Electric Power Systems Research 76 (2006) 916–927

Loss evaluation of HVAC and HVDC transmission

solutions for large offshore wind farms
N. Barberis Negra a , J. Todorovic b , T. Ackermann c,∗
aPolitecnico of Turin, Department of Electrical Engineering, Italy
b ELEKTROPRENOS, Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina
c Royal Institute of Technology, Teknikringen 33, 10044 Stockholm, Sweden

Received 12 May 2005; received in revised form 29 August 2005; accepted 9 November 2005
Available online 2 May 2006

Abstract
This paper presents a comparison of transmission losses for different technical transmission solutions for large offshore wind farms. Three
technical solutions are analyzed, i.e. HVAC, HVDC Line Commutated Converter (LCC) and HVDC Voltage Source Converter (VSC). The losses
for each technology are calculated for wind farms with different ratings and various distances to shore. In addition, solutions with combinations
of two and the three different transmission technologies are analyzed and compared. Based on this comparison, further analysis regarding the
economical feasibility can be performed in order to determine the most economic solutions for the transmission system of an offshore wind farm.
© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: HVAC; HVDC Line Commutated Converter; HVDC Voltage Source Converter; Offshore wind farm

1. Introduction
Today’s installed offshore wind farms have relatively
small installed rated capacity (max. 160 MW) and are placed
within a short distance (max. 20 km) from the shore [1].
Overall economics of offshore wind farms tend to increase
with wind farm size, hence future projects will be sig-
nificantly larger and most likely further away from shore.
On the one hand, offshore locations have better wind con-
ditions than onshore ones: this means higher energy out-
put. On the other hand, longer transmission distances lead
to higher investment costs as well as higher energy losses
[3].
All currently (mid 2005) existing offshore wind farms are
connected to shore by HVAC cables and only three of them
have offshore substations [1]. For large wind farms, with hun-
dreds of MW of rated capacity, and long distances to shore,
offshore substations would be necessary for stepping up the
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 7066 39457.
E-mail addresses: nicola.barberis@libero.it (N.B. Negra),
todorovicjovan@hotmail.com (J. Todorovic), Thomas.Ackermann@ieee.org
(T. Ackermann).
voltage level (HVAC) and/or for converting the power to HVDC
[3].
The connection of large offshore wind farms (100 MW)
impose a challenging task. The proper transmission solution, i.e.
HVAC or HVDC, can have an important influence on the over-
all project feasibility. Small differences in transmission losses
between two solutions could cause large differences in energy
output over a project time of 20 years.
In this paper, system transmission losses for three differ-
ent transmission systems, i.e. HVAC, HVDC Line Commutated
Converter (LCC) and HVDC Voltage Source Converter (VSC)
are compared. Table 1 shows a comparison of the three trans-
mission technologies considering current technology and main
components.
The comparison in this paper considers 500 and 1000 MW
wind farms located in an area with an average wind speed of
9 m/s and varying distance to shore (up to 200 km). The trans-
mission system losses are calculated as losses of the annual wind
farm production (in percent). It is assumed that the wind farm
has an availability of 100%.
Further analyses with different size of the wind farm (400
up to 1000 MW), different average wind speed (8–11 m/s) and
different distances from shore (up to 300 km) are performed and
presented in refs. [5,6].

0378-7796/$ – see front matter © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2005.11.004
 N.B. Negra et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 76 (2006) 916–927 917

Table 1
Comparison HVAC-HVDC transmission system [1–6,23]
HVAC HVDC LCC HVDC VSC

Maximum available capacity per system 800 MW at 400 kV Up to 600 MW (submarine Up to 350 MW installed
transmission)
380 MW at 220 kV 500 MW announced
220 MW at 132 kV (1080 MW proposed)
All up to 100 km
Voltage level 132 kV installed Up to ±500 kV Up to ±150 kV
220 and 400 kV under (±300 kV proposed)
development
Offshore installed projects Many small installation Not yet installed Only test project (oil platform
(Table 1.5 in ref. [6]) in Norway)
Black start capability Yes No Yes
Technical capability for network support No, SVC are required to No, capacitor banks or Yes, reactive power can be
supply reactive power Statcom are required to supply generated or absorbed by the
reactive power to the valves VSC devices
Offshore station in operation Yes No On an oil platform
Decoupling of connected networks No Yes Yes
Cable model Resistances, capacitance and Resistance Resistance
induction
Requirements for ancillary service Not necessary Yes for low wind speeds Yes for low wind speeds
conditions conditions
Space requirements offshore substation Smallest size Biggest size Medium size
Installation costs Small for station (only High cost for station Station 30–40% more expensive
transformer) high cost for (transformer, filters, capacitors than LCC solution (IGBT more
cable banks, thyristor valves etc.) expensive than thyristor valves)
Low costs for cable cable more expensive than LCC

