Meps Transformers

2007/17
Technical Report
Distribution Transformers: Proposal to Increase MEPS Levels

Final Report October 2007
Prepared for Equipment Energy Efficiency Program
Prepared by T R Blackburn
TABLE of CONTENTS
Page Number Executive Summary 1 2 3 4 Introduction Transformer Use in Electrical Networks MEPS 1 Efficiency Levels 3.1 Application of MEPS Transformer Efficiency 4.1 Losses in Transformers 4.1.1 No Load (Core) Loss 4.1.2 Load (copper or winding) Loss 4.2 Power and Energy Efficiency 4.2.1 Power efficiency of a Transformer 4.2.2 Energy Efficiency of a Transformer 4.2.3 Example of Energy Saving with Efficiency Improvement Transformer Efficiency Standards in other Countries 5.1 US Proposed Efficiency Standards 5.2 European Union Proposals 5.3 Specified Efficiency Levels in other Countries 5.3.1 Canada 5.3.2 Mexico 5.3.3 China 5.3.4 India 5.3.5 Japan Increase of Existing MEPS Levels 6.1 Comparison of New MEPS with other Standards Why Increase MEPS Levels? 7.1 Better Use of Traditional Core and Winding Materials 7.1.1 Core Construction and Materials 7.1.2 Winding Conductors 7.2 Better Design Procedures 7.3 New Core Materials and Design 7.3.1 Amorphous Metal Core 7.3.2 The Hexaformer 7.4 Optimisation of Energy Efficiency 7.5 Total Life Costing of Transformers 7.6 Impact of Harmonics on Transformers 7.6.1 Non-linear Loads 7.6.2 Supply Voltage Power Quality 7.6.3 Example of Increased loss due to Harmonics 7.7 Increased Life of Transformers 6 10 12 16 18 20 20 22 24 24 25 26 27 29 29 34 38 38 39 40 40 42 44 47 49 50 50 50 50 51 51 52 52 53 54 54 56 57 58
6 7
_____________________________________________________________________
T R Blackburn Draft Report: Proposal to Increase Transformer Efficiency Standards
Effects of MEPS 1 on Transformers in the Market 8.1 Australian Manufactured Units 8.2 Imported Transformers Impact of Improved Efficiency on Greenhouse Gases Exclusions from MEPS Compliance 10.1 Exclusions from MEPS 1 10.2 Comments on Exclusions Testing of Transformers for Compliance 11.1 Testing Logistics 11.2 Test Procedures Conclusions References
60 60 60 62 63 63 63 65 65 65 66 68
9 10
11
12 13
_____________________________________________________________________
LIST of TABLES
Page Number Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Total Electrical Consumption on Network Losses Energy Saving potential and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation from Transformer Loss Reduction Distribution Transformer Numbers in Western Europe Existing and Proposed MEPS Levels for LiquidImmersed Transformers Existing and Proposed MEPS Levels for Dry-type Transformers USA Department of Energy Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels for Single and Three Phase Liquidimmersed Distribution Transformers USA Department of Energy Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels for Single and Three Phase Dry-type Distribution Transformers USA Department of Energy Minimum Efficiency Levels for Regulation of Liquid-immersed Distribution Transformers USA Department of Energy Minimum Efficiency Levels for Regulation of Dry-type Distribution Transformers No-load Losses for Dry-type Transformers (from HD 528) and of Liquid-immersed Transformers (from HD 428) Full-load Losses for Dry-type Transformers (HD 528) and of Liquid-immersed Transformers (HD 428) Comparison of Efficiencies for CENELEC HD 428 and C-AMDT Levels. Tabulation of Proposed European Levels pr EN5046-1 for Oil-immersed Transformers and Comparison with C-C and C-AMDT Levels Canadian Standards for Dry-type Transformers 12 13 14 17 18
31
Table 7
31
Table 8
32 32 35 35 36
Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13
37 38
Table 14
_____________________________________________________________________
Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18
Mandatory Efficiency Levels for Mexico Maximum Permissible Loss Levels for Liquid-filled Transformers in Mexico Maximum Permissible Transformer Loss Levels for the INDIAN BEE Star Classification. A Comparison of Efficiencies Calculated from the Indian BEE- 3-Star Level with European Efficiencies from the HD 428 Loss levels Comparison of Japanese Top Runner Efficiency Levels with other Countries for Liquid-immersed Transformers Comparison of Japanese Top Runner Efficiency Levels with other Countries for Dry-type Transformers Comparison of Proposed New MEPS Levels for Liquid-Immersed Transformers with other Countries Comparison of Proposed New MEPS Levels for Dry-type With other Countries Import Numbers of Transformers within the MEPS Range: July 1999 June 2007
39 40 41
41 43 43 46 46 61
Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23
_____________________________________________________________________
LIST of FIGURES
Page Number Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Single Phase Transformer Schematics Examples of Liquid-filled and Dry-type Transformers Transformer Loss Components and Power Efficiency Versus Load New European Efficiency Level Proposal and Comparison with NEMA TP-1, Japanese Standards and the European A-A Combination Loss Target Values for Distribution Transformers in the Japanese Top Runner Program Existing and proposed Transformer Efficiencies In various Countries and Regions and Comparison with New MEPS Current Waveform and Harmonic Content Generated by a Non-linear Load Typical Current Waveform and Harmonic Content of a Non-linear Load (Personal Computers) 21 22 23
37 42
Figure 5 Figure 6
45 55 56
Figure 7 Figure 8
_____________________________________________________________________
Executive Summary
In 2000 the then National Appliance and Equipment Energy Efficiency Committee of Australian Commonwealth, state and territory government officials initiated the development of Regulations to mandate Minimum Efficiency Performance Standards (MEPS) for electricity distribution transformers. This was part of the National Appliance and Equipment Energy Efficiency Program (now the Equipment Energy Efficiency Program)) run under the auspices of the Ministerial Council on Energy of Australian and New Zealand Energy Ministers. As an outcome of this work an Australian Standard was issued in 2003. This Australian Standard specified minimum permissible power efficiency levels for liquid-insulated and dry-type electrical distribution transformers with ratings in the range 10 2500 kVA and with primary voltage in the range 11 22 kV. The Regulations associated with the MEPS requirements mandated that no transformers covered by MEPS could be sold in Australia unless they complied with the MEPS. The MEPS requirements applied to both imported and Australian-made units. Compliance with MEPS for transformers came into force on 1 April 2004. The overarching objective of both the previous MEPS and the proposed new MEPS is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions related to energy losses from electricity distribution transformers below what they are otherwise projected to be, in a manner that is in the communitys best interests. The more specific aim of the MEPS program is to reduce energy losses associated with transformer operation in the electricity distribution system. Overall network losses in the electrical transmission and distribution systems used to supply power to consumers can be as much as 6-9% of the total power generated by large power stations. Transformers in the distribution networks, make up about 30-40% of the total network loss. The original MEPS stated that the efficiency levels specified would remain in force for four years and that they would then be reviewed in accordance with international trends in efficiency levels and would be made more stringent if international best practice indicated such change was achievable. Specifically, the original Standard gave a set of high efficiency levels that were not mandatory but were desirable levels. The review process of the original levels is now underway and this report has been prepared to discuss the change of mandatory MEPS levels to those high efficiency levels. Since the original MEPS levels were specified there has been significant development in transformer efficiency Standards and requirements in other countries including the USA, European Union, Canada, Japan, China, Mexico and India. The most detailed investigations of transformer efficiencies and the levels that are achievable have been undertaken by the US Department of Energy. In a seven year program they have audited manufacturing techniques, new materials, dissembled and re-assembled transformers and developed and applied testing methods. As a result of these investigations they produced tables of Maximum Technologically Feasible Efficiency Levels which were achievable in a theoretical sense. After applying practical constraints, such as manufacturing limitations, to these levels they then _____________________________________________________________________
developed efficiency levels that were used as their mandatory regulated efficiency levels. The European Union has developed a range of efficiency tables for their member countries. Some European countries have selected specific levels from these tables as mandatory requirements but in general the European Union efficiency levels are mostly voluntary. There is however a very active group (known as SEEDT Strategies for Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers) in Europe investigating feasible efficiency levels and the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) has established a proposal that would give it attainable efficiency levels comparable to those developed by the US Department of Energy. Prior to development of the US DOE levels, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) in North America published a set of efficiency levels. Canada used these, with some small modifications, to produce two Standards giving efficiency specifications for distribution transformers. The Canadian efficiency levels were adopted, with small variations to adjust for the power frequency difference between 50 and 60 hertz, as the first Australian MEPS efficiency levels applied in 2004. Mexico has had mandatory efficiency standards for distribution transformers for many years. In general the efficiency levels are slightly lower than those of the Canadian Standards and NEMA levels. Mexico also specifies maximum permissible losses for transformers. Only liquid-immersed transformers are mandated. In China the current mandatory efficiency levels have been set down in a Chinese Standard and more recently the efficiency requirements have been increased but have not yet been made mandatory. The current levels are roughly comparable to the existing NEMA and Canadian levels. In India the Bureau of Energy Efficiency of the Ministry of Power has developed a star classification system for transformers, ranging from one to five stars, with five stars representing international best practice. The aim is to have three stars as a minimum efficiency standard and this requirement is being adhered to by many supply utilities. Power efficiencies relating to the star classes are not specified. Instead maximum permissible loss levels are specified. Only liquid-immersed transformers are considered. The Indian power efficiencies derived from the five star allowable losses are very high level by comparison with international practice. It is possible that some allowable tolerance may be included in the allowable loss levels. Japan has developed very stringent efficiency standards in their Top Runner Energy Efficiency Program. The Top Runner program covers a wide range of electrical equipment and appliances including distribution transformers. The Program specifies maximum target levels of total loss for use in determining transformer efficiency, and provides empirical formulae that can be used to calculate the losses and thence efficiency for any specific transformer rating.
_____________________________________________________________________
The system of electricity distribution in Japan is somewhat different to that in most other countries in that it uses many more lower capacity units that are placed in quite close proximity to the ultimate load with transformation thus being done effectively at the site. There is thus a higher concentration of single phase transformers and smaller three phase units in Japan. Nevertheless the target values represented by the Japanese Top Runner program are close to the state of art in achievable transformer efficiency levels. When compared to the efficiency levels used for transformers in other countries the new MEPS levels that are proposed for Australia are seen to be consistent with international best practice in other developed countries. The new MEPS levels are below some achievable levels that are being instituted in other countries, for example the Japanese levels and a European proposal. These higher levels are based on the use of amorphous metal rather than steel cores loss, so that while they are achievable they would require a significant change in manufacturing capability and significant investment in new production facilities in Australia to implement. However they do represent an eventual benchmark efficiency. The most valid comparison of international levels for the new MEPS program is with: The original European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) levels for the most efficient transformer configuration, designated HD428 CC, The proposed new European Standard prEN50464-1 and The new USA Department of Energy levels that are to be mandated in 2010
Thus the new MEPS level proposals given here represent achievable efficiency levels that are consistent with current international efficiency Standards and proposals and are achievable in manufacturing terms. There are a number of factors that will enable the achievement of higher efficiencies and support the increase in the current MEPS levels. Better use of traditional materials to achieve loss reduction and improvement of efficiency Better computer-aided design of transformers to reduce losses and improve efficiency Use of low loss core materials such as amorphous metals New lower loss core configuration designs such as the Hexaformer Improved operational applications of transformers to optimize energy efficiency in operation Consideration of total life cost of transformers: purchase cost plus operational energy losses The effect of increasing harmonic levels from non-linear loads in increasing losses and reducing efficiency Increased transformer life resulting from lower operating temperature with more efficient transformers
_____________________________________________________________________
The detailed impact of the reduction of transformer losses on global warming is difficult to predict and to model because detailed loading patterns are required for all types of transformer operation. However the detailed analyses used by the US DOE do provide such loading guides and the results in terms of energy saving and greenhouse gas reduction are outlined in the Federal Register document proposing the Rules for regulation of transformer efficiencies. Such parameters will be applied for the new MEPS levels in Australia. The testing of transformers for MEPS compliance is an important consideration as the testing of large transformers is not a logistically simple operation. Test procedures for MEPS 1 compliance are specified in the MEPS Standard which in turn refers back to the main Australian transformer Standard for the details of the test method. These test procedures lack some detail in the application of the loss measurements to the determination of efficiencies to an uncertainty of +/- 0.01% as is required by the Standard. Given the accuracy of the result required there should be some modification considered in the documented test procedures. It is suggested that the procedures given in the NEMA recommendations might be a suitable basis. In conclusion, the proposed increased MEPS levels have been compared in full detail to those transformer efficiency levels adopted or proposed in other countries. The proposed MEPS new levels are consistent and comparable with international levels for standard transformer designs and material applications. The new MEPS levels are achievable by manufacturers and will also provide significant energy conservation and positive environmental impact when they are implemented.
_____________________________________________________________________
Introduction
In 2000 the then National Appliance and Equipment Energy Efficiency Committee of Australian Commonwealth, state and territory government officials initiated the development of Regulations to mandate minimum efficiency performance standards (MEPS) for electricity distribution transformers. This was part of the National Appliance and Equipment Energy Efficiency Program (now the Equipment Energy Efficiency Program)) run under the auspices of the Ministerial Council on Energy of Australian and New Zealand Energy Ministers. As an outcome of this work an Australian Standard was issued in 2003 [AS 2374.1.2 2003: Power Transformers Part 1.2 Minimum Energy Performance Standard (MEPS) requirements for distribution transformers]. This Australian Standard specified minimum permissible power efficiency levels for electrical distribution transformers with nameplate ratings in the power range 10 2500 kVA and with primary voltage in the distribution voltage range of 11 22 kV. Details of the methods used for determination of the original transformer MEPS efficiency levels are given in reference [1]. Both liquid-insulated and dry-type transformers within the power rating range were included in the Standard. The Regulations associated with the MEPS requirements stated that no transformers falling within the specifications listed in AS 2374.1.2 could be sold in Australia unless they complied with the efficiency requirements. The MEPS requirements applied to both imported units and units made in Australia. The Standard was published in 2003 and the compliance requirements for transformers came into force on 1 April 2004. The main objective of both the previous MEPS and the proposed new MEPS requirements that are presented here is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions related to energy losses from electricity distribution transformers below what they are otherwise projected to be, in a manner that is in the communitys best interests. The specific purpose of MEPS for distribution transformers is to reduce the energy losses associated with transformer operation in the electricity distribution system. Overall network losses in the electrical transmission and distribution systems used to supply power to consumers can be as much as 6-9% of the total power supplied to the transmission and distribution networks by large power stations. Transformers, particularly in the distribution networks, make up about 30-40% of that network loss. All electrical power that is supplied to consumers has to pass through transformers at some stage and in some cases the power may pass through at least four or five transformers between the generator and the user. Usually, at least two of those transformers can be classed as distribution transformers. There will be power and thus energy losses at each transformer and thus reduction of loss in transformers will add greatly to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The original MEPS Standard stated that the levels specified would remain in force for four years and that they would then be reviewed in accordance with international trends of efficiency levels and would be made more stringent if international best practice indicated such change was achievable. Specifically, AS 2374.1.2 gave, in addition to the normal specified general levels of efficiency, a set of high efficiency levels that were not mandatory but were desirable levels. Only products which met _____________________________________________________________________
10
these levels could use the high efficiency designation in promotional or advertising materials. The review process of the original levels is now underway and this technical report has been prepared to put the case for replacing the original general MEPS levels with the high efficiency levels quoted in the present Standard. This technical report examines current international developments in efficiency determinations and provides detail of levels adopted in other countries and gives detailed discussion to support the increase of the Australian MEPS levels. The report will examine benchmark efficiencies that represent the ultimate technological and manufacturing limit of efficiencies and put the new MEPS level in the context of these international standards and in the context of modern development of large integrated electrical distribution systems. In addition, the report also addresses the potential energy and greenhouse house gas savings achievable from the proposed MEPS levels. The previous MEPS addressed market failure in the private (industrial and commercial) transformer market, and the increasing risk of market failure in the utility transformer market, by enforcing investment in more efficient products so that the total life cycle cost of the transformers to users would be lower than otherwise, as discussed in the Regulatory Impact Statement for MEPS 1. These arguments remain for the proposed higher MEPS levels. In addition to support of the new proposed levels, the report also considers a number of other issues related to the implementation of the MEPS requirements. In the original Standard, there were a number of exclusions listed for what were considered to be specialised transformers only. This list of exclusions is reviewed in this report with the purpose of determining whether the current exclusions listed are fully appropriate for contemporary transformer applications and use. The test method for determination of losses and efficiency as given in the original Standard is based on the standard method of loss determination given in the main power transformer Standard AS 60076, with some additional specifications of uncertainty for the efficiency determination. The test method as specified at present will be examined to determine whether it is adequate for the purpose of efficiency calculation to the accuracy required by MEPS compliance.
_____________________________________________________________________
11
Transformer Use in Electrical Networks
In the alternating current (AC) electrical supply system that is used in all countries for supply to consumers, the transformer is an indispensable component. It is not possible to operate viable electrical supply systems without it. In the normal propagation of power to consumers, the power is generated at about 11,000-15,000 volts (11-15 kV). It is then passed through its first transformer stage to increase the voltage to the transmission level somewhere between 220-500 kV. When it reaches the end of the transmission route it is then transformed again this time down to the 132 33kV subtransmission level. It is then sent to distribution utility zone substations where it is again transformed down to 11-22 kV and is then sent on its final path to local street or pole transformers where it is broken down again to the final voltage of 415/240 volts. All of the transformers involved will have energy losses and thus any reduction in the transformer loss will mean less generation requirement and less greenhouse gas emissions. In the main transmission systems the transformers are relatively few in number but in the final distribution system operating at 11-22 kV in Australia, there are hundreds of thousands of transformers and thus any reduction of loss in the distribution system transformers will have significant impact on ultimate overall loss in the networks. The total electrical energy use per annum of the world is estimated as 13,934 TeraWatthours [TWh] (1 TWh = 109 kWh) and it is further estimated [2] that the losses in all of the worlds electrical distribution systems total about 1215 TWh or about 8.8% of the total electrical energy consumed. About 30-35% of these losses are generated in the transformers in the distribution systems. Studies estimate that some 40-80% of these transformer losses are potentially saveable by increasing transformer efficiencies, i.e. 145-290 TWh. Table 1 gives some details of the major regions and their electrical system losses. Table 1 Total electrical consumption and network losses [Source: IEA[39]] Region
All Europe Western Europe Former USSR North America South America Asia Total Japan Australasia China India Africa and Middle East
Total electricity consumption (TWh)

