IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. IA-14, NO.
5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1978
Electrical Energy Losses in Power SystemsU PONT
HERBERT N. HICKOK, MEMIBER, IEEE
Abstract-Today's power system engineer is perplexed by the
pressure to "do something" about wasted energy. His need is to know
where losses exist in system components, how he can measure them,
what are the theoretical savings, and what he can do about them.
An introduction to this mushrooming subject is given, typical loss data
on electrical equipment are provided, and measurement problems are
discussed. System design criteria for reducing losses are examined. A
check list for decreasing losses, comments on operating losses, and
discussion on future savings and trends are included.
INTRODUCTION
ECENTLY, a Gulf Coast chemical plant power system
tengineerwas given an edict by his management to cut
power consumption by 10 percent without reducing pro-
duction. With confidence, he and two electricians started out
on a program of systematically going through his plant elimin-
ating or reducing lights. With the plant safety man closely
watching what he did to lighting levels, he diligently pursued
the program to completion, and then added his reduction in
load. He had anticipated getting the job at least half done.
Somewhat to his dismay, he found that his results had netted
him a saving in energy of less than ¼4 of 1 percent. At this
point, we got a phone call asking "... and where do I find the
other 934 percent energy saving that I need?" Typically, this
illustrated the frustration that many of us initially have of try-
ing to track down and slay the twin culprits of wasted energy-
energy lost in power system components and using energy in
operation where it is not needed. Whether our management
has given us a directive or not, all of us at least have an uneasy
feeling that we better get into the game of saving energy. The
soaring cost of fuel, the ever tightening competitive market
that our companies must survive in, the dark cloud of federal
intervention which hangs over our head (if we do not comply
with some vague and future overall energy program), the end
of the era of almost inexhaustible fuel supply, and the growing
trend to be better stewards of the energy entrusted to us, all
give the incentive from a gentle shove to a swift kick in the
pants to do our part to quit wasting energy wherever possible
in our power systems. Before the oil embargo, fuel was about
20 percent of the cost of a kilowatt-hour. Today it is about 80
percent and will continue to go up.
Paper PID-76-115, approved by the Petroleum and Chemical In-
dustry Committee of the IEEE Industry Applications Society for
presentation at the 1976 Petroleum and Chemical Industry Technical
Conference, Philadelphia, PA, August 30-September 1. Manuscript
released for publication March 30, 1977.
The author is with General Electric Company, Houston, TX 77027.
0093-9994/78/0900-0373$00.75
373
OCT 1 2 1Y18
TECHNICAL LIBRARY
TABLELOUVIERS
THERMAL EFFICIENCY IN POWER GENERATION
Thermal Energy
Prime Mover Efficiency Lost
Gas Turbine
1) Simple 24-30o 70-76%
2) Regenerative 28-36% 64-72%
Steam Turbine 25-35% 65-75%
STAG-Unfired 25-34% 66-75%
(steam and gas turbine
combination)
STAG-Fired 50-60%o 40-50%o
THERMAL LOSSES
First, let us get an overall picture as to where energy is
consumed. Whether we generate or buy power or have some
combination of the two in our plant, it must be seen imme-
diately that the preponderance of wasted energy comes in
converting fuel into mechanical energy-namely, before we get
to the input shaft of the generator. Low thermal cycle effi-
ciency inherent in gas and/or steam turbines accounts for
about 2 out of every 3 Btu's of energy burned going into the
stack, into cooling water, or otherwise becoming unavailable
for conversion to electrical energy. The big exception, of
course, is where heat (or steam) is needed for the process.
Aside from this, however, thermal losses account for the big
percent of lost energy. A large modern utility power plant has
a thermal efficiency of around 36 percent. Table I below
shows the order of magnitude of efficiency of most industrial
plant generation.
Much work is being done in the power generation field to
improve efficiency, and the values are a far cry from the 10-15
percent efficiency in industrial plants of 20 years ago. Recent
typical improvements and savings are that made by a Louisiana
chemical complex generating its own power. They replaced six
small low pressure turbines by a modern STAG cycle gener-
ating package of steam and gas turbines in a combined cycle.
Their original cycle efficiency of about 20 percent was
increased to 30 percent by the better combined cycle efficiency
of two gas and one steam turbines. Utilization of the waste
heat from this package in the process then raised the efficiency
up to about 50 percent. This gave them a 30 percent decrease
in wasted fuel. Their savings in fuel is reported to be
$1 000 000/month. In looking for big chunks of energy to
save, first look in any plant boiler and turbine room. Since this
paper is primarily concerned with electrical losses, and many
papers have been written on thermal cycle improvement, no
more will be included here.
IEEE 1978
374 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. IA-14, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1978

TABLE II
RANGE OF LOSSES IN POWER SYSTEM EQUIPMENT
Component Energ\, oBss,
(full load.)
A. Outdoor Circuit Breakers ..002 - .015
(15 to 230 KV)
B. Generators . . . .09 - 3.50
C. Medium Voltage Switchgear . . . . .005 - .0'
(5 & 15 KV)
Electrical \ / Electrical
Energy Lost _ _ Equipment D. Current Limiting Reactors . . . .09 - .30
in Process _ Energy Loss (600 V to 15 KV)
5- 20%- - .5 - 20%
E. Transformers . . . . . . . . . .40 - 1.90
Fig. 1. Consumption of energy in industrial process. F. Load Break Switches .003 - .025
G. Medium Voltage Starters . . . . . .02 - .15
ELECTRICAL LOSSES H. Busway (480 \V & Below) . . . . .05 - .50
.34
Electrical losses vary over a wide range depending on the I. Low Voltage Switchgear . . . . . . .13 -

complexity of the power system, the geographical area that it J. Motor Control Centers ..01 - .40

covers, and the kind of plant process involved. A rough estimate K. Cable . . . . . . 1.00 - 4.00
. . .

would be that these would vary from 0.5-20 percent. Though L. Motors
little has been done to document the breakdown of energy a. 1 10 hp
- . . 14.00 - 35.00
. . . . . . . .
b. 10 200 hp . . 6.00 - 12.00
consumption in industrial plants, Fig. 1 shows a probable
- . . . . . . .
c. 200 1500 hp . - 4.00 - 7.00
. . . . .

picture of total system energy and where it goes. d. 1500 & up . . 2.30 - 4.50
. . . . . . . .

It might first be thought that since electrical losses are such M. Rectifiers (large) . 3.00 - 9.00 . . . . . .

a small part of the total loss it would be futile to spend much N. Static Variable Speed Drives . . 6.00 - 15.00
effort on them. To the contrary, however, it must be noted 0. Capacitors (watts loss/var.) .. .50 2.00 -

that each kilowatt of loss saved actually saves about three

P. Lighting (lumens/watt) ...
kilowatts of fuel energy. In addition to the dollars saved in 3.00 9.00 . . . -

fuel if the plant generates power, there is also the investment

saved on the additional generation, distribution, and utilization utilization equipment end. They are elusive, quiet, and well
equipment required to produce the wasted kilowatt of power. hidden. First, let us find out where the losses are. Table II is a
Industrial plants today vary widely in the amount of dollars list of the major components in a power system and the range
claimed as a saving when a wasted kilowatt of electrical energy of losses we may expect to find associated with them.
is eliminated. The variation runs from about $600-$2000/kW.
Percent energy loss is simply a ratio of power consumed
The actual figure includes not necessarily todays fuel cost, in equipment to the total energy passed through it
which may vary as much as five to one, but its projected figure and internally
energy consumed you might consider as the charge equip-
over the life of the equipment, for example 20 years. If power to the power system for handling its power. The
ment makes
is purchased, todays power rate varies from Il½-70/kWh. Its up in heat to be dissipated with the excep-
generally
projected future rate can easily double. Wide variation in taxes, tion of rotatingends
loss
equipment where windage is a factor.
overhead, load duty cycle, maintenance, life of equipment, losses for various kinds of power
interest on investment, and accounting procedures all account The above wide range of
for this three to one span in savings. Utilities, of course, put system components is responsible for the large variation of
different values into these parameters since power is their out- overall percent plant losses. A plant component mix of mainly
put product. As an example, a 5000 kVA transformer has a small motors (10 hp and under) averaging 15 percent loss and
low-voltage distribution system could easily lose 20 percent of
0.88 percent loss at 0.9 power factor (PF) full load. If the that over
plant figure in $/kW of loss is $1000, the plant would charge its purchased energy in losses. It has been estimated
that transformer with 5000 kVA X 0.9 PF X 0.88 percent/ 75 percent of the energy used in industrial plants is handled by
of this is in the 1-125 hp range with a
100 X $1000/kW = $39 600, nearly $40 000 in losses over its motors. About half of 70-94 percent [1]. Other plants with
life if operated at rated load continuously. Incidentally, the range of efficiency
mainly large compressor drives may have total plant losses of
transformer original cost was about $40 000 when installed, so less than 6 percent. To date there have been very few plant
its losses about equal first cost. surveys made to determine what actual plant losses are. They
are time consuming, tedious, and good for a given plant load
LOSSES IN SYSTEM COMPONENTS only.
Like our friend who called us, most plant engineers would LOSS DATA
like to find the immediate big savings. Energy losses do not
come that way. They are in small amounts, sometimes in small Until recently, there have been few requests for specific
fractions of a percent. Though they are to be found scattered energy loss data on individual power system components.
across a power system, they tend to be located toward the Much of the present data have been gathered to size air con-
HICKOCK: LOSSES IN POWER SYSTEMS 375

