The electricity economy is a very complex system characterised by paradigms like non-storable production, network bondage, yield-dependent versus demand-oriented generation characteristics or very high capital intensity. The aim of ATLANTIS is to handle this complexity within one single simulation model to give answers about e.g. the future development of electricity prices, future investment needs in generation and network assets, the system integration of RES, the economic benefits of new transmission lines and the effects of new market designs.
Compared to other electricity economical models ATLANTIS introduces some innovations. First of all this model covers the real and nominal economical parts of the European electricity system. Moreover it combines the calculation of energy balances including the power plant dispatch with a detailled loadflow model. Those applications are combined with an electricity market model for the simulation of competition. Compared to other model approaches ATLANTIS combines the mentioned parts for the European electricity system in one single model in high quality.
The structure of ATLANTIS, illustrated in Fig. 1, can be divided into the database and the model core.
Database of the ATLANTIS scenario model
The database is subdivided into existing assets (power plants, grid elements etc.) and planned assets (scenario data). The current database in ATLANTIS contains:
-
29 countries of the ENTSO-E CE regional group “Continental Europe”;
-
more than 19,400 power plants (including 7500 planned generation units and aggregated RES power plants). Each power plant is described by up to 44 different entries (e.g. nominal capacity, commissioning date, fuel type etc.) (cf. Fig. 2);
-
30 unit types with defined efficiency factors, overnight investment costs, parameters for learning curves, specific \(\hbox {CO}_{2}\) emission factors, availability and maintenance time, etc.;
-
up to 15 fuel types for each country, with the possibility to define an individual price development curve for each fuel;
-
about 4000 nodes (buses) of the European transmission network (380, 220 and 110 kV if necessary) where each node is composed of up to ten different specifications (e.g. voltage level, consumption);
-
more than 6300 existing network elements, like transmission lines inclusive high-voltage-direct-current (HVDC) links, autotransformers and phase shifting transformers in the 380/220 kV network (including 110–150 kV lines which are important for load flow analysis) where each grid element is composed of 22 specifications (e.g. voltage level, maximum current, reactance) (cf. Fig. 2);
-
around 1300 planned grid enhancement projects (incl. HVDC projects), modelled according to the national and international network development plans and grid studies;
-
about 100 electric power and supply utilities with simplified balance sheets and income statements for the base year 2006.
The simulation of the future development of the European electricity economies is based on the database and also on the defined scenarios. These scenarios include the future development of fuel prices, the development of consumption and economic growth, net expansion projects and, last but not least, future decisions in energy policy.
Model core and workflow of ATLANTIS
As shown in Fig. 1 the model core of ATLANTIS includes different modules like the calculation for covering the annual peak load or the market coupling models. Due to this modular concept ATLANTIS can be adapted in order to investigate different electricity-economic research questions.
Annual peak load calculation
According to the predefined scenario assumptions the calculations are performed on an annual or monthly base. The calculation starts with a check as to whether the yearly peak load can be covered by the existing generation capacities considering the restrictions of the transmission grid. In ATLANTIS the load flow in the transmission grid is calculated by means of a direct current (DC) load flow algorithm. Bottlenecks will be identified and new power plants will be built at appropriate locations based on an algorithm which identifies the relevant grid nodes at which a minimum of additional feed-in power can cover the demand and thereby solve the grid congestions. The annual peak load check is performed for the winter peak load, which is significant for most countries, and the summer peak load, which is important especially in the southern countries like Spain, Italy and Greece. The annual peak load test determines the power and location of new required generation capacities.
Monthly based unit dispatch: market coupling and DC-OPF
In the next step the dispatch of power plants in order to cover the demand in the peak and off-peak period is calculated on a monthly basis. Each month can be divided into different peak and off-peak periods. A subdivision into two peak and two off-peak periods turns out to be an optimal choice between accuracy compared with the reality (e.g. import/export balances, zonal prices) and acceptable model calculation times. The first module in this monthly based model loop follows the idea of a Europe-wide optimal unit dispatch and regards the load flow equations in a second step. This power plant dispatch is performed according to market principles and orientated on minimum variable costs of generation. Furthermore, a power exchange in which the modelled companies trade generation surpluses, is calculated parallel to the dispatch.
The next model component is the European market coupling model. Many different parameters like the maximum and minimum power of conventional generation units, availability and maintenance factors on monthly basis, efficiency factors depending on the age of the power unit etc. are considered in the merit order of unit marginal costs. The fluctuating generation characteristic of run-of-river hydro power plants, PV or wind power plants is considered by the long-term average generation in the particular month and for each NUTS-2Footnote 7 area in Europe (cf. Schüppel 2010; Mayer 2010; Maier 2010). Also the must-run character of combined heat and power generation units (CHP) is modelled by using monthly-based heating degree days within a NUTS-2 geographical resolution. Depending on the research task two different model approaches for market coupling can be applied.
NTC-based market coupling The first approach is based on the concept of the Net Transfer Capacities (NTC). This NTC-based implicit market coupling (cf. Nischler 2009) is the mostly used concept for market-based cross-border congestion management since the beginning of the liberalisation of the European energy market. The model [cf. Eq. (1)] is defined as a linear optimisation problem with the objective to maximise the social welfare (by minimising the entire generation costs).
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} \underset{qD, qS}{\text {max}}&\left\{ \sum _{i} \left[ \sum _{n} (\textit{qD}{_{n,i}} \cdot \textit{pD}{_{n,i}}) - \sum _{a}(\textit{qS}{_{a,i}} \cdot c{_{var}}S{_{a,i}})\right] \right\} \\ \textit{s.t.}\,&\textit{qS}{_{a,i}} \le \textit{qS}{_{\textit{max}{_{a,i}}}} \\&\textit{qD}{_{n,i}} \le \textit{qD}{_{\textit{max}{_{n,i}}}} \\&\textit{export}{_{i \rightarrow j}} - \textit{import}{_{i \rightarrow j}} \le \textit{NTC}{_{i \rightarrow j}} \qquad \forall (i,j | i \ne j) \\&\sum _{k}\textit{export}{_{k \rightarrow j}} - \sum _{k}\textit{import}{_{k \rightarrow j}} \le \textit{TP}{_{k \rightarrow j}} \qquad (k \subset i \wedge j \notin k) \\&\sum _{a} \textit{qS}{_{a,i}} - \sum _{n} \textit{qD}{_{n,i}} + \sum _{i \ne j}\textit{import}{_{i \rightarrow j}} - \sum _{i \ne j}\textit{export}{_{i \rightarrow j}} = 0 \qquad \forall i \\ \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$
(1)
with:
-
i, j : :
-
bidding zones, market areas
-
k : :
-
defined technical profiles between market areas
-
n : :
-
block bid of demand
-
a : :
-
block bid of supply
-
\(\textit{qD}_{{n,i}}{:}\)
:
-
cleared part of demand block n in market i (MW)
-
\(\textit{qS}_{{a,i}}{:}\)
:
-
cleared part of supply block a in market i (MW)
-
\(\textit{pD}_{{n,i}}{:}\)
:
-
demand price (€/MWh)
-
\(c_{\textit{var}}S_{{a,i}}{:}\)
:
-
marginal costs of supply block a in zone i (€/MWh)
-
\(\textit{import}_{{i\rightarrow j}}{:}\)
:
-
import in market i from market j (MW)
-
\(\textit{export}_{{i\rightarrow j}}{:}\)
:
-
export from market i to market j (MW)
-
\(\textit{NTC}_{{i\rightarrow j}}{:}\)
:
-
net transfer capacity between market i and j (MW)
-
\(\textit{TP}_{{k\rightarrow j}}{:}\)
:
-
technical profile between marketset k and j (MW)
There exist some crucial disadvantages for the NTC-based market coupling approach in highly-meshed networks like the continental European transmission grid. Some of them are outlined, for example, in Louyrette and Trotignon (2009), Kurzidem (2010) and Stigler and Bachhiesl (2014). One of the most critical drawbacks of the NTC concept is the disregard of the network bondage attended by the bilateral capacity calculation approach (cf. ETSO 2001). This leads to high transmission reliability margins (TRM) and in consequence to obstacles for the integrated electricity market in Europe. For this reason there are ongoing developments for load-flow-based market coupling in Europe (e.g. cf. CASCEU 2013). Moreover load-flow-based market coupling is ranked as the first-best solution in the European target model (cf. ENTSO-E 2012) for the future capacity calculation and allocation mechanism. In answer to this development load-flow-based market coupling is the second approach that can be applied in the simulations with ATLANTIS.
Loadflow-based market coupling Equal to the NTC-based market coupling algorithm the objective function of the optimisation problem for load-flow-based market coupling [cf. Eq. (2)] is defined as a maximisation function for the social welfare (by minimising the overall generation costs) (cf. Nischler 2014).
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} \underset{\textit{qD}, \textit{qS}}{\text {max}}&\left\{ \sum _{i} \left[ \sum _{n} (\textit{qD}{_{n,i}} \cdot \textit{pD}{_{n,i}}) - \sum _{a}(\textit{qS}{_{a,i}} \cdot c{_{\textit{var}}}S{_{a,i}})\right] \right\} \\ \textit{s.t.}\,&\textit{qS}{_{a,i}} \le \textit{qS}{_{\textit{max}{_{a,i}}}} \\&\textit{qD}{_{n,i}} \le \textit{qD}{_{\textit{max}{_{n,i}}}} \\&\sum _{a} \textit{qS}{_{a,i}} - \sum _{n} \textit{qD}{_{n,i}} + \sum _{i \ne j}\textit{import}{_{i \rightarrow j}} - \sum _{i \ne j}\textit{export}{_{i \rightarrow j}} = 0 \quad \forall i \\&\sum _{i,j} \textit{PTDF}{_{\textit{fg}, i \rightarrow j}} (\textit{export}{_{i \rightarrow j}} - \textit{import}{_{i \rightarrow j}}) \le \textit{FGC}{_{\textit{fg}}} \quad \forall (\textit{fg}, i \ne j) \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$
(2)
with:
-
\(\textit{fg}{:}\)
:
-
defined flowgate for energy trades
-
\(\textit{PTDF}_{{fg, i\rightarrow j}}{:}\)
:
-
PTDF for flowgate fg, energy trades from i to j (\(-\))
-
\(\textit{FGC}_{{i\rightarrow j}}{:}\)
:
-
flow gate capacity between market i and j (MW)
The load-flow-based market coupling algorithm in ATLANTIS is designed for a zonal as well as for a nodal approach and is based on an implicit auction mechanism. The power transfer distribution factors (PTDF) can be derived from the grid database in ATLANTIS. In contrast to the NTC-based market coupling in which the energy trade between adjacent bidding zones is limited by the NTC value, the maximum export/import value between neighbouring countries in the load-flow-based approach is limited by the flowgate capacity (FGC) or the capacity of defined critical branches somewhere in the network. Comparisons between NTC-based and load-flow-based market coupling are described in the literature (cf. Barth et al. 2009; Waniek et al. 2010).
The main results of the market coupling are the unit dispatch, the import/export balances of each bidding zone and the zonal prices for electricity.Footnote 8 In the next model step these market model results and the resulting dispatch will be evaluated in terms of a load flow calculation based on a DC load flow.
DC-optimised power flow based on market results The DC optimal power flow (DC-OPF) method is based on the linear DC load flow equations (cf. Stott et al. 2009; Oeding and Oswald 2004). The AC load flow equations are shown in Eq. (3) and Eq. (4) (cf. Renner 2013, p. 43).
$$\begin{aligned} P_{k}= & {} \frac{U_{k}^{2}}{Z_{kk}}\cos (\psi _{\textit{kk}}) - \frac{U_{k}U_{m}}{Z_{km}}\cos (\varTheta _{k}-\varTheta _{m}+\psi _{\textit{km}}) \end{aligned}$$
(3)
$$\begin{aligned} Q_{k}= & {} \frac{U_{k}^{2}}{Z_{\textit{kk}}}\sin (\psi _{\textit{kk}}) - \frac{U_{k}U_{m}}{Z_{\textit{km}}}\sin (\varTheta _{k}-\varTheta _{m}+\psi _{\textit{km}}) \end{aligned}$$
(4)
$$\begin{aligned} \frac{1}{Z_{\textit{kk}}}= & {} \left| \frac{1}{R_{\textit{km}}+jX_{\textit{km}}} + G_{k} + \textit{jB}_{k}\right| \quad \psi _{\textit{kk}}= \arg (Z_{\textit{kk}}) \end{aligned}$$
(5)
$$\begin{aligned} \frac{1}{Z_{\textit{km}}}= & {} \left| \frac{1}{R_{\textit{km}}+jX_{\textit{km}}} \right| \qquad \psi _{\textit{km}}= \arg (Z_{\textit{km}}) \end{aligned}$$
(6)
$$\begin{aligned} P_{k}= & {} Y_{\textit{km}}\cdot (\varTheta _{k}-\varTheta _{m}) = \frac{\varTheta _{k}-\varTheta _{m}}{X_{\textit{km}}} \end{aligned}$$
(7)
with:
-
k, m : :
-
nodes
-
\(U_{k}{:}\)
:
-
voltage at node k (p.u.)
-
\(P_{k}{:}\)
:
-
active power flow from k to m, at node k (p.u.)
-
\(Q_{k}{:}\)
:
-
reactive power flow from k to m, at node k (p.u.)
-
\(\varTheta _{k}{:}\)
:
-
voltage angle at node k (rad)
-
\(Z_{\textit{km}}{:}\)
:
-
series impedance between node k and m (p.u.)
-
\(R_{\textit{km}}{:}\)
:
-
real part of series impedance \(Z_{\textit{km}}\) (p.u.)
-
\(X_{\textit{km}}{:}\)
:
-
imaginary part of series impedance k and m (p.u.)
-
\(\psi _{\textit{km}}{:}\)
:
-
angle of series impedance \(Z_{\textit{km}}\) (rad)
-
\(G_{k}{:}\)
:
-
real part of shunt admittance at node k (p.u.)
-
\(B_{k}{:}\)
:
-
imaginary part of shunt admittance at node k (p.u.)
-
\(\psi _{\textit{km}}{:}\)
:
-
angle of shunt admittance at node k (rad)
In order to reduce complexity and calculation time, the AC power flow equations can be simplified by the following assumptions (cf. Purchala et al. 2005; Stott et al. 2009; Renner 2013):
-
neglecting the terms corresponding with the active power losses in Eqs. (3) and (4) (\(R_{\textit{km}}=0, \psi _{\textit{km}}=\pi /2\))
-
neglecting the shunt elements (\(G_{k}=R_{k}=0\))
-
assumption of small voltage angle differences leads to the approximation of \(\sin (\varTheta _{k}-\varTheta _{m})\approx (\varTheta _{k}-\varTheta _{m})\) and \(\cos (\varTheta _{k}-\varTheta _{m})\approx 1\)
-
assumption of a flat voltage profile at all nodes (\(U_{k}=U_{m}=1 p.u.\))
The result of doing that is the linear DC load flow in Eq. (7), which focuses only on the active power flows in the network.
