IMPACT ANALYSIS OF ELECTRIC VEHICLESCHARGING ON THE ICELANDIC POWER SYSTEM

Winnie Adhiambo Apiyo

Report 2December 2019

Snorralaug, Reykholtsdalur, W-Iceland

Orkustofnun, Grensasvegur 9, Reports 2019 IS-108 Reykjavik, Iceland Number 2

IMPACT ANALYSIS OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES CHARGING ON THE ICELANDIC POWER SYSTEM

MSc thesis School of Science and Engineering

Iceland School of Energy Reykjavík University

by

Winnie Adhiambo Apiyo Kenya Electricity Generating Company, PLC

P.O. Box 785 20117 Naivasha

KENYA wapiyo@kengen.co.ke; winnieapiyo86@gmail.com

United Nations University

Geothermal Training Programme Reykjavík, Iceland

Published in December 2019

ISBN 978-9979-68-548-7 (PRINT) ISBN 978-9979-68-549-4 (PDF)

ISSN 1670-7427

ii

This MSc thesis has also been published in June 2019 by the Iceland School of Energy

Reykjavík University

iii

INTRODUCTION

The Geothermal Training Programme of the United Nations University (UNU) has operated in Iceland since 1979 with six-month annual courses for professionals from developing countries. The aim is to assist developing countries with significant geothermal potential to build up groups of specialists that cover most aspects of geothermal exploration and development. During 1979-2019, 718 scientists and engineers from 63 developing countries have completed the six month courses, or similar. They have come from Africa (39%), Asia (35%), Latin America (14%), Europe (11%), and Oceania (1%). There is a steady flow of requests from all over the world for the six-month training and we can only meet a portion of the requests. Most of the trainees are awarded UNU Fellowships financed by the Government of Iceland. Candidates for the six-month specialized training must have at least a BSc degree and a minimum of one-year practical experience in geothermal work in their home countries prior to the training. Many of our trainees have already completed their MSc or PhD degrees when they come to Iceland, but many excellent students with only BSc degrees have made requests to come again to Iceland for a higher academic degree. From 1999, UNU Fellows have also been given the chance to continue their studies and study for MSc degrees in geothermal science or engineering in co-operation with the University of Iceland. An agreement to this effect was signed with the University of Iceland. A similar agreement was also signed with Reykjavik University in 2013. The six-month studies at the UNU Geothermal Training Programme form a part of the graduate programme. It is a pleasure to introduce the 64th UNU Fellow to complete the MSc studies under a UNU-GTP Fellowship. Winnie Adhiambo Apiyo, an Electric Power Engineer from Kenya Electricity Generating Company, PLC - KenGen, completed the six-month specialized training in Geothermal Utilization at UNU Geothermal Training Programme in October 2016. Her research report was entitled: Centralised monitoring and control dispatch centre for the geothermal wellhead power plants in Kenya. After one year of geothermal work for KenGen in Kenya, she came back to Iceland for MSc studies at the Iceland School of Energy, Reykjavík University, in August 2017. In June 2019, she defended her MSc thesis in Electric Power Engineering presented here, entitled: Impact analysis of electric vehicles Charging on the Icelandic power system. Her studies in Iceland were financed by the Government of Iceland through a UNU-GTP Fellowship from the UNU Geothermal Training Programme. We congratulate Winnie on the achievements and wish her all the best for the future. We thank the Iceland School of Energy, Reykjavik University for the co-operation, and her supervisor for the dedication. Finally, I would like to mention that Winnie’s MSc thesis with the figures in colour is available for downloading on our website www.unugtp.is, under publications. With warmest greetings from Iceland, Lúdvík S. Georgsson, Director United Nations University Geothermal Training Programme

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Ragnar Kristjánsson of the School of Science and Engineering at Reykjavík University for the continuous support of my masters' study and related research, for his patience, motivation, and immense knowledge, guidance, support and patience during all stages of this work. The door to his office was always open whenever I ran into trouble or had a question about my research or writing. He consistently allowed this paper to be my work but steered me in the right direction whenever he thought I needed it. I am grateful to Landsnet hf and Veitur OR for providing me with valuable information towards this project. I am indebted to Samuel Perkin for his support and also providing me with useful information towards this project. I would also like to thank Hákon Valur Haraldsson for his support. This work was funded by RANNIS grant 185497051 ''GIS-Sustainability Assessment of Electro-mobility in Iceland'‘. My sincere gratitude is expressed to the Government of Iceland, The United Nations University Geothermal Training Programme (UNU-GTP) and my employer, Kenya Electricity Generating Company (KenGen), for the opportunity to pursue this master’s degree. I owe my sincere appreciation to Mr Lúdvík S. Georgsson, director of UNU-GTP. Finally, I must express my very profound gratitude to my parents, John Apiyo and Millicent Odera, and my siblings, Effie, Juliet, Faith and Jaffa for their love, unwavering moral and emotional support and encouragement throughout my years of study and through the process of researching and writing this thesis. Above all, utmost appreciation to the almighty God for the divine intervention in this academic endeavour.

It always seems impossible until it's done - Nelson Mandela

DEDICATION

I dedicate this thesis to my Parents and late grandmother Rebecca Adhiambo.

v

ABSTRACT

Increased adoption of electro mobility in the form of Battery Electric Vehicles and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles is anticipated in Iceland over the next few years. Electrified transport will lead to increases in system peaks that are higher than the corresponding increases in annual electricity demand. The objective of this study is to assess the likely incremental impact of EVs on both the transmission and distribution networks through evaluating the network reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand and quantify associated costs. This is done by extensive analyses of large datasets of the transmission and distribution grids and transportation data. The country depends on imported petroleum fuels to meet its transport fuel demand. Transition to EVs is of particular interest for Iceland as electricity can be supplied from low cost clean renewable energy resources. To evaluate how the transition to EVs will impact the system maximum load, four load profiles are defined: BAU, PROPOSAL, PREMIUM and BAN scenarios. The load profile models used for scenario analysis is done by incorporating key fiscal parameters including different taxes on vehicle usage pattern and upfront purchase cost, petroleum fuel tax levies, vehicle tax exempting, extra fees and subsidies. Realistic charging profiles of EVs are based on real life driving data from different traffic zones. The fleet number in each area is estimated based on the population and commercial density of electricity consumption in the regions. This EV load growth is studied in three different loads forecasted assumptions or scenarios: Base case scenario, Upgraded system scenario and the slow progress energy forecast scenario. The scenarios are analysed using two separate Icelandic power system models. The reinforcement needs are quantified for up to 32 years. The year 2018 is assumed to be the first year PHEVs and BEVs are implemented, while 2050 would allow the sufficient technology time to penetrate the Icelandic vehicle fleet fully. The 2018-2050 long term plan takes a strategic view of how the network should be developed to meet future objectives. Five generation portfolios in different geographical locations are defined to cater for the increasing demand as a result of EVs uptake. The different production locations should put various stress on the power system. Steady state power system analysis is carried out using simulations on mathematical models of electrical power and power system components, which play an essential role in both operational control and planning by developing the required mathematical models and then using these models to perform power flow and contingency analysis. The models used in this report is the Icelandic base model that simulates a winter period when the load was at its peak and a model that modifies the base model by implementing all the changes as per Landsnet’s Network Development Plan 2018-2027. The models are developed in MATPOWER and MATLAB used in automating and simulations. The effect of the electric vehicles in different distinct areas in Iceland are investigated by monitoring thermal and voltage constraints violations in the power system. From the results obtained, it is possible to conclude that there is a significant rise in the network peak load. This increase in peak load will originate large voltage drops and the overloading of some network branches Keywords: Power system, Electric vehicles, Power flow, modelling, Newton Raphson, simulations, contingency analysis, reinforcements.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................1 1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Methodology ...............................................................................................................................1 1.3 Research tools ..............................................................................................................................1 2. TRANSITION TO CLEAN ENERGY ...............................................................................................2 2.1 Electric vehicles...........................................................................................................................2 2.2 Taxation in Iceland ......................................................................................................................2 2.2.1 Current vehicle and fuel tax ..............................................................................................2 2.2.2 Proposed 2020-2050 taxation system in Iceland ...............................................................3 2.3 Load scenarios .............................................................................................................................3 2.4 Charging and grid connection .....................................................................................................4 2.5 Load increase as a result of EV penetration ................................................................................4 3. POWER SYSTEM THEORY .............................................................................................................7 3.1 Power system topology ................................................................................................................7 3.2 Power system components ..........................................................................................................7 3.2.1 Transmission lines .............................................................................................................7 3.2.2 Overhead line ....................................................................................................................7 3.2.3 Underground cables...........................................................................................................7 3.2.4 Synchronous generators ....................................................................................................8 3.2.5 Transformers .....................................................................................................................8 3.2.6 Power system loads ...........................................................................................................8 4. LOADABILITY ..................................................................................................................................9 4.1 Thermal limit ...............................................................................................................................9 4.1.1 Overhead lines ...................................................................................................................9 4.1.2 Underground cables...........................................................................................................9 4.2 Active power and frequency control ......................................................................................... 10 4.3 Voltage stability......................................................................................................................... 11 4.3.1 Maximum power transfer limit (P-V curve) .................................................................... 11 4.3.2 Power voltage relationships ............................................................................................ 11 4.3.3 The reactive power capability (V-Q Curves) .................................................................. 14 4.3.4 Reactive power and voltage control ................................................................................ 14 5. THE ICELANDIC POWER SYSTEM ............................................................................................. 16 5.1 Characteristics of the Icelandic power system .......................................................................... 16 5.2 Characteristics of the Greater Reykjavík distribution network ................................................. 17 5.3 System identification ................................................................................................................. 17 5.4 Transmission intersects ............................................................................................................. 18 5.5 The energy forecast 2017-2050 ................................................................................................. 20 5.6 Development of the transmission system .................................................................................. 20 5.6.1 North and northeast ......................................................................................................... 21 5.6.2 Capital and southwest...................................................................................................... 22 5.6.3 East Iceland ..................................................................................................................... 24 5.6.4 Westfjords ....................................................................................................................... 25 6. GENERATION ................................................................................................................................. 26 6.1 The current Master Plan for nature Protection and Energy Utilisation ..................................... 26 6.2 Generation profiles .................................................................................................................... 30 6.2.1 Generation portfolio I ´Generation South´ ...................................................................... 30 6.2.2 Generation portfolio II ´Generation North´ ..................................................................... 31 6.2.3 Generation portfolio III ´Generation-West-North-Northeast´ ......................................... 32

vii

Page 6.2.4 Generation portfolio IV ´Generation-South-West-North´ ............................................... 32 6.2.5 Generation portfolio V ´Generation-South-Northeast-North-West´ ............................... 33 7. LOAD FLOW ................................................................................................................................... 35 7.1 Load flow analysis ..................................................................................................................... 35 7.1.1 Network and nonlinear power-flow equations ................................................................ 35 7.2 MATPOWER ............................................................................................................................ 37 8. SIMULATION MODELS ................................................................................................................ 38 8.1 System base model .................................................................................................................... 38 8.2 Upgraded system model as per the 2018-2027 system plan ...................................................... 39 8.3 Verification of the model ........................................................................................................... 39 8.4 New transmission lines and cables ............................................................................................ 40 8.5 New load .................................................................................................................................... 41 8.6 New Generation ......................................................................................................................... 41 9. SIMULATION .................................................................................................................................. 42 9.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 42 9.2 Power flow cases ....................................................................................................................... 43 10. RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................... 46 10.1 Base case scenario ..................................................................................................................... 46 10.1.1 Generation portfolio I ´Generation South´ ...................................................................... 46 10.1.2 Generation portfolio II ´Generation North´ ..................................................................... 54 10.1.3 Generation portfolio III ´Generation West-North-Northeast´ ......................................... 54 10.1.4 Generation portfolio IV ´Generation South-West-North´ ............................................... 55 10.1.5 Generation portfolio V ´Generation South-Northeast-North-West´ ................................ 63 10.1.6 Base case scenario "worst-case" asset violations ............................................................ 71 10.1.7 Summary of simulations in the Base Case scenario ........................................................ 78 10.2 Upgraded system scenario ......................................................................................................... 79 10.2.1 Generation portfolio I ´Generation South´ ...................................................................... 80 10.2.2 Generation portfolio II ´Generation North´ ..................................................................... 88 10.2.3 Generation portfolio III ´Generation West-North-Northeast´ ......................................... 88 10.2.4 Generation portfolio IV ´Generation South-Northeast-North-West´ .............................. 88 10.2.5 Generation portfolio V ´Generation South-Northeast-North-West´ ................................ 96 10.2.6 Upgraded System scenario "worst-case" asset violations ............................................. 104 10.2.7 Summary of simulations in the upgraded system scenario ........................................... 111 10.3 The slow progress energy forecast scenario ............................................................................ 111 10.3.1 Generation portfolio I ´Generation South´ .................................................................... 112 10.3.2 Generation portfolio II ´Generation North´ ................................................................... 117 10.3.3 Generation portfolio III ´Generation West-North-Northeast´ ....................................... 117 10.3.4 Generation portfolio IV ´Generation South-West-North´ ............................................. 120 10.3.5 Generation portfolio V ´Generation South-Northeast-North-West´ .............................. 127 10.3.6 Slow progress energy forecast scenario "worst-case" asset violations .......................... 134 10.3.7 Summary of simulations in the slow progress energy forecast scenario ....................... 141 10.4 Voltage violations .................................................................................................................... 142 11. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................. 143 11.1 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 143 11.2 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 143 11.3 Future work ............................................................................................................................. 144 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 145 APPENDIX I: Codes for models for calculation of load profiles .................................... App. Report – 3

viii

Page APPENDIX II: Lists of transmission lines, substations, different scenarios and additional description ........................................................................................ App. Report – 39 APPENDIX III: Figures showing various generation scenarios ................................... App. Report – 45 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Peak load by substation – BAU 2019 scenario ..............................................................................5 2. EV load profiles .............................................................................................................................6 3. Transmission line loadability curve ...............................................................................................9 4. Transfer function relating speed and torques ............................................................................... 10 5. PV-curve for KR1 ........................................................................................................................ 13 6. PV-curve for KR1 at 132 and 220 kV .......................................................................................... 13 7. PV-curve for KR3 ........................................................................................................................ 14 8. Icelandic transmission system ...................................................................................................... 16 9. Main transmission electric network supplying the DSO in the Greater Reykjavík area .............. 18 10. Defined transmission cuts and security limits .............................................................................. 19 11. Delivery capacity of the Icelandic transmission system .............................................................. 21 12. System upgrade in the north and northeast of Iceland ................................................................. 22 13. System upgrade in the capital – Reykjavík .................................................................................. 23 14. System upgrade in the eastern part of Iceland ............................................................................. 24 15. System upgrade in the Westfjords................................................................................................ 25 16. Distribution of power option in Energy Utilisation category ....................................................... 27 17. Distribution of power option in On-hold category ....................................................................... 29 18. Distribution of power option in Protection category .................................................................... 30 19. Generation portfolio I 'Generation S' ........................................................................................... 31 20. Generation portfolio II ‘Generation N' ......................................................................................... 31 21. Generation portfolio III ´Generation W-N-NE´ ........................................................................... 32 22. Generation portfolio IV ´Generation S-W-N´ .............................................................................. 33 23. Generation portfolio V ´Generation S-NE-N-W´......................................................................... 34 24. Icelandic transmission system base model in MATPOWER ....................................................... 38 25. Icelandic transmission system as per the system plan 2018-2027 ............................................... 39 26. Geographical location of load added to verify the base model .................................................... 40 27. Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 43 28. Power flow cases .......................................................................................................................... 44 29. Base case-BAU: Distribution network violations in Generation S .............................................. 47 30. Base case-BAU: Transmission network violations in Generation S ............................................ 47 31. Base case-PROPOSAL: Distribution network violations in Generation S .................................. 49 32. Base case-PROPOSAL: Transmission network violations in Generation S ................................ 49 33. Base case-PREMIUM: Distribution network violations in Generation S .................................... 51 34. Base case-PREMIUM: Transmission network violations in Generation S .................................. 51 35. Base case-BAN: Distribution network violations in Generation S .............................................. 53 36. Base case-BAN: Transmission network violations in Generation S ............................................ 53 37. Base case-BAU: Distribution network violations in Generation S-W-N ..................................... 56 38. Base case-BAU: Transmission network violations in Generation S-W-N ................................... 56 39. Base case-PROPOSAL: Distribution network violations in Generation S-W-N ......................... 58 40. Base case-PROPOSAL: Transmission network violations in Generation S-W-N ....................... 58 41. Base case-PREMIUM: Distribution network violations in Generation S-W-N ........................... 60 42. Base case-PREMIUM: Transmission network violations in Generation S-W-N ........................ 60 43. Base case-BAN: Distribution network violations in Generation S-W-N ..................................... 62 44. Base case-BAN: Transmission network violations in Generation S-W-N ................................... 62 45. Base case-BAU: Distribution network violations in Generation S-NE-N-W .............................. 63

ix

Page 46. Base case-BAU: Transmission network violations in Generation S-NE-N-W ............................ 64 47. Base case-PROPOSAL: Distribution network violations in Generation-S-NE-N-W .................. 65 48. Base case-PROPOSAL: Transmission network violations in Generation-S-NE-NN-W ............. 66 49. Base case-PREMIUM: Distribution network violations Generation S-NE-N-W ........................ 68 50. Base case-PREMIUM: Transmission network violations in Generation S-NE-N-W .................. 68 51. Base case-BAN: Distribution network violations in Generation S-NE-N-W .............................. 69 52. Base case-BAN: Transmission network violations in Generation S-NE-N-W ............................ 71 53. Base case: Worst-case distribution network violations in BAU .................................................. 71 54. Base case: Worst-case transmission network violations in BAU ................................................ 72 55. Base case: Worst-case distribution network violations in PROPOSAL ...................................... 73 56. Base case: Worst-case transmission network violations in PROPOSAL ..................................... 73 57. Base case: Worst-case distribution network violations in PREMIUM ........................................ 75 58. Base case: Worst-case transmission network violations in PREMIUM ...................................... 75 59. Base case: Worst-case distribution network violations in BAN .................................................. 77 60. Base case: Worst-case transmission network violations in BAN ................................................ 77 61. Base case: Summary of Generation S .......................................................................................... 79 62. Base case: Summary of Generation S-W-N ................................................................................. 79 63. Base case: Summary of Generation S-NE-N-W .......................................................................... 79 64. Upgraded system-BAU: Distribution network violations in Generation S .................................. 81 65. Upgraded system-BAU: Transmission network violations in Generation S ................................ 81 66. Upgraded system-PROPOSAL: Distribution network violations in Generation S ...................... 83 67. Upgraded system-PROPOSAL: Transmission network violations in Generation S .................... 83 68. Upgraded system-PREMIUM: Distribution network violations in Generation S ........................ 85 69. Upgraded system-PREMIUM: Transmission network violations in Generation S ..................... 85 70. Upgraded system-BAN: Distribution network violations in Generation S .................................. 87 71. Upgraded system-BAN: Transmission network violations in Generation S ................................ 87 72. Upgraded system-BAU: Distribution network violations in Generation S-W-N ......................... 88 73. Upgraded system-BAU: Transmission network violations in Generation S-W-N ...................... 89 74. Upgraded system-PROPOSAL: distribution network violations in Generation S-W-N.............. 91 75. Upgraded system-PROPOSAL: Transmission network violations in Generation S-W-N .......... 91 76. Upgraded system-PREMIUM: Distribution network violations in Generation S-W-N .............. 93 77. Upgraded system-PREMIUM: Transmission network violations in Generation S-W-N ............ 93 78. Upgraded system-BAN: Distribution network violations in Generation S-W-N ......................... 95 79. Upgraded system-BAN: Transmission network violations in Generation S-W-N ...................... 95 80. Upgraded system-BAU: Distribution network violations in Generation S-NE-N-W .................. 97 81. Upgraded system-BAU: Transmission network violations in Generation S-NE-N-W ................ 97 82. Upgraded system-PROPOSAL: Distribution network violations in Generation S-NE-N-W ...... 99 83. Upgraded system-PROPOSAL: Transmission network violations in Generation S-NE-N-W .... 99 84. Upgraded system-PREMIUM: Distribution network violations in Generation S-NE-N-W ...... 101 85. Upgraded system-PREMIUM: Transmission network violations in Generation S-NE-N-W .... 101 86. Upgraded system-BAN: Distribution network violations in Generation S-NE-N-W ................ 103 87. Upgraded system-BAN: Transmission network violations in Generation S-NE-N-W .............. 103 88. Upgraded system: Worst-case distribution network violations in BAU .................................... 105 89. Upgraded system: Worst-case transmission network violations in BAU .................................. 105 90. Upgraded system: Worst-case distribution network violations in PROPOSAL ........................ 107 91 Upgraded system: Worst-case transmission network violations in PROPOSAL ...................... 107 92. Upgraded system: Worst-case distribution network violations in PREMIUM .......................... 108 93. Upgraded system: Worst-case transmission network violations in PREMIUM ........................ 108 94. Upgraded system: Worst-case distribution network violations in BAN .................................... 110 95. Upgraded system: Worst-case transmission network violations in BAN .................................. 110 96. Upgraded system: Summary of Generation S ............................................................................ 112 97. Upgraded system: Summary of Generation S-W-N ................................................................... 112 98. Upgraded system: Summary of Generation S-NE-N-W ............................................................ 112 99. Slow progress energy forecast-BAU: Distribution network violations in Generation S ........... 114 100. Slow progress energy forecast-BAU: Transmission network violations in Generation S ......... 114

x

Page 101. Slow progress energy forecast-PROPOSAL: Distribution network violations in Generation S ....................................................................... 115 102. Slow progress energy forecast-PROPOSAL: Transmission network violations in Generation S ..................................................................... 117 103. Slow progress energy forecast-PREMIUM: Distribution network violations in Generation S ....................................................................... 118 104. Slow progress energy forecast-PREMIUM: Transmission network violations in Generation S ..................................................................... 118 105. Slow progress energy forecast-BAU: Distribution network violations in Generation S-W-N .................................................................................. 120 106. Slow progress energy forecast-BAU: Transmission network violations in Generation S-W-N .................................................................................. 122 107. Slow progress energy forecast-PROPOSAL: Distribution network violations in Generation S-W-N .................................................................................. 123 108. Slow progress energy forecast-PROPOSAL: Transmission network violations in Generation S-W-N .................................................................................. 123 109. Slow progress energy forecast-PREMIUM: Distribution network violations in Generation S-W-N .................................................................................. 125 110. Slow progress energy forecast-PREMIUM: Transmission network violations in Generation S-W-N .................................................................................. 125 111. Slow progress energy forecast-BAU: Distribution network violations in Generation S-NE-N-W .......................................................................................... 127 112. Slow progress energy forecast-BAU: Transmission network violations in Generation S-NE-N-W .......................................................................................... 129 113. Slow progress energy forecast-PROPOSAL: Distribution network violations in Generation S-NE-N-W ............................................................................ 130 114. Slow progress energy forecast-PROPOSAL: Transmission network violations in Generation S-NE-N-W ............................................................................ 130 115. Slow progress energy forecast-PREMIUM: Distribution network violations in Generation S-NE-N-W ............................................................................ 132 116. Slow progress energy forecast-PREMIUM: Transmission network violations in Generation-S-NE-N-W ........................................................................... 134 117. Slow progress energy forecast: Worst-case distribution network violations in BAU ................ 135 118. Slow progress energy forecast: Worst-case transmission network violations in BAU .............. 135 119. Slow progress energy forecast: Worst-case distribution network violations in PROPOSAL .... 137 120. Slow progress energy forecast: Worst-case transmission network violations in PROPOSAL .. 137 121. Slow progress energy forecast: Worst-case distribution network violations in PREMIUM...... 140 122. Slow progress energy forecast: Worst-case transmission network violations in PREMIUM .... 140 123. Slow progress energy forecast: Summary of Generation S ........................................................ 141 124. Slow progress energy forecast: Summary of Generation S-NE-N-W ........................................ 141 125. Slow progress energy forecast: Summary of Generation S-W-N .............................................. 141 126. Low voltage profile in the slow progress energy forecast scenario ........................................... 142 LIST OF TABLES 1. Exercise tax factor based on registered CO2 emissions .................................................................2 2. Vehicle tax structure in Iceland......................................................................................................3 3. Definitions of scenarios .................................................................................................................3 4. List of distributors and area of operation ..................................................................................... 17 5. Energy utilisation category .......................................................................................................... 26 6. On-hold category .......................................................................................................................... 28 7. Protection category ...................................................................................................................... 29

xi

Page 8. Generation portfolio I ´Generation S´ .......................................................................................... 30 9. Generation portfolio II ´Generation N´ ........................................................................................ 32 10. Generation portfolio III ´Generation W-N-NE´ ........................................................................... 32 11. Generation portfolio IV ´Generation S-W-N´ .............................................................................. 33 12. Generation portfolio V ´Generation S-NE-N-W´......................................................................... 33 13. Base case violation of flow .......................................................................................................... 39 14. New transmission lines and upgraded lines ................................................................................. 40 15. Power flow cases .......................................................................................................................... 44 16. Base case-BAU: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S ............................................................... 48 17. Base case-BAU: Costs summary in Generation S ....................................................................... 48 18. Base case-PROPOSAL: Assets upgrade in Generation S ............................................................ 50 19. Base case-PROPOSAL: Costs summary in Generation S ........................................................... 50 20. Base case-PREMIUM: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S ..................................................... 52 21. Base case-PREMIUM: Costs summary in Generation S ............................................................. 52 22. Base case-BAN: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S ............................................................... 54 23. Base case-BAN: Costs summary in Generation S ....................................................................... 54 24. Base case-BAU: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S-W-N ...................................................... 55 25. Base case-BAU: Costs summary in Generation S-W-N .............................................................. 55 26. Base case-PROPOSAL: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S-W-N .......................................... 57 27. Base case-PROPOSAL: Costs summary in Generation S-W-N .................................................. 57 28. Base case-PREMIUM: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S-W-N ........................................... 59 29. Base case-PREMIUM: Costs summary in Generation S-W-N .................................................... 59 30. Base case BAN: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S-W-N ...................................................... 61 31. Base case-BAN: Costs summary in Generation S-W-N .............................................................. 61 32. Base case-BAU: Transmission network violations in Generation S-NE-N-W ............................ 64 33. Base case-BAU: Costs summary in Generation S-NE-N-W ....................................................... 65 34. Base case-PROPOSAL: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S-NE-N-W ................................... 66 35. Base case-PROPOSAL: Costs summary in Generation S-NE-N-W............................................ 67 36. Base case-PREMIUM: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S-NE-N-W ..................................... 67 37. Base case-PREMIUM: Costs summary in Generation S-NE-N-W ............................................. 69 38. Base case-BAN: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S-NE-N-W ............................................... 70 39. Base case-BAN: Costs summary in Generation S-NE-N-W ....................................................... 70 40. Base case: Worst-case asset violation costs in BAU .................................................................... 72 41. Base case: Worst-case asset violation costs in PROPOSAL ........................................................ 74 42. Base case: Worst-case asset violation costs in PREMIUM ......................................................... 76 43. Base case: Worst-case asset violation costs in BAN .................................................................... 78 44. Upgraded system-BAU: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S ................................................... 80 45. Upgraded system-BAU: Costs summary in Generation S ........................................................... 80 46. Upgraded system-PROPOSAL: Transmission network violations in Generation S .................... 82 47. Upgraded system-PROPOSAL: Costs summary in Generation S ............................................... 82 48. Upgraded system-PREMIUM: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S......................................... 84 49. Upgraded system-PREMIUM: Costs summary in Generation S ................................................. 84 50. Upgraded system-BAN: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S ................................................... 86 51. Upgraded system-BAN: Costs summary in Generation S ........................................................... 86 52. Upgraded system-BAU: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S-W-N ......................................... 89 53. Upgraded system-BAU: Costs summary in Generation S-W-N .................................................. 90 54. Upgraded system-PROPOSAL: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S-W-N ............................. 90 55. Upgraded system-PROPOSAL: Costs summary in Generation S-W-N ...................................... 90 56. Upgraded system-PREMIUM: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S-W-N ............................... 92 57. Upgraded system-PREMIUM: Costs summary in Generation S-W-N ........................................ 92 58. Upgraded system-BAN: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S-W-N ......................................... 94 59. Upgraded system-BAN: Costs summary in Generation S-W-N .................................................. 94 60. Upgraded system-BAU: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S-NE-N-W ................................... 96 61. Upgraded system-BAU: Costs summary in Generation S-NE-N-W ........................................... 96 62. Upgraded system-PROPOSAL: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S-NE-N-W ....................... 98

xii

Page 63. Upgraded system-PROPOSAL: Costs summary in Generation S-NE-N-W ............................... 98 64. Upgraded system-PREMIUM: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S-NE-N-W ....................... 100 65. Upgraded system-PREMIUM: Costs summary in Generation S-NE-N-W ............................... 100 66. Upgraded system-BAN: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S-NE-N-W ................................. 102 67. Upgraded system-BAN: Costs summary in Generation S-NE-N-W ......................................... 102 68. Upgraded system: Worst-case asset violation costs in BAU ..................................................... 104 69. Upgraded system: Worst-case asset violations costs in PROPOSAL ........................................ 106 70. Upgraded system: Worst-case asset violation costs in PREMIUM ........................................... 109 71. Upgraded system: Worst-case asset violation costs in BAN ..................................................... 111 72. Energy forecast-BAU: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S ................................................... 113 73. Slow progress energy forecast-BAU: Costs summary in Generation S ..................................... 115 74. Energy forecast-PROPOSAL: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S ....................................... 116 75. Energy forecast-PROPOSAL: Costs summary in Generation S ................................................ 116 76. Energy forecast-PREMIUM: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S ......................................... 119 77. Energy forecast-PREMIUM: Costs summary in Generation S .................................................. 119 78. Energy forecast-BAU: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S-W-N .......................................... 121 79. Energy forecast-BAU: Costs summary in Generation S-W-N ................................................... 121 80. Energy forecast-PROPOSAL: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S-W-N .............................. 124 81. Energy forecast-PROPOSAL: Costs summary in Generation S-W-N ....................................... 124 82. Energy forecast-PREMIUM: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S-W-N ................................ 126 83. Energy forecast-PREMIUM: Costs summary in Generation S-W-N ........................................ 126 84. Energy forecast-BAU: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S-NE-N-W ................................... 128 85. Energy forecast-BAU: Costs summary in Generation S-NE-N-W ............................................ 128 86. Energy forecast-PROPOSAL: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S-NE-N-W ....................... 131 87. Energy forecast-PROPOSAL: Costs summary in Generation S-NE-N-W ................................ 131 88. Energy forecast-PREMIUM: Assets upgrade costs in Generation S-NE-N-W ......................... 133 89. Energy forecast-PREMIUM: Costs summary in Generation S-NE-N-W .................................. 134 90. Slow progress energy forecast: Worst-case asset violation costs in BAU ................................. 136 91. Slow progress energy forecast: Worst-case asset violation costs in PROPOSAL ..................... 138 92. Slow progress energy forecast: Worst-case asset violation costs in PREMIUM ....................... 139 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS EV Electric vehicles TSO Transmission system operator PF Power flow OPF Optimal power flow BEV Battery Electric Vehicle PHEV Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicle KKS Kraftwerk-Kennzeichen System V2G Vehicle-to-Grid XFMR Transformer

1

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Climate change is a global environmental problem. Under the Secretariat of UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an agreement was approved at a UN conference in Rio in 1992 to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. These targets were set in the Kyoto Protocol adopted in 1997 and the Paris Agreement in 2015. Participants to these three parties have a role as the United Nations entity tasked with supporting the global response to the threat of climate change. Iceland is a member of the Framework Convention. As per the Paris agreement the states agreed to reduce emissions by keeping the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change (UNFCCC, 2015). Electrification is the most viable way to achieve clean and efficient transportation for the sustainability of the entire world. Electrification of the transport sector, using BEVs and PHEVs, will most likely contribute to achieving the CO2 target in the coming years and the main task is to evaluate their benefits and impact in the existing Icelandic Power system. In performing power system analysis, models must be developed for all pertinent system components, including generating stations, transmission and distribution equipment and load devices (Price et al., 1993). The report presents the analysis of Icelandic transmission network and Reykjavík distribution network. The increase in EV penetration will increase electricity consumption and therefore power flow, grid losses and voltage profile patterns will change. The initial data of the network includes a detailed characterisation of the Icelandic power system during a peak load in winter. This base model is later updated considering the entire Landsnet system development plan 2018-2027. The results of the analysis are focused on the description of reinforcement alternatives to cope with an increase of EVs deployment. The study evaluates the need for investments and grid reinforcements due to electric vehicles distributed across the country. 1.2 Methodology The power system analysis is performed to ascertain the impact of transition energy on power flows and contingencies. For that purpose, the analyses and results of the Landsnet’s Network Development Plan 2018-2027. The energy forecast 2017-2050 report and EV load study are utilised. Four different load profiles are used in this study. Input data from the Icelandic transmission and Reykjavík distribution networks are used to model the Icelandic transmission system base case from a winter peak load using MATPOWER. A second model formulated as per the Landsnet’s Network Development Plan 2018-2027 with new lines, upgrades and system improvements. Once the network is built and verified, different sensitivity analysis of EV penetration is conducted in three different operational scenarios. New generation profiles under the Master Plan for Nature Protection and Energy Utilization to cater for the increasing load are also defined and accessed. The study is then automated and simulated for years 2018 to 2050 using MATLAB and MATPOWER. The present set of studies includes the following main aspects and network calculations:

Load flow and thermal withstanding Limited N-1 contingency tests General Grid Code requirements

The output files from the simulation are branch thermal limit and voltage limits violations. The network reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand obtained and associated costs quantified. 1.3 Research tools The system is modelled through a combination of MATPOWER and MATLAB. MATPOWER is a package of MATLAB M-files for solving power flow and optimal power flow problems. MATPOPWER is used to run load power flow analysis while MATLAB is used to automate, change the load values and generation options for each simulation and perform contingency analysis by simulating branch outages.

