Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32

8/15/2019 Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32

1/20

Integrating Renewables and CHP

into the UK Electricity System:

Investigation of the impact of network faults

on the stability of large offshore wind farms

Xueguang Wu, Lee Holdsworth, Nick Jenkins

and Goran Strbac

April 2003

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 32


2/20

Integrating Renewables

and CHP into the UKElectricity System:

Investigation of the impact of network faultson the stability of large offshore wind farms

Xueguang WuLee Holdsworth

Nick JenkinsGoran Strbac

The Manchester Centre for Electrical Energy (MCEE)UMIST

UK

Email: [email protected]@umist.ac.uk

[email protected]@umist.ac.uk

Tyndall Centre Working Paper no. 32April 2003


3/20

SUMMARY

Simulations have been performed to investigate the impact of network faults on thestability of large offshore wind farms. Results are presented for balanced 3-phase

faults applied on the GB 400 kV transmission system.

The studies indicate that faults on the GB transmission system (close to the wind

farm) may cause instability of the large offshore wind farms. The voltage dropinvestigations show that for a 100% voltage drop at a 400 kV connection point (such

as Norwich Main), a very fast clearance time (less than 90 ms) is required to maintainstable operation of a 120MW offshore wind farm. However, when the voltage dropsare less than or equal to 60%, the critical clearance times are longer than 140ms. The

contours of voltage drop for the GB transmission system illustrate that for a 60%voltage drop the 3-phase fault would have to occur close to the connection point.

Therefore the stability of the offshore wind farms may only be effected by relativelylocal faults. Possible remedial measures include the use of fast acting reactive power

support, e.g. a Static Reactive Power Compensator (STATCOM).


4/20

2

CONTENTS

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3

2. Studies and assumptions ...................................................................................... 4

2.1 Assumptions of the voltage drop calculations................................ ................ 4

2.2 Assumptions of the dynamic stability calculations................................ ........ 4

3. Zones of voltage drop influence of faults.............................................................5

4. Dynamic stability of large offshore wind farms................................................ 114.1 Dynamic performance of large offshore wind farms................................... 11

4.2 Critical clearing times of large offshore wind farms ................................ ... 12

5. Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 14

6. References...........................................................................................................15


5/20

3

1. Introduction

The generation of electrical power using sustainable sources of energy is developing

rapidly with the worldwide installed capacity of wind generation now exceeding 25GW. For the UK, a target of 10% of electrical energy to be supplied by renewables by

2010 implies a capacity of renewable generating plant of up to 8 10 GW, of whichsome 60 % might be wind turbines. In the UK the Crown Estate has granted licenses

to 18 consortia to investigate large offshore wind farm sites with a potential of at least

1500 MW [1]. There are also suggestions that a target as high as 20 % of UK

electricity from renewables might be achievable by 2020 [2], with similar ambitious

targets existing in many European countries.

Until recently, wind farms connected within the UK network had been limited to

small sized installations, connected at distribution voltage levels. The connectionstandards [3] do not currently require wind farms to support the power system during

a network disturbance. During a network fault the wind turbines were disconnected

from the system and then subsequently reconnected when the fault has been cleared.However, the network design grid codes are now being revised for the increased

penetration of wind generators. The wind farms will now have to continue to operate

during system disturbances.

A fixed speed wind turbine consists of a squirrel cage induction generator coupled to

the wind turbine rotor via a gearbox. The induction generator consumes reactive

power and requires compensation capacitors at the terminals in order to achieve unitypower factor. The growth in fixed speed wind farms with large MW capacity

connected to the UK transmission network will have a significance impact on thetechnical and operational characteristics of the electricity system. The connection

requirements of large wind farms therefore require reviewing to ensure continuingnetwork security.

The objective of this work was to investigate network faults and stability issues that

need to be taken into account in order for high penetrations of large offshore wind

farms to be connected to the network. These must be investigated and resolved in

order to build the required confidence that a high penetration of wind generatorsconnected to the network is both feasible and safe.

