1

Techno-Economical Optioneering of Offshore Wind Farms Electrical Systems

M.Scutariu, Member, IEEE
system configuration. Several analysis approaches were reported in recent literature concerning offshore wind farm developments. Offshore wind farms are characterized by large installed capacities and relatively long distances to onshore landing point so recommending a suitable transmission technology enjoyed a lot of attention. Mechanisms supporting decision making as to which of either HVAC or HVDC is better suited to connect the offshore wind farms to land transmission systems are discussed in [1]. A preliminary calculation tool that recognizes the different impacting features of HVAC over HVDC solutions and includes a detailed breakdown of the overall costs is introduced. This approach employs a large number of technical inputs, together with financial elements of the proposed design, and produces an indicative assessment of the cost distribution for the considered solution. Another approach is reported in [2], using a conventional method suitably adapted such as to assure transition from a reliability dominated solution to an availability oriented approach. Rather than focusing on a traditional reliabilitybased designing concept, as is common practice with conventional utility developments, the technique embeds elements related to the realistic feature the wind farm system should provide: availability of production at the point of common coupling with the land transmission system. In [3] authors focus on the alternative layouts of collection systems and they deliver a well-structured survey of distinctive topologies to be taken into account. They expand the analysis to incorporate an overview of system earthing options and effects in terms of switching transient phenomena. A comparative analysis of steady-state performance when different collector topologies are considered for a large-scale wind farm is presented in [5]. Authors create a hierarchy of desirable topologies depending on losses incurred in normal and contingency operation and on the assessed level of generation security. Different techniques for wind farm reliability assessment are discussed in [4] from a comparative perspective. Both methods described in the paper aim to describe frequency and duration assessment of the offshore wind farm reliability when the electrical system is confined to its collector component. The analytical frequency and duration approach is compared against sequential Monte-Carlo simulation when a complex model of a wind farm is implemented. The model takes into account a detailed statistical wind speed described by a birth and death Markov chain which is combined with a comprehensive set of system states defined by system
AbstractThe analysis techniques for assessing the suitability of various layouts for wind farm electrical systems have received a good deal of attention recently. They are becoming increasingly more adapted to various stages of the development. This paper aims to present a techno-economical optioneering technique suitable for application at early stages of the project development for offshore wind farms and to discuss implementation specific issues. The technique, based on calculating traditional initial capital costs equivalents of losses caused by a particular selection of the design, is open for extension when lifecycle costs are combined with estimates of the installed costs. The work discusses aspects of this combination and comments results obtained when it is applied on transmission to onshore sub-systems of the offshore wind farms electrical systems.

ECENT advancements in harnessing environmentally friendly energy resources have seen an increase in the number of offshore wind farms seeking connection to the main transmission systems throughout coastal areas. The feasibility analysis aimed at selecting the most economically and technically sensible solutions for their electrical system requires adequately adapted tools. Offshore locations raise some challenging tasks primarily due to special circumstances the electrical system has to face in a different environment than the common land developments. The combination of adverse weather and accompanying wave profile make offshore locations particularly demanding in terms of plant accessibility for corrective maintenance activities. In addition the capital investment component of the system plays a major role. Therefore, adequate factors have to be incorporated into the analysis method such as to reflect the effect of accessibility, together with potential technical constraints and economic features of various components, in determining an acceptable electrical system layout. Given the necessary sequence of activities in the development process of offshore wind farm projects the early assessment of the most suitable layouts represents a priority to which analysis methods have to respond appropriately. This requirement occurs primarily due to the criticality of the decisions to be made during these stages about the electrical
M. Scutariu is with the Transmission and Distribution Division of Mott MacDonald Ltd. in the Glasgow Office, 1 Atlantic Quay, Broomielaw, Glasgow G2 8JB (phone: 0141-222-4581; fax: 141-222-9111; e-mail: Mircea.Scutariu@mottmac.com).