2. Aggregated wind farm model turbine power curve, that is representative for the aggregated
power output of the wind farm (Fig. 1). The jth elements of the
In order to evaluate transmission losses for a wind farm, it is discrete multi-turbine power curve, PT,j , can be calculated as
necessary to exactly define the output of the wind farm over time.
M


Thus an aggregated model based on Holttinen and Norgaard [7]
PT,j = Ps,j Ps,j (1)
has been considered. With this model it is possible to define an
j
output power curve for the aggregated wind turbines, i.e. wind
farm. where M is equal to 11, Ps,j the jth element of the single-turbine
Input data for the model are: power curve and Ps,j is the probability of a spatial wind speed

- wind farm size of 500 or 1000 MW;

- standard 5 MW wind turbine;
- wind speed in the area with average wind speed of 9 m/s rep-
resented by Rayleigh distribution;
- dimension D of the wind farm equal to 25 for 500 MW and
50 km for 1000 MW (front side in respect to the direction of
the wind) [3];
- turbulence intensity I equal to 10%.

In order to obtain the aggregated model, it is necessary to

generate a normalised distribution that represents the probabil-
ity distribution function for the wind speed for individual wind
turbines in the area at a given time. To obtain this distribution, it
is necessary to get a normalised standard deviation as a function
of D and I and then multiply this value for the average wind speed
of the area: from the obtained standard deviation it is possible
to plot the wind speed distribution. Fig. 1. Comparison between a single wind turbine power curve and the wind
By applying the wind speed distribution to the power curve of farm power curve for a 1000 MW wind farm and an average wind speed in the
a single wind turbine, it is possible to obtain a smoothed multi- area of 9 m/s, D = 50 km.
918 N.B. Negra et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 76 (2006) 916–927
Fig. 2. Duration curve of a 1000 MW wind farm with different average wind
speeds in the area.
distribution. In order to get a good result the sum should be done
as a minimum for a wind speed range from −5 to +5 m/s around
the jth element in the power curve: for this reason M is chosen
equal to 11.
In Fig. 1, a comparison between a single wind turbine power
curve and a wind farm power curve is given. Up to around 13 m/s,
the wind farm generates more power than the single wind turbine
due to the variation of wind around the chosen value of ±5 m/s.
For instance, considering an average wind speed of 10 m/s, it is
assumed that in the area of the wind farm, the wind speed varies
between 5 and 15 m/s. Hence, some turbines operate at lower
wind speed and others at higher, but since the power obtained
from the wind is proportional to the third power of the wind
speed, turbines operating at higher speed give a more relevant
contribution to the total power generated by the wind farm.
In order to represent the aggregated power curve for the whole
wind farm, it is necessary to multiple the obtained power curve
by the swept area and the number of installed wind turbines.
In Fig. 2, the duration curve for a 1000 MW wind farm with
different average wind speeds (8, 10 and 11 m/s) is given.
From Fig. 2, it is possible to see that with increasing average
wind speed, the rated wind farm capacity can be generated for
longer time period. At 11 m/s the wind farm will operate at rated
capacity for almost 40% of the time, which is almost twice as
long as for a wind farm would operate at rated capacity at a
location with 9 m/s average wind speed.
3. HVAC transmission system
The production of large amounts of reactive power can be
considered the main limiting factor of HVAC cable utilization
in transmission systems for long distances. A comparison of
the transmission capacity of different cables operated at certain
voltage levels (132, 220 and 400 kV) and different compensation
solutions (only onshore or at both ends) is presented in Fig. 3.
Cable limits, i.e. maximal permissible current, voltage swing of
receiving end between no-load and full load (<10%) and phase
Fig. 3. Transmission capacity of different HVDC transmission cables for three
voltage levels, 132, 220 and 400 kV.
variation (<30◦ ), should not be exceeded, see also Brakelmann
[8]. For the here considered cables, the maximal current is the
only limit that is reached, the other two are not critical con-
straints.
The critical distance is achieved when half of the reactive
current produced by the cable reaches nominal current at the
end of one cable. For the here considered cables, the critical
distances is:
- Lmax,132 kV = 370 km;
- Lmax,220 kV = 281 km;
- Lmax,400 kV = 202 km.
3.1. Components of the HVAC transmission solution
The voltage level within an offshore wind farm grid is typ-
ically in the range of 30–36 kV, hence for large offshore wind
farms and/or long distances to shore, a substation is necessary
to step up the voltage for the transmission to shore.
An HVAC transmission system used for connection of large
offshore wind farms to the onshore grid contains:
- HVAC submarine transmission cable(s);
- offshore transformer(s);
- compensation units, thyristor controlled reactors (TCR), both
onshore and offshore;
- onshore transformer(s), depending on a grid voltage.
These components provide the transmission from an offshore
collection point of the wind turbines’ power (offshore substa-
tion) to a grid connection point placed onshore.
3.2. Loss calculations
3.2.1. Models and assumptions
Cable loss calculations are performed based on Brakelmann
[9]. Loss calculations take into account the current distribution
along cable line and temperature dependence.
 N.B. Negra et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 76 (2006) 916–927 919

Table 2 cable, i.e. I = f(x), the following integral must be used to calculate
Cables’ parameters and main characteristics the cable losses:
Cable 132 kV 220 kV 400 kV   l0
 Pmax 
48 × 10−6 48 × 10−6 45.5 × 10−6
Pl0 = I 2 (x)υθ (x) dx + PD (4)
Resistance (
/m) l0 IN
2
x=0
Inductance (mH/km) 0.34 0.37 0.39
Capacitance (mF/km) 0.23 × 10−3 0.18 × 10−3 0.18 × 10−3 Solving integral (4) for length l0 , the cable losses per unit
Nominal current (A) 1055 1055 1323
length are obtained. Multiplying the integral with actual cable
Cable section (mm2 ) 1000 1000 1200
Max operating 90 90 90 length l0 , the cable losses in W are achieved. This method pro-
temperature (◦ C) vides an accurate calculation of the cables losses [9].
In order to calculate transformer losses, equivalent param-
eters like Rfe , representing iron losses and Rcu , representing
For 132 and 220 kV voltage transmission levels, three core copper losses, are defined. These data can be obtained from
XLPE insulated submarine cables are used while for 400 kV nominal transformer loss data. As TCRs are used as compensa-
level three single core XLPE submarine cables are considered in tion units, it is assumed that they have the same no load losses
trefoil formation. Cable characteristics are tabulated in Table 2. as an equivalent transformer with the same VA rating and half
According to Brakelmann in ref. [9], the cable losses per unit of load losses of an equivalent transformer with the same VA
length can be calculated as followed rating [10].
 2
I
P  = (Pmax

− PD
) υθ + P D
(2) 3.2.2. Results
IN
System losses for average wind speed of 9 m/s, for three
where Pmax is the nominal total cable loss, PD the dielectric
transmission voltage levels (132, 220 and 400 kV) and for two
loss, per core, I the load current, IN the nominal current, υθ the wind farm configurations of 500 and 1000 MW are presented in
temperature correction coefficient that is calculated as: Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
cα Transmission system losses l% have been calculated as
υθ =   2  (3) N

cα + αT θmax 1 − IIN

Plost,i pi ha
where αT is the temperature coefficient of the conductor resistiv- l% = Ni
(5)
ity (1/K), cα the constant, i.e. cα = 1 − αT (20 ◦ C − θ amb ), θ max

Pgen,i pi ha
the maximal temperature rise, i.e. 90 − 15 = 75 ◦ C, the ambient
i
temperature is supposed to be θ amb = 15 ◦ C.
As the cable current along the cable is not constant for a where Plost,i represents the transmission losses at wind speed i,
specific wind farm output, but depends on the position along a Pgen,i the power generated by the wind farm at wind speed i,

Table 3
Transmission losses of a 500 MW wind farm, with 9 m/s of average wind speed in the
area in % of annual wind farm production

Table 4
Transmission losses of a 1000 MW wind farm, with 9 m/s of average wind speed in the
area in % of annual wind farm production
920 N.B. Negra et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 76 (2006) 916–927

mission systems over long distances both on land and submarine

all around the world, see refs. [16,17]. A draw back of this trans-
mission solution is the required reactive power to the thyristor
valves in the converter and may be the generation of harmonics
in the circuit [16].

