Transmission investment problems in Europe: Going beyond standard solutions

Abstract

a b s t r a c tThe European transmission grid is facing an investment challenge. There is a strong call for more transmission capacity. At the same time, the investment climate is fierce and troubled by public opposition, a complex regulatory framework, etc. Many transmission capacity expansion projects are delayed or canceled. In this paper different technology options suitable for increasing transmission capacity are discussed. The aim is to provide policy-makers with information on technologies without going too much into technical details. The focus is on opportunities and limitations to implement various technological alternatives in practice, including technical solutions that go beyond constructing new connection lines. The criteria used in this technology assessment are based on the obstacles reported in the European Priority Interconnection Plan. This ensures a realistic approach based on problems encountered in real projects. Although AC overhead lines (OHL) will remain the standard solution for grid expansion, it is argued that different technology options can overcome many obstacles that OHL face. Additionally, it is illustrated that the higher investment costs for some solutions can be offset with an increased benefit, e.g. by accomplishing investments with smaller delays due to fewer obstacles encountered.

Market-based valuation of transmission network expansion. A heuristic application in GB

“…8 It therefore does not address the question of the optimal time to expand. There are other ways to relieve congestion in addition to grid expansions (see for instance Ilić et al [35] or Buijs et al [12]), but they fall beyond the scope of this paper. And some transmission 'expansions' can indeed increase congestion (Blumsack et al [6], Bushnell and Stoft [13]), but they are more the exception than the rule.…”

“…For instance, assume the number of coal plants at a node is 4. There would be five possible cases, namely that none, one, two, three, and four plants are active or operative; each of these would correspond to a different value of the coal activity 12 Ojeda et al [50] consider different (time-varying) unavailability rates for coal, gas, and nuclear technologies.…”

“…Similarly, and refer to gas and nuclear plants. 12 For any fleet of power plants there is a specific number of possible cases depending on the number of stations involved. For instance, assume the number of coal plants at a node is 4.…”

The integrated framework for analysis of electricity supply chain using an integrated SWOT-fuzzy TOPSIS methodology combined with AHP: The case of Turkey

“…Opportunities and threats as a result of interaction with the external environment should be evaluated. Some examples of opportunities may be growing electricity demand, diversity of primary fuel sources and some examples of threats may be public resistance against transmission-line network investments and a shortage of primary fuel sources [31,32].…”

Coherent or inconsistent? Assessing energy security and climate policy interaction within the European Union

“…The cost of planned interconnector projects amount to 104 billion EUR [79]. However, implementation has been a struggle due to financial difficulties and challenges in the development of market rules [80]. Concerning the gas system, there is Regulation EU/994/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council that sets common norms in terms of gas infrastructure and supply, including the obligation for Member States to be able to meet peak demand even in the event of a disruption of the single most important infrastructure component (i.e.…”