Wind curtailment on the 2020 Irish power system under

two proposed offshore/onshore development scenarios.

E. V. Mc Garrigle
University College Cork *
Phone No: +353 21 490 3767
email: e.mcgarrigle@umail.ucc.ie
P. G. Leahy
University College Cork *
Phone No: +353 21 490 2017
email: paul.leahy@ucc.ie
19/04/2012
Abstract
A model of the 2020 Irish All-island electricity system has been developed and solved in
R an economic dispatch, unit commitment tool. The model also includes a simplified
PLEXOS ,
British power system, the proposed installed wind capacity of Great Britain and interconnectors
between the two systems. From the model wind curtailment was determined under two offshore/onshore wind mix scenarios (installed offshore wind capacity ranging from 25-2700MW)
while considering three different system non-synchronous penetration limits (ranging from 5070%). The onshore wind capacities of each scenario are adjusted in order to achieve the 2020
renewable generation targets for the island of Ireland. Results clearly indicate the need to increase the system non-synchronous generation penetration limit as high as possible due to the
large amount of additional installed wind capacity required to achieve the renewable targets
otherwise. Additionally there is a clear benefit in having a portion of the wind capacity installed
offshore in terms of reducing wind curtailment and wholesale electricity prices on the electricity
system.

* Address: School of Engineering, University College Cork, College Road, Cork, Ireland.
1

Introduction

Ireland has an abundant natural resource in wind energy and there is currently 1955MW of wind
installed on the island of Ireland [1]. This is in comparison to a total conventional generation
capacity of about 9356MW [1]. In the Republic of Ireland (ROI) the government has set a target
of 42.3% for renewable electricity generation (RES-E) by 2020 [2]. This is similar to the situation
in Northern Ireland (NI), where the Northern Ireland Executive has set a target of 40% RES-E
by 2020 [3]. Wind is expected to contribute most of this through the planned installation of up to
5300MW of generation capacity on the combined, all-island of Ireland (AII) system [1].
There is now approximately 2400MW of offshore wind capacity with either a grid connection
or foreshore licenses approved in ROI waters as shown in Table 1 . Also showing signs of strong
interest in development are the Crown estate licensing rounds in NI along the coastline of county
Down [4]. There is a potential development of 600MW of offshore wind in the new round. There
is a recommendation from the National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP) of ROI that
555MW is needed in offshore wind just to help meet the targets for 2020 [2]. This recommendation
comes from concern that the 2020 renewable targets will not be met from solely onshore wind
developments as many onshore wind developments are encountering difficulties in the planning
process. For this recommendation to be met it would result in one to two of the five Irish offshore
wind developments been constructed.
Table 1: Offshore Wind Farms
Name
Dublin Array
Oriel
Doolick
Codling wind park
Arklow Bank Phase 1
Arklow Bank Phase 2
Northern Ireland (NI)

Capacity (MW)
364
320
100
1100
25.2
495
600

Location
Wicklow Coast
Louth Coast
Galway Bay
Wicklow Coast
Wicklow Coast
Wicklow Coast
Down Coast

Development status
Gate 3 connection offer
Gate 3 connection offer
Gate 3 connection offer
Foreshore license
Completed
Foreshore license
Crown Estate round

With the projected increase in installed capacity of wind generation, the quantity and frequency
of curtailment of wind energy output will also increase [5]. Curtailment of wind power occurs in
response to the risk of instability on the electricity grid. It is discussed in [6] that in a future Allisland system scenario incorporating high wind power and HVDC interconnection to GB, that in
order to avoid risks to system stability, wind curtailment may have to be employed. Most work done
to date shows that wind curtailment, at installed capacities of 7000MW or less on the AII system,
will have minimal effects [7] [8] [9]. Wind curtailment has been simulated to only occur in installed
wind capacities exceeding 7000MW on the AII system [8] , however this work acknowledges
that taking account of inertia issues or voltage stability on the system may change the amount
of wind curtailment that will take place. Also it must be noted that these figures are based on
pre-recession system demand projections.
Curtailment of wind power is dependent on a number of factors such as the system demand at
the time and the systems capacity to safely produce a certain percentage of its generation from
non-synchronous machines such as wind turbines and high voltage direct current interconnections
[10]. The maximum allowable percentage of non-synchronous generation on the system at any
time will be referred to as system non-synchronous penetration (SNSP). Generation from nonsynchronous source are curtailed in keeping with equation 1. Wind curtailment will also result
from the increased variability of generation from renewable sources [10].
SN SP >

wind generation + interconnector imports

system demand + interconnector exports

(1)

Until recently assumptions on the required capacity of wind turbines to met the AII 2020 renewable targets have been based on the wind capacity factors for the region along with a minimum

number of large conventional units remaining on line at all times, while not taking account of
the SNSP limits of the electricity system. This results in an overestimation of the annual energy
output of a wind turbine of a fix installed capacity on to the electricity system. At a SNSP of
66.6% it has been shown that with 5000MW of installed wind capacity there would be negligible
wind curtailment. When the installed wind capacity was increased to 9500MW wind curtailment
at 14.4% of available energy was predicted [11]. This however does not take into account the
non-synchronous nature of interconnection imports.
Simulations by the transmission system operators Eirgrid and the System Operator for Northern Ireland (SONI) showed that for 6000MW of installed wind the 40% RES-E target will not be
met unless a 80% SNSP is allowed [10]. For the issue of grid stability a SNSP of 80% is not
considered feasible in the 2020 timeframe [10]. This raises a question over whether 5300MW of
installed wind capacity can provide 37% of the AII electricity systems generation in 2020 when
the SNSP is taken in to account.

Scenarios & Data

The two scenarios examined in this study consisted of different offshore wind penetration levels:
a majority onshore wind (MONW) scenario and a high offshore wind (HOFW) scenario, with installed offshore wind capacities of 25.2MW and 2700MW respectively. The amount of the installed
onshore wind capacity is determined in order to meet the ROI and NI 2020 renewable targets.
The MONW scenario is essentially the base scenario consisting of the 25.2MW of installed
offshore wind capacity that currently exists at Arklow Bank. This scenario is based on the
assumption that no more offshore wind development will take place and all future wind
installation will be onshore.
The HOFW scenario consists of 2700MW installed offshore wind capacity. This assumes
that all proposed offshore wind farms in the ROI will be constructed and connected to the
grid based on their non-technical summaries. In addition to this there is an assumption that
NI will have a 300MW of installed offshore wind capacity, which is half of the Crown Estate
round.
Within the two scenarios described above, three thresholds were applied for SNSP limits on the AII
system. These are percentage limits of 50%, 60%, and 70% of generation from non-synchronous
sources on the system at any time. From this, the level of wind curtailment can be evaluated.
The conventional generation portfolio taken from the All-Island Generation Capacity Statement
2012-2021 for the year 2020. The conventional generation capacity remains unchanged for all
scenarios. The model has been developed from the Single Electricity Market Operator (SEMO)
forecast model of 2010-2011, created by Redpoint Energy Ltd [12]. Additional changes have
been made to conventional generation including the time required for a generator to reach its
minimum stable generation rate from cold, to allow for a more realistic dispatch schedule to be
simulated. Start costs are also included along with the additional off-take fuel required, allowing
for the carbon tax to be applied. The interconnection from AII to Great Britain (GB) has a maximum
export capacity of 950MW. This consists of the unconstrained Moyle interconnector, which has a
rated capacity of 450MW in the winter and 410MW in the summer, and also the new East-West
interconnector (EWIC) which has a two-way capacity of 500MW.
In this work the RES-E penetration for AII in 2020 is taken to be 40%, this is contributed to
by three other sources other than wind that are considered renewable. It is assumed that 3% of
electricity comes from non-wind renewables leaving 37% of generation to come for wind energy
in order for ROI and NI to met their RES-E targets.
Wind generation is represented by an hourly resolution time series of capacity factors, based
on scaled regional wind data for the AII. In this model there are 14 onshore regions and 6 offshore
wind regions. The original data was collected by Eirgrid based on the 2008 wind year. The
regional wind data was generated from recorded wind energy output divided by the installed wind