The methods used in this study are based on modelling of the Great Britain (GB)

network and the dynamic stability of a typical large offshore fixed speed wind farm.

The aim of the study was firstly to assess zone influence of faults in the GB network

and secondly to explore potential dynamic impacts of the faults on the large offshore

wind farms.

This report presents the main results of this work. The main areas of focus for thiswork are as follows:

(1) Studies and assumptions

(2) Zones of voltage drop influence of faults

(2) Dynamic stability of large offshore wind farms


6/20

4

A detailed description of the work performed under each of the above headings is

provided below.

2. Studies and assumptions

For high penetrations of the large offshore, fixed speed, wind farms to be connected to

the network, the effect of voltage drops at their 400 kV connection points and thedynamic stability of the wind farms have been investigated. The results shown in this

study were based on the following assumptions.

2.1 Assumptions of the voltage drop calculations

(1) The study case was the GB network operating under the winter-peak load of 2002.

(2) The offshore wind farms were connected to the 400 kV transmission system at

Deeside, Penwortham, Walpole, and Norwich Main substations [4].

(3) The sub-transient reactances of all synchronous generators were 0.2 per-unit.(4) The type of fault was a balanced three-phase short circuit.(5) The fault levels at the 400 kV substations were calculated from the three-phase

short circuit currents using PowerWorld.

(6) PowerWorldwas also used to calculate the voltage drops at the connection points

for faults in the network.

2.2 Assumptions of the dynamic stability calculations

(1) The study cases were based on the network shown in Figures 1 and 2. The short-circuit ratios (SCR) at the 33 kV busbars of the offshore wind farm substations

were 6.(2) The 400 kV system was represented for the dynamic stability simulation by a

voltage source in series with an impedance. The voltage of the source was 1 p.u.

The impedance was calculated from PowerWorldand is shown in Table 1.

(3) The offshore wind farm consisted of the same type of wind turbines, each of 2

MW. These were represented by a single equivalent coherent fixed-speed

induction generator. The data of the 2 MW wind turbine induction generator is

shown in Table 2 [5].

(4) The distance from the offshore wind turbines to shore was 5 km.(5) A lumped 33kV/0.69kV wind turbine terminal transformer with 5% impedance

was used to connect the offshore wind farm to the 132kV/33kV onshoresubstation through the 33 kV submarine cables.

(6) Each of the 33 kV submarine cables was 185 mm2, multicore copper, and paper

insulated distribution cable with rated current 360 A, resistance 0.118 ohms/km,

reactance 0.101 ohms/km and capacitance 0.4 F/km [6].

(7) The number of parallel submarine cables was 4 for the 60 MW offshore wind farm

and 8 for the 120 MW.(8) An earthing zigzag transformer with rated current 1000 A was used to provide an

earthed point on the 33 kV network.

(9) A 132kV/33kV transformer with 15% impedance was connected to the

400kV/132kV system substation through the 132 kV overhead lines.

(10)Each of the 132 kV overhead lines was 20 km long and 258 mm2

aluminumconductor steel reinforced (ACSR) conductor with rated capacity 115 MVA,


7/20

5

resistance 0.068 ohms/km, and reactance 0.404 ohms/km [7].

(11)The number of parallel overhead lines was 1 for the 60 MW offshore wind farm

and 2 for the 120 MW.

(12)The 400kV/132kV system substation had a transformer with 15% impedance [8].

(13)The computer program, PSCAD/EMTDC, was used to simulate dynamic stability.

