Monitoring Report 2018 - Research, Development and ... · ABOUT ENTSO-E ENTSO-E, the European...

European Network ofTransmission System Operators

for Electricity

MONITORING REPORT 2018 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION PROJECTS

April 2019

MAIN REPORT

STATE-OF-PLAY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RD&I ROADMAP 2017–2026

ABOUT ENTSO-E

ENTSO-E, the European Network of Transmission System Operators for electricity, represents 43 electricity transmission system operators (TSOs) from 36 countries across Europe.

ENTSO-E was established and given legal mandates by the EU’s Third Legislative Package for the Internal Energy Market in 2009, which aims to further liberalise the gas and electricity markets in the EU.

Any question? Contact us: @ENTSO_E | [email protected] | +32 2 741 09 50 | www.entsoe.eu

mailto:info%40entsoe.eu?subject=Technical%20Report%202018%20%E2%80%93%20Regular%20reporting%20in%20bidding%20zone%20configuration

MONITORING REPORT 2018 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION PROJECTS

April 2019

– 4 – ENTSO-E | Monitoring Report 2018 – Research, Development and Innovation Projects

CONTENTS

KEY MESSAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Highlights of the survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Key recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Framework and rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Scope and methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Statistics and analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Clusters of the RD&I Roadmap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Monitoring Report 2018 – Research, Development and Innovation Projects | ENTSO-E – 5 –

1 OVERVIEW OF THE MONITORING ACTIVITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1 .1 Structure of the ENTSO-E Roadmap (2017 – 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

1 .2 Structure of the Monitoring Report 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

1 .3 Methodology implemented for the monitoring activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

1 .4 Coverage assessment and projects’ statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

1 .5 Overview of the coverage assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

2 TSO RELATED PROJECTS FROM THE ENTSO-E WORKING GROUPS . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2 .1 Projects related to digital technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

2 .2 Projects related to flexibility services and technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28


KEY MESSAGESThe RD&I Monitoring Report 2018 assesses the progress of European TSO-related research development and innovation (RD&I) activities defined in the RD&I Roadmap 2017–2026. The results of this RD&I Monitoring Report will be used to assign action priorities for updating the ENTSO-E RD&I Roadmap, to be released in 2019.

This report is based on a survey of 57 R&D projects. To complete this sample, 131 additional projects in the field of digitalisation, as well as 18 projects related to flexibility services were considered in less details.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE SURVEY – For most projects, exploitation of results is foreseen to

begin in less than 5 years. However, most results need significant investment before they can be exploited. Other common barriers to exploitation of results are linked to the regulatory environment and to market conditions.

– Key Exploitable Results of TSO-participated projects have high Technology Readiness Level, short expected time-to-market, and are mostly foreseen to be used in-ternally, by project partners, rather than in commercial use or as open source.

– TSO participation in the EU funded projects, especially with a coordinating role, is relatively low compared to other stakeholders (research centres, consultants, ICT providers). Eastern Europe is under-represented in the geographical balance.

– The benefits for society delivered by R&D projects include mainly the improvement of electricity network management, the reduction of carbon emissions and the development of more efficient business models & market designs.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS – Fast developments in the surrounding environment call

for the updating of the ENTSO-E RD&I Roadmap, in particular for the capturing of macro-trends such as the digitalisation of power systems, decentralisation, and sector coupling.

– The difficulties in replacing the existing grid infra-structure are forcing TSOs to search for the best balance between investing in new power technologies on one hand, while optimising performances and increasing the lifetime of existing ones on the other.

– The TSO/DSO interface should receive significant at-tention to increase system observability and enhance the deployment of new services that ensure overall system security. Considerable effort is needed to design and implement the internal electricity market.

– There have been major R&D achievements to facilitate the massive integration of renewable energy sources

into the system. In addition, a newly developed set of management and control concepts will facilitate the safe integration of demand-response and EVs into the European electricity system. New tools will support the long-term planning of the European electricity.

– Some demonstration pilots with finished R&D projects should be performed. This will be one of the orienta-tions of ENTSO-E’s RD&I activities for the years to come.

– It is paramount to share all new knowledge gained through RD&I, and not restrict it among project part-ners. This will help to embed outcomes and new com-petencies within the European electricity industry

– Custom-tailored solutions are important: one-size-fits-all solutions are not likely, due to regional & national differences of the underlying grid or existing regulatory schemes.


OVERVIEWFRAMEWORK AND RATIONALE

1 European Technology & Innovation Platform Smart Networks for Energy Transition

The activities proposed in the ENTSO-E Research, Devel-opment & Innovation (RD&I) Roadmap 2017 – 2026 support the transmission system operators (TSOs), as key system integrators of different components and technologies, in answering societal challenges. The TSOs are also integrat-ing game-changing factors involving new stakeholders within the electricity market (i.e. digital and flexibility services, active customers, etc).

To assess the progress of RD&I Roadmap 2017 – 2026, the monitoring of R&D projects is necessary to highlight the main achievements. This exercise has already been carried out for the previous Roadmaps (2015 and 2013).

The outcomes of this RD&I Monitoring Report, and espe-cially the gap analysis carried out in detail for each func-tional objective, will be used to assign action priorities for updating the ENTSO-E RD&I Roadmap, to be released in 2019. This detailed information is also useful as state-of-the-art reference for searching who has done what in the range of topics of TSO interest and for sharing and disseminating new knowledge produced in the framework of RD&I activities.

