NEW WIND GENERATION AND

GENERATION RETIREMENT

Design Project # 02
Contents
Abstract..............................................................................................................................................................3
Objective............................................................................................................................................................3
Case details ........................................................................................................................................................3
Design procedure................................................................................................................................................3
Cost Estimation ...............................................................................................................................................11
Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................13
Abstract:

The primary objective throughout this project is to deepen the knowledge of power system
analysis and optimize our learning about system design. This involves a comprehensive study
and application of various concepts to ensure a robust understanding of the subject matter.

Introducing a new power plant into the existing power system requires careful
adjustments to the design of transmission lines and substations associated with the new
generating station. These modifications are essential to accommodate the new plant's
integration, ensuring that the power distribution remains efficient and reliable.

When the old generator was removed from the system, there was a noticeable increase
in system losses, likely due to the system having to compensate for the missing power source.
However, once the new generating station was connected, there was a significant reduction in
these losses. This reduction can be attributed to the new plant's improved efficiency and its
ability to better meet the system's power demands.

By analyzing these changes and their impact on the power system, we gain valuable
insights into the complexities of power system design and the importance of optimizing each
component to achieve overall system efficiency.

Objective:

The main focus of this project is to examine a specific case using the Power World Simulator.
Throughout this study, the aim was to understand load flow patterns and perform contingency
analysis. Additionally, explore the design of a new transmission line to connect a generating
station to the existing system. The goal of the project was to identify the most cost-effective
solution while minimizing system losses.

Case Details:

For this project, we are provided with a case involving the Island Electric Company’s
transmission system. Our task is to analyze the system to integrate a new 600 MW wind
power generation facility in the western region. This integration is necessary as the Island
Electric Company plans to retire a 300 MW power plant located at Pheasant Point. To
accommodate the new 600 MW generation, we need to design and add new transmission
lines that ensure the least-cost operation.

Design procedure:

First, I loaded the file named Designcase2_2015 into the Power World Simulator. This file
contains the specific case we will be analyzing. The case setup, including all relevant system
details and parameters, is visually represented in the image shown below. This visual
representation provides an overview of the current system configuration, which will serve as
the basis for our analysis and subsequent modifications to incorporate the new 600 MW wind
power generation facility.
 Figure 1: Project case

After loading the case, I initially ran the power flow solution without the addition of the new
wind generation. The results of this simulation are shown below.

Figure 2: Base Case simulation

 Figure 3: Limit monitoring results

Figure 4: Limit monitoring results

From the results above, it is evident that all voltage levels fall below the acceptable limits,
which are between 0.92 per unit (pu) and 1.10 pu.

Next, I performed a contingency analysis using the simulator's contingency tool to

assess the impact of any single transformer, transmission line, or transformer/fault outage.
The results of this simulation are attached below.
 Figure 5: Contingency result of base case

Next, I activated the existing 300 MW generator at the Pheasant Substation and repeated the
same process. The results of this simulation are shown below.

Figure 6: P/F after opening of 300MW generator

 Figure 7: Contingency analysis result

Initial Observation:

From the initial simulation analysis, it was observed that removing the 300 MW
generator resulted in an increase in system losses to 45.12 MW, although the per unit (pu)
voltage values remained within acceptable limits. This increase in losses is attributed to the
loss of the 300 MW power supply to the system.

To address this, we need to integrate the new wind power plant into the system in a
way that ensures the total system losses do not exceed the initial levels. Additionally, the
newly added transmission lines must be cost-effective. For this purpose, we will refer to the
rights of way provided in Table 6.14, which is shown below.

Figure 8: Table 6.14

I have selected two transmission line routes to connect the Newwind station to the
existing system. Given that the voltage level is 161 kV, a Geometric Mean Distance (GMD)
of 5 meters was used. The transmission line parameters, including resistance, inductive
reactance, and capacitive reactance, were taken from Table 4 in the textbook, based on the
ACSR Crow conductor.
After connecting the new wind power plant to the base case, the results of this setup are
discussed below.
In the first scenario, I added a transmission line from the Newwind station to Ostrich, and
then from Ostrich to Mallard. The Crow conductor was selected for these transmission lines
due to its low cost and the fact that most of the substations in the given system operate at a
161 kV level.
The output of the Newwind station was initially set to 0, and the simulation was performed.
The results of this simulation are attached below.

Figure 9: P/F when new wind is at 0MW

From the results above, it is clear that the losses are almost the same as when the 300 MW
plant was switched off. This is because the new wind power plant is supplying reactive power
to the system, with a reactive power range fixed at ±250. Additionally, the per unit voltage at
all buses are remains within acceptable limits.

A contingency analysis was performed again under these conditions, and the results are
attached below.
 Figure 10: Contingency result at 0MW
The output of the Newwind station was set to 600 MW, and a simulation of the system was performed
again. The results of this simulation are attached below.

Figure 11: P/ F at 600MW O/P

From the results above, it is clear that the system losses have been reduced to 37.95 MW with
the addition of the new power plant.

