# The Feasibility of

Energy Efficiency Standards for 

# Distribution Transformers Required by Section 124 EPACT P. R. Barnes 

# Oak Ridge Nati 

# o na l 

# Laboratory 

# Power S

# ystem Technology 

# Programi AGENDA PROJECT REVIEW MEETING DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMER DETERMINATION STUDY

FORRESTAL . BUILDING , ROOM 3E-033

DECEMBER 7, 1994

2:15 ORNL Visitors Check In
........................................... 2:30 Opening Remarks ....................................:. Terry Logee 2:35 Introduction .......................................... Randy Barnes 2:45 Transformer Technology
............................... Ben McConnell 2:55 Distribution Transformer Market ..........................
.. .. Sujit Das 3:05 Energy Conservation Options ............................ Jim Van Dyke 3:45 Discussion
.................................................... All 5:00 Leave for AirportPROJECT TEAM AND SCHEDULE

P. R. Barnes Project Leader EE B. W. McConnell Physics S. Das MBA & Eng. J. Van Dyke Economics

Schedule
Draft Report Submitted to DOE by January 10, 1995.

# DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMER LOSSES ARE SIGNIFICANT

ORNL-DWG 94-2116 UTILITY SYSTEM LOSSES 7.5-8.2% CUSTOMERS SYSTEM 

# r

GENERATION GSU 

## 35% ' 65% HV LINES MV LINES ► + TRANSFORMER LOSSES 3.1%

SUBSTATION DISTRIBUTION

TRANSFORM RS 

## 38% '27%

METER RESIDENTIAL

C OMME R CIAL I NDU ST R IA L

# E F FIC IE NCY A S A F UNCTI ON OF LOAD

99.5 99.3 99.1 98.9 98.7 98.5 98.3 98.1 97.9 97.7 97.5 

## E FFICIENCY
ORNL- DWG 94-1764

0:08 0.24 0.4 0
. 56 0.72 0
. 88 1.04 1.2 PER UNIT LOAD (Nameplate Rating = 1.0) 500 450 400 350 w 300 9 250 J jLC 200 0 150 100 50 0 

## LOSSES
ORNL-DWO 94-1765

0.16 0.32 0.48 - 0.64 0.8 0.96 1.12 PER UNIT LOAD (Nameplate Rating = 1.0)

# TYPICAL LOSSES FOR A 25 KVA

DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMER '

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 DRY TYPE UNIT OL D ER UNIT

11 `` -- LOW LOSS

'T I J a 1 I i 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 PER UNIT LOAD (Load/ Nameplate) ORNL-DWG 94-1705C

AMORPHOUS CORE

# STANDARDS NEED TO CHALLENGE

CURRENT PRACTICES DRY 3-PHASE 45 KVA TRANSFORMER LOSSES
2250 2100 1950 1800 1650 1500 1350 1200 ® 1050 900 750 600 450 300 150 0 i"I mil TYPICAL EXISTING FOR A 45 WA DRY-TYPE UNIT I V l" itl III r 

# IL11 I

# 11I 

# f VII iilli ll,Ibbil,lilll il'Ipillll

# i

jli Ilioil!I!^iiliiliillM ltl!i IIIj ^Ib^!il^ CSA Standard $3.50/2.25

CASES ORNL-DWO042117 LOAD NO LOAD

$3.50/$0.75

# Determination Study Approach Case Studies • Develop Alternative Treatments - Address major sources of loss - Cover utility and non-utility sectors - Outcome can be analyzed - Challenges current practice • Evaluate Cases Energy savings >.01 quads over 25. years - Manufacturing feasibility - Cost effective from a national perspective Identify impacts on the various stakeholder sectorsDEC 08 '94 10:29 PSTP ORt'U_



# Limitations on Transformer Performance -Physics of Oil vs. Dry Designs

Presented to the U. S. Department of Energy by Ben McConnell Senior Development Staff Oak Ridge National Laboratory P. O. Box 2008, MS-6070 Oak Ridge, IN 37831-6070 December 7, 1994 P.1 T

Post-It" brand fax transmittal memo 787`t r of M" ► Z„ From 1 Ca Dept. Phone G^ 'S - 3 Fax" 

### _ 4

AP 1-7 

### "' j U15- 57 -7DEC 08 1 94 10:29 PSTP ORt'. •P.2DEC 08 '94 10:29 PSTP ORNL P.3

# ower Ct Voltage e qu ati on s

Power in kVA = 4443 *f*N*Bmax *Aclw*J*Acrw, where f = operating frequency (Hz), N = number of turns in the winding, B, = maximum flux density in the core (tesla

), and Alp = cross sectional area of the core material in the coil window (m2), I is the current density (A1m2) and Ate„ is the coil cross sectional area of the coil material in the core window (m2) 

## ?,- Volt/ Turn = 4.443 *f*Bmax*AclwN a:



## >- D epend upon Hysteresis and Eddy Current Losses -

)' Hysteresis Losses are functions of Core Volume, Operating frequency, and Core Magnetic Fier` ?> Eddy Current losses are functions of Core Volume, Operating Frequency , Lamination Thicknessi, and.Core Magnetic Field

93

# Lo ad Lo sses

>- Depend upon Eddy Current and Resistive fosses - ?- Eddy Current Losses are functions of Radial Magnetic Field Component2, Conductor Lamination Thickness2, and Operating frequency. > Resistive Losses are functions of Conductor Current Density2, Conductor Cross Sectional Area', and Conductor Length.

9DEC 08 '94 10:30 PSTP ORI'L 

# Loss deduction Alternative P.7

No-load Loaw Load LOW C44 LTo Axreae No-Laad Losses A.Use Lower Laos Cora Matarisls Lower Higher W Lower Higher

` B.Deerease Flux Density by 1.Tucxe si tg Corn CSA' Lower Higher Higher 2.Deerexsiag Yohslfurn Higher or Lower Higher Higher C.Aocrase P w Pack Length by L.Decreasing Coaduetnr CSA Lower Higher Lower ILTO

-Deemer Lead Lassa A.Use Lower Lou Conductor Mateti>< Higher or Lower Lower Higher S.Decrraae Current Dewily by I'lW acing Conductor CSA Higher Lower Higher C.Decrdse Current Pads Length by L.Decretning Cora CSA Higher Lower Lower 2.Ineraeing Volts(furn Lower Lower Lower

LCSA = Cross Sectional Area

# ABB POWER T&D SEMINAR DRY TYPE T RANSFORME R D IVISION

a law A ;1aaA;, ;& am!% I I I I I I I 1 I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I ^ t I I 

## • ,. t iTr®t1 7sair

am 

# 11:;IE=L^

_ -nm

_ co nta minants

INSULATION SYSTEM thermal - dielectric INSULATION MEDIUM - dielectric - tooling ENCLOSURE Ra diators

I 111 It III 1111111 1 Ii I I I I I I I 

## f'

v v w w w w v ' LIQUID FILLED SEALED DRY'S COOLING -CLASSES XF Type Temp Avg HS Max Major

Class Rise Dif f Arab Components Open Wound 220 150 30 40 Nomex/Air Sealed Dry 220 150 30 40 Nomex/Seated Gas Epoxy Cast 150 80 30 40 Epoxy/Air Li uid Filled 120 65 15 40 Pa er/Fluid
OW/EC Ambient Air Sealed Dry The Gas - C2F6/N2/SF6 Liquid Fitted The Liquid - oil/silicone/etc. ^-AMBIENT CONDITIONS-S - altitude - temperature

Liquid Filled OA OA/FA OA/FA/FA OA/FA/FOA OA/FOA/FDA OW 0W/A FOA FOW Dry Types

AA AFA AA/FA ANV GA AA/AA/FA Insulation Medium ___./ Cooling Medium - Rise #1 Cooling Medium Rise #2 v m BASICS & TERMINOLOGY : Insulat ion, Systems Cooling. Medium Rise #3 se".

# ABB POWER T&D SEMINAR DRY TYPE TRANSFORMER DIVISION
GENERAL • Predominant Type of Transformer a Oldest Technology Established Performance Record • Best Balance of Design Properties - Dielectric, Thermal, & Cost • Basis For Alt Other Types 11 FEATURES • Hermetically Seated Tank n Insulation System - Oit-Impregnated Paper • Insulation Medium - Transf ormer Qt

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES • Outstanding Thermal Properties • Leakage • Outstanding Dielectric Properties n Fire n Lowest Purchase Cost • Sriatlest Dimensions n .Lowest Losses per Purchase Dollar • Unaffected by Envir onment

Was SELECTIO N - Oil Filled

# ABB POWER T&D SEMINAR D RY TYP E TRANSFORMER DIVI S ION

GENERAL • The Oldest Type of Transformer • Dominates Control Powerr and Instrument Transformer Markets n Development of Higher Temperature Materials Allowed Cost Effective Option to Oil In Small Power • Flexibility In Design FEATURES • 'Dipped' in Varnish • Insulation ' Classes - Various Ratings Commonty Used n Insulation System - Insulation Paper & Ambient Air Insulation Medium - Ambient Air ADVANTAGES • Truly Non - Ftommabte n No Leakage Problem • Relatively Low Cost n Light Weight & Smatt Size - Higher Operating Temperature DISADVANTAGES Air is Poor Thermal Conductor n Ambient Impacts Insulation Medium n Ambient Impacts Insulation System - "Dipping' Does Not Effectively Seal Insulation on Interior of Windings Especially Pronounced at Higher Voltage Ratings n Little Capital Investment Required - Many Questionable Manufacturers Enter & Leave The Market SELECTION - Conventional Dry Types

# ABB POWER T&D SEMINAR D RY TY P E TRANS F ORME R DIVI S ION Arrhen;us-,Reaction Rate to life(t) = A Class 220 : tn(t) = 1650.0 /T-22.093 Class 185: t n ( t) = 14222/T-19.671 Class 150 : In(t) = 12111/T-17.250

singer . Factor = 10-C The life of organic materials will halve or double for every 10'C change in temperature.

HS AMB RISE Class 220: 30 + 40 + 150 Consider: Class 220 Operating at 115'C Rise Class 185: 30 + 40 + 115 HS Rse LIFE Class 150: 30 + 40 + 80 220 150 4.5 Avg Arab = 20`C vs 40'C Max 210 140 9 = (2)4.5 200 130 18 = (2) (2)4.5 Life = (2)(2)(4. 5) = 18 years 190 120 36 = (2)(2)(2)4.5 180 110 72 = (2)(2)(2)(2)4.5 IL"M SPECIFICATION - Overloading & Life

# Are Lower Loss Dry Type Transformers

Technically and Economically Feasible?

9 ?- Yes, but because air is the basic cooling and insulating medium,

the costs and losses will always be higher than an oil filled unit. However, the system must also be considered. Where is the unit to be used, what is the equivalent installed cost, and what are the run losses? Be careful about comparing only the transformer efficiency and cost. Never-the-less, dry transformers could be made more efficient without apparent significant technical problems.

# C O NSE RVATIO N CASES

James Van Dyke Oak Ridge National Laboratory

# Conservation Cases
n Preliminary results
e Definition of Cases

Oak Ridge National Laboratory December 7, 1994

# Potential Energy Savings

for National Perspective Regulation 21000
11500
cn 

## 0 1,000


## 500 

## Total Annual Savings in the

first year would be equivalent to a 300 MW Coal Fired Power Plant or 0.0058 Quads 

# e

Dr T y yp L id T iqu ype

0-100 >100 0-15 15-100 >100 Total



# Type and Size

# Distribution of Savings (Watts per KVA)

0.5-1.0 1.0-1.2



## 0-100 >100 0-15 15-100 >100' 

# Size: and Type of Transformer

# Watts of Savings per KVA for Alte rnative Standards 14 <12 11 ^- 10 a 9 cn 

### 0) 7 •5 6 5 ,^- 4 o 3 

### N 2 

# `u o -1 -2 I LIQUID 25 

# LIQUID

I 

### I 

# DRY

50 50.01 150 750 2000 DRY 1 10 45 1500 2000 2500 

## Size and Type of Transformer Note: 1 Watt per KVA for Total Annual Transformer Sales = 0.003 Quads annually or electric output from a 150 MW Coal Fired Power Plant operating at 65% Capacity Factor 

# ° National Perspective Losses Utility Evaluation (80%) NLL Regulation Only

# Approach

e Find losses for cost-effective designs through survey of manufacturers
• May appeal to users because of life-cycle cost savings
• Appealing to manufacturers because of higher sales revenue 

# n Develop alternative cases from survey information

Oak Ridge National Laboratory December 7, 1994

# 12 Different Transformers Were Surveyed

n Liquid Filled Single Phase n 25 KVA Pole n 50 KVA Pole n 50 KVA Pad 

# Liquid Filled Three Phase n 150 KVA Pad n 750 KVA Pad n 2000 KVA Pad 

# ® Dry Single Phase n I KVA n 10 KVA 

# Dry Three Phase n 45 KVA Lighting 

### n 1500 KVA Epoxy Cast n 2000 KVA Load Center. n 2500 KVA Epoxy Cast

Oak Ridge National Laboratory December 7, 1994

# Survey form:

n For $3.50 and $2.25 • No Load Losses • Load Losses • Selling Price 

# n For $3

. 50 and $0

. 75 • No Load Losses • Load Losses • Selling Price

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

# n For $0

. 00 and $0

. 00 • No Load Losses • Load Losses • Selling Price • This served as the basis for Existing Dry Transformer Losses, i.e. the Base Case

December 7, 1994

# Survey response

e 163 designs n At least 3 designs were submitted for each A/B combination n As many as 7 designs were submitted on some transformers

Oak Ridge National Laboratory December 7, 1994

# Issues in Defining Cost Effective Designs
s Uncertainty in factors determining the cost of losses • Dependent on Load Factor Life of Transformer 

# • Varies with cost of fuel and capital 

# Manufacturers ' ability to anticipate and Liquid Filled Dry 

# reveal " cost effective designs

Oak Ridge National Laboratory December 7, 1994

# Divergence of TOC and design ' losses TOC ' s for transformers which are evaluated are much closer than for traditionally unevaluated transformer e Can we trust the results? • Sandbagging • Lack of experience in designing low loss transformers

Oak Ridge National Laboratory December 7, 1994

# Formulation of alternative Cases n Base Case n National Perspective Case E"9 U t ili ty E v a lu at ion C a se ( B ased on M aximum Losses Consistent w i th 80 % of Ut i l ities ' Evaluat i on Criteria ) 

# n N O Lo a d LOSS Only C a se (eased on Lowest N o Load Losses submitted in surv ey and highest load l osses )

Oak Ridge National Laboratory December 7, 1994

# Canadian Style Tradeoff

n Allows flexibility within guidelines • Manufacturer adjusts to reflect strength/weakness Users can .reflect loading practices 

## n Selecting tradeoff corresponding to ratio of A to B Factor results in constant value of losses n Systematic preference for lower No Load losses emphasizes energy savings n Systematic preference for lower load losses emphasizes capacity savings Oak Ridge National Laboratory December 7, 1994

# for Alternative Standards Savings per KVA--Dry 

# Transformers i 1 i

d



# Size 

# of Transformer Aggregate 

## Savings Annually: 1 

## Watt for 

## all Liquid Transformers = 

### 50 

## MW Baseload Plant 

# National Perspective Losses Utility Evaluation (80%)

+- 

# NLL Regulation Only

ii

# Savings per KVA--Liquid Transformers for Alternative Standards
a) X 0.8 

# 0 . 6 . b 

# O.4 

# U) 0.2 

# 3: 0 CA;
CID



# a

25 50 50.01 150 750 2000

Size of Transformer 

# e National Perspective Losses m Utility Evaluation (80%)

## THE ANALYSIS OF

EE:GY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR DI jTION TRANSFOPMERS AS REQUIRED BY

SUBTITLE C, SECTION 124 0 17 THE ENERGY PC Y ACT OF 1 992

QUARTERLY REVIEW

P. R. Birnes Energy visi Oak Ridge National Laboratory PROJECT O ERVIEW June 13,1994 Work sponsc,-ed the Office of Ener

, Management U_ S. Departmesi of Energy

Prepare(i by the OAK RIL G E NATIONAL ]LABORATORY Oak Ridge, Tennenee 37831-6285

manage; by MARTIN M IFI A Elk-HRGY SYSTEMS, INC.

for Ile U.S. D P THE T -O ENERGY under contract DE-zCb*-34OR21

## TOPICS

Introduction and Project Scope 

## Overall Approach
• Planned Schedule
• Present StatusCX PBL -CVWG 94-

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 - TIME (year)

99.1 99.0 9&9 98.8 98.7 .6 .5 98.4

3 98.2 98.1 _0 (a.) Transmission and distribution system efficiency (Source: DOE/EIA-0384(92})

1950 1960 1970 1980

TRANSFORMER YEAR OF MANUFACTURE (b.) Maximum efficiency of a typical 25 WA dist ution transformer. 9a-1899

1990

F . I.I .: i he 'c utility transmik . o n and di^ -trib ' on efficiency imp r ovements

## 25 T RANS FORMER COST & L -.USES 

# 500 400

0 $348(; 20 $465 $486 $538 $573 $5 99 $662

TRANSFORMER 1ST COST -^- COST -- N LL 5 ^ LL 25

## A ° TO FRO M UTfA SURVEY

EVALUATION OF NO LOAD LOSSES $10.00 

## - $9.50 $9.00 $8.50 .$8.00 $7.50 $7.00 $6.50 $6.00 S $5.50 $5.00 $4.50 $4.00 $3.50 - ® - -----! --- $3.00 $2.50 n - $2.00-_.-_ $1.50 $1.00 ---- ___ - n "^. $150 HHH! °0 

## UTI LITI E S

## B FAC T ORS h r M UTILI TY UR ' Y EV 

## A LUATI 

## ON O F 

## LOAD LOSSES
$3.00 $2.90 ---- $2.80 ---- $2.70 $2.60 ---- $2.60- V $2.40 $2.30 $2.20 $2.10 $2.00 _^ n ! - $1.90 $1.80 $ 1.70 o_ $1.50 co $1.40 $1.30 $1.20 $1.10 00 11 $1 s.. . _J $0.90 

### O $0.80 $0.70 $0.60 ® ---------- $0.50 $0.40 $0.30 $0.20 $0.10 $0.00 

## UTILITIES

# FOM USING AV . ER GY USE 25 KVA TRAN SFO RM E R S '=RO M SU RVE' u, 140 120 w YJ 

## 100

w z w w CD 

### w 

## 80 60 

# Q 40 . 

## ........................................... .

n



### -

.

n 

## 8 12 1 2 9 3 8 243 5 4 5 9 63 UTILITIES IN VEY

## Effective Dates For Energy Efficiency Req uirements Under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 Utility Distribution Transformers Standards Testing Procedur es bellr^^ ° r `: Effective Date Effective Date Effectiv. mate Utility Distribution DOE shall prescribe standards by DOE shall prescribe testing DOE shall prescribe labeling rules by Transformers October 24, 1991to be effective procedures by April 24, 1995. April 24, 1997, to be effective for for transformers manufactured after transformers manufactured after such date or a later date , as DOE October 24. 1997. determi .
For pore information contact Kyle Pitsor, NEMA Government Affa irs., at ( 202) 457

- 8448. Fax (202 ) 457-8411.

# DETERMINATION STUDY

DETERMINE STANDARDS AR


## 'II CHNOLOGICALLY FEAS IBLE EC NOviICALLY JUSTIFIED SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS WOULD RESULT

DOE TO DEVELOP STANDARDS AND TESTING AND LABELLING REQUIREMENTS

## DETERMINATION STUDY APPROACH

1. BUILD A DATA BASE: 

## a) Utility survey data b) NEMA loss and sales data c) Manufactures data d) Other sources
2. DEVELOP OR OBTAIN MODELS FOR AN ALYSIS 

## a) Forecasting models b) Economic and energy savings models
3. DEVELOP CASES FOR ANALYSIS a) Cases should be practical and analyzable b ) Utility and non utility sectors
4. EVALUATE THE CASES a) Are there significant energy savings - .01 quads over 25 yrs ? b) Are they to '-^nclogical feasible ? c) Are they co effective from a national perspective ? Which consun-i -,rs are penalized ? What percentage ? d) Reconmern ` ations for a standards s :udy

## Planned Schedule

The following milestones have been identified:

Milestone Begin Data Collection x/94 NEMA Sales Data and Dry-type Efficiency Data Request 5/09/94 Determine LFs and A&Bs for ea size unit 6/20/94 Additional NEMA Data Request 6/09/94 Receive NEMA Data 7/3j/94 Complete Sales and Use Assessments 7/3 1 /94 Complete Technical And Economic Assessments 9/3"2/94 First Draft Report 11/25/94 Revised Draft Report 12/31/94

# PRESENT STATUS

Have Part of the Data _" 4 eeded Additional data request have been made to NE INLA, cork has begun on moel and case development More details in the presentations to follow