HALF YEARLY MEETING SOW, BERLIN, GERMANY 29 and 30 ...€¦ · From Task 2.1 to Task 2.2....

© PROMOTioN – Progress on Meshed HVDC Offshore Transmission Networks This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 691714.

HALF YEARLY MEETINGSOW, BERLIN, GERMANY29 and 30 NOVEMBER, 1 DECEMBER 2016

10016054 9 November 2016 HMB

1

AGENDA for PROMOTioN, half-yearly meeting Berlin

Date : 29 and 30 November, 1 December 2016

Place : Berlin, Siemens Siemensdamm 50 13629 Berlin AGENDA Tuesday 29 November, Work package meetings • Presentation of results so far • Discussion of the results • Plan for future work

Tuesday

29 November Room 1 D1109

16 persons

Room 2 D1104

32 persons

Room 3 D1116+D1114

26 persons

Room 4 D1107

14 persons

9:00 – 12:00* WP3 WP1-7-12-13

WP2 WP5-6

13:00 – 17:00 WP4

* If a WP wants to start at 10:00, it is up to the WP leader to communicate with the WP meambers

Wednesday 30 November, Plenary meeting Presentation of results and deliverables from work packages (15 min presentation 15 min discussion – WP8 exception) 09:00 – 09:20 Opening and welcome (Siemens) 09:20 – 09:30 Introduction (DNV GL) 09:30 – 10:00 WP1 (TenneT) 10:00 – 10:30 WP12 (TenneT) 10:30 – 11:00 Coffee break 11:00 – 11:30 WP2 (RWTH) 11:30 – 12:00 WP3 (DTU) 12:00 – 12:30 WP4 (KUL) 12:30 – 13:30 Lunch 13:30 - 14:00 WP5 (DNV GL) 14:00 - 14:30 WP6 (UniAbdn 14:30 – 15:00 WP7 (TenneT) 15:00 – 15:30 Tea break 15:30 – 16:00 WP13 (SOW) 16:00 – 17:30 WP8 (Siemens) 17:30 – 17:45 Day closing 19:00 Dinner

2

Thursday 1 December, General Assembly** 09:00 – 09:30 General project & consortium issues (including Questions from the work package results, and update Amendment) 09:30 – 10:00 Reporting to the EU (DNV GL) 10:00 – 10:30 Coffee break 10:30 – 11:10 Round Tables on Dissemnination Plan (D14.4) & on Cost Information Collection 11:10 – 11:30 Wrap up & Closing 11:30 – 12:30 Lunch 12:30 – 14:30 PMG Meeting (for WPL’s)

** General Assembly: every beneficiary should be represented by one representative with right to vote; more representatives allowed


Update WP1 Berlin & RoadmapWorkpackage 1


D1.5 – Description of the deliverable

WorkPackage 1 – Within the PROMOTioNproject

03.05.16 2


WP1 update Berlin

WorkPackage 1 – Requirements for meshedoffshore grids

03.05.16 3

• Requirements, Reference scenarios and Fundamental topologies

Task 1.1

• Collect knowledge from literatureTask 1.2

• Collect knowledge from projectsTask 1.3

• Design Initial roadmapTask 1.4

• Review requirements Task 1.1 Task 1.5

© PROMOTioN – Progress on Meshed HVDC Offshore Transmission Networks This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 691714. 03.05.16 4

WorkPackage 1 – Tasks and DeliverablesWP1 Update Berlin


WP1 update Berlin

Task 1.1 Deliverables

03.05.16 5

• Qualitative set of requirements. Delivered in April 2016D1.1

• Questionnaire and Workshops. In process of being finalized, replies to questionnaires required!

D1.2

• Literature review. Delivered in September 2016. Please take the effort to read theexecutive summary!

D1.3

• Reference scenario’s. Deadline this DecemberD1.4

• Quantitative set of requirements. Deadline this DecemberD1.5

• Initial Roadmap. Halfway finishedD1.6

• Re-evaluation of the requirements. Starts in JuneD1.7


Responded No ReponseDNV GL KULABB KTHMitsubishi EirGridStatoil SGITenneT DWGSOW SVKDongEnergy RTECarbon Trust TU DelftTractebel SiemensIberdrola DTUStrathclyde RWTH Aachen UAberdeen UPVAlstom/ GE FGEHeVEnerginet.dk EUI

T&D EuropeS.L. AdwenPrysmian ITRUG

D1.2 Please fill out the Questionaire fromIberdrola before this Friday

03.05.16 6

WP1 update Berlin


- Starting with D1.1, a qualitative set of requirements, we are now about to finish with D1.5, a quantitative set of requirements

- Everyone has been invited to review this deliverable. In total there have been 3 review rounds, 6 expert meetings and a number of calls

- Close cooperation with other WPs assures alignment andusefullness of the document to those WPs

- There are some open items / discussion points- The wording of D1.1 is considered too strict by some partners

(e.g. system must be) - Some parameters are location/project specific and therefore not

possible to provide general number. We have tried to provideexample values if available

- Feel free to provide comments on the document until the end of next week

WP1 update Berlin

D1.5 Quantitative set of requirements

03.05.16 7


ContextWhat PROMOTioN will not do

Define precisely the infrastructure that must be built in the North Seas in the upcoming decades

But everything must be ready at the end of the project to allow TSOs to do so

What PROMOTioN will do (among others)Alleviate the remaining technical, financial & regulatory barriers for the development

of an offshore meshed grid in the North Seas(Re-)Demonstrate the economic viability of such a gridStudy under which circumstances (e.g. costs) a fundamental topology is likely to be

developed

WP1 update Berlin

Drafting a roadmap (Task 1.4)

03.05.16 8


Objectives of the draft roadmap

We must be sure that all relevant questions are on the table at the beginning of the project, such that WPs will bring all needed answers

We must understand when critical technologies will be needed

We must understand the successive steps towards the development of an offshore grid, because the grid must be technically viable during each step

We must understand the critical factors influencing the offshore grid topology

WP1 update Berlin


03.05.16 9


Outputs of the draft roadmapExamples of evolving topologies (time evolution) that make sense from

an economic point of viewRelevant questions that must be addressed by the WPs to allow the

actual planning of an offshore grid in 2020Example of topologies

Will/Could be an input for some WPs (e.g. WP2, WP4, WP7)First (preliminary) results availableBilateral interactions on these first results with relevant WPs to fit their

expectationsWhich WPs will use that?

WP1 update Berlin


03.05.16 10


First questions that emerge from Task 1.4What are the planning criteria for an offshore grid?

We know the planning criteria for an onshore grid (probabilistic adequacy metrics, deterministic security criteria)

We do not have yet clear planning criteria for an onshore gridEspecially the case for the N-1 security criterion: a form of N-1 security is desired,

but the exact definition is not clearWe can afford to loose an OWF of 700 MW radially connected after a single failure →

loss of power infeed allowedThe idea of “no cascading outage after a single failure” must be keptSo, how to perform a N-1 security analysis?

Is it relevant to use “generic” model for the control of converters (e.g. voltage droop control)?In planning, we do not know exactly the characteristics of elements…But we have nevertheless to do computations to check that the foreseen

infrastructure fulfils the planning criteria → Use of generic modelsEtc.

WP1 update Berlin


03.05.16 11


WP1 update Berlin

End of presentation

03.05.16 12


Deliverable 1.5: Guiding principles/ catalogue with requirements for other work packages (description from Annex 1 part A of the grant agreement)

Task 1.5, D1.7 will Re-evaluate the requirements based on work of other packages (M20-24)

D1.5 – Description of the deliverable

Requirements in WP1 (D1.1, D1.5, D1.7)

03.05.16 13


Execution strategy Deliverable 1.5

Overall Process design

03.05.16 14

Confirm & Report (December)

General Assembly Berlin

Agree (November)

Expert meetings Digital review Call

Converge (October)

Expert meetings Digitial review Call

Explore (now to Sept)

D1.1 Task 1.2 Experts input

3 Expert meetings in bothmonths, with the followingscope:- Chapter 4: Onshore AC –

DC grid- Chapter 5/6: Meshed

Offshore Grid – Offshore Windfarm

- Chapter 7: DC gridprotection / operation


WP2 – Grid Topology and ConvertersStatus report


CONTENT

WP structureResults of T2.1Proceeding of next task

(T2.2)

29.11.16 2


Task 2.1: Definition of model parameters, control objectives and operational assumptions for the MOG topologies (M03-12).

Task 2.2: Adaption of simulation models for meshed HVDC offshore topologies (M13-18).

Task 2.3: Simulative investigation and functionality demonstration of the MOG topology system interoperability by simulation (M19-36).

Task 2.4: Define recommendations for minimum requirements on onshore and offshore power systems (M33-42).

WP structure

Tasks

29.11.16 3

2016 2017 2018 20192.1

2.2

2.3

2.4


Results Task 2.1


Definition of scopeDefinition of component types to be considered (converter, wind

park types, lines,…)Definition of a starting network for definition of the above mentioned

parameters and start modelingLater adaption of WP1 input and modification of simulation scenarios

Discussion about used models (open model as an option tocompare models - Cigré benchmark model)First deliverable: „List of grid topology and component model

specifications“

Results T2.1

Definition of model parameters, control objectives and operational assumptions

529.11.16


Answering of specific research questions require different detaillevels of modeling and model specificationsModel specifications for steady state studiesModel specifications for RMS studiesModel specifications for EMT studies

„Hardware“ parameter lists available

Investigations with different converter technologies require different starting points for grid analysesDRU based MOGVSC based MOG

Setting up of a model library (also for other WP)

Results T2.1

Deliverable approach

629.11.16


From Task 2.1 to Task 2.2

Implementation of building blocks from D2.1 (EMT)

7

AC GridOnshore

ConverterOffshore

ConverterOffshore Wind

VSC Model based on Cigré, prepared

by RWTH (M13)

Cable models based on Prysmian’s

parameters, prepared by RWTH

VSC-Model based on Cigré,

prepared by RWTH (M13)

VSC WPP-Model provided by WP3

(M12)

HVDC Grid Protection system provided by WP 4

(M18)

Model based on D2.1 prepared

by RWTH

Overlaying system controlPrepared by USTRAT (~M15)

DC CB Model provided by WP 6 (M11)DRU-Model

prepared by UPV & Siemens

based on D2.1

WTG model (encrypted)– example with DRU firmware by

Siemens (M13-18)

DRU WPP-Model provided by WP3

(M24?)

29.11.16


Essential models for RMS studies within PROMOTioNVoltage Source Converter (VSC)Diode Rectifier Unit (DRU)Wind Power Plants (WPP)

From Task 2.1 to Task 2.2

Implementation of building blocks from D2.1 (RMS)

8

AC GridOnshore

ConverterOffshore

ConverterOffshore Wind

HVDC Submarine Cable

Offshore HVAC Cable

Converter Transformer HVDC Land

Cable

Wind Farm Transformer

Collectorgrid

VSC_ModelCable models based on Prysmian’s

parameters

VSC-Model

DRU-Model based on D2.1

WPP-Model provided by WP3

Model based on D2.1

Overlaying system control

29.11.16


Proceeding of next task T2.2


Until network input from WP1 not availableParameterization and modeling of start network (D2.1)

1. Establishing of stable power flow2. Implementation of MT/Droop control for changing power flows3. Fault handling

Extensions: Overlaying Grid control Meshed onshore AC grid with protection


Task 2.2: Build meshed grid (EMT)

10

Offshore Wind 1 Converter 3

Shore 1AC Grid Converter 1

Shore 2AC Grid Converter 2 Converter 4

Offshore Wind 2

29.11.16



Task 2.2: Build DRU Grid (EMT)

11

Phase 1: DRU radial & Offshore Wind 1 + AC line connecting Offshore Wind 3 -interconnected via HVAC offshorePhase 2: DRU radial & Offshore Wind 1 + VSC radial connecting Offshore Wind 2 –interconnected via HVAC offshorePhase 3: All 3 radial connections + offshore WPPs - interconnected via HVAC offshore

29.11.16

Parameterization and modeling of start network (D2.1)


Task 2.2

Adaption of simulation models for the meshed HVDC offshore topologies

29.11.16 12

Model input from WP3 in M13 (WTG and aggregated wind parks)Set-up of the full parametrized models for Steady State, RMS and

EMT simulationsImplementation of control strategiesInput from WP4 concerning protectionComparing own models with Cigré Benchmark ModelKickoff T2.2: 09./10.01.17 WP2 2017

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24Task 2.2

Model Input from WP3 MS7

Set-up of the full parametrized models

Discussion and validation in WP

Implementation of control strategies

Input from WP4 concerning protection

Formulation of test cases D2.2

Set-up of models finished MS10


WP 3Wind Turbine – Converter InteractionÖmer Göksu DTU Wind Energy

30 November 2016, Berlin, 2nd Half-Yearly Meeting, Plenary Session


Person-MonthsDTU 54UPV 42

SIEMENSSIEMENS WP

2512

MVOW 32ADWEN

ADWEN GmbH1616

USTRAT 30FGH 15

RWTH AACHEN 9DONG ENERGY 8

DNV GLDNV GL UK 6

IberdrolaIberdrola Ing 6

ABB 4STATOIL 2

Energinet.dk 2

WP3

WP3 Partners

03.05.16 2


1. functional requirements to OWFs, focusing on DRU-HVDC case

2. general control algorithms for wind turbines and OWFs,focusing on DRU-HVDC case

3. define and demonstrate compliance evaluation proceduresby simulations and tests

demonstrate the interoperability of the WT and OWF controls

recommendations to grid codes to WP11test cases to WP8

WP3

WP3 Objectives

03.05.16 3


WP3

Timeline

03.05.16 4

T3.1

T3.2

T3.3

T3.4

Functional requirements to WPPsDecember’16

December’17

June’19

March’18

General control algorithms

Compliance evaluation procedure

Compliance evaluations based on detailed numerical simulations

D3.1

D3.2

September’16

March’16

September’17

December’17

D3.3 & D3.4 & D3.5

D3.6

D3.7 & D3.8

(WP1 & WP2) MS16 MS17 (input from WP1 & WP2 / models to WP2)

MS18 (input to WP8)

MS19 (approval)

MS20 (input to WP11)


• D3.1 and T3.2 kick off meeting in Glasgow, University of Strathclyde, 14 participants and 5 online, 29-30 November 2016

– Offshore AC protection questionnaire document

• 25 October 2016 – Model exchange telcon with WP2 (RWTH Aachen)- “Written Communication Document” has been established

• D3.1 first official review by - SHE Transmission (ongoing)- Siemens (accomplished)

• D3.1 second official review; planned between 5th – 12th December• D3.1 submission to PC and R&D coordinator; planned for 16th December

Wind Integration Workshop, 15-17 November 2016, Vienna• Connection of OWPPs to HVDC Networks Using VSCs and Diode Rectifiers: an Overview (DTU)• Modelling of the Diode-Rectifier Based HVDC Transmission Solution for Large Offshore Wind

Power Plants Grid Access (Siemens)• Simultaneous Connection of Type-3 and Type-4 Offshore Wind Farms to HVDC Diode Rectifier

Units (Polytecnical University of Valencia)

WP3

WP3 Activities (Q3 and Q4)

03.05.16 5


WP3

WP3 Next Period (M12-M18)

03.05.16 6

Title WP Lead beneficiary Due Means of verification

MS7 Model input from WP3 WP2 18 - DTU 13WTG and aggregated wind park models

received (D3.1) from WP 3

MS16Functional requirements defined,

coordinated with WP1 and WP2 and Approved

WP3 18 - DTU 12

The functional requirements for DR-HVDC connected WPPs – done in

coordination with WP1and WP2 – aredefined and approved by the PMG

MS17 Converter models and grid topologies received from WP1 and WP2

WP3 19 - RWTHAACHEN 13

The converter models (either as detailedspecifications or software

implementation) for the converters arereceived from WP2. Detailed descriptionof the grid topologies that will be used inthe simulations are received from WP1

D3.1 Detailed functional requirements to WPPs DTU M12

D3.2Specifications of the control

strategies and the simulations test cases UPV M15


OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS- Operational States- Start-up- Voltage Ranges- Frequency Ranges- Rate of Change of Frequency Ranges - Active Power Control- Islanded Operation- Harmonics- Interoperability

WP3

D3.1 Detailed functional requirements to OWFs

03.05.16 7

qualitative D1.1 elaborate & quantify: D3.1 -- focus DRU-HVDC connection

SYSTEM STABILITY REQUIREMENTS- Offshore frequency control/support - Offshore voltage/reactive power control- Offshore AC symmetrical/asymmetrical fault

o Fault Ride-Througho Fault Current Injectiono Post-Fault Recovery

- Onshore AC faulto Detectiono Active Power Limitationo Active Power Recovery

- DC faulto Permanent DC Faulto Securely Cleared DC Fault

- Onshore frequency support/control o Fast Frequency Supporto Synthetic Inertia

- Power Oscillation Damping to onshore AC grid

OWF 1

OWF 2

OWF 3

OWF Group Offshore Transmission System


Promotion: WP4 reportStatus and road ahead

Dirk Van Hertem, KU Leuven

November 30, 2016


Promotion: WP4 report – Status and road ahead

Objectives

This WP aims to develop multivendor DC grid protection system. The goal is:

I to develop a set of functional requirements for various DC grids: fromsmall scale to large overlay grids and for a variety of system configurationsand converter topologies

I to analyse a wide range of DC grid protection philosophies on a commonset of metrics

I to identify the best performing methods for the systems under study

I to develop detailed protection methodologies for the selected methods

I to develop configurable multi-purpose HVDC protection IEDs to enabletesting of the methodologies

I to investigate the key influencing parameters of protection systems on thecost-benefit evaluation

Dirk Van Hertem – 2/21



WP4 worktable

Task LEAD Description Start EndWP4 KUL DC Grid protection system develop-

ment3 42

4.1 Statoil Functional requirements and test sys-tems

3 12

4.2 KUL Screening protection methods 8 204.3 KUL In-depth analysis of selected methods 18 424.4 KTH Multi-purpose programmable IED 22 404.5 SGI CBA analysis 3 42

I Large WP: 363 PM

I 18 partners




Basic flows within WP4

4.1 Functional

requirements + tests

(Statoil)

4.2 Benchmarking

algorithms (KUL)

4.3 Industrializing

protection methods

(KUL)

4.4 IED Development

(KTH)

4.5 Cost benefit

analysis protection

(SGI)

9 Validation in RTDS

(SSE)

12 Roadmap for

HVDC Grids

(TenneT)Dirk Van Hertem – 4/21



Deliverables

I D4.1: Definition of representative test cases for DC grid protection andfunctional requirements for DC grid protection methodologies (M12)

I D4.2: Report on the broad comparison of protection philosophies for theidentified grid topologies (M18)

I D4.3: Report on performance, interoperability and failure modes ofselected protection methods (M36)

I D4.4: Preparation of protection methodologies for testing in the MTTEenvironment (M30)

I D4.5: Requirements for DC switchgear [joint deliverable with WP5] (M42)

I D4.6: Functional HVDC protection IED including documentation (M36)

I D4.7: Preparation of cost-benefit analysis from a protection point of view(M42)




Goal of D4.1

I Definition of representative test cases for DC grid protection andfunctional requirements for DC grid protection methodologies (M12)

I Objectives:I agree on how to design a protection system for DC systems, based on

functional requirementsI understand and agree about the interations in AC/DC grids for protection

purposesI understand and agree on the main parameters which need to analysedI define benchmark networks and test cases to be able to create consistent

benchmarksI agree on a common vocabulary




Status D4.1

I Iterative process to collect data from our partners on functionalrequirements

I Questionnaire sent out in AprilI 10-12 responses receivedI Internal discussions over the summerI First proposal after the summer (London meeting)I WP4 partner comments on functional requirements (October 1)I 1st Expert meeting DC grid protection (WP1+WP4) October 4I Aggregating inputs and sending them out in new version to all partners

together with WP1I Telephone conference to discuss feedback on the inputs (November 1)I 2nd Expert meeting DC grid protection (WP1+WP4) November 15I (3rd call for feedback, together with WP1, November 22)I Near consolidated version 30/11, with remaining issuesI Expected delivery to reviewers 31/12, submission to EU M13




Status of D4.1

I Current status:I Good set of functional requirementsI Input data is sparse at places (possible to quantify in advance?)I Feedback has been limitedI Requirements are very hard to quantify and even gahter qualitative feedback

is not straightforward (many exception might give diverging answers)

I “Problem areas”I Defining Small, medium and large (impact vs system size)I DefinitionsI Power outage AC grid: P1, P2 and P3 and their timingI What is restoration?I Test systems/Benchmark networks




Early results from 4.1

I Maximum loss of infeed is dependent on time

I Time intervals: few ms, hundred of ms, permanent

I Aligned with continuous operation, temporary stop or permanent stopduring protection




Early results from 4.1 (II)

I Voltage specification (at DC side) are necessary

I Specifications depend on a wide number of parameters

(source: Cigre B4-56)




Small, medium, large

“Small impact” grid: the loss of the whole HVDC grid will only have limitedimpact on the AC grids, seen as small voltage and frequencyvariations which are quickly restored. Loss of the system has animpact comparable to an “N-1” event.

“Medium impact” grid: the loss of the whole HVDC grid will cause significantvoltage, rotor angle and frequency transients seen on the ACgrid; AC grids are able to recover from the contingency, withoutblack-out, but possible load shedding in part of the system.

“Large impact” grid: The DC grid forms the backbone of the transmissionsystem and loss of this system likely leads to a blackout.




Test systems/benchmark networks

I Substantial time and effort has been spent on benchmark networks withinPromotion

I Aim is to make use of existing systems

I Small system: D2.1 is fine

I Medium and large: more difficultI Important for 4.1: relevant fault cases and their impact or acceptance

I Pole-to-ground faultI Pole-to-pole faultI Busbar fault at offshore stationI Busbar fault at onshore stationI High impedance fault




Sensitivities to be investigated in further detail

I Grounding topology

I Converter topology (fault blocking or not)

I Fault current limiters & Inductors

I Cable, overhead or mixed system

I Expansion of systems/robustness

I . . .

I No decision can be made at this point on these aspects




Dissimination

I Functional requirements were presented to outside stakeholdersI Reference group meeting in HamburgI Invited presentation at HVDC2016 conference in Shanghai

I General approval of the idea and conceptsI Written feedback received from two partners




WP4.2: Screening analysis for various protection methods fordifferent topologies

I Step 1: a literature study of fault identification methodologies andprotection philosophies

I Step 2: qualitative assessment of fault clearing strategies. Linkingprotection with specific systems (protection matrix concept) (underdevelopment)

I Step 3: quantitative (high level) assessment of fault clearing strategies(future work)

I Develop a benchmarking tool/approach for different protection methodsI Comparative study and analysis of different approaches, with different

breaker technologiesI Robustness of schemesI Backup approachI Effect of inductors, OHL/Cable, grounding,. . . Cost elements? ⇒ nr

breakers needed, max operating speed allowed,. . . (input from WP4.5)I Task Leader: Willem Leterme (KU Leuven)




WP4.3: in-depth study of selected protection methods

I Did not start yetI Select top ranked candidates

I Do study towards practical implementation

I Including measurements, noise management,. . .

I Multi-vendor application of protection methods

I Standardization of operating ranges (with WP 6)

I Validate functional requirements

I “EMT” based studies

I Task Leader: TBD




WP4.4: development of configurable HVDC protection IEDfor multi-purpose and multi-vendor DC grid protection

I Did not start yet

I Develop programmable IEDs which allow all protection methods of 4.3 tobe implemented

I FPGA based?

I Make sure it has a degree of userfriendliness.

I To be used in the RTDS of WP9

I Task Leader: Staffan Norrga (KTH)




WP4.5: Preparation of cost-benefit analysis for studiedprotection methods

I Provide initial indicators to evaluation done in 4.2

I Preparation towards delivery to WP12

I Initial indicators: nr of breakers, EENS, system losses? Volume of breakersoffshore,. . .

I Goal: CBA of protection methods

I Tool developed by SGI, focusing on the reliability/protection aspects ofHVDC grid protection

I Methodology is described in an internal report

I In order to have realistic results, realistic data is necessary

I Cost data is very tricky to obtain

I Task Leader: Serge Poullain (SGI)




WP4: summary

I Kickoff meeting March 9, 2016, further meetings in July, September,November

I Tasks 4.1, 4.2 and 4.5 startedI Task 4.1

I Functional description of protection systemsI Defining test systemsI Bit delayed on D4.1

I Task 4.2I Benchmarking different options for protectionI Which are the fault clearing strategies (literature review nearly completed)I How to benchmark?

I Task 4.5I Cost-benefit analysis of the protection aspectI Description of approach availableI Cost data!!!




Questions?

G

Dirk Van Hertem

[email protected]


COPYRIGHTPROMOTioN – Progress on Meshed HVDC Offshore Transmission Networks MAIL [email protected] WEB www.promotion-offshore.net

The opinions in this presentation are those of the author and do not commit in any way the European Commission

PROJECT COORDINATORDVN GL, Kema Nederland BVUtrechtseweg 310, 6812 AR Arnhem, The NetherlandsFon +31 26 3 56 9111Web www.dnvgl.com/energy

CONTACT

PARTNERS Kema Nederland BV, ABB AB, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, EirGrid plc, SuperGrid Institute, Deutsche WindGuard GmbH, Mitsubishi Electric Europe B.V., Affärsverket Svenska kraftnät, Alstom Grid UK Ltd (Trading as GE Grid Solutions), The University Court of the University of Aberdeen, Réseau de Transport d‘Électricité, Technische Universiteit Delft, Statoil ASA, TenneT TSO B.V., German OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY Foundation, Siemens AG, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen, Universitat Politècnica de València, Forschungsgemeinschaft für. Elektrische Anlagen und Stromwirtschaft e.V., Dong Energy Wind Power A/S, The Carbon Trust, Tractebel Engineering S.A., European University Institute, Iberdrola Renovables Energía, S.A., European Association of the Electricity Transmission & Distribution Equipment and Services Industry, University of Strathclyde, ADWEN Offshore, S.L., Prysmian, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, MHI Vestas Offshore Wind AS, Energinet.dk, Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission plc

APPENDIX


DISCLAIMER & PARTNERS

03.05.16 13

Dirk Van Hertem

KU Leuven/EnergyVille

[email protected]




WP5 – Test Environment for HVDC Circuit BreakersNadew Belda, Cornelis Plet

29-Nov.-2016, Berlin, Germany

© T

enne

TTS

O G

mbH


CONTENT

Objective

Deliverables

Discussion of results

Next steps

30.11.16 2

© T

enne

TTS

O G

mbH


PROMOTioN – WP5

30.11.16 3

Partners: DNV GL (WP Leader), ABB, MEU, UniAbdn, TU Delft

Objectives:

Identify worst fault situations in meshed HVDC grids

Produce dynamic, black-box models of HVDC circuit breakers of various technologies

Embed these models in a benchmark system to quantify the electrical stresses (current, voltage, energy) to which HVDC circuit breakers are subjected during a fault.

Develop test requirements and procedures for HVDC circuit breakers

Realize high-power test-circuits including the necessary equipment (components) specifically needed for HVDC testing.

WP 5 – Test environment for HVDC circuit breakers


PROMOTioN - The Work Packages

WP 5 – Test environment for HVDC circuit breakers

30.11.16 4

Test requirements formulated and test procedures documented

Test-circuits and installation ready for use

2016

Test circuit for HVDC circuit breaker based on AC power supply designed

Candidate test-circuits and their effectiveness identified

2017 2018

M9 M15

M15 M18

M24

Milestones:

HVDC Network fault analysis

PSCAD modelsof HVDC CBs

M11

Transient faultstresses on HVDC circuit breakers


250 km

150 km

200 km

150 km

150 km

b-A1 b-C2

A1 C2

b-D1

D1

D2b-D2B1

b-B1

Sub-marine cable

Offshore wind farm

VSC converter station

DCCB

CB1 CB2

CB3

CB4

CB5

CB7

CB6

CB10CB9

CB8

1200 MW

1400 MW

600 MW

1200 MW

900 MW

PROMOTioN – WP5

30.11.16 5

HVDC Network benchmark study grid

Five terminal grid with bipolar converter configuration Only cable

interconnection is considered ±320 kV, half bridge

MMC converter topology A pole-to-ground fault

is investigated


PROMOTioN - WP5

30.11.16 6

The first few milliseconds dominated by sub-module capacitor discharge (t2-t3) At t3 converter blocks. The DC voltage drops following

converter blocking From t4 onwards AC infeed

through diode rectifier DC current limiting reactors are

used to limit the magnitude of fault current to circuit breakers interruption capability

D5.1 – HVDC Network Fault Analysis

Depends on AC grid strength

DC bus voltage drops (all the six arms conduct)

Converter blocks Depends on number of connection at DC bus

Commutation overlap due to arm reactors (not perfect

rectified voltage)

Sub-module capacitor discharge


time (ms)

0 t1

t2

t5

t6

curre

nt

0I0

IP

volta

ge

0

voltage across Main Interrupter (MI)voltage at CBcircuit currentcurrent through MI (path1)current through L-C (path2)current through surge arrester (path3)

Vr

VDC

VSA

t4

t3

30.11.16 7

PROMOTioN - WP5

D5.2 – PSCAD Models HVDC Circuit Breakers

1. Active Current Injection


time (ms)

0 t1

t2

t3

t4

t5

curr

ent

0

I0

IP

volta

ge

0

circuit current

current through LCS (Path1)

current through MB (Path2)

current through surge arrester (Path3)

voltage at CB (across terminal)

voltage at CB (terminal-to-ground)

VSA

VDC

30.11.16 8

PROMOTioN - WP5

D5.2 – PSCAD Models HVDC Circuit Breakers

2. Hybrid Type I


250 km

150 km

200 km

150 km

150 km

b-A1 b-C2

A1 C2

b-D1

D1

D2b-D2B1

b-B1

Sub-marine cable

Offshore wind farm

VSC converter station

DCCB

CB1 CB2

CB3

CB4

CB5

CB7

CB6

CB10CB9

CB8

1200 MW

1400 MW

600 MW

1200 MW

900 MW

PROMOTioN – WP5

D5.3 – HVDC Circuit Breakers Fault Stress Analysis


PROMOTioN – WP5



PROMOTioN – WP5


Energy absorption

Voltage

Current interruption


D5.4 – Test requirement specification

D5.5 – Definition of test procedures Reviewing available standards

Investigation of possibilities of multi-part testing where full power testing is not possible

D5.6 – Characterization of candidate test circuits Literature review of HVDC CB tests Simulation study and comparison of various test circuits Identify the advantages and limitations

D5.7 – Realization of full power test circuits Prospective test

30.11.16 18

PROMOTioN – WP5

Next Deliverables


Thank you!

COPYRIGHTPROMOTioN – Progress on Meshed HVDC Offshore Transmission Networks MAIL [email protected] WEB www.promotion-offshore.net

The opinions in this presentation are those of the author and do not commit in any way the European Commission

PROJECT COORDINATORDNV GL, Kema Nederland BVUtrechtseweg 310, 6812 AR Arnhem, The NetherlandsTel +31 26 3 56 9111Web www.dnvgl.com/energy

CONTACT

PARTNERSKema Nederland BV, ABB AB, KU Leuven, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, EirGrid plc, SuperGrid Institute, Deutsche WindGuard GmbH, Mitsubishi Electric Europe B.V., Affärsverket Svenska kraftnät, Alstom Grid UK Ltd (Trading as GE Grid Solutions), University of Aberdeen, Réseau de Transport d‘Électricité, Technische UniversiteitDelft, Statoil ASA, TenneT TSO B.V., German OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY Foundation, Siemens AG, DanmarksTekniske Universitet, Rheinisch-Westfälische TechnischeHochschule Aachen, Universitat Politècnica de València, Forschungsgemeinschaft für. Elektrische Anlagen und Stromwirtschaft e.V., Dong Energy Wind Power A/S, The Carbon Trust, Tractebel Engineering S.A., European University Institute, Iberdrola Renovables Energía, S.A., European Association of the Electricity Transmission & Distribution Equipment and Services Industry, University of Strathclyde, ADWEN Offshore, S.L., Prysmian, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, MHI Vestas Offshore Wind AS, Energinet.dk, Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission plc

APPENDIX


DISCLAIMER & PARTNERS

30.11.16 20

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.promotion-offshore.net/

http://www.dnvgl.com/energy


PROgress on Meshed HVDC Offshore Transmission Networks

© T

enne

TTS

O G

mbH

WP6 Characterisation of DC Circuit Breakers

November 2016Dragan Jovcic, University of Aberdeen


CONTENT

© T

enne

TTS

O G

mbH

OverviewWP6.1 Develop system-level model for hybrid DC CBWP6.2 Develop system-level model for mechanical DC CBWP6.5 Develop kW-size hardware prototypes for hybrid and

mechanical DC CBs


PROMOTioN – WP6

Tasks Lead partners6.1 Develop system-level model for hybrid DC CB UAbdn ABB, SGI, DNV-GL

6.2 Develop system-level model for mechanical DC CB DELFT MEU, DNV-GL

6.3 Develop component-level and real-time model for hybrid DC CB UAbdn DELFT, ABB, DNV-GL

6.4 Develop component-level and real-time model for mechanical DC CB DELFT MEU, DNV-GL, UAbdn

6.5 Develop kW-size hardware prototypes for hybrid and mechanical DC CBs UAbdn ABB, DEFLT, DNV-GL

6.6 Demonstrate DC CB failure modes on kw-size hardware prototypes UAbdn DELFT

6.7 Develop roadmap for hybrid DC CB scaling to EHV DC voltage UAbdn ABB, DELFT

6.8 Develop roadmap for mechanical DC CB scaling to EHV DC voltage DELFT MEU


PROMOTioN – WP6

WP6 Deliverables

• D6.1: Offline models for hybrid DC CBs (UniAbdn, M11)• D6.2: Offline models for mechanical DC CBs (TU Delft, M11)• D6.3: Detailed component-level model for hybrid DCCBs (UniAbdn, M24)• D6.4: Detailed component-level model for mechanical DCCBs (TU Delft, M24)• D6.5: Hardware prototypes of DC CBs (200V, 400A) at Uni. laboratory (UniAbdn, M30)• D6.6: Demonstration and report on DC CB failure modes study (UniAbdn, M42)• D6.7: Techno-economic roadmap for hybrid DC CB scaling to EHV DC voltage (UniAbdn, M42)• D6.8: Techno-economic roadmap for mechanical DC CB scaling to EHV voltage (TU Delft, M42)


PROMOTioN – WP6

Meetings1. Meeting 1: Arnhem, January 2016

• 9 participants in person and 3 over phone

2. Meeting 2: Aberdeen, 03 June 2016• 15 Participants• 5 Presentations

3. Meeting 3: Teleconference, 24 November 2016• 8 Participants

4. Meeting 4: Berlin, 29 November 2016• 17 Participants


PROMOTioN – WP6.1 Develop system-level model for hybrid DC CB

• ABB hybrid DC CB• Model structure & Main components• Hierarchy of protection• Opening and closing sequences• Simulation results

• GE hybrid DC CB• Model structure & Main components• Different level of protections• Opening and closing sequences• Simulation results


PROMOTioN – WP6.1 Develop system-level model for hybrid DC CBModel structure and main components• An ultra-fast disconnector S1 (with delay Tmec & chopping current Ires) • A residual current breaker S2 (with delay Tres & chopping current Ires) • An IGBT valve T1 (9 IGBTs in 3x3 matrix form)• An IGBT valve T2 (N series IGBTs)• Two surge arresters (across T1 and energy absorption branch) • A series inductor Ldc to limit the rise of DC fault current

Figure 1.1. Structure of ABB hybrid DCCB


PROMOTioN – WP6.1 Develop system-level model for hybrid DC CBIGBT thermal model• Thermal model is required for self protection

Figure 1.2. Thermal equivalent circuits

Ploss

1+sτiK1

T0

TJRi

Ploss,T

ZthJC,T

Junc

tion ZthCH,T

Case

Ploss,D

ZthJC,D ZthCH,D

Hea

t-sin

k

TH

TCTJ



Figure 1.3. Opening sequence of ABB DC CB



Figure 1.4. Closing/reclosing sequence of ABB DC CB



Simulation results1. Opening on grid order2. Closing on grid order3. Opening on self protection (grid protection failure)4. Reclosing in fault5. Overcurrent6. Simulation with different parameters (Ldc)

Figure 1.5. Test system

0.1Ω

SW

ABB DCCB

160Ω320kV

Variable value

VdcN 320 kV

IdcN 2.0 kA# of IGBTs in T1 3x3

# of IGBT in T2 160

Ipk 16 kA

Ipk_sp 14.4 kA

Ires (S1 and S2) 0.01 kATmec 2 ms

Tres 30 ms

Ldc 0.15 HVSAT1_clamp 12 kV

VSAmain_clamp 180 kV



12

Figure 1.6. Opening on grid order

Simulation results (Opening on grid protection order)



13

Simulation results (Reclosing in fault)

Figure 1.7. Reclosing in fault



14

Simulation results with different Ldc (Reclosing in fault)

Figure 1.8. Reclosing in fault (Ldc=800mH)



15Figure 1.9. GE DC CB

15

Model structure and main components• UFD S1 , breaker S2 , IGBT valve T1 and series inductor Ldc (similar as ABB hybrid DC CB) • Thyristor valvesTr1, Tr11, Tr12 and Tr2(N series thyristors)5STP 48Y7200 (7200V and 4800A)5STF 28H2060 (2000V and 2667A)• Four surge arresters (SAT1, SA11, SA12 and main SA )• Passive components (R11, R12, R2, C11, C12 and C2 )

Figure 2.1. Structure of GE hybrid DCCB



16

Figure 1.10. GE DC CB Opening sequence16

Figure 2.1. Structure of GE hybrid DCCB



17Figure 1.11. GE DC CB Closing sequence

17Figure 2.1. Structure of GE hybrid DCCB



18

Figure 1.11. GE DC CB Test circuit18

Simulation results1. Opening on grid order2. Closing on grid order3. Opening on self protection4. Reclosing in fault5. Simulation with differentparameters

0.1Ω

SW

GE DCCB

80Ω120kV

Variable ValueVdcN 120 kVIdcN 1.5 kA# of IGBT in T1 3 x 3Tr. valves Ron 0.00133 ΩTr. valves Ron 19e9 ΩTr. valves Von 0.017 kVtq 700 µs1st branch R, C 150 µF & 330 Ω2nd branch R, C 750 µF & 55 Ω

Arm branch R, C 220 µF & 260 Ω

Ipk 16 kAIpk_sp 8.5 kAIres 0.01 kATmec 2 msTres 30 msLdc 0.15 HVSAT1_clamp 12 kVVSA11_clamp 10 kVVSA12_clamp 60 kVVSAmain_clamp 180 kV



19

Figure 1.11. GE DC CB Opening on grid order (phase control thyristors)19



20

Figure 1.12. GE DC CB Opening on grid order (fast thyristors)20



2121

Variable Phase control thyristor Fast thyristor

VDRM 7200 V 2000 V

ITAV 4800 A 2667 A

ITSM 87 kA 46.5 kA

tq 700 µs 60 µs

RON 0.07 mΩ 0.103 mΩ

VON 0.86 V 1.2 V

# of series thyristor in valve 38 138

1st branch R, C 150 µF & 330 Ω 250 µF & 190 Ω

2nd branch R, C 750 µF & 55 Ω 90 µF & 540 Ω

Arm branch R, C 220 µF & 260 Ω 16 µF & 3100 Ω

Interuption time 5-8 ms 2-3 ms

Comparisons of GE DCC CB with: phase thyristors and fast thyristors


PROMOTioN – WP6.2 Develop system-level model for mechanical DC CB

• Mechanical DC Circuit Breakers with passive resonance

• Mechanical DC Circuit Breakers with active resonance

• Study of simulation time step

• Simulation results



tI

Vcb

tIpI

Vcb

Figure 2.1. Mechanical DC CB with passive resonance

Figure 2.2. Mechanical DC CB with active resonance



Figure 2.3. Current and voltage waveforms for mechanical DC CB with active resonance

Fault inception

Contact separation

Current through interrupter (IVI)

System nominal voltage

Instant of non-faulted zone voltage recovery

Voltage across circuit breaker (VCB)

MOSA clamping voltage

Current through MOSA(ISA)

Leakage current zero through MOSA

Resonant circuit current injection (Ip)

Fault current suppression time (Energy dissipation time)

Nominal current

Non-faulted zone voltage

Breaker operation time

Trip order

Relay time

Fault neutralisation time



Figure 2.4. Two different models for mechanical DC CB with active resonance

LpCp

Ideal switchtIcb

Vcb

Icb

Vcb Initial TRV

Model2Model 1

Icb

Vvi

MOSA

Initial TIV+Vvi-

Ideal switch

MOSA

Icb tIcb

Vcb

Vcb

Model1

Cp Vvi

Icb

Model 2

+Vvi-



Figure 2.5. Simulation comparison of Model 1 and Model 2 –rated voltage 72kV,resonant frequency 3kHz, simulation step 1us.

- Model 1 requires a very small time-step (less than 1 µs). This may be challenging to implement on RTDS hardware, which will be used in WP 9

- Model 2 resulted in a marginal loss in accuracy, from a system perspective. The choice of model used (Model 1 or Model 2) can be selected based on the study undertaken


PROMOTioN – WP6.5 Develop kW-size hardware prototypes for hybrid and mechanical DC CBs

1. Ultrafast disconnector • Objective of UFD• Introduction• The UoA UFD• Position Measurement• UoA UFD Prototype

2. DC CB Test Circuit• 900V, 500A Design• PSCAD Simulation



1. Ultrafast disconnector

Bottom TC

Top TC

Actuator Disk

Main Contact

Insulation

Connecting Rod

Figure 3.1. Basic structure of Ultrafast Disconnector,



Ultrafast disconnector model:• Moving rod model (mass-inertia)• Inductances of: Thomson coil, mutual and actuator disk,• Thomson coil• Activation circuit

Figure 3.2. SIMULINK modelling of ultrafast disconnector,



Ultrafast disconnector prototype

Figure 3.3. Solidworks 3D drawing of UFD




Figure 3.4. Thomson coil




Figure 3.5. Hall effect sensor




Figure 3.6. Lower part of UFD




Figure 3.7. Activation circuit for UFD

CdTCDVdcAC

T1T2

DBRTr




Figure 3.8. Experimental results for closing




Figure 3.9. Experimental results for opening



DC CB Test circuit

• 900V, 500A peak current

• Fast control fo DC voltage (Using DC chopper)

Figure 3.10. DC CB test circuit schematic

T1T2

Cd

Cs

Rdc

Cdc

Lchopper

TestDC CB

Rfault Rload

Vdc

Idc

D

3-PhaseAC Idc

Ics

ICB

Is

Vd

Vcs

ICB

Tf

TL

Inrush current limiting

MCB

F

Var



DC CB Test circuit

Figure 3.11. DC CB test circuit PSCAD simulation

MMC,DCCB 1 : Graphs

0.3900 0.3950 0.4000 0.4050 0.4100 0.4150 0.4200 0.4250 0.4300 0.4350 0.4400 0.4450 0.4500

0.70k0.75k0.80k0.85k0.90k0.95k1.00k1.05k1.10k1.15k1.20k

y

Vdc VCs Vdcref

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

y

ICB Iarr



DC CB Test circuit

Figure 3.12. DC CB test circuit layout


PROMOTioN – WP6 Characterisation of DC Circuit Breakers

CONCLUSIONS

• WP6.1 Hybrid DC CB

• Models for ABB DC CB and GE DC CB completed.

• 1 D6.1 Report in final discussions.

• WP6.2 Mechanical DC CB

• Models for MEU DC CB completed.

• D6.2 Report in final discussions.

• WP6.5 DC CB hardware prototypes

• UFD design completed. Assembly and testing uderway.

• DC CB test circuit design compleetd. Assembly udnerway.


Workpackage 7Regulation & FinancingProgress update, 30 November 2016, Berlin

Timeline

21 Jan 2016Project Kick-off 30 June 2017

EC deadlinereport

30 Apr 2017Internal deadline report

11 Apr 20161st WP session

14 June2nd WP session

29 Jun 2016Stakeholder meetingBrussels

30 Sep 20161st deliverable

31 jan 20172nd deliverable

31 Mar 20173rd deliverable

Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Q1 2017 Q2 2017

Task 7.2Leader:

EUIEconomic framework

CBA methods

- Coordinated planning- Grid user participation

- support scheme- Investment incentives

- Revenu model/tariff design

Public intermediate report (D7.3)

Task 7.3Leader:

DWGFinancial

frameworkAnalysis financing model

(onshore and offshore)Analysis financing models wind farm connections &

interconnectors

Analysis alternative ownership and

governance models (worldwide)


Task 7.1Leader:

RUG

Legal framework

-Analysis offshore competences - Analysis EU legislation

Analysis legal regimes

Overview main barriers


Jun/Aug 2016Start PhD’s

Task 7.4Leader:

SOWStakeholder workshops Stakeholder kick-off (MS34) ?


December 2017: Intermediate report on policy recommendations (D7.8)

Task 7.1 Offshore jurisdiction and EU law

3

General conclusions 2nd/3rd topologies:

- multiple states can possibly claim jurisdiction over (parts) of infrastructure, creating legal uncertainty.

- Given this goal, treaties can solve the jurisdiction issue (like the ones for the oil and gas sector).

Conclusions EU law:

- there is an extensive amount of legislation about the electricity sector, which is partially relevant for an meshed offshore grid.

- However, lots of rules and legal clarity are still missing.- The application of the legal framework to the offshore

grid is to a large extent dependent on how Member States, NRAs and TSOs make use of it. (April 2017)

Importance for WP7:

- Timing issue! Is the infrastructure planned and build jointlyor at a later stage.

- Where does the infrastructure cross jurisdictions

Task 7.2 CBA methodology for project investments

4

Status of implementationENTSO-E 1.0

(approved by the ECin 2015)

ENTSO-E 2.0 (version for ACER opinion)

ENTSO-E Market design - balancing

Significantly more important in the

offshore context?

INPUT(1) Project interaction must be taken into account in the project and baseline definition

One baseline (TOOT). Arbitrary clustering rules

One baseline (TOOT), ambiguous update of the clustering rule

Harder applicable but dealt with. Almost greenfield

development

INPUT(2) Data consistency and quality should be ensured TYNDP TYNDP TYDNP

INPUT(3) Costs should be reported in disaggregated form Not clear Not clear Not clear

Immature technology

CALCULATION(4) CBA should concentrate on a reduced list of effects

Reduced list Reduced list Reduced list

CALCULATION(5) Distributional concers should not be addressed in the calculation of net benefits

OK OK OK

CALCULATION(6) The model used to monetise the production cost savings and gross consumer surplus needs to be explicitly stated

Explicit model available Explicit model available Explicit model available

CALCULATION(7) A common discount factor should be used for all projects

4 % for all 4 % for all Uniform; aligned with TYNDP & PCI

CALCULATION(8) A stochastic approach/scenario analysis should be used to address uncertainty

OK The need is mentioned, but not specified how to apply the tools

OK

OUTPUT(9) Benefits should be reported in disaggregated form

Not clear Not clear Regional and country effects should be reported Various

winners/losers

OUTPUT(10) Ranking should be based on monetisation Multi-criteria analysis Multi-criteria analysis, additional monetization of losses

Monetized ranking is suggested Various significant

externalities

TRAN

SPAR

ANCY

COORDINATION

COMPARABILITY

7.2 Case studiesEWIC

(IRL-UK)COBRA CABLE

(NL-DK)ISLES

(SCO-IRL- N-IRL)Concern in the

ENTSO-E 1.0 and2.0 methodology

Phase Commissioned in September 2012 Final investment decision taken, expected to be in operation by 2019

In the study phase

EU funding “Project of European Interest”, included in (TEN-E) Priority Interconnection Plan. Received significant EEPR funding (110 m€)

On the 2013 and 2015 PCI list. EEPR funding received/allocated for studies and construction (86.5 m€)

On the 2013 and 2015 PCI list. The EU INTERREG IVa Program funded 1.6 m£ for ISLES I one and 0.9 m£ for ISLES II

INPUT(1) Project interaction must be taken into account in the project and baseline definition

No project interaction taken intoaccount

TOOT approach is applied and change incongestion rent of other interconnectorsis calculated

No interaction with other PCI projects istaken into account. Interaction betweenISLES clusters is analyzed partially.

Critical

INPUT(2) Data consistency and quality should be ensured

Ok Ok No TYNDP by local data is utilizedalthough from respected sources. /

INPUT(3) Costs should be reported in disaggregated form

Ok Ok Ok Harmonisationneeded

CALCULATION(4) CBA should concentrate on a reduced list of effects

Ok Ok Ok for the 2015 analysis. However, notthe ENTSO-E CBA 1.0. list is applied. /

CALCULATION(5) Distributional concerns should not be addressed in the calculation of net benefits

Ok Ok Ok/

CALCULATION(6) The model used to monetize the production cost savings and gross consumer surplus needs to be explicitly stated

Explicitly stated but not detailedmarket and network model used

Ok, explicitly stated and detailed marketand network model is used(details are not public)

Ok, explicitly stated and detailed marketand network model is used

/

CALCULATION(7) A common discount factor should be used for all projects

Ok, there was no common discountfactor determined thus the allowedWACC of EirGrid was used

Ok A very low discount factor is applied inthe 2012 analysis (2%) and no value isprovided in the 2015 analysis

/

CALCULATION(8) A stochastic approach/scenario analysis should be used to address uncertainty

Uncertainty is disregarded, noscenario or sensitivity analysis applied

Ok, 2 scenarios are applied plussensitivity analysis by varying total costand discount factor

Scenario and sensitivity analysis isapplied, although not using the TYNDPscenarios.

/

OUTPUT(9) Benefits should be reported in disaggregated form

Only the benefits for Ireland areconsidered

Ok, benefits are reported disaggregated Ok, benefits are reported disaggregated OkOUTPUT(10) Ranking should be based on monetization

Ok, full monetisation is applied Partial monetisation is applied, but a finalNPV value of the project is underlined.Additional indicators in non-monetarymetrics are mentioned more forinformational purposes

Both quantitative as qualitative cost andbenefit indicators are reported. No fullmonetization is conducted.

Harmonisationneeded

7

Task 7.3 Analysis financial models (onshore)

6

No. Key elements1 Regulatory authority2 Regulatory period3 Revenue cap mechanism4 Allowed revenue: method5 Allowed revenue: value6 Allowed return on equity: method7 Allowed return on equity: value8 Risk-free rate9 Market risk premium

10 β_equity11 Gearing12 Cost of debt: method13 Cost of debt: value14 Depreciation15 Costs deducted16 Efficinecy incentives/benchmarking methods17 Innovation18 Revenue adjustments 19 Ownership20 Size of investments21 Credit rating of TSOs

• Germany• Denmark• Norway• Great Britain• The Netherlands• Belgium• (Sweden)


Example: key regulatory financial parameters


Example: key regulatory financial parameters

No Key elements Germany Denmark Norway Great Britain Netherlands Belgium

1Legal ownership

- 3 private-owned TSOs (50Hz, TenneT, Amprion)- 1 state-owned TSO (TransnetBW GmbH)

State-owned enterprise


private-owned enterprise


State-owned enterprise (>45%)

2 Credit rating For Energinet:S&P AA-/A-1

For Stattnet:Moody's A2 / P-1S&P A+/A-1

For National Grid:Moody's A3/P2S&P A-/A2Fitch A/F2

For TenneT B.V.:Moody's A3/P-2S&P A-/A-2

For Elia System Operator S.A./N.V.:S&P A-EH A-

3Investment plans/size onshore

for 2016-2020 investment plan(onshore, offshore): 5.9 billion Euros

Total investment in UK Electricity Transmission over the eight year RIIO price control is currently expected to be around £10bn (~ 11.4 bn euros)

For the following regulatory period (2017-2021) Tennet is planning to invest2 billion Euros onshore


END


ANNEX A Description of deliverables, Jun 2017

Task 7.1 Legal frameworkleader: RUG, Ceciel Nieuwenhout, Martha Roggenkamp

1st intermediate deliverable, 30 Sep 2016

7.1.1 Offshore Competences – Legal basis for governing cables in territorial waters and EEZ

A. United Nations Law of the Sea distinguishes between freedom to lay pipelines and sovereign rights of coastal states’ to regulate energy production. Which competences apply to cross-border projects combining production of energy and laying of cable? On the basis of UNCLOS coastal states have the right to legislate the construction and operation of cables (from park to shore).

