IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/enp/wpaper/eprg1924.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Unit Commitment and Economic Dispatch Model of the GB Electricity Market – Formulation and Application to Hydro Pumped Storage

Author

Listed:
  • Chi Kong Chyong

    (EPRG, CJBS, University of Cambridge)

  • David Newbery

    (Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge)

  • Thomas McCarty

    (EPRG, CJBS, University of Cambridge)

Abstract

We present a well calibrated unit commitment and economic dispatch model of the GB electricity market and applied it to the economic analysis of the four existing hydro pumped storage (PS) stations in GB. We found that with more wind on the system PS arbitrage revenue increases: with every percentage point (p.p) increase in wind capacity the total PS arbitrage profit increases by 0.21 p.p.. However, under a range of wind capacity, the PS’ modelled revenue from price arbitrage is not enough to cover their ongoing fixed costs. Analysing the 2015-18 GB balancing and ancillary services data suggests that PS stations were not active in managing transmission constraints and in fact about 60% of constraint payments went to gas-fired units. However, the PS stations are active in provision of ancillary services such as fast reserve, response and other reserve services with a combined market share of at least 30% in 2018. Stacking up the modelled revenue from price arbitrage with the 2018 balancing and ancillary services revenues against the ongoing fixed costs suggests that the four existing PS stations are profitable. Most of the revenue comes from balancing and ancillary services markets – about 75% – whereas only 25% comes from price arbitrage. However, the revenues will not be enough to cover capex and opex of a new 600 MW PS station. The gap in financing will have to come from balancing and ancillary services market opportunities and less so from purely price arbitrage. Finally, we found that the marginal contribution of most of the existing PS stations to gas and coal plant profitability is negative, while from the system point of view, PS stations do contribute to minimizing the total operating cost.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Chi Kong Chyong & David Newbery & Thomas McCarty, 2019. "A Unit Commitment and Economic Dispatch Model of the GB Electricity Market – Formulation and Application to Hydro Pumped Storage," Working Papers EPRG1924, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
  • Handle: RePEc:enp:wpaper:eprg1924
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.eprg.group.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/1924_Text.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vijay, Avinash & Fouquet, Nicolas & Staffell, Iain & Hawkes, Adam, 2017. "The value of electricity and reserve services in low carbon electricity systems," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 201(C), pages 111-123.
    2. Hach, Daniel & Chyong, Chi Kong & Spinler, Stefan, 2016. "Capacity market design options: A dynamic capacity investment model and a GB case study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(2), pages 691-705.
    3. Hall, Lisa M.H. & Buckley, Alastair R., 2016. "A review of energy systems models in the UK: Prevalent usage and categorisation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 607-628.
    4. Jean-Charles Hourcade, Mark Jaccard, Chris Bataille, and Frederic Ghersi, 2006. "Hybrid Modeling: New Answers to Old Challenges Introduction to the Special Issue of The Energy Journal," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 1-12.
    5. Andersen, Kristoffer S. & Termansen, Lars B. & Gargiulo, Maurizio & Ó Gallachóirc, Brian P., 2019. "Bridging the gap using energy services: Demonstrating a novel framework for soft linking top-down and bottom-up models," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 277-293.
    6. Chen, Y.-H. Henry & Paltsev, Sergey & Reilly, John M. & Morris, Jennifer F. & Babiker, Mustafa H., 2016. "Long-term economic modeling for climate change assessment," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 52(PB), pages 867-883.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fattahi, A. & Sijm, J. & Faaij, A., 2020. "A systemic approach to analyze integrated energy system modeling tools: A review of national models," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    2. Lee, Hwarang & Kang, Sung Won & Koo, Yoonmo, 2020. "A hybrid energy system model to evaluate the impact of climate policy on the manufacturing sector: Adoption of energy-efficient technologies and rebound effects," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    3. Pizarro-Alonso, Amalia & Ravn, Hans & Münster, Marie, 2019. "Uncertainties towards a fossil-free system with high integration of wind energy in long-term planning," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 253(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Roberts, Simon H. & Foran, Barney D. & Axon, Colin J. & Warr, Benjamin S. & Goddard, Nigel H., 2018. "Consequences of selecting technology pathways on cumulative carbon dioxide emissions for the United Kingdom," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 409-425.
