1 / 19

Costs of PQ Networks

Frankfurt (Germany), 6-9 June 2011. Costs of PQ Networks. José María Romero Gordon josemaria.romero@endesa.es. Outline. Costs of PQ monitoring networks. New smart meters. Legislation and regulation. Conclusions. Fixed vs. mobile monitoring. Fixed = proactive.

olive
Download Presentation

Costs of PQ Networks

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. Frankfurt (Germany), 6-9 June 2011 Costs of PQ Networks José María Romero Gordonjosemaria.romero@endesa.es

  2. Outline • Costs of PQ monitoring networks. • New smart meters. • Legislation and regulation. • Conclusions.

  3. Fixed vs. mobile monitoring • Fixed = proactive. • Mobile = reactive (complaints). • Problems remain hidden. • Mobile  cheaper: • Few devices. • No need for a central system. • No need for communication links.

  4. Costs evaluation • Expressed as a fraction of each device’s price (100%). • Average system consisting of: • Central system managing ~800 devices. • 1 communication appliance per substation. • 4 fixed equipment per substation.

  5. Fixed equipment • Device: 100% • Installation: 25% • Communication: 4% + 6%/year. • Central system: 4% + 2%/year (per device).

  6. Mobile equipment • Device: 100% • Installation and removal: 15%/site. • Communication: • from 0% • up to 16% + 24%/year.

  7. Comparison fixed vs. mobile • Assuming each mobile device is connected for one month  • fixed equipment ~ 10 x mobile devices. • Fixed monitoring is cheaper than mobile monitoring after 13 years. • Fixed monitoring gives at least 10 times more time-series data.

  8. Comparison (cont.)

  9. New approach • Instead of simple transducers supplying data to the SCADA, combined PQ meters could be seamlessly integrated in new substations. • These devices might have several communications ports: • Former ports to be accesed by the SCADA for real-time measurements. • Extra ports for archived and online PQ data.

  10. New approach (cont.) • Cost of these devices is similar or even cheaper than common transducers. Thus their cost would be zero from a substation point of view. • Even if communication is counted as an extra cost, in just 2 years fixed monitoring becomes cheaper than mobile.

  11. New approach (cont.)

  12. New smart meters • Most of the information needed to solving out complaints: • Sustained overvoltages and undervoltages. • Harmonic distortion. • Peak power. • Not really EN 50160 compliant, but sufficient.

  13. New smart meters (cont.) • Data handling issues: • Central database likely to face scalability problems. • Meanwhile, on-demand downloading of events. • Prospects: • Smart meters are already made with the same electrical precision than a class A PQ monitor. • They lack of processing power. • Maybe on-site hardware upgrades could be a cheap and reasonable solution when a class A device is required.

  14. Legislation and regulation • Utilities are facing major contradictions due to several actors. • Some of them are willing to reduce voltage and time tolerances. This approach would imply a great deployment of PQ monitoring networks, even at low voltage. • Unified and rational solution among involved parties is required.

  15. Utilities facing major contradictions • Increase of distributed generation: • Higher voltage oscillations. • Sustained overvoltages and undervoltages. • No way to control it (just on-load tap changers). • Equipment with reducing immunity: • Voltage dips and swells. • Sustained and transient overvoltages. • Regulators willing to narrow quality bands: • Window size. • Voltage dips: sharing responsibility curve.

  16. Unified solution required • Increase immunity: • Sustained overvoltages. • Transient overvoltages. • Voltage dips (see CIGRE C4.110 “labels”). • Mandatory installation of protective devices: • Sustained overvoltages (see new EN 50550). • Transient overvoltages.

  17. Unified solution (cont.) • Improve network quality: • Sharing responsibility curve: • Define certain limits and zones of responsibility. • However, take into account different network topologies and constructions rules (otherwise good sites will tend to be worse in the future): • Aerial vs. underground. • Voltage level. • Protected species (birds).

  18. Conclusions • Fixed PQ devices are useful for solving out problems in advance. • Mobile PQ devices are useful for compliance monitoring due to complaints. • LV customers are almost not monitored. • Smart meters are the cheapest and wider method to fulfill PQ standards in LV. • Combined transducers/PQ meters is the cheapest alternative for substations.

  19. Conclusions (cont.) • Instead of trying to find a guilty actor (i.e. utilities), an unified solution among many parties must be appointed: • Manufacturers: increase immunity against voltage dips and sustained overvoltages. • Installations: more protective devices. • Regulators: find reasonable KPIs. • Utilities: by means of fixed PQ devices, improve voltage dips performance and voltage control.

More Related