I. INTRODUCTION

2 component availability data. The techniques provide similar numerical results but they imply a detailed modeling and analysis effort. Such effort intensive approaches are useful when system composite reliability analysis is at stake but they are hardly justifiable to be applied at early stages in decision making for selecting electrical system topologies. This paper looks into the implementation issues associated with the use of simplified initial analysis tools applicable for selecting suitable electrical system layouts for offshore wind farms. The decisions as to which particular design layout should be applied in the development of offshore wind farms electrical systems are inherently economic-driven, but they should not exclude technical implications. At the early stages of these projects the development of a detailed analysis is often impracticable and may become unreasonably expensive in terms of resources involved. Simplified approaches, such as those indicated in [1] and [2], are better suited options. However practical implementation of these techniques highlight certain features that should be acknowledged and properly handled within future projects, as it was illustrated in [6]. An overview of the impacting factors on the analysis of suitable options is also provided covering most aspects of the electrical system of an offshore wind farm. In section II of this paper an outline of techno-economical optioneering technique is briefly introduced. The elements of an analytical approach used in frequency and duration evaluation of system reliability are presented in section III, as this is key to determining the lost output due to transmission capacity unavailability. Section IV discusses the main impacting elements on selection of offshore wind farm electrical system design. The application of the technoeconomical optioneering to the selection of transmission to onshore system component of the offshore wind farm electrical system is presented in section V and conclusions upon simplified method implementation are provided in the closing section. II. TECHNO-ECONOMICAL OPTIONEERING TECHNIQUE A. General The aim of this technique is to be able to take into account simultaneously economic features and technical performance of different designs for electrical system layouts, providing at the same time a coherent way to compare these. This technique is derived from the well-established method of calculating the fixed and variable loss factors. These are usually employed in conventional utility design [2] focusing on life cycle cost evaluation. An additional term is introduced to account for the effects of scheme unavailability. This term is designed such as to fully acknowledge the random character of wind profile and to allow calculation of lost energy due to layout unavailability. It is able to take into account the wind speed variability with a minimalist, yet sufficiently detailed, representation. The main features of the technique are presented in the following. B. Hypothesis The design choice impacts heavily upon the economics of the offshore projects and therefore the technique has to provide for a meaningful assessment of the total lifecycle costs of a given design. The technique [2] is focused on identifying the electrical system layout delivering the lowest total life cycle cost. It recognizes three main types of power/energy losses thought to have the greatest impact on the lifecycle cost of the design, namely: the fixed losses, i.e. those losses incurred irrespective of wind farm production; the variable losses, dependent on wind farm production and the losses equivalent to the energy not-generated due to a constraint imposed by electrical system unavailability. Economic evaluation factors corresponding to each of these types of losses are introduced such as to allow the calculation of their associated initial capital cost equivalent (ICCEq). The ICCEq provides, therefore, a unified measure to compare different electrical system layouts. The comparison relies on assessing the initial capital costs that would be justified, at a selected rate of return, to avoid one unit of power or energy loss. C. Economic Evaluation Factors [2] The factors employed for quantifying each recognized losses category are traditionally denoted as A for the fixed losses, B for the load losses and C for the lost energy due to unavailability. The A factor, measured in [currency/power unit], represents the incremental capital investment required to reduce one unit of no-load losses, which is computed by using a desired rate of return. The equality between the net present value of annual costs associated with a capital investment to reduce no-load losses with one unit and the present value of this action impact on net revenue and purchased energy costs, for the assumed life duration of the project, is used to derive the A value. The B factor defines the incremental capital investment used to reduce one unit of load-dependent losses, and it is calculated with a desired rate of return. It is also measured in [currency/power unit], and its computation relies on an adapted mechanism in which wind random variability is catered for by the loss factor (defined as the ratio between average losses when wind production varies randomly in time and losses at rated production). The equality between the net present value of a capital investment B and the present worth of annual net revenue increase caused by avoiding the load loss by one kW provides the equation to calculate the B factor. The C factor accounts for the losses caused by system unavailability and it is measured in [currency/energy unit/yr]. It represents the incremental capital investment required to avoid the loss of one energy unit of production due to lack of system availability, which is calculated using a desired rate of return. The equation to calculate its value involves the use of the wind farm capacity factor, which is a measure of wind random variability for a given wind farm

3 characterization of each system component by its failure rate () and its Mean Time To Repair (MTTR). Each of these quantities is dependent on the particular conditions presented by off-shore projects, where MTTR is heavily exposed to the high unpredictability of the elements. Therefore a significant impact is expected from this factor, on a scale largely different from the on-land developments. For relatively simple structures such as wind turbine strings, where the sub-sea cable failure is the predominant fault source, the outage duration may be readily available by multiplying failure rate with the MTTR. Dependency on fault occurrence moment can be robustly handled by using wind farm capacity factor as an acceptable approximation for wind production variability. For those instances when the entire transmission capacity of the electrical system is compromised over the fault duration the lost power output equals the installed capacity of the windfarm multiplied by the capacity factor. There are cases when the transmission capacity is just partially affected and for these conditions an approximation was proposed in [2]. It relies on introducing the concept of constrained capacity factor (Fig.1) which aims to emulate the effects of transmission capacity shortage. This is equivalent to imposing a cap inferior to the maximum installed capacity of the wind farm at the level of available transmission capacity during the component or subsystem failure. The production lost is calculated as the shaded area in figure 1 by the following:

1.00

Per-unit of Rated Power

0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.0 1460.0 2920.0 4380.0 5840.0 7300.0 8760.0

Output Constraint During Outage of one element

Lost production

Output Curve with Constrained Capacity

Cumulative hours per year

Fig.1. Determination of lost energy production owed to constrained transmission/evacuation capacity.

location. The capacity factor is computed as the ratio between the production output over one year, given a presumed wind speed profile, to the production output over one year when wind speed at all times is such as it allows a maximum output power. The capacity factor is easily scalable from large sections of wind farms down to an individual wind turbine generator. Once the estimates of the losses specific to every electrical system design are determined, a total evaluated lifecycle cost can be calculated via summing up the products between different types of losses and their corresponding evaluation factors. The technique may be extended with incorporating, as an added term, the installed cost of the equipment required to achieve the electrical system layout. The added term represents a natural extension because of the qualitative similitude in between the losses ICCEq and the investment costs required to implement a given electrical design. Eventually a Total Evaluated Cost (TEC), which comprises both the ICCEq of the losses and the installed costs of equipment, is calculated and it represents the basis of ranking the options. D. Determination of Lost Energy Due to Unavailability The determination of no-load and load-dependent losses for electrical system layouts is performed in a straightforward manner, whereas the calculation of the lost energy incurred by components unavailability raises a number of challenging issues. The lost energy due to system unavailability is affected by a number of factors such as the moment when an unavailability condition occurs as well as the frequency and duration of ouutage conditions. The analytical approach is one of several options for the reliability assessment leading to determination of frequency and duration for various system operational conditions [5]. This relies on a suitably developed mathematical model of the chosen configuration and uses some typical approximations. The calculation period is chosen equal to one year, represented by hourly steps. All system components are represented by a two-state model, i.e. each is either on-line or out-of-service [7]. The model definition employs the

Plost = Prated CFe CCFe Pcap

( )]

(1)

where Prated stands for wind farm/entity rated production and Pcap for the export cap imposed by electrical system transmission capacity. CFe and CCFe are the capacity factor and constrained capacity factor respectively. Multiplying the lost production with the duration when system is completely or partially unable of exporting the wind farm output determines the lost energy due to unavailability.

E lost = Out dur Plost = ( MTTR ) Plost

(2)

The second equality is valid only for single component or equivalent structure failures. Complex structures of the offshore wind farm electrical system may require construction of appropriate models and use of direct analytical solutions for evaluating the a-priori reliability. III. WIND FARM SYSTEM RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT The consistent implementation of simplified technoeconomical optioneering implies using less elaborated analysis techniques than the complex composite generation and transmission reliability evaluation [7]. The focus is to determine a rough, yet reasonably acceptable, estimate of the duration when the electrical system or its components are in a state preventing totally or partially the wind farm output export to the grid.

4 The optimization of the entire electrical system of an offshore wind farm is a massive undertaking which requires comprehensive reliability models and, subsequently, timeconsuming analysis. In the spirit of simplified optioneering a piecewise approach, focused on sub-systems such as interarray collection network or transmission to onshore is capable of delivering a sub-optimal solution. For these sub-systems direct analytical solution may be applied according to the techniques for distribution system reliability assessment [7]. A blend of failure modes and effects analysis [7] with approximate methods for evaluating annual unavailability of aggregate components of the sub-systems is applied. In the case of series aggregation of components the equivalent failure rate s, average repair time MTTRs, and annual unavailability Us are calculated: networks, while the offshore platforms are virtually nonaffected. The aim of this section is to highlight the influence of these factors and enable a fair assessment of their expected impact when the A, B, C factors technique is applied for optioneering purposes.

A. Inter-array Collection Sub-Systems Optioneering There are conflicting drivers in the selection of suitable arrangements for the inter-array collection system. These include the need to balance the length of the string and the choice of maximum acceptable cable cross section area (csa) with the magnitude of load-dependent losses. Furthermore the length of the string has to be chosen as a function of the effect of potentially losing, for appreciable lengths of time, the entire string following a simple fault in one section along it. This can i MTTRi be prevented by increasing the population of switchgear along s = i ; U s = i MTTRi ; MTTRs = i (3) the string and equipping it with suitable automation which i i i requires in turn heavier investments. It follows that not only i are they conflicting drivers but they are also, to a large degree, For paralleled components the same reliability parameters inter-related. are determined from: In the case of inter-array collection systems the topology (MTTR1 + MTTR2 ) p = 1 2 and the degree of automation incorporated represent factors of 1 + 1 MTTR1 + 2 MTTR2 impact. Topology is ultimately influenced by the decision on MTTR1MTTR2 (4) which cable csa should be used and what will be the MTTR p = (MTTR1 + MTTR2 ) acceptable string length viewed from the angle of potential losses incurred by energy not-produced due to string being U p p MTTR p out-of-operation. Proper consideration given to the economic The failure mode analysis maps the minimal cut set leading effort required to reduce the volume of energy not-produced to system failure. In the case of electrical systems connecting due to string unavailability should indicate where to stop with wind farms to grid entry point not only total failure conditions adding automation and switchgear equipment within the string. are of interest but also partial failures, when just sections of it Various topologies are available ([3], [5]), ranging from the become unavailable. In both instances the minimal cut set is basic radial string structure to the redundant and circuitassessed and it subsequently forms the basis for determining breaker heavily populated structures [5]. In figure 2 three the system unavailability with respect to its function of representative structures are outlined. Option a) is the most exporting wind farm output to the transport network. simplistic topology, when the entire string can be taken out-ofFor simplified analysis the minimal cut set is usually operation for any fault along the collector string. Topologies available by visual inspection and it implies component b) and c) are designed such as to reduce energy losses due to outages that must overlap to cause sub-system outage. All unavailability, with b) capable of saving half of the string overlapping outages causing system failure can be regarded as elements connected in series from the reliability point of view. a) Hence reliability indices such as system total or partial O ffsh ore unavailability can be determined by applying the equations (3) co llecto r for series components. IV. IMPACTING FACTORS ON OFFSHORE ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS OPTIONEERING
b) O ffsh ore co llecto r

The electrical systems of the offshore wind farms are complex structures with components such as the collection sub-system, offshore platforms and transmission sub-systems to onshore. Each component is subject to several influencing factors, some of which may be relevant to several sub-systems. For instance the component MTTR impacts significantly upon the calculation of lost energy and in offshore conditions will affect most of the wind farm sub-systems. Cable length can be influential for those sub-systems that include large offshore

c) O ffsh ore co llecto r

Fig.2. Potential string endorsement with switching devices: a) purely radial, b) mid-string switching device, c) fully flexible string reconfiguration.