Figure 1: Eirgrid wind regions

turbine capacity in a given area. This data was quality controlled by means of removal of all wind
farms with no data collection or severe outages over the year.
AII onshore wind capacity consists of 1991MW installed wind farms and 1875MW of planned
wind farms as of October 2011 [1]. Knowledge of the wind farm locations allowed for the installed
capacity of each wind region profile to be calculated for present and future planned installations.
This data was extrapolated to give the regional percentage breakdown of total wind generation
in Table 2. The assumption is then made that 37% of electricity generation must come from AII
wind for all scenarios. This results in the onshore wind being adjusted in proportion to Table 2 to
achieve the 37% figure.
Table 2: The percentage of onshore wind capacities for each onshore wind region.
Wind region
% installed

A
12.9

B
9.1

C
0.7

D
8.4

E
17.3

F
2.9

G
3.7

H1
10.4

H2
9.3

J
2.1

K
0.5

NI
22.9

The offshore wind region profiles are developed from the respective neighbouring onshore
wind regions. The increase in capacity factor is taken account by manipulated power duration
curves as is shown in Equation 2. There is also a time lead/lag introduced of one hour assuming
a majority westward wind vector.



a
CFOF,n = CFON,n
n+a+1
(2)
1N
(n=1,2,. . . ,N)
CFOF = Capacity f actor (of f shore)
CFON = Capacity f actor (onshore)
a = adjustment f actor, value was chosen to achieve a 40% capacity f actor
N = number of intervals in data
A 17% increase on system demand for the time frame of 2010-2020 was assumed. This was
applied by means of a multiple to the system demand time series for the year 2010. The increase
in total electricity requirement was taken from a median projection scenario [1]. Forced outages

were model for all generators along with a 4% maintenance rate was applied, separately force
outages. The model also accounts for transmission losses through modified Transmission Loss
Adjustment Factors (TLAF) [13]. Fuel prices are based on predictions for of 2020 from [14],[15].
This has a direct influence on the annual mean system marginal price (SMP), however more
crucially it also has a direct influences on the dispatch of the different types of generation plant
technologies. A carbon tax was used of 25/tonne CO2 [16]. The main reason for the modelling
of GB generation is to replicate import/export capability of the interconnectors between AII and
GB. GB generation is based on an increased level of gas generation from that of [12]. Additionally,
we have introduced wind generation on the GB side to simulate the large amount of wind that will
be installed there by 2020. The GB wind data is based on region J with a time lag of 2 hours.

The Model

R for Power Systems [17] (a mixed integer, unit

The study used Energy Exemplars PLEXOS
commitment/economic dispatch modelling tool) to build and simulate models of the future 2020
R optimises the electrical
AII electricity system in order to determine system operations. PLEXOS
system based on the most economic means of producing electrical energy over the simulation
R is also used to simulate electricity supply, demand and prices on the
time period. PLEXOS
R was used on a Dell OptiPlex 380 Desktop
electricity system. Version 6.203 (R02) of PLEXOS
R CoreT H 2 Duo Processor. The final run took place using PLEXOS
R version 6.205
with an Intel
(R01) on a Dell Precision T7500 with an Intel(R) Xeon(R) processor. Mixed integer programming
was used on the final run, using Express MP solver at a relative gap 0.025%.
The model was used to simulate the 2020 AII electricity system and a simplified version of the
GB electricity system. It includes offshore wind scenarios, SNSP, predicted generation capacity
on the AII system, an aggregate form of GB generation and time series wind data. The horizon
of the model is based on the 30 minute inter-day trading of the Single Electricity Market (SEM) for
the forecast year of 2020. This helps to achieve accurate results for the dispatch of generators
on the AII electricity system. It optimises on a short term schedule of 365 steps of 1 day at with
30 minutes interval, while each step has a 6 hour look-ahead period. This results in a perfect
foresight for wind energy generation.

Results

Wind curtailment was evaluated for a total of six sub-scenarios (50%, 60% and 70% SNSP limits
under both MONW and HOFW) under the binding constraint that the 2020 RES-E target of 40%
is always met. The required installed onshore wind capacity to met the 37% of generation coming
from AII wind energy is shown in table 3. The resulting curtailment from the different sub-scenarios
are shown in Table 2 and Figure 2. The cost of electricity under each scenario in the form of annual
mean system marginal price (SMP) and annual mean uplift price for the different sub-scenarios
are shown in Table 4, Figure 3 and Figure 4.
Table 3: The Offshore and Onshore wind capacities in MW of the three scenarios under the SNSP
limits.
SNSP
Scenarios
Offshore
Onshore
Total

