Network LossesRoman Targosz, PCPM, cem@miedz.org.pl Webinar April 11, 2008
Introduction                                                                      Country / region                        ...
Country / Region                  Electricity net          T&D losses                    Distribution            Effective...
Classification of network losses   The recorded losses can be broken down into three main categories: • Variable losses, o...
Network losses components based onOFGEM                www.le o nard o-e ne rgy.org
Losses – types based on OFGEM                www.le o nard o-e ne rgy.org
Network losses components – case of Poland                                                                                ...
case of Poland – continued                                                                              100,00%   62,58%  ...
Network losses components                www.le o nard o-e ne rgy.org
0,1                                                         0,2                                                           ...
0,00%                                                  2,00%                                                          4,00...
0,00%                                                           5,00%                                                     ...
T&D losses evolution based on OFGEM 2003                                           T&D losses %         Country         19...
-3,00%                                        -2,50%                                                 -2,00%               ...
Improving system efficiency               AVAILABILITY        LOAD    OF SYSTEM            GENERATION                     ...
Energy policies and measures    There are different possibilities how to categorise policy instruments. The UNFCCC guideli...
Treatment of network losses in the currentnational regulatory schemes    In general, electricity Distribution System Opera...
Specific incentives within regulationscheme Real incentives were only found in Great Britain, where the price control incl...
Network losses – are they addressed by policiesand measures? general cross-cutting policies and measures having an impact ...
Extra losses due to harmonics                 www.le o nard o-e ne rgy.org
Distributed Generation versus network losses •   The conclusions from many studies are that the view of Distributed     Ge...
Conclusion  Only part of network losses are   controllable or justifiable  Current regulation schemes (price or   revenu...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Network Losses

2,910 views

Published on

Published in: Economy & Finance, Business
1 Comment
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,910
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
130
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
200
Comments
1
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Network Losses

  1. 1. Network LossesRoman Targosz, PCPM, cem@miedz.org.pl Webinar April 11, 2008
  2. 2. Introduction Country / region Electricity Network Network use (TWh) losses losses (TWh) (%) Europe 3 046 222 including Western Europe 2 540 185 7,3 Former Soviet Union 1135 133 11,7 North America 4293 305 7,1 World Latin America 721 131 Including Brazil 336 61 18,3Japan, Australia and NZ Azia 3 913 381 including: Japan 964 44 4,6 EU 15 Australia & New Zeland 219 21 9,5 China 1 312 94 7,2 OECD North America India 497 133 26,7 Africa and Middle East 826 83 10,0 China TOTAL 13 934 1215 8,8 Middle East Africa Indonesia Russia Mexico Brazil India 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% www.le o nard o-e ne rgy.org