B. Competences under EU law. First, we will present a brief introduction of the extent to which EU has competences in territorial waters and beyond. Secondly, we will present an overview of relevant EU law, i.e. Directives and Regulations. This will be a general overview of relevant legislation, which will not necessarily take into account the three stages as the Directives/Regulations may cover all stages. It might be that we can include this in a ‘conclusion/summary’

2nd intermediate deliverable, 31 Jan 2017

7.1.2 National Approaches / Legal Regimes

This part of the study will focus on the developments in the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, United Kingdom, Belgium, France and Norway. Most likely we will discuss the national regimes on the basis of the division described below. We will conclude with an assessment of all regimes and identification of barriers. Another option would be to use the division below and then refer to national regimes.

A. Brief introduction/ Overview of applicable laws - What types of law are in place.

B. Legal Framework for offshore infrastructure planning

- Overview of planning procedures. Impact of EU spatial planning procedures and national procedures streamlining all uses of the offshore (oil/gas, shipping, fishery etc). Have coastal states made use of planning suitable locations when awarding licences for offshore wind parks.

- What is the applicable support mechanism? Does it provide for/obstruct cross-border connections? Cooperation mechanisms in place?

- Have the coastal states included provisions regarding grid planning / clustering of wind parks?

11

3rd intermediate deliverable, 31 Mar 2016

C. Legal framework for offshore infrastructure construction

- Licensing regimes. We may need to distinguish between wind parks, park to shore cables, interconnectors

- Legal classification of the offshore grid infrastructure. Is cable operated by wind park developer, TSO or third party? Do unbundling provisions apply? Certification?

D. Legal framework for offshore grid operation

- Grid connection issues

- TPA rules / priority access/ onshore grid capacity restrictions

- Balancing, operational responsible parties/ program responsibilities

- Network codes (to which networks do they apply? Park to shore cables/interconnections)

E. Overview of main legal and regulatory barriers with respect to offshore grid planning

Official deliverable, 30 apr 2017 (internal deadline) & 30 Jun 2017 (EC deadline)

12

Task 7.1 Legal framework (2)

Task 7.2 Economic frameworkleader: EUI, Tim Schittekatte, Leonardo Meeus

The legal analysis in 7.1 will be complemented with an economic analysis of how the legal framework has been implemented. We will select a few case studies, including interconnectors (so-called Projects of Common Interest), and connections of large scale wind farms (e.g. the Offshore Transmission Owners in the UK). For these cases we will consider: the cost benefit analysis method that has been used; the planning coordination between what happens offshore and the required reinforcements to the grid onshore, the way grid users have been engaged to participate in this process. These three steps will be implemented as follows:

1st intermediate deliverable, 30 Sep 2016

• Theory and practice of cost benefit analysis


• Coordination between offshore and onshore grid planning, Jan 2017

• Participation of grid users in grid planning


The legal analysis in 7.1 will be complemented with an economic analysis of how the legal framework has been implemented. In this subtask the unit of analysis is member states rather than individual projects, and the countries we will analyse will be aligned with task 7.1 (i.e. NL, GE, DK, UK, BE, FR, NO).

For these countries we will consider their experience with (joint) support schemes for offshore wind farms and how these incentives have been coordinated with the investment incentives for the offshore grid that connects the wind farms to shore. We will compare the investment risk and return for offshore grid connections and grid connections in different countries.

• (joint) support scheme, March 2017

• Investment- and efficient economic incentives, March 2017

• Stable and predictable revenue/risk-reward models, transmission tariff design, March 2017

Official deliverable, 30 apr 2017 (internal deadline) & 30 Jun 2017 (EC deadline)13

Task 7.3 Financial frameworkleader: DWG, Alexandra Armeni, Gerhard Gerdes1st intermediate deliverable, 30 Sep 2016

7.3.1 Financial framework for offshore grid construction

Analysis of existing financing models of transmission grids in EU

a. General (Onshore and Offshore)

• Financing grid infrastructure

• Project finance & investor participation/merchant investments

• Existing national requirements

• Historical development of ownership and governance structures

• Who pays? Grid operator, user or wind developer?

• National rules and application

• Political intention

• Perception of rating agencies and capital investors


Analysis of financing models specifically for the connection of windfarms and interconnectors


Analysis of alternative ownership and governance models (worldwide) – examples

- USA, China, Brasil

- Analysis of governance models of other large multi-utility projects (e.g. transportation, gas pipelines?) (Mar 2017)

Official deliverable, 30 apr 2017 (internal deadline) & 30 Jun 2017 (EC deadline) 14

Task 7.4 Stakeholder consultationleader: SOW, Sebastian Menze, Andreas Wagner

Organization of Workshops, year 1 (M6 – MS34))/ year 2 (M18)

Stakeholder Events, possibly connected on to international Events as a side event, involving e.g. European Commission, ACER, national ministries and regulators, ENTSO-E, IRG, industry players. The goal is to reach a common understanding of respective investment barriers and discuss potential (acceptable) solutions.

• Subtasks:

• 7.4.1.1 Identification of relevant stakeholders/ stakeholder groups (M4)

• 7.4.1.2 Identification of event location (M4)

• 7.4.1.3 Define contents/ topics of the event in cooperation with task leaders (M4)

• 7.4.1.4 Define external/ internal key note speakers in cooperation with task leaders (M4)

• 7.4.1.5 Save the Date Email to relevant stakeholders (M4)

• 7.4.1.6 Final Invitation and programme (M5)

• 7.4.1.7 Event (M6) – Brussels, 29 June

• 7.4.1.8 Documentation (M7)

Official deliverable, 30 apr 2017 (internal deadline) & 30 Jun 2017 (EC deadline)

Intermediate stakeholder report

15


ANNEX BDescription of deliverables, Apr 2019 (plan of action to be determined)

Task 7.1 Legal framework7.1.3 Developing the appropriate legal form of the legal framework (EU law, Treaty or combination thereof)

Assessment of a general EU Legal Framework (this would then apply to all offshore areas where the EU is involved and not only the North Sea)

- Does the EU have sufficient competences

- To which extent would Member States remain sovereign

- How would a favourable legal regime for offshore projects relate to the aim of achieving one internal energy market (i.e. moving away from subsidies and state intervention, leaving as much as possible to the market, European network codes applying to all cross-border connections)

- Could existing EU institutions be used or would new forms of governance be needed?

- How would the national interests (security of supply, economy) relate to the EU interest (regional cooperation, joint exploitation of RES projects)

- (Possibility of enhanced cooperation instead of a framework with all 28 MS?)

- Which barriers can be addressed by EU law and which barriers must be addressed by means of a Treaty?

Assessment of a Treaty regime applying to individual pilot projects (this would be more specific and cover the North Sea

- Which exact legal form would be needed? Would one Treaty be enough or would additional bilateral treaties be needed

- How would such a Treaty relate to international law and EU law?

- Which issues would need to be addressed by the Treaty?

- How does that relate to national competences, such as the competences of regulatory authorities, the regulation of TSOs (anticipatory investments etc.)?

- How could legal commitment be ensured? (see examples such as Kriegers Flak where participating countries delayed their participation and where the project design changed substantially)

- Final: could such a Treaty be used as a model for other areas of regional cooperation?

Deadline final report for review process, month 3817

Task 7.2 Economic frameworkEurope has mainly relied on regulated investments by TSOs that have shared the costs of cross-border projects following a territorial principle “each country pays for the assets on its own territory”. There is however a trend to consider alternatives. Third parties have started investing in offshore grids; and alternative ways of sharing the investment costs between countries are increasingly considered with the introduction of the “beneficiaries pay” principle at EU level. We will give an overview of these innovative experiences.

• TSO versus third party models; merchant versus regulated

• Robust and binding CBCA methodology (taking into account welfare distribution)

7.2.3 Economic framework for offshore grid operation

The legal analysis in 7.1 will be complemented with an economic analysis of how the legal framework has been implemented. In this subtask the unit of analysis is member states rather than individual projects, and the countries we will analyse will be aligned with task 7.1 (i.e. NL, GE, DK, UK, BE, FR, NO). For these countries we will consider their experiences with ancillary services delivered by offshore wind farms, and how these wind farms have been compensated for providing these services. We will also look at other important operational issues, such as the grid pricing for offshore wind farms, which included connection as well as access charges. For combined interconnection and connection projects, such as Kriegers Flak, it is also important to consider how the scare capacity is allocated between the two type of users, i.e. the offshore wind farms and the cross-border traders.

• Rules on ancillary services

• Compensation scheme and liability

• Grid access/charges and transmission charging

• Capacity allocation rules (transmission capacity vs remaining interconnection capacity)

7.2.4 Recommendations

By comparing and assessing the different practices, we will be able to identify best practices. We will highlight what is economically desirable, which can then be picked up by task 7.1 to translate our findings into a legal framework that can guide us towards these solutions.

• Target model for offshore grid planning

• Target model for offshore grid investment

• Target model for offshore grid operation

Deadline final report for review process, month 38 18

Task 7.3 Financial framework7.3.2 Financing models

• Comparison of financing schemes

• Balancing sheets of investors

• Financing instruments

• Investor’s participation (private-public partnerships)/merchant investments

• Funding mechanisms

7.3.3 Overall risk analysis for offshore grid planning, construction and operation, DWG, year 2

• Risk of accidents

• Risk of DC technology-degree of meshing

• Weather risk

• Return on investment

• Risk assessment (during construction phase, operational phase also in relation to new technology)

• Impact of the risk on the financing models

• Liability

7.3.4 Suggestions for the development of a financial framework

• Financing conditions (close alignment with economic framework in 7.2)

Deadline final report for review process, month 38

19

PROMOTioN

Half Year Meeting WP8 - Change of Scope

siemens.com Restricted © Siemens AG 2016

30.11.2016

Restricted © Siemens AG 2016 Page 2 Alexander Broy / EM TS PLM

Table of content

• Overview - Diode Rectifier Unit (DRU) Grid Access

• System development within Siemens

• DRU System mapping to TRL

• Demonstrator Options – Klim

• Demonstrator Options – Control Concept

• (Demo technical comparison)

• Different de-risking opportunities

• Benefits to the technology development

• Link to the Call text

• Link to PROMOTioNs Objectives

• Budget Implications

• Key differences

• Future WP8

30.11.2016


Overview - Diode Rectifier Unit (DRU) Grid Access (1/2)

Data for Siemens DRU Development • Nominal power: 1.2 GW

• 3 distributed DC platforms

• Each DC platform contains 2 diode rectifier units

• Each DC platform is connected to one cluster of WPP.

• Each cluster consists of 2 sub clusters

• Each sub cluster has 33 WTGs connected via 3 strings (11 WPP in each string)

• Each sub cluster consists of 3 strings

• Each sub cluster can be disconnected separately

30.11.2016


Overview - Diode Rectifier Unit (DRU) Grid Access (2/2)

Main benefits:

• Modular concept

• 80 p.c. less topside volume

• 65 p.c. less topside weight

• 20 p.c. shorter installation time

• Less offshore maintenance needed

• No additional hardware needed in wind turbines

Main drawbacks:

• Higher complexity in comparison to AC connected wind farms

• Proper coordination of wind farm according to transmission system state

• System topology and physical setup is changing during operation

• Complex reconfiguration procedures

• Wind turbines need modified converter controller:

• Ability to operate in very weak grid

• Ability to operate in islanded mode

Legend

Wind turbine

DC platform

66kV cable (higher diameter)

66kV cable (smaller diameter)

DC export cable

30.11.2016


System development within Siemens (1/2)

Siemens system development process is not based on TRL.

The success of Siemens system projects is dedicated to: • Type tested and qualified components

Independent simulation investigations in

different tools (supported by external

evaluation)

• Extended real time testing of the later on

commissioned control and protection equipment

• Processes to manage interfaces (mechanic,

electric, data,…) and environmental conditions

precisely

• A process that is dedicated to “know the

unknown” (handling of risk profile)

Siemens is ISO 9001:2015 and 14001:2015 certified

30.11.2016


System development within Siemens (2/2)

Siemens system development process is based Milestones and Quality gates (QG) M150 “requirement specification” M200(QG) “functional specification” M250 “pre-tested product” M280(QG) “ready for sale”

TRL1 – TRL4 TRL5 – TRL8 TRL9

Allowance to sell a developed system

Difficult to link the Technical Readiness Level of European Commission

First customer project finished

30.11.2016


Demonstrator Options - Klim

Klim – Demonstrator

• 20 MW nom. power of VSC

• 11 turbines (3.2 MW each)

• One DRU operating at max. 10 p.c. of nom. power

• One string

Klim would

• mainly address the demonstration of handling equipment and sufficient project management.

• also show that the concept in principle is working

but it is highly questionable if the results are transferable in a real offshore wind farm.

30.11.2016


Demonstrator Options – Control Concept

• Nominal Power 250kW operational range

• Low voltage level (nom. 400V AC; ±400V DC)

• Frequency nom. 50 Hz

• 48 back to back rectifier, PN = 5kW

• 3 x 12 pulse DRU

• Full bridge MMC

• DC voltage WTG: 640V

• AC voltage der WTG (sec): 400V

• AC voltage Offshore: 400V

• AC voltage DRU-Transformer (sec): 105V

• DC voltage cable: 800V (2 x 400V, symmetrical grounding)

To achieve correct dynamic behavior of converters: Scaling according to the using the correcting variable reserve as well as the time constants due to the fact that these values have a high influence on the dynamic behaviour of the system.

Scaling of impedances

𝑍Lab = 𝑍OWP ∙ 𝜆 , 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝜆 =𝑈Lab

𝑈OWP

2

∙𝑃OWP

𝑃Lab

30.11.2016


Demo technical comparison (1/2)

Klim Demonstrator Control Concept Demonstrator Topic Criteria Fictive project (Dev. Baseline) Klim Demonstrator Comments Tech. Data Comments

System data

nom. power 1200 MW 20 MW 1.6% of max. Power 240 kW

nom. offshore AC voltage 66 kV 20 kV voltage level is only 30% 400 V

nom. DC voltage, transmission +/- 320 kV +/- 16 kV 5% of DC voltage 800 V

nom. power; open circuit voltage 851 V; grounded at half

voltage nom. DC current, transmission 1876 A 620 A 33% 312,5 A

max DC Power transfer capability 1.200 MW 20 MW 1,60% 240 kW

DRU data

DRU nom. power 200 MW 200 MW DRU used only by 10% but

massive efforts in transport and logistics required

89kVA AC input power

applied DC power per DRU 200 MW 20 MW 10% 80 kW

DC voltage per DRU +/- 53,3 kV +/- 16 kV 30% 267 V

Onshore MMC

onshore Converter 1.200 MW 20 MW real converter with limited power,

requires all software and hardware development, can not

be used anywhere else

250 kW

MMC modules 348/3 = 116, FB 66/3 = 22, FB real module, quantity 19% 12/3 = 4, FB resulting converter frequency similar to original system (120

Hz)

System electrical

configuration

offshore string cables up to 12 km per string, max 18 strings string length approx. 3 km, 4 strings string length is only 5% 6 strings, each 8 WTG any length can be emulated

DC cable up to 200 km max. 50 m, longer distances must be simulated by Hardware

cable lengths must be modelled with Hardware, Hybrid Prototype

cable for demonstration purposes available

up to 200km any length can be emulated

AC filter offshore as required to be studied for Klim, as per the grid requirements

site specific design needed, not valid for real application, but can be considered as exercise

scaled eigenfrequenies according to original system

30.11.2016


Demo technical comparison (1/2)

Klim Demonstrator Control Concept Demonstrator Topic Criteria Fictive project (Dev. Baseline) Klim Demonstrator Comments Tech. Data Comments

System architecture

number of DRUs max 3 x 2, each 12 puls, 2 leads to 24 puls 1 x 1, 12 pulse only 1 DRU, no balancing effects

between DRUs, 3 x 12 puls

number of WTGs max 3 x 67 21 21 real WTGs, balancing effects between WTGs exist 3 x 16 emulated by back 2 back

converter

Controls

Converter Control original adapted to Klim to be developed original converter control software

GAM original adapted to Klim to be developed emulated Park Controller original adapted to Klim real controllers must be modified emulated

WTG controller software original original, possibly some adaptations real turbine and weather application

original, but adapted to WTG model

General General

most realistic site, but very much limited in use and flexibility, involvement of owner and

operator, permit application, advanced planning needed. Fault tests possibly restricted, high risk

of damage and subsequent compensation

30.11.2016


Different de-risking opportunities (General)

Case Simulation Klim - On Site Demonstrator High Power Lab Demonstrator Scaled Lab Demonstrator

Behavior of 100+ WTG converters on a very weak AC grid

Possible to the extend of the quality of the simulation models

Not possible Partial verification of WTG model possible

Not possible Partial verification of WTG model possible

Partially possible with 50 WTGs Partial verification of WTG model possible

Operating a large cable grid on a weak umbilical cable


Not possible Not possible Partially possible to the extend of the quality of the cable models

Defined load situations

Full load range and critical situations possible

Depending on wind, load situation during test period is unpredictable



WTG harmonic injection

Freely adjustable Partially possible, load situation during test period is unpredictable

Freely adjustable Freely adjustable

Verification of converter control / Operation MMC-DRU


Partially possible, depending on the extend of the MMC setup



Wind Farm FRT Freely adjustable No test equipment, pos. damage of equipment

Partially possible, depending on the extend of the MMC setup and available test equipment

Possible

Risk/Costs

30.11.2016


Different de-risking opportunities (Examples)

Dynamic voltage distribution of the series connected DRUs

Due to the series connection of the DRUs, in cases of changing the DC link voltage, different cable length of the

DC cable lead to asymmetrical voltage drops, which has to be considered in the systems design.