50%
MONW HOFW
25
2704
8378
4565
8402
7269

60%
MONW HOFW
25
2704
6680
3018
6706
5722

70%
MONW HOFW
25
2704
6055
2533
6080
5237

Figure 2: Wind curtailment versus SNSP limit for wind scenarios, installed capacity satisfying 37%
of AII generation

Table 4: Annual mean SMP and uplift for the wind scenarios
SNSP
Price
MONW
HOFW

50%
60%
70%
SMP Uplift SMP Uplift SMP Uplift
59.55 2.40 59.27 2.77 58.56 2.59
59.50 2.18 59.09 2.66 58.43 2.51
SMP (/MWh), uplift (/MWh)

Discussion

The results clearly indicate the need to increase the SNSP limit as high as possible on the AII
system due to the large amount of additional installed wind capacity required to achieve the renewable targets otherwise. There is a 2.3GW difference between the amount of installed wind
required in the MONW scenario by raising the SNSP from 50% to 70%. This approximates to a
2.8bn investment difference.1 This justifies considerable expenditure in the electricity system in
allowing SNSP of 70% or greater. There is also a reduction in annual mean SMP as the SNSP is
increased from 50-70% by 1 /MWh, this is a saving annual of approximately 42m.
There is a clear benefit in having a portion of the installed wind capacity placed offshore in
reducing the curtailment for all SNSP sub-scenarios. This would be directly attributed to the wider
geographical spread of the installed wind capacity across AII. In terms of economics, to install the
required wind capacity under HOFW at 70% SNSP will cost 5.59bn where the MONW at 70%
SNSP will only cost 5.07bn. This shows the MONW to be cheaper solution even with the higher
wind curtailment taking place. However there is only a 10.3% increase in the cost of installing the
HOFW scenario compared to the MONW scenario. If the HOFW at 70% SNSP scenario is pursued over the MONW at 70% SNSP, the amount of installed wind capacity required is reduced by
800MW. It is clearly indicated that HOFW has less curtailment of wind energy, which is essentially
a waste of renewable energy that must be replaced by most likely a fossil fuel fired conventional
generator. Another benefit of adding offshore wind to the generation mix, which is often overlooked due to the difficulty of quantifying its savings in economic terms, is the reduction in overall
wind generation variability. This arises from the increased geographical spread of the installed
wind capacity and the higher capacity factors likely to be obtained at offshore wind farms. The
HOFW scenario shows lower SMP and uplift costs in all SNSP limits imposed. This contributes
to both the economics of offshore wind through the lower SMP and indicates reduced variability
1 The assumed cost of an installed MW of wind is 1.23 million /MW for onshore wind (2006 prices) and 1.81 million
/MW for offshore wind (2015 prices) from [18].

Figure 3: Annual mean system marginal price (SMP) versus SNSP limit for wind scenarios

Figure 4: Annual mean uplift price versus SNSP limit for wind scenarios

of generation on the system through the reduced uplift costs.

From Equation 1 it is evident that increasing exports to a maximum during times of high wind
power penetration on the all-island system will be essential to reducing the amount of wind curtailment that will be necessary with a fixed SNSP. This raises an issue over the use of the interconnectors. A major influence on the AIIs ability to export electrical energy to the GB will be GBs
targets for installed wind capacity by 2020. In addition to this the times of peak wind power on
the All-island system and time differences, leading or lagging, relative to wind power peaks in GB
will also be important. In this model GB wind data is set to a constant time lag. This simplification
may have large effects on the interconnectors ability to export at certain times.
The inclusion of forecasting errors is an issue that may result in increased curtailment particularly on the higher SNSP such as 70%. The market structure requires day ahead commitment
for the large generators and must reply on wind forecast with an outlook over 24 hours. There
is a requirement for a certain number of large generators to be on-line in order to provide inertia
and reactive power for grid stability. Also due to larger uncertainty of generation associated with
forecasting errors for wind, it would be expected that reserve requirements would increase. This
may increase curtailment as a larger minimum number of units most remain on-line for provision
of reserve. There will also be a knock-on effect with increased prices for electricity if this was the
case.
It should be noted that the offshore capacity factor of 40% does not include forced outages,
which may result in a reduction in the overall capacity factor. While maintenance rates of 4% were
7

chosen as a universal average number for all generators, this incorporated with the forced outage
rates in the model may result in an underestimation in generators total time off-line.

Conclusions

The SNSP limit and resulting wind curtailment will become serious issues as the installed wind
capacity increases in the AII. Raising the SNSP limit from 50% to 70% reduces the amount of
wind generation required to meet the target by 2.3 GW if the MONW scenario is pursued, which
also represents a major reduction in investment.
There is a clear reduction in wind curtailment with the addition of offshore wind. At all levels
of SNSP, the HOFW portfolio can fulfil the 40% RES-E target at lower installed capacities than
MONW due to the higher capacity factor for offshore wind and the greater geographic dispersal of
wind generation. If the HOFW scenario is pursued, the amount of installed wind capacity required
at a SNSP of 70% is reduced by a further 800MW.
The costs of the various options such as technical measures to support higher SNSP on the
system and costs of offshore versus onshore wind, particularly feed-in tariffs, need to be studied
in detail to determine the optimal portfolio to meet the targets.

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by The Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering & Technology
and Science Foundation Ireland. The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of J. P.
Deane for his contributions to producing this document, the data received from the Commission
for Energy Regulation, the Redpoint Validated Forecast Model, and Energy Exemplar for the free
R and the time of Eirgrid employees.
academic license for PLEXOS

References
[1] Eirgrid and SONI, All-Island Generation Capacity Statement 2012-2021, tech. rep., Eirgrid
and System Operator of Northern Ireland, (SONI), 2011.
[2] National Renewable Energy Action Plan, tech. rep., Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, 2010.
[3] Northern Ireland Strategic Energy Framework, tech. rep., UK, Department of Enterprise,
Trade and Investment, 2010.
[4] Northern Ireland, Offshore wind and tidal stream leasing rounds.
Crown Estate,
http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/energy/offshore-wind-energy/our-portfolio/.
[5] D. P. Nedic, All-Island Grid Study Workstream 3, tech. rep., The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and UK, The Department of Enterprise, Trade and
Investment, 2007.
[6] R. Doherty, A. Mullane, G. Nolan, D. Burke, A. Bryson, and M. OMalley, An assessment of
the impact of wind generation on system frequency control, Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 25, pp. 452 460, feb. 2010.
[7] E. Denny, A. Tuohy, P. Meibom, A. Keane, D. Flynn, A. Mullane, and M. OMalley, The
impact of increased interconnection on electricity systems with large penetrations of wind
generation: A case study of ireland and great britain, Energy Policy, vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 6946
6954, 2010.
[8] A. Tuohy and M. OMalley, Impact of pumped storage on power systems with increasing
wind penetration, in Power Energy Society General Meeting, 2009. PES 09. IEEE, pp. 1 8,
july 2009.
8

[9] D. Burke and M. OMalley, Factors influencing wind energy curtailment, Sustainable Energy,
IEEE Transactions on, vol. 2, pp. 185 193, april 2011.
[10] Eirgrid and SONI, All Island TSO Facilitation of Renewables Studies, tech. rep., Eirgrid and
System Operator of Northern Ireland, (SONI), 2011.
[11] R. Doherty, All Island Grid Study Workstream 2A: High Level Assessment Of Suitable Generation Portfolios For The All-Island System In 2020, tech. rep., The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and UK, The Department of Enterprise, Trade and
Investment, 2008.
[12] Redpoint Energy Ltd., Single Electricity Market Operator (SEMO) forecast model of 20102011, tech. rep., Commission for Energy Regulation (CER), 2010.
[13] All-Island Project, Transmission Loss Adjustment Factors from 1st January 2010, 2009.
[14] Eirgird, Interconnection Economic Feasibility Report, tech. rep., Eirgird, 2009.
[15] Redpoint Energy Ltd, The impact of wind on pricing within the Single Electricity Market,
tech. rep., 2011.
[16] M. Clancy, J. Scheer, and B. O. Gallachoir, Energy Forecasts for Ireland to 2020, tech. rep.,
The Energy Modelling Group, SEAI, 2010.
[17] Energy Exemplar, PLEXOS for Power Systems. http://www.energyexemplar.com/.
[18] European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), The Economics of Wind Energy, tech. rep.,
2009.