  3. 3. Country / Region Electricity net T&D losses Distribution Effective efficiency Efficiency at production 2002 transformer 50% load International losses Energy Annual 2002 - IEAUSA 3802 TWh 230 TWh)1* 140 TWh)2* 97,22%)3* 98,4%Rest of North America - Mexico, 782 TWh ~60 TWh)*4CanadaEU 25 2747 TWh 201 TWh)[15] 55 TWh) 5* 96,59%)5* 98,79%)5*Other Europe Western and 503 TWh ~20 TWh 8 TWh)7* ~97%)7*EasternRussia 833 TWh ~95 TWhUkraine and other FSU countries 326 TWhJapan 989 TWh 32 TWh (6 TWh in the form of no load loss)Australia 196 TWh 21,8 TWh 5,4 TWh )[13] 96,8% 97,7% 5,35 TWh 97% 97,9% 4,41 TWh 97,5% 98,4%China 1300 TWh ~90 TWh 55 TWh)7*India 524 TWh ~130 TWh 6,4 TWh)6*Rest of Asia 947 TWhBrazil 343 TWh ~65 TWhOther Central and South America 439 TWhMiddle East 442 TWh ~40 TWhAfrica 422 TWh ~45 TWhTotal 14 594 TWh 1342 TWh 980 TWh identified *1 6,05% of total generation *2 61 TWh utility , 79% non utility *3 reversed calculation,- 98,4% base efficiency corrected by 74% of load responsibility factor *4 Mexico 194 TWh x 14% + Canada 588 TWh x 6% *5 distribution transformers account for 2% nard o-e ne rgy.org www.le o of electricity generated, efficiencies based on AA’ type as base case – [8] *6 Only for transformers up to 200 kVA ratings *7 ECI estimates
  4. 4. Classification of network losses The recorded losses can be broken down into three main categories: • Variable losses, often referred to as copper losses, occur mainly in lines and cables, but also in the copper parts of transformers and vary in the amount of electricity that is transmitted through the equipment. • Fixed losses, or iron losses, occur mainly in the transformer cores and do not vary according to current. Both variable and fixed losses are technical losses, in the sense that they refer to units that are transformed to heat and noise during the transmission and therefore are physically lost. • Nontechnical losses, on the other hand, comprise of units that are delivered and consumed, but for some reason are not recorded as sales. They are lost in the sense that they are not charged for by neither the suppliers nor distribution businesses. Variable losses on a network are approximately proportional to the square of the current. This means that, for a given capacity, an 1 per cent increase in load will increase losses by more than 1 per cent. Therefore, greater utilisation of the network’s capacity has an adverse impact on losses. Consequently, there is a trade-off between the cost of financing surplus capacity and the cost of losses. By increasing the cross sectional area of lines and cables for a given load, losses will fall. It is clear that this leads to a direct trade-off between cost of losses and cost of capital expenditure. An appropriate investment decision would reflect a minimum life-cycle cost of assets, including both the capital costs and the cost of losses. It has been suggested that optimal average utilisation rate on a distribution network that considers the cost of losses in its design could be as low as 30%. www.le o nard o-e ne rgy.org
  5. 5. Network losses components based onOFGEM www.le o nard o-e ne rgy.org
  6. 6. Losses – types based on OFGEM www.le o nard o-e ne rgy.org
  7. 7. Network losses components – case of Poland % Part Network Losses I, II, III I + II I + II + III Counters 4,07% 2,55% 2,06% Leakage LV 0,06% 0,03% 0,02% Feeder LV 1,91% 1,19% 0,96% Load LV lines & cables 21,91% 14,07% 11,09% Capacitors LV 0,13% 0,08% 0,07% Iron MV/LV transformers 13,78% 8,63% 6,99% Copper MV/LV transformers 6,75% 4,22% 3,43% I Leakage MV 1,28% 0,80% 0,65% Load MV lines & cables 31,67% 19,47% 16,08% Capacitors MV 0,15% 0,10% 0,08% Iron MV/MV transformers 0,44% 0,28% 0,22% Copper MV/MV transformers 0,14% 0,08% 0,07% Commercial systematic 20,47% 12,80% 10,46% LV + MV Commercial recorded -2,76% -1,72% -1,40% source: Politechnika Czestochowska www.le o nard o-e ne rgy.org
  8. 8. case of Poland – continued 100,00% 62,58% 50,78% Leakage 110 kV 1,44% 0,54% 0,44% Load 110 kV 85,37% 31,94% 25,90% Capacitors 110 kV 1,22% 0,46% 0,37% II Iron 110/MV transformers 9,54% 3,57% 2,89% Copper 110/MV transformers 3,73% 1,40% 1,13% 110 kV Commercial 110 kV -1,30% -0,49% -0,39% 100,00% 37,42% 30,34% Load - lines 220 kV 32,64% 6,21% Leakage - lines 220 kV 4,98% 0,94% Corona - lines 220 kV 5,25% 0,99% Load - lines 400 kV 12,70% 2,39% Leakage - lines 400 kV 8,35% 1,57% Transmission Corona - lines 400 kV 23,85% 4,50% III system Iron 400/220 kV autotransformers 0,92% 0,17% Copper 400/220 kV autotransformers 0,41% 0,07% Iron 400/110 kV autotransformers 2,93% 0,55% Copper 400/110 kV autotransformers 0,89% 0,16% Iron 220/110 kV autotransformers 5,20% 0,98% Copper 220/110 kV autotransformers 1,88% 0,35% 100,00% 18,88% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% www.le o nard o-e ne rgy.org
