Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Session 2: Promoting Efficient Transformers by Utilities & Industries strategies and case studies
Europe: Methodology of promotion: The 5 Steps United States: Addressing Regulatory Barriers
According to US Department of Energy, Between Hitachi Metals/Metglas and AT&M, Amorphous Metal (AM) Has ~ 4% Global Supply For Electrical Steel Market Amorphous Metal has lowest no-load losses of any electrical steel There are > 2.5 million Amorphous Metals Distribution Transformers (AMDTs) in Service Worldwide
Amorphous Metal Allows for 60% - 80% Lower No-Load Losses than Other Electrical Steels
Tons of CO2 Emissions ( 40% Load; 28 Year Life ) 224 190 172 134 128
AMDTs
Amorphous Metal Transformers Reduce CO2 Emissions: Critical Promotional Point for Environmentally Conscious Governments and Utilities
Market Development
Developing Market for High Efficiency Amorphous Metal-Based Distribution Transformers In the EU Methodology: The 5 Steps
Challenge for All Markets: Modest Capital Investment Required to Begin AMDT Production
Working with Many Stakeholders is Required; Of Course Some Steps can be Worked in Parallel
Metglas Appreciates the Kind Invitation from SEEDT Partners to Assist in their Valuable Effort
STEP 2 (EU)
Step 2: Work with Utilities to Initiate Amorphous Transformer Evaluations Between 2008 and 2011, Metglas / Hitachi Metals Europe initiated AMDT evaluations with more than ten (10) EU utilities EDFs R&D Subsidiary, ERDF, quickly recognized value of efficient transformers and presented a paper at the CIRED workshop in June 2010
RWE (major German Utility) also studied efficient transformers produced utilizing low core-loss amorphous metal and published a paper in 2010
Utilities Always See and Understand the Value of Efficient Distribution; Programs Can Take Some Time
600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
400 kVA 28 Year Life
Ck Eo Ck AM
Ck Eo 4600 930
Amorphous Metal 400 kVA Transformer Reduces CO2 by 73 Metric Tons Over 28 Years
distribution transformers account for the majority of losses in electrical European networks with total losses of about 33 TWh/y [3] in the EU27 and 4 TWh/y in the French distribution grid. [1]
For electrical companies distribution transformers are pinpointed as equipment to be improved. Where conventional Grain Oriented steel seems to show a limitation in the possibility of no-load losses reduction, amorphous ribbon technology developed by Hitachi Metals/ Metglas Inc., allows a significant reduction of these losses of wound core transformers [1]
[1] C. ELLEAU and M. MOUHAMAD (EDF), O. GENIN and B. JARRY (ERDF) AMORPHOUS MATERIALS AND ENERGY EFFICIENT DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS CIRED, Workshop, Paper 0031, Lyon, June 2010
[2] B. Jarry and P. Lauzevis (ERDF), P. Lagache and M. Sacotte (France Transfo), AMORPHOUS SHEET CORE TRANSFORMERS UNDER EXPERIMENTATION ON THE ERDF NETWORK, CIRED, 20th International Conference on Electricity Distribution, paper 0090, p.1, Prague, June 2009
[3] R. Targosz, F. Topalis and W. Irrek, Selecting Energy-Efficient Distribution Transformers: A Guide for Achieving Least-Cost Solutions, SEEDT Project (2008)
ERDF, Encouraged by EC, Identifies Opportunities for Loss Reduction using Efficient Distribution Transformers
[1] C. ELLEAU and M. MOUHAMAD (EDF), O. GENIN and B. JARRY (EDRF) AMORPHOUS MATERIALS AND ENERGY EFFICIENT DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS CIRED, Workshop, Paper 0031, Lyon, June 2010
[2] B. Jarry, P. Lauzevis, P. Lagache and M. Sacotte, AMORPHOUS SHEET CORE TRANSFORMERS UNDER EXPERIMENTATION ON THE ERDF NETWORK, CIRED, 20th International Conference on Electricity Distribution, paper 0090, p.1, Prague, June 2009
Based on todays cost assumptions AMDTs show an advantage of approx. 2000 over a conventional DT (AoBk).
[1] Translated excerpts from EW-Aufsatz 25/2010 Herstellung und Netzerprobung von verlustarmen Transformatoren in neuer Technologie Von Thomas Christ (RWE), Wesel und Michel Heinz (SGB), Neumark
RWE Study Determines that AMDTs Provide Significant Environmental and Economic Benefits
MINUTES CONSULTATION FORUM: Ecodesign ENTR Lot 2 TRANSFORMERS Brussels, 20 April 2012
1.
Attendees/ Presentation
The list of attendees to the meeting and the Commissions presentation are available in circa as separate documents.
2.
Introductions
Kirsi Ekroth-Manssila (KEM), acting Head of Unit, ENTR B.1, welcomed the Consultation Forum members and invitees to the meeting, and introduced the responsible Policy Officer for ENTR Lot 2, Cesar Santos Gil (CSG), and attending colleague, Michael Bennett (MJB).
Participation in EcoDesigns Consultation Forum Ensures Current and Correct Information is Available to Enable Best Decision by EU
Europe
India
United States
MINUTES CONSULTATION FORUM: Ecodesign ENTR Lot 2 TRANSFORMERS Brussels, 20 April 2012
1.
Attendees/ Presentation
The list of attendees to the meeting and the Commissions presentation are available in circa as separate documents.
2.
Introductions
Kirsi Ekroth-Manssila (KEM), acting Head of Unit, ENTR B.1, welcomed the Consultation Forum members and invitees to the meeting, and introduced the responsible Policy Officer for ENTR Lot 2, Cesar Santos Gil (CSG), and attending colleague, Michael Bennett (MJB).