4.1. Components of the transmission system

Main components of the transmission system based on LCC

devices are:
Fig. 4. Participation of each transmission component in total transmission losses
for 500 MW wind farm, 9 m/s of average wind speed, at 100 km transmission
- AC and DC filters;
distance, three three-core 132 kV submarine cables [5]. - converter transformer;
- converter based on thyristor valves;
N the number of wind speed class considered for the model, pi - smoothing reactor;
the probability to have a certain wind speed I, which is obtained - capacitor banks or STATCOM;
by the Rayleigh distribution, h the number of hours in a year - DC cable and return path;
and a is the availability of the wind park. In our calculations the - auxiliary power set;
availability is defined as 100%. - protection and control devices (i.e.: cooling devices, surge
Gray cells in Table 3 represent the best transmission solu- arrester).
tions with the lowest losses, while number of cables indicate
the number of cables required for the particular solution. In the All these components are considered in the following loss
132 kV column, number of cables presents the number of cables calculations, except the STATCOM: for the influence of the
required for the 200 km. STATCOM on total losses we would like to refer to ref. [15].
Within the loss calculations, a new cable is added to the wind
farm whenever the transmission system requires more capacity 4.2. Loss calculations
(depending on the wind speed). The same approach applies for
Table 4. 4.2.1. Models and assumptions
Fig. 4 shows the share each transmission component con- In order to calculate transmission losses for different wind
tributes to the total transmission losses for a 500 MW wind farm farm sizes, data from existing HVDC LCC installations are con-
with a transmission distance of 100 km using a 132 kV cable. It sidered, see also refs. [16,17].
can be seen that cable losses represent by far the highest share Converter stations have been built in sizes of 250, 440, 500
of the total transmission losses. Thus, in order to decrease the and 600 MW. Losses have not been calculated in this case, but
total transmission losses, special attention should be given to the they are obtained from Siemens: they vary typically with a lin-
cable selection. ear trend between 0.11% (no load) and 0.7% (rated power) of
From Tables 3 and 4, it can be seen that only 220 and 400 kV the rated power [16]. Both monopolar and bipolar solutions are
solutions are considered. These two submarine XLPE cable considered depending on the number of converter stations and
designs are, however, still under development [11]. Especially on the size of the wind farm.
the 400 kV XLPE submarine cable is currently only available for Cable models are based on Brakelmann’s theory [8] and mod-
short lengths as appropriate joints and splices for longer lengths els take into account variations of temperature in the cable in
are not available yet. Considering distances longer than 200 km, order to obtain more realistic results. In Table 5, an overview of
132 kV solutions prevail [5], as at such long distances, 220 and the selected cable solutions are presented: all the configurations
400 kV cables generate large amounts of reactive power. are based on mass impregnated cables with conductors made of
copper.
4. HVDC System with Line Commutated Converter Lost power Pcab in the cable is calculated with formulae:
I2
Line Commutated Converter (LCC) based transmission sys- Pcab = PL max v
2 θ
(6)
tems have been successfully installed in many bulk power trans- IN

Table 5
Cables data for the model compiled and calculated from [8,17–19]
Rated power (MW) 250 440 500 600
Voltage level (kV) 250 350 400 450
Nominal current (kA) 1 1.257 1.25 1.333
Cable section (mm2 ) 1000 1400 1200 1600
Resistance (
/km) at 20 ◦ C 0.018 0.013 0.02 0.011
Max operating temperature (◦ C) 55 55 55 55
 N.B. Negra et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 76 (2006) 916–927 921

Table 6
Transmission losses for different converter station layouts with 9 m/s of average wind speed in the area in
% of annual wind farm production

CS, converter station.

PL max = R0 cm IN
2
lcable (7) When more than one converter station is used for the trans-
mission, the total power is divided between the different con-
cm = 1 + α20 (θL max + θU − 20) (8) verter station depending on the configuration that gives the
lowest total losses.
cα = 1 − α20 (20 − θU ) (9) Converter stations are shut down when low power is gener-
cα ated in the wind farm: in these conditions, only the losses of
vθ =   2  (10) protection and control devices are considered and these devices
cα + α20 θL max 1 − IIN are supplied by the auxiliary power set.

where R0 is the DC resistance of the conductor at 20 ◦ C per unit 4.2.2. Results

length [18,19], α20 the constant mass temperature coefficient
at 20 ◦ C [18,19], PL max the lost power in the cable at its max-
imum operating temperature, θ Lmax = 55 ◦ C is the maximum
operating temperature of the insulator, θ U = 15 ◦ C is the ambient
temperature, IN the nominal current of the cable, I the current
flowing into the cable and lcable is the length of the cable used
for the transmission.
Three different layouts are considered for a 500 MW wind
farm and four for a 1000 MW wind farm: these configurations
are listed in Table 6 with the corresponding system losses.
Transmission system losses l% have been calculated with (5)
and data from Table 5.
The gray marked cells in Table 6, represent the configuration
with the lowest losses.

Fig. 5. Loss participation to the overall system losses from data in Table 5 (CS, converter station).
922 N.B. Negra et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 76 (2006) 916–927

For some configurations, participation of each component in sible to calculate the losses for the total converter station (350
the system losses of the system is shown in Fig. 5. and 220 MW). In general, the idea is to divide the total system
Converter stations are responsible for the highest share of the losses into three components (two stations + the cable) in order
overall system losses; participation of the cable increases with to use the data for further calculations.
cable lengths. It should be noted that the calculation method for Considering the system represented in Fig. 6, that is valid for
of the cable losses is significantly more detailed than the method the VSC and LCC HVDC transmission solutions, and assuming
for the calculation of the losses in the converter station, however, the percent losses xS are equal in both converter stations, it’s
in discussion with the manufacturer of the equipment our results possible to obtain
were confirmed.
P1 = (1 − xs )Pin (11)
5. HVDC System with Voltage Source Converter  2
P1
PC = P1 − P2 = RI 2 = R (12)
Voltage Source Converter (VSC) technology is newer than the VC
previous one and relevant projects have been installed only from Pout = (1 − xs )P2 (13)
1997 [17]. The advantage of HVDC VSC solutions are based on
its capability to supply and absorb reactive power and to support where VC is the rated voltage of the cable and I is the current
power system stability; on the other hand line to ground faults flowing in it. Defining then equation
can be problematic.
R
(1 − xs )3 Pin
2
− (1 − xs )2 Pin + Pout = 0 (14)
5.1. Components of the transmission system VC2

it is possible to calculate the value xS since all the other param-

Main components of the transmission system based on VSC eters are known.
devices are: In order to consider the temperature dependence of the resis-
tance, it is possible to follow the procedure shown by Brakel-
- VSC converter station circuit breaker; mann [9] for an AC cable, taking into account the DC nature of
- system side harmonic filter; the system (Eqs. (7)–(10)). It is then possible to calculate the
- interface transformer; resistance of the cable as
- converter side harmonic filter; vθ
- VSC unit; R = PL max 2 (15)
IN
- VSC DC capacitor;
- DC harmonic filter; Since the data for the cable provide only the input and the
- DC reactor; output power for the whole transmission system, it is neces-
- DC cable or overhead transmission line; sary to solve the calculations in a loop with (7)–(10), (14) and
- auxiliary power set. (15) in order to obtain the value of the current in the cable and
thus calculate the resistance. Manufactures are working on larger
All these components are considered in the following loss converter station ratings; however, no detailed data are publicly
calculation, except the auxiliary power set due to lack of infor- available for those new converter stations. Hence, the losses for
mation about its losses. a 500 MW converter station are estimated from the losses of a
350 MW converter station.
5.2. Loss calculations Again, for the loss calculations of the cable Brakelmann’s
theory [9] is used and the model takes into account variations of
5.2.1. Models and assumptions temperature in the cable in order to obtain more realistic results.
In order to calculate system losses for different wind farm In Table 7, the cable data used in the following are presented: all
sizes, and due to lack of data from manufactures, data are mainly cables are based on PE solution, conductors are made of copper
used from installed projects. For instance, system loss data and rated voltage is 150 kV. The same approach described in
are extracted from installed projects such as the Cross Sound Eqs. (6)–(10) is used for the calculations of the losses in cables.
Cable [21] and the Murray Link Project [22]. By calculating When more than one converter system is considered for the
the transmission losses of those projects, see ref. [9], it is pos- transmission, the total power is divided between the different

Fig. 6. System block diagram.

 N.B. Negra et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 76 (2006) 916–927 923

Table 7 Table 8
Cable data for the VSC model compiled and calculated from [9,17–19] Transmission losses for different converter station layouts with 9 m/s of average
wind speed in the area in % of annual wind farm production
Rated power (MW) 220 350 500
Nominal current (kA) 0.793 1.2 1.68
Cable section (mm2 ) 1300 1300 2000
Resistance (
/km) at 20 ◦ C 0.014 0.014 0.01
Max operating temperature (◦ C) 70 70 70

