Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
1 Comment
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Transformers

    1. 1. Potentials & Impacts of Energy-Efficient DTs S trategies for development and diffusion of E nergy E fficient D istribution T ransformers January 2006 - June 2008
    2. 2. Fleet * dry type transformer utility popul a tion is estimated at marginal low level (~ 1% of utility fleet) 4% 16% 9% 23% < 400 kVA industry dry       20% 34% 28% 40% ≥ 400 kVA & ≤ 630 kVA 76% 50% 63% 38% > 630 kVA 14 478 25% 16 132 12% 143 904 10% 174 017 4% Total industry dry 57 266 139 628 1 383 988 4 652 172 15 452 27% 38 011 27% 329 569 24% 801 840 17% Total industry oil 52% 16% 52% 16% > 630 kVA 28% 22% 27% 23% ≥ 400 kVA & ≤ 630 kVA 20% 62% 20% 62% < 400 kVA industry oil       27 336 48% 85 486 61% 910 515 66% 3 676 315 79% Total distribution sector 29% 7% 17% 3% > 630 kVA 45% 27% 48% 23% ≥ 400 kVA & ≤ 630 kVA 26% 66% 34% 73% < 400 kVA Distribution sector o il*       MVA pcs MVA pcs Market EU-27   Fleet EU-27          
    3. 3. Fleet detailed
    4. 4. Losses EU27 12 69 Ptotal 3 3402   Ptotal 30,9% ΣPkmark/ ΣPtotal 30,4% ΣPkfleet / ΣPtotal   1 20 ΣPk market 1 129 ΣPk fleet   26 9 ΣPo market 25 89 ΣPo fleet industry dry 26,5% ΣPkmark/ ΣPtotal 28,1% ΣPkfleet / ΣPtotal   95 ΣPk market 21 67 ΣPk fleet   2 64 ΣPo market 5 544 ΣPo fleet industry oil 33,0% ΣPkmark/ ΣPtotal 27,3% ΣPkfleet / ΣPtotal 1 72 ΣPk market 6000 ΣPk fleet   348 ΣPo market 15 973 ΣPo fleet utility oil
    5. 5. Losses detailed
    6. 6. Operating efficiency
    7. 7. Rated losses referred to AC’ (CoCk)
    8. 8. No load losses / age
    9. 9. Load losses / age
    10. 10. Age/ rating
    11. 11. Extra losses <ul><li>The SEEDT calculation indicates level to total distribution transformers losses in EU-2 7 at level of about 33 ,5 TWh. This calculation has however completely ignored two aspects: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Extra losses due to reactive power losses in distribution transformers which have influence on active power losses in the network </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Extra losses due to harmonics (voltage and current distortion) </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Technical conclusion <ul><li>European distribution transformer fleet and market is dominated by traditional technologies. These technologies have certain limits but enable substantial losses reduction when compared to average transformer market efficiency level. </li></ul><ul><li>Within the technology thus far developed there are sufficient measures to produce cost efficient transformers which have both no - load and load losses by about 30% lower than EU average level AC’ according to HD 428. Transformer manufacturers may now very dynamically shape transformer designs to accommodate life cycle optimum cost . </li></ul><ul><li>We are a little bit sceptical about superconducting technology in distribution transformers. These should be rather simple and robust machines requiring minimum maintenance, diagnostic etc. We are not convinced that efficiency gains justify price user has to pay for this technology and probably additional installation & maintenance. We are however impressed by overall development of this technology, which in case of larger transformers may very well and very soon become very attractive solution. </li></ul><ul><li>NEXT – Amorphous transformers </li></ul>
    13. 13. Total technical potentials in 2004 <ul><li>What part of potential can be realised by 2025? </li></ul><ul><li>4 energy efficiency scenarios by SEEDT project </li></ul><ul><li>„ Static“ potential (BAT): </li></ul><ul><li>Electricity distribution companies: 57.4 % </li></ul><ul><li>Industry - oil: 61.8 % </li></ul><ul><li>Industry - dry: 31.3 % </li></ul><ul><li>Total: 55.5% (18.5 TWh/year) </li></ul>
    14. 14. Important assumptions for calculating electricity saving potentials until 2025 <ul><li>Baselines for electricity system development: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>PRIMES-Trends (2006): 3,886 TWh/year final electricity demand in 2025 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PRIMES-EERES (2006): 2,877 TWh/year final electricity demand in 2025 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Baseline for investment in transformers until 2025: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2004 market behaviour: frozen efficiency </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Replacing the oldest (worst) DTs first </li></ul></ul>
    15. 15. Age distribution of transformer losses of electricity distribution companies in EU-25, increasingly
    16. 16. Potentials - distribution companies
    17. 17. Potentials - industry
    18. 18. Economic impact of scenarios <ul><li>Economic impact on electricity distribution companies strongly depends on regulatory scheme (and interest rate) </li></ul><ul><li>Recent price developments have led to amorphous transformers being more competitive </li></ul><ul><li>Results crucially depend on assumptions about transformer price relations, interest rate, assumed lifetimes and expected price developments (steel, copper, electricity) </li></ul>
    19. 19. Environmental impact of scenarios in 2025 in EU-27 (Mio t CO2eq./year) <ul><li>Baseline: Frozen efficiency (2004 market losses) </li></ul><ul><li>Policies and measures leading to first savings in 2010 </li></ul>2.7 2.5 1.7 1.5 PRIMES EE/RES 3.7 3.4 2.3 1.9 PRIMES Trends Scenario 4 oil: Ao./.49% Bk / dry: HD538 LL ./. 10% NLL ./. 40% Scenario 3 oil: Ao./.49% Bk+8% / dry: HD538 LL ./. 20%, NLL ./. 20% Scenario 2 oil: AoAk / dry: HD538 LL ./. 10%, NLL ./. 10% Scenario 1 oil: AoBk / dry: HD 538 General development of electricity system
    20. 20. Conclusions <ul><li>Static t echnical electricity saving potential in 2004: 18.5 TWh/year (55.5 % of current DTs’ energy losses of 33.4 TWh/year) </li></ul><ul><li>Highest relative potentials in industry-oil, highest absolute potentials in electricity distribution companies </li></ul><ul><li>Electricity saving potentials until 2025 between 5. 2 and 12. 5 TWh/year in 2025, depending on scenario chosen and on general development of electricity system </li></ul><ul><li>CO 2 reduction potentials until 2025 between 1.5 and 3.7 Mio t CO 2 eq. </li></ul><ul><li>Potentials are economical , but calculations extremely sensitive to assumptions / price developments (electricity, steel, copper) </li></ul><ul><li>Economic impact on electricity distribution companies largely depends on regulatory scheme </li></ul><ul><li>Economic impact on industry and commerce largely depends on assumptions with regard to electricity prices and interest rate chosen </li></ul>
    21. 21. Different market actors face different barriers and obstacles <ul><li>Large electricity distribution companies </li></ul><ul><li>Large industry </li></ul><ul><li>Small and medium electricity distribution companies </li></ul><ul><li>Small and medium industry and commerce </li></ul><ul><li>Engineering firms, ESCOs, energy consultants, planners </li></ul><ul><li>Transformer manufacturers (and their suppliers) </li></ul>
    22. 22. Policy-mix proposed by SEEDT
    23. 23. Regulation of electricity distribution companies <ul><li>Reporting on losses / benchmarking (e.g. by using labelling scheme) -> largest potentials first </li></ul><ul><li>Deviations from loss target could be rewarded / penalised </li></ul><ul><li>Incentive scheme should allow sufficient payback period for investment </li></ul><ul><li>Maybe specific energy efficiency investment budget outside the cap </li></ul><ul><li>At least existing disincentives should be removed AND direct financial or fiscal incentives during transition period as long as incentives are not included in the regulation scheme </li></ul><ul><li>Specific proposals for Spain and Germany </li></ul>
    24. 24. Regulation of electricity distribution companies - Chances for implementation? <ul><li>How to convince the regulator(s) who concentrate(s) on other issues at the moment? </li></ul><ul><li>How to set it on the agenda of CEER / ERGEG ? </li></ul><ul><li>Real chance for implementation? </li></ul><ul><li>Chance if addressing network losses and distribution system optimisation in a more general way? </li></ul>
    25. 25. R&D and AMDT pilot projects <ul><li>Increased interest at least by ENDESA (and EDF) into pilot projects with amorphous distribution transformers (AMDT) </li></ul><ul><li>European AMDT pilot project with support from European Commission (-> Strategic Energy Technology Plan; European Investment Bank?) </li></ul><ul><li>R&D support: From efficient grid components like distribution transformers to efficient distribution systems </li></ul>Source: Endesa (Test of 10 amorphous distribution transformers in Mallorca in 2008)
    26. 26. Information, motivation, advice programmes etc. <ul><li>Buyers and users information: </li></ul><ul><li>Inclusion into general energy advice programmes and sector-specific energy concepts </li></ul><ul><li>Inclusion into general information, communication and qualification on energy efficiency </li></ul><ul><li>Inclusion into information and marketing by manufacturers and ESCOs </li></ul><ul><li>SEEDT TLCalc calculation tool for buyers </li></ul>
    27. 27. Labelling <ul><li>Proposal 1 – a no-load losses label (named NLL label ) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>This label is based on no-load losses only. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A complementary symbol, +, 0 or -, indicating the level of load losses. A DT labeled B+ will have lower load losses (more efficient) than one labeled B-. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Proposal 2 – a label based on a simplified combination of no load and load losses at 40% load </li></ul><ul><ul><li>This label is based on a combination of no load and load losses, at 40% loading i.e. NLL+0,16LL </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Proposal 3 – a label based on top efficiency across full spectrum of loading integral </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Total Losses = No Load Losses + 1/3 Load Losses, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The rationale of this formula is </li></ul></ul></ul>where P – net power S – rated power x – loading (expressed as ratio of rated power) A – no load losses B – load losses The integral of net power from x=0 to x=1 will be the following <ul><ul><li>concluding, the sum of efficiencies for the whole variety of loadings from 0 to 1 can be expressed as NLL + 1/3 LL formula </li></ul></ul>
    28. 28. Labelling
    29. 29. Labelling - comparison
    30. 30. <ul><li>Labelling (A, B, C etc) through integration of losses from 0% to 100% loading </li></ul>Labelling - Currently preferred proposal The value of the integral classifies the DT
    31. 31. Labelling through integration of losses: Proposed classification similar to appliances C o : Class of no load losses as per EN 50464 B k : Class of load losses as per EN 50464 C o B k = CC’ of HD 428
    32. 32. Efficiency standards Will Europe catch up with the US and Japan?
    33. 33. Mandatory efficiency standard <ul><li>European DT manufacturers are not interested in a voluntary agreement </li></ul><ul><li>A mandatory EU-27 minimum efficiency standard will remove the worst DTs from the market </li></ul><ul><li>Only feasible if , at the same time (!), regulation of electricity distribution companies removes any disincentives </li></ul><ul><li>It can be designed in several ways (preferred standard in bold, if no labelling will be introduced): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>maximum allowable no load and load losses (CoCk) , or </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>minimum efficiency at particular loading, or </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>just removing the worst labelling classes from the market </li></ul></ul>
    34. 34. Mandatory standard
    35. 35. Barriers towards implementing the proposed policies and measures <ul><li>Ambitious policy instruments proposed </li></ul><ul><li>Low replacement rate of distribution transformers (long lifetime) </li></ul><ul><li>Low energy saving potentials compared to some other energy efficiency technology </li></ul><ul><li>No complete lifecycle analysis yet: not yet fully ready for “implementing measures” on EU level </li></ul><ul><li>Not much interest by European manufacturers and distribution companies yet </li></ul><ul><li>Continuously changing regulatory schemes: Any planning and calculation of investment possible? Any interest or acceptance by regulators / CEER / ERGEG expectable? </li></ul><ul><li>Political differences between EU Member States more severe than differences between states in US (difficult for setting a standard) </li></ul>
    36. 36. Conclusions <ul><li>Economic impact on electricity distribution companies largely depends on regulatory scheme -> separate financial or fiscal incentives might be needed for transition period </li></ul><ul><li>Barriers and obstacles different between market actors => Bundle of policy instruments needed on EU and national level </li></ul><ul><li>Several barriers towards implementation of proposed policies </li></ul><ul><li>Some chances for implementing policy instruments: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Next steps of changes in (national) regulatory schemes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>EU Action Plan on Energy Efficiency: Measures to reduce grid losses in 2008? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>EuP Directive: if combined with other transformers (> 200,000 pcs/year) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New CO2 reduction targets published in EU package of 23 Jan 2008 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Promotion of AMDT pilot projects can increase competition in the market for energy-efficient transformers </li></ul>
    37. 37. Source: SEEDT (2007) 1ª speed WORLWIDE STANDARDS: No-load Losses Levels Reference Values (400 kVA 3  - 50 Hz Distribution Transformer)
    38. 38. Pilot Project: EFFITRAFO ENDESA (January 2008) AMDT 400 kVA – 15.400/420 V - 3  - 50 Hz TRAFO FFI E
    39. 39. TECHNOLOGY FUNDAMENTALS: Evolution of the CGO Steel Technology <ul><li>CGO: Cold-rolled grain oriented silicon steels </li></ul><ul><li>HiB: High permeability grain oriented silicon steels </li></ul>Thickness
    40. 40. Amorphous (0,025 mm) Core losses [W/kg] B [T] Laser (0,23 mm) HiB (0,23 mm) HiB (0,30 mm) CGO (0,30 mm) Thickness TECHNOLOGY FUNDAMENTALS: Core losses versus Induction
    41. 41. CGO Technology AMDT Technology TECHNOLOGY FUNDAMENTALS: Atomic structure Crystalline Amorphous <ul><li>Ordered structure  magneto crystalline anisotropy </li></ul><ul><li>Polycrystalline structure  higher coercivity </li></ul><ul><li>Random structure  lack of crystalline anisotropy </li></ul><ul><li>Absence of phase boundaries  lower coercivity </li></ul>These features do not help for easier magnetization and demagnetization. These features lead to faster flux reversal. SOLID with LIQUID ESTRUCTURE
    42. 42. <ul><li>Amorphous Metals exhibit: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Easier magnetization (low coercivity and high permeability). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lower magnetic loss (low coercivity, high permeability and high resistivity). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Faster flux reversal (as a result of low magnetic loss). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Versatile magnetic properties resulting from post-fabrication. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Heat-treatments and a wide range of adjustable chemical compositions. </li></ul></ul>TECHNOLOGY FUNDAMENTALS: Magnetic Properties (I) CGO Technology AMDT Technology
    43. 43. TECHNOLOGY FUNDAMENTALS: Noise Levels Dynamic vibration due to magnetostriction The noise level of HB1 amorphous alloy is significantly lower than SA1 alloy ( ≈ 10 dB ) The operating induction can be increased by 0.1 ÷0.15T using HB1 alloy. Distribution Transformer can be downsized by about 10% with HB1 Source: Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials (ELSEVIER), Hasegawa (2005)
    44. 44. TECHNOLOGY FUNDAMENTALS: Thermal properties Heat Spectrum Radiated Grain Oriented Silicon Steel Core Amorphous Metal Core AMDT Technology CGO Technology
    45. 45. PRODUCTION PROCESS: Amorphous Distribution Transformers Refrigeration process to obtain amorphous structure ( 10 6 o C/s required rate for molten-metal cooling) Sheet ( 0,018 – 0,023 mm ) MELT SPINNING PROCESS Steel Cooling Treatment Flow Chart Melting furnace Reservoir Nozzle In-line process control In-line winding Casting roll
    46. 46. Line Diagram Core Making PRODUCTION PROCESS: Amorphous Distribution Transformers
    47. 47. Line Diagram Core Coil Assembly PRODUCTION PROCESS: Amorphous Distribution Transformers <ul><li>Non automated process (“human time” involved) </li></ul><ul><li>Ribbon groups overlapped. </li></ul><ul><li>Groups staggered to space overlaps across joint. </li></ul><ul><li>Joint is opened up for core/coil assembly and then re-laced. </li></ul><ul><li>Joint can be opened and closed multiple times. </li></ul><ul><li>One piece core allows for easy assembly. </li></ul>Easy REPAIRING process
    48. 48. Open questions <ul><li>Do distribution transformers deserve attention from energy efficiency point of view? </li></ul><ul><li>Have distribution transformer efficiency received sufficient policy and measures support (EU and country level)? </li></ul><ul><li>Measures; </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>voluntary or mandatory, </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>standard or label </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>other </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Policy instruments; EU Action Plan, EuP, Carbon, other? </li></ul>