Investigation 7 8 9

New Zealand Electricity Commission - Wind
Generation Investigation Project
Stage 1 - Wind Generation Impact Studies

Final Report
prepared for
Transpower NZ LTD
DIgSILENT GmbH
Heinrich-Hertz-Strasse 9
D-72810 Gomaringen
Tel.: +49 7072 9168 - 0
Fax: +49 7072 9168- 88
http://www.digsilent.de
e-mail: mail@digsilent.de
Please contact
Koos Theron
Tel.: +64 3 9690 0081
e-mail: koos@digsilent.com.au
Team
Brad Henderson B.E
Dr.-Ing. Markus Poller
Published by
DIgSILENT GmbH, Germany
Copyright 2003. All rights
reserved. Unauthorised copying
or publishing of this or any part
of this document is prohibited.
May, 2007
New Zealand Electricity Commission - Wind Generation Investigation Project
- Stage 1
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary........................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Background .............................................................................................................................................. 5
1.2 Study Objectives....................................................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Study Results ........................................................................................................................................... 7
1.3.1 Voltage Sag Screening Results North Island........................................................................................ 7
1.3.2 Voltage Sag Screening Results South Island ....................................................................................... 7
1.3.3 Dynamic Simulation Results North Island............................................................................................ 7
1.3.4 Dynamic Simulation Results South Island ........................................................................................... 8
1.4 Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................................................................ 8
1.5 Study Assumptions ................................................................................................................................. 10
1.5.1 Scenarios .......................................................................................................................................... 10
1.5.2 Wind-farms ....................................................................................................................................... 11
1.6 Voltage Sag Screening ............................................................................................................................ 12
1.6.1 Voltage Sag Study Methodology.......................................................................................................... 12
1.6.2 North Island Power System Key Results............................................................................................ 13
1.6.3 South Island Power System Key Results ........................................................................................... 16
1.6.4 System Impact from Medium Voltage Faults (110 kV) .......................................................................... 18
1.7 Options to reduce wind farm tripping ....................................................................................................... 19
2 Dynamic Wind Impact Studies ........................................................................................................ 21
2.1 Study Assumptions ................................................................................................................................. 21
2.1.1 Wind-farms ....................................................................................................................................... 22
2.2 Dynamic Simulation of the NZ System...................................................................................................... 23
2.2.1 Dynamic Study Methodology............................................................................................................... 23
2.3 Summary of Dynamic results for the North Island ..................................................................................... 24
2.3.1 Wind Generation Tripping................................................................................................................... 24
2.3.2 Electrical frequency at Huntly ............................................................................................................. 25
2.3.3 Short term voltage instability, North Island.......................................................................................... 27
2.3.4 Interconnecting line flows, North Island .............................................................................................. 30
2.4 Summary of dynamic results for the South Island ..................................................................................... 30
2.4.1 Sudden Loss of Wind Generation ........................................................................................................ 30
2.4.2 Electrical frequency at Clyde............................................................................................................... 31
2.4.3 Short term voltage instability, South Island ......................................................................................... 33
2.4.4 Interconnecting line flows South Island ............................................................................................... 35
3 Concluding Remarks and Recommendations .................................................................................. 36
- Stage 1
Table of Contents
4 References....................................................................................................................................... 37
- Stage 1
1 Executive Summary
1 Executive Summary
1.1 Background
Transpower has engaged DIgSILENT to investigate the effects of the connection of large scale wind generation to
the NZ power system. This study is part of the Electricity Commission's Wind Generation Investigation Project
(WGIP).
The impact of large amounts of new wind generation on the stability of any power system can be significant,
especially if the wind generation is not equipped with Fault Ride Through (FRT1) capability. If wind generators
without FRT capability are widely used, a fault on the power system may cause voltage sags that can cause large
amounts of wind generation to disconnect from the power system. The consequences include fast frequency
drops, load shedding and voltage stability problems.
To investigate the impact of the of large scale wind generation on the New Zealand power system, ten
independent scenarios have been created for each of the North and the South Island systems. The scenarios
consist of five different wind generation levels (from 0-100% of installed wind generation capacity) and two
forecast load scenarios (high and low load) for the year 2016.
According to Electricity Commissions Scenario C, the peak installed wind generation capacity for the North Island
will be 1600 MW, while the system is forecast to have a peak demand of 5460 MW in 2016. In this extreme
situation with 1600 MW of wind generation and 960 MW supplied from the HVDC inter island link, only 50% of
the load will be supplied by other generation during some hours2. For light load conditions where forecast load
will be 2130 MW, only 25% of the load will be supplied by other generation.
The South Island power system is forecast to have a peak load of 2520 MW in 2016. With the assumptions of the
Electricitys Commissions Scenario C, which is a peak installed wind generation capacity of 700 MW, only 75% of
the load will be supplied by other generation. In light load conditions, this could drop to as low as 40%.
With such high levels of wind generation relative to other generation, a considerable impact of wind generation
on power system stability must be expected, especially if it is assumed that wind generation technology is without
FRT capability.
This study discusses FRT by the simulation of voltage dips. The term LVRT (Low Voltage Ride Through)
essentially refers to the same aspect but also includes post-fault wind generator behaviour, e.g. in the case of
slow voltage recovery. However, in literature, both terms are often used to describe the same behaviour.
2
In reality, max. 90% to 95% of installed wind generation capacity will be available simultaneously. Hence,
assuming 100% availability is a conservative study assumption.
- Stage 1
1 Executive Summary
1.2 Study Objectives

The Wind Generation Investigation Project (WGIP) is expected to involve several stages of analysis. For the stage
one study, the impact of wind generation on system stability is analyzed. In this stage of the study all wind
generators are without FRT capability.
For this stage of the study a two step approach has been taken:
Stage 1.1 of the study will establish the likely amount of wind generation that would trip off in each island in each
of the ten scenarios for faults at high voltage bus bars. The focus is on 220kV bus bars because it can be
expected that faults at the highest voltage level affect the largest areas. However, also faults at some 110kV bus
bars are studies for verifying this assumption. The studies will be performed using steady-state (short circuit)
analysis.
The key objectives for stage 1.1 are:
Assessment of the amount of tripped wind generation for a fault at each HV bus in the system under
worst case assumptions (no FRT-capability of any wind generator);
Identification of critical cases, by comparing the amount of lost generation with the normal spinning
reserve in each island (largest conventional unit);
Recommendations for reducing the amount of tripped wind generation;
It is important to emphasise that:
Wind generators in this study are fixed speed asynchronous machines without FRT capability and have
no fast acting reactive power compensation devices;
This is a transmission system impact study. Localised issues are not assessed. Some local issues must be
addressed in order to obtain sensible and consistent results, but these are not the focus of this study. It
is anticipated that any localised issues will be assessed in later stages of the study;
The primary purpose of the stage 1.1 studies is to determine the most severe faults - the faults causing
the greatest amount of tripped wind generation.
Stage 1.2 of this study will build on the results gained from stage 1.1 and perform dynamic analysis on the
system for a selection of the most critical cases.
Stage 1.2 will look to identify the following key aspects:
Confirm the results of stage 1.1 studies with dynamic simulations;
Highlight the impact of tripped wind generation on frequency and voltage stability. In particular to
identify any cases where the automatic under frequency load shedding (AUFLS) frequency limits are
reached and observe any cases of inadequate voltage stability.
- Stage 1
1 Executive Summary
1.3 Study Results

1.3.1 Voltage Sag Screening Results North Island
High-wind scenario (Wind generation is 100% of installed wind generation capacity):
During high load for the majority of 220 kV system faults, more than 350 MW of wind generation will
trip. This exceeds the normal spinning reserve of 350 MW.
During light load, many system faults cause the entire wind farm capacity of the North Island
(1600 MW) to trip.
Low-wind scenario (Wind generation is 25% of installed wind generation capacity):
During high load, only one 220 kV system fault causes more than 350 MW of wind generation to trip.
During light load, over 50% of the 220 kV faults cause more than 350 MW of wind generation to trip.
1.3.2 Voltage Sag Screening Results South Island

High wind scenario (100% wind generation):
During high load for the majority of 220 kV system faults, more than 120 MW of wind generation will
trip. This exceeds the normal spinning reserve of 120 MW.
During light load, many system faults cause the entire wind generation capacity of the South Island
(700 MW) to trip.
Low wind scenario (25% wind generation):
During high load, the majority of 220 kV system faults cause less than 120 MW of wind generation to
trip.
During light load, a majority of the 220 kV faults cause more than 120 MW of wind generation to trip.
1.3.3 Dynamic Simulation Results North Island

The voltage sag screening identified 20 critical cases from the North Island for in-depth dynamic simulation. The
results of these studies confirm the results obtained by the voltage sag screening and show the under frequency
and voltage stability problems caused by excessive wind generation tripping.
The results of the dynamic analysis for the North Island can be summarized as follows:
For a majority of the 20 cases the predicted tripped wind generation from the static analysis agrees with
the observed results from the dynamic simulations.
In 10 of the 20 cases the block 1 AUFLS set point of 47.8 Hz was reached.
Short term voltage instability was observed in several of the light load cases where a large amount of
wind generation tripped for 4 of these cases it is unlikely that load shedding would act fast enough to
prevent a complete system collapse.
- Stage 1
1 Executive Summary
1.3.4 Dynamic Simulation Results South Island

The voltage sag screening identified 10 critical cases from the South Island for in-depth dynamic simulation. The
results of these studies confirm the results obtained by the voltage sag screening and show the under frequency
and voltage stability problems caused by excessive wind generation tripping.
The results of the dynamic analysis for the South Island can be summarized as follows:
With the exception of two of the 10 cases, the predicted tripped wind generation from the static analysis
agrees exactly with the observed results from the dynamic simulations.
For 2 of the 10 cases the block 1 AUFLS set point of 47.5 Hz was reached.
Short term voltage instability was observed in case S_026 and case S_028 where a large amount of wind
generation tripped. In case S_026 it is unlikely that load shedding would act fast enough to prevent a
complete system collapse, whereas in case S_028 the load shedding would probably act fast enough to
prevent the voltage instability.
1.4 Conclusions and Recommendations

The results of the voltage sag screening have shown that many (n-1) contingent events, such as faults on single
transmission circuits, can lead to widespread tripping of wind generation if wind generators are not equipped with
FRT capability.
Observations from the dynamic simulations show that widespread tripping of wind generation can drive the
system into frequency stability problems resulting in widespread load shedding, or into dynamic voltage stability
problems.
For avoiding widespread load shedding following a contingent event during high wind generation there are mainly
two options, increasing spinning reserve and system inertia or building all major wind farms with wind turbines
having FRT capability.
However, increasing spinning reserve and system inertia requires that almost all wind generators are backed up
by non-wind generators, which leads to enormous additional spinning reserve. Besides this, the network must be
able to transport any additionally required reserve power. In this study, a number of cases were identified, where
the available transport capacity is not sufficient and consequently, the network runs into dynamic voltage
collapse. For avoiding this, network reinforcements would be required or inter-area power transfer must be
limited.
The second option, only allowing wind generators with FRT-capability, is fairly easy to realize because this kind of
wind generator is standard technology. Consequently, for avoiding drastically reduced reliability of supply in the
New Zealand power system there is only one practical solution:
Only allowing the connection of wind generators with FRT-capability.
This has become an international standard for power transmission systems with high wind penetration, e.g. in
Germany, Denmark, U.K. or Australia.
- Stage 1
1 Executive Summary
When connecting wind generators with FRT capability, additional reserve power is only required for backing up
wind fluctuations but not for backing up wind generator trips.
- Stage 1
1 Executive Summary
Voltage Sag Screening
1.5 Study Assumptions

For each island, 10 predefined load and wind generation scenarios were created. A brief summary of these
scenarios is given below in Table 1-1 and 2-2. When wind generation increases from 0-100% of installed wind
generation capacity less other generation is dispatched, resulting in a weaker system (lower grid short circuit
level). For more detail on the methodology for the development of the generation scenarios and modelling of the
wind generator plant please refer to the modelling report [1].
It is assumed that faults are cleared after 120ms, based on first zone protection tripping time and maximum
breaker delays or transfer tripping delays.
1.5.1 Scenarios
Case
Load (MW)
Wind Generation (MW)
HVDC Import MW
High Load 100% Wind Generation
5459.2
1603.6
960
5459.2
1237.8
960
5459.2
886.8
960
5459.2
519.4
960
5459.2
153.6
960
Light Load 100% Wind Generation
2131.4
1603.6
2131.4
1237.8
2131.4
886.8
2131.4
519.4
2131.4
153.6
Table 1-1 - Wind generation scenarios, North Island
Case
Load (MW)
Wind Generation (MW)
HVDC Export MW
2519.8
708.7
1040
2519.8
544.1
1040
2519.8
387.8
970
2519.8
223.2
800
2519.8
58.7
640
1218.6
708.7
1218.6
544.1
1218.6
387.8
1218.6
223.2
1218.6
58.7
Table 1-2 - Wind generation scenarios, South Island
- Stage 1
10
1 Executive Summary
1.5.2 Wind-farms
There are three existing wind-farms greater than 10MW on the New Zealand system, Te Apiti, Tararua and White
Hill. In addition to these, nine new wind-farms are modelled to bring the total installed capacity for the North
Island to approximately 1600 MW and the installed capacity for the South Island to approximately 700 MW. Each
of the new wind farms is scaled from 0 to 100% of installed wind generation capacity to create five generation
scenarios for each island3.
Each wind-farm was modelled with generic fixed speed asynchronous machines with no built in FRT capability
and no fast acting reactive power compensation. Further, it was assumed that each generator had no
contribution to the short circuit level of the grid.
The wind-farms are shown in the tables below.
Wind-farm
PCC (bus)
Units
Total Capacity (MW)
Marsden
MDN220
91
150
Otahuhu
OTA220
182
300
Huntly
HLY220
61
100
Hawkes Bay
RDF220
182
300
Manawatu
BPE220
182
300
Wilton
WIL220
182
300
Te Apiti
WDV110
55
90.2
Tararua
BPE334
96
63.36
1031
1603.56
Total
Table 1-3 - North Island Wind-farms
Wind-farm
PCC (bus)
Units
Total Capacity (MW)
Blenheim
BLN110
31
50
Timaru
TIM220
182
300
Invercargill
INV220
182
300
White Hill
NMA33
Total
36
58.68
431
708.68
Table 1-4 - South Island Wind-farms
The three existing wind-farms of Tararua, Te-Apiti and White Hills were not scaled for each different generation
scenario. Therefore, even the 0% scenario has a small level of wind generation.
4
Actually, Tararua wind farm contains 51x660kW machines connected to BPE0331 and 52x660kW machines
connected to LTN033. For modelling purposes, Transpower assumes that all machines are connected to BPE. For
the study results, this simplification is not relevant.
- Stage 1
11
1 Executive Summary
1.6 Voltage Sag Screening

1.6.1 Voltage Sag Study Methodology
Voltage sag screening was performed for the 20 scenarios. The methodology is as follows:
Assumptions for wind generators:
Each wind generator is a generic fixed speed asynchronous machine with no built in FRT-capability and
no fast acting reactive power compensation.
It is assumed that each induction machine provides no contribution to the short circuit power of the grid
(no short circuit current)5.
Every wind generator is equipped with an under-voltage relay with a setting a 0.8 p.u and a delay of
50ms. This corresponds to standard settings of low-cost wind generators.
Voltage Sag Screening Methodology:
For each bus bar in the system, calculate a solid (0 Ohm) 3 phase short circuit using the IEC minimum
fault method. Initially, only faults in the 220 kV system were considered as these are expected to result
in the most widespread voltage depression. The IEC minimum method is chosen because it allows for
zero short circuit contributions from asynchronous motor/generators to the fault and hence calculates
the lowest and most conservative value for the post fault bus voltages.
For each faulted bus, identify the wind farms that would trip off due to low bus voltage, (defined as
< 0.8 p.u) and sum the active power for each of these to give a wind generation tripped value.
Repeat for each scenario.
In reality asynchronous machines do provide some short circuit contribution. However, as a worst case
assumption, it is assumed that this contribution is negligible. In the dynamic simulations this contribution is
naturally captured and considered.
- Stage 1
12
1 Executive Summary
1.6.2 North Island Power System Key Results

In Figure 1-1 the observed wind generation trip for each 220 kV bus fault in the North Island system is shown.
This is for 100% wind generation capacity with the normal spinning reserve of 350 MW highlighted by the
horizontal red line. High load cases are shown in light blue and light load cases in deep red.
Two key points to note are:
In the light load scenarios the amount of wind generation to trip is generally much larger than the
corresponding high load scenario. This is expected due to the displacement of more other generation by
wind generation and a subsequently lower short circuit level in the light load case.
In most of the cases, the total wind generation trip exceeds the normal spinning reserve of 350MW. In
some of the light load cases, all wind generators on the North Island would trip.
1800
wind power tripped (MW)
1600
1400
1200
1000
HL
LL
800
600
400
200
ALB220
ARA220
ATI220
BPE220
BRB220
BRK220
EDG220
GLN220
HAM220
HAY220
HEN220
HLY220
HPI_220_1
KAW220
LTN_220_1
MDN220
MTI220
NPL220
OHK220
OKI220
OTA220
OTC220
PEN220
PPI_220
RDF220
RPO220
SFD220
SPLC220
SVL220
SWN220
TAK220-1
TKU220-1
TMN220
TNG220
TRK220
TWH220
WHI220
WIL220
WKM220
WPA220
WRK220
WTU220-1
faulted bus
Figure 1-1 - wind power tripped by bus, North Island under high wind conditions
- Stage 1
13
1 Executive Summary
Figure 1-2 shows the same chart as Figure 1-1 with the total wind generation at 25% of installed wind generation
capacity. The key change is that the total quantity of tripped wind generation has been significantly reduced in
comparison with the same faults in the 100% wind generation scenario. The reduction is caused for two reasons.
Firstly, there is less total wind generation in the system and therefore the maximum amount to trip is
correspondingly less. Secondly, because there is less wind generation, there is more other generation and the
short circuit power or system strength is increased across the system, resulting in less widespread voltage
depressions following a fault.
600
500
400
HL
LL
300
200
100
ALB220
ARA220
ATI220
BPE220
BRB220
BRK220
EDG220
GLN220
HAM220
HAY220
HEN220
HLY220
HPI_220_1
KAW220
LTN_220_1
MDN220
MTI220
NPL220
OHK220
OKI220
OTA220
OTC220
PEN220
PPI_220
RDF220
RPO220
SFD220
SPLC220
SVL220
SWN220
TAK220-1
TKU220-1
TMN220
TNG220
TRK220
TWH220
WHI220
WIL220
WKM220
WPA220
WRK220
WTU220-1
faulted bus
Figure 1-2 - wind power tripped by bus, North Island, low wind conditions
- Stage 1
14
1 Executive Summary
The example shown in Figure 1-3 demonstrates that as the wind generation % increases from 0-100% of
installed wind generation capacity, the amount of wind generation to trip after a fault rises approximately
proportionately. In this example, only the five 220 kV bus faults with the largest wind generation trip are shown.
At 25% of the installed capacity of 1600 MW, the total wind generation to trip will exceed the usual North Island
spinning reserve of 350 MW in three of the five fault cases. At a wind generation output of 100% of installed
wind generation capacity all five of these example faults cause greater than 350 MW of wind generation to trip.
The reason for the slight non-linearity is because of the displacement of other generation, which provides a
contribution to the short circuit level, by wind generation that does not. Here, the large difference between the
75% and 100% cases for the HLY220 and ATI220 faults is caused by some large generation relatively near to the
two faults being displaced by wind generation.
1800
1600
1400
faulted bus
1200
MTI220
WKM220
TKU220-1
HLY220
ATI220
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
25
50
75
100
wind generation %
Figure 1-3 wind power tripped by wind generation level, North Island high load
- Stage 1
15
1 Executive Summary
1.6.3 South Island Power System Key Results

In Figure 1-4 the observed wind generation trip for each 220 kV bus fault in the South Island system is shown.
This is for 100% of wind generation capacity with the normal spinning reserve of 120 MW highlighted by the
horizontal red line. High load cases are shown in light blue and light load cases in deep red.
Two key points to note are:
For all but five locations, a fault in a light load scenario causes over 700 MW of wind generation to trip,
this significantly exceeds the normal South Island spinning reserve of 120 MW.
As for the North Island system, a fault in the light load scenario causes more lost generation than the
high load scenario. Despite this, in all but two of the high load cases the amount of wind generation
tripped is greater than 300 MW, still about three times larger than the normal South Island spinning
reserve.
800
700
600
500
HL
LL
400
300
200
100
ASB
AVI_220
BEN_220
BRY_220
CML_220A
CUT220-2
CYD_220
HWB_220
INV_220
ISL_220
KIK_220
LIV_220
MAN_220
NMA_220
NSY_220
OHA_220
OHB_220
OHC_220
Opihi_1
ROX_220
SDN_220
STK_220
TIM_220A
TIM_220B
TKB_220
TMH_220
TWI_220
TWZ_220
WTK_220
WTT220-2
WTT220-3
faulted bus
Figure 1-4 - wind power tripped by bus, South Island, high wind conditions
- Stage 1
16
1 Executive Summary
Figure 1-5 shows the corresponding chart with the wind generation at 25% of installed wind generation capacity.
Despite the reduced wind generation, the amount of tripped wind generation still exceeds the normal spinning
reserve for a significant majority of the light load cases and several of the high load cases.
250
200
150
HL
LL
100
50
ASB
AVI_220
BEN_220
BRY_220
CML_220A
CUT220-2
CYD_220
HWB_220
INV_220
ISL_220
KIK_220
LIV_220
MAN_220
NMA_220
NSY_220
OHA_220
OHB_220
OHC_220
Opihi_1
ROX_220
SDN_220
STK_220
TIM_220A
TIM_220B
TKB_220
TMH_220
TWI_220
TWZ_220
WTK_220
WTT220-2
WTT220-3
faulted bus
Figure 1-5 - wind power tripped by bus, South Island wind generation: 25% of installed wind
capacity
- Stage 1
17
1 Executive Summary
As for the North Island cases, Figure 1-6 shows that the amount of wind generation that trips in the South Island
increases approximately proportionately as wind generation output increases from 0-100% of installed wind
generation capacity. Again, only the five 220 kV bus faults with the largest wind generation trip are shown.
Max of wind power lost (MW)
faulted bus (name)
Wind generation (in % of

installed wind power capacity)
TWZ_220
CML_220A
CYD_220
ROX_220
HWB_220
0%
58.7
58.7
58.7
58.7
25%
88.7
210.3
210.3
210.3
134.5
50%
177.5
362
362
362
210.3
75%
261.3
507
507
507
282.9
100%
708.7
658.7
658.7
658.7
358.7
Table 1-5 - wind power tripped by wind generation level, South Island high load
800
700
600
Faulted Bus
500
TWZ_220
CML_220A
CYD_220
ROX_220
HWB_220
400
300
200
100
0
0
25
50
75
100
wind generation %
Figure 1-6 - wind power tripped by wind generation level, South Island high load
1.6.4 System Impact from Medium Voltage Faults (110 kV)

For the initial part of the study, the voltage sag analysis was limited to faults on the 220 kV system, as usually HV
faults will cause the most widespread voltage depression and hence the most tripped wind generation. However,
- Stage 1
18
1 Executive Summary
a sensitivity analysis was performed to look at faults in the medium voltage (110 kV) system to see if faults here
could also cause large amounts of wind generation to trip.
Figure 1-7 shows the wind power tripped by bus fault for the 30 worst 110 kV system faults for the high wind
scenario (100% wind generation). Although the impact is not as severe as for 220 kV faults, the majority of these
faults still cause wind power tripping greater than the normal spinning reserve of 350 MW.
Therefore, it is true in general that 220 kV system faults will cause the most wind generation to trip. However,
there are still many 110 kV faults that will cause more than 350 MW of wind generation to trip.
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
HL
LL
800
600
400
200
BPE110
HAY110
TKR110
UHT110
WIL110
CPK110
GFD110
KWA_110_1
MLG110
NPL110
PNI110
SFD110
TAP-110
WDV110
HEN110
HEP110
LST110
OTA110
PAK110
PEN110
WIR110
CST110
MTN_110_1
ALB110
MNG110
ROS110
MDN110
WRU-110-1
GYT110-1
MST110
faulted bus
Figure 1-7 - wind power tripped by bus, North Island 100% wind power generation (110 kV)
1.7 Options to reduce wind farm tripping

The most effective method to reduce the tripped wind generation after a high voltage fault is to enforce FRT
capability for all connected wind farms. Then, wind farms will be able to remain connected to the grid for more
severe faults and keep the affected area of the fault small.
- Stage 1
19
1 Executive Summary
In this context, it is interesting to analyzed if full FRT capability, meaning that the wind farm can ride through
faults with a remaining voltage of 0p.u., is required or if it would be sufficient to ask wind generators to remain
connected for voltages above a certain minimum threshold voltage.
The results of a rough assessment about the minimum required trip voltage are depicted in Figure 1-8. In this
example the amount of tripped wind generation in case of a fault at the Whakamaru 220 kV bus (identified in
section 1.6.2 as one of the worst case faults in the North Island system) with different wind farm trip voltages is
shown. From this figure it can be derived that a trip voltage of 0.2 p.u would be required for ensuring that the
amount of lost wind generation does not exceed the normal North Island spinning reserve of 350MW.
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
HL
LL
800
600
400
200
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
trip voltage (p.u)
Figure 1-8 wind power tripped for a fault at WKM220 bus, North Island wind generation: 100% of
installed wind generation capacity
- Stage 1
20
2 Dynamic Wind Impact Studies

Following the voltage sag screening, dynamic studies have been carried out with the purpose of:
Verifying the amount of tripped wind generation obtained by steady state voltage sag screening.
Analyzing the consequences of tripped wind generation.
2.1 Study Assumptions

The dynamic studies follow on from the voltage sag screening. From the voltage sag assessment 30 critical cases
were identified for in-depth dynamic simulation, 20 from the North Island and 10 from the South Island. These
are shown in Table 2-1.
Case
Faulted bus
Region
Load case
Wind %
S_001
WKM220
Edgecume
High Load
100
S_002
HLY220
Hamilton
High Load
100
S_003
BPE220
Bunnythorpe
High Load
100
S_004
HAY220
Wellington
High Load
100
S_005
SFD220
Taranaki
High Load
100
S_006
ALB220
North Isthmus
High Load
100
S_007
OTA220
Auckland
High Load
100
S_008
RDF220
Hawkes Bay
High Load
100
S_009
HLY220
Hamilton
Light Load
100
S_010
OTA220
Auckland
Light Load
100
S_011
WKM220
Edgecume
Light Load
100
S_012
WIL220
Wellington
Light Load
100
S_013
OTA220
Auckland
High Load
75
S_014
BPE220
Bunnythorpe
High Load
75
S_015
OTA220
Auckland
Light Load
50
S_016
BPE220
Bunnythorpe
Light Load
50
S_017
OTA220
Auckland
High Load
25
S_018
BPE220
Bunnythorpe
High Load
25
S_019
OTA220
Auckland
Light Load
S_020
BPE220
Bunnythorpe
Light Load
S_021
KIK220
Nelson
High Load
100
S_022
ISL220
Christchurch
High Load
100
S_023
TIM220A
Canterbury
High Load
100
S_024
TWZ220
Otago
High Load
100
S_025
ROX220
Southland
High Load
100
- Stage 1
21
S_026
TWZ220
Otago
Light Load
S_027
TWZ220
Otago
High Load
100
75
S_028
TWZ220
Otago
Light Load
50
S_029
TWZ220
Otago
High Load
25
S_030
TWZ220
Otago
Light Load
Table 2-1 Critical Cases for Dynamic Simulation

For more detail on the methodology for the development of the generation scenarios and modelling of the wind
generator plant please refer to the modelling report [1].
2.1.1 Wind-farms
Besides the three existing wind-farms Te Apiti, Tararua and White Hill, nine new wind-farms are modelled in the
North and South Island power systems.
It was assumed that least cost turbines will be used, which corresponds to fixed speed asynchronous generator
wind turbines with no FRT capability and no fast acting reactive power compensation.
The wind-farms are shown in the tables below.
Wind-farm
PCC (bus)
Units
Total Capacity (MW)
Marsden
MDN220
91
150
Otahuhu
OTA220
182
300
Huntly
HLY220
61
100
Hawkes Bay
RDF220
182
300
Manawatu
BPE220
182
300
Wilton
WIL220
182
300
Te Apiti
WDV110
55
90.2
Tararua
BPE33
96
63.36
1031
1603.56
Total
Table 2-2 - North Island Wind-farms
Wind-farm
PCC (bus)
Units
Total Capacity (MW)
Blenheim
BLN110
31
50
Timaru
TIM220
182
300
Invercargill
INV220
182
300
White Hill
NMA33
36
58.68
431
708.68
Total
Table 2-3 - South Island Wind-farms
- Stage 1
22
2.2 Dynamic Simulation of the NZ System

2.2.1 Dynamic Study Methodology
The methodology for the dynamic simulations is as follows:
Assumptions for wind generators:
Each wind generator is modelled by a generic fixed speed asynchronous machine with no FRT capability
and no fast acting reactive power compensation.
Every wind generator is equipped with an under-voltage relay with a setting of 0.8 p.u and a delay of
50 ms. This relay is located on the LV side of the wind generator unit transformer. This assumption
corresponds to typical under-voltage protection settings used in low cost wind turbines.
Aggregated models have been used for every wind-farm.
Assumptions for the power system:
Synchronous generator plants AVR and governor systems are as per the data provided in the
DIgSILENT cases by Transpower.
Several of the smaller units are without any control systems, AVR or governor as these were not
implemented in the model provided by Transpower. Therefore, they have constant excitation voltage
and constant turbine power.
Power system loads were represented by a constant current characteristic for the active part and
constant impedance characteristic for the reactive part.
The HVDC link was modelled as a constant current source/load for both active and reactive power.
Dynamic Simulation Methodology:
For each of the 30 critical cases perform a 5 second dynamic simulation with a 0 Ohm three phase fault
for 120 ms at the specified bus.
Record important variables such as total wind power, total synchronous generator power, key line flows,
bus voltages etc.
Repeat for each scenario.
- Stage 1
23
2.3 Summary of Dynamic results for the North Island

2.3.1 Wind Generation Tripping
The loss of wind generation predicted in many fault cases by the static analysis is also observed in the dynamic
analysis.
Figure 2-1 shows a comparison of the predicted wind generation trip (steady state voltage sag screening) to the
wind generation trip observed with dynamic analysis for the North Island system. For the majority of the cases,
the estimate for the amount of wind generation to trip obtained by static analysis is confirmed by the dynamic
simulations.
1800
Wind Power Tripped (MW)
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
S_
00
1
S_
00
2
S_
00
3
S_
00
4
S_
00
5
S_
00
6
S_
00
7
S_
00
8
S_
00
9
S_
01
0
S_
01
1
S_
01
2
S_
01
3
S_
01
4
S_
01
5
S_
01
6
S_
01
7
S_
01
8
S_
01
9
S_
02
0
Case
Static analysis wind power tripped
Dynamic simulation wind power tripped
Figure 2-1 Static and dynamic analysis comparison, wind power tripped, North Island
- Stage 1
24
2.3.2 Electrical frequency at Huntly

The main consequence of the disconnection of large amounts of wind generation is large frequency drops.
According to part C of the New Zealand Electricity Governance Rules [2], the following automatic under frequency
load shedding (AUFLS) exists for the North Island:
Block 1, frequency <= 47.8 Hz within 0.4s
Block 2, frequency <= 47.5 Hz within 0.4s, or frequency <= 47.8 Hz for 15s
Each block is required to provide at least 16% of the total system load for automatic shedding giving a minimum
load shed of 32% if both block one and block two are activated.
Table 2-4 shows the dynamic simulation results and if the block one AUFLS trigger point is reached during the 5
second simulation.
Case
Faulted bus
Wind
Wind power
AUFLS block
Region
Load case
tripped in MW
one triggered
YES
S_001
WKM220
Edgecume
High Load
100
1513.36
S_002
HLY220
Hamilton
High Load
100
613.36
NO
S_003
BPE220
Bunnythorpe
High Load
100
753.56
YES
S_004
HAY220
Wellington
High Load
100
753.56
YES
S_005
SFD220
Taranaki
High Load
100
753.56
YES
S_006
ALB220
North Isthmus
High Load
100
450
NO
S_007
OTA220
Auckland
High Load
100
550
NO
S_008
RDF220
Hawkes Bay
High Load
100
300
NO
S_009
HLY220
Hamilton
Light Load
100
1603.56
YES
S_010
OTA220
Auckland
Light Load
100
1603.56
YES
S_011
WKM220
Edgecume
Light Load
100
1603.56
YES
S_012
WIL220
Wellington
Light Load
100
1603.56
YES
S_013
OTA220
Auckland
High Load
75
411.67
NO
S_014
BPE220
Bunnythorpe
High Load
75
601.91
NO
S_015
OTA220
Auckland
Light Load
50
796.6
YES
S_016
BPE220
Bunnythorpe
Light Load
50
456.86
YES
S_017
OTA220
Auckland
High Load
25
138.33
NO
S_018
BPE220
Bunnythorpe
High Load
25
305.21
NO
S_019
OTA220
Auckland
Light Load
63.36
NO
S_020
BPE220
Bunnythorpe
Light Load
153.56
NO
Table 2-4 Dynamic Simulation Results

Figure 2-2 shows an example from North Island case S_016 where the frequency drop exceeds the first AUFLS
block trigger point. Following a voltage sag, around 400MW of wind generation disconnects from the system.
Consequently, frequency drops below the first AUFLS load shedding stage. Because the actual AUFLS load
shedding scheme was not modelled in these simulations, it cannot be predicted if Block 2 will trigger as well.
- Stage 1
25
DIgSILENT
2000.00
1800.00
1600.00
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
0.00
1.25
2.50
3.75
[s]
5.00
2.50
3.75
[s]
5.00
NIPS: Generation, Active Power in MW

1000.00
875.00
750.00
625.00
500.00
375.00
250.00
0.00
1.25
WindFarms: Generation, Active Power in MW
51.00
50.00
49.00
48.00
Y = 47.800 Hz
Y = 47.500 Hz
47.00
0.00
1.25
2.50
3.75
[s]
5.00
HLY-UN1: Electrical Frequency in Hz
DIGSILENT
Transpower Wind Impact Study

3 phase fault at bus BPE220, cleared after 120ms
Pgen_sum
S_016_Light Load Wind Penetration 50%
Date: 9/28/2006
Annex: 16 /4
Figure 2-2 - Case S_016, example of excessive frequency drop due to tripped wind generation
- Stage 1
26
2.3.3 Short term voltage instability, North Island

