Tag Archives: supergen Energy Networks

RA Catchup Event

On December 9th 2021, Research Assistants (RAs) met in Bristol for dinner ahead of the final Supergen networking event before the new year. On the 10th, in the magnificent ‘Engine Shed’ events hub, RAs presented research updates to their colleagues and discussed the possibility of collaborative research efforts in the future. This RA catchup event was an opportunity to share their achievements, progress, and ideas with others in the Supergen network. It was also a reminder of breadth of expertise among Supergen’s researchers:

“I personally consider that the team has a unique range of skills and research interests” – Andrei-Nicolas Manea

The opportunity to share ideas and receive feedback from colleagues with different research interests showed a real strength of the Structure of the Supergen network. The multidisciplinary research team was able to offer a range of insights that very few other workshops could.

“I shared my recent work and got meaningful feedback, thanks to this forum” – Wie Gan

Throughout a difficult 2021, the RAs in the wider Supergen network have shown themselves to be resilient to the challenges facing academic enquiry. Despite these hurdles, RAs have managed to continue their research, produce new papers and disseminate their work at conferences and COP events. Meeting face to face, after an extended period dominated by online networking events, therefore came as a welcome change:

“It was fantastic to meet other researchers face to face, having only very limited opportunities to do so since starting my PhD” – Jonathan Amirmadhi.

“It was great to meet colleagues after almost 2 years of remote working” – Muditha Abeyseker.

Once those who presented their research had done so, the event ended with a discussion, chaired by Laiz Souto, on the future direction of the Supergen RA investigations, specifically ‘what understanding, shaping and challenging is still required for a move towards Net Zero?’

Discussants covered several topics:

  • The role of energy networks/companies in future decision making.
  • The financial burden of upgrading/developing networks.
  • The transportation of energy throughout the country.
  • The concerns of energy firms/distributors regarding risk.
  • Possible energy futures, and what an integrated energy future might look like.

Discussants mentioned that more interactions with policymakers/regulators would be beneficial and that their suggestions could be directly investigated and tested by Supergen RAs. Summarising these discussions, it was suggested that RAs should meet again for further workshops and should work towards coauthoring a piece of work that could be presented to appropriate policymakers/regulators. This idea has been very well received among the RAs:

“I am excited to see how the group could produce a coherent collaborative piece of work” – Jonathan Amirmadhi.

“Lots of opportunities are present for further collaboration between each of the different institutions, and there is a feeling among the researchers that we could bring our ideas together to deliver a single body of work” – Daniel Carr

Overall, the event demonstrated the importance of face-to-face meetings for large projects, especially those with researchers from different academic institutions with a range of research interests. The entire catchup event was optimistic, constructive, and set the foundations for future collaborations. It is hoped that, in the coming year, Supergen RAs will be able to meet more frequently, supporting each other’s research.

“I hope to continue to communicate with my friends and colleagues and do more for the Supergen project together” – Wei Gan

“The was real enthusiasm for the work that we are all doing, and I am looking forward to future face to face meetings over the duration of the research project” – Daniel Carr

Attendees:

  • Daniel Carr, Cardiff
  • Nicolas Manea, Cardiff
  • Laiz Souto, Bristol
  • Amirreza Azimipoor, Cardiff
  • Wei Gan, Cardiff
  • Jonathan Amirmadhi, Cardiff
  • Andrei Manea, Cardiff
  • Muditha Abeyseker, Cardiff
  • Richard Oduro, Leeds
  • Minghao Xu, Bath
  • Phil Taylor, Bristol
  • Furong Li, Bath
  • Jack Dury, Bristol

Who perseveres wins!

About the Author:

Dr Susan Claire Scholes is a post-doctoral researcher within the School of Engineering.  Susan’s current research is in the field of whole systems energy research, working with the Supergen Energy Networks Hub at Newcastle University.

Previous research interests were in bioengineering where Susan was responsible for the investigation of explanted metal-on-metal hip prostheses and explanted knee prostheses.

 

Matlab and the GB Network System

Let me tell you a story….  It feels like it started a long, long time ago but in reality it has only been 20 months (this may still seem like a long time to some, depending on your age!).  Twenty months of hard work but important work.  This is when I started working on a model of the GB network system.  This model already existed [1, 2] but it needed some work to be done on it to allow it to perform the tasks that I required.

Now, I had minimal experience (or knowledge) on Matlab but I am always eager to learn so I saw this as an opportunity to develop my research skills even further (I’ve been working in academic research for 21 years now, so it’s never too late to learn!).

I familiarised myself with Matlab and the model so I understood the background to my project; and this understanding developed as the time progressed.  The adjustments needed on the model were only small; small in capacity but mammoth in the necessary effort to succeed!

The cost functions of each generation type in the GB network model were already in the model but they were just given as merit order equations; this was so the model was able to calculate the proportion of expected generation from each type of generation provider (wind, gas, coal, nuclear and hydro).  But I needed it to calculate the true costs.

I knew this wouldn’t be easy, or quick!  As a modeller, it is important to analyse results obtained and question their validity; you need to have confidence in the results that your model provides.  It is essential that you compare your results with appropriate published data and relevant work done by others.

Using known data from previous years I was able to identify when the results from my model were not as good as they needed to be; and it allowed me to gain confidence in my work as it developed.  This was an iterative process that required many hours of hard and repetitive work.

To get this done well it required a lot of effort and determination (and a few handkerchiefs to mop up the inevitable tears of frustration!).  For months I was stuck in what seemed to be a never-ending loop:

  • adjust the model, write the script, run the model – no joy
  • adjust the model, adjust the script, run the model – it works!, review the results
  • adjust the model/script, run the model – it works (but sometimes it didn’t!), review the results
  • adjust the model/script, run the model – it works!, review the results, confirm results, add results to paper, find some new information
  • adjust the model/script, run the model – it works!, review the results, confirm results, add results to paper, find some new information
  • again, again and again until…
  • adjust the model/script, run the model – it works!, review the results, confirm results, write the paper (with confidence that the model used is the most appropriate and performs the task well) and submit!

