4.7 Article

DFIM versus synchronous machine for variable speed pumped storage hydropower plants: A comparative evaluation of technical performance

期刊

RENEWABLE ENERGY
卷 159, 期 -, 页码 72-86

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2020.05.163

关键词

Pumped storage hydropower plant (PSHP); Doubly fed induction machine (DFIM); Generating and pumping mode; Numerical simulation; Variable speed operation; Performance evaluation

资金

  1. Yadegar Emem (RAH)-Shahre rey Branch, Islamic Azad University Iran
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51809197, 51879200]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nowadays, variable speed (VS) pumped storage technology has become a new trend, for providing better support to power systems towards de-carbonization. This study intends to conduct a comparative evaluation of technical performance of two types of pumped storage hydropower plant (PSHP): the state-of-the-art PSHP based on doubly fed induction machine (DFIM) known as VS and conventional PSHP based on synchronous machine (SM) known as fixed speed (FS). Aiming at this purpose, a case of 343 MW hydro pump-turbine (HPT) coupled to DFIM with 381 MVA in comparison to the SM with same capacity, i.e., 381 MVA, is applied as a study case. The detailed model (discrete mode) in MATLAB/SimPowerSystem (TM) is adopted to conduct simulations under diverse conditions. Simulations and evaluations are for both architectures under two operation modes (generating, motor), in terms of the following items: (1) frequency regulation, (2) transient stability assessment under fault ride-through condition, (3) harmonic distortion, (4) damping of different oscillation modes in power systems, (5) reactive power support considering actual limitations based on P-Q capability curves. The results show the performance differences between the two types of PSHP in diverse aspects for safe, stable and economical operation, as well as the performance in grid ancillary services. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据