Download - Responsibility of stakeholders for voltage dips

Responsibility of stakeholders for voltage dips

Math BollenEnergy Markets Inspectorate

Eskilstuna, Sweden

Frankfurt (Germany), 6-9 June 2011

The compatibility gap

Immunity of installations and processes

Continuity of supply regulation

Duration of the dip

Res

idua

l vol

tage

Math Bollen – Sweden – S2a


Bridging the gap – immunity

CIGRE/CIRED/UIE working group C4.110 Process immunity time as a tool for improving

the immunity of an industrial process Equipment with higher immunity is slowly

entering the market Fault-ride-through for wind turbines

No developments in standardization



Bridging the gap - emission

EMC directive: the power system is an installation Voltage dips are emission by the power system to

the customer No IEC standards on voltage-dip emission EN 50160 gives no information either European regulators took up the issue in their

”voltage quality conclusion paper”



Responsibility sharing curve

Installations should tolerate these dips

Voltage-quality regulation

Duration of the dip

Res

idua

l vol

tage



South Africa

0.15s 0.6s

70%

85%80%



France

70%

0.6s



Working group C4.110

0.2s 0.5s 1s

40%

70%

80%

50%

2s


Class C Class A


Voltage dips: Swedish regulation

Installations should tolerate these dips

A reasonable number of dips is acceptable

Dips are unacceptable

Duration of the dip

Res

idua

l vol

tage



How to choose the curves?

Dips, up to 45 kV CIGRE/CIRED/UIE working group C4.110

Dips, above 45 kV Discussion between the stakeholders

Swells, up to 1 kV Protection requirements microgeneration Highest overvoltages during earthfaults Experiments on equipment damage



The resulting limits

0.2s 0.5s 1s 5s

40%

70%

90%

60s

80%


Red: above 45 kVGreen: 45 kV and less


What is a reasonable number of events?

South Africa: 95% of sites France: comparing with previous years Sweden

comparing with similar networks elsewhere In case of a disagreement the network operator

has to convince the regulator that the number of dips is reasonable

Experience with this to be gained in the coming years

Area B is also to be defined in contracts


Stakeholder Responsibility

Network Operator Prevent dips in Area C Limit the number of dips in Area B

Customer Process to be immute to dips in Area A Impact of dips in Area B to be limited


Stakeholder Responsibility (2)

Equipment manufacturer Equipment to be immune to dips in Area A Different classes of equipment immunity to

cover Area B Standard-setting organisation

New standardization to cover Area A and B Consider immunity of processing, not just of

equipment Consider balanced and unbalanced dips


What next?

Gaining experience What is a reasonable number of events? How to do the measurements? Can simulations be used?

Extending to balanced and unbalanced dips In area B

Power-quality contracts
