ERCOT Wind Survey Leo Villanueva. Abilene Mc Camey Big Spring.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
ENERGY CONVERSION ONE (Course 25741) CHAPTER SIX ……SYNCHRONOUS MOTORS.
Advertisements

Impact of Variability on Control Performance Metrics James D. McCalley Harpole Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering Iowa State University 1.
Updated 1/28/2011. Technical Requirements & Regulatory Issues In Interconnection Agreements March 9, 2011 Jay Caspary ·
Challenge of Large Scale Wind Power Integration - Introduction to the Workshop Pradeep Perera Principal Energy Specialist Asian Development Bank.
Wind farms with HVDC delivery in Load Frequency Control Lingling Fan April 22, 2010.
Resource Data Needed For Dynamic Simulations
AES Buffalo Gap Wind Farm Buffalo Gap MW 155 – GE 1.5 sle Presented August 22, 2008 By Robert Sims AES Wind Generation.
Energy Storage Battery Storage February MW Los Andes Chile, MW Johnson City New York, MW Laurel Mtn. West Virginia, 2011 AES.
System Strength Discussion
ECE 201 Circuit Theory I1 Instantaneous Power. ECE 201 Circuit Theory I2 Reference for t = 0 Call t = 0 when the current is passing through a positive.
Slide 1 Large Wind Integration Challenges for Operations / System Reliability By : Steve Enyeart, BPA With contributions from: Bart McManus, BPA Roy Ellis,
ECE 333 Renewable Energy Systems Lecture 13: Per Unit, Power Flow Prof. Tom Overbye Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Illinois.
Joint Grid Code Review Panel POR Working Group Meeting 2 27 th March 2015 Chairperson : Michael Preston.
Presentation to WECC TSS May 8, 2015
1 Voltage Collapse Animation (AC) Created by Peter W. Sauer Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
A Partial Interim Report To WMS Guidance on Implementing Protocol Implementation Plan (PIP) 102 Reactive Power Task Force.
System Operator Conference Simulator Drill Orientation 2014 System Operator Conferences Charlotte NC & Franklin TN SERC/SOS Facilitator Team.
Hybrid System Performance Evaluation Henrik Bindner, Tom Cronin, Per Lundsager, Oliver Gehrke Risø National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark.
Frequency Control Turbine Governor Droop NERC Requirement
Importance of advanced simulations of electrical system in wind turbines April 2010.
STATCOM The STATCOM (or SSC) is a shunt-connected reactive-power compensation device that is capable of generating and/ or absorbing reactive power and.
1 The Effects of Integrating Wind Power on Transmission System Planning, Reliability, and Operations Phase 1 Preliminary Overall Reliability Assessment.
1 Voltage Stability and Reactive Power Planning Entergy Transmission Planning Summit New Orleans, LA July 8, 2004 Entergy Transmission Planning Summit.
ET3380 Principles and Methods of Electric Power Conversion David Morrisson MS,MBA Week 1.
Integrating Renewables Gloria Godson Energy Bar Association December 3,
1 Cheng-Ting Hsu Chao-Shun Chen Islanding Operations for the Distribution Systems with Dispersed Generation Systems Department of Electrical Engineering.
American Electric Power Service Corporation Jan 26, Coordinating Controls across CREZ  What dials are available to the operators?  What are the.
Lecture 21Electro Mechanical System1  A major disturbance on a system(called contingency) creates a state of emergency and immediate steps must be taken.
1 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review All energy input US average = 90.3 MWh per person, per year. Corresponds to 10.3 kW.
Chapter 7 AC Power Analysis
Lyndonville Electric Department Feasibility Analysis Review December 2,
BAL-001-TRE-1 Primary Frequency Response in the ERCOT Region
1 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM OVERVIEW NETWORK OPERATING COMMITTEE April 17, 2007 New Mexico Transmission System Overview.
ECE 7800: Renewable Energy Systems
PRR835 – Reactive Power Capability Requirement
August 17, 2012 Solar PV Inverters Anuj Dixit Planning Engineer Resource Integration RPG Meeting.
AES Buffalo Gap Wind Farm Buffalo Gap MW 155 – GE 1.5 sle Presented August 22, 2008 By Robert Sims AES Wind Generation.
WGR Ramp Rate in Nodal: “As High as Possible” Mike Grimes for QMWG Meeting 10 August 2009.
Operational Issues & Risks ERCOT Operations Planning August 22, 2008.
Intelligent Boiler Sequencing
-- Bhanu Bhushan -- < > (August, 2011)
GENERAL BACKGROUND AND SPEED GOVERNORS
ERCOT TAC11/2/ CREZ Study Update ERCOT TAC 11/2/2006.
TRANSMISSION CONSTRAINTS KENNETH A. DONOHOO, P.E. Manager of System Planning, Technical Operations
REACTIVE POWER COMPENSATION
Transmission Voltage Management Ross Owen Oncor Electric Delivery.
ERCOT Wind Survey Leo Villanueva. Abilene McCamey Big Spring.
What’s happening in Spain? Access to the grid request of STE projects by Oct MW.
ERCOT DYNAMICS WORKING GROUP Report to ROS August 16, 2007 Vance Beauregard, American Electric Power.
Voltage Control Brad Calhoun Consultant, Sr. Trainer Spring 2016.
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility Page 1 CEBAF Cryo & SRF Workshop April 3, 2014 Jonathan Creel Electrical / Cryogenics Engineer Cryogenics.
October 15, 2012 PV & Storage Workshop ERCOT’s Interconnection Process John Adams Principal Engineer.
Abilene Mc Camey Big Spring. Far West Abilene Area All the values are based on returned ERCOT survey results Total number of Wind Powered Generation.
 The common type of wind power generators are squirrel cage induction generator (SCIG),doubly fed induction generator (DFIG)  For more secure and.
Resource Asset Registration Form – Business Rule updates
Agenda TSOG 8th November
A Project Review On POWER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT IN GRID USING STATECOM
APFC-03 Reactive Power Compensation Method & Settings
Modular Multilevel Converter for Wind Energy Storage Systems
IG BASED WINDFARMS USING STATCOM
Reactive Power Task Force
Hellenic Grid Code Requirements for Wind Farms Grid connection
Introduction To Reactive Power
Lift-Type (the sweep surface faces the wind)
PV Solar Projects.
Hellenic Grid Code Requirements for Wind Farms Grid connection
Nathan Kassees, P.E. Sr. Engineer Oncor Electric Delivery
Introduction to Distribution Systems
Hellenic Grid Code Requirements for Wind Farms Grid connection
National Institute of Wind Energy(NIWE)
Presentation transcript:

ERCOT Wind Survey Leo Villanueva

Abilene Mc Camey Big Spring

Far West

Abilene Area All the values are based on returned ERCOT survey results Total number of Wind Powered Generation Resources (WPGR) 16 (16) Total max rated capacity – 2271 MW Average rated capacity – 142 MW Average cut-off speed – 59 MPH Average minimum wind speed at which generation starts – 8 MPH Total rated reactive capability – 798 MVAr Dynamic VAr control – 68% and Static VAr control – 32 % Average number of turbines at each plant site – % of the units in this area have feathering of the blades to control the output level (Based on the survey responses).

Big Spring Area All the values are based on returned ERCOT survey results Total number of WPGR’s 7 (7) Total max rated capacity – 624 MW Average rated capacity – 89 MW Average cut-off speed – 56 MPH Average minimum wind speed at which generation starts – 9 MPH Total rated reactive capability – 181 MVAr Dynamic VAr control – 43% and Static VAr control – 57 % Average number of turbines at each plant site – % of the units in this area have feathering of the blades to control the output level (Based on the survey responses).

McCamey Area All the values are based on ERCOT returned survey results Total number of WPGR’s 10 (7) Total max rated capacity – 1791 MW Average rated capacity – 256 MW Average cut-off speed – 56 MPH Average minimum wind speed at which generation starts – 9 MPH Total rated reactive capability – 272 MVAr Dynamic VAr control – 29% and Static VAr control – 71 % Average number of turbines at each plant site – % the units have feathering of the blades to control the output level. (Based on the survey responses).

Based on the returned survey results we have a total wind capacity of 4686 MW divided among 30 WPGR’s

Region Abilene (MVAr) Big Spring (MVAr) McCamey (MVAr) Avg. Reactive Capability at 50% O/P Avg. Reactive Capability at 100% O/P Avg. Reactive Capability at no O/P

What is the VAR Capability required in the Interconnection Agreement? Abilene: 6 WPGR’s said 0.95 pf leading or lagging. 2 WPGR said 0.98 pf leading or lagging. 8 said none. Big Spring: All the WPGR’s said 0.95 pf leading or lagging. McCamey: 4 WPGR’s said 0.97 pf leading and 1 said 0.96 leading. 2 said none.

How far can units be backed down before operation becomes unstable (MW output or % of rated capability)? RegionAbilene MW Big Spring MW McCamey MW MW output after which operation becomes unstable WPGR’s in McCamey said Curtailment is achieved by stopping a group of turbines (groups are predetermined and cycle through), not by reducing Individual turbine output.

Can individual turbines of this type be shut down at the facility on a routine basis (stop and start once per day)? Abilene: 15 WPGR’s have the capability and 1 does not. Big Spring: 7 WPGR’s have the capability of shutting individual turbines at the facility on a routine basis. McCamey: 5 WPGR’s have the capability and 2 WPGR’s said that current control scheme does not shut down turbines but limit power output by modulating blade pitch.

Are the facility turbines and control system and facility turbines able to provide automatic generation control (AGC) from a technical point of view? If not, would the turbines be capable of this if the control system was upgraded? Abilene: 3 in Abilene area can provide AGC and 3 can provide with a control system upgrade. Big Spring: 6 in Big Spring cannot provide automatic generation control (AGC). 1 can. McCamey: 2 in McCamey area can provide Automatic Voltage Control whose set point is controlled by ERCOT.

How flexible is the zero output reactive capability? For example, is it manually or automatically switched in? What are the issues associated with provided this reactive capability if requested by ERCOT in Real Time. Abilene: 3 have static reactive capability, which is only capacitive reactive compensation that can be controlled manually or automatically. 3 cannot provide any flexibility. 4 said wind dependant. 4 said they are automatically controlled by two controllers, but that could take some programming work to implement. 1 said automatically controlled between +9 or -9 MVAr. 1 WPGR’s VAr output is attributed to the capacitive nature of the underground collection system. Capability is limited due to underground cable splices and thermal backfill material. Big Spring Area: 5 cannot have any flexible reactive capability at zero output. 1 has manual switching capability. 1 has static reactive capability, which is only capacitive reactive compensation that can be controlled manually or automatically. McCamey: None in McCamey area have flexible reactive capability at zero output.

What ERCOT electric system conditions can cause machines to trip offline and what are the corresponding set points? Abilene: Under voltage - 299vac at the turbine. Over voltage - 365vac at the turbine. Over frequency - 61hz at the turbine. Under frequency - 59hz at the turbine. 25vac asymmetry between phases at the turbine for 6 WPGR’s Voltage 110 % nominal or < 70 % nominal for 1 WPGR No response from 9 WPGR’s

What ERCOT electric system conditions can cause machines to trip offline and what are the corresponding set points? Big Spring Area: 90% ≤ System Voltage ≥ 110% ; 94% ≤ System Frequency ≥ 104% is the response from 2 WPGR’s For a V-47 and a V-66 WTGL high voltage 500V sensed phase to ground, low voltage 340V sensed phase to ground; For a V-47: high frequency 60.4hz, low frequency 59.2hz; For a V- 66: high frequency 60.3hz, low frequency 59.5hz. Over Freq>61Hz for 0.5 s, Under Freq 120% is the response from 2 WPGR’s Breaker trip for 1 WPGR

What ERCOT electric system conditions can cause machines to trip offline and what are the corresponding set points? McCamey: Voltage 110 % nominal or < 70 % nominal for 1 WPGR for 2 WPGR’s 85% V & 0.1 sec TD 90% V & 5 sec TD 110% V & 60 sec TD 112% V & 0.1 sec TD for 1 WPGR’s 80% V & 0.2 sec TD 90% V & 60 sec TD 108% V & 5 sec TD 110% V & 0.2 sec TD for 4 WPGR’s

What is the response time required to reduce output by 20%? (time from ERCOT notice to reduce to time when wind-ranch is 20% below previous output)? Average response time for 10 WPGR’s in Abilene is 8 min. 6 have a response of “This is not the way the system operates, the turbines are turned off in groups to reduce the maximum MW output - it does not "set" output.” Average response time for Big Spring is 24 min. Average response time for 2 WPGR’s in McCamey is 10 min. 5 have a response of “This is not the way the system operates, the turbines are turned off in groups to reduce the maximum MW output - it does not "set" output”.

What is the response time required to increase output by 20% (presuming wind available)? (time from ERCOT notice to increased to time when wind-ranch is 20% above previous output? Average response time for 10 WPGR’s in Abilene is 8 min. 6 have a response of “This is not the way the system operates, the turbines are turned back on in groups to increase the maximum MW output - it does not "set" output.” Average response time for 5 WPGR’s Big Spring is 21 min.3 WPGR’s have a response of “This is not the way the system operates, the turbines are turned back on in groups to increase the maximum MW output - it does not "set" output.” Average response time for 2 WPGR’s in McCamey is 10 min. 5 have a response of “This is not the way the system operates, the turbines are turned off in groups to reduce the maximum MW output - it does not "set" output”.

When turbines are being controlled what is the available ramping capability assuming wind conditions and system transmission conditions that could accommodate full output? (ERCOT seeks to understand the ramping characteristics of the units and facility as a whole). Please describe (or provide output curves) on facility ramp rates and wind speed? (i.e. How long would it take to go from zero to 25% output? How long to go from 25 to 50% output? How long from 50 to 75% output and from 75% to 100% output?) Is the wind farm operating as designed? If not, why not? Abilene: 0-25% (375kw) less than 1 minute;25-50% (750kw) less than 1 minute; 50-75% (1,125kw) less than 1 minute; % (1,500kw) less than 1 minute; % (1,500kw per unit) less than 4 minutes from 6 WPGR’s. 1 WPGR’s response is “Individual turbine can modulate from very low load levels to full load in about 2.5 minutes. Entire farm can modulate in about 5 minutes dependent on wind at each individual turbine location”. 1 WPGR said there are no ramp rates set and power of individual turbines can be quickly ramped down and park them as a whole when storms approach. 2 WPGR’s said “This is not the way the system operates, the turbines are turned back on in groups to increase the maximum MW output - it does not "set" output. Assuming there are perfect wind conditions then it would take approxiamately 5 minutes to bring the site up to full load (or 100% output)”. Big Spring: There are no ramp rates. Everyone answered wind is the deciding factor for the output. McCamey: 2 WPGR’s response is “Individual turbine can modulate from very low load levels to full load in about 2.5 minutes. Entire farm can modulate in about 5 minutes dependent on wind at each individual turbine location”. 5 WPGR’s response is “This is not the way the system operates, the turbines are turned back on in groups to increase the maximum MW output - it does not "set" output. Assuming there are perfect wind conditions then it would take approximately 5 minutes to bring the site up to full load (or 100% output)”.