Overbye et al. (2004), Purchala et al. (2005), Stott et al. (2009) and Nischler (2014) have published different analysis about the usefulness of a DC load flow for power flow analysis. The conclusion is that the DC load flow can provide a good approximation of active power flows in networks in which the ratio between the series reactance X and resistance R is not less than 4 (cf. Purchala et al. 2005). The average error [\(P_{\textit{error}}\) defined in Eq. (8)] is below 5 % (cf. Fig. 3a), but errors on individual network elements can be significantly higher, with error values up to 100 % (cf. Purchala et al. 2005; Stott et al. 2009). Equation (7) is also the basis for the DC-optimized power flow model in which the objective function of the common DC-OPF algorithm minimises the generation costs subject to transmission constraints (e.g. maximum transmission capacity) based on the DC load flow equation and energy balances at the nodes. For techno-economic analysis with DC-OPF models it is proposed that the value for \(P_{\textit{delta}}\) [defined in Eq. (9)] is below the 5 % border. So it can be assured that the unit dispatch (active power injection) according the DC-OPF method is as far as possible comparable to an AC-OPF model approach. For more than 200 grid elements in a Central European control area it can be shown that P\(_{\textit{delta}}\) for around 97 % of the lines and transformers is within a band width of 5 %. For about 88 % of grid elements the error \(P_{\textit{delta}}\) is not higher than 2 % (cf. Fig. 3b) Nischler (2014). For the same random sample of grid elements it can be shown that high values for \(P_{\textit{error}}\) occur in most cases on weakly loaded grid elements (cf. Fig. 3a).
$$\begin{aligned} P_{\textit{error}} = \frac{P_{\textit{AC}}-P_{\textit{DC}}}{P_{\textit{AC}}} \end{aligned}$$
(8)
with:
-
\(P_{\textit{AC}}{:}\)
:
-
active power flow according Eq. (3) (MW)
-
\(P_{\textit{DC}}{:}\)
:
-
power flow according Eq. (7) (MW)
$$\begin{aligned} P_{\textit{delta}} = \frac{P_{\textit{AC}}-P_{\textit{DC}}}{P_{\textit{max}}} \end{aligned}$$
(9)
with:
-
\(P_{\textit{AC}}{:}\)
:
-
active power flow according Eq. (3) (MW)
-
\(P_{\textit{DC}}{:}\)
:
-
power flow according Eq. (7) (MW)
-
\(P_{\textit{max}}{:}\)
:
-
maximum (thermal) transmission capacity (MW)
The DC-OPF in ATLANTIS is defined as a mixed-integer linear optimisation problem. In addition to the minimisation of generation costs the DC-OPF in ATLANTIS also optimises the use of phase-shifting transformers (cf. Nacht 2010) and HVDC links. Furthermore, the DC-OPF regards the market balance of each bidding zone (as a result of the market coupling model) to avoid a multilateral redispatch of generation units [cf. Eq. (10)]. The flowchart of the integrated DC-OPF model is illustrated in Fig. 4.
If there are congestions on transmission lines, a redispatch of generation units is carried out automatically. After this step the utilization of the power plant park is determined and the carbon dioxide (\(\hbox {CO}_{2}\)) emissions of each period can be calculated. Finally the individual profit and loss calculation of the modelled electricity companies is performed for each year.
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} {\text {min}}&\left\{ \sum _{G}c_{\textit{var},G}\cdot p_{G} \cdot P_{\textit{Base}} + \sum _{l}\left( \alpha \cdot \varLambda _{{l,\textit{DC}}}+\lambda \cdot \sigma _{{l,\textit{PST}}}\right) +\sum _{C}\delta \cdot H^{+}_{C}\right\} \\&H^{+}_{C} \in \left\{ 0,1\right\} _{\mathbb {Z}} \\ \textit{s.t.}\,&\sum _{G}p_{{G,n}} - \sum _{D}p_{{D,n}} = \sum _{m}\textit{flow}_{{n\rightarrow m}} - \sum _{m}\textit{flow}_{{m\rightarrow n}} \\&p_{{\textit{min},G}}\le \beta \cdot p_{G}\le p_{{\textit{max},G}} \quad \beta \in \left\{ 0,1\right\} _{\mathbb {Z}} \\&-p_{{\textit{ACmax},l}} \le \textit{flow}_{{n\rightarrow m}} \le p_{{\textit{ACmax,l}}} \quad \forall \text { AC lines} \\&-p_{{\textit{DCmax},l}} \le \textit{flow}_{{n\rightarrow m}} \le p_{{\textit{DCmax},l}} \quad \forall \text { DC links} \\&saldo^{\textit{MC}}_{C} - H^{+}_{C}\cdot \varDelta \textit{EXP}_{C} \le \textit{saldo}^{\textit{LF}}_{C} \le \textit{saldo}^{\textit{MC}}_{C} + H^{+}_{C}\cdot \varDelta \textit{EXP}_{C} \\&\sum _{G}p_{{G,C}} - \sum _{D}p_{{D,C}} - \textit{saldo}^{\textit{LF}}_{C} = 0 \\&-\sigma _{{\textit{max,PST}}} \le \sigma _{{l,\textit{PST}}} \le \sigma _{{\textit{max,PST}}} \\&-\varLambda _{{\textit{max,DC}}}\le \varLambda _{{l,\textit{DC}}} \le \varLambda _{{\textit{max},\textit{DC}}} \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$
(10)
with:
-
G : :
-
generation units
-
D : :
-
demand
-
C : :
-
market areas, bidding zones (countries)
-
n, m : :
-
nodes
-
\(c_{{\textit{var},G}}{:}\)
:
-
marginal generation costs (€/MWh)
-
\(p_{{G,n}}{:}\)
:
-
(optimised) power injection of unit G at node n (p.u.)
-
\(p_{{D,n}}{:}\)
:
-
demand at node n (p.u.)
-
\(P_{{\textit{Base}}}{:}\)
:
-
power base for per unit calculation (MW)
-
\(\alpha , \delta , \lambda {:}\)
:
-
penalty weights
-
\(\beta {:}\)
:
-
binary switching variable for unit commitment (\(-\))
-
\(\sigma _{{l,\textit{PST}}}{:}\)
:
-
(optimised) angle of phase shifter (rad)
-
\(\sigma _{{,\textit{ax},\textit{PST}}}{:}\)
:
-
maximum angle of phase shifters (rad)
-
\(\textit{flow}_{{n\rightarrow m}}{:}\)
:
-
active power flow on line l between node n and m (p.u.)
-
\(p_{{\textit{min},G}}{:}\)
:
-
minimum power of unit G (p.u.)
-
\(p_{{\textit{max},G}}{:}\)
:
-
maximum power of unit G (p.u.)
-
\(p_{{\textit{ACmax},l}}{:}\)
:
-
maximum allowed transmission capacity of AC line l (p.u.)
-
\(p_{{\textit{DCmax},l}}{:}\)
:
-
maximum power of DC line l (p.u.)
-
\(\varLambda _{{l,\textit{DC}}}{:}\)
:
-
(optimised) commitment of DC links (rad)
-
\(\varLambda _{{\textit{max},\textit{DC}}}{:}\)
:
-
maximum controlling range of a DC link (rad)
-
\(H^{+}_{C}{:}\)
:
-
export/import overflow in a bidding zone (binary variable) (\(-\))
-
\(\textit{saldo}^{\textit{MC}}_{C}{:}\)
:
-
export/import balance as result of the market coupling (p.u.)
-
\(\textit{saldo}^{\textit{LF}}_{C}{:}\)
:
-
export/import balance as result of the DC-OPF (p.u.)
-
\(\varDelta \textit{EXP}_{C}{:}\)
:
-
maximum allowed countertrade (p.u.)