In cases of faults, in the series connection (DC to ground) the dynamic behavior

has such high transients that the isolations of cables may collapse.

Resonances related to active tower damping (ATD) and drive train damping DTD

The PP are equipped with control strategies to damp the drive system (DTD) active as well as the tower itself (ATD).

The typical eigen frequencies are around 2 Hz (DTD) and 0.2 Hz (ATD).

The activation of these features may lead to power oscillations in the system, even in cases where

the system is in islanded operation. Every WPP stores energy in the mechanic system and may become

a low frequency source to start resonances with in the electrical system.

Resonances in high frequency ranges due to converter interaction

Unintended interactions between converters in frequency range of IGBT switching signals

30.11.2016


Scope of investigations control concept demonstrator

The basic aspects to investigate are

• interactions of several WTG within one string

• interactions of strings connected in parallel

• supply of OWP via a long AC cable with aux. power

• interaction of OWP with uncontrolled DRU

• interaction OWP with DRU and DRU-filter

• interaction of 3 DRU on different locations via ringbus cable

• connection of DRU via a long DC cable

The control concept demonstrator is not intended

• To investigate/demonstrate interface protocols, (ISO/OSI Model)

• To test real world devices like C&P equipment,

• To investigate HVDC onshore operation

• For verification of the later on real word system behaviour (by definition impossible)

30.11.2016


Benefits to the technology development

The control concept demonstrator is beneficial to the technology development because

a significant number of risks can be addressed and mitigated within the concept demonstrator incl.

pos. destructive tests

the complexity of the electrical system is closer to the intended system which serves the aim of the

outlined control approach.

the control concept demonstrator gives the opportunity to demonstrate not only Siemens technology

but also serve investigations made in WP3

cost benefit reasons

30.11.2016


Link to the Call text

NO CALL SECTION WP8 KLIM WP8 CONTROL CONCEPT DEMONSTRATOR

2 The first commercial HVDC projects have implemented point-to-point connections, point-to-point and multi-terminal deep off-shore grids. Meshed off-shore grids linking several off-shore wind parks with on-shore grids in different countries and with other available generation resources are urgently required to provide additional flexibility, efficiency, security and market access to off-shore wind resources. Its deployment is delayed through a number of barriers:

3 - lack of agreement among operators and manufacturers on architectures, control structures and interfaces to ensure interoperability and multi-vendor compatibility of equipment

10 p.c. – Demonstration of a “Siemens One” solution and interoperability of new cable with onshore equipment

80 p.c. – Ability to involve other WPP OEM to operate tests on their control algorithms, serves the goal of a common technical understanding 4 -

9

The proposals should prepare the first phase for deployment of innovative components of interoperable meshed off-shore HVDC network technologies, services and tools architectures. It is expected that the projects will cover TRL6 or 7, bringing them to TRL 8, with a path to TRL9 in follow-up projects (please see part G of the General Annexes).

Refer to TRL Overview Refer to TRL Overview

10

Initial technology elements leading to meshed off-shore grids shall first be trialed at full scale as additions to planned off-shore projects (cables and hubs). Appropriate mechanisms to cover risks and potential losses to the commercial operation of these underlying projects shall be investigated.

60 p.c. - Klim covers more risks regarding to equipment handling like the cable and DRU itself.

60 p.c. - The focus of the DEMO is related to the risks of low level control and stability issues

11 The proposals should be based on the results of the existing projects funded under the FP7 dealing with the development of innovative components of interoperable HVDC network technologies, services and tools architectures or be closely synchronized through active cooperation in order to ensure a seamless transition without gaps in time or technology.

10 p.c. – due to interoperation with cable manufacturer and new cable type

30 p.c. higher chance for active cooperation not only on simulation basis

14 The project should include a focused and short part to seek agreement among network operators and major equipment suppliers on a technical architecture and on a set of multi-vendor interoperable technologies.

Ref. to No. 4. Ref. to No. 4.

15 The proposals should further elaborate on finished and running projects on the economics of meshed HVDC off-shore grids through reduction of the typical uncertainties of such economic studies and define possible routes for a reduction of costs and risks.

Ref. to No. 10 Ref. to No. 10

17 Ensuring that the technology will be ready for deployment in other regions in Europe for all transnational corridors defined in the trans-European energy infrastructure regulation, or be compatible (plug-and-play) with other upcoming technologies (e.g. ocean energy, solar energy, geothermal energy, etc. as soon as these technologies are ready for similar capacities).

20 p.c. – due to location 40 p.c. – the infrastructure is in principle usable also to interface (emulated) other technologies that are converter coupled

18 Ensuring plug-and-play compatibility of all relevant equipment of the key suppliers. Ref. to No 4. Ref. to No 4.

20 Facilitating the efficient connection of off-shore wind resources to on-shore loads and with other available generation resources for balancing, covering the main Northern Seas partner countries.

Ref. to No 4. Ref. to No 4.

30.11.2016


Link to PROMOTioNs Objectives

NO. AFFECTED SENTENCES INCL. DESCRIBTION OF CHANGE WP8 KLIM WP8 CONTROL CONCEPT DEMONSTRATOR

3 3. To demonstrate different cost-effective key technologies for meshed HVDC offshore grids and to increase their technology readiness level by investigating and overcoming early adopter issues and pitfalls

Increasement of technical readiness level, avoiding early adopter issues and pitfalls mainly regarding handling of equipment

Increasement of technical readiness by proving the low level control concepts.

6 6. To provide concrete deployment plan for “phase two” in bringing key technologies for meshed HVDC offshore grids into commercial operation in Europe, taking into account technical, financial and regulatory aspects

DRU after usage in Klim technical asset without any further usage until market pull

Postpone usage of DRU in a pos. phase II outlined in the original call

PROMOTioN is an ambitious step ahead in the development of the offshore grid. Project ambitions will be achieved through a number of important technological developments which remove existing barriers to DC offshore grid deployment. Within PROMOTioN, 3 technical pathways have been identified, each leading to a fully independent demonstrators.

Klim Demonstrator Control Concept Demonstrator

During the project, a fully rated compact diode rectifier converter is supplied by Siemens (on their expense) and will be connected to an existing wind farm, bypassing the traditional AC equipment. Next to the new converter, also a type of 5-core cable (2 * DC + 3 phase AC umbilical) is designed and built by Prysmian for this project. Compact gas insulated DC switchgear will be employed for the first time.

Fully rated compact diode rectifier converter is one component of the Klim demonstrator as well as the new cable

Diode rectifier unit is under development according to Siemens plan as a sub system but not directly integrated into demo action. - Prysmian shall develop cable as one important component for meshed DC offshore grids

30.11.2016


Budget Implications

The actual calculation indicates a not needed funding of about 7 to 9 Mio. € in case of the control concept demonstrator.

30.11.2016


Key differences

WP8 KLIM WP8 CONTROL CONCEPT DEMONSTRATOR

Location Klim, Denmark Flexible, 200 m² indoor space with 600kVA grid connection, low voltage, (actually planned in Erlangen)

Partners Prysmian Prysmian, possible partners are wind turbine manufacturers therefore a stronger cooperation with WP3

Funding Approx. 12 Mio. € Approx. 2/3 of original funding may be redistributed within the consortium.

Demonstration Full demonstration, incl. the handling of new components (onshore, not in intended environment)

Demonstration within two work streams; DRU concept demonstration with proof of concept, new components/equipment presentation and

demonstration independent on equipment level

Availibility/testing period

3 Month testing period (without disturbances due to wether, no wind etc.)

Concept demonstrator testing within the project about 1 to 1.5 year maybe usage after the project finished.

30.11.2016


Future WP8

Actual steps that are in progress: 1. Preparation of Deliverables (M12)

• Deliverable 8.1 Project Time Schedule • Deliverable 8.2 Basic Design Report • Deliverable 8.3 Plant Layout and major equipment specification

2. New WP8 Plan content (in progress)

• Hybrid cable development testing and demonstration • Other components for meshed offshore grids to include (that were originally part of Klim) • Concept Demonstrator

• Next steps:

• Agreement how to proceed • Link to other WP

30.11.2016


Thank you for your attention

Confidential © Siemens AG 2016 All rights reserved. siemens.com/answers

Simulation of DRU-System BACKUP

30.11.2016


Allready experience with scaled multiterminal HVDC (Ultranet)

Origin:

Example: Test of HVDC short circuit



WP 11 – Harmonization towards standardization

03.05.16 1

Partners: DTU (WP Leader), DNV GL, ABB, KU Leuven, MEU, GE, RTE, Statoil, Siemens, RWTH, UPV, FGH, Dong, Iberdrola

Objectives: • to provide a consistent and harmonised set of functional

specifications to HVDC systems, wind power plants and other AC systems connected to the HVDC systems;

• to recommend test procedures for converters, protection systems / components, wind turbines and plants;

• to provide functional specifications for models of HVDC systems including wind power plants;

• to recommend best practice for compliance validation of wind power plants connected to HVDC systems.




03.05.16 2

Partners: DTU (WP Leader), DNV GL, ABB, KU Leuven, MEU, GE, RTE, Statoil, Siemens, RWTH, UPV, FGH, Dong, Iberdrola

Deliverables:• Reports:

• Harmonised functional specifications of HVDC systems and connected WPPs

• Recommendations to grid codes • Recommendations to best practice for compliance evaluation • Recommendations on harmonised requirements for tests and models of

WPPs connected to HVDC systems

• White papers:• Test procedures for WPPs connected to HVDC systems • Harmonisation of models for WPPs connected to HVDC systems




03.05.16 3

Harmonised functional

specifications(M46)

Recommendations received from

WP2 to 6 (M36)

2016 2017 2018 2019

Milestones

Coordination and harmonisation across working groups

Contributions to CENELEC TC8X WG06 (power system)

Contributions to CIGRE (HVDC)

Contribution to IEC TC88 (Wind Energy Systems)Working tasks

Recommendations to grid codes

Compliance evaluation

© PROMOTioN – Progress on Meshed HVDC Of f shore Transmission Networks This project has receiv ed f unding f rom the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innov ation programme under grant agreement No 691714.

WP 12 - Overview Sample text for a subheadline, e.g. Date/Location/Speaker


CONTENT

• Dot on the horizon • Content WP 12 • Planning

• Appendix A - WBS • Appendix A – WP 12 Members

09.12.2016 2


PROMOTioN – The Work Packages

WP 12 – Dot on the Horizon

03.05.16 3

End objective -

Project(s) execution

Project set-

up

Analysis

steps

WP12: Develop Deployment Plan

Deliverables

Plan is to define: all required technical,

regulatory, economic, financial, legal, governmental and market actions.

PROMOTioN Scope

Development of

Environment

Expectations


Objectives: • The key objective is to produce a Deployment Plan

for European future offshore grid development. This plan will clearly define all required technical, regulatory, economic, financial, legal, governmental and market actions.

Further objectives: • To evaluate results of all work packages and to

identify key required technical, regulatory, economic, financial, legal, governmental and market barriers;

• To collect relevant data and underlying grid development scenario’s to identify a ‘optimal scenario’ for the development of a future European offshore grid and its integration with the on-shore grid;

• To analyse the economic and financial viability of results and recommendations of the different work packages and to develop a business case;

• To integrate the current PROMOTION project and past project results in a final deployment plan for future European offshore grid development.


WP 12 – Deployment plan for future European offshore grid development

03.05.16 4

Partners: TenneT (WP Leader), DNV GL, ABB, RTE, Statoil, SOW, FGH, Carbon Trust, Tractebel, Iberdrola, T&D Europe, Energinet, SHE Trans




03.05.16 5

Deliverables: • Preliminary analysis on key technical, financial, economic, governmental, regulatory and market barriers and a

related portfolio of solutions;

• Optimal scenario for the development of a future European offshore grid;

• First sketch of Deployment Plan integrating the current PROMOTION project and past project results;

• Final deployment plan for future European offshore grid development;

• Publication of the final deployment plan for future European offshore grid development.

Milestones: Preliminary analysis completed (M18);

Collection of interim results of different WPs (M24);

Agreement among Consortium partners on a scenario of the Deployment Plan (M34);

Presentation of a first draft of the deployment plan at a relevant EC convention (M36);

Final results of different work packages collected (M42);

Agreement among Consortium partners on a final Deployment Plan (M44);

Presentation of final Deployment plan at a relevant EC convention (M46).




03.05.16 6

Preparation of start Work Package 12;

Start Preliminary Analysis on key technical, financial, economic, governmental, regulatory and market barriers and a related portfolio of solutions;

First sketch of Deployment Plan integrating the current PROMOTION project and past project results;

Optimal scenario for the development of a future European offshore grid;

2016 2017 2018 2019

Preliminary analysis completed;

Collection of interim results of different WPs;

Publication of the final deployment plan for future European offshore grid development.



Key difference WP12 and WP1 - WP11

03.05.16 7

Key: Research & Investigate Develop; Analyse; Develop alternatives

DIVERGE

WP 1 - 10 WP 12

Key: Bring results together; Develop ´Scenario future´; Develop Deployment plan

CONVERGE


Appendix A – Work Breakdown structure (WBS)


PROMOTioN – The Work Packages

03.05.16 9

WP 12 – Work Break Down Structure


Dissemination ActivitiesPROMOTioN Meeting Berlin, 29.11 – 01.12 2016German OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY Foundation


• Deliverable 13.2 - submitted June 2016

• First edition sent on 30 Jun. 2016 • Second edition scheduled for 15 Dec. 2016

264 active subscribers

• For a max. no. of subscribers, please

Announce the newsletter via all your communication channels!!!

Dissemination

Task 13.2 Development and production of a newsletter

30 Nov. 16 2


POLICY:• EU Winter Package – published by EU Commission on 30 Nov. 2016

• New electricity interconnection targets expert group

• NordLink HVDC power grid interconnection

• Fichtner study (Germany): Acceleration and cost reduction potentials for Offshore HVDC Grids (June 2016)

• Update on North Seas Countries Offshore Cooperation Initiative – Support Groups

PROMOTioN • Review of Stakeholder Interaction 2016

• Deliverable 5.1: HVDC Network Fault Analysis

• Deliverable 1.3: Synthesis of available studies on offshore meshed HVDC grids

• Deliverable 6.1 and D6.2

UPCOMING EVENTS

Dissemination

Newsletter #2 - Content

30 Nov. 16 3


• Deliverable 13.3 Project information system - submitted July 2016

• To generate max. awareness of the PROMOTioN website, please announce it via all your communication channels

• Keep us informed about of the WP‘s progress to promote milestones and deliverables on website

Dissemination

Task 13.3 Content management for website and intranet

30 Nov. 16 4


Dissemination

30 Nov. 16 5

Task 13.3Website performance

unique user

Website visits since June 2016

User behaviour overall

Benchmark: Below 60%

Benchmark: Above 2 min.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

unique users

unique users



• More than 1000 recipients

• Continuous updates

• From all partners – input & regular updates

• For invitation to events:

documents/ Stakeholder list

Dissemination

Task 13.4 Development of a targeted mailing list

30 Nov. 16 6

STAKEHOLDER CATEGORIES

1. European Bodies2. Policy institutions3. Industry Stakeholders4. Financing Bodies5. Academia & Consulting6. Others

https://service.projectplace.com/pp/pp.cgi/r1350303835


• Deliverable 13.6 - postponed to December 2016

• Keep us informed about every publication/presentation

• Be aware of publication procedure Dissemination documents

• Ensure public accessibility (on PROMOTioN website)

• Any other conferences 2017 ??? - Input required!!

• e.g. Offshore Wind Energy 2017, London –Abstract submission deadline: 15 Dec. 2016

Dissemination

Task 13.6 Production of public reports, papers/articles, presentations

30 Nov. 16 7

https://service.projectplace.com/pp/pp.cgi/r1268761803


• IET International Conference on AC / DC Power Transmission14 to 16 Feb. 2017, Manchester, UK

• SciGRID Conference 2017 30 to 31 Mar. 2017, Oldenburg, Germany Abstract Deadline: 4 Dec. 2016

• WINDFORCE 2017 9 to 11 May 2017, Bremerhaven, Germany

• Wind & Martime, 6th Future Conference 17 to 18 May 2017, Rostock, Germany

• 14th International Conference on the European Energy Market 6 to 9 Jun. 2017, Dresden, Germany

• Offshore Wind Energy 2017 6 to 8 Jun. 2017, London, Abstract Deadline: 15 December 2016!

