Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

© ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 1 SWEDE 2009 Conference 2010 National Efficiency Standards Wes Patterson, ABB Transformers North America, May 8, 2009.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "© ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 1 SWEDE 2009 Conference 2010 National Efficiency Standards Wes Patterson, ABB Transformers North America, May 8, 2009."— Presentation transcript:

1 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 1 SWEDE 2009 Conference 2010 National Efficiency Standards Wes Patterson, ABB Transformers North America, May 8, 2009

2 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: ABB Transformers (2007 data)

3 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 3  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 57 Transformer Factories in 30 countries

4 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 4 World Map ABB Transformer Factories 2007

5 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 5 Jefferson City St. Louis Alamo PPI-Athens Bland Varennes Quebec South Boston Transformer Factories in North America

6 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 6  The largest Transformer manufacturer worldwide  ABB delivers :  Power Transformers / y  Distribution Transformers / y Leader in Transformers Business

7 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 7 What ever you need from our broad portfolio -> ABB is your “one-stop” supplier Complete Transformer Portfolio IEC & ANSI standards

8 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 8 IEC & ANSI Standards Distribution Transformers

9 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 9 System transformers Generator Step- Up transformers Power Transformers

10 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 10 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

11 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 11 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

12 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 12 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

13 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 13 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 12 th (72 FR 58190)

14 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 14 DOE Web Site

15 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 15 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 * Note: Applies to Puerto Rico, Guam, and all other territories and possessions 10 CFR Part 431 Subpart K October 12, FR CFR = Code of Federal Regulation

16 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 16 The National Efficiency Standard Liquid & Dry Transformers  60 Hz, < 34.5 kV Input & < 600 V Output  Oil-filled Capacity  1Φ10 to 833 kVA  3Φ15 to 2500 kVA  Dry-type Capacity  kV BIL: 15 to 833 (1Φ) & 2500 (3Φ) kVA  kV BIL: 15 to 833 (1Φ) & 2500 (3Φ) kVA  > 95kV BIL: 75 to 833 (1Φ) & 225 to 2500 (3Φ) kVA

17 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 17 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

18 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 18 The National Efficiency Standard  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

19 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 19 Benefits – 95 BIL Ventilated Dry Type Example Notes: 1. Efficiency and Losses at 50% Load and PF= Savings assumes 8760 h/yr and $0.10/watt

20 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 20 National Benefits of The National Energy Standard  Saves 2.74 quads (10 15 BTU’s) of energy over 29 years  1 Quad = 1 Quadrillion (10 15 ) 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 CO 2  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 (NO 2 )  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 $7.8 billion using a 3% discount rate  Cumulative from 2010 to 2073 in 2006$

21 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 21 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

22 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 22 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

23 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 23 Next Steps  Structure new product standards defined by the National Standard  Accommodate customer requeststo continue evaluating based on Total Ownership Cost (TOC)  Assess current style impact with Alliance customers 1 st 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

24 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 24 Electronic Code of Federal Regulations

25 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 25 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

26 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 26 The Oak Ridge Study Design Lines Combination Lines 44,000+ Designs evaluated

27 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 27 Weight Variation relative to TSL0 Liquid-Filled 1ph kVA Pad Max: 1.29

28 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 28 Footprint Variation relative to TSL0 Liquid-Filled 1ph kVA Pad Max: 1.10

29 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 29 Price Variation relative to TSL0 Liquid-Filled 1ph kVA Pad Max: 1.33

30 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 30 Price Variation relative to TSL1 Liquid-Filled 1ph kVA Pad Max: 1.16

31 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 31 TOC Variation relative to TSL0 Liquid-Filled 1ph kVA Pad Max: 1.33

32 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 32 TOC Variation relative to TSL1 Liquid-Filled 1ph kVA Pad Max: 1.16

33 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 33 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 TSL = Trial Standard Level

34 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 34 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

35 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 35 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

36 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 36 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

37 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 37 NOPR Dry, BIL, 1-ph versus 3-ph With Dry there was no discrepancy between the single-phase and three- phase efficiencies

38 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 38 NOPR Dry, BIL, 1-ph versus 3-ph With Dry there was no discrepancy between the single-phase and three- phase efficiencies

39 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 39 NOPR Dry, >95 BIL, 1-ph versus 3-ph With Dry there was no discrepancy between the single-phase and three- phase efficiencies

40 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 40 Final Rule – The National Standard  Final Rule Published Oct 12, 2007  Federal Register - 72 FR  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

41 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 41 National Standard - Liquid-filled Note: National Standard Efficiency calculated using load at 50% & PF (COS θ) = 1.0

42 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 42 National Standard - Liquid-filled Loss 50% Load compared to TLS1 (NEMA TP-1) as the base case

43 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 43 1Φ Final Ruling Minimum Efficiency 3Φ Final Ruling Minimum Efficiency National Standard - 1Φ & 3Φ Liquid-filled

44 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 44 Final Rule - Liquid

45 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 45 National Standard - Dry-type Note: National Standard Efficiency calculated using load at 50% & PF (COS θ) = 1

46 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 46 National Standard - Dry Type Loss 50% Load compared to TLS1 (NEMA TP-1) as the base case

47 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 47 1Φ Final Ruling Minimum Efficiency 3Φ Final Ruling Minimum Efficiency National Standard - 1Φ & 3Φ Dry-Type

48 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 48 Final Rule – Dry-Types

49 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 49 Final Rule: Liquid and Dry Comparison

50 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 50 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

51 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 51 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  L. kVA. COS  Fe + L 2. (LL) L (pu) = Load V r No-Load Losses (A) Load Losses (B) Note: National Standard Efficiency calculated using load at 50% & PF (COS θ) = 1

52 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 52 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  I 2 R Loss - material (CU vs. AL), size and length  Eddy Loss - geometry, proximity to steel parts

53 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 53 Load Losses – Conductor I 2 R  I = Rated Current  R = Resistance of the conductor Resistivity - property of the material  Copper =  Aluminium = 0.028

54 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 54 Load Losses - Conductor Eddy Loss  Less of an impact than I 2 R  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

55 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 55 No Load Losses – Core Eddy Loss inch = M inch = M inch = M2

56 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 56 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 No Load Losses – Core Eddy Loss

57 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 57 Ways to Reduce No-Load LossWays to Reduce Load Loss Use better grade of core steelUse copper rather than aluminum Use thinner core steel laminationsUse a conductor with a larger area Use more turns in the coilUse fewer turns in the coil Use a core with larger leg area How to Reduce Losses?

58 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 58 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 Note: TSL6 was computed with Amorphous Cores

59 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 59 Transformer Loss Impact - Liquid-filled Loss 50% Load compared to TLS1 (NEMA TP-1) as the base case

60 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 60 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

61 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 61 % Shipments Meeting Final Ruling  Overheads  20%  Padmount*  1Φ - 47%  S3Φ < 750 kVA - 53%  L3Φ > 750 kVA – 59%  Cast Coil  kV BIL 6%  KV BIL 20%  > 95 KV BIL 3%  Open Wound  kV BIL 1%  KV BIL 10%  > 95 KV BIL 0% *Note: All customer segments for shipments from 10/06 to 08/07

62 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 62 Price Impact – Overhead Estimated based on high volume styles

63 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 63 Price Impact - Padmount

64 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide KV BIL KV BIL > 95 KV BIL KV BIL KV BIL > 95 KV BIL Open Wound ABB Base Cost TP1 ABB Base Cost TP1Cast Coil DOE Note: Actual Price impact is dependent on: KVA Temperature Rise Conductor BIL Impedance Price Impact – Dry Type

65 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 65 Footprint Variation relative to TSL0 Liquid-Filled 1ph kVA Pad Max: 1.10

66 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 66 Weight Variation relative to TSL0 Liquid-Filled 1ph kVA Pad Max: 1.29

67 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 67 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

68 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 68 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

69 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 69 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.

70 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 70 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. 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)

71 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 71 Loss Evaluation – Definition of Terms  ECEnergy Cost - avoided, incremental cost of energy.  FCRFixed Charge Rate - value of the carrying cost of capital which is a function of capital cost, depreciation, taxes, insurance, etc.  HPYHours per Year - amount of time during the year that the transformer is utilized (energized). Full year (8760 hours).  LFLoad Factor – average load on the transformer as a % of peak load.  LSFLoss Factor - average load losses on the transformer as a % of peak load losses  PLPeak Load - equivalent annual peak load on the transformer.  RFPeak Loss Responsibility Factor - ratio of transformer load losses at system peak to the peak load losses of transformer.  SCSystem Capacity Cost - incremental cost of system capacity including generation, transmission and distribution costs.

72 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 72 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)

73 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 73 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)= 8760 (full year) Then:A = $6.51 per watt B = $2.13 per watt

74 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 74 TOC Variation relative to TSL0 Liquid-Filled 1ph kVA Pad Max: 1.33

75 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 75 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.

76 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 76 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)

77 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 77 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

78 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 78 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

79 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 79 Impact to Manufacturer  Redesign and re-optimize  Impact of unit weight and size  Material selection and availability  Compliance & Enforcement

80 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 80 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

81 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 81 % Shipments Meeting Final Ruling  Overheads  20%  Padmount*  1Φ - 47%  S3Φ < 750 kVA - 53%  L3Φ > 750 kVA – 59%  Cast Coil  kV BIL 6%  KV BIL 20%  > 95 KV BIL 3%  Open Wound  kV BIL 1%  KV BIL 10%  > 95 KV BIL 0% *Note: All customer segments for shipments from 10/06 to 08/07

82 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 82 Impact to Manufacturer  Redesign and re-optimize  Impact of unit weight and size  Material selection and availability  Compliance & Enforcement

83 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 83 Impact on E-Steel Grade Distribution

84 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 84  Greatest impact of all commodities  Limited worldwide production  Limited capacity of higher grades  Expanding global demand  US Producers raising prices to match world levels Materials – E-Steel MOST Critical

85 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 85 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%

86 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 86 Impact to Manufacturer  Redesign and re-optimize  Impact of unit weight and size  Material selection and availability  Compliance & Enforcement

87 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 87 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

88 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 88 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

89 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 89 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

90 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 90 Distribution of efficiencies for all units of a basic model Standard Level for Efficiency per Table I.1. of 10 CFR 431; example, 99.08% for 50 kVA Single Phase Higher Efficiency Similar to quoting average losses today The mean efficiency of a basic model will be at or above the standard DOE Compliant

91 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 91 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…  X i 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

92 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 92 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

93 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 93 Distribution of efficiencies for all units of a basic model Standard Level for Efficiency per Table I.1. of 10 CFR 431; example, 99.08% for 50 kVA Single Phase Higher Efficiency The mean efficiency of a basic model will be above the standard mean Specified Minimum Efficiency >> DOE ABB Preferred Specification

94 © ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 94 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.”

95


Download ppt "© ABB Group January 15, 2015 | Slide 1 SWEDE 2009 Conference 2010 National Efficiency Standards Wes Patterson, ABB Transformers North America, May 8, 2009."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google