WP 24

Impact of Integrating Renewables and CHP into
the UK Transmission Network
Xueguang Wu, Nick Jenkins and Goran Strbac
November 2002
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 24

Impact of Integrating Renewables and
CHP into the UK Transmission Network
Xueguang Wu, Nick Jenkins and Goran Strbac

The Manchester Centre for Electrical Energy (MCEE)
UMIST
UK
and
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
Emails contact: w.xueguang@umist.ac.uk

n.jenkins@umist.ac.uk
g.strbac@umist.ac.uk
Tyndall Centre Working Paper No. 24
November 2002
This working paper draws on findings from Tyndall Project IT1.30

Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................2
2. SCENARIOS.................................................................................................................3
2.1 SCENARIOS FOR RENEWABLES ........................................................................................................3
2.2 SCENARIOS FOR CHP ......................................................................................................................5
3. REGIONAL RENEWABLES AND CHP .........................................................................5
3.1 REGIONAL RENEWABLES ................................................................................................................5
3.1.1 Regional Renewables in 2000................................................................................................5
3.1.2 Regional Renewables by 2010...............................................................................................6
3.2 REGIONAL CHP.............................................................................................................................10
3.2.1 Regional CHP in 2000 .........................................................................................................10
3.2.2 Regional CHP by 2010 ........................................................................................................11
4. IMPACT ON THE UK ELECTRICITY NETWORK ........................................................12
4.1 THE CURRENT SITUATION ..............................................................................................................12
4.1.1 Transmission in the UK ......................................................................................................12
4.1.2 Power flow patterns in 2000................................................................................................13
4.2 INTEGRATING GOVERNMENT’S TARGETS INTO THE UK ELECTRICITY NETWORK ..........................17
4.2.1 Assumptions .........................................................................................................................17
4.2.2 Winter peak in 2010 ............................................................................................................17
4.2.3 Summer valley in 2010 ........................................................................................................22
5. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ...................................................................................27
6. CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................................................27
7. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................28
1
1. Introduction
The Government has reconfirmed the targets that 10% of the UK electricity should be
supplied from Renewables by 2010 and for Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
capacity to rise to 10GWe by the same date [1]. These targets require that a total of
some 14GW of additional generating plant will need to be embedded in the UK
electricity system. This is approximately equal to 67% of the present (2001) minimum
demand, 20.8GW (NGC: 18.6GW, ScottishPower: 1.6GW, Scottish Hydro-Electric:
0.6GW) in summer, on the UK power system (excluding Northern Ireland Electricity)
and 24% of the peak load, 57GW (NGC: 51GW, ScottishPower: 4.4GW, Scottish
Hydro-Electric: 1.6GW) in winter [2, 3, 4].
In 2000, renewable generation amounted to about 1.9GW (excluding large-scale

hydro) [5]. The 10% objective for 2010 implies an additional installed UK capacity
for renewable generation of up to 8.4GW. CHP generation was about 4.6GWe in 2000
[6]. For achievement of the 10GWe of Government’s target by 2010, the UK capacity
for CHP has to be increased by about 5.4GWe.
Against this background, UMIST is taking part in a research project to study how
these Government targets may be embedded into the UK power system. The research
is funded by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and is being conducted
in collaboration with SPRU Environment and Energy Programme, Sussex University.
The work includes investigation of the impacts on the UK central generating system,
transmission and distribution networks based on scenarios for the use of renewable
energy and CHP over the next 10 years [5].
This report is to provide an understanding of the significant technical issues for the
transmission system that would be associated with the replacement of a substantial
proportion of existing generation by Renewables and CHP. This has involved an
examination of the voltage profiles and power flows that may occur, together with an
examination of reactive power compensation that may be required.
An investigation of the likely development of various types of Renewables and CHP

has been made, particularly in terms of regional distribution of generators for each
type of energy. The considerable volume of information that has been generated at
SPRU has been brought together to provide a comprehensive overview of the
potential of Renewables and CHP generation.
Using this information the possible effects of integrating the Government’s 2010
Renewable and CHP targets into the UK network, in terms of steady state operation of
the UK transmission system, have been investigated based on typical operation cases,
i.e. winter peak and summer valley loads.
The results of the studies indicate that the UK transmission network can accommodate
the 10% target for renewables and the 10GWe of CHP by 2010, but only with
appropriate reduction in the output of existing conventional generation. Clearly, the
changes in output of central generation are critical for the stable operation of the
transmission network. The studies indicate that power losses and transfer of power
across system boundaries, particularly between North and South, may be decreased
due to introduction of significant quantities of Renewables and CHP generation in the
2
South of the UK. In the studies, the voltage profiles were improved by installation of
shunt reactive power compensators in the network.
Looking ahead, for a low carbon future in the UK, the PIU Energy Report suggested
that a target as high as 20% of electricity coming from Renewables should be
achieved by 2020 [7]. This condition is not addressed in the present report, but is
likely to be challenging.
2. Scenarios
2.1 Scenarios for Renewables
Scenarios are views of the future, defined by specifying a set of policies and
characteristics of energy technology. Three basic scenarios for Renewables were
presented by ETSU [8]. The scenarios are:
• “Trends continued”. This case is based on the MARKAL runs [8, Annex E] but
decrease the contribution from onshore wind, taking into account some non-technical
barriers, such as public opinion and the related planning system.
• “High wind”. This case assumes a greater contribution from both onshore and
offshore wind.
• “Constrained wind”. The case not only assumes that wind energy is more
constrained, but also that large-scale deployment of biomass (particularly in the form
of energy crops) can be accelerated.
The scenarios specify the potential share of a range of renewable energy sources to
UK electricity generation. In order to determine likely electricity outputs, an
assessment has been made of the load factor of each type of energy. For this purpose,
a load factor is defined as:
Annual Energy Output (GWh) × 1000

Load Factor =
Capacity ( MW ) × 8760
Based on development of the scenarios at SPRU [5] and data in [6], the full estimates
of the plant capacity are summarised in Tables 1, 2 and 3 as follows.
3
Table 1 “High wind” scenario
“High wind”
Technology Load factor Electricity Electricity Capacity
(GWh) (%) (MW)
Energy crops 0.80 1150 5 164
Offshore wind 0.34 6850 18 2300
Onshore wind 0.30 9900 26 3767
Small hydro 0.35 400 1 130
Waste incineration 0.87 4950 13 649
Other biomass 0.80 1150 3 164
Landfill gas 0.85 4950 13 665
Other 0.23 1150 3 571
Existing 0.44 7600 20 1972
Total 38,100 100 10,382
Table 2 “Trends continued” scenario
“Trends continued”
(GWh) (%) (MW)
Energy crops 0.80 1900 5 271
Offshore wind 0.34 4950 13 1662
Onshore wind 0.30 8000 21 3044
Small hydro 0.35 400 1 130
Landfill gas 0.85 6100 16 819
Other 0.23 1900 3 943
Existing 0.44 7600 20 1972
Total 38,850 100 9,912
Table 3 “Constrained wind” scenario
“Constrained wind”
(GWh) (%) (MW)
Energy crops 0.80 6100 16 870
Offshore wind 0.34 3050 8 1024
Onshore wind 0.30 4950 13 1883
Small hydro 0.35 400 1 130
Landfill gas 0.85 6500 17 873
Other 0.23 1150 3 571
Existing 0.44 7600 20 1972
Total 38,150 100 8,447
Source(s): Calculations from
(1) SPRU, Renewable Energy and Combined Heat and Power Resources in the UK,
July 2001.
(2) DTI, Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2001, 26 July 2001.
(3) Other is PV, tidal and wave technologies.
4
2.2 Scenarios for CHP
The future potential for CHP in the UK was calculated by ETSU in 1997 for three
scenarios, a Base case, a High case and a Low case [5]. The estimated potential for
CHP in 2010 is shown in Table 4. The fuel prices using in the scenarios were based
on the values of four years ago, and the results look more optimistic than current
trends.
Table 4 Future potential of UK CHP in the 2010

High case Base case Low case
Potential output
16810 14720 10005
(MWe)
For the Government’s target of 10GWe total capacity in 2010, a DTI-ETSU report [9]
projected the proportion of CHP based on trends in the numbers of various types of
CHP for the years 1978 to 1998. This indicated a dominant contribution coming from
combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT) CHP plants. However, in the future, the number
of CHP schemes are likely to be significantly increased by micro-CHP [10].
Therefore, in this report, the development of CHP was assumed to be such that its
contribution comes mainly from a large number of schemes of small size (less than
9.9MWe). At the present time, there is some 4,600MWe of CHP at work in the UK
from 1,556 schemes. These figures imply that a further 540MWe of new CHP
capacity will have to be commissioned each year for the next 10 years – a doubling of
the average rate of commissioning witnessed over the past five years.
3. Regional Renewables and CHP
Renewables and CHP are different from conventional generation in many ways. Aside
from their low- or no-carbon emissions profile and sustainable fuel source, a major
characteristic common to both these technologies is that they are dispersed in
geography and are smaller in scale. A number of regional assessments of renewable
energy resources in the UK have been carried out by DTI, DETR, ETSU, CHPA,
BWEA etc. The main results of those regional assessments, that are already available,
have been summarised by SPRU [5] and OXERA [11]. For the purpose of this report,
it is necessary to estimate the reasonable regional distributions of Renewables and
CHP in the UK by 2010.
3.1 Regional Renewables
3.1.1 Regional Renewables in 2000
Based on SPRU’s results [5], we have calculated how each region of the UK, using
the data published by DTI [6] and NGC [2], contributed to the UK renewable capacity
in 2000. Table 5 gives information for each regional capacity. The first column
indicates the regional share of the Renewables. This was calculated in the SPRU
report.
5
Table 5 Existing renewable capacity in 2000
Region Regional capacity share Capacity
(%) (MW)
North East 4.9 96.6
North West 9.6 189.3
Yorkshire & Humber 3.2 63.1
East Midland 5.6 110.4
West Midland 8.9 175.5
East of England 14.7 289.8
South West 1.7 39.4
South East 6.9 136.1
London 5.8 114.4
England 61 1208.8
Wales 29 571.8
Scotland 8 153.8
Northern Ireland 2 37.5
UK total 100 1,972
July 2001.
(2) DTI, Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2001, 26 July 2001.
(3) NGC, Seven Year Statement - Embedded Generation (Table 4.1), May 2001,
http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/.
3.1.2 Regional Renewables by 2010
For the 10% target by 2010, in each region, the estimated resources were considered
on a technology-by-technology basis, and then all of the renewables in the region
were summed as a target for this area.
The regional renewable energy assessments for each type of technologies were
thought to generate the proportion of electricity from renewables by 2010 as the
assumptions presented in [5].
The regional studies for the 10 % target by 2010 have been calculated and shown in
the Tables 6, 7 and 8 under three scenarios.
6
Table 6 Regional renewable energy for 2010 target under “High wind” scenario
(%) (MW)
North East 3.6 309.8
South West 7.1 601.5
London 0.5 40.8
England 59.8 5032.8
Wales 12.3 1031.1
Scotland 23.5 1977.9
Northern Ireland 4.4 368.7
UK total 100 8,410 (excludes existing)
Table 7 Regional renewable energy for 2010 target under “Trends continued”
scenario
(%) (MW)
London 0.6 50.8
England 63.6 5048.6
Wales 11.9 945.5
UK total 100 7,940 (excludes existing)
7
Table 8 Regional renewable energy for 2010 target under “Constrained wind”
scenario
Region Region capacity share Capacity
(%) (MW)
London 0.8 52.9
England 68.4 4432.3
Wales 10.6 689.8
UK total 100 6476 (excludes existing)
July 2001.
(2) British BioGen, UK Biomass Electricity Plants,
http://www.britishbiogen.co.uk/bioenergy/map.htm.
(3) BWEA, Planning for wind Energy – A Guide for Regional Targets, www.bwea.com
(4) BWEA, Location Map of Operating Onshore Wind Farms,
http://www.britishwindenergy.co.uk/map/map.html
(5) BWEA, Operating Offshore Wind Farms, http://www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk/devs.html
(6) DTI, Hydro Power Products and Services from Britain,
http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewable/site/pdf/hydro.pdf
(7) EfW, Current & Projected EfW capacity in UK (as at December 2000),
http://www.efw.org.uk/html/a_capacities.htm.
(8) UBA, Landfill Gas Projects in operation (as of end of April 1999),
http://www.biogas.org.uk/projlist.htm.
(9) DTI/ETSU, Update of the Database of Photovoltaic Installations in the UK,
http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewable/pdf/sp2301.pdf.
(10) BPA, Map of PV projects in different parts of the UK, http://www.pv-
uk.org.uk/uk/index.html.
(11) DTI/ETSU, A Brief Review of Wave Energy,
http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewable/site/pdf.html#wave
(12) NGC, Seven Year Statement - Wind, Tidal & Wave Power Areas in the UK
(Figure 4.1), May 2001, http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/.
In addition, the results were then compared with similar work done by OXERA [11].
This study utilised regional renewable energy assessments based on a high scenario of
the regional targets. The renewable obligation (RO) target for Great British (GB) 10%
target was assumed to be 32.3TWh/yr electricity supplied from renewable energy
sources. The regional assessments under the high target scenario quote energy from
renewable electricity and capacity in 2010, which are listed in Table 9.
8
Table 9 Regional renewable energy for 2010 target under a high scenario of the
regional targets (OXERA)
Region Regional electricity share Electricity Capacity
(%) (GWh/yr) (MW)
North East 6.3 2,034 581
North West 9.7 3,151 679
Yorkshire & Humber 11.0 3,579 769
East Midland 6.1 1,991 406
West Midland 8.9 2,891 717
East of England 13.3 4,300 1,188
South West 7.8 2,534 569
South East 10.1 3,262 607
London 1.9 600 90
England 24,400 5,606
Wales 13.4 4,354 1,230
Scotland 11.1 3,589 1,333
UK total 100 32,343 8,169
Northern Ireland 3 1,095 281
Source(s):
(1) OXERA, Regional Renewable Energy Assessments, a report to the DTI and
DTLR, 6 February 2002.
(2) Circa 1 GW of offshore wind capacity is not included in Scotland regional
assessment.
(3) Northern Ireland will count towards the EU indicative target (281MW, 3% of the
38TWh/yr) but not the GB RO.
The data above, which have been taken directly from OXERA report, were compared
to our “High wind” scenario results, Table 6. The capacity figures, shown in MW, for
each region are close and consistent except for the East Midland and the West
Midland figures. To compare the differences in the East Midland and the West
Midland between OXERA and UMIST, the technology targets for the East Midland
and the West Midland were summarised in Table 10.
9
Table 10 Technology target comparisons for the East and the West Midlands between
OXERA and UMIST
East Midlands Capacity West Midlands Capacity
Technology (MW) (MW)
OXERA UMIST OXERA UMIST
Onshore wind 121 121.5 521 142.5
Offshore wind 100 360.0 - -
Landfill gas 56 54.5 111 64.5
Small hydro 12 - 3 -
Biomass 68 38.9 18 19.5
Energy from crops 25 - 53 -
PV 5 28.5 4 6.5
Wave and tidal - 22.0 - -
Total 406 625.4 717 233.0
Source(s):
(1) OXERA, Regional Renewable Energy Assessments, a report to the DTI and
(2) The technology of energy from crops is equal to the energy from biodegradable
waste in OXERA report.
(3) The biomass includes agriculture, forestry and industry waste.
Table 10 shown that the major differences for targets of the East Midlands and the
West Midlands between OXERA and UMIST are offshore wind and onshore wind.
The East Midlands is richly endowed with renewable energy resources, in particular
offshore wind around the Wash. It is likely, the offshore wind resource will be
developed significantly by 2010. The capacity figure of offshore wind for the East
Midland in OXERA report looks quite conservative. The contribution to the national
target from the West Midlands is predominantly onshore wind. However, recent
experience has indicated that development of large-scale onshore wind farms will face
a number of difficulties, such as environment constraints and public opinion. The
figure of onshore wind capacity for the West Midland in OXERA report is more
optimistic.
3.2 Regional CHP
Combined heat and power (CHP), or cogeneration, is the simultaneous generation of

