Anton Chaushevski
Faculty of Electrical Eng.& IT, Sts Cyril and Methodius University - Skopje
Tome Boshevski
Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
OPERATING THE NPP WITH HYDRO THERMAL
COORDINATION IN A COMPLEX POWER SYSTEM
BgNS Conference, 23-26 September,
Troyan, BULGARIA
Content
•Existing Power System in Macedonia
•Future projection of new power plants
•Cascade hydropower system on Crna River
•Operation of the hydro nuclear complex
•Conclusion
Existing power system of Macedonia
Lignite TPP – 820 MW, 4500 GWh
Bitola, Oslomej
Gas TPP – 280 MW, 2000 GWh
TE TO, Kogel, Energetika ELEM
Oil TPP – 210 MW, 1200 GWh
Negotino
HYDRO – 580 MW, 1450 GWh
Basin
Wannual [GWh]
Wshare [%]
1
Mavrovo HPPs
488
33.66
2
Crn Drim HPPs
513
35.38
3
Treska HPPs
190
13.10
4
Crna HPPs
184
12.69
5
Small HPPs
Total
75
1450
5.17
100.00
Future projection of new power plants
Lignite TPP – 300 MW, 2000 GWh
1 units x 300 MW
Gas TPP – 500MW, 3000 GWh
2 units
Nuclear – up to 1000 MW, 8000 GWh
HYDRO – near 1000 MW, 2300 GWh
Renewable (up to 400 GWh)



Small HPP
Wind
PV
60 MW
150 MW
20 MW
Basin
Boskov Most
Lukovo pole and HPP Crn Kamen
Galiste
Cebren
Spilje 2
Gradec
Veles
10 HPPs in the Vardar valley
TOTAL
Radika
Mavrovo
Crna river
Crna river
Crn Drim
Vardar
Vardar
Vardar
Pinst.
MW
68.2
5
193.5
333
72
54.6
93.0
176.8
Wyear
GWh
117
163
264
340
33
252
300
784
Investment
mil €
70
45
200
319
35
157
251
486
1032
2343
1563
Future projection of new power plants
2016
CHP Gas
(IPP)
2016
HPP Boskov Most (ELEM)
2017
Lukovo pole + HPP Crn Kamen (ELEM)
After 2018
HPP Galishte and HPP Cebren,
After 2020
Lignite TPP, HPP Gradec, HPP Veles and Vardar Valey
After 2030
Nucler Power Option
400 kV line
Model of reversible HPP
T
Wtotal   Pm
pump
t 1
(t )  t  Pm
pump
Energy for pumping
(t )  Qm
Pumping mode
Motor
Pm
gen
(t )
Pumping water
Load correction  Pload (t )  Pm
Turbine mode
Generation
pump
(t )  9,81tur  gen  Qm
Pm
pump
(t ) 
9,81  Qm
gen
pump
(t )
(t )  H b  H losses 
(t )  H b  H losses 
 pump motor
pump
Simulation of power system operation after 2020
Yearly Demand of 13000 GWh
Existing TPP Bitola and Gas power plants
New CHP on gas
Existing HPP
New HPP, Lukovo pole, Boskov Most, Gradec
HPP Cebren, HPP Galiste
(conventional or reversible HPP)
Scenario
Without Nuclear Power
With Nuclear Power Plant
Cascade hydropower system on Crna River
CEBREN
q IN
565 asl
CEBREN
PGEN
CEBREN
PPUMP
RES.CEBREN
CEBREN
QGEN
CEBREN
QPUMP
394 asl
GALISTE
PGEN
HPP CEBREN
P
RES. GALISTE
GALISTE
PUM
265 asl
HPP GALISTE
RES. TIKVES
TIKVES
PGEN
HPP TIKVES
165 asl
r. CRNA
Technical parameters of hydro power plants on Crna river
Qinst
Hgross
P
Storage volume
(m3/s)
(m)
(MW)
(106m3)
Cebren
3 x 50
174
225
655
Galiste
3 x 50
130
165
260
Tikves
4 x 36
100
116
272
404
506
1187
TOTAL
•Simulation cases ( Scenario – without NUCLEAR option)
•Case 1: Both, Cebren and Galiste are conventional HPP
•Case 2: Cebren is reversible HPP, Galiste is conventional HPP
•Case 3: Both, Cebren and Galiste are reversible HPP
Comparing the cases operating regimes in a year ( GWh)
CASE 1
Gal conv, Ceb conv
Gen
Pump
CASE 2
Gal conv, Ceb REV
Gen
Pump
CASE 3
Gal REV, Ceb REV
Gen
Pump
Tikves
200
0
200
0
198
0
Galiste
280
0
276
0
584
-400
Cebren
319
0
811
-550
810
-550
TOTAL
799
0
1287
-550 1592
-950
ENERGY
799
737
642
FINANCIAL
799
1012
1117
1800
W (GWh)
Daily Operation of Reversible HPP
1600
Cebren
Pumping in 7 hours ( 1-7)
Generation in 17 hours ( 8-24)
1400
Galiste
1200
Tikves
810
1000
811
800
600
400
200
0
319
584
280
276
200
200
198
Gal conv, Ceb con
Gal conv, Ceb REV
Gal REV, Ceb REV
Comparing Energy and Financials
GWH
ENERGY
FINANCIAL
CASE 1
Gal con, Ceb con
799
799
CASE 2
Gal conv, Ceb REV
737
CASE 3
Gal REV, Ceb REV
642
1012
1117
Energy = Generation - │ Pumping │
Financial = Generation - 0,5 x │Pumping │
1200
ENERGY
1000
FINANCIAL
800
600
400
200
0
Gal conv,
Ceb con
Gal conv,
Ceb REV
Gal REV,
Ceb REV
1000
900
P (MW)
Treska
Mavrovo
800
CRNA
700
Crn Drim
600
Gradec
500
400
300
200
100
1
7
13
19
25
31
37
43
49
55
61
67
73
79
85
91
97
103
109
115
121
127
133
139
145
151
157
163
0
Covering the peak demand
Conventional HPP (Both Cebren and Galiste)
Reversible HPP (Both Cebren and Galiste)
1000
900
P (MW)
Treska
Mavrovo
800
CRNA
700
Crn Drim
600
Gradec
500
400
300
200
100
1
7
13
19
25
31
37
43
49
55
61
67
73
79
85
91
97
103
109
115
121
127
133
139
145
151
157
163
0
Case – no Nuclear and both Cebren and Galiste are reversuble HPP
•Case - Both, Cebren and Galiste are reversible HPP
•Coal TPP Bitola, Gas CHP and Import ( Demand and Pumping)
COAL
Gas
Import
Demand
4800
3460
1600
Import
PUMP Pumping Hydro
750
-950
3346
GWH
5000
4000
3000
4800
2000
3460
1000
3346
1600
750
0
COAL
-1000
Gas
Import
demand
Import
PUMP
-950
Pumping
Hydro
Case of Reversible HPP, both Cebren and Galiste
2500
Demand and Pumping
P (MW)
2000
1500
1000
Pumping
Demand
500
0
1
11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131 141 151 161
2500
Power Plant Production
P (MW)
2000
1500
1000
Hydro
Import pump
Import demand
Small Gas
Lignit & Gas
500
0
1
11
21
31
41
51
61
71
81
91
101
111
121
131
141
151
161
450
P(MW)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1
486
971 1456 1941 2426 2911 3396 3881 4366 4851 5336 5821 6306 6791 7276 7761 8246 8731
Import for Pumping 750 GWh
CEBREN pumping – 550 GWh
GALISTE pumping – 400 GWh
0
0
1
486
971 1456 1941 2426 2911 3396 3881 4366 4851 5336 5821 6306 6791 7276 7761 8246 8731
1
486
-50
-50
-100
-100
-150
-150
-200
-250
P(MW)
-200
P(MW)
-300
-250
971 1456 1941 2426 2911 3396 3881 4366 4851 5336 5821 6306 6791 7276 7761 8246 8731
Simulation of Scenario – with Nuclear Power Plant of 1000 MW)
•Case - Both, Cebren and Galiste are reversible HPP
•Instead of TPP Bitola and Import – Nuclear Power Plant
NUCLEAR
Gas
Import PUMP
Pumping
Hydro
6800
3460
340
-600
3000
GWH
7000
6000
5000
4000
6800
3000
2000
3460
2999
1000
340
0
-1000
NUCLEAR
Gas
Import
PUMP
-600
Pumping
Hydro
Simulation of Scenario – with Nuclear Power Plant of 1000 MW)
2500
P(MW)
2000
Winter Week
Hydro
1500
Import PUMP
Gas
1000
NUCLEAR
500
1
6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
71
76
81
86
91
96
101
106
111
116
121
126
131
136
141
146
151
156
161
166
0
2500
P(MW)
2000
Summer Week
Hydro
1500
Import PUMP
Gas
1000
NUCLEAR
500
1
6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
71
76
81
86
91
96
101
106
111
116
121
126
131
136
141
146
151
156
161
166
0
1
170
339
508
677
846
1015
1184
1353
1522
1691
1860
2029
2198
2367
2536
2705
2874
3043
3212
3381
3550
3719
3888
4057
4226
4395
4564
4733
4902
5071
5240
5409
5578
5747
5916
6085
6254
6423
6592
6761
6930
7099
7268
7437
7606
7775
7944
8113
8282
8451
8620
400
200
400
200
1
177
353
529
705
881
1057
1233
1409
1585
1761
1937
2113
2289
2465
2641
2817
2993
3169
3345
3521
3697
3873
4049
4225
4401
4577
4753
4929
5105
5281
5457
5633
5809
5985
6161
6337
6513
6689
6865
7041
7217
7393
7569
7745
7921
8097
8273
8449
8625
Comparison of base load - No Nuclear and NPP option
1200
P (MW)
1000
800
600
Coal + Import
6400 GWh
0
1200
P(MW)
1000
800
600
Nuclear NPP
6800 GWh
0
Conclusion

Location of Mariovo region has advantages for NPP
 Good grid connection on 400 kV
 Hydro nuclear complex of Cebren and Galiste with NPP
 Reversible HPP is the appropriate solution for the complex
 Using the storage capacities for hydro energy and NPP cooling
needs
 Enough water (20 mill m3 /y) for cooling tower of NPP 1000 MW
 Additional peak energy with reversible HPP Cebren and Galiste
(high tariff of selling)
 Base load capacity of NPP can be use for pumping regime (low
tariff of buying)
 Financial benefit with managing the operation of the hydro –
nuclear complex