    5. Chang, Miguel & Thellufsen, Jakob Zink & Zakeri, Behnam & Pickering, Bryn & Pfenninger, Stefan & Lund, Henrik & Østergaard, Poul Alberg, 2021. "Trends in tools and approaches for modelling the energy transition," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 290(C).
    6. Andersen, Kristoffer Steen & Wiese, Catharina & Petrovic, Stefan & McKenna, Russell, 2020. "Exploring the role of households’ hurdle rates and demand elasticities in meeting Danish energy-savings target," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    7. Mathias Mier & Kais Siala & Kristina Govorukha & Philip Mayer, 2020. "Costs and Benefits of Political and Physical Collaboration in the European Power Market (Revised May 2021)," ifo Working Paper Series 343, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    8. Hanna, Richard & Gross, Robert, 2021. "How do energy systems model and scenario studies explicitly represent socio-economic, political and technological disruption and discontinuity? Implications for policy and practitioners," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    9. Winchester, Niven & Reilly, John M., 2020. "The economic and emissions benefits of engineered wood products in a low-carbon future," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    10. Newbery, David M. & Greve, Thomas, 2017. "The strategic robustness of oligopoly electricity market models," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 124-132.
    11. Dai, Hancheng & Mischke, Peggy & Xie, Xuxuan & Xie, Yang & Masui, Toshihiko, 2016. "Closing the gap? Top-down versus bottom-up projections of China’s regional energy use and CO2 emissions," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 1355-1373.
    12. Omar Shafqat & Elena Malakhtka & Nina Chrobot & Per Lundqvist, 2021. "End Use Energy Services Framework Co-Creation with Multiple Stakeholders—A Living Lab-Based Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 13(14), pages 1-24, July.
    13. Martin T. Ross, Patrick T. Sullivan, Allen A. Fawcett, and Brooks M. Depro, 2014. "Investigating Technology Options for Climate Policies: Differentiated Roles in ADAGE," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I).
    14. Meyabadi, A. Fattahi & Deihimi, M.H., 2017. "A review of demand-side management: Reconsidering theoretical framework," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 367-379.
    15. Sebastian Rausch and Valerie J. Karplus, 2014. "Markets versus Regulation: The Efficiency and Distributional Impacts of U.S. Climate Policy Proposals," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I).
    16. Besagni, Giorgio & Premoli Vilà, Lidia & Borgarello, Marco & Trabucchi, Andrea & Merlo, Marco & Rodeschini, Jacopo & Finazzi, Francesco, 2021. "Electrification pathways of the Italian residential sector under socio-demographic constrains: Looking towards 2040," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    17. Ang, B.W. & Goh, Tian, 2019. "Index decomposition analysis for comparing emission scenarios: Applications and challenges," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 74-87.
    18. Pablo Pintos & Pedro Linares, 2016. "Assessing the EU ETS with an Integrated Model," Working Papers 01-2016, Economics for Energy.
    19. Boeters, Stefan & Koornneef, Joris, 2011. "Supply of renewable energy sources and the cost of EU climate policy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 1024-1034, September.
    20. Trutnevyte, Evelina & McDowall, Will & Tomei, Julia & Keppo, Ilkka, 2016. "Energy scenario choices: Insights from a retrospective review of UK energy futures," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 326-337.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    economic modelling; unit commitment; economic dispatch; electricity market modelling; hydro pumped energy storage; wind energy; solar energy; electrical energy storage investment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C61 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis
    • C63 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computational Techniques
    • L94 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities - - - Electric Utilities
    • L98 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities - - - Government Policy
    • Q40 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - General
    • Q41 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Demand and Supply; Prices
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:enp:wpaper:eprg1924. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/jicamuk.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ruth Newman (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/jicamuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.