© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 1 

# DOE Efficiency

MVLF Analysis Wes Patterson, PPTR

- NAM, 13 Sep 2011© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 2 

# 2010 Pad Market DOE pre

- analysis



## Poles Pads Substations Networks© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 3 

# MVLF

– Pads

Loss distribution by phase/BIL DOE Scope© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 4 

# MVLF

– Pads

MVA distribution by phase/BIL DOE Scope© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 5 

# MVLF

– Pads

Units distribution by phase/BIL DOE Scope© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 6 

# DOE Representative Units DOE pre

- analysis



## Poles Pads Substations Networks© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 7 

# MVLF Market

 

### Additionally the DOE considered basically two

constructions option: pads and poles

 

### However the market is more accurately

represented by

 ~85% of the shipped MVA

---

Pole

- mounted transformers

Pad

- mounted transformer

 ~15% of the shipped MVA

– not addressed

Substation transformers

Network transformers  

### Losses, and therefore efficiency, are a function

of MVA and not units

 

### Per the DOE,

 ~44% of the MVA produced is 1ph

~56% of the MVA produced is 3ph

 

### However the DOE’s representative units cover

 ~56% of the 1ph MVA (with only 2 designs)

~20% of the 3ph MVA (mainly with one design)© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 8 

# Pad Market Representation in DOE Analysis

by the “Representative Units”

 Only the 1500 KVA 3ph rating was actually shipped

anything in 12 months ending in July 2011

 And this only represented 1% of the market

 As there is little change in losses or cost between

all voltage ratings within a given phase/KVA/BIL

combination thus the DOE representative units

cover

 From a Units perspective

1ph : 14% of all / 23% of 1ph

3ph : 6% of all / 15% of 3ph

 From an MVA perspective

1ph = 2.4% of all / 18% of 1ph

3ph = 11% of all / 13% of 3ph

 Thus the DOE theoretical analysis spans less than

1⁄4 of the true market© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 9 

# MVLF Pads within DOE scope

RU01 (1ph, 50KVA) by BIL

 

### The DOE calculations overstate

the price of MVLF, 1ph, 50 KVA,

95 BIL pads ABB = red dots

DOE = non

- red dots

 

## RU01 was a pad© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 10 

# MVLF Pads within DOE scope

RU02 (1ph, 25KVA) by BIL

 

### The DOE calculations

understate the price of MVLF,

1ph, 25 KVA, 125 BIL pads

 

### Note: the DOE calc assumes a

pole configuration which does

have a marginally lower price

than a corresponding pad ABB = red dots

DOE = non

- red dots

 

## RU02 was a pole© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 11 

# MVLF Pads within DOE scope

RU03 (1ph, 500KVA) by BIL

 

### Per the DOE, RU03 represents ~0%

of the 1ph units shipped in 2009

 And ~1% of the 1ph MVA

 

### In 2010, ABB shipped NO units

matching the RU03 specification:

1ph, 500 KVA, 150 BIL

 

### ABB had one design at 60 BIL which

was considerably higher in price than

any of the corresponding DOE

designs ABB = red dots

DOE = non

- red dots

 

## RU03 was a pole© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 12 

# MVLF Pads within DOE scope

RU04 (3ph, 150KVA) by BIL

 

### The DOE calculations overstate

the price of MVLF, 3ph, 150

KVA, 95 BIL pads using CGO

 

### The DOE calculations

understate the price of MVLF,

3ph, 150 KVA, 95 BIL using SA ABB = red dots

DOE = non

- red dots

 

## RU04 was a pad© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 13 

# MVLF Pads within DOE scope

RU05 (3ph, 1500KVA) by BIL

 

### The DOE calculations overstate

the price of MVLF, 3ph, 1500

KVA, 125 BIL pads ABB = red dots

DOE = non

- red dots

 

## RU05 was a pad© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 14 

# 2010 Efficiency Standard DOE pre

- analysis© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 15 

# LVDT Standard Evolution

 

## DOE adapted NEMA TP

- 1 as the National standard© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 16 

# MVLF Standard Evolution© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 17 

# MVDT Standard Evolution

20

- 45 BIL© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 18 

# MVDT Standard Evolution

46

- 95 BIL© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 19 

# MVDT Standard Evolution

>95 BIL© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 20 

# 2010 Efficiency Standard (%EFF)

MVLF + MVDT (95BIL)

 Both MVLF and MVDT markets are dominated by 95 BIL and complete for the same

business outside the Utility markets

 The relatively higher LF efficiencies in the lower kva’s results in them being much

less competitive than an equivalently rated DT and, potentially, a larger kva LF

 In either case the result is an INCREASE in the losses in the electrical network  This ‘kink’ in MVLF is un

- natural. Note no such kink in MVDT

 Results in higher efficiency below 100 kva

- 1ph and 300 kva

- 3ph

in the LF relative to the DT

 The dielectric medium in LF transformers (oil)

is much better than that is DT (air) resulting in

less clearances between the windings and the

core and the a smaller amount of core steel

 As the No Load losses in the core are the

dominate loss element in the efficiency this

accounts for the DT having a lower efficiency

than an equivalently rated LF MVLF

- 1ph

MVLF

- 3ph

MVDT

- 1ph

MVDT

- 3ph

 MV efficiency at 50% load© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 21 

# 2010 Efficiency Standard (Losses)

MVLF + MVDT (95BIL)

 MV losses (watts) at 50% load© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 22 

# 2010 Efficiency Standard (%EFF)

LVDT + MVDT (45BIL)

 LVDT and MVDT both use air as the dielectric medium

 As the voltage increases in the MVDT the clearance to

the core increases, producing more core steel, more no

load losses, and lower efficiency relative to the LVDT

 In the existing standard the MVDT has HIGHER

efficiency than the corresponding LVDT

– which is

illogical. The LVDT efficiency should be higher than the

equivalent rated MVDT  This ‘kink’ in LVDT is un

- natural. Note no such kink in MVDT

 Results in higher efficiency below 100 kva

- 1ph and 300 kva

- 3ph

in the LVDT relative to the units greater than 100/300 kva

 This may push the utilization of a larger unit which would result

in GREATER losses in the electrical network

MV

- 1ph

MV

- 3ph LV

- 1ph

LV

- 3ph

 LV efficiency at 35% load

MV efficiency at 50% load© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 23 

# 2010 Efficiency Standard (Losses)

LVDT + MVDT (45BIL)

 LV efficiency at 35% load

MV efficiency at 50% load© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 24 

# 2010 Efficiency Standard (%EFF)

MVDT (all BIL’s)

1ph

20

- 45 BIL

46

- 95 BIL

> 95 BIL

3ph

20

- 45 BIL

46

- 95 BIL

> 95 BIL

 MV efficiency at 50% load© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 25 

# 2010 Efficiency Standard (Losses)

MVDT (all BIL’s)

 MV losses (watts) at 50% load  This ‘kink’ in LVDT is un

- natural. Note no such kink in MVDT

 Results in higher efficiency below 100 kva

- 1ph and 300 kva

- 3ph

in the LVDT relative to the units greater than 100/300 kva

 This may push the utilization of a larger unit which would result

in GREATER losses in the electrical network© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 26 

# Candidate Standard Levels DOE pre

- analysis© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 27 

# CSL Discrepancies© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 28 

# Candidate Standard Levels

% Increase in %Efficiency

1 While the

% increase in the

% Efficiency

appears very small

the % reduction in

losses in dramatic

2

---

3

---

.

4

---© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 29 

# Candidate Standard Levels

% Reduction in Losses (watts)

1 While the

% increase in the

% Efficiency

appears very small

the % reduction in

losses in dramatic

2 CSL1 reduces the

current standard by

MVLF 10%

LVDT 11

- 14%

MVDT 10

- 13%

3 CSL5 reduces the

current standard by

MVLF 33

- 44%

LVDT 35

- 58%

MVDT 51

- 64%

4

---© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 30 

# MVLF

– 1ph

– CSL’s

% Efficiency© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 31 

# MVLF

– 1ph

– CSL’s

Losses (watts)© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 32 

# MVLF

– 3ph© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 33 

# MVLF

– 3ph

 

## CSL7 not defined© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 34 

# MVDT

– 3ph

– 46

- 95 BIL© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 35 

# MVDT

– 3ph

– 46

- 95 BIL

 

## CSL7 not defined© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 36 

# MVDT

– 3ph

– 20

- 45 BIL© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 37 

# MVDT

– 3ph

– 20

- 45 BIL

 

## CSL6 and CSL7 not defined© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 38 

# MVDT

– 3ph

– 95+ BIL© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 39 

# MVDT

– 3ph

– 95+ BIL

 

## CSL6 and CSL7 not defined

only 1 point defined for CSL1,2,3,4,5© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 40 

# MVDT

– 1ph

 

## No CSL’s defined for 20

- 45 BIL

 

## No CSL’s defined for 46

- 95 BIL

 

## No CSL’s defined for 95+ BIL© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 41 

# LVDT

– 1ph© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 42 

# LVDT

– 1ph

 

## only 1 point defined for all CSL levels© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 43 

# LVDT

– 3ph© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 44 

# LVDT

– 3ph

 

## only 1 point defined for CSL6 and CSL7© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 45 

# Candidate Standard Levels

Impact on Core Steel Grades DOE pre

- analysis© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 46 

# Candidate Standard Levels

% Reduction in Losses (watts)

1 While the

% increase in the

% Efficiency

appears very small

the % reduction in

losses in dramatic

2 CSL1 reduces the

current standard by

MVLF 10%

LVDT 11

- 14%

MVDT 10

- 13%

3 CSL5 reduces the

current standard by

MVLF 33

- 44%

LVDT 35

- 58%

MVDT 51

- 64%

4

---© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 47 

# Max % Loss Reduction from 2010 Standard

by Core Grade

 Basically CSL4 (a 40% reduction in losses from today’s standard) and higher are only achieved with SA© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 48 

# Min % Loss Reduction from 2010 Standard

by Core Grade