At the same time, a forward-looking approach is adopt-ed, placing emphasis on the deployment and short-term application of results, through the identification of Key Exploitable Results (KER).

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY The methodology employed is both wide in num-ber and scope of the considered projects and deep in analysis (systematic assessment of topics addressed and their results). The double level of analysis – by project leaders and by ENTSO-E experts – has in-creased the quality and severity of the monitoring exercise. This is further enhanced by a monitoring alignment process carried out within ETIP SNET1 (Intensys4EU project), which provides a bird’s eye view of how the TSO efforts are often bundled together with other stakeholders in the value chain of innovation: DSOs, customers, industry and research centres. An increasing

number of innovation projects are designed and performed in a multi-layer partnerships, where TSOs typically retain the role of system view, central operator, and pivotal data flow hub, and integrator of proposed new technologies.

Another investigated dimension is the national/regional/European basket of projects, not in an exhaustive form of course, but rather as a first attempt to gather together the whole range of RD&I efforts on power transmission innovation, with the ambitious aim of fostering synergies between European workplans and national programmes.


STATISTICS AND ANALYSISThe aggregated data on the set of monitored projects gives valuable insights to RD&I planners and decision-mak-ers for shaping forthcoming policy and financing in-struments; the set of considered projects, although not exhaustive, is well representative of the portfolio of innovation initiatives. The statistics cover: funding & budget; engagement of projects’ partners (by country and

by stakeholder); technologies and services addressed; type of results achieved and consequential benefits for power system stakeholders; Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and prospected time-to-market; and next steps for exten-sive exploitation (further investments, regulatory issues, barriers to deployment).

THE OUTCOME OF THESE STATISTICS IS:– EU funded projects are larger and more widespread in

partnerships & geographical footprint;

– R&D centres, together with ICT/software providers, are the main category of coordinating entities for EU fund-ed projects, while system operators are coordinators of a larger share of national/regional projects;

– in geographical terms, engagement from West, North and South Europe is evenly distributed, while the East-ern part is under-represented;

– all types of technologies and services are addressed in a balanced manner, with an emphasis on grid technolo-gies and storage/power-to-X technologies for national/regional projects;

– the most common categories of project benefits are: improved network management, decreased carbon emissions, and efficient business models & market de-sign. The category less represented is improved social acceptance;

– in terms of KER, the dominant categories are methodol-ogies and software, followed by hardware tools, policy, regulation and market recommendations, while very few address databases or scenarios. European projects typically have several KER, while most national projects are focused on one specific KER;

– the TRL of the identified KER is concentrated on 7 and higher (on a scale from 1 to 9); the categories of soft-ware, methodology and hardware tools are the most represented among those at high TRL; the opposite is the case for databases/scenarios and policy, regulation or market recommendations;

– most KER are expected to be used internally (by one or more project partners), followed by external use (evenly distributed between commercial use and open source);

– in line with the high TRL, most KER are expected to be fully exploited in less than five years, and more than half in less than two years; regulatory and market bar-riers need to be resolved, while less problematic is scal-ing-up and further investments (the majority of KER should require less than 1 M€ extra effort).


CLUSTERS OF THE RD&I ROADMAP 2

2 http://riroadmap.entsoe.eu/structure-of-ri-planned-activities/

The overall picture of RD&I activities shows an articulated situation, with some Roadmap Clusters and Functional Objectives (T1 to T21) having been more or better addressed than others in the two years period since the publication of the RD&I Roadmap 2017 – 2026. In this short time pe-riod, fast developments in the surrounding environment (technologies, regulation, market) call for the updating

of the ENTSO-E Roadmap, in particular to improve the capturing of macro-trends such as the digitalisation of power systems, decentralisation of operations, and sector coupling (transport, heating, cooling, gas, etc.).

A more detailed analysis by Functional Objectives is re-ported in Annex 1.

CLUSTER 1 – POWER SYSTEM MODERNISATION– There have been important developments on the ob-

jective of optimal grid design, with high shares of both EU-funded and national projects addressing the related tasks – especially tasks related to planning methodol-ogies, new technologies and relevant software devel-opment.

– Coordination activities among TSOs, and between TSOs and DSOs, can be enhanced.

– Sector-coupling should emerge in the RD&I agenda.

– Smart asset management is gaining attention with in-teresting projects – technologies, tools and applications – to be expected in the future. Currently there are few success stories. The future Roadmap can provide better guidance on how to enhance this activity.

– Similarly, for “new materials & technologies” the inves-tigation is ongoing within many different EU-funded and national projects. Interesting developments are ex-pected to take place, especially around stability issues within conditions of high penetration levels of power electronics (incl. converter-based renewable genera-tion and high voltage direct current (HVDC) links).

– Many activities acknowledge the importance of stake-holder involvement and public acceptance, expressed in the development of tools and communication strat-egies to support transparency, as well as technologies and applications that reduce the adverse environmen-tal and visual impact. However, investigation is only at halfway point.

CLUSTER 2 – SECURITY AND SYSTEM STABILITYGrid observability has been increased over the last years with the useful KERs delivered by many EU-funded and regional projects. The use of Phasor Measurement Units (PMUs) and other sensor technologies has increased awareness and accuracy. Supporting and simulation tools and data processing equipment have contributed to these developments. Work continues on further improvements, not only on TSOs’ own system observability, but also on DSOs’ systems (merging TSO/DSO models). Data collection, processes, protocols and standards should be harmonised more. Analysis of critical situations is a must.