2

2. TRANSITION TO CLEAN ENERGY 2.1 Electric vehicles Traction energy is the energy required to propel a vehicle against forces such as acceleration, friction, wind drag and hill climb. Traction energy can be supplied from energy sources such as electricity, fossil fuel engine, hydrogen engine etc. A conventional combustion engine vehicle (ICEV) is fed with fossil fuel like natural gas or petroleum product like gasoline or diesel fuel. In ICEV the fuel is combusted, and the chemical energy transformed into useful mechanical energy that provides the power to move the vehicle. EVs are zero emission vehicles enabled by electric motors, controllers, and powered alternative energy sources and with a transmission system. The EV system traction effort is supplied by an electric motor and the system driven by a portable energy source. The electric vehicle provides clean, efficient and environmentally friendly transportation system and this is a task by the Icelandic Government as per the Paris Agreement to reduce emissions. From a fleet point of view, this thesis report focused on the deployment, and use of both Battery Electric Vehicles BEVs and Plug-in Hybrid electric vehicles PHEVs collectively referred to as EVs, across the full range of types of vehicle classes that exists in the market. A BEV is entirely powered by the grid electricity stored in a sizeable on-board battery (Richardson et al., 2013). Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) have batteries and a grid connection. With the PHEV, like a BEV, the Grid connection allows the battery to recharge from the electric grid, stores significant energy in an onboard battery, and then uses this energy, depleting the battery, during daily driving. Unlike a BEV, PHEV has an internal combustion engine used for propulsion; therefore, the car will never suffer from a “dead” battery (EPRI, 2007). PHEV can contribute significantly to transportation system efficiency by introducing vehicles that, within a limited range, can operate entirely in an electric mode and be powered by the electricity grid (IEE-USA, 2007). 2.2 Taxation in Iceland Tax is a financial charge or levy imposed by a governmental organisation to fund various public expenditures and projects. Vehicle and fuel taxation is a key source of revenue generation. 2.2.1 Current vehicle and fuel tax Taxes on vehicles include excise duty, value-added taxes and annual road tax. The annual road tax includes distance tax, disposal charge and weight tax. The excise tax is an indirect tax reflected in the purchase price of the acquisition vehicle. The excise duty of Light Duty Vehicles is currently based on co2 emissions of the vehicle, measured in grams per kilometre as shown in Table 1 (Althingi, 1993). 0% fee if emissions are less than 80 g/km to 65 % of charges if the discharge exceeds 259 g/ km. Electric vehicles as per the current Icelandic tax structure is exempted from the excise tax (Althingi 1992). Vehicles owned by foreign embassies, tractors with a total weight of 4t made for non-national roads, ambulances, fire trucks, snowploughs agricultural trailers etc., are exempted from the excise duty.

TABLE 1: Exercise tax factor based on registered C02 emissions (Althingi, 1993)

Group A B C D E F G H I JEmission level (g/km) 0-80 81-100 101-120 121-140 141-160 161-180 181-200 201-225 226-250 +250Excise duty (%) 0 10 15 20 25 35 45 55 60 65

A Value Added Tax (VAT) of 24% is imposed on all vehicles in Iceland. Vehicles weighing 3.5 t the weight tax is 11,620 per year for up to 121 g-CO2/km and 128 ISK per gram of excess CO2 and HDV with an average of 9 t and engine power of 135 kW the weight tax is estimated to be 134,360 ISK per year (Shafiei et al., 2018). This means EVs will only need to pay the minimum road tax (Althingi 1992). A distance tax is imposed on Heavy duty vehicles with weight of 10 t or more (Althingi, 2004). This tax depends on the weight of the vehicle and the mileage covered annually. A disposal charge of 700 ISK is paid on each taxable vehicle annually (Althingi, 2002). A summary of the current vehicle tax

3

structure is summarized in Table 2. The fuel tax in Iceland has three components; Excise duty on fuel, VAT and Carbon tax charge. Excise duty taxes are imposed in the form of volume charges on petroleum (kr./l.). They are two: general excise tax of 27.35 kr./l and a specific excise tax, petrol, of 44.10 kr./l of unleaded petrol and 46.75 kr./l. the other petrol (EPRI, 2007). Aviation gasoline and additives, non-fossil origin, are exempted from excise taxes on gasoline. Weight tax is levied on gas, diesel and kerosene. non-fossil fuel, however, is exempted from fuel tax. A carbon tax is proposed on gas and diesel fuel, gasoline, fuel oil and petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons. Fee amounts vary by type of carbon, from 8.25 kr./l. to 11.65 kr./kg (EPRI, 2007).

TABLE 2: Vehicle tax structure in Iceland

Tax Type Unit Vehicle

LDVs HDVs Exercise duty tax % of import price 0-65 % 0.5 % Value added tax % of price including exercise tax 24 % 24 % Weight tax ISK 11620 + 278 x (g/km-121) 134,360Distance tax ISK 0 0.74 *annual kmDisposal tax ISK 700 700

2.2.2 Proposed 2020-2050 taxation system in Iceland The government has developed generous incentives to increase the development of the EV in the country over the years. Further fiscal incentives for EVs in terms of a higher carbon tax and petroleum excise duties are introduced (Althingi, 2004). The excise tax will be imposed on some vehicles that had been exempted from this, and a group of people that had been exempted from paying this Excise tax will have to pay for a fee when they purchase vehicles (EPRI, 2007). The excise tax proposed in LDV based on the registered CO2 measured in grams per kilometres will use a different methodology based on the environmental impact of vehicles (WLTP) methodology (EPRI, 2007). 2.3 Load scenarios Load forecasting is an essential part of the planning activities of an electricity supply utility in determining the need and appropriate timing for network reinforcement along the planning horizon. Developing the load forecasts at appropriate levels for both the transmission and distribution networks in Iceland will ensure that there is an accurate indication of the loads that need to be supplied in future years. Four EV load growth scenarios as shown in (Table 3), are defined based on different taxes and subsidies on fuel and vehicle as per the current tax system and proposed tax system. The Reference scenario is the Business-As-Usual BAU situation; scenario reflects the fiscal policies currently active in Iceland. A Proposal scenario based on the new tax proposal. To promote the market introduction of EV s, the Premium scenario incorporates further incentives to BAU in terms of direct subsidies linked to the purchase price of LDVs BEVs after 2020 by exempting VAT. The BAN scenario is another fiscal policy option to stimulate the uptake of EVs further. In this scenario, the new tax proposal is imposed on fuel and vehicle use and a ban on new sales of ICE and HEV from 2030. As given by Reza Fezali (personal communication, November 5, 2018) the load profiles are summarised in Table 3.

TABLE 3: Definitions of scenarios

Scenarios Tax on fuels and vehicle use Tax on vehicle purchase

BAU Current fuel and vehicle usage taxEqual VAT rates after 2030 and excise duty. EVs exempted from excise tax.

Proposal New tax proposal New tax proposal

Premium New tax proposal New tax proposal + VAT exemptions for Light and Heavy BEVs after 2030

BAN New tax proposal Ban on new sales of ICE and HEV from 2030

4

The following steps are followed:

Geographical area selection. Selection of a day in the year for the base case. Estimation of number of vehicle fleet in each area. Estimation of penetration growth rate of PHEVs and BEVs in the area from 2018 to 2050. Estimation of average electricity consumption by an EV.

2.4 Charging and grid connection The impact of a large fleet of EVs on both the transmission and distribution system is unknown. A charge plan is when a battery of an Electric Vehicle can be recharged from the grid with specified conditions. The charging profile of an EV will depend on the charge management strategy, the charging power and the state and size of the battery. Charging power affects the charge duration and thus the charging profile.

Uncontrolled charging is a charge plan when the Electric Vehicle is connected to the charger as soon as the user arrives at home and the EV recharges at a fixed rate until the battery is full. Uncontrolled charging is user dependent; it is a representation of how an EV operates today when used in households. This charging will significantly increase in peak demand and will hence require significant reinforcement.

Controlled charging is when the vehicles are charged at home, with charging delayed until after midnight when the prices are a bit low and with the battery fully charged for use in the morning. Off-peaking is time-based and represents a straightforward control strategy to move EV charging to a more grid-friendly time of the day. The load is optimised to the power system load profile, the effect of controlled charging may lead to a significantly lower contribution of EVs to the overall network peak demand and consequently to lower requirements for network reinforcement (Imperial College London, 2014).

Fast charging is DC charging stations with a nominal power of equal or higher than 50 kW. This charging is recommended where the option of home charging is not available or when, in the middle of a trip, the battery approaches minimum SoC (State of Charge) (Celli et al., 2014).

Smart charging can help to streamline demand for energy (and thus capacity) by adjusting the charging profiles with the supply for energy and grid capacity (Arjan et al., 2018). The electric vehicles are charged when electricity is at its lowest price, and demand is low by using intelligent control over the charging of cars by the grid operator. The coordination of the charging can be done by a smart metering system, which is a coordination between the EVs, the DSO and the TSO. This enhances optimal charging and grid utilisation to minimise power losses. For the implementation of smart metering, also other incentives, such as real-time pricing and integration of renewable energy, are important (Clement-Nyns et al., 2010). Smart charging adjusts the charging of EVs to periods of lower electricity demand, or supply peaks from renewables production, smart charging has the potential to minimise new investments and upgrades in electricity grid infrastructure, while facilitating electromobility markets and customers’ participation. 2.5 Load increase as a result of EV penetration A travel survey was conducted between 4th October and 13th November 2017, a random sample of 14,561 residents of the capital area aged 6-80 years from the National Registry or the Gallup Group (Gallup, 2017). The Greater Reykjavík area is divided into 362 traffic zones (VSÓ Consulting, 2017). The distance between traffic zones is estimated to calculate distance travelled per trip. All trips made before arriving home are summed up to get the total distance travelled per trip-chain until arrival back home to charge. The fuel efficiency of 0.2 kWh/km for LDV and 0.656 kWh/km for HDV are used to estimate the total energy use to determine how long the vehicle would need to charge. Then according to the arrival time at home, the charging time out is extended over 5-minute intervals to estimate the

5

overlap of all charging by all the surveyed trips. Based on the survey data, the number of cars that used in each traffic zone is determined, by multiplying car use (% of respondents making by car) by the population of the associated traffic zone. The percentage of charged car fleet is calculated as the 5-minute charging intervals of the number of vehicles charging divided by the number of respondents using vehicles in each time zone. The percentage of charged car fleet is multiplied by the estimated size of the car fleet for each traffic zone to determine how many vehicles would be charging within each 5-minute interval. The percentage of charged car fleet is then multiplied by the home charging rate, and the load defined. A 24-hour daily load profile is important to understand the interaction of the electric vehicles and the Grid. In this study home charging for LDV and fast charging for HDV is assumed (Celli et al., 2014). Figure 1 shows the load distribution in the Greater Reykjavík area substations for BAU load scenario. The peak demand is observed in the evening as charging is assumed to start upon arrival at home from work. Evening charging will recover the energy of the return journey, while the energy associated with the journey to work is recovered through charging during working hours at the workplace.

Vehicle fleets are divided into Light-Duty Vehicles and Heavy-Duty vehicles. LDVs usually weigh less than 3.5 t, and the HDVs are assumed to weigh more than 3.5 t. For LDVs, BEV and PHEV are included in the study. From the UniSyd_IS model, the load for BAU load scenario takes into account 18% penetration for PHEV and 13% of EV penetration. For HDV the load was estimated according to estimated daily use and charging needs, and since the LDV model was in 5-minute intervals, hourly HDV loads are distributed based on the charging profile developed (Celli et al., 2014). These loads are then evenly distributed based on the service area of each substation in the greater capital Area and the other parts of the country. Codes of models for calculation of load profiles are shown in Appendix I (Apyjo, 2019) and the results summarised in Figure 2. The cars are modelled and included in the Icelandic power system MATPOWER models as standard regular loads. It should be added here, that the appendices of this report are published separately in a special appendices report (Apyjo, 2019), which is published on the website of the Geothermal Training Programme and available in print on request.

FIGURE 1: Peak load by substation – BAU 2019 scenario

6

FIGURE 2: EV load profiles

7

3. POWER SYSTEM THEORY 3.1 Power system topology Electric power is produced at generating stations and transmitted to load centres through transmission lines, transformers and switching devices. The power system network is divided into the Transmission, sub-transmission and distribution systems. The transmission system delivers energy from all the major generating stations to the load centres in the system that is, it supplies power to the sub-transmission and distribution system. The use of synchronous machines for generation of electricity is usually at generator voltages in the range of 11-35 kV then stepped up to transmission voltages by transformers. The sub-transmission system transmits power in smaller quantities from the transmission subsystem to the distribution system. The sub-transmission system consists of step-down transformers and sub-transmission lines that connects the transmission system and the distribution system. The distribution system is where the power is finally distributed to the customers, and the voltage is typically 4.0-34.5 kV (Kundur, 1994). The system must be able to meet the changing load demand for active and reactive power. 3.2 Power system components 3.2.1 Transmission lines Electric power is transmitted to load centres via overhead lines and cables. Cables are typically used for underground transmission in urban areas and underwater crossings and overhead lines in open countries and rural areas. A transmission line is characterised by four parameters: Series resistance R, Shunt conductance G, series inductance L and the Shunt Capacitance C. 3.2.2 Overhead line The series resistance accounts for ohmic line losses I2R is determined from manufacturers tables. Conductor resistance depends on spiralling, temperature, frequency “Skin effect” and current magnitude and the area determined from manufacturers tables. Shunt conductance accounts for real power losses between conductors or between conductors and ground. For overhead lines, these are losses due to leakage current along strings and corona and are usually neglected as it is a very small component of the shunt admittance. Series inductance depends on the partial flux linkages within the conductor cross-section and external flux linkages (Kundur, 1994). Series impedance, including resistance and inductive reactance, gives rise to series-voltage drop along the line (Glover et al., 2017). Shunt capacitance is the potential difference between conductors of a transmission line that causes the conductors to be charged. The shunt capacitances give rise to line-charging currents flowing due to alternating charging and discharging of the capacitance when alternating voltages are applied. 3.2.3 Underground cables The values of parameters and characteristics of the underground cables vary from the overhead lines as the conductors in a cable are much closer to each other than the overhead lines. The conductors in cables are surrounded by metallics bodies such as shields, aluminium pipes and steel pipes and the insulating materials between conductors in a cable are usually impregnated paper, low-viscosity oil or an inert gas (Kundur, 1994). Cables act as capacitors when the voltage is applied. The cables produce reactive power when energised. The reactive power increases as the operating voltage increases and becomes very high as the amount of reactive power is proportional to the square of voltage. The reactance of the cable will consume reactive power when current flows through the system and partially compensate for the reactive power, and this means that the reactive power is dependent on both voltage and load conditions. The reactive power will lead to problems. The most common problem is the influence of this generated reactive power on the system which is the unacceptable rise in the system voltage. The phenomena are closely related to a short circuit capacity, defined as the strength of the system. The higher the short-

8

circuit capacity, the less affected by reactive power. The Icelandic system has a relatively low short-circuit capacity hence increased reactive power on the system voltage is quite prominent (Landsnet, 2015). 3.2.4 Synchronous generators The synchronous machine is a principal source of electric power in the power system. Prime movers convert primary sources of energy to mechanical energy that in turn converted to electrical energy by a synchronous generator. A synchronous machine consists of two elements: the field which is on the rotor and the armature on the stator. The field winding is excited by direct current and produces a magnetic field which induces alternating voltages in the armature windings when a prime mover drives the rotor. The frequency of the induced alternating voltages and that of the resulting currents that flow in the stator winding when a load is connected depends on the speed of the rotor (Kundur, 1994). In a power system interconnected synchronous machines must have the same frequency for stator voltages and currents of all machines and the rotor mechanical speed of each machine synchronised to this frequency. 3.2.5 Transformers Transformers in a power system is used for voltage transformation and control of voltage and reactive power flow. Transformers used in transmission and distribution have taps in one or more windings for changing the tap ratio. Changing the ratio of transformation is used to compensate for variations in the system voltages. For a two-winding transformer, the ratio between the primary and the secondary winding terminal voltages when the transformer load current is zero. When the load is applied, the current encounters an impedance within the transformer which makes the ratio of the terminal voltage to deviate from the actual turns’ ratio. The internal impedance consists of a reactance derived from leakage flux effect in the windings and a resistance representing losses traceable to the flow of load current such as conductor losses and eddy current losses. There are two types of tap changing transformers. The first one is the off-load tap changing which requires the transformer to be de-energised to change the tap. Offload tap changing transformers ratios are varied only to meet long-term load variations due to load growths and system expansions. The second one is the under-load tap changing; this is used when changes in ratio need to be frequent to cater to the daily variations in the system conditions. The taps on these transformers control reactive power between subsystems; this controls the voltage profiles and minimises active and reactive power losses conditions. 3.2.6 Power system loads In power system studies a load has different definitions. A bus load is a device connected to a power system that consumes power. System load is the total active and reactive power consumed by all components connected to a power system. Generator load is defined as the power output of a generator or a generating unit. For this study, a load is described as a portion of the system that is not explicitly represented in a system model but rather treated as if it were a single power-consuming device connected to a bus in the system model (Price et al., 1993). The load in this study includes not only connected load devices but includes substation step-down transformers, primary distribution feeders, distribution transformers, secondary distribution feeders, shunt capacitors, voltage regulators, customers wiring, customers transformers etc. A power system is considered stable when the electrical output of generating units matches the electrical load in the system and the losses. The load characteristics have an essential influence on system stability. In power system stability and power flow studies these load characteristics are presented as seen from bulk power delivery points.

9

4. LOADABILITY Power transmission capability of a power line is determined by the voltage regulation, thermal limits and system stability. 4.1 Thermal limit 4.1.1 Overhead lines Loadability is the degree of line loading. Power transmission capability of power lines or line loadability is determined by thermal limit, the voltage-drop limit and steady-state stability limit. The conductor's maximum temperature defines the thermal limit of a line. The heat produced by current flowing in the transmission lines increases the sag between towers and decrease clearance to the ground due to the conductor expansion at higher temperatures. An increase of in heat also leads to loss of conductor tensile strength due to annealing. If the temperature is too high, the designed conductor-to-ground clearances may not be met, and the elastic limit exceeded leading to the inability of the conductor to shrink back to its original length after cooling. Hence, the thermal limit is defined as the level of continuous load that limits the operating temperature to the maximum permissible operating temperature. Conductor temperature depends on the current magnitude, its time duration, ambient temperature, wind velocity and the conductor surface conditions (Glover et al., 2017):

0-80 km: Region of thermal limitation 80-320 km: Region of voltage drop limitation 320-960 km: Region of steady-stable stability limitation

As shown in Figure 3 the loadability of short lines up to 80 km is usually determined by its thermal limit. For longer lines between 80 km and 320 km, the loadability is determined by the voltage drop, and for lines lengths over 320 km, steady-state stability becomes a limiting factor. If a long line exceeds its steady-stability limit, then synchronous machines at the sending end would lose synchronism with the machines at the receiving end. 4.1.2 Underground cables The transmission capacity of underground cables is determined by the heat produced by the current in the conductor and the ability of the native soil or thermal backfill to dissipate the heat. The soil thermal resistivity is dependent on moisture content, material, mixture, and size of particles, and degree of compaction and accounts for up to 75 % of the total resistance from cable to ambient (Fink and Beaty, 1999). It is impossible to control the thermal resistivity of native soil, and this is why it is usually reasonable to backfill the cable trench with special low resistivity materials. Thermal dissipation is defined as the property of a material to transfer heat. Thermal dissipation of the soil surrounding the cables and the ambient temperature affect the capacity of the cable. Thermal conditions in Icelandic soils are quite unfavourable with a national average of thermal resistivity of in-situ soil of 1.5 K*m/W, while for borrow areas are 1.8 K*m/W (Landsnet, 2015).

FIGURE 3: Transmission line loadability curve (Kundur, 1994)

10

4.2 Active power and frequency control Active power control is related to frequency control. Frequency stability is the ability to maintain a steady frequency within a nominal range, following a disturbance resulting in a significant imbalance between generation and load. The frequency of a system is dependent on active power balance (Kundur, 1994). change in active power demand is reflected in the system by a change in frequency. To allocate the change in demand to the generators, a speed governor on each generating unit provides the primary speed control.

A load change is reflected as a change in electric torque output Te of the generator causing a mismatch between the mechanical torque Tm and the electrical torque Te which leads to speed variations as shown in Figure 4. The speed deviation is determined by the swing equation which is the

relationship between rotor speed as a function of electrical torque and mechanical torque. The swing equation in per unit form is

2𝐻

dωd𝑡

𝑇 𝑇 𝑇 pu (1)

where Tm is the mechanical torque (pu); Te is the electrical torque (pu); s is the Laplace operator; Ta is the accelerating torque (pu); H the inertia constant (MW-Sec/MVA); Δωr is the rotor speed deviation (pu). The relationship between power P and torque T is:

𝑃 𝜔 𝑇 (2)

If the deviation in speed is small, then the prefix ∆ is used and the initial value is denoted by 0.

𝑃 𝑃 ∆𝑃

𝑇 𝑇 ∆𝑇

𝜔 𝜔 ∆𝜔

(3)

In steady state, the electrical and mechanical torques are equal with constant speed, and the relationship between power and torque is:

∆𝑃 ∆𝑃 ∆𝑇 ∆𝑇 (4)

The mechanical power is a function of valve or gate position and is independent of frequency. In the absence of a speed governor, the system response to a sudden change in load is determined by the inertia and the damping constant. Inertia constant is the stored energy at rated speed in Megawatt-seconds divided by the MVA rating. Due to frequency sensitivity, the steady state speed deviation is such that the change in load is precisely compensated by the variation in load due to frequency sensitivity. Isochronous governors adjust the turbine valve to bring back frequency to its nominal value. For a system with many generators with the same speed setting, the governors will fight each other to control system frequency to its setting. For stable load division between two or more units operating in parallel, the governors are provided with a speed droop characteristic so that the speed drops as the load increases.

FIGURE 4: Transfer function relating speed and torques (Kundur, 1994)

11

With governor droop characteristics, two or more generators in a power system will share a load change at a unique frequency. Primary frequency control is the first response to a frequency deviation. The automatic local governors of the generating units compensate for the mismatch by delivering reserve powers to oppose any change in system frequency. Regardless of the location of the change, all generators on governor control will participate in frequency regulation. The primary frequency control will always result in a steady state frequency deviation, which depends on the droop characteristic and the frequency sensitive loads. The secondary frequency control is needed to adapt the load reference set points to the generators for the restoration of the frequency to its normal value. The basic means of controlling prime-mover power to match variations in the system load in the desired manner is through control of the load reference set points of selected generating units (Kundur, 1994). As system load changes, the change of generator outputs is automatic. The primary objective of AGC or LFC is to regulate frequency to the specified nominal value and to maintain the interchange power between control areas at the scheduled values by adjusting the output of selected generators (Kundur, 1994). After a sudden loss of generation or load, the output of the generator changes inversely proportional to the reactance between the generators and the point where there is loss of production or loss of load. After a few seconds, the generators will accelerate or decelerate as a result of the imbalance between the electrical and mechanical power outputs. Depending on the size of the power system, the loss will be shared in equal proportion to their inertia in small networks or the generators in big systems will have a time difference between rotor oscillations of units in different parts of the power system. The speed governors will then respond and change their turbine outputs, that is the generators will share the power change in proportion to their droop settings, capacity and reserve. System loads change, depending on their frequency and voltage sensitivity (Kundur, 1994). After this, the AGC system will attempt to correct deviations in tie line flows and frequency depending on the amount of generation reserves and followed by the manual action of the operators. 4.3 Voltage stability This chapter explains the concept of voltage control, stability and the causes of voltage instability. Voltage is an important aspect of system stability and security. Voltage stability is the ability of a power system to maintain acceptable voltages at all buses in the system under normal condition and after being subjected to a disturbance (Kundur, 1994). Voltage instability is defined as the attempt of load dynamics to restore power consumption beyond the capability of the combined transmission and generation system (Thierry and Costas, 1998). A system will always be in a state of instability when there is a disturbance in the system, increase in load demand, change in the system conditions which will lead to a progressive or uncontrolled decline in voltage. The main factor causing instability is the inability of the power system to meet the demand for reactive power (Kundur, 1994). This can be as a result of a high transmission line loading, reactive sources (generators) being too far from load centres, low Generator terminal voltages or insufficient load reactive compensation. P-V and Q-V curves are used as basic analysis tools. P-V curves or nose curves play a significant role in understanding and explaining voltage instability. 4.3.1 Maximum power transfer limit (P-V curve) P-V curves or nose curves play a major role in understanding and explain voltage instability. 4.3.2 Power voltage relationships Voltage stability depends on the relationship between active power P, reactive power Q and voltage V.

12

𝑉 𝑋𝑄𝐸2

𝐸2

𝑋 𝑃 𝐸 𝑋𝑄 (5)

To obtain the maximum power transfer level, the value of the inner root is equated to zero and P=Pmax. At any load factor, there is a maximum limit of power that can be transferred. The relationship between P and Q is:

𝑄 𝑃𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑 (6)

Lower and higher voltages

𝑉 𝑋𝑃𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑𝐸2

𝐸2

𝑋 𝑃 𝐸 𝑋𝑃𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑 (7)

A quadratic equation for the maximum power Pmax:

𝑋 𝑃 𝑋𝐸 𝑃 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑

𝐸4

0 (8)

Further simplifying a solution is obtained.

𝑃

𝐸2𝑋

𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑 1 𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝜑 (9)

Simplifying further gives the maximum power transfer level of the system for a given load power factor.

𝑃

𝐸2𝑋

1 sin 𝜑cos 𝜑

(10)

The load power factor affects the power-voltage characteristics of the system since the voltage drop in the transmission line is a function of active as well as reactive power. Kröflulína 1 (KR1) is an 82.1 km, 132 kV line from Krafla substation to Rangárvellir substation with total line reactance of 33.47 and the resistance neglected. The relationship between the P and V and with a constant E for different values of load power factor is shown in Figure 5. The following angles phi: [ 30°, 20° ,10° ,0°, -10°, -15°]. Dashed lines in the figures indicate the locus of critical operating points. Operating points above the critical points represent satisfactory conditions. Values of power below the maximum are transmitted at two values of voltages. The normal operation is at the upper value within the narrow limits around the rated voltage. A sudden reduction in power factor that is an increase of reactive power can cause the system to change from a stable operating condition to an unstable which is presented by the lower part of the V-P curve. At lower voltages, the currents are high and might tend to exceed the thermal limits. As the power factor increases, the ratio of active power to apparent power increases and approaches unity, while the angle decreases and the reactive power decreases and as the power factor decreases, the ratio of active power to apparent power also decreases, as the angle θ increases and reactive power increases. PV curve for voltage magnitudes is changed from 132 to 220 kV with a constant reactant of 33.47 ohm. As the voltage increases with less current, more power can be transferred as seen in Figure 6. With an increasing reactance, the transfer capabilities decrease. PV curve for Kröflulína 3 (KR3) is shown in Figure 7. KR3 is a 220 kV line from Krafla substation to Fljótsdalur substation as per the system plan 2018-2027 with total line reactance of 51.49 ohm. The line is plotted for the same load angles: phi [30°, 20° ,10° ,0°, -10°, -15°]. Figure 7 shows the P-V curve for KR3 with the losses neglected.

13

FIGURE 5: PV-curve for KR1

FIGURE 6: PV-curve for KR1 at 132 and 220 kV

14

4.3.3 The reactive power capability (V-Q curves) A VQ curve is a curve that relates the reactive power support at a given bus and the voltage at that bus. Voltage stability depends on variations in reactive power (Q) as well as active power (P). Q-V in voltage stability analysis shows how bus voltages are sensitive and vary with respect to reactive power injection or absorption. V-Q curves can help determine the amount of shunt compensation needed to either restore an operating point or the desired voltage. 4.3.4 Reactive power and voltage control The control of reactive power and voltage ensures voltage at the terminals of all equipment in the system are within acceptable limits as the continued operation of equipment outside the allowable range will affect their performance and damage. Maintaining voltages within the required limits is difficult as the power system supplies power to a large number of loads and the system is provided by many generating units. The control of reactive power and voltage also ensures system stability to maximise utilisation of the transmission system. The flow of reactive power is minimised to reduce active and reactive losses to a practical minimum. This is done to efficiently operate the transmission system. Synchronous generators generate or absorb reactive power depending on the excitation. When the machine is overexcited, they supply reactive power and when under excited they absorb reactive power. Overhead lines absorb or supply reactive power depending on the load current. At load below the natural load, these lines produce reactive, and above the natural loads, they absorb reactive power. Underground cables will always generate reactive power under all operating conditions as they are highly capacitive and have high natural loads but always loaded below their natural loads. Transformers and loads in the system will always absorb reactive power. The control of voltage level is accomplished by controlling the production, absorption and flow of reactive power in the system (Kundur, 1994). Automatic voltage regulators are the primary means of

FIGURE 7: PV-curve for KR3

15

voltage control by controlling the generator field excitation to maintain the rated terminal voltages. Some of the devices used are:

Sources or sinks of reactive power, such as shunt capacitors, shunt reactors, synchronous condensers, and Static Var Compensators (SVCs).

Line reactance compensators, such as series capacitors. Tap-changing transformers.

Shunt reactors compensate for the effect of line capacitance by limiting the voltage rise during light load conditions and reduce transient overvoltage due to switching and lightning surges. Shunt reactors can be permanent or switched. Shunt capacitors supply reactive power, compensate XI2 losses in transmission systems and increase transmission voltages during heavy load conditions. Synchronous generators and SVC’s provide active compensation because the reactive power is automatically adjusted to maintain voltages at the buses in the system. Since the SVCs can be used to prevent voltage sag at a bus with multiple lines. SVCs are therefore used to control temporary overvoltage, prevent voltage collapse, enhance transient stability and damping of system oscillations. Tap-changing transformers control reactive power between subsystems and this, in turn, controls the voltage profiles and minimise active and reactive power losses.

16

5. THE ICELANDIC POWER SYSTEM This chapter is an introduction to the Icelandic power system, characteristics of the system, challenges and proposals for strengthening the grid as per the Landsnet’s Network Development Plan 2018-2027 (Landsnet, 2018a; 2018b). 5.1 Characteristics of the Icelandic power system Landsnet hf. is the transmission system operator (TSO). The company role is to administer the transmission of electricity and system operation in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III of the Electricity Act No. 65/2003 (Government of Iceland, 2003). The Icelandic transmission system gets all its electric power from renewable energy sources. The Icelandic system is an isolated system with no connection to other countries, therefore all its load in the system has to be met by the generation within the system. Power is transmitted via 132 kV and 220 kV lines, small regional lines transmission system is operated at 132, 66 and 33 kV as shown in Figure 8.

The network has two strong 220 kV system, one in the southwest and the other one in the east. The Icelandic ring is a network of 132 kV branches that are connected from Brennimelur in Hvalfjördur and ends up in Sigalda (Gudmundsson, 2017). This ring was constructed more than two decades ago. The transmission system has two 132 kV radial connection; to Reykjanes in the south-west and the other to Westfjords in the north-west. The transmission system consists mostly of overhead lines and portion of the system consists of underground cables. The Icelandic grid consist of a total of 3343 km of overhead transmission lines of which 245 km is underground cable (Landsnet, 2017a). The transmission network now includes 74 substations and 85 supply locations, 20 of which are power stations, 8 energy intensive users and 59 supply locations for distributors. The transmission connects 74 substations, with 85 supply points of which 20 are power plants, 8 energy intensive users and 59 supply locations for distributors. The transmission system operates at voltage 220 kV which has a total of 919.97 km, 132 kV with a total

FIGURE 8: Icelandic transmission system (Landsnet, 2017b)

17

of 1419.6 km lines, 66 kV 1161.30 km lines and 33 kV 89 km lines (Landsnet, 2017a). Some of the lines in the southwest of Iceland have the capacity to operate at 420 kV but today they are operated at 220 kV as energy consumption does not require a higher voltage. The 132 kV lines form a ring network around the whole country. Icelandic transmission towers are made of either steel or timber. The design of these lines ensures that diverse weather conditions like high winds and icings events are kept into considerations. The country is vast with renewable energy and the system has hydro power plants and geothermal plants connected to the grid receives electricity directly from power station and transmits it to distributors. The energy consumption is dominated by large scale firms, about 80% of electricity is consumed by power-intensive industries e.g. aluminium smelters, silicone firms and fish firms who are fed directly from the transmission system. All power station with capacities more than 10 MW are connected directly to the transmission grid. The country uses backup diesel generators for grid support during emergencies. In the Westfjords, a set of six power-generating diesel engines at Bolungarvík substation are installed to support the area when it is islanded from the grid. The TSO uses smart grid solutions to efficiently track the grids conditions in real time and react immediately to disturbance. The TSO has an improved disturbance management, which entails the use of real-time, high speed Phasor Measurements Units (PMU) to detect events in the system before they cause tripping and to enable the mitigation of their impacts. The company has a real time view of the network for islanding and reconnecting parts of the system during system disturbance and power outages. 5.2 Characteristics of the Greater Reykjavík distribution network From Landsnet’s system, six distribution companies transport electricity to the end users through their networks within specific areas. The state or municipalities owns the companies. The distributors are HS Veitur, Nordurorka, Orkubú Vestfjarda, Veitur Utilities, Rafveita Reydarfjardar, and RARIK.

TABLE 4: List of distributors and area of operation (Orkustofnun, 2019)

Distributors Area of operation

HS Veitur The Reykjanes peninsula, in the towns of Hafnarfjördur, Álftanes, southern part of Gardabaer, Árborg and the Westman Islands.

Nordurorka Akureyri. Orkubú Vestfjarda Westfjords.

Veitur Utilities Reykjavík, Seltjarnarnes, Kópavogur, the northern part of Gardabaer, Mosfellsbaer, Kjalarnes and Akranes

Rafveita Reydarfjardar The urban area in Reydarfjördur in Eastern Iceland

RARIK All over Iceland, except for the Westfjords, southwest corner, Westman Islands, Akureyri and Reydarfjördur.

Landsnet owns 132 kV connection from Hamranes to Öldugata in Hafnarfjördur, 132 kV connection from Hamranes to Hnodraholt in Kópavogur and 132 kV connections from Geitháls to Substation 12 to Raudavatn lake and Korpa. Other systems at 132 kV and lower voltage in the capital area are owned by Veitur Utilities are in Hafnarfjördur. High voltage cables then transfer electricity to 10 substations in the area: Substation 1 (A1), Substation 2 (A2), Substation 3 (A3), Substation 4 (A4), Substation 5 (A5), Substation 6 (A6), Substation 7 (A7), Substation 8 (A8), Substation 9 (A9), Substation 10 (A10) as shown in Figure 9. From the ten substations, the system splits to distribution stations and then electricity supplied to local loops then to consumers. 5.3 System identification Landsnet uses Kraftwerk-Kennzeichen System (KKS) to identify their assets in the transmission system. KKS ID’s are used in this thesis discussion to describe different components in the system. Tables showing lists of transmission lines and substations have been attached in Appendix II (Apyjo, 2019) as well as more description as per Landsnet (2016).

18

5.4 Transmission intersects Landsnet has defined intersects (CUTs) in the system to monitor power flow into a particular geographical area in the system and are used to simplify the system operation. These cuts assist in monitoring load flow through the intersects and to prevents instability and the worst-case scenario which is a blackout. The CUTs have transmission limits defined based on stability margin limits and the thermal transfer of transmission lines crossing the intersects as shown in Figure 10. The CUTs are enhanced and complemented by system relay protection throughout the system. The following CUTS are defined along with their transfer limits:

Cut I Max flow (HR1-SI3) = 475 MW Cut II Max flow (SI4-KR2) = 100 MW Cut IIb Max flow (HO1-FL2) = 100 MW Cut IIIb Max flow (BL1-FL2) = 100 MW Cut IV = Max flow (BL2-SI4) = 100 MW Cut V = Max flow (EY1-SR1) = 90 MW Cut Vb Max flow (SR2-ES1) = 29 MW Cut VI Max flow (BR1-SU1-SU3) = 650 MW Cut VII Max flow (FU1-HV1) = 27 MW} Cut VIIb Max flow (SP4 and SP5 BUR) = 40 MW CUT I monitors the power flow in Hrauneyjafosslína line 1 (HR1) and Sigöldulína line 3 (SI3).

HR1 runs from Hrauneyjafoss to Sultartangi and SI3 runs from Sigalda to Búrfell. The power flowing through line HR1 and SI3 come from Sigalda, Vatnsfell, Hrauneyjafoss and Búrfell power plants. Thermal transfer capability for both transmission lines are nearly 600 MW and it

FIGURE 9: Main transmission electric network supplying the DSO in the Greater Reykjavík area at twelve major substations labelled A1 to A12 (Sugar, 2014)

19

is possible to raise CUT I which has an upper limit of 475 MW with an update on the hardware (Landsnet, 2018a).

CUT II monitors the power flow in Sigöldulína line 4 (SI4) and Kröflulína line 2 (KR2). S14 is a 132 kV line that runs from Sigalda substation to Prestbakki substation, and Kröflulína 2 is a 132 kV line that runs from Krafla substation to Fljótsdalur Substation. Flow through these lines are limited by the CUT II current stability limits of 100 MW, the current measurement transformers at Krafla and the 220/132 kV transformer at Sigalda.

CUT IIIb monitors the power transfer from the East of Iceland to the West and is the sum of the active power of Fljótsdalslína 2 (FL2) and Blöndulína 1 (BL1). The CUT is set at 100 MW The CUT is above 100 MW when the water reservoir levels in Kárahnjúkavirkjun are high, and the generators at Kárahnjúkavirkjun are at their highest output to export to the west (Valdimarsson, 2016). If one of the lines trips, it can lead to the creation of unbalanced islands. The east island is an over generated island with the excess generation, the frequency will rise, and the speed governing system will respond by reducing the mechanical power generated by the turbines making the plants to experience a partial load rejection. The west island, an island with an initial less generation than the load, will experience a frequency decline. This indicates how severe the frequency deviation is on both islands. FL2 is a 153 MVA line, but it is limited to 91 MVA by the current transformer at Hryggstekkur. BLI is a 153 MVA line and is not limited by current measurement transformers.

CUT IV monitors the power transfer from the West of Iceland to the East of Iceland and is the sum of the active power of transmission lines: Sigöldulína 4 (SI4) and Blöndulína 2 (BL2). The CUT is set at 100 MW. The CUT is also dependent on the water reservoir levels and generators output at Kárahnjúkavirkjun and the load in the East of Iceland which is the fish industry (Valdimarsson, 2016). SI4 is a 171 MVA line, but it is limited to 91 MVA by the current measurement transformer at Hryggstekkur. BL2 is a 153 MVA line and is not limited by current transformers (Valdimarsson, 2016). Cut IV temporary limit can be increased to 130 MW if two generators in Blanda are in operation, six generators in Kárahnjúkavirkjun, two generators at Laxá are in operation, and the wide-area control system WACS for the sheddable load is in operation (Landsnet, 2018a).

FIGURE 10: Defined transmission cuts and security limits (Landsnet, 2017c)

20

CUT V monitors power flow in the Eastfjords. This cut is the sum of the active power of two 132 kV transmission lines Studlalína 1 (SR1), and Eyvindarárlína 1 (EY1). Cut V is above 90 MW when the fish smelters are using electricity to process their fish. SR1 and EY1 lines are the main power supply to the area. The thermal limits of the cables in this area is the main problem in the operation when the load is heavy. SR1 is a 132 kV 76 MVA cable from Hryggstekkur substation to Studlar substation and EY1 is a 132 kV 107 MVA overhead line from Hryggstekkur to Eyvindará. EY1 is limited to 91 MVA by the current measurement transformer (Valdimarsson, 2016).

CUT VI monitors the power flow of 220 kV lines; Sultartangalína 1 (SU1), Sultatangalína 3 (SU3) and Brennimelslína 1 (BR1). CUT VI limits the transmission interface to a heavy industry site on the west coast at Brennimelur (BRE) where there are large users. SU3 is different in design and capacity, as it is built as a 420 kV line. SU1 and BR1 are lower in capacity. When SU3 is out on maintenance or during a fault on this specific line, both SU1 and BR1 are required to transfer power through CUT VI and at a stability limit of 650 MW which is the combined capacity of SU1 and BR1 (Landsnet, 2018a).

CUT VII is an intersect in South Iceland. The lines are heavily loaded due to thermal limits and voltage instability (Valdimarsson, 2016). The 66 kV south Iceland regional network is heavily loaded due to the increase of load especially in Vestmannaeyjar (VEM) where fish industries are dominant. CUT VII is the sum of the active power of lines; Hvolsvallarlína 1 ‘HV1’ and Flúdalína 1 ‘FU1’. HV1 and FU1 are the main supply lines for the area.

5.5 The energy forecast 2017-2050 The energy forecast 2017-2050 report focuses on electricity consumption by the year 2050. This report is prepared by the Ministry of Energy Forecast Committee and the recalculation of the forecast from 2015 based on new data and changing criteria (Orkustofnun, 2017a). The forecast is based on assumptions of population, the number of households, GDP and production of individual industries. Demand forecast has been done in three scenarios, Slow progress, Green Future and Large Use, each based on specific assumptions of the evolution of the related demand drivers. The three scenarios discussed are intended to describe the possible development of the electricity market in Iceland (Orkustofnun, 2017b). The scenarios also create basic design criteria for reinforcement of the transmission system. The scenario 'Slow progress' assumes less economic growth than in the Electricity forecast, and less emphasis on environmental issues and energy exchange. The average annual growth in slow progress is 1.5%, and the electricity forecast is 1.8%. The use increases by more than 50% and will be around 5900 GWh in 2050, but in the Electricity Forecast, the increase is over 80% and the use of 7100 GWh (Landsnet, 2018a). The total energy requirement of the system is estimated at 22200 GWh according to this scenario, or about 1200 GWh lower than for the basic energy projection scenario in 2050 (Landsnet, 2018a). The 'Green Future' scenario assumes higher growth than in the Electricity Forecast and increased emphasis on environmental issues with an annual growth of 2.3%. The 'large use' scenario is based on assumption and forecasts electricity on the increase in heavy consumption of electricity. 5.6 Development of the transmission system Based on Electricity Act no. 65/2003 Article 9 and Regulation on system plan for the development of electricity transmission system, transmission system operator shall develop the transmission system in an economical manner, taking into account security, efficiency, the reliability of supply and the quality of electricity (Government of Iceland, 2003), (Ministry of Industries and Innovation, 2016). Landsnet’s Network Development Plan 2018-2027 gives an overview of the projects planned for the next few years to strengthen and expand the Icelandic transmission system. The system plan takes into account the electricity forecasts and the foreseeable changes in the input and output of individual customers, for future upgrades and new connection in the transmission system. Landsnet’s Network Development Plan 2018-2027 (Landsnet, 2018b). projects originated from the medium-term plan. The transmission lines and overhead cables discussed in this section will serve the purpose of strengthening the grid to cater

21

for the increasing capacity and increase the stability of the network. The projects also expand capacity in specific areas in response to the increased demand for electricity. Some of the projects are meant to replace lines that have completed their life cycle or close to their life span. Figure 11 shows the evaluation of power that can be transferred at the high peak demand time of the system in 2018. It shows that 10-30 MW load can be added in the area adjacent to the capital area Reykjavík. This limitation is because the 220 kV lines adjacent to the capital area are different in capacity and design (Landsnet, 2018a). It is also clear that 10-30 MW load can be added in some of the rural areas: North East of Iceland and slightly to the West part of Iceland. It is impossible to increase capacity in the other parts of the country unless the transmission system is reinforced, and new power plants constructed.

5.6.1 North and northeast The north consists of long 132 kV lines that are part of the regional network connecting two regional grids: Varmahlíd and Rangárvellir in Akureyri. To the west is a 66 kV connection from Varmahlíd to Saudárkrókur. In the northeast, a 66 kV Rangárvellir substation from Akureyri to Laxá station and northeast of Kópasker. Between Laxárvirkjun and Kópasker, a 220 kV underground cable connecting Theistareykir area on the 66 kV side of the 220/66 kV power transformer. Húsavík is connected from Laxá by a 33-kV line. Figure 12 summarises the upgraded lines in the north and Northeast of Iceland as per Landsnet’s Network Development Plan 2018-2027 (Landsnet, 2018b).

The first line is KR3. This project involves constructing a 220 kV 550 MVA transmission line from Krafla substation to Fljótsdalur substation. The construction of the 122 km overhead line KR3 is to ensure the stability of the power system in the north and east of Iceland. KR3 will improve the connection between these two parts of the country. The line will significantly strengthen the transmission system and increase security and quality of energy. KR3 links power clusters in the North East and Fljótsdalur.

FIGURE 11: Delivery capacity of the Icelandic transmission system (Landsnet, 2018a)

22

The second line is Hólasandslína 3 (HS3). HS3 project involves constructing a 220 kV 550 MVA transmission line from Akureyri to Hólasandur. HS3 consists of a 61 km overhead and 9.8 km underground cable, new substations built at Rangárvellir and Hólasandur and a 50 Mvar static var compensator. The objective of the 70.8 km Hólasandslína 3, is to increase capacity to deal with the increased system requirements and ensure the stability of the power system in the north and east during system disturbances. HS3 will also give the possibility of increasing the use of renewable energy sources in the region.

Construction of Blöndulina 3 (BL3) from Blanda to Rangárvellir will strengthen the grid in the north and northeast. BL3 is a 220 kV 550 MVA 107 km line from Blanda to Rangárvellir Substation.

Saudárkrókur area connects the transmission system via a 40-year-old transmission line. The transformer capacity is limited, and N-1 operation is impossible in that area since Saudárkrókslína 1 is the only connection to this area. The project entails construction of a 66 kV, 28 MVA, 23 km underground line Saudárkrókslína 2 (SA2) between Varmahlíd and Saudárkrókur where it connects to the regional network. The project will also include construction of a new 66 kV substation at Saudárkrókur and renovating Varmahlíd substation.

Connection Húsavík from Laxá, Húsavík Line 1, is the oldest transmission line in the system. To improve security in the area, a few options were reviewed and the most economically feasible option was selected. It is more feasible to connect the municipality with about 4 km long 11 kV underground cable from Landsnet's new delivery point to the industrial area at Bakki. Húsavík and Bakki areas are developing very fast, therefore strengthening of the regional line is critical. This line will provide an N-1 operation for Húsavík and increase the supply to Húsavík.

5.6.2 Capital and southwest Due to increased energy consumption in the capital area and the West, there is a need to strengthen connections between the capital area and the west of Iceland. The plan is to have a better connection of

FIGURE 12: System upgrade in the north and northeast of Iceland

23

the power plants in the Thjórsá area and the Hengill area to areas that utilise the most electricity in the southwest of the country. The main problem in this area is the difficulty to increase the intensity of delivery points from Kolvidarhóll Line 1 (KH1) and Brennimelur 1 (BHI) when Sultartangi Line 3 (SU3) is out of service (Landsnet, 2018a). There are also problems with the supply of Southwest arising from a simple connection to Hamranes. All the new lines, substations and changes in the capital area are shown in Figure 13.

A new Lyklafell Substation and transmission lines project will improve the security in this area. The project entails the construction of a new GIS 220 kV substation in Sandskeid that will relieve Geitháls substation in the Capital City. The idea is to build a new substation called Lyklafell (LYK). The project includes demolishing of Harmanes line 1 and Harmanes line 2 and Ísallína 1 and Ísallína 2 from Hamranes to the aluminium smelter in Straumsvík as they have lived their lifespan. Demolishing the old lines will allow the city to expand into the area that these lines are taking up. Lyklafellslína 1 (LY1) built from the new Lyklafell substation to Alcoa Straumsvík AST and another line Ísallína Line 3 from the substation by Hamranes and up to Straumsvík. LY1 is a 220 kV 800 MVA transmission overhead line, and IS3 is a 220 kV 70 MVA 3.1 km overhead line. Lyklafell substation sits directly on KH1, so this line splits into KH1 (section from KOL to LYK) and LY2 (Section from LYK to GEH). BU3 also will be divided by the substation, with the part from LYK-BUR called BU3 and from LYK-HAM called LY3. LY1 is the new line from LYK to AST. BR1 is presently connected to GEH but will later be connected to LYK instead.

Sudurnesjalína 2 (SN2) is a new 220 kV transmission line connection between the capital city and Sudurnesja. The 33 km overhead line from Hamranes and Raudimelur. This connection to the

FIGURE 13: System upgrade in the capital – Reykjavík

24

grid will enhance security in that area. SN2 will cater for the rapid growth in population and industries, power plants, data centres and growth of Keflavik, maintenance strategies and variations in both production and use of electricity.

A 160 MVA Line from Fitjar to Stakkur (FI3) will improve the capacity of the area and connection of Stakkur area and a Silicon plant in Helguvík to the grid. It entails laying of a 132 kV 8.9 km underground cable from Fitjar substation to Stakkur substation and expansion of Stakkur substation

Korpulína 1 project involves laying/replacing the existing line with a 3.8 km 132 kV 150 MVA underground cable in the capital, where the population has evolved in such a way that it has come right up to the line. Korpulína 1 is also approaching its lifespan.

A new 100 MW Búrfell hydropower station was connected to the transmission system in 2018. 5.6.3 East Iceland In the east coast, there is a lot of renewable energy potential and fish farms. There is a need to upgrade the area to increase the capacity of the system. The first project involves the construction of new substations at Esikifjördur and expansion of Eyvindará substation. The voltages for 66 kV lines Eskifjardarlína 1 (ES1) and Studlalína (SR2) raised from 66 kV and 132 kV. A 132 kV 94 MVA 1.7 km underground cable ES1 laid close to the substation. The second project involves upgrading Vopnafjardar line 1. Vopnafjardar line 1 is a 66 kV 58 km line from Lagarfoss substation to Vopnafjördur substation in the eastern part of the Grid. The project entails renovating Vopnafjardar line 1 subjected to heavy icing. Upgrading VP1 will help to reduce disturbances and reduce maintenance costs in hazardous and poor weather conditions. Approximately 10 km of Vopnafjardar 1 converted into a 54 MVA 66 kV underground cable. Figure 14 shows a summary of the lines with voltages raised from 66 kV to 132 kV, the new substation location and the upgraded line VP1.

FIGURE 14: System upgrade in the eastern part of Iceland

25

5.6.4 Westfjords The primary operation challenge in the area is that it is not possible to have an N-1 supply in that area as there is only one line connecting the city to the grid. The transmission capacity of the Westfjords is sufficient to transfer up to 10 MW into the area, but the voltage drops below the permissible operating limits when the load is increased. As per the system plan 2018-2027, the development of the area is in two phases (Landsnet, 2018b).

The first project is the upgrade of Breidadalslína 1. Breidadalslína 1 is a 66 kV line from Mjólka substation to Breididalur substation consisting of 36.4 km overhead line and 0.8 km underground cable. Landsnet will lay a new 5.6 km underground cable in the Dýrafjördur Tunnel which will replace a part of the connection to the Breidadalslína 1, which has been problematic concerning maintenance and repairs due to the harsh weather condition. A new 132/66 kV transformer and associated switching equipment were installed and taken into use at the substation in Mjólká at the beginning of 2017, the voltage of the line raised from 66 kV to 132 kV later. The system upgrades will improve the transmission capacity and security of supply in the Vestfjördur area.

The second project focuses on strengthening of the Westfjords regional system. The first phase is laying a submarine cable between Bíldudalur and Hrafnseyri in Arnarfjördur. This cable will be operated at 33 kV at first then a 66 kV substation built in Bíldudar. The third phase includes raising the voltages between lines Hrafnseyri-Thingeyri and Dýrafjördur- Breiddalas from 33 kV to 66 kV and lay a submarine cable from Dýrafjördur to Breididalur.

Figure 15 shows a perspective view of the submarine cable in Arnarfjördur, the submarine cable from Dýrafjördur to Breididal and a summary of the other lines with raised voltages.

FIGURE 15: System upgrade in the Westfjords

26

6. GENERATION This chapter discuss the availability of renewable resources that can be utilised in Iceland to meet the increasing demand. It also represents the approach used in generation expansion planning, the key assumptions, the modelling approach based on available options. 6.1 The current Master Plan for Nature Protection and Energy Utilisation For planning purposes, Iceland has developed a master plan for nature protection and energy utilisation. The objective of the Act is to ensure that the utilisation of the geographical areas where the plants are going to be installed, is based on long term views that have taken into account sustainability of the resource, conservation of nature, culture, cost-effectiveness and profitability of different options and values that are of national interest. The second phase of the master plan is the current master plan, as the recommendations of the third phase were not discussed in parliament (Rammaáaetlun, 2013a). Power plants are classified, but there is some uncertainty on how they are going to be utilised. The second phase of the Master Plan puts power plant options in categories:

Energy utilisation category On hold category Protection category

The Energy Utilisation Category are options that have taken into account the protection value and the energy utilisation value of the land areas and the economic, environmental and sociological impact of the utilisation including of protection and the River Basin Management according to the act on water management (Rammaáaetlun, 2013a). On hold category is power plant options where further information is needed for assessment to be qualified for utilisation. Protection category covers power plant options situated in protected land areas, and government authorities are not permitted to issue licenses for energy survey or generation. Power plants options in the Energy Utilisation category is shown in Table 5. The total installed power in the Energy Utilisation Category is 1030 MW, and the annual energy is 8289 Gwh. The group has 2 hydropower plants with a power capacity of 55 MW and 12 geothermal power plants with a capacity of 975 MW.

TABLE 5: Energy utilisation category (Rammaáaetlun, 2013b; 2013c; and 2013d)

Type of energy

Region Catchment/

geothermal areaPower plant

option MW GWh

kr/ kWh/a

Hydropower Westfjords Ófeigsfjördur Hvalárvirkjun 35 259 5.65Hydropower North Iceland Blanda Blönduveita 20 131 2.66Geothermal Reykjanes Peninsula Reykjanes Area Reykjanes 80 568 2.5Geothermal Reykjanes Peninsula Reykjanes Area Stóra-Sandvík 40 328 2.5Geothermal Reykjanes Peninsula Svartsengi area Eldvörp 50 410 3Geothermal Reykjanes Peninsula Krýsuvík area Sandfell 40 328 3Geothermal Reykjanes Peninsula Krýsuvík area Sveifluháls 50 410 2Geothermal Reykjanes Peninsula Hengill area Meitillinn 45 369 3Geothermal Reykjanes Peninsula Hengill area Gráuhnúkar 45 369 3Geothermal Reykjanes Peninsula Hengill area Hverahlíd 90 738 3Geothermal North East Iceland Námafjall area Bjarnarflag 90 738 2Geothermal North East Iceland Krafla region Krafla I, expansion 40 320 2Geothermal North East Iceland Krafla region Krafla II, 1. phase 45 369 2Geothermal North East Iceland Krafla region Krafla II, 2. phase 90 738 2Geothermal North East Iceland Theistareykir area Theistareykir 180 1476 2Geothermal North East Iceland Theistareykir area Theistareykir west 90 738 2 1030 8289

27

As seen in Figure 16 the energy utilisation Category hydropower plant options are located around Blanda the Northern part of Iceland and Ófeigsfjördur, Westfjords. 20 MW of a hydropower plant at Blanda and 35 MW hydropower plant Ófeigsfjördur, Westfjords. 440 MW of geothermal energy is available at the Reykjanes Peninsula area that is Reykjanes area, Svartsengi area, Krýsuvík area and Hengil area. Another 535 MW of geothermal field in the North East area; Krafla region and Theistareykir area. Power plants options in the on-hold category is shown in Table 6. The total installed power in the on-hold category is 1907.5 MW, and the annual energy is 13615 GWh. The on-hold category has 22 hydropower plants with a power capacity of 1402.5 MW and nine geothermal power plants with a capacity of 505 MW. On-hold category is dominated by hydro power plant options; 75.5 MW around the Westfjords, 375 MW north Iceland, 875 MW south Iceland and 20 MW in the western part of Iceland. The available geothermal resources in this category are located in the Reykjanes Peninsula, south, north and northeast of Iceland as seen in Figure 17. Power plants options in the Protection category is shown in Table 7. The total installed power in the Protection Category is approximately 1754 MW and the annual energy is 13910 GWh. The Protection category has 11 hydro power plants with power capacity of approximately 1253 MW and 9 geothermal power plants with capacity of 501 MW. The Protection Category is dominated by hydropower plant options in the southern part of Iceland and North Eastern part of Iceland as seen in Figure 18. The geothermal resources are located on the Reykjanes Peninsula area.

FIGURE 16: Distribution of power option in Energy Utilisation category (Rammaáaetlun, 2013b; 2013c; 2013d)

28

TABLE 6: On-hold category (Rammaáaetlun, 2013b; 2013c; 2013d) Type of energy Region Power plant option MW GWh kr/kWh/aHydropower West Iceland Kljáfossvirkjun 20 125 5Hydropower Westfjords Glámuvirkjun 67 400 5Hydropower Westfjords Skúfnavatnavirkjun 8.5 60 6Hydropower North Iceland Skatastadavirkjun B 184 1260 3Hydropower North Iceland Skatastadavirkjun C 156 1090 4Hydropower North Iceland Villinganesvirkjun 33 237 4Hydropower North East Iceland Fljótshnjúksvirkjun 58 405 6Hydropower North East Iceland Hrafnabjargavirkjun A 89 622 3Hydropower South Iceland Urridafossvirkjun 130 980 2Hydropower South Iceland Hvammsvirkjun 82 665 4Hydropower South Iceland Holtavirkjun 53 415 4Hydropower South Iceland Hverfisfljótsvirkjun 40 260 4Hydropower South Iceland Búlandsvirkjun 150 970 2

Hydropower South Iceland Hólmsárvirkjun at Einhyrn-

ingur, without reservoir72 450 3

Hydropower South Iceland Hólmsárvirkjun at Atley 48 360 3Hydropower South Iceland Skrokkölduvirkjun 30 215 4Hydropower South Iceland Hagavatnsvirkjun 20 140 5Hydropower South Iceland Búdartunguvirkjun 50 320 4Hydropower South Iceland Haukholtsvirkjun 60 358 4Hydropower South Iceland Vördufellsvirkjun 52 170 6Hydropower South Iceland Hestvatnsvirkjun 40 300 4Hydropower South Iceland Selfossvirkjun 30 250 3Geothermal Reykjanes Peninsula Trölladyngja 50 410 3Geothermal Reykjanes Peninsula Austurengjar 40 328 2Geothermal Reykjanes Peninsula Innstidalur 45 369 3Geothermal Reykjanes Peninsula Thverárdalur 90 738 3Geothermal Reykjanes Peninsula Ölfusdalur 10 82 2.5Geothermal South Iceland Hágönguvirkjun, 1. phase 45 369 3Geothermal South Iceland Hágönguvirkjun, 2. phase 90 738 2Geothermal North Iceland Hrúthálsar 20 160 3Geothermal North Iceland Fremrinámar 45 369 3 1907.5 13615

29

TABLE 7: Protection category (Rammaáaetlun, 2013b; 2013c; 2013d)

Type of energy Region Power plant option MW GWh kr/kWh/a

Hydropower North East Iceland Arnardalsvirkjun 570 4000 2Hydropower North East Iceland Helmingsvirkjun 270 2100 4Hydropower South Iceland Djúpárvirkjun 75 498 4

Hydropower South Iceland Hólmsárvirkjun at Einhyrningur,

with reservoir72 470 3

Hydropower South Iceland Markarfljótsvirkjun A 14 120 3Hydropower South Iceland Markarfljótsvirkjun B 109 736 4Hydropower South Iceland Tungnaárlón 270 1Hydropower South Iceland Bjallavirkjun 46 340 3

Hydropower South Iceland Nordlingaölduveita, 566-567.5 m a.s.l.

635 1

Hydropower South Iceland Gýgjarfossvirkjun 21 146 46Hydropower South Iceland Bláfellsvirkjun 76 536 4Geothermal Reykjanes Peninsula Brennisteinsfjöll 25 200 3Geothermal Reykjanes Peninsula Bitra 90 738 3Geothermal Reykjanes Peninsula Graendalur 120 984 3Geothermal South Iceland Geysir 25 200 3Geothermal South Iceland Hverabotn 49 392 3Geothermal South Iceland Nedri-Hveradalir 49 392 3Geothermal South Iceland Kisubotnar 49 392 3Geothermal South Iceland Thverfell 49 392 3Geothermal North East Iceland Gjástykki 45 369 3 1754 13910

FIGURE 17: Distribution of power option in On-hold category (Rammaáaetlun, 2013b; 2013c; 2013d)

30

6.2 Generation profiles There is uncertainty on how the power plant options in the Energy Utilisation Category will be utilised to cater for the demand from integrating the Electric vehicles in the system, seven generation portfolios are defined. The different portfolios give a picture of how the load scenarios will behave with the production mix in different geographical locations. The different locations of the power plants should put various stress on the power system. Defining these generation portfolios can be used to pick the worst case scenario when planning for the EV uptake. Generation profiles are determined by taking the generation required to cater for the increased load and losses due to the absorption of EVs. 6.2.1 Generation portfolio I ´Generation South´ Generation portfolio 1 is a portfolio that entails adding the required generation in Reykjanes Peninsula and Thjórsá catchment area. This is based on power plants in both the energy utilisation category and on-hold category. 60% of the required generation in Reykjanes peninsula, 20% in Thjórsá catchment area and 20% in Hverfisfljót catchment area. Table 8 shows the combination of generation options in portfolio 1 and Figure 19 show the geographical location of the generation options.

TABLE 8: Generation portfolio I ´Generation south´

Region Catchment/geothermal areaUtilisation

(%) Reykjanes Peninsula Reykjanes/Svartengi area 60 South Iceland Thjórsá 20 South Iceland Hverfisfljót 20

FIGURE 18: Distribution of power option in Protection category (Rammaáaetlun, 2013b; 2013c; 2013d)

31

6.2.2 Generation portfolio II ´Generation North´ Generation portfolio II is a portfolio that entails adding the required generation in the Northeast and North of Iceland. 25% of the needed production in the Blanda catchment area and 25% in the Theistareykir geothermal area. In addition to this, 50% of production is added in the Skjálfandafljót catchment area which is in the on-hold category. Table 9 shows generation mix option in portfolio II and Figure 20 show the geographical location of the generation options.

60%

20%

20%

FIGURE 19: Generation portfolio I 'Generation South'

25%

25%

50%

FIGURE 20: Generation portfolio II 'Generation North'

32

TABLE 9: Generation portfolio II ´Generation North´

Region Catchment/geothermal areaUtilisation

(%) North Iceland Blanda 25 North East Iceland Theistareykir 25 North East Iceland Skjálfandafljót 50

6.2.3 Generation portfolio III ´Generation-West-North-Northeast´ Generation portfolio III is a portfolio that entails adding production in the Westfjords, North and Northeast of Iceland based on the master plan´s energy utilisation category. 20% of generation in Ófeigsfjördur catchment area, 20% in the Blanda catchment area, 30% in Krafla geothermal area and 30% in Theistareykir geothermal area. Table 10 shows the combination of generation options in portfolio III and Figure 21 show the geographical location of the generation options.

TABLE 10: Generation portfolio III ´Generation West-North-Northeast´

Region Catchment/geothermal areaUtilisation

(%) Westfjords Ófeigsfjördur 20 North Iceland Blanda 20 North East Iceland Krafla region 30 North East Iceland Theistareykir 30

6.2.4 Generation portfolio IV ´Generation-South-West-North' Generation portfolio IV is a portfolio that entails adding production in the Reykjanes Peninsula, Westfjords, North of Iceland based on the master plan´s energy utilisation category. 20% of generation in Ófeigsfjördur catchment area, 20% in the Blanda catchment area, 30% in Reykjanes peninsula and

20%

30%

20%

30%

FIGURE 21: Generation portfolio III ´Generation West-North-Northeast´

33

20% in Thjórsá catchment area. Table 11 shows the combination of generation options in portfolio IV and Figure 22 show the geographical location of the generation options.

TABLE 11: Generation portfolio IV ´Generation South-West-North´

Region Catchment/geothermal areaUtilisation

(%) Westfjords Ófeigsfjördur 20 North Iceland Blanda 20 Reykjanes Peninsula Reykjanes/Svartsengi area 30 South west Thjórsá 30

6.2.5 Generation portfolio V ´Generation-South-Northeast-North-West´ Generation portfolio V is a portfolio that entails adding production in the Reykjanes Peninsula, Westfjords, North and Northeast of Iceland based on the master plan. 15% of generation in Ófeigsfjördur catchment area, 15% in the Blanda catchment area, 15% in Krafla geothermal area and 15% in Theistareykir geothermal area, 20% in Reykjanes peninsula and 20% in Thjórsá catchment area. Table 12 shows the combination of generation options in portfolio V and Figure 23 show the geographical location of the generation options.

TABLE 12: Generation portfolio V ´Generation South-Northeast-North-West´

Region Catchment/geothermal areaUtilisation

(%) Reykjanes Peninsula Reykjanes/Svartsengi area 20 South Iceland Thjórsá 20North East Iceland Krafla region 15North East Iceland Theistareykir 15Westfjords Ófeigsfjördur 15North Iceland Blanda 15

20%

30%

20%

30%

FIGURE 22: Generation portfolio IV ´Generation South-West-North´

34

15%

20%

20%

15%

15%

15%

FIGURE 23: Generation portfolio V ´Generation South-Northeast-North-West´

35

7. LOAD FLOW 7.1 Load-flow analysis The load-flow (power flow) is used to investigate the steady-state requirements of a three-phase balanced system. Load flow analysis involves the calculation of power flow, voltage magnitude and the angle at each bus. It computes real power, reactive power flows, bus voltages, reactive power requirements and equipment losses for all the equipment interconnecting the buses for the possible range of system operating condition and contingencies. Power system operating under normal balanced three-phase steady state conditions requires the generation to supplies the load and losses and operate within specified real and reactive power limits. The bus voltages magnitudes remain close to rated values, and the transmission lines and transformers within the design values. In power flow analysis, active power, reactive power, voltage magnitude and voltage angle are the main bus parameters. Three buses are represented in this report, of which two of the four values are specified at each bus.

Slack (swing) bus: The slack bus is a reference bus with the voltage magnitude and phase angle specified.

Voltage-controlled (PV) bus: Active power and voltage magnitude are specified and power flow computes the reactive power and voltage angle. The limits of Voltage-controlled (PV) bus: Active power and voltage magnitude are defined, and power flow computes the reactive power and voltage angle. The limits of the reactive power are specified depending on the characteristics of the individual device (Kundur, 1994). If an upper limit or a lower limit is reached, then the reactive power output of the generator is held at the limit, and the bus then modelled as a Load bus. PV buses, are buses with generators, static var compensators and switched shunt capacitors connected.

Load (PQ) bus: Active power and reactive power are specified. Power flow computes the voltage magnitude and voltage angle. Normal loads are assumed to be constant. If the effect of distribution transformer ULTC operation is neglected, load P and Q are expected to vary as a function of a bus voltage (Kundur, 1994).

7.1.1 Network and nonlinear power-flow equations The relationship between network bus voltages and currents is represented by Loop or node equations. Node equations are preferred as the number of node equations are smaller than the number of independent node equations is smaller than the number of independent loop equations (Kundur, 1994). Node admittance matrix is represented as follows:

⎣⎢⎢⎢⎡𝐼𝐼𝐼…𝐼 ⎦

⎥⎥⎥⎤ 𝑌 𝑌 … 𝑌

𝑌 𝑌 … 𝑌… … … …

𝑌 𝑌 … 𝑌

⎣⎢⎢⎡𝑉𝑉…𝑉 ⎦

⎥⎥⎤ (11)

where n is the total number of nodes; Yii is the self-admittance of node I; Yij is the mutual admittance between node i and node j; 𝑉 is the phasor voltage to ground at node I; 𝐼 is the phasor current flowing into the network at node i.\\ From Equation 11, the current at any node k is related to P, Q and V ̃ is as follows:

𝐼

𝑃 𝑗𝑄

𝑉∗ (12)

For load (PQ) nodes, P and Q are specified; and for PV nodes active power and voltage magnitudes are specified. The relationships between P, Q, 𝑉 and 𝐼 are defined by the characteristics of the devices connected by the nodes these make the problem non-linear and therefore power flow equations are solved iteratively (Kundur, 1994).

