A Proposal to Adjust the Time-Keeping Systems for Savings in Cycling Operation and Carbon Emission

  • Amlan ChakrabartiEmail author
  • Krishnendu Chakrabarty
Original Contribution


With the spread of the power transmission networks to thousands of kilometres, the integrated power grid in many countries cover multiple hours in terms of solar position. We present a general mathematical model with multiple time-keeping systems for flattening the electrical load curve in a territory having integrated power grid operations. The multiple time-keeping system areas are set up as a function of both electrical power demand and mean geographical position in longitude. Fluctuation in load results in cycling operation of coal/gas power plants and enhanced carbon emission. In this paper, an attempt is made to quantify the savings in cycling of electrical power plant operation and the associated carbon emission with adjustment of time-keeping systems. For the territory of India, the reduction in cycling operation of power plants by 9% of peak demand is demonstrated.


Carbon emission Time-keeping systems Peak demand Cycling operation Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) 



Peak demand with one time zone (MW)


Base demand with one time zone (MW)


Peak demand with three time zones (MW)


Base demand with three time zones (MW)


Peak reduction (MW)


Reduction in cycling operation (MW)


Differential peak demand (MW)


Load cycling rate


Peak reduction rate


Cycling reduction rate


Additional transmission loss in MW per day for transfer of cycling power among time zones


Savings in cycling operations in MW capacity per day


Savings in heating value by reduction in cycling operation for coal units (GJ/day)


Savings in carbon emission by reduction in cycling operation for coal units (MtCO2/year)


Savings in heating value by reduction in cycling operation for NGCC units (GJ/day)


Savings in carbon emission by reduction in cycling operation for NGCC units (MtCO2/year)


Additional capital and maintenance cost for coal units with high ramp rate to meet peak demand (US$)


Additional capital and maintenance cost for NGCC units with high ramp rate to meet peak demand (US$)


Savings in coal per annum (Mt)


Fuel cost of cycling operation per annum for coal units (million US$)


Capital and maintenance cost of cycling operations per annum of coal units (million US$)


Savings in natural gas per annum (MMBTU)


Fuel cost of cycling operation per annum for NGCC units (million US$)


Capital and maintenance cost of cycling operations per annum of NGCC units (million US$)


Savings in cost by reduction in cycling operation for coal units (million US$/year)


Savings in cost by reduction in cycling operation for NGCC units (million US$/year)



