8/15/2019 Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32
1/20
Integrating Renewables and CHP
into the UK Electricity System:
Investigation of the impact of network faults
on the stability of large offshore wind farms
Xueguang Wu, Lee Holdsworth, Nick Jenkins
and Goran Strbac
April 2003
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 32
8/15/2019 Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32
2/20
Integrating Renewables
and CHP into the UKElectricity System:
Investigation of the impact of network faultson the stability of large offshore wind farms
Xueguang WuLee Holdsworth
Nick JenkinsGoran Strbac
The Manchester Centre for Electrical Energy (MCEE)UMIST
UK
Email: [email protected]@umist.ac.uk
[email protected]@umist.ac.uk
Tyndall Centre Working Paper no. 32April 2003
8/15/2019 Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32
3/20
SUMMARY
Simulations have been performed to investigate the impact of network faults on thestability of large offshore wind farms. Results are presented for balanced 3-phase
faults applied on the GB 400 kV transmission system.
The studies indicate that faults on the GB transmission system (close to the wind
farm) may cause instability of the large offshore wind farms. The voltage dropinvestigations show that for a 100% voltage drop at a 400 kV connection point (such
as Norwich Main), a very fast clearance time (less than 90 ms) is required to maintainstable operation of a 120MW offshore wind farm. However, when the voltage dropsare less than or equal to 60%, the critical clearance times are longer than 140ms. The
contours of voltage drop for the GB transmission system illustrate that for a 60%voltage drop the 3-phase fault would have to occur close to the connection point.
Therefore the stability of the offshore wind farms may only be effected by relativelylocal faults. Possible remedial measures include the use of fast acting reactive power
support, e.g. a Static Reactive Power Compensator (STATCOM).
8/15/2019 Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32
4/20
2
CONTENTS
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3
2. Studies and assumptions ...................................................................................... 4
2.1 Assumptions of the voltage drop calculations................................ ................ 4
2.2 Assumptions of the dynamic stability calculations................................ ........ 4
3. Zones of voltage drop influence of faults.............................................................5
4. Dynamic stability of large offshore wind farms................................................ 114.1 Dynamic performance of large offshore wind farms................................... 11
4.2 Critical clearing times of large offshore wind farms ................................ ... 12
5. Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 14
6. References...........................................................................................................15
8/15/2019 Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32
5/20
3
1. Introduction
The generation of electrical power using sustainable sources of energy is developing
rapidly with the worldwide installed capacity of wind generation now exceeding 25GW. For the UK, a target of 10% of electrical energy to be supplied by renewables by
2010 implies a capacity of renewable generating plant of up to 8 10 GW, of whichsome 60 % might be wind turbines. In the UK the Crown Estate has granted licenses
to 18 consortia to investigate large offshore wind farm sites with a potential of at least
1500 MW [1]. There are also suggestions that a target as high as 20 % of UK
electricity from renewables might be achievable by 2020 [2], with similar ambitious
targets existing in many European countries.
Until recently, wind farms connected within the UK network had been limited to
small sized installations, connected at distribution voltage levels. The connectionstandards [3] do not currently require wind farms to support the power system during
a network disturbance. During a network fault the wind turbines were disconnected
from the system and then subsequently reconnected when the fault has been cleared.However, the network design grid codes are now being revised for the increased
penetration of wind generators. The wind farms will now have to continue to operate
during system disturbances.
A fixed speed wind turbine consists of a squirrel cage induction generator coupled to
the wind turbine rotor via a gearbox. The induction generator consumes reactive
power and requires compensation capacitors at the terminals in order to achieve unitypower factor. The growth in fixed speed wind farms with large MW capacity
connected to the UK transmission network will have a significance impact on thetechnical and operational characteristics of the electricity system. The connection
requirements of large wind farms therefore require reviewing to ensure continuingnetwork security.
The objective of this work was to investigate network faults and stability issues that
need to be taken into account in order for high penetrations of large offshore wind
farms to be connected to the network. These must be investigated and resolved in
order to build the required confidence that a high penetration of wind generatorsconnected to the network is both feasible and safe.