36

Several algorithms methods can solve the AC power flow problem:

The Gauss-Seidel method: Is a simple, reliable and tolerant of poor voltage and reactive power conditions. The method has a slow convergence rate and problems especially when the system is stressed due to the high transfer of active power.

The Newton-Raphson method: Has a good convergence rate with computation time increasing linearly with the system size, but convergence problems when the initial voltages are significantly different from their true values.

Fast-decoupled load flow XB and BX: These methods are approximations to the Newton-Raphson method. The XB and BX significantly reduce the amount of iteration, by updating the voltage magnitude and angles separately based on a simple Jacobian, factored only at the begging of the solution process. The methods are less sensitive to initial voltage and voltage conditions than the Newton-Raphson method.

MATPOWER is used for power flow analysis. The power flow solver in MATPOWER is based on a standard full-Newton Raphson method. Newton-Raphson method is an iterative method used for solving a set of nonlinear equations. Newton method uses polar form and a full Jacobian updated at each iteration. Let the following represent n such equations in n unknowns:

𝑓 𝑥 , 𝑥 , … . . 𝑥 𝑏 𝑓 𝑥 , 𝑥 , … . . 𝑥 𝑏

… … . … … … … … .. 𝑓 𝑥 , 𝑥 , … . . 𝑥 𝑏

(13)

If the initial conditions 𝑥 , 𝑥 and …. 𝑥 and ∆𝑥 , ∆𝑥 ,… ∆𝑥 are corrections to the estimates, the equations become:

𝑓 𝑥 ∆𝑥 , 𝑥 ∆𝑥 , … . . 𝑥 ∆𝑥 𝑏 𝑓 𝑥 ∆𝑥 , 𝑥 ∆𝑥 , … . . 𝑥 ∆𝑥 𝑏

… … … . … . … … … . … … . . … … . … . … . …. 𝑓 𝑥 ∆𝑥 , 𝑥 ∆𝑥 , … . . 𝑥 ∆𝑥 𝑏

(14)

Expanding, using Taylor´s theorem the equation for the ith is:

𝑓 𝑥 ∆𝑥 , 𝑥 ∆𝑥 , … . . 𝑥 ∆𝑥 𝑏

𝑓 𝑥 , 𝑥 , … . . 𝑥𝜕𝑓𝜕𝑥

∆𝑥𝜕𝑓𝜕𝑥

∆𝑥 ⋯𝜕𝑓𝜕𝑥

∆𝑥

𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑜𝑓∆𝑥 , ∆𝑥 , … , ∆𝑥

𝑏

(15)

These higher terms are neglected if the initial estimate is close to the true solutions resulting in a linear set of equations in matrix form given by:

⎣⎢⎢⎡𝑏 𝑓 𝑥 , 𝑥 , … . . 𝑥𝑏 𝑓 𝑥 , 𝑥 , … . . 𝑥

… … … … … … … … …𝑏 𝑓 𝑥 , 𝑥 , … . . 𝑥 ⎦

⎥⎥⎤

⎣⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎡

𝜕𝑓𝜕𝑥

𝜕𝑓𝜕𝑥

… …𝜕𝑓𝜕𝑥

𝜕𝑓𝜕𝑥

𝜕𝑓𝜕𝑥

… …𝜕𝑓𝜕𝑥

… … … … … … … … … …𝜕𝑓𝜕𝑥

𝜕𝑓𝜕𝑥

… …𝜕𝑓𝜕𝑥 ⎦

⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎤

∆𝑥∆𝑥… .

∆𝑥

(16)

and in a simple form:

∆𝑓 𝐽∆𝑥 (17)

where J is the jacobian. If the initial conditions 𝑥 , 𝑥 and …. 𝑥 were exact, then ∆f and ∆x is zero, but ∆𝑥 , ∆𝑥 ,… ∆𝑥 are estimates, the errors ∆f are finite. From the above linearized relationship between the errors ∆f and corrections ∆x through the Jacobian of the simultaneous equations. A solution for the

37

∆x can be obtained by applying suitable method for the solution of a set of linear equations. The updated values of x are calculated by:

𝑥 𝑥 ∆𝑥 (18)

The process is repeated until ∆f are lower than a specific tolerance. A more accurate initial estimation will reduce the number of iterations required for solution. The iterations have quadratic convergence and the Jacobian has to be recalculated at each step (Kundur, 1994). 7.2 MATPOWER MATPOWER is used for power flow analysis. The models and equations are presented in matrix and vector forms. The data files used by MATPOWER are MATLAB M-files or MAT-files, which defines, and return a single MATLAB struct (Zimmerman, 2011). The fields of the struct are baseMVA, bus, branch, gen and optionally Gencost, where the baseMVA is a scalar and the rest are matrices (Zimmerman, 2011). Transmission lines and transformers are modelled with a common branch model consisting of a single transmission model, with series impedance Zs= rs+ jxs and a total susceptance bc. The generators are modelled as a complex power injection at a specific bus. The loads are modelled as specific quantities of real and reactive power. Compensating devices like shunt capacitors and shunt reactors are modelled as admittance elements of fixed values. and are included in the network admittance matrix along with the other transmission network passive element. They are modelled as fixed impedance to ground at a bus and synchronous condensers as synchronous generators with no steady-state active power output. The modelling of the power system components and the fields of the struct are explained in the MATPOWER manual (Zimmerman, 2011). The power flow or load flow problem involves solving for the set of voltages and flows in a network corresponding to a specific pattern of generation and load. The system is modelled though a combination of MATPOWER and MATLAB. MATPOWER is a package of MATLAB M-files for solving power flow and optimal power flow problems MATPOPWER is used in order to run load power flow analysis while MATLAB is used to automate and change the load values and generation options for each simulation.

38

8. SIMULATION MODELS This chapter describes the modelling and validation of the base model. The base model is then updated as per the Landsnet development plan 2018-2027 which entails projects that will strengthen the grid. The base model is a complete model of the Icelandic transmission system provided by Landsnet TSO and Reykjavik distribution system provided by Veitur OR. 8.1 System base model Key network data was provided by Landsnet hf and Veitur OR to develop the base model. This included network schematics, loading data and relevant reports. The system base model is a Landsnet´s standard base model. The model simulates a winter period when the load at its peak. To finalise the model, the second 45 MW unit at Theistareykir geothermal power plant which was under construction at that particular time is put into operation. 26 MW load from the silicon metal production plant at Bakki is added to the model as the total load is 52 MW at Bakki. The Reykjavík distribution network model was generally limited to the 11 kV network with the loads lumped at the relevant 11 kV substation buses. The other distribution networks are developed on a regional basis to maintain a manageable sized model. The transmission network and Reykjavík network were combined, and the Reykjavik load scaled to match the Landsnet Base Model. The following are excluded from this study:

1. All dynamic responses of the system. 2. Special Operational conditions of the entire grid, e.g. scheduled maintenance, breakdowns, the

capability of reservoirs etc. 3. Transmission system issues in the whole network. 4. Maximum flows in CUTS discussed in Section 5.4.

The base case system summary is presented in Figure 24. The total generation capacity is 2817.1 MW, active power to loads is 2466.5 MW and 1.91% losses. The voltage is within the permissible limit 10 % as per the regulation on the Quality of Voltage and Security of Electricity No.1048/2004 which stipulates that the voltage characteristics should be by the ÍST EN 50160. More stringent requirements are made to delivery voltage for power-intensive industries and the limits of delivery voltage have been defined as 5%-9% (Landsnet, 2017a). For the distribution network, the lower voltage range should be at least -4.5% instead of -10%, unless it can be demonstrated that such constriction does not apply or the limit is greater than -4.5% (Collection of Regulations, 2004). The voltage standards satisfy three constraints: maintaining voltages on the distribution system and experienced by the ultimate customer

FIGURE 24: Icelandic transmission system base model in MATPOWER

39

within required limits, maintaining the voltages experienced by transmission equipment and equipment connected to the transmission system within that equipment’s rating, and avoiding voltage collapse. Generally, the maximum voltages are limited by equipment, and customer requirements and voltage collapse limit the minimum voltages. 8.2 Upgraded system model as per the 2018-2027 system plan This upgraded system model represents the base case, and all the changes to the network as per the Landsnet’s Network Development Plan 2018-2027 discussed in Section 5.6. The system summary is presented in Figure 25. The total generation capacity is 2917.1 MW, active power to loads is 2466.5 MW and 1.78% losses. The voltage is within the permissible limit 10 % as the lowest voltage of 0.927 is seen at bus 59 ´1090 RIMAKOT´ and the highest 1.066 pu at bus 1 ´1040 Vatnsfell´.

8.3 Verification of the model As described in Section 5.5 and (Landsnet, 2018a) it is impossible to add load to some parts of the country unless the system is reinforced, or new power plants built. To verify this, a sensitivity analysis is performed by adding 30 MW load to different parts of the country as shown in Appendix I-2 (Apyjo, 2019). Adding a 30 MW load to a bus in the Eastfjords will violate the maximum flow of 100 MW allowed through CUT IV by 9.64 MW and maximum flow upper limit of 475 MW CUT 1 by 1.92 MW. In the capital area, adding a 30 MW load at bus 2200 A1 exceeds CUT 1 maximum flow limit by 20.75 MW, and Kolvidarhólslína 1 (KH1) will exceed its rated thermal limit by 0.27 MVA as discussed in Section 5.5. Adding a 30 MW load to a bus in the North at Varmahlíd substation will violate the transmission limit of CUT I by 8.91 MW and CUT IV by 4.25 MW. In the west when a load is added to Vegamót substation maximum CUT I flow is violated by 27.89 MW. Figure 26 shows the four locations of the loads added to the system to verify the base model. The summary of the violation of the flow through different CUTs is presented in Table 13.

TABLE 13: Base case violation of flow

BUS Geographical area Load added CUT violated Violations 2200 A1 Capital- Reykjavík 30 MW CUT I 20.75 MW 5016 EYVIND Eastfjords 30 MW CUT IV, CUT I 9.64 MW,1.92 MW4040 Varmahlíd North 30 MW CUT IV, CUT I 8.91 MW,1.92 MW3130 Vegamót West 30 MW CUT I 27.89 MW

FIGURE 25: Icelandic transmission system as per the system plan 2018-2027

40

8.4 New transmission lines and cables As discussed in Section 5.6, the Landsnet Network Development plan 2018-2027 describes new and upgraded transmission lines and underground cables. All these overhead lines and cables are calculated and included in the upgraded system plan model in MATPOWER. Table 14 summarizes all the lines / cables included in the upgraded system plan model. This system plan model is a modified version of the base model.

TABLE 14: New transmission lines and upgraded lines

Line Voltage

[kV] Rate

[MVA] Overhead

[km] Underground

[km] R

[pu] X

[pu] B

[pu] KR3 220 550 122 - 0.00716473 0.10637583 0.162717452HS3 220 550 61 9.8 0.00234609 0.02082178 0.706884176BL3 220 550 107 - 0.00628382 0.09329684 0.142711208SA2 66 28 - 23 0.15943472 0.0729865 0.056662325HU2 11 4.93 - 4 0.41322314 0.25785124 0.0000006LY1 220 800 27.3 - 0.00124531 0.01888049 0.045684375IS3 220 470 3.1 - 0.00041829 0.002697327 0.004113902SN2 220/132 470/280 - 33 0.001938 0.02877379 0.044013737KO1 132 150 - 3.8 0.00095527 0.00246686 0.047848186F13 132 160 - 8.9 0.00223733 0.00577764 0.112065488GF2 66 40 - 26 0.08904672 0.07314022 0.078287077ES1 27.4 1.7 0.0866186 0.26527901 0.018278794BD1 23.4 13 0.09013895 0.1968338 0.128106127VP1 48 10 0.20891498 0.49027512 0.276487647

30 MW

30 MW

30 MW

30 MW

FIGURE 26: Geographical location of load added to verify the base model

41

8.5 New load In this steady-state study, the loads are modelled as constant MVA loads, comprised of active P and reactive Q loads based on historical and projected data at individual buses. These loads are modelled at distribution, sub-transmission, or transmission voltages. The following loads are used in this thesis:

The base peak load in 2017. Projected EV load profiles discussed in Section 2.3. Slow progress load from the energy forecast 2017-2050 (Orkustofnun, 2017b).

The base load case was Landsnet’s base peak load in 2017. The 'slow progress' load is the electricity forecast peak load (Orkustofnun, 2017a) scaled to fit the slow progress scenario as discussed in Section 5.5. The EV load is the increasing long-term planning load due to the penetration of EVs from 2018-2050 for the four different load scenarios discussed in Section 2.3. The power factor of the load is essential in this study because it impacts the current flow in each system element. A larger current flow resulting from a lower power factor causes increased real power and reactive power losses and causes poorer transmission voltages. A power factor of 0.98 is used to calculate the reactive part of the load due to the EVs. 8.6 New generation All new generation are modelled as simple generators in this study. The different generation mix is discussed in Section 6.2.

42

9. SIMULATION This chapter outlines the method used to evaluate the simulations performed in this study. Load flow studies are carried out iteratively, and contingency studies carried out to ensure the network loading and voltage criteria are within the rated limit following a defined contingency. This process identifies the required network reinforcements to meet the redundancy criteria. 9.1 Methodology Power system expansion studies deal with uncertainties related to demand growth, generation capacities and the availability of transmission, distribution equipment. The study of EV impact on the grid introduces another uncertainty related to charging of the EVs batteries. Distribution and transmission networks expansion planning are usually performed considering a forecasted demand over a planning horizon, in this report, the demand is as a result of the EV load and the period is 2018-2050. After getting the hourly demand, the annual peak demand from 2018-2050 to be used in the simulation is obtained. This worst case is associated with the annual peak demand that typically occurs in a few hours of the year. The annual peak demand for each scenario is shown table B.1. The increase in demand as a result of the EV will exceed the generation capacity. For this study, the network configuration, baseload level and base generation schedules are specified and three scenarios are developed to study the impact of the EVs on the grid:

Base case scenario: The Landsnet base system including Reykjavik distribution network, the base load and the load due to the EV uptake for the four load scenarios are used to simulate the impact of the EV load from the year 2018 to 2050.

Upgraded system case: This is built using the updated system plan model, Landsnet’s 2017 base load and EV load to simulate the system behaviour and impact from the year 2027 to 2050.

The slow progress energy forecast scenario: The slow progress energy forecast 2017-2050 load scenario, updated system plan model and the EV load scenarios are used to simulate the impact from the year 2027-2050.

The two models described and verified in Chapter 8 used in this study assume that the systems are operating in true steady state conditions.

Loads are represented as constant P and Q assuming that the ULTCs have been successful in holding the bus voltages.

Generator terminal voltages are held at specified values, subject to reactive power output being within based on capability curves.

All system controls have been accounted for. For this study, the following are the input to the MATLAB code:

The base model and system plan model developed in MATPOWER. The voltage limits. The branch thermal limits. The growth of load in each year of study. The cost associated with overhead lines/underground cables, transformers and generation

specified. MATPOWER evaluates network power flows and voltage profiles for each year in the specified study period. Any violations of thermal and voltage constraints are identified in this process. In each year of study load flows and limited n-1 criterion tests performed and the loadings of each component and voltages monitored as shown in Figure 27. The output files show the following:

43

Power flow; Voltage profiles; Transmission line thermal limit violation; Voltage limit violations; Transmission line capacity cost per MW for 220, 132, 66, 33 and 11 kV lines; Plant start-up cost; Energy costs; Transformer costs; Losses.

9.2 Power flow cases The purpose of the simulation studies is to compare the system response to the four load cases and the five generation portfolios defined. Contingency analysis is the process of identifying changes in a power system that have some non-negligible chance of unplanned occurrence, and analysing the impact of these contingencies on power system operation (Idema and Lahaye, 2014). N-1 is a power system that

FIGURE 27: Methodology

44

still operates properly when any single contingency occurs. Security of a power system is not only determined by the system operating within specified system operating conditions but also requires proper operation when contingencies occur and this analyses their impact on the operation of the power system. In this paper, a branch outage is simulated by removing the branch from the power system model, and then solving the associated power flow problem. The power flow, voltage levels and the thermal limits of all the transmission lines are monitored and discussed under different operational power flow cases. Power flow cases are chosen as recommended by the supervisor to demonstrate the worst-case issues that come out of each simulation. Other power flow cases do not give further new information, or the system cannot run with some of the branches out of service. The summary of the power flow cases is given in Table 15 and shown in Figure 28.

TABLE 15: Power flow cases

Power flow case

KKS code Connected substations Voltage

(kV) Fault

1 - - - No fault case 2 SE2 Selfoss-Hella 66 Disconnection 3 VA1 Vatnshamrar-Brennimelur 132 Disconnection 4 HT1 Vatnshamrar- Hrútatunga 132 Disconnection 5 SU2 Sultartangi-Búrfell 220 Disconnection 6 SU3 Sultartangi- Brennimelur 220 Disconnection 7 BU2 Búrfell –Kolvidarhóll 220 Disconnection 8 KR1 Krafla-Rangárvellir 132 Disconnection 9 KR2 Krafla –Fljótsdalur 132 Disconnection 10 FL2 Fljótsdalur-Hryggstekkur 132 Disconnection 11 BL1 Blanda- Laxárvatn 132 Disconnection 12 S14 Sigalda-Prestbakki 132 Disconnection 13 RA1 Rangárvellir- Varmahlíd 132 Disconnection 14 BL2 Blanda-Varmahlíd 132 Disconnection

S14

BU2

SU2

SU3

VA1

HT1

BU1 BU2 RA1KR1 KR2

FL2

SE2

FIGURE 28: Power flow cases

45

Power flow case 1 represents a case with all the branches connected. This will simulate how the system will operate under the normal condition with the new load connected and different generation portfolio implemented. All the branches in the system are monitored: power flow, thermal limit of the lines and the voltage levels. Disconnecting the line between Blanda- Laxárvatn substations (BL1), simulates a case where all the power production in the Blanda area is forced flow to the east. The flow that was flowing west is forced to flow to the highly loaded Eastfjords area. FL2 is a 132 kV branch between Fljótsdalur and Hryggstekkur substations, simulates a case where the east and south-east loads are entirely fed through the weak system from Sigalda. S14 is a 132 kV branch between Sigalda and Prestbakki substations, simulates a case where the East load zones and South-East load zones will be entirely by the production in the North and Northeast via the 132 kV branch FL2. In power flow cases where 132 kV lines BLI, BL2, RA1, KR1, HT1 and KR2 are disconnected, the connection between the North area and the west area is disconnected putting more stress on the south and the eastern part of the system.

46

10. RESULTS As the study consist of a large number of graphs and tables, the full results will not be presented in this report with some being shown in Appendix III (Apyjo, 2019). Instead, a summary of the main tendencies seen in the results will be given, with illustrative examples and a limited range of the complete results. From the results obtained, it is possible to conclude that there is a significant rise in the network peak load. This increase will originate large voltage drops and the overloading of some network branches, as it will be shown in the following subsections. Significant project costs include power plant costs and transmission/ distribution lines, and cables upgrade costs. The relevant companies will have to invest in conventional grid reinforcement if no load management is considered to meet the increase in this expected peak demand. The asset costs assumed to incorporate all possible expenses associated with a replacement: material, labour, taxes, etc. Reinforcement of a network component can be done in various ways, but this study focuses only on the strengthening of existing networks only ''as needed" in MVA, thereby neglecting costs associated with the construction of an entirely new system. The values of the asset costs, i.e. cables/lines are assumed to be constant over time are based on figures that are currently being used for network planning purposes at the TSO controlling the network as recommended by the supervisor. To calculate the reinforcement costs-need to accommodate the increasing EV load the following assumptions are also taken into account

The average LCOE is 3.80 US cent/kwh (Ólafsson, 2016); The average power plant start-up cost is 400 mkr/MW (Ólafsson, 2016); Assumed transformer cost is 1.8 mkr/MVA; The average 220 kV transmission line cost is 70 mkr/km; The average 132 kV transmission line cost is 60 mkr/km; The average 66 kV transmission line cost is 40 mkr/km; The average 33 kV distribution cable cost is 25 mkr/km; The average 11 kV distribution cable cost is 20 mkr/km.

10.1 Base Case scenario The base case is a case study that is simulated using the Icelandic system base model. The four EV load profiles are added to this model, and the study is conducted from the year 2018 to 2050. The base case mimics the current system operation. Each load case is simulated with all the five-generation portfolio located in different geographical areas in the system. Voltage and branch loading limit violations are recorded along with the simulation, to keep track of the most problematic areas of the network. As EV integration only increases consumption, only voltages decrease is expected. 10.1.1 Generation portfolio I ´Generation South´ All the fourteen power flow cases described in Chapter 9 are performed. For BAU, PROPOSAL and PREMIUM EV load profiles, power flow did not converge when BL2, RA1 and KR1 were disconnected. The production from Blanda area that was flowing east will be transmitted west, and there is also an increase of power being produced in the south. These power flow cases cannot be simulated without load shedding in the east of Blanda and reducing production in some parts of the country. As load increases, there is no power flow solution in BAN EV load profile when BL2, RA1, KR1 and VA1 are disconnected. A VA1 branch outage simulates a situation where Blanda is supplying Snaefellsnes peninsula and Westfjords as a result of a bad generation-load balance. Voltage and branch violations are shown in Appendix III (Apyjo, 2019) and discussed in Section 10.4. 10.1.1.1 BAU load profile Capacity issues are experienced mainly in the capital region. Transformers at substations A8, A5 and A7 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 29, AA1, AA3, AA6, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 cables exceed their thermal limits. The maximum is AA6, which requires 26.8 MVA.

47

From Figure 30, the lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are mainly lines connecting the new production to the network, and lines connecting the capital area. MFI and RM1 require 176.45 MVA and 110.34 MVA, respectively. Other lines are SE1 in the south, RA1 and LA1

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA3

AA6

AA1

TransformerA7‐SP2

FIGURE 29: Base case-BAU: Distribution network violations in Generation South

FIGURE 30: Base case-BAU: Transmission network violations in Generation South

48

in the north. In BAU load profile, the worst power flow case is the BL1 branch outage, which gives the highest asset costs. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand are presented in Table 16, while Table 17 show the summary of start-up, energy, losses and asset upgrade costs.

TABLE 16: Base case-BAU: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South

Branch KKS ID Capacity needed Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr] 54 AA1 0.41 5.5 0.504 - 1.14661 AA6 26.8 11.3 0.615 - 186.13162 AA3 1.1 2.6 0.692 - 1.979

144 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 7.07 - - 1.8 12.729145 A5-SP3(XFMR) 6.02 - - 1.8 10.833142 A1-A4-11 1.87 2.7 2.822 - 14.229154 A7-SP2(XFMR) 9.89 - - 1.8 17.805155 A6-A7-11 2.49 3.6 2.822 - 25.251158 A8-SP2(XFMR) 2.52 - - 1.8 4.528159 A8-SP3(XFMR) 5.24 - - 1.8 9.42920 KH1 14.86 8.65 0.184 - 23.67836 RA1 9.02 87.5 0.561 - 442.6353 RV1 31.86 1& 0.566 - 18.03460 AD7 25.34 1& 0.392 - 9.93663 SN1 95.42 30.8 0.392 - 1152.51264 MF1 176.45 6.8 0.33 - 395.55366 RM1 110.34 15 &0.33 - 545.64689 SE1 7.77 23 1.481 - 264.657

105 LA1 27.69 59.1 2 - 3272.99TOTAL 5,149.03

TABLE 17: Base case-BAU: Costs summary in Generation South

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 5859.15 5149.03 192.14 11008.18 135178.69 146186.87

10.1.1.2 PROPOSAL load profile In PROPOSAL load profile, SI4 is the worst power flow case prompting the east to be fed entirely by the generation in the north and northeast of Iceland. Some transformers at substations A8, A7, A5, A2 and A1 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 31, AA1, AA3, AA6, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 11 kV underground cables exceed their thermal limits. The maximum is AA6 underground cable which required 31.66 MVA. From Figure 32, the lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are mainly lines connecting the new production area and the network, and lines connecting the capital area. Other lines are SE1 in the south, RA1 and LA1 in the north. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand in the PROPOSAL load profile are presented in Table 18, while Table 19 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing EV load.

49

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA3

AA6

AA1

TransformerA1‐SP2

TransformerA7‐SP2

TransformerA2‐SP1

FIGURE 31: Base case-PROPOSAL: Distribution network violations in Generation South

FIGURE 32: Base case-PROPOSAL: Transmission network violations in Generation South

50

TABLE 18: Base case-PROPOSAL: Assets upgrade in Generation South

Branch KKS ID Capacity needed

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

- - [MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]54 AA1 2.55 5.5 0.504 - 7.06361 AA6 31.66 11.3 0.615 - 219.90362 AA3 5.47 2.6 0.692 - 9.848

135 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 0.51 - - 1.8 0.922135 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 0.51 - - 1.8 15.272144 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 8.08 - - 1.8 14.538142 A1-A4-11 2 2.7 2.822 - 15.272145 A5-SP3(XFMR 7.16 - - 1.8 12.896154 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 10.76 - 1.8 19.363155 A6-A7-11 2.76 3.6 2.822 - 27.994158 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 3.09 - - 1.8 5.567159 A8-SP3(XFMR) 5.84 - 1.8 10.51620 KH1 16.12 8.65 0.184 - 25.6836 RA1 11.25 87.5 0.561 - 551.8953 RV1 34.27 1 0.566 - 19.39660 AD7 31.25 1 0.392 - 12.25764 MF1 186.17 6.8 0.33 - 417.34366 RM1 120.31 15 0.33 - 594.91989 SE1 8.3 23 1.481 - 282.85

105 LA1 28.67 59.1 2 - 3388.34TOTAL 5,487.25

TABLE 19: Base case-PROPOSAL: Costs summary in Generation South

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 6,151.43 5,487.25 206.12 11,638.68 141,921.94 153,560.62

10.1.1.3 PREMIUM load profile All transformers at substations A8, A7, A5 and some transformers at A2 and A1 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 33, AA1, AA3, AA6, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 cables exceed their thermal limits. From Figure 34 the lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are mainly lines connecting the new production area and the network, and the lines connecting the capital area. Other lines are SE1 in the south, RA1 and LA1 in the north and BDI in the Westfjords. In PREMIUM load profile, disconnecting SI4 is the worst power flow case. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand in the PREMIUM load profile are presented in Table 20. Voltage and branch violations are presented in Appendix III (Apyjo, 2019). Table 21 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake.

51

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA3

AA6

AA1

TransformerA1‐SP2

TransformersA7‐SP1A7‐SP2

TransformerA2‐SP1

FIGURE 33: Base case-PREMIUM: Distribution network violations in Generation South

LA1RA1

SE1

KH1

MF1

RM1

SN1

BD1

AD7

RV1

FIGURE 34: Base case-PREMIUM: Transmission network violations in Generation South

52

TABLE 20: Base case-PREMIUM: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South

Branch KKS ID Capacity needed

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]54 AA1 26.06 5.5 0.504 - 72.19861 AA6 72.71 11.3 0.615 - 504.93362 AA3 41.84 2.6 0.692 - 75.318

135 A1-SP2(XFMR) 6.29 - - 1.8 11.322137 A2-SP2(XFMR) 3.25 - - 1.8 5.848142 A1-A4-11 3.3 2.7 2.822 - 25.165143 A5-SP2(XFMR) 7.8 - - 1.8 14.045144 A5-SP1(XFMR) 17.71 - - 1.8 31.883145 A5-SP3(XFMR) 18.16 - - 1.8 32.685153 A7-SP1 (XFMR) 2.22 - - 1.8 3.998154 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 19.19 - - 1.8 34.548158 A8-SP2(XFMR) 8.57 - - 1.8 15.418155 A1-A4-11 5.3 3.6 2.822 - 53.852159 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 11.61 - - 1.8 20.90520 KH1 19.98 8.65 0.184 - 31.83753 RV1 60.48 1 0.566 - 34.23260 AD7 82.24 1 0.392 - 32.25263 SN1 172.05 30.8 0.392 - 2078.166 RM1 203.75 15 0.33 - 1007.57889 SE1 11.89 23 1.481 - 405.129

105 LA1 19.52 59.1 2 - 2307.334122 BD1 0.58 37.2 1.111 24.084 122

TOTAL 6,948.39

TABLE 21: Base case-PREMIUM: Costs summary in Generation South

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 7,302.52 6,948.39 271.43 14,250.91 168,479.19 182,730.09

10.1.1.4 BAN load profile In BAN load profile, SI4 is the worst power flow case. All transformers at substations A8, A7, A5 and some transformers at A2 and A1 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 35, AA1, AA3, AA6, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 underground cables exceed their thermal limits. From Figure 36, the lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system in the capital area. Other lines are SE1 in the south, RA1 and LA1 in the north, BDI in the Westfjords and to the west VA1 and transformers at Brennimelur. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand in the BAN load profile are presented in Table 22. Voltage and branch violations are shown in Appendix III (Apyjo, 2019). Table 23 show the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake.

53

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA3

AA6

AA1

TransformerA1‐SP2

TransformersA7‐SP1A7‐SP2

TransformerA2‐SP1

FIGURE 35: Base case-BAN: Distribution network violations in Generation South

LA1RA1

SE1

KH1

MF1

RM1

SN1

BD1

VA2

LJ1

RV1

AD7

TransformersBREN‐SP1BREN‐SP2

FIGURE 36: Base case-BAN: Transmission network violations in Generation South

54

TABLE 22: Base case-BAN: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South

Branch KKS ID Capacity needed

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]54 AA1 25.12 5.5 0.504 - 69.59161 AA6 79.5 11.3 0.615 - 552.15462 AA3 49.22 2.6 0.692 - 88.604

135 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 6.3 - - 1.8 11.338137 A2-SP2 (XFMR) 3.25 - - 1.8 5.856143 A5-SP2 (XFMR) 7.81 - - 1.8 14.06145 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 18.17 - - 1.8 31.91153 A7-SP1 (XFMR) 2.23 - - 1.8 4.006154 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 19.22 - - 1.8 34.588155 A1-A7-11 5.3 3.6 2.822 - 53.852158 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 8.57 - - 1.8 15.421159 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 11.61 - - 1.8 20.90520 KH1 29.07 8.65 0.184 - 46.32725 BREN-SP1 (XFMR) 6.09 - - 1.8 10.96826 BREN-SP2 (XFMR) 6.09 - - 1.8 &10.96836 RA1 32.78 87.5 0.561 - 1608.26653 RV1 59.32 1 0.566 - 33.57860 AD7 88.28 1 0.392 - 34.61863 SN1 185.81 30.8 0.392 - 2244.32564 Mf1 281.9 6.8 0.33 - 631.94266 RM1 218.57 15 0.33 - 1080.86189 SE1 13.34 23 1.481 - 454.51392 LJ1 1.65 1.2 1.333 - 50.6998 VA2 10.25 2.2 1.667 1.8 &37.585

105 LA1 38.91 59.1 2 - 4599.182122 BDI 0.58 37.2 1.111 - 1.049

TOTAL 9,475.06

TABLE 23: Base case-BAN: Costs summary in Generation South

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 9,122.43 9,475.06 399.79 18,597.49 210,466.96 229,064.45

10.1.2 Generation portfolio II ´Generation North´ In this portfolio, the new production is in the northern part of the country. Power flow will not converge when branches in the north are disconnected. There is a need for load shedding and reducing production in the northeast as there is no proper connection between the north and south. It was only possible to perform four power flow cases: no fault case outage, SU2, BU2 and SE2 branch outages. The results from the four power flow cases are not presented as this is not the system worst case scenario. 10.1.3 Generation portfolio III ´Generation West-North-Northeast´ In this portfolio, new production is in the northern part of the country and the Westfjords. Power flow will not converge when branches in the north are disconnected. There is a need for load shedding and reducing production in the northeast as there is no proper connection between the north and south. It is only possible to perform five power flow cases: no-fault case, SU2, SU3, BU2 and SE2 branch outages. The results from the five power flow cases are also not presented as this is not the system worst case scenario.

55

10.1.4 Generation portfolio IV ´Generation South-West-North´ Power flow did not converge when BL2, RA1 and KR1 power flow cases were performed for all the four EV load profiles. This is also a result of the stress put in both the eastern and southern parts of the country. Power from Blanda catchment area that was flowing east will be transmitted west, and there is also an increase of electricity being produced in the south, west and Blanda area. Voltage and branch violations are shown in Appendix III (Apyjo, 2019). 10.1.4.1 BAU load profile Both transformers at substation A8 and some transformers at substation A5 and A7 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 37, AA1, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 cables exceed their thermal limits. From Figure 38, the lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are RM1, SN1, MF1 in Reykjanes Peninsula, RV1 in the capital area, HRIB in the south-west, SE1 in the south, and RA1, BL2 and LA1 in the north. In BAU load profile, disconnecting BL1 is the worst power flow case giving the highest asset upgrade costs. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand in BAU load profile are presented in Table 24, while Table 25 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake.

TABLE 24: Base case-BAU: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South-West-North

Branch KKS ID Capacity needed

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]54 AA1 14.15 5.5 0.504 - 39.214

142 A1-A4-11 1.87 2.7 2.822 - 14.214144 A5-SP1(XFMR) 7.05 - - 1.8 12.686145 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 6 - - 1.8 10.797154 A7-SP2(XFMR) 9.86 - - 1.8 17.752155 A6-7-11 2.49 3.6 2.822 - 25.251158 A8-SP2(XFMR) 2.51 - - 1.8 4.524159 A8-SP3(XFMR) 5.23 - - 1.8 9.4077 HRIB 5.09 9.75 0.169 - 8.3734 BL2 39.72 32.4 0.392 - 504.67536 RA1 72.86 87.5 0.561 - 3574.8653 RV1 46.35 1 0.566 - 26.23763 SN1 2.24 30.8 0.392 - 27.09164 MF1 81.42 6.8 0.33 - 182.52866 RM1 13.03 15 0.33 64.4589 SE1 6.39 23 1.481 - 217.716

105 LA1 56.78 59.1 2 - 6,711.327TOTAL 7,201.37

TABLE 25: Base case-BAU: Costs summary in Generation South-West-North

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 6,233.94 7,201.37 249.78 13,435.3 143,825.5 157,260.8

56

LA1RA1

SE1

MF1

RM1

SN1

BL2

HRIB

RV1

FIGURE 38: Base case-BAU: Transmission network violations in Generation South-West-North

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformerA7‐SP2

FIGURE 37: Base case-BAU: Distribution network violations in Generation South-West-North

57

10.1.4.2 PROPOSAL load profile Both transformers at substation A8 and some transformers at substations A5, A1 and A7 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 39, AA1, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 underground cables exceed their thermal limits. From Figure 40, the lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are RM1, SN1, MF1 in Reykjanes Peninsula, RV1 in the capital area, HRIB in the south-west, SE1 in the south, and RA1, BL2 and LA1 in the north. In PROPOSAL load profile, disconnecting BL1 is the worst power flow case giving the highest asset upgrade costs. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand in the PROPOSAL load profile are presented in Table 26, while Table 27 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake.