  1. 1.
    D. Howse, Greenwich Time and the Discovery of the Longitude (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1980)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M.W. White, The Economics of Time Zones. The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Fleming, “Recommendations Suggested”, Protocols of the Proceedings of The International Prime Meridien Conference, Washington DC, October 1884, Gibson Brothers, Printers and BookbindersGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Prerau, Seize the Daylight: The Curious and Contentious Story of Daylight Saving Time (Thunder’s Mouth Press, New York, 2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Kellogg, H. Wolff, Daylight time and energy: evidence from an australian experiment. CSEM Working Paper 163, UC, Berkeley (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D.R. Ahuja, D.P. SenGupta, V.K. Agrawal, Energy savings from advancing the Indian standard time by half an hour. Curr. Sci. 93(3), 298 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Planning Commission, Integrated Energy Policy, New Delhi (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Planning Commission, Government of India (Indian Planning Experience, New Delhi, 2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    B. Natarajan, et al., Two Strategies for Electric Load Leveling for India: Phase II—Final Report, Advisory Board on Energy, TERI, New Delhi (1988)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Don’t tinker with the clock to save energy, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), New Delhi, India, Policy Brief (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2002. 1004412, Determining the Cost of Cycling and Varied Load Operations: Methodology (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Chakrabarti, Reducing peak demand by time zone divisions. J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (2014). Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Power System Operation Corporation Ltd, Daily Operation Reports.
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    T. Shear, Peak-to-average electricity demand ratio rising in New England and many other U.S. regions. Independent Statistics and Analysis, February 18 (2014).
  17. 17.
    S. Zhai, Z. Wang, The prediction of carbon emissions demands in India under the balance economic growth path. Smart Grid Renew. Energy Sci. Res. 3, 186–193 (2012). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    N. Troy, E. Denny, M. O’Malley, Base-load cycling on a system with significant wind penetration. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 25(2), 1088–1097 (2010). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    P. Myles, S. Herron, Impact of load following on power plant cost and performance: literature review and industry interviews. National Energy Technology Laboratory, DOE/NETL-2013/1592 (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Lew, G. Brinkman, et al., The western wind and solar integration study phase 2. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, September, Technical Report NREL/TP-5500-55588 (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    K. Van den Bergh, E. Delarue, Cycling of conventional power plants: technical limits and actual costs. TME Working Paper—Energy and Environment, University of Leuven—Energy Institute, TME Branch, Belgium, WP EN2015-5 (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    N. Kumar, P. Besuner, S. Lefton, D. Agan, D. Hilleman, Power plant cycling costs. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, USA, Subcontract Report, NREL/SR-5500-55433 (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    N. Kumar, S. Paterson, K. Coleman, C. Lee, D. Agan, S. Lefton, Power plant cycling measure—evaluating historical cycling to model future grid operations, EPRI, IEEE 978-1-4799-1303-9/13, copyright, IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. Turconi, C. O’Dwyer, D. Flynn, T. Astrup, Emissions from cycling of thermal power plants in electricity systems with high penetration of wind power: Life Cycle Assessment for Ireland. Appl. Energy 131(2014), 1–8 (2014). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    E. Denny, M. O’Malley, The impact of carbon prices on generation-cycling costs. Energy Policy 37(4), 1204–1212 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    USEPA, S.D. Piccot, J.A. Buzun, H.C. Frey, Emission and cost estimate for globally significant anthropogenic combustion sources. EPA-600/7-90-100 (1990)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    P. Keatley, A. Shibli, N.J. Hewitt, Estimating power plant start costs in cycling operation. Appl. Energy 111(2013), 550–557 (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    S.A. Lefton, P.M. Besuner, The cost of cycling coal fired power plants, coal power magazine, pp. 16–20 (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    A. Gambhir, T. Napp, C. Emmott, L. Vallejo, G. Anandarajah, India’s CO2 emission pathway to 2050, Grantham Institute for Climate Change. An Institute of Imperial College, London, DECC Funded Research Project GA0215/GASRF123, Report No. AV/WS2/D1/R41, Ref. M/DoE/2/9, December 30 (2012)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    G. Anandarajah, A. Gambhir, India’s CO2 emission pathways to 2050: What roles can renewable play? Appl. Energy 131(2014), 79–86 (2014). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    G. Anandarajah, A. Gambhir, T.A. Napp, C.J.M. Emmott, India’s CO2 emission pathways to 2050: energy system, economic and fossil fuel impacts with and without carbon permit trading. Energy 77(2014), 791–801 (2014). Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Power and Energy Division, Planning Commission, Government of India, Annual Report 2014–15 on the Working of State Power Utilities and Electricity Departments (2014)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Central Electricity Authority (CEA), Load Generation Balance Report 2018–19, Government of India, Ministry of Power, New Delhi (2018)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    R. Gupta, S. Sankhe, S. Sarma, Environmental and Energy Sustainability: An Approach for India (McKinsey & Company Inc., New York, 2009)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    The Energy Resources Institute (TERI), National Energy Map for India—Technology Vision 2030. Office of the Principal Scientific Investigator to the Government of India, PSA/2006/3. ISBN 81-7993-099-8Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    BP, Energy Outlook 2035 (2014)., #BPstats
  37. 37.
    IEA, World Energy Outlook (2014).
  38. 38.
    Ernst and Young LLP, EYIN 1404-040, ED0115 copyright 2014, PHD Chamber of Commerce. Natural Gas Pricing in India—Current Policy and Potential ImpactGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    US Energy Information Administration (EIA), Updated capital cost estimates for utility-scale electricity generating plants (2013)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    C. Batlle, P. Rodilla, An enhanced screening curve method for considering thermal cyclic operation costs in generation expansion planning. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 28(4), 3683–3691 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    D. Schlissel, A. Smith, R. Wilson, Coal-fired power plant construction costs (Synapse Energy Economics Inc., Cambridge, 2008)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    C. Humpert, Long distance transmission systems for the future electricity supply—analysis of possibilities and restrictions. Energy 48(2012), 278–283 (2012). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    NCEE Working Paper Series, The social cost of carbon made simple. Working Paper #10-07, USEPA (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Institution of Engineers (India) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Electrical EngineeringNarula Institute of TechnologyAgarpara, KolkataIndia
  2. 2.Government College of Engineering and Ceramic TechnologyKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations