Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Efficiency ranges 28-35 % with respect to size of thermal plant, age of plant and capacity utilization Step-up to 400 / 800 Kv to enable EHV transmission.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Efficiency ranges 28-35 % with respect to size of thermal plant, age of plant and capacity utilization Step-up to 400 / 800 Kv to enable EHV transmission."— Presentation transcript:

1

2

3

4

5

6 Efficiency ranges % with respect to size of thermal plant, age of plant and capacity utilization Step-up to 400 / 800 Kv to enable EHV transmission. Envisaged max. losses 0.5 % or efficiency of 99.5 % EHV transmission and substations at 400 kV / 800 kV. Envisaged maximum losses 1.0 % or efficiency of 99 % HV transmission & Substations for 220 / 400 kV. Envisaged maximum losses 2.5 % or efficiency of 97.5 % Sub-transmission at 66 / 132 kV Envisaged maximum losses 4 % or efficiency of 96 % Step-down to a level of 11 / 33 kV. Envisaged losses 0.5 % or efficiency of 99.5 % Distribution is final link to end user at 11 / 33 kV. Envisaged losses maximum 5 % of efficiency of 95 % Cascade efficiency from Generation to end user= n x n x n x n x n x n x n The cascade efficiency in the T&D system from output of the power plant to the end user is 87% (i.e x 0.99 x x 0.96 x x 0.95 = 87% )

7 Efficiency ranges % with respect to size of thermal plant, age of plant and capacity utilization Step-up to 400 / 800 Kv to enable EHV transmission. Envisaged max. losses 0.5 % or efficiency of 99.5 % EHV transmission and substations at 400 kV / 800 kV. Envisaged maximum losses 1.0 % or efficiency of 99 % HV transmission & Substations for 220 / 400 kV. Envisaged maximum losses % or efficiency of % Sub-transmission at 66 / 132 kV Envisaged maximum losses % or efficiency of % Step-down to a level of 11 / 33 kV. Envisaged losses 0.5 % or efficiency of 99.5 % Distribution is final link to end user at 11 / 33 kV. Envisaged losses maximum 25 % of efficiency of 75 % Cascade efficiency from Generation to end user= n x n x n x n x n x n x n The cascade efficiency in the T&D system from output of the power plant to the end user is 87% (i.e x 0.99 x x x x 0.75 = 54.8% )

8 Efficiency ranges % with respect to size of thermal plant, age of plant and capacity utilization Step-up to 400 / 800 Kv to enable EHV transmission. Envisaged max. losses 0.5 % or efficiency of 99.5 % EHV transmission and substations at 400 kV / 800 kV. Envisaged maximum losses 1.0 % or efficiency of 99 % HV transmission & Substations for 220 / 400 kV. Envisaged maximum losses 10 % or efficiency of 90 % Sub-transmission at 66 / 132 kV Envisaged maximum losses 7.94 % or efficiency of % Step-down to a level of 11 / 33 kV. Envisaged losses 0.5 % or efficiency of 99.5 % Distribution is final link to end user at 11 / 33 kV. Envisaged losses maximum 15 % of efficiency of 85 % Cascade efficiency from Generation to end user= n x n x n x n x n x n x n The cascade efficiency in the T&D system from output of the power plant to the end user is 87% (i.e x 0.99 x 0.90 x x x 0.85 = 69% )

9 Efficiency ranges % with respect to size of thermal plant, age of plant and capacity utilization Step-up to 400 / 800 Kv to enable EHV transmission. Envisaged max. losses 0.5 % or efficiency of 99.5 % EHV transmission and substations at 400 kV / 800 kV. Envisaged maximum losses 1.0 % or efficiency of 99 % HV transmission & Substations for 220 / 400 kV. Envisaged maximum losses 10 % or efficiency of 90 % Sub-transmission at 66 / 132 kV Envisaged maximum losses 7.94 % or efficiency of % Step-down to a level of 11 / 33 kV. Envisaged losses 0.5 % or efficiency of 99.5 % Distribution is final link to end user at 11 / 33 kV. Envisaged losses maximum 5 % of efficiency of 95 % Cascade efficiency from Generation to end user= n x n x n x n x n x n x n The cascade efficiency in the T&D system from output of the power plant to the end user is 87% (i.e x 0.99 x 0.90 x x x 0.95 = 77.15% )

10  Leveling of distribution system loads by network re-configuration  Voltage optimization  Power factor correction  Install new feeders/transformers/substations  Increasing primary conductor size  Adding a (parallel) feeder  Upsizing conductors or reconfiguring secondary network  Changing out a distribution transformer  Using amorphous core transformers  Voltage conversion  Updating substation auxiliary equipment  Adding substation transformers  Upgrading metering technology  updating street lighting technology

11  Some loads in the heavy loaded feeder shifted to another lightly loaded feeder.  First step for loss reduction with less investment

12 Voltage Optimization (VO) is the concept of tuning the circuit to achieve a flattened voltage profile before implementing CVR in order to produce greater savings than CVR alone.