ditioning units where components have been located indoors The percent energy losses of breaker units with load at 0.9
in power control rooms. For that reason, it has sometimes PF for all ratings are
been on the high side. In some cases, it is now getting a closer
look. The following data has been calculated or gathered from Voltage Efficiency Losses
(kilovolts) (percent) (percent)
various product engineering groups. It is based on rated load
flowing through the equipment and must be reduced to actual 2.4 99.98 0.02
4.16 99.99 0.01
load for a particular case. It is representative data to give the 13.8 99.994 0.006
user an estimate of equipment energy losses. Specific units
may vary considerably depending on their particular appli-
Reactors
cation. The data are on General Electric products, but they
should be very similar to that of other manufacturers. Energy losses in watts in current limiting reactors are shown
Since the designation of watts is a rate function, actual below as a function of equivalent single-phase reactor kVA
energy lost must be a function of time such as watt-hours. To 12X
convert watt-hours to Btu, multiply watt values by 3.413 to kVA (equivalent) =
get Btu/h. 1000
Generators where I is the current in amperes and X is the reactance in
ohms. Multiply watt losses by three for three-phase reactor.
Losses for 3600 r/min 13.8 kV industrial generators are as
follows. Equivalent KVA 600 V 5 KV 15 KV
5 360 400 445
KVA P.F. Cooling % Eff. % Loss 10 565 625 695
20 830 922 1 025
5 000 .8 Direct Air 97.2 2.8 30 1 074 1 193 1 315
7 500 .8 " " 97.2 2.8 40 1 259 1 399 1 555
9 375 .8 97.6 2.4 50 1 437 1 597 1 775
12 500 .85 98.1 1.9 60 1 559 1 732 1 925
18 750 .85 98.3 1.7 80 1 867 2 074 2 305
29 412 .85 98.3 1.7 100 2 126 2 362 2 625
44 118 .85 98.3 1.7 140 2 673 2 970 3 300
200 3 240 3 600 4 000
29 412 .85 30# - H2 98.7 1.3 300 4 131 4 590 5 100
64 000 .85 " 98.7 1.3 400 4 981 5 535 6 150
90 000 .9 98.9 1.1 500 5 710 6 345 7 050
115 000 .85 " 98.9 1.1 600 6 399 7 110 7 900
150 000 .9 " 99.0 1.0 800 7 695 8 550 9 500
175 000 .9 " 99.1 .9 1 000 8 829 9 810 10 900
196 000 .9 " 99.1 .9 1 200 9 881 10 980 12 200
1 400 10 935 12 150 13 500
220 000 .9 45# - H2 99.0- 1.0 1 600 11 931 13 257 14 730
246 000 .85 " if
99.0 1.0 1 800 12 887 14 319 15 910
300 000 .85 it
^^ 99.0 1.0 2 000 13 810 15 365 17 050
2 200 14 580 16 200 18 000
2 400 15 390 17 100 19 000
Note: Losses include windage and friction but not seal and 2 600
2 800
16 200 18 000 20 000
17 010 18 900 21 000
bearing losses as per standard ANSI C50.10. 3 000 17 820 19 800 2 2 000
3 500 19 602 21 780 24 200
Medium- Voltage Switchgear-S and 15 Kv 4 000
4 500
21 303
23 085
23
25
670
650
26 300
28 500
5 000 24 786 27 540 30 600
Estimated full-load losses for both 5 and 15 kV are 6 000 27 783 30 870 34 300
7 000 30 699 34 110 37 900
8 000 33 534 37 260 41 400
Breaker Units Air Magnetic 9 000 36 207 40 230 44 700
(amperes) (watts) Vacuum 10 000 38 718 43 020 47 800
12 000 43 335 48 150 53 500
1200 1000 500 14 000 47 628 52 920 58 800
15 000 49 734 55 260 61 400
2000 1500 750
3000 2500 1250
Notes
Auxiliary compartment averages 500 W for air magnetic 1) The data are for indoor units; for outdoor units add
and 300 for vacuum. The bus duct includes losses: 10 percent.
1200 A 75 W/ft 2) Interpolate for losses for intermediate kVA.
2000 A 100 W/ft 3) To above values, add losses generated by field of
3000 A 175W/ft. reactor in surrounding magnetic material such as
metallic beams, walls, floor, etc. These generally
Notes approach zero if they are outside the magnetic clear-
1) Above losses are for indoor units. For outdoor units ances shown on reactor drawings unless they are
add 500 W/unit for heaters if air magnetic and add surrounded by a complete loop of magnetic material
300 W/unit if vacuum. such as structural building steel.
2) Losses are approximately the same for an aluminum 4) The value of R in ohms of a reactor is in the order of
or copper bus. 1/50-1/1 00 of value of X in ohms.
3) Losses vary as the square of the current throughout 5) Values above are for aluminum windings. Values for
range. copper are approximately the same.
376 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. IA-14, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1978

6) Throughout the load range, losses vary as a square of For a 69 kV insulation class, delta primary 350 kV BIL,
the through kVA and PF. 2400-14 400 V wye or delta secondary,
Percent energy losses for typical reactors are
1000 3200 13 500 1.50
3 0 Equivalent Losses 1500 4100 17 100 1.27
Voltage Drop 5500 26 000 1.16
Voltage Reactor (percent) Circuit (kVA) (kVA) (percent) 2500
3750 8000 33600 1.00
5000 9500 42 500 0.94
480 1000A, 0.01 3.61 830 10 0.227
7500 12 500 58 000 0.86
2400 1200A, 0.10 8.65 5000 144 0.180 10 000 16 500 70 500 0.78
4160 1200A, 0.10 5.00 8640 144 0.105
13 800 1200A, 0.5 7.53 28 600 864 0.094
For a 69 kV insulation class, delta primary-350 basic
impulse insulation level (BIL)-2400 to 14 400 V wye or delta
Transformers secondary,
Representative energy losses in transformers at self-cooled 1500 5000 18 000 1.33
rating, rated kVA, and 550C rise are as follows. 2500 6000 27 900 1.24
1) Load Center Type-three-phase, oil, or Pyranol. For a 3750 8500 36 200 1.07
5000 10 500 44 000 0.98
2.4, 4.16, 6.9, 12, 13.2, or 13.8 kV delta primary 480,480Y/ 7500 14 000 59 000 0.87
277 V delta or wye, 10 000 17 000 72 000 0.80

Oil-Air No-Load Note Load tap changing transformers (LTC) will add 5-10
Rating Loss Total Loss Loss
(kVA) (watts) (watts) (percent) percent to no-load losses and 5-10 percent to load losses plus
adjustment for tap connection above or below rated voltage.
750 1940 15 670 1.79 3) Large Power Type-without load tap changing. For
1000 2660 16 170 1.60
1500 3390 22 910 1.51 69 kV class delta primary 350 kV BIL, 15 kV class wye
2000 3850 27 100 1.34 secondary, 110 kV BIL,
2500 5220 31 960 1.27
Oil-Air No-Load
Rating Loss Total Loss Loss
2) Substation Type-three-phase, oil, or Pyranol for a 2.4, (kVA) (kW) (kW) (percent)
4.16, 6.9, 12, 13.2, or 13.8 kV delta primary 480, 480Y/ 12 000 32.3 89 0.82
277 V delta or wye secondary, 20 000 42.5 128 0.71
25 000 50 150 0.67
Oil-Air No-Load 30 000 57 171 0.63
Rating Loss Total Loss Loss 35 000 64 191 0.61
(kVA) (watts) (watts) (percent) 40 000 70 210 0.58
50 000 82.5 247 0.55
750 1950 9 300 1.38
1000 2500 11800 1.31
1.21
For a 1 15 kV class delta primary, 550 kV BIL-15 kV class wye
1500 3400 16300
2000 4400 21 000 1.17 secondary, 110 kV BIL,
2500 5200 24 700 1.10
Oil-Air No-Load
Rating Loss Total Loss Loss
For a 6.9, 12.0, 13.2, or 13.8 kV delta primary 2400- (kVA) (kW) (kW) (percent)
4160 V delta or wye secondary, 14.5 55.0 1.22
5 000
7 500 21.7 70.5 1.04
Oil-Air No-Load 10 000 32.3 81.0 0.90
Rating Loss Total Loss Loss 45.5 114.1 0.79
16 000
(kVA) (watts) (watts) (percent) 20 000 47.2 130.0 0.72
10 000 1.22 25 000 55.5 153.0 0.68
1000 2400 30 000 63.5 174.0 0.64
1500 3200 15 200 1.13
1.06 35 000 71.0 195.0 0.62
2000 4300 19 000 40 000 78.0 214.0 0.59
2500 5000 22 500 1.00
0.92 50 000 91.5 252.0 0.56
3750 6800 31 000
5000 8700 39 700 0.88
7500 11 500 54 000 0.80 For a 138 kV class delta primary, 650 kV BIL-1 5 kV class wye
10 000 15 000 64 000 0.71
secondary, 110 kV BIL,
For a 22.9, 26.4, or 34.4 kV delta primary 2400-14 400 V 5 000 19.0 54.0 1.20
wye or delta secondary, 7500 23.5 73.5 1.09
10 000 30.7 87.5 0.97
1000 2700 12 600 1.40 16 000 47.8 120.0 0.83
1500 3600 16 700 1.24 20 000 48.0 132.0 0.73
2500 5600 24 000 1.07 25 000 56.5 155.0 0.69
3750 7700 33 000 0.98 30 000 64.5 177.0 0.66
5000 8500 42 500 0.94 35 000 72.0 198.0 0.63
7500 12 000 58 000 0.86 40 000 79.0 217.0 0.60
10 000 16 000 68 000 0.76 50 000 92.0 255.0 0.57
HICKOCK: LOSSES IN POWER SYSTEMS 377
TABLE III
700 A CONTACTOR
Load Fuse Contactor Cable *Coil, CPT Blowouts Total
Amps Size Watts Watts Size Watts %OL-Watts Watts Watts
240 18R 134.7 69 300M 41.5 268 0 513.2
24R 101.9 69 300M 41.5 268 0 480.4
600A 20.2 69 500M 24.2 268 0 381.4
700A 16.7 69 500M 24.2 268 0 377.9

360 24R 229.4 155.4 300M 93.3 268 0 746.1

600A 45.4 155.4 500M 54.4 268 0 523.2
700A 37.6 155.4 500M 54.4 268 0 515.4

500 600A 87.5 300.0 500M 105.0 268 20 480.5

600 700A 72.5 432.0 500M 151.2 268 28 951.7

* Control potential transformer (CPT), kVA 54W
Contactor coil 117.8 W
Overload (OL) heaters, average 36W
Total 207.8 W

Note: Transformers with LTC will raise no-load losses 5-20 600 A Switch- 15 kV
percent and load losses 10-25 percent.
Notes on transformer losses Watt Loss
1) Load losses vary as the square of the current. Load Current Unfused
2) No-load losses are based on nameplate voltage and (amperes) Switch Fuse Total
vary directly as a function of voltage. Taps above or
50 5 468 473
below nameplate rating will raise or lower losses by 100 14 840 854
the percent voltage change. 200 55 - -

3) For losses at other than self-cooled rated kVA as in 300 125 - -

400 222 - -
forced air (FA), or forced oil-air (FOA) cooling 500 347 - -
ranges subtract no-load losses, adjust load loss by the 600 500 - -

difference of the square of the actual current or kVA

to rated current or kVA, and add back no-load losses
for total. 1200 A Switch-1 5 kV
Load Break Switches- 5 and 15 kV of Breakmaster Type Watt Loss
Full-load watt loss per unit with SE-100 switches and Load Current Unfused
EJ-1 or EJO-1 fuses for 5 and 15 kV switches are shown. (amperes) Switch Fuse Total
600 A Switch-5 kV 50 2 468 470
100 5 840 845
Watt Loss 200 20 - -
300 46 - -
Load Current Unfused 400 83 - -
(amperes) Switch Fuse Total 500 130 - -
600 187 - -
50 5 109 114 800 333 - -
100 14 171 185 1000 521 - -
200 55 300 355 1200 750 - -
300 125 405 530
400 222 528 750
500 347 - -
600 500 - - For load break switches, losses vary as the square of the
current. Typical percent energy losses for loaded unfused 600
1200 A Switch-5 kV and 1200 A switches with 0.9 PF load are as follows.
Losses
Watt Loss (percent)
Load Current Unfused Switch 2400 V 4160 V 13,800 V
(amperes) Switch Fuse Total
600 A 0.022 0.013 0.004
50 2 109 111 1200 A 0.017 0.009 0.003
100 5 171 176
200 20 300 320
300 46 405 451
400 83 528 611 Medium- Voltage Starter Equipment-Limit-Amp Type
500 130 - -
600 187 - - The total estimated full load losses for each cubicle of line-
800 333 - -
up are in Tables III and IV. Data apply to 2.4 or 4.16 kV
1000 521 - -
equipment, one high design, and are arranged to show how
1200 750 - -
the power circuit segments can be varied to reduce watts loss.
378 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. IA-14, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1978
TABLE IV
400 A CONTACTOR
Load Fuse Contactor Cable *Coil, CPT Blowouts Total
Amps Size Watts Watts Size Watts & OL-Watts Watts Watts

40 3R 22.8 1.9 #8 21.0 207 0 252.7

6R 11.1 1.9 #6 13.2 233.2
9R 7.5 1.9 #4 8.1 224.5
12R 5.7 1.9 #2 5.1 219.7
18R 3.6 1.9 1/0 3.3 215.8
24R 2.8 1.9 300M 1.2 212.9

60 4R 38.7 4.3 #6 29.7 207 0 279.7

9R 16.8 4.3 #4 18.7 246.8
12R 12.6 4.3 #2 11.7 235.6
18R 8.4 4.3 1/0 7.3 227.0
24R 6.3 4.3 300M 2.6 220.2

80 6R 46.2 7.7 #4 33.2 207 0 204.1

9R 30.0 7.7 #2 20.7 265.-
18R 15.0 7.7 1/0 13.0 242.7
24R 11.4 7.7 300M 4.6 230.7

120 9R 67.8 17.3 #2 46.7 207 36 374.8

18R 33.7 17.3 1/0 29.4 36 323.4
24R 25.5 17.3 300M 10.4 36 296.2

160 12R 90.6 30.7 1/0 52.2 207 114 494.5

24R 45.3 30.7 300M 18.4 114 415.4

240 18R 134.7 69.0 300M 41.5 207 225 677.2

24R 101.9 69.0 300M 41.5 207 225 644.4

360 24R 229.4 155.4 300M 93.3 207 372 1057.1

* Control potential transformer (CPT) 1 kVA 54W
Contactor coil 117 W
Overload (OL) heaters 36W
Total 207 W

Notes 2) Type LVD (low-voltage drop):

1) Losses are for indoor units. Add 250 W/unit for
heaters if outdoors. Rating
(ampere) Copper Aluminum
2) Losses apply to copper or aluminum power bus.
3) Losses vary as the square of the current for contactors 600 - 36
and fuses but are constant for control power trans- 800 38 40
former, protective, and control devices. 1000 40 49
1350 54 78
Typical percent energy losses of fully loaded motor starters 1600 68 83
are 2000 79 97
2500 94 120
1) 300 hp-2300 V400 A contactor, 4R fuse-0.1 1 percent; 3000 108 146
2) 700 hp-2300 V-400 A contactor, 12R fuse-0.077 4000 163 197
percent; 5000 188 240
3) 5000 hp4000 V-700 A contactor, 700 A fuse-0.021
percent;
4) 4000 hp4000 V-700 A contactor, 600 A fuse-0.0 13 3) Type CL (current limiting):
percent. Rating
Busway (ampere) Copper Aluminum
The 600 V Class is for use with motor control center or 1000 53 66
switchgear. Full-load watt losses three phase/f are as follows. 1350 73 109
1600 93 114
1) Armor-clad: 2000 108 134
2500 131 169
Rating 3000 157 208
(ampere) Copper Aluminum 4000 197 283
600 29 36
800 39 42
1000 40 S0 The losses vary directly as the square of the current. Typical
1200 43 57 percent losses for 50 ft of busway with load at 1.0 PF are
1350 52 60
1600 65 78 1) 600 A-armor-clad 208 V-aluminum 0.84 percent;
2000 82 94
2500 96 103 2) 600 A-armor-clad 480 V-aluminum 0.36 percent;
3000 1i1 132 3) 5000 A-armor-clad 480 V-aluminum 0.21 percent;
4000 144 173 4) 1600 A-LVD 480 V-copper 0.26 percent;
5000 173 -
5) 1600 A-CL 480-V copper 0.35 percent.
HICKOCK: LOSSES IN POWER SYSTEMS 379

Low- Voltage Switchgear- Type ADK-5 or AKD-6 Motor Control Centers-600 V Class, Type 7700
The total losses per indoor cubicle are the sum of those for Total watt losses for equipment are the sum of the losses
breakers in the cubicle plus the power bus loss. for components applicable and listed below.
1) Various breaker losses, three pole, including tap and 1) Combination starters, fused or breaker, including
run back bus and direct acting or static trips (240, control power transformer and pilot light:
480, or 600 V. NEMA Size Watt Loss
Breaker Trip Watt
Frame Sizes Coil Amps Loss 1 27
2 57
225A 15 55 3 99
Only 20 55 4 165
30 65
40 60 5 280
225A and 50 60
600A 70 70
90 70
100 65 2) Feeder tap units.
125 105
150 80
175 110 Rating
200 #105-110 Frame (ampere) Watt Loss
225 140
Circuit breakers-based on 80 percent loading
600A 250 95
only 300 119
350 150 TEF,THEF 15-30 4
400 165 40-50 16
500 225 70-100 27.5
600 215
1 600A 200 60 TFJ, TFK 70-100 20
225 75 THFK 125-150 26
250 55 175-225 37
300 40
350 55 TJJ, TJK 125-225 27
400 60
500 90 THJK 250-275 50
600 120 300 55
800 195 350-400 65
1000 180 500-600 85
1200 260
1600 460
TKM, THKM 400 70
3 OOOA 2000 480 500-600 75
2500 750 700-800 140
3000 1080 1000-1200 140
4 OOOA 2000 N.A.
2500 N.A. Fusible switches
3000 N.A.
4000 960 30 12
# Note: 105 for 225 A frame breaker. 110 for 600 A frame breaker. 60 18
100 30
200 35
2) Bus Losses with aluminum or copper:
3) Power and lighting transformers for 480 to 120/
Main Bus Rating 240 V single phase or 480 to 208/120 V three phase
Equipment Size (amperes) Watt Loss
are shown.
20 or 22 in stack 1600 570
3000 1350 Single Watt Three Watt
Phase Loss Phase Loss
27 in stack 1600 645
3000 1500 1 60 9 295
2 90 15 460
30 in stack 3000 1700 5 190 30 1400
4000 2100 7.5 240
10 290
Notes 15 350
25 430
1) For outdoor equipment add 250 W/unit for heaters.
2) Losses apply to an aluminum or copper bus. 4) Lighting panelboards are 0.8 W/A handled, single- or
Losses vary with the square of the feeder current plus the
adjusted losses of the power bus. Typical percent energy losses three-phase based or mixture of 15, 20, and 30 A
of a cubicle of 4-600 A breakers with 400 A trips and 0.9 PF circuits.
loads and a 3000 A bus are 5) Vertical bus. For a 300-A vertical bus with 600 A the
main loss is 75 W. For a 300-A vertical bus with 1 200A
240 V, 0.34 percent; the main loss is 105 W.
480 V, 0.17 percent; Note: Losses vary generally as the square of the current
600 V, 0.13 percent. though control power transformers, individual lights, etc.,
380 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. IA-14, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1978

HorizonLal
add fixed losses regardless of load. Energy losses for a typical Svn. Drripproof TEFC
480 V cubicle of say two-size one starters, one-size two and Speed Eff. Loss r, Eff. Loss

one-size three with 1200 A power bus would be 0.24 percent. 1/2 3600 69. 0 31.0 69.0
69.0
31.0
31.0
1800 69.0 31.0
70. 5 29. 5 70. 5 29. 5
Cable 1200
900 62 .5 37 .5 62.5 37. 5
Energy losses are a function of 12R. Values of R for use in 1 3600 ,7 4 . 5 74.5 25.5

calculating losses for copper cable at 60 H and 75°C are as 75.0 75.0 5. 0
2
1800 25.0
1200 73.0
27. 0 73.0 2
7. 0
follows. (Multiply ohms by three for three-phase circuiit.) 900 70.0
30(.0 70.0 30.0
2 3600 79.0
21.0 .0
21. 0)
Size Conductor Feet 1800 79.5O 20. 5 79 5 20. 5
AWG or kcmil (Ql/1000) 1200 78.5
70.0
21.5
30. 0
78.5
70.0
21.5

30.0
900
8 0.780 3 3600 80.0 20 .0t 75.5 24. 5
6 0.489 1800 80.5 19.5 80.5 19.5
4 0.309 1200 76.0 24.0 78.0 22.0
0.195 900 74.0 26.0 74.0 26.0
2
1 0.155 5 3600 83.0 17.0 80. 5 19.5
1/0 0.124 1800 84.0 16.0 84.0 16.0
2/0 0.010 1200 79.0 21.0 78.0 22.0
0.078 22 0 78.0 22.0
3/0 900 78.0
4/0 0.064 712 3600 84.5 1
5. 5 79.0 21.0
250 0.055 1800 82.0 18.0 82.5 17.5
300 0.046 1200 84.5 15.5 83.0 17.0
0.040 21.0 79.0 21.0
350 900 79.0
400 0.035 10 3600 84.5 15.5 82. 5 17. 5
450 0.032 1800 83.0 17.0 83.0 17.0

500 0.029 1200 84.0 16.0 82.0 18.0

600 0.025 900 81.0 19.0 80.0 20.0
750 0.021 3600 86.0 14.0 82.0 18.0
15
1800 86.5 13.5 86.5 13. 5
Note: The above values of resistance are nominal values and 1200
900
85.0
82.0
15.0
18.0
87.0
83.0
13.0
17.0
apply to three single conductor nonmetallic sheath cables and 86.0 14.0
three conductor cable in conduit or aerial installations and 20 3600
1800
87.0
87 . 5
13.0
12. 5 87. 5 12.5
reflect the 1) additional losses due to skin and proximity 1200
900
87.0
85.0
13.0
15.0
85.0
85.0
15.0
15.0
effect; 2) loss due to circulating currents and/or eddy currents
13.5
in metallic shield; and 3) conduit loss due mainly to eddy 30 3600
1800
87.0
89.0
13.0
11.
0
86.5
89. 5 10. 5
currents and hystersis effect if conduit is magnetic. 1200
900
88.5
88.0
11.5
12. 0
89.0
90.0
11.0

10.0
Example of Loss Calculation: Determine loss in 2-500
13. 5
kcmil/phase three conductor cable circuit 500 ft, 480 V, 900 40 3600
1800
88.0
88.5
12.0
11. 5
86.5
90. 5 9.5
A load at 0.9 PF: 1200
900
89.0
88.0
11.0
12.0
90.0
90.0
10.0
10.0
circuit kW = IE 3 cos 0 50 3600 89.0 11.0 88.0 12. 0

1800 89.5 10. 5 91. 5 8.5

5. 5
10.0 91. 5
= (900) (0.48) 3 (0.9) 1200
900
90.0
89.0 11.0 90.0 10.0

=
673.4 75 3600
1800
90.5
91.0
9.5
9.0
90.5
92.0
99.5. 5
8.0
1200 91.0 9.0 92.0 8.0
loss kW = P2R 900 91.0 9.0 92.0
8.0

100 3600 91.5 8.5 91.5 8.5

0.029
(900)2 1800 92.5 7.5 93.0 7.0
= X XO.5X3 1200 91.5 8.5 91.5 8.5
1000 2 900 92.5 7.5 93.5 b. n

150 3600 92.0 8.0 91.5 8.5

= 17.617 kW 1800 93.0 7.0 93. 0 7.0
1200 91. 5 8.5 93.5 6.5
900 92. 5 .5 92 . 5 7.5
percent loss =1-
17.617
X 100 = 2.63 percent. 200 3600 91.5 8.5 92.0 8.0
673.4 1800 94.0 6.0 93.0 7.0
1200 93.0 7.0 93.5 6.5
Assuming $1000/kW cost of energy over life of cable, cost of 300
900
3600 92.5 7.5 93.5 6.5
energy loss in cable would be $17 617 if operated contin- 2400 93.0 7.0 93.0 7.0
uously at full load. 1200
900
Vertical
Motors Dripproof TEFC
% Eff. % Loss
Energy losses are shown for motors at rated load. Losses in HP Speed % Eff. % Loss

small motors (induction type, three-phase, type K, 875, 1165, 2 3600

1800
1750, and 3550 r/min at rated load, 115, 230, or 460 V) 1200 80.0 20.0 80.0 20.0
74.0 26.0 74.0 26.0
follow. 900
HICKOCK: LOSSES IN POWER SYSTEMS 381
Vertical HP Speed % Efficiency % Loss
Dripproof TEFC
HP Speed % Eff. % Loss % Eff. % Loss 400 3565 93.3 6.7
1775 93.0 7.0
3 3600 80.0 20.0 75.0 25.0 1180 92.9 7.1
1800 81.0 19.0 76.0 24.0 880 92.8 7.2
1200 80.0 20.0 80.0 20.0
900 76.0 24.0 76.0 24.0 500 3565 93.7 6.3
1775 93.4 6.6
5 3600 82.0 18.0 79.0 21.0 1180 93.3 6.7
1800 79.0 21.0 81.0 19.0 880 93.3 6.7
1200 81.0 19.0 81.0 19.0
900 77.0 23.0 77.0 23.0 600 3570 94.0 6.0
17 75 93.6 6.4
7½ 3600 83.0 17.0 80.0 20.0 1180 93.5 6.5
1800 81.0 19.0 83.5 16.5 882 93.5 6.5
1200 83.0 17.0 83.0 17.0
900 83.0 17.0 82.0 18.0 800 3570 94.5 5.5
1775 94.0 6.0
10 3600 84.5 15.5 82.5 17.5 1185 93.9 6.1
1800 83.0 17.0 86.0 14.0 885 93.9 6.1
1200 85.0 15.0 84.0 16.0
900 - - 84.0 16.0 1000 3575 94.8 5.2
1775 94.3 5.7
15 3600 85.0 15.0 79.5 20.5 1185 94.3 5.7
1800 84.0 16.0 85.5 14.5 885 94.2 5.8
1200 86.0 14.0 85.5 14.5
900 84.0 16.0 84.0 16.0 1250 3575 95.2 4.8
1780 94.7 5.3
20 3600 88.0 12.0 82.0 18.0 1185 94.5 5.5
1800 87.0 13.0 86.5 13.5 890 94.5 5.5
1200 87.0 13.0 86.5 13.5
900 84.0 16.0 86.0 14.0 1500 3575 95.4 4.6
1780 94.9 5.1
30 3600 88.0 12.0 86.0 14.0 1184 94.8 5.2
1800 88.0 12.0 88.0 12.0 890 94.7 5.3
1200 88.0 12.0 87.5 12.5
900 87.0 13.0 87.5 12.5 1750 3575 95.6 4.4
1780 95.0 4.9
40 3600 89.0 11.0 86.5 13.5 1185 95.0 5.0
1800 89.0 11.0 88.5 11.5 890 95.0 5.0
1200 89.0 11.0 88.0 12.0
900 87.0 13.0 88.5 11.5 2000 3575 95.8 4.2
1780 95.2 4.8
50 3600 89.0 11.0 87.5 12.5 1185 95.1 4.9
1800 89.0 11.0 89.0 11.0 890 95.1 4.9
1200 90.0 10.0 88.5 11.5
900 89.0 11.0 90.5 9.5 2500 3575 96.0 4.0
1780 95.5 4.5
75 3600 90.5 9.5 89.5 10.5 1185 95.3 4.7
1800 91.5 8.5 89.5 10.5 890 95.2 4.8
1200 91.5 8.5 91.0 9.0
900 91.0 9.0 91.0 9.0
b. 4000 V
100 3600 91.0 9.0 90.5 9.5
1800 92.0 8.0 92.0 8.0 HP Speed % Efficiency % Loss
1200 91.5 8.5 92.0 8.0
900 91.0 9.0 91.0 9.0 3000 3575 96.1 3.9
1785 95.6 4.4
150 3600 92.0 8.0 91.0 9.0 1185 95.4 4.6
1800 92.5 7.5 92.0 8.0 890 95.3 4.7
1200 92.0 8.0 92.0 8.0
900 91.5 8.5 92.0 8.0 4000 3575 96.2 3.8
1785 95.7 4.3
200 3600 92.0 8.0 91.5 8.5 1185 95.6 4.4
1800 92.5 7.5 92.5 7.5 890 95.5 4. 5
1200 92.5 8.5 92.5 7.5
900 5000 3575 96.2 3.8
1785 95.8 4.2
300 3600 93.1 6.9 93.5 6.5 1185 95.6 4.4
2400 92.5 7.5 92.5 7.5 885 95.6 4.4
1200 92.5 7.5 93.0 7.0
900 92.0 8.0 - - 6000 3575 96.3 3.7
1785 95.8 4.2
500 3600 93.5 6.5 - -
1185 95.7 4.3
1800 93.0 7.0 - -
885 95.7 4.3
1200 93.0 7.0 - -

900 92.5 7.5 - -

8000 3575 96.6 3.4
1780 95.9 4.1
1185 95.8 4.2
Losses for large motors (induction type, horizontal) follow. 885 95.8 4.2

a. 2300 V
10,000 -

1785 95.9 4.1

1185 95.9 4.1
HP Speed % Efficiency % Loss 885 95.9 4. 1
250 3565 92.4 7.6
12,000 -
1775 92.4 8.0
1780 96.3 3.7
1180 92.0 8.0 1185 96.2 3.8
880 91.9 8.1 885 96.1 3.9
300 3565 92.7 7.3
1775
1180
92.4
92.3
7.6
7.7
Losses for large motors (synchronous, brush type, horizontal,
880 92.3 7.7 1.0 PF) follow.
382 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. IA-14, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1978

a. 2300 V Notes
HP Speed , Efficiencv i Loss 1) For brushless type motors either 2300 or 4000 V
500 1800 95.3 4.7
decrease efficiency, as follows:
1200 95.2 4.8
900 95.3 4.7 Reduction Required
720 9 5 . 1. 4. 9
Listed Full-Load
600 1800 95.5 4.5 Efficiency Full Load 3/4 Load
1200 95.5 4.5
900 95.6 4.4 >97.0 0.1 0.2
720 95.3 4. 7 96.1-97.0 0.2 0.2
800 1800 95.7 4.3
95.1-96.0 0.2 0.3
1200 95.8 4.2 94.1-95.0 0.3 0.4
900 96.0 4.0 93.1-94.0 0.3 0.4
720 95.8 4.2 92.1-93.0 0.5 0.6
91.1-92.0 0.6 0.8
1000 1800 95.9 4.1
1200 96.0 4.0
900 96.2 3.8
720 96.1 3.9 2) For synchronous motors operated at rated excitation
1200 1800 96.1 3.9 for less than full load, adjust losses in terms of full-
1200
900
96.2
96.4
3.8
3.6
load losses as follows:
720 96.4 3.6

96.3 3.7
Losses
1500 1800 PF Load (% Full-Load Losses)
1200 96.4 3.6
900 96.6 3.4
720 96.6 3.4 1.0 3/4 85
1/2 75
17 50 1800 96.4 3.6 1/4 69
1200 96.5 3.5 0 67
900 96.7 3.3
720 96.7 3.3
0.8 3/4 94
2000 1800 96.2 3.8 1/2 90
1200 96.7 3.6 1/4 88
900 96.7 3.3 0 87
720 96.7 3.3

2000 1800 96.2 3.8

1200 96.7
96.9
3.6
3.5
3) To above losses for brush type synchronous motors,
900
720 96.9 3.3 add exciter losses.
2500 1800 96.6 3.8
1200 96.7 3.3 Power Factor Correction Capacitors
900 97.0 3.0
720 97.0 3.0 Energy losses per kvar for 2400 V and above open stack
rack capacitors units are
In the sizes above, for 0.8 PF motors decrease by approximately 1.0 1) paper/pyranol 2 W/kvar;
percent.
2) magvar 0.5 W/kvar.
b. 4000 V
Notes
HP Speed % Efficiency % Loss 1) Watt losses are based on rated voltage and vary as the
3000 1800 96.8 3.2 square of the voltage. Capacitor life is in part a func-
1200 96.9 3.1 tion of temperature and goes down rapidly with over-
900 97.0 3.0
720 97.0 3.0 voltage because of it.
4000 1800 96.9 3.1 2) For enclosed outdoor units, add 0.1 W/kvar for bus,
1200 96.7
96.2
3.3
3.8
switch, and fans.
900
720 96.2 3.8 Since there is no through energy in a capacitor bank losses
5000 1800 97.0 3.0
cannot be expressed as a percent but must be added and
1200 97.1 2.9 weighted against savings due to improvement of power factor
900 97 .4 2.6
720 97.4 2.6 and energy.
6000 1800
1200 97. 2 2.8
2.5
Lighting
900 97 5

Energy consumed in lighting can generally be read directly

97.5
720 2.5

8000 1800 from the nameplate on the lamp in watts; it is the energy input.
1200
900
97. 4
97.6
2.6
2.4
The total plant lighting energy is a matter of adding up the
720
97.6
2.4 number and wattage of all lamps and adding to them various
10,000 1800
97 ,65 ballast losses, which though small, are significant. An impor-
1200 97.5 2.5
2.3
tant factor to consider is a lamp's conversion ratio of electrical
97.7
energy to light energy or lumens per watt. Typical conversion
900
720 97.7 2.3
HICKOCK: LOSSES IN POWER SYSTEMS 383

