Abstract
This paper compares the simulation results for two stochastic optimization power market models. EMPS uses aggregation and heuristics to calculate the optimal dispatch. SOVN simulates the operation of the power system in one large linear programming problem taking each single plant and reservoir into consideration. The comparison is for a future system in Europe where wind and solar power production supplies 61% of the annual demand. Three different alternatives for the Norwegian hydropower system is studied: present generation capacity (about 30 GW), increased capacity to about 41 GW and further to about 49 GW. The analyses show that SOVN to a larger degree than EMPS manage to increase production in high price periods and pump in low price periods. This particularly applies to the weeks before the change from the depletion (winter) to the filling (summer) period. This better ability to exploit the flexibility of the hydropower system is due to applying a formal optimization in SOVN compared to advanced heuristics in EMPS. For regions without pumping possibility, there is less difference between the models.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Graabak, I., Korpaas, M., Jaehnert, S., Belsnes, M.: Balancing future variable wind and solar power production in Northern Europe with Norwegian hydro power (2017, submitted)
Helseth, A., Mo, B., Henden, A., Warland, G.: Detailed long-term hydro-thermal scheduling for expansion planning in the Nordic power system. IET Res. J. (2017). ISSN 1751-8644
Wolfgang, O., Haugstad, A., Mo, B., Gjelsvik, A., Wangensteen, I., Doorman, G.: Hydro reservoir handling in Norway before and after deregulation. Energy 34, 1642–1651 (2009)
Graabak, I., Jaehnert, S., Korpås, M., Mo, B.: Norway as a battery for the future european power system - impacts on the hydropower system. Energies 10, 2054 (2017). Special Issue. Hydropower 2017
Bruninx, K., et al.: D 2.1 Data sets of scenarios for 2050 (2015). http://www.e-highway2050.eu/results/. Accessed June 2017
Kalnay, E., Kanamitsu, M., Kistler, R., Collins, W., Deaven, D., Gandin, L., et al.: The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project. Bull. Am. Soc. 77, 437–470 (1996)
Svendsen, H.: Hourly wind and solar energy time series from Reanalysis dataset. SINTEF Energy Research. Project Memo 2017. http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2468143. Accessed June 2017
Eurelectric: Hydropower for a sustainable Europe (2013). http://www.eurelectric.org/media/26690/hydro_report_final-2011-160-0011-01-e.pdf. Accessed June 2017
Solvang, E., Harby, A., Killingtveit, Å.: Increased balancing power capacity in Norwegian hydroelectric power stations. SINTEF Energy Research, TR A7195 (2012). ISBN 9788259435194
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Graabak, I., Jaehnert, S., Korpås, M., Mo, B. (2019). Norway as a Battery for the Future European Power System – Comparison of Two Different Methodological Approaches. In: Helseth, A. (eds) Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Hydro Scheduling in Competitive Electricity Markets. HSCM 2018. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03311-8_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03311-8_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03310-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03311-8
eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)