Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
System
Ilham Osman
rayhan.mahbub@hotmail.com
Ariful Haque
Abstract
I. INTRODUCTION
Electricity is produced in the generation sector to supply to
the consumers through distribution sector. The transmission
sector is introduced between generation and distribution sectors
to reduce the loss in carrying electricity from the generation end
to the distribution end. The investigation of the Department of
Energy of USA [1] shows that the loss in the transmission and
distribution sectors of the country in 2011 is 7.1% of its total
electricity use in the states. The worth of this amount of
national annual loss is $28.8 billion.
The transmission loss is reduced by increasing the
transmission voltage and also by decreasing the resistance of
the transmission line conductor. Both of these two loss reducing
factors require higher capital investment.
Kennon et. al.[2] consider a range of line optimization
techniques which can be applied to decide whether standard or
Copper loss
Corona loss
and
(1)
Where,
P cu loss= Power loss in each phase of the transmission line(watt)
I = Phase current (Amp)
R = Resistance of each phase (ohm).
Corona loss is caused by the ionization of air molecules
around the transmission line conductors. The formation of
corona is noticed by hissing noise, the smell of ozone and the
glow. Along with other factors, these noticeable parameters are
dependent on weather condition. The corona loss is expressed
by an empirical formula [4] as :
P Corona loss =
(2)
Fig. 1 Variation of Cu loss and Corona loss with the size of the conductor.
Vd 0 = g 0 m0 * r * log e Dr
(3)
Where,
g0 = Disruptive gradient in air (kv/cm).
m0= Roughness factor of the conductor.
D = GMD equivalent spacing between conductors (cm).
Although, the power loss component P cu loss linearly varies
with the resistance of the conductor for a given amount of
current flow, however, P Corona loss is complex in nature. To
observe the dependence of these two losses on the size of the
conductor, the variation of these two with the variation of
conductor resistance are separately depicted in Fig.1 for a
typical line of 230 kv and 1000 km long.
(4)
(5)
Current carrying
capacity (Amp)
Conductor
Tongi
Ghorasal
Grosbeak
27
230
753
123.3
Shahji
bazar
Chatak
Grosbeak
150
132
600
237.6
Comilla
North
Meghna
Ghat
Twin
Mallard
56
230
1500
(6)
Where,
2 =cost/unit volume of conductor material.
l = length of transmission line (km).
= density of the material / unit volume (gm/cm3).
From
(7)
To
Type
JB = 2 ( r2 l )
Location
345
where,
Ploss = P cu loss + Pcorona loss
Pflow = Vph I cos Vph , I
PR = Rated power flow per phase through the line.
III. RESULTS
A. Evaluation of optimal conductor size and benefits of its use :
No. of lines
132
80
6071.34
230
20
2647.30
400
686.00
TABLE III
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE EXISTING LINE LOSS WITH THE
EXPECTED ONE FOR LINES WITH OPTIMAL CONDUCTOR SIZE
Conductor
diameter
(cm)
For existing
For optimal
conductor
Annual Savings
(Tk.x 105)
Optimal (cm)
Line loss
(MW)
Existing (cm)
Location
Total
Tongi
Ghorasal
2.264
2.22
3.22
2.52
15.01
0.55
Shahji
bazar
Comilla
North
Chatak
2.025
2.00
6.39
6.378
122.5
0.816
Fig.5 Annual saving per unit length of conductor when optimal size is used.
M.Ghat
2.264
*2
3.37
5.38
5.074
69.6
1.244
From
To
Saving
/ km
132
230
69
19
3360.8
1324.4
Existing
conductor
With
optimal
ACSR
conductor
143.23
117.32
131.02
95.178
27.84
50.43
[3]
[4]
[5]
Fig.4 Reduction in line loss due to optimal conductor size.