efficiency ranges are [2] TABLE V

COMPARISON OF EFFICIENCIES FROM
DIFFERENT STANDARDS
Life,
(hours) Wattage Lumens/ Full-Load Efficiency
Type of Lamp (X 1000) Range Watts
(percent)
Incandescent 0.75-12 15-1500 15-25
Fluorescent 9-30 40-219 55-88 Standard 7.5 hp 20 hp
Mercury-Vapor 16-24 40-1000 20-63
Metal-Halide 1-15 400-1500 80-100 International (IED 34-2) 82.3 89.4
High Pressure British (BS-269) 82.3 89.4
Sodium 10-20 75-1000 100-130 Japanese JEC-37) 85.0 90.4
U.S. (IEEE-112A Method B) 80.3 86.9
Notes
1) Lighting sources are greatly effected by their actual
operating voltage. Actual watts consumed are a direct ards covering losses and test procedures are
function of voltage, whereas light output is generally A) transformers-distribution, power, and regulating-ANSI
a function of the voltage cubed. C57.12.90-1973 (same as IEEE Std. 262-1973),
2) Lighting fixture design plays an important roll in the B) reactors-oil immersed and dry type, current limiting-
amount of useful lumens delivered. ANSI C57.16-1958, R1971,
C) induction motors-IEEE 112A-1964,
Other Components D) synchronous motors-IEEE 1 l5A-1965,
Outdoor Circuit Breakers-Because of high kVA/A when E) generators-ANSI C50.10,
voltage is high (15-230 kV) and low values of resistance, the F) rectifiers-ANSI C34.2-1968, RI 973.
energy loss is almost negligible, and few tests have been made
to determine them. For example, In the case of induction motors, there is considerable con-
69 kV oil circuit breaker, 3000 A-0.0028% loss. troversy at present on the subject of U.S. versus foreign stand-
Rectifiers for Electrochemical Service-Conversion system ards in the values of efficiency they give. Basically U.S. stand-
packages for cell lines have losses that are a function of volt- ard (IEEE- 1 2A) states that stray load losses must be measured
age. Typical data follow. and corrected to a given operating temperature. Foreign
methods account for these generally as a fixed or arbitrary
dc Efficiency Loss value. For this reason, a comparison of values of efficiency as
(voltage) (percent) (percent) given in Table V will show the U.S. standard to give the lowest
100 96.0 4.0 values of efficiency.
200 97.0 3.0 Accuracy of loss data on the above equipment is generally
300 97.4 2.6 good depending in some tests mainly on the accuracy of the
400 97.7 2.3 test instruments. In switchgear, switchboards, panel boards,
500 97.9 2.1
600 98.0 2.0 motor control centers, motor starters, and power circuit
700 98.1 1.9 breakers, there are no standards that apply, and measurements
800 98.2 1.8 may not be very accurate or repeatable from lab to test floor
900 98.2 1.8
to field location. Basically, they cannot be measured directly.
Static Variable Speed Drives-dc adjustable voltage and ac In medium-voltage switchgear, for instance, there are three
adjustable frequency-adjustable voltage drives vary considerably methods of determining losses. They are 1) calculation,
in equipment, circuitry, and drive motors. Because data would 2) wattmeter measurement, and 3) dc resistance measurement.
be too extensive to list all, only representative ratings are given. Some of the factors that interfere with accurate measurement
Losses given are for all components from ac bus through drive are the following.
motor and at rated speed and load. A) Measurement of dc resistance to get an 12R loss does
not take into consideration the skin effect of ac current
Efficiency Losses in actual operation. The often assumed factor of 1.2 to
hp Speed (percent) (percent) get ac resistance varies with bus configuration and con-
ductor thickness.
50 1750 89.3 10.7
100 1750 90.3 9.7 B) Proximity effect is also neglected; i.e., the effect of the
300 1750 91.0 9.0 field of one phase on the other two. This is difficult to
600 1150 91.9 8.1 calculate with any accuracy.
1000 1150 92.4 7.6
1500 850 92.5 6.5 C) Resistance changes in bus with ambient temperature
and is not linear.
D) Use of wattmeter does not take into consideration
MEASUREMENT OF LOSSES power factor of actual load current.
Test procedures for determining losses in some kinds of E) Resistance changes with age. It may go down on ther-
equipment are well defined by standards; in others their stand- mal cycling in a silver plated joint, whereas it may go
ards make no mention of load losses at all. Equipment stand- up in other kinds.
384 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY
F) Losses vary from unit to unit of the same design because
of difference in materials, workmanship, and production
methods.
G) Since measurements are not made at rated voltage,
dielectic losses, which though small, are neglected
completely.
As an example, the losses of a 2000 A 5 kV breaker in a
cubicle with a 2000 A power bus and a 2000 A run back-bus
was measured by the three methods, and results were
calculated 100 W
dc resistance assumed 1500 W
(with multiplier for skin and proximity effects)
wattmeter 2084 W
(corrected by power factor).
The apparent resistance of the unit assuming 1500 W loss
would be 0.000375 Q2. Based on full-load current at 13.8 kV
and a load power factor of 0.9, the efficiency of the unit
would be 99.994 percent. If in measurement, the value of R
through any of the above reasons increased by 0.0001 &2, the
loss would increase to 1900 W or about 25 percent.
Until now, there have been little or no requests for accurate
loss data and if it is to be an important item for comparison
purposes, it must first be agreed as to how they will be meas-
ured in these kinds of equipment. If it is to be used as a guide
as to where to find and improve losses, present data are suffi-
ciently accurate. There are many hundreds of configurations
of bus, bus size, breakers of various ratings, a wide variety of
instrumentation, protective relaying, metering and potential
current, and control power transformers on switchgear and
other control type equipment. It would require a very expen-
sive and time consuming task to accurately measure, if and
when the measurement procedures were all agreed upon.
Today only a base or average figure per given unit of a given
type is available. The cost of accurate measurement of losses
could well eat into the savings of power consumed by the
equipment unit during its life. In passing, it might be noted
that the difference in losses between manufacturers of like
units in the switchgear area is probably less than the accuracy
of data they could provide.
Loss data are nearly always given on the basis of the equip-
ment being fully loaded. In most cases it is not, and for any
reasonable use, the values must be modified down by its actual
load. In many instances, the loss goes down mainly as an I2R
function, but this does not hold true for some circuit compon-
ents and usually does not hold at light loads. It is an important
factor to consider when analyzing a specific plant's losses. The
above mentioned 2000 A metal-clad breaker would consume
only 375 instead of 1500 W of power at half load.
CHECK LIST OF POSSIBLE SAVINGS
The main purpose of this paper is to point power system
engineers in the direction of where energy losses are or where
to go to start plugging energy leaks. We would miss an oppor-
tunity, however, not to provide a simple check list of ideas on
possible energy savings. Their worth may vary considerably
APPLICATIONS, VOL. IA-14, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1978
from plant to plant. To convert ideas to actual dollar savings is
a specific study for each application.
A) Quite naturally, the place to start is in the power gener-
ation area. Efficiency improvements in converting fuel
energy to electrical energy can be dramatic. The days
of low pressure boilers and steam turbines or low effi-
ciency simple cycle gas turbines as drivers for small
generators are fading fast under today's high fuel
energy cost. Power companies exist because they can
deliver a kilowatt-hour of energy at your plant even
with all of their transmission system at a cheaper cost
than you could generate it because of better cycle effi-
ciency and larger generating units.
B) Examine cable sizes in your distribution system, partic-
ularly in the low voltage area of 208 and 480 V. The
code says that a feeder circuit should have no more
than 3 percent voltage regulation. New economic factors
may say that in actual practice this should be no more
than l½ percent.
C) Reduce lighting loads by the following.
1) Use more efficient light sources such as sodium in
place of mercury vapor on structures and towers. In
cost per million lumen hours, the lighting of a 400 W
high-pressure sodium lamp is 31¢, a 100 W incandes-
cent source is $2.26, and a common candle is $3000.
2) Use more efficient laminaires.
3) Use lighter colors on walls, structures, etc., to reflect
more light.
4) Keep lighting equipment clean.
5) Cut down footcandle levels of lighting, particularly in
nonworking areas such as cat walks, halls, etc. The
Federal Energy Administration recently passed a
guideline for
workstations and desks 50 fc
general work area 30 fc
halls and corridors 10 fc
This guide, though not mandatory yet, will generally
cut present levels in half. In building interiors, a
secondary savings is in decreased air conditioning load.
6) Cut wasted light. Put lighting on timers or photo-
electric controls. In general it has been estimated that
potential savings in lighting loads with the same light-
ing effectiveness are
residential 10-20 percent
commercial 1 5 -3 5 percent
industrial 5-20 percent.
D) Use power factor correction capacitors to reduce sys-
tem losses. Normally we think of capacitors being
installed to improve power factor, release system
capacity, and lower billing demand charges. They also
produce an important savings in energy losses. The
resultant improvement in power factor may result in
an annual gross return in less energy of as much as 20
percent of the annual capacitor equipment investment.
Capacitors in reducing reactive currents reduce the I in
P2R system losses. Since current is reduced in direct
HICKOCK: LOSSES IN POWER SYSTEMS
(a) (b)
Fig. 2.
proportion to power factor improvement, losses are
inversely proportional to the square of the power
factors:
kW losses (c
original PF \2
improved PF / 69 kV primary, 13.8 kV secondary transformer has
loss reduction = original PF
improved PF /
ckvar (2 kvar-ckvar)
kVA2
To this savings, the kilowatt losses of the capacitors,
usually about 1/4 of 1 percent of the kvar rating, must
be deducted.
E) In applying reactors, remember the following.
1) Keep them out of main power flow if possible such as
shown in Fig. 2. The total losses in feeder reactors as
in Fig. 2(a) is 1/3 of those in a main incoming line
reactor as in Fig. 2(b).
2) Keep magnetic clearances given on reactor drawings.
When these are below recommended distances they
incurr losses in magnetic materials that show up as
additional reactor energy losses.
3) Make sure there is no loop of magnetic materials such
as continuous reinforcing bar or structural steel
around reactor. This too adds to reactor losses.
F) In applying motors note the following.
1) Motors increase efficiency as they get larger. Note
that in the preceding data a 500 hp, 1775 r/min
induction motor at 2300 V has 1.4 percent less energy
loss than 2-250 hp motors of the same rating. This
adds to the trend of going to larger unit sizes in com-
pressor drives.
2) Motors decrease efficiency as voltage goes above
4000 V. A 5000 hp motor at 13.2 kV will have 1.3
percent more losses than at 4000 V.
3) Motor efficiency can be improved by design. There is
generally a price adder for this, and it may be accom-
panied by a change of one or more other character-
istics such as starting current, power factor, and start-
ing, pull-in and pull-out torques. It is well worth the
effort to investigate for each particular application.
There is a growing trend to pay the price adder and
get premium efficiency, which at times in large motors
may be as much as 1.5 percent.
4) In selecting new motors remember that synchronous
385
motors are usually 0.5-3.0 percent better in effi-
ciency than induction motors.
5) In replacing older or failed motors consider replace-
ment with new premium high efficiency motors,