– Controllability is at a similar level of advancement. The proper control and impact on the stability of the sys-tem of new integrated technologies, such as storage, converter-based renewables and HVDC, will require further research and demonstration. Frequency and

voltage stability, control methods, pan-European co-ordination schemes and decision-making techniques will benefit from additional RD&I.

– Reliability and resilience in terms of defence and res-toration plans, probabilistic approach, risk assessment and self-healing, started as RD&I activities with some ongoing projects that will deliver results in the future. The next Roadmap should guide better the research work on this objective.

– The impact of storage flexibility is partially addressed.


CLUSTER 3 – POWER SYSTEM FLEXIBILITY FROM GENERATION, STORAGE, DEMAND AND NETWORK– Power system flexibility using storage have had the

lion share in terms of number of projects. However, the lower maturity levels of the technology and the specif-icities of different types of storage technologies need to be further addressed. Challenges remain on the opti-mal use and distribution of storage devices, the needed technical requirements to facilitate service provision and the business models development.

– Advancement in activities regarding active customer involvement and integration of demand response was registered. Ongoing and recently-launched research activities will provide additional knowledge – espe-cially on the degree of flexibility that can be provided in a wider demonstration area. Electrification of the transport sector, especially Electrical Vehicles (EV) falls under the same category.

– Accurate power forecasting, especially from renewable energy sources, still seems to be a challenge. A range of ongoing projects will hopefully increase coverage of this objective. However, more attention will be needed when it comes to estimating secondary/tertiary reserve against those accuracy levels.

– Hybrid AC/DC solutions, HVDC reliability, meshed DC grids, services from HVDC multiterminal networks are topics where European research will need to step into more in the coming years.

– The developments are better regarding dynamic rat-ing equipment and power flow devices, but it is still necessary to develop comprehensive methodologies to provide a common framework for investment-decision discussion with national regulatory authorities (NRAs).

– No major leaps were registered for sector-coupling, joint planning and power-to-gas.

CLUSTER 4 – POWER SYSTEM ECONOMICS AND EFFICIENCY– Flow-based market coupling is still subject to inves-

tigation and there is need for more RD&I.

– There have been very promising results around busi-ness models that include flexibility considerations and ancillary services provisions. However, considering the future needs and structural changes of the industry, this topic remains high on the research agenda.

– More work is needed to deliver market mechanisms that ensure both system adequacy and system security in the longer term.

CLUSTER 5 – DIGITALISATION OF POWER SYSTEM– Overall, the digitalisation of the power system, big data

management, ICT and communication advancements, along with all their benefits and challenges, is a new and wide area to explore that will require increased focus over the coming years. The new Roadmap should carefully guide the research work on all fronts.

– There has been some progress on local data management system and developments on the standardisation front: IEC61850, CIM standard series and communication protocols. Work is ongoing, with important projects to deliver results in the coming period.

– The field of data exchange models between TSO/DSO, and other agents such as EV chargers, has seen ad-vancements. However, wide application and assessment is pending.

– Open source modelling, the impact of Internet of Things (IoT) and related interface tools are emerging.

– Cybersecurity has been acknowledged as an important field and major activities are ongoing at national and European level. The research work should continue sup-porting this area which becomes increasingly critical.


RECOMMENDATIONS – The difficulties in replacing the existing grid

infrastructure are forcing TSOs to search for the best balance between investing in new power technologies on the one hand, while optimising performances and increasing the lifetime of existing ones on the other. The TSO/DSO interface should also receive sig-nificant attention to increase system observ-ability and enhance the deployment of new services that ensure overall system security. Considerable effort is needed to design and implement the internal electricity market and to incentivise new system services with re-spect to allocation methods for the capacity and reserves to cope with uncertainties from renewable energy sources, load, and system disturbances.

– There have been major R&D achievements to facilitate the massive integration of renewable energy sources into the system (e.g. through the improvement of wind forecasts, better assessment of required reserves, and the implementation of innovative tools to sup-port the decision-making process for system operators). In addition, a newly developed set of management and control concepts will facilitate the safe integration of demand-re-sponse and EVs into the European electricity system. New tools will support the long-term planning of the European electricity system and the simulation of cross-border interac-tion, while several initiatives aim to reduce the environmental and social effect of power infrastructures.

– RD&I results have been applied in several cas-es in TSO daily business; however, to highlight their contributions to achieving EU energy objectives, some demonstrators with finished R&D projects should be performed. This will be one of the orientations of ENTSO-E’s RD&I activities for the years to come.

– It is paramount to share all new knowledge gained through RD&I, and not restrict it among project partners. Systematically col-lecting and effectively sharing knowledge is vital to achieve the goals set in the RD&I Roadmap. This will help to embed outcomes and new competencies within the European electricity industry and foster new R&D ac-tivities both at academic and industry levels.

– Custom-tailored solutions are important too: one-size-fits-all solutions are not likely, due to regional & national differences of the under-lying grid or at persisting regulatory schemes. Open-minded discussions, aimed at applying common principles to individual situations, should always be encouraged.

– To achieve these goals, RD&I projects and their efficient management also require con-stant support with respect to financing, time, dedication and resources.