TABLE 26: Base case-PROPOSAL: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South-West-North

Branch KKS ID Capacity needed

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]54 AA1 16.77 5.5 0.504 - 46.468

135 A1-SP2(XFMR) 0.49 - - 1.8 0.89142 A1-A4-11 2 2.7 2.822 - 15.254144 A5-SP1(XFMR) 8.05 - - 1.8 14.489145 A5-SP3(XFMR) 7.14 - - 1.8 12.855154 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 10.72 - - 1.8 19.302155 A6-A7-11 2.76 3.6 2.822 - 27.994159 A8-SP3(XFMR) 5.83 - - 1.8 10.491158 A8-SP2(XFMR) 3.09 - - 1.8 5.5627 HRIB 6.4 9.75 0.169 - 10.52634 BL2 42.62 32.4 0.392 - 541.48336 RA1 75.58 87.5 0.561 - 3708.21453 RV1 49.31 1 0.566 - 27.90963 SN1 5.32 30.8 0.392 - 64.20664 MF1 85.68 6.8 0.33 - 192.06666 RM1 17.36 15 0.33 - 85.86789 SE1 6.89 23 1.481 - 234.829

105 LA1 58.55 59.1 2 - 6920.777TOTAL 7,572.63

TABLE 27: Base case-PROPOSAL: Costs summary in Generation South-West-North

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 6,529.25 7,572.63 266.34 14,101.88 150,638.7 164,740.58

58

FIGURE 39: Base case-PROPOSAL: Distribution network violations in Generation South-West-North

LA1RA1

SE1

MF1

RM1

SN1

BL2

HRIB

RV1

FIGURE 40: Base case-PROPOSAL: Transmission network violations in Generation South-West-North

59

10.1.4.3 PREMIUM load profile In PREMIUM load profile, BLI branch outage is the worst power flow case. All the transformers at substations A8, A5 and some transformers at substation A7, A1 and A2 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 41, AA1, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 cables exceed their thermal limits. From Figure 42, the lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are RM1, SN1, MF1 in Reykjanes Peninsula, RV1and AD7 in the capital area, HRIB in the south-west, SE1 in the south, and RA1, BL2 and LA1 in the north. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand in the PREMIUM load profile are presented in Table 28, while Table 29 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake.

TABLE 28: Base case-PREMIUM: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South-West-North

Branch KKS ID Capacity needed

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]54 AA1 26.71 5.5 0.504 - 73.99

135 A1-SP2(XFMR) 2.77 - - 1.8 4.99137 A2-SP2 (XFMR) 0.65 - - 1.8 1.164142 A1-A4-11 2.52 2.7 2.822 - 19.166143 A5-SP2 (XFMR) 2.94 - - 1.8 5.294144 A5-SP1(XFMR) 11.83 - - 1.8 21.293145 A5-SP3(XFMR) 11.46 - - 1.8 20.623154 A7-SP2(XFMR) 13.99 - - 1.8 25.185155 A6-A7-11 3.77 3.6 2.822 - 38.278158 A8-SP2(XFMR) 5.26 - - 1.8 9.465159 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 8.1 - - 1.8 14.5777 HRIB 11.55 9.75 0.169 - 18.9934 BL25 53.54 32.4 0.392 - 680.24236 RA1 85.76 87.5 0.561 - 4207.67553 RV1 60.5 1 0.566 - 34.24760 AD7 6.94 1 0.392 - 2.72263 SN1 16.82 30.8 0.392 - 203.11364 MF1 101.64 6.8 0.33 - 227.86266 RM1 33.62 15 0.33 - 166.25689 SE1 8.78 23 1.481 - 299.163

105 LA1 65.42 59.1 2 - 7,732.446TOTAL 9,067.55

TABLE 29: Base case-PREMIUM: Costs summary in Generation South-West-North

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 7,650.42 9,067.55 334.37 16,717.97 176,505.8 193,223.76

60

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformerA1‐SP2Transformer

A2‐SP2

TransformerA7‐SP2

FIGURE 41: Base case-PREMIUM: Distribution network violations in

Generation South-West-North

LA1RA1

SE1

MF1

RM1

SN1

BL2

HRIB

RV1

AD7

FIGURE 42: Base case-PREMIUM: Transmission network violations in Generation South-West-North

61

10.1.4.4 BAN load profile All the transformers at substations A8, A5 and some transformers at substation A7, A1 and A2 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 43, AA1, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 underground cables exceed their thermal limits. From Figure 44 the lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are RM1, SN1, MF1 in Reykjanes Peninsula, RV1 and AD7 in the capital area, HRIB in the south-west, SE1 in the south, and RA1, BL2 and LA1 in the north. Transformers at Írafoss and Geitháls substations are overloaded. In BAN load profile, BL1 branch outage is the worst power flow case. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand in the BAN load profile are presented in Table 30, while Table 31 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake.

TABLE 30: Base case BAN: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South-West-North

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

- - [MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]54 AA1 42.2 5.5 0.504 - 116.92161 AA6 13.54 11.3 0.615 - 94.027

135 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 6.25 - - 1.8 11.251137 A2-SP2 (XFMR) 3.23 - - 1.8 5.812142 A1-A4-11 3.3 2.7 2.822 - 25.125143 A5-SP2 (XFMR) 7.76 - - 1.8 13.976145 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 18.1 - - 1.8 32.572144 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 17.64 - - 1.8 31.759153 A7-SP1 (XFMR) 2.2 - - 1.8 3.962154 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 19.09 - - 1.8 34.359155 A6-A7-11 5.3 3.6 2.822 - 53.852158 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 8.56 - - 1.8 15.405159 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 11.58 - - 1.8 20.8447 HRIB 20.88 9.75 0.169 - 34.33434 BL2 70.04 32.4 0.392 - 889.97636 RA1 100.93 87.5 0.56 - 4952.09548 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 11.13 - - 1.8 20.03749 GE-SP2 (XFMR) 11.13 - - 1.8 20.03753 RV1 77.94 1 0.566 - 44.1260 AD7 28.51 1 0.392 - 11.18163 SN1 33.83 30.8 0.392 - 408.63864 MF1 125.54 6.8 0.33 - 281.43666 RM1 57.95 15 0.33 - 286.563

82 IRAFOSS-132

(XFMR) 4.44 - - 1.8 7.994

89 SE1 11.65 23 1.481 - 396.967105 LA1 76.35 59.1 2 - 9024.764122 BD1 0.587 37.2 1.111 - 24.084

TOTAL 12,309.71

TABLE 31: Base case-BAN: Costs summary in Generation South-West-North

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 9,396.87 12,309.71 458.35 21,706.58 216,798.81 238,505.4

62

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformersA1‐SP2Transformers

A2‐SP2

AA6

TransformersA7‐SP2

FIGURE 43: Base case-BAN: Distribution network violations in Generation South-West-North

LA1RA1

SE1

MF1

RM1

SN1

BL2

HRIB

RV1

AD7

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

BD1

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

FIGURE 44: Base case-BAN: Transmission network violations in Generation South-West-North

63

10.1.5 Generation portfolio V ´Generation-South-Northeast-North-West´ Generation in this portfolio is distributed around the network. In BAU and PROPOSAL load profiles, power flow for KR1 branch outage did not converge. In PREMIUM load case, power flow cases KR1 and HT1, power flow did not converge, and in BAN power flow cases KR1, HT1, BL1 branch outages power flow did not converge. HT1 branch outage for BAU and PROPOSAL load cases is the worst case out of the simulated cases, BL1 for PREMIUM and as the load increases KR2 branch was the worst case in BAN load profile. Voltage and branch violations are shown in Appendix III (Apyjo, 2019). 10.1.5.1 BAU load profile In BAU load profile, both transformers in substation A8 and some transformers in substation A7 and A5 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 45, AA1, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 cables exceed their thermal limits. From Figure 46, the lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are MF1 in Reykjanes Peninsula, RV1 in the capital area, HRIB in the south-west, SE1 in the south, and RA1, KR2, FL2 and LA1 in the north and ES1 and LF1 in the east. The transformer at Eyvind substation is overloaded. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand for this generation mix and load profile are presented in Table 32, while Table 33 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake.

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformersA7‐SP2

FIGURE 45: Base case-BAU: Distribution network violations in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

64

TABLE 32: Base case-BAU: Transmission network violations in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]54 AA1 17.79 5.5 0.504 49.278

142 A1-A4-11 1.87 2.7 2.822 - 14.21144 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 7.04 - - 1.8 12.678145 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 5.99 - - 1.8 10.79154 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 9.86 - - 1.8 17.743155 A6-A7-11 2.49 3.6 2.822 - 25.251158 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 2.51 - - 1.8 4.523159 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 5.22 - - 1.8 9.403

7 HRIB 47.76 9.75 0.169 - 78.5536 RA1 23.64 87.5 0.561 - 1159.84539 KR2 54.31 123.3 0.392 - 2625.87840 FL2 23.1 32 0.392 - 289.85753 RV1 50.08 1 0.566 - 28.34864 MF1 56.95 6.8 0.33 - 127.67789 SE1 5.39 23 1.481 - 183.551

105 LA1 35.89 59.1 2 - 4241.61111 EYVIND-66 (XFMR) 9.24 - - 1.8 16.631112 LF1 36.22 34 1.176 - 1448.659115 ES1 0.38 29.4 1.481 - 16.586

TOTAL 8,965.35

LA1RA1

SE1

MF1

HRIB

RV1

KR2

FL2

EYVIND‐66

ES1

LF1

FIGURE 46: Base case-BAU: Transmission network violations in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

65

TABLE 33: Base case-BAU: Costs summary in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 6,643.14 8,965.35 318.12 15,608.48 153,266.3 168,874.79

10.1.5.2 PROPOSAL load profile In PROPOSAL load profile, both transformers at substation A8 and some transformers at substation A7, A5 and A1 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 47, AA1, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 cables exceed their thermal limits. From Figure 48, the lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are: MF1 and RM1 in Reykjanes Peninsula, RV1 in the capital area, HRIB in the south-west, SE1 in the south, and RA1, KR2, FL2, BL2 and LA1 in the north and ES1 and LF1 in the east. The transformers at Eyvind substation is overloaded. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand in the PROPOSAL load profile for this generation portfolio are presented in Table 34, while Table 35 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake.

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformerA1‐SP2

TransformerA7‐SP2

FIGURE 47: Base case-PROPOSAL: Distribution network violations in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

66

TABLE 34: Base case-PROPOSAL: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]54 AA1 20.24 5.5 0.504 - 56.071

115 A6-A7-11 3.84 29.4 1.481 - 167.176135 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 0.49 - - 1.8 0.885142 A1-A4-11 2 2.7 2.822 - 15.251144 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 8.04 - - 1.8 14.481145 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 7.14 - - 1.8 12.848154 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 10.72 - - 1.8 19.292155 A6-A7-11 2.76 3.6 2.822 - 27.994158 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 3.09 - - 1.8 5.562159 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 5.83 - - 1.8 10.487

7 HRIB 49.61 9.75 0.169 - 81.59436 RA1 30.34 87.5 0.561 - 1488.50739 KR2 68.64 123.3 0.392 - 3319.01640 FL2 30.6 32 0.392 - 384.05353 RV1 52.87 1 0.566 - 29.92464 MF1 61.96 6.8 0.33 - 138.89789 SE1 5.9 23 1.481 - 200.883

105 LA1 38.84 59.1 2 - 4591.136111 EYVIND-66 (XFMR) 20.11 - - 1.8 36.2112 LF1 51.74 34 1.176 - 2069.658

TOTAL 11,457.44

LA1RA1

SE1

MF1

HRIB

RV1

KR2

FL2

EYVIND‐66

LF1

RM1

FIGURE 48: Base case-PROPOSAL: Transmission network violations in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

67

TABLE 35: Base case-PROPOSAL: Costs summary in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 7,117.12 11,457.44 369.46 18,574.56 164,201.69 182,776.25

10.1.5.3 PREMIUM load profile In PREMIUM load profile, all the transformers at substations A8, A5 and some transformers at substations A7, A5, A2 and A1 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 49, AA1, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 cables exceed their thermal limits. From Figure 50, the lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are MF1 and RM1 in Reykjanes Peninsula, RV1 in the capital area, HRIB in the south-west, SE1 in the south, and RA1, KR2, FL2, BL2 and LA1 in the north, ES1 and LF1 in the east. Transformers at Eyvind, Írafoss and Geitháls substations are overloaded. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand in the PREMIUM load profile for this generation portfolio are presented in Table 36, while Table 37 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake. TABLE 36: Base case-PREMIUM: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]54 AA1 30.03 5.5 0.504 - 83.195

135 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 2.77 - - 1.8 4.983137 A2-SP2 (XFMR) 0.64 - - 1.8 1.161142 A1-A4-11 2.52 2.7 2.822 - 19.162143 A5-SP2 (XFMR) 2.94 - - 1.8 5.287144 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 11.82 - - 1.8 21.282145 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 11.45 - - 1.8 20.613154 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 13.98 - - 1.8 25.171158 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 5.26 - - 1.8 9.463155 A6-A7-11 3.77 3.6 2.822 - 38.278159 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 8.1 - - 1.8 14.571

7 HRIB 48.67 9.75 0.169 - 80.04534 BL2 0.18 32.4 0.392 - 2.33836 RA1 35.1 87.5 0.561 - 1722.12739 KR2 101.66 123.3 0.392 - 4,915.67540 FL2 43.39 32 0.392 - 544.48348 GE-SP1 4.72 - - 1.8 8.48749 GE-SP1 4.72 - - 1.8 8.48753 RV1 63.92 1 0.566 - 36.18389 SE1 7.85 23 1.481 - 267.42964 MF1 78.05 6.8 0.33 - 174.96766 RM1 9.48 15 0.33 - 46.87582 IRAFOSS-132 (XFMR) 3.19 - - 1.8 5.739

105 LA1 42.24 59.1 2 - 4,992.951111 EYVIND-66 (XFMR) 49.3 - - 1.8 88.74112 LF1 95.45 34 1.176 - 3,817.914115 ES1 14.11 29.4 1.481 - 614.702

TOTAL 11,457.44

68

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformerA1‐SP2Transformer

A2‐SP2

TransformerA7‐SP2

FIGURE 49: Base case-PREMIUM: Distribution network violations- Generation South-Northeast-North-West

LA1RA1

SE1

MF1

HRIB

RV1

KR2

FL2

EYVIND‐66

ES1

LF1

BL2

RM1

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

FIGURE 50: Base case-PREMIUM: Transmission network violations in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

69

TABLE 37: Base case -PREMIUM: Costs summary in Generation-South-Northeast-North-West

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 8,598 17,926.29 525.06 26,524.29 198,367.74 224,892.04

10.1.5.4 BAN load profile In BAN load profile, all the transformers at substations A8, A7, A5 and some transformers at substation A2 and A1 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 51, AA1, AA6, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 cables exceed their thermal limits. From Figure 52, the lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are: MF1, SN1 and RM1 in Reykjanes Peninsula, RV1, AD7 in the capital area, HRIB in the south-west, SE1 and LJ1 in the south, RA1, KR2, BL1, BL2, TR2 and LA1 in the north, BD1 in the Westfjords and VA1 in the west. Transformers at Írafoss, Geitháls and Brennimelur substations are overloaded. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand in the BAN load profile for this generation portfolio are presented in Table 38. Table shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake.

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformerA1‐SP2Transformer

A2‐SP2

TransformerA7‐SP1A7‐SP2

AA6

FIGURE 51: Base case-BAN: Distribution network violations- Generation South-Northeast-North-West

70

TABLE 38: Base case-BAN: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]54 AA1 46.48 5.5 0.504 - 128.76161 AA6 3.08 11.3 0.615 - 21.422

135 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 6.25 - - 1.8 11.242137 A2-SP2 (XFMR) 3.23 - - 1.8 5.807142 A1-A4-11 3.3 2.7 2.822 - 25.121143 A5-SP2 (XFMR) 7.76 - - 1.8 13.968144 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 17.64 - - 1.8 31.743145 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 18.09 - - 1.8 32.558153 A7-SP1 (XFMR) 2.2 - - 1.8 3.958154 A5-SP2 (XFMR) 19.08 - - 1.8 34.338155 A6-A7-11 5.3 3.6 2.822 - 53.852158 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 8.56 - - 1.8 15.403159 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 11.58 - - 1.8 20.8367 HRIB 47.76 9.75 0.169 - 78.5525 BREN-SP1 (XFMR) 16.72 - - 1.8 30.08726 BREN-SP1 (XFMR) 16.72 - - 1.8 30.08727 VA1 13.29 20.2 0.392 - 105.24628 HT1 108.48 77.1 0.392 - 3279.80432 BL2 62.76 72.7 0.392 - 1789.14633 BL1 92.35 32.7 0.392 - 1184.28236 RA1 2.32& 87.5 0.561 - 113.82438 KR1 73.46 82.1 0.392 - 2,365.26148 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 17.86 - - 1.8 32.1449 GE-SP2 (XFMR) 17.86 - - 1.8 32.1453 RV1 82.36 1 0.566 - 46.61760 AD7 18.81 1 0.392 - 7.37563 SN1 4.34 30.8 0.392 - 52.4164 MF1 95.49 6.8 0.33 - 214.07466 RM1 27.15 15 0.33 - 134.23582 IRAFOSS-132 (XFMR) 9.64 - - 1.8 17.34489 SE1 11.31 23 1.48 - 385.34692 LJ1 5.6 1.2 1.333 - 8.95794 VATSN-SP1 (XFMR) 24.28 - - 1.8 43.70395 VATSN-SP2 (XFMR) 24.28 - - 1.8 43.70398 VA2 119.3 2.2 1.667 - 437.449

105 LA1 54.23 59.1 2 - 6,409.909109 TR2 7.73 22 1.404 - 238.672110 THR-SP2 (XFMR) 9.9 - - 1.8 17.818122 BDI 0.58 37.2 1.111 - 24.084

TOTAL 17,528.31

TABLE 39: Base case-BAN: Costs summary in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses+start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 10,140.06 17,528.31 628 27,668.37 233,945.18 261,613.55

71

10.1.6 Base Case scenario "worst-case" asset violations 10.1.6.1 BAU load profile Figures 53 and 54 show the worst-case asset violations from all the generation profiles in BAU. Table 40 shows the capacity needed and the costs of the violations in different parts of the network.

LA1RA1

SE1

MF1

HRIB

RV1

KR1

BL2

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

BL1

HT1

VA1

BD1

SN1

AD7

TransformersBREN‐SP1BREN‐SP2

TransformersVATSN‐SP1VATSN‐SP2

LJ1

VA2

TransformerTHR‐SP2TR2

FIGURE 52: Base case-BAN: Transmission network violations in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformersA7‐SP2

AA6

AA3

FIGURE 53: Base case: Worst-case distribution network violations in BAU

72

TABLE 40: Base case: Worst-case asset violation costs in BAU

Branch KKS ID Capacity needed

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]54 AA1 14.15 5.5 0.504 - 39.21461 AA6 26.8 11.3 0.615 - 186.13162 AA3 1.1 2.6 0.692 - 1.979142 A1-A4-11 1.87 2.7 2.822 - 14.214144 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 7.07 - - 1.8 12.729145 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 6.02 - - 1.8 10.833154 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 9.89 - - 1.8 17.805155 A6-A7-11 2.49 3.6 2.822 - 25.251158 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 2.52 - - 1.8 4.528159 A8-SP3 5.24 - - 1.8 9.429

7 HRI 47.76 9.75 0.169 - 78.5520 KH1 14.86 8.65 0.184 - 23.67834 BL2 39.72 32.4 0.392 - 504.67536 RA1 72.86 87.5 0.561 - 3574.8639 KR2 54.31 123.3 0.392 - 2625.87840 FL2 23.1 32 0.392 - 289.85753 RV1 50.08 1 0.566 - 28.34860 AD7 25.34 1 0.392 - 9.93663 SN1 95.42 30.8 0.392 - 1152.51264 MF1 176.45 6.8 0.33 - 395.55366 RM1 110.34 15 0.33 - 545.64689 SE1 7.77 23 1.481 - 264.657105 LA1 56.78 59.1 2 - 6,711.327111 EYVIND-66 (XFMR) 9.24 - - 1.8 16.631112 LF1 36.22 34 1.176 - 1,448.659115 ES1 0.38 29.4 1.481 - 16.586

TOTAL 18,009.466

SE1

RV1

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

VA2

TransformersVATNS‐66VATNS‐66

HRIB

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

TransformerBUR‐SP5

TransformersBREN‐SP1BREN‐SP2

HT1

KO1

AD7

MF1

LV1BL1

HU2

HRIA

LF1

BD1

FIGURE 54: Base case: Worst-case transmission network violations in BAU

73

10.1.6.2 PROPOSAL load profile Figure 55 and Figure 56 show the worst-case asset violations from all the generation profiles in PROPOSAL. Table 41 shows the capacity needed and the costs of violations in different parts of the network.

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformerA1‐SP2

TransformerA7‐SP2

AA6

AA3

FIGURE 55: Base case: Worst-case distribution network violations in PROPOSAL

LA1RA1

SE1

MF1

HRIB

RV1

KR2

FL2

EYVIND‐66

LF1

BL2

RM1KH1

AD7

SN1

FIGURE 56: Base case: Worst-case transmission network violations in PROPOSAL

74

TABLE 41: Base case: Worst-case asset violation costs in PROPOSAL

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]54 AA1 20.24 5.5 0.504 - 56.07161 AA6 31.66 11.3 0.615 - 219.90362 AA3 5.47 2.6 0.692 - 9.848

115 A6-A7-11 3.84 29.4 1.481 - 167.176135 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 0.51 - - 1.8 0.922142 A1-A4-11 2 2.7 2.822 - 15.272144 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 8.08 - - 1.8 14.538145 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 7.16 - - 1.8 12.896154 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 10.76 - - 1.8 19.363155 A6-A7-11 2.76 3.6 2.822 - 27.994158 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 3.09 - - 1.8 5.567159 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 5.84 - - 1.8 10.516

7 HRIB 49.61 9.75 0.169 - 81.59420 KH1 16.12 8.65 0.184 - 25.6834 BL2 42.62 32.4 0.392 - 541.48336 RA1 75.58 87.5 0.561 - 3,708.21439 KR2 68.64 123.3 0.392 - 3,319.01640 FL2 30.6 32 0.392 - 384.05353 RV1 49.31 1 0.566 - 27.90960 AD7 31.25 1 0.392 - 12.25763 SN1 103.78 30.8 0.392 - 1253.45264 MF1 186.17 6.8 0.33 - 417.34366 RM1 120.31 15 0.33 - 594.91989 SE1 8.3 23 1.481 - 282.85

105 LA1 58.55 59.1 2 - 6920.777111 EYVIND-66 (XFMR) 20.11 - - 1.8 36.2112 LF1 51.74 34 1.176 - 2069.658

TOTAL 20,203.251 10.1.6.3 PREMIUM load profile Figure 57 and Figure 58 show the worst-case asset violations from all the generation profiles in PREMIUM. Table 42 shows the capacity needed and the costs of violations in different parts of the network

75

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformerA1‐SP2Transformer

A2‐SP2

TransformersA7‐SP1A7‐SP2

AA6

AA3

FIGURE 57: Base case: Worst-case distribution network violations in PREMIUM

LA1RA1

SE1

MF1

HRIB

RV1

KR2

FL2

EYVIND‐66

ES1

LF1

BL2

RM1

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

AD7

KH1SN1

BD1

FIGURE 58: Base case: Worst-case transmission network violations in PREMIUM

76

TABLE 42: Base case: Worst-case asset violation costs in PREMIUM

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]54 AA1 30.03 5.5 0.504 - 83.19561 AA6 72.71 11.3 0.615 - 504.93362 AA3 41.84 2.6 0.692 - 75.318

135 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 6.29 - - 1.8 11.322137 A2-SP2 (XFMR) 3.25 - - 1.8 5.848142 A1-A4-11 3.3 2.7 2.822 - 25.165143 A5-SP2 (XFMR) 7.8 - - 1.8 14.045144 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 17.71 - - 1.8 31.883145 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 18.16 - - 1.8 32.685153 A7-SP1 (XFMR) 2.22 - - 1.8 3.998154 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 19.19 - - 1.8 34.548155 A1-A4-11 5.3 3.6 2.822 - &53.852158 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 8.57 - - 1.8 &15.418159 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 11.61 - - 1.8 20.9057 HRIB 48.67 9.75 0.169 - 80.04520 KH1 19.98 8.65 0.184 - 31.83734 BL2 0.18 32.4 0.392 - 2.33836 RA1 85.76 87.5 0.561 - 4,207.67539 KR2 101.66 123.3 0.392 - 49,15.67540 FL2 43.39 32 0.392 - 544.48348 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 4.72 - - 1.8 8.48749 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 4.72 - - 1.8 8.48753 RV1 60.5 1 0.566 - 34.24760 AD7 82.24 1 0.392 - 32.25263 SN1 172.05 30.8 0.392 - 2078.164 MF1 267.47 6.8 0.33 - 599.59566 RM1 203.75 15 0.33 - 1,007.57882 IRAFOSS-132 (XFMR) 3.19 - - 1.8 5.739

122 BD1 0.58 37.2 1.111 - 24.084105 LA1 65.42 59.1 2 - 7,732.446111 EYVIND-66 (XFMR) 49.3 - - 1.8 88.74112 LF1 95.45 34 1.176 - 3,817.914115 ES1 14.11 29.4 1.481 - 614.702

TOTAL 26,714.854

10.1.6.4 BAN load profile Figure 59 and Figure 60 show the worst case asset violations from all the generation profiles in BAN. Table 48 shows the capacity needed and the costs of violations in different parts of the network.

77

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformersA7‐SP1A7‐SP2

AA6

AA3

TransformerA1‐SP2

TransformerA2‐SP2

FIGURE 59: Base case: Worst-case distribution network violations in BAN

LA1RA1

SE1

MF1

HRIB

RV1

KR1

BL2

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

BL1

HT1

VA1

BD1

SN1

AD7

TransformersBREN‐SP1BREN‐SP2

TransformersVATSN‐SP1VATSN‐SP2

LJ1

VA2

TransformerTHR‐SP2TR2

KH1

FIGURE 60: Base case: Worst-case transmission network violations in BAN

78

TABLE 43: Base case: 'Worst-case asset violation costs in BAN

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]54 AA1 46.48 5.5 0.504 - 128.76161 AA6 79.5 11.3 0.615 - 552.15462 AA3 49.22 2.6 0.692 - 88.604

135 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 6.3 - - 1.8 11.338137 A2-SP2 (XFMR) 3.2 - - 1.8 5.856142 A1-A4-11 3.3 2.7 2.822 5.948143 A5-SP2 (XFMR) 7.81 - - 1.8 14.06144 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 17.73 2.5 1.5 - 66.48145 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 18.17 - - 1.8 31.91153 A7-SP1 (XFMR) 2.23 - - 1.8 4.006154 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 19.22 - 2.4 - 34.588155 A1-A7-11 5.3 3.6 2.822 - 53.852158 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 8.57 - - 1.8 15.421159 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 11.62 - - 1.8 20.919

7 HRIB 20.88 9.75 0.169 - 34.33420 KH1 29.07 8.65 0.184 - 46.32725 BREN-SP1 (XFMR) 16.72 - - 1.8 30.08726 BREN-SP1 (XFMR) 16.72 - - 1.8 30.08727 VA1 13.29 20.2 0.392 - 105.24628 HT1 108.48 77.1 0.392 - 3279.80433 BL1 92.35 32.7 0.392 - 1184.28234 BL2 70.04 32.4 0.392 - 889.97636 RA1 100.93 87.5 0.561 - 4,952.09538 KR1 73.46 82.1 0.392 - 2,365.26148 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 17.86 - - 1.8 32.1449 GE-SP2 (XFMR) 17.86 - - 1.8 32.1453 RV1 77.94 1 0.566 - 44.1260 AD7 88.28 1 0.392 - 34.61863 SN1 185.81 30.8 0.392 - 2,244.32564 MF1 281.9 6.8 0.33 - 631.94266 RM1 218.57 15 0.33 - 1,080.86182 IRAFOSS-132 (XFMR) 9.64 - - 1.8 17.34489 SE1 13.34 23 1.481 - 454.51392 LJ1 1.65 1.2 1.333 - 50.6994 VATSN-SP1 (XFMR) 24.28 - - 1.8 43.70395 VATSN-SP2 (XFMR) 24.28 - - 1.8 43.70398 VA2 119.3 2.2 1.667 - 437.449

105 LA1 76.35 59.1 2 - 9,024.764109 TR2 7.73 22 1.404 - 238.672110 THR-SP2 (XFMR) 9.9 - - 1.8 17.818122 BDI 0.58 37.2 1.111 - 1.049

TOTAL 28,381.247 10.1.7 Summary of simulations in the Base Case scenario In order to keep track of the most problematic areas, all the voltage and branches loading limit violations were recorded along with the simulation. From the results obtained, it is possible to conclude that all the EV load profiles will lead to a significant rise in the network peak load. Capacity issues are experienced in the capital area and some parts of the country. It was also noted that load shedding and generation reduction is inevitable for some power flow cases. Figures 61, 62 and 63 give a summary of the costs associated with the network reinforcements needed to support the increase in demand as a

79

result of the EV uptake. The start-up costs are very high compared to the energy, losses and assets upgrade costs.

10.2 Upgraded system scenario Upgraded system scenario is a case that is simulated using the updated system plan model, Landsnet’s 2017 base load and the four EV load profiles. This case study investigates the updated system plan model behaviour and the impact of increasing the capacity from year 2027 to 2050.

(a) Assets, Energy and Losses costs in Generation South

(b) Total costs including start-up costs in Generation South

FIGURE 61: Base case: Summary of Generation South

(a) Assets, Energy and Losses costs in Generation South-West-North

(b) Total costs including start-up costs in Generation South-West-North

FIGURE 62: Base case: Summary of Generation South-West-North

(a) Assets, Energy and Losses costs in Generation-South Northeast-North-West

(b) Total costs including start-up costs in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

FIGURE 63: Base case: Summary of Generation South-Northeast-North-West

80

10.2.1 Generation portfolio I ´Generation South´ For all the EV load profiles, power flow will not converge when SU3, VA1 and HT1 are disconnected. SI4 branch outage is the worst power flow case. Voltage and branch violations are shown in Appendix III (Apyjo, 2019). 10.2.1.1 BAU load profile In BAU load profile, both transformers at substations A8 and some transformers at substations A7 and A5 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 64, AA1, AA2, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 cables exceed their thermal limits. From Figure 65, the lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system: MF1, and RM1 in Reykjanes Peninsula, RV1 in the capital area, SE1 in the south, SU3 in the south-west and VA1, HT1 and VA2 in the west. Transformers at Geitháls and Brennimelur substations are overloaded. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand for this load and generation portfolio are presented in Table 44, while Table 45 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake.

TABLE 44: Upgraded system-BAU: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 3.11 5.5 0.504 - 8.61956 AA2 1.05 10.3 0.551 - 8.504

156 A1-A4-11 1.86 2.7 2.822 - 14.196158 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 7.03 - - 1.8 12.647159 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 5.98 - - 1.8 10.765168 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 9.79 - - 1.8 17.624169 A6-A7-11 2.49 3.6 2.822 - 25.251172 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 2.51 - - 1.8 &4.517173 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 5.2 - - 1.8 9.3689 SU3 3.76 121.6 0.169 - 77.20325 BREN-SP1 (XFMR) 37.54 - - 1.8 67.57426 BREN-SP2 (XFMR) 37.54 - - 1.8& 67.57427 VA1 48.80 20.2 0.392 - 386.59828 HT1 3.20 77.1 0.392 - 96.84449 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 12.02 - - 1.8 21.63450 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 12.02& - - 1.8 21.63454 RV1 35.34 1 0.566 - 20.00366 MF1 16.68 6.8 0.33 - 37.40168 RMI 121.68 15 0.33 - 601.71792 SE1 9.53 23 1.481 - 324.689

101 VA2 55.14 2.2 1.667 - 202.162TOTAL 2,036.55

TABLE 45: Upgraded system-BAU: Costs summary in Generation South

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 6,116.19 2,036.55 224.51 8,152.71 141,108.81 149,261.52

81

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformerA7‐SP2

AA2

FIGURE 64: Upgraded system-BAU: Distribution network violations in Generation South

SE1

MF1

RV1

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

HT1

VA1

TransformersBREN‐SP1BREN‐SP2

VA2

SU3

FIGURE 65: Upgraded system-BAU: Transmission network violations in Generation South

82

10.2.1.2 PROPOSAL load profile In PROPOSAL load profile, both transformers at substations A8 and some transformers at substations A7, A1 and A5 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 66, AA1, AA2, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 cables exceed their thermal limits. From Figure 67, the lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are MF1, and RM1 in Reykjanes Peninsula, RV1 in the capital area, SE1 in the south, SU3 in the south-west and VA1, HT1 and VA2 in the west. Transformers at Geitháls and Brennimelur substations are overloaded. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand for this load and generation portfolio are presented in Table 46, while Table 47 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake.