G WT

20km, 132kVone overhead line

5km, 33kV

four submarine cables

132kV/33kV

100MVA, 15%

400kV/132kV

300MVA, 15%

33kV/0.69kV

80MVA, 5%

30*2MW, 0.69kVlarge offshore wind farm

system

impedance

400kV

132kV 33kV

fault resistance

SCR = 6

60MWcapacitor

banks

earthing

transformer

G WT

20km, 132kV

two overhead lines

5km, 33kV

eight submarine cables

132kV/33kV

150MVA, 15%

400kV/132kV

1000MVA, 15%

33kV/0.69kV

150MVA, 5%

60*2MW, 0.69kV

large offshore wind farm

system

impedance

400kV

132kV 33kV

fault resistance

SCR = 6

120MWcapacitor

banks

earthing

transformer

Table 1 System data

400kV

substation

Short-circuit level

(MVA)

Impedance

(ohms)

X/R Frequency

(Hz)

Deeside 19,514 8.20 10.2 50

Penwortham 18,785 8.52 10.6 50

Walpole 19,142 8.36 10.4 50Norwich Main 12,006 13.33 11.9 50

Table 2 Wind turbine induction generator data (on its own base)

Capacity

(MW)

Vol.

(kV)

f

(Hz)

R1

(p.u)

X1

(p.u)

Xm

(p.u)

R2

(p.u)

X2

(p.u)

Lumped inertia

constant (sec.)

2 0.69 50 0.0049 0.0924 3.9528 0.0055 0.0995 3.5

3. Zones of voltage drop influence of faults

Voltage drops at the 400 kV busbars at substations (Deeside, Penwortham, Walpole

and Norwich Main) were calculated. The results are shown in Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6.The retained voltage is shown at the location of the fault. For example, when a three-

Figure 1 A 60MW offshore wind farm connected to the 400 kV busbar

Figure 2 A 120MW offshore wind farm connected to the 400 kV busbar


8/20

6

phase fault was applied at Harker, the retained voltage at Deeside 400 kV busbar was

0.88 as shown at Harker.

Figure 3 shows the retained voltages at Deeside for faults on each busbar in the GB

network. Contours of the voltage drop were drawn from the retained voltages. The

30% voltage drop contour only extends over North Wales, the West Midlands, and theManchester area.

Figures 4-6 show similar results for Penwortham, Walpole and Norwich Main

substations.


9/20

7

SIZEWELL

E de F(France)

0.98

0.99

HARKER

STELLA WEST

NORTONHAWTHORN PIT

HUTTON

PENWORTHAM

THORNTON

CREYKE

EGGBORO

WALPOLE

RATCLIFFE

MACCLESFIELD

DEESIDE

IRONBRIDGE

WALHAM

FECKENHAM

COWLEY

MELKSHAMBRAMLEY

LOVEDEAN

FAWLEY NORTHCHICKERELL

HINKLEY POINT

EXETER

INDIAN QUEENS

PEMBROKE

SWANSEACILFYNYDD

EASTCLAYDON

SUNDON

WYMONDL

PELHAM

BRAMFOR

RAYLEIGH MAIN

KEMSLEY

BOLNEY

NINFIELD

DUNGENESSSELLIN

CANTERBURY

LONDON AREA

COTTAM WEST BURTON

CITY ROAD

NORWICH MAIN

ALVERDISCOTT

CELLARHEA

MANNINGTON

WYLFA

BRAINTREE

0.88

0.98

0.85

0.81

0.66

0.00

0.30 0.76

0.89

0.91 0.89

0.81

0.94 0.98

0.94

0.940.94

0.95 0.94

0.99

0.99

1.00

1.00

0.96

0.99

1.01

0.97

0.94

0.94

ENDERB

0.98

STRATHHAVEN

CRUACHAN

TEALING

KINTORE

BEAULY

B9-NGC

B7-NGC

B3-NGC

B2-NGC

B1-NGC

SP & NGC

SSE & SP

NORTH SOUTH-SSE

NORTH WEST-SSE

PENTIR

TRAWSFYNYDD LEAGCY

LANDULPH

0.63

0.49

0.65

0.95

0.99

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.950.93

0.88DRAX

0.810.90

0.87

0.92

0.67

0.61

0.53

0.99

1.00

0.99

0.99

1.01

1.01

1.00 1.01

1.00

1.00

0.991.00

1.00

50

30

10

WINDYHILL

LONGANNET

BONNYBRIDGE

NEILSTON

HUNTERSTON

INVERKIP

KILMARNOCKSOUTH

TORNESS

COCKENZIE

ECCLES

ABERDEENFOYERS

KEITH

PETERHEAD

Figure 3 Retained voltages at Deeside 400kV substation for faults in the GB network