3046 2540 1135 4293 1057 3913 964 219 1312 497 826
Network losses (TWh)

222 185 133 305 192 381 44 21 94 133 83
Network Losses (% of total use)

7.3 7.3 11.7 7.1 18.3 9.7 4.6 9.5 7.2 26.7 10.0
TOTAL
13934
1215
8.8
_____________________________________________________________________
12
Modern distribution transformers are very energy-efficient in their design and operation (they are typically about 98-99% efficient). However, it is the very large number of transformers in use in distribution systems, supplying power to domestic, commercial, rural and industrial sites, that cause the total transformer loss to be such a significant contribution to global warming and climate change. Thus, even small improvements in transformer efficiencies will lead to significant reductions in generation capacity requirement and thus in greenhouse gas emissions. Table 2 below shows the potential for energy reduction and consequent reduction of greenhouse gases from transformer loss reduction. Table 2 Energy saving potential and greenhouse gas mitigation from transformer loss reduction [After [2]] Country/Region Annual loss in Distribution transformers (TWh) 55 141 6 6 33 44 285 Annual energy saving potential (TWh) 22 84 3 3 18 31 161 Annual reduction potential in CO2 (Millions of Tonnes) 9 60 3 3 13 12 100
Western Europe USA Australia India China Japan TOTAL
In Australia the total annual electrical energy production is about 206 TWh. The overall electrical network losses in Australia are 5.9% [3] and the distribution transformer losses associated with supplying this are thus about 6 TWh or 3.3% of the total production. On the basis of international investigations it is estimated that this transformer loss could be reduced by 50% to about 3 TWh by use of more energy efficient transformers to replace the current stock and by optimising operational practice. 3 TWh of electrical energy production by total coal-fired thermal generation produces about 3 million tonnes of CO2 and about 750 tonnes of the NOx gases each year [4,5]. In countries where the generation mix includes nuclear and hydro such as the USA, China, Japan and Europe, the CO2 equivalents are lower, as can be seen in Table 2. Of the total distribution transformer population in use in developed countries about 55% are electrical supply utility transformers, 41% are used in industry, commerce and mining and about 3% in transport. Utility transformers are predominantly (about 90%) of the liquid-immersed (liquid-insulated) type. However in industry and commercial installations dry-type transformers, with no liquid, are the predominant type, principally because of their lower fire hazard without the flammable oil generally used in liquid-filled transformers. Liquid filled transformers are smaller in size than dry-type units for the same power rating capacity and have lower losses because of their better thermal dissipation characteristics. _____________________________________________________________________
13
The voltages used in distribution systems depend on the location (the country or region) and may vary between about 4 kV to 34 kV. In Australia the main distribution systems operate at either 11 kV or 22 kV, three phase. The power rating of such distribution transformers typically covers 10 kVA to 2500 kVA and this is the power range that MEPS AS2374.1.2 covers. In Australia distribution transformers are primarily three phase, with single phase units being used only in a minority of cases and then only at the low end of the power range covered by MEPS (up to 50 kVA only). Many of these will be single wire earth return (SWER) transformers used to supply single sites at remote locations. However in many countries (North America and Japan for example) single phase transformers are extensively used to supply large areas and thus those countries have much larger ratings of distribution transformers in general use in addition to three phase units. For example in the USA, single phase up to 833 kVA are used in distribution systems. Industrial transformers tend to dominate the higher end (above 750 kVA) of the MEPS power rating range, while electrical utility supply transformers are more evenly distributed over the lower end of the range, below about 750 kVA. Industrial transformers have, in many cases, specific design features incorporated, while utility transformers have a more standard liquid insulation-based design. The total numbers of distribution transformers used in developed countries are very large. Table 3 gives some detail of the application of distribution transformer ownership and types that are used in Western Europe. These are typical of most developed areas. Table 3 Distribution Transformers in Western Europe [After [2]] Type Owner Class Supply Utilities Commercial buildings Industry and mining Total Liquidinsulated (less than 250kVA) 1,900,000 50,000 50,000 2,000,000 Liquidinsulated (greater than 250 kVA) 1,100,000 150,000 350,000 1,600,000 Dry-type (all ratings) Total number of Distribution Transformers 3,000,000 500,000 500,000 4,000,000
---300,000 100,000 400,000
_____________________________________________________________________
14
In Australia the installed utility distribution transformer population is about 550,000 with a total power handling capacity of 100 GVA. The annual increase in the number of distribution transformers in Australia is 18,000 or 3.3% of the total installed number. Thus, the total market in Australia for new transformers that fall into the MEPS rating scope is about 20,000 units per year. In New Zealand the estimated distribution utility transformer population is about 160,000. The installed total power handling capacity is estimated to be about 25 GVA. The actual increase of distribution transformer numbers in 2005/2006 was 4400 single phase and three phase units, or about 3.2% of the total installed number. The number of distribution transformers in industry and mining in Australia is about 65,000 with installed capacity of about 46 GVA. On a pro rata basis assuming the same growth rate, their number would be increasing by about 2200 each year. The industry transformer numbers for New Zealand are not known. In general, except for the large distribution transformers, above about 1000 kVA, major repairs and refurbishment of distribution transformers (such as re-winding) are relatively rare. Replacement by new units is more standard.
_____________________________________________________________________
15
MEPS 1 Efficiency Levels
The first MEPS efficiency levels for transformers were essentially based on proposed Canadian Standards for liquid-filled [6] and dry-type [7] transformers with some small appropriate variation to account for the power frequency variation from 60 Hz to 50 Hz. The electrical efficiency of a transformer is determined by the electrical losses that are generated within the transformer configuration. These losses occur in two separate parts of the transformer structure, core loss in the steel core which channels the magnetic field necessary for transformer operation and copper loss in the copper conductors, wound around the steel core, which carry the current in the transformer windings. The core loss and, to a lesser extent, the copper loss will both increase with increase in the AC power frequency and thus a frequency change from the 60 Hz used in North America to the 50 Hz used in Australia resulted in slightly lower losses and, consequently, in a slight increase in efficiency. The increase in the required minimum efficiency level due to the frequency change was about 0.1% in most cases. The Canadian efficiency levels for the liquid-filled transformers were based on American efficiency levels listed in a National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) Standard (NEMA Standard TP 1) [8]. The efficiency levels given in TP 1 were only used for voluntary application in the USA. They were determined from considerations of manufacturing and material best practice available at the time that they were developed in the late 1990s. In conjunction with NEMA TP 1, another Standard (NEMA Standard TP 2) [9] was issued to give detailed test requirements to enable adequate measurement accuracy of transformer losses as required to give adequate uncertainty in the transformer efficiency determination. In the current MEPS Standard, AS 2374.1.2 2003, two classifications of power efficiency levels for distribution transformers are given. These are: (i) General mandatory levels for MEPS regulatory application; and (ii) High efficiency levels which were not applied for regulatory compliance but can be used in promotional or advertising materials. At the time of publication of AS 2374.1.2, and since, the MEPS Regulations required manufacturing compliance with only the (lower) general efficiency levels. Transformer manufacturers or suppliers can have promotional and advertising material include the term High Power Efficiency Transformer if their transformers had power efficiencies that were equal to or higher than the high efficiency levels given in the Standard. It is now proposed to increase the mandatory efficiency levels in the MEPS 1 Standard for transformers. This will be done by using the previously specified High efficiency levels of MEPS 1 as the basic mandatory minimum efficiency levels required for all transformers under the amended MEPS of the E3 Program. The current general efficiency levels used for compliance will be removed from the new MEPS Standard.
_____________________________________________________________________
16
Since MEPS 1 was issued there have been a considerable number of initiatives in various countries that have addressed the issue of transformer losses regulation to improve efficiency levels and reduce losses. In particular the Department of Energy (DOE) in the USA has undertaken, over a number of years, a very wide-ranging and detailed investigation of distribution transformer efficiency. This has been done to determine requirements prior to establishing new mandatory DOE Regulations to improve energy efficiency. The technical details and Rules have been published in 2006 [5] and will come into statutory force in 2010 in the USA. Since the first round of MEPS for transformers in Australia was published in AS 2374.1.2 a number of countries have either instituted or increased their transformer efficiency levels. In many cases these levels have exceeded the existing MEPS 1 specifications. These international developments will be described, discussed and summarised in a later section where they will be compared to the new MEPS proposals. The existing and proposed MEPS transformer efficiency levels are shown in Tables 4 and 5 below. Table 4 gives the efficiency levels for single and three phase liquidimmersed transformers, including single wire earth return (SWER) units used for rural distribution. Table 5 provides the same information for single and three phase dry-type transformers and for dry-type SWER units. Note that the minimum efficiency levels are specified at 50% loading of the transformer.
Table 4 Existing and Proposed MEPS levels for Liquid-immersed transformers. [From AS 2374.1.2] Transformer type Single phase (and SWER) Three Phase kVA
10 16 25 50 25 63 100 200 315 500 750 1000 1500 2000 2500 Power efficiency (%) at 50% load 98.30 98.52 98.70 98.90 98.28 98.62 98.76 98.94 99.04 99.13 99.21 99.27 99.35 99.39 99.40 Proposed New MEPS efficiency level 98.42 98.64 98.80 99.00 98.50 98.82 99.00 99.11 99.19 99.26 99.32 99.37 99.44 99.49 99.50
_____________________________________________________________________
17
Table 5 Existing and Proposed MEPS levels for Dry-Type transformers. [Taken from AS2374.1.2] Transformer kVA type Single phase (and SWER) Three Phase
10 16 25 50 25 63 100 200 315 500 750 1000 1500 2000 2500 Power efficiency (%) at 50% load Um = 12 kV Existing Proposed new MEPS MEPS 97.29 97.53 97.60 97.83 97.89 98.11 97.31 98.50 97.17 97.42 97.78 98.01 98.07 98.28 98.46 98.64 98.67 98.82 98.84 98.97 98.96 99.08 99.03 99.14 99.12 99.21 99.16 99.24 99.19 99.27 Power efficiency (%) at 50% load Um = 24 kV Existing Proposed new MEPS MEPS 97.01 97.32 97.27 97.55 97.53 97.78 97.91 98.10 97.17 97.42 97.78 98.01 98.07 98.28 98.42 98.60 98.59 98.74 98.74 98.87 98.85 98.98 98.92 99.04 99.01 99.12 99.06 99.17 99.09 99.20
This report has been prepared to explain and to outline in detail the technical issues that have been involved in the move to specification of the higher mandatory efficiency levels. The report provides technical support for the application of the upgraded levels and compares the proposed new levels to current or proposed levels in other countries. The report is also aimed at providing a basis for public discussion of the new levels for manufacturers and users (electrical supply utilities and industry/commerce) of the transformers that fall within the scope of the MEPS program. 3.1 Application of MEPS
In addition to providing technical support for the new levels, the report also considers other issues relating to transformer losses, including consideration of the cost of losses in initial transformer selection by purchasers. Consideration of both initial capital cost and the cost and effect of losses over the life of the transformer are important factors in both the economic cost of transformer operation and the losses which will be generated over the operational life. Transformer efficiency considerations are generally only secondary considerations when purchasing transformers for both industry and utility operations. However the application of energy efficient operation, in terms of initial capital cost and in terms of transformer loading to reduce loss, can have substantial long-term benefits in an economic and an environmental sense. In industry, the primary design features in the transformer specification are the ultimate application requirements. Achieving a long and energy-efficient operational life is not necessarily a major consideration. Thus initial capital cost is the usual major consideration in choosing transformers in industry. However, in addition to a _____________________________________________________________________
18
reduction of total life cost, improvements in energy efficiency by maintaining loading within ratings will increase the life of transformers and will reduce maintenance costs over the transformer life. An increase in transformer life will result whenever the long term operating temperature of the transformer insulation is reduced. A reduction in transformer loss will directly reduce this temperature. Hence, operation at higher efficiency and within the transformer rating limits will result in less degradation of insulation and thus less maintenance and longer life. In supply utilities, a long and efficient transformer life is a major consideration and requirement in the initial selection procedure but, as any cost of losses are generally able to be passed on to the consumer, the initial capital cost is again a primary feature of selection. This has been reinforced in recent years with the de-regulation of the industry where the utility ownership may change many times over the life of the transformer. In such circumstances short term capital benefits are more attractive than long-term total life costs of infrastructure. It is noted in the considerations of the US DOE outlined in [5] that, whereas total life costs were the basis for selection in about 75% of US supply utilities some years ago, since de-regulation of the electrical supply industry that percentage is now down to 50%. As will be discussed later, the MEPS regulations do not apply to all transformers. Socalled power transformers, used in very high voltage electrical transmission systems for point to point transfer of power, as opposed to electrical distribution systems where power is supplied to many general consumers, are not included because they are relatively small in number and are generally designed on a one-off basis to high quality standards, including their energy efficiency. They have much higher ratings than distribution transformers, being typically in the range 10,000-500,000 kVA. Similarly, small transformers with rating less than 10 kVA single phase, are too small for general electrical distribution applications. They are used for more general applications rather than power distribution and are thus not included here. They are generally less efficient than the distribution transformers included in the MEPS scope (transformer efficiency increases with increase in rating), but their very small number in the distribution system, low rating and small energy handling capacity mean comparatively low overall losses in absolute terms. Thus they would not contribute significantly to total energy saving. For this reason they are not included. There are also a number of other exclusions from the coverage of MEPS, mainly for transformers for quite specific applications. These will be discussed in further detail later when the case for their exclusion is considered.
_____________________________________________________________________
19
Transformer Efficiency
It is of relevance at this stage to discuss the factors that determine the power and energy efficiency of transformers. These factors will be discussed in some detail in the later considerations and comparisons, so that some explanation of them is needed. The basis on which efficiency levels of transformers is considered and specified varies in some countries and regions. For example, the Australian MEPS regulations and the North American Standards use a specified power efficiency level of the transformer which is determined and specified at a particular loading level of the transformer. This particular loading is normally 50% of the full load, or Nameplate rating of the transformer. (In some cases it may be specified at 40% of load.) The loading is an important consideration as the efficiency will vary with the load. Generally, a transformer has maximum power efficiency at about 50% of full load, hence the general choice of this test load condition. Other countries, such as Japan, the European Union and India, do not specify power efficiency but instead specify maximum levels of power losses for the particular transformer ratings at full load. The transformer losses are tested and must fall within the maximum loss limits laid down in Standards. It is a simple matter to translate the power losses of the transformer into power efficiency levels by scaling the specified full load losses to 50% load. There is no major difference in the two approaches and they are easily convertible into the other form. Ultimately, the energy efficiency of overall energy use in a specified period of time is the main consideration for greenhouse purposes. Determination of this energy use over a period of time from the efficiency or losses requires knowledge of the loading of the transformer and its variation over that period. The losses and efficiency vary with loading of the transformer. The major problem occurs in the determination of the loading levels of the transformer as this must be known to calculate the total energy loss over a period and hence to determine the energy efficiency of the transformer. 4.1 Losses in Transformers
In essence, the standard single phase transformer comprises a soft magnetic metal core built up from thin laminations which are made of highly refined magnetic steel sheets. Wound around the magnetic metal core are two electrical windings, the primary and the secondary, which are insulated from each other. The two windings carry current and transform the voltage of the power supply according to the relative number of turns in each winding. The magnetic steel core is used to contain and channel an alternating (AC) magnetic field around the core structure (the magnetic circuit). The magnetic field in the core is generated by passing a small electrical current (the magnetising current) through one of the windings (the primary) which is connected to the power source (in this case the general distribution grid system operating usually at 11,000 volts (11 kV) 3-phase or 6,350 (6.35 kV) single phase. The secondary winding is normally designed to give 415 volts 3-phase (240 V single phase) to any connected load (although there will be _____________________________________________________________________
20
a gradual change in these levels over the next few years to standardise them at 400/230 volts.). Figure 1(a) shows the general features of the single phase transformer construction and the major relevant components (the iron or steel core that contains the magnetic field (flux) and the windings). Three phase transformers have three sets of primary and secondary windings, each set usually wound on a separate leg of a multi-limb transformer core. (see for example Figure 2(c)).
(a) Figure 1 Single Phase Transformer Schematics
(b) In a simple single phase transformer the windings are contiguously wound on the transformer core with the magnetic field coupling through both windings (Figure 1(b)). The primary winding is the high voltage (outer) winding, connected to the distribution grid and the secondary winding is the low voltage (inner) winding, connected to the load(s) supplied by the transformer. The power taken to the load is transferred from the primary winding to the secondary winding and the load via the magnetic field generated in the core by the primary winding. Figure 2 shows some examples of liquid-insulated and dry-type distribution transformers. In liquid insulated transformers the windings and the core are immersed in insulating oil which provides both an electrical insulation function and a thermal transfer function to dissipate the heat generated by the transformer losses. See for example Figure 2(a). In dry-type transformers (Figure 2(b) and 2(c)) the insulation is provided only by solid materials with insulating paper wound over the windings and then all is filled by a solid casting of epoxy resin (2(c)), or alternatively in the open winding type (2(b)) the windings and paper insulation are provided with a thick varnish-type coating. In _____________________________________________________________________
21
dry-type transformers the heat generated by losses must be dissipated by thermal conduction of the solid insulation, which is less efficient that oil in removing heat.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 2 Examples of liquid-filled and dry-type transformers

(a) 1000 kVA liquid-filled (b) 750kVA dry-type: open winding (c) 500 kVA dry-type: cast resin
The establishment of the magnetic field in the core requires some current flow from the distribution system into the primary winding, so that even when there is no load connected to the secondary winding, magnetising current is still required to be taken from the grid to establish the magnetic field so that power transfer between the windings can occur whenever a load is connected to the secondary. In effecting transfer of electrical power from the distribution grid to the load the transformer itself consumes some power and hence energy loss within its structure. These losses generate heat in the transformer and this must be dissipated to the ambient. In order to maintain the transformer insulation within its operational limits. There are two quite different components making up transformer loss. These are: (i) (ii) the No load (or core or iron) loss and the Load (or copper or winding) loss.
4.1.1 No Load (Core) Losses Whenever an AC magnetic field is generated in the steel core, it will cause an energy loss in the core material. This is the No-Load Loss or core loss of the transformer. There are, in turn, two components of the No Load Loss: (a) hysteresis loss and (b) eddy current loss. Hysteresis loss is generated due to the effect of the alternating magnetic field on the soft magnetic steel of the core. As the magnetic domains in the steel try to follow the changing orientation of the AC magnetic field they generate frictional heat in the core: this is the hysteresis loss. The level of hysteresis loss depends on the magnetic field magnitude (the core flux density), the AC power frequency and on the specific material used for the core.
_____________________________________________________________________
22
Eddy current loss in the core steel arises from the intrinsic effect of the AC magnetic field on the electrically conducting core material. The AC magnetic field generates (induces) eddy currents in the core steel due to the magnetic interaction. These induced eddy currents generate heat (and energy loss) in the metal core material in the same way that any electrical current flow generates heat in the resistance of an electrical conductor. The eddy current loss depends on the electrical resistance of the core material and the AC frequency. The resistance can be increased and the eddy current loss decreased by using thin laminations or by using a core material with an inherently high electrical resistance, such as amorphous magnetic metal. Both of these components of core loss are dependent on the AC frequency at which the magnetic field alternates, so that when frequency increases, the core loss will increase. Hysteresis loss increases linearly with frequency but eddy current loss scales as the square of frequency. Thus any higher harmonic components in the exciting voltage will cause increased core loss. The magnetising current required to establish the AC magnetic field in the core, and hence the core losses associated with maintaining the magnetic field, are independent of the load connected to the secondary winding. The magnetic field flux density in the core is always constant and independent of the load current. Thus the core loss is the same for all levels of transformer loading, whether there is no load, half load or full load. Hence the No Load core losses are fixed losses, as shown in Figure 3, and they will be produced and present in the core whenever the primary winding is connected to the distribution grid voltage system. The core loss is voltage-dependent and also slightly temperature dependent. Thus, if the distribution grid voltage level changes, the core loss will also change. A higher voltage will generate higher losses and a lower voltage lower losses. The temperature dependence is complex in that the hysteresis loss will increase slightly with increased temperature but the eddy current loss will decrease with temperature increase because of increase of resistance with temperature. Thus, measurement of fixed losses in performing efficiency tests requires that test voltage and temperature must be specified and measured accurately. In some cases it may be necessary to use multiplying factors to adjust measured losses to specified standard conditions.
Figure 3 Transformer loss components and power efficiency versus loading

[Note that peak efficiency occurs when load loss and no-load loss are equal] [From [18]]
_____________________________________________________________________
23
4.1.2 Load (copper or winding) loss The Load Loss is generated in the two windings by load current flow in the electrical resistance of the two windings, generating simple ohmic heating from the effects of current on the winding resistance. (The magnetising current in the primary is very low in magnitude compared to normal load currents and will give negligible contribution to Load Loss). The Load Loss is load-current dependent as can be seen in Figure 3 and scales as the square of the load current (and the load level in kVA) so that, for example, the load loss at 100% loading will be four times the load loss at 50% loading. Load losses are relatively insensitive to grid voltage change. They are however very sensitive to temperature variation of the windings and this is an important consideration in analysis of the test results of efficiency determinations. Test temperature must be recorded and the results normalised to specified standard temperatures in any loss and efficiency determinations. (Although copper loss is a widely used term for Load Loss, the windings are not always made of copper. In modern distribution transformers, the secondary winding may be wound in the form of a cylindrical sheet of aluminium. This is an important consideration in adjusting losses for temperature variation.) As can be seen in Figure 3, the load loss becomes the dominant component when the transformer is more than about 50% loaded. The load dependence also means that any overloading of the transformer will cause significant increase in load loss and decrease in efficiency. Load loss is also dependent on the frequency content of the load current. When higher frequency harmonics are present in the load current due to non-linear loads, for example, eddy currents are generated in the windings and these cause higher levels of loss. The higher the harmonic frequency content, the greater the load loss. In addition to the load loss due to winding resistance, there is another component of loss that is generally included in the load loss but is not part of the actual winding loss. This is stray loss in the metal structural parts of the transformer tank and similar metal components. Stray loss arises from eddy currents set up in the metal parts when the magnetic field of the secondary current in the transformer interacts with them. The eddy current flow causes heating in the tank and other metal structural components in the same way that they are caused in the core laminations. Stray losses are typically about 5-10% of load loss. Non-magnetic metals such as aluminium will have lower stray loss than magnetic metals such as steel. 4.2 Power and Energy Efficiency
Having outlined the losses that affect the efficiency of power transfer by transformers it is necessary to differentiate between the Power Efficiency which is the defining quantity used in the MEPS Standard and the Energy Efficiency of a transformer. These two quantities are not quite as intimately or simply related for transformer operation as they are in some other items of electrical equipment. This complexity arises because of the operational load dependence of the total losses in transformers _____________________________________________________________________
24
and the need for transformers to be connected to the grid voltage at all times whether loaded or not. In an electrical distribution system, the transformers are always left connected and energised even when no power is being taken from them by consumers. When they are not supplying power transformers will still generate no load loss with the result that the unloaded transformer is a simple power drain on the grid. Even when lightly loaded (up to 15% of rated load), the transformer power efficiency is very low. Figure 3 shows the dependence of losses and efficiency of a typical transformer on the load level. For this reason the loading of the transformer is an important consideration in terms of the energy efficiency. The loading will depend on the application and the type and number of consumers connected and will be quite different, for example, between utility and industry/commercial application. Supply utility transformers have a complex loading pattern that is often dominated by domestic loading requirements while transformers supplying industry and commerce have a more predictable load that can be more readily modelled in energy loss calculations. Typically a general utility supply transformer will have an averaged load of about 25-30% over a year while an industrial transformer will have an average load of about 50%. These differences can mean that the energy efficiencies of the same transformers with different loading will be quite different. 4.2.1 Power Efficiency of a Transformer The power efficiency of a transformer is a property that is only able to be defined for a specific load It gives an instantaneous measure of the transformer power loss relative to the power supplied to that specific load at any particular time. Then the power efficiency EP is defined as: EP = Load power/ [Load power + Power loss] = PL / [PL + PC + PW] PL PC PW watts watts watts
where The real power delivered to the load is: The No Load core loss is: The Load Loss is:
The real power in watts supplied to the load, and hence the power efficiency of the transformer, is dependent on the power factor of the load. The power factor is the ratio of real power (in watts) used by the load to the apparent power (in kVA) required by the load conditions. Thus PL = Voltage x Current x Power Factor. Typically domestic loads have almost unity power factor, while industrial loads will have lower power factors. If the power factor of an industrial or commercial load is too low (say less than 0.8) the supply utility may require increase of the load power factor (power factor correction) by installation of capacitors at the load. Using the power factor, the full definition of the power efficiency is then:
_____________________________________________________________________
25
EP = VICos / [VICos + PC + I2RW] where: The power factor is: The load voltage is: The load current is: The total winding resistance is: Cos V volts I amps RW ohms
Obviously, if the supplied power to a load is zero, the efficiency is zero and the transformer represents a simple power and energy loss to the supply grid system. As can be seen in Figure 3 the power efficiency is very low below about 10% of loading. While the power factor can be an important consideration in determining the overall energy efficiency, when testing transformers for their power efficiency, unity power factor load conditions (Cos = 1) are used. Maximum power efficiency occurs when PC = PW, when the load loss is equal to the no load loss. As a rule of thumb, maximum efficiency often occurs at about 50% of the full rated load of the transformer. Thus when efficiency testing is performed it is normally done at 50% of full load. [In fact, for modern transformers with low no load loss the above rule of thumb may not work because the no load losses are decreased. However the 50% test load is still used. Dry-type transformers, in particular, have higher core loss than liquid-insulated transformers and so the 50% load may not correspond to peak efficiency in that case either.] MEPS requirements are that the efficiency must be determined at 50% of full load and thus the specified minimum efficiency levels are about the peak values for general transformer operation. 4.2.2 Energy Efficiency of a Transformer The power efficiency is an efficiency level determined by the instantaneous load power and the power losses in the transformer. The energy efficiency is an integrated quantity characterising energy supply and energy loss over a specific period of time. Thus it is necessary to determine the energy supply from the load power levels and durations of the particular loads imposed on the transformer during the period that the energy efficiency is calculated for. Thus the energy efficiency is necessarily specified over a period of time, which may be a day, a week, a month or a year. The loading pattern of the transformer then becomes an important consideration in energy efficiency and there is thus some variation in energy efficiency between the domestic, industrial and commercial applications of transformers because of the different load patterns. The loading of industrial transformers is higher than that of utility distribution transformers [5] and thus their energy efficiency is usually higher than that of utility transformers. If a transformer has a load pattern consisting of, say, three periods of different constant loads (L1, L2 and L3) over defined periods T1, T2 and T3 with no load supplied for a period T4, the energy efficiency of the transformer over that period is:
_____________________________________________________________________
26
EW = [L1T1 + L2T2 + L3T3]/ [L1T1 + L2T2 + L3T3 + (T1+T2+T3+T4)PC + (PW1T1 + PW2T2 + PW3T3)] = [L1T1 + L2T2 + L3T3]/ [L1T1 + L2T2 + L3T3 + (T1+T2+T3+T4)PC + (L12.T1+L22.T2+L32.T3)PWR/LR2] where: L1, L2 and L3 are the loads in kVA that are sustained for periods T1, T2 and T3 T4 is the duration of the no-load period of the transformer PC is the core power loss (no load loss) PW1, PW2 and PW3 are the load losses at loads L1, L2 and L3 PWR is the full load (copper) loss at nameplate-rated load LR. In terms of load voltage (V) and currents (I1, I2 and I3 and IR) the energy efficiency is: EW = [VI1T1 + VI2T2 + VI3T3]/ [VI1T1 + VI2T2 + VI3T3 + (T1+T2+T3+T4)PC + (I12.T1+I22.T2+I32.T3)PWR/IR2] [It is assumed that the voltage regulation maintains V constant, independent of load.] Calculation of the energy efficiency and the total energy over a period thus requires details of the transformer loading pattern in addition to the loss details. The loading pattern is often difficult to determine, particularly in a large distribution system with many transformers and it is necessary to use some empirical modelling procedures to simplify loading patterns into two or three equivalent periods of constant loads so that total energy loss calculations can be performed. Transformer loading Standards such as AS 2374.7 (Loading Guide for oil-immersed power transformers) [11,12] are useful in providing standard methods of determining such load models. Such modelling is necessary to determine accurately the overall energy saving potential of any targeted improvements in the power efficiency of transformers. Much effort was expended by the US Department of Energy in developing load models for use in analyses of the impact of their proposed efficiency regulations [13]. 4.2.3 An example of energy saving by improvement of power efficiency For a 1000 kVA transformer with MEPS 1 efficiency level of 99.27% and with a daily load cycle consisting of the following: 8 hours at full load unity PF, 6 hours at 50% load unity PF, 6 hours at 25% load unity PF and 4 hours at no load, the daily energy efficiency is 99.07% and the energy loss per day is 117 kWh. For the same transformer rating with the new proposed MEPS power efficiency level of 99.37% and the same load cycle, the energy efficiency is increased to 99.24% and the energy loss per day is reduced to 101 kWh.
_____________________________________________________________________
27
Thus, the daily energy saving is 16 kWh, which is 5.8 MWh per annum for this load pattern, corresponding to about 6 tonnes of CO2-e greenhouse gas emissions avoided per annum or 180 tonnes of CO2-e over the expected 30 year life of the one transformer.
_____________________________________________________________________
28
5 Transformer efficiency standards in other countries

Other countries have put forward minimum efficiency standards or proposals for transformers in recent years. In particular the USA, the European Union, India and Japan have undertaken extensive investigations to determine minimum power efficiency levels that are technically achievable by manufacturers and that will provide significant energy savings when adopted. It will be seen from the following survey that the proposed new MEPS efficiency levels for distribution transformers in Australia are quite consistent with the minimum efficiency level standards that are being developed and applied internationally. 5.1 US Proposed Efficiency Standards
In America the voluntary NEMA TP 1 Standard [8] has been used as an interim measure while new efficiency standards have been developed for future mandatory application. In developing the new efficiency standards the Department of Energy in the USA has undertaken a very substantial and lengthy investigation of transformer efficiencies in order to determine technically appropriate and achievable efficiency levels for adoption. This work was started in 1996 with the publication of DOE commissioned reports by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory [14,15] into energy conservation standards for distribution transformers. This involved a detailed investigation of the whole range of factors involved in distribution transformer manufacture and operational efficiency. Subsequent to those initial commissioned reports, extensive work was undertaken by the DOE itself which involved having their technical staff use state of the art computer design procedures to develop a number of transformer designs to determine the sensitivity of efficiency to a variety of design factors so that achievable best practice efficiency levels could be specified. They also purchased a range of transformers from manufacturers and then dismantled and re-assembled the transformers to examine component quality and to test manufacturing quality control features in order to determine whether they could be improved so as to increase energy efficiency. In addition they used utility and industry data from detailed surveys of transformer loading data from utilities and industry to develop mathematical models of loading patterns for all typical applications distribution transformers. These were then used in life cycle models of the transformers to determine the total life cycle costing of transformers, including capital cost, cost of losses and maintenance costing over the life of the transformer. Using all of this data and modelling of energy savings from the effect of new imposed higher efficiency levels they were able to model and determine the impact of the efficiency savings on the environment, particularly in the case of reduction of carbon dioxide emissions and reduction of the NOx gas emissions from thermal power stations when the higher efficiency transformer units were used. _____________________________________________________________________
29
Detailed consideration was also given to the testing methods specified in NEMA Standard TP 2 [9] for determination of transformer losses and calculation of the power efficiencies. Documents relating to this work included an environmental assessment of the proposed energy standards for distribution transformers [16], a Framework Document for the new Standards for public comment [17] and a Technical Support Document for Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule-making [13] giving full details of modelling procedures and technical discussion. The final result of this work was publication in the USA Federal Register, on 4 August 2006, of a Proposed Rule for distribution transformer energy conservation Standards [5]. Distribution transformers manufactured after 1 January 2010 will have to have power efficiencies that are no less than the specified values under the test conditions given in the Rules. Some further discussion on test procedures and amendments to the NEMA TP 2 test methods were given in another Rule in the Federal Register [10]. As a result of the work the DOE published two sets of efficiency tables for transformers. One set represented what were considered to be the Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels (MAX-TECH LEVELS) which were based on use of the most efficient materials and use of sophisticated design parameters and software to create designs at the highest efficiencies possible. The other set of efficiencies given in the Rules were the proposed efficiency standard levels that were chosen from a number of various designs and combinations investigated. Six Trial Standard Levels representing the short list of most efficient designs were devised for detailed investigation. The one chosen for application in the Rules was Trial Standard Level 2 [TSL2]. Tables 6 and 7 below show the MAX-TECH LEVELS for liquid-insulated transformers (Table 6) and dry-type transformers (Table 7) that were decided on the basis of the extensive investigations described above. Tables 8 and 9 show the proposed efficiency levels [for TSL2] chosen for implementation of the Energy Conservation Rules. It should be noted that the efficiencies listed in the DOE tables are specified for 60 Hz operation. For equivalent 50 Hz operation as used in Australia (and Europe) the corresponding minimum power efficiency levels would be expected to be slightly higher (by less than about 0.1%).
_____________________________________________________________________
30
Table 6 USA Department of Energy Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels for Single and Three Phase Liquid-immersed Distribution Transformers.
Tests to be done at 50% of rated loading according to test procedures in reference [10] Table extracted from reference [5]. Figures are for 60 Hz operation.
Table 7 USA Department of Energy Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels for Single and Three Phase Dry-Type distribution transformers.
Tests to be done at 50% of rated loading according to test procedures in reference [19] [Figures for BIL of 46-95 kV will correspond to rated voltage of about 11 kV.] Table extracted from reference [5]. Figures are for 60 Hz operation.
_____________________________________________________________________
31
Table 8 USA Department of Energy Minimum Efficiency Levels for Regulation of Liquid-immersed Distribution Transformers at 60 Hz.
Table extracted from [5]
Table 9 USA Department of Energy Minimum Efficiency Levels for Regulation of Dry-type Distribution Transformers at 60 Hz.
Table extracted from [5]
_____________________________________________________________________
32
The detailed testing that was done did not cover all of the rating levels in the range. For other ratings not covered by testing, the designated efficiencies were determined by scaling losses. The (0.75) exponent scaling rule was used on the ratings to determine losses from known loss characteristics at other ratings. Thus the No Load Loss (NLL) and Load Loss (LL) at some kVA rating level (S) was determined from the known losses NLL0 and NL0 at rating S0 by the following scaling equation: NLL = NLL0 (S/S0)0.75 LL = LL0 (S/S0)0.75 The reason for the inflexion in the proposed three phase efficiency levels for liquidinsulated transformers (the efficiency decreases at 333 and 500 kVA and then increases again) is not known. It obviously does not follow the above scaling rule. The work leading to the proposed levels also involved a detailed screening process that removed a number of material or design types from consideration if they were not considered viable for manufacturing procedures. Thus for example they excluded high temperature superconductor transformers and also amorphous metal use in stacked core configuration (though amorphous metal use in wound-core configuration was considered). The DOE levels provide a basis for comparison for the proposed new Australian MEPS levels. While the three phase range of transformers in Tables 8 and 9 have similar equivalents in Australia, single phase distribution transformers are more extensively used in the USA and thus the single phase rating range given is much broader than is available in Australia where single phase ratings only up to 50 kVA are used in distribution systems. In any specific comparison of efficiencies, the effect of the frequency difference (60 vs. 50 Hz) should be considered. In general, the efficiency for the same power rating at 50 Hz will be a little less than 0.1% greater than the efficiency at 60 Hz. In the case of the dry-type transformers, three design cases (PC or Product Cases) are listed. They are distinguished by the Basic Insulation Level (BIL) which is the designed lightning impulse withstand voltage level for the transformers. The comparable class for the Australian distribution situation would be that for a BIL of 46-95 kV. This will correspond roughly to the Australian 11 kV transformer class. A comparison of the levels with the new Australian levels will be given later. It should be noted here that there has recently been some criticism of the US DOE proposals by NEMA, who claim that transformer materials costs (particularly of silicon steel for the cores) have risen very significantly since 2003 when the DOE investigations were carried out. NEMA claim that this increase will affect the economics of the procedure used to determine achievable efficiency levels [26]. They have asked the DOE to consider using newer data in the analysis of efficiency levels. The listing of the above Tables in the Federal Register specifies that the efficiencies must be determined at a specific reference temperature and at 50 % of nameplaterated load. For both liquid-immersed and dry-type transformers the no-load losses must be determined at a temperature of 200C. For the load losses used in the _____________________________________________________________________
33
efficiency calculation, the specified reference temperatures to be used are 550C for liquid-immersed transformers and 750C for dry-type transformers. Reference [10] published in April 2006 discussed in detail the test procedures to be used and gives, in its Appendix A, a Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Distribution Transformers. This procedure is to be used in performing tests for compliance with the proposed DOE Rules. The test procedure used also gives sampling details for effecting a proper random selection of test objects. These test procedures are more detailed and specific than those available for use with the Australian MEPS test procedures. 5.2 European Union Proposals
There has also been much activity in recent years in the European Union countries with regard to transformer efficiency standards. An organisation named SEEDT (Strategies for Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers) has been established recently with the express aims of promoting the use of energy efficient transformers and proposing and applying strategies for reducing energy losses associated with distribution transformers. SEEDT held a conference in March 2007 at which new proposed transformer efficiency levels for European application were outlined. [18]. In addition to SEEDT, another organisation was established with wide international membership, including Australia. This group is PROPHET (Promotion Partnership for High Efficiency Transformers). PROPHET issued a detailed position paper on transformers in February 2005 (The Potential for Global Energy Savings from High Efficiency Transformers) [19]. In the European Union the relevant Standards for distribution transformer efficiency are CENELEC HD 428 [20] for liquid-immersed units and CENELEC HD 528 [21] for dry-type units. These Standards do not specify power efficiency levels but take the other option of specifying maximum allowable No Load and Load Losses for different transformer rating classes. The Standards [20, 21] do not give mandatory levels to be complied with by member countries. Instead the Standards provide a number of different levels of losses (and thus different efficiency levels) for different transformer combination types. It is the left to member countries to adopt (or not to adopt) any of these levels for implementation. HD 428 [20] specifies no-load loss levels for three different core types (designated A, B and C, with C having the lowest loss and A the highest). It also gives load losses for three different winding types (designated A, B and C, with C being the lowest loss and B the highest loss). HD 528 [21] gives just one loss combination. There are thus nine different transformer combinations of No load and Load loss in HD 428 in terms of overall losses, but only one for dry-types. Tables 10 and 11 below show the various loss levels specified in HD 428 and HD 528. Table 10 gives no-load losses and Table 11 gives the load losses. Amorphous core materials were not included in the specified no load losses in the Standards. However later European proposals have used amorphous core materials to reduce no load loss. _____________________________________________________________________
34
The B-A combination of load and no load loss is the highest loss and represents the least efficient transformer type. The C-C combination of load and no load loss has the lowest total loss and thus corresponds to the highest efficiency transformer type. HD 528 gives only one possible combination of load and no load loss for dry type units with the dry-type no-load losses being higher than for A for all power ratings, as would be expected from the general properties of dry type transformers. In the case of load losses the dry-type losses are lower than the B levels, comparable to A levels and less than the C levels for liquid-immersed transformers. Table 10 No-load Losses for Dry-type Transformers (from HD 528) and for Three Classes (A, B and C) of Liquid-immersed Transformers (From HD 428).
Table 11 Full Load Losses for Dry-type Transformers (HD 528) and for Three Classes (A, B and C) of Liquid-immersed Transformers (HD 528).
_____________________________________________________________________
35
The adoption of the HD 428 and HD 528 loss levels as maximum loss specifications levels for transformers is not mandatory in the European Union. Some countries have used the efficient C-C combination as a requirement and others have adopted lower efficiency combinations such as the B-B. For example the following table indicates the levels used in some European countries [4]. Belgium: France: Germany: Italy: Netherlands: Spain: C-C A-A and B-B A-C, B-A and C-C B-C Has levels better than C-C Half the transformer population meet the C-C levels
It is considered [4] that the C-C combination of loss levels and the corresponding efficiencies are not difficult for manufacturers to achieve and thus there has recently been a move to combine the more efficient C load loss levels with no load losses typical of amorphous cores to achieve a benchmark level of attainable efficiency, designated C-AMDT [19]. Table 12 shows the efficiencies at the Standard 50% load level determined from the loss specifications for the C-C combination, for the C-AMDT combination and the dry type from HD 428 and HD 528. The efficiencies have been calculated and tabulated so that some comparison can be made later with efficiency standards in other countries. Table 12 Comparison of the Efficiencies for the Three Phase C-C Combination from CENELEC HD 428 and the C-AMDT levels. Also shown are the efficiencies for the Dry-type units from HD 528. Trans. Type Rating (kVA) 50 100 160 250 400 630 1000 1600 2500 C - C efficiency at 50% load 98.65 98.86 99.03 99.13 99.23 99.31 99.32 99.36 99.37 C-AMDT efficiency at 50% load 99.01 99.16 99.28 99.36 99.42 99.50 99.51 99.52 99.52 Dry-type Efficiency at 50% load ---97.76 98.10 98.41 98.60 98.67 98.82 99.02 99.06
_____________________________________________________________________
36
There is a new proposed efficiency Standard for liquid- immersed transformers in the European Union, designated prEN50464-1, which proposes new efficiency levels that lie between the C-C and the C-AMDT levels shown in Table 12 above. These new proposals are shown in Figure 4 below as the light blue curve. Also shown are the NEMA TP-1, 50 Hz levels which are the same as the existing Australian MEPS 1 levels for liquid-filled transformers and the Japanese levels, which will be discussed in the next section. The proposed new European efficiency levels Pr EN50564-1 are also tabulated with the existing HD428 C-C levels for more detailed comparison in Table 13.
Figure 4 New European Efficiency Level Proposal (Pr EN50464) and Comparison with NEMA TP 1, Japanese Standard levels and the A-A combination. [From [18]]
Table 13 Tabulation of the Proposed European Levels prEN5046-1 for Oil-immersed Transformers and Comparison with C-C and C-AMDT levels Type Rating (kVA) 50 100 160 250 400 630 1000 1600 2500 C - C efficiency at 50% load 98.65 98.86 99.03 99.13 99.23 99.31 99.32 99.36 99.37 C-AMDT efficiency at 50% load 99.01 99.16 99.28 99.36 99.42 99.50 99.51 99.52 99.52 Proposed Standard prEN5046-1 98.90 99.10 99.22 99.30 99.38 99.45 99.46 99.48 99.49
_____________________________________________________________________
37
5.3
Specified Efficiency Levels in Other Countries
As well as the USA and European efficiency levels outlined above there are other distribution transformer efficiency Standards in other countries that are either already in force or are about to be imposed. The other countries using efficiency ratings for transformers include Japan, Canada, China, Mexico and India. 5.3.1 Canada Canada uses the two Canadian Standards CSA C802.1 [6] and CSA C802.2 [7] for efficiency specifications of liquid-immersed and dry-type distribution transformers respectively. The levels set for liquid filled transformers follow the specifications of NEMA TP-1 [8] and the current Canadian levels are still the same as when they were adopted, with small variations, as the first Australian MEPS efficiency levels. They are thus essentially the same as MEPS 1 levels and for this reason are not listed here. The current dry type levels in Canada differ from the NEMA TP 1 levels because of specific local Canadian manufacturing situations. They are shown below in Table 14. Because first phase of MEPS levels were based on the Canadian levels, which have not changed, the proposed new MEPS efficiency levels will now exceed the Canadian efficiency levels. Table 14 Canadian Standard Levels for Dry-type Transformers. (from CSA C802.2 [7])
_____________________________________________________________________
38
5.3.2 Mexico Mexico has had mandatory efficiency standards for distribution transformers for many years [22]. In general the levels are slightly lower than those in NEMA TP-1. Table 15 shows the Mexican levels that are currently used. Note that the power efficiency levels are those determined at 100% of nameplate rating. These will be slightly less than at 50% for the same transformer. Only liquid-filled transformers are regulated. Dry-type transformers are in use but are not included in the mandatory scheme. Table 15 Mandatory Efficiency Levels for Mexico (at 100% of nameplate load)
Mexico also specifies maximum permissible losses for transformers, shown below in Table 16. These are full load loss levels.
_____________________________________________________________________
39
Table 16 Maximum Permissible Loss Levels for Liquid-filled Transformers in Mexico. (Values are for full load operation)
5.3.3 China In China the current mandatory efficiency levels are set down in a Chinese Standard S9 and more recently in Standard S11, in which the efficiency requirements have been increased but are not yet mandatory. The S9 levels are less stringent than the European C-C combination levels, by about 0.1 0.2 %. They are roughly comparable to the existing NEMA TP-1 levels. 5.3.4 India In India, where transformer efficiencies have traditionally been quite poor (network losses are about 25%), the Bureau of Energy Efficiency of the Ministry of Power has now developed a star classification system for transformers, ranging from 1 to 5 stars, with 5 stars representing international best practice [23]. The Ministry of Power is aiming to have 3 stars as a minimum efficiency standard and this is being adhered to by many supply utilities. The actual power efficiencies relating to the star classes are not specified. Instead the maximum permissible loss levels are specified, as in the European HD 428 and 528 documents. The load levels corresponding to each star class are given in Table 17 below. As can be seen the range of ratings is rather limited by comparison with other Standards, with 200 kVA as the maximum level for three phase liquid-filled transformers. The permissible loss figures given do not break the losses down into no-load and load loss, although this is calculable given that total losses are given at two load levels. The Indian document covers only liquid-filled transformers and thus should be compared with the C-C levels of HD 428. Such a comparison is given in Table 18.
_____________________________________________________________________
40
Table 17 Maximum Permissible Transformer Loss Levels for the Indian BEE Star Classification: for three phase liquid-insulated transformers
Table 18 A Comparison of Efficiencies Calculated from the Indian BEE 3-Star level with European Efficiencies Calculated from the HD 428 Loss Levels Type Rating (kVA) 50 100 160 250 400 630 1000 1600 2500 C - C efficiency 50% load 98.65 98.86 99.03 99.13 99.23 99.31 99.32 99.36 99.37 C-AMDT efficiency 50% load 99.01 99.16 99.28 99.36 99.42 99.50 99.51 99.52 99.52 HD 528 Dry-type Efficiency 50% load -----97.76 98.10 98.41 98.60 98.67 98.82 99.02 99.06 prEN50464-1 Proposed levels for Europe 98.90 99.10 99.22 99.30 99.38 99.45 99.46 99.48 99.49 Indian 3star Efficiency at 50% load 99.33 (est.) 99.48 99.52 99.59 (est.)
Table 18 includes the Indian efficiency levels calculated for the three star loss figures with a comparison with the European levels, including the proposed prEN5064-1 levels. The three star levels given above are only the mid-range levels with the 5 star efficiencies obviously being still higher. The Indian power efficiencies specified appear to be to be too high to be achievable if the loss values given are correct. It is possible that some allowable tolerance may be included in the loss levels stated in the BEE figures given in Table 17. In some other countries, a tolerance of 10% is sometimes allowed on the loss figures.
_____________________________________________________________________
41
5.3.5 Japan Japan has developed quite stringent efficiency standards in their Top Runner Energy Efficiency Program [24] which was instituted and developed after the Kyoto Protocol meeting in 1997. The Top Runner program covers a wide range of electrical equipment and appliances and gives maximum target levels for permissible loss specifications. Distribution transformers are included in the program which thus specifies target levels of total losses for use in determining transformer efficiency. Rather than separating the no load and load loss the transformer section of the Program provides empirical formulae that can be used to calculate the losses for any specific transformer rating and thence the efficiencies can be determined. The loss formulae are given for both 50 and 60 Hz to cover the two different power frequency systems that operate in separate parts of Japan. Figure 5 gives the appropriate details and formulae required for the transformer loss calculations for both oil-filled and dry-type transformers.
Figure 5 Loss Target Values for Distribution Transformers in the Japanese Top Runner Program.
[Molded transformers are dry-type transformers]
Table 19 compares power efficiency levels, calculated from the Japanese Top Runner loss formulae for liquid-insulated three phase transformers, with the European and Indian levels. It should be noted that there is a major program of application of amorphous metal core use in transformers in Japan so that the Japanese efficiency figures should be considered as being based on amorphous cores and thus the comparison is most valid with the European C-AMDT efficiency values.
_____________________________________________________________________
42
Table 20 compares the power efficiency levels for the Japanese Top Runner dry-type transformers with those for the European HD 528 and C-AMDT specifications. Table 19 Comparison of the Japanese Top Runner efficiency levels for three phase liquidimmersed transformers Type Rating (kVA) 50 100 160 250 400 630 1000 1600 2500 C - C efficiency at 50% load 98.65 98.86 99.03 99.13 99.23 99.31 99.32 99.36 99.37 C-AMDT efficiency at 50% load 99.01 99.16 99.28 99.36 99.42 99.50 99.51 99.52 99.52 Indian 3-star prEN50464-1 Efficiency at Proposed levels 50% load 99.33 (est.) 99.48 99.52 99.59 (est.) 98.90 99.10 99.22 99.30 99.38 99.45 99.46 99.48 99.49 Top Runner (Japan) 99.39 99.52 99.59 99.65 99.70 99.63 99.67 99.69 99.71
Table 20 Comparison of the Japanese Top Runner efficiency levels for three phase drytype transformers (including also C-AMDT figures) C-AMDT efficiency Rating (kVA) at 50% load 50 99.01 100 99.16 160 99.28 250 99.36 400 99.42 630 99.50 1000 99.51 1600 99.52 2500 99.52 Type HD 528 Efficiency at 50% load ----97.76 98.10 98.41 98.60 98.67 98.82 99.02 99.06 Top Runner (Japan) 99.23 99.40 99.50 99.58 99.64 99.59 99.64 99.68 99.72
It should be noted that the system of electricity distribution in Japan is somewhat different to that in most other countries in that it uses many more lower capacity units that are placed in quite close proximity to the ultimate load, with transformation thus being done effectively at the site. Therefore use of a higher concentration of single phase transformers and smaller three phase units is the situation. Nevertheless the target values represented by the above Japanese levels are close to the state of the art in achievable levels efficiency levels.
_____________________________________________________________________
43
Increase of the Existing MEPS Levels
As foreshadowed earlier in this report, it is proposed to increase the current MEPS levels for transformer efficiency in Australia to the efficiency levels specified as High Efficiency in the Australian Standard AS2374.1.2. The existing MEPS efficiency levels used for compliance in Australia were based on efficiency levels proposed in North America (and adopted in Canada). The existing MEPS levels and the proposed higher MEPS levels detailed in AS2374.1.2 have been given previously in Tables 4 and 5 and are reproduced below for the sake of comparison with other efficiency Standards detailed in Section 5. Table 4 Existing and Proposed MEPS levels for Liquid-immersed transformers. Transformer type Single phase (and SWER) Three Phase kVA
10 16 25 50 25 63 100 200 315 500 750 1000 1500 2000 2500 Power efficiency (%) at 50% load 98.30 98.52 98.70 98.90 98.28 98.62 98.76 98.94 99.04 99.13 99.21 99.27 99.35 99.39 99.40 Proposed New MEPS efficiency level 98.42 98.64 98.80 99.00 98.50 98.82 99.00 99.11 99.19 99.26 99.32 99.37 99.44 99.49 99.50
Table 5: Existing and Proposed MEPS levels for Dry-Type transformers Transformer kVA type Single phase (and SWER) Three Phase
10 16 25 50 25 63 100 200 315 500 750 1000 1500 2000 2500 Power efficiency (%) at 50% load Um = 12 kV Existing Proposed new MEPS MEPS 97.29 97.53 97.60 97.83 97.89 98.11 97.31 98.50 97.42 97.17 98.01 97.78 98.28 98.07 98.64 98.46 98.82 98.67 98.97 98.84 99.08 98.96 99.14 99.03 99.21 99.12 99.24 99.16 99.27 99.19 Power efficiency (%) at 50% load Um = 24 kV Existing Proposed new MEPS MEPS 97.01 97.32 97.27 97.55 97.53 97.78 97.91 98.10 97.42 97.17 98.01 97.78 98.28 98.07 98.60 98.42 98.74 98.59 98.87 98.74 98.98 98.85 99.04 98.92 99.12 99.01 99.17 99.06 99.20 99.09
_____________________________________________________________________
44
In providing some comment and comparison on the levels that are proposed for the new MEPS compliance requirements, it is necessary to compare these new MEPS efficiency levels to the international standards that have been discussed in Section 5 above. Figure 6 is a graphical comparison of a number of the efficiency requirements and proposals discussed above. The Australian MEPS levels listed are the old MEPS levels. The graph does not show the new MEPS levels or the European proposals or the US DOE benchmark levels or the US proposed levels. As the US levels, the Japanese levels and the new European proposals are the essential benchmarks to compare the new MEPS levels with, these have all been calculated for identical ratings for the purposes of direct comparison. Table 21 shows a comparison of the new MEPS levels with those summarised in Figure 6 for three phase liquid-immersed transformers. The efficiency values for specific ratings not included in the actual MEPS listing in the AS2374.1.2 High efficiency tabulation have been interpolated graphically from the values in that list. Similarly the USA levels have also been interpolated for specific rating levels not listed in their proposals. The US levels have not been adjusted from 60 Hz. All others shown in the table, including those for Japan, are for 50 Hz frequency. It is also noted that the Japanese levels are shown as constant levels below 500 kVA and above 500 kVA. The calculations used in determining Figure 6 (and Figure 7 later) do not give constant levels. The cause of the discrepancy is not known. According to the formulae given in the Top Runner program the efficiencies should not be constant with increasing rating.
Figure 6 Existing and Proposed Transformer Efficiencies in Various Countries and Regions Does not include proposed new USA levels and new Australian MEPS. The Australian MEPS listed are the old MEPS levels. [Graph extracted from [18]] _____________________________________________________________________
45
Table 21 Comparison of the Proposed New MEPS Power Efficiency Levels for Liquid-immersed Three Phase Transformers with those used/proposed in Other Countries.
USA Benchmark figures in Column 2 are the MAX-TECH levels of the DOE
Type Rating (kVA) 50 100 160 250 400 630 1000 1600 2500 USA Bench mark (60 Hz) % 99.48 99.57 99.62 99.66 99.69 99.68 99.68 99.72 99.74 USA Proposed levels (60 Hz) % 98.80 98.97 99.08 99.19 99.29 99.28 99.29 99.37 99.44 C - C effic. at 50% load % 98.65 98.86 99.03 99.13 99.23 99.31 99.32 99.36 99.37 CAMDT Effic. 50% load % 99.01 99.16 99.28 99.36 99.42 99.50 99.51 99.52 99.52 prEN50464 -1 Proposed levels % 98.90 99.10 99.22 99.30 99.38 99.45 99.46 99.48 99.49 Indian 3star Efficiency at 50% load % 99.33 (est.) 99.48 99.52 99.59 (est.) Top Runner (Japan) (50 Hz) % 99.39 99.52 99.59 99.65 99.70 99.63 99.67 99.69 99.71 New MEPS (Australia) % 98.78 99.00 99.07 99.15 99.23 99.30 99.37 99.45 99.50
Table 22 shows a comparison of the proposed new MEPS levels with those summarised in Table 20 for three phase dry-type transformers (using the 12 kV Um data from the new MEPS proposal). The efficiency values for ratings which are not included in the specific MEPS listing in the AS2374.1.2 list have been interpolated graphically from the values in that list. Similarly the USA levels have also been determined by interpolation for specific rating levels not listed in their proposals. This method has been used in all other cases where losses and efficiencies were not known or were not calculable. The USA levels have not been adjusted from 60 Hz. Table 22 Comparison of the proposed new MEPS power efficiency levels for dry-type three phase transformers with those used in other countries
[prEN50464-1 also included for comparison]
Type Rating (kVA) 50 100 160 250 400 630 1000 1600 2500 98.56 98.80 98.93 99.04 99.16 99.34 99.46 99.52 99.57 USA Bench mark % USA Prop. levels 60Hz 45-95 kV BIL % 97.92 98.22 98.44 98.62 98.77 98.91 99.03 99.13 99.23 USA Prop levels (60 Hz) > 96 kV BIL % -----------------98.58 98.73 98.87 98.99 99.10 99.20 prEN50464 -1 Proposed levels % HD 528 Effic. at 50% load % -----97.76 98.10 98.41 98.60 98.67 98.82 99.02 99.06 Top Runner (Japan) (50 Hz) % 99.23 99.40 99.50 99.58 99.64 99.59 99.64 99.68 99.72 New MEPS (12kV) (Aust) % 97.92 98.28 98.52 98.73 98.90 99.03 99.14 99.23 99.27 New MEPS (24kV) (Aust) % 97.92 98.28 98.47 98.66 98.81 98.93 99.04 99.14 99.20
98.90 99.10 99.22 99.30 99.38 99.45 99.46 99.48 99.49
_____________________________________________________________________
46
Detailed figures for the China S9 and S11 levels and the Canadian levels have not been included in the comparison above, but they are included in the graph of Figure 6. The Canadian levels are essentially similar to the old MEPS levels. The Chinese S9 mandatory levels are below the old MEPS levels and the new (non-mandated) S11 levels are either slightly higher or similar to the old MEPS levels. 6.1 Comparison of the new MEPS with other Standards
From the above Tables and graphs it can be seen that the new MEPS levels proposed for Australia are consistent with levels used in other developed countries for standard transformers. The new MEPS efficiency levels are however below some achievable levels that are being instituted in other countries, for example the Japanese Top Runner levels and the European HD 428 C-AMDT levels. However, these last two classes of efficiency levels are based on use of amorphous metal cores to reduce core loss, so that while they are achievable it would require a significant change in manufacturing capability and significant investment in new production facilities in Australia to implement them. However they do represent an eventual benchmark efficiency. The most valid comparison for the new MEPS is with: (i) the original HD 428 levels for the most efficient transformer configuration, namely the combination HD428 CC, (ii) the proposed European Standard prEN50464-1 and (iii) the new USA DOE proposals. The proposed MEPS levels are seen to be consistent with the HD 428 C-C combination and with the USA proposals. They are slightly lower than the new European proposal benchmark prEN50464-1. Thus the new MEPS level proposals represent achievable efficiency levels that are consistent with current international Standards and proposals, and as such will assist in further reducing greenhouse gas emissions when they replace the existing MEPS. Figure 4, reproduced below, shows again a graphical comparison of the benchmark European prEN50464 levels with the C-C, Japanese and C-AMDT levels. The new MEPS will thus be just slightly below the prEN50464-1 curve. Hence they will represent effective best practice in international terms, given that the European proposals have not been adopted (and are unlikely to be adopted by all countries in the EU if the use of HD 428 levels is a guide). There are no new proposals for dry-type transformers in Europe, but both the USA and Japanese Standards include them in their Standards. Once again, the new Australian MEPS levels are consistent with these proposed levels, given that the Japanese Top Runner levels are based on amorphous core materials. Thus, in conclusion, the proposed levels are consistent with current best practice and are also achievable in manufacturing terms.
_____________________________________________________________________
47
Figure 4 (repeated) Graphical Comparison of Current and Proposed Levels for Oil-filled Transformers. [From [18]]
_____________________________________________________________________
48
7 Why increase MEPS levels?

The main objective of both the previous MEPS and the proposed new MEPS is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions related to energy losses from electricity distribution transformers below what they are otherwise projected to be, in a manner that is in the communitys best interests. The previous MEPS addressed market failure in the private transformer market, and the increasing risk of market failure in the utility transformer market, by enforcing investment in more efficient products so that the total life cycle cost of the transformers to users would be lower than otherwise (as set out in Section 1 of the Regulatory Impact Statement for MEPS 1 [40]). These arguments remain for the proposed higher MEPS levels. The previous MEPS efficiency levels were set using loss efficiency levels that were easily attainable by existing design techniques, manufacturing capabilities and appropriate material availability and thus there is some potential scope for increasing the efficiency levels to achieve greater reductions in energy losses and greenhouse gas emissions. There are a number of factors that will enable the achievement of higher efficiencies and support further the case for increasing the MEPS levels to the higher efficiency levels listed in the Australian MEPS Standard. It is expected these higher efficiencies can be achieved at modest cost relative to the benefit to the community. These factors, discussed in more detail below, include: Better use of traditional materials to achieve energy savings Better computer-aided design of transformers to improve efficiency Availability of new core materials and new core designs Improved operational application of transformers Consideration of total life cost as opposed to simple initial purchase cost of transformers The effect of increasing harmonic levels in modern loads and in the grid supply Achievement of an increased life of transformers by lower operating temperatures with more efficient transformers
The above factors indicate that there is still scope for improvement in transformer efficiency levels. They also indicate that modern operational loads with harmonics content that are being supplied by distribution transformers will be such as to increase transformer losses. In combining these two considerations it is obviously necessary to have new and higher minimum levels for transformers to constrain transformer losses at a level consistent with the requirements of global warming.
_____________________________________________________________________
49
7.1
Better use of traditional core and winding materials
7.1.1 Core construction and materials Modern core materials comprising laser-scribed cold-rolled grain-oriented silicon steel have been developed and improved substantially to give low core losses but recent history shows that there is still some scope for improvement in core loss reduction [4]. In stacked core designs using laminated steel sheets, recent developments in the design and production of the joints has reduced core loss by improving magnetic field continuity at the sheet edges in the yoke sections. Reducing lamination thickness will reduce losses by reducing eddy current loss by virtue of an increase in the electrical resistance with the smaller lamination crosssection. However current lamination thickness is generally considered to be about as low as is consistent with good manufacturing practice for production of stacked layer cores. An increase in the overall core cross-section would reduce magnetic flux density in the core and thus reduce core loss. This would be at the cost of increased size, weight and cost, however. It would also increase load loss because longer lengths of conductor would be required for the same number of turns and this would increase winding resistance and thus load loss. 7.1.2 Winding conductors Copper and aluminium are the only two winding materials used in transformers: there are no other winding materials that are able to be used as efficiently and economically. It is not considered that there are any significant material improvements available here. The use of larger winding conductor cross-sections to reduce winding resistance and hence load loss is a possible option for improvement. However larger cross-section conductors will also have the undesired effect of increasing eddy current losses when harmonic currents are present in the windings with non-linear loads. They will also add to the weight and cost. Lower temperature operation and the attendant lower winding resistance would reduce load loss, but would mean lower power capacity for the same size transformer unit. In general, there is some scope here for reduction of losses but this would require increased weight and increased cost of the transformers. However if the transformer is considered from a total life cost analysis viewpoint, the total transformer cost including loss amortisation over the lifetime (about 35 years) will be reduced with lower load losses. 7.2 Better Design Procedures
The use of modern computer-based field analysis techniques in transformer design has led to very significant improvements in the optimisation of core, winding and insulation design and configuration. It is likely that such improvements will continue,
_____________________________________________________________________
50
assisting in the increase of efficiency levels and reduction of losses, though the improvements will be gradual. Areas that may allow some improvement in losses are in the reduction of stray losses in the tank and other metal components, for example by better magnetic screening and use of aluminium for structural parts [27]. 7.3 New core materials and design
7.3.1 Amorphous metal core material While modern standard grain-oriented silicon steel does give low loss and this loss has been reduced substantially over the years by improvements in treatment, such as cold-rolling and laser-scribing, future improvements in standard silicon steel losses, while achievable are not likely to give any significant step decrease in loss: any improvements in losses in traditional core steel will be relatively modest. However, amorphous magnetic metal used for transformer cores does give the possibility of a step change in core loss reduction [28] compared to standard core steel materials. Amorphous core metal has a much higher electrical resistance than standard transformer steel and thus eddy current loss is considerably reduced by comparison. In addition, the method of production of the amorphous metal provides the manufactured material as a very thin continuous strip with a thickness which is much less than that of the standard silicon steel lamination used in traditional cores. The combination of a thin strip form of amorphous material and the very high electrical resistance gives reduction of eddy current loss to about 40% of that in standard steel laminations. There is thus a step decrease in the no load losses possible when using amorphous metal cores. Amorphous material use does have disadvantages for manufacturing cores however. The final strip product form is a very brittle and relatively narrow continuous strip that is very difficult to cut down into sections that can be used for stackable laminations, such as used traditionally in cores. There have been attempts to produce amorphous metal laminations for stackable cores [29] but the general conclusion is that they are not viable for manufacture at this stage. In the US Department of Energy considerations [5] they excluded stackable amorphous cores from consideration because of their potential manufacturing and operational problems. Instead, amorphous metal cores have to be manufactured as wound cores where the core is constructed from a single continuous strip of amorphous metal wound as a coaxial hollow cylinder. While this can be done easily for small capacity transformers, it is difficult to do for larger transformers and for three phase transformers where the three phases are traditionally wound on separate limb sections of a three or five limb magnetic core structure. Thus, the use of amorphous metal cores is best adapted to small rating single phase transformers. To this end they are used extensively in locations where single phase transformers are a large portion of the distribution transformer population. However improvements in manufacture are increasing the size of amorphous cores.
_____________________________________________________________________
51
Another drawback of amorphous metal cores is that the peak magnetic field intensity that is useable in amorphous cores is lower than in steel cores (about 1.0 Tesla versus about 1.55 Tesla in steel cores) and this is a further limitation in that a larger cross section core is required for the same power and voltage rating and this adds to weight and size. It also increases load loss because of the longer winding conductors needed with the large cores. However the magnetic field limitation is a manageable problem and does not preclude the use of such materials. Amorphous cores have been used extensively in the USA, India and Japan for low power rating single phase transformers. It is estimated that there are 330,000 amorphous core distribution transformers in use in Japan [28]. Amorphous metal cores are seriously considered for energy efficient applications in some countries, particularly Japan, and thus they will have some future in use in larger rating distribution transformers. If it is possible to increase the rating of such transformers then they may become viable in Australia where the typical distribution transformer ratings are larger than in general use in Japan and India and in the US. The manufacture of amorphous cores would require significant investment in plant in Australia, but their eventual use in Australian networks should not be ruled out. 7.3.2 The Hexaformer In recent years there has been an innovation patented which changes the way in which transformer cores are constructed. This innovation is claimed to give reduced core losses. The innovation is the so-called Hexaformer [30]. It changes the core design configuration of a three phase transformer to give a symmetrical structure in which all of the three phase limbs have the same magnetic circuit parameters, with the same overall field configuration for each phase. This is not the normal case in standard three phase cores as at least one of the phase cores has a slightly different magnetic circuit compared to the other two and this means a slight difference in characteristics, including the losses. The Hexaformer design gives an equilateral symmetric core structure with every phase being identical in terms of the core design. While the advantages of symmetric core design have been known for a long time, manufacturing problems have prevented their implementation. The patented innovation provides manufacturing capability and hexaformer transformers are now available on the market. However at this early stage of the development the advantages are not known and no details of improvement of core loss have been given. Thus it is, at this stage, an uncertain factor in terms of losses. However given the problems of core construction the hexaformer would require major investment in manufacturing infrastructure. 7.4 Optimisation of energy efficiency
As noted in Section 4 the most important consideration for transformers, when savings of greenhouse gas emissions are concerned, is the energy efficiency rather than the power efficiency of the transformer operation.
_____________________________________________________________________
52
While the power efficiency is the best method of specifying the instantaneous energy transfer efficiency of the transformer, it is the loading pattern of the transformer that is necessary to calculate the overall energy efficiency over a specified period of time. In the case of transformers this energy efficiency is skewed by the continual presence of no-load losses so that the transformer represents an energy drain on the system when unloaded and when loaded at light loads (below about 15%) the efficiency is very poor. Hence the loading of the transformer is a necessary consideration in terms of its energy performance. In operation with electrical supply utilities the transformer is generally lightly loaded most of the time with only small periods of loading at levels even approaching full load. The average loading levels are relatively low for utility transformers, being about 25-30% in most systems. This means that energy loss is not optimised in such situations. The load patterns of distribution transformers with their wide diversity of load types (domestic, commercial, industrial, rural) is very difficult to model in terms of energy savings. However there are energy savings possible if it can be done. The US Department of Energy, through the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, expended large efforts in analysing operational loading pattern to determine the environmental impact of transformer energy conservation on the greenhouse gas emissions problem [5]. Using such data, the operation can be analysed and predicted and some operational efficiency gains are possible [31]. While such detailed modelling of load patterns is not immediately available in Australia, it is possible to obtain such data from distributors. Such data will be utilised in the analysis of the impact of the MEPS levels on energy efficiency gains in Australia. 7.5 Total life costing of transformers
The loading pattern for industry transformers is much easier to model given the quite specific loads, in terms of load type and duration, that they control in general. In addition to easier load modelling, industrial transformers also have higher average loads than utility transformers and so energy savings are potentially higher [32]. On the negative side, they do not always have the same quality of maintenance procedures such as those used by utilities where long and reliable equipment life is a paramount consideration. In industry, also, overloading is more likely to occur with the attendant reduction of efficiency that the higher load losses cause. While such considerations are outside the scope of the MEPS specification, it is nevertheless important that transformer loading patterns and the proper choice of rating for the required purpose be considered in such cases in order to achieve efficient operation. Improper loading and/or rating selection will affect efficiency and will also adversely affect total life costs of the transformers and this must be used in the choice of transformers instead of just the initial cost [25].
_____________________________________________________________________
53
7.6
Impact of Harmonics on Transformer Losses
In recent years there have been very substantial changes in the way in which electrical energy is controlled, used and generated. These changes have had and will have an increasing impact on transformer losses. The changes have been driven by the rapid development of solid state power electronic applications in both the utilisation of electrical energy and in its generation. Some common examples are the switch-mode power supplies that are now used to replace small power transformers in all modern personal computers and television sets. Power electronic units are also used extensively for motor speed control in modern air conditioner units, in compact fluorescents and in lighting control. In general the extensive use of power electronics has resulted in a proliferation of non-linear loads being supplied by transformers and has also allowed the increased connection to the distribution grid system of inverter-driven outputs derived from renewable energy sources (such as photovoltaics and wind generators) in distributed (embedded) generation schemes. Both of these applications have already created and will cause increasing problems for distribution transformers. The end result is that the techniques used by power electronics to control electrical; energy generate high frequency harmonics in the main 50 Hz power frequency current and/or voltage. These harmonics will increase losses in transformers and thus reduce their efficiencies. There is thus a significant case to be put for making distribution transformers as energy efficient as is possible so that they can cope with such increased loss from power electronics use. While there are regulations imposed to limit such harmonics, they do not apply to loads, and in some cases even harmonics within the regulations will increase transformer loss and thus they must be a major consideration in the future [33]. 7.6.1 Non-linear loads A non-linear load is, in very simple terms, one where the load voltage and current are not always proportional to each other. The result of this is that the current waveform is distorted from the sinusoidal shape of the applied voltage. One inescapable feature of a non-linear load is that it will generate higher frequency harmonic content in the current taken by the load from a transformer. Figure 7 shows a typical example of a non-linear load with a very distorted 60 Hz current waveform that has generated significant harmonic components [3rd (180 Hz), 5th (300 Hz) 7th (420 Hz) and 9th (540 Hz)] as can be seen by the bar graph of harmonic content. As outlined in a previous section, these high frequency harmonics in the load current will increase the load losses by generating eddy currents in the windings. These are due to both self-winding generation (the skin effect) and induced effects from other windings (the proximity effect). If the harmonics are not able to be filtered then their effect can only be minimised by using supply transformers with as low a load loss as possible.
_____________________________________________________________________
54
Figure 7 Current Waveform and Harmonic Content Generated by a Non-linear Load With a 60Hz Sinusoidal Voltage Application. A major and increasing concern in the electrical supply by transformers to commercial buildings and to industry is the impact of personal computers on the load. Modern personal computers use power electronic switch mode power supplies (SMPS) instead of the small transformers previously used to break the 240 Volts down to the low levels needed by the computer electronics. Switch mode supplies generate very large harmonic content and the large numbers of PCs in commercial buildings generate very high levels of harmonics and can result in effective overloading of the distribution transformer supplying the building. In many cases the additional losses and the heating added mean that the transformer may have to be derated. For example, Figure 8 shows the harmonic content of a typical modern commercial building load with large numbers of computers. In such cases the increased losses require transformer de-rating to keep the transformer temperature within its required operational limits. It is important to realise that the impact of such harmonics occurs to augment the existing losses in the windings and that if those existing losses in the transformer are reduced by adopting energy efficient designs, the impact of the harmonics in terms of energy loss non-linear loads will also be reduced. Thus the need to adopt the lower loss represented by the new MEPS is reinforced by the likelihood that non-linear loading and harmonic content will be an inevitable part of modern electrical power utilisation.
_____________________________________________________________________
55
Figure 8 Typical Current Waveform and Harmonic Content of the Non-linear Load Represented by a Large Number of Personal Computers (switch mode power supply loads).
7.6.2 Supply voltage power quality While the harmonics generated by non-linear loads cause increased heating in the windings due to increased eddy current loss with the harmonics, they do not impact on the no-load core loss which is relatively unaffected by the current harmonics. The only way that harmonics will generate increased no-load loss will be if there are harmonics present in the primary voltage that supplies the transformers. Such voltage harmonics will increase core loss. In general the utility grid supply voltage has quite good power quality in terms of harmonic content, so that harmonics do not represent a problem in the traditional distribution system. This may not be the case however in large industrial systems where the non-linear loads on the industrial site can affect the voltage quality of the internal distribution network over the site. If this occurs, the distribution transformers on site may have higher harmonic voltages in their supply and suffer increased core loss. However in the modern utility distribution system operation there is now an increasing level of so-called distributed generation. This represents the connection of small privately owned generation units into the utility grid system. These generation units are associated particularly with the application of renewable energy systems that are connected to the 415 V or 11,000 V distribution grid systems. They thus interact directly with the distribution transformer voltage supply.
_____________________________________________________________________
56
Distributed generation may take the form of wind generators, solar photovoltaic systems, tidal systems, fuel cells, etc. In many of these cases the AC power which is put into the grid via the connection is generated by power electronic inverter systems that either take DC power and convert it to AC or take variable frequency AC and convert it into 50 Hz AC for injection into the grid. As with the non-linear loads, one inescapable fact of inverter systems is that they generate some harmonic voltage or current content in their AC output and this then finds its way into the grid and to other electrical equipment or loads connected to the grid. These harmonics can again cause problems with transformers by increasing losses. If there are harmonics on the voltage supply then the transformers will suffer increased core loss due to the higher frequency magnetic field components generated in the cores. There have been modelling studies performed to investigate the impact of distributed generation on losses in the various supply networks [35]. In that investigation, performed using typical UK configurations which are similar to those used in Australia, it was found that distributed generation did increase losses in the 11 kV network (although there were offsetting decreases of loss in the transmission network, as would be expected). They found that, in particular, there were increases in the transformer losses in the 11 kV distribution system. As with the non-linear loads, there are regulations that limit the amount of harmonics that are injected along with any 50 Hz AC into the grid. However, even within these filtered limits, there will be some increased losses. Current Australian Standards, for example AS4777.2 [35, 36], limit the permissible harmonic level to a total harmonic distortion of 5%, with a limit of 4% for any specific single harmonic component. However, even 4 % of, say, the 7th harmonic will create a measurable increase of loss in the core because of the quadratic scaling factor of losses with frequency. There will be further reinforcement of the harmonic problem from the expected significant increase in the connection of renewable energy generation systems to distribution grid in the future. Distribution transformers will be affected substantially by the harmonics associated with such renewable connections. As the primary impact of the harmonics will be an increase in losses in the transformers the highest efficiency transformers possible should be used to minimise these losses. 7.6.3 Example of increased loss due to harmonics The following example illustrates the potential for modern non-linear loads to generate excess losses in transformers. The PCs represent a very non-linear load (the waveform would be similar to that in Figure 8). The total harmonic distortion (THD) of the current is 62% and any load losses in the windings will be increased very significantly (by more than 62%). Thus the transformer would have to be de-rated to prevent it overheating. The following are the harmonic modes and amplitudes present in the basic current supplied to a commercial building containing a total of 120 kW of personal computers. The current is supplied by single 150 kVA rated transformer. The transformer kVA rating is, on the face of it, adequate for 100 kW of load. _____________________________________________________________________
57
Harmonic Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 19 21 23 25 27
Frequency (Hz) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 850 950 1050 1150 1250 1350
% of Fundamental current 100 0.2 66 0.4 38 0.4 13 0.3 4.5 0 5.3 0.1 2.5 0.1 1.9 1.8 1.1 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.2
THD = 62% K = 6.5 De-rating factor = 0.82 pu
In this particular case the 150 kVA transformer would only be able to supply 82% of its rated capacity, or 125 kVA, before overheating if this harmonic content was supplied by the transformer. This is only just above the total real power level of 120 kW and if the power factor is 0.92, the transformer apparent power requirement would be 130 kVA and it would be overloaded and would overheat. The losses would be in excess of the allowable loss to maintain temperature and with an increase in losses corresponding to a de-rating to 82%, the additional losses would give total loss of 1.082 times the permissible level. Thus the hot spot temperature rise of the transformer would increase by 8% (about 6-7 0C) and the transformer life would be reduced by a factor of about 2, as will be explained in the next section. Thus, while the transformer rating issue is of primary importance in this case it also illustrates the need to have the lowest possible loss in the transformer itself. 7.7 Increased life of transformers
The lifetime of transformers is determined, in the absence of other failure mechanisms, by the lifetime of the electrical insulation in the transformer. That insulation is mainly organic in its chemical nature (being composed of mineral oil, impregnated paper, cellulose materials, etc.) and the stability of such materials is very susceptible to the operational temperature. Thus, operating temperature must be very closely specified and controlled in operation. If the maximum temperature is exceeded for any length of time, the insulation lifetime may be reduced from the nominal level. Any overloading of the transformer, either through simply exceeding the nameplate rating or due to inadequate de-rating if harmonics are present will raise the insulation _____________________________________________________________________
58
temperature above its permissible level and will reduce the life of the transformer. The usual rule of thumb is that continuous operation above the rated temperature by only 6 degrees C will halve the effective life of the insulation: this is the life reduction factor used in most international Standards such as the Australian Transformer loading Standard AS2374.7 [11]. Reduction of losses by improved transformer efficiency will thus extend life of transformers and is an additional justification for the introduction of new high efficiency levels for transformers.
_____________________________________________________________________
59
8 Effects of MEPS 1 on transformers in the market