TABLE 46: Upgraded system-PROPOSAL: Transmission network violations in Generation South

Branch KKS ID Capacity needed

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 4.72 5.5 0.504 - 13.07656 AA2 2.29 10.3 0.551 - 13.010

149 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 0.48 - - 1.8 0.858156 A1-A4-11 2 2.7 2.822 - 15.236158 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 8.03 - - 1.8 14.448159 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 7.12 - - 1.8 12.821168 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 10.65 - - 1.8 19.165169 A6-A7-11 2.76 3.6 2.822 - 27.994172 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 3.09 - - 1.8 5.555173 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 5.81 - - 1.8 10.449

9 SU3 7.22 121.6 0.169 - 148.00625 BREN-SP1 (XFMR) 39.79 - - 1.8 71.61826 BREN-SP2 (XFMR 39.79 - - 1.8 71.61827 VA1 53.52 20.2 0.392 - 423.95928 HT1 53.52 77.1 0.392 - 193.50549 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 13.97 - - 1.8 25.14950 GE-SP2 (XFMR) 13.97 - - 1.8 25.14954 RV1 37.7 1 0.566 - 21.34166 MF1 21.27 6.8 0.33 - 47.69368 RMI 131.69 15 0.33 - 651.19692 &SE1 10.05 23 1.481 - 342.276

101 VA2 59.06 2.2 1.667 - 216.536TOTAL 2,369.03

TABLE 47: Upgraded system-PROPOSAL: Costs summary in Generation South

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 6,417.60 2,369.03 241.04 8,786.13 148,051.43 156,837,56

83

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformerA7‐SP2

AA2

TransformerA1‐SP2

FIGURE 66: Upgraded system-PROPOSAL: Distribution network violations in Generation South

SE1

MF1

RV1

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

HT1

VA1

TransformersBREN‐SP1BREN‐SP2

VA2

SU3

FIGURE 67: Upgraded system-PROPOSAL: Transmission network violations in Generation South

84

10.2.1.3 PREMIUM load profile In PREMIUM load profile, all the transformers at substations A8, A5 and some transformers at substations A7, A1 and A2 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 68, AA1, AA2, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 cables exceed their thermal limits. The lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are shown in Figure 69. These are MF1, and RM1 in Reykjanes Peninsula, RV1 in the capital area, SE1 in the south, SU3 in the south-west and VA1, HT1 and VA2 in the west. Transformers at Vatnshamrar, Geitháls and Brennimelur substations are overloaded. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand for this load and generation portfolio are presented in Table 48. The low voltage violations are presented in Appendix III (Apyjo, 2019). Table 49 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake.

TABLE 48: Upgraded system-PREMIUM: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

- - [MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 10.83 5.5 0.504 - 30.00756 AA2 5.39 10.3 0.551 30.632

149 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 2.75 - - 1.8 4.953151 A2-SP2 0.64 - - 1.8 1.148156 A1-A4-11 2.51 2.7 2.822 - 19.146157 A5-SP2 (XFMR) 2.93 - - 1.8 5.267158 A5-SP1 11.8 - - 1.8 21.246159 A5-SP3 11.43 - - 1.8 20.581168 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 13.9 - - 1.8 25.014169 A6-A7-11 3.77 3.6 2.822 - 38.278172 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 5.25 - - 1.8 9.455173 A8-SP3 8.07 - - 1.8 4.5269 SU3 21.48 121.6 0.169 - 440.60925 BREN-SP1 (XFMR) 48.65 - - 1.8 87.57026 BREN-SP2 (XFMR) 48.65 - - 1.8 87.57027 VA1 80 72.14 0.39 - 571.44428 HT1 18.76 77.1 0.392 - 567.28149 GE-SP1 19.45 - - 1.8 35.00650 GE-SP2 19.45 - - 1.8 35.00654 RV1 44.59 1 0.566 - 25.23966 MF1 38.70 6.8 0.33 - 86.76368 RMI 170.17 15 0.33 - 841.50192 SE1 11.99 23 1.481 - 408.62097 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 6.38 - - 1.8 11.48998 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 6.38 - - 1.8 11.489

101 VA2 76.00 2.2 1.667 - 278.667TOTAL 3,708.51

TABLE 49: Upgraded system-PREMIUM: Costs summary in Generation South

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 7,569.81 3,708.51 311.49 11,278.32 174,645.65 185.924.26

85

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformerA7‐SP2

AA2

TransformerA1‐SP2

TransformerA2‐SP2

FIGURE 68: Upgraded system-PREMIUM: Distribution network violations in Generation South

SE1

MF1

RV1

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

HT1

VA1

TransformersBREN‐SP1BREN‐SP2

VA2

SU3

TransformersVATNS‐66VATNS‐66

FIGURE 69: Upgraded system-PREMIUM: Transmission network violations in Generation South

86

10.2.1.4 BAN load profile In BAN load profile, all the transformers at substations A8, A7, A5 and some transformers at substations A1 and A2 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 70, AA1, AA2, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 cables exceed their thermal limits. The lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are shown in Figure 71. These are MF1, and RM1 in Reykjanes Peninsula, RV1 in the capital area, SE1 in the south, SU3 in the south-west and VA1, HT1 and VA2 in the west. Transformers at Vatnshamrar, Geitháls and Brennimelur substations are overloaded. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand for this load and generation portfolio are presented in Table 50, while Table 51 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake.

TABLE 50: Upgraded system-BAN: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 20.37 5.5 0.504 - 59.87156 AA2 10.54 10.3 0.551 - 59.82

149 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 6.23 - - 1.8 11.208151 A2-SP2 3.22 - - 1.8 5.791156 A1-A4-11 3.29 2.7 2.822 - 25.101157 A5-SP2 7.75 - - 1.8 13.943158 A5-SP1 17.61 - - 1.8 31.699159 A5-SP3 18.07 - - 1.8 32.518167 A7-SP1 2.19 - - 1.8 3.947168 A7-SP2 18.96 - - 1.8 34.125169 A6-A7-11 5.3 3.6 2.822 - 53.852172 A8-SP2 8.55 - - 1.8 15.391173 A8-SP3 11.54 - - 1.8 20.778

9 SU3 50.09 121.6 0.169 - 1,027.4425 BREN-SP1 (XFMR) 64.32 - - 1.8 115.76926 BREN-SP2 (XFMR) 64.32 - - 1.8 115.76927 VA1 105.12 20.2 0.392 - 832.69128 HT1 39.13 77.1 0.392 - 1,183.25649 GE-SP1 28.27 - - 1.8 50.88950 GE-SP2 (XFMR) 28.27 - - 1.8 50.88954 RV1 55.95 1 0.566 - 31.67066 MF1 65.89 6.8 0.33 - 147.70368 RMI 232.00 15 0.33 - 1,147.26692 SE1 14.98 23 1.481 - 510.48797 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 20.48 - - 1.8 36.86898 VATNS-66 (XFMR 20.48 - - 1.8 36.868

101 VA2 113.21 2.2 1.667 - 415.097TOTAL 6,067.32

TABLE 51: Upgraded system-BAN: Costs summary in Generation South

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 9,433.30 6,067.32 456.80 15,500.62 217,639.33 233,139.95

87

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformersA7‐SP1A7‐SP2

AA2

TransformerA1‐SP2

TransformerA2‐SP2

FIGURE 70: Upgraded system-BAN: Distribution network violations in Generation South

SE1

MF1

RV1

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

HT1

VA1

TransformersBREN‐SP1BREN‐SP2

VA2

SU3

TransformersVATNS‐66VATNS‐66

FIGURE 71: Upgraded system-BAN: Transmission network violations in Generation South

88

10.2.2 Generation portfolio II ´Generation North´ Power flow did not converge for this generation mix. The system is stressed therefore load shedding is inevitable and production reduced in some parts of the country. There is no good connection between the north and south. 10.2.3 Generation portfolio III Generation West-North-Northeast´ Power flow for cases with branches in the north disconnected did not converge as there is the need for load shedding in different parts of the country and reducing production in the northeast. It was only possible to perform four power flow cases: no-fault case, SU2, BU3 and SE2 branch outage. This shows how the system is stressed even when the new system is upgraded and there is no good connection between the north and south. The results from the four power flow cases are not presented as this is not the system worst case scenario. 10.2.4 Generation portfolio IV ´Generation South-Northeast-North-West´ All the power flow cases were simulated for all the four load profiles and violations presented in Appendix III (Apyjo, 2019). SU3 branch outage is the worst case for all the four load profiles. Voltage and branch violations are shown in Appendix III (Apyjo, 2019). 10.2.4.1 BAU load profile In BAU load profile, all transformers in substation A8 and some transformers at substations A7 and A5 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 72, AA1, AA2, AA4, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 underground cables exceed their thermal limits. The lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are shown in Figure 73, RV1 in the capital area, SE1 in the south and VA1 in the west. Transformers at Vatnshamrar and Geitháls substations are overloaded.

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformerA7‐SP2

AA2

AA4

FIGURE 72: Upgraded system-BAU: Distribution network violations in Generation South-West-North

89

The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand for this load and generation portfolio are presented in Table 52, while Table 53 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake.

TABLE 52: Upgraded system-BAU: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South-West-North

Branch KKS ID Capacity needed

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 12.60 5.5 0.504 - 34.91956 AA2 13.96 10.3 0.551 - 79.26757 AA4 0.38 1.80 0.692 - 0.475

156 A1-A4-11 1.86 2.7 2.822 - 14.196158 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 7.03 - - 1.8 12.645159 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 5.98 - - 1.8 10.763168 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 9.79 - - 1.8 17.625169 A6-A7-11 2.49 3.6 2.822 - 25.251172 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 2.51 - - 1.8 4.517173 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 5.2 - - 1.8 9.36749 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 19.80 - - 1.8 35.64750 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 19.80 - - 1.8 35.64754 RV1 44.94 1 0.566 - 25.43592 SE1 7.69 23 1.481 - 262.11797 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 0.76 - - 1.8 1,36098 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 0.76 - - 1.8 1.360

101 VA2 61.51 2.2 1.667 - 225.546TOTAL 796.14

SE1

RV1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

VA2

TransformersVATNS‐66VATNS‐66

FIGURE 73: Upgraded system-BAU: Transmission network violations in Generation South-West-North

90

TABLE 53: Upgraded system-BAU: Costs summary in Generation South-West-North

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 5,719.92 796.14 165.64 6,516.06 131,966.48& 138,482.54

10.2.4.2 PROPOSAL load profile In PROPOSAL load profile, both transformers at substation A8 and some transformers at substations A7 and A5 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 74, AA1, AA2, AA4, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 underground cables exceed their thermal limits. The lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are shown in Figure 75. RV1 in the capital area, SE1 in the south and VA1 in the west. Transformers in Vatnshamrar and Geitháls substations are overloaded. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand for this load and generation portfolio are presented in Table 54, while Table 55 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake.

TABLE 54: Upgraded system-PROPOSAL: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South-West-North

Branch KKS ID Capacity needed

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 14.61 5.5 0.504 - 40.48456 15.26 13.5 10.3 0.551 - 86.66957 AA4 1.25 1.80 0.692 - 1.561

149 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 0.48 - - 1.8 0.857156 A1-A4-11 2 2.7 2.822 - 15.236158 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 8.03 - - 1.8 14.446159 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 7.12 - - 1.8 12.819168 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 10.65 - - 1.8 19.165169 A6-A7-11 2.76 3.6 2.822 - 27.994172 A5-SP1(XFMR) 3.09 - - 1.8 5.554173 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 5.8 - - 1.8 10.44849 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 21.77 - - 1.8 39.18550 GE-SP2 (XFMR) 21.77 - - 1.8 39.18554 RV1 47.28 1 0.566 - 26.76392 SE1 8.15 23 1.481 - 277.55997 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 1.09 - - 1.8 1.96098 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 1.09 - - 1.8 1.960

101 VA2 62.51 2.2 1.667 - 229.195TOTAL 796.14

TABLE 55: Upgraded system-PROPOSAL: Costs summary in Generation South-West-North

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 5,983.86 851.04 174.39 6,834.90 138,055.95 144,890.85

91

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformerA7‐SP2

AA2

TransformerA1‐SP2

AA4

FIGURE 74: Upgraded system-PROPOSAL: Distribution network violations in Generation South-West-North

SE1

RV1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

VA2

TransformersVATNS‐66VATNS‐66

FIGURE 75: Upgraded system-PROPOSAL: Transmission network violations in Generation South-West-North

92

10.2.4.3 PREMIUM load profile In PREMIUM load profile, all the transformers at substations A8, A5 and some transformers at substations A7, A2 and A1 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 76, AA1, AA2, AA4, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 cables exceed their thermal limits. The lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system line are shown in Figure 77. RM1 in Reykjanes Peninsula, RV1 in the capital area, SE1 in the south and VA1 in the west. Transformers at Vatnshamrar, Írafoss and Geitháls substations are overloaded. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand for this load and generation portfolio are presented in Table 56, while Table 57 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake.

TABLE 56: Upgraded system-PREMIUM: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South-West-North

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

- - [MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 22.19 4.60 0.504 - 61.48756 AA2 20.22 10.3 0.551 - 114.80057 AA4 4.60 1.8 0.692 - 5.729

149 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 2.75 - - 1.8 4.951151 A2-SP2 (XFMR) 0.64 - - 1.8 1.147156 A1-A4-11 2.51 2.7 2.822 - 19.144157 A5-SP2 (XFMR) 2.92 - - 1.8 5.264158 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 11.8 - - 1.8 21.241159 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 11.43 - - 1.8 20.577168 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 13.9 - - 1.8 25.012169 A6-A7-11 3.77 3.6 2.822 - 38.278172 A8-SP2 5.25 - - 1.8 9.454173 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 8.07 - - 1.8 14.52449 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 29.15 - - 1.8 52.47350 GE-SP2 (XFMR) 29.15 - - 1.8 52.47354 RV1 56.12 1 0.566 - 31.76566 MF1 3.2 6.8 0.33 - 7.16468 RM1 13.19 15 0.33 - 65.25085 IRAFOSS-132 (XFMR) 1.10 - - 1.8 1.97992 SE1 9.86 23 1.481 - 335.91797 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 2.75 - - 1.8 4.95198 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 2.75 - - 1.8 4.951

101 VA2 67.45 2.2 1.667 - 247.305TOTAL 1,145.82

TABLE 57: Upgraded system-PREMIUM: Costs summary in Generation South-West-North

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 6,987.76 1,145.82 210.35 8,133.58 161,217.21 169,350.80

93

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformerA7‐SP2

AA2

TransformerA1‐SP2

TransformerA2‐SP2

AA4

FIGURE 76: Upgraded system-PREMIUM: Distribution network violations in Generation South-West-North

SE1

RV1

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

VA2

TransformersVATNS‐66VATNS‐66

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

FIGURE 77: Upgraded system-PREMIUM: Transmission network violations in Generation South-West-North

94

10.2.4.4 BAN load profile In BAN load profile, all the transformers at substations A8, A7, A5 and some transformers at substations A2 and A1 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 78, AA1, AA2, AA4, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 cables exceed their thermal limits. The lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are shown in Figure 79. RM1 and MF1 in Reykjanes Peninsula, RV1 in the capital area, SE1 in the south and VA1 in the west. Transformers at Vatnshamrar, Írafoss and Geitháls substations are overloaded. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand for this load and generation portfolio are presented in Table 58, while Table 59 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake.

TABLE 58: Upgraded system-BAN: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South-West-North

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 33.87 5.5 0.504 - 93.83456 AA2 27.97 10.3 0.551 - 158.82857 AA4 9.94 1.8 0.69 - 12.394

149 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 6.22 - - 1.8 11.202151 A2-SP2 (XFMR) 3.22 - - 1.8 5.789156 A1-A4-11 3.29 2.7 2.822 - 25.098157 A5-SP2 (XFMR) 7.74 - - 1.8 13.937158 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 17.6 - - 1.8 31.688159 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 18.06 - - 1.8 32.508167 A7-SP1 (XFMR) 2.19 - - 1.8 3.945168 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 18.95 - - 1.8 34.115169 A6-A7-11 5.3 3.6 2.822 - 53.852172 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 8.55 - - 1.8 15.39173 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 11.54 - - 1.8 20.77249 GE-SP1(XFMR) 40.39 - - 1.8 72.69450 GE-SP2 (XFMR) 40.39 - - 1.8 72.69454 RV1 69.72 1 0.566 - 39.46166 MF1 21.60 6.8 0.33 - 48.42068 RM1 35.14 15 0.33 - 173.77385 IRAFOSS-132 (XFMR) 8.93 - - 1.8 16.07292 SE1 12.49 23 1.481 - 425.68097 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 6.82 - - 1.8 11.92398 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 6.82 - - 1.8 11.923

101 VA2 79.64 2.2 1.667 - 292.028TOTAL 1,678.02

TABLE 59: Upgraded system-BAN: Costs summary in Generation South-West-North

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 8,563.62 1,678.02 278.67 10,241.65 197,574.58 207,816.23

95

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformersA7‐SP1A7‐SP2

AA2

TransformerA1‐SP2

TransformerA2‐SP2

AA4

FIGURE 78: Upgraded system-BAN: Distribution network violations in Generation South-West-North

SE1

RV1

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

VA2

TransformersVATNS‐66VATNS‐66

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

MF1

KO1

FIGURE 79: Upgraded system-BAN: Transmission network violations in Generation South-West-North

96

10.2.5 Generation portfolio V ´Generation South-Northeast-North-West´ All the power flow cases are simulated for all the four load profiles. For BAN load profile, power flow did not converge when HT1 branch outage is simulated. SU3 branch outage is the worst case for all the four load profiles. Voltage and branch violations are shown in Appendix III (Apyjo, 2019). 10.2.5.1 BAU load profile In BAU load profile, both transformers at substation A8 and some transformers at A7 and A5 substations are also overloaded. As seen in Figure 80, AA1, AA2, AA4, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 cables exceed their thermal limits. The lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are shown in Figure 81. RM1 in Reykjanes Peninsula, RV1 in the capital area, SE1 in the south, HRIB in the south-west and VA1 in the west. Transformers in Vatnshamrar, Írafoss and Geitháls substations are overloaded. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand for this load and generation portfolio are presented in Table 60, while Table 61 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake. TABLE 60: Upgraded system-BAU: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 13.15 5.5 0.504 - 36.42656 AA2 14.66 10.3 0.551 - 83.22557 AA4 1.08 1.8 0.692 - 1.343

156 A1-A4-11 1.86 2.7 2.822 - 14.196158 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 7.02 - - 1.8 12.645

159& A5-SP3 (XFMR) 5.98 - - 1.8 10.762168 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 9.79 - - 1.8 17.625169 A6-A7-11 2.49 3.6 2.822 - 25.251172 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 2.51 - - 1.8 4.516173 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 5.2 - - 1.8 9.366

7 HRIB 36.76 9.75 0.169 - 60.46049 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 21.60 - - 1.8 38.87250 GE-SP2 (XFMR) 21.60 - - 1.8 38.87254 RV1 45.49 1 0.566 - 25.74885 IRAFOSS-132 (XFMR) 0.29 - - 1.8 0.52592 SE1 6.49 23 1.481 - 220.99797 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 1.96 - - 1.8 3.53198 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 1.96 - - 1.8 3.531

101 VA2 64.29 2.2 1.667 - 235.748TOTAL 843.64

TABLE 61: Upgraded system-BAU: Costs summary in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 5,736.84 843.64 168.04 6,580.4 132,356.87 138,937.35

97

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformerA7‐SP2

AA2

AA4

FIGURE 80: Upgraded system-BAU: Distribution network violations in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

SE1

RV1

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

VA2

TransformersVATNS‐66VATNS‐66

HRIB

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

FIGURE 81: Upgraded system-BAU: Transmission network violations in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

98

10.2.5.2 PROPOSAL load profile In PROPOSAL load profile, both transformers at substation A8 and some transformers at A5, A7 and A1 substations are overloaded. As seen in Figure 82, AA1, AA2, AA4, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 cables exceed their thermal limits. The lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are shown in Figure 83, RM1 in Reykjanes Peninsula, RV1 in the capital area, SE1 in the south, HRIB in the south-west and VA1 in the west. Transformers at Vatnshamrar, Írafoss and Geitháls substations are overloaded. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand for this load and generation portfolio are presented in Table 62, while Table 63 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake.

TABLE 62: Upgraded system-PROPOSAL: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 15.21 5.5 0.504 - 42.13056 AA2 16.03 10.3 0.551 - 91.00257 AA4 2.01 1.8 0.692 - 2.511

149 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 0.48 - - 1.8 0.856156 A1-A4-11 2 2.7 2.822 - 15.235158 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 8.02 - - 1.8 14.445159 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 7.12 - - 1.8 12.818168 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 10.65 - - 1.8 19.166169 A6-A7-11 2.76 3.6 2.822 - 27.994172 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 3.09 - - 1.8 5.554173 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 5.8 - - 1.8 10.447

7 HRIB 37.60 9.75 0.169 - 61.83949 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 23.61 - - 1.8 42.49350 GE-SP2 (XFMR) 23.61 - - 1.8 42.49354 RV1 47.88 1 0.566 - 27.10285 IRAFOSS-132 (XFMR) 1.68 - - 1.8 3.02492 SE1 6.94 23 1.481 - 236.46597 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 2.45 - - 1.8 4.41698 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 2.45 - - 1.8 4.416

101 VA2 65.67 2.2 1.667 - 240.786TOTAL 905.20

TABLE 63: Upgraded system-PROPOSAL: Costs summary in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 6,006.13 905.20 177.65 6,911.33 138,569.61 145,480.94

99

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformerA7‐SP2

AA2

AA4TransformerA1‐SP2

FIGURE 82: Upgraded system-PROPOSAL: Distribution network violations in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

SE1

RV1

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

VA2

TransformersVATNS‐66VATNS‐66

HRIB

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

FIGURE 83: Upgraded system-PROPOSAL: Transmission network violations in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

100

10.2.5.3 PREMIUM load profile In PREMIUM load profile, all the transformers at substations A8, A5 and some transformers at A7, A2 and A1 substations are overloaded. As seen in Figure 84, AA1, AA2, AA4, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 cables exceed their thermal limits. The lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are shown in Figure 85. RM1 in Reykjanes Peninsula, RV1 in the capital area, SE1 in the south, HRIB in the south-west and VA1 in the west. Transformers at Vatnshamrar, Írafoss and Geitháls substations are overloaded. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand for this load and generation portfolio are presented in Table 64, while Table 65 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake.

TABLE 64: Upgraded system-PREMIUM: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 22.97 5.5 0.504 - 63.64356 AA2 21.22 10.3 0.551 - 120.50557 AA4 5.60 1.8 0.692 1.8 6.975

149 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 2.75 - - 1.8 4.951151 A2-SP2 (XFMR) 0.64 - - 1.8 1.147156 A1-A4-11 2.51 2.7 2.822 - 19.144157 A5-SP2 (XFMR) 2.92 - - 1.8 5.264158 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 11.8 - - 1.8 7.236159 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 11.43 - - 1.8 7.236168 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 13.9 - - 1.8 25.013169 A6-A7-11 3.77 3.6 2.822 - 38.278172 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 5.25 - - 1.8 7.236173 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 8.07 - - 1.8 7.236

7 HRIB 40.62 9.75 0.169 - 66.80749 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 31.16 - - 1.8 56.08950 GE-SP2 (XFMR) 31.16 - - 1.8 56.08954 RV1 56.90 1 0.566 - 32.21085 IRAFOSS-132 (XFMR) 6.93 - - 1.8 12.47192 SE1 8.66 23 1.481 - 294.96697 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 4.77 - - 1.8 &8.58998 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 4.77 - - 1.8 &8.589

101 VA2 72.22 2.2 1.667 - 264.792TOTAL 1,151.32

TABLE 65: Upgraded system-PREMIUM: Costs summary in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 7,034.16 1,151.32 218.01 8,185.48 162,287.80 170,473.27

101

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformerA7‐SP2

AA2

AA4TransformerA1‐SP2

TransformerA2‐SP2

FIGURE 84: Upgraded system-PREMIUM: Distribution network violations in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

SE1

RV1

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

VA2

TransformersVATNS‐66VATNS‐66

HRIB

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

FIGURE 85: Upgraded system-PREMIUM: Transmission network violations in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

102

10.2.5.4 BAN load profile In BAN load profile, all the transformers at substations A8, A7, A5 and some transformers at A2 and A1 substations are overloaded. As seen in Figure 86, AA1, AA2, AA4, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 cables exceed their thermal limits. The lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are shown in Figure 87. RM1 and MF1 in Reykjanes Peninsula, RV1 and KO1 in the capital area, SE1 in the south, HRIB in the south-west and VA1 in the west. Transformers at Vatnshamrar, Írafoss and Geitháls substations are overloaded. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand for this load and generation portfolio are presented in Table 66, while Table 67 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake. TABLE 66: Upgraded system-BAN: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

Branch KKS ID Capacity needed

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 34.91 5.5 0.504 - 96.71656 AA2 29.32 10.3 0.551 - 166.48057 AA4 11.27 1.8 0.692 - 14.050

149 A1-SP2(XFMR) 6.22 - - 1.8 11.202151 A2-SP2 (XFMR) 3.22 - - 1.8 5.789156 A1-A4-11 3.29 2.7 2.822 - 25.098158 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 17.6 - - 1.8 31.687157 A5-SP2 (XFMR) 7.74 - - 1.8 13.936159 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 18.06 - - 1.8 32.507167 A7-SP1 (XFMR) 2.19 - - 1.8 3.946168 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 18.95 - - 1.8 34.117169 A6-A7-11 5.3 3.6 2.822 - 53.852172 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 8.55 - - 1.8 15.39173 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 11.54 - - 1.8 20.771

7 HRIB 45.55 9.75 0.169 - 74.79349 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 42.65 - - 1.8 76.77050 GE-SP2 (XFMR) 42.65 - - 1.8 76.77052 KO1 1.05 6.3 0.4 - 2.65854 RV1 70.77 1 0.566 - 53.85266 MF1 17.05 6.8 0.33 - 38.22168 RM1 11.96 15 0.33 - 59.16485 IRAFOSS-132 (XFMR) 14.98 - - 1.8 26.96992 SE1 11.30 23 1.481 - 385.10097 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 9.87 - - 1.8 17.77498 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 9.87 - - 1.8 17.774

101 VA2 87.56 2.2 1.667 - 321.039TOTAL 1,662.63

TABLE 67: Upgraded system-BAN: Costs summary in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 8,661.06 1,662.63 297.48 10,323.69 199,822.63 210,146.32

103

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformersA7‐SP1A7‐SP2

AA2

AA4TransformerA1‐SP2

TransformerA2‐SP2

FIGURE 86: Upgraded system-BAN: Distribution network violations in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

SE1

RV1

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

VA2

TransformersVATNS‐66VATNS‐66

HRIB

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

MF1

KO1

FIGURE 87: Upgraded system-BAN: Transmission network violations in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

104

10.2.6 Upgraded system scenario "worst-case" asset violations 10.2.6.1 BAU load profile Figure 88 and Figure 89 show the worst-case asset violations from all the generation profiles in BAU. Table 68 shows the capacity needed and the costs of the violations in different parts of the network.

TABLE 68: Upgraded system: Worst-case asset violation costs in BAU

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 13.15 5.5 0.504 - 36.42656 AA2 14.66 10.3 0.551 - 83.22557 AA4 1.08 1.8 0.692 - 1.343

156 A1-A4-11 1.86 2.7 2.822 - 14.196158 A5-SP1(XFMR) 7.03 - - 1.8 12.647159 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 5.98 - - 1.8 10.765168 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 9.79 - - 1.8 17.624169 A6-A7-11 2.49 3.6 2.822 - 25.251172 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 2.51 - - 1.8 &4.517173 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 5.2 - - 1.8 9.368

7 HRIB 36.76 9.75 0.169 - 60.4609 SU3 3.76 121.6 0.169 - 77.203

25 BREN-SP1 (XFMR) 37.54 - - 1.8 67.57426 BREN-SP2 (XFMR) 37.54 - - 1.8 67.57427 VA1 48.80 20.2 0.392 - 386.59828 HT1 3.20 77.1 0.392 - 96.84449 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 21.60 - - 1.8 38.87250 GE-SP2 (XFMR) 21.60 - - 1.8 38.87254 RV1 45.49 1 0.566 - 25.74866 MF1 16.68 6.8 0.33 - 37.40168 RMI 121.68 15 .33 - 601.71785 IRAFOSS-132 (XFMR) 0.29 - - 1.8 0.52592 SE1 9.53 23 1.481 - 324.68997 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 1.96 - - 1.8 3.531

101 VA2 64.29 2.2 1.667 - 235.748TOTAL 2,282.249

105

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformerA7‐SP2

AA2

AA4

FIGURE 88: Upgraded system: Worst-case distribution network violations in BAU

SE1

RV1

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

VA2

TransformersVATNS‐66VATNS‐66

HRIB

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

SU3

TransformersBREN‐SP1BREN‐SP2

HT1

MF1

FIGURE 89: Upgraded system: Worst-case transmission network violations in BAU

106

10.2.6.2 PROPOSAL load profile Figures 90 and 91 show the worst-case asset violations from all the generation profiles in PROPOSAL load profile. Table 69 shows the capacity needed and the costs of the violations in different parts of the network.

TABLE 69: Upgraded system: Worst-case asset violation costs in PROPOSAL

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 15.21 5.5 0.504 - 42.13056 AA2 16.03 10.3& 0.551& - 91.00257 AA4 2.01 1.8 0.692 - 2.511

149 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 0.48 - - 1.8 0.858156 A1-A4-11 2 2.7 2.822 - 15.236158 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 8.03 - - 1.8 14.448159 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 7.12 - - 1.8 12.821168 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 10.65 - - 1.8 19.165169 A6-A7-11 2.76 3.6 2.822 - 27.994172 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 3.09 - - 1.8 5.555173 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 5.81 - - 1.8 10.449

7 HRIB 37.60 9.75 0.169 - 61.8399 SU3 7.22 121.6 0.169 - 148.006

25 BREN-SP1 (XFMR) 39.79 - - 1.8 71.61826 BREN-SP2 (XFMR) 39.79 - - 1.8 71.61827 VA1 53.52 20.2 0.392 - 423.95928 HT1 53.52 77.1 0.392 - 193.50549 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 13.97 - - 1.8 25.14950 GE-SP2 (XFMR) 13.97 - - 1.8 25.14966 MF1 21.27 6.8 0.33 - 47.69368 RMI 131.69 15 0.33 - 651.19685 IRAFOSS-132 (XFMR) 1.68 - - 1.8 3.02492 SE1 10.05 23 1.481 - 342.27697 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 2.45 - - 1.8 4.41698 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 2.45 - - 1.8 4.416

101 VA2 65.67 2.2 1.667 - 240.786TOTAL 2,485.201

107

10.2.6.3 PREMIUM load profile Figures 92 and 93 show the worst-case asset violations from all the generation profiles in PREMIUM load profile. Table 70 shows the capacity needed and costs of violations in different parts of the network.

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformerA7‐SP2

AA2

AA4TransformerA1‐SP2

FIGURE 90: Upgraded system: Worst-case distribution network violations in PROPOSAL

SE1

RV1

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

VA1

TransformersVATNS‐66VATNS‐66

HRIB

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

VA2

HT1

MF1

TransformersBREN‐SP1BREN‐SP2

SU3

FIGURE 91: Upgraded system: Worst-case transmission network violations in PROPOSAL

108

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformerA7‐SP2

AA2

AA4TransformerA1‐SP2

TransformerA2‐SP2

FIGURE 92: Upgraded system: Worst-case distribution network violations in PREMIUM

SE1

RV1

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

VA1

TransformersVATNS‐66VATNS‐66

HRIB

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

VA2

HT1

MF1

TransformersBREN‐SP1BREN‐SP2

SU3

FIGURE 93: Upgraded system: Worst-case transmission network violations in PREMIUM

109

TABLE 70: Upgraded system: Worst-case asset violation costs in PREMIUM

Branch -

KKS ID -

Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 22.97 5.5 0.504 - 63.64356 AA2 21.22 10.3 0.551 - 120.50557 AA4 5.60 1.8 0.692 1.8 &6.975

149 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 2.75 - - 1.8 4.953151 A2-SP2 0.64 - - 1.8 1.148156 A1-A4-11 2.51 2.7 2.822 - 19.146157 A5-SP2 (XFMR) 2.93 - - 1.8 5.267158 A5-SP1 11.8 - - 1.8 21.246159 A5-SP3 11.43 - - 1.8 20.581168 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 13.9 - - 1.8 25.014169 A6-A7-11 3.77 3.6 2.822 - 38.278172 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 5.25 - - 1.8 9.455173 A8-SP3 8.07 - - 1.8 4.526

7 HRIB 40.62 9.75 0.169 - 66.8079 SU3 21.48 121.6 0.169 - 440.609

25 BREN-SP1 (XFMR) 48.65 - - 1.8 87.57026 &BREN-SP2 (XFMR) 48.65 - - 1.8 87.57027 VA1 80 72.14 0.392 - 571.44428 HT1 18.76 77.1 0.392 - 567.28149 GE-SP1 31.16 - - 1.8 56.08950 GE-SP2 (XFMR) 31.16 - - 1.8 56.08954 RV1 56.90 1 0.566 - 32.21066 MF1 38.70 6.8 0.33 - 86.76368 RMI 170.17 15 0.33 - 841.50185 IRAFOSS-132 (XFMR) 6.93 - - 1.8 12.47192 SE1 11.99 23 1.481 - 408.62097 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 4.77 - - 1.8 &8.58998 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 4.77 - - 1.8 &8.589

101 VA2 72.22 2.2 1.667 - 264.792TOTAL 3,937.731

10.2.6.4 BAN load profile Figures 94 and 95 show the worst case asset violations from all the generation profiles in BAN load profile. Table 71 shows the capacity needed and the costs of the violations in different parts of the network.