Shadow prices
The concept of shadow prices is a useful tool in network development planning to determine optimal connection nodes for controllable HVDC systems (Nischler 2014). In economic terms, the concept of shadow prices is defined as the change in the objective cost function caused by a marginal change in the level of the affected constraint (Kallrath 2013). In this context the affected constraint is the active power flow at a node as part of a meshed grid. To realize that, first of all, in order to avoid any grid restrictions, the objective cost function [based on Eq. (11)] will be extended by an overload option (\(\epsilon _{l}\)) for each line l. This option is weighted by a penalty \(\kappa \) in avoidance of its excessive use. To highlight regional grid line bottlenecks phase-shifting transformers will not be considered (\(\sigma _{l,\textit{PST}}=0\)). The first restriction of Eq. (11) will be separated into its two components—the active power flow balance as well as the generation and demand balance—in order to define the power at a node (\(P_{n}\)) more generally (Nischler 2014).
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned}&c_{\textit{Total}} = \min \left\{ \ \sum _{G} c_{\textit{var},G} * p_{G} * P_{\textit{Base}} + \sum _{l} \alpha * \varLambda _{l,\textit{DC}} + \sum _{C} \delta * H_{C}^{+} +\sum _{l}\kappa * \epsilon _{l}\right\} \\ \textit{s.t.}\,&- p_{{\textit{AC}}_{\textit{max},l}} * (1 + \epsilon _{l}) \le \textit{flow}_{n \rightarrow m} \le p_{{\textit{AC}}_{\textit{max},l}} * (1+\epsilon _{l}) \qquad \forall \text {AC lines}\\&P_{n} = + \sum _{m} \textit{flow}_{n \rightarrow m} - \sum _{m} \textit{flow}_{m \rightarrow n} \\&P_{n} = + \sum _{G} p_{G,n} - \sum _{D} p_{D,n} \\ \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$
(11)
with:
-
\(P_{n}{:}\)
:
-
Power at node n (p.u.)
-
\(\epsilon _{l}{:}\)
:
-
Overload option at line l (p.u.)
-
\(\kappa {:}\)
:
-
Penalty weight for the overload option (€/p.u.)
Using the definitions from above leads to a straight forward formal derivation of the shadow prices. A shadow price \(\pi _{n}\) of a node is defined as the change of total costs caused by a marginal change in the active power flow.Footnote 9
$$\begin{aligned} \pi _{n} = \frac{\partial c_{\textit{Total}}}{\partial P_{n}} \end{aligned}$$
(12)
with:
-
\(\pi _{n}{:}\)
:
-
Shadow price at node n (€/p.u.)
The determination of appropriate connection nodes for controllable HVDC systems depend on the level of the shadows prices as well as on the shadow price differences between the considered pairs of nodes. Nodes with negative (positive) shadow prices are characterized as electricity sources (sinks) and should be considered as feed-out (feed-in) nodes for controllable HVDC lines. Finally, those pairs of nodes with the highest shadow price differences should be taken into consideration in order to minimize total generation costs (Nischler 2014). A graphical illustration of this concept as part of a visualization tool (VISU) is provided in Sect. 3.5.
Toolbox for extreme case analysis
In addition to the scenario analysis, which is based on average circumstances (e.g. average production of wind energy), ATLANTIS provides a toolbox for the simulation of extreme situations. It is possible to vary the power of the generation units with volatile production characteristic (e.g. wind power, hydro power, PV) for each country, the demand of each country and also the dispatch of (pumped) storage power units. Also the outage of crucial grid elements or power units can be simulated within extreme cases. With this extreme case tool it is possible to investigate the effects of extreme situations (e.g. situations with low demand, high PV generation) for example on unit dispatch, import/export balances and grid loads. Similar to a scenario simulation also the extreme case simulation is based on market coupling and DC-OPF calculations. The main results are e.g. unit (re-)dispatch, import/export balances (commercial trades and physical flows), grid loads, snap shots (cf. Fig. 9).
