Generation Expansion Planning

 Case Study used in  Hong Kim, Dennis L. Bricker, and Han-suk (Henry) Sohn,
“Generation Expansion Planning using Benders’ Decomposition and Generalized
Networks” submitted for publication in International Journal of Industrial
Engineering – Theory, Applications, and Practice.

 

In this paper, in  order to illustrate the implementation of Benders’ decomposition algorithm and
generalized networks to generation expansion planning, the optimization
algorithm has been applied to Korea’s generation expansion planning. For this
case study, a planning horizon is chosen from the year 1995 to 2010 and the
base year for present-worth is the year 1995. To ensure an appropriate system
reliability, EUE (Expected Unserved Energy) is constrained not to exceed
0.1369% of annual demand based on loss-of-load probability equal to 0.5 days/year.
The cost of capital (discount rate) is assumed to be 8.5%.

 

We provide here some extra information for this case study as below:

 

Table 1. Commitment Schedule (1995-2010)

(Unit: MW)

Plant Type

1995 – 2006

2007 – 2010

Total (MW)

Nuclear (PWR & PHWR)

12,100 (13 units)

7,200 (6 units)

19,300 (19 units)

Bituminous Coal

15,100 (27 units)

15,100 (27 units)

Anthracite Coal

400 (2 units)

400 (2 units)

B.C. Oil

1,150 (4 units)

1,150 (4 units)

LNG Combined Cycle

12,040 (28 units)

5,400 (12 units)

17,440 (40 units)

Diesel Combined Cycle

110 (1 unit)

110 (1 unit)

Pumped Storage Hydro

2,800 (10 units)

500 (2 units)

3,300 (12 units)

Hydro and Others

200 (17 units)

200 (17 units)

Total Capacity

43,900 (102 units)

13,100 (20 units)

57,000 (122 units)

·
Source: Power Development Plan of KEPCO, 1995. 12.

 

 

Table 2. Retirement Schedule (1995-2010)

(Unit: MW)

Plant Type

1995 – 2006

2007 – 2010

Total (MW)

Nuclear (PWR & PHWR)

590 (1 unit)

590 (1 unit)

Bituminous Coal

Anthracite Coal

300 (5 units)

320 (2 units)

620 (7 units)

B.C. Oil

1,160 (11 units)

1,310 (6 units)

2,470 (17 units)

LNG

1,290 (5 units)

250 (1 unit)

1,540 (6 units)

Diesel Combined Cycle

710 (2 units)

710 (2 units)

Internal Combustion

220 (2 units)

40 (1 unit)

260 (3 units)

Total Capacity

3,680 (25 units)

2,510 (11 units)

6,190 (36 units)

  • Source: Power Development Plan of KEPCO, 1995. 12.

 

In this case study, three generation expansion plans,
denoted as Plan A, Plan B, Plan C, were obtained. Plan A, Plan B, and Plan C
refer, respectively, to the investment plans obtained from the forward version
of time-step approach, the backward version of time-step approach, and the WASP
model (See Tables 3, 4, and 5).

 

Table 3. Plan A (Forward Version of
Time-Step Approach)

 

CC4H

450MW

C500

500MW

C800

800MW

NI0H

1,000MW

PHWR

700MW

PSTR

EUE

(%)

Amount

Installed

(MW)

1995

0

0

0

0

0

2

5.5932*

600

1996

0

0

0

0

0

2

1.7726*

600

1997

0

0

0

0

0

2

0.8821*

600

1998

0

0

0

0

0

2

0.0675

600

1999

0

0

0

0

0

2

0.0642

600

2000

0

0

0

0

0

4

0.1314

1,300

2001

1

0

0

0

0

5

0.1331

2,250

2002

2

0

0

0

0

5

0.1126

2,700

2003

7

0

0

0

0

5

0.1430

4,950

2004

9

0

0

0

0

6

0.1391

6,350

2005

14

1

1

0

0

6

0.1368

9,900

2006

18

1

1

0

0

7

0.1346

12,200

2007

23

3

1

0

0

7

0.1323

15,450

2008

28

5

1

0

0

7

0.1362

18,700

2009

33

5

4

0

0

8

0.0368

23,850

2010

38

9

7

0

0

8

0.0011

30,500

 

Operation Cost

Construction Cost

Unserved Cost

Total Cost

$48,420 million

$3,949 million

$26 million

$52,395 million

 

* indicates
that the system reliability cannot meet the EUE criterion (0.1369%)

 

 

Table 4. Plan B (Backward
Version of Time-Step Approach)

 

CC4H

450MW

C500

500MW

C800

800MW

NI0H

1000MW

PHWR

700MW

PSTR

EUE

(%)

Amount

Installed

(MW)

1995

0

0

0

0

0

2

5.5932*

600

1996

0

0

0

0

0

2

1.7726*

600

1997

0

0

0

0

0

2

0.8821*

600

1998

0

0

0

0

0

2

0.0675

600

1999

0

0

0

0

0

2

0.0642

600

2000

0

0

0

0

0

4

0.1314

1,300

2001

2

0

0

0

0

5

0.0911

2,700

2002

2

0

3

0

0

5

0.0195

5,100

2003

2

0

3

0

0

5

0.1369

5,100

2004

2

0

6

0

0

6

0.0847

8,000

2005

2

2

6

1

0

6

0.1337

10,000

2006

2

2

6

3

0

7

0.1254

12,500

2007

2

3

10

3

0

7

0.1032

16,200

2008

2

4

10

5

0

7

0.1362

18,700

2009

2

8

12

6

0

8

0.0395

23,800

2010

2

8

12

9

0

8

0.0994

26,800

 

Operation Cost

Construction Cost

Unserved Cost

Total Cost

$46,187 million

$5,098 million

$24 million

$51,309 million

 

* indicates
that the system reliability cannot meet the EUE criterion (0.1369%)

 

Table 5. Plan C (WASP Model)

 

CC4H

450MW

C500

500MW

C800

800MW

NI0H

1000MW

PHWR

700MW

PSTR

EUE

(%)

Amount

Installed

(MW)

1995

0

0

0

0

0

2

5.5932*

600

1996

0

0

0

0

0

2

1.7726*

600

1997

0

0

0

0

0

2

0.8821*

600

1998

0

0

0

0

0

2

0.0675

600

1999

0

0

0

0

0

2

0.0642

600

2000

0

0

0

0

0

4

0.1314

1,300

2001

1

0

0

0

0

5

0.1331

2,250

2002

1

1

0

0

0

5

0.1090

2,750

2003

1

1

3

0

0

5

0.1361

5,150

2004

1

1

4

0

0

6

0.1358

6,450

2005

1

1

6

2

0

6

0.1321

10,050

2006

1

3

7

3

0

7

0.0994

13,350

2007

1

4

9

4

0

7

0.0960

16,450

2008

1

4

10

6

0

7

0.1207

19,250

2009

1

7

11

6

0

8

0.1356

22,050

2010

1

7

11

10

0

8

0.1347

26,050

 

Operation Cost

Construction Cost

Unserved Cost

Total Cost

$46,326 million

$4,999 million

$27 million

$51,352 million

 

·
* indicates that the system
reliability cannot meet the EUE criterion (0.1369%)

·
The plan generated by the WASP
model is evaluated by our cost model to determine EUE and total cost (including
unserved energy cost)