110

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformersA7‐SP1A7‐SP2

AA2

AA4TransformerA1‐SP2

TransformerA2‐SP2

FIGURE 94: Upgraded system: Worst-case distribution network violations in BAN

SE1

RV1

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

VA1

TransformersVATNS‐66VATNS‐66

HRIB

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

VA2

HT1

MF1

TransformersBREN‐SP1BREN‐SP2

SU3

KO1

FIGURE 95: Upgraded system: Worst-case transmission network violations in BAN

111

TABLE 71: Upgraded system: Worst-case asset violation costs in BAN

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 34.91 5.5 0.504 - 96.71656 AA2 29.32 10.3 0.551 - 166.48057 AA4 11.27 1.8 0.69& - 14.050

149 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 6.23 - - 1.8 11.208151 A2-SP2 (XFMR) 3.22 - - 1.8 5.791156 A1-A4-11 3.29 2.7 2.822 - 25.101157 A5-SP2 (XFMR) 7.75 - - 1.8 13.943158 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 17.61 - - 1.8 31.699159 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 18.07 - - 1.8 32.518167 A7-SP1 (XFMR) 2.19 - - 1.8 3.947168 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 18.96 - - 1.8 34.125169 A6-A7-11 5.3 3.6 2.822 - 53.852172 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 8.55 - - 1.8 15.391173 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 11.54 - - 1.8 20.778

7 HRIB 45.55 9.75 0.169 - 74.7939 SU3 50.09 121.6 0.169 - 1,027.44

25 BREN-SP1 (XFMR) 64.32 - - 1.8 115.76926 BREN-SP2 (XFMR) 64.32 - - 1.8 115.76927 VA1 105.12 20.2 0.392 - 832.69128 HT1 39.13 77.1 0.392 - 1,183.25649 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 42.65 - - 1.8 76.77050 GE-SP2 (XFMR) 42.65 - - 1.8 76.77052 KO1 1.05 6.3 0.4 - 2.65854 RV1 70.77 1 0.566 - 53.85266 MF1 65.89 6.8 0.33 - 147.70368 RMI 232.00 15 0.33 - 1,147.26685 IRAFOSS-132 (XFMR) 14.98 - - 1.8 26.96992 SE1 14.98 23 1.481 - 510.48797 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 9.87 - - 1.8 17.77498 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 9.87 - - 1.8 17.774

101 VA2 87.56 2.2 1.667 - 321.039TOTAL 6,274.378

10.2.7 Summary of simulations in the upgraded system scenario From the results obtained, it is possible to conclude that all the EV load profiles will impact the upgraded network. Capacity issues are mainly experienced in the capital area. It was also noted that load shedding and generation reduction is inevitable for some power flow cases. Figures 96, 97 and 98 give a summary of the costs associated with the network reinforcements needed to support the increase in demand as a result of the EV uptake. From the results, the start-up costs are very high compared to the energy, losses and assets upgrade costs. 10.3 The slow progress energy forecast scenario The slow progress energy forecast scenario is used to do a more realistic case study as it takes into account the country’s expected demand growth from 2017 to 2050 (Orkustofnun, 2017a; 2017b). The EV load is added to this forecasted load demand. For this study, the slow progress energy forecast 2017-2015 load case, updated system plan model and the EV load scenarios are used to simulate the impact from 2027-2050.

112

10.3.1 Generation portfolio I ´Generation South´ It was only possible to study BAU, PROPOSAL and PREMIUM load profiles as the system is more stressed than the other two scenarios. Power flow did not converge when SU3, VA1, HT1, BL1 and SI4 power flow cases were performed. For the three load profiles, SU2 is the worst power flow case. Voltage and branch violations are shown in the Appendix III (Apyjo, 2019).

(a) Assets, energy and losses costs in Generation South

(b) Total costs including start-up costs in Generation South

FIGURE 96: Upgraded system: Summary of Generation South

(a) Assets, energy and losses costs in Generation South-West-North

(b) Total costs including start-up costs in Generation South-West-North

FIGURE 97: Upgraded system: Summary of Generation South-West-North

(a) Assets, energy and losses costs in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

(b) Total costs including start-up costs in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

FIGURE 98: Upgraded system: Generation South-Northeast-North-West

113

10.3.1.1 BAU load profile

In BAU load profile, all the transformers at A8, A7, A5, A1 A12 and one transformer at A2 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 99, AA1, AA2, AA4, AA6, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 11 kV cables exceed their thermal limits. 33 kV cables between A8-A9 also exceed their thermal limits.

The lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are shown in Figure 100. The lines and cables in various parts of the country exceed their thermal limit: RM1, SN1and MF1 in Reykjanes Peninsula; RV1, KO1 and AD7 in the capital area; SE1 in the south; HRIB and HRIA in the south-west; VA1 and VA2 in the west and BD1 in the Westfjords. Transformers at Vatnshamrar, Írafoss, Geitháls and Brennimelur substations are overloaded.

The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand for this load profile and generation portfolio are presented in Table 72, while Table 73 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake.

TABLE 72: Energy forecast-BAU: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 34.53 5.5 0.504 - 95.65056 AA2 28.02 10.3 0.551 - 159.12457 AA4 4.66 1.8 0.692 - 5.811

148 A1-SP1 (XFMR) 9.49 - - 1.8 17.085149 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 19.36 - - 1.8 34.855156 A1-A4-11 1.63 2.7 2.822 - 12.434157 A5-SP2 (XFMR) 9.73 - - 1.8 17.516158 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 20.71 - - 1.8 37.285159 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 17.07 - - 1.8 30.733167 A7-SP1 (XFMR) 18.53 - - 1.8 33.346168 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 30.23 - - 1.8 54.41169 A6-A7-11 2 3.6 2.822 - 20.292172 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 5.62 - - 1.8 10.113173 A8-SP3(XFMR) 17.52 - - 1.8 31.543174 A8-VV-33 3.47 0.5 1.682 - 2.921175 VV-RV1-33 0.01 4.1 1.367 - 0.082176 RV1-RV2-33 2.9 0.08 1.682 - 0.391177 RV1-A9-33 6.33 0.4 2.187 - 5.535184 A12-SP1 (XFMR) 0.14 - - 1.8 0.26

5 HRIA 129.15 9.75 0.169 - 212.40125 BREN-SP1 (XFMR) 25.29 - - 1.8 45.51426 BREN-SP2 (XFMR) 25.29 - - 1.8 45.51427 VA1 22.82 20.2 0.392 - 180.73549 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 45.44 - - 1.8 81.79050 GE-SP2 (XFMR) 45.44 - - 1.8 81.79052 KO1 7.07 6.3 0.4 - 17.81254 RV1 73.301 1 0.566 - 41.49061 AD7 30.79 1 0.392 - 12.07564 SN1 10.58 30.8 0.392 - 127.80366 MF1 108.94 6.8 0.33 - 244.21768 RM1 308.69 15 0.33 - 1,526.47685 IRAFOSS-132 (XFMR) 8.04 - - 1.8 14.48092 SE1 14.28 23 1.481 - 486.711

101 VA2 44.22 2.2 1.667 - 162.133115 LF1 2.65 34 1.176 - 106.074125 BD1 0.92 37.2 1.111 - 37.918

TOTAL 4,345.09

114

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformersA1‐SP1A1‐SP2Transformer

A2‐SP2

TransformerA7‐SP1A7‐SP2

AA6AA2

AA4TransformerA12‐SP1

A8‐VV‐33VV‐RV1‐33

RV1‐RV2‐33

RV1‐A9‐33

FIGURE 99: Slow progress energy forecast-BAU: Distribution network violations in Generation South

SE1

RV1

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

VA1

TransformersVATNS‐66VATNS‐66

HRIB

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

MF1

KO1

VA2TransformersBREN‐SP1BREN‐SP1

HRIA

AD7

SN1

BD1

LF1

FIGURE 100: Slow progress energy forecast-BAU: Transmission network violations in Generation South

115

TABLE 73: Slow progress energy forecast-BAU: Costs summary in Generation South

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 11,826.15 4,345.09 555.34 16,171.24 272,845.62 289,016.86

10.3.1.2 PROPOSAL load profile In PROPOSAL load profile, all the transformers at A8, A7, A5, A1, A12 and one transformer at A2 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 101, AA1, AA2, AA4, AA6, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 11kV cables exceed their thermal limits. 33 kV cables between A8-A9 also exceed their thermal limits. The lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are shown in Figure 102. The lines and cables in various parts of the country exceed their thermal limit: RM1, SN1and MF1 in Reykjanes Peninsula; RV1, KO1 and AD7 in the capital area; SE1 in the south; SU3, HRIB and HRIA in the south-west; VA1 and VA2 in the west and BD1 in the Westfjords. Transformers at Vatnshamrar, Írafoss, Geitháls and Brennimelur substations are overloaded. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand for this load profile and generation portfolio are presented in Table 74, while Table 75 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake.

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformersA1‐SP1A1‐SP2Transformer

A2‐SP2

TransformerA7‐SP1A7‐SP2

AA6AA2

AA4 TransformerA12‐SP1

A8‐VV‐33VV‐RV1‐33

RV1‐RV2‐33

RV1‐A9‐33

FIGURE 101: Slow progress energy forecast-PROPOSAL: Distribution network violations in Generation South

116

TABLE 74: Energy forecast-PROPOSAL: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 36.55 5.5 0.504 - 101.25256 AA2 29.38 10.3 0.551 - 166.81757 AA4 5.73 1.8 0.692 - 7.141

148 A1-SP1 (XFMR) 9.99 0 - 1.8 17.979149 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 20.04 - - 1.8 36.065156 A1-A4-11 1.78 2.7 2.822 - 13.532157 A5-SP2 (XFMR) 10.64 - - 1.8 19.154158 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 21.82 - - 1.8 39.283159 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 18.32 - - 1.8 32.979167 A7-SP1 (XFMR) 19.11 - - 1.8 34.402168 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 31.26 - - 1.8 56.273169 A6-A7-11 2.28 3.6 2.822 - 23.175172 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 6.23 - - 1.8 11.214173 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 18.2 - - 1.8 32.754174 A8-VV-33 3.52 - - 1.8 2.962175 VV-RV1 0.06 4.1 1.367 - 0.352176 RV1-RV2-33 2.95 0.08 1.682 - 0.397177 RV1-A9-33 6.37 &0.4 2.187 - 5.573184 A12-SP1 (XFMR) 0.48 - - 1.8 0.8615 HRIA 130.58 9.75 0.169 - 214.7497 HRIB 214.71 9.75 0.169 - 353.1089 SU3 1.43 121.6 0.169 - 29.25525 BREN-SP1 (XFMR) 27.59 - - 1.8 49.66626 BREN-SP2 (XFMR) 27.59 - - 1.8 49.66627 VA1 27.68 20.2 0.392 - 219.25749 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 47.18 - - 1.8 84.93150 GE-SP2 (XFMR) 47.18 - - 1.8 84.93152 KO1 8.96 6.3 0.4 - 22.58654 RV1 75.67 1 0.566 - 42.83461 AD7 35.80 1 0.392 - 14.04164 SN1 14.31 30.8 0.392 - 172.79666 MF1 113.93 6.8 0.33 - 255.40368 RM1 319.93 &15 &0.33& - 1,582.09385 IRAFOSS-132 (XFMR) 9.26 - - 1.8 16.66592 SE1 14.83 23 1.481 - 505.370

101 VA2 47.85 2.2 1.667 - 175.443115 LF1 4.59 34 1.176 183.729125 BD1 1.2 37.2 1.111 - 49.723

TOTAL 4,708.42

TABLE 75: Energy forecast-PROPOSAL: Costs summary in Generation South

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses+start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 12,171.80 4,708.42 593.61 16,880.22 280,820.20& 297,700.42

117

10.3.1.3 PREMIUM load profile In PREMIUM load profile, all the transformers at A8, A7, A5, A1, A12 and one transformer at A2 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 103 AA1, AA2, AA4, AA6, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 11kV cables exceed their thermal limits. 33 kV cables between A8-A9 also exceed their thermal limits. The lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are shown in Figure 104. The lines and cables in various parts of the country exceed their thermal limit: RM1, SN1and MF1 in Reykjanes Peninsula; RV1, KO1 and AD7 in the capital area; SE1and LJ1 in the south; SU3, HRIB and HRIA in the south-west; VA1 and VA2 in the west; LF1in the east and BD1 in the Westfjords. Transformers at Vatnshamrar, Írafoss, Geitháls, Brennimelur and Eyvind substations are overloaded. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand for this load profile and generation portfolio are presented in Table 76, while Table 77 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake. 10.3.2 Generation portfolio II ´Generation North´ Power flow did not converge for this generation mix as there is no good connection between the north and south. 10.3.3 Generation portfolio III ´Generation West-North-Northeast´ Power flow did not converge for this generation mix as there is no good connection between the north and south.

SE1

RV1

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

VA1

TransformersVATNS‐66VATNS‐66

HRIB

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

MF1

KO1

VA2TransformersBREN‐SP1BREN‐SP1

HRIA

AD7

SN1

BD1

LF1

SU3

FIGURE 102: Slow progress energy forecast-PROPOSAL:

Transmission network violations in Generation South

118

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformersA1‐SP1A1‐SP2Transformer

A2‐SP2

TransformerA7‐SP1A7‐SP2

AA6AA2

AA4 TransformerA12‐SP1

A8‐VV‐33VV‐RV1‐33

RV1‐RV2‐33

RV1‐A9‐33

FIGURE 103: Slow progress energy forecast-PREMIUM: Distribution network violations in Generation South

SE1

RV1

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

VA1

TransformersVATNS‐66VATNS‐66

HRIB

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

MF1

KO1

VA2TransformersBREN‐SP1BREN‐SP1

HRIA

AD7

SN1

BD1

LF1

SU3

LJ1

TransformerEYVIND‐66

FIGURE 104: Slow progress energy forecast-PREMIUM: Transmission network violations in Generation South

119

TABLE 76: Energy forecast-PREMIUM: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 43.90 5.5 0.504 - 121.61556 AA2 34.45 10.3 0.551 - 195.61657 AA4 9.88 1.8 0.692 - 12.30962 AA6 10.24 11.3 0.615 - 71.134

148 A1-SP1 (XFMR) 11.76 - - 1.8 21.176149 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 22.45 - - 1.8 40.409156 A1-A4-11 2.29 2.7 2.822 - 17.457157 A5-SP2 (XFMR) 13.91 - - 1.8 25.032158 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 25.83 - - 1.8 46.486159 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 22.81 - - 1.8 41.065167 A7-SP1 (XFMR) 21.22 - - 1.8 38.201168 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 35.06 - - 1.8 63.108169 A6-A7-11 3.29 3.6 2.822 - 33.448172 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 8.41 - - 1.8 15.145173 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 20.62 - - 1.8 37.115174 A8-VV-33 3.69 0.5 1.682 - 3.108175 VV-RV1-33 0.24 4.1 1.367 - 1.32176 RV1-RV2-33 3.1 0.08 1.682 - 0.418177 RV1-A9-33 6.53 0.4 2.187 - 5.71184 A12-SP1 (XFMR) 1.67 - - 1.8 3.01

5 HRIA 138.74 9.75 0.169 - 228.1667 HRIB 222.82 9.75 0.169 - 366.4519 SU3 16.41 121.6 0.169 - 336.534

25 BREN-SP1 (XFMR) 37.43 - - 1.8 67.36626 BREN-SP2 (XFMR) 37.43 - - 1.8 67.36627 VA1 48.45 20.2 0.392 - 383.82049 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 53.35 - - 1.8 96.03750 GE-SP2 (XFMR) 53.35 - - 1.8 96.03752 KO1 &15.66 6.3 0.4 - 39.45554 RV1 84.26 1 0.566 - 47.69461 AD7 &54.06 1 0.392 - 21.20064 SN1 &28.01 30.8 0.392 - 338.32666 MF1 132.20 6.8 0.33 - 296.37068 RM1 362.27 15 0.33 - 1,791.32385 IRAFOSS-132 (XFMR) 13.57 - - 1.8 24.41992 SE1 16.80 23 1.481 - 572.55895 LJ1 1.84 1.2 1.333 - 2.95297 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 0.73 - - 1.8 1.30698 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 0.73 - - 1.8 1.306

101 VA2 64.86 2.2 1.667 - 237.817114 EYVIND-66 (XFMR) 6.83 - - 1.8 12.295115 LF1 13.54 34 1.176 - 541.721125 BD1 2.23 37.2 1.111 - 91.969

TOTAL 6,453.86

TABLE 77: Energy forecast-PREMIUM: Costs summary in Generation South

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 13,475.24 6,453.86 722.89 19,929.00 310,892.38 330,821.47

120

10.3.4 Generation portfolio IV ´Generation South-West-North´ It was only possible to simulate the case with BAU, PROPOSAL and PREMIUM load profiles. Power flow did not converge when SU3, VA1 and HT1 power flow cases are simulated. FL2 is the worst power flow case. Voltage and branch violations are shown in the Appendix III (Apyjo, 2019). 10.3.4.1 BAU load profile In BAU load profile, all the transformers at A8, A7, A5, A1 and A12 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 105, AA1, AA2, AA4, AA6, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 11kV underground cables exceed their thermal limits. 33 kV underground cables between A8-A9 also exceed their thermal limits. The lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are shown in Figure 106. The lines and cables in various parts of the country exceed their thermal limit: RM1, and MF1 in Reykjanes Peninsula; RV1 and KO1 in the capital area; SE1 in the south; HRIB in the south-west; VA2 in the west and BD1 in the Westfjords. Transformers at Vatnshamrar, Írafoss, Geitháls and Brennimelur substations are overloaded. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand for this load profile and generation portfolio are presented in Table 78, while Table 79 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake.

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformersA1‐SP1A1‐SP2

TransformerA7‐SP1A7‐SP2

AA2

AA4

TransformerA12‐SP1

A8‐VV‐33VV‐RV1‐33

RV1‐RV2‐33

RV1‐A9‐33

FIGURE 105: Slow progress energy forecast-BAU: Distribution network violations in Generation South-West-North

121

TABLE 78: Energy forecast-BAU: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South-West-North

Branch KKS ID Capacity needed

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 49.93 5.5 0.504 - 138.31356 AA2 47.39 10.3 0.551 - 269.09357 AA4 22.50 1.8 0.692 - 28.046

148 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 9.49 - - 1.8 17.076149 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 19.35 - - 1.8 34.837156 A1-A4-11 1.63 2.7 2.822 - 12.429157 A5-SP2 (XFMR) 9.72 - - 1.8 17.503158 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 20.7 - - 1.8 37.261159 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 17.06 - - 1.8 30.715167 A7-SP1 (XFMR) 18.52 - - 1.8 33.331168 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 30.21 - - 1.8 54.37169 A6-A7-11 2 3.6 2.822 - 20.292172 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 5.62 - - 1.8 10.112173 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 17.52 - - 1.8 31.528174 A8-VV-33 3.47 0.5 1.682 - 2.919175 VV-RV1-33 0.01 4.1 1.367 - 0.067176 RV1-RV2-33 2.9 0.08 1.682 - 0.391177 RV1-A9-33 6.33 0.4 2.187 - 5.534184 A12-SP1 (XFMR) 0.14 - 1.8 0.2567 HRIB 1.33 9.75 0.169 - 2.19228 HT1 19.86 77.10 0.392 - 600.53049 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 59.99 - - 1.8 107.97450 GE-SP2 (XFMR) 59.99 - - 1.8 104.97452 KO1 28.96 6.3 0.4 - 72.97054 RV1 89.07 1 0.566 - 50.41866 MF1 55.60 6.8 0.33 - 124.64768 RM1 69.00 15 0.33 - 341.19585 IRAFOSS-132 19.47 - - 1.8 35.04892 SE1 23.00 23 1.481 - 389.109

101 VA2 46.15 2.2 1.667 - 169.204125 BD1 0.92 37.2 1.111 - 37.918

TOTAL 2,783.25

TABLE 79: Energy forecast-BAU: Costs summary in Generation South-West-North

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 11,111.71 2,783.25 385.14 13,894.96 256,362.50 270,257.47

122

10.3.4.2 PROPOSAL load profile In PROPOSAL load profile, all the transformers at A8, A7, A5, A1 and A12 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 107, AA1, AA2, AA4, AA6, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 11kV underground cables exceed their thermal limits. 33 kV underground cables between A8 and A9 also exceed their thermal limits. The lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are shown in Figure 108. The lines and cables in various parts of the country exceed their thermal limit: RM1, and MF1 in Reykjanes Peninsula; RV1 and KO1 in the capital area; SE1 in the south; HRIB in the south-west; VA2 in the west and BD1 in the Westfjords. Transformers at Vatnshamrar, Írafoss, Geitháls and Brennimelur substations are overloaded. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand for this load profile and generation portfolio are presented in Table 80, while Table 81 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake.

SE1

RV1

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

TransformersVATNS‐66VATNS‐66

HRIB

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

MF1

KO1

VA2TransformersBREN‐SP1BREN‐SP1

BD1

HT1

FIGURE 106: Slow progress energy forecast-BAU: Transmission network violations in Generation South-West-North

123

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformersA1‐SP1A1‐SP2

TransformerA7‐SP1A7‐SP2

AA2

AA4

TransformerA12‐SP1

A8‐VV‐33VV‐RV1‐33

RV1‐RV2‐33

RV1‐A9‐33

FIGURE 107: Slow progress energy forecast-PROPOSAL: Distribution network violations in Generation South-West-North

SE1

RV1

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

TransformersVATNS‐66VATNS‐66

HRIB

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

MF1

KO1

VA2TransformersBREN‐SP1BREN‐SP1

BD1

HT1

FIGURE 108: Slow progress energy forecast-PROPOSAL: Transmission network violations in Generation South-West-North

124

TABLE 80: Energy forecast-PROPOSAL: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South-West-North

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 52.19 5.5 0.504 - 144.57456 AA2 48.98 10.3 0.551 - 278.12057 AA4 23.66 1.8 0.692 - 29.487

148 A1-SP1 (XFMR) 9.98 - - 1.8 17.969149 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 20.03 - - 1.8 36.045156 A1-A4-11 1.78 2.7 2.822 - 13.527157 A5-SP2 (XFMR) 10.63 - - 1.8 19.14158 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 21.81 - - 1.8 39.256159 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 18.31 - - 1.8 32.958167 A7-SP1 V 19.1 - - 1.8 34.385168 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 31.24 - - 1.8 56.226169 A6-A7-11 2.28 3.6 2.822 - 23.175172 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 6.23 - - 1.8 11.212173 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 18.19 - - 1.8 32.738174 A8-VV-33 3.52 0.5 1.682 - 2.959175 VV-RV1-33 0.06 4.1 1.367 - 0.336176 RV1-RV2-33 2.95 0.08 1.682 - 0.396177 RV1-A9-33 6.37 0.4 2.187 - 5.572184 A12-SP1 (XFMR) 0.48 - - 1.8 0.857

7 HRIB 9.75 9.75 0.169 - 29.48728 HT1 26.63 77.10 0.392 - 805.12449 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 62.11 - - 1.8 111.79050 GE-SP2 (XFMR) 62.11 - - 1.8 111.79052 KO1 31.35 6.3 0.4 - 79.01354 RV1 91.70 1 0.566 - 51.90766 MF1 59.15 6.8 0.33 - 132.60168 RM1 73.44 15 0.33 - 363.17385 IRAFOSS-132 (XFMR) 20.98 - - 1.8 37.75792 SE1 11.92 23 1.481 - 406.145

101 VA2 50.99 2.2 1.667 - 186.948125 BD1 1.2 37.2 1.111 - 49.723

TOTAL 3,115.92

TABLE 81: Energy forecast-PROPOSAL: Costs summary in Generation South-West-North

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 11,437.20 3,115.92 407.55 14,553.13 263,872.01 278,425.13

10.3.4.3 PREMIUM load profile In PREMIUM load profile, all the transformers at A8, A7, A5, A1 and A12 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 109, AA1, AA2, AA4, AA6, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 11kV underground cables exceed their thermal limits. 33 kV underground cables between A8 and A9 also exceed their thermal limits. The lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are shown in Figure 110. The lines and cables in various parts of the country exceed their thermal limit: RM1, and MF1 in Reykjanes Peninsula; RV1 and KO1 in the capital area; SE1 in the south; VA2 in the west and BD1 in the Westfjords. Transformers at Vatnshamrar, Irafoss, Geitháls and Brennimelur substations are overloaded. One of the 66 /13.8 kV transformers at Búrfell is overloaded.

125

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformersA1‐SP1A1‐SP2

TransformerA7‐SP1A7‐SP2

AA2

AA4

TransformerA12‐SP1

A8‐VV‐33VV‐RV1‐33

RV1‐RV2‐33

RV1‐A9‐33

FIGURE 109: Slow progress energy forecast-PREMIUM: Distribution network violations in Generation South-West-North

SE1

RV1

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

TransformersVATNS‐66VATNS‐66

HRIB

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

MF1

KO1

VA2TransformersBREN‐SP1BREN‐SP1

BD1

TransformerBUR‐SP5

AD7

LF1

HT1

FIGURE 110: Slow progress energy forecast-PREMIUM: Transmission network violations in Generation South-West-North

126

The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand for this load profile and generation portfolio are presented in Table 82, while Table 83 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake.

TABLE 82: Energy forecast-PREMIUM: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South-West-North

Branch -

KKS ID -

Capacity needed

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 60.34 5.5 0.504 - 167.16656 AA2 54.78 10.3 0.551 - 311.05257 AA4 27.93 1.8 0.692 - 34.812

148 A1-SP1 (XFMR) 11.76 - - 1.8 21.161149 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 22.43 - - 1.8 40.38156 A1-A4-11 2.29 2.7 2.822 - 17.449157 A5-SP2 (XFMR) 13.89 - - 1.8 25.009158 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 25.8 - - 1.8 46.443159 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 22.8 - - 1.8 41.032167 A7-SP1 (XFMR) 21.21 - - 1.8 38.172168 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 35.01 - - 1.8 63.024169 A6-A7-11 3.29 3.6 2.822 - 33.448172 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 8.41 - - 1.8 15.142173 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 20.61& - - 1.8 37.09174 A8-VV-33 3.69 0.5 1.682 - 3.105175 VV-RV1-33 0.23 4.1 1.367 - 1.299176 RVI-RV2-33 3.1 0.08 1.682 - 0.417177 A8-VV-33 6.53 0.4 2.187 - 5.709184 A12-SP1 (XFMR) 1.67 - - 1.8 3.00428 HT1 51.95 77.10 0.392 - 1,570.68449 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 69,67 - - 1.8 125.41450 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 69,67 - - 1.8 125.41452 KO1 39.90 6.3 0.4 100.55054 RV1 101.19 1 0.566 - 57.27661 AD7 6.02 1 0.392 - 2.36066 MF1 71.95 6.8 0.33 - 161.30668 RM1 89.83 15 0.33 - 444,21083 BUR-SP5 (XFMR) 0.93 - - 1.8 1.67385 IRAFOSS-132 (XFMR) 26.38 - - 1.8 47.48292 SE1 13.72 23 1.481 - 467.356

101 VA2 71.50 2.2 1.667 - 262.172115 LF1 2.73 &34 1.176 - 109.011125 BD1 2.23 37.2 1.111 91.969

TOTAL 4,483.96

TABLE 83: Energy forecast-PREMIUM: Costs summary in Generation South-West-North

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 11,437.20 3,115.92 407.55 14,553.13 263,872.01 278,425.13

127

10.3.5 Generation portfolio V ´Generation South-Northeast-North-West´ It was only possible to simulate BAU, PROPOSAL and PREMIUM load profiles. Power flow did not converge when SU3, VA1, HT1and BL1 branch outages are simulated. FL2 is the worst power flow case. Voltage and branch violations are shown in Appendix III (Apyjo, 2019). 10.3.5.1 BAU load profile In BAU load profile, all the transformers at A8, A7, A5, A1 and A12 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 111, AA1, AA2, AA4, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 11kV cables exceed their thermal limits. 33 kV cables between A8 and A9 also exceed their thermal limits. The lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are shown in Figure 112. The lines and cables in various parts of the country exceed their thermal limit: RM1, and MF1 in Reykjanes Peninsula; RV1 and KO1 in the capital area; SE1 in the south; HRIB in the south-west; VA2 in the west and BD1 in the Westfjords. Transformers at Vatnshamrar, Írafoss, Geitháls and Brennimelur substations are overloaded. One of the 66/13.8 kV transformers at Búrfell is overloaded. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand for this load profile and generation portfolio are presented in Table 84, while Table 85 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake.

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformersA1‐SP1A1‐SP2

TransformerA7‐SP1A7‐SP2

AA2

AA4

TransformerA12‐SP1

A8‐VV‐33VV‐RV1‐33

RV1‐RV2‐33

RV1‐A9‐33

FIGURE 111: Slow progress energy forecast-BAU: Distribution network violations in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

128

TABLE 84: Energy forecast-BAU: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 50.93 5.5 0.504 - 141.09456 AA2 48.67 10.3 0.551 - 276.40257 AA4 23.75 1.8 0.692 - 29.600

148 A1-SP1 (XFMR) 9.49 - - 1.8 17.076149 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 19.35 - - 1.8 34.837156 A1-A4-11 1.63 2.7 2.822 - 12.429157 A5-SP2 (XFMR) 9.7 - - 1.8 17.503158 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 20.7 - - 1.8 37.26159 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 17.06 - - 1.8 30.714167 A7-SP1 (XFMR) 18.52 - - 1.8 33.331168 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 30.21 - - 1.8 54.372169 A6-A7-11 2 3.6 2.822 - 20.292172 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 5.62 - - 1.8 10.112173 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 17.52 - - 1.8 31.528174 A8-VV-33 3.47 0.5 1.682 - 2.919175 VV-RV1-33 0.01 4.1 1.367 - 0.067176 RV1-RV2-33 2.9 0.08 1.682 - 0.391177 RVI-A9-33 6.33 0.4 2.187 - 5.534184 A12-SP1 (XFMR) 0.14 - - 1.8 0.256

7 HRIB 29.07 9.75 0.169 - 47.80925 BREN-SP1 (XFMR) 12.06 - - 1.8 22.07426 BREN-SP2 (XFMR) 12.06 - - 1.8 22.07427 VA1 15.84 20.2 0.392 125.45128 HT1 93.44 77.1 0.392 - 2,825.11532 LV1 46.03 72.7 0.392 - 1,312.44433 BL1 98.03 32.7 0.392 - 1,260.49949 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 62.24 - - 1.8 112.02550 GE-SP2 (XFMR) 62.24 - - 1.8 112.02552 KO1 30.30 6.3 0.4 - 76.35854 RV1 90.09 1 0.566 - 50.99566 MF1 51.10 6.8 0.33 - 114.54568 RM1 45.82 15 0.33 - 226.60783 BUR-SP5 (XFMR) 0.68 - - 1.8 1.22885 IRAFOSS-132 (XFMR) 25.57 - - 1.8 46.03292 SE1 10.27 23 1.481 - 350.05797 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 20.41 - - 1.8 36.73098 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 20.41 - - 1.8 36.730

101 VA2 109.40 2.2 1.667 - 401.135125 BD1 0.92 37.2 1.111 - 37.918138 HU2 1.14 4 4.057 - 18.518

TOTAL 7,992.07

TABLE 85: Energy forecast-BAU: Costs summary in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 11,872.74 7,992.07 566.92 19,864.81 273,920.57 293,785.38

129

10.3.5.2 PROPOSAL load profile In PROPOSAL load profile, all the transformers at substations A8, A7, A5, A1 and A12 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 113, AA1, AA2, AA4, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 11kV cables exceed their thermal limits. 33 kV cables between A8 and A9 also exceed their thermal limits. The lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are shown in Figure 114. The lines and cables in various parts of the country exceed their thermal limit: RM1, and MF1 in Reykjanes Peninsula; RV1, AD7 and KO1 in the capital area; SE1 and LJ1 in the south; HRIB in the south-west; VA2 and HT1 in the west; LV1, BL1 and HU2 in the north and BD1 in the Westfjords. Transformers at Vatnshamrar, Írafoss, Geitháls and Brennimelur substations are overloaded. One of the 66 /13.8 kV transformers at Búrfell substation is overloaded. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand for this load profile and generation portfolio are presented in Table 86, while Table 87 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake.