1 OVERVIEW OF THE MONITORING ACTIVITY

Methodology, project features and main outputs of the coverage assessment of the ENTSO-E Roadmap

1.1 STRUCTURE OF THE ENTSO-E ROADMAP (2017 – 2026)

The structure of the ENTSO-E Roadmap 2017 - 2026 is as follows3:

Clusters Functional Objectives

CLUSTER 1

Power System

Modernisation

T 1 – Optimal grid design

T 2 – Smart Asset Management

T 3 – New materials & technologies

T 4 – Environmental challenges & Stakeholder

CLUSTER 2

Security and System

Stability

T 5 – Grid observability: PMU, WAM, Sensors, DSO information exchange

T 6 – Grid controllability: frequency and voltage stability, power quality, synthetic inertia

T 7 – Expert systems and tools: expert systems, decision-making support tools and advanced automatic control

T 8 – Reliability and resilience: defence and restoration plans, probabilistic approach, risk assessment, self-healing

T 9 – Enhanced ancillary services for network operation

CLUSTER 3

Power system flexibility

from generation, storage,

demand and network

T 10 – Storage integration, use of storage services

T 11 – Demand Response, tools for using DSR, load profile, EV impact

T 12 – Improved RES forecasting and optimal capacity operation

T 13 – Flexible grid use: dynamic rating equipment, power electronic devices, use of interconnectors

T 14 – Interaction with non-electrical energy networks

CLUSTER 4

Power System Economics

and Efficiency

T 15 – Market-grid operation integration

T 16 – Business models

T 17 – Flexible market design

CLUSTER 5

Digitalisation of

power system

T 18 – Big data management

T 19 – Standardisation, protocols for communication and data exchange

T 20 – New technologies, Internet of Things

T 21 – Cybersecurity

3 http://riroadmap.entsoe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/entsoe_ri_roadmap_2017-2026.pdf

Table 1. Structure of the ENTSO-E Roadmap 2017 – 2026


1.2 STRUCTURE OF THE MONITORING REPORT 2018

THE MONITORING REPORT 2018 IS STRUCTURED AS FOLLOWS:

4 FP7 refers to the European Union's Research and Innovation funding programme for 2007-2013. H2020 refers to Horizon 2020, the EU’s R&I funding programme for 2014 to 2020.

5 Other projects are, in general, nationally or regionally funded.

– A main section gives an overview of the monitoring activity by providing information regarding the meth-odology developed to achieve the exercise, highlight-ing the main features and Key Exploitable Results of 57 monitored RD&I projects (split into two categories: FP7/H20204 co-funded projects and Other projects5) and presenting graphically the inputs of those pro-jects, as well as the final coverage assessment for each Functional Objective of the ENTSO-E RD&I Roadmap 2017 – 2026.

– Projects collected by ENTSO-E internal working groups are also presented in this section. These additional projects are related to RD&I digital services and RD&I flexibility services. The link and the coverage of these projects to the activities of the ENTSO-E Roadmap is highlighted.

– A first Annex provides the detailed coverage assessment of the ENTSO-E RD&I Roadmap 2017 – 2026 aiming to gauge the degree of coverage of each Functional Objec-tive based on the feedback of the 57 RD&I projects and the expertise of the ENTSO-E stakeholders. For each Functional Objective, the overall achievements, main gaps and proposal for the next Roadmap are provided.

– A second Annex lists the details of the projects collect-ed by the ENTSO-E internal working groups related to RD&I digital services and RD&I flexibility services projects (in addition to the 57 RD&I projects already considered for the coverage assessment).

1.3 METHODOLOGY IMPLEMENTED FOR THE MONITORING ACTIVITY

PHASE 1: INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS COVERAGE ASSESSMENTPhase 1 of the exercise consisted of conducting a survey among more than 200 projects (through the ETIP SNET and ENTSO-E databases) using an online questionnaire. In total, 57 projects provided a detailed individual coverage assessment for each Functional Objective of the ENTSO-E

Roadmap. Each project leader has indicated whether, for each task of each Functional Objective, its scope was ad-dressing the tasks or not. The projects leaders provided the justification of their coverage based on one or several Key Exploitable Results (KER).

PHASE 2: COVERAGE ASSESSMENT BY ENTSO-E’S EXPERTSOnce all the inputs from the 57 projects has been collected for each Functional Objective, the experts from ENTSO-E’s RD&I Committee provided a final coverage assessment. Towards this aim, they provided four levels of information for each task of each Functional Objective:

1. The final Coverage assessment: by giving their ex-pert views regarding the final assessment of the coverage of the Roadmap's tasks. Three options were available:

(1) = Fully addressed (2) = Partially addressed (3) = Not addressed

2. The Justification of the final assessment: for instance, if a task was partially addressed, the following structure of justification could be used: "Ongoing projects are de-veloping [tools, methodologies...] addressing aspect X of the task; no project addresses aspect Y of the task";

3. If option (2) or (3) was selected in the first step: an in-dication whether a Merge or Reformulation of tasks or a New task was suggested from the expert;

4. Proposal of evolution of the Task: Based on the answer provided above, a proposal of evolution for the task to be included in the next Roadmap.


PHASE 3: CONCATENATION OF EXPERTS’ INPUTS FOR FINAL DISPLAYThe last phase consisted in collecting the experts’ inputs for each task of the Functional Objective and analysing the different material to come to a conclusion on the coverage of each Functional Objective.

1.4 COVERAGE ASSESSMENT AND PROJECTS’ STATISTICSWithin the survey, the 57 projects considered were surveyed to collect information on their main features.

ORIGIN OF THE PROJECTS’ FUNDING AND BUDGETAmongst the 57 projects, 18 are co-funded by FP7 or Hori-zon 2020 and 39 are funded through other funding instru-ments, as illustrated in Figure 1 (labelled “Other Projects”).

Figure 2 shows the different budget ranges for FP7 and H2020 and other projects.

FP7 & H2020 projects belong to three budget categories: from 1 M€ to 5 M€, from 10 M€ to 20 M€, and higher than 20 M€. Other projects have a more dispersed budget. Around 40% of projects have a budget between 1 M€ and 5 M€, 20% have a budget between 500 k€ and 1 M€ and 15% have a budget between 100 k€ and 500 k€ or higher than 20 M€. Two projects have a total budget between 5 and 10 M€.

FP7 and H2020 Projects

Other Projects

68 %

32 %

Figure 1. Share of FP7 and H2020 projects and other project

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

100k€ – 500 k€ 500k€ – 1 M€ 1 M€ – 5 M€ 5 M€ – 10 M€ 10 M€ – 20 M€ > 20 M€

FP7 AND H2020 PROJECTS

OTHER PROJECTS

Figure 2. Budget ranges for FP7 and H2020 projects and other projects


System Operators22 %

ICT and Software Providers 28 %

Energy Suppliers 11 %

Research and Innovation Stakeholders 28 %

11 %Energy Technology Providers

Energy Technology Providers

46 %

13 %

33%

5%3

System Operators

Research and Innovation Stakeholders

Energy Suppliers

ICT and Software Providers

TYPE AND LOCATION OF COORDINATING ENTITIESThe following categorisation for the projects’ coordinating entities has been adopted:

— System operators are Transmission System Operators (TSOs) and Distribution System Operators (DSOs);

— Energy technology providers gather manufacturers for energy transmission, distribution, generation, conversion and storage;

— ICT and software providers include software and telecommunication vendors;

— Energy suppliers include energy retailers, energy generators, energy service companies (ESCOs) or aggregators acting in energy markets;

— Research & Innovation stakeholders include research centres, universities, think-tanks, consultants and other stakeholders providing R&I-based services.

Figure 3 and Figure 4 display coordinating organisations within the monitored projects, for FP7 & H2020 projects and other projects.

R&I stakeholders and ICT and software providers are the main category of coordinating entities for FP7 & H2020 projects. In contrast, system operators are coordinating a large share of non FP7/H2020 projects.

Figure 3. Type of projects' coordinating enities of FP7 and H2020 projects

Figure 4. Type of projects' coordinating enities of other projects


The allocation of coordinating organisation by country is illustrated in Figure 5 (FP7 & H2020 projects) and Figure 6 (other projects).

Figure 5. Location of coordinators of FP7 and H2020 projects Figure 6. Location of coordinators of other projects

Germany, Spain and Ireland are within the top-3 coun-tries represented in the coordinating organisations of the 57 projects monitored. Stakeholders from Eastern Europe are rarely coordinating projects, with some exceptions

6 Power-to-Gas, Power-to-Heat, Power-to-Liquid.

from Slovenia (for both FP7 & H2020 and other projects), Greece (for FP7 & H2020 projects) and Croatia (for other projects). Regarding other projects, Northern Europe is more represented with Norway, Finland and Lithuania.

TECHNOLOGIES AND SERVICES TACKLED A broad range of technologies and services are being tested by the projects. Five main categories are considered:

— Technologies for consumers, especially to enable demand response;

— Grid technologies, including hardware and software solutions to improve network management;

— Storage and power-to-X6 technologies, connected at transmission or distribution level;

— Power generation technologies, including dispatcha-

ble and non-dispatchable technologies of all sizes;

— Market: electricity market and ancillary services.

Figure 7 and Figure 8 show that the monitored projects address all types of technologies and services in a balanced manner for FP7 & H2020 projects and with an emphasis on grid technologies and storage / power-to-X technologies for other projects.


BENEFITS BROUGHT BY THE PROJECTS

7 “Presentation of recent and ongoing R&I projects in the scope of the ETIP SNET”, INTENSYS4EU Deliverable D3.1: Project monitoring – Part 1

The following benefits brought by the monitored projects have been identified within INTENSYS4EU7:

— Efficient business models & market designs, corres-ponding to projects working on innovative business models or market designs, aiming to bring economic benefits to society;

— Decreased network costs, corresponding to a reduc-tion in CAPEX and/or OPEX of distribution and/or transmission networks;

— Improved network management, corresponding to measures enhancing the transmission and distribution network management, for instance congestion reduc-tion, improvement of grid security and reliability;

— Decreased carbon emissions, corresponding to bene-fits related to the decrease of greenhouse gas (mainly CO2) emissions, for instance thanks to the increase of renewable penetration;

— Reduced energy bills corresponding to benefits linked to the decrease of energy costs for consumers and/or the reduction of energy consumption;

— Improved social acceptance, corresponding to meas-ures to foster the acceptance of technologies by the society.

Technologies for Consumers

17 %

Storage and Power-to-X Technologies 21 %

Power Generation Technologies 13 %

Market 25 %

24 % Grid Technologies

Figure 7. Technologies and services tackled by FP7 & H2020 projects

13 %

30 %

20 %

10 %

27 %

Technologies for Consumers

Storage and Power-to-X Technologies

Power Generation Technologies

Market

Grid Technologies

Figure 8. Technologies and services tackled by other projects


33 %

29 %

2

20 %

7 %

Improved Network Management

Efficient Business Models and Market Designs

Reduced Energy Bills

Decreased Network Costs

Decreased Carbon Emissions

Improved Social Acceptance

9 %

Figure 9. Benefits brought by the projects

Based on this approach, the allocation of the projects’ bene-fits is illustrated in Figure 9. It shows that the top 3 benefits brought by the projects are an improved network manage-

ment, decreased carbon emissions and efficient business models & market designs. The category less represented is improved social acceptance.

