Grid Code Frequency Response Working Group

Requirements for System Inertia

Antony Johnson, System Technical Performance
Overview

 Resume’ of System Inertia

 Future Transmission System need
 System Studies
 Requirements and issues for System Inertia
 Proposals
 Conclusions
Resume’ of System Inertia
 Inertia is the stored rotating energy in the system
 Following a System loss, the higher the System Inertia (assuming no frequency
response) the longer it takes to reach a new steady state operating frequency.
 Modern Generation Technologies employing power electronic converters currently do not
contribute to System Inertia
 ie the equivalent of a vehicle travelling down a hill without engine breaking
 Under the Gone Green Scenario in 2020 over half the generation fleet is likely to
comprise of such technologies.
 Further growth is expected in HVDC which currently does not contribute to System Inertia
 The implications of this are a substantial erosion in System Frequency Control and
consequent required increases in additional reserve and response
 Additional background information is available from the presentation given at the
Frequency Response Working Group Meeting of 15 February 2010
The maths behind inertia

H = Inertia constant in MWs / MVA

½Jω2 J = Moment of inertia in kgm2 of the rotating mass
H= ω = nominal speed of rotation in rad/s
MVA MVA = MVA rating of the machine

Typical H for a synchronous generator can range from 2 to 9 seconds (MWs/MVA)

∂f ΔP ∂f/∂t = Rate of change of frequency

= ΔP = MW of load or generation lost
∂t 2H 2H = Two times the system inertia in MWs / MVA
 Strategic Reinforcements

An NGET Future Scenario TRANSMISSION SYSTEM REINFORCEMENTS

Dounreay
Thurso

Mybster
REINFORCED NETWORK
Stornoway Cassley
Dunbeath

400kV Substations
Lairg
THE SHETLAND ISLANDS
275kV Substations
Brora
400kV CIRCUITS
Shin
275kV CIRCUITS

‘Gone Green 2020’

Grudie
Bridge
Mossford
Major Generating Sites Including Pumped Storage
Alness
Conon
Orrin Elgin Fraserburgh
Ardmore
Luichart
Macduff St. Fergus
Connected at 400kV
Deanie
Culligran
Dingwall
Nairn
Keith
Strichen
Connected at 275kV
Aigas Inverness
Dunvegan Kilmorack Blackhillock
Peterhead Hydro Generation
Beauly
Fasnakyle
Dyce

Glen Kintore Persle y

Broadford
Morrison
Woodhill Willowdale
Foyers
Ceannacroc Fo rt Augustus Boat of
Garten Clayhills Under Construction or ready to start
Invergarry
Tarland Craigiebuckler
Redmoss Construction subject to consents
Quoich

Plant closures Fort William

Rannoch

Tummel
Errochty Errochty Power Station
Clunie
Lunanhead
Fiddes

Bridge of Dun Very strong need case

Bridge Tealing
Cashlie
Dudhope Arbroath
Lochay

12GW Coal & oil LCPD

Milto n of Craigie


Lyndhurst

Taynuilt Killin Charleston

Cruachan Dalmally Finlarig Burghmuir Dudhope
Glenagnes Strong need case
Nant St. Fillans
Cla chan
SCOTTISH HYDRO-ELECTRIC C upar

TRANSMISSION
Inveraray

 7.5GW nuclear
Glenrothes
Sloy Leven

Devonside Westfield
Redhouse

Future requirement, but no strong

Whi stl efield Stirling
Kincardine Glenniston
Port Mossmorran
Dunfermline
Ann Longannet

Dunoon
Spango Devol
Helensburgh
Strath leven
Bonnybridge
Grangemouth
Iverkeithing

Tel ford Rd.

Shrubhil l Cockenzie
Portobello
Dunbar
need case to commence
Moor Broxburn Gorgie Torness
at present
Some gas & additional coal
Valley


Erskine Cumbernauld Bathgate Whitehouse
Inverkip Lambhill
Easterhouse
Livingston Kaim es
Currie
Newarthill
Clydes
Neilston Mill
Hunterston
Berwick
Farm

Series Capacitors
Wishaw
Hun terston Busby Strathaven Blacklaw
Kil winning Whitelee East
Kilmarnock Kilbride
Salt coats Town Linmill
South
Eccle s
Carradale Meadowhead Galashiels
Kilmarnock
Coalburn
South
Ayr SP TRANSMISSION LTD.
Coylt on
Elvanfoot H awic k