13 Loss Reduction Techniques Install new feeders  Heavy loaded area to be supplied by new feeder so that existing feeder supplies less loads (for new feeder install, sometimes new HV/MV transformer needed)  New substation to be built in the center of high load density area so that existing feeder supplies less loads  Building new facilities ( feeders, transformers, substations ) requires a certain level of investment. Impact of loss reduction and investment must be carefully considered.

14 >Certain customer inductive loads, distribution lines, and transformers require reactive power to be supplied by the electric grid. >Addition of reactive power(VAR) increases the total line current, which contributes to additional losses in the system.

15  Improvement of power factor reduces power flow in a feeder. Thus, system loss reduction achieved  Power factor improved by compensating the reactive power

16  Phase balancing is balancing phase currents along three- phase circuits.  Balancing phase loads at the substation does not guarantee phase balance along the feeder path. Loss Reduction Techniques Load Balancing and Multi-Phasing

17 > Doubling the voltage would reduce the current by half and reduce the line loss to 25% of original. >Upgrading the primary voltage of the distribution feeder involves upgrading the distribution equipment, which can be cost intensive

18  Balances load between the transformers at existing substations or at a new substation location.  Requires comprehensive cost/benefit studies

19  Increasing primary conductor size  Adding a (parallel) feeder  Upsizing conductors or reconfiguring secondary network  Changing out a distribution transformer  Using amorphous core transformers  Upgrading metering technology  Updating street lighting technology

20  Advanced Metering Infrastructure (Data improves loss analysis and CVR effectiveness )  Volt/VAR Control via Distribution Management System (Optimizes set points for local Volt/VAR controllers (LTC, regulator, cap banks) )  Distribution Automation ( Provides monitoring and control to optimize system Configuration )  Distributed Generation  Energy Storage Systems (Reduces peak load and energy and associated losses )  Demand Management

21 Evaluation of Loss Reduction Measures When “Cost of Loss Reduction” > “Economic Value of Reduced Energy Loss”, the loss is feasible Determine the most effective measures and their respective input

22 Best Practices in Technical Loss Reduction  Network Re-Configuration  Network Reconducturing  Optimal Location of DTRs  Integrated Optimal Strategy

23 Rule Based Optimal Integrated Strategy  Rule1: Reconfigure the network for minimal losses  Rule2: Determine the optimal number, location and capacity of the shunt capacitor banks to be placed on the network  Rule3: If voltage drop violation is severe and losses are violated marginally, then install AVB on the feeders to improve voltage profile and maximise reduction of losses. If loss violation is severe and violation of voltage drop is marginal or severe, proceed for implementation of optimal reconductoring of the network.

24 S. No. Feeder Length Km Active Load Kw Reactive KVAR Power Loss KW Regulation (%) Energy Loss (%) 1F F F Table -1 Voltage Drop and losses of existing Network

25 On a review of Table – I :  It is observed that feeder F1 is heavily loaded and losses and voltage drop are high.  Feeders F2 & F3 are approximately equally loaded.  The network has a heavy unequal loading, calling for reconfiguration of network. Discussion

26 The benefits are evaluated by pricing the peak power loss reduction at marginal capacity cost and energy savings at marginal energy cost.

27 Details of ShortNameVoltageEnergyPower LossVoltageBenefitWorks to Term Measure of Feeder Drop %Loss %Reduction % Improve- ment % Cost Ratio be Executed 1. Reconfiguration F KM F of Line F Shunt Capacitor F SSCB F SSCB F Reconductoring F KM F KM 6.8 KM F Table -II Power Loss and Voltage drop of Network for each short term measure

28 Table -II Power Loss and Voltage drop of Network for each short term measure Details of Short Term Measure Nameof Feeder Voltage Drop % Energy Loss % Power Loss Reduction % Voltage Improve- ment % Benefit Cost Ratio Works tobe Executed 4. AVB F AVB F AVB F AVB 5. Series Capacitor F KVAR F KVAR F KVAR

