Mv
M. van Tienhoven
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
1 records found
1
System Conditions for Offshore Electricity Storage
A system-level assessment of cost-effectiveness and system impacts in a high offshore wind Dutch power system
To decarbonise the Dutch electricity system, offshore wind capacity is expected to expand substantially in the coming decades. This creates both a spatial mismatch between offshore generation and onshore demand and a temporal mismatch between variable wind output and electricity demand. Storage is widely proposed to help address these mismatches, and offshore storage in particular could relieve pressure on export cables and landing points by acting upstream of this infrastructure. Offshore storage is, however, more expensive than onshore storage, and earlier studies, mostly conducted at the level of a single wind park, disagree on whether it is worthwhile. Project-level studies assess offshore storage in isolation, without endogenous competition against the full set of alternative responses available to the system, while system-level models usually lack spatial detail in the offshore–onshore infrastructure chain. This thesis identifies the system conditions under which offshore electricity storage reduces total system cost in the 2040 Dutch power system with high offshore wind capacity.
The analysis uses a spatially resolved, cost-minimising optimisation model in Calliope, in which storage, generation, transmission, and selected offshore infrastructure compete endogenously. The offshore–onshore chain is represented explicitly, including offshore wind hubs, export cables, and landing points. Three conditions identified from the literature are varied in a structured scenario design: offshore wind capacity (30–45 GW), near-landing onshore storage availability, and the offshore storage cost premium (0–75%). Each of the 27 scenarios is run with offshore storage enabled and disabled, isolating its system-level contribution across 54 model runs.
The results show that under baseline assumptions offshore storage is selected mainly when the cost premium is low (at or below roughly 25%) and offshore wind capacity is high (around 37.5 GW or more), concentrating at the hubs where wind can be overplanted relative to export cable capacity. The availability of landing point storage has little effect. Allocation ranges from negligible to about 112 GWh at the highest wind level and zero premium. Where allocation is largest, offshore storage produces a robust but modest system cost saving of up to about 78–79 M€/yr (0.3% of total system cost), substituting for onshore storage, reducing offshore wind curtailment, and, at the highest wind level, displacing export cable expansion and gas-fired dispatch and lowering CO2 emissions by around 2–2.5%. These patterns persist across a range of robustness checks. Offshore storage is therefore best understood as a conditional upstream response whose value arises from co-optimisation with offshore wind overplanting and export cable sizing. ...
The analysis uses a spatially resolved, cost-minimising optimisation model in Calliope, in which storage, generation, transmission, and selected offshore infrastructure compete endogenously. The offshore–onshore chain is represented explicitly, including offshore wind hubs, export cables, and landing points. Three conditions identified from the literature are varied in a structured scenario design: offshore wind capacity (30–45 GW), near-landing onshore storage availability, and the offshore storage cost premium (0–75%). Each of the 27 scenarios is run with offshore storage enabled and disabled, isolating its system-level contribution across 54 model runs.
The results show that under baseline assumptions offshore storage is selected mainly when the cost premium is low (at or below roughly 25%) and offshore wind capacity is high (around 37.5 GW or more), concentrating at the hubs where wind can be overplanted relative to export cable capacity. The availability of landing point storage has little effect. Allocation ranges from negligible to about 112 GWh at the highest wind level and zero premium. Where allocation is largest, offshore storage produces a robust but modest system cost saving of up to about 78–79 M€/yr (0.3% of total system cost), substituting for onshore storage, reducing offshore wind curtailment, and, at the highest wind level, displacing export cable expansion and gas-fired dispatch and lowering CO2 emissions by around 2–2.5%. These patterns persist across a range of robustness checks. Offshore storage is therefore best understood as a conditional upstream response whose value arises from co-optimisation with offshore wind overplanting and export cable sizing. ...
To decarbonise the Dutch electricity system, offshore wind capacity is expected to expand substantially in the coming decades. This creates both a spatial mismatch between offshore generation and onshore demand and a temporal mismatch between variable wind output and electricity demand. Storage is widely proposed to help address these mismatches, and offshore storage in particular could relieve pressure on export cables and landing points by acting upstream of this infrastructure. Offshore storage is, however, more expensive than onshore storage, and earlier studies, mostly conducted at the level of a single wind park, disagree on whether it is worthwhile. Project-level studies assess offshore storage in isolation, without endogenous competition against the full set of alternative responses available to the system, while system-level models usually lack spatial detail in the offshore–onshore infrastructure chain. This thesis identifies the system conditions under which offshore electricity storage reduces total system cost in the 2040 Dutch power system with high offshore wind capacity.
The analysis uses a spatially resolved, cost-minimising optimisation model in Calliope, in which storage, generation, transmission, and selected offshore infrastructure compete endogenously. The offshore–onshore chain is represented explicitly, including offshore wind hubs, export cables, and landing points. Three conditions identified from the literature are varied in a structured scenario design: offshore wind capacity (30–45 GW), near-landing onshore storage availability, and the offshore storage cost premium (0–75%). Each of the 27 scenarios is run with offshore storage enabled and disabled, isolating its system-level contribution across 54 model runs.
The results show that under baseline assumptions offshore storage is selected mainly when the cost premium is low (at or below roughly 25%) and offshore wind capacity is high (around 37.5 GW or more), concentrating at the hubs where wind can be overplanted relative to export cable capacity. The availability of landing point storage has little effect. Allocation ranges from negligible to about 112 GWh at the highest wind level and zero premium. Where allocation is largest, offshore storage produces a robust but modest system cost saving of up to about 78–79 M€/yr (0.3% of total system cost), substituting for onshore storage, reducing offshore wind curtailment, and, at the highest wind level, displacing export cable expansion and gas-fired dispatch and lowering CO2 emissions by around 2–2.5%. These patterns persist across a range of robustness checks. Offshore storage is therefore best understood as a conditional upstream response whose value arises from co-optimisation with offshore wind overplanting and export cable sizing.
The analysis uses a spatially resolved, cost-minimising optimisation model in Calliope, in which storage, generation, transmission, and selected offshore infrastructure compete endogenously. The offshore–onshore chain is represented explicitly, including offshore wind hubs, export cables, and landing points. Three conditions identified from the literature are varied in a structured scenario design: offshore wind capacity (30–45 GW), near-landing onshore storage availability, and the offshore storage cost premium (0–75%). Each of the 27 scenarios is run with offshore storage enabled and disabled, isolating its system-level contribution across 54 model runs.
The results show that under baseline assumptions offshore storage is selected mainly when the cost premium is low (at or below roughly 25%) and offshore wind capacity is high (around 37.5 GW or more), concentrating at the hubs where wind can be overplanted relative to export cable capacity. The availability of landing point storage has little effect. Allocation ranges from negligible to about 112 GWh at the highest wind level and zero premium. Where allocation is largest, offshore storage produces a robust but modest system cost saving of up to about 78–79 M€/yr (0.3% of total system cost), substituting for onshore storage, reducing offshore wind curtailment, and, at the highest wind level, displacing export cable expansion and gas-fired dispatch and lowering CO2 emissions by around 2–2.5%. These patterns persist across a range of robustness checks. Offshore storage is therefore best understood as a conditional upstream response whose value arises from co-optimisation with offshore wind overplanting and export cable sizing.