In a manner similar to the first setup, two transmission lines were designed for the system.
This time, the lines were routed from the Newwind station to Ostrich and from Newwind to
Hen. The Crow conductor was chosen for these transmission lines due to its cost-
effectiveness and suitability for the 161 kV system.

Simulation results for the base case, where the Newwind output was set to 0 MW, showed
consistent performance with previous setups.

After integrating these lines and setting the Newwind output to 600 MW, additional
simulations were conducted. The results of these simulations are shown below, illustrating
the system's performance with the new configuration.
 Figure 12: P/ F at 0MW O/P

Figure 13: P/ F at 600MW O/P

Cost estimation:
For 1st scenario

Bus Length Conductor Per Km Cost Total Cost

Connection (KM) ($) ($)
Transmission From New 15 Crow 390000 5850000
Line Wind to
Ostrich
Transmission From Ostrich 45 Crow 390000 17550000
Line to Mallard
Sub Total 23400000

Loss Reduction Calculation:

 Loss Reduction: 45.15 MW (initial losses) – 37.95 MW (losses after new wind plant)
= 7.20 MW
 Percentage Loss Reduction: (7.20/45.15)×100=15.94%

Thus, the addition of the wind farm results in a 15.94% reduction in system losses.

To estimate the financial impact of this reduction over the next five years:

1. Electricity Price: $50 per MW-hour

2. Base Case Cost of Losses for 5 Years:
o Cost Calculation:
$50/MWh×(5 years×8760 hours/year×45.12 MW)=$98,812,800
3. Cost of Losses with First Configuration for 5 Years:
o Cost Calculation:
$50/MWh×(5 years×8760 hours/year×37.95 MW)=$83,110,500
4. Cost Saving Due to Loss Reduction:
o Cost Saving Calculation: $98,812,800 (base case) – $83,110,500 (first way)
= $15,702,300

Finally, the design cost is determined as follows:

 Design Cost:
o Design Cost Calculation: Construction cost – Savings due to loss reduction
o Design Cost Calculation: $23,400,000 – $15,702,300 = $7,697,700

Thus, the design cost, after accounting for the savings from reduced losses, is $7,697,700.
For 2nd scenario:

Bus Length Conductor Per Km Cost Total Cost

Connection (KM) ($) ($)
Transmission From New 15 Crow 390000 5850000
Line Wind to
Ostrich
Transmission From New 70 Crow 390000 27300000
Line Wind to Hen
Sub Total 33150000

For the second scenario, the cost of losses over 5 years is calculated as follows:

Loss Reduction Calculation:

 Reduction in Losses: 45.15 MW (initial losses) – 39.11 MW (losses with the second
configuration) = 6.01 MW
 Percentage Reduction in Losses: (6.01/45.15)×100=13.32%

The addition of the wind farm results in a 13.32% reduction in system losses.

Cost Calculation:

 Cost of Losses for the Second Way over 5 Years:

o Calculation: $50/MWh×(5 years×8760 hours/year×39.11 MW)=$85,650,900
 Savings from Loss Reduction:
o Calculation: $98,812,800 (base case) – $85,650,900 (second way) =
$13,161,900

Design Cost Calculation:

 Design Cost:
o Calculation: Construction cost – Savings from loss reduction
o Calculation: $33,150,000 – $13,161,900 = $19,988,100

Cost Difference between the Two Scenarios:

 Calculation: $19,988,100 (second way) – $7,697,700 (first way) = $12,290,400

Thus, the cost difference between the two design options is $12,290,400.
Conclusion:

From the analysis, it is clear that integrating a new element into an existing power system
necessitates changes to the transmission infrastructure, which in turn affects system losses.
The objective is to reduce these losses while minimizing construction costs and maximizing
efficiency.

Both transmission line configurations I recommended effectively reduce system losses.

However, the first configuration is more cost-effective, leading to a lower overall design cost
compared to the second configuration over the next five years. The first way also proves to be
more efficient in terms of loss reduction because it requires a shorter conductor length.

On the other hand, the second configuration offers better system reliability. In this setup, the
Newwind station is connected to the system at two different points. This redundancy means
that if one transmission line experiences a fault, the other can still support the system in an
emergency. Conversely, in the first configuration, if a fault occurs on either of the
transmission lines between Newwind and Ostrich or between Ostrich and Mallard, the entire
600 MW generation could be lost. This could potentially lead to significant load management
issues or even a large-scale blackout.

While I have only analyzed two possible transmission line configurations, other options could
be considered for potentially better solutions. For instance, adding another transmission line
between Newwind and the Crow substation or exploring other routes listed in Table 6.14
could improve system reliability, though this would increase the design cost.

Ultimately, when designing such changes, it is crucial to prioritize reliability. Although the
second configuration is more expensive, it provides greater reliability, which is essential as
demand increases and the risk of blackouts must be minimized. Therefore, based on the
analysis and the need for future reliability, the second configuration is the more prudent
choice despite the higher cost.