Scribd
Upload
73 views3 pages

Case Study 06

Case Study 06

Uploaded by

sevantikka
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
73 views3 pages

Case Study 06

Case Study 06

Uploaded by

sevantikka
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Case Study # 6

Successful I mplement at ion – Energy Conserv at ion Measure

Measure

Transformer load management – Load re-distribution and switching off transformers


to save on no-load losses

Equipment

Transformers

Industry / Sector

Automobile

Year of Implementation

1997

Cost Benefit Analysis

q Type of Measure: Short term

q Annual Energy Savings: 1.70 kWh

q Actual cost savings: Rs. 6.00 lakh

q Actual investment : Nil

q Payback: Immediate

Implementation Highlights

Implementation of the measure has resulted in


§ Low cost measure
§ This measure can be duplicated in any unit wherever transformers are kept as
hot standby
§ Though the energy saving are marginal, the compounding duplication of measure
will result in huge savings
§ The implementation can be made in-house with out external expertise
§ Inexpensive measure

Summary
Energy conservation in transformers exists through transformer load
management, re-distribution of loads and switching off transformers
Case Study # 6

Background
A leading automobile manufacturer has main incomer at 132 kV.
This voltage is stepped down to 11 kV. From 11 kV to 433 V, plant
has several transformers located in eight substations.
During an energy audit, loading on transformers located at various
substations was analyzed. In few of the cases it was observed that
some transformers are grossly under loaded (around 10-20%) and
the scope exists to shift or distribute this load to other transformer
in the substation. This would also ensure optimum level of loading.
While achieving optimum loading, the standby transformers at
various substations were suggested to be kept open on H.T side to
save no-load losses. Also an operating schedule was proposed to
alternate the transformer operation weekly so as to keep them in
good health.
§ In sub station # 1, one transforme r was kept as stand by. This
hot standby transformer can be kept open (Energy savings 0.45
lakh per annum)
§ In sub station # 3, transformers #1 and #2 were drastically
under loaded (i.e, 20% and 15% respectively). Loads of
transformer # 2 were transferred to Transformer # 1 and
Transformer # 2 was switched off (Energy savings 0.37 lakh
kWh/year)
§ In sub station # 7, transformers # 2 and # 3 were drastically
under loaded (i.e, 10% and 25% respectively). Loads of
transformer # 2 was transferred to Transformer # 2 and
Transformer # 2 was switched off (Energy savings 0.42 lakh
kWh/year)
§ In substation # 8, keeping hot standby transformer open,
resulted in energy saving of 0.45 lakh kWh per year.

Principle Normally transformers have very high efficiency (98% or more).


Transformer Losses are:
§ No-load losses (iron losses) are constant. These are 0.2 - 0.5%
of nominal power.
§ Load losses (copper losses) vary with square of load. These are
0.7 - 2.1% of nominal power.
§ Maximum transformer efficiency is realized at a percentage
loading given by = Sqrt( Iron Loss / Copper Loss )

Details of techno-econmics:

Particulars Actual energy savings


Annual Total energy savings, lakh KWh 1.69
Annual Cost savings, Rs. lakh 5.9
Cost of Implementation, Rs. lakh 00
Simple payback period, Year Immediate
Case Study # 6

Implementa § While implementing there were some practical difficulties in


tion issues substation number 3 to transfer the loads to other bus sections
hence it was taken up for gradual implementation.
§ Due to increase in plant electrical load from 46 million units to 71
million units, the plant has increased reactive compensation from
6.729 MVAr to 9.856 MVAr, out of which 2x240 kVAr of banks
have been adopted through APFC panel so as to avoid
overcompensation in light load condition. Presently the average
system p.f is maintained at 0.96 lag.

You might also like