So, what have I learned during this time?  Perseverance is key, determination is needed and patience would have been a bonus but I’ve always lacked in that!  Unexpected things, like the University’s cyber security attack, and even a pandemic, can be obstacles but with the correct support they are not insurmountable.  I also needed to learn that all models have their limitations.

You can minimise these limitations to produce the best model for your purpose but your model cannot do all, it will not be suitable for everything.  Spend time on the model, like I say, for it to produce relevant results for your work but understand that there will always be limitations as to what the model can do.

As long as you are aware of these and you are able to explain the limitations imposed on your work (and why these are acceptable) then you should feel proud.  Proud of the valid, valuable work you have achieved and the advancements you have made in your field of research.  It was all worth it in the end!

References

  1. Bell, K.R.W. and A.N.D. Tleis. Test system requirements for modelling future power systems. in IEEE PES General Meeting. 2010.
  2. Asvapoositkul, S. and R. Preece. Analysis of the variables influencing inter-area oscillations in the future Great Britain power system. in 15th IET International Conference on AC and DC Power Transmission (ACDC 2019). 2019.

Looking Back at the Supergen COP26 Fishbowl Event

The Supergen COP26 Fishbowl was a public engagement activity in which participants from different groups, organisations, and backgrounds discussed their visions for an energy future with net-zero carbon emissions. It took place at the Ramshorn Theatre in Glasgow during the COP26 Energy Day on the 4th of November.

Each Supergen hub – Solar, Offshore Renewable Energy, Bioenergy, Energy Networks, Energy Storage, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell – nominated up to two academics and early-career researchers to make up the surrounding audience and contribute to the discussion with specialist knowledge. I am glad that I was among them and had the opportunity to join the event in person.

In the next paragraphs, I will describe the concept of a fishbowl discussion, summarize the discussion points of the Supergen COP26 Fishbowl event, and provide an overview of my experience in Glasgow during the COP26 Energy Day

About the Author

Laiz Souto is  a Research Associate on the Supergen Energy Networks Hub, with a PhD in Electrical Engineering and  is also a Postdoctoral Research Associate in Future Energy Networks at the University of  Bristol with the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering.

Laiz has a broad interest in the energy transition, including energy infrastructures, low carbon energy systems, optimization and statistical techniques applied to energy systems planning and operation, uncertainty quantification in large scale energy systems, energy systems integration, power system resilience to extreme weather events, power system reliability and security of supply, and power systems protection, automation, and control, among other topics.

What is a fishbowl discussion?

A fishbowl is a form of conversation which allows several people to participate in a conversation. In a fishbowl discussion, chairs are arranged in concentric rings. Participants seated in the inner circle (i.e., the fishbowl) actively take part in the conversation by sharing their thoughts, whereas participants seated in the outer circles listen carefully to the topics being discussed. Participants in the outer circles may enter the inner circle to share their thoughts when a seat is available. Participants in the inner circle are encouraged to vacate their seats after contributing to the discussion so that other participants can join the conversation.

The Supergen COP26 Fishbowl event followed this format with six inner chairs and roughly twenty outer chairs. The inner chairs were occupied by the facilitator and the academics nominated by each of the five Supergen hubs at the start of the live stream. Before the start of the event, participants agreed to leave an empty seat in the inner circle whenever possible so that different participants could join the ongoing discussion. As an outcome, participants from different backgrounds, organizations, and career stages could share their thoughts on distinct aspects involved in the energy transition towards a net-zero carbon emissions future.

What was discussed in the Supergen COP26 Fishbowl event?

The Supergen COP26 Fishbowl agenda was divided into four chapters over one hour and a half. The event facilitator moderated the discussion, ensuring that the duration of each chapter was roughly the same and that all participants who joined the inner circle could share their ideas.

At the start of the live stream, academics delivered a short presentation about the perspective of their hub to contextualize the debate. The role of the research conducted by each Supergen hub towards a net-zero carbon emissions future was briefly introduced.

Chapter 1: “How do we generate our energy in a net zero world”

The role of different energy sources in a net-zero carbon emissions future was discussed. Energy production from renewable sources, energy storage, nuclear power plants, hydrogen, integrated electricity-gas-heating networks, and the phasing-out of fossil fuels were debated. Other aspects were also linked to the energy production in a net zero world, such as the importance of a just energy transition leaving nobody behind to achieve the climate targets previously set in the Paris Agreement.

Chapter 2: “How do we deliver that net zero energy to the public”

The role of different technologies in the energy supply chain was discussed. Among them, smart grid capabilities, artificial intelligence, flexibility options, and distributed energy resources were associated to disruptive changes in the provision of energy to the customers in a net-zero carbon emissions future. In this context, the role of energy networks in the transportation of energy in its different forms from generation sites to consumption sites was emphasized. Challenges and opportunities posed by the increasing electrification of other sectors were also discussed.

Chapter 3: “How do we utilize that net zero energy”

Changes in energy consumption in a net-zero world were debated, highlighting the role of the customers towards net-zero carbon emissions. The impact of the choices made by the customers on the final uses of energy was debated, considering aspects that could incentivize the adoption of clean energy technologies and energy efficient appliances, such as subsidization. Changes introduced by the increasing electrification of economies worldwide were also discussed.

Chapter 4: “What steps should the UK be taking to make our energy system net zero by 2050”

Policy decisions were discussed with a sense of urgency. Stopping subsidization of fossil fuels and increasing investments in state-of-the-art clean energy technologies along with the required network infrastructure were emphasized as key commitments towards a net-zero carbon emissions future. In this context, taking into consideration regional aspects along with clean energy technologies currently available was recommended to accelerate the energy transition towards net-zero carbon emissions.

What was like to be in Glasgow during the COP26 Energy Day?

For many participants like me, COP26 – and the Supergen COP26 Fishbowl in particular – brought the first opportunity to attend a conference in person after the pandemic lockdowns and travel restrictions had been lifted in the UK. This made the opportunity to be in Glasgow during COP26 – and during the COP26 Energy Day in particular – even more unique.

The city was overbooked and fully decorated with COP26 banners, some of which also including reminders of how individual choices contribute to greenhouse gas emissions in different ways. The atmosphere in Glasgow was tense, as the decisions to be made during the next few days of COP26 were expected to determine the world’s ability to curb global warming. Expectations among the COP26 attendees were high, given the importance and urgency of climate change mitigation and adaptation worldwide and the lack of ambitious commitments linked to action plans at the previous conferences. During the COP26 Energy Day and the Supergen COP26 Fishbowl event, I was happy to see and engage in interesting discussions about the role of energy networks in climate change adaptation and mitigation.

Now that COP26 is over and the Glasgow Climate Pact is ready, I hope to see governments implementing ambitious action plans that lead to rapid decarbonization worldwide. Ultimately, I look forward to seeing bold climate commitments put into practice towards net-zero carbon emissions in the next few years.

Impacts of Climate Change on Security of Supply via the GB Capacity Market

Feedback to BEIS Panel of Technical Experts on interconnector modelling in the
2021 Electricity Capacity Report

Dr Matthew Deakin, Dr Hannah Bloomfield

Background

National Grid Electricity System Operator (NGESO) recently requested feedback from the community on their Summary Briefing Note, “Modelling de-rating factors for interconnected countries in the 2021 Electricity Capacity Report”. The severe Texas blackouts this winter have brought the issue of resource adequacy sharply into focus, with technical developments in European capacity markets via the European Resource Adequacy Assessment (ERAA) ongoing to ensure market-based solutions can provide energy system resilience as countries transition to net-zero.

Supergen Energy Networks (SEN) responded to NGESO’s call for feedback last year. We discussed how bidirectional flows from interconnectors mean that the marginal value of increased interconnection for individual countries can be both positive and negative with respect to resilience (particularly when the stress periods of multiple countries coincide), in contrast to conventional generation assets which always improve resilience. This year, NGESO have specifically requested feedback on the scenarios they are developing for interconnected countries, used to inform sensitivity analysis which identify a range of de-rating factors for new and existing interconnectors. Ultimately, de-rating factors are then used by the Secretary of State to determine the capacity volumes that interconnectors can bid into the capacity market.

How are Scenarios used in the GB Capacity Market?

Capacity markets are designed to provide a price signal to incentivise investment in generation to provide resilience, explicitly taking into account uncertainties in supply and demand. On the supply side, these uncertainties include the closing date of generators close to the end of their life, the commissioning dates of new assets, or even the availability of network infrastructure such as subsea cables. On the demand side, the uptake of new technologies mean that both peak and average GB demand changes from year to year, whilst nascent Demand Side Response technologies can also address tight margins, as they have done in GB for many years under the guise of ‘Triad avoidance’. Additionally, as we discuss in this note, both supply and demand are sensitive to climate variability and climate change, due to the weather sensitivity of renewables and demand.

The GB Capacity Market uses the “Least Worst Regret” approach to determine the required Capacity to Secure under these uncertainties (the Capacity to Secure subsequently determines how much generating capacity is procured for future winters). This approach evaluates the capacity that would be required to meet demand under a wide range of credible scenarios. The overall target Capacity to Secure is then calculated that will minimise the cost of generation overspend (based on the costs of building new generation) against the societal costs of controlled demand disconnection (based on the value of lost load) so that the target demand for the capacity market will minimise the potential ‘regret’ of overspend.

How could Climate Change Variability affect these Scenarios?

The scenarios that are selected for modelling are overlaid on top of a central scenario, representing a best guess of the state of the future system in between one- and five-years’ time, using nominal uncertainties on both the supply and demand side (Figure 1). One source of uncertainty here is the weather. To account for this, 30-40 years of historical weather data would typically be used to model a wide range of possible outputs from weather-dependent renewables in this central scenario, rather than selecting a year with particularly poor weather (which is typically included instead as an individual scenario). Similarly, as demand is strongly dependent on temperature (Figure 2) due to electric heating loads, the distribution of daily peak demand can also be ‘hindcast’ using 30-40 years of historic temperature.

Figure 1: Scenarios used to determine the capacity to secure for the 2024/5 winter, from the 2020 Electricity Capacity Report. The Base Case (BC) is used as a central scenario, with sensitives around this considering uncertain outcomes on both the supply and demand-side that could increase or decrease the required Capacity to Secure to a given security standard (eg, 3 hours expected loss of load per year). [Figure reproduced with permission]

There are therefore two ways that climate variability and climate change can impact on the scenarios used in the capacity market. Firstly, as the 30-40 year period used in historical assessment is relatively short, it may therefore be that as-yet unseen weather conditions, simulated in climate models, may need to be considered to adequately study possible risks of shortfalls. Additionally, long-term climate variability can also lead to the likelihood of adverse conditions being much greater in a given decade. Plausible scenarios modelling challenging weather years may need to be synthesised to model periods with higher demands and lower wind generation than exists in the historic record.

Figure 2: Weekday peak demand for 2016/17-2018/19 winters against population-weighted temperature for France and Great Britain. If the likelihood of very cold weather is reduced due to climate change, the likelihood of very high demands is also reduced.

Additionally, it could be that the modelling of the Central scenario, based on the long-term climate, will also be impacted by climate change. This could affect the Capacity to Secure calculations of all scenarios (except those scenarios focusing on specific weather conditions). For example, there is a clear warming trend in historic temperature data over France since 1980 (Figure 3a), such that if the temperature is corrected to account for this, the modelled northwest European temperature would rise close to 1°C. Although the change in mean temperature is relatively small, the shift in the temperature distribution (Figure 3b) means that the likelihood of cold temperatures can be affected significantly. For example, the likelihood of the mean daily temperature of France being below freezing reduces from 12.2% to 6.5%.

Physically, this de-trending of temperatures is meaningful as circulation in the atmosphere (driving weather fronts and wind) is thought to only be weakly dependent on the background temperature. Milder temperatures lead to reduced peak demands and therefore reduced requirements for expensive peaking capacity.

Figure 3: The distribution of temperatures in France changes if the historic, long term climate change signal is corrected for.

What was the feedback we provided to BEIS Panel of Technical Experts?

Given the sensitivity of peak demand to temperature shown in Figure 2, a 1°C increase in winter temperatures would lead to a reduction in the required capacity of around 500 MW in GB, or more than 2000 MW in France. The costs of providing this capacity are not inconsequential – for example, at a cost of new entry of £49/kW used in the GB capacity market, a 500 MW overestimation in the capacity required leads to an increase in costs of £24.5m per year. It is worth noting however, that this could also lead to a slight reduction in the likelihood of shortfalls.

In our feedback we took the view that the scenarios that NGESO have discussed around the modelling of interconnectors (including concerns around early closure of Coal and Nuclear plants in mainland Europe) are well justified. However, we also suggest that accounting for long-term climate change can and will have an impact on calculations of target Capacity to Secure. The de-trending of temperature is a relatively minor technical fix that could avoid costly over-procurement in the long run. Incorporating as-yet unseen, severe winter events is also a possibility by making use of longer-periods of historical data (including appropriate detrending) or output from climate model simulations. Ongoing work as part of the CLEARHEADS project will be further exploring these areas, and will be providing open-access suitable de-trended data. This will give energy modelers easy access to the data required to study the impacts of climate change on a wide variety of problems beyond the capacity adequacy issues discussed here.

Conclusions and future challenges

Systemic changes in climatic conditions will change the risk profile of energy systems heading toward net-zero, particularly in view of rapid increases in renewable capacity and electrification of heating demands in winter-peaking systems. Understanding both the severity and coincidence of system stress is necessary for an accurate determination of the value of interconnection for providing resilience.

The provision of secure, cost-effective and low-carbon energy will result in energy systems becoming increasingly weather dependent. We conclude that energy modelers will therefore need to become highly skilled in the handling and analysis of significant quantities of climate and weather data, used across a wide range of scales and contexts, to effectively address whole energy system design challenges on the path to net zero.

Feedback to BEIS Panel of Technical Experts

The feedback is available to view and was written with contributions from Dr David Greenwood, Dr Susan Scholes, Dr David Brayshaw and Professor Furong Li. The authors are also grateful for feedback from industrial advisor to the project, Dr Chris Harris. Matt and Hannah are support by the Supergen Energy Networks CLEARHEADS Flex Fund project, led by the University of Reading. Contact: matthew.deakin@newcastle.ac.uk; h.c.bloomfield@reading.ac.uk

About the authors

Dr Matthew Deakin is a postdoctoral Research Associate at Newcastle University with the Power Systems group. His research interests include whole energy systems analysis, power system planning and operations, and smart grids.

Dr Hannah Bloomfield is a post doctoral Research currently working in the University of Reading meteorology department. Her research focuses on understanding natural and societal challenges to present and near-future energy systems. Her past work focused on the impacts of climate variability and climate change on international power systems including large proportions of renewables.

Combined capacity and operation optimisation for multi-vector local energy systems

Academics and researchers involved in the EPSRC Supergen Energy Networks Hub, based in the School of Engineering at University of Warwick, Dr Dacheng Li, Mr Songshan Guo, Dr Wei He, Mr Markus King and Prof Jihong Wang recently published the paper “Combined capacity and operation optimisation of lithium-ion battery energy storage working with a combined heat and power system” in Elsevier’s journal Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.

About the Author

Dr Dacheng Li has worked as an Assistant Professor, Associate Professor in Chinese Academy of Sciences since 2012, and joined the Power and Control Systems Research Laboratory, University of Warwick in 2019. His research focuses on the intelligent optimisation of energy storage (i.e., Phase Change Materials, Compressed air, Lithium-ion Battery) based multi-vector energy systems. He has worked as a project leader sponsored by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Key deployment project of Chinese Academy of Sciences for optimisation and demonstration of kW, MW-level energy storage systems.  Currently, he is involved in the RCUK’s Energy Programme and works on self-powered active cooling and cleaning technology for solar PV systems to improve the efficiency of renewable energy utilisation. Additionally, he is participating in the investigation on the on-line condition monitoring for biomass power plant mills. He has published more than 20 academic articles in leading journals and conferences, and 6 patents have been applied or authorised.

Contact email: dacheng.li@warwick.ac.uk

About the Paper

The paper reports the work completed in the first stage for the research project of combined capacity and operation optimisation for multi-vector local energy systems. The work is to investigate how energy storage can help improve CHP operation efficiency, reduce operation cost and CO2 emissions based on the campus energy system structure. In supporting future system and infrastructure design and planning, optimisation algorithms are developed which are able to derive the optimal solutions with consideration of the operation optimisation, optimal energy capacity, technical constrains and energy market information. The research is continuing to bring local renewable power generation, electrification of heating and EV to the optimisation process and extend from the campus energy system to the urban local energy system analysis.

Combined Heat and Power (CHP) systems are considered as a transitional solution towards zero carbon emissions in the next couple of decades [1]. The current CHP systems are mainly controlled by thermally led strategy, that is, the electrical power generation depends on the thermal energy demand. The mismatch between the power generation and load demand leads to the deficient energy utilisation and economic loss. In this context, electrical energy storage technologies could open up an opportunity to reduce energy bills by improving power utilisation locally and mitigate otherwise necessary network upgrades. Moreover, electricity storage could also enable the integrated system to gain additional economic benefits using the Time-of-Use (ToU) pricing structures.

Lithium-ion Battery (LIB) is a promising electrical storage technology because of its high energy density and Coulombic efficiency. Integration of a Lithium-ion Battery Storage System (LBSS) with CHP systems can provide operational flexibility and improve the self-sufficiency rate. However, the lifetime cash flow of a battery storage integrated CHP system is inherently complex. An installation of LBSS leads to an increase in system capital expenditure; real-time operation of the battery system under varying user-load patterns and ToU rates determines the system operating expenses (including revenues), and the LBSS system lifetime [2]. All these factors are coupled and interactively affect the economic viability of using LBSS in CHP systems.

An innovative combined planning method is proposed in the paper to improve the economic gains of the CHP systems by integrating the lithium-ion battery storage system. The paper focuses on the simultaneous optimisation of storage capacity design and operation strategy formulation of the LBSS subject to the variations of the load and power generation from CHP with consideration of LBSS degradation and cost, and ToU pricing structures. The new strategy is implemented and tested using the University of Warwick (UoW) campus CHP system combined with the LBSS facilities.

A techno-economic model that describes LBSS-integrated CHP system operation, performance, and economic gains was derived, using the historic and experimental data. Then an integrated optimisation framework with the Biogeography-Based Optimisation (BBO) method that co-optimises battery storage capacity (Capital Expenditure) and temporal operational strategy (Operating Expensed) was proposed, considering control-dependent battery degradation rate at the system planning stage (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Main logic process of the LBSS operation for combined planning. (a) Main logic process of flag 1. (b) Main logic process of flag 2. (c) Main logic process of flag 3.

A real campus-scale CHP system and a 50 kW demonstration LBSS at the UoW was used to verify the effectiveness of our proposed method, which also exhibits the contribution of the LBSS in improving the economic performance of CHP systems (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Combined optimisation results for seasons. (a) Optimal operation cost and capacity of the LBSS. (b) Operation strategy of the LBSS for Spring case. (c) Operation strategy of the LBSS for Autumn case. (d) Operation strategy of the LBSS for Winter case.

Besides, considering that the price of the LBSS would decrease gradually and the profitability from the ToU structure remains uncertainty in the following decades [3], this paper investigates the variation trend of profit gain and the corresponding Number of Battery (NOB) under different LBSS price and ToU rates to predict the future contribution of the LBSS technology in improving the economy of the CHP system (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Combined optimisation results for one year. (a) Optimal operation cost with the change of the LBSS price and ToU structure. (b) Optimal storage capacity with the change of the LBSS price and ToU structure.

Application results demonstrated that a combined management mechanism was established to achieve the optimal balance between the profit gain and capital loss of the LBSS integration. The conducted work for maximising potential profits and optimising number of batteries with the change of LBSS cost and ToU structure would provide competitive guidance for investors to develop a reasonable solution to improve the economy of CHP systems by integrating of LBSS in the next decades.

The full paper is available to view.

Reference:

[1] Department for Business, Energy & industrial strategy. Digest of UK energy statistics (DUKES) [Chapter 7]: Combined heat and power 2019.

[2] Davies DM, Verde MG, Mnyshenko O, Chen YR, Rajeev R, Meng YS, et al. Combined economic and technological evaluation of battery energy storage for grid applications. Nat Energy 2019;4:42–50.

[3] Oliver Schmidt, Sylvain Melchior, Adam Hawkes, Iain Staffell. Projecting the Future Levelized Cost of Electricity Storage Technologies. Joule 2019;3:81-100.

Techno-Economic-Environmental Analysis of A Smart Multi Energy Grid Utilising Geothermal Energy Storage For Meeting Heat Demand

Researchers based at Newcastle University from the EPSRC funded Supergen Energy Networks Hub (SEN) and National Centre for Energy Systems Integration (CESI), Seyed Hamid Reza Hosseini and Adib Allahham, along with the Coal Authority, Charlotte Adams, will soon publish their journal paper in IET Smart Grid.

About the Author: Dr Adib Allahham

Dr Adib Allahham is a Research Associate within the Power Systems Research Team, School of Engineering, Newcastle University and currently works on several projects including the Supergen Energy Networks Hub and EPSRC National Centre for Energy Systems Integration (CESI).  Adib received his PhD from the University of Joseph Fourier in the field of control engineering. His research involves projects around the electricity distribution and off-grid power sector and multi-vector energy systems. These projects are addressing the need to cost efficiently decarbonise the energy sector over the next thirty years by facilitating innovative network integration of new generation, and the integration of different energy vectors (electricity, gas, and heat). Computer simulation, laboratory investigation and demonstration projects are used together to produce new knowledge that delivers this requirement. He has published more than 25 technical papers in leading journals and conferences.

Adib Allahham contact details: adib.allahham@ncl.ac.uk @adiballahham and profile details

About the paper:

The UK Government has committed to a ‘Net Zero’ carbon economy by 2050 [1]. One major source of carbon emission is associated with heat demand from the domestic, commercial and industrial sectors.

Providing for heat demand accounts for around one third of UK carbon emissions [2]. In order to decarbonise the provision of heat, it is essential to increase the penetration of Low Carbon Energy Sources[1] (LCESs) in Smart Multi Energy Grids (SMEGs), i.e. integrated gas, electricity, and district heating and cooling networks [3,4]. This, consequently, has impact on the operation of SMEGs from the Techno-Economic-Environment (TEE) point of view [5,28].

Recent work on the geothermal potential of the UK’s flooded abandoned mining infrastructure has revealed a subsurface resource in place of 2.2 billion GWh [11]. The impact of integrating this vast supply and storage potential on the operation and planning of SMEGs needs to be evaluated in terms of TEE aspects.

The paper identifies research gaps, including neglecting the electricity requirements of the components of the geothermal system that is required to boost the hot water quality and presents an evaluation framework for the Techno-Economic-Environmental (TEE) performance of Integrated Multi-Vector Energy Networks (IMVENs) including geothermal energy. Geothermal Energy Storage (GES), offers huge potential for both energy storage and supply and can play a critical role in decarbonising heat load of Smart Multi Energy Grids.



Fig.1 Schematic of the considered Smart Electricity Network (SEN), Gas Network (GN) and District Heating Network (DHN)

The two most common types of GES, i.e. High Temperature GES (HTGES) and Low Temperature GES (LTGES), were modelled and integrated within the framework which evaluates the impact of different low carbon energy sources including HTGES, LTGES, wind and PV on the amount of energy imported from upstream, operational costs and emissions of IMVENs to meet the heat load of a region.

Data from a real-world case study was used to compare the TEE performance of the considered IMVEN configurations for meeting the heat load. Data included wind and PV generation, as well as the heat and electricity load for a representative winter week of a small rural village in Scotland. 


Fig. 2 The schematic of all the possible configurations of IMVEN considered in this paper

The results reveal that the most efficient, cost effective and least carbon intensive configurations for meeting the heat load of the case study are the configurations benefitting from HTGES, from a high penetration of heat pumps and from LTGES, respectively.

References:

  1. [1] ‘Net Zero – The UK´s contribution to stopping global warming’, https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Net-Zero-The-UKs-contribution-to-stopping-global-warming.pdf, accessed 20 December 2019
  2. [2] ‘Clean Growth – Transforming Heating: Overview of Current Evidence, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/766109/decarbonising-heating.pdf, accessed 20 December 2019
  3. [3] Ceseña E.A.M., Mancarella P.: ‘Energy Systems Integration in Smart Districts: Robust Optimisation of Multi-Energy Flows in Integrated Electricity, Heat and Gas Networks’, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 2019, 10, (1), pp. 1122-1131
  4. [4] Lund, H., Andersen, A.N., Østergaard, P.A., et al.: ‘From electricity smart grids to smart energy systems – A market operation based approach and understanding’, Energy, 42, (1), pp. 96-102
  5. [5] Hosseini, S.H.R., Allahham, A., Taylor, P.: ‘Techno-economic-environmental analysis of integrated operation of gas and electricity networks’. Proc. IEEE Int. Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), Florence, Italy, May 2018, pp. 1–5
  6. [28] Hosseini, S.H.R., Allahham, A., Walker, S.L., et al.: ‘Optimal planning and operation of multi-vector energy networks: A systematic review’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2020, 133, 110216
  7. [11] Adams, C., Monaghan, A., Gluyas, J.: ‘Mining for heat’, Geoscientist, 2019, 29, (4), pp. 10-15

Techno-economic-environmental evaluation framework for integrated gas and electricity distribution networks considering impact of different storage configurations

Researchers and Academics from the EPSRC funded Supergen Energy Networks Hub and the National Centre for Energy Systems Integration (CESI), Dr Adib Allahham, Dr Hamid Hosseini, Dr Vahid Vahidinasab, Dr Sara Walker & Professor Phil Taylor, recently published their journal paper in the International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems.

About the Author

Dr Adib Allahham is a Research Associate within the Power Systems Research Team, School of Engineering, Newcastle University and currently works on several projects including the Supergen Energy Networks Hub and EPSRC National Centre for Energy Systems Integration (CESI).  Adib received his PhD from the University of Joseph Fourier in the field of control engineering. His research involves projects around the electricity distribution and off-grid power sector and multi-vector energy systems. These projects are addressing the need to cost efficiently decarbonise the energy sector over the next thirty years by facilitating innovative network integration of new generation, and the integration of different energy vectors (electricity, gas, and heat). Computer simulation, laboratory investigation and demonstration projects are used together to produce new knowledge that delivers this requirement. He has published more than 25 technical papers in leading journals and conferences.

Adib Allahham contact details: adib.allahham@ncl.ac.uk @adiballahham and profile details

About the Paper

Governments around the world are working hard to reduce their Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. In the UK, the government has set a target of “Net Zero” GHG emissions by 2050 in order to reduce contribution to global warming [1]. This necessitates the integration of more Renewable Energy Sources (RESs) into the energy networks and consequently reduction in the use of fossil fuels while meeting and reducing energy demand.

To achieve this objective flexibly and reliably, it may be necessary to couple the energy networks using several network coupling components such as gas turbine (GT), power-to-gas (P2G) and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) [2]. Also, the energy networks may benefit from different types of Energy Storage Systems (ESSs) in order to be able to compensate for any energy carrier deficit or other constraints in energy supply in any of the networks [3].

In order to comprehensively study multi-vector integrated energy systems and analyse ESS potentials, a Techno-Economic-Environmental (TEE) evaluation framework needs to be designed to investigate the mutual impacts of each of the networks on the operational, economic and environmental performance of others. This is the main aim of this study.

The paper divides ESS into two different categories of Single Vector Storage (SVS) and Vector Coupling Storage (VCS).

Figure 1: A conceptual representation of SVS and VCS storage devices in an Integrated Gas and Electricity Distribution Network (IGEDN)

A literature review looked at models which have been used to perform planning of the whole energy system of several countries taking into account all layers of the energy system, as well as different types of energy storage in multi-vector energy networks. As well as using a case study from a rural area in Scotland which is connected to the electricity distribution network only, also benefitting from a small wind farm and roof-top PV’s.

Fig. 2. The schematic of the studied rural area in Scotland including the separate gas and electricity networks (without considering P2G and VCS) and IGEDN (with considering P2G and VCS) [4].

A framework was developed as a result of the literature review carried out and this was tested on the real-world rural area in Scotland.  The evaluation framework provides the ability to perform TEE operational analysis of future scenarios of Integrated Gas and Electricity Distribution Networks (IGEDN).  Several specifications and achievements from this study are identified in the paper which is available to read online and will be published in the November issue of the Journal.

References

[1] Committee on Climate Change. Net Zero – The UKś contribution to stopping global warming, 2019. Google Scholar

[2] S. Clegg, P. MancarellaIntegrated electrical and gas network flexibility assessment in low-carbon multi-energy systems IEEE Trans Sustainable Energy, 7 (2) (2016), pp. 718-731 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

[3] S.H.R. Hosseini, A. Allahham, P. TaylorTechno-economic-environmental analysis of integrated operation of gas and electricity networks 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS) (2018), pp. 1-5 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

[4] EPSRC National Centre for Energy Systems Integration (CESI). https://www.ncl.ac.uk/cesi/, 2017.

Optimal planning and operation of multi-vector energy networks: A systematic review [1]

Academics from the EPSRC Supergen Energy Networks Hub and National Centre for Energy Systems Integration (CESI), Dr Hamid Hosseini, Dr Adib Allahham, Dr Sara Walker and Prof Phil Taylor recently published their journal paper in Elsevier’s prestigious journal Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews (impact factor 12.11).

About the Author

Hamid joined Newcastle University in 2017 as a postdoctoral research associate to the EPSRC National Centre for Energy Systems Integration (CESI).  Since joining the team, Hamid has been actively involved in research looking at planning, optimisation and operational analysis of integrated multi-vector energy networks. He also collaborated with a multi-disciplinary team on the UKRI Research and Innovation Infrastructure (RII) roadmap project, advising UKRI on the current landscape and future roadmap of Energy RIIs. He has supported and collaborated with several CESI Flex Fund projects to investigate further various aspects of Energy Systems Integration (ESI). Moreover, he is working with the Executive Board of Northern Gas Networks to identify the potential energy systems challenges that could be investigated at the Customer Energy Village of the Integrated Transport Electricity Gas Research Laboratory (InTEGReL), through collaboration with a multi-disciplinary team of  energy experts in industry and academia.

Contact email: hamid.hosseini@ncl.ac.uk and Profile details

About the Paper

The international aspiration to reach net zero carbon in energy systems by 2050 is growing. In the UK, the government has set a target of ‘Net Zero’ Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 in order to reduce contribution to global warming [2]. This necessitates performing energy evaluation through a system-of-systems approach, in order to understand the intrinsic properties of the main layer/sections of the Integrated Energy Systems (IESs), from natural resources and distribution to the final energy user as well as the interactions and interdependencies within each layer/section [3].

This paper provides a systematic review of recent publications on simulation and analysis of integrated multi-vector energy networks (rather than energy hubs) and carries this out through the lens of the internationally accepted concept of the energy trilemma, i.e. Flexibility of Operation, Security of Supply and Affordability. The significant detail included in the paper and the link to the trilemma is required in order to identify gaps and directions for an appropriate future applied research for facilitating the path to a decarbonised economy.

A systematic literature review of nearly 200 published papers was carried out using keywords to analyse Integrated Energy Networks (IENs). The papers have a wide, international authorship (Figure 1), showing that the topic of energy networks analysis is an important topic for governments around the world, as this supports meeting carbon reduction targets. 

Figure 1 The number of reviewed papers from different countries, based on the affiliation of the first author

The reviewed papers were classified into three groups (i) Operational analysis (ii) Optimal dispatch and (iii) Optimal planning, focussing on energy networks including gas, electricity and district heating networks as well as their interactions and interdependencies.

Figure 2 The three subject groups of papers reviewed and their topics

A detailed evaluation of the energy trilemma was carried out for each of the three groups of papers.

The paper looks at key findings, provides insights for the energy research community towards pursuit of low carbon transition and makes recommendations for future research priorities including: (i) development and demonstration of cyber resilient smart energy management frameworks, (ii) ways to overcome organisational and regulatory barriers for future increased energy networks integration, (iii) uncertainty analysis of the future performance of IENs, (iv) potential economic value of energy systems integration and (v) deployment of smart multi-energy regions.

The full paper, will appear in the November 2020 issue of the Elsevier journal, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, and is available to view online.

References:

[1] Hosseini, SHR, Allahham, A, Walker, SL, Taylor, P. (2020). Optimal planning and operation of multi-vector energy networks: A systematic review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 133. DOI: j.rseer.2020.110216

[2] Committee on Climate Change. Net Zero – the UK’s contribution to stopping global warming. 2019. accessed, https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/ net-zero-the-uks-contribution-to-stopping-global-warming/. [Accessed 28 October 2019].

[3] Eusgel I, Nan C, Dietz S. System-of-systems approach for interdependent critical infrastructures. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2011;96(6):679–86.

The Energy Sector and UK Recovery in the Wake of the COVID Pandemic

About the Author

Dr Sara Walker is currently a Reader in Energy and Director of The Centre for Energy as well as Director of the National Centre for Energy Systems Integration and Deputy Director of the Supergen Energy Networks Hub in the School of Engineering at Newcastle University. Her research is on energy efficiency and renewable energy at the building scale.

Resilience and the need for Change?

The COVID pandemic has, for some sectors of UK society and business, brought into sharp relief the need for change. Resilience is today’s buzzword, along side opaque phrases such as “build back better”. How can we put some detail to the call for a “better” future? And what does this mean for the UK energy sector as we look to transform towards 2050 commitment?

Climate Change Emergency

Many are likely to be redefining their understanding of key worker as our vital infrastructure keeps the wheels of society turning. The energy sector is a critical infrastructure for the UK, confirmed by the UK Government at the height of the COVID lockdown[1]. Whilst our energy utilities focus on keeping the country supplied with electricity, gas, oil and LPG, for example, they do so in a period of uncertain customer demand, since there is no historical precedent for the extent of economic lockdown which the UK has experienced. Whilst we deal with these pressures in the short term, longer term issues of climate change and the Government target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 cannot afford to be ignored. The Conference of the Parties 2020 in Glasgow may have been postponed for a year, but there is no pause in the evidence of climate change as May 2020 was 0.95°C above the average[2].

How to address these long term issues? To look for win-wins with the short term COVID-recovery issue is a start. The lockdown has resulted, across the UK, in dramatic reduction in traffic and air pollution (see, for example, https://covid.view.urbanobservatory.ac.uk/#intro). In the mobility space, the need for physical distancing has opened up conversations about pavement widths, safe space for cycling and redesigning our spaces to enable walking and cycling and to enable sufficient physical distancing.

Figure 1. Proposed increase in public walking and cycling space in Newcastle city centre
Figure 2. Novel analysis by Newcastle University of pedestrian spacing, to evaluate adherence to physical distancing guidelines and identify locations where physical distancing is constrained.

Energy Sector Pressures

With vast numbers working and studying at home, the electricity sector has seen overall demand drop (as industrial and commercial loads reduce) but increases in use at home. At particular times during the COVID lockdown, we have had periods of relatively low demand for electricity and relatively high proportions of inflexible electricity generation (for example nuclear, wind and solar). This is an issue for supply-demand balancing for electricity in particular, since balancing is needed in order to keep the system frequency within certain quality boundaries. The UK power sector is seen as a world-leading industry, and solutions here have relevance to power systems across the globe.

Balancing is likely to be an issue moving forward with more renewable generation, and so we need to identify appropriate sources of flexibility for our energy systems.

There are two possible sources of flexibility which we would like to highlight here. Integration with the gas network, and active buildings.

System Integration and the Role of Gas and Hydrogen

The future UK energy system is of course uncertain, it is difficult to predict what it will be like in 2050. But we do know that system investment now will still be part of the 2050 operational system. So it is vital that our decisions are with 2050 in mind, rather than interim targets on the journey to net zero. Scenarios by a multitude of organisations generally see a greater role for electricity in the space heating and transport sectors, and decarbonisation of electricity through greater use of renewable energy technologies.

One way to address the issue of balancing for the electricity sector, in this future of greater demand and greater use of renewables, is to better integrate electricity and gas. This would then enable the two energy vectors to mutually support one another in times of stress. In particular, there are options to enable the generation of hydrogen using electricity at time of excess generation compared with demand. This hydrogen can then be stored in the gas network, which could be hydrogen ready by 2030[3]. Hydrogen is of significant interest for the UK Government for applications in industry, in transport (particularly marine, long distance and heavy road, air and rail transport).

Repurposing of the existing natural gas network has benefit of reduced stranded assets, and substitution of hydrogen into the gas system at mixes of up to 20% can enable the UK to begin the demonstration phase prior to full scale roll out of a hydrogen system.

InTEGReL is a new integrated energy test and demonstration facility in Gateshead, north east England. Led by Northern Gas Networks and in partnership with Northern Powergrid and Newcastle University, the facility is a second phase demonstrator for the HyDeploy project, to test the blend of hydrogen in natural gas networks for a range of customers and networks.

Flexibility in Demand – The Role of Active Buildings

10% of UK households (2018 figure) are classed as being in fuel poverty, although up to date figures are unavailable. Longer term impacts to incomes of households during an economic downturn, and increased energy use by households, are likely to push numbers of fuel poor upwards. The UK faces a significant risk, as we move towards colder winter months, of a growth in cold-related illness and excess winter deaths at the same time as our NHS struggles to recover from COVID.

A win-win is to address the poor housing stock in the UK. A retrofit stimulus aimed at the construction sector has a significant advantage in terms of job creation. Furthermore, these are local jobs, contributing to the Government’s ambition to “level-up” the regions and nations of the UK. Retrofit investment has the potential to move households out of fuel poverty. Energy efficiency has been highlighted by a number of organisations as a vital element of a green economic recovery for the UK[4] [5]. By improving our housing stock in a way which enables the building to play an active role on energy networks, the buildings can also provide flexibility to those networks. This might involve using more energy at times when it is abundant and cheap, charging up electric vehicles and filling heat and electrical storage in the home. It might also involve demand reduction at times of network stress and demand peak. So this might involve using local generation, home energy storage, and turning down or off certain loads (such as heat pumps).

Conclusion

The case for change in our energy sector was powerful pre-Covid, it is even more so today.  In light of the Government’s own 2050 target, we must not lose this catalytic moment to take action.  There is much to do, and taking urgent action trumps more debate and prevarication.  The energy transition is no longer an aspiration, it is an imperative.

The full article is available to view.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-maintaining-educational-provision/guidance-for-schools-colleges-and-local-authorities-on-maintaining-educational-provision

[2] https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/global-climate-202005

[3] Iron Mains Replacement Programme is replacing gas mains iron pipework with polyethylene pipes, which can be used with hydrogen.

[4] https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/how-a-post-pandemic-stimulus-can-both-create-jobs-and-help-the-climate#

[5] https://www.ippr.org/research/publications/faster-further-fairer