filterVoltage Dip FlagSet based on voltage; reset based on voltage and generator speedAction Items: test/validate against manufacturer models; update draft REMTF specificationSource: R. Zavadil
18 WT1/WT2 Pitch Control Model Good results compared to two major Type 1 WTG vendor-specific PSCAD modelsSource: ZavadilSource: ZavadilP-I block: Gain=1, Time Constant=0.1sLag Filter: Gain=2, Time Constant=3 sRate Limiter: Up(pitch back)=1.5, Dn(restore)=0.5P-I block: Gain=1, Time Constant=0.001sLag Filter: Gain=1, Time Constant=0.01 sRate Limiter: Up(pitch back)=0.5, Dn(restore)=0.5
19 WT1/WT2 Pitch Control Model Good validation against MWT1000A manufacturer model
20 WT1/WT2 Pitch Control Model Partial success with validation against V82-AGO50% output40% voltage dip50% output80% voltage dipProposed model structure would not capture this behavior100% output40% voltage dip100 % output80% voltage dip
21 WT1/WT2 Pitch Control Model Acceleration control comes into play for severe disturbances and Pgen = PratedevSpeedTorquePitch
22 WT2 Rotor Resistance Model Do we need to change anything? NoManufacturer: WT2 model is fine as is
23 New WT4 ModelApproved by REMTF with minor modifications
27 WT4 Plant Control Need to add active power control High frequency droop
28 WT4 Validation Good results for multiple manufacturers Differences in controls approach drove model optionsSiemensVestasABBSource: Pourbeik
29 New WT3 ModelIdentical to WT4 model, except for pitch and torque control
30 New WT3 Model Initial validation with two vendors – good news ABB VestasSource: Pourbeik
31 Summary for Wind Summary for Phase 2 WTG models Next Steps WT1: Redesigned pitch control, investigating ways to emulate acceleration control for V82-AGOWT2: Use redesigned pitch; otherwise OK as isWT3: ProgressWT4: Specs approved, with addition of P/f droopNext StepsComplete official specifications by JunePresent for MVWG approval in November
32 Other REMTF Items to Address Default Data for Existing WTG ModelsTypical machine dataTesting Procedures for Non-Synchronous GeneratorsData Preparation manualLanguage around DG?
34 Why So Much Detail in EU Models Driven by Grid Codes!For example, Latest Proposed ENTSO-E Grid Code, Article 32: Common Provisions on Compliance Simulations, Parts (3) & (4):3. The Power Generating Facility Owner shall provide simulation results relevant to each and any individual Generating Unit within the Power Generating Facility in a report form in order to demonstrate the fulfillment of the requirements of this Network Code. The Power Generating Facility Owner shall produce and provide a validated simulation model for a Generating Unit. […]4. The Relevant Network Operator shall have the right to check the compliance of a Generating Unit with the requirements of this Network Code by carrying out its own compliance simulations based on the provided simulation reports, simulation models and compliance test measurements.Reference:
35 Models for Interconnection Studies Requirements are vague in comparisonApplicable requirements: NERC FAC/TPL and FERC LGIP/SGIPIVGTF Task Force 1.1 recommended changes to MOD standards and also recommended that FAC-001 be reviewed and expanded to clearly cover modeling requirements for generator interconnection study processNERC Standard FAC requires evidence that assessments included steady-state, short circuit and dynamics studies as necessary to confirm compliance with NERC Standard TPL-001-0
37 NERC IGVTF Task 1.3 Recommendations Specific recommendations to FAC shown in red:R2 The Transmission Owner’s facility connection requirements shall address, but are not limited to, the following items:[…][Add] R Generation facility modeling data, including appropriate power flow, short circuit and dynamic models, and verification requirements. [add appendix to clarify]
38 NERC IGVTF Task 1.3 ReportProposed Appendix to FAC about models:Preliminary or approximate power flow and dynamic models may be adequate for the preliminary assessment of interconnection impacts, or to represent existing and proposed projects that are not in the immediate electrical vicinity of the Facility being studied. However, detailed dynamic (and possibly transient) models for the specific equipment may be needed for the System Impact Study and Facilities Study, to represent the Facility and other equipment in the electrical vicinity. Generic non-proprietary publicly available models are more appropriate for the NERC model building process covered by existing MOD standards, although validated generic models with specifically tuned parameters may be adequate for interconnection studies. The models for interconnection studies must be acceptable to the TO in terms of simulation platform, usability, documentation & performance.
39 IVGTF 1.3 Proposed Modeling Grid Code Preliminary model data may be used for the initial feasibility study of a variable generator interconnection projectThe best model available shall be used for the final SIS or FS. These models can be user written and require non-disclosure agreementsThe detailed dynamic model must be accurate over the frequency range of 0.1 to 5 Hz. Time constants in the model should not be less than 5 msDetailed dynamic models must be validated against a physical or type test.Verification of detailed model performance should be confirmed during commissioning to the extent possible. The following tests shall be performed:Primary/secondary voltage controlLow voltage and high voltage ride throughPower factor/reactive power capabilityPower ramping and power curtailmentVerification of the non-propriety model accuracy may be performed by simulation tests compared with the detailed model performance.At the end of the commissioning tests, the Generator Owner shall provide a verified detailed model and a non-proprietary model, ideally in IEEE, IEC or other approved format, for ongoing regional studies such as TPL-001.