which in integral sizes offer a savings in losses of from
1-15 percent. The smaller the motor the greater will
be the savings. Motors operating continuously from
1/2 to full load are good targets for savings by replace-
ments, whereas those of intermittent duty such as
valve operator motors are not.
G) In applying transformers, it is well to remember that
transformers increase in efficiency as they go up in size
for a given type. On a per kVA basis, a 2000 kVA
transformer with a 480 or 2400 V secondary has about
18 percent less in losses than a 750 kVA. A 40 000 kVA,
about 22 percent less in total losses/kVA than two
20 000 kVA units with each at full load.
H) In outdoor switchgear, it is frequently a benefit to
move the line-up indoors and dehumidify it. Besides
the price adder saving/unit in outdoor construction,
there is 300 or 500 W of energy per unit saved in
deletion of heaters. With a fully loaded power bus, it
may be worth the price adder to go to the next higher
bus ampacity rating for the reduction in energy loss.
New vacuum-type switchgear has half the losses than
that of the older air magnetic type.
I) It must be remembered that in decreasing the loss in a
piece of equipment, particularly in the utilization area,
its direct savings on that equipment reflects in small
but significant reduction in losses in other components
up through the power system to the source.
J) Where variable speed drives are found that operate very
much of their time below rated speed, a dc variable
voltage or ac variable frequency drive should be investi-
gated in lieu of a constant speed motor and hydraulic
or hysistersis coupling. A constant speed motor and
coupling operating at half speed, for instance, throws
away half of its consumed energy in heat losses.
K) In process applications involving motor driven centri-
fugal pumps with throttling valves to control flow or
pressure, considerable savings in throttling loss energy
can be achieved by using a variable speed motor drive
controlled by a flow or pressure sensor eliminating the
throttle valve loss along with its cost and high
maintenance.
MOTOR EFFICIENCY INDEX
Since motors consume 64 percent of all electric power in
this country and 76 percent in industry [6], and in smaller
sizes usually have the highest losses of electrical components,
they have been a prime target for improvement in efficiency.
How to improve losses is well-known, but efficiency data have
been sometimes hard to get. Recently, motor vendors working
through NEMA have adopted Standard MG-1 12.53b to help
provide motor users with a means of identifying efficiency in
NEMA frame sizes. Under this new standard, an "efficiency
386 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. IA-14, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1978
TABLE VI
NEMA EFFICIENCY INDEX STANDARD
Index Nominal
Letter Efficiency
A >95.0
-
B 95.0
C 94.1
D 93.0
E 91.7
F 90.2
G 88.5
H 86.5
K 84.0
L 81.5
M 78.5
N 75.5
P 72.0
R 68.0
S 64.0
T 59.5
U 55.0
V 50.5
W -
For 0.8 PF motors above, decrease efficiency by 0.6 percent.
86.5 88.5 90.2 91.7 93.0
F-------F -- ------
Fig. 3. Efficiency index letters.
index" classification in the form of a code letter will be
included on the name plate for the motor full-load efficiency.
These are shown in Table VI.
The new standard recognizes variations in material, manu-
facture, and test results in a group of motors of a given design
and rating. Consequently, individual efficiencies of the group
will form a band. The code letter for nominal efficiency of the
group is stamped on the nameplate. On the basis of probabil-
ities, half of the motors in a group will be above the nominal
efficiency listed for that code letter and half below, with the
lowest not to be less than the minimum value listed. The upper
end of the band will reach up to the nominal value of the next
better code letter. Fig. 3 indicates how this works out.
Since the cost of actual testing of an individual motor is a
significant adder to its price, this band type classification of
efficiency indexes" is a means of supplying the user with a
close value of efficiency without the trouble of an individual
test. Of course, the motor can always be tested for a more
exact value.
OPERATING LOSSES
Though this paper is primarily concerned with eliminating
energy losses by improving efficiency of components, at least
a note must be said about its closely allied copartner in crime-
operating losses. Their possible savings are likely to be much
greater. They involve energy wasted in performing useless
work. This loss, for instance, is typified by the process whose
outdoor lights burn all day because somehow, manually or
automatically, they do not get turned off. These are generally
much easier to find and eliminate. A multistory administration
Minimum building in Houston recently found that they could save
Efficiency $2500/month by operating their air conditioning and heating
blower motors only when heating or cooling was taking place
instead of operating them continuously. Turning off unloaded
94.1
93.0 transformers over a weekend and longer saves their no-load
91.7 kilowatt-hours of energy though both motors and transformers,
90.2
88.5 and control equipment should be checked for excessive start-
86.5 ing operations. These losses may be eliminated at some incon-
84.0 venience, and our plant life style may have to be changed. It is
81.5
78.5 comparable to the type of energy savings achieved in our 55
75.5 mi/h speed limit on automobiles. The real savings here in
72.0 chemical and petroleum plants is in the process operation and
68.0
64.0 must be achieved with close coordination with process engi-
59.5 neers. It is mentioned here only as a big potential area for
55.0 investigation towards saving kilowatt-hours of power.
50.5
46.0 This paper is concerned only with electrical energy losses,
<46.0 but it should be noted that there is probably equal savings to
be made in improvement in energy wasted in mechanical losses.
Better pump and blower efficiency, less friction in conveyor
bearings, less losses in gear and belt systems for speed changing
94.1
are a few places to start.
FUTURE SAVINGS
Recent detailed investigation of overall savings in residential
homes has led to the conclusion that 56 percent of the energy
now being consumed could be saved with little or no incon-
venience to those living there [3]. In a comprehensive two-
year energy conservation program undertaken by the Bell
Telephone System, the company found that it reduced energy
a little over 10 percent. This was accomplished in spite of a 21
percent increase in business. It resulted in the equivalent
savings of 5 million barrels of oil or enough to meet the needs
of 80 000 families for a year [4]. No known studies have been
made in our petroleum and chemical industry on a plant basis,
and because of wide variations in processes and equipment, it
would be hard to make much of a guess even as a broad gener-
alization except on a plant by plant basis. The writer has asked
a number of power system engineers for their estimates on
savings in their plants, and roughly averaged, these lead to a
conclusion that potential electrical savings would be
improved component and system efficiency 5-7 percent
savings in operating losses 2-1 5 percent
Total 2.5-22 percent.
For years everyone fussed about poor gas mileage and
inefficiency in automobiles, but the automobile industry did
not do anything about them until the government intervened.
Now the industry is living under harsh design restrictions. It
could happen the same way in our industry. The Federal
Energy Administration has already issued instructions to
reduce lighting. It has also issued instructions to federal agen-
cies as to which home appliances may be purchased as a func-
tion of energy consumption and losses. The government is
ready to step in if we do not get busy ourselves. Now is the
time for each of us to become "energy conscious."
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. IA-14, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1978
REFERENCES
[1] E. Raia, "Are motors wasting too many kilowatts?" Purchasing,
p. 41, Jan. 13, 1976.
[2] J. Maloney, "Engineer convinced plugging leaks best bet for
saving energy," Austin Amer., Dec. 15, 1975.
[3] H. L. Kertz, "How bell pinches power," IEEE Spectrum p. 54-58,
Feb. 1976.
[4] C. W. Beardsley, "Let there be light, but just enough," IEEE Spec-
trum, p. 28-32.
[5] D. C. Montgomery, "Efficiency-A new emphasis in motor selec-
tion," Fig. 11, TAPPI Conf. Rec., 1977, Atlanta, GA.
[6] A. D. Little, "Energy efficiency and electric motors," National
Tech. Inform. Service Publication, PB-259129, p. ES-3.
Computer Control of an Industrial Electrical System
with In-Plant Generation
THOMAS J. ROE, R. GENE BAGGS, MEMBER, IEEE, C. RICHARD PORCARO
Abstract-Methods, procedures, and details involved in the develop-
ment of a computer control system for the optimization of a large
industrial electrical system are discussed. The system includes unique
approaches to load shedding, automatic kilowatt and kilovar control,
demand control, and other supervisory functions.
INTRODUCTION
INTERRUPTIONS in service from utility power systems are a
serious problem for industries dealing with continuous proc-
esses; In order to cope with this problem at the FMC Corpo-
ration Soda Ash Plant in Green River, WY, a power manage-
ment system (PMS) was developed. The PMS is a computerized
control system that improves the operating reliability of the
plant power system and optimizes power system operations as
well. The soda ash plant was designed and built for the FMC
Corporation by American Bechtel, Inc. The prime PMS equip-
ment was manufactured by the Westinghouse Electric Corpo-
ration.
Paper IOD-75-66, approved by the Petroleum and Chemical Industry
Committee of the IEEE Industry Applications Society for presentation
at the 22nd Annual Petroleum and Chemical Industry Technical Con-
ference, Milwaukee, WI, September 15-17, 1975. Manuscript released
for publication June 29, 1976.
T. J. Roe is with FMC Corporation, Green River, WY 82955.
R. G. Baggs is with Burns and Roe Industrial Services Corporation,
Paramus, NJ 07652.
C. R. Porcaro is with Bechtel, Inc., Houston, TX 77001.
0093-9994/78/0900-0387$00.75 (D IEEE 1978
387
Herbert N. Hickok (M'53) was born in San
"\i' Antonio, TX. He received the B.S. degree
from the University of Texas, TX.
He has been employed by the General
Electric Company, Houston, TX, for more
than thirty years, and he presently holds the
position of Industrial Application Engineer
in the Gulf Coast Area. He works mainly with
a refineries, and chemical, petrochemical, and
electrochemical plants.
Mr. Hickok has been active in both local
and national IEEE activities for many years and is a Registered Profes-
sional Engineer for the State of Texas.
Background
The plant electrical problems were due to the fact that the
plant was not electrically independent from the utility. The
generation is turbine limited to the maximum steam production
for the process. Since the plant is generation deficient, each
interruption caused overload and stability problems that
generally resulted in the loss of many of the process and
power-house functions.
The utility separations are caused by line exposure and soda
ash contamination of pole line insulators and outdoor substa-
tions. Measures to eliminate these problems resulted in only
minor improvements. Efforts to minimize the effects of the
problem involved the use of a conventional underfrequency
load shedding system. Although operating reliability improved,
it was found that the underfrequency load shedding had many
drawbacks mainly because individual feeder loads were manu-
ally selected. These drawbacks included the following. -
1) There could be only two priorities - critical or non-
critical.
2) It could only protect for loss of the utility. Loss of a
part (or "island") of the power system was not protected.
3) The system would always under or oven load shed
because
a) plant loads are cyclic,
b) generation varied with process steam demand,
c) some large mine loads could be switched remotely
between different high-voltage buses, and
d) reaction time was relatively slow.