1 / 41

Ramifications of the New Transformer Efficiency Standards

Ramifications of the New Transformer Efficiency Standards. Wes Patterson VP of Technology Transformers North America. 2008 Rural Electric Power Conference Charleston, SC. The National Efficiency Standard. Liquid & Dry Distribution Transformers Domestic and Imported production

brilliant
Download Presentation

Ramifications of the New Transformer Efficiency Standards

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ramifications of the New Transformer Efficiency Standards Wes PattersonVP of TechnologyTransformers North America 2008 Rural Electric Power ConferenceCharleston, SC

  2. The National Efficiency Standard • Liquid & Dry Distribution Transformers • Domestic and Imported production • Manufactured in or imported into the United States and its territories* on or after Jan 1, 2010 • Product – ABB Operational Impact: • Overhead – Athens • Pads, Secd’y Unit Sub & Networks – Jefferson City & So.Boston • Dry Type - Bland • Industry Impact: • Utility • Industrial • Construction * Note: Apply to Puerto Rico, Guam, and all other territories and possessions

  3. Impact to the Customer • Increased size & weight • Increased price of transformer • Financial valuation & justification • A/B factors related to National Standard • Transition strategy • Wait to last minute or move now • Potential pre-buy decision based on applicable date • Risk of delayed projects that cross the applicable date

  4. Footprint Variation relative to TSL0 Liquid-Filled 1ph 10-167 kVA Pad Max: 1.10

  5. Weight Variation relative to TSL0 Liquid-Filled 1ph 10-167 kVA Pad Max: 1.29

  6. Impact of A/B factors • Loss Evaluation • Cost Of Losses (COL) = (A x No Load Loss) + (B x Load Loss) ($/watt x watts) + ($/watt x watts) • Total Owning Cost (TOC) = Transformer Price + COL • A & B factors result in most cost-effective design over product life cycle based on customers’ cost of energy • ABB & PPI recommend customers’ re-evaluate and/or establish factors at or above the national efficiency standards Note: A = PW Inflation x Annual $/kW x n yrs; B = A x (load p.u.)2 x Conductor Temp Correction

  7. Price Variation relative to TSL0 Liquid-Filled 1ph 10-167 kVA Pad Max: 1.33

  8. Price Variation relative to TSL1 Liquid-Filled 1ph 10-167 kVA Pad Max: 1.16

  9. TOC Variation relative to TSL0 Liquid-Filled 1ph 10-167 kVA Pad Max: 1.33

  10. TOC Variation relative to TSL1 Liquid-Filled 1ph 10-167 kVA Pad Max: 1.16

  11. Impact to the Customer • Increased size & weight • Increased price of transformer • Financial valuation & justification • A/B factors related to National Standard • Transition strategy • Wait to last minute or move now • Potential pre-buy decision based on applicable date • Risk of delayed projects that cross the applicable date Manufactured in or imported into the United States and its territories* on or after Jan 1, 2010 * Note: Apply to Puerto Rico, Guam, and all other territories and possessions

  12. Impact to Manufacturer • Redesign and re-optimize • Material selection and availability • Impact of unit weight and size • Compliance & Enforcement

  13. r V L . kVA . COSq . 105 % Efficiency = L . kVA .COSq. 103 + Fe + L2. (LL) What is transformer efficiency? %Efficiency = 100 x Output Watts / Input Watts Output being less than input due to losses in form of heat Load Losses (B) No-Load Losses (A) L (pu) = Load Note: National Standard Efficiency calculated using load at 50% & PF (COS θ) = 1

  14. Transformer Losses • Total Loss = No-Load Loss + Load Loss • No Load Losses - Core Loss • Hysteresis Loss - steel chemistry, coating, processing • Eddy Loss - steel thickness • Load Losses - Conductor loss • I2R Loss - material (CU vs. AL), size and length • Eddy Loss - geometry, proximity to steel parts

  15. No Load Losses – Material Impact M6 M3 M2

  16. No Load Losses – Design Impact Where • Rated voltage and number of turns refer to either the high voltage or low voltage coil • Induction is a function of the electrical steel limited by its saturation value • f is the frequency

  17. Load Losses – Conductor I2R • I = Rated Current • R = Resistance of the conductor Resistivity - property of the material • Copper = 0.017 • Aluminium = 0.028

  18. Load Losses - Conductor Eddy Loss • Less of an impact than I2R • Eddy loss in the conductor • Thin conductors have less eddy loss • Eddy loss in adjacent ferrous metal • LV Lead close to tank wall sets up eddy currents in the tank

  19. How to Reduce Losses?

  20. Impact to Manufacturer • Redesign and re-optimize • Material selection and availability • Impact of unit weight and size • Compliance & Enforcement

  21. Electrical Steel in the MOST Critical • Greatest impact on transformer costs of all commodities • Limited worldwide production • Extreme shortage of higher grade materials • Expanding global demand • US producers are raising prices to match world levels • DOE Energy Efficiency Levels will have a significant impact on electrical steel requirements

  22. 16% Increase in Total Core Steel Tonnage Design Impact - Materials 18% Increase in Total Conductor Tonnage M3 becomes 75% of the Total ES 19% Increase in Aluminum 16% Increase in Copper 23D becomes 1% of the Total ES All M6 tonnage shifts to other grades 27D becomes 6% of the Total ES M2 becomes 8% of the Total ES M4 becomes 6% of the Total ES

  23. Global Supply Base 2007

  24. GOES Demand-Supply Sensitivity From 2007 thru 2010…. • E-steel req 25.0/3.0 = CN CAGR=25%, all others 3.0% • E-steel req 20.0/3.0 = CN CAGR=20%, all others 3.0% • E-steel req 15.0/2.7 = CN CAGR=15%, all others 2.7% • E-steel req 9.2/2.7 = CN CAGR=9.2%, all others 2.7%

  25. Impact to Manufacturer • Redesign and re-optimize • Material selection and availability • Impact of unit weight and size • Compliance & Enforcement

  26. Design Impact • Increase in conductor cross section • Copper consumption for overheads • Copper and aluminum for pads • Average oil volume per unit increases due to wider & deeper tanks not being offset by reduction in tank height • Some cases higher efficiency leads to lower losses, less heating and a reduction or elimination of radiators • Weights and dimensions increase in most cases • Transportation cost increase as less units per truck load

  27. Impact to Manufacturer • Redesign and re-optimize • Material selection and availability • Impact of unit weight and size • Compliance & Enforcement

  28. National Standard Compliance • Manufacturer determines efficiency of a basic modeleither by testing or by an Alternative Efficiency Determination Method (AEDM). • Basic model being same energy consumption along with electrical features being kVA, BIL, voltage and taps • Calculated load at 50% & PF=1; NL 20°C & LL 55°C (liquid-filled) LL 75°C (dry-type) • Auxiliary devices – circuit breakers, fuses and switches – excluded from calculation of efficiency • AEDM approach is offered in 10 CFR 431 “to ease the burden on manufacturers” • Note: testing shall be per Appendix A to Subpart K of 10 CFR 431

  29. DOE Compliant Similar to quoting average losses today The mean efficiency of a basic model will be at the standard Distribution of efficiencies for all units of a basic model Higher Efficiency Standard Level for Efficiency per Table I.1. of 10 CFR 431; example, 99.08% for 50 kVA Single Phase

  30. Specified Minimum Efficiency >> DOE mean Distribution of efficiencies for all units of a basic model The mean efficiency of a basic model will be above the standard Higher Efficiency Standard Level for Efficiency per Table I.1. of 10 CFR 431; example, 99.08% for 50 kVA Single Phase

  31. Specified Minimum Efficiency >> DOE • 100% of the units to meet or exceed efficiency standard • Customer should clearly state in its specification • Suggested wording could be, “The tested efficiency of all units shipped by serial number and/or stock code must meet or exceed the values in 10 CFR 431, Table I.1. for liquid-immersed distribution transformers. Certified test data by serial number must be provided to confirm compliance with this requirement.”

  32. National Standard Enforcement • Standard requires the manufacturer to comply no matter country of origin • Enforcement depends on third party or other source reporting suspected ‘violators’ to the DOE • DOE meets with suspect manufacturer reviewing its underlying test data as to the models in question • DOE commences enforcement testing procedures if previous step does not resolve compliance issues • Non-compliance results in manufacturer “ceasing distribution of basic model” until dispute resolution • DOE might seek civil penalties

  33. Product Class / Design Lines / Combo Lines

  34. The National Efficiency Standard Liquid & Dry Transformers • 60 Hz, < 34.5 kV Input & < 600 V Output • Oil-filled Capacity • 1Φ 10 to 833 kVA • 3Φ 15 to 2500 kVA • Dry-type Capacity • 20-45 kV BIL : 15 to 833 (1Φ) & 2500 (3Φ) kVA • 46-95 kV BIL : 15 to 833 (1Φ) & 2500 (3Φ) kVA • > 95kV BIL : 75 to 833 (1Φ) & 225 to 2500 (3Φ) kVA

  35. Evolution of a National Standard DOE publishes Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) • Defined 6 levels of efficiency - 8/4/06 • TSL1 = NEMA TP1 • TSL2 = 1/3 difference between TSL1 and TSL4 • TSL3 = 2/3 difference between TSL1 and TSL4 • TSL4 = minimum LCC (Life Cycle Cost) • TSL5 = maximum efficiency with no change in the LCC • TSL6 = theoretical maximum possible efficiency • Recommended that TSL2 become the National Standard • Set Sep 2007 target for establishing the Final Rule • Solicited comments from concerned parties TSL = Trial Standard Level

  36. Transition between NOPR to Final Rule • DOE received numerous comments to liquid-filled • Technical discrepancy in liquid 3Φ curves • 3-1Φ would be less efficient than one equivalent 3Φ liquid • DOE resolution creates 4 new efficiency levels for liquid called Design Lines (DL) combining TSL levels: • TSLA: DL1-TSL5 & DL3-TSL4 • TSLB: DL4-TSL2 & DL5-TSL4 • TSLC: DL4-TSL2 & DL5-TSL3 • TSLD: DL1-TSL4, DL3-TSL2, DL4-TSL2 & DL5-TSL3

  37. Final Rule – The National Standard • Final Rule Published Oct 12, 2007 • Federal Register - 72 FR 58190 • DOE Final Selection • TSLC for 1Φ and 3Φ Liquid-filled • TSL2 for Dry-types • Liquid and dry-type distribution transformers manufactured in or imported into the United States and its territories on or after Jan 1, 2010

  38. National Standard - Liquid-filled Note: National Standard Efficiency calculated using load at 50% & PF (COS θ) = 1

  39. National Standard - Dry-type Note: National Standard Efficiency calculated using load at 50% & PF (COS θ) = 1

  40. Benefits of The National Energy Standard • Saves 2.74 quads (1015 BTU’s) of energy over 29 years • Energy of 27 million US households in a single year • Eliminating need for 6 new 400 MW power plants • Reduce greenhouse gas emission of ~238 million tons of CO2 • Equivalent to removing 80% of all light vehicles for one year • Others emission reductions not included in final justification • Greater than 46 thousand tons (kt) of nitrous oxide (NO2) • Greater than 4 tons of mercury (Hg) • Payback ranges from 1 to 15 years based on design line • Net present value of $1.39 billion using a 7% discount rate • Net present value of $7.8 billion using a 3% discount rate • Cumulative from 2010 to 2073 in 2006$

More Related