COAL BY WIRE & MISO. Indiana Center for Coal Technology Research CCTR Basic Facts File # 11

Transcription

1 COAL BY WIRE & MISO CCTR Basic Facts File # 11 Brian H. Bowen, Marty W. Irwin, Devendra Canchi The Energy Center at Discovery Park Purdue University CCTR, Potter Center, 500 Central Drive West Lafayette, IN cctr@ecn.purdue.edu February 8,

2 Transport Coal to Power Plants or Generate Power at Coal Mines? Coal By Wire (Generation at Mine Mouth) Avoids Coal Shipment Costs 2

3 Transmission Load Carrying Capability Coal by wire will require increased transmission Increasing the generation capacity at any existing coal fired power plant will be constrained by the load carrying capability of the existing transmission lines If the existing lines have high load factors then it might be necessary to consider building more transmission capacity 3

4 Indiana s Power Grid 765 kv & 345 kv Indiana s South West Mining Region Transmission lines criss-cross the state 4

5 Line Load Carrying Capability & Congestion An electricity network has a limited transmission capacity Congestion arises due to lack of transmission capacity to accommodate all power flows When an interconnection becomes congested, power flows have to be curtailed to relieve the load 5

6 The Midwest Independent System Operator, MISO The Midwest ISO is committed to reliability, the nondiscriminatory operation of the bulk power transmission system, & to working with all stakeholders to create cost-effective & innovative solutions for a changing industry 6

7 About the Midwest ISO, MISO The Midwest ISO: (1) Ensures reliable operation of & equal access to 93,600 miles of interconnected, high-voltage power lines in 15 U.S. states & the Canadian province of Manitoba (2) Manages one of the world's largest energy markets, clearing more than $2 Billion in energy transactions monthly (3) Approved as the nation's first regional transmission organization (RTO) in 2001 (4) Is a non-profit 501(C)4 organization & governed by an independent Board of Directors, headquartered in Carmel IN. Operations centers Carmel IN & St.Paul MN 7

8 14 MISO States (+ Manitoba) 8

9 NERC Map, North American Electric Reliability Corporation & its 8 Regions The NERC was established at federal level to ensure reliability of electricity supplies 9

10 US Department of Energy (DOE) Congestion Areas of Concern These are areas where a large-scale congestion problem exists or may be emerging, but more information & analysis appear to be needed to determine the magnitude of the problem & the likely relevance of transmission expansion & other solutions. The DOE has identified four Congestion Areas of Concern: New England The Phoenix Tucson area The Seattle Portland area The San Francisco Bay area Source: NATIONAL ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION CONGESTION STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AUGUST 2006, U.S. Department of Energy 10

11 DOE Congestion Areas of Concern Source: NATIONAL ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION CONGESTION STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, AUGUST 2006, U.S. Department of Energy 11

12 Congestion & PTDF In order to maintain reliability the North American Reliability Corporation, NERC, uses a parameter called the Power Transfer Distribution Factor (PTDF) The PTDF method prevents the dispatch of potentially congesting power-flow from occurring PTDFs are calculated at specific points on the transmission system. These points are called flowgates Flowgates (FG) are an essential element of the transmission system used for managing congestion 829 flowgates were used in the MISO period of which 262 (32%) had previous history of congestion 12

13 Location of Top 10 Congested MISO Lines in

14 Monitored Element Friendly Name Kokomo HP 230/138 kv XFMR (flo) Jefferson - Greentown 765 kv Miami Fort 345/138 kv XFMR (flo) East Bend - Terminal 345 kv New London - Webster 230 kv (flo) Jefferson - Greentown 765 kv Dune Acres -Michigan City 138 kv ckts 1&2 (flo) Wilton Center - Dumont 765 kv Culley - Grandview 138 kv (flo) Henderson 161/138 kv XFMR Culley - Grandview 138 kv (flo) Henderson - A.B. Brown 138 kv A.B. Brown - Henderson 138 kv (flo) Culley - Grandview 138 kv Culley - Grandview 138 kv (flo) Henderson 161/138 kv XFMR Most Congested Flowgates (FG) in Indiana Balancing Area 1st Year Congestion FG-Hr/Year Apr 05 - Apr 06 2nd Year Congestion FG-Hr/Year Apr 06 - Apr 07 MISO Ranking MISO Ranking CIN % % 40 2 CIN CIN NIPS SIGE SIGE % % 9 51 SIGE SIGE

15 Dune Acres Michigan City 138 kv ckts 1&2 (flo) Wilton Center Dumont 765 kv Indiana s Most Congested Flowgates New London Webster 230 kv (flo) Jefferson Greentown 765 kv Kokomo HP 230/138 kv XFMR (flo) Jefferson Greentown 765 kv Breed Power Station Station State Wilton Center IL Dune Acres IN Dumont IN New London IN Webster IN Jefferson IN Greentown IN Kokomo IN Culley Grandview 138 kv (flo) Henderson 161/138 kv XFMR Culley Grandview 138 kv (flo) Henderson A.B. Brown 138 kv A.B. Brown Henderson 138 kv (flo) Culley Grandview 138 kv Culley Grandview 138 kv (flo) Henderson 161/138 kv XFMR Miami Fort 345/138 kv XFMR (flo) East Bend Terminal 345 kv Miami Fort OH East Bend OH F. B. Culley IN A.B. Brown IN Grandview IN Henderson KY 15

16 MISO Modeling Process Transmission expansions are considered for each of the following four design scenarios: (a)reference Future (b)environmental Future (c)renewable Future (d)limited Supply Future 16

17 MISO Data 2007 MISO Generation Prototype Data Inputs to MISO s 2007 Four Scenarios DOE NETL 2007, Coal Plant Total Costs Supercritical PC plant without CO 2 capture $1,574/kW Supercritical PC plant with CO 2 capture $2,868/kW IGCC (E-Gas) without CO 2 capture $1,733/kW IGCC (E-Gas) with CO 2 capture $2,431/kW Sources: MISO MTEP-08 Planning Process Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants, DOE NETL, April10, 2007 Seq = With sequestration PC = Pulverized Coal IGCC = Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle 17

18 MISO s Four Scenarios, (a) (b) (c) (d) 18

19 MISO , Four Futures Scenarios Cumulative New Generation Capacity (MW) (a) (b) (d) (c) Source: MISO MTEP -08 Planning Process 19

20 2007 Review of Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards Source: 20

21 MISO & Indiana s Proposed Expansions (a) Reference Future Merom Edwardsport Coal Schafer CT MW Capacity (c) Renewable Future Schafer Benton County Gibson County Montgomery County Vigo County Cayuga Wind CC (d) Limited Fuel Future Greenfield, Kosciusko County (b) Environmental Future Sugar Creek & Noblesville Eagle Valley Gallagher Source: MISO- MTEP 08 Planning Process Generation Siting 21

22 MISO Reference Future Scenario (a) Suggested Transmission, MISO Centric Transmission Coloring 22

23 MISO Reference Future Scenario (a) Suggested Transmission, Eastern Interconnect Transmission Coloring 23

24 Transmission Serving Indianapolis Load Factors 24

25 Transmission Serving Indianapolis 2006 Load Factors HAMILTON 8 11 HANCOCK 765 kv 345 kv 230 kv All loading factors are based on PROMOD simulation using NERC and MISO 2006 event file under Security constrained Economic Dispatch HENDRICKS 16THOMPS STOUT MORGAN MARION 3 JOHNSON FRANCS 12 SHELBY Maximum Rated Energy Flow in One Average Load Factor Max Hourly Load Factor (%) Line Description Total Energy flow in Rating (KV) From Bus To Bus One Year (MWh) Year (MWh) (%) 1 16PETE-16THOMPS 5,289,636 8,374, PETE-16FRANCS 4,910,507 8,374, HANNA-16FRANCS 4,142,149 8,374, STOUT-16THOMPS 2,403,381 8,374, HANNA-16STOUT 551,997 8,374, ROCKVL-16THOMPS 2,877,490 8,374, GUION-16ROCKVL 989,454 8,374, WHITST-16GUION 3,112,936 8,374, HANNA-16SUNNYS 2,418,854 8,374, GWYNN-16SUNNYS 868,739 8,409, FALL C-16SUNNYS 1,560,777 8,374, TANNER-16HANNA Indiana 1,021,208 Center for Coal 8,374,560 Technology Research

26 MISO s 5 Guiding Principles Make the benefits of a competitive energy market available to customers by providing access to the lowest possible electric energy costs Provide a transmission infrastructure that safeguards local and regional reliability Support state and federal renewable energy objectives by planning for access to all such resources (e.g. wind, biomass, demand side management). Create a mechanism to ensure investment implementation occurs in a timely manner Develop a transmission system scenario model and make it available to state and federal energy policy makers to provide context and make informed choices Source: Midwest ISO Board of Directors, Statement of Guiding Principles for the Midwest ISO Transmission Expansion Plans 26

27 Examples of Indiana s Shipments of Coal & Electricity AEP has its large generators located outside of its service area but in close proximity to the coal supplies. Its 765 kv transmission line takes AEP electricity north (Cincinnati dispatch) NIPSCO has coal transported to its largest power plant which is located in its northern Indiana service area but is outside the coal mining region 27

28 Can Indiana Transmit More Electricity to MI & WI? 2004 Coal Consumed (MTons) 2005 Coal Production (MTons) 2004 Electricity Net Flow * (GWh) Indiana Michigan Wisconsin * Net interstate flow of electricity: -ve = net export +ve = net import 5MW for 1 year 42 GWh Wisconsin 2002 coal imports (MTons) from WY 21.80, MN 2.92, CO 1.50, IL 0.66, UT 0.66, PA 0.60, IN 0.39, KY 0.09 Michigan 2002 coal imports (MTons) from WY 12.87, MN 6.46, WV 3.62, KY 3.52, PA 1.01, CO 0.39, OH 0.26, VA 0.12 Source:

29 Can Indiana Coal Be Used for Increased Export Power? A Strengthened Transmission Infrastructure is required to enable more Indiana electricity exports to go to neighboring states Wisconsin 2002 coal imports (MTons) from WY 21.80, MN 2.92, CO 1.50, IL 0.66, UT 0.66, PA 0.60, IN 0.39, KY 0.09 Michigan 2002 coal imports (MTons) from WY 12.87, MN 6.46, WV 3.62, KY 3.52, PA 1.01, CO 0.39, OH 0.26, VA Increasing Indiana s electricity exports will depend on transmission capacity 29

30 Indiana Coal & MISO Planning Increased electricity transmission capacity will enable Indiana to transmit more export power MISO maintains reliability & plans regionally 30