Upload
doandien
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Presented at the 2015 PIESA Conference – 16 September 2015
Background of SWER in Zim
Pilot Description
The SWER Technology
Some Comparisons and
Perceived Benefits
General learning points
SWER going forward
The SWER pilot project was agreed at a 2009 PIESA
meeting with the following objectives
To elevate the experience sharing within PIESA from theory
to practice
To demonstrate the SWER technology as a practical model
for enhancing electrification efforts.
To push for technologies that provide greater electrification
rates without exhausting the budget (stretching the dollar)
In May 2010, a SWER workshop was held in Harare
and Mudzi (pilot site).
Attendants were drawn from PIESA member
countries and engineers from ZETDC and REA.
The workshop was for discussion on SWER
principles and preparing for the actual pilot project.
PIESA supported by footing the costs of availing
consultants from ESKOM (SA)
PIESA
•Technical
support
ZETDC
•Operation &
maintenance
REA
• Installation
SWER
The Mudzi SWER pilot project was a 30.4km line of
19.1kV SWER line and 5km of 240V single phase and
dual phase lines
The project serves 7 localities comprising of 13
institutions which are clinics, primary and
secondary schools, business centres and an
orphanage.
The area is semi arid and (by Zimbabwean
standards) receives low rainfall. Farming is basically
subsistence and the road infrastructure is gravel
road.
Before the project, the main source of energy was
firewood for both villagers and institutional staff.
Average individuals (sometimes households) live
below a US dollar a day.
The project realisation was split into three main
deliverables:
◦ The planning and design stage
◦ The procurement stage
◦ The implementation stage.
The planning and design stage
◦ Became the most critical process
◦ Took the second longest time due to several
consultations and learning curve issues
◦ This stage included the experimentation stages
(conductor)
◦ The substation positioning and the earthing
resistivity readings etc
The procurement stage
◦ Proved to be the longest for the pilot project
◦ Conductor manufacturer had never made such a
construction before then.
◦ New items [1Ø recloser, transformers, conductor)
◦ Transformers had to be imported (shipment
damages and insurance arguments)
◦ Some delays were up to 9 months long
The Implementation stage
◦ Turned out to be the shortest stage for the pilot.
◦ The SWER line part took 7 weeks for 30km
(compared to our 1 week/km for 33kV)
◦ This was however not continuous as there were
learning or procurement stops, (one stop socio-
political)
◦ Some reworks and extensions had to be done
sometime (esp. on the earthings)
SWER – Single Wire Earth Return is a technology
where not three wires (three Phase), and not two
wires (common single Phase), but one wire is used
to transport electric power over a distance with the
earth used as the neutral or return path for
completing the circuit.
The objective is to achieve longer distances of
electrification on less money.
As electricity supply is extended to remote regions,
the cost of supply using the conventional three-
phase technology increases to levels that do not
often justify a utility’s investment into constructing
such a line. One main reason is due to the sparsity
of load centres with light/small loads.
SWER answers just that: long distances, light loads
and sparse settlement patterns.
1. SWER Site selection:
SWER is very ideal for terminal ends or radial
networks.
Where there is very low likelihood of new extensions
after the end point.
High level of dispersion in settlement patterns
Also recognising that the earth’s conductivity is
enhanced by salts, soil resistivity measurements
become the next indicative filter for site suitability.
2. SWER Planning:
◦ Load estimation is done first by assessments of actual
expected load centres
◦ Then forecast with consideration on the high case and
base case as well as envisaged consumption patterns
◦ Then load flow simulations (all similar to 3 Phase
considerations
◦ Then compare with 475kVA total load capacity of
typical SWER isolation transformers and decide for or
against SWER
2. SWER Planning:
The following should be kept in mind as guiding
constraint
◦ 475kVA upper limit
◦ 19.1kV operating voltage (applying +/- tolerance of the grid
code)
◦ Total load is 25Amps
◦ >2% voltage unbalance or deviation
3. SWER Network Attributes :
◦ 1. ISOLATION TRANSFORMER which is a main
element of the network
The isolation transformer provides for the
separation (Isolates) from the three phase
network into the SWER network often at 33kV or
22kV or even 11kV to a 19.1kv as the case may
be.
It also is the sink for the return currents from the
various distribution transformers
SWER Network Attributes :
ISOLATION TRANSFORMER is always at the head
of the network and is seen as the source.
The Mudzi isolation transformer can cater for up to
475kVA hence the limit of load on the SWER
network is 25Amps
◦ An ISOLATION TRANSFORMER
BACK
SWER Network Attributes:
DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMER serves the function
of the normal customer end transformer
Common sizes in the Zimbabwe experience are
16kVA, 32kVA and 64kVA, though sizes like 128kVA
can be obtained.
All are typically pole mounted on either single pole
or double pole structures
A typical 32kVA
transformer
A typical 32kVA
transformer
SWER Network Attributes :
THE SWER LINE – this relates mainly to:
Choice of conductor
Span lengths
Construction and structure
Other line accessories
The Conductor :
The conductor used in Mudzi and and the rest of the
new projects (save for one) is Magpie.