Data visualisation: VISU
The entire network development planning process is a very complex and time intensive task. As a consequence of that and in order to simplify this planning process with ATLANTIS a new visualization tool (VISU) has been developed. This tool provides a new set of opportunities to illustrate easily a set of complex simulation results. A base illustration includes a visualization of a scenario in general like a layout plan including representation of the power plants, the transmission grid system as well as regional grid nodes which represent also the distribution of the public electricity demand. Additionally more advanced illustrations including the simulation results like the DC load flow, DC load flow difference and the node based shadow prices can be created as well (Feichtinger et al. 2015).
An exemplary illustration of an ATLANTIS simulation result is provided in Fig. 5. Both illustrations consider an off-peak situation with large wind power generation in the north of Germany in 2032. The load flows (Fig. 5a) are illustrated typically using a multi-level scale whereas each level is represented by a different colour in order to visualize the different network line load flows and to clearly point out grid bottlenecks (originally plotted in dark red). Additionally, load flow differences (Fig. 5b) illustrate the effects of potential network extensions as well as power plant constructions again by using a multi-level scale with different colours.
The newly implemented concept of shadow prices enables the determination of the connection nodes for controllable HVDC systems and shows the potential effects of these network extension projects. Figure 6 demonstrates the effects of the integration of the planned HVDC systems, which will be realized in 2022. The potential effects 10 years after the integration of the HVDC systems are huge and lead to a significant reduction in all shadow prices throughout the whole country (Fig. 6 right). Again, for the sake of a better understanding, all these illustrations consider a multi-level scale with different colours. The correct usage of these graphical illustrations can support and simplify a future-oriented network development process. Application areas are the analysis of potential effects of the realization of national or supra-national network extension projects (DC lines vs. usual AC lines vs. European Super Grid) on surrounding countries or the evaluation of single power plant projects (classical thermal power plants, renewable energies, etc.).
Economic analysis of power utilities
The economic part of the simulation model ATLANTIS consists of balance sheets and income statements calculated for every simulated year. At the moment there are about 100 modelled European electricity companies included in ATLANTIS. Most of the needed values for the computation of the economic side comes from the power plant dispatch calculations. According to the scenario definition country-specific development indices are being assumed and calculated for each year. Those parameters cover e.g. primary energy indexes, personnel costs, prices for \(\hbox {CO}_{2}\) certificates and many more. Based on the yearly simulations including power plant dispatch and trade at the electricity exchange all relevant positions of the income statements and balance sheets are gained.
The structure of the balance sheets is shown in Fig. 7a. The asset side consists of non-current assets and current assets. The current assets are calculated from real balance sheets. The non-current assets are calculated on the one hand from the power plants already in operation at the beginning of the scenario simulation and on the other hand from the power plants which are newly built during the simulation period. The right-hand side of the balance consists of equities and liabilities, which are also partly calculated from real balance sheets. The income statements (cf. Fig. 7b) include all relevant positions of a real electricity company and the values are gained directly from the simulation runs. The depreciation is dependent on the age distribution of the power plants.
Capital costs are one of the main component of ATLANTIS and they are calculated within the model based on the before mentioned balance sheets and profit and loss accounts of the modelled power utilities. This allows to achieve real capital cost for the building of power plants: the depreciations of the power plants and the rate of interest for the capital employed. This approach assures that the modell uses the real capital cost which are different from the macroeconomic capital cost. ATLANTIS calculates the depretiations from the historic acquisition values and the rates of interest based on the needed capital. The needed capital is calculated from the historic acquisition values reduced by the sum of the depreciations. This approach allows under consideration of the inflation and the age structure to calculate the needed real business economical capital cost for the existing as well as the new scenario-power plants. Therefore ATLANTIS enables to describe the effects of different market designs with regard to the companies of the electricity economy.