SWEDE 2009 Conference 2010 National Efficiency Standards

SWEDE 2009 Conference 2010 National Efficiency Standards
Wes Patterson, ABB Transformers North America, May 8, 2009 SWEDE 2009 Conference 2010 National Efficiency Standards © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 1

ABB Transformers (2007 data)
Over $4.5 billion orders 15,000 employees Global manufacturing capability: 57 plants Global presence: revenues in more than 100 countries Complete range of power and distribution transformers, associated products and services Voltage range up to 800 kV (1000 kV) Homepage: Continuity

57 Transformer Factories in 30 countries
One Global Factory serving customers everywhere with a full range of products Wherever located, you have one transformer specialist close to you, for you Wherever your project is, we will produce your transformers in the factory most suitable to you © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 3

World Map ABB Transformer Factories 2007
South Korea – Chonan-si USA – South Boston USA - Jefferson City USA – Bland Peru – Lima Columbia – Pereira South Africa – Cape Town South Africa – Booysens South Africa – Pretoria Tanzania – Arusha Egypt – 10th of Ramadan Saudi Arabia – Riyadh Ireland – Waterford Spain – Zaragosa Finland – Vaasa Poland – Lodz Sweden – Ludvika Norway – Steinkjer Germany – Brilon Italy– Monselice Turkey– Istanbu China– Hefei China– Shanghai Vietnam – Hanoi Singapore – Singapore New Zealand – New Plymouth Sweden – Pitea Norway – Drammen Russia – Khotkovo Sweden – Mjolby Sweden – Figeholm Germany – Bad Honnef Germany – Roigheim Italy– Legnano Germany – Halle Switzerland – Geneve Spain – Bilbao Spain – Cordoba China– Chongquing China– Zhongshan Thailand – Bangkok USA – Alamo USA – St Louis Canada – Varennes India – Baroda Brazil – Guarulhos Brazil – Blumenau Canada – Quebec City Australia – Darra Australia – Perth Australia – Moorebank Switzerland – Zurich World Map ABB Transformer Factories 2007 © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 4

Transformer Factories in North America
Quebec Varennes St. Louis Jefferson City Bland South Boston Alamo PPI-Athens © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 5

Leader in Transformers Business
The largest Transformer manufacturer worldwide ABB delivers : 2.000 Power Transformers / y Distribution Transformers / y Recognition © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 6

Complete Transformer Portfolio
Scope IEC & ANSI standards What ever you need from our broad portfolio -> ABB is your “one-stop” supplier © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 7

Distribution Transformers
IEC & ANSI Standards © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 8

Power Transformers Generator Step-Up transformers System transformers
© ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 9

Agenda Describe the new efficiency standards for distribution transformers for use in or shipped into the United States and its territories that will be effective January 1, 2010 Review the standard’s development process as well as the scope of transformers that are effected Discuss design strategies and associated cost impact of those strategies Address the methodologies for insuring conformance with the standards by the manufacturers © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 10

National Efficiency Standard – Where did it come from
Energy Policy Act of 1975 Empowers the Secretary of Energy to determine the need for energy efficiency standards Establishes definition of “States” that includes US Territories and Possessions Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPACT) of 1992 Empowers the DOE to determine the need for energy efficiency standards for Appliances and Commercial Technologically feasible Economically justifiable Produces significant energy savings Puts the spot light on all distribution transformers Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) study initiated © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 12

National Efficiency Standard – Where did it come from
1997 DOE publishes Notice of Determination Technologically feasible Economically justifiable Significant energy saving 2000 DOE publishes it’s Framework for establishing a standard 2004 DOE publishes it’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) 2006 DOE publishes Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) Technical Support Documents (TSD’s) Analytical Spreadsheets 2007 Final Rule issued on October 12th (72 FR 58190) © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 13

DOE Web Site © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 14

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, Secondary Unit Subs & Networks – Jefferson City & South Boston Dry Type - Bland Industry Impact: Utility Industrial Construction 10 CFR Part 431 Subpart K October 12, 2007 72 FR 58190 CFR = Code of Federal Regulation © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 15 * Note: Applies to Puerto Rico, Guam, and all other territories and possessions

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 © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 16

National Standard - Transformer Exclusions
Autotransformer Drive (isolation) Grounding Machine-tool (control) Non-ventilated Rectifier Regulating Sealed Special Impedance* Step-up Transformers Testing Tap range > 20% Uninterruptible power supply Welding * Note: Standard Impedances © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 17

Re-builders exempt unless found to be circumventing the “spirit” of the standard Inventories manufactured before start date can be sold after the start date however… Inventory build up in advance of the start date also seen as circumventing the “spirit” of the standard DOE forewarning manufacturers not to take steps to side-step the National Efficiency Standard © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 18

Benefits – 95 BIL Ventilated Dry Type Example
Notes: Efficiency and Losses at 50% Load and PF=1.0 Savings assumes 8760 h/yr and $0.10/watt © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 19

National Benefits of The National Energy Standard
Saves 2.74 quads (1015 BTU’s) of energy over 29 years 1 Quad = 1 Quadrillion (1015) Btu (1,000,000,000,000,000) 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 $7.8 billion using a 3% discount rate Cumulative from 2010 to 2073 in 2006$ © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 20

Consumer Benefits Increased system capacity due to lower loads
Lower input load requirements leads to less heat generated Lower A/C & ventilation costs/requirements if located indoors Lower temperature rise Longer transformer life expectancy May not need use of forced air (FA) to fulfill capacity requirements Better efficiency means less input energy required to produce equal output energy Decreased operating costs = increased profits Decreased environmental impact from input energy generation emissions Shorter payback period due to increased profits Lower total ownership costs over the life of the transformer © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 21

Industry Response to the Ruling
“ABB intends to utilize technology…and materials to minimize impact on weight and overall dimensions.” “ABB has supported a move toward greater efficiency…” “We will be able to meet … needs both in the transition period before 2010 and after…” Transition schedule.. Q108 DOE impact on frame agreement designs Q109 DOE capable © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 22

Next Steps Structure new product standards defined by the National Standard Accommodate customer requests to continue evaluating based on Total Ownership Cost (TOC) Assess current style impact with Alliance customers 1st relative to weight, footprint and cost by Q108 Operations to be ready to support early adopters Massive re-design effort as all designs and agreements will be under for review so manufacturing commences January 1, 2010 © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 23

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations

The Oak Ridge Study 44,000+ Designs evaluated Combination Lines
© ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 26 Combination Lines Design Lines

Weight Variation relative to TSL0
Liquid-Filled 1ph kVA Pad © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 27 Max: 1.29

Footprint Variation relative to TSL0

Price Variation relative to TSL0

Price Variation relative to TSL1

TOC Variation relative to TSL0

Evolution of a National Standard
DOE publishes Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) Defined 6 levels of efficiency – August 4, 2006 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 © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 33 TSL = Trial Standard Level

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 © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 34

NOPR Liquid-Filled 3Φ Discontinuity
The efficiency of the 300/500 kVA being more than the 750/1000/1500 kVA’s would artificially disrupt the markets of the 300/500 kVA units © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 35

NOPR Liquid-Filled 1Φ vs 3Φ
Below 750 kVA, the higher efficiency of the three-phase units might artificially shift the markets to (3) single-phase equivalents © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 36

NOPR Dry, 20-45 BIL, 1-ph versus 3-ph
With Dry there was no discrepancy between the single-phase and three-phase efficiencies © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 37

NOPR Dry, 46-95 BIL, 1-ph versus 3-ph

NOPR Dry, >95 BIL, 1-ph versus 3-ph

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 © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 40

National Standard - Liquid-filled
Note: National Standard Efficiency calculated using load at 50% & PF (COS θ) = 1.0 © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 41

National Standard - Liquid-filled
Loss 50% Load compared to TLS1 (NEMA TP-1) as the base case © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 42

National Standard - 1Φ & 3Φ Liquid-filled
1Φ Final Ruling Minimum Efficiency 3Φ Final Ruling Minimum Efficiency © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 43

Final Rule - Liquid © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 44

National Standard - Dry-type
© ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 45 Note: National Standard Efficiency calculated using load at 50% & PF (COS θ) = 1

National Standard - Dry Type

National Standard - 1Φ & 3Φ Dry-Type
1Φ Final Ruling Minimum Efficiency 3Φ Final Ruling Minimum Efficiency © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 47

Final Rule – Dry-Types © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 48

Final Rule: Liquid and Dry Comparison

What is transformer efficiency?
%Efficiency = 100 x Output Watts / Input Watts Output being less than input due to losses in form of heat % Efficiency = L . kVA . COS q L . kVA . COS q Fe + L2 . (LL) V r No-Load Losses (A) Load Losses (B) L (pu) = Load © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 51 Note: National Standard Efficiency calculated using load at 50% & PF (COS θ) = 1

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 © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 52

Load Losses – Conductor I2R
I = Rated Current R = Resistance of the conductor Resistivity - property of the material Copper = 0.017 Aluminium = 0.028 © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 53

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 © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 54

No Load Losses – Core Eddy Loss
0.006 inch = M2 0.009 inch = M3 0.014 inch = M6 © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 55

No Load Losses – Core Eddy Loss
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 © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 56

How to Reduce Losses? Ways to Reduce No-Load Loss
Ways to Reduce Load Loss Use better grade of core steel Use copper rather than aluminum Use thinner core steel laminations Use a conductor with a larger area Use more turns in the coil Use fewer turns in the coil Use a core with larger leg area © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 57

Amorphous Cores Note: TSL6 was computed with Amorphous Cores
ABB performed considerable research on amorphous core steel in the early 1990’s Numerous patents granted Prototypes built – all type test performed (passed) Production units produced thru 2002 However, during this time, the cost of the material was prohibitive to maintain a commercial line With the recent upswing in the cost of CGO (conventional grain oriented) steel and the reduction in the cost of Amorphous material the economic equation has changed With loss evaluations in the range of $5/w NL the Amorphous material approaches economic viability Further potential improvements in the cost model may produce an economic option to meet the DOE standard © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 58

Transformer Loss Impact - Liquid-filled

Impact to the Customer Increased price of transformer
Increased size & weight 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 © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 60

% Shipments Meeting Final Ruling
Overheads 20% Padmount* 1Φ - 47% S3Φ < 750 kVA - 53% L3Φ > 750 kVA – 59% Cast Coil 20-45 kV BIL 6% 46-95 KV BIL 20% > 95 KV BIL % Open Wound 20-45 kV BIL 1% 46-95 KV BIL 10% > 95 KV BIL % *Note: All customer segments for shipments from 10/06 to 08/07 © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 61

Price Impact – Overhead
Estimated based on high volume styles © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 62

Price Impact - Padmount

Price Impact – Dry Type 20-45 KV BIL 1.00 1.10 1.10-1.15 46-95 KV BIL
> 95 KV BIL 1.20 Open Wound ABB Base Cost TP1 Cast Coil DOE Note: Actual Price impact is dependent on: KVA Temperature Rise Conductor BIL Impedance © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 64

Footprint Variation relative to TSL0

Weight Variation relative to TSL0

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 © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 67

Loss Evaluation – Transformer Impact
Transformer Losses add load on the system resulting in… Incremental Capacity for… Generation Transmission Distribution Incremental Energy for losses in… Distribution Transformer Transmission System Distribution System © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 68

Loss Evaluation – Cost of Transformer Losses
Capacity component: Incremental Capacity Cost (including generation + T&D) X Coincidence of Transformer Losses to the System Peak X Equivalent Transformer Losses Energy Component: Incremental Energy Cost X Equivalent Annual Transformer Losses X Hours Used Note: There is no universal agreement on how the values for capacity and energy cost should be computed. © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 69

Standard A/B Calculation
TOC = A (NL) + B (LL) + Sell price A = $EL x 8760 hr/yr x N (Core Contribution NL) B = $EL x (P)2 x T x D x 8760 hr/yr x N (Load Loss Contribution LL) Where: EL = Purchaser’s cost of electricity ($/kWH) N = Number of years P = Per unit Load = 50% for Medium Voltage> 600 volt class transformers D = Duty Cycle = % of daily usage NL = No load (core) loss at 20C in watts LL = Load loss at its full load reference temperature consistent with C (liquid) and C (dry) in watts. T = Load loss temperature correction factor to correct specified temperature, i.e., 75C for dry- and 85C for liquid-transformers. © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 70

Loss Evaluation – Definition of Terms
EC Energy Cost - avoided, incremental cost of energy. FCR Fixed Charge Rate - value of the carrying cost of capital which is a function of capital cost, depreciation, taxes, insurance, etc. HPY Hours per Year - amount of time during the year that the transformer is utilized (energized). Full year (8760 hours). LF Load Factor – average load on the transformer as a % of peak load. LSF Loss Factor - average load losses on the transformer as a % of peak load losses PL Peak Load - equivalent annual peak load on the transformer. RF Peak Loss Responsibility Factor - ratio of transformer load losses at system peak to the peak load losses of transformer. SC System Capacity Cost - incremental cost of system capacity including generation, transmission and distribution costs. © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 71

Loss Evaluation - Equations
B Factor (Load Losses) A Factor* (No Load Losses) * Note: “A” factor uses the same equation as “B” factor simplified for the no load losses being constant with time (i.e. RF, LSF and PL = 1) © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 72

Transformer Loss Evaluation - Example
Typical: SC (system capacity cost) = $100 / kW EC (energy cost) = $0.10 / kW-hr FCR (fixed charge rate) = 15% RF (peak loss factor) = 90% LSF (loss factor) = 15% PL (peak load) = 120% HPY (hrs per year) = (full year) Then: A = $6.51 per watt B = $2.13 per watt © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 73

Quote Reference – Dec ‘07 All quotes within scope of DOE will include a statement regardless of request if quoted design meets or not National (DOE) Efficiency Standards National (DOE) Efficiency Standard Information The calculated DOE 50% Load, PF of 1, 20C & 55C would be ##.#% which DOES or DOES NOT meet the standard effective January 1, 2010. © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 75

What are customers saying about A/B?
Poll customers for their desire to maintain A&B factors Poll customers for designs exceeding min if they’ll want them to be reduced down to the minimum Survey results to date (24 respondents) © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 76

Impact to the Customer Increased price of transformer
Increased size & weight 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 © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 77

Impact to Customer Transition Strategy – now or later
Generally there is an economic benefit for any unit where to A/B are A <= $3.00, B<= $1.00 NEMA Premium Transformer initiative Potential pre-buy decision based on ‘applicable’ date DOE cautions against ‘building stock’ prior to circumvent to standard Risk of delayed projects that the ‘applicable’ date Standard applies to ALL units shipped after January 1, 2010 © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 78

Impact to Manufacturer
Redesign and re-optimize Impact of unit weight and size Material selection and availability Compliance & Enforcement © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 79

Design Impact Increase in conductor cross section
Copper consumption for overheads Copper and aluminum for pads Weights and dimensions increase in most cases Transportation cost increase as less units per truck load 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 in tank size and/or elimination of radiators © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 80

% Shipments Meeting Final Ruling
Overheads 20% Padmount* 1Φ - 47% S3Φ < 750 kVA - 53% L3Φ > 750 kVA – 59% Cast Coil 20-45 kV BIL 6% 46-95 KV BIL 20% > 95 KV BIL % Open Wound 20-45 kV BIL 1% 46-95 KV BIL 10% > 95 KV BIL % *Note: All customer segments for shipments from 10/06 to 08/07 © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 81

Impact on E-Steel Grade Distribution

Materials – E-Steel MOST Critical
Greatest impact of all commodities Limited worldwide production Limited capacity of higher grades Expanding global demand US Producers raising prices to match world levels © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 84

E-Steel – Demand & Supply Sensitivity
From 2007 thru 2010 … E-steel req. 09.2/2.7 = China CAGR = 9.2%, all others 2.7% E-steel req. 15.0/2.7 = China CAGR = 15%, all others 2.7% E-steel req. 20.0/3.0 = China CAGR = 20%, all others 3.0% E-steel req. 25.0/3.0 = China CAGR = 25%, all others 3.0% © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 85

National Standard Enforcement
Standard requires the manufacturer to comply no matter country of origin Enforcement - assumes and Honor System - 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 the basic model” until dispute resolution DOE might seek civil penalties © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 88

National Standard Compliance
Manufacturer determines efficiency of a basic model either 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=1.0; NL 20°C & LL 55°C 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” ABB & Power Partners have elected to use the AEDM approach for asserting compliance © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 89

DOE Compliant Similar to quoting average losses today
The mean efficiency of a basic model will be at or above 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 © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 90

Compliance by Test If 5 or fewer units of a Basic Model are produced over 180 days then the manufacturer must test each unit If more than 5 units of a Basic Model are produced over 180 days then the manufacturer may select and test a random sample of at least 5 units Determine the average efficiency of the sample where… Xi is the measured efficiency of unit (i) n is the number of units in the sample Criteria: where… RE is the required efficiency n is the number of units tested © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 91

Compliance by AEDM Randomly select 5+ Basic Models
Two must be the highest volume unit in the prior year No two shall have the same power / voltage rating At least one shall be 1-ph and at least one 3-ph Calculate the Power Loss ( ) for each Basic Model (i, ) Determine the Power Loss by Test ( ) for at least 5 units (j, ) of each Basic Model (i, ) Determine the mean tested power loss ( ) for each Basic Model mean tested power loss of Basic Model (i) Criteria #1: for each Basic Model (i) Criteria #2: for all Basic Models for Basic Model (i), the calculated power loss as a percentage of the mean tested power loss the average of all Basic Model percentages of calculated as percentage of mean tested power loss © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 92

Specified Minimum Efficiency >> DOE
mean ABB Preferred Specification 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 © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 93

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.” © ABB Group April 8, 2017 | Slide 94

SWEDE 2009 Conference 2010 National Efficiency Standards

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "SWEDE 2009 Conference 2010 National Efficiency Standards"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

SWEDE 2009 Conference 2010 National Efficiency Standards

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "SWEDE 2009 Conference 2010 National Efficiency Standards"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback