Metering - !! westie101 !!

Joined
18 Jul 2004
Messages
8,518
Reaction score
407
Location
Devon
Country
United Kingdom
Westie.

HV Metering vs LV metering - What sort of percentage difference would you expect due to losses in the substation?

For example.

Customer used to have CT metered LV supply. Now has own substation, and is metered at HV. The old LV incomer was adopted and contains all the CT's which are now connected to a private meter.

HV Metering shows 17,509 units and the LV Metering shows 17,113 units for the same time period. 396 units difference. Some of this can be attributed to some control kit and lighting in the private substation, and the rest I assume is losses due to the nice warm TX.

How much typically would a TX loose?

This is over a period of just 3 days.

Cheers!
 
Sponsored Links
there are bound to be losses with a tx, there is also tolerances on metres, esp privates, although shouldn't be to far out if using ex dno ct's, hopefully the better tarrif will make it worthwhile.
 
HV transformer losses consist of a fixed loss and one that varies according to load.

A typical 400kVA transformer has a no load loss of
930W
and a full load loss of
4600W
(googled it)
Looking elsewhere an efficiency of 98% is mentioned i.e. 2% losses for a typical distribution transformer

From Wikipedia


Energy losses

An ideal transformer would have no energy losses, and would be 100% efficient. In practical transformers, energy is dissipated in the windings, core, and surrounding structures. Larger transformers are generally more efficient, and those rated for electricity distribution usually perform better than 98%.[46]

Experimental transformers using superconducting windings achieve efficiencies of 99.85%.[47] The increase in efficiency can save considerable energy, and hence money, in a large heavily loaded transformer; the trade-off is in the additional initial and running cost of the superconducting design.

Losses in transformers (excluding associated circuitry) vary with load current, and may be expressed as "no-load" or "full-load" loss. Winding resistance dominates load losses, whereas hysteresis and eddy current losses contribute to over 99% of the no-load loss. The no-load loss can be significant, so that even an idle transformer constitutes a drain on the electrical supply and a running cost. Designing transformers for lower loss requires a larger core, good-quality silicon steel, or even amorphous steel for the core and thicker wire, increasing initial cost so that there is a trade-off between initial cost and running cost (also see energy efficient transformer).[48]

Transformer losses are divided into losses in the windings, termed copper loss, and those in the magnetic circuit, termed iron loss. Losses in the transformer arise from:

Winding resistance
Current flowing through the windings causes resistive heating of the conductors. At higher frequencies, skin effect and proximity effect create additional winding resistance and losses.
Hysteresis losses
Each time the magnetic field is reversed, a small amount of energy is lost due to hysteresis within the core. For a given core material, the loss is proportional to the frequency, and is a function of the peak flux density to which it is subjected.[48]
Eddy currents
Ferromagnetic materials are also good conductors and a core made from such a material also constitutes a single short-circuited turn throughout its entire length. Eddy currents therefore circulate within the core in a plane normal to the flux, and are responsible for resistive heating of the core material. The eddy current loss is a complex function of the square of supply frequency and inverse square of the material thickness.[48] Eddy current losses can be reduced by making the core of a stack of plates electrically insulated from each other, rather than a solid block; all transformers operating at low frequencies use laminated or similar cores.
Magnetostriction
Magnetic flux in a ferromagnetic material, such as the core, causes it to physically expand and contract slightly with each cycle of the magnetic field, an effect known as magnetostriction. This produces the buzzing sound commonly associated with transformers[35] that can cause losses due to frictional heating. This buzzing is particularly familiar from low-frequency (50 Hz or 60 Hz) mains hum, and high-frequency (15,734 Hz (NTSC) or 15,625 Hz (PAL)) CRT noise.
Mechanical losses
In addition to magnetostriction, the alternating magnetic field causes fluctuating forces between the primary and secondary windings. These incite vibrations within nearby metalwork, adding to the buzzing noise and consuming a small amount of power.[49]
Stray losses
Leakage inductance is by itself largely lossless, since energy supplied to its magnetic fields is returned to the supply with the next half-cycle. However, any leakage flux that intercepts nearby conductive materials such as the transformer's support structure will give rise to eddy currents and be converted to heat.[50] There are also radiative losses due to the oscillating magnetic field but these are usually small.

If the cons is HV metered the transformer will no doubt belong to them so the losses would have been specified by the supplier and may be on the data plat bolted to it!
 
Sponsored Links
And it's one reason why HV tariffs are cheaper than LV !

There's so many different factors, no load losses, and depends on how loaded up the tx is. To a lesser degree you lose some in the LV incomer but I assume it's reasonably sized and not very long!

Thinking about it, if its a new install, contact the manufacturer who should be able to tell you the figures.
 
2% sounds about right.

Energy provider wont entertain re-jigging the unit price until there tie-in lapses apparently.

Will have a look see at the rating plate tomorrow if I am passing.
 
2% sounds about right. Energy provider wont entertain re-jigging the unit price until there tie-in lapses apparently.
I suspect that the HV tariff price already takes those losses into account, such that attaempts at negotiation of further 'jigging' may not be fruitful!

Kind Regards, John
 
There are all sorts of oddities about HV supplies that often don't come to light until later.
e.g. Permitted voltage variation +/- 8%
As seen here, customer pays for transformer losses
Transformer and all HV gear after point of metering (CT's) owned by and the responsibility of customer, we've had a few shocked looks when we've been called to loss of supplies and pointed this out. Oh and often the need to have an HV authorised person.
 
2% sounds about right. Energy provider wont entertain re-jigging the unit price until there tie-in lapses apparently.
I suspect that the HV tariff price already takes those losses into account, such that attaempts at negotiation of further 'jigging' may not be fruitful!

Kind Regards, John

That's just it, they are on the same tariff as a couple months back when they were metered at LV. Same price per unit, same availability charge and the climate change levy.

DNO RMU is in it's own GRP enclosure, with a single HV cable coming into our GRP enclosure along with a multicore SWA for the metering and remote emergency stop (which opens the DNO RMU).

This HV cable goes into an RMU attached directly to the TX, and this RMU then loops to a second RMU which feeds a 200m HV run to the new turbine, this RMU having a metering kit fitted for the FITs meter.

Theoretically you can calculate the sites consumption using the utility and FITs meters import/export, but this includes all the losses and other substation consumption, and for accounting, the site do not want this. They want to have the 'old' consumption figures, hence the new meter on the old CT's. A bit of a strange situation, as the companies MD owns the turbine under a seperate company name.
 
That is odd with the tarriff as the LV version should include an "allowance" for system losses, which as has been pointed out are now reduced as the customer is now paying directly for the losses on their own transformer(s).
 
Never mind all that - ever wondered if petrol pumps adjust for temperature, given that you'll get less fuel by weight (and therefore less for the engine to burn) when it's warmer?

;)
 
Never mind all that - ever wondered if petrol pumps adjust for temperature, given that you'll get less fuel by weight (and therefore less for the engine to burn) when it's warmer? ;)
Interesting question. However, I suspect that, since it is stored fairly deep underground, the temperature of delivered fuel is probably pretty constant (for a given location). There may, of course, be 'formal' compensation for temperature changes. I ask myself a similar question when I watch my bulk LPG being delivered!

Kind Regards, John
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top