CENELEC to Include No Load Losses (NLL) of Amorphous (A0/2), but Since Silicon Steel Cannot Today Achieve A0/2, This Will be AMDT Only
No Load Load Losses (W) Losses (W) A0 90 145 210 300 360 430 510 600 560 650 770 950 1200 1450 1750 Bk 875 1475 2000 2750 3250 3850 4600 5400 5600 7000 9000 11000 14000 18000 22000 Ck 1100 1750 2350 3250 3900 4600 5500 6500 6750 8400 10500 13500 17000 21000 26500
50% Load MEPS - AMDT (NLL, at worst, are only 45% of Celelec NLL Designation; for 400 kVA, we cannot design to Cenelec 430 W NLL Spec - AMDT NLL are about 195 W) 45% A0; Bk 98.97% 99.14% 99.26% 99.35% 99.39% 99.43% 99.45% 99.49% 99.48% 99.49% 99.48% 99.49% 99.50% 99.49% 99.50% 45% A0; Ck 98.75% 99.00% 99.15% 99.25% 99.28% 99.33% 99.36% 99.40% 99.39% 99.41% 99.41% 99.40% 99.40% 99.41% 99.41%
50 100 160 250 315 400 500 630 630 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500
A0; Bk 98.78% 98.98% 99.12% 99.22% 99.26% 99.31% 99.34% 99.38% 99.38% 99.40% 99.40% 99.41% 99.42% 99.41% 99.42%
A0; Ck 98.56% 98.85% 99.01% 99.12% 99.16% 99.22% 99.25% 99.30% 99.29% 99.32% 99.33% 99.31% 99.32% 99.33% 99.33%
MEPS Should be Set at Average Load Factor 50% is too high for EU and US If Load Factor is Not Set Properly, (1) less energy is actually saved and/or (2) costs are higher TOC Ensures Proper Load Factor
Example: Utility Wants to buy 400 kVA AoBk CRGO unit is 99.31% Efficient at 50% Load for AoBk; AMDT must be 99.43% Efficient at 50% Load and at Bk LL due to lower NLL (45% Ao); However, They Compete on 1st Cost only ( if TOC is not also applied ) So AMDT is more efficient and has lower operating costs but gets no Credit for it
Fixed Loss Standards (Separate LL and NLL) Do Not Allow AMDTs and CRGO DTs to Compete on Level Playing Field
Developing Markets for High Efficiency Amorphous Metal-Based Distribution Transformers In United States Addressing Regulatory Barriers
Efficiency is the cost-effective elimination of waste. The question is how to share the benefits In the case of electric losses, potential financial net-benefits are large and include additional benefits of: lower fossil fuel consumption increased environmental quality reduced and delayed need for additional generation Private ownership (with public regulation) creates a conflict between consumers and stockholders (IOUs) efficiency benefits flow largely to customers utilities can invest in higher return opportunities compared to more efficient transformers
The net present value of the additional fuel cost savings (net of transformer cost increases) was approximately $4 billion (1)
From the perspective of new demand, the cost of reducing losses is a small fraction of the cost of building new generation and transmission From the perspective of reduced demand for fossil fuels, the cost of reducing losses is less than the additional cost of renewable generation
(1) These benefits do not include employment increases from increased material demand ANY public benefits including air quality, reduced pressure on fuel prices, or reduced or delayed demand for new generation
From an Overall Economic Perspective it Makes Sense to Take Lower Cost Measures Before Higher Cost
Answer There is a divergence in the interests of consumers of electricity and the utilities that make the efficiency investment decision. In all but 3 local jurisdictions, regulation does not address efficiency.
Efficiency benefits are largely fuel savings which flow through to customers (FAC). The utilitys benefit is its allowed rate of return applied to the differential efficiency investment. Since 1992, US IOUs have been allowed to invest profits in unregulated activities where the return is substantially higher. Duty to stockholders requires utilities to avoid efficiency investment.
Interestingly, in state-owned utilities, where the divergence of interests does not exist, high-efficiency amorphous transformers are often popular as the local government attempts to minimize its overall budget cost of providing service.
IOUs Can Make Higher Returns for Stockholders in Unregulated Investments Compared to Efficiency Investments
Thank You
Metglas Inc.
David W. Millure
Sr. Vice President Sales and Marketing 440 Allied Drive, Conway SC 29526 USA E-mail dave.millure@metglas.com
Backup
Nozzle
Finished Core
Oil Vent
1982 - Installed first commercial transformers in USA 1989 - Commenced production of transformer core alloy in Conway SC, USA Mid 1990s Wide market acceptance of Amorphous Metal transformers (AMT)
Late 1990s Early 2000s Change of Utility Regulations remove incentive to spend extra money on energy efficient transformers 2007 US Department of Energy enacts MEPS for 2010; Expect an even higher standard in 2016
Utilities can invest in higher return opportunities compared to more efficient transformers (PUHCA law change 1992). Benefits of efficiency investment flow largely to ratepayers. Stockholders get only the allowed return (if earned) on the increased investment cost. This return is less than what the utility can obtain for its stockholders in unregulated businesses For Dry-type transformers, current TP1 regulation allows for purchase of inefficient transformers. Also, end-user, who would enjoy benefits of more efficient electricity distribution, does not buy the transformer
Definitions
Where: FC = first cost of acquiring the transformer, including purchase price and installation cost; A = the no-load loss valuation parameter in dollars per watt ($/W); NLL = the no-load loss at nameplate load (W); B = the load loss valuation parameter ($/W); and LL = the load loss at nameplate load (W).
Where: FC = the first cost; n = the index for the year of operation (yr); Lifetime = the service life of the transformer; OCn = the operating cost in year n, including the value of the losses and maintenance costs; and Drate = the discount rate applied to the calculation (%).