VSC systems based on the lowest overall transmission system

losses.
Converter stations are shut down when power production in
the wind farm is lower than transmission system losses: in these
conditions, only the losses of protection and control systems
are considered and these devices are supplied by the auxiliary
power set. However, due to lack of information, these losses are
neglected.
5.2.2. Results
Three different layouts are considered for a 500 MW wind
farm and two for a 1000 MW wind farm: these configurations
are shown in Table 8 with the corresponding transmission losses
of each system.
Transmission system losses l% have been calculated with (5)
and data from Table 7.
The gray cells in Table 8 represent the configuration with
the lowest losses. For some configurations, contribution of each
component to the overall system losses is shown in Fig. 7. It
can be seen that the converter stations contribute most to the
overall system losses; and that the share of the cable increases
with lengths.
CS, converter station.
6. Comparison of different solutions
In this section, a comparison of the three different trans-
mission system is presented. From results in Sections 3–5, it
can be concluded that AC solution provides the lowest losses
for a distance of 50 km from shore, while for 100, 150 and
200 km from the shore the HVDC LCC solution has lowest
transmission losses (Tables 9 and 10). In the tables, ‘Config.’
stands for the rated power and the voltage level (between break-
ers) of the transmission for the HVAC system and the rated
power of the converter station for the two HVDC solutions
and ‘Nr Cables’ stands for the number of cable required for the
transmission.
In Fig. 8, the overall system losses are shown for all three
transmission systems (HVAC, HVDC LCC and HVDC VSC)
for 400 up to 1000 MW wind farm at 0–300 km from the shore.

Fig. 7. Loss participation to the overall system from data in Table 7, VSC system (CS, converter station).
924 N.B. Negra et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 76 (2006) 916–927

Table 9
Loss comparison for 500 MW wind farm at 9 m/s average wind speed in the area

CS, converter station.

Fig. 8 shows that an HVAC system leads to the lowest
transmission system losses for a distance of up to 55–70 km
(depending on the size of the wind farm, which influences
the configuration of the transmission system). For longer dis-
tances, HVDC LCC becomes the solution with lowest losses.
Dash–dotted lines in Fig. 8 shows the 1, 1.6 and 2% loss line
depending on wind farm sizes and distances. These lines show
that in the AC-area, losses do not vary so much and they remain
nearly constant for increasing wind farm capacity and almost
constant distances to shore. In the LCC-area instead total trans-
mission losses vary much more with changing wind farm size
and distance: this behaviour is caused by the configuration cho-
sen for the transmission of the power with the LCC system. In
fact for each wind farm size a different combination of converter
stations is considered.
After having calculated these losses, it could be interesting
to consider investment costs in order to obtain a wider overview
and a more realistic comparison of the analyzed solutions. Based
on the results presented in previous sections, an analysis of the
investment costs was presented by Lazaridis and Ackermann in
ref. [24].
6.1. Combination of two transmission systems
In some cases it might be beneficial to combine different
transmission solutions in order to improve some features of

Table 10
Loss comparison for 1000 MW wind farm at 9 m/s average wind speed in the area

CS, converter station.

 N.B. Negra et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 76 (2006) 916–927 925

Configurations are defined according to the current technol-

Fig. 8. MW-km plane, comparison HVAC-HVDC LCC for different wind farm
size (400–1000 MW) and different distances to shore (0–300 km) for average
wind speed of 9 m/s.
the overall system (system reliability, power stability, etc.). For
example, an HVDC VSC transmission system, can be used to
improve the stability of the system, since it can control the gen-
eration and absorption of reactive power in the system.
ogy and data for the components are taken from the previous
sections. When a combination is chosen, it is assumed that the
system with highest losses is the main transmission component
and the lowest one is installed with lower transmitted power in
order to decrease the total system losses. When instead system
losses of both systems are close, it is assumed that both trans-
mission systems transmit the same amount of power. When a
HVDC VSC solution is considered, some limitations in the pos-
sible combinations must be considered due to the small range of
rated power of the available converter station.
Results are presented in Tables 11 and 12: in row ‘Config.’
the rated capacity of the relative transmission system is given (in
brackets: the voltage level of the HVAC system), in ‘Nr Cables’
the number of cables necessary for each transmission system
and ‘at x km’ the corresponding system losses for this distance
are given. In the tables, symbol ‘+’ divides the kind of system
used for the transmission.
From the tables, it can be seen that the combination of two
different transmission systems never improves the overall sys-
tem losses compared to configurations with a single transmission
system. However, system losses of the system with highest losses
decrease with the combination with another system. For exam-
ple, a HVDC VSC system has losses of 4.05% (Table 9) if it
operates alone at 50 km from the shore, but its losses could be

Table 11
Comparison of combined transmission solutions losses for a 500 MW wind farm at 9 m/s average wind speed
AC + VSC AC + LCC LCC + VSC

Config. 280 MW 150 MW 200 MW 60 MW 300 MW + 220 MW 250 MW + 350 MW

(400 kV) + 220 MW (220 kV) + 350 MW (220 kV) + 300 MW (220 kV) + 440 MW
No. of cables 1+2 1+2 1+1 1+1 1+2 1+2
At 50 km 2.02 3.11 1.54 1.70 2.61 2.86
Config. 280 MW 150 MW 370 MW 250 MW 300 MW + 220 MW 250 MW + 350 MW
(400 kV) + 220 MW (220 kV) + 350 MW (400 kV) + 130 MW (400 kV) + 250 MW
No. of cables 1+2 1+2 1+1 1+1 1+2 1+2
At 100 km 3.21 3.94 2.57 2.55 2.89 3.22
Config. 280 MW 150 MW 370 MW 250 MW 300 MW + 220 MW 250 MW + 350 MW
(220 kV) + 220 MW (132 kV) + 350 MW (220 kV) + 130 MW (132 kV) + 250 MW
No. of cables 1+2 1+2 2+1 2+1 1+2 1+2
At 200 km 6.88 6.98 6.89 6.55 3.46 3.93

Table 12
Comparison of combined transmission solutions losses for a 1000 MW wind farm at 9 m/s average wind speed
AC + VSC AC + LCC LCC + VSC