PROJECTS’ KEY EXPLOITABLE RESULTS

The surveyed projects were requested to identify up to five project results that are the most promising for ex-ploitation. A total of 132 KER have been identified by the

projects’ coordinators. The display of the data focuses on two aspects: the description of features and the further steps and barriers before exploitation of the projects’ KER.

Descriptive features of projects’ key exploitable resultsNumber of Key Exploitable Results per project

As illustrated in Figure 10, the surveyed projects have declared the following number of KER:

— 29 projects have declared one KER (around 50% of the total number of projects);

— 7 projects have declared 2 KER;



— 10 projects have declared 5 KER.

The projects declaring five KER are mainly FP7 & H2020 projects (70%), while the ones with only one KER are mainly other projects (78%).

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

1 KER 2 KER 3 KER 4 KER 5 KER


OTHER PROJECTS

NU

MB

ER

OF

PR

OJE

CT

S

Figure 10. Number of KER by project


Nature of Key Exploitable Results

The varying nature of results has been defined within the surveyed projects:

— Methodology: methodologies for designing new rules, energy scenarios, etc;

— Software: development or demonstration of simula-tion tools, decision making support tools, etc.;

— Hardware: development or demonstration of pieces of hardware;

— Database: quantified scenarios, results of cost-bene-fit analyses, etc.;

— Policy, Regulation, Market: business models, policy recommendations, etc.

As shown in Figure 11, the dominant category of the KER declared by the projects corresponds to software, method-ologies and hardware tools. A significant number of KER correspond to policy, regulation or market recommenda-tions. Few KER correspond to a database.

Output Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of Key Exploitable Results

The KER have also been analysed depending on their output TRL:

— TRL 1: basic principles observed;

— TRL 2: technology concept formulated;

— TRL 3: experimental proof of concept;

— TRL 4: technology validated in lab;

— TRL 5: technology validated in a relevant environ-ment (industrially relevant environment in the case of key enabling technologies);

— TRL 6: technology demonstrated in a relevant envi-ronment (industrially relevant environment in the case of key enabling technologies);

— TRL 7: system prototype demonstration in operation-al environment;

— TRL 8: system complete and qualified;

— TRL 9: actual system proven in an operational envi-ronment (competitive manufacturing in the case of key enabling technologies).

Figure 12 shows the distribution of KER by their TRL level.

The largest number of KER considered in the survey have an output TRL 7 (37 KER). Cross-checking the nature of KER (from a previous section) with the output TRL shows that software, methodology and hardware tools are the majority within high TRL ranges compared to other types of KER (especially database and policy, regulation or market recommendations).

25 %

33 %

22 %

Software

Policy, Regulation, Market

Database

Hardware

Methology

3

17 %

Figure 11. Nature of KER


Projective features of Key Exploitable Results

Expected effective use of Key Exploitable Results

Different (non-exclusive) categories have been defined related to the expected effective use of KER:

— Internal use, i. e. by one project consortium partners;

— Collective use, i. e. jointly by several project consorti-um partners;

— Open use (e. g. open source, open data, open access, public domain);

— Commercial use;

— Integration within an educational programme.

Figure 13 shows the allocation of the expected effective use for the KER studied (mainly collective use).

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

NU

MB

ER

OF

KE

R

Figure 12. TRL level of KER

TRL

32 %

22 %

20 %

18 %

6% 2

Collective use

Internal use

Commercial use

Open source result

Other

Integration within an educational program

Figure 13. Expected effective use of KER


Next project steps for the exploitation of Key Exploitable Results

Additional next steps necessary towards effective use of results have been provided by the projects. They are gathered within 3 main categories:

— Next steps internal to project consortium: such as further testing, further demonstration, internal deployment, etc.;

— Next steps involving external stakeholders: such as

external certification, external dissemination, etc.;

— Next steps involving changes in existing framework: such as regulation, market, etc.

As shown in Figure 14, half of the KER considered have declared as main next steps those which are internal to the project consortium.

7 %

Next steps involving changes in existing framework

Next steps involving external stakeholders

Figure 14. Next steps towards the effective exploitation of KER

Next steps internal to project cosortium51 %

24 %

25 %

Time to exploitation of Key Exploitable Results

“Time to exploitation” includes “time-to-market” for commercial products, and “time to operational use” for non-commercial results (for instance innovations de-veloped within regulated frameworks).

Different timelines have been defined so as to evaluate the time to exploitation for the different KER:

— The KER is already exploited;

— KER exploitation is going to start immediately;

— KER exploitation will start within less than 2 years;



— KER exploitation will start within more than 10 years;

— Time to exploitation is uncertain, it depends on non-controllable conditions.

As shown in Figure 15, most KER are expected to be exploited in less than 5 years (99 KER).

Figure 15. Time to exploitation of KER

50

40

30

20

10

0NU

MB

ER

OF

KE

R

already exploited

immediate in less than 2 years

in less than 5 years

in 5 to 10 years

more than 10 years

uncertain


Barriers to exploitation of Key Exploitable Results

Projects have been questioned about barriers to KER exploitation. Different barriers have been considered for the analysis:

— Inadequate regulations;

— Inadequate market conditions;

— Difficulties in scaling-up;

— Further investments needed.

Other

No specific barrier

Figure 16. Barriers to exploitation

Market conditions

27 %

25 %

12 %

13 %

10 %

13 %

Further investment

Scalling-up

Regulations

One quarter of the barriers indicated by the projects are related to regulatory environment and another quarter of the barriers are related to market conditions. Then, equally displayed, scaling up and further investments barriers are indicated.

For 10% of KER, no specific barriers have been identified for the exploitation of results.

Focusing on output TRL 9, the main barriers are related to regulations.

Investment needed before exploitation of Key Exploitable Results

Regarding the additional investment that might be needed before effective exploitation of KER, projects have been asked to provide the range of such investment, as illus-trated by Figure 17.

Most KER need a significant investment before achieving exploitation. Even KER with output TRL 9 need signifi-cant additional investment before effective exploitation. One quarter of KER with TRL 9 even need an additional investment of 1 M€ or more.

30

25

20

15

10

5

0NU

MB

ER

OF

KE

R

Figure 17. Investment needed before exploitation of KER

no further investment needed

less than 100 k€ between 100 k€ and 1 M€

between 1 M€ and 10 M€

above 10 M€ uncertain

Figure 16 illustrates the main identified barriers to KER exploitation.


1.5 OVERVIEW OF THE COVERAGE ASSESSMENTOn the whole, 57 projects8 provided an individual coverage assessment of the ENTSO-E Roadmap. The allocation of those 57 projects depending on the cluster and the Functional Objective is illustrated in Figure 18 below (considering that one project can cover several Functional Objectives):

8 Around 35% of those projects ended in 2017 or before and 65% are on-going in 2018.9 Other projects are in general nationally or regionally funded. These projects might also benefit from EU funds, for instance from CEF, LIFE, ERDF or ERA-Net.

In summary, the coverage assessment of the Function-al Objectives related to transmission activities has been provided 53% by FP7/H2020 projects and 47% by Other projects9.

N.B: Throughout the report, the same colour code will be used for FP7/H2020 projects and Other projects.

Figure 18. Allocation of projects by Cluster (C1, ...) and Functional Objectives (T1, ...)

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16 T17 T18 T19 T20 T21


OTHER PROJECTS


Based on the inputs collected for each Functional Objective, the final coverage assessment by ENTSO-E is displayed in Figure 19:

For each Functional Objective, the percentage of Tasks Fully addressed, Partially addressed and Not addressed is indicated.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16 T17 T18 T19 T20 T21

FULLY ADDDRESSED PARTIALLY ADDRESSED NOT ADDRESSED

Figure 19. Display of the final coverage assessment by Cluster and by FO

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5

%

For the following Functional Objectives, more that 50% of the tasks are not addressed: T2 (Smart asset manage-ment), T3 (New materials & technologies), T8 (Reliability and resilience), T14 (Interaction with non-electrical energy networks) and T20 (New technologies, Internet of Things).

Regarding T2, beyond the sample of the 57 surveyed pro-jects10, there is evidence of “Other projects” that address it; the actual coverage can consequently be assumed to be higher than merely reported in Figure 19. Concerning T3, T8 and T14, the coverage reflects the fact that work remains to be done so as to consider all the aspects of each Functional Objective. Priorities will need to be identified

10 As mentioned before, the detailed coverage assessment as presented in this version of the Monitoring Report is based on a sample of 57 projects. This non-exhaustive list of projects provides a good overview of the coverage of the functional objective, however, in some cases it is evident that a wider range of national (mainly) projects contribute (positively) to addressing those objectives. In the analysis of some Functional Objectives, such projects are added separately.

11 https://www.etip-snet.eu/etip-snet-vision-2050/

in the future Roadmap. Regarding T20, the structure of the next Roadmap shall be adapted to comply with the evolution of the energy system in this field.

Only one Functional Objective (FO), T16 (Business mod-els) is considered to be fully addressed. However, due to ecosystem evolution in the energy system and new ac-tors appearing on the scene, there is the need to enlarge its scope; therefore in the next Roadmap, this FO shall be adapted to consider the new market design as described, for example, in the vision 2050 of the ETIP SNET 11.


2 TSO RELATED PROJECTS FROM THE ENTSO-E WORKING GROUPS

2.1 PROJECTS RELATED TO DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES

CONTEXT

12 https://docstore.entsoe.eu/Documents/RDC%20documents/entso-e_innovation_points_180509_WEB.pdf

In May 2018, ENTSO-E presented its “Ten priorities for Europe’s research policy to deliver the Energy Union”12 at the Innogrid2020+. One of these priorities (number 2) is directly focusing on digital technologies, stating that “Digitalisation is the main tool for and driver of the power system of the future and must be a horizontal priority in all research activities”.

It is a well-known fact that the TSO community already apply digital technologies in many areas and plan to have an exponential increase in digitalisation in the near future.

The aim is therefore to highlight significant projects stand-ing for the digital reality of TSOs’ action of today. Those projects are related to five core areas:

— Digitalisation to increase the effectiveness of the physical grid through the optimisation of asset man-agement;

— Digitalisation for data management;

— Digitalisation for system operation;

— Digitalisation for market facilitation;

— Digitalisation for sector coupling.

METHODOLOGYThe assessment of the project and the use case selection is as follows:

— Extraction of about 140 innovative projects by scan-ning R&D sections on TSO websites, from specific questionnaires and news articles;

— Around 100 of these projects were then classified as digitalisation under the agreed definition;

— Finally, the digitalisation cases have been character-ised under a series of dimensions, as illustrated by the table below:

The projects considered (131 projects in total) correspond only to regional/national projects not already involved in the coverage assessment of the ENTSO-E Roadmap (section above).

