In a TCT contract, the grid connection is (administratively) limited at certain times of day or year to unburden the grid at peak times. This new form of contracting raises several questions. The first is whether this is a feasible way of contracting. Besides that, whether profits can easily be increased by placing a battery at the same connection. Those profits are based on the ‘stacked service model’ essential for many battery cases (TCT contracts and conventional contracts). Those stacked services can consist of multiple of the following income sources; increment of SDE+ incomes, providing balancing services for the TSO, and/or trading on the energy markets. In addition to those questions about profits, the optimal battery size had yet to be determined and that determination was of course essential in creating financing plans.
This is a Grid Edge Consulting project. Using simulations to determine the energy production of several new solar parks (Emmen, Wanneperveen, and Heino) and the grid limitations, we could determine a base case scenario that would result in energy losses from 16% up to 21% for the several parks if nothing changed besides the introduction of these new contracts. Pooling a battery on the same connection, however, creates additional revenue streams. We also researched the potential for steering on day-ahead, intraday market, FCR, and imbalance prices.
Based on historical data and grid limitations we found that, in all cases, pooling a battery with the different solar parks resulted in a positive business case. Depending on the layout and setup of the system, as well as the use of the several parks, the returns on these various investments were much shorter than the lifecycle of the batteries. Our proposed setup would increase energy export by up to 9%. Based on those outcomes, Powerfield decided to invest and install batteries at two of these locations. You can read more about those batteries in their press release.