5 production and c) allowing complete reduction. A collector sub-system optioneering exercise using the techno-economical approach is reported in [6]. B. Transmission to Onshore Sub-Systems Optioneering This component of the offshore electrical system may be handled from a piecewise approach point of view as just the sub-sea transmission cables. In this case the primary impacting factors are the length of the connection and the cable failure rate and MTTR. They may be decisive factors in selecting an electrical system embedding complete, partial or no redundancy cabling. The length of connection usually influences the selection of suitable cross-sectional-area (csa). The transmission to onshore sub-system may also include the offshore collection platform(s) as well and then, in addition to the already nominated impacting factors, the number of offshore platforms and the transformers failure rate and MTTR play a role in the selection of appropriate configuration. Several offshore platforms may project a better performance in terms of ICCEq due to improved availability for the system but they have to be weighted against the increased costs of cable connections to onshore. All these elements have to be taken into account simultaneously for a comprehensive decision as to the suitable electrical system configuration. V. STUDY CASE A hypothetical 250 MW offshore wind farm is at the core of the electrical system layout optioneering exercise presented in this paper based on the application of the techno-economical technique discussed previously. The transmission sub-system of the wind farm electrical system including both the offshore platform(s) and sub-sea cable network is modeled. The life cycle costs are evaluated for up to seven potential configurations resulting from combinations between different transformer arrangements at the offshore platforms and sub-sea cables redundancy arrangements. The cable failure-rate value is primarily affected by mechanical damage inflicted by extraneous factors. The majority of the values quoted in the literature [9] refer to older cable designs, with indicative 0.32 faults/ 100km/ year, and therefore a more optimistic view can be assumed. Two values were adopted in this analysis in order to assess the level of influence this selection may have on overall availability. They are 0.08 and 0.2 faults/ 100km/ year and they reflect predominantly the mechanical damage due to shipping activities. The MTTR values are heavily dependent on the rated voltage of the sub-sea cable with maintenance ships for cables up to 33 kV usually more readily available. The higher the rating of the cable the less available maintenance resources are and literature [9] mentions approximately 84 days for MTTR in the case of cables operated at 132 kV or more. Offshore transformers statistics are rather scarce and therefore an assumption had to be made. Values quoted for land HV/MV transformers range [8] from 1.4 to 2.5 faults/ 100units/ year, but offshore counterparts are expected to have elevated failure rates. Therefore a flat 0.2 faults/ unit/ year is considered for this analysis. The transformer MTTR represents the most difficult choice to make because dependency on offshore weather conditions is volatile. Three values were taken into account corresponding to 180 days, 90 and 45 days such as to cover scenarios possible from worst pessimistic to reasonably optimistic. When applying the A, B, C factors, due to relatively low dielectric losses of sub-sea cables of modern construction, the effect of no-load losses economic equivalents are almost negligible [6] and therefore they were ignored. The B and C factors values employed in the analysis were set at 28,000 GBP/MW and 1,000 GBP/MWh/yr. These values are assumed and readers are advised to take these as purely indicative. The configurations taken into consideration for selecting the most suitable one for the sub-system are illustrated in Fig.3. The basis is represented by a two offshore platform design with cable connections starting from each platform. Four scenarios were considered for the combinations between components reliability characteristics (Table I). The investment costs for the configurations of Fig.3 were determined on the basis of 50 km of sub-sea connection using 800 sqmm 132 kV cable, at indicative 295 GBP/linear metre.
TABLE I. INDICATIVE SCENARIOS FOR TRANSFORMER AND CABLES FAILURE RATES AND COMBINATIONS
Scenario Reliability characteristics Offshore Transformer Subsea Cable Mean Time to Repair [hours] 4320 4320 2160 1080 Fault rate [f/100 km/yr] 0.08 0.2 0.08 0.08 Fault rate [f/yr] 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Mean Time to Repair [hours] 2016 2016 2016 2016

1 2 3 4

(1)

(2)

(1)

(2) (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(3)

(4)

(3)

(4)

Cf_1
(1) (2) (1)

Cf_2
(2) (5) (1)

Cf_3
(2) (5)

(3)

(4)

(3)

(4)

(3)

(4)

Cf_4
(1)

Cf_5
(2) (5)

Cf_6

(3)

(4)

Cf_7

Fig.3. Transmission system to onshore sub-system configurations.

6
[m il.GBP]
1 40.00 1 20.00 1 00.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00

[m il.GBP]
80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 1 0.00

Cf_1

Cf_2

Cf_3

Cf_4

Cf_5

Cf_6

Cf_7

0.00

Cf_1

Cf_2

Cf_3

Cf_4

Cf_5

Cf_6

Cf_7

Transmission system configuration Total Evaluated Cost Evaluated Unavailability Cost (x C)

Transmission system configuration Total Evaluated Cost Evaluated Unavailability Cost (x C)

Fig.4. Scenario1 results of techno-economical analysis.