SE1

RV1

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

VA2

TransformersVATNS‐66VATNS‐66

HRIB

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

TransformerBUR‐SP5

TransformersBREN‐SP1BREN‐SP2

HT1

KO1

AD7

MF1

LV1BL1

HU2

FIGURE 112: Slow progress energy forecast-BAU: Transmission network violations in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

130

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformersA1‐SP1A1‐SP2

TransformerA7‐SP1A7‐SP2

AA2

AA4

TransformerA12‐SP1

A8‐VV‐33VV‐RV1‐33

RV1‐RV2‐33

RV1‐A9‐33

FIGURE 113: Slow progress energy forecast-PROPOSAL: Distribution network violations in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

SE1

RV1

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

VA2

TransformersVATNS‐66VATNS‐66

HRIB

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

TransformerBUR‐SP5

TransformersBREN‐SP1BREN‐SP2

HT1

KO1

AD7

MF1

LV1BL1

HU2

LJ1

BD1

FIGURE 114: Slow progress energy forecast-PROPOSAL: Transmission network violations in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

131

TABLE 86: Energy forecast-PROPOSAL: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 53.18 5.5 0.504 - 147.34256 AA2 50.26 10.3 0.551 - 285.38757 AA4 24.89 1.8 0.692 - 31.028

148 A1-SP1 (XFMR) 9.98 - - 1.8 17.969149 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 20.03 - - 1.8 36.045156 A1-A4-11 1.78 2.7 2.822 - 13.527157 A5-SP2 (XFMR) 10.63 - - 1.8 19.139158 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 21.81 - - 1.8 39.255159 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 18.31 - - 1.8 32.958167 A7-SP1 (XFMR) 19.1 - - 1.8 34.385168 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 31.24 - - 1.8 56.228169 A6-A7-11 2.28 3.6 2.822 - 23.175172 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 6.23 - - 1.8 11.212173 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 18.19 - - 1.8 32.737174 A8-VV-33 3.52 0.5 1.682 - 2.959175 VV-RV1-33 0.06 4.1 1.367 - 0.336176 RV1-RV2-33 2.95 0.08 1.682 - 0.396177 RVI-A9-33 6.37 0.4 2.187 - 5.572184 A12-SP1 (XFMR) 0.48 - - 1.8 0.857

7 HRIB 28.94 9.75 0.169 - 47.59525 BREN-SP1 (XFMR) 14.77 - - 1.8 26.58626 BREN-SP2 (XFMR) 14.77 - - 1.8 26.58627 VA1 19.92 20.2 0.392 - 157.77928 HT1 104.39 77.1 0.392 - 3,156.308

32& LV1 51.98 72.7 0.392 - 1,482.01033 BL1 106.64 32.7 0.392 - 1,362.476

49& GE-SP1 (XFMR) 64.36 - - 1.8 115.84350 GE-SP2 (XFMR) 64.36 - - 1.8 115.843

52& KO1 32.70 6.3 0.4 - 82.39654& RV1 92.72 1 0.566 - 52.48266& MF1 54.64 6.8 0.33 - 122.49268& RM1 50.24 15 0.33 - 248.42083 BUR-SP5 (XFMR) 1.01 - - 1.8 1.81085 IRAFOSS-132 (XFMR) 27.08 - - 1.8 48.74692 SE1 10.78 23 1.481 - 367.43595 LJ1 0.08 1.2 1.333 - 0.12897 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 25.24 - - 1.8 45.43498 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 25.24 - - 1.8 45.434

101 VA2 121.52 2.2 1.667 - 445.577125 BD1 1.2 37.2 1.111 - 49.723138 HU2 1.26 4 4.057 - 20.377

TOTAL 8,816.99 TABLE 87: Energy forecast-PROPOSAL: Costs summary in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses +start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 12,288.33 8,816.99 616.23 21,105.22 283,506.42 304,611.64

132

10.3.5.3 PREMIUM load profile In PREMIUM load profile, all the transformers at A8, A7, A5, A1 and A12 are overloaded. As seen in Figure 115, AA1, AA2, AA4, A1-A4-11 and A6-A7-11 11kV cables exceed their thermal limits. 33 kV cables between A8 and A9 also exceed their thermal limits. The lines/cables that violate their thermal limits in the transmission system are shown in Figure 116. The lines and cables in various parts of the country exceed their thermal limit: RM1, and MF1 in Reykjanes Peninsula; RV1, AD7 and KO1 in the capital area; SE1 and LJ1 in the south; HRIB in the south-west; VA2 and HT1 in the west; LV1, BL1 and HU2 in the north, LF1 in the west and BD1 in the Westfjords. Transformers in Vatnshamrar, Írafoss, Geitháls, Mjólká and Brennimelur substations are overloaded. One of the 66 /13.8 kV transformers in Búrfell substation is overloaded. The reinforcements needed to support the increase in electricity demand for this load profile and generation portfolio are presented in Table 88, while Table 89 shows the summary of costs associated with the increasing load uptake.

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformersA1‐SP1A1‐SP2

TransformerA7‐SP1A7‐SP2

AA2

AA4

TransformerA12‐SP1

A8‐VV‐33VV‐RV1‐33

RV1‐RV2‐33

RV1‐A9‐33

FIGURE 115: Slow progress energy forecast-PREMIUM: Distribution network violations in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

133

TABLE 88: Energy forecast-PREMIUM: Assets upgrade costs in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 61.19 5.5 0.504 - 169.52256 AA2 55.86 10.3 0.551 - 317.21457 AA4 28.97 1.8 0.692 - 36.107

148 A1-SP1 (XFMR) 11.76 - - 1.8 21.161149 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 22.43 - - 1.8 40.379156 A1-A4-11 2.29 2.7 2.822 - 17.449157 A5-SP2 (XFMR) 13.89 - - 1.8 25.009158 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 25.8 - - 1.8 46.442159 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 22.8 - - 1.8 41.031167 A7-SP1 (XFMR) 21.21 - - 1.8 38.173168 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 35.01 - - 1.8 63.026169 A6-A7-11 3.29 3.6 2.822 - 33.448172 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 8.41 - - 1.8 15.142173 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 20.67 - - 1.8 37.089174 A8-VV-33 3.69 0.5 1.682 - 3.105175 VV-RV1-33 0.23 4.1 1.367 - 1.299176 RV1-RV2-33 3.1 0.08 1.682 - 0.417177 RV1-A9-33 6.53 0.4 2.187 - 5.709184 A12-SP1 (XFMR) 1.67 - - 1.8 3.004

7 HRIB 33.21 9.75 0.169 - 54.61325 BREN-SP1 (XFMR) 20.52 - - 1.8 36.93426 BREN-SP2 (XFMR) 20.52 - - 1.8 36.93427 VA1 26.70 20.2 0.392 - 211.51628 HT1 154.83 77.1 0.392 - 4,681.25432 LV1 72.73 72.7 0.392 - 2,073.44333 BL1 143.14 32.7 0.392 - 1,845.44549 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 71.81 - - 1.8 129.25650 GE-SP2 (XFMR) 71.81 - - 1.8 129.25652 KO1 41.06 6.3 0.4 - 103.46654 RV1 102.05 1 0.566 - 57.76661 AD7 3.89 1 0.392 - 1.52666 MF1 67.85 6.8 0.33& - 152.11268 RM1 68.35 15 0.33& - 338.01483 BUR-SP5 (XFMR) 2.15 - - 1.8 3.87185 IRAFOSS-132 (XFMR) 32.45 - - 1.8 58.37892 SE1 12.63 23 1.481 - 430.48095 LJ1 3.74 1.2 1.333& - 5.97797 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 51.31 - - 1.8 92.36098 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 51.31 - - 1.8 92.360

101 VA2 189.65 2.2 1.667 - 695.401115 LF1 2.73 34 1.176 - 109.011122 MJOLKA-SP1 (XFMR) 10.43 - - 1.8 18.772123 MJOLKA-SP2 (XFMR) 10.43 - - 1.8 18.772125 BD1 2.23 37.2 1.111 - 91.969138 HU2 1.71 4 4.057 - 27.774

TOTAL 12,411.49

134

TABLE 89: Energy forecast-PREMIUM: Costs summary in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

Energy Assets Losses Assets+energy

+losses Start-up

Assets+energy+losses+start-up

[mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] [mkr] 14,082.59 12,411.49 894.22 26,494.08 324,904.63 351,398.71

10.3.6 Slow progress energy forecast scenario "worst-case" asset violations 10.3.6.1 BAU load profile This is a more realistic scenario and the system is more stressed than the other scenarios. Figures 117 and 118 show the worst-case asset violations from all the generation profiles in BAU. Table 90 shows the capacity needed and the costs of the violations in different parts of the network.

SE1

RV1

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

VA2

TransformersVATNS‐66VATNS‐66

HRIB

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

TransformerBUR‐SP5

TransformersBREN‐SP1BREN‐SP2

HT1

KO1

AD7

MF1

LV1BL1

HU2

LJ1

BD1

LF1

TransformersMJOLKA‐SP1MJOLKA‐SP2

FIGURE 116: Slow progress energy forecast-PREMIUM: Transmission network violations in Generation South-Northeast-North-West

135

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformersA1‐SP1A1‐SP2

TransformerA7‐SP1A7‐SP2

AA2

AA4

TransformerA12‐SP1

A8‐VV‐33VV‐RV1‐33

RV1‐RV2‐33

RV1‐A9‐33

FIGURE 117: Slow progress energy forecast: Worst-case distribution network violations in BAU

SE1

RV1

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

VA2

TransformersVATNS‐66VATNS‐66

HRIB

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

TransformerBUR‐SP5

TransformersBREN‐SP1BREN‐SP2

HT1

KO1

AD7

MF1

LV1BL1

HU2

HRIA

LF1

BD1

SN1

FIGURE 118: Slow progress energy forecast: Worst-case transmission network violations in BAU

136

TABLE 90: Slow progress energy forecast: Worst-case asset violation costs in BAU

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 50.93 5.5 0.504 - 141.09456 AA2 48.67 10.3 0.551 - 276.40257 AA4 23.75 1.8 0.692 - 29.600

148 A1-SP1 (XFMR) 9.49 - - 1.8 17.085149 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 19.36 - - 1.8 34.855156 A1-A4-11 1.63 2.7 2.822 - 12.434157 A5-SP2 (XFMR) 9.73 - - 1.8 17.516158 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 20.71 - - 1.8 37.285159 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 17.07 - - 1.8 30.733167 A7-SP1 (XFMR) 18.53 - - 1.8 33.346168 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 30.23 - - 1.8 54.41169 A6-A7-11 2 3.6 2.822 - 20.292172 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 5.62 - - 1.8 10.113173 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 17.52 - - 1.8 31.543174 A8-VV-33 3.47 0.5 1.682 - 2.921175 VV-RV1-33 0.01 4.1 1.367 - 0.082176 RV1-RV2-33 2.9 0.08 1.682 - 0.391177 RV1-A9-33 6.33 0.4 2.187 - 5.535184 A12-SP1 (XFMR) 0.14 - - 1.8 0.26

5 HRIA 129.15 9.75 0.169 - 212.40125 BREN-SP1 (XFMR) 25.29 - - 1.8 45.51426 BREN-SP2 (XFMR) 25.29 - - 1.8 45.51427 VA1 22.82 20.2 0.392 - 180.73528 HT1 93.44 77.1 0.392 - 2,825.11532 LV1 46.03 72.7 0.392 - 1,312.44433 BL1 98.03 32.7 0.392 - 1,260.49949 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 62.24 - - 1.8 112.02550 GE-SP2 (XFMR) 62.24 - - 1.8 112.02552 KO1 30.30 6.3 0.4 - 76.35854 RV1 90.09 1 0.566 - 50.99561 AD7 30.79 1 0.392 - 12.07564 SN1 10.58 30.8 0.392 - 127.80366 MF1 108.94 6.8 0.33 - 244.21768 RM1 308.69 15 0.33 - 1,526.47683 BUR-SP5 (XFMR) 0.68 - - 1.8 1.22885 IRAFOSS-132 (XFMR) 25.57 - - 1.8 46.03292 SE1 14.28 23 1.481 - 486.711

101 VA2 109.40 2.2 1.667 - 401.135115 LF1 2.65 34 1.176 - 106.074125 BD1 0.92 37.2 1.111 - 37.918138 HU2 1.14 4 4.057 - 18.518

TOTAL 9,997.709 10.3.6.2 PROPOSAL load profile Figures 119 and 120 show the worst-case asset violations from all the generation profiles in PROPOSAL load profile. Table 91 shows the capacity needed and the costs of the violations in different parts of the network.

137

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformersA1‐SP1A1‐SP2

TransformersA7‐SP1A7‐SP2

AA2

AA4

TransformerA12‐SP1

A8‐VV‐33VV‐RV1‐33

RV1‐RV2‐33

RV1‐A9‐33

FIGURE 119: Slow progress energy forecast: Worst-case distribution network violations in PROPOSAL

SE1

RV1

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

VA2

TransformersVATNS‐66VATNS‐66

HRIB

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

TransformerBUR‐SP5

TransformersBREN‐SP1BREN‐SP2

HT1

KO1

AD7

MF1

LV1BL1

HU2

HRIA

LF1

BD1

SN1

LJ1

FIGURE 120: Slow progress energy forecast: Worst-case transmission network violations in PROPOSAL

138

TABLE 91: Slow progress energy forecast: Worst-case asset violation costs in PROPOSAL

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 53.2 5.5 0.504 - 147.37556 AA2 50.27 10.3 0.551 - 285.4757 AA4 24.91 1.8 0.692 - 31.047

148 A1-SP1 (XFMR) 9.99& - - 1.8 17.979149 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 20.04 - - 1.8 36.065156 A1-A4-11 1.78 - - 1.8 13.532157 A5-SP2 (XFMR) 10.64 - - 1.8 19.154158 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 21.82 - - 1.8 39.283159 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 18.32 - - 1.8 32.979167 A7-SP1 (XFMR) 19.11 - - 1.8 34.402168 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 31.26 - - 1.8 56.273169 A6-A7-11 2.28 3.6 2.822 - 23.175172 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 6.23 - - 1.8 11.214173 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 18.2 - - 1.8 32.754174 A8-VV-33 3.52 - - 1.8 2.962175 VV-RV1 0.06 4.1 1.367 - 0.352176 RV1-RV2-33 2.95 0.08 1.682 - 0.397177 RV1-A9-33 6.37 0.4 2.187 - 5.573184 A12-SP1 (XFMR) 0.48 - - 1.8 0.861

5 HRIA 130.58 9.75 0.169 - 214.7497 HRIB 214.71 9.75 0.169 - 353.1089 SU3 1.43 121.6 0.169 - 29.255

25 BREN-SP1 (XFMR) 27.59 - - 1.8 49.66626 BREN-SP2 (XFMR) 27.59 - - 1.8 49.66627 VA1 27.68 20.2 0.392 - 219.25728 HT1 104.39 77.1 0.392 - 3,156.30832 LV1 51.98 72.7 0.392 - 1,482.01033 BL1 106.64 32.7 0.392 - 1,362.47649 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 64.36 - - 1.8 115.84350 GE-SP2 (XFMR) 64.36 - - 1.8 115.84352 KO1 32.70 6.3 0.4 - 82.39654 RV1 92.72 1 0.566 - 52.48261 AD7 35.93 1 0.392 - 14.09264 SN1 14.31 30.8 0.392 - 172.79666 MF1 113.93 6.8 0.33 - 255.40368 RM1 319.93 15 0.33 - 1,582.09383 BUR-SP5 (XFMR) 1.01 - - 1.8 1.81085 IRAFOSS-132 (XFMR) 27.08 - - 1.8 48.74692 SE1 14.83 23 1.481 - 505.37095 LJ1 0.08 1.2 1.333 0.12897 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 25.24 - - 1.8 45.43498 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 25.24 - - 1.8 45.434

101 VA2 121.52 2.2 1.667 - 445.577115 LF1 5.28 34 1.176 - 211.293125 BD1 1.2 37.2 1.111 - 49.723138 aHU2 1.26 4 4.057 - 20.377

TOTAL 11,472.186

139

10.3.6.3 PREMIUM load profile Figure 121 and Figure 122 show the worst-case asset violations from all the generation profiles in PREMIUM load profile. Table 92 shows the capacity needed and the costs of the violations in different parts of the network.

TABLE 92: Slow progress energy forecast: Worst-case asset violation costs in PREMIUM

Branch KKS ID Capacityneeded

Length Asset cost TX cost Total cost

[MVA] [km] [mkr/MW/km] [mkr/MVA] [mkr]55 AA1 61.19 5.5 0.504 - 169.52256 AA2 55.86 10.3 0.551 - 317.21457 AA4 28.97 1.8 0.692 - 36.10762 AA6 10.24 11.3 0.615 - 71.134

148 A1-SP1 (XFMR) 11.76 - - 1.8 21.176149 A1-SP2 (XFMR) 22.45 - - 1.8 40.409156 A1-A4-11 2.29 2.7 2.822 - 17.457157 A5-SP2 (XFMR) 13.91 - - 1.8 25.032158 A5-SP1 (XFMR) 25.83 - - 1.8 46.486159 A5-SP3 (XFMR) 22.81 - - 1.8 41.065167 A7-SP1 (XFMR) 21.22 - - 1.8 38.201168 A7-SP2 (XFMR) 35.06 - - 1.8 63.108169 A6-A7-11 3.29 3.6 2.822 - 33.448172 A8-SP2 (XFMR) 8.41 - - 1.8 15.145173 A8-SP3 (XFMR) 20.62 - - 1.8 37.115174 A8-VV-33 3.69 0.33 1.8 - 3.108175 VV-RV1-33 0.24 4.1 1.367 - 1.32176 RV1-RV2-33 3.1 0.08 1.682 - 0.418177 RV1-A9-33 6.53 0.4 2.187 - 5.71184 A12-SP1 (XFMR) 1.67 - - 1.8 3.01

5 HRIA 138.74 9.75 0.169 - 228.1667 HRIB 222.82 9.75 0.169 - 366.4519 SU3 16.41 121.6 0.169 - 336.534

25 BREN-SP1 (XFMR) 37.43 - - 1.8 67.36626 BREN-SP2 (XFMR) 37.43 - - 1.8 67.36627 VA1 48.45 20.2 0.392 - 383.82028 HT1 154.83 77.1 0.392 - 4,681.25432 LV1 72.73 72.7 0.392 - 2,073.44333 BL1 143.14 32.7 0.392 - 1,845.44549 GE-SP1 (XFMR) 71.81 - - 1.8 129.25650 GE-SP2 (XFMR) 71.81 - - 1.8 129.25652 KO1 41.06 6.3 0.4 - 103.46654 RV1 102.05 1 0.566 - 57.76661 AD7 54.06 1 0.392 - 21.20064 SN1 28.01 30.8 0.392 - 338.32666 MF1 132.20 6.8 0.33 - 296.37068 RM1 362.2715 0.33 - 1,791.32383 BUR-SP5 (XFMR) 2.15 - - 1.8 3.87185 IRAFOSS-132 (XFMR) 32.45 - - 1.8 58.37892 SE1 16.80 23 1.481 - 572.55895 LJ1 3.74 1.2 1.333 - 5.97797 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 51.31 - - 1.8 92.36098 VATNS-66 (XFMR) 51.31 - - 1.8 92.360

101 VA2 189.65 2.2 1.667 - 695.401114 EYVIND-66 (XFMR) 6.83 - - 1.8 12.295115 LF1 13.54 34 1.176 - 541.721122 MJOLKA-SP1 (XFMR) 10.43 - - 1.8 18.772123 MJOLKA-SP2 (XFMR) 10.43 - - 1.8 18.772125 BD1 2.23 37.2 1.111 - 91.969138 HU2 1.71 4 4.057 - 27.774

TOTAL 16,135.201

140

A6‐A7‐11

TransformersA5‐SP1A5‐SP2A5‐SP3

TransformersA8‐SP2A8‐SP3

A1‐A4‐11

AA1

TransformersA1‐SP1A1‐SP2

TransformerA7‐SP1A7‐SP2

AA2

AA4

TransformerA12‐SP1

A8‐VV‐33VV‐RV1‐33

RV1‐RV2‐33

RV1‐A9‐33

AA6

FIGURE 121: Slow progress energy forecast: Worst-case distribution network violations in PREMIUM

SE1

RV1

RM1

TransformersGE‐SP1GE‐SP2

VA2

TransformersVATNS‐66VATNS‐66

HRIB

TransformerIRAFOSS‐132

TransformerBUR‐SP5

TransformersBREN‐SP1BREN‐SP2

HT1

KO1

AD7

MF1

LV1BL1

HU2

HRIA

LF1

BD1

SN1

LJ1

TransformersMJOLKA‐SP1MJOLKA‐SP2

FIGURE 122: Slow progress energy forecast: Worst-case transmission network violations in PREMIUM

141

10.3.7 Summary of simulations in the slow progress energy forecast scenario From the results, capacity issues are mainly experienced in the capital area. It was also noted that load shedding and generation reduction is inevitable for some power flow cases and it was not possible to simulate the BAN load profile without further reinforcing the system. Figures 123, 124 and 125 give a summary of the costs associated with the network reinforcements needed to support the increase in demand as a result of the EV uptake in the three generation portfolios. From the results, the start-up costs are very high compared to the energy, losses and assets upgrade costs.

(a) Assets, Energy and Losses costs in Generation-South-West-North

(b) Total costs including start-up costs in Generation-South-West-North

FIGURE 125: Slow progress energy forecast: Summary of Generation South-West-North

(a) Assets, Energy and Losses costs in Generation South

(b) Total costs including start-up costs in Generation South

FIGURE 123: Slow progress energy forecast: Summary of Generation South

(a) Assets, Energy and Losses costs in Generation-South-Northeast-North-West

(b) Total costs including start-up costs in Generation-South-Northeast-North-West

FIGURE 124: Slow progress energy forecast: Summary of Generation South-Northeast-North-West

142

10.4 Voltage violations As mentioned in the previous chapters, all the voltage limit violations were recorded along with the simulations. Increase in EV penetration only increases consumption; therefore only voltages decrease will occur. No high voltage violations were recorded. Figure 126 shows a typical output from the simulations when line SE2 is taken out of service in the slow progress energy forecast scenario in generation portfolio V. If the voltage does not improve after all the branches have been upgraded, then there is need to install capacitors to increase the voltages during heavy loading conditions. This scope is not included in this report.

2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 20500.76

0.78

0.8

0.82

0.84

0.86

0.88

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96AA5HAM-SP2HAM-SP2AD7FI3FI3KRF2KR4AFA1HU2BAKKI-11

FIGURE 126: Low voltage profile in the slow progress energy forecast scenario

143

11. DISCUSSION The summary of results from the simulations is discussed in this chapter, and an overall conclusion given. 11.1 Summary This report outlines the results obtained when studying the impact of penetration of large PEVs and BEVs fleet on both the transmission and Reykjavik distribution networks. From the study, it is clear that increasing the EV load over the years will impact the power system, especially in the capital area. This study was done for two Icelandic system models; a base model and an improved Icelandic transmission system as per the Landsnet’s Network Development Plan 2018-2027 with new lines and upgrades in the transmission network. MATPOWER was used to model and simulate the Icelandic power system and MATLAB to control simulations. Various load scenarios are outlined to represent the penetration level as described in Chapter 2. The maximum load in the year 2050 for BAU, PROPOSAL, PREMIUM, BAN is 292, 307, 360 and 441 MW, respectively. Five generation profiles were defined to cater for the increase of demand in the system from the year 2018-2050. This was done to investigate not only how the EV will impact the system but also how different geographically located generation will affect the results. The study was done for three different scenarios: Base case scenario, System plan scenario, a slow progress scenario to check how the system will respond based on various system load profiles and system models. Fourteen power flow cases were used to demonstrate the "worst-case" issues. These power flow cases simulate a no-fault case and 13 different branch outages cases. The three scenarios were simulated using the EV load profiles, all the generation portfolios and performing all the 14 power flow cases. Thermal and voltage violations in the system is critically monitored and analysed. It was impossible to perform some power flow cases in different combinations as load shedding and reducing production was needed to balance the production and demand in different parts of the country not included in this work. There is also no good connection between the north and south. Necessary network reinforcements to support the increase in electricity demand and associated costs were evaluated. 11.2 Conclusion Penetration of EVs will have a positive impact, including reducing CO2 emissions, and lower vehicle operating costs. The penetration level of BEVs and PHEVs will undoubtedly have a drastic impact on both the transmission and distribution network. This impact will affect the capacity, performance and efficiency of the electric grid. The effect should be addressed to avoid equipment damage and maintain good power quality. The traditional way is to reinforce the network by upgrading the equipment in the system, such as utilizing higher admittance conductors and using transformers with higher capacities. However, these solutions are expensive, and some take time to implement. Managing the network demand will be an ideal solution to this problem. This could be used to shave the peak demand by shifting some of the energy consumed during these hours to off-peak load hours. Another way of dealing with these system peaks is by introducing financial incentives and rules to control customers. When performing load studies, load shedding schemes should be implemented to get accurate and more realistic results. The Capital area is the most affected in the simulations. Smart charging is partly included in the load profiles, and it is a good option given that PEVs and BEVs are charged when that is adequate. However, if V2G is implementable given the necessary business models and communication infrastructures, then we obtain the most reduced transmission and distribution investment costs because the EVs can contribute to supply the demand using a portion of the energy stored in their batteries.

144

11.3 Future work While modelling the system in MATPOWER and simulating various scenarios and EV load profiles a few things were noted and worth addressing in the future.

Reykjavik distribution was modelled, and all the voltage and thermal limit constrained accessed. There is need to model all the other regional distribution networks for a more detailed study.

The changes to be made after the new Lyklafell Substation is commissioned and HAM 1, HAM2, ISA1 AND ISA2 demolished are not very clear in the system plan.

Dynamic behaviour of EVs with their participation in Primary and Secondary Frequency Control. EV participation in primary frequency control is useful in situations where the deviations between generation and load are felt at the level of EV. In secondary frequency control, that is Automatic Generation Control, EVs must be active elements within the power system.

Analysis of smart charging impact on the entire network.

Implement vehicle to grid concept in the simulations. V2G is made possible by coordinated charging for grid support. The EVs supply electricity back into the grid and thus increasing the stability of the network. V2G can help manage branches’ congestion, solve voltage problems and provide peak power to make the energy demand more uniform.

EVs impact on the low voltage grid power quality related to harmonics due to the large penetration of EVs

A technical feasibility study on how a link between the North and the South coast of Iceland across the highlands will impact the system.

145

REFERENCES Althingi, 1992: Bill on law on excise tax on cars (in Icelandic). Althingi, 28/116, website: www.althingi.is/altext/116/s/0028.html Althingi, 1993: Law on excise tax on motor vehicles, fuel, etc. (in Icelandic). Althingi, 29/1993, website: www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1993029.html Althingi, 2002: Law on cost of recycling (in Icelandic). Althingi, 162/2002, website: www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/2002162.html Althingi, 2004: Law on oil and mileage tax (in Icelandic). Althingi, 87/2004, website: www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/2004087.html Apyjo, W.A., 2019: Impact analysis of electric vehicles charging on the Icelandic power system. Reykjavik University, Iceland School of Energy, Appendices to MSc thesis, UNU-GTP, report 1 Appendices, 111 pp. Arjan, W., Jan, K., Francisco, O., and David, R., 2018: Smart charging: Integrating a large widespread of electric cars in electricity distribution grids. European Distribution System Operators for Smart Grids, website:www.edsoforsmartgrids.eu/wp-content/uploads/EDSO-paper-on-electro-mobility-2.pdf Celli, G., Soma, G.G., Pilo, F., Lacu, F., Mocci, S., and Natale, N.,2014: Aggregated electric vehicles load profiles with fast charging stations. Proceedings of the Power Systems Computation Conference, Wrocław, Poland, IEEE, 7 pp. Clement-Nyns, K., Haesen, E., and Driesen, J., 2010: The impact of charging plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on a residential distribution grid. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 25-1, 371–380. Collection of Regulations, 2004: Regulation on quality of electric power and transmission security (in Icelandic). Collection of Regulations, webpage: www.reglugerd.is/reglugerdir/allar/nr/1048-2004 EPRI, 2007: Environmental assessment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Volume 1: Nationwide Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Electric Power Research Institute, 56 pp, website: www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/oeprod/DocumentsandMedia/EPRI-NRDC_PHEV_GHG_report.pdf Fink, D.G., and Beaty, H.W., 1999: Standard handbook for electrical engineers (14th revised edition). McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., NY, 2304 pp. Gallup, 2017: Survey on travelling habits of inhabitants of the capital region. Association of Local Communities in the Capital Region and the Icelandic Road and Coastal Administration, report, 96 pp, website: ssh.is/images/stories/Samgongumal/2017Ferdavenjur/01_4027650_Ferdavenjur_a_ hofudborgarsvaedinu_080118.pdf Glover, J.D., Sarma, M.S., and Overbye, J.T., 2017: Power system analysis and design (6th ed.), Cengage Learning, 850 pp., Government of Iceland, 2003: Electricity act. Government of Iceland, 65/2003, webpage: www.government.is/library/04-Legislation/Act-No-65-2003-on-Electricity.pdf. Gudmundsson, G., 2017: Iceland: transition to clean energy, limitations of the electric transmission system. Reykjavik University, MSc thesis 98 pp. Idema, R., and Lahaye, D.J., 2014: Computational methods in power system analysis. Atlantis Studies in Scientific Computing in Electromagnetics, Vol. 1, Atlantis Press, Paris, vol. 1, 121 pp.

146

IEE-USA, 2007. Position statement: Plug-in-electric-hybrid vehicles. Adopted by the IEEE-USA Board of Directors, June 15 56 pp, webpage: www.engr.uvic.ca/~mech459/Pub_References/PHEV0607.pdf Imperial College London, 2014: B-3 grid impact studies of electric vehicles - Future distribution network planning tools: functional specifications. Imperial College London, Webpage: www.greenemotion-project.eu/upload/pdf/deliverables/D4_3_B3-Grid-Impact-studies-of-electric-vehicles-Future-Distribution-Network-Planning-Tools-V3_1_submitted.pdf Kundur, P., 1994: Power system stability and control. McGraw-Hill, NY, 1199 pp. Landsnet, 2015: High voltage underground cables in Iceland: Research project concerning options and cost for 132 kV and 220 kV underground cables for different system and ground conditions. general discussion and study of three different cases. Landsnet, Reykjavík, report, 130 pp, webpage: www.landsnet.is/library/Skrar/Landsnet/Upplysingatorg/Skyrslur/Jardstrengir/High%20Voltage%20Underground%20Cables%20in%20Iceland.pdf Landsnet, 2016: Landsnet KKS handbook (ed. 10). Landsnet, Reykjavík, 87 pp, webpage: www.landsnet.is/library/Skjol/Flutningskerfid/Um-flutningskerfid/KKS/KKS%20handbook %20English%20-%20november%202016.pdf Landsnet, 2017a: Performance report: delivery, security and quality of the transmission system (in Icelandic). Landsnet, Reykjavik, webpage: www.landsnet.is/library/Skrar/Landsnet/Skyrslur/ Frammistoduskyrsla/Frammistoduskyrsla %202017.pdf. Landsnet, 2017b: Transmission, the grid 2017. Landsnet, Reykjavík, annual report, webpage: 2017.landsnet.is/annual-report-2017/operations/transmission/ Landsnet, 2017c: Defined transmission cuts and security limits. Landsnet, Reykjavík, annual report, webpage: 2017.landsnet.is/annual-report-2017/operations/operations-construction/ Landsnet, 2018a: Landsnet's system plan 2018-2027 - Long-term plan for the development of electricity transmission systems (in Icelandic). Landsnet, report, 109 pp, webpage: www.landsnet.is/library/Skjol/Um-okkur-/utgafa-og-samskipti/Skyrslur/KerfisaAetlun/2018-2027/2018-2027---til-samThykktar-hja-OS/01%20Kerfis%C3%A1%C3%A6tlun%202018-2027%20-%20Langt%C3%ADma%C3%A1%C3%A6tlun%20-%20Copy%20(1).pdf Landsnet, 2018b: Landsnet's system plan 2018-2027 – plans for construction work 2019-2021. Landsnet, report, 153 pp, webpage: www.landsnet.is/library/Skjol/Um-okkur-/utgafa-og-samskipti/Skyrslur/KerfisaAetlun/2018-2027/2018-2027---til-samThykktar-hja-OS/02%20Kerfis%C3%A1%C3 %A6tlun%202018-2027%20-%20Framkv%C3%A6mda%C3%A1%C3%A6tlun%20- %20Copy%20(1).pdf Ministry of Industries and Innovation, 2016: Regulation on system planning for the development of electricity transmission system (in Icelandic). M.I.I., October, 3 pp. Ólafsson, K.B., 2016: Levelized cost of energy (LCOE) and power plant options for consideration in phase 3 of the power Master Plan. K. Ólafsson, 20 pp, webpage: www.mbl.is/media/71/9971.pdf. Orkustofnun, 2017a: Electricity forecast 2017 – 2050. Recalculation of forecast from 2015 based on new data and changed assumption (in Icelandic). Orkustofnun, Reykjavík, report OS-2017/01, webpage: orkustofnun.is/gogn/Skyrslur/OS-2017/OS-2017-01.pdf Orkustofnun, 2017b: Scenarios on electricity consumption 2017-2050 (in Icelandic). Orkustofnun, Reykjavík, report OS-2017/10, 16 pp, webpage: orkustofnun.is/gogn/Skyrslur/OS-2017/OS-2017-10.pdf.

147

Orkustofnun, 2019: Distribution systems (in Icelandic). Orkustofnun, Reykjavík, report, website: orkustofnun.is/raforka/raforkueftirlit/dreifiveitur/ Price, W., Chiang, H., Clark, H., Concordia, C., Lee, D., Hsu, J., Hara, S., King, C., Lin, C., Mansour, Y., Srinivasan,,K., Taylor, C., and Vaahedi, C., 1993: Load representation for dynamic performance analysis. IIEEE Transactions on Power Systems (Instit. Electrical & Electronics Engineers), US, 5 pp. Rammaáaetlun, 2013a: The current Master Plan”, Parliamentary resolution on the Plan for Nature Protection and Energy Utilisation. Rammaáaetlun, website: www.ramma.is/english/the-master-plan-today/current-master-plan/ Rammaáaetlun, 2013b: Geothermal alternatives in high-temperature areas, for assessment in phase 2 of the Master Plan. Rammaáaetlun, webpage: www.ramma.is/media/nidurstada-faghopa/Jardhiti-tafla-8mars.pdf Rammaáaetlun, 2013c: Hydropower alternativesfor assessment in phase 2 of the Master Plan. Rammaáetlun, webpage: www.ramma.is/media/nidurstada-faghopa/Vatnsafl-tafla-8mars.pdf Rammaáaetlun 2013d: Master Plan, 2nd phase, an overview of alternatives for power plants. Rammaáaetlun, webpage: www.ramma.is/media/kort/Yfirlitskort.pdf Richardson, D.B., 2013: Electric vehicles and the electric grid: A review of modeling approaches, impacts, and renewable energy integration. Renew. & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 19, 247–254. Shafiei, E., Davídsdóttir, B., Fazeli, R., Leaver, I., Stefánsson, H., and Ásgeirsson, E.1., 2018: Macroeconomic effects of fiscal incentives to promote electric vehicles in Iceland: implications for government and consumer costs. Energy Policy, 114, 431–443. Sugar M.E., 2014: Simulation based grid energy storage optimization to enhance renewable energy storage in Iceland. University of Iceland, Reykjavík, School of Engineering and Natural Sciences, MSc thesis, 118 pp. Thierry, V.C., and Costas, V., 1998: Voltage stability of electric power systems. Springer, Power Electronics and Power Systems. 378 pp. UNFCCC, 2015: Paris Agreement. United Nation UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Paris Agreement, 26-1. 27 pp, webpage: unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf Valdimarsson, G.I., 2016: Real-time security assessment for the Icelandic electrical power system using phasor measurement. Reykjavik University, MSc thesis, 157 pp. VSÓ Consulting, 2017: Capital area in 2040. Traffic forecast for 2030 due to regional planning changes, assumptions and results. VSÓ Consulting, report, 45 pp, webpage: ssh.is/images/stories/Samgongumal/2017_Greinagerd_Umferdarspa_2030_LOKA.pdf Zimmerman, R.D., Murillo-Sanchez, C.E and Thomas, R.J., 2011: MATPOWER: steady-state operations, planning, and analysis tools for power systems research and education. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 26-1, 12–19.