Michael Bahrman P.E.

, ABB Grid Systems, DOE Concepts of Future Electric Transmission, March 4, 2009

HVDC and FACTS

Economical complements to ac transmission

© ABB Group
March 09 | Slide 1
HVDC Transmission
Agenda:

Transfer limitations
Role of FACTS and HVDC
AC v DC comparisons
Technology
Economics
Efficiency
Reliability
Examples
Summary

© ABB Group
March 09 | Slide 2
 Transmission line delivery capability v distance
AC line capacity diminishes with distance*
Max Line Capability v Distance with 3000 A Ratings
AC line distance effects:
ƒ Intermediate switching stations, e.g.
6000 every ~200-250 mi max line segment
M a x L in e L o a d in g (M W )

5000
3000 A Limit 345 kV AC length due to TOV, TRV, voltage profile
4000
500 kV AC
3000 ƒ Lower stability limits (voltage, angle)
765 kV AC
2000
ƒ Increase stability limits & mitigate
1000 ± 500 kV DC
0 ± 660 kV DC parallel flow with FACTS: SVC & SC
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 ± 800 kV DC ƒ Higher reactive demand with load
Transmission Distance (mi) ƒ Higher charging at light load

ƒ Parallel flow issues more prevalent

Reactive Power v Power Transfer
(200 mi line)
DC line distance effects:
1500
ƒ No distance effect on stability (voltage,
Reactive Power per Terminal

angle)
1000

345 kV
ƒ No need for intermediate stations
(MVAr)

ƒ No parallel flow issues due to control

500 500 kV
765 kV

0 ƒ Minor change in short circuit levels

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
ƒ No increase in reactive power demand
-500
Power Transfer (MW)

© ABB Group * Loadings per St Clair curve

March 09 | Slide 3 Reactive power variation per 100 mi, 0.2-1.3 SIL
 Distance effects
AC v DC
New AC line:
Thermal path limit
ƒ Need for intermediate switching stations – the
longer the line the more intermediate S/S
Area 1 Area 2
ƒ Lower stability limits with longer distance
Parallel Flows ƒ Higher reactive power demand with heavy load,
higher reactive power surplus at light load
Stability path limit ƒ Parallel flow issues: cumulative, more prevalent
Area 3
and widespread for longer transfer distances
ƒ Increase stability limits & mitigate parallel flow
with series compensation (FACTS)
Schedule
ƒ Thermal limit remains the same
Thermal path limit
New DC line:
Area 1 Area 2 ƒ No distance effect on stability

ƒ Raise stability limit (voltage, angle)

ƒ No need for intermediate stations

ƒ No parallel flow issues due to control

Stability path limit
Area 3 ƒ No increase in short circuit levels

ƒ No increase in reactive power demand

© ABB Group
March 09 | Slide 4
 Indirect v direct control – AC v DC
AC Transmission:
ƒ Power flow from generation distributes per
line characteristics (impedance) & phase
Area 1 Area 2
Gen angle (generation dispatch)
Pg
ƒ Variable generation gives variable flow on
all intermediate paths
ƒ Transfer may be limited due to congestion
Area 3
ƒ New resources add cumulatively clogging
existing paths, usurping original purpose
ƒ Flow controlled indirectly by generation
dispatch
Pd
HVDC Transmission:
ƒ Controlled power flow adds flexibility,
Area 1 Area 2
Gen independent of phase angle
Pg
ƒ Operational examples: Pd = Σ Pg + P
schedule, Pd = k * Pg
ƒ Permits optimal power flow, e.g. lower
Area 3
losses, transmission reserve margin
ƒ Bypasses congestion
© ABB Group
March 09 | Slide 5
ƒ Off-loads parallel paths
 Tapping – AC v DC
AC Tap
ƒ Add substation equipment and transformers if
different voltage levels
ƒ May exacerbate parallel flow issues
Area 1 Area 2
HVDC Tap
ƒ Electronic clearing of dc line faults
ƒ Fast isolation of faulty converters
Area 3
ƒ Reactive power compensation required
ƒ Momentary interruption due to ac fault at tap
ƒ Limitations on tap rating, location and recovery
rate due to voltage stability with weak systems
ƒ Power reversal requires polarity reversal
HVDC Light Tap
ƒ No momentary interruption to main power transfer
Area 1 Area 2 due to ac fault at tap
ƒ Less limitations on tap rating and location
ƒ No reactive power constraints, improved voltage
stability
ƒ DC breaker may be needed for faster dc line fault
Area 3
clearing in some applications
ƒ Power reversal at tap by current reversal
© ABB Group
March 09 | Slide 6
 Grid Extenders
AC extenders:
ƒ No control of power injection distribution
ƒ Potential for unequal utilization and local
congestion without phase shifters
Area 2
Area 1 ƒ Reactive power compensation required for
light & heavy load conditions
ƒ No inherent voltage support
ƒ Increases fault current duties
Area 3 ƒ Increased right-way-requirements

HVDC Light extenders:

ƒ Delivers bulk power allocation to selected
distribution substations in congested area
Area 2
ƒ Provides dynamic voltage support (virtual
Area 1
generators), enhancing capability of ac system
ƒ Doesn’t increase fault current duties
ƒ Allows shared use of narrow rights-of-way
ƒ Stealthy and healthy – can be U/G, low dc EMF
Area 3

© ABB Group
March 09 | Slide 7
 Transmission expansion – HVDC & HVDC Light
HVDC Conventional HVDC:
Minimum short- Minimum short-
circuit level Thermal path limit circuit level ƒ Minimum short circuit level restriction
(SMVA > 2 x Pd)
Area 1 Area 2 ƒ Induction wind generation contributes
50-70% of synchronous to SMVA
ƒ Reactive power demand at terminals
(Q ~= 0.5 x Pd)
Area 3
Stability path limit ƒ Reactive compensation at terminals
ƒ Higher ratings, greater economies of
scale
Dynamic Voltage HVDC Light Dynamic Voltage HVDC Light (Voltage Source Converters):
Support Thermal path limit Support
ƒ No minimum short circuit levels
Area 2
ƒ No reactive power demand
Area 1
ƒ Dynamic reactive voltage support
(virtual generator, Q ~= 0.5 x Pr)
ƒ Leverage capacity by ac voltage support
Stability path limit ƒ Conducive for but not limited to
Area 3
underground cable transmission

© ABB Group
March 09 | Slide 8
HVDC Light® or HVDC Classic
Ratings range for underground and overhead

Udc in kV

800

700

600 HVDC Light

with OH Line

500 HVDC Classic/ ± 500 kV, 3300 MW HVDC

HVDC Light with HVDC Classic
oil impreg- with OH Line
400
nated cable

300
HVDC
Light
200 with
extruded
cable
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 ± 320 kV, 1200 MW HVDC

Power in MW

© ABB Group
March 09 | Slide 9
Comparative delivery costs for 6000 MW transmission
IOU financing, no incentives, 75% utilization
Cost Comparison for 6000 MW Transmission
at 75% Utilization Series Comp

70
60 345 kV AC 8 circuits, SC
Cost ($/MWh)

50 345 kV AC 4 dbl ckts, SC

500 kV AC 4 circuits, SC
40
500 kV AC 2 dbl ckts, SC
30 765 kV AC 2 circuits
20 ± 500 kV 2 HVDC bipoles
± 800 kV 1 HVDC bipole
10
0
Cost 250 mi Cost 500 mi Cost 750 mi Cost 1000 mi
($/MWh) ($/MWh) ($/MWh) ($/MWh)

Notes:
ƒ Series compensated ac lines loaded to ~ 2 x SIL,
ƒ Intermediate S/S and reactive compensation every 250 miles for ac schemes
ƒ 765 kV loaded to ~ 1.3 x SIL or ~ steady state stability limit for 200 mi line segment per St Clair curve
ƒ Transmission line and substation costs based on Frontier Line transmission subcommittee, NTAC

© ABB Group
and ERCOT CREZ unit cost data.
March 09 | Slide 10
Transmission alternatives loss comparison: 6000 MW
Line losses + converter and S/S losses @ full load

Loss Comparison for 6000 MW Transmission Alternatives

30%
Full Load Losses (%)

25% 345 kV AC 8 circuits

20% 500 kV AC 4 circuits
15% 765 kV AC 2 circuit
± 500 kV 2 HVDC bipole
10%
± 800 kV 1 HVDC bipole
5%
0%
Loss 250 mi Loss 500 mi Loss 750 mi Loss 1000 mi
(%)
400 km (%)km
800 (%) km
1200 (%)
1600 km

Note: AC and DC line conductors chosen for comparable current densities, higher no.
conductor bundles for higher voltage. Corona losses not included.

© ABB Group
March 09 | Slide 11
Post-contingency capacity – 6000 MW base
Margins: RAS/SPS, reduced severe weather limits?

Post Contingency Capacity for 6000 MW Transmission Alternatives using

Probabilistic Reliability Criteria

7000
345 kV AC 8 single circuits
6000
Capacity MW

5000 345 kV AC 4 double circuits

4000 500 kV AC 4 single circuits
3000 500 kV AC 2 double circuits
2000 765 kV AC 2 single circuits
1000 ± 500 kV 2 HVDC bipole
0
± 800 kV 1 HVDC bipole
Base Capacity (MW) N-1 Capacity (MW) N-2 Capacity (MW)

N-1 = Loss of one AC circuit or one HVDC pole, converter ↑, excludes loss of tower
N-2 = Loss of two AC circuits, two HVDC poles, includes loss of tower (Class C)
Note: Capacity indicated is for lines loaded to their steady state stability limits – no margin
Plausible transfer limits with stability margins for N - 1
Plausible transfer limits with stability margins for N – 1, if loss of single 400
kV converter or degraded insulation is treated probabilistically as N – 1
© ABB Group
March 09 | Slide 12
Pacific AC and DC Interties: PACI and PDCI
Hybrid 2 x 500 kVac with SC and ± 500 kV HVDC

ƒ Hybrid: two multi-segment, series-compensated AC

lines plus one bipolar DC link
ƒ Combines local N-S access with parallel bypass for
greater operational flexibility and efficiency
ƒ Links diverse resources - hydro in the Pac NW,
PACI thermal in the SW
ƒ Seasonal load diversity between N and S
ƒ PACI upgraded to ~50% higher current rating in late
’90’s through early ’00’s
PDCI ƒ PDCI upgrades: 1440->1600->2000->3100 MW
ƒ Combined IOU and public power development
ƒ Nearly 4 decades of providing value to operation of
the western interconnected system

© ABB Group
March 09 | Slide 13
Itaipu transmission example, 900 km (550 mi)
3 x 765 kV ac lines with SC = 2 x ± 600 kV HVDC lines
Each HVDC line costs ~ 70% of AC line cost

ITAIPU
2 x 6300 MW

3 x 765 kV AC, 2 intermediate S/S 2 x ± 600 kV DC

6300 MW with SC 6300 MW, 2 converters per pole
4500 MW without SC 4700 MW with pole outage
3 circuits 4 circuits

© ABB Group
March 09 | Slide 14
Long distance bulk power transmission - 6000 MW
AC, DC or hybrid connection ?

AC HVAC interconnections
ƒ FACTS - fewer lines, improved voltage profile

HVDC more economical for longer distances (>400 km) or

800 kV
higher ratings (>2000 MW)
ƒ Capex – fewer lines, reduced line cost
ƒ Opex – reduced losses over longer distances, lower O&M
DC
ƒ Capacity – 3000 to 6400 MW per bipolar line
± 500 kV
ƒ Reliability – double circuit lines, can operate with reduced
capacity, e.g. converter outage or degraded insulation

± 800 kV ƒ Flexibility – controllability, bypass congestion, firm, frees

up capacity on parallel paths, asynchronous possible
ƒ Environmental – reduced ROW, dc magnetic fields, lower
losses, less material

© ABB Group
March 09 | Slide 15
Summary
ƒ Choice of transmission technology exists
ƒ HVDC and FACTS reduce the number of lines for lower cost
transmission
ƒ HVDC adds operational flexibility for generator outlet transmission and
for interconnections thereby complementing the AC system
ƒ Fewer, less-expensive, double-circuit lines
ƒ Bypass congestion, reduced parallel flow issues
ƒ Controllable and firm
ƒ HVDC transmission is more efficient for longer distances, e.g. > 250 mi
ƒ Cost of tapping is higher with HVDC, some system location restrictions
may apply, less restriction with HVDC Light
ƒ Hybrid AC/DC systems provide both local access and transport functions
ƒ HVDC can operate and be financed on a stand-alone project basis
enabling more economic integration of diverse capacity into a smarter
grid with more efficient use of capital

© ABB Group
March 09 | Slide 16