Numbers for offshore wind

[lukasoldi]

I am doing some work with regards to offshore wind with our model and have a few questions:

• According to my query, the sum for offshore wind in scenario NEP 2035 is 13,06 GW which is significantly lower than the numbers of the Szenariorahmen which are in the area of 18-19 GW for 2035. Can you explain how the number of 13,06 GW is composed? Query: SELECT SUM(electrical_capacity) FROM model_draft.ego_dp_supply_res_powerplant WHERE scenario = 'NEP 2035' AND "generation_subtype" = 'wind_offshore';

• The grid connection of future offshore windparks is also something not completely clear to me. Did you just use existing connection points for new parks or do you also consider new ones (as named in the comment column)? The otg_id looks like the first option...

• Is it possible to query for only wind offshore (and not onshore) in the final dataset?

• Why does the number of items vary for the scenarios? Using this query, I found the following results: SELECT * FROM model_draft.ego_dp_supply_res_powerplant WHERE scenario = 'NEP 2035' AND "generation_subtype" = 'wind_offshore'; SQ: 1313 items, Total of 5,687 GW NEP: 13 items, Total of 13,06 GW eGo: 1326 items, Total of 24,48 GW

I hope one of you can help me with these issues - thank you!!

[wolfbunke]

For getting the power plant you should use the mviews like:

• model_draft.ego_supply_res_powerplant_nep2035_mview
• see #109

But your right for the NEP2035 the SQ units are also missing.

SELECT
sum(electrical_capacity),
count(*)
FROM
model_draft.ego_supply_res_powerplant_nep2035_mview
where generation_subtype ='wind_offshore'

[lukasoldi]

Well, the data (at least in this case) seem to be the same. Any clues why the units are missing and on the other questions raised above?

[wolfbunke]

The only way at the moment to get the offshore information is an join between ego_supply_pf_generator_single and the views like:

Select
gs.*
From
model_draft.ego_supply_pf_generator_single gs,
model_draft.ego_supply_res_powerplant_nep2035_mview mv
Where 
gs.generator_id = mv.id
And mv.generation_subtype ='wind_offshore'
And gs.scn_name = 'NEP 2035';

If you like to see the results on the final model_draft.ego_grid_pf_hv_generator table you can use:

Select
pfg.*
From
model_draft.ego_supply_pf_generator_single gs,
model_draft.ego_supply_res_powerplant_nep2035_mview mv,
model_draft.ego_grid_pf_hv_generator pfg
Where 
gs.generator_id = mv.id
And mv.generation_subtype ='wind_offshore'
And gs.scn_name = 'NEP 2035'
And gs.aggr_id = pfg.generator_id;

Please note the difference between gs.generator_id = mv.id .

With the grid connection I am not familiar. @IlkaCu ?

I will check the Mview creation tomorrow and see why the View calculation of (SQ +NEP) doesn't work.

[wolfbunke]

I checked the query with other scenarios and it doesn't work for all. I talk with @IlkaCu to see how we can get back the offshore information.

[wolfbunke]

I am updated the NEP offshore data in commit 672d7fbc08293245fc155a86ebbdf887f6cbfd56 at the moment the views need to be refreshed.

[wolfbunke]

I add a new ticket in order to separate the sources of wind in #225

[lukasoldi]

Okay, thanks for clearing things up. It looks better now. However, I found two generators that do not have a otg_id which is possibly due to the fact that "NVP Segeberg" is not an existing substation yet. You find them by: SELECT * FROM model_draft.ego_dp_supply_res_powerplant WHERE "generation_subtype" = 'wind_offshore' AND otg_id is null; ...or for the MVIEWS in the case of NEP 2035 it is SELECT * FROM model_draft.ego_supply_res_powerplant_nep2035_mview WHERE "generation_subtype" = 'wind_offshore' AND otg_id is null;

I fear the power of these two generators is missing in the final dataset due to the lack of an otg_id. I think for now, it would make sense to assign them to otg_id = 26435 which is the converter in Büttel which is the closest of the existing ones. Am I correct or is there another way of assigning?

I will try to re-arrange the grid connection of the OWP with considering what is there in reality (and planned). We can then discuss if we want to use this for the standard dataset.

[IlkaCu]

It's the same two generators described in #198. For the current data set v0.3.0 we assigned those generators manually to make the powerflow executable.

[lukasoldi]

Okay, and which bus are they assigned to?

[IlkaCu]

Both generators were assigned to the bus with otg_id= 26504. That's one of the buses we also assigned other offshore parks to.

[wolfbunke]

can we close this ticket?

[lukasoldi]

I'm still not really happy with the way the offshore generators are assigned to buses, since some of them have massive capacities, especially in future scenarios. Once I have a fitting approach I will come back to you and we can see how we can assign the capacities to their current and possible future buses.