EVALUATION

Recommendations

Info

AN INDEPENDENT <strong>EVALUATION</strong> OF THE LCNF Assessment Criteria Accelerates the development of a low carbon energy sector Has the potential to deliver net financial benefits to future and/or existing customers Has a Direct Impact on the operation of a DNO’s Distribution System Generates knowledge that can be shared amongst all DNOs Focuses on network methods that are at the trialling stage Score Overview of assessment, sources of evidence and comments (1-5) 1 Overtaken by another initiative If successful would allow connection of DG without increasing rating of switchgear. There were difficulties in creating a standard approach to the carbon case and this project requirement was subsequently overtaken by discussions at Ofgem’s Innovation Working Group where a standard approach to carbon benefits was identified and captured as best practice. - Whilst the project produced learning it did not achieve its objectives The project has been brought to a conclusion without achieving the stated objectives. The SFCL device failed high voltage testing twice, insertion losses were higher than expected – though deemed acceptable. The specification provides a description of the electrical network configuration and the works necessary to facilitate the connection of the SFCL, which includes the installation of a new 33kV circuit breaker, isolators and earth switches and associated protection Phase 1 completion report, Appendix 2 1 At present there is no potential for future replication Whilst NPG state they have sufficient confidence to recommend 11kV fault current limiters in general for use as a business as usual option this project was looking at superconducting FCL at higher voltages. The learning gained was being used to create the appropriate standards and design policies. 3 A learning dissemination event or webinar was held but there are no specific replication reports Any intellectual property rights generated were retained by ASL and would not put into the public domain. A dissemination event, to review the key learning, from this and the previous 11kV project was held during October 2014. A field visit to see the fully working 11kV SFCL unit was also undertaken. Those attending included all of the other GB DNOs, several manufacturers of fault current limiters and several other interested parties such as Tata Steel and ETI. 1 Solution has not progressed with respect to technology level, or commercial arrangement No discussion on TRL levels in close-out report. Searches for the technology provider have not found recent evidence that the new owner offers this solution Closedown report January 2015 PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING October 2016 713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx 278
AN INDEPENDENT <strong>EVALUATION</strong> OF THE LCNF Implementation of an Active Fault Level Management Scheme Project Title Implementation of an Active Fault Level Management Scheme Tier 1 DNO WPD Status Complete LCNF project funding £646k Project objectives The primary objective of the project was to expedite the connection of a new combined heat and power (CHP) plant. The project will encompass an 11kV substation area and associated distribution network so as to monitor, actively, the fault level. This will facilitate the management of the new CHP plant connection. The active management solution is required as an interim measure whilst the two low impedance 132 / 11 kV transformers at the substation are replaced with higher impedance transformers, removing any potential fault level issues. Assessment Criteria Accelerates the development of a low carbon energy sector Has the potential to deliver net financial benefits to future and/or existing customers Score (1-5) 4 - Overview of assessment, sources of evidence and comments Assessment: The project clearly facilitates the connection of low carbon generation or demand. Evidence: The accommodation of distributed generation within 11kV networks may be limited at present due to fault level issues. The implementation of an active fault level management scheme has the potential to defer and/or avoid costly network reinforcement, whilst increasing network security. This facilitates the installation of distributed generation close to large demand centres, which has the potential to reduce electrical distribution losses and increase the efficiency of the Distribution System. References: • Implementation of an active fault level management scheme; Closedown report; March 2015. Assessment: Evidence that the project is likely to deliver financial benefits in the long term (ED2 and beyond) to selected group of customers. Evidence: Financial benefits for the customer are not discussed in the closedown report. However, the project is about facilitating the connection of low carbon generation, which is likely to have benefits to those customers wishing to make such connections. References: • Implementation of an active fault level management scheme; Closedown report; March 2015. PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING October 2016 713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx 279
Page 1 and 2:
AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232: AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
Page 281: AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
show all

EVALUATION

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?