0.98

0.98

0.99

0.97 5%

5%

10

30

400kV

275kV

Power flow

boundary

Voltage

drop range


10/20

8

SIZEWELL

E de F(France)

0.98

1.00

HARKER

STELLA WEST

NORTONHAWTHORN PIT

HUTTON

PENWORTHAM

THORNTON

CREYKE BECK

KEADBYEGGBOROUGH

WALPOLE

RATCLIFFE

MACCLESFIELD

DEESIDE

IRONBRIDGE

DRAKELOW

WALHAM

FECKENHAM

COWLEY

MELKSHAMBRAMLEY

LOVEDEAN


HINKLEY POINT

EXETER

INDIAN QUEENS

PEMBROKE

SWANSEACILFYNYDD

EASTCLAYDON

SUNDON

WYMONDL

PELHAM

BRAMFOR

RAYLEIGH MAIN

KEMSLEY

BOLNEY

NINFIELD

DUNGENESSSELLIND

CANTERBURY

LONDON AREA

COTTAM WEST BURTON

CITY ROAD

NORWICH MAIN

ALVERDISCOTT

CELLARHEAD

MANNINGTON

WYLFA

BRAINTREE

0.67

0.93

0.57

0.71

0.66

0.64

0.690.84

0.91

0.91 0.88

0.90

0.93 0.97

0.97

0.950.95

0.95 0.95

0.98

0.99

1.01

1.01

0.98

1.00

1.01

0.99

0.96

0.98

ENDERBY

0.99

STRATHHAVEN

CRUACHAN

TEALING

KINTORE

BEAULY

B9-NGC

B7-NGC

B3-NGC

B2-NGC

B1-NGC

SP & NGC

SSE & SP

NORTH SOUTH-SSE

NORTH WEST-SSE

PENTIR

TRAWSFYNYDDLEAGCY

LANDULPH

0.84

0.78

0.00

0.86

0.95

0.97

0.97

0.99

0.900.86

0.81DRAX

0.700.88

0.83

0.94

0.70

0.81

0.80

0.99

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.01

1.01

1.01 1.01

1.01

1.01

1.001.00

1.00

40

30

5%

10

WINDYHILL

LONGANNET

BONNYBRIDGE

NEILSTON

HUNTERSTON

INVERKIP

KILMARNOCKSOUTH

TORNESS

COCKENZIE

ECCLES

ABERDEENFOYERS

KEITH

PETERHEAD

Figure 4 Retained voltages at Penwortham 400kV substation for faults in the GB network

0.92

0.94

0.95

0.90

30

5%

10

400kV

275kV

Power flow

boundary

Voltage

drop range


11/20

9

SIZEWELL

E de F(France)

0.67

0.85

HARKER

STELLA WEST

NORTONHAWTHORN PIT

HUTTON

PENWORTHAM

THORNTON

CREYKE

EGGBOROUGH

WALPOLE

RATCLIFFEON SOAR

MACCLESFIELDDEESIDE

IRONBRIDGE

DRAKELOW

WALHAM

FECKENHAM

COWLEY

MELKSHAMBRAMLEY

LOVEDEAN


HINKLEY POINT

EXETER

INDIAN QUEENS

PEMBROKE

SWANSEACILFYNYDD

EAST

CLAYDON

SUNDONWYMONDL

PELHAM

BRAMFOR

RAYLEIGH MAIN

KEMSLEY

BOLNEY

NINFIELD

DUNGENESSSELLIN

CANTERBURY

LONDON AREA

COTTAM WEST BURTON

CITY ROAD

NORWICH MAIN

ALVERDISCOTT

CELLARHEAD

MANNINGTON

WYLFA

BRAINTREE

0.97

0.99

0.96

0.75

0.880.91

0.920.92

0.85

0.61

0.92

0.00 0.54

0.94

0.680.76

0.630.41

0.67

0.79

0.92

0.93

0.85

0.98

1.00

0.96

0.79

0.90

ENDERB

0.72

STRATHHAVEN

CRUACHAN

TEALING

KINTORE

BEAULY

B9-NGC

B7-NGC

B3-NGC

B2-NGC

B1-NGC

SP & NGC

SSE & SP

NORTH SOUTH-SSE

NORTH WEST-SSE

PENTIR

TRAWSFYNYDDLEAGCY

LANDULPH

0.97

0.95

0.90

0.99

1.00

1.01

1.01

1.01

0.950.91

0.85DRAX

0.790.76

0.75

0.85

0.87

0.92

0.95

0.76

0.86

0.98

0.96

1.00

1.00

0.98 0.99

0.96

0.94

0.910.90

0.88

30

10

WINDYHILL

LONGANNET

BONNYBRIDGE

NEILSTON

HUNTERSTON

INVERKIP

KILMARNOCKSOUTH TORNESS

COCKENZIE

ECCLES

ABERDEEN

FOYERS

KEITH

PETERHEAD

Figure 5 Retained voltages at Walpole 400kV substation for faults in the GB network

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.99

5%

50

400kV

275kV

Power flow

boundary

Voltage

drop range

5%

10

30


12/20

10

SIZEWELL

E de F(France)

0.38

0.79

HARKER

STELLA WEST

NORTONHAWTHORN PIT

HUTTON

PENWORTHAM

THORNTON

CREYKE

EGGBOROUGH

WALPOLE

RATCLIFFE

MACCLESFIELDDEESIDE

IRONBRIDGE

DRAKELOW

WALHAM

FECKENHAM

COWLEY

MELKSHAMBRAMLEY

LOVEDEAN


HINKLEY POINT

EXETER

INDIAN QUEENS

PEMBROKE

SWANSEACILFYNYDD

EASTCLAYDON SUNDON

WYMONDL

PELHAM

BRAMFORD

RAYLEIGH MAIN

KEMSLEY

BOLNEY

NINFIELD

DUNGENESSSELLIN

CANTERBURY

LONDON AREA

COTTAM WEST BURTON

CITY ROAD

NORWICH MAIN

ALVERDISCOTT

CELLARHEA

MANNINGTON

WYLFA

BRAINTREE

0.96

0.99

0.96

0.80

0.890.92

0.920.92

0.85

0.76 0.67

0.91

0.23 0.00

0.93

0.670.74

0.61 0.39

0.36

0.71

0.89

0.90

0.82

0.97

0.98

0.94

0.77

0.89

ENDERB

0.59

STRATHHAVEN

CRUACHAN

TEALING

KINTORE

BEAULY

B9-NGC

B7-NGC

B3-NGC

B2-NGC

B1-NGC

SP & NGC

SSE & SP

NORTH SOUTH-SSE

NORTH WEST-SSE

PENTIR

TRAWSFYNYDDLEAGCY

LANDULPH

0.97

0.95

0.91

0.98

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.950.92

0.87DRAX

0.830.78

0.78

0.85

0.88

0.92

0.95

0.58

0.81

0.97

0.95

0.99

0.99

0.96 0.97

0.95

0.91

0.890.86

0.83

30

10

WINDYHILL

LONGANNET

BONNYBRIDGE

NEILSTON

HUNTERSTON

INVERKIP

KILMARNOCKSOUTH

TORNESS

COCKENZIE

ECCLES

ABERDEENFOYERS

KEITH

PETERHEAD

Figure 6 Retained voltages at Norwich Main 400kV substation for faults in the GB network

0.99

0.99

0.99

0.99

5%

50

10

400kV

275kV

Power flow

boundary

Voltage

drop range

5%

30


13/20


14/20

12

4.2 Critical clearing times of large offshore wind farms

Figures 9 and 10 show the variations of critical clearing time with voltage drops on

the 400 kV busbars for 60 MW and 120 MW offshore wind farms at Deeside and

Norwich Main. The voltage drop is defined as:

( )[ ] %100..1 = upvoltageretaineddropvoltage .

The different voltage drops on the 400 kV busbar were obtained by changing the

fault resistance.

Figure 8 Dynamic performance of a 60 MW offshore wind farm connected to

Norwich Main 400 kV busbar


15/20

13

Figure 9 Variations of the critical clearing time with voltage drop at Deeside

Figure 10 Variations of the critical clearing time with voltage drop at Norwich Main


16/20

14

From the Technical and Operational Characteristics of the NGC Transmission

System [9], the normal clearance time for faults on the 400 kV transmission system

is between 60-120 ms.

Figure 9 shows the critical clearing times for the 60 MW and 120 MW offshore wind

farms at Deeside. The critical clearing times are less than 120 ms when the voltagedrops are larger than 90% for the 60 MW and 82% for the 120 MW. Hence for the

100% voltage drop, a fast clearing time (less than 100 ms) is required to maintainstable operation of a wind farm connected to Deeside.

Figure 10 shows the critical clearing times of the offshore wind farm at Norwich

Main. The critical clearing times are much lower than at Deeside due to the smaller

short-circuit capacity at Norwich Main. The critical clearing times are less than 120

ms if the voltage drops are larger than 90% for the 60 MW wind farm and 75% for the

120 MW wind farm. So for a 100% voltage drop, a very fast clearing time (less than

90 ms) is required to prevent instability of the large offshore wind farm at Norwich

Main.

5. Conclusions

Simulations have been performed to investigate the impact of network faults on the

stability of large offshore wind farms. Results are presented for balanced 3-phase

faults applied on the GB 400 kV transmission system. This investigates a worst case

scenario as the fraction of this type of fault occurring on the 400 kV transmission

system is less than 5% of all faults [9]. The number of incidents of overhead-linefaults, on the British system 132kV and above, is typically about 1 fault per 100km

per year. The most common fault is the single line to earth fault which accounts for75-85 % of all faults [9]. The impact of 1-phase faults upon the stability of fixed

speed wind farms will be much less severe.

The studies indicate that faults on the GB transmission system (close to the wind

farm) may cause instability. The voltage drop investigations at Norwich Main (Figure

10) show that for a 100% voltage drop at the 400 kV connection point, a very fastclearance time (less than 90 ms) is required to maintain stable operation of a 120MW

offshore wind farm. However, when the voltage drops are less than or equal to 60%on the 400 kV busbar at Norwich Main, the critical clearance times are longer than

140ms. The contours given in Figure 6 for the GB transmission system illustrate that

for a 60% voltage drop the 3-phase fault would have to occur close to Norwich Main.

Therefore the stability of the offshore wind farms may only be effected by relatively

local faults. Possible remedial measures include the use of fast acting reactive power

support as discussed in [10].


17/20

15

6. References

1. The Crown Estate, Potential Offshore Wind Farm Sites Announced by the Crown

Estate, 5April 2001, http://www.crownestate.co.uk/news/pr20010405.shtml.

2. PIU, The Energy Review, 14 February 2002, http://www.piu.gov.uk

3. EA, Engineering Recommendation G.59/1, Recommendations for the Connectionof Embedded Generating Plant to the Regional Electricity Companies

Distribution Systems, 1991.4. BWEA, Offshore Wind Farm Developers and Locations of Sites,

http://www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk/sites.html.

5. Vestas, Generator data 2MW- 690V-50Hz.

6. Bungay E.W.G., McAllister D., Electric Cables Handbook (second edition), BSP

Professional Books, 1990.

7. Weedy B.M., Electric Power System (book), John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 1992.

8. Alstom, Protective Relays Application Guide, GEC Alstom T&D, Protection &

Control Limited.

9. NGC, Technical and Operational Characteristics of the Transmission System,April 2000.

10. Wu X. Arulampalam A., Zhan C. Jenkins N., Application of a Static Reactive

Power Compensator (STATCOM) and a Dynamic Braking Resistor (DBR) to

Stability Enhancement of a Large Wind Farm, Accepted for publication in Wind

Engineering, Vol.27, Issue 2, 2003.


18/20

The trans-disciplinary Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research undertakes integratedresearch into the long-term consequences of climate change for society and into thedevelopment of sustainable responses that governments, business-leaders and decision-makers can evaluate and implement. Achieving these objectives brings together UKclimate scientists, social scientists, engineers and economists in a unique collaborativeresearch effort.

Research at the Tyndall Centre is organised into four research themes that collectivelycontribute to all aspects of the climate change issue: Integrating Frameworks;Decarbonising Modern Societies; Adapting to Climate Change; and Sustaining theCoastal Zone. All thematic fields address a clear problem posed to society by climatechange, and will generate results to guide the strategic development of climate changemitigation and adaptation policies at local, national and global scales.

The Tyndall Centre is named after the 19th century UK scientist John Tyndall, who wasthe first to prove the Earths natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slightchanges in atmospheric composition could bring about climate variations. In addition, hewas committed to improving the quality of science education and knowledge.

The Tyndall Centre is a partnership of the following institutions:University of East AngliaUMISTSouthampton Oceanography CentreUniversity of SouthamptonUniversity of CambridgeCentre for Ecology and Hydrology

SPRU Science and Technology Policy Research (University of Sussex)Institute for Transport Studies (University of Leeds)Complex Systems Management Centre (Cranfield University)Energy Research Unit (CLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory)

The Centre is core funded by the following organisations:Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC)Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)UK Government Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)

For more information, visit the Tyndall Centre Web site (www.tyndall.ac.uk) or contact:

External Communications ManagerTyndall Centre for Climate Change ResearchUniversity of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UKPhone: +44 (0) 1603 59 3906; Fax: +44 (0) 1603 59 3901Email: [email protected]


19/20

Recent Working Papers

Tyndall Working Papers are available online athttp://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/working_papers.shtml

Mitchell, T. and Hulme, M. (2000). ACountry-by-Country Analysis of Pastand Future Warming Rates , TyndallCentre Working Paper 1.

Hulme, M. (2001). IntegratedAssessment Models, Tyndall CentreWorking Paper 2.

Berkhout, F, Hertin, J. and Jordan, A. J.(2001). Socio-economic futures inclimate change impact assessment:using scenarios as 'learningmachines' , Tyndall Centre WorkingPaper 3.

Barker, T. and Ekins, P. (2001). HowHigh are the Costs of Kyoto for theUS Economy? , Tyndall Centre WorkingPaper 4.

Barnett, J. (2001). The issue of'Adverse Effects and the Impacts ofResponse Measures' in the UNFCCC,Tyndall Centre Working Paper 5.

Goodess, C.M., Hulme, M. and Osborn,T. (2001). The identification andevaluation of suitable scenariodevelopment methods for theestimation of future probabilities ofextreme weather events, TyndallCentre Working Paper 6.

Barnett, J. (2001). Security andClimate Change , Tyndall CentreWorking Paper 7.

Adger, W. N. (2001). Social Capitaland Climate Change , Tyndall CentreWorking Paper 8.

Barnett, J. and Adger, W. N. (2001).Climate Dangers and AtollCountries, Tyndall Centre WorkingPaper 9.

