See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/310397627

Cost Analysis and Comparison of HVAC, LFAC and HVDC for Offshore Wind
Power Connection

Conference Paper · January 2016

DOI: 10.1049/cp.2016.0386

CITATIONS READS
38 5,441

3 authors:

Xin Xiang Michael M.C. Merlin

Imperial College London The University of Edinburgh
55 PUBLICATIONS   1,044 CITATIONS    55 PUBLICATIONS   1,606 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tim C Green
Imperial College London
360 PUBLICATIONS   18,586 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

EPSRC ERIFT View project

UKERC TPA intermittency 1 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael M.C. Merlin on 28 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Cost Analysis and Comparison of HVAC, LFAC and HVDC for
Offshore Wind Power Connection
X. Xiang, M. M. C. Merlin, T. C. Green
Imperial College London, UK, {x.xiang14, michael.merlin07, t.green}@imperial.ac.uk

Keywords: offshore wind power connection, low-frequency of 60 km for subsea cable transmission systems [4,7].
AC, fractional frequency AC, HVDC 50/60Hz
Generator Grid
Subsea Cable
Abstract Offshore
Step-up Transformer
Onshore
Step-down Transformer
Fig.1 Structure of HVAC transmission system
Low frequency AC (LFAC) has been proposed as a means to
avoid some of the large converter station costs of high voltage Offshore
0Hz
Onshore
Generator Grid
DC (HVDC) while delivering some of the benefits in terms of AC/DC
Subsea Cable DC/AC
Offshore Onshore
better cable utilization and its technical feasibility has been Step-up Transformer Step-down Transformer
established. It is said to offer lower costs than HVDC or Fig.2 Structure of HVDC transmission system
conventional high voltage AC (HVAC) for a range of
16.7/20Hz
intermediate distances, with HVDC becoming cheaper over long Generator Onshore
AC/AC
Grid
Subsea Cable
distances. However, the basis for identifying the distance range Offshore Onshore
and extent of cost saving has not been established. Here, cost LF Step-up Transformer Step-down Transformer

estimate methodologies are extended for LFAC. A difficulty is Fig.3 Structure of LFAC transmission system
the absence of commercial schemes that can provide practical It has been noted that low frequency AC (LFAC), also called
examples of costs. In this paper, costs are broken down into fractional frequency transmission system (FFTS), suffers less
constituent terms and estimates are made from the most similar from cable shunt susceptance effects than standard AC and so
equipment from other schemes. The capacity limits and power makes more cost effective use of the cable. The transmission
losses associated with subsea cables are analyzed for low frequency in LFAC is usually set as 16.7Hz/20Hz, one third of
frequency cases. For a given power transfer and for each the standard frequency in HVAC (50Hz/60Hz) and above HVDC
distance, a choice of operating voltage, cable size and number of (0Hz). Further, LFAC requires only one power converter for
parallel circuits is made in order to find the lowest route cost. frequency conversion if being used to connect a generator that is
This yields cost as a function of distance that is a non-linear and isolated from the main system, shown in Fig.3. The technical
discontinuous function. The cost curves for LFAC are compared feasibility of LFAC has been comprehensively analyzed
with HVDC and HVAC options. The results for current cost [8,14,21,24,28,31] and a laboratory prototype of an LFAC
estimates show that LFAC has a range of route length over which system has also been successfully demonstrated [29,32].
it is the lowest cost option and but this range narrows and
eventually ceases to exist for higher power transfer ratings. It is postulated that for some range of distances LFAC should be
lower cost than either HVAC or HVDC [21,28] because one
power converter at one end will give terminal costs higher than
1 Introduction HVAC but lower than HVDC and route costs in LFAC will rise
Wind energy is regarded as one of the most important renewable more steeply than HVDC but shallower than HVAC. Fig.4
sources around the world [1,3]. In recent years, enormous effort illustrates cost against distance for LFAC in three cases, all of
has been invested to progress the technologies to connect which use terminal costs and unit distance costs between those
offshore wind power because of the better wind energy potential of HVAC and HVDC. In cases 1 and 2, the cost of LFAC cross
[18,34]. It is well known that HVAC and HVDC systems, the cost of HVAC before crossing the cost of HVDC and so
illustrated in Fig.1 and Fig.2, are the commercialized solutions LFAC has a range for which it is cheapest. However, in case 3,
for high power transmission connections to generators in the cost of LFAC crosses the cost of HVDC first and there is no
offshore areas and they compete against each other on cost distance for which it is the preferred choice. So, knowing that the
[6,9,27]. The overall cost of HVAC and HVDC systems can be terminal and unit distance costs of LFAC are between those of
separated into the terminal cost and route cost. HVAC has the HVAC and HVDC is not sufficient to establish that it is ever the
advantage of relatively inexpensive terminal cost whereas lowest cost option, let alone establishing the distance range.
HVDC has expensive power converter stations. On the other Cost analysis for LFAC has received some attention
hand, the route cost in HVAC rises much more sharply with [13,21,26,28,30] but not to the degree needed. Some cost
distance than that in HVDC because of the different transmission analysis and comparison for offshore subsea cable transmission
capability limits. Over short distances HVAC is favored for its systems have been presented [21,26] based on the simple, but not
lower terminal costs but beyond some threshold distance, the well-supported, assumptions that the terminal cost of LFAC is
advantage of lower route costs favors HVDC. The cross-over approximately halfway between that of HVAC and HVDC, and
point of HVAC and HVDC costs is reported to be in the region that the route cost per unit distance is lower than the halfway rate.
Under these assumptions, the costs of LFAC follow case 2 in HVAC, HVDC and LFAC under the headings of CC and LC.
Fig.4 and based on typical costs of HVAC and HVDC, the cost- These items will be analyzed in detail in next section.
effective range for cable-based LFAC in an offshore wind CC LC
application would be about 30km-150km. However, this rough Offshore step-up transformer plant and Offshore
approximation should be questioned since there are reasons to platform (compound). transformer losses.
believe that the offshore platform for an LF transformer and an HVAC Cables and compensation. Cables losses.
Onshore step-down transformer plant and Onshore
onshore AC/AC HV power converter would be greater than this compound. transformer losses.
mid-point. Meanwhile, although a cable operated at 16.7Hz Offshore LF step-up transformer plant and Offshore LF
requires less reactive current than at 50 Hz, the AC voltage platform (compound). transformer losses
waveform is subject to a peak/effective ratio underutilization LFAC Cables and compensation. Cables losses.
compared to DC and so route costs are likely to be higher than Onshore AC/AC converter station plant Onshore AC/AC
including valves, transformers and filters. converter losses.
the halfway case also. Further, a simple constant cost per unit
Offshore converter station plant and
distance is known to be only an approximation of cost that is platform (compound) including valves,
Offshore AC/DC
closer to being quadratic. converter losses.
transformers and filters.
Cables losses.
Cost

HVAC (50/60Hz) HVDC Cables.

LFAC 3 Onshore DC/AC
Onshore converter station plant including
converter losses.
LFAC 2 valves, transformers and filters.
HVDC (0HZ)
HVDC route Table I Main capital cost and power losses cost in HVAC, LFAC and HVDC
LFAC 1
LFAC route

HVDC terminal
3 Cost-effective Range Comparison
HVAC route
LFAC terminal
For subsea cable based offshore wind farms connection, voltage-
HVAC terminal
Distance
sourced converter HVDC (VSC-HVDC) is chosen as the DC
Fig.4 Three possibilities for Fig.5 Decomposition and relationships option in this paper for analysis and comparison.
LFAC cost between different kinds of costs
The overall cost (C) of a transmission system can be separated
This paper sets out to analyze the costs of LFAC in enough detail into CC and LC but also into the terminal cost (TC) which is
to identify the cross-over points for its costs with HVAC and independent of distance and route cost (RC) which is a function
HVDC and to identify the cost-effective range of LFAC from the of distance. Fig.5 illustrates this decomposition and a further
best available data. The cost estimation algorithm compares, for decomposition into terminal capital cost (TCC), terminal power
each distance, different choices of operating voltage and choices losses cost (TLC), route capital cost (RCC) and route power
of numbers of parallel cables in order to meet the specified power losses cost (RLC). Interpreting Table I costs for COWF in terms
transfer at minimum cost for that technology. This yields costs of Fig.5 yields that the TCC consists of the offshore platform and
that are a non-linear and discontinuous function of distance. In plant cost (OPPC) and onshore plant cost (OPC) and the RCC
Section 2, the major factors in cost analysis are outlined in consists of the cable cost (CBC) and compensation cost (QC).
general, and the cost-effective range comparison for cable-based The cost analysis of each part in Fig.5 will be introduced in the
offshore wind farms (COWF) connection is discussed in detail following parts respectively.
in Section 3, which is the main body of this paper. The
conclusions are drawn in Section 4. 3.1 Cost Analysis in HVAC and VSC-HVDC

2 Major Factors in Cost Analysis The estimations for OPPC and OPC, (1)-(4), follow the
empirical formulas in commercial projects report [11], and the
A comprehensive cost analysis for transmission routes is relevant variable description and assumptions are summarized in
complex to conduct in analytical form. It needs to take many Appendix A.1.
factors into consideration, such as the capital cost, maintenance OPPCHVAC  FCHVAC  [1  dc(nT  2)]  ( fcT  pcT )  nT  SST  5  0.045ST (1)
cost, power losses, equipment reliability and so on. For a new OPCHVAC  0.02621ST 0.7513 (2)
approach like LFAC, this analysis is more difficult to complete
OPPCHVDC  FCHVDC  [1  dc(nC  2)]  cC  nC  SSC  25  0.11ST (3)
because there are no commercial projects that have established
design limits and yielded cost data. To make this analysis OPCHVDC  0.08148ST (4)
feasible, some minor factors need be neglected and sources of To calculate the cable cost and compensation cost in HVAC, the
cost data from comparable individual equipment items should be cable transmission capability needs be analyzed first. In subsea
sought. cable transmission, shunt capacitive susceptance is the major
parameter limiting active power transmission due to the close
For HVAC and HVDC systems, several cost estimation methods
proximity of sea water. The reactive power, QC, produced by
have been reported [10,17,19,23,25] that can serve as a starting
capacitive charging current, can be expressed as (5).
point for this analysis. Cost data suitable for use in these methods
have been reported for some commercial transmission projects QC  Vn2  2 f nC  lc (5)
[2,4,7,11,16]. It is common to separate out the capital cost (CC) To provide more space for active power current and therefore
and the capitalized cost of power losses (LC) as the major factors expand cable transmission capability, an economic option is to
within the overall system cost. Table I lists the costs of each of distribute compensation power evenly at both ends of cables.
With this configuration, cable transmission capability, PC, could
be given by (6), and the compensation cost in HVAC, QCHVAC, CHVAC  CCHVAC  LCHVAC  5  0.045ST  0.02621ST 0.7513  tc  lc  ncc
can be indicated as (7). 2
 0.994ST 
Q 1 0.02  Vn2  2 f n C  lc  0.00911ST  1.51767    rc  lc  ncc
PC  SC  Qoff  SC  ( C )2  ( 3 Vn I ssn )2  ( Vn2  2 f nC  lc )2 (6)
2 2 2
 ncc  Vn 
2 2
2
QCHVAC  Qoff  QCoff  Qon  QCon  0.02 Vn2  2 f nC  lc (7)  0.994ST 
0.00911  [0.994ST    rc  lc  ncc ] (17)
The relevant parameters of some common cables in HVAC are  ncc Vn 
listed in Appendix Table I, and the cable cost in HVAC, CHVDC  25  0.11ST  0.08148ST  tc  lc  ncc  0.02610ST  3.03534 
CBCHVAC, can be calculated by (8). 2 2
CBCHVAC  tc  lc  ncc (8)  0.9828ST   0.9828ST 
  rc  lc  ncc  0.02747  [0.9828ST    rc  lc  ncc ] (18)
The cables cost in VSC-HVDC option have substantial  ncc Vn   ncc Vn 
advantages over AC solutions (HVAC and LFAC), since DC
voltage waveform is not subject to a peak/effective ratio 3.2 Cost Analysis in LFAC
underutilization. For the same cable physical conditions, the
transmission capability ratio of DC cables to AC cables can be Since there is still no commercial LFAC transmission to date, the
given by (9). offshore platform and plant cost, OPPCLFAC, onshore plant cost,
Pmax  DC 2 Vndc I ndc 2 2 Vnac I nac 2 2 OPCLFAC, power losses cost, LCLFAC, and cable parameters in
=   1 (9) LFAC need be made from the most similar equipment from
Pmax  AC 3 Vnac I nac  pf 3 Vnac I nac  pf 3
HVAC and VSC-HVDC actual projects [10,11,17].
In (9), it can be seen that, for a given power transfer, DC option
need only two polar cables while AC solutions need three. The First of all, the LF step-up transformers might be expected to be
cable cost in VSC-HVDC would be much smaller than that in three times larger of that in HVAC. But considering that the
AC options. If the reactive power and skin effect are taken into performance of many operational factors, such as heat
calculation, this advantage could be more distinct. The specific dissipation, voltage isolation and system reliability, could be
parameters of some common HVDC cables are listed in improved with equipment volume increasing, the practical
Appendix Table II, and (8) can be also used to calculate the cable weight, volume and cost of this LF transformer could be
cost in VSC-HVDC systems. With (1)-(4) (7) and (8), the main decreased to about twice that of the standard transformers at best
capital cost of HVAC and VSC-HVDC can be expressed as (10) condition [13,21,30,33], where the platform fixed cost keeps the
and (11). same with HVAC situation, and the platform and plant variable
CCHVAC  OPPCHVAC  OPCHVAC  QCHVAC  CBCHVAC costs double. So, the offshore platform and plant cost in LFAC,
OPPCLFAC, can be estimated by (19).
 5  0.045ST  0.02621ST 0.7513  0.02 Vn2  2 f nC  lc  tc  lc  ncc (10)
OPPCLFAC  FCLFAC  [1  dc(nT  2)]  (2 fcT  2 pcT )  nT  SST  5  0.09ST (19)
CCHVDC  OPPCHVDC  OPCHVDC  CBCHVDC Secondly, the topologies of onshore AC/AC converter station in
 25  0.11ST  0.08148ST  tc  lc  ncc (11) LFAC could have several options, such as clycloconverter, back
The power losses cost (LC) in transmission systems is an to back Modular Multilevel Converter (MMC), matrix converter
accumulative cost related to operation time, Top, and energy [5,12,15,22,28], but all of these topologies need more active
price, Eop. The terminal power losses cost, TLCHVAC, and route switches and reactive components than their one DC/AC
power losses cost, RLCHVAC, in HVAC are given by (12)-(14) counterpart [12,28]. Thus, the lowest LFAC onshore plant cost
[11]. and its power losses cost, would be not less than a LCC-HVDC
TLCoffHVAC  ST  pf  (1 offt )  Top    Eop (12) onshore option. Its capital cost is given by (20) [17].
2 OPCLFAC  OPCLCC  HVDC  0.05926ST (20)
 ST  pf offt 
RLCHVAC  3   rc  lc  ncc  Top    Eop (13) Further, according to (5), it can be seen that the reactive power
 nc  3V
 c n  produced by charging current is proportional to transmission
2
 ST  pf offt  frequency. As a result, the required offshore and onshore
TLConHVAC  [ ST  pf offt  3  r  l  nc ]  (1  ont )  Top    Eop (14)
 nc  3V  c c c compensation power in LFAC will be theoretically one third of
 c n 
that in HVAC, and (7) can be still used for the compensation cost
Under the value assumptions in Appendix A.1, the power losses
calculation in LFAC. Thanks to the one third charging current
cost of HVAC, LCHVAC, can be simplified as (15). And with some
and lower skin effect, the cables in LFAC transmission could
adjustments for efficiency parameters, the power losses cost of
have stronger transmission capability than that in HVAC. The
VSC-HVDC are given by (16).
unit price of cable in LFAC is assumed to be the same as HVAC.
LCHVAC  TLCoffHVAC  RLCHVAC  TLConHVAC  0.00911ST  1.51767 
Based on the simulation and experimental data [13,21], the
2 2
 0.994ST   0.994ST  electrical parameters of some common cables in LFAC are
  rc  lc  ncc  0.00911 [0.994ST    rc  lc  ncc ] (15) presented in Appendix Table III, and (8) can also be used to

 c n 
nc V  ncc Vn 
estimate the cable cost in LFAC.
LCHVDC  TLCoffHVAC  RLCHVAC  TLConHVAC  0.02610ST  3.03534 
2 2 As for transformer power losses cost, despite the fact that the LF
 0.9828ST   0.9828ST 
  rc  lc  ncc  0.02747  [0.9828ST    rc  lc  ncc ] (16) transformer volume would be at least two times larger than
 ncc Vn   ncc Vn  standard one, the core losses per unit could be reduced due to the
The overall cost of HVAC and VSC-HVDC can be obtained as one third frequency. Based on the analysis in [20], the efficiency
(17) and (18). of a LF transformer would be very close to a standard
transformer. Thus, the power losses cost of LFAC, LCLFAC, can 200-215 220 800 225.3- 202.9 3
be derived from (12)-(14), and simplified as (21) with some 215-230 132 800 157.8- 150.2 4
efficient assumptions in Appendix A.1. 230-240 132 1000 156.9- 150.5 4
2 Table II Cable choices in HVAC for 0.6 GW transmission
 0.994ST 
LCLFAC  0.00911ST  1.51767    rc  lc  ncc  0.01331 [0.994ST
 ncc Vn  Distance lc Voltage Vn Size Capability per set Number of
2 (km) (kV) (mm2) (MW) sets ncc
 0.994ST  0-240 400 800 733.1-684.8 1
  rc  lc  ncc ] (21)
 ncc Vn  Table III Cable choice in LFAC for 0.6 GW transmission
Combining (7) (8) and (19)-(21), the overall cost of LFAC, Distance lc Voltage Vn Size Capability per set Number of
CLFAC, can be written as (22). (km) (kV) (mm2) (MW) sets ncc
CLFAC  25  0.09ST  0.05926ST  0.02 Vn2  2 f nC  lc  tc  lc  ncc 0-240 ±300 1000 986.0 1
2 Table IV Cable choice in VSC-HVDC for 0.6 GW transmission
 0.994ST 
0.00911ST  1.51767    rc  lc  ncc  0.01331 [0.994ST
 ncc Vn  According to (17) and Table II, Fig.8 and Fig.9 are obtained to
2 show the 0.6 GW HVAC cost analysis. There are 8 step points
 0.994ST  in Fig.9 because of the different optimal cable choices for
  rc  lc  ncc ] (22)
 ncc  Vn  different distance analysis, which leads to an approximately
quadratic overall cost as a function of distance. Similarly, with
3.3 Case Study for Lower Power Rating (18) and Table IV, (22) and Table III, the cost analysis for VSC-
HVDC and LFAC is presented in Fig.10 and Fig.11. The overall
According to (6), the cable transmission capability in AC costs of both HVDC and LFAC keep linear relationships with
systems would slump nonlinearly with transmission distance distance in this power rating, but the step points will be observed
increasing. With the parameters in Appendix Table I and Table in LFAC as long as the power rating and distance keep rising.
III, Fig.6 and Fig.7 are sketched to show the detailed 1250
RLC 1250
1125 C
transmission capability of some common cables in HVAC and TLC TC
3.76M£/km
1000
LFAC. Firstly, it is easy to see that LFAC has a clear advantage 875
CBC
1000 3.53M£/km
QC CHVAC =0.0119l2+0.8103l+59.41(M£) 3.37M£/km
over HVAC due to the one third frequency and lower skin effect. 750 OPC
R=0.9976
750
Cost (M£)

Cost (M£)
More importantly, it can be found that, for AC systems, as long 625 OPPC 2.83M£/km

as the required active transmission power is set, different 500

500 2.38M£/km
2.34M£/km
transmission distance requirements could result in different 375
2.09M£/km
250
optimal cable choices in order to meet the specified power 250 1.78M£/km
125
transfer at minimum cost. As for VSC-HVDC, because DC 0
46.10M£

cables would not suffer from the continuous charging current, 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Distance (km)
0 40 80 120
Distance l (km)
160 200 240

one unitary cable choice could satisfy all distance analysis. Fig.8 0.6 GW HVAC cost analysis Fig.9 0.6 GW HVAC step points
HVAC LFAC 550 550
1000 2
1000 2 RLC RLC
400kV, 2000mm with compensation 400kV, 2000mm with compensation
495 495
400kV, 2000mm2 without compensation 400kV, 2000mm2 without compensation TLC TLC
220kV, 1000mm2 with compensation 220kV, 1000mm2 with compensation
800 440 440
800 220kV, 1000mm2 without compensation 220kV, 1000mm2 without compensation
Cable Capability Pmax (MW)
Cable Capability Pmax (MW)

CBC CBC
132kV, 1000mm2 with compensation 132kV, 1000mm2 with compensation
385 385
132kV, 1000mm2 without compensation 132kV, 1000mm2 without compensation QC QC
CHVDC =0.92l+171.48(M£) CLFAC =1.51l+107.80(M£)
600 600 330 OPC 330 OPC
Cost (M£)
Cost (M£)

275 OPPC 275 OPPC

400 400
220 220

165 165
200 200
110 110

55 55
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Distance l (km) Distance l (km)
0 0
Fig.6 Transmission capability Fig.7 Transmission capability 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Distance (km)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Distance (km)
of some common cables in HVAC of some common cables in LFAC
Fig.10 0.6 GW HVDC cost analysis Fig.11 0.6 GW LFAC cost analysis
1250 325
0.6 GW is selected for the lower power rating case study. After LFAC
HVAC
LFAC
HVAC
VSC-HVDC VSC-HVDC
comparing different cable choices of operating voltage and 1000 300

parallel numbers in Appendix Table I, the minimum cost options

750 275
Cost (M£)
Cost (M£)

for each distance in HVAC are listed in Table II. For this power
rating case study, one unitary cable choice in LFAC could satisfy 500 250

minimum cost for all distance (0-240km) analysis as VSC-

250 225
HVDC. The cable choices in LFAC and VSC-HVDC are given
in Table III and Table IV. 0 40 80 120 160 200 240
200
67 75 80 83 87 91 99 107 115
Distance l (km) Distance l (km)
Distance lc Voltage Vn Size Capability per set Number of
(km) (kV) (mm2) (MW) sets ncc Fig.12 0.6 GW comparison Fig.13 0.6 GW detailed comparison
0-65 400 1000 645.7-603.8 1 With the cost analysis in Fig.8-Fig.11, the comparison result is
65-80 400 1400 638.8-602.933 1
80-120 220 800 319.9-300.1 2 illustrated in Fig.12. Zooming in the area from 67km to 115km,
120-150 220 1000 320.6-298.8 2 the detailed result is given in Fig.13. First of all, it is shown that
150-200 220 630 255.2- 205.1 3 there exists a cost-effective range, about 30km, for LFAC in the
intermediate distance for this 0.6 GW comparison. Further, it is
also clear to see that the LFAC terminal cost is higher than expensive high power AC/AC converter station and LF
HVAC but lower than VSC-HVDC, and the route cost of LFAC transformer, which almost approach the terminal cost of VSC-
is steeper than VSC-HVDC but smoother than HVAC, which HVDC, and the high cost AC cable structure is also just slightly
corresponds to the general expectations in Section 1. Meanwhile, lower than HVAC. In the higher power and higher voltage
according to Fig.12, it can be found that for this power rating, comparison, DC cable shows more decisive advantages over AC
both the terminal cost and route cost per unit distance of LFAC options both in cable cost and transmission capability. The
lie approximately halfway between HVAC and VSC-HVDC break-even point of HVAC and VSC-HVDC is about 70km.
when the distance is shorter than 100km. The cross-over points After this distance, DC is the lowest cost solution. Case 3 in Fig.4
of LFAC with HVAC and VSC-HVDC are 80km and 107km is the best hypothesis for the cost comparison result in this higher
respectively, and VSC-HVDC and HVAC break-even point is power rating case study.
87km. The cost comparison result in this lower power case study
is closest to case 2 in Fig.4. 4 Conclusion
3.4. Case Study for Higher Power Rating In order to identify the cross-over points of LFAC costs with
HVAC and HVDC and to explore the extent of LFAC cost-
2500

2250
RLC
2500
C 8.73M£/km effective ranges, some cost estimate methodologies are extended
TLC
2000
CBC
TC 8.44M£/km in this paper to make the cost analysis and comparison for these
1750 QC CHVAC =0.0306l2+0.9835l+165.8(M£)
2000
7.45M£/km three options more feasible and reliable.
R=0.9945
1500 OPC 6.47M£/km
The cost estimates for each constituent term in LFAC are from
Cost (M£)

1500
Cost (M£)

1250 OPPC
5.60M£/km
1000
5.51M£/km
5.23M£/km
the most similar equipment from HVAC and VSC-HVDC
1000
750 5.03M£/km commercial projects, and thus the reliability and accuracy of the
500 4.72M£/km
500 4.53M£/km final comparison results is improved. Meanwhile, the cost
250
99.49M£ estimation algorithm compares the common cable choices in
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Distance (km)
0 40 80 120
Distance l (km)
160 200 240 order to meet the minimum cost for each distance analysis. A
Fig.14 1.4 GW HVAC cost analysis Fig.15 1.4 GW HVAC step points number of cost analysis and comparison results are presented in
1250
RLC
1250
RLC
case studies. It is indicated that LFAC has some cost-effective
1125
TLC
1125
TLC CLFAC2 =3.35l+244.88(M£) ranges between HVAC and HVDC, but these ranges gradually
1000 1000

875
CBC
875
CBC
narrow and eventually cease to exist with increasing
QC QC

750 OPC 750 OPC

transmission power, since DC system could demonstrate more
Cost (M£)

Cost (M£)

625 OPPC
CHVDC =1.36l+366.78(M£)
625 OPPC
CLFAC1 =3.08l+244.88(M£)
clear advantage over AC options in the higher power higher
500 500 voltage transmission. In addition, the results also show that, with
375 375
different conductor choices for different range analysis, the
250 250
overall cost of AC system is developed as a quadratic
125 125

0 0
relationship with distance rather than the simple linear one.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Distance (km) Distance (km)

Fig.16 1.4 GW HVDC cost analysis Fig.17 1.4 GW LFAC cost analysis Appendix
2500 LFAC 525 LFAC
HVAC HVAC

2000
VSC-HVDC
505
VSC-HVDC A.1 Assumptions List
Variable Description Assumption Value
1500 FCHVAC HVAC offshore transformer platform fixed cost 5M£
Cost (M£)