  9. 9. Network losses components www.le o nard o-e ne rgy.org
  10. 10. 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 0 EU 2 AU 5 S TR BE IA LG IU M C YP R C ZE D C EN H M transformers A R ES K TO NI FI A N LA N FR D AN G C ER E M AN G Y RE E C HU E N G A IR R EL AN D IT AL Y LA TV IA LI TH U A τ LU Ts βs XE M B M ALwww.le o nard o-e ne rgy.org TA N ET H ER PO L Average load calculated LA N PO D R TU G SL O VA K SL Loading characteristics of distribution O VE N SP AI SW N ED EN U K
  11. 11. 0,00% 2,00% 4,00% 6,00% 8,00% 10,00% 12,00% 14,00% 16,00% 18,00% EU25 AUSTRIA BELGIUM CYPR CZECH DENMARK ESTONIA FINLAND FRANCE GERMAN T&D losses – EU25 GREECE HUNGAR IRELAND ITALY T&D losses EU25 LATVIA LITHUAwww.le o nard o-e ne rgy.org LUXEMB MALTA NETHERL POLAND PORTUG SLOVAK SLOVEN SPAIN SWEDEN UK NORWAY
  12. 12. 0,00% 5,00% 10,00% 15,00% 20,00% 25,00% EU (25) Austria Belgium Cyprus Czech Republic Denominator? Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy related to net generation Latvia related to final consumption Lithuaniawww.le o nard o-e ne rgy.org Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Final consumption or net generation? Portugal Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Norway
  13. 13. T&D losses evolution based on OFGEM 2003 T&D losses % Country 1980 1990 1999 2000 Finland 6.2 4.8 3.6 3.7 Netherlands 4.7 4.2 4.2 4.2 Belgium 6.5 6.0 5.5 4.8 Germany 5.3 5.2 5.0 5.1 Italy 10.4 7.5 7.1 7.0 Denmark 9.3 8.8 5.9 7.1 UnitedStates 10.5 10.5 7.1 7.1 Switzerland 9.1 7.0 7.5 7.4 France 6.9 9.0 8.0 7.8 Austria 7.9 6.9 7.9 7.8 Sweden 9.8 7.6 8.4 9.1 Australia 11.6 8.4 9.2 9.1 UnitedKingdom 9.2 8.9 9.2 9.4 Portugal 13.3 9.8 10.0 9.4 Norway 9.5 7.1 8.2 9.8 Ireland 12.8 10.9 9.6 9.9 Canada 10.6 8.2 9.2 9.9 Spain 11.1 11.1 11.2 10.6 NewZealand 14.4 13.3 13.1 11.5 Average 9.5 9.1 7.5 7.5 EuropeanUnion 7.9 www.le o nard o-e ne rgy.org 7.3 7.3 7.3
  14. 14. -3,00% -2,50% -2,00% -1,50% -1,00% -0,50% 0,00% 0,50% 1,00% EU25 Trend AUSTRIA BELGIUM CYPR CZECH DENMARK ESTONIA FINLAND FRANCE GERMAN GREECE HUNGAR IRELAND ITALY LATVIA LITHUAwww.le o nard o-e ne rgy.org LUXEMB MALTA NETHERL T&D losses EU25 - annual changes between 1999-2004 POLAND PORTUG SLOVAK SLOVEN SPAIN SWEDEN UK NORWAY
  15. 15. Improving system efficiency AVAILABILITY LOAD OF SYSTEM GENERATION PROCEDURE COMPONENTS MINIMUM POWER DEMAND SYSTEM CONFIGURATION POWER FLOW SHORT-CIRCUIT CALCULATION CALCULATION (SYSTEM LOSS) SHORT-CIRCUIT NO NO SYSTEM LOSS LIMITS MINIMUM OK YES LOW LOSS CONTINGENCY SYSTEM CALCULATION CONFIGURATION CONTINUITY OF NO SUPPLY OK www.le o nard o-e ne rgy.org
  16. 16. Energy policies and measures There are different possibilities how to categorise policy instruments. The UNFCCC guidelines for reporting distinguish between the following types of policies and measures:• economic• fiscal• voluntary/negotiated agreements• regulatory• information• education• research• other Another possibility to differentiate between policies and measures (EU-IEE project www.aid-ee.org):• legislative / normative• legislative / informative• financial• fiscal/tariffs• information, education, training• co-operative measures• infrastructure• social planning / organisational• cross-cutting (with or without sector-specific characteristics; e. g., market-based instruments, general energy efficiency or climate change programmes)• non-classified policies and measures. www.le o nard o-e ne rgy.org