Fig.5. Scenario 4 results of techno-economical analysis.

Costs of offshore transformers were also included in the Total Evaluated Cost used for ranking of the options. Results for scenarios 1 and 4 of Table I are presented in Fig.4 and 5 respectively. These results are indicative of the impact the transformer MTTR may have on the final hierarchy of configurations with configurations 2 and 6 in pole positions. The effect of transformer MTTR variation is better observed from Fig.6 which also indicates the magnitude of impact the variation of cable failure rate may have on configurations where unavailability is dependent primarily on cables. The results also underline the impact of considering the investment costs upon the configurations ranking when compared to the use of just the ICCEq of incurred losses (dominated by the losses due to system total or partial unavailability) for the same purpose. VI. CONCLUSIONS The techno-economical optioneering technique presented in this paper is suitable for decision making at early stages in the development of complex structures such as the electrical systems for offshore projects. It is a fairly simple and robust tool with sufficient flexibility to be applied in piecewise manner. It is crafted such as to support selection of suitable electrical system layouts when both technical aspects and economic effects are brought together in the same framework. The results of the study case show that initial capital cost equivalents of losses, including energy lost due to unavailability, enable a coherent measure to be calculated for assessing suitability of a selected system layout. The author indicates that a complete implementation of the technique is performed when both ICCEqs of the losses and the investments costs are simultaneously taken into account. The inclusion of investment costs tends to offset dramatically the economic evaluation of the losses. This offset may lead in some instances into changed hierarchies when compared with the ones based solely on ICCEqs. Further refinement of the technique is needed such as to enable a fair comparison between options that allow, under normal operation conditions, full export from the installed wind farm capacity and those who fail to provide this under similar normal conditions.

90.00

[m il.GBP]

80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 1 0.00 0.00 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Failure rate scenario Cf_1 Cf_2 Cf_3 Cf_4

Fig.6. Effects of reliability characteristics on system unavailability induced losses.

REFERENCES
[1] D. Wensky, J. Bernauer, Conceptual Design of Offshore Wind Power Grid Connections under Special Consideration of Minimized Investment and Life Cycle Costs for Losses, presented at V-th International Workshop on Large-Scale Integration of Wind Power and Transmission Networks for Offshore Wind Farms, pp.270-280, April 2005. R.A. Walling, T.Ruddy, Economic Optimization of Offshore Windfarm Substations and Collection Systems presented at V-th International Workshop on Large-Scale Integration of Wind Power and Transmission Networks for Offshore Wind Farms, pp.396-402, April 2005. B. Franken, H. Breder, M. Dahlgren, E.K. Nielsen, Collection Grid Topologies for Offshore Wind Parks, presented at 18th International Conference on Electricity Distribution, paper 709, session 5, June 2005. N. Barberis Negra, O. Holstrom, B. Bak-Jensen, P. Sorensen, Comparison of Different Techniques for Offshore Wind Farm Reliability Assessment, presented at VI-th International Workshop on Large-Scale Integration of Wind Power and Transmission Networks for Offshore Wind Farms, pp.69-77, October 2006. G. Quinonez-Varela, G.W. Ault, J.R. McDonald, Steady-state Performance Analysis of Collector System Designs for Large-scale Offshore Wind Farms, presented at VI-th International Workshop on Large-Scale Integration of Wind Power and Transmission Networks for Offshore Wind Farms, pp. 78-84, October 2006. M. Scutariu, Optioneering on Offshore Wind Farm Collection Systems, presented at Vi-th International Workshop on Large-Scale Integration of Wind Power and Transmission Networks for Offshore Wind Farms, pp. 443-449, October 2006. R. Billinton, R.N. Allan, Reliability Evaluation of Power Systems, 2nd edition, Plenum Publishing Corporation, New York, USA, 1996. F. Roos, S. Lindal Distribution System Component Failure Rates and Repair Times- An Overview, Lund University report, 2004. P. Gardner, L.M. Craig, G.J. Smith, Electrical Systems for Offshore Wind Farms, Garrad Hassan & Partners report, 2000.

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7] [8] [9]