The first MEPS came into force on 1 April 2004 and although attempts have been made to determine the impact of the Equipment Energy Efficiency (E3) Program (that implements MEPS) on the availability of transformers, it has been difficult to get any concrete information as to whether they have affected the availability of transformers, particularly of imported units. In Section 2 it was noted that the annual market for new transformers in Australian industry and utilities is about 20,000, within the rating scope covered by MEPS. Of these, about 16,000 would be liquid-filled units and the remaining 4,000 would be dry-type transformers. 8.1 Australian manufactured units
The first round of MEPS regulations did not require any significant change in Australian manufacturing procedures as most locally made transformers had efficiencies that already complied generally with the MEPS 1 requirements. However, this claim has been difficult to validate due to limited data. It is expected that there will be more MEPS compliance testing of transformers in the near future which will provide further evidence as to the efficiency characteristics of Australian-made transformers, although testing of large transformers is not a simple procedure. The availability of more test results will support more extensive assessment of current and future MEPS levels. 8.2 Imported transformers
The imported transformers that have been tested by test laboratories for their compliance with MEPS are those units that were submitted by manufacturers or importers, and so the test results are confidential. The only evidence of any impact of MEPS might be contained in the number of units imported to Australia in the years since MEPS came into operation. These numbers may indicate whether numbers of transformer imports have decreased or remained constant in the years since MEPS 1 came into force. To obtain this information the Australian Bureau of Statistics was commissioned to provide import numbers from Australian Customs for distribution transformers in the range covered by MEPS. This was done for both liquid-immersed and dry-type transformers in the MEPS range for the financial years 99-00, 00-01, 01-02, 02-03, 03-04, 05-06 and 06-07. The results are shown in Table 23 below. There does appear to be some reduction in imports of the higher rating transformers (greater than 500 kVA) after 2003-04, although in the case of the higher rating dry-type units (greater than 500 kVA) there is only one high level of numbers apparent in 01-02. There is a very large decrease in _____________________________________________________________________
60
numbers of imported dry-types after 2004-2005 that may be a result of MEPS 1 implementation. It is difficult to draw any concrete conclusions as to the impact of MEPS from this data, although it must be considered in the context that the new transformer market in the distribution utility transformer unit range is only 20,000 in total, with about 16,000 being liquid-filled and 4,000 being dry-types. While the liquid-filled unit numbers imported would be consistent with these figure, the number of imported units of dry-type transformers would appear to far exceed the estimated need of new units for the electrical distribution supply industry use over the period. The only possible explanation is a major demand from the commercial and industrial (particularly mining) areas. The transformer types used in those area, particularly in buildings and in mining would be predominately dry-type. However the numbers imported are seemingly beyond the expected needs of those sectors. Table 23 Import numbers of transformers within the MEPS range, period from July 99 to June 07. [MEPS implemented in April 04]. Tran.Type & rating Year 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 Liquid filled S < 650 kVA 39,029 72,100 18,093 30,382 21,095 35,774 55,363 18,416 Liquid filled 650< S < 10,000 1038 288 584 104 1298 221 252 762 Dry-type 16< S < 500 136,335 84,247 101,726 97,296 855,956 560,404 276,881 64,358 Dry type > 500 kVA 15,416 9,919 159,846 34,630 9,841 15,484 9,618 1,104
_____________________________________________________________________
61
9 Impact of Improved Efficiency on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Because the loading patterns of utility transformers in particular is difficult to predict and to model for total energy usage per annum, the impact of increased efficiency transformers on reducing overall electrical energy use and thus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from power generation is difficult to ascertain accurately. What is needed are detailed models of the time variation of loading of all distribution transformers so the overall energy use on an annual basis can be determined [37]. As part of its approach to determining, from the fundamental consideration of manufacturing costs and production quality and the loading of transformers, the US Department of Energy has invested very considerable effort in developing loading models from utility and industry data to use in spreadsheet applications for a range of different product types of energy efficient transformers that it considers to be achievable on a manufacturing basis. While such a detailed approach is not needed (and is not possible in the Australian case) the end results of the impact in terms of greenhouse gas emissions for improvements in efficiency are of some use in the Australian situation, although it would be necessary to adjust the American estimates to take account of the different fuel mixes used in electricity generation in the respective American and Australian power supply networks. The detailed analyses used by the DOE are contained in the ANOPR document [13] but the outcome in terms of energy saving and greenhouse gas emissions reduction are outlined in the Federal Register document [5] proposing the Rules for regulation of transformer efficiencies.
_____________________________________________________________________
62
10
Exclusions from MEPS compliance
In the MEPS Standard AS2374.1.2, a list of transformer types that were excluded from requirements to comply with MEPS was given. These were primarily specialty transformers that were mostly small in total number and thus did not contribute substantially to total energy loss. However in some cases it is considered that there may be a case to remove some of the transformer types from this list. 10.1 Exclusions from MEPS
The list of exclusions in AS2374.1.2 is as follows. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) 10.2 Transformers other than those on the 11 or 22 kV networks Instrument transformers Auto-transformers Traction transformers mounted on rolling stock Starting transformers Testing transformers Welding transformers Three phase transformers with three or more windings per phase Arc furnace transformers Earthing transformers Rectifier or converter transformers Uninterruptible power supply (UPS) transformers Transformers with impedance less than 3% or more than 8% Voltage regulating transformers Transformers designed for frequencies other than 50 Hz Gas-filled transformers Flameproof transformers. Comments on Exclusions
In considering the above list of exclusions, it would appear that only the exclusions (a), (m), (o) and (p) need some further consideration in terms of whether they are justified or sufficiently well defined. The others are legitimate. (a) Transformers other than those on the 11 or 22 kV networks In this the use of the word networks may lead to some confusion as, from the wording of the 11 or 22 kV networks, it appears to limit the candidate transformers only to those connected to the general distribution grid networks. This could then appear to exclude from MEPS requirements any dedicated 11 or 22 kV transformers that are part of an industrial plant electrical system or mine distribution system that are separated from the actual utility grid networks. Therefore this should be removed from the list of exclusions.
_____________________________________________________________________
63
(m) Transformers with impedance less than 3% or more than 8% The choice of 3% as the lower bound of impedance appears to be questionable as some lower rating transformers that fall within the scope of MEPS may have an impedance lower than 3%. For example, the NEMA TP 1 Standard for energy efficiency gives a range of typical impedances for low rating transformers within the scope of their rating range as being between 1 and 4%. Thus some consideration should be given to changing the range to 1-8% in the next MEPS document. The US DOE discussion accompanying their proposed Rules [5] discussed the upper impedance limit (8%) at some length before deciding to leave that level as the upper limit. The discussion concerned the issue of possible manufacture of general distribution transformers with impedance higher than 8% to circumvent the energy conservation Rules. (o) Transformers designed for frequencies other than 50 Hz Exclusion case (o) puts transformers not designed for 50% operation outside the scope of MEPS. However, as has been noted in this report the difference in operational losses in transformers between 60 Hz and 50Hz are quite small. Thus it would be possible to use transformers designed for 60Hz on a 50 Hz network without any particular problems. Thus would be possible for inefficient 60 Hz transformers to be used without requiring compliance with MEPS. The exclusion should be changed to cover transformers designed for frequencies other than 50 and 60Hz. (p) Gas-filled transformers It is assumed that the intent of this item was to exclude sealed transformers such as those dry-types with nitrogen gas filling, which are used for fire hazard areas. However the non-specification of the type of gas filling would then allow the exclusion of SF6-filled distribution transformers from MEPS requirements. Such transformers are now coming into common use in densely populated inner city areas where they represent a lower fire risk than oil-filled units and are smaller in size than the equivalent rating dry-type unit. Power transformers with SF6 filling are already in use in the Sydney CBD and it may not be long before SF6-filled distribution units are used in city centres throughout Australia. Thus the type of gas filling should be clarified in this exclusion item. Repaired and refurbished transformers Although refurbished and repaired transformers are not included in the MEP 1 exclusion list, they have been the subject of considerable discussion in the US DOE Rules document [5], where it was noted that many utilities maintained a substantial re-furbishing program with their older transformers to save or delay the cost of new replacements. In its final decision, the Department of Energy decided to exclude all repaired and re-furbished transformers from its energy conservation Rules coverage. In summary, it is suggested that some discussion be given to possibly removing or changing some of the above mentioned exclusions, as suggested, in the proposed MEPS 2 Standard. _____________________________________________________________________
64
11
11.1
Testing of Transformers for Compliance