LINK WITH THE COVERAGE ASSESSMENT OF THE ENTSO-E ROADMAPThe projects collected bring an added value for the coverage assessment of the ENTSO-E Roadmap and more specifically the Cluster 5 “Digitalisation of power system”.


OVERVIEW OF PROJECTS’ MAIN FEATURES

The 131 projects are distributed between the following countries, as illustrated by the map below:

The top 2 countries with the highest number of pro-jects provided for this analysis are Great Britain and Germany(with respectively 18 and 17 projects), followed by Spain, Norway and Belgium (respectively 14, 12 and 10 projects).

Moreover, the allocation of the projects by Primary Technology is provided in the chart below (Excluding the projects with no information – 49 projects):

Figure 21. Allocation of the projects related to digital technologies by primary technology

0

1

2 – 4

5 – 9

10 – 15

> 15

Figure 20. Distribution of the projects related to digital technologies

Other

Automated control Common platform

WAMS

Hardware

Data analytics19 %

11 % 15 %

16 %

10%

5 %

5 %

19 %

Big data

Knowledge sharing / social media


The 3 main categories are: Data analytics (16 projects), Common platform (13 projects) and Big data (12 projects). They are closely followed by Hardware (9 projects) and Wide area Monitoring System (WAMS) with 8 projects.

Regarding the Market based challenges, the distribution is as follows:

Figure 22. Allocation of the projects related to digital technologies by Market Based challenges

Excluding the 44 projects not providing information, the allocation is the following: 38 projects facing cost savings challenges, 31 projects needing an improved existing prod-ucts /services and 18 projects facing new market offering.

Concerning the TSO challenges and based on the informa-tion provided (84 projects over 131), the main topic raised by 31 projects is the increased intermittency, the other projects facing specific challenges due to their respective scope and activity.

SPECIFICITIES OF THE PROJECTS BY PRIMARY TECHNOLOGYThe following section provides detailed information for 82 projects clustered by the following primary technology: Data Analytics, Common platform, Big Data, Hardware, WAMS, Automated control, Knowledge sharing/social media and Others. The “Others” category includes the following primary technologies: AI, Internet of Things, Blockchain, Optical fibre, Imaging, Human input/social media, Machine learning and Commercial UAVs (Drones).

For each category, the following projects’ information is provided: the name of the project, the TSO coordinating the project, a web link with access to additional information, a short description and the main technologies addressed by the project.

N / A

New market offerings

Cost savings

Improved existing products / services

29 %

24 %14 %

33 %


2.2 PROJECTS RELATED TO FLEXIBILITY SERVICES AND TECHNOLOGY

CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY

13 https://docstore.entsoe.eu/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/Documents/Publications/Position%20papers%20and%20reports/entsoe_pp_DF_1712_web.pdf&action=default

In December 2017, ENTSO-E released its position paper regarding distributed flexibility and the value of TSO/DSO cooperation13. This paper provides key recommendations on how to integrate the flexibility services provided by new assets and actors into the internal energy market. In parallel, ENSTO-E works in close cooperation with the distribution system operators throughout different

working groups and in June 2018 organised in a dedicated workshop related to flexibility.

One of the outputs of this collaboration is the mapping of projects related to flexibility services based on a bottom-up methodological approach (knowledge sharing information and classification of projects within 4 clusters).

LINK WITH THE COVERAGE ASSESSMENT OF THE ENTSO-E ROADMAPThe projects collected bring an added value for the coverage assessment of the ENTSO-E Roadmap and more specifi-cally Cluster 3 – “Power system flexibility from generation, storage, demand and network”.

OVERVIEW OF PROJECTS’ MAIN FEATURES

The 18 projects are distributed between the following countries. as illustrated by the map below:

Figure 23. Distribution of the projects related to flexibility services

Enera

New 4.0Designnetz

C SellsWindNodeSmall scale

assets to CM

CROSSBOWCross-Border

Balancing

Flexibility resources parti-

cipation to AS

Nodes

SmartNet Denmark

Small assets to aFRR

Small assets to FCR

ETPA Stedin

Piclo

Cornwall

NEBEF

SmartNet Spain

Flexibility resources

participation to AS

TSO

DSO

TSO/DSO

Power Exchange

Third Party

Local

National

Regional Cross- Countries


GLOSSARY

Acronym Definition

DER Distributed Energy Resources

DLR Dynamic Line Rating

DSO Distribution System Operator

ESS Energy Storage System

ETIP SNET European Technology & Innovation Platform Smart Networks for Energy Transition

EV Electric Vehicle

FACTS Flexible AC transmission system

FO Functional objective

FOCS Fibre optic current sensors

FP7 European Union's Research and Innovation funding programme for 2007-2013

H2020 European Union's Research and Innovation funding programme for 2014-2020

HVDC High Voltage Direct Current

IoT Internet of Things

Acronym Definition

KER Key Exploitable Result

NRA National Regulatory Authority

PMU Phasor Measurement Unit

PST Phase Shifting Transformers

RD&I Research, Development and Innovation

RDIC ENTSO-E’s RD&I Committee

RES Renewable Energy Sources

TRL Technology Readiness Level

TSO Transmission System Operator

VPP Virtual Power Plant

VSC Voltage source Converter

WAMS Wide Area Monitoring System

European Network ofTransmission System Operators

for Electricity

Monitoring Report 2018 - Research, Development and ... · ABOUT ENTSO-E ENTSO-E, the European...

Documents

Transcript of Monitoring Report 2018 - Research, Development and ... · ABOUT ENTSO-E ENTSO-E, the European...