electricity and usable heat from the same plant, to produce higher energy efficiencies
compared to conventional power stations, through the recovery of otherwise wasted
heat. CHP provides environmental benefits due to this improved efficiency and lower
overall fuel consumption. Consequently the Government strongly supports the
development of CHP as a key contribution to sustainable development, and promotes
its use wherever economic.
3.2.1 Regional CHP in 2000
The total existing CHP generating capacity in the UK is 4632MWe from 1556
installations [6] shown in Table 11.
10
Table 11 Existing CHP in 2000
Share of total Share of total
Regional Number Capacity
UK scheme UK capacity
distributions of schemes (MWe)
(%) (%)
England
Less than 100kWe 689 44.3 38.9 0.8
100kWe-999kWe 514 33.0 126.4 2.7
1MWe-9.9MWe 174 11.2 719.4 15.5
Greater than 10MWe 65 4.2 2,969.9 64.1
Total 1,442 92.7 3,854.6 83.2
Scotland
Less than 100kWe 9 0.6 0.6 0.0
100kWe-999kWe 19 1.2 4.3 0.1
1MWe-9.9MWe 12 0.8 44.4 1.0
Greater than 10MWe 8 0.5 580.7 12.5
Total 48 3.1 630.0 13.6
Wales
Less than 100kWe 24 1.5 1.6 0.0
100kWe-999kWe 17 1.1 5.1 0.1
1MWe-9.9MWe 8 0.5 44.1 1.0
Greater than 10Mwe 3 0.2 75.9 1.6
Total 52 3.3 126.8 2.7
Northern Ireland
Less than 1Mwe 11 0.7 2.3 -
Greater than 1Mwe 3 0.2 18.7 0.4
Total 14 0.9 21.0 0.4
UK total 1,556 100.0 4,632.3 100.0

(1) DTI, Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2001, 26 July 2001,
http://www.dti.gov.uk/epa/dukes.htm
(2) DTI, CHP in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland,
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energytrends/et9_01.htm.
3.2.2 Regional CHP by 2010
CHP plant covers a very wide range of size from hundreds of MWe to a few kWe. By
far the most common in terms of numbers connected to the system are those under 9.9
MWe as shown in Table 11. The number of plants above 10 MWe in rating are few,
and many more are unlikely to be developed quickly. As stated [10], in the future, the
number of CHP schemes will be significantly increased by micro-CHP.
Therefore, the regional distribution of CHP by 2010 was assumed to be in proportion
to the number of schemes of small size (less than 9.9MWe). Certain details of the
CHP schemes are made available from Ofgem’s database [12]. Calculations of the
regional CHP proportion and capacity are presented in Table 12.
11
Table 12 Regional CHP by 2010
Region Proportional to number of Capacity (MWe)
schemes of existing CHP
less than 9.9 MWe (%)
North West 10 536.8
East Midlands 8.7 467.0
West Midlands 12.8 687.1
Eastern of England 10.7 574.3
London 8.5 456.3
England 88.4 4745.0

Scotland 5.3 284.5
Wales 5 268.4
UK total 100 5367.7 (excludes existing)
(1) Ofgem, CHP Database- Publication, November 2001,
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/renewables/chp_index.htm
(2) DTI, Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2001, 26 July 2001,
http://www.dti.gov.uk/epa/dukes.htm
4. Impact on the UK electricity network
The Government wishes to increase the contribution of renewable electricity and CHP
to UK energy supplies. Most of these plants will be small-scale and less predictable
than conventional gas, coal-fires or nuclear power stations. For achievement of
Government’s 10% Renewables and 10GWe CHP targets by 2010, the configuration,
operation and regulation of current national electricity networks may therefore need
examination and modification.
4.1 The current situation
4.1.1 Transmission in the UK
At present, there are four transmission systems in the UK – one in England and
Wales, two in Scotland, and one in Northern Ireland. Each is separately operated and
owned. The largest, in terms of line length and share of total transmission, is the
National Grid Company (NGC) system covering England and Wales. Scottish Power
and Scottish and Southern Energy operation transmission network in the South and
North parts of Scotland, respectively. Northern Ireland Electricity has been connected
to Scottish Power by two monopolar submarine HVDC cables (2× 250MW, 275kV)
linked to operate in parallel on the both side ac systems [13]. In addition, the NGC
also operates electricity ‘interconnectors’ – overhead lines connecting the
transmission networks in England and Wales to Scotland, and an undersea link that
12
connects France and England. The transmission operators have a role in balancing
generation and demand at all times, and maintain the security of the network through
electricity trading and by purchasing ancillary services from generators and some
consumers.
4.1.2 Power flow patterns in 2000
There are a number of power flow patterns on the UK transmission system. Figures 1
and 2 illustrated two typical power flow patterns, winter peak case and summer
valley, in the NGC transmission network.
Under the winter peak case, high power flows (more than 8GW) are transferred from
the North, through the Midlands, to the South. These transfers are based on the
expected contribution of generating plants and demand of the loads in the network. At
off-peak, summer valley case, less generation capacity is needed to meet the reduced
demand. Thus the power flows around the system not only change as result of the
lower demand levels but also because of the changes in the generation disposition.
Studies showed that the voltages of the primary transmission system (400kV) were
adequate varying from 0.986 to 1.031 (see Figures 1 and 2).
The main transmission system “ boundaries”, which impose technical limit on power
flows together with an indication of boundary “thermal” capacity, were defined as
follow:
(1) Z-1, boundary between Scottish Power and England;
(2) Z-2, boundary between Upper North and North, and the same as B1-NGC;
(3) Z-3, boundary between North and Midlands, and the same as B2-NGC;
(4) Z-4, boundary between Midlands and South, and the same as B3-NGC;
(5) Z-5, boundary between South and South West, and the same as B7-NGC;
(6) Z-6, boundary between South and South East.
According to [2, 16], the possible maximum thermal limits of the boundaries above
are summarised in Table 13.
Table 13 Thermal limit of the boundaries

Boundary Thermal limit (MW)
Z-1 2780 (2)
Z-2 3900 (1)
Z-3 11667 (1)
Z-4 14001 (1)
Z-5 4177 (1)
Z-6 2000 (2)
Source(s):
(1) NGC, Seven Year Statement-Chapter 8, May 2001,
http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/.
(2) PB Power/ETSU, Concept Study – Western Offshore Transmission Grid, February
2002.
For a clear comparison, the boundary capabilities (“thermal” limits) and the transfer
powers under wind peak and summer valley cases have been shown in Figures 1 and
2.
13
Clearly, if additional power flows were to be superimposed, due to the connection of
significant amounts of renewable generation to the perimeter of the transmission
system, particularly in the North, reinforcement of the existing transmission network
may be required. This contrasts with the connection of generation in the South West
of England where capacity exists to accept significant additional generation, i.e.
boundary Z-5. However, the level of transmission reinforcement will be determined to
a large extent by the location of generation output displaced by the renewable
capacity. If the displaced generation is located in the North of England, then the
increase in power flows to the Midlands and South may be minimal.
14
Figure 1 NGC primary 400 kV network power flows without 2010 Renewables & CHP targets
(Winter peak in 2000)
Scottish Power
Key:
Power flow/Thermal limit
HAKB4A STWB4A, B 1. Generation: (MW)

1249/2780 (523) (726) Z-1 45,716.8
STELLA WEST 2. Load: (MW)

HARKER 1.004 0.990 44,797.8
HAWTHORN PIT
3. Power Losses: (MW+jMvar)
LACKENBY 919.0+j7162.2
NORTON
1.011 (0)
HUTTON
1.015
2129/3900
(677)
(622) Z-2 4. Slack: (MW)
(830) 26.39
QUER
OSBALDWICK
FIDDLERS
1.012
FERRY THORNTON
1.009 DRAX
PENWORTHAM CREYKE BECK
PADIHAM
0.987 1.011
0.988 EGGBOROUGH KEADBY
1.010 KILLINGHOLME
WYLFA FERRYBRIDGE
0.991 (1992) Z-3 GRIMSBY WEST
DAINES STOCKSBRIDGE (1391
0.991 (1125 WEST BURTON
MACCLESFIELD COTTAM 1.016 Z-4
DEESIDE (1597) 1.004
PENTIR (1178)
0.991 CELLARHEAD RATCLIFFE
SPLN
ON SOAR 0.987
(2094) (1610) (1106) WALPOLE KING’S LYNN
LEAGCY RUGELEY STAYTHORPE NORWICH MAIN
TRAWSFYNYDD
0.991
DRAKELOW
(1030) 1.014
1.012
IRONBRIDGE
1.000 EATON
SOCON
8199/11667 (925)
0.986 (1729)
FECKENHAM GRENDON
ENDERBY (slack)
(890) BRAMFORD 1.018
(896) 1.028 1.001
0.995
0.994 WYMONDLEY
9364/14001 EAST CLAYDON SUNDON PELHAM
WALHAM
0.999 BRAINTREE
0.996 0.999
COWLEY RAYLEIGH MAIN
RASSAU CITY ROAD
1.003 MINETY
0.997 GRAIN
DIDCOT Z-6
CILFYNYDD KINGSNORTH
0.996 LONDON AREA KEMSLEY
MELKSHAM
SEABANK 1.005 (811)
SWANSEA 1.000 BRAMLEY
CANTERBURY
(380)
1.012 Z-5 0.997
PEMBROKE DUNGENESS (718)
HINKLEY POINT 0.998 BOLNEY
NURSLING SELLINDGE
TAUNTON 0.996
LOVEDEAN
NINFIELD
MANNINGTON (614) E de F
ALVERDISCOT EXETER
0.999 (France)
CHICKERELL
FAWLEY NORTH
1529/2000
ABHAM
1.000
INDIAN QUEENS LANDULPH
994/4177
15
Figure 2 NGC primary 400 kV network power flows without 2010 Renewables & CHP targets
(Summer valley in 2000)
Scottish Power
Key:
HAKB4A STWB4A, B 1. Generation: (MW)

873/2780 (343) (530) Z-1 23,089.5
STELLA WEST
2. Load: (MW)
HARKER 1.007 1.000 22,744.4
HAWTHORN PIT
3. Power losses: (MW+jMvar)
LACKENBY
345.09-j6048.26
NORTON
1.007
HUTTON 1.015 (703)
(0) 4. Slack: (MW)
2302/3900
(735) Z-2 -6.06
(864)
QUER
OSBALDWICK
FIDDLERS
1.006
FERRY THORNTON
1.013 DRAX
PADIHAM
0.998 1.002
1.011 KILLINGHOLME
WYLFA FERRYBRIDGE
DAINES STOCKSBRIDGE (1089
1.001 (374) WEST BURTON
MACCLESFIELD COTTAM 1.008 Z-4
DEESIDE (639) 1.018
PENTIR (223)
1.020 CELLARHEAD RATCLIFFE
ON SOAR SPLN
1.000 (372) WALPOLE KING’S LYNN
(1290 (587)
LEAGCY RUGELEY 0.998 NORWICH MAIN
TRAWSFYNYDD DRAKELOW 1.024
(365) 1.026
IRONBRIDGE
1.017 (377) EATON
SOCON
4704/11667
1.009 (505)
FECKENHAM GRENDON
ENDERBY (slack)
(275) 1.017
1.009 1.016
1.008 WYMONDLEY 1.031
2929/14001 EAST CLAYDON SUNDON PELHAM SIZEWELL
WALHAM
1.014 BRAINTREE
1.012 1.012
COWLEY RAYLEIGH MAIN
RASSAU CITY ROAD
1.022 MINETY
1.010 1.032 GRAIN
DIDCOT Z-6
1.006 LONDON AREA KEMSLEY
MELKSHAM
SEABANK 1.011 (1017
SWANSEA 1.010 BRAMLEY
CANTERBURY
(220)
1.030 Z-5 1.000
PEMBROKE DUNGENESS (234)
NURSLING SELLINDGE
TAUNTON 0.993
LOVEDEAN
NINFIELD
ALVERDISCOT EXETER
1.000 (France)
CHICKERELL
1251/2000
FAWLEY NORTH
ABHAM
1.000
597/4177
16
4.2 Integrating Government’s targets into the UK electricity network
When an application is made for the connection of Renewables and CHP to the
network, there are a number of planning, operational and system performance issues
for transmission system that must be considered. It is important to clearly understand
the impact of the Renewables and CHP on the electricity supply to customers
connected to the system, and also on the development of conventional generation. In
this section we briefly described the impact of the system voltages and power flows
on the NGC transmission network.
4.2.1 Assumptions
In order to assess the effect of increasing numbers of Renewables and CHP on the
technical characteristics of the UK electricity system, it is necessary to examine the
transmission system. In this section, the basic assumptions have been made that:
(1) Study cases were winter peak and summer valley.
(2) The Scottish power system was connected to the NGC network at the boundary
between Scotland and England, Z-1.
(3) The Northern Ireland electric system have been neglected due to its small capacity
(4) The Renewables and CHP would tend to be located in areas close to favourable
transmission system connection points.
(5) The scenarios for Renewables were “High wind”, “Trends continued” and
“Constrained wind”, and for CHP was 5.4GWe contribution from small size
plants (less than 9.9MW).
A computer program, PowerWorld Simulator, was used to analyse the UK power
system behaviour and performance and give the forecast power flows loading on the
400 kV transmission system under the winter peak and summer valley cases in 2010.
4.2.2 Winter peak in 2010
Considering the winter peak case, for “High wind”, “Trends continued” and
“Constrained wind” scenarios, the regional proportions of Renewables and CHP are
shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5. The displaced generation and system power losses were
summarised in Tables 14 and 15.
Table 14 Displaced generation under winter peak case

Power plant Displaced conventional generation (MW)
“High wind” “Trends continued” “Constrained wind”
SCOTLAND 1,000 1,000 1,000
EGGBOROUGH 791 791 791
DRAX 2,576 2,576 2,576
KEADBY 467 237 237
WEST BURTON 1,940 1,940 1,940
COTTAM 1,515 1,515 1,515
RATCLIFFE ON 1,000 1,000 1,000
SOAR
DRAKELOW 666 666 666
WYLFA 1,075 1,075 1,075
DIDCOT 2,065 2,065 -
Total 13,095 12,865 11,444
17
Table 15 System power losses under winter peak case
Without With 2010 Renewables and CHP Targets
System power
Targets “High wind” “Trends “Constrained
losses
continued” wind”
(MW + j
919.0 + j 856.8 + j 826.1 + j 710.6 + j
MVAr)
7162.2 4880.2 4515.9 3084.9
The primary 400kV busbar voltages were kept within a range of 0.980 to 1.037 by
adding 400 MVAr shunt reactive power compensation at Padiham and Ferrybridge,
respectively, shown in Table 16.
Table 16 Additional reactive power compensation under winter peak case

Installed place Reactive power compensation (MVAr)
“High wind” “Trends “Constrained
PADIHAM 400 400 400
FERRYBRIDGE 400 400 400
Total 800 800 800
The results of transmission system ‘N-1’ security contingency analysis for

Government’s 2010 Renewables and CHP targets under winter peak case showed that
no components had any violation with the exception of one 400kV transformer in
Killingholme power plant, shown in Table 17.
Table 17 System ‘N-1’ contingency examination under winter peak case

