1 / 12

INNOVATIVE AUTOMATION OF ELECTRICAL DESIGN OF OFF-SHORE WINDFARMS TO FIND THE LEAST COST OPTION

INNOVATIVE AUTOMATION OF ELECTRICAL DESIGN OF OFF-SHORE WINDFARMS TO FIND THE LEAST COST OPTION. Infrastructure & Cities Sector, Smart Grid Division Siemens Power Technologies International (PTI) Presenter:Victor Sellwood Dr. Dusko P. Nedic (dusko.nedic@siemens.com)

greta
Download Presentation

INNOVATIVE AUTOMATION OF ELECTRICAL DESIGN OF OFF-SHORE WINDFARMS TO FIND THE LEAST COST OPTION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. INNOVATIVE AUTOMATION OF ELECTRICAL DESIGN OF OFF-SHORE WINDFARMS TO FIND THE LEAST COST OPTION Infrastructure & Cities Sector, Smart Grid Division Siemens Power Technologies International (PTI) Presenter:Victor Sellwood Dr. Dusko P. Nedic (dusko.nedic@siemens.com) Victor Sellwood(victor.sellwood@siemens.com)

  2. Presentation Overview • Introduction - why Optimise construction and operation costs? • Development and Experiences / Validation of a software tool for automating the electrical design of large off-shore wind farms. • Case Study 1 - Edge-located collector platforms vs Central-located • Case Study 2 - Comparison of CAPEX / OPEX for offshore windfarms based on publicly-available data • Conclusions

  3. Why Optimise Construction / Operation Costs ?

  4. Why Optimise Construction / Operation Costs ? • UK's Round 3 program will offer 32.2GW / 36GW and there is up-to 80GW offshore in the North Sea • 2010: National Grid announced that a radial offshore transmission network is not acceptable • 2011: Ofgem report shows that moving from an Independent (radial) to Integrated (mesh) transmission system could reduce Capex from £18B to £15.4B (-16%) • A study showed that for only 2 wind farms in the North Sea considering only voltage as a choice, design options would exceed 7,000 • Image from “Eirgrid_Offshore_Grid_Study_FA Nov2011.pdf”

  5. Software Tool for automated design Tool Features: • Three analysis sub-systems • Inter-array cable system • Off-shore platforms • Off-shore transmission • Automated design of inter-array cable system and VUI for correcting such designs. • Catalogue of components. • Creating of network models and possibility of merging them. • Cable sizing. • Voltage/reactive power control. • Electrical losses. • Reliability. • CAPEX and OPEX evaluation.

  6. Interactive tool for creating/editing inter-array cable system. Multiple projects. Restructure string, change string origin, shift platform, swap strings between platforms Find and correct cable crossovers Information on the selected project Adding/editing cable knee points Visualisation User Interface (for modifications of inter-array cable design)

  7. Proving the Software Tool by Practical Application Driven by projects / clients and cooperation with the UK Universities • HornSea (over 10 different transmission options with sensitivity analyses) • Seagreen (4 different transmission options and a number of sensitivity analyses) • UoM Electrical Engineering – research project and a PhD to assess thousands of electrical designs for different offshore wind farm sizes • University of Strathclyde – Industry supervision of a 4 year PhD on transmission options in North-Sea. The research will be conducted using the tool. • Dogger Bank - Inter array cable design (over 80 layouts – capacity ranging from 7GW to 20 GW) • Availability calculations: • London Array • Greater Gabbard

  8. Case Study 1: Comparison of Edge- vs Central- location Centrally Located option (CLo) Edge Mounted option (EMo) Each platform 600 MW, 18 strings per platform (14 of 5WTGs strings and 4 of 4WTG strings).

  9. Case Study 1: Comparison of Edge- vs Central- location

  10. Case Study 2: Illustrative Comparison of Design Options Based on Publicly-Available Data Investment Cost in £ (Millions) Cost figures for illustrative purposes only!

  11. Case Study 2: Illustrative Comparison of Design Options Based on Publicly Available Data • Case 1 and Case 3 use the same electrical components -> losses are same • Case 2 has least electrical losses as no HVDC conversion equipment and good reliability because of the 3 x HVAC shore connections • Case 3 has least reliability losses due to redundant string connections • Case 4 has most electrical losses as longest string cables, but the least Investment Cost as the quantity of higher gauge cables is less • This demonstrates that the differences in Investment are swamped by the differences in Costs of Losses during operation

  12. Conclusions • This automated approach significantly reduces the time for manual and visual inspection / verification of the proposed cabling system for the layouts • Risk of human errors is significantly reduced and re-verifications / inspections can be quick and efficient • Effortlessly and quickly design and undertake cost benefit analyses of preferred options. • Possibility to merge network models for cost benefit analyses of the off-shore grid. • Complex design solutions can easily be compared (both construction and operation) using the most significant comparator: cost

More Related