The impact of balancing area size and ramping requirements on wind integration

Wind Engineering

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 379-398

  Milligan, Michael ^a   Kirby, Brendan ^b  

^a NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY   (United States)

^b OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COSTS; INTEGRATION;

MINNESOTA; RAMPING REQUIREMENTS; RESERVE SHARING; SYSTEM SIZE; THRESHOLD WINDS; UTILITY COSTS; WIND INTEGRATION; WIND PENETRATION;

COST REDUCTION;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DATA SET; ENERGY MARKET; INTEGRATED APPROACH; POWER GENERATION; THRESHOLD; UTILITY SECTOR; WIND POWER;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 67650069358     PISSN: 0309524X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1260/0309-524X.32.4.379     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. GE Energy, The Effects of Integrating Wind Power on Transmission System Planning, Reliability, and Operations: Report on Phase 2, prepared for The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Albany, NY, March 2005. http://www.uwig.org/ nyserdaphase2.pdf, 2005.
2. Kirby, B., Milligan, M., Method and Case Study for Estimating the Ramping Capability of a Control Area or Balancing Authority and Implications for Moderate or High Wind Penetration: Preprint. pp. 19, NREL Report No. CP-500-38153. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/ 38153.pdf, 2005.
3. Shiu, H. Milligan, M., Kirby, B., Jackson, K., California Renewable Portfolio Integration Standard Integration Cost Final Report. California Energy Commission. http://www.energy.ca.gov/ 2006publications/CEC-500-2006-064/CEC-500-2006-064.PDF, 2006.
4. Miller, N. et al, California Intermittency Analysis Project: California Energy Commission Workshop, Feb. 13, 2007. http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/notices/2007-02-13_workshop/ presentations/, 2007.
5. Kirby, B., Milligan, M., Wan, E., Cost-Causation-Based Tariffs for Wind Ancillary Service Impacts, American Wind Energy Association, WindPower 2006, June 2006. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/ 40073.pdf, 2006.
6. Miller, N., Jordon, G., Impact of Control Areas Size on Viability of Wind Generation: A Case Study for New York, Windpower 2006, Pittsburgh, PA, American Wind Energy Association, 2006.
7. EnerNex Corporation (for the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission), Final Report: 2006 Minnesota Wind Integration Study, Vol. 1. http://www.enernex.com/staff/docs/windrpt_vol%201.pdf, 2006.
8. Smith, J., Parsons, B., Acker, T., Milligan, M., Zavadil, R., Schuerger, M., DeMeo, E. (2007), Best Practices in Grid Integration of Variable Wind Power: Summary of Recent US Case Study Results and Mitigation Measures, presented at the European Wind Energy Conference, Milan, Italy, May 2007.
9. Y. Wan, Wind Power Plant Behaviors: Analysis of Long-Term Wind Power Data, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Tech. Rep. NREL/TP-500-36651, 2004. Available at www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/ 36551.pdf, 2004.