Testing Logistics
There is limited data available from the testing of transformers in the Australian market and this makes assessment of the impact of the E3 Program difficult, although manufacturers and some importers have had some in-house testing performed. One of the reasons for this situation is that many of the transformers within the MEPS rating range are quite large and they are thus difficult to transport to test laboratories. This is further complicated by the fact that true random sampling and testing should test a number (perhaps three) of units of the same rating to cover any manufacturing variations. It would be advantageous if the MEPS random testing program could be expanded at least before the discussions of the new MEPS proposals and Standard take place. 11.2 Test Procedures
The test procedures for MEPS 1 compliance are specified in the MEPS Standard AS 2374.1.2 which in turn refers back to the main transformer Standard AS 60076.1-2005 [38] for the detail of the test method. The test procedures given in AS 60076.1 lack a little detail in the overall application of the loss measurements to the accuracies required for the determination of efficiencies to an uncertainty of +/- 0.01% as is required. For example there is no instruction given on stray losses and the separation and the handling of the stray loss temperature-dependent scaling, which is different to that used for the true load loss of the winding conductors. Similarly (as has been pointed out by one of the test labs), there is no information given as to the temperature scaling method when the two windings are of different materials (copper and aluminium). Given the accuracy of the result required to be able to determine efficiency levels to an uncertainty of +/- 0.01%, such factors should be considered in the documented test procedures. Thus some discussion should be addressed to the test procedures that are specified in the new Standard with a view to providing more detailed information and guidance in performing the tests. It is suggested that the procedures in NEMA TP 22005 might be a suitable basis for discussion.
_____________________________________________________________________
65
12
Conclusions
The first MEPS specifications of distribution transformer efficiencies for Australia were based primarily on transformer efficiency levels specified in Canadian Standards. In turn, those Canadian levels were based on voluntary efficiency levels specified by the American National Electrical Manufacturers Association in NEMA Standard TP 1. The general outcome and conclusion from the compliance requirements of MEPS 1 is that most Australian-manufactured distribution transformers were able to comply with the required efficiency levels with little or no change in manufacturing processes or materials used. The impact of MEPS 1 on imported transformers is not clear as the import data obtained after the implementation of MEPS is not conclusive. However, it does appear that there are some indications of a reduction of imported transformer numbers, particularly of dry-type units since the MEPS 1 implementation date. Since the issue and implementation of the MEPS 1 levels in 2003, there has been a substantial level of activity undertaken in other countries in attempting to devise new efficiency Standards for distribution transformers. In particular, the United States of America, the European Union, China, Japan and India have all developed such Standards or proposals for Standards since that time. The US Department of Energy has spent some considerable time and effort over the past ten years in detailed investigations of distribution transformer design and manufacture in an effort to determine the highest possible energy efficiency Standards that are technically feasible for manufactured products. They have also undertaken very extensive surveys of utilities and industry to determine loading patterns for use in modelling environmental impact. As was foreshadowed in the original MEPS transformer Standard for Australian use, the efficiency levels specified would be reviewed after four years with a view to increasing the mandatory efficiency levels if this was considered to be viable in terms of their impact on energy conservation, manufacturing capability and any additional cost, materials use and design procedures. This report proposes the implementation of the voluntary high efficiency levels which were quoted in the MEPS 1 Standard as the new compulsory standard efficiency levels for future MEPS implementation. These increased levels have been compared in full detail to those transformer efficiency levels adopted or proposed in other countries. The new proposed MEPS levels have been seen to be quite consistent and comparable with those international levels for standard transformer designs and material applications. The comparisons have shown that the new MEPS levels are achievable by manufacturers and will also provide significant energy conservation and greenhouse gas emissions abatement if they are implemented. _____________________________________________________________________
66
Some of the listed exclusions from compliance requirements in the MEPS Standard are considered to be in need of discussion as to the validity of their exclusion. For example, in the case of the exclusion of gas-filled transformers from MEPS compliance, it is suggested that this may represent a problem in the future as there are some gas-filled distribution transformer types that are already in general use in some countries. It has been found that there is some potential for energy saving in the industry and mining sectors and the new MEPS levels should be promoted in those spheres. To date the application of MEPS has been primarily felt by the manufacturers and importers of transformers. However the issue of use of energy-efficient transformers is also of some significance to supply utilities and industry. For example, it is suggested that the initial selection of transformers for purchase should be based on total life costing so that the cost of losses is included in the selection, rather than making a decision based just on initial purchase cost. The procedures given in the MEPS Standard for measuring energy efficiency of transformers is lacking in detail in some areas, particularly relating to temperature compensation of measured results. Given the importance of the accuracy of overall loss measurement in assessing compliance with MEPS, it is suggested that some attention be given to providing further detailed procedural information on testing and loss and efficiency determination, such as is given in the proposed American DOE Energy Conservation Rules and in the new version of the NEMA test Standard TP 2.
T R Blackburn
_____________________________________________________________________
67
References
1 M Ellis & Associates: Analysis of Potential for Minimum Energy Performance Standards for Distribution Transformers For the Australian Greenhouse Office. (March 2000). R Targosz (ed.) The Potential for Global Energy Savings from High Efficiency Distribution Transformers. European Copper Institute/Leonardo ENERGY (February 2005) esaa Electricity Gas Australia 2006 : Annual Report Energy Supply Association of Australia. Melbourne Australia. (2006) H De Keulenaer, D Chapman & S Fassbinder The Scope for Energy Saving in the EU Through the Use of Energy-Efficient Electricity Distribution Transformers Paper # 4.27, CIRED2001. IEE Conf Publ #482 (2001) US Dept. of Energy: Office of Energy efficiency and Renewable Energy Energy Conservation Program for Commercial Equipment: Distribution Transformers Energy Conservation Standards; Proposed Rule. 10 CFR Part 431 Federal Register Vol. 71. No. 150 (August 4, 2006) Canadian Standards Association Minimum Efficiency Values for Liquid-filled Distribution Transformers CSA Standard C802.1-00 (November 2000) Canadian Standards Association Minimum Efficiency Values for Dry-Type Transformers CSA Standard C802.2-00 (November 2000) National Electrical Manufacturers Association Guide for Determining the Energy Efficiency for Distribution Transformers NEMA Standards Publication TP 12002 (2002) National Electrical manufacturers Association Standard Test method for Measuring the Energy Conservation of Distribution Transformers NEMA Standards Publication TP 2-2005 (2005) US Dept. of Energy: Office of Energy efficiency and Renewable Energy Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Distribution Transformers; Final Rule. 10 CFR Part 431Federal Register Vol. 71. No. 81 (April 27, 2006) Standards Australia Power Transformers; Part 7: Loading Guide for Oil-Immersed Power Transformers AS 2374.7 1997 (1997) IEEE Standard IEEE Guide for Loading Mineral-Oil Immersed power Transformers rated in Excess of 100 MVA IEEE Std C57.115-1991 (1991) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Navigant Consulting Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment: electrical Distribution Transformers ANOPR version. US Department of Energy report No. LBNL-53985 (2004).
Draft Report: Proposal to Increase Transformer Efficiency Standards
3 4
6 7 8 9
10
11
12
13
_____________________________________________________________________
T R Blackburn
68
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P Barnes, J Van Dyke, B McConnell and S Das Determination Analysis of Energy Conservation Standards for Distribution Transformers Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN. Report No. ORNL-6847 (1996) P Barnes, S Das, B McConnell and J Van Dyke. Supplement to the Determination Analysis (ORNL-6847) and Analysis of the NEMA Efficiency Standards for Distribution Transformers Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN. Report No. ORNL-6925 (1997). US Department of Energy Environmental Assessment for Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Distribution Transformers DOE Report No. DOE/EA-1565 (August 2006) US Department of Energy Framework Document for Distribution Transformer Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking: Draft for Public Comment. Dept. of Energy (November 2000). R Targosz SEEDT Energy efficient distribution transformers. Seminar presentation February 2007. Available from Leonardo ENERGY; www.leonardo-energy.org N Anglani, A Baggini & F Bua for PROPHET Promotion Partnership for High Efficiency Transformers An outlook on the TOC of MV/LV industrial distribution transformers in Europe Copper Association: TEAMT session (October 2004) CENELEC Harmonisation Document Three Phase oil-immersed Distribution Transformers 50 Hz, from 50 to 2500 kVA with Highest Voltage for Equipment not Exceeding 36 kV. CENELEC HD428.1 S1 (1992) CENELEC Harmonisation Document Three Phase Dry Type Distribution Transformers 50Hz, from 100 to 2500 kVA, with highest voltage for Equipment not exceeding 36kV. CENELEC HD528.1 (1992) Mexican Department of Energy Regulatory Impact Analysis of Proposed Official Mexican Standard NOM002-SEDE-1997. Department of Energy, Mexico City, Mexico (1997) Bureau of Energy Efficiency, India Determination analysis of Standards & Labeling program for distribution transformers. Technical report, BEE, Indian Ministry of Energy (2003) ECCJ-Energy Conservation Council of Japan The Top Runner Program Japans Approach to Energy Efficiency and Conservation Measures. www.eccj.or.jp/top_runner/index.html (2004) PROPHET presentation Global Saving Potential from High Efficiency Distribution Transformers Leonardo ENERGY: Zloty Potok, (October 2004)
_____________________________________________________________________
69
26 27 28
29
30 31 32 33 34 35
36
37 38 39
40
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (USA) NEMA News. (September 2006) http://www.nema.org/media/pr/20060926c.cfm J Olivares, Y Liu, J Cariedo, R Escardela-Perez, J Driesen and P Moreno Reducing Losses in Distribution Transformers IEEE Trans. On Power Delivery: Vol. 18, no.3, pp821-826 (2003) E Shibata Energy saving by reducing No Load Loss of Distribution transformers Presented at 23rd Energy System, Economy and Environment Conference of the Japan Society of Energy and Resources. (January 2007) G Segers, A Even & M Desmedt Amorphous Core Transformers: Behaviour in Particular Network Conditions and Design Comparisons Paper 1.5, CIRED97. IEE Conf. Publ. #438 (June 1997). Hexaformer http://www.decsa.nl/main_hexaformer.html Minghao Yang, Yajun Shi and Jing Zhang Efficient Operational Regions of Power Distribution Transformers IEEE Trans. Power Delivery: paper # 0885-8977/04 (2004) W Hulshorst and J Groeman Energy Saving in Industrial Distribution Transformers KEMA Report. TDC 02 24226A (2002) Copper Development Association Harmonics, Transformers and K-Factors CDA Publication 144, London. (September 2000). A Beddoes, C Lynch, M Attree and M Marshall The Impact of Distributed Generation upon Network Losses Proc. CIRED2007. Paper # 0116. Vienna, (May 2007) Standards Australia Grid Connection of Energy Systems via Inverters: Part 2: Inverter Requirements AS 4777.2 2005 (2005) Standards Australia Disturbances in Mains supply Networks: Part 2: Limitation of Harmonics Caused by Industrial Equipment AS 2279.2 1991 (1991) H De Keulenaer Environmental Performance of Cables, Motors and Transformers Leonardo ENERGY Web Seminar. (Feb 10, 2006) Australian Standards Power Transformers: Part 1: General AS 60076.1 2005 (2005) Sergio Ferreira Network Efficiency Improvements SEEDT seminar (May 2007) Available from www.leonardo-energy.org Equipment Energy Efficiency Program Regulatory Impact Statement: Minimum Energy Performance Standards and Alternative Strategies for Electricity Distribution Transformers: http://www.energyrating.gov.au/library/details200218-transformers.html
_____________________________________________________________________
70

Meps Transformers

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Meps Transformers

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2007/17

Distribution Transformers: Proposal to Increase MEPS Levels

Prepared for Equipment Energy Efficiency Program

Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13

Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18

Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23

Transformer Use in Electrical Networks

Total electricity consumption (TWh)

Network losses (TWh)

Network Losses (% of total use)

Western Europe USA Australia India China Japan TOTAL

---300,000 100,000 400,000

MEPS 1 Efficiency Levels

(a) Figure 1 Single Phase Transformer Schematics

Figure 2 Examples of liquid-filled and dry-type transformers

Figure 3 Transformer loss components and power efficiency versus loading

5 Transformer efficiency standards in other countries

Specified Efficiency Levels in Other Countries

Increase of the Existing MEPS Levels

98.90 99.10 99.22 99.30 99.38 99.45 99.46 99.48 99.49

7 Why increase MEPS levels?

Better use of traditional core and winding materials

Impact of Harmonics on Transformer Losses

THD = 62% K = 6.5 De-rating factor = 0.82 pu

8 Effects of MEPS 1 on transformers in the market

9 Impact of Improved Efficiency on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Exclusions from MEPS compliance

Testing of Transformers for Compliance

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen