Abstract
This chapter explores the implications of large-scale implementation of DG in a total energy system that includes both the supply of electricity and the supply of heat. The performance criteria examined are system cost and robustness under stress. The first model is a study of the relative economics of distributed and centralized options for provision of energy services. Widespread use of distributed generation (DG) represents an alternative system architecture for the generation and delivery of electricity and heat. A green-field cost optimization of seasonally varying energy system demands, showed utilization of DG provided overall cost savings of around 25%. In addition, DG technologies produce emissions reductions, and in comparison with CCGT and heat boiler plant, reductions in natural gas use, particularly at peak demand times. This model was used to investigate the implications of introducing DG into an energy system with existing generation plant. Sizeable penetration of DG for base-load application results in the system configuration evolving to mirror the green-field solution, hence ensuring similar system cost and emissions savings. However, a reduced utilization of 46% for existing capacity suggests potentially stranded assets. In addition, problematic economic and technical impacts on the electricity system and industry are suggested from such a rapid penetration of DG technologies. Ongoing modeling investigates endogenous implications of DG penetration including mechanisms for compensating stranded assets, natural gas costs, evolving demand and DG economies of scale. The second model quantifies the potential improvements that DG could bring to the robustness of electricity systems, particularly under conditions of stress. It is hypothesized that a distributed system based primarily upon natural gas cogeneration facilities will be more economical and robust. To determine the reliability advantages of distributed generation, a Monte Carlo simulation was developed to conduct generating capacity adequacy assessments. The model was used to determine the Loss of Load Expectation (hr/yr.) and Loss of Energy Expectation (MWh/yr.) for both a standard test system (consisting of 32 generating units) and for a system consisting of 284 identical 12 MW units. In order to simulate the effects of conflict on the system, the mean time to repair for each unit was increased and the reliability indices re-calculated. The results show that the system consisting of a large number of smaller units is 2 to 5 times less sensitive to changes in the MTTR.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ackermann, T., G. Andersson and L. Soder. Distributed generation: a definition. Electric Power Systems Research 57 (2001): 195–204.
Arreguín-Toft, I. (2001), How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict. International Security, 26, No. 1 (Summer 2001), pp. 93–128.
Arthur D. Little White Paper (2000)
Arthur, B. (1994). Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy, The University of Michigan Press.
Azar, C. and H. Dowlatabadi (1999). A Review of Technical Change in Assessments of Climate Policy. Annual Review of Energy and Environment 24: 513–544.
Bayless, C. (1994). “Less is More: Why Gas Turbines will Transform Electric Utilities.” Public Utilities Fortnightly 132(22): 21–25.
Billinton R. and Li W. (1994) Reliability Assessment of Electric Power Systems Using Monte Carlo Methods. New York, Plenum Press, pp. 76–79.
Bluestein, J. Environmental Benefits of Distributed Generation. Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. Report, 12/18/00.
Borbely, A. and J. F. Kreider, ed. Distributed Generation: The Power Paradigm for the New Millennium. (Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2001)
Brent, R. (2001), Combustion Turbines in Anne-Marie Borbely and Jan F. Kreider, ed. Distributed Generation: The Power Paradigm for the New Millennium. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2001, p. 92.
CBS (1998). Decentralized Energy Statistics of the Netherlands. The Hague, Netherlands, Central Bureau of Statistics.
CIRED Working Group No. 4 on Dispersed Generation. Preliminary Report for Discussion at CIRED 1999, Nice, 2 June. (With Appendix).
Cler, G. and M. Shepard (1996). Distributed Generation: Good Things are Coming in Small Packages. Boulder, CO, E-Source.
Cowart, R. (2001), Distributed Resources and Electric System Reliability. The Regulatory Assistance Project. Gardiner ME, September 2001.
EEBPP (1994). Environmental Aspects of Large Scale Combined Heat and Power. London, Energy Efficiency Best Practice Program, UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
EIA (2000). Annual Energy Outlook 2000. Washington DC, Energy Information Agency, US Department of Energy.
EIA (1999), Annual Energy Review 1998. Washington DC, Energy Information Agency, US Department of Energy.
Endrenyi, J. (1978), Reliability Modeling in Electric Power Systems. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Chapter 4.
Energy and Defense Project, “Dispersed, Decentralized, and Renewable Energy Sources: Alternatives to National Vulnerability and War: Final Report.” For the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Contract: DCPA 01–79-C-0320, FEMA Work Unit #2314-F). Washington DC, 1980 (also available in book form as Clark W. and Page J. (1981) “Energy, Vulnerability, and War: Alternative for America.” New York, W.W. Norton & Company.)
EPA (1998), National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report. Washington DC, US Environmental Protection Agency.
European Commission (1997), A Community Strategy to Promote Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and to Dismantle Barriers to its Development. Brussels, European Commission.
Farrell, A., Lester, L. and Morgan, MG. (2002), Security and Survivability of the Electric Power System: Terrorism and the Real Challenges. Submitted to Issues in Science and Technology
FEMA (1998), Web-site on New York ice storm of 1998, http://www.fema.gov/reg-ii/1998/nyicel.htm, Updated March 24, 1998.
GRI (1999), The Role of Distributed Generation in Competitive Energy Markets, Chicago, IL. Gas Research Institute.
Grubler, A., N. Nakicenovic, and D Victor. (1999). Dynamics of Energy Technologies and Global Change. Energy Policy 27: 247–280.
Hydro Quebec (1998), Committee of Experts Appointed by Hydro-Quebec’s Board of Directors: Report on January 1998 Ice Storm. Montreal, Quebec, July 1998.
IDEA (1983). District Heating Handbook. Washington DC, International District Heating Association.
IEA (1995). Natural Gas Security Study. Paris, International Energy Agency.
Linden, H. (1999). “Fuel for Thought: Some Questions on the Future of Gas Fired Generation.” Public Utilities Fortnightly 137(22): 26–35.
Lipson, H. and Fisher, D. (1999), Survivability — A New Technical and Business Perspective on Security. Proceedings of the 1999 New Security Paradigms Workshop, Sept. 22–24, 1999, Caledon Hills, Ontario.
Lovins, A. and Lovins, L. (1981), Energy Policies for Resilience and National Security. Friends of the Earth Inc. San Francisco, for the Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington DC.
Meritet, S. (1999). Why New Distributed Generation Units Might Transform Power Industry’s Organization: The Case of Gas Micro-turbines. IAEE/USAEE 20th Annual North American Conference, Orlando, FL.
Miller, G. (1981), The Reliability and Cost Impact of Alternative Levels of Centralization in Electric Power Systems. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University (December 1981).
NREL, (2000), Making Connections: Case Studies of Interconnections and their Impact on Distributed Power Projects. Washington DC, National Energy Renewable Laboratory.
OTA, (1990), Physical Vulnerability of Electric Systems to Natural Disasters and Sabotage. Washington, DC. Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment, June 1990. OTA-E-453. pp. 15–16.
Patterson, W. (2000), Transforming Electricity. London, Earthscan.
PCCAI, (1997), Critical Foundations: Protecting America’s Infrastructures. The Report of the President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection. Washington DC, 1997;
Plummer, J. (1982) Energy Vulnerability. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.
Rinaldi, S., Peerenboom, J. and Kelley, T. (2001), Identifying, Understanding, and Analyzing Critical Infrastructure Interdependencies. IEEE Control Systems Magazine December, pp. 11–25
Strachan, N. (2000), Adoption and Supply of a Distributed Generation Technology, Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
Strachan, N. and H. Dowlatabadi (2002). “Distributed Generation and Distribution Utilities.” Energy Policy, Vol. 30, No. 8, pp. 649–661.
UK DTI (1998). Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics. London, UK Department of Trade and Industry.
U.S. DOE, (1981), The National Electric Reliability Study: Final Report. DOE/EP-0004, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, April 1981, pp. 72–74.
Willis, HL. and Scott, W. (2000), Distributed Power Generation: Planning and Evaluation. New York. Marcel Dekker, Inc. 2000, p. 15
Zerriffi, H., Dowlatabadi, H. and Strachan, N. (2001), Electricity and Conflict: An Evaluation of Distributed Co-Generation as an Economic and Reliable Solution.” 5th International Conference on Technology and Policy Innovation, June 26–29, 2001, The Hague, Netherlands.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Strachan, N., Zerriffi, H., Dowlatabadi, H. (2003). System Implications of Distributed Generation. In: Thissen, W.A.H., Herder, P.M. (eds) Critical Infrastructures State of the Art in Research and Application. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 65. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0495-5_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0495-5_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-5105-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-0495-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive