WAT1 (WALLS ARE THIN1) defines a novel auxin transporter in plants and integrates auxin signaling in secondary wall formation in Arabidopsis fibers

International audienceWAT1 (WALLS ARE THIN1) defines a novel auxin transporter in plants and integrates auxin signaling in secondary wall formation in Arabidopsis fibers. IUFRO Tree Biotechnology Conference 2011: From Genomes to Integration and Deliver

Electricity, Heat, and Gas Sector Data for Modeling the German System

Diese Dokumentation beschreibt Daten zum deutschen Strom- Wärme- und Gassektor und ermöglicht eine modellgestützte Abbildung dieser Energiesysteme. Die Aufbereitung der Daten erfolgte im Rahmen des vom BMWi geförderten Forschungsprojekts LKD-EU (Langfristige Planung und kurzfristige Optimierung des Elektrizitätssystems in Deutschland im europäischen Kontext, FKZ 03ET4028C). In Zusammenarbeit mit dem Deutschen Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW), der Arbeitsgruppe Wirtschafts- und Infrastrukturpolitik (WIP) der Technischen Universität Berlin (TUB), dem Lehrstuhl für Energiewirtschaft (EE2), der Technischen Universität Dresden (TUD) und dem House of Energy Markets & Finance der Universität Duisburg-Essen (UDE). Ziel des Dokumentes ist es, Referenzdaten zur Verfügung zu stellen, die den aktuellen Zustand des deutschen Energiesystems repräsentieren. Das Bezugsjahr ist 2015. Diese Dokumentation trägt dazu bei, die Transparenz in der Verfügbarkeit von Daten zum deutschen Energiesystem zu erhöhen.This data documentation describes a data set of the German electricity, heat, and natural gas sectors compiled within the research project ‘LKD-EU’ (Long-term planning and short-term optimization of the German electricity system within the European framework: Further development of methods and models to analyze the electricity system including the heat and gas sector). The project is a joined effort by the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin), the Workgroup for Infrastructure Policy (WIP) at Technische Universität Berlin (TUB), the Chair of Energy Economics (EE2) at Technische Universität Dresden (TUD), and the House of Energy Markets & Finance at University of Duisburg-Essen. The project was funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy through the grant ‘LKD-EU’, FKZ 03ET4028A. The objective of this paper is to document a reference data set representing the status quo of the German energy sector. We also update and extend parts of the previous DIW Data Documentation 75 (Egerer et al. 2014). While the focus is on the electricity sector, the heat and natural gas sectors are covered as well. With this reference data set, we aim to increase the transparency of energy infrastructure data in Germany. On the one hand, this documentation presents sources of original data and information used for the data set. On the other hand, it elaborates on the methodologies which have been applied to derive the data from respective sources in order to make it useful for modeling purposes and to promote a discussion about the underlying assumptions. Furthermore, we briefly discuss the underlying regulations with regard to data transparency in the energy sector. Where not otherwise stated, the data included in this report is given with reference to the year 2015 for Germany

KWK-Mindest- und Maximaleinspeisung - die Erzeugung von Zeitreihen für die Energiesystemmodellierung

Die gekoppelte Erzeugung von Strom und Waerme in KWK-Anlagen ist eine der brennstoffeffizientesten Erzeugungsformenim Strommarkt. Aus diesem Grund wird sie in vielen europaeischen Laendern gefoerdert und ihr Ausbau ist erklaertes Ziel von Regierungen und Nichtregierungsorganisationen. Durch die gekoppelte Erzeugung richtet sich der Betrieb nicht allein nach dem Strompreis und der Elektrizitaetsnachfrage, sondern auch nach der lokalen Waermenachfrage und den verfuegbaren Erzeugungseinheiten im Waermenetz. Fuer den KWK-Anlagenbetreiber ergeben sich dadurch Restriktionen fuer die Vermarktung des Stroms im Elektrizitaetsmarkt. Aus dem gleichen Grund ergeben sich Herausforderungen aus Systemsicht: Die Flexibilitaet des Betriebs von KWK-Anlagen, die beispielsweise zum Ausgleich von Prognosefehlern Erneuerbarer Erzeugung genutzt werden kann, ist begrenzt. Das vorliegende Paper gibt einen Kurzueberblick ueber die Modellierung dieser Restriktionen im Kontext der europaeischen Energiesystemmodellierung und traegt somit zum Verstaendnis der Wirkzusammenhaenge und wesentlichen Treiber bei.\n The combined generation of electricity and heat in CHP plants is one of the most resource-efficient types of power generation in the electricity market. Therefore many European countries have implemented support schemes and the further deployment is the declared goal of governments and non-governmental organizations.Through the combined generation of electricity and heat, the operation of CHP plants is not only governed by electricity prices and electricity demand, but also depends on the local heat demand and the available heat generators in the heating grid. For CHP plant operators, this fact entails restrictions for trading the electricity on the electricity market. For the same reason, challenges exist from a system perspective: The operational flexibility of CHP plants, which may be used for e.g. balancing forecast errors of renewable-based generation, is limited. This paper provides a summary of how to model these restrictions in the context of modeling the European energy system. Thus it contributes to understanding the interdependencies of electricity and heating markets and their substantial drivers

Flow-Based Market Coupling Revised - Part I: Analyses of Small- and Large-Scale Systems

By interlinking power systems, significant welfare gains can be achieved. However, different approaches for coupling electricity markets exist. A recent development in this field is the implementation of flow-based market coupling (FBMC) in Central Western Europe (CWE). Indeed, FBMC has proven to be advantageous compared to the former situation in CWE Amprion et al. 2014 and to be operationally manageable under current market conditions. However, analyses of possible future adjustments of market areas ("bidding zones") have shown problems in assessing and even understanding FBMC Entso-E 2018. Therefore, Part I of this two-part paper contributes to resolving these problems. First, it presents key issues and effects of all essential FBMC elements. This is done drawing the feasible regions of the FBMC constraints - a method that is well-known from optimization theory. However, in the way it is applied to FBMC it is novel and offers significant insights. These insights are presented on the basis of a stylized yet fully transparent and reproducible example. Thereby, we improve the understanding of benefits and shortcomings of FBMC. Second, we introduce a large-scale model framework capable of assessing FBMC as implemented in CWE. This enables us to assess real-world power systems - also when undergoing structural changes. This lays the foundation for the case study presented in Part II

Flow-based market coupling: What drives welfare in Europe's electricity market design?

Due to the call for further integration of European markets and the targeted climate goals, both European electricity systems and markets have undergone continuous changes over the last few decades. As part of these developments, the so-called Flow-Based Market Coupling (FBMC) superseded the previous net-transfer-capacity-based approach in Central Western Europe in 2015, aiming at a better representation of physics of the electricity grid as well as increased transparency of market results and procedures. Yet, the market coupling procedures have recently been exposed to criticisms questioning their transparency in aspects such as the determination of FBMC parameters, such as generation shift keys (GSKs) or selected critical branches. At the worst, doubts are even cast on realized welfare increases through FBMC. The paper at hand investigates the FBMC approach by analyzing the market outcomes as well as the corresponding redispatch requirements under different premises and FBMC varieties. Inter alia, results show that different GSK approaches have a significant effect when price zones are well-defined, i.e., when intra-zonal congestion is excluded. In the contrary case, GSK choices have less - or even statistically nonsignificant - impact. Furthermore, we show that FBMC is rather insensitive to forecast deviations of renewables infeed. However, changes to the remaining available margins and the selection of critical branches - as being proposed by regulators and the European Commission, respectively - can severely affect results in terms of redispatch quantities and overall welfare

Flow-Based Market Coupling Revised - Part II: Assessing Improved Price Zones in Central Western Europe

Part I of this two-part paper has presented flow-based market coupling (FBMC), the implicit congestion management method used to couple the CentralWestern European (CWE) electricity markets. It has also introduced a large-scale model framework for FBMC assessments, focusing on modeling the capacity allocation and market clearing processes. The paper at hand lays the focus on the newly developed redispatch model, thereby completing the description of the overall model framework. Furthermore, we provide a case study assessing improved price zone configurations (PZCs) for the extended CWE electricity system. Our case study is motivated by the ineffectiveness of managing congestion of intra-zonal lines described in Part I and by the possibility to reduce their relevance by improved PZCs. The importance of this study is substantiated by the controversial discussions on the currently-existing PZC. Thus, we assess the existing PZC and five novel PZCs determined by a cluster algorithm. Our results show that improved PZCs can reduce redispatch quantities and overall system costs significantly. Notably, we show that substantial improvements are possible when redesigning PZCs while maintaining a similar or slightly increased number of price zones. Moreover, under use of the theoretical considerations in Part I, we explain that increasing the number of price zones may not always increase welfare when using FBMC