The methods used in this study are based on modelling of the Great Britain (GB)
network and the dynamic stability of a typical large offshore fixed speed wind farm.
The aim of the study was firstly to assess zone influence of faults in the GB network
and secondly to explore potential dynamic impacts of the faults on the large offshore
wind farms.
This report presents the main results of this work. The main areas of focus for thiswork are as follows:
(1) Studies and assumptions
(2) Zones of voltage drop influence of faults
(2) Dynamic stability of large offshore wind farms
8/15/2019 Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32
6/20
4
A detailed description of the work performed under each of the above headings is
provided below.
2. Studies and assumptions
For high penetrations of the large offshore, fixed speed, wind farms to be connected to
the network, the effect of voltage drops at their 400 kV connection points and thedynamic stability of the wind farms have been investigated. The results shown in this
study were based on the following assumptions.
2.1 Assumptions of the voltage drop calculations
(1) The study case was the GB network operating under the winter-peak load of 2002.
(2) The offshore wind farms were connected to the 400 kV transmission system at
Deeside, Penwortham, Walpole, and Norwich Main substations [4].
(3) The sub-transient reactances of all synchronous generators were 0.2 per-unit.(4) The type of fault was a balanced three-phase short circuit.(5) The fault levels at the 400 kV substations were calculated from the three-phase
short circuit currents using PowerWorld.
(6) PowerWorldwas also used to calculate the voltage drops at the connection points
for faults in the network.
2.2 Assumptions of the dynamic stability calculations
(1) The study cases were based on the network shown in Figures 1 and 2. The short-circuit ratios (SCR) at the 33 kV busbars of the offshore wind farm substations
were 6.(2) The 400 kV system was represented for the dynamic stability simulation by a
voltage source in series with an impedance. The voltage of the source was 1 p.u.
The impedance was calculated from PowerWorldand is shown in Table 1.
(3) The offshore wind farm consisted of the same type of wind turbines, each of 2
MW. These were represented by a single equivalent coherent fixed-speed
induction generator. The data of the 2 MW wind turbine induction generator is
shown in Table 2 [5].
(4) The distance from the offshore wind turbines to shore was 5 km.(5) A lumped 33kV/0.69kV wind turbine terminal transformer with 5% impedance
was used to connect the offshore wind farm to the 132kV/33kV onshoresubstation through the 33 kV submarine cables.
(6) Each of the 33 kV submarine cables was 185 mm2, multicore copper, and paper
insulated distribution cable with rated current 360 A, resistance 0.118 ohms/km,
reactance 0.101 ohms/km and capacitance 0.4 F/km [6].
(7) The number of parallel submarine cables was 4 for the 60 MW offshore wind farm
and 8 for the 120 MW.(8) An earthing zigzag transformer with rated current 1000 A was used to provide an
earthed point on the 33 kV network.
(9) A 132kV/33kV transformer with 15% impedance was connected to the
400kV/132kV system substation through the 132 kV overhead lines.
(10)Each of the 132 kV overhead lines was 20 km long and 258 mm2
aluminumconductor steel reinforced (ACSR) conductor with rated capacity 115 MVA,
8/15/2019 Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32
7/20
5
resistance 0.068 ohms/km, and reactance 0.404 ohms/km [7].
(11)The number of parallel overhead lines was 1 for the 60 MW offshore wind farm
and 2 for the 120 MW.
(12)The 400kV/132kV system substation had a transformer with 15% impedance [8].
(13)The computer program, PSCAD/EMTDC, was used to simulate dynamic stability.
G WT
20km, 132kVone overhead line
5km, 33kV
four submarine cables
132kV/33kV
100MVA, 15%
400kV/132kV
300MVA, 15%
33kV/0.69kV
80MVA, 5%
30*2MW, 0.69kVlarge offshore wind farm
system
impedance
400kV
132kV 33kV
fault resistance
SCR = 6
60MWcapacitor
banks
earthing
transformer
G WT
20km, 132kV
two overhead lines
5km, 33kV
eight submarine cables
132kV/33kV
150MVA, 15%
400kV/132kV
1000MVA, 15%
33kV/0.69kV
150MVA, 5%
60*2MW, 0.69kV
large offshore wind farm
system
impedance
400kV
132kV 33kV
fault resistance
SCR = 6
120MWcapacitor
banks
earthing
transformer
Table 1 System data
400kV
substation
Short-circuit level
(MVA)
Impedance
(ohms)
X/R Frequency
(Hz)
Deeside 19,514 8.20 10.2 50
Penwortham 18,785 8.52 10.6 50
Walpole 19,142 8.36 10.4 50Norwich Main 12,006 13.33 11.9 50
Table 2 Wind turbine induction generator data (on its own base)
Capacity
(MW)
Vol.
(kV)
f
(Hz)
R1
(p.u)
X1
(p.u)
Xm
(p.u)
R2
(p.u)
X2
(p.u)
Lumped inertia
constant (sec.)
2 0.69 50 0.0049 0.0924 3.9528 0.0055 0.0995 3.5
3. Zones of voltage drop influence of faults
Voltage drops at the 400 kV busbars at substations (Deeside, Penwortham, Walpole
and Norwich Main) were calculated. The results are shown in Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6.The retained voltage is shown at the location of the fault. For example, when a three-
Figure 1 A 60MW offshore wind farm connected to the 400 kV busbar
Figure 2 A 120MW offshore wind farm connected to the 400 kV busbar
8/15/2019 Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32
8/20
6
phase fault was applied at Harker, the retained voltage at Deeside 400 kV busbar was
0.88 as shown at Harker.
Figure 3 shows the retained voltages at Deeside for faults on each busbar in the GB
network. Contours of the voltage drop were drawn from the retained voltages. The
30% voltage drop contour only extends over North Wales, the West Midlands, and theManchester area.
Figures 4-6 show similar results for Penwortham, Walpole and Norwich Main
substations.
8/15/2019 Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32
9/20
7
SIZEWELL
E de F(France)
0.98
0.99
HARKER
STELLA WEST
NORTONHAWTHORN PIT
HUTTON
PENWORTHAM
THORNTON
CREYKE
EGGBORO
WALPOLE
RATCLIFFE
MACCLESFIELD
DEESIDE
IRONBRIDGE
WALHAM
FECKENHAM
COWLEY
MELKSHAMBRAMLEY
LOVEDEAN
FAWLEY NORTHCHICKERELL
HINKLEY POINT
EXETER
INDIAN QUEENS
PEMBROKE
SWANSEACILFYNYDD
EASTCLAYDON
SUNDON
WYMONDL
PELHAM
BRAMFOR
RAYLEIGH MAIN
KEMSLEY
BOLNEY
NINFIELD
DUNGENESSSELLIN
CANTERBURY
LONDON AREA
COTTAM WEST BURTON
CITY ROAD
NORWICH MAIN
ALVERDISCOTT
CELLARHEA
MANNINGTON
WYLFA
BRAINTREE
0.88
0.98
0.85
0.81
0.66
0.00
0.30 0.76
0.89
0.91 0.89
0.81
0.94 0.98
0.94
0.940.94
0.95 0.94
0.99
0.99
1.00
1.00
0.96
0.99
1.01
0.97
0.94
0.94
ENDERB
0.98
STRATHHAVEN
CRUACHAN
TEALING
KINTORE
BEAULY
B9-NGC
B7-NGC
B3-NGC
B2-NGC
B1-NGC
SP & NGC
SSE & SP
NORTH SOUTH-SSE
NORTH WEST-SSE
PENTIR
TRAWSFYNYDD LEAGCY
LANDULPH
0.63
0.49
0.65
0.95
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.950.93
0.88DRAX
0.810.90
0.87
0.92
0.67
0.61
0.53
0.99
1.00
0.99
0.99
1.01
1.01
1.00 1.01
1.00
1.00
0.991.00
1.00
50
30
10
WINDYHILL
LONGANNET
BONNYBRIDGE
NEILSTON
HUNTERSTON
INVERKIP
KILMARNOCKSOUTH
TORNESS
COCKENZIE
ECCLES
ABERDEENFOYERS
KEITH
PETERHEAD
Figure 3 Retained voltages at Deeside 400kV substation for faults in the GB network
0.98
0.98
0.99
0.97 5%
5%
10
30
400kV
275kV
Power flow
boundary
Voltage
drop range
8/15/2019 Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32
10/20
8
SIZEWELL
E de F(France)
0.98
1.00
HARKER
STELLA WEST
NORTONHAWTHORN PIT
HUTTON
PENWORTHAM
THORNTON
CREYKE BECK
KEADBYEGGBOROUGH
WALPOLE
RATCLIFFE
MACCLESFIELD
DEESIDE
IRONBRIDGE
DRAKELOW
WALHAM
FECKENHAM
COWLEY
MELKSHAMBRAMLEY
LOVEDEAN
FAWLEY NORTHCHICKERELL
HINKLEY POINT
EXETER
INDIAN QUEENS
PEMBROKE
SWANSEACILFYNYDD
EASTCLAYDON
SUNDON
WYMONDL
PELHAM
BRAMFOR
RAYLEIGH MAIN
KEMSLEY
BOLNEY
NINFIELD
DUNGENESSSELLIND
CANTERBURY
LONDON AREA
COTTAM WEST BURTON
CITY ROAD
NORWICH MAIN
ALVERDISCOTT
CELLARHEAD
MANNINGTON
WYLFA
BRAINTREE
0.67
0.93
0.57
0.71
0.66
0.64
0.690.84
0.91
0.91 0.88
0.90
0.93 0.97
0.97
0.950.95
0.95 0.95
0.98
0.99
1.01
1.01
0.98
1.00
1.01
0.99
0.96
0.98
ENDERBY
0.99
STRATHHAVEN
CRUACHAN
TEALING
KINTORE
BEAULY
B9-NGC
B7-NGC
B3-NGC
B2-NGC
B1-NGC
SP & NGC
SSE & SP
NORTH SOUTH-SSE
NORTH WEST-SSE
PENTIR
TRAWSFYNYDDLEAGCY
LANDULPH
0.84
0.78
0.00
0.86
0.95
0.97
0.97
0.99
0.900.86
0.81DRAX
0.700.88
0.83
0.94
0.70
0.81
0.80
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.01
1.01 1.01
1.01
1.01
1.001.00
1.00
40
30
5%
10
WINDYHILL
LONGANNET
BONNYBRIDGE
NEILSTON
HUNTERSTON
INVERKIP
KILMARNOCKSOUTH
TORNESS
COCKENZIE
ECCLES
ABERDEENFOYERS
KEITH
PETERHEAD
Figure 4 Retained voltages at Penwortham 400kV substation for faults in the GB network
0.92
0.94
0.95
0.90
30
5%
10
400kV
275kV
Power flow
boundary
Voltage
drop range
8/15/2019 Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32
11/20
9
SIZEWELL
E de F(France)
0.67
0.85
HARKER
STELLA WEST
NORTONHAWTHORN PIT
HUTTON
PENWORTHAM
THORNTON
CREYKE
EGGBOROUGH
WALPOLE
RATCLIFFEON SOAR
MACCLESFIELDDEESIDE
IRONBRIDGE
DRAKELOW
WALHAM
FECKENHAM
COWLEY
MELKSHAMBRAMLEY
LOVEDEAN
FAWLEY NORTHCHICKERELL
HINKLEY POINT
EXETER
INDIAN QUEENS
PEMBROKE
SWANSEACILFYNYDD
EAST
CLAYDON
SUNDONWYMONDL
PELHAM
BRAMFOR
RAYLEIGH MAIN
KEMSLEY
BOLNEY
NINFIELD
DUNGENESSSELLIN
CANTERBURY
LONDON AREA
COTTAM WEST BURTON
CITY ROAD
NORWICH MAIN
ALVERDISCOTT
CELLARHEAD
MANNINGTON
WYLFA
BRAINTREE
0.97
0.99
0.96
0.75
0.880.91
0.920.92
0.85
0.61
0.92
0.00 0.54
0.94
0.680.76
0.630.41
0.67
0.79
0.92
0.93
0.85
0.98
1.00
0.96
0.79
0.90
ENDERB
0.72
STRATHHAVEN
CRUACHAN
TEALING
KINTORE
BEAULY
B9-NGC
B7-NGC
B3-NGC
B2-NGC
B1-NGC
SP & NGC
SSE & SP
NORTH SOUTH-SSE
NORTH WEST-SSE
PENTIR
TRAWSFYNYDDLEAGCY
LANDULPH
0.97
0.95
0.90
0.99
1.00
1.01
1.01
1.01
0.950.91
0.85DRAX
0.790.76
0.75
0.85
0.87
0.92
0.95
0.76
0.86
0.98
0.96
1.00
1.00
0.98 0.99
0.96
0.94
0.910.90
0.88
30
10
WINDYHILL
LONGANNET
BONNYBRIDGE
NEILSTON
HUNTERSTON
INVERKIP
KILMARNOCKSOUTH TORNESS
COCKENZIE
ECCLES
ABERDEEN
FOYERS
KEITH
PETERHEAD
Figure 5 Retained voltages at Walpole 400kV substation for faults in the GB network
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
5%
50
400kV
275kV
Power flow
boundary
Voltage
drop range
5%
10
30
8/15/2019 Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32
12/20
10
SIZEWELL
E de F(France)
0.38
0.79
HARKER
STELLA WEST
NORTONHAWTHORN PIT
HUTTON
PENWORTHAM
THORNTON
CREYKE
EGGBOROUGH
WALPOLE
RATCLIFFE
MACCLESFIELDDEESIDE
IRONBRIDGE
DRAKELOW
WALHAM
FECKENHAM
COWLEY
MELKSHAMBRAMLEY
LOVEDEAN
FAWLEY NORTHCHICKERELL
HINKLEY POINT
EXETER
INDIAN QUEENS
PEMBROKE
SWANSEACILFYNYDD
EASTCLAYDON SUNDON
WYMONDL
PELHAM
BRAMFORD
RAYLEIGH MAIN
KEMSLEY
BOLNEY
NINFIELD
DUNGENESSSELLIN
CANTERBURY
LONDON AREA
COTTAM WEST BURTON
CITY ROAD
NORWICH MAIN
ALVERDISCOTT
CELLARHEA
MANNINGTON
WYLFA
BRAINTREE
0.96
0.99
0.96
0.80
0.890.92
0.920.92
0.85
0.76 0.67
0.91
0.23 0.00
0.93
0.670.74
0.61 0.39
0.36
0.71
0.89
0.90
0.82
0.97
0.98
0.94
0.77
0.89
ENDERB
0.59
STRATHHAVEN
CRUACHAN
TEALING
KINTORE
BEAULY
B9-NGC
B7-NGC
B3-NGC
B2-NGC
B1-NGC
SP & NGC
SSE & SP
NORTH SOUTH-SSE
NORTH WEST-SSE
PENTIR
TRAWSFYNYDDLEAGCY
LANDULPH
0.97
0.95
0.91
0.98
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.950.92
0.87DRAX
0.830.78
0.78
0.85
0.88
0.92
0.95
0.58
0.81
0.97
0.95
0.99
0.99
0.96 0.97
0.95
0.91
0.890.86
0.83
30
10
WINDYHILL
LONGANNET
BONNYBRIDGE
NEILSTON
HUNTERSTON
INVERKIP
KILMARNOCKSOUTH
TORNESS
COCKENZIE
ECCLES
ABERDEENFOYERS
KEITH
PETERHEAD
Figure 6 Retained voltages at Norwich Main 400kV substation for faults in the GB network
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
5%
50
10
400kV
275kV
Power flow
boundary
Voltage
drop range
5%
30
8/15/2019 Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32
13/20
8/15/2019 Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32
14/20
12
4.2 Critical clearing times of large offshore wind farms
Figures 9 and 10 show the variations of critical clearing time with voltage drops on
the 400 kV busbars for 60 MW and 120 MW offshore wind farms at Deeside and
Norwich Main. The voltage drop is defined as:
( )[ ] %100..1 = upvoltageretaineddropvoltage .
The different voltage drops on the 400 kV busbar were obtained by changing the
fault resistance.
Figure 8 Dynamic performance of a 60 MW offshore wind farm connected to
Norwich Main 400 kV busbar
8/15/2019 Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32
15/20
13
Figure 9 Variations of the critical clearing time with voltage drop at Deeside
Figure 10 Variations of the critical clearing time with voltage drop at Norwich Main
8/15/2019 Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32
16/20
14
From the Technical and Operational Characteristics of the NGC Transmission
System [9], the normal clearance time for faults on the 400 kV transmission system
is between 60-120 ms.
Figure 9 shows the critical clearing times for the 60 MW and 120 MW offshore wind
farms at Deeside. The critical clearing times are less than 120 ms when the voltagedrops are larger than 90% for the 60 MW and 82% for the 120 MW. Hence for the
100% voltage drop, a fast clearing time (less than 100 ms) is required to maintainstable operation of a wind farm connected to Deeside.
Figure 10 shows the critical clearing times of the offshore wind farm at Norwich
Main. The critical clearing times are much lower than at Deeside due to the smaller
short-circuit capacity at Norwich Main. The critical clearing times are less than 120
ms if the voltage drops are larger than 90% for the 60 MW wind farm and 75% for the
120 MW wind farm. So for a 100% voltage drop, a very fast clearing time (less than
90 ms) is required to prevent instability of the large offshore wind farm at Norwich
Main.
5. Conclusions
Simulations have been performed to investigate the impact of network faults on the
stability of large offshore wind farms. Results are presented for balanced 3-phase
faults applied on the GB 400 kV transmission system. This investigates a worst case
scenario as the fraction of this type of fault occurring on the 400 kV transmission
system is less than 5% of all faults [9]. The number of incidents of overhead-linefaults, on the British system 132kV and above, is typically about 1 fault per 100km
per year. The most common fault is the single line to earth fault which accounts for75-85 % of all faults [9]. The impact of 1-phase faults upon the stability of fixed
speed wind farms will be much less severe.
The studies indicate that faults on the GB transmission system (close to the wind
farm) may cause instability. The voltage drop investigations at Norwich Main (Figure
10) show that for a 100% voltage drop at the 400 kV connection point, a very fastclearance time (less than 90 ms) is required to maintain stable operation of a 120MW
offshore wind farm. However, when the voltage drops are less than or equal to 60%on the 400 kV busbar at Norwich Main, the critical clearance times are longer than
140ms. The contours given in Figure 6 for the GB transmission system illustrate that
for a 60% voltage drop the 3-phase fault would have to occur close to Norwich Main.
Therefore the stability of the offshore wind farms may only be effected by relatively
local faults. Possible remedial measures include the use of fast acting reactive power
support as discussed in [10].
8/15/2019 Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32
17/20
15
6. References
1. The Crown Estate, Potential Offshore Wind Farm Sites Announced by the Crown
Estate, 5April 2001, http://www.crownestate.co.uk/news/pr20010405.shtml.
2. PIU, The Energy Review, 14 February 2002, http://www.piu.gov.uk
3. EA, Engineering Recommendation G.59/1, Recommendations for the Connectionof Embedded Generating Plant to the Regional Electricity Companies
Distribution Systems, 1991.4. BWEA, Offshore Wind Farm Developers and Locations of Sites,
http://www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk/sites.html.
5. Vestas, Generator data 2MW- 690V-50Hz.
6. Bungay E.W.G., McAllister D., Electric Cables Handbook (second edition), BSP
Professional Books, 1990.
7. Weedy B.M., Electric Power System (book), John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 1992.
8. Alstom, Protective Relays Application Guide, GEC Alstom T&D, Protection &
Control Limited.
9. NGC, Technical and Operational Characteristics of the Transmission System,April 2000.
10. Wu X. Arulampalam A., Zhan C. Jenkins N., Application of a Static Reactive
Power Compensator (STATCOM) and a Dynamic Braking Resistor (DBR) to
Stability Enhancement of a Large Wind Farm, Accepted for publication in Wind
Engineering, Vol.27, Issue 2, 2003.
8/15/2019 Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32
18/20
The trans-disciplinary Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research undertakes integratedresearch into the long-term consequences of climate change for society and into thedevelopment of sustainable responses that governments, business-leaders and decision-makers can evaluate and implement. Achieving these objectives brings together UKclimate scientists, social scientists, engineers and economists in a unique collaborativeresearch effort.
Research at the Tyndall Centre is organised into four research themes that collectivelycontribute to all aspects of the climate change issue: Integrating Frameworks;Decarbonising Modern Societies; Adapting to Climate Change; and Sustaining theCoastal Zone. All thematic fields address a clear problem posed to society by climatechange, and will generate results to guide the strategic development of climate changemitigation and adaptation policies at local, national and global scales.
The Tyndall Centre is named after the 19th century UK scientist John Tyndall, who wasthe first to prove the Earths natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slightchanges in atmospheric composition could bring about climate variations. In addition, hewas committed to improving the quality of science education and knowledge.
The Tyndall Centre is a partnership of the following institutions:University of East AngliaUMISTSouthampton Oceanography CentreUniversity of SouthamptonUniversity of CambridgeCentre for Ecology and Hydrology
SPRU Science and Technology Policy Research (University of Sussex)Institute for Transport Studies (University of Leeds)Complex Systems Management Centre (Cranfield University)Energy Research Unit (CLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory)
The Centre is core funded by the following organisations:Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC)Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)UK Government Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)
For more information, visit the Tyndall Centre Web site (www.tyndall.ac.uk) or contact:
External Communications ManagerTyndall Centre for Climate Change ResearchUniversity of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UKPhone: +44 (0) 1603 59 3906; Fax: +44 (0) 1603 59 3901Email: [email protected]
8/15/2019 Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32
19/20
Recent Working Papers
Tyndall Working Papers are available online athttp://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/working_papers.shtml
Mitchell, T. and Hulme, M. (2000). ACountry-by-Country Analysis of Pastand Future Warming Rates , TyndallCentre Working Paper 1.
Hulme, M. (2001). IntegratedAssessment Models, Tyndall CentreWorking Paper 2.
Berkhout, F, Hertin, J. and Jordan, A. J.(2001). Socio-economic futures inclimate change impact assessment:using scenarios as 'learningmachines' , Tyndall Centre WorkingPaper 3.
Barker, T. and Ekins, P. (2001). HowHigh are the Costs of Kyoto for theUS Economy? , Tyndall Centre WorkingPaper 4.
Barnett, J. (2001). The issue of'Adverse Effects and the Impacts ofResponse Measures' in the UNFCCC,Tyndall Centre Working Paper 5.
Goodess, C.M., Hulme, M. and Osborn,T. (2001). The identification andevaluation of suitable scenariodevelopment methods for theestimation of future probabilities ofextreme weather events, TyndallCentre Working Paper 6.
Barnett, J. (2001). Security andClimate Change , Tyndall CentreWorking Paper 7.
Adger, W. N. (2001). Social Capitaland Climate Change , Tyndall CentreWorking Paper 8.
Barnett, J. and Adger, W. N. (2001).Climate Dangers and AtollCountries, Tyndall Centre WorkingPaper 9.
Gough, C., Taylor, I. and Shackley, S.(2001). Burying Carbon under theSea: An Initial Exploration of PublicOpinions , Tyndall Centre WorkingPaper 10.
Barker, T. (2001). Representing theIntegrated Assessment of Climate
Change, Adaptation and Mitigation ,Tyndall Centre Working Paper 11.
Dessai, S., (2001). The climateregime from The Hague toMarrakech: Saving or s inking theKyoto Protocol?, Tyndall CentreWorking Paper 12.
Dewick, P., Green K., Miozzo, M.,(2002). Technological Change,Industry Structure and theEnvironment , Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 13.
Shackley, S. and Gough, C., (2002).The Use of Integrated Assessment:An Institutional AnalysisPerspective , Tyndall Centre WorkingPaper 14.
Khler, J.H., (2002). Long runtechnical change in an energy-environment-economy (E3) modelfor an IA system: A model ofKondratiev waves, Tyndall CentreWorking Paper 15.
Adger, W.N., Huq, S., Brown, K.,Conway, D. and Hulme, M. (2002).Adaptation to climate change:Setting the Agenda for DevelopmentPolicy and Research, Tyndall CentreWorking Paper 16.
Dutton, G., (2002). Hydrogen EnergyTechnology, Tyndall Centre WorkingPaper 17.
8/15/2019 Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32
20/20
Watson, J. (2002). The developmentof large technical systems:implications for hydrogen, TyndallCentre Working Paper 18.
Pridmore, A. and Bristow, A., (2002).The role of hydrogen in poweringroad transport , Tyndall CentreWorking Paper 19.
Turnpenny, J. (2002). Reviewingorganisational use of scenarios:Case study - evaluating UK energypolicy options, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 20.Watson, W. J. (2002).Renewablesand CHP Deployment in the UK to2020, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 21.
Watson, W.J., Hertin, J., Randall, T.,Gough, C. (2002). Renewable Energyand Combined Heat and Pow erResources in the UK , Tyndall CentreWorking Paper 22.
Paavola, J. and Adger, W.N. (2002).
Justice and adaptation to climatechange , Tyndall Centre Working Paper23.
Xueguang Wu, Jenkins, N. and Strbac,G. (2002). Impact of IntegratingRenewables and CHP into the UKTransmission Network, TyndallCentre Working Paper 24
Xueguang Wu, Mutale, J., Jenkins, N.and Strbac, G. (2003). Aninvestigation of Network Splitting
for Fault Level Reduction, TyndallCentre Working Paper 25
Brooks, N. and Adger W.N. (2003).Country level risk measures ofclimate-related natural disastersand implications for adaptation toclimate change , Tyndall CentreWorking Paper 26
Tompkins, E.L. and Adger, W.N. (2003).Building resilience to climatechange through adaptivemanagement of natural resources,Tyndall Centre Working Paper 27
Dessai, S., Adger, W.N., Hulme, M.,Khler, J.H., Turnpenny, J. and Warren,R. (2003). Defining and experiencingdangerous climate change, TyndallCentre Working Paper 28
Brown, K. and Corbera, E. (2003). AMulti-Criteria Assessment
Framework for Carbon-MitigationProjects: Putting development inthe centre of decision-making ,Tyndall Centre Working Paper 29
Hulme, M. (2003). Abrupt climatechange: can society cope?, TyndallCentre Working Paper 30
Turnpenny, J., Haxeltine A. andORiordan, T. A scoping study of UKuser needs for managing climatefutures. Part 1 of the pilo t-phase
interactive integrated assessmentprocess (Aurion Project). TyndallCentre Working Paper 31
Xueguang Wu, Jenkins, N. and Strbac, G.(2003). Integrating Renewables andCHP into the UK Electricity System:Investigation of the impact ofnetwork faults on the stability oflarge offshore w ind farms, TyndallCentre Working Paper 32
Top Related