Config. 200 MW (220 kV) + 800 MW 200 MW (400 kV) + 800 MW 300 MW (400 kV) + 700 MW 500 MW + 500 MW 250 MW + 800 MW
No. of cables 1+4 1+2 1+2 1+4 1+6
At 50 km 3.20 1.44 1.31 2.46 3.18
Config. 500 MW (400 kV) + 500 MW 800 MW (400 kV) + 250 MW 900 MW (400 kV) + 130 MW 500 MW + 500 MW 250 MW + 800 MW
No. of cables 2+4 1+1 2+1 1+4 1+6
At 100 km 3.02 2.56 2.32 2.70 3.58
Config. 500 MW (220 kV) + 500 MW 800 MW (220 kV) + 250 MW 900 MW (220 kV) + 130 MW 500 MW + 500 MW 250 MW + 800 MW
No. of cables 2+4 3+1 4+1 1+4 1+6
At 200 km 6.66 6.68 7.18 3.16 3.93
926 N.B. Negra et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 76 (2006) 916–927
Fig. 9. 1000 MW wind farm at different distances to shore, case 1.
decrease up to 2% if it is combined with a HVAC transmission
system.
6.2. Combination of three transmission systems
Large wind farms (up to 1000 MW) are supposed to be
installed over a wide geographical area. Large offshore wind
turbines (5 MW) could be placed at distance of 1 km from each
other. Such a wind farm might require more than one offshore
substation with different distance to shore and different grid
connection conditions. One example of such a wind farm con-
figuration is presented in Fig. 9 (based on a proposed 1000 MW
offshore wind farm in Scotland). From the considered 1000 MW
wind farm, power can be transmitted by three different transmis-
sion systems, characterized by different distances to shore and
different grid strengths at the onshore connection point.
The AC system might be used at short distances with small
amount of transmitted power and connected to a weak grid. The
HVDC VSC system might be considered the best solution to
support power system stability and therefore might be connected
to a medium-strong grid with transmission of a larger amount
of power. The HVDC LCC solution has the lowest transmission
losses and thus it is used for transmission of a large amount of
power for a long distance to a strong grid connection point.
Three cases of power distributions among the three transmis-
sion system options are considered:
1. 80 MW by AC, 220 MW by HVDC VSC and 700 MW by
HVDC LCC;
2. 50 MW by AC, 350 MW by HVDC VSC and 600 MW by
HVDC LCC;
Table 13
Percent of average transmission losses of system in Fig. 2, and participation of
each transmission system in total losses
Cases Losses AC participation LCC VSC
(%) (%) participation (%) participation (%)
Case 1 2.60 5.27 72.26 22.47
Case 2 2.71 4.58 56.8 39.19
Case 3 2.31 11.62 63.71 25.37
3. 180 MW by AC, 220 MW by HVDC VSC and 600 MW by
HVDC LCC.
Depending on the wind farm production, different transmis-
sion paths to shore are considered. For example in case 1, if the
wind farm produces less than 80 MW, only the AC transmis-
sion system is used. For the range 80–700 MW, only the HVDC
LCC solution is operated, whereas between 700 and 780 MW,
HVDC LCC operates at 700 MW and remaining power is trans-
mitted by the AC system. For a power production of between
780 and 1000 MW, HVDC LCC and AC systems operate at rated
capacity and the remaining energy is transmitted by the HVDC
VSC system. This configuration is chosen in order to obtain
the lowest value for the total losses of the transmission sys-
tem. It must be mentioned that in reality the operation mode
might be differ from the here proposed solution, particularly
in regards to the operation of the HVDC VSC which might be
used to support the operation of the onshore grid during certain
times.
Losses for the wind farm are presented in Table 13. HVDC
LCC system causes the highest share of the total transmission
system losses, as expected, due to the fact that it transmits
the greatest amount of power. The higher the VSC share, the
higher the overall losses. Vice versa, if more power is transmit-
ted via the HVAC solution, total transmission losses decrease,
but this might create problems for the stability of the onshore
grid as the onshore grid connection point can be considered
weak.
7. Conclusions
Interest in large offshore wind farms has increased over the
last years. Design and specification of the transmission system
to shore is critical for the economic feasibility of very large
(200 MW) offshore wind farms. This paper investigates the
total transmission losses of three transmission solutions, i.e.
HVAC, HVDC LCC and HVDC VSC.
In general, HVAC solution leads to the lowest losses for dis-
tances of up to 55–70 km from the shore, whereas after this
distance, HVDC LCC solution has lower losses and is therefore
preferable from the losses point of view. However, many other
aspects will influence the final choice of the design, e.g. num-
ber of cables required, reliability, life cycle costs, integration
into the onshore power system, etc. Further studies are therefore
needed to determine the preferred design of transmission system
between the offshore wind farm and the shore.
 N.B. Negra et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 76 (2006) 916–927
References
[1] Information found at http://www.home.wxs.nl/∼windsh/offshore.html
(last visit January 2005).
[3] R. Gasch, J. Twele, Wind Power Plants: Fundamentals, Design and Oper-
ation, Solar praxis AG, Germany, 2001.
[5] J. Todorovic, Losses Evaluation of HVAC Connection of Large Offshore
Wind Farms, Master Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm,
Sweden, December 2004.
[6] N. Barberis Negra, Losses Evaluation of HVDC Solutions for Large
Offshore Wind Farms, Master Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm, Sweden, January 2005.
[7] H. Holttinen, P. Norgaard, A multi-machine power curve approach, in:
Presented at Nordic Wind Power Conference 1–2 March 2004, Chalmers
University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden, 2004.
[8] H. Brakelmann, Efficiency of HVAC power transmission from offshore-
windmills to the grid, in: IEEE Bologna PowerTech Conference,
Bologna, Italy, June, 2003, pp. 23–26.
[9] H. Brakelmann, Loss determination for long three-phase high-voltage
submarine cables, ETEP (2003) 193–198.
[10] S. Lundberg, Performance Comparison of Wind Park Configurations,
Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Electric Power Engineering of Chalmers
University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden, 2003.
[11] F. Rudolfsen, G.E. Balog, G. Evenset, Energy transmission on long
three core/three foil XLPE power cables, in: JICABLE—International
Conference on Insulated Power Cables, 2003.
927
[15] P. Cartwright, L. Xu, C. Sasse, Grid integration of large offshore wind
farm using hybrid HVDC transmission, in: Presented at Nordic Wind
Power Conference, Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, Swe-
den, 2004.
[16] Losses of converter station, www.siemens.com (last visit January
2005).
[17] List, of projects found at www.abb.com (last visit January 2005).
[18] IEC Conductors on Insulated Cables, IEC Standards 60228,
1978.
[19] IEC Electric Cables, IEC Standards 60287, 1994.
[21] B.D. Railing, J.J. Miller, P. Steckley, G. Moreau, P. Bard, L. Ronström,
J. Lindberg, Cross sound cable project—second generation VSC tech-
nology for HVDC, in: Paper presented at the Cigré conference, Paris,
France, August 29–September 03, 2004.
[22] I. Mattsson, A. Ericsson, B.D. Railing, J.J. Miller, B. Williams, G.
Moreau, C.D. Clarke, Murray link—the longest underground HVDC
cable in the world, in: Paper B4-103 presented at the Cigré conference,
Paris, France, August 29–September 03, 2004.
[23] T. Ackermann (Ed.), Wind Power in Power System, Wiley, UK,
2005.
[24] L. Lazaridis, A. Ackermann, Economic comparison of HVAC
and HVDC solutions for large offshore windfarms under special
consideration of reliability, in: Presented at the Fifth International
Workshop on Large-Scale Integration of Wind Power and Transmission
Networks for Offshore Wind Farms, Glasgow, Scotland, April,
2005.