Besides frequency collapse, the sudden disconnection of large amounts of wind generators can cause high branch
flows exceeding the voltage stability limit and finally leading to voltage collapse.
In the light load, high wind cases S_009-S_012 and S_015, short term voltage instability was observed. In case
S_015 this could probably be avoided by load shedding. However, in the other four cases the voltage collapse
occurs almost immediately after the tripping of the wind generation the load shedding would not operate in
time and a system collapse is inevitable.
Figure 2-3 shows an example from simulation S_012. This case shows how the initial voltage collapse initiates the
subsequent trip of more and more wind generators and finally drives the system into a complete collapse. Load
shedding would be initiated too late.
- Stage 1
27
DIgSILENT
2400.00
2000.00
1600.00
1200.00
800.00
400.00
0.00
1.25
2.50
3.75
[s]
5.00
2.50
3.75
[s]
5.00
NIPS: Generation, Active Power in MW

2000.00
1600.00
1200.00
800.00
400.00
0.00
-400.00
0.00
1.25
WindFarms: Generation, Active Power in MW
60.00
50.00
47.800 Hz
Y = 47.500
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
1.25
2.50
3.75
[s]
5.00
HLY-UN1: Electrical Frequency in Hz
DIGSILENT

3 phase fault at bus WIL220, cleared after 120ms
Pgen_sum
Date: 9/28/2006
Annex: 12 /4
Figure 2-3 - Simulation S_012, example short term voltage instability
- Stage 1
28
DIgSILENT
1.10
1.00
0.90
Y = 0.800 p.u.
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.00
1.25
2.50
3.75
[s]
5.00
WGbus: Voltage, Magnitude in p.u.

WF2_G1: Voltage, Magnitude in p.u.
TAPG(1): Voltage, Magnitude in p.u.
TWF terminal: Voltage, Magnitude in p.u.
DIGSILENT

3 phase fault at bus WIL220, cleared after 120ms
WG_voltage
Date: 9/28/2006
Annex: 12 /2
- Stage 1
29
2.3.4 Interconnecting line flows, North Island

In cases, where power is imported into areas with high amounts of wind generation, there is a high risk of either
long term voltage collapse or thermal overload problems of interconnecting circuits. For a detailed analysis, PVcurve analysis based on subsequent load flow calculations or long-term simulations would have to be carried out
considering the post-contingency network state (considering the tripped wind generators).
2.4 Summary of dynamic results for the South Island

2.4.1 Sudden Loss of Wind Generation
The loss of wind generation predicted in many fault cases by the static analysis is also observed in the dynamic
analysis.
Figure 2-5 shows a comparison of the predicted wind generation trip (steady state voltage sag screening) to the
observed wind generation trip (dynamic analysis) for the South Island system. With the exception of cases S_024
and S_025, the dynamic analysis confirms exactly the results of the static estimate.
800
Wind Generation Tripped (MW)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
S_021
S_022
S_023
S_024
S_025
S_026
S_027
S_028
S_029
S_030
Case
Static analysis wind power tripped
Dynamic simulation wind power tripped
Figure 2-5 - Static and dynamic analysis comparison, wind power tripped, South Island
- Stage 1
30
2.4.2 Electrical frequency at Clyde

In many of the simulations large frequency drops were observed due to the disconnection of large amounts of
wind generation. According to part C of the New Zealand Electricity Governance Rules [2], the following
automatic under frequency load shedding (AUFLS) exists for the South Island:
Block 1, frequency <= 47.5 Hz within 0.4s
Block 2, frequency <= 45.5 Hz within 0.4s, or frequency <= 47.5 Hz for 15s
Each block is required to provide at least 16% of the total system load for automatic shedding giving a minimum
load shed of 32% if both block one and block two are activated.
Table 2-5 shows the results from the dynamic simulations and whether AUFLS was triggered. Triggering of AUFLS
is observed less in the South Island than the North Island mainly because the ratio of wind generation to other
other generation is smaller - there is less wind generation relative to other types of generation.
Wind power
AUFLS block
Load case
Wind %
tripped
one triggered
Nelson
High Load
100
50.01
NO
Christchurch
High Load
100
350.01
NO
Canterbury
High Load
100
350.01
NO
TWZ220
Otago
High Load
100
350.01
NO
ROX220
Southland
High Load
100
358.68
NO
S_026
TWZ220
Otago
Light Load
100
708.69
YES
S_027
TWZ220
Otago
High Load
75
261.28
NO
S_028
TWZ220
Otago
Light Load
50
387.79
YES
Case
Faulted bus
S_021
KIK220
S_022
ISL220
S_023
TIM220A
S_024
S_025
Region
S_029
TWZ220
Otago
High Load
25
88.73
NO
S_030
TWZ220
Otago
Light Load
58.68
NO
Table 2-5 Dynamic Simulation Results, South Island

Figure 2-6 shows an example from a South Island case where the frequency drop will trigger AUFLS block one. As
mentioned in the North Island example, once this trigger point is reached any further results are meaningless
because AUFLS is not implemented in the model.
- Stage 1
31
DIgSILENT
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
1.25
2.50
3.75
[s]
5.00
2.50
3.75
[s]
5.00
SIPS: Generation, Active Power in MW

500.00
400.00
300.00
200.00
100.00
0.00
-100.00
0.00
1.25
Windfarms: Generation, Active Power in MW
52.00
50.00
48.00
Y = 47.500 Hz
1.472 s
46.00
Y = 45.500 Hz
44.00
42.00
0.00
1.25
2.50
3.75
[s]
5.00
CYD_G1: Electrical Frequency in Hz
DIGSILENT

3 phase fault at bus TWZ_220, cleared after 120ms
PGen_sum
Date: 9/28/2006
Annex: 28 /4
Figure 2-6 - Case S_028, example of excessive frequency drop due to tripped wind generation
- Stage 1
32
2.4.3 Short term voltage instability, South Island

In the light load, high wind case S_026, a short term voltage instability was observed. This occurs almost
immediately after the tripping of the wind generation the load shedding blocks at 47.5 Hz and 45.5 Hz would
not operate in time and a system collapse is inevitable.
A voltage instability was also observed in simulation S_028 after 2 seconds simulation time. However, the first
load shedding block would have activated before this and probably prevented it from occurring.
Figure 2-3 shows an example from simulation S_026, in which the system loses synchronism immediately after
the disconnection of large amounts of wind generation.
- Stage 1
33
DIgSILENT
1.10
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.00
1.25
2.50
3.75
[s]
5.00
PCC_BLN_WF: Voltage, Magnitude in p.u.

PCC_INV_WF: Voltage, Magnitude in p.u.
NMA_PCC: Voltage, Magnitude in p.u.
PCC_TIM_WF: Voltage, Magnitude in p.u.
DIGSILENT

3 phase fault at bus TWZ_220, cleared after 120ms
PCC_Voltage
Date: 9/28/2006
Annex: 26 /1
- Stage 1
34
2.4.4 Interconnecting line flows South Island

As for the North Island simulations, thermal overload problems can potentially occur during times in which power
is imported into areas with high amount of wind generation. Following the sudden loss of wind generation, the
power flow into this area is increased, leading either to voltage stability problems or thermal overloads of the
interconnecting circuits.
A detailed analysis either based on long-term simulations or on PV-curve analysis was beyond the scope of this
study.
- Stage 1
35
3 Concluding Remarks and Recommendations
3 Concluding Remarks and Recommendations

For analyzing the impact of increased levels of wind generation in New Zealand, detailed system impact studies
have been carried out.
In this first stage of the project, it has been assumed that least cost wind generators without fault ride-through
capability are used for all wind farms in New Zealand.
As a first step, the potential risk of widespread tripping of wind generation following single contingent events has
been assessed using steady state voltage sag screening. In a second step, the most critical cases have been
simulated dynamically to confirm the results of the voltage sag screening and to analyze the consequences of
widespread tripping of wind generation.
The voltage sag screening has shown that many single contingent events, such as faults on single transmission
circuits can lead to widespread tripping of wind generation if wind generators do not have the ability to ride
through voltage sags.
Dynamic simulations show that widespread tripping of wind generation can drive the system into frequency
stability problems causing load shedding or dynamic voltage stability problems.
However, increasing spinning reserve and system inertia requires that almost all wind generators are backed up
by non-wind generators, which leads to enormous additional spinning reserve. Besides this, the network must be
able to transport any additionally required reserve power. In this study, a number of cases were identified, where
the available transport capacity is not sufficient and consequently, the network runs into dynamic voltage
collapse. For avoiding this, network reinforcements would be required or inter-area power transfer must be
limited.
The second option, only allowing wind generators with FRT-capability, is fairly easy to realize because this kind of
wind generator is standard technology. Consequently, for avoiding drastically reduced reliability of supply in the
New Zealand power system there is only one practical solution:
Only allowing the connection of wind generators with FRT-capability.
This has become an international standard for power transmission systems with high wind penetration, e.g. in
Germany, Denmark, U.K. or Australia.
When connecting wind generators with FRT capability, additional reserve power is only required for backing up
wind fluctuations but not for backing up wind generator trips.
- Stage 1
36
4 References
4 References
[1] Assessment of Potential Security Risks due to High Levels of Wind Generation in New Zealand - Stage 1,
Modelling Report.
[2] Electricity Governance Rules, Part C, Common Quality 8 June 2006
- Stage 1
37
ANNEXES
Annexes
- Stage 1
38
Annex A-1: Results of Voltage Sag Screening
- Stage 1
39
Wind Generation (in % of installed wind generation capacity)
faulted bus (name)
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
ALB220
138.3
278.3
411.7
550
ARA220
75.8
151.6
224.2
663.4
ATI220
75.8
151.6
224.2
963.4
BPE220
153.6
305.2
456.9
601.9
753.6
BRB220
113.7
227.5
336.3
450
BRK220
153.6
305.2
456.9
601.9
753.6
EDG220
75.8
151.6
224.2
300
GLN220
138.3
278.3
411.7
550
HAM220
100.4
278.3
411.7
550
HAY220
153.6
305.2
456.9
601.9
753.6
HEN220
138.3
278.3
411.7
550
HLY220
138.3
278.3
411.7
1003.6
HPI_220_1
138.3
278.3
411.7
550
KAW220
LTN_220_1
300
153.6
305.2
456.9
601.9
753.6
113.7
227.5
336.3
450
MTI220
153.6
418.9
735.1
1013.6
1603.6
NPL220
153.6
305.2
456.9
601.9
753.6
OHK220
75.8
151.6
224.2
300
OKI220
75.8
151.6
224.2
300
OTA220
138.3
278.3
411.7
550
OTC220
138.3
278.3
411.7
550
PEN220
138.3
278.3
411.7
550
PPI_220
75.8
151.6
224.2
663.4
RDF220
75.8
151.6
224.2
300
RPO220
75.8
151.6
224.2
663.4
SFD220
153.6
305.2
456.9
601.9
753.6
SPLC220
153.6
305.2
456.9
601.9
753.6
SVL220
113.7
227.5
336.3
450
SWN220
138.3
278.3
411.7
550
TAK220-1
138.3
278.3
411.7
550
TKU220-1
1053.6
MDN220
153.6
381
608.5
826.1
TMN220
TNG220
153.6
229.4
305.2
377.7
753.6
TRK220
75.8
151.6
224.2
300
TWH220
24.6
202.5
299.6
400
WHI220
75.8
151.6
224.2
300
WIL220
153.6
305.2
456.9
601.9
753.6
WKM220
153.6
519.4
886.8
1237.8
1603.6
WPA220
75.8
151.6
224.2
600
- Stage 1
40
WRK220
75.8
366.7
511.7
753.6
WTU220-1
75.8
151.6
224.2
300
Table 4-1 - Voltage Sag Results, North Island High Load

faulted bus (name)
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
ALB220
63.4
443.5
886.8
1237.8
1603.6
ARA220
153.6
481.4
886.8
1237.8
1603.6
ATI220
153.6
519.4
886.8
1237.8
1603.6
BPE220
153.6
381
659.3
1125.7
1453.6
BRB220
138.3
278.3
411.7
1303.6
BRK220
153.6
305.2
659.3
901.5
1453.6
EDG220
381
608.5
826.1
1453.6
GLN220
153.6
443.5
886.8
1237.8
1603.6
HAM220
153.6
519.4
886.8
1237.8
1603.6
HAY220
153.6
305.2
456.9
826.1
1053.6
HEN220
153.6
519.4
886.8
1237.8
1603.6
HLY220
153.6
519.4
886.8
1237.8
1603.6
HPI_220_1
153.6
443.5
886.8
1237.8
1603.6
290.8
608.5
826.1
1453.6
153.6
305.2
608.5
826.1
1453.6
KAW220
LTN_220_1
138.3
278.3
411.7
1603.6
MTI220
153.6
519.4
886.8
1237.8
1603.6
NPL220
153.6
305.2
456.9
901.5
1153.6
OHK220
153.6
519.4
886.8
1237.8
1603.6
OKI220
153.6
381
811
1237.8
1603.6
OTA220
153.6
519.4
886.8
1237.8
1603.6
OTC220
153.6
519.4
886.8
1237.8
1603.6
PEN220
153.6
519.4
886.8
1237.8
1603.6
PPI_220
153.6
519.4
886.8
1237.8
1603.6
RDF220
75.8
608.5
826.1
1053.6
RPO220
153.6
381
608.5
826.1
1053.6
SFD220
153.6
329.8
507.7
901.5
1453.6
SPLC220
153.6
329.8
507.7
901.5
1453.6
MDN220
138.3
735.1
1237.8
1603.6
SWN220
153.6
519.4
886.8
1237.8
1603.6
TAK220-1
153.6
519.4
886.8
1237.8
1603.6
TKU220-1
153.6
481.4
811
1237.8
1603.6
TMN220
153.6
305.2
456.9
677.3
853.6
TNG220
153.6
381
608.5
826.1
1053.6
TRK220
153.6
381
811
1237.8
1603.6
TWH220
153.6
443.5
886.8
1237.8
1603.6
SVL220
WHI220
75.8
608.5
826.1
1053.6
WIL220
153.6
305.2
456.9
826.1
1053.6
WKM220
153.6
519.4
886.8
1237.8
1603.6
WPA220
153.6
519.4
886.8
1237.8
1603.6
- Stage 1
41
WRK220
WTU220-1
153.6
519.4
886.8
1237.8
1603.6
75.8
518.3
826.1
1053.6
Table 4-2 - Voltage Sag Results, North Island Light Load

faulted bus (name)
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
ASB
88.7
177.5
261.3
350
AVI_220
88.7
177.5
261.3
350
BEN_220
88.7
177.5
261.3
350
BRY_220
88.7
177.5
261.3
350
658.7
CML_220A
58.7
210.3
362
507
CUT220-2
88.7
177.5
261.3
350
CYD_220
58.7
210.3
362
507
658.7
HWB_220
58.7
134.5
210.3
282.9
358.7
INV_220
58.7
134.5
210.3
282.9
358.7
ISL_220
88.7
177.5
261.3
350
KIK_220
12.9
25.8
37.1
50
LIV_220
88.7
177.5
261.3
350
MAN_220
58.7
134.5
210.3
282.9
358.7
NMA_220
58.7
134.5
210.3
282.9
358.7
NSY_220
OHA_220
88.7
177.5
261.3
350
OHB_220
88.7
177.5
261.3
350
350
OHC_220
88.7
177.5
261.3
Opihi_1
88.7
177.5
261.3
350
ROX_220
58.7
210.3
362
507
658.7
SDN_220
58.7
134.5
210.3
282.9
358.7
STK_220
12.9
25.8
37.1
50
TIM_220A
88.7
177.5
261.3
350
TIM_220B
88.7
177.5
261.3
350
TKB_220
88.7
177.5
261.3
350
TMH_220
58.7
134.5
210.3
282.9
358.7
TWI_220
58.7
134.5
210.3
282.9
358.7
TWZ_220
88.7
177.5
261.3
708.7
WTK_220
88.7
177.5
261.3
350
WTT220-2
88.7
177.5
261.3
350
WTT220-3
88.7
177.5
261.3
350
Table 4-3 - Voltage Sag Results, South Island High Load
- Stage 1
42
faulted bus (name)
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
ASB
223.2
387.8
544.1
708.7
AVI_220
58.7
223.2
387.8
544.1
708.7
BEN_220
58.7
223.2
387.8
544.1
708.7
BRY_220
88.7
387.8
544.1
708.7
CML_220A
58.7
223.2
387.8
544.1
708.7
CUT220-2
88.7
177.5
261.3
350
CYD_220
58.7
223.2
387.8
544.1
708.7
HWB_220
58.7
223.2
387.8
544.1
708.7
INV_220
58.7
223.2
387.8
544.1
708.7
ISL_220
223.2
387.8
544.1
708.7
KIK_220
88.7
177.5
261.3
350
LIV_220
58.7
223.2
387.8
544.1
708.7
MAN_220
58.7
223.2
387.8
544.1
708.7
NMA_220
58.7
223.2
387.8
544.1
708.7
NSY_220
58.7
223.2
387.8
544.1
708.7
OHA_220
58.7
223.2
387.8
544.1
708.7
OHB_220
58.7
223.2
387.8
544.1
708.7
OHC_220
58.7
223.2
387.8
544.1
708.7
Opihi_1
223.2
387.8
544.1
708.7
ROX_220
58.7
223.2
387.8
544.1
708.7
SDN_220
58.7
223.2
387.8
544.1
708.7
STK_220
88.7
177.5
261.3
350
TIM_220A
88.7
177.5
544.1
708.7
TIM_220B
88.7
177.5
544.1
708.7
TKB_220
58.7
223.2
387.8
544.1
708.7
TMH_220
58.7
223.2
387.8
544.1
708.7
TWI_220
58.7
223.2
387.8
544.1
708.7
TWZ_220
58.7
223.2
387.8
544.1
708.7
WTK_220
58.7
223.2
387.8
544.1
708.7
WTT220-2
88.7
177.5
261.3
350
WTT220-3
88.7
177.5
261.3
350
Table 4-4 - Voltage Sag Results, South Island Light Load
- Stage 1
43

Investigation 7 8 9

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Investigation 7 8 9

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

New Zealand Electricity Commission - Wind

Generation Investigation Project

Stage 1 - Wind Generation Impact Studies

New Zealand Electricity Commission - Wind Generation Investigation Project

New Zealand Electricity Commission - Wind Generation Investigation Project

New Zealand Electricity Commission - Wind Generation Investigation Project

New Zealand Electricity Commission - Wind Generation Investigation Project

1.2 Study Objectives

Recommendations for reducing the amount of tripped wind generation;

It is important to emphasise that:

Confirm the results of stage 1.1 studies with dynamic simulations;

New Zealand Electricity Commission - Wind Generation Investigation Project

1.3 Study Results

Low-wind scenario (Wind generation is 25% of installed wind generation capacity):

1.3.2 Voltage Sag Screening Results South Island

Low wind scenario (25% wind generation):

1.3.3 Dynamic Simulation Results North Island

New Zealand Electricity Commission - Wind Generation Investigation Project

1.3.4 Dynamic Simulation Results South Island

1.4 Conclusions and Recommendations

Only allowing the connection of wind generators with FRT-capability.

New Zealand Electricity Commission - Wind Generation Investigation Project

New Zealand Electricity Commission - Wind Generation Investigation Project

Voltage Sag Screening

1.5 Study Assumptions

Wind Generation (MW)

High Load 100% Wind Generation

High Load 75% Wind Generation

High Load 50% Wind Generation

High Load 25% Wind Generation

High Load 0% Wind Generation

Light Load 100% Wind Generation

Light Load 75% Wind Generation

Light Load 50% Wind Generation

Light Load 25% Wind Generation

Light Load 0% Wind Generation

Table 1-1 - Wind generation scenarios, North Island

Wind Generation (MW)

High Load 100% Wind Generation

High Load 75% Wind Generation

High Load 50% Wind Generation

High Load 25% Wind Generation

High Load 0% Wind Generation

Light Load 100% Wind Generation

Light Load 75% Wind Generation

Light Load 50% Wind Generation

Light Load 25% Wind Generation

Light Load 0% Wind Generation

Table 1-2 - Wind generation scenarios, South Island

New Zealand Electricity Commission - Wind Generation Investigation Project

Total Capacity (MW)

Table 1-3 - North Island Wind-farms

Total Capacity (MW)

Table 1-4 - South Island Wind-farms

New Zealand Electricity Commission - Wind Generation Investigation Project

1.6 Voltage Sag Screening

Voltage Sag Screening Methodology:

Repeat for each scenario.

New Zealand Electricity Commission - Wind Generation Investigation Project

1.6.2 North Island Power System Key Results

wind power tripped (MW)

New Zealand Electricity Commission - Wind Generation Investigation Project

wind power tripped (MW)