IV. 4. How much could domestic demand response technologies

 

 

                                                                                                                                                        
IV.       
References

1. A
computational framework for uncertainty integration in stochastic. Hao
Quan, Dipti Srinivasan, Ashwin M. Khambadkone, Abbas Khosravi.
Singapore : Applied Energy, 2015, Vol. 152.
2. Causes of the 2003 Major Grid
Blackouts in North America and Europe, and Recommended Means to Improve
System Dynamic Performance. G. Andersson, P. Donalek, R. Farmer, N.
Hatziargyriou, I. Kamwa, P. Kundur, N. Martins, J. Paserba, P. Pourbeik,.
s.l. : IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, 2005, Vol. 20.
3. Review of the operational
flexibility and emissions of gas- and coal-fired power plants in a future
with growing renewables. Miguel Angel Gonzalez-Salazara, Trevor
Kirstena, Lubos Prchlikb. s.l. : Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
2017, Vol. 82.
4. How much could domestic demand
response technologies reduce CO2 emissions? Eoghan McKenna, Sarah J.
Darby. Oxford : s.n., 2017. 1653-7025.
5. L. Van Nuffel, J. Yearwood.
The Potential of Electricity Demand Response. Brussels : European
Parliament, 2017.
6. Parlament, European.
Directive 2012/27/EU, on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC
and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC. 2012.
7. L. Hancher, B.M. Winters. The
EU Winter Package – Briefing Paper. 2017.
8. Smart Energy Demand Coalition,
SEDC. Explicit Demand Response in Europe Mapping the Markets. Brusseles :
s.n., 2017.
9. Operational reserve ad hoc
team report. Final version. Brusseles : ENTSO-E, 2012.
10. Survey on ancillary services
procurement, balancing market design 2016. s.l. : ENTSO-E WGAS,
2016.
11. P.
Bertoldi, P. Zancanella, B. Boza-Kiss. Demand Response status in EU Member
States. s.l. : JRC Science for policy report, 2016.
12. A computational framework for
uncertainty integration in stochastic. Hao Quan, Dipti Srinivasan, Ashwin
M. Khambadkone, Abbas Khosravi. Singapore : Applied Energy, 2015, Vol.
152.
 

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

In Table I it is
represented a general overview of the technical requirements that aggregators
have to accomplish to participate in the market analyzed. Finland has been
selected as example of Nordic countries because is the country with more real
cases of aggregators. The RR in Germany is not represented because it doesn’t
in the country.

 

 However, the most of technical requirements
are not prohibitive for consumers. Minimum bid size is 1 MW in the majority of
the markets. The maximum number of activation per day/year is easily achievable
for consumers. Payments, also if they aren’t very high are both for utilization
and capacity. Also, the durations of delivery are not prohibitive. A possible
barrier is that the notification time, in general, is quite short for allowing
demand to change its consumption profile.

Great Britain is one of the first
countries to have opened markets to consumers but it is not really mature. The
Capacity of DR is lowering each year and the risk is that the market won’t be
economically viable in the future. One of the main barriers is that aggregators
need an agreement with the consumer’s retailer because retailers are responsible
for sourcing costs. However, in the capacity mechanism, the real value of the
service offered by the aggregator is not recognized. It’s underestimated
because their only entrances are for the availability of flexibility offered to
the market, while the retailer does an unmerited gain for the reduction in
energy consumption. There are a lot of markets opened to DR in GB, but the
market is generating-oriented at all levels. For example, generators received
subsidies in 2015 from the country of 1 billion pounds creating an unfair
completion. Also, baseline and measurement criteria are better suited for
back-up generators than demand reductions resources.

E.   
Great Britain

Service
and country

Minimum
bid size

Notification
time

Triggered
(max. times per day)

Prequalification

Product
resolution

Symmetrical

Duration
of delivery

FCR
Belgium

1

15 s (50%)            30 s
(full)

80 min/y

Strict asset level

Week

NO

15 minutes

FCR-N
Finland

0.1

3 min

Several times
per
hour

Pooled level

Hour

YES

N/A

FCR
France

1