Dissemination

Conferences 2017

30 Nov. 16 8


Dissemination

30 Nov. 16 9

No. Date Event Title Authors / Presenter PROMOTioN WP/task

111 May 2016 WindEurope Working Group: Offshore

Wind - general project presentation - Andreas Wagner - SOW Project introduction

2 24 May 2016 Belgian Electrical Engineers Society - general project presentation - Karim KAROUI - tractebel

327-28 June 2016 InnoGrid 2020+ - general project presentation - Alexander Yanushkevich - DNV GL 10 minute project presentation

and Panel Debate

4

28 June 2016Internal meeting with partners in Carbon Trust’s Offshore Wind Accelerator (OWA) programme

- general project presentation - Carbon Trust Workshop (OWA Technical Working Group meeting)

5 29 September 2016 WindEnergy Hamburg - general project presentation - Cornelis Pleet - DNV GL Project introduction

6

25 November 2016

Conference Baltic InteGrid project: Offshore Wind in the Baltic Sea:Legal and Policy Perspectives on a Regional Meshed Grid

Meshed Offshore Grids: Legal and Regulatory Perspectives from the North Sea

Ceciel Nieuwenhout (Groningen Centre of Energy Law) WP7

7

14 - 16 February2017 IET ACDC conference 2017

Survey of Methods for Selective DC Fault Detection in MTDC Grids

I. Jahn*, N. Johannesson*, S. Norrga* KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden,

Abstract: Survey of Methods for Selective DC Fault Detection in MTDC Grids

Task 13.6 presentations• Public presentations will be published on PROMOTioN website too


Dissemination

30 Nov. 16 10

• Total amount of 25 journal articles and 50 conference papers is pursued (acc. to GA Annex 1B Communications Activities )

• Public articles will be published on PROMOTioN website too

No. Date Journal/Conference Title Authors Type PROMOTioN WP/task

1

15-17 November 2016

Wind Integration Workshop

Simultaneous connection of Type-3 and Type-4 Off-shore wind farms to HVDC Diode Rectifier Units

R. Vidal-Albanate, R. Pena, E. Belenguer, S. Añó-Villalba, S. Bernal-Perez, R. Blasco-Gimenez

conference paper

extension to work already published last year --> WP2 and WP3

2

15-17 November 2016

Wind Integration Workshop

Connection of OWPPs to HVDC networks usingVSCs and Diode Rectifiers: an Overview

Oscar Saborío-Romano, Ali Bidadfar, Ömer Göksu, Müfit Altin, Nicolaos A. Cutululis, Poul E. SørensenDepartment of Wind EnergyTechnical University of Denmark

poster and conference paper

the state of the art of offshore wind power plant (OWPP) connection tohigh-voltage direct-current (HVDC) networks

3

14 - 16 February 2017 IET ACDC 2017

DC Chopper Based Test Circuit for High Voltage DC Circuit Breakers

D. Jovcic, M.H. Hedayati University of Aberdeen,UK

conference paper WP6

4


Robustness Evaluation of Fast Breaker Failure Backup Protection in Bipolar HVDC Grids

M. Wang , W. Leterme , J. Beerten , D. Van Hertem

conference paper

related to WP4 DC grid protection and functional requirements

5


Impact of DC grid contingencies on AC system stability

Abedrabbo, M.z, Wang, M.z, Tielens, P.z, Dejene, F.Z.z, Leterme, W., Beerten, J. andVan Hertem, D.

conferencepaper

related to WP4 DC grid protection and functional requirements

616-20 July2017

IEEE PES General Meeting

Modelling of Thyristor-based Hybrid DC Circuit Breaker for Grid Protection Studies

Aliakbar Jamshidi Far, Dragan JovcicUniversity of Aberdeen, UK

conferencepaper

WP6

Task 13.6 publications, papers/articles


Dissemination

Task 13.6 publications, papers/articles

30 Nov. 16 11

0

10

20

30

40

50

2016 2017 2018 2019

Conference papers

conference papers pursued

• Total amount of 25 journal articles and 50 conference papers is pursued (acc. to GA Annex 1B Communications Activities )

0

10

20

30

40

50

2016 2017 2018 2019

journal articles

journal articles pursuedjournal articles submitted


• Deliverable 13.7 - submitted November 2016

WP7: Kick-off Stakeholder workshop, 29 June 2016, Brussels

WP1: Workshops “Lessons learned from HVDC links“:5 Oct. in Edinburgh

17 Nov. in Hamburg

Reference group (WP13)

• 29 Sep. kick-off meeting Reference Group in Hamburg

Dissemination

Task 13.7 Stakeholder interaction

30 Nov. 16 12


Side Events

• Side Event # 1 - Offshore Wind Energy 2017, London

• Side Event # 2 – Time & location tbd – Ideas and suggestions welcome!

2nd Reference Group Meeting

• September 2017 (envisaged), Brussels (tbd)

Dissemination

Task 13.7 Planned Workshops and Events 2017

30 Nov. 16 13



Press briefing - alongside Berlin GA meeting – 1st Dec. 2016

Targeted at trade press

Explain the project more detailed at an informal setting

Project Participants:

C. Plet; N. de Groot; D. Abdoelkariem; S. Winter; S. Boie; A. Wagner

• Inform about the motivation and background of the project,

• Highlight project objectives and benefits, present first deliverables

• Describe the political context of the project

Dissemination

Task 13.8 External communication activities

30 Nov. 16 14


Marketing materials Roll up banners Posters (work in progress) Leaflets Business cards Standard project presentation (ppt)Dissemination documents/Standard Slides

(WP WP 6, 10,11 still missing!!!

If you need any marketing materials, please contact Philipp Kalweit

Dissemination


30 Nov. 16 15

https://service.projectplace.com/pp/pp.cgi/0/1282582369


Testimonials - Video Clips

• Project partners highlight relevant aspects/aims of PROMOTioN

• Clips with Jenny Josefsson (ABB), Cornelis Plet (DNV GL), Niek de Groot (TenneT), Ceciel Nieuwenhout (RUG), Alexander Broy (Siemens), Andreas Wagner (SOW), Backup: Dirk van Hertem (KU Leuven)

• Giving personalized insights into the project

• 6 video clips, each max. 1 minute

• Embedded on project website and YouTube channel

• Production on 29 Nov, alongside WP meetings

• Support from subcontractor Edelmann.ergo

Dissemination


30 Nov. 16 16


Explanatory video – planned Q1/2017

• To visualize/animate & illustrate PROMOTioN goals & objectives

• Marketing tool as “business card”

• Embedded on project website and YouTube channel

• Usage on various events

• Max. 100 Sec.

• Support from subcontractor Edelmann.ergo

Starting point: Political context

Target groups: Decision makers, associations, business, science

Dissemination


30 Nov. 16 17


• https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/events/commission-expert-group-electricity-interconnection-targets

• Established by EU Commission

• To help it boost electricity interconnection between EU Member States

• To provide the Commission with technical advice on how to break down a 15% electricity interconnection target into regional, country and/or border interconnection targets, while taking costs into account

• European industry organisations, academic and research organisations, NGOs, international organisations and individuals

• Meetings in Brussels on 17/18 Oct. and 9 Nov. 2016

Policy

30 Nov. 16 18

New electricity interconnection targets expert group

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/events/commission-expert-group-electricity-interconnection-targets


• https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/

• 4 Support Groups (SGs), of which at least 2 relevant for PROMOTioN

• Co-chaired by Member States and the European Commission

• SG 2: Development and regulation of offshore grids and other offshore infrastructure

• Co-Chaired by Jan Hensmanns (Belgium)

• SG 3: Support framework and finance for offshore wind project• Co-Chaired by Fr. Herr (Germany)

• Stakeholder workshop planned for Q1/2017 (March?) in Brussels

Policy

30 Nov. 16 19

Political Declaration on energy cooperation between the North Seas Countries

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/


• Commission proposes new rules for consumer centred clean energy transition

• Release Date: 30 November

• https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/news/commission-proposes-new-rules-consumer-centred-clean-energy-transition?platform=hootsuite

Policy

EU Winter Package

30 Nov. 16 20

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/news/commission-proposes-new-rules-consumer-centred-clean-energy-transition?platform=hootsuite


Arrival descriptionFrom U Siemensdamm take U7 (towards Rudow) Leave at U Mehringdamm

Change to U6 (towards Alt-Tegel) Leave at U Friedrichstraße

Walk along the river Spree (Reichstagsufer) to the left (westwards).

Turn right at Wilhelmstraße, then cross the bridge to Luisenstraße

Dinner –Restaurant/Weinhaus Habel am ReichstagLuisenstr. 19, 10117 Berlin

30 Nov. 16 21


Dinner –Restaurant/Weinhaus Habel am ReichstagLuisenstr. 19, 10117 Berlin

30 Nov. 16 22

Andreas Wagner (CEO), [email protected]. +49 30 275 95 241,

Philipp Kalweit (Project Mgr), [email protected]. +49 30 275 95 197

Dr. Dennis Kruse, Head of Varel Office [email protected]

Sebastian Menze (Project Mgr), [email protected] tel. +49 4451 9515 205

Sebastian Boie (Press Officer), [email protected] tel. +49 30 275 95 198

German OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY Foundation

HQ: Oldenburger Str. 65, D-26316 Varel

Berlin officeSchiffbauerdamm 19D-10117 Berlin

[email protected]

Thank you for your attention!


Publication Procedure

03.05.16 24


03.05.16 25


03.05.16 26


09:00 – 09:30 Reporting to the EU (DNV GL)09:30 – 10:00 General project & consortium issues

(including Questions from the work package results, and update Amendment)

10:00 – 10:30 Coffee break / press briefing10:30 – 11:10 Follow up on the NO GO decision Klim demonstrator (WP8)11:10 – 11:30 Wrap up & Closing11:30 – 12:30 Lunch12:30 – 14:30 PMG Meeting (for WPL’s)

* General Assembly: every beneficiary should be represented by one representative with right to vote; more representatives allowed

AGENDA

Thursday 1 December, General Assembly*


Follow up on the NO GO decision Klim demonstrator (WP8)

Objective of WP8

03.05.16 3

Source: Grant Agreement - Annex 1 – Part A – page 50; Amendment No. 1


Completion of first tasks in WP8

Decision making process on alternative WP8 Authorization Timing

Eventual alternative use of liberated budget Authorization Timing

Answering the set of questions of the Project Officer

Others: …


Issues


D8.1 : Project Time ScheduleProject Time Schedule, including delivery months of D8.2-D8.9

D8.2 : Basic Design ReportTechnical data and system parameters

D8.3 : Plant Layout and major equipment specification

D8.10 : Demonstrator Prototype: Analysis and comparisons of different technical solutions for realization

Description of different technical solutions for realization of the plant, assessment of pros and cons. This will be the input for the decision making process of the GO/NO GO Milestone (MS36)


Completion of first tasks in WP8

Source: Grant Agreement - Annex 1 – Part A

Description of deliverables (month 12)



Decision making process

03.05.16 6

Source: Grant Agreement - Annex 1 - Part B – page 32; Amendment No. 1 – 25/02/2016

Authorization in decision-making


1. To what extent does the consortium consider that SIEMENS' "no-go" decision is in line with the grant agreement?

2. To what extent does the consortium agree with SIEMENS' draft proposal to drop the Klimdemonstrator and replace it with a validation of the proposed solution in a lab environment in Erlangen?

3. Does the consortium agree with SIEMENS' assessment of the TRL levels that will be reached at the end of the project with this new proposal? And to what extent does the consortium consider that SIEMENS' proposal will lead to the TRL levels of the Call Text being achieved at the end of the project?

4. To what extent does the consortium consider that this change will ensure plug-and-play compatibility of all relevant equipment of key suppliers?

5. To what extent does the consortium consider that this change will ensure the acceleration of deployment of meshed HVDC off-shore grids, with particular emphasis on Northern Sea partner countries, before 2020?

6. To what extent does the consortium consider that with this change the technology will be ready for deployment in other regions in Europe for all transnational corridors defined in the trans-European energy infrastructure regulation?

7. To what extent does the consortium consider that this change would have implication on the Consortium agreement?

“I would like to emphasise that in case the consortium decides to drop the Klim demonstrator, this does not automatically mean that the liberated budget will be available for other tasks in the project”

Set of questions of the Project Officer

03.05.16 7

© A

BB


REPORTING to theEUROPEAN COMMISSIONMarga van Deelen-Bremer, 1 December 2016


CONTENT

• Required technical reporting• Technical reporting per partner• Technical reporting per WP• Financial reporting

03.05.16 2


• Period is 2016 • Partly online by ECAS participant portal and partly as a word

document• Technical and Financial Part • Deadline submission to the EU is 28 February 2017

Reporting to the European Commission

03.05.16 3


• Technical reporting part A • Technical reporting part B

Required Technical reporting

03.05.16 4

Chapter

Description Action by

1 Summary for Publication1.1 Summary of the context and overall objectives of the

ProjectDNV GL

1.2 Work performed from the beginning of the project to the end of the period covered by the report and main results

DNV GL

1.3 Progress beyond the state of the art, expected results until the end of the project and potential impacts

DNV GL

2 Deliverables WP leaders2)

DNV GL3 Milestones WP leaders3)

DNV GL4 Ethical Issues (if applicable) Not applicable5 Critical implementation risks and mitigation actions

Foreseen Risks, Unforseen Risks, States of the Play of Risk Mitigation

WP LeadersDNV GL

6 Dissemination and exploitation6.1 Scientific publications SOW6.2 Dissemination and communication activities

Type of activity, type of audience reachedSOW

6.3 Intellectual property rights resulting from the project WP leadersDNV GL

7 Impact on SMEs ?????? SME8 Open Research Data Not applicable9 Gender of researchers and work force involved in the

projectAll partners

11 Energy Saving (Option for Efficient Energy projects) Not applicable

Chapter

Description Action by

1 Explanation of the work carried out by the beneficiaries and Overview of the progress

All partnersDNV GL

1.1 Objectives overview WP leadersDNV GL

1.2 Explanation of the work carried per WP WP leadersDNV GL

1.3 Impact, update on 2.1 of the DoA DNV GL2 Update of the plan for exploitation and

dissemination of result (if applicable)DNV GL

3 Update of the data management plan DNV GL 4 Follow-up of recommendations and

comments from previous reviewsDNV GL

5 Deviations from Annex 1 and Annex 25.1 Tasks DNV GL5.2 Use of resources (Person-months per WP) All partners

DNV GL5.2.1

Unforeseen subcontracting All partnersDNV GL

5.2.2

Unforeseen in kind contribution All partnersDNV GL


• Same format as we used for the first half year reporting

• All partners• Deadline 31 January 2017 • Period is 1 July 2016 – 31

December 2016*

* for the partners that didn’t submit the first half year reporting, the period is 1 Jan – 31 Dec 2016

Technical reporting per partner

03.05.16 5


• Gender of researchers and work force involved in the project

• Requested information:• Number researcher, Women and Men• Number other as researcher involved, Women and Men

On-line reporting in ECAS

03.05.16 6


• Same format as we used for the first half year reporting

• WP leaders• Deadline 31 January 2017 • Period is 1 July 2016 – 31

December 2016*• Send it by E-mail to

[email protected]

Technical reporting per WP

03.05.16 7



• Use same excel as used for the first half year reporting –tab ‘2016-2 Fin’

• Up date the MM overview• All partners• Deadline 15 February 2017 • Period is 1 July 2016 – 31

December 2016*• Send it by E-mail to

[email protected]

* for the partners that didn’t submit the first half year reporting, the period is 1 Jan – 31 Dec 2016

Financial reporting per partner (1)

03.05.16 8



• Reporting on-line in ECAS • If filled in the excel: all input available for on-line reporting in

ECAS• Deadline 15 February 2017• Period 01 January 2016 – 31 December 2016

Financial reporting per partner (2)

03.05.16 9


Cost nr. Cost type Pop up

A Amount for Direct personnel costs as actualcost or unit cost

Number of person months associated to WP1,2,3,etc

Details about in kind contribution from third parties

B Amount for Direct cost of subcontracting More details are requested (description,foreseen in Annex I, explanation if not, Costs

C Amount Direct cost financial support to third parties

Details on costs and description

D Amount other direct cost Requested details,Short descriptionCategory (travel, equipment, other goods and services)Associated WPForeseen in Annex I (Yes/No) Explanation if not foreseen

Financial reporting per partner (3)In ECAS requested information

03.05.16 10


Thank you for your attention

03.05.16 11

MoM - PROMOTioN Consortium Meeting Berlin Nov 30 - Dec 1 2016.docx 1

PROMOTioN, 3rd Consortium Meeting, November 29-30, December 1

Location: Siemensdamm 50, 13629, Berlin, Germany

Day 2, November 30th, Plenary Meeting

Agenda

A. Opening and welcome (Siemens)

B. Introduction (DNV GL)

C. WP1 (TenneT)

D. WP12 (TenneT)

E. WP2 (RWTH)

F. WP3 (DTU)

G. WP4 (KUL)

H. WP5 (DNV GL)

I. WP6 (UniAbdn)

J. WP7 (TenneT)

K WP13 (SOW)

L. WP8 (Siemens)

M. Closing (DNV GL)

Work packages’ progress is presented and discussed. Questions and discussions are noted in these

minutes. All presentations are accessible @ ProjectPlace.

Items covered

A. Opening and welcome (Siemens) – 9:15

Opening of the plenary meeting by Alexander Broy (Siemens) and Andreas Wagner (SOW)

B. Introduction (DNV GL) – 9:20

General introduction by Paul Raats (DNV GL)

Paul Raats: The year one report must be submitted at the end of this year.

C. WP1 (TenneT) – 9:25

Presentation of WP1 by Niek de Groot and Pierre Henneaux.

Niek de Groot:

WP1 is the foundation for the other other WPs.


Deliverable 1.1 was delivered in April and was of good quality.

Please fill in the Questionnaire sent by Iberdrola before this Friday.

Deliverable 1.5 is in progress, input from partners is welcome.

Pierre Henneaux:

Detailed explanation of Task 1.4 and the roadmap is given.

First results of roadmap are available, but are not presented today.

Criteria/definition of N-1 is not clear yet, more questions for Task 1.4 will follow.

Andreas Wagner:

My compliments to Pierre for suggestion of N-1 definitions, this is important.

We should also investigate what we can win from meshing existing wind farms with each

other.

Lorenzo Zeni:

What are the business case assumptions?

Will there be interaction with WP7?

Niek de Groot:

Costs discussion should be done with all partners, but getting valuable input from partners

proves to be very difficult. Within the PMG there should be a wider discussion about these

costs.

WP12 will develop a cost-benefit analysis

Kamran Sharifabadi: How are you going to avoid a purely TSO based deliverable?

Niek de Groot: ENTSOE documentation is used as a starting point, but input from all project partners

is added as information, therefore, it is not only TSO based.

Sebastian Winter:

Can you give an expected timeline?

When will the roadmap be finished?

Niek de Groot: In March next year the deliverable draft roadmap should be finished. The main

purpose of this document is to get feedback from the partners about their views.

Sebastian Winter: Some WPs need input from WP1, especially about grid topologies

Dirk Van Hertem:

How much time should be spent to find future grid topologies, it will change anyway, so

there is no need to be very specific.

Niek de Groot: I agree with this.


Paul Raats:

I want talk more about Kamran’s question about a possible TSO based deliverable, mainly

Stattoil and TenneT have been discussing this topic.

Can other TSOs give their views about this as well?

Antje Orths: ENTSO-E can indeed be used, but additional information is also necessary.

Niek de Groot: I want to emphasize that we are a research project, we are not developing grid codes.

Kamran Sharifabadi:

I have been involved in the draft grid code of ENTSO-E. Many partners contributed to this

document, but there are also many countries that are filling lawsuits to the ENTSO-E at this

moment as some TSOs input have not been considered.

Please do not use ‘must be’ in documentation, but indicate that a certain solution is, for

example, the most cost effective. The type of verbs being used are important.

Andreas Wagner:

This is interesting internal project stakeholder management.

The mentioned views and manufacturers views are important, the document should state

that it does not have the perfect solution and that not all parties have agreed about the

details. The project does not resolve everything.

Niek de Groot:

We indeed added a discussion paragraph to each document to cover this, because there will

always be discussion about certain points.

We tried to get feedback for D1.1 and D1.5, but it takes a lot of effort to obtain feedback.

How much more effort should we put in this?

Karim Karoui: What are the critical points for this? It is important to have a draft of how the offshore

grid should work, for this WP1 and WP2 are crucial.

D. WP12 (TenneT) – 10:00

Presentation of WP12 by Michiel de Schepper

Michiel de Schepper:

The dot on the horizon needs to be defined. What is the purpose of WP12 and how shall we

assess its content?

There are many questions about the outcome of WP12, the objective should be defined and

we should make something that is robust for even 2030 and 2050.

Cornelis Plet: The kick-off of WP12 will be in Arnhem, we want all the partners to sign the

deployment plan in the end.


Andreas Wagner:

We need to reach out to external parties, there are different groups working on offshore

grids. We need to get feedback from policy makers.

Three years from now, the project ends. This is the same time as politicians need to make

decisions.

TenneT is organizing and energy breakfast session in Brussels tomorrow, key stakeholders

Michiel de Schepper: The energy breakfast session in Brussels focusses more on short-term solutions.

Oliver Scheufeld:

We are involved in WP12, but I want to stress that expectation management is important.

Next presentation of WP12 should show what the expected outcome of the deployment plan

should look like, for example, how the optimal design/risks are presented.


Agreed, joint understanding is necessary. If necessary, please help by providing additional

information

There is time to interact with other WPs, a two-way feedback loop is necessary to ensure

that the output of WP12 is feasible.

Wei He: It is important to discuss the deployment plan, as Statoil, we would be careful to sign such a

document.

Michiel de Schepper: We should talk about signing issues in an early-stage to prevent non-signing in

the end. Disagreement is possible, but don’t do this at the end. Be part of the process!

Dirk Van Hertem: Will there be a specific moment to see if we are on the right track? It will help

everyone to have time to look at the outcome.

Michiel de Schepper: We will ensure a proper feedback loop for this.

Dirk Van Hertem: We need to agree on the key message, not on specific details.

Sebastian Winter:

We should specify common terminologies, such as scenario, topology etc.

My proposal is to have many scenarios and choose the political recommendation

Michiel de Schepper: We should agree on this in the coming weeks.

Karim (Tractabel): Each WP should give scenarios and recommendation, after this the most ‘optimal’

one can be chosen.

Michiel de Schepper: Although there are links between WPs, WP12 is not the responsible party to

manage this.


Niek de Groot: I want to emphasize that, although it was sometimes difficult to activate persons, we

have received very good input from pro-active partners.

Paul Nielsen:

The deployment plan sounds like a specific plan being rolled out, the WP description,

however, is different.

WP12 description is good, but the name deployment plan is not.

Michiel de Schepper: We should indeed define what the outcome of the deployment plan should be.

Please contact me for suggestions, remarks etc.

Coffee break

E. WP2 (RWTH) – 11:00

Presentation of WP2 by Cora Petino.

Cora Petino:

Used models can be shared with WP2

First deliverable of WP2 was sent out in September, 2016.

Hardware parameter list is now available

WP2 is looking at different converter technologies

The level of detail of the models for different technologies is different, for example, DRUs

required detailed point-to-point analyses, while VSC based systems do not need this.

Model library will be set up

Circuit breaker model is to be provided by WP6

Next month, the overlaying system control will be finished

In the beginning of next year, WP1 will be used to start the network modelling

Kick-off meeting of T2.2 will be at 9/10 January, 2017

Niklas Svensson: Have you considered integrating the models into the existing grid models (i.e. first

of all for the AC-system)? Is it a requirement in/with existing grid models?

Cora Petino:

We used Nordic 44 model

The DC offshore grid will be modelled for usage in a detailed EMT simulation, the AC grid will

be parametrized and will be less detailed.

Detailed AC grid models will be used in the RMS model

Niklas Svensson: Within ENTSO-E there is a common grid model working group, please consider

integration and interaction with the common grid model.

Cora Petino: We are developing multiple grid models and will also integrate the common grid model


Niklas Svensson: The interaction with the rest of the grid is important, as the simplified model has to

be used for interaction simulations.

Cora Petino: For the EMT simulation, simplified AC models are used.

Dirk Van Hertem: The requested input from WP4 is appreciated, but I need to know what is expected,

as no official request has been made. We need to discuss how this should look like in more detail.

Cora Petino: We want to have the possibility to include the WP4 system in our model, but we have to

discuss the timeframe etc.

Cornelis Plet:

One of the objectives of the models is interoperability.

In BESTPATHS project they do similar things. Several weeks ago, the interoperability of

different manufacturer converter models was discussed. Simplified parameters were sent

(black-box models)

The different black-box models of manufacturers were not interoperable. Are there different

control strategies to control the different converters from different manufacturers?

Cora Petino: Currently I am not sure about the work in BESTPATHS project. Different technologies

and multi-vendor issues are taken into account, but we have to specify this a little bit more. It is

interesting to talk more about this.

Cornelis Plet: I will put you in contact with the WP leader that was mentioned before.

Kanstantsin Fadzeyeu:

We want to benchmark specific models against generic models.

DRU models are being developing.

The process of going from vendor specific models to generic models is necessary.

Cornelis Plet: Are all manufacturers sending their black-box models? Is there anybody from GE who

can give comment?

Kanstantsin Fadzeyeu: ABB and Siemens agreed on this.

Andrzej Adamczyk: Our contribution is minimal, we can comment on achieved result, but we will not

provide black-box models

Dragan Jovcic:

Only the point-to-point DRU system is considered. Will meshed DRU protection systems also

be researched?

In which cases are DC circuit breaker necessary?

Cora Petino: This is one of our objectives, we will definitely research this later, we want to find out

what effects changes grid parameters.


Dragan Jovcic: I agree with you, but your current slides do not show this.

Sebastian Winter:

As you are working on topologies, it is important to make sure that the models align with

WP2

WP1 is not focusing on WP2 models

Coordination with WP1 might be necessary to find out the relevant requirements. We will

make sure that this is done.

Ramon Blasco-Gimenez:

Multi-point use of DRU is under discussion, but technically this appears to be possible

Point-to-point DRU connections will not use DC circuit breakers, multi-point systems,

however, need DC circuit breakers

Dirk Van Hertem:

Within WP4 it is agreed that specific protection solution for DRU units will not be

investigated.

WP4 can check if the standard VSC protection will work with the DRU models provided by

WP1 and WP2, probably this will be the case.

Cora Petino: So you will not actively research DRU protection?

Dirk Van Hertem: As this is not clearly defined, this is difficult.

F. WP3 (DTU) – 11:30

WP3 is presented by Ömer Goksu.

Ömer Goksu:

D3.1 will be submitted to the PC&RD coordination before 16th December, final review of the

documents is between December 5th and December 12th.

There will be a test with wind farms from three manufacturers

Cornelis Plet: Will you use the black-box models from WP2 in task 3.3? how is the progress?

Ömer Goksu:

The black-box models from manufacturers are not required for WP3, but the VSC model from

WP2 is.

The Siemens DRU model is used.

Siemens Wind Power, Vestas and Adwen should provide black-box models.

Philipp Ruffing:


Mostly full-bridge converters are considered for the DRU, but Siemens will use half-bridge

converters.

We can provide generic models if the black-box models of the manufacturers are not suitable

Cornelis Plet: Which manufacturers are here now?

Ömer Goksu: Siemens Wind Power and Adwen are present, Vestas is not.

Adwen person: We have models available in Matlab, PSCAD and PSSE which we use for our

simulations, we need to consider if we can share these.

Andreas Wagner: Are wind turbine manufacturers outside the consortium considered?

Ömer Goksu: Not so far, but we are able to cover most of the technologies.

Cornelis Plet: WP8 has done a lot of work on wind turbine generator controls, there were many

issues. Do you work together with them?

Ömer Goksu:

Not at this moment, but we will work together with them in a later stage.

We are developing test cases, so we want to include WP8 parties as well, but until this

moment, we have not seen much from Siemens.

Cornelis Plet: Siemens, please share this information!

Alexander Broy: The knowledge should indeed be shared, we announced to WP3 that we should

discuss the WP8 content in coordination with WP3.

Cornelis Plet: We are expecting a large report.

G. WP4 (KUL) – 12:00

Presentation of WP4 by Dirk Van Hertem

Dirk Van Hertem:

We are slightly delayed with our deliverable

We used a questionnaire and got responses, but we still don’t have a final version of the

documentation. Qualitative feedback is not straightforward.

At the end of this month we will deliver the document, after it has been reviewed.

Paul Nielsen: Did all the TSOs actively participate and agree on this?

Dirk Van Hertem: TSOs have been involved, but I am not sure if all TSOs actively agreed on it.

Questions were sent out multiple times.

Niek de Groot: We had many discussion with Dirk Van Hertem about the concept documentation.

We don’t fully agree with everything, but we see that the concept is interesting and should be

researched further.


Energienet person: We need to define numbers for the content shown on slide X (time and power

shall be investigated - in reference to the slide)

Dirk Van Hertem: Exact numbers are indeed necessary, we need to define voltage specifications.

Please provide comments on the slides, if you have any.

Paul Raats: Did you get consensus about the definitions of small, medium and large?

Dirk Van Hertem:

I did not hear any objections and the audience is quiet, so it appears to be ok.

We went to the XXX conference and we did not receive any negative feedback on our work.

Cornelis Plet: Is the cost-benefit analysis available for all consortium members?

Dirk Van Hertem: The document is on ProjectPlace, but only for WP4 members. It can be shared after

discussion within WP4.

Bruno Luscan:

There is no fundamental problem with sharing the CBA document and we are willing to share

the methodology

The key components of the system and DC circuit breakers are included in the cost-benefit

analysis.

Cornelis Plet: Will there be accurate costs for the GE circuit breaker available? Will information from

the CBA be used in WP 12?

Andreas Wagner: This information is used in WP1, WP7 and WP12.

Dirk Van Hertem:

A cost-benefit approach will be developed for different strategies: full-bridge converters, de-

energizing systems and DC circuit-breakers.

Results are provided to WP12

WP7 also looks at CBAs, but they do not develop the method. Our CBA is probably not useful

for them. It could be useful for WP1, but the timing is not so good.

Andreas Wagner: The cost indications for the technologies do not need to be exact values,

percentages of cost and volume increases etc. will be enough.

Dirk Van Hertem:

If 99% of the time the protection equipment is working well, what to do with the other 1%?

Does the system have backup protection?

Is it allowed to lose part of a power infeed?

To what extent are we going to do a detailed assessment instead of developing a

methodology?


Energienet person: Besides costs, risks should also be included. This is something I do not see in the

current assessment.

Dirk Van Hertem: Do you mean within the assessment or CBA?

Energienet person: If there are risks, how are you going to mitigate them? And at what costs?

Bruno Luscan:

Although not specifically mentioned here, we are working on assessing risks associated with

each protection method.

Calculating the level of risk is important, as well as including costs, reliability and probability.

Ömer Goksu: Are we going to evaluate load-shedding?

Dirk Van Hertem: Losing the overall grid, even though the chance is very small, might result in a loss

of a significant amount of power.

Ömer Goksu: Are you going to perform dynamic simulations?

Dirk Van Hertem:

Dynamic simulations are not investigated; this is a drawback.

Dynamic simulations are very complex and probably TSOs will agree that this should not be

done

Dragan Jovcic:

Voltage versus time is important, but dynamic changes are important for cables as well.

Exotic protection systems might satisfy grid codes, but could be dangerous for cables.

Dirk Van Hertem:

I understand that there are risks with voltage on the cables, but the on/off switching

behavior is currently not listed as a main concern.

Plastic type cables do not work well with reverse polarity.

Andreas Wagner: Are you considering the characteristics of offshore wind farms?

Dirk Van Hertem: We do not see the main differences between offshore wind farms with specific

generation.

Andreas Wagner: are you considering the offshore windfarms operating below capacity? Offshore

wind farms have different behavior than conventional plants.

Dirk Van Hertem: as long as it is within certain limit, it is not important. We are only investigating the

DC side, not the converter operation. The offshore converter is assumed to handle the same fault

ride through as the AC system.

Lunch


H. WP5 (DNV GL) – 13:30

Presentation of WP5 by Nadew Belda

Cornelis Plet:

Request for TSO: What tests are meaningful for testing DC circuit breakers?

Next week, a request for a workshop will be send

Samuel Nguefeu:

In another EU project (TWENTIES), also a DC circuit breaker was tested

AC circuit breaker tests can be modified to test DC circuit breakers, so please look at existing

knowledge

Nadew Belda: Existing knowledge, such as deliverables of other EU projects, is already taken into

account. We are looking to the limitations of the tests presented in the documents.

Niklas Svensson: Did you consider pole-to-pole faults?

Nadew Belda: Pole-to-pole faults can be researched, but are unlikely to occur. Therefore, pole-to-

ground faults have been studied in more detail.

Niklas Svensson: So it will not be a researched type of fault?

Nadew Belda: This depends on the DC circuit breaker properties, but in most cases these DC circuit

breakers should have no problems to operate with pole-to-pole faults. The overall trend is the same

for pole-to-ground and pole-to-pole faults in bipole system

Niklas Svensson: If it is assumed that DC circuit breakers cannot handle pole-to-pole fault, this should

be input for WP4.

Frederick Page: A pole-to-pole fault is very similar to pole-to-ground faults.

Nadew Belda: The asymmetric monopole is considered, not the bipolar system.

Niklas Svensson: In that case, my question is not relevant anymore.

Kamran Sharifabadi: In my opinion, your question is still relevant as the first discharge is coming from

the cables.

Nadew Belda: The discharge current from the faulted cable is not seen by the DC circuit breaker

Energienet person: As a grid operator, we cannot tell you how to test the DC circuit breaker, this is

up to the manufacturer. We are not the designers of the equipment.

Cornelis Plet:

WP5 is developing test procedures, but we do not have TSOs in our WP.


WP5 could benefit from feedback from TSOs, we need to talk to the technical guys from the

TSOs that negotiate between the manufacturer and the TSO.

I. WP6 (UniAbdn) – 14:00

Presentation of WP6 by Dragan Jovcic.

Dragan Jovcic: In the middle of next week or the end of next week, updates on some deliverables will

be sent to DNV GL.

Paul Raats: How large is the shown test setup of the UFD?

Dragan Jovcic: The width is around 30 cm.

Staffan Norghan: You mentioned that 3 kHz is not feasible with a system level study.

Dragan Jovcic:

The simplified DC circuit breaker model should be used as system level modules where a 50-

60 microsecond time-step is being used, it gives significant improvement in simulation speed.

Persons using the simplified DC circuit breaker model should read the report to find out

about the restrictions and limitations.

Marjan Popov:

Our simulation model is based on the data obtained from Mitsubishi Electric

The used simulation model is robust and covers all aspects that should be covered for

protection system studies

Claudia Spallarossa: If you are interested in the component level model, there is going to be a

deliverable about that in January.

Arman Hassanpoor: Does the simplification also apply for the hybrid DC circuit breaker?

Dragan Jovcic: I do not see the need for simplification of the hybrid DC circuit breaker model, it is

already sufficiently simple.

Arman Hassanpoor: The current model still includes semiconductor devices; this could be more

simple.

Dragan Jovcic: The semiconductor devices are important for the self-protection function.

Arman Hassanpoor: The self-protection function could be modelled by a current threshold in the

model without IGBTs

Willem Leterme: Are internal faults also considered?

Dragan Jovic: All essential submodules are included in the model, so we can represent failure of an

internal switch for example. At this moment, however, internal fault analysis is not the aim of our

research.


Marjan Popov:

I agree with Dragan on this point, we should deal with this in the same way as with the AC

circuit breakers

Simulations with the DC circuit breaker should show that a certain fault current can be

interrupted, the maximum fault level can be calculated

Within task 6.4 and task 6.5, we want to obtain experimental results as well

The coming years, we will probably see a lot of unknown phenomena about DC circuit

breakers

J. WP7 (TenneT) – 14:40

Presentation of WP7 by Daimy Abdoelkariem

Daimy Abdoelkariem: DNVGL, can you give all the consortium partners access to the WP7 folder on

ProjectPlace?

Marga van Deelen-Bremer: We will do that, that is no problem.

Daimy Abdoelkariem:

The DRU is designed to be connected to MV, while the TSO is only responsible for the HV.

Such regulatory issues should be considered.

What other things should be taken into account for WP7?

Cornelis Plet: Does the reliability of the system have financial implications for the TSO?

Daimy Abdoelkariem: An increased risk for outages, could result into paying more compensation to

end-users, so it is important.

Paul Raats:

I see that you have difficulties to get all the required information for your WP, for technical

persons it might be difficult to provide this information.

Can you make an example of your idea to explain it to non-technical persons? Maybe a

workshop should be organized.

Daimy Abdoelkariem: Discussing a complete case study is very difficult within a short amount of time,

therefore, please make the WP7 ProjectPlace folder accessible to everyone.


TSOs already have most investments in place

Grid operators are limiting the possibility for private investors in both Germany and the

Netherlands

Daimy Abdoelkariem:


I identified two questions: ‘Is the TSO fully state-owned?’ and ‘Is the return of investment

good enough to let private parties participate?’

In the Netherlands, the TSO is fully state-owned, so private equity cannot be attracted

Lorenzo Zeni:

Have you considered how subsidies will be assigned? In the case of Germany and the UK, the

developer owns the rights for the different sites.

Owning a site close to a DC interconnector, would automatically give an advantage to the

developer

The voltage level definitely influences the cost-benefit analysis

Daimy Abdoelkariem: How is the CBA affected by the voltage level?

Lorenzo Zeni:

The CBA for an interconnector becomes better at higher voltage levels, for offshore air-

insulated system the size increases with the voltage.

Technological works have to be overcome to install larger platforms, going up in voltage does

not automatically result in better business cases for wind parks, due to platform size increase.

So, interconnectors and wind farms may pull technology in two different directions.

Daimy Abdoelkariem:

This should be included in WP12, I think it is relevant.

The siting of the wind farm is indeed an issue; we are also looking how other countries are

dealing with these concessions.

Serge Poullain: As you are more focusing on the project side, it would be nice to work together and

see if WP12 could contribute to ours as well. Also in WP1 there is technological assessment.

Daimy Abdoelkariem: I can imagine that a technological CBA is more difficult than a project CBA, so

let’s see where we help each other.

Serge Poullain: Although there are differences, they also overlap

Paul Nielsen:

There is a lot of debate in Britain about old transmission systems, the current question from

any investor is how to respond to these projects.

Investors do not like it when they unsure about what is going to happen, the total model

should be compatible with the EU member states.

Daimy Abdoelkariem: I agree with your observation, the rules of the game (investment) should be

clear.

Coffee break

K. WP13 (SOW) – 15:45


Presentation of WP13 by Andreas Wagner.

Paul Raats: The meeting will be finished at 18:00, after which we will go directly to the dinner

location.

L. WP8 (Siemens) – 16:15

Paul Raats gave a small introduction about the changed scope of work of Siemens.

Presentation of WP8 by Alexander Broy.

Niek de Groot: Where does Siemens want to be at the end of the project, at which TRL level?

Alexander Broy: We are in the realization phase and running tests for our equipment in January and

February.

Niek de Groot: But at what TRL level do you want to be at the end of the project?

Alexander Broy: We want to be able to sell the product at the end of the project.

Gerald Giering: We are at internal stage M230. We can build up the demonstrator in January and

February relatively fast.

Ömer Goksu: What are the changes of the technology readiness level within the project?

Alexander Broy: We are developing it as a portfolio addition, I cannot give a detailed answer to this.

Nicolaos??: You are assuming that the wind turbine control is already developed, when do you say it

is ready for sale: only if the DRU is finished or are wind turbine controls also required?

Kamran Sharifa??: This has to be discussed with the wind turbine manufacturer, it depends on our

process.

Staffan Norrga: What happens to the investigation of resonances when you downscale the system,

there is a higher damping in the small-scale setup.

Alexander Broy:

You are right about this, but we have investigated this in a detailed way.

The damping can be considered in the results by changing the amplitude, not the phase.

Paul Nielsen: Are you suggesting that your control demonstrator is taking you further to a

commercial product than a real demonstrator?

Alexander Broy:

In this case, yes.

Although the demonstrator is at low voltage, low current and low power, it is complex

enough.

The used controls are valid for the scaled version.


Paul Nielsen: I am worried that customers are not willing to be the first one to buy a system at full

scale.

Oliver Kuhn: At this stage it is sufficient enough for us to do the small-scale demonstrator.


How does this contribute to the deployment plan? If we want to deliver the deployment plan,

we need to talk about the demonstrator’s contribution too.

I am not sure if the small-scale demonstrator shows the real harmonics that there are in

reality.

Oliver Kuhn: We have built four offshore units for you and all of them were based on small-scale

demonstrators. All of them all running perfectly.

Dirk Van Hertem:

As far as I understand, this was an explanation to justify the no-go for the full-scale

demonstrator.

We need to think about the next step, how do we continue the project with the small-scale

demonstrator?

How about the budget?

Paul Raats:

We should indeed discuss the alternative, I think we will get a better understanding of the

no-go.

There is a demand from the commission to have several questions answered by the

consortium.

Dirk Van Hertem: Do we have to say something about plan B? If yes, is it the PMG or GA project

group?

Dragan Jovcic:

The proposed small-scale demonstrator makes PROMOTioN look like a research project,

instead of a demonstrator. We need to think about the fact if this is really a demonstrator

project?

10 or 11 full-scale wind turbines with a full-scale DRU is a demonstrator, this is different with

the small-scale model.

Alexander Broy:

From my experience, even a simulation of a diode is very complicated, but in simulation

models this is often represented by a simple curve.

We are self-confident about our simulations, but the system needs to be verified.

The proposed hardware setup is very complex and can be used for different tests, this is a

benefit.


Paul Raats: These are good points, but Dragan want to know how this fits in the project.

Niklas Svensson: Is lack of TRL of full bridge converter blocking? What is the key decision factor?

Alexander Broy:

For the DRU concept, we have to consider to charge and discharge the DC cable.

We are using a full-bridge converter to change the DC cable voltage, full-bridge DRU can be

used as a single unit, while a half-bridge DRU needs to be coordinated with many other DRU

units.

Niklas Svensson: Is the TRL level of the full-bridge converter delaying the progress of the DRU?

Alexander Broy: We only have to consider the behavior of the DC link. The development of the full-

bridge converter was not a key factor in the no-go decision.

Paul Raats: Can you continue with the budget slides?

Alexander Broy: The updated calculation shows that we can reduce the funding amount for our

contribution with about 7 M€ to 9 M€.

Dirk Van Hertem: Can you show how these numbers are calculated? For example, by showing the

costs for the equipment, personnel etc.

Paul Raats: So your original budget of approximately 12 M€ will be lowered with 8 M€?

Alexander Broy: This is correct, the remaining budget will be roughly 4 M€.

Marga van Deelen-Bremer: How does this influence the work of Prysmian?

Alexander Broy: This does not influence the development of the DC cable too much, within WP8 they

can develop this relatively independent.

Cornelis Plet:

One of the benefits of PROMOTioN is that interoperability is tested.

Are there wind turbine manufacturers present that want to say something about bringing a

small-scale prototype to the Siemens lab?

Alexander Broy: We do not need the whole control cubicle to operate the lab demonstration, only

the specifications of the software and hardware interface.

Cornelis Plet: Does this mean that you will not cooperate with wind turbine manufacturers?

Alexander Broy: This is indeed not required, but remains a possibility.

Dragan Jovcic: As PROMOTioN is an EU funded project, the best location for the demonstrator would

be an independent lab, e.g. DNV GL.

Cornelis Plet: Would you consider bringing the equipment to DNV GL?


Alexander Broy: Yes

Dragan Jovcic: Would DNV GL also consider this?

Cornelis Plet:

I will discuss this internally.

The scope of the project basically has changed from a demonstrator to a development

project.

Do you want to show the learnings and share this with the consortium?

Alexander Broy: I disagree on the fact that this is basic research, it is de-risking. After the project, the

results and information is free for use for further investigations.

Cornelis Plet: How will the consortium benefit from the Siemens results?

Alexander Broy: They will benefit from having the lab results, which we need to share, because we

have signed the grant agreement.

Cornelis Plet: I look forward to seeing these results.

M. Closing (DNV GL) – 17:15

Cornelis Plet showed the questions from the EU project officer regarding the change of scope of

Siemens.

Dragan Jovcic: There is a question regarding the TRL level. To answer this questions we need to have

more information from Siemens about their TRL levels.

Andreas Wagner: When did you receive these questions?

Cornelis Plet: I received them last night.

Andreas Wagner:

Please email these questions to the partners and in what way they can answer them.

As non-technician, I see more simulation work as a result of the changed scope of Siemens

This results in lower budget requirements and possible some additional activities.

It is important that PROMOTioN provides the basics for developing offshore HVDC grids.

After finishing PROMOTioN, we need another full-scale project, but this will not be before

2020.

The Baltic connection took more than 10 years, so we have to be realistic about these types

of projects.

Paul Raats: We can discuss these questions for a long time, but probably these are standard

questions from the EU that we can answer rather quickly.

Cornelis: Today was a good day, let’s go to the restaurant now.


Day 3, December 1st, General Assembly Meeting

Cost information charring

Several WPs did ask cost information from the manufacturers, but two manufactures reported that

they cannot give this information. As WP6 should deliver a cost model we need to discuss how to

proceed further.

R: Dragan Jovcic – The cost model is not only important for WP 6, but also for WP1 and 7. We did ask

manufacturers by a questionnaire, but the input was limited. We can exchange information with

other WPs.

Q: Andreas Wagner - definitely there is a need for more exchange between the WPs for cost and the

roadmap. So, there should come an initiative for this.

A: Cees Plet - DVN GL will intermediate between parties that need cost information and we can

discuss this further in the PMG

Question for Massimiliano Margarone – How does it stand with the trust relation with the

manufactures?

A: Massimiliano – T&D Europe is an association. We need to prevent to speak on cost. It is of interest

for the employment plan at the end. Proposes is that information on cost should be provided by

TSOs, then then manufacturers can be asked if they agree, to preserve antitrust. In this way, it was

earlier done in a project (E-highway) and approved by EU.

A: Samuel Nguefeu- cost are a sensible topic, we are in a round circle, TSOs cannot do the cost

estimate alone, it is suggested to put TSOs and manufacturers together.

A: Massimiliano – This is also not possible as there are many other cost as overhead, research…

A: Yash Audichya – the cost is not only for equipment, but also other cost as research. These should

also be included. To benchmark the cost, it is good to say what you want to buy, give the cost,

without overhead, and give a range for judgement.

A: Michiel de Schepper – The market is very determinative. How do you get an overview of the cost,

perhaps in a graph as that is less confidential? We can also approach it the other way around,

determine what cost we can effort and then calculate the acceptable cost.

A: Cora Petino – agrees with Michiel. It is not clear what we want to achieve in the WPs. She wants to

see that more clearly.

Work Package 8

The change of WP 8 does not affect the work of Prysmian, in the sense that Prysmian wants to stick

to the original plan; regarding the NO GO decision this is up to Siemens and a fact.


Decision making process on alternative WP8

Q: Will the voting on alternatives be done next GA?

A: Voting doesn’t have to wait until next GA can also be done by online voting.

Q: Alexander Broy – What is the timeline?

A: Paul Raats - There are some deliverables with a deadline in December. And we expect the new

WP8 description at the beginning of next year, Jan/Feb.

Q: Dirk van Hertem – Can we submit also new project proposals?

A: Paul Raats - Yes as the proposal is related to the scope of PROMOTioN, and it should be properly

justified.

Q: Alan Kroes – Does this affect only the Consortium agreement or also the Grand agreement?

A: Paul Raats - All changes are made in the Grand agreement by means of an Amendment. The

Amendment is planned for February/March

Alexander Broy – Suggest to make a flow chart about capturing decision making steps in time.

Michiel de Schepper – the effect on other WPs is also important.

Answering Marianna’s questions

Stig Holm Sorenson - It was requested that the coordinator formulates the answers and request a

reaction of the partners prior to sending to Mariana.

A: Paul Raats - OK for coordinator but request input by discussing the questions now.

The questions were discussed to get input for the answers to be formulated by the Coordinator.

1. To what extent does the consortium consider that SIEMENS' "no-go" decision is in line with the grant agreement? Answer can be through the sentence of the WP8 description.

2. To what extent does the consortium agree with SIEMENS' draft proposal to drop the Klim demonstrator and replace it with a validation of the proposed solution in a lab environment in Erlangen? Q: Dirk Van Hertem - Do we have enough information to answer this question?

Yash Audichya -???

A: Dirk Van Hertem – For some questions of Mariana it is good to say we understand and can

answer the question, and for others we cannot judge it.

A: Paul Raats – The answer to this question no 2 will be implicitly answered during the

coming process of adapting the Annex I.


3. Does the consortium agree with SIEMENS' assessment of the TRL levels that will be reached at the end of the project with this new proposal? And to what extent does the consortium consider that SIEMENS' proposal will lead to the TRL levels of the Call Text being achieved at the end of the project? A: Michiel de Schepper – for the TRL levels, Siemens has only the expertise to judge that.

A: Paul Raats - Siemens should answer this question.

4. To what extent does the consortium consider that this change will ensure plug-and-play compatibility of all relevant equipment of key suppliers? A: Dirk van Hertem – Suggest that DNV GL gives a good answer

A: Cora Petino – KLIM demo would also not ensure a plug- and play either. Plug- and play is

outside the scope and remains outside the scope. We never promised it with KLIM.

R: Paul Neilson – In Scotland is a facility study ongoing, where a DRU can be incorporated.

That would be a new suggestion.

Q: Yash Audichya – what do we need as a minimum to demonstrate to realise it in practice?

A: Nicolaos Cutululis – The external communication on this topic is challenging. Internal it can

be justified technical, but external if we are giving less information.

A: Paul Raats - This is an important issue, will be discussed it with SOW

A: Dirk Van Hertem – the proposal was approved and we promised things. Now there is a NO

GO, which has a significant impact on the budget. We should justify that, otherwise there is a

problem. The suggestion is to write down what is the difference and what do we want to

achieve now, with the reduced money.

A: Sebastian Menze – Some questions are formulated as ‘to what extent’. Could giving a

quantitative score be an idea.

A: This is not supported by the other partners, but the idea might be complementary while

answering.

5. To what extent does the consortium consider that this change will ensure the acceleration of deployment of meshed HVDC off-shore grids, with emphasis on Northern Sea partner countries, before 2020? R: Dirk Van Hertem - we did not promise this, we will investigate it.

6. To what extent does the consortium consider that with this change the technology will be ready for deployment in other regions in Europe for all transnational corridors defined in the trans-European energy infrastructure regulation? R: Dirk Van Hertem - same answer as in 4

Yash Audichya – one of the technologies, DRU is one of options

From the EU perspective, learning TSO, all part of our promise to the commission.


R: Dragan Jovcic - Interconnection is important, 10 % should be interconnected to other

countries. The question is whether our efforts supports this purpose. No, ‘our technologies’

are not seen as such and have no impact.

R: Alan Kroes – Are we able to come to a viable project/plan, so how the technology can be

employed among others? The concern is that novel WP8 approach will not be ‘deployable’

and as such cannot be well integrated in WP12. We should convince Mariana where we are

standing. Siemens please pick up your part.

7. To what extent does the consortium consider that this change would have implication on the Consortium agreement? R: Paul - The Consortium Agreement has only to be changed if partners want to step out or

new partners are coming in.

DNV GL will send around the answers and discuss it within the PMG.

Next meeting

31 May, 1 and 2 June 2017

Location to be determined

HALF YEARLY MEETING SOW, BERLIN, GERMANY 29 and 30 ...€¦ · From Task 2.1 to Task 2.2....

Documents

Transcript of HALF YEARLY MEETING SOW, BERLIN, GERMANY 29 and 30 ...€¦ · From Task 2.1 to Task 2.2....