Gough, C., Taylor, I. and Shackley, S.(2001). Burying Carbon under theSea: An Initial Exploration of PublicOpinions , Tyndall Centre WorkingPaper 10.

Barker, T. (2001). Representing theIntegrated Assessment of Climate

Change, Adaptation and Mitigation ,Tyndall Centre Working Paper 11.

Dessai, S., (2001). The climateregime from The Hague toMarrakech: Saving or s inking theKyoto Protocol?, Tyndall CentreWorking Paper 12.

Dewick, P., Green K., Miozzo, M.,(2002). Technological Change,Industry Structure and theEnvironment , Tyndall Centre Working

Paper 13.

Shackley, S. and Gough, C., (2002).The Use of Integrated Assessment:An Institutional AnalysisPerspective , Tyndall Centre WorkingPaper 14.

Khler, J.H., (2002). Long runtechnical change in an energy-environment-economy (E3) modelfor an IA system: A model ofKondratiev waves, Tyndall CentreWorking Paper 15.

Adger, W.N., Huq, S., Brown, K.,Conway, D. and Hulme, M. (2002).Adaptation to climate change:Setting the Agenda for DevelopmentPolicy and Research, Tyndall CentreWorking Paper 16.

Dutton, G., (2002). Hydrogen EnergyTechnology, Tyndall Centre WorkingPaper 17.


20/20

Watson, J. (2002). The developmentof large technical systems:implications for hydrogen, TyndallCentre Working Paper 18.

Pridmore, A. and Bristow, A., (2002).The role of hydrogen in poweringroad transport , Tyndall CentreWorking Paper 19.

Turnpenny, J. (2002). Reviewingorganisational use of scenarios:Case study - evaluating UK energypolicy options, Tyndall Centre Working

Paper 20.Watson, W. J. (2002).Renewablesand CHP Deployment in the UK to2020, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 21.

Watson, W.J., Hertin, J., Randall, T.,Gough, C. (2002). Renewable Energyand Combined Heat and Pow erResources in the UK , Tyndall CentreWorking Paper 22.

Paavola, J. and Adger, W.N. (2002).

Justice and adaptation to climatechange , Tyndall Centre Working Paper23.

Xueguang Wu, Jenkins, N. and Strbac,G. (2002). Impact of IntegratingRenewables and CHP into the UKTransmission Network, TyndallCentre Working Paper 24

Xueguang Wu, Mutale, J., Jenkins, N.and Strbac, G. (2003). Aninvestigation of Network Splitting

for Fault Level Reduction, TyndallCentre Working Paper 25

Brooks, N. and Adger W.N. (2003).Country level risk measures ofclimate-related natural disastersand implications for adaptation toclimate change , Tyndall CentreWorking Paper 26

Tompkins, E.L. and Adger, W.N. (2003).Building resilience to climatechange through adaptivemanagement of natural resources,Tyndall Centre Working Paper 27

Dessai, S., Adger, W.N., Hulme, M.,Khler, J.H., Turnpenny, J. and Warren,R. (2003). Defining and experiencingdangerous climate change, TyndallCentre Working Paper 28

Brown, K. and Corbera, E. (2003). AMulti-Criteria Assessment

Framework for Carbon-MitigationProjects: Putting development inthe centre of decision-making ,Tyndall Centre Working Paper 29

Hulme, M. (2003). Abrupt climatechange: can society cope?, TyndallCentre Working Paper 30

Turnpenny, J., Haxeltine A. andORiordan, T. A scoping study of UKuser needs for managing climatefutures. Part 1 of the pilo t-phase

interactive integrated assessmentprocess (Aurion Project). TyndallCentre Working Paper 31

Xueguang Wu, Jenkins, N. and Strbac, G.(2003). Integrating Renewables andCHP into the UK Electricity System:Investigation of the impact ofnetwork faults on the stability oflarge offshore w ind farms, TyndallCentre Working Paper 32

Date post:	31-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	tyndall-centre-for-climate-change-research
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32

Documents