An ultra high tensile conductor (4 steel/3 Al)
6.35mm diameter and 10.58sqmm effective cross-
sectional area
Current rating is 92Amps
UTS is 18573 Newtons
The Line structures and construction:
The SWER line had 12.6m pole just like for 33kV
Spans used were 300m max to cater for both
materials savings and upgrade provisions
The span caters for 4 poles per km compared to the
8 for standard 33kV lines (without mention of discs,
cross-arms etc)
A typical intermediate structure
A Swing angle
Vertical strain
SINGLE pole strain
A terminal point
A terminal point
Typical 3 Way
SWER EARTHING.
Because all the return currents have to pass through
the ground, the earth becomes a key attribute of a
SWER network.
The measurements of soil resistivity, electrode
selection and the quality of installation are
paramount to the success of SWER reticulations
The size of the electrode depends on the resistivity
of the ground and the transformer size being earthed
REMOTE SWER EARTHING.
In some cases, the ground around a load centre has
poor quality resistivities and the earths have to be
situated at a remote location
An under-strung earth is often strung under the
SWER line to such a location with suitable ground
resistivities.
Under-strung
earth
The electrodes used in Mudzi were 16sqmm
bare copper wire
The configuration chosen was strip buried
and twin strip buried ahead of vertical
electrodes which requires drilling.
Sometimes soil resistivity enhancement
agents like gypsum can be used when
resistivities are too poor (not used in Mudzi)
SWER Protection
◦ A recloser is used just after the isolation
transformer for the whole line
◦ In the Mudzi case, fuses then formed the rest of
the protection on the SWER size
◦ Normal LV side breakers and protection practices
apply.
SWER networks 33kV Network Perceived benefit
Use of 1 conductor Uses 3 conductors Spares supplier from a would be waste
Uses 10sqmm conductor Uses rabbit (or even 100sqmm)
Opportunity for making conductor choice with demand rather than norm
Magpie costs $0.47/m Rabbit costs $1.07, Dog costs - $1.98
Assuming 3Ø was used •Rabbit would cost 6 X •Dog would cost over 12X
No cross-arm used Needs cross-arms Costs of cross-arms saved
300m spans achieved 150m spans used Saves up to half the cost of poles per km
General line hardware greatly reduced (Insulators, bolts, nuts)
Standard 3Ø requirements apply
Costs of extra hardware reduced
SWER networks 33kV Network Perceived benefit
Required 2days per km Requires 7 days per km 5 days saving
Manpower morale (conductor much easier to strain)
Standard 3Ø conditions apply
Much lighter physical work demand on the conductor straining
Opportunity to redesign wind stay ratings
Standard 3Ø conditions apply
Opportunity to save on staying costs
$4 800/km (Mat North experience)
$16 000/km (assuming transferred capacity is same) opportunity to reduce cost to less than a third
More copper used for electrode
Comparatively less copper if same network were electrified with 3Ø
Copper extras are significantly compensated for by conductor and man day gains
SWER networks 33kV Network Perceived benefit
Need converters to run some 3Ø equipment like grinding mills
Ready for both 1Ø and 3Ø equipment
Cost benefit analysis and load patterns to be done at planning to ensure that the supply choice is made appropriately
Need to train installation and maintenance teams
Same routines and Eng Instruction
Opportunity for CPD
Give time to understanding the technology (Mudzi
plinth)
Keep the objective clearly in mind throughout
◦ To make a robust effective network without spending an extra
$ than necessary (engineer’s sometimes forget the $$$)
Attend to planning exhaustively
◦ Route surveys,
◦ substation sites to remote earths cost balance
Train the users and handlers
Watch out for procurement process
◦ For projects since the pilot, procurement has improved
greatly
◦ Earth Resistivity testing equipment bought early on, (quality
and calibration/reference)
Work with supplier
◦ ZENT now making SWER transformers
◦ CAFCA now making Magpie and Shrike
Work with fresh minds willing to learn!!!
Strengthen customer liaison (chief Nyamukoho)
Chapatarongo-Sabvure Project – 14 Institutions ◦ Scope: 0.15km of 33kV line, 39km of 19.1kV line, 3.5km
of MV line, 4 x 16kVA, 4 x 32kVA, 2 x 64kVA and 1 x 475kVA.
Chikafa Project – 10 Institutions ◦ Scope: 35.1km of 19.1kV line; 1.51km of MV line, 4 x
32kVA, 1 x 64kVA, and 1 x 475kVA.
Mabalauta Malipati Project – 7 Institutions ◦ Scope: 0.15km of 33kV line, 30km of 19.1kV line, 1.2km
of MV line, 1 x32kVA 2x64kVA and 1x475kVA.
Lubimbi Project – 8 Institutions ◦ Scope: 0.15km of 33kV line, 43km of 19.1kV line, 2.98
of MV line, 1x16kVA, 1x 32kVA, 3x64kVA and 1x 475KVA.
Swereki Project – 14 Institutions ◦ Scope: 0.3km of 33kV line, 50.5km of 19.1kV line;
4.2km of MV line, 2 x 16kVA, 3 x 32kVA; 3 x 64kVAand 1 x 475kVA.
Msala Project– 11 Institutions ◦ Scope: 0.216km of 33kVline, 45km of 19.1kV line, 1.53
of MV line,2 x 16kVA, 8 x 32kVA and 1 x 475kVA.
•.