Vol. 1 No. 3 Aug.

2018 Global Energy Interconnection

DOI: 10.14171/j.2096-5117.gei.2018.03.004 www.geidco.org

Full-length article

Developing a global interconnected power system model

Maarten Brinkerink 1,2, Paul Deane 1,2, Seán Collins 1,2, Brian Ó Gallachóir 1,2
1. MaREI Centre, Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork, 6 Lee Rd, Sunday’s Well, Cork, T23
E4PW Ireland
2. School of Engineering, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

Abstract: Decarbonizing the power sector is a necessary step towards a low-carbon future. Interconnecting power systems
on different continents could be a method to contribute to such a future, by utilizing highly efficient renewable resources
around the globe, while simultaneously providing additional benefits of power system integration. In this paper, we
describe the process of constructing and simulating a global interconnected power system model with high technical and
temporal resolution. Being the first of its kind on the global scale, this paper is designed to showcase the proof of concept
as an intermediate step to a high resolution global model, by integrating an existing European power system model with
the North-American continent. The work to date has been focused on testing the methodology and building up necessary
knowledge to realistically simulate the functionality of a possible future global grid. Some initial results are analysed to
support the viability of the model and the concept in general. Furthermore, key factors influencing the development and
optimal performance of the global interconnected power system model are identified.

Keywords: Power system modelling, Dispatch modelling, Renewables, Global grid, Intercontinental interconnectors.

1 Introduction (VRES) such as solar-PV systems and wind energy

influences the practical implementation and reliability of
Following the 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement, power systems with increasing VRES penetration [5–10].
ambitious climate mitigation targets have been set in place A common approach to handle the variability in generation
to pursue a goal of containing global average temperature is by interconnecting nearby power systems to cope with
increase to well below 2 degrees above pre-industrial peaks and lows in non-dispatchable generation output.
levels, with a further aim to limit the increase to 1.5 Other advantages of transmission interconnection relate
degrees. Considering an increase in global future energy to the provision of system security [11,12], possibility
demand, as well as expected increasing shares of electricity of cross-border trading and the integration of wholesale
in final energy consumption from below 20% today to power markets [13], sharing of operating reserves [12,14]
between 23%-27% by 2040 [1], the power sector requires a and accessibility to an overall more diverse, flexible and
drastic transition to a low-carbon future in response to said cost-efficient generation portfolio [12,15]. Technological
mitigation targets. progress in High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC)
The theoretical potential of renewable electricity transmission has been significant in recent years [16–21].
(RES-E) to decarbonize power systems is a well- Currently, ±800 kV land-based HVDC interconnectors
documented aspect [2-4], yet the fluctuating characteristic with rated capacities of up to 8 GW exist in China, with
in the generation of electricity from variable renewables even higher ratings of ±1100 kV and 12 GW to be
reached in the near future [22]. Progress in submarine
Received: 8 June 2018/ Accepted: 27 June 2018/ Published: 25 August HVDC transmission projects occurs as well, albeit in
2018 smaller steps, for example with the commissioning of the
Maarten Brinkerink Seán Collins EuroAsia interconnector, interconnecting Greece, Cyprus
maarten.brinkerink@ucc.ie sean.collins@umail.ucc.ie and Israel. Once completed, this 2GW, 1518 km long
Paul Deane Brian Ó Gallachóir transmission link, will be the first (partial) submarine
jp.deane@ucc.ie b.ogallachoir@ucc.ie HVDC intercontinental interconnector [23]. Ardelean and
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

330
 Maarten Brinkerink et al. Developing a global interconnected power system model

Minnebo [16] conclude that submarine HVDC cables can cost optimization for the global grid with 11 nodes solely
now be considered a mature technology able to pay back based on optimal utilization of available solar-PV and wind
the generally high investment costs. energy potential. They showed that in a scenario with large
A to date limitedly used application of transmission availability of low-cost storage, global interconnectors are
interconnection is the possibility to integrate the vast primarily used to compensate for consistent geographical
and highly efficient RES-E potential in distant and often discrepancies in demand and supply. The high availability
unpopulated areas [24-26]. On a global scale, it’s clear of storage made it more cost effective to store electricity
that there’s an overall discrepancy between areas of locally in case of peak oversupply. In a scenario without
high electricity consumption and areas with high RES-E storage, global interconnectors were used to handle short
potential [2,3,12,27,28]. The overall benefits of power term variability in generation as well, but as Biberacher
system integration through transmission interconnection mentions “the grid becomes massively oversized”. He
and the ability to utilize distant high RES-E resources furthermore indicates the compatibility of wind energy
are two core aspects underlying the concept of a globally with a global grid due to the lower seasonal and diurnal
interconnected power system1. variability compared to solar-VP, and a core flow of
In this article we describe the process of constructing globally generated electricity (with Australia as main
and simulating a globally interconnected power system exporter) towards load centers in South-East Asia and
model as a proof of concept. An existing European power China.
system model is interconnected to the North-American Aboumahboub and colleagues [30] applied a similar
continent as an intermediate step to the global model, to optimization methodology for a global grid model based
test the methodology and for the purpose of knowledge on 51 nodes of equal geographical size, disregarding
building. Section 2 gives a short review on similar analyses current borders of power systems and its associated
done to date as an indicator of the necessity of this research. generation portfolio’s. The results showed that when
In section 3 we elaborate on the applied methodology for comparing the optimization of an interconnected versus a
building the model. Section 4 includes an overview of non-interconnected scenario of the 51 regions, the overall
lessons learned during early stages of the model building required conventional backup capacity can be reduced by
and highlights implications from modelling results. In the a factor of eight. This highlights the potential of smoothing
final section we discuss future work and the possibilities global generation of VRES by utilizing seasonal and
for engaging with the Global Energy Interconnection diurnal (time-zone differences) variability. Similar to [29],
Development and Cooperation Organization (GEIDCO) the authors highlight the importance of the duality of global
and its members. interconnectors and regional storage, and also indicate the
potential for South-East Asia, China and India to become
2 Literature Review main importers in the global grid context. In a follow-up
study by the same authoring team [31], the importance of a
To date, a number of studies have made efforts to global CO2 price was reviewed in context of CO2 abatement
simulate the global grid in a power system model. Although targets. When allowing the possibility of investment in
these studies show some potential benefits of power system interconnections between the 51 regions, a shift can be
integration towards the global grid, the relatively low nodal seen in the cost-optimal solution from high capacities of
representation [29-32], low technological representation biomass- and gas-based generation to a increasing level
[29,33], limited locational data representation (e.g. lack of wind energy penetration to reach the same abatement
of input data based on actual locational load- or VRES targets.
profiles outside Europe) [29,30,33] and the main focus on By restricting the global supply of solar powered
100% RES modelling [29,30] impose a significant research electricity generation at 2000 TWh by 2030 (approximately
gap surrounding the global grid concept. 7% of 2030 global demand), Ummel [33] attempts to apply
In 1995, Dekker and colleagues [32] attempted to a realistic limit on capacity expansion while optimizing the
simulate a nine region interconnected global grid, yet the deployment of least-cost solar capacity around the globe.
complexity of the optimization problem and the available The author indicates “that there is generally low correlation
modelling software limited the practical implementation at of optimal generating sites and the location of electricity
that time. No further research based on this model has been consumption”, which from an intercontinental perspective
made public since. Biberacher [29] applied a linear least- results in significant flows through interconnections from
the Middle-East and Northern-Africa (MENA) to Europe,
1 Henceforth mentioned as global grid. the Persian-Gulf to India and from Australia to Indonesia.

331
Global Energy Interconnection Vol. 1 No. 3 Aug. 2018

The modelling approach applied in this study is limited EU-REF. A disaggregation approach has been used to
to the least-cost optimization of solar powered generation convert aggregated overall capacities per power plant, per
capacity, other parts of the power system, to supply the country, as given in EU-REF, into generator portfolios
remaining 93% of 2030 demand, are not incorporated in the with standardized characteristics per generator unit. An
simulations. overview of some of these characteristics can be found in
Table 1. Localised hourly profiles for load and VRES are
3 Methodology incorporated based on historical hourly data at country
level. A carbon price of 88€/Tonne CO2 is incorporated
3.1 PLEXOS® Integrated Energy Model
following EU-REF. For more details on the methodology
To realistically simulate the operation of a potential and data assumptions behind the EU model we refer to [10].
future global grid, a unit commitment and economic
dispatch methodology will be applied by means of the Table 1 Sample of Standard Generator Characteristics.
power system modelling tool PLEXOS® Integrated Energy Capacity Min Stable
Model [34]. The PLEXOS software is a market leader Fuel Type Start Cost (€)
(MW) Factor (%)
in large scale power and energy system optimisation and
Biomass and 300 10000 30
is freely available for academic research. XPRESS-MP Waste Fired
is used as the solver. Unit commitment and economic
Derived Gasses 150 12000 40
dispatch within power systems refer to the optimal
Geothermal 70 3000 40
utilization of available power generation capacity to
Heat
match system demand within the simulation period, while
behaving in accordance with the technical constraints and Hydro Lakes 150 0 0

limitations within said power system. The model optimises Hydro Run of 200 0 0
(using linear programming) the dispatch of thermal and River (ROR)
renewable generation and pumped hydro storage. It does Hydrogen 300 5000 40
so subject to operational constraints at hourly resolution Natural Gas 450 80000 40
while holding the installed capacity constant. The model CCGT
seeks to minimise the overall generation cost to meet Natural Gas 100 10000 20
demand, subject to the mix of installed generation fleets OCGT
and their technical characteristics such as ramp rates, start
Nuclear Energy 1200 120000 60
costs, minimum up times etc. This includes operational
Oil Fired 400 75000 40
costs consisting of fuel and carbon costs, and start-up costs
consisting of a fuel offtake at start-up of a unit and a fixed
1
Coal Fired 300 80000 30
unit start-up cost. In these day-ahead market simulations, 1
Also includes lignite-based capacity.
a perfect market is assumed across the globe without
consideration of market power or competitive bidding
practices.
3.3 Connecting the Continents
As a proof of concept, the existing EU model has
3.2 European electricity dispatch model
been expanded and interconnected to a combined European -
The starting point of developing the global grid power North American (NAM, consisting of Canada and the
system model is an existing European electricity dispatch United States) power system model for the 2050 reference
model with hourly temporal resolution (EU-281 + Norway scenario. The purpose of this intermediate step towards a
and Switzerland) as constructed for previous work on the globally interconnected power system model is to validate
implications of the potential future European power system the functionality of the applied methodology and to build
[10]. The European model (EU model) has been developed up relevant knowledge and experience. Thus, potential
using a soft-linking approach to provide additional insights limitations can be identified in an early stage and can be
on the European Commission’s EU 2016 Reference regarded as lessons for the larger project resulting in an
Scenario (EU-REF) [35]. The EU model consists of a overall more efficient process. North America was chosen
single node per country. Furthermore, generator categories due to the availability of generally open access power
as constructed in PLEXOS® for the EU model, also follow system data, especially compared to other regions of the
world.
1 Including the United Kingdom as representing the EU to date. The EU model consists of 30 nodal regions (one per

332
 Maarten Brinkerink et al. Developing a global interconnected power system model

country) in total. The NAM model has been constructed retrieved from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
based on a relatively similar sized nodal representation (FERC) [39]. BA’s per node have been identified based
with 20 nodes in the United States (US) following the on geographical visualizations from the EIA and FERC
identified regions within the National Energy Modelling [40,41], and individual market reports of the BA’s. For this
System (NEMS, three New York NEMS regions combined study it has been assumed that peak loads per node scale
into a single node) as used for the annual energy outlook linearly with the overall increase in load between 2015 and
(AEO) by the U.S. Energy Information Administration 2050. Due to a lack of available transmission capacity data
(EIA) [36,37], and eight nodes in Canada composing of for the US, net transfer capacities (NTC) between nodes
the grid-connected provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, have been determined by assuming that the maximum
Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario, Quebec, hourly flow between BAs during 2015 and 2016, as
Saskatchewan and a combined node of the remaining retrieved through EIA’s data plugin [42], can be seen as
Atlantic regions. Fig. 1 shows an overview of the nodes in representative.
the combined model, together with the relative demand per The reference scenario for the Canadian nodes is based
node for the 2050 reference case. on the projected energy future by the National Energy
The 2050 generator portfolio for the US, nodal fuel Board of Canada [43]. The projected future runs until 2040,
pricing and total demand are based on the reference hence for the purpose of this study, the trends for factors
scenario of the 2017 AEO of the EIA [37,38]. Compared such as generator portfolio’s, overall demand per node
to Europe, fuel prices in the AEO for coal and gas are and fuel prices have been extrapolated to 2050. Contrary
significantly lower. An overview of fuel and carbon to the US in the AEO, carbon pricing is introduced in the
pricing for all regions can be seen in Table 2. Load profiles projected energy future scaling to C$50/Tonne CO2 by
for different US nodes are developed by combining 2022 (€32.8/Tonne CO2, €1 - C$ 1.525) and remaining
and scaling historical (mostly 2015) load profiles of the steady afterwards, equaling an inflation adjusted carbon
relevant balancing authorities (BA) within each node, as price of €18/Tonne CO2 by 2050.

Fig. 1 Nodal representation of the combined 2050 EU-NAM power system model. Relative demand per node is showcased by
a colour scheme ranging from dark blue (EU-LT 11 TWh) to dark red (EU-DE 663 TWh). The map is cropped horizontally for
visibility reasoning, the interconnector between EU-FR and US-SRVC stretches approximately 6000 km. Red sections in US-
MROE are part of balancing authorities in US-RFCW.

333
Global Energy Interconnection Vol. 1 No. 3 Aug. 2018

Table 2 Overview fuel- and carbon pricing per region for chosen due to their geographical location, relatively large
the 2050 reference model. Applied exchange rate of €1 – size (demand and installed capacity) and its significant
US$1.16 and €1 – CA$1.525. interconnectivities to other nodes in the continents. These
Carbon factors influence the possibility for trade. Incremental
Coal price Gas price Oil price
Region/Node
(€/GJ) (€/GJ) (€/GJ)
price losses of 15% for transmission and conversion are applied on
(€/Tonne) the interconnection, assuming a near 6000 km transmission
Canada 2.49 3.71 11.77 18 distance, as well as wheeling charges of €4/MWh.
Europe 4.1 11.08 18.5 88

US-CAMX 1
2.24 5.38 22.93 0
4 Preliminary results and lessons learned
US-ERCT1 2.19 5.34 20.90 0 This section showcases some early stage results
US-RFCW 1
2.15 5.74 22.30 0 of the possible functionality of a transcontinental
US-SRSE 1
2.49 5.35 21.99 0 interconnector between Europe and North America. It
1 furthermore highlights the experiences to date regarding
US-SRVC 2.75 5.70 18.47 0
1
the development of a global interconnected power system
The AEO incorporates region specific fuel prices for the different US
regions depending on accessibility to fuels and regional policies. Pricing
model. By no means are these early stage results definitive,
for other US nodes fall within the range of the above sample. they are incorporated to support the proof of concept.

4.1 E urope – North America interconnector

Historical hourly load profiles for the different nodes are
utilization
retrieved from the relevant system operators through online
data portals [44–48] and personal communication (L. St- Due to the longitudinal direction of the interconnector,
Laurent, Hydro Quebec, 12-02-2018 – B. Owen, Manitoba multiple time-zones are covered when bridging the
Hydro, 01-12-2017 – R. Mall, SaskPower, 21-12-2017), continents. This affects the match in absolute time of
and scaled to expected 2050 values. Gas and oil fuel prices occurrence of factors such as peaks in load and variable
are based on the NEB, yet coal prices are not included in generations (especially solar-PV). An example of this
the study. Hence to retain uniformity, an averaged coal fuel is visualized in Fig. 2, showcasing the load profiles of
price based on the AEO is incorporated for the Canadian 100
nodes. Interregional transmission capacities and cross-
border transmission capacities towards the US are retrieved 90

from the market reports of the Canadian system operators.

GW load

80
For the purpose of testing the methodology in the 2050
reference scenario, a uniform increase of 25% of NTC 70

has been applied for all existing transmission pathways 60

between nodes in North America compared to the reference 08/01 08/01 09/01 09/01 10/01 10/01 11/01
00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00
2015 values.
Localised hourly wind and solar profiles for the North Date Time (UTC)

American nodes are retrieved from the Renewables Ninja EU-DE US-RFCW

database [49,50] (https://www.renewables.ninja/). A 100

single locational sample pattern per node for the 2015
90
meteorological year is taken to capture the diversity in
80
profiles. A more detailed approach will be applied in a later
GW load

stage to incorporate geographical differences within nodal 70

regions. All hourly profiles, both for VRES as well as 60

load, have been centred around UCT. This means that the 50
first hourly timestep is set at UCT 12 AM and all profiles 04/07 04/07 05/07 05/07 06/07 06/07 07/07
00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00
shifted accordingly depending on the longitudinal time-
zone differences. Date Time (UTC)

For this proof of concept study, the European and EU-DE US-RFCW

North American systems are interconnected by a 5 GW Fig. 2 Impact of longitudinal time-zone differences on match in
intercontinental interconnection linking the EU-FR and load profiles between EU-DE (UTC +1) and US-RFCW
US-SRVC nodes, as shown in figure 1. These nodes are (UTC-5) during three days in January (Top) and July (bottom)

334
 Maarten Brinkerink et al. Developing a global interconnected power system model

Fig. 3 Hourly utilization of the 5 GW EU-NAM interconnector in the 2050 reference model. Positive flow is in the European
direction, negative flow is in the North American direction

Germany (EU-DE) and US-RFCW as the nodes with the 40 100%

highest demand in 2050 in both continents (EU-DE 663 35

TWh, US-RFCW 608 TWh). The six-hour time-zone 30
80%

difference between both nodes causes peaks in demand to 25 60%

CF and FLH
occur on different timesteps during the diurnal cycles. The TWh Flow
20
graph shows that in some cases, peaks in one continent
15 40%
partially coincide with off-peak hours on the other
continent. This indicates the potential benefit of utilizing 10
20%
intercontinental interconnectors for trade by dispatching 5

low-cost generators on either side of the link, especially 0 0%

considering the total time-zone span of between UTC +2 in REF 18 45 65 88 0

Eastern Europe and UTC -8 at the west coast of North America. Flow -->EU Flow -->US FLH CF
The utilization of the EU-NAM interconnector within Fig. 4 Interconnector utilization under different carbon
the context of this study is visualized in Fig. 3. The price assumptions. Scenario names are based on applied
vast majority of flow in the 2050 reference scenario is carbon pricing in North America per scenario; REF (EU €88/
oriented towards Europe, with a total flow of 39.2 TWh Tonne CO2, CA €18/Tonne CO2, US €0/Tonne CO2), 18 (EU
in the European direction and only 2.5 TWh towards 88, NAM 18), 45 (EU 88, NAM 45), 65 (EU 88, NAM 65), 88
North America. Overall, the interconnector has a capacity (EU 88, NAM 88), 0 (EU 0, NAM 0).
factor (CF) of just above 95.3% with occurrence of full
load hours (FLH) during 91.8% of the year. Due to the Based on this graph several important observations can
almost constant transmission congestion, impact of the be made. Firstly, the incremental carbon price has limited
interconnector on balancing market prices between both impact on the flow direction when compared to the REF
nodes (and continents) is limited. The high utilization of scenario, until it reaches €88/Tonne CO2 in both continents.
the interconnector all year round indicates that the impact Overall utilization of the interconnector decreases with
of diurnal or seasonal variability on the size of flow is increasing carbon prices in North America, due to lower
limited. The main driver for the flow towards Europe can price differentials in SRMC between power plants on both
be allocated to the significantly lower short run marginal continents. The significant increase in export towards
costs (SRMC) for thermal based generation capacity in North America in the €88/Tonne CO2 scenario results from
North America, mostly due to lower applied fuel and displacement of coal fired power plants (coal and lignite)
carbon pricing compared to Europe as indicated in Table 2. and open cycle gas turbines (OCGT) in North America in
Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGT) and coal power favor of CCGTs in Europe following a shift in the merit
plants in North America are often dispatched before similar order of the combined market. When carbon pricing is
plants in Europe to supply the European market. To assess omitted from the model, as shown in the €0/Tonne CO2
the sensitivity of these elements, multiple alternative scenario, the majority of flow remains oriented towards
scenarios are simulated with incremental carbon prices for Europe. Considering the setup of power plant portfolios
North America, gradually increasing towards European in both continents, as shown in table A1 in the appendix,
levels. The results can be seen in Fig. 4. with Europe incorporating significantly higher penetration

335
 Global Energy Interconnection Vol. 1 No. 3 Aug. 2018

of VRES, this is counter-intuitive. It indicates that carbon in NA is limited to a supply of 860 TWh for the total 2050
pricing is not the only impacting factor in this reference demand of 5373 TWh (16% RES-E penetration). The
scenario, but that also the differences in baseload (US higher RES-E penetration in Europe allows for dispatch of
much more coal capacity) and differences in fuel pricing cost-efficient unused thermal capacity for export purposes
are of paramount importance. The impact of fuel pricing on towards North America. Depending on the carbon pricing,
the interconnector utilization is visualized in Fig. 5, where this can either be CCGT capacity or coal fired, next to
the original scenarios as assessed in Fig. 4 (REF, 0 and 88) available nuclear baseload in EU-FR during periods of high
are compared to scenarios with similar carbon pricing but VRES generation. From a North American viewpoint, the
with standardized fuel prices for all regions based on the RES-E capacity in North America in this reference model
reference EU fuel prices. is not sufficient to stimulate bidirectional utilization of the
interconnector by making use of seasonal- or diurnal time-
45 100% zone differences. That said, the high overall CF do indicate
40 that there is potential for an EU-NAM interconnector.
35 80% This is supported by findings in other studies [25,51].
30 Determining the market revenues and investment costs
60%
TWh Flow

25 CF would be the next step to assess the viability in more detail.

20
40%
This section shows the sensitivity of market elements
15 on intercontinental interconnector utilization. Yet it is
10 20% safe to say that the indicated unilateral export of emission
5
intensive power from the US towards Europe in the
0 0%
reference scenario, without appropriate carbon pricing,
REF REF 0 0 (EU) 88 88
(EU) (EU) would never be acceptable in a real market environment.
The sensitivity and importance of clear market rules for
Flow -->EU Flow -->US CF
interconnecting different regions are commonly raised
Fig. 5 Interconnector utilization under different fuel
points of interest, especially in context of intercontinental
and carbon price assumptions. REF, 0 and 88 scenarios
interconnectors and the global grid concept [14,28,52,53].
incorporate incremental carbon pricing with reference
continental (or nodal in case of US) specific fuel pricing For further development of the global interconnected
following table 2. REF (EU), 0 (EU) and 88 (EU) scenarios model, it is crucial to assess the functionality and economic
incorporate incremental carbon pricing with standardized utility of the global grid in a variety of possible future
fuel pricing based on the reference European fuel prices. pathways of the power systems worldwide. This will be
captured by constructing a global reference model based on
The flow dynamics on the interconnector within the current policies and developments, as well as a variety of
REF scenario with standardized European fuel prices (REF realistic mitigation scenarios.
(EU)) are relatively similar to the baseline REF scenario.
4.2 Data availability
Although the differences in SMRC’s on both continents are
reduced, the lack of carbon pricing in the US alone remains The decision to initially use a combined EU-NAM
sufficient to cost-efficiently supply the European market. power system model as an intermediate step towards the
Yet, when considering scenarios with equal carbon pricing global model is due to the availability of detailed power
and equal standardized fuel prices (0 (EU) and 88 (EU)) system data for both continents. To expand the model
the market situation changes drastically. The interconnector further to the global scale, a combination of approaches to
in both scenarios is almost fully utilized for trade in the retrieve necessary data must be utilized, since open-access
direction of North America, with total yearly unidirectional data for other regions in the world is not always available.
flows of around 41 TWh. Overall interconnector CF’s of Hourly load data can in some cases be accessed
above 97% are reached. The main reason for the consistent through data portals of representative system operators
flow towards North America relates to the relatively (e.g. Australia [54], Japan [55], Mexico [56] and Russia
high penetration of RES-E in Europe and the strong [57]). Secondly, it might be possible to retrieve profiles
interconnectivity between European countries which allows from system operators through personal communication,
for coordinated export of low carbon power. Within the as has been done for this study for some of the Canadian
88 (EU) scenario, the RES-E capacity in Europe is able to provinces. Yet, it is unlikely that this is accomplishable for
supply 1345 TWh for the total 2050 demand of 4237 TWh all regions in the world since it’s a time-intensive process.
(31.7% RES-E penetration), whereas the RES-E capacity Furthermore, operators are not always willing to make data

336
 Maarten Brinkerink et al. Developing a global interconnected power system model

publicly accessible. An alternative approach would be to with the previously constructed 2015 European and North
make use of existing profiles of relatively similar regions American reference models in PLEXOS®.
(e.g. similar sectoral demand distribution or similar climate Final aspect to consider is input data for the existing
zone) by shifting and scaling the profiles based on time- power grid. Power system operators are often protective
zone, total demand and possibly peak demand if available. of grid data, mostly for security reasons, yet also because
This is a commonly used approach in global power system grid data could give insights in operator revenues through
studies [29,30], yet it does limit the accuracy of locational power system modelling which is regarded as sensitive
representation. Decisions regarding the approach will be information [59]. Approaches to recreate transmission
made by balancing time-intensity and data accuracy. Hourly capacities between nodes as used for the NAM model
profiles for VRES will be developed by utilizing historical (using hourly exchange values or market reports) are
locational profiles from the Renewables Ninja database of limited applicability for other regions of the world.
[49,50] (https://www.renewables.ninja/). Samples will be As an alternative, open-access grid databases such as
taken based on a raster approach with fixed dimensions OpenStreetMap (openstreetmap.org) can be utilized to
(e.g. 100 x 100 km) and aggregated to incorporate regional retrieve voltage data for interconnections between nodes.
differences within nodal regions. Profiles will be scaled The voltage data can then be converted into NTC by
based on prospects for technology efficiency, impacting the applying a standardized conversion based on voltage size
hourly capacity factors. and transmission type (AC or DC). Although the final
Generation portfolios for 2050 global grid reference NTC’s will be simplified, it can act as a baseline for the
and mitigation scenarios could potentially be developed 2050 power grid. Recently, Liang [60] introduced an
through two methods. The first approach would be to make initiative focused on the construction of a global database
use of existing scenario studies as developed for different with detailed grid and generation capacity data for over 140
regions in the world, with the AEO, EU-REF and the NEB countries in six continents. In time, this could potentially
energy futures as exemplary studies. Yet, this has two become an important source by linking the database with
disadvantages. Firstly, it is difficult to accurately combine the global grid model in PLEXOS®.
data from multiple studies into one aggregated scenario,
4.3 Computational time (CT)
since assumptions behind the different studies are rarely
in line. For example, portfolios in the studies are often In earlier studies for which global grid models
optimized based on different emission reduction targets, or were utilized, the computational time of these models
different assumptions are incorporated on global learning has been identified as a limiting factor because of the
curves for generation technologies, impacting the cost- mere size and complexity of the unit commitment
optimal capacity expansion per study in a different fashion. and dispatch problem [29,32]. Yet, developments in
Furthermore, existing studies have not incorporated the hardware, software and solver since these studies,
possibility of power exchange between continents or allow for significant reductions in computational time
accessing remote RES-E through global interconnectors. for similar sized problems. Table 3 shows an overview
Hence, applied capacity expansions in these studies are of total computational time for a variety of scenario
not optimized in the context of the global grid concept. runs for the interconnected 2050 reference model with
An alternative approach would be to make use of the different unit commitment optimality’s - determining
capacity expansion function within PLEXOS®. Performing how integers are treated in the unit commitment -
optimizations in the global grid context in PLEXOS®, and deviating complexity of the power system.
by allowing capacity expansion of intercontinental
interconnectors and RES-E capacity in distant areas, could Table 3 Computational time in hours (CT) for multiple
overcome the described issues. For this approach a baseline scenario runs in the interconnected 2050 reference model.
reference model is required as a starting point for the Simulations performed with a Dell laptop (I5 processor, 8 GB
RAM, 256 GB SSD) and with Xpress-MP. Results showcase
capacity expansion. The recently published global database
CT for the full 2050 year with hourly timesteps (8760 in total).
of power plants initiated by the World Resources Institute
(WRI) and partners would be an important background 2050 REF CT (hours) CT (hours)
source for this approach [58]. The database currently covers Detailed1 Constrained flow2 Unconstrained flow

62% of global installed capacity at unit level, with expected MIP3 27 25.2
expansion to over 85% in the near future. The capacity at RR 4
5 4.8
unit level can be manually aggregated based on the chosen 5
LP 4.2 3.4
nodal representation for the global model and integrated

337
Global Energy Interconnection Vol. 1 No. 3 Aug. 2018

continue North American models. Once the empty model is created

2050 REF CT (hours) CT (hours) and the input data is retrieved, the model can be populated.
Simplified Constrained flow2 Unconstrained flow A global reference model based on current policies and
MIP3 14 11.8 developments will be developed, as well as a variety of
RR4 1.1 1 realistic mitigation scenarios to assess a global grid in a
5
0.6
variety of potential future pathways.
LP 0.8
1
The Global Energy Interconnection Development and
Includes Pumped Hydro Storage (PHS) and multiple start states for
CCGT’s in the simulation.
Cooperation Organization (GEIDCO) c­ onsists of a broad
2
Flow between EU-FR and US-SRVC through the EU-NA interconnector range of member experts from academia, industry and other
is constrained at 5 GW. associations. Within this community, considerable know-
3
Mixed Integer Programming.
4
Rounded Relaxation. ledge and data regarding the power system and power grid
5
Linear Programming. (e.g. [60]) for areas outside Europe and North America
should be available. For the purpose of constructing the
Depending on the complexity of the problem and the
global model this experience could potentially be utilized,
chosen unit commitment optimality, the CT ranges from
hence active engagement and collaboration with GEIDCO
below an hour to more than a day. Initial scenario runs
and its members is being sought.
while building and testing the global grid model, as also
done for this article, will be done with limited complexity
and rounded relaxation (RR) to limit the CT. Mixed Acknowledgements
Integer Programming (MIP) will only be applied in runs
This work was supported by Energy Exemplar and Science
when quantification of final results is of importance. A CT
of 27 hours for a two-continent model is acceptable for Foundation Ireland (SFI) MaREI centre (12/RC/2302).
now. Yet, when the model will be expanded to the global
context, simulations might potentially be performed on a Appendix A PLEXOS Detailed Equations
high-performance computer or cloud limiting the required Indices
CT. Overall, limitations as a result of CT in context of the
development and utilization of the global grid model are j Generation Unit
expected to be of modest impact. t Time Period
stor Index related specifically to pumped storage unit
5 Discussion and future work RESup Upper Storage Reservoir
RESlow Lower storage Reservoir
The purpose of this paper has been to introduce
Variables
the process of developing and simulating a global
interconnected power system model as a proof of Vjt Integer on/off decision variable for unit j at period t
concept. The work to date has been focused on testing Xjt  Integer on/off decision variable for pumped
the methodology and building up necessary knowledge storage pumping unit j at period t
to realistically simulate the functionality of a possible Ujt  Variable that = 1 at period t if unit j has started
future global grid. Some initial results have been analysed in previous period else 0
to support the viability of the model and the potential Pjt Power output of unit j (MW)
concept in general. Furthermore, key factors influencing Hjt Pump load for unit j period t (MW)
the development of the global interconnected power system Wint Flow into reservoir at time t (MWh)
model are identified, as well as factors influencing the Woutt Flow out of reservoir at time t (MWh)
optimal performance of said model in PLEXOS®. Wt Volume of storage at a time t (MWh)
Going forward, several steps must be taken to construct
Parameters
a usable global model to assess the functionality and
(economic) utility of a global grid. Firstly, decisions must vl Penalty for loss of load (€/MWh)
be made regarding the methodology for retrieving input vs Penalty for Reserve not met
data as well as on the spatial resolution for the different use Unserved Energy (MWh)
continents. A balance will be sought between time intensity usr Reserve not met (MWh)
and data accuracy. After that, in parallel with retrieving the D Demand (MW)
input data, an unpopulated model for all continents needs to obj Objective Function
be constructed based on the template of the European and njt No load cost unit j in period t (€)

338
 Maarten Brinkerink et al. Developing a global interconnected power system model

cjt Start cost unit j in period t (€) 

P jt − P max j .V jt ĸ 0 (5)
mjt Production Cost unit j in period t (€) 
estor Efficiency of pumping unit (%) Max Export Capacity: A units power output cannot be
pmaxj Max power output of a unit j (MW) greater than it maximum export capacity.
pminj Mini stable generation of unit j (MW) P jt − P min j .V jt Ĺ0 (6)
pmpmaxstor Max pumping capacity of pumping unit 
Jj Available units in each generator Minimum Stable Generation: A units output must be
Jstor Number of pumping units greater than it minimum stable generation when the unit is
MRUj Maximum ramp up rate (MW/min) online.
MRDj Maximum ramp down rate (MW/min) H jt − Pmp max Stor . X jt ĸ 0 (7)
MUTj Minimum up time (hrs) 
Ap Number of hours a unit must initially be online Pumping load must be less than maximum pumping
due to its MUT constraint (hrs) capacity for each pumping unit
WINT Initial Volume of reservoir (GWh)
V + X jt ĸ1 where j ∈ stor (8)
W Maximum volume of storage (GWH)  jt
 V j ĸ J j X j ĸ J Stor j ∈ J (9)
Objective Function:
These constraints limit a pumped storage unit from
OBJ = Min ∑∑
t∈T
c jt .U jt + n jt .V jt + m jt .P jt +
pumping and generating at same time.
(1)
vl.use + vs.usr  A p, jĹ V j , t − V j , t −1∀t..t − MUT j − 1 (10)
t t

t − MUT j +1
The objective function in PLEXOS is to minimise the 
start-up cost of each unit (start cost (€)* number of starts of V j , t Ĺ A p, j − ∑
V j , t / MUT j ∀t
(11)

a unit) + the no load cost of each online unit + production t

costs of each online unit + the penalty for unserved load+ Minimum Up Times 1: (Note the following text is
the penalty of unserved reserve. The objective function is directly from the PLEXOS Help files). The variable Ap
minimised within each simulation period. The simulation tracks if any starts have occurred on the unit inside the
solution must also satisfy the constraints below: periods preceding p with a window equal to MUT. i.e. if
no starts happen in the last MUT periods then Ap will be
Energy Balance Equation: zero, but if one (or more) starts have occurred then Ap will


∑∑ P t∈T
jt − H jt + uset = Dt (2)
equal unity. The MUT constraints then set a lower bound
on the unit commitment that is normally below zero, but
Energy balance equation states that the power output when a unit is started, the bound rises above zero until the
from each unit at each interval minus the pump load from minimum up time has expired. This fractional lower bound
pumped storage units for each interval + unserved energy when considered in an integer program forces the unit to
must equal the demand for power at each interval. (Note stay on for its minimum up time.
that line losses can also be included here but is not shown).  A p, j Ĺ V j , t −1 − V j , t ∀t..t − MDT j + 1 (12)
As the penalty for unserved energy is high and part of the 
objective function, the model will generally try to meet  t − MDT j +1

demand.  V j,t ĸ 1 + ∑ t
V j , t / MDT j − A p, j ∀t
(13)

Operation Constraints on Units: Minimum Down Times: The variable Ap tracks if any
Basic operational constraints that limit the operation units have been shut down inside the periods preceding p
and flexibility of units such as maximum generation, with a window equal to MDT. i.e. if no units are shut down
minimum stable generation, minimum up/down times and in the last MDT periods then Ap will be zero, but if one
ramp rates. (or more) shutdown then Ap will equal unity. The MDT
 −V jt + U jt Ĺ−1 ∀t = 1 constraints then set an upper bound on the unit commitment
(3)
 that is normally above unity, but when a unit is stopped, the

V jt − V jt +1 + U jt +1Ĺ0 (4) bound falls below unity until the minimum down time has
These two equations define the start definition of each
unit and are used to track the on/off status of units. 1 PLEXOS Help Files

339
Global Energy Interconnection Vol. 1 No. 3 Aug. 2018

expired. lower reservoir to the upper reservoir. In this set-up there is

 P jt − P j.t −1 − MRU j .V jt − p min j .U j ĸ 0 (14) no inflow and water volume is conserved.
 WtR + Wout.tR − Win.tR = WINT, R
 j .P jt + P jt − P j.t −1 − P jt .( MRD j − p min j ) ĸ0
p min (15)  (16)
∀t = 1, R ∈ RESUp, RESlow
Maximum Ramp up and down constraints: These Wt.RESup + Wout , RESup − Win, RESup = 0
 (17)
constraints limit the change in power output from one time

period to another. estor .H jt.RESup − Win.tRESup = 0 (18)

Water Balance Equations:

 Pstor .t − Wout.t.RESup = 0 (19)
These equations track the passage of water from the

Appendix B
Table B1 Installed capacities (MW) and total load (TWh) 2050 EU-NAM reference model. ‘Other’ nodes are aggregations of
the remaining nodes in the respective country or continent.

Wind Wind Other NG NG Coal Load

Node Hydro1 Solar2 Nuclear Oil
Offshore Onshore RES3 CCGT OCGT Fired4 (TWh)

EU 189513 295194 47448 319081 62837 241726 29131 96199 3367 55210 4237

EU-DE 7170 86141 9369 77180 6756 36754 4672 0 674 24057 663

EU-ES 17158 49359 153 46989 2153 12965 1517 0 782 97 333

EU-FR 26559 45200 6056 51513 6468 30812 4112 32276 625 2892 617

EU-IT 19588 56765 644 25314 6806 40549 4513 0 128 1901 438

EU-UK 1818 11255 16533 24935 18163 41457 4645 17302 339 448 502

EU ‘Other’ 117220 46475 14693 93150 22492 79189 9673 46621 818 25815 1694

CA 92260 7131 0 27508 4714 31345 11999 9838 2485 1172 705

CA-AB 913 368 0 7347 695 16576 6217 0 7 0 107

CA-ON 9978 5916 0 7224 1308 8789 3698 9133 294 0 175

CA-QC 43289 355 0 6781 671 560 31 0 159 0 251

CA 'Other' 38079 491 0 6156 2039 5420 2052 705 2025 1172 171

US 80902 148026 29 186296 16274 374400 213024 76500 8091 159781 4669

US-CAMX 10105 10343 0 21402 6387 16756 12204 0 100 33 295

US-ERCT 457 2031 0 23375 266 64334 32630 4628 27 9891 280

US-RFCW 1638 7350 0 24587 435 38811 27592 10568 456 30300 608

US-SRSE 3760 23370 0 15 210 27627 8919 6942 277 9259 301

US-SRVC 3590 27775 0 1001 914 31858 11573 14686 685 9440 394

US 'Other' 61353 77156 29 115916 8062 195014 120105 39675 6547 100859 2791
1
Includes hydro impoundment and hydro run of river, pumped hydro storage not incorporated in early-stage simulations.
2
Includes concentrated solar power and solar-PV.
3
Includes biomass and waste, geothermal, tidal and wave-based capacity.
4
Also includes lignite-based capacity.

340
 Maarten Brinkerink et al. Developing a global interconnected power system model

References current cables. CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems,

1(2): 9-21
[1] IEA (2017) World Energy Outlook 2017, Paris [18] Barnes M, Hertem D Van, Teeuwsen SP, et al (2017) HVDC
[2] Deng Y, Haigh M, Pouwels W et al (2015) Quantifying a Systems in Smart Grids, Proceedings of the IEEE 105(11): 2082-
realistic, worldwide wind and solar electricity supply. Global 2098
Environmental Change, Vol. 31, pp: 239-252 [19] Kangwa N, Venugopal C, Davidson I (2017) A Review of the
[3] Edenhofer O, Pichs Madruga R, Sokona Y et al (2012) Performance of VSC-HVDC and MTDC Systems. In: 2017
Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation IEEE PES-IAS PowerAfrica. IEEE, pp: 267-273
(Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate [20] Qin X, Zeng P, Zhou Q, et al (2016) Study on the Development
Change). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and Reliability of HVDC Transmission Systems in China.
[4] Jacobson MZ, Delucchi MA, Bauer ZAF et al (2017) 100% In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Power System
Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight All-Sector Technology (POWERCON). IEEE, pp: 1-6
Energy Roadmaps for 139 Countries of the World. Joule [21] Sutton SJ, Lewin PL, Swingler SG (2017) Review of global
1(1):108-121 HVDC subsea cable projects and the application of sea
[5] de Boer HS, van Vuuren D (2017) Representation of variable electrodes. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy
renewable energy sources in TIMER, an aggregated energy Systems, Vol.87, pp: 121-135
system simulation model. Energy Economics Vol. 64, pp: 600- [22] Ardelean M, Minnebo P (2017) JRC science for policy report; A
611 China-EU electricity transmission link; Assessment of potential
[6] Denholm P, Margolis RM (2007) Evaluating the limits of solar countries and routes, Petten
photovoltaics (PV) in traditional electric power systems. Energy [23] EC (2016) EuroAsia Interconnector - Design, Implementation
Policy 35(5): 2852-2861 and Environmental Studies, Brussels
[7] Cochran J, Bird L, Heeter J et al (2012) Integrating Variable [24] Blakers A, Luther J, Nadolny A (2012) Asia Pacific Super
Renewable Energy in Electric Power Markets: Best Practices Grid - Solar electricity generation, storage and distribution.
from International Experience, Summary for Policymakers, Green, 2(4): 189-202
Golden, Colorado [25] Chatzivasileiadis S, Ernst D, Andersson G (2013) The Global
[8] Pierre I, Bauer F, Blasko R et al (2011) Flexible generation: Grid. Renewable Energy, 57: 372-383
Backing up renewables, Brussels [26] Czisch G (2008) Low Cost but Totally Renewable Electricity
[9] Ulbig A, Borsche TS, Andersson G (2014) Impact of low Supply for a Huge Supply Area - a European/Trans-European
rotational inertia on power system stability and operation. In: Example -. In: 4th CLAVERTON ENERGY GROUP
Proceedings of the 19th World Congress The International CONFERENCE -, 24th to 26th October 2008, Bath
Federation of Automatic Control Cape Town, South Africa. [27] IEA (2016) World Energy Outlook 2016, Paris
August 24-29, 2014. IFAC, pp: 7290-7297 [28] Liu Z (2015) Global Energy Interconnection. Elsevier Academic
[10] Collins S, Deane JP, Ó Gallachóir B (2017) Adding value to EU Press
energy policy analysis using a multi-model approach with an [29] Biberacher M (2004) Modelling and optimisation of future
EU-28 electricity dispatch model. Energy 130(1): 433-447 energy system using spatial and temporal methods, Dissertation,
[11] Robinson D (2017) Economic and Geopolitical Determinants University of Augsburg
of Trade in Electricity. In: International Trade in Sustainable [30] Aboumahboub T, Schaber K, Tzscheutschler P et al (2010)
Electricity; Regulatory Challenges in International Economic Optimization of the Utilization of Renewable Energy Sources in
Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp: 54-73 the Electricity Sector. In: EE’10 Proceedings of the 5th IASME/
[12] IEC (2017) Global Energy Interconnection. Geneva WSEAS international conference on Energy & environment,
[13] Bompard E, Fulli G, Ardelean M et al (2014) It’s a Bird, It’s World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society
a Plane, It’s a … Supergrid!; Evolution, Opportunities, and (WSEAS), Wisconsin, pp: 196-204
Critical Issues for Pan-European Transmission. IEEE Power and [31] Aboumahboub T, Schaber K, Wagner U et al (2012) On the CO2
Energy Magazine, Vol.12, Issue 2, March-April 2014 emissions of the global electricity supply sector and the influence
[14] IEA (2016) Large-scale electricity interconnection - Technology of renewable power-modeling and optimization. Energy Policy,
and prospects for cross-regional networks, Paris 42(C): 297-314
[15] Al-Asaad HK (2009) Electricity Power Sector Reform in the [32] Dekker P-M, Meisen P, Bruton AB (1995) THE GENI MODEL:
GCC Region. The Electricity Journal, 22(9): 58-64 The Interconnection of Global Power Resources to Obtain an
[16] Ardelean M, Minnebo P (2015) JRC technical reports; HVDC Optimal Global Sustainable Energy Solution. SIMULATION,
Submarine Power Cables in the World; State-of-the-Art 64(4): 244-253
Knowledge [33] Ummel K(2010) Global Prospects for Utility-Scale Solar Power :
[17] Chen G, Hao M, Xu Z et al (2015) Review of high voltage direct Toward Spatially Explicit Modeling of Renewable Energy

341
Global Energy Interconnection Vol. 1 No. 3 Aug. 2018

Systems. Center for Global Development Working Paper. No. analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 186, pp.: 131-145
235, December 2010 [52] Chatzivasileiadis S, Ernst D (2017) The State of Play in Cross-
[34] Energy Exemplar (2018). https://energyexemplar.com/. Acces- Border Electricity Trade and the Challenges towards a Global
sed 5 May 2018 Electricity Market Environment. In: International Trade in
[35] EC (2016) EU Reference Scenario 2016; Energy, transport and Sustainable Electricity: Regulatory Challenges in International
GHG emissions - Trends to 2050, Brussels Economic Law. Cambridge, pp: 21-45
[36] EIA (2017) The Electricity Market Module of the National [53] Gellings CW (2015) A Globe-Spanning Supergrid. IEEE
Energy Modeling System : Model Documentation 2016, Spectrum, 52(8):48-54
Washington DC [54] AEMO (2018) DATA DASHBOARD. https://www.aemo.
[37] EIA (2017) Annual Energy Outlook 2017, Washington DC com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Market-NEM/Data-
[38] EIA (2017) Annual Energy Outlook 2017; Electricity and dashboard#aggregated-data. Accessed 19 Dec. 2017
Renewable fuel tables (tables 55-58.22). https://www.eia. [55] Mininistry of Economy Trade and Industry Japan (2011) Past
gov/outlooks/archive/aeo17/supplement/excel/sup_elec.xlsx. power demand record (Translated). http://www.meti.‌go.jp/
Accessed 14 Feb. 2018 setsuden/performance.html. Accessed 19 Dec. 2017
[39] FERC (2017) Form No. 714 - Annual Electric Balancing [56] Secretariat of Energy Mexico (2017) Programa de Desarrollo
Authority Area and Planning Area Report. https://www.ferc. del Sistema Eléctrico Nacional; base de datos de demanda
gov/docs-filing/forms/form-714/data/form714-database.zip. horaria. http://base.energia.gob.mx/prodesen/PRODESEN2016/
Accessed 10 Nov. 2017 DemandaHoraria.xlsx. Accessed 22 Dec. 2017
[40] EIA (2018) U.S. Electric System Operating Data; Status Map. [57] SO-CDU UES (2018) Generation and consumption (hours)
https://www.eia.gov/realtime_grid/#/status?end=20170905T00. (Translated). http://www.so-cdu.ru/index.php?id=972&tx_ms1cdu_
Accessed 17 Nov. 2017 pi1%5Bkpo%5D=1019&tx_ms1cdu_pi1%5Bdt%5D=01.01.2015.
[41] FERC (2017) Electric Power Markets: National Overview. Accessed 19 Dec. 2017
https://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/mkt-electric/overview. [58] Byers L, Friedrich J, Hennig R et al (2018) A Global Database
asp. Accessed 17 Nov. 2017 of Power Plants
[42] EIA (2018) API Query Browser. https://www.eia.gov/opendata/ [59] Medjroubi W, Müller UP, Scharf M, et al (2017) Open Data in
qb.php?category=2122632. Accessed 24 Nov. 2017 Power Grid Modelling: New Approaches Towards Transparent
[43] National Energy Board of Canada (2017) Canada’s Energy Grid Models. Energy Reports, Vol.3 pp:14-21
Future 2017; Energy Supply and Demand Projections to 2040. [60] Liang X (2018) Application and research of global grid database
Calgary design based on geographic information. Global Energy
[44] Nova Scotia Power (2018) Hourly total net Nova Scotia load. Interconnection, 1(1): 87-95
http://oasis.nspower.ca/en/home/oasis/monthly-reports/hourly-
total-net-nova-scotia-load.aspx. Accessed 20 Dec. 2017 Biographies
[45] NB Power (2018) System Information Archive. https://tso.
nbpower.com/Public/en/system_information_archive.aspx. Maarten Brinkerink obtained his master
Accessed 20 Dec. 2017 degree in energy and environmental sciences
[46] IESO (2018) Data Directory. http://www.ieso.ca/en/power-data/ in 2017 from the University of Groningen,
data-directory. Accessed 20 Dec. 2017 the Netherlands. He is currently working as a
[47] AESO (2016) 2016 hourly load data. https://www.aeso.ca/ Ph.D. researcher within the MaREI Centre in
market/market-and-system-reporting/data-requests/2016-hourly- University College Cork, Ireland. His research
load-data/. Accessed 20 Dec. 2017 interests lie in energy- and power system
[48] BC Hydro (2018) Historical Transmission Data; LOAD: British modelling, electricity markets and renewables
Columbia. https://www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/operations/ integration. Current focus Of not on Maarten’s Ph.D. centres around the
transmission/transmission-system/balancing-authority-load-data/ dispatch modelling of a global interconnected power system model.
historical-transmission-data.html. Accessed 20 Dec. 2017
[49] Pfenninger S, Staffell I (2016) Long-term patterns of European Dr. Paul Deane is a research fellow
PV output using 30 years of validated hourly reanalysis and specializing in energy and climate policy with
satellite data. Energy, Vol. 114, pp:1251-1265 the MaREI Centre in University College Cork.
[50] Staffell I, Pfenninger S (2016) Using bias-corrected reanalysis His research activities include integrated
to simulate current and future wind power output. Energy. Vol. energy systems modelling to assess whole
114, pp: 1224-1239 system pathways and policies to low carbon
[51] Purvins A, Sereno L, Ardelean M et al (2018) Submarine power futures. Paul is a member of a number of
European multidisciplinary think-tanks and
cable between Europe and North America: A techno-economic

342
 Maarten Brinkerink et al. Developing a global interconnected power system model

scientific advisor to a number of European energy projects. He is an Prof. Brian Ó Gallachóir is Professor
active contributor to European policy thinking on renewable energy. of Energy Engineering in University
College Cork and Vice-Director of UCC’s
Seán Collins is a Science Foundation Environmental Research Institute. He is
Ireland (SFI) funded, Ph.D. researcher of the also Director of the national SFI MaREI
MaREI Centre. His research interests focus Centre, a £48M energy and marine-based
on enabling improved scenario analysis for research, development and innovation hub
power systems in Ireland and the EU-28. This based in Ireland with 200 researchers and 48
involves dispatch modelling and analysis of industry partners. Brian is also elected Chair of IEA’s Technology
the European power system under various Collaboration Programme on energy systems modelling (IEA-
levels of decarbonisation ambition to provide ETSAP). Brian is a member of the Irish Government’s Technical
insights relevant to the development of European energy policy. Research and Modelling (TRAM) Working Group on energy and
climate mitigation.

(Editor Zhou Zhou)

343