485
Cost (M£)

dc Cost factor for a different number (≥2) of transformers, converters 0.2

1000 465
nT, nC Number of transformers, converters per offshore platform 2
fcT HVAC offshore transformer platform variable cost 0.020 M£/MVA
500 445
pcT HVAC offshore transformer plant variable cost 0.025 M£/MVA
fn Transmission frequency
425
0 40 80 120
Distance l (km)
160 200 240 66 69 71 72 73 74 75
Distance l (km)
78 81 84 lc,lo Cable, OHL transmission distance
Fig.18 1.4 GW comparison Fig.19 1.4 GW detailed comparison SST HVAC single transformer power rating
ST Transmission power rating
In the higher power rating case study, 1.4 GW is chosen for Qoff, Qon Offshore, onshore compensation power
QCoff Offshore compensation cost 0.025 M£/MVAr
detailed analysis. The individual cost analysis is sketched in
QCon Onshore compensation cost 0.015 M£/MVAr
Fig.14-Fig.17. It can be seen that the overall cost of HVAC still ncc,nco Number of cable, OHL parallel circuits
shows an approximately quadratic relationship with distance, Vndc, Indc DC cable nominal voltage, current
and the first step point in LFAC cost appears when the distance Vnac, Inac AC cable nominal voltage, current
pf Power factor 1
grows to 200km, making its overall cost become a non-linear
ηofft, ηont Efficiency of HVAC offshore, onshore transformers 99.4%
function of distance as HVAC. With the results in Fig.14-Fig.17, Top Total operation hours 365×24×15
Fig.18 and Fig.19 are obtained to illustrate the comparison δ Loss load factor 0.231
results among these three options. It is shown that there is Eop Energy price 50 £/MWh
FCHVAC VSC-HVDC offshore converter station platform fixed cost 25 M£
already no cost-effective range for LFAC in this 1.4 GW
cC VSC-HVDC offshore converter station variable cost 0.11 M£/MVA
comparison. The terminal cost of LFAC is closer to VSC-HVDC SSC VSC-HVDC single converter power rating
but the route cost is more inclined to HVAC. According to ηoffr Efficiency of VSC-HVDC offshore rectifier station 98.28%
Fig.14-Fig.17, this situation in LFAC can be explained by the ηoni Efficiency of VSC-HVDC onshore inverter station 98.19%
ηonLCC Efficiency of LCC-HVDC onshore inverter station 99.12% [8] H. Chen, M. Johnson, and D. Aliprantis, “Low-frequency ac transmission
ηonacac Efficiency of LFAC onshore AC/AC converter station 99.12% for offshore wind power,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., 28(4), pp. 2236–2244,
(2013).
A.2 Cable Parameters [11] [9] S. Cole and R. Belmans, “Transmission of bulk power,” IEEE Ind. Electron.
Mag., 3(3), pp. 19–24, (2009).
Size Resistance Steady state Cable cost
Voltage Size Resistance Capacitance Steady state [10] M. Dicorato, G. Forte, M. Pisani, and M. Trovato, “Guidelines for
Voltage (mm22) (mΩ/km) rating per set
Vn (kV) (mm ) rc (mΩ/km) C (nF/km) current Issn (A) assessment of investment cost for offshore wind generation,” Renew. Energy,
(kV) tc (k£/km)
36(8), pp. 2043–2051, (2011).
630 39.5 209 818 685
[11] P. Djapic, G. Strbac, “Cost benefit methodology for optimal design of
132 800 32.4 217 888 795 offshore transmission systems”, Tech. rep. for Berr, (2009).
1000 27.5 238 949 860 [12] I. Erlich, F. Shewarega, H. Wrede and W. Fischer, “Low frequency AC for
500 48.9 136 732 815 offshore wind power transmission–prospects and challenges,” in Proc. IET
630 39.1 151 808 850 ACDC’15, pp. 1–7, (2015).
220
800 31.9 163 879 975 [13] W. Fischer, R. Braun, and I. Erlich, “Low frequency high voltage offshore
1000 27.0 177 942 1000 grid for transmission of renewable power,” in Proc. IEEE PES ISGT’12, pp.
800 31.4 130 870 1400 1–6, (2012).
1000 26.5 140 932 1550 [14] T. Funaki, K. Matsuura, “Feasibility of the low frequency AC transmission,”
in Proc. IEEE Winter Meeting’00, pp. 2693–2698, (2000).
1200 22.1 170 986 1700
400 [15] M. Glinka and R. Marquardt, “A new ac/ac multilevel converter family,”
1400 18.9 180 1015 1850 IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 52(3), pp. 662–669, (2005).
1600 16.6 190 1036 2000 [16] S. Krohn, P. Morthorst, S. Awerbuch, “The Economics of Wind Energy”,
2000 13.2 200 1078 2150 Tech. rep. from European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), (2009).
Appendix Table I Electrical parameters of some common cables in HVAC [17] L. Lazaridis, “Economic comparison of HVAC and HVDC solutions for
large offshore wind farms under special consideration of reliability,” Master
Voltage Size Resistance Steady state Cables cost per set thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, (2005).
Vn (kV) (mm2) rc (mΩ/km) rating (MVA)
current Issn (A) tc (k£/km) [18] M. Liserre, R. Cárdenas, M. Molinas, and J. Rodríguez, “Overview of multi-
MW wind turbines and wind parks,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 58(4), pp.
1000 22.4 1644 670
1081–1095, (2011).
1200 19.2 1791 730 [19] S. Lundberg, “Wind farm configuration and energy efficiency studies.
±150 1400 16.5 1962 785 Series DC versus AC layouts,” Ph.D. dissertation, Chalmers Univ. Technol.,
1600 14.4 2123 840 (2006).
2000 11.5 2407 900 [20] T. Luth, M. Merlin, T. Green, F. Hassan, and C. Barker, “High-frequency
1000 22.4 1644 855 operation of a dc/ac/dc system for hvdc applications,” IEEE Trans. Power
1200 19.2 1791 940 Electron., 29(8), pp. 4107–4115, (2014).
±300 1400 16.5 1962 1015 [21] A. Meliopoulos, D. Aliprantis, Y. Cho, H. Chen, “Low Frequency
1600 14.4 2123 1090 Transmission for Wind Farm Power”, Tech. rep. for PSERC, (2012).
[22] Y. Miura, T. Mizutani, M. Ito, and T. Ise, “Modular multilevel matrix
2000 11.5 2407 1175
converter for low frequency ac transmission,” in Proc. IEEE PEDS’13, pp.
Appendix Table II Electrical parameters of some common VSC-HVDC cables 1079–1084, (2013).
[23] N. Negra, J. Todorovic, and T. Ackermann, “Loss evaluation of HVAC and
Size Resistance Steady state Cable cost HVDC transmission solutions for large offshore wind farms,” Electr. Power
Voltage
Voltage Size2)
(mm Resistance
(mΩ/km) Capacitance Steady state
rating per set
Vn (kV) (mm2) rc (mΩ/km) C (nF/km) Syst. Res., 76(11), pp. 916–927, (2006).
current Issn (A)
(kV) tc (k£/km) [24] T. Ngo, M. Lwin, and S. Santoso, “Steady-State Analysis and Performance
630 26.2 209 995 685 of Low Frequency AC Transmission Lines,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., pp.
132 800 21.5 217 1080 795 1-8, (2015).
1000 18.2 238 1154 860 [25] M. Parker, O. Anaya-Lara, “Cost and losses associated with offshore wind
500 32.4 136 890 815 farm collection networks which centralise the turbine power electronic
630 25.9 151 982 850 converters,” IET Renew. Power Gener. 7(4), pp. 390–400, (2013).
220 [26] N. Qin, S. You, Z. Xu, and V. Akhmatov, “Offshore wind farm connection
800 21.1 163 1069 975
with low frequency AC transmission technology,” in Proc. IEEE PES
1000 17.9 177 1145 1000
General Meeting’09, , pp.1-8, (2009).
800 20.8 130 1058 1400 [27] S. Rao, EHV-AC, HVDC Transmission and Distribution Engineering, 1st ed.,
1000 17.5 140 1133 1550 Khanna Publishers, (2013).
400
1200 14.6 170 1199 1700 [28] J. Ruddy, R. Meere, T. O’Donnell, “Low Frequency AC transmission for
1400 12.5 180 1234 1850 offshore wind power: A review”, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 56, pp. 75–
1600 11.0 190 1260 2000 86, (2016).
2000 8.7 200 1310 2150 [29] X. Wang, C. Cao, and Z. Zhou, “Experiment on fractional frequency
transmission system,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 21(1), pp. 372–377, (2006).
Appendix Table III Electrical parameters of some common cables in LFAC [30] X. Wang, Y. Teng, L. Ning, Y. Meng, Z. Xu. “Feasibility of integrating large
wind farm via Fractional Frequency Transmission System a case study”, Int
References Trans Electr. Energy Syst., 24, pp. 64–74, (2014).
[31] X. Wang, X. Wang, “Feasibility study of fractional frequency transmission
[1] Global Wind Energy Outlook, (2014) [Online]. Available: system,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 11(2), pp. 962–967, (1996).
http://www.gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/GWEO2014_WEB.pdf [32] X. Wang, X. Wei, Y. Meng, “Experiment on Grid-Connection Process of
[2] ABB, “Middletown–Norwalk Transmission Project”, Tech. Rep., (2004). Wind Turbines in Fractional Frequency Wind Power System”. IEEE Trans.
[3] T. Ackermann, Wind Power in Power Systems, 2nd ed., (2012). Energy Convers., 30(1), pp. 22-31, (2015).
[4] Alstom Grid, HVDC: Connecting to the Future, Alstom Publishers, (2010). [33] P. Wyllie, Y. Tang, L. Ran, T. Yang, J. Yu. “Low Frequency AC
[5] H. Akagi, “Classification, terminology, and application of the modular Transmission-Elements of a Design for Wind Farm Connection”, in Proc.
multilevel cascade converter (MMCC),” IEEE Trans. Power Electronics, IET ACDC’15, pp. 1–5, (2015).
26(11), pp. 3119-3130. (2011). [34] X. Yang, Y. Song, G. Wang, and M. Wang, “A comprehensive review on
[6] M. Aredes, R. Dias, A. Aquino, C. Portela, and E. Watanabe, “Going the the development of sustainable energy strategy and implementation in
distance,” IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag., 5(1), pp. 36–48, (2011). China,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, 1(2), pp. 57–65, (2010).
[7] M. Bahrman, B. Johnson, “The ABCs of HVDC transmission technologies,”
IEEE Power Energy Mag., 5(2), pp. 32–44, (2007).

View publication stats