Red: Simulation Results of Case II (12% wind Yidan Lu ... · Case I Oscillation Mode Case II...
Transcript of Red: Simulation Results of Case II (12% wind Yidan Lu ... · Case I Oscillation Mode Case II...
Reduced WECC and EI Models for
Education and Research
Yidan Lu1, Yin Lei1, Gefei Kou1, Denis Osipov1, Joe Chow2, Yilu Liu1, Kai Sun1 and Kevin Tomsovic1
1The University of Tennessee, Knoxville 2Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Introduction and Backgrounds
Space for
QR Code
1. Rapid expansion of transmission grid and increase of renewable have made the current standard power system models outdated forresearch.
2. Implementation of Phasor Measurement Units (PMUs) enhanced power system observability and allow measurement based model reductions for construction of a Large Scale Testbed.
3. Large Scale Testbed contains reduced models at different resolution levels to serve as platform to address future power gird issues, including power transfer with HVDC overlay and security assessment with high renewable penetration.
00:00:00 00:00:10 00:00:20 00:00:30 00:00:40 00:00:50 00:00:60
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5x 10
-3
Time(s), UTC
Fre
qu
en
cy
(Hz)
Frequency Response of Montana Generation Trip comparison Between Cases
Green : Fnet data recording
Blue: Simulation Results of Case I (no wind
penetration)
Red: Simulation Results of Case II (12% wind
penetration)
Black: Simulation Results of Case III (22% wind penetration)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600-4
-2
0
2
4x 10
-4
Time (tenth of a second)
Am
plitu
de
Time Domine Frequency Response after DC filtering
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 50
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5x 10
-5
Frequency (Hz)
|Y(f
)|
Single-Sided Amplitude Spectrum of Frequency Response after DC filtering
Case I Oscillation Mode
Case II Oscillation Mode
Case III Oscillation Mode
FNET Record Oscillation Mode
Case I Oscillation Mode
Case II Oscillation Mode
Case III Oscillation Mode
Fnet Record Oscillation Mode
Early Achievements
Fig. 1 Large Scale Test-bed
Interconnection Area Generation Capacity (GW)EI Central 434.23EI Northwestern 35.08EI Northeastern 81.89EI Florida 39.54
WECC Washington 77.60WECC Wyoming 11.88WECC New Mexico 27.28WECC California 37.55ERCOT Northern 15.64ERCOT Houston 9.74ERCOT Southern 1.99ERCOT Western 5.98
Fig. 2 Power System Clustering
Table I Dynamic Cluster Generation Capacity
• Testbed of highly reduce networks (Fig. 1)
is developed by generation aggregation.
Measurements-based EI reduced system
(Fig.2) is developed by clustering.
Development of EI Models for Future Applications
Fig. 4 Control Area based
Reduced EI Structure
• EI models at different resolutions developed
with steady state or dynamic equivalence.
• A 21-bus (Fig. 3) reduced EI model preserving
static and dynamic equivalences was
developed via application of measurement
based K-mean clustering algorithm.
• A 266-bus control area based reduced EI
model (Fig. 4) was constructed for HVDC
based on control area recognition.
• A 446-bus EI model (Fig. 5) with steady state
equivalence was later completed to form part of
the North America Power Grid Testbed.
A detailed 2030 EI system (Fig. 6)
with 17% of wind penetration was
also proposed.
Fig. 3 Measurement based
reduced EI Structure
Fig. 5 DynRed Reduced EI Model
Fig. 6 The 2030 EI Model with 70,000+ buses
WECC Model Validation with Renewable Integration
Case Number Bus Number Total Generation Wind Generation Wind Penetration Transfer LimitDetailed Case 15600 154 GW Not Applicable Not Applicable 4800MWCase I 181 61 GW 0GW 0% 4620.5MWCase II 197 61 GW 7.37GW 12.08% 4593.5MWCase III 197 61 GW 13.52GW 22.16% 4445.8MW
Fig. 8 Time Domain Frequency Response Fig. 9 FFT Analysis of Oscillation Mode
Table II Comparison of COI Transfer Limit Among Cases
Fig. 7 WECC System with Wind Integration
• Simplified WECC systems
developed with different
levels of wind
penetrations.
• Locations and capacity of
wind turbines determined
according to prototype
data.
• Simplified WECC systems
preserve equivalence in
frequency responses and
COI Transfer capability.
HVDC Interconnection of North America Power Grid Conclusions
1. Mid-size reduced system
developed respectively for
WECC, EI and ERCOT .
2. Around 1000-bus North
America Power grid testbed
with 50% wind penetration is
ready for use .
3. Control schemes to avoid
voltage collapse and
islanding will be validated
using this testbed
4. This testbed will serve future
academy and research
purposes.
Fig. 10 Interconnection of North America System using Back to Back HVDC
EI to WECC Back to Back HVDC Connection
Location DC Volt. EI to WECC Capacity WECC to EI Capacity
McNeil, Saskatchewan 42kV 200MW 75MW
Mile city Montana 82kV 200MW 200MW
Stegall Nebraska 57kV 0MW 166MW
Virginia Smith Nebraska 50kV 200MW 200MW
EI to ERCOT Back to Back HVDC Connection
Location DC Volt. EI to Texas Capacity Texas to EI Capacity
Oklaunion, Texas 82kV 200MW 200MW
Welsh, Texas 162kV 600MW 600MW
WECC to ERCOT Back to Back HVDC Connection
Location DC Volt. WECC to TexasCapacity
Texas to WECC Capacity
Blackwater, New Mexico 57kV 210MW 0MW
Eddy New Mexico 82kV 200MW 200MW
Table III Location and Capacity of Back to Back
HVDC Connection in North America Power Grid