‘N-1’ Without With 2010 Renewables and CHP targets
contingency Targets “High wind” “Trends “Constrained
violation continued” wind”
None None None
(excepting one (excepting one (excepting one
Branch None
400kV transformer 400kV transformer 400kV transformer
MVA
in Killingholme, in Killingholme, in Killingholme,
KILL40/KILL8U) KILL40/KILL8U) KILL40/KILL8U)
Branch
None None None None
AMP
Bus voltage None None None None
Interface None None None None
Simulation results showed that the UK transmission system was able to accommodate
the Government’s 2010 Renewables and CHP targets without requiring network
reinforcement in the winter peak case. Generation, old conventional power plants
mainly located in the North, was reduced. The power transfers across the boundaries
Z-3 and Z-4 were decreased by Renewables and CHP displacement of the
conventional generation in the North.
However, it was noted that the boundaries Z-1 and Z-2 should be reinforced if a
greater capacity of Renewables, particularly in Scotland, would be developed beyond
2010.
18
Figure 3 NGC primary 400 kV network power flows with 2010 Renewables & CHP targets
(“High wind” in winter peak)
Renewable Energy (MW)
Scottish Power
CHP (MW)
Generation reduced: (MW)
(1950) 1 COTTAM: 1515 (3 units), 100%
Shunt devices (MVAr) HAKB4A (284.5)
2 RATCLIFFE ON SOAR: 1000 (2 units),
STWB4A, B
100%
(2026) (575)
2601/2780 Z-1 3 DRAKELOW: 666 (2 units), 100%
4 WYLFA: 1075 (4 units), 100%
STELLA WEST
0.980 5 DRAX: 2576 (4 units), 64%
HARKER
0.996 HAWTHORN PIT 6 KEADBY: 467 (2 units), 64%
Key: 7 WEST BURTON: 1940 (4 units), 100%
NORTON (461.6) 8 EGGBOROUGH: 791 (2 units), 100%
0.989 9 DIDCOT: 2065 (8 units), 100%
HUTTON (309.8)
0.998 10 SCOTLAND: 1000
(616.6) (1001) TOTAL: 13,095
3892/3900 (1012)
(1995) Renewable Energy: (MW)
Z-2
QUER
OSBALDWICK 8,013.0
FIDDLERS (616.7) 0.980 CHP: (MW)
FERRY
DRAX
THORNTON 5,367.7
0.994
(536.8) (400) CREYKE BECK Power Losses: (MW +j Mvar)
PENWORTHAM
0.982 (418.7) 0.980 856.87 +j 4880.28
PADIHAM
(400)
Slack: (MW)
WYLFA 0.998 (1482) KILLINGHOLME
FERRYBRIDGE
-12.37
DAINES 0.988 STOCKSBRIDGE
(641) 0.995
MACCLESFIELD COTTAM WEST BURTON
DEESIDE 0.994 (625.4)
(1080) Z-4
PENTIR (481)
1.022 CELLARHEAD RATCLIFFE (467.0)
SPLN
(134.2) ON SOAR
(636)
0.988 WALPOLE KING’S LYNN
(1980) (687.1)
LEAGCY RUGELEY 0.990 (963) NORWICH MAIN
TRAWSFYNYDD
(731) 1.019 (551.25)
DRAKELOW 1.020 (551.25)
(515.55) 1.000 (624) EATON
IRONBRIDGE SOCON
7113/11667
0.992 (1251
FECKENHAM (233) GRENDON
ENDERBY (slack)
(667) 1.003 1.005(574.2)
0.997 PELHAM
5922/14001 WALHAM EAST CLAYDON SUNDON SIZEWELL
1.000 BRAINTREE
1.001 0.999
COWLEY CITY ROAD RAYLEIGH MAIN
RASSAU 1.005
MINETY
1.008 1.002 (456.3)
(40.8) GRAIN
DIDCOT Z-6
(134.2) 1.000 LONDON AREA KEMSLEY
MELKSHAM
(515.55)SWANSEA (442.85) 1.004 (1515)
SEABANK
1.005 BRAMLEY (442.85)
Z-5 (-246) CANTERBURY
1.017 0.999 NORTH
PEMBROKE (886.5) DUNGENESS (456)
SELLINDGE
TAUNTON NURSLING 0.999
LOVEDEAN
NINFIELD
ALVERDISCOT EXETER (252.3) (France)
1.000 CHICKERELL FAWLEY NORTH
1971/2000
ABHAM
(601.5) 133/4177
0.999
19
(“Trends continued” in winter peak)
Scottish Power System
CHP (MW)
(1632.4) 1 COTTAM: 1515 (3 units), 100%
HAKB4A (284.5)
Shunt devices (MVAr) STWB4A, B
100%
(1741) (541)
2282/2780 Z-1 3 DRAKELOW: 666 (2 units), 100%
4 WYLFA: 1075 (4 units), 100%
STELLA WEST
0.984 5 DRAX: 2576 (4 units), 64%
Key: HARKER
1.001 HAWTHORN PIT6 KEADBY: 237 (1 unit), 33%
7 WEST BURTON: 1940 (4 units), 100%
0.993 9 DIDCOT: 2065 (8 units), 100%
HUTTON (299.0)
1.004 10 SCOTLAND: 1000
3880/3900 (643.1) (981) TOTAL: 12,865
(991) Z-2
(1908)
QUER Renewable Energy: (MW)
OSBALDWICK
FIDDLERS
7,633.0
(557.5) 0.983
FERRY
DRAX
THORNTON CHP: (MW)
0.999
(536.8) (400) CREYKE BECK 5,367.7
PENWORTHAM
0.986 (418.7) 0.982 Power Losses: (MW +j Mvar)
PADIHAM EGGBOROUGH KEADBY 826.14 +j 4515.99
WYLFA
0.983 (400) 0.995 (1523) KILLINGHOLME
FERRYBRIDGE
0.987 (1912) Z-3 GRIMSBY WEST Slack: (MW)
(625) 0.997 1.03
DEESIDE 0.995 (550.6)
(1065) Z-4
PENTIR (449)
1.023CELLARHEAD RATCLIFFE (467.0) SPLN
(134.2) ON SOAR
(620)
(1986) (687.1)
TRAWSFYNYDD
(721) 1.020 (595.8)
DRAKELOW 1.021 (595.8)
(472.75) 1.000 (616) EATON
IRONBRIDGE SOCON
7111/11667
0.993 (1233)
FECKENHAM (243.6) GRENDON
ENDERBY (slack)
(669) 1.003 1.005(574.2)
0.999 1.035
0.997 WYMONDLEY PELHAM
1.001 BRAINTREE
1.001 1.000
RASSAU 1.005
MINETY
1.009 1.002 (456.3)
(50.8) GRAIN Z-6
DIDCOT
MELKSHAM
(472.75) SWANSEA (442.85) 1.004 (1523)
SEABANK
1.005 BRAMLEY (442.85)
1.017 0.999 NORTH
SELLINDGE
LOVEDEAN
NINFIELD
1971/2000
ABHAM
(583.1)
0.999 152/4177
20
(“Constrained wind” in winter peak)
Renewable Energy (MW) Scottish Power
CHP (MW) (1146.2) 1 COTTAM: 1515 (3 units), 100%
HAKB4A (284.5)
STWB4A, B
Shunt devices (MVAr) 100%
(1321) (470) Z-1 3 DRAKELOW: 666 (2 units), 100%
1791/2780 4 WYLFA: 1075 (4 units), 100%
STELLA WEST
0.990 5 DRAX: 3220 (5 units), 80%
Key: HARKER 1.006 HAWTHORN PIT 6 KEADBY: 237 (1 unit), 33%
Power flow/Thermal limit 7 WEST BURTON: 1940 (4 units), 100%
0.996 9 SCOTLAND: 1000
HUTTON (273.9)
1.012 Z-2 TOTAL: 11,444
3775/3900 (590.9) (979)
(956) Renewable Energy: (MW)
(1840)
QUER 6,270.0
OSBALDWICK CHP: (MW)
FIDDLERS (467.6) 0.985 5,367.7
FERRY THORNTON
1.005 DRAX Power Losses: (MW +j Mvar)
(536.8) (400) CREYKE BECK 710.60 +j 3084.95
PENWORTHAM
0.991 (418.7) 0.983
PADIHAM EGGBOROUGH KEADBY
0.984 (400)
Slack: (MW)
WYLFA 0.998 (1294) KILLINGHOLME
FERRYBRIDGE -66.26
(452) 0.999
DEESIDE (882) 0.999 (390.4) Z-4
PENTIR (273)
1.025 CELLARHEAD RATCLIFFE (467.0) SPLN
(134.2) ON SOAR
(449)
(1696) (687.1)
TRAWSFYNYDD
(556) 1.023 (617.45)
DRAKELOW 1.024 (617.45)
(344.9) 1.004 EATON
IRONBRIDGE (497) SOCON
5901/11667
0.997 (849)
FECKENHAM (191.3) GRENDON
ENDERBY (slack)
(429) 1.005 1.007(574.2)
0.999 PELHAM
1.002 BRAINTREE
1.004 1.001
RASSAU 1.005
MINETY
1.010 1.004 (456.3)
(52.9) GRAIN
DIDCOT Z-6
MELKSHAM (1559)
(344.9) (442.85) 1.005
SWANSEA SEABANK
1.007 BRAMLEY (442.85)
1.019 0.999 NORTH
SELLINDGE
LOVEDEAN
NINFIELD
1971/2000
ABHAM
(455.1) 279/4177
0.998
21
4.2.3 Summer valley in 2010
Considering the summer valley case, for “High wind”, “Trends continued” and
“Constrained wind” scenarios, the area proportions of the Renewables and CHP are
shown in Figures 6, 7, and 8. The displaced generation and system power losses are
summarised in Tables 18 and 19.
Table 18 Displaced generation under summer valley case