29 On a review of Table – II: It is noticed that none of the short term measures when considered alone can bring the network to set target norms of losses and voltage drop. Further, it is observed that i)Reconfiguration equalises loading on Feeders and also reduces losses of total network by 45% but neither losses nor voltage drop are within the desired limits. ii)With shunt compensation, Feeder F 1 still has high losses and voltage drop, even after it has reduced losses by 60% and improves voltage by 12% Discussion

30 iii) Reconductoring alone will bring losses of all feeders within the set target norms but the voltage drop of Feeder F1 is violated iv)Installation of AVB has brought voltage profile within the desired limits but losses of all Feeders continue to be high. v) Series capacitor will not reduce the losses and voltage drop of Feeder F 1 to set norms and the rate of return is low. Discussion

31 Type of ImprovementFeederVoltageEnergyPower LossVoltageBenefitWorks to be NoDrop %Loss %Reduction %Improve-CostExecuted ment %Ratio 1. Shunt Capacitor + Reconductoring F SSCB KM 2 SSCB 1 SSCB F F Shunt Capacitor + Reconfiguration F SSCB KM 2 SSCB 1 SSCB F F Reconductoring + Reconfiguration F KM KM 7.2 KM 6.8 KM F F Table -III Combinations of Short Term measures

32 Type of Improvement Feeder No Voltage Drop % Energy Loss % Power Loss Reduction % Voltage Improve- ment % Benefit Cost Ratio Works tobe Executed 4. Reconductoring F KM + 3 SSCB 7.2 KM + + Shunt Capacitor F F SSCB 6.8 KM + 1 SSCB 5. Reconductoring F KM + 1 AVB 7.2 KM + AVB F F KM 6. Reconfiguration F KM +SSCB 2SSCB + Shunt Capacitor F F SSCB Table -III Combinations of Short Term measures

33 Type ofFeederVoltageEnergyPower LossVoltageBenefitWorks to ImprovementNoDrop %Loss %Reduction % Improve- ment % Cost Ratio be Executed 7. Reconfiguration F KM KM + Reconductoring F F Reconfiguration F KM + 1 AVB 1 AVB + AVB F F AVB 9. Shunt Capacitor F SSCB + + AVB F AVB 2 SSCB F SSCB + 1 AVB Table -III Combinations of Short Term measures

34 Type of ImprovementFeederVoltageEnergyPower LossVoltageBenefitWorks to NoDrop %Loss %Reduction % Improve- ment % Cost Ratio be Executed 10. Reconfiguration F KM + 2 SSCB + 2 AVB + Shunt Capacitor + AVB F F SSCB +1 AVB 2 SSCB + 1 AVB 11. Shunt Capacitor F Reconductoring + AVB F F Table -III Combinations of Short Term measures

35 A review of Table III indicates that: i)The BCR of combination where Reconfiguration is done first and then other short term measure is undertaken later is better than corresponding combination where Reconfiguration is done later and the other measure is done first. ii) The results of Reconfiguration show that there is a transfer of a load from feeders F2 & F3 to feeder F1 only and the transfer between the feeders F2 & F3 is negligible. It indicates that network Reconfiguration is effective only between feeders of unequal loading..

36 iii)The combination of Reconfiguration+ Shunt Capacitor gives the highest BCR but it violates the voltage limits iv)The combination of Reconductoring + AVB alone satisfies both the limits of losses and voltage but BCR is very low and is not recommended. v) The combination of Shunt Capacitor + Reconductoring has higher BCR than Reconductoring + Shunt Capacitor, as the later involves reconductoring of longer length of line. It validates Rule 3 that Reconductoring should be undertaken only after installation of capacitors required..

37 vi)The combination Reconfiguration + Shunt Capacitor + AVB meets the targets set for losses and voltage drop and has highest BCR of 5.25 vii)Thenext best combination which meets the targets set is Shunt Capacitor + Reconductoring + AVB but has a lower BCR of 3.85 viii)The fact that combination of Shunt Capacitor + Reconductoring + AVB has a higher BCR compared to combination of Reconductoring + AVB indicates that installation of capacitors is necessary to reduce losses and obtain better BCR.

38 H THANK ‘U’


Download ppt "Efficiency ranges 28-35 % with respect to size of thermal plant, age of plant and capacity utilization Step-up to 400 / 800 Kv to enable EHV transmission."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google