Anton Chaushevski Faculty of Electrical Eng.& IT, Sts Cyril and Methodius University - Skopje

1. OPERATING THE NPP WITH HYDRO THERMAL COORDINATION IN A COMPLEX POWER SYSTEM Anton Chaushevski Faculty of Electrical Eng.& IT, Sts Cyril and Methodius University - Skopje Tome Boshevski Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts BgNS Conference, 23-26 September, Troyan, BULGARIA

2. Content • Existing Power System in Macedonia • Future projection of new power plants • Cascade hydropower system on Crna River • Operation of the hydro nuclear complex • Conclusion

3. Existing power system of Macedonia • Lignite TPP – 820 MW, 4500 GWh • Bitola, Oslomej • Gas TPP – 280 MW, 2000 GWh • TE TO, Kogel, Energetika ELEM • Oil TPP – 210 MW, 1200 GWh • Negotino • HYDRO – 580 MW, 1450 GWh

4. Future projection of new power plants • Lignite TPP – 300 MW, 2000 GWh • 1 units x 300 MW • Gas TPP – 500MW, 3000 GWh • 2 units • Nuclear – up to 1000 MW, 8000 GWh • HYDRO – near 1000 MW, 2300 GWh • Renewable (up to 400 GWh) • Small HPP 60 MW • Wind 150 MW • PV 20 MW

5. Future projection of new power plants 400 kV line

6. Model of reversible HPP Energy for pumping Pumping water Turbine mode Generation Pumping mode Motor

7. Simulation of power system operation after 2020 • Yearly Demand of 13000 GWh • Existing TPP Bitola and Gas power plants • New CHP on gas • Existing HPP • New HPP, Lukovo pole, Boskov Most, Gradec • HPP Cebren, HPP Galiste • (conventional or reversible HPP) Scenario • Without Nuclear Power • With Nuclear Power Plant

8. Cascade hydropower system on Crna River

9. Technical parameters of hydro power plants on Crna river • Simulation cases ( Scenario – without NUCLEAR option) • Case 1: Both, Cebren and Galiste are conventional HPP • Case2: Cebren is reversible HPP, Galiste is conventional HPP • Case3: Both, Cebren and Galiste are reversible HPP

10. Comparing the cases operating regimes in a year ( GWh) • Daily Operation of Reversible HPP • Pumping in 7 hours ( 1-7) • Generation in 17 hours ( 8-24)

11. Comparing Energy and Financials Energy = Generation - │ Pumping │ Financial = Generation - 0,5 x │Pumping │

12. Conventional HPP (Both Cebren and Galiste) Reversible HPP (Both Cebren and Galiste) Covering the peak demand

13. Case – no Nuclear and both Cebren and Galiste are reversuble HPP • Case- Both, Cebren and Galiste are reversible HPP • Coal TPP Bitola, Gas CHP and Import ( Demand and Pumping)

14. Case of Reversible HPP, both Cebren and Galiste Demand and Pumping Power Plant Production

15. Import for Pumping 750 GWh CEBREN pumping – 550 GWh GALISTE pumping – 400 GWh

16. Simulation of Scenario – with Nuclear Power Plant of 1000 MW) • Case- Both, Cebren and Galiste are reversible HPP • Instead of TPP Bitola and Import – Nuclear Power Plant

17. Simulation of Scenario – with Nuclear Power Plant of 1000 MW) Winter Week Summer Week

18. Comparison of base load - No Nuclear and NPP option Coal + Import 6400 GWh Nuclear NPP 6800 GWh

19. Conclusion • Location of Mariovo region has advantages for NPP • Good grid connection on 400 kV • Hydro nuclear complex of Cebren and Galiste with NPP • Reversible HPP is the appropriate solution for the complex • Using the storage capacities for hydro energy and NPP cooling needs • Enough water (20 mill m3 /y) for cooling tower of NPP 1000 MW • Additional peak energy with reversible HPP Cebren and Galiste (high tariff of selling) • Base load capacity of NPP can be use for pumping regime (low tariff of buying) • Financial benefit with managing the operation of the hydro – nuclear complex