Maybole

Significant new renewable Auchencrosh

Dumfries Ecclefechan
Gretna
NGC

Blyth

Fourstones
Newton
Stewart
Tynemouth
Chapelcross Harker South Shields
Stella

 29 GW wind (2/3 offshore)

West West Boldon
Glenl uce
Tongland
Offerton
Hawthorne Pit
Hart Moor
Spennymoor
Hartlepool
Saltholme Tod Point

 Some tidal, wave, biomass & solar PV

Grangetown
Norton Greystones

Lackenby

 Renewable share of generation grows from 5% to 36% Hutton

Heysham Quernmore
Poppleton Osbaldwick

Thornton
Bradford
Stanah West Kirkstall
Skelton Creyke Beck
Padiham Grange Mo nk
Fryston Saltend North
Saltend South
Penworth am

Significant new non renewable build

Elland Drax Killingholme
Eggborough Humber Refinery
Rochdale Ferrybridge
Keadby South
Washway
Farm Kearsley Whitegate Templeborough Thorpe Humber
West Marsh Grimsby
Kirkby South Bank
Staly bridge Melton West
Lister Ma nchester Pitsmoor
Wylfa Drive Rainhill Stocksbridge West
Aldwarke
Carrington Bredbury Winco Bank Burton
Birkenhead Thurcroft
Neepsend
Fiddlers Daines

3GW of new nuclear

Sheffield City

 Pentir

Dinorwig
Capenhurst

Deeside
Ferry
Frodsham
Macclesfield
Jordanthorpe

Chesterfield
Brinsworth
Norton Lees

High
Marnham
Cottam

Staythorpe
Legacy

3GW of new supercritical coal (some with CCS)

Cellarhead

 Ffestiniog

Trawsfynydd
Willi ngton
Ratcliffe
Bicke r
Fenn

Drakelow Walpole
Rugeley Spalding
North

 11GW of new gas Shrewsbury

Ironbridge

Penn
Bushbury
Willenhall Bustleholm

Nechells
Hams
Hall
Enderby
Norwich
Main

Ocker
Hill Coventry
Oldbury
Kitwell Berkswell

Sizewell
Burwell
Feckenham Main
Bishops Grendon Eaton
Wood Socon

Patford Bramford
Bridge
East

Electricity demand remains flat (approx 60 GW)

Claydon Sundon
Pelham
Wymondley
Leighton Braintree
Rassau Buzzard
Walham
Rye House Walt ham
Imperial Brimsdown Cross
Park Cowley
Swansea Watford Elstree Hackney
Pembroke Amersham Main
North
Cilfynydd Rayleigh Main
Bagla n Whitson Culham Mill Hill Tottenham Redbridge Warley

Reductions from energy efficiency measures

Minety

 Bay Upper Boat Uskmouth Didcot Willesden

Margam
Iron Acton Barking West Thurrock Coryton
Alpha Steel Iver Ealing Northfleet East
Pyle N.Hyde Singlewell
Seabank City Rd W.Ham Tilbury Grain
Cowbridge St Johns
Tremorfa Laleham Wood New Hurst
Cross Kingsnorth
Aberthaw Cardiff
East West Kemsley
Melksham Bramley Weybridge Chessington Rowdown Lit tlebrook
Beddington

 Increases from heat pumps & cars

Fleet Canterbury
Wimbledon North

Hinkley Point
Sellindge
Bridgwater

Alverdiscott
Bolney

Taunton Nursling E de F
Ninfield
Dungeness
Marchwood Lovedean
Axminster
Mannington Fawley Botley Wood
Exeter

Chickerell

Langage Abham
Landulph
Indian
Que ens
ISSUE B 12-02-09 41/177619 C Collins Bartholomew Ltd 1999
Test Network

 Simplified GB system representation

 25GW demand

11 generators

 Frequency Response selected between 3 – 6

Generators depending upon Inertia - Green

 1320 MW Loss - Red

 No Load Response

 Additional Reserve Calculated Depending

upon System inertia
 1320MW Loss – Effect of Inertia and FR

Full H – Three Machines selected for FR to achieve 49.19 Hz (approx 49.2Hz)

H/2 – Six Machines selected for FR to achieve 49.19 Hz (approx 49.2Hz)

F = 49.19 Hz

H/2 – Three Machines selected for FR as in Red Curve

1320MW Loss – Effect of Inertia and FR
H/2 – Six Machines selected for FR to achieve 49.19 Hz (approx 49.2Hz) – Blue

H/2 – Three Machines selected for FR as in Red Curve - Green

Full H – Three Machines selected for FR to achieve 49.19 Hz (approx 49.2Hz) - Red

Frequency Insensitive Plant

Frequency Sensitive Plant

Test Network

 Simplified GB system representation

 25GW demand

11 generators

 Frequency Response selected between 3 – 6

Generators depending upon Inertia - Green

 1320 MW Loss - Red

 Load Response Both Frequency and

Voltage

 Additional Reserve Calculated Depending

upon System inertia
1320MW Loss – Effect of Inertia alone with V/F
Load Response

Full H, No Frequency Response and Load Response

H/2, No Frequency Response and Load Response

Full H, No Frequency Response and Load Response

H/2, No Frequency Response and Load Response

1320MW Loss – Effect of Inertia and Frequency
Response with Load Response

Full H – Two Machines selected for FR to achieve 49.235 Hz

H/2 – Three Machines selected for FR to achieve 49.215 Hz

H/2 – Two Machines selected for FR as in Base Case – Minimum Frequency 49.124Hz
1320MW Loss – Effect of Inertia and Frequency
Response with Load Response

H/2 – Two Machines selected for FR as in Base Case – Minimum Frequency 49.124Hz - Green

H/2 – Three Machines selected for FR to achieve 49.215 Hz - Blue

Full H – Two Machines selected for FR to achieve 49.235 Hz - Red

Frequency Sensitive Plant

Frequency Insensitive Plant

Test Network

 Simplified GB system representation

 25GW demand

15 generators

 1800 MW Loss - Red

 Load Response Both Frequency and

Voltage
 Frequency Response selected between 3 –
10 Generators depending upon Inertia –
Green
 Load Reduction introduced for comparison
purposes
1800MW Loss – Effect of Inertia alone with V/F
Load Response

Full H, No Frequency Response and Load Response

H/2, No Frequency Response and Load Response

Full H, No Frequency Response and Load Response

H/2, No Frequency Response and Load Response

1800MW Loss – Effect of Inertia, Frequency Response and Load
Reduction with V/F Load Response

Full H, 10 Machines providing Frequency Response f = 49.107Hz

2H, 10 Machines providing Frequency Response f = 49.289Hz

Full H, 6 Machines providing Frequency Response, 480 MW of load reduction at 4 seconds f = 49.203Hz

Full H, 3 Machines Providing Frequency Response (in 1320 MW case frequency above 49.2Hz)

Full H, No Frequency Response and Load Response

H/2, No Frequency Response and Load Response

Assessment of Study Work
 Inertia has a significant effect on System Frequency
 Increased rate of change of frequency (Hz/s) for a lower system inertia
 With Frequency response included, the minimum recorded system frequency is
increased
 If System Inertia is allowed to drop substantially additional fast acting Reserve /
Response will need to be scheduled at additional cost to ensure standards of security are
maintained.
 Fast Acting Load Reduction (ie block tripping) is more effective than that provided by
Generators in containing a frequency fall
 There needs to be co-ordination between requirements for inertia, delivery of primary
response and delivery of secondary response – 10% P, 10% S and 10% H is only
adequate if Generators / loads adequately contribute towards system inertia
 Under an 1800 MW loss scenario the need for system inertia becomes even more critical
 Analysis undertaken to date demonstrates the need for Generators and HVDC Converter
Owners to contribute towards System Inertia unless additional reserve is scheduled at
considerable cost
Requirements for Inertia

 Contribution towards System Inertia can be achieved by a modification to the Control

System in order to control df/dt
 Three wind turbine manufacturers have published information on systems to contribute
towards system inertia (Enercon, Vestas and GE).
 Discussions are ongoing with other manufactures
 The Costs of installing such a requirement is believed to be negligible – certainly against
the cost of installing additional fast acting frequency response (Volumes double)
 Hydro Quebec have introduced Inertial requirements in their Grid Code
 Analysis suggests that an inertial requirement would be applicable to all forms of
generation where there is decoupling between the Generator and System
Additional Issues for Inertia

 Since the Control Systems would rely on a df/dt control, which is a noise amplifying
process some consideration will need to be given to adequate filtering
 In order to reduce complexity and following discussions with manufacturers it is
suggested that such a facility would only be applicable to plant in Limited Frequency
Sensitive Mode of operation.
 The ability of Generators to recover following contribution to System Inertia needs to be
examined in more detail.
 To minimise wear on the generator, it is suggested a dead band is introduced to the df/dt
term.
 A static dead band value still requires evaluation but a value in the range of 0.003 Hz/s
is thought to be adequate based on the current experience – see attached slide
Deadband
High Level Proposals (1)

 In order to limit the rate of change of frequency following a generation loss or load loss,
each Generating Unit, Power Park Module or DC Converter shall be required to
contribute towards System Inertia.
 For Generating Units, DC Converters and Power Park Modules (including Power Park
Units thereof) which do not inherently have a capability to provide inertia to the
Transmission System, then each Generating Unit, DC Converter and Power Park Module
shall be fitted with a Control System to contribute towards system inertia.
 Any such Control System should aim to control df/dt in order to reduce the rate of change
of active power and hence rate of change of system frequency. Such a Control System
would need to reflect and maximise the synthetic value of the Inertia Constant H.
High Level Proposals (2)

 In addition, the Inertial Control System fitted to each Generating Unit, Power Park Module
and DC Converter shall:-
 operate whenever the Generating Unit, DC Converter and Power Park Module (including
the Power Park Unit thereof) is selected to Limited Frequency Sensitive Mode of
operation.
 have an adjustable dead band of between 0.001 Hz/s – 0.01Hz /s. The initial dead band
shall be set to 0.003 Hz/s
 Include elements to limit the bandwidth of the output signal. The bandwidth limiting must
be consistent with the speed of response requirements and ensure that the highest
frequency of response cannot excite torsional oscillations on other plant connected to the
network. A bandwidth of 0-5Hz would be judged acceptable for this application. All other
control systems employed within the Generating Unit, Power Park Module (including the
Power Park Unit thereof) and DC Converter should also meet this requirement.
 For the avoidance of doubt there is no requirement for the Inertial Control System to be
active when the Generating Unit, Power Park Module (including the Power Park Unit
thereof) or DC Converter is operating in Frequency Sensitive Mode.
Conclusions
 Machine inertia significantly affects the rate of change of System Frequency
 In a System containing dynamic frequency response, a low system inertia will result in a
lower minimum system frequency
 There needs to be co-ordination between requirements for inertia, delivery of primary
response and delivery of secondary response – is 10% P, 10% S and 10% H still
adequate especially in an 1800MW scenario
 It would be significantly more expensive to allow system inertia to be eroded (as new
Generation Technologies are introduced) and hold more fast acting response than
mandating the need for a control system to contribute towards system inertia.
 The cost of fitting an inertial control is believed to be insignificant in comparison with
holding additional response.
 Requirements for an inertial control need to reflect issues such as control system
dynamics, dead band and complexity
 Some additional study work is required in respect of exact control system performance.
 The Control System would only be required to be active when the Generator is operating
in Limited Frequency Sensitive Mode of operation.
 National Grid has already started discussion with several turbine manufacturers to
determine settings.
References / Further Information
 Contribution of Wind Energy Converters with Inertia Emulation to frequency control and
frequency stability in Power Systems – Stephan Wachtel and Alfred Beekmann –
Enercon – Presented at the 8th International Workshop on Large Scale Integration of
Wind Power into Power Systems as well as on Offshore Wind Farms, Bremen Germany,
14 – 15 October 2009.
 Variable Speed Wind Turbines Capability for Temporary Over-Production – German
Claudio Tarnowski, Philip Carne Kjaer, Poul E Sorensen and Jacob Ostergaard
 Study on Variable Speed Wind Turbine Capability for Frequency Response - German
Claudio Tarnowski, Philip Carne Kjaer, Poul E Sorensen and Jacob Ostergaard
 GE Energy – WindINERTIATM Control fact sheet – Available on GE Website at :- http://www.ge-
energy.com/businesses/ge_wind_energy/en/downloads/GEA17210.pdf

 Transmission Provider Technical Requirements for the Connection of Power Plants to the
Hydro-Quebec Transmission System – February 2006
 Amendment Report SQSS Review Request GSR007 Review of Infeed Loss limits –
Prepared by the SQSS Review Group for Submission to the Authority – 10 th September
2009 available at:- http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/EF5C0829-1C5E-4258-8F73-70DC62C43F49/36936/SQSS1320Reportv10_final.pdf