  17. 17. Treatment of network losses in the currentnational regulatory schemes In general, electricity Distribution System Operators (DSO) have to document and report network losses to the national regulatory authorities. However, the degree of particularity of reporting required differs between countries. Besides reporting on losses, network losses are treated differently in the different regulatory schemes. The following options can be observed in practice:• No limits set for inclusion of loss costs in tariffs – In several countries, there are no limits set for inclusion of loss costs in tariffs at all: France, Poland, Spain, Germany (but requirement to tender for price of energy to cover energy losses) and Norway – In these countries, loss costs are outside the cap, which is a real disincentive to investment in energy efficiency.• Grid losses within general caps – In few countries, grid losses are subject to the general price cap: Denmark, Hungary, Lithuania. However, not all network losses can be influenced by the electricity distribution company.• Maximum values for inclusion of loss costs in tariffs – In some countries, maximum values for amount and/or price to limit network losses exist; costs for exceeding losses have to be paid for by each company itself. – Austria and Sweden calculate additionally individual maximum values for the amount of loss energy for each company. In Austria actions leading to lower losses can be approved in the regulatory process. – In Estonia, the regulatory authority reduces the annually acknowledged amount of losses from one regulatory period to the next (current period 8%, next period 7%). – If companies in Austria, Estonia and Sweden exceed the given limits, they have to cover resulting additional costs from their profit margin. – In Germany, the national regulatory authority has benchmarks for network losses at its disposal, but has not applied them yet in the current regulation scheme. www.le o nard o-e ne rgy.org
  18. 18. Specific incentives within regulationscheme Real incentives were only found in Great Britain, where the price control includes an incentive on losses. For every MWh of losses excess over a target rate, the distribution network operator (DNO) is penalised or rewarded by £48/MWh (in 2004/05 prices) (based on information from National Regulatory Authority, OFGEM, 2007). www.le o nard o-e ne rgy.org
  19. 19. Network losses – are they addressed by policiesand measures? general cross-cutting policies and measures having an impact Generators efficiency on energy efficiency on the demand-side by generally altering Low carbon technologies price ratios: energy/CO2 tax, emissions trading, sustainable subsidy reform energy efficiency programmes and services specifically Energy end use: appliances, buildings, targeting relevant market actors, a field of application or an systems energy-efficient technology (e. g., financial incentive Network losses marginally programmes, information campaigns, energy audits, training measures, co-operative procurement, demand-side bidding programmes), that can be further stimulated by framework conditions further instruments fostering energy efficiency like product or All energy chain production standards and labels, regulation of natural Opportunity for network losses reduction monopoly segments, spatial planning and other planning instruments like infrastructure planning, R&D support www.le o nard o-e ne rgy.org
  20. 20. Extra losses due to harmonics www.le o nard o-e ne rgy.org
  21. 21. Distributed Generation versus network losses • The conclusions from many studies are that the view of Distributed Generation always reducing network losses is not always valid. • Based on one of the studies for urban and mixed networks it was found that the overall losses are reduced with Distributed Generation presence. For rural networks however, losses again were reduced but started to increase for higher Distributed Generation penetrations. • From many studies the general conclussion is that unitil certain DG penetration level (between 10-20%) network losses fall down and then start to grow. www.le o nard o-e ne rgy.org
  22. 22. Conclusion  Only part of network losses are controllable or justifiable  Current regulation schemes (price or revenue caps, rate of return, benchmarks) do not provide sufficient incentives but rather disincentives for network losses reduction  Network losses are hardly addressed in existing EU policies and measures www.le o nard o-e ne rgy.org

×