Power plants Displaced conventional generation (MW)
SCOTLAND 800 800 800
HARTLEPOOL 1173 1173 1173
DRAX 1317 1317 1317
KEADBY 693 693 693
KILLINGHOLME 1444 1444 1444
WEST BURTON 320 320 320
COTTAM 318 318 318
SUTTON BRIDGE 768 768 768
LITTLE BARFORD 639 639 -
CORBY 345 345 345
CONNAHS QUAY 1245 1245 1245
DEESIDE 224 224 224
ROCKSAVAGE 700 700 700
WYLFA 500 500 500
HEYSHAM 1768 1768 1768
SELLAFIELD 111 - -
DIDCOT 931 599 -
Total 13,296 12,853 11,615
Table 19 System power losses under summer valley case

Without With 2010 Renewables and CHP Targets
System power
Targets “High wind” “Trends “Constrained
losses
(MW + j
345.0 – j 276.4 – 268.6 – j 246.1 – j
MVAr)
6048.2 j8326.9 8432.3 8565.3
The primary 400kV busbar voltages were kept in a range of 0.985 to 1.036 by adding
300 MVAr shunt reactive power compensation at Padiham, Ferrybridge, and Stella
West, respectively (see Table 20).
Table 20 Additional reactive power compensation under summer valley case

Installed places Reactive power compensations (MVAr)
PADIHAM 300 300 300
FERRYBRIDGE 300 300 300
STELLA WEST 300 300 300
Total 900 900 900
22
The transmission system “N-1” security contingency analysis results showed that
there were no violations (see Table 21).
Table 21 System ‘N-1’ contingency examinations under summer valley case

‘N-1’ contingency Without With 2010 Renewables and CHP Targets
Violations Targets “High wind” “Trends “Constrained
Branch MVA None None None None
Branch AMP None None None None
Bus voltage None None None None
Interface None None None None
Simulation results also showed that the UK transmission system was able to
accommodate the Government’s 2010 Renewables and CHP targets without requiring
network reinforcement in the summer valley case. Generation, mainly old
conventional power plants located in the North and, was reduced. The power transfers
across the boundaries Z-4 and Z-5 were decreased, and further reversed by the
Renewables and CHP displacing the conventional generation in the North.
23
(“High wind” in summer valley)
Scottish Power
CHP (MW)
(1950) (284.5) 1 COTTAM: 318 (1 unit), 100%
Shunt devices (MVAr) 2 KEADBY: 693 (3 units), 100%
HAKB4A
STWB4A, B
3 DRAX: 1317 (3 units), 100%
(1881) (470)
2351/2780 Z-1 4 WEST BURTON: 320 (1 unit), 100%
0.989 5 DEESIDE: 224 (2 units), 100%
STELLA WEST
HARKER 6 WYLFA: 500 (2 units), 100%
0.993 (300) HAWTHORN PIT 7 HARTLEPOOL: 1173 (2 units), 100%
Key:
Power flow/Thermal limit (461.6) 8 KILLINGHOLME: 1444 (4 units), 100%
NORTON HARTLEPOOL 9 CORBY: 345 (3 units), 100%
SELLAFIELD
0.988 10 HEYSHAM: 1768 (3 units), 100%
HUTTON (309.8) 11 CONNAHS QUAY: 1245 (4 units), 100%
0.982 (679)
3770/3900 (616.6) 12 SUTTON BRIDGE: 768 (3 units), 100%
(733) Z-2 13 LITTLE BARFORD: 639 (3 units), 100%
(2358)
HEYSHAM 14 ROCKSAVAGE: 700(3 units), 100%
QUER OSBALDWICK
0.990 15 SELLAFIELD: 111 (3 units), 72%
FIDDLERS THORNTON 16 DIDCOT: 931 (5 units), 100%
FERRY (536.8) 17 SCOTLAND: 800
0.985 DRAX
PENWORTHAM
(616.7)CREYKE BECK Total: 13,296.0
(300) (418.7) 0.989
0.990
PADIHAM 0.990 EGGBOROUGH KEADBY Renewable Energy: (MW)
WYLFA FERRYBRIDGE
(300) 1.001 (235) KILLINGHOLME 8,013.0
0.995 (382) Z-3 GRIMSBY WEST CHP: (MW)
ROCKSAVAGE 0.997 STOCKSBRIDGE (-50) 0.999 5,367.7
DAINES WEST BURTON
PENTIR MACCLESFIELD COTTAM
DEESIDE (209) 1.007
Power Losses: (MW +j Mvar)
(625.4)
CONNAHS 1.013 CELLARHEAD RATCLIFFE (467.0)
(-133) Z-4
276.45 -j 8326.92
SPLN
QUAY (134.2) ON SOAR
0.997 Slack: (MW)
(398) (687.1) (-51) 1.032 KING’S LYNN -1.4
LEAGCY RUGELEY NORWICH MAIN
TRAWSFYNYDD
1.000 (226) SUTTON WALPOLE
DRAKELOW BRIDGE (551.25) 1.032 (551.25)
CORBY
(515.55) 1.018 (205)
IRONBRIDGE LITTLE
1174/11667 (154) BARFORD
1.008 (61) EATON
FECKENHAM (233) GRENDON SOCON
ENDERBY (slack)
(-231) BRAMFORD 1.029
(-126) 1.003 1.010(574.2)
1.005 1.034
1.006 WYMONDLEY
PELHAM
1.013 BRAINTREE
1.010 1.005
RASSAU 1.007
MINETY
1.020 1.004 (456.3)
DIDCOT (40.8) GRAIN Z-6
MELKSHAM
(515.55) (442.85) 1.009 (1803)
SWANSEA SEABANK
1.005 BRAMLEY
(442.85)
1.029 0.999 NORTH
PEMBROKE (886.5) DUNGENESS
SELLINDGE
LOVEDEAN (-110)
NINFIELD
1693/2000
ABHAM
(601.5) -258/4177
0.997
24
(“Trends continued” in summer valley)
Scottish Power
CHP (MW)
HAKB4A (1632.4) (284.5) 1 COTTAM: 318 (1 unit), 100%
Shunt devices (MVAr) 2 KEADBY: 693 (3 units), 100%
STWB4A, B
3 DRAX: 1317 (3 units), 100%
(1594) (442)
2036/2780 Z-1 4 WEST BURTON: 320 (1 units), 100%
5 DEESIDE: 224 (2 units), 100%
STELLA WEST
HARKER
0.994(300) 6 WYLFA: 500 (2 units), 100%
Key: 0.993 HAWTHORN PIT 7 HARTLEPOOL: 1173 (2 units), 100%
Power flow/Thermal limit (461.6) 8 KILLINGHOLME: 1444 (4 units), 100%
NORTON HARTLEPOOL 9 CORBY: 345 (3 units), 100%
SELLAFIELD
0.989 10 HEYSHAM: 1768 (3 units), 100%
HUTTON (299.0) 11 CONNAHS QUAY: 1245 (4 units),
0.984 Z-2
(643.1) (610) 100%
3511/3900 (670)
(2231) 12 SUTTON BRIDGE: 768 (3 units), 100%
HEYSHAM 13 LITTLE BARFORD: 639 (3 units),
QUER OSBALDWICK
100%
FIDDLERS (557.5) 0.990 14 ROCKSAVAGE: 700(3 units), 100%
FERRY (536.8) THORNTON
16 DIDCOT: 599 (3), 70%
0.987 DRAX
17 SCOTLAND: 800
(300) (418.7) 0.990 Total: 12,853.0
PADIHAM 0.992 0.991
(300) EGGBOROUGH KEADBY
Renewable Energy: (MW)
WYLFA FERRYBRIDGE 1.001 (195) KILLINGHOLME 7,633.0
0.996 (298) Z-3 GRIMSBY WEST CHP: (MW)
ROCKSAVAGE 0.997 STOCKSBRIDGE 5,367.7
DAINES
MACCLESFIELD COTTAM (-104) W1.000
EST BURTON
PENTIR
DEESIDE (168) 1.008 Power Losses: (MW +j Mvar)
(550.6)
CONNAHS 1.014 RATCLIFFE (467.0)SPLN (-196)
Z-4 268.66 -j 8432.33
QUAY (134.2) CELLARHEAD ON SOAR
0.998 Slack: (MW)
(332) (687.1) (-105) 1.033 KING’S LYNN 5.30
TRAWSFYNYDD
1.000 (171) SUTTON WALPOLE
CORBY BRIDGE (595.8)
DRAKELOW 1.033 (595.8)
(472.75) 1.018 (163)
IRONBRIDGE (122) LITTLE
889/11667 BARFORD
1.008 (21) EATON
FECKENHAM (234.6) GRENDON SOCON
ENDERBY (slack)
(-279) BRAMFORD 1.029
(-172) 1.011 1.017(574.2)
1.006 1.034
-275/14001 WALHAM EAST CLAYDON SUNDON SIZEWELL
1.013 BRAINTREE
1.011 1.008
RASSAU 1.007
MINETY
1.021 1.006 (456.3)
DIDCOT (50.8) GRAIN
CILFYNYDD KINGSNORTH Z-6
MELKSHAM
(442.85) 1.009 (1836)
SEABANK
(472.75)SWANSEA 1.006 BRAMLEY
(442.85)
1.030 1.000 NORTH
SELLINDGE
LOVEDEAN (-142)
NINFIELD
1694/2000
ABHAM
(583.1) -239/4177
0.997
25
(“Constrained wind” in summer valley)
Renewable Energy (MW) Scottish Power
CHP (MW)
(1632.4) (284.5) 1 COTTAM: 318 (1 unit), 100%
Shunt devices (MVAr) HAKB4A
STWB4A, B 2 KEADBY: 693 (3 units), 100%
(1179) (364) 3 DRAX: 1317 (3 units), 100%
1543/2780 Z-1 4 WEST BURTON: 320 (1 unit), 100%
HARKER 1.001 STELLA WEST 5 DEESIDE: 224 (2 units), 100%
0.999 6 WYLFA: 500 (2 units), 100%
Key: (300) HAWTHORN PIT 7 HARTLEPOOL: 1173 (2 units), 100%
Power flow/Thermal limit (461.6)
NORTON HARTLEPOOL
8 KILLINGHOLME: 1444 (4 units), 100%
SELLAFIELD 9 CORBY: 345 (3 units), 100%
(299.0) 0.993 10 HEYSHAM: 1768 (3 units), 100%
HUTTON 0.993 Z-2
3032/3900 (643.1) (537) 11 CONNAHS QUAY: 1245 (4 units),
(609) 100%
(1886)
HEYSHAM
12 SUTTON BRIDGE: 768 (3 units), 100%
QUER OSBALDWICK 14 ROCKSAVAGE: 700(3 units), 100%
FIDDLERS 0.993 17 SCOTLAND: 800
FERRY (536.8) THORNTON Total: 11,615.0
0.994 DRAX
CREYKE BECKRenewable Energy: (MW)
(557.5)
PENWORTHAM (300)
0.997 (418.7) 0.992 6,270.0
PADIHAM 0.993 EGGBOROUGH KEADBY
(300) CHP: (MW)
WYLFA FERRYBRIDGE 1.003 (165) KILLINGHOLME
5,367.7
ROCKSAVAGE 0.999 STOCKSBRIDGE 1.000 Power Losses: (MW +j Mvar)
DAINES (-185) W EST BURTON
MACCLESFIELD
PENTIR
DEESIDE (91)
COTTAM
1.011
246.15 -j 8565.34
(550.6)
CONNAHS 1.016 CELLARHEAD RATCLIFFE (467.0) Z-4
QUAY (134.2) ON SOAR
SPLN (-298) Slack: (MW)
0.999 -19.34
(202) (687.1) (-105) 1.034 KING’S LYNN
TRAWSFYNYDD
1.000 (-89) SUTTON WALPOLE
CORBY BRIDGE (595.8)
DRAKELOW 1.034 (595.8)
(472.75) 1.019 (77)
IRONBRIDGE LITTLE
339/11667 (89) BARFORD
1.009 (-158) EATON
FECKENHAM (234.6) GRENDON SOCON
ENDERBY (slack)
(-340) BRAMFORD 1.031
(-255) 1.016 1.019(574.2)
1.009 1.036
-1079/14001 WALHAM EAST CLAYDON SUNDON SIZEWELL
1.015 BRAINTREE
1.013 1.013
RASSAU 1.033
MINETY
1.022 1.008 (456.3)
DIDCOT (50.8) GRAIN Z-6
MELKSHAM
(472.75) (442.85) 1.010 (1766)
SWANSEA SEABANK
1.007 BRAMLEY
(442.85)
1.031 1.000 NORTH
SELLINDGE
LOVEDEAN (-72)
NINFIELD
1694/2000
ABHAM
(583.1)
0.997 -111/4177
26
5. Limitations of the study
The study descried in this report was based on a number of assumptions:
(1) The evaluation of Renewables and CHP generation capacity was based on the
work of SPRU.
(2) The Renewables and CHP generation would tend to be located in areas close to
favourable transmission system connection points.
(3) All Renewables and CHP generation was assumed to be operating at rated
capacity.
(4) The output of conventional generation plant was reduced by assuming a 30 year
life for coal-fired plant and a 40 year life for nuclear plant and decreasing the
output of the older generators located in the North.
(5) Reactive compensation could be installed as required.
(6) Only N-1 contingencies were considered.
All there are open to discussion and challenge, but the study serves to give a general
indication of the impact of the Renewables and CHP targets on the England and
Wales Transmission System.
6. Conclusions
The studies indicate that the England and Wales transmission system can
accommodate 10% electricity delivered by Renewables and 10GWe CHP by 2010,
and no significant technical issues of system voltage and power flow are likely to
emerge. The result agrees with PIU Energy Review [7] and statements made by
National Grid [14].
High penetration of Renewables and CHP in the UK network will displace the
electrical energy produced by conventional power plants. In particular, operation of
conventional plants in the North may be restricted by a large number of renewable
sources connected in Scotland and the North of England. This could be dealt with by
constraining-off or decommissioning old generation plant in the North of England.
The connection of Renewables and CHP will tend to reduce system power losses
providing that the generation is predominately located in Southern areas.
Voltage levels can be maintained through adding some reactive power compensation.
The ‘N-1’ security contingency analysis of the system also indicates that the UK
transmission system is adequate to accommodate the Government’s targets for
Renewables and CHP by 2010.
27
7. References
1 10 Downing Street, Speech by the Prime Minister: ‘Environment: the next steps’,
6 March 2001.
2 NGC, Seven Year Statement, May 2001.
3 Scottish Power UK plc, Transmission Seven Year Statement, April 2001,
www.scottishpower.com/ps/2008/.
4 Scottish Power, Impact of Renewable Generation on the electrical Transmission
Network in Scotland, 31 October 2001,
www.scottish-southern.co.uk/popups/PSKeyDocs.asp.
5 SPRU, Integrating Renewables and CHP into the UK Electricity System –
Renewable Energy and Combined Heat and Power Resources in the UK, July
2001.
6 DTI, Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2001, 26 July 2001.
7 PIU, The Energy Review, 14 February 2002.
8 DTI, New and Renewable Energy: Prospects in the UK for the 21st Century:
Supporting Analysis, March 1999.
9 DTI, Technical, Standards and Control Issues of Embedded Generation, 2000.
10 PIU, Working Paper on Energy Scenarios to 2020, 2001.
11 OXREA, Regional Renewable Energy Assessments, a report to the DTI and the
12 Ofgem, CHP Database- Publication, November 2001,
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/renewables/chp_index.htm
13 SIEMENS, The Celtic Connection, Network Interconnection, June 2000.
14 NGC, Initial Response by National Grid - PIU energy policy review, 30 August
2001.
15 Goran Strbac and Nick Jenkins, Network Security of the Future UK Electricity
System (report to PIU), December 2001.
16 PB Power/ETSU, Concept Study – Western Offshore Transmission Grid,
February 2002.
28
The inter-disciplinary Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research undertakes integrated
research into the long-term consequences of climate change for society and into the
development of sustainable responses that governments, business-leaders and decision-
makers can evaluate and implement. Achieving these objectives brings together UK
climate scientists, social scientists, engineers and economists in a unique collaborative
research effort.
Research at the Tyndall Centre is organised into four research themes that collectively
contribute to all aspects of the climate change issue: Integrating Frameworks;
Decarbonising Modern Societies; Adapting to Climate Change; and Sustaining the
Coastal Zone. All thematic fields address a clear problem posed to society by climate
change, and will generate results to guide the strategic development of climate change
mitigation and adaptation policies at local, national and global scales.
The Tyndall Centre is named after the 19th century UK scientist John Tyndall, who was
the first to prove the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight
changes in atmospheric composition could bring about climate variations. In addition, he
was committed to improving the quality of science education and knowledge.
The Tyndall Centre is a partnership of the following institutions:
University of East Anglia
UMIST
Southampton Oceanography Centre
University of Southampton
University of Cambridge
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
SPRU – Science and Technology Policy Research (University of Sussex)
Institute for Transport Studies (University of Leeds)
Complex Systems Management Centre (Cranfield University)
Energy Research Unit (CLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory)
The Centre is core funded by the following organisations:
Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC)
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
UK Government Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)
For more information, visit the Tyndall Centre Web site (www.tyndall.ac.uk) or contact:
External Communications Manager
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
Phone: +44 (0) 1603 59 3906; Fax: +44 (0) 1603 59 3901
Email: tyndall@uea.ac.uk
Recent Working Papers
Tyndall Working Papers are available online at

http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/working_papers.shtml
Mitchell, T. and Hulme, M. (2000). A Gough, C., Taylor, I. and Shackley, S.

Country-by-Country Analysis of Past (2001). Burying Carbon under the
and Future Warming Rates, Tyndall Sea: An Initial Exploration of Public
Centre Working Paper 1. Opinions, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 10.
Hulme, M. (2001). Integrated
Assessment Models, Tyndall Centre Barker, T. (2001). Representing the
Working Paper 2. Integrated Assessment of Climate
Change, Adaptation and Mitigation,
Berkhout, F, Hertin, J. and Jordan, A. J.
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 11.
(2001). Socio-economic futures in
climate change impact assessment: Dessai, S., (2001). The climate
using scenarios as 'learning regime from The Hague to
machines', Tyndall Centre Working Marrakech: Saving or sinking the
Paper 3. Kyoto Protocol?, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 12.
Barker, T. and Ekins, P. (2001). How
High are the Costs of Kyoto for the Dewick, P., Green K., Miozzo, M.,
US Economy?, Tyndall Centre Working (2002). Technological Change,
Paper 4. Industry Structure and the
Environment, Tyndall Centre Working
Barnett, J. (2001). The issue of
Paper 13.
'Adverse Effects and the Impacts of
Response Measures' in the UNFCCC, Shackley, S. and Gough, C., (2002).
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 5. The Use of Integrated Assessment:
An Institutional Analysis
Goodess, C.M., Hulme, M. and Osborn,
Perspective, Tyndall Centre Working
T. (2001). The identification and
Paper 14.
evaluation of suitable scenario
development methods for the Köhler, J.H., (2002). Long run
estimation of future probabilities of technical change in an energy-
extreme weather events, Tyndall environment-economy (E3) model
Centre Working Paper 6. for an IA system: A model of
Kondratiev waves, Tyndall Centre
Barnett, J. (2001). Security and
Working Paper 15.
Climate Change, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 7. Adger, W.N., Huq, S., Brown, K.,
Conway, D. and Hulme, M. (2002).
Adger, W. N. (2001). Social Capital
Adaptation to climate change:
and Climate Change, Tyndall Centre
Setting the Agenda for Development
Working Paper 8.
Policy and Research, Tyndall Centre
Barnett, J. and Adger, W. N. (2001). Working Paper 16.
Climate Dangers and Atoll
Dutton, G., (2002). Hydrogen Energy
Countries, Tyndall Centre Working
Technology, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 9.
Paper 17.
Watson, J. (2002). The development Watson, W.J., Hertin, J., Randall, T.,
of large technical systems: Gough, C. (2002). Renewable Energy
implications for hydrogen, Tyndall and Combined Heat and Power
Centre Working Paper 18. Resources in the UK, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 22.
Pridmore, A. and Bristow, A., (2002).
The role of hydrogen in powering Paavola, J. and Adger, W.N. (2002).
road transport, Tyndall Centre Justice and adaptation to climate
Working Paper 19. change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper
23.
Turnpenny, J. (2002). Reviewing
organisational use of scenarios: Xueguang Wu, Jenkins, N. and Strbac,
Case study - evaluating UK energy G. (2002). Impact of Integrating
policy options, Tyndall Centre Working Renewables and CHP into the UK
Paper 20. Transmission Network, Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 24
Watson, W. J. (2002). Renewables
and CHP Deployment in the UK to
2020, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 21.

WP 24

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WP 24

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact of Integrating Renewables and CHP into

the UK Transmission Network

Xueguang Wu, Nick Jenkins and Goran Strbac

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 24

Xueguang Wu, Nick Jenkins and Goran Strbac

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research

Emails contact: w.xueguang@umist.ac.uk

Tyndall Centre Working Paper No. 24

This working paper draws on findings from Tyndall Project IT1.30

In 2000, renewable generation amounted to about 1.9GW (excluding large-scale

An investigation of the likely development of various types of Renewables and CHP

2.1 Scenarios for Renewables

Annual Energy Output (GWh) × 1000

Table 4 Future potential of UK CHP in the 2010

3. Regional Renewables and CHP

3.1 Regional Renewables

3.1.1 Regional Renewables in 2000

3.1.2 Regional Renewables by 2010

3.2 Regional CHP

Combined heat and power (CHP), or cogeneration, is the simultaneous generation of

3.2.1 Regional CHP in 2000

UK total 1,556 100.0 4,632.3 100.0

3.2.2 Regional CHP by 2010

England 88.4 4745.0

4. Impact on the UK electricity network

4.1 The current situation

4.1.1 Transmission in the UK

4.1.2 Power flow patterns in 2000

Table 13 Thermal limit of the boundaries

HAKB4A STWB4A, B 1. Generation: (MW)

STELLA WEST 2. Load: (MW)

HAKB4A STWB4A, B 1. Generation: (MW)

4.2.2 Winter peak in 2010

Table 14 Displaced generation under winter peak case

Table 16 Additional reactive power compensation under winter peak case

The results of transmission system ‘N-1’ security contingency analysis for

Table 17 System ‘N-1’ contingency examination under winter peak case

Table 18 Displaced generation under summer valley case

Table 19 System power losses under summer valley case

Table 20 Additional reactive power compensation under summer valley case

Table 21 System ‘N-1’ contingency examinations under summer valley case

The study descried in this report was based on a number of assumptions:

Tyndall Working Papers are available online at

Mitchell, T. and Hulme, M. (2000). A Gough, C., Taylor, I. and Shackley, S.

You might also like